Produced by John Campbell and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)









  TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE

  Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.

  Bold text is denoted by =equal signs=.

  Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been
  corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within
  the text and consultation of external sources.

  More detail can be found at the end of the book.




  BELLS ENGLISH HISTORY SOURCE BOOKS

  _General Editors_: S. E. WINBOLT, M.A., and KENNETH BELL, M.A.




  IMPERIALISM AND MR. GLADSTONE




BELL'S ENGLISH HISTORY SOURCE BOOKS.

_Volumes now Ready. 1s. net each._


    =1154-1216. The Angevins and the Charter.= Edited by S. M.
    TOYNE, M.A., Headmaster of St. Peter's School, York, and late
    Assistant Master at Haileybury College.

    =1307-1399. War and Misrule= (special period for the School
    Certificate Examination, July and December, 1913). Edited by A.
    A. LOCKE.

    =1485-1547. The Reformation and the Renaissance.= Edited by F.
    W. BEWSHER, Assistant Master at St. Paul's School.

    =1547-1603. The Age of Elizabeth.= Edited by ARUNDELL ESDAILE,
    M.A.

    =1603-1660. Puritanism and Liberty.= Edited by KENNETH BELL,
    M.A.

    =1660-1714. A Constitution in Making.= Edited by G. B. PERRETT,
    M.A.

    =1714-1760. Walpole and Chatham.= Edited by K. A. ESDAILE.

    =1760-1801. American Independence and the French Revolution.=
    Edited by S. E. WINBOLT, M.A.

    =1801-1815. England and Napoleon.= Edited by S. E. WINBOLT, M.A.

    =1816-1836. Peace and Reform.= Edited by A. C. W. EDWARDS,
    Assistant Master at Christ's Hospital.

    =1876-1887. Imperialism and Mr. Gladstone.= Edited by R. H.
    GRETTON.


    =1535-Present-Day. Canada.= Edited by H. J. MUNRO, M.A.

    _Other volumes, covering the whole range of English History
    from Roman Britain are in active preparation, and will be
    issued at short intervals._


  LONDON: G. BELL AND SONS, LTD.




  IMPERIALISM AND MR. GLADSTONE

  (1876--1887)


  COMPILED BY
  R. H. GRETTON
  FORMERLY DEMY OF MAGDALEN COLLEGE, OXFORD
  AUTHOR OF "A MODERN HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PEOPLE"

  [Illustration: (Publisher's colophon)]


  LONDON
  G. BELL & SONS, LTD.
  1913




INTRODUCTION


This series of English History Source Books is intended for use
with any ordinary textbook of English History. Experience has
conclusively shown that such apparatus is a valuable--nay, an
indispensable--adjunct to the history lesson. It is capable of
two main uses: either by way of lively illustration at the close
of a lesson, or by way of inference-drawing, before the textbook
is read, at the beginning of the lesson. The kind of problems and
exercises that may be based on the documents are legion, and are
admirably illustrated in a _History of England for Schools_, Part
I., by Keatinge and Frazer, pp. 377-381. However, we have no wish
to prescribe for the teacher the manner in which he shall exercise
his craft, but simply to provide him and his pupils with materials
hitherto not readily accessible for school purposes. The very
moderate price of the books in this series should bring them within
reach of every secondary school. Source books enable the pupil to
take a more active part than hitherto in the history lesson. Here
is the apparatus, the raw material: its use we leave to teacher and
taught.

Our belief is that the books may profitably be used by all grades
of historical students between the standards of fourth-form boys
in secondary schools and undergraduates at Universities. What
differentiates students at one extreme from those at the other is
not so much the kind of subject-matter dealt with, as the amount
they can read into or extract from it.

In regard to choice of subject-matter, while trying to satisfy the
natural demand for certain "stock" documents of vital importance,
we hope to introduce much fresh and novel matter. It is our
intention that the majority of the extracts should be lively in
style--that is, personal, or descriptive, or rhetorical, or even
strongly partisan--and should not so much profess to give the truth
as supply data for inference. We aim at the greatest possible
variety, and lay under contribution letters, biographies, ballads
and poems, diaries, debates, and newspaper accounts. Economics,
London, municipal, and social life generally, and local history,
are represented in these pages.

The order of the extracts is strictly chronological, each being
numbered, titled, and dated, and its authority given. The text
is modernized, where necessary, to the extent of leaving no
difficulties in reading.

We shall be most grateful to teachers and students who may send us
suggestions for improvement.

  S. E. WINBOLT.

  KENNETH BELL.


NOTE TO THIS VOLUME

    I acknowledge, with thanks to the authors concerned, and to
    Messrs. Macmillan and Co., their kind permission to reprint in
    this volume the following passages: that on p. 102, from the
    _Life of Lord Randolph Churchill_, by the Right Hon. Winston
    Churchill; three extracts, on pp. 59, 62, 83, from _Mahdiism
    and the Egyptian Soudan_, by Sir Francis Wingate; the passages
    from Lord Morley's _Life of Gladstone_, on pp. 97, 98, 101,
    110; and the passages from Lord Cromer's _Modern Egypt_,
    on pp. 68, 69, 70, 87. I acknowledge also with thanks the
    permission of the proprietors of _The Times_ to reprint the
    various extracts from that journal; and the permission of the
    proprietors of _The Saturday Review_ to reprint the extract on
    p. 35. In dealing with a period so recent, I have inevitably
    been very dependent upon the courtesy of the owners of
    copyright, and I wish to express my gratitude for the readiness
    with which that courtesy has been extended in these important
    cases.

    I am also indebted to Messrs. Longmans, Green and Co. for
    permission to print extracts from Professor Mackail's _Life of
    William Morris_, and from Mr. Bernard Holland's _Life of the
    late Duke of Devonshire_, and to Messrs. Kegan Paul and Co. for
    similar permission to quote from _General Gordon's Journal_.

    R. H. G.




TABLE OF CONTENTS


                                                           PAGE
        INTRODUCTION                                          v

  DATE
  1876. PURCHASE OF THE SUEZ CANAL SHARES                     1
  1876. ENGLAND, RUSSIA, AND AFGHANISTAN                      3
  1876. THE QUEEN AS EMPRESS OF INDIA                         5
  1876. BULGARIAN ATROCITIES                                  8
          I. THUNDER FROM MR. GLADSTONE                       8
          II. COLD WATER FROM DISRAELI                       11
  1877. SIR THEOPHILUS SHEPSTONE'S COMMISSION                15
  1877. RUSSIA DECLARES WAR ON TURKEY                        16
  1877. IRISH OBSTRUCTION IN ITS EARLY DAYS                  17
  1877. PLEVNA AFTER THE SIEGE                               18
  1878. STRAINED RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA                       21
  1878. PEACE WITH HONOUR                                    24
  1878. THE SECRET AGREEMENTS IN BEACONSFIELD'S POCKETS      25
  1878. GLADSTONE INDIGNANT AGAIN                            27
  1878. RUSSIAN INTRIGUE AT CABUL                            28
  1878. SHERE ALI                                            30
  1879. DEATH OF SHERE ALI                                   31
  1879. THE GANDAMAK TREATY                                  31
  1879. THE CABUL MASSACRE                                   32
  1879. THE MIDLOTHIAN CAMPAIGN                              35
  1880. BEACONSFIELD KEEPS COOL                              37
  1880. THE MAIWAND DISASTER                                 37
  1880. THE BRADLAUGH CASE                                   40
  1880. SOCIAL AMELIORATIONS                                 40
          EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY                               40
          FUNDED MUNICIPAL DEBT                              41
          ELECTRIC LIGHT, THE TELEPHONE, NEW HOTELS          42
  1880. PARNELL AND THE LAND LEAGUE                          43
  1880. CAPTAIN BOYCOTT                                      44
  1880. THE BOER RISING                                      45
          PROCLAMATION                                       46
  1881. BEFORE MAJUBA                                        46
  1881. AFTER MAJUBA                                         47
  1881. RITUAL CONTROVERSY                                   48
  1881. A SHORT WAY WITH OBSTRUCTION                         49
  1881. THE DEATH OF BEACONSFIELD                            50
  1881. THE WITHDRAWAL FROM CANDAHAR                         51
  1881. THE SALVATION ARMY                                   54
  1881. ARABI                                                54
  1882. THE FIRST CLOSURE                                    56
  1882. BIMETALLISM                                          56
  1882. BRIGHT'S RESIGNATION                                 57
  1883. THE ILBERT BILL                                      58
  1883. FENIANS AGAIN                                        58
  1883. THE MAHDI                                            59
  1883. END OF CAREY THE INFORMER                            61
  1883. SLAUGHTER OF HICKS PASHA'S ARMY                      62
  1884. TRANSVAAL CONVENTION                                 65
  1884. GORDON'S MISSION TO KHARTOUM                         66
  1884. DIFFICULTIES OF GORDON'S CHARACTER                   69
  1884. ZOBEIR PASHA                                         71
  1884. SOME OF GORDON'S TELEGRAMS                           73
  1884. CROSS PURPOSES                                       75
  1884. GORDON'S POSITION                                    78
  1884. GORDON'S OWN MEDITATIONS                             80
  1884. THE FRANCHISE AND REDISTRIBUTION                     82
  1884. FEEDING POOR SCHOOL CHILDREN                         83
  1885. THE DEATH OF GORDON                                  83
  1885. THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSIBILITY                      87
  1885. THE VOTE OF CENSURE                                  87
  1885. MORE FENIANISM                                       90
  1885. NEW LABOUR MOVEMENTS                                 91
  1885. THE UNEMPLOYED                                       92
  1885. WORKING MEN MAGISTRATES                              93
  1885. TORY OLIVE-BRANCH TO IRELAND                         93
  1885. THE FIRST SUBMARINE                                  96
  1885. THE UNAUTHORIZED PROGRAMME                           97
  1885. THE IRISH VOTE                                       98
  1885. THE NEW ELECTORATE                                  100
  1886. THE OPENING OF THE RIFT                             101
  1886. "ULSTER WILL FIGHT"                                 102
  1886. SALISBURY ON HOME RULE                              104
  1886. MR. GLADSTONE'S APPEAL                              106
  1886. LIBERAL UNIONISM                                    107
  1886. THE UNEMPLOYED RIOTS                                107
  1886. BIMETALLISM AND LABOUR DISPUTES                     109
  1886. PASTEUR AND HYDROPHOBIA                             110
  1886. THE FINAL HOME RULE RUPTURE                         110
  1887. THE COMING OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION                   112
  1887. THE FIRST "GUILLOTINE" CLOSURE                      113
  1887. JUBILEE RETROSPECTS                                 114
  1887. "REMEMBER MITCHELSTOWN"                             118
  1887. "BLOODY SUNDAY"                                     119
  1887. FIRST REPORT ON THE RAND                            120




IMPERIALISM AND MR. GLADSTONE

(1876--1887)




PURCHASE OF THE SUEZ CANAL SHARES (1876).

=Source.=--_Hansard_, Third Series, vol. 227, col. 95 (Debate on
the Address, February, 1876).


MR. DISRAELI: ... When we acceded to office two years ago an
International Commission had only just ceased its labours at
Constantinople upon the dues of the Suez Canal, and upon the means
of ascertaining and maintaining a limit of them, and it had arrived
at reasons entirely protested against by the proprietary. What was
the state of affairs there? Lord Derby had to deal with them. The
proprietary of the canal threatened, and not only threatened, but
proceeded, to stop the canal. They refused pilots; they threatened
to change the signals; they took steps which would have interrupted
that mode of intercourse with India.... From that moment it became
a matter of interest to those responsible for the government of
this country to see what could be done to remedy those relations
with the Suez Canal.... But it suddenly comes to our knowledge that
the Khedive, on whose influence we mainly depended, is going to
part with his shares. We received a telegram from Cairo informing
us that the Khedive was anxious to raise a considerable sum of
money upon his shares in the Suez Canal, and offered them to
England. We considered the question immediately, and it appeared
to us to be a complicated transaction--one to which there were
several objections; and we sent back to say that we were favourably
disposed to assist the Khedive, but that at the same time we were
only prepared to purchase the shares outright. What was the answer?
The answer was that the Khedive was resolved, if he possibly
could, to keep his shares, and that he could only therefore avail
himself of a loan. There matters seemed to end. Then suddenly
there came news to the Government of this country that a French
society--Société Générale--was prepared to offer the Khedive a
large sum of money--very little inferior to the four millions--but
on very onerous conditions. The Khedive communicated with us, and
said that the conditions were so severe that he would sooner sell
the shares outright, and--which I had forgotten to mention--that,
in deference to his promise that England should always have the
refusal of the shares if he decided to sell them, he offered them
to the English Government. It was absolutely necessary to decide at
that moment what course we should take. It was not a thing on which
we could hesitate.... To pretend that Lord Derby has treated this
business as a mere commercial speculation is idle. If he did not
act in accordance with the principles of high policy, I should like
to know what high policy is, and how a man can pursue it.

Apart from looking upon this as an investment, if the shares had
been offered, and if there had been no arrangement of paying
interest for nineteen years, so far as I am concerned, I should
have been in favour of the purchase of the shares. I should have
agreed with Lord Derby in thinking that England would never be
satisfied if all the shares of the Suez Canal were possessed by
a foreign company. Then it is said, if any obstacles had been
put in your way by the French proprietors of the canal, you
know very well that ultimately it must come to force, and you
will then obtain at once the satisfaction of your desire. Well,
if the government of the world was a mere alternation between
abstract right and overwhelming force, I agree there is a good
deal in that observation; but that is not the way in which the
world is governed. The world is governed by conciliation,
compromise, influence, varied interests, the recognition of the
rights of others, coupled with the assertion of one's own; and,
in addition, a general conviction, resulting from explanation and
good understanding, that it is for the interests of all parties
that matters should be conducted in a satisfactory and peaceful
manner.... I cannot doubt that the moral influence of England
possessing two-fifths of the shares in this great undertaking
must have made itself felt, must have a considerable influence
upon the conduct of those who manage the company.... England
is a Mediterranean Power; a great Mediterranean Power. This is
shown by the fact that in time of war always, and frequently in
time of peace, she has the greatest force upon those waters.
Furthermore, she has strongholds upon those waters which she will
never relinquish. The policy of England, however, is not one of
aggression. It is not provinces she wants. She will not interest
herself in the redistribution of territory on the shores of the
Mediterranean, as long as the redistribution does not imperil
the freedom of the seas and the dominion which she legitimately
exercises. And therefore I look upon this, that in the great
chain of fortresses which we possess, almost from the Metropolis
to India, that the Suez Canal is a means of securing the free
intercourse of the waters, is a great addition to that security,
and one we should prize.




ENGLAND, RUSSIA, AND AFGHANISTAN (1876).

=Source.=--_Parliamentary Publications_, "Afghanistan," C 2, 190,
of 1878, p. 156.


_Extract from Lord Salisbury's Despatch to the Viceroy of India,
dated February 28, 1876._

The increasing weakness and uncertainty of British influence in
Afghanistan constitutes a prospective peril to British interests;
the deplorable interruption of it in Khelat inflicts upon them an
immediate inconvenience by involving the cessation of all effective
control over the turbulent and predatory habits of the trans-Indus
tribes. In view of these considerations, Her Majesty's Government
have ... instructed the Viceroy to find an early occasion for
sending to Cabul a temporary mission, furnished with such
instructions as may, perhaps, enable it to overcome the Ameer's
apparent reluctance to the establishment of permanent British
Agencies in Afghanistan, by convincing His Highness that the
Government of India is ... willing to afford him material support
in the defence of his territories from any actual and unprovoked
external aggression, but that it cannot practically avert or
provide for such a contingency without timely and unrestricted
permission to place its own agents in those parts of his dominions
whence they may best watch the course of events. It appears to
Her Majesty's Government that the present moment is favourable
for the execution of this last-mentioned instruction. The Queen's
assumption of the Imperial title in relation to Her Majesty's
Indian subjects, feudatories, and allies will now for the first
time conspicuously transfer to her Indian dominion, in form as well
as in fact, the supreme authority of the Indian Empire.... The
maintenance in Afghanistan of a strong and friendly power has at
all times been the object of British policy. The attainment of this
object is now to be considered with due reference to the situation
created by the recent and rapid advance of the Russian arms in
Central Asia towards the Northern frontiers of British India. Her
Majesty's Government cannot view with complete indifference the
probable influence of that situation upon the uncertain character
of an Oriental Chief whose ill-defined dominions are thus brought,
within a steadily narrowing circle, between the conflicting
pressures of two great military Empires, one of which expostulates
and remains passive, whilst the other apologizes and continues
to move forward. It is well known that not only the English
newspapers, but also all works published in England upon Indian
questions, are rapidly translated for the information of the Ameer,
and carefully studied by His Highness. Sentiments of irritation
and alarm at the advancing power of Russia in Central Asia find
frequent expression through the English press, in language which,
if taken by Shere Ali for a revelation of the mind of the
English Government, must have long been accumulating in his mind
impressions unfavourable to its confidence in British power.... Her
Majesty's Government would not, therefore, view with indifference
any attempt on the part of Russia to compete with British influence
in Afghanistan, nor could the Ameer's reception of a British Agent
(whatever be the official rank or function of that Agent) in any
part of the dominions of His Highness afford for his subsequent
reception of a Russian Agent any pretext to which the Government
of Her Majesty would not be entitled to, except as incompatible
with the assurances spontaneously offered to it by the Cabinet of
St. Petersburg. You will bear in mind these facts when framing
instructions for your mission to Cabul.... The conduct of Shere Ali
has more than once been characterized by so significant a disregard
of the wishes and interests of the Government of India that the
irretrievable alienation of his confidence in the sincerity and
power of that Government is a contingency which cannot be dismissed
as impossible. Should such a fear be confirmed by the result of
the proposed negotiation, no time must be lost in reconsidering,
from a new point of view, the policy to be pursued in reference to
Afghanistan.




THE QUEEN AS EMPRESS OF INDIA (1876).

=Source.=--_Hansard_, Third Series, vol. 227, col. 1,736 (Debate on
Royal Titles Bill, March 9, 1876).


MR. GLADSTONE: ... In my opinion this is a matter of the greatest
importance. We have had some declarations in this House with
respect to India. The hon. member for West Cumberland (Mr. Percy
Wyndham), on the night when the right hon. gentleman first made
his proposal, said that an Imperial title would be the one most
suitable, because it would signify that Her Majesty governed India
without the restraints of law or constitution.

MR. PERCY WYNDHAM: I said that the Government of India was a
despotic Government, not in the hands of one person, and not,
as in this country, a constitutional Government in the hands of
the Queen and the Houses of Lords and Commons. The Government of
India is essentially a despotic Government as administered by us,
although it includes more than one individual.

MR. GLADSTONE: I am very much obliged, and I perceive completely
the hon. member's meaning; but I am sorry that to that meaning,
as it stands, I take the greatest objection. If it be true--and
it is true--that we govern India without the restraints of law,
except such law as we make ourselves; if it be true that we have
not been able to give to India the benefit and blessings of free
institutions, I leave it to the hon. gentleman--I leave it to the
right hon. gentleman if he thinks fit--to boast that he is about
to place that fact solemnly upon record. By the assumption of the
title of Empress, I for one will not attempt to turn into glory
that which, so far as it is true, I feel to be our weakness and
our calamity.... It is plain that the government of India--that
is, the entire India--never has yet, by statute, been vested in
Her Majesty; but that which has been vested is the government of
the countries which were held in trust for Her Majesty by the East
India Company. I would be the last man to raise this question
if it were a mere verbal quibble. It is as far as possible from
being a question merely verbal.... I am under the belief that to
this moment there are important Princes and States in India over
which we have never assumed dominion, whatever may have been our
superiority of strength. We are now going, by Act of Parliament,
to assume that dominion, the possible consequences of which no man
can foresee; and when the right hon. gentleman tells us the Princes
desire this change to be made, does he really mean to assure us
that this is the case? If so, I require distinct evidence of the
fact. There are Princes in India who, no doubt, have hitherto
enjoyed no more than a theoretical political supremacy, but do
they desire to surrender even that under the provisions of this
Bill? The right hon. gentleman is going to advise the Queen to
become Empress of India. I raise the question, What is India? I
have said that the dominion now vested in Her Majesty is limited
to the territories vested in the East India Company. I ask whether
the supremacy of certain important Native States in India ever was
vested in the Company, or whether it was not? We are bound to ask
the right hon. gentleman--and I think he is bound to answer the
question through the medium of his best legal authorities--whether
this supremacy is so vested or not, and whether he can assure us
upon his responsibility that no political change in the condition
of the Native Princes of India will be effected by this Bill.
If there is a political change effected, I do not hesitate to
say I do not think it would be possible to offer too determined
an opposition to the proposal of the Government.... I feel with
the right hon. gentleman--indeed, I feel a little more than the
right hon. gentleman--the greatness, the unsullied greatness, of
the title which is now borne by the Queen of England. I think
I use the language of moderation when I say that it is a title
unequalled for its dignity and weight, unequalled for the glory
of its historic associations, unequalled for the promise which it
offers to the future, among the titles of the Sovereigns of Europe,
among all the states and nations on earth. Sir, I have a jealousy
of touching that title, and I am not to be told that this is a
small matter. There is nothing small in a matter, in my judgment,
which touches the honour and dignity of the Crown of England....
The right hon. gentleman has indeed manfully contended that there
is no inferiority in the title of King as compared with that of
Emperor.... I want to know why I am to be dragged into novelties,
or into comparisons on a subject of this sort?... There is one
other point on which I am anxious to make a few comments. I was, I
own, struck by what fell from my right hon. friend the member for
the University of London (Mr. Lowe) the other evening in reference
to the colonies. Whether it be desirable to make any recital with
regard to the colonies or not, it is a subject which requires much
consideration whether we can wisely introduce reference to India
in the title of the Sovereign, while we at the same time take no
notice of the colonies.




BULGARIAN ATROCITIES (1876).

I. THUNDER FROM MR. GLADSTONE.

=Source.=--Mr. Gladstone's pamphlet, _Bulgarian Horrors and the
Question of the East_, 1876, p. 10.


In default of Parliamentary action, and a public concentrated as
usual, we must proceed as we can, with impaired means of appeal.
But honour, duty, compassion, and I must add shame, are sentiments
never in a state of _coma_. The working-men of the country, whose
condition is less affected than that of others by the season, have
to their honour led the way, and shown that the great heart of
Britain has not ceased to beat. And the large towns and cities, now
following in troops, are echoing back, each from its own place,
the mingled notes of horror, pain, and indignation.... A curtain
opaque and dense, which at the prorogation had been lifted but a
few inches from the ground, has since then, from day to day, been
slowly rising. And what a scene it has disclosed! And where!

... I have the fullest confidence in the honour and in the
intelligence of Mr. Baring, who has been inquiring on behalf of
England. But he was not sent to examine the matter until the 19th
of July, three months after the rising, and nearly one month after
the first inquiries in Parliament. He had been but two days at
Philippopolis, when he sent home, with all the despatch he could
use, some few rudiments of a future report. Among them was his
estimate of the murders, necessarily far from final, at the figure
of twelve thousand.

We know that we had a well-manned Embassy at Constantinople, and
a network of Consulates and Vice-Consulates, really discharging
diplomatic duties, all over the provinces of European Turkey.
That villages could be burned down by scores, and men, women, and
children murdered, or worse than murdered, by thousands, in a
Turkish province lying between the capital and the scene of the
recent excitements, and that our Embassy and Consulates could know
nothing of it? The thing was impossible. It could not be. So
silence was obtained, and relief; and the well-oiled machinery of
our luxurious, indifferent life worked smoothly on....

It was on the 20th of April that the insurrection broke out in
Bulgaria.... On the 9th of May Sir Henry Elliot ... observing a
great Mohammedan excitement, and an extensive purchase of arms in
Constantinople, wisely telegraphed to the British Admiral in the
Mediterranean expressing a desire that he would bring his squadron
to Besika Bay. The purpose was for the protection of British
subjects, and of the Christians in general.... These measures were
substantially wise, and purely pacific. They had, if understood
rightly, no political aspect, or, if any, one rather anti-Turkish
than Turkish. But there were reasons, and strong reasons, why
the public should not have been left to grope out for itself the
meaning of a step so serious as the movement of a naval squadron
towards a country disturbed both by revolt and by an outbreak of
murderous fanaticism. In the year 1853, when the negotiations with
Russia had assumed a gloomy and almost a hopeless aspect, the
English and French fleets were sent eastwards; not as a measure
of war, but as a measure of preparation for war, and proximate to
war. The proceedings marked a transition of discussion into that
angry stage which immediately precedes a blow; and the place, to
which the fleets were then sent, was Besika Bay. In the absence
of information, how could the British nation avoid supposing that
the same act, as that done in 1853, bore also the same meaning?...
The expectation of a rupture pervaded the public mind. The Russian
funds fell very heavily, under a war panic; partisans exulted in
a diplomatic victory, and in the increase of what is called our
_prestige_, the bane, in my opinion, of all upright politics. The
Turk was encouraged in his humour of resistance. And this, as we
now know, while his hands were so reddened with Bulgarian blood.
Foreign capitals were amazed at the martial excitement in London.
But the Government spoke never a word.... And this ostentatious
protection to Turkey, this wanton disturbance of Europe, was
continued by our Ministry, with what I must call a strange
perversity, for weeks and weeks....

What we have to guard against is imposture--that Proteus with a
thousand forms. A few months ago the new Sultan served the turn,
and very well. Men affirmed that he must have time. And now another
new Sultan is in the offing. I suppose it will be argued that he
must have time too. Then there will be, perhaps, new constitutions;
firmans of reforms; proclamations to commanders of Turkish armies,
enjoining extra humanity. All these should be quietly set down as
simply zero. At this moment we hear of the adoption by the Turks of
the last and most enlightened rule of warfare--namely, the Geneva
Convention. They might just as well adopt the Vatican Council or
the British Constitution. All these things are not even the oysters
before the dinner. Still worse is any plea founded upon any reports
made by Turkish authority upon the Bulgarian outrages.... I return
to, and I end with, that which is the Omega as well as the Alpha
of this great and most mournful case. An old servant of the Crown
and State, I entreat my countrymen, upon whom far more than perhaps
any other people of Europe it depends, to require, and to insist,
that our Government, which has been working in one direction,
shall work in the other, and shall apply all its vigour to concur
with the other States of Europe in obtaining the extinction of the
Turkish executive power in Bulgaria. Let the Turks now carry away
their abuses in the only possible manner--namely, by carrying off
themselves. Their Zaptiehs and their Mudirs, their Bimbashis and
their Yuzbachis, their Kaimakams and their Pashas, one and all, bag
and baggage, shall, I hope, clear out from the province they have
desolated and profaned. This thorough riddance, this most blessed
deliverance, is the only reparation we can make to the memory of
those heaps on heaps of dead; to the violated purity alike of
matron, of maiden, and of child; to the civilization which has
been affronted and shamed; to the laws of God, or, if you like,
of Allah; to the moral sense of mankind at large. There is not a
criminal in a European gaol, there is not a cannibal in the South
Sea Islands, whose indignation would not rise and overboil at the
recital of that which has been done, which has left behind all
the foul and all the fierce passions that produced it, and which
may again spring up, in another murderous harvest, from the soil
soaked and reeking with blood, and in the air tainted with every
imaginable deed of crime and shame.


II. COLD WATER FROM DISRAELI.

=Source.=--_Hansard_, Third Series, vol. 231, col. 1,138, August
11, 1876 (Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill; Bulgarian
Atrocities raised).

MR. DISRAELI: ... Let me at once place before the House what I
believe is the true view of the circumstances which principally
interest us to-night, for, after the Rhodian eloquence to which
we have just listened, it is rather difficult for the House to
see clearly the point which is before it. The Queen's Ambassador
at Constantinople, who has at all times no easy duty to fulfil,
found himself at the end of April and in the first three weeks
of May in a position of extreme difficulty and danger. Affairs
in Constantinople never had assumed--at least in our time,
certainly--a more perilous character. It was difficult to ascertain
what was going to happen; but that something was going to happen,
and something of a character which might disturb the relations
of the Porte with all the Powers of Europe, and might even bring
about a revolution, the effect of which would be felt in distant
countries, there was no doubt.... In the present instance the
hon. and learned gentleman has made one assumption throughout his
speech--that there has been no communication whatever between the
Queen's Ambassador at Constantinople and Her Majesty's Ministers
upon the subject in discussion; that we never heard of those
affairs until the newspapers published accounts. The state of
the facts is the reverse. From the very first period that these
transactions occurred--from the very commencement--the Ambassador
was in constant communication with Her Majesty's Ministers.
(No, no.) Why, that may be proved by the papers on the table.
Throughout the months of May and June the Ambassador is constantly
referring to the atrocities occurring in Bulgaria and to the
repeated protests which he is making to the Turkish Government, and
informing Her Majesty's Government of interviews and conversations
with the Grand Vizier on that subject. The hon. and learned
gentleman says that when questions were addressed to me in this
House I was perfectly ignorant of what was taking place. But that
is exactly the question we have to settle to-night. I say that we
were not perfectly ignorant of what was taking place.... I agree
that even the slightest estimate of the horrors that occurred in
Bulgaria is quite enough to excite the indignation of this country
and of Parliament; but when you come to say that we were ignorant
of all that was occurring, and did nothing to counteract it,
because we said in answer to Questions that the information which
had reached us did not warrant the statements that were quoted
in the House--these are two entirely different questions. In the
newspaper which has been referred to the first account was, if I
recollect aright, that 30,000 or 32,000 persons had been slain;
that 10,000 were in prison; it was also stated that 1,000 girls had
been sold in the open market, that 40 girls had been burnt alive in
a stable; and cartloads of human heads paraded through the streets
of the cities of Bulgaria--these were some of, though not all, the
statements made; and I was perfectly justified in saying that the
information which had reached us did not justify these statements,
and therefore we believed them to be exaggerated.... Lord Derby
telegraphed to Sir Henry Elliot that it was very important that Her
Majesty's Government should be able to reply to the inquiries made
in Parliament respecting these and other statements, and directed
Sir Henry Elliot to inquire by telegram of the Consuls, and report
as soon as he could. All these statements are untrue. There never
were forty maidens locked up in a stable and burnt alive. That
was ascertained with great care by Mr. Baring, and I am surprised
that the right hon. gentleman the member for Bradford should still
speak of it as a statement in which he has confidence. I believe
it to be an entire fabrication. I believe also it is an entire
fabrication that 1,000 young women were sold in the market as
slaves. We have not received the slightest evidence of a single
sale, even in those journals on which the right hon. gentleman
the member for Bradford founded his erratic speech. I have been
attacked for saying that I did not believe it was possible to have
10,000 persons in prison in Bulgaria. So far as I can ascertain
from the papers, there never could have been more than 3,000. As
to the 10,000 cases of torture, what evidence is there of a single
case of torture? We know very well that there has been considerable
slaughter; that there must have been isolated and individual cases
of most atrocious rapine, and outrages of a most atrocious kind;
but still we have had communications with Sir Henry Elliot, and he
has always assumed from what he knew that these cases of individual
rapine and outrage were occurring. He knew that civil war there was
carried on under conditions of brutality which, unfortunately, are
not unprecedented in that country; and the question is whether the
information we had justified the extravagant statements made in
Parliament, which no one pretends to uphold and defend.... The hon.
and learned member (Sir W. Harcourt) has done full justice to the
Bulgarian atrocities. He has assumed as absolutely true everything
that criticism and more authentic information had modified, and
in some cases had proved not merely to be exaggeration but to
be absolute falsehoods. And then the hon. and learned gentleman
says--"By your policy you have depopulated a province." Well, sir,
certainly the slaughter of 12,000 individuals, whether Turks or
Bulgarians, whether they were innocent peasants or even brigands,
is a horrible event which no one can think of without emotion.
But when I remember that the population of Bulgaria is 3,700,000
persons, and that it is a very large country, is it not a most
extravagant abuse of rhetoric to say that the slaughter of so
considerable a number as 12,000 is the depopulation of a province?
Well, the hon. and learned gentleman said also that Her Majesty's
Government had incurred a responsibility which is not possessed by
any other country as regards our relations with and our influence
with the Turks. I say that we have incurred no responsibility which
is not shared with us by all the other contracting Powers to the
Treaty of Paris. I utterly disclaim any peculiar responsibility....
That an hon. and learned gentleman, once a member of a Government
and an ornament of that Government, should counsel as the solution
of all these difficulties that Her Majesty's Government should
enter into an immediate combination to expel the Turkish nation
from Eastern Europe does indeed surprise me. And because we are
not prepared to enter into a scheme so quixotic as that would be,
we are held up as having given our moral, not to say our material,
support to Turkey.... We are, it is true, the allies of Turkey;
so is Austria, so is Russia, so is France, and so are others. We
are also their partners in a tripartite Treaty, in which we not
only generally, but singly, guarantee with France and Austria
the territorial integrity of Turkey. And if these engagements,
renovated and repeated only four years ago by the wisdom of Europe,
are to be treated by the hon. and learned gentleman as idle wind
and chaff, and if we are to be told that our political duty is by
force to expel the Turks to the other side of the Bosphorus, then
politics cease to be an art, statesmanship becomes a mere mockery,
and instead of being a House of Commons faithful to its traditions,
and which is always influenced, I have ever thought, by sound
principles of policy, whoever may be its leaders, we had better at
once resolve ourselves into one of those revolutionary clubs which
settle all political and social questions with the same ease as the
hon. and learned member.


[NOTE.--This was Disraeli's last speech as a member of the House of
Commons. He was raised to the peerage on August 12, 1876.]




SIR THEOPHILUS SHEPSTONE'S COMMISSION (1877).

=Source.=--_The Times_, January 7.


Whereas grievous disturbances have broken out in the territories
adjacent to Our colonies in South Africa, with war between the
white inhabitants and the native races, to the great peril of
the peace and safety of Our said colonies; and whereas, having
regard to the safety of Our said colonies, it greatly concerns
Us that full inquiry should be made into the origin, nature, and
circumstances of the said disturbances, and with respect to the
measures to be adopted for preventing the recurrence of the like
disturbances in the future; and whereas it may become requisite to
this end that the said territories, or portions of them, should be
administered in Our name and in Our behalf.

Now know you that We, having especial trust and confidence in the
loyalty and fidelity of you, the said Sir Theophilus Shepstone,
have appointed you to be Our special Commissioner for the purpose
of making such inquiry as aforesaid ... and if the emergency seem
to you to be such as to render it necessary, in order to secure
the peace and safety of Our said colonies, and of Our subjects
elsewhere, that the said territories, or any portion or portions of
the same, should be provisionally, and pending the announcement of
Our pleasure, be administered in Our name and on Our behalf, then,
and in such case only, We do further authorize you, the said Sir
Theophilus Shepstone, by proclamation under your hand, to declare
that from and after a day to be therein named, so much of any such
territories aforesaid as to you, after due consideration, shall
seem fit, shall be annexed and form part of Our dominions.

And We do hereby constitute and appoint you to be thereupon
Administrator of the same provisionally and until Our pleasure is
more fully known.

Provided, first, that no such proclamation shall be issued by you
with respect to any district, territory, or state, unless you shall
be satisfied that the inhabitants thereof, or a sufficient number
of them, or the Legislature thereof, desire to become Our subjects;
nor if any conditions unduly limiting Our power and authority
therein are sought to be imposed....




RUSSIA DECLARES WAR ON TURKEY (1877).

=Source.=--_The Times_, April 25.


We have not a word to say in defence of the Porte. We admit that it
was guilty, as Lord Salisbury has confessed, of infatuation when
it defied the Conference, and that it would have accepted even the
Protocol, if it had possessed a tithe of the sagacity which was
once a better protection of its weakness than ironclads are to-day.
We may even admit that the Protocol was, what Prince Gortchakoff
styles it, the last expression of the united will of Europe. But
his story is fatally incomplete. It would have been desirable to
know whether Russia has done her best to make it easy for Turkey
to accept the undisguised tutelage of the European Powers. That
question calls to mind how much the fanaticism of the Turks was
inflamed by the covert aid which Russia gave to Servia. The Czar
refers to the famous words which he spoke in the Kremlin. They were
indeed the real declaration of war, for they prevented Russia from
accepting anything less than the complete submission of Turkey.
Russia might plead, no doubt, that as war was certain to be found
an absolute necessity in the end, it mattered little how rudely
she ruffled the Osmanli pride. But in that case the negotiations
of the past two years have been a series of hypocrisies. As it
is, the general judgment is expressed by what Lord Derby said
last night. While he found it hopeless to bend the will of Turkey
towards submission, he equally found on the part of her Government
"a deeply seated conviction that, do what they would, sooner or
later war would be forced upon them." He believed that he and
his colleagues have throughout been "engaged in the solution of
a hopeless problem." Such, we fear, is the prosaic truth, and,
whatever be the measure of Turkish obstinacy, Russia cannot escape
condemnation. She has sometimes acted as if she wished to cut off
a way of retreat both from herself and her foe.... Russia has
hastened to stop all further negotiations, and to act as if she
and she alone had an interest in the tranquillity of the Turkish
Empire. Thus she has forfeited any right to speak in the name
of Europe. Nor has she given the Powers assurances which they
had a right to expect. Nothing is said in the same strain as the
declarations at Livadia, that Russia had no objects of territorial
ambition.... The Czar has committed a grave error by neglecting to
proclaim that in no event would he seize Turkish territory.




IRISH OBSTRUCTION IN ITS EARLY DAYS (1877).

=Source.=--_The Times_, August 1.


Mr. Parnell and his special friends greatly distinguished
themselves in the House of Commons last night by the multiplicity
of the motions in committee on the South Africa Bill. The
Government adopted special means to wear out the tenacity of the
members who thus consume hour after hour, for it had arranged that
the House should sit until the work should be done, even if the
discussion should last till breakfast time. But it does injustice
to Mr. Parnell. He is the most misunderstood and most ill-used man
in the House of Commons. Such is the burden of the long letter from
him which we printed on Monday. He has been accused of trying to
stop public business by floods of irrelevant speech. He has been
charged with something like open disrespect for the authority of
Mr. Speaker. He has been suspected of a wish to make Irish members
intolerable, in the hope that weary Englishmen and Scotchmen would
bid them begone to enjoy the beatitudes of Home Rule. He has made
the Leader of the House, although the mildest of men, propose to
banish him to the penal settlement of silence, and the House has
done him the honour of framing two new rules to impede the flow of
his speech during the rest of the Session.... The incorrectness
of that accusation, he replies, is proved by the comparatively
small use he has made of almost boundless opportunities. If his
enemies speak of what he has done, he appeals to what he might
have done. Has he obstructed every clause of every Bill? Has he
even obstructed every Bill? Has he exhausted all the forms of the
House even yet? These questions oppress us with a sense of his
moderation. If he has done so much, he might have done so much
more! As most Bills have at least ten clauses, as most clauses
contain at least a hundred words, and as at least one amendment
might be moved after each word, Mr. Parnell could have opposed
each Bill with at least a thousand amendments, and he himself, Mr.
Biggar, and Mr. O'Donnell could each have delivered at least a
thousand speeches.




PLEVNA AFTER THE SIEGE (1877).

=Source.=--_The Times_, December 15.


_From Our Special Correspondent.--Plevna, December 11._

As I rode up the slope of the hill east of Plevna towards the
redoubt defending the road between the town and the village of
Radicheve, a ghastly scene was presented. Hundreds of Russian
skeletons lay glistening on the hillsides, where they had fallen
during the assault of September. The bones were generally
completely bare. Those nearest to the earthwork had been covered
with a few inches of earth, which had been washed off by the first
shower, and now they lay as naked as the others. The Moslem outpost
pits were among these skeletons, many of them not being more than a
yard distant. Singular as it may seem, many of these skeletons had
distinct expressions, both in the attitude in which they had fallen
and in the position of the fleshless jaws. I could distinguish
those who had fallen without suffering from those who had died in
agony, and the effect was such as I shall never forget. The Russian
soldiers who marched into Plevna in the rear of Osman's sallying
force passed among these remains of their unburied comrades.... On
entering the town I was surprised to find it so little injured by
the cannonading....

Within a short time after Osman's surrender at the bridge over
the Vid, on the Sofia road, the 16,000 prisoners were turned back
into the town, with the artillery and transport trains.... The
Turks were well fed in appearance, but were generally ragged, and
were all wearing sandals. No boots were to be seen, though most of
them had overcoats.... The contrast between these tatterdemalion
battalions and the well-dressed men guarding them made the war
appear a one-sided affair, until the reflection came that a ragged
man shot as well as one perfectly equipped. Later in the day,
standing on the Sofia road, in the Gravitza valley west of Plevna,
I surveyed the whole basin forming Osman's position. The herbage
and all other growing things had so effectually disappeared that
the earth's surface looked as if a conflagration had swept over
every square foot of it. The colour was a dull brown, and I never
gazed upon a more dismal-looking region. The sides of the basin
were serried by ravines, all centering in the valley where I stood,
and upon the surrounding edges of the basin were the Turkish
and Allied batteries planted in irregular line, but commanding
every vantage-point of the neighbourhood.... Where the Gravitza
_chaussée_ crosses the elevation the Turkish redoubts were weakest,
and here the Russian artillery fire had been chiefly concentrated.
The front and rear of the earthworks were ploughed up by shells,
and in truth there was scarcely a square yard which had not been
struck. Thousands of such missiles, varying from 3 inches to 6
inches in diameter, lay unexploded upon the surface of the earth.
In a previous telegram I said that these redoubts were battered to
pieces; but I now discover that this was a curious error of vision.
The works are practically uninjured. So far as the earthworks are
concerned, the Russian artillery ammunition has been absolutely
wasted, and from an inspection of the trenches I do not believe
that the garrison has suffered more than their defences. Neither
do I believe that any artillery could have accomplished more. The
fact is that shells against earthworks are useless at a greater
distance than 500 or 600 yards, and then the guns cannot be worked
on account of the enemy's sharpshooters. The Turkish soldiers
in the redoubts had bomb-proof abodes in the back walls of the
pits.... I was very much surprised to find the Turkish lines of
fortification so weak, as far as the quantity of earthwork is
concerned. The redoubts are much smaller than I supposed them to
be.... There are no double lines of infantry trenches--in fact,
no interior lines of any sort; neither are there trenches on the
hillsides below the redoubts. There are no lines of intrenchments
for the reserves; indeed, there were apparently no reserves.
When I saw this technically weak line I could not but admire the
efficiency of the weapons with which it had been defended, and
the stubborn tenacity of the men who could hold it against such
assaults as the Allies have delivered against it. The Allies had
double and treble lines around Plevna. Their works are much better
constructed than those of the Turks, so far as finish is concerned;
but for safety I would rather trust myself to the latter.... The
Roumanian trenches, however, were well constructed and capacious.
The best trench is within 25 feet of the Turkish counterscarp [of a
redoubt]. From the bottom of this trench two shafts were sunk about
15 feet in depth, and from the bottom two galleries had been pushed
under the Turkish parapet, and the mines were nearly ready when the
Moslems evacuated their positions. But the strangest part of the
history of this siege is the fact that the Turks had also mined
the Gravitza redoubt opposite, and before leaving their earthwork
they had fired the mining fuse. The Roumanians, discovering their
departure, entered their ditches, found the gallery, and reached
the fuse in time to quench it before it had burned to the explosive
charge; so that each was prepared to blow the other up without
knowing, apparently, that counter-operations were in progress....

At noon to-day the Emperor arrived at the redoubt defending
the approach to Plevna by the Gravitza _chaussée_.... [After a
religious service] the whole party rode into Plevna, taking the
less frequented streets, lest some assassin might fire upon the
Emperor. In a small house, surrounded by a high stone wall, lunch
was served, after which there was a sudden hush, and Osman Pasha
was carried into the yard and through the portico by a Cossack
officer and one of his own attendants. As he passed through the
crowd of staff officers, every one saluted him, and shouted,
"Bravo, Osman!" He then passed into the presence of the Emperor,
who shook hands with him, and informed him that, in consideration
of his gallant defence of Plevna, he had given orders that his
sword should be returned to him, and that he could wear it.




STRAINED RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA (1878).

I.

=Source.=--_Hansard_, Third Series, vol. 237, cols. 1,326, 1332
(Questions, February 8, 1878).


THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Mr. Speaker, the Government
have received a telegram to-day from Mr. Layard, containing a
summary of the articles of the armistice.... The telegram ends by
saying that the Turks have begun to remove their guns from the
Constantinople lines. Now it is quite evident that, whatever may
have been the arrangements with regard to the neighbourhood of
Constantinople, a neutral zone has been declared, which includes
the lines of Tchekmedje, which protect Constantinople; and
according to the terms of the armistice the Turks are bound not to
retain those fortresses, and accordingly are bound to remove--and
are quietly beginning to remove--their guns and armaments from the
fortifications by lines and to specified places.... The consequence
is that, although the Russians do not occupy those lines
themselves, they occupy an outpost close to them, while the lines
themselves are being thoroughly disarmed. They have the power,
therefore, at any moment, subject to the necessity of giving three
days' notice of the termination of the armistice, of advancing
on Constantinople without hindrance.... I may perhaps venture to
call the attention of the House to one of the papers which we laid
upon the table yesterday. That contains a copy of a Memorandum
which was communicated to the Russian Ambassador by Her Majesty's
Government on the 28th of July last, in which they say they "look
with much anxiety at the state of things in Constantinople, and
the prospect of the disorder and bloodshed, and even anarchy,
which may occur as the Russian forces draw near to the capital.
The crisis which may at any time arrive in Constantinople may be
such as Her Majesty's Government could not overlook, while they
had the means of mitigating its horrors. Her Majesty's Government
are fully determined (unless it should be necessary for the
preservation of interests which they have already stated they are
bound to maintain) not to depart from the line of neutrality which
they have declared their intention to observe; but they do not
consider that they would be departing from this neutrality, and
they think that Russia will not consider they are doing so, if they
should find themselves compelled to direct their fleet to proceed
to Constantinople, and thus afford protection to the European
population against internal disturbance." The Government, I may
add, feel that the state of affairs disclosed by the armistice has
given rise to the danger which they thus apprehended, and they
have, in the circumstances, thought it right to order a portion of
the fleet to proceed at once to Constantinople for the purpose of
protecting the lives and property of British subjects.


Cols. 1622-1623 (Questions, February 13, 1878).

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I stated, I think, or at all
events referred on Monday to the fact, that communications had
been made to the Porte to ascertain whether permission would be
given, or a _firman_ be granted, for the British fleet to enter
the Dardanelles. That permission was refused, but Her Majesty's
Government thought it right to direct the ships to proceed, and
they have proceeded accordingly. No material opposition was
offered, and they are by this time, I presume, anchored in the
neighbourhood of Constantinople. I may perhaps mention that a
communication has been made by the Russian Government to the
effect that, in view of the intended sending of the fleet by Her
Majesty's Government to the neighbourhood of Constantinople, it
would be a matter for the consideration of the Russian Government
whether they should not themselves occupy the city. In answer to
that Her Majesty's Government have sent a communication which will
be laid on the table of the House to-night, in which they protest
against that view, and state that they cannot acknowledge that in
the case of the two countries the circumstances are parallel, or
that the despatch of the British fleet for the purpose indicated
justifies the Russian Government in the step which they announce it
to be their intention to take.


II.

=Source.=--_The Times_, March 29, 1878.

The uncertainty which has prevailed during the last few days
respecting the course which our Government would pursue, in view
of the difference respecting the Congress which had arisen between
ourselves and Russia, has received a startling and momentous
solution. When the House of Lords met yesterday, Lord Derby no
longer occupied his seat on the Ministerial Bench, and he at once
announced that he had resigned the office of Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs.... The explanations given yesterday remove all
doubt respecting the relative positions assumed by our Government
and Russia in regard to the Congress. Sir Stafford Northcote
stated in the House of Commons the import of the communications
which have passed between ourselves and Russia.... Russia's reply
amounted to a clear intimation that she claims to withhold from the
cognizance of the Powers any articles of the preliminary Treaty
she may choose. Such a reserve as she asserts is tantamount to a
definite claim to alter an existing Treaty by force of arms without
consulting the other Powers who signed it, and towards whom she is
under honourable obligations. There being this imminent danger that
the Congress may not meet--it being, as Lord Beaconsfield said,
"the belief" of the Government "that the Congress would not meet,"
it became necessary for the Government to consider what further
course they would take.... We do not know what course Lord Derby
would have advised, and it is possible he would not immediately
have taken any fresh steps. But the rest of the Government decided
that in the interests of peace, and for the due protection of the
rights of the Empire, it was their duty "to advise Her Majesty to
avail herself of those powers which she has for calling for the
services of her Reserved Forces." As subsequently explained by Mr.
Hardy in the House of Commons, this step is one which is rendered
necessary by the new organization of the Army.... Its result will
be to raise our regular forces to their utmost efficiency. In
other words, it will place the land forces which actually exist in
readiness for prompt action; and it is thus a plain declaration--a
declaration rendered emphatic by Lord Derby's resignation--that
we are prepared to act promptly if the course on which Russia
has entered directly injures our honour or our interests. Such a
declaration of our being determined to adhere to the claims we have
put forward is perhaps the most momentous step which has yet been
taken by this country.




PEACE WITH HONOUR (1878).

=Source.=--_The Times_, July 17.


The Premier alighted at his official residence in Downing Street,
and was met on the threshold by General Ponsonby, bearing a bouquet
of rare flowers, sent to him by the gracious forethought of Her
Majesty the Queen.... The ground was well kept by the police, till
the Prime Minister appeared at a window and began to speak. Then
a rush swept the police away. Three cheers for Lord Beaconsfield
were given. For the second time in the day the Prime Minister was
visibly affected. He had to wait long for silence, but when an
approach to quiet had been obtained Lord Beaconsfield said: "I
can assure you that no recognition of neighbours could be more
gratifying to my feelings than these expressions of the sentiments
of those among whom I see many of my oldest and most cherished
friends. Lord Salisbury and myself have brought you back peace, but
a peace, I hope, with honour, which may satisfy our Sovereign, and
tend to the welfare of the country."




THE SECRET AGREEMENTS IN BEACONSFIELD'S POCKETS (1878).

=Source.=--_Hansard_, Third Series, vol. 242, col. 344 (House of
Lords: Debate on the Protocols of Berlin, August, 1878).


The Earl of Rosebery rose to call attention to a memorandum
purporting to have been signed by the Marquis of Salisbury and
Count Schouvaloff on May 30, 1878, and to ask if it was the
intention of the Government to lay it on the table of the House....
The course the Government had pursued with respect to their policy
was, he would venture to say, one of obscurity enlivened with
sarcasm. In the whole history of the negotiations there were five
cardinal points--points which became salient to everyone who had
studied the history of these transactions. First, there was the San
Stefano treaty; the second was the circular of the 1st of April;
the third, the alleged secret agreement of May 30th; the fourth,
the secret convention of June 4th with Turkey; and the fifth was
the treaty signed at Berlin on the 30th of July. As to the secret
agreement between Russia and England, it would be well to recall
how they came to have any cognizance of it at all. The substance
of it appeared in the _Globe_ within, he thought, three or four
days after it was signed, and it was on the 14th of June, he
thought, that the entire text was given in the columns of the same
journal.... They had all heard that the agreement was not to be
laid on the table, because there were documents in connection with
it which it would be necessary to present at the same time; but
other Powers would not allow us to produce them. What he gathered
from all this was that, if it had not been for the ill-advised
conduct of a very subordinate clerk in the Foreign Office, who was
entrusted with the copying of the agreement at the rate of 10d. an
hour, the English public would not at this moment have the faintest
conception of such an agreement, and the keystone of the whole
purpose of the Government would be wrapped in obscurity. This was
alarming in itself, because, if these subterranean methods were
employed as a rule, they would give the public some little dismay
in regard to the course of further negotiations.... Having signed
this agreement, and having signed another secret agreement within
two or three days with Turkey, Her Majesty's Plenipotentiaries
proceeded, fortified with them, to the Congress. Now came the most
extraordinary point in all the history of these negotiations, so
far as they knew it. Eight days after the signature, or alleged
signature, of this agreement, in which, if the House would
remember, we consented to the abandonment of Batoum and other
Russian conquests in Armenia, the Foreign Secretary addressed a
despatch to our Resident Plenipotentiary in Berlin, in which he
urged him to use his exertions to the utmost on behalf of Batoum.
The words were so remarkable that he might be pardoned for quoting
them to their lordships. On the 8th of June the noble Marquis wrote
to Lord Odo Russell: "There is no ground for believing that Russia
will willingly give way in respect to Batoum, Kars, or Ardahan; and
it is possible that the arguments of England urged in Congress will
receive little assistance from other Powers, and will not be able
to shake her resolution in this respect." Well, that was not likely
under the circumstances. The noble Marquis continued in this letter
of June 8th: "You will not on that account abstain from earnestly
pressing upon them and upon Russia the justice of abstaining from
annexations which are unconnected with the professed object of the
war, and profoundly distasteful to the populations concerned, and
the expediency, in regard to the future tranquillizing of Asia, of
forbearing to shake so perilously the position of the Government
of Turkey...." Now, the great point with regard to this was, was
Lord Odo Russell, when he received that communication, cognizant
of the agreement which had been signed on the 30th of May? Because
what they wanted to know was this, was Lord Odo Russell one of a
company, or was he a simple actor put up to recite the arguments
of Batoum, with a prompter by to keep him to his part?... Then,
on the same day, Mr. Secretary Cross addressed a despatch to
the Plenipotentiaries of Her Majesty, urging them to make great
exertion on behalf of Greece. He should say that the position of
a Plenipotentiary who entered the Congress to struggle on behalf
of Batoum, Kars, Ardahan, and Greece must have been a somewhat
melancholy one in the retrospect; because, when the questions
came up, the Turkish positions were abandoned, and Greece was
ignored.... He did not pretend that secret understandings were
unknown to us, but he believed this was the first time we had
called a European Congress with the view of discussing great
treaties, and standing forth on behalf of public law, we ourselves
having, at the same time, bound ourselves in private to consent to
those stipulations which we had denounced, and which we continued
to denounce.




GLADSTONE INDIGNANT AGAIN (1878).

=Source.=--_The Times_, December 2.


MR. GLADSTONE (at Greenwich): I want to ask you, and I think
after these two years it is about time, who are the true friends
of Russia? Is it we, gentlemen, who met two years and a half
ago on Blackheath, and said it was most mischievous to leave to
any single country the settlement of the Eastern question?...
Who brought Russia back to the Danube? Those very men who are
continually denouncing us as the friends of Russia. We had in
1856 by the fortune of war driven Russia back from the Danube;
the present Government have brought Russia back to the Danube.
They made a secret memorandum with Count Schouvaloff by which they
engaged--unless they could convert him by their arguments--to vote
in the Congress for bringing Russia back to the Danube.... Who
gave Russia the fortress of Kars? The present Government. These
people say they want to keep down the power of Russia. Want to keep
down the power of Russia! Why, they have left it in her power to
make herself the liberator of Bulgaria, and secure for herself the
influence which always follows upon gratitude.




RUSSIAN INTRIGUE AT CABUL (1878).

=Source.=--_Parliamentary Publications_, "Afghanistan," C 2,190 of
1878, p. 228.


_Telegram dated August 2, 1878. From Viceroy, Simla, to Secretary
of State, London._

Further confirmation received of presence of Russian mission at
Cabul headed by General Abramoff, Governor of Samarkand, who is
mentioned by name. We desire to point out that present situation
requires immediate correction. It will soon be known throughout
India that Russian officers and troops have been received with
honour, and are staying at Cabul within short distance of our
frontier and our largest military garrison, while our officers
have been denied admission there. We have further reports of
Russian officers having visited and been well received at Maimena.
To remain inactive now will, we respectfully submit, be to allow
Afghanistan to fall as certainly and as completely under Russian
power and influence as the Khanates. We believe we could correct
situation if allowed to treat it as question between us and the
Ameer, and probably could do so without recourse to force. But we
must speak plainly and decidedly, and be sure of your support. We
propose, therefore, in the first place, to insist on reception of
suitable British mission at Cabul. To this we do not anticipate
serious resistance; indeed, we think it probable that Ameer,
adhering to his policy of playing Russia and ourselves off against
each other, will really welcome such mission, while outwardly only
yielding to pressure....


_From Secretary of State, August 3, 1878 (Extract)._

Assuming the certainty of Russian officers at Cabul, your proposals
to insist on reception of British envoy approved. In case of
refusal you will telegraph again as to the steps you desire to take
for compelling the Ameer to receive your mission.


_Telegram from Viceroy, September 21, 1878._

Chamberlain[A] reports from Peshawur that it is quite evident
Ameer is bent on utmost procrastination, and determined on making
acceptance of our mission dependent on his pleasure and choice of
time.... To await at Peshawur Ameer's pleasure would be to abandon
whole policy and accept easy repulse at outset.... Consequently
mission moved this morning to Jamrud; thence Cavagnari advances to
Ali Musjid with small escort to demand passage....

[A] General Sir Neville Chamberlain.


_Telegram from Viceroy, September 22, 1878._

Following telegram received last night from Sir Neville
Chamberlain. Message begins: Cavagnari reports that we have
received a decisive answer from Faiz Mahomed, after personal
interview, that he will not allow mission to proceed. He crowned
the heights commanding the way with his levies, and though many
times warned by Cavagnari that his reply would be regarded as reply
of the Ameer, said he would not let mission pass....


_Telegram from Secretary of State, October 30, 1878._

Text of letter, as approved, to be sent to the Ameer.... In
consequence of this hostile action on your part, I have assembled
Her Majesty's forces on your frontier, but I desire to give you a
last opportunity of averting the calamities of war. For this it
is necessary that a full and suitable apology be offered by you
in writing, and tendered on British territory by an officer of
sufficient rank. Furthermore, as it has been found impossible to
maintain satisfactory relations between the two States unless the
British Government is adequately represented in Afghanistan, it
will be necessary that you should consent to receive a permanent
British Mission within your territory.... Unless these conditions
are accepted, fully and plainly, by you, and your acceptance
received by me not later than the 20th November, I shall be
compelled to consider your intentions as hostile, and to treat you
as a declared enemy of the British Government.




SHERE ALI (1878).

=Source.=--_Parliamentary Publications_, "Afghanistan," C 2,190 of
1878, p. 225.


_Extract from a Memorandum by Lord Napier of Magdala._

We have unfortunately managed Shere Ali badly. Perhaps it might
not have been possible, with our scruples and his want of them, to
have managed him advantageously; but it must be admitted that we
have not given him the reasons to unite himself with us that he
naturally expected. First, we stood aloof in his struggles for life
and empire, ready to acknowledge whoever might prove the master
of Afghanistan. Then, when Shere Ali had subdued his enemies, he
came forward to meet us with an alliance, but we were willing to
form only an imperfect alliance with him. He was willing to trust
us, provided that we would trust him; but we felt that we could
not bind ourselves to unreserved support of a power whose ideas of
right and wrong were so different from ours. We therefore proposed
to bind him, leaving ourselves (according to his idea) free, and he
recoiled from this bargain. His friendly feelings, however, were
not entirely alienated by that experience of us; he abstained from
any action towards Seistan at our desire, and he believed that
the mediation which we pressed upon him would have ended by the
restoration of the portion of Seistan that Persia had occupied in
his days of trouble. And not only Shere Ali, but the whole Afghan
people, believed that we should restore to them what they had
lost. When they found that we had allowed Persia to obstruct and
ill-treat our arbitrator, and to retain much of her encroachments,
they looked upon us as a weak and treacherous people, who, under
the guise of friendship, had spoiled them in favour of Persia.
This I believe to be the root of Shere Ali's discontent with us.




DEATH OF SHERE ALI (1879).

=Source.=--_Parliamentary Publications_, "Afghanistan," C 2,401 of
1879, p. 12.


_Translation of a Letter, dated February 26, 1879, from Sirdar
Mahomed Yakub Khan to Major Cavagnari._

... I now write a second time in accordance with former friendship
to inform you that to-day a letter was received by post from
Turkestan announcing that my worthy and exalted father had, upon
29th Safar (21st February, 1879), obeyed the call of the summoner,
and, throwing off the dress of existence, hastened to the region of
the divine mercy.




THE GANDAMAK TREATY (1879).

=Source.=--_Parliamentary Publications_, "Afghanistan," C 2,362 of
1879.


ARTICLE III.--His Highness the Ameer of Afghanistan and its
dependencies agrees to conduct his relations with foreign States in
accordance with the advice and wishes of the British Government....
The British Government will support the Ameer against any foreign
aggression with money, arms, or troops, to be employed in
whatsoever manner the British Government may judge best for the
purpose.

ARTICLE IV.--With a view to the maintenance of the direct and
intimate relations now established ... it is agreed that a British
Resident representative shall reside at Cabul, with a suitable
escort, in a place of residence appropriate to his rank and
dignity. It is also agreed that the British Government shall have
the right to depute British Agents with suitable escorts to the
Afghan frontiers, whensoever this may be considered necessary by
the British Government in the interests of both States, on the
occurrence of any important external fact....

ARTICLE IX.--The British Government restores to His Highness the
Ameer of Afghanistan and its dependencies the towns of Candahar and
Jellalabad, with all the territory now in possession of the British
armies, excepting the districts of Kurram, Pishin, and Sibi. His
Highness ... agrees on his part that the districts of Kurram,
Pishin, and Sibi, according to the limits defined in the schedule
annexed, shall remain under the protection and administrative
control of the British Government: that is to say, the aforesaid
districts shall be treated as assigned districts, and shall not be
considered as permanently severed from the limits of the Afghan
kingdom.... The British Government will retain in its own hands the
control of the Khyber and Michni Passes, and of all relations with
the independent tribes of the territory directly connected with
these passes.

Done at Gandamak this 26th day of May, 1879.




THE CABUL MASSACRE (1879).

=Source.=--_Parliamentary Publications, "Afghanistan,"_ C 2,457 of
1880, p. 95.


_Statement of Taimur (Timoss), Sowar B troop, Corps of Guides, on
September 15, 1879._

I was in the Bala Hissar, Cabul, on the 3rd instant: Major Sir
Louis Cavagnari and the other British officers were in the
bungalow. At about 8 a.m. the Turkestani ("Ardal") regiment, which
was in the Bala Hissar, was paraded to receive its pay. Daud Shah,
the Commander-in-Chief, gave them one month's pay. They claimed
two, and broke. They were paraded quite close to the Residency,
and another regiment was also quartered with them. One of soldiery
shouted out, "Let us destroy the Envoy first of all, and after
that the Ameer!" They rushed into the courtyard in front of the
Residency, and stoned some of the syces who were sitting there. We
then opened fire on them, without orders from any European. All
the British officers were inside. The Ameer's men then went for
their weapons, and returned with them in a quarter of an hour.
They then commenced to besiege the Residency, and from commanding
positions made the roof of the Residency untenable. We made shelter
trenches on it, and fired from the windows. The city people came
to help the soldiers about 10 a.m. Major Sir Louis Cavagnari was
wounded in the forehead about 1 p.m.; he was in a shelter trench. A
man from the roof of a house shot at him, and the bullet striking
a brick, it, together with a piece of brick, struck Sir Louis.
But he was not killed. Mr. Jenkyns came up and sent for a Munshi
to write to the Ameer, but the scribe was unable to write through
fear. I then wrote briefly to the Ameer that we were besieged, and
he was to help us; and sent it by Gholam Nabbi, a Kabuli, an old
Guide Sowar who was in the Residency. No answer came. Gholam Nabbi
afterwards told me that the Ameer wrote on the letter, "If God
will, I am just making arrangements." Major Cavagnari was helped
into the Residency, and tended to by Dr. Kelly. Mr. Jenkyns then
ordered me to send a second letter to the Ameer, stating that Major
Cavagnari was wounded, and to hasten on assistance. The letter was
sent by a Hindu whose name I don't know. He was cut to pieces in
front of the Residency. I was at about 3 p.m. sent with a letter
by Mr. Hamilton promising six months' pay. By that time they had
managed to get on to the roof of the Residency. I went armed into
the midst of the crowd, and was immediately stripped of my arms,
but my life was saved by an officer. They threw me from the roof
of the Residency on to the roof of the neighbouring house. I lost
my senses.... I know nothing of what happened after this, but I
visited the place next morning. I recollect they had begun to set
fire to the Residency just as I was leaving.... Daybreak I went
to the Residency, and saw first the corpse of Lieutenant Hamilton
lying over a mountain gun which had been brought up. The troops
who were there told me Mr. Hamilton had shot about three men with
his pistol, and had cut down two more before he was shot. He was
stripped and cut into pieces, but not dishonoured. About 25 feet
off was the body of Mr. Jenkyns in a similar state. I did not go
into the Residency, but was told Dr. Kelly was lying killed in the
Residency. Sir Louis Cavagnari was in the Residency when it fell in
flames. He was in the room where the wounded were, and his body had
not been discovered when I left the city.


=Source.=--_Parliamentary Publications_, "Afghanistan," C 2,457 of
1880, p. 83.

_Extract from Deposition of Ressaldar-Major Nakshband Khan._

At about 9 a.m., while the fighting was going on, I myself saw the
four European officers charge out at the head of some twenty-five
of the garrison; they drove away a party that were holding some
broken ground. About a quarter of an hour after this another sally
was made by a party with three officers at their head--Cavagnari
was not with them this time--with the same result. A third sally
was made with two British officers (Jenkyns and Hamilton) leading;
a fourth sally was made with a Sikh Jemadar bravely leading. No
more sallies were made after this. They all appeared to go to the
upper part of the house, and fired from above. At about half-past
eleven o'clock part of the building, in which the Embassy was,
was noticed to be on fire. I do not know who fired it. I think
it probable that the defenders, finding themselves so few, fired
part, so as to have a less space to defend. The firing went on
continuously all day; perhaps it was hottest from 10 a.m. to 3
p.m., after which it slackened, and the last shots were fired at
about 8.30 p.m. or 9 p.m., after which all was quiet, and everyone
dispersed. The next morning I heard shots being fired. I asked an
old woman, to whose house I had been sent for safety by Sirdar Wali
Muhammad Khan, what this was: she sent out her son to find out.
He said: "They are shooting the people found still alive in the
Residency."




THE MIDLOTHIAN CAMPAIGN (1879).

=Source.=--_The Saturday Review_, November 29.


The personal enthusiasm with which Mr. Gladstone is regarded by the
mass of his followers has been largely stimulated by his appearance
in Scotland and by his fervid harangues. The only local topic on
which he has cared to dwell is the alleged creation of fagot votes
by his opponents. There can be no doubt that the purchase of little
freeholds for the sole purpose of obtaining votes is an abuse and a
grievance, though it is said that Mr. Gladstone once held a fagot
vote. For two or three years of his life Mr. Cobden concentrated
all his efforts on a gigantic scheme of fagot votes, by which the
manufacturing towns were to obtain control of the counties; but the
total failure of the project caused it to be tacitly abandoned.
If Mr. Gladstone is after all defeated in Midlothian, the moral
effect of a Conservative victory will be greatly impaired by the
process of tampering with the representation. To Mr. Gladstone's
excited mind an attempt to pack a constituency probably assumes
extravagant dimensions. Before he arrived at Edinburgh he began
his public protest against fagot votes in Midlothian, as well as
against the crimes of a Government which he has persuaded himself
to regard as the worst and most dangerous that has held power in
England. He has denounced his opponents so loudly and so often that
even his overflowing eloquence could include nothing new, but the
crowded assemblies which he addressed, though they had read his
orations, and perhaps his pamphlets, had not heard him speak. It is
not surprising that eager and unanimous multitudes should welcome
with admiration and delight the detailed exposition, by the most
eloquent of politicians, of the opinions which they had already
been taught to hold. Few cold-blooded or dispassionate sceptics
would ask themselves whether it was credible that a Ministry
and a great and steady majority of the House of Commons should
never, even by accident, have deviated into prudence, justice, or
patriotic foresight. In private discussion and in Parliamentary
debate it is found expedient, according to the old legal phrase, to
give colour, or, in other words, to admit that the theory, which is
impugned, though unsound, is at least credible or intelligible. Mr.
Gladstone follows the bent of his own genius when he encourages the
popular tendency to deal with difficult controversies as if they
were wholly one-sided.

His Liberal colleagues, perhaps, regard his present enterprise
with mixed feelings. Their confidence in their former leader is
qualified by doubts of his judgment, and by uncertainty as to the
present range of his ambition. They cannot but perceive that he
assumes the character of representative of the party, although he
probably intends no disloyalty to its official or nominal chiefs.
It is true that if, in appealing to the multitude, he pushes his
successors aside, they have little right to complain. Almost
all of them have of late addressed vehement language to public
meetings, though none of them can compete with Mr. Gladstone in
the power of stirring political passion. Official subordination
is set aside when policy is regulated, not by Parliament, but by
the voice of the general population. Senators and Consulars must
stand aside in the presence of a Dictator. Although it has long
been customary for statesmen to make occasional speeches to public
meetings, the extent to which the practice has lately been carried
is altogether unprecedented. The result is that the Constitution
is gradually weakened by the substitution of numerical majorities
for the representatives of the people in Parliament. The approach
of a General Election furnishes no sufficient justification for
an innovation which accelerates the prevalence of democracy, and
aggravates its evil tendencies. Mr. Gladstone himself perhaps
understands and approves the organic change which promotes the
supremacy of popular eloquence in the State. It is his habit to
depreciate the honesty and judgment of the educated classes.




BEACONSFIELD KEEPS COOL.

=Source.=--Holland's _Life of the Duke of Devonshire_, i. 258.
(Longmans and Co.)


_Lord Beaconsfield to Mr. Gathorne Hardy._

It certainly is a relief that the drenching rhetoric has at length
ceased--but I have never read a word of it. "Satis eloquentiæ
sapientiæ parum."




THE MAIWAND DISASTER (1880).

=Source.=--_Parliamentary Publications_, "Afghanistan," C 2,736 of
1880, p. 3.


_Telegram from Viceroy, June 27, 1880, to Secretary of State._

Telegram from Thomson at Teheran says: Ayub Khan marching against
Candahar with large force. I think we should leave Shere Ali to
defend himself beyond the Helmund, but it seems to me, after
communicating with Stewart, that it would be inconsistent with
security of our military position at Candahar to allow hostile
forces to cross that river. I propose, therefore, to instruct
Primrose, if Ayub reaches Furrah, to advance towards Girishk with
sufficient force to prevent passage of Helmund....


_Telegram dated August 2, 1880, from Colonel St. John, Candahar, to
Foreign, Simla (p. 33)._

_29th._--Arrived here yesterday afternoon with General Burrows
and Nuttall and remnant of force. Telegraph has been interrupted
ever since my arrival. No chance of restoration, so send this
by messenger to Chaman. Burrows marched from Kushk-i-Nakhud on
morning 27th, having heard from me that Ayub's advanced guard had
occupied Maiwand, about three miles from the latter place. Enemy's
cavalry appeared advancing from direction of Haidrabad, their
camp on Helmund ten miles above Girishk. Artillery and cavalry
engaged them at 9 a.m., so shortly afterwards whole force of enemy
appeared, and formed line of battle--seven regiments, regulars in
centre, three others in reserve; about 2,000 cavalry on right;
400 mounted men and 2,000 Ghazis and irregular infantry on left;
other cavalry and irregulars in reserve; five or six batteries of
guns, including one of breechloaders, distributed at intervals.
Estimated total force, 12,000. Ground slightly undulating, enemy
being well posted. Till 1 p.m. action confined to artillery fire,
which so well sustained and directed by enemy that our superior
quality armament failed to compensate for inferior number of guns.
After development of rifle fire, our breechloaders told; but
vigorous advance of cavalry against our left, and Ghazis along the
front, caused native infantry to fall back in confusion on 66th,
abandoning two guns. Formation being lost, infantry retreated
slowly; and in spite of gallant efforts of General Burrows to rally
them, were cut off from cavalry and artillery. This was at 3 p.m.,
and followers and baggage were streaming away towards Candahar.
After severe fighting in enclosed ground, General Burrows succeeded
in extricating infantry and brought them into line of retreat.
Unfortunately no effort would turn fugitives from main road,
waterless at this season. Thus majority casualties appear to have
occurred from thirst and exhaustion. Enemy's pursuit continued to
ten miles from Candahar, but was not vigorous. Cavalry, artillery,
and a few infantry reached banks of Argandab, forty miles from
scene of action, at 7 a.m., many not having tasted water since
previous morning. Nearly all ammunition lost, with 400 Martini,
700 Sniders, and 2 nine-pounder guns. Estimated loss, killed,
and missing: 66th, 400; Grenadiers, 350; Jacob's Rifles, 350;
artillery, 40; sappers, 21; cavalry, 60.... Preparations being now
made for siege....


_Extract from General Burrows's Report on the Action (p. 101)._

... Between two and three o'clock the fire of the enemy's guns
slackened, and swarms of Ghazis advanced rapidly towards our
centre. Up to this time the casualties among the infantry had not
been heavy, and as the men were firing steadily, and the guns
were sweeping the ground with case shot, I felt confident as to
the result. But our fire failed to check the Ghazis; they came on
in overwhelming numbers, and, making good their rush, they seized
the two most advanced horse artillery guns. With the exception of
two companies of Jacob's Rifles, which had caused me great anxiety
by their unsteadiness early in the day, the conduct of the troops
had been splendid up to this point; but now, at the critical
moment, when a firm resistance might have achieved a victory, the
infantry gave way, and, commencing from the left, rolled up, like
a wave, to the right. After vainly endeavouring to rally them, I
went for the cavalry.... The 3rd Light Cavalry and the 3rd Sind
Horse were retiring slowly on our left, and I called upon them to
charge across our front and so give the infantry an opportunity
of reforming; but the terrible artillery fire to which they had
been exposed, and from which they had suffered so severely, had so
shaken them that General Nuttall was unable to give effect to my
order. All was now over....


_Extract from Report by Lieutenant-General Primrose, Commanding 1st
Division Southern Afghanistan Field Force (p. 156)._

I would most respectfully wish to bring to the Commander-in-Chief's
notice the gallant and determined stand made by the officers
and men of the 66th Regiment at Maiwand.... 10 officers and 275
non-commissioned officers and men were killed, and 2 officers and
30 non-commissioned officers and men wounded. These officers and
men nearly all fell fighting desperately for the honour of their
Queen and country. I have it on the authority of a Colonel of
Artillery of Ayub Khan's army that a party of the 66th Regiment,
which he estimated at one hundred officers and men, made a most
determined stand in a garden. They were surrounded by the whole
Afghan Army, and fought on until only eleven men were left,
inflicting enormous loss upon the enemy. These eleven charged out
of the garden, and died with their faces to the foe, fighting to
the death. Such was the nature of their charge and the grandeur
of their bearing that, although the whole of the Ghazis were
assembled around them, not one dared approach to cut them down.
Thus standing in the open, back to back, firing steadily and truly,
every shot telling, surrounded by thousands, these eleven officers
and men died; and it was not until the last man had been shot down
that the Ghazis dared advance upon them.




THE BRADLAUGH CASE (1880).

=Source.=--_The Times_, June 25.


We may regard the episode of Tuesday's resolution, and its natural
sequence in the imprisonment of Mr. Bradlaugh for defying the
authority of the House, as now at an end.... We regret unfeignedly,
as we have all along done, that Mr. Bradlaugh was not permitted to
make affirmation, instead of taking an oath, when he first asked
to be allowed to do so.... But opportunity of creating a precedent
consonant with reason and common sense has been let slip, and in
default of a reasonable precedent the only manly course now seems
to be to supply its place by fresh legislation. If the personal
question of Mr. Bradlaugh and his very unsavoury opinions can once
be got out of the way, there are probably very few members of the
House of Commons, and very few sensible Englishmen, however strong
their religious opinions, who would not acknowledge the anomaly,
the inexpediency, and the injustice of making the Parliamentary
oath of allegiance more stringent and more exclusive than the
existing statutory provisions for securing truth of testimony and
uprightness of conduct.




SOCIAL AMELIORATIONS (1880).

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY.

=Source.=--_The Times_, July 3.


The fact is that considerations of risk are not uniformly present
to servants when they are hired, and that the miner or railway
guard generally contracts on the assumption in his own mind
that he will be lucky, and will not be injured. The impulse to
such Bills as Mr. Brassey's, Earl De La Warr's, and the measure
introduced by the Government, is the inability of many people to
see any good reason why, if a master is liable for the acts of
his servant towards a stranger, he should be irresponsible when
someone, fully clothed with his authority, and acting with all his
power to enforce obedience, injures a so-called fellow-servant,
who, perhaps, did not know of the existence of this vice-principal,
and who never, in fact, consented to endure without complaint
what might befall him by reason of the negligence of the latter.
Perhaps in theory it is entirely wrong to make a master in any case
liable for the acts of his servants. It is hard to give any good
reason for this portion of our common law. Perhaps this species
of responsibility, when historically examined, will be proved to
be a shoot from the Roman law of master and slave, which has been
unintelligently grafted on a law governing the relations of men
who are free. It matters not, however, how employers came to incur
their present liability to strangers for the acts of their workmen.
The question is whether it is right or worth while retaining an
exception to the general law of master and servant. The question
has become one, not of principle, but of details.... The Government
Bill starts from the principle that workmen may claim redress when
they are injured in consequence of defective works or machinery,
or of the negligence of any person in the service of the employer,
who has superintendence entrusted to him.... It will be highly
expedient to endeavour to express more clearly a law which must
annually be set in motion in hundreds of cases.


FUNDED MUNICIPAL DEBT.

=Source.=--_The Times_, September 2.

A subject of great interest was discussed at yesterday's meeting of
the Liverpool City Council. In seconding a recommendation of the
Finance Committee that the settlement of the prospectus and terms
of issue of the first £2,000,000 of stock to be created under the
Liverpool Loans Act be referred to that Committee, Alderman A. B.
Forwood explained that the Bill had now passed both Houses.... It
had been a very difficult and intricate matter to get the Bill
through, because the Liverpool Corporation were the first in the
kingdom to obtain powers to fund their debt in the way proposed. He
believed that, when the new water scheme was passed, the new mode
of raising money would materially reduce the cost of money to the
town, and would effect the saving of £25,000 to £30,000 a year. The
stock would be put in exactly the same position as Consols.


ELECTRIC LIGHT, THE TELEPHONE, NEW HOTELS.

=Source.=--_The Times._

_January 5._--The last American mail has brought us interesting
details relating to the progress made in manipulating the electric
light. Pending the researches in which Professor Edison has for a
long time been engaged, it appears that his laboratory at Menlo
Park was practically closed to all strangers, until the young
scientist should have arrived at a point to enable him to declare
that complete success had attended his final efforts. That point
has apparently been reached.... The steadiness, reliability, and
non-fusibility of the carbon filament, Mr. Edison tells us, are not
the only elements incident to the new discovery. There is likewise
obtained an element of proper and uniform resistance to the passage
of the electric current.

_April 10._--Several chambers in the Temple will shortly possess
the advantage of having communication by telephone with the Law
Courts at Westminster and the Houses of Parliament. The telephonic
apparatus is at present being laid down between the Temple
Gardens and Westminster Hall, the Metropolitan District Railway
being utilized for the purpose. The apparatus, after having been
connected with several of the chambers and offices in the Temple,
enters the underground railway line, which it is carried along,
immediately under the crown of the railway arch.

_May 31._--That the Lord Mayor should in his official capacity
have lent his presence to the opening of the Grand Hotel at
Charing Cross, as he did on Saturday evening, implies that the new
undertaking possesses a more than private character. So, in fact,
it does. If it cannot be said altogether to open a new era in the
history of hotels in this country, it makes at least a distinct
advance in the character of English hotel accommodation.... The
distinctively English hotel is a dismal and cheerless place,
where one feels cut off from all human sympathy. Of late years
there has been a tendency in London to adopt Continental ways,
but the improvement has seldom been carried much further than the
establishment of a _table d'hôte_. The Grand Hotel is an ambitious
attempt to rival the best European and American models.




PARNELL AND THE LAND LEAGUE (1880).

=Source.=--_Freeman's Journal_, September 9 (Report of a speech by
Parnell at Ennis).


Depend upon it that the measure of the Land Bill of next session
will be the measure of your activity and energy this winter; it
will be the measure of your determination not to pay unjust rents;
it will be the measure of your determination to keep a firm grip of
your homesteads; it will be the measure of your determination not
to bid for farms from which others have been evicted, and to use
the strong force of public opinion to deter any unjust men among
yourselves--and there are many such--from bidding for such farms.
If you refuse to pay unjust rents, if you refuse to take farms from
which others have been evicted, the Land Question must be settled,
and settled in a way that will be satisfactory to you. It depends,
therefore, upon yourselves, and not upon any Commission or any
Government. When you have made this question ripe for settlement,
then, and not till then, will it be settled.... Now what are you
to do to a tenant who bids for a farm from which another tenant
has been evicted? [Several voices, "Shoot him!"] I think I heard
somebody say, "Shoot him!" I wish to point out to you a very much
better way--a more Christian and charitable way--which will give
the lost man an opportunity of repenting. When a man takes a farm
from which another has been unjustly evicted, you must show him on
the roadside when you meet him, you must show him in the streets
of the town, you must show him in the shop, you must show him in
the fair-green and in the market-place, and even in the place
of worship, by leaving him alone, by putting him into a moral
Coventry, by isolating him from the rest of his country as if he
were the leper of old--you must show him your detestation of the
crime he has committed.




CAPTAIN BOYCOTT (1880).

=Source.=--_The Times_, November 10.


Captain Boycott's case, from the time when attention was first
drawn to it, has inspired general and increasing interest, which
in the north of Ireland has taken the practical form of the relief
expedition despatched yesterday to the shores of Lough Mask. It
is well understood on both sides that the persecution of Captain
Boycott is only a typical instance of the system by which the
peasantry are attempting to carry into effect the instructions of
the Land League. Into the merits of Captain Boycott's relations
with the tenants on Lord Erne's estates it is quite unnecessary to
enter. He has been beleaguered in his house near Ballinrobe; he
is excluded from intercourse, not merely with the people around
him, but with the neighbouring towns; his crops are perishing,
because such is the organized intimidation in the district that
no labourers would dare to be seen working in his fields. It is
certain that any ordinary workman whom Captain Boycott might hire
would be subjected to brutal violence, as indeed has already
happened to servants and others who ventured even to fetch his
letters for him from the nearest post-office.




THE BOER RISING (1880).

=Source.=--_Parliamentary Papers_, "Transvaal," C 2,838 of 1881, p.
10.


_To the Administrator of the Transvaal._

EXCELLENCY,

In the name of the people of the South African Republic we come
to you to fulfil an earnest but unavoidable duty. We have the
honour to send you a copy of the Proclamation promulgated by the
Government and Volksraad, and universally published. The wish
of the people is clearly to be seen therefrom, and requires no
explanation from us. We declare in the most solemn manner that we
have no desire to spill blood, and that from our side we do not
wish war. It lies in your hands to force us to appeal to arms in
self-defence. Should it come so far, which may God prevent, we
will do so with the utmost reverence for Her Majesty the Queen
of England and her flag. Should it come so far, we will defend
ourselves with a knowledge that we are fighting for the honour of
Her Majesty, for we fight for the sanctity of treaties sworn by
Her, but broken by Her officers. However, the time for complaint
is past, and we wish now alone from your Excellency co-operation
for an amicable solution of the question on which we differ....
In 1877 our then Government gave up the keys of the Government
offices without bloodshed. We trust that your Excellency, as
representative of the noble British nation, will not less nobly and
in the same way place our Government in the position to assume the
administration.

  We have, etc.,

  S. J. P. KRUGER (_Vice-President_).
  M. W. PRETORIOUS.
  P. J. JOUBERT.
  (_Triumvirate_.)
  J. P. MARE.
  C. J. JOUBERT.
  E. J. P. JORISSEN.
  W. EDWARD BOK (_Acting State Secretary_).

  HEIDELBERG,
  _December 16, 1880_.


PROCLAMATION.

=Source.=--_Parliamentary Papers_, "Transvaal," C 2,838 of 1881, p.
11.

In the name of the people of the South African Republic. With
prayerful look to God we, S. J. P. Kruger, Vice-President, M. W.
Pretorious, and P. J. Joubert, appointed by the Volksraad in its
session of the 13th December, 1880, as the Triumvirate to carry on
temporarily the supreme administration of the Republic, make known:

       *       *       *       *       *

We thus give notice to everyone that on the 13th day of December of
the year 1880 the Government has been re-established; the Volksraad
has resumed its sitting....

And it is further generally made known that from this day the whole
country is placed in a state of siege and under the stipulations of
the War Ordinance....




BEFORE MAJUBA (1881).

=Source.=--_The Times_, January 17.


We give this morning an account from our correspondent at Pretoria
of the meeting held by the Boers last month for the purpose of
protesting against the annexation of the Transvaal. The report of
the proceedings leaves no doubt of the extent and nature of Boer
disaffection.... That the annexation of the Transvaal may have been
necessary when the step was taken may be admitted without prejudice
to the question whether its permanent occupation and administration
by British authority is desirable or not. When Sir Theophilus
Shepstone annexed the territory, the Government was disorganized,
the Treasury was bankrupt, the Republican troops were hopelessly
demoralized, and the whole district was threatened by two powerful
native chiefs, the weaker of whom had proved his superiority to
any force which the Boers could bring against him. Now Cetywayo
and Secocoeni are captives, and the whole border is tranquil. We
have done for the Boers what it is certain they could not have
done for themselves, and we have placed the security of the South
African Colonies beyond all reasonable fear. Hence it might be
argued that the reasons which compelled the temporary annexation of
the Transvaal are no longer applicable in favour of its permanent
occupation. It may be argued that we cannot recede where we have
once advanced; certainly we cannot, where we have good reason to
believe that our security requires that we should maintain our
hold. But when our presence is manifestly unwelcome, and when the
question of the best mode of guarding our security in future is
at least an open one, it would be a very contemptible piece of
national vanity to refuse to recede, simply because we had once
found it necessary to advance in very different circumstances.




AFTER MAJUBA.

I.

=Source.=--_Parliamentary Papers_, "Transvaal," C 2,998 of 1881.


_Convention for the Settlement of the Transvaal Territory, signed
at Pretoria, 1881._

PREAMBLE: Her Majesty's Commissioners for the settlement of the
Transvaal Territory, duly appointed as such by a Commission passed
under the Royal Sign Manual and Signet, bearing date the 5th of
April, 1881, do hereby undertake and guarantee on behalf of Her
Majesty that, from and after the 8th day of August, 1881, complete
self-government, subject to the suzerainty of Her Majesty, her
heirs and successors, will be accorded to the inhabitants of the
Transvaal upon the following terms and conditions, and subject to
the following reservations and limitations.


II.

=Source.=--_The Times_, August 5, 1881.

England can now have no desire to intrude herself upon the
Transvaal. The more completely its people can get on without
interference of any kind, the better pleased we shall be....
The occasion may come which will call for all the knowledge and
discretion which our Government will have at its command. The
Boers, if they are so disposed, may give trouble in a thousand
ways. The question may be continually arising whether the point
has yet been reached at which active interference is called for,
or whether it may be the prudent and better course to let things
be. The fact is that between England and the Transvaal there is
no natural connection whatever. The bond which unites them is an
artificial one, and though it is too early to anticipate the time
at which it will be severed, we are sure that at no time will it be
found strong enough to bear a violent strain. The strain may never
come. The Convention, which has been entered upon in due form,
and with all solemnity, may remain to all intents and purposes a
dead letter as to the chief part of its provisions, and may thus
pass quietly into the great limbo to which all monstrous political
births must some day come. It will be by the fault of the Boers
that we can be driven to put an active interpretation upon it. It
contains terms which we cannot suffer to be disregarded.




RITUAL CONTROVERSY (1881).

=Source.=--_The Times_, January 12.


_Extract from a Memorial to the Archbishop of Canterbury, signed by
various Deans, Canons, etc._

... The immediate need of our Church is, in our opinion, a tolerant
recognition of divergent ritual practice; but we feel bound to
submit to your Grace that our present troubles are likely to recur,
unless the Courts by which ecclesiastical causes are decided in the
first instance and on appeal can be so constructed as to secure the
conscientious obedience of clergymen who believe the constitution
of the Church of Christ to be of Divine appointment, and who
protest against the State's encroachment upon Rights assured to the
Church of England by solemn Acts of Parliament....




A SHORT WAY WITH OBSTRUCTION (1881).

=Source.=--_The Times_, February 3.


About nine o'clock in the morning Mr. Gladstone, Mr. W. E.
Forster, Mr. Dodson, Sir Stafford Northcote, and Sir R. Cross
entered the House amid cheers. While Mr. Biggar was continuing his
observations on the Land League the Speaker resumed the Chair amid
loud cheering. The Speaker, without calling on the hon. member to
proceed with his remarks, at once said: "The motion for leave to
bring in the Person and Property Protection (Ireland) Bill has now
been under discussion for five days. The present sitting, having
commenced on Monday last, has continued till Wednesday morning,
a period of no less than forty-one hours, the House having been
occupied with discussions upon repeated motions for adjournment.
However tedious these discussions were, they were carried to a
division by small minorities in opposition to the general sense
of the House. A necessity has thus arisen which demands the
interposition of the Chair (cheers). The usual rule has been
proved powerless to insure orderly debate. An important measure,
recommended in Her Majesty's Speech, and declared to be urgent in
the interests of the State by a decisive majority, has been impeded
by the action of an inconsiderable minority of members who have
resorted to those modes of obstruction which have been recognized
by the House as a Parliamentary offence. The credit and authority
of this House are seriously threatened, and it is necessary they
should be vindicated. Under the operation of the accustomed rules
and methods of procedure the legislative powers of the House are
paralyzed. A new and exceptional course is imperatively demanded,
and I am satisfied that I shall best carry out the wish of the
House if I decline to call upon any more members to speak, and at
once put the question to the House."

The Speaker then put the question, when there appeared--

  For the amendment      19
  Against               164

The Speaker then put the main question, that leave be given to
bring in the Bill, when Mr. J. McCarthy rose to speak, but the
Speaker declined to hear him, and there were loud cries of "Order"
on the Ministerial side of the House. The Home Rulers stood up, and
for some time, with raised hand, shouted, "Privilege!" and then,
having bowed to the Chair, left the House.




THE DEATH OF BEACONSFIELD (1881).

I.

=Source.=--_The Times_, April 20.


The end really corresponded to the beginning, and both were alike
exceptional.... It must have been an ideal and living world that
home life introduced Benjamin Disraeli to. It was in this that
he acquired his repertory of parts and character; his caps fit
for wearers; his motley for those it suited; his titles of little
honour; his stage tricks and artifices; his gibes and jests that
Yorick might have overflowed with in the spirit of his age; and his
unfailing consciousness of a knowledge and power ever sufficient
for the occasion.... The new deliverer of the Conservatives
presented himself as a magician, master of many spells, charged
with all the secrets of the political creation, ready to control
the winds and the tides of opinion and faction, sounding the very
depths of political possibility, and with a touch of his wand
able to leave a mark on any foe or wanton intruder. The plea
was necessity. Fortunately for Lord Beaconsfield, the age of
consistency is no more. Sir Robert Peel destroyed that idol, and in
doing so sacrificed himself. Lord Beaconsfield advanced to power
over his body.


II.

=Source.=--_The Times_, April 22, 1881.

It is finely said by Bacon of death that "it openeth the gate
to good fame and extinguisheth envy...." It is singularly true
of Lord Beaconsfield, whose fate it was to interest all men, to
puzzle most, and to provoke the antagonism of many. Certainly
no English statesman, since the death of Lord Palmerston, has
occupied so prominent a position or excited so deep an interest
on the Continent of Europe. His secret lay perhaps in the
magnetic influence of a dauntless will, in his unrivalled powers
of patience, in his impenetrable reserve and detachment. If we
compare the beginning of his political life with its close, and
note how its unchastened audacity was gradually toned down into
the coolest determination and the most dispassionate tenacity, we
shall see how the magnificent victory he achieved over himself gave
him power to govern others, to withstand their opposition, and to
bend their wills to his own. This is what Continental observers
saw in him--unrivalled strength of will and dauntless tenacity of
purpose--and this is why they admired him. The sense of mystery
engendered the sense of power, and foreigners freely admired where
Englishmen were often puzzled and at times almost bewildered.




THE WITHDRAWAL FROM CANDAHAR (1881).

=Source.=--_Hansard_, Third Series, vol. 259, C 49-74 (House of
Lords debate on the withdrawal from Candahar, March 3, 1881).


THE EARL OF LYTTON: ... And now, my Lords, allow me to recapitulate
the conclusions which appear to me established by the facts to
which I have solicited your attention. On the strength of these
facts I affirm once more that Russian influence at Cabul did
not commence with the Stolieteff mission, and that it did not
cease with the withdrawal of that mission. I affirm that for
all practical purposes the Ameer of Cabul had ceased to be the
friend and ally of England, and that he had virtually become the
friend and ally of Russia at least three years before I had any
dealings with His Highness, or any connection with the government
of India. I affirm that the sole cause of the late Afghan war was
a Russian intrigue of long duration, for purposes which it was
the imperative duty of the Government of India to oppose at any
cost. And, finally, I affirm that the establishment of Russian
influence was caused by the collapse and paralysis of British
influence at Cabul, and that this was the natural result of the
deplorable policy to which Her Majesty's Government are now so
eagerly reverting.... Surely, my Lords, prevention is better than
cure. Surely it is wiser and safer to stay at Candahar, whence we
can exclude Russian influence from Herat by peaceably extending our
own influence in that direction, than to retire to the Indus, and
there passively await an event which is to involve us in a great
European war, for the purpose of undoing what could not otherwise
have been done in a remote corner of Asia. The noble Duke, the
Lord Privy Seal, has expressed his astonishment at the prodigious
importance I now attach to the retention of Candahar, because,
he says, I did not hold that opinion till a late period of my
Viceroyalty. That is true--I did not. But in the statement which
elicited this remark I thought I had explained the reason why. I
can sincerely assure your Lordships that the late Government of
India was not an annexationist Government. As long as we had any
reasonable hope of loyalty on the part of Yakub Khan, or of the
observance of the Gandamak Treaty, which gave us moral guarantees
of adequate control over Afghanistan, our wish was not to weaken
but to strengthen the Cabul Power. But the whole situation, and
our duty concerning it, were changed irrevocably by the atrocious
crime which compelled us to occupy Cabul, and by the revelations
discovered at Cabul, and now known to your Lordships, of the
extent to which Russian influence had penetrated to the very heart
of the country. My Lords, it then seemed to my colleagues in the
Government of India, and it still seems to me, that the only
practical means of counteracting the dangerous Russian influence
at Cabul would be to assume ourselves over Western Afghanistan a
controlling and commanding position, not dependent on the good or
bad faith of any Cabul ruler. Such control can only be exercised
from Candahar. The history of the last eight years clearly shows,
not merely that the Russian Power is approaching, and must
approach, towards India, but that Russia has long sought, is still
seeking, and will continue to seek, great political influence
over Afghanistan; that this influence has already found a fulcrum
at Cabul, and that it must be a permanent source of disquiet to
the Government of India, whenever she wishes to embarrass British
policy in Europe. Therefore, for the safety of the British Power in
India, it is indispensable that the Government of India shall have
the means of preventing--at all events, of counteracting--Russian
influence in Afghanistan. It is absurd to suppose that you can have
any controlling power over a country in which you have no _locus
standi_ at all. Now amongst the arrangements contemplated by Her
Majesty's Government after the evacuation of Candahar, where do
they expect to find a _locus standi_ in Afghanistan? I do not see
where.... Great as are the undisputed strategical advantages of
Candahar, the late Government of India did not regard the retention
of it primarily, or mainly, as a military question. We felt that
it would give us a political and commercial control over Western
Afghanistan up to Herat so complete that we might contemplate
with unconcern the course of events at Cabul. If you retain
Candahar, and hold it firmly and fearlessly, then you may view with
indifference the uncertain faith and fate of Cabul rulers, and
the certain advance of the Russian Power. If you retain Candahar,
and administer it wisely, you will replace anarchy and bloodshed
and difficulty and uncertainty on your own border by peace and
prosperity; and if you connect Candahar by rail with the Valley of
the Indus, you will be able to sweep the whole commerce of Central
Asia, vastly augmented by the beneficent protection of a strong, a
settled, and a civilized Government, into the harbours of Kurrachee
and Calcutta, and thence into the ports of Liverpool and London.
But, my Lords, you cannot do all this unless you retain a garrison
in Candahar.... If you accept the conclusion admitted by the noble
Duke, and affirmed by every Indian statesman, that Afghanistan must
on no account be permitted to remain under the forbidden influence
of Russia, then, my Lords, for the enforcement of that conclusion
you must choose between the retention of Candahar and reliance on
the instructions said to have been issued to General Kauffman "not
to do it again." There is no alternative. To talk about developing
the internal resources of India is nothing to the point. There
is no reason why the continued development of India's internal
resources should not proceed _pari passu_ with the consolidation of
her external securities. But do not fatten the lamb only to feed
the wolf. My Lords, all those whose privilege it is to build up
the noble edifice of India's prosperity must be content to labour
like the builders of the second Temple--working with one hand, but
holding the sword in the other to defend their work.




THE SALVATION ARMY (1881).

=Source.=--_The Times_, October 13.


For two years, or thereabouts, our towns have had frequent
opportunities of witnessing an exhibition not to everybody's taste.
The "Salvation Army," as far as it can be known to the uninitiated,
consists of bands of men marching through the streets, generally
towards "church time," with banners, devices, and sometimes
emblematic helmets and other accoutrements, singing sensational
hymns. Most people are ready to leave it alone. But there remain
the irrepressible "roughs." It is with them that the "Salvation
Army" is now waging its only physical warfare. English people
generally would leave it to the test of time.... We must beware how
we quarrel with those who honestly believe there is a great work
to be done. If we do not like these singular modes of propagandism
and conversion, we need not assist the "roughs" to put them down.
Another course lies before us all. It is to do the work in a better
way.




ARABI (1881).

=Source.=--_The Times_, December 21.


_Extract from a letter by Sir William Gregory._

... I called at Arabi Bey's house by appointment, and was very
courteously received by a tall, athletic, soldier-like man. His
countenance is peculiarly grave, and even stern, with much power
in it. It is at first sight somewhat heavy, until he is aroused,
when his eyes light up and he speaks with great energy.... He
said that he looked on the Sultan as his lord--as the head of his
religion--and that he was bound to do so; that the dominions of the
Sultan were like a great palace, in which the different nations
had each one its own chamber, suited to its wants, and arranged
according to its own manner; that to introduce other persons into
those chambers would be to upset the arrangements, to annoy and
dispossess the occupants, and to do an unjust act; and he was
therefore most decidedly opposed to any interference on the part
of the Sultan in the government of Egypt, and every opposition
would be given to the introduction of Turkish troops. Secondly, as
regards the religious question, nothing could be more untrue than
the allegations that he and those who went with him were in favour
of any intolerant movement.... The next point was the accusation
that he was aiming at establishing a military supremacy. This he
denied, saying that an army has no right to be supreme in time of
peace ... but it was obliged to take the lead in getting rid of
abuses and establishing justice. Lastly, as to his desire to remove
European officials from the country, he said he had no idea or wish
to remove the Control to which his countrymen were indebted for
the Justice which the cultivators now enjoy, at all events for the
present, until Egypt knew how to govern herself, and could stand
alone; but he spoke with the greatest bitterness of the manner in
which his countrymen were ousted from every superior position in
every department.... I next asked him if the opinion were prevalent
that England desired to occupy Egypt. He said that he himself
did not believe it. Egypt was looked upon as the centre of the
Mohammedan world, and in every country where there was a Mussulman
community there would be deep-seated indignation were she to be
annexed, and probably the loss of India would be ultimately the
consequence. Egypt, if left alone, would always protect the passage
to India, which he knew to be our great object.

  CAIRO,
  _December 11_.




THE FIRST CLOSURE (1882).

=Source.=--_Hansard_, Third Series, vol. 266, col. 1,124, February
20, 1882.


Ordered: That, when it shall appear to Mr. Speaker or to the
Chairman of Committee of the whole House, during any debate, to
be the evident sense of the House or of the Committee, that the
Question be now put, he may so inform the House or the Committee;
and, if a motion be made, "That the Question be now put," Mr.
Speaker, or the Chairman, shall forthwith put such question; and,
if the same be decided in the affirmative, the Question under
discussion shall be put forthwith; provided that the Question shall
not be decided in the affirmative, if a division be taken, unless
it shall appear to have been supported by more than 200 members, or
to have been opposed by less than 40 members.




BIMETALLISM (1882).

=Source.=--_The Times_, March 11.


A meeting convened by the Council of the International Monetary
Standard Association was held in the Egyptian Hall of the Mansion
House.

Mr. Grenfell, Governor of the Bank of England, said ... he presumed
that all present knew that the standard of this country was a
monometallic gold standard, and that it was introduced by that
great statesman Sir Robert Peel; but it was not so generally
known, and it was somewhat singular, that when Sir R. Peel brought
forward the measure for the resumption of cash payments, and for
the institution of a monometallic gold standard, he appealed to
the House of Commons, by all the wish they had to act with good
faith towards their creditors, that they should return to the
ancient standard of the realm. He presumed that Sir R. Peel meant
that the ancient standard of the realm was a gold standard; but it
was not a monometallic standard at all. The ancient standard of
the realm was a bimetallic standard, and although there had been
a monometallic standard before, it was never a gold standard....
What were the events that had occurred since Sir R. Peel's death?
They were entirely new. The first event was the calling together
of a conference in Paris in 1868, for the purpose of attempting
to govern the coinage of all nations, and unfortunately that
conference came to the conclusion that the best of all standards
was a monometallic gold standard. Very shortly afterwards there
came the Franco-German War, and when a large quantity of the
gold of France passed into the hands of Germany, that Government
decided to make a gold standard. Scarcely had that been done, when
the evil arising from the great monetary revolution began to be
shown.... Had they calculated what the cost of the demonetization
of Germany was? The amount the German Government coined was
87,000,000 sterling of gold, which, according to the average for
the last twenty years, was equal to 3.3 years of the whole world's
production of gold. Besides that, Germany sold 28,000,000 sterling
of silver, which was equal to more than two years' production of
the whole world of that metal. What did they think, supposing the
Latin Union, our Indian Empire, and the United States were to
resort to some such measure as Germany did?




BRIGHT'S RESIGNATION (1882).

=Source.=--_Hansard_, Third Series, vol. 272, col. 724, July 17,
1882.


_A Gladstonian Fine Distinction._

MR. GLADSTONE: ... This is not an occasion for arguing the question
of the differences that have unhappily arisen between my right hon.
friend and those who were, and rejoiced to be, his colleagues. But
I venture to assure him that I agree with him in thinking that
the moral law is as applicable to the conduct of nations as of
individuals, and that the difference between us, most painful to
him and most painful to us, is a difference as to the particular
application in this particular case of the Divine law.




THE ILBERT BILL (1883).

=Source.=--_The Times_, March 5.


Four weeks have elapsed since we first called attention to
the disapprobation and discontent excited among the English
residents in India by the Bill for subjecting them to the criminal
jurisdiction of native judges and magistrates. The measure,
of which we then pointed out the dangers, has since assumed a
portentous importance. The whole non-official European community
has been convulsed by it.... As for the asserted symmetry which is
to follow from it, and the asserted inequalities which it is to
remove, it will not, and cannot, do what it has been credited with
doing. It removes one inequality while it leaves a dozen others
untouched, and the inequality which it does remove is just that
which is most clearly justifiable. It is a pandering, we will not
say to native opinion, for no such opinion has been formed for it,
but to the noisily expressed views of the native Press, and of
one or two native civil servants, who are anxious to exercise the
powers which the Bill confers, and who are on that very account
so much the less fit to be trusted with them.... The Bill may be
unimportant in itself, but it is one among many signs of the new
ideas and new principles upon which the Government of India is to
be conducted, ideas and principles which are utterly at variance
with those by which our position in the country has been gained and
held.




FENIANS AGAIN (1883).

=Source.=--_The Times_, March 16.


A terrific explosion occurred last night at the offices of the
Local Government Board, Parliament Street, Westminster. The report
was heard about half a minute after nine o'clock in the House of
Commons. So great was the force of the explosion that the floor
of the House and the galleries shook. At the time there was but a
thin attendance of members, it being the dinner hour. The Duke
of Edinburgh was in the Peers' Gallery, and he turned round at
once and spoke to Sir Henry Fletcher, who was sitting near him.
The Speaker rang his bell, and inquired the cause of the alarm....
The explosion occurred in the ground floor of the Local Government
Board, smashing the stonework into splinters, and breaking into
fragments the windows, portions of which lay strewn in the
surrounding streets. Alarmed crowds gathered.




THE MAHDI (1883).

=Source.=--Sir Reginald Wingate's _Mahdiism and the Egyptian
Soudan_, pp. 2, 5, 12-14. (Macmillans.)


Mahdiism, with which we have to deal, has two sides to it. There
is the Mahdi, whose coming is looked forward to by good Sunnis
as the advent of the Messiah is expected by the Jews. And there
is the Mahdi who disappeared, and may appear miraculously at
any moment to good Shias.... Mohammed Ahmed of Dongola took up
Mahdiism from the Shia's point of view.... His movement was, in
the first place, a religious movement--the superior enthusiasm,
eloquence, and dramatic knowledge of one priest over his fellows.
It was recruited by a desire, widespread among the villagers,
and especially among the superstitious masses of Kordofan, for
revenge for the cruelties and injustice of the Egyptians and
Bashi-Bazuks. It swept into force on the withdrawal of all
semblance of government, the sole element opposed to it, and it
became a tool for the imperious and warlike Baggara, and enabled
them to usurp the vacant throne. Religion has thus knit together
the different races, each with their own grievance, and summoned
them to the banner of emirs in search of power and the right to
trade in slaves.... There is no doubt that, until he was ruined by
unbridled sensuality, this man [Mohammed Ahmed] had the strongest
head and the clearest mental vision of any man in the two million
square miles of which he more or less made himself master before
he died; and it is a matter of regret that more cannot be learnt
of his early youth than what follows. Born at Dongola in 1848, of
a family of excellent boat-builders, whose boats are to this day
renowned for sound construction, he was early recognized by his
family as the clever one, and, so to speak, went into the Church.
At twenty-two he was already a sheikh with a great reputation
for sanctity, and his preaching was renowned far and wide. Men
wept and beat their breasts at his moving words; even his brother
fikis could not conceal their admiration. The first steps of the
Mahdi in his career are of genuine interest. Tall, rather slight,
of youthful build, and, like many Danagla, with large eyes and
pleasing features, Mohammed Ahmed bore externally all the marks
of a well-bred gentleman. He moved about with quiet dignity of
manner, but there was nothing unusual about him until he commenced
to preach. Then, indeed, one understood the power within him which
men obeyed. With rapid earnest words he stirred their hearts, and
bowed their heads like corn beneath the storm. And what a theme was
his! No orator in France in 1792 could speak of oppression that
here in the Soudan was not doubled. What need of description when
he could use denunciation; when he could stretch forth his long
arm and point to the tax-gatherer who twice, three times, and yet
again, carried off the last goat, the last bundle of dhurra straw,
from yon miserable man listening with intent eyes! And then he
urges in warning tones what Whitfield, Wesley, have urged before
him, that all this misery, all this oppression, is God's anger at
the people's wickedness. That since the Prophet left the earth
the world has all fallen into sin and neglect. But now a time was
at hand when all this should have an end. The Lord would send a
deliverer who should sweep away the veil before their eyes, clear
the madness from the brain, the hideous dream would be broken
for ever, and, strong in the faith of their divine leader, these
new-made men, with clear-seeing vision and well-laid plans before
them, should go forth and possess the land. The cursed tax-gatherer
should be driven into holes and caves, the bribe-taking official
hunted from off the field he had usurped, and the Turk should be
thrown to jabber his delirium on his own dunghill. With the coming
of the Mahdi the right should triumph, and all oppression should
have an end. When would this Mahdi come? What wonder that every
hut and every thicket echoed the longing for the promised Saviour!
The hot wind roamed from desert to plain of withered grass, from
mountain range to sandy valley, and whispered "Mahdi" as it blew;
all nature joined; how childish, yet how effective. The women found
the eggs inscribed with "Jesus," "Mohammed," and the "Mahdi." The
very leaves rustled down to the ground, and in their fall received
the imprint of the sacred names. The land was sown with fikis, many
of them past masters in the art of swaying a crowd. They came and
listened, and soon they recognized that they had found their master
here. The leaven worked rapidly among them, until one evening at
Abba Island, a hundred and fifty miles south of Khartoum, there
came a band of self-reliant men who heard the stirring words, and
saw the tall, slight, earnest figure. They said, "You are our
promised leader," and in solemn secrecy he said, "I am the Mahdi."


[Note.--Mahdi signifies "the guided" in the hadaya or true way of
salvation, hence "the guide." In the tenets of all sects of the
Moslems there is an intimate connection between the Mahdi and Jesus
Christ.]




END OF CAREY THE INFORMER (1883).

=Source.=--_The Times_, July 31.


James Carey has not long escaped those who, it was well known,
had resolved to slay him at the first opportunity. According to
telegrams received from Durban and Cape Town he was shot dead
on Sunday, on board the liner _Melrose_, by an Irishman named
O'Donnell. The vessel had got into harbour at Port Elizabeth, and
was discharging her passengers and cargo, when Carey was shot.
Fully warned of the intention to murder him, the authorities at
Dublin had taken pains to conceal his movements. When he quitted
Kilmainham, it was stated that he had resolved to brave the worst,
and settle down in Dublin to his old occupations. Then it was said
that he had been seen in London. According to another account he
had sailed for Canada, and had actually landed at Montreal under
the escort of two detectives. If these tales were circulated with
the hope of putting the Invincibles on a false scent, they signally
failed. His enemies were too astute to be deceived by pious
frauds. Carey's death is a public misfortune. He had indeed been a
principal in a cruel and barbarous murder. He behaved with supreme
callousness and repulsive levity throughout the trials; and he was
in every way one of the worst specimens of a bad type. But he was
the instrument by which the Phœnix Park murderers were brought
to justice, and it would have been well had he lived to defy the
machinations of the Invincibles. But this misfortune is only a
consequence of facts which, as a rule, serve as a safeguard and
protection to society. Gibbon has forcibly described the unhappy
condition of the wretch who tried to flee from the power of a Roman
Emperor. There was no escape from it: he confronted it wherever he
fled. No better are the chances of flight of one who, in these days
of publicity, of photographs and illustrated newspapers, tries to
hide himself from the gaze of those who know him. All this told
against Carey's chances of escape. He had made himself the object
of bitter hatred of secret societies, which have ramifications
through many parts of the world. During the long trials at Dublin,
portraits of him in all attitudes were published. His very marked
features became familiar to everyone. Disguise himself as he
might--and it is stated that when he was shot he was disguised--he
could not help being recognized wherever he went.




SLAUGHTER OF HICKS PASHA'S ARMY (1883).

=Source.=--Sir Reginald Wingate's _Mahdiism and the Egyptian
Soudan_, pp. 85, 88-90. (Macmillans.)


Mohammed Ahmed, on hearing of the departure of the army of Hicks
Pasha from Khartoum, sent spies to watch their movements, and
on learning that the latter had arrived at Duem, and intended
advancing on El Obeid, he sent a force of 3,000 men under the emir
Abd el Halim and Abu Girgeh to follow in rear of the Egyptian army
and close up the wells as they advanced, so that retreat would be
impossible. Abd el Halim, on arrival at Rahad, at once rode off
to El Obeid and personally informed the Mahdi of the strength and
probable movements of the Egyptian force. On receipt of this news
Mohammed Ahmed forthwith despatched all his fighting men towards
Rahad to join Abd el Halim's force, but on their way they met Abd
el Halim retiring from Alluba, and, having joined him, the whole
force, amounting to some 40,000, encamped in the forest of Shekan,
and there awaited the advance of the Egyptian troops.... At 10 a.m.
on Monday morning, November 5, the troops marched out of the zariba
and formed up in three squares, the whole formation resembling a
triangle. Each square had its own transport and ammunition in the
centre. Hicks Pasha with his staff led the way, followed by four
guns of the artillery, then the first square, which was supported
to the right and left rear by the other two squares, some 300 yards
distant from the square and from each other. Ala ed Din Pasha
commanded the right square and Selim Bey the left. The exposed
flanks of the squares were covered by cavalry, and a detachment
of horsemen brought up the rear. In this formation the troops
steadily advanced, and half an hour later reached a fairly open
valley, interspersed here and there with bush, while on either
side were thick woods full of the enemy.... Now all was ready, and
Mohammed Ahmed patiently awaited the arrival of the troops, which
could already be seen advancing in the distance. He assembled
his emirs for the last final instructions, and, rising from his
prayer, drew his sword, shouted three times, "Allahu akbar! You
need not fear, for the victory is ours." On came the squares.
The first had reached the wooded depression, when up sprang the
Arabs with their fierce yells. Startled and surprised, the square
was broken in a moment. The flanking squares now fired wildly at
the Arabs fighting hand to hand with the Egyptians, and in their
efforts must have killed numbers of their own comrades. But almost
at the same instant the Arabs simultaneously attacked from the
woods on both sides and from front and rear. The wildest confusion
followed; squares fired on each other, on friends or enemies.
While the surging mass of Arabs now completely encircled the force
and gradually closed in on them, a massacre of the most appalling
description took place. In little over quarter of an hour all was
over. Hicks Pasha with his staff, seeing that he could do nothing,
cut his way through on the left and reached some cultivated ground.
Here he was surrounded by some Baggara horsemen, and for a time
kept them at bay, fighting most gallantly till his revolver was
empty, and then committing most terrible execution with his sword.
He was the last of the Europeans to fall, and one savage charge
he made on his assailants is memorable to this day in the Soudan,
and a body of Baggara who fled before him were called by their
tribesmen "Baggar Hicks," or the cows driven by Hicks. But at last
he fell, pierced by the spear of the Khalifa Mohammed Sherif. His
cavalry bodyguard fought gallantly, and though repeatedly called
on to surrender replied, "We shall never surrender, but will die
like our officers, and kill many of you as well." And soon all were
killed. Ala ed Din Pasha was killed trying to make his way from the
right square to join Hicks Pasha. Genawi Bey lay dead in the square
beside his horse. It is said that as he fell mortally wounded he,
with his own sword, hamstrung his horse, saying, "No other shall
ever ride on you after me." The whole force, with the exception of
some 300 men, and most of these wounded, had now been completely
annihilated.... The news of the Mahdi's victory spread far and
wide, and if there had been some doubts previous to what was now
termed a miracle, the complete annihilation of a whole army soon
dispelled them, and from the Red Sea to the confines of Waddai the
belief was universal that at last the true Mahdi had appeared.


[NOTE.--Sir R. Wingate's account is quoted from two sources--one,
Mohammed Nur el Barudi, who was cook to Hicks Pasha, and was one
of the wounded prisoners after the battle; and the other, Hassan
Habashi, a former Government official at El Obeid, who had fallen
into the Mahdi's hands on the capture of that place. Hence the
story is complete on both sides.]




TRANSVAAL CONVENTION (1884).

=Source.=--_Parliamentary Papers_, "Transvaal," C 3,947 of 1884, p.
47.


_A Convention between Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Ireland, and the South African Republic._

Whereas the Government of the Transvaal State, through its
delegates, consisting of Stephanus Johannes Paulus Kruger,
President of the said State, Stephanus Jacobus Du Toit,
Superintendent of Education, and Nicholas Jacobus Smit, a member
of the Volksraad, have represented that the Convention signed at
Pretoria on the 13th day of August, 1881, and ratified by the
Volksraad of the said State on the 25th October, 1881, contains
certain provisions which are inconvenient, and imposes burdens
and obligations from which the said State is desirous to be
relieved, and that the south-western boundaries fixed by the said
Convention should be amended, with a view to promote the peace
and good order of the said State and of the countries adjacent
thereto; and whereas Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Ireland has been pleased to take the said
representations into consideration.

Now, therefore, Her Majesty has been pleased to direct, and it is
hereby declared, that the following articles of a new Convention,
signed on behalf of Her Majesty by Her Majesty's High Commissioner
in South Africa, the Right Honourable Sir Hercules George Herbert
Robinson, Knight Grand Cross of the most distinguished Order
of St. Michael and St. George, Governor of the Colony of the
Cape of Good Hope, and on behalf of the Transvaal State (which
shall hereinafter be called the South African Republic) by the
above-named delegates, Stephanus Johannes Paulus Kruger, Stephanus
Jacobus Du Toit, and Nicholas Jacobus Smit, shall, when ratified
by the Volksraad of the South African Republic, be substituted for
the articles embodied in the Convention of 3rd August, 1881; which
latter, pending such ratification, shall continue in full force and
effect.


[NOTE.--The word "Preamble" is not prefixed to the opening passage
of this Convention. When the suzerainty question arose in 1898 the
British argument was that the 1884 Convention only altered the
articles of the 1881 Convention, and left the Preamble in force;
the Boer argument was that the 1884 Convention had a preamble, and
therefore the earlier one must have been superseded.]




GORDON'S MISSION TO KHARTOUM (1884).

I.

=Source.=--_Parliamentary Papers_, "Egypt," No. 2 of 1884, C 3,845.


_P. 2. The Cabinet's Instructions to General Gordon._

Her Majesty's Government are desirous that you should proceed at
once to Egypt, to report to them on the military situation in the
Soudan, and on the measures which it may be advisable to take for
the security of the Egyptian garrisons still holding positions in
that country, and for the safety of the European population in
Khartoum. You are also desired to consider and report upon the best
mode of effecting the evacuation of the interior of the Soudan,
and upon the manner in which the safety and good administration by
the Egyptian Government of the ports on the sea coast can best be
secured. In connection with this subject, you should pay especial
consideration to the question of the steps that may usefully be
taken to counteract the stimulus which it is feared may possibly be
given to the Slave Trade by the present insurrectionary movement
and by the withdrawal of the Egyptian authority from the interior.


II.

=Source.=--_Parliamentary Papers_, "Egypt," No. 6 of 1884, C 3,878.

_Further Instructions by the Egyptian Government._

I have now to indicate to you the views of the Egyptian Government
on two of the points to which your special attention was directed
by Lord Granville. These are (1) the measures which it may be
advisable to take for the security of the Egyptian garrisons
still holding positions in the Soudan, and for the safety of the
European population in Khartoum. (2) The best mode of effecting
the evacuation of the interior of the Soudan. These two points are
intimately connected, and may conveniently be considered together.
It is believed that the number of Europeans at Khartoum is very
small, but it has been estimated by the local authorities that some
10,000 to 15,000 people will wish to move northwards from Khartoum
only when the Egyptian garrison is withdrawn. These people are
native Christians, Egyptian employés, their wives and children,
etc. The Government of His Highness the Khedive is earnestly
solicitous that no effort should be spared to insure the retreat
both of these people and of the Egyptian garrison without loss of
life. As regards the most opportune time and the best method for
effecting the retreat, whether of the garrisons or of the civil
populations, it is neither necessary nor desirable that you should
receive detailed instructions.... You will bear in mind that the
main end to be pursued is the evacuation of the Soudan. This
policy was adopted, after very full discussion, by the Egyptian
Government, on the advice of Her Majesty's Government. It meets
with the full approval of His Highness the Khedive, and of the
present Egyptian Ministry. I understand, also, that you entirely
concur in the desirability of adopting this policy, and that you
think it should on no account be changed. You consider that it may
take a few months to carry it out with safety. You are further of
opinion that "the restoration of the country should be made to the
different petty Sultans who existed at the time of Mehemet Ali's
conquest, and whose families still exist"; and that an endeavour
should be made to form a confederation of those Sultans. In this
view the Egyptian Government entirely concur. It will, of course,
be fully understood that the Egyptian troops are not to be kept in
the Soudan merely with a view to consolidating the power of the new
rulers of the country. But the Egyptian Government has the fullest
confidence in your judgment, your knowledge of the country, and in
your comprehension of the general line of policy to be pursued. You
are, therefore, given full discretionary power to retain the troops
for such reasonable period as you may think necessary, in order
that the abandonment of the country may be accomplished with the
least possible risk to life and property.

Sir E. Baring, in forwarding the copy of the instructions to Lord
Granville, wrote:

I read the draft of the letter over to General Gordon. He expressed
to me his entire concurrence in the instructions. The only
suggestion he made was in connection with the passage in which,
speaking of the policy of abandoning the Soudan, I had said, "I
understand also that you entirely concur in the desirability of
adopting this policy." General Gordon wished that I should add the
words, "and that you think it should on no account be changed."
These words were accordingly added.


III.

=Source.=--Lord Cromer's _Modern Egypt_, vol. i., p. 428.
(Macmillans.)

Looking back at what occurred after a space of many years, two
points are to my mind clear. The first is that no Englishman should
have been sent to Khartoum. The second is that, if anyone had to be
sent, General Gordon was not the right man to send. The reasons why
no Englishman should have been sent are now sufficiently obvious.
If he were beleaguered at Khartoum, the British Government might be
obliged to send an expedition to relieve him. The main object of
British policy was to avoid being drawn into military operations
in the Soudan. The employment of a British official at Khartoum
involved a serious risk that it would be no longer possible to
adhere to this policy, and the risk was materially increased when
the individual chosen to go to the Soudan was one who had attracted
to himself a greater degree of popular sympathy than almost any
Englishman of modern times.




DIFFICULTIES OF GORDON'S CHARACTER (1884).

I.

=Source.=--Lord Cromer's _Modern Egypt_, vol. i., p. 432.
(Macmillans.)


I must, for the elucidation of this narrative, state why I think
it was a mistake to send General Gordon to Khartoum. "It is
impossible," I wrote privately to Lord Granville on January 28,
1884, "not to be charmed by the simplicity and honesty of Gordon's
character." "My only fear," I added, "is that he is terribly
flighty and changes his opinions very rapidly...." Impulsive
flightiness was, in fact, the main defect of General Gordon's
character, and it was one which, in my opinion, rendered him unfit
to carry out a work which pre-eminently required a cool and steady
head. I used to receive some twenty or thirty telegrams from
General Gordon in the course of the day when he was at Khartoum,
those in the evening often giving opinions which it was impossible
to reconcile with others despatched the same morning. Scarcely,
indeed, had General Gordon started on his mission, when Lord
Granville, who does not appear at first to have understood General
Gordon's character, began to be alarmed at his impulsiveness. On
February 8 Lord Granville wrote to me: "I own your letters about
Gordon rather alarm. His changes about Zobeir are difficult to
understand. Northbrook consoles me by saying that he says all the
foolish things that pass through his head, but that his judgment is
excellent." I am not prepared to go so far as to say that General
Gordon's judgment was excellent. Nevertheless, there was some truth
in Lord Northbrook's remark. I often found that, amidst a mass
of irrelevant verbiage and amidst many contradictory opinions,
a vein of sound common sense and political instinct ran through
General Gordon's proposals. So much was I impressed with this, and
so fearful was I that the sound portions of his proposals would
be rejected in London on account of the eccentric language in
which they were often couched, that, on February 12, I telegraphed
to Lord Granville: "In considering Gordon's suggestions, please
remember that his general views are excellent, but that undue
importance must not be attached to his words. We must look to the
spirit rather than the letter of what he says."


II.

=Source.=--Lord Cromer's _Modern Egypt_, vol. i., p. 488.
(Macmillans.)

On February 26th, thirty-nine days had elapsed since General Gordon
had left London, thirty-one days since he had left Cairo, and
eight days since he had arrived at Khartoum. During that period,
leaving aside points of detail, as to which his contradictions
had been numerous, General Gordon had marked out for himself no
less than five different lines of policy, some of which were
wholly conflicting one with another, whilst others, without being
absolutely irreconcilable, differed in respect to some of their
most important features. On January 18 he started from London with
instructions which had been dictated by himself. His wish then
was that he should be merely sent to "report upon the best means
of effecting the evacuation of the interior of the Soudan." He
expressed his entire concurrence in the policy of evacuation. This
was the first and original stage of General Gordon's opinions.
Before he arrived in Egypt, on January 24, he had changed his
views as to the nature of the functions he should fulfil. He
no longer wished to be a mere reporter. He wished to be named
Governor-General of the Soudan with full executive powers. He
supplemented his original ideas by suggesting that the country
should be handed over to "the different petty Sultans who existed
at the time of Mehemet Ali's conquest." This was the second stage
of General Gordon's opinions. Fifteen days later (February 8) he
wrote from Abu Hamed a memorandum in which he advocated "evacuation
but not abandonment." The Government of Egypt were to "maintain
their position as a Suzerain Power, nominate the Governor-General
and Moudirs, and act as a supreme Court of Appeal." This was the
third stage of General Gordon's opinions. Ten days later (February
18) General Gordon reverted to the principles of his memorandum
of the 8th, but with a notable difference. It was no longer
the Egyptian but the British Government which were to control
the Soudan administration. The British Government were also to
appoint a Governor-General, who was to be furnished with a British
commission, and who was to receive a British decoration. Zobeir
Pasha was the man whom General Gordon wished the British Government
to select. This was the fourth stage of General Gordon's opinions.
Eight days later (February 26), when General Gordon had learnt
that the British Government were not prepared to approve of Zobeir
Pasha being sent to the Soudan, he proposed that the Mahdi should
be "smashed up," and that, to assist in this object, 200 British
Indian troops should be sent to Wadi Halfa. This was the fifth
stage of General Gordon's opinions. In thirty-nine days, therefore,
General Gordon had drifted by successive stages from a proposal
that he should report on the affairs of the Soudan to advocating
the policy of "smashing up" the Mahdi. It would, he said, be
"comparatively easy to destroy the Mahdi."




ZOBEIR PASHA (1884).

I.

=Source.=--_Parliamentary Papers_, "Egypt," No. 12 of 1884.


_P. 71. Major-General Gordon to Sir E. Baring. Telegraphic,
Khartoum, February 18, 1884._

I have stated that to withdraw without being able to place a
successor in my seat would be the signal for general anarchy
throughout the country, which, though all Egyptian element was
withdrawn, would be a misfortune and inhuman.... I distinctly
state that if Her Majesty's Government gave a Commission to my
successor, I recommend neither a subsidy nor men being given. I
would select and give a Commission to some man, and promise him
the moral support of Her Majesty's Government and nothing more....
As for the man, Her Majesty's Government should select one above
all others--namely, Zobeir. He alone has the ability to rule the
Soudan, and would be universally accepted by the Soudan. He should
be made K.C.M.G., and given presents.... Zobeir's exile at Cairo
for ten years, amidst all the late events, and his mixing with
Europeans, must have had great effect on his character....


II.

_P. 72. Extract from Sir E. Baring's Despatch commenting on the
Above._

I believe Zobeir Pasha to be the only possible man. He undoubtedly
possesses energy and ability, and has great local influence. As
regards the Slave Trade, I discussed the matter with General Gordon
when he was in Cairo, and he fully agreed with me in thinking that
Zobeir Pasha's presence or absence would not affect the question
in one way or the other. I am also convinced from many things that
have come to my notice that General Gordon is right in thinking
that Zobeir Pasha's residence in Egypt has considerably modified
his character. He now understands what European power is, and it is
much better to have to deal with a man of this sort than with a man
like the Mahdi.... I cannot recommend that he should be promised
the "moral support" of Her Majesty's Government. In the first
place, he would scarcely understand the sense of the phrase, and,
moreover, I do not think that he would attach importance to any
support which was not material. It is for Her Majesty's Government
to judge what the effect of his appointment would be upon public
opinion in England, but except for that I can see no reason why
Zobeir Pasha should not be proclaimed Ruler of the Soudan with the
approbation of Her Majesty's Government.


III.

_P. 95. Earl Granville to Sir E. Baring. February 22, 1884._

Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that the gravest objections
exist to the appointment by their authority of a successor to
General Gordon. The necessity does not, indeed, appear to have
yet arisen of going beyond the suggestions contained in General
Gordon's Memorandum of the 22nd ultimo, by making special provision
for the government of the country. In any case the public opinion
of this country would not tolerate the appointment of Zobeir Pasha.




SOME OF GORDON'S TELEGRAMS (1884).

=Source.=--_Parliamentary Papers_, "Egypt," No. 12 of 1884.


_P. 156. Major-General Gordon to Sir E. Baring. Khartoum, March 3,
1884._

... I am strongly against any permanent retention of the Soudan,
but I think we ought to leave it with decency, and give the
respectable people a man to lead them, around whom they can rally,
and we ought to support that man by money and by opening road to
Berber. Pray do not consider me in any way to advocate retention of
Soudan; I am quite averse to it, but you must see that you could
not recall me, nor could I possibly obey, until the Cairo employés
get out from all the places. I have named men to different places,
thus involving them with Mahdi: how could I look the world in the
face if I abandoned them and fled? As a gentleman, could you advise
this course? It may have been a mistake to send me up, but that
having been done I have no option but to see evacuation through,
for even if I was mean enough to escape I have no power to do so.


_P. 161. The Same to the Same. Khartoum, March 9, 1884, 11.30 p.m._

If you mean to make the proposed diversion to Berber [of British
troops], and to accept my proposal as to Zobeir, to install him
in the Soudan and evacuate, then it is worth while to hold on to
Khartoum. If, on the other hand, you determine on neither of these
steps, then I can see no use in holding on to Khartoum, for it is
impossible for me to help the other garrisons, and I shall only
be sacrificing the whole of the troops and employés here. In this
latter case your instructions to me had better be that I should
evacuate Khartoum, and, with all the employés and troops, remove
the seat of Government to Berber. You would understand that such
a step would mean the sacrificing of all outlying places except
Berber and Dongola. You must give a prompt reply to this, as
even the retreat to Berber may not be in my power in a few days;
and even if carried out at once, the retreat will be of extreme
difficulty.


_P. 161. Same Date, 11.40 p.m._

If the immediate evacuation of Khartoum is determined upon,
irrespective of outlying towns, I would propose to send all Cairo
employés and white troops with Colonel Stewart to Berber, where he
would await your orders. I would also ask Her Majesty's Government
to accept the resignation of my commission, and I would take
all steamers and stores up to the Equatorial and Bahr Gazelle
provinces, and consider those provinces as under the King of the
Belgians.


[_P. 160._ Sir E. Baring comments that, owing to interruption of
the telegraph line, these and other messages did not reach him till
March 12. He instructed Gordon to hold on at Khartoum until he
could communicate further with the British Government, and on no
account to proceed to the Bahr Gazelle and Equatorial provinces.]


_P. 152. Earl Granville to Sir E. Baring, March 13, 1884._

If General Gordon is of opinion that the prospect of his early
departure diminishes the chance of accomplishing his task, and that
by staying at Khartoum himself for any length of time which he may
judge necessary he would be able to establish a settled Government
at that place, he is at liberty to remain there. In the event of
his being unable to carry out this suggestion, he should evacuate
Khartoum and save that garrison by conducting it himself to Berber
without delay.




CROSS PURPOSES (1884).

=Source.=--_Parliamentary Papers_, "Egypt," No. 13 of 1884, C 3,970.


_P. 9. Sir E. Baring to Earl Granville. Cairo, April 8, 1884._

In a telegram from Khartoum, General Gordon says: I wish I could
convey to you my impressions of the truly trumpery nature of this
revolt, which 500 determined men could put down. Be assured, for
present, and for two months hence, we are as safe here as at Cairo.
If you would get, by good pay, 3,000 Turkish infantry and 1,000
Turkish cavalry, the affair, including crushing of Mahdi, would be
accomplished in four months.


_P. 12. Sir E. Baring to Earl Granville. Cairo, April 18, 1884._

Lately I have been sending telegrams to Berber to be forwarded
to Gordon. Since communication between Berber and Khartoum was
cut, his telegrams to me have taken from a week to ten days. My
telegrams to him appear to have taken even longer, and some, I
think, have not reached him at all.


_The Same, Later._

I have received another telegram from Gordon.... It is most
unfortunate that of all the telegrams I have sent to him only one
very short one appears to have reached him. He evidently thinks he
is to be abandoned, and is very indignant.


=Source.=--_Parliamentary Papers_, "Egypt," C 3,998 of 1884.

_P. 1. Gordon to Baring. Telegraphic. Khartoum, April 16, 1884,
5.15 p.m._

As far as I can understand, the situation is this: you state your
intention of not sending any relief up here or to Berber, and
you refuse me Zobeir. I consider myself free to act according to
circumstances. I shall hold on here as long as I can, and if I can
suppress the rebellion I shall do so. If I cannot, I shall retire
to the Equator, and leave you indelible disgrace of abandoning
garrisons of Senaar, Kassala, Berber, and Dongola, with the
certainty that you will be eventually forced to smash up the Mahdi
under great difficulties if you would retain peace in Egypt.


=Source.=--_Parliamentary Papers_, "Egypt," C 3,970 of 1884.

_P. 15. Earl Granville to Mr. Egerton, April 23, 1884._

Gordon should be at once informed, in cipher, by several messengers
at some interval between each, through Dongola as well as Berber,
or in such other way as may on the spot be deemed most prompt
and certain, that he should keep us informed, to the best of his
ability, not only as to immediate but as to any prospective danger
at Khartoum; that to be prepared for any such danger he advise
us as to the force necessary in order to secure his removal, its
amount, character, route for access to Khartoum, and time of
operation; that we do not propose to supply him with Turkish or
other force for the purpose of undertaking military expeditions,
such being beyond the scope of the commission he holds, and at
variance with the pacific policy which was the purpose of his
mission to the Soudan; that if with this knowledge he continues at
Khartoum, he should state to us the cause and intention with which
he so continues. Add expressions both of respect and gratitude for
his gallant and self-sacrificing conduct, and for the good he has
achieved.


=Source.=--_Parliamentary Publications_, "Egypt," No. 21 of 1884, C
4,005.

_Mr. Egerton to Earl Granville. Cairo, May 10, 1884._

The messengers sent in succession by the Governor of Dongola with
the ciphered message for Gordon have returned. He telegraphed
yesterday that they report that the rebels have invested Khartoum;
that, in consequence, excursions in steamers are made on the White
Nile in order to attack those on the banks; that the rebels have
constructed wooden shelters to protect themselves against the
projectiles; when the Government forces pursue them into these
shelters, the rebels take flight into the country beyond gun-shot;
that this state of things makes it impossible to get into Khartoum.


=Source.=--_Parliamentary Publications_, "Egypt," No. 22 of 1884, C
4,042.

_Earl Granville to Mr. Egerton, May 17, 1884._

The following is the further message which Her Majesty's Government
desires to communicate to General Gordon in addition to that
contained in my telegram of the 23rd ultimo, which should be
repeated to him. Having regard to the time which has elapsed, Her
Majesty's Government desires to add to their communication of the
23rd April as follows: As the original plan for the evacuation of
the Soudan has been dropped, and as aggressive operations cannot
be undertaken with the countenance of Her Majesty's Government,
General Gordon is enjoined to consider and either to report upon,
or, if feasible, to adopt, at the first proper moment, measures
for his own removal and that of the Egyptians at Khartoum who have
suffered for him or who have served him faithfully, including their
wives and children, by whatever route he may consider best, having
especial regard to his own safety and that of the other British
subjects. With regard to the Egyptians above referred to, General
Gordon is authorized to make free use of money rewards or promises
at his discretion. For example, he is at liberty to assign to
Egyptian soldiers at Khartoum sums for themselves and for persons
brought with them per head, contingent on their safe arrival at
Korosko, or whatever point he may consider a place of safety; or
he may employ or pay the tribes in the neighbourhood to escort
them. In the event of General Gordon having despatched any persons
or agents to other points, he is authorized to spend any money
required for the purpose of recalling them or securing their safety.




GORDON'S POSITION (1884).

I.

=Source.=--_The Times_, July 29.


Last night at eleven o'clock the British and African Royal Mail
steamer _Kinsembo_ arrived in Plymouth Sound, having on board
Mr. H. M. Stanley, the African explorer. In the course of a
conversation with a correspondent, Mr. Stanley declared that
General Gordon might leave Khartoum whenever he chose, and had
three routes of escape open to him. He was a soldier, but not a
traveller. He would not leave Khartoum ingloriously. He could
escape by means of the Congo, the Nile, and across the desert to
Zanzibar. He could force his way through the country, because the
people would be afraid of an armed force. He is perfectly well
supplied with arms and ammunition, and is quite strong enough to
meet the Mahdi. Mr. Stanley derides the suggested expedition to
Khartoum, and says the men would die like flies when the summer is
waning. He says that Gordon only requires to act like a soldier, as
he believes he will, to settle the whole difficulty.


II.

=Source.=--Holland's _Life of the Duke of Devonshire_, vol. i., p.
472 _et seq._ (Longmans.)

On 29th July Lord Hartington circulated to the Cabinet his
own final memorandum on the subject. He said: "I wish before
Parliament is prorogued, and it becomes absolutely impossible to do
anything for the relief of General Gordon, to bring the subject
once more under the consideration of the Cabinet. On the last
occasion when it was discussed, although an opinion was expressed
that the balance of probability was that no expedition would be
required to enable General Gordon and those dependent on him to
leave Khartoum, I gathered that a considerable majority were in
favour of making some preparations, and taking some steps which
would make a relief expedition to Khartoum possible. I believe
that I have already stated the grounds on which I think that if
anything is now attempted it must be by the Valley of the Nile,
and not by the Suakin-Berber line. The delay which has taken place
makes it impossible that the railway should be constructed for
any considerable distance on that line during the next autumn
and winter, the period during which military operations would be
practicable without great suffering and loss of life to the troops.
The renewed concentration of the tribes under Osman Digna, near
Suakin, and the fall of Berber, makes it inevitable that severe
fighting would have to be done at both ends of the march, and,
in consequence of the necessity of crossing the desert in small
detachments, the engagement near Berber would be fought under
great disadvantages. On the other hand, we have for the defence
of the Nile itself been compelled to send a considerable force of
British and Egyptian troops up the Nile; and the positions which
are now occupied by those troops are so many stages on the advance
by the Nile Valley.... The proposal which I make is that a brigade
should be ordered to advance as soon as possible to Dongola by
the Nile.... I have not entered into the question whether it is
or is not probable that General Gordon can leave Khartoum without
assistance. As we know absolutely nothing, any opinion on this
subject can only be guess-work. But I do not see how it is possible
to redeem the pledges which we have given, if the necessity should
be proved to exist, without some such preparations and measures as
those which I now suggest...." Mr. Chamberlain minuted that he was
"against what is called an expedition, or the preparations for an
expedition." He did not think that the information was sufficient
to justify it. He thought that more information should first be
obtained.... Mr. Gladstone minuted (July 31): "I confess it to be
my strong conviction that to send an expedition either to Dongola
or Khartoum at the present time would be to act in the teeth of
evidence as to Gordon which, however imperfect, is far from being
trivial, and would be a grave and dangerous error." Mr. Gladstone
at the same time wrote to Lord Granville a letter, which the latter
forwarded to Lord Hartington. He said: "I had intended to give much
time to-day to collecting the sum of the evidence as to Gordon's
position, which appears to me to be strangely underrated by
some.... Undoubtedly I can be no party to the proposed despatch, as
a first step, of a brigade to Dongola. I do not think the evidence
as to Gordon's position requires or justifies, in itself, military
preparations for the contingency of a military expedition. There
are, however, preparations, perhaps, of various kinds which might
be made, and which are matters simply of cost, and do not include
necessary consequences in point of policy. To these I have never
offered an insuperable objection, and the adoption of them might
be, at the worst, a smaller evil than the evils with which we are
threatened in other forms. This on what I may call my side. On
the other hand, I hope I may presume that, while we are looking
into the matters I have just indicated, nothing will be done to
accelerate a Gordon crisis until we see, in the early days of next
week, what the Conference crisis is to produce."




GORDON'S OWN MEDITATIONS (1884).

=Source.=--_General Gordon's Journal_, pp. 46, 56, 59, 93, 112.
(_Kegan Paul._)


_September 17._--Had Zobeir Pasha been sent up when I asked for
him, Berber would in all probability never have fallen, and one
might have made a Soudan Government in opposition to the Mahdi.
We choose to refuse his coming up because of his antecedents _in
re_ slave trade; granted that we had reason, yet as we take no
precautions as to the future of these with respect to the slave
trade, the above opposition seems absurd. I will not send up A.
because he will do this, but will leave the country to B., who will
do exactly the same.

_September 19._--I was engaged in a certain work--_i.e._, to take
down the garrisons, etc. It suited me altogether to accept this
work (when once it was decided on to abandon the Soudan), which,
to my idea, is preferable to letting it be under those wretched
effete Egyptian Pashas. Her Majesty's Government agreed to send me.
It was a mutual affair; they owe me positively nothing, and I owe
them nothing. A member of Parliament, in one of our last received
papers, asked "whether officers were not supposed to go where
they were ordered?" I quite agree with his view, but it cannot
be said I was ordered to go. The subject was too complex for any
order. It was, "Will you go and try?" and my answer was, "Only too
delighted." As for all that may be said of our holding out, etc.,
etc., it is all twaddle, for we had no option; as for all that
may be said as to why I did not escape with Stewart, it is simply
because the people would not have been such fools as to have let me
go, so there is an end of those great-coats of self-sacrifice, etc.
I must add _in re_ "the people not letting me go," that even if
they had been willing for me to go, I would not have gone, and left
them in their misery.

_September 19._--Anyone reading the telegram 5th May, Suakin, 29th
April, Massowah, and _without_ date, Egerton saying, "Her Majesty's
Government does not entertain your proposal to supply Turkish or
other troops in order to undertake military operations in the
Soudan, and consequently if you stay at Kartoum you should state
your reasons," might imagine one was luxuriating up here, whereas,
I am sure, no one wishes more to be out of this than myself; the
_reasons_ are those horribly plucky Arabs. I own to having been
very insubordinate to Her Majesty's Government and its officials,
but it is my nature, and I cannot help it.

_September 24._--I altogether _decline_ the imputation that the
projected expedition has come to _relieve me_. It has _come to
save our national honour in extricating the garrisons, etc., from
a position our action in Egypt has placed those garrisons_. As to
myself, I could make good my retreat at any moment if I wished.

_September 29._--My idea is to induce Her Majesty's Government to
undertake the extrication of all people or garrisons, now hemmed in
or captive, and that if this is not their programme then to resign
my commission and do what I can to attain it (the object).... I say
this, because I should be sorry for Lord Wolseley to advance from
Dongola without fully knowing my views. If Her Majesty's Government
are going to abandon the garrisons, then do not advance. I say
nothing of evacuating the country; I merely maintain that if we do
so, everyone in the Soudan, captive or hemmed in, ought to have the
option and power of retreat.




THE FRANCHISE AND REDISTRIBUTION (1884).

=Source.=--_The Times_, November 19.


The Representation of the People Bill was yesterday read a second
time in the House of Lords without a division, and without
discussion upon anything it contains.... The terms offered by
the Government, and now definitely accepted by the Opposition,
are, first, that the draft of the Redistribution Bill shall be
submitted in private to the Conservative leaders, in order that, by
suggesting the alterations they think necessary, they may convince
themselves of the equity and fairness of the measure. In the second
place, it is agreed that, when a Redistribution Bill satisfactory
to both parties has been framed, the Opposition will give to the
Government adequate assurance that the Franchise Bill shall pass
the House of Lords.... Lastly, the Government pledge themselves to
take up the Redistribution Bill as early as possible in the New
Year, to push it through its remaining stages with all possible
expedition, and, relying upon the loyal support of the Opposition
being given to the joint scheme, to stake not only their credit
but their existence upon the passing of the Bill into law in the
Session of 1885.




FEEDING POOR SCHOOL CHILDREN (1884).

=Source.=--_The Times_, December 13.


The question of providing penny dinners for the children of the
London poor has received pretty ample discussion. Everybody
can form an idea now of the difficulties which will have to be
surmounted by the central committee of School Board managers and
teachers.... The vital principle of the scheme is that the dinners
shall be supplied on a self-supporting basis. In some places the
work has been undertaken with more zeal than knowledge, and there
has been quick disappointment. The Vicar of St. Mark's, Walworth,
who seems to doubt whether the scheme can be carried out on purely
commercial lines, tells us how fastidious are the children of the
poor. They turn from macaroni; they dislike the flavour of cabbage
boiled up in a stew; they will have nothing to say to haricot
beans, lentils, or salads; they mistrust soup; and are generally
most attracted by suet dumplings and jam or currant puddings.




THE DEATH OF GORDON (1885).

=Source.=--Sir Reginald Wingate's _Mahdiism and the Egyptian
Soudan_, pp. 166-172. (Macmillans.)


Soon all that had been in the commissariat was finished, and
then the inhabitants and the soldiers had to eat dogs, donkeys,
skins of animals, gum, and palm fibre, and famine prevailed. The
soldiers stood on the fortifications like pieces of wood. The
civilians were even worse off. Many died of hunger, and corpses
filled the streets; no one had even energy to bury them.... We
were heartbroken; the people and soldiers began to lose faith in
Gordon's promises, and they were terribly weak from famine. At
last Sunday morning broke, and Gordon Pasha, who used always to
watch the enemy's movements from the top of the palace, noticed a
considerable movement in the south, which looked as if the Arabs
were collecting at Kalakala. He at once sent word to all of us who
had attended the previous meeting, and to a few others, to come at
once to the palace. We all came, but Gordon Pasha did not see us.
We were again addressed by Giriagis Bey, who said he had been told
by Gordon Pasha to inform us that he noticed much movement in the
enemy's lines, and believed an attack would be made on the town; he
therefore ordered us to collect every male in the town from the age
of eight, even to the old men, and to line all the fortifications,
and that if we had difficulty in getting this order obeyed we were
to use force. Giriagis said that Gordon Pasha now appealed to us
for the last time to make a determined stand, for in twenty-four
hours' time he had no doubt the English would arrive; but that if
we preferred to submit then, he gave the commandant liberty to open
the gates, and let all join the rebels. He had nothing more to
say. I then asked to be allowed to see the Pasha, and was admitted
to his presence. I found him sitting on a divan, and as I came in
he pulled off his tarboush (fez) and flung it from him, saying,
"What more can I say? I have nothing more to say; the people will
no longer believe me; I have told them over and over again that
help would be here, but it has never come, and now they must see I
tell them lies. If this, my last promise, fails, I can do nothing
more. Go and collect all the people you can on the lines, and make
a good stand. Now leave me to smoke these cigarettes." (There
were two full boxes of cigarettes on the table.) I could see he
was in despair, and he spoke in a tone I had never heard before.
I knew then that he had been too agitated to address the meeting,
and thought the sight of his despair would dishearten us. All the
anxiety he had undergone had gradually turned his hair to a snowy
white. I left him, and this was the last time I saw him alive....
It was a gloomy day, that last day in Khartoum; hundreds lay dead
and dying in the streets from starvation, and there were none to
bury them. At length the night came, and, as I afterwards learnt,
Gordon Pasha sat up writing till midnight, and then lay down to
sleep. He awoke some time between two and three a.m. The wild
war-cries of the Arabs were heard close at hand. A large body of
rebels had crept in the dark close up to the broken-down parapet
and filled-up ditch, between the White Nile and the Messalamieh
Gate. The soldiers never knew of the enemy's approach until about
twenty minutes before they were actually attacked, when the tramp
of feet was heard, and the alarm was sounded; but they were so
tired out and exhausted that it was not until the sentries fired
that the rest of the men suddenly started up surprised, to find
swarms of Arabs pouring over the ditch and up the parapet, yelling
and shouting their war-cries. Here they met with little resistance,
for most of the soldiers were four or five paces apart, and were
too feeble to oppose such a rush. The Arabs were soon within the
lines, and thus able to attack the rest of the soldiers from
behind. They were opposed at some points, but it was soon all
over.... Meanwhile Gordon Pasha, on being roused by the noise,
went on to the roof of the palace in his sleeping clothes. He soon
made out that the rebels had entered the town, and for upwards of
an hour he kept up a hot fire in the direction of the attack. I
heard that he also sent word to get up steam in the steamer, but
the engineer was not there; he had been too frightened to leave his
house. As dawn approached Gordon Pasha could see the Arab banners
in the town, and soon the gun became useless, for he could not
depress it enough to fire on the enemy. By this time the Arabs had
crowded round the palace in thousands, but for a time no one dared
enter, for they thought mines were laid to blow them up. Meanwhile
Gordon Pasha had left the roof; he went to his bedroom, which was
close to the divan, and there he put on a white uniform, his sword,
which he did not draw, and, carrying his revolver in his right
hand, stepped out into the passage in front of the entrance to the
office, and just at the head of the staircase. During this interval
four men, more brave than the rest, forced their way into the
palace, and once in were followed by hundreds of others. Of these
latter, the majority rushed up the stairs to the roof, where, after
a short resistance, the palace guard, servants, and cavasses were
all killed; while the four men--Taha Shahin, a Dongolawi, whose
father was formerly in my service; Ibrahim Abu Shanab, servant of
George Angelleto; Hamad Wad Ahmed Jar en Nebbi, Hassani; and a
fourth, also a Dongolawi, servant to Fathallah Jehami--followed
by a crowd of others, knowing Gordon Pasha's room, rushed towards
it. Taha Shahin was the first to encounter Gordon beside the door
of the divan, apparently waiting for the Arabs, and standing with
a calm and dignified manner, his left hand resting on the hilt of
his sword. Shahin, dashing forward with the curse "Mala' oun el
yom yomek!" (O cursed one, your time is come!), plunged his spear
into his body. Gordon, it is said, made a gesture of scorn with his
right hand, and turned his back, where he received another spear
wound, which caused him to fall forward, and was most likely his
mortal wound. The other three men, closely following Shahin, then
rushed in, and, cutting at the prostrate body with their swords,
must have killed him in a few seconds. His death occurred just
before sunrise. He made no resistance, and did not fire a shot
from his revolver. From all I knew, I am convinced that he never
intended to surrender. I should say he must have intended to use
his revolver only if he saw it was the intention of the Arabs to
take him prisoner alive; but he saw such crowds rushing on him with
swords and spears, and there being no important emirs with them, he
must have known that they did not intend to spare him, and that was
most likely what he wanted.... Gordon Pasha's head was immediately
cut off and sent to the Mahdi at Omdurman, while his body was
dragged downstairs and left exposed for a time in the garden, where
many Arabs came to plunge their spears into it. I heard that the
Mahdi had given orders for Gordon to be spared, but what I have
stated was told me by the four men I have mentioned, and I believe
the Mahdi pardoned them for their disobedience of orders.... I saw
Gordon Pasha's head exposed in Omdurman. It was fixed between the
branches of a tree, and all who passed by threw stones at it.


[NOTE.--This account is from the journal of Bordeini Bey, an
eminent Khartoum merchant, who willingly gave up his large stores
of grain to Gordon for the supply of the garrison. He was taken
prisoner at the fall of the city.]




THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSIBILITY (1885).

=Source.=--Lord Cromer's _Modern Egypt_, vol. i., p. 589.
(Macmillans.)


It has been already shown that General Gordon paid little heed to
his instructions, that he was consumed with a desire to "smash
the Mahdi," and that the view that he was constrained to withdraw
everyone who wished to leave from the most distant parts of the
Soudan was, to say the least, quixotic. The conclusion to be drawn
from these facts is that it was a mistake to send General Gordon
to the Soudan. But do they afford any justification for the delay
in preparing and in despatching the relief expedition? I cannot
think that they do so. Whatever errors of judgment General Gordon
may have committed, the broad facts, as they existed in the early
summer of 1884, were that he was sent to Khartoum by the British
Government, who never denied their responsibility for his safety,
that he was beleaguered, and that he was, therefore, unable to get
away. It is just possible that he could have effected his retreat,
if, having abandoned the southern posts, he had moved northward
with the Khartoum garrison in April or early in May. As time went
on, and nothing was heard of him, it became more and more clear
that he either could not or would not--probably that he could
not--move. The most indulgent critic would scarcely extend beyond
June 27 the date at which the Government should have decided on the
question of whether a relief expedition should or should not be
despatched. On that day the news that Berber had been captured on
May 26 by the Dervishes was finally confirmed. Yet it was not till
six weeks later that the Government obtained from Parliament the
funds necessary to prepare for an expedition.




THE VOTE OF CENSURE (1885).

=Source.=--_Hansard_, Third Series, vol. 294, col. 1311. (House of
Lords debate on Egypt, February 26, 1885.)


THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY: ... The conduct of Her Majesty's
Government has been an alternation of periods of slumber and
periods of rush, and the rush, however vehement, has always been
too unprepared and too unintelligent to repair the damage which
the period of slumber has effected.... The case of the bombardment
of Alexandria, the case of the abandonment of the Soudan, the
case of the mission of General Graham's force--they are all on
the same plan, and all show you that remarkable characteristic
of torpor during the time when action was needed, and hasty,
impulsive, ill-considered action when the time for action had
passed by. Their further conduct was modelled on their action in
the past. So far was it modelled that we were able to put it to the
test which establishes a scientific law. I should like to quote
what I said on the 4th of April, when discussing the prospect of
the relief of General Gordon. What I said was this: "Are these
circumstances encouraging to us when we are asked to trust that,
on the inspiration of the moment, when the danger comes, Her
Majesty's Government will find some means of relieving General
Gordon? I fear that the history of the past will be repeated in
the future; and just again, when it is too late, the critical
resolution will be taken; some terrible news will come that the
position of Gordon is absolutely a forlorn and hopeless one, and
then, under the pressure of public wrath and Parliamentary censure,
some desperate resolution of sending an expedition will be formed
too late to achieve the object which it is desired to gain." I
quote these words to show that by that time we had ascertained
the laws of motion and the orbits of those erratic comets who sit
on the Treasury Bench. Now the terrible responsibility and shame
rests upon the Government, because they were warned in March and
April of the danger to General Gordon, because they received every
intimation which men could reasonably look for that his danger
would be extreme, and because they delayed from March and April
right down to the 15th of August before they took a single measure
to relieve him. What were they doing all that time? It is very
difficult to conceive. What happened during those eventful months?
I suppose some day the memoirs will tell our grandchildren, but
we shall never know. Some people think there were divisions in
the Cabinet, and that after division on division a decision was
put off, lest the Cabinet be broken up. I am rather inclined to
think it was due to the peculiar position of the Prime Minister.
He came in as the apostle of the Midlothian campaign, loaded with
all the doctrines and all the follies of that pilgrimage. We have
seen on each occasion, after one of these mishaps, when he has been
forced by events and by the common sense of the nation to take some
active steps--we have seen his extreme supporters falling foul
of him, and reproaching him with having deserted their opinions
and disappointed the ardent hopes which they had formed of him as
the apostle of absolute negation in foreign affairs. I think he
has always felt the danger of that reproach. He always felt the
debt he had incurred to those supporters. He always felt a dread
lest they should break away; and he put off again and again to
the last practical moment any action which might bring him into
open conflict with the doctrine by which his present eminence was
gained. At all events, this is clear--that throughout those six
months the Government knew perfectly well the danger in which
General Gordon was placed. It has been said that General Gordon
did not ask for troops. I am surprised at that defence. One of
the characteristics of General Gordon was the extreme abnegation
of his nature. It was not to be expected that he should send
home a telegram to say, "I am in great danger, therefore send me
troops"--he would probably have cut off his right hand before
he would have sent a telegram of that sort. But he sent home
telegrams through Mr. Power, telegrams saying that the people of
Khartoum were in great danger; that the Mahdi would succeed unless
military succour was sent forward; urging at one time the sending
forward of Sir Evelyn Wood and his Egyptians, and at another the
landing of Indians at Suakin and the establishment of the Berber
route, and distinctly telling the Government--and this is the main
point--that unless they would consent to his views the supremacy of
the Mahdi was assured.... Well, now, my Lords, is it conceivable
that after two months, in May, the Prime Minister should have
said that they were waiting to have reasonable proof that Gordon
was in danger? By that time Khartoum was surrounded, the Governor
of Berber had announced that his case was hopeless, which was too
surely proved by the massacre which took place in June; and yet
in May Mr. Gladstone was still waiting for "reasonable proof"
that the men who were surrounded, who had announced that they had
only five months' food, were in danger.... It was the business
of the Government not to interpret General Gordon's telegrams
as if they had been statutory declarations, but to judge for
themselves of the circumstances of the case, and to see that those
who were surrounded, who were only three Englishmen among such a
vast body of Mohammedans, and who were already cut off from all
communications with the civilized world by the occupation of every
important town upon the river, were really in danger, and that if
they meant to answer their responsibilities they were bound to
relieve them. I cannot tell what blindness fell over the eyes of
some members of Her Majesty's Government....




MORE FENIANISM (1885).

=Source.=--_The Times_, January 26.


The "dynamite war," as it is called by the disloyal Irish and
the Irish-American outrage-mongers, was continued in London on
Saturday with some success to the perpetrators. Accepting the
privilege accorded to all comers to view the Houses of Parliament
and the Tower of London, they cunningly placed charged machines
of dynamite in the Crypt leading out of Westminster Hall, in
the House of Commons chamber itself, and caused, almost at
the same time, an explosion in the Tower of London. The first
explosion at Westminster was in the Hall itself. Some visitors
were passing through the Crypt, when one noticed a parcel on the
ground. It is described as the usual "black bag." ... The nearest
police-constable, Cole by name, picked up the smoking parcel, and
brought it to the entrance of the Crypt, where, from its heat or
some other cause, he dropped it. It was fortunate for him that
he did so, for in an instant a terrific explosion burst from the
parcel.... The stone flooring was shattered, and the rails round
the Crypt were somewhat twisted by the immediate blow of the
explosion. Its secondary effect was to break some of the windows,
and shake down from the vast beams of Irish oak, forming the roof,
the accumulated dust of ages.... The chamber of the House of
Commons presented the scene of a complete wreck from the second
explosion. The benches of the Government side were torn up, and
some of the seats had been hurled up into the gallery above....
The explosion at the Tower of London was the most serious in its
effects of the three, for several persons were injured, some damage
was done to the building, and a fire ensued, lasting an hour....
The explosive was placed between the stands of arms in the ancient
banqueting-room of the Tower.




NEW LABOUR MOVEMENTS (1885).

=Source.=--_The Times_, January 31.


_Industrial Remuneration Conference._

Yesterday the delegates held their concluding sitting at Prince's
Hall, Piccadilly, when the subject set down for discussion was:
Would the more general distribution of capital or land, or the
State management of capital or land, promote or impair the
production of wealth and the welfare of the community?...

The discussion on the papers was begun by Mr. Williams (Social
Democratic Federation), who said that if they left all the
machinery, all the railways, and all the mines in the hands of the
rich capitalists, the working classes would still continue to be
oppressed. They must either say that the Government had no right
to interfere with anything, or they must admit that the State
must equally interfere between the landlord, the capitalist, and
the labourer. He compared the part played by politicians like Mr.
Chamberlain, who directed their attacks exclusively against the
landlords, and spared the rich capitalists, to that sustained by
the Artful Dodger in "Oliver Twist."

Mr. B. Shaw (Fabian Society) said he had no desire to give pain
to the burglar--if any of that trade were in the room--or to the
landlord or the capitalist, pure and simple; all he could say was
that all three belonged to the same class, and that the injury each
inflicted on the community was precisely of the same nature.


[NOTE.--The Social Democratic Federation had been founded in 1881;
the Fabian Society, a few weeks before this conference met.]




THE UNEMPLOYED (1885).

=Source.=--_The Times_, February 17.


Yesterday afternoon three or four thousand of the unemployed of
London held a demonstration on the Embankment near Cleopatra's
Needle, and afterwards marched to Westminster, carrying banners.
From Whitehall a large number of the crowd passed into Downing
Street near the Premier's residence, where a Cabinet meeting was
being held at the time, but at the request of the police, of whom
an extra force were in attendance, the crowd moved round to King
Street, where they were addressed in somewhat inflammatory terms
by some of their speakers, who wore red badges. One speaker clung
to the top of a lamp-post, and thence harangued the crowd; another
spoke from a window-sill. Meantime, in the absence of Sir Charles
Dilke, who was at the Cabinet Meeting, Mr. G. W. E. Russell,
Parliamentary Secretary of the Local Government Board, received a
small deputation of the leaders.... At the close of the interview
the crowd marched back to the Embankment, where the following
resolution was passed unanimously: "That this meeting of the
Unemployed, having heard the answer given by the Local Government
Board to their deputation, considers the refusal to start public
works to be a sentence of death on thousands of those out of
work, and the recommendation to bring pressure to bear on the
local bodies to be a direct incitement to violence; further, it
will hold Mr. G. W. E. Russell and the members of the Government,
individually and collectively, guilty of the murder of those who
may die in the next few weeks, and whose lives would have been
saved had the suggestions of the deputation been acted on."

  (Signed) JOHN BURNS, ENGINEER.
  JOHN E. WILLIAMS, LABOURER.
  WILLIAM HENRY, FOREMAN.
  JAMES MACDONALD, TAILOR.




WORKING MEN MAGISTRATES (1885).

=Source.=--_The Manchester Guardian_, May 14.


We understand that it is in contemplation to raise a number of
workmen to the magisterial bench in the Duchy of Lancaster. The
first of the appointments is that of Mr. H. R. Slatter to the
Commission of the peace for the City of Manchester. He is Secretary
to the Provincial Typographical Association, and a member of the
Manchester School Board. It is understood that similar offers of
appointment to the magistracy have been made to Mr. T. Birtwistle,
of Accrington, Secretary to the Operative Weavers' Association of
North and North-east Lancashire, and Mr. Fielding, of Bolton, who
holds the post of Secretary to the local branch of the Operative
Cotton Spinners' Association.




TORY OLIVE-BRANCH TO IRELAND (1885).

=Source.=--_Hansard_, Third Series, vol. 298, col. 1658. (House of
Lords, July 6, 1885.)


THE LORD-LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (THE EARL OF CARNARVON): My Lords,
my noble friend [Lord Salisbury] has desired that I should state to
your Lordships the general position that Her Majesty's Government
are prepared to occupy with regard to Irish affairs, and I hope
to do so in comparatively few sentences. I need not tell your
Lordships what everyone in this House knows, the nature of the
events which have brought us to the present position. It will be
perhaps sufficient if, by quoting a few figures, I show what the
state of agrarian crime was a few years ago, what it has since
been in the interval, and what it is at the present time. In 1878
agrarian crime in Ireland stood at 301 cases. In the following
year there were 860, and in the three following years--1880, 1881,
and 1882--the cases reached the enormous totals of 2,580, 4,439,
and 3,433 respectively. In 1883, after the Crimes Act had passed,
agrarian crimes fell to 870, and last year to 762. I ought perhaps
to supplement that statement by saying that in 1884 I think that
there was no case of the worst form of agrarian crime. I think that
there was not one case of actual murder, and the calendars promise
to be of a comparatively, if not singularly, light character. The
substance therefore of the statement is that, whereas crime rose
in those three years to an enormous figure, it has since fallen
to what I do not call an absolutely normal level, but to the same
level--in fact, below the level of 1879. In these circumstances the
question has naturally arisen--what Her Majesty's Government are
to do; and it is impossible to conceive a graver or more serious
matter on which to deliberate. Within a very short time--indeed,
within a time to be numbered by weeks--the Crimes Act expires, and
the question is, What course should be taken? Three courses are
possible. Either you may re-enact the Crimes Act in the whole,
or you may re-enact it in part, or you may allow it to lapse
altogether. I think very few persons would be disposed to advocate
its re-enactment as a whole. The more serious and practical
question is whether it shall be re-enacted in part. The Act having
produced, as all agree, its effect, and three years having lapsed,
it seems hard to call on Parliament once more to re-enact it.
I believe for my part that special legislation of this sort is
inexpedient. It is inexpedient while it is in operation, because
it must conjure up a sense of restlessness and irritation; and
it is still more inexpedient when it has to be renewed at short
intervals, and brings before the mind of the people of the country
that they are to be kept under peculiar and exceptional coercion.
Now I have looked through a good many of the Acts that have been
passed, I may say, during the last generation for Ireland, and
I have been astonished to find that ever since the year 1847,
with some very short intervals which are hardly worth mentioning,
Ireland has lived under exceptional and coercive legislation.
No sane man can admit that this is a satisfactory or wholesome
state of things. It does seem to me that it is very desirable,
if possible, to extricate ourselves from this miserable habit,
and to aim at some wholesome and better solution. But, more than
being undesirable, I hold that such legislation is practically
impossible, if it is to be continually and indefinitely re-enacted.
I think it was Count Cavour who said that it is easy to govern in
a state of siege. It may be easy to govern in a state of siege
for a time, but to attempt to govern permanently is, I believe,
utterly impossible. It may be said that this is a question of
trust. No doubt it is a question of trust; but trust begets trust,
and it is after all the only foundation upon which we can hope
to build up amity and concord between the two nations. I know of
nothing more sad than to see how, instead of diminishing under
the healing process of time, there has been a growth of ill-will
between these two nations; and I think it is time to try how far we
may appeal to better feelings. I for my part believe that Ireland
will justify the confidence which is shown her when this Act is
allowed to lapse. If I am asked further as to policy, I will speak
generally in these terms. So far as the mere administration of the
law is concerned, it is our hope and intention to administer the
ordinary law firmly and effectually. So far as the larger field of
Government, which includes law, and more than law, is concerned,
I hope we shall deal justly, and that we shall secure perhaps a
somewhat better, wholesomer, and kindlier relation, I will not
say merely between classes, creeds, or races, but between the
rulers and the ruled. I cannot and will not lightly believe that
the combination of good feeling to England and good government
to Ireland is a hopeless task. My Lords, I do not believe that
with honesty and single-mindedness of purpose on the one side,
and with the willingness of the Irish people on the other, it is
hopeless to look for some satisfactory solution of this terrible
question. My Lords, these I believe to be the views and opinions
of my colleagues. And just as I have seen in English colonies
across the sea a combination of English, Irish, and Scotch settlers
bound together in loyal obedience to the law and the Crown, and
contributing to the general prosperity of the country, so I cannot
conceive that there is any irreconcilable bar here in their native
home and in England to the unity and amity of the two nations.




THE FIRST SUBMARINE (1885).

=Source.=--_The Times_, October 1.


The interest excited by the recent trials of the Nordenfeldt
submarine boat is sufficiently shown by the presence at Landskrona
of thirty-nine officers, representing every European Power,
together with Brazil and Japan. The Nordenfeldt boat, the first of
its class, was built at Stockholm about two years ago. The boat is
cigar-shaped, with a coffin-like projection on the top amidships,
formed by vertical combings supporting a glass dome or conning
tower, 1 foot high, which enables the commander to see his way.
The dome, with its iron protecting cover, stands on a horizontal
lid, which can be swung to one side to allow the crew of three men
to get in or out without difficulty. The length of the hull is
64 feet, and the central diameter 9 feet. It is built of Swedish
mild steel plates ⅝ inch thick at the centre, tapered to ⅜ inch
at the ends.... In order to prepare for action, enough sea-water
is taken in to reduce the buoyancy to 1 cwt., which suffices to
keep the conning tower well above the surface. In order to sink
the boat further, the vertical propellers are set in motion, and
by their action it is held at the required depth. Thus to come
to the surface again it is merely necessary to stop the vertical
propellers, in which case the reserve of buoyancy at once comes
into play.... The motive power is steam alone. For submarine work,
as stoking is, of course, impossible, the firebox has to be sealed.
It is therefore necessary to store the requisite power beforehand,
and this is done by heating the water in two tanks placed fore
and aft, till a pressure of about 150 pounds per square inch is
obtained. With about this initial pressure the boat has been driven
for sixteen miles at a speed of three knots.... No compressed
air is carried, and the crew depend therefore for existence on
the amount of air sealed up in the hull. With this amount of air
only, four men have remained for a period of six hours without any
special inconvenience.




THE UNAUTHORIZED PROGRAMME (1885).

=Source.=--Morley's _Life of Gladstone_, vol. iii., pp. 173, 174,
220-226. (Macmillans.)


Mr. Chamberlain had been rapidly advancing in public prominence,
and he now showed that the agitation against the House of Lords
was to be only the beginning and not the end. At Ipswich (January
14) he said this country had been called the paradise of the
rich, and warned his audience no longer to allow it to remain the
purgatory of the poor. He told them that reform of local government
must be almost the first reform of the next Parliament, and spoke
in favour of allotments, the creation of small proprietors, the
placing of a small tax on the total property of the taxpayer, and
of free education. Mr. Gladstone's attention was drawn from Windsor
to these utterances, and he replied that though he thought some
of them were "on various grounds open to grave objection," yet
they seemed to raise no "definite point on which, in his capacity
of Prime Minister, he was entitled to interfere and lecture the
speaker." A few days later, more terrible things were said by Mr.
Chamberlain at Birmingham. He pronounced for the abolition of
plural voting, and in favour of payment of members, and manhood
suffrage. He also advocated a bill for enabling local communities
to acquire land, a graduated income-tax, and the breaking up of the
great estates as the first step in land reform....

Mr. Gladstone made a lenient communication to the orator, to the
effect that "there had better be some explanations among them when
they met." ... He recognized by now that in the Cabinet the battle
was being fought between old time and new. He did not allow his
dislike of some of the new methods of forming public opinion to
prevent him from doing full justice to the energetic and sincere
public spirit behind them....

The address to his electors ... was given to the public on
September 17. It was, as he said, as long as a pamphlet.... The
Whigs, we are told, found it vague, the Radicals cautious, the
Tories crafty; but everybody admitted that it tended to heal
feuds.... Mr. Chamberlain, though raising his own flag, was
respectful to his leader's manifesto. The surface was thus stilled
for the moment; yet the waters ran very deep....

[Gladstone] goes on to say that the ground had now been
sufficiently laid for going to the election with a united front,
that ground being the common profession of a limited creed or
programme in the Liberal sense, with an entire freedom for those
so inclined to travel beyond it, but not to impose their own sense
upon all other people.... If the party and its leaders were agreed
as to immediate measures ... were not these enough to find a
Liberal administration plenty of work ... for several years?...

An advance was made in the development of a peculiar situation by
important conversations with Mr. Chamberlain [at Hawarden: these]
did not materially alter Mr. Gladstone's disposition [but the first
crisis which promptly developed tended to obscure the direct issue].




THE IRISH VOTE (1885).

=Source.=--Morley's _Life of Gladstone_, vol. iii., pp. 188-245.
(Macmillans.)


On May 15 Mr. Gladstone announced ... that they proposed to
continue what he described as certain clauses of a valuable and
equitable description in the existing Coercion Act.

No Parliamentary situation could be more tempting to an astute
Opposition. The signs that the Cabinet was not united were
unmistakable.... The key to an operation that should at once, with
the aid of the disaffected Liberals and the Irish, turn out Mr.
Gladstone and secure the English elections, was an understanding
with Mr. Parnell.... Lord Salisbury and his confidential friends
had resolved [previous to the defeat of the Government], subject
to official information, to drop coercion, and the only visible
reason why they should form the resolution at that particular
moment was its probable effect upon Mr. Parnell. [Meanwhile] the
policy of the Central Board [for Ireland], of which Mr. Gladstone
so decisively approved, had been killed.... When it came to the
full Cabinet it could not be carried. [June 6. Government defeated
on an amendment to the Budget by 264 to 252.] The defeat of the
Gladstone Government was the first success of a combination
between Tories and Irish that proved of cardinal importance to
policies and parties for several critical months to come.... The
new Government were not content with renouncing coercion for the
present. They cast off all responsibility for its practice in
the past.... In July a singular incident occurred, nothing less
strange than an interview between the new Lord-Lieutenant [Lord
Carnarvon] and the leader of the Irish party. To realize its full
significance we have to recall the profound odium that at this
time enveloped Mr. Parnell's name in the minds of nearly all
Englishmen.... The transaction had consequences, and the Carnarvon
episode was a pivot. The effect on the mind of Mr. Parnell was easy
to foresee.... Why should he not believe that the alliance formed
in June ... had really blossomed from a mere lobby manœuvre and
election expedient into a policy adopted by serious statesmen?

[In Midlothian, on November 9, Mr. Gladstone said:] "It will be a
vital danger to the country and to the empire, if at a time when a
demand from Ireland for larger powers of self-government is to be
dealt with, there is not in Parliament a party totally independent
of the Irish vote." ... Mr. Gladstone's cardinal deliverance in
November had been preceded by an important event. On October 7,
1885, Lord Salisbury made that speech at Newport which is one of
the tallest and most striking landmarks in the shifting sands of
this controversy.... Some of the more astute of the Minister's own
colleagues were delighted with his speech, as keeping the Irishmen
steady to the Tory party.... The question on which side the Irish
vote in Great Britain should be thrown seems not to have been
decided until after Mr. Gladstone's speech. It was then speedily
settled. On November 21 a manifesto was issued, handing over the
Irish vote in Great Britain solid to the orator of the Newport
speech. The tactics were obvious. It was Mr. Parnell's interest to
bring the two contending British parties as near as might be to a
level, and this he could only hope to do by throwing his strength
upon the weaker side. It was from the weaker side, if they could
be maintained in office, that he would get the best terms....
Some estimated the loss to the Liberal party in this island at
twenty seats, others at forty. Whether twenty or forty, these
lost seats made a fatal difference in the division on the Irish
Bill a few months later.... But this was not all, and was not the
worst of it.... Passions were roused, and things were said about
Irishmen that could not at once be forgotten; and the great task
of conversion in 1886, difficult in any case, was made a thousand
times more difficult still by the antipathies of the electoral
battle of 1885. Meanwhile it was for the moment, and for the
purposes of the moment, a striking success.




THE NEW ELECTORATE (1885).

=Source.=--_The Times_, December 11.


From a carefully prepared statistical abstract of the election it
appears that in the English counties, out of a total electorate of
2,303,133 voters, 1,937,988 votes were recorded, in the proportion
of 1,020,774 Liberal votes to 916,314 Conservative.




THE OPENING OF THE RIFT (1886).

=Source.=--Morley's _Life of Gladstone_, vol. iii., pp. 292-295.
(Macmillans.)


What Mr. Gladstone called the basis of his new government was set
out in a short memorandum, which he read to each of those whom he
hoped to include in his Cabinet: "I propose to examine whether it
is or is not practicable to comply with the desire widely prevalent
in Ireland, and testified by the return of eighty-five out of
one hundred and three representatives, for the establishment by
statute of a legislative body to sit in Dublin, and to deal with
Irish as distinguished from Imperial affairs, in such a manner
as would be just to each of the three kingdoms, equitable with
reference to every class of the people of Ireland, conducive to
the social order and harmony of that country, and calculated to
support and consolidate the unity of the Empire on the continued
basis of Imperial authority and mutual attachment." No definite
plan was propounded or foreshadowed, but only the proposition
that it was a duty to seek a plan. The cynical version was that a
Cabinet was got together on the chance of being able to agree. To
Lord Hartington Mr. Gladstone applied as soon as he received the
Queen's commission. The invitation was declined on reasoned grounds
(January 30th). Examination and inquiry, said Lord Hartington, must
mean a proposal. If no proposal followed inquiry, the reaction of
Irish disappointment would be severe, as it would be natural. He
could not depart from the traditions of British statesmen, and he
was opposed to a separate Irish legislature. At the same time,
he concluded, in a sentence afterwards pressed by Mr. Gladstone
on the notice of the Queen: "I am fully convinced that the
alternative policy of governing Ireland without large concessions
to the national sentiment, presents difficulties of a tremendous
character, which in my opinion could now only be faced by the
support of a nation united by the consciousness that the fullest
opportunity had been given for the production and consideration
of a conciliatory policy...." The decision was persistently
regarded by Mr. Gladstone as an important event in English
political history. With a small number of distinguished individual
exceptions, it marked the withdrawal from the Liberal party of the
aristocratic element....

Mr. Goschen, who had been a valuable member of the great Ministry
of 1868, was invited to call, but without hopes that he would
rally to a cause so startling; the interview, while courteous
and pleasant, was over in a very few minutes. Lord Derby, a man
of still more cautious type, and a rather recent addition to the
officers of the Liberal staff, declined, not without good nature.
Most lamented of all the abstentions was the honoured and trusted
name of Mr. Bright.




"ULSTER WILL FIGHT" (1886).

=Source.=--Winston Churchill's _Life of Lord Randolph Churchill_,
vol. ii., pp. 60-65. (Macmillans.)


Lord Randolph crossed the Channel and arrived at Larne early on the
morning of February 22. He was welcomed like a king.... That night
the Ulster Hall (in Belfast) was crowded to its utmost compass.
In order to satisfy the demand for tickets all the seats were
removed, and the concourse--which he addressed for nearly an hour
and a half--heard him standing. He was nearly always successful
on the platform, but the effect he produced upon his audience at
Belfast was one of the most memorable triumphs of his life.... "Now
may be the time," he said, "to show whether all these ceremonies
and forms which are practised in Orange lodges are really living
symbols or only idle and meaningless ceremonies; whether that which
you have so carefully fostered is really the lamp of liberty, and
its flame the undying and unquenchable fire of freedom.... Like
Macbeth before the murder of Duncan, Mr. Gladstone asks for time.
Before he plunges the knife into the heart of the British Empire,
he reflects, he hesitates.... The Loyalists in Ulster should wait
and watch--organize and prepare. Diligence and vigilance ought to
be your watchword; so that the blow, if it does come, may not come
upon you as a thief in the night, and may not find you unready, and
taken by surprise. I believe that this storm will blow over, and
that the vessel of the Union will emerge with her Loyalist crew
stronger than before; but it is right and useful that I should add
that if the struggle should continue, and if my conclusions should
turn out to be wrong, then I am of opinion that the struggle is not
likely to remain within the lines of what we are accustomed to look
upon as constitutional action. No portentous change such as the
Repeal of the Union, no change so gigantic, could be accomplished
by the mere passing of a law. The history of the United States will
teach us a different lesson; and if it should turn out that the
Parliament of the United Kingdom was so recreant from all its high
duties, and that the British nation was so apostate to traditions
of honour and courage, as to hand over the Loyalists of Ireland to
the domination of an Assembly in Dublin, which must be to them a
foreign and an alien assembly, if it should be within the design
of Providence to place upon you and your fellow-Loyalists so heavy
a trial, then, gentlemen, I do not hesitate to tell you most truly
that in that dark hour there will not be wanting to you those of
position and influence in England who would be willing to cast in
their lot with you, and who, whatever the result, will share your
fortunes and your fate. There will not be wanting those who, at
the exact moment, when the time is fully come--if that time should
come--will address you in words which are perhaps best expressed by
one of our greatest English poets:

      'The combat deepens; on, ye brave,
      Who rush to glory or the grave.
      Wave, Ulster--all thy banners wave,
      And charge with all thy chivalry.'"

... A few weeks later, in a letter to a Liberal-Unionist member, he
repeated his menace in an even clearer form: "If political parties
and political leaders, not only Parliamentary but local, should be
so utterly lost to every feeling and dictate of honour and courage
as to hand over coldly, and for the sake of purchasing a short and
illusory Parliamentary tranquillity, the lives and liberties of
the Loyalists of Ireland to their hereditary and most bitter foes,
make no doubt on this point--Ulster will not be a consenting party;
Ulster at the proper moment will resort to the extreme arbitrament
of force; Ulster will fight, Ulster will be right; Ulster will
emerge from the struggle victorious, because all that Ulster
represents to us Britons will command the sympathy and support of
an enormous section of our British community, and also, I feel
certain, will attract the admiration and the approval of free and
civilized nations."




SALISBURY ON HOME RULE (1886).

=Source.=--_The Times_, April 14.


_Demonstration at Her Majesty's Theatre against the Home Rule Bill._

LORD SALISBURY: ... The great result which I hope from the
brilliant debates that have taken place is that the conviction
will be carried home to the British people that there is no
middle term between government at Westminster and independent
and entirely separate government at Dublin. If you do not have a
Government in some form or other issuing from the centre you must
have absolute separation. Now I ask you to look at what separation
means. It means the cutting off from the British Islands of a
province tied to them by the hand of Nature. It is hard to find a
parallel instance in the contemporary world, because the tendency
of events has been in the opposite direction. In every country you
find that consolidation, and not severance, has been the object
which statesmen have pursued. But there is one exception. There
is a State in Europe which has had very often to hear the word
"autonomy," which has had more than once to grant Home Rule, and
to see separation following Home Rule. The State I have referred
to is Turkey. Let anyone who thinks that separation is consistent
with the strength and prosperity of the country look to its effect,
its repeated effect, when applied to a country of which he can
judge more impartially.... Turkey is a decaying Empire; England, I
hope, is not. But I frankly admit that this is not the only reason
which urges me. The point that the Government have consistently
ignored is that Ireland is not occupied by a homogeneous and
united people. In proportions which are variously stated, which
some people state as four-fifths to one-fifth, but which I should
be more inclined to state as two-thirds to one-third, the Irish
people are deeply divided, divided not only by creed, which may
extend into both camps, but divided by history and by a long
series of animosities, which the conflicts that have lasted during
centuries have created. I confess that it seems to me that Whiteboy
Associations, and Moonlight Associations, and Riband Associations,
and murder committed at night and in the open day, and a constant
disregard to all the rights of property--these things make me
doubt the angelic character which has been attributed to the Irish
peasantry. I do not for a moment maintain that they are in their
nature worse than other people. But I say there are circumstances
attaching to Ireland--circumstances derived from history that is
past and gone through many generations--which make it impossible
for us to believe that, if liberty, entire liberty, were suddenly
given to them, they would be able to forget the animosities of
centuries and to treat those who are placed in their power for the
first time with perfect justice and equity. You must not imagine
that with a wave of a wand by any Minister, however powerful, the
effects of centuries of conflict and exasperation will be wiped
away.... My belief is that the future government of Ireland does
not involve any unmanageable difficulty. We want a wise, firm,
continuous administration of the law. We want a steady policy. But
you must support it, or it will not take place. There has been
a great contest between England and the discontented portion of
the Irish people. It is a contest that has lasted through many
generations past, through many vicissitudes, and now you are asked
to submit to a measure which is placed before you, and to end that
contest by a complete and ignominious surrender. It is not a
surrender marked by the mere ordinary circumstances of ignominy. It
is a painful thing for a great nation to lose a battle and have to
acknowledge defeat. It is a painful thing if defeat involves loss
of territory, and the nation has to be content with a restricted
Empire. But these things do not represent the depth of infamy to
which you will descend. There is something worse than all this,
and that is when defeat is marked by the necessity of abandoning
to your enemies those whom you have called upon to defend you, and
who have risked their all on your behalf. That is an infamy below
which it is impossible to go; that is an infamy to which you are
asked to submit yourselves now. Your enemies in every part of the
world will be looking on what you do with exultation. Your friends,
your supporters, your partisans, will view it with shame, with
confusion, and with dismay in every quarter of the globe.




MR. GLADSTONE'S APPEAL (1886).

=Source.=--_Hansard_, Third Series, vol. 295, col. 649. Second
reading of the Home Rule Bill, June 7th.


Ireland stands at your bar expectant, hopeful, almost suppliant.
Her words are the words of truth and soberness. She asks a blessed
oblivion of the past, and in that oblivion our interest is deeper
even than hers. You have been asked to-night to abide by the
traditions of which we are the heirs. What traditions? By the Irish
traditions? Go into the length and breadth of the world, ransack
the literature of all countries, find if you can a single voice,
a single book, in which the conduct of England towards Ireland is
anywhere treated except with profound and bitter condemnation. Are
these the traditions by which we are exhorted to stand? No; they
are a sad exception to the glory of our country. They are a broad
and black blot upon the pages of its history, and what we want to
do is to stand by the traditions of which we are the heirs in all
matters except our relations with Ireland, and to make our relation
with Ireland conform to the other traditions of our country. So we
treat our traditions, so we hail the demand of Ireland for what I
call a blessed oblivion of the past. She asks also a boon for the
future; and that boon for the future, unless we are much mistaken,
will be a boon to us in respect of honour, no less than a boon to
her in respect of happiness, prosperity, and peace. Such, sir, is
her prayer. Think, I beseech you; think well, think wisely, think,
not for the moment, but for the years that are to come, before you
reject this Bill.




LIBERAL UNIONISM (1886).

=Source.=--_The Times_, May 17.


The Conservative leaders will do well to say plainly that they
will not attack any Liberal seats held by representatives who have
voted against the Home Rule Bill, whatever prospect there may have
otherwise been of displacing the sitting members, or whatever
provocation may have been given in former contests. By this course
Conservatives can insure the return, with very few exceptions, of
all the Liberal members who have declared against the Bill. It is
open to them to assail the seats held by Gladstonian Liberals,
and on the principle of conjoint action they will be entitled,
in assailing those seats, and in defending those they at present
occupy, to the support of all Liberal Unionists.




THE UNEMPLOYED RIOTS (1886).

=Source.=--_The Times_, February 9.


There is serious work before the new Home Secretary and his
working-man colleague, Mr. Broadhurst. Yesterday there occurred
the most alarming and destructive riot that has taken place in
London for many years, or perhaps we may say the most destructive
that has taken place within living memory. The destruction of the
Hyde Park railings in 1866 was in some respects a more threatening
affair, as being the work of a bigger mob; but that, unlike the
present business, was not accompanied by the wholesale destruction
of property and the looting of shops. Yesterday a mob some
thousands strong marched along Pall Mall, St. James's Street, and
Piccadilly to Hyde Park, then broke into several sections, and
returned by South Audley Street, Oxford Street, Regent Street,
and other routes, smashing windows, wrecking private carriages,
and robbing jewellers' and other shops, utterly unchecked by
the police, and leaving only one or two of their number in the
hands of the authorities.... The occasion of all this lamentable
affair was the great meeting of the unemployed which took place
in Trafalgar Square. As our readers are aware, this meeting was
but the culmination of many attempts that have been made lately
to attract public attention to what is a very real difficulty and
hardship. At last the time came for the men to gather in Trafalgar
Square. But unfortunately there was not that perfect harmony in
their proceedings which might have been desired. Some groups were
simply unemployed labourers, come in all honesty of purpose to hear
what could be said for them, and their chances of finding work.
Some were fair-traders, anxious to impress on the Government that
foreign bounties and other tariff enormities were at the root of
the mischief. But with these moderately pacific bodies were the
more dangerous element brought into the meeting by Messrs. Hyndman,
Burns, and Champion. The Revolutionary Social Democrats were there,
with the express object of breaking up the meeting called by Mr.
Kenny and his friends, and of "preventing people being made the
tools of the paid agitators who were working in the interests
of the Fair Trade League." It cannot be too clearly understood
that it was to the proceedings of these men--of Mr. Burns and Mr.
Hyndman and their colleagues--that all the subsequent destruction
was due.... Already on several occasions the fanatic Hyndman has
done his best to break the peace, from the time when, a year or
two ago, he told the crowd on the Thames Embankment that their
principle should be a life for a life--the life of a Minister for
that of every working-man who starved--down to the time when at
the Holborn Town Hall he offered to head "the Revolution." Burns
is as vehement, and his voice carries further. He yesterday told
the mob that "the next time they met it would be to go and sack the
bakers' shops in the West of London," and that "they had better die
fighting than starving." He and his red flag led the mob yesterday
in their march.




BIMETALLISM AND LABOUR DISPUTES (1886).

=Source.=--_The Times_, February 19.


_Extract from a Letter by Lord Grey._

Some portion of public attention ought to be given to a subject
of very pressing importance--that of the "scarcity of gold." The
share which the enhancement of the value of gold has probably had
in producing these disastrous strikes seems not to have attracted
sufficient notice. The fall of prices from the growing scarcity
of gold has necessarily made the same wages for labour really
higher than they formerly were, while at the same time this fall
of prices has diminished the total return from labour and capital
employed in production.... Probably this has not been sufficiently
well understood by either masters or men, but the masters have
practically felt that they could no longer afford to pay the same
money wages they used to do, while the men have not understood the
necessity for such a reduction. What I would propose is that £1
notes, payable in silver bullion, should be issued, but only in
exchange for the same bullion after a certain fixed amount of them
had been sent into circulation. But this bullion I should propose
to give or receive in exchange for notes, not at any fixed price
for silver, but at the market price of the metal, which should be
published weekly in the _Gazette_. By this arrangement it will
be perceived that silver would be largely used as an instrument
for carrying on the business of exchange, without incurring the
inconvenience which seems to be inseparable from the scheme of the
bimetallists, who would establish by law a fixed price for silver
and for gold. As the cost of producing these metals is liable to
variation, I cannot understand how the bimetallists can expect
that fixing their comparative prices by law could prevent that
which could at the moment be most cheaply produced from driving
the other out of circulation, since all who had to pay money would
naturally make use of the cheapest money they could get.




PASTEUR AND HYDROPHOBIA (1886).

=Source.=--_The Times_, January 8.


_Extract from an Article on "Science in 1885."_

We may here refer to the momentous work of M. Pasteur in connection
with hydrophobia. That he has discovered a remedy for one of
the most terrible afflictions to which humanity is liable it
would probably be premature to say; but that he has taken every
precaution against self-deception must be admitted, and so far as
he has gone it is difficult to discredit his results.




THE FINAL HOME RULE RUPTURE (1886).

=Source.=--Morley's _Life of Gladstone_, vol. iii., pp. 364-368.
(Macmillans.)


As it happened, all this [Randolph Churchill's resignation of the
Exchequer, and Goschen's appointment] gave a shake to both of
the Unionist wings. The ominous clouds of coercion were sailing
slowly but discernibly along the horizon, and this made men in the
Unionist camp still more restless and uneasy. Mr. Chamberlain, on
the very day of the announcement of the Churchill resignation,
had made a speech that was taken to hold out an olive-branch to
his old friends. Sir William Harcourt ... thought the break-up
of a great political combination to be so immense an evil as to
call for almost any sacrifices to prevent it. He instantly wrote
to Birmingham to express his desire to co-operate in reunion,
and in the course of a few days five members of the original
Liberal Cabinet of 1886 met at his house in what is known as the
Round Table Conference (Sir W. Harcourt, Mr. Chamberlain, Lord
Herschell, Sir George Trevelyan, and myself).... Mr. Gladstone gave
the Round Table his blessing, his "general idea being that he had
better meddle as little as possible with the Conference, and retain
a free hand." Lord Hartington would neither join the Conference
nor deny that he thought it premature.... On the other side,
both English Liberals and Irish Nationalists were equally uneasy
lest the unity of the party should be bought by the sacrifice of
fundamentals.... Mr. Parnell, though alive to the truth that when
people go into a conference it usually means that they are willing
to give up something, was thoroughly awake to the satisfactory
significance of the Birmingham overtures.

Things at the Round Table for some time went smoothly enough.
Mr. Chamberlain gradually advanced the whole length. He publicly
committed himself to the expediency of establishing some kind of
legislative authority in Dublin in accordance with Mr. Gladstone's
principle, with a preference, in his own mind, for a plan on the
lines of Canada. This he followed up, also in public, by the
admission that of course the Irish legislature must be allowed
to organize their own form of executive government, either by an
imitation on a small scale of all that goes on at Westminster and
Whitehall, or in whatever other shape they might think proper....
Then the surface became mysteriously ruffled. Language was used
by some of the plenipotentiaries in public, of which each side in
turn complained as inconsistent with conciliatory negotiations in
private. At last, on the very day on which the provisional result
of the Conference was laid before Mr. Gladstone, there appeared
in a print called _The Baptist_ an article from Mr. Chamberlain
containing an ardent plea for the disestablishment of the Welsh
Church, but warning the Welshmen that they and the Scotch crofters,
and the English labourers--thirty-two millions of people--must all
go without much-needed legislation because three millions were
disloyal, while nearly six hundred members of Parliament would
be reduced to forced inactivity because some eighty delegates,
representing the policy and receiving the pay of the Chicago
Convention, were determined to obstruct all business until their
demands were conceded. Men naturally asked what was the use of
continuing a discussion when one party to it was attacking in this
peremptory fashion the very persons and the policy that in private
he was supposed to accept. Mr. Gladstone showed no implacability
... he said ... "I am inclined to think we can hardly do more
now.... We are quite willing that the subject should stand over for
resumption at a convenient season."

The resumption never happened. Two or three weeks later Mr.
Chamberlain announced that he did not intend to return to the
Round Table. No other serious and formal attempt was ever made on
either side to prevent the Liberal Unionists from hardening into a
separate species. When they became accomplices in coercion they cut
off the chances of reunion.




THE COMING OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION (1887).

=Source.=--_The Times_, March 17.


Lord Hartington made a striking speech last night to the
Polytechnic Young Men's Christian Institute. In the presence of
such an audience a text was perhaps needed, and he took as his
text some remarks made by Professor Huxley, who lately pointed
out the instructive likeness between warfare and industry. If
we are well advised--and Lord Hartington has no misgivings on
the subject--in spending freely to protect ourselves against
aggression, it is equally our duty to be not niggardly in providing
industrial education, and diffusing scientific knowledge. It is the
condition of industrial supremacy, and it is not an unattainable
condition. A Watt or even an Edison is born, not made. But the
knowledge of drawing, mechanics, mathematics, and chemistry, and
other sciences or arts, which aid the artisan in his daily work,
may be imparted, and on the spread of such knowledge may depend
the continuance of industrial supremacy. Great commanders cannot
be called into being; but in the main it depends on the rank and
file of the army of industry whether its battles are lost or won.
How is the work to be accomplished? In answer to this question
Lord Hartington let fall one or two remarks which, though not
offering a complete solution, are, if we mistake not, likely to be
fruitful in consequences. The State, he is satisfied, cannot do all
or much; and he is struck with the inability of purely voluntary
efforts to meet the demand. He finds the necessary assistance, if
anywhere, in our municipal institutions. "I hope the time is not
far distant when our town councils or local governing bodies will
establish in every considerable centre industrial and technical
schools, suitable to the wants of the district, and supported out
of local funds." The institutions which now imperfectly do the
work of diffusing technical instruction "are playing the same part
in relation to technical and industrial education that was played
by the voluntary schools in relation to elementary education."
This points to a national system of technical education; it is the
largest and clearest conception of the subject which any public man
of importance has put forth.




THE FIRST "GUILLOTINE" CLOSURE (1887).

=Source.=--_Hansard_, Third Series, vol. 315, col. 1674, June 10.


Ordered: That at ten o'clock p.m. on Friday, the 17th day of June,
if the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill be not previously
reported from the Committee of the whole House, the Chairman
shall put forthwith the Question or Questions on any amendment or
motion already proposed from the Chair. He shall next proceed and
successively put forthwith the Question that any clause then under
consideration, and each remaining clause in the Bill, stand part of
the Bill, unless progress be moved as hereinafter provided. After
the clauses are disposed of, he shall forthwith report the Bill, as
amended, to the House.

From and after the passing of this Order, no motion that the
Chairman do leave the Chair, or do report progress, shall be
allowed, unless moved by one of the members in charge of the Bill,
and the Question on such motion shall be put forthwith.

If progress be reported on 17th June the Chairman shall put this
Order in force in any subsequent sitting of the Committee.




JUBILEE RETROSPECTS (1887).

I.

=Source.=--An article by Mr. Gladstone in _The Nineteenth Century_,
vol. xxi., p. 1.


The Prophet of the new Locksley Hall records against us many sad,
and even shameful, defaults. They are not to be denied, and the
list might probably be lengthened. The youngest among us will not
see the day in which new social problems will have ceased to spring
up as from the depths, and vex even the most successful solvers of
the old; or in which this proud and great English nation will not
have cause, in all its ranks and orders, to bow its head before
the Judge Eternal, and humbly to confess to forgotten duties, or
wasted and neglected opportunities. It is well to be reminded,
and in tones such as make the deaf man hear, of city children who
"soak and blacken soul and sense in city slime"; of maidens cast by
thousands on the street; of the sempstress scrimped of her daily
bread; of dwellings miserably crowded; of fever as the result. But
take first the city child as he is described. For one such child
now there were ten, perhaps twenty, fifty years back. A very large,
and a still increasing proportion of these children have been
brought under the regular teaching and discipline of the school.
Take the maidens who are now, as they were then, cast by thousands
on the streets. But then, if one among them were stricken with
penitence, and sought for a place in which to hide her head, she
found it only in the pomp of paid institutions, and in a help well
meant, no doubt, yet carrying little of what was most essential,
sympathetic discrimination, and mild, nay even tender care. Within
the half-century a new chapter has opened. Faith and love have gone
forth into the field. Specimens of womankind, sometimes the very
best and highest, have not deemed this quest of souls beneath them.
Scrimping of wages, no doubt, there is and was. But the fair wage
of to-day is far higher than it was then, and the unfair wage is
assumably not lower. Miserable and crowded dwellings, again, and
fever as their result, both then and now. But legislation has in
the interval made its attempts in earnest; and if this was with
awkward and ungainly hand, private munificence or enterprise is
dotting our city areas with worthy dwellings. Above all, have we
not to record in this behalf martyred lives, such as those of
Denison and Toynbee? Or shall we refuse honourable mention to not
less devoted lives, happily still retained, of such persons as
Miss Octavia Hill? With all this there has happily grown up not
only a vast general extension of benevolent and missionary means,
but a great parochial machinery of domestic visitation, charged
with comfort and blessing to the needy, and spread over so wide
a circle, that what was formerly an exception may now with some
confidence be said to be the rule. If insufficiencies have come to
be more keenly felt, is that because they are greater, or because
there is a bolder and better trained disposition to feel them?...

I will refer as briefly as may be to the sphere of legislation.
Slavery has been abolished. A criminal code, which disgraced the
Statute Book, has been effectually reformed. Laws of combination
and contract, which prevented the working population from obtaining
the best price for their labour, have been repealed. The lamentable
and demoralizing abuses of the Poor Law have been swept away. Lives
and limbs, always exposed to destruction through the incidents of
labour, formerly took their chance, no man heeding them, even when
the origin of the calamity lay in the recklessness or neglect of
the employer. They are now guarded by preventive provisions, and
the loss is mitigated, to the sufferers or their survivors, by
pecuniary compensation. The scandals of labour in mines, factories,
and elsewhere, to the honour, first and foremost, of the name
of Shaftesbury, have been either removed, or greatly qualified
and reduced. The population on the sea-coast is no longer forced
wholesale into contraband trade by fiscal follies; and the Game
Laws no longer constitute a plausible apology for poaching. The
entire people have good schools placed within the reach of their
children, and are put under legal obligation to use the privileges
and contribute to the charge. They have also at their doors the
means of husbanding their savings, without the compromise of their
independence by the inspection of the rector or the squire, and
under the guarantee of the State to the uttermost farthing of the
amount. Information through a free press, formerly cut off from
them by stringent taxation, is now at their easy command. Their
interests at large are protected by their votes, and their votes
are protected by the secrecy which screens them from intimidation
either through violence, or in its subtler forms.

It is perhaps of interest to turn from such dry outlines as may be
sketched by the aid of almanacs to those more delicate gradations
of the social movement, which in their detail are indeterminate
and almost fugitive, but which in their mass may be apprehended,
and made the subject of record. Pugilism, which ranges between
manliness and brutality, and which in the days of my boyhood, in
its greatest celebrations, almost monopolized the space of journals
of the highest order, is now rare, modest, and unobtrusive. But,
if less exacting in the matter of violent physical excitements,
the nation attaches not less but more value to corporal education,
and for the schoolboy and the man alike athletics are becoming an
ordinary incident of life. Under the influence of better conditions
of living, and probably of increased self-respect, mendicity,
except in seasons of special distress, has nearly disappeared. If
our artisans combine (as they well may) partly to uphold their
wages, it is also greatly with the noble object of keeping all the
members of their enormous class independent of public alms. They
have forwarded the cause of self-denial, and manfully defended
themselves even against themselves, by promoting restraints
upon the traffic in strong liquors. In districts where they are
most advanced, they have fortified their position by organized
co-operation in supply. Nor are the beneficial changes of the
last half-century confined to the masses. Swearing and duelling
established until a recent date almost as institutions of the
country, have nearly disappeared from the face of society.... At
the same time the disposition to lay bare public mischiefs and drag
them into the light of day, which, though liable to exaggeration,
has perhaps been our best distinction among the nations, has become
more resolute than ever....

The sum of the matter seems to be that, upon the whole and in
a degree, we who lived fifty, sixty, seventy years back, and
are living now, have lived into a gentler time; that the public
conscience has grown more tender, as indeed was very needful; and
that, in matters of practice, at sight of evils formerly regarded
with indifference, or even connivance, it now not only winces, but
rebels; that upon the whole the race has been reaping, and not
scattering; earning, and not wasting.


II.

=Source.=--_The Times_, June 21.

The men of the Victorian age have lived in the midst of almost
cataclysmic mental changes. New facts have rained upon them with
a rapidity that baffles hypothesis, and stamps theory as obsolete
before half the world has become reconciled to its existence. In
such a time of intellectual flux anything like monumental art is
impossible, since neither the artist nor the age possesses the
permanence of mood required for a true presentment. Although,
however, the Victorian era has not produced much that the most
liberal charity can conceive as belonging to all time, it has
shown immense fertility and vigour in supplying the intellectual
wants of the present. In all but those supreme manifestations of
the human intellect which we ascribe to genius, its products are
at least equal, and in most cases superior, to those of any period
of our history, while in quantity and variety of intellectual
effort, and in diffusion of intellectual interest, it is entirely
unapproachable.




"REMEMBER MITCHELSTOWN" (1887).

=Source.=--_The Times_, October 19.


(MR. GLADSTONE at Nottingham): The case I have now to mention
goes further than that. It is the Mitchelstown case. I was
responsible for putting in a telegraphic answer to a telegram the
words, "Remember Mitchelstown," and Mitchelstown will and must
be remembered, and the meeting has an account to settle with the
Government in respect to Mitchelstown. I should have been glad to
have sealed my own lips, had not the Government sent forth its
testimony, its solemn, downright, unequivocal judgment that the
proceeding at Mitchelstown were right.... What did Mr. Balfour
say, when the Irish Nationalist members brought up the question of
the proceedings at Mitchelstown? He said that the whole action of
the police was in the face of the most tremendous provocation, and
absolutely in self-defence. He said that when the order to fire was
given the order was to fire only on those portions of the crowd who
were engaged in throwing stones.... Three human beings lost their
lives under the fire of the police. I cannot say three men, for in
the ordinary sense of the word they were not men. Two of them had
been men, and were in harmless old age. The other was growing to be
a man, and was still in harmless boyhood. Not one of these three
persons is even alleged to have thrown a stone. Not one of them, if
I recollect aright, is even alleged to have carried a stick.... Is
not this a melancholy and a miserable farce--tragic, too, in the
highest degree, when we consider that these trumpery proceedings,
perhaps of some casual boys or men, who are only able in the
utmost of their wrath and in the supply of stones that they could
command to break two or three windows in the police barracks--that
these are to be represented as leading and heading an attack which
caused a humane and intelligent body of the representatives of the
Government to fire out of windows, to kill three persons, one of
them distant 100 yards away, and two others sixty yards away. I
have said, and say again, "Remember Mitchelstown!"




"BLOODY SUNDAY" (1887).

=Source.=--Mackail's _Life of William Morris_, vol. ii., p. 190.


The restlessness among the working classes culminated in the
famous scenes of the 13th of November (1887), "Bloody Sunday,"
in and round Trafalgar Square. A meeting in the Square had been
announced to protest against the Irish policy of the Government;
it had been proclaimed by the police, and became converted into
a demonstration on a huge scale. No one who saw it will ever
forget the strange, and indeed terrible, sight of that grey
winter day, the vast sombre-coloured crowd, the brief but fierce
struggle at the corner of the Strand, and the river of steel and
scarlet that moved slowly through the dusky swaying masses when
two squadrons of the Life Guards were summoned up from Whitehall.
Only disorganized fragments straggled into the Square, to find
that the other columns had also been headed off or crushed, and
that the day was practically over. Preparations had been made to
repel something little short of a popular insurrection. An immense
police force had been concentrated, and in the afternoon the Square
was lined by a battalion of Foot Guards, with fixed bayonets and
twenty rounds of ball cartridge. For an hour or two the danger was
imminent of street-fighting such as had not been known in London
for more than a century. But the organized force at the disposal
of the civil authorities proved sufficient to check the insurgent
columns and finally clear the streets without a shot being fired.
For some weeks afterwards the Square was garrisoned by special
drafts of police. Otherwise London next day had resumed its usual
aspect. Once more the London Socialists had drawn into line with
the great mass of the London Radicals, and a formidable popular
movement had resulted, which, on that Sunday, was within a very
little of culminating in a frightful loss of life and the practical
establishment of a state of siege in London. But the English spirit
of compromise soon made itself felt.... Measures were taken for the
relief of the unemployed. Political Radicalism resumed its normal
occupations; and by the end of the year the Socialist League had
dropped back into its old place, a small body of enthusiasts among
whom an Anarchist group were now beginning to assume a distinct
prominence.




FIRST REPORT ON THE RAND (1887).

=Source.=--_The Board of Trade Journal_, December.


_Extracts from a Report, dated 4th October, by Mr. Ralph Williams,
British Officer at Pretoria._

On the 20th September, 1886, the Witwatersrand district was
declared a public goldfield, and from that date the history
of Johannesburg begins. For some months the town was known as
Ferreira's Camp, and the Natal Camp, and it was not till, perhaps,
March last that the present town of Johannesburg became recognized
as the central point of the goldfields of the district. From that
date the growth of the town has been almost unprecedented.... Large
hotels exist which equal in accommodation anything in South Africa.
Warehouses are full of all that can be obtained even at Cape Town.
A theatre--rough, it is true, but of considerable capacity--is in
full working order. Four banks are at work. Three newspapers are
published every other day.... The actual number of the population
I can hardly estimate, opinions differing so greatly. In the town
of Johannesburg itself I am disposed to think there are about
4,000 people. The outlying districts also contain a very large
population, probably nearly equalling that of the town.

The reefs which constitute the wealth of the Witwatersrand are
entirely different from any development which has yet been
worked.... The principal reef, which has now been traced to a
distance of between twenty-five and thirty miles, is called the
"main reef." It may be taken to have an average breadth of from 3
feet 6 inches to 15 feet. It has in several places been tested to
a depth of 70 feet, in every case being proved to be better and
richer at the lower levels than at the surface.

An inspection of the properties and inquiry into the cost of
production cannot fail to impress one with the fact that, if these
reefs are found to have sufficient depth, one of the richest
goldfields in the world has now come to light.


BILLING AND SONS, LTD., PRINTERS, GUILDFORD




  TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE

  There is only one Footnote in this book, marked [A] on page 29. It
  has been placed at the end of the short section containing the anchor.

  Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been
  corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within
  the text and consultation of external sources.

  Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text,
  and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained. For example,
  sea-coast, sea coast; to-night; employés; overboil; mendicity.

  Pg 13, 'slighest evidence' replaced by 'slightest evidence'.
  Pg 68, 'the British Goverment' replaced by 'the British Government'.





End of Project Gutenberg's Imperialism and Mr. Gladstone, by Various