appreciate the wisdom of a concession which has gained for them
the friendship of the United States. But in 1871 the country
resented the manner in which Lord Granville had acted. Whatever
credit the government might have derived from its domestic
measures, it was discredited, or it was thought to be, by its
foreign policy. In these circumstances legislation in 1871 was
not marked with the success which had attended the government
in previous sessions. The government succeeded in terminating
a long controversy by abolishing ecclesiastical tests at universities.
But the Lords ventured to reject a measure for the introduction
of the ballot at elections, and refused to proceed with a bill
for the abolition of purchase in the army. The result of these
decisions was indeed remarkable. In the one case, the Lords
in 1872 found it necessary to give way, and to pass the Ballot Bill,
which they had rejected in 1871. In the other, Gladstone
decided on abolishing, by the direct authority of the crown,
the system which the Lords refused to do away with by
legislation. But his high-handed proceeding, though it forced
the Lords to reconsider their decision, strained the allegiance of
many of his supporters, and still further impaired the popularity
of his administration. Most men felt that it would have been
permissible for him, at the commencement of the session, to have
used the queen’s authority to terminate the purchase system;
Army purchase.
but they considered that, as he had not taken this
course, it was not open to him to reverse the decision
of the legislature by resorting to the prerogative.
Two appointments, one to a judicial office, the other to an
ecclesiastical preferment, in which Gladstone, about the same
time, showed more disposition to obey the letter than the spirit
of the law, confirmed the impression which the abolition of
purchase had made. Great reforming ministers would do well
to recollect that the success of even liberal measures may be
dearly purchased by the resort to what are regarded as unconstitutional
expedients.
In the following years the embarrassments of the government
were further increased. In 1872 Bruce, the home secretary,
succeeded in passing a measure of licensing reform.
But the abstainers condemned the bill as inadequate;
the publicans denounced it as oppressive; and the
1872–
1874.
whole strength of the licensed victuallers was thenceforward
arrayed against the ministry. In 1873 Gladstone attempted to
complete his great Irish measures by conferring on Ireland the
advantage of a university which would be equally acceptable
to Protestants and Roman Catholics. But his proposal again
failed to satisfy those in whose interests it was proposed. The
second reading of the bill was rejected by a small majority, and
Gladstone resigned; but, as Disraeli could not form a government,
he resumed office. The power of the great minister was,
however, spent; his ministry was hopelessly discredited.
History, in fact, was repeating itself. The ministry was suffering,
as Lord Grey’s government had suffered nearly forty years
before, from the effect of its own successes. It had accomplished
more than any of its supporters had expected, but in doing so it
had harassed many interests and excited much opposition.
Gladstone endeavoured to meet the storm by a rearrangement
of his crew. Bruce, who had offended the licensed victuallers,
was removed from the home office, and made a peer and president
of the council. Lowe, who had incurred unpopularity by his
fiscal measures, and especially by an abortive suggestion for
the taxation of matches, was transferred from the exchequer
to the home office, and Gladstone himself assumed the duties
of chancellor of the exchequer. He thereby created a difficulty
for himself which he had not foreseen. Up to 1867 a minister
leaving one office and accepting another vacated his seat; after
1867 a transfer from one post to another did not necessitate a
fresh election. But Gladstone in 1873 had taken a course which
had not been contemplated in 1867. He had not been transferred
from one office to another. He had accepted a new in addition
to his old office. It was, to say the least, uncertain whether
his action in this respect had, or had not, vacated his seat. It
would be unfair to suggest that the inconvenient difficulty with
which he was thus confronted determined his policy, though he
was probably insensibly influenced by it. However this may be,
on the eve of the session of 1874 he suddenly decided to dissolve
parliament and to appeal to the country. He announced his
decision in an address to his constituents, in which, among other
financial reforms, he promised to repeal the income tax. The
course which Gladstone took, and the bait which he held out
to the electors, were generally condemned. The country,
wearied of the ministry and of its measures, almost everywhere
supported the Conservative candidates. Disraeli found himself
restored to power at the head of an overwhelming majority, and
the great minister who, five years before, had achieved so marked
a triumph temporarily withdrew from the leadership of the party
with whose aid he had accomplished such important results.
His ministry had been essentially one of peace, yet its closing
days were memorable for one little war in which a great soldier
increased a reputation already high. Sir Garnet Wolseley
triumphed over the difficulties which the climate of the west
coast of Africa imposes on Europeans, and brought a troublesome
contest with the Ashantis to a successful conclusion.
The history of Disraeli’s second administration affords an exact reverse to that of Gladstone’s first cabinet. In legislation the ministry attempted little and accomplished less. They did something to meet the wishes of the publicans, whose discontent had contributed largely to Gladstone’s Disraeli’s second ministry. defeat, by amending some of the provisions of Bruce’s licensing bill; they supported and succeeded in passing a measure, brought in by the primate, to restrain some of the irregularities which the Ritualists were introducing into public worship; and they were compelled by the violent insistence of Plimsoll to pass an act to protect the lives of merchant seamen. Disraeli’s government, however, will be chiefly remembered for its foreign policy. Years before he had propounded in Tancred the theory that England should aim at eastern empire. Circumstances in his second term of office enabled him to translate his theory into practice. In 1875 the country was suddenly startled at hearing that it had acquired a new position and assumed new responsibilities in Egypt by the purchase of the shares which the khedive of Egypt held in the Suez Canal. In the following spring a new surprise was afforded by the introduction of a measure authorizing the queen to assume the title of empress of India. But these significant actions were almost forgotten in the presence of a new crisis; for in 1876 misgovernment in Turkey had produced its natural results, and the European provinces of the Porte were in a state of armed insurrection. In the presence of a grave danger, Count Andrassy, the Austrian minister, drew up a note which was afterwards known by his name, declaring that the Porte had failed to carry into effect the promises of reform which she had made, and that some combined action on the part of Europe was necessary to compel her to do so. The note was accepted by the three continental empires, but Great Britain refused in the first instance to assent to it, and only ultimately consented at the desire of the Porte, whose statesmen seem to Bulgarian “atrocities.” have imagined that the nominal co-operation of England would have the effect of restraining the action of other powers. Turkey accepted the note and renewed the promises of reform, which she had so often made, and which meant so little. The three northern powers thereupon agreed upon what was known as the Berlin Memorandum, in which they demanded an armistice, and proposed to watch over the completion of the reforms which the Porte had promised. The British government refused to be a party to this memorandum, which in consequence became abortive. The insurrection increased in intensity. The sultan Abdul Aziz, thought unequal to the crisis, was hastily deposed; he was either murdered or led to commit suicide; and insurrection in Bulgaria was stamped out by massacre. The story of the “Bulgarian atrocities” was published in Great Britain in the summer of 1876. Disraeli characteristically dismissed it as “coffee-house babble,” but official investigation proved the substantial accuracy of the reports which had reached England. The people regarded these events with horror. Gladstone, emerging from his retirement, denounced the conduct of the
