parliamentary usage, had been regularly defeated. But the
Irish were placing themselves under new leaders and adopting
new methods. During the Conservative government of 1874, the
Irish members had endeavoured to arrest attention by organized
obstruction. Their efforts had increased the difficulties of
Parnell.
government and taxed the endurance of parliament.
These tactics were destined to be raised to a fine art
by Parnell, who succeeded to the head of the Irish party about
the time of the formation of Gladstone’s government. It was
Parnell’s determination to make legislation impracticable, and
parliament unendurable, till Irish grievances were redressed.
It was his evident belief that by pursuing such tactics he could
force the House of Commons to concede the legislation which
he desired. The Irish members were not satisfied with the
legislation which parliament had passed in 1869–1870. The
land act of 1870 had given the tenant no security in the case
of eviction for non-payment of rent; and the tenant whose
rent was too high or had been raised was at the mercy of his
landlord. It so happened that some bad harvests had temporarily
increased the difficulties of the tenantry, and there was no doubt
that large numbers of evictions were taking place in Ireland.
In these circumstances, the Irish contended that the relief which
the act of 1870 had afforded should be extended, and that, till
such legislation could be devised, a temporary measure should
be passed giving the tenant compensation for disturbance.
Gladstone admitted the force of this reasoning, and a bill was
introduced to give effect to it. Passed by the Commons, it was
thrown out towards the end of the session by the Lords; and
the government acquiesced—perhaps could do nothing but
acquiesce—in this decision. In Ireland, however, the rejection
of the measure was attended with disastrous results. Outrages
increased, obnoxious landlords and agents were “boycotted”—the
name of the first gentleman exposed to this treatment adding
a new word to the language; and Forster, who had accepted the
office of chief secretary, thought it necessary, in the presence of
outrage and intimidation, to adopt stringent measures for
enforcing order. A measure was passed on his initiation, in
1881, authorizing him to arrest and detain suspected persons;
and many well-known Irishmen, including Parnell himself and
other members of parliament, were thrown into prison. It was
an odd commentary on parliamentary government that a Liberal
ministry should be in power, and that Irish members should
be in prison; and early in 1882 Gladstone determined to liberate
the prisoners on terms. The new policy—represented by what
was known as the Kilmainham Treaty—led to the resignation
of the viceroy, Lord Cowper, and of Forster, and the appointment
of Lord Spencer and Lord Frederick Cavendish as their
successors. On the 6th of May 1882 Lord Spencer made his entry
into Dublin, and on the evening of the same day Lord Frederick,
unwisely allowed to walk home alone with Burke, the under-secretary
to the Irish government, was murdered with his
companion in Phoenix Park. This gross outrage led to fresh
measures of coercion. The disclosure, soon afterwards, of a
conspiracy to resort to dynamite still further alienated the
sympathies of the Liberal party from the Irish nation. Gladstone
might fairly plead that he had done much, that he had risked
much, for Ireland, and that Ireland was making him a poor
return for his services.
In the meanwhile another difficulty was further embarrassing a harassed government. The necessities of the khedive of Egypt had been only temporarily relieved by the sale to Lord Beaconsfield’s government of the Suez Canal Egypt. shares. Egyptian finance, in the interests of the bondholders, had been placed under the dual control of England and France. The new arrangement naturally produced some native resentment, and Arabi Pasha placed himself at the head of a movement which was intended to rid Egypt of foreign interference. His preparations eventually led to the bombardment of Alexandria by the British fleet, and still later to the invasion of Egypt by a British army under Sir Garnet, afterwards Lord Wolseley, and to the battle of Tell-el-Kebir, after which Arabi was defeated and taken prisoner. The bombardment of Alexandria led to the immediate resignation of Bright, whose presence in the cabinet had been of importance to the government; the occupation of Egypt broke up the dual control, and made Great Britain responsible for Egyptian administration. The effects of British rule were, in one sense, remarkable. The introduction of good government increased the prosperity of the people, and restored confidence in Egyptian finance. At the same time it provoked the animosity of the French, who were naturally jealous of the increase of British influence on the Nile, and it also threw new responsibilities on the British nation. For south of Egypt lay the great territory of the Sudan, which to some extent commands the Nile, and which had been added to the Egyptian dominions at various periods between 1820 and 1875. In 1881 a fanatic sheikh—known as the mahdi—had headed an insurrection against the khedive’s authority; and towards the close of 1883 an Egyptian army under an Englishman, Colonel Hicks, was annihilated by the mahdi’s followers. The insurrection increased the responsibilities which intervention had imposed on England, and an expedition was sent to Suakin to guard the littoral of the Red Sea; while, at the beginning of 1884, General Gordon—whose services in China had gained him a high reputation, and who had had previous experience in the Sudan—was sent to Khartum to report on the condition of affairs. These decisions led to momentous results. The British expedition to Suakin was engaged in a series of battles with Osman Digna, Gordon. the mahdi’s lieutenant; while General Gordon, after alternate reverses and successes, was isolated at Khartum. Anxious as Gladstone’s ministry was to restrict the sphere of its responsibilities, it was compelled to send an expedition to relieve General Gordon; and Lord Wolseley, who was appointed to the command, decided on moving up the Nile to his relief. The expedition proved much more difficult than Lord Wolseley had anticipated. And before it reached its goal, Khartum was forced to surrender, and General Gordon and his few faithful followers were murdered (January 1885). General Gordon’s death inflicted a fatal blow on the Liberal government. It was thought that the general, whose singular devotion to duty made him a popular hero, had been allowed to assume an impossible task; had been feebly supported; and that the measures for his relief had been unduly postponed and at last only reluctantly undertaken. The ministry ultimately experienced defeat on a side issue. The budget, which Childers brought forward as chancellor of the exchequer, was attacked by the Conservative party; and an amendment proposed by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, condemning an increase in the duties on spirits and beer, was adopted by a small majority. Gladstone resigned office, and Lord Salisbury, who, after Lord Beaconsfield’s death, had succeeded to the lead of the Conservative party, was instructed to form a new administration.
It was obvious that the new government, as its first duty, would be compelled to dissolve the parliament that had been elected when Gladstone was enjoying the popularity which he had lost so rapidly in office. But it so happened that it was no longer possible to appeal to the old constituencies. Reform Act, 1884. For, in 1884, Gladstone had introduced a new Reform Bill; and, though its passage had been arrested by the Lords, unofficial communications between the leaders of both parties had resulted in a compromise which had led to the adoption of a large and comprehensive Reform Act. By this measure, household franchise was extended to the counties. But counties and boroughs were broken up into a number of small constituencies, for the most part returning only one member each; while the necessity of increasing the relative weight of Great Britain, and the reluctance to inflict disfranchisement on Ireland, led to an increase in the numbers of the House of Commons from 658 to 670 members. This radical reconstruction of the electorate necessarily made the result of the elections doubtful. As a matter of fact, the new parliament comprised 334 Liberals, 250 Conservatives and 86 Irish Nationalists. It was plain beyond the possibility of doubt that the future depended on the course which the Irish Nationalists might adopt. It they threw in their lot with Gladstone, Lord Salisbury’s
