CHAPTER VI. INTRODUCTORY. It was in the early days of the July of 1876 that English opinions" about the events which were taking place in the East first gathered that force and volume which entitled them to rank as "public." There was at that time a transition, so far as the generality of people were concerned, from a state of apathy and almost of torpor with regard to all kinds of politics, to a state of keen interest in one particular branch of politics, namely, a problem in foreign affairs. The transition was so sudden that we can almost fix on the very "moment of awakening." It would seem at first sight that the narrative should start from this point, but to appreciate the attitude of Public Opinion when it awoke it is necessary that we should know something of the mood in which it went to sleep, and likewise something of the influences which troubled its repose. § 1. First aspect of the Conservative Ministry. With 1873 closed a period of exceptional activity in organic legislation. The question before the constituencies in January 1874, was, as they then thought, whether they would immediately enter upon another such period, and the constituencies emphatically answered No. To represent this shrinking from further changes as nothing but the resistance of harassed interests, is to take a very imperfect view of the situation. No doubt the harassed interests constituted a formidable nucleus of opposition; but there was, in addition, a widely diffused aversion from the immediate prospect of further legislation such as was expected from the Liberal Ministry if armed with a fresh majority. This aversion was deeply rooted, however much it might have the appearance of being merely sentimental. The country wanted time to think. In fact the Liberal Ministry of 1868 shared the common fate of reforming bodies, to exhaust themselves in the moment of fruition. The late Liberal Government used up and expended their majority in fulfilling their pledges and redeeming their promises, even though temporary unpopularity followed that large expenditure of Liberal energy "One crowded hour of glorious life Is worth an age without a name!"—Mr. Lowe.1 The Disestablishment of the Irish Church, the Elementary Education Act, the Irish Land Act of 1870, the University Tests Act, the Ballot Act and the Abolition of Purchase in the Army, the Act legalising Trade Unions in 1871-these, with many less important measures, may be taken collectively as constituting the wave of reform which was the direct outcome of the extension of the Franchise in 1867, and which the Parliament of 1868 was elected to carry to its completion. But even before that Parliament came to an end it is clear from many symptoms that there was something like a feeling of satiety in regard to such reforming zeal.2 Mr. Disraeli recognised and was fully prepared to take advantage of this temper. Two leading notes run through his principal speeches at this time; one, harmonising with the growing distaste for further extensive political reconstruction; the other, pointing to schemes of social amelioration. A great scholar and a great wit 300 years ago said that in his opinion there was a great mistake in the Vulgate, and that instead of saying Vanitas Vanitatum omnia Vanitas, the wise king really said Sanitas Sanitatum omnia Sanitas. After all, the first consideration of a Minister should be the health of the people. A country may be covered with historic trophies, with museums of science and galleries of art, with universities and with libraries, the country may even be famous in the annals and action of the world, but, gentlemen, if the population every ten years decreases, and the stature of the race every ten years diminishes, the history of that country will soon be the history of the past.... As I sat opposite the Treasury Bench, the Ministers reminded me of one of those marine landscapes not unusual 1 At Retford, April 18, 1876. 2 Punch (if our recollection is correct) hails the end of a session about this time in verses which run something as follows: "Now Parliament's over, and I've to fear on the coasts of South America. You behold a range of exhausted volcanoes. Not a flame flickers on a single pallid crest. But the situation is still dangerous. There are occasional earthquakes, and ever and anon the dark rumbling of the sea.1 [After saying a policy of confiscation had been substituted for the policy of concurrent endowment he went on] You have had four years of it. You have despoiled Churches. You have threatened every corporation and endowment in the country. You have examined into everybody's affairs. You have criticised every profession and vexed every trade. No one is certain of his property, and no one knows what duties he may have to perform to-morrow.2 All these institutions and all these principles, which have made this country free and famous, and conspicuous for its union of order with liberty, are now impugned, and in due time will become great and burning questions.3 . . All For nearly five years the present Ministry have harassed every trade, worried every profession, and assailed or manacled every class, institution and species of property in the country. this they call a policy, and seem quite proud of; but the country has, I think, made up its mind to close this career of plundering and blundering.4 During the five years that we spent in opposition we endeavoured to impress upon the country our sincere convictions that the time had arrived when political change was no longer required, but that its intelligence and energy should be directed to the improvement and elevation of the condition of the people. We impressed upon the public mind that Sanitary Reform, for example, was the great object and need of the day, including in that phrase so little understood, most of the civilising influences of humanity.-Mr. Disraeli. In view of something very like the completion of the old Liberal programme, many Liberals might incline to think the time was at last come to accept the advice Earl Russell once gave, and to "rest and be thankful." It was on such grounds as these that the Edinburgh Review represented the election of 1874, somewhat paradoxically perhaps, as a Whig victory. On the other hand, according to a very different view, Mr. Gladstone was defeated because he was not sufficiently forward in 1 At the Free Trade Hall, Manchester, T. April 4, 1872. 2 Speech on adjourned debate second reading Irish University Bill, H. of C. March 11, 1873. 3 Speech on declining to form an Administration on Mr. Gladstone's defeat on the Irish University Bill, H. of C. March 20, 1873. Mr. Disraeli's letter to Lord Grey de Wilton, apropos of the Bath election, October, 1873, Annual Register, 1873. At the Mansion House, Aug. 4, 1875. "The Past and the Future of the Whig Party," April, 1874. proposing further legislative changes, and especially ecclesiastical changes. It was said that the Dissenters were alienated by the clauses of the Education Act which were favourable to denominational schools. It was asserted that the election of 1874 was after all not so fatal to advanced Radicals as to moderate Liberals.1 But it may well have been the case that the constituencies that had made up their minds in 1868 in favour of such measures as universal compulsory secular education, disestablishment of the Church, and household suffrage for counties, saw no reason to change their minds in 1874; while constituencies which in 1868 had only been prepared to go the length of the 1868 programme, refused in 1874 to give a vote which might possibly commit them to further lengths. The Liberal Ministry in February, 1874, had against it all the weight of the general distrust of further changes in the abstract, without enlisting the enthusiastic support of those who desired some definite change in particular. It is almost unnecessary to add that it seems a very insufficient explanation of Mr. Gladstone's defeat in 1874, to ascribe it to Liberal disorganisation. This there was, no doubt; but it was really not so much a cause as a symptom. Nor should too much weight be attached to the commercial prosperity of the country. To some extent it may have influenced the result directly by producing what Mr. Goschen called "the weariness of fastidious prosperity," and indirectly by discrediting the Liberal cry of economy, and making people indifferent to Mr. Gladstone's promised abolition of the income-tax. As for such statements as that of Mr. Goldwin Smith that "the two great Liberal sentiments of justice and humanity are declining," or that of Mr. Grant Duff that " we are in a bad decade," they must go for what they are worth.5 2 1 Professor Goldwin Smith thinks the programme of reforms compatible with aristocratic government was exhausted in 1874. Thus he agrees with the Edinburgh Reviewer in thinking that the alliance between Whigs and Radicals could not last, but the two writers differ in their hope and belief as to the ultimate result.-"Defeat of the Liberal Party," Fort. Rev. July, 1877. 2 See Clayden, England under Lord Beaconsfield, ch. ii. p. 25. 3 Fort. Rev. July, 1877, 4 19th Cent. May, 1878. 66 5 Mr. Justin McCarthy (Hist. of Our Own Times, ch. lxii.) appears just to hit the mark :-" Many causes indeed concurred to bring about the fall of the Liberal Administration. It had committed grave faults itself; some of its members had done it serious harm. Various powerful interests were arrayed against it. But when all allowance has been made for such considerations, it will probably be seen that the most potent influence which bore down the Gladstone Government was the fact that people in general had got tired of doing great things." |