DILEMMA OF THE GOVERNMENT.

265

CHAPTER XVIII.

1885.

The tone of leading articles in the 'Times'-a journal which up to that date had uniformly given independent support to whatever Government happened to be in power --became ominous of the general displeasure entertained at the beginning of 1885 on account of the way the affairs of this country were being conducted. The outcome of five years' administration of foreign affairs by Lord Granville had been to leave Great Britain almost without a friend among the great Powers. Italy, it is true, had been conciliated by the conclusion of a treaty under which England agreed to favour that country in the formation of a colony at Massowah, in the Red Sea, and in the annexation of territory on the west coast of Africa, in return for which "Italy would assist England in her enterprises in Egypt, and would raise her voice on behalf of England in the European Council for the settling of the Egyptian question, on every occasion when England should appeal to her." But France was still malcontent with the continued occupation of Egypt by British troops. Russia had persisted in pushing forward her advance-posts towards the Afghan frontier in spite of Lord Granville's remonstrance, and in contemptuous disregard of treaties; and the steady concentration of troops and warlike material in the direction of Merv seemed intended as a direct menace to Great Britain. Lastly, a state of angry tension had developed itself between the Foreign Departments of Great Britain and Germany in regard to certain events connected with the development of Prince Bismarck's policy of Colonisation in Africa and New

Guinea, and the conclusion of a treaty between the German Emperor and the King of Samoa.1

But a still deeper shade of gloom fell on the outlook of Ministers by the announcement, in a telegram from Sir Charles Wilson on February 5, that Khartoum, which General Gordon had been holding against the Mahdi for ten months, had fallen, and the Government had to endure the bitter shame of having delayed succour to a gallant officer till it was too late. The Prime Minister only deepened the disgrace of himself and his colleagues when, on the opening of Parliament on February 19, he tried to palliate it by declaring that "General Gordon contentedly forbore— indeed, more than contentedly, he determinedly forbore— to make use of the means of personal safety which were at all times open to him." The expression of displeasure with which these words were received by the House was so intense, that Mr Gladstone withdrew them; but the impression remained that an unmerited slight had been put upon Gordon's devoted service. On a vote of censure moved by Sir Stafford Northcote, in terms all too mild to satisfy the general feeling among Conservatives, the Government narrowly escaped overthrow by a majority of 14 votes302 to 288.2

1 Bismarck, addressing the German Parliament on March 2, gave blunt expression to the irritation engendered by Lord Granville's mode of conducting business. "We have received," he said, “since the summer of 1884, no less than 128 English despatches, containing altogether 700 or 800 pages. We did not receive so much from all the other foreign Governments together in the twenty-three years I have been Foreign Minister. Every Nation and Government has the right to do business in the manner it considers useful; but a foreign policy chiefly made up of printed and published notes, sometimes written in order favourably to influence your own Parliament, entails the danger of writing somewhat to impress Parliament and not exclusively the foreign Governments."

2 Smith had written to Northcote on February 22, endeavouring to convey to him the dissatisfaction among the Tories at the terms of his resolution, and hinting at the necessity for more vigour in attack: "There is a feeling amongst our friends that very plain, strong speak

A.D. 1885.]

DISCONTENT OF THE TORIES.

267

The disheartening effect of disunion among the Ministerialists had a remarkable counterpart at this time among the ranks of the Opposition. Dissatisfaction towards Northcote's somewhat timid leadership was enhanced by comparison with the brilliant onslaughts led by Lord Randolph Churchill against the Government policy, not only in the House of Commons, but on platforms throughout the country. This feeling found pretty plain utterance at a meeting of the Conservative party held at the Carlton on February 24, and developed into something like open revolt on March 17, when, in discussing the Redistribution of Seats Bill, Sir Michael Hicks Beach stated that he was entirely unable to agree with the line his leader had taken in supporting the Government's proposal to increase the number of members of the House, and led the "rapier and rosette " party of the Conservatives into the lobby against him.

This, and much more like it, was plainly directed against Northcote's generalship. The peaceable, cultivated country gentleman was not one to inspire confidence when desperate fighting against heavy odds was to be done, and no one knew this better than Smith himself, who knew also what serious warnings his friend and colleague had received about the state of his health. Nevertheless, neither by word nor sign did he show the slightest wavering in his loyalty to Northcote; and though secretly stimulating him to more spirited action, Smith never shrank from sharing the obloquy which the impetuous Fourth Party poured on the bourgeois placemen who sat on the front Opposition bench.

Meanwhile negotiations with the Russian Government on

ing is necessary in this debate. They say our resolution is deficient in force, and that the country demands almost passionate action. I tell you this for what it is worth. I think I recoil from extremes instinctively; but the condition of affairs is so very serious that, come what may, I think it is the duty of men to speak out and to say what they think."

the Afghan frontier question had been laboriously progressing till, on April 8, came news which seemed to put the maintenance of peace out of the question. General Komaroff had attacked and routed a body of Afghan troops with heavy loss. Smith describes the prevalent anxiety in letters to his wife :

HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 9.

The news this afternoon is very serious indeed-much more so than any I have heard for a long time. It looks very much as if Russia has played a deliberately treacherous part, and in a contemptuous, defiant manner. I am afraid we have embarked on a very serious war, which will task all the resources of the country.

10th April. There is no excitement, no

We are all in a state of deep concern. alarm, but just that gravity which men exhibit when they feel great events are occurring. There is no fresh news this morning, and I hardly expect to hear anything now before Monday; but I am very glad we did not go away, for if we had I should have felt very uneasy and very selfish. I am, as you may suppose, rather busy and rather anxious, but I trust all will go well with us this evening.

Mr Gladstone described to the House what had taken place in a tone and terms which made a deep impression on all who heard him :

The House will not be surprised when I say, speaking with measured words in circumstances of great gravity, that to us, upon the statements I have recited, this attack bears the appearance of an unprovoked aggression.

Little did the House of Commons or the country understand what lay behind the Prime Minister's speech. Conveying, as it undoubtedly did, a firm determination to stand by our treaty engagements to the Afghans, and resist encroachment upon our Indian frontier, Mr Gladstone was cheered to the echo from every part of the House. It was not till several weeks later, after the Vote of Credit for £11,000,000 had been asked for and obtained, that it became known that at the very moment he had uttered these brave words, he had been conscious that the British Commissioner, Sir Peter Lumsden, had been recalled, and that

A.D. 1885.] DEFEAT OF LIBERAL GOVERNMENT.

269

at the same time as the Russian Government, who knew how to encourage faithful service, were sending out a sword of honour to General Komaroff.

The Redistribution Bill having been read a second time in the House of Lords, it was generally understood that the remaining business was to be got through in time for an early dissolution of Parliament. But there was an unexpected fate awaiting Mr Gladstone's Administration. The Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Childers, provided for an increase in the duties on beer and spirits, a proposal to which Sir Michael Hicks Beach moved a hostile amendment. This was carried against the Government by a majority of 12 votes, and on June 12 the Prime Minister announced that the Ministry had tendered their resignation to the Queen. Next day her Majesty telegraphed from Balmoral accepting the resignation, and sent for the Marquis of Salisbury, who, returning on June 15, began the difficult task of forming a Cabinet. The difficulty he had to encounter was twofold, for not only would the remaining business of the session, including a new Budget, have to be transacted in face of a hostile majority, but the Tory revolt against Sir Stafford Northcote had to be dealt with. This last was accentuated by an incident which took place in the House of Commons on the very day of Lord Salisbury's return from Balmoral. Mr Gladstone that evening proposed that the House should take into consideration the Lords' amendments on the Redistribution of Seats Bill, and in doing so he received the support of Northcote and the "official" Opposition. But the Fourth Party resisted the consideration of contentious matter during the interregnum. Sir Michael Hicks Beach, to the surprise of many, threw his weight into the scale of Lord Randolph Churchill, and voted with him in the minority of 35 against 333. The significance of this numerically trifling secession from North