Foreign and Colonial policy World politics State interference with Higher Education; the appointment of These topics by no means exhaust the interest and significance of the Victorian era. Constitutional, economic, social, educational and ecclesiastical reforms must necessarily fill a large space in any volume devoted to the history of the nineteenth century. But they must not be permitted to engage exclusive attention nor to obscure the importance of the part played by Great Britain upon the stage of European and world politics. The Revolution of 1688 marked an important crisis in the relations of England and the continent, and during the whole of the succeeding century (1688-1815) this country played a conspicuous if not a dominating part. The accession of the Dutch Stadtholder to the English throne; the resounding victories of Marlborough and Rooke; the command of the Mediterranean first asserted after the capture of Gibraltar and Minorca; active participation in the so-called wars of succession, Spanish and Austrian; a long series of defeats inflicted upon France in three several continents; above all, the leadership of many coalitions in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars, contributed to give to this country a pre-eminent position among the Powers of Europe. But the essential significance of English activity during this period was missed by contemporary observers and, for many generations, by historical critics. It may be an hyperbole to declare, with Sir John Seeley, that we conquered half the world in a fit of absence of mind. Nevertheless Seeley performed a real historical service in teaching us to scrutinize motives and estimate broad results he reduced to order the chaos of the eighteenth century; he showed that in the apparently disconnected and meaningless contests of that period there was a profound and consistent tendency, and that events seemingly miscellaneous and unrelated were in reality making towards a definite and important goal. That goal was Colonial Empire: supremacy in India and the New World. Since 1815 the political focus has been consciously adjusted. Great Britain has tended to withdraw from interference in matters which concern Europe only, and has concentrated her attention upon questions of world politics. She has in fact 1901] IRELAND 13 in 1898, apparently against the will, and palpably against the initial inclination of the conqueror. Great Britain has thus been compelled, greatly to her own advantage and not less to the advantage of the people whom she rules, to assume a dominant position in Egypt and the Soudan. There remains one other topic which will demand detailed Ireland treatment in this volume. The Irish question is never very far from the surface of English politics. Ministries come and ministries go, but the Irish problem confronts them impartially. When Wellington won his victory at Waterloo, Ireland was just midway between the Union and Catholic Emancipation. The Catholic agitation was crowned with success in 1829, and for ten years O'Connell gave his Whig allies their chance. They failed to take it, and in 1841 the Repeal agitation was inaugurated. This culminated in the "Young Ireland" rebellion of 1848. But the central fact of Irish history in the nineteenth century is the great famine of 1845-1846. It changed the face of the country and accentuated many problems which are still in process of solution. Among these the most insistent is the agrarian problem which, with rare and short intervals, occupied the attention of the Imperial Legislature from 1850 until the close of the century. During the 'sixties the agrarian movement was complicated by the Fenian outbreak, and by the successful agitation for the disestablishment and disendowment of the Anglican Church in Ireland. During the late 'seventies, and throughout the 'eighties, it was closely intertwined with the Parnellite movement and the demand for legislative independence. It is not pretended that the preceding analysis is in any sense exhaustive. But in a period so crowded with detail it may, perhaps, conduce to lucidity if some emphasis is laid at the outset upon the main points to which, in the pages that follow, the reader's attention must be primarily directed. Perhaps we are as yet too near the events of the nineteenth century to see them in their true perspective, or to assign to them the precise significance which, in the eyes of posterity, they will ultimately assume. Provisionally, however, we may hazard the conjecture that the characteristic differentia of English history since Waterloo will be found in the conjoined ascendancy of Science and Industry, in the advent of Democracy, and in the extension of Empire. The Suez Canal connection. France perceived it long ago. So far back as 1738 a brilliant French diplomatist-D'Argenson-published a project for the reorganization of the Ottoman Empire, which included, inter alia, the acquisition of Egypt by France, and the cutting of a canal from the Levant to the Red Sea which should belong in common to the whole world. More than a century was to elapse before the idea of D'Argenson was embodied in the great enterprise of Lesseps. It is, however, worthy of note that when in 1788 the Emperor Joseph II. and the Czarina Catherine II. were meditating a partition of Eastern Europe, they suggested that Egypt should be thrown as a sop to France. At the close of the century Napoleon determined that the acquisition of the sop should no longer be delayed. In his campaign against Great Britain he realized from the outset that Egypt was a vital point. "Really to destroy England we must make ourselves master of Egypt." But England was curiously lethargic in awakening to the fact which loomed so large before the eyes of Frenchmen. In 1840 and again in 1853 Nicholas I. of Russia pressed the question upon the attention of the English Court and the English Cabinet. In his statesmanlike diagnosis of the Eastern problem he invariably insisted that England's interests must be safeguarded by the acquisition of Egypt. But neither in 1840 nor in 1853 would England listen to the Russian proposals based upon the recognition of this fact. The opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 revolutionized the situation. The Mediterranean, which for four hundred years had been a mere backwater of commerce, rapidly regained the position it had lost. But the canal was the work not of England but of France. In 1875 Disraeli secured for England a controlling influence in the canal by the purchase of the Khedive's shares. It was a masterstroke of policy, imperfectly appreciated at the moment, and was followed up in 1878 by the acquisition of Cyprus. At last England was awaking from her lethargy in regard to Egypt. The critical moment arrived in 1882. France declined to share in the task of the restoration of order, the dual control was virtually abolished; and the suppression of Arabi's rebellion was followed by the establishment of a thinly veiled British Protectorate in 1883. In the same year troubles broke out in the Soudan which, after many vicissitudes and more than one tragedy, was finally conquered 1 Bonaparte to the Directory, August 16th, 1797. 1901] IRELAND 13 in 1898, apparently against the will, and palpably against the initial inclination of the conqueror. Great Britain has thus been compelled, greatly to her own advantage and not less to the advantage of the people whom she rules, to assume a dominant position in Egypt and the Soudan. There remains one other topic which will demand detailed Ireland treatment in this volume. The Irish question is never very far from the surface of English politics. Ministries come and ministries go, but the Irish problem confronts them impartially. When Wellington won his victory at Waterloo, Ireland was just midway between the Union and Catholic Emancipation. The Catholic agitation was crowned with success in 1829, and for ten years O'Connell gave his Whig allies their chance. They failed to take it, and in 1841 the Repeal agitation was inaugurated. This culminated in the "Young Ireland" rebellion of 1848. But the central fact of Irish history in the nineteenth century is the great famine of 1845-1846. It changed the face of the country and accentuated many problems which are still in process of solution. Among these the most insistent is the agrarian problem which, with rare and short intervals, occupied the attention of the Imperial Legislature from 1850 until the close of the century. During the 'sixties the agrarian movement was complicated by the Fenian outbreak, and by the successful agitation for the disestablishment and disendowment of the Anglican Church in Ireland. During the late 'seventies, and throughout the 'eighties, it was closely intertwined with the Parnellite movement and the demand for legislative independence. It is not pretended that the preceding analysis is in any sense exhaustive. But in a period so crowded with detail it may, perhaps, conduce to lucidity if some emphasis is laid at the outset upon the main points to which, in the pages that follow, the reader's attention must be primarily directed. Perhaps we are as yet too near the events of the nineteenth century to see them in their true perspective, or to assign to them the precise significance which, in the eyes of posterity, they will ultimately assume. Provisionally, however, we may hazard the conjecture that the characteristic differentia of English history since Waterloo will be found in the conjoined ascendancy of Science and Industry, in the advent of Democracy, and in the extension of Empire. The CHAPTER II PEACE WITHOUT PLENTY. POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, AND W HEN Wellington won his victory at Waterloo, the Prince of Wales had been for nearly five years Regent of Great Britain and Ireland. After more than one temporary lapse into insanity, George III. had been finally bereft of reason in 1810, and since then had lived in complete retirement at Windsor, under the guardianship of his devoted wife. His eldest son, now Prince Regent, was perhaps the least reputable member of a family whose common stock of virtue was not superabundant. By no means devoid of ability, not lacking in dignity, and possessed of considerable personal charm,' he had nevertheless deservedly forfeited the affection and even the respect of his people. For the vindictiveness with which he pursued his wife there may have been reason, but nothing can excuse his undutiful behaviour to his father or his harshness towards his only legitimate child. A shameless voluptuary, a reckless spendthrift, a hard drinker, and a confirmed gambler, his conduct was a constant embarrassment to his ministers and a terrible example to his subjects; but his correspondence with the leading statesmen of the time proves that he had an ample measure of political sagacity and no little shrewdness in his judgment of men. He had received the allied Sovereigns in 1814 with a dignity and hospitality worthy of a unique occasion, and his visits to Ireland (1821) and Scotland (1822) afforded evidence of his power to conciliate goodwill when he chose to exert himself to that end. But it cannot be denied 1 Queen Victoria's recollection of him was "large and gouty, but with a wonderful dignity and charm of manner ".-Letters, i. 16. 2 Cf. e.g. Yonge, Life of Lord Liverpool, passim. |