A General History for Colleges and High Schools (Myers)/Chapter 63
CHAPTER LXIII.
ENGLAND SINCE THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA.
The Three Chief Matters.—English history since the close of the Napoleonic wars embraces a multitude of events. A short chapter covering the entire period will possess no instructive value unless it reduces the heterogeneous mass of facts to some sort of unity by placing events in relation with their causes, and thus showing how they are connected with a few broad national movements or tendencies.
Studying the period in this way, we shall find that very many of its leading events may be summed up under the three following heads: 1. Progress towards democracy; 2. Expansion of the principle of religious equality; 3. Growth of the British Empire in the East.
1. Progress towards Democracy.
Effects of the French Revolution upon Liberalism in England.—The French Revolution at first gave a fresh impulse to liberal tendencies in England. The English Liberals watched the course of the French Republicans with the deepest interest and sympathy. It will be recalled how the statesman Fox rejoiced at the fall of the Bastile, and what auguries of hope he saw in the event (see p. 652). The young writers Coleridge, Wordsworth, and Southey were all in sympathy with democratic sentiments, and inspired with a generous enthusiasm for political liberty and equality. But the wild excesses of the French Levellers terrified the English Liberals. There was a sudden revulsion of feeling. Liberal sentiments were denounced as dangerous and revolutionary.
But in a few years after the downfall of Napoleon, the terrors of the French Revolution were forgotten. Liberal sentiments began to spread among the masses. The people very justly complained that, while the English government claimed to be a government of the people, they had no part in it.[1]
Now, it is instructive to note the different ways in which Liberalism was dealt with by the English government and by the rulers on the continent. In the continental countries the rising spirit of democracy was met by cruel and despotic repressions. The people were denied by their rulers all participation in the affairs of government. We have seen the result. Liberalism triumphed indeed at last, but triumphed only through Revolution.
In England, the government did not resist the popular demands to the point of Revolution. It made timely concessions to the growing spirit of democracy. Hence here, instead of a series of revolutions, we have a series of reform measures, which, gradually popularizing the House of Commons, at last renders the English nation not alone in name, but in reality, a self-governing people.
The Reform Bill of 1832.—The first Parliamentary step in reform was taken in 1832. To understand this important act, a retrospective glance becomes necessary.
When, in 1265, the Commons were first admitted to Parliament (see p. 480), members were called only from those cities and boroughs whose wealth and population fairly entitled them to representation. In the course of time some of these places dwindled in population, and new towns sprang up: yet the decayed boroughs retained their ancient privilege of sending members to Parliament, while the new towns were left entirely without representation. Thus Old Sarum, an ancient town now utterly decayed and without a single inhabitant, was represented in the Commons by two members. Furthermore, the sovereign, for the purpose of gaining influence in the Commons, had, from time to time, given unimportant places the right of returning members to the Lower House. In 1 793 less than 200 electors, or voters, sent to the Commons 197 members. Of course, elections in these small or "pocket boroughs," as they were called, were almost always determined by the corrupt influence of the crown or of the resident lords. The Lower House of Parliament was thus filled with the nominees of the king, or some great lord, or with persons who had bought the office, often witlv little effort at concealment. At the same time, such large, recently grown manufacturing towns as Birmingham and Manchester had no representation at all in the Commons.
Agitation was begun for the reform of this corrupt and farcical system of representation. The contest between the Whigs and the Tories, or Liberals and Conservatives, was long and bitter. The Conservatives of course opposed all reform. Bill after bill was introduced into Parliament to correct the evil, but most of these, after having passed the Commons, were lost in the House of Lords. At last the public feeling became so strong and violent that the lords were forced to yield, and the Reform Bill of 1832 became a law.[2]
By this act the electoral system of the kingdom was radically changed. Fifty-six of the "rotten boroughs" were disfranchised, and the 143 seats in the Lower House which they had filled were given to different counties and large towns. The bill also greatly increased the number of electors by extending the right of voting to all persons owning or leasing property of a certain value. We can scarcely exaggerate the importance of this Reform Bill.
Chartism: the Revolutionary Year of 1848.—But while the Reform bill of 1832 was almost revolutionary in the principle it established, it went only a little way in the application of the principle. It admitted to the franchise the middle classes only. The great laboring class were given no part in the government. They now began an agitation, characterized by much bitterness, known as Chartism, from a document called the "People's Charter," which embodied the reforms they desired. These were "universal suffrage, vote by ballot, annual parliaments, the division of the country into equal electoral districts, the abolition of the property qualifications of members, and payment for their services."
The agitation for these changes in the constitution went on with more or less violence until 1848. That year the Chartists, encouraged by the revolutions then shaking almost every throne on the European continent, indulged in riotous demonstrations which frightened the law-abiding citizens, and brought discredit upon themselves. Their organization now fell to pieces. The reforms, however, which they had labored to secure, were, in the main, desirable and just, and the most important of them have since been adopted and made a part of the English Constitution.
The Reform Bill of 1867.—The Reform Bill of 1867 was simply another step taken by the English government in the direction of the Reform Bill of 1832. Like that measure, it was passed only after long and violent agitation and discussion both without and within the walls of Parliament. Its main effect was the extension of the right of voting,—the enfranchisement of the great "fourth estate, or the masses." By it also a few small boroughs in England for the bill did not concern either Ireland or Scotland, separate bills of somewhat similar provisions being framed for them —were disfranchised, and several new ones created.
The Reform Bill of 1884.—One of the conservative leaders, the Earl of Derby, in the discussions upon the Reform Bill of 1867, said, "No doubt we are making a great experiment, and taking a leap in the dark." Just seventeen years after the passage of that bill, the English people were ready to take another leap. But they were not now leaping in the dark. The wisdom and safety of admitting the lower classes to a participation in the government had been demonstrated.
In 1884 Mr. Gladstone, then prime minister, introduced and pushed to a successful vote a new reform bill, more radical and sweeping in its provisions than any preceding one. It increased the number of voters from about 3,000,000 to about 5,000,000. The qualification of voters in the counties was made the same as that required of voters in the boroughs. Hence its effect was to enfranchise the great agricultural classes.
Only the Forms of Monarchy remain.—The English government is now in reality as democratic as our own. Only the forms of monarchy remain. It does not seem probable that these can long withstand the encroachments of democracy. Hereditary privilege, as represented by the House of Lords and the Crown, is likely soon to be abolished.
Home Rule for Ireland.—In connection with the above outline of the democratic movement in England, a word must be said about the so-called Home Rule movement in Ireland.
The legislative independence secured by Ireland in 1782 (see p. 632), was maintained only a short time. In 1798, England being then engaged in war with the revolutionists of France, the Irish rose in revolt, with the purpose of setting up an Irish republic. The uprising was quelled, and then as a measure of security the Irish Parliament was abolished (1801) and Ireland given representation in the English Parliament, just as had been done in the case of Scotland at the time of the legislative union of England and Scotland (see p. 629).
The Irish patriots bitterly resented this extinction of the legislative independence of Ireland, and denounced as traitors those members of the last Irish Parliament who, corrupted by the English minister, William Pitt (the younger), had voted away Irish liberties. Consequently from the day of the Union to the present, there has been more or less agitation for its repeal and the re-establishment of the old Irish Parliament. In 1841, under the inspiration of the eloquent Daniel O'Connell, Ireland was brought to the verge of insurrection, but the movement was suppressed. In 1886 Mr. Gladstone, their prime minister, introduced a bill in Parliament, granting a separate legislation to Ireland. This led to bitter debate both within and without the walls of Parliament, and at the present time (1889), the question of Home Rule for Ireland is the leading issue in English politics.[3]
2. Expansion of the Principle of Religious Equality.
Religious Freedom and Religious Equality.—Alongside the political movement traced in the preceding section has run a similar one in the religious realm. This is a growing recognition by the English people of the true principle of religious toleration.
At the opening of the nineteenth century there was in England religious freedom, but no religious equality. That is to say, one might be a Catholic or a dissenter, if he chose to be, without fear of persecution. Dissent from the Established Church was not unlawful. But one's being a dissenter disqualified him from holding certain public offices. Where there exists such discrimination against any religious sect, or where any one sect is favored or sustained by the government, there of course is no religious equality, although there may be religious freedom. Progress in this direction, then, has consisted in the growth of a really tolerant spirit, which has led to the removal from Catholics, Protestant dissenters, and Jews all civil disabilities, and the placing of all sects on an absolute equality before the law. This is but a completion of the work of the Protestant Reformation.
Methodism and its Effects upon Toleration.—One thing that helped to bring prominently forward the question of emancipating non-conformists from the civil disabilities under which they were placed, was the great religious movement known as Methodism, which during the latter part of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century revolutionized the religious life of England.[4] By vastly increasing the body of Protestant dissenters, Methodism gave new strength to the agitation for the repeal of the laws which bore so heavily upon them.
Disabilities removed from Protestant Dissenters (1828).—One of the earliest and most important of the acts of Parliament in this century in recognition of the principle of religious equality, was the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts, in so far as they bore upon Protestant dissenters. These were acts passed in the reign of Charles II., which required every officer of a corporation, and all persons holding civil and military positions, to take certain oaths, and partake of the communion according to the rites of the Anglican Church. It is true that these laws were not now strictly enforced; nevertheless, the laws were invidious and vexatious, and the Protestant dissenters demanded their repeal. The result of the debate in Parliament was the repeal of such parts of the ancient acts as it was necessary to rescind in order to relieve Protestant dissenters,—that is, the provision requiring persons holding office to be communicants of the Anglican Church.
Disabilities removed from the Catholics (1829).—The bill of 1828 gave no relief to Catholics. They were still excluded from Parliament and various civil offices by the declarations of belief and the oaths required of office-holders,—declarations and oaths which no good Catholic could conscientiously make. They now demanded that the same concessions be made them that had been granted Protestant dissenters. The ablest champion of Catholic emancipation was the eloquent Daniel O'Connell, an Irish patriot. A threatened revolt on the part of the Irish Catholics hurried the progress of what was known as the Catholic Emancipation Act through Parliament. This law opened all the offices of the kingdom, below the crown,—save that of Lord Chancellor of England and Ireland, the Viceroyalty of Ireland, and a few others,—to the Catholic subjects of the realm.
Disabilities removed from the Jews.—The Jews were still laboring under all the disabilities which had now been removed from Protestant dissenters and Catholics. In 1845 an act was passed by Parliament which so changed the oath required for admission to corporate offices—the oath contained the words "on the faith of a Christian "—as to open them to Jews.
In 1858, after a long and unseemly struggle, the House of Commons was opened to the long-proscribed race; and about a quarter of a century later, the House of Lords admitted to a seat Baron Rothschild, the first peer of Hebrew faith that had ever sat in that body.
Disestablishment of the Irish Church (1369).—Thirty years after the Catholic Emancipation Act, the English government took another great step in the direction of religious equality, by the disestablishment of the State Church in Ireland.
The Irish have always and steadily refused to accept the religion which their English conquerors have somehow felt constrained to force upon them. The vast majority of the people are to-day and ever have been Catholics; yet up to the time where we have now arrived these Irish Catholics had been compelled to pay tithes and fees for the maintenance among them of the Anglican Church worship. Meanwhile their own churches, in which the great masses were instructed and cared for spiritually, had to be kept up by voluntary contributions. The proposition to do away with this grievance by the disestablishment of the State Church in Ireland ma bitterly opposed by the Conservatives; but at length, after a memorable debate, the Liberals, under the lead of Bright and Gladstone, the latter then prime minister, carried the measure. This was in 1869, but the actual disestablishment was not to take place until the year 187 1, at which time the Irish State Church, ceasing to exist as a state institution, became a free Episcopal Church. The historian May pronounces this "the most important ecclesiastical matter since the Reformation."
Proposed Disestablishment of the State Church in England and in Scotland.—The perfect application of the principle of religious equality demands, in the opinion of many English Liberals, the disestablishment of the State Church in England and in Scotland.[5] They feel that for the government to maintain any particular sect, is to give the State a monopoly in religion. They would have the churches of all denominations placed on an absolute equality. Especially in Scotland is the sentiment in favor of disestablishment very strong.
3. Growth of the British Empire in the East.
The Clew to England's Foreign Policy in the Nineteenth Century.—Seeking the main fact of modern English history, Professor Seeley[6]finds it in the expansion of England. He says, in substance, that the expansion of England in the New World and in Asia is the formula which sums up for England the history of the last three centuries. As the outgrowth of this extension into remote lands of English population or influence, England has come successively into sharp rivalry with three of the leading powers of Europe, her competitors in the field of colonization or in the race for empire. The seventeenth century stands out as an age of intense rivalry between England and Spain; the eighteenth was a period of gigantic competition between England and France; while the nineteenth has been an age of jealous rivalry between England and Russia.
England triumphed over Spain and France; it remains to be seen whether she will in like manner triumph over Russia. We have space simply to indicate how England's foreign policies and wars during the present century have grown out of her Eastern connections, and her fear of the overshadowing influence of the Colossus of the North.
Rise of the English Power in India.—And first, we must say a word respecting the establishment of English authority in India. By the close of the seventeenth century the East India Company (see p. 603) had founded establishments at Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras, the three most important centres of English population and influence in India at the present time. The company's efforts to extend its authority in India were favored by the decayed state into which the Great Mogul Empire—founded in Northern India by the Tartar conquerors (see p. 461)—had fallen, and by the contentions of the independent native princes among themselves.
For a long time it was a matter of doubt whether the empire to be erected upon the ruins of the Great Mogul Empire and of the contending native states should be French or English. About the middle of the eighteenth century the former had the stronger foothold in the peninsula, just as previous to the French and Indian War in the New World they had the stronger hold upon the North American continent.
A terrible crime committed by the Nabob Surajah Dowlah of Bengal, a province lying along the lower courses of the Ganges, determined the fate not only of that native state, but of all India. Moved by jealousy of the growing power of the English, and encouraged by the French, the Nabob attacked and captured the English post at Calcutta. His one hundred and forty-six prisoners he crowded into a close dungeon, called the Black Hole. In the course of a sultry night the larger part of the unfortunate prisoners were suffocated.
The crime was avenged by Robert Clive, the English commander at Madras. With only 100 English soldiers and 2000 sepoys (native soldiers in European employ), he sailed for Calcutta, recaptured that place, and on the memorable field of Plassey, scattered to the winds the Nabob's army of 60,000 (1757).
The victory of Plassey established upon a firm basis the growing power of the Company. During the next one hundred years it extended its authority throughout almost every part of the peninsula. Many of the native princes were, and still are, allowed to retain their thrones, only they must now acknowledge the suzerainty or paramount authority of the English government.
We will now speak briefly of the most important wars and troubles in which England has been involved through her interests in India.
The Afghan War of 1838–1842.—One of the first serious wars into which England was drawn through her jealousy of Russia was what was known as the Afghan War. It was England's policy to maintain the Afghan state as a barrier between her East India possessions and Russia. Persuaded that the ruler of the Afghans, a usurper named Dost Mahommed, was inclined to a Russian alliance, the English determined to dethrone him, and put in his place the legitimate prince. This was done. The Afghans, however, resented this interference in their affairs. They arose in revolt, and forced the English army to retreat from the country. In the wild mountain passes leading from Afghanistan into India, the fleeing army, 16,000 in number, counting camp-followers, was cut off almost to a man. The English took signal vengeance. They again invaded the country, defeated the Afghans, punished some of their leaders, burned the chief bazaar of Cabul, and then withdrawing from the country, left the Afghans to themselves.
Opium War with China (1840–1842).—The next war incited by British interest in India was the so-called Opium War with China.
During the first half of the present century the opium traffic between India and China grew into gigantic proportions, and became an important source of wealth to the British merchants, and of revenue to the Indian government. The Chinese government, however, awake to the enormous evils of the growing use of the narcotic, forbade the importation of the drug; but the British merchants, notwithstanding the imperial prohibition, persisted in the trade, and succeeded in smuggling large quantities of the article into the Chinese market. Finally, the government seized and destroyed all the opium stored in the warehouses of the British traders at Canton. This act together with other " outrages," led to a declaration of war on the part of England. British troops now took possession of Canton, and the Chinese government, whose troops were as helpless as children before European soldiers, was soon forced to agree to the treaty of Nanking, by which the island of Hong-Kong was ceded to the English, several important ports were opened to British traders, and the perpetuation of the nefarious traffic in opium was secured.
The Crimean War (1854–1856).—Scarcely was the Opium War ended before England was involved in a gigantic struggle with Russia,—the Crimean War, already spoken of in connection with Russian history (see p. 694). From our present standpoint we can better understand why England threw herself into the conflict on the side of Turkey. She fought to maintain the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, in order that her own great rival, Russia, might be prevented from seizing Constantinople and the Bosporus, and from that point controlling the affairs of Asia through the command of the Eastern Mediterranean.
The Sepoy Mutiny (1857–1858).—The echoes of the Crimean War had barely died away before England was startled by the most alarming intelligence from the country for the secure possession of which English soldiers had borne their part in the fierce struggle before Sebastopol.
In 1857 there broke out in the armies of the East India Company what is known as the Sepoy Mutiny. The causes of the uprising were various. The crowd of deposed princes was one element of discontent. A widespread conviction among the natives, awakened by different acts of the English, that their religion was in danger, was another of the causes that led to the rebellion. There were also military grievances of which the native soldiers complained.
The mutiny broke out at Bengal. At different points, by preconcerted signals, the native regiments arose against their English officers and put them to death.[7] Delhi and Cawnpore were seized, and the English residents and garrisons butchered in cold blood. Fortunately many of the native regiments stood firm in their allegiance to the English, and with their aid the revolt was speedily quelled.
At the close of the war, the government of India, by act of Parliament, was taken out of the hands of the East India Company and vested in the English crown. Since this transfer, the Indian government has been conducted on the principle that " English rule in India should be for India."[8]
Later events: The English in Egypt.—It only remains for us to refer to some later matters which are more or less, intimately connected with England's Eastern policy.
In 1874 Mr. Disraeli, who had then just succeeded Mr. Gladstone as prime minister, purchased, for £200,000,000, the 176,000 shares which the Khedive of Egypt held in the Suez Canal. This was to give England more perfect control of this all-important gateway to her East India possessions.
In 1878, towards the close of the Russo-Turkish War, England, it will be recalled, interfered in behalf of the Turks, and, by the presence of her iron-clads in the Bosporus, prevented the Russians from occupying Constantinople. In the treaty negotiations which followed, England received from Turkey the island of Cyprus.
In the year 1882 political and financial reasons combined led the English government, now conducted by Gladstone, to interfere in the affairs of Egypt. A mutinous uprising against the authority of the Khedive having taken place in the Egyptian army, an expedition was sent out under the command of Lord Wolseley for the purpose of suppressing the revolt, and by the restoration of the authority of the Khedive to render secure the Suez Canal, and protect the interest of English bondholders in Egyptian securities.
Three years later, in 1885, a second expedition had to be sent out to the same country. The Soudanese, subjects of the Khedive, encouraged by the disorganized condition of the Egyptian government, had revolted, and were threatening the Egyptian garrisons in the Soudan with destruction. Lord Wolseley was sent out a second time, to lead an expedition up the Nile to the relief of Khartoum, where General Gordon, a representative of the English government, was commanding the Egyptian troops, and trying—to use his own phrase—to "smash the Mahdi," the military prophet and leader of the Soudanese Arabs.
The expedition arrived too late, Khartoum having fallen just before the advance relief party reached the town. The English troops were now recalled, and the greater part of the Soudan abandoned to the rebel Arabs. Further complications seem likely to grow out of England's presence in Egypt.
- ↑ The English Revolution of 1688 transferred authority from the king to the Parliament. The elective branch of that body, however, rested upon a very narrow electoral basis. Out of 5,000,000 Englishmen who should have had a voice in the government, not more than 160,000 were voters, and these were chiefly of the rich upper classes. At the opening of the nineteenth century the number of electors in Scotland did not exceed 3000.
- ↑ The popularizing of the House of Commons led to a series of acts of a popular character. Among them was an act (in 1833) for the abolition of slavery throughout the British colonies. 780,993 slaves in the British West Indies were freed at a cost to the English nation of,£20,000,000.
- ↑ Closely connected with this political question of Home Rule for Ireland, is the agrarian, or land trouble. At bottom, this is a matter that involves the right of private property in land, and touches questions that belong to the Industrial Age (see p. 729) rather than to that of the Political Revolution.
- ↑ The leaders of the movement were George Whitefield (1714–1770) and John Wesley (1703–1791). Whitefield became the leader of the Calvinistic Methodists, and Wesley the founder of the sect known as Wesleyans. The Methodists at first had no thought of establishing a church distinct from the Anglican, but simply aimed to form within the Established Church a society of earnest, devout laymen, somewhat like that of the Young Men's Christian Association in our present churches. Petty persecution, however, eventually rained them to go out from the established organization and form a Church of their own. This of course constituted them dissenters.
- ↑ The Established Church in Scotland is the Presbyterian.
- ↑ J. R. Seeley, in his work entitled The Expansion of England,
- ↑ The East India Company at this time had an army of nearly 300,000, of which number not more than 45,000 were English troops. The chief positions in the native regiments were held by English officers.
- ↑ Within the last two or three decades the country has undergone in every respect a surprising transformation. Life and property are now as secure in India as in England. The railways begun by the East India Company have been extended in every direction, and now bind together the most distant provinces of the empire. All the chief cities are united by telegraph. Lines of steamers are established on the Indus and the Ganges. Public schools have been opened, and colleges founded. Several hundred newspapers, about half published in the native dialects, are sowing Western ideas broadcast among the people. The introduction of European seience and civilization is rapidly undermining many of the old superstitions, particularly the ancient system of caste.