War began in the autumn of 1899, and the Orange Free State united with the Transvaal against Great Britain. (See map facing p. 428.) The Boers took up arms for independence. The English forces under Lord Roberts began fighting, first in behalf of the "Outlanders," next to keep the British Empire together, and, finally, "to extend English law, liberty, and civilization."
Mr. Chamberlain, who was in Lord Salisbury"s Cabinet (S534), agreed with his chief that the sword must settle the question, but he said that the contest in South Africa would be "a long war, a bitter war, and a costly war." Events proved the truth of part of his prediction.
The contest was certainly "bitter," for it carried sorrow and death into many thousand homes. It was "costly," too, for the total expense to England amounted to nearly 200,000,000 pounds.
England finally overthrew and formally annexed (1901) the two Boer republics, aggregating over one hundred and sixty-seven thousand square miles. But to accomplish that work she was forced to send two hundred and fifty thousand men to South Africa,--the largest army she ever put into a field in the whole course of her history. The great majority of the English people believed that the war was inevitable.
But there was an active minority who insisted that it was really undertaken in behalf of the South African mine owners. They did not hesitate to condemn the "Jingo" policy[1] of the Government as disastrous to the best interests of the country. In the midst of the discussion Queen Victoria died (January 22, 1901). The Prince of Wales succeeded to the crown under the t.i.tle of King Edward VII.
[1] Lord Beaconsfield, the Conservative Prime Minister (1874-1880), made several petty wars in South Africa and in Afghanistan. A popular music-hall song glorified his work, declaring: "We don"t want to fight, but by Jingo, if we do, We"ve got the ships, we"ve got the men, We"ve got the money, too."
624. Summary.
Queen Victoria"s reign of sixty-three years--the longest in English history--was remarkable in many ways.
The chief political events were:
1. The establishment of the practical supremacy of the House of Commons, shown by the fact that the Sovereign was now obliged to give up the power of removing the Prime Minister or members of his Cabinet without the consent of the House, or of retaining them contrary to its desire.
2. The broadening of the basis of suffrage and the extension of the principle of local self-government.
3. The abolition of the requirement of property qualification for Parliamentary candidates; the admission of Jews to Parliament; and the overthrow of the Spoils System.
4. The repeals of the Corn Laws; the adoption of the Free-Trade policy; and the Emanc.i.p.ation of Labor.
5. The Small Agricultural Holdings Act; the Irish Land Acts; the abolition of Church rates; and the disestablishment of the Irish branch of the Church of England.
6. The arbitration of the Alabama case.
7. The progress of transportation and of the rapid transmission of intelligence was marked by the extension of railways to all parts of hte British Isles and to many other parts of the Empire; the introduction of the telegraph and the telephone; the laying of the Atlantic cable; the introduction of penny postage; the rise of cheap newspapers, of photography, of wireless telegraphy, and of the use of electricity to drive street cars and machinery.
8. The progress of education was marked by the establishment of practically free elementary schools, free libraries, and the abolition of religious tests in the universities.
9. The progress of science and philosophy was shown by the introduction of painless and also of antiseptic surgery, the use of the German X ray, and the rise and spread of the Darwinian theory of Evolution.
10. Other events having far-reaching results were the terrible Irish famine, the Opium War, the Crimean War, the rebellion in India, the Trent affair, the war in the Sudan, and the great Boer War.
11. Finally, we see the important work accomplished in India, Egypt, and other parts of Africa; the acquisition of the control of the Suez Ca.n.a.l; and the great expansion of the power of the Empire in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
EDWARD VII--1901-1910
625. End of the Boer War (1902); Completion of Imperial Federation, 1910.
Not long after Edward VII came to the throne the Boers (S623) laid down their arms (1902) and recognized the King as their true and lawful Sovereign. The announcement set the "joy bells" ringing all over Great Britain.
Under Edward VII the Crown became the center of a greart movement for more complete Imperial Unity. We have seen that the process of forming a federation of Great Britain and her widely scattered colonies had made good progress under Victoria (SS618, 619). She had seen the creation of the Dominion of Canada (1867), the Dominion of New Zealand (1875), and the consolidation of the six Australian colonies into the Commonwealth of Australia (1901). Nine years later (1910) the four states which had been the scene of the Boer War (S623) were consolidated in like manner and received the name of the Union of South Africa.[1] Boer and Briton seem now to have made up their minds to live together as one family, and, as farmers and stock raisers, they will work out their destiny on the land. Speaking of the political significance of this event, a prominent official in South Africa said, "Without the influence of King Edward I, I do not think the union could have been effected."
[1] The Union of South Africa is formed of the states of the Cape of Good Hope, the Transvaal, and the Orange Free State. Lord Gladstone, son of the late W.E. Gladstone, was appointed Governor of the new Commonwealth, and General Botha, who had commanded in the Boer army, was made Prime Minister.
The establishment of the Union of South Africa completed the framework of the Imperial Federation (SS618, 619). Admiral Mahan, of the American navy, cla.s.ses the expansion of the British Empire with that of the expansion of the United States, and declares that it ranks as one of the foremost facts of "contemporaneous history." The Commonwealth of Australia and the Union of South Africa (with the Dominion of New Zealand) mark the southern limit of the Imperial Federation. The Dominion of Canada marks its northeren limit. (See map facing p. 422.)
All these British possessions enjoy a degree of self-government which falls but little short of entire independence. In fact, commercially they are independent, for, as we have seen (S616), while England maintains free trade, her colonies still keep up a strict protective tariff and impose duties even on British imports. Notwithstanding this difference, all the colonies are loyal subjects of the English Crown, and all stand ready to defend the English flag.
626. The League of Empire.
While this successful movement toward Imperial Federation was going on, the organization of the League of Empire had been formed (1901) to cooperate with it and strengthen it.
The League is nonpolitical and nonsectarian. It aims to unite the different parts of the Imperial Federation by intellectual and moral bonds. It appeals to the whole body of the people of the Empire, but it deals especially with the children in the schools. It endeavors to educate them in the duties of citizenship, and it calls on them to salute the national flag as the symbol of patriotism, of unity, and of loyalty. A little later, Empire Day was established (1904) as a public holiday to help forward the work of the League. King Edward gave it his hearty encouragement, and it is celebrated throughout the British Isles and the self-governing colonies of the Imperial Federation.
627. The King"s Influence in Behalf of Peace.
While seeking to make all England and English dominions in one spirit, King Edward constantly used his influence to maintain peace both at home and abroad. He was a man whose natural kindliness of heart endowed him with the double power of making and of keeping friends.
Furthermore, he was a born diplomatist. He saw at once the best method of handling the most difficult questions. Those who knew him intimately said that "he always did the right thing, at the right time, in the right way."
To a great extent he was a creator of international confidence. In his short reign he succeeded in overcoming the old race feeling which made England and France regard each other as enemies. Again, Russia and England had been on unfriendly terms for nearly two generations, but the King, by his strong personal influence, brought the two countries to understand each other better.
He saw that Europe needed peace. He saw that the outbreak of a general war would strike the laboring man a terrible blow, and would destroy the fruits of his toil. When he ascended the throne (1901) the contest with the Boers in South Africa was still going on.
General Botha, one of the Boer leaders, publicly stated that the King did everything in his power to secure the establishment of an honorable and permanent peace between the combatants. More than that, even, he was in favor of granting a large measure of self-government to the very people who had only just laid down the arms with which they had been fighting him.
But the King"s influence for good was not limited to the Old World.
It extended across the Atlantic. Mr. Choate, who was formerly our amba.s.sador to England, said that Edward VII endeavored to remove every cause of friction between Great Britain and America. While he lay on a sick bed he signed a treaty relating to the Panama Ca.n.a.l, which made "it possible for the United States to construct the waterway and to protect it forever."[1]
[1] This was the treaty repealing the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty of 1850.
See the address of Honorable Joseph H. Choate before the New York Chamber of Commerce, June 2, 1910.
628. The Politcal Battle in England; Labor gets into Parliament, 1906.
But the King"s success in international politics did not secure peace in the field of home politics. Organized labor had long been bent on pushing its way into Parliament. In a few cases, like that of Joseph Arch (S600), it had elected a representative,[2] but these were scattered victories which made no great impression.
[2] Besides Joseph Arch, such men as John Burns and J. Keir Hardie.
The real upheaval came in the General Election of 1906. That contest wrought a silent revolution. Up to that date, with very few exceptions, the wealthy cla.s.s was the only one which had been represented in the House of Commons. Furthermore, it cost a good deal of money for any candidate to get into the House, and as members drew no pay, it cost a good deal more money to remain there.
In 1906 the Liberal Party and the Labor Party gained a sweeping victory over the Conservative Party, and Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, the Liberal Prime Minister, came into power, 1906-1908. Out of the six hundred and seventy members who had been elected to the House of Commons, fifty-four came from the ranks of the workingmen,--those to whom life means an unending struggle to live.[3] The combined Labor voters sent these men to represent them in Parliament, and then raised a fund to meet the expense of keeping them there.[4]
[3] John Burns, who was one of the earliest workingmen to enter Parliament as a Labor leader, said of himself, "Came into the world with a struggle, struggling now, with prospects of continuing it."
[4] But later, the Court of Appeal (S588) decided that the Labor Party could not legally compel any member of the Labor Union to contribute to this fund against his will. Now (1911) Parliament pays all members of the Commons (see S591).
These "Laborites," as they are popularly called, claim that their influence secured the pa.s.sage of the Old Age Pensions Act (1908), for the relief of the aged and deserving poor; the Act for Feeding Dest.i.tute School Children; and the Act establishing Labor Exchanges (1909) throughout the country to help those who are looking for work.
The entrance of the working cla.s.s and of the Socialists into Parliament marks the transference of power from the House of Commons directly to the ma.s.s of the people. Public opinion is now the real active force in legislation, and the lawmakers are eager to know what "the man in the street" and the "man with the hoe" are thinking.
This closeness of touch between Parliament and People has evident advantages, but it also has at least one serious drawback. In times of great public excitement it might lead to hasty legislation, unless the House of Lords should be able to interpose and procure the further consideration of questions of vital importance which it would be dangerous to attempt to settle offhand (S631).
629. The Budget; Woman Suffrage; the Content with the Lords.
Mr. Asquith, the Liberal Prime Minister,[1] found that the Government must raise a very large amount of money to defray the heavy cost of the old-age pensions (S628) and the far heavier cost of eight new battleships. Mr. Lloyd George, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or Secretary of the Treasury, brought in a Budget[2] which roused excited and long-continued debate. The Chancellor"s measure called for a great increase of taxes on real estate in towns and cities where the land had risen in value, and on land containing coal, iron, or other valuable minerals.[3]
[1] Mr. Asquith succeeded Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, the Liberal Prime Minister (S628), who died in the spring of 1908.
[2] The official estimate of the amount of money which the Government must raise by taxation to meet its expenses for the year, together with the scheme of taxation proposed, are called the Budget.
[3] In all cases where the owner of the land had himself done nothing to produce the rise in value, the Chancellor called that rise the "unearned increment," and held that the owner should be taxed for it accordingly. Most great landowners and many small ones execrate the man who made a practical application of this unpalatable phrase.
The House of Commons pa.s.sed the Budget (1909), but the House of Lords, which includes the wealthiest landowners in the British Isles, rejected it. They declared that it was not only unjust and oppressive, but that it was a long step toward the establishment of socialism, and that it threatened to lead to the confiscation of private property in land. A bitter conflict ensued between the two branches of Parliament.
This contest was rendered harder by the actions of a small number of turbulent women, who demanded complete suffrage but failed to get it (SS599, 608).[1] Adopting the methods of a football team, they endeavored to force themselves into the House of Commons; they interrupted public meetings, smashed winows, a.s.saulted members of the Cabinet, and, in one case, tried to destroy the ballots at the polls,--in short, they broke the laws in order to convince the country of their fitness to take part in making them. Over six hundred of these offenders were put in prison, not because they asked for "Votes for Women," but because they deliberately, persistently, and recklessly misconducted themselves.
[1] The great majority of woman suffragists refused to adopt these violent methods.
630. A New Parliamentary Election; the Lords accept the Budget.