Chapter XXVIII: THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued) (3)

The cases that most excited public interest were those of crimes instigated by one Broadhead, the secretary of the Sawgrinders' Union. A man named Linley had broken the rules of the trade by taking more apprentices than the proper number. In the words of the trade, he was "filling it with lads." For this offence, which was supposed to injure the chances of the men, Broadhead confessed that he had "set on" two workmen, named Crookes and Hallam, to "do for" Linley--that is, to disable him, or even to kill him, if necessary. This fact, which is but one out of many, was revealed first of all by Hallam himself. When called upon to give his evidence he was completely unmanned. He twice fainted away; and when he came to himself, he could only speak in a whisper. In this way he confessed with slow articulation how they had murdered Linley. They had first bought a revolver and followed Linley about every night for six weeks, watching their opportunity. Then they changed their plan and bought an air-gun, of which they first of all made trial upon some rabbits in a neighbouring wood. Afterwards they marked Linley down in a public-house in Scotland Street; they entered a backyard, and saw him sitting in a parlour. Then with great difficulty Hallam induced Crookes to shoot. The bullet entered Linley's head and he died some time afterwards. The two murderers ran off and escaped, and the coroner's jury was obliged to return a verdict of "wilful murder against some person or persons unknown." Hallam got £7 10s. for the deed. He confessed that he did not know Linley, and that he owed him no personal grudge. He took his life merely because he was injuring the trade. Hallam's evidence was confirmed by Crookes, and the evidence of both by Broadhead. The revelations made by the latter were what really brought home to the public mind the strength, the rigour, the unscrupulousness of the trade organisations. Under promise of a certificate he confessed not only to the murder of Linley, but to the destruction of machinery, the blowing up of houses, the mutilation, or attempted mutilation, of whole families. "I hired Dennis Clark," he said, "for £3 or £5, to blow up Hellewells." He owned that he had paid a large sum to blow up the house of a certain Parker, and £19 for blowing up Reaney's engine-house; and he admitted many more acts of the same kind. Moreover, he admitted that he had arranged many of the outrages with the secretaries of other unions--one, Bromhead, secretary of the Pen and Pocket Blade Grinders', and William Hides and William Skidmore, secretaries of the Saw-handle Makers' and of the Jobbing Grinders'. He even confessed that he had written letters to the newspapers, denouncing, as "infamous deeds" and "hellish deeds," the very acts that he had himself instigated and paid for. The outrages were very varied in character, some being merely cases of rattening--that is, preventing a man from working by spoiling his tools or machinery; others being cases of injury to the person, or of the destruction of premises. The most common form of these grosser outrages was to hang a canister of gunpowder in the chimney of the obnoxious workman or master, or to fling a canister of powder into the fire through the window. In other cases, as in that of Linley, shooting was resorted to. The evidence of Broadhead and others revealed the whole system in its full details; and disclosures of the same kind, scarcely less terrible, were made before commissioners who sat at Manchester.

Other proceedings of the trades' unions, which attracted much attention during the present year, were those connected with the strike of the London tailors, and of the engine-drivers on the London and Brighton Railway. The former began on the 28th of April and lasted for several months. In August, ten of the working tailors were indicted at the Central Criminal Court for a misdemeanour in "conspiring together, by unlawful ways, contrivances, and stratagems, to impoverish Henry Poole, George Wolmershausen, and certain other persons, in their trade and business, in restraint of trade, and the freedom of personal action." In the course of the trial the public learnt many facts about the system of "picketing," which was a common device of workmen on strike towards workmen who would not join them. One witness said, "On the 3rd of May I saw over 200 opposite Mr. Stohwasser's shop in Conduit Street. The general conduct of the persons acting as pickets was the following and hissing workmen who had not struck on leaving their work in the evening. They were called cowards, and by other offensive names. That was the general conduct of the pickets from time to time. The pickets also used to resort to certain public-houses--ten or a dozen--which they called committee-rooms. I have seen them meet there early in the morning, and then go on picketing." Another witness, a pensioned sergeant of police, said that he had seen customers go to shops in carriages, and the pickets hang about the carriages until the customers went away. Much evidence was given of a similar character, showing that, although no outrages like the Sheffield outrages were committed, the union had used its forces to prevent obnoxious workmen, by threats, abusive language, and other annoyances, from working at their trade. Baron Bramwell, who presided at the trial, laid down the law on the matter very clearly. He said that the common law of the land made it a criminal offence for two or more persons to conspire by threats, intimidation, or molestation, to deter or influence another in the employment of his industry, talents, or capital. On the other hand, an Act of 1859 declared that "no workman, merely by reason of his endeavouring peaceably, and in a reasonable manner, and without threat or intimidation, direct or indirect, to persuade others from working or ceasing to work, should be guilty of an offence under the former Act of Parliament." After some deliberation, the jury found the leading defendants guilty, but strongly recommended them to mercy on the ground of the obscurity of the law; and a similar verdict was returned immediately afterwards in a case of some more of the tailors. The judge, however, did not wish the conviction to be more than a warning, and the defendants were released on entering into their own recognisances to come up for judgment when called upon.

In the case of the engine-drivers' strike, the dispute ended by the directors conceding most of the points in dispute, and the grave public inconvenience that had been feared was happily avoided. Another strike, however, took place in the same month of March, which, though it was not immediately successful, was the beginning of a movement that within a few years acquired national importance. This was a strike of agricultural labourers in Buckinghamshire, rising in revolt against the system that allowed a family to starve on nine shillings a week. It was not, however, till some years later that the agricultural labourers became organised and succeeded in obtaining their rights.

This year was memorable for various distressing accidents, some of them destructive only of property, others grievously destructive of life. Her Majesty's Theatre in London was burnt down; and not only was the building itself, the scene of many operatic triumphs during seventy-five years, destroyed, but the music library with all its priceless manuscripts of Handel, Rossini, and the rest, perished. But more lamentable than this was the memorable ice accident in the Regent's Park, London, on the 15th of January. There was a severe frost, and the ice on the Ornamental Water was crowded with skaters. Suddenly it began to part away from the bank, and for a moment the skaters found themselves supported by a floating sheet of ice. Almost instantly this broke up and two hundred persons were in the water. It need only be added that, in spite of all the efforts of the bystanders and of the Humane Society's men, more than forty persons were drowned. The depth of the water was afterwards reduced in accordance with the recommendation of the coroner's jury. Before the year ended, other accidents as startling, though happily not so widely destructive of life, took place. An explosion of gunpowder at the Faversham Powder Mills, in the month of December, blew eleven men into the air; a still more frightful explosion of nitro-glycerine, at Newcastle, killed five men, and showed that the destructive power of modern chemical invention is liable to nullify all measures of safety that can be taken to counteract it; and a fire that took place in March at Accrington, by which nine children were burnt alive in their schoolroom, added an unprecedented element of horror to the catalogue of accidents.

There was, however, as if to compensate for these darker facts, an unusual amount of gaiety imported into England during the summer months by the arrival of certain distinguished foreign visitors. The Belgian volunteers came over, more than a thousand strong, and were entertained in a very fraternal manner by their English brethren. The Viceroy of Egypt came, and was fêted by the richer classes of England with considerable expenditure and effect. But his star paled before the greater glories of a visitor who arrived when the Viceroy had been a few days in London--no less a person than the Commander of the Faithful himself. Britain is so much an Asiatic power, and has under her sway so many millions of Mohammedans, that it was excusable for her to make the most of her opportunity of welcoming the Sultan of Turkey, the recognised head of all those who profess the orthodox Mussulman faith. All questions as to the real character of the man and of his government were lost sight of by the London public in the contemplation of his retinue, his jewels, his swarthy complexion, and the white Arab that he rode. He was bandied about from dinner to opera, from opera to ball; the days were filled with reviews, and processions, and fêtes. The Lord Mayor gave him a ball at the Guildhall; the Secretary for India spent £10,000 out of the revenues of India upon a single evening's entertainment at the India Office. But the noblest and most creditable display attempted in his honour was the naval review at Spithead. Fifteen ironclads and sixteen unarmoured ships, with sixteen gunboats, formed a mighty avenue, through which the royal yacht, bearing her Majesty and the Sultan, the Prince of Wales, and other great personages, passed, amid deafening salutes. Only one thing was wanting to complete the Sultan's full enjoyment of the scene. A strong north-easter was blowing all the time, and, by common consent of the staff of his Majesty, the spectacle of the naval review proved rather impressive than pleasant. The Sultan left England on the 23rd of July, after a visit of twelve days.

The year 1867 was a time of profound peace in Europe, except so far as it was disturbed by revolutionary movements which had for their object the overthrow of the Papal Government, and which collapsed with the defeat of Garibaldi at Mentana. Besides the consummation of the failure of his costly experiment in Mexico, a new mortification befell the Emperor of the French this year in connection with the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg. Yet he continued to put the best face upon everything, to claim increasing influence for Napoleonic ideas, and to credit his foreign policy with success in all directions. Justly indeed might he declare--in the speech delivered at the opening of the Chambers on February 14th--that "the voice of France had influence enough to arrest the conqueror at the gates of Vienna." But when, in the "Livre Jaune" (the "Yellow Book," containing the usual annual exposition of the views of the French Government on foreign policy), the recall of the French troops from Mexico was said to have been "resolved upon in the full plenitude of our liberty of action,"--when it was intimated that "anything having the character of external pressure could only have placed us in the position, despite ourselves, of having to prolong a state of things which we should wish to abridge,"--when he said that "the Government of the United States understood that want of conciliation would only have prolonged the occupation [of Mexico], and embittered relations which, for the welfare of both countries, should remain friendly,"--these brave words could not hide from the keen-witted politicians of France the real nature of the pusillanimous surrender they were intended to disguise. Still less could the truth be hidden when the unfortunate Maximilian, dissuaded by his followers from abdication, was taken prisoner and ignominiously shot (June 19, 1867). Many keen observers prophesied that the Second Empire was nearing its end.

The Emperor formally opened the Paris International Exhibition on the 1st of April. Two days before, a question had been discussed in the North German Parliament which might easily have rekindled another war in Europe. The discussion bore on the negotiations, then first divulged, that had been proceeding for some time between the Emperor Napoleon and the King of Holland for the cession of the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg to France. The King of Holland, as ruler of Limburg and Luxemburg, had voted on the side of Prussia in the memorable division of the 14th of June, 1866; Count Bismarck had therefore no excuse for seizing Luxemburg as he did Hanover and Hesse-Cassel. When the war was over, and the organisation of the new North German Bund was being gone on with, the King of Holland expressed his desire that neither Limburg nor Luxemburg should be included in the new Bund. To this Prussia acceded, yet retained her garrison in Luxemburg. Such a possession as the Grand Duchy, separated by Belgian territory from his Dutch dominions, and interposed between two powerful States the relations between which were continually becoming more perilous and inflammable, was productive of more anxiety than profit to the King of Holland; and could he have quietly ceded it to France, for a consideration, nothing would have pleased him better. It came to this, that the King of Holland declared himself ready to sell Luxemburg to France, if the consent both of the population and of Prussia could be first obtained. But it was quite another thing to gain the consent of Prussia. The King of Holland had no sooner given to the Prussian Government an intimation of the contemplated cession, than the matter was debated in the North German Parliament, and warmly, not to say angrily, canvassed in newspapers, in streets, and in houses, through the length and breadth of Germany. It was an intolerable thought to men who had just won so large a measure of national unity, and were full of pride and exultation in the retrospect, that an old German land, which had formerly given a line of emperors to Germany, should pass under the power of France. The negotiation respecting Luxemburg, had it now been transferred from the Hague to Berlin, must, considering the excitement of German feeling, have become acrimonious, and would probably have ended in war. For this the Emperor, who was engaged in plans for the re-organisation of the French army, and the introduction of a new weapon, was not as yet prepared; he therefore abandoned the notion of purchasing Luxemburg, forbore to open direct negotiations with Berlin, and called in the assistance of the neutral Powers. It was arranged on the initiative of the Russian Government that the King of Holland, in his capacity of Grand Duke, should be invited by Britain, Prussia, Austria, Italy, and Belgium, to propose a Conference, to be held in London, for the settlement of the Luxemburg question. The King of Holland did so. Representatives of France and Prussia also, as well as the Powers above mentioned, were sent to the Conference, which held its first meeting in London on the 7th of May, 1867. The nature of the work to be done was pretty generally understood before the Conference met, and its deliberations were soon over. On the 18th of May a treaty was signed, by which it was stipulated that Luxemburg should remain, as before, under the rule of the House of Orange-Nassau, without any political connection with Holland, but that it should be for the future a neutral State, its neutrality being guaranteed by the Powers that were signatories to the treaty, with the exception of Belgium, itself a neutral kingdom. In accordance with its acquired character of neutrality, the capital of the Grand Duchy was to cease to be a fortified town; its fortifications were to be razed within a specified time; and the Prussian troops were to be withdrawn after the ratifications of the treaty had been exchanged. In this way the question was equitably and honourably settled without war, thanks to the diplomacy of Lord Stanley, who had actively promoted the project of a Conference. Earlier in the year he had written to Lord Malmesbury that unless the Prussian garrison was withdrawn from Luxemburg "Napoleon must fight."

Elsewhere Englishmen observed with satisfaction the healing of old sores. Austria, with her armies shattered and her prestige departed, burdened with debt, and distracted by the demands of a dozen different nationalities, displayed in this year that wonderful tenacity of life which she has before exhibited on many a historic emergency. In Count Beust, the late Saxon Minister, the Emperor found a statesman of great capacity, astuteness, and perseverance, whom he appointed to the post of Foreign Minister at the end of October, 1866. At that time dismemberment was openly talked of; for the difficulties of the monarchy were so great that no one could see his way out of them. The other chief Ministers were Prince Esterhazy and Count Belcredi, the authors of what was called the policy of "inhibition," under which, until a common and equal representation of the whole monarchy could be devised, the Constitution of February, 1861, giving a Parliament or Reichsrath to Western Austria, was suspended; the central power governed absolutely; and parliamentary life throughout the empire was confined within the walls of the provincial Diets. Hungary still held aloof from the rest of the empire, like a half severed limb, having its own Parliament for local affairs, but unrepresented in the imperial councils, and sullenly obeying the administrative and executive dispositions of the central power. Count Beust placed two leading political aims before him--to effect a compromise with Hungary, and to revive constitutional and parliamentary life in Western Austria. To bring about the first, it was necessary to come to an understanding with M. Déak and the party which he represented, since he, above all other living men, possessed the confidence of the Hungarians. Now M. Déak was firmly convinced that a system of complete dualism between Austria and Hungary would alone meet the exigencies of the case--a system under which, certain common affairs being reserved and separately provided for, all Hungarian affairs should be managed by a separate Administration, appointed indeed by the Emperor, but responsible to the Hungarian Parliament. At the opening of this Parliament, on the 19th of November, 1866, an imperial rescript was read, holding out hopes of a responsible Ministry for Hungary, and of concessions to the views of M. Déak. The plans of Belcredi, who desired to convoke an "Extraordinary Reichsrath," representing all the other nationalities along with Austria, but excluding Hungary, were swept away; and he himself was compelled to resign soon afterwards. Count Beust was then made Prime Minister. A deputation from the Hungarian Diet, headed by Count Andrassy, arrived in Vienna about the end of January, and proceeded to negotiate with Count Beust and the other Austrian Ministers respecting the terms of the compromise. Early in February, 1867, the Emperor appointed Count Andrassy his Minister President for Hungary, and entrusted him with the formation of a Hungarian Ministry. At last, on the 17th of February, appeared the imperial and royal rescript, restoring to Hungary her full parliamentary rights as they had existed before 1848. The terms of the compromise between Austria and Hungary were settled in the following manner:--"Common affairs" were defined to include the foreign policy of the empire, with its diplomatic representation abroad, and a joint army under the command of the Emperor. Both parts of the Empire were to contribute proportionately to the cost of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and of the army; and this proportion was afterwards fixed, somewhat unjustly, at 70 per cent, for Austria and 30 per cent, for Hungary. Hungary was likewise to contribute to the payment of the interest of the State debt. All international treaties were to receive the sanction of both Legislatures. All other affairs requiring a joint consideration, such as the Customs duties, indirect taxes, and the currency, were to be regulated by treaties, subject to the approval of both moieties of the realm. On the 8th of June a memorable pageant graced the streets, the noble river, and the ancient cathedral of the double capital of Hungary. On that day the Emperor Francis Joseph, who had never yet received the crown of St. Stephen, was solemnly crowned King of Hungary in the cathedral of Buda, amidst the joyful acclamations of a reconciled people.

So passed an uneventful recess. The necessity for sending an armed force to Abyssinia, in order to compel the Sovereign of that country to release a number of British subjects, made it advisable for the Government of Lord Derby to convene Parliament for a short winter Session, in order that the exact state of the question might be explained to both Houses, their approval of the expedition secured, and the grant of the necessary advances obtained from the House of Commons. Parliament accordingly was summoned to meet on the 19th of November for the despatch of business, and was opened by commission. With regard to the legislative labours of the Session, Reform Bills for Scotland and Ireland were promised, which should assimilate the franchises of those countries to those recently established in England, and also measures on public schools and elementary education. On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, £2,000,000 were voted for the Abyssinian expedition, the total cost of which, unless the Emperor Theodore should succumb, and give up his prisoners without fighting, was estimated by Government at about £3,500,000. To meet this expenditure, the House of Commons voted the addition of a penny to the income tax, and sanctioned the payment of the Indian troops engaged out of Indian revenues. Objections were raised to the expedition from various quarters, but they were sustained with little earnestness. In the Commons it was said that the Ministers had involved the country in war without keeping Parliament duly informed of the progress of the difficulty in its earlier stages; in the Upper House, a noble lord predicted failure, and said that for the army to keep up its communications with the sea after having penetrated into the highlands of Abyssinia would be found impossible. However, the general feeling, both in Parliament and in the country, went along with Government in thinking that all peaceful modes of settlement had been exhausted, and that there remained only the alternative of an appeal to arms.

In one of the debates in the House of Commons respecting relations with Abyssinia, a singular and really strange fact came to light. Mr. Bernal Osborne and Colonel Sykes drew the attention of the House to a certain letter addressed by King Theodore to Queen Victoria several years before, to which no answer had been sent. It now appeared from the papers published in the Blue Books that Theodore's resentment on account of this slight had much influenced his later conduct. A lively debate ensued. Mr. Layard, who had been Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs under Lord Russell at the time (February, 1863) when Theodore's letter reached the Foreign Office, gave the best explanation that he could of the neglect, but it was a very lame one. He said that he himself (owing to some division of duties between himself and the permanent Under-Secretary, Mr. Hammond) had never seen the letter; but that when, after a delay of eighteen months, the despatch of Consul Cameron, covering the King's letter, was looked for and found, it appeared that it had a minute written on it by Lord Russell, directing the correspondence to be sent to the India Office, "which was the usual course taken in all matters relating to Abyssinia." It was found afterwards, first, that Theodore's anger was caused by the writings of the missionaries, in which they had alluded, one to the King's mother's history in disrespectful terms, and the other by reflecting on his own conduct; secondly, that Consul Cameron had returned to Abyssinia against the King's injunction without taking back with him an answer to the letter addressed to the Queen.

But what became of the letter after it had reached the India Office? The answer was given by Colonel Sykes, who had obtained his information from the officials at the India Office. This letter, on which the most momentous consequences hung--in which the ruler of the one Christian nation in Africa entreated the Christian Queen of a Christian nation to co-operate with him in his endeavours to drive the encroaching, cruel, bigoted Turks from his ancestral domains--this letter, on reaching the India Office, appears never to have passed beyond the notice of the chief clerk. It was supposed that the letter had been already answered from the Foreign Office, and so no action was taken about it. Years passed away and still Theodore received no answer to his letter. One may conceive what interpretations, what crude reflections and deductions, would sweep through the soul of a passionate semi-barbarian monarch at finding the letter into which he had thrown all the rough sincerity of his heart treated with silent contempt.

"The postage of that letter," said Colonel Sykes, "will cost us five millions."