"Ah," said Caderousse, "you would not like me to risk taking cold?"
In March 1880 Gordon visited the king of the Belgians at Brussels, and King Leopold suggested that he should at some future date take charge of the Congo Free State. In April the government of the Cape Colony telegraphed to him offering the position of commandant of the Cape local forces, but he declined the appointment. In May the marquess of Ripon, who had been given the post of governor-general of India, asked Gordon to go with him as private secretary. This he agreed to do, but a few days later, feeling that he was not suitable for the position, asked Lord Ripon to release him. The latter refused to do so, and Gordon accompanied him to India, but definitely resigned his post on Lord Ripon's staff shortly afterwards. Hardly had he resigned when he received a telegram from Sir Robert Hart, inspector-general of customs in China, inviting him to go to Peking. He started at once and arrived at Tientsin in July, where he met Li Hung Chang, and learnt that affairs were in a critical condition, and that there was risk of war with Russia. Gordon proceeded to Peking and used all his influence in favour of peace. His arguments, which were given with much plainness of speech, appear to have convinced the Chinese government, and war was avoided. Gordon returned to England, and in April 1881 exchanged with a brother officer, who had been ordered to Mauritius as Commanding Royal Engineer, but who for family reasons was unable to accept the appointment. He remained in Mauritius until the March following, when, on promotion to the rank of major-general, he had to vacate the position of Commanding Royal Engineer. Just at the same time the Cape ministry telegraphed to him to ask if he would go to the Cape to consult with the government as regards settling affairs in Basutoland. The telegram stated that the position of matters was grave, and that it was of the utmost importance that the colony should secure the services of someone of proved ability, firmness and energy. Gordon sailed at once for the Cape, and saw the governor, Sir Hercules Robinson, Mr Thos. Scanlen, the premier, and Mr. J. X. Merriman, a member of the ministry, who, for political reasons, asked him not to go to Basutoland, but to take the appointment of commandant of the colonial forces at King William's Town. After a few months, which were spent in reorganizing the colonial forces, Gordon was requested to go up to Basutoland to try to arrange a settlement with the chief Masupha, one of the most powerful of the Basuto leaders. Greatly to his surprise, at the very time he was with Masupha, Mr. J. W. Sauer, a member of the Cape government, was taking steps to induce Lerethodi, another chief, to advance against Masupha. This not only placed Gordon in a position of danger, but was regarded by him as an act of treachery. He advised Masupha not to deal with the Cape government until the hostile force was withdrawn, and resigned his appointment. He considered that the Basuto difficulty was due to the bad system of administration by the Cape government. That Gordon's views were correct is proved by the fact that a few years later Basutoland was separated from Cape Colony and placed directly under the imperial government. After his return to England from the Cape, being unemployed, Gordon decided to go to Palestine, a country he had long desired to visit. Here he remained for a year, and devoted his time to the study of Biblical history and of the antiquities of Jerusalem. The king of the Belgians then asked him to take charge of the Congo Free State, and he accepted the mission and returned to London to make the necessary preparations. But a few days after his arrival he was requested by the British government to proceed immediately to the Sudan. To understand the reasons for this, it is necessary briefly to recapitulate the course of events in that country since Gordon had left it in 1879. Entry: 1880
ITO, HIROBUMI, PRINCE (1841-1909), Japanese statesman, was born in 1841, being the son of Ito Juzo, and (like his father) began life as a retainer of the lord of Choshu, one of the most powerful nobles of Japan. Choshu, in common with many of his fellow Daimyos, was bitterly opposed to the rule of the shôgun or tycoon, and when this rule resulted in the conclusion of the treaty with Commodore M. C. Perry in 1854, the smouldering discontent broke out into open hostility against both parties to the compact. In these views Ito cordially agreed with his chieftain, and was sent on a secret mission to Yedo to report to his lord on the doings of the government. This visit had the effect of causing Ito to turn his attention seriously to the study of the British and of other military systems. As a result he persuaded Choshu to remodel his army, and to exchange the bows and arrows of his men for guns and rifles. But Ito felt that his knowledge of foreigners, if it was to be thorough, should be sought for in Europe, and with the connivance of Choshu he, in company with Inouye and three other young men of the same rank as himself, determined to risk their lives by committing the then capital offence of visiting a foreign country. With great secrecy they made their way to Nagasaki, where they concluded an arrangement with the agent of Messrs Jardine, Matheson & Co. for passages on board a vessel which was about to sail for Shanghai (1863). At that port the adventurers separated, three of their number taking ship as passengers to London, while Ito and Inouye preferred to work their passages before the mast in the "Pegasus," bound for the same destination. For a year these two friends remained in London studying English methods, but then events occurred in Japan which recalled them to their country. The treaties lately concluded by the shôgun with the foreign powers conceded the right to navigate the strait of Shimonoseki, leading to the Inland Sea. On the northern shores of this strait stretched the feudal state ruled over by Prince Choshu, who refused to recognize the clause opening the strait, and erected batteries on the shore, from which he opened fire on all ships which attempted to force the passage. The shôgun having declared himself unable in the circumstances to give effect to the provision, the treaty powers determined to take the matter into their own hands. Ito, who was better aware than his chief of the disproportion between the fighting powers of Europe and Japan, memorialized the cabinets, begging that hostilities should be suspended until he should have had time to use his influence with Choshu in the interests of peace. With this object Ito hurried back to Japan. But his efforts were futile. Choshu refused to give way, and suffered the consequences of his obstinacy in the destruction of his batteries and in the infliction of a heavy fine. The part played by Ito in these negotiations aroused the animosity of the more reactionary of his fellow-clansmen, who made repeated attempts to assassinate him. On one notable occasion he was pursued by his enemies into a tea-house, where he was concealed by a young lady beneath the floor of her room. Thus began a romantic acquaintance, which ended in the lady becoming the wife of the fugitive. Subsequently (1868) Ito was made governor of Hiogo, and in the course of the following year became vice-minister of finance. In 1871 he accompanied Iwakura on an important mission to Europe, which, though diplomatically a failure, resulted in the enlistment of the services of European authorities on military, naval and educational systems. Entry: ITO
FANTI, MANFREDO (1806-1865), Italian general, was born at Carpi and educated at the military college of Modena. In 1831 he was implicated in the revolutionary movement organized by Ciro Menotti (see FRANCIS IV., of Modena), and was condemned to death and hanged in effigy, but escaped to France, where he was given an appointment in the French corps of engineers. In 1833 he took part in Mazzini's abortive attempt to invade Savoy, and in 1835 he went to Spain to serve in Queen Christina's army against the Carlists. There he remained for thirteen years, distinguishing himself in battle and rising to a high staff appointment. But on the outbreak of the war between Piedmont and Austria in 1848 he hurried back to Italy, and although at first his services were rejected both by the Piedmontese government and the Lombard provisional government, he was afterwards given the command of a Lombard brigade. In the general confusion following on Charles Albert's defeat on the Mincio and his retreat to Milan, where the people rose against the unhappy king, Fanti's courage and tact saved the situation. He was elected member of the Piedmontese chamber in 1849, and on the renewal of the campaign he again commanded a Lombard brigade under General Ramorino. After the Piedmontese defeat at Novara (23rd of March) peace was made, but a rising broke out at Genoa, and Fanti with great difficulty restrained his Lombards from taking part in it. But he was suspected as a Mazzinian and a soldier of fortune by the higher Piedmontese officers, and they insisted on his being court-martialled for his operations under Ramorino (who had been tried and shot). Although honourably acquitted, he was not employed again until the Crimean expedition of 1855. In the second Austrian war in 1859 Fanti commanded the 2nd division, and contributed to the victories of Palestro, Magenta and San Martino. After the peace of Villafranca he was sent to organize the army of the Central Italian League (composed of the provisional governments of Tuscany, Modena, Parma and Romagna), and converted it in a few months into a well-drilled body of 45,000 men, whose function was to be ready to intervene in the papal states on the outbreak of a revolution. He showed statesmanlike qualities in steering a clear course between the exaggerated prudence of Baron Ricasoli, who wished to recall the troops from the frontier, and the impetuosity of Garibaldi, his second-in-command, who was anxious to invade Romagna prematurely, even at the risk of Austrian intervention. Fanti's firmness led to Garibaldi's resignation. In January 1860 Fanti became minister of war and marine under Cavour, and incorporated the League's army in that of Piedmont. In the meanwhile Garibaldi had invaded Sicily with his Thousand, and King Victor Emmanuel decided at last that he too must intervene; Fanti was given the chief command of a strong Italian force which invaded the papal states, seized Ancona and other fortresses, and defeated the papal army at Castelfidardo, where the enemy's commander, General Lamoricière, was captured. In three weeks Fanti had conquered the Marche and Umbria and taken 28,000 prisoners. When the army entered Neapolitan territory the king took the chief command, with Fanti as chief of the staff. After defeating a large Neapolitan force at Mola and organizing the siege operations round Gaeta, Fanti returned to the war office at Turin to carry out important army reforms. His attitude in opposing the admission of Garibaldi's 7000 officers into the regular army with their own grades made him the object of great unpopularity for a time, and led to a severe reprimand from Cavour. On the death of the latter (7th of June 1861) he resigned office and took command of the VII. army corps. But his health had now broken down, and after four years' suffering he died in Florence on the 5th of April 1865. His lose was greatly felt in the war of 1866. Entry: FANTI
Military intervention being now imperatively demanded, a vote of credit for £2,300,000 was passed in the British House of Commons on the 27th of July. Five days later the French government failed to secure a similar vote, and Great Britain was left to deal with the Egyptian question alone. An expeditionary force detailed from home stations and from Malta was organized in two divisions, with a cavalry division, corps troops, and a siege train, numbering in all about 25,000 men. An Indian contingent numbering about 7000 combatants, complete in all arms and with its own transport, was prepared for despatch to Suez. General Sir Garnet Wolseley was appointed commander-in-chief, with Lieutenant-General Sir J. Adye as chief of the staff. The plan of operations contemplated the seizure of Ismailia as the base for an advance on Cairo, Alexandria and its suburbs to be held defensively, and the Egyptian forces in the neighbourhood to be occupied by demonstrations. The expeditionary force having rendezvoused at Alexandria, means were taken by Rear-Admiral Hoskins and Sir W. Hewett for the seizure of the Suez canal. Under orders from the former, Captain Fairfax, R.N., occupied Port Said on the night of 19th August, and Commander Edwards, R.N., proceeded down the canal, taking possession of the _gares_ and dredgers, while Captain Fitzroy, R.N., occupied Ismailia after slight opposition. Before nightfall on the 20th of August the canal was wholly in British hands. Meanwhile, leaving Sir E. Hamley in command at Alexandria, Sir G. Wolseley with the bulk of the expeditionary force arrived at Port Said on the 20th of August, a naval demonstration having been made at Abukir with a view to deceive the enemy as to the object of the great movement in progress. The advance from Ismailia now began. On the 21st Major-General Graham moved from Ismailia with about 800 men and a small naval force, occupying Nefiche, the junction with the Suez line, at 1.30 A.M. without opposition. On the 22nd he made a reconnaissance towards Suez, and on the 23rd another to El-Magfar, 4 m. from Nefiche. It now appeared that the enemy had dammed the sweet-water canal and blocked the railway at Tell-el-Mahuta, where entrenchments had been thrown up and resistance seemed to be contemplated. At 4 A.M. on the 24th Sir Garnet Wolseley advanced with 3 squadrons of cavalry, 2 guns, and about 1000 infantry, placed under the orders of Lieutenant-General Willis. The enemy showed in force, estimated at 7000 with 12 guns, and a somewhat desultory action ensued. Reinforcements from Ismailia were ordered up, and the British cavalry, operating on the right, helped to check the enemy's attack, which showed little vigour. At night the troops, now reinforced by the Guards Brigade, an infantry battalion, 2 cavalry regiments and 10 guns, bivouacked on the ground. Early on the morning of the 25th the advance was continued to Tell-el-Mahuta, which the enemy evacuated, while the mounted troops and horse artillery pressed on to Mahsama, capturing the Egyptian camp, with 7 guns and large quantities of ammunition and supplies. On the same evening Major-General Graham, with about 1200 marines (artillery and light infantry), reached Mahsama, and on the following day he occupied Kassassin without opposition. The advance guard had now outrun its communications and was actually short of food, while a considerable force was distributed at intervals along the line Ismailia-Kassassin. The situation on the 27th tempted attack by an enterprising enemy, and Major-General Graham's force, consisting of a squadron of the 19th Hussars, the York and Lancaster Regiment, the duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry, the Marine Artillery Battalion and two R.H.A. guns, short of ammunition, was in danger of being overwhelmed by vastly superior numbers from Tell-el-Kebir. On the 28th Major-General Graham's troops were attacked, and after repulsing the enemy, made a general advance about 6.45 P.M. The cavalry, summoned by heliograph from Mahsama, co-operated, and in a moonlight charge inflicted considerable loss. The British casualties amounted to 14 killed and 83 wounded. During the lull which followed the first action of Kassassin, strenuous efforts were made to bring up supplies and troops and to open up railway communication to the front. On the 9th of September the Egyptians again attacked Kassassin, but were completely repulsed by 9 A.M., with a loss of 4 guns, and were pursued to within extreme range of the guns of Tell-el-Kebir. The British casualties were 3 killed and 78 wounded. The three following days were occupied in concentrating troops at Kassassin for the attack on Tell-el-Kebir, held by about 38,000 men with 60 guns. The Egyptian defences consisted of a long line of trench (2½ m.) approximately at right angles to the railway and the sweet-water canal. At 11 P.M. on the 12th of September the advance of about 15,000 men commenced; the 1st division, under Lieutenant-General Willis, was on the right, and the 2nd division, under Lieutenant-General Hamley, was on the left. Seven batteries of artillery, under Brigadier-General Goodenough, were placed in the centre. The cavalry, under Major-General Drury Lowe, was on the right flank, and the Indian contingent, under Major-General Macpherson, starting one hour later, was ordered to move south of the sweet-water canal. The night was moonless, and the distance to be covered about 6¼ m. The ground was perfectly open, slightly undulating, and generally firm gravel. The conditions for a night march were thus ideal; but during the movement the wings closed towards each other, causing great risk of an outbreak of firing. The line was, however, rectified, and after a halt the final advance began. By a fortunate accident the isolated outwork was just missed in the darkness by the left flank of the 2nd Division; otherwise a premature alarm would have been given, which must have changed all the conditions of the operation. At dawn the Highland Brigade of the 2nd Division struck the enemy's trenches, and carried them after a brief struggle. The 1st Division attacked a few minutes later, and the cavalry swept round the left of the line of entrenchments, cutting down any fugitives who attempted resistance and reaching the enemy's camp in rear. The Indian contingent, on the south of the canal, co-operated, intercepting the Egyptians at the canal bridge. The opposition encountered at some points was severe, but by 6 A.M. all resistance was at an end. The British loss amounted to 58 killed, 379 wounded and 22 missing; nearly 2000 Egyptians were killed, and more than 500 wounded were treated in hospital. An immediate pursuit was ordered, and the Indian contingent, under Major-General Macpherson, reached Zagazig, while the cavalry, under Major-General Drury Lowe, occupied Belbeis and pushed on to Cairo, 65 m. from Tell-el-Kebir, next day. On the evening of the 14th the 10,000 troops occupying Abbasia barracks, and 5000 in the citadel of Cairo, surrendered. On the 15th General Sir Garnet Wolseley, with the brigade of Guards under H.R.H. the duke of Connaught, entered the city. Entry: MILITARY
Gladstone's government declined in popularity from the date of the earliest of these concessions. Gladstone, in fact, had succeeded in doing what Lord Beaconsfield had failed to accomplish. Annoyance at his foreign policy had rekindled the imperialism which the embarrassments created by Lord Beaconsfield had done so much to damp down. And, if things were going badly with the new government abroad, matters were not progressing smoothly at home. At the general election of 1880, the borough of Northampton, which of late years has shown an unwavering preference for Liberals of an advanced type, returned as its members Henry Labouchere and Charles Bradlaugh. Bradlaugh, who had attained some notoriety for an aggressive atheism, claimed the right to make an affirmation of allegiance instead of taking the customary oath, which he declared was, in his eyes, a meaningless form. The speaker, instead of deciding the question, submitted it to the judgment of the House, and it was ultimately referred to a select committee, which reported against Bradlaugh's claim. Bradlaugh, on hearing the decision of the committee, presented himself at the bar and offered to take the oath. It was objected that, as he had publicly declared that the words of the oath had no clear meaning for him, he could not be permitted to take it; and after some wrangling the matter was referred to a fresh committee, which supported the view that Bradlaugh could not be allowed to be sworn, but recommended that he should be permitted to make the affirmation at his own risk. The House refused to accept the recommendation of this committee when a bill was introduced to give effect to it. This decision naturally enlarged the question before it. For, while hitherto the debate had turned on the technical points whether an affirmation could be substituted for an oath, or whether a person who had declared that an oath had no meaning for him could properly be sworn, the end at which Bradlaugh's opponents were thenceforward aiming was the imposition of a new religious test--the belief in a God--on members of the House of Commons. The controversy, which thus began, continued through the parliament of 1880, and led to many violent scenes, which lowered the dignity of the House. It was quietly terminated, in the parliament of 1886, by the firm action of a new speaker. Mr Peel, who had been elected to the chair in 1884, decided that neither the speaker nor any other member had the right to intervene to prevent a member from taking the oath if he was willing to take it. Parliament subsequently, by a new act, permitted affirmations to be used, and thenceforward religion, or the absence of religion, was no disqualification for a seat in the House of Commons. The atheist, like the Roman Catholic and the Jew, could sit and vote. Entry: 1872
In England the common-law requisites of a guarantee in no way differ from those essential to the formation of any other contract. That is to say, they comprise the mutual assent of two or more parties, competency to contract, and, unless the guarantee be under seal, valuable consideration. An offer to guarantee is not binding until it has been accepted, being revocable till then by the party making it. Unless, however, as sometimes happens, the offer contemplates an express acceptance, one may be implied, and it may be a question for a jury whether an offer of guarantee has in fact been accepted. Where the surety's assent to a guarantee has been procured by fraud of the person to whom it is given, there is no binding contract. Such fraud may consist of suppression or concealment or misrepresentation. There is some conflict of authorities as to what facts must be spontaneously disclosed to the surety by the creditor, but it may be taken that the rule on the subject is less stringent than that governing insurances upon marine, life and other risks (_The North British Insurance Co._ v. _Lloyd_, 10 Exch. 523), though formerly this was denied (_Owen_ v. _Homan_, 3 Mac. & G. 378, 397). Moreover, even where the contract relied upon is in the form of a policy guaranteeing the solvency of a surety for another's debt, and is therefore governed by the doctrine of _uberrima_ fides, only such facts as are really material to the risk undertaken need be spontaneously disclosed (_Seaton_ v. _Burnand_--_Burnand_ v. _Seaton_, 1900, A.C. 135). As regards the competency of the parties to enter into a contract of guarantee, this may be affected by insanity or intoxication of the surety, if known to the creditor, or by disability of any kind. The ordinary disabilities are those of infants and married women--now in England greatly mitigated as regards the latter by the Married Women's Property Acts, 1870 to 1893, which enable a married woman to contract, as a _feme sole_, to the extent of her separate property. Every guarantee not under seal must according to English law have a consideration to support it, though the least spark of one suffices (_per_ Wilmot, J., in _Pillan_ v. _van Mierop and Hopkins_, 3 Burr., at p. 1666; _Haigh_ v. _Brooks_, 10 A. & E. 309; _Barrell_ v. _Trussell_, 4 Taunt. 117), which, as in other cases, may consist either of some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other. In some guarantees the consideration is entire--as where, in consideration of a lease being granted, the surety becomes answerable for the performance of the covenants; in other cases it is fragmentary, i.e. supplied from time to time--as where a guarantee is given to secure the balance of a running account at a banker's, or a balance of a running account for goods supplied (_per_ Lush, L.J., in _Lloyd's_ v. _Harper_, 16 Ch. Div., at p. 319). In the former case, the moment the lease is granted there is nothing more for the lessor to do, and such a guarantee as that of necessity runs on throughout the duration of the lease and is irrevocable. In the latter case, however, unless the guarantee stipulates to the contrary, the surety may at any time terminate his liability under the guarantee as to _future_ advances, &c. The consideration for a guarantee must not be _past_ or _executed_, but on the other hand it need not comprise a direct benefit or advantage to either the surety or the creditor, but may solely consist of anything done, or any promise made, for the benefit of the principal debtor. It is more frequently _executory_ than _concurrent_, taking the form either of forbearance to sue the principal debtor, or of a future advance of money or supply of goods to him. Entry: GUARANTEE