Cyprus convention transferred to England the protectorate of that island, so long as Russia retained the cities just named and on the understanding that if the Porte carried out the reforms desired in Armenia England should guarantee its Asiatic dominions. It is evident, therefore, if the history of the last thirty years be interrogated, that the diplomacy of 1878, whatever its immediate merit, has produced no lasting triumph. The cession of Cyprus did not result in any immunity of the Armenians from Turkish misgovernment, nor oven, as was perhaps dreamed of, in the creation of an English sphere of influence in the Euphrates valley : the Russian port of Batum has been closed and fortified: Bosnia and the Herzegovina were annexed by Austria with the utmost cynicism when at length in 1908 the opportunity offered : and Bulgaria and Eastern Roumelia were united by Prince Alexander in 1885, if not actually with Salisbury's post factum approval, at least without any active resistance on his part ; though, as he was careful to point out (Newport speech, 7 Oct. 1885), the Bulgaria thus formed was not the 'big Bulgaria' of the San Stef ano treaty, nor was it evolved under Russian influences. About the underlying principle of the English policy the maintenance of Turkey he was himself eighteen years later, in the height of the Armenian atrocities, to encourage the gravest doubt. The defence of the Berlin Treaty, he told the House of Lords on 19 Jan. 1897, lay in its traditional character, not in its inherent excellence. 'The parting of the ways was in 1853, when the Emperor Nicholas's proposals were rejected. Many members of this house will keenly feel the nature of the mistake that was made, when I say that we put all our money upon the wrong horse. It may be in the experience of those that have done the same thing, that it is not very easy to withdraw from a step of this kind, when it has once been taken, and that you are practically obliged to go on. All that Lord Beaconsfield did was to carry out the policy which his predecessors had laid down. I am acquainted with Lord Beaconsfield's thoughts at that time ; he was not free from misgiving ; but he felt that the unity of the policy in this great country was something so essential, and that the danger of shifting from one policy to another without perfectly seeing all the results to which you would come was so paramount, that he always said that the policy of Lord Palmerston must be upheld. He still entertained hopes, which I did not entertain in quite the same degree. But those hopes have not been justified.'
The brilliant effect of the Berlin Congress was even more evanescent than its provisions. Two years later the conservatives were put in a minority by the election of 1880. Beaconsfield only survived his defeat by about a year, and at his death (19 April 1881) Salisbury was chosen (9 May) to lead the opposition in the House of Lords, Sir Stafford Northcote [q. v.] continuing to do so in the House of Commons, and the party being left without any recognised leader in the country. The years of this 'dual control' are perhaps the least effective of Salisbury's life. His great ability was not yet fully realised, and he had still to make himself a name for sagacity and moderation. Irish questions, involving the larger issue of interference with the established rights of property, were dominant, and much of his activity was devoted to opposing the Irish legislation of the government, represented by the land bill of 1881 and the arrears bill of 1882, which he did with partial success by means of amendments instead of open resistance. To the bill of 1884 introducing household suffrage in the counties he only offered opposition contingent on the refusal of the government to make public the complementary redistribution of seats bill. A compromise, which involved a constitutional innovation, was however eventually arrived at. Salisbury and Northcote were taken into counsel by the ministry, and, to the profound indignation of some members of the conservative party, their leaders privately negotiated the provisions of a redistribution bill, on the understanding that the House of Lords would pass the franchise bill (extending the vote to nearly twice as many persons as was done in 1867), without forcing an appeal to the country.
The domestic policy of the liberals was not easy to attack from any popular standpoint, but their conduct of affairs in the Sudan, in Egypt, in Afghanistan, and in Ireland gave Salisbury the opportunity for trenchant criticism. Northcote, on the other hand, as Lord Randolph Churchill [q.v. Suppl. I] was at pains to show, possessed little aptitude for turning occasion to advantage, and when the government fell on 12 June 1885, Salisbury, who had been Beaconsfield's choice (Life of Lord Cranbrook, ii. 149), and during the last year had been more and more taking the lead (ibid. p. 215), was summoned by the queen. With
