recollected for the remarkable budget which Gladstone brought forward.
It constituted a worthy supplement to the measures of 1842, 1845 and
1846. Gladstone swept away the duty on one great necessary of
life--soap; he repealed the duties on 123 other articles; he reduced the
duties on 133 others, among them that on tea; and he found means for
paying for these reforms and for the gradual reduction and ultimate
abolition of the income tax, which had become very unpopular, by (1)
extending the tax to incomes of L100 a year; (2) an increase of the
spirit duties; and (3) applying the death duties to real property, and
to property passing by settlement. There can be little doubt that this
great proposal was one of the most striking which had ever been brought
forward in the House of Commons; there can also, unhappily, be no doubt
that its promises and intentions were frustrated by events which proved
too strong for its author. For Gladstone, in framing his budget, had
contemplated a continuance of peace, and the country was, unhappily,
already drifting into war.
The holy places.
For some years an obscure quarrel had been conducted at Constantinople
about the custody of the holy places at Jerusalem. France, relying on a
treaty concluded in the first half of the 18th century, claimed the
guardianship of these places for the Latin Church. But the rights which
the Latin Church had thus obtained had practically fallen into disuse,
while the Greek branch of the Christian Church had occupied and repaired
the shrines which the Latins had neglected. In the years which preceded
1853, however, France had shown more activity in asserting her claims;
and the new emperor of the French, anxious to conciliate the church
which had supported his elevation to the throne, had a keen interest in
upholding them. If, for reasons of policy, the emperor had grounds for
his action, he had personal motives for thwarting the tsar of Russia;
for the latter potentate had been foolish enough, in recognizing the
second empire, to address its sovereign as "Mon Cher Ami," instead of,
in the customary language of sovereigns, as "Monsieur Mon Frere." Thus,
at the close of 1852, and in the beginning of 1853, Russia and France
were both addressing opposite and irreconcilable demands to the Porte,
and France was already talking of sending her fleet to the Dardanelles,
while Russia was placing an army corps on active service and despatching
Prince Menshikov on a special mission to Constantinople. So far the
quarrel which had occurred at the Porte was obviously one in which Great
Britain had no concern. The Aberdeen ministry, however, thought it
desirable that it should be represented in the crisis by a strong man at
Constantinople; and it selected Lord Stratford de Redcliffe for the
post, which he had filled in former years with marked ability. Whatever
merits Lord Stratford possessed--and he stands out in current diplomacy
as the one strong man whom England had abroad--there was no doubt that
he had this disqualification: the emperor Nicholas had refused some
years before to receive him as ambassador at St Petersburg, and Lord
Stratford had resented, and never forgiven, the discourtesy of this
refusal. Lord Stratford soon discovered that Prince Menshikov was the
bearer of larger demands, and that he was requiring the Porte to agree
to a treaty acknowledging the right of Russia to protect the Greek
Church throughout the Turkish dominions. By Lord Stratford's advice the
Porte--while making the requisite concession respecting the holy
places--refused to grant the new demand; and Prince Menshikov thereupon
withdrew from Constantinople.
The rejection of Prince Menshikov's ultimatum was followed by momentous
consequences. Russia--or rather her tsar--resolved on the occupation of
the Danubian principalities; the British ministry--though the quarrel
did not directly concern Great Britain--sent a fleet to the Dardanelles
and placed it under Lord Stratford's orders. Diplomacy, however, made a
fresh attempt to terminate the dispute, and in July 1853 a note was
agreed upon by the four neutral powers, France, Great Britain, Austria
and Prussia, which it was decided to present to Constantinople and St
Petersburg. This note, the adoption of which would have ensured peace,
was accepted at St Petersburg; at Constantinople it was, unfortunately,
rejected, mainly on Lord Stratford's advice, and in opposition to his
instructions from home. Instead, however, of insisting on the adoption
of the note to which it had agreed, Lord Aberdeen's ministry recommended
the tsar to accept some amendments to it suggested by Lord Stratford,
which it was disposed to regard as unimportant. It then discovered,
however, that the tsar attached a meaning to the original note differing
from that which it had itself applied to it, and in conjunction with
France it thereupon ceased to recommend the Vienna note--as it was
called--for acceptance. This decision separated the two western powers
from Austria and Prussia, who were disposed to think that Russia had
done all that could have been required of her in accepting the note
which the four powers had agreed upon.
It was obvious that the control of the situation was passing from the
hands of the cabinet at home into those of Lord Stratford at
Constantinople. The ambassador, in fact, had the great advantage that he
knew his own mind; the cabinet laboured under the fatal disadvantage
that it had, collectively, no mind. Its chief, Lord Aberdeen, was
dominated by a desire to preserve peace; but he had not the requisite
force to control the stronger men who were nominally serving under him.
Lord John Russell was a little sore at his own treatment by his party.
He thought that he had a claim to the first place in the ministry, and
he did not, in consequence, give the full support to Lord Aberdeen which
the latter had a right to expect from him. Lord Palmerston, on the other
hand, had no personal grudge to nurture, but he was convinced that the
first duty of England was to support Turkey and to resist Russia. He
represented in the cabinet the views which Lord Stratford was enforcing
at Constantinople, and step by step Lord Stratford, thus supported,
drove the country nearer and nearer to war.
Crimean War.
In October the Porte, encouraged by the presence of the British fleet in
the Bosporus, took the bold step of summoning the Russians to evacuate
the principalities. Following up this demand the Turkish troops attacked
the Russian army, and inflicted on it one or two sharp defeats. The
Russians retaliated by loosing their squadron from Sevastopol, and on
the 30th of November it attacked and destroyed the Turkish fleet at
Sinope. The massacre of Sinope--as it was rather inaccurately called in
Great Britain, for it is difficult to deny that it was a legitimate act
of a belligerent power--created an almost irresistible demand for war
among the British people. Yielding to popular opinion, the British
ministry assented to a suggestion of the French emperor that the fleets
of the allied powers should enter the Black Sea and "invite" every
Russian vessel to return to Sevastopol. The decision was taken at an
unfortunate hour. Diplomatists, pursuing their labours at Vienna, had
succeeded in drawing up a fresh note which they thought might prove
acceptable both at St Petersburg and at Constantinople. This note was
presented almost at the moment the tsar learned that the French and
British fleets had entered the Black Sea, and the Russian government,
instead of considering it, withdrew its ministers from London and Paris;
the French and British ambassadors were thereupon withdrawn from St
Petersburg. An ultimatum was soon afterwards addressed to Russia
requiring her to evacuate the principalities, and war began. In deciding
on war the British government relied on the capacity of its fleet, which
was entrusted to the command of Sir Charles Napier, to strike a great
blow in the Baltic. The fleet was despatched with extraordinary
rejoicings, and amidst loud and confident expressions of its certain
triumph. As a matter of fact it did very little. In the south of Europe,
however, the Turkish armies on the Danube, strengthened by the advice of
British officers, were more successful. The Russians were forced to
retire, and the principalities were evacuated. A prudent administration
might possibly have succeeded in stopping the war at this point. But the
temper of the country was by this time excited, and it was loudly
demanding something more than a preliminary success. It was resolved to
invade the Crimea and attack the great arsenal, Sevastopol, whence the
Russian fleet had sailed to Sinope, and in September 1854 the allied
armies landed in the Crimea. On the 20th the Russian army, strongly
posted on the banks of the Alma, was completely defeated, and it is
almost certain that, if the victory had been at once followed up,
Sevastopol would have fallen. The commanders of the allied armies,
however, hesitated to throw themselves against the forts erected to the
north of the town, and decided on the hazardous task of marching round
Sevastopol and attacking it from the south. The movement was
successfully carried out, but the Allies again hesitated to attempt an
immediate assault. The Russians, who were advised by Colonel Todleben,
the only military man who attained a great reputation in the war, thus
gained time to strengthen their position by earthworks; and the Allies
found themselves forced, with scanty preparations, to undertake a
regular siege against an enemy whose force was numerically superior to
their own. In the early days of the siege, indeed, the allied armies
were twice in great peril. A formidable attack on the 25th October on
the British position at Balaklava led to a series of encounters which
displayed the bravery of British troops, but did not enhance the
reputation of British commanders. A still more formidable sortie on the
5th of November was with difficulty repulsed at Inkerman. And the
Russians soon afterwards found, in the climate of the country, a
powerful ally. The allied armies, imperfectly organized, and badly
equipped for such a campaign, suffered severely from the hardships of a
Crimean winter. The whole expedition seemed likely to melt away from
want and disease.
Palmerston's ministry.
The terrible condition of the army, vividly described in the letters
which the war correspondents of the newspapers sent home, aroused strong
feelings of indignation in Great Britain. When parliament met Roebuck
gave notice that he would move for a committee of inquiry. Lord John
Russell--who had already vainly urged in the cabinet that the duke of
Newcastle should be superseded, and the conduct of the war entrusted to
a stronger minister--resigned office. His resignation was followed by
the defeat of the government, and Lord Aberdeen, thus driven from power,
was succeeded by Lord Palmerston. In selecting him for the post, the
queen undoubtedly placed her seal on the wish of the country to carry
out the war to the bitter end. But it so happened that the formation of
a new ministry was accompanied by a fresh effort to make terms of peace.
Before the change of administration a conference had been decided on,
and Lord Palmerston entrusted its management to Lord John Russell. While
the latter was on his way to Vienna an event occurred which seemed at
first to facilitate his task. The tsar, worn out with disappointment,
suddenly died, and was succeeded by his son Alexander. Unfortunately the
conference failed, and the war went on for another year. In September
1855 the allied troops succeeded in obtaining possession of the southern
side of Sevastopol, and the emperor of the French, satisfied with this
partial success, or alarmed at the expense of the war, decided on
withdrawing from the struggle. The attitude of Napoleon made the
conclusion of peace only a question of time. In the beginning of 1856 a
congress to discuss the terms was assembled at Paris; in February
hostilities were suspended; and in April a treaty was concluded. The
peace set back the boundaries of Russia from the Danube to the Pruth; it
secured the free navigation of the first of these rivers; it opened the
Black Sea to the commercial navies of the world, closing it to vessels
of war, and forbidding the establishment of arsenals upon its shores.
The last condition, to which Great Britain attached most importance,
endured for about fourteen years. Peace without this provision could
undoubtedly have been secured at Vienna, and the prolongation of the war
from 1855 to 1856 only resulted in securing this arrangement for a
little more than one decade.
Wars with Persia and China.
The Crimean War left other legacies behind it. The British government
had for some time regarded with anxiety the gradual encroachments of
Russia in central Asia. Russian diplomacy was exerting an increasing
influence in Persia, and the latter had always coveted the city of
Herat, which was popularly regarded as the gate of India. In 1856 the
Persian government, believing that England had her hands fully occupied
in the Crimea, seized Herat, and, in consequence, a fresh war--in which
a British army under Sir James Outram rapidly secured a victory--broke
out. The campaign, entered upon when parliament was not in session, was
unpopular in the country. A grave constitutional question, which was
ultimately settled by legislation, was raised as to the right of the
government to undertake military operations beyond the boundaries of
India without the consent of parliament. But the incidents of the
Persian war were soon forgotten in the presence of a still graver
crisis; for in the following year, 1857, the country suddenly found
itself involved in war with China, and face to face with one of the
greatest dangers which it has ever encountered--the mutiny of the sepoy
army in India. The Chinese war arose from the seizure by the Chinese
authorities of a small vessel, the "Arrow" commanded by a British
subject, and at one time holding a licence (which, however, had expired
at the time of the seizure) from the British superintendent at Hongkong,
and the detention of her crew on the charge of piracy. Sir John Bowring,
who represented Great Britain in China, failing to secure the reparation
and apology which he demanded, directed the British admiral to bombard
Canton. Lord Palmerston's cabinet decided to approve and support Sir
John Bowring's vigorous action. Cobden, however, brought forward a
motion in the House of Commons condemning these high-handed proceedings.
He succeeded in securing the co-operation of his own friends, of Lord
John Russell, and of other independent Liberals, as well as of the
Conservative party, and in inflicting a signal defeat on the government.
Lord Palmerston at once appealed from the House to the country. The
constituencies, imperfectly acquainted with the technical issues
involved in the dispute, rallied to the minister, who was upholding
British interests. Lord Palmerston obtained a decisive victory, and
returned to power apparently in irresistible strength. Lord Elgin had
already been sent to China with a considerable force to support the
demand for redress. On his way thither he learned that the British in
India were reduced to the last extremities by the mutiny of the native
army in Bengal, and, on the application of Lord Canning, the
governor-general, he decided on diverting the troops, intended to bring
the Chinese to reason, to the more pressing duty of saving India for the
British crown.
Indian mutiny.
During the years which had followed the accession of the queen, the
territories and responsibilities of the East India Company had been
considerably enlarged by the annexation of Sind by Lord Ellenborough,
the conquest of the Punjab after two desperate military campaigns under
Lord Dalhousie, the conquest of Pegu, and the annexation of Oudh. These
great additions to the empire had naturally imposed an increased strain
on the Indian troops, while the British garrison, instead of being
augmented, had been depleted to meet the necessities of the Russian war.
Several circumstances, moreover, tended to propagate disaffection in the
Indian army. Indian troops operating outside the Company's dominions
were granted increased allowances, but these were automatically reduced
when conquest brought the provinces in which they were serving within
the British pale. The Sepoys again had an ineradicable dislike to serve
beyond the sea, and the invasion of Pegu necessitated their transport by
water to the seat of war. Finally, the invention of a new rifle led to
the introduction of a cartridge which, though it was officially denied
at the moment, was in fact lubricated with a mixture of cow's fat and
lard. The Sepoys thought that their caste would be destroyed if they
touched the fat of the sacred cow or unclean pig; they were even
persuaded that the British government wished to destroy their caste in
order to facilitate their conversion to Christianity. Isolated mutinies
in Bengal were succeeded by much more serious events at Cawnpore in
Oudh, and at Meerut in the North-West Provinces. From Meerut the
mutineers, after some acts of outrage and murder, moved on Delhi, the
capital of the old Mogul empire, which became the headquarters of the
mutiny. In Oudh the native regiments placed themselves under a Mahratta
chief, Nana Sahib, by whose orders the British in Cawnpore, including
the women and children, were foully murdered. In the summer of 1857
these events seemed to imperil British rule in India. In the autumn the
courage of the troops and the arrival of reinforcements gradually
restored the British cause. Delhi, after a memorable siege, was at last
taken by a brilliant assault. Lucknow, where a small British garrison
was besieged in the residency, was twice relieved, once temporarily by
Sir James Outram and General Havelock, and afterwards permanently by Sir
Colin Campbell, who had been sent out from England to take the chief
command. Subsequent military operations broke up the remnants of the
revolt, and in the beginning of 1858 the authority of the queen was
restored throughout India. The mutiny, however, had impressed its lesson
on the British people, and, as the first consequence, it was decided to
transfer the government from the old East India Company to the crown.
Lord Palmerston's administration was defeated on another issue before it
succeeded in carrying the measure which it introduced for the purpose,
though Lord Derby's second ministry, which succeeded it, was compelled
to frame its proposals on somewhat similar lines. The home government of
India was entrusted to a secretary of state, with a council to assist
him; and though the numbers of the council have been reduced, the form
of government which was then established has endured.
Orsini.
The cause which led to the second fall of Lord Palmerston was in one
sense unexpected. Some Italian refugees living in London, of whom Orsini
was the chief, formed a design to assassinate the emperor of the French.
On the evening of 14th January 1858, while the emperor, accompanied by
the empress, was driving to the opera, these men threw some bombs under
his carriage. The brutal attempt happily failed. Neither the emperor nor
the empress was injured by the explosion, but the carriage in which they
were driving was wrecked, and a large number of persons who happened to
be in the street at the time were either killed or wounded. This
horrible outrage naturally created indignation in France, and it
unfortunately became plain that the conspiracy had been hatched in
England, and that the bombs had been manufactured in Birmingham. On
these facts becoming known, Count Walewski, the chief of the French
foreign office, who was united by ties of blood to the emperor, called
on the British government to provide against the danger to which France
was exposed. "Ought the right of asylum to protect such a state of
things?" he asked. "Is hospitality due to assassins? Ought the British
legislature to continue to favour their designs and their plans? And can
it continue to shelter persons who by these flagrant acts place
themselves beyond the pale of common rights?" Lord Clarendon, the head
of the British foreign office, told the French ambassador, who read him
this despatch, that "no consideration on earth would induce the British
parliament to pass a measure for the extradition of political refugees,"
but he added that it was a question whether the law was as complete and
as stringent as it should be, and he stated that the government had
already referred the whole subject to the law officers of the crown for
their consideration. Having made these remarks, however, he judged it
wise to refrain from giving any formal reply to Count Walewski's
despatch, and contented himself with privately communicating to the
British ambassador in Paris the difficulties of the British government.
After receiving the opinion of the law officers the cabinet decided to
introduce a bill into parliament increasing in England the punishment
for a conspiracy to commit a felony either within or without the United
Kingdom. The first reading of this bill was passed by a considerable
majority. But, before the bill came on for a second reading, the
language which was being used in France created strong resentment in
England. The regiments of the French army sent addresses to the emperor
congratulating him on his escape and violently denouncing the British
people. Some of these addresses, which were published in the _Moniteur_,
spoke of London as "an assassins' den," and invited the emperor to give
his troops the order to destroy it. Such language did not make it easier
to alter the law in the manner desired by the government. The House of
Commons, reflecting the spirit of the country, blamed Lord Clarendon for
neglecting to answer Count Walewski's despatch, and blamed Lord
Palmerston for introducing a bill at French dictation. The feeling was
so strong that, when the Conspiracy Bill came on for a second reading,
an amendment hostile to the government was carried, and Lord Palmerston
at once resigned.
Lord Derby's second ministry.
For a second time Lord Derby undertook the difficult task of carrying on
the work of government without the support of a majority of the House of
Commons. If the Liberal party had been united his attempt would have
failed immediately. In 1858, however, the Liberal party had no cohesion.
The wave of popularity which had carried Lord Palmerston to victory in
1857 had lost its strength. The Radicals, who were slowly recovering the
influence they had lost during the Crimean War, regarded even a
Conservative government as preferable to his return to power, while many
Liberals desired to entrust the fortunes of their party to the guidance
of their former chief, Lord John Russell. It was obvious to most men
that the dissensions thus visible in the Liberal ranks could be more
easily healed in the cold shade of the opposition benches than in the
warmer sunlight of office. And therefore, though no one had much
confidence in Lord Derby, or in the stability of his second
administration, every one was disposed to acquiesce in its temporary
occupation of office.
Jews in parliament.
Ministries which exist by sufferance are necessarily compelled to adapt
their measures to the wishes of those who permit them to continue in
power. The second ministry of Lord Derby experienced the truth of this
rule. For some years a controversy had been conducted in the legislature
in reference to the admission of the Jews to parliament. This dispute
had been raised in 1847 into a question of practical moment by the
election of Baron Lionel Nathan Rothschild as representative of the City
of London, and its importance had been emphasized in 1851 by the return
of another Jew, Alderman Salomons, for another constituency. The Liberal
party generally in the House of Commons was in favour of such a
modification of the oaths as would enable the Jews so elected to take
their seats. The bulk of the Conservative party, on the contrary, and
the House of Lords, were strenuously opposed to the change. Early in
1858 the House of Commons, by an increased majority, passed a bill
amending the oaths imposed by law on members of both Houses, and
directing the omission of the words "on the true faith of a Christian"
from the oath of abjuration when it was taken by a Jew. If the
Conservatives had remained in opposition there can be little doubt that
this bill would have shared the fate of its predecessors and have been
rejected by the Lords. The lord chancellor, indeed, in speaking upon the
clause relieving the Jews, expressed a hope that the peers would not
hesitate to pronounce that our "Lord is king, be the people never so
impatient." But some Conservative peers realized the inconvenience of
maintaining a conflict between the two Houses when the Conservatives
were in power; and Lord Lucan, who had commanded the cavalry in the
Crimea, suggested as a compromise that either House should be authorized
by resolution to determine the form of oath to be administered to its
members. This solution was reluctantly accepted by Lord Derby, and Baron
Rothschild was thus enabled to take the seat from which he had been so
long excluded. Eight years afterwards parliament was induced to take a
fresh step in advance. It imposed a new oath from which the words which
disqualified the Jews were omitted. The door of the House of Lords was
thus thrown open, and in 1885 Baron Nathan Mayer Rothschild, raised to
the peerage, was enabled to take his seat in the upper chamber.
Reform Bill, 1859.
This question was not the only one on which a Conservative government,
without a majority at its back, was compelled to make concessions. For
some years past a growing disposition had been displayed among the more
earnest Liberals to extend the provisions of the Reform Act of 1832.
Lord John Russell's ministry had been defeated in 1851 on a proposal of
Locke King to place L10 householders in counties on the same footing as
regards the franchise as L10 householders in towns, and Lord John
himself in 1854 had actually introduced a new Reform Bill. After the
general election of 1857 the demand for reform increased, and, in
accepting office in 1858, Lord Derby thought it necessary to declare
that, though he had maintained in opposition that the settlement of
1832, with all its anomalies, afforded adequate representation to all
classes, the promises of previous governments and the expectations of
the people imposed on him the duty of bringing forward legislation on
the subject. The scheme which Lord Derby's government adopted was
peculiar. Its chief proposal was the extension of the county franchise
to L10 householders. But it also proposed that persons possessing a 40s.
freehold in a borough should in future have a vote in the borough in
which their property was situated, and not in the county. The bill also
conferred the franchise on holders of a certain amount of stock, on
depositors in savings banks, on graduates of universities, and on other
persons qualified by position or education. The defect of the bill was
that it did nothing to meet the only real need of reform--the
enfranchisement of a certain proportion of the working classes. On the
contrary, in this respect it perpetuated the settlement of 1832. The L10
householder was still to furnish the bulk of the electorate, and the
ordinary working man could not afford to pay L10 a year for his house.
While the larger proposals of the bill were thus open to grave
objection, its subsidiary features provoked ridicule. The suggestions
that votes should be conferred on graduates and stockholders were
laughed at as "fancy franchises." The bill, moreover, was not brought
forward with the authority of a united cabinet. Two members of the
government--Spencer Walpole and Henley--declined to be responsible for
its provisions, and placed their resignations in Lord Derby's hands. In
Walpole's judgment the bill was objectionable because it afforded no
reasonable basis for a stable settlement. There was nothing in a L10
franchise which was capable of permanent defence, and if it was at once
applied to counties as well as boroughs it would sooner or later be
certain to be extended. He himself advocated with some force that it
would be wiser and more popular to fix the county franchise at L20 and
the borough franchise at L6 rateable value; and he contended that such a
settlement could be defended on the old principle that taxation and
representation should go together, for L20 was the minimum rent at which
the house tax commenced, and a rateable value of L6 was the point at
which the householder could not compound to pay his rates through this
landlord. Weakened by the defection of two of its more important
members, the government had little chance of obtaining the acceptance of
its scheme. An amendment by Lord John Russell, condemning its main
provisions, was adopted in an unusually full house by a substantial
majority, and the cabinet had no alternative but to resign or dissolve.
It chose the latter course. The general election, which almost
immediately took place, increased to some extent the strength of the
Conservative party. For the first time since their secession from Sir
Robert Peel the Conservatives commanded more than three hundred votes in
the House of Commons, but this increased strength was not sufficient to
ensure them a majority. When the new parliament assembled, Lord
Hartington, the eldest son of the duke of Devonshire, was put forward to
propose a direct vote of want of confidence in the administration. It
was carried by 323 votes to 310, and the second Derby administration
came to an end.
Palmerston's second ministry.
It was plain that the House of Commons had withdrawn its support from
Lord Derby, but it was not clear that any other leading politician would
be able to form a government. The jealousies between Lord John Russell
and Lord Palmerston still existed; the more extreme men, who were
identified with the policy of Cobden and Bright, had little confidence
in either of these statesmen; and it was still uncertain whether the
able group who had been the friends of Sir Robert Peel would finally
gravitate to the Conservative or to the Liberal camp. The queen, on the
advice of Lord Derby, endeavoured to solve the first of these
difficulties by sending for Lord Granville, who led the Liberal party in
the Lords, and authorizing him to form a government which should
combine, as far as possible, all the more prominent Liberals. The
attempt, however, failed, and the queen thereupon fell back upon Lord
Palmerston. Lord John Russell agreed to accept office as foreign
minister; Gladstone consented to take the chancellorship of the
exchequer. Cobden was offered, but declined, the presidency of the Board
of Trade; and the post which he refused was conferred on a prominent
free trader, who had associated himself with Cobden's fortunes, Milner
Gibson. Thus Lord Palmerston had succeeded in combining in one ministry
the various representatives of political progress. He had secured the
support of the Peelites, who had left him after the fall of Lord
Aberdeen in 1855, and of the free traders, who had done so much to
defeat him in 1857 and 1858. His new administration was accordingly
based on a broader bottom, and contained greater elements of strength
than his former cabinet. And the country was requiring more stable
government. The first three ministries of the queen had endured from the
spring of 1835 to the spring of 1852, or for very nearly seventeen
years; but the next seven years had seen the formation and dissolution
of no less than four cabinets. It was felt that these frequent changes
were unfortunate for the country, and every one was glad to welcome the
advent of a government which seemed to promise greater permanence. That
promise was fulfilled. The administration which Lord Palmerston
succeeded in forming in 1859 endured till his death in 1865, and with
slight modifications, under its second chief Lord John (afterwards Earl)
Russell, till the summer of 1866. It had thus a longer life than any
cabinet which had governed England since the first Reform Act. But it
owed its lasting character to the benevolence of its opponents rather
than to the enthusiasm of its supporters. The Conservatives learned to
regard the veteran statesman, who had combined all sections of Liberals
under his banner, as the most powerful champion of Conservative
principles; a virtual truce of parties was established during his
continuance in office; and, for the most part of his ministry, a tacit
understanding existed that the minister, on his side, should pursue a
Conservative policy, and that the Conservatives, on theirs, should
abstain from any real attempt to oust him from power. Lord John Russell,
indeed, was too earnest in his desire for reform to abstain from one
serious effort to accomplish it. Early in 1860 he proposed, with the
sanction of the cabinet, a measure providing for the extension of the
county franchise to L10 householders, of the borough franchise to L6
householders, and for a moderate redistribution of seats. But the
country, being in enjoyment of considerable prosperity, paid only a
languid attention to the scheme; its indifference was reflected in the
House; the Conservatives were encouraged in their opposition by the lack
of interest which the new bill excited, and the almost unconcealed
dislike of the prime minister to its provisions. The bill, thus steadily
opposed and half-heartedly supported, made only slow progress; and at
last it was withdrawn by its author. He did not again attempt during
Lord Palmerston's life to reintroduce the subject. Absorbed in the work
of the foreign office, which at this time was abnormally active, he
refrained from pressing home the arguments for internal reform.
Gladstone's budgets.
Paper duties repealed.
In one important department, however, the ministry departed from the
Conservative policy it pursued in other matters. Gladstone signalized
his return to the exchequer by introducing a series of budgets which
excited keen opposition at the time, but in the result largely added to
the prosperity of the country. The first of these great budgets, in
1860, was partly inspired by the necessity of adapting the fiscal system
to meet the requirements of a commercial treaty which, mainly through
Cobden's exertions, had been concluded with the emperor of the French.
The treaty bound France to reduce her duties on English coal and iron,
and on many manufactured articles; while, in return, Great Britain
undertook to sweep away the duties on all manufactured goods, and
largely to reduce those on French wines. But Gladstone was not content
with these great alterations, which involved a loss of nearly L1,200,000
a year to the exchequer; he voluntarily undertook to sacrifice another
million on what he called a supplemental measure of customs reform. He
proposed to repeal the duties on paper, by which means he hoped to
increase the opportunities of providing cheap literature for the people.
The budget of 1860 produced a protracted controversy. The French treaty
excited more criticism than enthusiasm on both sides of the Channel. In
France the manufacturers complained that they would be unable to stand
against the competition of English goods. In England many people thought
that Great Britain was wasting her resources and risking her supremacy
by giving the French increased facilities for taking her iron, coal and
machinery, and that no adequate advantage could result from the greater
consumption of cheap claret. But the criticism which the French treaty
aroused was drowned in the clamour which was created by the proposed
repeal of the paper duties. The manufacture of paper was declared to be
a struggling industry, which would be destroyed by the withdrawal of
protection. The dissemination of cheap literature and the multiplication
of cheap newspapers could not compensate the nation for the ruin of an
important trade. If money could be spared, moreover, for the remission
of taxation, the paper duties were much less oppressive than those on
some other articles. The tax on tea, for example, which had been raised
during the late war to no less than 1s. 5d. a lb., was much more
injurious; and it would be far wiser--so it was contended--to reduce the
duty on tea than to abandon the duties on paper. Notwithstanding the
opposition which the Paper Duties Bill undoubtedly excited, the proposal
was carried in the Commons; it was, however, thrown out in the Lords,
and its rejection led to a crisis which seemed at one time to threaten
the good relations between the two houses of parliament. It was argued
that if the Lords had the right to reject a measure remitting existing
duties, they had in effect the right of imposing taxation, since there
was no material difference between the adoption of a new tax and the
continuance of an old one which the Commons had determined to repeal.
Lord Palmerston, however, with some tact postponed the controversy for
the time by obtaining the appointment of a committee to search for
precedents; and, after the report of the committee, he moved a series of
resolutions affirming the right of the Commons to grant aids and
supplies as their exclusive privilege, stating that the occasional
rejection of financial measures by the Lords had always been regarded
with peculiar jealousy, but declaring that the Commons had the remedy in
their own hands by so framing bills of supply as to secure their
acceptance. In accordance with this suggestion the Commons in the
following year again resolved to repeal the paper duties; but, instead
of embodying their decision in a separate bill, they included it in the
same measure which dealt with all the financial arrangements of the
year, and thus threw on the Lords the responsibility of either accepting
the proposal, or of paralysing the whole machinery of administration by
depriving the crown of the supplies which were required for the public
services. The Lords were not prepared to risk this result, and they
accordingly accepted a reform which they could no longer resist, and the
bill became law. In order to enable him to accomplish these great
changes, Gladstone temporarily raised the income tax, which he found at
9d. in the L, to 10d. But the result of his reforms was so marked that
he was speedily able to reduce it. The revenue increased by leaps and
bounds, and the income tax was gradually reduced till it stood at 4d. in
the closing years of the administration. During the same period the duty
on tea was reduced from 1s. 5d. to 6d. a lb.; and the national debt was
diminished from rather more than L800,000,000 to rather less than
L780,000,000, the charge for the debt declining, mainly through the
falling in of the long annuities, by some L2,600,000 a year. With the
possible exception of Sir Robert Peel's term of office, no previous
period of British history had been memorable for a series of more
remarkable financial reforms. Their success redeemed the character of
the administration. The Liberals, who complained that their leaders
were pursuing a Conservative policy, could at least console themselves
by the reflection that the chancellor of the exchequer was introducing
satisfactory budgets. The language, moreover, which Gladstone was
holding on other subjects encouraged the more advanced Liberals to
expect that he would ultimately place himself at the head of the party
of progress. This expectation was the more remarkable because Gladstone
was the representative in the cabinet of the old Conservative party
which Sir Robert Peel had led to victory. As lately as 1858 he had
reluctantly refused to serve under Lord Derby; he was still a member of
the Carlton Club; he sat for the university of Oxford; and on many
questions he displayed a constant sympathy with Conservative traditions.
Yet, on all the chief domestic questions which came before parliament in
Lord Palmerston's second administration, Gladstone almost invariably
took a more Liberal view than his chief. It was understood, indeed, that
the relations between the two men were not always harmonious; that Lord
Palmerston disapproved the resolute conduct of Gladstone, and that
Gladstone deplored the Conservative tendencies of Lord Palmerston. It
was believed that Gladstone on more than one occasion desired to escape
from a position which he disliked by resigning office, and that the
resignation was only averted through a consciousness that the ministry
could not afford to lose its most eloquent member.
China war, 1859-60.
While on domestic matters, other than those affecting finance, the
Liberal ministry was pursuing a Conservative policy, its members were
actively engaged on, and the attention of the public was keenly directed
to, affairs abroad. For the period was one of foreign unrest, and the
wars which were then waged have left an enduring mark on the map of the
world, and have affected the position of the Anglo-Saxon race for all
time. In the far East, the operations which it had been decided to
undertake in China were necessarily postponed on account of the
diversion of the forces, intended to exact redress at Peking, to the
suppression of mutiny in India. It was only late in 1858 that Lord Elgin
and Baron Gros, the French plenipotentiary (for France joined England in
securing simultaneous redress of grievances of her own), were enabled to
obtain suitable reparation. It was arranged that the treaty, which was
then provisionally concluded at Tientsin, should be ratified at Peking
in the following year; and in June 1859 Mr (afterwards Sir Frederick)
Bruce, Lord Elgin's brother, who had been appointed plenipotentiary,
attempted to proceed up the Peiho with the object of securing its
ratification. The allied squadron, however, was stopped by the forts at
the mouth of the Peiho, which fired on the vessels; a landing party,
which was disembarked to storm the forts, met with a disastrous check,
and the squadron had to retire with an acknowledged loss of three
gunboats and 400 men. This reverse necessitated fresh operations, and in
1860 Lord Elgin and Baron Gros were directed to return to China, and, at
the head of an adequate force, were instructed to exact an apology for
the attack on the allied fleets, the ratification and execution of the
treaty of Tientsin, and the payment of an indemnity for the expenses of
the war. The weakness of the Chinese empire was not appreciated at that
time; the unfortunate incident on the Peiho in the previous summer had
created an exaggerated impression of the strength of the Chinese arms,
and some natural anxiety was felt for the success of the expedition. But
the allied armies met with no serious resistance. The Chinese, indeed,
endeavoured to delay their progress by negotiation rather than by force;
and they succeeded in treacherously arresting some distinguished persons
who had been sent into the Chinese lines to negotiate. But by the middle
of October the Chinese army was decisively defeated; Peking was
occupied; those British and French prisoners who had not succumbed to
the hardships of their confinement were liberated. Lord Elgin determined
on teaching the rulers of China a lesson by the destruction of the
summer palace; and the Chinese government was compelled to submit to the
terms of the Allies, and to ratify the treaty of Tientsin. There is no
doubt that these operations helped to open the Chinese markets to
British trade; but incidentally, by regulating the emigration of
Chinese coolies, they had the unforeseen effect of exposing the
industrial markets of the world to the serious competition of "cheap
yellow" labour. A distinguished foreign statesman observed that Lord
Palmerston had made a mistake. He thought that he had opened China to
Europe; instead, he had let out the Chinese. It was perhaps a happier
result of the war that it tended to the continuance of the Anglo-French
alliance. French and British troops had again co-operated in a joint
enterprise, and had shared the dangers and successes of a campaign.
Unification of Italy.
War was not confined to China. In the beginning of 1859 diplomatists
were alarmed at the language addressed by the emperor of the French to
the Austrian ambassador at Paris, which seemed to breathe the menace of
a rupture. Notwithstanding the exertions which Great Britain made to
avert hostilities, the provocation of Count Cavour induced Austria to
declare war against Piedmont, and Napoleon thereupon moved to the
support of his ally, promising to free Italy from the Alps to the
Adriatic. As a matter of fact, the attitude of northern Germany, which
was massing troops on the Rhine, and the defenceless condition of
France, which was drained of soldiers for the Italian campaign, induced
the emperor to halt before he had carried out his purpose, and terms of
peace were hastily concerted at Villafranca, and were afterwards
confirmed at Zurich, by which Lombardy was given to Piedmont, while
Austria was left in possession of Venice and the Quadrilateral, and
central Italy was restored to its former rulers. The refusal of the
Italians to take back the Austrian grand dukes made the execution of
these arrangements impracticable. Napoleon, indeed, used his influence
to carry them into effect; but Lord John Russell, who was now in charge
of the British foreign office, and who had Lord Palmerston and Gladstone
on his side in the cabinet, gave a vigorous support to the claim of the
Italians that their country should be allowed to regulate her own
affairs. The French emperor had ultimately to yield to the determination
of the inhabitants of central Italy, when it was backed by the arguments
of the British foreign office, and Tuscany, Modena, Parma, as well as a
portion of the states of the Church, were united to Piedmont. There was
no doubt that through the whole of the negotiations the Italians were
largely indebted to the labours of Lord John Russell. They recognized
that they owed more to the moral support of England than to the armed
assistance of France. The French emperor, moreover, took a step which
lost him the sympathy of many Italians. Before the war he had arranged
with Count Cavour that France should receive, as the price of her aid,
the duchy of Savoy and the county of Nice. After Villafranca, the
emperor, frankly recognizing that he had only half kept his promise,
consented to waive his claim to these provinces. But, when he found
himself unable to resist the annexation of central Italy to Piedmont, he
reverted to the old arrangement. The formation of a strong Piedmontese
kingdom, with the spoliation of the papal dominion, was unpopular in
France; and he thought--perhaps naturally--that he must have something
to show his people in return for sacrifices which had cost him the lives
of 50,000 French soldiers, and concessions which the whole Catholic
party in France resented. Count Cavour consented to pay the price which
Napoleon thus exacted, and the frontier of France was accordingly
extended to the Alps. But it is very doubtful whether Napoleon did not
lose more than he gained by this addition to his territory. It certainly
cost him the active friendship of Great Britain. The Anglo-French
alliance had been already strained by the language of the French
colonels in 1858 and the Franco-Austrian War of 1859; it never fully
recovered from the shock which it received by the evidence, which the
annexation of Savoy and Nice gave, of the ambition of the French
emperor. The British people gave way to what Cobden called the last of
the three panics. Lord Palmerston proposed and carried the provision of
a large sum of money for the fortification of the coasts; and the
volunteer movement, which had its origin in 1859, received a remarkable
stimulus in 1860. In this year the course of events in Italy emphasized
the differences between the policy of Great Britain and that of France.
Garibaldi, with a thousand followers, made his famous descent on the
coast of Sicily. After making himself master of that island, he crossed
over to the mainland, drove the king of Naples out of his capital, and
forced him to take refuge in Gaeta. In France these events were regarded
with dismay. The emperor wished to stop Garibaldi's passage across the
strait, and stationed his fleet at Gaeta to protect the king of Naples.
Lord John Russell, on the contrary, welcomed Garibaldi's success with
enthusiasm. He declined to intervene in the affairs of Italy by
confining the great liberator to Sicily; he protested against the
presence of the French fleet at Gaeta; and when other foreign nations
denounced the conduct of Piedmont, he defended it by quoting Vattel and
citing the example of William III. When, finally, Italian troops entered
the dominions of the pope, France withdrew her ambassador from the court
of Turin, and England under Lord John Russell's advice at once
recognized the new kingdom of Italy.
Schleswig-Holstein question.
In these great events--for the union of Italy was the greatest fact
which had been accomplished in Europe since the fall of the first
Napoleon--the British ministry had undoubtedly acquired credit. It was
everywhere felt that the new kingdom owed much to the moral support
which had been steadily and consistently given to it by Great Britain.
Soon afterwards, however, in the autumn of 1863, the death of the king
of Denmark led to a new revolution in the north of Europe, in which Lord
Palmerston's government displayed less resolution, and lost much of the
prestige which it had acquired by its Italian policy. The duchies of
Schleswig and Holstein had been for centuries united to the kingdom of
Denmark by the golden link of the crown; in other respects they had been
organically kept distinct, while one of them--Holstein--was a member of
the German confederation. The succession to the crown of Denmark,
however, was different from that in the duchies. In Denmark the crown
could descend, as it descends in Great Britain, through females. In the
duchies the descent was confined to the male line; and, as Frederick
VII., who ascended the Danish throne in 1848, had no direct issue, the
next heir to the crown of Denmark under this rule was Prince Christian
of Gluecksburg, afterwards king; the next heir to the duchies being the
duke of Augustenburg. In 1850 an arrangement had been made to prevent
the separation of the duchies from the kingdom. As a result of a
conference held in London, the duke of Augustenburg was induced to
renounce his claim on the receipt of a large sum of money. Most of the
great powers of Europe were parties to this plan. But the German
confederation was not represented at the conference, and was not
therefore committed to its conclusions. During the reign of Frederick
VII. the Danish government endeavoured to cement the alliance between
the duchies and the kingdom, and specially to separate the interests of
Schleswig, which was largely Danish in its sympathies, from those of
Holstein, which was almost exclusively German. With this object, in the
last year of his life, Frederick VII. granted Holstein autonomous
institutions, and bound Schleswig more closely to the Danish monarchy.
The new king Christian IX. confirmed this arrangement. The German diet
at Frankfort at once protested against it. Following up words with acts,
it decided on occupying Holstein, and it delegated the duty of carrying
out its order to Hanover and Saxony. While this federal execution was
taking place, the duke of Augustenburg--regardless of the arrangements
to which he had consented--delegated his rights in the duchies to his
son, who formally claimed the succession. So far the situation, which
was serious enough, had been largely dependent on the action of Germany.
In the closing days of 1863 it passed mainly into the control of the two
chief German powers. In Prussia Bismarck had lately become prime
minister, and was animated by ambitious projects for his country's
aggrandizement. Austria, afraid of losing her influence in Germany,
followed the lead of Prussia, and the two powers required Denmark to
cancel the arrangements which Frederick VII. had made, and which
Christian IX. had confirmed, threatening in case of refusal to follow up
the occupation of Holstein by that of Schleswig. As the Danes gave only
a provisional assent to the demand, Prussian and Austrian troops entered
Schleswig. These events created much excitement in England. The great
majority of the British people, who imperfectly understood the merits of
the case, were unanimous in their desire to support Denmark by arms.
Their wish had been accentuated by the circumstance that the marriage in
the previous spring of the prince of Wales to the daughter of the new
king of Denmark had given them an almost personal interest in the
struggle. Lord Palmerston had publicly expressed the views of the people
by declaring that, if Denmark were attacked, her assailants would not
have to deal with Denmark alone. The language of the public press and of
Englishmen visiting Denmark confirmed the impression which the words of
the prime minister had produced; and there is unfortunately no doubt
that Denmark was encouraged to resist her powerful opponents by the
belief, which she was thus almost authorized in entertaining, that she
could reckon in the hour of her danger on the active assistance of the
United Kingdom. If Lord Palmerston had been supported by his cabinet, or
if he had been a younger man, he might possibly, in 1864, have made good
the words which he had rashly uttered in 1863. But the queen, who, it is
fair to add, understood the movement which was tending to German unity
much better than most of her advisers, was averse from war. A large
section of the cabinet shared the queen's hesitation, and Lord
Palmerston--with the weight of nearly eighty summers upon him--was not
strong enough to enforce his will against both his sovereign and his
colleagues. He made some attempt to ascertain whether the emperor of the
French would support him if he went to war. But he found that the
emperor had not much fancy for a struggle which would have restored
Holstein to Denmark; and that, if he went to war at all, his chief
object would be the liberation of Venice and the rectification of his
own frontiers. Even Lord Palmerston shrank from entering on a campaign
which would have involved all Europe in conflagration and would have
unsettled the boundaries of most continental nations; and the British
government endeavoured thenceforward to stop hostilities by referring
the question immediately in dispute to a conference in London. The
labours of the conference proved abortive. Its members were unable to
agree upon any methods of settlements, and the war went on. Denmark,
naturally unable to grapple with her powerful antagonists, was forced to
yield, and the two duchies which were the subject of dispute were taken
from her.
The full consequences of this struggle were not visible at the time. It
was impossible to foresee that it was the first step which was to carry
Prussia forward, under her ambitious minister, to a position of
acknowledged supremacy on the continent. But the results to Great
Britain were plain enough. She had been mighty in words and weak in
deeds. It was no doubt open to her to contend, as perhaps most wise
people consider, that the cause of Denmark was not of sufficient
importance to justify her in going to war. But it was not open to her to
encourage a weak power to resist and then desert her in the hour of her
necessity. Lord Palmerston should not have used the language which he
employed in 1863 if he had not decided that his brave words would be
followed by brave action. His conduct lowered the prestige of Great
Britain at least as much as his Italian policy had raised it.
Continental statesmen thenceforward assumed that Great Britain, however
much she might protest, would not resort to arms, and the influence of
England suffered, as it was bound to suffer, in consequence.
American civil war.
Meanwhile, in this period of warfare, another struggle was being fought
out on a still greater scale in North America. The election of Abraham
Lincoln to the presidency of the United States emphasized the fact that
the majority of the inhabitants of the Northern States were opposed to
the further spread of slavery; and, in the beginning of 1861, several of
the Southern States formally seceded from the union. A steamer sent by
the Federal government with reinforcements to Fort Sumter was fired
upon, and both parties made preparations for the civil war which was
apparently inevitable. On the one side the Confederate States--as the
seceding states were called--were animated by a resolution to protect
their property. On the other side the "conscience" of the North was
excited by a passionate desire to wipe out the blot of slavery. Thus
both parties were affected by some of the most powerful considerations
which can influence mankind, while the North were further actuated by
the natural incentive to preserve the union, which was threatened with
disruption. The progress of the great struggle was watched with painful
attention in England. The most important manufacturing interest in
England was paralysed by the loss of the raw cotton, which was obtained
almost exclusively from the United States, and tens of thousands of
workpeople were thrown out of employment. The distress which resulted
naturally created a strong feeling in favour of intervention, which
might terminate the war and open the Southern ports to British commerce;
and the initial successes which the Confederates secured seemed to
afford some justification for such a proceeding. In the course of 1862
indeed, when the Confederate armies had secured many victories,
Gladstone, speaking at Newcastle, used the famous expression that
President Jefferson Davis had "made a nation"; and Lord Palmerston's
language in the House of Commons--while opposing a motion for the
recognition of the South--induced the impression that his thoughts were
tending in the same direction as Mr Gladstone's. The emperor Napoleon,
in July of the same year, confidentially asked the British minister
whether the moment had not come for recognizing the South; and in the
following September Lord Palmerston was himself disposed in concert with
France to offer to mediate on the basis of separation. Soon afterwards,
however, the growing exhaustion of the South improved the prospects of
the Northern States: an increasing number of persons in Great Britain
objected to interfere in the interests of slavery; and the combatants
were allowed to fight out their quarrel without the interference of
Europe.
The "Trent" incident.
At the beginning of the war, Lord John Russell (who was made a peer as
Earl Russell in 1861) acknowledged the Southern States as belligerents.
His decision caused some ill-feeling at Washington; but it was
inevitable. For the North had proclaimed a blockade of the Southern
ports; and it would have been both inconvenient and unfair if Lord
Russell had decided to recognize the blockade and had refused to
acknowledge the belligerent rights of the Southern States. Lord
Russell's decision, however, seemed to indicate some latent sympathy for
the Southern cause; and the irritation which was felt in the North was
increased by the news that the Southern States were accrediting two
gentlemen to represent them at Paris and at London. These emissaries,
Messrs Mason and Slidell, succeeded in running the blockade and in
reaching Cuba, where they embarked on the "Trent," a British mail
steamer sailing for England. On her passage home the "Trent" was stopped
by the Federal steamer "San Jacinto"; she was boarded, and Messrs Mason
and Slidell were arrested. There was no doubt that the captain of the
"San Jacinto" had acted irregularly. While he had the right to stop the
"Trent," examine the mails, and, if he found despatches for the enemy
among them, carry the vessel into an American port for adjudication, he
had no authority to board the vessel and arrest two of her passengers.
"The British government," to use its own language, "could not allow such
an affront to the national honour to pass without due reparation." They
decided on sending what practically amounted to an ultimatum to the
Federal government, calling upon it to liberate the prisoners and to
make a suitable apology. The presentation of this ultimatum, which was
accompanied by the despatch of troops to Canada, was very nearly
provoking war with the United States. If, indeed, the ultimatum had been
presented in the form in which it was originally framed, war might have
ensued. But at the prince consort's suggestion its language was
considerably modified, and the responsibility for the outrage was thrown
on the officer who committed it, and not on the government of the
Republic. It ought not to be forgotten that this important modification
was the last service rendered to his adopted country by the prince
consort before his fatal illness. He died before the answer to the
despatch was received; and his death deprived the queen of an adviser
who had stood by her side since the earlier days of her reign, and who,
by his prudence and conduct, had done much to raise the tone of the
court and the influence of the crown. Happily for the future of the
world, the government of the United States felt itself able to accept
the despatch which had been thus addressed to it, and to give the
reparation which was demanded; and the danger of war between the two
great branches of the Anglo-Saxon race was averted. But, in the
following summer, a new event excited fresh animosities, and aroused a
controversy which endured for the best part of ten years.