The Trial of Strength--Defeat of the Government--Shuffling of
Ministers--The No-Popery Cry--Dissolution of Parliament--Character
of the Derby Government--The Ministers--The Opposition--A
Difficult Situation--Public Indifference--Results of the
Elections--Macaulay's Election--Policy of the Opposition--Scheme
of a Coalition under Lord Lansdowne--Lord Derby at
Goodwood--The Herefordshire Election--Sir James Graham's
View of the Situation--Death of Count D'Orsay--Difficulties
of Reconciliation--Lord John Russell's Position--A Divided
Opposition--Lord Granby's Dissatisfaction--Lord John Russell
on Reform--Lord Cowley's Proxy--A Plan to catch Lord
Palmerston--Death of the Duke of Wellington.
_London, May 12th, 1852._--On Monday night came on the trial of
strength, which the Opposition had determined to have with the
Government, and which the latter very unaccountably provoked.[151] The
leaders made great exertions to bring the several sections of parties
together, and completely succeeded. The only doubt was about the
'Brigadiers,' as the Irish squadron are called, who it was feared might
refuse to go into the same lobby with John Russell on any terms, but it
ended in their adhesion. The Duke of Newcastle told me they hoped for a
majority of fifty, therefore eighty-six was far beyond their most
sanguine expectations. No immediate consequences will follow, but it was
a severe check to the Government, and the more important from the
circumstance of Gladstone's being the leader of the Opposition, and
Palmerston voting with the majority. Derby affected indifference, and
said to John Russell at the Queen's ball the same night, 'What will you
get by all this?' It will probably accelerate the dissolution, for
which they must now themselves be anxious, to put an end to the present
state of affairs, and relieve them even for a time from the position
into which their embarrassment and all their shuffling and double
dealing have placed them.
[Footnote 151: [The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed on May 10 to
transfer the four vacant seats for Sudbury and St. Albans to the West
Riding of Yorkshire and the Southern Division of Lancashire. Mr.
Gladstone moved the previous question, which was carried by 234 to
148.]]
[Sidenote: INCONSISTENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT.]
The conduct of the Government is regarded with indignation and contempt
by all thinking people, out of the pale of their own thick and thin
supporters; but it does not seem to make much impression upon the
country at large, nobody appears to care one straw about anybody or
anything. There is very general prosperity and contentment, and people
are indifferent about politics, and who is in or out of office. There is
no public man who enjoys any popularity, or has a hold upon the regard
or the good opinions of the masses. If Derby remains in power it will be
from the enormous difficulty of forming any other government, for,
strangely enough, while a short time ago everybody said a Derby
Government was impossible, it now appears to be the only government
which is possible. All, however, is confusion and uncertainty, and so
will remain till the next Parliament meets, and the state and relative
strength of parties is manifested.
The object of the Ministerialists is to catch votes by representing
themselves as Conservatives, and creating as much doubt and uncertainty
as they can about their intentions on the most exciting topics, such as
Free Trade and Popery. It is supposed that there is under a smooth
exterior considerable discord in the Protectionist ranks, and even in
the Cabinet. Disraeli's Free Trade speech on the Budget evidently gave
deep offence to his party, for he felt himself obliged to make a sort of
recantation a night or two afterwards; and Derby took the very unusual
course of making a political speech at the Mansion House dinner, and in
it, with much show of compliment to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, did
his best to neutralise the Budget speech of the latter by a long and
laboured exposition of the doctrine of compromise, which he said entered
practically into all the policy and even institutions of the
country--all which seemed to imply that he meant to strike a balance,
in some protective shape, between the manufacturing and agricultural
interests. This speech, which was not particularly good, has been
universally considered as a snub to Disraeli.
Last night Spooner brought on his motion for an enquiry into Maynooth,
when Walpole made a strong anti-Maynooth speech, going much farther in
that direction than Derby had ever hinted at in the House of Lords; but
such is their language at different times and in different places, that
it is utterly impossible to guess what they think, mean, or intend; a
studied ambiguity conceals their principles and their policy, if they
have either. It would, however, look as if they meant to pander to the
'No-Popery' rage which is now so rife, and to make the country believe
they intend to give effect to the passionate desire, which no doubt
largely prevails, to attack the Catholics in some way.[152] This desire
is very strong and general in this country, but in Scotland it is
universal. Aberdeen told me the whole country was on fire, and they
would like nothing so much as to go to Ireland and fight, and renew the
Cromwellian times, giving the Papists the option of going to 'Hell or
Connaught.' As Ireland is equally furious, and the priests will send
sixty or seventy members full of bigotry and zeal, all ready to act
together under the orders of Cullen and Wiseman, we may look for more
polemical discussion, and that of the most furious character, than we
have ever seen before, even during the great Emancipation debates.
[Footnote 152: [The strong anti-Catholic feeling which had been excited
by the measure of the Pope for the establishment of a Roman Catholic
hierarchy in England in 1850, was kept alive by the Tories and directed
against the more recent provision made by Sir Robert Peel for the
College of Maynooth.]]
[Sidenote: A GENERAL ELECTION.]
_Bath, July 7th._--The elections are now begun,[153] and a few days will
disclose whether Derby's Government will be able to stand its ground or
not. Both parties are excessively confident, for at this moment the
world may be divided between the supporters and opponents of the present
Government, though the latter will be split into a dozen different
factions when Parliament meets. The first act of the Derby drama has
been curious enough; they have in some respects done better and in some
worse than was expected of them. Derby himself has shuffled and
prevaricated and involved himself in a studied and laboured ambiguity,
which has exposed him to bitter taunts and reproaches, and Disraeli has
been a perfect will-o'-the-wisp, flitting about from one opinion to
another, till his real opinions and intentions are become matter of mere
guess and speculation. He has given undoubted proofs of his great
ability, and showed how neatly he could handle such a subject as
finance, with which he never can have been at all familiar; but having
been well taught by his subalterns, and applying a mind naturally clear,
ready, and acute to the subject, he contrived to make himself fully
master of it, and to produce to the House of Commons a financial
statement the excellence of which was universally admitted and gained
him great applause. Whatever his motives were--whether because it was
all true, and he could not resist the force of truth, or that he thought
_that_ the best opportunity he could find for evacuating an untenable
position, he pronounced such a full and unreserved panegyric on the
results of Free Trade, and so clearly stated them in detail, that his
speech was hailed as a practical conversion, and as such cheered
vehemently by the Whigs, and received in gloomy silence by his own
people. On subsequent occasions he attempted to shuffle out of his
previous declarations, and as they cannot afford to quarrel with him,
and a great many are like him and obliged to back out of Protection
also, no schism has taken place. On all subjects of interest the
Government have taken a doubtful, undecided course, and abstained from
any bold enunciation of principles and course of action, always
temporising, and trying to keep up the hopes of every party and interest
by their ambiguous language. On Maynooth, on the Education Question, and
the Privy Council Minute, they did this, evidently for electioneering
purposes: afraid in one case of affronting Protestant bigotry, and in
the other wanting to stimulate the zeal of the Churchmen in their
favour.
[Footnote 153: [Parliament was prorogued on July 1, and dissolved
immediately afterwards.]]
The appointment that created the greatest surprise, and was the most
criticised, that of Sir John Pakington, has turned out, as far as it has
gone, one of the best. He has done his business in the House of Commons
very fairly, has committed no glaring faults, and has a very tolerable
character in his office for industry and apprehension. Walpole, who was
thought one of the most capable, has been a failure. He had the folly to
make a strong anti-Catholic speech on the Maynooth grant, and he got
into the ridiculous scrape about the votes to Militiamen, which he was
forced so awkwardly to withdraw amidst a storm of ridicule from every
quarter, the real history of which has never yet been explained. The
other members of the Cabinet have appeared as mere dummies, and in the
House of Lords Derby has never allowed any of them to speak, taking on
himself to answer for every department. Young Stanley does not seem to
have had much success in the House of Commons, nor to afford much
promise of attaining excellence hereafter, at least as an orator. The
Chancellor has done very well in his Court, administering justice ably
and expeditiously, and _nolens aut volens_ he has concurred in carrying
through Parliament some very important law reforms, which will be
followed by more. It is by no means unlikely that more has been done in
this way than if John Russell's Government had not been thrown out.
Lyndhurst came out with great force, and his speech on the Baron de
Bode's case was a masterpiece, which was worthy of his more vigorous
age, and drew general admiration. Brougham has been extremely quiet and
reasonable, devoting himself almost entirely to law reforms, and doing
great service, acting a very honourable and useful part. The Opposition
have, on the whole, been very moderate and forbearing, with the sole
exception of John Russell's opposition to the Militia Bill, which was a
great blunder, and drew on him much resentment and disgust on the part
of his own friends and adherents. They appear now to have in great
measure forgotten and forgiven this unhappy blunder. Palmerston's
course has been thoroughly eccentric, and to this hour nobody can make
out what he is at, nor what are the motives and the objects of his
conduct. At one time it looked as if he was aiming at a junction with
Derby, but he voted with Gladstone in his great attack on the
Government, and his language has been uniformly that of their opponent,
and as if he still considered himself one of the Whig party, though a
perfectly independent one. He has taken a pretty active part during the
Session, and a very characteristic one, seldom losing an opportunity of
saying something spiteful about his former colleagues, and dealing
largely in those liberal clap-traps which have always been the chief
part of his political stock-in-trade. He wound up the Session by a
bitter attack on Granville and John Russell, when the latter was not in
the House, and the House of Lords had ended its sittings, so the former
had no opportunity of answering him. He was quite wrong in what he said,
and so far as Granville and Lord John were concerned could have been
easily answered, but he broke out in his old style about foreign
politics and Austria, all of which was loudly cheered and greatly
admired by his Radical friends, but the whole exhibition regretted and
blamed by the more sensible of his own adherents. This speech proved
that he has given up all idea of returning to the Foreign Office, which
indeed he professes not to desire.
[Sidenote: LORD PALMERSTON ATTACKS THE WHIGS.]
The above is a very brief and imperfect sketch of the spirit in which
the recent short Session has been carried on by the different parties
and leaders, presenting a very unsatisfactory prospect for the future;
for while a more disgraceful and more degraded Government than this
cannot be imagined, it is difficult to see, if they fall, how any fresh
combination can be formed, likely to be efficient, popular, and durable.
It will be equally difficult to do without, and to do with, John
Russell. The Whigs will acknowledge no other leader; their allegiance to
him is very loose and capricious; he has lost his popularity and his
prestige in the country, and has very little personal influence. Then
the unappeasable wrath of the Irish Catholics, who will come to
Parliament brigaded together, and above all things determined on his
personal exclusion, will make any Government of which he is either the
head, or the House of Commons leader, next to impossible. Nothing in the
present balanced state of parties can resist a compact body of sixty or
seventy men acting together by word of command, and putting a veto on
one particular man. No past services nor any future expectations will
atone for the Durham Letter, which they seem pledged to a man never to
forget or forgive. The country all this time seems to be in a state of
complete indifference. The elections are carried on by the opposite
parties, but there appears to be no strong current of public opinion in
favour of or against any men or any measures. While the press thunders
away against Derby and the deep dishonour of his political conduct, the
masses seem mighty indifferent on the subject, and as the very conduct
that is impugned is principally his shuffling out of his engagement to
the cause of Protection, people only become more indifferent from seeing
that Free Trade is virtually safe, and so long as the great prosperity
now prevailing continues, the country at large does not seem to care a
straw whether Lord Derby or Lord anybody else is in office. The zeal of
the party in power is always greater _ceteris paribus_ than of that in
Opposition, unless some great object is in agitation and at stake, and
the Derbyites will make more strenuous efforts to keep the power they
have got, than their opponents will make to wrest it from them.
[Sidenote: RESULT OF THE ELECTIONS.]
_London, July 23rd._--After passing a fortnight at Bath, I returned to
town, a fortnight ago. The elections are now nearly over, all indeed
except some in Ireland. They have been on the whole very unsatisfactory
in every respect, and nothing can be more unpromising than our political
prospects. The end has been a very considerable gain to the Government,
one with which they profess to be perfectly satisfied, and they are
quite confident of being able to defeat any attempts to turn them out.
In this, I think, they are right, for they certainly will have more
than 300 in the House of Commons, all Derbyites, staunch supporters, and
moveable like a regiment. The Opposition will number as many, or perhaps
rather more; but that is counting Whigs, Radicals of different degrees,
Peelites, and the Irish Brigade,--different factions, greatly at
variance amongst each other, and who will rarely combine for any
political object. There may be about fifty or sixty people who will not
consider themselves as belonging to the Government nor to the
Opposition, but of whom the majority will probably support the
Government, except on particular questions. Disraeli boasts that he
shall have 330 followers, and that he knows where to look for stray
votes. He probably overrates his regular force, but he will no doubt get
a great many of the neutrals. The most remarkable and most deplorable
features of the recent election are the exclusion of so many able and
respectable men; the malignant and vindictive as well as stupid and
obstinate spirit evinced by the constituencies, especially the
agricultural, and their bigotry and prejudices, as well as their total
indifference to character and intellectual eminence. The conduct of the
Government and their supporters has been just what might have been
expected from their language in Parliament: they have sacrificed every
other object to that of catching votes; at one time and at one place
representing themselves as Free Traders, and in another as
Protectionists, and everywhere pandering to the ignorance and bigotry of
the masses by fanning the No-Popery flame. Disraeli announced that he
had no thoughts, and never had any, of attempting to restore Protection
in the shape of import duties; but he made magnificent promises of the
great things the Government mean to do for the farmers and owners of
land, by a scheme the nature and details of which he refused to reveal.
All those (comprising almost everybody) who have found themselves
obliged to abandon Corn Laws, and to subscribe to the Big Loaf doctrine,
have nevertheless talked largely of Protection in the shape of
compensation and of justice to the landed interest by means of fiscal
arrangements; and this has so far succeeded, that, except in one or two
counties, the farmers have been as rabid against Free Trade and for
Protection as if the Government had never renounced their old
Protectionist principles, and there is no doubt that they have
everywhere supported the Derbyite candidates from a conviction that they
are to derive some great though unexplained advantage from the
Government. This, and the religious cry, and the utter insensibility of
the constituencies to the insincere and shuffling conduct of the
Ministers and their supporters, have produced the strong party which we
shall see established on the right side of the Chair when Parliament
meets.
There are also a good number of people who have supported Lord Derby
from fear of a Radical alliance between John Russell and Graham and the
Manchester men, and the dread of their returning to power with a budget
of new Reform Bills, and who really do believe that this Government is,
as it pretends to be, a barrier against revolution. Indeed the only
satisfactory part of this general election is the undoubted proof it
affords of the strength of the Conservative element in the country, and
it is only to be regretted that it should be found all enlisted on the
side of such a Government as this, and associated with so much of
ignorance and fanaticism. These last qualities, however, are common to
both parties; and if I had ever been impressed with any popular notions
of what is called the good sense of the people, I should be quite
disabused of them now; for whichever way we turn our eyes, whether
towards those who call themselves Conservative, or those who claim to be
Reformers, we find the same evidence of unfitness to deal with important
political questions, and to exercise an active influence on public
affairs, and on both sides we are disgusted with the profligate means
employed by candidates, who pander to every sort of popular prejudice,
and in rare instances have the courage and honesty to face them, and to
speak out plain and salutary truths.
[Sidenote: DEPRESSION OF THE LIBERAL PARTY.]
The only really creditable election is that of Edinburgh, where Macaulay
was elected without solicitation, or his being a candidate, although he
did not appear at the election, and the constituency were well aware
that his opinions were not in conformity with theirs on many subjects,
especially on the religious ones, upon which they are particularly hot
and eager. Nowhere else have character or ability availed against
political prejudices and animosities. Distinguished men have been
rejected for mediocrities, by whom it is discreditable for any great
constituency to be represented. The most conspicuous examples of this
incongruity have been Lewis in Herefordshire, Sir George Grey in
Northumberland, and Cardwell in Liverpool. Pusey was obliged to retire
from Berks, and Buxton was beaten in Essex, victims of Protectionist
ill-humour and revenge. Both were succeeded by far inferior men, who
have no other merit than those Protectionist longings which they do not
pretend they shall ever have the means of gratifying. The friends of the
late Government and all who abhor this one are of course infinitely
disgusted and disheartened at such a state of things, having been very
confident that the Government would be in a considerable minority, and
that they would be powerless to go on against a majority, which, though
scattered, would be overwhelming whenever it could be brought into
united action; they are now obliged to perceive that the Government will
be much too strong to be speedily turned out; and even if this should
happen, that the Tories are too strong to admit of any other Government
being formed with a chance of stability and power.
This state of Parliamentary parties has had the effect of reviving the
resentment of the Liberals against John Russell, as they attribute to
him and his mismanagement the defeat they have sustained at the election
and the present unpromising condition of the Liberal party. And the
wisest and most moderate men are now only intent on restraining the
impatience of those who would attack the Government as soon as possible,
and are strenuously urging the policy of abstaining from all violent or
vexatious opposition, and of giving the Ministry full leisure and
opportunity of developing their policy and proposing their intended
measures to the country. This policy will probably be adopted, for it
appears to be the opinion of John Russell himself that it is adviseable;
but there is such a strong feeling against him that it is impossible to
say what amount of influence he may be disposed or be permitted to
exercise when the principal men of the various sections of opposition
begin to consider the tactics to be adopted. Brooks's grumbles audibly
against Lord John, and there is an evident indisposition to accept him
again as Prime Minister. Fortescue came to the Duke of Bedford the other
day, told him this feeling was very strong and prevalent, and urged him
to make it known to his brother.
The object of the malcontents is to prevail on Lord Lansdowne to put
himself at the head of the party and the Government, if one can be made,
not objecting to Lord John's leading the House of Commons. This is also
the object of Palmerston, who would join Lord Lansdowne's Cabinet, but
would not serve _under_ John Russell, though he would not object to
serve _with_ him.[154] The Duke of Bedford came here to talk it over
with me, saying he did not think Lord John would kick at this plan, but
that Lord Lansdowne would never consent to it. I told him I did not
think Lord Lansdowne's consent so impossible as he imagined, but of
course he only could or would agree to it upon its being urged upon him
by Lord John himself, and as the only way in which the Liberal Party
could be united and any Government formed. We agreed, however, and in
this Clarendon strongly concurred, that it would be better not to write
to Lord John on the subject (who is in Scotland), but to wait till he
and his brother meet, when the matter can be talked over. But even if he
should fully assent, it would only get rid of one difficulty, and I much
doubt whether with such a numerous and compact Ministerial party and
such a divided Opposition, agreeing only in hostility to Derby, and
split on almost every great subject, it would be possible to form any
other Government, much less one with strong and harmonious action.
[Footnote 154: Curious that this scheme was eventually realised, not
under Lord Lansdowne, but under Lord Aberdeen.]
[Sidenote: LORD DERBY AT GOODWOOD.]
_August 2nd._--At Goodwood all last week; glorious weather and the whole
thing very enjoyable; a vast deal of great company--Duke of Cambridge,
Duke of Mecklenburg, Duke of Parma, Duke of Saxe-Weimar, father of
Prince Edward. Derby was there--not in his usual uproarious spirits,
chaffing and laughing from morning till night, but cheerful enough,
though more sedate than is his wont. We had no political talk at all, at
least not general talk; but as the party was mainly Derbyite they
communed no doubt amongst each other. They are by way of being very well
satisfied with the result of the elections, and their adherents predict
a long tenure of office. Derby, half in joke and half in earnest, talked
of something that was to happen in a year's time, which he said would
probably see them out again. It is not yet admitted as a fact what the
gain to Government is, nor what the relative numbers are, but it may be
taken roughly at about 300 Derbyites, thoroughgoing supporters; 50 or 60
that cannot be reckoned as belonging to either party; and the rest
divided into various sections of opposition and greatly at variance with
each other, except in a common sentiment of aversion and determined
hostility to the Government.
George Lewis, whom I saw yesterday, gave me a deplorable account of the
moral and intellectual state of the constituency of Herefordshire,
enough to shake the strongest faith in popular institutions, and
reliance on what is called the good sense of the people. In
Herefordshire the battle was fought entirely upon the question of Free
Trade. There was no religious element there. He was beaten by the
farmers and the small proprietors, men with small landed properties, by
whom any diminution of rent was severely felt; and by the clergy, who
went against him to a man because their incomes had likewise suffered by
the fall in the price of grain on which their tithe commutation is
calculated. All these classes are animated with resentment against Free
Traders, and deceived by the vague promises of the Government that some
great relief is to be afforded to them in some unknown shape. The small
freeholders were all for Lewis, and if they had voted for him as they
had promised he would have gained his election; but no sort of
intimidation and violence was spared towards them by the large farmers,
and they were frightened and driven to forfeit their pledges, and to
vote against him. Their ignorance, he says, is complete. They never see
a metropolitan newspaper, and the very little they read is in the local
journals, which only seem to foster their prejudices and maintain their
delusions. In many instances the voters did not know whom they were
going to vote for, nor even who were the candidates. They were made to
vote against the Free Traders, and sent to the poll with tickets for the
three Protectionists. Out of all this chaos and confusion, so much
delusion, such ignorance and easily excited bigotry, such vague and
crude political ideas and wishes, the only wonder is that a House of
Commons somehow emerges and presents itself which is tolerably
respectable in character and ability, and able to discharge its
constitutional duties with credit and efficiency.
[Sidenote: LORD LANSDOWNE PROPOSED AS PREMIER.]
_August 9th._--I called on Graham on Friday and found the Duke of
Bedford with him. He was exceedingly dejected at the state of public
affairs and the result of the elections, which he considered as more
favourable to the Government than he had ever anticipated they would be;
thinks the amount of bribery and violence which have prevailed has given
a great stimulus to the question of Ballot, for which the desire is
rapidly extending, and that it will be difficult to oppose it. At the
same time he thinks the evil and mischief of the Ballot enormous, and
more dangerous in its democratic tendency than any other measure of
reform. He said he was in constant and very friendly communication with
John Russell, and he considers in the event of a change of government
that no arrangement will be feasible except placing him at the head of
another administration. The Duke told him there was a scheme afloat to
get Lord Lansdowne to take the chief place, which many of the
discontented Liberals thought the only plan by which the party could be
kept together, but Graham scouted this as impossible. This is what
Palmerston wants, because it would remove his difficulty; but Graham
thinks it will be impossible for any real reconciliation to take place
between John Russell and Palmerston, and that there would be so many
other difficulties, especially with Aberdeen, whom the Peelites regard
as their chief, that Palmerston's return to office at all is out of the
question, and he evidently regards as no improbable contingency a
junction between Palmerston and Derby, which, as we told him, was quite
inconsistent with the language of both Palmerston and Lady Palmerston,
who always talked as if he belonged to the Liberal Party, and evinced a
great dislike and contempt for the Derby Government.
We then talked of the quarrel with America about the fisheries, which
Graham looked upon as very serious, and he contemplates the possibility
of Palmerston, moved by hatred and rivalry of Aberdeen, making common
cause with the Government and joining them on the pretext of taking up a
national question and fighting a national battle; but neither the Duke
nor I would agree to this being likely. Graham told us he had had a very
friendly correspondence with Gladstone, to whom he had written to
congratulate him on his election, and he read Gladstone's reply, which
was very cordial and amicable.
[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF COUNT D'ORSAY.]
The death of D'Orsay, which took place the other day at Paris, is a
matter not of political, but of some social interest. Nature had given
him powers which might have raised him to very honourable distinction,
and have procured him every sort of success, if they had been well and
wisely employed, instead of the very reverse. He was extremely
good-looking, very quick, lively, good-natured, and agreeable, with
considerable talent, taste for, and knowledge of art, and very tolerably
well-informed. Few _amateurs_ have excelled him as a painter and a
sculptor, though his merit was not so great as it appeared, because he
constantly got helped, and his works retouched by eminent artists,
whose society he cultivated, and many of whom were his intimate
friends. His early life and connexion with the Blessington family was
enveloped in a sort of half mystery, for it was never exactly known how
his ill-omened marriage was brought about; but the general notion was,
that Lord Blessington and Lady Blessington were equally in love with
him, and it is certain that his influence over the Earl was
unbounded.[155] Whatever his relations may have been with the rest of
the family, he at all events devoted his whole life to _her_, and
employed all his faculties in making Gore House, where they resided
together for many years, an attractive and agreeable abode. His
extravagance at one period had plunged him into inextricable
difficulties, from which neither his wife's fortune, a large portion of
which was sacrificed, nor the pecuniary aid of friends on whom he levied
frequent contributions, were sufficient to relieve him, and for some
years he made himself a prisoner at Gore House, and never stirred beyond
its four walls, except on a Sunday, to avoid being incarcerated in a
more irksome confinement. Nothing, however, damped his gaiety, and he
procured the enjoyment of constant society, and devoted himself
assiduously to the cultivation of his talent for painting and sculpture,
for which he erected a studio in the garden. He was extremely
hospitable, and managed to collect a society which was very
miscellaneous, but included many eminent and remarkable men of all
descriptions, professions, and countries, so that it was always curious
and often entertaining. Foreigners of all nations were to be met with
there, especially exiles and notabilities of any kind. He was the friend
of Louis Napoleon and the friend of Louis Blanc, both of whom at
different times I met at Gore House. He had a peculiar talent for
drawing people out, and society might have been remarkably agreeable
there if the lady of the house had contributed more to make it so. Of
course no women ever went there, except a few who were in some way
connected with D'Orsay and Lady Blessington; and exotic personages, such
as Madame Guiccioli, who lived with them whenever she came to England.
There never was a foreigner who so completely took root in England as
D'Orsay, except perhaps the Russian Matuscewitz. He spoke and wrote
English perfectly, and he thoroughly understood the country. He was
always ridiculing the crude and absurd notions which his own countrymen
formed of England; they came here, and after passing a few weeks in
scampering about seeing sights, they fancied they thoroughly understood
the genius and the institutions of the country, and talked with a
pretension and vain complacency which D'Orsay used to treat with
excessive contempt, and lash with unsparing ridicule. He had in fact
become thoroughly English in tastes, habits and pursuits; his antecedent
life, his connexion with Lady Blessington, and the vague but prevalent
notion of his profligate and immoral character, made it impossible for
him to obtain admission into the best society, but he managed to gather
about him a miscellaneous but numerous assemblage of personages not
fastidious, or troubled by any scruples of a refined morality, which
made Gore House a considerable social notability in its way. Lyndhurst
and Brougham were constant guests; the Bulwers, Landseer, Macready, all
authors, artists, and men eminent in any liberal profession, mixed with
strangers of every country and colour; and D'Orsay's fashionable
associates made the house a very gay and often agreeable resort.
Whatever his faults may have been, and his necessities made him
unscrupulous and indelicate about money matters, he was very obliging,
good-natured, and _serviable_; partly from vanity and ostentation, but
also in great measure from humane motives he was always putting himself
forward to promote works of charity and beneficence, and he exerted all
the influence he possessed, which was not inconsiderable, to assist
distressed genius and merit in every class. He was very anti-Orleanist
during the reign of Louis Philippe, and though his connexions were
Legitimist, his personal sympathies were enlisted on the side of Louis
Napoleon, with whom he had considerable intimacy here, and whose future
greatness he always anticipated and predicted. When the derangement of
Lady Blessington's affairs broke up the establishment at Gore House, and
compelled her to migrate to Paris, D'Orsay naturally expected that the
elevation of Louis Napoleon would lead to some good appointment for
himself, and he no doubt was deeply mortified at not obtaining any, and
became a _frondeur_ in consequence. It was, however, understood that the
President wished to give him a mission, and he certainly was very near
being made Minister at Hanover, but that the French Ministers would not
consent to it. He was unpopular in France and ill-looked upon, in
consequence of having quitted the army when ordered on active service,
in what was considered a discreditable manner, and consequently his
social position at Paris was not near so good as that which he enjoyed
in England, though it was of the same description, as he lived chiefly
with authors, artists, and actors, or rather actresses; but a short time
ago, when the President was become omnipotent and could dispense his
patronage and his favours as he pleased, he created a place for D'Orsay
connected with the Department of the Fine Arts, which exactly suited his
taste, and would have made the rest of his life easy, if he had
continued to live, and his patron continued to reign.
[Footnote 155: [It was Lord Blessington who induced Alfred D'Orsay, then
a very young man, to throw up his commission in the Guards of the King
of France (for which the French never forgave him), and to become a
member of the Blessington family. This was done with a formal promise to
the Count's family that he should be provided for, and a marriage was
accordingly brought about between him and the only daughter and heiress
of Lord Blessington by his first marriage, which turned out very ill.]]
[Sidenote: DIVISION IN THE LIBERAL PARTY.]
_August 11th._--A great deal of communication has been taking place
between the Duke of Bedford, Clarendon, and Graham, who are all in town,
and between them, by correspondence, and John Russell, Lansdowne, Grey,
and others; the result of the whole exhibiting a deplorable state of
disunion and disorganisation in the Liberal party, and the prospect of
enormous and apparently irreconcilable difficulties when they come
together. John Russell and Graham are upon very intimate and cordial
terms, and so are Lord John and Aberdeen. The Whigs are divided, some
being entirely for John Russell, while others, still resenting his past
conduct, and many personally dissatisfied with him, are strongly opposed
to his being again Prime Minister. The Peelites, Graham thinks, would
not consent to join a government of which he was to be at the head. The
object of Fortescue and others is to reconstitute the Whig party with
additions, and Lansdowne at the head of it. In the course of a very
friendly and frank correspondence Graham has lately intimated to Lord
John the objections that might be raised in certain quarters to his
being again Prime Minister, to which he responded without any anger, but
said he had long ago made up his mind not to belong to any Government
unless he was replaced in his post, and that he should consider it 'a
degradation' to accept any other; but if a Liberal Government was formed
under another chief he would give it every aid in his power. Graham
combated the idea of its being any degradation to take another office,
and give way to another chief, if circumstances imperatively demanded
such a sacrifice of him, and said it could be no degradation to him to
be what Mr. Fox was in 1806, Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and leader
of the House of Commons. The Duke of Bedford wrote to Lord John on the
same topic, and told him what he had heard from different quarters; but
Lord John took it ill, and wrote a much crosser letter than he did to
Graham, so that it is evident the question of headship will itself be
very difficult to arrange.
Then there is the question of Reform in Parliament. To this John
Russell is entirely and irrevocably committed, and Graham thinks he can
return to office on no other terms, while Lansdowne and several of the
leading Whigs are vehemently opposed to it, and the former would
certainly not accept the office of Premier, probably not join the
Government at all, except on an understanding that there should be no
Reform at all, or a measure infinitely less than John Russell is
committed to. Then Palmerston is against Reform, and the Peelites are
divided or undecided about it. Newcastle would go with John Russell and
be a Reformer; Gladstone and Sidney Herbert might probably go the other
way. The Whig party are divided also, and I own I do not see how any
other Government could by possibility be formed which could obtain
Liberal support enough to stand, and yet agree on this question. In the
event of a change another election would be indispensably necessary; and
if the question of Reform was to be the one put before the country for
its decision, it is as likely as not that the country would decide
against it. Most assuredly at the recent election 'Reform' found no very
extensive favour among the constituencies, and a good deal of Derby's
popularity arose from the notion that his is a Conservative Government,
and a barrier against revolutionary measures. At this moment, while
there is a general prosperity and content, the country is in a
Conservative humour, and does not wish for organic changes, nor will it
wish for any such until pressure or distress of some sort shall occur,
when it might be excited and deluded into a desire for novelties. What
public opinion requires is reform of the law, and those amendments of an
administrative kind which lead to practical results intelligible to all,
and these the Derby Government may give the people, and will do so if
they are wise. This Government is certainly on the whole rather popular
than not, and its ambiguous and insincere conduct has failed to
discredit it with those who were favourable to its advent to power. It
has got the whole body of the agriculturists, all the Church, and a
large proportion of the wealthy middle classes on its side, at least 300
devoted adherents in the House of Commons, and an Opposition in a state
of disunion, without a leader, and full of personal antipathies, and
incompatible objects, opinions and pretensions. A more hopeless fix I
never recollect. If this Government were better composed, and its
members had more experience and ability, and higher principles, it would
have little difficulty in maintaining itself against such a discordant
Opposition; but so far as one can judge, it seems probable that they
will create great reverses for themselves by their blunders, and by the
disgust which their dishonesty has given, and will give, to some of the
more consistent or more obstinate of their own friends.
[Sidenote: LORD GRANBY'S CONSISTENCY.]
The Duke of Rutland confided to the Duke of Bedford the other day that
he is very uneasy about Granby, who is extremely dissatisfied with the
course the Government is taking, and much inclined to give utterance to
his feelings and opinions. His father has done his best to pacify him,
but finds him very difficult to move. The Duke of Rutland remonstrated
that he would seriously injure the Government he was attached to, and
his own brother, who was a member of it; to which he replied he would
not abstain from attacking his own brother if he chose to desert the
principles he had always maintained. The Duke of Bedford told the Duke
of Rutland he thought Granby's feelings did him great credit; that
though his conclusions were unsound, his conscientious adherence to the
principles he had always avowed, and still maintained, were very
honourable to him, and so he should tell him when he saw him. This
schism is important, and if they cannot muzzle Granby will prove very
injurious to the Government; but I suppose they will talk him over
before Parliament meets, as they have done so many others. Meanwhile in
the midst of such confusion and difficulty as the Liberal cause is
involved in, John Russell has taken one step towards clearing the way,
for he has requested Aberdeen to communicate with Gladstone, Newcastle,
and Sidney Herbert, and ascertain what their disposition is concerning a
junction, and what their views are. This may probably lead to something
one way or another.
_August 28th._--I went to Bolton Abbey for two days before York races,
then to Nun Appleton for them; since that to Brocket, and back to town.
Found nothing new except a letter from John Russell to Clarendon, the
contents of which greatly surprised Clarendon and the Duke of Bedford,
as he said in reference to Reform that he was not disposed to insist on
disfranchisement, and certainly should not propose it against the
opinion and wishes of many of his friends. For this moderation and
concession they were not prepared. The great question for the Liberal
party to decide now is, whether they shall propose any amendment to the
Address, and John Russell and Charles Wood both think this should not
be done without absolute necessity, but that if anything is said in the
Queen's Speech indicative of Protectionist intentions, or any slur
thrown on Free Trade, then they cannot avoid some affirmative expression
of their own principles and of the benefits resulting from them; but
nothing will be decided on till Parliament meets and they know what
Derby is going to do. They have made Granby Lord Lieutenant of
Lincolnshire, which will probably have the effect of stopping his mouth,
if it does not remove his discontent.
Lord Cowley has been to me to consult me about a communication he has
had from Lord Derby relating to his proxy, which Derby has desired to
have placed in his hands. Cowley, who accepted the post at Paris from
the late Government on the express condition that it should not be a
political appointment, he not being bound to support them in the House
of Lords, justly thinks it would be inconsistent with that understanding
if he were now to join this Government and give them his proxy, and he
has declined to do so. He had an interview with Derby, and told him all
this. Derby took it ill, drew up and said he thought this a different
case, and that he ought to give him the proxy. He added that he was
placed in a very difficult position, not even knowing that he had a
majority in the House of Lords, and as he considered this the last
chance of establishing a Conservative Government in this country he felt
bound to make every exertion to maintain himself in power, and he
intimated as much as that on his consent to give his proxy would depend
his retaining the Embassy. Cowley and I concocted a letter to Derby, in
which he gave his reasons for declining to do this, but that he would
place it in the Duke of Wellington's hands. This is not of much
importance; but it evinces, from Derby's tone as well as conduct, a
sense of insecurity and difficulty as to his position greater than I
thought he felt.
[Sidenote: EFFORTS TO STRENGTHEN THE GOVERNMENT.]
Mellish of the Foreign Office told me the other day that Lord Malmesbury
had one very good quality, firmness; that his firmness brought about the
settlement of the Danish Question, and in the office he was evidently
resolved to maintain his own authority. He said he had seen Malmesbury
put down----with great tact, when the other showed a disposition to
take upon himself. The fact is, he is not an incapable man at all,
though inexperienced to the greatest degree.
_August 31st._--To Brocket with Clarendon on Saturday, and came back
yesterday. Before I went, I saw Graham, and found him fully persuaded
that a change is about to take place in the Government, which, if it
occurs, he fancies he has indirectly been instrumental in bringing
about. He said that Goulburn came to him the other day and told him
Walpole, who is a great friend of Goulburn's, is very sick of his
office, and annoyed at the mess he has got into about the Militia; that
he wanted very much to be Solicitor-General originally, and that he now
finds himself thrown out of his profession of the law, and holding a
situation which he may lose any day. Graham said, Why does not he take
the vacant Vice-Chancellorship? and Derby may offer the Home
Secretaryship to Palmerston, who is the man (if any can) to get them out
of the Militia difficulty. Goulburn seemed to catch at this suggestion,
and Graham has no doubt he suggested it to Walpole; and he has entirely
persuaded himself that the arrangement will take place. He says Disraeli
would concede the lead to Palmerston, and as Palmerston would only join
on Protection being formally abandoned, it would give Derby a capital
opportunity of giving it up and of satisfying his party by giving them
Palmerston, and with him a secure tenure of office. He says, if
Palmerston joined, Gladstone would probably follow, and then they would
have a strong Government; all the Conservatives opposed to Reform would
rally round it, and they would be able to go on. Clarendon and I talked
it over, and without arriving at Graham's conclusions, we both agreed
that this arrangement was not improbable. It seems to be the interest
both of Derby and Palmerston to make it; and if Protection should be
given up, there appears no difference between them, for Palmerston is a
strenuous Anti-Reformer. It seems John Russell has written to Graham in
the same terms as to Clarendon, and said he would not propose any
disfranchisement without the assent of his Whig friends. Graham sent him
a letter of Joe Parke's in which that worthy said the Radicals were well
disposed towards Lord John, and he sketched the sort of Reform Bill that
ought to be proposed, to which Lord John wrote rather a lofty answer,
and in a more peremptory style than Graham liked. The truth is he is in
this fix, that he cannot do much without offending the Whigs, nor little
without alienating the Radicals; nor do I see how this difficulty is to
be got over.
[Sidenote: DEATH OF THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.]
_London, September 18th._--It was at Doncaster on Wednesday morning last
that I heard of the Duke of Wellington's death, which at first nobody
believed, but they speedily telegraphed to London, and the answer proved
that the report was correct. Doncaster was probably the only place in
the kingdom where the sensation caused by this event was not absorbing
and profound; but there, on the morning of the St. Leger, most people
were too much occupied with their own concerns to bestow much thought or
lamentation on this great national loss. Everywhere else the excitement
and regret have been unexampled, and the press has been admirable,
especially the 'Times,' the biographical notice and article in which
paper were both composed many months ago, and shown to me. Indeed the
notices of the Duke and the characters drawn of him have been so able
and elaborate in all the newspapers, that they leave little or nothing
to be said. Still, there were minute traits of character and
peculiarities about the Duke which it was impossible for mere public
writers and men personally unacquainted with him to seize, but the
knowledge and appreciation of which are necessary in order to form a
just and complete conception of the man. In spite of some foibles and
faults, he was, beyond all doubt, a very great man--the only great man
of the present time--and comparable, in point of greatness, to the most
eminent of those who have lived before him. His greatness was the result
of a few striking qualities--a perfect simplicity of character without a
particle of vanity or conceit, but with a thorough and strenuous
self-reliance, a severe truthfulness, never misled by fancy or
exaggeration, and an ever-abiding sense of duty and obligation which
made him the humblest of citizens and most obedient of subjects. The
Crown never possessed a more faithful, devoted, and disinterested
subject. Without personal attachment to any of the monarchs whom he
served, and fully understanding and appreciating their individual merits
and demerits, he alike reverenced their great office in the persons of
each of them, and would at any time have sacrificed his ease, his
fortune, or his life, to serve the Sovereign and the State. Passing
almost his whole life in command and authority, and regarded with
universal deference and submission, his head was never turned by the
exalted position he occupied, and there was no duty, however humble, he
would not have been ready to undertake at the bidding of his lawful
superiors, whose behests he would never have hesitated to obey.
Notwithstanding his age and his diminished strength, he would most
assuredly have gone anywhere and have accepted any post in which his
personal assistance might have been essential to the safety or advantage
of the realm. He had more pride in obeying than in commanding, and he
never for a moment considered that his great position and elevation
above all other subjects released him from the same obligation which the
humblest of them acknowledged. He was utterly devoid of personal and
selfish ambition, and there never was a man whose greatness was so
_thrust_ upon him. It was in this dispassionate unselfishness, and sense
of duty and moral obligation, that he was so superior to Napoleon
Bonaparte, who, with more genius and fertility of invention, was the
slave of his own passions, unacquainted with moral restraint,
indifferent to the well-being and happiness of his fellow-creatures; and
who in pursuit of any objects at which his mind grasped trampled under
foot without remorse or pity all divine and human laws, and bore down
every obstacle and scorned every consideration which opposed themselves
to his absolute and despotic will. The Duke was a good-natured, but not
an amiable man; he had no tenderness in his disposition, and never
evinced much affection for any of his relations. His nature was hard,
and he does not appear to have had any real affection for anybody, man
or woman, during the latter years of his life, since the death of Mrs.
Arbuthnot, to whom he probably was attached, and in whom he certainly
confided. Domestic enjoyment he never possessed, and, as his wife was
intolerable to him, though he always kept on decent terms with her, at
least, ostensibly, he sought the pleasure of women's society in a
variety of capricious _liaisons_, from which his age took off all
scandal: these he took up or laid aside and changed as fancy and
inclination prompted him. His intimate friends and adherents used to
smile at these senile _engouements_, but sometimes had to regret the
ridicule to which they would have exposed him if a general reverence and
regard had not made him a privileged person, and permitted him to do
what no other man could have done with impunity. In his younger days he
was extremely addicted to gallantry, and had great success with women,
of whom one in Spain gained great influence over him, and his passion
for whom very nearly involved him in serious difficulties. His other
ladies did little more than amuse his idle hours and subserve his social
habits, and with most of them his _liaisons_ were certainly very
innocent. He had been very fond of Grassini, and the successful lover of
some women of fashion, whose weaknesses have never been known, though
perhaps suspected. These habits of female intimacy and gossip led him to
take a great interest in a thousand petty affairs, in which he delighted
to be mixed up and consulted. He was always ready to enter into any
personal matters, intrigues, or quarrels, political or social
difficulties, and to give his advice, which generally (though not
invariably) was very sound and good; but latterly he became morose and
inaccessible, and cursed and swore at the people who sought to approach
him, even on the most serious and necessary occasions.
[Sidenote: CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.]
Although the Duke's mind was still very vigorous, and he wrote very good
papers on the various subjects which were submitted for his judgement
and opinion, his prejudices had become so much stronger and more
unassailable, that he gave great annoyance and a good deal of difficulty
to the Ministers who had to transact business with him. He was
opposed to almost every sort of change and reform in the military
administration, and it was a task of no small difficulty to steer
between the exigencies of public opinion and his objections and
resistance. As it was always deemed an object to keep him in good
humour, and many considerations forbade anything like a dissension with
him, or an appeal against him to the public, the late Ministers often
acted, or refrained from acting, in deference to his opinions and
against their own, and took on themselves all the responsibility of
maintaining his views and measures, even when they thought he was wrong.
His habits were latterly very solitary, and after the death of Arbuthnot
he had no intimacy with any one, nor any friend to whom he could talk
freely and confidentially. As long as Arbuthnot lived he confided
everything to him, and those who wished to communicate with the Duke
almost always did so through him.
Notwithstanding the friendly and eulogistic terms in which he spoke of
Sir Robert Peel just after his death, it is very certain that the Duke
disliked him, and during the latter part of their Administration he
seldom had any communication with Peel except such as passed through
Arbuthnot. The Duke deeply resented, and I believe never heartily
forgave, Peel's refusal to have anything to do with the Administration
he so unwisely undertook to form on Lord Grey's sudden resignation in
1832, in the middle of the Reform contest; but this did not prevent his
advising King William to make Peel Prime Minister, and taking office
under him in 1835, and again in 1841. They acted together very
harmoniously during Peel's Administration, but the Duke (though he sided
with Sir Robert when the schism took place) in his heart bitterly
lamented and disapproved his course about the Repeal of the Corn Laws,
not so much from aversion to Free Trade as because it produced a fresh
and final break-up of the Conservative party, which he considered the
greatest evil which could befall the country. But whatever may have been
his real sentiments with regard to various public men, he never allowed
any partialities or antipathies to appear in his manner or behaviour
towards them, and he was always courteous, friendly, and accessible to
all, especially those in office, who had recourse to him for his advice
and opinion. He had all his life been long accustomed to be consulted,
and he certainly liked it till the last, and was pleased with the marks
of deference and attention which were continually paid to him.
[Sidenote: THE DUKE'S GENEROSITY AND INDEPENDENCE.]
His position was eminently singular and exceptional, something between
the Royal Family and other subjects. He was treated with greater respect
than any individual not of Royal birth, and the whole Royal Family
admitted him to a peculiar and exclusive familiarity and intimacy in
their intercourse with him, which, while he took it in the easiest
manner, and as if naturally due to him, he never abused or presumed
upon. No man was more respectful or deferential towards the Sovereign
and other Royal personages, but at the same time he always gave them his
opinions and counsels with perfect frankness and sincerity, and never
condescended to modify them to suit their prejudices or wishes. Upon
every occasion of difficulty, public or private, he was always appealed
to, and he was always ready to come forward and give his assistance and
advice in his characteristic, plain, and straightforward manner. If he
had written his own memoirs, he might have given to the world the most
curious history of his own times that ever was composed, but he was the
last man to deal in autobiography. One of his peculiarities was never to
tell anybody where he was going, and when my brother or his own sons
wished to be acquainted with his intentions, they were obliged to apply
to the housekeeper, to whom he was in the habit of making them known,
and nobody ever dared to ask him any questions on the subject. He was
profuse but careless and indiscriminating in his charities, and
consequently he was continually imposed upon, especially by people who
pretended to have served under him, or to be the descendants or
connexions of those who had, and it was very difficult to restrain his
disposition to send money to every applicant who approached him under
that pretence. Partly from a lofty feeling of independence and
disinterestedness, and partly from indifference, he was a very bad
patron to his relations and adherents, and never would make any
applications for their benefit. The consequence was that he was not an
object of affection, even to those who looked up to him with profound
veneration and respect. He held popularity in great contempt, and never
seemed touched or pleased at the manifestations of popular admiration
and attachment of which he was the object. Whenever he appeared in
public he was always surrounded by crowds of people, and when he walked
abroad everybody who met him saluted him; but he never seemed to notice
the curiosity or the civilities which his presence elicited.
APPENDICES.
APPENDIX A.
LETTER ON THE DEFENCES OF THE COUNTRY.
Early in the year 1848, on the eve of the great convulsion caused by the
French Revolution of February, Mr. Cobden delivered a speech in
Manchester in which he ridiculed armaments and attacked the Duke of
Wellington for his recent attempt to call public attention to the
defences of the country. This led Mr. Greville to address the following
letter to Mr. Cobden, in the 'Times' of February 2, 1848:--
Sir,--I have read with regret your recent speech at Manchester,
more especially your comments on the Duke of Wellington's letter
to Sir John Burgoyne, which are as unworthy of yourself as they
are unjust and disrespectful to that illustrious person. It is fit
that the real facts concerning that letter and its publication
should be made known to the world, for the exaggerations and
misrepresentations which have grown out of it are both injurious
to the Duke of Wellington, and the source of much mischief and
error in respect to the vexed question of national defence.
The letter (which is now above a year old) was a reply to one
addressed by Sir John Burgoyne to his Grace upon the defence
of the country. It was an exposition of the Duke's views and
opinions, written, not merely without the least notion of its
ever being published, but imparted confidentially, and (as I
believe) without any idea that the contents of it would ever be
divulged; but, by a most extraordinary and reprehensible breach
of propriety and prudence, copies were taken of this letter,
which were carelessly distributed, and almost hawked about the
world. Curiosity and interest soon became excited. These copies
were greedily sought, and particularly by those who subscribe to
the Duke's opinions on the subject. Allusions and extracts first
made their appearance in a newspaper, and at length the letter
was published _in extenso_, without the consent or knowledge, and
(as those who best know his sentiments affirm) very much to the
annoyance and displeasure of the Duke. It is a great mistake to
deal with this letter as if it were a formal official document,
taken out of a Blue Book. No man knows better than the Duke of
Wellington the difference between what is desirable and what is
practicable. In writing confidentially to his military colleague,
he naturally imparted to him what he thought it would be
expedient to do; but, in dealing practically with such a subject,
we may be sure that he never loses sight of the various complex
considerations which the Government must look to, and of the
necessity of combining the military exigencies with the political
and financial circumstances of the country.
In explaining that the Duke's letter was not intended for
publication, I am far from meaning to admit that the letter itself
requires any apology, though the same cannot be said of the
comments you have thought fit to make upon it; you misrepresented
both its matter and its spirit, and all who respect your character
and admire your abilities must have lamented to hear you treat the
Duke himself with a contumely unbecoming in the mouth of any one,
but especially so in that of a man with the high reputation which
you deservedly enjoy. In vain, too, do we look in your speech for
any of that vigorous reasoning with which you fought the great
battle of Free Trade. Had you not sustained that cause with more
forcible arguments than you have produced on the present occasion,
you would never have obtained a European celebrity, and the flag
might still be flying on the citadel of Protection.
You, and those who think with you, appear to rely mainly on two
propositions:--
1. That a war with France is next to impossible; so improbable as
to be not worth providing against.
2. That, in case of war, our naval superiority will always protect
us from invasion or insult.
So far as I can find out, the only reasons and arguments by
which you maintain the former of these propositions are your own
demonstration that all nations would do well and wisely to turn
their swords into ploughshares, and for the future to interchange
merchandise instead of blows, and the fact that some French
Free Traders have been making speeches marvellously resembling
your own, and abounding with the same wholesome truths. The
recommendations of Messrs. Visinet and CrÈmieux, as well as your
own, are unquestionably replete with wisdom, and happy would
it be if all the world would embrace them; if, besides such
admirable speeches, we could see any essential reduction in the
French tariff, or if the efforts of the French Opposition were
seriously directed to promote the cause of commercial reform; but
although you, Sir, in your recent tour throughout Europe, have
been everywhere received with all the honour which is justly due
to you, and though you have abundantly scattered the seeds of
sound information and advice, we have yet to learn that any one
country that you have visited, or any one Government with which
you communicated, has put your lessons in practice.
[Sidenote: DEFENCES OF THE COUNTRY.]
But while we are invited to accept such speculative reasoning as
conclusive proof of the inviolability of peace, unfortunately one
page of very recent history sweeps away the whole concatenation of
your logic, the narration of which may produce something both of
reflexion and anticipation. I admit that a war with France is not
a probable event, but the same thing might have been said (perhaps
with more truth) in 1844. The present Government, indeed, is no
less pacifically inclined than the last, but it is well known that
the relations of the two countries are by no means so intimate
now as they were at the former period; and if, by any unhappy
accident, differences should now occur, the same facilities
for reconciliation and adjustment might not be forthcoming. And
yet, in 1844, with the _entente cordiale_ in full force, when
M. Guizot and Lord Aberdeen were knit together by the closest
ties of personal as well as diplomatic friendship, we suddenly
found ourselves on the very brink of war. Everybody must remember
the Tahiti affair, but many may have forgotten or never known
its momentous details. The English Government considered itself
aggrieved by France, and demanded reparation for the alleged
wrong. The French Minister refused to give us the full measure of
satisfaction that our honour required. A serious, and for a long
time a fruitless discussion ensued between the two Governments,
pending which an adjournment of the two Houses of Parliament took
place. About a month afterwards (in the beginning of September)
they met again. The day was fixed for the prorogation, and still
the dispute with France was unsettled. At this crisis, and at the
eleventh hour, a last offer was made by the French Government.
There was barely time to consider it. The Cabinet was assembled
for that purpose on the afternoon of the 4th. On the result of
its deliberations the question of peace or war depended. There
was very little to spare, for the maximum which M. Guizot could
bring himself to offer was the minimum that we could with honour
accept. However, the proposal was accepted, and on the following
day the speech from the Throne announced that the reconciliation
was effected, but in terms which showed the magnitude of the
danger from which the world had escaped. 'Her Majesty,' it ran,
'has recently been engaged in discussions with the Government of
the King of the French on events _calculated to interrupt the
good understanding and friendly relations between this country
and France_; you will rejoice to learn that, by the spirit of
justice and moderation which has animated the two Governments,
_this danger is now happily averted_.' The storm blew over,
the Funds rose, and the country (slightly ruffled) relapsed
into its ordinary state of security and repose. For some time
before this incident, the Duke of Wellington had been urging the
Government to make themselves stronger, and our naval force had
been considerably increased. But it is not surprising that what
had recently occurred, and the narrow escape we had had of being
actually at war, should have made the Duke still more anxiously
alive to the situation in which the country would have been placed
if a rupture had unhappily taken place. He knew that the risks
to which it was exposed were incalculably great. He knew that,
in spite of all the difficulties we could interpose, it was far
from _impossible_ for an able and active enemy to inflict upon us,
unprepared as we were, a disastrous, and a dishonourable blow.
The spirit and patriotism of the warrior and the statesman rose
up within him at the degrading thought, and from that moment he
has never ceased to urge the Government of the day to place the
country as soon as possible in a proper posture of defence; not,
as it has been falsely and foolishly asserted, to prepare in peace
for the last extremity, and incur the full cost of war, but, by
making our moderate establishments really efficient, and adopting
those defensive precautions which his great sagacity and profound
knowledge of the art of war enabled him to suggest, to place the
British Islands in a state of security against any sudden attack.
And for thus contemplating the possibility of a catastrophe,
which all but happened not four years ago, and for warning his
countrymen against the danger, and showing them how to avert it,
he is held up to the derision of a great assembly as a mischievous
dotard, whose age is his only excuse. Having thrust aside the
Duke of Wellington, you consistently proceeded in your speech to
inform your audience that of such questions as the probability of
peace or war, questions depending on various complex and secret
operations of international policy, 'merchants and manufacturers,
shopkeepers, operatives--ay, and calico printers,' are the most
competent judges. Far be it from me to speak of these classes
with the contempt with which you have treated the Duke and all
others who defer to his opinions. They are entitled to respect,
for they constitute a large part of the intelligence of the
nation. Amongst them may be found silly and conceited persons,
ready to swallow such flattery as you have condescended to tickle
them with, but I believe they are, for the most part, men of
sober and robust minds, who will not be misled by such fallacious
compliments, and form a juster estimate of their own capacities,
and the matters on which their habits, pursuits, and education
render them really competent to decide. I think I have shown that
war is not a contingency so utterly improbable as you would have
the English public believe, and that those who contemplate the
possibility of such a calamity are not necessarily the dotards,
cowards, and fools, that you represent them. I am satisfied that
the Sovereigns, the Ministers, the Parliaments, and the people
of both countries desire the maintenance of peace. But what can
insure us against future Pritchards, and D'AubignÈs, and Bruats?
Unforeseen accidents may beget untoward events, and the sparks
of a fortuitous collision falling on some combustible matter
may produce an explosion of national resentment or pride which
no moderation and wisdom may be sufficient to extinguish. We
have been taught to believe that the life of the French King is
Europe's best security for the continuation of peace. Time is
rapidly stealing away that security from us; and who can say when
that wise head and steady hand shall be withdrawn, how long the
elements of discord and confusion will be prevented from breaking
loose? Nothing is more remarkable than the exaggeration which has
marked the whole course of opposition to the plans of national
defence. Their advocates, the Duke of Wellington at the head of
them, are taunted with the folly of proposing a war establishment
in a time of profound peace. Do those critics know what it is in
contemplation to propose now, and what preparations were made
when an invasion was really apprehended? The present purpose
is to replenish our empty arsenals, add about 2,000 men to the
artillery, and gradually (by 10,000 men at a time) to call out
and discipline the Militia; these, together with the completion
of the fortifications already in progress, are understood to
be the defensive and precautionary measures which Parliament
will be invited to sanction, and against which such a clamour
is raised. Look at what was done in 1803 and 1804, when war was
about to break out, and the camp of Boulogne was in process of
formation. To encounter the army of 150,000 men which Napoleon
was marshalling on the opposite coast, we had _in these islands_
650,000 men in arms: there were 130,000 Regulars, 110,000 Militia,
and above 400,000 Volunteers. And three years later, when all
dread of invasion had vanished, when the navies of France had
been utterly destroyed, our forces _in England_ were not less than
200,000 men.
[Sidenote: DEFENCES OF THE COUNTRY.]
That our naval superiority must always be our chief reliance
is undoubtedly true; but here, again, we have history against
speculation, and we may look to the past for instruction as to
the future. In 1796 nothing but storms and tempests prevented
Hoche's expedition from accomplishing the invasion of Ireland
or of England, if the French had preferred such an attempt. The
events of that period have been thus recorded by Mr. Alison and
Mr. James:--'The results of the expedition,' says the former,
'were pregnant with important instruction to both countries: to
the French as demonstrating the extraordinary risks which attend
a maritime expedition, the small number of forces which can be
embarked on board, even of a great fleet, and the unforeseen
disasters which frequently on that element defeat the best
concerted enterprise; to the English, as showing that the empire
of the seas does not always afford security against invasion;
that, in the face of superior maritime forces, her possessions
had been for sixteen days at the mercy of the enemy, and that
neither the skill of her sailors nor the valour of her armies, but
the fury of the elements, had saved them from danger in the most
vulnerable point of her dominions. While these considerations are
fitted to abate the confidence of invasion, they are calculated to
weaken our own confidence in naval superiority, and to demonstrate
that the only basis on which certain reliance can be placed, even
in an insular Power, is a well-disciplined army and the patriotism
of its own subjects.' Mr. James says:--'That a succession of
storms, such as those with which the British Channel was visited,
should disperse an encumbered and ill-manned French fleet ought
not to excite surprise, but that during the three or four weeks
that the ships of this fleet were traversing the English and Irish
Channels in every direction, neither of the two British fleets
appointed to look after them should have succeeded in capturing
a single ship, may certainly be noted down as an extraordinary
circumstance.' Steam has now made a great revolution in naval as
well as social affairs; but though, in the long run, this country
is more likely to profit by it than France, it is incontestable
that the accidents and unforeseen circumstances of modern warfare
render this country more vulnerable than it was under the old
system. The general arguments have, however, been so amply and
so ably stated in publications without end, that it would be
superfluous to say more on the reality of the danger, and the
wisdom of making adequate provision to meet it. But it is hard for
any man who cares for the dignity or safety of his country, and
who honours its greatest citizen and patriot, to endure in silence
such a speech as you have lately delivered. You have acquired
great influence over vast multitudes of men; you may safely guide
or mischievously mislead a large amount of public opinion, and
those who, from the vigour and intelligence of your past career,
entertained sanguine expectations of your future usefulness as a
public man, must feel deep disappointment and sorrow at the very
different prospect held out by your recent display.
I am, Sir, &c., C. C. G.
(The 'Times,' February 2, 1848.)
APPENDIX B.
LETTER ON THE ANTI-PAPAL AGITATION.
The following is the letter signed 'Carolus' which Mr. Greville
addressed to the 'Times' on the subject of the Protestant Agitation, on
December 9, 1850, which is referred to in the text:--
_To the Editor of the 'Times.'_
[Sidenote: THE ANTI-PAPAL AGITATION.]
Sir,--I am one of those who think we have had enough, and more
than enough, of anti-Papal agitation. All the good it can
produce has been achieved, while the evil is still increasing.
The good, which I do not underrate, is a manifestation of the
strong and universal attachment of the people of this country
to the Protestant religion. The evil, the revival of sectarian
animosities, and of that intolerant zeal so alien to the true
spirit of Christianity, and which has ever been the bane and the
torment of every country in which it has prevailed. I refrain from
commenting upon the harangues and addresses which for weeks past
have been resounding through the country and filling your columns,
and I only hope that in all Europe nobody reads these effusions
but ourselves, for they will not exalt our national reputation.
It may be a vain attempt to sprinkle some drops of reason and
remonstrance upon the raging furnace of popular excitement; but,
like everything in this world, abuse and ridicule of the Pope and
railing against the Roman Catholic religion must at last come to
an end. When all this fury has exhausted itself, and people get
tired of reading or of hearing the same stale repetitions, they
will begin to take a more sober and practical view of the case,
and to consider what this mountain in labour is eventually to
produce. We shall assuredly look exceedingly foolish if all the
hubbub should turn out to have been made without some definite,
reasonable, and, moreover, attainable object; and yet we appear
to be in imminent danger of finding ourselves in this perplexing
and mortifying predicament. We cry out that an insult has been
offered by the Pope to the English Crown and nation; that the
ecclesiastical constitution which he has promulgated is illegal
or unconstitutional, and that it shall not be endured. When the
Queen of England is insulted, or her subjects are injured by any
foreign Power, she demands redress, and, failing to obtain it,
she exacts it by her armies and her fleets. Are we to hold the
Pope in his temporal capacity responsible for his merely spiritual
acts, and deal with him by demands and threats, and by armaments
to enforce them? I apprehend that no such extreme measures will
be adopted. How, then, are we to deal with a Power over which
we can have no control, whose authority is purely spiritual,
while the visible signs of its exercise are only to be found in
a voluntary obedience which no laws can reach and no Governments
can prevent? Your statutes will have no more effect at the Vatican
than Papal bulls in Westminster Hall. You cannot restrain the
Pope from elaborating his ecclesiastical policy here, and all the
lawyers in England would fail in devising prohibitory laws as to
spiritual matters which the objects of them could not find means
to evade. Cardinal Wiseman has said with truth that England could
not complain of being taken by surprise. More than two years ago
it was no secret that such measures were in contemplation. They
were discussed not only in the press, but in the House of Commons;
and on one occasion Lord John Russell made a speech, which was so
replete with wisdom and truth, and so exactly applicable to the
present occasion and to all that is passing around us, that it
deserves the most attentive and general consideration. On August
17, 1848, in a debate on the Diplomatic Relations with Rome Bill,
Sir Robert Inglis, after declaring that he had no objection to
call Dr. Wiseman a bishop, but objected to call him Archbishop of
Westminster, put certain questions with regard to the appointment
of archbishops and bishops in this country without the consent
of its sovereign, to which the Prime Minister replied in the
following terms:--
'I do not know that the Pope has authorised in any way by any
authority that he may have the creation of archbishoprics and
bishoprics with dioceses in England; but certainly I have not
given my consent, nor should I give my consent if I were asked to
do so, to any such formation of dioceses. With regard to spiritual
authority, the honourable gentleman must see, when he alludes to
other States in Europe, that whatever control is to be obtained
over the spiritual authority of the Pope can only be obtained by
agreement for that end. You must either give certain advantages
to the Roman Catholic religion, and obtain from the Pope certain
other advantages in return, among which you must stipulate that
the Pope shall not create any dioceses in England without the
consent of the Queen; or, on the other hand, you must say you will
have nothing to do with arrangements of that kind, that you will
not consent in any way to give any authority to the Roman Catholic
religion in England. _But then you must leave the spiritual
authority of the Pope entirely unfettered. You cannot bind the
Pope's spiritual influence unless you have some agreement...._ But
though you may prevent any spiritual authority being exercised by
the Pope by law, yet there is no provision, no law my honourable
friend could frame that would deprive the Pope of that influence
that is merely exercised over the mind, or that could preclude him
from giving advice to those who choose to attend to such advice.
It is quite obvious that you cannot by any means or authority
prevent the Pope from communicating with the Catholics of this
country. You may try to prevent such communication from being
open, but I think it would be very foolish if you took any means
of great vigour and energy for that purpose. If it is not open,
it will be secret. So long as there are Roman Catholics in this
country, and so long as they acknowledge the Pope as the head of
their Church, you cannot prevent his having spiritual influence
over those who belong to that communion.'
This speech, which is equally sensible and true, and the really
practical view of the subject, gives a complete answer to the
present agitation, and to those who are clamouring for acts of
vigour and for restrictive or prohibitory laws. It is fruitless
now to search into the animus or the objects of the Pope. He was
ill-advised, ignorant of the state of feeling and opinion here;
his pretensions were extravagant, and his hierarchy was proclaimed
in an ostentatious and offensive manner. But, granting all this,
and admitting our indignation to be called for, the question still
recurs, 'What is it we can do?' It is easy to determine what we
cannot do. We cannot compel the Pope to rescind his brief. We
cannot prevent the bishops from exercising their functions within
the precise limits of the jurisdictions severally assigned to
them. We cannot undo territorial circumscriptions which have no
tangible character, and which are nothing but local designations
indicative of a defined sphere of spiritual action. We cannot
abrogate the spiritual allegiance which the whole Roman Catholic
hierarchy bear to the Pope, nor obstruct the free exercise of
the Roman Catholic religion, in which freedom, if it is to be
perfect, its episcopal constitution must be included. The people
of England, to do them justice, in the utmost heat of their
resentment, have evinced no disposition to violate the principle
of religious liberty, and all suggestions of returning to penal
laws against the Roman Catholics have been invariably repudiated.
Well, then, if we cannot do any of these things, what is left for
us to do? We are told that the Pope may, indeed, make bishops,
but that he need not have sent any here, and that he has sent
too many; and, again, that, though he might appoint bishops, he
could not appoint dioceses over which they were to preside. But
the Pope himself can alone judge of the necessary extent of his
episcopal establishment, and if bishops are appointed at all,
it is indispensable, for the mere avoidance of confusion and
disputes, that each prelate should have some local attribution,
and this can be nothing else but his diocese--the proper and only
name for the circuit of his jurisdiction. In fact, wherever there
is a _bishopric_ there must be a diocese. But the Pope has not
only created bishops, but has given them titles; and this seems
to be considered the head and front of his offence, inasmuch as
it is opposed to the spirit, if not to the letter of our laws,
and is an audacious assumption of a power belonging only to the
sovereign of this realm. I am very wise (as people often are)
after the event, and can clearly see that the acts of the Pope,
together with the language of some in authority under him, have
been very imprudent and mischievous. But I doubt whether I should
have been so wise had I been aware of his Holiness' intentions;
for, though I should have deprecated his purpose, I certainly
should not have anticipated an outburst of popular, or rather of
national rage and resentment, which has had no parallel in England
since the time of the Popish plot. Nevertheless, if we consider
the matter calmly, it must be confessed that the Pope had some
grounds for thinking that he might make these appointments without
any danger of deeply offending this country. He had already
created titular Bishops in various colonies with the concurrence
and consent of the Government; and the whole hierarchy of Ireland,
with their open assumption of the titles of their sees, had been
rather more than winked at, the law which forbids that assumption
had been advisedly suffered to be a dead letter. But besides
this, in the speech of Lord John Russell, to which I have already
alluded, there was an intimation that it would not be expedient
to enter into agreements with the Pope for the regulation of
the religious arrangements of the Roman Catholics. And as this
opinion immediately followed his dictum 'that the spiritual
authority of the Pope could only be controlled by agreement,
and without any such agreement that it must be left entirely
unfettered,' I think the Pope might not unreasonably conclude
that the British Government were not inclined to communicate with
him at all on these matters, and that they preferred leaving him
to administer his ecclesiastical affairs in England according to
his own discretion. I have ever been very strongly of opinion
that the true policy of England, with her 8,000,000 or 9,000,000
of Roman Catholics, would be to communicate with the Pope as
other Powers do, and to concert with the Holy See such measures
as the spiritual interests of those Catholics may appear to
require. This is the practice of Prussia, and why should it not
be that of England? I believed at the time of its introduction
that the Diplomatic Relations Bill had this object in view,
for it is obvious that we never can have any important secular
affairs to discuss with the Vatican, and no need, therefore, of
any diplomatic relations for merely political purposes. But that
Bill was a sham; its real character was not avowed; and in order
to make it appear that no recognition of the Pope's _de facto_
authority, even over Roman Catholics, was intended, and that we
were not going to communicate with him in his spiritual capacity,
the matter was so mismanaged that the Bill itself has been totally
inoperative, and the Pope himself was offended instead of being
conciliated by the transaction. The Lords began by a puerile and
pedantic denial of his title as 'the Pope' or the 'Sovereign
Pontiff,' and would only consent to call him 'Sovereign of the
Roman State,' and this was followed up by the foolish clause
prohibiting an ecclesiastic from coming here as ambassador. It
was as notorious as the sun at noonday, that we had long been in
communication with the Pope, upon ecclesiastical affairs, in an
underhand and clandestine manner, which was equally undignified
and unsatisfactory. All statesmen, particularly those who governed
Ireland, were anxious that regular and open relations should be
substituted, and such was the desire of the Roman Catholics and
of the Pope. Between the niceness of some and the timidity or
indifference of others, this project of conciliation and practical
utility fell to the ground, and the nation is now convulsed by
a paroxysm of wrath and indignation at measures which, if they
had been concerted with our Government, and arranged in a spirit
of liberality and good will, might have been carried into effect
without giving umbrage to the most zealous Protestant or any
semblance of invading the prerogative of the Queen. However, all
this is gone by. Instead of conciliation and agreement, we are
employed in vilifying and caricaturing the Pope, burning him and
the Sacred College in effigy, and heaping execrations on the
Roman Catholic religion. The great City of London is going up in
solemn procession to lay at the foot of the Throne its superfluous
protestations of allegiance, its fanciful complaints of injury,
and its vague demands for redress. And how is redress to be
obtained? After so much has been _said_, what is to be _done_?
'Ay, there's the rub!'
[Sidenote: THE ANTI-PAPAL AGITATION.]
We cannot touch the Pope himself and we cannot unfrock his
Bishops. To wage war with the dioceses would be to fight the empty
air; to put any restraint on the Roman Catholic Clergy would be
religious persecution: this all men eschew. Nothing that I know
of remains, nothing at least that is accessible and tangible,
but to make a legislative attack on the episcopal titles, either
by an extension of the existing law or the enactment of a new
one. This would, indeed, be but a lame and impotent conclusion
to an agitation which has shaken the isle from its propriety;
and before we proceed to break such flies upon the wheels of
legislation, it would be advisable to consider what the thing is
we are to attack, and what has already been done in reference to
the very same matter. People talk of the Pope's making a Bishop
of Birmingham as if it was just the same thing as the Queen's
making a Bishop of London; forgetting that while the Queen bestows
rank, peerage, wealth, authority, and innumerable legal privileges
and immunities, the Pope confers nothing but his own delegated
authority to a priest to govern spiritually those individuals
within a specified and geographical limit who may be willing
to submit themselves to his government, and this geographical
limit being marked out for an ecclesiastical purpose only, and
placed under the supervision of a Bishop, is called according to
canonical custom a diocese. But the Pope's Bishop has no revenues,
and in the eye of the law no authority, no privilege, no immunity
whatever; the law recognises in him no power, he has no power,
he has no Court into which he can cite offenders even of his
own persuasion. He may be arrested for debt and tried by juries
like any other citizen. Bishop of Birmingham he is and will be,
in spiritual communion with the Roman Catholics of his diocese;
but if Dr. Ullathorne should attempt to assume that title in
the ordinary intercourse of society, he would expose himself to
merited contempt, and though the Roman Catholics may acknowledge
it, no Protestant will.
The Irish Roman Catholic Bishops all sign their Christian and
surnames, and so entirely have time and the gradual softening of
sectarian acrimony in Ireland moulded apparently irreconcileable
rights and claims into harmonious custom, that while even official
documents speak of 'the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin,'
that same prelate is content to be everywhere received and to
call himself 'Archbishop Murray.' All this is the fruit of
mutual but tacit concession and a sincere desire for 'peace and
goodwill.' Not many years ago Dr. MacHale on some occasion or
other subscribed himself 'John Tuam,' and an angry interpellation
was addressed to Lord Melbourne (then Premier), to know whether
Her Majesty's Government meant to prosecute this violation of the
law. Lord Melbourne replied that the Government had considered the
matter, and, exercising their own discretion, they did not think
it expedient to make an appeal to the law. This prudent decision
excited the indignation of the opposite benches, but the Duke of
Wellington, with his usual good sense and superiority to party
motives, rebuked the zeal of his followers and approved of the
forbearance of the Government. What practical mischief resulted
from the fact of the Irish prelates taking the titles of their
sees? and would it have been better to indict Dr. MacHale, and
that he should have been either acquitted by a jury, or convicted
in a penalty of 100_l._, and perhaps imprisoned for refusing to
pay the fine? If it was not expedient to enforce the old law then,
would it be advisable to do so now, or to ask Parliament for fresh
laws? Is it fit to invoke that mighty power merely to repel an
impertinence?
[Sidenote: THE ANTI-PAPAL AGITATION.]
I well know how perilous it is to attempt to throw cold water on
the fire of popular wrath, but no such consideration shall deter
me from speaking out what I believe to be the sober truth. I think
the character of my countrymen, and their reputation all over
the world, and in after ages, much more in jeopardy than their
religion. Indeed, it is not without a feeling of shame that I see
the pusillanimous terror of Popery which is so often and openly
proclaimed. What, when we Protestants form nineteen out of twenty
out of the population, with an incalculable superiority of wealth,
influence, and learning, a richly endowed Church, all the great
seminaries of education, almost the whole of the aristocracy,
a vast preponderance of public opinion, and, above all, with
reason, truth, and the Bible on our side, are we afraid of the
Roman Catholics? and can we not defy the open efforts or the
secret machinations of the Romish hierarchy? Let me not, however,
be misunderstood. Although I think the prevailing agitation
exaggerated, and far more than commensurate with the cause which
has excited it, I do not think it unnatural or unreasonable in its
origin, and notwithstanding the apology for the Pope, of which
the scope of my arguments necessarily presents the appearance,
I join in the general condemnation which his proceedings have
elicited. They exhibit rashness, want of courtesy to the Crown,
and want of consideration for the feelings of the people of
England. It is impossible to expect men to distinguish accurately
or to reason calmly when the passions are roused; and all the
odious or offensive matter scattered through briefs, pastoral
letters, and Popish sermons have been confounded together into one
cumulative case against the Pope and the Roman Catholic Faith.
The flourish of trumpets, the songs of triumph, the vain boasting
with which those measures were proclaimed, justify a large amount
of disgust and indignation; but the real injury which the honour
and the policy of England are required to redress bears in my mind
but a small proportion to the false assumptions and ridiculous
pretensions which we might well afford to regard with a scornful
indifference. I do not, indeed, believe that the Pope intended
to insult the Queen, because such conduct would be inconsistent
alike with his character and his interest; but he ought to have
taken more pains than he did, even for the sake of the English
Catholics, to ascertain how his measures would be received, and
still more, to be careful that their introduction was divested of
every suspicious circumstance and offensive detail. Whatever may
have been his motives, he has cast a firebrand into this country,
and been the primary cause of a conflagration which time and great
prudence and moderation alone can quench. I cannot help looking
beyond the present hour, and regarding with horror the prospect
of a chronic state of religious discord and sectarian hatred. All
men deprecate the renewal of penal laws, but at the same time
express a vague and undefined longing to have _something_ done.
It is said, that if we do nothing we shall give the Catholics a
triumph; but we shall surely give them a much greater triumph if
by some piece of peddling and abortive legislation we should have
the appearance of being willing without having the power to strike
them. I cannot conclude without expressing the deep regret with
which I have read denunciations of the Roman Catholic Church, in
language which is not that of humility, or charity, or peace; nor
do I think that it becomes the members of a Church, which admits
its own fallibility, thus dogmatically to condemn the belief of
the great majority of the Christian world.
Divines can say but what themselves believe;
Strong proofs they have, but not demonstrative;
For were all sure, then all sides would agree,
And faith itself be lost in certainty.
To live uprightly, then, is sure the best:
To save ourselves, and not to damn the rest.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant, CAROLUS.
(The 'Times,' December 9, 1850.)
INDEX.
Abbotsford, visit to, iii. 291
Aberdeen, Rt. Hon. Earl of, Foreign Secretary in Sir R. Peel's
Administration, ii. 37;
and the Spanish quarrels, 73, 74;
at the Ch‚teau d'Eu, 200;
communications of, with the 'Times,' 200;
Scotch Church Patronage Bill, 206;
handsome behaviour of, to Lord Palmerston, 406;
communications of, with the 'Times' on the Corn Laws, 311;
reluctance of, to distrust M. Guizot, iii. 53;
negotiations with, on the formation of a Government (1851), 383
Acland, Sir Thomas, motion of, i. 92
Adair, Sir Robert, anecdotes, iii. 212
Adelaide, Queen, at Exeter Hall, ii. 97
Afghanistan, expedition to, i. 241;
events in (1842), ii. 85, 89;
withdrawal from, 99, 101;
recapture of Ghuznee and Cabul and release of the prisoners, 123,
125;
indignation in England, 136
Aix-la-Chapelle, visit to, ii. 167
'Alarm,' accident to, at the Derby, ii. 284;
wins at Newmarket, 302;
wins the Emperor's Cup, 396
Alava, General, i. 241;
conversation with, 241, 242
Albert, H.R.H. Prince, betrothal of, to the Queen announced, i. 247;
proposed allowance for, 258;
naturalisation of, 259;
precedence of, 259, 263;
refused, 265;
Mr. Greville's pamphlet on the Precedence Question, 266, 269;
_see_ Appendix, vol. i.;
marriage of, 266, 269, 272;
precedence conceded by the Duke of Cambridge, 270;
name inserted in the Liturgy, 272;
gazetted, 273;
introduction of, 305;
at Oxford, ii. 13;
declines an invitation to the Waterloo Dinner, 15;
and the King of Hanover, 192;
hunting at Belvoir, 216;
conversation with the Duke of Bedford, 264;
elected Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, iii. 65;
installed, 97;
at Balmoral, 296;
on Lord Palmerston's conduct of foreign affairs, 317
Aldborough, Lady, at Baden Baden, ii. 183
Alexander, Grand Duke (afterwards Emperor Alexander II. of Russia),
departure of, i. 215;
munificence of, 215
Allen, Mr. John, i. 38;
death of, ii. 153;
account of, 154
Alliance meeting at Hertford, ii. 415
Althorp, library at, ii. 275
Alvanley, Lord, death of, iii. 304;
character of, 305
America, case of McLeod, i. 383;
boundary question settled, ii. 101;
discovery of a missing map, 102
Ampthill, visit to, i. 250
Anglesey, Marquis of, the, speech of, at the Waterloo Dinner, i.
102-104;
wounded at Waterloo, 135;
visit to, in North Wales, ii. 16-17;
reception of, at Carnarvon, 18
Anti-Papal Bill, the objections of the Peelites to, iii. 385, 387;
objections to, 392, 393;
debate on, 400
Antwerp, visit to, ii. 287
Arbuthnot, Mr., death of, iii. 362;
character of, 363
Arkwright, Mr., death of, ii. 157
Armstrong, Colonel, ii. 94
Ashburton, Lord, mission of, to the United States, ii. 71;
signs the Treaty of Washington, 101
'Atlantic,' _fÍte_ on board the, iii. 409
Auchterarder Case, the, ii. 206, 207
Auckland, Lord, great ability of, ii. 63;
First Lord of the Admiralty, 405;
death of, iii. 254;
career of, 255;
character of, 255
Augusta, H.R.H. Princess, Royal consent given for the marriage of the,
ii. 118
Austin, Mrs., _salon_ of, in Paris, iii. 38
Austria, revolution in, iii. 155, 158;
victories over the Piedmontese, 218;
at Novara, 282
Austria, Ferdinand, Emperor of, decision of, iii. 159
Backhouse, Mr., correspondence of, with Mr. Urquhart, i. 158
Bacourt, M. de, opinion of, of the Treaty of Washington, ii. 101
Baden Baden, arrival at, ii. 176;
society at, 177-186;
excursions, 178-186;
scenery, 179
Bagot, Sir Charles, Governor-General of Canada, ii. 117
Baillie, Right Hon. Henry, motion of, for a Committee of Enquiry on
Ceylon, British Guiana, and Mauritius, iii. 269
Ball, fancy, at the Palace, ii. 283
Ballot, The (for debates on, _see_ Lords, House of, and Commons, House
of), division on, i. 61;
an open question, 216
Balmoral, Council at, iii. 295;
the Court at, 296
Bangor Cathedral, service at, ii. 17
Bank Charter Act, the, suspended, iii. 101
Barcelona, bombardment of, ii. 201
Baring, Hon. William Bingham (afterwards second Baron Ashburton),
returned for North Staffordshire, i. 17
Baring, Hon. Francis (afterwards third Baron Ashburton), on French
politics, iii. 35
Baring, Sir Francis, First Lord of the Admiralty, iii. 260
Barnes, Mr., i. 123;
death of, ii. 2;
anecdote, iii. 75
Bath, visit to, i. 222;
Mr. Harry Greville at, 222;
Abbey Church at, 223
Battersea Schools, the, i. 131;
lecture at, 151;
visit to the, ii. 86
Battle of the Diamond, the, i. 30, 31
Bavaria, King of, the, abdication of, iii. 155
Beaudesert, party at, i. 48
Beaumaris, visit to, ii. 17
Beaumont, M. Gustave de, appointed French Ambassador to the Court of
St. James's, iii. 218
Beauvale, Lord, and Lord Palmerston, iii. 120
Bedchamber, ladies of the, affair of the, i. 201, 209
Bedford, fourth Duke of, diary of, ii. 47
Bedford, sixth Duke of, letter of Lord Brougham to, on education,
i. 238
Bedford, seventh Duke of, Devonshire property of, iii. 206
Bedford, Duchess of, resignation of, ii. 32
Bentinck, Lord George, racing transactions of, ii. 160;
speech on the Corn Laws, 373;
denounces a supposed job, 413;
railway scheme defeated, iii. 57;
speech on the Cracow affair, 67;
attack on Mr. Labouchere, 71;
attacked by Lord J. Russell, 197;
death of, 222;
character of, 223, 232;
career of, 224, 234;
'Orlando' trial, 228;
political career of, 229;
Disraeli's life of, 417, 423
Bentinck, Lady William, death of, and character, ii. 157;
funeral of, 159
Berlin, revolution in, iii. 155
Berry, Miss, ii. 201;
anecdote of, 202
Berry, Miss Agnes, ii. 201, 202
Bessborough, Right Hon. Earl of, opinion of, on affairs, ii. 353;
Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, 405;
illness of, iii. 77, 80;
letter to Lord J. Russell, 81;
death of, 82
Beyrout, bombardment of, i. 328
Birkenhead, visit to, ii. 282
Birthday reflexions, i. 85
Blanc, Louis M., iii. 152;
at dinner, 235
Blessington, the Countess of, society at Gore House, i. 167;
works of, 168
Bonaparte, JÈrÙme, Count de Montfort, at Gore House, i. 277
Bonaparte, Louis Napoleon, afterwards Emperor of the French, _see_
Napoleon
Bordeaux, Duc de, visit to England of the, ii. 211;
reception of the, 212, 213
Bourqueney, Baron, letter from M. Guizot to the, i. 348;
misreported conversation with Lord Palmerston, 381
Bowood, party at, ii. 69
Bradshaw, Mr., disloyal speech of, at Canterbury, i. 244;
duel with Mr. Horsman, 254, 255
Bresson, Count, instructions to, on the Spanish marriages, iii. 24
(_see_ Spanish Marriages)
Bretby, visit to, ii. 309;
contrasted with Woburn, 416
Bridgewater House, private theatricals at, ii. 96
Bridgewater Trust, account of the, ii. 303
British Museum, correspondence with the, about the missing Privy
Council Registers, ii. 162
Broadlands, visit to, ii. 104
Brocket, visits to, iii. 119, 375;
manuscripts at, 376
Broglie, Duc de, speech of the, iii. 37
Brougham, Lord, scene with Lord Melbourne, i. 32;
ability of, 33;
on the ballot, 59;
anecdote of, 59;
habits of, 60;
and Wakley, 60;
at the Council Office, 65;
qualities of, 66;
in the House of Lords, 69, 71;
anti-slavery speech, 73;
speech on Small _v._ Attwood, 83;
article on Lady C. Bury's book, 90;
and Mr. Handley, 99;
contrast to the Duke of Wellington, 111;
attacks Lord Durham's Ordinance, 123;
pamphlet letter to the Queen, 149;
reconciled to Lord Durham, 150;
denies the pamphlet, 152;
and Lord Melbourne, 152;
and the Serjeants-at-Law, 156;
anecdote of, and Lord Lyndhurst, 160;
on the Bedchamber affair, 211, 212;
attacks the Ministers, 213;
great speech censuring the Irish policy of the Government, 228;
freaks of, at a Greenwich dinner, 229;
proposes the health of the Duke of Wellington at the Dover dinner,
237, 240;
letter on education, 238;
anecdotes of, 240;
pretended death of, 243, 245, 247;
squabbles with M. de Tocqueville and others, ii. 150, 151;
intercourse with the Court, 151;
endeavours to obtain an affidavit from Mr. Reeve, 207;
Judicial Committee Bill, 225, 234;
caprices of, 235;
makes eleven speeches in the House of Lords, 242;
at the Judicial Committee, 242;
executor to Lord Melbourne, iii. 252
Brown, Mr., M.P., _fÍte_ on board the 'Atlantic,' iii. 409
Brunnow, Baron, mission of, to England, i. 242;
letter of, complaining of Lord Palmerston's conduct, iii. 332;
on foreign affairs, 345
Buccleuch, the Duke of, Lord Privy Seal, ii. 82;
Lord President of the Council, 337
Buccleuch, the Duchess of, Mistress of the Robes, ii. 44
Buckingham, the Duke of, Lord Privy Seal in Sir R. Peel's
Administration, ii. 37;
resignation of, 79;
First Lord of the Admiralty in Lord Derby's Administration, iii. 451
Buckinghamshire, dispute on the appointment of sheriff, ii. 144
Buckinghamshire magistrates, appointment of the, ii. 66;
opinion of the Duke of Wellington on, 77
Buckland, Dr., at the Grange, ii. 264
Bugeaud, Marshal, commands the troops in Paris in 1848, iii. 144
Buller, Charles, Mr., Radical opinions of, i. 32;
appointed by Lord Durham, 109;
author of Lord Durham's report, 163;
paper of, on Ireland, iii. 221;
death of, 241;
character of, 249
Bulwer, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Lytton, play of 'Richelieu,' i. 173
Bulwer, Sir Henry, expulsion of, from Spain, iii. 169;
arrival of, in London, 180;
defence, 181;
debate in the House of Commons, 190;
intrigues in Spain, 194 (_for_ despatches to, _see_ Spanish
Marriages)
Burge, William, Mr., Q.C., i. 255
Burghersh, Lord (afterwards Earl of Westmorland), opera by, i. 116;
mistake of, ii. 275
Burghley, party at, i. 37
Burgoyne, Sir John, letter from the Duke of Wellington to, iii. 107
Burke, Rt. Hon. Edmund, iii. 213
Bury, Lady Charlotte, book by, i. 48;
book reviewed by Lord Brougham, 65, 90
Butler, Mrs., reading of, at Bowood, ii. 69;
in the 'Hunchback,' 96
Cabul, retreat from, ii. 85, 89, 107;
recapture of, 123;
opinion of the Duke of Wellington on the events at, 137, 138
Cambridge, visit to, ii. 238
Cambridge, University of, H.R.H. Prince Albert elected Chancellor of,
iii. 65;
installed, 97
Cambridge, H.R.H. Adolphus, Duke of, concedes precedence to Prince
Albert, i. 270;
death of, iii. 366
Cambridge, H.R.H. George, Duke of, precedence of, iii. 365, 366
Campbell, Lord, Lord Chancellor of Ireland with a peerage, ii. 14;
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, 405;
speech of son of, at Cambridge, iii. 89;
Lord Chief Justice of England, 327;
success in the Court of Queen's Bench, 327
Canada, insurrection in, i. 34;
debate on, in the House of Commons, 34;
Duke of Wellington on, 37;
Lord Durham sent out as Governor-General, 49;
state of, 53;
discussions on, 55;
Lord Durham's Ordinance, 123;
disallowed, 125;
Lord Durham's Proclamation, 134;
report on administration of, 162;
bill dealing with the Canada Clergy Reserves, 294;
government of, ii. 117;
Sir Charles Bagot succeeds Lord Sydenham, 117;
Sir Charles Metcalfe appointed Governor-General, 117
Canada Bill, _see_ Commons, House of
Candlish, Dr., sermon by, iii. 292
Canford, visit to, ii. 105
Canning, Rt. Hon. George, distrust of, ii. 399
Canning, Stratford, Rt. Hon. Sir, opposition of, to Russia, iii. 279
Cannizzaro, Duchess of, death of the, i. 365;
account of the, 365, 366
Canterbury, Archbishop of, Dr. Sumner appointed, iii. 125
Capel, Hon. and Rev. William, dispute with the Bishop of London,
ii. 113
Capua, Prince of, the, at dinner at Devonshire House, i. 279
Carnarvon, visit to, with Lord Anglesey, ii. 18
Carnot, iii. 153
'Carolus' letter to the 'Times,' iii. 372, 374;
_see_ Appendix B, vol. iii.
Catholic Clergy, Endowment question, ii. 199
Cavaignac, General, iii. 199, 205
CÈcille, Admiral, Ambassador to the Court of St. James's, iii. 268
Ceylon, committee of enquiry into administration of, iii. 269;
witnesses, 308;
evidence of Captain Watson, 312
Chantrey, death of, ii. 60;
monument by, in Lichfield Cathedral, 60
Charles Albert, King of Sardinia, defeat of, iii. 218;
abdication of, 282
Chartists, progress of the, i. 155;
precautions in London for great meeting of the (1848), iii. 160,
162, 164;
failure of the demonstration, 165;
dangerous manifestations in the country, 188;
Government measures, 190;
agitation, 191;
demonstration, 192;
establishment near Chenies, 215
Chatham, Rt. Hon. Earl of, anecdotes of the, i. 245
Chatsworth, visit to, ii. 204;
visit of the Queen to, 215
Chepstow, visit to, i. 222
Chester, visit to, ii. 16
Chester, Mayor of, question of baronetcy on the birth of the Prince
of Wales, ii. 52
Chillianwallah, battle of, iii. 273
China, war with, i. 283; debate on, 283;
Duke of Wellington on the war with, 286;
annexation of Hong Kong, 383;
return of Captain Elliot from, ii. 49, 52;
views of Sir George Grey on, 72;
treaty of peace with, 123
Chiswick, visit of the Queen and Prince Albert to, ii. 14;
_fÍte_ at, for the Czar, 244
Chloroform, an operation under, iii. 110
Christina, Queen of Spain, intrigues of, ii. 419, 421;
M. Guizot's account of, iii. 32;
conduct of, 119
Church of Scotland, disruption in the, ii. 206
Circourt, Madame de, _salon_ of, iii. 45
Clanricarde, Marquis of, Postmaster-General, ii. 405
Claremont, council at, for events in the East, i. 328;
lent to King Louis Philippe, iii. 154
Clarence, H.R.H. Duke of, _see_ William IV., King
Clarendon, Rt. Hon. Earl of, office of Governor-General of Canada
offered to the, i. 173;
first appearance of the, in the House of Lords, 227;
Lord Privy Seal, 243;
on Eastern policy, 301;
dissents from the treaty (1840), 304;
conversation with M. Guizot, 305;
offers to resign on the Eastern Question, 317;
letter of, on Lord Holland's death, and on French affairs, 341;
confidence of the Queen in, ii. 403;
President of the Board of Trade, 405;
Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, iii. 85;
requires a Coercion Bill for Ireland, 105;
and the Irish Catholics, 195;
applies for more powers, 212;
Proclamation of, 207;
policy of, in Ireland, 217;
interview of, with King Louis Philippe, 239;
on Irish emigration, 251;
on taking high office, 251;
Irish relief, 285;
conversation with Sir R. Peel, 286;
success of the Queen's visit to Ireland, 295;
dismissal of Lord Roden, 310;
explanation in the House of Lords, 313;
Encumbered Estates Act in Ireland, 314;
conversation with the Queen and Prince Albert on foreign affairs,
317;
conversation with Lord J. Russell, 361;
spoken of as Foreign Secretary, 428, 431
Clifton, visit to, i. 222
Cobden, Richard, Mr. Greville's letter to, in the 'Times,' iii. 123;
_see_ Appendix A, vol. iii.
Coburg marriage, fear of, in France, iii. 30
Colborne, Sir John, Lieutenant-Governor of Canada, i. 35
Coleridge, Stanza from 'Ode to Tranquillity,' i. 109
Colloredo, Count, and Lord Palmerston, iii. 282, 283, 288
Cologne, visit to the cathedral at, ii. 167
Commons, House of, select committee on pensions, i. 29;
disorder in, 31;
debate on insurrection in Canada, 34;
discussions on Canada, 55;
division on the ballot, 59;
scene in, 68;
Pendarves' motion, 70;
vote of censure on Lord Glenelg, 72;
amendment on, 73;
Lord Eliot's motion on Spain, 83;
motion of Sir George Strickland on emancipation, 84;
motion on Lord Durham's expenses, 86;
the Appropriation Clause, 93;
Irish Municipal Corporation Bill, 100;
session of 1838, 127;
debate on the Irish policy of the Government, 190;
Jamaica Bill, 196;
division on, 199;
Sir H. Fleetwood's motion, 215;
Ballot an open question, 216;
the privilege question, 257, 271;
Prince Albert's allowance, 258;
Ministers defeated on the Irish Registration Bill, 279;
debate on vote of censure on measures resulting in Chinese war, 283;
debate on the Registration Bill, 287;
two new Irish Registration Bills, 373;
Government defeated on Lord Morpeth's Bill, 391;
division on the Sugar Duties, ii. 8;
vote of censure carried by one, 10;
dissolution, 14;
Sir R. Peel's Corn Bill, 83, 86;
attack of Lord J. Russell on Lord Corehouse, 84;
Sir R. Peel's Budget, 87;
Vote of Thanks to Lord Ashburton, 152;
Irish Arms Bill, 188, 194;
debate on Ireland, 228, 230;
division, 232;
the Ten Hours Bill, 236;
Government defeated on the Sugar Duties, 246;
Maynooth Grant, 276;
debate, 279;
Sir R. Peel's measure for sliding-scale duties on corn, 357;
protracted debate on the Corn Laws, 366, 367, 371;
scene in the House, 392;
debate on the annexation of Cracow, iii. 67;
Irish Poor Law, 69;
Mr. Strutt's Railroad Bill, 93, 95;
Irish measures (1847), 104, 106;
obstruction, 161, 163;
mismanagement of, 186;
West India Committee, 187;
alteration of the Oath Bill, 187, 192;
debate on occurrences in Spain, 190;
West India Sugar Bill, 193;
subsequent crisis, 195;
irritation, 197;
Irish Bill, 209;
Irish grant opposed, 267;
committee of enquiry on Ceylon and British Guiana, 269, 309;
debate on, 270;
Sicilian arms affair, 271, 277;
maiden speech of Mr. Frederick Peel, 288;
debate on the Poor Laws, 319;
Mr. Hutt's motion on the African squadron, 324;
Stamp Bill, 325, 327;
Mr. Roebuck's vote of confidence, 344;
Mr. Locke King's motion, 378;
Anti-Papal Bill, 400;
Lord Palmerston's dismissal, 446;
Militia Bill, 447, 449;
dissolution, 454;
Reform question, 469
Conference at Constantinople (1840), i. 328, 329
Conroy, Sir John, i. 14, 20