THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (_continued_).
Termination of the Hudson's Bay Monopoly--British Columbia and
Vancouver--Mr. Locke King's Bill for the Abolition of the Property
Qualification--Evils of the old System--Cordial Reception of the
Measure--Attempt to abolish Freedom of Arrest for Debt--Mr. Bright
agitates for Reform--The Conservatives propose a Reform Bill--Mr.
Disraeli's Speech--His New Franchises--Liberal Objections--Secession
of Mr. Walpole and Mr. Henley--Mr Henley's Explanation--Lord
John Russell's Resolution--Seven Nights' Debate--Replies of Lord
Stanley and Sir Hugh Cairns--Mr. Bright's Speech--Progress of the
Debate--Speeches of Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Disraeli--Defeat of the
Government--Lord Derby announces a Dissolution--Prorogation of
Parliament--The General Election--Parliament reassembles--Lord
Hartington's Amendment--Defeat of the Government--Lord Malmesbury's
Statement in his "Memoirs"--Union of the Liberal Party--Lord
Granville's attempt to form a Ministry--Lord Palmerston becomes
Premier--His Ministry--The Italian Question in Parliament--State of
the Peninsula--Speeches of Napoleon and Victor Emmanuel--Ambiguous
Attitude of Napoleon--Lord Malmesbury's Diplomacy--Lord Cowley's
Mission--The Austrian Ultimatum--Malmesbury's Protest--"From the
Alps to the Adriatic"--The Armies in Position--First Victories
of the Allies--Magenta and Milan--Battle of Solferino--The
Armistice--Treaty of Villafranca--Lord John Russell's Commentary.
The vast territory of the Hudson's Bay Company was converted into a
British colony in 1857. For nearly half a century the varied productions
of this territory had enriched that Company--fur and skins of various
kinds, fish, timber, all of excellent quality. Agriculture was discouraged
and the land was preserved as well as possible for the use of fur-bearing
animals, although the soil was in many places extremely rich; it was
watered by magnificent rivers, and abounded in minerals. Several attempts
had been made to open this region for the purposes of colonisation, and
thus to connect the Atlantic with the Pacific, the whole intervening
country being the property of the British Crown. The monopoly of the
Hudson's Bay Company, however, effectually resisted those attempts until
its licence expired, contemporaneously with the discovery of gold in
1857. This discovery attracted an immense number of adventurers from
California and other parts of the United States, and from China, as well
as Great Britain, its dependencies, and the American colonies. The time
was therefore come when a regular government for the whole territory
should be provided, and in the Session of 1858 Sir E. Bulwer Lytton,
then Colonial Secretary in Lord Derby's Government, brought in a Bill
for the purpose. He stated that the Government intended the following
year to resume possession of Vancouver's Island, and to include it within
the new colony, which was first called "New Caledonia," but the name
was afterwards changed to British Columbia. Sir E. Bulwer Lytton, at
the conclusion of his speech, remarked--"I do believe that the day will
come, and that many now present will live to see it, when a portion at
least of the lands on the other side of the Rocky Mountains, being also
brought into colonisation, and guarded by free institutions, one direct
line of railway communication will unite the Pacific with the Atlantic,"
a prophecy fulfilled by the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway.
In the Queen's Speech at the close of the Session her Majesty expressed
a hope that this new colony on the Pacific might be but one step in the
career of steady progress by which her dominions in North America might be
ultimately peopled, in an unbroken chain from the Atlantic to the Pacific,
by a loyal and industrious population of the subjects of the British
Crown. This hope was destined to be realised sooner than even sanguine
minds anticipated, by the rapid progress of colonisation and the creation
of the Dominion of Canada, stretching across the Continent from ocean to
ocean.
To turn to home affairs, Mr. Locke King honourably distinguished himself
by his persevering efforts to extend the franchise in counties; but he was
more successful in his endeavours to remove a great blot from the system
of parliamentary representation by abolishing the property qualification
of members. This was always regarded as a highly conservative feature of
the Constitution; and at the time the Reform Bill was passed it would
perhaps have been impossible to carry its abolition. It had, however, so
notoriously become a sham, and involved so much that was discreditable,
false, and immoral in the efforts to evade the law, that although the
Conservatives were now in power, the Bill of Mr. Locke King encountered
no serious opposition in either House. A member for a county was obliged
to swear that he had a clear estate in perpetuity worth £500, or for a
borough £300 a year. But it was well known that the oath was not true,
but merely conventional, and that the qualification was often created
by fictitious conveyances, which if obtained for any other purpose would
have been regarded as positively fraudulent. Adventurers and men of straw
entered the House without any difficulty when returned by English and
Irish constituencies; while in Scotland, where there was no property
qualification, men of standing and worth were almost invariably selected
as representatives. Besides, the existing system was rendered still
more obnoxious by the fact that the sons of peers were exempt from the
operation of the law, and could enter the House of Commons without any
property qualification. The law, therefore, was universally understood to
be an unreality, a sham, and a snare; while, as Lord Fortescue remarked
in the Upper House, it limited the freedom of choice among the electors,
and was an infringement of the rights of the people. Earl Grey, indeed,
considered the measure to be only one of a series put forward by a party
that desired to effect a total change in the representative system--a
change that would bring it closer to a democracy, which they hoped to
effect by degrees and in detail. But the Earl of Derby met this objection
fully: it did not follow that because the House of Commons passed this
measure, it would also pass those which Earl Grey deprecated--the £10
franchise in counties, for example. He did not believe the abolition of
the qualification would make any substantial difference in the condition
of the representation. The Bill passed without much further opposition.
[Illustration: LORD CANNING. (_After the Portrait by George Richmond, R.
A._)]
The success of the measure encouraged an attempt to abolish the privilege
of freedom from arrest for debt; but it was defended on the ground that it
protected the independence of members, and was shared in by barristers
attending the courts or on circuit, justices of the peace at sessions,
suitors and witnesses, the Queen's servants, and foreign ambassadors with
their servants; and on the ground that the Bill drew a distinction between
peers and members of the House of Commons. It was read a second time by a
considerable majority on the 30th of June, but it was allowed to drop.
[Illustration: STREET IN PESHAWUR.]
One of the most singular anomalies connected with the relations of
political parties in England occurred in the Session of 1859. The defects
of the Reform Act had occupied the attention of politicians from time
to time, and fruitless attempts had been made by Lord John Russell and
others to remedy those defects and supplement the great measure of 1832.
Mr. Bright agitated the subject in the North with his usual eloquence
and power of argument, and not without considerable effect on the public
mind in the manufacturing districts; but the nation at large could not be
induced to take much interest in the subject. No urgent need was generally
felt for a reform in the representation, the prevalent conviction being
that the House of Commons as it stood was quite competent to perform all
its duties as a representative body; but if any attempt were made to give
fuller effect in the Commons to the will of the people, nothing could be
more unlikely than that it should be made by a Conservative Government,
supported by men who had strenuously resisted Reform at a time when it
was imperatively demanded by the nation. Yet, in the Royal Speech at the
opening of the Session, the Queen was made to say--"Your attention will be
called to the state of the laws which regulate the representation of the
people in Parliament, and I cannot doubt but that you will give to this
great subject a degree of calm and impartial consideration proportioned
to the magnitude of the interests involved in the result of your
deliberations."
In pursuance of this announcement, Mr. Disraeli, Chancellor of the
Exchequer and leader of the Commons, introduced a Reform Bill, on the
28th of February, in a crowded House, full of interest and curiosity to
learn what might be the nature of a measure of the kind proceeding from
a Conservative Cabinet. The right honourable gentleman spoke in a manner
worthy of an occasion so remarkable and a position so equivocal. The
question as he viewed it was more important than one of peace or war.
It was beset with difficulties, but they were mitigated by the absence
of passion and the advantage of experience. There was a general wish to
settle the question, and the Government offered a solution not based upon
any mean concession or temporary compromise, but consistent with the
spirit and principles of the Constitution. Since the great measure of
1832 the progress of the nation had been extremely rapid, there being no
instance in history of such an increase of population and accumulation of
capital as had taken place within that period. Hence Parliamentary Reform
had become successively a public question, a Parliamentary question, and
a Ministerial question. Lord John Russell in 1852, and Lord Aberdeen
in 1854, counselled her Majesty to announce from the throne a measure
of Parliamentary Reform, nor was the House reluctant to deal with the
question. What, in these circumstances, was Lord Derby's duty? It might
have been practicable by evasion to stave off the difficulty; but was
it to be left in abeyance as a means for reorganising an Opposition, as
a desperate resource of faction? Lord Derby's Cabinet were unanimous in
thinking that the question should be dealt with in a sincere and earnest
spirit, nor was there anything in the antecedents or position of the
Premier--whom Lord Grey had summoned to his Cabinet in 1832--to preclude
him from dealing with it, or to justify the taunts that were so freely
used against the Ministry for undertaking the task. Mr. Disraeli argued
against the principle of basing representation upon population. If the
House of Commons were re-constructed according to that principle, it
would find itself in the ignominious position from which it had been
emancipated more than two centuries ago. His plan would combine population
with property, adding the new principle of representing property in
the funds; a new kind of franchise, founded upon personal property;
and another founded upon education. He would give a vote, therefore,
to persons having property to the amount of £10 a year in the funds,
Bank Stock, and East India Stock; to persons having £60 in a savings
bank; to pensioners in the naval, military, and civil services receiving
£20 a year. He would also give a vote to lodgers, or persons occupying
a portion of a house, whose aggregate rent was £20 a year. He would
give the franchise to graduates of the universities, clergymen of all
denominations, members of the legal profession, of the medical body, and
to a certain class of schoolmasters. He proposed an identity of suffrage
between counties and boroughs, in order to bring about general content
and sympathy between the different portions of the constituency. Thus a
£10 franchise would be given to counties, which would add 200,000 to the
county constituency. Commissioners were to be appointed to adjust the
borough boundaries to the altered circumstances of the country, so as to
embrace the population that had sprung up. Discarding the principle of
population, and accepting as a truth that the function of the House was
to represent, not the voice of a numerical majority, or the predominant
influence of property, but the various interests of the country, the
Government proposed to add four members to the West Riding of Yorkshire,
two to South Lancashire, and two to Middlesex; and also to give members to
Hartlepool, Birkenhead, West Bromwich, Wednesbury, Burnley, Staleybridge,
Croydon, and Gravesend, for which purpose one member was to be taken from
each of a number of small places then represented by two.
Strong objections were made to this measure by members representing
various classes of reformers. Mr. Baxter complained that it excluded
Scotland, and moved as an amendment that "it is expedient to consider the
laws relating to the representation of the people in England, Scotland,
and Ireland, not separately, but in one measure." Mr. Fox said that the
Bill did nothing for the working classes. Lord John Russell condemned the
clause which would take away from freeholders in towns the right of voting
in counties. Mr Roebuck denounced it as a measure of disfranchisement,
leading to a worse state, and not giving one iota of power to the working
classes. Mr. Bright also strongly censured the measure for excluding the
working classes from power. The new franchises were absurd, and seemed
intended merely to make it appear that something was given. He thought
that a Government representing a party that had always opposed the
extension of political power to the people ought not to have undertaken
to settle this question. It would have been better if it had adopted a
measure of its opponents, than to introduce a Bill that must create anger
and disgust throughout the country--a Bill that would disturb everything
and settle nothing.
But one of the greatest blows to the measure was the secession of Mr.
Walpole and Mr. Henley, two of the ablest members of the Cabinet. On the
the evening after the introduction of the Bill, the former rose and read
a letter to the Premier, stating the grounds of his resignation. He said
that he found it utterly impossible to sanction or countenance the policy
which the Government had determined to adopt on the important subject of
Parliamentary Reform. He regarded the reduction of the county occupation
franchise to a level with that which existed in boroughs as utterly
contrary to every principle that the Conservatives, as a party, had always
maintained--as a complete destruction of the main distinction that had
hitherto been recognised and wisely established between the borough and
the county constituencies. It was to his mind a most dangerous innovation,
giving to temporary and fluctuating occupations a preponderating influence
over property and intelligence; while it would throw large masses into
the constituencies who were almost exempt from direct taxation, and
therefore interested in forcing their representatives to fix that taxation
permanently on others. Mr. Henley, stating that he had taken as his guide
the principles laid down by Lord Derby in 1854, said it was his opinion
that identity of suffrage, which was the principle of the Government
Bill, would be fatal to the Constitution of the country. If they took a
paintbrush to draw a line across the country, and said that all the people
upon one side were to have the franchise, and all the people upon the
other were not to have it, as sure as the sun was in heaven they would
find the people upon the outside of the line, some day or other, making a
very ugly rush to break over it, and when they did break over it, it would
not be easy to maintain the Constitution.
A few days after the introduction of the measure, Lord John Russell, now
anxious to rejoin the Liberal party, prepared the battle-ground by giving
notice of the following resolution, on which issue was taken:--"That this
House is of opinion that it is neither just nor politic to interfere in
the manner proposed by this Bill with the freehold franchise as hitherto
exercised in counties in England and Wales; and that no re-adjustment
of the franchise will satisfy this House or the country which does not
provide for a greater extension of the suffrage in cities and boroughs
than is contemplated in the present measure." There never perhaps was
a Ministerial proposal of reform of any kind so badly supported by the
country. Notwithstanding the influence of Government--generally great, no
matter what party is in power--only three petitions had been presented in
favour of the Bill when it came on for the second reading on the 20th of
March, while an immense number was presented against it. The debate on
the second reading occupied seven nights, and was sustained throughout
with remarkable ability and animation. The first speech was delivered by
Lord John Russell, on moving his amendment to the motion of Mr. Disraeli,
which was made without any remarks. The noble lord argued that the Bill
would completely change the Constitution of the country, destroy rights
that had existed since the Conquest, deprive men of their county votes
who had not shown themselves unworthy of the trust, and enable persons of
landed property to flood small boroughs with fagot votes, and make them
what they were before 1832--nomination boroughs; while in counties the
measure would lead to the formation of electoral districts, which Lord
Derby five years before had said would destroy one of the main balances
of the Constitution. He concluded in these words:--"With regard to this
great question of Reform, I may say that I defended it while I was young,
and I will not desert it now that I am old." Lord Stanley, in reply to
Lord John Russell, taunted him with having allowed the question to fall
in abeyance, and with having brought forward his motion as virtually a
vote of censure, and as such it was met on the part of his colleagues,
who declared that the noble lord's motion would be fatal to the Bill. Sir
Hugh Cairns, the Solicitor-General, also shone in this debate. Referring
to an alleged compact between Lord John Russell and Mr. Bright, he said,
"We all know and admit the noble lord's attachment to this question;
but we also know that there is a form of the tender passion which
sometimes develops itself in jealousy of any attention to the object of
its affection from any other quarter. I think the noble lord exposes
himself to some misconstruction on this point. The English people," he
continued, "do not like a 'dodge.' They do not like it in business, they
do not like it in politics; but least of all do they admire it in a man
who, at a time when the best interests of his country at home, and our
most peaceful hopes abroad, demand all the patriotism, all the candour,
and all the forbearance of a statesman, approaches the consideration of
a great national question like this, not fairly to criticise, not boldly
to reject, but with a crafty and catching device to confuse, and, if
it may be, to dislocate parties, and on that confusion and dislocation
to secure his own political aggrandisement and private advantage." Mr.
Bright ably exposed the main defects of the Bill. The people out-of-doors
understood by a Reform Bill a large enfranchisement, and larger, freer
constituencies. The Bill did not meet that demand: it got rid of the most
independent electors from counties, and insidiously proposed to alter the
boundaries of boroughs to complete the work. The object was to make the
representation of counties more exclusively territorial, and to gratify
the hundred and fifty gentlemen who sat behind Mr. Disraeli elected by
the territorial interest. As to small boroughs, which were only a refuge
for the politically destitute, he knew no limit whatever to the amount
of corruption in them that would be occasioned by the Bill. It would, at
the same time, exclude the working classes, telling them that they were
dangerous, notwithstanding their improved mental, moral, and physical
condition.
Lord Palmerston, whose hatred of Reform was notorious, supported the
amendment of Lord John Russell. On the other hand, Mr. Whiteside denounced
it as "an inscrutable resolution to stifle truth and prevent discussion--a
crafty contrivance to defeat the Bill, and, if possible, the Ministry."
Sir J. Pakington complained strongly of the speech of Lord Palmerston,
stating that he had adopted a tone of arrogance altogether unusual
between gentlemen who sat opposite to each other in that House, and that
his language could be looked on in no other light than as wanting in
due respect to the Crown. Mr. Gladstone, who, as may be gathered from
the "Life of Bishop Wilberforce," was at this time well disposed to the
Conservatives, remarked upon the singular coincidence of opinion on all
sides with respect to the great question of Parliamentary Reform. There
was no controversy traceable to differences between political parties,
and he thought it was to be regretted that the House was now in hostile
conflict with a division before them, which would estrange those by whose
united efforts alone a satisfactory settlement could be come to. The
resolution was unprecedented in form, being an amendment on the second
reading of a Bill, referring to a portion of a measure that might be
dealt with in committee. Pleading for consideration to the Government, he
described the failures of their predecessors who had engaged in a similar
task, and proved how consistently the Liberals had shirked the question.
Mr. Gladstone defended small boroughs. He regarded them as a means of
supplying a race of men who were trained to carry on the government of
the country--the masters of civil wisdom, like Burke, Mackintosh, Pelham,
Chatham, Fox, Pitt, Canning, and Peel, all of whom first sat for small
boroughs. If there was to be no ingress to the House but one, and that
one the suffrages of a large mass of voters, there would be a dead level
of mediocrity. The extension, the durability of our liberty, were to be
attributed under Providence to distinguished statesmen introduced to the
House at an early age. But large constituencies would not return boys,
and therefore he hoped the small boroughs would be retained. Those facts
formed a reason for going into committee, where Lord John Russell could
carry his views. Mr. Gladstone earnestly deprecated the postponement
of the question. It was a golden opportunity which they should not let
slip. Mr. Disraeli, in replying, defended his measure with vehemence,
and not without personal acrimony towards Lord Palmerston and Lord John
Russell, whom he charged with living in an atmosphere of combinations
and cunning resolutions when out of office. By bringing forward this
untoward motion, and by sneering at Lord Malmesbury at a moment when
negotiations were pending, when an awful responsibility rested on the
Minister, Lord John had not only embarrassed the Government, but had
injured the public service. The Government, he said, had been sustained
in all its arduous struggles by a conviction of the justice of the
people of England, and were sustained by it at that moment, amid all the
manœuvres of Parliamentary intrigue and all the machinations of party
warfare. The House then proceeded to a division, in the midst of a scene
of extraordinary excitement, the issue being rather uncertain till the
last moment. It was, however, decisive against the Government, the numbers
being--for the second reading, 291; against it, 330; majority 39. The
division took place on the 1st of April.
[Illustration: EARL RUSSELL. (_From a Photograph by Elliot & Fry._)]
Next day Lord Derby had an audience of the Queen; on the same evening,
in the Lords, he stated that the majority against him left him but one
alternative, either to resign or dissolve Parliament. He regarded the
vote as equivalent to a vote of want of confidence, and he thought the
Government would have laid themselves open to a charge of indifference if
they took no notice of such a division. The distracted state of parties in
the House of Commons, he said, rendered it almost impossible to administer
the affairs of the nation. He excepted from this censure the Conservative
party, whose support had been unwavering, cordial, and generous. According
to his lordship's view, the chief mischief-maker was Lord John Russell,
who, from the restless energy of his disposition, had the peculiar fortune
to overthrow many Governments, not only of his opponents but also of his
friends; the consequence of which conduct was, that hardly a year now
passed without a Ministerial crisis, and if the system were persevered in,
it would put an end to all government; for it inflicted injury at home
and damaged the influence of the country abroad. One of the questions
bequeathed to him by the late Government was the _damnosa hæreditas_ of
Parliamentary Reform. He had in consequence introduced a Bill to meet
that question. An opportunity had thus been given to the House of Commons
to settle this question, but the Opposition preferred the interests of
party to the interests of the country. Lord Palmerston had said that "the
Ministers should be condemned to keep their places and do our bidding."
But Lord Derby begged to tell him that he would do no one's bidding but
that of the Queen, so long as he retained her confidence. But whose
bidding were they to do? Was it that of the motley and heterogeneous
Liberal party? He then announced that, considering the grave condition
of European affairs and the domestic interests of the country, he had
deemed it his duty to recommend to her Majesty an early dissolution of
Parliament, stating that he looked with confidence to the result of the
appeal about to be made to the country.
Mr. Disraeli gave a somewhat similar explanation in the Lower House. Lord
Palmerston acknowledged the courtesy and fairness of his statement. He did
not consider the late vote as one of censure; as such he would not have
supported it. He thought the advice given to her Majesty was very unwise.
If he were to attempt to prophesy the result, he would say that the new
Parliament would be far more likely than the present to decide that power
should be transferred to other hands. After some more discussion on the
dissolution, the House hastened to wind up the Session by disposing of
the necessary business, which was interrupted only by a short debate on
the affairs of Italy. On the 9th of April, therefore, Parliament was
prorogued by commission. The Royal Speech was a mere formal production,
except the concluding paragraph, which stated that the appeal that her
Majesty was about to make to her people had been rendered necessary by
the difficulties experienced in carrying on the public business of the
country, as indicated by the fact that within little more than a year two
successive Administrations had failed to retain the confidence of the
House of Commons; and she prayed that the step she was about to take would
have the effect of facilitating the discharge of her high functions, and
of enabling her to conduct the government of the country under the advice
of a Ministry possessed of the confidence of her Parliament and her people.
The results of the general election, at which the Government, as might be
expected, put forth all its influence to secure a working majority, fully
verified the predictions of Lord Palmerston, for the new Parliament was
not even disposed to give the Derby Cabinet a fair trial. The Tories had
gained considerably at the polls, but had failed to secure a majority.
Still, they formed a compact party in the House of Commons more than
300 strong. The Session was opened on the 7th of June, the process of
swearing-in having been then completed. The Queen delivered the Royal
Speech in person. It contained nothing remarkable, except a suggestion
that the subject of Parliamentary Reform should be postponed till next
Session. The debates on the Address in both Houses were unusually
animated. Lord Granville expressed regret that, in spite of the result of
the elections, the Ministry had determined to carry on the government in
a minority. Lord Ellenborough stated that what the country required was a
strong Government; and he expressed his conviction that this result had
not been obtained by the general election. Lord Derby defended the conduct
of his Government and, in reference to some of the Irish elections, denied
that any compact existed between him and Cardinal Wiseman. If he saw any
chance of a strong Government, he would gladly lay down the responsibility
he had assumed; but considering the state of foreign affairs, he thought
it his duty to his Sovereign to remain at his post. The Address in the
Lords was agreed to without a division; not so in the Commons, where an
amendment was moved by the Marquis of Hartington, leading to a debate that
lasted for three nights. He admitted that it was a party move, in order
that power should not be left in the hands of a party antagonistic to
all progress. In the course of this debate great distrust in the foreign
policy of the Government was betrayed; and the Italian question had much
more to do with the premature dissolution of the Cabinet than the Reform
question. The nation sympathised warmly with the cause of freedom in
Italy, and had a decided conviction that a Conservative Government was not
a fitting medium through which that sympathy might be conveyed. Upon a
division, therefore, the numbers were as follows:--For the amendment, 323;
against it, 310; majority against the Government, 13.
There is a curious statement in Lord Malmesbury's "Memoirs" to the effect
that the defeat of the Government was due entirely to Mr. Disraeli's
neglect to lay on the table of the House the Blue Book containing the
Italian and French correspondence with the Foreign Office, and that
after the despatches had appeared, numerous Liberals, Mr. Cobden among
them, expressed their regret in the lobby at having voted against the
Ministry. But Lord Malmesbury was certainly mistaken as far as Mr. Cobden
was concerned, since he was out of England at the time of the division,
and it is probable that the whole story is an exaggerated recollection
of one or two private expressions of opinion. The simple explanation of
Mr. Disraeli's supposed neglect would seem to be that the book was not
printed, and that Ministers felt so certain of defeat that they did not
think it worth while to hurry on its appearance. With the re-union of
the Liberal party all chance of their continuance in office was at an
end, and that long-delayed object was at length accomplished after much
negotiation by party managers, male and female. The great obstacle was the
long-standing rivalry between Lord John Russell and Lord Palmerston. The
latter was induced to pave the way to a reconciliation by a letter to Sir
James Graham, which contained the suggestion that one of them should be
Prime Minister, presumably with a peerage, the other leader of the House
of Commons. This equal division of the spoils was, however, by no means to
Lord Palmerston's taste; nevertheless, at a meeting of the Liberal party
held at Willis's Rooms on the 6th of June they agreed to serve under one
another if either was sent for by the Queen, and the result of their amity
was Lord Hartington's resolution.
In consequence of the adverse division, Lord Derby announced the
resignation of his Cabinet on the 19th of June. On the same evening
Mr. Disraeli made a similar announcement in the House of Commons. Lord
Palmerston was then called upon by her Majesty to form an Administration,
the Queen having at first applied to Earl Granville to relieve her from
the "invidious unwelcome task" of choosing between Lord Palmerston
and Lord John Russell. He failed, however, to secure their support,
and somewhat compromised himself by indiscreet communications to the
press. The following are the names of the members who comprised the new
Cabinet:--Lord Palmerston, Prime Minister; Lord Campbell, Chancellor;
Lord Granville, President of the Council; the Duke of Argyll, Privy
Seal; Sir George Cornewall Lewis, Home Secretary; Lord John Russell,
Foreign Secretary; the Duke of Newcastle, Colonial Secretary; Mr. Sidney
Herbert, Secretary for War; Sir Charles Wood, Secretary for India; Mr.
Gladstone, Chancellor of the Exchequer; the Duke of Somerset, First
Lord of the Admiralty; Lord Elgin, Postmaster-General; Sir George Grey,
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; Mr. Milner Gibson, Chief Poor-Law
Commissioner; Mr. Cardwell, Chief Secretary for Ireland; the Earl of
Carlisle, Viceroy. The list of names included the flower of the Peelites,
Whigs, and Radicals. Lord John Russell's emphatic determination to have
the Foreign Office or nothing caused the exclusion of Lord Clarendon,
and the blandishment of the Prime Minister, together with the offer of
the Board of Trade, failed to secure the allegiance of Mr. Cobden, who
feared, and with some justice, that the Ministry would play fast and loose
with Parliamentary Reform. In expressing that opinion he noted the weak
point of the Ministry--it was strong in talent, but divided in opinion.
The three important members, Lord Palmerston, Lord John Russell, and Mr.
Gladstone, were of one mind in their sympathy for the Italian cause, but
the Premier was far more conservative in his domestic policy than the two
other statesmen, and while at issue with Russell on Reform held different
views from Mr. Gladstone as to the propriety of strengthening the national
defences. However, they continued to agree to differ.
Before commencing the deeply interesting narrative of the last Italian
war, which resulted in the establishment of the kingdom of Italy, it
is desirable to dispose of the Italian question, in its international
aspects, and in its relations to the state of political parties in the
United Kingdom. The influence of that question on the fortunes of the
Conservative leaders was very great. Nothing militated so strongly against
Lord Derby, or contributed so much to alienate from him the confidence
of the mass of the British people, as his apparent want of sympathy with
the Italians in their struggles for independence; while the well-known
sentiments of Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell upon this subject
tended in a very high degree to strengthen their influence and extend
their popularity. As a matter of fact the Conservative statesman was
actuated mainly by a desire to preserve the _status quo_, and the extreme
Austrian view was propounded by the Whig politician, Lord Clarendon.
"The bubble of Italian unity," he said, "had at length burst, and the
detestable party of Mazzini and his accomplices was almost extinct.
Supposing that Austria was driven out, and Lombardy was annexed to
Piedmont, the people of Milan and Venice would never agree with those of
Sardinia, but would be even more discontented than they are now. Piedmont
was nothing more than the advanced guard of France, and he considered that
the defeat of Austria would only substitute one master for another." Lord
Derby, it is true, like other statesmen, failed to forecast the future in
the event of a war. "It would not," he said, "be localised in Italy; it
would be impossible to confine it to that country. It would extend itself,
and involve the world in universal conflagration." It would bring the
whole of Germany into the field. England, which could not look unmoved at
the occupation of the Adriatic and the Mediterranean, would be drawn into
the vortex. But the chance of peace, he thought, would be immeasurably
strengthened if it were known that Great Britain would not remain an
unmoved spectator of any event in which her honour was concerned.
The long-cherished dream of Italian unity, which Lord Clarendon treated
with so much scorn, was as little likely as any other political dream to
be realised. The difficulties lying in the way seemed to be absolutely
insuperable. The country was cut up into sections called principalities.
It was the policy of their numerous Sovereigns, while cultivating a
fraternal feeling among themselves, to foster animosities between their
respective populations, lest by any chance they should unite for their own
deliverance. The shadow of Austrian power, like an immense poison-tree,
shed a blighting influence over the whole land, and under its shelter
the petty princes exercised their despotic arts according to their own
capricious wills. In 1815 a defensive alliance was concluded between
the Emperor of Austria and the Duke of Tuscany for the defence of their
respective States, Austria engaging to furnish 80,000 men of all arms, and
the Grand Duke 6,000. In 1847 the Emperor made a similar treaty, called
a special convention, with the Duke of Modena, by which the Emperor of
Austria was bound, as soon as applied to, to give immediately all the
military support necessary to put down any insurrectionary movement. It
was, however, a singular fact that the means adopted to extinguish all
hope in the hearts of the people and to render deliverance impossible,
should have been the very means by which that deliverance was effected.
Had Austria confined herself to her own possessions secured to her by
treaty, it would have been difficult for Victor Emmanuel, or Louis
Napoleon, to find a cause of quarrel sufficient to justify a war. But she
had usurped the virtual sovereignty of the duchies of Tuscany, Modena, and
Parma; and her troops occupied the Legations, while the King of Naples
and the Pope were little more than her creatures. It was this crushing
domination of a foreign Power that warranted foreign intervention, and
excused even the ambition of France and Piedmont.
Such was the state of things at the close of the year 1858, when, save
this one dark spot in the political horizon, everything indicated profound
peace. On New Year's Day the French Emperor was accustomed to receive the
foreign ambassadors at the Tuileries. On the 1st of January, 1859, he
turned to M. Hübner, the Austrian Minister, and abruptly said to him, "I
regret that our relations with your Government are not so good as they
have been hitherto; but I beg you to assure the Emperor that my personal
feelings towards him are not changed." A portentous meaning was generally
ascribed to this remark, and in order to allay the apprehensions it
excited, the _Moniteur_ was instructed to declare that there was nothing
in the diplomatic relations of the two Courts to warrant the prevailing
rumours of war. But this pacific assurance was more than counteracted by
the speech of Victor Emmanuel in opening the Sardinian Chambers on the
10th of the same month. "The horizon," he said, "was not entirely serene,
but encouraged by the experience of the past, he was prepared resolutely
to encounter the eventualities of the future. His country, small in
territory, had acquired credit in the councils of Europe, because it was
great through the ideas it represented and the sympathies it inspired.
This position," said the King, "is not exempt from perils, since, while
we respect treaties, we are not insensible to the cry of suffering which
reaches us from so many parts of Italy. Strong by our concord, confiding
in our good right, we await, prudent and decided, the decrees of Divine
Providence."
It was generally believed at this time that a secret alliance had been
formed between the Emperor and the King, though its exact nature could
not be conjectured. That it implied much to the advantage of France, or
to the family of the Emperor, as the price of his armed intervention, was
inferred from the marriage of Prince Napoleon to the Princess Clothilde,
eldest daughter of Victor Emmanuel, then only sixteen years of age. Her
hand was demanded by General Niel on the 23rd of January, and the marriage
took place a week after. As a matter of fact Count Cavour had held secret
interviews with the Emperor Napoleon at Plombières in the previous July,
where the Emperor of the French had agreed to aid Sardinia in obtaining
Lombardy, Venetia, and perhaps something more in return for the cession of
Nice and Savoy. These and other indications of the designs of the French
Emperor warned the Austrian Government to make energetic preparations for
the defence of its possessions in Italy; and a manifesto on the subject
was issued on the 5th of February in the form of an address from the
Prime Minister, Count Buol, to the representatives of Austria at foreign
Courts. This was an appeal to the German Confederation to act as a united
Power, if Austria, by an attack on her possessions in Italy, should be
called upon to take up arms against one of the greatest military States in
Europe. While thus appealing for support to the other German Governments,
Austria was pushing forward extraordinary armaments along the frontier
of the Po and Ticino. Strong masses of troops were quartered at Cremona,
Piacenza, and Pavia, assuming an aggressive aspect towards Piedmont.
Orders had been given to hold military stores and quarters in readiness in
many places. A decree was issued forbidding the exportation of horses into
Piedmont. As another indication of war, Austria had contracted a loan of
150,000,000 francs. These facts were alluded to in the Sardinian Chamber,
as warranting that Government in contracting a loan of 50,000,000 francs.
This was carried in the Chamber by a majority of 116 to 35. The Prime
Minister, Count Cavour, also issued a counter-manifesto to the Sardinian
agents at foreign Courts, vindicating his policy, as being rendered
necessary by the hostile manifestations on the part of Austria.
[Illustration: OFFICE OF THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY, 10, DOWNING
STREET, LONDON.]
The attitude of France towards Austria and Italy was the subject of much
discussion and great difference of opinion previous to the commencement
of the war. Notwithstanding the emphatic declaration of Louis Napoleon,
that the Empire meant peace, there was a strong suspicion, especially
in Conservative quarters, that the Imperial policy would be guided by
a spirit of war and conquest. The Emperor took great pains to remove
this impression, especially from the minds of English statesmen. In a
conversation with Lord Cowley, he remarked--"What I said to M. de Cavour I
repeat now. My sympathies always have been, and still are, with Italy. I
regret that Lombardy should be in the possession of Austria; but I cannot
and do not dispute the right of the latter. I respect existing treaties,
because they are the only landmarks we have; so long as Austria remains
within her own frontier, she is, of course, mistress to do as she pleases.
With regard to Sardinia, if she provokes hostilities unjustly, and places
herself in the wrong, she must expect no support from me."
Lord Malmesbury, our Foreign Secretary, exerted himself with each of the
parties as a zealous peacemaker, taking his stand upon the treaties of
1815. At the same time in a despatch to Sir James Hudson, our Minister at
Turin, he fully acknowledged the grievances of Italy. Lord A. Loftus,
our representative at the Court of Vienna, pleading for peace with Count
Buol, received the following answer:--"If you wish to preach peace and to
prevent war, address yourselves with firmness to France and Piedmont. We
are not meditating war; we shall not be the aggressors. Tell the Emperor
Louis Napoleon that Great Britain will not passively look on if his
Majesty should commence hostilities. Say to him that should he take such
a course, it will be at his own risk and peril. On the other hand, warn
King Victor Emmanuel that England will not sanction any act of wilful
aggression, undertaken in full peace by Piedmont against Austria. If Great
Britain is prepared to hold this language, no war will arise." Lord A.
Loftus did not seem satisfied with the statement that Austria did not
mean to be the aggressor, and he therefore demanded from Count Buol an
assurance that in no case would Austria move a single soldier across her
frontier in Italy, without previous concert with France. Then he would
consider that war might be averted. But Count Buol could not give that
assurance. "It would be a surrender," he said, "of the sovereign power
of Austria;" but he asked, "What will you say to Piedmont if she were to
attack us?" To which the British Minister replied, "I cannot imagine such
an eventuality. It would be a mouse attacking the lion." Count Buol then
went on to say that they could never come to an understanding with France
on Italian affairs, because France sympathised with and protected the
cause of nationalities; while Austria supported sovereigns, governments,
and established order. Besides, he said, it was a great mistake to suppose
that Italy required change. All she wanted was quiet--that agitation
should be put down, and the hopes of interested agitators extinguished.
In the month of February Lord Cowley was sent on a special mission to
Vienna, which resulted only in an elaborate defence of the Austrian
policy in Italy from Count Buol, in reply to objections and proposals
made by Count Walewski. Lord Cowley had to encounter in the Austrian
Government the idea that France was determined on war, and that to make
concessions was only to put off the evil day; and also a bitter feeling
of hostility against Sardinia. His proposals were (1) the evacuation of
the Roman States by Austria and France, (2) reforms in the administration
of those States, (3) security for better relations between Austria
and Italy, (4) the abrogation or modification of the Austrian-Italian
treaties of 1849. These conditions, which in the circumstances of the
case were certainly not unfavourable to Italy, were adopted by Russia
as the bases for the proposed convocation of a Congress, with a view
to prevent the complications to which the state of Italy might give
rise. This proposal seemed to meet with general acquiescence and highly
pleased Lord Malmesbury, who expressed his satisfaction to the Sardinian
Ambassador. Sardinia naturally claimed the right of being represented in
it. To this Austria decidedly objected and demanded, moreover, that before
it assembled Sardinia should be required to disarm, which was afterwards
modified into a proposal that there should be a simultaneous disarming
of the Great Powers. This was one of a series of proposals made by the
British Cabinet, as a last attempt to preserve the peace of Europe. But
all efforts at conciliation proved unavailing, as Napoleon simply played
with them in order to gain time for his military preparations. Thus he
agreed to disarm himself, but refused to make any representation to
Sardinia. Strange as it may seem, it was the patience of the phlegmatic
German that first gave way.
On the 23rd of April an aide-de-camp of the General Gyulai, who commanded
the army in Lombardy, then massed along the Austrian frontier, was the
bearer of a peremptory demand that Sardinia should disarm within three
days, and that in the event of refusal war would immediately commence. To
this demand Count Cavour returned an answer which, like all the documents
that issued from his pen, was a conclusive argument that the great
adversary of Piedmont was in the wrong, and had sent a threatening summons
instead of compliance with the propositions that the Great Powers had
deemed reasonable, and he made a similar defiance in a popular manifesto.
The rashness of Austria in commencing the war by an invasion of Piedmont
alienated the British Government. On the 22nd of April Lord Malmesbury,
in writing to Lord Augustus Loftus, referred to the strong feeling of
indignation against her which prevailed in England, and told him that his
language could not be too strong with regard to the course adopted by that
Power, and requesting that he would give Count Buol clearly to understand
that the refusal of Austria to stop the march of her armies would enlist
against her the feelings of the Government and of all classes in Britain.
He was instructed to inform Count Buol that her Majesty's Government felt
it due to themselves and to the great interests of humanity, which they
had so earnestly striven to uphold, solemnly to record their protest
against the course that Austria--regardless of the terrible consequences
to Europe and indifferent to the public opinion of the world--had so
rashly and so unjustly adopted. He said, "They assign to Austria and fix
upon her the last responsibility for all the miseries and calamities
inevitably consequent on a conflict which was on the eve of being averted,
but which, once begun, will infallibly produce a more than ordinary amount
of social suffering and political convulsion." He urged the German States
to remain quiet, but gained no credit at the Tuileries, as the despatch
was suppressed by the Foreign Minister, Count Walewski.
On the 3rd of May the Emperor caused a communication to be made to the
Corps Législatif, in which he said that Austria "had brought matters
to this extremity, that she must rule up to the Alps, or Italy must be
free to the shores of the Adriatic; for in this country every corner of
territory which remains independent endangers her power. Hitherto," he
said, "moderation has been the rule of my conduct; now energy becomes
my first duty. Let France arm, and resolutely tell Europe, I desire not
conquest, but I desire firmly to maintain my national and traditional
policy. I observe the treaties on condition that no one shall violate them
against me. I respect the territories and the rights of neutral Powers;
but I boldly avow my sympathies for a people whose history is mingled with
our own, and who groan under foreign oppression." The Emperor proceeded
to explain the object of the war in which he was about to engage. It was
to restore Italy to herself--not to impose on her a change of masters;
and we shall then have upon our frontiers a friendly people, who will
owe to us their independence. "We do not," he said, "go into Italy to
foment disorder, or to disturb the power of the Holy Father, whom we have
replaced upon his throne, but to remove from him this foreign pressure,
which weighs upon the whole peninsula, and to help to establish there
order, based upon pure, legitimate, satisfied interests. We are going,
then, to seek upon this classic ground, illustrious by so many victories,
the footsteps of our fathers. God grant that we may be worthy of them!"
In this spirit the Emperor set out on his mission for the liberation of
Italy "from the Alps to the Adriatic." Instead of obeying the order of
Austria, his ally, Victor Emmanuel, summoned Garibaldi to take the command
of the little army of Volunteers, which included in its ranks members of
the noblest families in Italy, and Garibaldi obeyed. The Volunteers had
got the general whom of all others they preferred, and whose name had
magic power with all Italian patriots. Piedmont stood prepared for the
threatened invasion by Austria. That false step was taken on the 27th of
April, 1859, when the Austrian Commander-in-Chief, Gyulai, ordered two
columns of his army to cross the Ticino. On the 2nd of May the King called
the nation to arms. He was himself Commander-in-Chief. In the meantime
three Austrian _corps d'armée_ were encamped on the plains of Piedmont, on
both banks of the Po; and it was expected that an attempt would be made to
take Turin by a _coup de main_ before the arrival of the French. But these
were hurrying to the field of battle from the slopes of Mont Cenis and
Mont Genèvre, and a junction was duly effected.
The Austrians had taken up their ground at leisure, and occupied strong
positions. The allied army was drawn up in a large crescent, which
extended without interruption from Vercelli to Voghera. The first
engagement with the enemy began on the 20th of May, at Genestrello,
from which, after some hours' hard fighting, the Austrians were driven
out. They then took up a fresh position at Montebello. There they were
attacked--though 20,000 strong--by a body of about 6,000 infantry and six
squadrons of Sardinian cavalry, by which they were routed in a few hours.
General Forey was the commander of the French troops in this battle, and
was the chief hero of the first victory over the Austrians. The Austrian
general was completely outmanœuvred by the Emperor and the King. Unknown
to the enemy, the allied army changed its line of battle, turning on its
left wing from the right bank of the Po to the left. Thus this army of
200,000 men extended its undulating lines like an immense serpent, which
had its head at Cameriano, its tail at Casale, and its centre at Palestro,
on the other side of the Sesia. By this means the allied generals were
enabled to effect movements that compelled the enemy to retreat to the
left bank of the Sesia. This river was crossed on the 30th by General
Cialdini. The King, followed by his whole army, also crossed on a bridge
of boats. The Austrians were strongly fortified at Vinzaglio, on elevated
ground, with ten field guns and two howitzers. The position was boldly
attacked by General Cialdini. As soon as his men got within twenty
paces of the entrenched camp, they rushed on and carried the position
at the point of the bayonet, after showers of bullets had thinned their
lines. As the Austrians were supported by reserves pouring in from the
roads leading to the camp, the contest assumed a deadly character, and
Cialdini would have been compelled to retire had not a second brigade been
despatched to support him. In less than an hour, however, the victory was
his--the enemy retreating towards Novara, leaving 300 muskets, with a
considerable number of prisoners and wounded. A similar fate attended the
Austrians posted at Casalino. The Sardinians won a still more brilliant
victory at the village of Palestro, which caused the enemy to retreat on
Robbio.
The actions of the war followed one another with astounding rapidity.
Bulletin after bulletin, telegraphed "from the Emperor to the Empress,"
announced a succession of triumphs for the French arms. One of the most
important of these victories was won on the 4th of June, at Magenta, when
5,000 Austrians were taken prisoners, and 15,000 killed or wounded. The
loss of the French was about 2,000 placed _hors de combat_, and had it
not been for the timely advent of MacMahon the victory would probably
have been converted into a defeat by the poor generalship of Napoleon.
The routed Austrians transferred their headquarters to Abbiate Grosso,
while the allies marched on Milan. This city had risen against the
Austrian garrison, which evacuated the place precipitately, leaving their
cannon and the treasure of the army behind them. On the 8th of June the
Emperor and the King made their triumphal entry into the city, where they
were received with unbounded joy. Victor Emmanuel immediately assumed
the authority of Sovereign by universal acclamation. The Emperor and
the King did not rest long upon their laurels at Milan; they followed
the retreating Austrians across the plain of Milan, meeting no check
till they reached the Mincio on the 23rd of June. The line of the two
armies was formed, and extended from the shores of the Lago di Garda, at
Desenzano, along the western edge of the hilly country, till, bending
back, it touched the Chiese at Carpenedolo. The Emperor, with the guards
as a reserve, took up his position at Montechiaro; and the King, with
his staff, at Sonato. Contrary to expectation, the Austrians crossed the
Mincio and assumed the offensive. The whole Austrian army formed the line
of battle, which extended five leagues in length, from Peschiera--on
which they leant their extreme right--down into the plain of the Mincio,
intersecting the great road to Goito. The Emperor of Austria was present,
having chosen for his headquarters Cavriana, a place in the centre of the
line, the village of Solferino being the key of the whole position. Each
of the armies had mistaken the movements of the other, though the French
had sent up a man to reconnoitre in a balloon; it consequently happened
that they came unexpectedly into collision. This occurred on Friday, the
25th of June, when after much blundering strategy on both sides, the
Austrians were compelled to abandon all their positions, and they withdrew
during the night, having blown up the bridge of Goito.
In the meantime the Austrians had retreated to the Quadrilateral, and
taken their position behind the lines of those celebrated fortifications,
which were believed to be impregnable. The allies had crossed the Mincio
in pursuit. The French headquarters were established at Valeggio, in
the villa of the Marchioness Maffei, which had been previously occupied
by the Austrian Emperor. Two days after the battle of Solferino, Count
Cavour, with his friend and secretary, Nigra, had a long interview with
the French Emperor. They found him exceedingly disgusted with the quarrels
of his generals, deeply impressed by the horrible scenes of war he had
just witnessed for the first time in his life; but apparently proud and
delighted that the military glory of France, and the superiority of her
army over the Austrians, had been once more splendidly asserted. In
reality he was perplexed by the increasing difficulties of his position.
The count returned to the camp in high spirits and full of hope, under
the impression that the Emperor was determined to prosecute the war with
vigour to its conclusion, and that, in case it should be necessary for
the accomplishment of that object, he would not scruple to appeal to the
Hungarians. In the course of a day or two afterwards, however, mysterious
rumours were afloat in the camp, that a French general had been sent
to Verona on some inexplicable mission to the Austrian Emperor. These
rumours proved to be well founded. When both armies were fully marshalled,
prepared for action at any moment, when there was some apprehension that
their lines would be attacked by the enemy, or that they would be ordered
to march on Verona, General Fleury was despatched with a proposal for an
armistice. This had been prefaced by an attempt to secure the mediation
of the British Government, but Lord John Russell was not to be caught.
This step was taken without any communication with Victor Emmanuel,
and without the knowledge of any human being except the bearer of the
message. At seven o'clock next morning he returned with a letter to his
Imperial master, announcing the success of the mission. The result was
the conclusion of an armistice for one month. The announcement, it need
scarcely be said, spread consternation through the Sardinian camp, and
excited the deepest disappointment and indignation throughout Italy.
Coming upon the Italians while still in the flush of victory and full of
hope, they felt it not only as a terrible shock, but as a betrayal of
their cause and a national humiliation. Cavour promptly flung up office.
[Illustration: ENTRY OF NAPOLEON AND VICTOR EMMANUEL INTO MILAN. (_See p._
300.)]
The great statesman resigned, rather than endorse a peace concluded
without his Sovereign or himself being consulted, and Ratazzi received
orders to form a Cabinet. The ex-Premier had scarcely departed in his
carriage, amidst shouts of "Long live Cavour!" when the Emperor and Prince
Napoleon drove up to dine with the King. It is said to have been a sad
party, during which little was spoken by the royal host. On the 12th of
July the Emperor returned to Paris, passing through Milan and Turin, where
he had been so recently received with enthusiastic acclamations. He must
have painfully felt the contrast, when the victor of Magenta and Solferino
was permitted to return from the scenes of his military glory without a
cheer from the people whose country he had promised to free from the Alps
to the Adriatic; but which he seemed now to abandon, leaving his "mission"
but half accomplished.
Before his departure, he issued a proclamation in the following
terms:--"Soldiers,--an armistice has been concluded on the 8th instant
between the belligerent parties, to extend to the 15th of August next.
This truce will permit you to rest after your glorious labours and, if
necessary, to continue the work which you have so gloriously inaugurated
by your courage and your devotion. I am about to return to Paris, and
shall leave the provisional command of my army to Marshal Vaillant; but
as soon as the hour of combat shall have struck, you will see me again in
your midst to partake of your dangers."
The armistice was immediately followed by the basis of a treaty of peace,
the terms of which were arranged--and the treaty itself was provisionally
signed--on the 11th of July at Villafranca by the two Emperors. Its
conditions were these:--
"The two Sovereigns will favour the creation of an Italian Confederation.
That Confederation will be under the honorary presidency of the Holy
Father. The Emperor of Austria cedes to the Emperor of the French his
right over Lombardy, with the exception of the fortresses of Mantua and
Peschiera, so that the frontier of the Austrian possessions shall start
from the extreme range of the fortress of Peschiera, and shall extend in a
direct line along the Mincio, as far as Grazio; thence to Scorzarolo and
Suzana to the Po, whence the actual frontiers shall continue to form the
limits of Austria.
"The Emperor of the French will hand over the ceded territory to the King
of Sardinia. Venetia shall form part of the Italian Confederation, though
remaining under the Crown of the Emperor of Austria. The Grand Duke of
Tuscany and the Duke of Modena return to their States, granting a general
amnesty.
"The two Emperors will ask the Holy Father to introduce indispensable
reforms into his States. A full and complete amnesty is granted on both
sides to persons compromised in the late events in the territories of the
belligerent parties."
This fantastic scheme was severely criticised by Lord John Russell in his
usual incisive style, both in despatches and in Parliament. Lord John
thought that such a confederation would be possible; but he doubted if
it was practicable at that time, and whether a confederation with the
Pope as chief, and the Emperor of Austria as one of its members, would
be desirable. How could such a body assent to a religious toleration
or liberty of conscience? How could the Grand Duke of Tuscany, who had
forfeited his rights by abdication be forced back upon his subjects, who
had asserted their independence? Then how could the difficulty about the
Pope be got over? The Emperors recommended to him indispensable reforms,
but he declined to take their advice. It would never do, however, for a
Minister of the Crown of Great Britain to say that England, which had
taken part in all the concerns of Europe since 1815--in the formation
of the kingdom of Greece and in the formation of the kingdom of
Belgium--should now, suddenly and without reason, withdraw from a meeting
of the Powers, if there were any chance that the situation of Italy might
be improved, that peace might be confirmed, and the independence of the
Italian States secured by her taking part in the Congress.