CHAPTER III._Lord Palmerston

SECRETARY AT WAR, WITH SEAT IN THE CABINET.

It is a great thing to be a Cabinet Minister. Every man when he begins a

life of politics feels that. He feels it when he gets into Parliament,

and when he joins a Government in some subordinate office. It is the

goal to which his hopes aspire, and the success to which his ambition

ventures to look. The young politician hardly expects to be Prime

Minister, but he does, within his own bosom, think it possible that he

may achieve an entrance within those doors which enclose that mysterious

entity which we call the Cabinet. The Cabinet is essentially English in

its abnormal constitution, having grown to its present enormous

responsibility without any written rules or defined powers. There is

nothing to prescribe its numbers, which do indeed vary very greatly; nor

indeed is there any law requiring that this or that officer of the

Government should be a member of it,--as there is no law by which its

very existence is made necessary. It is considered essential that the

Chancellor and the Secretaries of State should be of the Cabinet, but we

have no law which would be broken were it to be completed without them.

But it is understood by all men that the governing of the country is in

the hands of a small junta of individuals who form the Cabinet, and it

is equally well understood that all members of the Government who are

not in the Cabinet are responsible for nothing beyond the proper

performances of their own official duties; though they, too, are bound

to resign when their betters resign, and are bound also to support their

betters by parliamentary aid and judicious backing in all but the very

few matters which are regarded as “open questions.” In fact, the Cabinet

Minister is a governing power, and the Minister not in the Cabinet is

simply the servant of the Premier. It is therefore undoubtedly the

ambition of every political servant of his country to make good his

claim to a seat in the Cabinet. And although there may now be some

little advance in the thorough distinction of the two places since the

days in which Lord Palmerston was first enlisted as a servant of the

Crown, rather more than seventy years ago, yet even then the feeling as

to the power of the Cabinet Minister existed as it does now. It has been

told how, in 1809, Mr. Percival offered to make Lord Palmerston

Chancellor of the Exchequer. “Annexed to this office he offered a seat

in the Cabinet, if I chose it,” he said in a letter to Lord Malmesbury,

asking for advice. “And he thought it better I should have it. I, of

course, expressed to him how much honoured I felt by this very

flattering proof of the good opinion he was pleased to entertain of me;

but also my great fears that I should find myself wholly incompetent for

the situation, both from my inexperience in the details of matters of

finance, and my want of practice in public speaking.” From this we see

how much surprised Lord Palmerston had himself been by the offer. But

with that wonderful reliance on his own power which always marked him,

and which was as conspicuous when he doubted his power as when he

relied on it, he declined the offer. And he added, “A bad speech,

though tolerated in any person not in a responsible situation, would

make a Chancellor of the Exchequer exceedingly ridiculous, particularly

if his friends could not set off against his bad oratory a great

knowledge and capacity for business.” Actuated by these reasons, Lord

Palmerston declined the offer, and then came into office simply as

Secretary at War without a seat in the Cabinet. His self-diffidence was

repaid by sixteen years of comparative exclusion. Mr. Percival had been

murdered, and Lord Liverpool, who became Prime Minister in Mr.

Percival’s place, had either thought less of Lord Palmerston or had been

thought less of by him. The fact probably was that as Palmerston grew in

years he had learned to discard many of the ideas of Toryism, and that

he became year by year less palatable to so thorough a Tory as was Lord

Liverpool. Be that as it may, we can fancy that before he reached the

age of forty-three he must occasionally have looked back with

watering lips at that offer which had once been made to him.

Governor-Generalships and peerages were not to his taste. Such rich

rewards would have removed him from that central and busy life which he

intended for himself in the House of Commons. But the fruition of the

central and busy life, though it had been offered to him young, had been

long delayed before it came again within his grasp. I can fancy that he

must have felt this, though in his letters there is no word of baulked

expectations or of disappointed hopes. He took it all as it came,

resolving to be useful after his kind, and resolving also to be

powerful. Wherever he might be, he would be interfered with by none, by

Kings or Kaisers, by Prime Ministers or Commanders-in-Chief, nor would

he interfere with any others in their line. I am far from saying that in

this manner a servant of his country, who is anxious to be useful rather

than powerful, may best do his duty. Lord Palmerston was a man with whom

it must often have been difficult for a colleague to serve. The lines of

demarcation between one officer and another, and between one class of

duty and another class, are not so plain as to make it easy if

practicable, or to make it always pleasant; but this was a man with whom

such a theory was a determined principle, and acting upon that he went

to the end with greater success than might have been possible in the

hands of another. He had shown his stubbornness even when not in the

Cabinet, and now that he was to be in the Cabinet, it was not probable

that he would become more malleable than before. I do not say that a

determination so to act had come from that process of mind which we call

thinking a thing out. It was not in his nature to think many things out

beyond the matters which he had in hand; but given the matter, it was so

that he acted. In a book just published,[F] the author speaks of “the

childish perversity which marked Lord Palmerston’s dealings with Greece

in these years, from his stubborn defence of Count Armansperg down to

his disputes about etiquette.” This perversity was an essential part of

Lord Palmerston’s character,--and of his strength.

In 1827 Lord Liverpool died, and new arrangements of the Cabinet and

Government became necessary. Mr. Canning was selected as Prime Minister,

and proceeded to form that combination which led to the adoption of

Catholic Emancipation in 1829, and to the passing of the Reform Bill in

1832. It has been customary to say that certain of the Whig party

joined the Tories when Mr. Canning became Prime Minister. But it would

perhaps be more correct to describe that which then took place as a

fusion in the minds of men caused by natural changes, as in the course

of years the old Tory convictions gave way to new ideas as to the

liberty of the subject. The last really Tory Government in England,

which had now become extinct, was that of Lord Liverpool and Lord Eldon;

and even their Toryism grows pale when compared with that of the

Ministers who had assisted George III. in taxing the Americans.

When Mr. Canning became Prime Minister, he was desirous of keeping the

seals of the Foreign Office in his own hands, and with this object

offered to Lord Palmerston the place of Chancellor of the Exchequer,

with a seat in the Cabinet. This Lord Palmerston at first accepted. But

there were difficulties in the way. “George IV., who personally hated

me,” said Lord Palmerston, “did not fancy me as Chancellor of the

Exchequer. He wanted to have Herries in that office.” Whether this be

true or not, or whether Canning changed his mind, the arrangement was

never carried out. “Some weeks after this Canning sent for me again, to

say he had a proposition to make to me, which he should not himself have

thought of, but that the King had said he knew, and was sure, that it

was just the very thing I should like, and that was to go as Governor to

Jamaica. I laughed so heartily that I observed Canning looked quite put

out, and I was obliged to grow serious again.” Canning then offered him

the Governor-Generalship of India; but Lord Palmerston refused, with

sundry excuses as to his health (which he would by no means allow when

the same office was offered by him many years afterwards to Canning’s

son), and alleging, also, that he had no family for whom he was desirous

of amassing a fortune. In the end a Cabinet was made up by expedients

intended only to be temporary. Canning was Chancellor of the Exchequer

as well as First Lord of the Treasury; Lord Granville, retaining his

embassy at Paris, became for the time Secretary of State for Foreign

Affairs; Palmerston, still keeping some hold on the Chancellorship of

the Exchequer for the future, remained Secretary at War, but with the

additional plum that he was to have the patronage of the army, no new

Commander-in-Chief having been appointed in place of the Duke of

Wellington, who had thought it necessary to resign with his brother

Tories. “As to the Tories, who would hardly vote for our measures

before, we must not look for any cordial support from them now. Not but

that, by degrees and one by one, they will all by instinct come round to

the oat-sieve.” Come round to the oat-sieve! Alas, it is sad to see a

public servant, who had already served his country for nearly twenty

years, and who was yet destined to serve it for forty years more,

speaking in such language of those by whom Cabinets are formed! But

though we may believe it of Lord Eldon, we do not believe it of the Duke

of Wellington or of Sir Robert Peel,--three of the men of whom Lord

Palmerston was then speaking; nor, in truth, do we believe it of Lord

Palmerston himself.

Of this period of Lord Palmerston’s life, we have the record left to us

in a partial autobiography which he drew out afterwards, and which has

been made known to us by Lord Dalling. In reference to this

autobiography, the memory of Lord Palmerston has been laden with some

reproach, which seems not altogether to be undeserved when we look at

the purposes for which it has been used. But we must remember that it

was not written, like the journal by which it is preceded, at the time

of the occurrences which it relates, but many years afterwards, when it

was prepared, probably at the request of Lord Dalling to whom it was at

any rate given by Lady Palmerston. Mr. Herries had been Chancellor of

the Exchequer in Lord Goderich’s Administration. In this autobiography

the name of Mr. Herries is mentioned with disrespect,--and we must

certainly say with inaccuracy, after the defence which has lately been

published by his sons. This vindication has been occasioned, as is

stated in the first words of the memoir,[G] by the appearance of Mr.

Spencer Walpole’s “History of England,” and is an attack on Mr. Walpole

rather than on Lord Palmerston. But Mr. Walpole has founded his

objectionable assertion partly on Lord Palmerston’s words; and though we

may think ourselves entitled to declare that Lord Dalling should be made

accountable for inaccuracies so published, and not the writer of an

autobiography, who after nearly forty years has trusted to his memory

when his journal failed him, still there are the written words, not

intentionally false when written, but still imbued with that venom to

which political feelings are at any rate as subject now as they were

then.

The passage in the autobiography of which complaint is made was as

follows. The period alluded to is the formation of the Cabinet by

Canning on Lord Liverpool’s death, the spring, namely, of 1827. “In the

meanwhile intrigues were set on foot. George IV., who personally hated

me, did not fancy me as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He wanted to have

Herries in that office. There were questions about palaces and crown

lands which the King was very anxious about, and he wished either to

have a creature of his own in the Exchequer, or to have the office of

Chancellor of the Exchequer held by the First Lord, whose numerous

occupations would compel him to leave details very much to George

Harrison, the Secretary, and to Herries, Auditor of the Civil List.” To

this a note is appended by Lord Dalling, stating that Mr. Herries was

also Joint Secretary of the Treasury. One sees here the acrimony

displayed by the Whig of the day in which it was written against the

Tory King and the Tory financier, whose party he had already left. But

the character of George IV. suffers more than that of Mr. Herries from

the words of the autobiographer. An insinuation about the “palaces and

crown lands” is no doubt made, which we surrender to the filial feelings

of Sir Charles and Mr. Herries. To have heard such words quoted from the

old memoirs of an old man is fairly admitted by them both not to have

required such a measure of vindication as a book,--which is, however,

quite able to justify itself by its own merits. It is their use, when

taken from Lord Dalling’s book, and applied to purposes of history, that

has caused their indignation.

But it was after this, in August and September, 1827, after Mr.

Canning’s death, and when Lord Goderich was the Prime Minister elect,

that the contest with the King went on as to the appointment of Mr.

Herries. Here, in lieu of the autobiography, we have Lord Palmerston’s

letters, as to the actual truth of which no doubt is raised. There

existed evidently one of those insoluble knots, which have to be cut at

last by him who has the greatest power. The King did want Herries to be

Chancellor of the Exchequer, and was anxious to have as many Tories as

might be possible in the mixed Government for which he had given his

authority. “The King wants Herries to be Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The Whigs object to him pointedly, and Goderich wishes to have me.

Neither party will give way.” That is quoted from a letter from Lord

Palmerston to his brother, and it is at any rate true. It ended in the

weakest man giving way, for Lord Goderich was told “to go home and take

care of himself.” The Duke became Prime Minister, with Goulburn for his

Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Herries became Master of the Mint.

Canning died on the 8th of August, and all these arrangements were more

short-lived than had been intended. Lord Goderich, as stated above,

became Prime Minister, but retained his place only a few months--with no

effect on Lord Palmerston’s immediate work, except that he ceased to

hold the patronage of the army, the Duke of Wellington becoming again

Commander-in-Chief. In our days it is presumed that the head of the army

shall exercise no political power, and in no wise be guided by political

exigencies. But that was not the Duke’s understanding. He had declined

to serve under Mr. Canning, thus leaving the office for a while vacant.

But now that Canning was gone he was reappointed. “He comes in without

any stipulations or conditions whatever,” Lord Palmerston said to his

brother; and in his autobiography he tells a story of the Duke and Lord

Anglesey. Lord Anglesey, on behalf of the Government, had been sent to

invite the Duke to resume the office. “Well, gentlemen, I have done what

you sent me to do,” he said on his return. “I have brought you the Duke

of Wellington’s acceptance as Commander-in-Chief, and, by God, mark my

words; as sure as you are alive he will trip up all your party before

six months are over your heads.” “But it was the King who did it,”

continued Lord Palmerston.

Early in 1828 the Duke succeeded Lord Goderich as Prime Minister; but

though going in as a Tory, he took with him the leading members of Mr.

Canning’s party, who may be regarded as the Liberals of those days,--as

men who had at any rate learned to lean towards Liberalism in the course

of the training they had received. These were Lord Dudley and Ward, Mr.

Huskisson, Mr. Grant, and Lord Palmerston. But more to be noted than any

such members of the Duke’s Government was the fact that Lord Eldon was

not a member. Lord Lyndhurst was the Lord Chancellor instead of Lord

Eldon. Lord Lyndhurst had been Lord Chancellor under Lord Goderich and

Mr. Canning; but that was to have been expected. Mr. Canning had not

intended to defend his country from Roman Catholic aggression; but the

Duke would surely do so; and under the Duke’s leading Mr. Peel, who, as

Home Secretary, would lead the House of Commons, would surely assist in

such work. And were there not Lord Bathurst and Lord Ellenborough and

Mr. Goulburn in the Cabinet? Though Palmerston and Huskisson were to be

there, Lord Eldon’s hopes ran high. But the time for Lord Eldon had

passed by. He was probably the last of the English Statesmen who could

not under any circumstances have been got to vote for the smallest

amount of political relief to a Roman Catholic. In all descriptions of

politicians of those days, we see men defined as being Catholic or the

reverse, and men also sometimes are called “Protestants.” Lord Eldon was

especially a “Protestant;” as Lord Palmerston, and soon afterwards the

Duke of Wellington and Peel were “Catholics.” The great political

question of the present day was the expediency of lessening in some

degree “Catholic” disabilities. And when Cabinets were formed, men were

admitted or the reverse according to their “Catholic” proclivities. Lord

Palmerston during his official career had gradually become “Catholic”;

and it was well known of him now that, let him enter what Government he

might, he would do so pledged to support the Catholics.

Lord Palmerston was now to go out of office and to remain for two years

in opposition; but the circumstances of his going were of a nature to

bring about a violent decision of the “Catholic” claims, though it

cannot be said that he himself was in any way responsible for doing so.

There came up some dispute in the Cabinet as to the disfranchisement of

East Retford and Penryn, in the course of which Mr. Huskisson resigned.

Mr. Huskisson was the follower of Mr. Canning. That the Duke and Mr.

Huskisson should not have been easy together in the same Cabinet we can

understand; but we are told that Mr. Huskisson was anxious that his

resignation should not be accepted. The Duke, however, was determined

that he should go, and would hear nothing of any mistake made as to the

letter of resignation. “It was not a mistake,” he said; “it is not a

mistake; and it shall not be a mistake.” The consequence was that with

Mr. Huskisson three other members resigned, Lord Dudley and Ward, Lord

Palmerston, and Mr. Grant. Now Mr. Grant, who was President of the Board

of Trade, was followed in that office by Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald, the

member for County Clare. The County Clare thus became vacant, and,

declining to re-elect Mr. Fitzgerald, returned Mr. O’Connell in his

place; and thus the Roman Catholic question was forced upon the country.

The three or four gentlemen who filled the vacant places in the Duke of

Wellington’s Cabinet were of course Tories; and in this way a Tory

Government, _pur et simple_, was again established. But it was not such

a Tory Government as that presided over by Lord Liverpool, and in which

Lord Eldon kept the conscience of the King.

At this time Lord Palmerston had already taken much interest in foreign

affairs, and we find him explaining in his letters to his brother how

stood the Portuguese affairs, and Spanish, and Austrian, and Greek, and

Turkish. It is not necessary, in this short memoir, to explain how the

Turkish and Egyptian fleets had been destroyed at Navarino by us and our

allies, seeing that Lord Palmerston had not been concerned in the

matter. But it is pleasant to see, in looking over the details as given

in his life, how anxious he already was for freedom in Portugal and in

Greece, and how steadily he was opposed to Prince Metternich and

Austrian obstinacy. Three or four articles of that creed, to which he

was true during his whole life, now crop up. These, we should say, were

Catholic emancipation and the maintenance of English influence at home

and abroad, and, above all things, the suppression of the slave trade.

Greece was then fighting for the possession of herself, and Lord

Palmerston was eager that we should take her part. He was as strongly

opposed to Turkey in oppressing Greece as he was eager afterwards in

defending Turkey from Russian oppression. But in all these matters he

spoke and wrote with an evident desire that England should be supreme;

and, though he was no more concerned in them than as one of an entire

Cabinet which was concerned, he was forming that character in which we

find it difficult to say whether he was hereafter most to be blamed as a

bully or to be praised as a patriot. Had he brought England into

disgrace or suffering, or, worse still, to ruin, the question would have

answered itself. He would have gone down the valley of time nearly

forgotten, and this little book would never have been written. But he

played his game boldly, and dared to run the risk of dismissal, of

personal hatred, and perhaps of impeachment. From first to last he

played it successfully, and has obtained the goodwill of his countrymen,

high reputation throughout Europe, and a fame which is due rather to his

courage than his genius.

Now, in 1828, Lord Palmerston was out of office for the first time since

he had become a Lord of the Admiralty in 1807. There had been twenty-one

years of it, during which he had been thoroughly used to official life,

official habits, and official language. It must have seemed to him that

a man such as he was born to be in office. “It is so many years since I

have been entirely my own master,” he writes, “that I feel it quite

comical to have no tie, and to be able to dispose of my day as I like.”

Then he goes on to tell how, since he had left the Duke of Wellington’s

Government, the Duke of Clarence had been specially civil to him, and

the Duke of Cumberland specially uncivil; the two Royal brothers thus

showing the politics by which they were instigated. We also know that

the Duke of Clarence, afterwards William IV., sided with the Whigs, and

that the Duke of Cumberland was the most violent of Tories. Lord

Palmerston had hitherto been a Tory, but each of the Royal Dukes saw in

what course he was about to run. “His next appearance in office,” says

Mr. Ashley, “was in connexion with the Whigs, and the whole of his

subsequent career was spent in sympathy and harmony with their views.”

It may be doubted whether this correctly describes the condition of Lord

Palmerston’s feelings. He was certainly loyal to the Whigs till his

great fight came with Lord John Russell in 1851, when Lord John

quarrelled with him, and not he with Lord John. And a thorough loyalty

to a party of nearly a quarter of a century’s duration may serve to make

a man a Whig or Tory, as far as the name goes. Lord Palmerston had,

almost by accident, fallen among the Whigs, having submitted himself to

the genius of Mr. Canning, who, though influenced by liberal ideas, was

no Whig; and then, on Canning’s death, had leagued himself with

Huskisson, upon whose shoulders as much of Canning’s mantle had fallen

as they were able to carry. Then Palmerston had left the Duke’s

Government because Huskisson left it, and had drifted away in a boat in

which Charles Grant and William Lamb were with him. Thus he had joined

himself with politicians who became Whig leaders and entertained Whig

principles. But in doing so he was made over to the Foreign Office,

where it was necessary that his politics should be foreign politics; and

during those years of his life in which a man is most strongly imbued

with political opinions,--from forty, let us say, till sixty, though in

Lord Palmerston’s case the twenty years came somewhat later,--his

feelings and his opinions were British and conservative rather than

liberal and expansive. He did not feel himself called upon to dispute

the measures of his colleagues, but, in accordance with the system and

theory by which he governed his own conduct, he confined himself to his

own duties, and cared as little, we should say, for the Whiggery of Lord

John Russell as for the Toryism of the Duke of Wellington and Lord

Lyndhurst.

But, whether Whig or Tory, he was constant in doing good in that

direction in which good done to himself must be good also to others. In

the _Quarterly Review_ for July, 1828, we are told what he did on his

Irish estate in the way of draining;--“In the summer of 1826, a trial of

what might be effected in reclaiming bog was made upon Lord Palmerston’s

estate. Fifty acres of bog, which contained nothing beneficial in the

way of manure, were drained, and brought into a state fit for producing

a crop, at an expense not exceeding £7 per acre; and in four months

after the spade was put into it, says Mr. Nimmo, we had very fine

potatoes, and turnips, and rape, and so on, growing there as good as on

any land in the world.” “We think the public in general, and the landed

proprietors of Ireland in particular, are deeply indebted to Lord

Palmerston for the experiment which he has made,” says the reviewer. In

these present days (1882) we can hardly venture to express a hope of the

advantage which may accrue from such work to an Irish landlord; but such

good when done is done for every one, whether to an owner of the soil or

to another, and to Lord Palmerston the idea was rather that of

multiplying the produce of the earth, than of an immediate increase to

his own income.

We find from the autobiography how intent he was on the abolition of

slavery in all parts of the earth, to which his own influence could be

made to extend. The sale of Greek slaves by the Turks had been

abominable. Men, women, and children had been abducted and sold. It was

probably by the horrors which had been so occasioned, and which had been

brought under his notice as Secretary at War, that this strong feeling

was created; but it remained with him through his life; and, as

Wilberforce and Buxton had been strong in speech to cause great things

to be done, so was he constant in action to cause the perpetual doing of

smaller things which in their aggregate became great. This, and the work

of the Catholic emancipation,--which had begun in earnest with the Clare

election,--occupied his mind during the time that he was out of office.

But he went to Paris also during the same period, and wrote long letters

home which, interesting as they are, would be too long for our present

occasion.

In the autumn of 1830 we hear from himself what efforts were made to

strengthen the Duke’s Government,--efforts which ultimately led to the

formation of Lord Grey’s Ministry. The Duke of Wellington’s Government

had been necessarily weak since the withdrawal from it of Mr. Canning’s

followers. Ministers had consented to the emancipation of the Catholics

in 1829, and Mr. O’Connell had taken his seat for County Clare. Liberal

ideas and Liberal measures were creeping on, and the Duke of Wellington

felt that if he were desirous of keeping the Whigs out of office, and

himself in, he could only do so by some re-admission of Mr. Canning’s

party. He accordingly sent an offer to Lord Palmerston. Would Lord

Palmerston join him?

But that other, and greater, question of Reform of Parliament was now

coming to the front. That the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel

should not have already seen how impossible it was to stop the avalanche

with such mill-dam as they were able to oppose to it is now surprising

to us all. But we, looking back upon the avalanche, and what it did, can

judge of its power much more accurately than could they who only heard

its murmurings as it came. Wilson Croker, who was not the first

messenger from the Duke, but who appeared afterwards on the scene, put

to Lord Palmerston the one vital question;--“Are you resolved, or are

you not, to vote for Parliamentary Reform?” “I am,” said Lord

Palmerston. “Then,” said Croker, “there is no use in talking to you any