FALL OF THE WHIG CABINET.
Debates on “No Popery”--Mutiny of the Irish Brigade--Defeat of Lord
John Russell--Lord Stanley “sent for”--Timid Tories--Lord Stanley’s
Interviews with the Queen--A Statesman’s “Domestic Duties”--Is
Coalition Possible?--The Queen’s Mistake--The Duke of Wellington’s
Advice--Return of the Whigs to Office--The Queen’s Aversions--The
“No Popery” Bill Reduced to a Nullity--Another Bungled Budget--The
Income Tax Controversy--The Pillar of Free Trade--The Window Tax
and the House Duty--The Radicals and the Slave Trade--King “Bomba”
and Mr. Gladstone--Cobden on General Disarmament--Palmerston in a
Millennial Mood--The Whig-Peelite Intrigue--The Queen and the
Kossuth Demonstrations--Another Quarrel with Palmerston--A Merry
Council of State.
On the 4th of February, 1851, Parliament assembled with the din of the
agitation over Papal aggression ringing in its ears. Men talked of
nothing save the legislation that might be necessary to check the
encroachments of Rome. But it was not supposed that the course of the
Government would be other than smooth, for not only was the Prime
Minister in full accord with the popular feeling against Papal
aggression, but the great International Exhibition dwarfed public
interest in purely party questions. We shall see how these anticipations
were falsified by events, and how the Whig Government was hurried to its
doom. One of the politicians behind the scenes, who forecast the fall of
the Cabinet more accurately than the public, was Mr. Cobden. “I expect,”
he writes on the 19th of February in one of his letters, “that this ‘No
Popery’ cry will prove fatal to the Ministry. It is generally thought
that the Government will be in a minority on some important question,
probably the Income Tax, in less than a fortnight. The Irish Catholic
members are determined to do everything to turn out Lord John. Indeed,
Ireland is in such a state of exasperation with the Whigs, that no Irish
member having a Catholic constituency will have a chance of being
elected again unless he votes through thick and thin to upset the
Ministry.”[30]
The Address to the Queen was carried in both Houses. The Queen’s Speech
promised a measure for resisting the assumption that a foreign Power had
a right to confer ecclesiastical titles in England; and some forthcoming
Chancery reforms, and reforms in the registration of titles, were also
promised. The Protectionists harped on their old string--agricultural
distress. The Radicals complained that the Government gave them no hope
of cutting down taxation, and grumbled because no reference was made to
Parliamentary reform. But they fought rather shy of the proposed
legislation against Papal aggression; yet speaking generally, the “No
Popery” cry was popular in both Houses of Parliament.
[Illustration: ST. STEPHEN’S CRYPT, WESTMINSTER PALACE.]
On the 7th of February, Lord John Russell moved for leave to introduce
his Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, which prevented the assumption of such
titles “in respect of places in the United Kingdom,” and he was met by a
scathing attack from Mr. Roebuck, who condemned the measure as
retrograde and reactionary. The feebleness of the Bill was in comic
contrast with the fierce agitation which had produced it, and with the
extravagant terms of the Premier’s speech, which might have led one to
suppose the Penal Laws were being re-enacted. As Mr. Roebuck said, if
Dr. Wiseman called himself Archbishop, instead of Archbishop of
Westminster, the Bill could not even touch him. For four nights did the
debate drag on, till ultimately leave to introduce the measure was
carried by a majority of 332. The Irish members, had they been sixty
Quakers instead of sixty Catholics, could dictate terms to any Ministry
in a keen party fight, and as they were determined to punish Lord John
Russell for his Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, it was obvious that on some
other question where a close division was expected the Government would
be beaten by the votes of their Irish supporters. It was an ominous sign
that they were saved from defeat only by a majority of
[Illustration: MR. LOCKE KING.]
sixteen on Mr. Disraeli’s motion for the relief of agricultural
distress. But the fatal blow came when Mr. Locke King, on the 20th of
February, brought forward his motion for leave to introduce a Bill for
equalising the town and county franchise, by reducing the latter to the
limit of £10 yearly value. Although Lord John Russell promised to bring
in a measure for improving representation, he resisted Mr. King’s
motion. It was then carried against him by a vote of 100 against 52.
“The Ecclesiastical Titles Bill,” writes Mr. Cobden to his friend Mr. J.
Parker, “is the real cause of the upset of the Whig coach, or rather of
the coachman leaping from the box to escape an upset. This measure
cannot be persevered in by any Government so far as Ireland is
concerned, for no Government can exist if fifty Irish members are
pledged to vote against them under all circumstances when they are in
danger. A dissolution would give at least fifty members to do that
work, and they would be all watched as they are now by their
constituents. This mode of fighting by means of adverse votes in the
House is far more difficult to deal with by our aristocratic rulers than
was the plan of O’Connell, when he called his monster meetings. They
could be stopped by a proclamation or put down by soldiers, but neither
of these modes will avail in the House. What folly,” adds Mr. Cobden, as
if he had even then foreseen the success of Parnellism in our day, “it
was to give a real representation to the Irish counties, and to think of
still maintaining the old persecuting ascendency.”[31] On the 22nd of
February, Lord John, as Mr. Cobden says, “leaped from the box,” for on
that day he and his colleagues resigned.
The Queen sent for Lord Stanley, who frankly told her that he could not
undertake to form a Ministry. He, however, said he would try to form one
if Lord John Russell failed to reconstruct his defeated Cabinet. Lord
Stanley’s motive for refusing office is to be found in the fact that
there was a serious division of opinion among his followers, on the one
question that was vital to their existence as a party. Some of the
ablest of them, led by Mr. Walpole and Mr. Henley, objected to any
proposal to tax foreign corn, and yet if the Protectionists refused to
do that, their _locus standi_ in the country was gone. Her Majesty next
appealed to Lord John Russell to form a coalition with the Peelites.
This project proved to be hopeless. The Peelites were bitterly opposed
to the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, and though Lord John offered to
attenuate it to the verge of absolute nullity, they could not sanction
it in any shape or form. Moreover, Sir James Graham was afraid that if
he joined a Whig Ministry he might quarrel with Lord Palmerston, and
Lord Grey was equally afraid that he might quarrel with Sir James
Graham. The Peelite leaders also thought that before a Coalition
Government could be organised with any chance of success, it must be
preceded by co-operation in opposition, between the two parties to it,
and hence they wished Lord Stanley to form a Ministry which, from its
Protectionist policy, must needs have but a brief existence. This
abortive attempt to form an alliance between the Whigs and the Peelites
is memorable, because it was the first step that led them both on the
path which brought them to the celebrated and fateful Coalition of 1852.
On the 26th of February, the Queen accordingly sent for Lord Stanley
again, and he, with a somewhat rueful countenance, pledged himself to
try and form a Cabinet. Again he failed, and for reasons which are given
by Lord Malmesbury in his diary under the date of the 28th of February.
“We met,” writes Lord Malmesbury, “at Lord Stanley’s in St. James’s
Square, and have failed in forming a Government. He had previously
requested me to take the Colonial Office, which I consider a great
compliment, as it is one of the hardest worked of places. Those
assembled were Mr. Disraeli, Sir John Pakington, Mr. Walpole, Lord
Hardwicke, Mr. Henley, Mr. Herries, Lord John Manners, and Lord
Eglinton. Everything went smoothly, each willingly accepting the
respective post to which Lord Stanley appointed him, excepting Mr.
Henley, who made such difficulties about himself, and submitted so many
upon various subjects, that Lord Stanley threw up the game, to the great
disappointment and disgust of most of the others present. Mr. Henley
seemed quite overpowered by the responsibility he was asked to undertake
as President of the Board of Trade, and is evidently a most nervous man.
Mr. Disraeli did not conceal his anger at his want of courage and
interest in the matter.... In the House of Lords, Lord Stanley announced
his failure, and did not conceal it as being caused by the want of
experience in public business which he found existed in his party. This
is possibly the case, but what really caused the break up of the
conference was the timid conduct of Mr. Henley and Mr. Herries.[32] Mr.
Herries,” adds Lord Malmesbury, “at this conference, looked like an old
doctor who had just killed a patient, and Mr. Henley like the undertaker
who was to bury him.” Lord Stanley gave a half-sarcastic turn to his
announcement in the House of Lords of the various motives which had led
his friends to refuse office. There was a titter when he said that one
gentleman had declined to serve because he was pressed with domestic
duties, which gave occasion for one of Lord Stanley’s brightest jokes.
Lady Jocelyn ironically asked Stanley who it was who was so anxious
about his domestic duties. “It is not Jocelyn,” was the cutting
reply.[33] An attempted combination with the Peelites had broken down,
though Mr. Gladstone was offered a high post in the Cabinet, and the
Queen then summoned the Duke of Wellington for his advice.
Matters were at an absolute deadlock. There were three questions in the
public mind--Protection _versus_ Free Trade, Parliamentary Reform, and
Papal Aggression. As Prince Albert put it in a memorandum which he drew
up for the Duke’s consideration, on the _first_ question Peelites,
Radicals, and Whigs were united, and formed a solid working majority. On
the _second_ question they were also united against the Protectionists.
But on the _third_ question the Whigs and Protectionists were united
against the Peelites and the Radicals reinforced by the Irish party. Any
policy that could unite Peelites, Whigs, Radicals, and Irish would
therefore furnish a majority capable of keeping in office a Cabinet that
could carry on the Queen’s Government. But the Peelites, the Irish, and
the Radicals were just as determined that there should be no anti-Papal
legislation, as the Whigs and Protectionists were determined on
demanding it. Why not, in such circumstances, leave Papal aggression an
_open question_, in a Coalition Ministry of Whigs, Peelites, and
Radicals, allowing Lord John Russell to go on with an attenuated
Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, and Sir James Graham to oppose it? This
suggestion
[Illustration: THE GREEN DRAWING-ROOM, WINDSOR CASTLE.]
obviously sprang from the opinion which the Queen had held strongly ever
since the year 1846, that the country would never get an efficient
Government till a Coalition Ministry was formed. It was, however, quite
impracticable. The Queen made no allowance for the ease with which a
Cabinet loses prestige in the atmosphere of passion which pervades the
House of Commons, where the fact that a Cabinet is even suspected of
being divided destroys its moral authority. Neither the Duke of
Wellington nor Lord Lansdowne, who was also consulted, could advise the
Queen to put forward this project. The Duke, in fact, advised her to
send for Lord John Russell once again. This was accordingly done. “The
last act of the drama fell out last night,” writes Mr. Greville on the
4th of March, “as everybody foresaw it would and must.” Lord John
returned to office with his Ministry unchanged, which, says Mr.
Greville, “was better than trying some trifling patching-up, or some
shuffling of the same pack, and it makes a future reconstruction more
easy.” On the same night Lord Granville dined at the Palace. “The Queen
and Prince Albert,” writes Mr. Greville, “both talked to him a great
deal of what has been passing, and very openly. She is satisfied with
herself, as well she may be, and hardly with anybody else;
[Illustration: SIR GEORGE CORNEWALL LEWIS.]
not dissatisfied personally with Stanley, of whom she spoke in terms
indicative of liking him. She thinks Lord John Russell and his Cabinet
might have done more than they did to obtain Graham and the Peelites,
and might have made the Papal question more of an open question; but
Granville says that it is evident she is heart and soul with the
Peelites, so strong is the influence of Sir Robert, and they are very
stout and determined about Free Trade. The Queen and Prince think this
resuscitated concern very shaky, and that it will not last. Her
favourite aversions are, first and foremost, Palmerston, and Disraeli
next. It is very likely that this latter antipathy (which no doubt
Stanley discovered) contributed to his reluctance to form a Government.
Such is the feeling about him in their minds.” Mr. Disraeli, aware of
their antipathy, had, indeed, offered to efface himself or to accept any
office, no matter how humble, that would not bring him into personal
communication with the Sovereign, in order to facilitate the return of
his party to power. It may be here convenient to note that the Queen,
though entertaining strong personal opinions about the capacity of her
Ministers, has been ever prompt to change them when they gave her good
reasons for doing so. Her antipathy to Peel in 1839 was notorious. Yet
when Peel became Prime Minister he completely won her confidence. Her
antipathy to Palmerston ceased after he left the Foreign Office and
became Prime Minister, and the same may be said of her aversion to Mr.
Disraeli, who, as Lord Beaconsfield, received from the Crown a tribute
of homage and favour rarely accorded to any subject.
The reinstatement of the Whigs pleased nobody. However, a dissolution
was dreaded, and all parties were therefore forced to tolerate them. But
they were, as a Government, utterly discredited, and their final fall
was imminent. On their return to office, the Government produced a new
edition of their Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. It consisted simply in a
declaration that the assumption of such titles was illegal. What may be
termed the stringent penal clauses were cut out, and in this form the
measure was received with universal displeasure, mingled with contempt.
The bigots complained that the measure was rendered futile. The Radicals
complained that it was a concession to the bigots. As for the Irish
members, they opposed what was left of it, simply to compel the
Government to drain the chalice of mortification to the lees. So
ingeniously was the Bill obstructed that it was not read a third time
till a month after its introduction. The House of Lords passed it after
debating the second reading for two nights. Its opponents predicted it
would be a dead letter, and events verified their prophecies. As Sir
George Cornewall Lewis said, “Neither the assumption of the territorial
title nor the prohibition to assume it was of the least practical
importance.”[34]
The story of the Parliamentary Session of 1851 may be briefly told. The
obstruction of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill left little time for
legislation. Sir Charles Wood, as usual, bungled the Budget. He had a
comfortable surplus of £2,521,000. His estimates were careful and
judicious, and showed on the basis of existing taxation an anticipated
surplus of £1,892,000. It was in disposing of this sum that Sir Charles
plunged into a sea of difficulties. He said it would not enable him to
abolish the Income Tax, the retention of which, during the early days of
Free Trade, he recommended as necessary for the stability of the fiscal
system. Hence he proposed to spend his estimated surplus in (1),
reducing debt by about £1,000,000; (2), in commuting a tax “which bore
on the health and morals of the lower classes,” namely, the Window Tax,
into a house duty; (3), in reducing the duty on foreign and colonial
coffee to a uniform rate of threepence in the pound; (4), in reducing
the timber duty by fifty per cent.; (5), and by transferring to the
State a certain proportion of the local charge for maintaining pauper
lunatics. On the 17th of February, in Committee of Ways and Means, Sir
Charles accordingly moved that the Income Tax and Stamp Duties in
Ireland be renewed for a limited period. The manner in which the Budget
was received clearly showed that it would be unpopular. The Tories
attacked it because the Income Tax was to be retained, and the transfer
of the charge for pauper lunatics they ridiculed as a mockery of relief
to the distressed rural ratepayers. Mr. Hume complained that there was
no attempt made to reduce military expenditure by asking the Colonies to
bear the cost of their own defence. The representatives of the large
towns protested violently against commuting the Window Tax into a house
duty. The controversy was, however, cut short by Lord John Russell’s
resignation after his defeat on Mr. Locke King’s resolution, to which
reference has already been made.
On the 5th of April Sir Charles Wood, after his usual manner, brought
forward a new Budget. He proposed now to levy a uniform duty of
ninepence on the annual value of houses, and sixpence on shops, without
reference to the number of their windows. This would in nearly all cases
impose a smaller burden on houses than the Window Tax, the capricious
and unequal incidence of which had made it intensely unpopular--the
greatest relief being given to the houses which had more windows than
were proportionate to their annual value. The loss from the Window Tax
and the reduction of the duty on coffee left a surplus of £924,000 for
emergencies, and Sir Charles Wood was still deaf to the demand for the
abolition of the Income Tax. The Tories contended that the tax had been
granted to meet a deficit. There was now no deficit, therefore the tax
ought to be removed. The Whigs admitted these facts, but denied the
conclusion drawn from them. The tax, they argued, ought not to be
removed, because a new reason had risen for its continuance, namely,
that the Income Tax enabled the Government to minimise the loss to the
revenue which might be entailed by the abandonment of protective duties.
This, in fact, is the clue to all the tangled Income Tax controversies
of the time. The Income Tax was in truth the keystone of Peel’s Free
Trade policy. The Tories, therefore, spared no pains to strike it out of
the fabric of fiscal legislation which he and the Whigs had built up.
Yet the injustice and frauds perpetrated under the Income Tax were
admitted on all sides; and finally an effort was made by Mr. Hume to
limit the renewal of the tax to one year, and refer the whole question
of its assessment and incidence to a Select Committee. Mr. Hume’s motion
was carried against the Government by a vote of 244 to 230. But the
fatal objection to it, as Mr. Sidney Herbert pointed out, was that,
unless the Government had the Income Tax secured to them for three
years, they could not make permanent
[Illustration: THE CAFFRE WAR: NATIVES ATTACKING A CONVOY.]
reductions in the duties on coffee and timber. It was absurd to dream of
entering on a policy which involved further remission of taxation, so
long as £5,000,000 of the revenue--for that was what the Income Tax
brought in--depended on an annual vote of the House. Then the _concordia
discors_ of the majority was made manifest. As everybody had voted with
Mr. Hume from different motives, it was impossible to get competent men
to serve on the Committee. That difficulty, however, was after much
trouble overcome, and the Government made the best of the situation.
They accepted defeat; Lord John Russell, however, stipulating that,
whatever might be done, the national credit must be maintained. In other
words, he accepted the proposal on the ground that, though the motion
granting the Income Tax for one year only was carried, there was no
serious intention of refusing to renew the tax if necessary; and that it
would be necessary was, of course, certain, unless the £5,500,000
derived from it were replaced by protective duties. This was not a very
logical position, and Mr. Disraeli seized the opening which it gave him.
Hume’s victory, technically speaking, implied that the financial
arrangements of the country were in a provisional state.
[Illustration: GROUP OF DYAKS.]
Why, then, asked Mr. Disraeli, sacrifice any revenue at all till
something like permanence had been imparted to these arrangements? On
the 30th of July he brought forward a futile motion to this effect in a
grandiose speech, and was supported by Mr. Gladstone, whose antipathy to
the Government was fast becoming uncontrollable. Yet Mr. Gladstone’s
argument was sound enough. To surrender the Window Tax for one like the
hated House Duty, which rested on a narrow basis and was vitiated by
special anomalies of inequality and injustice of incidence, that had
secured its abolition in 1834, was surely bad finance. And what was
gained? Six-sevenths of the house property of the country were exempted
from taxation--house property being a fair enough subject for taxation,
provided it be assessed on fair general principles. Nothing could be
more precarious than the position of the Income Tax; yet but for it the
surplus in hand, which Sir Charles Wood was flinging away, would not
exist. Mr. Disraeli, however, in spite of Mr. Gladstone’s support, lost
his motion. His inconsistency in voting for Mr. Cayley’s proposal, on
the 8th of May, to abolish the Malt Tax, which yielded £5,000,000 of
revenue, and in protesting, on the 30th of June, against the sacrifice
of £1,600,000 of surplus, as ruinous to public credit, was, of course,
disastrous to his pleading.
In the debates on Colonial Policy the Government were more successful
than could have been anticipated. Mr. Baillie’s motion censuring Lord
Torrington’s maladministration of the affairs of Ceylon was defeated by
a large majority, which, says Mr. Greville, set the Cabinet, smarting
from various reverses at the time, “on their legs again.”
On the 18th of April a much more important subject was broached by Sir
W. Molesworth, who moved a series of resolutions demanding that the
Colonies should be made autonomous, and charged to provide for their own
defence. Other motions of the same sort as this one sprang from the
_animus_ against the Colonial Office which then existed among all
parties. As Mr. Urquhart said in debate, independent members were of
opinion that, if the good sense of the country did not put down the
Colonial Office, the Colonial Office would put down the Empire. The
objection of the Government to Sir W. Molesworth’s proposal was the old
one to all Colonial reforms--that it must lead to the abandonment of our
Colonial Empire. The debate was adjourned, and was not resumed.
The chronic discontent of the Cape Colonists, smarting under Lord Grey’s
abortive design to quarter convicts on them, led to some acrimonious
discussions, which aggravated popular antipathy to the costly Caffre War
which was raging. Lord John Russell, however, contrived to evade attacks
by persuading the House of Commons to appoint a Select Committee to
inquire into the relations of the Colony to the Caffre tribes.
The Radicals of the Manchester school had raised early in the Session an
agitation against Sir James Brooke, popularly called Rajah Brooke, of
Sarawak. Rajah Brooke had waged war on the Dyak tribes because they were
aggressive pirates. The Manchester school denied that the Dyaks were
pirates, and contended that Sir James Brooke simply levied war on the
natives in order to seize their territory. Mr. Hume insisted on
referring the matter to a Select Committee, but he was defeated by a
large majority, and the result of the debate was to exonerate Sir James
Brooke from the charges of brutality and barbarism that had been
advanced against him.
The slave-hunting squadron in West Africa was another question as to
which the Government were sadly harried. The cost of keeping up the
squadron rendered it extremely unpopular, and Mr. Hume forced the
Government, in Committee of Supply, to make a statement as to its work.
According to Lord Palmerston, it was active, energetic, and successful
in suppressing the infamous traffic in slaves, and the House of Commons
thought that the results of the squadron’s operations were so valuable
that England ought not to grudge the money spent upon it. On the other
hand, the Party of Economy contended that the reduction in the slave
trade was due, not to the English squadron, but to the new policy of
Brazil, whose Government had begun to co-operate with ours in seizing
slave-traders, destroying barracoons, and releasing slaves.
Foreign affairs but slightly interested Parliament in 1851. No doubt a
great deal of excitement was produced by the two letters on the State
prosecutions by the Neapolitan Government, which Mr. Gladstone addressed
to Lord Aberdeen, and much indignation was expressed at the stupid
tyranny of King “Bomba,” whose dungeons were full of political
prisoners. The charges of cruelty and injustice caused Sir De Lacy Evans
to question the Foreign Secretary on the subject in the House of
Commons, and from Lord Palmerston’s reply it turned out that above
20,000 persons were then confined in Neapolitan prisons for political
offences, most of whom had been deprived of liberty in flagrant
violation of the existing laws of their country. Copies of Mr.
Gladstone’s letter were sent by Lord Palmerston to every foreign
Government, in the hope that a joint-remonstrance from the Powers might
put an end to King Ferdinand’s outrages on civilisation.
Mr. Cobden renewed his annual motion for bringing about a general
disarmament among the European nations; and undoubtedly his speech was
received with much more sympathy than usual by the House of Commons and
the country. It was the year of the International Exhibition, and all
the world was talking of fraternity among the nations, and of their
strife being limited, in the golden future, to peaceful contests in the
fields of industry. “We are witnessing now,” said Mr. Cobden in a
memorable passage of his speech, “what a few years ago no one could have
predicted as possible. We see men meeting together from all countries in
the world, more like the gatherings of nations in former times, when
they came up for a great religious festival; we find men speaking
different languages and bred in different habits associating in one
common temple erected for their gratification and reception.” The
Government, he held, might with everlasting honour to themselves seize
the favourable hour for broaching a peace policy, and endeavour to win
the assent of Europe to a project for universal disarmament. The idea
then in men’s minds was that England should set the example by
approaching France with a proposal, that each country should reduce its
armaments to the footing on which they stood at the time of the Syrian
dispute. Lord Palmerston approved generally of Mr. Cobden’s objects, and
was willing to say that he would do everything in his power to bring
about the friendliest relations with France. But he did not wish to be
fettered beforehand with definite instructions to open up at once
negotiations for mutual disarmament; and, professing himself satisfied
with this expression of opinion, Mr. Cobden withdrew his motion.
The Jews in the Session of 1851 failed to remove the political
disabilities under which members of their community lay.[35] They
carried their point in the House of Commons. In the House of Lords,
however, the Tories threw the Jewish Disabilities Relief Bill out by a
vote of 144 to 108. A hot controversy arose over the attempt of Alderman
Salomons, the newly-elected member for Greenwich, to take the Oath
without repeating the words, “On the true faith of a Christian.” It
ended in the Alderman being removed from his seat by the
Serjeant-at-Arms, and in Lord John Russell carrying a motion denying Mr.
Salomons’s right to sit whilst he was unsworn.
[Illustration: LORD CARLISLE.]
The smaller measures of the Session included a Bill for strengthening
the appellate branch of the Court of Chancery by appointing two extra
judges. The Bill to legalise marriage with a deceased wife’s sister,
though carried in the House of Commons, was, as usual, rejected in the
Lords. Parliament was prorogued by the Queen in person on the 8th of
August, and the occasion
[Illustration: THE GREAT EXHIBITION, HYDE PARK.]
was interesting, for the representatives of the people for the first
time went into her presence from the new House of Commons, which had at
last been made ready for occupation. The long procession through the
grand corridors, between the two chambers, was accordingly a little more
orderly than usual. The Royal Speech was devoted to a brief review of a
barren but not unimportant Session.
Legislation, in fact, had been brought to a standstill by the anti-Papal
Bill, which had been obstinately obstructed. The prestige of the
Ministry was gone, and their natural strength completely abated by the
mutiny of the Irish Whigs. And yet, when Lord John Russell resumed
office after his resignation, he gained rather than lost in power, and
the attack on him became more and more languid every day. The truth is
that the people did not think much about politics after May, 1851. The
Ministry was safe after the failure of the Tories to take their places.
But it was no stronger than when it had been beaten on Mr. Locke King’s
motion, and its lease of office depended largely on the tolerance of
disdain. The people were indeed preoccupied with the Great Industrial
Exhibition of All Nations to such an extent that they paid no more
attention, during the latter half of the Session, to the doings of the
Government, than to the debates of a local vestry. “There is,” writes
Mr. Greville on the 8th of June, “a picture in _Punch_ of the
shipwrecked Government saved by the ‘Exhibition’ steamer, which really
is historically true, thanks in great measure to the attractions of the
Exhibition, which has acted on the public as well as upon Parliament....
There has been so much indifference and _insouciance_ about politics and
parties that John Russell and his Cabinet have been released from all
present danger. The cause of Protection gets weaker and weaker every
day; all sensible and practical men give it up as hopeless.”[36] That he
had been saved by the “Great Exhibition” steamer evidently did not
satisfy Lord John Russell. Hence he seems to have been ever hankering
after a plan for strengthening his Cabinet by the addition to it of a
Peelite element. Sir George Cornewall Lewis was sent down to Netherby in
September to intrigue with Sir James Graham for this purpose, but
Graham, though offered the Board of Control, or as it would now be
called the India Office, refused to join the Cabinet because he was
afraid lest Lord John Russell might make dangerous concessions to the
Party who were agitating for Parliamentary Reform. It is interesting to
note that Lord Palmerston strongly opposed this project of inviting
Graham to join the Whig Cabinet, and strove hard to induce his
colleagues to make their overtures to Mr. Gladstone. It is impossible to
blame Sir James for the course he took. Lord John Russell’s incurable
antipathy to statistical research induced him to hand over the question
of Reform to a small Ministerial Committee, consisting of Lord Minto,
Lord Carlisle, and Sir C. Wood, and so little did the Whigs love Reform,
that some of them, like Lord Lansdowne, had resolved to leave the
Cabinet if a strong Reform measure were proposed.
Another circumstance helped to weaken the Ministry. Lord Palmerston, as
usual, succeeded during the autumn in again irritating the Queen and his
own colleagues by one of his singular freaks at the Foreign Office. When
Louis Kossuth, the Hungarian patriot, arrived at Southampton on the 23rd
of October, he was welcomed by a popular demonstration, and some leading
Radicals took part in it. Lord Palmerston immediately resolved to
receive him, and it became known that if he did this the Austrian
Government would recall their Ambassador. Lord John Russell pointed out
the impropriety of the step which Lord Palmerston obstinately insisted
on taking. Palmerston’s last word on the subject to the Prime Minister
was that he considered he had a right to receive M. Kossuth privately
and unofficially, and that he would not be dictated to as to the
reception of a guest in his own house, though his office was at the
disposal of the Government. A meeting of the Cabinet was immediately
summoned, and the matter was laid before those present by Lord John
Russell. It was agreed that Lord Palmerston could not with propriety
receive Kossuth, and he promised to submit to the decision of his
colleagues. Up to this point everything went smoothly, and the Queen was
greatly relieved in mind to learn that the Foreign Secretary had been so
reasonable as to promise _not_ to insult a friendly Power. Her feeling
on the subject was that, being at peace with Austria, we had no right to
get up demonstrations in favour of persons who had been endeavouring to
upset the Austrian Government. “I was at Windsor,” writes Mr. Greville
on the 16th of November, “for a Council on Friday. There I saw Lord
Palmerston and Lord John mighty merry and cordial, talking and laughing
together. Those breezes leave nothing behind, particularly with
Palmerston, who never loses his temper, and treats everything with
gaiety and levity. The Queen is vastly displeased with the Kossuth
demonstrations, especially at seeing him received at Manchester with as
much enthusiasm as attended her own visit to that place.... Delane[37]
is just come from Vienna, where he had a long interview with
Schwarzenberg, who treated, or at least affected to do so, the Kossuth
reception with contempt and indifference.”[38] Two days after Mr.
Greville made this entry in his Diary, to the amazement of the Queen and
Lord John Russell, Lord Palmerston, addressing a deputation that waited
on him from Finsbury and Islington, expressed on behalf of England his
strong sympathy with the cause of the Hungarian revolutionary leaders.
He had kept the word of promise to the ear, but had broken it to the
hope. What he had said was infinitely more irritating to Austria than
his reception of Kossuth could have been. The breach of faith with his
indignant colleagues was inexcusable, and it prepared the way for
Palmerston’s expulsion from the Cabinet, which followed his recognition
of the _coup d’état_ in December.