The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol.III. / From the Accession of George III. to the Twenty-Third Year of the Reign of Queen Victoria

by Edward Farr; E. H. Nolan

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS, MINISTERIAL CHANGES, AND DIPLOMATIC STRUGGLES.

A notice of the parliamentary conflicts of the session, of the ministerial vicissitudes resulting from them, and of the diplomacy which was acted upon by each, and which itself influenced both, will here find its proper place in this chapter.

On the 22nd January, when the parliament assembled after the Christmas recess, Mr. Roebuck gave notice of a motion for inquiry into the number and condition of the army before Sebastopol, and into the conduct of those departments of government which were responsible for the efficiency of that army. This notice produced the gravest consequences: the house was thrown, into a high state of excitement, and the treasury benches especially partook of it. It is marvellous that the government did not prepare itself for some such occurrence; but, as in the management of the war, so in the management of the house, they were always “too late”—so that the nickname of “the late ministry” was bestowed upon them while yet they held, with whatever firmness they at any time possessed, the reins of power.

Rumours on Thursday evening, the 21st of January, prevailed extensively that Lord John Russell had resigned his connection with the ministry, and on grounds of the most startling and alarming nature. The evening papers came out earlier than usual, acknowledging the fact, and commenting upon it according to the spirit of their respective party bias. On Monday evening, the 25th, it was announced in both houses that Lord J. Russell had resigned his connection with the ministry. Both houses adjourned to the next evening, in order to learn the grounds upon which Lord John had come to that determination. Having the entrée of the houses, the author of this History hurried to the palace at Westminster. Vast crowds surrounded it, and public excitement and expectation were at a very high pitch. In the lords, the chancellor took his seat, and the house of lords, with a dull gravity, began its business. The proceedings were important, from the announcement made and the explanation given by the Duke of Newcastle, the minister of war. His bearing was gentlemanly, and there was an air of conciliation about it which bespoke the thoroughbred gentleman. His voice was low, and his manner in speaking ungainly; an awkward and finicking gesture with the right hand below the table, to which he advanced when speaking, gave an idea of pettiness of thought, which his manner in other respects aided. The Earls of Winchelsea and Fitzwilliam seemed very desirous to have something to say; no one seemed willing to listen, and at last, by Lord Derby’s interposition, they were “quieted down.” Lord Ellenborough manifested most activity on the opposition side of the house, and what he said was spoken with energy, self-confidence, and commanding manner. Lord Lansdowne was the most active person on the ministerial benches, he moved about with a grace and affability which account for his great popularity in the house. His mode of putting down the pertinacity of Lord Fitzwilliam and Lord Winchelsea was authoritative, yet courteous, and in a few epigrammatic sentences he disposed of them. The most interesting sight was, however, old Lord Lyndhurst, who rose to give notice of his already famous motion concerning the conduct of the war. The house was very full of spectators. When his lordship rose, the silence was profound, and his venerable years, the magnitude of the question which his notice involved, his vast reputation, and his dignified and judicial manner, inspired a respect which manifestly pervaded every part of the house. The crowd around the throne seemed especially solicitous to observe his lordship when he rose. We could not avoid contrasting the intellectual features of the old ex-chancellor with the contracted expression of the occupant of the woolsack, and wondering what the latter would be like at the age of eighty-four, to which Lord Lyndhurst had arrived. The important event of Lord John Russell’s resignation, announced by the Duke of Newcastle, prevented the discussion of Lord Lyndhurst’s motion, and caused the house to break up early.

On the next evening, Lord Aberdeen’s statement in the peers was almost as eagerly looked for as Lord John Russell’s statement in the commons. The earl declared that he hardly knew why the noble president of the council retired from his colleagues, on the eve of a discussion concerning events in connection with which he fully shared their responsibility. The premier admitted that he had been aware that the noble president of the council had been dissatisfied with the general management of the war; that he had expressed that dissatisfaction, and had made certain proposals concerning the occupation of the war office, with which he (Lord Aberdeen) did not think it his duty to comply; that he, and the government of which he was the head, would resist Mr. Roebuck’s motion, which he considered a vote of censure upon the ministry. The premier’s address was cold, stiff, haughty, and quietly defiant, but did not appear to make the least impression upon the peers, who were, like the rest of the public, burning with impatience to know the terms and result of Lord John’s explanation in the commons. We did not remain in the house of peers, being more anxious, like their lordships, about what was announced to occur in the other house. Lord John Russell made his famous statement. Perhaps no statement was ever made in parliament which excited so profound an interest. Every nook in the house was full, except a small portion of the ministerial gallery. The most conspicuous persons were two Parsee merchants, dressed in a showy oriental costume, who occupied the first bench in the Speaker’s gallery, and who, the previous evening, were admitted behind the throne in the lords. Lord John was nearly inaudible at first, his elocution throughout the speech was inferior, and utterly unworthy of his great name as a speaker. He was listened to with evident partiality, and every period which told at all against the conduct of the war elicited cheers from the opposition, and the ministerial benches were far from silent on these occasions. After his lordship sat down, Lord Palmerston arose on behalf of the government, amidst breathless expectations. His adroitness was extraordinary, and his intellectual superiority to his notable compeer obvious; but it was equally obvious that Lord John’s moral influence was in the ascendant, and the latter part of Lord Palmerston’s statement was heard with impatience, which extended to the galleries, although the order of the house was more than once invaded by expressions of approbation to the anti-ministerial remarks of Lord John. It became evident from Lord Palmerston’s address, that his lordship would be installed in the war-office, if the motion of Mr. Roebuck failed. Mr. Roebuck did not speak with his usual energy, but although illness incapacitated him, his voice rang out as clear as a bell, and every tone told upon the whole house. His speech was devoid of that acrimony which pervades so generally the matter and the manner of the honourable member for Sheffield. The government seemed indisposed to reply; but loud calls from all sides for Sidney Herbert, provoked the right hon. secretary to one of his best elocutionary efforts. We were certainly most unfavourably impressed with his deportment all through the evening. There was a bitterness of expression in his countenance while Lord John was speaking, and a sneer and a whisper to his colleagues whenever Lord John made a good hit, which argued a consciousness of error, and a bad spirit with it. But Mr. Layard utterly demolished the case of Mr. Herbert, and with a gravity of purpose, fulness of information, discreet distribution of subject, and logical cogency, which mark that gentleman as one of the most rising men in the commons, and in the country. The government were literally overwhelmed with his speech. The impressions of the oldest observers of parliamentary proceedings whom we met, declared they had never witnessed such a moral defeat.

It may be readily believed that Lord John Russell’s speech prepared the way for Mr. Roebuck’s motion. The “honourable and learned member” was in bad health, but although unable to express all he had intended to lay before the commons, he produced a decided impression upon the house. The fact of being unable to continue his speech from weakness rather added to the effect; so that Mr. Disraeli truly said that, were not the house aware of the learned member’s illness, the abrupt termination of his address on such a plea, and at such a moment, might appear an ingenious and rhetorical artifice. In his argument, Mr. Roebuck charged the government, the officials at home, and those in command abroad, with incapacity, conceit, and indifference to the welfare of the soldiery. When at last the house divided, the motion was supported by 305 members, and opposed by only 148, leaving a majority of 157—one of the largest, on a great public question involving the fate of a government, ever known in the house of commons. The announcement was received with exultant cheers from both sides of the house. The extinction of the ministry was decided; the house and the country accepted the vote, not merely as an expression of want of confidence politically, but as a vote of censure morally and politically. Yet in this grave emergency the house adjourned, in order to observe the anniversary of “King Charles the Martyr!” Incredible as this may appear, while the country was in the most imminent peril, such was the fact.

A cabinet council was called, and the ministry, of course, resolved to resign. The queen and court were in great suspense and excitement, being very unwilling to accept the resignation of the cabinet. They were the prince’s friends and favourites, and her majesty therefore was disinclined to their forfeiture of office, and was prepared for any constitutional measure which would give back to them the possession of place and power. When the noble earl at the head of the government resigned the seals of office, he recommended her majesty to seek advice from the Earl of Derby. This noble earl had made some of the best speeches he had ever delivered during the war debates, and his views on the subject showed superior information and superior judgment to what the ministry, in their aggregate capacity, possessed in connection with foreign politics and war. It was, however, eventually, Lord Palmerston, to whom, after many intrigues and much public agitation, the task was confided.

Lord Palmerston, after some difficulty, succeeded in forming a government, which was in fact but a reconstruction of the old one. Lord Aberdeen, the Duke of Newcastle, and Lord John Russell, were left out; and the only accession was Lord Panmure, who was nominated secretary of war. This nobleman was better known to the country, and perhaps to other countries, as the Honourable Fox Maule. He had considerable experience in ministerial matters, and was regarded both by statesmen and by the public as an upright and amiable man. From 1846 to 1852 he served in the Bussell administration as secretary at war: he afterwards served as president of the board of control, until the breaking up of the ministry. On Tuesday, the 8th of February, the new ministry was completed, and was thus arranged:—

First Lord of the Treasury........ Viscount Palmerston. Lord Chancellor .................. Lord Cranworth. President of the Council.......... Earl Granville. Privy Seal........................ Duke of Argyle. Foreign Secretary ............... Earl of Clarendon. Home Secretary .................. Right Hon. S. Herbert. Colonial Secretary .............. Sir George Grey. Minister of War ................. Lord Panmure. Chancellor or the Exchequer....... Right Hon.W.E. Gladstone. First Lord of the Admiralty....... Sir James Graham. Public Works ..................... Sir W. Molesworth. In the Cabinet, but without office The Marquis of Lansdowne. President of the Board of Control Sir Charles Wood.

On the 16th of February the house met for the transaction of business, and very eager was the public ear for the words that should fall from the lips of the new premier. He informed the house, with brevity and clearness, of the circumstances which placed him in the situation he then held; and bespoke in energetic, self-reliant, and courteous terms, the confidence of the commons of England.

It was generally known that negotiations were about to be opened in Vienna, with a view to a treaty of peace. Lord Palmerston took the country, if not the house, by surprise in announcing that he had chosen Lord John Russell as the representative of England at the conference about to ensue. This gave public satisfaction, as Lord John Russell’s recent conduct, and the general disclosure upon the breaking up of the cabinet, showed that his lordship had been a very warlike member of it.*

* Nolan’s “History of the War against Russia.” London: J. S. Virtue

The cabinet of Lord Palmerston was not destined to remain long unbroken. When the period arrived for appointing a committee of inquiry, in virtue of Mr. Roebuck’s motion, it became evident that the ministry was divided. The Peelites were in favour of an attempt to defeat the appointment of a committee. Lord Palmerston was opposed to its appointment also, but would not risk the overthrow of his power by any attempt to thwart the wishes of the house. The Peelites resigned, and the cabinet had to be reconstructed. On the 22nd of February the secession was publicly announced.

Lord Palmerston obtained Sir Charles Wood—a man of inferior talents, but superior moral weight—in place of Sir G. Graham. Sir G. Cornewall Lewis became chancellor of the exchequer, who was much inferior to Mr. Gladstone in that post, but a man of more direct and reliable opinions. Mr. Vernon Smith was made president of the board of control. Lord John Russell, who was (as before noticed) nominated to the Vienna conference, accepted the colonial-office, which Sir George Grey occupied ad interim, as well as the home-office, which he accepted en permanence. The secession of those men from the cabinet, to whom our military disasters were mainly attributable, was a gain to its moral influence, and saved the premiership of Lord Palmerston from an extinction, probably, as signal as that of his predecessor. In the month of March the ministry was modified in its inferior offices in a way calculated to improve its strength. Generally, throughout the united kingdom, it inspired confidence and received support.

One of the last acts of the Aberdeen ministry was to establish an order of military merit for bravery—the Victoria Cross.

Upon the resignation of the Aberdeen ministry, the court paid signal attention to its members; and the fallen premier received the highest badge of honour the queen could bestow—the Order of the Garter. This excited loud murmurs throughout the country, and impaired public confidence in the vigour of will possessed by the premier, when the will of the court was expressed apart from the great and leading principles of his policy.

The estimates for the service of 1855 were much discussed in the house, and were generally considered far below the exigencies of the country. The estimates for the army were £13,721,158; for the navy, £10,716,388; for the transport service, £5,181,465; for the ordnance, £7,808,042. The whole nearly equalling thirty-seven millions and a half sterling.

With the discussions of March, and the consolidations of the cabinet, ended the parliamentary events, of the year most worthy of note; although various discussions, full of interest and importance, arose from time to time throughout the whole of the session. Those which were most vital to the government arose out of the negotiations of Vienna, where Lord John Russell appeared as the chief representative of England. The sittings of this conference were held in March and April. Both Lord John Russell and the French plenipotentiary agreed to terms which, as they were ultimately rejected by the allied governments, need not be referred to here.

The unsuccessful termination of the Vienna conferences produced a great sensation in England and France, murmurs were heard in both countries that their negotiators had laboured without results; and both the English and French plenipotentiaries were compelled by public opinion to retire from their offices in the cabinets of their respective countries. Count Nesselrode addressed an artful note to the ministers and agents of Russia in various states, the object of which was to represent the allies as resisting all conciliatory offers on the part of Russia. The tone and representations of the note were identical with the arguments of Gortschakoff and Titoff at the conference. The French plenipotentiary and foreign minister resigned his place in the imperial cabinet; the English plenipotentiary and colonial minister retained office until the cause of the French minister’s retirement became known; and his conduct contrasted very favourably in English opinion to that of the English minister. Earl Clarendon and Lord Palmerston held back from the British parliament and public a correct knowledge of the facts, until it transpired, through Parisian gossip, that the French, English, and Austrian ministers were willing to accept peace on the condition of Russia and the allies keeping an equal naval armament in the Black Sea. The way in which Austria had hoodwinked the Western negotiators, and played into the hands of Russia, became at last evident; and Lord John Russell was forced to leave the English ministry. There were other results of the conference, and these rapidly developed themselves. It was no doubt a conviction on the part of the Russian government that its duplicity throughout these negotiations, and its falsehood in accepting as a basis the four points, had deprived it of all moral influence in Europe, that led to the crafty and deceptive circular of Count Nesselrode, already referred to, in which he sought to persuade the world that Russia was—as some of the English peace lecturers frequently represented—a most ill-used nation. If no other result than that of unmasking Russia—even to the Peelites and their supporters—were attendant upon those conferences, it was so much gained for the prospect of a more united public opinion in England. But these negotiations tore the mask from Austria; she was evidently not an ally of the Western powers, but an accomplice of the foe; she dreaded Russia, but she was still more afraid of France.

When the people of the united kingdom and their representatives in the commons had time to review all these things, the outcry against Lord John Russell was as great as it had been before against Lord Aberdeen. The popular voice stopped the pens and silenced the tongues of the diplomatists, and negotiations gave place to fierce and sanguinary war.

England, however, became disgusted with professional and ministerial diplomatists, and denounced all negotiations with Russia until, by sword and lance, rifle and cannon, the foe was humiliated.

There can be no question that the energy and force of the popular sentiment—often right, though sometimes erroneous, and sometimes obstinately and wilfully wrong—have occasionally interfered with the success of negotiations. But this is one of the evils inseparable from a free government. The French court, from the death of Louis XIV., was anxious to pursue a pacific policy, to improve their marine, and to pursue Colbert’s maxim, that a long war was not for the benefit of France. But the democratic party, which had been formed before the death of Louis XV., employed diplomatic agents at every court to upset and overturn the pacific policy of that king’s ambassadors.*

* Vide “la Politique de tous les Cabinets de L’Europe.”

This is one of the few disadvantages attendant upon constitutional states in negotiation; but, per contra., such states also enjoy some pre-eminent advantages. In such states foreign powers do not co-operate with domestic factions, as they sometimes do in more absolute monarchies.

Presence of mind, coolness, and firmness, tell oftener in negotiations than mere talent and learning. The presence of mind of Augustus, who was of doubtful valour, obtained an ascendancy over Marc Antony, a brave soldier, but wanting in proper firmness.

Richelieu preferred firmness and patience in a negotiator to any other qualities. Suppleness, no doubt, often supplies the place of patience, and the man who can tack and veer was formerly not without his value; but the time for using these small wares has now passed for ever. They have been worn threadbare by a politician of our day, and are foul in the nostrils of every civilized nation. In the middle ages, and in Italian courts, such tricks may have been necessary, but they are unsuitable to constitutional states. A pope of Rome is recorded to have said of the Abbé Polignac:—“This young man always appears to be of my opinion at first, but at the end of the conversation, I find I am of his.” Such an “artful dodge” and dissembler would be disrelished now by all pure and honest men. An attempt has been made by some French writers to attribute the science of negotiation to Mazarin. But the science existed before the time of the wily cardinal, or even of that good King Dagobert who, according to the old rhyme, “Mit sa culotte à l’envers;” and France, and other modern countries, as well as Egypt, Greece, and Rome, had produced great negotiators.

On the 14th of August parliament was prorogued, and soon after the ministry showed renewed activity in the work of diplomacy, without any advantage to the nation. The policy of the prorogation was much arraigned by the public; but the evening on which it took place tidings arrived of the bombardment of Sweaborg, which drew away the public attention to a real and brilliant, although partial, triumph.

[ [!-- IMG --] [ENLARGE]

[ [!-- H2 anchor --] ]