This officer visited England during the autumn, and his presence excited much indignant comment, and various demonstrations of personal dislike. It occurred that, on the 5th of September, he, with two other foreigners, presented themselves at Barclay’s brewery for permission to inspect that very great establishment, so much an object of curiosity among foreign visitors. According to the rules of the establishment, visitors sign their names in a book, and this circumstance caused the general to be identified by the numerous work-people, who were excited with an intense disgust of his presence. The draymen and brewers abandoned their occupations, and cried out. “Down with the Austrian butcher,” “Down with the woman-flogger,” and many other expressions too truly descriptive of the general’s character. He was assailed with every form of indignity, even with blows, and sought for safety in flight, pursued by a large and furious mob, every moment increasing. The general ran along Bankside, and found refuge in the “George” public-house, whither the mob pursued him, forcing open every door but that in which the general found concealment. The police opportunely arrived, and with difficulty dispersed the mob; the general was then brought out upon the wharf, and brought up the river to Somerset House in the police galley, crowds following along shore, uttering menaces and execrations. None of the perpetrators of the attack were identified or punished; and it is beyond question that the authorities did not pursue the matter as international relations with Austria gave that power a right to expect. A diplomatic quarrel between the two governments ensued, which threatened the interruption of all friendly communication. The Austrian foreign minister dispatched an indignant protest against the inhospitality shown to a dignified subject of the Kasir, and the apathy of the British government in reference to the offence of the offenders. It was the cause of much bad feeling to England in the higher circles of Vienna; yet it impressed the government of his imperial majesty, and other foreign governments, with the fact, that the people of England sympathised with liberal policy, and hated cruelty and oppression; that no European state could be guilty of the atrocities which Austria had committed, and hold the respect or esteem of the English people.
PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY.—OPENING OF THE SESSION.
Parliament was opened by commission on the last day of January. The lord chancellor read the royal speech from the throne. The speech referred to the leading events, the history of which have been already related in this chapter. It also gratified the house by the intelligence that Sweden and the United States of America had taken steps to reciprocate the advantages conceded to the ships of these nations. Her majesty referred to her visit to Ireland with great satisfaction, and the countenances of the audience expressed sympathy with these statements. The address to her majesty in the Lords, was moved and seconded by the Earl of Essex and Earl Methuen. The former complimented the press in eloquent and judicious terms for the great services which it had rendered to the cause of law and order during the tumultuous seasons that had so recently passed. An amendment was proposed declaring that recent legislative enactments, and heavy local taxation, oppressed the agricultural interest and caused distress. The mover of this amendment was the Earl of Stradbroke, and it found a seconder in the Earl of Desart.
It was obvious thus early in the session that the Protectionists were prepared to urge their principles, and if possible compel the legislature to retrace its steps on the subject of free trade. “Out of doors” this produced anger and discontent among the numerous and powerful classes who had carried the free-trade agitation to a successful issue. It had the effect of lowering the reputation of the conservative party for wisdom, discretion, and disinterestedness. The leaders of the party were boldly reproached by the press as anxious to sustain their luxurious living by taxing the necessaries of the people, and the House of Lords was denounced by the popular press, and at popular meetings, as “a normal school of agitation,”—the title given by Lord Lyndhurst as speculatively applicable to popular corporations. Lord Stanley lent his great name and his able advocacy to the support of the amendment; it was opposed by the free-trade lords and the ministry, and defeated. In the commons, a similar amendment to the address was moved by Sir J. Trollope, and seconded by Colonel Chatterton. After a debate of two nights, the amendment was rejected by an overwhelming majority.
AFFAIRS OF GREECE.
The political campaign of the session might be said to have opened on the 4th of February, when Lord Stanley demanded explanations from ministers in reference to the affairs of Greece. The Marquis of Lansdowne gave a clear, temperate, and just exposition of the facts, and of the policy of the government. Lord Aberdeen animadverted upon that policy in a manner that was deficient in all those qualities which characterized the speech of the ministerial leader. It was neither clear, temperate, nor just.
In the commons, Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Milner Gibson, both addressed demands for explanation, Mr. Disraeli in the interest of the tory opposition, and Mr. Gibson in the interest of the “Peace at all price” party, as a certain knot of gentlemen in the house was designated. The answers of Lord Palmerston were lucid and statesman-like; his opponents were no more than children in his hands. He had neither the eloquence of Disraeli, nor the assurance, which ignorance alone can supply, possessed by Mr. Milner Gibson, who, whatever his merits, was innocent of all knowledge, for good or evil, on subjects of foreign policy; but his lordship showed his perfect cognizance of all the bearings of the dispute, of international law, and of the policy which his country could alone pursue, with honour to herself, and justice to her injured subjects.
So long as the Greek question remained open both these sections of opponents tormented the ministry, and when, on the 15th of May, the French ambassador suddenly left London, a perfect storm of hostility fell upon the cabinet. Lord Palmerston defended the policy of the foreign office throughout with candour, courtesy, and yet with a satirical wit, which keenly annoyed the opposition, while no excuse was left them to impeach the veteran minister’s politeness, or constitutional respect for the house. The ministry were not apprised that the French ambassador had been withdrawn from any dissatisfaction with England, but the explanations given in the French Assembly soon left no doubt of that. Lord Stanley brought on a debate on the 18th of June. He arraigned the policy of government with an eloquence which was most formidable. He was supported by Lord Aberdeen in a disingenuous and un-English speech. The government was never more feebly defended, and the result was a signal defeat, Lord Stanley’s motion of censure being carried by a large majority.