[39] _The Liberation of Italy_, 1815-1870, by the Countess Evelyn Martinengo Cesaresco (Seeley and Co. 1895), p. 252.
[40] Second edition, 1892, chap. xcii.
CHAPTER XVI
SECOND PREMIERSHIP
1865-1866
The Polish Revolt--Bismarck"s bid for power--The Schleswig-Holstein difficulty--Death of Lord Palmerston--The Queen summons Lord John--The second Russell Administration--Lord John"s tribute to Palmerston--Mr. Gladstone introduces Reform--The "Cave of Adullam"--Defeat of the Russell Government--The people accept Lowe"s challenge--The feeling in the country.
LORD JOHN, in his conduct of foreign affairs, acted with generosity towards Italy and with mingled firmness and patience towards America. It was a fortunate circ.u.mstance, for the great interests at stake on both sides of the Atlantic, that a man of so much judgment and right feeling was in power at a moment when prejudice was strong and pa.s.sion ran high.
Grote, who was by no means consumed with enthusiasm for the Palmerston Government, did not conceal his admiration of Lord John"s sagacity at this crisis. "The perfect neutrality of England in the destructive civil war now raging in America appears to me almost a phenomenon in political history. No such forbearance has been shown during the political history of the last two centuries. It is the single case in which the English Government and public, generally so meddlesome, have displayed most prudent and commendable forbearance in spite of great temptations to the contrary." Lord John had opinions, and the courage of them; but at the same time he showed himself fully alive to the fact that no greater calamity could possibly overtake the English-speaking race than a war between England and the United States.
Europe was filled at the beginning of 1863 with tidings of a renewed Polish revolt. Russia provoked the outbreak by the stern measures which had been taken in the previous year to repress the growing discontent of the people. The conspiracy was too widespread and too deep-rooted for Alexander II. to deal with, except by concessions to national sentiment, which he was not prepared to make, and, therefore, he fell back on despotic use of power. All able-bodied men suspected of revolutionary tendencies were marked out for service in the Russian army, and in this way, in Lord John"s words, the "so-called conscription was turned into a proscription." The lot was made to fall on all political suspects, who were to be condemned for life to follow the hated Russian flag. The result was not merely armed resistance, but civil war. Poland, in her struggle for liberty, was joined by Lithuania; but Prussia came to the help of the Czar, and the protests of England, France, and Austria were of no avail. Before the year ended the dreams of self-government in Poland, after months of bloodshed and cruelty, were again ruthlessly dispelled.
[Sidenote: BISMARCK SHOWS HIS HAND]
One diplomatic difficulty followed another in quick succession. Bismarck was beginning to move the p.a.w.ns on the chess-board of Europe. He had conciliated Russia by taking sides with her against the Poles in spite of the att.i.tude of London, Paris, and Vienna. He feared the spirit of insurrection would spread to the Poles in Prussia, and had no sympathy with the aspirations of oppressed nationalities. His policy was to make Prussia strong--if need be by "blood and iron"--so that she might become mistress of Germany. The death of Frederick VII. of Denmark provoked a fresh crisis and revived in an acute form the question of succession to the duchies of Schleswig-Holstein. The Treaty of London in 1852 was supposed to have settled the question, and its terms had been accepted by Austria and Prussia. The integrity of Denmark was recognised, and Prince Christian of Glucksburg was accepted as heir-presumptive of the reigning king. The German Diet did not regard this arrangement as binding, and the feeling in the duchies themselves, especially in Holstein, was against the claims of Denmark. But the Hereditary Prince Frederick of Augustenburg disputed the right of Christian IX. to the Duchies, and Bismarck induced Austria to join Prussia in the occupation of the disputed territory.
It is impossible to enter here into the merits of the quarrel, much less to describe the course of the struggle or the complicated diplomatic negotiations which grew out of it. Denmark undoubtedly imagined that the energetic protest of the English Government against her dismemberment would not end in mere words. The language used by both Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell was of a kind to encourage the idea of the adoption, in the last extremity, of another policy than that of non-intervention. Bismarck, on the other hand, it has been said with truth, had taken up the cause of Schleswig-Holstein, not in the interest of its inhabitants, but in the interests of Germany, and by Germany he meant the Government of Berlin and the House of Hohenzollern. He represented not merely other ideas, but other methods than those which prevailed with statesmen who were old enough to recall the wars of Napoleon and the part.i.tion of Europe to which they gave rise. It must be admitted that England did not show to advantage in the Schleswig-Holstein difficulty, in spite of the soundness of her counsels; and Bismarck"s triumph in the affair was as complete as the policy on which it was based was bold and adroit. Lord Palmerston and Lord John were embarra.s.sed on the one hand by the apathy of Russia and France and on the other by the cautious, not to say timid, att.i.tude of their own colleagues. "As to Cabinets," wrote Lord Palmerston, with dry humour, in reply to a note in which Lord John hinted that if the Prime Minister and himself had been given a free hand they could have kept Austria from war with Denmark, "if we had had colleagues like those who sat in Pitt"s Cabinet, such as Westmoreland and others, or such men as those who were with Peel, like Goulburn and Hardinge, you and I might have had our own way in most things. But when, as is now the case, able men fill every department, such men will have opinions and hold to them.
Unfortunately, they are often too busy with their own department to follow up foreign questions so as to be fully masters of them, and their conclusions are generally on the timid side of what might be the best."[41]
[Sidenote: AS SCHOOLMASTER ABROAD]
Lord John wrote to Foreign Courts--was Mr. Bagehot"s shrewd criticism--much in the same manner as he was accustomed to speak in the House of Commons. In other words, he used great plainness of speech, and, because of the very desire to make his meaning clear, he, was occasionally indiscreetly explicit and even brusque. Sometimes it happened that the intelligent foreigner grew critical at Lord John"s expense. Count Vitzthum, for example, laid stress on the fact that Lord John "looked on the British Const.i.tution as an inimitable masterpiece,"
which less-favoured nations ought not only to admire but adopt, if they wished to advance and go forward in the direction of liberty, prosperity, and peace. There was just enough truth in such a.s.sertions to render them amusing, though not enough to give them a sting. There were times when Lord John was the "stormy petrel" of foreign politics, but there never was a time when he ceased to labour in season and out for what he believed to be the honour of England. "I do not believe that any English foreign statesman, who does his duty faithfully by his own countrymen in difficult circ.u.mstances, can escape the blame of foreign statesmen," were his own words, and he a.s.suredly came in for his full share of abuse in Europe. One of Lord John Russell"s subordinates at the Foreign Office, well known and distinguished in the political life of to-day, declares that Lord John, like Lord Clarendon, was accustomed to write many drafts of despatches with his own hand, but as a rule did not go with equal minuteness into the detail of the work. It sometimes happened that he would take sudden resolutions without adequate consideration of the points involved; but he would always listen patiently to objections, and when convinced that he was wrong was perfectly willing to modify his opinion. In most cases, however, Lord John did not make up his mind without due reflection, and under such circ.u.mstances he showed no vacillation. No tidings from abroad, however startling or unpleasant, seemed able to disturb his equanimity. He was an extremely considerate chief, but, though always willing to listen to his subordinates, kept his own counsel and seldom took them much into his confidence.
[Sidenote: COBDEN AND PALMERSTON]
The year 1865 was rendered memorable both in England and America by the death of statesmen of the first rank. In the spring, that great master of reason and economic reform, Richard Cobden, died in London, after a few days" illness, in the prime of life; and almost before the nation realised the greatness of such a loss, tidings came across the Atlantic that President Abraham Lincoln had been a.s.sa.s.sinated at Washington, in the hour of triumph, by a cowardly fanatic. The summer in England was made restless by a General Election. Though Bright denounced Lord Palmerston, and Mr. Gladstone lost his seat at Oxford, to stand "unmuzzled" a few days later before the electors of South-West Lancashire, the predicted Conservative reaction was not an accomplished fact. Lord Palmerston"s ascendency in the country, though diminished, was still great, and the magic of his name carried the election. "It is clear," wrote Lord John to the plucky octogenarian Premier, when the latter, some time before the contest, made a fighting speech in the country, "that your popularity is a plant of hardy growth and deep roots." Quite suddenly, in the spring of 1865, Lord Palmerston began to look as old as his years, and as the summer slipped past, it became apparent that the buoyant elasticity of temperament had vanished. On October 18 the great Minister died in harness, and Lord John Russell, who was only eight years younger, was called to the helm.
The two men, more than once in mid-career, had serious misunderstandings, and envious lips had done their best to widen their differences. It is pleasant to think now that Palmerston and Russell were on cordial and intimate terms during the critical six years, when the former held for the last time the post of First Minister of the Crown, and the latter was responsible for Foreign Affairs. It is true that they were not of one mind on the question of Parliamentary Reform; but Lord John, after 1860 at least, was content to waive that question, for he saw that the nation, as well as the Prime Minister, was opposed to a forward movement in that direction, and the strain of war abroad and famine at home hindered the calm discussion of const.i.tutional problems. Lord Lyttelton used to say that Palmerston was regarded as a Whig because he belonged to Lord Grey"s Government, and had always thrown in his lot with that statesman"s political posterity. At the same time, Lord Lyttelton held--even as late as 1865--that a "more genuine Conservative, especially in home affairs, it would not be easy to find."
Palmerston gave Lord John Russell his active support in the att.i.tude which the latter took up at the Foreign Office on all the great questions which arose, sometimes in a sudden and dramatic form, at a period when the power of Napoleon III., in spite of theatrical display, was declining, and Bismarck was shaping with consummate skill the fortunes of Germany.
[Sidenote: PRIME MINISTER]
The day after Palmerston"s death her Majesty wrote in the following terms to Lord John: "The melancholy news of Lord Palmerston"s death reached the Queen last night. This is another link with the past that is broken, and the Queen feels deeply in her desolate and isolated condition how, one by one, tried servants and advisers are taken from her.... The Queen can turn to no other than Lord Russell, an old and tried friend of hers, to undertake the arduous duties of Prime Minister, and to carry on the Government." Such a command was met by Lord John with the response that he was willing to act if his colleagues were prepared to serve under him. Mr. Gladstone"s position in the country and in the councils of the Liberal Party had been greatly strengthened by his rejection at Oxford, and by the subsequent boldness and fervour of his speeches in Lancashire. He forestalled Lord John"s letter by offering, in a frank and generous spirit, to serve under the old Liberal leader. Mr. Gladstone declared that he was quite willing to take his chance under Lord John"s "banner," and to continue his services as Chancellor of the Exchequer. This offer was of course accepted, and Mr. Gladstone also took Lord Palmerston"s place as Leader of the House of Commons. Lord Cranworth became Lord Chancellor, Lord Clarendon took Lord John"s place at the Foreign Office, the Duke of Argyll and Sir George Grey resumed their old positions as Lord Privy Seal and Home Secretary. After a short interval, Mr. Goschen and Lord Hartington were raised to Cabinet rank; while Mr. Forster, Lord Dufferin, and Mr.
Stansfeld became respectively Under-Secretaries for the Colonies, War, and India; but Lord John, in spite of strong pressure, refused to admit Mr. Lowe to his Cabinet.
At the Lord Mayor"s banquet in November, Lord John took occasion to pay a warm tribute to Palmerston: "It is a great loss indeed, because he was a man qualified to conduct the country successfully through all the vicissitudes of war and peace." He declared that Lord Palmerston displayed resolution, resource, prompt.i.tude, and vigour in the conduct of foreign affairs, showed himself also able to maintain internal tranquillity, and, by extending commercial relationships, to give to the country the "whole fruits of the blessings of peace." He added that Lord Palmerston"s heart never ceased to beat for the honour of England, and that his mind comprehended and his experience embraced the whole field which is covered by the interests of the nation.
The new Premier made no secret of his conviction that, if the Ministry was to last, it must be either frankly Liberal or frankly Conservative.
As he had the chief voice in the matter, and was bent on a new Reform Bill, it became, after certain changes had been effected, much more progressive than was possible under Palmerston. Parliament was opened on February 1, 1866, by the Queen in person, for the first time since the death of the Prince Consort, and the chief point of interest in the Speech from the Throne was the guarded promise of a Reform Bill. The attention of Parliament was to be called to information concerning the right of voting with a view to such improvements as might tend to strengthen our free inst.i.tutions and conduce to the public welfare. Lord John determined to make haste slowly, for some of his colleagues were hardly inclined to make haste at all, since they shared Lord Palmerston"s views on the subject and distrusted the Radical cry which had arisen since the industrial revolution. The Premier and Mr.
Gladstone--for they were a kind of Committee of Two--were content for the moment to propose a revision of the franchise, and to leave in ambush for another session the vexed question involved in a redistribution of seats. "It was decided," states Lord John, "that it would be best to separate the question of the franchise from that of the disfranchis.e.m.e.nt of boroughs. After much inquiry, we agreed to fix the suffrages of boroughs at an occupation of 7_l._ value."
[Sidenote: THE CAVE OF ADULLAM]
The House of Commons was densely packed when Mr. Gladstone introduced the measure on March 12, but, in spite of his powers of exposition and infectious enthusiasm, the Government proposals fell undeniably flat.
Broadly stated, they were as follows. The county franchise was to be dropped to 14_l._, and that of the borough, as already stated, to half that amount, whilst compound householders and lodgers paying 10_l._ a year were to possess votes. It was computed at the time that the measure would add four hundred thousand new voters to the existing lists, and that two hundred thousand of these would belong to what Lord John termed the "best of the working cla.s.ses." Mr. Bright, and those whom he represented, not only in Birmingham, but also in every great city and town in the land, gave their support to the Government, on the principle that this was at least an "honest" measure, and that half a loaf, moreover, was better than no bread. At the same time the country was not greatly stirred one way or another by the scheme, though it stirred to panic-stricken indignation men of the stamp of Mr. Lowe, Mr. Horsman, Lord Elcho, Earl Grosvenor, Lord Dunkellin, and other so-called, but very indifferent, Liberals, who had attached themselves to the party under Lord Palmerston"s happy-go-lucky and easy auspices. These were the men who presently distinguished themselves, and extinguished the Russell Administration by their ridiculous fear of the democracy. They retired into what Mr. Bright termed the "political cave of Adullam," and, as Lord John said, the "timid, the selfish, and those who were both selfish and timid" joined the sorry company.
The Conservatives saw their opportunity, and, being human, took it. Lord Grosvenor brought forward an amendment calling attention to the omission of a redistribution scheme. A debate, which occupied eight nights, followed, and when it was in progress, Mr. Gladstone, in defending his own conduct as Leader of the House, incidentally paid an impressive tribute to the memorable and protracted services in the Commons of Lord John:--
"If, sir, I had been the man who, at the very outset of his career, wellnigh half a century ago, had with an almost prophetic foresight fastened upon two great groups of questions, those great historic questions relating to the removal of civil disabilities for religious opinions and to Parliamentary Reform; if I had been the man who, having thus in his early youth, in the very first stage of his political career, fixed upon those questions and made them his own, then went on to prosecute them with sure and unflagging instinct until the triumph in each case had been achieved; if I had been the man whose name had been a.s.sociated for forty years, and often in the very first place of eminence, with every element of beneficent legislation--in other words, had I been Earl Russell, then there might have been some temptation to pa.s.s into excess on the exercise of authority, and some excuse for the endeavour to apply to this House a pressure in itself unjustifiable.
But, sir, I am not Earl Russell."
In the end, Lord Grosvenor"s amendment was lost by a majority equal only to the fingers of one hand. Such an unmistakeable expression of opinion could not be disregarded, and the Government brought in a Redistribution of Seats Bill at the beginning of May. They proposed that thirty boroughs having a population of less than eight thousand should be deprived of one member, whilst nineteen other seats were obtained by joint representation in smaller boroughs. After running the gauntlet of much hostile criticism, the bill was read a second time, but the Government were forced to refer it and the franchise scheme to a committee, which was empowered to deal with both schemes. Lord Stanley, Mr. Ward Hunt, and Mr. Walpole a.s.sailed with successive motions, which were more or less narrowly rejected, various points in the Government proposals, and the opposition grew more and more stubborn. At length Lord Dunkellin (son of the Earl of Clanricarde) moved to subst.i.tute rating for rental in the boroughs; and the Government, in a House of six hundred and nineteen members, were defeated on June 18 by a majority of eleven. The excitement which met this announcement was extraordinary, and when it was followed next day by tidings that the Russell Administration was at an end, those who thought that the country cared little about the question found themselves suddenly disillusioned.
[Sidenote: FALL OF THE RUSSELL GOVERNMENT]
Burke declared that there were moments when it became necessary for the people themselves to interpose on behalf of their rights. The overthrow of the Russell Administration took the nation by surprise. Three days after Lord John"s resignation there was a historic gathering in Trafalgar Square. In his speech announcing the resignation of his Ministry, Lord John warned Parliament about the danger of alienating the sympathy of the people from the Crown and the aristocracy. He reminded the Peers that universal suffrage prevailed not only in the United States but in our own Colonies; and he took his stand in the light of the larger needs of the new era, on the a.s.sertion of Lord Grey at the time of the Reform Bill that only a large measure was a safe measure.
"We have made the attempt," added Lord John, "sincerely and anxiously to perform the duties of reconciling that which is due to the Const.i.tution of the country with that which is due to the growing intelligence, the increasing wealth, and the manifest forbearance, virtue, and order of the people." He protested against a n.i.g.g.ardly and ungenerous treatment of so momentous a question.
Lord Russell"s words were not lost on Mr. Bradlaugh. He made them the text of his speech to the twenty thousand people who a.s.sembled in Trafalgar Square, and afterwards walked in procession to give Mr.
Gladstone an ovation in Carlton House Terrace. About three weeks later another great demonstration was announced to take place in Hyde Park, under the auspices of the Reform League. The authorities refused to allow the gathering, and, after a formal protest, the meeting was held at the former rendezvous. The mixed mult.i.tude who had followed the procession to the Park gates took the repulse less calmly, with the result that, as much by accident as by design, the Park railings for the s.p.a.ce of half a mile were thrown down. Force is no remedy, but a little of it is sometimes a good object-lesson, and the panic which this unpremeditated display occasioned amongst the valiant defenders of law and order was unmistakeable.
[Sidenote: "DISHING THE WHIGS"]
Mr. Lowe had flouted the people, and had publicly a.s.serted that those who were without the franchise did not really care to possess it.
Forty-three other so-called Liberals in the House of Commons were apparently of the same way of thinking, for the Russell Administration was defeated by forty-four "Liberal" votes. This in itself shows that Lord John, up to the hour in which he was driven from power, was far in advance of one section of his followers. The great towns, and more particularly Birmingham, Manchester, and Leeds, promptly took up the challenge; and in those three centres alone half a million of people a.s.sembled to make energetic protest against the contemptuous dismissal of their claims. The fall of the Park railings appealed to the fear of the cla.s.ses, and aroused the enthusiasm of the ma.s.ses. It is scarcely too much to say that if they had been demolished a month earlier the Russell Government would have carried its Reform proposals, and Disraeli would have lost his chance of "dishing the Whigs." The defeat of Lord John Russell was a virtual triumph. He was driven from power by a rally of reactionary forces at the very moment when he was fighting the battle of the people.[42] The Tories were only able to hold their own by borrowing a leaf from his book, and bringing in a more drastic measure of reform.
FOOTNOTES:
[41] _Life and Correspondence of Viscount Palmerston_, by the Hon.
Evelyn Ashley, vol. ii. p. 438.
[42] In a letter written in the spring of 1867, Lord Houghton refers to Mr. Gladstone as being "quite awed" for the moment by the "diabolical cleverness of Dizzy." He adds: "Delane says the extreme party for Reform are now the grandees, and that the Dukes are quite ready to follow Beale into Hyde Park."--_The Life, Letters, and Friendships of Lord Houghton_, by Sir Wemyss Reid, vol. ii. pp. 174-5.
CHAPTER XVII
OUT OF HARNESS
1867-1874
Speeches in the House of Lords--Leisured years--Mr. Lecky"s reminiscences--The question of the Irish Church--The Independence of Belgium--Lord John on the claims of the Vatican--Letters to Mr.
Chichester Fortescue--His scheme for the better government of Ireland--Lord Selborne"s estimate of Lord John"s public career--Frank admissions--As his private secretaries saw him.
LORD JOHN never relinquished that high sense of responsibility which was conspicuous in his att.i.tude as a Minister of the Crown. Although out of harness from the summer of 1866 to his death, twelve years later, he retained to the last, undiminished, the sense of public duty. He took, not merely a keen interest, but an appreciable share in public affairs; and some of the speeches which he delivered in the House of Lords after his retirement from office show how vigorous and acute his intellect remained, and how wide and generous were his sympathies. The leisured years which came to Lord John after the fall of the second Russell Administration enabled him to renew old friendships, and gave him the opportunity for making the acquaintance of distinguished men of a younger generation. His own historical studies--the literary pa.s.sion of a lifetime--made him keenly appreciative of the work of others in that direction, and kindred tastes drew him into intimate relations with Mr.
W. E. H. Lecky. Few of the reminiscences, great or small, which have been written for these pages, can compare in interest with the following statement by so philosophic a critic of public affairs and so acute a judge of men:--
[Sidenote: MR. LECKY"S REMINISCENCES]