1
10
3
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/5ede7327d47c287e5913e2f71bfb20d3.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=P25y11aVfkj60M-mm9Yq4%7EfTvXbMBCzEc58lI6Kf1lxQlGk3jC6pr6YWWaAl-ErL0EpXvH85M6%7Ewjiu5GNRAE5lg4Fw5letI2SKLhLvaAXZWAw8x0XYN9jz07PBrK7SpqidvWlgSXyVpFd3V6SmzNg62ZavuP8D94BcRgavMupAh31UIcIaySmUXPYLc%7EcKDVgKhlZHQ%7EduCmDRLsuk8prcM03uFh18Fhg2L3pU-ZJIm4XGZmO8FWbv90iakpoOh42hOB3i1rvqEYe9LFGP0ve%7EKRaPGNxEufIDnFgkI9QhNL7VZ%7EPZMuxANkCupYYSKPIwND1upu7Odp7h1Aw0mBA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
cc972a8729c4484d56cba88731a81885
PDF Text
Text
Q33Sb
CONSCIENCE versus THE QUARTERLY.
A PLEA FOR FAIR PLAT
TOWARDS
THE WRITERS OF THE
ESSAYS AND REVIEWS.
BY
THE REV. HARRY JONES,
INCUMBENT OP ST. LUKE’S, BERWICK STREET, ST. JAMES’S, WESTMINSTER.
LONDON:
ROBERT HARDWICKE, 192, PICCADILLY.
1861.
��CONSCIENCE versus THE QUARTERLY,
<5*C.
“ There is, in truth, in the volume,” says the
Quarterly Reviewer, “ nothing which is really new,
and little which, having been said before, is said
here with any new power, or with any great addi
tion, either by way of amplification, illustration, or
research.”
To what, then, may we attribute the deep interest
with which the “ Essays and Reviews ” are read ?
“ Not certainly, we think,” replies the Quarterly
Reviewer, “ to its subject.”
Surely, however, we may ask how any subject
which has already so occupied the human mind as
to present nothing new, can cease to be interesting?
The Reviewer does not admit this question; he
attributes the notoriety of the book to its author
ship. But though its subject has inherent, unfading
attraction, the Reviewer himself has helped much
to create the notoriety of this particular volume,
and must be held accessory to whatever mischief
it makes. He believes that he has discovered a
�4
deadly spring; and having neither authority to
close it up, nor power secretly to drain it dry, what
does he ?—pass it by in silence, lest the host he
leads should drink and die ? No such thing—he
points it out, and then gives a mouthful to every
follower, crying, “ This is fatal—taste it!”
The result is that crowds are dosed: Messrs. Long
man, who built the well, run to their structure and
multiply its powers of delivery, as the demand for the
mixture increases. “ What is it like ?” exclaim the
fresh comers to those who have got a whole bottle
ful in the scramble. Others, who cannot wait, are
fed with extracts, choice cupfuls, scooped out of
the darkest, most poisonous-looking jets of the
spring, while some save themselves the risk and
trouble of tasting, and condemn it untried.
Perhaps the most curious, though the most appa
rent, inconsistency in this distribution is that many
distributors accompany their sample with the re
quest for an opinion, but add that those thus in
vited to taste are incapable of giving one, the
“ verifying faculty ” being the most deceptive of
any we possess when applied to the subject handled
in this naughty book.
Let me hope the Reviewer will pardon me, if,
in venturing to give utterance to some of the
thoughts aroused by his vehement provocation, I
err in applying the contradictory advice he thrusts
upon me.
In attempting to follow it, I accept, for the sake
of convenience, the article in the “ Quarterly” as
�5
the impression the “ Essays and Reviews” have
made on a large section of the religious world in
England.
In the first place, it is very important to distin
guish between the principle of the book and the
application which is made of that principle by the
several authors who have contributed to the volume
in which it appears.
The principle itself they all evidently hold, and
must be held accountable for, while each must
answer for his individual use of that faculty the
exercise of which they jointly defend.
What is the one idea influencing their several
minds? “ The idea,” replies the Reviewer (p. 255),
“ of a verifying faculty—the power of each man of
settling what is and what is not true in the inspired
record, is the idea of the whole volume—the con
necting link between all its writers.”
It is this which has given the gravest oflence —
this which disqualifies them from the office of
teachers in the Church of England.
What, however, can be the distinction in principle
between the liberty to judge whether all, or a
portion only of the statements in Scripture are to
be regarded as much actual truths as physical facts
are?
If once a man asks reason and conscience whether
he shall obey the Bible at all, he recognizes the
question, “ what is and what is not true in the
inspired record?” He has put it to himself, and
decided it for himself, even when he concludes that
�6
the whole volume is verbally infallible. As far as
the principle of the Essayists is concerned, they
only confess their desire to be always convinced
in their own minds of the truth of their creed when
acting for themselves, or attempting to guide
others.
Such is the common charge against them. It
looks like a farce, but it is made in bitter earnest.
When the present boiling passions have cooled
down a little, when the flushed executioners begin
to try the offenders they have hanged, the judges
will perhaps find that they have not been alto
gether free from the crime they are now punish
ing ; for, do they mean to say, they do not pretend
to any justification of their own opinions about the
truth of Scripture ? They utter them freely enough
—on what pretext ? If they despise the “ verify
ing faculty,” why have they any opinion at all about
anything divine? If they profess the acceptance
of definite theology, what has induced them to ac
cept it? Do they hold what they term orthodoxy
without thought, examination, or proof ? Have they
never tested their decisions ? By the exercise of
what faculty have they arrived at their present
belief? By the support of what convictions do they
retain their positions and professional stipend ?
What makes them so loudly and frequently repeat
that the views they condemn have been refuted
already, unless they have weighed the value of the
refutation, and so exercised the “ verifying faculty,”
as to what is and what is not true in the inspired
�7
record, themselves ? Nay, even if they believe what
they are told to believe, what induces them to obey?
Have they asked whether the commands laid upon
them are right ? Have they not decided that the
authority to which they submit their thoughts is
such as they ought to bow to ?
I cannot credit the supposition that they are
unable to give a reason of the hope which is in
them—that they have arrived at no conscientious
if not rational conclusions.
Even the man who deliberately surrenders his
conscience to the Romanist director, does so because
he thinks the arguments in favour of this arrange
ment are stronger than those against it.
No wonder, then, that the Reviewer finds it easy
to prove his main charge against the Essayists.
They do claim the power of deciding for them
selves what is and what is not true in the inspired
record, and so does he. The “ verifying faculty” is
the “ connecting link” not only between the seven
writers, but between all who read, mark, learn, and
inwardly digest the Scriptures.
If you teach men to read, and give them the
Bible, they are sure to hear some hostile criticism
upon it. They soon find out that many of its
statements are questioned by learned men. Now,
directly you say “ these doubts are needless—these
objections are wrong,” and proceed to lay your
proofs before the public with an appeal to their
good feeling and good sense, you not only admit
�8
the existence of the “ verifying faculty” in every
man, but claim its support.
The only way to prevent the Bible being freely
handled is to prohibit it. Rome is consistent. She
says the people cannot form a right judgment of'its
contents, and therefore she locks it up. We, on
the contrary, offer the Scriptures to any one who
will read them. And now these readers are told
that it is a grievous sin to weigh the value of the
statements they contain.
Why do such as the Reviewer urge more loudly
than most teachers, that a man is as responsible for
his religious opinions, as for his acts, unless they
think that he is at liberty to' form his opinions
himself? The principle of which the Essayists
are accused is so far from being vicious, that
it is the special characteristic of English thought,
and the living safeguard of spiritual liberty. It
is the one essential which marks the difference
between Popery and Protestantism; for though,
as we have noticed, the principle is so neces
sary to sane existence, that the most Ultramon
tane pervert who delivers himself, body and soul,
to the guidance of the Church of Rome, must ex
ercise it once for all, when he decides to join that
Church; though he then spends his liberty of thought,
his whole spiritual fortune, in one terrible payment,
being content to live thenceforward on such an
allowance of freedom as the keeper of his con
science may think fit to trust him with, yet practically
�9
the distinction between the Papist and the Pro
testant is the liberty of the latter to use this same
“ verifying faculty.” The result of the Religious
Census alone, is a convincing proof of the extent to
which it is used, and may lead us to question the
confidence of the Reviewer as to the verdict of the
English people on the value of the principle the
Essayists uphold.
How far they are justified in remaining ministers
of the Church of England must be left for them to
choose, or legal authorities to decide. But it would
indeed be bad for our national Church if regard for
the principles of the Reformation were held to bar
the entrance to her ministry.
It is the extent to which these principles have
been pushed, the use which these seven writers
have-made of the liberty they share with him, which
has shocked the Reviewer.
Of course no one can wonder at him for doing all
he can to prevent the adoption of their views, when
he thinks them wrong, i. e. when they jar with the
result of his “ verifying faculty.” That may lead
him to conclude (p. 284), that “ the position of six
of these writers is both philosophically and reli
giously pitiable;” which is intelligible if not true,
though we might have expected something less
vague from the advocate of definite theology than
his sentence on the other, who, he says, “ seems
contented to sit down with Spinoza on the frozen
mountains of metaphysical atheism.” Perhaps in
assigning this locality to one of the seven, he anB
�10
I
swers his own question put elsewhere (p. 282),
“ How is it possible to stop when once such a prin
ciple (the verifying faculty) has been admitted ?”
Before we go on to notice some of the points
which the Reviewer conceives he has made against
these gentlemen, we must notice the charge (p. 274),
of immorality which he brings against them ; it
sounds rather libellous to be sure : “ As honest men
and as believers in Christianity, we must pronounce
those views to be absolutely inconsistent with its
creed, and must therefore hold that the attempt of
the Essayists to combine their advocacy of such
doctrines with the retention of the status and
emolument of Church of England clergymen, is
simply moral dishonesty.” It is true that in another
place (p. 288), he drops this papal style, and says,
“ With some of them no doubt, the object before
their own eyes....... is the desire to place Christianity
upon a better footing.”
But this is only an example of the wanton,
cruel way in which he picks up anything rough
and handy to throw at them, and then has an
unwitting qualm of human feeling when he thinks
the missile hits.
Let us take his gentler sen
tence (p. 288), “ They have no intention of aban
doning Christianity,...... their desire is to place
it on a better footing.” If this be true, and
I suppose the Quarterly Reviewer believes it,
why should they quit the ministry of the national
Church ? It would be both foolish and wrong for
them to do so. Foolish, because if they yielded to
�11
the morbid feeling sometimes generated by misre
presentation, and for fear of maintaining stumblingblocks in the way of weak brethren, or from a
cowardly desire for material martyrdom, were to
resign their posts, they would yield the influence
and honour they are beginning to find. Wrong,
because they would, as far as they were concerned,
betray the right of private judgment in the Church
of England. Thousands of her clergy without at
all committing themselves to the conclusions of the
Essayists, look to them as the present champions
of the “ verifying faculty,” which, though it cannot
be destroyed in England, may yet be eclipsed in
her national Church, if those who venture to up
hold it suffer themselves to be talked or worried
out of her ministry.
It may be remarked however, by the way, that
there is much nonsense uttered about the sin of
putting stumbling-blocks in other men’s way. There
is no sin in doing so, if the weak brother be going
wrong. The stumbling-block cannot be too heavy
or high, when it bars the road to intolerance and
slavery,
We will now pass on from the main charge the
Reviewer makes against the Essayists, viz. that of
honouring the “ verifying faculty,” when it is applied
to the subject which is of the deepest interest and
importance possible. Let us see how the Reviewer
tries to convict them of abusing it. We have already
noticed his hatred of the principle, but I cannot
understand how he expects to arrive at a conclusion
�12
without its help. We must forgive his blunders as
we should those of an enraged Quaker who failed
in the bayonet exercise, however fiercely he might
clutch and flourish the forbidden weapon, when his
carnal nature got uppermost.
Of course, among those who apply the verifying
faculty, we must expect to see some overshoot their
neighbours, and perhaps startle them by their bold
ness in handling what others will not touch.
I will, however, take a few passages which ex
hibit the spirit of the Reviewer, avoiding as much
as possible, the most irritating phases of the contro
versy in which he engages. In page 254, he falls
foul of the “ canons” provided by the Essayists, and
begins with “ criticism,” which they say will help
us “ to reduce the strangeness of the past into har
mony with the present.” Does he mean that this
is an unfair assumption ? or does he wish to monopo
lize it himself? Again, when he quotes what he calls
their “pregnant words,”—“ We find the evidences
of our canonical books, and of the patristic authors
nearest them, are not adequate to guarantee narratives
inherently incredible,or precepts evidently wrong,”—
does he mean that they are adequate to guarantee
such narratives or precepts ? Again (p. 256), he
starts at such a supposition as “ the conscience de
ciding for every man upon the truth of doctrine, and
the historical value of facts,” laying down as his
canon, that conscience certainly has no direct con
nection whatever with mere intellect: would he have
the conscientious man devoid of intellect ? or the
�13
intellectual theologian unconscientious ? He naively
adds, “ Many good men are infinitely above their
own theorieslet us give him the shelter of this
admission.
In page 158 he is speaking of inspiration, and
exclaims, “ Here is the great principle of the
Essayists,—Holy Scripture is like any other good
book;” then he quotes Mr. Jowett, “Scripture is to
be read like any other book,”—“ not only,” now the
Reviewer goes on, “ because it embodies the same
errors as other books (sic) but also because it is not
to be held to have meanings deeper, at least in
kind, than they possess.” Now this is most unfair
—there may be no difference in kind, but a mighty
one in result, between various workings of the same
influence, just as in electricity, where the little
spark and snap from the machine in the hands of a
boy, are to be referred to the laws which regulate
.the crash of a thunderstorm, when the lightning
shineth from the one part under heaven to another,
and a nation starts.
A little further (p. 259) he asks, “ Why is
Strauss’s resolution an excess? Where, and by
what authority, short of his extreme view, would
Mr. Wilson himself stop?” By the same authority
which decides the Reviewer to accept what he calls
the established scheme, instead of Mr. Wilson’s
views—viz., the authority of his own “verifying
faculty.”
In page 267 he quotes this apparently harmless
�14
sentence in Mr. Jowett’s essay—It is “most pro
bable that the tradition on which the three first
gospels were based was at first preserved orally, and
slowly put together and written in the three forms
which it assumed at a very early period, those
forms being in some places perhaps modified by
experience;” and then says, “From this origin
he argues, to the utter destruction of all notion of
inspiration (sic) that dissimilarities arose between
them.” These read like the words of one who had
never heard of the distinction between plenary and
verbal inspiration, i.e. between the illumination of
the writers by the Holy Ghost, and the supernatural
dictation of the letters which were traced by their
pens.
As an unfair distortion we may cite this (p. 268):
“Mr. Wilson esteems the Apostle (St. John) as
a man of rather contracted habits of thought,”
whereas Mr. Wilson’s words are, “The horizon
which St. John’s view embraced was much nar
rower than St. Paul’s,”
‘ Qui mores hominum multorum vidit et urbes.’ ”
Later in the same page, after another extract from
his essay, he remarks, “ Little can be added to this,
and yet something is added when Mr. Jowett tells
us that ‘ we cannot readily determine how much of
the words of our Lord, or of St. Paul, is to be attri
buted to oriental modes of speech, for that expres-
�15
sions which would be regarded as rhetorical exaggeration in the Western world, are the natural
vehicles of thought to an Eastern people.’ ”
Now, the Reviewer considers every statement in
Scripture as of equal value, or he does not. If he
does not, he employs his own “ verifying faculty” in
deciding what is and what is not to be accepted in
the inspired record, and so commits the grave crime
of which he accuses the Essayists. If he does con
sider every statement in Scripture as of equal value,
he has no right to affect a distinction between the
words of our Lord and any others which the in
spired writers have recorded.
In apparent forgetfulness of Scripture statements,
however, he accuses Mr. Jowett of his “general
notion ” seeming to be, “ that we are under a pro
gressive revelation.” Why not quarrel with St.
Paul, for saying: “We know in part, and we pro
phesy in part.” “ When I was a child I spake as a
child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child,
but when I became a man I put away childish
things; for now we see through a glass darkly, but
then face to face; now I know in part, but then
shall I know even as also I am known.”
In page 271 the Reviewer speaks of the “ remark
able indifference to all doctrine which is every
where apparent in the writings of Mr. Jowett.
‘ The lessons of Scripture,’ he thinks, ‘ may have a
nearer way to the heart of the poor when disen
gaged from theological formulas.’ ‘ The truths of
Scripture,’ again, ‘ would have greater reality if
�■WAjwwtf ■»••:•; :•>
'■WW.JRWW1
16
divested of the scholastic form in which theology
has cast them. The universal and spiritual aspect
of Scripture might be more brought forward, to the
exclusion of . . . exaggerated statements of
doctrines which seem to be at variance with mo
rality.’”
If this is wrong, we ought to have had no
Reformation.
Many might be excused for not being shocked at
this statement of Mr. Wilson’s (p. 272): “And
when the Christian Church, in all its branches, shall
have fulfilled its sublunary office, and its Founder
shall have surrendered His kingdom to the Great
Father—all, both small and great, shall find a
refuge in the bosom of the Universal Parent, to
repose or be quickened into higher life in the ages
to come, according to His will.”
We think this rather a turgid paraphrase of St.
Paul’s words, “ Then cometh the end, when He
shall have delivered up the Kingdom unto God,
even the Father.” “And when all things shall be
subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself
be subject unto Him that put all things under Him,
that God may be all in all.” But the Reviewer
asks (p. 273) with confident emphasis, as one who
has, to use his own words (p. 274), “ forced up the
prophet’s veil, and shown the foul deformity which
it covers:” “Can the knell of all Christian truth
sound more distinctly {sic) or more mournfully than
this?”
It appears that Mr. Wilson did not speak twenty
�17
years ago as he does now. The Reviewer rum
mages up a letter which he, with three others,
signed in 1841 against Tractarianism. The authors
of that letter protested against too great a liberty in
interpreting the formularies of our Church in favour
of Rome. Well, then, Mr. Wilson was one of the,
first to detect and expose the Popish tendencies of
High Churchmen. We do not see how that is in
consistent with his present essay. But the Reviewer
makes a great point of it, and writes very rudely.
When he anticipates the horror with which this same
gentleman (Mr. Wilson twenty years ago) would
then have read his present essay, could it have been
shown to him, does the Reviewer think that any
change of opinion is wrong ? that none are to be
converted ? that no one, from St. Paul downwards,
can be acquitted of immorality if he contradicts any
of his former statements, or even reverses the deli
berate decisions of his early life ?
It is curious to notice how the Reviewer recurs
to his main charge against the Essayist’s belief in
the “ verifying faculty,” even when he professes
to be examining details. “ Why,” he exclaims
(p. 282), “ should not the ‘ verifying faculty’ of
Voltaire, or Thomas Paine, be as good an authority
as the same faculty when exercised by Rowland
Williams?”
The Reviewer misses the point of the question
here. Your verifying faculty is no guide to me:
I am not responsible for such opinions as you have
arrived at yourself. The Reviewer, however, seems
c
�18
to think the verifying faculty to be like a telescope
which may be handed about; whereas it may rather
be illustrated by eyesight, which every one is
expected to use for himself. I may exercise a
privilege, and yet regret its abuse in some cases;
just as a man who takes the liberty of warming
himself at a fire, may be sorry to see his neighbour’s
house burnt down because he overheats his flue.
As a specimen of inconsistency, however, take the
following, and, remember, it comes from a man
who, above all things, protests against the exercise
of the verifying faculty when applied to the sub
jects treated of in the inspired record:
“ If” (p. 286) “ it can be shown to the young be
liever that the system offered to him in the Essays,
full as it is of appeals to the pride of his reason,
which tend to captivate his mind, must by logical
necessity end in atheism, he is bound, as he values
his salvation, not to listen to the syren’s voice.”
In page 288, we have another example of the
Reviewer’s self-contradictory style ; he speaks of
“their new form of Christianity,” and then, lower
down, he says, “ The path on which they have en
tered is no new one.” Which does he mean ? One
cannot help thinking that, since in his opinion
(same page), “ All unbelievers of all classes, and all
believers of all shades, see plainly enough that the
Essayists are simply deceiving themselves,” he might
have spared himself the “ distasteful task ” of ex
posing their mistakes to the public.
Let us notice, however, the way in which he tries
�19
to do this, in treating of the supposed discrepancies
between revelation and the science of astronomy.
He asks (p. 292), “ Is the fulness and reality of re
velation one whit shaken because the standing still
of the light-giving luminary upon Gibeon was ac
complished by the God to whom his servant cried,
by any of the thousand other modes by which His
mighty power could have accomplished it, rather
than by the actual suspension of the unbroken career
of the motion of the heavenly bodies in their ap
pointed courses ? ”
Now, he believes, either that the sun stood still,
in the common acceptation of the phrase, or that
it did not; but how the light-giving luminary (sic)
could have stood still, without the “ career of the
motion of the heavenly bodies” being broken, he
does hot pretend to say.
The Reviewer is withering when he comes to
miracles. While dipping his pen in a pleasant pause
of consciousness at having already blackened the
Essayists, he hastens to transfer this sentence of
triumphant severity to his paper, “There is”
(p. 299) “ but one other argument in favour of their
system with which we need trouble our readers. It
is that which continually re-appears throughout the
volume, the impossibility of believing in a miracle.”
Let us see how he removes it. First, in reply to
theoretical objections, he says, “ Supposing (p. 300)
that, for the purpose of preventing man’s falling
under the power of outward things, occasional or
periodic suspensions of what seems the iron-law of
�20
order, were a part of the plan on which the universe
were governed, who shall dare to say that there is
in such a marvellous arrangement any disparagement
of the wisdom, power, or love of Him who laid the
foundations of the earth, and it abideth?” “It abideth
not'' we should have expected, if the Reviewer’s
notion of a miracle were true. The believer in
miracles might well wish for a better champion.
But how does he reply to objections made on the
ground of experience ? “ Once grant (p. 300) that
there was at any epoch whatever of this series of
causes and effects a Creator and a creation . . . .
fix the beginning of the series where you please, the
existence of that on which we trace the law of order
stamped is itself the greatest of all miracles.”
Very well; but how does he go on ? “ He who
then interfered may interfere at any other point in
the series, and, before we can pronounce that He
has not, and will not do so, we must be able to com
prehend all His ways, and to fathom all the secret
purposes of His all-wise but often most mysterious
will.” Thus he invites the return blow, which is
made by leaving out the “ nots,” “ Before we can
pronounce that He has and will do so, we must be
able to comprehend all His ways, and to fathom all
the secret purposes of His all-wise but often most
mysterious will.” Now, as evidently neither the
Reviewer nor his imaginary antagonist can do that,
they are left, thanks to the Reviewer, just where
they began. However, he jauntily concludes, “We
see, then,-nothing contrary to right reason in ad-
�21
mitting the alleged fact of any actual miracle upon
such evidence as would be sufficient to establish
beyond doubt any other alleged fact.” In short,
that there is no more difficulty in believing that
the ass spoke to Balaam, than that Balaam spoke to
the ass.
Heaven defend us from being guided by the
Reviewer’s verifying faculty, which, in defiance of
his own anathema, he applies with blundering
ignorance of true faith, to the facts and statements
of the Bible. Such as he are the real provokers of
infidelity and atheism.
There are passages in his article (p. 283) in which
he “ handles freely ” the words and character of the
Son of God. I will not follow him there. Let us
hope that those who read his Article will not be
hindered in believing that, after all, love toward
our Lord Jesus Christ, as we see him in the
Gospels, is the essence of Christianity. A growing
number of us will, I trust, as time goes on, feel
that we owe the possession of an open Bible itself
in the Church of England to the Divine im
plantation of our right to the exercise of the
verifying faculty in English hearts; and while
we protest against committing ourselves to the
opinions, however honest, of any individual clergy
man, yet see the greatest danger to our spiritual
liberty in attempts to drive those whom we do
not agree with, but who profess no hostility to the
Church of England, out of that body, which is
��
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Conscience versus The Quarterly: a plea for fair play towards the writers of essays and reviews
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Jones, Harry [Rev.]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 22 p. ; 21 cm.
Notes: Inscription on front flyleaf of bound volume: Presented by Miss Morris. November 1904.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Robert Hardwicke
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1861
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G3386
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Conscience versus The Quarterly: a plea for fair play towards the writers of essays and reviews), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/48df4c8f4c813591e2a2e98ffb46dbfb.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=HBayK3FAtpooTn8oq4i1eM1S0IJiL%7Ev%7E-J9Tb9qv50atpDAxhkBuS04bR29JQVvg0teOEXHOoP0Ru1VotFwEZ7TN8aXSVMHwAZcZoDu1W4uij60SvXqUj2CwJWt-C3K0s8ZWeVTW2RsH6U7oSJ%7EbN7OBIMDhLUo5aVRXYCV036fE-LlMK-isXNZoaRNLZo%7ENITwBs4ouRk%7Eu7DQ%7EtYzr6846jpQmrw7jFlPzJWMjxy4jhA5X3TMGlVajV3vN1ShNg7rR7OuR99VfpehtHbL%7E61dJ725kCz0QEdEQvKPHIcIh8AtqR5BmDdyYd-4adbbfHCsia6T0CErmn1BOZyrIvA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ebbdb683ad95ec5c09e93bbe9043cd53
PDF Text
Text
IMPROVED DWELLINGS FOR THE INDUSTRIAL
CLASSES.
(Brounb JJlan anb Cilcbation
OF
LANGBOURN BUILDINGS,
MARK STREET,
PAUL STREET, FINSBURY SQUARE,
DESIGNED AND ERECTED FOR MR. ALDERMAN WATERLOW
BY MR. MATTHEW ALLEN:
WITH DESCRIPTIVE NOTES, AND AN APPENDIX,
BY
J. A. MAYS.
LONDON:
ROBERT HARDWiCKE, 192,
1863.
PICCADILLY
�*** The number of visitors who are flocking to the building,
which it was the purpose of the following notes to describe for the
benefit of those who were present at the Opening, renders a further
issue of them necessary.
An account of the proceedings at the Opening is now added.
J. A. MAYS.
�IMPROVED DWELLINGS FOR THE
INDUSTRIAL CLASSES.
The friends of the movement for improving the condition
of the dwellings of the working classes have cause to he
thankful, in one respect, to the projectors of the twentynine schemes now before Parliament, for extending and
completing the railway system of the metropolis, as great
good is likely to be accomplished by causing public
attention to be forcibly directed to the tremendous extent
of the evils under which hundreds of thousands of the
working population of London are suffering—evils arising
mainly from the overcrowded and unhealthy condition
of their dwellings. The success of the Underground
Railway seems to have given extraordinary vitality to
a whole host of metropolitan extension and junction lines,
the construction of which, while necessitating the appro
priation of some of the very few open areas that London
still possesses, and going further towards converting the
metropolis into a huge network of tunnels, aqueducts
and arches, will also necessitate the entire removal of
many hundred houses, the majority of which are occu
pied by the industrial classes. The unhealthy nature
and the insufficient extent of the accommodation with
which thev are already provided, coupled with the
sweeping and sudden destruction of the large number
of dwelling-houses which the carrying out of these
�4
projects involves, becomes a matter of serious incon
venience to the working portion of the population, and
of more than ordinary anxiety to the employers of labour
and to the legislature. It is perfectly needless therefore
to offer one word of apology in introducing the accom
panying drawings to public notice. The importance of
the project to which they relate, whether considered as
regards the furtherance of social reforms, the prevention
of disease, the extension of the railway systems of the
country, the general amelioration of the condition of the
labouring classes, or as purely a commercial speculation,
renders it of the deepest moment that everything in the
shape of practical experience, especially of that kind
which points to a remedy for a state of things which every
one deplores, should be placed before the public without
delay.
The nature and extent of the evils sought to be grappled
with by a well-organized scheme, having for its object the
rendering of the dwelling place of the working man a
home in its truest sense, need not be here depicted, as they
have been so often and so eloquently described by abler
pens ; but assuming that there is no longer any doubt as
to their existence, the object of the present paper is to
attempt the indication of a cure rather than to describe
the disease. Laborious efforts have been made of late
years, under the auspices of the two great Societies, and by
many benevolent persons, in attempting to surmount this
subject, beset as it is on every hand with apparently unap
proachable difficulties. Society is indebted to an incal
culable extent to the labours of the late Prince Consort,
the Earl of Shaftesbury, Miss Burdett Coutts, and many
other generous spirits who have been content to spend
large sums in this good work—a work which the noble
earl just named rightly appreciates when he says : “ This
�o
is a subject about which you cannot think or speak too
earnestly. The condition of the dwellings of the labour
ing classes is the besetting sin and difficulty of. the time,
for it stands in the way of every good moral impression.”—
It is due to the unremitting efforts of philanthropists,
under the auspices chiefly of the two great bodies,—the
Society for Improving the Condition of the Working
Classes, and the Metropolitan Association, coupled with
the beneficial operation of certain legislative enactments,
that the debasing condition of the dwellings in which so
many many thousands of our countrymen arc located
has been to some extent alleviated. A perusal of the
annual reports of these Societies shows the long period
over which their operations have extended, and the large
amounts which they have expended ; but it is with a pang
of heartfelt regret that one is forced to acknowledge that,
most praiseworthy as their exertions have been as
pioneering this good work, the success which might have
been expected to result, from their labours has not yet been
achieved. Though they have succeeded in producing in
certain cases houses which satisfy the requirements of
the working classes it is undoubtedly true that no
building has yet been erected which, while combining
the essential elements of comfort and respectability,
produces in the shape of rent such a return on the money
sunk in its erection as to induce capitalists to repeat
similar experiments on a larger scale for the sake of the
profits. It is obvious that if a scheme could be devised which
would in every case attain these important objects, espe
cially the latter, the matter would be set at rest at once
and for ever; and it is equally obvious that until this can
be done the subject must continue to be regarded as the
greatest social difficulty of the day. The late Prince
Consort indicated his clear perception of this truth some
�6
years since in the observation he made to the Honorary
Architect of Lord Shaftesbury’s Society—“ Mr. Roberts,
unless we can get 7 or 8 per cent, we shall not succeed, in
inducing builders to invest their capital in such houses,”
Instead of addressing themselves vigorously to the ac
complishment of what is here indicated, architects and
builders, on whom such a project would naturally devolve,
seem in a great measure to have relaxed their efforts
latterly, and to be content to allow the question to be con
sidered as one incapable of a profitable solution by any
known application of the materials at their disposal.
It would seem to be a matter of extreme importance,
therefore, to examine previous experiments, with a view
to ascertain in what respects greater economy in the cost
of construction may be attained, and whether at the
same time any of the buildings themselves present features
which may be judiciously avoided. Addressing one’s
attention to the last point, first let us notice incidentally
the Institutional appearance that many of them present.
It is unquestionable that in most of the buildings of this
class the long rows of windows have a dreary monotonous
effect, and impress on the mind the idea of a workhouse or
of a penitentiary. This is perhaps not altogether preventible where many suites of dwellings have to be arranged
in floors or flats one above the othei’; but it certainly
speaks volumes as to the great want of decent accommo
dation felt by the working classes, that although this
is an objection which is universally admitted, it does
not seem to operate to the exclusion of tenants ; still,
it is an objection that should, if possible, be obviated
in planning other buildings. Every opportunity should
be seized of providing, if possible, a home which in
every way tends to increase the self-respect of its occu
pant, and to engender that principle in the mind which
�7
indicates its presence in the cleanly appearance of the
home itself, and sometimes adorns it with flowers and
shrubs. It is advisable to give to each dwelling an
individuality of appearance; and also to dissipate the
feeling, unfortunately but too general, that the occu
pants of the “ model dwellings ” are the recipients of
charity. The next thing to be borne in mind is, that
every tenant should have complete and exclusive use
of all the essential accessories to a home ; such as water
supply, sink, copper, dusf-shoot, coal-place, and watercloset. In some cases economy both of space and cost of
building has been sought to be obtained by arrange
ments whereby two or more tenants have had the use of
these in common; but the divided use of such important
requisites, which ought if possible to be in a decent wellregulated home reserved to the exclusive use of only a
single family, is, I think, far from compensated by a
slight saving of space and cost of erection. It would
certainly be preferable to provide these appendages to
every dwelling, even though it should render it necessary
to adopt an exterior of tlic plainest possible description.
In some of the so-called model dwellings recently erected,
and to which the foregoing remarks would also apply,
that which must at once be characterized as a defect of no
ordinary kind is observable. Somewhat showy exteriors
have been obtained at a great sacrifice of internal comfort ;
—in the one case by the introduction, at a very great
expense, of elliptical counter arches over every window
and doorway in four large blocks of buildings containing
in the aggregate some hundreds of openings : and in the
other bv the use of ornamental stone columns at the door
ways. These architectural luxuries seem to me to be
sadly misplaced in buildings which cannot boast a
particle of either plastering or paper on their internal
�8
walls, and where every room, whether parlour, living-room
or bed-room, presents a repetition of the bare and cheer
less aspect of a prison cell. It is surely to be regretted
that money should be lavishly applied to the production
of that which is clearly unnecessary, at the expense of
denying to the tenants the cheerfid effect and air of
comfort that would be given to these dwellings by the
addition of a few yards of plastering and paper-hangings.
In no case save in the houses for working people would any
architect venture to ignore the power of appreciation on
the part of any portion of the community of the decencies
of a well-arranged dwelling, or to profess that a mere
whitewashed brick wall complies with the requirements
of a modern dwelling-house in respect to its internal
decoration.
I am not alone in believing that the
homes of workmen cannot by any possibility be rendered
too attractive, complete, and comfortable; and that while
they will often meet with stolid indifference anything of a
“ missionising ” tendency, the working classes gladly
welcome and warmly appreciate the efforts made to
obviate the evils and improve the condition of their
dwellings. What they very properly desire is, that,
if possible, homes shall be provided capable of meeting the
requirements of an English workman’s family—a home
which shall present an appearance not unattractive, and
the occupation of which shall not engender a feeling on
their part that their friends will regard them as being the
occupants of almshouses.
I am conscious that this brief introduction has already
extended beyond its proper limits; without indulging in
any further digression, therefore, let me at once proceed
to call attention to the peculiarities of the building repre
sented in the accompanying })lan and elevation of a block
of dwellings recently designed and erected by Mr. Matthew
�9
Allen, of Tabernacle Walk, Finsbury, for Mr. Alderman
Waterlow.
A patient and anxious consideration of the whole subject
led to the conclusion that the following were among the
most important points which required consideration :—
I. A ground plan easily adaptable to any plot of
ground, capable of repetition to any extent, and
presenting in the elevation a pleasing and attrac
tive appearance.
II. Suites of rooms at different rents, so planned as
to secure the greatest economy of space, mate
rials, and labour, in the erection of the building,
providing at the same time for the exclusive
use of each family, within the external door of
the lettings, every essential requisite of domestic
convenience.
III. The construction of a flat roof capable of being
used as a drying and recreation ground, so as to
leave as much space as possible available for
building.
IV. Planning the positions of the doors, windows,
and fireplaces, with reference to a suitable ar
rangement of the furniture of the apartments,
and the placing of proper fireplaces, cupboards,
shelves, &c., in every room.
V. An efficient system of drainage and ventilation.
VI. Making the joinery as near as possible to an
uniform size and pattern, so that machinery
might be brought to bear in economizing its
manufacture to a considerable extent.
VII. The discovery and adaptation of a new material
combining the properties of strength and dura
�10
bility, adaptability, attractiveness of appearance,
and cheapness, in an eminent degree.
VIII. The combination of these advantages in build
ings which, when let at fair rentals, would
produce a good return on the outlay incurred in
their erection.
IX. The selection of a locality where the ground rent
would not be excessive, although the tenants
would be sufficiently near* their work to enable
them to take their meals at home.
Let us now see to what extent these advantages have
been attained and combined in the present building. Its
general plan may be described as a parallellogram of 56
feet by 44 feet, divided into four sections by a party wall
in the centre and the two passages (EE) in the middle of
each wing. The two centre sections arc set back about
3 feet from the line of frontage, for the purpose of giving
space for a balcony of that width on each of the upper
floors. Each section comprises one suite of rooms, to
which access is obtained from the passages (EE) leading
(on all the upper floors) direct from the balcony (G). The
balconies arc reached by a fireproof staircase having a semi
elliptical form, the entrances to which are shown on the
elevation by the two doorways in the centre of the building.
This staircase is continued to and gives access to the roof.
The larger lettings, consisting of three rooms and a wash
house, occupy the end sections of the building. E D the
entrance door, g is a living room provided with a range
having an oven and boiler. Leading out of the living room
is tlie washhouse or scullery (ft) which contains in every
case what may be called the accessories of the dwelling,—
water cistern, sink, a small fireplace, washing copper, dust
shoot, water-closet, &c. It is expected that the fireplace
�11
in the washhouse will conduce greatly to the comfort of
the living room in the summer time. Q is a comfortable
bedroom having a fireplace; a capacious cupboard (H) is
arranged in the party wall between this room and the
entrance lobby, and over the latter is a useful receptacle
for the stowage of bulky objects. Passing out towards
the front parlour (0), is a series of shelves having
an artificial stone bottom and back, intended by its
proximity to the living room to serve as a cupboard for pro
visions, &c. 0 is a, spacious handsome parlour having two
windows : the fireplace is placed a little out of the centre
of the room, so as to leave a convenient space in which to
put an additional bed in cases where this would be
required to be used as a bedroom. On the other side of
the fireplace is a sideboard and cupboard.
The centre sections, comprising the smaller lettings,
consist of two rooms and a washhouse, &c. The wash
house A and the living room B are exactly similar to
those in the larger letting The bedroom Q can be con
veniently converted into a parlour by arranging a set of
curtains across the recess at the back of the room, and
thus dividing the part where the bed would be placed from
the rest of the apartment. WWW represent the win
dows. The plan is the same on each side of the party
walls, and every floor or flat is a repetition of the
other. Close to the ceilings of all the rooms a ventilator
is placed which communicates with air shafts running
through the centres of the chimney stacks. The air is thus
constantly rarified, and a system of natural ventilation is
produced. Besides this, it will be seen that by setting open
the windows a current of external air can be at one
passed through every room in the direction of the dotted
lines. The lower panes of the windows are filled in
with ornamental ground glass, so that no window blinds
�12
are necessary. The windows are constructed oil a some
what novel principle, being made to open outwards
like ordinary French casements, but the two lower
panes are not made to open, so that the danger of
children falling out, as well as the disadvantages of
the ordinary window sashes, are avoided. All the rooms
are 8 ft. 9 in. in height. The other dimensions are figured
on the plan, and need not be repeated here. Drainage is
effected by means of 4-in. stoneware pipes passing from
the top of the building, down the corners of the washhouses,
directly to the common sewer. The dust shaft carries the
dust to covered receptacles at the base of the building,
and each shoot is provided with an iron cover so as to pre
vent the return of dust and effluvia. The dust shafts are
also continued to the top of the building, and act as ven
tilators to the dust bins. The greater part of the rooms
especially the living rooms, have scarcely any external
walls, so that they will be always warm and dry. All
the rooms are plastered and papered, and the wash
houses are plastered and coloured. Every tenant has
his apartments completely to himself, and nothing
is used in common except the roof as a drying
and recreation ground. By extending the area of the
building three or four feet in every direction the size of
the rooms could be easily increased, and suites of rooms
obtained well adapted to the requirements of any class
of the community. With the view of judging of the
happy effect that a row of these buildings would produce,
the visitor is requested to stand a hundred yards away
from the building and imagine the pleasing appearance of
a street having several buildings like this on eacli side
of the way. The party walls on the roofs might be
dispensed with in cases where several blocks arc built
side by side, and the roofs thus connected together would
���observing the rapid and facile manner in which it is made
to assume any desired shape. Castings will be made and
removed from moulds in the presence of the visitors.
With respect to the window
dressings and sills it will, probably, be admitted that the use
of the new material is a vast improvement on the ordinary
York sills, and yet the moulded ornamental sill is actually
the cheaper of the two. In the case of the chimney pieces,
too, a marked improvement is recognizable. The com
monest Bath stone, got up in the plainest style, would
cost about twice as much as those of artificial stone with
ornamental sunk panels, and as there are seventy fire
places in the building, there is a great saving in the
aggregate. The effect when these are painted to imitate
marble is very tasteful. The Building Act renders
it imperative to make the stairs of fireproof materials ;
and when we compare the cost of the stairs formed of
this material with the price of ordinary stone steps, the
saving is found to be enormous. The patent material
possesses all the advantages of appearance and durability
of allrtland stone staircase at one-fifth of its cost, and at
half the price of even the commonest York staircase.
These stairs were all fixed in their places as the building
progressed, and they have endured the wear and tear of the
�1G
workmen s heavy boots for some months past—more wear,
probably, than they will suffer for the next three or foul
’s. In some cases they were “nosed” with Portland
nreprooi noors, m ordinary c
construction of 9-in. walls for their support, but here the
extraordinary lightness and strength of the material just
described enables 4-in. walls to be used with perfect safety.
The economy of materials and labour in this respect in a
building of five stories is so obvious that it need hardly be
referred to. Portions of the building will remain unoc
cupied for a few days after the opening for the inspection
of visitors presenting their cards, and opportunities of
making accurate comparisons of the superiority and
diminished cost of various articles formed of this material
and of the ordinary building stones will be afforded.
The judicious arrangements of the plan already alluded
to as securing the greatest economy of space and cost of
construction, combined with the application of this
beautiful material, overcome the great difficulty hitherto
felt in attempting to deal with the problem of reducing
the cost of such buildings to a sum that the net rent
would pay a good return in the shape of interest on the
outlay. The pleasure with which one greets the appear
ance of such a building is enhanced by the knowledge,
�17
based on experience, that similar erections can be under
taken at a cost of something like £110 per dwelling
(see account annexed at page 20). All that is now required
seems to be the judicious application of capital to the ex
tension of the system in the overcrowded districts of the
metropolis and the large towns of the kingdom.
It is earnestly desired to avoid the use of any names
which could have the effect of attaching to the buildings
the idea of their being intended for the exclusive use of
a particular class. It is feared that the somewhat indis
criminate use of the word “model” in connection with
this and kindred subjects, has had anything but a bene
ficial effect; it seems to be associated with the ideas of
centralization so repugnant to the feelings of Englishmen.
The Earl of Shaftesbury honoured the building with a
visit some few days since, and stated distinctly that a more
cheerful and attractive home had been built for £110 than
either of the Metropolitan Associations had produced at a
minimum of £180. On leaving, he expressed himself as
having spent one of the happiest afternoons of his life, as
he had that day seen that which he had been looking for
in vain for many years, viz., a clean, healthy, and desira
ble home for a mechanic, erected at a price that would pay a
fair return on the money invested.
The careful inspection of the friends of the movement,
with which the name of this noble earl is so honourably
associated, are cordially invited to afford the projectors the
benefit of their criticism. It is hoped that it will be easy
to engraft upon the plan as it stands any minor improve
ments that may be suggested by the experience and know
ledge of others.
It should not be forgotten that the buildings now under
review have been erected within a quarter of an hour’s
walk of the Bank of England, and therefore easily within
2
�18
the reach of the large number of artizans employed in
the City of London. This is a most important feature, for
the oftener a man takes his meals at home, and the more
he cultivates a domestic life, the less he is likely to yield
to the flaring attractions of the beershop and the gin
palace : the more he associates with his family, and sub
mits to the gentle influence of little children, the easier
will he be elevated in the social scale, improved as a
neighbour and influenced as a Christian.
Looking down from the beautiful flat roof of Lang
bourn Buildings, the eye-rests upon four or five acres of
ground covered with the most wretched houses, or rather
hovels, the majority of them containing only two rooms each
and having no back windows : the sight is saddening, and
would be most depressing if it were not cheered with a
knowledge that all these vile, tumble-down dwellings, so
close to the heart of the City of London, are now the
property of the Corporation of London, and will in 1867
revert to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners : there is some
hope that one or both of these public bodies, being so
deeply interested in the improvement of the homes of the
labouring classes, may devote a large portion of the site
to the accomplishment of so important an object.
In conclusion, it is possible that the objection may be
raised that the rents of the dwellings in Langbourn
Buildings (0.5. to 6-s. 6<7. per week) are beyond the means of
the working class. The reply to this would be, that, con
tiguous to the spot where this building stands, four other
blocks are to be erected ; and that long before this the first
block was completed, applications were received to a suffi
cient number to have filled the whole of the five blocks had
they been ready, and now that this one is ready for occupa
tion, not a day passes without bringing with it swarms of
eager applicants to be received as tenants at these and even
���APPENDIX.
THE OPENING.
After a minute inspection of the building in every part, and an
examination of the various uses to which the patent material had
been applied, as explained by the builder and inventor, Mr. Allen,
the company adjourned to the flat roof, where refreshments were
served under an awning.
Amongst the noblemen and gentlemen present were :—
Lord Radstock,
Lord Ebury,
W. A. Wilkinson, Esq.,
Samuel Morley, Esq.,
S. Gregson, Esq., M.P.,
C. S. Fortescue, Esq., M.P.,
Fredk. Byng, Esq., M.P.,
Edwin Chadwick, Esq., C.B.,
Wm. Hawes, Esq.,
Hy. Roberts, Esq ,
Benjamin Scott, Esq., F.R.S.S.,
Russell Scott, Esq.,
J. H. Friswell, Esq.,
Rev. W. Denton,
George Godwin, Esq., F.R.S.,
Revd. E. Bayley,
H. Barnett, Esq.,
Thos. Benton. Eso..
W. H. Collingridge, Esq.,
C. Reed, Esq.,
J. C. Colquhoun, Esq.,
Hy. Dawson Esq.,
Robt. Dimsdale, Esq.,
Edward Enfield, Esq.,
C. Gatliff, Esq.,
J. C. Conybeare, Esq.,
A. Haldane, Esq.,
C. J. Hilton, Esq.,
Jno. Hollinshead, Esq.,
H. De Jersey, Esq., C.C.,
D. Simms, Esq., C.C ,
Rev. A. P. Kelley,
W. J. Makwell, Esq.,
Rev. S. Minton,
Jno. Sperling, Esq.,
HrV. Tt TiinrwAll
Ebury.
The noble Chairman said that at the request of Mr. Waterlow he
proposed to say a few words in reference to the object which had
brought them together that day ; but it was a subject so extremely
interesting in itself, and of such extraordinary importance, that it
was really hard to say only a few words upon it. At that high
altitude and somewhat low temperature, however, he would endea
vour to be as brief as possible. Important and absorbing as had
�22
been the events of the past week in connection with the marriage of
the Prince of Wales, fraught as they were with interest to every one
present, and the excitement of which would be still fresh in their
minds, he yet felt that the circumstance which had brought them
together on the top of that house were of deeper interest and of far
more importance than those of which he was quite certain they all
had so lively a recollection, for upon the successful solution of this
great problem the welfare of our town populations entirely depended.
It was a subject upon which, as Lord Shaftesbury had eloquently said,
no man could think or speak too earnestly; for the condition of the
dwellings of the labouring classes was the besetting sin and difficulty
of the time, as it stood in the way of every good moral impression.
He was very sorry that that noble Lord was not present to share
their gratification, but he was quite sure that he would have been
there had it been possible. He saw before him a great number
of gentlemen who with himself had been long labouring in this
cause, and though they had met with somewhat bare success, he
was sure he was but speaking the feelings of all his friends and
fellow-labourers in saying that although they had not achieved
great commercial success, yet the work had not disgusted or
dissatisfied them, because they knew the real good they had effected
among certain classes of the people, and that in the commence
ment of an undertaking with the details and practical working of
which they were not practically acquainted they must expect to meet
with considerable failures. But to-day their interest in that under
taking centred itself in the project before them. He did not know
whether it was too early in the clay to say that the problem was
solved altogether ; but after having very attentively perused
the document which described the building, and having now care
fully inspected the building itself, he must say that, taking the
figures to be correct, and that it was capable of producing a rent
which would give a per-centage of seven or eight per cent, on the
outlay in its erection, a result had been obtained of no slight impor
tance, as it solved the difficulty over which previous experimentalists
had stumbled, and proved that building enterprises of that nature
could be rendered commercially remunerative. There were tides in
the affairs of men,—crises in the development of all great movements.
Buildings (5s. to 6s. 6c/. per week) are beyond the means c
the working- class. The reply to this would be, that, cor
tiguous to the spot where this building stands, lour othi
, 1 -]
J •) _ X J
-1 i 1
rftAll lUVfveti 111 villi
there to criticise the budding in every way, and he could tell him
that he had some severe critics there that day—critics who would
look to the proper accommodation of even the smallest child in the
establishment, and that had in fact been done; indeed,it was neces
sary that all these things should undergo the most careful scrutiny.
He could fairly say for himself, although he did not pretend to
possess the knowledge and experience of some of his friends around
him, that he could really find but little fault. He had looked at it
�23
in the most careful manner—he had felt it with his fingers—he had
walked about it—he had poked it with his umbrella, and he had
asked his friends’ opinion about it; and at that moment he had not.
been able to find anything of any importance to criticise. He was
quite unable to pick a hole in the undertaking, and he thanked God
that he had put it into the heart of a Christian man to do this great
and good work. (Cheers.) He thanked Mr. Waterlow from the
bottom of liis heart for the privilege of being allowed to be present
that day. He felt that this was a movement which laid at the
foundation of all social and religious progress, for it was impossible
to make impressions for good which could have any permanent
effect on the min<ls of the people, surrounded as they were in their
homes with that which tended only to brutalize and degrade. He
begged to propose Mr. Alderman Waterlow’s very good health.
(Loud cheers.)
In responding to the toast, Mr. Alderman Waterlow thanked
the noblemen and gentlemen present for their attendance there that
day and for their kind appreciation of his endeavours. He said that
his object in asking them there was twofold—first, of obtaining the
advice and criticism of men far better acquainted with the subject than
himself, before proceeding to the further development of his scheme ;
and he hoped also that the result of assembling together so many
distinguished philanthropists would be, that they would not separate
without laying the foundation of some broad and comprehensive
scheme for giving further stimulus to this most important movement,
in which he had endeavoured to render some assistance. He would
not dwell upon that which the Chairman had already urged with so
much clearness, as to the necessity of improving the domestic con
dition of the people before hoping to effect anything in the way of a
permanent moral reform, but he would <ask how much of the great
increase of that form of crime which was designated the social evil
owed its origin to the over-crowded and immoral huddling together
of the sexes. So long, too, as the working classes were compelled
to live in close, inconvenient, badly devised and overcrowded dwell
ings, it was impossible to make them thoroughly feel and appreciate
the great truths of the Bible. He was thoroughly convinced that
before the preaching and teaching of ministers of religion could have
that beneficial effect on the labouring classes which they all lookedfc >r ■
ward to, that the demoralizing influences which now surrounded the
poor in the condition of their homes must be removed. So strongly
had this been seen of late, that vigorous attempts had been made to
improve the dwellings of the poor. Without referring in detail to
the great efforts that had been already put forth in various quarters,
he would go at once to that which was undoubtedly the great diffi
culty of the matter—the apparent impossibility of obtaining a good
return on the outlay incurred in the erection of Improved Dwellings.
It was because of this failure of remuneration that capitalists could
not be found willing to continue the erection of such dwellings. He
wanted to show that 8 or 9 per cent. CQuld be obtained by the adoption of the present plan. He was constantly referred to the practical
�24
results realized by the Metropolitan Associations, and was told that
the return he predicted looked better on paper than would eventually
tarn out; but the Metropolitan Associations were the pioneers of
the movement—they had had to contend with and conquer diffi
culties which would now be avoided—they had gradually acquired
an experience of which others were reaping the profit; and their
own accounts showed a return of 4| per cent, on the Family Dwell
ings erected in St. Pancras Square on a cost of erection at the
rate of £160 per dwelling, but here the cost of such a dwelling
would be only £110, and the same rents were obtained: there
fore it was obvious that that which returned 4J per cent, on
£160 would amount to 7 per cent, on £110. But the average
return on the operations of the Metropolitan Association was not
encouraging. This society had spent about £80,000, and had
only realized a return of about 2| per cent. He felt certain that
it was on this point that he was able to demonstrate a remedy.
It was simply a question of reducing the cost of dwellings to such
a sum that the amount received by their rental should form a good
and encouraging return on the outlay. It was absurd to suppose
that the great body of working people were to be allowed to depend
on the efforts of charitable people to provide them with homes.
He was quite prepared, if any gentlemen were desirous of proof,
to show that these buildings, which were certainly quite equal to
those of St. Pancras, could be erected in any number for £110
each. He would say one word as to locality : he believed it to be a
m atter of the most essential importance, both as a matter of economy
and policy, that the working man’s home should be near enough to
his work to enable him to take every meal with his family ; it was
better, cheaper, and more comfortable in every respect. He believed
that the more a man was Subjected to home influences of a healthy
kind, the less he was likely to succumb to the flaring attractions of
the gin palaces. One of the best possible localities, he thought,
for carrying out an experiment of this kind was that in which they
then were,the freehold of which belonged to the Ecclesiastical Com
missioners, and held by the Corporation of the City of London, on
a jease expiring in 1867. If those two powerful bodies could be
influenced to give preference in reletting the ground to the pro
moters of a movement having for its object the removal of the
wretched hovels they saw around them, and the replacing them
with dwellings of a similar character to that on which they then
stood, a great advantage would be gained. The importance of such a
movement was admitted on all hands, and he thought that he had now
proved its feasibility. He did not, for one moment, mean it to be
understood that they were desirous of obtaining possession of the
ground on more favourable terms than others ; all that he wanted was,
the assurance of an ordinary lease on the ordinary terms at the
ordinary market value of the ground. In the present case, the ground
rent was twice that which it ought to be, in consequence of his
having had to negotiate with and pay large premiums to persons who
stood between himself and the freeholders. He would add a word
�25
or two further, before sitting down, when he would be prepared,
and anxious, to answer any question which might be put to him. The
piece of ground of which he had obtained possession was sufficient for
the erection of ninety homes such as they had just inspected, by
the removal of 32 two-roomed houses such as those around him ;
he felt that in the erection of these ninety homes, and in thus
assisting to prove the possibility of making such undertakings pay,
he was doing as much as could be properly expected of him as a
private individual; but he could not sit down without saying, that, in
his opinion, the figures and facts he had brought forward made out
a proper case for the operations of a public company, a body having
a large capital divided into two classes, the protected capital and the
unprotected capital, the former bearing a fixed rate of interest, 4 per
cent., the latter taking the commercial risk and the rest of the
profit. He made this suggestion because he was told, on very good
authority, that there were plenty of people who, if they could be
guaranteed a fixed rate of 4 per cent., would be glad to invest large
sums of money in such an undertaking; and he believed that the
public would be readily tempted to take up the unprotected capital,,
on the prospect of obtaining 10 or 12 per cent, for their money.
In this case he showed a return of over 9 per cent., even under the
disadvantage of the high ground-rent which he had mentioned 'r
but if they thought this overestimated, let them strike off 20
or 25 per cent., as a discount on his statements ; that would then
leave them more than 6 per cent., and the difference between
that and 4 per cent., which would have to be paid on the protected
capital, would bring up the other half—the unprotected capital—
to 9 per cent. If the suggestion was thought worth acting on, he
would be only too happy to do all in his power to carry it out.
He, was sure that there were many gentlemen present who were
able to offer valuable advice and criticism, and he assured them
that he was very anxious to hear everything they might have tosay. He begged to thank them heartily for the honour they did
him in drinking his health, and to express the great pleasure he
derived in seeing so many friends of the working classes present on
the occasion.
Edwin Hill, Esq., as an old director of the Metropolitan Associa
tion, claimed the privilege of saying a few words. He said that
the physical and moral good created by the erection of such a
building as the present extended far beyond its own area, as it
acted as a most powerful competitor with the dirty, squalid habita
tions by which it was surrounded, and that in many cases the
landlords of the latter had been compelled in self interest to
imitate the good example of cleanliness set by these kind of dwell
ings. He felt, moreover, that such a home greatly conduced tothe moral purity of its inmates.
Edwin Chadwick, Esq., C.B., said there could not be a doubt that
these buildings were a very large stride in economy of construction,
and that if the same economy had been enforced by the Metropo
litan Association they would have had 7 or 8 per cent. All the
�26
medical officers of health would agree with him that this building
was perfectly fever proof if they took care to prevent two people
occupying space intended only for one. This building might be
looked upon as well adapted to the requirements of the
Earl of Shaftesbury’s provision, that in future railway com
panies proposing to pull down a number of dwellings should be
compelled to erect a proportionate number of others in their place.
It was plain, in fact, that the railway companies would probably
make more money by the erection of such buildings than by the
construction of their lines.
Lord Radstock thought that as the gentlemen invested with the
disposition of Mr. Peabody’s munificent gift appeared to be
undecided as to how to apply it, it might go with some force
to them if those present were to unite in suggesting to them,
that before making any arrangement for its disposition they
should, at any rate, give this matter their most careful considera
tion. He was quite sure that any representation from such an
influential body of gentlemen as those then present would be apt to
attract more attention on the part of the trustees than would be
likely to be awakened by merely seeing the reports in the news
papers.
Mr. Alderman Waterlow had hoped that the trustees of the
Peabody Fund would have dealt with it in a different way, and he
thought that instead of turning their attention to building homes, it
would be better if they applied the money to the purchase of sites, to
be let at nominal reuts, under a stringent covenant that the lease
should be instantly void if the ground was at any time used for any
other purpose than providing dwellings for the poor. They would
thus be offering most direct inducements for the construction of good,
healthy, well-built dwellings; the ground would be constantly
increasing in value, and would remain in perpetuity as the poor
man’s site.
J. C. Conybeare, Esq., had been long convinced that the only
remedy for the existing evils was the use of some material which
would at once effect a great reduction in the prune cost of construc
tion, and he felt that that was obtained in the present building.
With regard to the proper carrying out of any undertaking for the
complete development of this very valuable idea, he would much
prefer to see it left in the hands of a London Aiderman ; he would
be glad to see it worked by a philanthropic citizen, aided by his
commercial and mercantile fellows of the citizen world of England.
It required to be taken up and prosecuted entirely as a business
matter. He would be sorry to see the Peabody Fund applied to
building any of these houses, but he thought that the suggestion
as to its acquiring sites was a remarkably good one. He was anxious
that something should be done, too, for the improvement of the
cottages of England ; he could speak from experience of the fact
that they were in a most disgraceful condition in several counties.
Samvel Morley, Esq., in moving the first resolution, “ That this
meeting having inspected Mr. Aiderman Waterlow’s model building
�27
ancl listened to the explanations afforded, is of opinion that the very
best moral and social results, and very fair expectations of an ample
return on the capital invested, would result from, the erection of
such buildings,” said, he had very great pleasure in meeting then
Lordships and the gentlemen present on that occasion for he could
not doubt that if the statements they had heard and the figures put
forward in the balance-sheet were borne out by the facts a great
stride had been made in the subject which laid so close to the great
social questions of the day. He joinedmost heartily in the encomiums
that had been pronounced upon the building.. He thought that the
builder had in a very prominent manner exhibited a degree of talent
in designing, and attention to his work in executing it, whic 1
deserved to be taken notice of by them, and that, at any rate, he
ought to receive the expression of their respectfid admiration. He
had read with great interest the pamphlet with which lie supposed
they had all been provided, and he quite agreed with the writer m
insisting that attention should be paid to the provision of every
necessary accessory of a home to the exclusive use of a single letting.
He sympathized also with the respectful attention, which it demanded,
to the comforts of the working-man. He would have been glad to
have seen the fulfilment of the promise which the late Mr. Pearson
made, by which arrangements could be made for large numbers ot
workmen living out of town. With regard to the rents, he accepted
the explanation offered in the pamphlet on that subject, andlie thought
at, the same time that the accommodation was well worth what was
charged. He was entirely in favour of carrying the matter further
under private supervision, and he was quite prepared to go into le
matter if Aiderman Waterlow would put himself at the head of such
an undertaking. He should go into it with a clear and distinct
expectation of receiving a good return on his capital. The amount
of money which could be used iu connection with such a scheme was
perfectly enormous, and he believed it could now be most, profitably
applied in this way.
.
m-Datn
The City Chamberlain (Benjamin Scott, Esq., f .K.b.b.) naci
great pleasure in seconding the resolution He did not know
whether he had been invited there in his official capacity or not,
but he felt that he should not be unduly committing himself, or the
other members of the Corporation who were present, in stating
that in the event of his advice being required as to whether the invest
ment of a portion of the Corporation’s large funds m this undertaking
was advisable, he should have no hesitation whatever in saying that,
in his opinion, such an investment would be a highly safe and proper
one, and that it would be likely to be productive, at the same time,
of the greatest moral and social benefit to the people of the metro
polis. They had gone into the consideration of the question some
years since, and obtained powers from Parliament to apply a large
portion of their spare capital in the erection of Improved Dwellings.
The question had, however, remained m abeyance, m consequence
of their finding they could not build them at a remunerative rate.
The building to which their attention was then directed, how
�28
ever, would, no doubt, lead to a revival of the subject. This building,
so far as his observation went, was a return to a practice uni
versal in the ancient world, and general at the present time in the
eastern world, of availing themselves of the pure air and light of
heaven which were to be obtained at the elevated position in which
they stood. Medical men would tell them that the cheerful
influence of the solar rays, and the refreshing breezes, were of as
much importance to health as a proper supply of good food and pure
water. He saw no reason why we should not, as far as possible,
adopt the salutary practice of the Turk, of constantly frequenting
the housetop.
Henry Roberts, Esq., F.R.S., said that he wished to give ex
pression to the great interest and satisfaction with which he had
gone over this building. It seemed to him to be one of the fruits
produced by the small building erected by His Royal Highness
Prince Albert at the Exhibition of 1851. He had seen that build
ing repeated in various forms, not only in the United Kingdom, but
in many places on the Continent; and he now saw the same build
ing extended and repeated here. Here were the open staircase and
gallery—the fire-proof floors and the flat roof—all of which were
leading features in the lamented Prince Consort’s model dwellings.
He was quite sure that, if they knew as he did, the great interest
with which His Royal Highness devoted himself to the subject,
they would feel especial pleasure in finding that this building was
a further development of the excellences which were so notice
able in those model dwellings of 1851. He would take that oppor
tunity of testifying to the fact that up to the closing scene of his
eventful life the subject before them had been to Prince Albert
one of unflagging interest.
Mr. Robert Cranston supported the resolution, and dwelt with
great force on his experience in connection with the erection of
buildings of a similar class in Edinburgh. He was prepared to
show a clear return of 8 per cent, as the result of his investments.
If a proper plan were adopted in the first instance, and a suitable
locality chosen, he could not have the slightest doubt that this re
turn might be always obtained. He might state that he was origi
nally himself a practical builder, and Mr. Allen had kindly allowed
him access to the figures in connection with this undertaking, and
in the presence of these and his own experience he hoped to hear
no more of the operations of charitable associations, as the necessity
for their help in the matter had now passed away, and it would be
only a matter of time to apply the natural remedy which was now
happily attained.
The resolution on being put from the chair was carried unani
mously.
W. A. Wilkinson, Esq. proposed the health of the noble Chair
man, and bore testimony to the readiness with which he associated
himself with every movement of a progressive nature.
The toast having been drank,
The Chairman thanked the gentlemen present for the compli
�29
ment, and said that the work in which they were engaged was bound
to go forward ; it had received an impetus that day which would
not allow of the question standing still any longer. There was one
omission to which he felt bound to call the worthy Alderman’s at
tention. He had invited only gentlemen to be present that day.
Now, the ladies were quite as much interested in the question, and,
whether they knew it or not, he believed that they had a great deal
more influence in it than the gentlemen. (Cheers.)
Mr. Alderman Waterlow explained that the building would
remain open for public inspection for two or three weeks, and he
hoped that would afford a better opportunity for ladies to inspect it.
The Chairman continued. There was a duty before them which
he was sure all would gladly discharge. They had inspected the
whole of this building, and were delighted with the completeness ofits arrangement in every part; but they ought to be mindful of the
fact that that which gave them so much pleasure to see realized
had been a matter of long-continued patient thought and effort on
the part of Mr. Allen. He could quite understand that there must
have been an enormous amount of really laborious work in re
arranging, and altering, and turning about in every way. He proposed
that they should drink the health of the architect and builder, Mr.
Allen, and wish success to the project which had been suggested.
The toast was drank with great cordiality.
Mr. Allen thanked their lordships and the gentlemen present
for the kind manner in which his name had been referred to, and
for the honour they had just done him. He could assure them
that this building had been a matter of the greatest anxiety and
interest to him for the past three or four years, but now that it was
completed he felt that it amply rewarded him for all the time he
had bestowed upon it. He was now only anxious that the number
of them should be greatly increased, and after what had been said
that day he had no doubt that the matter would be placed in
the hands of men capable of ensuring it the success which he was
proud to believe it deserved. (Cheers.)
The Chairman said that the whole subject seemed to him one of
such vital importance in every way that he proposed to ask the
Rev. Samuel Minton, with Mr. Waterlow’s permission, to offer a few
words of prayer for its success.
The Rev. S. Minton having complied with this request the com
pany dispersed.
���HEALTHY DWELLINGS FOR THE INDUSTRIAL
CLASSES,
LANGBOURN BUILDINGS, MARK STREET, PAUL STREET, FINSBURY SQUARE.
Designed and erected by Mr. Matthew Allen, for Mr. Alderman Wateri.ow.
��Ground Plan af a Flat, Nos. 1 and 4 having Four! Rooms, and Nos. 2 and 3 Three Rooms in each Letting.
The coloured parts indicate that the floors are constructed of Alien’s patent fireproof material, of which also the staircases and roofs are composed.
References: A-Wash-house
W
*_________________ ,_______________ _
___________________________________ ___________________ 56' 3‘
W
F' External Staircase
_____________________________________________________________________________________
HEALTHY DWELLINGS FOR THE INDUSTRIAL CLASSES,
LANGBOURN BUILDINGS, MARK STREET, PAUL STREET, FINSBURY SQUARE.
Designed and erected by Mr. Matthew Allen, for Mr. Alderman Waterlow
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Improved dwellings for the industrial classes: ground plan and elevation of Langbourn Buildings, Mark Street, Paul Street, Finsbury Square, designed and erected for Alderman Waterlow by Mr. Matthew Allen, with descriptive notes, and an appendix by J.A Mays
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 29 p. : ill. (2 folded plates) ; 20 cm.
Notes: Incomplete: p.15/16, part cut away; p. 19/20 removed; p. 21/22 part cut away. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway,
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mays, J.A.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1863
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Robert Hardwicke
Subject
The topic of the resource
Housing
Social problems
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Improved dwellings for the industrial classes: ground plan and elevation of Langbourn Buildings, Mark Street, Paul Street, Finsbury Square, designed and erected for Alderman Waterlow by Mr. Matthew Allen, with descriptive notes, and an appendix by J.A Mays), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5396
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Housing
Langbourn Buildings - London
London
Sidney Hedley Waterlow
Social Problems
Working Classes
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/94c7fcf7b18b44cad7bc981031f49fa9.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=OyhcRoF4Qd8rGEMTyRLXg7vN2ILDrMCgGkDC2KDIXgh7EuLMHf0dJu8jB5Piev%7EasRwyQvK1E36%7E3l5T4uglcU7sC-tT4V%7EGNmX37%7EhRidwT6UvRDgvhTbZi35Wx31yXn-8HAB72PDQkC3NW6ZO8Ljp8dtVp88ZundFm9JaquVy5srOGkmFnf14lqbGV0FGZdD2-GkWM-RPrHjqcULCRStvpygbRdT349MLURQlxhhs1WQ%7ErEr8op%7EZ6YDpG3q71tHSrmjZDTJ2qubRrKc8BhK73W%7ESjq6Hky7-ZfadajPPPUsOktZ9HzVK17A1%7EPFbo80ZgTJ4EVflFTVKPZ04M1g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
e3b69f461876abb1fec97952700a2456
PDF Text
Text
MATERIALS
roR
THE TRUE HISTORY
OP
L LORD PALMERSTON. • i
7. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CRIMES.
CASE OF ALLEGED BRIBERY.
INTRODUCTION TO THE FOREIGN OFFICE. 8. PROSTRATION OF PUBLIC CHARACTER
AND AUTHORITY.
CONNEXION WITH THE PRINCESS LIEVEN.
9. CHARACTER AS DISPLAYED IN THE
CAREER OF FIFTY-EIGHT YEARS.
CHANGE OF THE SUCCESSION TO DEN
PARALLEL CASE OF CHATEAUBRIAND—
MARK.
MINISTER OF FRANCE AND AGENT OF
10. CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING §IR JOHN
RUSSIA.
BOWRING.—(APPENDIX.)
6. CONNIVANCE OF SIR ROBERT PEEL.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
t
(REPRINTED FROM THE “FREE PRESS,” FROM MAY TO NOVEMBER, 1865.)
LONDON:
ROBERT HARDWICKE, 192, PICCADILLY.
April, 1866.
Price One Shilling.
��Materials for the True History of
Lord Palmerston.
No. I.—Case of Bribery.
TO THE PRESIDENT OE THE FINAN struct themselves by all requisite study, so
that they may understand public affairs;
CIAL REFORM ASSOCIATION.
having for years past applied themselves to
Saint Pancras Foreign Affairs Committee,
the examination of transactions in China,
June 21, 1865.
and having ample means for such inquiry in
Sir,—I recently, as Secretary to a Committee the published official documents ; had ascer
of Working Men in this Metropolis, signed a tained that Sir John Bowring had, in his
Memoir in reference to the conduct of Sir public capacity at Canton, lent himself to
John Bowring, and to the recent connexion the prosecution of a criminal and ruinous
of the Financial Reform Association with that policy dictated from home; and in doing so,
individual. To avoid placing that Association had had recourse to means so flagitious and
in the dilemma of having to justify its con disgraceful as to exclude him from the inter
duct, or confess its error, this Memoir was course of all honest men.
not addressed to it, but copies were sent to
Judging that the Financial Reform Asso
the office, and forwarded with or without
ciation, through neglect of these sources of
private letters to every member of the Council
in Liverpool, and to some leading members information, to which alone we look, had re
of the Association elsewhere. From the As mained in ignorance of such conduct on the
sociation we have received no communication. part of the individual referred to, and had
A notice of our Memoir has, however, been been surprised into intercourse with him, we
inserted in its organ, which I enclose here drew up the Memoir in question.
After an interval of six weeks—ample time
with, from the incapacity I feel to describe
or characterise it. I have to request to know for investigation and reflection—the organ of
whether this insertion has been made with the the Financial Reform Association published
knowledge and sanction of yourself, or of the the notice, the subject of this letter.
Council of the Financial Reform Association.
We should have supposed that any notice
Having discharged this duty, I have to ad of such charges must have been either a re
dress you, as President of the Association, on futation or a justification. We are answered
the subject of the statements thus put for merely by scoffing iteration of disjointed
ward in its organ to its members and the words, coupled with a justification, not of the
world, as a matter perfectly distinct from the acts we charge on Sir John Bowring, but
forms, usages, and courtesies of correspond of Sir John Bowring himself, notwithstand
ing those acts, because he made “ a capital
ence between individual men.
The origin of the Memoir, not published, free trade speech.”
What signifies it that the proof of delibe
but commented on in the Financial lieformer
(and not published at the time in any news rate falsehood stands in the Blue-book ?
paper), was the presence of Sir John Bow That on the 11th of October, 1856, Sir John
ring at a meeting of the Financial Reform Bowring wrote to his subordinate that the
Association. The Foreign Affairs Committee, Arrow had no right to carry the British flag,
on whose behalf I write, being, like many but that “ the Chinese had no knowledge of
others, composed of men whose object is not the expiry of the licencethat presuming
to advance any particular theory, but to in on this ignorance, he wrote to the Chinese
E
�2
HISTORY OF LORD PALMERSTON.
Commissioner on the 14th of November,
“ There is no doubt the lorcha Arrow law
fully bore the British flag.” ?
What matters it that the end and aim of
this falsehood, and these unjust demands, was
to bring about the slaughter of helpless
Chinese without just cause, and without a
declaration of war, by military and naval
forces, with which they were quite unable to
contend, on the ground that Chinese subjects
had been taken out of a Chinese boat in
Chinese waters by a Chinese officer ? What
matters it that he should thus have “entailed
upon every British subject the guilt of
murder ?”*
What matters it that a Hong-Kong jury
should have found by their verdict that Sir
John Bowring was the accomplice of Mr.
Caldwell, the Registrar-General of HongKong, partner of pirates, and proprietor of
houses of ill fame ?t What matters it that
this Apostle of Tree-trade, Peace, and
Financial Reform should break the peace be
tween two great nations by hostilities founded
on a false pretext and supported by an “ ac
knowledged lie ?” thereby injuring and
fettering an important trade, and, by the
consequent expenses, preventing reduction
of expenditure and “ Financial Reform ?”
What matter these things ? says the organ of
the Financial Reform Association — “ Sir
John Bowring has made a ‘ capital Freetrade speech.’
* Sir James Graham, in the House of Commons, 17th
of August, 1860, said, “ If there were not a state of war
with China, the aspect of the case was fearful indeed ;
for without a declaration of war, any man who put an
end to the life of a Chinese was, by statute, guilty of
murder.”
f The following description of the administration of
Sir John Bowring at Hong-Kong was given by
his successor, Sir Hercules Robinson, after the conviction
of Machow Wong for piracy :
“ There is no doubt that Machow Wong had the
power, through Mr. Caldwell, of directing the move
ments of ships of war against pirates, or alleged pirates,
whenever he pleased.”
1! It was shown, during the progress of the investiga
tion, that Mr. Caldwell was entrusted with the power
of obtaining, on his own authority alone, the services of
men-of-war to proceed in search of alleged pirates; that
nothing further was required of him than that he should
say he had received information of an act of piracy, and
that, with no greater formality than this, he should apply
personally to the senior naval officer for the assistance
of one or more ships, or boats, embark himself in one of
them, describe the place to which they should proceed,
and there point out the vessels or place to be attacked.”
“ If the mere landing of cargo captured at sea -would
justify the firing of a town, I fear a similar pretext
might be found daily for the bombardment of the capital
of Hong-Kong.”
J The expenditure of England at the time when the
Financial Reform Association was formed for the purpose
This must be the impression of any un
prejudiced person, after reading our Memoir
and the article in the Financial Reformer.
Sir John Bowring has either been guilty
of these things, or he has not. It is impos
sible to deny that he has, since the evidence
is on record, and is supplied by himself. If
he has, loss of character must surely ensue to
any one who associates with him. Further,
the extinction of its corporate purpose in an
Association, having economy for its end,
must follow its acceptance of the patronage
of a man whose public acts have entailed
“ profligate expenditure,” and who is also the
servant of a Government whose extravagance
that Association seeks to expose and correct.
We submit that, under such circumstances,
your Association must be suspected by the
thoughtful, and must tend to mislead those
who look to it as a guide.
We beg of you to consider the conse
quences that must ensue to all of us from
this loss of the sense of justice and of right.
Akenside has said, “ No nation ever lost its
liberties at home till it had been made the
tool of designing men against the liberties of
others.” If we make ourselves the accom
plices of Sir J. Bowring in destroying the
Chinese, surely we shall deserve that as we
have meted unto others, even so shall it be
meted unto us. If we lay down the rule that
might is right in respect to the Chinese,
where shall we stop ? We see some of the
results in India and New Zealand, and we
cannot suppose we shall end there, if those
who should set an example of honour and
consistency will give countenance to and
take by the hand the men who, by breaking
the law, involve us in these wasteful and dis
graceful quarrels.
But it is not merely that such toleration is
a participation in, and an encouragement to,
cruelty and extravagance. Sir John Bow
ring is himself ashamed of his crimes, for
he uses falsehood to justify them. Having
used falsehood to carry out his purpose
against the Chinese, he falsely declares at
home that he bombarded Canton to protect
the crew of the Arrow, the truth being,
according to the statement sent home by
himself’, that he gave up the -crew of the
Arrow in order that he might have an excuse
for bombarding Canton. Surely the sense of
their position as gentlemen must &rbid the
Council of your Association to continue to
of controlling its extravagance was 54,(100,000?. The
expenditure of England is now 66,000,000/. This
increase being almost, wholly dependent upon the acts of
the Foreign Department.
�CASE OF BRIBERY.
3
exception of these two insertions from other
papers, there is no hint in the Free Press of
bribery as connected with Lord Palmer
ston, and no mention of a sum of money
paid to him or to any other Minister. Thus
the Financial Reformer itself puts forward
what it considers an atrocious calumny
against the Premier, falsely charges another
paper with putting it forward, and then uses
its own assertion to justify the connexion of
the Einancial Reform Association with a
disreputable subordinate.
Now, as to the belief that a bribe, not of
30,000Z., but of 20,000Z., was paid to Lord
Palmerston ; the members of this Com
“ The London Free Press, the organ of Mr. David
Urquhart, has made a most remarkable discovery, mittee do unquestionably entertain it, and
one which may even match with the revelation that the special grounds on which they do so
Lord Palmerston, being totally cleaned out of land have been furnished to them not by the
and fortune by losses at a gaming-house, was then Free Press, but through the agency of Mr.
and there, or shortly afterwards, pounced upon by
the Princess Lieven with a bribe of 30,0001, and Macqueen, Secretary to the Einancial Re
became thenceforth, what the Free Press believes him form Association, and doubtless the author
still, viz. the bond-slave and tool of Russia, work of the article in the Financial Reformer.
ing everywhere, even when fighting against her, as The inquiry referred to took place because
in the Crimea, in furtherance of Russian aggran Mr. Macqueen, who now brings up the
disement.”
holding of this belief as a proof of extreme
We fail to perceive wbat connexion there folly, actually gave, as a proof of inconsis
can be between this “ revelation,” whatever tency against the very same persons,, that
its value, and the charges we make against they never even alluded to any such belief.
Sir J. Bowring, founded on passages from
During forty years there have, doubtless,
his own despatches, published in the Blue- been whisperings on the subject in diplo
books. Still less can we perceive how such a matic circles, but these would never have
“ belief” in the mind of any journal or person taken a substantial shape, far less would
can be adduced, either as controverting the they have reached the knowledge of persons
avowal of Sir John Bowring that he made occupying so humble a station as ours. The
use of a falsehood to bring about the bom Premier has been continually, during many
bardment of CantoD, or as showing that years, openly and boldly charged with
honest men can associate with a person who' Treason, in the public journals, in the
makes such an avowal otherwise than as a House of Commons, in a variety of pub
confession of guilt—for such is the matter at lished works, and even by the Financial
issue between the AzkawcwZ Reformer and Reform Association itself.
ourselves.
I.
But what renders this passage still more
CHARGES IN THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.
extraordinary is that the newspaper referred
On the 15th December, 1837, the Times
to as the source of this extravagant belief
has not a single word, either asserting, or contained the following :—
implying, such a “ belief.” The Free Press “ Our dissection of Lord Palmerston’s speech
in which the correspondence on this subject has called forth a defence, at which, though unex
first appeared was published at Sheffield pected, we are not astonished.
“ We should not have thought it wrorth while to
under a different- management. We have notice it, but for the painful consideration that we
searched the files of the Free Press, under are replying to the individual who disgraces the
its present management, from its first number station of Minister for Foreign Affairs. We are
in August, 1856, down to its last, and have accused of having preferred charges against Lord
. That duty belongs not to
found no original article or paragraph con Palmerstonof his impeachment arrives, his us ; and
when the day
bitterest
taining a trace of such belief. Two inser enemies could not wish him a more damning de
tions from other journals we have indeed fence.
found, which mention the subject, one from “ The distinct accusations again st Her Majesty’s
the Birmingham Journal, the other from the ‘Foreign Secretary,’which we are stated ‘to wish
to establish,’ are thus quoted:—
Sheffield Free Press. Even these articles
“ 1st Charge.—‘ That Lord Palmerston has given
do not use the word “bribery” or make the sanction and assent of England to the augmen
mention of any particular sum. With the tation of the Russian navy.’
B 2
associate with a man who is now proved to
be in the habit of telling falsehoods. Surely
the most meagre capacity will be able to see
that in an agitation in which a good speech
is held to outweigh a bad action, there must
at least be ; the presumption that such a
speech is not insincere. Sir John Bowring
made speeches for free trade and peace be
fore, as well as after,his unprovoked bom
bardment of a “Commercial City.” How can
his speech be true whose life is a lie ?
But there is another part <5f this singular
article which has caused us the greatest sur
prise. It is as follows :—
�4
HISTORY OF LORD PALMERSTON.
2nd Charge.—‘ That his Lordship has given the
same sanction to the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi.’
“3rd Charge.—‘That his Lordship has relieved
Russia from anxiety as to any intervention on the
part of England in the Circassian 5var,’
“4th and Sth Charges.—‘ That his Lordship has
exhibited a Minister of England supporting in the
House of Commons the policy of the Russian Go
vernment, and avowing that co-operation and con
cert between the two Governments under circum
stances which can only appear throughout Europe,
and Asia, and India as the result of a necessity
which Russia had influenced, and which England
had not the power to resist.’
“ We admit that our words are correctly extracted,
and our meaning fairly represented.”
On the 1st January, 1838, it wrote as
follows:—
“Lord Palmerston actually supports Russia in
her aggressions against Circassia, whilst in Greece,
jvhich his Lordship boasts of having raised to a
state of freedom and independence, he has, during
seven years, been the instrument of Russia in extin
guishing those municipal and representative rights
which the Ambassadors of England and France
affirmed, during the Conference at Poros, that it
would be cruel, unjust, and even dangerous, to de
prive them of.”
And again, on the same day:—
“ What does Lord Palmerston mean by denying
that he has interfered in the Circassian War? lias
he not prostituted truth itself in favour of Russia
and against Circassia? Has he not knowingly as
serted an untruth in stating that Soudjouk Kale
was in de facto military possession of Russia when
the testimony of his own countrymen proved the
reverse?”
On the 20th April, 1838, the Times ac
cused Lord Palmerston of garbling docu
ments, a charge since brought home to him
by Mr. Dunlop and Mr. Bright in the
case of the Affghan Forgeries:—
quoting similar passages from the Herald |
and the Post.
i
II.
1
CHARGES IN PARLIAMENT.
On the 23rd February, 1848, Mr. Anstet,
in bringing forward a Motion for papers with |
a view to the impeachment suggested by the ,
Times ten years before, said :—
“ I charge the noble Lord with the wilful and
deliberate betrayal of the Circassians, the ally of
England, who had been encouraged by a recommen
dation to open trade with this country. I charge
the noble Lord with their betrayal to the deadly
foe of this country as well as their own ; and I
charge him further, with the deliberate betrayal and
violation of the honour and safety of Great Britain,
and of the rights of British merchants; whose losses
remain uncompensated to this hour. I charge the
noble Lord with having done this, with the design
and with the effect of transferring to a foreign"Power,
the dominion of an independent territory, which it
was necessary for that Power to possess in the pro
secution of her designs against our Indian Empire.
I further charge the noble Lord with having deceived
the Parliament with false statements and suppressions
offact in reference to this matter. And I charge
him with having practised the same deception upon
his colleagues, and upon his Sovereign. Therefore,
sir, combining these charges together, and as the
necessary result thereof, I, in the last place charge
the noble Lord with the superadded guilt of High
Treason. And, sir, I undertake to prove all these
charges to the very letter. When the noble Lord
shall lay the papers I demand before this House, I
will prove my charges before any tribunal this
House may think fit to appoint.”
And again:—
“ I recal here an incident narrated by a gentleman
whom I will name—for his authority for the state
ment has been cited in a printed document in 1841,
with his full knowledge, and without the least pro
test or disapprobation on his part, and was never
“ In exposing the general ruin of the interests of protested against—I refer to Mr. Porter, of the
England in foreign countries, through the miscon Board of Trade. He was the gentleman who, in
duct of our Foreign Minister, we have already 1840, negotiated, with so much success, the Treaty
entered at length into the question of the north-east of Commerce with France. Mr. Porter, then of the
boundary of the United States. The papers pre Board of Trade, has been promoted to a higher
sented to Parliament, a part of which we published office. I presume, therefore, that he enjoys the con
yesterday entire, and of which an analysed abstract fidence of the colleagues of the noble Lord. Now,
will be found in another portion of our columns this on this gentleman’s being selected, in 1840—before
day, not only go to confirm entirely the view we had the Treaty of July—by the then colleagues of the
previously expressed of Lord Palmerston’s crimi noble Lord, in consequence of his connexion with
nality, but exhibit his character in a point of view the Board of Trade, to negotiate a Treaty of Com
even more contemptible than that by which it has merce with France, Mr. Porter informed those
already become known and execrated. Not the Ministers that he was confident that, whatever
least'interesting feature in those papers is the art treaty he might negotiate for such a purpose, would
with which the particular documents on which the be interfered with by the noble Lord, and either
question turns have been transferred from the chro brought to nothing, or, as in the case of the Turkish
nological order, in which they ought to have been Treaty, perverted to the ruin of its objects. Mr.
placed, to the appendix, whereby the reader is led Porter, therefore, demanded and obtained this con
into the belief that the despatches and diplomatic dition from the then Ministry—that the Treaty
notes, extending over a hundred folio pages, repre should be kept out of the Foreign Office, and that he
sent a bond fide negotiation, whereas they only con should not be called upon to report to, or receive
ceal the fraud previously practised by Lord Pal. any instructions whatever from, the noble Lord or
mekston on his colleagues and his country, in his department, in the conduct of that negotiation.
allowing the United States to violate the Convention On the faith of that condition alone he undertook
to which both the President and the Senate, and, the mission. It is further stated, on the same gen
consequently, the State of Maine through its repre tleman’s authority, and in the same document, that
he brought the matter to a happy conclusion; that *
sentatives, were solemnly pledged.”
the French Government were quite ready to adopt,
To save time and space, we refrain from sign, and ratify the Treaty which he had framed;
I
J
J
'
�CASE OF BRIBERY.
that they were most willing to adopt it; that it was
based upon the most perfect system of free trade
and reciprocity; and that, in spite of the precautions
he had taken, and the conditions he had exacted,
that Treaty was, at length, set aside by the noble
Lord. There is no doubt that the direct act of the
noble Lord occasioned its failure. An insulting
despatch on the subject was addressed by the noble
Lord to the French Minister, which occasioned the
utter shipwreck of that Treaty ; and all chance of
renewing the negotiations with respect to it was, in
consequence of that event, as well as of those of
July, 1840, made for ever afterwards impracticable.
Sir, I state this on the authority of Mr. Porter,
and I refer to the fact of his recent appointment as
showing that, notwithstanding that declaration was
made in 1841, the noble Lord has not induced liis
colleagues to disgrace that gentleman.”
In Lord Palmerston’s deliberate reply of
five hours, which he made, holding in his
hand the printed slips of Mr. Ansley’s
speech, not only was no answer made upon
this point, but no notice whatever was taken
of the subject.
Subserviency to or rather collusion with
Russia, betrayal of Russia’s foes, the telling
of falsehoods, and the garbling of docu
ments ; these are the charges made in the
press and in Parliament.
We now come to
III.
CHARGES MADE BY THE FINANCIAL REFORM
ASSOCIATION.
5
sixty thousand men, had therefore kept to the original
Convention, and was therefore entitled, &c., &c. The
argument is noticeable for this reason, that the Duke
of Wellington and Earl Grey, who were in office
together with his Lordship, both averred that such
offer had never reached their ears; and, whatever
may have been the case with the Earl, the Duke’s
memory, it is well known, gripped like a vice.”—
Page 7.
In May, 1865, the Financial Reformer
sneers, as the height of absurdity, at the
belief of the Free Press, that Lord Palmer
ston has been “ working every where, even
when fighting against her, as in the Crimea,
in furtherance of Russian aggrandisement.”
But in May, 1855, when the fighting in
the Crimea was actually going on; when Mr.
Urquhart had declared that the “Pour
Points” were Russian, and that the Allies
were doing all they could to destroy Turkey
the Einancial Reform Association was the
only public body which gave utterance to
similar views.
Their Tract No. IX, New Series, contains
the following:—
“ The independence of Europe was vitally as
sailed, its best bulwark against Muscovite inva
sion was struck down, and treaties were most
grossly violated when Poland was incorporated in
the Russian Empire. No hand was raised to help
the noble, chivalric, and Christian Poles, who saved
Austria from falling under the Turkish yoke; and
Europe is now reaping the fruit of her acquiescence
in that most iniquitous transaction ; for the Poles,
whom she abandoned and betrayed, are fighting
compulsorily in the ranks of the aggressor. As to
the independence of the Ottoman Empire, that is at
an end, whether Russia triumphs or the Allies. It
was substantially compromised and destroyed, both
in the original Four Points, which the Allies were
ready to force on the Sublime Porte, until the Rus
sian interpretation of them showed the justice of the
Turkish objection, that they conceded more to Russia
than Russia had demanded; and also in the latest
amended version of them, which has recently va
nished in fumo at Vienna,” page 8.
These charges are similar to the former
ones. Their pamphlet on the Russo-Dutch
Loan, published in 1855, accused Lord Pal
merston of having saddled England with a
debt she did not owe, by a falsehood con
certed with, the Russian Ambassador.
In 1857, the Annual Report of the Asso
ciation referred to this pamphlet as showing
how British interests and British money
were sacrificed by diplomacy. Some years
afterwards, this pamphlet being out of print,
When the Secret Correspondence with the
the Association published what professed to
be its “ substance.” We extract two passages. Emperor of Russia was published, the
The first charged upon England subserviency public were shocked only at the ambition of
the Czar, but Mr. Urquhart declared that
to Russia.
that correspondence proved the complicity of
“ In the reign of the second Charles, and of
the second James, England was the Pensioner the British Government in his designs. This
of France; in our own days she is the Tribu doctrine, held by the public opinion of the
tary of Russia.”—Page 8.
day to be insane and calumnious was, never
These, “ our own days,” namely, from 1830 theless, boldly put forward by the Einancial
to 1860, comprehend thirty years, during Reform Association. The pamphlet already
more than twenty of which the foreign rela quoted from says:—
tions of England have been in the hands of “ Sir Hamilton Seymour discouraged these im
perial schemes of spoliation, so far as he dared, and
Lord Palmerston.
The second passage reiterates the charge of communicated them, with his own impressions, to
his superiors at home. And what did our Ministers?
falsehood told in the service of Russia.
Instead of protesting, in the name of threatened
“A noticeable argument was pressed into the
service in one of the Debates on this subject, by
Lord Palmerston, who declared that, at the time
of the Belgic-Dutch quarrel in 1830, Russia had
offered to come to the assistance of Holland with
Europe, against the meditated aggression, and de
claring that it would be opposed with all the power
of Britain, they addressed him in terms of fulsome
adulation, assuring him, indeed, that England would
take no part of the spoil, but complimenting him on
�6
HISTORY OF LORD PALMERSTON.
his magnanimity, his generosity, and the services
3
which he had rendered to Europe—most especially
£
to the Christian population of Turkey. The Czar
I
having thus no reason to believe that Great Britain
would oppose any substantial obstacle to his designs,,
sought an active accomplice in France; and though
i
failing there also, he was undoubtedly encouraged to
’
proceed, on the supposition, that by neither would
3
he be opposed separately, and that an armed alliance
1
between them was impossible. Hence he proceeded
in his career of aggression, step by step, with the con
currence or acquiescence of the Four Powers, until,”
&c, page 9.
This is a general charge against the
3
Ministry. We go on therefore to page 15 :—
'
“ Passing from the Ministry to its head, what has
’
Lord Palmerston done to justify the general ex
pectation ? Never was so entire a failure; never
?
did man so completely disappoint the predictions of
f
his friends, or justify the anticipations of his enemies..
.... Many of his appointments, both civil and[
military, might have been deliberately designed to>
insult, outrage, and defy the national feeling; in no>
instance has be put the right man in the right place;,
on the gravest and most melancholy subjects he has1
thought it befitting the dignity of his station to
indulge in miserable jokes and evasions, and his'
whole conduct since his accession to the chief power
of the State has been such, that it can only be ac.
counted for on the supposition that he has lost, or’
never had, the talent attributed to him, or on Mr. David
Urquhart’s startling theory that, in deliberate
purpose as well as in practical effect, Lord Palmer
'
ston is, and has long been, playing the game of
Russia.”
The part of Mr. Macqueen in furnishing
us with this key was as follows. It was submitted to the Financial Reform Association
that the increase of expenditure against
which they, struggled, might be dependent
on a general purpose prompted by a foreign
Power, and that consequently it was desirable
for the Association to institute a general inquiry into the source and effect of those
diplomatic and military operations which had
so vastly increased the public expenditure.
Mr. Crawshay wrote in this sense to the
Secretary of the Financial Reform Association on the 5th September, 1855 :—
“I write to ask you whether you would think it
of any use to have demonstration that the late Mr.
Porter, of the Board of Trade, lived and died in
the conviction, derived from his own observation,
whilst in office, that in commercial treaties due interests were systematically and wilfully sacrificed by
Lord Palmerston to those of Russia?”
This proposition was met on the part of
Mr. Macqueen, by denying that any such
inquiry could be prosecuted unless it were
“ proved that Lord Palmerston was actuated by corrupt personal motive.”
Mr. M ac queen replied, September 21:—
“ Supposing that you do prove not only that such
was Mr. Porter’s conviction, but that that con
viction was correct, you will give no additional
weight to Mr. Collet’s charge of treason against
Lord Palmerston, unless you can also prove that
his Lordship was actuated by some corrupt personal
motive in his subserviency to Russia..........................
“In this way he has blundered wofully; but
thus to err is a very different thing to deliberate
treason, which is the accusation brought by Mr.
Collet against his Lordship. To give the slightest
colour of probability to this, corrupt motives must
be shown, and if not proved, it must at least be alleged
that Lord Palmerston is, in plain terms, the
bribed tool of Russia. This, so far as I am
aware, has not been suggested by Mr. Collet, or
even by Mr. David Urquhart, the most virulent
and the most mysterious of his Lordship’s assailants,
whose hatred and suspicion seem almost to amount
to monomania.”
The alternative of incompetency is here
put in such a light as to show its absurdity.
This is, therefore, a charge of Treason. It is
not the less so because it is extorted from
the writer by his utter inability to explain in
any other way the things which have been
done.
If the Financial Reform Association has
now become able to explain the secret of
events by some other “theory,” a vindica
tion of Lord Palmerston’s character is due
at their hands. Till that vindication appears,
it is, to say the least, in very bad taste to
sneer at others for holding views which they
This letter is iu striking contrast with
themselves once held, and which they still
the article in the Financial Reformer for
feel themselves unable to refute.
This charge of treason, made alike in the May last. The belief there held up to
press, in Parliament, and in thq publications ridicule, namely, that Lord Palmerston was
of the Financial Reform Association, has in working for Russia in the Crimea, has
variably grown out of the several trans been shown to have been put forward by the
actions examined ; and, each presenting the Financial Reform Association. The article
same result, it is but natural that the mem- further stigmatises us for believing that Lord
:
bers of the Foreign Affairs Committee which .Palmerston has received a sum of money
drew up the Memoir on Sir John Bowring, ifrom Russia. But in the letter just quoted,
should have yielded their “belief” to the .Mr. Macqueen declares that without making
motive suggested by a payment of money esuch a charge no other can be of any avail.
alleged, on grounds apparently authoritative, He further adds that it is not necessary to
commencing at a period antecedent to ]prove the charge, but only to allege it.
Doubtless Mr. Macqueen deemed his
Lord Palmerston’s enkry into the Cabinet
suggestion to be an effectual way to arrest
and coincident with a period of known ex- s
treme embarrassment in his circumstances, iinquiry. The effect, however, was different.
�CASE OF BRIBERY.
The Committee to which this reply was given
had already applied itself to collect evidence
on the subject.
From the evidence then forwarded, the fol
lowing are extracts:
ALLEGED BBIBEBY OF LOBD
PALMEBSTON.
REPORT OF THE NEWCASTLE COMMITTEE.
The Committee appointed to obtain evidence as to
the fact of the charge having been made by the late
Mr. Porter, of the Board of Trade, against Lord
Palmerston, of having received money from Russia
in the form of a gambling debt, have to report:—■
1. That Mr. Porter, whilst in office at the Board
of Trade, during the administration of Lord Mel
bourne, and whilst Lord Palmerston was Foreign
Minister, formed and expressed the conviction, as the
result of his own observation, and of facts within his
own knowledge, that Lord Palmerston systemati
cally sacrificed the interests of England to those of
Russia, in matters relating to commercial treaties.
2. That Mr. Porter did not conceal this convic
tion from his official chief, the President of the Board
of Trade, Lord Palmerston’s colleague ; but that,
on the contrary, when, in 1840, he was offered a mis
sion to Paris, for the purpose of negotiating a com
mercial treaty with France, he declined to accept
•that mission, except on the express condition that
he should have no communication to make to the
Foreign Office, assigning, as a reason for this demand,
his conviction that his endeavours to conclude such
a treaty would be treacherously thwarted by the
Chief of that department.
3. That this condition was submitted to; and Mr.
Porter, in consequence, withdrew his objections to
and undertook the mission to Paris.
4. That whilst in office, under Mr. Gladstone,
during Sir R. Peel’s administration, Mr. Porter
adhered to his former convictions, and, in addition,
charged Lord Palmerston with having received
Russian money; alleging that the agent in this trans
action was a Jew, by name Jacob James Hart,
who formerly kept a gambling-house, near St.
James’s-street, and who was subsequently appointed
British Consul at Leipsic, by Lord Palmerston ; and
that he had ascertained this in consequence of in
quiries made by the Government, with a view of
cancelling the appointment of Hart.
5. That, independently of Mr. Porter’s evidence,
it is an indubitable fact, to be ascertained by any
who will take the trouble to inquire, as we have
done, that Jacob James Hart did keep a gambling
house, and was appointed by Lord Palmerston to
be British Consul at Leipsic, where he was universally
shunned as a most disreputable character.
The committee subjoin evidence which they have
taken:
G. Crawshay.
William Stewart.
F. Carr.
George Stobart.
Robert Bainbridge. James Watson.
John Younge.
John Jewitt.
Newcastle, September 20, 1855.
STATEMENT OF MR. URQUHART BEFORE
THE COMMITTEE.
Newcastle, June 2, 1855.
The communication respecting Hart—the consular
agent at Leipsic, was made to me (to the best of my
recollection, in August, 1841), in Mr. MacGregor’s
room, adj oining that of Mr. Gladstone, who was there
at the time, by Mr. MacGregor and Mr. Porter,
in presence of Col. Taylor, and in consequence of a
note from Mr. Porter to me, requesting my attend
ance atthe Board of Trade to receive a communication
of the gravest importance. I received this communi
cation as from Mr. Gladstone, with a view of its
being published, in order to enable the Government
to cancel the appointment, and so to free them in
that respect from the pressure that Lord Palmer
stone could apply to them. I immediately declined
having anything to do with a charge of that descrip
tion.
Q. What was the charge ?
A. That this Hart had been an agent employed by
Princess Lieven for the payment of certains sums to
Lord Palmers ton, in the form of money lost at a
gambling-table.
Q. What was the sum ?
A. The sums mentioned were two sums of 10,000?.
each.
Q. At what period ?
A. In the year ’25 or ’26, but I cannot answer with
precision on this point.
Q. Why did you decline ?
A. Because my charges against Lord Palmerston bore
upon his acts, and I could have nothing to do with a matter
such as this. Not only did I decline making use of the
information so tendered, but during these thirteen years, I
have never mentioned the incident, until recently called upon
to state whether such and such a thing had taken place. I
must add that the matter had not for us the importance
which it seems to have now for you.
Q. Had you heard of this charge before the com
munication from these gentlemen ?
A. No.
Q. Are you prepared to make an affidavit of the
above statements ?
A. Certainly.
INQUIRY AT LEIPSIC.
September 20, 1855.
I have made inquiries in Leipsic, through a London
solicitor, about Hart. The answers represent Hart
as universally shunned in Leipsic, as disreputable.
That the appointment was generally accounted for
by the supposition that Lord Palmerston owed him
money, and that there was a rumour of Hart’s
having exhibited a complimentary letter to himself
from Lord Palmerston.
G. Crawshay.
Questions.
1. Who was the British Consul at Leipsic, during
the years 1837, ’38, ’39, ’40, and ’41 ?
2. Was a Jew of the name of Hart ever British
Consul at Leipsic, during any of these years, or near
that time ?
3. If so, was not the appointment objected to
by the British and other residents at Leipsic, as dis
reputable, and at last withdrawn ?
4. Was it not pretty well known that Hart
exhibited to many persons at Leipsic a letter from
Lord Palmerston, expressing regret that he had no
better office to give him ?
Answers.
I received your favour of the 14th instant', and
came to-day in the state to give you the following
replies on your questions :—
1 and 2. The British Consul at Leipsic, during
the named time, has been a person who was thought
a Jew, of the name of Hart.
�8
HISTORY OF LORD PALMERSTON.
3. Not officially, till a member of the House of’ S’ R; PoRT,ER> of the Board of Trade, and also, to
Commons called attention of the Government to it.
rSt nF my recolle,ction, by Mr. J. McGregor,
A more disreputable person, or one more unfit to fill
. M.l. for Glasgow, on the occasion of my calling at
a situation of British Consul, could scarcely have
Lowndes-square, with a friend, who was
been found : it was generally believed that Lord‘ his> house inwith him.
acquainted
Palmerston must have owed him money.
In reference to the very Neapolitan Treaty of
4. Such a report was in existence, but there is1 which Mr. . Monteith speaks in his letter I renobody to be found who has actually seen a letter “ember being in conversation with JosephHume,
of this kind.
, at his house in Bryanstone-square, when Lord PalA son of Dr. Southwood Smith, of the name of
s character for untruthfulness was
Herman Smith, in London, was at one time doing merstonMr. Hume exclaimed :—“ Oh! we allspoken
of; and
know
the business of the Consulate here; he is most likely the value of Lord Palmerston’s denials. I was in
in London now, and may be a proper person to o-ive the House of Commons when he denied the exist
information.
°
ence of the Commercial Treaty with Naples, and I
I shall keep a further look-out about this affair, turned round to Labouchere, and said, ‘ Why, Laand if I should hear anything more, I shall not fail bouchere, I know the drawer at the Board of Trade
to let you know.
in which that Treaty lies.’ ”
Leipsic, May, 1855.
DAVID ROSS OF BLADENSBURGH, TO THE NEW
r. Monteith, esq., to the Newcastle committee.
CASTLE COMMITTEE.
(Extract.)
(Extract.)
Carstairs House, Lanark, May 4, 1855.
.
Rostrevor, April 19, 1855.
My surprise was great at receiving a reply in terms
lhe circumstances connected with Mr. Porter’s
and manner of the greatest respect, of more than
respect, for the person referred to. Sir John mission to Paris were as follows:—In 1840, the
McNeil declined, indeed, to adopt the great charge Board of Trade was anxious to conclude a commer
against Palmerston; but of Mr. Urquhart he cial treaty with France, and the mission was offered
spoke as a man of the highest capacity, the most to Mr. Porter. He accepted it, on the condition that
minute knowledge of international affairs, and the he should have no communication to make to the
Foreign Office, as, to use his own words—“ I know
most perfect integrity.
In Mr. Porter I discovered the proof that, among the chief of that department to be a liar, and I be
the working officers of the State, among men of the lieve him to be a traitor.” These words were spoken
highest standing, character, and experience, the con to his official chief and colleague of Lord Palmers
clusions of Mr. Urquhart were acknowledged as ton in the cabinet. But, as I before observed, this
the secret of events, and accepted as the only clue to occurred before he had cognisance of the transaction
otherwise incomprehensible facts; others who had with the Jew. The words had reference to previous
professed to know Mr. Urquhart to be in the right, transactions of commercial treaties, in which Mr.
and that they lived on in the anguish of their con vic- MacGregor was engaged, and which were thwarted
:
tions, sustained by the hope that he who had a cou- •by Lord Palmerston, particularly the Neapolitan,
which Lord Palmerston falsely declared, in the
rage beyond their own, would yet succeed in awaken
House of Commons, had no existence.
ing England.
C. ATTWOOD, ESQ. TO THE SAME.
(Extract.)
Tow Law, May 12, 1855.
I was told, in the Turkish Association rooms, last
summer (but I am not sure by whom), that Mr.
Walpole, a member of the Association, had said
that his father, Lord Orford, had said, speaking to
him about these charges, at breakfast, a few days be
fore:—“Oh, as to Lord Palmerston having got
Russian money, that is not only a fact, but I know
the man by whom, and the occasion when it was paid
to him.”
Perhaps this may be the case you refer to. If so
this is all I know about it.
’
FROM STEWART ERSKINE ROLLAND, ESQ.
June 5, 1855.
Having read the above, I beg to state that I am
the person referred to by Mr. Attwood, as having
given him the anecdote of Lord Orford and Mr.
Walpole. Mr. Walpole’s words to me were to
this effect:—“My father said to me, ‘Are you only
beginning to find out that Palmerston sold himself?
We have known all along when it was, and how
much he got.’ ”
F. MARX, ESQ., TO THE NEWCASTLE COMMITTEE.
(Extract.)
Arlebury, Hants, Aug. 20, 1855.
Whether Hart had been employed to lose 20,-000/.
of Russian money to Palmerston, at a gambling
house, and subsequently received his appointment, as
a reward for this service, I know not; but I heard
the statement made as one of positive fact, by Mr.
THE SAME TO THE SAME.
Rostrevor, April 7, 1855.
The circumstances, as related by Mr. Porter to
me, are as follows:—
There was a Jew, a British Consul at Leipsic,
who was considered, both by native and British
merchants, as a most discreditable representative of
England, particularly as it was ascertained that he
had been the keeper of a gambling-house somewhere
about St. James’s-street. An attempt was made to
get him removed, and the matter was brought before
Sir R. Peel’s government. But that government
experienced such fierce and violent opposition from
Lord Palmerston, who had made the appointment
originally, that they gave way. The secret of Lord
Palmerston’s adherence to such a disreputable
character came then to be inquired into, and it was
found that Lord Palmerston, at a time when he
was in great pecuniary embarrassment, I think
about 1825, was told by Princess Lieven to go to
the . gambling-house kept by this Jew, where a
foreigner was instructed to lose to him 30,000/. in
two nights.
Mr. Porter spoke of this openly to many persons,
amongst others to Mr. Bright, as he confessed to
me some time ago.
There is another person who can give evidence on
this matter I am inclined to think, for I have never '
spoken to him on the subject, but whether he will is
another matter, and that is Mr. MrcGregor, M.P. for
Glasgow. He was at the Board of Trade at the time,
and most intimate with Mr. Porter. He would
know what Mr. Porter believed. He should know
'
j
•
’
i
i
’
■'
(
�CASE OF BRIBERY.
9
of his own knowledge. He knows also what Lord Pal ‘That Russian gold had found its way into the
House.’ I read that speech in the Era weekly
merston did in respect to the Neapolitan treaty.
my eye
a placard
The same allegation had been openly made newspaper; of one of having been caught by was sold,
at the door
the shops at which it
in Parliament, without denial, by Mr. on the Sunday following its publication, and which
Thomas Attwood, in the House of Com referred in large letters to that speech and charge.
I was much struck with the fact that I had read no
mons, August 6, 1839.
such report of that speech as made by him in any of
“It has been thought and said that Russian gold the daily papers. The first time I saw him after
has found its way into this House. I do not mean wards I adverted to it, and he told me that it was
to accuse the noble Lord of having received Russian correct, and that he did use the above-quoted words,
gold, but the idea has gone abroad that Russian gold in the presence of Lord Palmerston, and as applied
has found its way into this House. The noble Lord to him, and not a word was said in answer.”
cannot but be aware that charges involving crimi
The report of Mr. T. Attwood’s speech
nality of a serious nature have been put forth against
him—in print, too—not alone in the daily and will be found in Hansard’s Debates.
The next witness called in disproof by Mr.
weekly press, but in pamphlets and works, some of
which I now hold in my hand—not the productions Macqueen is the late Mr. MacGregor,
of obscure and unknown individuals, but respectable M.P. for Glasgow, a Director of the British
gentlemen, having filled high offices—secretaries of
embassy—employes and proteges of the noble Lord Bank, and formerly Under Secretary of the
himself. Mr. Urquhart and Mr. Parish have Board of Trade. The statement of Mr. Mac
brought forward these accusations, and supported queen respecting his evidence is as follows :—
them by documentary evidence. God forbid that I
“ There is no truth whatever (says Mr. Mac
should say that they are true ; but they are uncon Gregor) with regard to what is said in the Sheffield
tradicted—they have gone forth to the country, and Free Press, in asserting that I could corroborate the
why is it that the noble Lord has not instituted legal pro charges against Lord Palmerston; nor do I believe
ceedings against these gentlemen? I think it right to there is a single word of truth in the charges made
state to the noble Lord, that the country expected against him by Mr. Urquhart and others. Why did
that he would have taken such a course, as a means not Mr. Urquhart bring forward these grave accusa
of self-justification. Why have not the parties who tions against his Lordship in the House of Commons,
bring forward such charges been prosecuted for and there state the sources of his information? I,
libel? I have not brought this forward to the notice admit hearing Mr. Urquhart state such charges
of the House from any unpleasant feeling to the fifteen years ago, on his calling on me and Mr.
noble Lord, but in fulfilment of a duty; I have a Porter, at the Board of Trade ; and I much regret
right to call attention to this subject.”
that my late friend, Mr. Porter, most credulously,
After the receipt of the documents from and to me most unaccountably, believed them. They
which the above are extracts, the Pinancial said they could proveIthe same; but I never saw a
shadow of a proof.
have seen, however, abundant
Keform Association, published through their proof, while I was with our ambassador at Vienna
Secretary, a letter dated 27th November, —then Sir Frederick Lamb — to the contrary.
1855, to Mr. Crawshay, purporting to be Everything since then confirms me in this opinion.
a refutation, on the authority of three mem Believing these charges had no foundation, except
in the feelings of a
they
bers of Parliament, Mr. Thorneley, Mr. were the offspring disappointed man, or thatceased
of a disordered mind, I
MacGregor, and Mr. Bright.
after 1841, to see or hear any one on this subject."
Mr. Macqueen says, respecting Mr. “ Mr. MacGregor (says Mr. Macqueen) denies that
the treaty with France was circumvented by Lord
Thorneley :—
Palmerston, and states that Mr. Porter was re
“ A third statement consists in the extract from called from Paris ‘ in consequence of a most indis
the Hamilton Gazette, giving part of an alleged creet and improper letter written by him to the
speech of Mr. T. Attwood, which is said to have Foreign Office, refusing to follow Lord Palmerston’s
covered Lord Palmerston with confusion and dis instructions,’ and says of Mr. Porter, ‘ He was a
may ; to have brought Mr. Thorneley to his rescue; valuable public servant, and, on commercial policy,
and, mirabile dictu! to have been wholly suppressed of correct judgment. He was, however, sometimes
by all the newspapers, with the exception of the indiscreet, and at all times credulous in believing
Sun, which had only a slight and distant allusion to anything against Lord Palmerston. He perpe
it. To begin with the last affair first:—I have seen tually endeavoured to impress his opinions on me ;
Mr. Thorneley, and he dentes, positively, that Mr. and he was like Mr. Urquhart, one of those who
Attwood ever made any such speech in his hearing, believed that, when his statements were not replied
and ridicules the idea of its having been suppressed to, they were admitted as true.’ ”
in all the English newspapers, supposing it to have
In respect to Mr. MacGregor’s imputabeen delivered, and finding its way into a colonial
tation of credulity on Mr. Porter, we will
one ”
quote the words of Mr. Gladstone, in his
letter (which we shall presently give at
length) to Mr. Crawshay, of the 14th of
January, 1856. He speaks of Mr. Porter’s
“ scrupulous care and honour in all official
(Extract.)
relations.”
“ Now for Mr. Thomas Attwood’s speech. He
The following extracts bear on Mr.
did make that speech, and it was not at all replied
to; and he used the words that it appeared to him MacGregor’s assertion that he had never
The Newcastle Committee, having sub
mitted this statement respecting his brother
to Mr. C. Attwood, received the following
reply
�10
HISTORY OF LORD PALMERSTON.
stated or believed that the 20,000Z. had been quhart’s veracity, that gentleman felt bound
paid by Hart to Lord Palmerston.
to call Mr. MacGregor to account. The cor
Mr. Urquhart writes to Mr. Crawshay respondence which ensued brings out most
January 16, 1856 :—■
clearly the tergiversations of Mr. Mac
“ If you will turn back to my testimony, you will Gregor.
find that I put the name of Mr. MacGregor before
that of Mr. Porter, conveying the impression upon
my mind, when for the first time I applied myself to
recal the circumstances, of Mr. MacGregor having
taken the lead. This impression is confirmed by the
statement of Col. Taylor, who says emphatically,
‘ The statement was made to me by Mr. MacGregor and
not by Mr. Porter.’ ”
Mr. Urquhart encloses a letter addressed
No. 1.
MR. URQUHART TO MR. MARX.
Castle Bromwich, Nov. 29, 1855.
My dear Sir,—You will learn from the enclosed
all that is necessary. The extract is a wilful and
deliberate falsehood. If Mr. Macgregor has writ
ten these words; if he does not retract them, and
apologise for them, you have to tell him this on my
behalf, and to obtain the name of his friend with
whom to settle preliminaries.
to him by his short-hand writer:—
Telegraph for me, and 1 shall be in Glasgow as
15, Moon-terrace, Walworth, Dec. 30, 1855.
soon as steam will carry me.
Dear Sir,—Having seen in a correspondence with
Believe me,
Mr. Macqueen, of Liverpool, various statements
Most faithfully yours,
which I know to be untrue, I am anxious to place
D. Urquhart.
my testimony at your disposal.
F. Marx, Esq.
First, as to your having been the promulgator,
enclosure.
as asserted by Mr. MacGregor, of the story respect
Castle Bromwich, Nov. 29, 1855.
ing the gambling transaction between Lord Pal
My dear Sir,—I cannot assume that you could
merston and Hart; during the whole course of the
time I was with you, from 1839 to 1844, all your have written the subjoined extract, until I receive
letters being dictated to me, and having been pre that knowledge from yourself.
The (Sheffield) Free Press, containing the state
sent, generally speaking, whilst conversations were
*
going on, I never heard you once allude to that case; ment in question, was at the time communicated
but I recollect your speaking of it as a matter be to you by me, and must have been known to you
neath contempt, when called up by certain of your from other sources.
This letter will be placed in your hands by a
friends. Particularly I recollect this occurring in a
conversation with Mr. Ross of Bladensburg. At friend to whom I beg you to give your answer, and
Glasgow, on several occasions, questions were put to who is fully empowered to act on my behalf.
I address to Glasgow, not knowing where else to
you by the operatives, as to the motives of Lord
Palmerston, and as to whether or not he had been address you.
I am, my dear Sir,
paid by Russia. Your answer invariably was,—“I
Your faithful and obedient Servant,
don’t accuse Lord Palmerston of having received
D. Urquhart.
money: that matter is totally beside the question.
John Macgregor, Esq., M.P.
I here place facts before you, and it is your duty to
see whether I am correct in my statements or not.”
No. 2.
Secondly, Mr. MacGregor says that he did not
entertain the same convictions as Mr. Porter and MEMORANDUM FROM MR. MARX TO MR. URQUHART.
London, Dec. 14, 1855, 10 p.m.
yourself. Now, I have a most distinct recollection
of a fact which settles that matter.
Mr. Macgregor refuses to submit the case to an
Shortly after the Treaty of the 15th July, 1840, arbiter. He admitted the truth of your statement,
Mr. MacGregor and Mr. Porter came to you one as to your having heard the story about the Leipsic
Sunday morning, in Mount-street, and a meeting Consul in his room from Mr. Porter, he (Mr. Mac
took place of such extraordinary interest, and which gregor') ard Colonel Taylor being present. But he
I believe lasted three hours, that against your wont utterly denied his having himself told a word of the
no one was admitted. I therefore was not present, story. He pleaded the fifteen years which had
but I am aware of the fact of the result of that elapsed, and the number of occasions on which you
were at his room in the Board of Trade. We were
meeting.
You dictated a letter to me to Lord Melbourne, several times interrupted by other persons speaking
in which, after laying down the case against Lord to Mr. Macgregor, who took the first opportunity
Palmerston, you stated that in making the allega of saying that he was going to Paris to-morrow
tion you acted in concurrence with, and supported morning, and entered into long stories with them.
by, gentlemen who had themselves been engaged in He said he could swear that you had told him the
diplomatic transactions, and actually held office story of the Leipsic Consul two months before the in
under the Government, and this letter was sent terview at the Board of Trade.
When I pointed out to him that this was a con
down to the Board of Trade for their approval before
transmission, and it is my belief that I was myseii tradiction of his own statement, viz. that Mr. Por
ter had told you the story, he again admitted that
the bearer of it.
I am perfectly ready to verify these facts, if it was Mr. Porter who told the story to you and to
Colonel Taylor. He said Mr. Macqueen should
necessary.
have published the whole of his letter, and that he
I remain, dear sir,
Your most obedient servant,
would write to him to do so—that the context would
James White.
in some degree modify his assertion in the extract.
But he afterwards adhered to the contradiction that
To D. Urquhart, Esq.
The letter of Mr. MacGregor, published he had told any part of the story about Hart, not-
by Mr. Macqueen, impugning Mr. Ur
* Of September 29th, 1855.
�CASE OF BRIBERY.
withstanding my telling him that I was in posses
sion of Colonel Taylor’s statement to the contrary.
I ended by telling him that he was going further
and further from the truth—that there must be some
redress in a case of this kind, and that he must ex
pect to be exposed either in a court of justice or in
some other manner. You know the man, and can
appreciate the difficulty I had, as I had debarred
myself from resorting to the old-fashioned methods
of bringing to reason a person who has made a false
statement.
No. 3.
11
Having so disposed of Mr. Macqheeh’s
second witness, we come to the third. This is
Mr. Macqueen’s statement as to Mr.
Bright :—
Mr. Bright has marked his reply “privatebut;
I may inform you that he states, in substance, his
belief that Mr. Porter had a very bad opinion of
Lord Palmerston in connexion with Russian affairs,
but never heard him speak of any sum of money;
that the Leipsic appointment was a discreditable
one, but that he never heard Mr. Porter connect it in
any way with the other matter, and is not sure that Mr.
Porter ever alluded to the appointment in his hear
MR. MARX TO MR. URQUHART.
ing. Mr. Bright adds, that he has heard that Mr.
Arie-Bury, near Alresford, Dec. 16, 1855.
Porter modified his opinions at a more recent
My dear Sir,—I think you may dismiss from your period, but to what extent he says that he is not
mind all remembrance of Mr. John Macgregor,
and his contradiction of the statement made by you accurately informed.
On this the following correspondence en
on the 2nd of June last before the Newcastle Com
mittee, viz. that '“The communication respecting sued between Mr. Ubawshay and Mr.
IIart, the consular agent at Leipsic, was made to Bright :—
me (to the best of my recollection in August, 1841)
No. 1.
in Mr. Macgregor’s room, adjoining that of Mr.
MR. CRAWSHAY’S INQUIRY.
Gladstone, who was there at the time, by Mr.
No. 2.
Macgregor and Mr. Porter, in presence of Colonel
MR. BRIGHT’S REPLY.
Taylor, and in consequence of a note from Mr.
Rochdale, September 25, 1855.
Porter to me, requesting my attendance at the
Dear Sir,—The fact is, that Mr. Cobden and I
Board of Trade to receive a communication of the know nothing of the matter, except the gossip of the
gravest importance.”
day. I presume it to be notorious that the Leipsic
In the interview I had with Mr. Macgrbgor on Consul was a disreputable person, and that he was
the 14th, he admitted to me that your statement, appointed by Lord Palmerston; but I suspect our
which he had appeared so decidedly to contradict, system of appointments is not intended to exclude
was correct in every point save one—namely, that such. I know nothing whatever of the matter, and
he had told you any part of the Hart story, and on I think Mr. Cobden knows nothing that will serve
that point your correctness is proved, and Mr. Mac your object, or that you can publish.
gregor’s incorrectness is established by the evi
With regard to the Prime Minister, he knows the
dence of Colonel Taylor, a witness of unimpeach ignorance and the foibles of the people, and suits
able honour, who states in his letter of the 24th himself to them. That he is an impostor is evident
July, 1855, “ My recollections are distinct as to Mr. enough, but to expose him does nothing ; he exactly
Macgregor having told me of this matter.”
suits the frothy politicians that are so numerous
As far as the Newcastle Committee and the public among our countrymen. He is to the middle classes
are concerned, all the important part of your state what Feargus O’Connor was to the working classes,
ment is confirmed by Mr. Macgregor. himself, and and I wish them joy of him.
it is of little public importance whether one or both
Yours, very truly,
of the Board of Trade Secretaries were speakers on
G. Crawshay, Esq.
John Bright.
the occasion referred to.
'
No. 3.
With regard to yourself the case is different, for
MR. CRAWSIIAY TO MR. BRIGHT.
of course nothing can be of greater importance than
.
Gateshead, October 2, 1855.
such a contradiction upon a matter of fact, as that
Dear Sir,—I duly received your reply of the 25th
publicly made by Mr. Macgregor; but from the
moment you placed the affair in my hands, the ult., with respect to which I feel called upon to
responsibility rested with me. I have now carried make a remark.
You observe, with respect to the Prime Minister,
the matter as far as I can, and I do not hesitate to
assure you that in the minds of gentlemen no im “That he is an impostor is evident enough, but to
putation can by possibility rest upon you. You expose him does nothing.”
May I beg of you to ask yourself the question,
have done all in your power to. obtain redress from
Mr. Macgregor, who has convicted himself of at how far such a description may not be justly ap
least one false statement, for after publishing that plied to a member of Parliament who can hold such
you had told him the Hart story at the Board of language?
Yours truly,
Trade, he now states that Mr. Porter told you the
J. Bright, Esq., M.P.
G. Crawshay
story on that occasion. He has shown that he is not
to be reached by the process employed on such oc
No. 4.
casions between gentlemen. He has absolutely
MR. BRIGHT TO MR. CRAWSHAY.
refused to retract his statement, or to allow it to be
Rochdale, October 3, 1855.
brought to the test of an arbitration. And as he
Dear Sir,—I hope I do not rightly understand
has not thought proper to reply to your letter, it your note; it seems intended as an insult to me,
appears to me that the only course now left open because I am unable to join in proceedings which I
for you, is, in case you deem it necessary, to appeal am not clever enough to comprehend. To expose
to a Court of Justice.
the Minister is nothing, so long as the people are a
I am, my dear Sir,
prey to the delusions through which he practises
Very faithfully yours,
upon them.
F. Marx.
He is the proper ruler of a nation arrogant and
| intoxicated, and so long as the present temper of
David Urquhart, Esq.
�12
HISTORY OF LORD PALMERSTON.
the public is maintained, they have the Government
they most deserve.
Lord Palmerston is Minister because he is sup
posed to be wishful to support the foreign policy
you advocate. I am not sorry if he plays false to
his credulous followers, for it is difficult to say whe
ther his policy or theirs would be most pernicious
to the country. Perhaps as we differ so much on
these topics, it is better that our correspondence
should cease.
I am, respectfully,
George Crawshay, Esq.
John Bright.
No. 5.
house keeper, but those I need not now allude to.
There was, however, no doubt in the mind of Mr.
Cobden that Lord Palmerston was capable of what
had been imputed to him, for in the course of the
same conversation he remarked—“Oh, there is
nothing of which I do not believe these men (the
ministers) capable.” Mr. Bright, who was at his
elbow, added energetically,—“ They are not even
gentlemen—they are a set of liars and scoundrels.”
I have a vivid remembrance of the expressions,
which made a deep impression on me.
insult, but blame. I would not willingly insult any
man.
In my first letter I only asked you to give me
some facts. You could not. How could I insult or
even blame you for that? But I could not pass over
the doctrine repeated in your last, “ that to expose the
Minister is nothing,” put forth with whatever qua
lification. This has nothing to do with our opinions.
Suppose you had a friend in the position in which
you yourself depict the nation, “ a prey to delusions,
and practised upon by an impostor.” Would you
consider it nothing to show him that he was made a
fool of? Most certainly, if you see nothing wrong
in the language I have complained of, our corre
spondence, at least upon this subject, cannot proceed.
Yours truly,
J. Bright, Esq., M.P.
George Crawshay.
The noble Lord is on his trial in this case. (Hear,
hear.) . . . After a few sentences the noble Lord
went on to say that, after all, what was in or what
was left out was unimportant. I should like, then,
to ask the noble Lord what was the object of that
minute, ingenious, and, I will say, unmatched care
which was taken in mutilating the despatches of a
gentleman whose opinions were of no importance,
and whose despatches could not make the slightest
difference to the actions or opinions of any person
concerned ? (Hear, hear.) The noble Lord, too,
has stooped to conduct which, if I were not in this
House, I would describe in language which, if
I were to use in this House, I should possibly
be told that I was transgressing the line usually
observed in discussions in this assembly............
He tried to lead the House to believe that it was
proposed to have a committee to dig up all questions
regarding our supposed peril from the designs of
Russia at that time; but the fact is, that my honour
able and learned Friend has no such intention, and
no man was more cognizant of that fact than the noble
Lord when he endeavoured so ingeniously to convey a
contrary impression to the House................... I say it
is worth knowing whether there was a man in high
position in the Government here or'in India who had
so low a sense of honour and of right that he could
offer to this. House mutilated, false, forged opinions
of a public servant who lost his life in the public
service................... It is admitted—the noble Lord
himself has not flatly denied it; in fact, he knows it
perfectly well—as well as the member for Greenock,
as well as the very man who did the evil (a laugh)—-the
noble Lord knows that there have been garbling,
mutilation, practically and essentially falsehood, and
forgery in these despatches. .... I say, then,
avoiding all the long speech of the noble Lord, that
the object of the committee is to find out who did
this evil thing—who placed upon the table of the
House information which was knowingly false, and
despatches that were knowingly forged; because if
you add to, or detract from, or so change a coin, a note,
or a deed as to make it bear a meaning contrary to the
original meaning, you are guilty of such an act as I
have described, and that is precisely what somebody
has done with the despatches we are now discussing.
(Hear, hear.) I say, then, an odious offence has
been committed against this House; and we want to
know who did it. (Hear, hear.) The noble Lord does
not think it is anything wrong. The letters, he says,
are of very trifling importance, and Sir Alexander
Burnes’s opinions are not worth much. But if this
be a matter of such little importance, will the noble
Lord tell us who did it? . .
. Now, I do not
think I am wrong in supposing that this matter lies
between the noble Lord the Prime Minister and Lord
Broughton. (Hear, and a laugh.) The despatches
The second is an extract from a subsequent
speech of Mr. Bright, delivered March 19,
MR. CRAWSHAY TO MR. BRIGHT.
1861, on the subject of the Affghan for
Gateshead, October 4, 1855.
Dear Sir,—What I intended by my note was not geries :—
Mr. Bright is hardly the witness to cha
racter who would have been called had the
defendant been consulted. His testimony
appears to be to the effect that, although he
had no knowledge of this particular case, yet
he believed Lord Palm.eb.ston to be capable
of acting in the manner imputed. On this
subject we add two more testimonies. The
first is a contemporaneous one :—
MR. RICHARD HART TO THE EDITOR OF THE
(Sheffield) “ free
press.”
(Extract.)
Birmingham, January 9, 1856.
Shortly after the return of Lord John Russell
from his mission to Vienna, I, as one of the mem
bers of a deputation, had an interview in the tea
room of the House of Commons, with Messrs. Cob
den, Bright, and Milner Gibson. After the busi
ness of the deputation had been concluded, a con
versation arose respecting Hart, the Leipsic Consul,
in the course of which, Mr. Cobden said that Hart
was a man of notoriously bad character; that when he
Mr. C.) went to Leipsic, he had letters of introduction
to Hart, but when he became acquainted with the
reputation that person bore, he “ would not be seen
in the streets with him.” On being asked what he
knew about the appointment of Hart, Mr. Cobden
replied—“I have heard that story about Palmer
ston, but I know it is not true, for----- (here Mr.
Cobden mentioned, in a very familiar manner, a
gentleman who was not present, and whose name
I have no right to use), told me that he was under
great obligations to Hart, and that he got Hart the
appointment.” Mr. Cobden entered into some de
tails as to the nature of the obligation which the
gentleman referred to, and who has since held influ
ential public positions, was under to the ex-gambling
�CASE OF BRIBERY.
were not garbled by some subordinate who cannot
be found out. My honourable and learned Friend
told us of tne marvellous care which has been taken,
so that the guilty person must have been not only a
man of ability but a man of genius. (A laugh.) Of
course, there are men of genius in very objectionable
walks of life—(laughter)—but we know that the noble
Lord is a man of genius, or he would not have been
on that bench for the last fifty years—(laughter)—
and we know also that Lord Broughton is a man
of many and varied accomplishments. I ask again,
will the noble Lord tell us who did it ? He knows
who did it. Was it his own right hand, or Lord
Broughton’s right hand which did this work, or
was it some clever secretary in his or in the India
Office? The House has a right to know; we wish
to know, because we want to drag the criminal
before the public; we wish to deter other Ministers
from ever committing a like offence.
Mr. Bright’s speech on the Affghan
Forgeries was only a repetition of Mr. Anstey’s on the same subject, February 23,
1848
“ It is not by accident that frauds like these can
have been committed. Sir, I think it eminently
disgraceful to the character of the British Nation—
and, let me add, of this House, too—that the charge
should ever have been made, and should then have
been suffered for so many years to remain without
investigation. It has been pending ever since 1841;
and yet no'efforts have been made to vindicate the
dignity of the law and the honour of the country.
No prosecution has been instituted to punish—if not the
noble Lord and those who did the deed—then at least,
those insolent libellers who had ventured to accuse them of
it............ I do not hesitate to maintain that every
one of those unhappy persons who have, at any time
since 1841, been transported from England to the
shores of the South Pacific, for forgeries or crimes
of the nature of forgery, has the right to say that he
has been most unjustly dealt with, when he sees
that perpetrators of iniquities, similar in kind, but
far more monstrous in character, have been suffered
to remain so long unscathed and unquestioned; nay,
and to approach the person of Her Majesty, and to
sit in Her Councils, and to lead the deliberations of
Parliament.
In the Press, in Parliament, and in the
Financial Reform Tracts, it is always the
same story when Lord Palmerston’s acts
are examined. It is always forgery and false
hood, and to the detriment of England. No
State is ever suggested as deriving benefit
except Russia.
We have already alluded to a letter from
Mr. Gladstone. It is as follows:—
MR. GLADSTONE TO MR. CRAWSHAY.
Hawarden, Chester, Jan. 14, 1856.
Sir,—I have the honour to acknowledge your
letter of the 11th ; and in compliance with your re
quest, I have adverted to several passages in the
accompanying printed paper, No. 1, where it ap
pears to be conveyed that the late Mr. Porter, of
the Board of Trade, made to Mr. Urquhart a state
ment, or imparted to him an understanding, to the
effect that I had authorised Mr. Porter to give
certain information to Mr. Urquhart respecting
Lord Palmerston and a Mr. Hart.
I never had any communication whatever, to my
knowledge, with Mr. Porter, on the subject of Mr.
13
Hart, and never gave Mr. Porter any information
respecting Lord Palmerston, or authorised him to
carry any information of any kind to Mr. Urquhart.
I am bound to add, from my recollection of Mr.
Porter’s scrupulous care and honour in all official
relations, that I am convinced the statements to
which you have called my attention could not have
been warranted by anything that had proceeded
from him, and that, if Mr. Urquhart entertained a
supposition to the contrary, he has been in total
error.
I remain, Sir, your very obedient Servant,
W. E. Gladstone.
I do not trouble you with any remarks upon those
portions of your inclosures in which I am not indi
vidually concerned.
G. Craw shay, Esq.
This letter was forwarded to Mr. UTiQrHAKT. The following was that gentleman’s
reply
MR. URQUHART TO MR. CRAWSHAY.
Jan. 16, 1856.
My dear Sir,—I have carefully weighed the careful
letter of Mr. Gladstone, and I can perfectly con
ciliate every word therein contained with my recol
lection of what occurred. Mr. Gladstone says that
he never made to Mr. Porter any communication
on the subject of Hart to be conveyed to me. This
I accept as unquestionable, as being his statement,
and therefore as a point established. But you will
observe that Mr. 1-orter was not the only one con
cerned, and that of the two he occupied the inferior
station. Now, I hold it to be impossible that that
communication could be made in the Board of
Trade, except at the instigation, or at least with the
concurrence, of the chief of that department. If you
will turn back to my testimony, you will find that I
put the name of Mr. MacGregor before that of Mr.
Porter, conveying the impression upon my mind,
when for the first time I applied myself to recall the
circumstances, of Mr. MacGregor having taken the
lead. This impression is confirmed by the statement
of Col. Taylor, who says emphatically “ The state
ment was made to me by Mr. MacGregor, and not
by Mr. Porter.” The letter of Mr. White shows
that both were filled with sufficient zeal to have
extorted, or even to have believed they had extorted
the consent of Mr. Gladstone to such a step ; nor
in taking it was it necessary that my name should
have been mentioned. Some such expression as
“ really, this is too bad, it ought to be brought
out,” was all that was required in the way of
sanction
Besides the general grounds of official subordina
tion, I had others by which to connect Mr. Glad
stone with the communication. First, when on the
day in question I entered Mr. Porter’s room on the
lower floor, instead of his ordinary manner he was
abrupt, formal, and proceeding immediately to the
door and begging me to follow him, I became alarmed,
fearing some domestic disaster or some painful per
sonal affair; not a word was said by him upon the
subject; I was merely conducted to Mr. MacGre
gor’s room. Secondly, my being taken to Mr.
MacGregor’s room, which I had never entered
before. (Mr. MacGregor, you will observe, speaks
of the frequency of my visits there as a reason for
not recollecting particularly the circumstance.)
Thirdly, the presence of Mr. Gladstone in Mr.
MacGregor’s room, which he quitted hurriedly,
and though seeing me, without recognition. This
struck me at the time as strange; afterwards, I
�14
HISTORY OF LORD PALMERSTON.
explained it by his knowledge of the purpose of my
visit.
Your letter to Mr. Gladstone, put to him certain
remarkable facts regarding which you requested an
answer, i.e., the creation of the consulship by Lord
Palmerston for Hart, and the getting rid of Hart
by the government of which Mr. Gladstone was a
member, by the abolition of the post. To this Mr.
Gladstone carefully avoids giving a reply.
Your letter did more than ask this question. It
conveyed the whole of the correspondence as en
closures.
Mr. Gladstone, in answering, is aware that every
thing hinges on the truth or falsehood of the facts
connected with Hart,—that Hart having been dis
missed by his own government. Now the allegations
thus publicly made, coupled with the fact of his dis
missal, made it imperative upon Mr. Gladstone to
vindicate the character of Hart unjustly impugned,
or at all events to say that these allegations did not
constitute the grounds of his dismissal. Mr. Glad
stone carefully avoids any such declaration.
He
speaks of “certain information” of “a Mr. Hart.”
Every line is that of a man who is fearful of com
mitting himself. And he even adds in a postscript
that he “ will not trouble you with any remarks on
those portions of the enclosures in which he is not
individually concerned.” More than this negative tes
timony you had no right to expect from Mr. Glad
stone, who has but recently been a member of the
same Cabinet as Lord Palmerston.
But in fact, Mr. Gladstone gives you a great
deal more. As if to meet the insinuations of Mr.
MacGregor respecting Mr. Porter’s unfortunate
“ credulity” as to Lord Palmerston, Mr. Gladstone
offers his testimony as “ to Mr. Porter’s scrupulous
care and honour in all official relations.” Weigh
well these words ; “scrupulous” ‘■'■honour” and that
comprehensive monosyllable all. Now, as a hun
dred witnesses can be adduced to prove that Mr.
Porter made those statements which your com
mittee have now brought to light, Mr. Gladstone’s
letter, being a voucher for the scrupulous care and
comprehensive honour of Mr. Porter, is an inva
luable document, and a most important addition to
your case.
As to your question respecting my belief in the
same, I have difficulty in giving an answer. I re
jected the evidence when tendered to me at the
time, and therefore I have no means of knowing on
what it rests. It could not awaken interest in my
mind, because it proved to me nothing new. All I
can now say is this: that T am persuaded of there
being grounds for the charge, by the falsehood of
Mr. MacGregor, and by the reserve of Mr. Glad
stone, especially when taken in conjunction with
the fact that no legal proceedings have been taken
either by Lord Palmerston or by Hart.
I would not venture on the suggestion I am about
to make, had you not given me the liberty to do so.
But I really do not think you would be justified in
pressing Mr. Gladstone further. Your first letter
was an invitation of testimony. In answering you
he has taken a deliberate step, and he is not a man
who will deviate from the course he has laid down
by the words that you may put in a letter. You had
a right to put the question that you have done; he
has acknowledged it by his answer; beyond this you
have none.
I remain, very faithfully yours,
D. Urquhart.
George Crawshay, Esq.,
Chairman of Newcastle Committee.
And with no better evidence than this to
rest on, Mr. Macqueen decides (for we
believe he decided before consulting the
Council) that the whole statement was a
fabrication, and that consequently the Finan
cial Beform Association should not examine
into any diplomatic transaction.
Be it remembered that though Mr. Macqueen had declared Lord Palmebston not
guilty of Treason, the body whose Secretary
he was had published charges against him
which amounted to that accusation.
On being remonstrated with and offered
proof that a valued servant of the Crown did
believe Lord Palmebston guilty of Treason,
Mr. Macqueen says, “ It is of no use; you
must, if not prove, at least allege ‘ Corrupt
personal motive.’ ” The accusation of cor
rupt personal motive, hitherto gossip, as
sumes a tangible shape at the bidding of Mr.
Macqueen, only to be dismissed by him as
a fiction. Nobody ever said it was proved.
But it was proved that the accusation was
made and believed by public servants of the
Crown thirteen years before.
What could Mr. Macqueen mean by say
ing that “ corrupt motive” must be, “ if not
proved, alleged ?” What but this, that
treason must have a motive ; that such motive
would be rumoured about, but that there
would be no direct evidence on the subject.
What was produced was exactly what Mr.
Macqueen had called for: evidence of a
rumour believed by influential persons ; but
no categorical proof.
It is not our intention here, Sir, to speak
of the vulgarity and insolence with which
Mr. Macqueen scatters imputations against
the veracity and honour of those whose
statements he is unable to controvert. But
we desire to call your attention to this, that
the gentlemen involved by him in this corres
pondence, were not the first to introduce the
topic of “ corrupt personal motive
their
charges embrace the acts of a life, in which
this, though an explanation, is but an inci
dent. It was in the endeavour to urge your
Association into an investigation of these
acts, that they were brought up short against
this difficulty started by your Secretary,
which he declared was the obstacle to that
investigation. From the attempt to over
come it, sprang this laborious inquiry. Again,
we repeat, it has slumbered from that time
to this, and it is again the organ of your
Association that brings the matter forward.
The fact that this allegation, previously
concealed from him, was communicated to
Mr. Macqueen on the ground that he had
�CASE OF BRIBERY.
declared it to be important, is given as an
answer to us, who liad nothing to do with that
allegation. And what is it which is thus
answered ? We have quoted not alleged
rumours, but despatches and speeches of Sir
John Bowring, which prove that he is in the
habitual practice of falsehood. These charges
nobody has so much as attempted to deny.
The only question 'at issue therefore is,
whether the habit of falsehood is or is not,
at this present day, a disqualification for the
society of gentlemen ? Mr. Macqueen, by
implication, declares that it is not. We can
not conceive it possible, Sir, that you will
acquiesce in such a decision.
Such a decision acquiesced in by a body of
persons professedly united for the good of
their country, would be a lamentable fulfil
ment of the words of Mr. Canning’s Secre
tary, Mr. Stapleton, when, in 1857, he
concluded his “ Hostilities at Canton,” with
these words:—
“ If such dishonourable practices are to be
adopted by the British people, and to be ap
plauded by British statesmen, the public men
of Great Britain, henceforth, will only re
semble public women, without honour, and
without shame.”
With this brief resume of the case, Sir, we
leave the matter in your hands.
We also beg to say that our belief as to all
the acts of Lord Palmerston being for the
advantage of Russia rests on the evidence
we possess on each special case ; each one at
the same time being connected with and.
strengthening the other.
But, .in addition to this, we possess evi
dence which far transcends any other in
importance and authority.
We possess
the words of the Queen herself, in her
letter to Lord John Russell, of August,
1850, read by that Minister in the House
of Commons, on the occasion of the dis
missal of Lord Palmerston from the office
of Foreign Minister, because he had renewed
the offences which, by that letter of the
Queen, he was required to abstain from.
This letter, although published in such a re
markable manner, is so strangely omitted on
all occasions when either the conduct of
England in respect to any Foreign Power is
considered, or the character of Lord Palmer
ston himself is called in question, that we
insert it here, entreating you to weigh well
each word, and to consider what the conduct
and the circumstances would have been that
could have given rise to it; what the source
from which such influence must have sprung;
and what the consequences for your country
15
when such things can be, and remain un
known, or be published even by the Sovereign
herself, and remain unavenged and un
checked.
THE QUEEN’S LETTER.
“The Queen requests —First, that Lord
Palmerston will distinctly state what he pro
poses in a given case, in order that the Queen
may know as distinctly to what she is giving
Her royal sanction. Second, that having
once given Her sanction to a measure, it be
not arbitrarily altered or modified by the
Minister. Such an act she must consider as
failing in sincerity towards the Crown, and
justly to be visited by the exercise of her
constitutional right of dismissing that Minis
ter. She expects to be kept informed of what
passes between him and Foreign Ministers,
before important decisions are taken based
upon such intercourse; to receive the foreign
despatches in good time, and to have the
draughts for her perusal sent to her in suffi
cient time to make herself acquainted with
the contents before they are sent off. The
Queen thinks it better that Lord John Russell
should show this letter to Lord Palmerston.”
There are three points here which we must
further call your attention to :—
1st. This is but a part of the Queen’s
original letter, as is shown by these words of
Lord J. Russell :—
“I shall refer only to that part of the document
which has reference to the immediate subject.”
2nd. The date of the letter. It is August,
1850. You will see that it corresponds with
a most important diplomatic transaction,
which at the time was carried on by Lord
Palmerston in secret, which was denied by
him in the House of Commons, and is now
known ; namely, the Treaty of London of
1852, which altered the succession to the
Danish Crown, so as, by the cutting out of
heirs, to secure that kingdom to the Russian
line. It now being universally acknowledged
that that Treaty was for the interests of
Russia, there can remain no doubt as to the
Foreign Power in whose interests the “ insin
cerity” of Lord Palmerston towards the
British Crown was practised.
3rd. That Lord Palmerston accepted, as
Lord John Russell took care to let the
Parliament know, every word of the allega
tions of the Queen. For he added, quoting
them, these words of Lord Palmerston’ :—
“ I have taken a copy of this Memorandum
of the Queen, and will not fail to attend to
the directions it contains.”
When, now, we consider that three years
afterwards the Minister so charged and so
�16
HISTORY OF LORD PALMERSTON.
dismissed, became the Queen’s Prime
Minister, and that soon afterwards Lord
John Russell, who had dismissed him, and
had laid the Queen’s letter as the grounds
before Parliament, accepted office as his sub
ordinate, it becomes utterly impossible to
resist the conclusion that Lord Palmebston
is backed by some Power and Influence,
secret, but supreme, which cannot belong to
his personal character or position, and which
has evidently no internal British source.
The writer of the article in the Financial
Reformer, casts ridicule on the Committee
at Bolton, because of the bad spelling of one
of its members. We are glad that the Bolton
Committee have been exerting themselves in
this matter; and for our part, must confess
that we entertain a higher feeling of respect
for those men, because of that unfamiliarity
with literary composition, which does not
deter them from dealing with the highest
matters of policy and of moral character,
who strive to arrest their country in its course
of crime, and to save their countrymen from
the pollution of intercourse with its imme
diate perpetrators.
There are two considerations to which I
particularly implore your attention. The
first is the character of the motives which
alone could have influenced so many gentle
men in endeavouring to bring this transaction
to light. The second, the absence of any
steps taken on the part of the accused to
defend his character ; nor have his private or
public friends shown the least desire to have
his character cleared.
The matter is not one which belongs to
speculation. Nor is it one affecting the cir
cumstances of any particular person. It is the
affairs of England that are so disposed of;
her fortunes and her fate. The humblest and
poorest family in the land is as much, and as
directly involved in it as the wealthiest and
the noblest.
I have the honour to remain,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
C. F. Jones, Secretary.
*
No. 2.
Lord Palmerston’s Introduction
to the Foreign Office.
Editor
Free Press.
July 25,1865.
Sir,—In the leader in the last number of the
Free Press, which number will be justly de
signated the anticipation of the judgment of
future times of the man who has at present
England, and, through England the world, in
his hands, there is a passage of which I ven
ture to offer you a rectification. It bears
upon a critical turn of events, his entrance
into the Foreign Office, and appears to offer
an explanation, which is far from being a true
one. You say, “ Lord Palmerston, being
practically acquainted with the method of
proceeding (in the Foreign Office), was a
godsend to the Whigs in Downing-street.”
The Whigs, that is to say the colleagues of
Lord Grey, had no opportunity of expressing
any opinion as to Lord Palmerston’s ad
ministration at the moment of his appoint
ment. And if his claims were discussed at
all on the first draft of the Cabinet, that dis
cussion was unfavourable to him, since that
first draft did not contain Lord Palmer
ston’s name. On the forenoon of the day
when the change of Ministry took place, and
whilst Lord Grey was in the act of writing
down the list of the new Ministry for the
Evening Papers, he was interrupted by a
visit, which must have been of the highest
importance, since at that moment it wras pro
longed an hour and a half; and at its close,
and without the presence or intervention of
any of his new colleagues, a new list was fur
nished to the person in waiting for insertion
in the papers. This statement I make on
the authority of the very person then in
waiting, yyho preserved the evidence of it in
the slip of paper, which on the one side con
tained the first list of the Cabinet, the same
slip of paper having been inadvertently used
for the final list on its back. The person who
visited Lord Grey, and who detained him
this momentous hour and a half, was the
Princess Lieven.
That Lord Grey considered this nomina
* This letter was posted on the 23rd of June, but up
tion his own particular act is confirmed by an
to the present time no answer has been received.
incident which took place shortly before his
death. He wrote to Prince Adam Czartoryski, urgently requesting him to come
down to Howick. Sending the other persons
who were there out of the way, he said to
him, “ I have before my death to implore and
obtain your forgiveness. I am the assassin
of Poland.” In reply to the Prince’s look of
To
the
oe the
�17
CONNEXION WITH PRINCESS LIEVEN.
amazement, he added, “ It was I who placed
that man in the Foreign Office.” I have
heard this mentioned between Mr. Urquhart,
to whom it was related by Prince Czartoryski himself, and another person, still alive,
who was present at the time at Howick Castle,
and to whom it was related by Prince Czartoryski immediately after its occurrence.
As these circumstances are generally
known to those who have been so long en
deavouring to rescue their country from the
hands of this man, I am surprised that the
writer of the article in the last number was
not acquainted with them. I can see no
reason why a truth so important as this
should be concealed.
There is nothing unlikely in the circum
stances as I have mentioned them, of Lord
Palmerston’s appointment. That ata sub
sequent period Princess Lieven had “ the
nominations” in France is notorious. That
Lord Palmerston was a person for Russia
to push into the Foreign Office it did not
require to wait for results to ascertain. He
was her man before he was Minister. The
moment also was of the utmost importance
for Russia, alike as regards Turkey and
Poland. So completely were those supposed
to be the best informed, perplexed and puz
zled by his "words and conduct in opposition,
that on one occasion Sir Robert Peel in
dignantly asked whose representative the
noble Lord was in that House ?
The passage will be found, if looked for,
in Hansard’s Debates. It seems to me you
cannot render a greater service than by dis
interring the words of Lord Palmerston at
that period, the words which awoke the sus
picions of Sir Robert Peel, and merited
the applause of the Russian Ambassador.
Words which can be rendered intelligible by
the parallel expressions in the Secret Russian
Despatches of the same period, ar 1 which
made him Minister without the concurrence
of his colleagues, the sanction of his Sove
reign, or the knowledge of his country. It
must be remembered that Lord Grey had,
at that moment, everything in his hands. So
that this case serves to illustrate the position
you have so often laid down in reference to
so many other countries; that Russia’s aim
always is to concentrate the affairs of each
country in the hands of one man. As we
see in this case, that man need not be her
Agent. The result of the Reform Agitation
and triumph in England was to make Lord
Grey for a moment Dictator. The effect of
that Dictatorship has been to transfer the
world to Russia. Your obedient Servant,
H. A.
Note
subjoined by the Editor
“Free Press.”
or the
By a hasty perusal of the authorities re
ferred to by our correspondent, we are
enabled to vouch for the accuracy of the
collateral points connected with the remark
able disclosures contained in this letter. We
subjoin a few extracts :—
On the 13th of June, 1829, the Russian
Ambassadors in London wrote to Count
Nesselrode :—
“Your Excellency will have rehiarked that the
Ministry has not dared to answer either to that part
of the observations of Sir James Macintosh relative
to the Danger of any guarantee in favour of the Otto
man Territory, nor to the speech in which Lord Pal
merston, whose name is henceforward associated
with those of the first orators of the Parliament of
England, has insisted on the preservation of the
general peace, and proved that an Austro-Turkish
policy would only serve to disturb it.”*
On June 1, 1829, Viscount Palmerston
had said : —
“ I said that the delay in executing the Treaty of
July, 1827, had brought upon us that very evil of a
war in the East of Europe, which that Treaty was
calculated to prevent. In that war, my opinion is,
that the Turks were the aggressors. I am pro
nouncing no opinion whether Russia has or has not
ambitious views upon Turkey. It might, indeed, be
thought that the Russian Empire is sufficiently ex
tensive to satisfy the most ambitious sovereign, or to
find employment for the most enlightened; but on
that point I give no opinion. I will not decide,
either, on which side may be the balance of that
general account of reciprocal grievances, which has
so long been standing between the two parties; but
in that particular transaction Turkey was the
aggressor; she seized Russian ships and cargoes,
expelled Russian subjects from Turkey, and shut
the Bosphorus against Russian commerce, all in
violation of Treaties, and declared her intention not
to fulfil the Treaty of Akerman; and all this upon
no other pretence than certain things which Russia
had done in conjunction with her allies England and
France, to prevail upon Turkey to accede to some
arrangement about Greece.”
The concessions of the Treaty of Akerman
(which "with the Treaty of Bucharest, the
British Government omitted when it pub
lished, in 1855, the other Treaties between
Russia and Turkey) were made on the dis
tinct agreement that Russia was not, col
lectively or separately, to interfere in the
affairs of Greece. The “ certain things which
Russia had done” were an open breach of
this agreement, and therefore a sufficient
reason for considering the Treaty of Aker
man as null and void.
The speech which excited the suspicion of
Sir Robert Peel, was on the settlement of
Greece.
* Portfolio, Second Series, vol. i. p. 24. FrtJ Press
vol. viii., p. 81.
C
�18
HISTORY OF LORD PALMERSTON.
On February 16,1830, Viscount Palmer
said:—
ston
“ The natural defence of Greece on the South
would be Candia, for with that island left in the
possession of the Turks, the means of aggression
would be continually in their hands. . . . He be
lieved he should be borne out in this assertion, that
if the wishes of England were decisively made
known upon this subject, the Allies would accede
to them, and that it rested with the Cabinet of
England to decide whether or not the new State
was to be rendered secure or insecure.”
In his reply, Sir R. Peel said :—
“ My noble Friend has stated that if England
would consent to enlarge the limits of Greece, he
was pretty sure that the other Powers who have
joined in the Treaty would not be opposed to such
extension. Certainly this is a statement which I
did not expect to hear from my noble Friend. I
do not, however, know z'm whose confidence he may be,
or whom he may undertake to represent in making that
statement, unless he comes to that conclusion from
having been in office at the time of the execution of
the Treaty.”
Viscount Palmerston said in answer :—
“ I am sure the House could not imagine, when I
was stating my opinion as to the boundaries of
Greece, after having been two years out of office,
that I was taking upon myself to ensure what were
the sentiments of Russia or France.”
It is also in this speech that is to be found
an argument which is identical with one used
in the Secret Russian Despatch of June 1,
1829 ; namely, that what England had to do
in the interests of Turkey was to prevent
her from expecting any help from England,
so that she might not be encouraged to re
sist.
From the Russian Despatch, June 1, 1829.
“ I took advantage of this opportunity to remark
to Lord Aberdeen, that from the moment that
justice was rendered to our policy, it would be right
to manifest it publicly, and to abstain from all the
direct and indirect measures which make people
believe in too favourable a disposition on his part towards
the Porte, and which thereby encouraged its resist
ance.”*
From Lord Palmerston’s Speech, February, 16,
1830.
“I should like to see, that, whilst England
adopted a firm resolution—almost the only course
she could adopt—upon no consideration, and in no
event to take part with Turkey in that war; that
that decision was fairly and frankly communicated
to the Turk, and that he was made acquainted from
the beginning, that he was in nd possible contin
gency to look to England for assistance.”!
* For this Despatch see Portfolio, New Series, vol. i.
p. 3 ; also Free Press, vol. iii. p. 81.
t “ Opinions and Policy of Lord Palmerston,” p. 137.
No. 3.
Lord Palmerston and Princess
Lieven.
Mount Pleasant, Gateshead,
August 19, 1865.
Sir,—In a letter in the Free Press of this
month a statement is made regarding the in
troduction of Lord Palmerston into the
Foreign Office, in which your name is men
tioned as an authority for the following
statement: that “ Lord Grey wrote to
Prince Adam Czartoryski urgently re
questing him to come to Howick. Sending
the other persons out of the room, he said to
him, ‘ I have, before my death, to implore
and obtain your forgiveness. I am the
assassin of Poland.’ In reply to the Prince’s
look of amazement he added: ‘ It was I who
placed that man in the Foreign Office.’ ”
Not having heard any statement from you
of this circumstance, and as the letter is
anonymous, it has occurred to me to ask you
to state what you know relative to this
matter ? I should also wish to know whether
you are aware of the circumstances men
tioned in the same letter about the appoint
ment of Lord Palmerston ?
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
D. Urquhart, Esq.
D. Rule,
reply.
Chalet des Melezes, St. Gervais,
August 31, 1865.
Sir,—The statement you quote from the
letter in the Free Press is perfectly con
formable to the account given me by Prince
Czartoryski himself of his last interview
with Lord Grey. I may further add, that
Lord Grey’s fall from office arose out of that
very nomination, as it was in consequence of
Lord Palmerston’s showing to the King a
letter of Lord Grey to Princess Lieven, the
possession of which was explained by its
having been opened and copied at the Post
office.
As to Princess Lieven’s part in obtaining
from Lord Grey Lord Palmerston’s ap
pointment as Foreign Minister, the details
given in the above-quoted letter agree with
what w'as told me by Mr. Scanlon, at that
time Editor of the Courier, who was the
person who received from Lord Grey the
sheet of note-paper, on the two sides of
which were the two different lists of the
Ministry, and who was waiting in the ante
room whilst Princess Lieven was with Lord
Grey.
Your obedient servant,
David Urquhart.
�19
CONDUCT RECAPITULATED.
No. 4.
The Fifty-eight Years of Lord
Palmerston’s Career.
In the course of nature only a short time
can now be expected to elapse before the ca
reer of Lord Palmerston will have to be
examined as a closed chapter. The corres
pondence which we publish this day between
the Financial Reform Association and one of
the Foreign Affairs Committees may almost
be considered as the anticipation of a post
humous revelation.
Never before has a minister, during his
life-time, been charged with the crimes
alleged against Lord Palmerston without
having to undergo or to fly from legal pro
ceedings. For nearly thirty years has he
been accused of collusion with a Foreign
Power, to the detriment of his own country,
but to this charge have been added the more
vulgar accessories of falsehood and forgery
used to deceive Parliament. Moreover,
these latter charges have produced events
unparalleled, at least in English history, for
when accused on three separate occasions,
and by three different members, of falsehood,
he answered the first, Lord It. Montagu,
by counting out the House; the second,
Mr. Cobden, by renewed equivocation, and
the third, Mr. Bernal Osborne, by total
silence. When accused, by Messrs. Dunlop
and Bright, of altering the terms and
sense of the despatches of Sir Alexander
Burnes in such a manner as to amount to
forgery, he justified the forgery, and did not
deny that he was the author of it.
The man thus accused and thus convicted
has now, with a few short intermissions, been
in the public service since 1807, that is to say,
for fifty-eight years. In 1828, he was ad
mitted into the Cabinet. Since 1830, he
has generally been either Foreign Miuister
or Prime Minister. During these thirtyfive years every convulsion has been traced
to him, yet he is still a mystery. But so
long a career requires a summary from an
' authoritative source. We turn to that in
valuable publication, the Foreign Office List,
and find the following narrative, to which we
have to prefix that the subject of it was born
October 20, 1784.
“ Palmerston (Henry John Temple) Viscount,
K.G., G.C.B., M.P., is M.A. of St.John’s, Cambridge.
Succeeded as third Viscount, April 17, 1802. Was
elected an Honorary Burgess of the Corporation of
Southampton, August 7, 1807. Was appointed Se
cretary at War, October 27,1809, which office he held
till May 31, 1828. Was made a Privy Councillor,
November 1, 1809. Upon the formation of a Cabinet
by the late Earl Grey, was appointed Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs, November 22, 1830; he
held the seals of that office ^77 WwemSer 21, 1834,
when he was succeeded by the late Duke of Wel
lington. Was appointed a G.C.B. June 6, 1832.
Was appointed one of the Commissioners for the
Affairs of India, December 13, 1832. Was again ap
pointed Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, April
18, 1835, and resigned, September, 1841. Was ap
pointed one of the Commissioners for the purpose of
enquiry whether advantage might not be taken of
the rebuilding of the Houses of Parliament, for pro
moting and encouraging the Fine Arts, November
22, 1841. Was for the third time appointed Secre
tary of State for Foreign Affairs, July 6, 1846, which
post he held till December, 1851. Was appointed Se
cretary of State for the Home Department, December
28, 1852, and one of the Committee of Council to
superintend the application of any sums voted by
Parliament for the purpose of promoting Public
Education, January 4, 1853. Was appointed First
Lord of the Treasury, February 10, 1855. Was M.P.
for the University of Cambridge from 1806 till 1831 ;
*
for Bletchingley from July 1831 till 1832 ; for South
Hants, from 1832 to December, 1834; and has sat for
Tiverton since June 5, 1835. Was made a K.G. July
12, 1856. He resigned office, February 19, 1858. Was
appointed, July 9, 1858, one of Her Majesty’s Com
missioners for the purpose of inquiring into the esta
blishment, organisation, government, and direction
of the Militia Force of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland. Was appointed First Lord of
the Treasury, June 24, 1859 ; was appointed July 6,
1859, one of the Committee of Council to superintend
the application of any sums of money voted by Par
liament for the purpose of promoting Public Educa
tion. Was granted March 27, 1860, the office of
Constable of Her Majesty’s Castle of Dover, and also
the office of Warden and Keeper of Her Majesty’s
Cinque Ports, and the office of Admiralty within the
said Cinque Ports. Was appointed April 14, 1862,
one of Her Majesty’s Commissioners for opening
the International Exhibition of 1862. Was elected
Master of the Corporation of the Trinity House,
June 16, 1862.” f
The first tbing remarkable in this narrative
is its reticence and its inaccuracy. Lord
Palmerston’s public services are made to
commence in 1809. Yet we learn,' from the
well-known work of Mr. George Henry
Francis, “ Opinions and Policy of Lord
Palmerston,” that he was made a Lord of
the Admiralty in 1807, on the formation of the
Duke of Portland’s Administration. Con
sequently, it was in that capacity that, in
1808, he made a speech in favour of refusing
the papers connected with the lawless attack
* Dodd, on the contrary, says that Lord Palmerston
“was an unsuccessful candidate for the University of
Cambridge in 1806 and 1807 ; and sat for Newport,
Isle of Wight, from 1807 to March, 1811, when he was
returned for the University of Cambridge, and sat till
1831.”
f “ The Foreign Office List for January, 1863, com
piled from official documents by Francis W. H. Caven
dish and Edward Hertslet, of the Foreign Office.
London: Harrison, 59, Pall-mall, Bookseller to the
Queen,” p. 128.
C 2
�20
HISTORY OF LORD PALMERSTON.
on Copenhagen. Not a word is said, either, Lord Napier, in direct opposition to those
in the Foreign Office List, of his being four of his Sovereign, instructions which led to
times defeated as a parliamentary candidate : the troubles in China, and to the Opium
at Cambridge University in 1806, 1807, and War.
*
1831 • and at South Hants in December,
In September, 1841, Lord Palmerston
.1834. . Mr. Francis, though he records the
Cambridge defeats, makes no mention of his resigned with the rest of the Whig adminis
sitting for Newport from 1807 to 1811, but tration, their majority having been gradually
says that during that time he represented worn out. But the act was well timed; for
Bletcbingley, a rotten borough, in which he on the 2nd of November occurred the out
took refuge only during the Deform agitation break at Caubul, and the expulsion of the
of 1831, and which was disfranchised by the British. The brunt of this disaster was thus
removed from the Author of the war.
Deform Act.
In December, 1851, Lord Palmerston
Other Ministers ascend to or descend from
office in compliance with the oscillations of was dismissed by the Queen for conspiring
party, but every occasion on which Lord with Louis Napoleon to put down Consti
Palmerston has quitted office presents some tutional Government in France. This signal
suspicious circumstance. His resignation act is veiled in the Foreign Office account
May 31, 1828, ostensibly on the ground that by the use of the words, “ which post he held
Mr. Huskisson’s complimentary offer to re till December, 1851.”
Lord Palmerston’s next dismissal was by
sign was accepted by the Duke of Welling
ton, received its explanation when, in Novem the people, in February, 1858, for conspiring
ber, 1830, he became Foreign Minister in an with Louis Napoleon to change the laws
Ad ministration formed entirely from his former of England. Whether this was a real blow
political opponents. In the interim, he made to him or whether, as we have alwavs con
the speech against Turkey which obtained tended, it was contrived by himself, need not
the commendation of the Dussiau Ambas now be discussed. Suffice it to say that the
sador, and that Motion in favour of taking a event was predicted in these columns more
part in the civil war in Portugal, which than three months beforehand.t
pointed him out as the proper agent for a
Whatever the sincerity of his dismissal in
“policy of non-intervention.”
1858, there is now no question of the fraud
The Whigs had been excluded from office, by which he induced Mr. Bright to restore
with very short intervals, for two generations him to place in 1859. The history of the
or more. The Foreign Office, shrouded in Willis’s Dooms Compact, the fancy fran
secresy, was a mystery to them. Lord Pal chises of Mr. Disraeli, and the open viola
merston, having already disentangled him tion of the Deform pledges of Lord Pat,self from the Duke of Wellington’s Admi merston are among the very few things the
nistration, and being practically acquainted memory of which has survived the six inter
with the method of proceeding, was a god vening years. In an age like this, scandal
send to the Whigs in Downing-street.
survives, while nations pass away and are
_ During his short term of office Poland forgotten. J
disappeared from the map of Europe, and
The few years which preceded the death of
England was saddled with the expense of the Mr. Canning, saw the Holy Alliance nearly
transaction, in the shape of a renewal of the paralysed by the opposition of England, and
expired Dusso-Dutch Loan, the method of the New World resisting successfully the
this achievement being a falsehood concerted attempts to entangle it in the diplomacy of
between Lord Palmerston and the Russian the old.
Ambassador.
* See “ China A Narrative,” Free, Press, September,
Lord Palmerston’s departure from office
’
in November, 1834, was not caused by any 1859.
t See
act of his own. William IV. dismissed the Februarythe Free Press for November, 25, 1857, and
24, 1858.
administration on the grounds of the suc
+ Mr. Bright writes to his constituents, June 29,
cession of Lord Althorp, then Chancellor of 1865:—“The Administration which in 1859 climbed
the Exchequer, to the House of Lords. The into office under the pretence of its devotion to the
of Parliamentary Reform, has violated its
interval between November, 1834, and April, questionpledges. Its chief men purposely betrayed the
solemn
1835, was, however, signalised by the arrival cause they undertook to defend, and the less eminent
at the Foreign Office of despatches from members of it have tamely aequiesced in that betrayal.
China, addressed as private letters to Lord The Ministry have, for six years, held office, which
promises
made, and
Palmerston, and which proved that he had, but for they could theyhave obtained which they have
broken,
not
possession of even
as regards that conutry, given instructions to for a day.”
�21
CONDUCT RECAPITULATED.
With Lord Palmerston’s accession to
the Poreign Office the attacks of Russia on
the independence of States were made effec
tive by an Anglo-French League for imposing
Constitutional Government, so that the
nations were torn to pieces by this double
intrigue. Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece,
Denmark, have thus been made the prey of
contending factions, as well as the Republics
of Central and South America. In two
cases alone where the naval power of En
gland made her word omnipotent, this
pretence was laid aside for a naked partner
ship with Russia. In Poland the rights of
the Czar were declared to be “ incontest
able,” and the independence of Circassia
was destroyed by permitting Russia piratically to seize English merchant ships trading
to her coasts. Denmark and the Duchies
Lord Palmerston gave to Russia by a Eu
ropean Treaty ; India he first endangered by
the Affghan War, and then subverted by the
Greased Cartridges ; China, which he found in
perfect peace with us, he first made an enemy
by violating its laws, and then convulsed by
the weakness thus caused, so that Russia is
able to make use of Circassia in the west,
and China in the east for facilitating the
invasion of our Indian Empire. The Otto
man Empire has indeed resisted his material
attacks, but he has seduced it into an imita
tion of English finance, which, if persevered
in, will bring it to ruin. Finally, he has
betrayed Hungary as well as Poland to
Russia, and has engaged in a war with her in
which he sacrificed a hundred millions ster
ling, and fifty thousand Englishmen, by
conducting it in the way in which Russia
prescribed. In 1801 the English cruisers
humbled Russia in a few months and, without
any attack upon her territory, compelled her
to sue for peace. In 1856 this easy method
having been abandoned during the war, to
the great loss of this country in blood and
treasure, Lord Palmerston, in a document
unauthorised, and still unratified by the
Queen, undertook that England would never
resume it. While thus abandoning the right
of seizing enemies’ goods in neutral vessels,
as if in order to show that he is not a visionary,
but a man with a purpose, he refuses to
agree to the entire abolition of the capture
of merchant vessels and merchandise at sea,
so that in the event of a war he has deprived
England not only of her naval power, but of
her commercial marine.
Such are the achievements of Lord Pal
merston, such the triumphs of civilisation
and progress since he first held the seals of
the Foreign Office, in an administration
pledged to Reform, Retrenchment and Non
intervention. Tinder the administration of the
Duke of Wellington, a movement for re
trenchment did commence, which continued
till 1835. How' much was effected will be
seen from the following tables :—
Expenditure.
(Exclusive of Cost of Collection and Interest of National
Debt.')
*
1827
1835f
Army, Navy, and Ord-?• £16,205,812
£11,657,486
nance ........................ J
Permanent Civil Serviced
charged on the Con-S
2,103,105
2,082,817
lidated Fund ........... )
Miscellaneous, chargeable'I
upon annual Parlia- !> 3,226,759
2,144,345
mentary Grants .........
Total..... .£21,535,676
15,884,648
A reduction of nearly six millions per
annum was thus effected in eight years. But
when Lord Palmerston returned to office in
1835, “Reform” had done its work, not that of
promoting retrenchment, but that of securing
the Reform Ministry in office. We go for
ward at once a quarter of a century, during
which Lord Palmerston, whether in office
or in opposition, managed the foreign affairs
of the country, and we find an increase ex
ceeding 26,000,000Z.
Expenditure in 1860.J
Army, Navy, and Ordnance, including )
a special vote for the China War...)
Permanent Civil Service charged on the 1
Consolidated Fund............................$
Miscellaneous, chargeable uponannual?
Parliamentary Grants........................ J
1
Q
’
’
ooocjsn
„ 41 icon
’
’ '
Total.......£42,123,592
The expenses of the country have nearly
tripled under Lord Palmerston. Since
1860 there has been a reduction; the Chan
cellor of the Exchequer, Earl Russell
and his other colleagues who submitted to
the disgrace of participating in that assault
on China, which they had so eloquently
deprecated, have evidently required some
compensation in diminished activity for mis
chief; which only shows what they might
have done had they, by refusing to act under
Lord Palmerston, left him without col
leagues.
This unwillingness to act against Lord
Palmerston in any way more effective than
a speech on a particular case, is the most
mysterious part of the whole matter. His
accusers tremble before him, not because they
* Sir Henry Parnell “On Financial Reform,” p. 102.
f Parliamentary Papers, No. 147, of 1836.
J Parliamentary Papers, No. 526, of 1861.
�22
HISTORY OF LORD PALMERSTON.
are confounded by his innocence, but because
they are confounded by his guilt. When
Lord Eobert Montagu charged him with
falsehood, in that he had denied the exist
ence of any negotiations for changing the
succession to the Crown of Denmark, Lord
Palmerston avoided reply by counting
out the House. Lord Eobert Montagu
has never since opened his mouth on the
subject. When Mr. Dunlop moved for an
inquiry into the Affghan forgeries, he had
no idea that the forger was Lord Palmerston. That discovery was forced upon him
by Lord Palmerston’s justification of the
act, unaccompanied by any denial of his
being its author. Prom the time of his
making this discovery, Mr. Dunlop has
been mute. Mr. Dunlop has neither
been bribed nor menaced; he is appalled by
his conviction of the Premier’s guilt. This
mystery, however, loses some of its darkness
when we find that it was predicted a quarter
of a century ago, and an explanation given of
that which, though it is before our eyes, seems
incredible. In 1839, when Lord Palmer
ston was comparatively an obscure man,
when the disasters in India were not, in
general, laid to his charge, Mr. Urquhart,
accusing him of being the author of the
Afighan war, predicted his approaching un
controlled supremacy. He explained his
prevision in this manner: “ Lord Palmer
ston’s connexion with Eussia will afford
him field and scope for action; the character
of crime involved in each apt will confer
impunity, and therefore supremacy at home.”
Here is one of the passages written at that
time, viz. in 1839 :—
The few leading men who have been the channels
through which this bewilderment has been poured
out upon tlie land, have unconsciously yielded them
selves up for this purpose. It is not by conviction
that they have been gained, it is by fascination that
they have been subdued; the eye is caught, and is
fixed by varying images and indistinct forms, and
their convictions are taken by surprise, while they
are endeavouring to understand the thoughts pre
sented to them, and which are only not rejected be
cause incomprehensible. While too preposterous for
conscious admission, they are also too insidious for
unconscious rejection ; and so artfully are they
linked together that all find entrance if one is ad
mitted, and no one is safe against them, but he who
grasps them as a whole, and detects them at a
glance.
“ These statements are made public long after
the facts have occurred, and a few hours at
best are given to examine transactions which years
have been employed to arrange and to disguise.
They are presented to men who only seek to be
informed how things have happened ; who are
doubly hopeless by the ignorance which admits
falsehood, and the diffidence that excludes judgment,
who now, unconscious of ignorance, accept every
statement, and now quell suspicion or doubt,
attributing them to their own ignorance of policy
or of facts; who have no idea of an interna
tional crime ; and, if such is forced upon them—who
have so much honesty and courage as to make up their
minds to avoid the responsibility of having convic
tions. The few men moreover who control Great Bri
tain, and in whose individual thoughts lie her political
destinies as her moral character, occupy stations of re
sponsibility. They are not spectators merely—they
are actors. If they do not expose that which is repre
hensible, they yield to it their support, and how can
they expose what they do not comprehend ? When
that occurs which they do not comprehend, they array
themselves against inquiry, joining from opposite
sides in an arch to cavern darkness and to shelter
crime. A small transgression which can be explained
by a motive within their reach, they will seize and
convert into a brand of party warfare. But if there
be found in the State a bad man who understands
them, he will subdue them and use them by doing
what they cannot conceive. He has but to commit
a great crime to convert the antagonists of his party,
and the judges of his acts into advocates and partisans.
Then will faction subside, antagonism disappear, and
the traitor, because he is a traitor, and by that alone,
stand surrounded by the united power of a people,
among whom the very traditions of sense and custom
have been effaced, though, unhappily for mankind and
for itself, a tongue is in its brainless head, and arms
are in its cruel hands.”*
We now come to the allegation of bribery.
The career, the success of which was pre
dicted in 1839, has been followed from 1826
up to the present time.
That for the entrance on this career there
must have been some motives either of se
duction or coercion no one can doubt. What
these motives have been may be interesting as
a speculation, but cannot be of the slightest
real importance. These things are not ma
naged on an exchange, and even if the motive
alleged should be the true one (or one of the
true ones), this much is nevertheless certain,
that it has not become known or suspected,
through the imbecility of those engaged. If
the Bum stated did come from the source
specified, through the agent designated and
to the person in question, no living being
would have known anything of the matter,
unless in so far as the briber distrusted the
bribed, and was resolved to hold a check over
him.
This, at all events, comes out, that it was
believed and spoken of in, and promulgated
from, a Government office in 1841, and that
the then head of that office is now Lord Pal
merston’s Chancellor oe the Exchequer.
Eor once we have, in this affair, Lord Pal
merston and Mr. Urquhart on the same
line, both concurring to suppress this-charge.
The charge thus suppressed is brought to
light by the intervention of the Secretary of
the Einancial Eeform Association. That
* Transactions in Central Asia, p. 223.
�23
CONDUCT RECAPITULATED.
body had just published a most important
pamphlet (on the Russo-Dutch Loan)
proving the betrayal of the interests of
England to a Foreign Power by Lord Pal
merston. The Chairman of one of the
Foreign Affairs Committees ' (Mr. Crawshat) urges the Society to follow up this
branch of diplomatic investigation on which
the Association had commenced to enter.
Mr. Macqueenanswers, “The proposition in
volves treason, therefore you must eitherprove
or allege corrupt motives.” This is the first
stage. When a primct facie case is pre
sented, corroborated by testimony as to
the conviction of a highly-esteemed public
officer, and the allegations, made in Parlia
ment without contradiction, of a well-known
public character; instead of dealing with the
evidence, and concluding thereon, he writes
letters to other persons, and thereon pre
tends to conclude that the speech in question
had never been delivered, and that the opi
nions in question had never been enter
tained.
When, in reply, the proof is furnished to
him that the speech was delivered, and the
opinions were entertained he simply drops
the matter. His object, however, having
been obtained.—that of preventing the Asso
ciation of which he had recently been ap
pointed the Secretary from prosecuting the
inquiries which it had already commenced.
But in all this, what part does the Finan
cial Reform Association play ? The commu
nications are made to Mr. Macqueen, not
as an individual, but as Secretary of the
Association, Mr. Macqueen utterly effaces
that body, and puts himself in its place.
What has happened to England is this,
f that a clerk has got possession of it by beingdexterous and unscrupulous, and by being
employed for the prosecution of designs
which the nation does not comprehend and,
dares not investigate. This position being so
established, it is easier for minor instruments
to do the like for minor bodies. In such a
case neither capacity nor design is required:
baseness is alone sufficient.
After all, no one cares whether the Prime
Minister is bribed or not. The only feeling
is that of anger at the accusation. Were he
to confess that he had been, they would only
laugh.
“ Anger if they are accused ; laughter if
they confess.” These are the words which
Demosthenes uses in reference to the
orators purchased in his day by Macedonian
gold.
Such is the story of the first intervention
of the Financial Reform Association in this
matter, by means of which it made known to
the public, or at least placed within the
reach of the public the knowledge, that in
1841, the Board of Trade believed itself to
be in possession of evidence to prove that
Lord Palmerston had in 1826 received a
sum of 20,000Z. from Princess Lieven, and
sought to publish that belief to the world.
The matter is now again brought up, after
slumbering for ten years, by Mr. Macqueen,
in order to meet the charge brought against
the Financial Reform Association that it had
“renounced its principles and abdicated its
character.”
It may be entirely false that the Premier
has been bribed. But it is undoubtedly true
that the public, the parliament, and his own
personal friends are perfectly indifferent
whether he has been bribed or not. This is
the point of importance, and not the former
one. There may be a question whether, as
Mr. Thomas Attwood said more than
twenty years ago, “ Russian gold has found
its way into this House.” But there can be
no question of the receipt by British Minis
ters in former times of Russian gold; nor
as to contemporaneous practices of a like
nature in other countries. Nor must it be
forgotten that the present Premier of Eng
land has repeatedly expressed convictions
identical writh these, and has during thirty
years been in the habit of charging persons
who opposed him with being the “creatures,”
“tools,” and “paid agents” of Russia.
Notably this charge has been by him brought
against Mr. Urquhart. When called upon
by his colleagues to prosecute that gentleman;
that is to say, to clear himself in reference to
those charges so publicly and perseveringly
made ; and on other occasions besides, he has
privately and confidentially said : “ He at
tacks me because I am for England; he
being the paid agent of Russia.”
No. 5.
Parallel Case of M. de Chateau
briand—Minister of France
and Agent of Russia.
In the present number of the Free Press, in
the course of an historical elucidation of the
connexion between the events in the New
World, and the Secret System which rules
the Old, a French Minister, who held office
�24
HISTORY OF LORD PALMERSTON.
but for a few months, is shown to have played which he enjoyed, that at an after time his
a most important and fatal part in bringing Confession was made. Seeing no danger,
about this result. This comes out of his own his vanity indulged itself by appearing to be
Confession. A Confession not made on a the originator and prime motor of magnifi
death-bed and to a Priest, but to the World, cent schemes.
in a work published by him, in which he
The Confession, however ample it may ap
justifies his conduct, and glories in it. Re pear, is still but partial. The third volume of
presenting it as patriotic, whilst at the the “ Congress of Verona” was suppressed,
same time he professes his personal and ex and has never appeared. On the appear
clusive devotion to the Emperor of Russia. ance of the two first volumes, other persons
This Minister—M. de Chateaubriand— took alarm, and measures were taken to stop
in this work of his, “ The Congress of Verona,” such indiscretions. He was sought by those
explains with painfully elaborate detail how, interested in his retirement in Switzerland.
acting under the instructions of the Emperor It is said that M. de la Ferronais went
Alexander, when he was the Representative down on his knees before him to obtain the
of France at the Congress of Verona, he de suppression of the third volume.
*
ceived the French Premier, M. de Villele,
This has happened in France. Why
as to the views of Austria and Prussia, and should not the same thing have happened in
deceived the Ministers of Austria and Prussia England ?
as to the views of M. de Villele. So that
Twenty-five years ago, when the con
while severally the Cabinets of Austria and nexion of Lord Palmerston with Russia
Prussia were opposed to Intervention in was first detected and proclaimed, a deputa
Spain, he brought about the French Inva tion from Glasgow waited on Sir Robert
sion of Spain in 1823, by making Prussia Peel to demand a parliamentary inquiry.
and Austria believe that France had con In the course of the interview Sir Robert
certed that measure with Russia, so that it said :—
“ Treason is a word which I do not understand as
would be impossible for them to oppose it;
Minister.
guilty of
and by making M. de Villele believe that applied toofaNeglect, but A than may he constitute
Impolicy,
that does not
Austria and Prussia were so resolved to put Treason. These are words which may place the
down the Revolution in Spain, that they individual bringing them forward in great personal
would invade France if France did not invade peril.”
Spain. So the army of the Duke d’ANGouDid the use of these words place the per
leme marched, and the explanation and justi sons who employed them in any personal
fication given by M. de Villele in the peril? Has any one ever been prosecuted
Chamber was, that France had sent an army for applying to Lord Palmerston in any
across the Pyrenees to avoid having to send possible shape the terms “ Traitor,” “ For
one to the Rhine.
ger,” and the like? No doubt there would
Now, this was the turning-point for Europe, have been great personal peril, as there must
wrhich, being passed, consigned it to an end have followed condign punishment, for those ■
less course of Revolutions. And this was the who did use those terms, had they been in
turning-point for the New World, involving correctly applied. x
it ultimately in the fate of Europe. This was
Again, Sir Robert Peel does not under
managed, having got a Congress to assemble, stand Treason as applied to a Minister.
at the expense, for Russia, of a journey of the Understand the word he must. It is the
Emperor to Verona, some private walks of application that he denies. But he does not
that Emperor in a garden with a French say, like Lord John Russell, “ British
Poet, and a pension to that Poet of 25,000 Minister.” SirR. Peel says, “aMinister,”
any Minister. He could not have drawn a
francs.
But M. de Chateaubriand was not alone. distinction thus, and have said, “ I can un
He had a colleague at Verona. The colleague derstand Treason as applied to a French, but
was M. de la Ferronais. His assent was I cannot understand Treason as applied to a
not withheld from the plan, and he also re British Minister.” Therefore again we say,
If such things happen in France, why not in
ceived a pension of 25,000 francs.
This treachery, which ultimately brought England ?
What constitutes Treason ? Open any
the fall of the Dynasty in France, so far
from being detected or suspected at the time,
* The Author’s Preface commences as follows:—
made Chateaubriand Foreign Minister at “ The following work must not be confounded with the
Paris. There never was a whisper against Memoirs that are intended to appear after my death. I
his private honour, or his public loyalty, and now put forth that which I may utter while living; the
it is in consequence of the perfect immunity rest will be revealed from the tomb.”
�PARALLEL OF CHATEAUBRIAND.
25
law book and it will give you the definition ; But if Russia requires tools for particular
which in plain language amounts to this : purposes, far more does she require them for
The doing, or suffering, that which is con general ones. If she requires tools in the
ducive to the interests of an extrinsic Power, Government of Prance, she must require
and injurious to the honour or interests of them in every other Government. In the
the British Crown. The crime has no more avowed case of Chateaubriand we shall
to do with the motives or considerations of find indications of what she wants in every
the criminal than any act of private murder. similar case.
The object of a Cabinet in having a secret
Lord Bolingbroke was impeached, and had
to fly, not because he was accused of having agent in another Cabinet is to get its own
received money from Prance, but because he plans carried out by another State, and
was accused of negotiating a Treaty in which cause the results subsequently to appear as
the honour and interest of his Sovereign had if they were its own projects. What Russia
been compromised ; or, rather, not suffi wanted in the case of M. de Chateaubriand
was the unsettlement of Spain and of Spanish
ciently vindicated.
What is there in the word “ Minister”— America. Such an object could not have
a word un-English, and a post unconstitu been effected by Russia in her own person,
tional—which shall confer on the individual and, the event brought about, it could be be
holding it immunity from temptation ? That lieved that the Bourbon King of France ob
it confers, in the eyes of our age, and in the jected to the enforcing of a Constitution on
practice of our times, immunity from conse the Bourbon King of Stain.
In discussing the Invasion of Spain, the
quences, we know: to the horror of those
who are conscious, and to the suffering of all. mind of everybody was turned towards
But far different from this brazen declara France and away from Russia. The effect
tion of immorality, “ we will not punish crime was that everybody was confused. Mr.
in high places” is the insinuated maxim of Canning, who could not understand the
SirR. Peel., that the post of Minister effaces word Treason as applied to a French Minister,
in the individual all the weaknesses of believed that the French Government really
humanity, and throws law and constitution were afraid of the Spanish Revolution, and
into abeyance, by rendering the official inno thought that a modification of the Constitu
cent in intention, and only liable to faults tion of 1812 would satisfy them.
Such is the history of every, important
of judgment.
Coming closer to the point, and down to movement in which England has been en
the very case itself, how could Sir R. Peel gaged since Lord Palmerston has come into
predicate impeccability of the man in respect office. The ostensible meddlers in each case
to whom he had to ask the question in the have gained nothing for themselves. Take the
House of Commons, without obtaining an Danish case. Denmark wanted to retain the
answer, or being able to furnish a solution, Duchies. Where are the Duchies now ?
By this process, everywhere repeated since
“ Whose interest does the noble Lord repre
sent in this House ?” And to whom, eleven 1830, affairs have been rendered so confused,
years later, he addressed this menace : “ Let and the subject has consequently become so
the noble Lord beware—let the noble Lord abstruse, that it is out of the question that
beware I” Telling him that, unless he ceased the public should be enlightened upon it.
his taunts :.nd his gibes, he would quit the In the conversation already alluded to, Sir
House, and thereby leave the House to deal Robert Peel said that the Glasgow Me
with the man at that time charged with the morial contained questions of so comprehen
criminal invasion of Afghanistan, and the sive a character, that days and weeks would
not suffice to examine them. This was in
loss of 25,000 British lives ?
Sir R. Peer was not so innocent and igno 1840, a quarter of a' century ago, and the
rant of human nature, British history, and process has continued ever since. But if the
the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. But be process cannot be taken in, this, at least,
tween the alternative of leading the Im may be taken in—that the individual Mi
peachment and quashing the inquiry, for nister is playing false. Then, indeed, does
him there was no escape. He preferred the the mystery and unintelligibility of every
particular transaction turn to light and con
latter.
In the case of Cha.teattbr.iand, we have a firmation.
It is the anticipation of the consequences
Minister avowing that he had been playing
false. Had been, for he had ceased to be to follow, that has inspired energy, resolu
Minister the moment the particular work tion, and perseverance in those few who from
was accomplished for which he was retained. the beginning, or nearly from the beginning,
�26 „
HISTORY OF LORD PALMERSTON.
have understood the character of the man,
and therein the danger of the Empire. Hence
those efforts which they have made, and con
tinue to make, and the testimony they have
accumulated, awaiting the hour when Eng
land may seek to understand her position, in
order to find a way of escape from its conse
quences.
One of the means employed was Deputa
tions from Towns and Public Bodies to
Public men, to lay grounds before them for
this charge of collusion with a Eoreign
Power. Whilst no means could be so effica
cious for counteracting the secret designs of
the Minister, at that time only Foreign Se
cretary, so also was this the most effectual for
testing the accuracy of their conclusions.
For, had these been baseless, of course they
would have been upset in a moment. Out
of hundreds of such interviews, extending
over twenty-seven years—that is, from 1838
down to the present time, there is not a
single instance of a Deputation, or the
Member of a Deputation returning shaken.
But, on the contrary, they acquired in many
cases that certitude, from the inability of the
Colleague of the Minister, or the Antagonist
of the Minister—for it amounts to the same
thing—to disprove the charges against him,
or to explain his acts in any other intelligible
fashion, which they had not acquired from
the documents themselves.
The extracts which we have already given
are from a conversation between Sir Fobert
Peel and a Deputation sent to him in the
year 1840 by the City of Glasgow, headed
by Mr. William Brown, then Dean of
Guild.
We give in another column, in extenso,
the Beport of a similar Deputation sent at
the same time to Sir James Graham.
Unlike Sir B. Peel, he did not refuse to
accept the idea, or the possibility of Treason.
He did indeed refuse to accept the statement
as particularly applied, but simply on the
grounds that it was repulsive to his self-love.
He did not so much as apply himself to the
subject-matter of the Interview — i. e. the
acts of the Minister. He neither controverted
the statements of the Deputation, nor justi
fied the conduct of Lord Palmerston. He
merely said, If the case is as you have stated
it to he, I, who have heen the Colleague of
that Minister, have heen either a dupe or an
accomplice. I will not examine such a case.
You cannot expect me to do so. This is the
substance of his reply.
The Documents contained in our last
Number show that in the year following
these Interviews, the Government which had
come into office (for we cannot suppose that
the Department of the Board of Trade acted
independently), made an attempt, though an
abortive one, to have Lord Palmerston
publicly denounced as having received a bribe
of 20,0001. from Princess Lieven. In a
letter which appears in our columns of this
day, from a source in which we have the most
entire confidence, the circumstances of Lord
Palmerston’s introduction into the Foreign
Office, are for the first time revealed. From
which it appears that it was owing to no
home party combination; but that the ap
pointment was suddenly extorted from Lord
Grey by Princess Lieven. Now, in the
two Interviews to which we have above re
ferred, both SirBoBERT Peel and Sir James
Graham admit that in the conduct of Lord
Palmerston there is a mystery to them in
soluble. A mystery may exist for the
Public, without the necessity of crime being
involved. Not so when the mystery is with
reference to Colleagues in office; or to suc
cessors or predecessors, who take up or leave
the thread of affairs, and yet do not under
stand what has been done, or what they have
got to continue.
During the quarter of a century that has
since elapsed no new solution has been
offered, not a single attempt has been made
in that direction even by a solitary in
dividual.
Since that time, the many deputations
that have waited on public men, Ministers or
Members of Parliament, as our columns
abundantly testify, have brought back from
these occasions of testing the character
and knowledge of public men, only the con
viction that it was on their own efforts alone
that depended the safety of their country.
On the other hand, how much has occurred
to confirm the solution originally offered.
First. Everybody now knows Lord Pal
merston to be guilty of acts which at the
commencement of these discussions would
have been considered shameful and absurd
even to suppose. The argument then was,
the honour of an English gentleman.
Secondly. The predictions that were made
on this hypothesis are all either accom
plished or in visible course of accomplish
ment. Poland is gone; Circassia is gone ;
the Bight of Search is gone ; India is shaken,
expenditure doubled; foreign affairs every
where so complicated that there is scarcely a
country in the world with which we have not
one or more standing quarrels that might at
any time be the cause of war.
A Lord Chancellor, despite the manoeuvres
of the Premier, retiring because of corrupt
�J
,27
CONNIVANCE OF SIR ROBERT PEEL.
J
|
I
g1
I
tion ; a general election, in which the question has been, not whether Lord Palmebston and his policy should be supported,
but whether they should be supported by
“ Liberals” or “ Conservatives.5'
1S
Is not this “ supremacy ?” Was not this
supremacy predicted in the clearest and most
emphatic terms twenty-six years ago, and
(| A
was not the condition of that supremacy ex
plained by treason? Here are the memorable
words which resume the past, describe the
present, and contain the future fate of Eng
land, Europe, and the world :—
“ Then will faction subside, antagonism
disappear, and the traitor, because he is a
traitor, and by that alone, stand surrounded
by the united power of a people, among
whom the very traditions of sense and custom
i
fhave been effaced, though, unhappily for
mankind and for itself, a tongue is in its
brainless head, and arms are in its cruel
hands.”*
importance as the commencement of a new order
of things, which may emancipate our National
affairs from the recognised danger of foreign com
plications felt by the leaders of every party, but
which cannot be effected by the Legislature until a
new selection of members can take place through
out the kingdom. He emphatically pointed to the
nation itself as the only channel through which
those abuses could be rectified. If they were con
tented with the Government of Parliament as at pre
sent constituted, they would allow their Represen
tatives to remain. If, on the other hand, they are
discontented, it remains with them to request their
Members to resign the trust which has been mis
placed in their hands. Nothing could be done
without the commercial constituencies and the
electors of the kingdom, as four attempts had been
made to rectify the infringement of Foreign
Treaties, and each result had notified to foreign
nations, by a majority of the House, that the Mi
nisters had the confidence of the Parliament,
although it was evident from appearances through
out the kingdom that they had not the confidence
of the nation. A false position, which made our
danger appalling to contemplate, and most difficult
to rectify.
SIB JAMES GBAHAM ON L0BD PALMEBSTON.
{From the Fortfolio, Second Series, Vol. II. p. 212.)
London, April 29, 1840.
We have just returned from an interview with
Sir James Graham. He had already, through Sir
Robert Peel’s letter, and Mr. R-------’s interview
in Wales, become fully apprised of the magnitude
of the question, and of the awfulness of the charge.
It had sunk into his mind, and it transpired in the
conversation that he felt he might have been a dupe
of Lord Palmerston’s, at all events. He said, “ I
am to understand either that I have wilfully parti
cipated in this man’s acts, or that I have been a
dupe, and that this is the least of the imputations
to which I am liable.” He did not at all seem to
think the charge impossible of proof, but he said,
“ Situated as 1 am, having been a member of the
Cabinet, and colleague of Lord Palmerston
during the affair of the Boundary and on the
Eastern Question, it is utterly impossible for me
to be his accuser, nor should I be willing even to
vote for a Committee of Inquiry except on strong
evidence laid before me. I cannot, after having
lived on terms of intimacy and friendship with Lord
Palmerston, come to the belief of so awful a
charge as that which has been advanced ; nor can
I, although entirely opposed to the Government,
consent to array the whole power of the Conserva
tive Party against one solitary individual, singled
out from a Cabinet of so many members, with the
view of crushing him as an individual.” He said
Sir Robert Peel’s position may be different.
It is impossible for me to go over the whole of
what passed. But reflecting on the earnest atten
tion he paid, and his pertinacious refusal to be in
terrupted by the announcement of visitors, &c., we
have felt that his mind is agitated and oppressed
with the belief that this movement is of historical
* Transactions in Central Asia, 1839.
I
•f
No. 6.
Connivance of Sir Robert Peel.
A sentence of Sir R. Peel, which we quoted
and commented on in our last, is so full of
meaning, and has been so pregnant with dis
astrous results for England and the world,
since the hour when it was uttered, that we
must revert to it.
“ A Minister may be guilty of Impolicy, or
Neglect, but that does not constitute Trea
son.”
These words were not spoken in the House
of Commons They were used privately to
a Deputation of persons of influence sent
from the second city of the Empire, and who
appealed to him to obtain a parliamentary
inquiry into the acts of the Eoreign Office.
They were spoken with a view of arresting
the impulse which had in that year mani
fested itself in the Commercial Towns to
obtain light as to the proceedings of the
Eoreign Department.
Sir Robert Peel either believed that
there were justifiable grounds for such a de
mand, or that there were none. In the first
case he should have hailed the awakening of
the Nation, and acted thereon in the sense
of his words iu Parliament at a subsequent
period : 1 wish the people of England
would take their affairs into their own hands.”
�28
HISTORY OF LORD PALMERSTON.
In the second case he would have relieved
the minds of the Deputation by telling them
that they were mistaken, and satisfied their
scruples by giving them the proof of his
words, which no man was better able to do,
seeing that he had returned to office in the
middle of the period over which the transac
tions complained of extended. He would
not have had recourse to a generality, whe
ther one of ancient date, or of new inven
tion, nor would he have offered hitherto un
heard-of distinctions and qualifications, as to
the nature of offences, of which a Minister
could, or could not be guilty.
If, then, Sir R. Peel adopted the latter
course, and not the former, it is clear to de
monstration that he was at once conscious of
the truth of the averments of the Deputa
tion, and resolved to prevent that truth from
becoming generally known and acted upon.
The Truth urged by the Deputation, and
evaded by Sir Robert Peel, was, that the
Nation was betrayed. This comes out from
the circumstances of the case.
It further comes out cumulatively from
the plea of Sir Robert Peel. He says,
“ Treason is a word which I do not under
stand as applied to a Minister.” He does
not say, “ Treason has not been committed.”
He then says, “ A Minister may be guilty of
Impolicy, or Neglect, but that does not con
stitute Treason.” What the Deputation
had alleged was not capable of definition as
Impolicy, or Neglect. It was contrivance, it
was suppression, it was Forgery, it was
War levied without the authority of the
Sovereign, it was guilt of every form, and of
every dye. It was violation of municipal
law, of criminal law, and of international
law. The whole with the purpose and the
effect of High Treason, as defined by Black
stone, i. e. to advance the interests of an ex
trinsic Power. The false definition of the
allegations of the Deputation was therefore
employed to arrive at the conclusion, “ This
does not constitute Treason.” But this con
clusion was superfluous, since the very sen
tence itself commenced with a denial in
general terms that a Minister could be guilty
of Treason. Thus the words of Sir Robert
Peel themselves convey the perfect con
sciousness on his part that the described
condition of things did exist for England.
The form of the phrase, “ A Minister may
be guilty of Impolicy or Neglect; but that
does not constitute Treason,” conveys the
admission of the acts urged on the other
side. Exception is only taken to their legal
qualification. What does this amount to?
Everything and nothing. To support the
Russian Pretender to the Throne of Persia,
and to call him an English Partisan, may no
doubt be called “Impolicy.” But it may
also be called “ Treason.” To abrogate the
defensive Treaty with Persia, to paralyse the
efforts of the East India Company to support
Herat, to suppress the Despatches of the
English Envoy which represented Dost
Mohammed as appealing to England against
Russia, and then to invade his country on
the grounds that he was a Partisan of Russia;
to send Orders in defiance of the orders in
Council, to violate the municipal laws of
China, and then to wage a lawless wrar on
the Chinese Empire, may all be called by Sir
R. Peel, if he chooses it, “ Impolicy,” with
out the slightest derogation to their quali
fication as “ Treason.” In the meantime they
are, all of them, violations of the laws, the
punishment for which is duly consigned in
our Statute-books. The sense, therefore, that
can apply to the epithet “ Impolicy,” must
have reference to detection not to perpetra
tion. So in private life, if people were ac
customed to use amphibology, which they
would do, if the pursuit of Crime depended
solely on arrangements of partisanship, it
might be said that Poisoning was inaccuracy,
not murder, and breaking into a house, im
policy but not burglary.
After all, what did the word “ Treason”
matter in the Case ?' What the Deputation
said was this, “ The examination of such
Documents as are within our reach, and the
consideration of such acts and facts as are
public, leave us no doubt of great injury,
great wrong, great expenditure, and great
crimes. We further suspect that these are
not accidental, but are connected with a
general system, directed to the advancement
of the interests of a Foreign Power, and the
sacrifice of the honour and interest of the
British People and Crown, and the prostitu
tion of their resources to that end. We,
therefore, demand a Parliamentary inves
tigation into these transactions, that the
Truth may be known ; so that on the one
hand the evil may be arrested if it exists,
and on the other that suspicion and anxiety
may be allayed, if there be none.” In other
words, and adopting the phraseology of Sir
R. Peel, the inquiry they sought for was,
as to whether there had been “ Impolicy and
Neglect.” This is the inquiry which Sir R.
Peel refuses, and the refusal rests on the
phrase, “Impolicy and neglect are not sub
jects of inquiry.” As the term applying to
anything beyond, is not to be understood as
applying to a Minister, it follows that a
Minister was by the maxim of Sir R. Peel
�CONNIVANCE OF SIR ROBERT PEEL.
in 1840, placed absolutely beyond the Law.
The history of the World since that period
illustrates the practical working out of the
position.
In this case, the mind of Sir R. Peel was
severely taxed. He had a great effort to
make and he made it. He had to find an
epithet for acts that were illegal, which would
cause them to pass free of legal consequences,
and so confuse or dishearten the persons he
was addressing, and send them home brow
beaten and discomfited. Thus, while shield
ing the Minister under a subterfuge, he used
threats towards those who demanded protec
tion and justice, telling them that they in
curred great personal peril by the course they
were taking.
At that moment the destinies of the Nation
hung upon the character of a single man;
that man was Sir R. Peel. His own cha
racter hung upon the decision of the moment.
He was upon a sudden brought up to the
adoption of one of two alternatives: “ Am I
to lead the Impeachment ?” “ Am I to sup
press the inquiry?” The latter was the
easiest; the result of the Glasgow Deputa
tion was to hand over Sir R. Peel as an Ac
complice to Lord Palmebston.
The state of things existing as the Deputa
tion presented it, it would be clear to any
man who examined the matter as a past his
torical event, that the fate of the Empire de
pended upon the success of the efforts made
under the impulse of the first suspicion. Eor
the suspicion arising, and the charges being
made, and nothing ensuing thereon, it was
clear that the Nation was alike destitute of
the instincts of self-preservation and of in
dignation against calumny, for the charges
would be henceforth treated as calumny. The
self-love of the nation—the only powerful
motive remaining—would be enlisted on the
side of the Minister, and arrayed against all
inquiry, which it would treat as an offence
against itself and an aspersion cast on its
own sagacity. So that the whole matter
would remain buried in oblivion, until the
progress of the scheme had arrived at the
point when the awakening of the People
would be profitless for its own security, and
only available as exasperating the catastrophe,
by superadding internal violence to external
decay.
Erom that hour the work of Sir Robebt
Peel, on this higher field, began. A variety
of terse and poisonous sophisms emanating
from his practised mind were cast from time
to time into the public thoughts, to pervert
any healthy impulse manifesting itself in the
Parliament or the People. One of these alone
29
will we quote, from its singular efficacy, and
from its presenting the counterpart of the
sentence on which we are commenting :—
“ I am afraid there is some great principle at work
where civilisation and refinement come in contact
with barbarism, which makes it impossible to apply the
rules observed towards more advanced nations.”
We have underlined some of the co-efficient
terms to evoke the attention of the reader to
the anxiety of mind under which Sir R. Peel
must have laboured in concocting and ar
ranging this sentence. It was uttered in the
House of Commons, in reference to an Event
of the most signal importance, which had
taken place out of the House, in despite of
all the sophisms of the man, and all the in
fluence of the Minister exerted to prevent it.
There existed in the England of that day,
1844, a body which held the administra
tion and the guardianship of India to a cer
tain degree independently of the Govern
ment. That body—the Court of Directors
of the East India Company—alarmed at the
course of encroachment, usurpation, and in
vasion dictated to them by the Board of
Control, whose secret communications they
were coerced to carry into effect under threat
of being sent to prison, resolved to take their
stand upon an authority which had not yet
been withdrawn from them by the Parliament
—that of dismissing the Governor-General.
They therefore did dismiss Lord Ellenbobough on the ground of his aggression in
Scinde. There were not wanting those in
Parliament inclined to follow up this blow,
struck at that course of lawlessness, which
half a century before had been arrested in
India by the Impeachment of Wabben
Hastings ; so restoring in the practice of
India that same respect for the Laws which
at that time it was supposed continued to
exist in Europe. Sir R. Peel had no more
interest in the protection of Indian Crime
than he had in the shielding of British
Treason. But the measures in India were
mere corollaries of those in Europe. The x
Eoreign Department had decided on the
Wars in Afghanistan, in China, and in
Scinde, just as it had on the betrayal of
Poland in 1831, on the Spanish Quadruple
Treaty of 1834, on the rupture with Erance
of 1840. Having protected the acts of the
Eoreign Department against Inquiry, it fol
lowed that Sir R. Peel had to resist inquiry
whenever demanded and to protect wrong
whenever committed. The importance of his
position as the leader of the Party opposed
to the Minister did not, however, suffice for
this end. A fallacy was required, and a fal
lacy was found. “ We are civilised, and these
�30
HISTORY OF LORD PALMERSTON-.
People are barbarians. There is a different! you had. He sends a shell, in which the
law for the civilised and the barbarians. It body is conveyed to the dead house; he orders
is by no means a thing that I commend. But the parish surgeon to hold a, post mortem ex
still the thing is there, and it is at work. amination of the body; he summons the
We must let it go on, for we cannot stop Coroner, the Jury, and the witnesses. The
it.” The fallacy triumphed. Nobody ques attendance of these is not optional. In the
tioned the civilisation of the one, or the want case supposed, the inquisition will not be
of refinement of the other. Nobody saw that long or the evidence elaborate, but if the
if there was any meaning in these words, it dead man had been a sober person, if traces
was that the civilised were under a law supe of poison had been found in the body, neither
rior to that of the barbarians, and that as it the Coroner nor the Jury could separate till
was the acts of the civilised and not those of every witness whose testimony could be ex
the barbarians that the speaker was defend pected to throw light on the matter had been
ing, his own proposition did not apply. For examined. With the witnesses it is the
in that case the Civilised had to say to the same. Unless involved in the guilt of murder,
Barbarians, ££ It may be right for. you, as they cannot but tell what they know. If
barbarians, to break faith and commit vio they are so involved, the discrepancy of their
lence. But we, as civilised men, cannot do evidence with that of the innocent witnesses
so.” Nobody said to himself, “ A people tends to the discovery of the crime, and the
that disregards the laws is not refined and punishment of the criminal. Till the Jury is
not advanced.” Least of all, did anybody say satisfied of the cause of death, the Coroner
to himself that these acts were ipso facto ar cannot give his warrant of interment, and
rested by the act of the East India Com without that warrant no custodian of a
pany, and that it was by his own accept cemetery co bury the body.
Whence arises this universal non-posance of this sentence of Sir B. Peel’s that
the portals of impunity were again thrown sumus ? How is this vast and intricate
machinery put in motion ? Its security lies
open to the Indian Administration.
Yet nothing is simpler than the Bule by in the number of its parts, every one neces
which to judge of such matters. We have sary to the action of the whole, but each
only to appeal to our own daily practice in separate until combined by particular cir
cumstances. The motive power is the sense
the things with which we are familiar.
No private individual would say, “I may of law in the breast of every man. Every
rob and murder those who are not so rich or one of the persons concerned has, in the first
so clever as myself.” If he did say so, and place, the conscientious sense of the one thing
acted upon the maxim, he would find himself it is his duty to do, and, in the second, the
feeling that, if he neglect his duty, he may be
in the hands of the Police.
If a servant were detected in a system of punished for his neglect, and even lie under
false accounts, he would not be borne harm suspicion of complicity. The co-operation of
less by saying, “ I have not embezzled, but every one of these persons scattered in dif
only neglected to pay over the sums of money ferent parts of a district is necessary to ob
which I have received on my master’s ac tain the required result; namely, the deci
count.” He would find that the Magistrate, sion as to the cause of death. The failure of
the Judge, and the Jury would not excuse any one person to perform his duty would
him because he was his master’s “ minister.” draw upon him the responsibility of the
Seeing that so great a difference exists be failure of justice. He cannot venture to in
tween the mode of treating affairs that are cur this responsibility ; he cannot foresee its
public and those that are private ; that the amount; he cannot tell even the names of all
former are removed from the control of the the persons who may be concerned to exact
law, while the latter are still subject to it, it it from him. On the other hand, his own
cannot be a waste of time to consider in prescribed duty being performed, he is per
what this control of the law really consists. fectly free from all further consequences.
But this sense of law is not always to be
Let us take a case: an habitual drunkard
walks into your garden, you see him from found in mankind. It is not like the pulsa
your window^ repeatedly stagger and fall, and tion of the heart, or the operation of the
on going out to look after him, find him de gastric juice. Where it has been brought
prived of sense or motion. You can do but into operation it is quite possible to destroy
one thing: send for the nearest medical man. it. Suppose that some philosopher were to
He comes, and pronounces the patient dead. discover that the inquiry into the cause of
Again you have no alternative. You send death required from every person concerned
for the Beadle. He has no more choice than ! therein a special training, and that some
�CONNIVANCE OF SIR ROBERT PEEL.
31
of Mrs. P
I must say I could
political economist were to announce that it appearance from my ritchard. conviction that her
not banish
mind the
was a shameful burthen upon, respectable symptoms betokened that she was under the de
householders to have to undergo so much pressing influence of antimony. . . . On the 3rd of
trouble for the sake of being quite sure whe March I received, through the post-office, a schedule
ther or not a drunken vagrant had committed from the Registrar, in which I was requested to tell
cause of Mrs.
an involuntary suicide ; suppose that in the him the her disease. Taylor’stodeath, and the dura
tion of
I refused do so, and sent the
“ Progress of Civilisation” it were deter schedule back to the Registrar on the Saturday,
mined that this matter should be given up to with a note accompanying it, and directing his
a special class of officials created ad hoc, and attention to the circumstance. . . .
“
impression,
,
under the guidance of a Board sitting in thatIt was mypoisoned, or on seeing Mrs. Pritchard
she was
being poisoned, with anti
London, with a gentleman at the head of it mony. I did not go back to see her because she was
to answer questions in Parliament, and a not my patient. I had nothing to do with her. It
medical man well skilled in chemistry as per was not my duty to do so.
manent secretary; suppose that, on the oc “ Question. You saw a person being poisoned with
currence of any sudden death, an Act of antimony, and you did not think it your duty to
interfere?
Parliament should prescribe that an officer
“ Answer. I did the best I could to prevent her
should be sent for from the branch office of the being further injured by apprising the Registrar of
Central Board, and that the warrant of that the fact.
“Q. Did you tell Dr. Pritchard?
officer should be sufficient authority for
“ A. I did not.
burial—it would then be an impertinence for
“ Q. You were surely under an obligation to go
any private individual to inquire into the cir back again, when you saw a person being poisoned
cumstances. If the official chose to content by antimony ?
“A. 1 took what steps I could to prevent any
himself with a mere view of the body, as he
administration of
refused to
very probably would do, there would be but further the death of Mrs. Tthe drug. I if there had
certify
aylor, and
small security against death by poison.
been a post mortem examination of Mrs. Taylor’s body,
.Some few individuals might still be found I believe that the drugging with antimony would have gone
more vigilant than the rest. They might no further at that time. I observed that she was suffer
symptoms
select some medical man high in his pro ing under theI samecalled in on as those formerly obI
served when was
the 2nd of March.
fession, and laying before him such details of still believed her (Mrs. Pritchard) to be suffering
suspicious cases of death as had come to their from antimony, and prescribed for her accordingly.
knowledge, might call on him to put himself .... It was Dr. Pritchard who asked me to visit
at their head, and demand the suspension his wife on the occasion. I did not mention to him
what I thought. It would not have been a very safe
from office of the permanent Secretary, and a matter to have done. I did not go back because it
judicial investigation into his conduct. Then was none of my business. I did not consider it my
would this ornament to the medical profes duty. She had her husband, who was a medical man. I
sion, that is if he were a proficient in the had discharged my duty.
By
things, and not
doctrines of intelligence and civilisation, to “ Q. that prescribing certainwas followed ? going
see
your prescription
reply as follows :—
“ A. In the case of a consultation, the consultant
“ Murder is a word I do not understand as applied has no right to go back.
“ Q. The dignity of your profession, then, pre
to a medical man. A Doctor may be guilty of Im
policy, of Neglect, but that does not constitute vented you?
Murder.”
“ A. The etiquette of the profession.”
We are not, however, left to induction or
analogy, to discover what such a person -would
say or do. In a recent trial for murder, a
medical man, who had no interest or desire to
promote murder, who was sufficiently con
scientious to refuse to give a false certificate,
nevertheless became a silent witness of a case
of slow poisoning. He prescribed medicines
to avert the fatal result, but he did not even
insist on his prescriptions being carried out,
and he did not reveal to the Magistrates the
crime which was being committed under his
very eyes. We extract from the Times report,
in order to place it on record, a portion of
the evidence of Dr. Paterson, on the recent
trial of Dr. Pritchard at Edinburgh:—
This is the necessary result of the Propo
sitions, uttered so long ago by Sir B. Peel.
There is no alternative between bringing
back into public affairs the practice still pre
served in private affairs, and the introduction
into private affairs of the lawlessness prac
tised inpublic affairs. Sir R. Peel himself
pointed out the analogy between the Minister
and the medical man, when he said, “ I will
not give advice until I am regularly called
in.” Yet, unlike the physician, he took on
himself the responsibility of the case when
not regularly called in, by saying, “ We (the
Opposition) are strong enough to support
the Government when it is right, and to
break it when it is wrong.”
Thus can we see with our eyes, hear with
“ While attending to Mrs. Taylor, in the bedroom,
I was very much struck at the same time with the our ears, and handle with our hands those
�32
HISTORY OF LORD PALMERSTON.
causes of the decay of States which, in the
past, at once excite our imagination and
baffle our grasp. Those causes are fallacious
sentences, and amphibological terms which
darken the understanding, to reconcile the
conscience with evil. So combining in one
end the intelligent and active guilt of a few,
with the inert and cowardly indifference of
all.
No. 7.
Public and Private Crimes.
We resume the weighty subject of our last:
the words of Sir Robert Peel, and their
effect on the character and destinies of the
nation.
We had come down in point of date to the
time when Sir Robert Peel was engaged in
warding off inquiry, prompted only by in
ternal doubts and anxieties. Another phase,
whether foreseen or not by him, was of
necessity to follow. That of the disasters
entailed by the crimes which he condoned,
and the schemes which he concealed. At the
period to which we refer, the idea of danger to
the Minister was involved in that of disaster
to the nation. It was the corollary to that
conjunction which had hitherto prevailed
amongst mankind, more or less distinctly, of
doubt and inquiry. Since there was to be
no inquiry where there was doubt, so there
was to be no danger where there was
disaster. This, also, was the achievement of
the fallacious sentences of Sir Robert Peel.
The first of these disasters was that in
Afghanistan. The nation had not been con
sulted about the expedition across the Indus;
it had exulted in its success.
All at once came the news that Sir W.
Macnaghten and Sir Alexander Burnes
had been killed, the British force expelled
from Caubul, and that one solitary horseman
had escaped to join his countrymen at
Jellalabad. The Whig Ministry, kept alive
for a twelvemonth by a majority of two, had
been dismissed from office by an adverse vote
of the House of Commons. Close on the ap
pointment of the new Ministry came the
terrible news.
But the Afghan War did not stand alone.
It was accompanied by an assault upon Persia,
and by the Opium War. The contempora
neous proceedings in Europe included the
sacrifice of the Vixen, the setting up of
Mehemet Ali, and the Treaty of 1840, which
all but produced a war, and did break up the
supposed great European Policy—the Alli
ance between England and Erance. The
Opium War had called forth the warmest
reprobation from the Conservative party.
The Afghan War had been disapproved, but
not formally opposed. Yet Sir Robert Peel
had declared that 11 he was strong enough to
resist the Government when wrong, and to
support it when right.” The acts of the
Whig Government had destroyed their ma
jority in Parliament, and seated their op
ponents in office. It was expected that a
change of men would bring a reversal of
measures. But these measures, though they
had disgusted the nation, had not been con
demned by Parliament; they stood supported
by the active concurrence of a former ma
jority, and the silent acquiescence of the
rest. To reverse them they had first to be
condemned. But they could not be con
demned without being explained. It was
necessary to know who gave the order to
cross the Indus. The instructions to do so
have not even yet been published. On the
occurrence of the disaster the war was attri
buted by the public to the East India Com
pany. The East India Company declared
that they had no hand in it, and themselves
demanded inquiry, they further required the
reimbursement of the expenditure which had
been imposed upon them. Again everything
was in the hands of Sir Robert Peel.
Now there were no longer doubts as to the
consequences of the system of secret and
mysterious crime. Now there were the
effects of the disaster upon the public to sup
port and justify him, had he been prompted
either by awakened conscience or aroused
fears, to crush this conspiracy ; for which not
even an impeachment was requisite, but
simply a committee of the House of Commons
to report upon the causes of the Afghan In
vasion.
On a Motion by Mr. Roebuck in the
House of Commons on the 1st of March,
1843, for a Committee of Inquiry, Sir Robert
Peel said :
“ There are two questions which have been brought
under the consideration of the House in the course
of the present discussion. The one, whether or no
the expedition undertaken by the Governor-General
of India into Afghanistan was consistent with sound
policy; and the other, whether it is fitting for the
House of Commons to appoint a Select Committee
for the purpose of inquiring into the policy of that
expedition. These two questions, I consider, to be
not necessarily connected with each other. ... I
consider that question (the expedition) to be per
fectly distinct from the question, whether as a mem
�33
CONNIVANCE OF SIR ROBERT PEEL.
ber of the Government, possessing the confidence of
Her Majesty, I should think it expedient to lend the
influence, which a Government naturally exercises,
to appoint a Select Committee for the purpose of in
quiring into the policy and justice of a great opera
tion undertaken four years ago.”
Executive Government to the Committee of the
House of Commons.”
“There are two considerations under our discus
sion; the first is whether the death of the deceased
is to be attributed to other than natural causes; the
second, whether any inquiries should take place on
the subject. These questions I consider to be not
necessarily connected with each other.”
every injury from without; he has linked together
extreme danger and internal treason, and con
ferred upon them a charter of immunity. Assuming
inquiry into home delinquency and foreign designs
to be interference with the functions of the executive
Government, he shows us that the present Govern
ment is but a continuation of the past system. He
has connected the Afghan War with the other transactions
in which England has been involved in all other quarters
of the globe. He has connected the acts of the late Govern
ment and the projects of Russia. He has then stood
up to resist all disturbance of this conspiracy by
inquiry or by punishment.
“ Surely a more unconstitutional and a more unEnglish speech was never uttered in the House of
Commons. In it were given first the propositions,
only insinuated by Lord Palmerston, that Prero
gative of the Crown, Duty of Parliament, and Law
of the Land, may be made matter of accommodation
between successive Cabinets.
“ Formerly there was a struggle between Privi
lege and Prerogative, or between the Crown and the
Country; then came a struggle in the House between
Whigs and Tories; now it is a struggle of Cabinets
on one side, Crown, Parliament, Law, and Nation
on the other. A struggle? No, there is no struggle.
Whoever holds the Foreign Office may dispose of England
as of a wardrobe. He may keep it, sell it, cheat with it,
or be cheated out of it; and supposing that public in
dignation is at length aroused, there is a sluice now
constructed to let it flow harmlessly away.
“ The Ministry is not to lend the influence of its
position to inquire into mal-administration by the
preceding Ministry. But guilt not repudiated is
accepted, and thus, by a change of Men, the con
tinuance of the Measures which have driven
What are the consequences of this deci
sion? We quote from among many pro
phetic passages in a contemporary publication
Now let us revert to the recent trial for the following, which gives the history of the
murder, which we used as an illustration in twenty-two years that have since elapsed;—
“ What are the consequences of this decision ?
our former article, altering in imagination
and
placed
the circumstances so as to present a parallel be Firstly: Ministers may menenjoyed in authority now
know that power
be
without respon
tween the High Court of Justiciary at Edin sibility, and that malversation of any kind may be
burgh and the High Court of Parliament at indulged in without fear of any consequences.
Westminster. To do this, we must suppose Secondly: Foreign Powers will now know that con
the judge, the counsel, and the jury, instead of sequences by them are not to be apprehended from
a nation
proceeding to try the case, debating whether become itswhose servants, by being faithless, have
masters.
there should be any trial at all. We must
“ Sir Robert Peel has pronounced sentence of
suppose the counsel for the Crown saying:
acquittal upon every crime within, of approval on
The law of England in respect to sudden
death reverses, as regards the fact, the rule
which it applies towards the person. It re
gards every man as innocent till he is proved
guilty; it regards every sudden death as
violent till it is proved natural. The pro
posal here is that every death shall be
treated as natural, even when it is known to
be violent.
But to make our analogy complete, we
must suppose that the Advocate for the
Crown went on to give his reasons for
abolishing trials for murder. He must have
said :
“ This is not the only case in which the cause of
death is questionable. There is the case of Mary
Windsor, who appears to have been in the liabjt of,
at least, disposing of dead bodies for money, in a
mysterious and questionable manner. There are
also many cases which, if pursued to inquiry,
would show that infanticide is becoming a common
practice. Now if this Court should take cognisance
of the case of Mrs. Pritchard, it must take cognisance
of a great many other cases, and the result will be
that the management of the private affairs of every
family in the country will be transferred to this
Court.”
Now hear Sir Eobebt Peel.
“Where are the limits to such inquiries? Shall I
inquire as to the policy of the Syrian war; as to
the effect of our bombardment of St. Jean d’Acre;
and as to the effect our conduct on that occasion had
upon France? (Mr. Hume, you ought.) Yes, the
Hon. Member for Montrose says, truly enough, that
if I grant one Committee I ought to grant another.
Because, observe, if on every point of questionable
policy this House is to have a Committee of Inquiry,
another member will come down and say, that the
arrangements under the American Treaty are preju
dicial to our interests, and that we must have a
Committee of Inquiry on that subject. Having
granted the first two Committees, I could not refuse
the third; and of consequence I must hand over the
THEM FROM OFFICE IS SECURED.”*
Has not this prediction been accomplished
to the letter ? What have been the events
which have happened, or rather the things
which have been done, since 1843, in pur
suance of this “ conspiracy against the human
race ?” We have the Invasion of Sindh, the
Annexation of Oude, the Abolition of the
right of Adoption, the Canton Massacre, the
Invasion of Persia, the Greased Cartridge
Mutiny, the Destruction of the Summer
Palace at Pekin, the Bombardment in Japan,
* “Appeal against Faction,” by David Urquhart,
1843, pp. 18-19.
D
�34
I
i
i
II
HISTORY OF LORD PALMERSTON.
the Wars of Extermination in New Zealand, escence in the crimes of his predecessors would
the Syrian Massacres, the Annexation of lead to his own expulsion from office.
*
The
Savoy, the Destruction of every native Go prediction was accomplished. The Conser
vernment in Italy, the Invasion of Mexico, vative Party have since then twice held the
the Sacrifice of Schleswig - Holstein, the reins of power. In each case they carried
American Struggle, the Suppression of out the crimes of their predecessors, and in
Poland; and in this list, we have omitted each case their term of office endured only
the Convulsion of the Continent in 1848, the for about a year. Since the fall of Sir Robert
Betrayal of Hungary, the Coup d’Etat at Peel, in 1846, nineteen years have elapsed,
Paris, the burying of our army at Sebas out of which not more than two years and
topol, the Surrender of the Bight of Search, two months have been occupied by a Con
and the consummation of the sacrifice of the servative Administration.
Circassians, after their public appeal to our
There have been, from either side of the
Queen for help.
two Houses of Parliament, isolated endea
These are the consequences of Sir Robert vours, if not to restore the State, at least to
Peel’s maxim, that for the House of Com resist the progress of evil. In these endea
mons to inquire into the conduct of the vours, at least three of the present subordi
Executive Government, would be for it to nates of Lord Palmerston, have taken part.
usurp the functions of that Government.
On one occasion, indeed, Lord John Rus
It was on a subsequent occasion when Sir sell, eschewing the formula of Sir Robert
Robert Peel had repeated in Sindh the Peel, accused the Eoreign Minister of, not
crime first committed at Caubul, that the “ Neglect ” or “ Impolicy,” but Treason in
compact between the two factions was openly its gravest aspects ; of “ having passed by the
ratified in the House of Commons, and their Crown, and put himself in the place of the
mutual criminality referred, by Sir Robert 'Crown.” These words did not form part of
Peel to a law of nature, a law, however, so a charge, they were not followed by a Motion
mysterious that it could only be hinted at that Lord Palmerston should be committed
to the custody of Black Rod, and sent to the
and could not be specified :—
“ We may lay down what positions we please with Tower. They formed part of a speech in
respect to the propriety of observing in our Indian which Lord John Russell, had to defend
policy the same rules and principles which are ob himself by explaining the reasons for the
served between European States; we may pass Acts
of Parliament interdicting the Governor-General dismissal of his insubordinate Colleague, these
from extending his territories by conquest; but I am reasons being that the offence of putting
afraid there is some great principle at work, where himself in the place of the Crown had been
civilisation and refinement come in contact with repeated after a promise not to do so again
barbarism, which makes it impossible to apply the had been extorted by the Queen.
rules observed towards more advanced nations ;
We have thus two opposite practices in
more especially when civilisation and refinement
come in contact with barbarism, in an immensely private and in public life. In the former
extended country.”
we have a sense of law, by which every indi
There is no difference, between the rules vidual is made to perform his separate func
observed by us in Asia and in Europe; the tions in ascertaining the existence of crimes,
difference is between the acts of private in the combination of these separate functions
dividuals, and those of individuals acting in securing against private offenders the safety
the name of the State. In the former, as in of the community. In the latter, the com
the latter case, we may lay down what moral mission of a known crime awakes no sense
positions, we may pass what Acts of Parlia of duty in any individual or corporate body.
ment, we please, but there are, and always The Court Leet, whose duty it was to pre
have been, men who will set at naught moral sent such crimes is gone; the Municipal
positions and Acts of Parliament, unless the bodies avoid this duty as “political;” the
penalties attached to the latter are enforced. House of Commons, which has usurped the
The whole case resides in this, that the pos prerogative of the Crown of nominating the
session of office does not make the holder Ministers, accepts the doctrine that to control
exempt from the temptations incident to the men they have nominated is to usurp
humanity, and that this certainty of impunity the functions of the Crown. A Minister of
does lead to the commission of crime.
* “ The House or Commons will sink into that bed
The work done by Sir Robert Peel has
been continued by those who, as leaders of that the speech of Sir Robert Peel has made for it; and
hastened for the return
men
the opposition, may be considered as his the time is stand accused, by the to power of the their
who now
degradation of
natural successors. The Author of the work antagonists for having basely screened them.”—Appeal
already quoted predicted that this acqui against Faction, p. 19.
�CONNIVANCE OF SIR ROBERT PEEL.
35
sudden notifications to a nation to change its habits
on a given day. I avow that in this sense throughout
the greatest portion of Asia, there is nothing that can
be called Institutions. The rules and principles
which control the powerful and protect the weak,
are customs and national character based upon pre
judices, beliefs, or errors » . . . These impose upon
authority more effectual checks than any written
stipulations, and from which tyranny can only
emancipate itself by running the risk of perishing
by violence. I see but some isolated points where
nothing is respected, where consideration is unknown,
and where power rules free from obstacle. These
are the spots where the weakness or improvidence
of Asiatics has allowed strangers to establish them
selves, moved by the sole desire of amassing riches;
people without pity for men of another race, neither
understanding their language, nor sharing in their
M. A. REMDSAT ON “ CIVILISATION” AND
tastes, their habits, their faith, or their prejudices.
“BARBARISM.”
Force alone can maintain for a time that absolute
As throwing light on the two several exist
ences, the subject matter of Sir R. Peel’s despotism which is necessary to a handful of domi“ Great Principle,” we quote from M. Abel nators, who will grasp all in the midst of a multitude
which believes itself bound by no right to give any
Remusat the following passage:—
thing. The effects of such a struggle are t o be
“ One striking feature amongst all varieties of observed in the Colonial establishments of Asia, and
Eastern Governments is, to find nowhere, and the strangers of whom I speak are the Europeans.
scarcely at any period, that odious despotism of de
“ A singular race is this European race. The
grading servitude, the dark genius of which, we
opinions with which it is armed, the reasonings upon
imagined, towered over all Asia. Except in the
which it rests, would astonish an impartial judge, if
Mussulman States, the springs of which require a
such a one could be at present found on earth. They
peculiar study, the sovereign authority, surrounded walk the globe, showing themselves to the humiliated
with imposing exteriors, is not the less subject to
nations as the type of beauty in their faces, as the
restrictions the most inconvenient, I had almost
basis of reason in their ideas, the perfection of un
said, the only ones which are really effective. An
derstanding in their imaginations. That is their
Indian king, it is true, burns like the sun, and no
unique measure. They judge all things by that rule.
human creature can contemplate him. But that
In their own quarrels they are agreed upon certain
superior being cannot raise a tax on a Brahmin,
principles by which to assassinate one another with
were he himself to die of hunger; convert a field
method and regularity. But the Law of Nations is
labourer into a merchant, or infringe the slightest
superfluous in dealing with Orientals.”
enactment of the civil and religious code. An Em
It was in 1829 that M. Abel Remusat
peror of China is the Son of Heaven, but he cannot
choose a sub-prefect, except from the list of candi wrote these words.
dates presented by the Colleges; and if he himself
neglected to fast on a day of eclipse, or to acknow
ledge publicly the faults of his Government, ten
thousand pamphlets, sanctioned by law, would
trace to him his duties, and recal the observance of
ancient rule. Who dare in Europe oppose such
CONTRADICTIONS OE THE “ TIMES.”
barriers to the power of Princes ?
“ I have spoken of institutions, and this word, from the “times” of FROM THE “ TIMES” OF
SEPTEMBER 28, 1865.
SEPTEMBER 28, 1865.
quite modern and quite European, may appear pom
pous and sonorous when applied to a people which “ This immense mass “ It is not a paradox to
(the Russian Empire) is
knows neither budgets, nor reports, nor bills of in the product of acquisition say that if Russia be
demnity. It certainly is not here applied to those and attraction perpetu came more enlightened
ally going on. Towards she would become less
* The Times of last Monday writes of the taking the west, conquest and powerful. Something of
possession of Lauenburg by Prussia. “We wonder if it diplomacy have been em the barbarian element is
ever occurred to the King of Prussia, or to Count Bis ployed ; towards the east,
marck, or to any of those engaged in this remarkable conquest and civilisation. required in a conquering
scene that the whole proceeding was an anachronism.” Say what we will, orpro- race. To make the people
D 2
the Crown, himself not engaged in designing
mischief, gravely suggests that the office
itself is a guarantee for the purity of the
intentions of the holder, whilst, after a
quarter of a century of such practices on
the most gigantic scale, the public hold mal
administration in public affairs — “an ana
chronism.”*
We have now to make a step forward or
backward. We must' adapt the maxim to
private life and declare that all crime is
anachronism and all punishment superfluous ;
or we must reduce public measures to the
simple and prosaic rule of our daily life and
position, and say to each other “ The days of
impeachment are not gone by.”
�36
HISTORY OF LORD PALMERSTON.
phesy as we may, it is not
to be denied that all the
progress of Russia in the
east is mainly that pro
gress which, as we have
found, is almost inevit
ably forced upon a supe
rior race in contact with
semi-savages or barbatians.”
“ The Turkish Empire
was formed in a compa
ratively short period, by
an overwhelming torrent
of armed fanatics, and it
represents at this day
only an aggregate of re
gions on which the de
scendants of the conque
rors are encamped.”
a perfect instrument in
the hands of their ruler,
they must be partly fa
natics or partly slaves.
The conquests of more
civilised nations may be
more rapid, but they are
less durable. The brave
stolid, passive, supersti
tious Russian has been
the true unit of that
power which has created
the Empire. Make him
a reasoning, independent
or capricious thinker, and
the power is gone.”
No. 8.
Prostration before him of all
public Authority and Charac
ter.
The relationship of the aphorisms of Sir
Robert Peel to the acts of Lord Palmeb
ston, which we have been tracing in our
last two numbers, offers an historical deduc
tion which supersedes all the rest of con
temporary municipal history. It is this :
That the public measures which the English
Government and nation have adopted, and
the acts which they have peformed during a
quarter of a century, have proceeded from
no will or purpose of the Crown, of the
nation, or of the factions; that they have
had their origin in the will of a single
member of one of the parties, and have been
rendered practicable by the co-operation of
the leader of the other party.
The abolition of the Corn Laws by Sir
Robebt Peel dispelled in an instant a
belief previously existing, and which was
universal. It was believed by the trivial
talker, it was believed by the profound
thinker, and that not only within the three
kingdoms, but throughout the whole of
Europe, that England was an aristocratic
country, and that the landed interests were
predominant. This experience might be
sufficient to satisfy any man that nothing is
less likely to be true than any belief or
opinion which he may entertain respecting
any of the circumstances in which he is
placed, the motives of measures which he
sees, the sources of acts in which he is
engaged, the secret zof the influences which
rule.
It is not alone the event of the Corn
Laws which might have suggested such re
flections. There is not a measure, there is
not an opinion, which comes into being—
each of these being a change upon that
which has previously been done or thought
—which does not equally afford to each
individual the opportunity of informing him
self with regard to himself, and of discover
ing that he has been all his life talking
about things which he did not understand.
Such a conclusion will, however, be con
sidered humiliating. It is, or it is not,
according to the application. It is humi
liating to a man if he says, “ Henceforth I
must cease to talk;” it is anything but hu
miliating if he says, “ Henceforth I must
know the truth.” The condition of a nation
is hopeless, however vast its dominions and
great its wealth and power, if, being in
doubt, it has not the idea of inquiry. But
the germs of greatness exist in a community,
however small; or even in a fragment, how
ever insignificant, of an enervated commu
nity, wherever there exists in men the simple
and upright thought of understanding what
they speak about.
Let us go a step further. If the matter
with regard to which the nation is in doubt,
is merely speculative, its doubt may be very
beneficial, as preventing it from acting. But
if the doubt is in reference to conduct, to
measures, to things that are being done for
it and by it; if these things involve changes
which have to be examined into as matters of
account; if they involve acts to be decided
upon on legal grounds—and these include
all that man can do, and man can suffer—
then, to be in doubt, and thereby to remain
inert, is to submit, that is to say is to
suffer. It is to suffer that money shall be
taken from it wrongfully ; it is to suffer that
acts shall be committed against it wrongfully;
it is to suffer that its own means shall. be
employed to inflict the same evils upon
others. Being at the same time honourable,
upright and conscientious—that is to say,
each individual having no intention of doing
wrong, it must go on to justify. So it has to
suffer in its heart and in its understanding
to a far greater degree than in its circum
stances and its person.
But in the condition which we suppose, and
which is at the same time that around us,
for any particular individual to adopt the
contrary line to suffering, is an impossibility.
Consider what would be required in the way
of strength of character, powers of mind,
alertness of spirit. There must be a com
prehensive knowledge of all circumstances
(which by the conditions of the case are
�CONCLUSION.
37
concealed and perverted), a perfect know way to ends beyond all relation to the
ledge of the men who manage, not in Eng means of execution. They are relieved from
land onlv, but everywhere. There must be every counteracting agency, screened from
the devotion and consecration of the whole all scrutiny during, the prosecution of their
mind, and of every moment of existence to design, and protected from all retribution or
the enterprise. There must be an integrity its accomplishment. This is what is called
to resist all seduction, a courage to defy “ Public Opinion.”
At a given point a man may be suddenly
all opposition, an endurance to meet all
persecution and reproach, with the faculty, startled into a transitory perception of the
so rare as to be wonderful, of retort. Not truth, and exclaim, as once did M. Thiers,
to fall into the trough, but to emerge from “We (England and Prance) have mistaken
doubt upon the high bank of action, jt re the interests of Russia for our own, that is
quires that a man should take upon himself tall.” But having given utterance to this
the whole State, assume to himself to be sentence, nothing follows upon it. M
s
its protector and saviour, and experience Thiers did not go on to say “We must there
the consciousness of this in his own breast. fore institute an inquiry with a view to the
Now the historical deduction with which reversal of this state of things. This effort,
•
we have to do, goes much further than that however great, is imposed upon us by every
which had to be drawn from the Repeal of consideration of honour and of safety.” M.
<
the Corn Laws. “Aristocracy,” “Landed Thiers said the very reverse. He continued,
Interest,” are vague generalities, and to “ Therefore there remains for us nothing to
displace them is a small matter. Not so the do,” and the Prance of that day was swept
terms—Crown, Executive, High Court of away, and another nine-pin set up.
England has been thus disposed of through
Parliament, Grand Inquest of the Nation, or
even the terms, Whig and Tory, as repre two false beliefs. The first was that Eng
senting the Eactions. These have to disappear land and Russia were opposed. This, again,
so soon as it is known that the vast measures arose from two generalities—“ England” and
carried on through the world, by this great “ Russia.” England at the time was one
Empire, proceed from the private will and man, whom England herself knew by name
unavowed purpose of one individual; through only. Russia was one woman in the
the aid of three or four insidiously constructed Russian service, who was at that time in
sentences, uttered at intervals of years by London, and held all the leading men in the
another individual, not acting in concert with hollow of her hand. The second false belief
him, and belonging to the opposite political was, that Whigs and Tories (Liberals and
Conservatives) entertained opposite opinions
party.
If this question be put to any individual on public matters. But here, again, 'men
taken at random from the streets : “ Do you were entangled in a generality. They in
believe that Lord Palmerston could have cluded under one head opinions in reference
carried the invasion of Afghanistan against to measures to be introduced into Parlia
the resistance of Sir R. Peel ? Do you ment, and measures in respect to the em
believe that he could have invaded China ployment of armies, navies, and despatches.
against the resistance of Sir R. Peel ?” the These measures being concealed from the
answer would undoubtedly be in the nega Parliament, concealed in thair inception
tive. Nor did Lord Palmerston question from the Sovereign under whose prerogative
in Parliament the assertion of Sir R. Peeli they are masked, concealed from the colhimself that he was strong enough to resist; leagues of the Minister, whose apparent
the Government when it was wrong. We• responsibility enables him to dispose of all
have gone beyond this point, and have shownL things at his own pleasure and caprice.
This corruption and these elements of
that he could not have carried his measuresi
without the co-operation of Sir R. Peel. decay might have existed in a somnolent
That co-operation could not have been ob• state for ages and centuries, had they not
tained had Sir R. Peel been his confederate,, been quickened by particular circumstances.
and it would have been ineffectual unless Sir• Even Russia might have been there with all
her own organised means, having yet cenR. Peel had been his antagonist.
As Lord Palmerston could do for Russial turies to wait for a satisfactory fruition.
what no Russian could do for her, so Sir R.. But the avalanche has been hastened for our
Peel could do for Lord Palmerston what; times by the conjunction of two such men
no Whig could have done for him. Wheni contemporaneously existing in the bosom of
there are among a people beliefs that are un the British State.
?
Of these, one has already disappeared,
founded, the dexterous are able to work their
�38
HISTORY OF LORD PALMERSTON.
without any loss to Russia; his peculiar
work had been accomplished, and his suc
No. 9.
cessors have continued to do the small base
displayed in the
nesses that were required. The other must Character
soon follow in the course of nature. He too
Change of the Succession to
willhave done his w'ork, and his death, when it
Denmark.
comes, will have secured her in respect to
the most powerful instrument she has ever
(From the Free Press, Nov. 1, 1865.)
possessed, from the only danger she has
to fear, namely, that her tools be detected If we refer in a particular manner to the
and broken. The succeeding Ministers of death of Lord Palmerston, it is only because
England, in continuing the line laid out for we find that it is so much expected that we
them, will not even have to be initiated, and should do so, that not only disappointment
will all unconsciously carry into execution,
but misconception might arise from our pass
the Will of PETER THE GREAT.
ing it by in silence.
However, as there must have been some
The death of Lord Palmerston will undo
mysterious and nefarious part connected with
the bringing of a man not then in office, and none of the things that he has done. The
so not compromised by his own acts, into prolongation of his life would have facilitated
collusion with the enemy of his country;
and as from highly authoritative quarters the doing of other things which may not be
the suspicion had emanated of a positive so easily done by his successors. But these
money transaction, we had judged it desir are not under discussion, not having ex
able whilst he was still alive, still in the istence.
possession of his faculties, still in the exer
Journals have an article upon public men
cise of his functions as Premier, to bring
forward these allegations. To print them in when they die, and that is generally the
full, with all the collateral circumstances beginning, the middle, and the end of all
within our reach, in order that he might have they have to say respecting them. As Public
the opportunity of vindicating his character, Men are known only through Public Mea
if in this particular circumstance—capable sures, what is said of them during their life
of vindication — whether by a statement time is said upon the measures, and not upon
that should carry weight, whether by a the men. Here, in reference to the man and
prosecution in a Court of Justice. We the journal, the case is the very reverse.
have done so in order that these charges The Free Press occupies itself with Lord
which required to be solemnly dealt with Palmerston, and with Lord Palmerston
during his life time, if not by him, then alone ; that is to say, with results which he
by others, should not be disposed of as post has brought about. These results not coming
humous calumnies when brought forward at as measures presented, and argued, and dis
a subsequent time. This exposition which has cussed on public grounds ; but brought about
now occupied a large portion of the Free Press secretly, coming without the foreknowledge
for the last four Numbers, will be reprinted of any one, presenting themselves without
under the title of Materials for the Post the appreciation of any one, and springing,
humous history of Lord Palmerston.
therefore, entirely out of his private purposes ;
that is to say, his character. The Free Press,
POSTSCRIPT.
therefore, exists in and by Lord Palmer
ston ; and if it does not disappear at his
Nov. 1, 1865.
Rate has followed fast on the traces of our death, it is because of him, pre-eminently
pen, but has allowed us time to accomplish amongst the human race, it has to be said,
our purpose, as stated at the close of this “ The evil that men do lives after them.”
*
review.
To some it may not at once be apparent
that the statement we have just made is
* Lord Palmerston died on the 18th of October, correct in its comprehensiveness.' There are
1865.
those who will perceive at once that the
many columns and numbers of the Free
Press devoted to the Right of Search, to the
Danish Succession, to the Government of
India, and the like, are in fact occupied with
the character of Lord Palmerston ; know
ing that it is he as a man, and not as the
�HIS ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE DANISH SUCCESSION.
39
organ of an English Party, or the representa affair was the corollary of the Afghan affair,
tive of a known system, that has brought and such an argument was in the mind of
about the sacrifice of our Maritime Hights, the Nation before it could have been used.
It is impossible that a nation should fall
the sacrifice of an European Crown, and the
into the hands of a Traitor unless it be cor
convulsion, with the view to its ultimate sa
crifice, of our Indian Empire. But they may rupt. It is impossible, therefore, that any
not perceive that it is the treatment of the effort should be made in the sense of counter
same theme that has brought into these acting Treason except in so far as it tends to,
columns the history of machinations, whe aiifl is effectual in, restoring integrity to the
ther in the New World or in the Old, whe hearts of at least some of the men composing
ther in the Italian or the Iberian Peninsula; that nation. This can be done only by con
whether as to the extinction of public rights, victing them of their guilt. A picture must
the absorption of political existences, the be held up to them of w’hatthey are, and that
perversion of political judgment, or the picture can be drawn only by contrasts. It
amphibologies, which have rendered men and must be shown to them what their fathers
nations food for deception, and active instru were; those fathers who made the Laws
ments in their own undoing. All which, which still exist, but the use of which they
extending over past periods of history, give have abandoned. The successive steps ot de
to this Journal the character rather of cline and decay must be traced. And this
antiquarian research, than of daily comment. field, spreading so wide and extending so far,
This is, therefore, the very occasion to has to be trodden of necessity by us, who pro
point out how and in what the two are con pose to ourselves to rescue the State; because
nected ; how in travelling back to past it is in consequence of this universal ignor
periods, however remote, and in searching ance, disregard, and indifference, that its be
out the origin of things, we have been still trayal has been planned and carried into
engaged solely m the task of elucidating the effect.
The tranquillity, the security, the perma
individual character of this one man.
In the series of Articles which we have nency of States depend, ano only can depend,
recently finished on the fallacious aphorisms upon the obstructions that lie in the way of
of Sir R. Peel, concocted to screen himself innovation. There are always some individuals
from censure, in his screening Lord Palmer who, by the activity of their passions, seek to
ston from inquiry, we have shown that these disturb ; that is to say, to gain unduly. They
sentences could not have been uttered, far are unsuccessful according as they find sense
less have been successful, had the public in their neighbours to detect imposition, and
judgment in England at the time been less courage to resist violence. The oid strophe
obscured. In other words, that these sen preserved to us by Aristotle, weakly para
tences would not have been spoken by a phrased by Sir William Jones, tells the
judicious man in the course of the last gene whole story of human disturbance, or of
ration, because the effect at that time would human tranquillity.
“ Men equal to save themselves constitute
have been to arouse scorn and indignation.
The fallacies of the times were, therefore, the a Free State.”
Rendered by Sir W. Jones :—
very instruments with which Lord Palmer
“ Men who know their rights,
ston effected his ends. To deal with him,
And knowing, dare maintain.”
w’e had to deal with those fallacies. There
When it comes to be a question no longer
would have been no necessity to show that
there was no such thing as “ a great prin of individual, but public Acts, when it is not
ciple at work” when more refined or less re a man acting by his own means for himself,
fined races came into contact, unless it had but a man with delegated authority using the
so happened that Lord Palmerston, in order powers of others, the public tranquillity can
to throw Central Asia into the arms of be secured against his undue activity, only in
Russia, caused Afghanistan to be trea so far as he is prevented from acting unless
cherously attacked by an English Army; after deliberation. This restraint exists in so
that the English Nation, not being ready to far only as the moorings of Law and Custom
accept such an attack from mere delight in guarantee the public life.
Suppose the case of a nation that consents
bloodshed, had to be reasoned into accept
ance of the deed; and that the reasoning to acts being done by its Executive without
found and put forward had not been “ The previous deliberation; and at the same time
Great Principle.” These words, it is true, declares to itself, and prides itself on the de
were used in reference to Sindh, and not in claration, that it will never call its Ministers
reference to Afghanistan. But the Sindh to account for their acts after they have been
�40
HISTORY OF LORD PALMERSTON.
committed; then it is evident that that Nation may appear a strange word in these columns.
is cast about upon the waves of chance. That Nothing can be more sure and certain. Lord
chance must depend upon the character of Palmerston had a conscience, as we will
the Minister. He may be a good and great prove. It may be explained by another word ;
man, he may be a mean and a base one. The it may be called “ fear.” But, however
Nation will be equally filled with gratitude designated or qualified, it is certain that con
and admiration for the one who confers upon fessions could be extorted from him through
it prosperity, or the other who leads it to de the emotions of his own mind. This was
struction. If it be elaborately organised in reckoned on, and acted on, by those who have
detail, if it possess wealth and armies and succeeded in collecting a mass of evidence,
navies, it passes from an intellectual to a which, if unavailable for the security of
material existence, and becomes a machine, present times, will remain for the amazement
moved by a spring. Such is England at the of future generations. We give an instance.
present hour. Lord Palmerston has
When the question was put, Are you alter
fashioned her fortunes as they now stand. ing the Succession to the Crown of Denmark?But he himself was a chance. So there may Lord Palmerston staggered, as if he had re
be chances on the other side. All that Eng ceived a blow. When he had recovered, the
land has become was locked in the breast of answer was an emphatic denial. That denial,
one man thirty years ago.
which soon became a damning evidence, was
Let it not be supposed that those who attributable only to the emotions of his mind.
have struggled on the one hand to open the Nothing would have been easier for a cool
eyes of the nation, and on the other to arrest man than to have answered the question with
the career of this man, and to bring him to out compromising himself, and his peculiar
condign punishment, rejoice in his death. As parliamentary dexterity consisted in baffling
they have looked upon his retirement from questioners.
office as the gravest of disasters, in like
In terms the question was insignificant;
manner must they consider as such his dis the effect of it came from the common know
appearance from the scene. Their aim has ledge in the mind of the questioner and the
been that he should be known. They have questioned, that these, then secret negociahad to show in respect to his colleagues that tions, were carried on with a purpose of
his was the active hand, and that thus his transferring the Crown of Denmark to Russia.
colleagues were but masks. This was the This, of course, would not have happened
great difficulty at the beginning, as he was had he been prepared for the question. And
considered an insignificant person. Then it as Ministers are not held bound to answer
had to be shown that the other party came questions of which notice lias not been given,
in merely to do his work, and to be com it will appear impossible that a Minister
promised thereby. So in respect to his death, should thus have been taken by surprise.
not having paid the penalty of his misdeeds, But the matter was managed in this way.
he withdraws the means of conviction in his Notice was given only of a question about
own person, and leaves a course of conduct the War in the Duchies, and when that
established and a tradition for others obtusely question was put and answered, the ques
and unconsciously to follow. Whilst Lord tioner suddenly got up and put the other.
Palmerston lived, acts could be brought
This occurred on the 20th of March, 1851.
home to the man. Whilst he was here, and
On the 18th of June, 1861, another Member
acting, he could be forced into speech, and of the House of Commons introduced a Mo
dragged into explanations. His words always tion on Denmark. That Motion excited no
furnished, for those who knew how to use alarm. So the House was suffered to be
them, the tnost important of all events. His made, and the Member allowed to proceed
mind was so full of his subject, that he could with his speech, which produced no emotion
not speak but to the point, whether in regard on the Treasury Bench, until he arrived at a
to denial or explanation. When he denied, certain point, used certain words, and held
there were his own words at another time, up a certain paper. Then there was emo
there were his own acts to establish the evi tion; the signal was given; the Members
dence of falsehood, which at least was within from both sides slipped from their places;
the comprehension of the meanest capacity. then one arose, requesting the Speaker to
All these means of bringing the truth to Count the House, and the House was Counted
*
light have disappeared. What remains but out !
chaos, when explanations have to be furnished
* Some time was, of course, requisite for accom
by others ?
plishing the Count-out, so that Lord R. Montagu had
Besides, there was his conscience. This got on to another matter, and was uttering this sen-
�THE DANISH SUCCESSION.
41
HIS ATTEMPT TO CHANGE
The cause of this emotion was the citation such a Document as the Protocol of June 2,
, ,• 1
by Lord Bobebt Montage of the answer I850The Protocol of August, 1850 (which was
given by Lord Palmebston on the 20th of
March, 1851, namely, that “ Her Majesty s the completion of the Draft dated June,
Government had studiously and systemati 1850), did indeed appear in the list of Docu
cally held themselves aloof from taking any ments to be moved for. But then, when the
share in these negociations,” namely, nego Treaty itself had become a matter of past
ciations having for their object the altera history, and the whole case as regards the
Succession had been so ingeniously swamped
tion of the “ Succession to the Crown ot
Denmark.” After having done so he pro in an interminable correspondence about the
duced a Document, read it, and held it . up internal affairs of Schleswig-Holstein, this
to the House, stating that it was the original could cause no alarm to Lord Palmebston.
notes of a Protocol of a Conference held at The only thing he had to dread was the con
the Poreion Office in Downing-street, and viction of falsehood, brought home to him by
presided over by Lord Palmebston, for the his denial, of March 1851, being connected
alteration of the Danish Succession, dated with the existence of that Protocol.
Had the Memoir contained the remotest
June 2, 1850, that is to say nine months
reference to the one or to the other, the
before the occasion on which he had answered
a question, by denying that the English Go Speech of Lord B. Montagu would never
vernment had participated in any such nego have been made. Eor either a House would
not have been made, or it would have been
ciations.
counted out as soon as he rose. A CountThe Parliament or the Nation might be out can indeed only be managed by the con
little capable of appreciating the operation currence of the leaders of both parties. But
itself. But there could have been no am the Opposition was in this case as . much
biguity in the minds of either, respecting this concerned as the Government, or indeed
monstrous falsehood on the part of the more so, as it was the signature of Lord
Minister; and it was easy for the meanest Malmesbuby and not of Lord Palmebston
capacity to infer from that falsehood, the that was appended to the Treaty of the 8th
nature of the transaction. A Count-out was
of May, 1852.
immediately had recourse to, as the only
The two incidents, whilst they establish
means by which Lord Palmebston could that Lord Palmebston had a conscience,
escape from having to rise and give an connect that conscience with his secret ser
answer, which must have been a humiliating vices to Bussia. They contain in themselves
confession, or a ridiculous excuse.
the whole history of the Danish case, and
But again this confession—for the Count- show whence it emanated, by what means it
out amounted to a confession—was only was executed, and whom it w-as to benefit.
brought about by a surprise, to which no We publish in another column a Despatch
successor can now be exposed. This.Danish which will corroborate these words to the
Debate had been promoted and carried into letter. That Despatch, signed Palmebston,
effect through the efforts of the. Eoreign goes beyond the Treaty of May, 1852, whilst
Affairs Committees. A Deputation from dated not only before the question referred
them had waited upon the leading members to, but even before the Protocol—namely,
of both Houses of Parliament, and a Memoir February 19, 1850.
by them had been largely distributed, and
The Protocol and the subsequent Treaty
extensively read. When Lord Palmebston only effected such an alteration in the Suc
was in possession of this Document he had cession as removed obstacles in the way of
the notes for his reply ; and doubtless had the ultimate heirship of Bussia; and this is
thereupon prepared one which would have covered under the assumption of keeping
been triumphant, as in the case of his reply her out. But the prior Despatch of Lord
in the Don Pacieico Debate, to . Sir James Palmebston addressed to the Danish Go
Gbaham, who had sent him, the night before, vernment, is a simple proposal of handing
the notes of his Speech. But somehow, in over to her at once both Denmark and the
the Memoir of the Eoreign Affairs Com Duchies by a testamentary act of the King.
mittees, all mention had been omitted of his The name of the Duke of Olbenbvbg is,
answer of March 30, 1851, and the Memoir indeed, inserted. But the Duke of Olbenwas likewise unconscious of the existence of bubg is only a tenant at will of Bussia, who
is the real Proprietor of the Grand Duchy,
tence, ■when he was stopped: 4< It is a still more ex and he is, besides, a Junior Member of the
traordinary discovery, that the abolition of the Zea;
Regia should also have been due to the Noble Viscount.” House of Russia. It was only because of
�42
HISTORY OF LORD PALMERSTON.
the resistance of the King, that there was
any necessity for having recourse to the
London Protocol, the Warsaw Protocol, and
the London Treaty. That is to say, to those
Negotiations from which the English Go
vernment had kept carefully aloof.
In the case of Denmark, we have every
other case. Lord Palmerston did not yield
Bussia his services in simple gaiety of heart;
there must have been constraint used; such
constraint must have equally determined
every act of his Stewardship, and weighed
upon every moment of his life. “ The key
that opens one box, opens every box ; and
there is no other key that opens any box.
That key is Treason.” Such was the de
scription of the state of England given in
1842 by Sir Francis Burdett.
We have said that the death of Lord Pal
merston will become no loss to Bussia. We
may even go further, and say, it may be a
great gain to her. It may be in her mind
to cause the apparent policy of England to
alter in an important respect, wherein the
line hitherto apparently assumed by Lord
Palmerston might have been a great incon
venience, whether as keeping him at the head
of affairs, or removing him thence.
Whilst Lord Palmerston’s success and
security depended upon his being considered
the enemy and antagonist of Bussia, his
fame and reputation have been made out of
that antagonism.
*
This enmity to her was
accounted for by his being the “ Friend of
Poland,” and the “ Friend of Turkey.” Now
that Poland is gone, and that the competing
supply of grain from the Western States of
America has been arrested, Turkey has to be
considered by the Bussian Government. Con
sidered, not in the sense of projects of ag
grandisement to be carried out, but dangers
to be averted. What signify her Danish
Treaties, what signifies her domination in
Europe, what signifies her advance in Cen
tral Asia and on the Amo or, unless the old
Ottoman Lion be bridled ? To insert the
bit her own arm is utterly powerless. With
Lord Palmerston, the “ friend of Turkey,”
it was possible to combine a War of Collu
sion, and to bring the Armies of Europe on
the soil of Turkey, to save her, Bussia, from
destruction. That game cannot be played
twice. The Turks will not forget in a hurry
the lesson they have learned. If, then, she
be under the necessity of having recourse to
exterior aid to break down that growing
prosperity of the Ottoman Empire, which of
itself, and without external movement, must
cause her resources to fail and her strength
to decay, it must be in the guise of enemies
and not of friends that she must draw again
the Armies of Europe on the Ottoman soil.
And then, as distinctly foreshown by her, in
her communications with the Porte during
the last Collusive War, she will step in as
Mediator and Protector. Here we touch the
pivot, upon which must revolve the events of
the future. For a project of this nature
Lord Palmerston was wholly disqualified by
his antecedents.
Nor can we omit, on such an occasion, to
commemorate the change effected in the
material condition of the great majority of
the human race during the last thirty-five
years. This change, which has diminished
the value of labour and of life, lias been
effected by a double process, the first the
shutting up of the sources of supply of those
articles of first necessity on the sale of which
Bussia depends; the second, the continual
state of dread of war and convulsion;
whence, increase of charges — that is, of
taxes. The charges of government (inde
pendent of interest of debt) have been mul
tiplied in England nearly threefold. France
*
is not better off, whilst in Italy the aug
mentation bears in the same proportion on
the whole amount of the taxes.f Such is
the fine we have paid for neglecting our
affairs, for had the method, followed of neces
sity in the smallest matters, been observed in
the gravest, that system which we owe to
the introduction of the name of Lord Pal
merston into the list of Lord Grev’s cabi
net, and which was immediately followed by
the betrayal of Poland, could never have
commenced to run its course.
There is, however, one consideration of an
opposite character. There is one point on
* In 1835 these amounted to 15,884,6487.; in 1860,
to 38,322,5927., exclusive of 3,800,0007. for the China
War.—See Free Press for July, 1865, p. 58.
f Taking the middle term of the increase between
1835 and the present year at 10,000,0007., we shall
have the sum expended of 300,000,0007. This is to
prove a permanent charge at the present increased rate,
that is 20,000,0007., which would represent a redeem
able charge, at 5 per cent., of 400,000,0007. This does
not include the extra charges of actual warfare, whether
as paid by England or other countries. The cost to
England of Lord Palmerston cannot, therefore, be set
down at much less than a thousand millions sterling.
When he commenced, and before the Reform Bill, the
country was in the way of reducing Expenditure. He
is, therefore, an enormous loss, and the lamentations
that have been printed upon his death may be thus
fully accounted far. The interest of the Press is ex
* “ We could, scarcely keep him decently civil to the actly the reverse of that of the Nation, its importance
Russian Ambassador,” said Lord Brougham, on the and prosperity depends on the amount of expenditure;
that is to say, on the News which gives rise to it.
Affairs of Poland.
�HIS PROPOSAL OF THE DUKE OF OLDENBURG FOR DENMARK.
which the mind may rest without’trouble,
and from which even hope may arise. It is
that the death of Lord Palmebston has pre
ceded that of the Queen. The Queen, while
yet in the enjoyment of her faculties and
power, now at length relieved and emanci
*
pated, may exert herself, and not without
effect, in discharging those anxious duties
which even at this hour have only to be dis-,
charged with a discriminating knowledge of
individuals, and a just appreciation of circum
stances, to redeem the State from the perils
which threaten it.
PROPOSAL BY LORD PALMERSTON
IN 1850 OF THE DUKE OF OLDEN
BURG FOR DENMARK.
The Despatch on Denmark referred to in
the Article on the death of Lord Palmeb
ston requires, for its bearing to be under
stood, that it be known, or rather remem
bered, that the Treaty of 1852, and the nego
tiations which led to it, are placed before the
world as if originating with the King of
Denmabk. This Despatch shows that the
terms of the Treaty conveying this impression
are deceptive and false, and that the proposal
for altering the Succession originated with
Lord Palmebston.
The Despatch is not written in reply to
any proposition from the Danish Govern
ment. It is not an interchange of commu
nications on the subject with other Powers.
It is an original proposition from the English
Minister, made absolutely and vehemently.
The instruction is “ to press strongly on the
Danish Government.” This is at a moment
when a war of the most exhausting and ex
asperating character was being carried on
between Denmark and the Duchies, and in
which the English Government had under
taken to arbitrate.
The particular alteration of the Succession
which Lord Palmerston undertakes to force
on the Danish Government disappears from
view from that time (the King of Denmark
having refused to accept of it) until quite
recently. After a lapse of fifteen years, and
after all the course of these negotiations, con
vulsions, partitions, wars, and occupations has
been run through, does it come out again, as
the proposal of Russia. At the Conference
of London in June, 18G4, Russia announced
that she had resigned her claims in favour of
the Grand-Duke of Oldenburg. On the
19th of February, 1850, Lord Palmerston
pressed strongly on the Danish Government
43
the choice of the son of the Grand-Duke of
Oldenburg as the successor to the Crown
of Denmark, as the means of settling a
matter in which there was nothing to settle,
beyond pretensions of the Emperor of
Russia.
It will be seen in this Despatch that Lord
Palmerston speaks as being in the confi
dence of the Emperor of Russia, for he says
that he would renounce his claims in favour
of the Prince of Oldenburg, “ if that Prince
were to succeed to the Crown of Denmark f
and “ might not be equally disposed to do so
in any other case.” It is a repetition, even
to the selection of the terms, of the language
he used in reference to Greece in 1830, which
led Sir R. Peel to ask whose Representative
he was, and in whose interest he acted.
That Lord Palmerston was in this case
coercing Denmark at the instigation of
Russia, appears not merely from this Docu
ment, but also from the declaration of
the President of the Council, Lord Lans
downe, who in 1850 innocently explained
to the House of Lords the reciprocal posi
tion of the two Governments of England
and Russia in regard to these very affairs.
He said, “ The most intimate communications
with respect to everything that occurs affect
ing the Powers of the North, and more particularly affecting them at this moment, are
constantly taking place between the Russian
and the British Governments, we availing
OURSELVES OE THE SUGGESTIONS OE RUSSIA,
and Russia expressing her confidence and re
liance in our views, and advising other Powers
to follow the course and adopt the sentiments
SUGGESTED BY US.”
That Denmark needed coercing appears
not only in the words, “ press strongly on the
Danish Government,” but also in the refer
ence to the Danish King’s “ personal feel
ings,” which are to be overridden because
“ this is a matter which affects great European
interests P
From the statement of Lord Lansdowne,
it may be supposed that the Colleagues of
Lord Palmerston were at the time cognisant
of these transactions, that this Despatch was
written after deliberation in Council, and
that the decision was taken with the consent,
as it could only be executed by the authority
of the Queen. In this case Lord Pal
merston might have influenced the judgment
of his Colleagues and the Queen, but he
would not have been secretly coercing a
Foreign Power in the name of England, and
* “ The noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs compromising his country and Sovereign to a
has passed by the Crown and put himself in the place course with which both were unacquainted.
of the Crown.”—Lord John Russell, Feb. 3, 1852.
This inference would, however, be incorrect.
�44
HISTORY OF LORD PALMERSTON.
The explanation of the words of Lord Lans the Succession to the Crown of Denmark ?”
is to be found in a subsequent confi his answer had to be made conformable to
dence made to him, to prepare him for the the engagement that lie had taken towards
speech he had to deliver. That the Queen the Queen in the previous August; the
and his Colleagues were, at the time that this terms of which were conveyed by Lord J.
Despatch was written, and long afterwards, Russell to the House at the same time that
kept in ignorance of its existence, is put he read the Memorandum, and are these.
beyond question by two incidents. The one, “ I have taken a copy of the Memorandum
the answer given by Lord Palmerston in of the Queen ; and will not fail to attend
the March of the following year in the House to the directions it contains.”
of Commons ; the other, the Memorandum of
the Queen read by Lord John Russell in
THE PROPOSITION OF 1850.
February, 1852. In March, 1851, Lord
LORD PALMERSTON TO SIR H. WYNNE.
Palmerston said “ that Her Majesty’s Go
Foreign Office, Feb. 19, 1850.
vernment had stitdiously and systematically
Sir,—I have to instruct you to press strongly on
kept themselves aloof from any negotia the Danish Government the great importance of settling
without delay the question as to the succession to the
tions, &c.”
Crown
is the key to the
The terms here selected are most remark of the of Denmark, which between Denmarkwhole
questions pending
and
able, and could only have been fallen upon Germany.
under some strong necessity. What that If the Danish Government could so settle the
necessity could be does not appear from any succession to the Danish Crown as to insure the
known circumstances belonging to the month continuance of the sovereignty of Denmark, and of both
of March, 1851. But when, in February, the Duchies in one and the same person, it is manifest
questions connected with the fu
1852, the Queen’s Memorandum appeared, that all the other and organisation of the Duchies
ture government
and when it became known that the date of would become of secondary importance, and the so
that document was August, 1850, then that lution of them would be rendered much more easy.
necessity at once appears. It was that of As long as there is a likelihood that in conse
which now exists
concealing from the Queen what he was doing quence of the difference Denmark and the between
the Law of Succession in
Law of
in Denmark.
Succession in Holstein, Holstein will, after the ter
The occasion of the Memorandum was the mination of the present reign in Demark, be sepa
discovery made by the Queen that Lord rated from the Danish Crown, and become a purely
German Duchy, so
Germans strive to
Palmerston had been obtaining her sanc the utmost to attachlong will thepossible to Holstein
as firmly as
tion to measures she did not comprehend, as large a portion as possible of the Duchy of Schles
from the indistinct manner in which he had wig, in order that some portion of Schleswig may
stated them ; that he had arbitrarily altered on the dismemberment of the Danish monarchy,
or modified measures to which her sanction follow the fortunes of Holstein, and become essen
there
had been given ; further, that she was not tially aGerman; and as long aasresult, shall be fore
seen likelihood of such
so long will
kept informed of what passed between him the Danish party at Copenhagen not only strive to
make the separation between Schleswig and Holstein
and foreign Ministers.
The event which preceded the Memo as complete and firm as possible, even to the injury
material
Duchies, but so
randum, and upon which consequently it of thewill they interests of the two escape from the
long
also endeavour to
bore, was the Assemblage of a Conference in plain meaning of the basis adopted by the prelimi
the Foreign Office in Downing-street to alter nary Treaty for the final arrangement of these
the Succession to the Crown of Denmark. matters, and try to connect Schleswig with Denmark
intimately
closely as possible.
The Queen did not confine herself to mere as But if once and continuance of the political union
the
words. She announced the intention of ex between both Duchies and Denmark were secured
pelling the Minister. Of course the execution by a settlement of the Crown of Denmark in favour
of that threat at that moment would have of some Prince who would equally succeed to Hol
disturbed an operation at once of the greatest stein and to Schleswig, then motives for such con
flicting
magnitude and the greatest delicacy. No parties endeavours would cease, and the contending
would become more reasonable and more
less than the escape from Russia of that likely to concur in seme equitable arrangement.
European Crown on which she had almost Her Majesty’s Government have hitherto purposely
closed her grasp, might have been the result. declined to make any suggestion in regard to a matter
considerations peculiarly
The threat of dismissal was contingent, for which involves so manyHis Danish Majesty’s per
regarding Denmark and
its execution, on the engagement of the sonal feelings; but nevertheless, as this is a matter
Minister to change his conduct. It was of which affects also great European interests, you should con
course implied that he should renounce his fidentially ask the Danish Minister whether any, and if any,
felt
D
projects. So that at the moment that he what objections are Dukeby the King of as enmark to
choose the son of the
of Oldenburg successor to
rose to answer the question suddenly put to the Crown of Denmark.
him in March, 1851, “ Are you disturbing There seem to be many circumstances which
downe
�THE DENIAL OF
would point out that Prince as an eligible choice for
such a purpose. He would, it is understood, succeed
equally to Holstein, and of course also to Schleswig,
and the private possessions of the House of Olden
burg would enable him to make arrangements which
would provide eventual compensation to other parties
for any disappointment which such an arrangement
might produce for them.
The Imperial family of Russia would, as is well
known, have claims upon certain portions of Hol
stein in the event of the extinction of the male line in
Denmark, and it is understood that the Emperor of
Russia would be disposed to renounce those claims
in favour of the Prince of Oldenburg, if that Prince
were to succeed to the Crown of Denmark-, whereas the
Emperor might not be equally disposed to do so in any
other case. Her Majesty’s Government have heard
that the King of Denmark rather inclines to settle
the Danish Crown upon a younger son of the King
of Sweden, and Her Majesty’s Government would
be glad to be confidentially informed whether this is
so, and what are supposed to be the relative advan
tages which would arise from such a choice, as com
pared with the choice of the Prince of Oldenburg,
both as regards the feelings of the Danes and as re
gards the facilities which such a choice would give
for the present settlement of pending questions, and
for keeping the Danish Monarchy together for the
future.
I am, &c.,
Palmerston.
*
1851.
45
THE DENIAL OE 1851.
House of Commons, March 20, 1851.
Mr. Urquhart “ begged then to ask, further,
whether in this correspondence there had been any
negotiation as to the succession to the Crown of
Denmark, or in respect to the succession in the
Duchies?”
Viscount Palmerston: “A good deal had passed
in regard to these points, that was to say, in regard
to the succession to the Crown of Denmark; and, as con
nected with that, in regard to the arrangements for
the order of succession in Schleswig and Holstein. But
Her Majesty's Government had studiously and sys
tematically held themselves aloof from taking any share in
these negotiations. Her Majesty’s Government have
confined themselves strictly to the Mediation which
they undertook, which was a Mediation for the pur
pose of bringing about a restoration of peace between
Denmark and the German Confederation.”*
* Hansard. See also the Free Press for July 3,1861,
* Correspondence respecting the Affairs of Denmark,
p. 87.
1850-53, pp. 1, 2, presented to Parliament 1864.
�Appendix
No. 1.
Sayings and Doings of Sir John
Bowring.
MEMOIR OE THE ST. PANCRAS EOREIGN AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE.
to this country. On the 23rd of November,
1859, he read a paper before the Society of
Arts on “ China and its relations to British
Commerce.” In acknowleding a vote of
thanks, he accounted for the Canton Mas
sacre as follows:—
Sir John Bowring, presiding at a meet
“ The honour of the British Flag was confided to me,
ing for Financial Reform and Free Trade, and I certainly had a strong opinion that where such
vast interests were concerned, where such multitudes
at Exeter, January 20, said:—
of human beings looked to that flag as their pro
tection, it did not become me to deliver up a single in
dividual who believed himself to be protected by that
flag to that Commissioner, who, at that period, was
decapitating six hundred or seven hundred human
beings a day. I do say that if I had done what I was
told I ought to have done, I should have allowed these
men to be victimised by the tender mercies of that cruel
tyrant who has poured out more human blood on the
scaffold than any man that ever existed in human
history. I do repeat that if I had delivered up
these Chinese, who, under the British flag, believed
they were entitled to my protection, and had waited
for instructions from home before I menaced Com
Sir John Bowring is notorious chiefly as missioner Yeh for a violation of the Treaty, I should
Superintendent of Trade in China. Could the have had no bed of repose, and I do not believe that
any Englishman in my position would have acted
Chinese look on his face as on that of a friend ? differently ”*
“ He believed that the Divine Being, when He
made the Zodiac,' when He gave the different lands
different powers and different productions, taught
and wrote in letters of light this as a beneficent
Christian law: ‘ What they have in excess, let them
give to you; and what you have in excess, give to
them in payment.’ (Applause.) It was the duty of
all nations to aid, serve, and bless their neighbours,
for all were bound together in the common links of
brotherhood. Each should look on the face of a
foreigner as on the face of a friend—prosperity and
peace would then stand upon foundations which
would never be shaken. (Cheers.)”*
He interfered with their Government, and,
Here are three grounds of defence brought
when they objected, he bombarded their City
of Canton. Governor Yeh has given to the forward:—
1. That the bombardment of Canton was
world the impressions thus created among
undertaken in defence of the British flag.
his countrymen.
2. That this bombardment was necessary,
“The Englishmen, this race of dogs and bears,
unpolite, and destitute of proper manners in society, in order to protect certain Chinese, namely,
who, like wolves and tigers, are greedy, intemperate, the crew of the lorcha Arrow.
bloodthirsty, and beastly, and human and divine
3. That none of these men were delivered
justice despising, incessantly wander from one place
to another, and settle like a swarm of carcase-crows, to the “ cruel tyrant” Governor Yeh.
Every one of these statements is false.'
have come forward from their infernal dwellings to
us ; they treat our heavenly imperial throne with con
1. The lorcha Arrow had no right to use
tempt, and took, in a moment when our troops were the British flag, consequently the honour of
not prepared for it, possession of our fortifications,
burnt the houses and shops of our merchants, and that flag could not be tarnished by the dis
regard of it by the Chinese Government.
carried on their hellish malice to the utmost.”f
The speech given above is not the first that For this the authority is Sir John Bowring
Sir John Bowring has made since his return himself. He wrote to Sir Harry Smith
* Financial Reformer, February, 1865.
f Free Press, vol. iv., p. 284.
* Journal of the Society of Arts, 25th of November,
1859.
�THE FINANCIAL REFORM ASSOCIATION AND SIR JOHN BOWRING.
47
Parkes a few days before the bombardment, avowal therein contained that the men were
given up to the Chinese, demonstrates that
namely, on the 11th October, 1856.
“ It appears, on examination, that the Arrow had no consideration for their safety had even
no right to hoist the British flag.”*
entered the minds of Sir John Bowring and
Nevertheless, on the 14th, Sir John Bow Sir H. S. Parkes.
ring- wrote to Governor Yeh :—
It was not the men who were wanted, but
“ There is no doubt that the lorcha Arrow lawfully the quarrel.
*
bore the British flag.”f
In his speech at the Society of Arts, how
On this General Thompson remarked, in
a letter to the Sheffield Eoreign Affairs Com ever, Sir John Bowring did not state the
points we have just refuted, he only insinuated
mittee, April 4, 1857:—
“ Diplomacy has had the character of being tor them. He carefully avoided positively saying
tuous and insincere; but it is the first time it ever either that the crew of the Arrow had a right
began by saying, ‘ We lied, and we knew we lied.’
to his protection, or that he did not give
Mr. Stapleton, Secretary to Mr. Canning, them up to the Chinese.
emerged from his long retirement, to brand
We have been led to this subject by the
this transaction with the infamy it deserved, connection which Sir John Bowring has
saying:—
established between himself and the Liver
“ They (the British authorities) drew the sword, pool Einancial .Reform Association. It was
and the justification which they put forth was an at a meeting convened to hear an address
acknowledged lie.Ӥ
from a Member of their Council that he made
2. The Bombardment could not have been the speech of which an extract is given at the
necessary for the protection of the men, since commencement of this Memoir.
they were all given up before the Bombard
The Liverpool Einancial Reform Associa
ment. A full account of the matter is to be tion has for seventeen years demanded a re
found in the letters of Sir H. S. Parkes in the turn to one of the ancient customs by which
Blue Book. Sir John Bowring is secure in the Government was controlled, namely, the
the ignorance of his hearers of the contents of directness of taxation. Nay, more, though this
this Blue Book. The Chinese sent back ten has been specially proposed as a necessary part
men who were innocent. Had the object been of freedom of trade, as it undoubtedly is, the
to protect British subjects, Sir H. S. Parkes still more important object of obtaining good
would have kept them, and demanded the other government has not been lost sight of, and it
two. He sent them back again, and asked for has been very clearly explained that if the
the twelve. The twelve were then sent. If people had to pay their taxes directly, they
force was allowable, this was the time to exer would not pay for the piratical proceedings
cise it, by retaining the men. They were sent which, from Central America to China, have
back I The statement would be incredible in late years covered with infamy the British
were it not made by the person incriminated. name.
Sir H. S. Parkes wrote, October 22,
It is therefore with extreme concern that
1856
we learn that this Association, by a vote of
“ As to the surrender of the men, his Excellency
offered early this morning to give up ten of them, thanks to Sir John Bowring for his speech
but twelve having been seized, I declined to receive a at Exeter, has renounced its principles and
smaller number. He thenforwarded the twelve, but not abdicated its character.
in the manner required in my letter of the 8th, and
Sir John Bowring did not act in China
demanded that I should at once return two of them,
He did not in
without any ‘ proper officer’ being deputed to conduct of his own mere motion.
with me the necessary examination. 1 again declined vent the Massacre at Canton. He acted on
to receive them on these conditions, or in any other orders from home. The first despatch an
manner than that described in my letter of the 8th, nouncing that hostilities had taken place, or
and THE MEN WERE AGAIN TAKEN AWAY. Finally,
were expected, reached London January 3,
no apology of any kind has been tendered.”||
3. The men were all delivered up to the 1857.t
On the 23rd January, 1857, Sir Michael
Chinese.
This is clear from the letter just quoted. Seymour wrote:—
At some future time we shall probably be
“ In about a month I may begin to look for the
told that, after all, the men were sent back
to the British authorities. Considering the
* The diplomatic history of the Canton Massacre will
facility of speech shown by Sir John Bow be found in the Free Press for September 28, 1859,
ring, it is remarkable that this statement pages 90-1, beginning with the words in the second
was not made in the Blue Book. The frank column of p. 90, “ On the 3rd of March, 1855,” and
Canton Papers, p. 10.
J Free Press, vol. iv., p. 287.
|| Canton Papers, p. 32.
f Ibid, p. 89.
§ Ibid, p. 217.
ending in the first column of p. 91, with the words,
“ Commerce, Christianity, and civilisation.”
f Papers relating to the proceedings of Her Majesty’s
Forces at Canton, p. 19.
�48
THE FINANCIAL REFORM ASSOCIATION AND MR. URQUHART.
arrival of some of my expected steamers and gun Exchequer visited Liverpool.
*
boats.
These gunboats and steamers had to go
round the Cape of Good Hope.
On the 3rd February, 1857, in the debate
on the Address, Mr. Disraeli said : —
“ The question of China appears to be in the same
category as that of Persia; and I cannot resist the
conviction that what has taken place in China has
not been in consequence of the alleged protest, but
is, in fact, in consequence of instructions received from
home some considerable time ago. If that be the
case, I think the time has arrived when this House
would not be doing its duty unless it earnestly con
sidered whether it has any means for checking and
controlling a system, which, if pursued, will be one,
in my mind, fatal to the interests of this country.”
Lord Palmerston replied:—
“ Now, as to Persia and China, the right honour
able Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) says, the course of
events there appeared to be the result of some system
predetermined by the Government at home. Undoubtedly
it was.”
Sir John Bowring was therefore selected
for this work. But that work is not confined
to foreign parts. In destroying, by his
patronage, one of the very few organisations
of resistance at home, he is equally useful to
his employers. He claims, indeed, to be a
veteran reformer. The following extract
from the Foreign Office List for 1863 shows
that he is a veteran placeman:
Bowring, Sir John, Knt., was nominated by the
Government to proceed to the Low Countries, in
1828, to examine into the manner of keeping the
public accounts. Was engaged in a similar mission
to France, in 1830, with the late Sir Henry Par
nell (afterwards Lord Congleton). Served in 1831
with Mr. Villiers (now Earl of Clarendon), as
Commercial Commissioner in France, to arrange the
basis of a Treaty of Commerce with that country.
Unsuccessfully contested Blackburn in 1832 and
1835. Was appointed one of His Majesty’s Com
missioners for inquiring into the state of registers of
births, deaths, and marriages, not being parochial
registers, in England and Wales, September, 13,
1836. Was returned M.P. for Kilmarnock in 1835,
and for Bolton in 1841 and 1847. Was appointed
Consul in the city of Canton, in the province of
Kwangtung, January 10, 1849; acted as Her Ma
jesty’s Plenipotentiary and Chief Superintendent
of British Trade in China from April, 1852, till
February, 1853; was appointed to that post Decem
ber 24, 1853, and Governor and Commander in and
over the colony of Hong Kong, January 10, 1854
Retired upon a superannuation allowance, July 17,
1859, and was awarded a special allowance, by a
Treasury Minute, dated August 17, 1859. Is a
Knight of the Order of Christ of Portugal. Was
accredited to the King of the Netherlands, and to
the Emperor of the French by King Kamehameha
of the Hawaian Islands, in 1862.
An address
from the Financial Beform Association was
read to him, in which he was roundly taken
to task for reducing the Income Tax,
and was exhorted to retrace his steps,
and abolish indirect taxation. The reply of
Mr. Gladstone was that he would not
discuss the subject unless the reader of the
address would guarantee him a majority in
the House of Commons infavour of his views.
The Association had to be looked to—like
Buenos Ayres—and it has been looked to
accordingly. The same gentleman who read
the lecture to Mr. Gladstone, and who is
one of the most respected, earnest, and ener
getic citizens of Liverpool, is the same who
at Exeter has been prevailed on to associate
his name with that of Sir John Bowring.
Signed by order of the Committee and on
their behalf,
C. D. Collet, Chairman.
C. F. Jones, Secretary.
March 31, 1865.
No. 2.
The Financial Reform Associa
tion and Mr. Urquhart.
[From the Free Press of June 7, 1865.]
The Financial Reformer for May, 1865,
contained the following remarks on the Me
moir of the St. Pancras Foreign Affairs Com
mittee on Sir John Bowring, which was in
serted in the last number of this paper :—
“ Renunciation and abdication Extraordi
nary.—The London Free Press, the organ of Mr.
David Urquhart, has made a most remarkable dis
covery, one which may even match with the revela
tion that Lord Palmerston, being totally cleaned
out of land and fortune, by losses at a gaming-house,
was then and there, or shortly afterwards, pounced
upon by the Princess Lieven with'a bribe of 30,000/.,
and became thenceforth, what the Free Press believes
him still, viz. the bond slave and tool of Russia,
working everywhere, even when fighting against her,
as in the Crimea, in furtherance of Russian aggran
disement. The discovery is, that, albeit we have
hitherto done good service in advocating direct tax
ation as the means of securing both economical go
vernment and freedom of trade, the Financial Re
form Association has now, ‘ by a vote of thanks to
Sir John Bowring for his speech at Exeter, re
nounced its principles, and abdicated its character! ’
And all on account of Sir John’s 1 sayings and dpings’
How this unfortunate conjuncture of in China! There, it seems, Sir John only ‘ acted on
Patriot and Placeman has been brought orders from home-,’ and now he has been called from
his retirement to emmesh us in Palmerstonian toils!
about, can only be inferred.
patronage, says Mr. C. D.
Some months ago the Chancellor of the ‘In destroying, hy his of the St. ’Pancras Foreign
Collet, as Chairman
Affairs Committee, ‘ one of the very few organisa
* Further Papers, p. 32.
�THE FINANCIAL REFORM ASSOCIATION AND THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEES. 49
tions of resistance at home, he (Sir John to wit)
is equally useful to his employers. But the vote of
thanks is not the ovAy-premiss on which this most
astute of plot finders and logicians founds his con
clusions that our principles are gone, and our cha
racter lost beyond redemption. After stating that,
some months ago, we presented an address to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, he winds up with
this awfully mysterious, and tremendously impres
sive announcement: ‘ The Association had to be
looked to—like Buenos Ayres—and it has been
looked to accordingly. The same gentleman who
read the lecture to Ms. Gladstone, and who is one
of the most respected, earnest, and energetic citizens
of Liverpool, is the same who, at Exeter, has been
prevailed on to associate his name with that of
Sir John Bowring.’ Where shall we hide ourselves,
or what will become of us, when the detective who
can spy, or smell mischief through half a dozen
millstones, discovers that we have been ‘ looked to’ a
second time by Sir John, acting, no doubt, as the
agent of Lord Palmerston, in furtherance of some
deep scheme, or villanous machination of the
Emperor of all the Russias? Those Urquhartine
or Collettian phantoms hight ‘ Foreign Affairs
Committees, have their eyes upon us, and our
betrayers. One proof of this is afforded by
the St. Pancras manifesto, and we have another
in private letters addressed by a deputy-secretary of
the Bolton Committee to some of our best friends
there, calling upon them to protest against our
‘ connextion with Sir John Bowring, formally mem
ber of ’ Bolton; and to ask us how we can reconcile
the ‘ bombarment' of Canton with the objects we have
in view? We really don’t see the necessity for any
such reconciliation, or by what species of reasoning,
other than Urqhartine, a vote of thanks for a
capital free trade speech can be twisted into an ap
proval of said ‘ bombarment.' We know not ‘ we77zer’we
shall be forgiven if we recommend a tolerable know
ledge of the art of spelling as a desirable qualifica
tion for the secretary of a ‘ Foreign Affairs Com
mittee but we venture to submit the recommenda
tion, notwithstanding.”
that the Government which succeeded that of
which Lord Palmerston was a member, did,
through one of its departments, make a com
munication to him, in the presence of wit
nesses, of a charge of bribery against Lord
Palmerston, intending him to publish it,
which he refused to do.
In confirmation of the above, we add the
answer given by Mr. Urquhart to the ques
tion of the Newcastle Foreign Affairs Com
mittee, when they asked him why he had
suppressed the charge, which answer appears
in the course of a correspondence between
that Committee and the Financial Reform
Association in 1855. \
“ Q. Why did you decline ?
“ A. Because my charges against Lord Palmer
ston bore upon his acts, and I could have nothing
to do with a matter such as this. Not only did I
decline making use of the information so tendered,
but during these thirteen years, I have never men
tioned the incident, until recently called upon to
state whether such and such a thing had taken place.
I must add that the matter had not for us the im
portance which it seems to have now for you.”
In a subsequent letter to the Chairman of
the Newcastle Committee, dated January 16,
1856, Mr. Urquhart says :—
“ As to your question respecting my belief in the
same (the charge), I have difficulty in giving an
answer. I rejected the evidence when tendered to
me at the time, and therefore I have no means of
knowing on what it rests. It could not awaken in
terest in my mind, because it proved to me nothing
new. All I can now say is this: that I am per
suaded of there being grounds for the charge, by the
falsehood of Mr. McGregor, and by the reserve of
Mr. Gladstone, especially when taken in conjunc
tion with the fact that no legal proceedings have
been taken, either by Lord Palmerston or by
As a correspondence is now pending in Hart.”
reference to this article, we abstain from re
marking upon it, further than to say, that it
is not true that the Free Press has put for
ward the allegations against Lord Palmer
ston referred to. With two exceptions, the
Free Press, as published in London at pre
sent, and for the last nine years, does not
contain a line upon the subject. One of
these exceptions is an article quoted in 1858
from the Birmingham Journal on the ap
pointment of Lord Clanricarde * The
other is a reprint in the same year of an
article from the Free Press, as published
at Sheffield nearly three years before, en
titled “ The Bright Imposture.” f
We are authorised by Mr. Urquhart to
state, that it is not true that he is the ori
ginator of any such allegations. That so far
from such being the case, he has used his
influence to prevent the story from being
spread or dwelt upon. Bat that it is true
* Vol. VI. p. 16.
f Vol. VI. p. 208.
The sum alleged to have been given was
not 30,000Z., as stated in the Reformer, but
20,000Z. We propose in our next number
to reproduce the former correspondence on
this subject with the Financial Reform Asso
ciation.
No. 3.
The Financial Reform Associa
tion and the Foreign Affairs
Committees.
[From the Free Press of October 4, 1865.]
No answer has been received from the Pre
sident of the Financial Reform Association
to the letter already published in this journal '
from the St. Pancras Committee. But the
following notice appeared, as if addressed to •
a correspondent, in its organ, the Financial
Reformer:—
E
�50
LETTER FROM MR. CRAWSHAY TO MR. HOLLAND.
“ NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS.
' as a mercenary? Or do you mean that having once
“ Mr. C. D. Collet.—This gentleman must excuse us received your money, he ought not now to speak when
for declining to discuss withhim the questions to which in his judgment you are betraying the cause in the
he has devoted upwards of twenty-three columns of furtherance of which he served you? I know nothing,
his paper, in the shape of a letter signed by another Sir, of Mr. Collet’s dealings with your Association.
person, and seven columns more in the form of a I do know of his dealings with ours. I know, and
leader. We are.content to let his absurdly illogical you know, of his labours in connexion with “ The
assumption,—that the Association has ‘renounced Association for the Repeal of the Tax on News
its principles and abdicated its character’ by accept papers and the Excise on Paper ”
ing the co-operation of Sir John Bowring, in fur
Mr. Collet’s public life has been a life of sacrifice.
therance of free-trade principles,—go for what it is Mr. Collet has given to his country everything that
worth, which must be just nothing in the estimation he had to give. Because he had not fortune to give
of all rational beings. And as to the rest of his mi you have insulted him.
nutely laboured lucubrations, epistolary or editorial,
But there is something more in question here. A
touching the alleged bribery of Lord Palmerston, personal insult to Mr. Collet is your mode of deal
and the'opinions of Mr. Porter, Mr. McGregor, ing with an official communication from one of our
Mr. David Urquhart, or anybody else thereanent, Committees, addressed to the Liverpool Financial
we attach to them equal value, and nothing more. Reform Association through yourself as Chairman.
We wish him, and his leader, and the mythical You thus insult us at the same time. You besides
‘ Committees on Foreign Affairs,’ joy of all the call us “ mythical.” Now, sir, in judging of the
mares’ nests they have discovered, and doubt not claims of any voluntary association, such as ours or
that there are many more in store for their fertile yours, to be treated, on the one hand, with respect, or
and somewhat diseased imaginations. But as to dis on the other hand with contempt as an imposture,
cussing their merits with a gentleman who writes I think you cannot complain, if I propose as the
under a feigned signature, in order that he may quote grounds of such judgment, not the numbers, or the
largely from a pamphlet of his own composition, for wealth, or the station of the individuals composing
which he was handsomely paid by the Association, such an association; not even the sacrifices of time,
and who, moreover, holds himself at liberty to quote of money, health, and of feelings, that such indi
from private letters never intended for publication, viduals may have made; but simply and solely the
we should deem it worse than useless to enter into positive results that such an association may have
any controversy with such a disputant, even if there attained. Taking my stand on this, out of many
were no matters of importance pressing upon our circumstances in the ten years history of the Foreign «
attention and absorbing our space.”—Financial Re Affairs Associations, I will mention two only; the
former, August, 1865.
production of the unmutilated Afghan despatches,
and the
of this
from going to
Upon this the following letter was ad war with abstinencelast year. countrythe former cace
Germany
As to
dressed to the President:—
I refer you to Mr. Hadfield, Mr. 7 - p, and
Mr. Crawshay to Mr. Holland.
Kaye the historian; as to the latter,
Mr. Kinglake and Mr. Osborne.
Haughton Castle, Hexham, September 9, 1865.
All that we claim is industry in diffusing infor
Sir,—Having seen the paragraph in the Financial
Tieformer of August 1, addressed to Mr. Collet, mation on these subjects. To those best able to
under the head of “ Notices to Correspondents,” I speak, we refer you as to the value and the effect of
consider it my duty as one of the members of the our efforts. And in case you should make such in
“ Committees on Foreign Affairs,” mentioned in the quiries, I beg particularly that you will couple Mr.
same paragraph, to protest against the conduct of Urquhart’s name with the Committees. But I
the Liverpool Financial Reform Association in thus have no expectation that you will take such a
wantcnly insulting a body of men who have at course. The Liverpool Financial Reform Associa
tempted much, and have accomplished something, tion had at one time an appreciation of the selfevident truth, that a nation which did not con
for the common good.
As to Mr. Collet himself, falsely and calum- trol what are called its “ Foreign Affairs,” could by
niously accused of writing under a feigned signature no possibility control its finances. This was evinced
in order that he might quote largely from a pamphlet by your denunciation of “ Permanent Embassies,”
of his own composition for which he. had been hand and the publication of Mr. Collet’s pamphlet “ Black
somely paid, &c. &c., I must first speak. The sig Mail to Russia.” But now that the Association is
!
nature to the documents which you have received is ready to open its arms to the unscrupulous instrunot a feigned one. Mr. Jones is the Secretary of ment in the commission of the crimes by which a
the Committee which addressed you. The quota “ Permanent Embassy” was forced upon China, and
tions are not from the pamphlet “ Black Mail to has nothing but insult for the men who have stood
Russia,” a pamphlet issued by the Liverpool Finan in the gap against the principal contriver of these
cial Reform Association, but from another pamphlet, and other similar crimes, I feel but too well assured
called “ The Substance of Black Mail to Russia,” as that my protest against your conduct may indeed
stated in the letter of the Committee. But suppose be of use to others, but can be ot no possible use to
the original pamphlet had been quoted, what could you, and that nothing can now save the Liverpool
be the object of alleging that Mr. Collet had been Financial Reform Association from concluding its
“ handsomely paid” by your Association for writing history without having attained any one of the
it ? Is this pamphlet not to be quoted because your objects to attain which it was established.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
Association paid for it ? Is this not a reason on the
George Crawshay.
contrary why it should be quoted as expressing
your views? But it was not quoted. What is this,
The President of the Liverpool Financial Reform
sir, but -the invention of irrelevant circumstances for Association.
the purpose of personal insult as a means of escape
To the above letter no answer has, we
from the discussion of important matters?
Is it your object to hold up Mr. Collet to scorn understand, been received.
THE END,
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Materials for the true history of Lord Palmerston
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Urquhart, David
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 50 p. ; 24 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Reprinted from the Free Press, from May to November, 1865. Contents: 1. Case of alleged bribary. 2. Introduction to the Foreign Office. 3. Connexion with the Princess Lieven. 4. Career of fifty-eight years. 5. Parallel case of Chateaubriand - minister of France and agent of Russia. 6. Connivance of Sir Robert Peel. 7. Public and private crimes. 8. Prostration of public character and authority. 9. Character as displayed in the change of the succession to Denmark. 10. Correspondence respecting Sir John Bowring. - Appendix. Pages badly faded at edges.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Robert Hardwicke
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1866
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5574
Subject
The topic of the resource
Government
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Materials for the true history of Lord Palmerston), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
3rd Viscount Palmerston
Conway Tracts
Great Britain-Politics and Government-19th Century
Henry John Temple