1
10
6
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/62dd8b35636ac897246b0260df2d37fb.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=ekaoKSaYTR7TrwjNKdpJcSwqeXFOJk-GtuAu5fUn-FyDkJKEOiVmzfevvL-ZnQNJ0XLRXcopgRgsyhMWFcoK8vadI13mXfUNMAhjUxhDR29oWIF5bkVe%7EfzKyWHeWyAFj7Leclb4xtgtPqBX6ggX4uu0APbBg35er55LZfdH5F20fldwWICvbu%7E69iY4ahvzXo3aUyyBNPIk8K7LlhrFysXkpq422w-xYZGySTMK54tl9Fa2shlz9jzNsAc0ckSUyn5JgnkauUcVHjYDC302TgYyWYZi3Wketvzu9dZpDlRWRX6yFDsYbtiXSrm1IUY-DN0HfQkDKcR8ltXSdznVjA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
c1e45468ec3edaae0a3f179e2a0123fd
PDF Text
Text
,.o
1;
I
X1'
[From Mr. IIolyoake.~}
k
iw
IW''
A NEW
IW *
Defence of the Ballot
In Consequence of Mr. Mill's Objections to it.
BY
*
George Jacob Holyoake.
*
s®
: political Error is like a Serpent alive at both ends—if severed it may still sting:
A while it wriggles it lives: and those who mean to end it must—chop at it.
V
jL
J||f .
4
[FOURTH EDITION."]
LONDON:
BOOK STORE, 282, STRAND, W.C.
1868.
[threepence.] "
�PREFACE.
'
reads these few pages, will see the occasion of them. Since many
politicians have treated the same subject, it will seem presumption or
weariness for me to recur to it; but experience teaches that long standing
error, and especially Political error is like a serpent alive at both ends__
if severed it may still sting : while it wriggles it lives: and those who
meali to end it must—chop at it.
This statement of the case of the Ballot was made at the Council of the
London Reform League. Mr. Edmond Beales, the President, expressed
in the name of the Council, approval of the argument and Mr. A cl and
moved that it be printed, and with a view to its circulation, at this time,
in the Branches of the Reform League and other Political Societies.
While the Third Edition was in the press, Lord Hartington spoke upon
the subject of these pages at Standish, and Mr. Hughes, M.P., at Frome.
Their conjoint Speeches sum up the sentimental objections to the Ballot.
Lord Hartington says “ all public duties ought to be performed openly,
especially the great constitutional duty electors owe to their country.”
. One would fall prostrate before the moral elevation assumed by this noble
lord, did not one see that he is careless whether the great “ duty ” be
performed or not: since he has at no time proposed that its discharge be
made obligatory upon the elector. His lordship connives at the desertion
of the “ duty they owe to their country ” by half the electoral community
who do not vote, and are not obliged to vote at all; and so of Mr. Hughes,
who alleges that “open voting is more manly than secret voting,” but takes
no account of the compulsion of voting openly : Is that manly ? The de
pendent voter can be taken by the nose as soon as he has given his vote,
and he has to submit to it. And is this Mr. Hughes’ theory of Electoral
manliness ? As an officer of volunteers, Mr. Hughes thinks it good judg
ment to take them into the field in an attire which does not expose them
by conspicuousness to the enemy, but he would take up his electors to the
Poll ticketed like a target. Like the Spectator, Mr. Hughes appears to
regard it unmanly in Liberals to use discretion in fighting.
G. J. H.
20, Cockspur Street, 8. W.
�A
New Defence of the Ballot.
It is incumbent upon those who took part in limiting the discussions of the
Reform League to its own programme, to show that the subjects which the League
is pledged to promote, are capable of occupying its members and interesting the
public. It was for this reason that I asked last year for an opportunity of calling
attention to the arguments by which the claim to the Ballot may be supported,
and at our Meeting at St James’s Hall, on the 28th of January, I indicated, in a
short speech, the reasons I now more fully state.
For years past, the subject of the Ballot has been thought to be insipid—it has
been felt to be growing obsolete—it has been much assailed by defamatory and con
temptuous epithets. As a Beacon-light of the Liberal party, it has burned of
late years, but fitfully. One who utters nothing lightly on questions of public
moment—Mr. J. S. Mill, M.P. has declared that “ the Ballot ought to form no
part of a measure for reforming the representation of the people.”
Even now, ardent advocates of the Ballot—as Mr. Noble—speak of it apologetically,
as something which they wish the people were strong enough to do without, and
only defend it as a political necessity of the time—warranted by the presence of
intimidations which excuse the weak for desiring the protection of the Ballot—
but which the manly s/iould, and the patriotic otherwise wouZd, instinctively reject
These opinions, and these concessions indicate the modern misconception of the
uses and dignity of the Ballot. Instead of apologising for desiring the Ballot, we
ought to apologise for being without it, it being a mark of manliness to demand it,
and of independence to possess it. The Ballot is the weapon of the strong and of
the strong only—a condition of individuality of action and a necessary complement
of enfranchisement.
Mr. Mill, who like Jeremy Bentham, is a master of what an American would
call “ iron-clad phrases ”—says that the Ballot means “ secret suffrage.” It is
this very quality which makes it invaluable. Secret suffrage is Free suffrage—
secret suffrage means an impenetrable, an impassable, a defiant suffrage.
Bribery cannot touch it—-intimidation cannot reach it—that delicate instrument
in Electioneering Mechanics, known as the political screw—cannot operate upon it.
There is a right and a wrong side in most things—yet in arguing upon the Ballot
it is suggested that that which is secret must be wrong altogether. There are two
descriptions of secrecy—an infamous secrecy and an honourable secrecy. The base
kind of secrecy is that employed in mean, furtive, or criminal acts; as when a
man lies, or conceals the truth in giving evidence, or clandestinely filches from
another. But there is a second description of secrecy which is manly, as when I
lock my doors against intrusive or impertinent people—or when I exclude others
�4
from meddling with my affairs without my consent—or when I provide for the
protection of my own interests in my business or my family. This is necessary and
justifiable secrecy. In these cases I merely exercise the right of personal privacy
*
in what concerns me primarily, vitally, and concerns me alone. Privacy is my
protection. For guarding my personal interests in the state the Ballot is all this
to me.
The Ballot is not “ secret voting ” in the bad sense of being the act of an un
avowed agent—done in an unrecognized manner—and for a venal object. The
Ballot is secret suffrage in the legitimate sense of privacy and security. The voter
is a known person—he is selected by the state—his qualifications are approved—he
is an appointed elector—he has recognized interests at stake—he is an instructed
and informed agent. The Candidates who offer themselves to represent him have
appealed to him—they have addresed him—they have set forth their claims before
him—he has a duty assigned him to his country and his conscience. Now there
is only one method by which he can discharge this duty. It is only by the use
of a secret suffrage that he can come personally forward in a way in which corrup
tion can have no hope of arresting him, and intimidation no chance of diverting
or deterring him from indicating who shall be his responsible agent to represent his
views—tax his resources, protect his interests—and attempt in his name to increase
the freedom, honour and repute of his native land.
All this independence of action, is my business as a voter, and if that indi
viduality of action which Mr. Mill so usefully vindicates, is to be secured to me—
voting must be left my business. It is no affair of my neighbour how I vote, or
for whom I vote, or why I vote—since I exercise no power or freedom which he does
not equally possess, and which I do not equally concede to him. I am said to be
an “ independent ” elector, I am told it is my duty to be independent; then why
should any one want to know how I vote ? I am not called upon to consult my
neighbour as to what I shall do. If I am obliged to consult him he is my master,
but he has no business with a knowledge of my affairs, and if he wants it he
is impertinent—if he insists upon it he is offensive—and means me mischief if I
decline to do his bidding.
Open voting was invented by persons who had an interest in persuading the
people they were free, when all the while they were under effectual control.
Those who devised open voting knew what they were about. It did not matter
much who had votes, so long as the aristocracy, the landlords, or labour-lords
could always know who gave votes against them. Poes any one suppose that with
the feelings which the governing classes entertained towards the people, that they
would give the suffrage to any number of the people, to do with it what they
pleased, and use it in a manner unknown, and therefore uncontrollable ?_ The
governing classes in State and Church would have been idiots, with their distrust
of the multidude, to have parted with vital power, that they could no longer check.
It would have been in their eyes an act of wholesale abdication. They saw in the
Ballot the removal of the dam which kept the deluge from their doors.
The “manipulators of mankind” who devised open Voting, knew it must be
submitted to, because they were able to enforce it, but they looked to its being
decried and resented from the first moment its purport was seen: it never occurred
to them that future patriots could be found to applaud it, and that philosophy, would
discover political virtue in it. Tyranny may hope yet that some one will discover
that oppression is a scheme for developing the manliness of slaves.
* There is a good and bad publicity as well as a good and bad privacy. That is a good publicity
when a man is accorded the Victoria Cross. That is a villainous publicity, when, for instance an
Elector is convicted of selling his vote.
�Reformers on the other hand clung to the Ballot with the instinct of self-pre
servation. Then their national pride was assailed and they were told (Lord Palmer
ston was great at this) that it is un-English to fight the hattie of freedom with
precaution. According to this reasoning the use of armour plates is cowardly, and
it is un-English for a gunner to fire from a casemate.
I esteem the courage of individuality as highly as Mr. Mill, hut there is no
reason why individuality should not take care of itself. It is madness, not manli
ness in a man who opposes his single head to twenty swords. His fool-hardiness
will merely deter others, and the reputation for courage he will acquire will not
outlive the Coroner’s Inquest upon him.
Individuality like other virtues is subject to the law of self-preservation. There
might be more individuality of character than there is if every man was his own
policeman. There might be more personal resolution than there is, if every man
rejected the enervating equality of the law, which protects the weak against the
strong. Then even the coward must fight and the weak must struggle or perish. But
that is insanity of individuality which wantonly enters upon unequal conflicts; and
open voting is of the same order of fatuity. Secret suffrage is the Needle-gun which
places the proletariat and the proprietor upon an equality in the electoral combat.
The theory of Representative Government calls upon me to delegate my power
to another for a given time. Once in seven years I am master of the situation—
afterwards I am at the mercy of the Member of Parliament I elect. He may tax
me, he may compel the country into war, he may be a party to base treaties, he
may limit my liberty, he may degrade me as an Englishman, but I am bound by
his acts. From election to election—he is my master. I must obey the laws he
helps to make, or he will suspend the Habeas Corpus Act and put a sword at my
throat, or fire upon me with the latest improved Rifle he has made me pay for in
the Estimates.
I may howl but I cannot alter anything. My only security is that a time will
come when I shall be master again. I shall taste of power for one supreme mo
ment, when I shall stand by the Ballot Box. Then I can displace the member
who has betrayed me, and choose another representative in his stead. But if the
Candidate, or friends of the Candidate, subject me to espionage as I approach the
Polling Booth, he can defy me and perpetuate his power to cheat me. If, because
a man’s politics are not of the Government pattern, Sir Richard Mayne (who always
treats the working class as a criminal class) is minded to place him under sur
veillance, as a political suspect—that is intolerable, yet this is not more so than
that the Parish Overseer should be placed in the Polling Booth to watch how
he votes, and report it to whomsoever it may concern. This is to legalize the
“ tyranny of the majority.”
Disguise it as you may, the device of open voting is mere political insolence. I
am told that the vote is “ a trust ” then let me be trusted with it! I am not
trusted so long as my use of it is watched. If I choose to vote openly that is my
bravery, my pride, my ostentation, or my hardihood—if I am forced to vote openly
that is the badge of my inferiority—it is the sign that I am not to be trusted. The
open voter who is compelled to be so, is under surveillance—he is kept under the
eye of his masters—he carries only a political Ticket-of-Leave, and is duly reported
to the political police—his landlord, his employer, his customer, or his priest.
My power of secrecy is the sign of my independence, and I treat as my enemy
all.who, under any pretext, would impose upon me the degradation of publicity. I
repeat, in order to impress it, that under the representative system the state
accords to me but one minute of independence in seven years, namely, the mo
ment when I give my vote. My interests, my preferences, my honour, my con
science, my country are then in my own keeping; and neither my neighbour, nor
my employer, nor my landlord, nor the Government, shall, if I can help it, control
�6
me then. If I am to share the responsibility of a citizen I will be free. But to be free
I must have the power of defiance—and. there is no defiance save in secrecy. I am
ever at the mercy of those who retain in their hands the power of knowing what
I do at the Polling Booth.
It is asked why should the member of Parliament be compelled to vote openly_
it the elector votes secretly ? I answer, because the member is the responsible
agent—the elector is the master—the elector delegates to the member the power of
life and death, of freedom or coercion over him ; and he has therefore the right to
know how this power is exercised, and to recall it one day, if need be. It is the
elector who gives dignity to the member, not the member who gives dignity to the
elector. The elector never abdicates his manhood or mastership; and so long as the
Constitution secures him this independence, he yields to the law, to which he con
sents by his representative—a proud obedience, which otherwise no cunning could
win and no,force exact.
1 do not say the Ballot gives wisdom, I only say that it gives freedom. A man
may give a silly vote secretly as well as openly. It is true that with the Ballot a
man is free to be a fool—but without it he is not free to be wise—politically. But
you cannot disenfranchise men for being fools—if you were to do that you would
make such abstractions from the present constituencies that in many towns and
counties there would be no voters left to elect anybody.
This argument invalidates no one of these ordinarily advanced in favour of the
Ballot. It is still true that the Ballot would frustrate Bribery—baffle intimidation
and economise the expense of elections ; but if it made them dearer I should reason
as I do, for independence is worth all it costs.
Since the days of Defoe there has been a clamour for the Ballot in England —
because the Liberals were narrower in the throat and tenderer in the head than
their opponents. The Tories excel in shouting and fighting. They are more certainly
. the violent than they are the “ stupid ” party. At the last election in Rochdale the
Reformers with the thickest heads had to be placed in the front. Only patriots with
craniums of a well ascertained density were able to serve their country at the Poll;
and as a general rule, where the Candidate’s purse invigorates the contest, the
peculiarity of a free and independent elector is—a bandaged head.
With a secret suffrage the voter, Mr. Mill says, is “ under no inducement to
defer to the wishes of others.” True he is under no arbitrary inducement—but he
remains under the natural inducements of sympathy, of conviction as to its utility
or rightfulness, to consult the wishes of others. He ought to be under no other
inducements. If the wishes cf others are to be made compulsory upon him, the honest
course is to set him aside and let the “ others,” whose wishes are to prevail vote
for him. I refuse to be bound by any consideration, or by any coercion of publicity,
to vote as “ others ” wish. If I am taxed “ others ” will not pay my taxes—if I am
oppressed or degraded “ others ” will not bear my dishonour. I therefore repudiate
any coercive obligation to vote as “ others ” wish—whether in days of peace or
strife, now, or at any time.
A strong point against secret suffrage, is, as Mr. Mill puts it, that the mean or
selfish can do the base thing and “ escape shame or responsibility.” But these
knaves do this now under open voting—they always make things pleasant for
themselves. You cannot reach them except by administering Lynch law at the
Polling Booth, or pursuing them by a Vigilance Committee.
|
If the base or selfish are to be coerced by exposure and risk, it should be done to
« ’ jurymen- base jurors may set the rascal free, or hang the innocent through prejudice, or inattention to evidence—but if to expose these you were to subject all
jurymen to the danger of publicity, you would have fewer honest verdicts than
you get now. You get justice done by giving security to those who award it—and
this is the only way of getting honest votes at the Poll.
�1
r Mr. Mill is a leader, who allures all who seek light, by the luminousness of « >.
thought which he sheds over every subject he treats, and his conclusions are
usually stated with such lucid force, that allegiance becomes a necessity of the
understanding: and I should hesitate to dissent from him, did not long experience
and passionate conviction, assure me that it ought to be done. Mr. Mill’s
<
eminence, sincerity and perspicacity, have lent to the case of the opponents
of the Ballot a dignity and weight, with which they were unable them
selves to invest it. But it is contrary to Mr. Mill’s principles or practice to desire
Reformers to acquiesce in his arguments, unless convinced by them. All he asks is,
that which he has a right to ask—that his views shall prevail unless good reasons
can be given against them. We all desire, as much as Mr. Mill, or Mr. Hughes,
or Mr. Gladstone, that manliness shall prevail among Englishmen. What I ask is
that manliness shall have fair play. But that is a mere mania for manliness, which
would prohibit the conditions of its action. It no doubt would be one form of
manliness to send our merchantmen out into a sea, infested and kept infested with
pirates. But it is far more manly in a nation to sweep the sea clear of pirates, and
keep it clear. Open voting invests the sea of politics with pirates, and it is no
»
more decent in those who happen to be able to fight, to do so, than it is lawful for
those who are able to protect themselves when assaulted, to take the law into
their own hands, and exempt the judge from the duty of punishing the offenders.
I maintain therefore, that the secret suffrage is English, because it is English to
be free and defiant. Manliness does not consist in living under the obligation of
fighting, but in the capacity of fighting when fighting is inevitable. The compul
sion of open voting enables the Briber to follow the scoundrel who has sold his
country, to see that he renders his vote to the Candidate who has had the baseness
to buy it. Since voting is made open, and not also compulsory—it does nothing to
ensure individuality of character. For it enables the coward to skulk his duty at
the Poll, and subjects him who shows himself there to all the social penalties of
publicity. On some it entails violence, on others loss of employment or connections,
it may'be £5, it may be £500 a year, according a voter’s extent of business—and to
expose him to these risks represses, not promotes, individuality. Individuality is
a quality which requires encouragement to grow—but it must possess a ferocious
vitality if it developes itself under the treatment, to which public voting subjects it.
The Individuality of action, Mr. Mill aims at, is only to be obtained out of a
quickened conscience and an intellect open to truth, left to exercise itself in a fair
field, where facts can act. You can no more get men through the wicket
gate of the Poll, where they may be marked for reprisals and penalties, than you
can get cattle through the butcher’s door after they smell blood. Those whom you
do get there at dangerous elections, are mostly they who are too poor, or too obscure
to be hurt, or those who care not what follows—until it overtakes them; then as many
of them that are harmed, ever after run screaming about the world against the cost
liness of being a Reformer, creating reaction everywhere. When a Voter comes to
grief in this way, and has to look to friends for aid; neither he nor his friends
like the situation: and if he regards his- difficulty as one of the casualities of
patriotism, thoughtfully provided by Liberal politicians, lest sacrifices should be
deficient among their followers, the household' of the weak-headed Voter, quickened
by consequences, take a very different view of the matter : and do more than any
enemies can, to spread disaffection in ranks, where the policy of the generals is to
keep up the manliness of their troops, by exposing their families to the fire of the
foe. In military affairs the commander prides himself on affording all possible
shelter to his forces. It is only in political warfare, that generals take credit
for exposing their troops to fatal reprisals.
It is because I am an advocate of “ Individuality ” that I am an advocate of the
Ballot. The ruler, the master, the priest, always suspect that the human machine
will go wrong, unless they wind it up and keep the key in their pocket. Every man
,
•
»
�likes to have his hand on his neighbour’s shoulder. I would take it off onee in
every seven years. You see I advocate no terrible innovation. I would trust the
grown-up taxpayer with the control of his own affairs, for one minute at every Gen
eral Election. This is all that the Ballot means.
In argument, no question is met unless it is met on the strongest ground the op
ponent takes. To call the Ballot “ secret voting,” is the most damaging epithet
an adversary applies to it, I, therefore, accept Mr. Mill’s phrase. The term which
the friends of the Ballot would select, is that of Free voting. Personal voting is a fair
term for it. A man votes, as he marries, not for his neighbour’s satisfaction, but for his
own. Mr. Mill says, that if a voter may go wrong, “ but the feeling of responsi
bility to others may keep him right, the friends of the Ballot admit that not secrecy,
but publicity should be the rule.” I, a friend of the Ballot, refuse to admit this.
Whether the voter goes right or wrong, I stand by his freedom. He is responsible
to no publicity. He is responsible alone to his sense of right and the public good.
A “ secret suffrage ” would not, as some fear, convert life into a strategem. Secrecy
is like salt—an entire meal of salt would be highly unpalatable, but a little salt
sprinkled over a meal, approves itself to the taste of all nations. And a little
(wise- and conditional) secrecy sprinkled upon the Ballot box, makes a vote palatable
to the conscience, and sweetens the politics of the Kingdom.
We hear on all hands to day from Parlia’mentary Members, an admission which
has humiliation in it. They are saying to their constituents that the intimidation,
menaced by the Tories, is driving us to the Ballot. This is indeed an un-English
confession. If the Ballot be a wrong thing, nothing should drive Reformers to it.
The Ballot is spoken of as a sort of dastard’s refuge, which the heroic Reformers
should despise. I for one decline the Ballot on these terms. If it be a mere craven
security, or an ignoble defence, Reformers should have none of it. Some Candidates
say if the people demand it, it must be conceded. But if it be a wrong thing in
itself, I would neither concede it, nor acquiesce in conceding it—however the people
might demand it. We will not send the Hon. Mr. Berkely annually to the Bar of
Parliament to plead for a cowardly democracy. We will accept all the responsix
bility of freedom. We adopt no disguise of the slave and obey no instinct of the
fool. The bravado of open voting does not conceal from us that it is an acknow
ledgment of the right of others to control us. We repudiate that, and therefore
we resent as an outrage any attempt to subject’us to the manipulation of others.
*
The Ballot is the imperial attribute of the Sovereign Elector, whose province it'is
to impose responsibility upon the Representative, the elector himself being responsi
ble to the law alone, should he sell the birth-right of his freedom, his Vote—in
which case it should be forfeited for evermore.
At a General Election I would make no question supreme. Every Candidate
should be accepted on his general merits, and the ground of his recognized capacity
and public services. But I would ask of every new Candidate “Do you mean to
vote for the Ballot—not merely acquiesce in it, if you must; not, merely vote for
it, if others do—but do you mean it?—do you care for it ?—will you be at trouble
to secure it, and establish forthwith, for me as an Elector, my rightful and un
assailable independence at the Poll ? ”
•Let any one who doubts this, read Mr. Hepworth Dixon’s notable Address on EreeVoting, delivered
at Guildford, April 23rd, 1868. He will there see how James I. and Charles I. dealt with the
Ballot Box.
For Distribution a Cheaper Edition is Published.
Single Copies, Id.; Twelve, tod.; Twenty-five, Is. Post Free. Apply—
Mr. Howell, Secretary, Reform Teague, 8, Adelphi Terrace, London, TF C. '
�
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
A new defence of the ballot in consequence of Mr. Mill's objections to it
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: 4th
Place of publication: London
Collation: 8 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Holyoake, George Jacob
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Book Store
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1868
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5220
Subject
The topic of the resource
Political science
Suffrage
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 (A new defence of the ballot in consequence of Mr. Mill's objections to it), 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
Conway Tracts
Great Britain-Politics and Government-19th Century
John Stuart Mill
Political reform
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/6333f11bc99c282025542ca3f86a95c8.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=sPL8p2m7JUIqiFAKgRbV8WqxKkmgN33CefKxPHvg9DrAuMGx6o6GDdbcM4iF6eTjSLZp6lvz62JVHWzjN7-zQk68ECvxmqb5YsTjfZpMPThxlhkb%7EVPTsgcFOU7PHS14sBymCjc396DQ33LE7JUNHh75fSePuZWQGValXvPIICxLkvZNAL5CrKipbYOxEqSb-7-bHjErNuQi7F1EI0BW8S-dl4IAgO-S5WWdfYPPmjsOFjUktzYVt8yMh%7E4U9op6%7ESOGeIlHAJYSVnJmOQndReJPvzBMgAEHSnz6HYaSUh0MK5aNe6a3nvf08OHvcScSY9WBX8lhDTnSp2sGLE-Z%7EA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
1f89e52cab993d5a0a981c8f5b140abc
PDF Text
Text
V
-
*****
ENGLISH
r
INSTITUTIONS
AND THEIR MOST
NECESSARY REFORMS.
A CONTRIBUTION OF THOUGHT
BV
FRANCIS W. NEWMAN,
LATE PROFESSOR IN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON.
LONDON:
TRUBNER & CO., 60, PATERNOSTER ROW.
1865.
*
�Where materials are vast, conciseness may be accepted by the
Reader as a compliment to his intellect, not as a dogmatism.
Whatever the colour of his political creed, let him consent for
h^fr an hour to suspect fallacy in his customary axioms.
judges freely who does not think freshly.
No one
�ENGLISH
INSTITUTIONS
AND THEIR MOST
NECESSARY REFORMS. '
HERE are times in national history, at which
the urgent business of the classes in power is,
to increase the number of citizens loyal to the con
stitution : then, what seems to be a great democratic
move, may be made simply to avoid civil war. Such
was the crisis of 1832: such might have been that
of 1848. But, in spite of insurrection successful in
Sicily, Paris, Vienna, and Berlin, the English aristo
cracy in the latter year judged stiff and total resist
ance safer than any concession; relied on our hatred
of anarchy ; and by rallying the middle classes round
the standard of legality, quickly dissipated all fear
of Insurgent Reform. That lesson has not been
lost on Conservatives. Our wealth is more massive,
our thriving class reaches lower, in 1865 than in
1848. Education has spoiled political aspirants for
revolutionists. Let Reformers therefore take to
heart, that they have no chance now of succour from
the influences which carried the Reform Act of 1832.
If they are to have any organic changes, great or
small, they must persuade the actual holders of
constitutional power, and not forget the House of
Lords: otherwise, they do but waste their effort. ‘
For the reforms urged in these pages I would
plead with equal simplicity before the House of
Lords or before an assembly of Chartists. The
T
�4
arguments would differ in their relative importance,
but would never need to be dissembled.
The
nuisances which have to be abated, bring evil to
every political order and class of the nation, though
the weakest part of the nation of course suffers most
from them.
Where the object of a great national reform is, to
strengthen one Order by lowering another; to humil
iate the pride of a dynasty or of a peerage; or to en
force some large sacrifice of pecuniary means :—the
nature of the proposed change cannot be disguised.
Undoubtedly much strong language is heard among
us against aristocracy and in favour of democracy,
which, taken to the letter, might seem to imply that
aristocracy, in its legitimate sense, is to be depressed
and stript of honour.
But in fact bureaucracy
and centralization are the real foes, both of them
hostile to the genius of the constitution in former
days, and in no way closely allied to aristocracy as
such. Centralization has come in from Continental
Despotism, from the first French Revolutionists, and
largely from the writings of Bentham, as I under
stand. Bureaucracy has been ever on the increase
through the enormous extent of the empire, and the
immensity of power devolving on the ministry of
the day; while Parliament is too slow in learning
facts to be any adequate check. The House of
Peers, as an Order, has no interest in bureaucracy,
and none in centralization. Hence without a shadow
of paradox, and with perfect straightforwardness, I
maintain, that from a true Conservative point of
view our nation has to retrace many wrong steps
and make many right ones, quickly and boldly.
Not that it is paradoxical to hold, that in certain
cases it is for the true interest and true honour of a
ruling class—just as to a despotic king—to have
new checks put on its power. No man is to be
congratulated that his baser passions can bear
sway over him without restraint; and no party, no
�ministry, no Order of the State, is stronger or more
honourable, when its less wise or less virtuous
members can assume the guidance of it. Whatever
from without bridles them, is a real strength to the
party or Order, and will tend to its permanent
honour.
In a pamphlet already widely disseminated, I
have avowed my conviction, that to extinguish all
future creation of hereditary peers is the first need
ful step of reform. But it is equally my conviction
that this may be so done, and ought to be so done,
as to make us all proud of the House of Lords,
strengthen its efficiency, and in no way impair
practically its hereditary character, which (under
rightful modifications) I know how to value.
The course which Whig-Radical Reform has
hitherto taken has greatly frightened many reason
able Conservatives : I maintain that it ought also to
displease, if not alarm, all sincere and reasonable
Radicals,—because it tends to bring us to the French
goal not to the American goal. With a Central
authority preponderating so enormously over our
Local; a Parliament by the side of which every
Municipality is a pigmy; a Ministry, wielding an
executive so vast, while our Mayors and Lord
Mayors have sunk into pageants;—every step of
change which merely extends the Parliamentary
franchise, is a step towards a system in which it is
decided by universal suffrage once in 7 years, what
oligarchy shall be our despotic rulers. A Reform
in the direction of restoring the essential principles
of the old English Constitution ought not to frighten
Conservatives: a reform to re-establish what through
total change of' circumstances is now unsuitable,
ought not to be desired by Radicals. I cannot but
feel that it is a popular fallacy to say, that because
the original Parliament was elected by universal
suffrage, therefore the same thing is now proper.
Admit for the moment that the fact was as is
�6
asserted: yet the different functions needed from
the modern Parliament demand far wider political
information and intelligence in its electors. The
existing system is confessedly inadequate to the
nation : Tories and Whigs have avowed it, nor am
I defending things as they are. But before we
enter on a course which must become a mere ques
tion of strength, and may convulse us—not by civil
war, but by bitter discontents and impaired patriot
ism—more deeply than any one yet knows; let
thoughtful men of all sides be willing to reconsider
the entire position of things.
§ i. Before judging what reforms we need, we must
consider what grievances exist. I enumerate under
six heads the greatest of our organic evils and
sorest of our dangers.
i. Our wars made immorally. —War is crime on
*
the greatest scale, except when it is a necessary
measure of police for a commensurate object of
justice. No man can be hanged or deprived of his
property without the solemn verdict of men sworn
to uphold the right : yet we bombard cities, depose
princes, take possession of territory, drive families
into beggary, without any previous public hearing
or public deliberation; without any verdict of jus
tice ; at most by the vote of a secret cabinet, not
sworn to prefer the just to the convenient; nay, the
thing may be done at the will of one or two men in
Asia, without orders from England, or by the hot
headedness of a commodore; yet be ratified and
followed up, barely because it would hurt our pride
to disown it. These wars disgrace our ruling classes
*List of Queen Victoria’s wars.—War of Canada,—of Syria,—of Afghan
istan,—of Scinde and Moultan,—two Punjaub wars,—two Caffir wars,—war of
Assam,—war of Burma,—three Chinese wars,—Persian war,—Russian war,—■
war of Japan,—New Zealand wars,—war of Bhootan,—besides wars internal
to India or Ceylon, little wars in West Africa, and in South America. Of all
these wars only one (that of Russia) received previous mature consideration and
had national approval; and only one (the first Punjaub war) was a war of
defence against a foreign invader. Even that invasion was caused by our
aggression and conquest of Scinde.
�7
to the foreigner and bring upon them diplomatic
humiliations. To the poor of this country they are
’ the direst and most incurable of evils, entailing and
riveting upon them all their depression. If there
be a government of God on earth, no nation can
afford to make wars of cupidity or of pride.
This first grievance implies that Parliament is no
adequate check on the Ministry, and that the Min
istry has iro adequate control on its distant subor
dinates, in the matter of extra European war.
2. Our administrative inefficiency.—At the time
of the Crimean mismanagements, there was great
. outcry for administrative reform : it is not needful
here to do more than allude to the monstrous and
frightful facts which so harrowed the mind of Earl
Russell, then in the cabinet as Lord John Russell.
But in that great war, our Admiralty postponed to
build the gunboats wanted for the Baltic in 1854
and 1855 : built in preference great ships which
were not needed, and finally completed the gunboats
by 1856 after peace was made.—In the last four
years, the United States Admiralty, beginning from
nothing in their docks and almost nothing on the
seas, have built fleets adequate to their vast war ;
with 2000 miles of coast to blockade and great
flotillas on the rivers. It has been done for less
cost in gold, than that which our Admiralty has
expended in the same four years of peace: yet at
this moment we hear the outcry, that our ships and
guns are inferior to the American. On such details
I cannot pretend to knowledge; but it is needless
to prove that the incompetence of the Admiralty is a
chronic fact in England. Even the French Admiralty
has commented on it.—Now if the Admiralty is
inefficient, is the War Office or Civil Service likely
to be better, when the Admiralty is precisely the
organ on which it is hereditary with all English
statesmanship to pride itself?
The second grievance implies that Parliament
�8
has no adequate control over Ministerial incapacity
or favouritism.
3. The state of Ireland.—Lord Macaulay declared
Ireland to be the point at which the empire is always
exposed to a vital stab. No one will pretend that
Ireland is flourishing, or is loyal, or that the members
of the London Parliament have confidence in their
own understanding of Irish questions. A population
larger than that of some European kingdoms, inhab
iting a separate island—yet close to us—predomi
nantly of a foreign race, very many of them still
speaking a foreign tongue, differing also in religion;
is not easy to govern wisely, and cannot be perma
nently disaffected without grave mischief to us all.
Thirty thousand soldiers to overawe the Irish, are
a display to the world, that we still hold the island
as a conquest, and cannot trust them as fellow
citizens. The prohibition of volunteer soldiers tells
the same tale. Meanwhile the prime of the labour
ing classes emigrate, and propagate hatred against
us in America.
This grievance has lasted long enough to make
it clear, that the imperial Parliament is an inefficient
organ for Ireland, and that the Irish members are
inefficient or damaging for English legislation. The
Irish Parliament ought to have been reformed, not
destroyed.
4. The state of Established Churches.—Fivesixths of the population of Ireland are Dissenters :
so is a very large fraction of Wales. Half of
England is in Dissent, and no effort has ever been
made to bring back the most numerous body (the
Wesleyans) who on principle approve of a State
Church. Scotland is in a wonderful position through
the destruction of her Parliament. The articles of
Union are expounded to mean, that the Imperial
Parliament is bound forever to support the West
minster Confession of Faith, (which never was the
faith of England) whether Scotland believe it or not.
�9
Two successive vast schisms have rent away
masses of population from the Established Church ;
the latter in our own day, under Dr. Chalmers, who
was a vehement advocate for State Churches.
It is not my part to lay down that State Churches
are right or wrong : but I understand two character
istic boasts of “ Conservatives ” to be,—the House
Of Lords and the State religion. Each of these is in
secular decline under the existing routine, and must
continue to decline, if it be felt to obstruct, not to in
vigorate, national life. In the abstract, I do not
dissemble my own preference for territorial Churches
over Sects ; but the example of the United States
proves that Sectarianism is less hurtful in the ab
sence than in the presence of a Sectarian Church
Establishment. Thus we manage to get at once the
worst evils of both systems.
This topic suggests that the attempt at uniformity
is the wreck of state religion. Indeed, in the case
of Scotland uniformity is sacrificed, but in just the
most mischievous way,—that of enacting an ever
unchangeable creed.
Populations in a different
mental condition demand diversity in teachers and
in religious worship. These need local adjustment
by local assemblies, on which, at most, a veto alone
should be reserved to the central legislature.
5. The state of our Peasantry.—Almost from the
beginning, the peasantry have found the Parliament
to be an unfriendly organ. Under Edward III.
their wages were fixed by law, and they were
punished if they refused to work. For four centuries
and a half they were forbidden to make their own
bargains. Who can imagine that a Parliament of
landlords which thus treated them would not make the
laws of land unfairly favourable to landlords ? Yet
such laws are treated as sacred and unchangeable.
At present,in Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and England,
we find the actual cultivators of the soil to be worse off
than in France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Hungary, or
�(atlength) than in Russia; nay, in afar less thriving
and happy condition than in the little island of
Guernsey. In Guernsey and in Belgium land is
scarcer than in England, in America it is far more
abundant; yet in each extreme the peasantry are
better off than with us. We have evidently to
adjust the arrears of six centuries’ oppression. Who
can hope that evils of that antiquity will be cleared
off by the old machinery ?
6. The incompetency of Parliament to do its
duties to India.—The English empire is a vast
machine of three parts. First, the United Kingdom,
with outlying military posts. Secondly, the true
English Colonies, which contribute to us neither
men nor money, yet have to be defended against
dangers real and imaginary. Thirdly, the perilous
splendour of India, where 150 millions are subjected
to the Queen’s direct rule, and thereby to her
Parliament. To these add 30 millions at home, and
you find 180 millions which have to be watched
over by a single supreme legislature. N or only so:
but 50 millions more of Indians, through their
princes, are in subordinate alliance to the Queen.
These princes are liable to be dethroned by the pen
of the Queen’s Secretary. To all such, the appeal
for justice lies to the British Parliament.
It is but the other day, that an Indian prince
appealed against an executive decree which had
deprived him of his royalty and thereby ejected all
his countrymen and kinsmen from high office. His
cause came before Parliament and was voted down
by ministers and placemen. Without assuming that
the vote was unjust, it may be judged monstrous to
eject all natives from high office because their prince
has misbehaved. In any case, Indians will never
become loyal to British rule, if their appeals against
the local executive are heard, not in a court of Law,
by judges sworn to do justice, but by men banded
as partizans, and virtually judges in their own
�11
cause. An eminent Indian officer recently states,
that, though not a shot be fired, 10,000 soldiers
are required yearly, merely to keep up in India the ex
isting force of 75,000 British troops. Grant that sani
tary arrangements may lower this frightful number :
yet how many will be wanted if we make new annexa
tions ? if we absorb more and more native principal
ities ? if we develop Indian wealth and mechanism
while wounding the native sentiment ? All these
agencies are going on at this moment. A general
insurrection may be surely counted on within thirty
years, unless, before that time, we win the loyalty
of Indian patriots. Even the movement of 1857
would have been irresistible, if the insurgents had
actively extended its area at once, or if certain
princes had gone against us. Unless the drain of
men for the Indian army be stopped, the sooner we
avow ourselves to be, like Switzerland and Belgium,
neutral in all European questions, the better for
our good fame. We are ourselves cementing India
into one country. Another insurrection, an insur
rection of collective India,—if successful, would
inflict on England an amount of loss, ruin, and
disgrace, which could not be recovered in a whole
generation;—if unsuccessful, would still multiply our
difficulties tenfold, and make it doubtful whether
expulsion would not have been better for us.
§ 11.
For these six grievances and dangers Reforms
are needed. Of what Reforms do we now hear talk ?
Prominently and solely of Extended Suffrage and
*
the Ballot. Let me grant to a Radical, that each
of these may have its value;—the Ballot for its
mechanical convenience, and as a temporary engine
to save a limited class from intimidation. Yet
unless these are mere steps towards after-reforms,
they will leave Parliament overworked and helpless,
* Since this was in type, Triennial Parliaments have been claimed.
�12
the Bureaucracy as despotic as ever, India disloyal,
the House of Lords as obstructive as ever to all
religious freedom. If after-reforms are intended,
they must be avowed at once, or we shall be once
more told that the settlement is “ final,” and is to
last for a full generation. That Mr. Bright and the
late lamented Mr. Cobden expected changes in the
possession of land, with benefit to our peasants,
from these two measures of reform, I infer from a
celebrated altercation; but the mode in which they
are to operate and the length of time before they
will bring relief, remain extremely obscure. The
artizan class from 1840 to 1846 gave their effort to
sustain the Corn Laws; the peasants also, if they
had the vote, would probably use it against them
selves. To give voting power to ignorant masses,
accustomed to abject obedience, is surely no political
panacea.
The primary weakness of our organization lies in
the enormous over-occupation of the House of
Commons. With great talent, knowledge and ex
perience, in more than 600 men,—by tact to divide
labour and put each man to his special work ;—by
standing Committees and Permanent Chairmen, in
whom the House could confide, and to whom they
could refer for information and counsel; no doubt a
vast deal of work might be done, and without very
long speeches. But no ministry has ever shown a
wish to aid the Legislative body to conduct its work
energetically.
On matters of administration the
ministers must of course take the initiative; but they
will never invent an organization which is to control
them ; which in fact must be devised and maintained
strictly as against them. New principles are wanted.
At present the holders of power and the expectants
of power combine to subject the independence of the
Legislative to the Bureaucracy; and this usurpation
is veiled under the phrase,—prerogative of the
Crown.
Merely to extend the franchise will not
�i3
add to the chance of getting abler members of
Parliament, nor a larger number of men resolved to
fight against any of the grievances enumerated.
The task laid on the Commons House is at present
too overwhelming. Without new machinery which
shall relieve it of the present intolerable load, no
imaginable change in the mode of electing is likely
to cure the evil. One supreme legislature for 230
millions! Englishmen who come out of practical
life and have been deeply immersed in special and
very limited occupations, are to judge on Private
Bills innumerable, and on the affairs of people very
unlike to us and quite unknown to us! In the
United States, for 31 millions of people there are 35
independent local legislatures, each having on an
average less than a million; while the Supreme
Congress is wholly disembarrassed of all local law,
and regulates only a defined number of topics which
concern the entire homogeneous Union. Our colon
ial legislatures legislate only for the home interests
of perhaps half a million, two million, or at most
three million people. It does not require super
human wisdom in legislators to do tolerably well
work thus limited. But it is a truly barbarous
simplicity to put one organ to the frightfully various
work of our Commons House. Entirely new organs
appear to me an obvious and undeniable necessity,
however disagreeable to men of routine.
Nor should it be left out of sight, that in the last
century and a half, while our population has been
growing in numbers and our affairs in complexity;
so far have we been from increasing and developing
our organization, that we have destroyed or spoiled
the organs which existed.
The Parliaments of
Ireland and Scotland have been annihilated (one by
flagrant, the other by suspected, bribery,) and the
power and status of our Municipalities and our
County organization have been gravely lowered.
The old Municipalities and Counties were the
�14
sources from which Parliament derived its own
rights and power : to the new institutions limited
rights have been jealously measured out by Parlia
ment. Every Empire needs to be made up of
Kingdoms or Governments; every such Govern
*
ment, of Provinces or Counties ; and each smaller
unit should have complete political life, with as much
power over itself as can be exercised without
damage to the nation. From these elementary
principles we have gone widely astray, working to
wards a central confusion which always threatens
alternate despotism and anarchy.
To invent new organization is not really difficult.
California thirteen years ago was infamous as a nest
of gamblers and robbers, mixed with gold-diggers ;
but the instant that a sufficient mass of honest men
was poured in, they constructed admirable institu
tions, and have now among other good things
popular colleges which we may envy. The diffi
culty is, to persuade English aristocrats to adopt
anything new, until the old has become quite in
tolerable. Let wretched Ireland be a witness to
that! It means that millions of the nation must
go through martyrdom,—that public calamity and
disgrace must be incurred,—that disaffection must
become dangerous ; before the classes which are at
ease will consent to the creation of any machinery
which they suspect might ultimately undermine
their power. This is no true Conservatism. This
is the way to ruin an aristocratic order. It is not the
able men, the experienced men, who so feel or so rea
son ; it is the meaner members of their party, whom
the leaders will not risk offending, until public calam
ityforces them, or until the nation, gaining a clear idea
of what it wants, speaks so pointedly, that the real
party-leaders come over to it. This I hold to be the
right course for the Radicals, who (it seems) must
be the movers. Let them make it their business to
convince such men as Mr. Gladstone and Lord
�i5
Stanley in the two great parties of the State, that
the things which they claim are reasonable and
right,—and with a view to this, let them impress
the same thing on as many members of Parliament
as they can,—and the necessary reforms will be car
ried, however novel in principle. Those who call
themselves “ practical men”—are apt to snuff out
every proposal that goes beyond routine, by the
reply,—“ There is no use in talking of it; for it is
quite impossible: ” and until a public opinion has
been formed in favour of it, every new thing is of
course impossible. But what our colonies and the
United States do, is not impossible to Englishmen
at home when they resolve upon it.
The inertia of our aristocratic ranks, miscalled
Conservatism, has undoubtedly a marvellous resist
ing force ; and this is the great danger of the country.
When all the world beside is in rapid movement,
and that world is in intimate relations—industrial,
political, social, literary, — with England ; when
moreover our own population is in steady change ;
organic reforms ought to accommodate themselves
easily and quickly,—if possible, spontaneously,—
to the changes of society. This would be true
Conservatism ; for this is vitality. Reform which
comes too late, fails to avert political disease.
The noblest function of high legislation is to guide
and conduct Reform.
Let those who think Inertia to be Conservative,
look with a fresh eye on the outer world. Russia
has cast off her slave system, and is organizing her
Governments into centres of independent political
life. She increases her population three times as
fast as England every year, and loses none
by emigration. In a quarter of a century more she
is likely to have ioo millions, not of disfranchised
men, or discontented subjects, but of real citizens,
under 40 or 50 local Parliaments, combining their
strength in one Empire.—Germany may ere long
�i6
be involved by her Prussian dynasty in a great
civil war, which (even if it do not become a Re
publican contest) can scarcely fail of ending in a
great union of their many local governments : a
Union which may chance even to absorb Holland
and Switzerland by the good will of these little
states. The Germany of the future is resolved to
be a power on the high seas, with at least forty
millions of people, who will cease to emigrate largely
when they are politically better satisfied.—France
will be to us ever a better neighbour, the richer and
the more commercial she becomes: yet so much the
more certainly is she our rival on the seas.—The
Italian fleets, with those of Southern Germany,
will supersede our functions as police of the Medi
terranean, and therefore might seem our valuable
allies: whether our Conservatives will so regard
them, is another question.—But the broad fact is,
that with the increase of good government on the
continent, and still more with the progress of free
institutions, the relative power of England must
sink and does sink: and we can less than ever afford
to have a discontented Ireland, and a peasantry who
are nearly at the bottom of the European scale.
Something yet stronger remains to be urged.
English and Irish peasants must be compared, not
merely to the peasants of Guernsey or of Europe,
but to those of America. There, a nation, among
whom in every moral and social sense our people
find themselves at home,—a nation which, since
the death of George III., has absorbed three
million British emigrants, — has decided on the
overthrow of slavery, and is resolved to people its
vast fertile lands by bestowing them freely on culti
vators. The Slave States will soon attract emigrants
even more than does the far West. America (to
say nothing of Canada) might receive ten million
new citizens in the next ten years with no result to
herself but increased prosperity. An emigrant who
�i7
has manly strength, industry, and temperance,
landing at New York with a few dollars, can in
3 or 4 years lay by enough to stock a farm, receive
public land, and become a freehold cultivator.
Should emigration from our counties once commence
in earnest, the Irish Exodus teaches that it is like a
syphon which sucks the cask dry,—the stream in
front attracting that behind. If English landlords
desire our problem to work itself out on the Irish
pattern ; if they can look complacently on the possi
bility of a constant dwindling of the English popu
lation, with results which need not here be pointed
at, they have only to persevere in their past
routine.
In this connexion there is yet one more topic
which English Whigs and Tories ought not to over
look : (I am unwilling to lay stress on it, yet it is
too important wholly to omit ;)—the danger—as
they will view it—of Republicanism becoming mili
tant in Europe. Their folly has prepared the way.
They abandoned Hungary, with its territorial no
bility, its old precedents, its rights founded on treaty,
when it had no thought of throwing off royalty.
By refusing to acknowledge the belligerency of
Hungary, and to reassume that place of Mediator,
between her and Austria, which (with Holland) we
had held in making the peace of 1710,—we con
nived at Russian invasion, and made Gorgey’s
treason a possibility.
Our first punishment was
our own Russian war, which came in the train. The
next is, that the English aristocracy now is isolated,
and Hungary (irreconcileable to Austria) will become
a Republic on the first opportunity. Hitherto the
French dynasty has failed to attain a constitutional
position, without which it has no mark of perma
nence ; nor is Victor Emmanuel’s throne the stronger
for all the humiliations which the French Emperor
has put upon it. Whether in France or in Ger
many events give the initiative, matters but little. A
c
�i8
civil war may rise in Germany, either from the un5
endurable encroachments of a prince, or by the con
tagion of revolutionary spirit. Whatever the cause
of German commotion, Republicanism would quickly
become an established fact in Hungary ; and once
successful there, would reanimate the struggle else
where. It will not wait to be a second time crushed
by the combination of kings. No one can predict
what is to come ; but no reasonable man will now
deny that events of an ordinary kind may lead to
the establishment of Republics in Hungary, Ger
many, and France. Would not English Conserva
tives and the Crown itself then regret, if by
obstructing all reforms, and initiating nothing likely
to remove the causes of discontent, they had per
petuated a sullen indignation against British Institu
tions ? Even in 1848 Tories rejoiced, that Lord
Grey’s Reform Bill of 1832 had become law.
S.ni.
What steps of Organic Reform do I then desire
to recommend to the attention of the reader ? I must
distinguish between immediate and ultimate measures.
Five measures appear to me of immediate urgent
importance.
1. The establishment of an Imperial Court in
India, to judge all causes between the Queen’s Go
vernment and the Princes ; with power similar to
that which the Queen’s Bench would put forth, if here
the Government were to eject a nobleman from his
estates. The mere inauguration of such a Court
would send a gush of loyalty through Indian hearts,
and would encourage the princes to lessen their
native armies. The establishment of one disputed
title by it (say, the confirmation of the Rajah of My
sore against Lord Canning’s unexpected and harsh
decision, which extinguishes his dynasty with his life,)
would allow us to reduce the Indian army by one
half. Its restitution of a single prince unjustly
�19
rdeposed, with restoration of his jewels and wardrobe,
might bring down the English force to the standard
of 1833. The mark of a “ tyrant ” (according to the
old Greeks) was his defence by a foreign body-guard:
we bear that mark of illegitimate sway at present.
To make India loyal, to save the yearly sacrifice of
health or life to 10,000 young men, now the miserable
victims of our army system, is so urgent an interest,
that I put this topic foremost. Too much import
ance can hardly be given to it. Each soldier is said
to cost us /ioo; hence the pecuniary expense also
is vast. But until we restrain ourselves from ag
gression, all attempts permanently to improve the
state of our millions at home must be fruitless.
Nor only so : but considering that 200 millions of
Indians would be represented in that Supreme
Court, a splendid commencement would be given to
“ Arbitration instead of War,” for which Cobden
contended in Europe.
English judges would be
faithful to their duty ; but, by adding natives of
India to the Court, we should set a potent example
to the whole world, fraught with good will to men,
and likely to bring us blessings from God.
The responsibilities of the English Parliament
would be greatly lightened by this measure ; which
would at least relieve them of their arduous judicial
duties towards the Indian princes.
2. The boon which was solemnly guaranteed to
India by Lord Grey’s Ministry in Parliament, and
by the Parliamentary Charter of 1833, should be at
once bestowed, bona fide. It was promised that to
every office, high or low, except that of Gov. Gen.
and Commander-in-Chief, native Indians should be
admissible on equal terms with British-born sub
jects. “ An exception corroborates the rule concerning
things not excepted. For twenty years this solemn
act was made a dead letter; then in 1853, under
pretence of new liberality, the delusive system of
competitive examinations was established, subjecting
�20
natives to unjust disadvantage, and forcing them to
come to England to be examined. If this system
of trickery be kept up by the old influences which
Lord Grey threatened with extinction if they dared
to resist that important clause in 1833,—all our
other good deeds and good intentions may prove
inadequate to win Indian loyalty. Our task there
is, to rear India into political manhood, train it to
English institutions, and rejoice when it can govern
itself without our aid. If a part of our aristocracy
and middle classes is too narrow-minded to under
stand how noble is such a function, the rest of Great
Britain ought not to remain silent,—to the great and
certain mischief of the empire.
3. The Mutiny Act, which is never passed for
more than one year, should not be re-enacted in its
present barbarous state, but with several important
modifications. Of these, I shall here specify but
one. No soldier or sailor who kills, wounds, or de
stroys, should be exempted from the ordinary
responsibilities of a civilian, except after the Queen
(or her accredited Viceroy) has publicly proclaimed
war. Then, and then only, if a soldier attack the
country against which war has been proclaimed,—
and none another,—should he be able to plead
“ military command ” in his justification. Against
violent and sudden attack civilians and soldiers alike
may make defence with deadly weapons. Admirals
and Consuls will cease to involve us in war of their
own initiation, only when they become unable to
shield the tools of their will from personal responsi
bility.—[I suppose that it is the Mutiny Act which
here needs modification. If there be some other
Act which exempts the soldier from guilt, then it is
that which needs repeal.]
4. Irish Ecclesiasticism has to be reformed with the
least possible delay. The topics are too well known
to dwell on. The Lord Morpeth Bill of 1837 and
Lord Leveson Gower’s of 1825,—both murdered
�21
by the House of Lords,—tell what needs to be done
for Ireland.
5. What I mention fifth, might be executed
first. — The principle of creating Life Peers, re
called by Lord Palmerston in the case of Lord
Wensleydale, should be avowed by the nation,
and enforced by the executive, but with one essential
modification of pre-eminent importance. Let the
" Commons vote a humble address to her Majesty,
representing that the House of Peers needs to be
elevated in honour and called to higher and more
active functions ; and with a view to this implore
her that in future she will create none but Life
Peers, and such Peers as can be trusted by her
faithful Commons to co-operate diligently in the
public service; that therefore also she will instruct
her ministers to seek a vote from the Commons,
commending for public merit any individual for
whom they are disposed to solicit from her Majesty
the honour of a Life Peerage.—The majority of the
Peers will be too sensible to resist the nation and
the Commons in such a cause, and a vast step on
ward will have been made.
So much for immediate Reforms : but what are
the more distant, yet necessary objects ?
We cannot undo in a day the malversations of
centuries. Every idea of immediate final Reform
is a sad delusion. For a century and a half, as
above remarked, instead of developing our ancient
organs, we have lamed or destroyed them. To re
make or invent requires both special knowledge and
wisdom. A popular movement cannot possibly dic
tate details. But I will not shrink from saying my
thought in outline, where I have thought a great
deal.
1. To stop unjust wars, entangling treaties, and
unwise diplomacy, the House of Lords should have
supreme controul over Foreign Affairs. The right
of advising her Majesty to declare war should be
�22
taken from the Privy Council, (which is in this mat
ter now a wooden machine,) and should be given to
the Lords ; every one of whom should have a right,
like that of the American Senate, to enter the Fo
*
reign Office and read every despatch. No Treaty
should be valid unless confirmed by the Lords, and
by the Commons also, if it involve pecuniary con
tingencies, and the House should have a right to
order the unmutilated publication of whatever di
plomatic document it pleases.
2. Every appointment to office should be made
out in the words, that her Majesty appoints the
person, “ by the consent of the House of Peers.”
Then the House would have a veto on every ap
pointment.
The Ministry would not dare to
appoint through mere favouritism, and would gain
power to resist importunate claimants of their own
party, whom they now reluctantly gratify.
Of course these new and high functions could
not be given to the Lords, until the nation trusts
them : and perhaps no Conservative, no peer, would
wish the Upper House to have this prominence in
the empire without some change in the present con
stitution. Sismondi,—a writer who energetically
combines an aristocratical creed with zeal for a freeholding peasantry,—declares as a historical induc
tion, that the essence and energy of aristocracy is
corrupted from the day that it becomes formally he
reditary. In England it has been saved by the dying
out of so many old peerages, and by the incessant
creation of new ones. The sole innovation of prin
ciple which I propose, is, that the creation shall be
made, not to reward partizanship, or to stock the
house with wealthy men ; but that^shall be voted
°l /optzmj cuique, (as the Romans have it) by the
representatives of the nation, and thus made a true
Aristocracy, a rule of the Best.
3. We want safety for our food which is on the high
seas.—The mischief of Bureaucracy is strikingly
�23
Illustrated in the recent history of this topic. In
i860 the United States Government sent a circular
to all its ministers in Europe, requesting them to
propose neutral privileges for all merchant ships in
time of war: and Earl Russell gave a decided re
fusal, without letting Parliament know that the offer
had been made. Three years later, Mr. Cobden re
vealed the fact, having got information of it from
America; and asserted of his own personal know
ledge that every Court of Europe would have
gladly acceded to the measure, if Earl Russell had
accepted it. The American Government did not
expect refusal from this quarter; for Lord Palmer
ston in a public speech at Liverpool had declared
his desire of such an arrangement. More recently
indeed, he has tried to back out of what he then
said ; but, as is believed, solely because he had found
Earl Russell unconvinceable. Such is the power of
one man, secretly to obstruct a matter of vital inte
rest to the nation. The doings of that one ship,
the Alabama, in spite of all the efforts of the Fede
ral navy, are a sufficient warning of what England
would suffer in a war with a power quite third-rate
on the seas. In fact, it is probable that either Aus
tria or Prussia could annihilate our merchant navy.
To compute the misery which would be endured by
the middle and lower classes of England from the
stagnation of foreign trade and the cutting off of
foreign food,—is impossible. It is not yet too late
to repair Earl Russell’s grave error; but if war
once come upon us, we then shall repent too late.
4. I believe that Ireland ought to be divided into
four Provinces, England into (perhaps) six, Scotland
into two; Wales would remain “the Principality:”
hence might be thirteen Provincial Councils with
free power of local taxation and local legislation,
subject only to a veto from Parliament, which in
most cases would gradually become a formality.
Time and trial, or lawyer’s skill, would discover in
�24
what cases the veto might be definitely renounced.
The Councils should be elected by a very extended suf4
frage, which in two generations might reach to every
adult who is ostensibly independent. The more
the Councils should relieve the Parliament of all
business except that in which the empire is neces
sarily a unit, the better. To controul the Executive
—to arrange all that is general to the United King
dom,—to look after India and the Colonies ; will
remain a more than sufficient task, if not only all
Private Bills are stript away, but also all business
concerning Education, Churches, the Poor, the Law
Courts, and Militia or Volunteers. If we had thus
many centres of national life, of high cultivation and
refinement, the unhealthy and threatening growth of
London would be arrested. We should soon have
many Universities, Free Education for all ranks, and
many small Army-systems, in wholesome emulation.
The Counties and the large Towns would no longer
be isolated, as strongholds of aristocracy and demo
cracy ; but the country gentlemen and nobility
would seek and find their places in the local Execu
tive and in the Provincial Councils, without being able
to block out meritorious men of every rank. The
poor would have a chance of rising to the top of the
scale. Instead of society being mischievously divi
ded, as now, into horizontal strata, its relations
would be local and territorial; for every Council
in England and its Executive would have a power
and dignity equivalent to that of a kingdom such as
Belgium or Holland.
Each would regulate its
local Religious Establishments : one would vie with
another in diffusing education : experimental legis
lation might become fruitful; and whatever mani
fest benefit one part had devised, would be initiated
without the ordeal of long Parliamentary cam
paigns.
The decay of English institutions from the acces
sion of William III to the death of George III was
�mainly due to the fact, that during European war
an English Parliament can ill attend to anything
else. J ust so, Parliamentary Reform was abandoned,
because Russian war came upon us.
This is an
evidently defective and barbarous condition; and
puts us into melancholy contrast to the United
States, in which no intensity of war lessens the do
mestic energy of the State Governments.
5. The question of Parliamentary suffrage cannot
be properly argued here. It is now complicated by
Mr. Hare’s ingenious proposals, of which I would
gladly see experiment in a single district, as in that
of the metropolis. To discuss his scheme fully
would require much space; to give an opinion
shortly would be arrogant. But to many reasoners
on the subject of the suffrage, a few general remarks
may be not superfluous.
Representative Legislators are an artificial sys
tem. Many men say to me : “I am not bound, to
obey laws, unless I have consented to them
iwy
'representative?' What if another say : “ I am not
bound to obey laws, unless I have consented to them
myself? " I think, that of the two, the latter state
ment has more reason. The former is every way
absurd. My representative may have voted against
the law ; then, I am not bound ! Women also are
free from all statute laws, by this argument. More
over, I never consented to be bound by my repre
sentative. Representation is a mere means to an
end. Justice to all orders and persons is the end.
Inasmuch as injustice in legislation generally pro
ceeds from one-sidedness of mind, a legislature
which does not contain men from all ranks is almost
certain to be unjust to the ranks excluded. But
merely to admit a right of voting, does not ensure
the object aimed at. The English farmers have
always had votes, but never in our days have
had representatives of their interest in Parliament.
Nor is the vote a natural right of individuals.
D
�26
If convenience suggested to cast lots in each rank,
and pick out a sort of jury from it as an electoral
college, no class would be injured, and no individual
could complain, as long as the results proved good.
Nor is it true that the men called “ potwall^ers ”
in old days were in any moral sense “ elevated ” by
the Parliamentary vote. That small shopkeepers,
artizans, farmers, peasants, and the entire female sex,
are wholly unrepresented in Parliament, seems to me
a great defect, apt to involve injustice to each
class, whenever it happens to have some special
interest and rights. But to remedy the evil is a
matter of extreme difficulty.
Neither extended
suffrage, nor universal suffrage seems to me likely
to bring an alleviation, until a distant date, after
living men are in their graves.
That persons may be “ elevated ” by possessing
the suffrage, they must be able to meet, and discuss,
and form definite opinions ; and not merely vote
once in seven years, but wait upon their representa
tive and press their judgments upon him, and be
able to call him to account, or be enlightened by
his explanation. A man who needs the Ballot to
shield him, and dares not allow the colour of his
political opinions to be known,—can do none of
these things; cannot fulfil the cardinal duties of a
constituent, and is degraded, not elevated, by pos
sessing the vote. Men who are too numerous or
too distant to meet and confer, are generally a mis
chievous constituency. Cliques and “ caucuses,” or
other Clubs, unknown to the Constitution, generally
snatch power out of their hands. I cannot convince
myself that the workmen who have “ Unions” are
not often in miserable subjection to the power of a
clique. The “caucuses” of the United Stateshave
constantly enabled those who are called “ trading
politicians ” to dictate the course of public events,
owing to the President being elected by suffrage on
too vast a scale. A nation which enjoys very
�27
vigorous local institutions,—where the Parish, as well
as the State, is in high energy, and education is not
only free to all, but accepted by all,—may bear
the occasional exercise of such a vote,—and will
use it well in a time of great national tension. But
to introduce those who have no daily political duties,
no local activity, no wide political thought, into the
responsibility of voting in huge masses once in seven
years, for a Parliament which is to be “ omnipotent; "
and to expect that this will promote liberty ;—seems
to me a lamentable and wild mistake. Electors
ought to have clear opinions as to the competence
of the elected for the highest and most difficult of
the tasks which will befal him. The welfare of our
millions is sacrificed by mismanagement of remote
affairs , as to which they have little knowledge and
no care. They should be able, not only to confer
and advise one another publicly, but to keep up
active personal relations with their representative.
Any enlargement of the franchise which impedes
these processes, or makes elections more expensive,
and leaves the expense on the candidate, must (I
fear) be a change greatly for the worse. At pre
sent, the power of a minister to threaten a dissolu
tion,—which means, to threaten a fine of some
hundreds or even thousands of pounds on single
members, if the voting be not to the minister’s taste,
is a disgrace and a grave mischief.
The French Reformers in the last century, who
first inEurope conceived generous and noble ideas
of popular power, were aware that nothing but con
fusion could come of Universal Suffrage acting
directly on a central system in a populous nation.
They devised the system of Double Election ; and
in my belief were fundamentally right. But on a
sound foundation they built unsoundly. The bodies
which thus elect, ought not to exist merely for the
sake of electing. They should elect because they are
a substantive power, trusted for other high duties,
�28
and therefore trustworthy for this function also. I
will not conceal my opinion, that if the United
Kingdom were divided into Provinces, every mem
ber of the Imperial Parliament ought ultimately to
be an ambassador delegated by the direct vote of his
Provincial Council; delegated with instructions, and
each liable to be separately recalled, and replaced at
the will of the Council. Such a system, I think,
would be a virtual return to the original idea, in
which the Knights and Burgesses certainly never
represented individuals, but represented corporate
bodies. There is the very same reason for electing
the central Parliament by representative Councils,
as there is for legislating by representatives, and
not by a folkmote, when a nation is counted by mil
lions. From every Council, on an average, seven
might every year be appointed, to sit for seven years,
unless recalled. Some of the seven every year
would be selected to gratify the petition of every
order of men : thus every class would have virtual
representatives in Parliament.
Every delegate
should have an honourable stipend from his own
Council, and never be permitted to incur any -election
expenses. In this way, from a humble origin, merit
might rise, first into the local legislature or local
executive, next into central posts of honour. And
there is no such security for the welfare of the lowest
ranks, as when a sensible fraction of the Executive
Government is ordinarily filled by men who have
risen .from below. At present no such men rise, nor
can rise, even into the Legislature, extend the suf
frage as you may.
After sons of peasants and of artizans shall be
found in high places,—after the House of Peers is
popularized,—no one would despair of changes in
the tenure of landed property, such as may elevate
the entire order of the peasantry ; but if it is to be
delayed so long, the problem will be solved by
Emigration in a mode far less satisfactory to the
�29
landlord class. If landlords are wise, they will
understand their danger ; and will prefer to have a
House of Peers which shall deal with it. Surely it
is happy for the Russian nobility that the Emperor
has taken in hand the removal of serfdom, instead
of awaiting the chances of revolution.
6. That pernicious system of Centralization which
makes French legal liberty impossible, and has
gravely damaged England, in India has run riot
without controul. When the East Indian Company
overthrew local treasuries in India, and put into
their central exchequer at Calcutta the tolls of roads
and ferries of the most remote South, they per
petrated a deed which doomed their rule to be a
blight upon the land, even if the virtue of their
lowest servants had been on a par with the best.
We know by positive official statement that in con
sequence of this diversion of moneys from their
local purpose, the roads of whole kingdoms became
overgrown, and so lost, that their old course was
matter for official inquiry. This hideous blunder
remains unreversed. India has no local treasuries.
Every coin in every province is liable to be spent
in some war against Nepaul, Afghanistan, or Thibet.
War is made with the very life-blood of material
prosperity: roads and bridges, canals and tanks,
cannot be repaired during war, while their funds are
mixed with the war funds. Many have of late been
finding out, that colonists will involve us in wars
with barbarian neighbours as long as they can sup
port their wars out of the resources of the Home
Government. Not less true is it, that India will
never be without a war, as long as there is a centra
lized treasure to support it and no Parliament to
refuse supplies. Mr. Bright many years since made
an elaborate speech in Parliament, which was heard
by all sides with very respectful attention:—if he
had followed it up, and claimed inviolable local
treasuries, he would have said all that I am here
�30
pressing. He urged that every Indian Presidency
should be independent of the rest, and that each
should be in direct relation to the Home Govern
ment. India, it is often said, is a continent, not a
country,
The diversities of its inhabitants are
enormous. No one proposes for it uniform legisla
tion.
If an English ministry could be at once
convinced that India ought to be divided into many
coordinate governments, it might be a reform not of
the distant, but of the near future. Parliament
would acquiesce in any thing proposed by the
ministry. There is evidently no reason in doubting
that a Government of io million people could defend
its own frontiers against any rude neighbours or
half barbarous potentates; and a Government thus
limited, would have far less tendency to aggression
than the powerful and proud Executive of 150
millions. A Viceroy is wanted in India, not to
govern but to reign. Take away the Governor
General, and send a prince of the blood royal, to
represent the Empress Queen to the Indian princes ;
—to receive their occasional homage and their
formal applications -to be the medium of transmit
ting their diplomacy to England, or their suits to
that Imperial Court which I imagine. The Central
Executive should be a mere “ Board of Works” for
Railways, Canals, Rivers, Harbours, Post, and Mint,
without a Foreign Office, an Army, or a Navy.
India will not cease to be drained’by war expenses,
and thereby to be misgoverned, until ambitious
central despotism is destroyed.
Every point above proposed by me, (except the
neutralization of merchant vessels in time of war,
to which Lord Palmerston once gave voluntary
assent) is developed out of the single principle, that
Centralization, and the Bureaucracy which it nou
rishes, must be severely abated. If Bureaucracy is
to be depressed, something else must be elevated.
What must that be ? I say, the House of Peers
�31
and an Imperial Court of Law. This ought not to
frighten a Conservative. But the House cannot
get or keep public support,—it cannot really lead
the nation,—without a Reform. What milder reform
is possible, than is above suggested ? What more
honourable to Peerage ? The strongest Democrats
rejoice to be presided over by a popular nobleman.
To a Reformed House of Peers the warmest lovers
of liberty among us would shortly rally. . A popular
movement can only dictate principles; such as are
these: let us have true Aristocracy, not Bureaucracy:
let us have political vitality every where, restricting
Centralization to its true functions : let every class
be represented in the Legislature, and be admissible
into the Executive.
Such principles are broad enough to be popular.
Details must be directed by cultivated intelligence,
independent of the ministry of the day. Every
ministry, like a Turkish Pasha, has an intense inte
rest in the present, and a very feeble interest in the
future. To allow a ministry to dictate permanent
policy is a truly grave mistake, tending to Turkish
ruin. The ministry has a task to execute ; but a
power which has a more permanent stake in the
country should prescribe what task. When the
House of Commons looks to the ministry to lead it,
and the Lords have no popular support, what else
can be expected but short-sighted policy ?
I have said enough, yet I wish to add, that I re
gard our system of voluntary political societies, made
for special objects, as a wretched crutch, and an
enormous waste of time and money. The argumen
tations which they carry on ought to be heard on
the floor of a local constitutional assembly,—of a
parish or municipality first,—thence by transference
to a Provincial Council, through which any petitions
should ordinarily go to Parliament. Then both
sides would hear one another from the beginning;
whereas now, an elaborate process is needed, before
�32
even the best cause can get a hearing from adversa
ries, while foolish schemes linger without effective
refutation.—The case of our peasants is sad and
disgraceful; but it needs wisdom still more than
sympathy. To abolish the Law of Primogeniture
might bring no immediate visible result; but it
would excellently inaugurate a new principle, and
give some hope for the future.
WILLIAM IRWIN, PRINTER, 5, PRINCESS STREET, MANCHESTER.
�
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
English institutions and their most necessary reforms. A contribution of thought
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Newman, Francis William [1805-1897.]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 32 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by William Irving, Princess Street, Manchester.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Trubner & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1865
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5219
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 (English institutions and their most necessary reforms. A contribution of thought), 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
Subject
The topic of the resource
Politics
Social Reform
Conway Tracts
Great Britain-Politics and Government-19th Century
Political reform
Reform
Social Reform-Great Britain-19th Century
-
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
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/2497b488fb98c4561bfe43128bb0eda6.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=cRTVgnan8Ec64XIoZnXkDxZidsgGchjH2Tf4SI1johLuyHnnCsCEGs7e04BH9pVNuRbR%7Esc4C2QTGOU1ornYGvjuXC9Ea8pYBQfSQcEfZ2blHCOyKiwiDMHYJX%7EKPjheqaQ83cpUFs%7EtMUGL1o0TGDXaJZ7CmaIzeGxf9A0O6ms1G7ql%7EhJ4tMjGJ1q1fobc6iU9MEVr6zuw1jhKNCMimohh%7EsXm5KbmeBv2NqwXknQpfSKPt62oH4lsjonRAN3PGdnOKbCKkdUBFh1%7EXoA9RNt80iB45RwS63zR%7EBcKim7tNleYP4ubglUU937VCt-tDAdI4hWYAicaey5dED%7E4Xw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
3fc045419e6a41a7b262adf13c2c9085
PDF Text
Text
THE
GOVERNMENT & THE PEOPLE;
A PLEA FOR REFORM. •
' '
BY CHARLES WATTS.
VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE LONDON REPUBLICAN CLUB.
The question about to be considered may be divided into two
'
parts—first, Government ; and secondly, the People. The object
in dealing with these divisions will be to show that reform is re
quired upon the part of those who govern, and that improvement
is necessary among those who are governed. Let us understand
what is meant by the word government." It is a term applied to
a body of men who superintend the making and administering
■of laws, and who conduct the general affairs of the nation. A
true government should represent the wishes of the people it
governs ; if it fails to do this, it is an usurpation, and therefore
■unworthy of the support of the community at large. There are
many forms of government, but it will suffice to notice here
two of the principal ones that have hitherto existed in this
country. The author of the “ Rights of Man ” has written
that governments arise either out of the people, or over the
people.” The governments which arise out of the people are
Democratic or Republican, and therefore of a nature to repre
sent the public will, having, as it doubtless would, a prac
tical knowledge of the wants of the people. Now the very
reverse of this is true of the governments of this country. As the
writer just mentioned observes : 11 The English Government is
■one of those which arose out of a conquest, and not out of society,
and consequently, it arose over the people.” The reins of go
vernment in this country have been held by a few aristocratic
persons—so few that a person could almost count them on the
ends of his fingers. When one family had held the reins long
enough to grow tired, and had well filled their pockets, then
they handed the reins to some other aristocratic family, without
■consulting the wishes of the people, and thus our governments
had been kept in a narrow circle, ignoring the working-classes,
who are the great support of the nation. Thus patronage has been
used for personal gratification rather than for the public good.
The great object of successive governments in filling the posi
tions in the Church, has not been to comply with the alleged pious
desires of the people, nor has the morality or qualification of the
persons that have been put into office been always considered;
but the great aim of the “ powers that be ” has been to place
some member of the aristocratic families into good livings. That
has been so patent, that Lord John Russell, in his “ Essay on
the English Constitution,” says : “ In the Church the immense
and valuable patronage of Government is uniformly bestowed
on their political adherents. No talent, no learning, no piety,
can advance the fortunes of a clergyman whose political opinions
are adverse to those of the governing powers;” Thegreat bishoprics
�2
throughout the country have not been filled by men remarkable
for intelligence or moral purity, but by those who had sworn
allegiance to the Government of the time. Bishop Warburton
wrote that the “Church has been of old the cradle and the throne
of the youngermobility.”
A true government should be guided by constitutional laws.
Much has been said recently about our “ glorious constitution.”
When Conservatives, or “ Constitutionalists,” talk of loving the
English constitution, they are indulging in a delusion, because,
-as a matter of fact, we have no political constitution in this
country—not a political constitution in its most comprehensive
sense. What is a political constitution ? “ A constitution is
not a thing in name only, but in fact. It has not an idea, but a
real existence ; and wherever it cannot be produced in a visible
form, there is none. A constitution is a thing antecedent to a
government, and a government is only the creature of a consti
tution. The constitution of a country is not the act of its
government, but of the people constituting its government. It
is the body of elements, to which you can refer and quote
article by article; and which contains the principles on which
the government shall be established, the manner in which it shall
be organised, the powers it shall have, the mode of elections,
the duration of parliaments, or by what other name such bodies
may be called; the powers which the executive part of the govern
ment shall have; and, in fine, everything that relates to the
complete organisation of a civil government, and the principles
on which it shall act, and by which it shall be bound. A con
stitution, therefore, is to a government what the laws made
afterwards by that government are to a court of judicature.
The court of judicature does not make the laws, neither can it
alter them; it only acts in conformity to the laws made ; and
the government is in like manner governed by the constitution.”
In order to have a constitution it is necessary to have a political
programme, drawn up by the people, to which the government
—whether Whig or Tory—should conform, and. be guided by.
Therefore, if we were asked as Republicans whether we would
support a constitutional form of government, the answer would
be, by all means ; but let us have a properly-constructed con
stitution, and not that sham constitution which we have hitherto
had, which has been for the benefit of the few, and to the injury
of the many. What are the defects of the form of government
now in existence ? First, its exclusive and aristocratic nature.
In it there is no provision made for the general representation
of the people. It is only certain classes of society which are
represented. If we analyse the House of Commons, as at
present constituted, we shall find that, while wealth, law, and
land are fully represented, poverty and labour have no bonafide
representatives there. It cannot be a true form of government
where the working classes are thus ignored. True, there are a
few men in the House who sometimes speak boldly on behalf of
the toiling millions, but even those cannot fairly represent the
wants of the excluded classes. Labour requires for its advocates
�3
those who know what it is to toil; poverty needs men to speak for
it who have felt its pangs. And the system that does not allow
this is partial and unconstitutional. The facts which Sir Charles
Dilke gave in his Manchester speech, every working man should
be made acquainted with, for they show the imperfection of our
representative system, and indicate clearly that under its unequal
provisions, the majority of the public are not represented. The
votes of the large towns are more than counteracted by those of
small aristocratic boroughs and counties. Sir Charles Dilke
drew the attention of his audience to the fact that, whereas
136 electors in Portarlington return a Member to Parliament,
the 56,000 electors who are on the register for Glasgow only
have three representatives awarded to them. They were reminded
that, while Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, and Birmingham,
rqake up with the ten metropolitan boroughs, a population of
five millions, and an electoral body collectively amounting to
450,000 voters, they return but thirty-four members in all; yet
seventy boroughs, with a population about equal to that of Man
chester, and about the same number of voters, send eighty-three
members to the House. Instances also were quoted of counties
returning two members only, though possessing a population and
a number of voters equal to those of other boroughs, which
together return twelve or fourteen. Sixty-two boroughs return
sixty-two members by 42,800 votes, and possess a population of
about 400,000 souls. Hackney, with about the same number of
voters, and nearly as large a population, returns two members
instead of sixty-two ; and as a final illustration, it was stated
that no members sit for 1,080,000 voters, and another no for
83,000. If under the reign of a monarch we are obliged to yield to
this kind of representation, it would be far better that Monarchy
should be swept away, and that we should have that form of go
vernment that would recognise the rights of the working classes.
There is an important defect in connection with the present
mode of government, and that is, its whole machinery is so expen
sive. Take parliamentary elections. There is no fair chance for
a working man to be successful at those elections. Why are they
made so expensive ? Surely it is not necessary under a proper
form of government that a candidate should be kept down under
the weight of money bags, and that the influence of the aris
tocracy should be brought against him, to crush him when he
is doing his best to become a member of Parliament. Not
only are the elections expensive, but the associations therewith
are also expensive. Hence, until we obtain something like a
proper arrangement of elections, and also the payment of mem
bers, we have little hope of having a real and legitimate form ot
government. The expenses attending law are the result of an
imperfect form of government. At present its use is principally
enjoyed by the rich, instead of being within the reach of all
classes. In a properly-constructed constitution, the poor should
be able to avail themselves of the law as well as the rich. Now,
the poor man is obliged to keep clear of the clutches of the law,
in consequence of the enormous expense which it entails. The
�4
salaries which are paid to the legal profession are so high that
many clients have frequently to turn aside, and not pursue the
course of justice. Another great defect in the government is
the present monopoly of land. No more gigantic injustice
could be done to a country than is being perpetrated by the
aristocratic millionaires of England in reference to the mono
poly of land. The land of-the United Kingdom, it has been
estimated, is owned by about 30,000 men, and the bulk of the
land in England and Wales by only 150- families. The Duke
of Richmond and Lord Leconfield own between them, in the
county of Sussex, land to the extent of nearly 800 square miles.
The Marquis of Westminster has an annual income of nearly a
million from his property. The Earl of Derby has ^40,000
per year from land at Liverpool alone, upon which he has never
spent one farthing to increase its value ; while the Marquis
of Breadalbane can ride upon one hundred miles without
going off his own property. Are these things just, and do they
not indicate a necessity for a different form of government to
that under which we are living ? Professor Levi has estimated
that there are 2,000,000 acres of land devoted to deer forests in
Scotland ; and Baillie Ross, of Aberdeen, has made a calcula
tion that 20,000,000 pounds of meat are lost every year through
such misappropriation of land. Many complaints are made as
to thte high price of meat, and some persons have stated that the
working classes ought to do without it. While those who
are willing to do without that which is now becoming almost a
luxury have a perfect right to do so, it is unjust that they
should be compelled to do so because of the monopoly of the
land. Our first and primary duty, is to protest against such
monopoly. In less than 160 years there have been no less than
7,000,000 acres of land enclosed and devoted to the interests
of the aristocrats of the country—for the amusement and be
nefit of those who have never studied the wants of the popu
lation, who never knew what it was to want food, and who
lived idle and—many of them—reckless lives, forgetting the
claims of their fellow countrymen who were starving for that
food which was being denied to them. No wonder that the
people should agitate for the repeal of the Game Laws—laws
which ought not to exist, and which are a curse to the nation,
excluding as they do the people from the advantages of the land.
We do not want to do things recklessly, but we desire that the
present monopoly of the land should be destroyed ; and we are
determined not to rest till our desire is realised. Our inten
tions are to pursue a peaceable advocacy, and we trust ere longto be able to say to the landowners : “You must use the land
for the benefit of all, or give it up to those who are able and
willing to do so.”
There is another serious impeachment against the present
form of government. Whether Whigs or Tories were in office,,
they had ever objected to reforms. The people had met toge
ther in public assemblies, and decided upon the necessity for
reform, and the will of the nation had been almost unanimous
�5
in its favour, but the Government still refused it. So long as the
people acted quietly and temperately, so long had their appeals
been disregarded. The result was, that often in a state of des
peration they did what they would not otherwise have committed
themselves to. The riots we have had in times past were to be at
tributed in a large degree to the refusals of necessary reform by
the Government of the country. Take the struggle for reform
in 1832. What did Wellington do? He who represented the
old form of government put his command in this form : “ The
people were born to be governed, and governed they should be,
and if they would not be governed contentedly, then at the
cannon’s mouth they should be made to obey the ‘ powers that
be.’ ” The Duke affirmed that U nder the Bill it would be
impossible for the government of the country to be carried on
upon any recognised principle of the constitution.” The Duke of
Newcastle said, “ If the Bill passed it would destroy the throne,
despoil the church, abolish the House of Lords, overthrow the
constitution, violate property, desolate the country, and annihilate
liberty.” It was only after the riots of Bristol, London, and Man
chester, when prisons were set fire to, and when prisoners were re
leased ; it was not till the people had committed such actsof des
peration, that the Government granted the reform that had been
quietly asked for. Now, precisely the same thing applied to
Catholic Emancipation. It was not until the Government by
their obstinate conduct had driven the country to the eve of a
civil war that they granted that measure of religious liberty.
The fact is, that hitherto the Governments had granted to force
what to reason they had denied. Governments that did this
were unworthy of support, because as the guide and protector of
the nation, they should endeavour to foster the moral and intel
lectual aspirations of the people, and not make them desperate
by withholding such reforms as they desired.
The leading defects, then, of the English form of Government
are its exclusive and aristocratic nature; its class policy ; its
imperfect representative system ; its monopoly of land, and its
reluctance to grant required reforms. What has been the effect.
of this mode of government on the nation ? Shall we judge of
the tree by its fruits ? Let us turn to the people and endeavour
to ascertain their real condition. This is a fair argument, for if
among the masses the governmental tree has borne disastrous
fruit, is it not a duty to uproot it, that something better may
thrive in its stead ?
If the condition of a people may be taken as a reflex of the
government under which they live, the governing classes of
England have indeed much to answer for. For among the toiling
millions of this country, ignorance, privation, and social inequa
lities exist to an extent perhaps unparalleled in the history of
civilised nations. The two reports presented to the House of
Commons in 1868 and 1870, exhibited the degrading state into
which the agricultural labourers had been driven through class
customs and unequal legislation. The evidence of Mr. Simon,
medical inspector, showed that more than one-half of our southern
�(fTp'.-,-
- sM»
6
agricultural population, was so inadequately fed that starvation,
disease, and ill-trained minds were the necessary results. As
a sample of many like cases, it was mentioned that in Haverhill,
Suffolk, nine out of ten adults could neither read nor write, and
only one in twenty-five could both read and write. The report
states that the population round Mayhill appeared “ to lie en
tirely out of the pale of civilisation, type after type of social life
degraded to the level of barbarism.” It refers to the “ immora
lity and degradation arising from the crowded and neglected
state of the dwellings of the poor” in many parts of Yorkshire.
“ In Northamptonshire, some of the cottages are disgraceful,
necessarily unhealthy, and a reproach to civilisation.” The
Reverend J. Fraser, in his report, says of the wretched con
dition of the parishes in Gloucestershire and Norfolk : “It
is impossible to exaggerate the ill-effects of such a state
of things in every respect............. Modesty must be an un
known virtue, decency an unimaginable thing, where in one
small chamber, with the beds lying as thickly as they can be
packed, father, mother, young men, lads, grown and growing up
girls—two and sometimes three generations—are herded pro
miscuously ; where every operation of the toilette and of nature
—dressings, undressings, births, deaths—is performed by each
within the sight or hearing of all; where children of both sexes,
to as high an age as twelve or fourteen, or even more, occupy
the same bed; where the whole atmosphere is sensual, and
human nature is degraded into something below the level of the
swine. It is a hideous picture, and the picture is drawn from
life;” In alluding to the same class of labourers, Professor
Fawcett writes : “ In some districts their children could not
grow up in greater ignorance if England had lost her Chris
tianity and her civilisation ; the houses in which, in many cases,
they (the labourers) are compelled to dwell, do not deserve the
name of human habitations.” Nor is the condition of many of
the working people in some of our large towns much better.
Despite our boasted national wealth, there are thousands who
exist in daily anxiety as to how to obtain food to eat, and to
whom the rights,, comforts, and pleasures of real living are
strangers. In his work, “ Pauperism, its Causes and Remedies,”
the Professor says: “Visit the great centres of our commerce and
trade, and what will be observed ? The direst poverty always
accompanying the greatest wealth...... Within a stone’s throw ”
of the stately streets and large manufactories of such towns
as Manchester and Liverpool, “ there will be found miserable
alleys and narrow courts in which people drag out an existence,
steeped, in a misery and a wretchedness which baffle descrip
tion.........Not long since, I was conversing with a West-end
clergyman, and he was speaking, not of Bethnal Green, nor of
Seven Dials, but of a street quite within the precincts of luxurious
and glittering Belgravia, in which he knew from his personal
knowledge that every house had a separate family living in each
room. Dr. Whitmore, the medical superintendent of Marylebone, in a recent report, states that in his district there are
�7
hundreds of houses with a family in every room...... Official re
turns show that in London there are never less than 125,000paupers, and that as each winter recurs the number rises to
170,000. There is abundant reason to conclude that a number
at least equally large are just on the verge of pauperism.” Such
facts as these require no comment, they speak in language
terrible enough in all conscience/ We have become so accus
tomed to the Verdict “ died from starvation,” that the extent of
misery it represents is not always fully recognised. It isnot merely
the death of the victim to be contemplated, but the pain of body
and torture of mind experienced ere the spark of life was ex
tinguished ; also the sorrow and bitter pangs of the relatives of
the deceased left to mourn the loss of the one departed. And,
judging by the past, there is but little hope of much improve
ment while the present form of government lasts. Mr. Joshua
Fielden recently stated, in his speech at Todmorden, that in the
last eighteen years our poor rates had increased ,£2,700,000.
Our laws touching imperial taxation are so unjust that its
burden falls unfairly upon the shoulders of the working classes.
Last yeartheimperial taxation in round numbers was ,£70,000,000.
Now,from whom was this revenue derived? During the reign
of Charles II. an important change took place in our fisqal ar
rangements. Up to that time land had borne a more equal share
of the taxation of the country. Charles II., being desirous of
favouring the aristocracy, relieved them of much of the taxa
tion then upon the land, and placed instead heavy duties upon
articles of consumption. From that time up to the presentan
unjust system of taxation had been in existence, and had been
’ working as injuriously as it possibly could upon the labouring
portion of the community. In the last century the land of this
country paid one-third of all the taxes, now it pays less than
one-seventieth. And this palpable injustice has been going on
while land-rents have increased enormously, for the same land
that seventy-two years ago yielded a little over .£22,000,000,
now yields nearly £100,000,000. The following extract is from
"the papers issued by the Financial Reform Union :—
“ The acknowledged principles of all fiscal reforms since the
report of the Import Duties Committee of 1840, are the repeal
of all duties upon the necessaries of life, the remission of unpro
ductive duties, and the abolition of protections and prohibitions.
Notwithstanding this report, a duty is still levied upon corn,
which yields the greatest return when the people are least able
to pay it, and involves a necessity for fourteen other duties,
yielding from nothing to £2, £3, and up to ,£2,841 per annum
each. The total revenue from these sources in 1866-7 was nearly
£800,000 ! The duty on sugar, an article described by Mr.
Gladstone as next to corn in importance as a necessary of life,
produces above .£5,800,000, and involves duties on nine other
articles in which it is an ingredient, yielding a yearly revenue
varying from £1 to .£2,000 per annum. Tea, coffee, chicory,
and cocoa, all of which have become necessaries of life to the
great bulk of the population, produce upwards of ,£3,200,000.
�8
Currants, figs, plums, prunes, and raisins, notwithstanding
dates are admitted free, are taxed to the extent of ,£400,000.
The total revenue from these sources in 1866-7 was <£10,310,056,
or nearly one-fourth of the total revenue from customs and excise.”
A recent writer in the Liverpool Financial Reformer, divided
the community into three divisions—first, the aristocratic, re
presented by those who have an annual income of £1,000 and
upwards ; the middle classes were represented by those who
had incomes from £100 to £1000 ; and the artisan or working
classes were those who were supposed to have incomes under
£100 per year. He then assessed their incomes respectively at
.£208,385,000; £174,579,000 ; and £149,745,000. Towards the
taxation, each division paid as follows : The aristocratic por
tion contributed £8,500,000, the middle classes £19,513,45 3, and
the working classes £32,861,474. The writer remarks : The
burden of the revenue, as it is here shown to fall on the different
classes, may not be fractionally accurate, either on the one side
or the other, for that is an impossibility in the case, but it is
sufficiently so to afford a fair representation in reference to those
classes on whom the burden chiefly falls. Passing over the middle
classes, who thus probably contribute about their share, the re
sult in regard to the upper and lower classes stands thus:—
Amount which should be paid to the revenue by the higher classes
(that is, the classes above £1,000 a year), £23,437,688 ; amount
which they do pay, ,£8,500,000; leaving adifference of £ 14,937,000,
so that the higher classes are paying nearly £15,000,000 less
than their fair share of taxation. Amount which should be paid
by the working classes (or those having incomes below £100),
,£16,846,312 ; amount which they do pay, £32,861,474 ; making
a difference of £16,015,162; so that the working classes are
paying about £16,000,000 more than their fair share. In other
words, the respective average rates paid upon the assessable in
come of the two classes are—by the higher classes, iod. per
pound ; the working classes, 4s. 4d. That is to say, the working
classes are paying at a rate five times more heavily than the
wealthy classes.”
Now, with these inequalities existing, is not a reformation of
government highly desirable ? The happiness of the people
requires it, and the progress of the nation demands it. How is
it to be obtained ? There are two fundamental remedies neces
sary in order to effect true reform. First, the real representa
tion for the people, and, second, their control over the national
purse. Until these are obtained true government will exist only
in name. Let the working classes be united, discreet, and de
termined in their present struggles ; and if the “ stupid party ”
and their supporters will not be “ wise in time,” they must mar
vel not if that electricity that now charges the political atmos
phere shall ultimately strike the present imperfect institutions,
thereby making way for the establishment of principles that
will secure political justice and social equality.
London : Printed and Published by Austin & Co., 17, Johnson’s
Court, Fleet Street, E.C.—Price One Penny.
*
�
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
The government & the people: a plea for reform
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from KVK.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Austin & Co.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1873]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4943
Subject
The topic of the resource
Social reform
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 (The government & the people: a plea for reform), 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
Great Britain-Politics and Government-19th Century
Political reform
Social Reform
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b579f14346fc93a8943c01306e7408a2.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Gf6JLSdcVM-8vmzYBKkSTlEJ3HNoOivqo-l4cqSsLgqSMInwDxuHwHioAuh-7UX5s9HRFgt4zGjm6C47lRCGNaYA-6d6IOG%7EACp5VU0pOkkTOQjbrNiGgpd3fuBoIhXwT5ZjiWu4whOPKeh2Jd5dod6pT%7EijznrVk-qQ6JQ9iEq2wteDftyZUuNNFtx%7Evw1%7EvPW0PP5S1FtHJa7CdrIdEO3VMZSNbTnzgy42bXZ0e6HcCjhGhnSL45VuUSGQQipLS7gHfXJq9XdPva8g83PSVpLJzeH4wWNXR25CjrwOSQFyukQeODWuCz3wh8t0yTmd9uc922dds7zm4MBHsdozcA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
0787ccf9e1ed5234467698658b965be8
PDF Text
Text
��������������������������������
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
The political situation: an address delivered to a meeting of working men. August 24, 1868
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Guedalla, Joseph
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 32 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Adhesive tape marks on first two pages. Joseph Guedalla was Vice-President of the Reform League. Printed by Judd and Glass, Phoenix Printing Works. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1868
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5204
Subject
The topic of the resource
Politics
Socialism
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 (The political situation: an address delivered to a meeting of working men. August 24, 1868), 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
Conway Tracts
Great Britain-Politics and Government-19th Century
politics
Working Class-Great Britain
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c432adbe2d3f700aefabdf1bdfad61ed.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=gaDaRpNyRoQ-afMbRHx-Dthilo7ocg1xw3dA7FytP5UyLk1Wn6uq35u1e7-lxczm1QkZYiGQOJipJVzelR%7EFCm8zkfW1SZReFBZYp8JaevASqnlnBIV4yfozJ-kk7zlFccBiB9BErdXkEMR7SWe1%7E3n6uk4F3flLuYuF1okRFuMG0-324t1r7VnSn0YWBjb8OqRrbzBW7h2ZwM1YpWWrh%7ETY7PHIz7vdoz402GUPd6kzDchz60fnGd4mBqjqH-frUuBWrqRANyv-dQ5zJrFEBZpV2NEf3o7oERN0gOgeBNMPDtcy7nqD8AKm7Gxw48EMmweBu6M%7EJRloJcZXiWj-Lg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
caaacea1e50e0d51952dc29edd4ea822
PDF Text
Text
����������������������������������������������������������������
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
Tracts for inquirers
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Dickson, William Edward
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.l.]
Collation: 62 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Contents: 1. Reform. II. Reform Illusions. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Williams & Strahan, London. Date of publication from KVK. Appendix giving various statistics and figures.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1867]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5206
Subject
The topic of the resource
Politics
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 (Tracts for inquirers), 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
Conway Tracts
Great Britain-Politics and Government-19th Century
Political reform
politics
Social Reform-Great Britain-19th Century