1
10
2
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/049e15269cfc71c0d494c3f1b7baf7f2.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=MjHVAPqqBzdxAv8dUqKxrpae26t2blqJx9uYFkaQWe3lWkhpG5u3Fy0UhQjv0xB9rPwIIlPCuKOTiapOJqbWjyAOd8WD6YbSVzsezvKiLz5KAY09Yk5YajbOTgZAQwkJQDM2ODRsklPfdnr-tyFB4R2DeVMrwI9PdUpNEOQFNQeWALA-I077RSkjrZglPKnGxLO6ztEvUUwUb3xWyJiQwq07TUL84HZcclXnDWbFkn-vjirR6xQCi8PWPGIUDw-kh8Bcu-O-HlQfYyy6AkwZQxOaKum8F85fXYVl%7EatsQm16H2PpJ8A%7EmOuDyY9cDkzB7NaGzklSgpjAlLIyF6%7En4g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
44c946fd7f703de275b94c7ee0f393c1
PDF Text
Text
CONTRADICTIONS
OF
LORD PALMERSTON
IN REFERENCE TO
POLAND AND CIRCASSIA,
■Snr,;II< £(7
' -a
“ Russia can be reached only in her instruments.”
The Crisis, Paris, 184,0.
LONDON:
HARDWICKE, 192, PICCADILLY.
August, 1863.
Price One Shilling.
'*
�/v
<■ SIM
£ H
' "■'
A d A £’•'.'■•.• H '’■•ATAM
jasas Of won'
iHl IO
ClWMA&tAiL M1W
>•■ PZ>’1Z1’100
if M >h
*fa a®
.
.-
. * j4 .
■
la T4>.-iT 9«l|ji'.-
..
.,.'■
■■?
*■ eb»
A5^/h;' ,^«
y
* 4^C
fr
.
fc
'■’ .i’'> A r/£ oA
S$W f>%O ^n- wA'y. L y
*’’
hrjufii'.A.n.'Az. ■ >
z ■ '.''J
4^5 :'Z
Ar:;.'? .taiiS
.
.
:•:••■ L
„•»
' £ Wi ?■- ir-il---- : -Wi.bbB *•
'. • '
•'
.
' ,
.
.
.
“
.
'.
*
lb
W1 'A ai-lMpt
" rc\" >
■b?
*
tH
•
•>. .
9«Ci’U”-.':..T '? f/j
.
.
r
.“
-.
< fa iMjgjffijff/f-•■ -
,
< ■■
.
-.
bOjfcK
?‘^s'uy a> ., A. •'« T mil * o ?i • •iis‘;jtK • j bu r
»
•
. «
*
- \ '1'■ '■
. f!Wl-t
.
.
W'i
'W .’T < .
b-,- >.'•• -<_
% hissed A A
' ■.'
< . 1U£{
J
x;': tjS . j
|
*
�FALSEHOOD AS A METHOD OF GOVERNMENT.
17, 1863.
An event took place towards the end of the recent Session of
Parliament unprecedented in the history of this country. The
First Minister of the Crown was deliberately charged by Mr.
Cobden with three falsehoods.
The three falsehoods had all been told in the House, and one
was a wilful perversion, after his death, of a speech delivered by
a rival. The purpose in the three cases was to involve the House
in expenditure.
On the 30th of July, 1845, Lord Palmerston had announced
that the invention of steam-ships had destroyed the maritime
supremacy of England; Sir Robert Peel had scouted the notion
as a ridiculous absurdity. On the 23rd of July, 1860, Lord
Palmerston attributed to Sir Robert Peel this very state
ment—namely, that steam had bridged the Channel, and that as
regards security from aggression, England had ceased to be an
island.
On.the 10th July, 1862, Mr. Cobden, on the authority of
quotations from Hansard, called on Lord Palmerston to admit
that his assertion was a mistake, stating that, in order to be Par
liamentary, he used the word “ inexactness^ Lord Palmerston
refused to enter on the subject. Mr. Cobden’s constituents and
several. other bodies have since addressed him on the subject,
conveying their approbation of his conduct.
The effect of Mr. Cobden’s accusation is, therefore, to raise
the objeet of it above all Parliamentary control.
This alarming state of things would be at once reversed if the
laws were enforced. The former practice of the expulsion from
the House of Commons of those who stated what was not true,.
REPORT OF ST. PANCRAS COMMITTEE, APRIL
�would not- only stop the scandal but prevent the malversation
which these falsehoods are employed to disguise.
The first Memoir hereto appended is on Falsehood as dealt with
by the forms of the House of Commons. The second is on the
Falsehoods of .Lord Palmerston, giving some idea of the
extent to which Falsehood is carried on in the management of
the Country.
Signed by order of the Committee, and on their behalf.
C. D. Collet, Chairman.
C. F. Jones, Secretary.
I.
How to deal with Falsehood by the
Forms of the House of Commons.
For some generations back it has been held as an axiom that
Members of the Legislature were incapable of falsehood. Since
the year 1847, however, accusations of this offence have not
only circulated without the walls of Parliament, but have on
several occasions made their way into the House of Commons.
These accusations have always been directed against the same
person—Lord Palmerston. Hitherto they have always been
incidental to Motions respecting some foreign State. Such
Motions have generally been got rid of by means of a u countout” or the dropping of an order of the day, so that the issue
has been evaded.
The recent charges laid against Lord Palmerston, by Mr.
Cobden, having been made under cover of the word <( inex
actness,” have neither presented to the House a dilemma to be
evaded nor to individual members an opportunity to be seized.
The remedy is therefore to reverse the act of Mr. Cobden, and
to bring forward a Motion in the House, dealing with the act by
its proper name, and inflicting the ancient Parliamentary punish
ment for that offence. An inspection of the Journals of the House
shows that this punishment consists in expulsion.
In the cases selected, the motive to falsehood appears unim
portant; namely, to obtain the privilege of Parliament for some
person not entitled to it. The sole point at issue was whether the
Member had spoken the truth or not. The first of these two
cases is that of Colonel Wanklyn, who was summarily expelled.
The second, that of Sir John Prettiman, who was suspended,
and afterwards restored on submission, is still more instructive,
because it shows the pains taken to examine into and to prevent
prevarication, always more difficult to deal with than direct false
hood.
�7
CASE OF COLONEL WANKLYN.
A.D. 1677} 30 Charles II. Friday, February 1.—A Motion being made
against the frequent and irregular granting of Paper Protections by Mem
bers of this House; and
A Petition of Angela Margaretta Cottington being read, complaining
of Mr. Wanklyn, a Member of this House, for granting a Protection to
Charles Cottington, Esq., her husband, as his menial servant, whereby
she was hindered in her prosecution at law against him;
And the House being also informed that the said Mr. Wanklyn had
granted another Protection to one Jones, whereby to hinder the execution
of a writ of restitution awarded by the Court of King’s Bench;
And Mr. Wanklyn being present, and standing up in his place, and an
swering for himself, and to several questions which were propounded to him
by Mr. Speaker ;
And being withdrawn by Order, and the matter debated;
Resolved, &c., nem. contradicente, That Colonel Wanklyn in granting
Protection to Mr. Cottington and Mr. Jones, not being his menial servants,
has violated the justice and honour of this House.
. The Question being put, That Mr. Wanklyn, for granting such Protec
tions, shall be expelled this .House;
The House divide;
The Yeas go forth ;
TeUor,
TeBers
the
} for the Noes’ 109-
And so it was resolved in the Affirmative.
The Question being put, That Mr. Wanklyn shall receive his sentence at
the Bar standing;
It was resolved in the Affirmative.
Mr. Wanklyn being brought to the Bar by the Seijeant-at-Arms attend
ing the House, Mr. Speaker, in the name of the House, pronounced the
said sentence.
Ordered, That Mr. Speaker do issue out his warrant to the Clerk of the
Crown to make out a new writ for the election of a Member to serve in this
present Parliament for the Borough of Westbury in the County of Wilts,
in the room of Thomas Wanklyn, Esq., who was this day expelled the
*
House.
CASE OF SIR JOHN PRETTIMAN.
A.D. 1669, 21 Charles II. Wednesday, December 1.—Upon complaint
made of a Breach of Privilege committed by one * * in arresting of
Robert Humes, a menial servant of Sir John Prettiman, a Member of this
House;
Ordered, That it be referred to Mr. Speaker to examine the matter com
plained of, and give such order therein as he shall find just.
Saturday, December 4.—Mr. Speaker reports the case of Robert Humes,
servant to Sir John Prettiman, arrested and in the prison of the King’s
Bench: that he was heretofore a merchant, but left off his trade about five
years since, and that in August last he was entertained a servant to Sir
John Prettiman at twelve pounds per annum wages : and was employed in
recovering his rents; and was arrested in four several actions of the case,
of a hundred pounds a piece.
* Journals of the House of Commons, vol. ix. pp. 430-31.
�8
The Question being put, That privilege be allowed to Robert Humes,
menial servant to Sir John Prettiman ;
’
The House divided;
The Yeas went out;
poMheYeas.29.
I
.
19.
And so it was resolved in the Affirmative.
Ordered, That the Marshal of the King’s Bench do discharge Robert
Humes, menial servant to Sir John Prettiman (being arrested in breach of
privilege) out of prison.
Monday, March 21, 1670 (New Style.')—Two Petitions being tendered
against Sir John Prettiman, one from Dame Theodosia Prettiman, and
the other from Elizabeth Humes ;
Ordered that the Petitions be read to-morrow morning; and that Sir John
Prettiman have notice to attend then.
Wednesday, March 30.—A Petition of Elizabeth Humes, wife of Robert
Humes, was read;
Resolved, &c., That the Petition be committed to [here follow twenty
names], or any five of them ; and they are to meet to-morrow morning, at
seven of the clock, in the Speaker’s Chambers, and to examine the matter of
the Petition, and report it, with their opinions therein, to the House; and to
send for persons, papers, and records.
Thursday, April 7.—Sir Gilbert Talbot reports from the Committee to
which the Petition of Elizabeth Humes was committed, the whole state of
the matter and evidence therein : And that the Committee did leave it to the
House, to do what they should think fit therein.
And the Question, upon the whole matter, being, whether the said Humes
ought to be allowed privilege as the menial servant of Sir John Pretti
man ;
Resolved, &c., That the matter be recommitted to the former Committee,
to examine whether Sir John Prettiman did know of the condition of the
said Humes, and what accusations were against Humes, when he entertained
him for his servant; and whether he knew he was a prisoner for any criminal
matter, or under bail for the good behaviour, when he did entertain him;
and whether he were so when the Motion was made for his privilege ; and
whether he were arrested, or in prison, for a real debt, or whether the actions
against him were not feigned: And Sir John Prettiman is to attend the
Committee, and make it appear that he^was arrested and detained prisoner
for debt, after he was retained his servant: And the Committee is revived,
and to sit this afternoon : And the Keeper of the prison of the King’s Bench
is to attend the Committee, to give an account of the arresting and detaining
of the said Humes in prison: And all that shall come to the Committee are
to have voices : And [here follow eight names] are added to the Committee :
And the care of the matter is recommended to Mr. Crouch.
Friday, April 8.—Mr. Crouch reports from the Committee to whom the
Petition of Mrs. Humes was committed, That they had, in pursuance of the
order of recommitment, examined the whole matter of fact thereby directed,
relating to Sir John Prettiman’s protection, and moving the House for
giving privilege to Robert Humes, as his menial servant.
Upon stating whereof to the House, it appeared that the House had been
ill-dealt with by Sir John Prettiman in his concealing the truth of the case,
and that Humes was released out of prison, from actions depending against
him, by the miscarriage of Sir John Prettiman, as his menial servant, when
in truth he was not.
�Sir John Prettiman being withdrawn into the Speaker’s Chambers;
Resolved, &c., nemine contradicente, That Sir John Prettiman be suspended
his sitting in this House, and from all privileges Its a Member thereof, until
he shall produce Robert Humes.
Resolved, &c., That he be called to the Bar of this House, and receive from
Mr. Speaker this sentence upon his knees.
The House being informed that the said Sir John Prettiman was not to
be found in the Speaker’s Chambers, ordered that the Serjeant-at-Arms at
tending this House do bring the said Sir John Prettiman to the Bar of
this House to-morrow morning, to receive his sentence as aforesaid.
Resolved, &c., That the back door of the Speaker’s Chambers be nailed
up, and not opened during any sessions of Parliament.
Saturday, April 9.—Ordered, that it be referred to Colonel Bird, Sir
Thomas Meeres, Colonel Reames, Mr. Coleman, Colonel Talbot, to see a
true entry made in the Journal, of the matters concerning Sir John Pret
timan.
Resolved, &c., That no Member of this House do grant any protection to
any but such only as are their menial servants. And that all protections
already granted to any other persons besides menial servants be forthwith
withdrawn and called in.
Resolved, &c., That all protections and written certificates of the Members
of this House be declared void in Taw, and be forthwith withdrawn and called
in, and that none be granted for the future; and that the privilege of Mem
bers for their menial servants be observed according to Law; and that, if
any menial servant shall be arrested and detained contrary to privilege, he
shall, upon complaint thereof made, be discharged by order from the
Speaker.
Same day, afternoon.—Resolved, &c., That a day be given to Sir John
Prettiman to appear and receive the judgment of the House against him.
Resolved, &c. That the day be the second Tuesday at the next meeting
after the Recess.
Monday, April 11, 1670.—(The King having made a speech to the Two
Houses) Mr. Speaker reports the effects of His Majesty’s Speech: And
that it was His Majesty’s pleasure the House should adjourn till the 21th
of October next.
And accordingly the House adjourned till the 24th of October next.
Monday, October 31, 1670.—A Petition of Sir John Prettiman being
tendered to the House;
Ordered, That the Petition of Sir John Prettiman be read on Thursday
morning, nine of the clock.
Triday, November 11.—The Petition of Sir John Prettiman, Knight, was
read. The Petition of Elizabeth Humes was also read.
Resolved, &c., That the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House do, accord
ing to former order, bring Sir John Prettiman to the Bar of this House on
Monday next, to receive the judgment of the House against him.
Monday, November 14.—In pursuance of the former order of this House, Sir
John Prettiman was, by the Serjeant-at-Arms, brought to the Bar of the
House; who there, upon his knees, received from Mr. Speaker the judgment
and sentence of the House, for his being suspended sitting in this House,
and of all privileges, as a Member thereof, until he shall produce Robert
Humes.
Resolved, &c., that Sir John Prettiman be heard at the Bar of this House
on Monday next upon his Petition, and the Petition of Mrs. Humes, both
formerly read; and that the Seijeant do give them notice hereof.
Wednesday, November 23.—The House then, according to former Order,
did proceed to the hearing of the matter between Sir John Prettiman and
�10
Mrs. Humes. And the Petitions on both sides being again read; and the
counsel for Sir John Prettiman, and the parties and witnesses on both sides,
being heard; it being made appear, on the behalf of Sir John Prettiman,
that he had, since the last recess, used his utmost endeavour to apprehend
and bring in Humes, the husband of Mrs. Humes ; and nothing of the sug
gestions of Mrs. Humes, her Petition being made out ; upon Debate of this
matter;
Resolved, &c., That Sir John Prettiman be restored; and have his pri
vilege, to attend the duty of his place, as a Member of this House.
*
J
From the passage in italics it appears that detection was fol
lowed not only by the punishment of the offender, but by a pro
vision to ensure the non-recurrence of similar acts. The restora
tion of the practice of punishing offences would now, as then, be
accompanied by provisions to prevent them, or, rather, the pro
visions already made by the laws would cease to be ineffective the
moment it was known that punishment would be the result of
their infraction.
il
The Falsehoods of Lord Palmerston.
From the diplomatic history of the last thirty-six years we
propose to select such cases of falsehood as are most glaring, and
such as may be dealt with without entering into the objects for
which they were told.
The cases brought forward by Mr. Cobden have, of course, to
be narrated first, and a careful consideration will show that two of
these were, beyond all others, appropriate ones for the House to
deal with. The list then extends in the inverse order of time.
'
REGARDING THE MILITARY FORCES OF FRANCE.
(mb. cobden’s first charge.)
On Monday, July 7, Mr. Cobden laid before the House a
comparative statement of the forces of England and France, both
naval and military, showing that never had the naval superiority
of England been so great, or the military superiority of France so
small, as at the present time. He complained of the habitual
i( inexactness ” of Lord Palmerston as the cause of the panic,
and consequently of the increase in the expenditure. He made
special reference to his having added 200,000 men to the real
numbers of the French army:—
“ But the noble Lord lias not confined his statements to the navy. He has
also given, us some facts and figures respecting the land forces of Erance ; but
in his statement there was an inexactness of a very grave kind, for he exceeded
the amount of the Trench force by two hundred thousand men, which called
* Journals of the House of Commons, vol. ix. pp. 114—169.
J
�11
down a correction from the Moniteur. I must complain of the habitual in
exactness of the noble Lord as to these matters, and if the China debate
should come on to-morrow I should have to recite another grave inaccuracy.
On the 24tli (23rd) of May the noble Lord, in speaking of the land forces of
France, said: ‘ On the 1st of January, 1862, the French army consisted’—
these are the corrected figures which the noble Lord afterwards gave—‘ of
446,348 men under arms. There was a reserve of 170,000 men, liable to be
called out at a fortnight or three weeks’ notice, malting altogether 616,348 ’
not 816,000 as the noble Lord really said.
“ Lord Palmerston.—No. I never said anything of the kind.
“Mr. Cobden.—I beg the noble Lord’s pardon, this was not a mistake of
■a figure. There was addition and subtraction, and the statement was the same
all through. The noble Lord proceeded‘ In addition to this force actually
under arms, or liable to be called out for service, I stated that there were 268,417
National Guards, making a total available force of 884,765.’ ”—Times, July 8.
Lord Palmerston replied.-.—
“ The hon. Member accuses me of great exaggeration. Now, I utterly deny
that I have been guilty of any exaggeration. Now, with regard to the French
army, I stated on a recent occasion that the French army on the 1st January,
consisted of 446,000 men under arms, and 170,000 men of the reserve, making
a total of 616,000 men. I was reported to have made that total 816,000. It
is very seldom that those gentlemen who report our debates in this House
commit an error, and an error in one figure is not unnatural.”—Times, July 8.
This was on the 7th July. Lord Palmerston speaks of a
recent occasion, but there had been two occasions. The first was
on the 19th May, the second was on the 23rd, and purported to be
a correction not of the former speech but of the erroneous report
of it. On the 19th May Lord Palmerston said:—
“ On the 1st of January last, France had 646,000 men, I think, at all events
upwards of 640,000 men under arms. She had, in addition, 170,000 men of
reserve, liable to be called back to the ranks at a fortnight’s notice. Besides
that she has upwards of 200,000 National Guards. Therefore, her regular
forces under arms, or liable to be called to the ranks at a fortnight’s notice,
are about 816,000 to our 100,000. The French Government had since
determined that towards the end of the year 31,000 of the 646,000 should be
transferred from the active army to the reserve, making no difference in the
amount available, but diminishing the expense without diminishing the eventual
efficiency. I should say, besides the 646,000, there were 70,000 of the con
scription of the present year, which might be called out at any moment if
necessary.”—Times, May 20.
On May 23rd, Lord Palmerston said:—
“ The lion. Gentleman (Sir R. Clieton) read a report of something which I
had said here on a former occasion, in which, notwithstanding its general ac
curacy, there was a mistake of a figure. On the 1st of January, the French
army consisted of 446,348 men under arms. There was, besides, a reserve of
170,000 men, liable to be called out at a fortnight or three weeks’ notice,
making altogether 616,348 men under arms or liable to be called out for service;
there were 268,417 National Guards, making a total available force of 884,705.
And I stated that besides these there were 70,000 men of the conscription for
the present year, liable to be called out if their services should be required. I
also stated that of the 446,000 it was intended at the time to transfer between
30,000 and 40,000 from the number under arms io the reserve, making no dif-
�12
ference in the really available force, though the change is attended with a certain
amount of economy.”—Times, May 24.
It is thus evident that the reporters had made no mistake. Lord
Palmerston says only one figure was wrong, meaning it to
be believed that an 8 was substituted by the reporters for a 6. After
making a variety of minor corrections of a statement in which he
professed that only one figure was wrong, he says, “Making a total
available force OF 884,765.” What he had said before was,
“ Therefore her regular forces under arms or liable to be called to
the ranks at a fortnight?s notice, are about 816,000, against our
100,000.” The reporters, therefore, according to him, substituted,
not a 6 for an 8, but the words in italics for those in small
capitals.
The occasion of this correction has to be taken into considera
tion. It was made on the night of Friday, the 23rd May.
The' next morning the following denial appeared at Paris, in
the Monileur:—
“ In the sitting of the House of Commons of the 19th instant, Lord Pal
estimated the strength of the Trench. army on the 1st of January,
1862, at 816,000 men, of whom 646,000 were under arms, and 170,000 under
reserve. This estimate contains an error sufficiently serious to require a recti
fication. On the 1st of January, 1862, the effective strength of the army was
not 646,000, but 447,000 men—a difference of 199,000 men. The reserve
counted, at the same date, not 170,000 men, but 165,000—a difference of
5000. The total error is, therefore, 204,000 men, or one quarter of the estimate
made in the House of Commons. Since the 1st of January the number of men
of the active army who have been allowed to go into the reserve is not 31,000,
but exceeds 38,000. This brings the reserve to 203,000 men, and reduces the
effective strength of the active army to 409,000 men.- Total, 612,000.”
merston
If Lord Palmerston had been misreported, it was his duty to
have corrected the error the next day. It was also open to him
to inform the French Government what he had really said. But
the Moniteur corrects not the reporters, but Lord Palmerston.
Before taking so serious a step, the French Government must have
demanded an explanation, and have failed to obtain it. The
Moniteur addresses itself to England, for in France it is no crime
to have a quarter of a million extra soldiers in arms. Lord Pal
merston corrects the reporters just in time to nullify the effect
in England of the protest in the Moniteur. That protest is then
a cry of distress. Lord Palmerston tyrannises over the French
Emperor in this matter, just as M. Thouvenel domineers over
Lord Russell in the affairs of Mexico. This is the one Cabinet,
of which “ some members live on the banks of the Seine, and
others on the banks of the Thames.”*
The case, however, is not complete without Lord Palmerston’s
description of the notice in the Monileur. On the 7 th July he said:—
* Lord Palmerston in 1856.
�13
“ But my statement was 616,000, and not 816,000. The French. Moniteur
corrected my statement, and what was that correction ? It charged me with
having made a little error both in the force under arms and in reserve, and the
aggregate was stated by the Moniteur to be 612,000 instead of 616,000. That
was the correction of the Moniteur, which completely and substantially affirmed
the statement that I had made.”—Times, July 8.
Lord Palmerston pretends that the Moniteur accuses him of
an error of only 4000 men; but the Moniteur expressly says:
“ The total error is 204,000 men.” Mr. Cobden terms this
“ inexactness.” The issue between them was the simplest in the
world. Lord Palmerston said it was a mistake of a single
figure. Mr. Cobden said it was not a mistake of a single figure.
Lord Palmerston’s words prove Mr. Cobden’s case. On this
Mr. Cobden drops the matter.
REGARDING THE RATIFICATION OF THE TREATY
OF TIEN-TSIN.
(mr. cobden’s second charge.)
The next day occurred the China debate, and, according to his
promise, Mr. Cobden brought up another case of “ inexactness.”
He proved that Lord Palmerston had first declared that the
Emperor of China had ratified the Treaty of Tien-Tsin, and had
afterwards declared that the war of 1859 was made to obtain the
ratification of that Treaty. Here are the two statements:—
Lord Palmerston, March 16, 1860.
“ A Treaty has been concluded with China. That Treaty has been approved
by the Emperor. We want the ratifications to be exchanged; we want the
Treaty to become a formal and acknowledged compact between the two
countries.”—Mansard, vol. 157, p. 807.
Lord Palmerston, February 14,1861.
“ It is well known that the operations in China arose from the refusal of the
Chinese Government to ratify the Treaty of Tien-Tsin, which has been con
cluded between the two countries. It became necessary to obtain the ratifica
tion of that Treaty.—Mansard, vol. 161, p. 401.
Lord Palmerston said in March, I860, “ That Treaty has
been approved by the Emperor.” That is, it had been ratified by
him at Pekin, as it had been by Queen Victoria in London. On
reference to the Blue-books it will be found that in China this
had been publicly done. An edict had appeared respecting the
Treaty, and it had actually been put in operation before the arrival
of Mr. Bruce. His visit was to exchange the ratifications, which
the Treaty had specially provided must be done at Pekin, although
that exchange could have taken place just as well at London, or
at any Chinese port. When Lord Palmerston contradicts Mr.
Cobden on this point, on the 8th July, he makes his former as
sertion still plainer. For he says, “It (the last expedition) was
�14
Q
not undertaken solely because Mr. Brtjce was not allowed to go
to Pekin (another falsehood); but because the Emperor refused to
ratify certain articles of that Treaty, which he said must be changed
before they could be carried out ”
On the 10th July, when Mr. Cobden answered what Lord
Palmerston had said on the 8th, he (Mr.. Cobden) repeated,
“ I stated that the Treaty had been ratified, and that all that had
to be done was to exchange the ratifications. ’
The truth, as appears in the documents published by the Eng
lish Government itself, is that not only had the Emperor of China
publicly assented to the Treaty, not only were the English actually
trading at some of the new ports opened to them by it before Mr.
Bruce’s arrival and the attack on the Peiho forts, but that no
objection was ever offered to the formal act of exchanging the
ratifications of the two Sovereigns, whether at Pekin or elsewhere.
Lord Palmerston is so sensible of the falsehood he is stating that
he carefully mixes up “ ratification” and il exchange of ratifica
tions,” and by doing so asserts that what Mr. Cobden read confirmed his statement. This was on the 10th, as we shall pre
sently see.
No war having been declared, the Treaty of Tien-Tsin was un
lawfully obtained, and is not binding upon China. Whether it
was obtained by one or by two lawless expeditions is of no im
portance here. What is of importance is, that, in this as in other
matters, Lord Palmerston’s statements are diametrically op
posed to each other.
REGARDING STEAM HAVING DESTROYED ENG
LAND’S NAVAL SUPREMACY.
(mr. cobden’s third charge.)
On the 10th of July, Mr. Cobden brought a third accusation
of inexactness” against Lord Palmerston. He had quoted
Sir Robert Peel as concurring with him instead of being op
posed to him on the subject of steam, the cause of the destruction
of England’s naval supremacy. Mr. Cobden said:—
“ At an early period of my experience in this House a circumstance hap
pened to which I must refer, because it affords another example—a flagrant
example of the inexactness and carelessness of the noble Lord in the state
ments which he makes to us. It occurred in 1845. On that occasion the
noble Lord had already mounted this hobby of his, that steam was the great
danger of this- country. He was fond of saying that the application of steam
to navigation had spanned the Channel with a steam bridge. That simile
occurs a dozen times in his speeches from 1842 downwards. Let nobody
undervalue the force of these repetitions of a phrase, because by dint of them
we come at last to believe them ourselves, and we make others believe them
also. In 1845 the noble Lord, in a harangue intended to induce Sir R. Peel
�15
to increase our armaments in some direction, launched this favourite idea of
his. Sir R. Peel controverted it. That led to the noble Lord rising again to
explain himself. I will read these passages. Outlie 30th of July, 1845, Lord
Palmerston said:—
“ ‘ In reference to steam navigation, what he (Lord Palmerston) said was,
that the progress which had been, made had converted the ordinary means of
transport into a steam bridge.’
“ Sir R. Peel, immediately following in reply, said
“1 The noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) appeared to retain the impression
that our means of defence were rather abated by the discovery of steam navi
gation. He (Sir Robert Peel) was not at all prepared to admit that. He
thought that the demonstration which we could make of our steam navy was
one which would surprise the world ; and as the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston)
had spoken of steam bridges, he would remind him that there were two parties
who could play at making them.’
Now comes this flagrant specimen of the noble Lord’s inexactness. I pur
posely use that long and rather French word because I wish to be Parlia
mentary in what I say. (Laughter.) The noble Lord, in speaking of this
very Fortifications Bill when he brought it in on the 23rd of July, 1860, said,
still reiterating the same argument:—“ e And, in fact, as I remember Sir R. Peel stating, steam had bridged the
Channel, and for the purposes of aggression had almost made this country cease
to be an island.”
“ Now, I happened to hear all that myself, but I am afraid to say so, because I
may be contradicted. (“ Hear,” and laughter.) But now T will make a sug
gestion to the noble Lord. Will he send one of his junior Lords of the Trea
sury to the library to get Hansard? I give him the volumes:—Hansard,
vol. 82, p. 1233, and vol. 160, p. 18. The noble Lord will probably speak
again, as we are in committee, and it would be a grateful thing if he would get
Hansard to satisfy himself of that gross inaccuracy. Moreover, it would only
be just to the memory of a great Statesman, and it is also due to. this House
that he should admit his error and recant it. There would be a novelty about
such a proceeding that would be quite charming. (Laughter.) Let him admit
that he is wrong. _ I will forgive him the China business if he will only get
Hansard, and admit that he was wrong, that it was a fiction—quite a mistake of
memory. (“ Hear, hear,” and laughter.) But the serious question is what kind
of opinion shall we form of the noble Lord’s judgment.”—Times-, July 11, 1862.
Observe, Mr. Cobden says the serious question is Lord Pal
judgment, not his integrity, which he had just proved
not to exist. Lord Palmerston evades; the charge:—
merston’s
“ It is very curious that my hon. Friend accuses me of inexactitude, and
refers me to Hansard to prove my error. I do not feel much disposed to
follow his example, because he and I differed the other evening on a matter of
historical fact. He contended that the Emperor of China had ratified the
Treaty of Tien-Tsin. I said he had not. After two or three days’ delay, my
hon. Friend brought down a Blue-book to confirm his assertion, and proceeded
to read a passage which completely substantiates my statement. [Mr. Cobden
intimated dissent.] Let my hon. Friend read it again if he pleases. I did not
the other night read the whole of the case; but the fact was just as he read it,
and as I stated it. The Emperor of China wrote one of his mandarins to say
that he approved of the Treaty; but when he was called upon to ratify it, and
exchange ratifications, which process alone could give it international value, he
refused, and that which my hon. Friend read confirmed the statement I made.”
(Cheers.)—Times, July 11, 1862.
�16
Mr. Cobden had quoted not a Blue-book but Hansard. One
of his quotations has already been extracted under the head
“Lord Palmerston, March 16, 1860.” The other was from
Lord John Bussell, February 13, 1860:—
“ The Treaty of Tien-Tsin had been signed, and had received the special
approval of the Emperor of China. Nothing but the ratification remained to
be given, and it would have been impossible for us—because Her Majesty’s
forces had suffered a loss, because 400 or 500 men had been killed or wounded
—to give up a Treaty solemnly agreed to, or to retreat from conditions to
which the Emperor of China had given his assent.”—Hansard, vol. 156,
p. 945.
Since this Memoir was published in its original form, Lord
Palmerston has gone round again. In the Debate of July 9,
on Fortifications, he used these words:—
“The hon. Member for Rochdale has referred to something which passed
between myself and the late Sir Robert Peel. When I said that steam had
bridged the channel, Sir Robert replied, in a way suitable to a debate in this
House, “ Ay, it may have bridged the Channel, but that is a game at which
two can play.”—Times, July 10, 1863.
The Prime Minister is charged by Mr. Cobden with three
falsehoods. Two are proved; the proof being accompanied by
fresh falsehoods: the third is admitted. This was a case to be
submitted to the judgment of the House. Mr. Cobden had no
option but a duty which he was bound to perform.
In 1670 the House of Commons suspended Sir John Pretti
man, for having only “ dealt badly with the House by conceal
ing the truth” about a man for whom he had obtained privilege,
by falsely representing him to be his menial servant. The offence
was the falsehood. It is no mitigation of Lord Palmerston’s
offence that it is in weighty, not in trifling matters, that
he has “ dealt badly with the House by concealing the truth.”
But this, which is no mitigation of the offence, is an aggravation
of the danger. In 1670 the House resented an act of deception.
In 1862 it courts such acts, in order to pretend that it is de
ceived. No such deception exists any longer.
GENERAL PRACTICE OF FALSEHOOD
(charges
brought by the queen and substantiated by
EARL RUSSELL.)
The falsehoods with regard to the French army were told
with the view to excite alarm in England, so as to increase the
military expenditure as against the aggressive power of France.
At the same time the Cabinets of England and France are de
clared to be so united as to form but one.
*
* A little while ago, Louis Napoleon was asked by an ecclesiastic, “Why
�17
Lord Palmerston has, during his whole career, been engaged
in increasing the military force of France, and in directing that
force to illegal objects.
,
In 1835 the English navy having been increased, at the instance
of William IV., as a precaution against Russia, Lord Palmerston
suggested to France to increase hers. When France complied with
this advice, he immediately made it a pretence for increased arma
ments on the part of England as against France. He has since
made France a partner in all his schemes of intervention.
So long ago as 1837 the Times made the charge which we
have here pressed home, namely, that Lord Palmerston makes
use of falsehood, not to escape from an attack, but as a method
of Government. The Times wrote, December 29, 1837: —
“ England has been in the habit of receiving as truth the assertions of a
Minister. We are now brought into the lamentable predicament of having
to guard against deception, and to be armed against design in every phrase
which escapes from the lips of the man who at present directs the Foreign
Policy of Great Britain. . . What must be said of the Minister of England
who now, after the display of the force which we have described (the Russian
fleet in the Baltic), instead of taking steps to counteract her, (Russia) instead
of remonstrating, protesting, and preventing, stands forward to justify the
measure, and then to repudiate the responsibility, and, not content with
this, perverts facts, and falsifies truth ?”
Lord Palmerston has now associated France with England
in the distant regions of China, and, pursuing the same course as
in 1837, has brought her forces into the neighbourhood of dis
turbed India, all the while arming in England against her. In 1848,
on the election of Louis Napoleon to the Presidency of the French
Republic, he wrote to Vienna that it was to be inferred from
such a choice that France would enter on a course of aggression.
To Lord Ponsonby, November 11, 1848:—
“Important changes may take place in France; the election, which is
• coming on next month, may bring other men into power in that country;
with other men another policy may come in. Traditional maxims of policy
connected with a busier action in regard to foreign countries may be taken
up as the guide of the Government of France. Popular feeling in that
country, which at present inclines to peace, might easily be turned in an
opposite direction, and the glory, as it would be considered in France, of
freeing the whole of Italy up to the Alps from the domination of Austria
*
might reconcile the French nation to many sacrifices and to great exer
tions.”!
do you not give out openly that you will defend the Pope against Gari
baldi ?” He replied, “ If I were to do so, Palmerston would have me upset
in a week.” The Committee insert this statement on the written testimony
of a gentleman of high standing and character.
* “Italy shall be free from the Alps to the Adriatic.”—Words of Louis
Napoleon in 1859.
T Correspondence respecting the Affairs of Italy, 1849, part iii. pp. 566,
C
�Such purposes of aggression were, however, not compatible
with the then constituted order of things. Lord Palmerston,
however, joined in the measures taken to render Louis Napoleon
absolute, and thus overthrow all restraint upon that career whose
aggressive tendencies he had prophesied.
Throughout Europe it had been Lord Palmerston’s boast to
have established (( Constitutional Government.” To this he had
sacrificed the prerogatives of .every Crown, the usages of every
people, the ancient village government of Greece, the fueros of
the Basques, the old estates of Spain and Portugal. On the en
actment of the coup dftat of the 2nd of December, 1851, he-has
tened to sanction a massacre of unarmed and inoffensive citizens,
the arrest of the members of the Assembly, and the restoration, by
violence and perjury, of a form of government that had destroyed
the liberty of the French people, and indemnified them for the
loss by setting Europe in flames. When asked to give reasons, he
replied, that the unity of purpose and of authority in the Presi
dent was his object. He said in Parliament, February 3,1852:—
“ Such was the antagonism arising from time to time between the French
Assembly and the President that their long co-existence became impossible,
and it was my opinion that if one or the other were to prevail it would be
better for France, and, through the interests of France, better for the in
terests of Europe, that the President should prevail than the Assembly, and
my reason was, that the Assembly had nothing to offer for the substitution
of the President, unless an alternative obviously ending in civil war or
anarchy, whereas the President, on the other hand, had to offer unity of
purpose and unity of authority, and if he were inclined to do so, might give
to France internal tranquillity, with good and permanent government.”
The “ unity of purpose” of Louis Napoleon had already been
•shown in his invasion and occupation of a portion of Italy
(Rome). It could not be the interest of England to confer
i( unity of authority” upon such an individual by means of a
*
usurpation.
The words of Lord Palmerston are unintelligible as those of a
British Minister; they are merely the repetition of a passage on
the same subject contained in a. Russian despatch a quarter of a
century before. Count Pozzo di Borgo wrote from Paris, 22nd
December, 1826:—
“The ancient fortresses are repaired with a dilatoriness that keeps them
still in a state of imperfection, and, consequently, of weakness, particularly
as regards the completion of those raised on the opposite frontier; the great
roads are falling into decay; the army itself and the marine are in a state
that calls for additions and ameliorations ; without which it would be im
possible to make them act with the unity and the power indispensable to
* “Brunnow is said to have mentioned triumphantly the events of the
second and third of December in Paris on the frst of that month, in his
passage through Berlin. He was sure of the success of the plot before it took
place.”—Private Letter, 1852.
�19
their action and their movements............. A serious war and the sacrifices
it would impose, would give rise, I fear, to all the effects of panic among
the capitalists, indifference among a great portion of the nation, and revo
lutionary sentiments, among many others............... In proportion as the situa
tion is. delicate, it will require increased care and interest to guard it from
the evils which menace it. Russia has re-established the French monarchy
by her arms, she has continued to protect it by her generosity, she will
preserve it, I dare hope, from the embarrassments and even misfortunes
which seem to menace it, by her influence and her policy.”
This letter was written soon after the invasion of Spain, into
which, in spite of Mr. Canning, Russia was able to inveigle
- France. Within four years afterwards, France had entered on
the conquest of Algiers. It is impo^ible, except on the supposi
tion that the military power of France is at the disposal of Russia,
to account for the anxiety which a Russian Ambassador feels that
France should be strong. It is impossible, except on the supposi
tion that the British Minister has adhered to this scheme, to
account for his efforts to increase that aggressive power of France
which he predicted beforehand, and which he persists in holding
up. to the English people as an object at once for alarm and
imitation.
Accordingly, it is on this very point that detection has over
taken Lord Palmerston. On his giving his sanction—in defiance
of the Queen and of his colleagues—to the coup d’etat of the
2nd December, he was removed from office by the Queen. On
the opening of Parliament, Lord John Russell announced that this
was not the first time he had been detected. He produced a
memorandum addressed to himself by the Queen on a-former
occasion, in which was consigned a description of the frauds and
usurpations Lord Palmerston had been in the habit of practising,
and a requirement that such practice should cease. Lord Pal
merston did not reject the imputation; on the contrary, he accepted
the terms on which his continuance in office then and for the
future was to depend. He wrote to Lord John Russell:—
“ I have taken a copy of this memorandum of the Queen, and will not fail
to attend to the directions it contains.”
Lord John Russell did not produce to Parliament the whole of
the Queen’s letter, and at a later date, when requested, he refused
to give the remaining portion. We are left in ignorance as to
the. specific occasions in which Lord Palmerston “ failed in sin
cerity.” We may, therefore, infer that specific instances were
given only as an illustration of a general practice; this is borne
out both by the reply of Lord Palmerston and by the terms of the
Queen’s letter. The latter are as follows]
“The Queen requires, first, that Lord Palmerston will distinctly
state what he proposes to do in a given case, in order that the Queen
may know as distinctly to what she is giving her royal sanction,
c2
�20
Secondly, having once given Her sanction to a measure, that it he
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 Minister, She expects to be kept informed of what passes
between him and the foreign Ministers before important decisions
are taken, based upon intercourse; to receive the foreign despatches
in good time; and to have the drafts for her approval sent to her in
sufficient time to makelherself acquainted with their contents before
they must be sent off. The Queen thinks it best that Lord John
Russell should show this letter to Lord Palmerston.”
On the 3rd of February, 1852, Lord John Russell testified
to the truth of the charges contained in the Queen’s letter, and
made the application of them, using the following words:—
“The noble Lord passed by the Crown, and put himself in the
PLACE OF THE CROWN.”
REGARDING THE ABANDONMENT OF OUR MARI
TIME RIGHTS.
(self-contradiction.)
Mr. Cobden denounces as ridiculous Lord Palmerston’s
pretence that steam has injured, or can injure the naval supremacy
of England, but Mr. Cobden has prepared and is still preparing
the way for Lord Palmerston to destroy the real source of that
supremacy—the Right of Search. The subject has been so fre
quently treated that it is necessary only to recite Lord Palmer
ston’s three speeches on this head:—
Lord Palmerston, November 7,1856.
“ I cannot help hoping that these relaxations of former doctrines, which
were established in the beginning of the war, practised during its continuance,
and which have since been ratified by formal engagements, may perhaps be
still further extended, and that, in the course of time, those principles of war
which are applied to hostilities by land may be extended without exception to
hostilities by sea, so that private property shall no longer be the object of
aggression on either side.”—Times, November 8, 1856.
Lord Palmerston, February 3,1860.
“ A naval Power like England ought not to surrender any means of weaken
ing her enemies at sea. If we did not seize their seamen on board their
merchant vessels, we should have to fight them on board their ships of war.
I deny that private property is spared in war on land any more than in war at
sea. On the contrary, armies in an enemy’s country take whatever they want
or desire, without the slightest regard to the right of property, as we shall find
to our cost if a hostile army should ever succeed in landing in this country.”—
Morning Star, Feb. 6, 1860.
Lord Palmerston, March 17, 1862.
“ The passage quoted as having been part of what I said at Liverpool, related
to two matters. First of all to the exemption of private property at sea from
capture; and, secondly, to the assimilation of the principles of war at sea to
�21
the practice of war on land. I am perfectly ready to admit that I have entirely
altered my opinion on the first point. Further reflection and deeper thinking
has satisfied me that what at first sight is plausible—and I admit that it is
plausible on the surface—is a most dangerous doctrine, and I hope that the
honourable Member (Mr. Bright) will be kind enough to give weight to my
thoughts, and also come round to those second thoughts which are proverbially
the best.” “ My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham has very ably and
very fully shown that it was a wise and politic measure on the part of the Go
vernment to adopt the principle that a neutral flag should cover enemy’s
goods. There is a principle upon which, as it appears to me, this doctrine
must stand. We have lately maintained, at the risk of war, that a merchant
ship at sea is a part of our territory, that that territory cannot be violated
with impunity, that, therefore, individuals cannot be taken out of a mer
chantman belonging to a neutral country. The same principle may be said
to apply to goods as well as men.”—Times, March 18, 1862.
The transmutation, by a “ principle,” of a ship, whose function
is to move from place to place, and, therefore, to convey help to
the enemy, into a territory whose peculiarity is that it remains
fixed, and, therefore, cannot convey goods to the enemy, is a
climax of absurdity. It covers contraband of war, despatches,
everything. It transmutes the neutral into an enemy so much
the more dangerous as he is himself exempted from all danger.
It is, of course, a flagrant contradiction to the declaration of the
3rd of February, 1860, that “A naval Power like England ought
not to surrender any means of weakening her enemies at sea.”
REGARDING THE SUEZ CANAL.
(SELF-CONTRADICTION’.)
Up to 1857, there was no documentary evidence to show what
had been Lord Palmerston’s conduct in this matter. Mr.
Urquhart, in the il Progress of Russia,” published in 1853, had
declared that Russia, through Lord Palmerston, had actively
intrigued against it for twenty-five years. In 1857 this statement
was confirmed by Lord Palmerston’s admission. In 1858, it
received the further confirmation of his denial:—
Lord Palmerston, July 7, 1857.
“ For the last fifteen years her Majesty’s Government have used all the in
fluence they possess at Constantinople and in Egypt to prevent that scheme
from being carried into execution.”—Hansard, vol. 116, p. 1014.
Lord Palmerston, Ju:ne 1, 1858.
“ We are told now that for fifteen years we have been exercising a moral
constraint upon the Sultan of Turkey to prevent him giving his sanction to
this scheme. Now, I can assure those who hold that opinion that they are
entirely mistaken.”—Hansard, vol. 150, p. 1381.
�22
REGARDING- THE DANISH SUCCESSION.
(CHARGE BY LORD ROBERT MONTAGU.)
The succession to the Crown of Denmark is of course a matter
in which England has no more right to interfere than in the
election of the Governor of New York, or the form of Govern
ment in France. This subject has, however, occupied the English
Government for at least twelve years. The correspondence had
filled, according to Lord Palmerston, in 1851, two thousand
pages of letterpress, and has given rise to repeated contradictions
on his part. The first statement was brought out by a question
from Mr. Disraeli :—
Lord Palmerston, February 4, 1850.
“ There are grave questions to be determined. There is one relating to the
succession to the Danish Crown; another, what should be the Constitution of
the Duchy of Schleswig in relation to the other part of what we call the
Danish Monarchy. . . . We must not expect that matters of that kind can be
arranged so quickly as we could wish; and more especially considering that
Her Majesty’s Government is only acting as mediator, and that we have no
power to exercise authority in regard to these questions.”—Hansard, vol. 108,
p. 283.
The second was a reply to Mr. Urquhart, who “ begged to ask
further, whether in this correspondence there had been any nego
tiation as to the succession to the Crown of Denmark, or in respect
to the succession in the Duchies”:—
Lord Palmerston, March 20, 1851.
“ 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 connected with that, in
regard to the arrangements for the order of succession in Schleswig.and Hol
stein. But Her Majesty’s Government had studiously and systematically held
themselves aloof from taking any share in these negotiations. Her Majesty’s
Government have confined themselves strictly to the mediation which they under
took, which was a' mediation for the purpose of bringing about a restoration
of peace between Denmark and the German Confederation.”—Hansard, vol.
115, p. 221.
In 1850, the Mediation included in its scope the settling of the
Danish Succession; in 1851, it had always been confined to the
restoration of peace between Denmark and Germany. Two years
afterwards, Mr. Blackett asked a question which brought forth
a third statement. This statement contradicted both the previous
ones. According to the first statement, it was only as Mediator
that England had anything to do with the Danish Succession;
according to the third, it was her “ business” to alter that Suc
cession.
Lord Palmerston, August 12, 1853.
ee As things stood, the succession to Denmark Proper went in the female
line, the succession of Holstein went in the male line, the succession of
Schleswig was disputed between two parties (!) ; and, therefore, on the death
�23
of the King and his Uncle, who was the next heir, Denmark would have gone
to the female heir, Holstein to the male, and Schleswig been divided between
them. (!) It was the business of the British Government to prevent such a state
of things, and it was thought an important object to keep together those three
States which in common parlance were called the Danish Provinces. He was
anxious to get renunciations also from that male branch which had claims on
Holstein, and to combine the whole in some party who might equally claim
all portions. That was accomplished by the Treaty.”—Hansard, vol. 129,
p. 1680.
On the 5th June, 1851, was signed the Protocol of Warsaw,
which established the “ principle of the integrity of the Danish
Monarchy.” On the 8th May, 1852, this was consigned to a
European Treaty. This was prima facie evidence that Lord
Palmerston’s statement of March, 1851, was false. The d«atj
*
mentary proof was not, however, made public till, on the 18th
June, 1861, Lord Robert Montagu produced in the House the
Draft of the original document:—
Protocol of London, August 2, 1860.
" Art. I.—The unanimous desire of the said Powers is that the state of the
possessions actually united under the Crown of Denmark shall be maintained
in its integrity.”—Hansard, vol. 163, p. 1266.
‘‘Thus,” to use the words of Lord R. Montagu, “the Pro
tocol and the Treaty were conceived in subjection and were exe
cuted in duplicity.”
This was a charge of falsehood, but it was made as a prima
facie case. Lord Robert Montagu challenged Lord Pal
merston to rebut the evidence brought against him. Lord Pal
merston could not disprove, but he did not then dare to avow
his falsehood. He answered by a “ Count Out.”
REGARDING THE FALSIFICATION OF THE
AFFGHAN DESPATCHES.
(CHARGE BY MR. DUNLOP.)
The Danish Treaty places the eventual succession of Denmark
in the Emperor of Russia, by cutting out nineteen of the inter
vening heirs. The Affghan Forgeries, first denied by Lord Pal
merston, are now justified by him on the ground that they
were necessary to save the honour of Russia, and to induce her to
act in accordance with the interests of England:—
Lord Palmerston, March 1,1818.
“ If any man will give himself the trouble of referring to those Debates, as
recorded in Hansard, respecting the despatches of Sir Alexander Burnes, he
will see that it is not true to assert that the papers produced to the House did
not contain a faithful report of the opinions which that Gentleman gave to the
Governor-General and the Board of Control. I do not mean to say that Sir A.
Burnes did not himself subsequently alter those opinions, but the passages
omitted contained opinions on subjects irrelevant to the question at issue.”—
Hansard, vol. 97, p. 102.
�24
Lord Palmerston, March 19,1861.
“ The policy and conduct of the Government were regulated, not by the
opinions of their subordinate agent at Caubul, but by the general knowledge
which they possessed of the state of affairs in the East, of the aggressive
views then entertained by Russia, and of the means by which that State was
preparing to carry hostilities to the very frontiers of our Indian possessions.
If that be so, the question is not the degree in which Parliament has been
misled, or in which Lieutenant Burnes has been injured, by the omission of
portions of his despatches in which his personal opinions, evidently arising
from confusion of ideas, misconception and overcredulity were stated, at
variance with the views justly entertained by the Government under which
he was acting. . . .”
“The opinions of Lieutenant Burnes, which are omitted from the de
spatches form no elements in the policy which was adopted.”—Hansard, vol.
162, p. 63.
Lord Palmerston on this occasion did not hesitate to charge
with falsehood a faithful ally of the British Government, Dost
Mahommed, on the ground not that he had evidence to prove it,
but that to tell falsehoods was a very natural thing.
“ I am sure' nothing can be more easily conceived than that the draught
which was submitted to Lieutenant Burnes was one thing, and the letter
which was sent off was of a totally different character.”—p. 60.
In 1848, Lord Palmerston met the charge by asserting that
the Papers did contain a faithful report of the opinions of Sir A.
Burnes. In 18G1, defending himself against the same charge,
he says his opinions were omitted because they were not acted
upon. When the denial was made, the unmutilated Papers had
not been published. At that time he could say that Lord Fitz
gerald, the President of the Board of Control, “ having access
to these documents, felt himself bound to state that he could not
find any trace on the part of the then Government of concealing
or misrepresenting the facts.” He could boldly challenge ex
posure, and say, “ Sir, if any such thing had been done, what
was to prevent the two adverse Governments who succeeded us
in power from proclaiming the fact, and producing the real docu
ments?”
When the real documents are produced, and the omitted words
are marked by brackets so as to render all further concealment
impossible, he covers the confession by making it in the form of
a justification. The omissions and alterations respecting Russia are
acknowledged in the same manner. This point is worthy of par
ticular attention, because it is the habitual practice and special
art of Lord Palmerston.
*
* Mr. Dunlop thus addressed his constituents at Greenock on the 21st of
October, .1861
“ The idea of my motion being considered an attack on the present Govern
ment never entered my imagination; and the notion that Lord Palmerston
would have resigned, had it been carried, must rest entirely on the assumption
�25
“ I say it was perfectly right, in the letter which has been referred to, to
substitute the words, ‘ the Russian Government’ for the words ‘ the Emperor,’
and to omit the words which would have identified the Emperor in person
with the communication made to Dost Mahommed. . . . Nothing could
have been more unwise than to pin them (the Russian Government) down to
that which you wished them to disavow, and to make it impossible, consistently
with their honour, to undo that which your remonstrances were especially in
tended to induce them to retract.”—pp. 60-1.
It would have been unworthy of Lord Palmerston to have
admitted a forgery without justifying it by a falsehood. The
Russian Government had already disavowed its agents. The
disavowal had been forwarded to Calcutta, and it was after this
that Vicovitch was sent to Caubul with the autograph letter
of the Emperor of Russia. Sir Alexander Burnes wrote,
December 20, 1837:—
“ I shall take an early opportunity of reporting on the proceedings of this
Russian agent, if he be so in reality; for, if not an impostor, it is a most un
called for proceeding, after the disavowal of the Russian Government conveyed
through Count Nesselrode, alluded to in Mr. McNeill’s letter on the 1st of
June last.”
This passage is one of those suppressed in the papers of 1839.
*
REGARDING CIRCASSIA.
'
(MISQUOTATION OF TREATIES—SELF CONTRADICTION.)
This portion of the world, so long thought of only as the region
of fabulous romance, then brought into the light of day to be for
gotten for a quarter of a century, is now seen to contain the key
to the destinies of the world. Yet in 1837 and 1838, when
England was sending an army across the Indus to oppose Russian
influence, nobody would take the trouble to see that the real bul
wark of India was to be preserved by supporting Circassia, not
by destroying Caubul. On the contrary, when the Vixen was
sacrificed by consent of Parliament, the general feeling was that
a great danger—war with Russia—had been escaped at a small
sacrifice—the honour of England. This sacrifice, however, could
be accomplished only on the condition that somebody should veil
it by a falsehood, namely, that the Bay of Soudjouk Kale was in
the possession of Russia at the time the Vixen was seized there.
This falsehood has not yet been retracted by Lord Palmerston,
and cannot therefore be set down here, as it would require the
statement of the whole case. It has, however, been supported by
that he was undeniably guilty, and that he would not^have dared to stand an
inquiry. I can truly say that I not only did not believe that he was participant
in the falsification—though I admit that such belief would not have deterred
me—but that till I heard his speech in answer to me, I had never entertained
even a suspicion that he had been so.”
* See Affghan Papers, 1849, p. 81.
�26
subsequent falsehoods, capable of being dealt with on the plan
said down for this Memoir, namely, simply as falsehoods, and
without reference to the designs with which they are uttered.
The Treaty of Adrianople, September 14, 1829, affected to
confer on Russia the east coast of the Black Sea. Had Russia
been able to conquer this territory, there would have been little
difficulty about the matter. But Russia, not having conquered
this coast, that is, Circassia, it remains very important that Turkey
never had the right or made the attempt to possess it. Russia’s
false claim, of thirty-three years standing, has to be backed up
by false representations, so as to seclude the Circassians from the
commerce of the world till Russia shall have really conquered the
country. In two or three places on the coast the Turks had
erected small forts, by permission of the Circassians. Had these
been specified by name in the Treaty of Adrianople, there would
have been some colour of a title on the part of Russia to these
places, especially if she actually possessed them. But no such
places are mentioned in the Treaty of Adrianople.
On Monday, August 24, 1857, in the House of Commons, in
reply to Lord Raynham, Lord Palmerston said:—“Thecoast
of Circassia—that was to say, the eastern coast of the Black Sea
—was ceded to Russia by Turkey at the Treaty of Adrianople—
that treaty ceding certain points by name along the coast round to
the Sea oj Azoff. The Russians were engaged in hositilities with,
the Circassians on the northern part of the eastern coast, and it
appeared that some of the cruisers which, by the Treaty of Paris,
Russia was entitled to maintain in the Black Sea, had been sent
to operate against the Circassians at Ghelendjik and Redout Kale.
He did not apprehend that in so doing, the Russians had at all
exceeded their powers under the Treaty of Paris.”
The words of the Treaty of Adrianople, Art. IV., are:—
“ The whole of the coast of the Black Sea, from the mouth of the Kuban
as far as the port of St. Nicholas, inclusively, shall remain in perpetuity
under the dominion of the Empire of Russia.”
The Treaty, therefore, instead of ceding certain points by name
along the coast round to the Sea of Azoff, specifies only the two
*
extremities.
This falsehood of Lord Palmerston did not, however, first
appear under the sanction of his name. In the debate of the
21st of June, 1838, on the sacrifice of the Vixen in the previous
year, Lord John Russell said:—
“ What is the case as. to the state of the port at which Mr. Belt’s vessel
is reported to have arrived ? This port, apparently, did not belong to Russia
* A copy of the Treaty of Adrianople will be found in the Collection of
Treaties between Russia and Turkey published by the Government in 1854.
�until the year 1783. Up to that period the fact was acknowledged that it
belonged to Turkey in the map put forth by the Russian authorities, and
this evening alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman. In that map, it is
true, that a great part of Circassia was laid down as belonging to inde
pendent tribes. But three of the places at that time so laid down as be
longing to Turkey were, by the subsequent Treaty of Adrianople, transferred,
by name, to Russia. These places were Soudjouk Kale, Poti, Anapa. They
were named specially in the Treaty, and thence has arisen a claim on the part
of Russia that the whole of that territory which had belonged to Turkey
belongs, since, to her, and has been confirmed to, and comes under her do
minion.”—Mirror of Parliament, p. 4999.
Neither Anapa, nor Poti, nor Soudjouk Kale, is mentioned in
the Treaty of Adrianople. Lord John Russell must have
been whispered to by Lord Palmerston. He appears, however,
to have read the Treaty after the Debate, since the words in
italics quoted from the “ Mirror of Parliament” are not in Han
sard.
In defending himself against the charge of deceiving the
owners of the Vixen, Lord Palmerston had recourse to a pro
cess of fraud and falsehood unexampled in parliamentary history.
Mr. Urquhart, on returning home from Constantinople, where
he had been Secretary of Embassy, consigned in a letter to Lord
Palmerston (dated September 20, 1837) a history of his con
duct in regard to the Vixen, which was at once a statement and
a charge. Sir Stratford Canning (June 16, 1838) requested
Lord Palmerston to lay this letter on the table of the House.
Lord Palmerston refused:—
“With regard to that letter from Mr. Urquhart, it was written after
that Gentleman had ceased to hold an official appointment, and is therefore
to be regarded as a private communication. The letter contains, too, a
number of misstatements and misrepresentations, and is, in fact, an attack
upon my conduct. I have not replied to that letter ; and, considering that it
is not official, I doubt whether it ought to be laid before the House.”—Ibid.,
p. 4831.
Sir S. Canning then requested that that portion of the letter
might be produced which referred to the FZrm. Lord Pal
merston replied:—
“ I believe that that part of the letter is connected with a false statement in
the Petition, namely, that the voyage of the Vixen was undertaken in consequence
of encouragement given to the undertaking by the Under Secretary of State. I
really doubt whether such a document ought to be laid before Parlia
ment.”
To this Sir S. Canning rejoined :—
“ I am informed that there are other portions of the letter having refer
ence to the Vixen. The circumstance of the document not being official,
induces the noble Lord to think that it ought not to be laid upon the table ;
but I beg to ask the noble Lord whether he himself has any objection to
the production of such parts of the communication as have reference to the
Vixen, Mr. Urquhart having given his consent to its production.”
�28
Lord Palmerston then said:—
“The fact is, that Mr. Urquhart wrote me a loDg letter subsequent to
his recal, which letter would, I believe, fill one of the volumes on the table,
and which letter contains a number of misstatements and misrepresentations
connected with transactions in which we had both been concerned. I have
not had time to reply to that letter, or to enter into a controversy with Mr.
Urquhart, and therefore the letter has remained wholly unanswered, but if I
were to lay the document on the table of the House I should be obliged to
accompany it with an answer from myself, in reference to the misstatements
it contains. I do not know that there is any portion of the letter which has an
important bearing on the affair of the Vixen ; but I shall look at it again, and
inform the right honourable Gentleman whether such be the case or not, but
if any part of it is to be produced, it will be necessary for me to write a reply,
and to lay that reply also on the table of the House.”
The letter was connected with a false statement in the petition,
and therefore could not be published. The letter, nevertheless,
had not an important bearing on the affair of the Vixen, though
the false statement which it supported was the whole case referred
to Parliament. Finally, though unimportant, the letter could not
be published unless an answer could be written by Lord Palmerston, and laid on the table of the House.
This conversation is quoted from the Mirror of Parliament. It
is also reported in the Times of June 18, 1838. Not a trace of
it is to be found in Hansard.
Lord Palmerston did, after this, write a reply, but he never
laid it on the table of the House. It was left for Mr. Urquhart
to publish in the Times. But, on the day of the debate (June
21), Lord Palmerston did not hesitate to say that this reply,
written after the lapse of six months, was written the day after
he received Mr. Urquhart’s letter.
“ But we now come to another part of these transactions, being that in
which the right honourable Gentleman means to impute to me, personally,
some considerable blame—I mean as to the matters which form the subject
of a letter written by Mr. Urquhart, and published in the Times this morn
ing. I beg, in the first place, to say that, during the little leisure which in
disposition sometimes gives me, I wrote a letter to Mr. Urquhart, in
answer1 to one I had received from him the day before ; a fact which I men
tion to show the course that was taken in answering his communication.”
Mr. Urquhart’s letter to Lord Palmerston was dated Sep
tember 30, 1837
*
Lord Palmerston’s reply is dated June 20, 1838.|
On June 16, 1838, Lord Palmerston said:—
“That letter has remained wholly unanswered.”
On June 21, 1838, Lord Palmerston said of the same
letter:—•
* It will be found in the Times of June 21, 1838.
j\ See the Times of July 26, 1838, which also contains Mr. Urquhart’s
rejoinder.
�29
. “ I wrote a letter to Mr. Urquhart in answer to one I had received from
him the day before.”
Everybody, surely, can understand a direct falsehood like this.
It must be evident that if Lord Palmerston could not com
pass his defence without having recourse to falsehood, he must
have been guilty of something far worse than anything the Motion
imputed to him.
Such an extraordinary manoeuvre must have had a special ob
ject; but the mode in which it was intended to operate can be
explained only by some one personally cognisant at the time of
the whole transaction. Lord Palmerston completed his task
by repeating, and at the same time contradicting, what he had
said about the private nature of Mr. Urquhart’s communica
tion :—
“It would ill become me to criticise the course that Gentleman has
thought proper to take, but my objection is not what it has been sup
posed to be by the noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire (Lord
Stanley)—that his letter was a betrayal of official confidence ; my objection
is exactly the reverse, namely, that it contains a great number of private
and confidential communications between Mr. Urquhart and other people
which I did not think fit or proper to be published.”—Ibid., p. 4990.
What is a betrayal of official confidence ? Is it not the
revelation by a public servant of private and confidential com
munications made to him as such? Does Lord Palmerston
mean to say that breach of official confidence means pub
lishing that which the public ought to know? If he does not
mean this, it is difficult to know what he does mean. But in
this last contradiction, if the meaning is obscure the purpose
is obvious. The North American Indians, in their warlike
marches, leave to the last man the office of concealing the trail
which may betray them. This feat seems to a European impos
sible, but Lord Palmerston has learned to perform it with an
ease and a perfection which far surpass those of the inhabitants of
the forest. He guards against the danger of being detected and
contradicted in his falsehoods by detecting and contradicting
himself.
REGARDING THE RELATIONS OF ENGLAND WITH
RUSSIA.
(self-contradiction.)
Lord Palmerston lately proposed an assimilation between
war and peace. From 1837 to 1840 he effected an assimilation
between enmity and friendship. He combined with Russia on
all European matters, while he made war upon Dost Mahomed
merely for receiving at his Court a Russian Envoy.
�30
Lord Palmerston, December 14, 1837.
“ I say, therefore—not at all dissembling—that I think Russia does keep a
larger force than is required for the defence of her own possessions, and than is
consistent with the general well-being of other nations at peace with her . .
that having no reason to believe that the intention of Russia is otherwise than
friendly towards this country—having reason, on the contrary, to believe
(whatever her policy or ultimate intentions may prompt) that she has no wish
or design to embark in a war with England, I feel &c.”*
Lord Palmerston, March 11, 1839.
“Ido not like to touch this part of the subject,lest the possible supposition
should be entertained that, in what I say, I am giving any countenance to an
opinion that may be anywhere entertained, that we are now in a state in which
a rupture with Russia is likely to arise. There is nothing in the relations be
tween this country and Russia to justify such an opinion ; on the contrary, I
believe that, on both sides, there is a strong and anxious desire to preserve the
peaceful relations, and to maintain that friendship which at present exist.
Lord Palmerston, March 19, 1861.
“ Russia was then in a state of active hostility to England in regard to our
Asiatic affairs............ The policy which the Governor-General had adopted
required that Dost Mahomed should be treated as an enemy, because he was
allied with those who were at ffiat time the enemies of England.”—Hansard,
vol. 162, pp. 62—3.
REGARDING THE RUSSIAN FLEET IN THE BALTIC.
(self-contradiction.)
Lord Palmerston’s contradiction of himself on this point is
one of the most remarkable of his many contradictions. In 1837
there was, according to his statement at the time, a correspond
ence between England and Russia, respecting the Russian Fleet
in the Baltic. In 1848 he denied that any such correspondence
had taken place. In'making this denial he affected to reply
to a demand for papers on the part of Mr. Anstey. No such
demand was made by Mr. Anstey in his speech, nor were the
papers in question among those recited in his Motion:—
Lord Palmerston, December 14, 1837.
“ I am asked whether any measures have been adopted by the Government
- to prevent Russia from proceeding with the naval armament at Cronstadt.
Now, with regard to the building and equipping of a fleet, no Government is
entitled to prescribe to another Power what fleets it shall build; but unques
tionably when a Foreign Power is fitting out a considerable force, either by
sea or land which indicates intentions calculated to give reasonable ground of
uneasiness to another Power, or its allies, then the Government of such country
has a right to demand for what purpose such force is intended; and certainly
the presence and equipment of the Russian fleet, as it was collected in the
Baltic two or three years ago, did lead to explanations between the Govern* Opinions and Policy of the Right Honourable Viscount Palmerston,
G.C.B., M.P., &c., as Minister, Diplomatist, and Statesman, during more than
Forty Years of Public Life; with a Memoir by George Henry Francis, Esq.
Editor of “ Maxims and Opinions of the Duke of Wellington,” &c. London:
Colburn and Co. 1852. P. 361.
t Ibid. pp. 406-7.
�31
ments of England and of Russia, but those explanations were satisfactory to
the Government of this country • and although, since that time, a large number
of vessels have been fitted out for the purpose of review, there has not been
any such display of naval force in the Baltic as might be reasonably looked upon
as indicating a hostile intention on the part of Russia towards any other
Power.”*
Loud Palmerston, March 1, 1848,
“ The bon. Member (Mr. Anstey) asks for all the correspondence which may
have passed from the year 1835 downwards on the subject of the Russian fleet
in commission in the Baltic. I do not recollect that any particular communi
cations took place on this subject between the British Government, on the one
hand, and those of Russia or Erance on the other.”—Hansard, vol. 97, p. 120.
REGARDING THE COMPARATIVE STRENGTH OF
ENGLAND AND RUSSIA.
(self-contradiction.)
When a Minister avows that he has committed a forgery to
save the honour of an enemy, it is natural to suppose that enemy
to be strong. Lord Palmerston, however, when urged to arm
against Russia, declared that she was weaker than England:—
Lord Palmerston, December 14,1837..
" Does he suppose that Russia—ay, even that same Russia which he seems
so desirous to convert into a general alarm-giver—is in a more warlike position
as regards financial matters than Great Britain? I beg to tell him he is.quite
as much mistaken in thinking that Russia at this moment could.find means to
commence an offensive war, as he is in asserting that England is in such a state
as to render her unable to provide for a defensive one. . . I assert that Russia
would find it more difficult to undertake a war, which had not for its object
self-defence, than England.”f
England, then, was strong enough to cope with Russia if both
stood alone; the only danger was lest England should be en
cumbered by the assistance of allies—for instance, France and
Poland:—
Lord Palmerston, July 9, 1833.
“I repeat that a general war must have taken place if England had interfered
by arms; because, on one side there were Russia, Austria, and Prussia enter
taining one opinion, and, on the other, England and Erance were united in a
different interpretation. Austria and Prussia were both in possession of Polish
provinces, and both were interested, or believed themselves interested (which
is much the same thing), in establishing the interpretation put by Russia on
the Treaty. And what was the state of the disposable army of these Powers?
Russia had an army in Poland against which the Poles were scarcely able to
make head; Austria had an army on the Austrian frontier of Poland; while
Prussia had concentrated her forces on the Russian frontier;. and if the British
Government had wished to make the fate of the Poles certain, and to involve
them in a contest with forces so superior as to render resistance on their part
for a week impossible, they had nothing to do but to declare that they would,
by force of arms, compel Russia to maintain the Constitution of Poland.”^
Lord Palmerston succeeded in persuading the British Par
liament that Austria was the enemy of Poland. That the reverse
* Opinions of Lord Palmerston, pp. 356-7.
f Ibid. pp. 362-3.
J Ibid. pp. 244-5.
�32
was the truth, has lately been established by the public testimony
of a Polish Gentleman whose character and whose knowledge of
the subject are alike unimpeachable:—
Count Zamoyski, July 11, 1861.
“ I remember, when the insurrection broke out in Warsaw, the people looked
up to the Austrian Consul as their friend. There was no English Consul and
no French Consul. No impediment was raised in the way of any man in
Galicia passing the frontier and joining the army. We had several regiments
formed of Galicians. Austria, at that very time, far from being offended at the
Galicians, actually supported the insurrection. The Emperor of Austria
issued a proclamation to the Province in which be announced that six months’
taxes would be.remitted as a token of gratitude for their conduct during the
struggle. Their conduct .consisted in collecting money and men, and sending
them to the Polish insurrection. The Plenipotentiary of the Austrian Govern
ment at the Congress of Vienna was Prince Metternich. Now, the Prince,
during the Polish insurrection of 1831, concealed himself from the Russian
Embassy, but he saw the Polish Envoy every evening, receiving him by the back
door of his house. He conferred with him, and expressed the greatest sym
pathy with Poland, but regretted he could do nothing so long as England and
France took no action. He actually ended every conference about Poland by
saying to the Polish Envoy :—
My dear friend, you lose your time here; you should go to the Govern
ments of Paris and London. We cannot move without having the assurance
and security that they are determined to do the tiling in earnest—to check
Russia at once and for ever.’
. “The Emperor Francis II., of Austria, sent a message through his Mi
nister to the Polish Envoy, and it was to this effect:—
“ ‘ The Emperor feels that he is drawing near his end. He is about to ap
pear before the great Judge. The possession of Galicia weighs upon his con
science as a crime, and he would be happy to restore it to Poland, provided
that it would not be amiexed to Russia.’
“A few years afterwards, the Plenipotentiary of England at Vienna was Lord
Holland, who was then Mr. Henry Fox. He took occasion to observe to
Prince Metternich that he was surprised Austria did not see the benefit
which she would derive from the restoration of Poland, Not knowing what
had happened before, he said Austria had remained quiet, not apprehending the
immense interest she had in the restoration of Poland. This was in 1835.
Metternich’s answer was:—
“ ‘Do you think we do not know and understand that ? Give me the as
surance that Poland will be restored in twenty-four hours, and I will subscribe
to it at once. But do you think it is an easy matter to accomplish ? It wants
the assistance, of you English and French. Give me the assurance that you are
willing to do it, and I am ready. I will ask no compensation for Galicia. The
compensation, of course, would be the re-establishment of the barrier between
ourselves and Russia.’
“ The Polish Envoy at Vienna in 1831 was my own brother, so I have this
from a good source.”
REGARDING POLAND.
(equivocation.)
It was not enough to persuade the British Parliament that
Austria was hostile to Poland, it was necessary to profess a be
lief that Poland would continue to exist as a State. This was
merely a matter of the careful placing of words. In 1832 it was
�33
impossible to exterminate a large kingdom morally or politically.
Nobody dared to say, “Your words are inappropriate, and therefore
unmeaning.” Four years afterwards it was easy to say that what
lie meant was, that it was impossible to exterminate a nation
morally or physically, and as these words, by virtue of having a
meaning, were the reverse of what he had formerly said, they were
taken to mean the same:—
Lord Palmerston, June 28, 1832.
“ As to the idea which seems to be entertained by several gentlemen of its
being intended to exterminate a large kingdom, either morally or politically, if
it be seriously entertained anywhere, it is so perfectly impracticable that I
think there need he no apprehension of its being attempted.”*
Lord Palmerston, April 20, 1836.
" What I, on the occasion referred to, said, was this—that it was impossible
for Russia to exterminate, nominally^ or physically, a nation. I did not say king
dom. A kingdom is a political body, and may be destroyed ; but a nation is
an aggregate body of men; and what I stated was that if Russia did entertain
the project, which many thinking people believe she did, of exterminating the
Polish nation, she entertained what it was hopeless to accomplish, because it
was impossible to exterminate a nation, especially a nation of so many millions
of men as the Polish Kingdom, in its divided state, contained.”!
The conduct of Lord Palmerston in respect to Poland cannot
be better summed up than in the words of Mr. Hennessy,
July 2, 1861:
“ I have said that England has been to blame throughout the whole of this
business. When Lord Clarendon touched the Polish question he did it damage.
Lord Aberdeen and other British statesmen of our day injured it. But the
Minister who has from the beginning to this hour done the most against Poland
is the present Premier. It may surprise some hon. Members to be told that,
when other great Powers were anxious to assist Poland, the noble Lord on
behalf of England, stepped in and prevented them. Had I myself heard such a
statement some time ago, I should probably have been surprised also. But
this session I have seen many things which must lessen the confidence of
the country in the noble Lord. I have observed him rise in his place and
lose his temper when accused by one of his own supporters of falsifying Sir
A. Burnes’s despatches. I have watched influential Members of the Liberal
party recording their votes against the noble Lord when that grave charge was
denied but not disproved. I have heard another supporter of the Govern
ment, when he brought forward the case of the Baron de Bode, taunted by the
noble Lord with bringing forward a case involviug fraud, and I have then
seen, on that issue, the Minister defeated by a majority of this House, and
the charge of fraud flung back upon the noble Lord. And, not the least dis
graceful, I have seen the House counted out by the Government when charges
equally serious were made against the noble Viscount by the noble Lord near me
(Lord Robert Montagu.)”
In reply to this charge, namely, that of having used the power
of England against Poland, and having been guilty of acts which
rendered his denial unworthy of belief, Lord Palmerston was
not able to utter a syllable.
* Opinions of Lord Palmerston, p. 202.
+ Azc.
J Opinions of Lord Palmerston, p. 315.
�34
REGARDING THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE TREATY
OF VIENNA.
(mental reservation.)
_The only difficulty in the way of Lord Palmerston’s betrayal
of Poland has lain in the Treaty of Vienna, by which we were
bound to maintain Poland in the enjoyment of certain rights.
Out of this difficulty Lord Palmerston easily extricates him
self. On August 8, 1831, Mr. Hunt presented a petition pray
ing the House of Commons to address the King to dismiss Lord
Palmerston from his councils for not having assisted Poland.
Mr. Hume said we were bound by treaty to see justice done to
Poland:—
“Lord Palmerston could not, consistently ■with his duty, give the hon.
Member those explanations which he desired; but this, at least, he would
undertake to say, that ichatever obligations existing Treaties imposed, would at
all times receive the attention of Government.”
On August 16, 1831, on a Motion for papers by Colonel
Evans, after an attack by Mr. Hume:—
“ Lord Palmerston hoped that nothing he had said, and nothing he had
omitted to say, would lead any man to suppose that the British Government
had forgotten any obligations imposed upon it by Treaties, or that it was not
prepared to fulfil those Treaties.”
This was before Warsaw had fallen, and while the cessation of
intercourse between England and Russia might have saved
Poland. He denied that England was bound to maintain the
Treaty of Vienna by force. But then he coupled this doctrine
with the hypothesis that England had to stand alone against the
other Powers. On June 28, 1832, in reply to Mr. Cutlar
Fergusson, he said:—
“ England lay under no peculiar obligation, individually and independently
of the other contracting parties, to adopt measures of direct interference by
force.”
At this time it was supposed in England that Austria and
Prussia were ready to make war in concert with Russia, and that
all the other Powers would have been neutral. Now, it is known
that Austria, France, Turkey, Sweden, and Persia were on the
side of Poland, and had to be restrained by Lord Palmerston.
He, however, is quite equal to the emergency. Pie shifts his
doctrine to the very simple one that a State making a joint
Treaty is not bound to enforce it if one of the parties choose to
violate it.
On February 27, 1863, Lord Palmerston, in reply to Mr.
Hennessy, said:—
“ The hon. Member assumes that by the Treaty of Vienna we are under
an obligation to interfere with the affairs of Poland. We have a right to
interfere, but we are under no obligation to do so.”
�35
When, therefore, Lord Palmerston told Mr. Hume that the
British Government had not forgotten any obligations imposed
upon it by Treaties, he made a mental reservation that there were
no such obligations. Falsehood here emulates the simplicity of
truth, and by that simplicity triumphs.
REGARDING THE RUSSO-DUTCH LOAN.
(FORGERY IN COLLUSION WITH THE RUSSIAN AMBASSADORS.)
Connected with the Polish Revolution is the payment of the
Russo-Dutch Loan, and with that again the separation of Belgium
from Holland. The continued payment to Russia of this loan
after it had lapsed by this separation, according to the Treaty
of 1815, was obtained by a most elaborate falsehood concerted
between Lord Palmerston and the Russian Ambassadors.
This falsehood, told in 1832, is contrary to all the evidence, and
especially to Lord Palmerston’s own prior statement. The
substance of it was that Russia had been willing to ensure a
compulsory observance of the Treaty of 1815, and had offered to
march 60,000 men into Belgium for that purpose.
The statement first appears in a note from the Russian Ambas
sadors to Lord Palmerston, dated January 25, 1831. They
declare, at the same time, that in all their conversations with Lord
Palmerston they have reserved their right to the continuance
of the payments as the condition on which they adhered to the
Protocol of the 20th of December 1830. This Protocol they
describe as one which “ does not yet take away the sovereignty
of the King of the Netherlands.” - Yet the Protocol declares
that u the very object of the UnioQ of Belgium with Holland
finds itself destroyed, and that thenceforth it becomes indis
pensable to recur to other arrangements to accomplish the in
tentions to the execution of which the Union should have served
as a means.”
Loan Palmerston, February 18,1831.
“ They (the Conference) were not to concern themselves with the question
whether Belgium, having won her freedom with her arms, should or should not
be subject again to Holland, and no such interference took place.”*
The Protocol of the 20th December, 1830, like every other, was
signed by Russia; she was therefore bound to adhere to it. The
offer of the 60,000 men must, then, have been made not only before
the 25th of January, 1831, but before the 20th of December,
1830—the date of the Protocol.
The offer must also have been known to foreign Powers, since
the Emperor abstained from following up this determination,
4<out of respect to the representations of his Alfies, and princiOpinions of Lord Palmerston, p. 156.
�36
pally out of deference to the opinions and wishes of the Cabinet
of London.”
It was not till the 4th November, 1830, that the King of Hol
land invoked the interference of the Five Powers; it was not
till the 10th that he consented to an armistice. The offer must,
therefore, have been made between the 10th November and the
20th December, 1830. The offer was not for many months com
municated to the public, nor to the Parliament, nor to the Minis
ters themselves. The letter of the 25th January appears to have
lain (unanswered) in Lord Palmerston’s desk till the time came
round for the December payment.
The payments were made twice in the year, the one per cent,
of the principal being paid in July, the interest in December.
The Treaty stipulated for the lapse of a year before the payments
should cease. The July payment was therefore made without
hesitation. But the December one was beyond the stipulated
term. The Comptroller of the Exchequer demurred to the pay
ment. So grave was the objection which he raised, that the case
was submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown. Then it was
that Lord Palmerston first produced the letter of the Russian
Ambassadors reciting this offer, and it was upon this letter that
he obtained an opinion favourable to the Russian claim, and con
sequently the payment of the usual December instalment.
The legality of this payment was warmly contested in both Houses,
and on several occasions. But in spite of this apparent pressure,
the offer of the 60,000 men, which, according to the prevalent
notions of the day, would have justified the payment to Parlia
ment, was still kept in reserve. Sir Thomas Denman, it is true,
referred to a Russian document which had influenced his own
legal opinion, and the non-production of which he deplored. But
the document was not produced. The motives which induced its
suppression appear to have continued for fifteen years, after which
period it was laid before Parliament and printed.
The story of a proposed forcible intervention came out he
France, on the opening of the Chambers in 1832, in the shape of
a boast by M. Casimir Perier that he had threatened with war
any Power that should presume to send forces into Belgium. He
attributed the “ salvation of Belgium” to the promptitude of that
declaration. The Duke of Wellington was indignant at this
statement, and denounced it in the House of Lords as a falsehood.
On the 16th March, 1832, he
“ Most distinctly denied the assumption of M. Perier, namely, that other
nations had evinced an intention of interfering by force. The British Govern
ment had no such intention, nor had any of the other Powers ; and he would
add that the French Government knew that such was the case.”—Hansard,
vol. 11, p. 307.
�37
Lord Grey confirmed the statement of the Duke of Wel
lington.
Some months afterwards, on the 12th of July, Lord Patbrought forward the Russian statement in Parliament
for the first time:—
merston
“In the beginning of October, 1830, the King of the Netherlands applied
to his Allies, telling them his authority had been overthrown in Belgium, and
he asked for military assistance to enable him to re-establish it. Such an appli
cation was made to Great Britain, to Austria, to Russia, and to Prussia. What
was the answer—not of the present, but of the late Administration ? Why,
they declined to afford the military assistance required of them. What, how
ever, was the answer of the Emperor of Russia ? He signified to his Allies
that he had 60,000 men on his frontiers, ready to march for the pur
pose of re-establishing the authority of the King of the Netherlands, if the
other contracting parties to the Treaty were of opinion that such a proceeding
would be consistent with the general interest.”—Hansard, vol. 14, p. 326.
The message of the King of Holland was dated the 4th No
vember. By the 29th Russia required every man, whose services
she could command, to defend herself in Poland, transferring them
from the remotest stations, and leaving naked her most exposed
frontiers. Nobody got up to question the reality of the offer, or
to state the impossibility of its execution. The Duke-of Wel
lington, who had contradicted the statement before it was put
into a definite shape, remained silent.
From that moment the assertion of Lord Palmerston has
been accepted as truth.
This assertion, so long delayed, has no other evidence than that
it is made by the Russian Ambassadors in the letter above men
tioned. That letter, marked “ confidential,” appears never to
have been answered; an answer to it appears, however, to have
been imperative, since it invokes the 11 spirit and the letter of the
Treaty.” The new Treaty commences by declaring that com
plete agreement between the spirit and the letter does not exceed
On the grounds above stated there can be no doubt that the
assertion of Lord Palmerston was false.
Upon this falsehood was obtained the payment of the instal
ment, and through it the payments have continued up to the
present time. It therefore represented a value for Russia, limiting
it to a pecuniary one, of l,837,500Z.
It will also appear from the circumstances and context that the
Russian note of the 25th January, 1831, never had existence.
The need of something to show having arisen at a posterior
date, such a document was forged. It was collusively assumed
between the parties to have been presented by the one and ac
cepted by the other at the time of its date.
�38
.REGARDING RUSSIA AND TURKEY.
(self-contradiction.)
Nearly all the falsehoods already collected have reference to
Russia, and were told for her interest. Secresy and intrigue
have not sufficed to keep down Turkey in the interest of Russia.
Direct falsehoods have been supplied. Among the most obvious
of them is one about the Treaty of Adrianople. By this Treaty
Russia obtained possession of the mouth of the Danube. Lord
Palmerston actually denied that she had obtained by that
Treaty any territory in Europe. He gave an argument in sup
port of his assertion, namely, that she was under a Treaty obliga
tion to make no such acquisition. The obligation, of course, had
no geographical limits. This additional falsehood is important,
because it shows at a glance that Lord Palmerston was not un
acquainted with the truth, but wilfully perverted it.
Lord Palmerston, August 7, 1832.
“ If ever there was just ground for going to war, Russia had it for going to
war with Turkey. She did not, however, on that occasion, acquire any increase
of territory, at least in Europe. I know that there was a continued occupation
of certain points, and some additional acquisitions on the Euxine, in Asia; but
she had an agreement with the other European Powers, to the effect that suc
cess in that war should not lead to any aggrandisement in Europe, I think the
official situation I hold in this House renders it my duty to state facts like
these.”*
Lord Palmerston, April 20, 1836.
“ Undoubtedly, when Russia acquired a portion of the Danube by the Treaty
of Adrianople, that part of the river fell within the scope of the Treaty of
Vienna, as being a part of Russia.” f
REGARDING THE TREATY OF JULY 15, 1840.
(ERASURE OF HANSARD.)
The turning point in the career of Lord Palmerston, and in
the history of the world, is the Treaty of 1840, for the Pacification
of the Levant, by the four Powers to the exclusion of France.
By this Treaty Russia was authorised to occupy Constantinople.
The meaning of the transaction as regards Russia and Turkey
was concealed by the device of the quarrel between the Sultan
and the Pasha of Egypt. England affected to side with the
former, France supported the latter. But though Englishmen
were easily mystified as regards Russia and Turkey, they were not
disposed to sacrifice the good understanding with France. It be
came necessary to make it be believed in Parliament that no insult
had been offered to France. Mr. Hume demanded the production
of the Treaty. Lord Palmerston refused to produce it because
it had not been ratified, and was therefore not yet valid, but he
declared that the Treaty which he refused to the English Parlia
* Opinions of Lord Palmerston, p. 216.
f Ibid., p. 314.
�39
ment he had already, as a mark of confidence, forwarded to the
French Government. This statement was doubly false. No copy
of the Treaty was sent to the French Government for two months
after its signature. By a Protocol signed on the same day as the
Treaty, it was to come into operation without waiting for ratifica
tion.
Loud Palmerston, Avgust 6,1840.
“ My honourable Friend (Mr. Htjme) asked for a copy of the Convention that
had been entered into with the great Powers: that a Convention had been
entered into was certain, but it was not fulfilled until it was ratified and ex
changed by each of the Powers that were parties to it; and until this was
done it was impossible that the document could be made public, or that it
could be laid before Parliament.”—Hansard, vol. 55, p. 1371.
Extract erom Protocol oe July 15,1840.
“ The said Plenipotentiaries, in virtue of their full powers, have agreed
between them Xhat the preliminary measures mentioned in Article II. of the
said Convention shall be put in execution immediately, without waiting for the
exchange of ratifications; the respective Plenipotentiaries state formally by
the present Act the assent of their Courts to the immediate execution of these
measures.”*
These measures were the employment of the British fleet
against Mehemet Ali, and—if she had assisted him—against
France.
Lord Palmerston, August 6, ] 840.
“ In the case of the Convention between France and England, with respect
to Belgium, that Convention was not communicated to the Belgian Govern
ment till after it was ratified; whilst, in the present case, the Treaty was for
warded to France two days after it was signedTimes, August 7, 1840.
Lord Palmerston to M. Guizot, September 16, 1840.
“ The Undersigned had the honour, on the 17th July, to inform his Excellency
M. Guizot, that a Convention upon the affairs of Turkey had been signed on the
15th of that month, &c. . . . The ratifications of that Convention having now
been exchanged, the Undersigned has the honour of transmitting to M.
Guizot, for the information of the French Government, a copy of that Conven
tion and of its annexes.”!
The falsehood of the 6 th August was told for the House of
Commons. We quote it from the Times’ report of the next day.
But, though the House of Commons accepted the statement without inquiry, there were others who could not be deceived by it.
M. Guizot has just published the History of his Embassy to
the Court of St. James in 1840. In it this passage occurs:—
“ On the 16th of September, when all the ratifications had arrived and been
exchanged in London, Lord Palmerston at length made known to us officially
and textually the Treaty of the 15th of July.”
The Appendix to the Correspondence contains the reply of
M. Thiers to a Memorandum of Lord Palmerston of the
31st August, in which he (M. Thiers) says:—
* Convention for the Pacification of the Levant, presented by command.
1841.
f Correspondence relative to the Affairs of the Levant, Part II., p. 190.
�40
“ All at once, on the 17th of July, Lord Palmerston calls to the Foreign
Office the Ambassador of France, and informs him that a Treaty had been
signed the day before yesterday; he tells him this without even communicating
to him the text of the Treaty.”
In another place, speaking of this Treaty, he says :—
“ Which was not communicated to it until two months later.”—Pp. 453,455.
M. Guizot says of this Despatch of M. Thiers:—
“ I read it to Lord Palmerston, who had returned the same day from the
country, and gave him a copy of it.”—P. 318.
When, therefore, Lord Palmerston corrected his speech for
Hansard, he erased the falsehood which had had such an effect
in the House, and substituted the following indistinct and un
meaning form of words:—
“ The four Powers then determined, in accordance with the regulation already
made with France, that they would join in carrying the arrangement into effect,
and notice of the same was given to the French Minister two dags after it was
completed. In the case of the Convention made between France and England
alone, in reference to Belgium, notice of the same was not communicated to
the other Powers till some time after.”—Hansard, vol 55, p. 1378.
If this falsehood had been detected on the night of its utterance,
the career of Lord Palmerston might have been closed.
Lord Palmerston, ever since he has been Foreign Secretary,
harS pretended a great regard for the independence and integrity
of the Ottoman Empire. He said, 11th July, 1833:—
“ The integrity and independence of the Ottoman Empire are necessary to
the maintenance of the tranquillity, the liberty, and the balance of Power in the
rest of Europe.”*
No change has taken place in Lord Palmerston’s conduct to
Turkey since he ventured to express a very different opinion.
On the 5th of February, 1830, being in opposition, he for once
spoke out his intentions:—
“I object to the policy of making the integrity of the Turkish dominions in
Europe an object essentially necessary to the interests of Christian and civilised
Europe.”!
These falsehoods are presented here disconnected from the con
sideration of the subjects to which they relate. It is sufficient
that the designs attempted require the use of falsehood for any
honest man to condemn them; they might be arrested in their
course by a nation which, though unable to comprehend treason,
should at least resolve to punish falsehood. But this process will
cease to be effective when, at length, the time shall have arrived
in which falsehood shall no longer be necessary for the success of
treason.
* Opinions of Lord Palmerston, p. 246.
C. WHITING, BEAUFORT HOUSE, STRAND.
f Ibid., p. 131.
�
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
Contradictions of Lord Palmerston in reference to Poland and Circassia et caetera
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
St Pancras Committee on Foreign Affairs
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 40 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. The Report originally appeared under the title 'Falsehood as a Method of Government'. Printed by C. Whiting, London. Includes bibliographical references.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Hardwicke
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1863
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5247
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 (Contradictions of Lord Palmerston in reference to Poland and Circassia et caetera), 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
Foreign Relations
Great Britain
Politics
Conway Tracts
Foreign Relations
Great Britain-Politics and Government-1837-1901
Henry John Temple
Press
-
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