a 3

4C0BSESTi

O

zr/cMiO -J/^na

na-

Mfl_

This book was digitized by Microsoft Corporation in
cooperation with Yale University Library, 2008. You
may not reproduce this digitized copy of the book for
any purpose other than for scholarship, research,
educational, or, in limited quantity, personal use. You
may not distribute or provide access to this digitized copy
(or modified or partial versions of it) for commercial purposes.

THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY

A History OF
Our Own Times
FROM THE
accession of queen victoria
TO THE
GENERAL, ELECTION OF
I880

Justin McCarthy
Author of "The Four Georges," " Sir Robert Peel," etc.

WITH AN INTRODUCTION, AND SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTERS BRINGING
THE WORK DOWN TO MR. GLADSTONE'S RESIGNATION
OF THE PREMIERSHIP (MARCH, 1894);
AND A NEW INDEX

G. Mercer Adam
Author of "A Precis of English History," etc.

in four volumes.— vol. iii.

NEW YORK
UNITED STATES BOOK COMPANY
MDCCCXCV.

Copyright, 1894,
BY
UNITED STATES BOOK COMPANY.

CONTENTS OF VOL. III.

CHAPTER PAGE
XXX. The Lorcha "Arrow," . . . . i
XXXI. Transportation, .  20
XXXII. The Sepoy  34
XXXIII. The Hundredth Anniversary or Plassey, . . 52
XXXIV. Cawnpore, . . ... .63
XXXV. Reconquest,  . . 78
XXXVI. The End of "John Company," 89
XXXVII. The Orsini Bombs Explode in Paris and London, 105
XXXVIII. "On the True Faith of a Christian," . . 126
XXXIX. The Ionian Islands,  145
XL. The Tory Diogenes Rolling His Tub, . . 155
XLI. The French Treaty and the Paper Duties, 175
XLII. Troubles in the East, . .... 202
XLIII. The Civil War in America,  220
XLIV. The Cruise of the "Alabama," . . 238
XLV. Palmerston's Last Victory, . ... 264
XLVI. Ebb and Flow, ... ... 299
XLVII. The Death of Lord Palmerston, . . 323
XLVIII. The New Government,  338
XLIX. The Troubles in Jamaica, . . . - 35&
L. Driven Back Across the Rubicon, . . .377

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS, VOL. III.

PAGE
Lord Salisbury,  Frontispiece
Lord Clyde, .......... 34
Sir Henry Havelock,  81
Lord Derby,  130
Lord Elgin,  209
Prince Consort,  238
Lord Palmerston,  323

A History of Our Own Times.

CHAPTER XXX.
THE L0RCHA " ARROW.

After the supposed settlement of the Eastern Question
at the Congress of Paris, a sort of languor seems to have
come over Parliament and the public mind in England.
Lord John Russell endeavored unsuccessfully to have some
thing done which should establish in England a genuine
system of national education. He proposed a series of
resolutions, one of which laid down the principle that
after a certain appointed time, when any school district
should have been declared to be deficient in adequate
means for the education of the poor, the Quarter Sessions
of the peace for the county, city, or borough should have
power to impose a school rate. This was a step in the
direction of compulsory education. It anticipated the
principle on which the first genuine measure for national
instruction was founded many years after. It was, of
course,- rejected by the House of Commons when Lord
John Russell proposed it. Public opinion, both in and
out of Parliament, was not nearly ripe for such a principle
then. All such proposals were quietly disposed of with
the observation that that sort of thing might do very well
for Prussians, but would never suit Englishmen. That
was a time when a Prussian was regarded in England as
a dull, beer-bemused, servile creature, good for nothing
better than to grovel before his half-inebriated monarchs,
Vol. II.— j

2 A History of Our Own Times.
and to get the stick from his incapable military officers.
The man who suggested then that perhaps some day the
Prussians might show that they knew how to fight would
have been set down as on a par intellectually with the
narrow-minded grumbler who did not believe in the pro
found sagacity of the Emperor of the French. For a coun
try of practical men, England is ruled to a marvellous
extent by phrases, and the term " un-English" was des
tined for a considerable time to come to settle all attempts
at the introduction of any system of national education
which even touched on the compulsory principle. One
of the regular attempts to admit the Jews to Parliament
was made and succeeded in the House of Commons, to
fail, as usual, in the House of Lords. The House of Lords
itself was thrown into great perturbation for a time by the
proposal of the Government to confer a peerage for life on
one of the judges, Sir James Parke. Lord Lyndhurst
strongly opposed the proposal, on the ground that it was
the beginning of an attempt to introduce a system of life-
peerages, which would destroy the ancient and hereditary
character of the House of Lords, allow of its being at any
time broken up and remodelled according to the discretion
of the minister in power, and reduce it, in fact, to the level
of a continental life senate. Many members of the House
of Commons were likewise afraid of the innovation; it
seemed to foreshadow the possible revival of an ancient
principle of Crown nomination, which might be applied
to the representative as well as to the hereditary chamber,
seeing that at one time English sovereigns did undoubt
edly assume the right of nominating members of the House
of Commons. The Government, who had really no reac
tionary or revolutionary designs in their mind, settled the
matter for the time by creating Sir James Parke Baron
Wensleydale in the usual way, and the object they had in
view was quietly accomplished many years later, when
the appellate jurisdiction of the Lords was remodelled.
Sir George Lewis was Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The Lorcha "Arrow." j
He was as yet not credited with anything like the politi
cal ability which he afterward proved that he possessed.
It was the fashion to regard him as a mere bookman, who
had drifted somehow into Parliament, and who, in the
temporary absence of available talent, had been thrust
into the office lately held by Mr. Gladstone. The con
trast, indeed, between the style of his speaking and that
of Mr. Gladstone or Mr. Disraeli was enough to dishearten
any political assembly. Mr. Gladstone had brought to his
budget speeches an eloquence that brightened the driest
details, and made the wilderness of figures to blossom like
the rose. Mr. Disraeli was able to make a financial state
ment burst into a bouquet of fireworks. Sir George Lewis
began by being nearly inaudible, and continued to the
last to be oppressed by the most ineffective and unattrac
tive manner and delivery. But it began to be gradually
found out that the monotonous, halting, feeble manner
covered a very remarkable power of expression ; that the
speaker had great resources of argument, humor, and il
lustration ; that every sentence contained some fresh idea
or some happy expression. It was not very long before an
experienced observer of Parliament declared that Sir
George Lewis delivered the best speeches with the worst
manner known to the existing House of Commons. After
awhile a reaction set in, and the capacity of Lewis ran the
risk of being overrated quite as much as it had been un
dervalued before. In him, men said, was seen the coming
Prime-minister of England. Time, as it will be seen after
ward, did not allow Sir George Lewis any chance of mak
ing good this prediction. He was undoubtedly a man of
rare ability and refined intellect; an example very un
common in England of the thinker, the scholar, and the
statesman in one. His speeches were an intellectual treat
to all with whom matter counted for more than manner.
One who had watched parliamentary life from without and
within for many years said he had never had his deliber
ate opinion changed by a speech in the House of Commons

4 A History of Our Own Times.
but twice, and each time it was an argument from Sir
George Lewis that accomplished the conversion.
For the present, however, Sir George Lewis was re
garded only as the sort of statesman whom it was fitting
to have in office just then ; the statesman of an interval in
whom no one was expected to take any particular interest.
The attention of the public was a good deal distracted
from political affairs by the simultaneous outbreak of new
forms of crime and fraud. The trial of Palmer in the
Rugeley poisoning case ; the trial of Dove in the Leeds
poisoning case — these and similar events set the popular
mind into wild alarm as to the prevalence of strychnine
poisoning everywhere. The failure and frauds of the
Royal British Bank, the frauds of Robson and Redpath,
gave for the time a sort of idea that the financial princi
ples of the country were crumbling to pieces. The cul
mination of the extraordinary career of John Sadleir was
fresh in public memory. This man, it will be recollected,
was the organizer and guiding spirit of the Irish Brigade,
the gang of adventurers whom we have already described
as trading on the genuine grievances of their country to
get power and money for themselves. John Sadleir over
did the thing. He embezzled, swindled, forged, and
finally escaped justice by committing suicide on Hamp-
stead Heath. So fraudful had his life been that many
persons persisted in believing that his supposed suicide
was but another fraud. He had got possession — such was
the theory — of a dead body which bore some resemblance
to his own form and features ; he had palmed this off as his
own corpse done to death by poison; and had himself con
trived to escape with a large portion of his ill-gotten money.
This extraordinary parody and perversion of the plot of
Jean Paul Richter's story of "Siebenkas" really found
many faithful believers. It is worth mentioning, not as
a theory credible in itself, but as an evidence of the belief
that had got abroad as to the character and the stratagems
of Sadleir. The brother of Sadleir was expelled from the

The Lorcha "Arrow. ' ' 5
House of Commons ; one of his accomplices, who had ob
tained a Government appointment and had embezzled
mone)', contrived to make his escape to the United States ;
and the Irish Brigade was broken up. It is only just to
say that the best representatives of the Irish Catholics and
the Irish national party, in and out of Parliament, had
never from the first believed in Sadleir and his band, and
had made persistent efforts to expose them.
About this same time Mr. Cyrus W. Field, an energetic
American merchant, came over to this country to explain
to its leading merchants and scientific men a plan he had
for constructing an electric telegraph line underneath the
Atlantic. Mr. Field had had this idea strongly in his
mind for some years, and he made a strenuous effort to
impress the English public with a conviction of its prac
ticability. He was received by the merchants of Liver
pool on November 12th, 1856, in their Exchange Rooms,
and he made a long statement explaining his views, which
were listened to with polite curiosity. Mr. Field had,
however, a much better reception, on the whole, than M.
de Lesseps, who came to England a few months later to
explain his project for constructing a ship-canal across the
Isthmus of Suez. The proposal was received with cold
ness, and more than coldness, by engineers, capitalists,
and politicians. Engineers showed that the canal could
not be made, or at least maintained when made; capital
ists proved that it never could pay; and politicians were
ready to make it plain that such a canal, if made, would
be a standing menace to English interests. Lord Palmer-
ston, a few days after, frankly admitted that the English
Government were opposed to the project because it would
tend to the more easy separation of Egypt from Turkey,
and set afloat speculations as to a ready access to India.
M. de Lesseps himself has given an amusing account of the
manner in which Lord Palmerston denounced the scheme
in an interview with the projector. Luckily neither Mr.
Field nor M. de Lesseps was a person to be lightly dis-

6 A History of Our Own Times.
couraged. Great projectors are usually as full of their
own ideas as great poets. M. de Lesseps had in the end,
perhaps, more reason to be alarmed at England's sudden
appreciation of his scheme, than he had, in the first in
stance, to complain of the cold disapprobation with which
her Government encountered it.
The political world seemed to have made up its mind
for a season of quiet. Suddenly that happened which al
ways does happen in such a condition of things — a storm
broke out. To those who remember the events of that
time, three words will explain the nature of the disturb
ance. "The lorcha Arrow" will bring back the recollec
tion of one of the most curious political convulsions known
in this country during our generation. For years after
the actual events connected with the lorcha Arrow, the
very name of that ominous vessel used to send a shudder
through the House of Commons. The word suggested
first an impassioned controversy which had left a painful
impression on the condition of political parties, and next
an effort of futile persistency to open the whole contro
versy over again, and force it upon the notice of legislators
who wished for nothing better than to be allowed to for
get it.
In the Speech from the Throne at the opening of Par
liament, on February 3d, 1857, the following passage oc
curred: "Her Majesty commands us to inform you that
acts of violence, insults to the British flag, and infraction
of treaty rights, committed by the local Chinese authori
ties at Canton, and a pertinacious refusal of redress, have
rendered it necessary for her Majesty's officers in China
to have recourse to measures of force to obtain satisfaction. "
The acts of violence, the insults to the British flag, and
the infraction of treaty rights alleged to have been com
mitted by the Chinese authorities at Canton had for their
single victim the lorcha Arrow. The lorcha Arroiv was a
small boat built on the European model. The word " lor
cha" is taken from the Portuguese settlement at Macao, at

The Lorcha "Arrow." 7
the mouth of the Canton River. It often occurs in Trea
ties with the Chinese authorities. " Every British schooner,
cutter, lorcha, etc.," are words that we constantly find in
these documents. On October 8th, 1856, a party of Chi
nese in charge of an officer boarded a boat, called the Ar
row, in the Canton River. They took off twelve men on
a charge of piracy, leaving two men in charge of the lor
cha. The Arrow was declared by its owners to be a British
vessel. Our Consul at Canton, Mr. Parkes, demanded from
Yeh, the Chinese Governor of Canton, the return of the
men, basing his demand upon the ninth Article of the
Supplemental Treaty of 1843, entered into subsequently
to the Treaty of 1842. We need not go deeper into the
terms of this Treaty than to say that there could be no
doubt that it did not give the Chinese authorities any right
to seize Chinese offenders, or supposed offenders, on board
an English vessel ; it merely gave them a right to require
the surrender of the offenders at the hands of the English.
The Chinese Governor Yeh contended, however, that the
lorcha was not an English but a Chinese vessel — a Chinese
pirate, venturing occasionally, for her own purposes, to fly
the flag of England, which she had no right whatever to
hoist. Under the Treaties with China, British vessels
were to be subject to consular authority only. The Treaty
provided amply for the registration of vessels entitled to
British protection, for the regular renewal of the registra
tion, and for the conditions under which the registration
was to be granted or renewed. The Arrow had somehow
obtained a British registration, but it had expired about
ten days before the occurrence in the Canton River, and
even the British authorities who had been persuaded to
grant the registration were not certain whether, with the
knowledge they subsequently obtained, it could legally
be renewed. We believe it may be plainly stated at once,
as a matter of fact, that the Arrow was not an English
vessel, but only a Chinese vessel which had obtained, by
false pretences, the temporary possession of a British flag.

8 A History of Our Own Times.
Mr. Consul Parkes, however, was fussy, and he demanded
the instant restoration of the captured men, and he sent
off to our Plenipotentiary at Hong Kong, Sir John Bow-
ring, for authority and assistance in the business.
Sir John Bowring was a man of considerable ability.
At one time he seemed to be a candidate for something
like fame. He was the political pupil and the literary ex
ecutor of Jeremy Bentham, and for some years was editor
of the Westminster Review. He had a very large and va
ried, although not profound or scholarly, knowledge of
European and Asiatic languages (there was not much sci
entific study of languages in his early days), he had trav
elled a great deal, and had sat in Parliament for some
years. He understood political economy, and had a good
knowledge of trade and commerce; and in those days a
literary man who knew anything about trade and com
merce was thought a person of almost miraculous versa
tility. Bowring had many friends and admirers, and he
set up early for a sort of great man. He was full of self-
conceit, and without any very clear idea of political prin
ciples on the large scale. Nothing in all his previous
habits of life, nothing in the associations and friendships
by which he had long been surrounded, nothing in his
studies or his writings, warranted any one in expecting
that, when placed in a responsible position in China at a
moment of great crisis, he would have taken on him to act
the part which aroused such a controversy. It would seem
as if his eager self-conceit would not allow him to resist
the temptation to display himself on the field of political
action as a great English plenipotentiary, a master-spirit
of the order of Clive or Warren Hastings, bidding Eng
land be of good cheer, and compelling inferior races to
grovel in the dust before her. Bowring knew China as
well as it was then likely that an Englishman could know
the " huge mummy empire by the hands of custom wrapped
in swathing bands." He had been Consul for some years
at Canton, and he had held the post of chief superintend-

The Lorcha "Arrow." 9
ent of trade there. He sent to the Chinese authorities,
and demanded the surrender of all the men taken from
the Arrow. Not merely did he demand the surrender of
the men, but he insisted that an apology should be offered
for their arrest, and a formal pledge given by the Chinese
authorities that no such act should ever be committed
again. If this were not done within forty-eight hours,
naval operations were to be begun against the Chinese.
This sort of demand was less like that of a dignified Eng
lish official, conscious of the justice of his cause and the
strength of his country, than like the demeanor of Ancient
Pistol formulating his terms to the fallen Frenchman on
the battle-field: " I'll fer him, and firk him, and ferret him
— discuss the same in French unto him. " Sir John Bow
ring called out to the Chinese Governor Yeh, that he
would fer him, and firk him, and ferret him, and bade
the same be discussed in Chinese unto him. Yeh sent
back all the men, saying, in effect, that he did so to avoid
the ferring, and firking, and ferreting, and he even under
took to promise that for the future great care should be
taken that no British ship should be visited improperly
by Chinese officers. But he could not offer an apology for
the particular case of the Arroiv; for he still maintained,
as was indeed the fact, that the Arrow was a Chinese ves
sel, and that the English had nothing to do with her. In
truth, Sir John Bowring had himself written to Consul
Parkes to say that the Arrow had no right to hoist the
English flag, as her license, however obtained, had ex
pired; but he got over this difficulty by remarking that,
after all, the Chinese did not know that fact, and that
they were therefore responsible. Accordingly, Sir John
Bowring carried out his threat, and immediately made
war on China. He did something worse than making war
in the ordinary way ; he had Canton bombarded by the
fleet which Admiral Sir Michael Seymour commanded.
From October 23d to November 13th naval and military
operations were kept up continuously. A large number

10 A History of Our Own Times.
of forts and junks were taken and destroyed. The suburbs
of Canton were battered down in order that the ships
might have a clearer range to fire upon the city. Shot
and shell were poured in upon Canton. Sir John Bowring
thought the time appropriate for reviving certain alleged
treaty rights for the admission of representatives of Brit
ish authority into Canton. During the Parliamentary de
bates that followed, Sir John Bowring was accused by
Lord Derby and Mr. Cobden of having a sort of mono
mania about getting into Canton. Curiously enough, in
his autobiographical fragment Sir John Bowring tells that
when he was a little boy he dreamed that he was sent by
the King of England as ambassador to China. In his later
dajrs he appears to have been somewhat childishly anxious
to realize this dream of his infancy. He showed all a
child's persistent strength of will and weakness of reason
in enforcing his demand, and he appears, at one period of
the controversy, to have thought that it had no other end
than his solemn entry into Canton. Meanwhile Commis
sioner Yeh retaliated by foolishly offering a reward for the
head of every Englishman. Throughout the whole busi
ness Sir John Bowring contrived to keep himself almost
invariably in the wrong ; and even where his claim hap
pened to be in itself good, he managed to assert it in a
manner at once untimely, imprudent, and indecent.
This news from China created a considerable sensation
in England, although not many public men had any idea
of the manner in which it was destined to affect the House
of Commons. On February 24th, 1857, Lord Derby
brought forward in the House of Lords a motion compre
hensively condemning the whole of the proceedings of the
British authorities in China. The debate would have been
memorable if only for the powerful speech in which the
venerable Lord Lyndhurst supported the motion and ex
posed the utter illegality of the course pursued by Sir
John Bowring. Lord Lyndhurst declared that the pro
ceedings of the British authorities could not be justified

The Lorcha "Arrow." n
upon any principle, either of law or of reason ; that the
Arrow was simply a Chinese vessel, built in China, and
owned and manned by Chinamen ; and he laid it down as
a "principle which no one will successfully contest," that
you may give " any rights or any privileges to a foreigner
or a foreign vessel as against yourself, but you cannot
grant to any such foreigner a single right or privilege as
against a foreign State." In other words, if the British
authorities choose to give a British license to a Chinese
pirate boat which would secure her some immunity against
British law, that would be altogether an affair for them
selves and their Government ; but they could not pretend,
by any British register or other document, to give a Chi
nese boat in Chinese waters a right of exemption from the
laws of China. Perhaps the whole question never could
have arisen if it were not for the fact on which Lord Lynd
hurst commented, that, "when we are talking of treaty
transactions with Eastern nations, we have a kind of loose
law and loose notion of morality in regard to them." The
question as to the right conferred by the license, such as
it was, to hoist the British flag, could not have been dis
posed of more effectually than it was by the Chinese Gov
ernor Yeh himself, in a single sentence. " A lorcha, " as
Yeh put it, " owned by a Chinese, purchased a British flag ;
did that make her a British vessel?" The Lord Chancellor
was actually driven to answer Lord Lyndhurst by contend
ing that no matter whether the lorcha was legally or ille
gally flying the British flag, it was not for the Chinese to
assume that she was flying it illegally, and that they had
no right to board the vessel on the assumption that she
was not what she pretended to be. To show the value of
that argument, it is only necessary to say that if such were
the recognized principle, every pirate in the Canton River
would have nothing further to do than to hoist any old
scrap of British bunting, and sail on, defiant, under the
very eyes of the Chinese authorities. The Governor of
Canton would be compelled to make a formal complaint to

12 A History of Our Own Times.
Sir John Bowring, and trust meanwhile that a spirit of fair-
play would induce the pirates to wait for a formal investiga
tion by the British authorities. Otherwise neither Chinese
nor British could take any steps to capture the offenders.
The House of Lords rejected the motion of Lord Derby
by a majority of 146 to no. On February 26th, Mr. Cob-
den brought forward a motion in the House of Commons,
declaring that " the papers which have been laid upon the
table fail to establish satisfactory grounds for the violent
measures resorted to at Canton in the late affair of the
Arrow," and demanding "that a select committee be ap
pointed to inquire into the state of our commercial rela
tions with China." This must have been a peculiarly
painful task for Mr. Cobden. He was an old friend of
Sir John Bowring, with whom he had always supposed
himself to have many or most opinions in common. But
he followed his convictions as to public duty in despite of
his personal friendship. It is a curious evidence of the
manner in which the moral principles become distorted
in a political contest, that during the subsequent elections
it was actually made a matter of reproach to Mr. Cobden
that, while acknowledging his old friendship for Sir John
Bowring, he was nevertheless found ready to move a vote
of censure on his public conduct. The debate was remark
able more for the singular political combination which it
developed as it went on, than even for its varied ability
and eloquence. Men spoke and voted on the same side
who had probably never been brought into such compan
ionship before, and never were afterward. Mr. Cobden
found himself supported by Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Dis
raeli, by Mr. Roebuck and Sir E. B. Lytton, by Lord John
Russell and Mr. Whiteside, by Lord Robert Cecil, after
ward the Marquis of Salisbury, Sir Frederick Thesiger,
Mr. Roundell Palmer, afterward Lord Selborne, Mr.
Sidney Herbert, and Mr. Milner Gibson. The discussion
lasted four nights, and it was only as it went on that men's
eyes began to open to its political importance. Mr. Cob-

The Lorcha "Arrow." 13
den had probably never dreamed of the amount or the
nature of the support his motion was destined to receive.
The Government and the Opposition alike held meetings
out-of-doors to agree upon a general line of action in the
debate and to prepare for the result. Lord Palmerston
was convinced that he would come all right in the end,
but he felt that he had made himself obnoxious to the ad
vanced Liberals by his indifference, or rather hostility, to
every project of reform, and he persuaded himself that
the opportunity would be eagerly caught at by them to
make a combination with the Tories against him. In all
this he was deceiving himself, as he had done more than
once before. There is not the slightest reason to believe
that anything but a growing conviction of the insufficiency
of the defence set up for the proceedings in Canton influ
enced the great majority of those who spoke and voted for
Mr. Cobden's motion. The truth is that there has seldom
been so flagrant and so inexcusable an example of high
handed lawlessness in the dealings of a strong with a weak
nation. When the debate first began, it is quite possible
that many public men still believed some explanation or
defence was coming forward, which would enable them to
do that which the House of Commons is always unwilling
not to do — to sustain the action of an English official in a
foreign country. As the discussion went on it became
more and more evident that there was no such defence or
explanation. Men found their consciences coerced into a
condemnation of Sir John Bowring's conduct. It was al
most ludicrous when the miserable quibblings and evasions
of the British officials came to be contrasted with the cruelly
clear arguments of the Chinese. The reading of these
latter documents came like a practical enforcement of Mr.
Cobden's description of the Chinese Empire as a State
"which had its system of logic before the time of Aristotle,
and its code of morals before that of Socrates. " The vote
of censure was carried by 263 votes against 247 — a major
ity of 16.

14 A History of Our Own Times.
Mr. Disraeli, in the course of a clever and defiant speech
made toward the close of the long debate, had challenged
Lord Palmerston to take the opinion of the country on the
policy of the Government. " I should like, " he exclaimed,
" to see the programme of the proud leaders of the Liberal
party — no reform, new taxes, Canton blazing, Pekin in
vaded." Lord Palmerston's answer was virtually that of
Brutus: " Why, I will see thee at Philippi then." He an
nounced two or three days after that the Government had
resolved on a dissolution and an appeal to the country.
Lord Palmerston knew his Pappenheimers. He understood
his countrymen. He knew that a popular minister makes
himself more popular by appealing to the country, on the
ground that he has been condemned by the House of Com
mons for upholding the honor of England and coercing
some foreign power somewhere. His address to the elec
tors of Tiverton differed curiously in its plan of appeal
from that of Lord John Russell to the electors of the City,
or that of Mr. Disraeli to those of Buckinghamshire. Lord
John Russell coolly and wisely argued out the controversy
between him and Lord Palmerston, and gave very satis
factory reasons to prove that there was no sufficient justi
fication for the bombardment of Canton. Mr. Disraeli de
scribed Lord Palmerston as the Tory chief of a Radical
Cabinet, and declared that, " with no domestic policy, he
is obliged to divert the attention of the people from the
consideration of their own affairs, to the distractions of
foreign politics. " " His external system is turbulent and
aggressive, that his rule at home may be tranquil and un-
assailed." In later days a charge not altogether unlike
that was made against an English Prime-minister who
was not Lord Palmerston. Lord Palmerston understood
the temper of the country too well to trouble himself about
arguments of any kind. He came to the point at once.
In his address to the electors of Tiverton he declared that
" an insolent barbarian, wielding authority at Canton, vio
lated the British flag, broke the engagements of treaties,

The Lorcha "Arrow." 15
offered rewards for the heads of British subjects in that
part of China, and planned their destruction by murder,
asassination, and poison." That, of course , was all-suffi
cient. The "insolent barbarian" was in itself almost
enough. Governor Yeh certainly was not a barbarian.
His argument on the subject of International Law obtained
the indorsement of Lord Lyndhurst. His way of arguing
the political and commercial case compelled the admira
tion of Lord Derby. His letters form a curious contrast
to the documents contributed to the controversy by the
representatives of British authority in China. However,
he became for electioneering purposes an insolent barba
rian ; and the story of a Chinese baker who was said to
have tried to poison Sir John Bowring became transfigured
into an attempt at the wholesale poisoning of Englishmen
in China by the express orders of the Chinese Governor.
Lord Palmerston further intimated that he and his Gov
ernment had been censured by a combination of factious
persons who, if they got into power and were prepared to
be consistent, must apologize to the Chinese Government
and offer compensation to the Chinese Commissioner.
"Will the British nation," he asked, "give their support
to men who have thus endeavored to make the humiliation
and degradation of their country the stepping-stone to
power?" No, to be sure ; the British nation would do nothing of
the kind. Lord Derby, Lord Lyndhurst, Mr. Gladstone,
Mr. Cobden, Mr. Disraeli, Sir E. B. Lytton, Lord Grey,
Lord Robert Cecil — these were the craven Englishmen,
devoid of all patriotic or manly feeling, who were trying
to make the humiliation and degradation of their country
a stepping-stone to power. They were likewise the friends
and allies of the insolent barbarian. There were no music-
halls of the modern type in those days. Had there been
such, the denunciations of the insolent barbarian, and of
his still baser British friends, would no doubt have been
shouted forth night after night in the metropolis, to the

1 6 A History of Our Own Times.
accompaniment of rattling glasses and clattering pint-pots.
Even without the alliance of the music-halls, however,
Lord Palmerston swept the field of his enemies. His vic
tory was complete. The defeat of the men of peace, in
especial, was what Mr. Ruskin once called not a fall but
a catastrophe. Cobden, Bright, Milner Gibson, W. J.
Fox, Layard, and many other leading opponents of the
Chinese policy, were left without seats. There was some
thing peculiarly painful in the circumstances of Mr.
Bright's defeat at Manchester. Mr. Bright was suffering
from severe illness. In the opinion of many of his friends
his health was thoroughly broken. He had worked in
public life with a generous disregard of his physical re
sources; and he was compelled to leave the country and
seek rest, first in Italy, and afterward in Algeria. It was
not a time when even political enmity could with a good
grace have ventured to visit on him the supposed offences
of his party. But the " insolent barbarian" phrase over
threw him too. He sent home from Florence a farewell
address to the electors of Manchester, which was full of
quiet dignity. " I have esteemed it a high honor" — thus
ran one passage of the address — " to be one of your rep
resentatives, and have given more of mental and physical
labor to your service than is just to myself. I feel it
scarcely less an honor to suffer in the cause of peace, and
on behalf of what I believe to be the true interests of my
country, though I could have wished that the blow had
come from other hands, at a time when I could have met
face to face those who dealt it. "
Not long after, Mr. Cobden, one of the least sentimental
and the most unaffected of men, speaking in the Manches
ter Free-trade Hall of the circumstances of Mr. Bright's
rejection from Manchester, and the leave-taking address
which so many regarded as the last public word of a great
career, found himself unable to go on with that part of his
speech. An emotion more honorable to the speaker and
his subject than the most elaborate triumph of eloquence

The Lorcha "Arrow." i<7
checked the flow of the orator's words, and for the moment
made him inarticulate.
Lord Palmerston came back to power with renewed and
redoubled strength. The little war with Persia, which
will be mentioned afterward, came to an end in time to
give him another claim as a conqueror on the sympathies
of the constituencies. His appointments of bishops had
given great satisfaction to the Evangelical party, and he
had become for the time quite a sort of Church hero, much
to the amusement of Lord Derby, who made great sport
of "Palmerston, the true Protestant;" "Palmerston, the
only Christian Prime-minister." In the Royal Speech at
the opening of Parliament it was announced that the dif
ferences between this country and China still remained
unadjusted, and that therefore " Her Majesty has sent to
China a Plenipotentiary fully intrusted to deal with all
matters of difference; and that Plenipotentiary will be
supported by an adequate naval and military force in the
event of such assistance becoming necessary." It would
be almost superfluous to say that the assistance of the
naval and military force thus suggested was found to be
necessary. The Government, however, had more serious
business with which to occupy themselves before they were
at liberty to turn to the easy work of coercing the Chinese.
The new Parliament was engaged for some time in pass
ing the Act for the establishment of a Court of Divorce —
that is to say, abolishing the ancient jurisdiction of the
ecclesiastical courts respecting divorce, and setting up a
regular court of law — the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes
Court — to deal with questions between husband and wife.
The passing of the Divorce Act was strongly contested in
both Houses of Parliament, and, indeed, was secured at
last only by Lord Palmerston 's intimating very signifi
cantly that he would keep the Houses sitting until the
measure had been disposed of. Mr. Gladstone, in partic
ular, offered to the bill a most strenuous opposition. He
condemned it on strictly conscientious grounds. Yet it
Vol. II.— 2

1 8 A History of Our Own Times.
has to be said, even as a question of conscience, that there
was divorce in England before the passing of the Act; the
only difference being that the Act made divorce somewhat
cheap and rather easy. Before, it was the luxury of the
rich ; the Act brought it within the reach of almost the
poorest of her Majesty's subjects. We confess that we do
not see how any great moral or religious principle is vio
lated in the one case any more than in the other. The
question at issue was not whether divorce should be allowed
by the law, but only whether it should be high-priced or
comparatively inexpensive. It is certainly a public ad
vantage, as it seems to us, that the change in the law has
put an end to the debates that used to take place in both
Houses of Parliament. When any important bill of di
vorce was under discussion, the members crowded the
House ; the case was discussed in all its details as any
clause in a bill is now debated ; long speeches were made
by those who thought the divorce ought to be granted and
those who thought the contrary; and the time of Parlia
ment was occupied in the edifying discussion as to whether
some unhappy woman's shame was or was not clearly es
tablished. In one famous case, where a distinguished
peer, orator, and statesman sought a divorce from his wife,
every point of the evidence was debated in Parliament for
night after night. Members spoke in the debate who had
known nothing of the case until the bill came before them.
One member, perhaps, was taken with a vague sympathy
with the wife; he set about to show that the evidence
against her proved nothing. Another sympathized with
husbands in general, and made it his business to emphasize
every point that told of guilt in the woman. More than
one earnest speaker during those debates expressed an ar
dent hope that the time might come when Parliament
should be relieved from the duty of undertaking such un
suitable and scandalous investigations. It must be owned
that public decency suffers less by the regulated action of
the Divorce Court than it did under this preposterous and

The Lorcha "Arrow." 19
abominable system. We cannot help adding, too, that the
Divorce Act, judging by the public use made of it, cer
tainly must be held to have justified itself in a merely
practical sense. It seems to have been thoroughly appre
ciated by a grateful public. It was not easy, after awhile,
to get judicial power enough to keep the supply of divorces
up to the ever-increasing demand.
Lord Palmerston then appears to be furnished with an
entirely new lease of power. The little Persian War has
been brought to a close; the country is not disposed to
listen to any complaint as to the manner in which it was
undertaken. The settlement of the dispute with China
promised to be an easy piece of business. The peace party
were everywhere overthrown. No one could well have an
ticipated that within less than a year from the general
election a motion made in the House of Commons, by one
whom it unseated, was to compel the Government of Lord
Palmerston suddenly to resign office.

CHAPTER XXXI.
TRANSPORTATION.
The year 1857 would have been memorable, if for no
other reason, because it saw the abolition of the system of
transportation. Transportation as a means of getting rid
of part of our criminal population dates from the time of
Charles II. , when the judges gave power for the removal
of offenders to the North American colonies. The fiction
of the years coming immediately after took account of this
innovation, and one of the most celebrated, if not exactly
one of the finest, of Defoe's novels deals with the history
of a convict thus sent out to Virginia. Afterward the re
volt of the American colonies and other cases made it
necessary to send convicts farther away from civilization.
The punishment of transportation was first regularly in
troduced into our criminal law in 17 17, by an Act of
Parliament. In 1787 a cargo of criminals was shipped out
to Botany Bay, on the eastern shore of New South Wales,
and near Sydney, the present thriving capital of the colony.
Afterward the convicts were also sent to Van Diemen's
Land, or Tasmania; and to Norfolk Island, a lonely island
in the Pacific, some eight hundred miles from the New
South Wales shore. Norfolk Island became the penal
settlement for the convicted among convicts; that is to
say, criminals who, after transportation to New South
Wales, committed new crimes there, might be sent by the
Colonial authorities for sterner punishment to Norfolk
Island. Nothing can seem on the face of it a more satisfactory
way of disposing of criminals than the system of transpor
tation. In the first place, it got rid of them, so far as the

Transportation. 2 1
people at home were concerned ; and for a long time that
was about all that the people at home cared. Those who
had committed crimes not bad enough to be disposed of
by the simple and efficient operation of the gallows were
got rid of in a manner almost as prompt and effective by
the plan of sending them out in shiploads to America or
to Australia. It looked, too, as if the system ought to be
satisfactory in every way and to everybody. The convicts
were provided with a new career, a new country, and a
chance of reformation. They were usually, after awhile,
released from actual durance in the penal settlement, and
allowed conditionally to find employment, and to make
themselves, if they could, good citizens. Their labor, it
was thought, would be of great service to the colonists.
The Act of 1717 recited that "in many of his Majesty's
colonies and plantations in America there was a great want
of servants who, by their labor and industry, might be the
means of improving and making the said colonies and
plantations more useful to this nation." And at that time
statesmen only thought of the utility of the colonies to this
nation. Philanthropy might, therefore, for awhile beguile
itself with the belief that the transportation system was a
benefit to the transported as well as to those among whom
they were sent. But the colonists very soon began to com
plain. The convicts who had spent their period of proba
tion in hulks or prisons generally left those homes of horror
with natures so brutalized as to make their intrusion into
any community of decent persons an insufferable nuisance.
Pent up in penal settlements by themselves, the convicts
turned into demons ; drafted into an inhabited colony, they
were too numerous to be wholly absorbed by the popula
tion, and they carried their contagion along with them.
New South Wales began to protest against their presence.
Lord John Russell, when Secretary for the Colonies in 1840,
ordered that no more of the criminal refuse should be carted
out to that region. Then Tasmania had them all to her
self for awhile. Lord Stanley, when he came to be at the

22 A History of Our Own Times.
head of the Colonial Office, made an order that the free
settlers of Tasmania were not to obtain convict labor at
any lower rates than the ordinary market-price ; and Tas
mania had only put up with the presence of the convicts at
all for the sake of getting their labor cheap. Tasmania,
therefore, began to protest against being made the refuse-
ground for our scoundrel ism. Mr. Gladstone, while Colo
nial Secretary, suspended the whole system for awhile,
but it was renewed soon after. Sir George Grey endeav
ored to make the Cape of Good Hope a receptacle for a
number of picked convicts; but in 1849 the inhabitants of
Cape Colony absolutely refused to allow a shipload of
criminals to be discharged upon their shores, and it was
manifestly impossible to compel them to receive such dis
agreeable guests. By this time public opinion in England
was ready to sympathize to the full with any colony which
stood out against the degrading system. For a long time
there had been growing up a conviction that the transpor
tation system carried intolerable evils with it. Romilly
and Bentham had condemned it long before. In 1837 a
committee of the House of Commons was appointed to
consider and report on the system. The committee in
cluded Lord John Russell, Sir Robert Peel, Charles Buller,
Sir W. Molesworth, and Lord Howick, afterwards Earl
Grey. The evidence they collected settled the question
in the minds of all thinking men. The Rev. Walter Clay,
son of the famous prison chaplain, Rev. John Clay, says,
in his memoirs of his father, that probably no volume was
ever published in England of which the contents were so
loathsome as those of the appendix to the committee's re
port. There is not much exaggeration in this. The
reader must be left to imagine for himself some of the
horrors which would be disclosed by a minute account of
what happened in a penal den like Norfolk Island, where
a number of utterly brutalized men were left to herd to
gether without anything like beneficent control, without
homes, and without the society of women. In Norfolk

Transportation. 23
Island the convicts worked in chains. They were roused
at daylight in the morning, and turned out to labor in their
irons, and huddled back in their dens at night. In some
rare cases convicts were sent directly from England to
Norfolk Island; but as a rule the island was kept as a
place of punishment for criminals who, already convicted
in the mother country, were found guilty of new crimes
during their residence in New South Wales.
The condition of things in New South Wales was such
as civilization has not often seen. In Sydney especially
it was extraordinary. When the convicts were sent out
to the colony they received each in turn, after a certain
period of penal probation, a conditional freedom ; in other
words, a ticket of leave. They were allowed to work for
the colonists, and to support themselves. Any one who
wanted laborers, or artisans, or servants could apply to the
authorities and have convicts assigned to him for the pur
pose. Female convicts as well as male were thus em
ployed. There was, therefore, a large number of convicts,
men and women, moving about freely in the active life of
Sydney, doing business, working in trades, performing
domestic service; to all appearance occupying the place
that artisans, and laborers, and servants occupy among
ourselves. But there was a profound difference. The
convict laborers and servants were in reality little better
than slaves. They were assigned to masters and mis
tresses, and they had to work. Stern laws were enacted,
and were no doubt required, to keep those terrible subor
dinates in order. The lash was employed to discipline the
men; the women were practically unmanageable. The
magistrates had the power, on the complaint of any master
or mistress, to order a man to be flogged with as many as
fifty lashes. Some of the punishment lists remind a reader
of the days of slavery in the United States. On every
page we come on entries of the flogging of men for dis
obeying the orders of a master or mistress ; for threatening
a fellow-servant, for refusing to rub down the horse or

24 A History of Our Own Times.
clean the carriage, or some such breach of discipline. A
master who was also a magistrate was not allowed to ad
judicate in his own case ; but practically it would seem
that masters and mistresses could have their convict ser
vants flogged whenever they thought fit. At that time a
great many of the native population, " the Blacks," as they
were called, used to stream into the town of Sydney, as
the Indians now come into Salt Lake City or some other
Western town of America. In some of the outlying
houses they would lounge into the kitchens, as beggars
used to do in Ireland in old days, looking out for any scraps
that might be given to them. It was a common sight then
to see half a dozen of the native women, absolutely naked,
hanging round the doors of houses where they expected
anything. Between the native women and the convicts at
large an almost indiscriminate intercourse set in. The
" black" men would bring their wives into the town and
offer them for a drop of rum or a morsel of tobacco. In
this extraordinary society there were these three strands
of humanity curiously intertwined. There was the civil
ized Englishman, with his money, his culture, his domestic
habits ; there was the outcast of English civilization, the
jail-bird fresh from the prison and the hulks; and there
was the aboriginal naked savage. In the drawing-room
sat the wife and daughters of the magistrates ; in the stable
was the convict, whose crimes had perhaps been successive
burglaries crowned with attempted murder; in the kitchen
were women-servants taken from the convict depot and
known to be prostitutes; and hanging round the door were
the savages, men and women. All the evidence seems to
agree that, with hardly any exceptions, the women convicts
were literally prostitutes. There were some exceptions,
which it is well to notice. Witnesses who were questioned
on the subject gave it as the result of their experience that
women convicted of any offence whatever in this country
and sent out to New South Wales invariably took to
profligacy, unless they were Irish women. That is to

Transportation. 25
say, it did not follow that an Irish convict woman must
necessarily be a profligate woman ; it did follow as a mat
ter of fact in the case of other women. Some of the con
victs married women of bad character and lived on their
immoral earnings, and made no secret of the fact. Many
of these husbands boasted that they made their wives keep
them in what they considered luxuries by the wages of their
sin. Tea and sugar were great luxuries to them at that
time, and it was a common saying among men of this class
that their wives must take care to have the tea and sugar
bag filled every day. The convicts soon inoculated the
natives with the vilest vices and the foulest diseases of
civilization. Many an English lady found that her wom
en-servants went off in the night somewhere and came
back in the morning, and they knew perfectly well that
the women had been off on some wild freak of profligacy;
but it was of no use to complain. In the midst of all this
it would appear that a few of the convicts did behave well ;
that they kept to work with iron industry, and rose in the
world, and were respected. In some cases the wives of
convicts went out to New South Wales and started farms
or shops, and had their husbands assigned to them as ser
vants, and got on tolerably well. But in general the con
victs led a life of utter profligacy, and they corrupted all
that came within their reach. One convict said to a judge :
" Let a man be what he will when he comes out here, he
is soon as bad as the rest; a man's heart is taken from
him, and there is given to him the heart of a beast." Per
petual profligacy, incessant flogging — this was the com
bination of the convict's life. Many of the convicts liked
the life on the whole, and wrote to friends at home urging
them to commit some offence, get transported, and come
out to New South Wales. An idle ruffian had often a fine
time of it there. This, of course, does not apply to Nor
folk Island. No wretch could be so degraded or so un
happy anywhere else as to find relief in that hideous lair
of suffering and abomination.

26 A History of Our Own Times.
Such was the condition of things described to the Com
mittee of the House of Commons in 1837. It is right and
even necessary to say that we have passed over, almost
without allusion, some of the most hideous of the revela
tions. We have kept ourselves to abominations which, at
all events, bear to be spoken of. From the publication of
the evidence taken before the Committee, any one might
have seen that the transportation system was doomed. It
was clear that if any colony made up its mind to declare
that it would not endure the thing any longer, no English
Minister could venture to say that he would force it on the
colonists. The doomed and odious system, however, con
tinued for a long time to be put in operation, as far as
possible. It was most tempting both as to theory and as
to practice. It was an excellent thing for the people at
home to get rid of so much of their ruffianism ; and it was
easy to persuade ourselves that the system gave the con
victs a chance of reform, and ought to be acceptable to the
colonists. The colonists, however, made up their minds at last in
most places, and would not have any more of our convicts.
Only in Western Australia were the people willing to re
ceive them on any conditions; and Western Australia had
but scanty natural resources, and could in any case harbor
very few of our outcasts. The discovery of gold in Aus
tralia settled the question of those colonies being troubled
any more with our transportation system ; for the greatest
enthusiast for transportation would hardly propose to send
out gangs of criminals to a region glowing with the tempta
tions of gold. There were some thoughts of establishing a
convict settlement on the shores of the Gulf of Carpen
taria, on the north side of the great Australian Island.
Some such scheme was talked of at various intervals. It
always, however, broke down on a little examination. One
difficulty alone was enough to dispose of it effectually. It
was impossible, after the revelations of the Committee of
the House of Commons, to have a convict settlement of

Transportation. 27
men alone ; and if it was proposed to found a colony, where
were the women to come from? Were respectable English
and Irish girls to be enticed to go out and become the wives
of convicts? What statesman would make such a proposal?
The wildest projects were suggested. Let the convicts
marry the savage women, one ingenious person suggested.
Unfortunately, in the places thought most suitable for a
settlement there happened to be no savage women. Let
the convict men be married to convict women, said another
philosopher. But even if any Colonial Minister could have
been found hardy enough to approach Parliament with a
scheme for the foundation of a colony on the basis of com
mon crime, it had to be said that there were not nearly
enough of convict women to supply brides for even a toler
able proportion of the convict men. Another suggestion
it is only necessary to mention for the purpose of showing
to what lengths the votaries of an idea will go in their
effort to make it fit in with the actual conditions of things.
There were persons who thought it would not be a bad
plan to get rid of two nuisances at once, our convicts and a
portion of what is euphuistically termed our " social evil,"
by founding a penal settlement on some lonely shore, and
sending out cargoes of the abandoned women of our large
towns to be the wives of the present and the mothers of
the future colonists. When it came to propositions of this
kind, it was clear that there was an end to any serious dis
cussion as to the possibility of founding a convict settle
ment. As late as 1856 Committees of both Houses of
Parliament declared themselves greatly in favor of the
transportation system — that is, of some transportation
system, of an ideal transportation system; but also re
corded their conviction that it would be impossible to
carry on the known system any longer.
The question then arose, What was England to do with
the criminals whom up to that time she had been able to
shovel out of her way? All the receptacles were closed
but Western Australia, and that counted for almost nothing.

28 A History of Our Own Times.
Some prisoners were then, and since, sent out for a part
of their term to Gibraltar and Bermuda; but they were
always brought back to this country to be discharged, so
that they may be considered as forming a part of the or
dinary class of criminals kept in detention here. The
transportation system was found to carry evils in its train
which did not directly belong to its own organization. It
had been for a long time the practice of England and
Scotland to send out to a colony only those who were
transported for ten years and upward, and to retain those
condemned for shorter periods in the hulks and other con
vict prisons. In these hideous hulks the convicts were
huddled together very much as in Norfolk Island, with
scarcely any superintendence or discipline, and the result
was that they became what were called, with hardly any
exaggeration, "floating hells." It was quite clear that
the whole system of our dealings with our convicts must
be revised and reorganized. In 1853 the Government
took a step which has been well described as an avowal
that we must take the complete charge of our criminals
upon ourselves. A bill was brought in by the Ministry to
substitute penal servitude for transportation, unless in
cases where the sentence was for fourteen years and upward.
The bill reduced the scale of punishment ; that is to say,
made a shorter period of penal servitude supply the place
of a longer term of transportation. Lord Palmerston was
Home Secretary at this time. It was during that curious
episode in his career described in Volume I., when he
adopted, if such an expression may be used, the business
of Home Secretary, in order, as he put it, to learn how to
deal with the concerns of the country internally, and to be
brought in contact with his fellow-countrymen. He threw
all his characteristic energy into the work of carrying
through the measure for the establishment of a new system
of secondary punishments. It was during the passing of
the bill through the House of Lords that Lord Grey sug
gested the introduction of a modification of the ticket-of-

Transportation. 29
leave system which was in practice in the colonies. The
principle of the ticket-of-leave was that the convict should
not be kept in custody during the whole period of his sen
tence, but that he should be allowed to pass through a period
of conditional liberty before he obtained his full and un
restricted freedom. Lord Grey also urged that the sen
tences to penal servitude should correspond in length with
sentences for transportation. The Government would not
accept this latter suggestion, but they adopted the principle
of the ticket-of-leave. The bill was introduced into the
House of Lords by Lord Cranworth, the Lord Chancellor.
When it came down to the House of Commons there was
some objection made to the ticket-of-leave clauses, but the
Government carried them through. The effect of the
measure was to substitute penal servitude for transporta
tion, in all cases except those where the sentence of trans
portation was for fourteen years and upward. Now there
can be no doubt that the principle of the ticket-of-leave is
excellent. But it proved on its first trial in this country
the most utter delusion. It got no fair chance at all. It
was understood by the whole English public that the object
of the ticket-of-leave was to enable the authorities to give
a conditional discharge from custody to a man who had in
some way proved his fitness for such a relaxation of punish
ment, and that the eye of the police would be on him even
during the period of his conditional release. This was, in
fact, the construction put on the Act in Ireland, where,
accordingly, the ticket-of-leave system was worked with
the most complete success. Under the management of Sir
Walter Crofton, chairman of the Board of Prison Directors,
the principle was applied exactly as any one might have
supposed it would be applied everywhere, and as, indeed,
the very conditions indorsed on the ticket-of-leave dis
tinctly suggested. The convicts in Ireland were kept
away from the general community in a little penal settle
ment near Dublin; they were put at first to hard, monoto
nous, and weary labor; they were then encouraged to be-

^o A History of Our Own Times.
lieve that with energy and good conduct they could gradu
ally obtain relaxation of punishment, and even some small
rewards ; they were subjected to a process of really reform
ing discipline ; they got their conditional freedom as soon
as they had satisfactorily proved that they deserved and
were fit for it ; but even then they had to report themselves
periodically to the police, and they knew that if they were
seen to be relapsing into old habits and old companion
ships, they were certain to be sent back to the penal settle
ment to begin the hard work over again. The result was
substantial and lasting reform. It was easy for the men
who were let out conditionally to obtain employment. A
man who had Sir Walter Crofton's ticket-of-leave was
known by that very fact to have given earnest of good
purpose and steady character. The system in Ireland was
therefore all that its authors could have wished it to be.
But for some inscrutable reason the Act was interpreted
in this country as simply giving every convict a right, after
a certain period of detention, to claim a ticket-of-leave,
provided he had not grossly violated any of the regulations
of the prison, or misconducted himself in some outrageous
manner. In 1856 Sir George Grey, the Home Secretary,
told the House of Commons that there never was a more
fallacious idea than the supposition that a ticket-of-leave
was a certificate of good character, and that a man only ob
tained such a ticket if he could prove that he had reformed.
A ticket-of-leave, he went on to explain, was indeed with
held in the case of very bad conduct ; but in any ordinary
case the convicts, " unless they have transgressed the prison
rules, and acted in such a manner as to incur an unfavor
able report from the prison authorities, are, after a stated
period of imprisonment, entitled, as a matter of course, to
a ticket-of-leave." It would be superfluous to examine the working of such
a system as that which Sir George Grey described. A
number of scoundrels whom the judges had sentenced to
be kept in durance for so many years were, without any

Transportation. 3 1
conceivable reason, turned loose upon society long before
the expiration of their sentence. They were in England
literally turned loose upon society, for it was held by the
authorities here that it might possibly interfere with the
chance of a jail-bird's getting employment if he were seen
to be watched by the police. The police, therefore, were
considerately ordered to refrain from looking after them.
" I knew you once, " says the hero of a poem by Mr.
Browning, " but in Paradise, should we meet, I will pass
nor turn my face." The police were ordered to act thus
discreetly if they saw Bill Sykes asking for employment
in some wealthy and quiet household. They certainly
knew him once, but now they were to pass nor turn their
face. Nothing, surely, that we know of the internal ar
rangements of Timbuctoo, to adopt the words of Sydney
Smith, warrants us in supposing that such a system would
have been endured there for a year. Fifty per cent, of
the ruffians released on ticket-of-leave were afterward
brought up for new crimes, and convicted over again. Of
those who, although not actually convicted, were believed
to have relapsed into their old habits, from sixty to seventy
per cent, relapsed within the first year of their liberation.
Baron Bramwell stated from the bench that he had had
instances of criminals coming before him who had three
sentences overlapping each other. The convict was set
free on ticket-of-leave, convicted of some new crime, and
recommitted to prison ; released again on ticket-of-leave,
and convicted once again, before the period of his original
sentence had expired. An alarm sprang up in England ;
and, like all alarms, it was supported both by exaggeration
and misconception. The system pursued with the con
victs was bad enough; but the popular impression as
cribed to the ticket-of-leave men every crime committed
by anyone who had been previously convicted and impris
oned. A man who had worked out the whole of his sen
tence, and who, therefore, had to be discharged, committed
some crime immediately after. Excited public opinion

32 A History of Our Own Times.
described it as a crime committed by a ticket-of-leave man.
Two committees sat, as has already been said, in 1856.
The result of the public alarm, and the Parliamentary re
consideration of the whole subject, was the bill brought
in by Sir George Grey in 1857. This measure extended
the provisions of the Act of 1853 by substituting in all
cases a sentence of penal servitude for one of transporta
tion. It extended the limits of the penal servitude sen
tences by making them correspond with the terms of trans
portation to which men had previously been sentenced.
It gave power also to pass sentences of penal servitude for
shorter periods than was allowed by former legislation,
allowing penal servitude for as short a period as three years.
It attached to all sentences of penal servitude the liability
to be removed from this country to places beyond-seas fitted
for their reception ; and it restricted the range of the re-
mision of sentences. The Act, it will be seen, abolished
the old-fashioned transportation system altogether, but it
left the power to the authorities to have penal servitude
carried out in any of the colonies where it might be thought
expedient. The Government had still some idea of utiliz
ing Western Australia for some of our offenders. But
nothing came of this plan, or of the clause in the new Act
which was passed to favor it; and as a matter of fact trans
portation was abolished. How the amended legislation
worked in other respects we shall have an opportunity of
examining hereafter.
Transportation was not the only familiar institution
which came to an end in this year. The Gretna Green
marriages became illegal in 1857, their doom having been
fixed for that time by an Act passed in the previous ses
sion. Thenceforward such marriages were unlawful, un
less one of the parties had lived at least twenty-one days
previously in Scotland. The hurried flight to the border,
the post-chaise and the panting steeds, the excited lovers,
the pursuing father, passed away into tradition. Lydia

Transportation. 33
Languish had to reconcile herself to the license and the
blessing, and even the writers of fiction might have given
up without a sigh an incident which had grown weari
some in romance long before it ceased to be interesting in
reality. Vol. II.— 3

CHAPTER XXXII.
THE SEPOY.
On the 23d of June, 1857, the hundredth anniversary of
the battle of Plassey was celebrated in London. One ob
ject of the celebration was to obtain the means of raising
a monument to Clive in his native county. At such a
meeting it was but natural that a good deal should be said
about the existing condition of India, and the prospects of
that great empire which the genius and the daring of Clive
had gone so far to secure for the English Crown. It does
not appear, however, as if any alarm was expressed with
regard to the state of things in Bengal, or as if any of the
noblemen and gentlemen present believed that at that very
moment India was passing through a crisis more serious
than Clive himself had had to encounter. Indeed, a month
or so before, a Bombay journal had congratulated itself on
the fact that India was quiet " throughout. " Yet at the
hour when the Plassey celebration was going on, the great
Indian mutiny was already six weeks old, had already as
sumed full and distinctive proportions, was already known
in India to be a convulsion destined to shake to its founda
tions the whole fabric of British rule in Hindostan. A few
evenings after the celebration there was some cursory and
casual discussion in Parliament about the doubtful news
that had begun to arrive from India; but as yet no Eng
lishman at home took serious thought of the matter. The
news came at last with a rush.
Never in our time, never probably at any time, came
such news upon England as the first full story of the out
break in India. It came with terrible, not unnatural, ex
aggeration. England was horror-stricken by the stories

LORD CLYDE (Sir COLIN CAMPBELL)
From a Photograph by Mayall

The Sepoy. 35
of wholesale massacres of English women and children ;
of the most abominable tortures, the most degrading out
rages inflicted upon English matrons and maidens. The
newspapers ran over with the most horrifying and the
most circumstantial accounts of how English ladies of the
highest refinement were dragged naked through the streets
of Delhi, and were paraded in their nakedness before the
eyes of the aged king of Delhi, in order that his hatred
might be feasted with the sight of the shame and agony
of the captives. Descriptions were given, to which it is
unnecessary to make any special allusions now, of the vile
mutilations and tortures inflicted on English women to glut
the vengeance of the tyrant. The pen of another Pro-
copius could alone have done full justice to the narratives
which were poured in day after day upon the shuddering
ears of Englishmen, until all thought even of the safety
of the Indian Empire was swallowed up in a wild longing
for revenge on the whole seed, breed and race of the
mutinous people who had tortured and outraged our coun
trywomen. It was not till the danger was all over, and
British arms had reconquered Northern India, that Eng
land learned the truth with regard to these alleged out
rages and tortures. Let us dispose of this most painful
part of the terrible story at the very beginning, and once
for all. During the Indian Mutiny the blood of innocent
women and children was cruelly and lavishly spilt; on one
memorable occasion with a blood-thirstiness that might
have belonged to the most savage times of mediaeval war
fare. But there were no outrages, in the common accep
tation, upon women. No English women were stripped or
dishonored, or purposely mutilated. As to this fact all
historians of the mutiny are agreed.
But if the first stories of the outbreak that reached Eng
land dealt in exaggerations of this kind, they do not seem
to have exaggerated, they do not seem to have even ade
quately appreciated, the nature of the crisis with which
England was suddenly called upon to deal. The fact was

}6 A History of Our Own Times.
that throughout the greater part of the north and north
west of the great Indian peninsula there was a rebellion of
the native races against English power. It was not alone
the Sepoys who rose in revolt. It was not by any means
a merely military mutiny. It was a combination, whether
the growth of deliberate design and long preparation, or
the sudden birth of chance and unexpected opportunity —
a combination of military grievance, national hatred, and
religious fanaticism, against the English occupiers of
India. The native princes and the native soldiers were
in it. The Mohammedan and the Hindoo forgot their
own religious antipathies to join against the Christian.
Hatred and panic were the stimulants of that great rebel
lious movement. The quarrel about the greased cartridges
was but the chance spark flung in among all the combus
tible material. If that spark had not lighted it, some other
would have done the work. In fact, there are thoughtful
and well-informed historians who believe that the incident
of the greased cartridges was a fortunate one for our peo
ple ; that, coming as it did, it precipitated unexpectedly a
great convulsion which, occurring later, and as the result
of more gradual operations, might have been far more
dangerous to the perpetuity of our rule.
Let us first see what were the actual facts of the out
break. When the improved (Enfield) rifle was introduced
into the Indian army, the idea got abroad that the car
tridges were made up in paper greased with a mixture of
cow's fat and hog's lard. It appears that the paper was
actually greased, but not with any such material as that
which religious alarm suggested to the native troops. Now
a mixture of cow's fat and hog's lard would have been,
above all other things, unsuitable for use in cartridges to
be distributed among our Sepoys ; for the Hindoo regards
the cow with religious veneration, and the Mohammedan
looks upon the hog with utter loathing. In the mind of
the former, something sacred to him was profaned; in that
of the latter, something unclean and abominable was forced

The Sepoy. 37
upon his daily use. It was in 1856 that the new rifles
were sent out from England, and the murmur against their
use began at once. Various efforts were made to allay
the panic among the native troops. The use of the car
tridges complained of was discontinued by orders issued in
January, 1857. The Governor-General sent out a procla
mation in the following May, assuring the army of Bengal
that the tales told to them of offence to their religion or
injury to their caste being meditated by the Government
of India were all malicious inventions and falsehoods.
Still, the idea was strong among the troops that some de
sign against their religion was meditated. A mutinous
spirit began to spread itself abroad. In March some of
the native regiments had to be disbanded. In April some
executions of Sepoys took place for gross and open mutiny.
In the same month several of the Bengal native cavalry
in Meerut refused to use the cartridges served out to them,
although they had been authoritatively assured that the
paper in which the cartridges were wrapped had never
been touched by any offensive material. On May 9th
these men were sent to the jail. They had been tried by
court-martial, and were sentenced, eighty of them, to im
prisonment and hard labor for ten years; the remaining
five to a similar punishment for six years. They had
chains put on them in the presence of their comrades, who
no doubt regarded them as martyrs to their religious faith,
and they were thus publicly marched off to the common
jail. The guard placed over the jail actually consisted of
Sepoys. The following day, Sunday, May 10th, was memorable.
The native troops in Meerut broke into open mutiny. The
summa dies, the ineluctabilc tempus, had come. They fired
upon their officers, killed a colonel and others, broke into
the jail, released their comrades, and massacred several
of the European inhabitants. The European troops rallied,
and drove them from their cantonments, or barracks.
Then came the momentous event, the turning-point of the

38 A History of Our Own Times.
mutiny; the act that marked out its character and made
it what it afterward became. Meerut is an important
military station between the Ganges and the Jumna,
thirty-eight miles northeast from Delhi. In the vast
palace of Delhi, almost a city in itself, a reeking Alsatia
of lawless and privileged vice and crime, lived the aged
King of Delhi, as he was called — the disestablished, but
not wholly disendowed, sovereign, the descendant of the
great Timour, the last representative of the Grand Mogul.
The mutineers fled along the road to Delhi; and some evil
fate directed that they were not to be pursued or stopped
on their way. Unchecked, unpursued, they burst into
Delhi, and swarmed into the precincts of the palace of the
king. They claimed his protection ; they insisted upon
his accepting their cause and themselves. They pro
claimed him Emperor of India, and planted the standard
of rebellion against English rule on the battlements of his
palace. They had found in one moment a leader, a flag,
and a cause, and the mutiny was transfigured into a revo
lutionary war. The Sepoy troops in the city and the can
tonments on the Delhi ridge, two miles off, and overlook
ing the city, at once began to cast in their lot with the
mutineers. The poor old puppet whom they set up as
their emperor was some eighty years of age; a feeble
creature, believed to have a mild taste for poetry and
weak debauchery. He had long been merely a pensioner
of the East India Company. During the early intrigues
and struggles between the English and French in India,
the Company had taken the sovereigns of Delhi under
their protection, nominally to save them from the ag
gressiveness of the rival power ; and, as might be expected,
the Delhi monarchs soon became mere pensionaries of the
British authorities. It had even been determined that
after the old king's death a different arrangement should
be made; that the title of king would not be allowed any
longer, and that the privileges of the palace, the occupants
of which were thus far allowed to be a law to themselves,

The Sepoy. 39
should be restricted or abolished. A British commissioner
directed affairs in the city, and British troops were quar
tered on the Delhi ridge outside. Still, the king was liv
ing, and was called a king. He was the representative of
the great dynasty whose name and effigies had been borne
by all the coin of India until within some twenty years
before. He stood for legitimacy and divine right; and
he supplied all the various factions and sects of which the
mutiny was composed, or to be composed, with a visible
and an acceptable head. If the mutineers flying from
Meerut had been promptly pursued and dispersed, or
captured, before they reached Delhi, the tale we have to
tell might have been much shorter and very different.
But when they reached, unchecked, the Jumna, glittering
in the morning light, when they swarmed across the bridge
of boats that spanned it, and when at length they clamored
under the windows of the palace that they had come to
restore the rule of the Delhi dynasty, they had, all uncon
sciously, seized one of the great critical moments of history,
and converted a military mutiny into a national and relig
ious war.
This is the manner in which the Indian Rebellion began
and assumed its distinct character. But this dry state
ment of facts would go a very short way toward explaining
how the mutiny of a few regiments came to assume the
aspect of a rebellion. Mutinies were not novelties in
India. There had been some very serious outbreaks be
fore the time of the greased cartridges. The European
officers of the Company had themselves mutinied in Ben
gal nearly a century before; and that time the Sepoys
stood firm by the Company whose salt they had eaten.
There was a more general and serious mutiny at Vellore,
near Madras, in 1806; and the sons of the famous Tippoo
Sahib took part with it, and endeavored to make it the
means of regaining the forfeited power of their house. It
had to be dealt with as if it were a war, and Vellore had
to be recaptured. In 1849 a Bengal regiment seized a

40 A History of Our Own Times.
fortress near Lahore. Sir Charles Napier, the conqueror
of Scinde, once protested that thirty regiments of the
Bengal army were ripe for revolt. Napier, however,
seems to have thought only of military mutiny, and not
of religious and political rebellion. At Meerut itself, the
very cradle of the outbreak, a pamphlet was published in
1 85 1 by Colonel Hodgson, to argue that the admission of
the priestly caste too freely into the Bengal army would
be the means of fomenting sedition among the native
troops. But there was a combination of circumstances at
work to bring about such a revolt as Napier never dreamed
of ; a revolt as different from the outbreak he contemplated
as the French Revolution differed from the Mutiny of the
Nore. These causes affected variously, but at once, the
army, the princes, and the populations of India.
" The causes and motives for sedition, " says Bacon — and
the words have been cited with much appropriateness and
effect by Sir J. W. Kaye in his " History of the Sepoy
War" — "are innovations in religion, taxes, alteration of
laws and customs, breaking of privileges, general oppres
sion, advancement of unworthy persons, strangers, deaths,
disbanded soldiers, factions grown desperate, and whatso
ever in offending people joineth and knitteth them in a
common cause." Not all these various impulses to rebel
lion were stirring, perhaps, in India, but assuredly many,
possibly the majority, of them were at work. As is usual
in such cases too, it happened that many changes made,
nay, many privileges disinterestedly conferred by the
ruling power in India for the benefit and pleasure of the
native levies, turned into other causes and stimulants of
sedition and rebellion. Let us speak first of the army.
The Bengal army was very different in its constitution
and conditions from that of Bombay or Madras, the other
great divisions of Indian government at that time. In the
Bengal army, the Hindoo Sepoys were far more numerous
than the Mohammedans, and were chiefly Brahmins of
high caste ; while in Madras and Bombay the army was

The Sepoy. 41
made up, as the Bengal regiments are now, of men of all
sects and races, without discrimination. Until the very
year before the Mutiny the Bengal soldier was only en
listed for service in India, and was exempted from any
liability to be sent across the seas ; across the black water
which the Sepoy dreaded and hated to have to cross. No
such exemption was allowed to the soldiers of Bombay or
Madras; and in July, 1856, an order was issued by the
military authorities to the effect that future enlistments
in Bengal should be for service anywhere without limita
tion. Thus the Bengal Sepoy had not only been put in the
position of a privileged and pampered favorite, but he had
been subjected to the indignity and disappointment of see
ing his privileges taken away from him. He was, indeed,
an excellent soldier, and was naturally made a favorite
by many of his commanders. But he was very proud, and
was rigidly tenacious of what he considered his rights.
He lived apart with his numerous and almost limitless
family, representing all grades of relationship ; he cooked
his food apart and ate it apart ; he acknowledged one set
of governing principles while he was on parade, and had
a totally different code of customs, and laws, and morals
to regulate his private life. The tide of blood relation
ship was very strong with the Sepoy. The elder Sepoy
always took good care to keep his regiment well supplied
with recruits from among his own family. As the High
land sergeant in the British army endeavors to have as
many as possible of his kith and clan in the regiment with
himself; as the Irishman in the New York police force
is anxious to get as many of his friends and fellow-
countrymen as may be into the same ranks, so the Sepoy
did his best to surround himself with men of his blood
and of his ways. There was, therefore, the spirit of a
clan and of a sect pervading the Sepoy regiments; a
strong current flowing beneath the stream of superficial
military discipline and esprit de corps. The Sepoy had
many privileges denied to his fellow-religionists who were

42 A History of Our Own Times.
not in the military ranks. Let it be added that he was
very often deeply in debt; that his pay was frequently
mortgaged to usurers, who hung on him as the crimps do
upon a sailor in one of our seaport towns ; and that, there
fore, he had something of Catiline's reason for desiring
a general upset and a clearing off of old responsibilities.
But we must, above all other things, take into account,
when considering the position of the Hindoo Sepoy, the
influence of the tremendous institution of caste. An Eng
lishman or European of any country will have to call his
imaginative faculties somewhat vigorously to his aid in
order to get even an idea of the power of this monstrous
superstition. The man who, by the merest accident, by
the slightest contact with anything that defiled, had lost
caste, was excommunicated from among the living, and
was held to be forevermore accursed of God. His dearest
friend, his nearest relation, shrunk back from him in alarm
and abhorrence. When Helen Macgregor, in Scott's
romance, would express her sense of the degradation that
had been put upon her, she declares that her mother's
bones would shrink away from her in the grave if her
corpse were to be laid beside them. The Sepoy fully
believed that his mother's bones ought to shrink away from
contact with the polluted body of the son who had lost
caste. Now, it had become, from various causes, a strong
suspicion in the mind of the Sepoy that there was a delib
erate purpose in the minds of the English rulers of the
country to defile the Hindoos, and to bring them all to
the dead level of one caste or no caste. The suspicion in
part arose out of the fact that this institution of caste,
penetrating as it did so subtly and so universally into all
the business of life, could not but come into frequent
collision with any system of European military and civil
discipline, however carefully and considerately managed.
No doubt there was in many instances a lack of consider
ation shown for the Hindoo's peculiar and very perplexing
tenets. The Englishman is not usually a very imagina-

The Sepoy. 43
tive personage; nor is he rich in those sympathetic
instincts which might enable a ruler to enter into and
make allowance for the influence of sentiments and usages
widely different from his own. To many a man fresh
from the ways of England, the Hindoo doctrines and
practices appeared so ineffably absurd that he could not
believe any human beings were serious in their devotion
to them, and he took no pains to conceal his opinion as to
the absurdity of the creed and the hypocrisy of those
who professed it. Some of the elder officers and civilians
were imbued very strongly with a conviction that the
work of open, and what we may call aggressive, prosely-
tism, was part of the duty of a Christian ; and in the best
faith, and with the purest intentions, they tlras strength
ened the growing suspicion that the mind of the authorities
was set on the defilement of the Hindoos. Nor was it
among the Hindoos alone that the alarm began to be
spread abroad. It was the conviction of the Mohammedans
that their faith and their rites were to be tampered with
as well. It was whispered among them everywhere that
the peculiar baptismal custom of the Mohammedans was
to be suppressed by law, and that Mohammedan women
were to be compelled to go unveiled in public. The
slightest alterations in any system gave fresh confirmation
to the suspicions that were afloat among the Hindoos and
Mussulmans. When a change was made in the arrange
ments of the prisons, and the native prisoners were no
longer allowed to cook for themselves, a murmur went
abroad that this was the first overt act in the conspiracy to
destroy the caste, and with it the bodies and souls, of the
Hindoos. Another change must be noticed too. At one
time it was intended that the native troops should be com
manded, for the most part, by native officers. The men
would, therefore, have had something like sufficient secur
ity that their religious scruples were regarded and re
spected. But by degrees the clever, pushing, and capable
Briton began to monopolize the officers' posts everywhere.

44 A History of Our Own Times.
The natives were shouldered out of the high positions, until
at length it became practically an army of native rank
and file commanded by Englishmen. If we remember
that a Hindoo sergeant of lower caste would, when off
parade, often abase himself with his forehead in the dust
before a Sepoy private who belonged to the Brahmin
order, we shall have some idea of the perpetual collision
between military discipline and religious principle which
affected the Hindoo members of an army almost exclusively
commanded by Europeans and Christians.
There was, however, yet another influence, and one of
tremendous importance, in determining the set of that
otherwise vague current of feeling which threatened to
disturb the tranquil permanence of English rule in India.
We have spoken of the army and of its religious scruples ;
we must now speak of the territorial and political influ
ences which affected the princes and the populations of
India. There had been, just before the outbreak of the
Mutiny, a wholesale removal of the landmarks— a striking
application of a bold and thorough policy of annexation ;
a gigantic system of reorganization applied to the terri
torial arrangements of the north and northwest of the
great Indian peninsula. A master-spirit had been at
work at the reconstruction of India ; and if you cannot
make revolutions with rose-water, neither can you make
them without reaction.
Lord Dalhousie had not long left India, on the appoint
ment of Lord Canning to the Governor-Generalship, when
the Mutiny broke out. Lord Dalhousie was a man of
commanding energy, of indomitable courage, with the
intellect of a ruler of men, and the spirit of a conqueror.
The statesmen of India perform their parts upon a vast
stage, and yet they are to the world in general somewhat
like the actors in a provincial theatre. They do not get
the fame of their work and their merits. Men have arisen
in India whose deeds, if done in Europe, would have
ranked them at least with the Richelieus and Bismarcks

The Sepoy. 45
of history, if not actually with the Caesars and Charle-
magnes ; and who are yet condemned to what may almost
be called a merely local renown — a record on the roll of
great officials. Lord Dalhousie was undoubtedly a great
man. He had had some Parliamentary experience in
England, and in both Houses; and he had been Vice-
President, and subsequently President, of the Board of
Trade under Sir Robert Peel. He had taken great inter
est in the framing of regulations for the railway legisla
tion of the mania season of 1844 and 1845. Toward the
close of 1847 Lord Hardinge was recalled from India, and
Lord Dalhousie was sent out in his place. Never was
there in any country an administration of more successful
activity than that of Lord Dalhousie. He introduced
cheap postage into India; he made railways; he set up
lines of electric telegraph. Within fifteen months, accord
ing to one of his biographers, the telegraph was in opera
tion from Calcutta to Agra, thence to Attock on the Indus,
and again from Agra to Bombay and Madras. He devoted
much of his attention to irrigation; to the making of great
roads; to the work of the Ganges Canal. He was the
founder of a comprehensive system of native education,
especially female education — a matter so difficult and
delicate in a country like India. He put down infanticide,
the odious and extraordinary Thug system, and the Suttee
or burning of widows on the funeral pile of their hus
bands. These are only some of the evidences of his
unresting, all -conquering energy. They are but illustra
tive; they are far, indeed, from being exhaustive, even
as a catalogue. But Lord Dalhousie was not wholly
engaged in such works as these. Indeed, his noble and
glorious triumphs over material, intellectual, and moral
obstacles run some risk of being forgotten or overlooked
by the casual reader of history in the storm of that fierce
controversy which his other enterprises called forth.
During his few years of office he annexed the Punjaub;
he incorporated part of the Burmese territory in our

46 A History of Our Own Times.
dominions; he annexed Nagpore, Sattara, Jhansi, Berar,
and Oudh. We are not called upon here to consider in
detail the circumstances of each of these annexations, or
to ask the reader to pass judgment on the motives and the
policy of Lord Dalhousie. It is fair to say that he was
not by any means the mere imperial proconsul he is often
represented to be, thirsting with the ardor of a Roman
conqueror to enlarge the territory of his own State at any
risk or any sacrifice of principle. There was reason enough
to make out a plausible case for even the most question
able of his annexations ; and in one or two instances he
seems only to have resolved on annexation reluctantly,
and because things had come to that pass that he saw no
other safe alternative left to him. But his own general
policy is properly expressed in his own words: "We are
lords-paramount of India, and our policy is to acquire as
direct a dominion over the territories in possession of the
native princes as we already hold over the other half of
India." Such a principle as this could only conduct, in
the vast majority of cases, to a course of direct annexation,
let the ruler begin by disavowing it as he will. In the
Punjaub the annexation was provoked in the beginning,
as so many such retributions have been in India, by the
murder of some of our officers, sanctioned, if not actually
ordered, by a native prince. Lord Dalhousie marched a
force into the Punjaub. This land, the " land of the five
waters," lies at the gate-way of Hindostan, and was peo
pled by Mussulmans, Hindoos, and Sikhs, the latter a new
sect of reformed Hindoos. We found arrayed against us
not only the Sikhs, but our old enemies, the Afghans.
Lord Gough was in command of our forces. He fought
rashly and disastrously the famous battle of Chillianwal-
lah. The plain truth may as well be spoken out without
periphrasis; he was defeated. But before the outcry
raised in India and in England over this calamity had
begun to subside, he had wholly recovered our position
and prestige by the complete defeat which he inflicted upon

The Sepoy. 47
the enemy at Goojrat. Never was a victory more com
plete in itself, or more promptly and effectively followed
up. The Sikhs were crushed ; the Afghans were driven
in wild rout back across their savage passes ; and Lord
Dalhousie annexed the Punjaub. He presented, as one
token of his conquest, the famous diamond, the Koh-i-
Noor, surrendered, in evidence of submission, by the
Maharajah of Lahore, to the Crown of England.
Lord Dalhousie annexed Oudh, on the ground that the
East India Company had bound themselves to defend the
sovereigns of Oudh against foreign and domestic enemies,
on condition that the State should be governed in such a
manner as to render the lives and property of its popula
tion safe ; and that while the Company performed their
part of the contract the King of Oudh so governed his
dominions as to make his rule a curse to his own people,
and to all neighboring territories. Other excuses or justi
fications there were, of course, in the case of each other
annexation ; and we shall yet hear some more of what came
of the annexation of Sattara and Jhansi. If, however, each
of these acts of policy were not only justifiable but actually
inevitable, none the less must a succession of such acts pro
duce a profound emotion among the races in whose midst
they were accomplished. Lord Dalhousie wanted one
quality of a truly great man; he lacked imagination.
He had not that dramatic instinct, that fine sympathetic
insight, by which a statesman is enabled to understand
the feelings of races and men differing wholly in educa
tion, habits, and principles from himself. He appeared
to be under the impression that, when once a ruler had
established among whatever foreign people a system of
government or of society better than that which he found
existing there, he might count on obtaining their instant
appreciation of his work, and their gratefulness for it.
The Sovereign of Oudh was undoubtedly a very bad ruler.
His governing system, if it ought to be dignified by such
a name, was a combination of anarchy and robbery. The

48 A History of Our Own Times.
chiefs of Oudh were reavers and bandits; the king was the
head reaver and bandit. But human nature, even in the
West, is not so constituted as to render a population al
ways and at once grateful to any powerful stranger who
uproots their old and bad systems, and imposes a better
on them by force of arms. " A tyrant, but our masters
then were still at least our countrymen," is the faithful ex
pression of a sentiment which had embarrassed energetic
reformers before the days of Lord Dalhousie. The popu
lations of India became stricken with alarm as they saw
their native princes thus successively dethroned. The
subversion of thrones, the annexation of States, seemed
to them, naturally enough, to form part of that vast
scheme for rooting out all the religions and systems of
India, concerning which so many vague forebodings had
darkly warned the land. Many of our Sepoys came from
Oudh and other annexed territories ; and, little reason as
they might have had for any personal attachment to the
subverted dynasties, they yet felt that national resent
ment which any manner of foreign intervention is almost
certain to provoke.
There were peculiar reasons too, why, if religious and
political distrust did prevail, the moment of Lord Can
ning's accession to the supreme authority in India should
seem inviting and favorable for schemes of sedition. The
Afghan war had told the Sepoy that British troops are not
absolutely invincible in battle. The impression produced
almost everywhere in India by the Crimean war was a
conviction that the strength of England was on the wane.
The stories of our disasters in the Crimea had gone abroad,
adorned with immense exaggerations, among all the native
populations of Hindostan. Any successes that the Rus
sians had had during the war were in Asia, and these
naturally impressed the Asiatic mind more than the vic
tories of France and England which were won farther off.
Intelligent and quick-witted Mohammedans and Hindoos
talked with Englishmen, English officers in India, and

The Sepoy. aq
heard from them the accounts of the manner in which our
system had broken down in the Crimea, of the blunders
of our Government, and the short-comings of our leaders.
They entirely misinterpreted the significance of the stories
that were so freely told. The Englishmen who spoke of our
failures talked of them as the provoking and inexcusable
blunders of departments and individuals; the Asiatics
who greedily listened were convinced that they heard the
acknowledgment of a national collapse. The Englishmen
were so confident in the strength and resources of their
country that it did not even occur to them to think that
anybody on earth could have a doubt on the subject. It
was as if a millionaire were to complain to some one in
a foreign country that the neglect and blunder of a servant
had sent his remittances to some wrong place, and left
him for the moment without money enough to pay his
hotel bill, and the listener were to accept this as a genuine
announcement of approaching bankruptcy. The Sepoy
saw that the English force in Northern India was very
small ; and he really believed that it was small because
England had no more men to send there. He was as
ignorant as a child about everything which he had not
seen with his own eyes ; and he knew absolutely nothing
about the strength, the population, and the resources of
England. In his mind Russia was the great rising and
conquering country; England was sinking into decay;
her star waning before the strong glare of the portentous
northern light.
Other impulses, too, there were to make sedition believe
that its opportunity had come. Lord Canning had hardly
assumed office as Governor-General of India when the
dispute occurred between the British and Chinese author
ities at Canton, and a war was imminent between England
and China. Troops were sent shortly after from England
to China; and although none were taken from India, yet
it was well known among the native populations that
England had an Asiatic war on her hands. Almost at the
Vol. II.— 4

50 A History of Our Own Times.
same moment war was declared against Persia by procla
mation of the Governor-General at Calcutta, in conse
quence of the Shah having marched an army into Herat
and besieged it, in violation of a treaty with Great Britain
made in 1853. A body of troops was sent from Bombay
to the Persian Gulf, and shortly after General Outram
left Bombay with additional troops, as Commander-in-
Chief of the field force in Persia. Therefore, in the
opening days of 1857, it was known among the native
populations of India that the East India Company was at
war with Persia, and that England had on her hands a
quarrel with China. At this time the number of native
soldiers in the employment of England throughout North
ern India was about one hundred and twenty thousand,
while the European soldiers numbered only some twenty-
two thousand. The native army of the three Presidencies
taken together was nearly three hundred thousand, while
the Europeans were but forty-three thousand, of whom
some five thousand had just been told off for duty in
Persia. It must be owned that, given the existence of a
seditious spirit, it would have been hardly possible for it
to find conditions more seemingly favorable and tempting.
To many a temper of sullen discontent the appointed and
fateful hour must have seemed to be at hand.
There can be no doubt that a conspiracy for the subver
sion of the English government in India was afoot during
the early days of 1857, and possibly for long before. The
story of the mysterious chupatties is well known. The
chupatties are small cakes of unleavened bread — "ban
nocks of salt and dough," they have been termed; and
they were found to be distributed with amazing rapidity
and precision of system at one time throughout the native
villages of the north and northwest. A native messenger
brought two of these mysterious cakes to the watchman,
or headman, of a village, and bade him to have others
prepared like them, and to pass them on to another place.
The token has been well described as the fiery cross of

The Sepoy. 5t
India, although it would not appear that its significance
was as direct and precise as that of the famous Highland
war-signal. It is curious how varying and unsatisfactory
is the evidence about the meaning of these chupatties.
According to the positive declaration of some witnesses,
the sending of such a token had never been a custom,
either Mohammedan or Hindoo, in India. Some wit
nesses believed that the chupatties were regarded as spells
to avert some impending calamity. Others said the native
population looked on them as having been sent round by
the Government itself as a sign that in future all would
be compelled to eat the same food as the Christians ate.
Others, again, said the intention was to make this known,
but to make it known on the part of the seditious, in
order that the people might be provoked to resist the
plans of the English. But there could be no doubt that
the chupatties conveyed a warning to all who received
them that something strange was about to happen, and
bade them to be prepared for whatever might befall. One
fact alone conclusively proves that the signal given had
a special reference to impending events connected with
British rule in India. In no instance were they distrib
uted among the populations of still-existing native States.
They were only sent among the villages over which Eng
lish rule extended. To the quick, suspicious mind of the
Asiatic, a breath of warning may be as powerful as the
crash of an alarm-bell or the sound of a trumpet. It may
be, as some authorities would have us to believe, that the
panic about the greased cartridges disconcerted, instead of
bringing to a climax, the projects of sedition.

CHAPTER XXXIII.
THE HUNDREDTH ANNIVERSARY OF PLASSEY.
The news of the outbreak at Meerut, and the proclama
tion in Delhi, broke upon Calcutta with the shock of a
thunder-clap. Yet it was not wholly a shock of surprise.
For some time there had been vague anticipations of some
impending danger. There was alarm in the air. There
had long been a prophecy known to India that the hun
dredth anniversary of the battle of Plassey would see the
end of English rule in Hindostan ; and now the hundredth
anniversary was near. There is a fine passage in Sir
Henry Taylor's " Philip van Artevelde," in which Van
Ryk says to the hero of the drama :
" If you mark, my Lord,
Mostly a rumor of such things precedes
The certain tidings ;"
and Philip musingly answers;
" It is strange — yet true
That doubtful knowledge travels with a speed
Miraculous, which certain cannot match.
I know not why, when this or that has chanced,
The smoke outruns the flash ; but so it is. "
The smoke had apparently outrun the flash in many parts
of India during this eventful season. Calcutta heard the
news of what had happened with wild alarm and horror,
but hardly with much surprise.
For one or two days Calcutta was a prey to mere panic.
The alarm was greatly increased by the fact that the
dethroned King of Oudh was established near to the city.
At Garden Reach, a few miles down the Hooghly, the

The Hundredth Anniversary of Plassey. 53
dispossessed king was living. There he lived for many
years after, with his host of dependents and hangers-on
round him. A picturesque writer lately described the
"grotesque structures" in which the old man, with his
mania for building, " quarters not only his people but his
menagerie." "Tower after tower rises high above the
lower buildings, on the top of each of which, comfortably
quartered in a spacious den, abides a huge Bengal tiger,
whose stripes glisten in the sun, in the sight of the passer
by on the river. He owns vast flocks of trained pigeons,
which fly or alight at the word of command — wild but not
unmusical shouts — of coolies stationed on the house-tops,
who appear to direct their motions by the waving of long
bamboos." The inhabitants of Calcutta, when the news
of the mutiny came, were convinced that the King of Oudh
harbored close to their city companions more dangerous
than pigeons, or even than Bengal tigers. They were
sure that the place was the headquarters of rebellion, and
were expecting the moment when, from the residence at
Garden Reach, an organized army of murderers was to be
sent forth to capture and destroy the ill-fated city, and to
make its streets run with the blood of its massacred in
habitants. Lord Canning took the prudent course of hav
ing the king, with his prime-minister, removed to the
Governor-General's own residence within the precincts of
Fort William.
There is no recklessness, no cruelty, like the cruelty
and the recklessness of panic. Perhaps there is hardly
any panic so demoralizing in its effects as that which
seizes the unwarlike members of a ruling race set down
in the midst of overwhelming numbers of the subject
populations, at a moment when the cry goes abroad that
the subjected are rising in rebellion. Fortunately there
was at the head of affairs in India a man with a cool head,
a quiet, firm will, and a courage that never faltered. If
ever the crisis found the man, Lord Canning was the man
called for by that crisis in India. He had all the divining

54 A History of Our Own Times.
genius of the true statesman; the man who can rise to the
height of some unexpected and new emergency; and he
had the cool courage of a practised conqueror. The great
est trial to which a ruler can be subjected is to be called
upon, at a moment's notice, to deal with events and con
ditions for which there is no precedent. The second-class
statesman, the official statesman if we may use such an ex
pression, collapses under such a trial. The man of genius
finds it his opportunity, and makes his own of it. Lord
Canning thus found his opportunity in the Indian Mutiny.
Among all the distracting counsels and wild stories poured
in upon him from every side, he kept his mind clear. He
never gave way either to anger or to alarm. If he ever
showed a little impatience, it was only where panic would
too openly have proclaimed itself by counsels of wholesale
cruelty. He could not, perhaps, always conceal from
frightened people the fact that he rather despised their
terrors. Throughout the whole of that excited period there
were few names, even among the chiefs of rebellion, on
which fiercer denunciation was showered by Englishmen
than the name of Lord Canning. Because he would not
listen to the bloodthirsty clamors of mere frenzy, he was
nicknamed "Clemency Canning," as if clemency were
an attribute of which a man ought to be ashamed. Indeed,
for some time people wrote and spoke, not merely in India
but in England, as if clemency were a thing to be repro
bated, like treason or crime. Every allowance must be
made for the unparalleled excitement of such a time, and
in especial for the manner in which the elementary passions
of manhood were inflamed by the stories, happily not true,
of the wholesale dishonor and barbarous mutilation of
women. But when the fullest allowance has been made
for all this, it must be said by any one looking back on
that painful time that some of the public instructors of
England betrayed a fury and ferocity which no conditions
can excuse on the part of civilized and Christian men who
have time to reflect before they write or speak. The

The Hundredth Anniversary of Plassey. 55
advices which some English journals showered upon the
Government, the army, and all concerned in repressing the
mutiny, might more fittingly have come from some of the
heroes of the "Spanish Fury." Nay, the Spanish Fury
itself was, in express words, held up to the English army
as an example for them to imitate. An English paper,
of high and well-earned authority, distinctly declared that
such mercy as Alva showed the Netherlands was the mercy
that English soldiers must show to the rebellious regions
of India. There was for awhile but little talk of repres
sion. Every one in England well knew that the rebellion
would be repressed. It has to be remembered, to the
credit of England's national courage and resolve, that not
at the worst moment of the crisis did it seem to have
occurred to any Englishman that there was the slightest
possibility of the rebellion being allowed to succeed. It
is painful to have to remember that the talk was not of
repression, but of revenge. Public speakers and writers
were shrieking out for the vengeance which must be in
flicted on India when the rebellion had been put down.
For awhile it seemed a question of patriotism which would
propose the most savage and sanguinary measures of
revenge. We shall see farther on that one distinguished
English officer was clamorous to have powers given to him
to impale, to burn alive, and to flay mutineers who had
taken part in the murder of Englishwomen. Mr. Disraeli,
to do him justice, raised his voice in remonstrance against
the wild passions of the hour, even when these passions
were strongest and most general. He declared that if
such a temper were encouraged, we ought to take down
from our altars the images of Christ and raise the statue
of Moloch there ; and he protested against making Nana
Sahib, of whom we shall hear more, the model for the
conduct of a British officer. Mr. Disraeli did, indeed, at
a later period, show an inclination to back out of this
courageous and honorable expression of opinion; but it
stands, at all events, to the credit of his first impulse that

56 A History of Our Own Times.
he could venture, at such a time, to talk of morality, mercy
and Christianity.
If people were so carried away in England, where the
danger was far remote, we can easily imagine what were
the fears and passions roused in India, where the terror
was or might be at the door of every one. Lord Canning
was gravely embarrassed by the wild urgencies and coun
sels of distracted Englishmen who were furious with him
because he even thought of distinguishing friend from foe
where native races were concerned. He bore himself
with perfect calmness; listened to everything that any
one had to say, where time gave him any chance of doing
so; read, as far as possible, all the myriad communications
poured in upon him ; regarded no suggestion as unworthy
of consideration, but made his own resolves and his own
judgment the final arbiter. He was greatly assisted and
encouraged in his counsels by his brave and noble wife,
who proved herself in every way worthy to be the help
mate of such a man at such a crisis. He did not for a
moment underestimate the danger; but neither did he
exaggerate its importance. He never allowed it to master
him. He looked upon it with the quiet, resolute eye of
one who is determined to be the conqueror in the struggle.
Lord Canning saw that the one important thing was to
strike at Delhi, which had proclaimed itself the head
quarters of the rebellion. He knew that English troops
were on their way to China for the purpose of wreaking
the wrongs of English subjects there, and he took on his
own responsibility the bold step of intercepting them, and
calling them to the work of helping to put down the
mutiny in India. The dispute with China he thought
could well afford to wait, but with the mutiny it must be
now or never. India could not wait for reinforcements
brought all the way from England. In Scott's " Be
trothed, " the soldier of the knight who owns the frontier
castle encourages him, when the Welsh are about to at
tack, by the assurance that the forces of the constable of

The Hundredth Anniversary of Plassey. 57
Chester will soon come to his aid, and that with these re
inforcements they will send the Welsh dragon-flag flying
from the. field. The knight sadly answers that it must fly
from the field before the reinforcements arrive, "or it
will fly over all our dead bodies." Thus felt Lord Can
ning when he thought of the strong arms that England
could send to his assistance. He knew well enough, as
well as the wildest alarmist could know, that the rebel
flag must be forced to fly from some field before that help
came or it would fly over the dead bodies of those who
then represented English authority in India. He had,
therefore, no hesitation in stopping the troops that were
on their way to China, and pressing them into the service
of India at such a need. Fortune, too, was favorable to
him in more ways than one. The Persian war was of
short duration. Sir James Outram was soon victorious and
the Persians sued for a peace. The Treaty of Peace was
signed at Paris in March, 1857, and was arranged so
quickly that Outram inflicted a crushing defeat on the
Persians after the treaty was signed but before the news of
its signature had time to reach the seat of war. Outram,
therefore, and his gallant companions, Colonel Jacob and
Colonel Havelock, were able to lend their invaluable
services to the Governor-General of India. Most impor
tant for Lord Canning's purposes was the manner in which
the affairs of the Punjaub were managed at this crisis.
The Punjaub was under the administration of one of the
ablest public servants India has ever had — Sir John, after
ward Lord Lawrence. John Lawrence had from his youth
been in the Civil Service of the East India Company ; and
when Lord Dalhousie annexed the Punjaub, he made
Lawrence and his soldier-brother — the gallant Sir Henry
Lawrence — two out of a board of three for the administra
tion of the affairs of the newly-acquired province. After
ward Sir John Lawrence was named the Chief Commis
sioner of the Punjaub, and by the promptitude and energy
of himself and his subordinates the province was completely

58 A History of Our Own Times.
saved for English rule at the outbreak of the mutiny.
Fortunately, the electric telegraph extended from Calcutta
to Lahore, the chief city of the Punjaub. On May nth
the news of the outbreak at Meerut was brought to the
authorities at Lahore. As it happened, Sir John Lawrence
was then away at Rawul Pindee in the Upper Punjaub;
but Mr. Robert Montgomery, the Judicial Commissioner
at Lahore, was invested with plenary power, and he
showed that he could use it to advantage. Meean Meer is
a large military cantonment five or six miles from Lahore,
and there were then some four thousand native troops
there, with only about thirteen hundred Europeans of the
Queen's and the Company's service. There was no time
to be lost. If the spirit of mutiny were to spread, the
condition of things in the Punjaub would be desperate ;
but what did the condition of things in the Punjaub in
volve? The possible loss of a province? Something far
greater than that. It meant the possibility of a momentary
collapse of all British authority in India. For if any one
will take the trouble to cast a glance at a map of India,
he will see that the Punjaub is so placed as to become a
basis of operations for the precise military movements
which every experienced eye then saw to be necessary for
the saving of our Indian Empire. The candle would have
been burning at both ends, so far as regards the North
west Provinces, if the Punjaub had gone with Delhi and
Lucknow. While the Punjaub held firm it was like a
barrier raised at one side of the rebellious movement, not
merely preventing it from going any farther in that direc
tion, but keeping it pent up until the moment came when
the blow from the other direction could fall upon it. The
first thing to be done to strike effectively at the rebellion
was to make an attack on Delhi ; and the possession of the
Punjaub was of inestimable advantage to the authorities
for that purpose. It will be seen, then, that the moment
was critical for those to whose hands the administration
of the great new province had been intrusted. There was

The Hundredth Anniversary of Plassey. 59
no actual reason to assume that the Sepoys in Meean Meer
intended to join the rebellion. There would be a certain
danger of converting them into rebels if any rash move
ment were to be made for the purpose of guarding against
treachery on their part. Either way was a serious responsi
bility, a momentous risk. The authorities soon made up
their minds. Any risk would be better than that of leaving
it in the power of the native troops to join the rebellion.
A ball and supper were to be given at Lahore that night.
To avoid creating any alarm, it was arranged that the
entertainments should take place. During the dancing
and feasting Mr. Montgomery held a council of the leading
officials of Lahore, civil and military, and it was resolved
at once to disarm the native troops. A parade was ordered
for daybreak at Meean Meer; and on the parade-ground
an order was given for a military movement which brought
the heads of four columns of the native troops in front of
twelve guns charged with grape, the artillerymen with
their port-fires lighted, and the soldiers of one of the
Queen's regiments standing behind with loaded muskets.
A command was given to the Sepoys to pile arms. They
had immediate death before them if they disobeyed. They
stood literally at the cannon's mouth. They piled their
arms, which were borne away at once in carts by European
soldiers, and all chances of a rebellious movement were
over in that province, and the Punjaub was saved. Some
thing of the same kind was done at Mooltan, in the Lower
Punjaub, later on ; and the province, thus assured to Eng
lish civil and military authority, became a basis for some
of the most important operations by which the mutiny was
crushed, and the sceptre of India restored to the Queen.
Within little more than a fortnight from the occupation
of Delhi by the rebels, the British forces under General
Anson, the Commander-in-Chief, were advancing on that
city. The commander did not live to conduct any of the
operations. He died of cholera almost at the beginning
of the march. He had lived long enough to come in for

6o A History of Our Own Times.
much sharp censure. The temper of the time, both in
England and in India, expected men to work by witch
craft rather than wit, and Anson was furiously denounced
by some of the principal English journals because he did
not recapture Delhi without having even to march an army
to the neighborhood of the city. He was described as " a
holiday soldier who had never seen service either in peace
or in war. " His appointment was denounced as " a shame
less job," and a tribute altogether to " the claims of family
and personal acquaintance." We cannot venture now to
criticise the mode of General Anson's appointment; and
he had not time to show whether he was any better than
a holiday soldier. But it would appear that Lord Can
ning had no poor opinion of his capacity, and was partic
ularly impressed by his coolness and command of temper.
He died, however, at the very outset of his march ; and
we only refer now to the severe attacks which were made
upon him to illustrate the temper of the nation, and the
manner in which it delighted to hear itself addressed. We
are always rebuking other nations for their impatience
and fretfulness under difficulties. It is a lesson of no
slight importance for us to be reminded that, when the
hour of strain and pressure comes, we are found to be in
most ways very like our neighbors.
The siege of Delhi proved long and difficult. Another
general died ; another had to give up his command, before
the city was recaptured. It was justly considered by Lord
Canning and by all the authorities as of the utmost impor
tance that Delhi should be taken before the arrival of
great reinforcements from home. Meanwhile the rebel
lion was breaking out at new points almost everywhere in
these northern and northwestern regions. On May 30th
the mutiny declared itself at Lucknow. Sir Henry
Lawrence was Governor of Oudh. He endeavored to drive
the rebels from the place, but the numbers of the muti
neers were overwhelming. He had under his command,
too, a force partly made up of native troops, and some of

The Hundredth Anniversary of Plassey. 6\
these deserted him in the battle. He had to retreat and
to fortify the Residency at Lucknow, and remove all the
Europeans — men, women, and children — thither, and
patiently stand a siege. Lawrence himself had not long
to endure the siege. On July 2d he had been up with the
dawn, and after a great amount of work he lay on a sofa,
not, as it has been well said, to rest, but to transact busi
ness in a recumbent position. His nephew and another
officer were with him. Sudenly a great crash was heard,
and the room was filled with smoke and dust. One of his
companions was flung to the ground. A shell had burst.
When there was silence, the officer who had been flung
down called out, " Sir Henry, are you hurt?" At first
there was no answer. Then a weak voice was heard to
reply in just the words that Browning has put into the
mouth of the gallant French lad similarly questioned by
the great Napoleon. " I am killed!" was the answer that
came faintly but firmly from Sir Henry Lawrence's lips.
The shell had wounded him in the thigh so fearfully as to
leave surgery no chance of doing anything for his relief.
On the morning of July 4th he died calmly, and in perfect
submission to the will of Providence. He had made all
possible arrangements for his successor, and for the work
to be done. He desired that on his tomb should be
engraven merely the words, " Here lies Henry Lawrence,
who tried to do his duty." The epitaph was a simple,
truthful summing up of a simple, truthful career. The
man, however, was greater than the career. Lawrence
had not opportunity to show in actual result the greatness
of spirit that was in him. The immense influence he
exercised over all who came within his reach bears testi
mony to his strength and nobleness of character better than
any of the mere successes which his biographer can record.
He was full of sympathy. His soul was alive to the
noblest and purest aspirations. " It is the due admixture
of romance and reality," he was himself accustomed to
say, "that best carries a man through life." No profes

62 A History of Our Own Times.
sional teacher or philosopher ever spoke a truer sentence.
As one of his many admirers says of him — " What he said
and wrote, he did, or rather he was." Letsthe bitterest
enemy of England write the history of her rule in India,
and set down as against her every wrong that was done
in her name, from those which Burke denounced to those
which the Madras Commission exposed ; he will have to
say that men, many men, like Henry Lawrence, lived
and died devoted to the cause of that rule, and the world
will take account of the admission.

CHAPTER XXXIV.
CAWNPORE.
During the later days of Sir Henry Lawrence's life it
had another trouble added to it by the appeals which were
made to him from Cawnpore for a help which he could not
give. The story of Cawnpore is by far the most profound
and tragic in its interest of all the chapters that make up
the history of the Indian Mutiny. The city of Cawnpore
stands in, the Doab, a peninsula between the Ganges and
the Jumna, and is built on the south bank of the Ganges,
there nearly a quarter of a mile broad in the dry season,
and more than a mile across when swelled by the rains.
By a treaty made in 1775, the East India Company engaged
to maintain a force in Cawnpore for the defence of Oudh,
and the revenues of an extensive district of country were
appropriated to the maintenance of the troops quartered
there. In 1801, for some of the various reasons impelling
similar transactions in India, Lord Wellesley " closed the
mortgage," as Mr. Trevelyan puts it in his interesting
and really valuable little book, "Cawnpore," and the ter
ritory lapsed into the possession of the Company. From
that time it took rank as one of our first-class military
stations. When Oudh was annexed to our dominions,
there was an additional reason for maintaining a strong
military force at Cawnpore. The city commanded the
bridge over which passed the high-road to Lucknow, the
capital of our new province. The distance from Cawn
pore to Lucknow is about fifty miles as the bird flies.
At the time when the mutiny broke out in Meerut there
were some three thousand native soldiers in Cawnpore,
consisting of two regiments of infantry, one of cavalry,

64 A History of Our Own Times.
and a company of artillerymen. There were about three
hundred officers and soldiers of English birth. The
European or Eurasian population, including women and
children, numbered about one thousand. These consisted
of the officials, the railway people, some merchants and
shopkeepers, and their families. The native town had
about sixty thousand inhabitants. The garrison was
under the command of Sir Hugh Wheeler, among the old
est of an old school of Bengal officers. Sir Hugh Wheeler
was some seventy-five years of age at the time when the
events occurred which we have now to describe.
The revolt was looked for at Cawnpore from the moment
when the news came of the rising at Meerut, and it was
not long expected before it came. Sir Hugh Wheeler
applied to Sir Henry Lawrence for help. Lawrence, of
course, could not spare a man. Then Sir Hugh Wheeler
remembered that he had a neighbor whom he believed to
be friendly, despite of very recent warnings from Sir
Henry Lawrence and others to the contrary. He called
this neighbor to his assistance, and his invitation was
promptly answered. The Nana Sahib came with two
guns and some three hundred men to lend a helping hand
to the English commander.
The Nana Sahib resided at Bithoor, a small town twelve
miles up the river from Cawnpore. He represented a
grievance. Bajee Rao, Peishwa of Poonah, was the last
prince of one of the great Mahratta dynasties. The East
India Company believed him guilty of treachery against
them, of bad government of his dominions, and so forth;
and they found a reason for dethroning him. He was
assigned, however, a residence in Bithoor and a large
pension. He had no children, and he adopted as his heir
Seereek Dhoondoo Punth, the man who will be known to
all time by the infamous name of Nana Sahib. It seems
almost superfluous to say that, according to Hindoo belief,
it is needful for a man's eternal welfare that he leave a
son behind him to perform duly his funeral rites ; and that

Cawnpore. 65
the adoption of a son is recognized as in every sense con
ferring on the adopted all the rights that a child of the
blood could have. Bajee died in 1851, and Nana Sahib
claimed to succeed to all his possessions. Lord Dalhousie
had shown in many instances a strangely unwise disregard
of the principle of adoption. The claim of the Nana to
the pension was disallowed. Nana Sahib sent a confiden
tial agent to London to push his claim there. This man
was a clever and handsome young Mohammedan, who had
at one time been a servant in an Anglo-Indian family,
and had picked up a knowledge of French and English.
His name was Azimoolah Khan. This emissary visited
London in 1854, and became a lion of the fashionable
season. As Hajji Baba, the barber's son, in the once
popular story, was taken for a prince in London and
treated accordingly, so the promoted footman, Azimoolah
Khan, was welcomed as a man of princely rank in our
West End society. He did not succeed in winning over
the Government to take any notice of the claims of his
master; but, being very handsome, and of sleek and al
luring manners, he became a favorite in the drawing-
rooms of the metropolis, and was under the impression
that an unlimited number of Englishwomen of rank were
dying with love for him. On his way home he visited
Constantinople and the Crimea. It was then a dark hour
for the fortunes of England in the Crimea, and Azimoolah
Khan swallowed with glad and greedy ear all the alarm
ist rumors that were afloat in Stamboul about the decay
of England's strength and the impending domination of
Russian power over Europe and Asia. In the Crimea
itself Azimoolah had some opportunity of seeing how the
campaign was going ; and it is not surprising that, with
his prepossessions and his hopes, he interpreted everything
he saw as a threatened disaster for the arms of England.
Mr. Russell, the correspondent of the Times, made the
acquaintance of Azimoolah Khan in Constantinople, and
afterward met him in the Crimea, and has borne testimony
Vol. II.— 5

66 A History of Our Own Times.
to the fact that, along with the young Mohammedan's
boasts of his conquests of Englishwomen, were mingled
a good many grave and sinister predictions as to the pros
pects of England's empire. The Western visit of this
man was not an event without important consequences.
He doubtless reported to his master that the strength of
England was on the wane; and while stimulating his
hatred and revenge, stimulated also his confidence in the
chances of an effort to gratify both. Azimoolah Khan
did afterward, as it will be seen, make some grim and
genuine havoc among English ladies. The most blood
thirsty massacre of the whole Mutiny is with good reason
ascribed to his instigation. With Azimoolah Khan's
mission and its results ended the hopes of Nana Sahib
for the success of his claims, and began, we may presume,
his resolve to be revenged.
Nana Sahib, although his claim on the English Govern
ment was not allowed, was still rich. He had the large
private property of the man who had adopted him, and
he had the residence at Bithoor. He kept up a sort of
princely state. He never visited Cawnpore; the reason
being, it is believed, that he would not have been received
there with princely honors. But he was especially lavish
of his attentions to English visitors, and his invitations
went far and wide among the military and civil servants
of the Crown and the Company. He cultivated the society
of English men and women; he showered his civilities
upon them. He did not speak or even understand Eng
lish, but he took a great interest in English history, cus
toms, and literature. He was luxurious in the most
thoroughly Oriental fashion ; and Oriental luxury implies
a great deal more than any experience of Western luxury
would suggest. At the time with which we are now
dealing he was only about thirty-six years of age, but he
was prematurely heavy and fat, and seemed to be as in
capable of active exertion as of unkindly feeling. There
can be little doubt that all this time he was a dissembler

Cawnpore. 67
of more than common Eastern dissimulation. It appears
almost certain that while he was lavishing his courtesies
and kindness upon Englishmen without discrimination,
his heart was burning with a hatred to the whole British
race. A sense of his wrongs had eaten him up. It is a
painful thing to say, but it is necessary to the truth of
this history, that his wrongs were genuine. He had been
treated with injustice. According to all the recognized
usages of his race and his religion, he had a claim inde
feasible in justice to the succession which had been un
fairly and unwisely denied to him.
It was to Nana Sahib, then, that poor old Sir Hugh
Wheeler, in the hour of his distress, applied for assistance.
Most gladly, we can well believe, did the Nana come.
He established himself in Cawnpore with his guns and his
soldiers. Sir Hugh Wheeler had taken refuge, when the
mutiny broke out, in an old military hospital with mud
walls, scarcely four feet high, hastily thrown up around it,
and a few guns of various calibre placed in position on
the so-called intrenchments. Everything seemed to have
been against our people in this hour of terror. Sir Hugh
Wheeler might have chosen a far better refuge in the
magazine, in a different quarter of Cawnpore; but it ap
peared destined that the mutineers should have this
chance, too, as they had every other. The English com
mander selected his place in the worst position, and hardly
capable of defence. Within his almost shadowy and cer
tainly crumbling intrenchments were gathered about a
thousand persons, of whom 465 were men of every age
and profession. The married women and grown daughters
were about 280; the children about the same number. Of
the men there were probably 400 who could fight.
It can never be made quite clear whether Nana Sahib
had in the beginning any idea of affecting to help the
Englishmen. If any object of his could have been served
by his assuming such a part for any given length of time,
or until any particular moment arrived, he assuredly

68 A History of Our Own Times.
would not have been wanting in patient dissimulation.
But almost as soon as his presence became known in Cawn
pore he was surrounded by the mutineers, who insisted
that he must make common cause with them and become
one of their leaders. He put himself at their disposal.
At first their idea was that he should lead them on to
Delhi, the recognized centre of the revolt. But he was
urged by some of his advisers, and especially by Azimoo
lah Khan, not to allow all his personal pretensions to be
lost in the cause of Delhi, and his individual influence to
be absorbed into the court of the Grand Mogul. He was
advised to make himself a great man, in the first instance,
by conquering the country all round Cawnpore ; and over
come by these persuasions and by the promptings of per
sonal ambition, he prevailed upon the mutineers not to
leave the city until they had first " scoured these English
thence." The Nana, therefore, became the recognized
chief of the Cawnpore movement. Let us do justice even
to Nana Sahib. It will be hard to say a word for him
after this. Let us now observe that he gave notice to Sir
Hugh Wheeler that if the intrenchments were not sur
rendered the}7 would be instantly attacked. They were
attacked. A general assault was made upon the miser
able mud walls on June 12th, but the resistance was heroic,
and the assault failed. It was after that assault that the
garrison succeeded in sending a message to Sir Henry
Lawrence, at Lucknow, craving for the aid which it was
absolutely impossible for him to give.
From that time the fire of the mutineer army on the
English intrenchments never ceased. Cawnpore was alive
with all the ruffianism of the region. It became an Alsatia
for the scoundrels and jail-birds of the country round, and
of the province of Oudh. All these scoundrels took their
turn at the pleasant and comparatively safe amusement of
keeping up the fire on the English people behind the mud
walls. Whenever a regular attack was made the assailants
invariably came to grief. The little garrison, thinning in

Cawnpore. 69
numbers every day and almost every hour, held out with
splendid obstinacy, and always sent those who assailed it
scampering back — except, of course, for such assailants as
perforce kept their ground by the persuasion of the Eng
lish bullets. The little population of women and children
behind the intrenchments had no roof to shelter them
from the fierce Indian sun. They cowered under the
scanty shadow of the little walls, often at the imminent
peril of the unceasing Sepoy bullets. The only water for
their drinking was to be had from a single well, at which
the guns of the assailants were unceasingly levelled. To
go to the well and draw water became the task of self-
sacrificing heroes, who might with better chances of safety
have led a forlorn hope. The water which the fainting
women and children drunk might have seemed to be
reddened by blood ; for only at the price of blood was it
ever obtained. It may seem a trivial detail, but it will
count for much in a history of the sufferings of delicately
nurtured Englishwomen, that from the beginning of the
siege of the Cawnpore intrenchments to its tragic end
there was not, as Mr. Trevelyan puts it, " one spongeful
of water" to be had for the purposes of personal cleanli
ness. The inmates of that ghastly garrison were dying
like flies. One does not know which to call the greater —
the suffering of the women or the bravery of the men.
The Nana was joined by a large body of the Oudh sol
diers, believed to be among the best fighting men that
India could produce. These made a grand assault on the
intrenchments, and these, too, were driven back by the
indomitable garrison, who were hourly diminishing in
numbers, in food, in ammunition, in everything but
courage and determination to fight. The repulse of the
Oudh men made a deep impression on the mutineers. A
conviction began to spread abroad that it was of no use
attempting to conquer these terrible British sahibs ; that
as long as one of them was alive he would be as formid
able as a wild beast in his lair. The Sepoys became un-

70 A History of Our Own Times.
willing to come too near to the low, crumbling walls of
the intrenchment. Those walls might have been leaped
over as easily as that of Romulus ; but of what avail to
know that, when from behind them always came the fatal
fire of the Englishmen? It was no longer easy to get the
mutineers to attempt anything like an assault. They
argued that when the Oudh men could do nothing it was
hardly of any use for others to try. The English them
selves began to show a perplexing kind of aggressive enter
prise, and took to making little sallies, in small numbers
indeed, but with astonishing effect, on any bodies of
Sepoys who happened to be anywhere near. Utterly,
overwhelmingly, preposterously outnumbered as the
Englishmen were, there were moments when it began to
seem almost possible that they might actually keep back
their assailants until some English army could come to
their assistance and take a terrible vengeance upon Cawn
pore. Meanwhile the influence of the Nana began sensibly
to wane. They who accept the responsibility of under
takings like his soon come to know that they hold their
place only on condition of immediate success. Only great
organizations, with roots of system firmly fixed, can afford
to wait and to look over disappointment. Nana Sahib be
gan to find that he could not take by assault those wretched
intrenchments ; and he could not wait to starve the garri
son out. He therefore resolved to treat with the English.
The terms, it is believed, were arranged by the advice and
assistance of Tantia Topee, his lieutenant, and Azimoolah
Khan, the favorite of English drawing-rooms. An offer
was sent to the intrenchments, the terms of which are
worthy of notice. "All those," it said, "who are in no
way connected with the acts of Lord Dalhousie, and who
are willing to lay down their arms, shall receive a safe
passage to Allahabad. "
The terms had to be accepted. There was nothing else
to be done. The English people were promised, during
the course of the negotiations, sufficient supplies of food

Cawnpore. 7 1
and boats to carry them to Allahabad, which was now once
more in the possession of England. The relief was un
speakable for the survivors of that weary defence. The
women, the children, the wounded, the sick, the dying,
welcomed any terms of release. Not the faintest suspicion
crossed any mind of the treachery that was awaiting them.
How, indeed, could there be any such suspicion? Not for
years and years had even Oriental warfare given example
of such practice as that which Nana Sahib and the grace
ful and civilized Azimoolah Khan had now in preparation.
The time for the evacuation of the garrison came. The
boats were in readiness on the Ganges. The long proces
sion of men, women and children passed slowly down;
very slowly in some instances, because of the number of
sick and wounded by which its progress was encumbered.
Some of the chief among the Nana's counsellors took their
stand in a little temple on the margin of the river to
superintend the embarkation and the work that was to
follow it. Nana Sahib himself was not there. It is under
stood that he purposely kept away ; he preferred to hear of
the deed when it was done. His faithful lieutenant,
Tantia Topee, had given orders, it seems, that when a
trumpet sounded, some work, for which he had arranged,
should begin. The wounded and the women were got into
the boats in the first instance. The officers and men were
scrambling in afterward. Suddenly the blast of a trumpet
was heard. The boats were of the kind common on the
rivers of India, covered with roofs of straw, and looking,
as some accounts describe them, not unlike floating hay
stacks. The moment the bugle sounded, the straw of the
boat-roofs blazed up, and the native rowers began to make
precipitately for the shore. They had set fire to the
thatch, and were now escaping from the flames they had
purposely lighted up. At the same moment there came
from both shores of the river thick showers of grapeshot
and musketry. The banks of the Ganges seemed in an
instant alive with shot, a very rain of bullets poured in

72 A History of Our Own Times.
upon the devoted inmates of the boats. To add to the
horrors of the moment, if, indeed, it needed any addition,
nearly all the boats stuck fast in mud-banks, and the
occupants became fixed targets for the fire of their enemies.
Only three of the boats floated. Two of these drifted to
the Oudh shore, and those on board them were killed at
once. The third floated farther along with the stream,
reserved for further adventures and horrors. The firing
ceased when Tantia Topee and his confederates thought
that enough had been done; and the women and children
who were still alive were brought ashore and carried in
forlorn procession back again through the town where
they had suffered so much, and which they had hoped that
they were leaving forever. They were about one hundred
and twenty-five in number, women and children. Some
of them were wounded. There were a few well-disposed
natives who saw them and were sorry for them ; who had
perhaps served them, and experienced their kindness in
other days, and who now had some grateful memory of it,
which they dared not express by any open profession of
sympathy. Certain of these afterward described the Eng
lish ladies as they saw them pass. They were bedraggled
and dishevelled, these poor Englishwomen ; their clothes
were in tatters; some of them were wounded, and the
blood was trickling from their feet and legs. They were
carried to a place called the Savada House, a large build
ing, once a charitable institution bearing the name of
Salvador, which had been softened into Savada by Asiatic
pronunciation. On board the one boat which had floated with the
stream were more than a hundred persons. The boat was
attacked by a constant fire from both banks as it drifted
along. At length a party of some twelve men, or there
abouts, landed with the bold object of attacking their
assailants and driving them back. In their absence the
boat was captured by some of the rebel gangs, and the
women and the wounded were brought back to Cawnpore.

Cawnpore. 73
Some sixty men, twenty-five women and four children
were thus recaptured. The men were immediately shot.
It may be said at once that of the gallant little party who
went ashore to attack the enemy, hand to hand, four finally
escaped, after adventures so perilous and so extraordinary
that a professional story-teller would hardly venture to
make them part of a fictitious narrative.
The Nana had now a considerable number of English
women in his hands. They were removed, after awhile,
from their first prison-house to a small building north of
the canal, and between the native city and the Ganges.
Here they were cooped up in the closest manner, except
when some of them were taken out in the evening and set
to the work of grinding corn for the use of their captors.
Cholera and dysentery set in among these unhappy suffer
ers, and some eighteen women and seven children died.
Let it be said for the credit of womanhood that the royal
widows, the relicts of the Nana's father by adoption, made
many efforts to protect the captive Englishwomen, and
even declared that they would throw themselves and their
children from the palace windows if any harm were done
to the prisoners. We have only to repeat here that, as a
matter of fact, no indignities other than that of the com
pulsory corn-grinding were put upon the English ladies.
They were doomed, one and all, to suffer death, but they
were not, as at one time was believed in England, made
to long for death as an escape from shame.
Meanwhile the prospects of the Nana and his rebellion
were growing darker and darker. He must have begun
to know by this time that he had no chance of establishing
himself as a ruler anywhere in India. The English had
not been swept out of the country with a rush. The first
flood of the mutiny had broken on their defences, and
already the tide was falling. The Nana well knew it never
would rise again to the same height in his day. The
English were coming on. Neill had recaptured Allahabad,
and cleared the country all round it of any traces of rebel-

74 A History of Our Own Times.
lion. Havelock was now moving forward from Allahabad
toward Cawnpore, with six cannon and about a thousand
English soldiers. Very small in point of numbers was
that force when compared with that which Nana Sahib
could even still rally round him ; but no one in India now
knew better than Nana Sahib what extraordinary odds
the English could afford to give with the certainty of
winning. Havelock's march was a series of victories,
although he was often in such difficulties that the slightest
display of real generalship or even soldiership on the part
of his opponents might have stopped his advance. He
had one encounter with the lieutenant of the Nana, who
had under his command nearly four thousand men and
twelve guns, and Havelock won a complete victory in
about ten minutes. He defeated in the same offhand way
various other chiefs of the mutiny. He was almost at the
gates of Cawnpore.
Then it appears to have occurred to the Nana, or to
have been suggested to him, that it would be inconvenient
to have his English captives recaptured by the enemy,
their countrymen. It may be that, in the utter failure of
all his plans and hopes, he was anxious to secure some
satisfaction, to satiate his hatred in some way. It was
intimated to the prisoners that they were to die. Among
them were three or four men. These were called out and
shot. Then some Sepoys were sent to the house where
the women still were, and ordered to fire volleys through
the windows. This they did, but apparently without
doing much harm. Some persons are of opinion, from
such evidence as can be got, that the men purposely fired
high above the level of the floor, to avoid killing any of
the women and children. In the evening five men, two
Hindoo peasants, two Mohammedan butchers, and one
Mohammedan wearing the red uniform of the Nana's
bodyguard, were sent up to the house, and entered it.
Incessant shrieks were heard to come from that fearful
house. The Mohammedan soldier came out to the door,

Cawnpore. 75
holding in his hand a sword-hilt from which the blade had
been broken off, and he exchanged this now useless in
strument for a weapon in proper condition. Not once, but
twice, this performance took place. Evidently the task
imposed on these men was hard work for the sword-blades.
After a while the five men came out of the now quiet house
and locked the doors behind them. During that time they
had killed nearly all the English women and children.
They had slaughtered them like beasts in the shambles.
In the morning it appeared, indeed, that the work, how
ever zealously undertaken, had not been quite thorough.
The strongest arms and sharpest sabres sometimes fail to
accomplish a long piece of work to perfect satisfaction.
In the morning it would seem that some of the women,
and certainly some of the children, were still alive; that
is to say, they were not dead, for the five men came
then, with several attendants, to clear out the house of the
captives. Their task was to tumble all the bodies into
a dry well beyond some trees that grew near. A large
crowd of idlers assembled to watch this operation. Then
it was seen by some of the spectators that certain of the
women and children were not yet quite dead. Of the
children some were alive, and even tried to get away.
But the same well awaited them all. Some witnesses
were of opinion that the Nana's officials took the trouble to
kill the still living before they tossed them down into the
well ; others do not think they stopped for any such work
of humanity, but flung them down just as they came to
hand, the quick and the dead together. At all events,
they were all deposited in the well. Any of the bodies
that had clothes worth taking were carefully stripped before
being consigned to this open grave. When Cawnpore was
afterward taken by the English, those who had to look
down into that well saw a sight the like of which no man
in modern days had ever seen elsewhere. No attempt
shall be made to describe it here. When the house of the
massacre itself was entered, its floors and its walls told

76 A History of Our Own Times.
with terrible plainness of the scene they had witnessed.
The plaster of the walls was scored and seamed with
sword-slashes low down and in the corners, as if the poor
women had crouched down in their mortal fright, with
some wild hope of escaping the blows. The floor was
strewn with scraps of dresses, women's faded, ragged
finery, frilling, underclothing, broken combs, shoes,
and tresses of hair. There were some small and neatly
severed curls of hair, too, which had fallen on the ground,
but evidently had never been cut off by the rude weapon
of a professional butcher. These, doubtless, were keep
sakes that had been treasured to the last, parted with only
when life and all were going. There was no inscription
whatever on the walls when the house was first entered.
Afterward a story was told of words found written there by
some Englishwomen, telling of hideous wrong done to
them, and bequeathing to their countrymen the task of re
venge. This story created a terrible sensation in England,
as was but natural, and aroused a furious thirst for ven
geance. It was not true. Some such inscription did appear
on the walls afterward, but it is painful to have to say that
it was a vulgar, and what would have been called in later
times a "sensational," forgery. Our countrywomen died
without leaving behind them any record of a desire on
their part for vengeance. We may be sure they had
other thoughts and other hopes as they died. One or two
scraps of paper were found which recorded deaths and
such-like interruptions of the monotony of imprisonment;
but nothing more. The well of horrors has been filled
up, and a memorial chapel, surrounded by a garden, built
upon the spot. It was right to banish all trace of that
hideous crime, and to replace the house and the well, as
Mr. Trevelyan says, by "a fair garden and a graceful
shrine. "
Something, however, has still to be told of the Nana and
his fortunes. He made one last stand against the victo
rious English in front of Cawnpore, and was completely

Cawnpore. 77
defeated. He galloped into the city on a bleeding and
exhausted horse ; he fled thence to Bithoor, his residence.
He had just time left, it is said, to order the murder of a
separate captive, a woman who had previously been over
looked or purposely left behind. Then he took flight in the
direction of the Nepaulese marches; and he soon disap
pears from history. Nothing of his fate was ever known.
Many years afterward England and India were treated to
a momentary sensation by a story of the capture of Nana
Sahib. But the man who was arrested proved to be an
entirely different person; and, indeed, from the moment
of his arrest, few believed him to be the long-lost murderer
of the Englishwomen. In days more superstitious than
our own popular faith would have found an easy explana
tion of the mystery which surrounded the close of Nana
Sahib's career. He had done, it would have been said,
the work of a fiend; and he had disappeared as a fiend
would do when his task was accomplished.

CHAPTER XXXV.
RECONQUEST.
The capture of Delhi was effected on September 20th.
The siege had been long and difficult; and for some
time it did not seem to the general in command, Archdale
Wilson, that the small force he had could, with any hope
of success, attempt to carry the city by assault. Colonel
Baird Smith, who was chief of the engineer department,
urged the attempt strongly on him ; and at length it was
made, and made with success, though not without many
moments when failure seemed inevitable. Brigadier-
General Nicholson led the storming columns, and paid for
his bravery and success the price of a gallant life. He
was shot through the body, and died three days after the
English standard had been planted on the roof of the
palace of the Moguls. Nicholson was one of the bravest
and most capable officers whom the war produced. It is
worthy of record, as an evidence of the temper aroused even
in men from whom better things might have been ex
pected, that Nicholson strongly urged the passing of a law
to authorize flaying alive, impalement, or burning of the
murderers of the women and children in Delhi. He con
tended that " the idea of simply hanging the perpetrators
of such atrocities is maddening." He urged this view
again and again, and deliberately argued it on grounds
alike of policy and principle. The fact is recorded here
not in mere disparagement of a brave soldier, but as an
illustration of the manner in which the old elementary
passions of man's untamed condition can return upon him
in his pride of civilization and culture, and make him their
slave again.

Reconquest. 79
The taking of Delhi was followed by an act over which,
from that time to the present, a controversy has been aris
ing at intervals. A young officer, Hodson, of " Hodson's
Horse," was acting as chief of the Intelligence Depart
ment. He had once been in a civil charge in the Pun
jaub, and had been dismissed for arbitrary and high
handed conduct toward an influential chief of the district.
He had been striving hard to distinguish himself, and to
regain a path to success; and as the leader of the little
force known as Hodson's Horse, he had given evidence
of remarkable military capacity. He was especially dis
tinguished by an extraordinary blending of cool, calculat
ing craft and reckless daring. He knew exactly when to
be cautious and when to risk everything on what to other
eyes might have seemed a madman's throw. He now of
fered to General Wilson to capture the king and the royal
family of Delhi. General Wilson gave him authority to
make the attempt, but stipulated that the life of the king
should be spared. By the help of native spies, Hodson
discovered that when Delhi was taken the king and his
family had taken refuge in the tomb of the Emperor
Homayoon — a structure which, with the buildings sur
rounding and belonging to it, constituted a sort of sub
urb in itself. Hodson went boldly to this place with a
few of his troopers. He found that the royal family of
Delhi were surrounded there by a vast crowd of armed
and to all appearance desperate adherents. This was
one of the moments when Hodson's indomitable dar
ing stood him in good stead. He called upon them all
to lay down their arms at once; and the very audacity of
the order made them suppose he had force at hand capable
of compelling obedience. They threw down their arms,
and the king surrendered himself to Hodson. Next day
Hodson captured the three royal princes of Delhi. He
tried, condemned and executed them himself on the spot ;
that is to say, he treated them as rebels taken red-handed,
and borrowing a carbine from one of his troopers, he shot

80 A History of Our Own Times.
them dead with his own hand. Their corpses, half-naked,
were exposed for some days at one of the gates of Delhi.
Hodson did the deed deliberately. Many days before he
had a chance of doing it, he wrote to a friend to say that if
he got into the palace of Delhi, " the House of Timour will
not be worth five minutes' purchase, I ween." On the
day after the deed he wrote : " In twenty-four hours I dis
posed of the principal members of the House of Timour
the Tartar. I am not cruel ; but I confess that I do rejoice
in the opportunity of ridding the earth of these ruffians. "
Sir J. W. Kaye, who comments on Hodson's deed with a
just and manly severity, says : " I must aver without hesita
tion that the general feeling in England was one of pro
found grief, not unmingled with detestation. I never
heard the act approved ; I never heard it even defended. "
Sir J. W. Kaye was more fortunate than the writer of
this book, who has frequently heard it defended, justified,
and glorified; and has a distinct impression that the
more general tendency of public opinion in England at
the time was to regard Hodson's act as entirely patriotic
and laudable. If in cool blood the deed could now be de
fended, it might be necessary to point out that there
was no evidence whatever of the princes having taken
any part in the massacre of Europeans in Delhi; that
even if evidence to that effect were forthcoming, Hod
son did not wait for or ask for it; and that the share
taken by the princes in an effort to restore the dynasty of
their ancestor, however it might have justified some stern
ness of punishment on the part of the English Govern
ment, was not a crime of that order which is held in civil
ized warfare to put the life of its author at the mercy of
any one who captures him when the struggle is all over,
and the reign of law is safe. One cannot read the history
of the Indian Mutiny without coming to the conclusion
that in the minds of many Englishmen a temporary
prostration of the moral sense took place, under the influ
ence of which they came to regard the measure of the

General Sir HENRY HAVELOCK, K.CB.

Reconquest. 8 1
enemy's guilt as the standard for their right of retaliation,
and to hold that if he had no conscience they were thereby
released from the necessity of having any. As Mr. Disraeli
put it, they were making Nana Sahib the model for the
British officer to imitate. Hodson was killed not long
after ; we might well wish to be free to allow him to rest
without censure in his untimely grave. He was a brave
and clever soldier, but one who, unfortunately, allowed a
fierce temper to " overcrow, " as the Elizabethan writers
would have put it, the better instincts of his nature and
the guidance of a cool judgment.
General Havelock made his way to the relief of Luck
now. Sir James Outram, who had returned from Persia,
had been sent to Oudh with full instructions to act as
Chief Commissioner. He had complete civil and military
authority. Appearing on the scene armed with such
powers, he would, in the natural order of things, have
superseded Havelock, who had been fighting his way. so
brilliantly, in the face of a thousand dangers, to the relief
of the beleaguered English in Lucknow. But Outram
was not the man to rob a brave and successful comrade of
the fruits of his toil and peril. Outram wrote to Have
lock: "To you shall be left the glory of relieving Luck
now, for which you have already struggled so much. I
shall accompany you only in my civil capacity as Com
missioner, placing my military service at your disposal
should you please, and serving under you as a volunteer. "
Havelock was enabled to continue his victorious march.
He fought battle after battle against forces far superior
in numbers to his own, and on September 25th he was
able to relieve the besieged English at Lucknow. His
coming, it can hardly be doubted, saved the women and
children from such a massacre as that of Cawnpore; but
Havelock had not the force that might have driven the
rebels out of the field. His little army, although it had
been reinforced by the coming of Sir James Outram, was
yet entirely inadequate to the task which circumstances
Vol. II.— 6

82 A History of Our Own Times.
had imposed on it. The enemy soon recovered from any
momentary panic into which they had been thrown by
Havelock's coming, and renewed the siege; and if Eng
land had not been prepared to make greater efforts for
the rescue of her imperilled people, it is but too prob
able that the troops whom Havelock brought to the re
lief of Lucknow would only have swelled the number
of the victims. But in the mean time the stout soldier,
Sir Colin Campbell, whom we have already heard of
in the Crimean campaign, had been appointed Com
mander-in-Chief of the Indian forces, and had arrived
in India. He received, it was said, the announcement
of the task assigned to him one afternoon in London,
and before the evening he was on his way to the scene
of his command. He arrived in Cawnpore on Novem
ber 3d, and he set out for Lucknow on the 9th. He
had, however, to wait for reinforcements, and it was not
until the 14th that he was able to attack. Even then he
had under his command only some five thousand men — a
force miserably inferior in number to that of the enemy ;
but in those days an English officer thought himself in
good condition to attack if the foe did not outnumber him
by more than four or five to one. A series of actions was
fought by Sir Colin Campbell and his little force, attack
ing the enemy on the one side, who were attacked at the
same time by the besieged garrison of the Residency.
On the morning of November 17th Outram and Havelock,
with their staff-officers, were able to join Campbell before
the general action was over, and by the combined efforts
of both forces the enemy was dislodged. Sir Colin Camp
bell resolved, however, that the Residency must be evac
uated; and accordingly, on the 19th, heavy batteries were
opened against the enemy's position, as if for the purpose
of assault ; and under cover of this operation the women,
the sick and the wounded were quietly removed to the
Dilkoosha, a small palace in a park about five miles from
the Residency, which had been captured by Sir Colin

Reconquest. 83
Campbell on his way to attack the city. During some
days following the garrison was quietly withdrawing to
the Dilkoosha. By midnight of the 2 2d, the whole garri
son, without the loss of a single man, had left the Resi
dency. Two or three days more saw the troops established
at Alumbagh, some four miles from the Residency, in
another direction from that of the Dilkoosha. Alumbagh
is an isolated cluster of buildings, with grounds and en
closure, to the south of Lucknow. The name of this place
is memorable forever in the history of the war. It was
there that Havelock closed his glorious career. He was
attacked with dysentery, and his frame, exhausted by the
almost superhuman strain which he had put upon it dur
ing his long days and sleepless nights of battle and victory,
could not long resist such an enemy. On November 24th
Havelock died. The Queen created him a baronet, or rather
affixed that honor to his name, on the 27th of the same
month, not knowing then that the soldier's time for strug
gle and for honor was over. The title was transferred to
his son, the present Sir Henry Havelock, who had fought
gallantly under his father's eyes. The fame of Have
lock's exploits reached England only a little in advance
of the news of his death. So many brilliant deeds had
seldom in the history of our wars been crowded into days
so few. All the fame of that glorious career was the work
of some strenuous, splendid weeks. Havelock's promotion
had been slow. He had not much for which to thank the
favor of his superiors. No family influence, no powerful
patrons or friends, had made his slow progress more easy.
He was more than sixty when the mutiny broke out.
He was born in April, 1795; he was educated at the
Charter-House, London, where his grave, studious ways
procured for him the nickname of "old phlos" — the
school-boys' " short" for " old philosopher. " He went out
to India in 1823, and served in the Burmese war of 1824,
and the Sikh war of 1845. He was a man of grave and
earnest character, a Baptist by religion, and strongly pen-

84 A History of Our Own Times.
etrated with a conviction that the religious spirit ought to
pervade and inform all the duties of military as well as
civil life. By his earnestness and his example he succeeded
in animating those whom he led with similar feelings ; and
" Havelock's saints" were well known through India by
this distinctive appropriate title. " Havelock's saints"
showed, whenever they had an opportunity, that they could
fight as desperately as the most reckless sinners ; and their
commander found the fame flung in his way, across the
path of his duty, which he never would have swerved
one inch from that path to seek. Amid all the excitement
of hope and fear, passion and panic, in England, there
was time for the whole heart of the nation to feel pride in
Havelock's career, and sorrow for his untimely death.
Untimely? Was it, after all, untimely? Since when has
it not been held the crown of a great career that the hero
dies at the moment of accomplished victory?
Sir Colin Campbell left General Outram in charge of
Alumbagh for the purpose of keeping watch upon the
movements of the insurgents, who were still strong in the
city of Lucknow. Sir Colin himself advanced toward
Cawnpore, where he soon found that there was some seri
ous work to be done. A large hostile force, composed
chiefly of the revolted army of Scindiah, the ruler of
Gwalior, had been marching upon Cawnpore; and General
Windham, who held the command there, had gone out to
attack them. It fared with him, however, very much as
it had done with Sir Henry Lawrence near Lucknow: he
found the enemy far too strong for him ; he was compelled
to retreat, not without severe loss, to his intrenchments
at Cawnpore, and the enemy occupied the city itself.
Sir Colin Campbell attacked the rebels at one place, Sir
Hope Grant attacked them at another, and Cawnpore
was retaken. Sir Colin Campbell then turned his attention
to the very important work of reconquering the entire
city of Lucknow, and dispersing the great body of rebels
who were concentrated there. It was not until March

Reconquest. 85
19th, 1858, that Lucknow fell completely into the hands
of the English. Our operations had been almost entirely
by artillery, and had been conducted with consummate
prudence as well as boldness, and our loss was therefore
very small, while the enemy suffered most severely.
About two thousand of the rebels were killed in a final
attack, and more than one hundred of their guns were
taken. Among our wounded were the gallant leader of
the naval brigade, Sir William Peel, son of the great
statesman ; and among the killed was Hodson, of " Hod
son's Horse," the executioner of the princes of Delhi. Sir
William Peel died at Cawnpore, shortly after, of small
pox, his death remarked and lamented even amid all
the noble deaths of that eventful time. One name must
not be forgotten among those who endured the siege of
Lucknow. It is that of Dr. Brydon, whom we last saw as
he appeared under the walls of Jellalabad, the one sur
vivor come back to tell the tale of the disastrous retreat
from Cabul. A gifted artist, Mrs. Thompson-Butler,
has lately painted that picture as no words could paint it.
Dr. Brydon served through the Lucknow defence, and was
specially named in the dispatch of the Governor-General.
"After passing through the Cabul campaign of i84i-'42,"
the Governor-General says of Dr. Brydon, "he was in
cluded in the illustrious garrison who maintained the
position in Jellalabad. He may now, as one of the heroes
of Lucknow, claim to have witnessed and taken part in
an achievement even more conspicuous as an example of
the invincible energy and enduring courage of British
soldiers. "
Practically, the reconquest of Lucknow was the final blow
in the suppression of the great Bengal mutiny. The two
centres of the movement were Delhi and Lucknow; and
when these strongholds were once more in the hands of
the English, rebellion in the land had well-nigh lost its
sway. There was hardly, after that time, any rebel camp
left to which it would have been worth carrying a flag of

86 A History of Our Own Times.
truce. Some episodes of the war, however, were still
worthy of notice. For example, the rebels seized Gwalior,
the capital of the Maharajah Scindia, who escaped to
Agra. The English had to attack the rebels, retake
Gwalior, and restore Scindia. One of those who fought
to the last on the rebels' side was the Ranee or Princess of
Jhansi, whose territory, as we have already seen, had been
one of our annexations. She had flung all her energy into
the rebellion, regarding it clearly as a rebellion, and not
as a mere mutiny. She took the field with Nana Sahib
and Tantia Topee. For months after the fall of Delhi she
contrived to baffle Sir Hugh Rose and the English.
She led squadrons in the field. She fought with her own
hand. She was engaged against us in the battle for the
possession of Gwalior. In the uniform of a cavalry officer
she led charge after charge, and she was killed among
those who resisted to the last. Her body was found upon
the field, scarred with wounds enough in the front to have
done credit to any hero. Sir Hugh Rose paid her the
well-deserved tribute which a generous conqueror is always
glad to be able to offer. He said in his general order
that " the best man upon the side of the enemy was the
woman found dead, the Ranee of Jhansi."
The Maharajah Scindia of Gwalior had deserved well
of the English Government. Under every temptation,
every threat, and many profound perils from the rebellion,
he had remained firm to his friendship. So, too, had
Holkar, the Maharajah of the Indore territory. Both these
princes were young when the mutiny broke out — some
twenty-three years old, each of them; at a time of life,
therefore, when ambition and enterprise might have been
expected to tempt with fullest fascination. Holkar was
actually believed, in the beginning, to have favored the
rebellion; he was deliberately accused of having taken
part with it; there are even still those who would argue
that he was its accomplice, so closely were his fortunes, to
all appearance, bound up with the cause of the mutineers,

Reconquest. 87
and so natural did it seem that he should fail to hold out
against them. But he disappointed all such expectations
on the part of our enemies, and proved himself a faithful
friend of England. The country owes much to those
two princes for the part they took at her hour of need ; and
she has not, we are glad to think, proved himself un
grateful. The administration of Patna by Mr. William Tayler
supplied an episode which is still discussed with some
thing like partisan keenness. Patna is the Mohammedan
capital of the region east of Benares, and the city was the
headquarters of the chiefs of the fanatical, warlike
Wahabis. Mr. Tayler was the Commissioner of the district ;
he suspected that rebellion was being planned there, and
he got the supposed religious leaders of it into his power by
a stratagem something like that which the Duke of Alva
employed to make Egmont his prisoner. Did the end
justify the means? is the question still asked. Was there
a rebellious plot? and, if so, was it right to anticipate
Oriental treachery by a stroke of more than Oriental
craft? The episode was interesting; but it is too purely
an episode to be discussed at any length in these pages.
It is not necessary to describe with any minuteness of
detail the final spasms of the rebellion. Tantia Topee,
the lieutenant of Nana Sahib, held out obstinately in the
field for a long time, and after several defeats. He was
at length completely hemmed in by the English, and was
deserted by the remainder of his army. He was taken
prisoner in April, 1859, was tried for his share in the
Cawnpore massacre, and was hanged like any vulgar
criminal. The old king of Delhi was also put on trial, and
being found guilty, was sentenced to transportation. He
was sent to the Cape of Good Hope, but the colonists there
refused to receive him, and this last of the line of the
Grand Moguls had to go begging for a prison. He was
finally carried to Rangoon, in British Burmah. On
December 20th, 1858, Lord Clyde, who had been Sir Colin

88 A History of Our Own Times.
Campbell, announced to the Governor-General that " the
campaign is at an end, there being no longer even the
vestige of rebellion in the province of Oudh;" and that
" the last remnant of the mutineers and insurgents had
been hopelessly driven across the mountains which form
the barrier between the kingdom of Nepaul and her
Majesty's empire of Hindostan." On May ist, 1859, there
was a public thanksgiving in England for the pacification
of India.

CHAPTER XXXVI.
THE END OF " JOHN COMPANY."
While these things were passing in India, it is needless
to say that the public opinion of England was distracted by
agitation and by opposing counsels. For a long time the
condition of Indian affairs had been regarded in England
with something like absolute indifference. India was,
to the ordinary Englishman, a place where men used at
one time to make large fortunes within a few years ; and
where lately military and civil officers had to do hard
work enough without much chance of becoming nabobs.
In many circles it was thought of only as the hated coun
try where one's daughter went with her husband and from
which she had, after a few years, to send back her chil
dren to England, because the climate of India was fatal
to certain years of childhood. It was associated, in the
minds of some, with tiger-hunting ; in the minds of others,
with Bishop Heber and missions to the heathen. Most
persons had a vague knowledge that there had been an
impeachment of Warren Hastings for something done by
him in India, and that Burke had made great speeches
about it. In his famous essay on Lord Clive, published
only seventeen years before the Indian Mutiny, Lord
Macaulay complained that while every school-boy, as
he put it in his favorite way, knew all about the Spanish
conquests in the Americas, about Montezuma, and Cortes,
and Pizarro, very few even of cultivated English gentle
men knew anything whatever about the history of Eng
land's empire in India. In the House of Commons a
debate on any question connected with India was as strictly
an affair of experts as a discussion on some local gas or

90 A History of Our Own Times.
water bill. The House in general did not even affect to
have any interest in it. The officials who had to do with
Indian affairs; the men on the Opposition benches who
had held the same offices while their party was in power ;
these, and two or three men who had been in India,
and were set down as crotchety because they professed
any concern in its mode of government — such were the
politicians who carried on an Indian debate, and who had
the House all to themselves while the discussion lasted.
The Indian Mutiny startled the public feeling of England
out of this state of unhealthy languor. First came the
passion and panic, the cry for blood, the wholesale execu
tions, the blowing of rebels from guns; then came a
certain degree of reaction, and some eminent Englishmen
were found to express alarm at the very sanguinary
methods of repression and of punishment that were in
favor among most of our fellow-countrymen in India.
It was during this season of reaction that the famous
discussions took place on Lord Canning's proclamation.
On March 3d, 1858, Lord Canning issued his memorable
proclamation; memorable, however, rather for the stir
it created in England than for any great effect it pro
duced in India. It was issued from Allahabad, whither
the Governor General had gone to be nearer to the seat
of war. The proclamation was addressed to the Chiefs of
Oudh, and it announced that, with the exception of the
lands then held by six loyal proprietors of the province,
the proprietary right in the whole of the soil of Oudh was
transferred to the British Government, which would dispose
of it in such manner as might seem fitting. The disposal,
however, was indicated by the terms of the proclamation.
To all chiefs and landholders who should at once surrender
to the Chief Commissioner of Oudh it was promised that
their lives should be spared, " provided that their hands are
unstained by English blood murderously shed;" but it was
stated that, " as regards any further indulgence which may
be extended to them, and the conditions in which they may

The End of " fobn Company." 91
hereafter be placed, they must throw themselves upon the
justice and mercy of the British Government. " Read by
the light of literalness, this proclamation unquestionably
seemed to amount to an absolute confiscation of the
whole soil of Oudh; for even the favored landowners
who were to retain their properties were given to under
stand that they retained them by the favor of the crown,
and as a reward for their loyalty. This was the view
taken of the Governor General's act by one whose opin
ion was surely entitled to the highest consideration from
every one — Sir James Outram, Chief Commissioner of
Oudh. Sir James Outram wrote at once to Lord Canning,
pointing out that there were not a dozen landholders in
Oudh who had not either themselves borne arms against
us or assisted the rebels with men or money, and that,
therefore, the effect of the proclamation would be to con
fiscate the entire proprietary right in the province and to
make the chiefs and landlords desperate, and that the re
sult would be a " guerilla war for the extirpation, root and
branch, of this class of men, which will involve the loss of
thousands of Europeans by battle, disease, and exposure."
Lord Canning was not ready to admit, even in deference
to such authority as that of Sir James Outram, that
his policy would have any such effects. But he consented
to insert in the proclamation a clause announcing that a
liberal indulgence would be granted to those who should
promptly come forward to aid in the restoration of order,
and that "the Governor General will be ready to view
liberally the claims which they may thus acquire to a
restitution of their former rights."
In truth, it was never the intention of Lord Canning to
put in force any cruel and sweeping policy of confiscation.
The whole tenor of his rule in India, the very reproaches
that had been showered on him, the very nickname which
his enemies had given him — that term of reproach that
afterward came to be a title of honor — might have sug
gested to the sharpest critic that it was not likely " Clem-

92 A History of Our Own Times.
ency" Canning was about to initiate a principle of merciless
punishment for an entire class of men. Lord Canning
had come to the conclusion that the English Government
must start afresh in their dealings with Oudh. He felt
that it would be impossible to deal with the chiefs and
people of the province so lately annexed as if we were
dealing with revolted Sepoys. He put aside any idea of
imprisonment or transportation for mere rebellion, seeing
that only in the conqueror's narrowest sense could men
be accounted rebels because they had taken arms against
a power which but a moment before had no claim what
ever to their allegiance or their obedience. Nevertheless,
Oudh was now a province of the British Empire in
Hindostan, and Lord Canning had only to consider what
was to be done with it. He came to the conclusion that
the necessary policy for all parties concerned was to make
of the mutiny and the consequent reorganization an op
portunity, not for a wholesale confiscation of the land, but
for a measure which should declare that the land was
held under the power and right of the English Govern
ment. The principle of his policy was somewhat like
that adopted by Lord Durham in Canada. It put aside
the technical authority of law for the moment, in order
that a reign of genuine law might be inaugurated. It
seized the power of a dictator over life and property, that
the dictator might be able to restore peace and order at
the least cost in loss and suffering to the province and the
population whose affairs it was his task to administer.
But it may be freely admitted that on the face of it the
proclamation of Lord Canning looked strangely despotic.
Some of the most independent and liberal Englishmen took
this view of it. Men who had supported Lord Canning
through all the hours of clamor against him felt compelled
to express disapproval of what they understood to be his new
policy. It so happened that Lord Ellenborough was then
President of the Board of Control, and Lord Ellenborough
was a man who always acted on impulse, and had a pas-

The End of "John Company." 93
sion for fine phrases. He had a sincere love of justice,
according to his lights ; but he had a still stronger love
for antithesis. Lord Ellenborough, therefore, had no
sooner received a copy of Lord Canning's proclamation
than he despatched, upon his own responsibility, a rattling
condemnation of the whole proceeding. " Other conquer
ors," wrote the fiery and eloquent statesman, "when they
have succeeded in overcoming resistance have excepted
a few persons as still deserving of punishment, but have,
with a generous policy, extended their clemency to the
great body of the people. You have acted upon a differ
ent principle; you have reserved a few as deserving of
special favor, and you have struck, with what they feel
as the severest of punishments, the mass of the inhabitants
of the country. We cannot but think that the precedents
from which you have departed will appear to have been
conceived in a spirit of wisdom superior to that which
appears in the precedent you have made." The style of
this dispatch was absolutely indefensible. A French Im
perial prefect with a turn for eloquent letter- writing might
fitly thus have admonished the erring maire of a village
community ; but it was absurd language for a man like
Lord Ellenborough to address to a statesman like Lord
Canning, who had just succeeded in keeping the fabric
of English goverment in India together during the most
terrible trial ever imposed on it by fate. The question
was taken up immediately in both Houses of Parliament.
Lord Shaftesbury, in the House of Lords, moved a resolu
tion declaring that the House regarded with regret and
serious apprehension the sending of such a dispatch
" through the Secret Committee of the Court of Directors"
— an almost obsolete piece of machinery, we may remark
— and its publication ; and that such a course must preju
dice our rule in India by weakening the authority of the
Governor General, and encouraging the resistance of
rebels still in arms. A similar motion was introduced by
Mr. Cardwell in the House of Commons. In both Houses

94 A History of Our Own Times.
the arrangement of the Ministry proved a failure. Lord
Ellenborough at once took upon himself the whole re
sponsibility of an act which was undoubtedly all his own,
and he resigned his office. The resolution was, therefore,
defeated in the House of Lords on a division and had to
be withdrawn in a rather ignominious manner in the
House of Commons. Four nights of vehement debate
were spent in the latter House. Opinion was strangely
divided. Men like Mr. Bright and Sir James Graham
condemned the proclamation and defended the action of
the Government. The position of Mr. Cardwell and his
supporters became particularly awkward ; for they seemed,
after the resignation of Lord Ellenborough, to be only
trying to find partisan advantage in a further pressure upon
the Government. The news that Sir James Outram had
disapproved of the proclamation came while the debate
was still going on, and added new strength to the cause
of the Government. It came out in the course of the dis
cussion that Lord Canning had addressed a private letter
to Mr. Vernon Smith, afterward Lord Lyveden, Lord
Ellenborough's predecessor as President of the Board of
Control, informing him that the proclamation about to be
issued would require some further explanation which the
pressure of work did not allow its author just then to give.
Lord Canning wrote this under the belief that Mr. Vernon
Smith was still at the head of the Board of Control. Mr.
Vernon Smith did not tell Lord Ellenborough anything
about this letter; and it was, of course, very strongly
urged that, had Lord Ellenborough known of such a doc
ument being in existence, he would have held his hand
and waited for the further explanation. Mr. Vernon
Smith, it was explained, was in Ireland when the letter
arrived, and did not get it in time to prevent the action of
Lord Ellenborough; and Lord Granville stated that he had
himself had a letter to a similar effect from Lord Canning,
of which he told Lord Ellenborough, but that that impet
uous nobleman did not show the least interest in it, and

The End of " J~ohn Company." 95
did not even hear it out to the end. Still, there was an
obvious difference between a letter to a friend and what
might be considered an official communication to Lord
Ellenborough's predecessor in the very office on behalf of
which he issued his censure ; and, at all events, the unex
pected revelation tended greatly to strengthen the position
of the Government. The attack made by Mr. Cardwell
broke down or crumbled away. Mr. Disraeli described
the process of its disappearance in a speech which he de
livered a few days after at Slough, and the description is
one of his happiest pieces of audacious eloquence. " It
was like a convulsion of nature rather than any ordinary
transaction of human life. I can only like it to one of
those earthquakes which take place in Calabria or Peru.
There was a rumbling murmur, a groan, a shriek, a sound
of distant thunder. No one knew whether it came from
the top or the bottom of the house. There was a rent, a
fissure in the ground, and then a village disappeared;
then a tall tower toppled down ; and the whole of the op
position benches became one great dissolving view of
anarchy." Assuredly Mr. Disraeli was entitled to crow
over his baffled antagonists. " Do you triumph, Roman
— do you triumph?" It must have been a meeker Roman
than Mr. Disraeli who would not have triumphed over so
complete and unexpected a humiliation of his enemies.
The debate in the House of Commons was memorable in
other ways, as well as for its direct political consequences.
It first gave occasion for Mr. Cairns, as he then was, to
display the extraordinary capacity as a debater which he
possessed, and which he afterward made of such solid and
brilliant service to his party. It was also the occasion of
the Count de Montalembert's celebrated pamphlet, " Un
de'bat sur I'lnde au Parlement Anglais," for which, and its
thrilling contrast between the political freedom of England
and the imperial servitude of France, he had the honor of
being prosecuted by the French Government, and defended
by M. Berry er.

96 A History of Our Own Times.
Lord Canning continued his policy, the policy which
he had marked out for himself, with signal success. The
actual proclamation had little or no effect, as punishment,
on the landholders of Oudh. It was never intended by
Lord Canning that it should have any such. In fact,
within a few weeks after the capture of Lucknow, almost
all the large landowners had tendered their allegiance.
Lord Canning impressed upon his officers the duty of
making their rule as considerate and conciliatory as pos
sible. The new system established in Oudh was based
upon the principle of recognizing the Talookdars as re
sponsible landholders, while so limiting their power by
the authority of the Government as to get rid of old
abuses, and protect the occupiers and cultivators of the
soil. The rebellion had abundantly proved that the vil
lage communities were too feeble and broken to hold the
position which had been given with success to similar
communities in the Punjaub. It should be remembered,
in considering Lord Canning's policy, that a proprietary
right, by whatever name it may be distinguished or dis
guised, has always been claimed by the Government of
India. It is only parted with under leases or settlements
that are liable to be revised and altered. The settlements
which Lord Canning effected in India easily survived the
attacks made upon their author. They would have been
short-lived, indeed, if they had not long survived him
self as well. Canning, like Durham, only lived long
enough to hear the general acknowledgment that he had
done well for the country he was sent to govern, and for
the country in whose name and with whose authority he
went forth.
The rebellion pulled down with it a famous old institu
tion, the government of the East India Company. Before
the mutiny had been entirely crushed, the rule of " John
Company" came to an end. The administration of India
had, indeed, long ceased to be under the control of the
Company as it was in the days of Warren Hastings. A

The End of " fohn Company." 97
Board of Directors, nominated partly by the Crown and
partly by the Company, sat in Leadenhall Street, and gave
general directions for the government of India. But the
parliamentary department, called the Board of Control,
had the right of reviewing and revising the decisions of
the Company. The Crown had the power of nominating
the Governor-General, and the Company had only the
power of recalling him. This odd and perhaps unparal
leled system of double government had not much to defend
it on strictly logical grounds; and the moment a great
crisis came, it was natural that all the blame of difficulty
and disaster should be laid upon its head. With the be
ginning of the mutiny the impression began to grow up
in the public mind here that something of a sweeping
nature must be done for the reorganization of India; and
before long this vague impression crystallized into a con
viction that England must take Indian administration into
her own hands, and that the time had come for the fiction
of rule by a trading company to be absolutely given up.
Indeed, Lord Ellenborough had recommended, in his
evidence before a Select Committee of the Commons on
Indian affairs as far back as 1852, that the government of
India should be transferred from the Company to the
Crown. As we have already seen, the famous system of
government which was established by Pitt was really the
government of the Crown ; at least, Pitt made the admin
istration of India completely subject to the English Gov
ernment. The difference between Pitt's measure and that
introduced by Fox was that Pitt preserved the indepen
dence of the Company in matters of patronage and
commerce, whereas Fox would have placed the whole
commerce and commercial administration of the Company
under the control of a body nominated by the Crown. By
the Act of 1853 the patronage of the Civil Service was
taken from the Company, and yet was not given to the
Crown. It was, in fact, a competitive system. Scientific
and civil appointments were made to depend on capacity
Vol. II.— 7

98 A History of Our Own Times.
and fitness alone. Macaulay spoke for the last time in
the House of Commons in support of the principle of ad
mission by competitive examination to the Civil Service
of India. In the beginning of 1858 Lord Palmerston in
troduced a bill to transfer the authority of the Company
formally and absolutely to the Crown. The plan of the
scheme was that there were to be a president and a council
of eight members, to be nominated by the Government.
There was a large majority in the House of Commons in
favor of the bill ; but the agitation caused by the attempt
to assassinate the Emperor of the French, and Palmerston's
ill-judged and ill-timed Conspiracy Bill, led to the sudden
overthrow of his Government. When Lord Derby suc
ceeded to power, he brought in a bill for the better gov
ernment of India at once ; but the measure was a failure.
It was of preposterous construction. It bore upon its face
curious evidence of the fantastic ingenuity of Lord Ellen
borough. It created a Secretary of State for India, with
a council of eighteen. Nine of these were to be nominees
of the Crown ; nine were to be concessions to the principle
of popular election. Four of the elected must have served
her Majesty in India for at least ten years, or have been
engaged in trade in that country for fifteen years ; and
they were to be elected \>y the votes of any one in this
country who had served the Queen or the Government of
India for ten years ; or any proprietor of capital stock in
Indian railways or other public works in India to the
amount of two thousand pounds ; or any proprietor of India
stock to the amount of one thousand pounds. The other
five members of the council must, as their qualification,
have been engaged in commerce in India, or in the expor
tation of manufactured goods to that country, for five years,
or must have resided there for ten years. These five were
to be elected by the parliamentary constituencies of Lon
don, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, and Belfast. This
clause was Lord Ellenborough's device. Anything more
absurdly out of tune with the whole principle of popular

The End of "John Company." 99
election than this latter part of the scheme it would be
difficult to imagine. The theory of popular election is
simply that every man knows best what manner of repre
sentative is best qualified to look after his interests in the
Legislative Assembly. But by no distortion of that prin
ciple can it be made to assert the doctrine that the parlia
mentary electors of London and Liverpool are properly
qualified to decide as to the class of representatives who
could best take care of the interests of Bengal, Bombay,
and the Punjaub. Again, as if it was not absurd enough
to put elections to the governing body of India into the
hands of such constituencies, the field of choice was so
limited for them as to render it almost impossible that
they could elect really suitable men. It was well pointed
out at the time that, by the ingenious device of the Gov
ernment, a constituency might send to the Indian Council
any man who had exported beer in a small way to India
for five years, but could not send Mr. John Stuart Mill
there. The measure fell dead. It had absolutely no sup
port in the House or the country. It had only to be de
scribed in order to insure its condemnation. It was with
drawn before it had gone to a second reading. Then Lord
John Russell came to the help of the puzzled Government,
who evidently thought they had been making a generous
concession to the principle of popular election, and were
amazed to find their advances so coldly and contemptuously
received. Lord John Russell proposed that the House
should proceed by way of resolutions — that is, that the
lines of a measure should be laid down by a series of
resolutions in committee of the whole House; and that
upon those lines the Government should construct a
measure. The suggestion was eagerly welcomed, and
after many nights of discussion a basis of legislation was
at last agreed upon. This bill passed into law in the
autumn of 1858; and for the remainder of Lord Derby's
tenure of power, his son, Lord Stanley, was Secretary of
State for India. The bill, which was called "An Act for

loo A History of Our Own Times.
the better Government of India," provided that all the
territories previously under the government of the East
India Company were to be vested in her Majesty, and all
the Company's powers to be exercised in her name. One
of her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State was to have
all the power previously exercised by the Company, or by
the Board of Control. The Secretary was to be assisted
by a Council of India, to consist of fifteen members, of
whom seven were to be elected by the Court of Directors
from their own body, and eight nominated by the Crown.
The vacancies among the nominated were to be filled up
by the Crown ; those among the elected by the remaining
members of the Council for a certain time, but afterward
by the Secretary of State for India. The competitive
principle for the Civil Service was extended in its applica
tion, and made thoroughly practical. The military and
naval forces of the Company were to be deemed the
forces of her Majesty. A clause was introduced declaring
that, except for the purpose of preventing or repelling
actual invasion of India, the Indian revenues should not,
without the consent of both Houses of Parliament, be
applicable to defray the expenses of any military opera
tion carried on beyond the external frontiers of her
Majesty's Indian possessions. Another clause enacted
that whenever an order was sent to India directing the
commencement of hostilities by her Majesty's forces there,
the fact should be communicated to Parliament within
three months, if Parliament were then sitting, or, if not,
within one month after its next meeting. These clauses
were heard of more than once in later days. The Viceroy
and Governor-General was to be supreme in India, but
was to be assisted by a Council. India now has nine
provinces, each under its own civil government, and inde
pendent of the others, but all subordinate to the authority
of the Viceroy. In accordance with this Act the govern
ment of the Company, the famed "John Company," for
mally ceased on September ist, 1858; and the Queen was

The End of "John Company." 101
proclaimed throughout India in the following November,
with Lord Canning for her first Viceroy. It was but fit
ting that the man who had borne the strain of that terrible
crisis, who had brought our Indian Empire safely through
it all, and who had had to endure so much obloquy and to
live down so much calumny, should have his name con
signed to history as that of the first of the line of British
Viceroys in India.
It seems almost superfluous to say that so great a meas
ure as the extinction of the East India Company did not
pass without some protest and some opposition. The
authorship of some of the protests makes them too remark
able to be passed over without a word. Among the ablest
civil servants the East India Company ever had were
James Mill and his son, John Stuart Mill. Both had risen
in succession to the same high post in the company's
service. The younger Mill was still an official of the Com
pany when, as he has put it in his own words, " it pleased
Parliament — in other words, Lord Palmerston — to put an
end to the East India Company as a branch of the Govern
ment of India under the Crown, and convert the adminis
tration of that country into a thing to be scrambled for
by the second and third class of English parliamentary
politicians." " I," says Mr. Mill, "was the chief manager
of the resistance which the Company made to their own
political extinction, and to the letters and petitions I wrote
for them, and the concluding chapter of my treatise on
representative government I must refer for my opinions
on the folly and mischief of this ill-considered change.
One of the remonstrances drawn up by Mr. Mill, and pre
sented to Parliament on behalf of the East India Com
pany, is as able a state paper, probably, as any in the
archives of modern England. This is not the place, how
ever, in which to enter on the argument it so powerfully
sustained. " It has been the destiny of the government
of the East India Company," says Mr. Mill, in the closing
passage of his essay on "Representative Government,"

102 A History of Our Own Times.
" to suggest the true theory of the government of a semi-
barbarous dependency by a civilized country, and after
having done this, to perish. It would be a singular fortune
if, at the end of two or three more generations, this spec
ulative result should be the only remaining fruit of our
ascendancy in India; if posterity should say of us that,
having stumbled accidentally upon better arrangements
than our wisdom would ever have devised, the first use we
made of our awakened reason was to destroy them, and
allow the good which had been in course of being realized
to fall through and be lost, from ignorance of the princi
ples on which it depended. " " Di meliora, " Mr. Mill adds ;
and we are glad to think that, after the lapse of more
than twenty years, there is as yet no sign of the realization
of the fears which he expressed with so much eloquence
and earnestness. Mr. Mill was naturally swayed by the
force of association with and confidence in the great
organization with which he and his father had been con
nected so long; and, moreover, no one can deny that he
has, in his protests, fairly presented some of the dangers
that may now and then arise out of a system which throws
the responsibility for the good government of India wholly
on a body so likely to be alien, apathetic, unsympathetic,
as the English Parliament. But the whole question was
one of comparative danger and convenience ; the balance
of advantage certainly seemed, even as a matter of specu
lation, to be with the system of more direct government.
It is a mistake, too, to suppose that it was the will, or the
caprice, of Lord Palmerston that made the change.
Rightly or wrongly, it is certain that almost the whole
voice of English public opinion cried out for the abolition
of the East India Company. It was the one thing which
everybody could suggest to be done, at a time of excite
ment when everybody thought he was bound to suggest
something. It would have required a minister less fond of
popularity than Lord Palmerston to resist such an outcry,
or pretend that he did not hear it. In this, as in so

The End of "John Company." 103
many other cases, Lord Palmerston only seemed to lead
public opinion, while he was really following it. One
other remark it is also fair to make. We have had no in
dications, as yet, of any likelihood that the administration
of India is to become a thing to be scrambled for by second
and third class parliamentary politicians. The adminis
tration of India means, of course, the Viceroyalty. Now
there have been, since Lord Canning, five Viceroys, and
of these three at least were not parliamentary politicians
at all. Sir John Lawrence never was in Parliament until
he was raised to the peerage, after his return home from
India. Lord Elgin may be fairly described as never hav
ing been in Parliament, unless in the technical sense
which makes every man on whom a peer's title is conferred
a parliamentary personage; and the same holds true of
Lord Lytton, who had no more to do with Parliament than
was involved in the fact of his having succeeded to his
father's title. Lord Mayo and Lord Northbrook, to whom,
perhaps, an invidious critic might apply the term second
or third class parliamentary politicians, on the ground that
neither had obtained very high parliamentary distinction,
proved, nevertheless, very capable, and, indeed, excellent
administrators of Indian affairs, and fully justified the
choice of the ministers who appointed them. Indeed, the
truth is that the change made in the mode of governing
India by the act which we have just been describing, was
more of name than of reality. India was ruled by a Gov
ernor-General and a board before; it has been ruled by a
Governor-General, called a Viceroy, and a board since.
The idea which Mr. Mill had evidently formed in his
mind, of a restless and fussy Parliament forever interfer
ing in the affairs of India, proved to have been a false
impression altogether. Parliament soon ceased to take
the slightest interest, collectively, in the affairs of India.
Once more it came to be observed that an Indian budget,
or other question connected with the government of our
great empire in the East, could thin the House as in the

104 A History of Our Own Times.
days before the Mutiny. Again, as before, some few men
profoundly in earnest took care and thought on the subject
of India, and were condemned to pour out the results of
their study and experience to a listening Under-Secretary
and a chill array of green leather benches. At intervals,
when some piquant question arose, of little importance
save to the Court official or the partisan — like the project
for conferring an imperial crown, brand-new and showy
as a stage diadem, on the wearer of the great historic em
blem of English monarchy — then, indeed, public opinion
condescended to think about India, and there were keen
parliamentary debates and much excitement in fashionable
circles. Sometimes, when there was talk of Russian ambi
tion seeking, somehow, a pathway into India, a sort of
public spirit was aroused, not, perhaps, wholly unlike the
manly emotion of Squire Sullen, in the "Beau's Strata
gem," when he discovers that a foreigner is paying court to
the woman he has so long neglected. But, as a rule, the
English Parliament has wholly falsified Mr. Mill's predic
tion, and has not intruded itself in any way upon the
political administration of India.

CHAPTER XXXVII.
THE 0RSINI BOMBS EXPLODE IN PARIS AND LONDON.
The last chapter has told us that Lord Palmerston in
troduced a measure to transfer to the Crown the govern
ment of India, but that unexpected events, in the mean
while, compelled him to resign office, and called Lord
Derby and Mr. Disraeli to power. These events had
nothing to do directly with the general policy of Lord
Palmerston or Lord Derby. At mid-day of January 14th,
1858, no one could have had the slightest foreboding of
anything about to happen which could affect the place of
Lord Palmerston in English politics. He seemed to be as
popular and as strong as a minister well could be. There
had been a winter session called together on December
3d to pass a bill of indemnity for the Government, who
had suspended the Bank Charter Act during the terrible
money panic of the autumn, and the failures of banks and
commercial firms. The Bank was authorized by the
suspension of the Charter Act to extend its circulation
two millions beyond the limit of that Act. The effect of
this step in restoring confidence was so great that the Bank
had only to put in circulation some ^900,000 beyond the
limit of 1844, and even that sum was replaced, and a cer
tain reserve established by the close of the year. Most
people thought the Government had met the difficulty
promptly and well and were ready to offer their congratu
lations. Parliament adjourned at Christmas, and was to
meet early in February. The Princess Victoria, eldest
daughter of the Queen, was to be married to the Prince
Frederick William, eldest son of the then Prince of Prus
sia, now German Emperor, and it was to be Lord Palmer-

106 A History of Our Own Times.
ston's pleasant task, when Parliament resumed in Febru
ary, to move a vote of congratulation to her Majesty on
her child's marriage. Meantime, however, on the evening
of January 14th, Felice Orsini, an Italian exile, made his
memorable attempt to assassinate the Emperor of the
French. Orsini lost himself, and he drew the English
Government down at the same time.
Felice Orsini was well known in England. After his
romantic escape from a prison at Mantua, he came to this
country and delivered lectures in several towns. He des
cribed the incidents of his escape and denounced Austrian
rule in Italy, and was made a lion of in many places. He
was a handsome, soldierly-looking man, with intensely
dark eyes and dark beard, in appearance almost the model
Italian conspirator of romance. He was not an orator,
but he was able to tell his story clearly and well. One
great object which he had in view was to endeavor to rouse
up the English people to some policy of intervention on
behalf of Italy against Austria. It is almost impossible
for a man like Orsini to take the proper measure of the
enthusiasm with which he is likely to be received in Eng
land. He goes to several public meetings ; he is welcomed
by immense crowds; he is cheered to the echo; and he
gets to be under the impression that the whole country is
on his side, and ready to do anything he asks for. He
does not understand that the crowds go, for the most part,
out of curiosity; that they represent no policy or action
whatever, and that they will have forgotten all about him
by the day after to-morrow. Of those who went to hear
Orsini, and who applauded him so liberally, not one in
ten probably had any distinct idea as to who he was or
what cause he represented. He was an Italian exile who
had escaped from tyranny of some sort somewhere, and
he was a good-looking man; and that was enough for
many or most of his audiences. But Orsini was thoroughly
deceived. He convinced himself that he was forming
public opinion in England; that he was inspiring the

The Orsini Bombs Explode in Paris and London. 107
people, that the people would inspire the Government,
and that the result would be an armed intervention on
behalf of Lombardy and Venetia. At a meeting which
he held in Liverpool, a merchant of that town, who sym
pathized cordially with Orsini's cause, had the good-sense
to get up and tell Orsini that he was cruelly deceiving
himself if he fancied that England either would or could
take any step to intervene on behalf of the Italian provinces
then held by Austria. Orsini at first thought little of this
warning. After a while, however, he found out that the
advice was sound and just. He saw that England would
do nothing. He might have seen that even the English
Liberals, with the exception of a very few enthusiasts,
were entirely against his projects. They were, in fact,
just as much opposed to the principle of intervention in
the affairs of other States as the Conservatives. But Orsini
set himself to devise explanations for what was simply the
prudent and just determination of all the statesmen and
leading politicians of the country. He found the explana
tion in the subtle influence of the Emperor of the French.
It happened that during Orsini's residence in this country
the Emperor and Empress of the French came on a visit
to the Queen at Osborne ; and Orsini saw in this a conclu
sive confirmation of his suspicions. Disappointed, de
spairing, and wild with anger against Louis Napoleon,
he appears then to have allowed the idea to get possession
of him that the removal of the Emperor of the French from
the scene was an indispensable preliminary to any policy
having for its object the emancipation of Italy from Aus
trian rule. He brooded on this idea until it became a
project and a passion. It transformed a soldier and a
patriot into an assassin.
On January 14th, Orsini and his fellow-conspirators
made their attempt in the Rue Lepelletier in Paris. As
the Emperor and Empress of the French were driving up
to the door of the Opera-House in that street, Orsini and
his companions flung at and into the carriage three shells

io8 A History of Our Own Times.
or bombs shaped like a pear, and filled with detonating
powder. The shells exploded, and killed and wounded
many persons. So minute were the fragments into which
the bombs burst that five hundred and sixteen wounds,
great and little, were inflicted by the explosion. This
attempt at assassination was unfavorably distinguished
from most other attempts by the fact that it took no ac
count of the number of innocent lives which it imperilled.
The murderers of William the Silent, of Henry IV., of
Abraham Lincoln, could at least say that they only struck
at the objects of their hate. In Orsini's case the Emperor's
wife, the Emperor's attendants and servants, the harmless
and unconcerned spectators in the crowd, who had no
share in Austrian misgovernment, were all exposed to the
danger of death or of horrible mutilation. Ten persons
were killed; one hundred and fifty-six were wounded.
For any purpose it aimed at, the project was an utter fail
ure. It only injured those who had nothing to do with
Orsini's cause or the condition of the Italian populations.
We may as well dispose at once, also, of a theory which
was for a time upheld by some who would not, indeed,
justify or excuse Orsini's attempt, but who were inclined
to believe that it was not made wholly in vain. Orsini
failed, it was said ; but nevertheless the Emperor of the
French did soon after take up the cause of Italy; and he
did so because he was afraid of the still living confederates
of the Lombard Scaevola, and wished to purchase safety
for himself by conciliating them. Even the Prince Con
sort wrote to a friend on April nth, 1858, about Louis
Napoleon : " I fear he is at this moment meditating some
Italian development, which is to serve as a lightning-
conductor; for ever since Orsini's letter he has been all
for Italian independence." Historical revelations made
at a later period show that this is altogether a mistake.
We now know that at the time of the Congress of Paris
Count Cavour had virtually arranged with the Emperor the
plans of policy which were afterward carried out, and that

The Orsini Bombs Explode in Paris and London. 109
even before that time Cavour was satisfied in his own
mind as to the ultimate certainty of Louis Napoleon's
co-operation. Those who are glad to see Italy a nation
may be glad, too, to know that Orsini's bombs had nothing
to do with her success.
Orsini was arrested. Curiously enough, his arrest was
made more easy by the fact that he himself received a
wound from one of the fragments of shell, and he was
tracked by his own blood-marks. Great as his crime was,
he compelled a certain admiration from all men by the
manner in which he bore his fate. He avowed his guilt,
and made a strenuous effort to clear of all complicity in it
a man who was accused of being one of the conspirators.
He wrote from his prison to the Emperor, beseeching him
to throw his influence into the national cause of Italy.
He made no appeal on his own behalf. The Emperor, it
is believed, was well inclined to spare his life; but the
comprehensive heinousness of the crime which took in so
many utterly blameless persons rendered it almost im
possible to allow the leading conspirator to escape. As
it was, however, the French Government certainly showed
no unreasonable severity. Four persons were put on trial
as participators in the attempt, three of them having actu
ally thrown the bombs. Only two, however, were executed
— Orsini and Pierri ; the other two were sentenced to penal
servitude for life. This, on the whole, was merciful deal
ing. Three Fenians, it must be remembered, were execut
ed in Manchester for an attempt to rescue some prisoners,
in which one police officer was killed by one shot. Orsini's
project was a good deal more criminal, most sane persons
will admit, than a mere attempt to rescue a prisoner ; and
it was the cause not of one but of many deaths. Orsini
died like a soldier, without bravado and without the slight
est outward show of fear. As he and his companion Pierri
were mounting the scaffold, he was heard to encourage
the latter in a quiet tone. Pierri continued to show signs
of agitation, and then Orsini was heard to say, in a voice

no A History of Our Own Times.
of gentle remonstrance, " Try to be calm, my friend ; try
to be calm."
France was not very calm under the circumstances.
An outburst of anger followed the attempt in the Rue
Lepelletier ; but the anger was not so much against Orsini
as against England. One of the persons charged along
with Orsini, although he was not tried in Paris, for he
could not be found there, was a Frenchman, Simon Ber
nard, who had long been living in London. It was certain
that many of the arrangements for the plot were made in
London. The bombs were manufactured in Birmingham,
and were ordered for Orsini by an Englishman. It was
known that Orsini had many friends and admirers in this
country. The Imperialists in France at once assumed
that England was a country where assassination of foreign
sovereigns was encouraged by the population, and not
discouraged by the laws. The French Minister for For
eign Affairs, Count Walewski, wrote a despatch, in which
he asked whether England considered that hospitality was
due to assassins. "Ought English legislation," he asked,
" to contribute to favor their designs and their attempts,
and can it continue to shelter persons who, by their fla
grant acts, put themselves outside the pale of common
rights, and under the ban of humanity?" The Due de
Persigny, then Ambassador of France in England, made
a very foolish and unfortunate reply to a deputation from
the Corporation of London, in which he took on himself
to point out that if the law of England was strong enough
to put down conspiracies for assassination, it ought to be
put in motion ; and if it were not, it ought to be made
stronger. Persigny did not, indeed, put this forward as
his own contribution of advice to England. He gave it
as an expression of the public feeling of France, and as an
explanation of the anger which was aflame in that country.
" France," he said, " does not understand and cannot under
stand this state of things ; and in that lies the danger, for
she may mistake the true sentiments of her ally, and

The Orsini Bombs Explode in Paris and London. 1 1 1
may cease to believe in England's sincerity." Talk of
that kind would have been excusable and natural on the
part of an Imperialist orator in the Corps Legislatif in
Paris; but it was silly and impertinent when it came from
a professional diplomatist. That flavor of the canteen and
the barrack -room, which the Prince Consort detected and
disliked in the Emperor's associates, was very perceptible
in Persigny 's harangue. The barrack-room and the
canteen, however, had much more to say in the matter.
Addresses of congratulation were poured in upon the
Emperor from the French army, and many of them were
full of insulting allusions to England as the sheltering
ground of assassination. One regiment declared that it
longed to demand an account from "the land of impurity
which contains the haunts of the monsters who are shel
tered by its laws. " This regiment begged of the Emperor
to give them the order, " and we will pursue them even
to their stronghold. " In another address it was urged that
"the infamous haunt (repaire infdme) in which machina
tions so infernal are planned" — London, that is — " should
be destroyed forever." Some of these addresses were
inserted in the Moniieur, then the official organ of the
French Government. It was afterward explained that the
official sanction thus apparently given to the rhodomon-
tades of the French colonels was a mere piece of inadver
tence. There were so many addresses sent in, it was said,
that some of them escaped examination. Count Walewski
expressed the regret of the Emperor that language and sen
timents so utterly unlike his own should have found their
way into publicity. It is certain that Louis Napoleon
would never have deliberately sanctioned the obstreperous
buffoonery of such sentences as we have referred to ; but
anyhow the addresses were published, were read in Eng
land, and aroused in this country an amount of popular
resentment not unlikely to explode in utterances as vehe
ment and thoughtless as those of the angry French colonels
themselves.

112 A History of Our Own Times.
Let us do justice to the French colonels. Their language
was ludicrous ; nothing but the grossness of its absurdity
saved it from being intolerably offensive. But the feeling
which dictated it was not unnatural. Foreign countries
always find it hard to understand the principles of liberty
which are established in England. They assume that if a
State allows certain things to be done, it must be because
the State wishes to see them done. If men are allowed
to plot against foreign sovereigns in England, it can only
be, they argue, because the English Government likes to
have plots carried on against foreign sovereigns. It would
be impossible to deny that people in this country are
singularly thoughtless in their encouragement of any
manner of foreign revolution. Even where there are re
strictive laws, public opinion will hardly sanction their
being carried out. London is, and long has been, the
headquarters of revolutionary plot. No one knew that
better than Louis Napoleon himself. No one had made
more unscrupulous use of a domicile in London to carry
out political and revolutionary projects. Associations have
been formed in London to supply men and money to Don
Carlos, to Queen Isabella, to the Polish Revolutionists,
to Hungary, to Garibaldi, to the Southern Confederation,
to the Circassians, to anybody and everybody who could
say that he represented a defeat, or a victory, or a national
cause, or anything. In i860 Lord John Russell admitted
in the House of Commons that it would be impossible to
put into execution our laws against foreign enlistment,
because every political party and almost every man was
concerned in breaking them at one time or another. He
referred to the fact that, some forty years before, the cause
of Greece against Turkey had been taken up openly in
London by public men of the highest mark, and that
money, arms, and men were got together for Greece with
out the slightest pretence at concealment. While he was
speaking a legion was being formed in one place to fight
for Victor Emmanuel against the Pope ; in another place

The Orsini Bombs Explode in Paris and London. 113
to fight for the Pope against Victor Emmanuel. Every
refugee was virtually free to make London a basis of oper
ations against the Government which had caused his exile.
There were, it is right to say, men who construed the con
ditions upon which they were sheltered in England with
a conscientious severity. They held that they were pro
tected by this country on the implied understanding that
they took no part in any proceedings that might tend to
embarrass her in her dealings with foreign States. They
argued that the obligation on them, whether declared or
not, was exactly the same as that which rests on one who
asks and obtains the hospitality and shelter of a private
house : the obligation not to involve his host in quarrels
with his neighbors. M. Louis Blanc, for example, who
lived some twenty years in England, declined on principle
to take part in secret political movements of any kind
during all the time. But the great majority of the exiles
of all countries were incessantly engaged in political plots
and conspiracies; and undoubtedly some of these were
nothing more or less than conspiracies to assassinate.
Many of the leading exiles were intimately associated
with prominent and distinguished Englishmen ; and these
same exiles were naturally associated to some extent with
many of their own countrymen of a lower and less scru
pulous class. It had, therefore, happened more than once
before this time, and it happened more than once after
ward, that when a plot at assassination was discovered the
plotters were found to have been on more or less intimate
terms with some leading exiles in London, who themselves
were well acquainted with eminent Englishmen. Men
with a taste for assassination are to be found among the
camp-followers of every political army. To assume that,
because the leaders of the party may have been now and
then associated with them, they must therefore be
acquainted with, and ought to be held responsible for, all
their plots, is not less absurd than it would be to assume
that an officer in a campaign must have been in the secret
Vol. II.— 8

H4 A History of Our Own Times.
when some reprobate of his regiment was about to plunder
a house. But the French colonels saw that the assassin
this time was not a nameless scoundrel, but a man of birth
and distinction like Felice Orsini, who had been received
and welcomed everywhere in England. It is not very
surprising if they assumed that his projects had the ap
proval and favor of English public opinion. The French
Government, indeed, ought to have known better. But
the French Government lost for the moment its sense and
self-control. A semi-official pamphlet, published in Paris,
and entitled " The Emperor Napoleon the Third and Eng
land," actually went the ridiculous length of describing
an obscure debating-club in a Fleet Street public-house,
where a few dozen honest fellows smoked their pipes of
a night and talked hazy politics, as a formidable political
institution where regicide was nightly preached to fanati
cal desperadoes.
Thus we had the public excited on both sides. The
feeling of anger on this side was intensified by the convic
tion that France was insulting us because she thought
England was crippled by her troubles in India, and had
no power to resent an insult. It was while men here were
smarting under this sense of wrong that Lord Palmerston
introduced his famous measure for the suppression and pun
ishment of conspiracies to murder. The bill was introduced
in consequence of the despatch of Count Walewski. In
that despatch it was suggested to the English Government
that they ought to do something to strengthen their law.
" Full of confidence," Count Walewski said, " in the exalted
reason of the English Cabinet, we abstain from all indica
tion as regards the measures which it may be suitable to
take. We rely on them for a careful appreciation of the
decision which they shall judge most proper, and we con
gratulate ourselves in the firm persuasion that we shall not
have appealed in vain to their conscience and their loyalty."
The words were very civil. They were words as sweet as
those of which Cassius says that "they rob the Hybla

The Orsini Bombs Explode in Paris and London. 1 1 5
bees, and leave them honeyless." Nor was the request
they contained in itself unreasonable. Long afterward
this country had to acknowledge, in reply to the demand
of the United States, that a nation cannot get rid of her
responsibility to a foreign people by pleading that her
municipal legislation does not provide for this or that
emergency. If somebody domiciled among us shoots his
arrow over the house and hurts our foreign brother, it is
not enough for us to say, when complaint is made, that
we have no law to prevent people from shooting arrows
out of our premises. The natural rejoinder is, " Then
you had better make such a law ; you are not to injure us
and get off by saying your laws allow us to be injured."
But the conditions under which the request was made by
France had put England in the worst possible mood for
acceding to it. We have all heard of the story of General
Jackson, who was on one occasion very near refusing in
wrath a reasonable and courteous request of the French
Government, because his secretary, in translating the let
ter for Jackson, who did not know French, began with
the words, " The French Government demands." Jackson
vehemently declared that if the French Government dared
to demand anything of the United States they should not
have it. It was only when it had been made quite clear
to him that the French word demander did not by any
means correspond with the English word " demand" that
the angry soldier consented even to listen to the repre
sentation of France. The English public mind was now
somewhat in Jackson's mood. It was under the impres
sion that France was making a demand, and was not in
the temper to grant it. Ominous questions were put to
the Government in both Houses of Parliament. In the
House of Commons Mr. Roebuck asked whether any com
munications had passed between the Governments of
England and France with respect to the Alien Act or any
portion of our criminal code. Lord Palmerston answered
by mentioning Count Walewski's despatch, which, he said,

n6 A History of Our Own Times.
should be laid before the House. He added a few words
about the addresses of the French regiments, and pleaded
that allowance should be made for the irritation caused by
the attempt on the life of the Emperor. He was asked a
significant question — had the Government sent any answer
to Count Walewski's despatch? No, was the reply; her
Majesty's Government had not answered it ; not yet.
Two or three days after, Lord Palmerston moved for
leave to bring in the Conspiracy to Murder Bill. The
chief object of the measure was to make conspiracy to
murder a felony instead of a mere misdemeanor, as it had
been in England, and to render it liable to penal servitude
for any period varying from five years to a whole life.
Lord Palmerston made a feeble and formal attempt to
prove that his bill was introduced simply as a measure of
needed reform in our criminal legislation, and without
special reference to anything that had happened in France.
The law against conspiracy to murder was very light in
England, he showed, and was very severe in Ireland. It
was now proposed to make the law the same in both
countries — that was all. Of course, no one was deceived
by this explanation. The bill itself was as much of a
sham as the explanation. Such a measure would not have
been of any account whatever as regarded the offences
against which it was particularly directed. As Lord John
Russell said in the debate, it would argue great ignorance
of human nature to imagine that a fanatic of the Orsini
class, or any of those whom such a man could fascinate by
his influence, would be deterred by the mere possibility
of a sentence of penal servitude. Lord Palmerston, we
may be sure, did not put the slightest faith in the efficacy
of the piece of legislation he had undertaken to recom
mend to Parliament. It was just as in the case of the
Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. He was compelled to believe
that the Government would have to do something; and
he came, after a while, to the conclusion that the most
harmless measure would be the best. He had had an

The Orsini Bombs Explode in Parts and London. 117
idea of asking Parliament to empower the Secretary of
State to send out of the country foreigners whom the
Government believed to be engaged in plotting against
the life of a foreign sovereign; the Government being
under obligation to explain the grounds for their belief
and their action to a secret committee of Parliament, or to
a committee composed of the three chiefs of the law
courts. Such a measure as this would probably have
proved effective; but it would have been impossible to
induce the House of Commons to pass such a bill, or to
intrust such power to any Government. Indeed, if it were
not certain that Palmerston did entertain such a project,
the language he used in his speech when introducing the
Conspiracy Bill might lead one to believe that nothing
could have been farther from his thoughts. He disclaimed
any intention to propose a measure which should give
power to a Government to remove aliens on mere suspi
cion. He " was sure it was needless for him to say he had
no such intention." He had, however, such an intention
at one time. His biographer, Mr. Evelyn Ashley, is clear
on that point, and there cannot be better authority. It
must have been only for a moment that Palmerston even
thought of making a proposal of the kind to an English
Parliament. He had not been long enough in the Home
Office, it would seem, to understand thoroughly the temper
of his countrymen. Indeed, in this instance, he made a
mistake every way. When he assented to the introduction
of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, he was right in thinking
that English public opinion wished to have something
done ; but in this case the inclination of public opinion
was the other way ; it wished to have nothing done — at
least, just at that moment. Mr. Kinglake moved an
amendment, formally expressing the sympathy of the
House with the French people on account of the attempt
made against the Emperor, but declaring it inexpedient to
legislate in compliance with the demand made in Count
Walewski's despatch of January 20th, "until further in-

1 1 8 A History of Our Own Times.
formation is before it of the communications of the two
Governments subsequent to the date of that despatch. "
A discussion took place, in which Mr. Roebuck pointed
out, very properly, that in any new measure of legislation
it was not punishment of crime accomplished that was
required, but discovery of crime meditated; and he also
showed, with much effect, that in some cases, when the
English Government had actually warned the Government
of France that some plot was afoot, and that the plotters
had left for Paris, the Paris police were unable to find
them out, or to benefit in any way by the action of the
English authorities. Mr. Disraeli voted for the bringing
in of the bill, and made a cautious speech, in which he
showed himself in favor of some sort of legislation, but
did not commit himself to approval of that particular
measure. This prudence proved convenient afterward,
when the crisis of the debate showed that it would be well
for him to throw himself into the ranks of the opponents
of the measure. The bill was read a first time. Two
hundred and ninety-nine votes were for it ; only ninety-
nine against. But before it came on for a second reading,
public opinion was beginning to declare ominously
against it. The fact that the Government had not answered
the despatch of Count Walewski told heavily against them.
It was afterward explained that Lord Cowley had been in
structed to answer it verbally, and that Lord Palmerston
thought this course the more prudent, and the more likely
to avoid an increase of irritation between the two coun
tries. But public opinion in England was not now to be
propitiated by counsels of moderation. The idea had gone
abroad that Lord Palmerston was truckling to the Emperor
of the French, and that the very right of asylum which
England had so long afforded to the exiles of all nations
was to be sacrificed at the bidding of one who had been
glad to avail himself of it in his hour of need.
This idea received support from the arrest of Dr. Simon
Bernard, a French refugee, who was immediately put on

The Orsini Bombs Explode in Paris and London. 119
trial as an accomplice in Orsini's plot. Bernard was a
native of the South of France, a surgeon by profession,
and had lived a long time in England. He must have
been, in outward aspect at least, the very type of a French
Red Republican conspirator, to judge by the description
given of him in the papers of the day. He is described
as thin and worn, " with dark restless eyes, sallow com
plexion, a thick mustache, and a profusion of long black
hair combed backward and reaching nearly to his shoul
ders, and exposing a broad but low and receding forehead."
The arrest of Bernard may have been a very proper thing,
but it came in with most untimely effect upon the Gov
ernment. It was understood to have been made by virtue
of information sent over from Paris, and no one could
have failed to observe that the loosest accusations of that
kind were always coming from the French capital. Many
persons were influenced in their belief of Bernard's inno
cence by the fact, which does assuredly count for some
thing, that Orsini himself had almost with his dying
breath declared that Bernard knew nothing of the intended
assassination. Not a few made up their minds that he was
innocent because the French Government accused him of
guilt; and still more declared that, innocent or guilty, he
ought not be arrested by English authorities at the bid
ding of a French Emperor. At the same time the Cantil-
lon story was revived, the story of the legacy left by the
First Napoleon to the man who attempted to assassinate
the Duke of Wellington, and it was insisted that the
legacy had been paid to Cantillon by the authority of
Napoleon III.
The debate was over and the Conspiracy Bill disposed
of before the Bernard trial came to an end ; but we may
anticipate by a few days, and finish the Bernard story.
Bernard was tried at the Central Criminal Court under
existing law; he was defended by Mr. Edwin James, a
well-known criminal lawyer, and he was acquitted. The
trial was a practical evidence of the inutility of such

120 A History of Our Own Times.
special legislation as that which Lord Palmerston at
tempted to introduce. A new law of conspiracy could
not have furnished any new evidence against Bernard, or
persuaded a jury to convict him on such evidence as there
was. In the prevailing temper of the public, the evidence
should have been very clear indeed to induce an ordinary
English jury to convict a man like Bernard, and the evi
dence of his knowledge of an intended assassination was
anything but clear. Mr. Edwin James improved the hour.
He made the trial an occasion for a speech denunciatory
of tyrants generally, and he appealed in impassioned
language to the British jury to answer the French tyrant
by their verdict ; which they did accordingly. Mr. James
became a sort of popular hero for the time in consequence
of his oration. He had rhetorical talent enough to make
him a sort of Old Bailey Erskine, a Buzfuz Berryer. He
set up for a liberal politician and tribune of the people,
and was enabled after a while to transfer his eloquence to
the House of Commons. He vapored about as a friend of
Italy and Garibaldi and oppressed nationalities generally
for a year or two after ; got into money and other difficul
ties, and had to extinguish his political career suddenly
and ignominiously. He was, indeed, heard of after. He
went to America, and he came back again. But we need
not speak of him any more.
In the midst of the commotion caused by Bernard's
arrest, and by the offer of two hundred pounds reward for
the detection of an Englishman named Allsopp, also
charged with complicity in the plot, Mr. Milner Gibson
quietly gave notice of an amendment to the second reading
of the Conspiracy Bill. The amendment proposed to de
clare that while the House heard with regret the allegation
that the recent crime had been devised in England, and
was always ready to assist in remedying any proved defects
in the criminal law, "yet it cannot but regret that her
Majesty's Government, previously to inviting the House
to amend the law of conspiracy by the second reading of

The Orsini Bombs Explode in Paris and London. 121
this bill at the present time, have not felt it to be their
duty to make some reply to the important despatch re
ceived from the French Government, dated Paris, January
20th, 1858, and which has been laid before Parliament."
It might have been seen at once that this was a more
serious business for the Government than Mr. Kinglake's
amendment. In forecasting the result of a motion in the
House of Commons, much depends on the person who
brings it forward. Has he a party behind him? If so,
then the thing is important; if not, let his ability be
what it will, his motion is looked on as a mere expression
of personal opinion, interesting, perhaps, but without
political consequence. Mr. Kinglake was emphatically
a man without a party behind him ; Mr. Gibson was em
phatically a man of party and of practical politics. Mr.
Kinglake was a brilliant literary man, who had proved
little better than a failure in the House; Mr. Gibson was
a successful member of Parliament, and nothing else.
No one could have supposed that Mr. Gibson was likely to
get up a discussion for the mere sake of expressing his
own opinion or making a display. He was one of those
who had been turned out of Parliament when Palmerston
made his triumphant appeal to the country on the China
question. He was one of those whom Punch made fun of
by a new adaptation of the old " il n'y a pas de quoi" story;
one of those who could not sit because they had no seats.
Now he had just been returned to Parliament by another
constituency ; and he was not likely to be the mouthpiece
of a merely formal challenge to the policy of the Govern
ment. When the debate on the second reading came on,
it began soon to be seen that the condition of things was
grave for Lord Palmerston. Every hour and every speech
made it more ominous. Mr. Gladstone spoke eloquently
against the Government. Mr. Disraeli suddenly discov
ered that he was bound to vote against the second reading,
although he had voted for the first. The Government, he
argued, had not yet answered the despatch as they might

122 A History of Our Own Times.
have done in the interval ; and, as they had not vindicated
the honor of England, the House of Commons could not
intrust them with the measure they demanded. Lord
Palmerston saw that, in homely phrase, the game was up.
He was greatly annoyed ; he lost his temper, and did not
even try to conceal the fact that he had lost it. He at
tacked Mr. Milner Gibson fiercely; declared that "he
appears for the first time in my memory as the champion
of the dignity and honor of the country." He wandered
off into an attack on the whole Peace party, or Man
chester School, and told some story about one of their
newspapers which laid it down as a doctrine that it would
not matter if a foreign enemy conquered and occupied
England, so long as they were allowed to work their mills.
All this was in curiously bad taste. For a genial and
kindly, as well as a graceful man, it was singular how com
pletely Lord Palmerston always lost his good manners
when he lost his temper. Under the influence of sudden
anger — luckily a rare influence with him — he could be
actually vulgar. He was merely vulgar, for example,
when on one occasion, wishing to throw ridicule on the
pacific principles of Mr. Bright, he alluded to him in the
House of Commons as " the honorable and reverend gen
tleman." Lord Palmerston, in his reply to Mr. Milner
Gibson, showed a positive spitefulness of tone and temper
very unusual in him, and especially unbecoming in a los
ing man. A statesman may rise as he will, but he should
fall with dignity. When the division was taken, it ap
peared that there were 215 votes for the second reading,
and 234 against it. The Government, therefore, were left
in a minority of 19; 146 Conservatives were in the major
ity, and 84 Liberals. Besides these there were such of the
Peelite party as Sir James Graham, Mr. Gladstone, Mr.
Cardwell, and Mr. Sidney Herbert. Lord Palmerston at
once made up his mind to resign. His resignation was
accepted. Not quite a year had passed since the general
elections sent Lord Palmerston into power, triumphant

The Orsini Bombs Explode in Paris and London. 123
over the routed Liberals and the prostrate Manchester
School. The leaders of the Manchester party were actu
ally driven from their seats. There was not a Cobden or
a Bright to face the conqueror in Parliament. Not quite
a year ; and now, on the motion of one of the lieutenants
of that same party, returned to their position again, Lord
Palmerston is ejected from office. Palmerston once talked
of having his "tit-for-tat with John Russell." The Peace
party now had their tit-for-tat with him. " Cassio hath
beaten thee, and thou by that small hurt hast cashiered
Cassio." Lord Palmerston had the satisfaction before he left
office of being able to announce the capture of Canton.
The operations against China had been virtually suspended,
it will be remembered, when the Indian Mutiny broke
out. To adopt the happy illustration of a clever writer,
England had dealt with China for the time as a back
woodsman sometimes does with a tree in the American
forests — " girdled" it with the axe, so as to mark it for fell
ing at a more convenient opportunity. She had now got
the co-operation of France. France had a complaint of
long standing against China on account of the murder of
some missionaries, for which redress had been asked in
vain. The Emperor of the French was very glad to have
an opportunity of joining his arms with those of England
in any foreign enterprise. It advertised the Empire
cheaply; it showed to Frenchmen how active the Emperor
was, and how closely he had at heart the honor and the
interests of France. An expedition to China in association
with England could not be much of a risk, and would look
well in the newspapers, whereas if England were to be
allowed to go alone, she would seem to be making too
much of a position for herself in the East. There was,
therefore, an allied attack made upon Canton, and, of
course, the city was easily captured. Commissioner Yeh
himself was taken prisoner, not until he had been sought
for and hunted out in most ignominious fashion. He was

124 A History of Our Own Times.
found at last hidden away in some obscure part of a house.
He was known by his enormous fatness. One of our offi
cers caught hold of him ; Yeh tried still to get away. A
British seaman seized Yeh by his pigtail, twisted the tail
several times round his hand, and the unfortunate Chinese
dignitary was thus a helpless and ludicrous prisoner. He
was not hurt in any serious way ; but otherwise he was
treated with about as much consideration as school-boys
show toward a captured cat. The whole story of his cap
ture may be read in the journals of the day, in some of
which it is treated as though it were an exploit worthy of
heroes, and as if a Chinese with a pigtail were obviously
a person on whom any of the courtesies of war would be
thrown away. When it was convenient to let loose Yeh's
pigtail, he was put on board an English man-of-war, and
afterward sent to Calcutta, where he died early in the fol
lowing year. Unless report greatly belied him, he had
been exceptionally cruel, even for a Chinese official. It
was said that he had ordered the beheading of about one
hundred thousand rebels. There may be exaggeration in
this number, but, as Voltaire says in another case, even
if we reduce the total to half, " Cela serait encore admi
rable." The English and French envoys, Lord Elgin and Baron
Gros, succeeded in making a treaty with China. By the
conditions of the treaty, England and France were to have
ministers at the Chinese Court, on certain special occasions
at least, and China was to be represented in London and
Paris; there was to be toleration of Christianity in China,
and a certain freedom of access to Chinese rivers for Eng
lish and French mercantile vessels, and to the interior of
China for English and French subjects. China was to pay
the expenses of the war. It was further agreed that the
term " barbarian" was no longer to be applied to Europeans
in China. There was great congratulation in England
over this treaty, and the prospect it afforded of a lasting

The Orsini Bombs Explode in Paris and London. 125
peace with China. The peace thus procured lasted, in
fact, exactly a year.
Lord Palmerston then was out of office. Having nothing
in particular to do, he presently went over to Compiegne
on a visit to the Emperor of the French. For the second
time his friendship for Louis Napoleon had cost him his
place.

CHAPTER XXXVIII.
"ON THE TRUE FAITH OF A CHRISTIAN."
When Mr. Disraeli became once more leader of the
House of Commons, he must have felt that he had almost
as difficult a path to tread as that of him described in
"Henry the Fourth," who has to "o'erwalk a current
roaring loud on the unsteadfast footing of a spear." The
ministry of Lord Derby, whereof Mr. Disraeli was un
doubtedly the sense-carrier, was not supported by a parlia
mentary majority, nor could it pretend to great intellectual
and administrative ability. It had in its ranks two or
three men of something like statesman capacity, and a
number of respectable persons possessing abilities about
equal to those of any intelligent business man or county
magistrate. Mr. Disraeli, of course, became Chancellor
of the Exchequer. Lord Stanley undertook the Colonies ;
Mr. Walpole made a painstaking and conscientious Home
Secretary, as long as he continued to hold the office.
Lord Malmesbury muddled on with Foreign Affairs some
how; Lord Ellenborough's brilliant eccentric light per
plexed for a brief space the Indian Department. General
Peel was Secretary for War, and Mr. Henley President
of the Board of Trade. Lord Naas, afterward Lord Mayo,
became Chief Secretary for Ireland, and was then sup
posed to be nothing more than a kindly, sweet-tempered
man, of whom his most admiring friends would never
have ventured to foreshadow such a destiny as that he
should succeed to the place of a Canning and an Elgin,
and govern the new India to which so many anxious eyes
were turned. Sir John Pakington was made First Lord
of the Admiralty, because a place of some kind had to be

"On the True Faith of a Christian." 127
found for him, and he was as likely to do well at the head
of the navy as anywhere else. A ridiculous story, probably
altogether untrue, used to be told of President Lincoln in
some of the difficult days of the American Civil War. He
wanted a commander-in-chief, and he happened to be in
conversation with a friend on the subject of the war.
Suddenly addressing the friend, he asked him if he had
ever commanded an army. "No, Mr. President," was
the reply. " Do you think you could command an army?"
" I presume so, Mr. President ; I know nothing to the
contrary." He was appointed Commander-in-Chief at
once. One might, without great stretch of imagination,
conceive of a conversation of the same kind taking place
between Sir John Pakington and Lord Derby. Sir John
Pakington had no reason to know that he might not prove
equal to the administration of the navy, and he became
First Lord of the Admiralty accordingly. No Conserva
tive Government could be supposed to get on without
Lord John Manners, and luckily there was the Department
of Public Works for him.
Lord Stanley was regarded as a statesman of great and
peculiar promise. The party to which he belonged were
inclined to make him an object of especial pride, because
he seemed to have in a very remarkable degree the very
qualities which most of their leading members were gen
erally accused of wanting. The epithet which Mr. Mill
at a later period applied to the Tories, that of the " stupid
party, " was the expression of a feeling very common in the
political world, and under which many of the Conserva
tives themselves winced. The more intelligent a Conser
vative was, the more was he inclined to chafe at the
ignorance and dulness of many of the party. It was, there
fore, with particular satisfaction that intelligent Tories
saw among themselves a young statesman, who appeared
to have all those qualities of intellect and those educational
endowments which the bulk of the party did not possess,
and, what was worse, did not even miss. Lord Stanley

128 A History of Our Own Times.
had a calm, meditative intellect. He studied politics as
one may study a science. He understood political econ
omy, that new-fangled science which had so bewildered
his party, and of which the Peelites and the Manchester
men made so much account. He had travelled much ; not
merely making the old-fashioned grand tour, which most
of the Tory country gentlemen had themselves made, but
visiting the United States and Canada and the Indies, East
and West. He was understood to know all about geog
raphy, and cotton, and sugar; and he had come up into
politics in a happy age when the question of Free-trade
was understood to be settled. The Tories were proud of
him, as a democratic mob is proud of an aristocratic leader,
or as a workingmen's convention is proud of the co-oper
ation of some distinguished scholar. Lord Stanley was
strangely unlike his father in intellect and temperament.
The one man was indeed almost the very opposite of the
other. Lord Derby was all instinct and passion; Lord
Stanley was all method and calculation. Lord Derby
amused himself in the intervals of political work by trans
lating classic epics and odes; Lord Stanley beguiled an
interval of leisure by the reading of Blue-books. Lord
Derby's eloquence, when at its worst, became fiery non
sense; Lord Stanley's sunk occasionally to be nothing bet
ter than platitude. The extreme of the one was rhapsody,
and of the other commonplace. Lord Derby was too hot
and impulsive to be always a sound statesman ; Lord Stan
ley was too coldly methodical to be the statesman of a
crisis. Both men were to a certain sense superficial and
deceptive. Lord Derby's eloquence had no great depth
in it; and Lord Stanley's wisdom often proved somewhat
thin. The career of Lord Stanley did not afterward bear
out the expectations that were originally formed of him.
He proved to be methodical, sensible, conscientious, slow.
He belonged, perhaps, to that class of men about whom
Goethe said, that if they could only once commit some
extravagance we should have greater hopes of their future

"On the True Faith of a Christian." 129
wisdom. He did not commit any extravagance; he re
mained careful, prudent, and slow. But at the time when
he accepted the Indian Secretaryship it was still hoped
that he would, to use a homely expression, warm to his
work, and on both sides of the political contest people
looked to him as a new and a great figure in Conservative
politics. He was not an orator; he had nothing whatever
of the orator in language or in temperament. His manner
was ineffective ; his delivery was decidedly bad. But his
words carried weight with them, and even his common
places were received by some of his party as the utterances
of an oracle. There were men among the Conservatives
of the back benches who secretly hoped that in this wise
young man was the upcoming statesman who was to de
liver the party from the thraldom of eccentric genius, and
of an eloquence which, however brilliantly it fought their
battles, seemed to them hardly a respectable sort of gift to be
employed in the service of gentlemanlike Tory principles.
Lord Stanley had been in office before. During his
father's first administration he had acted as Under-Secre
tary for Foreign Affairs. On the death of Sir William
Molesworth, Lord Palmerston had offered the Colonial
Secretaryship to Lord Stanley; but the latter, although
his Toryism was of the most moderate and liberal kind,
did not see his way to take a seat in a Liberal administra
tion. His appearance, therefore, as a Cabinet Minister in
the Government formed by his father, was an event looked
to with great interest all over the country. The Liberals
were not without a hope that he might some day find him
self driven by his conscientiousness and his clear, unprej
udiced intelligence into the ranks of avowed Liberalism.
It was confidently predicted of him in a Liberal review,
two or three years after this time, that he would one day
be found a prominent member of a Liberal Cabinet under
the premiership of Mr. Gladstone. For the present, how
ever, he is still the rising light— a somewhat cold and
colorless light, indeed — of Conservatism.
Vol. II.— q

130 A History of Our Own Times.
Arrayed against the Conservatives was a party disjointed,
indeed, for the present, but capable at any moment, if
they could only agree, of easily overturning the Govern
ment of Lord Derby. The superiority of the Opposition
in debating power was simply overwhelming. In the
House of Commons Mr. Disraeli was the only first-class
debater, with the exception, perhaps, of the new Solicitor-
General, Sir Hugh Cairns; and Sir Hugh Cairns, being
new to office, was not expected as yet to carry very heavy
metal in great debate. The best of their colleagues could
only be called a respectable second class. Against them
were Lord Palmerston, Lord John Russell, Mr. Gladstone,
Sir James Graham, Mr. Sidney Herbert, Mr. Cobden, and
Mr. Bright, every one of whom was a first-class debater;
some of them great parliamentary orators; some, too,
with the influence that comes from the fact of their having
led ministries and conducted wars. In no political assem
bly in the world does experience of office and authority
tell for more than in the House of Commons. To have
held office confers a certain dignity even on mediocrity.
The man who has held office, and who sits on the front
bench opposite the ministry, has a sort of prescriptive right
to be heard whenever he stands up to address the House, in
preference to the most rising and brilliant talker who has
never yet been a member of an administration. Mr. Disra
eli had opposed to him not merely the eloquence of Cobden
and Mr. Bright, but the authority of Lord John Russell and
Lord Palmerston. It required much dexterity to make a
decent show of carrying on a Government under such con
ditions. Mr. Disraeli well knew that his party held office
only on sufferance from their opponents. If they attempted
nothing, they were certain to be censured for inactivity; if
they attempted anything, there was the chance of their ex
posing themselves to the combined attack of all the frac
tions of the Liberal party. Luckily for them, it was not
easy to bring about such a combination just yet ; but when
ever it came, there was foreshown the end of the Ministry.

I  *«mj

¦ >-.

THE EARL OF DERBY

" On the True Faith of a Christian." 131
Lord Derby's Government quietly dropped the unlucky
Conspiracy Bill. England and France were alike glad to
be out of the difficulty. There was a short interchange of
correspondence, in which the French Government ex
plained that they really had meant nothing in particular;
and it was then announced to both Houses of Parliament
that the misunderstanding was at an end, and that friend
ship had set in again. We have seen already how the
India Bill was carried. Lord Derby's tenure of office was
made remarkable by the success of one measure which
must have given much personal satisfaction to Mr. Disraeli.
The son of a Jewish father, the descendant of an ancient
Jewish race, himself received as a child into the Jewish
community, Mr. Disraeli had since his earliest years of
intelligence been a Christian. " I am, as I have ever
been," he said himself when giving evidence once in a
court of law, " a Christian." But he had never renounced
his sympathies with the race to which he belonged, and
the faith in which his fathers worshipped. He had always
stood up for the Jews; he had glorified the genius and the
influence of the Jews in many pages of romantic, high-
flown, and sometimes very turgid eloquence ; he had in
some of his novels seemingly set about to persuade his
readers that all of good and great the modern world had
seen was due to the unceasing intellectual activity of the
Jew; he had vindicated with as sweeping a liberality the
virtues of the Jewish race. In one really fine and striking
sentence he declares that " a Jew is never seen upon the
scaffold unless it be at an auto-da-fe'." " Forty years ago,"
he says in his " Lord George Bentinck," — "not a longer
period than the children of Israel were wandering in the
desert — the two most dishonored races in Europe were the
Attic and the Hebrew, and they were the two races that
had done most for mankind."
Mr. Disraeli had the good fortune to see the civil eman
cipation of the Jews accomplished during the time of his
leadership of the House of Commons. It was a coincidence

132 A History of Our Own Times.
merely. He had always assisted the movement toward
that end — unlike some other men who carried on their
faces the evidence of their Hebrew extraction, and who
yet made themselves conspicuous for their opposition to it.
But the success did not come from any inspiration of his ;
and most of his colleagues in power resisted it as long as
they could. His former chief, Lord George Bentinck, it
will be remembered, had resigned his leadership of the
party in the House of Commons because of the complaints
made when he spoke and voted for the removal of Jewish
disabilities. It was in July, 1858, that the long political
and sectarian struggle came to an end. Baron Lionel
Nathan de Rothschild, who has but lately died, was allowed
to take his seat in the House of Commons on the 26th of
that month, as one of the representatives of the City of
London, and the controversy about Jewish disabilities was
over at last. It is not uninteresting, before we trace the
history of this struggle to its close, to observe how com
pletely the conditions under which it was once carried on
had changed in recent years. Of late the opposition to
the claims of the Jews came almost exclusively from the
Tories, and especially from the Tories in the House of
Lords, from the High-Churchmen and from the bishops.
A century before that time the bishops were, for the most
part, very willing that justice should be done to the Jews;
and statesmen and professional politicians, looking at the
question, perhaps, rather from the view of obvious neces
sity and expediency, were well inclined to favor the claim
made for rather than by their Jewish fellow-subjects. But
at that time the popular voice cried out furiously against
the Jews. The old traditions of calumny and hatred still
had full influence, and the English people, as a whole,
were determined that they would not admit the Jews to
the rights of citizenship. They would borrow from them,
buy from them, accept any manner of service from them,
but they would not allow of their being represented in
Parliament. As time went on, all this feeling changed.

"On the True Faith of a Christian." 133
The public in general became either absolutely indifferent
to the question of Jewish citizenship, or decidedly in favor
of it. No statesman had the slightest excuse for profess
ing to believe that an outcry would be raised by the people
if he attempted to procure the representation of Jews by
Jews in Parliament. We have seen how, by steps, the
Jews made their way into municipal office and into the
magistracy. At the same time persistent efforts were
being made to obtain for them the right to be elected to
the House of Commons. On April 5th, 1830, Mr. Robert
Grant, then a colleague of one of the Gurney family in the
representation of Norwich, moved for leave to bring in a
bill to repeal the civil disabilities affecting British-born
subjects professing the Jewish religion. The claim which
Mr. Grant made for the Jews was simply that they should
be allowed to enjoy all those rights which we may call
fundamental to the condition of the British subject, with
out having to profess the religion of the State. At that
time the Jews were unable to take the oath of allegiance,
passed in Elizabeth's reign, although it had nothing in its
substance or language opposed to their claims, inasmuch
as it was sworn on the Evangelists. Nor could they take
the oath of abjuration, intended to guard against the return
of the Stuarts, because that oath contained the words, " on
the true faith of a Christian." Before the repeal of the
Test and Corporations Act in 1828, the Sacrament had to
be taken as a condition of holding any corporate office,
and had to be taken before admission. In the case of
offices held under the Crown it might be taken after ad
mission. Jews, however, did obtain admission to corpor
ate offices, not expressly as Jews, but as all Dissenters
obtained it ; that is to say, by breaking the law, and having
an annual indemnity bill passed to relieve them from the
penal consequences. The Test and Corporations Act put
an end to this anomaly as regarded the Dissenters, but
it unconsciously imposed a new disability on the Jew.
The new declaration, substituted for the old oath, con-

134 A History of Our Own Times.
tained the words, "on the true faith of a Christian."
"The operation of the law was fatal," says Sir Erskine
May, " to nearly all the rights of a citizen. A Jew could
not hold any office, civil, military, or corporate. He
could not follow the profession of the law as barrister or
attorney, or attorney's clerk; he could not be a school
master or an usher at a school. He could not sit as a
member of either House of Parliament, nor even exercise
the electoral franchise, if called upon to take the elector's
oath." Thus, although no special Act was passed for the
exclusion of the Jew from the rights of citizenship, he
was effectually shut up in a sort of political and social
Ghetto. The debate on Mr. Grant's motion was made memorable
by the fact that Macaulay delivered then his maiden
speech. He rose at the same time with Sir James Mack
intosh, and according to the graceful usage of the House
of Commons, the new member was called on to speak.
We need not go over the arguments used in the debate.
Public opinion has settled the question so long and so
completely that they have little interest for a time like
ours. One curious argument is, however, worth a passing
notice. One speaker, Sir John Wrottesley, declared that
when it was notorious that seats were to be had in that
House to any extent for money, he could not consent to
allow any one to become a member who was not also a
Christian. Bribery and corruption were so general and
so bad that they could not with safety to the State be left
to be the privilege of any but Christians. " If I be drunk, "
says Master Slender, " I'll be drunk with those that have
the fear of God, and not with drunken knaves." The pro
posal for the admission of Jews to Parliament was sup
ported by Lord John Russell, O'Connell, Brougham, and
Mackintosh. Its first reading — for it was opposed even
on the first reading — was carried by a majority of eigh
teen; but on the motion for the second reading the bill
was thrown out by a majority of sixty-three, the votes for

"On the True Faith of a Christian." 135
it being 165, and those against it 228. In 1833 Mr. Grant
introduced his bill again, and this time was fortunate
enough to pass it through the Commons. The Lords re
jected it by a majority of fifty. The following year told
a similar story. The Commons accepted; the Lords re
jected. Meantime the Jews were being gradually relieved
from other restrictions. A clause in Lord Denman's Act
for amending the laws of evidence allowed all persons to
be sworn in courts of law in the form which they held
most binding on their conscience. Lord Lyndhurst suc
ceeded in passing a bill for the admission of Jews to cor
porate offices. Jews had, as we have already seen, been
admitted to the shrievalty and the magistracy in the be
ginning of Queen Victoria's reign. In 1848 the struggle
for their admission to Parliament was renewed, but the
Lords still held out and would not pass a bill. Meanwhile
influential Jews began to offer themselves as candidates
for seats in Parliament. Mr. Salomons contested Shore-
ham and Maidstone successively and unsuccessfully. In
1847 Baron Lionel Rothschild was elected one of the mem
bers for the City of London. He resigned his seat when
the House of Lords threw out the Jews' bill, and stood
again, and was again elected. It was not, however, until
1850 that the struggle was actually transferred to the floor
of the House of Commons. In that year Baron Rothschild
presented himself at the table of the House as O'Connell
had done, and offered to take the oaths in order that he
might be admitted to take his seat. For four sessions he
had sat as a stranger in the House, of which he had been
duly elected a member by the votes of one of the most
important English constituencies. Now he came boldly
up to the table and demanded to be sworn. He was
sworn on the Old Testament. He took the Oaths of Al
legiance and Supremacy ; but when the Oath of Abjuration
came he omitted from it the words, "on the true faith of
a Christian." He was directed to withdraw, and it was
decided that he could neither sit nor vote unless he would

136 A History of Our Own Times.
consent to take the oath of abjuration in the fashion pre
scribed by the law. In other words, he could only sit in
the House of Commons on condition of his perjuring him
self. Had he sworn, "on the true faith of a Christian,"
the House of Commons, well knowing that he had sworn
to a falsehood, would have admitted him as one of its
members. Baron Rothschild quietly fell back to his old position.
He sat in one of the seats under the gallery, a place to
which strangers are admitted, but where also members
occasionally sit. He did not contest the matter any further.
Mr. David Salomons was inclined for a rougher and a
bolder course. He was elected for Greenwich in 185 1,
and he presented himself as Baron Rothschild had done.
The same thing followed; he refused to say the words,
"on the true faith of a Christian," and he was directed to
withdraw. He did withdraw. He sat below the bar. A
few evenings after, a question was put to the Government
by a member friendly to the admission of Jews, Sir Ben
jamin Hall, afterward Lord Llanover : " If Mr. Salomons
should take his seat, would the Government sue him for
the penalties provided by the Act of Parliament in order
that the question of right might be tried by a court of
law?" Lord John Russell replied, on the part of the Gov
ernment, that they did not intend to take any proceedings ;
in fact, implied that they considered it no affair of theirs.
Then Sir Benjamin Hall announced that Mr. Salomons felt
he had no alternative but to take his seat, and let the
question of right be tested in that way. Forthwith, to
the amazement and horror of steady old constitutional
members, Mr. Salomons, who had been sitting below the
bar, calmly got up, walked into the sacred precincts of
the House, and took his seat among the members. A
tumultuous scene followed. Half the House shouted in
dignantly to Mr. Salomons to " withdraw, withdraw ;" the
other half called out encouragingly to him to keep his
place. The perplexity was indescribable. What is to be

"On the True Faith of a Christian." 137
done with a quiet and respectable gentleman who insists
that he is a member of Parliament, comes and takes his
seat in the House, and will not withdraw? To be sure, if
he were an absolute intruder he could be easily removed
by the Sergeant-at-Arms and his assistants. But in such
a case, unless, indeed, the intruder were a lunatic, he
would hardly think of keeping his place when he had been
bidden by authority to take himself off. Mr. Salomons,
however, had undoubtedly been elected member for
Greenwich by a considerable majority. His constituents
believed him to be their lawful representative, and, in
fact, had obtained from him a promise that if elected he
would actually take his seat. Even then, perhaps, some
thing might have been done if the House in general had
been opposed to the claim of Mr. Salomons and of Green
wich. When Lord Cochrane escaped from prison and
presented himself in the House from which he had been
expelled, he, too, was ordered to withdraw. He, too, re
fused to. do so. The Speaker directed that he should be
removed by force. Cochrane had a giant's strength, and
on this occasion he used it like a giant. He struggled
hard against the efforts of many officials to remove him,
and some of the woodwork of the benches was actually
torn from its place before the gallant seaman could be got
out of the House. But in the case of Lord Cochrane the
general feeling of the House was with the authorities and
against the expelled member, who, however, happened to
be in the right, while the House was in the wrong. The
case of Mr. Salomons was very different. Many members
were of opinion, and eminent lawyers were among them,
that, in the strictest and most technical view of the law,
he was entitled to take his seat. Many more were con
vinced that the principle which excluded him was stupid
and barbarous, and that the course he was at present tak
ing was necessary for the purpose of obtaining its imme
diate repeal.
Therefore, any idea of expelling Mr. Salomons was out

138 A History of Our Own Times.
of the question. The only thing that could be done was
to set to work and debate the matter. Lord John Russell
moved a resolution to the effect that Mr. Salomons be
ordered to withdraw. Lord John Russell, it need hardly
be said, was entirely in favor of the admission of Jews,
but thought Mr. Salomon's course irregular. Mr. Bernal
Osborne moved an amendment declaring Mr. Salomons
entitled to take his seat. A series of irregular discussions,
varied and enlivened by motions for adjournment, took
place; and Mr. Salomons not only voted in some of the
divisions, but actually made a speech. He spoke calmly
and well, and was listened to with great attention. He
explained that in the course he had taken he was acting
in no spirit of contumacy or presumption, and with no
disregard for the dignity of the House, but that he had
been lawfully elected, and that he felt bound to take his
seat for the purpose of asserting his own rights and those
of his constituents. He intimated, also, that he would
withdraw if just sufficient force were used to make him
feel that he was acting under coercion. The motion that
he be ordered to withdraw was carried. The Speaker re
quested Mr. Salomons to withdraw. Mr. Salomons held
his place. The Speaker directed the Sergeant-at-Arms to
remove Mr. Salomons. The Sergeant-at-Arms approached
Mr. Salomons and touched him on the shoulder, and Mr.
Salomons then quietly withdrew. The farce was over.
It was evident to every one that Mr. Salomons had vir
tually gained his object, and that something must soon
be done to get the House of Commons and the country out
of the difficulty. It is curious that, even in ordering him
to withdraw, the Speaker called Mr. Salomons " the honor
able member. "
Mr. Salomons did well to press his rights in that practical
way upon the notice of the House. It is one of the blots
upon our parliamentary system that a great question, like
that of the removal of Jewish disabilities, is seldom set
tled upon its merits. Parliament rarely bends to the mere

"On the True Faith of a Christian." 139
claims of reason and justice. Some pressure has almost
always to be put on it to induce it to see the right. Its
tendency is always to act exactly as Mr. Salomons him
self formally did in this case ; to yield only when sufficient
pressure has been put on it to signify coercion. Catholic
Emancipation was carried by such a pressure. The pro
moters of the Sunday Trading Bill yield to a riot in Hyde
Park. A Tory Government turn Reformers in obedience
to a crowd who pull down the railing of the same enclo
sure. A Chancellor of the Exchequer modifies his budget
in deference to a demonstration of match-selling boys and
girls. In all these instances it was right to make the con
cession ; but the concession was not made because it was
right. The Irish Home Rulers, or some of them at least,
are convinced that they will carry Home Rule in the end
by the mere force of a pressure brought to bear on Parlia
ment; and their expectation is justified by all previous
experience. They have been told often enough that they
must not expect to carry it by argument. If parliamen
tary institutions do really come to be discredited in this
country, as many people love to predict, one especial
reason will be this very experience on the part of the pub
lic, that Parliament has invariably conceded to pressure
the reforms which it persistently denied to justice. A
reform is first refused without reason, to be at last con
ceded without grace.
Mr. Salomons acted wisely, therefore, for the cause he
had at heart when he thrust himself upon the House of
Commons. The course taken by Baron Rothschild was
more dignified, no doubt; but it did not make much im
pression. The victory seems to us to have been practically
won when Mr. Salomons sat down after having addressed
the House of Commons from his place among the mem
bers. But it was not technically won just then, nor for
some time after. Two actions were brought against Mr.
Salomons, not by the Government, to recover penalties for
his having unlawfully taken his seat. One of the actions

140 A History of Our Oivn Times.
was withdrawn, the object of both alike being to get a
settlement of the legal question, for which one trial would
be as good as twenty. The action came on for trial in the
Court of Exchequer, on December 9th, 1851, before Mr.
Baron Martin and a special jury. Baron Martin suggested
that, as the question at issue was one of great importance,
a special case should be prepared for the decision of the
full court. This was done, and the case came before the
Court in January, 1852. The issue really narrowed itself
to this: were the words, " on the true faith of a Christian,"
merely a form of affirmation, or were they purposely in
serted in order to obtain a profession of Christian faith?
Did not the framers of the measure merely put in such
words as at the moment seemed to them most proper to
secure a true declaration from the majority of those to be
sworn, and with the understanding that in exceptional
cases other forms of asseveration might be employed as
more suited to other forms of faith ? Or were the words
put in for the express purpose of making it certain that
none but Christians should take the oath? We know as a
matter of fact that the words were not put in with any
such intention. No one was thinking about the Jews
when the asseveration was thus constructed. Still, the
Court of Exchequer decided by three voices to one that
the words must be held in law to constitute a specially
Christian oath, which could be taken by no one but a
Christian, and without taking which no one could be a
member of Parliament; of that Parliament which had had
Bolingbroke for a leader, and Gibbon for a distinguished
member. The legal question then being settled, there were re
newed efforts made to get rid of the disabilities by an
Act of Parliament. The House of Commons continued to
pass bills to enable Jews to sit in Parliament, and the
House of Lords continued to throw them out. Lord John
Russell, who had taken charge of the measure, introduced
his bill early in 1858. The bill was somewhat peculiar in

"On the True Faith of a Christian." 141
its construction. On a former occasion the House of
Lords found another excuse for not passing a measure for
the same purpose in the fact that it mixed up a modifica
tion of the Oath of Supremacy with the question of the
relief of the Jews. In the present measure the two ques
tions were kept separate. The bill proposed to reconstruct
the oath altogether. Some obsolete words about the Pre
tender and the Stuart family were to be taken out. The
asseverations relating to succession, supremacy, and alle
giance were to be condensed into one oath, to which were
added the words, " on the true faith of a Christian. " Thus
far the measure merely reconstructed the form of oath so
as to bring it into accord with the existing conditions of
things. But then there came a separate clause in the bill,
providing that where the oath had to be administered to a
Jew the words, "on the true faith of a Christian," might
be left out. This was a very sensible and simple way of
settling the matter. It provided a rational form of oath
for all sects alike; it got rid of obsolete anomalies, and
it likewise relieved the Jews from the injustice which had
been unintentionally imposed on them. Unfortunately,
the very convenience of the form in which the bill was
drawn only put, as it will be seen, a new facility into the
hands of the Anti-reformers in the House of Lords for
again endeavoring to get rid of it. Lord John Russell had
no difficulty with the House of Commons. He had
brought up his bill in good time, in order that it might
reach the House of Lords as quickly as possible ; and it
passed a second reading in the Commons without any de
bate. When it came up to the House of Lords, the
majority simply struck out the particular clause relating
to the Jews. This made the bill of no account whatever
for the purpose it specially had in view. The Commons,
on the motion of Lord John Russell, refused to assent to
the alteration made by the Lords, and appointed a com
mittee to draw up a statement of their reasons for refusing
to agree to it. On the motion of Mr. Duncombe, it was

142 A History of Our Own Times.
actually agreed that Baron Rothschild should be a member
of the committee, although a legal decision had declared
him not to be a member of the House. During the debates
to which all this led, Lord Lucan made a suggestion of
compromise in the House of Lords, which proved success
ful. He recommended the insertion of a clause in the bill,
allowing either House to modify the form of oath accord
ing to its pleasure. Lord John Russell objected to this
way of dealing with a great question, but did not feel
warranted in refusing the proposed compromise. A bill
was drawn up with the clause suggested, and it was rat
tled, if we may use such an expression, through both
Houses. It passed with the Oaths Bill, which the Lords
had mutilated, and which now stood as an independent
measure. A Jew, therefore, might be a member of the
House of Commons, if it chose to receive him, and might
be shut out of the House of Lords if that House did not
think fit to let him in. More than that, the House of
Commons might change its mind at any moment, and by
modifying the form of oath shut out the Jews again, or shut
out any new Jewish candidates. Of course such a con
dition of things as that could not endure. An Act passed
not long after which consolidated the Acts referring to
Oaths of Allegiance, Abjuration, and Supremacy, and en
abled Jews on all occasions whatever to omit the words,
" on the true faith of a Christian. " Thus the Jew was at
last placed on a position of political equality with his
Christian fellow-subjects, and an anomaly and a scandal
was removed from our legislation.
About the same time as that which saw Baron Roths
child admitted to take his seat in the House of Commons,
the absurd property qualification for members of Parlia
ment was abolished. This ridiculous system originally
professed to secure that no man should be a member of
the House of Commons who did not own a certain amount
of landed property. The idea of defining a man's fitness
to sit in Parliament according to his possession of landed

"On the True Faith of a Christian." 143
property was in itself preposterous; but, such as the law
was, it was evaded every day. It had not the slightest
real force. Fictitious conveyances were issued as a matter
of course. Any one who desired a seat in Parliament
could easily find some friend or patron who would convey
to him by formal deed the fictitious ownership of landed
property enough to satisfy the requirements of the law.
This was done usually with as little pretence at conceal
ment as the borrowing of an umbrella. It was perfectly
well known to everybody that a great many members of
the House of Commons did not possess, and did not even
pretend to possess, a single acre of land their own prop
erty. What made the thing more absurd was that men
who were rich enough to spend thousands of pounds in
contesting boroughs and counties had often to go through
this form of having a fictitious conveyance made to them,
because they did not happen to have invested any part of
their wealth in land. Great city magnates, known for
their wealth, and known in many cases for their high per
sonal honor as well, had to submit to this foolish ceremo
nial. The property qualification was a device of the reign
of Anne. The evasions of it became so many and so
notorious that in George II. 's time an Act was passed
making it necessary for every member to take an oath that
he possessed the requisite amount of property. In the
present reign a declaration was substituted for the oath,
and it was provided that if a man had not landed property
it would be enough for him to prove that he had funded
property to the same amount — six hundred pounds a year
for counties, and three hundred pounds for boroughs. The
manufacture of fictitious qualifications went on as fast as
ever. There were many men in good position, earning
large incomes by a profession or otherwise, who yet had
not realized money enough to put them in possession of a
property of six hundred pounds or three hundred pounds
a year — it might take ten thousand pounds to secure an
income of three hundred pounds a year ; twenty thousand

144 A History of Our Own Times.
pounds to secure six hundred pounds a year. Scores of
members of Parliament were well known not to have any
such means. To make the anomaly more absurd, it should
be noted that there was no property qualification in Scot
land, and the Scotch members were then, as now, remark
able for their respectability and intelligence. Members
for the Universities, too, were elected without a property
qualification. Mr. Locke King stated in the House of
Commons that, after every general election, there were
from fifty to sixty cases in which it was found that per
sons had declared themselves to be possessed of the requis
ite qualification who were notoriously not in possession of
it. Many men, too, it was well known, were purposely
qualified by wealthy patrons, in order that they might sit
in Parliament as mere nominees and political servants.
As usual with Parliament, this anomaly was allowed to
go on until a sudden scandal made its abolition necessary.
One luckless person, who probably had no position and
few friends, was actually prosecuted for having made a
false declaration as to his property qualification. He had
been a little more indiscreet, or a little more open in his
performance, than other people, and he was pounced upon
by "old father antic," the law. This practically settled
the matter. Every one knew that many other members
of Parliament deserved, in point of fact, just as well as he,
the three months' imprisonment to which he was sen
tenced. Mr. Locke King introduced a bill to abolish the
property qualification hitherto required from the represent
atives of English and Irish constituencies, and it became
law in a few days.

CHAPTER XXXIX.
THE IONIAN ISLANDS.
When Lord Ellenborough abruptly resigned the place
of President of the Board of Control, he was succeeded by
Lord Stanley, who, as we have seen already, became Secre
tary of State for India under the new system of govern
ment. Lord Stanley had been Secretary for the Colonies,
and in this office he was succeeded by Sir Edward Bulwer
Lytton. For some time previously Sir Edward Lytton
had been taking so marked a place in Parliamentary life
as to make it evident that when his party came into power
he was sure to have a chance of distinguishing himself in
office. Bulwer 's political career had, up to this time, been
little better than a failure. He started in public life as a
Radical and a friend of O'Connell; he was, indeed, the
means of introducing Mr. Disraeli to the leader of the
Irish party. He began his Parliamentary career before
the Reform Bill. He was elected for St. Ives in 1831.
After the passing of the bill, he represented Lincoln for
several years. At the general election of 1841 he lost his
seat, and it was not until July, 1852, that he was again re
turned to Parliament. This time he came in as member
for the County of Herts. In the interval many things had
happened — to quote the expression of Mr. Disraeli in 1874.
Lytton had succeeded to wealth and to landed estates, and
he had almost altogether changed his political opinions.
From a poetic Radical he had become a poetic Conserva
tive. In the " Parliamentary Companion" for the year
1855 we find him thus quaintly described — by his own
hand, it may be assumed : " Concurs in the general policy
of Lord Derby; would readjust the Income-tax, and miti-
Vol. II.— io

146 A History of Our Own Times.
gate the duties on malt, tea, and soap; some years ago
advocated the ballot, but, seeing its utter inefficiency in
France and America, can no longer support that theory ;
will support education on a religious basis, and vote for a
repeal of the Maynooth Grant." It will, perhaps, be
assumed from this confession of faith that Lytton had not
very clear views of any kind as to practical politics. It
probably seemed a graceful and poetic thing, redolent of
youth and Ernest Maltravers, to stand forth as an impas
sioned Radical in early years ; and it was quite in keeping
with the progress of Ernest Maltravers to tone down into
a thoughtful Conservative, opposing the Maynooth Grant
and mitigating the duty on malt and soap, as one advanced
in years, wealth, and gravity. At all events, it was cer
tain that whatever Lytton attempted he would in the end
carry to some considerable success. His first years in the
House of Commons had come to nothing. When he lost
his seat most people fancied that he had accepted defeat,
and had turned his back on Parliamentary life forever.
But Lytton possessed a marvellously strong will, and had
a faith in himself which almost amounted to genius.
When he wrote a play which proved a distinct failure,
some of the leading critics assured him that he had no
dramatic turn at all. He believed, on the contrary, that
he had; and he determined to write another play which
should be of all things dramatic, and which should hold
the stage. He went to work and produced the " Lady of
Lyons, " a play filled with turgid passages and preposter
ous situations, but which has, nevertheless, in so con
spicuous a degree the dramatic or theatric qualities that it
has always held the stage, and has never been wholly ex
tinguished by any change of fashion or of fancy. In much
the same way Sir Edward Lytton seems to have made up
his mind that he would compel the world to confess him
capable of playing the part of a politician. We have, in
a former chapter of this work, alluded to the physical diffi
culties which stood in the way of his success as a Parlia-

The Ionian Islands. 147
mentary speaker, and in spite of which he accomplished
his success. He was deaf, and his articulation was so de
fective that those who heard him speak in public for the
first time often found themselves unable to understand
him. Such difficulties would assuredly have scared any
ordinary man out of the Parliamentary arena forever ; but
Lytton seems to have determined that he would make a
figure in Parliament. He set himself to public speaking
as coolly as if he were a man, like Gladstone or Bright,
whom nature had marked out for such a competition by
her physical gifts. He became a decided, and even, in a
certain sense, a great success. He could not strike into a
debate actually going on — his defects of hearing shut him
off from such a performance — and no man who is not a
debater will ever hold a really high position in the House
of Commons; but he could review a previous night's argu
ments in a speech abounding in splendid phrases and bril
liant illustrations. He could pass for an orator; he actually
did pass for an orator. Mr. Disraeli seems to have ad
mired his speaking with a genuine and certainly a dis
interested admiration; for he described it as though it
were exactly the kind of eloquence in which he would
gladly have himself excelled if he could. In fact, Lytton
reached the same relative level in Parliamentary debate
that he had reached in fiction and the drama. He con
trived to appear as if he ought to rank among the best of
the craftsmen.
Sir Edward Lytton, as Secretary for the Colonies,
seemed resolved to prove by active and original work that
he could be a practical colonial statesman as well as a
novelist, a playwright, and a Parliamentary orator. He
founded the Colony of British Columbia, which at first was
to comprise all such territories within the Queen's domin
ions " as are bounded, to the south, by the frontier of the
United States of America; to the east, by the main chain
of the Rocky Mountains; to the north, by Simpson's River
and the Finlay branch of the Peace River; and to the

148 A History of Our Own Times.
west, by the Pacific Ocean. " It was originally intended
that the colony should not include Vancouver's Island;
but her Majesty was allowed, on receiving an address
from the two Houses of the Legislature of Vancouver's
Island, to annex that island to British Columbia. Van
couver's Island was, in fact, incorporated with British
Columbia in 1866, and British Columbia was united with
the Dominion of Canada in 187 1.
Something, however, more strictly akin to Sir Edward
Lytton's personal tastes was found in the mission to which
he invited Mr. Gladstone. There had long been dissatis
faction and even disturbance in the Ionian Islands.
These seven islands were constituted a sort of republic or
commonwealth by the Treaty of Vienna. But they were
consigned to the protectorate of Great Britain, which had
the right of maintaining garrisons in them. Great Britain
used to appoint a Lord High Commissioner, who was gen
erally a military man, and whose office combined the
duties of Commander-in-Chief with those of Civil Gov
ernor. The little republic had a Senate of six members
and a Legislative Assembly of forty members. It seems
almost a waste of words to say that the islanders were not
content with British government. For good or ill, the
Hellenes, wherever they are found, are sure to be filled
with an impassioned longing for Hellenic independence.
The people of the Ionian Islands were eager to be allowed
to enter into one system with the kingdom of Greece. It
was idle to try to amuse them by telling them they con
stituted an independent republic, and were actually gov
erning themselves. A duller people than the Greeks of
the islands could not be deluded into the idea that they
were a self-governing people while they saw themselves
presided over by an English Lord High Commissioner,
who was also the Commander-in-Chief of a goodly British
army garrisoned in their midst. They saw that the Lord
High Commissioner had a way of dismissing the republi
can Parliament whenever he and they could not get on

The Ionian Islands. 149
together. They knew that if they ventured to resist his
orders, English soldiers would make short work of their
effort at self-assertion. They might, therefore, well be
excused if they failed to see much of the independent re
public in such a system. It is certain that they got a
great deal of material benefit from the presence of the
energetic road-making British power. But they wanted
to be, above all things, Greek. Their national principles
and aspirations, their personal vanities, their truly Greek
restlessness and craving for novelty, all combined to make
them impatient of that foreign protectorate which was
really foreign government. The popular constitution
which had been given to the Septinsular Republic some
ten years before Sir E. B. Lytton's time had enabled
Hellenic agitation to make its voice and its claims more
effectual. In England, after the usual fashion, a great
many shallow politicians were raising an outcry against
the popular constitution, as if it were the cause of all the
confusion. Because it enabled discontent to make its
voice heard, they condemned it as the cause of the dis
content. They would have been for silencing the alarm
bell immediately, and then telling themselves that all
was safe. As was but natural, local politicians rose to
popularity in the islands in proportion as they were loud
in their denunciation of foreign rule, and in their demands
for union with the kingdom of Greece. Anybody might
surely have foretold all this years before. It might have
been taken for granted that so long as any sort of in
dependent Greek kingdom held its head above the waters,
the Greek populations everywhere would sympathize with
its efforts, and long to join their destiny with it. Many
English public men, however, were merely angry with
these pestilential Greeks, who did not know what was
good for them. A great English journal complained, with
a simple egotism that was positively touching, that, in
spite of all argument, the National Assembly, the munici
palities, and the press of the Ionian Islands had now

150 A History of Our Own Times.
concentrated their pretensions on the project of a union
with the kingdom of Greece. Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton
had not been long enough in office to have become soaked
in the ideas of routine. He did not regard the unanimous
opinions of the insular legislature, municipalities, and
press as evidence merely of the unutterable stupidity or
the incurable ingratitude and wickedness of the Ionian
populations. He thought the causes of the complaints
and the dissatisfaction were well worth looking into, and
he resolved on sending a statesman of distinction out to
the islands to make the inquiry. Mr. Gladstone had been
for some years out of office. He had been acting as an
independent supporter of Lord Palmerston's Government.
It occurred to Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton that Mr. Glad
stone was the man best fitted to conduct the inquiry. He
was well known to be a sympathizer with the struggles
and the hopes of the Greeks generally; and it seemed to
the new Colonial Secretary that the mere fact of such a
man having been appointed would make it clear to the
islanders that the inquiry was about to be conducted in no
hostile spirit. He offered, therefore, to Mr. Gladstone the
office of Lord High Commissioner Extraordinary to the
Ionian Islands, and Mr. Gladstone accepted the offer and
its duties. The appointment created much surprise, some
anger, and a good deal of ridicule here at home. There
seemed to certain minds to be something novel, startling,
and positively unseemly in such a proceeding. Sir Edward
Bulwer Lytton had alluded in his despatch to Mr. Glad
stone's Homeric scholarship, and this was, in the opinion
of some politicians, an outrage upon all the principles and
proprieties of routine. This, it was muttered, is what comes
of literary men in office. A writer of novels is leader of the
House of Commons, and he has another writer of novels
at his side as Colonial Secretary, and between them they
can think of nothing better than to send a man out to the
Ionian Islands to listen to the trash of Greek demagogues
•Merely because he happens to be fond of reading Homer.

The Ionian Islands. 151
Mr. Gladstone went out to the Ionian Islands, and ar
rived in Corfu in the November of 1858. He called
together the Senate, and endeavored to satisfy them as to
the real nature of his mission. He explained that he had
not come there to discuss the propriety of maintaining the
English protectorate, but only to inquire into the manner
in which the just claims of the Ionian Islands might be
secured by means of that protectorate. Mr. Gladstone's
visit, however, was not a successful enterprise for those
who desired that the protectorate should be perpetual, and
that the Ionians should be brought to accept it as inevit
able. The population of the islands persisted in regarding
him, not as the commissioner of a Conservative English
Government, but as "Gladstone the Philhellene." He
was received wherever he went with the honors due to a
liberator. His path everywhere was made to seem like
a triumphal progress. In vain he repeated his assurance
that he came to reconcile the islands to the protectorate,
and not to deliver them from it. The popular in
stinct insisted on regarding him as at least the precursor
of their union to the kingdom of Greece. The National
Assembly passed a formal resolution declaring for union
with Greece. All that Mr. Gladstone's persuasions could
do was to induce them to appoint a committee, and draw
up a memorial to be presented in proper form to the pro
tecting powers. By this time the news of Mr. Gladstone's
reception in the islands and in Athens, to which also he
paid a visit, had reached England, and the most extrava
gant exaggerations were put into circulation. Mr. Glad
stone was attacked in an absurd manner. He was accused
not merely of having encouraged the pretensions of the
Ionian Islanders, but even talked of as if he, and he alone,
had been their inspiration. One might have imagined
that there was something portentous and even unnatural
in a population of Hellenic race feeling anxious to be
united with a Greek kingdom instead of being ruled by a
British protectorate imposed by the arbitrary decree of a

152 A History of Our Own Times.
congress of foreign powers. National complacency could
hardly push sensible men to greater foolishness than it did
when it set half England wondering and raging over the
impertinence of a Greek population who preferred union
with a Greek kingdom to dependence upon an English
protectorate. English writers and speakers went on
habitually as if the conduct of the islanders were on a par
with that of some graceless daughter who forsakes her
father's house for the companionship of strangers, or of
some still more guilty wife who deserts her loving hus
band to associate herself with some strolling musician.
There can be no doubt that in every material sense the
people of the islands were much better governed under
England's protectorate than they could be for genera
tions, probably for centuries, to come under any Greek
administration. They had admirable means of communi
cation by land and sea, splendid harbors, regular lines of
steamers, excellent roads everywhere, while the people of
the kingdom of Greece were hardly better off for all these
advantages under Otho than they might have been under
Codrus. M. Edmond About declared that the inhabitants
of the Ionian Islands were richer, happier, and a hundred
times better governed than the subjects of King Otho.
M. About detested Greece and all about it ; but his testi
mony thus far is that of the most enthusiastic Philhellene.
Indeed, it seems a waste of words to say that where Eng
lishmen ruled they would take care to have good roads
and efficient lines of steamers. But M. About was mis
taken in assuming that the populations of the islands were
happier under British rule than they would have been under
that of a Greek kingdom. Such a remark only showed a
want of the dramatic sympathy which understands the feel
ings of others, and which we especially look for in a writer
of 2cay sort of fiction. M. About would not have been
so successful a romancist if he had always acted on the
assumption that people are made happy by the material
conditions which, in the opinion of other people, ought to
confer happiness. He would not, we may presume, admit

The Ionian Islands. 153
that the people of Alsace and Lorraine are happier under
the Germans than they were under the French, even
though it were to be proved beyond dispute that the
German made better roads and managed more satisfac
torily the lines of railway.
The populations of the islands persevered in the belief
that they understood better what made them happy than
M. About could do. The visit of Mr. Gladstone, whatever
purpose it may have been intended to fulfil, had the effect
of making them agitate more strenuously than ever for
annexation to the kingdom of Greece. Their wish, how
ever, was not to be granted yet. A new Lord High Com
missioner was sent out after Mr. Gladstone's return,
doubtless with instructions to satisf)7 what was supposed
to be public opinion at home by a little additional strin
gency in maintaining the connection between Great Brit
ain and the protected populations. Still, however, the
idea held ground that sooner or later Great Britain would
give up the charge of the islands. A few years after, an
opportunity occurred for making the cession. The Greeks
got rid quietly of their heavy German king, Otho ; and on
the advice chiefly of England, they elected as sovereign a
brother of the Princess of Wales. The Greeks them
selves were not very eager for any other experiment
in the matter of royalty. They seemed as if they thought
they had had enough of it. But the Great Powers, and
more especially England, pressed upon them that they
could never be really respectable if they went without a
king; and they submitted to the dictates of convention
ality. They first asked for Prince Alfred of England, now
Duke of Edinburgh ; but the arrangements of European
diplomacy did not allow of a prince of any of the great
reigning houses being set over Greece. In any case,
nothing can be less likely than that an English Prince
would have accepted such a responsibility. The French
Government made some significant remark, to the effect
that if it were possible for any of the Great Powers to
allow one of their princes to accept the Greek crown,

154 A History of Our Own Times.
France had a prince disengaged, who, she thought, might
have at least as good a claim as another. This was under
stood to be Prince Napoleon, son of Jerome, King of
Westphalia — a prince of whom a good deal was heard after,
as a good deal had been heard before, in the politics of
Europe. The suggestion then about the prince of the
House of Denmark was made either by or to the Greeks,
and it was accepted. The second son of the King of Den
mark was made King of Greece ; and Lord John Russell,
on behalf of the English Government, then handed over
to the kingdom of Greece the islands of which Great
Britain had had so long to bear the unwilling charge, and
the retention of which, according to some uneasy poli
ticians, was absolutely necessary alike to the national
safety and the imperial glory of England. This is antici
pating by a few years the movement of time; but the
effects of Mr. Gladstone's visit so distinctly foreshadowed
the inevitable result that it is not worth while dividing
into two parts this little chapter of our history. Mr. Glad
stone's visit, the mistaken interpretation put upon it by
the islanders, and the reception which, chiefly on account
of that mistake, he had among them, must have made
it clear to every intelligent person in England that this
country could not long continue to force her protectorate
upon a reluctant population over whom it could not even
claim the right of conquest. It ought to have been plain
to all the world that England could not long consent, with
any regard for her own professions and principles, to play
the part of Europe's jailer or man in possession. The ces
sion of the Ionian Islands marked, however, the farthest
point of progress attained for many years in that liberal
principle of foreign policy which recognizes fairness and
justice as motives of action more imperative than national
vanity or the imperial pride of extended possession. Eng
land had to suffer for some time under the influence of a
reaction which the cession of the islands, all just and pru
dent though it was, unquestionably helped to bring about.

CHAPTER XL.
THE TORY DIOGENES ROLLING HIS TUB.
There was once, we read, a mighty preparation for war
going on in Athens. Everybody was busy in arrange
ment of some kind to meet the needs of coming battle.
Diogenes had nothing in particular to do, but was unwill
ing to appear absolutely idle when all else were so busy.
He set to work, therefore, with immense clatter and
energy, to roll his tub up and down the street of Athens.
The Conservative Government, seeing Europe all in dis
turbance, and having nothing very particular to do, began
to roll a tub of their own, and to show a preternatural and
wholly unnecessary activity in doing so.
The year 1859 was one of storm and stress on the Euro
pean continent. The war-drum throbbed through the
whole of it. The year began with the memorable decla
ration of the Emperor of the French to the Austrian Am
bassador at the Tuileries that the relations between the
two Empires were not such as he could desire. This he
said, according to the description given of the event in a
despatch from Lord Cowley, " with some severity of tone."
In truth, Count Cavour had had his way. He had pre
vailed upon Louis Napoleon, and the result was a deter
mination to expel the Austrians from Italy. It seems
clear enough that the Emperor, after a while, grew anx
iously inclined to draw back from the position in which
he had placed himself. Great pressure was brought to
bear upon him by the English Government, and by other
Governments as well, to induce him to refrain from dis
turbing the peace of Europe. He was probably quite
sincere in the assurances he repeatedly gave that he was

156 A History of Our Own Times.
doing his best to prevent a rupture with Austria ; and he
would possibly have given much to avoid the quarrel.
The turn of his mind was such that he scarcely ever formed
any resolution or entered into any agreement; but the
moment the step was taken, he began to see reasons for
wishing that he had followed a different course. In this
instance it is evident that he started at the sound himself
had made. It was not, however, any longer in his power
to guide events. He was in the hands of a stronger will
and a more daring spirit than his own. In the career of
Count Cavour our times have seen, perhaps, the most re
markable illustration of that great Italian statesmanship
which has always appeared at intervals in the history of
Europe. There may be very different opinions about the
political morality of Cavour. Rather, indeed, ma)'- it be
said that his strongest admirer is forced to invent a
morality of his own, in order to justify all the political
actions of a man who knew no fear, hesitation, or scruple.
Cavour had the head of a Machiavelli, the daring of a
Caesar Borgia, the political craft and audacity of a Riche
lieu. He was undoubtedly a patriot and a lover of his
country ; but he was willing to serve his country by means
from Which the conscience of modern Europe, even as it
shows itself in the business of statesmanship, is forced to
shrink back. If ends were to justify means, then the his
tory of United Italy may be the justification of the life of
Cavour; but until ends are held to justify means, one can
only say that he did marvellous things — that he broke up
and reconstructed political systems; that he made a na
tion ; that he realized the dreams of Dante, and some of
the schemes of Alexander VI. ; and that he accomplished
all this, for the most part, at the cost of other people, and
not of Italians. Louis Napoleon was simply a weapon in
the hands of such a man. Cavour knew precisely what he
wanted, and was prepared to go all lengths and to run all
risks to have it. When once the French Emperor had en
tered into a compact with him there was no escape from it.

The Tory Diogenes Rolling His Tub. 157
Cavour did not look like an Italian ; at least, a typical
Italian. He looked more like an Englishman. He re
minded Englishmen oddly of Dickens' Pickwick, with his
large forehead, his general look of moony good nature,
and his spectacles. That commonplace, homely exterior
concealed unsurpassing force of character, subtlety of
scheming, and power of will. Cavour was determined
that France should fight Austria. If Louis Napoleon had
shown any decided inclination to draw back, Cavour would
have flung Piedmont single-handed into the fight, and
defied France, after what had passed, to leave her to her
fate. Louis Napoleon dared not leave Piedmont to her
fate. He had gone too far with Cavour for that. The
war between France and Austria broke out. It was over,
one might say, in a moment. Austria had no generals ;
the French army rushed to success ; and then Louis Napo
leon stopped short as suddenly as he had begun. He had
proclaimed that he went to war to set Italy free from the
Alps to the sea ; but he made peace on the basis of the
liberation of Lombardy from Austrian rule, and he left
Venetia for another day and for other arms. He drew
back before the very serious danger that threatened on
the part of the German States, who showed ominous in
dications of a resolve to make the cause of Austria their
own if France went too far. He held his hand from
Venetia because of Prussia; seven years later, Prussia
herself gave Venetia to Italy.
The English Government had made futile attempts to
prevent the outbreak of war. Lord Malmesbury had elab
orated quires of heavy commonplace in the vain hope that
the great conflicting forces then let loose could be brought
back into quietude by the gentle charm of plenteous plat
itude. Meanwhile the Conservative Government could
not exactly live on the mere reputation of having given
good advice abroad to which no one would listen. They
had to do something more at home. They began to roll
a tub. While Europe was aflame with war-passion and

158 A History of Our Own Times.
panic, the Conservatives determined to try their hand at
a Reform Bill. Mr. Disraeli, as leader of the House of
Commons, knew that a Reform Bill was one of the cer
tainties of the future. It suited him well enough to praise
the perfection of existing institutions in his Parliamentary
and platform speeches; but no one knew better than he
that the Reform Bill of 1832 had left some blanks that
must be, one day or another, filled up by some Govern
ment. Lord John Russell had made an attempt more
than once, and failed. He had tried a Reform Bill in
1852, and lost his chance because of the defeat of the Min
istry on the Militia Bill ; he had tried another experiment
in 1854, but the country was too eager about war with
Russia to care for domestic reform, and Lord John Russell
had to abandon the attempt, not without an emotion which
he could not succeed in concealing. Mr. Disraeli knew
well enough that whenever Lord John Russell happened
to be in power again he would return to his first love in
politics — a Reform Bill. He knew also that a refusal to
have anything to do with reform would always expose the
Tories in office to a coalition of all the Liberal factions
against them. At present he could not pretend to think
that his party was strong. The Conservatives were in
office, but they were not in power. At any moment, if
the Liberals chose, a motion calling for reform, or cen
suring the Government because they were doing nothing
for reform, might be brought forward in the House of
Commons and carried in the teeth of the Tory party. Mr.
Disraeli had to choose between two dangers. He might
risk all by refusing reform ; he might risk all by attempt
ing reform. He thought, on the whole, the wiser course
would be to endeavor to take possession of the reform
question for himself and his party.
The reappearance of Mr. Bright in politics stimulated,
no doubt, this resolve on the part of the Conservative
leader. We speak only of the one leader; for it is not
likely that the Prime Minister, Lord Derby, took any

The Tory Diogenes Rolling His Tub. 159
active interest in the matter. Lord Derby had outlived
political ambition, or he had had, perhaps, all the politi
cal success he cared for. There was not much to tempt
him into a new reform campaign. Times had changed
since his fiery energy went so far to stimulate the Whigs
of that day into enthusiasm for the bill of Lord Grey.
Lord Derby had had nearly all in life that such a man
could desire. He had station of the highest; he had
wealth and influence; he had fame as a great parliamen
tary debater. Now that Brougham had ceased to take
any leading part in debate, he had no rival in the House
of Lords. He had an easy, buoyant temperament; he
was, as we have said already, something of a scholar, and
he loved the society of his Homer and his Horace, while
he could enjoy out-door amusements as well as any Squire
Western or Sir Hildebrand Osbaldistone of them all. He
was a sincere man, without any pretence, and, if he did
not himself care about reform, he was not likely to put on
any appearance of enthusiasm about it. Nor did he set
much store on continuing in office. He would be the
same Lord Derby out of office as in. It is probable, there
fore, that he would have allowed reform to go its way for
him, and never troubled ; and if loss of office came of his
indifference, he would have gone out of office with un
abated cheerfulness. But this way of looking at things
was by no means suitable to his energetic and ambitious
lieutenant. Mr. Disraeli had not nearly attained the
height of his ambition, nor had he by any means exhausted
his political energies. Mr. Disraeli, therefore, was not a
man to view with any satisfaction the consequences likely
to come to the Conservative party from an open refusal to
take up the cause of reform. He had always, too, meas
ured fairly and accurately the popular influence and the
parliamentary strength of Mr. Bright. It is clear that,
at a time when most of the Conservatives, and not a few
of the Whigs, regarded Mr. Bright as only an eloquent and
respectable demagogue, Mr. Disraeli had made up his

160 A History of Our Own Times.
mind that the Manchester orator was a man of genius and
foresight, who must be taken account of as a genuine
political power. Mr. Bright now returned to public life.
He had for a long time been withdrawn by ill-health from
all share in political agitation, or politics of any kind.
At one time it was, indeed, fully believed that the House
of Commons had seen the last of him. To many his re
turn to Parliament and the platform seemed almost like
a resurrection. Almost immediately on his returning to
public life he flung himself into a new agitation for re
form. He addressed great meetings in the north of Eng
land and in Scotland, and he was induced to draw up a
Reform Bill of his own. His scheme was talked of at that
time by some of his opponents as though it were a project
of which Jack Cade might have approved. It was prac
tically a proposal to establish a franchise precisely like
that which we have now, ballot and all, only that it threw
the expenses of the returning officer on the county or
borough rate, and it introduced a somewhat large measure
of redistribution of seats. The opponents of reform were
heard everywhere assuring themselves and their friends
that the country in general cared nothing about reform.
Mr. Bright himself was accredited with having said that
his own effort to arouse a reforming spirit even in the
North was like flogging a dead horse. But Mr. Disraeli
was far too shrewd to be satisfied with such consolations
as his followers would thus have administered. He knew
well enough that the upper and middle classes cared very
little about a new Reform Bill. The}' had had all the
reform they wanted in 1832. But, so long as the bill of
1832 remained unsupplemented, it was evident that any
political party could appeal to the support of the working
classes throughout the country in favor of any movement
which promised to accomplish that object. In short, Mr.
Disraeli knew that reform had to come some time, and he
was resolved to make his own game if he could.
This time, however, he was not successful. The diffi-

The Tory Diogenes Rolling His Tub. 161
culties in his way were too great. It would have been
impossible for him to introduce such a Reform Bill as Mr.
Bright would be likely to accept. His own party would
not endure such a proposition. He could only go so far
as to bring in some bill which might possibly seem to
reformers to be doing something for reform, and at the
same time might be commended to Conservatives on the
ground that it really did nothing for it. Mr. Disraeli's
Reform Bill was a curiosity ; it offered a variety of little
innovations which nobody wanted or could have cared
about, and it left out of sight altogether the one reform
which alone gave an excuse for any legislation. We have
explained more than once that Lord Grey's Reform Bill
admitted the middle class to legislation but left the work
ing class out. What was now wanted was a measure to
let the working class in. Nobody seriously pretended
that any other object than this was sought by those who
called out for reform. Yet Mr. Disraeli's scheme made
no more account of the working class as a whole than if
they already possessed the vote, every man of them. It
proposed to give a vote in boroughs to persons who had
property to the amount of ten pounds a year in the funds,
Bank stock or East India stock ; to persons who had sixty
pounds in a savings bank; to persons receiving pensions
in the naval, military, or civil service, amounting to
twenty pounds a year ; to professional men, to graduates
of universities, ministers of religion, and certain school
masters ; in fact, to a great number of persons who either
already had the franchise or could have it if they had any
interest that way. The only proposition in the bill not
absolutely farcical and absurd was that which would have
equalized the franchise in counties and in boroughs, mak
ing ten pounds the limit in each alike. The English
working classes cried out for the franchise, and Mr. Dis
raeli proposed to answer the cry by giving the vote to
graduates of universities, medical practitioners, and
schoolmasters. Vol. II.— ii

1 62 A History of Our Own Times.
Yet we may judge of the difficulties Mr. Disraeli had
to deal with by the reception which even this poor little
measure met with from some of his own colleagues. Mr.
Walpole and Mr. Henley resigned office rather than have
anything to do with it. Mr. Henley was a specimen of
the class who might have been described as fine old Eng
lish gentlemen. He was shrewd, blunt, honest, and nar
row, given to broad jokes and to arguments flavored with
a sort of humor which reminded not very faintly of the
drollery of Fielding's time. Mr. Walpole was a man of
gentle bearing, not by any means a robust politician, nor
liberally endowed with intellect or eloquence, but pure-
minded and upright enough to satisfy the most exacting.
Mr. Walpole wrote to Lord Derby a letter which had a
certain simple dignity and pathos in it, to explain the
reason for his resignation. He frankly said that the
measure which the Cabinet were prepared to recommend
was one which they should all of them have stoutly op
posed if either Lord Palmerston or Lord John Russell had
ventured to bring it forward. This seemed to Mr. Wal
pole reason enough for his declining to have anything to
do with it. It did not appear to him honorable to support
a measure because it had been taken up by one's own
party, which the party would assuredly have denounced
and opposed to the uttermost if it had been brought for
ward by the other side. Mr. Walpole's colleagues, no
doubt, respected his scruples, but some probably regarded
them with good-natured contempt. Such a man, it was
clear, was not destined to make much of a way in politics.
Public opinion admired Mr. Walpole, and applauded his
decision. Public opinion would have pronounced even
more strongly in his favor had it known that at the time
of his making this decision and withdrawing from a high
official position Mr. Walpole was in circumstances which
made the possession of a salary of the utmost importance
to him. Had he even swallowed his scruples and held on
a little longer, he would have become entitled to a pen-

The Tory Diogenes Rolling His Tub. 163
sion. He did not appear to have hesitated a moment.
He was a high-minded gentleman; he could very well
bear to be poor; he could not bear to surrender his self-
respect. This resignation, however, so honorable to Mr. Walpole
and to Mr. Henley, will serve to show how great were the
difficulties which then stood in Mr. Disraeli's way. Prob
ably Mr. Disraeli's own feelings were in favor of a liber
ally extended suffrage. It is not a very rash assumption
to conjecture that he looked with contempt on the kind
of reasoning which fancied that the safety of a state de
pends upon the narrowness of its franchise. But his bill
bore the character of a measure brought in with the object
of trying to reconcile irreconcilable claims and principles.
To be the author of something which should give the
Government the credit with their opponents of being re
formers at heart, and with their friends of being non-
reformers at heart, was apparently the object of Mr.
Disraeli. The attempt was a complete failure. It was
vain to preach up the beauty of " lateral extension" of the
franchise as opposed to extension downward. The coun
try saw through the whole imposture at a glance. One
of Mr. Disraeli's defects as a statesman has always been
that he is apt to be just a little too clever for the business
he has in hand. This ingenious Reform Bill was a little
too clever. More matter and less art would have served
its turn. It was found out in a moment. Some one de
scribed its enfranchising clauses as "fancy franchises;"
Mr. Bright introduced the phrase to the House of Com
mons, and the clauses never recovered the epithet. The
Savings Bank clause provoked immense ridicule. Sup
pose, it was asked, a man draws out a few pounds to get
married, or to save his aged parent from starvation, or to
help a friend out of difficulties, is it fair that he should
be immediately disfranchised as a penalty for being loving
and kindly? One does not want to make the electoral
franchise a sort of Monthyon prize for the most meritori-

164 A History of Our Own Times.
ous of any class; but still, is it reasonable that a man
who is to have a vote as long as he hoards his little sum
of money is to forfeit the vote the moment he does a kind
or even a prudent thing? Even as a matter of mere pru
dence, it was very sensibly argued, is it not better that a
man should do something else with his money than invest
it in a savings bank, which is, after all, only a safer ver
sion of the traditional old stocking? It would be useless
to go into any of the discussions which took place on this
extraordinary bill. It can hardly be said to have been
considered seriously. It had to be got rid of somehow ;
and therefore Lord John Russell moved an amendment,
declaring that no readjustment of the franchise would
satisfy the House of Commons or the country which did
not provide for a greater extension of the suffrage in cities
and boroughs than was contemplated in the Government
measure. Perhaps the most remarkable speech made
during the debate was that of Mr. Gladstone, who, accept
ing neither the Bill nor the resolution, occupied himself
chiefly with an appeal to Parliament and public opinion
on behalf of small boroughs. The argument was ingen
ious. It pointed to the number of eminent men who had
been enabled to begin public life very early by means of
a nomination for some pocket-borough, or who, having
quarrelled with the constituents of a city or county, might
for awhile have been exiled from Parliament if some
pocket-borough, or rather pocket-borough's master, had
not admitted them by that little postern-gate. The argu
ment, however, went no farther than to show that in a
civilized country every anomaly, however absurd, may be
turned to some good account. If, instead of creating
small pocket-boroughs, the English constitutional system
had conferred on a few great peers the privilege of nom
inating members of Parliament directly by their own
authority, this arrangement would undoubtedly work well
in some cases. Beyond all question some of these privi
leged peers would send into Parliament deserving men

The Tory Diogenes Rolling His Tub. 165
who otherwise might be temporarily excluded from it.
The same thing would sometimes happen, no doubt, if
they made over the nomination to their wives or their
wives' waiting-women. But the system of pocket-
boroughs, taken as a whole, was stuffed with injustice and
corruption. It worked direct evil in twenty cases for
every one case in which it brought about indirect good.
The purchase of seats in the Parliament of Paris undoubt
edly did good in some cases. Some of the men for whom
seats were bought proved themselves useful and impartial
members of that curious tribunal.
Lord John Russell's resolution was carried by a major
ity of 330 against 291, or a majority of 39. The Govern
ment dissolved Parliament, and appealed to the country.
The elections did not excite very much public interest.
They took place during the most critical moments of the
war between France and Austria. While such news was
arriving as that of the defeat of Magenta, the defeat of
Solferino, the entrance of the Emperor of the French and
the King of Sardinia into Milan, it was not likely that
domestic news of a purely parliamentary interest could
occupy all the attention of Englishmen. It was not
merely a great foreign war that the people of these islands
looked on with such absorbing interest. It was what
seemed to be the birth of a new era for Europe. There
were some who felt inclined to echo the celebrated saying
of Pitt after Austerlitz, and declare that we might as well
roll up the map of Europe. In the victories of the French
many saw the first indications of the manifest destiny of
the heir of Waterloo, the man who represented a defeat.
To many the strength of the Austrian military system had
seemed the great bulwark of Conservatism in Europe;
and now that was gone, shrivelled like a straw in fire,
shattered like a potsherd. Surprise, bewilderment, rather
than partisan passion of any kind, predominated over
England. In such a condition of things the general elec
tion passed over hardly noticed. When it was over, it

1 66 A History of Our Own Times.
was found that the Conservatives had gained, indeed, but
had not gained nearly enough to enable them to hold
office, unless by the toleration of their rivals. The rivals
soon made up their minds that they had tolerated them
long enough. A meeting of the Liberal party was held
at Willis' Rooms, once the scene of Almack's famous
assemblies. There the chiefs of the Liberal party met to
adjust their several disputes, and to arrange on some plan
of united action. Lord Palmerston represented one sec
tion of the party, Lord John Russell another. Mr. Sidney
Herbert spoke for the Peelites. Not a few persons were
surprised to find Mr. Bright among the speakers. It was
well known that he liked Lord Palmerston little ; that it
could hardly be said he liked the Tories any less. But
Mr. Bright was for a Reform Bill, from whomsoever it
should come; and he thought, perhaps, that the Liberal
chiefs had learned a lesson. The party contrived to agree
upon a principle of action, and a compact was entered
into, the effect of which was soon made clear at the meet
ing of the new Parliament. A vote of want of confidence
was at once moved by the Marquis of Hartington, eldest
son of the Duke of Devonshire, and even then marked out
by common report as a future leader of the Liberal party.
Lord Hartington had sat but a short time in the House
of Commons, and had thus far given no indications of any
eloquence, or even of any taste for politics. Nothing
could more effectively illustrate one of the peculiarities of
the English political system than the choice of the Mar
quis of Hartington as the figure-head of this important
movement against the Tory Government. Lord Hart
ington did not then, nor for many years afterward, show
any greater capacity for politics than is shown by an ordi
nary county member. He seemed rather below than
above the average of the House of Commons. As leader
subsequently of the Liberal party in that House, he can
hardly be said to have shown as yet any higher qualities
than a strong good-sense and a manly firmness of purpose,

The Tory Diogenes Rolling His Tub. 167
combined with such skill in debate as constant practice
under the most favorable circumstances must give to any
man not absolutely devoid of all capacity for self-improve
ment. But even of the moderate abilities which Lord
Hartington proved that he possessed in the Conservative
Parliament of 1874, he had given no indication in 1859.
He was put up to move the vote of want of confidence as
the heir of the great Whig house of Devonshire ; his ap
pearance in the debate would have carried just as much
significance with it if he had simply moved his resolution
without an accompanying word. The debate that followed
was long and bitter : it was enlivened by more than even
the usual amount of personalities. Mr. Disraeli and Sir
James Graham had a sharp passage of arms, in the course
of which Sir James Graham used an expression that has
been often quoted since. He described Mr. Disraeli as
" the Red Indian of debate," who " by the use of the toma
hawk had cut his way to power, and by recurrence to the
scalping system hopes to prevent the loss of it." The
scalping system, however, did not succeed this time. The
division, when it came on after three nights of discussion,
showed a majority of thirteen in favor of Lord Harring
ton's motion. The result surprised no one. Everybody
knew that the moment the various sections of the Liberal
party contrived a combination the fate of the Ministry
was sealed. Willis' Rooms had anticipated the decision
of St. Stephen's. Rather, perhaps, might it be said that
St. Stephen's had only recorded the decision of Willis'
Rooms. The Queen invited Lord Granville to form a Ministry.
Lord Granville was still a young man to be Prime Minis
ter, considering how much the habits of parliamentary life
had changed since the days of Pitt. He was not much
over forty years of age. He had filled many ministerial
offices, however, and had an experience of Parliament
which may be said to have begun with his majority.
After some nine years spent in the House of Commons.

1 68 A History of Our Own Times.
the death of his father called him, in 1846, to the House
of Lords. He made no assumption of commanding abili
ties, nor had he any pretence to the higher class of elo
quence or statesmanship. But he was a thorough man of
the world and of Parliament ; he understood English ways
of feeling and of acting; he was a clever debater, and had
the genial art — very useful and very rare in English pub
lic life — of keeping even antagonists in good-humor.
Probably a better man could not have been found to suit
all parties as Prime Minister of England, in times when
there was no particular stress or strain to try the energies
and the patience of the country. Still, there was some
surprise felt that the Queen should have passed over two
men of years and of fame like Lord Palmerston and Lord
John Russell, and have invited a much younger man at
such a moment to undertake for the first time to form a
Ministry. An explanation was soon given on the part of
the Queen, or at least with her consent. The Queen had
naturally thought, in the first instance, of Lord Palmerston
and Lord John Russell; but she found it " a very invidious
and unwelcome task" to make a choice between "two
statesmen so full of years and honors, and possessing so
just a claim on her consideration." Her Majesty, there
fore, thought a compromise might best be got at between
the more Conservative section of the Liberal party, which
Lord Palmerston appeared to represent, and the more
popular section led by Lord John Russell, if both could
be united under the guidance of Lord Granville, the
acknowledged leader of the Liberal party in the House of
Lords. The attempt was not successful. Lord John Rus
sell declined to serve under Lord Granville, but declared
himself perfectly willing to serve under Lord Palmerston.
This declaration at once put an end to Lord Granville's
chances, and to the whole difficulty which had been antici
pated. There had been a coldness for some time between
Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell. The two men
were undoubtedly rivals ; at least all the world persisted

The Tory Diogenes Rolling His Tub. 169
in regarding them in such a light. It was not thought
possible that Lord John Russell would submit to take
office under Lord Palmerston. On this occasion, however,
as upon others, Lord John Russell showed a spirit of self-
abnegation for which the public in general did not give
him credit. The difficulty was settled to the satisfaction
of every one, Lord Granville included. Lord Granville
was not in the slightest degree impatient to become
Prime Minister, and, indeed, probably felt relieved from
a very unwelcome responsibility when he was allowed to
accept office under the premiership of Lord Palmerston.
Lord Palmerston was now Prime-minister for life. Until
his death he held the office with the full approval of Con
servatives as well as Liberals; nay, indeed, with much
warmer approbation from the majority of the Conserva
tives than from many of the Liberals.
Palmerston formed a strong Ministry. Mr. Gladstone
was Chancellor of the Exchequer ; Lord John Russell had
the office of Foreign Secretary; Sir G. C. Lewis was Home
Secretary; Mr. Sidney Herbert, Minister for War; the
Duke of Newcastle took charge of the Colonies; Mr.
Cardwell accepted the Irish Secretaryship; and Sir Charles
Wood was Secretary for India. Lord Palmerston endeav
ored to propitiate the Manchester Liberals by offering a
seat in the Government to Mr. Cobden and to Mr. Milner
Gibson. Mr. Cobden was at the time on his way home
from the United States. In his absence he had been
elected member for Rochdale ; and in his absence, too, the
office of President of the Board of Trade in the new Min
istry had been put at his disposal. His friends eagerly
awaited his return, and, when the steamer bringing him
home was near Liverpool, a number of them went out to
meet him before his landing. They boarded the steamer,
and astonished him with the news that the Tories were
out, that the Liberals were in, that he was member for
Rochdale, and that Lord Palmerston had offered him a
place in the new Ministry. Cobden took the news which

17° A History of Our Own Times.
related to himself with his usual quiet modesty. He de
clined to say anything about the offer he had received
from Lord Palmerston until he should have the opportu
nity of giving his answer directly to Lord Palmerston
himself. This, of course, was only a necessary courtesy,
and most of Cobden's friends were of opinion that he
ought to accept Lord Palmerston 's offer. Cobden ex
plained afterward that the office put at his disposal was
exactly that which would have best suited him, and in
which he thought that he could do some good. He also
declared frankly that the salary attached to the office
would be a consideration of much importance to him.
Mr. Cobden's friends were well aware that he had invested
the greater part of his property in American railways,
which just then were not very profitable investments, al
though in the long run they justified his confidence in their
success. At the moment he was a poor man. Yet he
did not in his own mind hesitate a moment about Lord
Palmerston's offer. He disapproved of Palmerston's for
eign policy, of his military expenditure, and his love of
interfering in the disputes of the Continent ; and he felt
that he could not conscientiously accept office under such
a leader. He refused the offer decisively; and the chief
promoter of the repeal of the corn-laws never held any
place in an English Administration. Cobden, however,
advised his friend, Mr. Milner Gibson, to avail himself of
Lord Palmerston's offer, and Mr. Gibson acted on the
advice. The opinions of Mr. Cobden and Mr. Gibson
were the same on most subjects, but Mr. Gibson had never
stood out before the country in so conspicuous a position
as an opponent of Lord Palmerston. Perhaps Cobden's
advice was given in the spirit of Dr. Parr, who encouraged
a modest friend to adopt the ordinary pronunciation of the
Egyptian city's name. " Dr. Bentley and I, sir, must call
it Alexandria ; but I think you may call it Alexandria. "
Mr. Cobden felt really grateful to Lord Palmerston for
his offer, and for his manner of making it " I had no

The Tory Diogenes Rolling His Tub. 171
personal feeling whatever," he said to his constituents at
Rochdale, "in the course I took with regard to Lord
Palmerston's offer. If I had had any feeling of personal
hostility, which I never had toward him, for he is of that
happy nature which cannot create a personal enemy, his
kind and manly offer would have instantly disarmed me."
Lord Palmerston had not made any tender of office to
Mr. Bright ; and he wrote to Mr. Bright frankly explaining
his reasons. Mr. Bright had been speaking out too strongly,
during his recent reform campaign, to make his presence
in the Cabinet acceptable to some of the Whig magnates
for whom seats had to be found. It is curious to notice
now the conviction, which at that time seemed to be
universal, that Mr. Cobden was a much more moderate
reformer than Mr. Bright. The impression was altogether
wrong. There was, in Mr. Bright's nature, a certain ele
ment of Conservatism which showed itself clearly enough
the moment the particular reforms which he thought
necessary were carried. Mr. Cobden would have gone on
advancing in the direction of reform as long as he lived.
It was Mr. Cobden's conciliatory manner, and an easy
genuine bonhomie, worthy of Palmerston himself, that made
the difference between the two men in popular estimation.
Not much difference, to be sure, was ever to be noticed
between them in public affairs. Only once had they voted
in opposite lobbies of the House of Commons, and that
was, if we are not mistaken, on the Maynooth grant ; and
Mr. Bright afterward adopted the views of Mr. Cobden.
But where there was any difference, even of speculative
opinion, Mr. Cobden went farther than Mr. Bright along
the path of Radicalism. Mr. Cobden's sweet temper and
good-humored disposition made it hard for him to express
strong opinions in tones of anger. It is doubtful whether
a man of his temperament ever could be a really great
orator. Indignation is even more effective as an element
in the making of great speeches than in the making of
small verses.

172 A History of Our Own Times.
The closing days of the year were made memorable by
the death of Macaulay. He had been raised to the peer
age, and had had some hopes of being able to take occa
sional part in the stately debates of the House of Lords.
But his health almost suddenly broke down, and his voice
was never heard in the Upper Chamber. He died pre
maturely, having only entered on his sixtieth year. We
have already studied the literary character of this most
successful literary man. Macaulay had had, as he often
said himself, a singularly happy life, although it was not
without its severe losses and its griefs. His career was
one of uninterrupted success. His books brought him
fame, influence, social position and wealth, all at once.
He never made a failure. The world only applauded one
book more than the other, the second speech more than
the first. Macaulay the essayist, Macaulay the historian,
Macaulay the ballad-writer, Macaulay the Parliamentary
orator, Macaulay the brilliant, inexhaustible talker — he
was alike, it might appear, supreme in everything he
chose to do or to attempt. After his death there came a
natural reaction ; and the reaction, as is always the case,
was inclined to go too far. People began to find out that
Macaulay had done too many things; that he did not do
anything as it might have been done; that he was too
brilliant ; that he was only brilliant ; that he was not really
brilliant at all, but only superficial and showy. The dis
paragement was more unjust by far than even the extrav
agant estimate. Macaulay was not the paragon, the ninth
wonder of the world, for which people once set him down;
but he was undoubtedly a great literary man. He was
also a man of singularly noble character. He was, in a
literary sense, egotistic; that is to say, he thought, and
talked, and wrote a great deal about his works and him
self; but he was one of the most unselfish men that ever
lived. He appears to have enjoyed advancements, success,
fame and money only because these enabled him to give
pleasure and support to the members of his family. He

The Tory Diogenes Rolling His Tub. 173
was attached to his family, especially to his sisters, with
the tenderest affection. His real nature seems only to
have thoroughly shone out when in their society. There
he was loving, sportive even to joyous frolicsomeness ; a
glad schoolboy almost to the very end. He was remark
ably generous and charitable, even to strangers ; his hand
was almost always open ; but he gave so unostentatiously
that it was not until after his death half his kindly deeds
became known. He had a spirit which was absolutely
above any of the corrupting temptations of money and
rank. He was very poor at one time, and during his pov
erty he was beginning to make his reputation in the House
of Commons. It is often said that a poor man feels no
where so much out of place, nowhere so much at a disad
vantage, nowhere so much humiliated, as in the House of
Commons. Macaulay felt nothing of the kind. He bore
himself as easily and steadfastly as though he had been
the oldest son of a proud and wealthy family. It did not
seem to have occurred to him, when he was poor, that
money was lacking to the dignity of his intellect and his
manhood ; or, when he was rich, that money added to it.
Certain defects of temper and manner, rather than of
character, he had, which caused men often to misunder
stand him, and sometimes to dislike him. He was apt to
be overbearing in tone, and to show himself a little too
confident of his splendid gifts and acquirements: his
marvellous memory, his varied reading, his overwhelming
power of argument. He trampled on men's prejudices
too heedlessly, was inclined to treat ignorance as if it
were a crime, and to make dulness feel that it had cause
to be ashamed of itself. Such defects as these are hardly
worth mentioning, and would not be mentioned here but
that they serve to explain some of the misconceptions
which were formed of Macaulay by many during his life
time, and some of the antagonisms which he unconsciously
created. Absolutely without literary affectation, unde
pressed by early poverty, unspoiled by later and almost

174 A History of Our Own Times.
unequalled success, he was an independent, quiet, self-
relying man, who, in all his noon of fame, found most
happiness in the companionship and the sympathy of those
he loved, and who, from first to last, was loved most ten
derly by those who knew him best. He was buried in
Westminister Abbey in the first week of the new year,
and there truly took his place among his peers.

CHAPTER XLI.
THE FRENCH TREATY AND THE PAPER DUTIES.
Lord Palmerston's Ministry came into power in troub
lous times. All over the world there seemed to be an up
heaving of old systems. Since 1848 there had not been
such a period of political and social commotion. A new
war had broken out in China. The peace of Villafranca
had only patched up the Italian system. Every one saw
that there was much convulsion to come yet before Italy
was likely to settle down into order. From across the
Atlantic came the first murmurings of civil war. John
Brown had made his famous raid into Harper's Ferry, a
town on the borders of Virginia and Maryland, for the
purpose of helping slaves to escape, and he was captured,
tried for the attempt, and executed. He met his death
with the composure of an antique hero. Victor Hugo
declared, in one of his most impassioned sentences, that
the gibbet of John Brown was the Calvary of the anti-
slavery movement; and assuredly the execution of the
brave old man was the death-sentence of slavery. Abra
ham Lincoln had just been adopted by the National
Republican Convention at Chicago as candidate for the
Presidency, and even here in England people were begin
ning to understand what that meant. At home there were
distractions of other kinds. Some of the greatest strikes
ever known in England had just broken out; and a politi
cal panic was further perplexed by the quarrels of class
with class. A profound distrust of Louis Napoleon pre
vailed almost everywhere. The fact that he had been
recently our ally did not do much to diminish this distrust.
On the contrary, it helped in a certain sense to increase

176 A History of Our Own Times.
it. Against what State, it was asked, did he enter into
alliance with us? Against Russia. To defend Turkey?
Not at all ; Louis Napoleon always acknowledged that he
despised the Turks, and felt sure nothing could ever be
made of them. It was to have his revenge for Moscow
and the Beresina, people said, that he struck at Russia;
and he made us his mere tools in the enterprise. Now
he turns upon Austria, to make her atone for other wrongs
done against the ambition of the Bonapartes, and he has
conquered. Austria, believed by all men to have the
greatest military organization in Europe, lies crushed at
his feet. What next? Prussia, perhaps — or England?
The official classes in this country had from the first been
in sympathy with Austria, and would, if they could, have
had England take up her quarrel. The Tories were Aus
trian for the most part. Not much of the feeling for Italy
which was afterward so enthusiastic and effusive had yet
sprung up in England among the Liberals and the bulk of
the population. People did not admit that it was an affair
of Italy at all ; they saw in it rather an evidence of the
ambition of Piedmont. When, soon after the close of the
short war, it became known that Sardinia was to pay for
the alliance of France by the surrender of Nice and Savoy,
the. indignation m this country became irrepressible.
The whole thing seemed a base transaction. The House
of Savoy, said an indignant orator in Parliament, had
sprung from the womb of those mountains; its connection
with them should be as eternal as the endurance of the
mountains themselves. Men saw in the conduct of Louis
Napoleon only an evidence of the most ignoble rapacity.
It is of no use, they said, talking of alliances and cordial
understandings with such a man. There is in him no
faith and no scruple. Cras mihi. To-morrow he will try
to humble and to punish England as he has already
humbled and punished Austria; his alliance with us will
prove to be of as much account as did his alliance with
Sardinia. He did not scruple to wring territory from the

The French Treaty and the Paper Duties. 177
confederate whose devoted friend and patron he professed
to be; what should we have to expect, we against whom
he cherishes up a national and a family hatred, if by any
chance he should be enabled to strike us a sudden blow?
The feeling, therefore, in England was almost entirely
one of revived dread and distrust of Louis Napoleon.
There was a good deal to be said for his bargain about
Savoy and Nice by those who were anxious to defend it.
But taken as a whole it was a singularly unfortunate
transaction. It turned back the attention of conquerors
to that old-fashioned plan of partition which sanguine
people were beginning to hope was gone out of European
politics, like the sacking of towns and the holding of
princes to ransom. It is likely that Louis Napoleon
thought of this himself somewhat bitterly later on in his
career, when the Germans adopted his own principle,
although, as they themselves pleaded, with somewhat
better excuse; for they only extorted territory from an
enemy ; he extorted it from a friend. There could be no
pretence that it was other than an act of extortion. Even
the Piedmontese statesmen who conducted the transaction
— Cavour cleverly dodged out of it himself — did not ven
ture to profess that they were doing it willingly. It had
to be done. Perhaps it had to be done by Louis Napoleon
as well as by Victor Emmanuel. Cavour had compelled the
Emperor of the French to make a stand for Italy ; but the
Emperor could hardly face his own people without telling
them that France was to have something for her money
and her blood. Wars for an idea generally end like this.
On the whole, however, let it be owned that the Italians had
made a good bargain. Savoy and Nice were provinces of
which the Italian nationality was very doubtful ; of which
the Italian sentiment was perhaps more doubtful still.
Louis Napoleon had the worst of the bargain in that as in
most other transactions wherein he thought he was doing
a clever thing. He went very near estranging altogether
the friendly feeling of the English people from him and
Vol. II.— 12

!78 A History of Our Own Times.
from France. The invasion panic sprung up again here
in a moment. The volunteer forces began to increase in
numbers and in ardor. Plans of coast fortification and of
national defences generally were thrust upon Parliament
from various quarters. A feverish anxiety about the
security of the island took possession of many minds that
were usually tranquil and shrewd enough. It really
seemed as if the country was looking out for what Mr.
Disraeli called, a short time afterward, when he was not
in office, and was therefore not responsible to public
clamor for the defence of our coasts, " a midnight foray
from our imperial ally. " The venerable Lord Lyndhurst
took on himself in especial the task of rousing the nation.
With a vigor of manner and a literary freshness of style
well worthy of his earlier and best years, he devoted
himself to the work of inflaming the public spirit of Eng
land against Louis Napoleon ; a graceful and acrid lawyer
Demosthenes denouncing a Philip of the Opera Comique.
" If I am asked," said Lyndhurst, " whether I cannot place
reliance upon the Emperor Napoleon, I reply with con
fidence that I cannot, because he is in a situation in which
he cannot place reliance upon himself." " If the calamity
should come, " he asked ; " if the conflagration should take
place, what words can describe the extent of the calam
ity, or what imagination can paint the overwhelming ruin
that would fall upon us?" The most harmless and even
reasonable actions on the part of France were made a
ground of suspicion and alarm by some agitated critics.
A great London newspaper saw strong reason for uneasi
ness in the fact that " at this moment the French Govern
ment is pushing with extraordinary zeal the suspicious
project of the impracticable Suez Canal."
We have already remarked upon the fact that up to
this time there was no evidence in the public opinion of
England of any sympathy with Italian independence, such
as became the fashion a year later. At least, if there was
any such sympathy here and there, it did not to any per-

The French Treaty and the Paper Duties. 179
ceptible degree modify the distrust which was felt toward
the Emperor Napoleon. Mrs. Barrett-Browning's pas
sionate praises of the Emperor and lamentations for the
failure of " his great deed" were regarded as the harmless
and gushing sentimentalisms of a poet and a woman —
indeed, a poet, with many people, seems a sort of woman.
The King of Sardinia, Victor Emmanuel, had visited Eng
land not long before, and had been received with public
addresses and other such demonstrations of admiration
here and there; but even his concrete presence had not
succeeded in making impression enough to secure him the
general sympathy of the English public. Some associa
tion in Edinburgh had had the singularly bad taste to send
him an address of welcome in which they congratulated
him on his opposition to the Holy See, as if he were
another Achilli or Gavazzi come over to denounce the
Pope. The King's reply was measured out with a
crushing calmness and dignity. It coldly reminded his
Edinburgh admirers of the fact, which we may presume
they had forgotten, that he was descended from a long
line of Catholic princes, and was the sovereign of subjects
almost entirely Catholic, and that he could not therefore
accept with satisfaction " words of reprobation injurious to
the head of the Church to which he belonged. " We only
recall to memory this unpleasant little incident for the
purpose of pointing a moral, which it might of itself sug
gest. It is much to be feared that the popular enthusiasm
for the unity and independence of Italy which afterward
flamed out in England was only enthusiasm against the
Pope. Something, no doubt, was due to the brilliancy
of Garibaldi's exploits in i860, and to the romantic halo
which at that time and for long after surrounded Garibaldi
himself; but no Englishman who thinks coolly over the
subject will venture to deny that nine out of every ten
enthusiasts for Italian liberty at that time were in favor
of Italy because Italy was supposed to be in spiritual re
bellion against the Pope.

'8o A History of Our Own Times.
The Ministry attempted great things. They undertook
a complete remodelling of the Customs system, a repeal
of the paper duties, and a Reform Bill. The news that a
commercial treaty with France was in preparation broke
on the world somewhat abruptly in the early days of i860.
The arrangement was made in a manner to set old formal
ism everywhere shaking its solemn head and holding up
its alarmed hands. The French treaty was made without
any direct assistance from professional diplomacy. It
was made, indeed, in despite of professional diplomacy.
It was the result of private conversations and an informal
agreement between the Emperor of the French and Mr.
Cobden. The first idea of such an arrangement came, we
believe, from Mr. Bright; but it was Mr. Cobden who
undertook to see the Emperor Napoleon and exchange
ideas with him on the subject. The Emperor of the
French, to do him justice, was entirely above the con
ventional formalities of imperial dignity. He sometimes
ran the risk of seeming undignified in the eyes of the
vulgar by the disregard of all formality with which he
was willing to allow himself to be approached. Although
Mr. Cobden had never held official position of any kind in
England, the Emperor received him very cordially, and
entered readily into his ideas on the subject of a treaty
between England and France which should remove many
of the prohibitions and restrictions then interfering with
a liberal interchange of the productions of the two nations.
Napoleon the Third was a free-trader, or something
nearly approaching to it. His cousin, Prince Napoleon,
was still more advanced and more decided in his views of
political economy. The Emperor was, moreover, a good
deal under the influence of Michael Chevalier, the dis
tinguished French publicist and economist, who from hav
ing been a member of the Socialistic sect of the famous
Pere Enfantin, had come to be a practical politician and
an economist of a very high order. Mr. Cobden had the
assistance of all the influence Mr. Gladstone could bring

The French Treaty and the Paper Duties. 181
to bear. It is not likely that Lord Palmerston cared much
about the French treaty project, but at least he did not
oppose it. Mr. Cobden was under the impression, and
probably not without reason, that the officials of the En
glish embassy in Paris were rather inclined to thwart
than to assist his efforts. But if such a feeling prevailed,
it was perhaps less a dislike of the proposed arrangement
between England and France than an objection to the in
formal and irregular way of bringing it about. Diplo
macy has always been mechanical and conventional in its
working, and the English diplomatic service has, even
among diplomatic services, been conspicuous for its wor
ship of routine.
There were many difficulties in the way on both sides.
The French people were, for the most part, opposed to
the principles of free-trade. The French manufacturing
bodies were almost all against it. Some of the most in
fluential politicians of the country were uncompromising
opponents of free-trade. M. Thiers, for example, was an
almost impassioned Protectionist. It may be admitted at
once that if the Emperor of the French had had to submit
the provisions of his treaty to the vote of an independent
Legislative Assembly he could not have secured its adop
tion; he had, in fact, to enter into the engagement by
virtue of his Imperial will and power. On the other hand,
a strong objection was felt in this country just then to any
friendly negotiation or arrangement whatever with the
Emperor. His schemes in Savoy and Nice had created
so much dislike and distrust of him that many people felt
as if war between the two States were more likely to come
than any sincere and friendly understanding on any sub
ject. As soon as it became known that the treaty was in
course of negotiation, a storm of indignation broke out in
this country. Most of the newspapers denounced the
treaty as a mean arrangement with a man whose policy
was only perfidious, and whose vows were as little to be
trusted as dicers' oaths. Not only the Conservative party

1 82 A History of Our Own Times.
condemned and denounced the proposed agreement, but
a large proportion of the Liberals were bitter against it.
Some critics declared that Mr. Cobden had been simply
taken in ; that the French Emperor had " bubbled" him.
Others accused Mr. Cobden of having entered into a con
spiracy with the Emperor to enable Louis Napoleon to
" jockey his own subjects" — such was the phrase adopted
by one influential member of Parliament, the hate Mr.
Horsman, then a speaker with a certain gift of battling
metallic declamation. Others, again, declared that the
compromise effected by the treaty was in itself a breach
of the principle of free-trade. It was observable that this
argument usually came from lately converted or still un
converted protectionists; just as the argument founded
on the arbitrariness of the imperial action was most stren
uously enforced by those who at home were least inclined
to encourage the principle of government by the people.
Thus Mr. Cobden, Mr. Bright, and even Mr. Gladstone,
found themselves in the odd position of having to repel
the charge of renouncing free-trade, and rejecting the
principles of representative government. It is hardly
necessary to defend the course taken by Mr. Cobden in
accepting a compromise where he could not possibly ob
tain an absolutely free interchange of commodities. The
most devoted champion of the freedom of religious wor
ship is not to be blamed if he enters into an agreement
with some foreign Government to obtain for its non-con
forming subjects a qualified degree of religious liberty.
An opponent of capital punishment would not be held to
have surrendered his principle because he endeavored to
reduce the number of capital sentences where he saw no
hope of the immediate abolition of the death penalty.
Nor do we see that there was anything inconsistent in Mr.
Cobden's entering into an agreement with the Emperor of
the French, even though that agreement was to be carried
out in France by an arbitrary exertion of imperial will,
such as would have been intolerable and impossible in Eng-

The French Treaty and the Paper Duties. 183
land. To lay down a principle of this kind would be only
to say that no statesman shall conclude an arrangement of
any sort with the rulers of a state not so liberal as his own
in its system of government. Of course no one ever thinks
of arguing for such a principle in the regular diplomatic
negotiations between States. Those who found fault with
Mr. Cobden because he was willing to assent to an arrange
ment which the Emperor Napoleon imposed upon his sub
jects, must have known that our official statesmen were
every day entering into engagements with one or the other
European sovereign which were to be carried out by that
sovereign on the same arbitrary principle. There was,
in fact, no soundness or sincerity in such objections to Mr.
Cobden's work. Some men opposed it because they were
protectionists, pure and simple; some opposed it because
they detested the Emperor Napoleon. The ground of
objection with not a few was their dislike of Mr. Cobden
and the Manchester School. The hostility of some came
from their repugnance to seeing anything done out of the
regular and conventional way. All these objections coal
esced against the treaty and the Chancellor of the Ex
chequer's Budget; but the eloquence of Mr. Gladstone
and the strength of the Government prevailed against
them all.
The effect of the treaty, so far as France was concerned,
was an engagement virtually to remove all prohibitory
duties on all the staples of British manufacture, and to
reduce the duties on English coal and coke, bar and pig
iron, tools, machinery, yarns, flax, and hemp. England,
for her part, proposed to sweep away all duties on manu
factured goods, and to reduce greatly the duties on foreign
wines. In one sense, of course, England gave more than
she got, but that one sense is only the protectionist's sense
— more properly nonsense. England could not, with any
due regard for the real meaning of words, be said to have
given up anything when she enabled her people to buy
light and excellent French wines at a cheap price. She

!84 A History of Our Own Times.
could not be said to have sacrificed anything when she se
cured for her consumers the opportunity of buying French
manufactured articles at a natural price. The whole
principle of free-trade stamps as ridiculous the theory
that because our neighbor foolishly cuts himself off from
the easy purchase of the articles we have to sell, it is our
business to cut ourselves off from the easy purchase of the
articles he has to sell and we wish to buy. We gave
France much more reduction of duty than we got; but
the reduction was in every instance a direct benefit to our
consumers. The introduction of light wines, for example,
made after awhile a very remarkable, and, on the whole,
a very beneficial change in the habits of our people. The
heavier and more fiery drinks became almost disused by
large classes of the population. The light wines of Bor
deaux began to be familiar to almost every table; the por
tentous brandied ports, which carried gout in their very
breath, were gradually banished. Some of the debates,
however, on this particular part of the Budget recalled to
memory the days of Colonel Sibthorp, and his dread of
the importation of foreign ways among our countrymen.
Many prophetic voices declared in the House of Commons
that with the greater use of French wines would come the
rapid adoption of what were called French morals; that
the maids and matrons of England would be led by the
treaty to the drinking of claret, and from the drinking of
claret to the ways of the French novelist's odious heroine,
Madame Bovary. Appalling pictures were drawn of the
orgies to go on in the shops of confectioners and pastry
cooks who had a license to sell the light wines. The vir
tue of Englishwomen, it was insisted, would never be able
to stand this new and terrible mechanism of destruction.
She who was far above the temptations of the public-
house would be drawn easily into the more genteel allure
ments of the wine-selling confectioner's shop ; and in every
such shop would be the depraved conventional foreigner,
the wretch with a mustache and without morals, lying in

The French Treaty and the Paper Duties. 185
wait to accomplish at last his long-boasted conquests of
the blond misses of England. , One impassioned speaker,
glowing into a genuine prophetic fury as he spoke, warned
his hearers of the near approach of a time when a man,
suddenly entering one of the accursed confectioners' shops
in quest of the missing female members of his family,
would find his wife lying drunk in one room and his
daughter disgraced in another.
In spite of all this, however, Mr. Gladstone succeeded
in carrying this part of his Budget. He carried, too, as
far as the House of Commons was concerned, his important
measure for the abolition of the duty on paper. The duty
on paper was the last remnant of an ancient system of
finance which pressed severely on journalism. The stamp
duty was originally imposed with the object of checking
the growth of seditious newspapers. It was reduced, in
creased, reduced again, and increased again, until in the
early part of the century it stood at fourpence on each copy
of a newspaper issued. In 1836 it was brought down to
the penny, represented by the red stamp on every paper,
which most of us can still remember. There was besides
this a considerable duty — sixpence, or some such sum — on
every advertisement in a newspaper. Finally, there was
the heavy duty on the paper material itself. A journal,
therefore, could not come into existence until it had made
provision for all these factitious and unnecessary expenses.
The consequence was that a newspaper was a costly thing.
Its possession was the luxury of the rich ; those who could
afford less had to be content with an occasional read of a
paper. It was common for a number of persons to club
together and take in a paper, which they read by turns,
the general understanding being that he whose turn came
last remained in possession of the journal. It was con
sidered the fair compensation for his late reception of the
news that he should come into the full proprietorship of
the precious newspaper. The price of a daily paper then
was uniformly sixpence ; and no sixpenny paper contained

'86 A History of Our Own Times.
anything like the news, or went to a tenth of the daily
expense, which is supplied in the one case and undertaken
in the other by the penny papers of our day. Gradually
the burdens on journalism and on the reading public were
reduced. The advertisement duty was abolished ; in 1855
the stamp-duty was abolished ; that is to say, the stamp
was either removed altogether, or was allowed to stand as
postage. On the strength of this reform many new and
cheap journals were started. Two of them in London— the
Daily Telegraph and the Morning Star— acquired influence
and reputation. But the effect of the duty on the paper
material still told heavily against cheap journalism. It
became painfully evident that a newspaper could not be
sold profitably for a penny while that duty remained, and
therefore a powerful agitation was set on foot for its re
moval. The agitation was carried on, not on behalf of
the interests of newspaper speculation, but on behalf of
the reading public, and of the education of the people.
It is not necessary now to enter upon any argument to
show that the publication of such a paper as the Daily
News or the Daily Telegraph must be a matter of immense
importance in popular education. But at that time there
were still men who argued that newspaper literature could
only be kept up to a proper level of instruction and deco
rum by being made factitiously costly. It was the creed
of many that cheap newspapers meant the establishment
of a daily propaganda of socialism, communism, red re
publicanism, blasphemy, bad spelling, and general immo
rality. Mr. Gladstone undertook the congenial task of abolishing
the duty on paper. He was met with strong opposition
from both sides of the House. The paper manufacturers
made it at once a question of protection to their own
trade. They dreaded the competition of all manner of
adventurous rivals under a free system. Many of the
paper manufacturers had been stanch free-traders when
it was a case of free-trade to be applied to the manufac-

The French Treaty and the Paper Duties. 187
tures of other people ; but they cried out against having
the ingredients of the unwelcome chalice commended to
their own lips. Vested interests in the newspaper busi
ness itself also opposed Mr. Gladstone. The high-priced
and well-established journals did not by any means relish
the idea of cheap and unfettered competition. They,
therefore, preached without reserve the doctrine that in
journalism cheap meant nasty, and that the only way to
keep the English press pure and wholesome was to con
tinue the monopoly to their own publications. The
House of Commons is a good deal governed, directly and
indirectly, by "interests." It is influenced by them
directly, as when the railway interest, the mining interest,
the brewing interest, or the landed interest, boldly stands
up through its acknowledged representatives in Parliament
to fight for its own hand. It is also much influenced in
directly. Every powerful interest in the House can con
trive to enlist the sympathies and get the support of men
who have no direct concern one way or another in some
proposed measure, who know nothing about it, and do not
want to be troubled with any knowledge, and who are
therefore easily led to see that the side on which some of
their friends are arrayed must be the right side. There
was a good deal of rallying up of such men to sustain the
cause of the paper-making and journal-selling monopoly.
The result was that, although Mr. Gladstone carried his
resolutions for the abolition of the excise on paper, he
only carried them by dwindling majorities. The second
reading was carried by a majority of 53; the third by a
majority of only 9. The effect of this was to encourage
some members of the House of Lords to attempt the task
of getting rid of Mr. Gladstone's proposed reform alto
gether. An amendment to reject the resolutions repealing
the tax was proposed by Lord Monteagle, and received
the support of Lord Derby and of Lord Lyndhurst.
Lord Lyndhurst was then just entering on his eighty-
ninth year. His growing infirmities made it necessary

1 88 A History of Our Own Times.
that a temporary railing should be constructed in front of
his seat, in order that he might lean on it and be supported.
But although his physical strength thus needed support,
his speech gave no evidence of failing intellect. Even
his voice could hardly be said to have lost any of its clear,
light, musical strength. He entered into a long and a
very telling argument to show that, although the peers
had abandoned their claim to alter a money-bill, they had
still a right to refuse their assent to a repeal of taxation,
and that in this particular instance they were justified in
doing so. There was not much, perhaps, in this latter
part of the argument. Lord Lyndhurst fell back on some
of his familiar alarms about the condition of Europe and
the possible schemes of Louis Napoleon, and out of these
he extracted reasons for contending that we ought to
maintain unimpaired the revenue of the country, to be
ready to meet emergencies, and encounter unexpected
liabilities. In an ordinary time not much attention would
be paid to criticism of this kind. It would be regarded as
the duty of the Finance Minister, the Government, and the
House of Commons to see that the wants of the coming
year were properly provided for in taxation; and when
the Government and the House of Commons had once
decided that a certain amount was sufficient, the House of
Lords would hardly think that on it lay any responsibility
for a formal revision of the Ministerial scheme. Some
peer would in all probability make some such observations
as those of Lord Lyndhurst ; but they would be accepted
as mere passing criticisms of the Ministerial scheme, and
it would not occur to any one to think of taking a division
on the suggested amendment. In this instance the House
of Lords was undoubtedly influenced by a dislike for the
proposed measure of reduction, for the manner in which
it had been introduced, for its ministerial author, or at
least for his general policy, and for some of the measures
by which it had been accompanied. It is not unlikely, for
example, that Lord Lyndhurst himself felt something like

The French Treaty and the Paper Duties. 189
resentment for the policy which answered all his eloquent
warnings about the schemes of the Emperor Napoleon by
producing a treaty of commerce with the supposed invad
er of England. The repeal of the paper duty was known
also to have the warm advocacy of Mr. Bright ; and it was
advocated by the Morning Star, a journal greatly influ
enced by Mr. Bright's opinions, and in which, popular
rumor said, very untruly, that Mr. Bright was a writer of
frequent leading articles. Thus the repeal of the paper
duty got to seem in the eyes of many peers a proposal
connected somehow with the spread of Democracy, the
support of the Manchester School, and the designs of Napo
leon III.
The question which the House of Lords had to face was
somewhat serious. The Commons had repealed a tax;
was it constitutionally in the power of the House of Lords
to reimpose it? Was not this, it was asked, simply to
assert for the House of Lords a taxing power equal to
that of the Commons? Was it not to reduce to nothing the
principle that taxation and representation go together?
Suppose, instead of re-enacting the paper duty, the House
of Lords had thought fit to introduce into the new Budget
a new and different tax, what was there to hinder them,
on their own principle, from doing so? On the other hand,
those who took Lord Lyndhurst's view of the question
insisted that when the Budget scheme was laid before
them for their approval, the House of Lords had as good
a right constitutionally to reject as to accept any part of
it, and that to strike out a clause in a Budget was quite a
different thing from taking the initiative in the imposition
of taxation. It was contended that the House of Lords
had not only a constitutional right to act as they were
invited to do in the case of the paper duty, but that as a
matter of fact they had often done so, and that the country
had never challenged their authority. The Conservative
party in the House of Lords can always carry any division,
and in this instance it was well known that they could

•9° A History of Our Own Times.
marshal a strong majority against Mr. Gladstone's pro
posed remission of taxation. But it was commonly ex
pected that they would on this occasion, as they had done
on many others, abstain from using their overpowering
numerical strength ; that prudent counsels would prevail
in the end, and that the amendment would not be pressed
to a division. The hope, however, was deceived. The
House of Lords was in an unusually aggressive mood.
The majority were resolved to show that they could do
something. Mr. Disraeli in one of his novels had irrev
erently said of the Lords that when the peers accom
plished a division they cackled as if they had laid an egg.
On this occasion they were determined to have a division.
The majority against the Government was overwhelming.
For the second reading of the Paper Duty Bill, 90 peers
voted, and there were 14 proxies; in all, 104. For Lord
Monteagle's amendment there were 161 votes of peers
actually present and 32 proxies, or 193 in all. The major
ity against the Government was therefore 89; and the
repeal of the excise duty on paper was done with for that
session. The peers went home cackling; not a few of
them, however, a little in doubt as to the wisdom of the
course they had pursued, a little afraid to think on what
they had done. The House of Lords had not taken any
very active step in politics for some time, and many of
them were uncertain as to the manner in which the country
would regard their unwonted exertion of authority.
The country took it rather coolly, on the whole.
Lord Palmerston promptly came forward and moved in
the House of Commons for a committee to ascertain and
report on the practice of each House with regard to the
several descriptions of bills imposing or repealing taxes.
By thus interposing at once he hoped to take the wind out
of the sails of a popular agitation, which he disliked, and
would gladly have avoided. The committee took two
months to consider their report. They found, by a major
ity of fourteen, a series of resolutions to the effect that the

The French Treaty and the Paper Duties. 191
privilege of the House of Commons did not extend so far
as to make it actually unconstitutional for the Lords to
reject a bill for the repeal of a tax. Mr. Walpole was the
chairman of the committee, and he drew up the report,
which cited a considerable number of precedents in sup
port of the view adopted by the majority. Mr. Bright,
who was a member of the committee, did not assent to
this principle. He prepared a draft report of his own, in
which he contended for the very reasonable view that if
the Lords might prolong or reimpose a tax by refusing
their assent to its repeal when that repeal had been voted
by the House of Commons, the House of Commons could
not have absolute control over the taxation of the country.
It seems clear that, whatever may have been the technical
right of the Lords, or however precedent may have occa
sionally appeared to justify the course which they took,
Mr. Bright was warranted in asserting that the constitu
tion never gave the House of Lords any power of reimpos-
ing a tax which the Commons had repealed. The truth
is, that if the majority of the House of Commons in favor
of the repeal of the paper duties had been anything
considerable, the House of Lords would never have ven
tured to interfere. There was an impression among many
peers that the remission was not much liked even by the
majority of those who voted for it. " Gladstone has done
it all," was the common saying; and it was insisted that
Gladstone had done it only to satisfy Mr. Bright and the
Manchester Radicals. Not a few of the peers felt con
vinced that the majority of the House of Commons would
secretly bless them for their intervention.
Lord Palmerston followed up the report of the commit
tee by proposing a series of resolutions which he probably
considered equal to the occasion. The object of the reso
lutions was to reaffirm the position and the claims of the
House of Commons in regard to questions of taxation.
That at least was the ostensible object; the real object
was to do something which should leave a way of retreat

192 A History of Our Own Times.
open to the Lords in another session, and at the same time
make those who clamored against their intervention believe
that the Ministry were not indifferent to the rights of the
representative chamber. The first resolution affirmed that
" the right of granting aids and supplies to the Crown is
in the Commons alone, as an essential part of their consti
tution; and the limitation of all such grants as to the mat
ter, manner, measure, and time is only in them." The
second resolution declared that although the Lords had
rejected bills relating to taxation by negativing the whole,
yet the exercise of such a power had not been frequent,
and was justly regarded by the House of Commons with
peculiar jealousy as affecting the right of the Commons
to grant the supplies. The third resolution merely laid
it down that, " to guard for the future against an undue
exercise of that power by the Lords, and to secure to the
Commons their rightful control over taxation and supply, "
the House reaffirmed its right to impose and remit taxes,
and to frame bills of supply.
Such resolutions were not likely to satisfy the more
impatient among the Liberals. An appeal was made to
the people generally to thunder a national protest against
the House of Lords. But the country did not, it must be
owned, respond very tumultuously to the invitation.
Great public meetings were held in London and the large
towns of the North, and much anger was expressed at the
conduct of the Lords. The Morning Star newspaper led
the agitation. It had recourse to the ingenious device of
announcing every day in large letters and in a conspicuous
part of its columns that the House of Lords had that day
imposed so many thousand pounds of taxation on the
English people, contrary to the fundamental principles of
the constitution. It divided the whole amount of the re-
imposed duty by the number of days in the year, and thus
arrived at the exact sum which it declared to have been
each day unconstitutionally imposed on the country.
This device was copied by the promoters of public meet-

The French Treaty and the Paper Duties. 193
ings; and M. Taine, the French author, then in this coun
try, was amused to see placards borne about in the streets
with this portentous announcement. Mr. Bright threw
his eloquence and his influence into the agitation, and Mr.
Gladstone expressed himself strongly in favor of its object.
Yet the country did not become greatly excited over the
controversy. It did not even enter warmly into the ques
tion as to the necessity of abolishing the House of Lords.
One indignant writer insisted that if the Lords did not
give way the English people would turn them out of West
minister Palace, and strew the Thames with the wrecks
of their painted chamber. Language such as this sounded
oddly out of tune with the temper of the time. The gen
eral conviction of the country was undoubtedly that the
Lords were in the wrong; that whatever their technical
right, if they had any, they had made a mistake, and that
it would certainly be necessary to check them if they at
tempted to repeat it. But the feeling also was that there
was not the slightest chance of such a mistake being re
peated. The mere fact that so much stir had been made
about it was enough to secure the country against any
chance of its passing into a precedent. In truth, the
country could not be induced to feel any fear of persistent
unconstitutional action on the part of the House of Lords.
That House is known by every one to hold most of its
technical rights on condition of its rarely exercising them.
When once its action in any particular case has been
seriously called in question, it may be taken for granted
that that action will not be repeated. Its principal func
tion in the State now is to interpose at some moment of
emergency and give the House of Commons time to think
over some action which seems inconsiderate. This is a
very important and may be a very useful office. At first
sight it may appear a little paradoxical to compare the
functions of the English House of Lords in any way with
those of the chief magistrate of the United States; and
yet the delaying power which the President possesses is
Vol. II.— 13

194 A History of Our Own Times.
almost exactly the same as that which our usages, even
more than our constitution, have put at the discretion of
the House of Lords. The President can veto a bill in the
first instance. But the Legislature can afterward, if they
will, pass the measure in spite of him by a certain major
ity. Practically this means that the President can say to
the Legislature, " I think this measure has not been very
carefully considered; I send it back, and invite you to
think the matter over again. If when you have done so
you still desire to pass the measure, I can make no further
objection." This is all that the House of Lords can now
do, and only in exceptional cases will the peers venture to
do so much. Most people knew in i860 that the interpo
sition of the House of Lords only meant the delay of a
session; and knew too that the controversy which had
been raised upon the subject, such as it was, would be
quite enough to keep the peers from carrying the thing
too far. A course of action which Mr. Gladstone de
nounced as a "gigantic innovation," which Lord Palmer
ston could not approve, which the Liberal party generally
condemned, and which the House of Commons made the
occasion of a significantly warning resolution, was not in
the least likely to be converted by repetition into an
established principle and precedent. This was the reason
why the country took the whole matter with comparative
indifference. It was not in the least influenced by the '
servile arguments which many Conservatives and a few
feeble Liberals employed to make out a constitutional case
for the House of Lords. One orator, Mr. Horsman, car
ried his objection to democracy so far as to undertake an
elaborate argument to prove that the House of Lords had
a taxing power co-ordinate with that of the House of
Commons. It may be imagined to what a depth party
feeling had brought some men down when it is stated that
this nonsense was applauded by the Conservatives in the
House of Commons. Luckily for the privileges of the
House of Lords, no serious attention was paid to Mr. Hors-

The French Treaty and the Paper Duties. 195
man's argument. If that indiscreet champion of the
authority of the Lords could have made out his case, if he
could have shown that the peers really had a taxing power
co-ordinate with that of the Commons, there would have
been nothing for it but to make new arrangements and
withdraw from the hereditary assembly so inappropriate
a privilege. For it may be surely taken for granted that
the people of this country would never endure the idea of
being taxed by a legislative body over whose members
they had no manner of control.
The whole controversy has little political importance
now. Perhaps it is most interesting for the evidence it
gave that Mr. Gladstone was every day drifting more and
more away from the opinions, not merely of his old Conser
vative associates, but even of his later Whig colleagues.
The position which he took up in this dispute was entirely
different from that of Lord Palmerston. He condemned
without reserve or mitigation the conduct of the Lords,
and he condemned it on the very grounds which made his
words most welcome to the Radicals. He did not, indeed,
give his support to the course of extreme self-assertion
which some Radical members recommended to the House
of Commons; but he made it clear that he only disclaimed
such measures because he felt convinced the House of
Lords would soon come to its senses again, and would re
frain from similar acts of unconstitutional interference in
the future. The first decided adhesion of Mr. Gladstone
to the doctrines of the more advanced Liberals is gener
ally regarded as having taken place at a somewhat later
period, and in relation to a different question. It would
seem, however, that the first decisive intimation of the
course Mr. Gladstone was thenceforward to tread was his
declaration that the constitutional privileges of the rep
resentative assembly would not be safe in the hands of the
Conservative Opposition. Mr. Gladstone was distinctly
regarded during that debate as the advocate of a policy
far more energetic than any professed by Lord Palmer-

196 A History of Our Own Times.
ston. The promoters of the meetings which had been held
to protest against the interference of the Lords found full
warrant for the course they had taken in Mr. Gladstone's
stern protest against the "gigantic innovation." Lord
Palmerston, on the other hand, certainly suffered some
damage in the eyes of the extreme Liberals. It became
more clear than ever to them that he had no sympathy
with any Radical movement here at home, however he
might sympathize with every Radical movement on the
Continent. Still, Lord Palmerston's resolutions contained
in them quite enough to prove to the Lords that they had
gone a little too far, and that they must not attempt any
thing of the kind again. A story used to be told of Lord
Palmerston at that time which would not have been out of
character if it had been true. Some one, it was said,
pressed him to say what he intended to do about the Lords
and the reimposition of the paper duties. " I mean to tell
them," was the alleged reply of Lord Palmerston, "that
it was a very good joke for once, but they must not give
it to us again. " This was really the effect of Palmerston's
resolutions; all very well for once, but don't try it again.
The Lords took the hint; they did not try it again. Even
in that year — 1860 — Mr. Gladstone was able to carry his
resolution for removing, in accordance with the provisions
of the French Treaty, so much of the Customs duty on im
ported paper as exceeded the excise duty on paper made
here at home.
Meanwhile the Government had sustained a severe hu
miliation in another way. They had had to abandon their
Reform Bill. The Bill was a moderate and simple scheme
of reform. It proposed to lower the county franchise to
ten pounds, and that of the boroughs to six pounds ; and
to make a considerable redistribution of seats. Twenty-
five boroughs, returning two members each, were to return
but one for the future, and the representation of several
large counties and divisions of counties was to be strength
ened; Kensington and Chelsea were to form a borough

The French Treaty and the Paper Duties. 197
with two members; Birkenhead, Staleybridge, and Burn
ley were to have one member each ; Manchester, Liver
pool, Leeds, and Birmingham were each to have an addi
tional member ; the University of London was to have a
member. It was also proposed that where there were
three members to a constituency the third should represent
the minority, an end to be accomplished by the simple
process of allowing each elector to vote for only two of the
three. The Bill was brought in on March 1st. The sec
ond reading was moved on March 19th. Mr. Disraeli
condemned the measure then, although he did not propose
to offer any opposition to it at that stage. He made a
long and labored speech, in which he talked of the Bill as
" a measure of a mediaeval character, without the inspira
tion of the feudal system or the genius of the Middle Ages. "
No one knew exactly what this meant ; but it was loudly
applauded by Mr. Disraeli's followers, and was thought
rather fine by some of those who sat on the ministerial
side. Mr. Disraeli also condemned it for being too homo
geneous in its character ; by which he was understood to
mean that he considered there was too great a monotony
or uniformity in the suffrage it proposed to introduce.
Long nights of debate more or less languid followed. Mr.
Disraeli, with his usual sagacity, was merely waiting to
see how things would go before he committed himself or
his party to any decided opposition. He began very soon
to see that there was no occasion for him to take any great
trouble in the matter. He and his friends had little more
to do than to look on and smile complacently while the
chances of the Bill were being hopelessly undermined by
some of the followers of the Government. The milder
Whigs hated the scheme rather more than the Tories did.
It was Lord John Russell's scheme. Russell was faithful
to the cause of reform, and he was backed up by the sup
port of Cobden, Bright, and the Manchester and Radical
party in general. But the Bill found little favor in the
Cabinet itself. It was accepted principally as a means of

/

198 A History of Our Own Times.
soothing the Radicals, and appeasing Lord John Russell.
Lord Palmerston was well known to be personally indif
ferent to its fate. There was good reason to believe that,
if left to himself, he would never have introduced such a
measure, or any measure having the same object. Lord
Palmerston was not so foreseeing as Mr. Disraeli. The
leader of the Opposition knew well enough even then that
a Reform Bill of some kind would have to be brought in
before long. There is not the least reason to suppose
that he ever for a moment fell into Lord Palmerston's
mistake, and fancied that the opinions of the clubs, of the
respectable Whigs, and of the metropolitan shopkeepers
represented the opinions of the English people. Mr. Dis
raeli probably foresaw even then that it might be conven
ient to his own party one day to seek for the credit of car
rying a Radical Reform Bill. He therefore took care not
to express any disapproval of the principles of reform in
the debates that took place on the second reading of Lord
John Russell's Bill. His manner was that of one who
looks on scornfully at a bungling attempt to do some piece
of work which he could do much better if he had a chance
of making the attempt. "Call that a Reform Bill," he
seemed to say, " that piece of homogeneousness and me-
diaevalism, which has neither the genius of feudalism
nor the spirit of the Middle Ages! Only give me a chance
some day of trying my hand again, and then you shall see
the genius of the Middle Ages, and the later ages, and
feudalism, and all the rest of it, combined to perfection. "
Meanwhile the Bill was drifting and floundering on to
destruction. If Lord Palmerston had spoken one deter
mined word in its favor, it could have been easily carried.
The Conservatives would not have taken on themselves
the responsibility of a prolonged resistance. Those of the
Liberals who secretly detested the measure would not
have had the courage to stand up against Lord Palmer
ston. Their real objection to the proposed reform was that
it would put them to the trouble of a new election, and

The French Treaty and the Paper Duties. 199
that they did not like the extreme Radicals and the Man
chester School. But they would have swallowed their
objections if they had supposed that Lord Palmerston was
determined to pass the Bill. Very soon they came to un
derstand, or at least to believe, that Lord Palmerston
would be rather pleased than otherwise to see the measure
brought into contempt. Lord Palmerston took practically
no part in the debates. He did actually make a speech
at a late period ; but, as Mr. Disraeli said, with admirable J
effect, it was a speech not so much " in support of, as /
about, the Reform Bill." Sir George Lewis argued for'
the Bill so coldly and sadly that Sir E. B. Lytton brought
down the laughter and cheers of both sides of the House
when he described Lewis as having " come to bury Caesar,
not to praise him." The measure was already doomed:
it was virtually dead and buried. Notice was given of
amendment after amendment, chiefly or altogether by pro
fessing Liberals. The practice of obstructing the prog
ress of the Bill by incessant speech-making was introduced,
and made to work with ominous effect. Some of the more
boisterous of the Tories began to treat the whole thing as
a good piece of fun. Once an attempt was made to get
the House counted out during the progress of the debate.
It would be a capital means of reducing the whole discus
sion to an absurdity, some members thought, if the House
could actually be counted out during a debate on the Re
form Bill. A Bill to remould the whole political constitu
tion of the country — and the House of Commons not caring
enough about the subject to contribute forty listeners, or
even forty patient watchers, within the precincts of West
minster Palace ! When the attempt to count did not suc
ceed in the ordinary way, it occurred to the genius of
some of the Conservatives that the object might be accom
plished by a little gentle and not unacceptable violence.
A number of stout squires, therefore, got round the door
in the lobby, and endeavored by sheer physical obstruction
to prevent zealous members from re-entering the House.

200 A History of Our Own Times.
It will be easily understood what the temper of the ma
jority was when horse-play of this kind could even be at
tempted. At length it was evident that the Bill could not
pass; that the talk which was in preparation must smother
it. The moment the Bill got into committee there would
be amendments on every line of it, and every member could
speak as often as he pleased. The session was passing ;
the financial measures could not be postponed or put aside;
the opponents of the Reform Bill, open and secret, had
the Government at their mercy. On Monday, June nth,
Lord John Russell announced that the Government had
made up their minds to withdraw the Bill. There was no
alternative. Lord Palmerston had rendered to the Bill
exactly that sort of service which Kemble rendered to the
play of " Vortigern and Rowena. " Kemble laid a peculiar
emphasis on the words, "And when this solemn mockery
is o'er," and glanced at the pit in such a manner as to ex
press only too clearly the contempt he had for the part
which he was coerced to play; and the pit turned the
piece into ridicule, and would have no more of it. If
Kemble had approved of the play, they might have put up
with it for his sake ; but when he gave them leave, they
simply made sport of it. Lord Palmerston conveyed to
his pit his private idea on the subject of the Reform Bill
which he had officially to recommend ; and the pit took
the hint, and there was an end of the Bill.
Lord Palmerston became more unpopular than ever with
the advanced Liberals. He had yielded so far to public
alarm as to propose a vote of two millions, the first in
stalment of a sum of nine millions, to be laid out in for
tifying our coast against the Emperor of the French. He
was accused of gross inconsistency. The statesman who
went out of his way to give premature recognition to Louis
Napoleon after the coup d'e'tat, the statesman of the Con
spiracy Bill, was now clamoring for the means to resist a
treacherous invasion from his favorite ally. Yet Lord
Palmerston was not inconsistent. He had now brought

The French Treaty and the Paper Duties. 201
himself seriously to believe that Louis Napoleon meditated
evil to England, and with Palmerston, right or wrong,
England was the one supreme consideration. To us he
seems to have been wrong when he patronized Louis Na
poleon, and wrong when he wasted money in measures of
superfluous protection against Louis Napoleon, but we do
not think the latter Palmerston was inconsistent with the
former. Thenceforward it was understood that Lord Palmerston
would have no more of Reform. This was accepted as a
political condition by most of Lord Palmerston's col
leagues. Even Lord John Russell accepted the condition,
and bowed to his leader's determination, as George III. 's
ministers came to bend to his scruples with regard to
Catholic Emancipation. There was to be no Reform Bill
while Lord Palmerston lived.

CHAPTER XLII.
TROUBLES IN THE EAST.
The Queen's Speech at the opening of Parliament on
January 24th, i860, mentioned, among other things, the
renewal of disturbances in China. The English and
French plenipotentiaries, it stated, had proceeded to the
mouth of the Peiho river in order to repair to Pekin, and
exchange in that city the ratifications of the Treaty of
Tien-tsin. They found their further progress opposed, and
a conflict took place between the Chinese forts at the mouth
of the river and the naval force by which the plenipoten
tiaries were escorted. The allied forces were compelled
to retire ; and the Royal Speech mentioned that an expe
dition had been despatched to obtain redress.
The treaty of Tien-tsin was that which, as was told in
a former chapter, had been arranged by Lord Elgin and
Baron Gros. The treaty contained a clause providing for
the exchange of the ratifications at Pekin within a year
from the date of the signature, which took place in June,
1858. Lord Elgin returned to England, and his brother,
Mr. Frederick Bruce, was appointed in March, 1859, En
voy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to China.
Mr. Bruce was directed to proceed by way of the Peiho to
Tien-tsin, and thence to Pekin, to exchange the ratifications
of the treaty. In the instructions furnished to him, Lord
Malmesbury, who was then Foreign Secretary, earnestly
pressed upon the Envoy the necessity of insisting on having
the ratifications exchanged at Pekin. Lord Malmesbury
pointed out that the Chinese authorities, having the strong
est objection to the presence of an Envoy in Pekin, would
probably try to interpose all manner of delays and diffi-

Troubles in the East. 203
culties ; and impressed upon Mr. Bruce that he was not to
be put off from going to the capital. Mr. Bruce was dis
tinctly directed to go to the mouth of the Peiho with " a
sufficient naval force," and was told that unless some " un
foreseen circumstances" should interpose to make another
arrangement necessary, it would be desirable that he
should go to Tien-tsin in a British man-of-war. Instruc
tions were sent out from England at the same time to Ad
miral Hope, the Naval Commander-in-Chief in China, to
provide a sufficient force to accompany Mr. Bruce to the
mouth of the Peiho.
The Peiho river flows from the highlands on the west
into the Gulf of Pecheli, at the northeast corner of the
Chinese dominions. The capital of the Empire is about
one hundred miles inland from the mouth of the Peiho.
It does not stand on that river, which flows past it at
some distance westward, but it is connected with the river
by means of a canal. The town of Tien-tsin stands on
the Peiho near its junction with one of the many rivers
that flow into it, and about forty miles from the mouth.
The entrance to the Peiho was defended by the Taku forts.
On June 20, 1859, Mr. Bruce and the French Envoy
reached the mouth of the Peiho with Admiral Hope's
fleet, some nineteen vessels in all, to escort them. Admi
ral Hope had sent a message, two or three days before, to
Taku, to announce that the English and French Envoys
were coming, and his boat had found the forts defended
and the river staked by an armed crowd, who stated that
they were militiamen, and said that they had no instruc
tions as regarded the passage of the Envoys, but offered
to send any message to Tien-tsin and to bring back any
answer which the authorities there might think fit to send.
Admiral Hope again sent to them, and requested them to
remove the obstructions in the river, and clear a passage
for the Envoys. They do not appear to have actually re
fused the request, but they said that they had sent a mes
senger to Tien-tsin to announce the approach of the fleet

204 A History of Our Own Times.
When, however, the Envoys reached the mouth of the
river they found the defences further increased. Some
negotiations and intercommunications took place, and a
Chinese official from Tien-tsin came to Mr. Bruce and
endeavored to obtain some delay or compromise. Mr.
Bruce became convinced that the condition of things pre
dicted by Lord Malmesbury was coming about, and that
the Chinese authorities were only trying to defeat his
purpose. He also imagined, or discovered, that there was
a want of proper respect for an English Envoy shown in
the terms of the letter and the rank of the official by whom
it was conveyed. After a consultation with the French
Envoy, Mr. Bruce called on Admiral Hope to clear a pas
sage for the vessels. On June 25th the Admiral brought
his gunboats close to the barriers, and began to attempt
their removal. The forts opened fire. The Chinese ar
tillerymen showed unexpected skill and precision. Four
of the gunboats were almost immediately disabled. All
the attacking vessels got aground. Admiral Hope at
tempted to storm the forts. The attempt was a complete
failure. About 1000 Englishmen and 100 French went
into action, of whom nearly 450 were killed or wounded.
Admiral Hope himself was wounded; so was the com
mander of the French vessel which had contributed a con
tingent to the storming-party. An American naval cap
tain rendered great service to the English and French in
their distress. With " magnanimous indiscretion" he dis
regarded the strict principles of international law ; declared
that "blood was thicker than water," and that he could
not look on and see Englishmen destroyed by Chinese
without trying to lend them a helping hand. The attempt
to force a passage of the river was given up, and the mis
sion to Pekin was over for the present.
It will be easily imagined that the news created a deep
sensation in England. It soon became known that al
though the Chinese Government did not exactly accept
the responsibility of what had occurred on the Peiho, yet

Troubles in the East. 205
they bluntly and rudely refused to make any apology for
the attack on our ships or to punish the officials who had
ordered it. People in general made up their minds at
once that the matter could not be allowed to rest there,
and that the mission to Pekin must be enforced. At the
same time a strong feeling prevailed that the Envoy, Mr.
Bruce, had been imprudent and precipitate in his conduct.
Lord Elgin had himself stated that we could have no right
to navigate the Peiho until after the ratification of the
treaty ; and however discourteous or even double-dealing
the conduct of the Chinese authorities might have been, it
was surely a questionable policy to insist on forcing our
way to the capital by one particular route to which for any
reason they objected. For this, however, it seems more
just to blame Lord Malmesbury than Mr. Bruce. Lord
Malmesbury had of course no idea of what was likely to
happen ; but his instructions to the English Envoy read
as if they were prepared with a view to that very contin
gency. Mr. Bruce might well have thought that they
left him no alternative but to force his way. Before the
whole question came to be discussed in Parliament the
Conservatives had gone out and the Liberals had come in.
Lord Palmerston's Government were only responsible in
a technical sort of way for what had happened ; and, to do
them justice, they only defended the proceeding in a very
cold and perfunctory manner. But they could hardly con
demn their predecessors, whose action they had to con
tinue, and whose responsibilities they had to assume, and
there did not seem much use in attacking the conduct of
men who were out of office, and were no longer amenable
to Parliamentary censure. On the other hand, it seems
only fair to say that the outcry raised in England about
the treacherous conduct of the Chinese at the mouth of
the Peiho was unfounded and even absurd. The Chinese
Government showed itself, as usual, crafty, double-dealing,
and childishly arrogant for a while ; but the Chinese at the
Peiho cannot be accused of perfidy. They had mounted

206 A History of Our Own Times.
the forts and barricaded the river openly and even osten
tatiously. The English Admiral knew for days and days
that the forts were armed, and that the passage of the
river was obstructed. A man, who, when he sees you ap
proaching his hall-door, closes and bars it against you, and
holds a rifle pointed at your head while he parleys with
you from an upper window, may be a very inhospitable
and discourteous person ; but if, when you attempt to dash
in his door, he fires at you with his rifle, you can hardly
call him treacherous, or say that you had no expectation
of what was going to happen. Some of the English officers
who were actually engaged in the attempt of Admiral
Hope frankly repudiated the idea of any treachery on the
part of the Chinese, or any surprise on their own side.
They knew perfectly well, they said, that the forts were
about to resist the attempt to force a way for the Envoys
up the river.
The English and French Governments determined that
the men who had made the treaty of Tien-tsin — Lord El
gin and Baron Gros — should be sent back to insist on its
re-enforcement. Sir Hope Grant was appointed to the
military command of our land forces, and General Cousin
de Montauban, afterward Count Palikao, commanded the
soldiers of France. We need not here enter into the mili
tary history of the expedition. The English and French
made short work of the Chinese resistance. The Chinese,
to do them justice, fought very bravely, as, indeed, they
seem to have done on all occasions when war was forced
on them; but, of course, they had no chance whatever
against such forces as those commanded by the English
and French generals. The allies captured the Taku forts,
occupied Tien-tsin, and marched on Pekin. The Chinese
Government endeavored to negotiate for peace, and to
interpose any manner of delay, diplomatic or otherwise,
between the allies and their progress to the capital. Lord
Elgin consented at last to enter into negotiations at Tung-
chow, a walled town ten or twelve miles nearer than

Troubles in the East. 207
Pekin. The Chinese commissioners were to meet the
European plenipotentiaries at Tungchow. Lord Elgin's
secretaries, Mr. Parkes and Mr. Loch, accompanied by
some English officers, by Mr. Bowlby, the correspondent
of the Times, and by some members of the staff of Baron
Gros, went to Tungchow to make the necessary arrange
ment for an interview between the Envoys and the Chinese
commissioners. On their way back they had to pass
through the line of a large Chinese force, which had occu
pied the ground marked out by the commissioners them
selves for the use of the European allies. Some quarrel
took place between a French commissariat officer and some
Tartar soldiers, and a sort of general engagement was
brought on. Mr. Parkes and Mr. Loch, and several of
their companions, French and English, were seized and
dragged off to various prisons, despite the fact that they
bore a flag of truce, and were known to have come for the
purpose of arranging a conference requested by the Chi
nese themselves with a view to peace. Twenty-six British
subjects and twelve subjects of France were thus carried
off. Mr. Parkes and Mr. Loch were afterward released,
after having been treated with much cruelty and indig
nity. Of the twenty-six British subjects thus seized, thir
teen died of the horrible ill-treatment they received. The
thirteen who were released all bore more or less evidence
physically of the usage which had been inflicted on them.
Lord Elgin refused to negotiate until the prisoners had
been returned, and the allied armies were actually at one
of the great gates of Pekin and had their guns in position
to blow the gate in when the Chinese acceded to their
terms. The gate was surrendered, the allies entered the
city, and the English and French flags were hoisted side
by side on the walls of Pekin. It was only after entering
the city that Lord Elgin learned of the murder of the cap
tives. He then determined to inflict an exemplary and a
signal punishment on the Chinese authorities. The Chi
nese Summer Palace, a building, or rather a park and col-

208 A History of Our Own Times.
lection of buildings of immense extent, had been plundered
somewhat efficiently by the French on their march to
Pekin. The French Commander-in-chief had become
possessed of a magnificent diamond necklace, which, ac
cording to popular rumor, was afterward an adornment of
the festivities of the Imperial Tuileries. Lord Elgin now
determined that the palace should be burned down, as a
means of impressing the mind of the Chinese authorities
generally with some sense of the danger of treachery and
foul play. " What remains of the palace," such was Lord
Elgin's stern notification, "which appears to be the place
at which several of the British captives were subjected to
the grossest indignities, will be immediately levelled to
the ground ; this condition requires no assent on the part
of his Highness" (Prince Kung, the Chinese emperor's
brother and plenipotentiary), " because it will be at once
carried into effect by the Commander-in-chief." Two
days were occupied in the destruction of the palace. It
covered an area of many miles. The palace of Adrian, at
Tivoli, might have been hidden in one of its courts. Gar
dens, temples, small lodges and pagodas, groves, grottoes,
lakes, bridges, terraces, artificial hills, diversified the vast
space. All the artistic treasures, all the curiosities, archae
ological and other, that Chinese wealth and Chinese taste,
such as it was, could bring together, had been accumulated
in this magnificent pleasance. The surrounding scenery
was beautiful. The high mountains of Tartary ramparted
one side of the enclosure. " It certainly was, " says a spec
tator, " one of the most curious, and also one of the most
beautiful, scenes I had ever beheld." The buildings were
set on fire ; the whole place was given over to destruction.
A monument was raised with an inscription in Chinese,
setting forth that such was the reward of perfidy and
cruelty. Very different opinions were held in England as to the
destruction of the Imperial palace. To many it seemed
an act of unintelligible and unpardonable vandalism. As-

THE EARL OF ELGIN
After a Photograph by Pans, New York

Troubles in the East. 209
suredly the responsibility which Lord Elgin assumed was
great. It was all the greater because the French plenipo
tentiary refused to share it. This was not, however, be
cause the French Envoy thought it an act of mere van
dalism. The French, who had remorselessly looted the
palace, who had made it a wreck before Lord Elgin con
verted its site into a desert, could hardly have offered any
becoming protest in the interests of art and of conciliation.
The French plenipotentiary was merely of opinion that
the destruction of the palace might interfere with the
negotiations for peace, which he was naturally anxious to
bring to a conclusion. Lord Elgin assumed a heavy re
sponsibility in another way, inasmuch as he did not con
sider the capture of the Englishmen to have been a deliber
ate act of treachery on the part of the Chinese authorities.
" On the whole, " he wrote, " I come to the conclusion that
in the proceedings of the Chinese plenipotentiaries and
Commander-in-chief in this instance there was that mix
ture of stupidity, want of straightforwardness, suspicion,
and bluster which characterizes so generally the conduct
of affairs in this country, but I cannot believe that after
the experience which Sang-ko-lin-sin" (the Chinese Gen-
eral-in-chief) " had already had of our superiority in the
field, either he or his civil colleagues could have intended
to bring on a conflict in which, as the event has proved,
he was sure to be worsted." Still, Lord Elgin held that
for the ill-treatment and murder of men who ought never
to have been touched with unfriendly hand the Chinese
authorities must be held responsible; and that even war
itself must become ten times more horrible if it were not
one of its essential conditions that the messengers engaged
in the preliminaries of peace are to be held sacred from
harm. In this Lord Elgin was undoubtedly right. The only
question was as to his justification in adopting what seemed
to be so illogical and barbarous a mode of taking ven
geance. Would any breach of faith committed by the
Vol. II.— 14

210 A History of Our Own Times.
Grand Duke of Tuscany, when there was such a prince,
have justified a foreign conqueror in destroying the Pitti
Palace? Would any act of treachery committed by a
Spanish sovereign justify the destruction of the Alhambra?
To such demands Lord Elgin would have answered that he
had no other way of recording in memorable characters his
condemnation of the cruelty perpetrated by the Chinese.
He explained that if he did not demand the surrender of
the actual perpetrators, it was because he knew full well
that no difficulty would have been made about giving him
a seeming satisfaction. The Chinese Government would
have handed over to him as many victims as he chose to
ask for, or would have executed as many as he thought fit
to suggest. They would have selected for vicarious pun
ishment, in all probability, a crowd of mean and unfortu
nate wretches who had no more to do with the murders
than Lord Elgin had himself, who perhaps had never heard
that such murders were done, and who would possibly even
go to their death without the slightest notion of the reason
why they were chosen out for such a doom. That was the
chief reason which determined Lord Elgin. We confess
it seems to us to have some strength in it. Most of our
actions in the war were unjustifiable ; this was the one for
which, perhaps, the best case could be made out by a
moralist. It is somewhat singular that so many persons
should have been roused to indignation by the destruction
of a building who took with perfect composure the unjust
invasion of a country.
The allied powers now, of course, had it all their own
way. A convention was made, by which China agreed that
the representatives of England and France should reside
either permanently or occasionally in Pekin, according as
the English and French Governments might decide, and
that the port of Tien-tsin should be open to trade and to
the residence of foreign subjects. China had to pay a war
indemnity, and a large sum of money as compensation to
the families of the murdered prisoners and to those who

Troubles in the East. 2 1 1
had suffered injuries, and to make an apology for the at
tack by the garrison of the Taku forts. Thus England
established her right to have an envoy in Pekin, whether
the Chinese liked it or not. The practical result was not
very great. Perhaps the most important gain to Europe
was the knowledge that Pekin was not by any means so
large a city as we had all imagined it to be. British geog
raphies had time out of mind taught British children that
Pekin was the largest city in the world. Now we learned
that it was not nearly so large as several other cities, and
that it was, on the whole, rather a crumbling and tumble
down sort of place. There is some comfort in knowing
that so much blood was not spilled wholly in vain.
The same year saw also the troubles in the mountain
terraces of the Lebanon, which likewise led to the com
bined intervention of England and France. The disturb
ances arose out of the rivalries and quarrels between two
sects, the Maronites and those whom Mr. Browning's
poem describes as "the Druse nation, warders on the
mount of the world's secret since the birth of time." In
the month of May a Maronite monk was found murdered,
and suspicion fell upon the Druses. Some Druses were
killed, apparently in retaliation. Then there were some
killings on each side. On May 28th a general attack was
made by the Druses on the Maronite villages in the neigh
borhood of Beyrout, and some of them were burnt down.
A large town under Mount Hermon was attacked by the
Druses. The Turkish commander ordered the Maronites
to lay down their arms, and promised that he would pro
tect them. They did give up their arms, and the Turkish
officer had the weapons removed. Then he seems to have
abandoned the Maronites to their enemies. The Druses,
animated by such a spirit as might have belonged to their
worshipped chief and saint, Hakem, poured into the place
and massacred them all. The Turkish soldiers did not
make any attempt to protect them, but even, it was stated,
in some cases helped the Druses in their work of butchery.

212 A History of Our Own Times.
In July the fanatical spirit spread to Damascus. A mob
of Turkish fanatics made a general attack upon the Chris
tian quarter, and burned the greater part of it down. The
consulates of France, Russia, Austria, Holland, Belgium,
and Greece were destroyed. Nearly two thousand Chris
tians were massacred in that one day's work. Many of
the respectable Mussulman inhabitants of Damascus were
most generous and brave in their attempts to save and
shelter the unfortunate Christians ; but the Turkish Gov
ernor of Damascus, although he had a strong military
force at his disposal, made no serious effort to interfere
with the work of massacre; and, as might be expected, his
supineness was construed by the mob as an official ap
proval of their doings, and they murdered with all the
more vigor and zest. The famous Algerian chief, Abd-
el-Kader, was then living in Damascus, and he exerted
himself nobly in the defence and protection of the Chris
tians. France had treated him, when fallen and a pris
oner, with something like generosity, and he well repaid,
in this season of horror to the Christians in Damascus, any
debt that he may have owed to a Christian people.
The news of the massacres in the Lebanon naturally
created a profound sensation in England. The cause of
the disturbance was not very clearly understood in the first
instance, and it was generally assumed that it was a mere
quarrel of religion between Christians and Mohammedans.
The Maronites being Christians, " a sect of Syrian Chris
tians, united to Rome, although preserving their own
primitive discipline," the Druses were assumed to be Mus
sulmans. Mr. Urquhart gave an amusing and not alto
gether exaggerated description of the manner in which
English public opinion is made up on Eastern questions.
Conversing, he says, with a Druse of the Lebanon long
before this particular outbreak, he observed to the Druse,
"You get up one morning and cut each other's throats;
then people at Beyrout or elsewhere sit down and write
letters. One says the Maronites are a very virtuous and

Troubles in the East. 213
oppressed people of Christians; another says they are
served right, for they are only Roman Catholics. One
says the Druses have done it all ; they are savages ; an
other, the Turks have done it all ; they are ferocious, per
fidious, and fanatic. Then the people in London begin to
write, who dwell in rooms on the housetop." This, it is
to be understood, is Mr. Urquhart's playful way of de
scribing the authors of newspaper articles, whom, in ac
cordance with a tradition still prevailing when he was
young, he assumes to be the occupants of garrets. " They
say these people are very ill off; we must protect them;
or we must punish them ; or we must convert them. Then
they all cry out, 'We must put down the Turkish Govern
ment. ' After this has been written and paid for, it is
printed; and after it is printed it is sold. Then all the
nation buys it; and after it has bought it, it reads it while
it is eating its breakfast. Then each man goes out and
meets his friends and talks it. This is the way the people
of England occupy themselves about their affairs; and
they call it by a name which, being translated, means
universal guess. They smile then at each other, and say:
'We are great men; we know all that is doing in the
world — we govern the world; like unto us were none since
Noah came out of the ark. ' " Mr. Urquhart was a very
clever, self-opinionated, and often curiously wrong-headed
man. He had seen much of the East, and had a knowl
edge of Eastern ways and Eastern history which few Eng
lishmen could equal. But he was under the absolute do
minion of a mania with regard to Russia which distorted all
his faculties. Men who found that he could entertain as
articles of faith some theories about English diplomacy
and English statesmen which seemed almost too wild for
the ordinary occupant of a madhouse, might well begin
to doubt whether all his knowledge of the East must nec
essarily help him to any better conclusions about Asia
than he had formed about the political men and affairs of
his own country. In the passage which has been quoted

214 A History of Our Own Times.
he did, however, give a very fair exposition of the confu
sion of ideas that prevailed in England about the disturb
ances in Syria. He was also able to make it quite clear
that, whatever the Druses were, they were not Mussul
mans. The nooks of the mountain, a well-informed writer
says, " are not more sequestered from the dwellings of
man than the faith of the Druses is segregated from that
of Christian or Moslem." Mr. Urquhart ascribed the cause
of the quarrels to the intervention of the European Powers
in 1840, and of course to the secret influence of Russia
working through that intervention. It is probable that
the intervention did help, in one sense, to lead to the dis
sensions. The Great Powers started in 1840 and in 1841
a variety of theories about the better government of the
Lebanon, one of which was that it should have two gov
ernors, a Druse and a Maronite. This was found imprac
ticable, owing to the fact that in many parts of the Lebanon
the two sects were living in inextricable companionship.
The bare idea, however, was probably effectual in starting
a new sort of rivalry. The Porte did finally grant a cer
tain amount of administrative autonomy to the Lebanon,
and, having granted this under pressure, it is not unlikely
that they were anxious to reduce it to as little of practical
value as possible. Probably the Porte was not unwilling
to make use of any antipathy existing between Druses and
Maronites. The Porte was also under the impression,
rightly or wrongly, that the Maronites were planning an
attack upon the Druses with the object of shaking off the
Turkish yoke. It may be that Constantinople was anxious
to anticipate matters, and to call in the fanaticism of the
Druses to rid them of the Maronites. Certainly the man
ner in which the Turkish officials at first seemed to connive
at the massacres might have justified any such suspicion
in the mind of Europe.
England and France took strong and decisive steps.
They resolved upon instant intervention to restore tran
quillity in the Lebanon. A convention was drawn up, to

Troubles in the East. 215
which all the Great Powers of Europe agreed, and which
Turkey had to accept. By the convention England and
France were intrusted with the duty of restoring order.
France undertook to supply the troops required in the first
instance ; further requirements were to be met as the in
tervening Powers might think fit. The intervening Powers
pledged themselves reciprocally not to seek for any terri
torial advantage or exclusive influence. England sent
out Lord Dufferin to act as her Commissioner; and Lord
Dufferin accomplished his task with as much spirit as
judgment. The Turkish Government, to do it justice,
had at last shown great energy in punishing the authors
and the abettors of the massacres. The Sultan sent out
Fuad Pasha, his Minister for Foreign Affairs, to the
Lebanon ; and Fuad Pasha showed no mercy to the pro
moters of the disturbances, or even to the highly-placed
official abettors of them. The Governor of Damascus and
the commander of the Turkish troops suffered death for
their part in the transactions, and about sixty persons were
publicly executed in the city, of whom the greater number
belonged to the Turkish police force. Lord Dufferin de
scribed what he actually saw in such a manner as to prove
that even alarmed rumor had hardly exaggerated the hor
rors of the time. Lord Dufferin tells that he came to
Deir-el-Kamer a few days after the massacre. " Almost
every house was burned, and the street crowded with dead
bodies, some of them stripped and mutilated in every
possible way. My road led through some of the streets ;
my horse could not even pass, for the bodies were literally
piled up. Most of those I examined had many wounds,
and in each case the right hand was either entirely or
nearly cut off, the poor wretch, in default of weapons,
having instinctively raised his arm to parry the blow
aimed at him. I saw little children of not more than four
years old stretched on the ground, and old men with gray
beards." The intervention was successful in restoring order and

216 A History of Our Own Times.
in providing for the permanent peace of Syria. It had
one great recommendation; it was thorough. It was in
that respect a model intervention. To intervene in the
affairs of any foreign State is a task of great responsibility.
The cases are few indeed in which it can be justified or
even excused. But it has long been to all seeming a prin
ciple of European statesmanship that Turkey is a country
in the government of which it is necessary for other Powers
to intervene from time to time. The whole of the policy
of what is called the Eastern Question is based on the as
sumption that Turkey is to be upheld by external influ
ence, and that, being thus virtually protected, she is liable
also to be rebuked and kept in order. Now there may be
some doubt as to the propriety of intervening at all in the
affairs of Turkey, but there can be no doubt that when
intervention does take place it should be prompt, and it
should be thorough. The independence of Turkey is at
an end when a conference of foreign Ministers sits round
a table to direct what she is to do; it is then merely a
question of convenience and expediency as to the extent
to which intervention shall go. Nothing can be more
illogical and more pernicious in its way than to say, " We
will intervene just far enough to take away from the Turk
ish Government its domestic supremacy and its responsi
bility; but, out of consideration for its feelings, or its
convenience, we will not intervene far enough to make it
certain that what we think necessary shall be promptly
and efficiently done." In the case of the Syrian disturb
ances the intervention was conducted on a practical prin
ciple. The Great Powers, acting on the assumption, which
alone could justify their interference, that Turkey was not
in a condition to restore order herself, proceeded to do this
for her in the most energetic and complete manner. The
consent of Turkey was not considered necessary. The
Sultan was distinctly informed that the interference would
take place whether he approved of it or not. When the
intervention had succeeded in thoroughly restoring order,

Troubles in the East. 217
the representatives of the Great Powers assembled in Con
stantinople unanimously agreed that a Christian Governor
of the Lebanon should be appointed in subordination to
the Sultan, and the Sultan had, of course, no choice but
to agree to this proposition. The French troops evacuated
Syria in June, 1861, and thereby much relieved the minds
of many Englishmen, who had long forgotten all about
the domestic affairs of the Lebanon in their alarm lest the
French Imperial troops, having once set foot in Syria,
should not easily be induced to quit the country again.
This was not merely a popular and ignorant alarm. On
June 26th, 1 86 1, Lord Palmerston wrote to the British Am
bassador at Constantinople, Sir Henry Bulwer, " I am
heartily glad we have got the French out of Syria, and a
hard job it was to do so. The arrangement made for the
future government of the Lebanon will, I dare say, work
sufficiently well to prevent the French from having any
pretext for returning thither. "
In the same letter Lord Palmerston makes a character
istic allusion to the death of the Sultan of Turkey, which
had taken place the very day before: " Abd-ul-Medjid was
a good-hearted and weak-headed man, who was running
two horses to the goal of perdition — his own life and that
of his empire. Luckily for the empire his own life won
the race. " Then Palmerston adds, " If the accounts we
have heard of the new Sultan are true, we may hope that
he will restore Turkey to her proper position among the
Powers of Europe." A day or two after, Lord Wodehouse,
on the part of the Government, expressed to the House of
Lords a confident hope that a new era was about to dawn
upon Turkey. Another new era !
It would hardly be fitting to close the history of this
stormy year without giving a few lines to record the peace
ful end of a life which had, through all its earlier parts,
been one of " strut and strife. " Quietly in his Kensington
home passed away, in the late autumn of this year, Thomas
Cochrane — the gallant Dundonald, the hero of the Basque

218 A History of Our Own Times.
Roads, the volunteer who lent his genius and his courage
to the cause of Brazil, of Chili, and of Greece ; a sort of
Peterborough of the waves, a " Swiss of heaven. " Lord
Dundonald had been the victim of cruel, although not
surely intentional, injustice. He was accused, as every
one knows, of having had a share in the famous stock
jobbing frauds of 1814; he was tried, found guilty, sen
tenced to fine and imprisonment ; expelled from the House
of Commons, dismissed from the service which he had
helped to make yet more illustrious than he found it ; and
deprived of all his public honors. He lived to see his
innocence believed in as well by his enemies as by his
friends. William IV. reinstated him in his naval rank;
and Queen Victoria had the congenial task of completing
the restoration of his well-won honors. It was not, how
ever, until many years after his death that the country
fully acquitted itself of the mere money debt which it
owed to Lord Dundonald and his family. Cochrane was a
Radical in politics, and for some years sat as a colleague
of Sir Francis Burdett in the representation of Westmin
ster. He carried on in the House of Commons many a
bitter argument with Mr. John Wilson Croker, when the
latter was Secretary to the Admiralty. It cannot be
doubted that Cochrane's political views and his strenuous
way of asserting them made him many enemies, and that
some men were glad of the opportunity for revenge which
was given by the accusation got up against him. His was
an impatient spirit, little suited for the discipline of par
liamentary life. His tongue was often bitter, and he was
too apt to assume that a political opponent must be a per
son unworthy of respect. Even in his own service he was
impatient of rebuke. To those under his command he
was always genial and brotherly; but to those above him
he was sometimes wanting in that patient submission which
is an essential quality of those who would learn how to
command with most success. Cochrane's true place was
on his quarter-deck ; his opportunity came in the extreme

Troubles in the East. 219
moment of danger. Then his spirit asserted itself. His
gift was that which wrenches success out of the very jaws
of failure ; he saw his way most clearly when most others
began to despair. During part of his later life he had
been occupying himself with some inventions of his own
— some submarine methods for blowing up ships, some
engines which were, by their terrible destructiveness, to
abridge the struggles and agonies of war. At the time of
the Crimean War he offered to the Government to destroy
Sebastopol in a few hours by some of his plans. The pro
posal was examined by a committee, and was not accepted.
It was his death, on October 30th, i860, which recalled to
the mind of the living generation the hero whose exploits
had divided the admiration of their fathers with those of
Nelson, of Collingwood and of Sydney Smith. A new
style of naval warfare has come up since those days, and
perhaps Cochrane may be regarded as the last of the old
sea-kings.

CHAPTER XLIII.
THE CIVIL WAR IN AMERICA.
Civil war broke out in the United States. The long-
threatened had come to pass. Abraham Lincoln's election
as President, brought about by the party divisions of the
Southerners among themselves, seemed to the South the
beginning of a new order of things, in which they and
their theories of government would no longer predominate.
They felt that the peculiar institution on which they be
lieved their prosperity and their pride to depend was
threatened with extinction, and they preferred secession
to such a result. In truth the two sets of institutions were
incompatible. A system founded on slavery could not be
worked much longer in combination with the political and
social institutions of the Northern States. The struggle
was one for life or death between slavery and the princi
ples of modern society. When things had come to this
pass it is hardly worth stopping to consider what particu
lar event it was which brought about the actual collision.
If the election of Mr. Lincoln had not supplied the occa
sion something else would have furnished it. Those who
are acquainted with the history of the great emancipation
struggle in America know very well that if the South
had not seceded from the Union, some of the Northern
States would sooner or later have done so. Every day in
the Northern States saw an increase in the number of those
who would rather have seceded than give further counte
nance to the system of slavery. It was a peculiarity of
that system that it could not stand still ; it could not rest
content with tolerance and permission to hold what it al
ready possessed. It must have new ground, new fields to

The Civil War in America. 221
occupy. It must get more or die. Most of the Abolition
ists would rather themselves secede than yield any more
to slavery.
We are chiefly concerned in this history with the Ameri
can Civil War in so far as it affected England. It becomes
part of our history by virtue of the Alabama question
and the Treaty of Washington. It is important to intro
duce a short narrative of the events which led to the long
dispute between England and the United States, a dispute
which brought us more than once to the very edge of war,
and which was only settled by the almost unparalleled
concession of the Washington Treaty. The Southern
States, led by South Carolina, seceded. Their delegates
assembled at Montgomery, in Alabama, on February 4th,
1 86 1, to agree upon a constitution. A Southern Confed
eration was formed, with Mr. Jefferson Davis as its Presi
dent. Mr. Davis announced the determination of the South
to maintain its independence by the final arbitrament of
the sword, " if passion or lust of dominion should cloud
the judgment or influence the ambition of the North."
This announcement was made on February 18th, 1861, and
on March 4th following the new President of the United
States entered formally into office. Mr. Lincoln announced
that he had no intention to interfere with the institution
of slavery in any State where it existed ; that the law gave
him no power to do so, even if he had the inclination ; but
that, on the other hand, no State could, upon its own
mere motion, lawfully get out of the Union ; that acts of
violence against the authority of the United States must
be regarded as insurrectionary or revolutionary. There
was still an impression in this country, and to some extent
in America, that an invitation was thus held out by Mr.
Lincoln to the Southern States to enter into peaceful nego
tiations, with a view to a dissolution of partnership. But
if there was any such intention in the mind of Mr. Lin
coln, or any possibility of carrying it into effect, all such
contingencies were put out of the question by the impetu-

222 A History of Our Own Times.
ous action of South Carolina. This State had been the
first to secede, and it was the first to commit an act of
war. The traveller in South Carolina, as he stands on
one of the quays of Charleston and looks toward the At
lantic, sees the sky-line across the harbor broken by a
heavy-looking solid square fort, which soon became famous
in the war. This was Fort Sumter, a place built on an
artificial island, with walls some sixty feet high and eight
to twelve feet thick. It was in the occupation of the
Federal Government, as of course were the defences of all
the harbors of the Union. It is, perhaps, not necessary to
say that while each State made independently its local
laws, the Federal Government and Congress had the
charge of all business of national interest, customs duties,
treaties, the army and navy, and the coast defences. The
Federal Government had, therefore, a garrison in Fort
Sumter, and when there seemed a possibility of civil war,
they were anxious to reinforce it. A vessel which they
sent for the purpose was fired at, from a great island in
the harbor, by the excited Secessionists of South Carolina,
and on April 12th the Confederates, who had erected bat
teries on the mainland for the purpose, began to bombard
the fort. The little garrison had no means of resistance,
and after a harmless bombardment of two days it surren
dered, and Fort Sumter was in the hands of the Seces
sionists of South Carolina. The effect of this piece of
news on the mind of the North has been well and tersely
described by a writer of the time. It was as if while two
persons were still engaged in a peaceful discussion as to
some claim of right, one suddenly brought the debate to
a close by giving the other a box on the ear. There was
an end to all negotiation; thenceforward only strokes
could arbitrate.
Four days after, President Lincoln called for seventy-five
thousand men to volunteer in re-establishing the Federal
authority over the rebel States. President Davis imme
diately announced his intention to issue letters of marque.

The Civil War in America. 22)
President Lincoln declared the Southern ports under
blockade. On May 8th Lord John Russell announced in
the House of Commons that, after consulting the law-offi
cers of the Crown, the Government were of opinion that
the Southern Confederacy must be recognized as a bellig
erent power. On May 13th the neutrality proclamation
was issued by the Government, warning all subjects of
Her Majesty from enlisting, on land or sea, in the service
of Federals or Confederates, supplying munitions of war,
equipping vessels for privateering purposes, engaging in
transport service, or doing any other act calculated to
afford assistance to either belligerent. This was, in fact,
the recognition of the Southern Confederacy as a belliger
ent power ; and this was the first act on the part of Eng
land which gave offence in the North. It was regarded
there as an act of unseemly and even indecent haste, as
evidence of an overstrained anxiety to assist and encour
age the Southern rebels. This interpretation was, to some
extent, borne out by the fact that the English Government
did not wait for the daily expected arrival of Mr. Adams,
the new American minister, to hear what he might have
to say before resolving on issuing the proclamation. Yet
it is certain that the proclamation was made with no un
friendly motive. It was made at the instance of some of
the most faithful friends the Northern cause had on this
side of the Atlantic, conspicuous among whom in recom
mending it was Mr, W. E. Forster. If such a proclama
tion had not been issued, the English Government could
not have undertaken to recognize the blockade of the
Southern ports. If there was no bellum going on, the com
merce of the world could not be expected to recognize
President Lincoln's blockade of Charleston, and Savan
nah, and New Orleans.
International law on the subject is quite clear. A
State cannot blockade its own ports. It can only blockade
the ports of an enemy. It can, indeed, order a closure of
its own ports. But a closure of the ports would not have

224 A History of Our Own Times.
been so effective for the purposes of the Federal Govern
ment as a blockade. It would have been a matter of mu
nicipal law only. An offender against the ordinance of
closure could be only dealt with lawfully in American
waters ; an offender against the decree of blockade could
be pursued into the open sea. In any case Mr. Lincoln's
Government chose the blockade. They had previously an
nounced that the crews of Confederate privateers would
be treated as pirates, but their proclamation of the block
ade compelled them to recede from that declaration. It
was, indeed, a threat that modern humanity and the public
feeling of the whole Northern States would never have
allowed them to carry out, and which Mr. Lincoln him
self, whose temper always leaned to mercy, would never
have thought of putting into effect. The proclamation of
a blockade compelled the Federal Government to treat
privateers as belligerents. It could not but compel for
eign States to admit the belligerent rights of the Southern
Confederation. In England the friends of the North, or some of them
at least, were anxious that the recognition should take
place as quickly as possible, in order that effect should be
given to the President's proclamation. The English Gov
ernment had trouble enough afterward to resist the impor
tunity of those at home and abroad who thought that they
ought to break the blockade in the interests of European
trade. They could have no excuse for recognizing it if
they did not also recognize that there was a war going on
which warranted it. Therefore, whether the recognition
of the Southern Confederates as belligerents was wise or
unwise, timely or premature, it was not done in any spirit
of unfriendliness to the North, or at the spiriting of any
Southern partisans. It was done at the urgency of friends
of the North, and in what was believed to be the interest
of President Lincoln's Government. It seems to us that
in any case the recognition was fully justified. The
proclamation began by setting forth that " hostilities had

The Civil War in America. 225
unhappily begun between the Government of the United
States and certain States styling themselves the Confed
erate States of America. " Before its issue Fort Sumter
had been taken ; Mr. Seward, the new Federal Secretary
of State, had announced, in a despatch, that the insurgents
had "instituted revolution with open, flagrant, deadly
war;" and that the United States had "accepted this civil
war as an inevitable necessity." Many days before the
proclamation was issued the New York Chamber of Com
merce had stated that secession had culminated in war,
and the judges of the higher courts had decided that a
state of war existed. Under such circumstances it seems
hardly possible to contend that England was bound by
any principle of law, international or other, to withhold
her recognition.
With the proclamation of neutrality on the part of her
Majesty's Government began, curiously enough, the long
diplomatic controversy which was carried on between this
country and the United States. The correspondence
spreads over years. It is maintained principally by Earl
Russell, Mr. Adams, American minister in London, and
Mr. Seward, American Secretary of State. The diplo
matic correspondence is conducted, as might be expected,
with unvarying courtesy, and with at least the outward
expression of good temper; but it deepens sometimes in
tone and earnestness, so that any reader can see that it is
reaching a tension not likely to be long kept up. More
than once it becomes evident that the States thus repre
sented are on the verge of a serious quarrel. The impres
sion on the part of the United States evidently is, all
throughout, that England is the concealed and bitter ene
my of the Union, and is seizing every possible opportunity
to do it harm. The first cause of dispute is the recogni
tion of belligerent rights. Then there comes the seizure
of the Confederate envoys in the Trent, which England
could not permit, and which apparently the public of the
United States could not forgive her for not being able to
Vol. II— is

226 A History of Our Own Times.
permit, and thus putting them in the wrong. Far more
serious as a cause of quarrel was the career of the Alabama
and her kindred vessels. The Mexican expedition was a
grievance to the North, connected as it was with the sup
posed inclination of the English Government to follow
the promptings of the French Emperor, and concede to
the Southern Confederates their actual recognition as an
independent State.
It is necessary to endeavor to follow the course of public
opinion in England, and ascertain if possible the meaning
of its various changes. Let it be firmly stated at the out
set, as a matter of justice, that it was not any feeling of
sympathy with slavery which influenced so many English
men in their support of the South. No real evidence ex
ists of any change in public opinion of that kind. It is
true that sometimes a heated champion of the South did,
when driven to bay for argument, contend that, after all,
perhaps, slavery was not quite so bad a thing as people
fancied. The Times did once venture to suggest that the
Scriptures contained no express interdiction of slavery,
but no great stress even there was laid upon such an argu
ment; and it might be doubted whether the opinion of
any rational man, on the slavery question, was changed
in this country by sympathy with the South. On the
contrary, strange as it may seem at first, the dislike of
many Englishmen to the slave system converted them
first into opponents of the North and next into partisans
of the South. An impression got abroad that the North
ern statesmen were not sincere in their reprobation of
slavery, and that they only used the arguments and the
feeling against it as a means of endeavoring to crush the
South. Many Englishmen could not understand — some
of them, perhaps, would not understand — that a Northern
statesman might very well object to breaking up the
Union in order to put down slavery, and might yet, when
an enemy endeavored to destroy the Union, make up his
mind with perfect consistency that the time had come to

The Civil War in America. 227
get rid of the slave system once for all. The statesmen of
the North were not to be classed as Abolitionists. Not
many men in office, or likely just then to be in office, were
professed opponents of slavery. Most of them regarded
it as a very objectionable institution, which the Southern
States had unfortunately inherited, which no one would
think [of introducing then if it had not been introduced
before, but which, nevertheless, it was not worth risking
a national convulsion for the sake of trying to root out at
once. They would have been willing to trust to time and
education, and all the civilizing processes, for the gradual
extinction of the system. Many of them had even known
so many good and kindly Southern slave-owners that they
could not feel a common hatred for all the upholders of
the unfortunate institution. Men like Mr. Lincoln him
self would have gladly kept to the Union, even though,
for the present and for some time to come, Union meant
the toleration of slavery in the South. Two extreme par
ties there were who would not compromise: the planter
faction of the South and the Abolitionists of New Eng
land. The planters were not content that their institution
should be tolerated ; they would have it extended and
made supreme. The Abolitionists took their stand on
principle ; slavery was to them simply a crime, and they
would have nothing to do with the accursed thing. When
at last the inevitable collision came, there was nothing
inconsistent or unreasonable in the position of the North
ern statesman who said, " I am opposed to all sudden
changes in our constituution ; I would not have broken up
the Union on the question of Southern slavery; but now
that the Southerners themselves have chosen to secede,
and to begin a civil war, I say the time has come to get
done with this long-standing cause of quarrel, and to de
cree once for all the extinction of the slave system."
That came, in fact, as the war went on, to be the posi
tion of Mr. Lincoln, and of many other Northern states
men. It was the position which practical statesmen would

228 A History of Our Own Times.
have been likely to take, and might have been expected to
take. Yet it seemed to many Englishmen to argue mere
hypocrisy that a man should be intolerant of slavery when
it led to secession and civil war, if he had been willing to
put up with it for the sake of peace. Again, Englishmen
insisted that the Northern statesmen were not going into
the war with an unmixed motive ; as if any State ever yet
went to war with one single and undiluted purpose. A
good deal was heard about the manner in which the col
ored race were excluded from society in New York and
the Northern States generally. The exclusiveness was
assuredly narrow-minded and bad enough; but it is one
thing to say a colored man shall not sit next us in a theatre
or a church, that he shall not go to school with one's son
or marry one's daughter, and it is quite another thing to
say that we have a right to scourge the colored man to
death, to buy his son for a slave, and sell his daughter at
the auction-block. A citizen of one of the Canadian prov
inces might strongly object to the society of the Red In
dian in any form, and yet might be willing to arm against
a system which would reduce the Red Indian to a condi
tion of slavery. Not a few Englishmen condemned, boldly
and out of hand, the whole principle of coercion in polit
ical affairs. They declared that the North had no right
to put down secession ; that the South had a right to se
cede. Yet the same men had upheld the heaven-appointed
right of England to put down the rebellion in India, and
would have drenched, if need were, Ireland in blood rather
than allow her to withdraw from a partnership into which,
after all, unlike the Southern States, she had never volun
tarily entered.
At first, however, the feeling of Englishmen was almost
unanimously in favor of the North. It was thought that
the Southern States would be allowed quietly to secede,
and most Englishmen did not take a great interest in the
matter, or, when they did, were inclined to regard the
Southerners as a turbulent and troublesome set, who had

The Civil War in America. 229
better be permitted to go off with their peculiar institu
tion and keep it all to themselves. When, however, it
became apparent that the secession must lead to war, then
many of the same Englishmen began to put the blame on
the North for making the question any cause of disturb
ance to the world. There was a kind of impatient feeling
as if we and the world in general had no right to be
troubled with these American quarrels ; as if it was unfair
to us that our cotton trade should be interrupted and we
ourselves put to inconvenience for a dispute about seces
sion. There clearly would have been no war and no dis
turbance if only the North had agreed to let the South go,
and therefore people on this side of the Atlantic set them
selves to find good cause for blaming the statesmen who
did not give in to anything rather than disturb the world
with their obstinacy and their Union. Out of this condi-..
tion of feeling came the resolve to find the North in the
wrong; and out of that resolve came with many the dis
covery that the Northern statesmen were all hypocrites.
Suddenly, as if to decide wavering minds, an event was
reported which made hosts of admirers for the South in
England. The battle of Bull Run took place on July 21st,
1861, and the raw levies of the North were defeated,
thrown into confusion, and in some instances driven into
ignominious flight.
This was not very surprising. The Southern men were
infinitely better fitted for the beginning of a war than
the men of the North. The Southerners had always a
taste for soldiering, and had kept up their State militia
systems with an energy and exactness which the business
men of the North had neither the time nor the inclination
to imitate. The Southern militia systems were splendid
training-schools for arms, and became the nucleus each
of an excellent army when at last the war broke out. The
Northern Government had yielded to a popular cry, and
made a premature movement on Richmond, in Virginia,
now the Southern capital. It was not very surprising,

230 A History of Our Own Times.
therefore, that the South should have won the first battle.
It was not very surprising, either, if some of the hastily
raised Northern regiments of volunteers should have
proved wretched soldiers, and should have yielded to the
sudden influence of panic. But when the news reached
England, it was received by vast numbers with exulta
tion, and with derision at the expense of the "Yankees."
It had been well settled that the Yankees were hypocrites
and low fellows before ; but now it came out that they
were mere runaways and cowards. The English people,
for a brave nation, are surprisingly given to accusing their
neighbors of cowardice. They have a perfect mania for
discovering cowardice all over the world. Napoleon was
a coward to a past generation ; the French were for a long
time cowards ; the Italians were cowards ; at the time of
the Schleswig-Holstein war the Germans were cowards;
the Russians still are cowards. In 1861 the Yankees were
the typical cowards of the earth. A very flame of enthu
siasm leaped up for the brave South, which, though so
small in numbers, had contrived with such spirit and ease
to defeat the Yankees. Something of chivalry there was,
no doubt, in the wish that the weaker side should win;
but that chivalry was strongly dashed with the conviction
that, after all, the South had the better fighters and was
sure to succeed in the end ; that the American Union was
in some mysterious way a sort of danger to England, and
that the sooner it was broken up the better. Mr. Cobden
afterward accused the English Government of having dealt
with the United States as if they were dealing with Brazil
or some such weak and helpless State. It is important,
for the fair understanding and appreciation of the events
that followed, to remember that there was, among all the
advocates of the South in England, a very general con
viction that the North was sure to be defeated and broken
up, and was therefore in no sense a formidable power. It
is well also to bear in mind that there were only two Eu
ropean States which entertained this feeling and allowed

The Civil War in America. 231
it to be everywhere understood. The Southern scheme
found support only in England and in France. In all
other European countries the sympathy of people and
Government alike went with the North. In most places
the sympathy arose from a detestation of slavery. In
Russia, or at least with the Russian Government, it arose
from a dislike of rebellion. But the effect was the same
— that assurances of friendship came from all civilized
countries to the Northern States except from England and
France alone. One of the latest instructions given by
Cavour on his death-bed in this year was that an assur
ance should be sent to the Federal Government that Italy
could give its sympathies to no movement which tended
to the perpetuation of slavery. The Pope, Pius IX., and
Cardinal Antonelli repeatedly expressed their hopes for
the success of the Northern cause. On the other hand,
the Emperor of the French fully believed that the South
ern cause was sure to triumph, and that the Union would
be broken up ; he was even very willing to hasten what
he assumed to be the unavoidable end. He was anxious
that England should join with him in some measures to
facilitate the success of the South by recognizing the Gov
ernment of the Southern Confederation. He got up the
Mexican intervention, of which we shall have occasion
presently to speak, and which assuredly he would never
have attempted if he had not been persuaded that the
Union was on the eve of disruption. He was not without
warning. Many eminent Frenchmen, well acquainted
with America, urged on him the necessity of caution.
His cousin, Prince Napoleon, went over to America and
surveyed the condition of affairs from both points of view,
talked with the leaders on both sides, visited both camps,
and came back impressed with the conviction that the
Southern movement for independence would be a failure.
The Emperor Napoleon, however, held to his own views
and his own schemes. He had afterward reason to curse
the day when he reckoned on the break-up of the Union

232 A History of Our Own Times.
and persuaded himself that there was no occasion to take
account of the Northern strength. Yet in France the
French people in general were on the side of the North.
Only the Emperor and his Government were on that of
the South. In England, on the other hand, the vast ma
jority of what are called the influential classes came to be
heart and soul with the South. The Government was cer
tainly not so, but it can hardly be doubted that the Gov
ernment allowed itself sometimes to be overborne by the
clamor of a West End majority, and gave the North only
too much reason to suspect that its defeats -were welcome
to those in authority in England. Lord Palmerston made
some jesting allusion in a public speech to the unfortunate
rapid movements of the Northern soldiers at Bull Run;
and the jibe was bitterly resented by many Americans.
At first the Northern States counted with absolute con
fidence upon the sympathy of England. The one reproach
Englishmen had always been casting in their face was that
they did not take any steps to put down slavery. Not long
before this time Lord Brougham, at a meeting of a Sta
tistical Congress in London, where the American minister
happened to be present, delivered a sort of lecture at him
on the natural equality of the black with the white. All
England had just been in a state of wild excitement about
the case of the fugitive slave Anderson. An escaped
slave, who had taken refuge in Canada, was demanded
back by the United States Government — at that time, be
it remembered, still a Southern Government — because in
trying to escape he had killed one of those who strove to
stay his flight and capture him. The idea seemed mon
strous to Englishmen that any British or colonial court of
law should give back as a criminal a man who had only
done that which English law would warrant him in doing
— resisted, even to slaying, an attempt to make him a
slave. The fugitive was not given up to the United
States. The colonial courts discharged him from custody
on the ground of some informality in the warrant of de-

The Civil War in America. 233
tention, and he came to England. But the Court of
Queen's Bench here had already issued a writ of habeas
corpus to bring him before it, on the ground that his de
tention in Toronto, even while waiting the decision of the
colonial court, was illegal; and if it had not so happened
that he was released from custody before the writ could
interfere, some very important and difficult questions in
international law might have had to be decided. In this
country public opinion was warmly in favor of the release
of Anderson, and would have gone any length to save him
from being surrendered to his captors. Public opinion
was expressing itself soundly and justly. It would have
amounted to a recognition of slavery if an English court
had consented, on any ground, to hand over as a criminal
a man who merely resisted an attempt to drag him back
into servitude. This was just before the accession of Mr.
Lincoln to office. It was the common expectation of the
Northern States that England would welcome the new
state of things, under which the demand for the return of
a fugitive slave was never likely to insult them. The
English Government had had for years and years inces
sant difficulties with the Government of the United States
while the latter was in the hands of the South. Colored
subjects of the Queen had been seized in Charleston and
carried off into slavery, and it was not possible to get any
redress. For years we had been listening to complaints
from our Governments about the arrogance and insolence
of the American statesmen in office, who were all more or
less under the control of the South. It is easy to under
stand, therefore, how Mr. Lincoln and his friends counted
on the sympathy of the English Government and the
English people, and how surprised they were when they
found English statesmen, journalists, preachers, and Eng
lish society generally deriding their misfortunes and ap
parently wishing for the success of their foes. The sur
prise changed into a feeling of bitter disappointment, and
that gave place to an angry temper, which exaggerated

234 A History of Our Own Times.
every symptom of ill-will, distorted every fact, and saw
wrong even where there only existed an honest purpose to
do right.
It was while this temper was beginning to light up on
both sides of the Atlantic that the unfortunate affair of
the Trent occurred. The Confederate Government had
resolved^ to send envoys to Europe to arrange, if possible,
for the recognition of the Southern States. Mr. W. L.
Yancey, an extreme advocate of the doctrine of State sov
ereignty, had already been in Europe with this purpose ;
and now Mr. Davis was anxious to have a regular envoy
in London and another in Paris. Mr. Slidell, a prominent
Southern lawyer and politician, was to represent the South
at the Court of the Emperor Napoleon, provided he could
obtain recognition there, and Mr. James Murray Mason,
the author of the Fugitive Slave Law, was to be despatched
with a similar mission to the Court of Queen Victoria.
The two Southern envoys escaped together from Charles
ton one dark and wet October night, in a small steamer,
and got to Havana. There they took passage for South
ampton in the English mail steamer Trent. The United
States sloop-of-war San facinto happened to be returning
from the African coast about the same time. Her com
mander, Captain Wilkes, was a somewhat hot-tempered
and indiscreet officer. He was cruising about in quest of
the Confederate privateer Sumter, and while at Havana he
learned that the Confederate agents, with their secretaries,
were on their way to Europe. He determined to intercept
them. Two hundred and fifty miles from Havana he
awaited them in the Bahama Channel. The Trent ap
proached ; he summoned her to heave to, and, his sum
mons being disregarded, fired a shot across her bows. An
armed party was then sent on board, and the Confederate
envoys were seized, with their secretaries, and carried as
prisoners on board the San Jacinto, despite the protest of
the captain of the English steamer, and from under the
protection of the English flag. The prisoners were first

The Civil War in America. 235
carried to New York, and then confined in one of the forts
in Boston harbor.
Now there cannot be the slightest doubt of the illegality
of this proceeding on the part of Captain Wilkes. It was
not long, to be sure, since England had claimed and ex
ercised a supposed right of the same kind. But such a
claim had been given up, and could not, in 186 1, have
been maintained by any civilized State. It was a claim
which the United States Governments had especially ex
erted themselves to abolish. This was the view taken at
once by President Lincoln, whose plain good sense served
him in better stead than their special studies had served
some Professors of International Law. We have it on the
excellent authority of Dr. Draper, in his " History of the
American Civil War," that Mr. Lincoln at once declared
that the act of Captain Wilkes could not be sustained. He
said, " This is the very thing the British captains used to
do. They claimed the right of searching American ships
and carrying men out of them. That was the cause of the
War of 181 2. Now, we cannot abandon our own princi
ples. We shall have to give these men up and apologize
for what we have done." This was, in fact, the course
that the American Government had to take. Mr. Seward
wrote a long letter in answer to Lord Russell's demand
for the surrender of the prisoners, in which he endeavored
to make out that Captain Wilkes had acted in accordance
with English precedents, but stated that he had not had
any authority from the American Government to take
such a course, and that the Government did not consider
him to have acted in accordance with the law of nations.
"It will be seen," Mr. Seward went on to say, "that this
Government cannot deny the justice of the claim presented
to us, in this respect, upon its merits. We are asked to
do to the British nation what we have always insisted all
nations ought to do unto us." He announced, therefore,
that the four prisoners would be "cheerfully liberated."
On January 1st, 1862, the Confederate envoys were given

2}6 A History of Our Own Times.
up on the demand of the British Government and sailed for
Europe. The question, then, it might be thought, was satisfac
torily settled. Unfortunately, however, a great deal of
harm had been done in the mean time. Popular clamor
in the United States had entirely approved of the action
of Captain Wilkes. A mass meeting held in Tammany
Hall or the Cooper Institute in New York, or even in the
less vehement Faneuil Hall of Boston, is not exactly an
assembly qualified to give an authoritative decision on
questions of international law. The Secretary of the
Navy, however, who ought to have known better but did
not, had commended the action of the captain of the San
Jacinto. A vote of thanks had been passed to Captain
Wilkes in the House of Representatives, Washington,
"for his arrest of the traitors Slidell and Mason." Under
these circumstances, it is not surprising if people on this
side of the ocean should have fancied that the United
States were eager to sustain a great act of wrong done
against us and against international law. But on the
other hand, the arrest was so absolutely without justifica
tion that the English Government might well have known
President Lincoln's Cabinet could not sustain it. The
Governments of all the great European States promptly
interposed their good advice, pointing out to Mr. Lincoln
the impossibility of maintaining Captain Wilkes' act.
The foreign envoys in Washington, and the Orleans princes
then in that city, had given the same good advice. Lord
Palmerston's Government acted, however, as if an instant
appeal to arms must be necessary. Lord Russell sent out
to Washington a peremptory demand for the liberation of
the envoys and an apology, and insisted on an answer
within seven days. Troops were at once ordered out to
Canada, and a proclamation was issued forbidding the ex
port of arms and munitions of war. All this was done,
although on the very day that Lord Russell was despatch
ing his peremptory letter to Washington, Mr. Seward was

The Civil War in America. 237
writing to London to assure her Majesty's Government
that the arrest had been made without any authority from
the United States Government, and that the President and
his advisers were then considering the proper course to
take. The fact that Mr. Seward's letter had been received
was, for some reason or other, not made publicly known
in England at the time, and the English people were left
to believe that the action of Captain Wilkes either was the
action of the American Government or had that Govern
ment's approval. Public feeling therefore raged and
raved a good deal on both sides. American statesmen
believed that the English Government was making a Wan
ton and offensive display of a force which they had good
reason to know would never be needed. The English
public was left under the impression that the American
statesmen were only yielding to the display of force. The
release of the prisoners did not seem to our people to come
with a good grace. It did not seem to the American
people to have been asked or accepted with a good grace.
Mr. Seward might as well, perhaps, when he had made
up his mind to restore the prisoners, have spared himself
the trouble of what the Scotch would call a long "haver,"
to show that if he acted as England had done he should
not have given them up at all. But Mr. Seward always
was a terribly eloquent despatch writer, and he could not,
we may suppose, persuade himself to forego the oppor
tunity of issuing a dissertation. On the other hand, Lord
Palmerston's demeanor and language were what he would
probably himself have called, in homely language, " bump
tious" if some one else had been in question. Lord Palm
erston could not deny himself the pleasure of a burst of
cheap popularity, and of seeming to flourish the flag of
England in the face of presumptuous foes. The episode
was singularly unfortunate in its effect upon the temper
of the majority in England and America. From that
moment there was a formidable party in England who de
tested the North, and a formidable party in the North who
detested England.

CHAPTER XLIV.
THE CRUISE OF THE "ALABAMA."
The cause of. peace between nations lost a good friend
at the close of 1861. The Prince Consort died. It is be
lieved that the latest advice he gave on public affairs had
reference to the dispute between England and the United
States about the seizure of the Confederate envoys, and
that the advice recommended calmness and forbearance
on the part of the English Government. It is not to be
supposed, of course, that the Prince Consort even thought
of suggesting that the English Government should acqui
esce in what had been done, or allow the wrong to remain
unredressed. He knew, as every reasonable man might
have known, that the error of the American sailor was
unjustifiable, and would have to be atoned for; but he
probably assumed that for that very reason the atonement
might be awaited without excitement, and believed that
it would neither be politic nor generous to make a show
of compelling by force what must needs be conceded to
justice. The death of the Prince Consort, lamentable in
every way, was especially to be deplored at a time when
influential counsels tending toward forbearance and peace
were much needed in England. But it may be said, with
literal truth, that when the news of the Prince's death was
made known, its possible effect on the public affairs of
England was forgotten or unthought of in the regret for
the personal loss. Outside the precincts of Windsor Castle
itself the event was wholly unexpected. Perhaps even
within the precincts of the Castle there was little expecta
tion up to the last that such a calamity was so near. The
public had only learned a few days before that the Prince

THE LATE PRINCE CONSORT

The Cruise of the ' 'Alabama. ' ' 239
was unwell. On December 8th the Court Circular men
tioned that he was confined to his room by a feverish cold.
Then it was announced that he was " suffering from fever,
unattended by unfavorable symptoms, but likely, from its
symptoms, to continue for some time." This latter an
nouncement appeared in the form of a bulletin on Wed
nesday, December 1 ith. About the midnight of Saturday,
the 14th, there was some sensation and surprise created
throughout London by the tolling of the great bell of St.
Paul's. Not many people even suspected the import of
the unusual sound. It signified the death of the Prince
Consort. He died at ten minutes before eleven that Sat
urday night, in the presence of the Queen, the Prince of
Wales, and the Princesses Alice and Helena. The fever
had become fierce and wasting on Friday, and from that
time it was only a descent to death. Congestion of the
lungs set in, the consequence of exhaustion; the Prince
fell into utter weakness, and died conscious but without
pain. He knew the Queen to the last. His latest look
was turned to her.
The Prince Consort was little more than forty-two years
of age when he died. He had always seemed to be in
good although not perhaps robust health ; and he had led
a singularly temperate life. No one in the kingdom
seemed less likely to be prematurely cut off ; and his death
came on the whole country with the shock of an utter sur
prise. The regret was universal ; and the deepest regret
was for the wife he had loved so dearly, and whom he was
condemned so soon to leave behind. Every testimony has
spoken to the singularly tender and sweet affection of the
loving home the Queen and Prince had made for them
selves. A domestic happiness rare even among the ob
scurest was given to them. It is one of the necessities of
royal position that marriage should be seldom the union
of hearts. The choice is limited by considerations which
do not affect people in private life. The convenience of
States has to be taken into account ; the possible likings

240 A History of Our Own Times.
and dislikings of peoples whom perhaps the bride and
bridegroom have never seen, and are never destined to
see. A marriage among princes is, in nine cases out of
ten, a marriage of convenience only. Seldom indeed is
it made, as that of the Queen was, wholly out of love.
Seldom is it even in love-matches when the instincts of love
are not deceived and the affection grows stronger with the
days. Every one knew that this had been the strange
good fortune of the Queen of England. There was some
thing poetic, romantic in the sympathy with which so
many faithful and loving hearts turned to her in her hour
of unspeakable distress.
We have already endeavored to do justice to the charac
ter of the Prince Consort ; to show what was his intellec
tual constitution, what were its strong points, and what
its weaknesses and limitations. It is not necessary to go
over that task again. It will be enough to say that the
country, which had not understood him at first, was begin
ning more and more to recognize his genuine worth.
Even those who are still far from believing that his influ
ence in politics always worked with good result, are ready
to admit that his influence, socially and morally, was that
which must always come from the example of a pure and
noble life. Of him it might fairly have been said in the
classic words that from his mouth " nihil unquam insolens
neque gloriosum exiit."
Perhaps, as we have been considering the influence of
the Prince Consort on the councils of England during the
earlier part of the American Civil War, it will be appro
priate to quote some sentences in which the eminent
American historian already mentioned, Dr. Draper, speaks
of him. "One illustrious man there was in England,"
Dr. Draper says, " who saw that the great interests of the
future would be better subserved by a sincere friendship
with America than by the transitory alliances of Europe.
He recognized the bonds of race. His prudent counsels
strengthened the determination of the sovereign that the

The Cruise of the "Alabama." 241
Trent controversy should have an honorable and peaceful
solution. Had the desires of these, the most exalted per
sonages in the realm, been more completely fulfilled, the
administration of Lord Palmerston would not have cast a
disastrous shadow on the future of the Anglo-Saxon race."
Dr. Draper may be thought unjust to Lord Palmerston;
he certainly is only just to the Prince Consort.
After the dispute about the Trent, the feeling between
England and the United States became one of distrust,
and almost of hostility. We cannot help thinking that
the manner in which our Government managed the dis
pute, the superfluous display of force, like a pistol thrust
at the head of a disputant whom mere argument is already
bringing to reason, had a great deal to do with the growth
of this bitter feeling. The controversy about the Trent
was hardly over when Lord Russell and Mr. Adams were
engaged in the more prolonged and far more serious con
troversy about the Confederate privateers.
The adventures of the Confederate cruisers began with
the escape of a small schooner, the Savannah, from Charles
ton, in June, 1861. It scoured the seas for a while as a
privateer, and did some damage to the shipping of the
Northern States. The Sumter had a more memorable
career. She was under the command of Captain Semmes,
who afterward became famous, and during her time she
did some little damage. The Nashville and the Petrel were
also well known for a while. These were, however, but
small vessels, and each had only a short run of it. The
first privateer which became really formidable to the ship
ping of the North was a vessel called in her earlier his
tory the Oreto, but afterward better known as the Florida.
Within three months she had captured fifteen vessels.
Thirteen of these she burned, and the other two were con
verted into cruisers by the Confederate Government. The
Florida was built in Birkenhead, nominally for the use of
the Italian Government. She got out of the Mersey with
out detention or difficulty, although the American Minis-
Vol. II.— 16

242 A History of Our Own Times.
ter had warned our Government of her real purpose. From
that time Great Britain became what an American writer
calls, without any exaggeration, "the naval base of the
Confederacy." As fast as shipbuilders could work, they
were preparing in British shipping yards a privateer navy
for the Confederate Government. Mr. Gladstone said, in
a speech which was the subject of much comment, that
Jefferson Davis had made a navy. The statement was at
all events not literally correct. The English shipbuilders
made the navy. Mr. Davis only ordered it and paid for
it. Only seven Confederate privateers were really for
midable to the United States, and of these five were built
in British dock-yards. We are not including in the list
any of the actual war-vessels — the rams and iron-clads —
that British energy was preparing for the Confederate
Government. We are now speaking merely of the pri
vateers. Of these privateers the most famous by far was the Ala
bama. It was the fortune of this vessel to be the occasion
of the establishment of a new rule in the law of nations.
It had nearly been her fortune to bring England and the
United States into war. The Alabama was built expressly
for the Confederate service in one of the dock-yards of the
Mersey. She was built by the house of Laird, a firm of
the greatest reputation in the shipbuilding trade, and
whose former head was the representative of Birkenhead
in the House of Commons. While in process of construc
tion she was called the " 290 ;" and it was not until she had
put to sea and hoisted the Confederate flag, and Captain
Semmes, formerly commander of the Sumter, had appeared
on her deck in full Confederate uniform, that she took the
name of the Alabama. During her career the Alabama cap
tured nearly seventy Northern vessels. Her plan was al
ways the same. She hoisted the British flag, and thus
decoyed her intended victim within her reach ; then she
displayed the Confederate colors and captured her prize.
Unless when there was some particular motive for making

The Cruise of the " Alabama. ' ' 243
use of the captured vessels, they were burned. Sometimes
the blazing wreck became the means of decoying a new
victim. Some American captain saw far off in the night
the flames of a burning vessel reddening the sea. He
steered to her aid; and when he came near enough, the
Alabama, which was yet in the same waters and had
watched his coming, fired her shot across his bows, hung
out her flag, and made him her prisoner. One American
captain bitterly complained that the fire, which seen across
the waves at any other time became a summons to every
seaman to hasten to the rescue, must thenceforward be a
signal to him to hold his course and keep away from the
blazing ship. The Alabama and her captain were, of
course, much glorified in this country. Captain Semmes
was eulogized as if his exploits had been those of another
Cochrane or Kanaris. But the Alabama did not do much
fighting; she preyed on merchant vessels that could not
fight. She attacked where instant surrender must be the
reply to her summons. Only twice, so far as we know,
did she engage in a fight. The first time was with the
Hatteras, a small blockading ship, whose broadside was so
unequal to that of the Alabama that she was sunk in a
quarter of an hour. The second time was with the United
States ship of war Kearsarge, whose size and armaments
were about equal to her own. The fight took place off
the French shore, near Cherbourg, and the career of the
Alabama was finished in an hour. The Confederate rover
was utterly shattered, and went down. Captain Semmes
was saved by an English steam-yacht, and brought to
England to be made a hero for a while, and then forgotten.
The cruise of the Alabama had lasted nearly two years.
During this time she had contrived to drive American
commerce from the seas. Her later cruising-days were
unprofitable ; for American owners found it necessary to
keep their vessels in port.
All this, however, it will be said, was but the fortune of
war. America had not abolished privateering ; and if the

244 A History of Our Own Times.
Northern States suffered from so clever and daring a pri
vateer as Captain Semmes, it was of little use their com
plaining of it. If they could not catch and capture the
Alabama, that was their misfortune or their fault. What
the United States Government did complain of was some
thing very different. They complained that the Alabama
was practically an English vessel. She was built by Eng
lish builders in an English dock-yard; she was manned,
for the most part, by an English crew; her guns were
English; her gunners were English; many of the latter
belonged to the Royal Naval Reserve, and were actually
receiving pay from the English Government ; she sailed
under the English flag, was welcomed in English harbors,
and never was in, or even saw, a Confederate port. As
Mr. Forster put it very clearly and tersely, she was built
by British shipbuilders and manned by a British crew;
she drew prizes to destruction under a British flag, and was
paid for by money borrowed from British capitalists.
Mr. Adams called the attention of the Government in
good time to the fact that the Alabama was in course of
construction in the dockyard of Messrs. Laird, and that
she was intended for the Confederate Government. Lord
Russell asked for proofs. Mr. Adams forwarded what he
considered proof enough to make out a case for the deten
tion of the vessel pending further inquiry. The opinion
of an eminent English lawyer, now Sir Robert Collier,
was also sent to Lord Russell by Mr. Adams. This opin
ion declared that the vessel ought to be detained by the
Collector of Customs at Liverpool ; and added that it ap
peared difficult to make out a stronger case of infringe
ment of the Foreign Enlistment Act, " which, if not en
forced on this occasion, is little better than a dead letter.''
The English Government still asked for proofs. It did
not seem to have occurred to our authorities that if they
set a little inquiry on foot themselves they might be able
to conduct it much more efficiently than a stranger like
Mr. Adams could do. What Mr. Adams asked for was

The Cruise of the " 'Alabama." 245
inquiry with a view to detention. He did not ask for the
infringement of any domestic law of England; he only
asked for such steps to be taken as would allow the law of
England to be put in force. The argument of the corre
spondence on our side seemed to be that a stranger had
no right to the protection of our laws until he could make
out a case which would amount to the legal conviction of
those against whom he asked to be protected. We cannot
better summarize the correspondence than by saying it
was as if Mr. Adams had forwarded affidavits alleging that
there was a conspiracy to murder him, had named the
persons against whom he made the charge, and asked for
inquiry and protection from the Government; and the
Government had answered that until he could make out a
case for the actual conviction of the accused, it was no
part of the business of our police to interfere.
Let us dispose of one simple question of fact. There
never was the slightest doubt in the mind of any one
about the business for which the vessel in the Birkenhead
dock -yard was destined. There was no attempt at con
cealment in the matter. Newspaper paragraphs described
the gradual construction of the Confederate cruiser, as if
it were a British vessel of war that Messrs. Laird had in
hand. There never was any question about her destina
tion. Openly and in the face of day she was built by the
Laird firm for the Confederate service. The Lairds built
her as they would have built any vessel for any one who
ordered it and could pay for it. We see no particular rea
son for blaming them. They certainly made no mystery
of the matter then or after. Whatever technical difficul
ties might have intervened, it is clear that no real doubt
on the mind of the Government had anything to do with
the delays that took place. At last Lord Russell asked for
the opinion of the Queen's Advocate. Time was press
ing; the cruiser was nearly ready for sea. Everything
seemed to be against us. The Queen's Advocate happened
to be sick at the moment, and there was another delay.

246 A History of Our Own Times.
At last he gave his opinion that the vessel ought to be
detained. The opinion came just too late. The Alabama
had got to sea ; her cruise of nearly two years began. She
went upon her destroying course with the cheers of Eng
lish sympathizers and the rapturous tirades of English
newspapers glorifying her. Every misfortune that befell
an American merchantman was received in this country
with a roar of delight. When Mr. Bright brought on the
question in the House of Commons, Mr. Laird declared
that he would rather be known as the builder of a dozen
Alabamas, than be a man who, like Mr. Bright, had set
class against class, and the majority of the House ap
plauded him to the echo. Lord Palmerston peremptorily
declared that in this country we were not in the habit of
altering our laws to please a foreign State; a declaration
which came with becoming effect from the author of the
abortive Conspiracy Bill, got up to propitiate the Emperor
of the French.
The building of vessels for the Confederates began to
go on with more boldness than ever. Two iron rams of
the most formidable kind were built and about to be
launched in 1863 for the purpose of forcibly opening the
Southern ports and destroying the blockading vessels.
Mr. Adams kept urging on Lord Russell, and for a long
time in vain, that something must be done to stop their
departure. Lord Russell at first thought the British Gov
ernment could not interfere in any way. Mr. Adams
pressed and protested, and at length was informed that
the matter was " now under the serious consideration of
her Majesty's Government." At last, on September 5th,
Mr. Adams wrote to tell Lord Russell that one of the iron
clad vessels was on the point of departure from this king
dom on its hostile errand against the United States ; and
added, " it would be superfluous in me to point out to your
lordship that this is war. " On September 8th Mr. Adams
received the following : " Lord Russell presents his com
pliments to Mr. Adams, and has the honor to inform him

The Cruise of the "Alabama." 247
that instructions have been issued which will prevent the
departure of the two iron-clad vessels from Liverpool."
Throughout the whole of the correspondence Lord Rus
sell took up one position. He insisted that the Govern
ment could only act upon the domestic laws of England,
and were not bound to make any alteration in these laws
to please a foreign State. Nothing can be more self-evi
dent than the fact that the Government cannot infringe
the laws of the country. During this controversy the Law
Courts decided sometimes — in the case of the Alexandra,
for example — that there was not evidence enough to justify
the seizure or the stoppage of a vessel. But it has to be
remembered that, in regard to the Alabama, what Mr.
Adams asked was not the breaking of English law, but the
holding, as it were, of the vessel to bail until the law
could be ascertained. There is, however, a much wider
question than this in his views, with regard to which Lord
Russell seems to have been entirely wrong. The laws of
a country are made, first of all, to suit its own people.
The people have a right to keep their laws unchanged as
long as they please. They are not bound to alter them to
suit the pleasure or the convenience of any other nation.
All that is clear. But it is equally clear, on the other
hand, that they cannot get out of their responsibility to
another State by merely saying, " We have such and such
laws, and we do not choose to alter them." If the laws
permit harm to be done to a foreign State, the people
maintaining the laws must either make compensation to
the foreign State, or they must meet her in war. It is
absurd to suppose that our neighbors are to submit to in
jury on our part merely because our laws do not give us
the means of preventing the injury. Mr. Adams put it in
the fairest manner to Lord Russell. "This is war." In
other words, the American Government might have said :
" You can allow this sort of thing to go on if you like ;
but we must point out to you that it is simply war, and
nothing else. You are making war or allowing war to be

248 A History of Our Own Times.
made on us ; you cannot shelter yourselves under an imag
inary neutrality. If you choose to keep your laws as they
are, very good; but you must take the consequences."
The extraordinary mistake which Lord Palmerston and
Lord Russell made was the assumption that the existence
of certain domestic regulations of ours could be a sufficient
answer to claims made upon us by our neighbors. Sup
pose we had no Foreign Enlistment Act? Suppose the
Confederates were allowed openly to raise armies and
equip navies in England, and to fly their flag here and go
forth to make war on the United States with the permis
sion of our Government? Would it be enough to say to
the United States, " We are very sorry indeed ; we do not
like to see people making war on you from our territory ;
but, unluckily, we have no law to prevent it; and you
must, therefore, only put up with it"? The dullest Eng
lish sympathizer with the cause of the Southern Confed
eration would not be taken in by a plea like this, or expect
the United States to admit it. Yet the case set up by
Lord Palmerston and Lord Russell was really not different
in kind. It merely pleaded that, although our ports were
made the basis, and indeed the only basis, of naval opera
tions against the United States, we could not help it ; our
laws were not so framed as to give our neighbors any pro
tection. The obvious retort on America's side was, " Then
we must protect ourselves; we cannot admit that the con
dition of your municipal laws entitles you to become with
impunity a nuisance and pest to your neighbors."
The position which Lord Palmerston and Lord Russell
took up was wisely and properly abandoned by Lord Stan
ley, now Lord Derby, when the Conservatives came into
office. It was then frankly admitted that every State is
responsible for the manner in which the working of its
municipal laws may affect the interests of its neighbors.
We need not, however, anticipate just now a controversy
and a settlement yet to come. Lord Russell, it may be
remarked, was mistaken in another part of his case. He

The Cruise of the "Alabama." 249
was able to show that in some way or other the authorities
of the United States had failed to prevent the enlistment
of British subjects in this country for the armies of the
Union. But his mistake was in supposing that this was
a practical answer to the complaints made by Mr. Adams.
There is some difference between a small grievance and a
very great grievance. The grievance to us in the secret
enlistment of a few British subjects for the Northern ser
vice was not very serious. The authorities of the United
States acknowledged that it was improper, and promised
to use all diligence to put a stop to it ; and of course, if
they had failed to do so, it would be entirely for England
to consider what steps she ought to take to obtain a redress
of any wrong done to her. But in a practical controversy
there was no comparison between the grievances. It is
not a reasonable reply to a neighbor who complains that
our fierce dog has broken into his house and bitten his
children, if we say that his cat has stolen into our kitchen
and eaten our cream. It is strange, too, to observe that
Lord Russell and the Chief Baron and other authorities
constantly dwell on the fact that a neutral may sell arms
to either belligerent, and ask triumphantly, if arms, why
not an armed vessel? If shot and shell, why not a cruiser
or a ram? There is, at all events, one plain reason which
would be enough, even if there were none other. It is not
possible to prove that the shot and shell have done any
damage ; it is possible to prove that the cruiser has. We
cannot follow the rifle or the bullet to its destination ; we
can follow the Alabama. It would be idle to try to prove
that a certain lot of gunpowder was discharged against a
Northern regiment ; but it is easy to prove that the Ala
bama burned American vessels and confiscated American
cargoes. The bitterness of the feeling in America was
not mitigated, nor the sense of English unfairness made
less keen, by the production during the controversy of a
despatch sent from England to Washington at the opening
of the Crimean War, in which the English Government

250 A History of Our Own Times.
expressed a confident hope that the authorities of the
United States would give orders that no privateer under
Russian colors should be equipped or victualed, or ad
mitted with its prizes into any of the ports of the United
States. The controversy was carried on for some years. It be
came mixed up with disputes about Confederate raids
from Canada into the States, and later on about Fenian
raids from the States into Canada, and questions of fishery
right and various other matters of discussion; but the
principal subject of dispute, the only one of real gravity,
was that which concerned the cruise of the Alabama. Lord
Russell at length declined peremptorily to admit that the
English Government were in any way responsible for what
had been done by the Confederate cruisers, or that Eng
land was called on to alter her domestic law to please her
neighbors. Mr. Adams therefore dropped the matter for
the time, intimating, however, that it was only put aside for
the time. The United States Government had their hands
full just then, and in any case could afford to wait. The
question would keep. The British Government were glad
to be relieved from the discussion, and from the necessity
of arguing the various points with Mr. Adams, and were
under the pleasing impression that they had heard the last
of it.
Surveying the diplomatic controversy at this distance of
time, one cannot but think that Mr. Adams comes best
out of it. No minister representing the interests of his
State in a foreign capital could have had a more trying
position to sustain and a more difficult part to play. Mr.
Adams knew that the tone of the society in which he had
to move was hostile to his Government and to his cause.
It was difficult for him to remain always patient, and yet
to show that the American Government could not be ex
pected to endure everything. It was not easy to retain
always the calm courtesy which his place demanded, and
which was, indeed, an inheritance in his family of stately

The Cruise of the "Alabama." 251
public men. He was embarrassed sometimes by the offi
cious efforts, the volunteer intervention of some of his
own countrymen, who, knowing nothing of English polit
ical life and English social ways, fancied they were mak
ing a favorable impression on public opinion here by the
tactics of a fall campaign at home. Moreover, it is plain
that for a long time Mr. Adams was in much doubt as to
the capacity of the military leaders of the North ; and he
well knew that nothing but military success could rescue
the Union from the diplomatic conspiracies which were
going on in Europe for the promotion of the Southern
cause. Mr. Adams appears to have borne himself all
through with judgment, temper, and dignity. Lord Rus
sell does not show to so much advantage. He is some
times petulant; he is too often inclined to answer Mr.
Adams' grave and momentous remonstrances with retorts
founded on allegations against the North which, even if
well-founded, were of slight comparative importance.
When Mr. Adams complains that the Alabama is sweeping
American commerce from the seas, Lord Russell too often
replies with some complaint about the enlistment of Brit
ish subjects for the service of the Union; as if the Con
federates making war on the United States from English
ports, with English ships and crews, were no graver matter
of complaint than the story, true or false, of some Ameri
can agent having enlisted Tim Doolan and Sandy Mac-
snish to fight for the North. Mr. Seward does not come
out of the correspondence well. There is a curious eva
siveness in his frequent floods of eloquence which contrasts
unpleasantly with Mr. Adams' straightforward and manly
style. Mr. Seward writes as if he were under the impres
sion that he could palaver Mr. Adams and Lord Russell
and the British public into not believing the evidence of
their senses. At the gloomiest hour of the fortunes of the
North, Mr. Adams faces the facts, and confident of the
ultimate future, makes no pretence at ignoring the seri
ousness of the present danger. Mr. Seward seems to think

252 A History of Our Own Times.
that public attention can be cheated away from a recogni
tion of realities by a display of inappropriate rhetorical
fireworks. At a moment when the prospect of the North
seemed especially gloomy, and when it was apparent to
every human creature that its military affairs had long
been in hopelessly bad hands, Mr. Seward writes to inform
Mr. Adams that " Our assault upon Richmond is for the
moment suspended,"' and is good enough to add that "no
great and striking movements or achievements are occur
ring, and the Government is rather preparing its energies
for renewed operations than continuing to surprise the
world by new and brilliant victories. " The Northern com
manders had, indeed, for some time been surprising the
world, but not at all by brilliant victories; and the sug
gestion that the Northern Government might go on win
ning perpetual victories if they only wished it, but that
they preferred for the present not to dazzle the world too
much with their success, must have fallen rather chillingly
on Mr. Adams' ear. Mr. Adams knew only too well that
the North must win victories soon, or they might find
themselves confronted with a European confederation
against them. The Emperor Napoleon was working hard
to get England to join with him in recognizing the South.
Mr. Roebuck had at one time a motion in the House of
Commons calling on the English Government to make up
their minds to the recognition; and Mr. Adams had ex
plained again and again that such a step would mean war
with the Northern States. Mr. Adams was satisfied that
the fate of Mr. Roebuck's motion would depend on the
military events of a few days. He was right. The mo
tion was never pressed to a division ; for during its prog
ress there came at one moment the news that General
Grant had taken Vicksburg, on the Mississippi, and that
General Meade had defeated General Lee at Gettysburg,
and put an end to all thought of a Southern invasion.
This news was at first received with resolute incredulity
in London by the advocates and partisans of the South.

The Cruise of the "Alabama." 253
In some of the clubs there was positive indignation that
such things should even be reported. The outburst of
wrath was natural. That was the turning-point of the
war, although not many saw it even then. The South
never had a chance after that hour. There was no more
said in this country about the recognition of the Southern
Confederation, and the Emperor of the French was thence
forward free to follow out his plans as far as he could, and
alone. The Emperor Napoleon, however, was for the present
confident enough. He was under the impression that he
had heard the last of the protests against his Mexican ex
pedition. This expedition was in the beginning a joint
undertaking of England, France and Spain. Its professed
object, as set forth in a convention signed in London on
October 31st, 1861, was "to demand from the Mexican
authorities more efficacious protection for the persons and
properties of their (the Allied Sovereigns') subjects, as
well as a fulfilment of the obligations contracted toward
their Majesties by the Republic of Mexico." Mexico had
been for a long time in a very disorganized state. The
Constitutional Government of Benito Juarez had come into
power ; but the reactionary party were still struggling to
regain the upper hand, and a sort of guerilla warfare was
actually going on. The Government of Juarez, whatever
its defects, gave promise of being stronger and better than
that of its predecessors. It was, however, burdened with
responsibility for the debts incurred and the crimes com
mitted by its predecessors; and it entered into an agree
ment with several foreign States, England among the rest,
to make over a certain proportion of the Customs revenues
to meet the claims of foreign creditors. This arrangement
was not kept, and timely satisfaction was not given for
wrongs committed against foreign subjects — wrongs for the
most part, if not altogether, done by the Government
which Juarez had expelled from power, but for which of
course he, as the successor to power, was properly responsi-

254 A History of Our Own Times.
ble. Lord Russell, who had acted with great forbearance
toward Mexico up to this time, now agreed to co-operate
with France and Spain in exacting reparation from Juarez.
But he defined clearly the extent to which the interven
tion of England would go. England would join in an
expedition for the purpose, if necessary, of seizing on
Mexican custom-houses, and thus making good the foreign
claims. But she would not go a step further. She would
have nothing to do with upsetting the Government of
Mexico, or imposing any European system on the Mexi
can people. Accordingly, the Second Article of the Con
vention pledged the contracting parties not to seek for
themselves any acquisition of territory or any special ad
vantage, and not to exercise in the internal affairs of
Mexico any influence of a nature to prejudice the right of
the Mexican nation to choose and to constitute freely the
form of its government. The Emperor of the French,
however, had already made up his mind that he would
establish a sort of feudatory monarchy in Mexico. He
had long had various schemes and ambitions floating in
his mind concerning those parts of America on the shores
of the Gulf of Mexico which were once the possessions of
France. In his dreamy, fantastic way, he had visions of
restoring French influence and authority somewhere along
the shores of the Gulf; and the outbreak of the Southern
rebellion appeared to give him just the opportunity that
he desired. At the time when the Convention was signed,
the affairs of the Federal States seemed all but hopeless,
and for a long time after they gave no gleam of hope for
the restoration of the Union. Louis Napoleon was con
vinced then, and for long after, that the Southern States
would succeed in establishing their independence. He
seems to have been of Mr. Roebuck's way of thinking,
that " the only fear we ought to have is lest the indepen
dence of the South should be established without us."
He was glad, therefore, of the chance afforded him by the
Mexican Convention ; and at the very time when he signed

The Cruise of the "Alabama." 255
the Convention with the pledge contained in its second arti
cle, he had already been making arrangements to found a
monarchy in Mexico. If he could have ventured to set up
a monarchy with a French Prince at its head, he would
probably have done so ; but this would have been too bold
a venture. He, therefore, persuaded the Archduke Maxi
milian, brother of the Emperor of Austria, to accept the
crown of the monarchy he proposed to set up in Mexico.
The Archduke was a man of pure and noble character, but
evidently wanting in strength of mind, and he agreed,
after some hesitation, to accept the offer.
Meanwhile the joint expedition sailed. We sent only a
line-of-battle ship, two frigates, and 700 marines. France
sent, in the first instance, about 2,500 men, whom she
largely reinforced immediately after. Spain had about
6,000 men, under the command of the late Marshal Prim.
The Allies soon began to find that their purposes were in
compatible. There was much suspicion about the designs
of France, although the French statesmen were every day
repudiating in stronger and stronger terms the intentions
imputed to them, and which soon proved to be the reso
lute purposes of the Emperor of the French. Some of the
claims set up by France disgusted the other Allies. The
Jecker claims were for a long time after as familiar a sub
ject of ridicule as our own Pacifico claims had been. A
Swiss house of Jecker & Co. had lent the former Govern
ment of Mexico $750,000, and got bonds from that Gov
ernment, which was on its very last legs, for $15,000,000.
The Government was immediately afterward upset, and
Juarez came into power. M. Jecker modestly put in his
claim for $15,000,000. Juarez refused to comply with the
demand. He offered to pay the $750,000 lent and five per
cent, interest, but he declined to pay exactly twenty times
the amount of the sum advanced. M. Jecker had by this
time become somehow a subject of France, and the French
Government took up his claim. It was clear that the Em
peror of the French had resolved that there should be

256 A History of Our Own Times.
war. At last the designs of the French Government be
came evident to the English and Spanish Plenipotentiaries,
and England and Spain withdrew from the Convention.
England certainly ought never to have entered into it.
But as she had been drawn in, the best thing then was for
her to get out of it as decently and as quickly as she could.
Nothing in the enterprise became her like to the leaving
of it.
The Emperor of the French " walked his own wild road,
whither that led him." He overran a certain portion of
Mexico with his troops. He captured Puebla after a long
and desperate resistance; he occupied the capital, and he
set up the Mexican Empire, with Maximilian as Em
peror. French troops remained to protect the new Em
pire. Against all this the United States Government pro
tested from time to time. They disclaimed any intention
to prevent the Mexican people from establishing an empire
if they thought fit, but they pointed out that grave incon
veniences must arise if a foreign Power like France per
sisted in occupying with her troops any part of the American
continent. The Monroe doctrine, which, by the way, was
the invention of George Canning and not of President
Monroe, does not forbid the establishing of a monarchy
on the American continent, but only the intervention of a
European Power to set up such a system, or any system
opposed to liberty there. However, the Emperor Napo
leon cared nothing just then about the Monroe doctrine,
complacently satisfied that the United States were going
to pieces, and that the Southern Confederacy would be his
friend and ally. He received the protests of the Ameri
can government with unveiled indifference. At last the
tide in American affairs turned. The Confederacy crum
bled away ; Richmond was taken ; Lee surrendered ; Jeffer
son Davis was a prisoner. Then the United States returned
to the Mexican Question, and the American Government
informed Louis Napoleon that it would be inconvenient,
gravely inconvenient, if he were not to withdraw his sol-

The Cruise of the "Alabama." 257
diers from Mexico. A significant movement of Ameri
can troops under a renowned general, then flushed with
success, was made in the direction of the Mexican frontier.
There was nothing for Louis Napoleon but withdraw.
Up to the last he had been rocked in the vainest hopes.
Long after the end had become patent to every other eye,
he assured an English member of Parliament that he looked
upon the Mexican Empire as the greatest creation of his
reign. The Mexican Empire lasted two months and a week
after the last of the French troops had been withdrawn.
Maximilian endeavored to raise an army of his own, and
to defend himself against the daily increasing strength of
Juarez. He showed all the courage which might have
been expected from his race, and from his own previous
history. But in an evil hour for himself, and yielding, it
is stated, to the persuasion of a French officer, he had is
sued a decree that all who resisted his authority in arms
should be shot. By virtue of this monstrous ordinance,
Mexican officersof the regular army, taken prisoners while
resisting, as they were bound to do, the invasion of a Eu
ropean prince, were shot like brigands. The Mexican gen
eral, Ortega, was one of those thus shamefully done to
death. When Juarez conquered, and Maximilian, in his
turn, was made a prisoner, he was tried by court martial,
condemned, and shot. His death created a profound sen
sation in Europe. He had in all his previous career won
respect everywhere, and even in the Mexican scheme he
was universally regarded as a noble victim who had been
deluded to his doom. The conduct of Juarez in thus hav
ing him put to death raised a cry of horror from all Eu
rope; but it must be allowed that, by the fatal decree
which he had issued, the unfortunate Maximilian had left
himself liable to a stern retaliation. There was cold truth
in the remark made at that time that, if he had been only
General and not Archduke Maximilian, his fate would not
have aroused so much surprise or anger.
Vol. II.— 17

258 A History of Our Own Times.
The French Empire never recovered the shock of this
Mexican failure. It was chiefly in the hope of regaining
his lost prestige that the Emperor tried to show himself a
strong man in German affairs. More than three years
before the fall of Maximilian, the present writer, in com
menting on Louis Napoleon's scheme, ventured to predict
that Mexico would prove the Moscow of the Second Empire.
Time has not shown that the prediction was rash. The
French Empire outlived the Mexican Empire by three years
and a few weeks. From the entering of Moscow to the arri
val at St. Helena the interval was three years and a month.
We need not follow any farther the history of the
American Civil War. The restoration of the Union, the
assassination of President Lincoln, and the emancipa
tion of the colored race from all the disqualifications, as
well as all the bondage, of the slave system, belong to
American and not to English history. But the Alabama
dispute led to consequences which are especially impor
tant to England, and which shall be described in their due
time. Meanwhile, it is necessary, for the proper appre
ciation of the final terms of settlement, that we should
see exactly how the dispute arose, and what was the con
dition of public feeling in this country at the time when
it grew into serious proportions. If the final settlement
was felt to be humiliating in England, it must be owned
that those who are commonly called the governing classes
had themselves very much to blame. Their conviction
that the Civil War must lead to the disruption of the Union
was at the bottom of much of the indifference and apathy
which for a long time was shown by English officials in
regard to the remonstrances of the United States. The
impression that we might do as we liked with the North
was made only too obvious. The United States must, in
deed, then have felt that they were receiving a warning
that to be weak is to be miserable. It is not surprising
if they believed at that time that England was disposed
to adopt Sir Giles Overreach's way of thinking —

The Cruise of the "Alabama." 259
"We worldly men, when we see friends and kinsmen
Past hope sunk in their fortunes, lend no hand
To lift them up, but rather set our feet
Upon their heads to press them to the bottom."
It is not certain that the supporters of the Southern side
at any time actually outnumbered the champions of the
North and of the Union ; but they seemed for the greater
part of the war's duration to have the influence of the
country mainly with them. A superficial observer might
have been excused at one time if he said that England, as a
whole, was on the side of the secession. This would have
been a very inaccurate statement of the case; but the in
accuracy would have been excusable and even natural.
The vast majority of what are called the governing classes
were on the side of the South. By far the greater num
ber of the aristocracy, of the official world, of members of
Parliament, of military and naval men, were for the South.
London club life was virtually all Southern. The most
powerful papers in London, and the most popular papers,
as well, were open partisans of the Southern Confedera
tion. In London, to be on the side of the Union was at
one time to be eccentric, to be un-English, to be Yankee.
On the other hand, most of the great democratic towns of
the midland and of the north were mainly in favor of the
Union. The artisans everywhere were on the same side.
This was made strikingly manifest in Lancashire. The
supply of cotton from America nearly ceased in conse
quence of the war, and the greatest distress prevailed in
that county. The "cotton famine," called by no exag
gerated name, set in. All that private benevolence could
do, all that legislation enabling money to be borrowed
for public works to give employment could do, was for a
time hardly able to contend against the distress. Yet the
Lancashire operatives were among the sturdiest of those
who stood out against any proposal to break the blockade
or to recognize the South. Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright,
and the Manchester School generally, or at least all that

260 A History of Our Own Times.
were left of them, were for the North. A small but very
influential number of thoughtful men, Mr. John Stuart
Mill at their head, were faithful to their principles, and
stood firmly by the cause of the Union. But the voice of
London — that is, the voice of what is called society, and
of the metropolitan shopkeeping classes who draw their
living from society — all this was for the South. It was
not a question of Liberal and Tory. The Tories, on the
whole, were more discreet than the Liberals. It was not
from the Conservative benches of the House of Commons
that the bitterest and least excusable denunciations of the
Northern cause and of the American Republic were heard.
It was a Liberal who declared with exultation that "the
republican bubble" had burst. It was a Liberal — Mr. Roe
buck — who was most clamorous for English intervention
to help the South. It was Lord Russell who described the
struggle as one in which the North was striving for empire
and the South for independence. It was Mr. Gladstone
who said that the President of the Southern Confederation
— Mr. Jefferson Davis — had made an army, had made an
navy, and, more than that, had made a nation. On the
other hand, it is to be remarked that among the Liberals,
even of the official class, were to be seen some of the
stanchest advocates of the Northern cause. The Duke of
Argyle championed the cause from warm sympathy ; Sir
George Lewis from cool philosophy. Mr. Charles Villiers
and Mr. Milner Gibson were frankly and steadily on the
side of the North. The Conservative leaders, on the
whole, behaved with great discretion. Mr. Adams wrote,
in July, 1863, that "the Opposition leaders are generally
disinclined to any demonstrations whatever. Several of
them, in reality, rather sympathize with us. But the body
of their party continue animated by the same feelings to
America which brought on the Revolution, and which
drove us into the War of 1812." Lord Derby, indeed,
expressed his conviction that the Union never could be re
stored; but Lord Palmerston had done the same. Mr.

The Cruise of the "Alabama." 261
Disraeli abstained from saying anything that could offend
any Northerner, and gave no indication of partisanship on
either side. Lord Stanley always spoke like a fair and
reasonable man, who understood thoroughly what he was
talking about. In this he was, unfortunately, somewhat
peculiar among the class to which he belonged. Not
many of them appeared precisely to know what they were
talking about. They took their opinions, for the most
part, from the Times and from the talk of the clubs. The
talk of the clubs was that the Southerners were all gen
tlemen and very nice fellows, who were sure to win ; and
that the Northerners were low, trading, shopkeeping fel
lows who did not know how to fight, were very cowardly,
and were certain to be defeated. There was a theory that
the Northerners really rather liked slavery, and would
have it if they could, and that a negro slave in the South
was much better off than a free negro in the Northern
States. The geography of the question was not very
clearly understood in the clubs. Those who endeavored
to show that it was not easy to find a convenient dividing
line for two federations on the North American continent
were commonly answered that the Mississippi formed ex
actly the suitable frontier. It was an article of faith with
some of those who then most eagerly discussed the ques
tion in London, that the Mississippi flowed east and
west, and separated neatly the seceding States from the
States of the North. The Times was the natural instructor
of what is called society in London, and the Times was,
unfortunately, very badly informed all through the war.
After the failure of General Lee's attempt to carry inva
sion into the North, and the simultaneous capture of
Vicksburg by General Grant, any one, it might have been
thought, who was capable of forming an opinion at all must
have seen that the flood-tide of the rebellion had been
reached and was over; that the South would have to stand
on the defensive from that hour, and that the overcoming of
its defence, considering the comparative resources of the

262 A History of Our Own Times.
belligerents, was only a question of time. Yet for a whole
year or more the London public were still assured that
the Confederates were sweeping from victory to victory ;
that wherever they seemed even to undergo a check, that
was only a part of their superior policy, which would
presently vindicate itself in greater victory ; that the North
was staggering, crippled and exhausted ; and that the only
doubt was whether General Lee would not at once march
for Washington and establish the Southern Government
there. Almost at the very hour when the South, its brave
and brilliant defence all over, had to confess defeat and
yield its broken sword to the conquerors, the London pub
lic were still invited to believe that Mr. Davis was floating
on the full, flood of success. While the hearts of all in
Richmond were filled with despair, and the final surrender
was accounted there a question of days, the Southern sym
pathizers in London were complacently bidden to look out
for the full triumph and the assured independence of the
Southern Confederation. On the last day of December,
1864, the Times complained that "Mr. Seward and other
teachers or flatterers of the multitude still affect to antici
pate the early restoration of the Union," and in three
months from that date the rebellion was over. Those who
read and believed in such instruction — and up to the very
last their name was legion — must surely have been be
wildered when the news came of the capture of Richmond
and the surrender of Lee. They might well have thought
that only some miraculous intervention of a malignant fate
could thus all at once have converted victory into defeat,
and turned the broken, worthless levies of Grant and Sher
man into armies of conquerors.
In the end the Southern population were as bitter
against us as the North. The Southern States fancied
themselves deceived. They too had mistaken the un
thinking utterances of what is called society in England
for the expression of English statesmanship and public
feeling. It is proper to assert distinctly that at no time

The Cruise of the "Alabama." 263
had the English Government any thought of acting on the
suggestion of the Emperor of the French and recognizing
the South. Lord Palmerston would not hear of it, nor
would Lord Russell. What might have come to pass if
the Southern successes had continued a year longer it
would be idle now to conjecture; but up to the turning-
point our statesmen had not changed, and after the turn
ing-point change was out of the question. There is noth
ing to blame in the conduct of the English Government
throughout all this trying time, except as regards the
manner in which they dismissed the remonstrances about
the building of the privateers. But it is not likely that
impartial history will acquit them of the charge of having
been encouraged in their indifference by the common con
viction that the Union was about to be broken up, and that
the North was no longer a formidable power.

CHAPTER XLV.

PALMERSTON S LAST VICTORY.

During the later months of his life the Prince Consort
had been busy in preparing for another great International
Exhibition to be held in London. It was arranged that
this Exhibition should open on May ist, 1862; and al
though the sudden death of the Prince Consort greatly in
terfered with the prospects of the undertaking, it was not
thought right that there should be any postponement of
the opening. The Exhibition building was erected in
South Kensington, according to a design by Captain
Fowke. It certainly was not a beautiful structure. None
of the novel charm which attached to the bright exterior
of the Crystal Palace could be found in the South Ken
sington building. It was a huge and solid erection of brick,
with two enormous domes, each in shape so strikingly
like the famous crinoline petticoat of the period that people
amused themselves by suggesting that the principal idea
of the architect was to perpetuate for posterity the shape
and structure of the Empress Eugenie's invention. The
Fine Arts department of the Exhibition was a splendid
collection of pictures and statues. The display of products
of all kinds from the Colonies was rich, and was a novelty,
for the colonists contributed little indeed to the Exhibi
tion of 185 1, and the intervening eleven years had been a
period of immense colonial advance. But the public did
not enter with much heart into the enterprise of 1862. No
one felt any longer any of the hopes which floated dreamily
and gracefully round the scheme of 1851. There was no
talk or thought of a reign of peace any more. The Civil
War was raging in America. The Continent of Europe

Palmerston's Last Victory. 265
was trembling all over with the spasms of war just done,
and the premonitory symptoms of war to come. The Ex
hibition of 1862 had to rely upon its intrinsic merits, like
any ordinary show or any public market. Poetry and
prophecy had nothing to say to it.
England was left for some time to an almost absolute
inactivity. As regards measures of political legislation,
after the failure of the Reform Bill, it was quite under
stood, as we have already said, that there was to be no
more of Reform while Lord Palmerston lived. At one of
his elections for Tiverton, Lord Palmerston was attacked
by a familiar antagonist, a sturdy Radical butcher, and
asked to explain why he did not bring in another Reform
Bill. The answer was characteristic. " Why do we not
bring in another Reform Bill? Because we are not geese."
Lord Palmerston was heartily glad to be rid of schemes
in which he had neither belief nor sympathy ; and his ab
sence of political foresight in home affairs made him sat
isfied that the whole question of Reform was quietly
shelved for another generation. It is not, perhaps, sur
prising that a busy statesman, whose intellect was mostly
exercised on questions of foreign policy, should have come
to this conclusion, when cool critics on public affairs were
ready to adopt with complacency a similar faith. The
Quarterly Review said, in 1863, " Reform is no longer talked
of now. Mr. Bright has almost ceased to excite antipa
thy. " " Our statesmen, " it went on to say, with portentous
gravity, " have awakened to the fact that the imagined
Reform agitation was nothing but an intrigue among
themselves, and that the nation was far too sensible to
desire any further approximation to the government of the
multitude." Lord Palmerston was free to indulge in his
taste for foreign politics.
Between Palmerston and the Radical party in England
there was a growing coldness. He had not only thrown
over Reform himself, but he had apparently induced most
of his colleagues to accept the understanding that nothing

266 A History of Our Own Times.
more was to be said about it. He had gone in for a policy
of large expenditure for the purpose of securing the coun
try against the possibilities of invasion. He had lent
himself openly to the propagation of what his adversaries
called, not very unreasonably, the scare that was got up
about another Napoleonic invasion. When drawn into
argument by Mr. Cobden on the subject, Lord Palmerston
had betrayed a warmth of manner that was almost offen
sive, and had spoken of the commercial treaty with France
as if it were a thing rather ridiculous than otherwise. He
was unsparing whenever he had a chance in his ridicule
of the ballot. He had very little sympathy with the
grievances of the Nonconformists, some of them even
still real and substantial enough. He took no manner of
interest in anything proposed for the political benefit of
Ireland. Although an Irish landlord, an Irish peer, and
occasionally speaking of himself in a half jocular way as
an Irishman, he could not be brought even to affect any
sympathy with any of the complaints made by the repre
sentatives of that country. He scoffed at all proposals
about tenant-right. " Tenant-right, " he once said, " is
landlord's wrong;" and he was cheered for saying this by
the landlords on both sides of the House of Commons;
and he evidently thought he had settled the question. He
was, indeed, impatient of all "views;" and he regarded
what is called philosophic statesmanship with absolute
contempt. The truth is that Palmerston ceased to be a
statesman the moment he came to deal with domestic in
terests. When actually in the Home Office, and compelled
to turn his attention to the business of that department,
he proved a very efficient administrator, because of his
shrewdness and his energy. But, as a rule, he had not
much to do with English political affairs, and he knew
little or nothing of them. He was even childishly ignorant
of many things which any ordinary public man is supposed
to know. He was at home in foreign, that is, in Conti
nental, politics ; for he had hardly any knowledge of Amer-

Palmerston's Last Victory. 267
ican affairs, and almost up to the moment of the fall of
Richmond was confident that the Union never could be
restored, and that separation was the easy and natural
way of settling all the dispute. He gave a pension to an
absurd and obscure writer of doggerel ; and when a ques
tion was raised about this singular piece of patronage in
the House of Commons, it turned out that Lord Palmer
ston knew nothing about the man, but had got it into his
head somehow that he was a poet of the class of Burns.
When he read anything except despatches he read scien
tific treatises, for he had a keen interest in some branches
of science; but he cared little for modern English litera
ture. The world in which he delighted to mingle talked
of Continental politics generally, and a great knowledge
of English domestic affairs would have been thrown away
there. Naturally, therefore, when Lord Palmerston had
nothing particular to do in foreign affairs, and had to turn
his attention to England, he relished the idea of fortifying
her against foreign foes. This was foreign politics seen
from another point of view ; it had far more interest for
him than reform or tenant-right.
There were, however, some evidences of a certain dif
ference of opinion between Lord Palmerston and some of
his colleagues, as well as between him and the Radical
party. His constant activity in foreign politics pleased
some of his Cabinet as little as it pleased the advanced
Liberals. His vast fortification schemes and his willing
ness to spend money on any project that tended toward
war, or, what seemed much the same thing, on any elab
orate preparation against problematical war, was not con
genial with the temperament and the judgment of some
members of his administration. Lord Palmerston acted
sincerely on the opinion which he expressed in a short
letter to Mr. Cobden, that " man is a fighting and quarrel
ling animal. " Assuming it to be the nature of man to
fight and quarrel, he could see no better business for Eng
lish statesmanship than to keep this country always in a

268 A History of Our Own Times.
condition to resist a possible attack from somebody. He
differed almost radically on this point from two at least of
his more important colleagues, Mr. Gladstone and Sir
George Cornewall Lewis. Mr. Evelyn Ashley, in his
"Life of Lord Palmerston," has published some interest
ing letters that passed between Palmerston and these
statesmen on this general subject. Palmerston wrote to
Sir George Lewis on November 22d, i860, arguing against
something Lewis had said, and which Palmerston hopes
" was only a conversational paradox, and not a deliberately
adopted theory." This was a dissent on the part of Lewis
from the maxim that in statesmanship prevention is better
than cure. Each had clearly in his mind the prevention
which would take security against the perils of war; Lord
Palmerston therefore goes on at once in his letter to show
that in many cases the timely adoption of spirited measures
by an English Government would have actually prevented
war. Lewis argues that " if an evil is certain and proxi
mate, and can be averted by diplomacy, then undoubtedly
prevention is better than cure ;" but that " if the evil is
remote and uncertain, then I think it better not to resort
to preventive measures, which insure a proximate and cer
tain mischief." The purpose of the discussion is made
more clear in Lewis' concluding sentence : "It seems to
me that our foreign relations are on too vast a scale to
render it wise for us to insure systematically against all
risks; and if we do not insure systematically we do noth
ing." On April 29th, 1862, Lord Palmerston writes to
Mr. Gladstone about a speech that the latter had just been
making in Manchester, and in which, as Lord Palmerston
puts it, Mr. Gladstone seems "to make it a reproach to
the nation at large that it has forced, as you say it has, on
the Parliament and the Government the high amount of
expenditure which we have at present to provide for."
Palmerston does not "quite agree" with Mr. Gladstone
"as to the fact;" "but admitting it to be as you state, it
seems to me to be rather a proof of the superior sagacity

Palmerston's Last Victory. 269
of the nation than a subject for reproach." Lord Palmer
ston goes on to argue that the country, so far from having,
as Cobden had accused it of doing, "rushed headlong into
extravagance under the influence of panic," had simply
awakened from a lethargy, got rid of " an apathetic blind
ness on the part of the governed and the governors as to
the defensive means of the country compared with the
offensive means acquired and acquiring by other Powers. "
" We have on the other side of the Channel a people who,
say what they may, hate us as a nation from the bottom
of their hearts, and would make any sacrifice to inflict a
deep humiliation upon England. It is natural that this
should be so. They are eminently vain, and their passion
is glory in war. They cannot forget or forgive Aboukir,
Trafalgar, the Peninsula, Waterloo, and St. Helena. . . .
Well, then, at the head of this neighboring nation, who
would like nothing so well as a retaliatory blow upon
England, we see an able, active, wary, counsel-keeping
but ever-planning sovereign; and we see this sovereign
organizing an army which, including his reserve, is more
than six times greater in amount than the whole of our
regular forces in our two islands, and at the same time
laboring hard to create a navy equal, if not superior, to
ours. Give him a cause of quarrel, which any foreign
Power may at any time invent or create, if so minded;
give him the command of the Channel, which permanent
or accidental naval superiority might afford him, and then
calculate if you can — for it would pass my reckoning power
to do so — the disastrous consequences to the British nation
which a landing of an army of from one to two hundred
thousand men would bring with it. Surely even a large
yearly expenditure for army and navy is an economical
insurance against such a catastrophe." The reader will
perhaps be reminded of one of the most effective argu
ments of Demosthenes. Consider, he says, what even a
few days of the occupation of the country by a foreign
enemy would mean, and then say whether, as a mere mat-

270 A History of Our Own Times.
ter of economy, it would not be better to spend a good
deal of the resources we have in striving to avert such a
calamity. There is a great difference, however, in the
purpose and the application of the two arguments. Demos
thenes puts the case in a way that is, from its point of
view, perfect. He is speaking of a danger that lies at the
gates ; of an enemy who must be encountered one way or
another; and he is pleading for instant and offensive war.
It is a very different thing to argue for enormous expendi
ture on the ground that somebody who is now professing
the most peaceful intentions may possibly one day become
your enemy, and try to attack you. In such a case the
first thing to be considered is whether the danger is real
and likely to be imminent, or whether it is merely specu
lative. Even against speculative dangers a wise people
will always take precautions; but it is no part of wisdom
to spend in guarding against such perils as much as would
be needed to enable us actually to speak with the enemy
at the gate. It is a question of proportion and compari
son. As Sir George Lewis argues, it is not possible for a
nation like England to secure herself against all specula
tive dangers. France might invade us from Boulogne or
Cherbourg, no doubt. But the United States might at the
same time assail us in Canada. Russia might attack, as
she once thought of doing, our Australian possessions, or
make an onslaught upon us in Asia. Germany might be
in alliance with Russia; Austria might at the same time
be in alliance with France. These are all possibilities ;
they might all come to pass at one and the same time.
But how could any State keep fleets and armies capable
of insuring her against serious peril from such a combina
tion? It would be better to make up our minds to wait
until the assault really threatened, and then fight it out
the best way we could. Lord Palmerston seemed to forget
that in the campaign against Russia it did not prove easy
for France to send out an army very much smaller than
his "one or two hundred thousand men;" and that Louis

Palmerston's Last Victory. 271
Napoleon was glad to finish up prematurely his campaign
in Lombardy, even though he had won in every battle.
He had also made the mistake of assuming that all these
military and naval insurances must insure. If he had
lived to 1870 he would have seen that a sovereign may
engage himself for years in the preparing of an immense
armament, that it may be the armament of a people " em
inently vain" and whose "passion is glory in war;" and
yet that the armament may turn out a vast failure, and
may prove at the hour of need a defence like Rodomonte's
bridge in Ariosto, which only conducts its owner to igno
minious upset and fall. All the resources of France were
strained for years, and by one who could do as he pleased,
for the single purpose of creating a great overmastering
army ; and when the time came to test the army, it proved
to be little better than what Prince Bismarck called " a
crowd of fighting persons." This is surely a matter to be
taken account of when we are thinking of going to vast
annual expense for the purpose of maintaining a great
armament. We may go to all the expense, and yet not
have the armament when we fancy we have need for it.
That, Lord Palmerston would doubtless have said, is a
risk we must run. Mr. Gladstone and Sir George Lewis
would no doubt have thought problematic invasion a risk
more safe to run. That had been the view of Sir Robert
Peel. Whatever may be thought of the merits of the argument
on either side — and the decision will be made more often,
probably, by temperament than by reasoning — the con
troversy will serve to illustrate the sort of difference that
was gradually growing up between Lord Palmerston and
some of his own colleagues. Lord Palmerston had of late
fallen again into a policy of suspicion and distrust as re
gards France. We are convinced that he was perfectly
sincere ; and, as has been said already in these pages, we
do not think there was any inconsistency in his conduct.
He had for a long time believed in the good faith of the

272 A History of Our Own Times.
Emperor of the French ; but the policy of the Lombardy
campaign, and the consequent annexation of Savoy and
Nice, had come on him as a complete surprise ; and when
he found that his friend Louis Napoleon could keep such
secrets from him, he possibly came to the conclusion that
he could keep others still more important. Lord Palmer
ston made England his idol. He loved her in a Pagan
way. He did not much care for abstract justice where
she was concerned. He was unscrupulous where he be
lieved her interests were to be guarded. Nor had he any
other than a purely Pagan view of her interests. It did
not seem to have occurred to him that England's truest
interest would be to do justice to herself and to other
States; to be what Voltaire's Brahmin boasts of being, a
good parent and a faithful friend, maintaining well her
own children and endeavoring for peace among her neigh
bors. Palmerston's idea was that England should hold
the commanding place among European States; and that
none should even seem to be in a position to do her scathe.
Lord Palmerston's taste for foreign affairs had now
ample means of gratification. England had some small
troubles of her own to deal with. A serious insurrection
sprung up in New Zealand. The tribe of the Waikatos,
living near Auckland, in the Northern Island, began a
movement against the colonists, and this became before
long a general rebellion of the Maori natives. The Maoris
are a remarkably intelligent race, and are skilful in war
as well as in peace. Not long before this the Governor of
the colony, Sir George Grey, had written in the warmest
praise of their industrial capabilities and their longing for
mental improvement. They had a certain literary art
among them; they could all, or nearly all, read and write;
many of them were eloquent, and could display consider
able diplomatic skill. They fought so well in this instance
that the British troops actually suffered a somewhat seri
ous repulse in endeavoring to take one of the Maori pali-
sado-fortified villages. In the end, however, they were of

Palmerston' s Last Victory. 273
course defeated. The quarrel was a survival of a long
standing dispute between the colonists and the natives
about land. It was, in fact, the old story : the colonists
eager to increase their stock of land, and the natives jeal
ous to guard their quickly vanishing possession. The
events led to grave discussion in Parliament. The Legis
lature of New Zealand passed enactments confiscating
some nine million acres of the native lands, and giving
the Colonial Government something like absolute and
arbitrary power of arrest and imprisonment. The Gov
ernment at home proposed to help the colonists by a guar
antee to raise a loan of one million to cover the expenses
of the war, or the colonial share of them, and this pro
posal was keenly discussed in the House of Commons. It
was on this occasion that Mr. Roebuck laid down a philo
sophical theory which gave a good deal of offence to sensi
tive people; the theory that where " the brown man" and
the white meet, the brown man is destined to disappear.
The doctrine is questionable enough, even as a theory.
No doubt the brown man is destined to disappear if the
white man, with his better weapons and greater clever
ness and resources, makes it his business to extirpate him ;
and it was justly pointed out that whatever Mr. Roebuck
may have personally meant by his theory, its inculcation
at such a moment could only tend to strengthen this idea
in the minds of some colonists who were already only too
willing to entertain it. But until the brown man has had
full fair play somewhere alongside of the white man, it
is rash to come to any distinct conclusions as to his ulti
mate destiny. Mr. Roebuck always loved theories neatly
cut and sharpened. He gave them out with a precision
which lent them an appearance of power and of authority;
they seemed to argue a mind that had "swallowed for
mulas," as Mr. Carlyle puts it, and was above the cant of
humanitarianism. But such theories are more satisfac
torily broached and discussed in scientific societies than
in Parliamentary debate. The ultimate destiny of the
Vol. II.— 18

274 A History of Our Own Times.
brown man did not particularly help the House of Com
mons to any conclusions concerning the New Zealand in
surrection, because even Mr. Roebuck did not put forward
his theory as an argument to prove that in every con
troversy we were bound to take the side of the white
man and assist him in his predestined business of extin
guishing his brown rival. The Government passed their
Guarantee Bill, not without many a protest from both
sides of the House that colonists who readily engaged in
quarrels with natives must some time or other be prepared
to bear the expenses entailed by their own policy.
Trouble, too, arose on the Gold Coast of Africa. Some
slaves of the King of Ashantee had taken refuge in British
territory ; the Governor of Cape Coast Colony would not
give them up; and in the spring of 1863 the King made
threatening demonstrations, invading the territories of
neighboring chiefs, destroying many of their villages, and
approaching within forty miles of our frontier. The Gov
ernor, assuming that the settlement was about to be in
vaded by the Ashantees, took it upon him to anticipate
the movement by sending an expedition into the territory
of the King. He ordered troops to be moved for the pur
pose. The season was badly chosen; the climate was
pestilential ; even the black troops from the West Indies
could not endure it, and began to die like flies. The ill-
advised undertaking had to be given up ; and the Govern
ment at home only escaped a vote of censure by a narrow
majority of seven : 226 members supported Sir John Hay's
resolution declaring that the movement was rash and im
politic, and 233 sustained the action of the Government.
Much discussion, too, was aroused by occurrences in Japan.
A British subject, Mr. Richardson, was murdered in the
English settlement of Japan, and on an open road made
free to Englishmen by treaty. This was in September,
1862. The murder was committed by some of the fol
lowers of Prince Satsuma, one of the powerful feudal
princes, who then practically divided the authority of

Palmerston's Last Victory. 275
Japan with the regular Government. Reparation was de
manded both from the Japanese Government and from
Prince Satsuma ; the Government paid the sum demanded
of them — _£ioo,ooo — and made an apology. Prince Sat
suma was called on to pay ^25,000, and to see that the
murderers were brought to punishment, the crime hav
ing been committed within his jurisdiction. Satsuma did
nothing, and in 1863 Colonel Neale, the English charge
d'affaires in Japan, called upon Admiral Kuper to go with
the English fleet to Kagosima, Satsuma's capital, and de
mand satisfaction. Admiral Kuper entered the bay on
August nth, 1863, and, after waiting for a day or two,
proceeded to seize on some steamers. The Kagosima forts
opened fire on him, and he then bombarded the town, and
laid the greater portion of it in ashes. The town, it
seemed, was built for the most part of wood ; it caught fire
in the bombardment, and was destroyed. Fortunately,
the non-combatant inhabitants — the women and children
— had had time to get out of Kagosima, and the destruc
tion of life was not great. The whole transaction was
severely condemned by many Englishmen who did not
belong to the ranks of those professed philanthropists
whom it is sometimes the fashion to denounce in England
— as if humanity and patriotism were irreconcilable quali
ties, and as if a true Englishman ought to have no consid
eration for the sufferings and the blood of Japanese and
Maoris, and people of that sort. The House of Commons,
however, sustained the Government by a large majority.
The Government, it should be said, did not profess to
justify the destruction of Kagosima. Their case was that
Admiral Kuper had to do something; that there was noth
ing he could very well do, when he had been fired upon,
but to bombard the town; and that the burning of the
town was an accident of the conflict, for which neither he
nor they could be held responsible. Satsuma finally sub
mitted, and paid the money, and promised justice; but
there were more murders and more bombardings yet be-

276 A History of Our Own Times.
fore we came to anything like an abiding settlement with
Japan ; and Japan itself was not far off a revolution, the
most sudden, organic, and, to all appearance, complete
that has ever yet been seen in the history of nations.
In the mean time, however, our Government became
involved in liabilities more perilous than any disputes in
eastern or southern islands could bring on them. An in
surrection of a very serious kind broke out in Poland. It
was provoked by the Strafford-like thoroughness of the
policy adopted by the Russian authorities. It was well
known to the Russian Government that a secret political
agitation was going on in Poland ; and it was determined
to anticipate matters, and choke off the patriotic move
ment, by taking advantage of the periodical conscription
to press into the military ranks all the young men in the
cities who could by any possibility be supposed to have
any sympathy with it. The attempt to execute this re
solve was the occasion for the outbreak of an insurrection
which at one time showed something like a claim to suc
cess. The young men who could escape fled to the woods,
and there formed themselves into armed bands, which gave
the Russians great trouble. The rebels could disperse
and come together with such ease and rapidity that it was
very difficult indeed to get any real advantage over them.
The frontier of Austrian Poland was very near, and the
insurgents could cross it, escape from the Russian troops,
and recross it when they pleased to resume their harassing
operations. Austria was not by any means so unfriendly
to the Polish patriots as both Russia and Prussia were.
Austria had come unwillingly into the scheme for the
partition of Poland, and had got little profit by it; and it
was well understood that if the other Powers concerned
could see their way to the restoration of Polish nationality,
Austria, for her part, would make no objection. The in
surgents counted with some confidence on the passive atti
tude of the Austrian authorities, and the positive sympathy
of many officers and soldiers in the Austrian army. They

Palmerston's Last Victory. 277
converted the Austrian frontier for awhile into a military
basis of operations against Russia. To some extent the
same thing was attempted on the Prussian frontier, too;
but Prussia was still very much under the dominion of
Russia, and was prevailed upon or coerced to execute an
odious convention with Russia, by virtue of which the
Russian troops were allowed to follow Polish insurgents
into Prussian territory. This convention created a strong
feeling against Prussia through the whole of Western Eu
rope, and for a while made her much more an object of
general dislike than even Russia herself.
It was plain from the first that the Poles could not, under
the most favorable circumstances, hold out long against
Russia by virtue of their own strength. It was evident
that wherever the insurrection could be got into a corner
Russia could crush it with ease. Nevertheless, the plans
of the Poles were not so imprudent as they seemed. On
the contrary, they had a certain chance of success. The
idea, whether clearly and definitely expressed or not, was
to keep the insurrection up, by any means and at any risk,
until some of the great European Powers should be in
duced to interfere. The insurrection was a great drama ;
a piece of deliberate stage-play. We do not say this in
any spirit of disparagement; the stage-play was got up by
patriots with a true and noble purpose, and it was the only
statesman-like policy left to the Poles. Let us keep it up
long enough — such was the conviction of the Polish leaders
— and Western Europe must intervene. Despite the lesson
of subsequent events, the Poles were well justified in their
political calculations. Their hopes were at one time on
the very eve of being realized. The Emperor Napoleon
was eager to move to their aid, and Lord Russell was
hardly less eager.
The Polish cause was very popular in England. It had
been the political first love of many a man, who now felt
his youthful ardor glow again as he read of the gallant
struggle made in the forests of Poland. Russia was hated ;

278 A History of Our Own Times.
Prussia was now hated even more. There was no ques
tion of party feeling about the sympathy with Poland.
There were about as many Conservatives as Radicals who
were ready to favor the idea of some effort being made in
her behalf. Lord Ellenborough spoke up for Poland in
the House of Lords with poetic and impassioned eloquence.
Lord Shaftesbury, from the opposite benches, denounced
the conduct of Russia. The Irish Catholic was as ardent
for Polish liberty as the London artisan. Among its most
conspicuous and energetic advocates in England were Mr.
Pope Hennessy, a Catholic and Irish member of Parlia
ment ; and Mr. Edmond Beales, the leader of a great Rad
ical organization in London. The question was raised in
Parliament by Mr. Hennessy, and aroused much sympa
thy there. Great public meetings were held, at which
Russia was denounced and Poland advocated, not merely
by popular orators, but by men of high rank and grave
responsibility. War was not openly called for at those
meetings, or in the House of Commons ; but it was urged
that England, as one of the Powers which had signed the
Treaty of Vienna, should join with other States in sum
moning Russia to recognize the rights, such as they were,
which had been secured to Poland by virtue of that treaty.
In France the greatest enthusiasm prevailed for the cause
of Poland. The eloquent pen of Montalembert pleaded
for the "nation in mourning." Prince Napoleon spoke
with singular eloquence and impressiveness in the French
Senate on the justice and the necessity of intervention.
The same cause was pleaded by Count Walewski, himself
the son of a Polish lady. The Emperor Napoleon required
little pressing. He was ready for intervention if he could
get England to join him. Lord Russell went so far as to
draw up and despatch to Russia, in concert with France
and Austria, a note on the subject of Poland. It urged
on the attention of the Russian Government six points, as
the outline of a system of pacification for Poland. These
were: a complete amnesty ; a national representation ; a

Palmerston's Last Victory. 279
distinct national administration of Poles for the kingdom
of Poland ; full liberty of conscience, with the repeal of
all the restrictions imposed on Catholic worship ; the rec
ognition of the Polish language as official; the establish
ment of a regular system of recruiting. There was an
almost universal impression at one moment that in the
event of Russia declining to accept these recommendations,
England, Austria, and France would make war to compel
her. There was hardly any party in England absolutely
opposed to the idea of intervention, except the Manchester
School of Radicals. Some of these were consistently op
posed to intervention in any foreign cause whatever.
Others had an added impression that Poland had managed
her national affairs very badly when she had a chance of
managing them for herself, and that therefore there was
little use in trying to set her on her feet again. Such op
position would, however, have counted for even less than
it did at the time of the Crimean War, if the Government
had resolved on going in with France and striking a blow
for Poland.
Looking back now calmly on the events of that day,
and those which followed them, it does not seem that such
a policy would have been unwise. There was much in
the claims of Poland which deserved the sympathy of
every lover of liberty and believer in the development of
civilization. If this were the time or place for such a dis
cussion, it would not be difficult to show that the faults
found with Poland's old system of government had nothing
to do with the condition of the present ; and that a new
Poland would no more be likely to fall into the errors of
the past, than a new Irish Parliament would be likely to
refuse the right of representation to Catholics. There
would assuredly have been a distinct advantage to the
stability of European affairs in the resuscitation of Poland
as a distinct and independent part of the Russian State sys
tem, even if she were not to be a wholly independent
nation once again. This, probably, could not have been

280 A History of Our Own Times.
done without war; but it seems more than merely prob
able that that war would have averted the necessity for
many other wars which have since been fought out with
less profitable result to European stability. Whether the
English alarms about the aggressive designs of Russia be
founded or unfounded, the legislative independence of
Poland would have made it superfluous to take much
thought concerning them. They knew Poland would un
doubtedly have been a State with representative institu
tions; and set in the midst of Russia and of Prussia, her
example could hardly have been without a contagious in
fluence of a very salutary kind on each.
It soon became known, however, that there was to be
no intervention. Lord Palmerston put a stop to the whole
idea. It was not that he sympathized with Russia. On
the contrary, he wrote a letter to Baron Brunnow, the
Russian Ambassador, on February 4th, 1863, in which he
bluntly told him that he regarded the Polish insurrection
as the punishment inflicted by Heaven on Russia for Rus
sia's having done so much to stir up revolution in the do
minions of some of her neighbors. But Lord Palmerston
had by this time grown into as profound a distrust of the
Emperor Napoleon as any representative of the social and
democratic Republic could possibly entertain. He was
convinced that the Emperor was stirring in the matter
chiefly with the hope of getting an opportunity of estab
lishing himself in the Rhine provinces of Prussia, on the
pretext of compelling Prussia to remain neutral in the
struggle, or of punishing her if she took the side of Russia.
Probably Lord Palmerston was mistaken in this instance.
It is not likely that Louis Napoleon ever cared for any war
project or annexation scheme except with the view of mak
ing his dynasty popular in France; and he may well have
thought that the emancipation of Poland would gain him
popularity enough to enable him to dispense with other
contrivances for the remainder of his reign. However
that may be, Lord Palmerston was firm. He described a

Palmerston's Last Victory. 281
proposal of the Emperor for an identical note to be ad
dressed to Prussia on the subject of the convention with
Russia as a trap laid for England to fall into; and he
would have nothing to do with it. After a while it became
known that England had decided not to join in any proj
ect for armed intervention ; and from that moment Russia
became merely contemptuous. The Emperor of the French
would not, and could not, take action single-handed ; and
Prince Gortschakoff politely told Lord Russell that Eng
land had really better mind her own business, and not en
courage movements in Poland which were simply the work
of " cosmopolitan revolution." Lord Russell had spoken
of the responsibility which the Emperor of Russia was in
curring; and Prince Gortschakoff dryly replied that the
Emperor knew all about that, and was quite prepared to
accept any responsibility. It used to be said at the time
that Prince Gortschakoff gently intimated in diplomatic
conversation that if the English Government were inclined
to occupy themselves in redressing the grievances of in
jured nationalities, they would find in Ireland a legitimate
and sufficient object for the exercise of their reforming
energies. It is certain that England received a snub, and
that Prince Gortschakoff intended his reply to be thus ac
cepted by England and thus interpreted by Europe.
After this Austria found it necessary to secure her fron
tier line more carefully, and not allow it to be made any
longer a basis of operations against Russia. The insur
rection was flung wholly on its own resources. It was
kept up gallantly and desperately for a time; but the end
was certain. The Russians carried out their measures of
pacification with unflinching hand. Floggings, and shoot
ings, and hangings were in full vigor. The Russian au
thorities recognized the equal rights of women by admin
istering the scourge, and the rope, and the bullet to them
as well as to men. Droves of prisoners were sent to Sibe
ria. New steps were taken for denationalizing the coun
try, and effecting its moral as well as physical subjugation.

282 A History of Our Own limes.
After a time the words of Marshal Sebastiani's famous an
nouncement in 1 83 1 became applicable once more, and
order reigned in Warsaw. The intervention of England
had done much the same service for Poland that the in
terposition of Don Quixote did for the boy whose master
was flogging him. There was, to be sure, a certain differ
ence in the conditions. Don Quixote did intervene prac
tically; and while he remained in sight the master pre
tended to be forgiving and merciful. It was only when
the hero had ridden away that the master grimly tied up
the boy again and flogged him worse than ever. In the
case of England there was no such show of forbearance.
The sufferer was tied up under our very eyes and scourged
again, and more fiercely, for the express reason that Eng
land had ventured to interfere with an unmeaning and in
effectual remonstrance. We have spoken of that school of
Liberals who would not have intervened at all on behalf
of Poland or any other nation. Many, perhaps most, per
sons will refuse to accept their principle. But we can
hardly believe there is any one who will not admit that
such a course of policy is wise, manly, and dignified when
compared with that which intrudes its intervention just
far enough to irritate the oppressor, and not far enough
to be of the slightest benefit to the oppressed.
The effect of the policy pursued by England in this
case was to bring about a certain coldness between the
Emperor Napoleon and the English Government. This
fact was made apparent some little time after, when the
dispute between Denmark and the Germanic Confedera
tion came up in relation to the Schleswig-Holstein succes
sion. We need not go very deeply now into the historical
bearings of this dispute which long tormented philologists,
jurisconsults, and archaeologists, as well as statesmen.
An irreverent Frenchman once declared that the heavens
and the earth shall pass away, but the Schleswig-Holstein
question shall not pass away. Practically, however, the
Schleswig-Holstein question would seem to have passed

Palmerston's Last Victory. 283
away so far as our times are concerned. It was in sub
stance a question of the right of nationalities combined of
later years with a dispute of succession. Schleswig, Hol-
stein, and Lauenburg were duchies attached to Denmark.
Holstein and Lauenburg were purely German in nation
ality, and only held by the King of Denmark as Duke of
Holstein and Lauenburg, on much the same tenure as that
by virtue of which our kings so long held Hanover. The
King of Denmark sat as Duke of Holstein and Lauenburg
in the old Germanic Diet which used to hold its meetings
in Frankfort — the Diet of the Germanic Confederation
which was abolished by the Prussian victory at Sadowa,
and which Talleyrand once, with grave sarcasm, urged
not to be precipitate in its decisions. Schleswig was at
tached more directly to the Danish Crown; but a large
proportion of the population, much the larger proportion
in the southern districts, were German, and there had long
been an agitation going on in Germany about the claims
and the rights of Schleswig. One of the claims was that
Schleswig and Holstein should be united into one admin
istrative system, and should be governed independently of
the kingdom of Denmark, the King of Denmark to be the
ruler of this State as the Emperor of Austria is King of
Hungary. There can be no doubt that the heart of the
German people was deeply interested in the condition of
the Schleswigers and Holsteiners. It was only natural
that a great people should have been unwilling to see so
many of their countrymen, on the very edge of Germany
itself, kept under the rule of the Danish King. The ten
dency of Denmark always was toward an amalgamation of
the duchies into her own State system. The tendency of
the Germans was to regard with extreme jealousy any
movement that way, to descry evil purpose in even harm
less innovations on the part of Denmark, and to make con
stant complaint about the tampering of the Danish author
ities with the tongue and the rights of the Teutonic popu
lations. In truth, the claims of Germany and Denmark

284 A History of Our Own Times.
were irreconcilable. Put into plain words, the dispute
was between Denmark, which wanted to make the duchies
Danish, and Germany, which wanted to have them Ger
man. The arrangement which bound them up with Den
mark was purely diplomatic and artificial. Any one who
would look realities in the face must have seen that some
day or other the Germans would carry their point, and
that the principle of nationalities would have its way in
that case as it had done in so many others.
Suddenly the whole dispute became complicated with a
question of succession. The King of Denmark, Freder
ick VII., died in November, 1863, and was succeeded by
Christian IX. Prince Frederick of Schleswig-Holstein-
Sonderburg-Augustenburg claimed the succession to the
Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein. The late King of
Denmark had no direct heir to succeed him, and the suc
cession had been arranged in 1852 by the Great Powers
of Europe. The Treaty of London then settled it on
Prince Christian of Schleswig - Holstein Sonderburg-
Glucksburg, the father of the Princess of Wales. The set
tlement, however, was brought about by persuading the
Duke of Augustenburg, Prince Frederick's father, heir of
Holstein and claimant of Schleswig, to renounce his rights ;
and now Prince Frederick, the son, disputed in his own
case the validity of the renunciation. The previous pre
tensions of Denmark to encroach on the rights of the Ger
man populations in the Duchies had roused an angry feel
ing in Germany, and German statesmen were willing to
take advantage of any claim and any claimant to dispute
the succession of the King of Denmark, so far as the
Duchies were concerned. The affairs of Prussia were now
in the hands of a strong man — one of the strongest men
modern times have known. Daring, unscrupulous, and
crafty as Cavour, Von Bismarck was even already able to
wield a power which had never been within Cavour's
reach. The public intelligence of Europe had not yet
recognized the marvellous combination of qualities which

Palmerston's Last Victory. 285
was destined to make their owner famous, and to prove a
dissolving force in the settled systems of Germany, and
indeed of the whole European continent. As yet the gen
eral opinion of the world set down Herr von Bismarck as
simply a fanatical reactionary, a coarse sort of Metternich,
a combination of bully and buffoon. The Schleswig-Hol
stein Question became, however, a very serious one for
Denmark when it was taken up by Von Bismarck. There
does not seem the slightest reason to suppose that Bismarck
ever had any idea of maintaining the pretensions of the
Prince of Augustenburg. Bismarck had always ridiculed
them without any affectation of concealment. From first
to last the mind of Bismarck was evidently made up that
the Duchies should be annexed to Prussia. But for the
time the claims of the Augustenburg Prince came in con
veniently, and Prussia put on the appearance of giving
them her sanction and support. The result of all this was
that the Germanic Diet and the King of Denmark could
not come to any terms of arrangement, and — to cut prelim
inaries short and get to what strictly concerns our history
— war became certain. The Germanic Diet intrusted the
conduct of the war to the hands of Austria and Prussia,
who entered into joint agreements for the purpose. The
German troops entered, first, Holstein, which under the
command of the Diet they had a legal right to do, and
then Schleswig, and war began. Denmark, one of the
smallest and weakest kingdoms in the world, found her
self engaged in conflict with Austria and Prussia com
bined. The little Danish David had defied two Goliaths
to combat at one moment.
Were the Danes and their sovereign and their Govern
ment mad? Not at all. They well knew that they could
not hold out alone against the two German Great Powers ;
but they counted on the help of Europe — especially they
counted on the help of England. For a long time they
had got it into their heads that England was pledged to
defend them against any assault from the side of Germany.

286 A History of Our Own Times.
Lord Russell, in multitudinous despatches, had very often
given the Danish Government sound and sensible advice.
He had constantly admonished them that they must, for
their own sakes, deal fairly with the German populations;
he had urgently recommended them to leave to the Ger
mans and the German Governments no fair ground for
complaint ; he had never countenanced or encouraged any
of the acts which tended to the enforced absorption of Ger
man populations into a Danish system. He had, on the
contrary, more than once somewhat harshly rebuked the
Danish Government for neglect or breach of engagements,
and sternly pointed out the certain consequences of such
a policy; but he had, at the same time, implied that if
Denmark took the advice of England, England would not
see her wronged — he had, at all events, declared that if
Denmark did not follow England's advice, England would
not come to her assistance in case she were attacked by
the Germans. Denmark interpreted this as an assurance
that if she followed England's counsels she might count
on England's protection, and she insisted that she had
strictly followed England's counsels for this very reason.
When the struggle seemed approaching, Lord Palmerston
said some words in the House of Commons, at the close
of a session, which seemed to convey a distinct assurance
that England would defend Denmark in case she should
be attacked by the German Powers. On July 23d, 1863,
he was questioned with reference to the course England
intended to pursue in the event of the German Powers
pressing too hardly on Denmark, and he then said: "We
are convinced — I am convinced, at least — that if any vio
lent attempt were made to overthrow the rights and inter
fere with the independence of Denmark, those who made
the attempt would find in the result that it would not be
Denmark alone with which they would have to contend."
These words were afterward explained as intended to be
merely prophetic, and to indicate Lord Palmerston's pri
vate belief that in the event of Denmark being invaded,

Palmerston's Last Victory. 287
France, or Russia, or some State somewhere, would prob
ably be generous enough to come to the assistance of the
Danes; but when the words were spoken, it did not occur
to the mind of any one to interpret them in such a sense.
The part of Lord Palmerston's speech which contained
them was dealing distinctly and exclusively with the pol
icy of England. It was not supposed that an English
Minister could expect to satisfy the House of Commons
by merely giving a specimen of his skill in forecasting the
probable policy of other States. Every one believed that
Lord Palmerston was answering on behalf of the English
Government and the English people.
The Danes counted with confidence on the help of Eng
land. They refused to accept the terms which Germany
would have imposed. They prepared for war. Public
opinion in England was all but unanimous in favor of
Denmark. Five out of every six persons were for Eng
land's drawing the sword in her cause at once; five out of
every six of the small minority who were against war
were, nevertheless, in sympathy with the Danes. Many
reasons combined to bring about this condition of national
feeling. In the first instance very few people knew any
thing whatever of the merits of the controversy. Even
professed politicians hardly understood the question. The
general impression was that it was purely the case of two
strong Powers oppressing, in wanton and wicked combi
nation, a weak but gallant people. Austria was not popu
lar in England ; Prussia was detested. Many Englishmen
were angry with her because her Government had made
the convention with Russia which has already been men
tioned, and because she had a reactionary minister and a
half-despotic king. A large number of persons did not
like the Germans they met in the City and in business
generally. Some had disagreeable reminiscences of their
travels in Prussia, and had been unfavorably impressed by
the police systems of Berlin. Moreover, it was then an
article of faith with most Englishmen that Prussians were

288 A History of Our Own Times.
miserable fellows, who could only smoke and drink beer,
and who, being unable to fight with any decent adversary,
were trying to get a warlike reputation by attacking a very
weak Power. Punch had a cartoon representing the con
ventional English soldier and sailor regarding with looks
of utter contempt an Austrian and a Prussian, and agree
ing that Englishmen ought not to be called on to fight
such fellows, but offering to kick them if it were thought
desirable. In England, at this time, military strength
meant the army of the Emperor of the French, and polit
ical sagacity was represented by the wisdom of the same
sovereign. A certain small number of persons in England sympa
thized with Denmark for another reason. The Prince
of Wales had been married to the Princess Alexandra on
March ioth, 1863. The Princess Alexandra was, as it has
been already said, the daughter of the King of Denmark.
She was not a Dane, except as we may, if we like, call the
Emperor of Brazil a Brazilian ; but her family had now
come to rule in Denmark, and she became, in that sense,
a Danish princess. Her youth, her beauty, her goodness,
her sweet and winning ways, had made her more popular
than any foreign princess ever before was known to be in
England. It seemed — even to some who ought to have
had more judgment — that the virtues and charms of the
Princess Alexandra, and the fact that she was now Prin
cess of Wales, supplied ample proof of the justice of the
Danish cause, and of the duty of England to support it in
arms. Not small, therefore, was the disappointment
spread over the country when it was found that the Danes
were left alone to their defence, and that England was
not to put out a hand to help them.
Yet it was as impossible as it would have been absurd
for England to maintain in arms the cause of Denmark.
To begin with, the cause was not one which England
could reasonably have supported. The artificial arrange
ments by which the Duchies were bound to Denmark could

Palmerston's Last Victory. 289
not endure. They were the device of anera and a system
of policy from which England was escaping as fast as she
could. It was not a controversy which specially concerned
the English people. England was only one of the parties
to the diplomatic arrangements which had bound up the
Duchies and the Danish kingdom together. Lord Russell
was willing, at one moment, to intervene by arms in sup
port of Denmark, if France would join with England, and
he made a proposal of this kind to the French Government.
The Emperor Napoleon refused to interfere. He had
been hurt by England's refusal to join with him in sus
taining Poland against Russia, and now was his time to
make a return. Besides, he had, after the attempt at dip
lomatic intervention between Poland and Russia, issued
invitations for a Congress of European sovereigns to as
semble in Paris and make a new settlement of Europe.
The Governments to which the invitation was addressed
had, for the most part, returned a civil acceptance, well
knowing the project would come to nothing. Lord Rus
sell refused to have anything to do with the Congress, and
gave some excellent reasons for the refusal. The Em
peror Napoleon was somewhat hurt by the chill common-
sense of Lord Russell's reply. The Emperor's invitation
was evidently meant to be a document of historical and
monumental interest. It was drawn up in the spirit of
what Burke calls " a proud humility." It made allusion
to the early misfortunes and exile of the writer, and put
him forward as the one sovereign of Europe on whose
face the winds of adversity had severely blown. It must
have been painful to find that so much eloquence and emo
tion had been put into a State-paper for nothing. The
Emperor's turn had now come, and he would not join with
England in sustaining the cause of Denmark. There was
absolutely nothing for it but to leave the Danes to fight
out their battle in the best way they could. Lord Palm
erston put the matter very plainly in a letter to Lord
Russell. "The truth is," he wrote, "that to enter into a
Vol. II.— 19

290 A History of Our Own Times.
military conflict with all Germany on Continental ground
would be a serious undertaking. If Sweden and Denmark
were actively co-operating with us, our 20,000 men might
do a great deal; but Austria and Prussia could bring
200,000 or 300,000 into the field, and would be joined by
the smaller German States." At a later period of the
struggle Lord Palmerston spoke with full frankness to
Count Apponyi, the Austrian Ambassador. He explained
that the English Government had " abstained from taking
the field in defence of Denmark for many reasons — from
the season of the year, from the smallness of our army,
and the great risk of failure in a struggle with all Ger
many by land. " But Lord Palmerston pointed out that
" with regard to operations by sea, the positions would be
reversed. We are strong, Germany is weak ; and the Ger
man ports in the Baltic, North Sea, and Adriatic would
be greatly at our command. " Therefore Lord Palmerston
warned the Austrian Ambassador that a collision between
England and Austria might happen if an Austrian squad
ron were to enter the Baltic in order to help the operations
against Denmark. The Austrian Ambassador explained
that his Government did not intend to send a squadron
into the Baltic. This was an unofficial conversation be
tween Palmerston and Count Apponyi, and had no effect
on the fortunes of the war, or on the diplomacy that brought
it to an end.
The Danes fought with a great deal of spirit ; but they
were extravagantly outnumbered, and their weapons were
miserably unfit to contend against their powerful enemies.
The Prussian needle-gun came into play with terrible
effect in the campaign, and it soon made all attempts at
resistance on the part of the Danes utterly hopeless. The
Danes lost their ground and their fortresses. They won
one little fight on the sea. defeating some Austrian ves
sels in the German Ocean off Heligoland. The news was
received with wild enthusiasm in England. Its announce
ment in the House of Commons drew down the unwonted

Palmerston's Last Victory. 291
manifestation of a round of applause from the Strangers'
Gallery. But the struggle had ceased to be anything like
a serious campaign. The English Government kept up
active negotiations on behalf of peace, and at length suc
ceeded in inducing the belligerents to agree to a suspen
sion of arms, in order that a conference of the Great Pow
ers might be held in London. The conference was called
together. The populations of the Duchies, about whom
the whole dispute had taken place, were beginning now
to suspect that their claims to independent existence would
very probably be overlooked altogether, and that they
were only about to be passed from one ruler to another.
They sent a deputation to London, and claimed to be rep
resented directly at the Conference. Their claim was re
jected. They, the very people whose national existence
was the question in dispute, were informed that diplomacy
made no account of them. They had no right to a voice,
or even to a hearing, in the councils which were to dis
pose of their destinies. The Saxon minister, Count Beust,
who afterward transferred his abilities and energies to
the service of Austria, did the best he could for them, and
acted, so far as lay in his power, as the representative of
their claims; but they were not allowed any acknowledged
representation at the Conference. The deliberations
of the Conference came to nothing. Curiously enough,
the final rejection of all compromise came from the Danes.
Whether they had still some lingering hope that by prolong
ing the war they could induce some Great Power to inter
vene on their behalf, or whether they were merely influ
enced by the doggedness of sheer desperation, we cannot
pretend to know. But they proved suddenly obstinate;
at the last hour they rejected a proposal which Lord Pal
merston described as reasonable in itself, and the Con
ference came to an end. The war broke out again. The
renewed hostilities lasted, however, but a short time. It
was plain now even to the Danes themselves that they
could not hold their ground alone, and that no one was

292 A History of Our Own Times.
coming to help them. The Danish Government sent
Prince John of Denmark direct to Berlin to negotiate for
peace — they had had enough, perhaps, of foreign diplo
matic intervention — and terms of peace were easily ar
ranged. Nothing could be more simple. Denmark gave
up everything she had been fighting for, and agreed to
bear part of the expense which had been entailed upon the
German Powers by the task of chastising her. The Duchies
were surrendered to the disposal of the Allies, and noth
ing more was heard of the claims of the heir of Augusten
burg. That claimant only got what is called in homely
language the cold shoulder when he endeavored to draw
the attention of the Herr von Bismarck to his alleged
right of succession. A new war was to settle the owner
ship of the Duchies, and some much graver questions of
German interest at the same time.
It was obviously impossible that the conduct of the
English Government should pass unchallenged. They
were quite right, as it seems to us, in not intervening on
behalf of Denmark ; but they were not right in giving
Denmark the least reason to believe that they ever would
intervene in her behalf. It would have been a calamity
if England had succeeded in persuading Louis Napoleon
to join her in a war to enable Denmark to keep the Duch
ies ; it could not be to the credit of England that her Min
isters had invited Louis Napoleon to join them in such a
policy and had been refused. We cannot see any way of
defending Lord Palmerston and Lord Russell against
some sort of censure for the part they had taken in this
transaction. It would have been a discredit to England
if she had become the means of coercing the Duchies into
subjection to Denmark, supposing such a thing possible in
the long run; but her ministers could claim no credit for
not having done so. They would have done it if they
could. They had thus given Europe full evidence at once
of their desire and their incapacity. Their political op
ponents could not be expected to overlook such a chance

Palmerston' s Last Victory. 293
of attack. Accordingly, in the two Houses of Parliament
notices were given of a vote of censure on the Govern
ment. Lord Malmesbury, in Lord Derby's absence, pro
posed the resolution in the House of Lords, and it was
carried by a majority of nine. The Government made lit
tle account of that; the Lords always had a Tory majority.
As Lord Palmerston himself had put it on a former occa
sion, the Government knew when they took office that
their opponents had a larger pack of cards in the Lords
than they had, and that whenever the cards came to be
all dealt out the Opposition pack must show the greater
number. In the House of Commons, however, the matter
was much more serious. On July 4th, 1864, Mr. Disraeli
himself moved the resolution condemning the conduct of
the Government. The resolution invited the House to
express its regret that " while the course pursued by her
Majesty's Government has failed to maintain their avowed
policy of upholding the integrity and independence of Den
mark, it has lowered the just influence of this country in
the capitals of Europe, and thereby diminished the securi
ties for peace." Mr. Disraeli's speech was ingenious and
telling. He had a case which even a far less capable rhet
orician than he must have made impressive ; but he con
trived more than once by sheer dexterity to make it unex
pectedly stronger against the Government. Thus, for ex
ample, he went on during part of his opening observations
to compare the policy of England and of France. He pro
ceeded to show that France was just as much bound by the
Treaty of Vienna, by the London Convention, by all the
agreements affecting the integrity of Denmark, as England
herself. Some of the Ministry sitting just opposite the
orator caught at this argument as if it were an admission
telling against Mr. Disraeli's case. They met his words
with loud and emphatic cheers. The cheers meant to say,
"Just so; France was responsible for the integrity of Den
mark as much as England; why, then, do you find fault
with us?" This was precisely what Mr. Disraeli wanted.

294 A History of Our Own Times.
Perhaps he had deliberately led up to this very point.
Perhaps he had purposely allured his opponents on into
the belief that he was making an admission in order to
draw from some of them some note of triumph. He seized
his opportunity now, and turned upon his antagonists at
once. " Yes," he exclaimed, " France is equally responsi
ble ; and how comes it, then, that the position of France
in relation to Denmark is so free from embarrassment and
so dignified ; that no word of blame is uttered anywhere in
Europe against France for what she has done in regard to
Denmark, while your position is one of infinite perplexity,
while you are everywhere accused and unable to defend
yourselves? How could this be but because of some fatal
mistake, some terrible mismanagement?" In truth, it was
not difficult for Mr. Disraeli to show mistakes in abun
dance. No sophist could have undertaken to defend all
that Ministers had done. Such a defence would involve
sundry paradoxes ; for they had, in some instances, done
the very thing to-day which they had declared the day
before it would be impossible for them to do.
The Government did not make any serious attempt to
justify all they had done. They were glad to seize upon
the opportunity offered by an amendment which Mr. King-
lake proposed, and which merely declared the satisfaction
with which the House had learned "that at this conjunc
ture her Majesty had been advised to abstain from armed
interference in the war now going on between Denmark
and the German Powers." This amendment, it will be
seen at once, did not meet the accusations raised by Mr.
Disraeli. It did not say whether the Ministry had or
had not failed to maintain their avowed policy of uphold
ing the integrity and independence of Denmark ; or whether
their conduct had or had not lowered the just influence of
England in the capitals of Europe, and thereby diminished
the securities for peace. It gave the go-by to such incon
venient questions, and simply asserted that the House was,
at all events, glad to hear there was to be no interference

Palmerston' s Last Victory. 295
in the war. Many doubted at first whether the Govern
ment would condescend to adopt Mr. Kinglake's amend
ment, or whether they would venture upon a distinct jus
tification of their conduct. Lord Palmerston, however,
had an essentially practical way of looking at every ques
tion. He was of O'Connell's opinion that, after all, the
verdict is the thing. He knew he could not get the ver
dict on the particular issues raised by Mr. Disraeli, but
he was in good hope that he could get it on the policy of
his administration generally. The Government, there
fore, adopted Mr. Kinglake's amendment. Still, the con
troversy was full of danger to Lord Palmerston. The ad
vanced Liberals disliked him strongly for his lavish ex
penditure in fortification schemes, and for the manner in
which he had thrown over the Reform Bill. They were
not coerced, morally or otherwise, to support him merely
because he had not gone into the war against Germany;
for no responsible voice from the Opposition had said that
the Conservatives, if in office, would have adopted a policy
of intervention. On the contrary, it was from Lord Stan
ley that there came, during the debate, the most unwar-
like sentiment uttered during the whole controversy. Lord
Stanley bluntly declared that "to engage in a European
war for the sake of these Duchies would be an act, not of
impolicy, but of insanity." There were members of the
Peace Society itself, probably, who would have hesitated
before adopting this view of the duties of a nation. If
war be permissible at all, they might have doubted whether
the oppression of a small people is not as fair a ground of
warlike intervention as the grievance of a numerous pop
ulation. When, however, such sentiments came from a
leader of the party proposing the vote of censure, it is clear
that the men who were for non-intervention as a principle
were left free to vote on one side or the other as they
pleased. Mr. Disraeli did not want to pledge them to
warlike action any more than Lord Palmerston. Many of
them would, perhaps, rather have voted with Mr. Disraeli

296 A History of Our Own Times.
than with Lord Palmerston if they could see their way
fairly to such a course ; and on the votes of even a few of
them the result of the debate depended. They held the
fate of Lord Palmerston's Ministry in the hollow of their
hand. Lord Palmerston seems to have decided the question for
them. His speech closing the debate was a masterpiece,
not of eloquence, not of political argument, but of practi
cal Parliamentary tactics. He spoke, as was his fashion,
without the aid of a single note. It was a wonderful spec
tacle that of the man of eighty, thus in the growing morn
ing pouring out his unbroken stream of easy, effective
eloquence. He dropped the particular questions connected
with the vote of censure almost immediately, and went
into a long review of the whole policy of his administra
tion. He spoke as if the resolution before the House were
a proposal to impeach the Government for the entire course
of their domestic policy. He passed in triumphant re
view all the splendid feats which Mr. Gladstone had ac
complished in the reduction of taxation; he took credit for
the commercial treaty with France, and for other achieve
ments in which, at the time of their accomplishment, he
had hardly even affected to feel any interest. He spoke
directly at the economical Liberals; the men who were
for sound finance and freedom of international commerce.
The regular Opposition, as he well knew, would vote
against him ; the regular supporters of the Ministry would
vote for him. Nothing could alter the course to be taken
by either of these parties. The advanced Liberals, the
men whom possibly Palmerston in his heart rather despised
as calculators and economists — these might be affected
one way or the other by the manner in which he addressed
himself to the debate. To these and at these he spoke.
He knew that Mr. Gladstone was the one leading man in
the Ministry whom they regarded with full trust and ad
miration, and on Mr. Gladstone's exploits he virtually
rested his case. His speech said in plain words: " If you

Palmerston' s Last Victory. 297
vote for this resolution proposed by Mr. Disraeli, you turn
Mr. Gladstone out of office; you give the Tories, who un
derstand nothing about Free-trade, and who opposed the
French Commercial Treaty, an opportunity of marring
all that he has made." Some of Lord Palmerston's audi
ence were a little impatient now and then. "What has
all this to do with the question before the House?" was
murmured from more than one bench. It had everything
to do with the question that was really before the House.
That question was, " Shall Palmerston remain in office, or
shall he go out and the Tories come in?" The advanced
Liberals had the decision put into their hands. As Lord
Palmerston reviewed the financial and commercial history
of his administration, they felt themselves morally coerced
to support the Ministry which had done so much for the
policy that was especially the offspring of their inspiration.
When the division was taken it was found that there were
295 votes for Mr. Disraeli's resolution, and 313 for the
amendment. Lord Palmerston was saved by a majority
of eighteen. It was not a very brilliant victory. There
were not many votes to spare. But it was a victory. The
Conservative miss by a foot was as good for Lord Palmer
ston as a miss by a mile. It gave him a secure tenure of
office for the rest of his life. Such as it was, the victory
was won mainly by his own skill, energy, and astuteness,
by the ready manner in which he evaded the question ac
tually in debate, and rested his claim to acquittal on ser
vices which no one proposed to disparage. The conclusion
was thoroughly illogical, thoroughly practical, thoroughly
English. Lord Palmerston knew his time, his opportu
nity, and his men.
That was the last great speech made by Lord Palmer
ston. That was the last great occasion on which he was
called upon to address the House of Commons. The effort
was worthy of the emergency, and, at least in an artistic
sense, deserved success. The speech exactly served its
purpose. It had no brilliant passages. It had no hint of

298 A History of Our Own Times.
an elevated thought. It did not trouble itself with any
profession of exalted purpose or principle. It did not con
tain a single sentence which any one could care to remem
ber after the emergency had passed away. But it did for
Lord Palmerston what great eloquence might have failed
to do ; what a great orator, by virtue of his very genius
and oratical instincts, might only have marred. It took
captive the wavering minds, and it carried the division.

CHAPTER XLVI.

EBB AND FLOW.

One cannot study English politics, even in the most su
perficial way, without being struck by the singular regu
larity with which they are governed by the law of action
and reaction. The succession of ebb and flow in the tides
is not more regular and more certain. A season of politi
cal energy is sure to come after a season of political apa
thy. After the sleeping comes the waking; after the day
of work, the night of repose. A liberal spirit is abroad
and active ; it carries all before it for a while ; it pushes
great reforms through; it projects others still greater.
Suddenly a pause comes; and a whisper is heard that we
have had too much of Reform ; and the whisper grows
into a loud remonstrance, and the remonstrance into what
seems to be an almost universal declaration. Then sets
in a period of reaction, during which Reform is denounced
as if it were a treason, and shuddered at as though it were
a pestilence. For a season people make themselves com
fortable, and say to each other that England has attained
political perfection ; that only fools and traitors would ask
her to venture on any further change, and that we are all
going now to have a contented rest. Just as this condition
of things seems to have become a settled habit and state
of existence, the new reaction begins; and before men can
well note the change, the country is in the fervor of a Re
form fit again. It is so in our foreign policy. We seem to
have settled down to a Washingtonian principle of absolute
isolation from the concerns and complications of foreign
countries, until suddenly we become aware of a rising sea
of reaction, and almost in 3 moment we are in the thick of

300 A History of Our Own Times.
a policy which involves itself in the affairs of every State
from Finland to Sicily, and from Japan to the Caspian
Sea. It is the same with our colonies. We are just on
the eve of a blunt and cool dismissal of them from all de
pendence on us, when suddenly we find out that they are
the strength of our limbs and the light of our eyes, and
that to live without them would be only death in life ; and
for another season the patriotism of public men consists
in professions of unalterable attachment to the Colonies.
It is so with regard to warlike purpose and peaceful pur
pose; with regard to armaments, fortifications, law reform,
everything. An ordinary observer ought to be able al
most always to forecast the weather of the coming season
in English politics. When action has run its course pretty
nearly, reaction is sure; and it ought not to be very diffi
cult to foresee when the one has had its season and the
other is to succeed.
The explanation of this phenomenon is not to be found
in the fact that the people of these countries are, as Mr.
Carlyle says, " mostly fools. " They do not all thus change
their opinions in sudden mechanical springs of alternation.
The explanation is not to be sought in any change of
national opinion at all, but rather in a change in the as
cendency between two tolerably well-balanced parties in
politics and thought. The people of these countries, or
perhaps it should be said of England especially, are born
into Liberalism and Conservatism. In Ireland and in
Scotland the condition of things is modified by other facts,
and the same general rule will hardly apply ; but in Eng- ¦
land this is, roughly speaking, the law of life. Men, as
a rule, remain in the political condition— we can hardly
speak of the political convictions — to which they were
born. But the majority give themselves little trouble
about the matter. If there is a great stir made by those
just above them in politics, and to whom they look up,
they will take some interest, and will exhibit it in any
desirable way; but they do not move of themselves, and

Ebb and Flow. 301
when their leaders appear to acquiesce in anything for a
season they withdraw their attention altogether. Many a
man is hardly conscious of whether he is Liberal or Con
servative until he gets into a crowd somewhere, and hears
his neighbors shouting. Then he shouts with those whom
he knows to be of the opinions he is understood to hold,
and he shouts himself into political conviction. This is
the condition of the majority on both sides. It takes im
mense trouble on the part of the leaders to rouse the mass
of their followers into a condition of genuine activity.
The majority are like some of the heavy-winged insects
who hardly ever use their wings, and who, when for some
reason they are anxious to hoist themselves into the air,
may be seen of a summer twilight making their prepara
tion so long and slowly that a passing observer would never
suppose they meant any such unwonted movement as a
flight. The political leaders, and the followers imme
diately within hearing of their voices, have for the most
part the direction of affairs in their hands — these and the
newspapers. The leaders, the House of Commons, and
the active local men in cities and boroughs — these and the
newspapers make up what we commonly understand to
be public opinion. The change in public opinion, or
what seems to be such, is when one set succeeds for a
time in getting predominance over the other. The pre-
dominance is usually transferred when one set has done or
said all it is quite prepared to do or say for the moment.
Then the other, having lost patience or gained courage,
rushes in and gets his turn. It is like a contest in some
burlesque eclogue, in which each singer has his chance
only when the rival is out of breath, and he can strike in
and keep singing until he too feels his lungs fail him and
has to give way. The Liberals are in power, and they
carry some measures by the strength of their Parliamen
tary majority. The moment comes when they go farther
than the patience of their opponents will bear, or when
they have nothing more to suggest at the moment. In

302 A History of Our Own Times.
either case, the managers of the Opposition arouse them
selves; and they say, "We cannot endure any more of
this;" or they ask each other why they have endured so
much. They stir up their whole party with all the energy
they can muster, and at last, after tremendous effort, they
get their shard-borne beetle hoisted for his drowsy flight.
'The others have sunk into comparative languor. They
have done what they wanted to do; they have, according
to the French phrase, exhausted their mandate ; and there
is nothing by which they can call the whole strength of
their party into action. They do not any longer see their
way as well as their opponents do. They are not so angry
or so resolute. Perhaps they think they have gone a lit
tle too far. The Conservative newspapers are all astir and
aflame. The Conservative passion is roused. The Con
servative lungs are fresh and strong ; their rivals are out
of breath. In a word, the Conservatives get what Ameri
can politicians call "the floor;" and this is Conservative
reaction. All the time it is probable that not one man in
every ten thousand of the population has really changed
his opinion. The Conservatives hold their place for a cer
tain time, until their opponents have recovered their ener
gies, and have lost their patience ; until their passion to
attack is more thorough and genuine than the power of the
men in possession to resist. Then the Liberal beetle is
got upon his wings, and Liberalism has its time again.
During all these changes, however, the Liberal move
ment is necessarily gaining ground. Reaction in English
politics never now goes the length of undoing what has
been done. It only interposes a delay, and a warning
against moving too far and too fast in the same direction.
Therefore, after each flux and efflux it is a matter of prac
tical necessity that the cause which means movement of
some kind must be found to have gained upon the cause
which would prefer to stand still. It is almost needless to
say that the Liberal party have not always been the actual
means of carrying a Liberal movement. All great Con-

Ebb and Flow. 303
servative leaders have recognized in good time the neces
sity of accepting some principle of Reform. In a practical
country like England, the Conservatives could not main
tain a party of any kind if it were absolutely certain that
their mission was to oppose every reform, and the mission
of the Liberals to promote it. As a principle, the business
of Liberalism is to cry " forward ;" that of Conservatism to
cry "back." The action and reaction of which we speak
is that of Liberalism and Conservatism ; not of the leaders
of Liberal and Tory Administrations.
The movement of reaction against Reform in domestic
policy was in full force during the earlier years of Lord
Palmerston's Government. In home politics, and where
finance and commercial legislation were not concerned,
Palmerston was a Conservative Minister. He was prob
ably, on the whole, more highly esteemed among the rank
and file of the Opposition in the House of Commons than
by the rank and file on his own side. Not a few of the
Conservative country gentlemen would in their hearts
have been glad if he could have remained Prime-minister
forever. His thoroughly English ways appealed directly
to their sympathies. His instincts went with theirs.
They liked his courage and his animal spirits. He was
always ready to fling cheery defiance in the face of any
foreign foe, just as they had been taught to believe that
their grandfathers used to fling defiance in the face of
Bonaparte and France. He was a faithful member of the
Church of England, but his, certainly, was not an austere
Protestantism ; and he allowed religion to come no farther
into the affairs of ordinary life than suited a country gen
tleman's ideas of the fitness of things. There was among
Tory country gentlemen, also, a certain doubt or dread as
to the manner in which eccentric and exoteric genius
might manage the affairs of England when the Conserva
tives came to have a government of their own, and when
Lord Derby could no longer take command. These,
therefore, all liked Palmerston, and helped, by their favor,

304 A History of Our Own Times.
to swell the sails of his popularity. Many of those who
voted, with their characteristic fidelity to party, for Mr.
Disraeli's resolution of censure, were glad in their hearts
that Lord Palmerston came safely out of the difficulty.
But as the years went on there were manifest signs of
the coming and inevitable reaction. One of the most
striking of these indications was found in the position
taken by Mr. Gladstone. For some time Mr. Gladstone
had been more and more distinctly identifying himself
with the opinions of the advanced Liberals. The ad
vanced Liberals themselves were of two sections or fac
tions, working together almost always, but very distinct in
complexion; and it was Mr. Gladstone's fortune to be
drawn by his sympathies to both alike. He was, of course,
drawn toward the Manchester School by his economic
views — by his agreement with them on all subjects relating
to finance and to freedom of commerce; but the Manches
ter Liberals were for non-intervention in foreign politics,
and they carried this into their sympathies as well as into
their principles. They had never shown much interest in
the struggles of other nations for political liberty. They
did not seem to think it was the business of Englishmen to
make demonstrations about Italians, or Poles, or French
Republicans. The other section of the advanced Liberals
were sometimes even flightily eager in their sympathies
with the Liberal movements of the Continent. Mr. Glad
stone was in communion with the movements of foreign
Liberals, as he was with those of English Free-traders and
economists. He was, therefore, qualified to stand between
both sections of the advanced Liberals of England, and
give one hand to each. During the debates on Italian
questions of i860 and 1 861 he had identified himself with
the cause of Italian unity and independence.
In the year 1864 Garibaldi came on a visit to England,
and was received in London with an outburst of enthusi
asm the like whereof had not been seen since Kossuth first
passed down Cheapside— and which, perhaps, was not seen

Ebb and Flow. 305
even then. It was curious to notice how men of opposing
parties were gradually swept or sucked into this whirlpool
of enthusiasm, and how aristocracy and fashion, which had
always held aloof from Kossuth, soon crowded round Gari
baldi. At first the leading men of nearly all parties held
aloof, except Mr. Gladstone. He was among the very
first and most cordial in his welcome to Garibaldi. Then
the Liberal leaders in general thought they had better
consult for their popularity by taking Garibaldi up. A
lady of high rank and great political influence frankly ex
pressed her opinion that Garibaldi was nothing more than
a respectable brigand, but she joined in doing public honor
to him nevertheless, acknowledging that it would be in
convenient for her husband to keep aloof and risk his pop
ularity. Then the Conservative leaders, too, began to
think it would never do for them to hold back when the
prospect of a general election was so closely overshadow
ing them, and they plunged into the Garibaldi welcome.
Men of the class of Lord Palmerston cared nothing for
Garibaldi. Men like Lord Derby disliked and despised
him ; but the crowd ran after him, and the leaders on both
sides, after having looked on for a moment with contempt,
and another moment with amazement, fairly pulled off
their hats and ran with the crowd, shouting and hallooing
like the rest. The peerage then rushed at Garibaldi. He
was beset by dukes, mobbed by countesses. He could
not, by any possibility, have so divided his day as to find
time for accepting half the invitations of the noble and
new friends who fought and scrambled for him. It was a
perpetual trouble to his secretaries and his private friends
to decide between the rival claims of a prince of the blood
and a prime-minister, an archbishop and a duchess, the
Lord Chancellor and the leader of the Opposition. The
Tories positively outdid the Liberals in the competition.
The crowd in the streets were perfectly sincere; some
acclaiming Garibaldi because they had a vague knowledge
that he had done brave deeds somewhere, and represented
Vol. II. — 20

306 A History of Our Own Times.
a cause; others, perhaps the majority, because they as
sumed that he was somehow opposed to the Pope. The
leaders of society were, for the most part, not sincere.
Three out of every four of them had always previously
spoken of Garibaldi, when they spoke of him at all, as a
mere buccaneer and filibuster. The whole thing ended in
a quarrel between the aristocracy and the democracy, and
Garibaldi was got back to his island somehow. Had he
ever returned to England, he would probably have found
himself unembarrassed by the attentions of the Windsor
uniform and the Order of the Garter. The whole episode
was not one to fill the soul of an unconcerned spectator
with great respect for the manner in which crowds and
leaders sometimes act in England. Mr. Gladstone was
one of the few among the leaders who were undoubtedly
sincere, and the course he took made him a great favorite
with the advanced Radicals.
Mr. Gladstone had given other indications of a distinct
tendency to pass over altogether from Conservatism, and
even from Peelism, into the ranks of the Radical Reform
ers. On May nth, 1864, Mr. Baines brought on a motion
in the House of Commons for the reduction of the borough
franchise from ten pounds rental to six pounds. During
the debate that followed Mr. Gladstone made a remarkable
declaration. He contended that the burden of proof rested
upon those " who would exclude forty-nine fiftieths of the
working-classes from the franchise ; " it is for them to show
the unworthiness, the incapacity, and the misconduct of
the working-class." "I say," he repeated, "that every
man who is not presumably incapacitated by some con
sideration of personal unfitness or political danger, is
morally entitled to come within the pale of the constitu
tion." The bill was rejected, as every one knew it would
be. A franchise bill introduced by a private member on
a Wednesday is not supposed to have much prospect of
success. But the speech of Mr. Gladstone gave an impor
tance to the debate and to the occasion which it would not

Ebb and Flow. 307
be easy to overrate. The position taken up by all Con
servative minds, no matter to which side of politics their
owners belonged, had been that the claim must be made
out for those seeking an extension of the suffrage in their
favor; that they must show imperative public need, im
mense and clear national and political advantage, to
justify the concession ; that the mere fact of their desire
and fitness for the franchise ought not to count for any
thing in the consideration. Mr. Gladstone's way of look
ing at the question created enthusiasm on the one side,
consternation and anger on the other. This was the prin
ciple of Rousseau's "Social Contract, " many voices ex
claimed; the principle of the rights of man; the red
republic ; the social and democratic revolution ; anything,
everything that is subversive and anarchical. Early in the
following session there was a motion introduced by Mr.
Dillwyn, a stanch and persevering Reformer, declaring
that the position of the Irish State Church was unsatisfac
tory, and called for the early attention of her Majesty's
Government. Mr. Gladstone spoke on the motion, and
drew a contrast between the State Church of England and
that of Ireland, pointing out that the Irish Church minis
tered only to the religious wants of one-eighth or one-ninth
of the community amid which it was established. In
reply to a letter of remonstrance Mr. Gladstone explained,
not long after, that he had not recommended any particular
action as a consequence of Mr. Dillwyn's resolution, re
garding the question as yet " remote, and apparently out
of all bearing on the practical politics of the day." It was
evident, however, that his mind would be found to be
made up at any time when the question should become
practical, and it was highly probable that his own
speech had greatly hastened the coming of that time.
The eyes of all Radical Reformers, therefore, turned to
Mr. Gladstone as the future Minister of Reform in
Church and State. He became from the same moment
an object of distrust, and something approaching to

308 A History of Our Own Times.
detestation, in the eyes of all steady-going Conserva
tives. Meanwhile there were many changes taking place in the
social and political life of England. Many eminent men
passed away during the years that Lord Palmerston held
his almost absolute sway over the House of Commons.
One man we may mention in the first instance, although
he was no politician, and his death in no wise affected the
prospects of parties. The attention of the English people
was called from questions of foreign policy and of possible
intervention in the Danish quarrel by an event which
happened on the Christmas-eve of 1863. That day it be
came known throughout London that the author of
"Vanity Fair" was dead. Mr. Thackeray died suddenly
at the house in Kensington which he had lately had built
for him in the fashion of that Queen Anne period which
he loved, and had illustrated so admirably. He was still
in the very prime of life ; no one had expected that his
career was so soon to close. It had not been in any sense
a long career. Success had come somewhat late to him,
and he was left but a short time to enjoy it. We have
already spoken of his works and his literary character.
Since the publication of "The Newcomes," he had not
added to his reputation; indeed, it hardly needed any
addition. He had established himself in the very fore
most rank of English novelists ; with Fielding, and Gold
smith, and Miss Austen, and Dickens. He had been a
literary man, and hardly anything else ; having had little
to do with politics or political journalism. Once, indeed,
he was seized with a sudden ambition to take a seat in the
House of Commons, and at the general election of 1857 he
offered himself as a candidate for the city of Oxford in
opposition to Mr. Cardwell. He was not elected ; and he
seemed to accept failure cheerfully as a hint that he had
better keep to literary work for the future. He would go
back to his author's desk, he said good-humoredly, and he
k ept his word. It is not likely that he would have been a

Ebb and Flow. 309
Parliamentary success. He had no gift of speech, and had
but little interest in the details of party politics. His
political views were sentiments rather than opinions.
Most of his admirers would probably have been sorry to
see him involved in the partisan debates of the House of
Commons, where any practised official trained to glibness
or any overbearing declaimer would have been far more
than a match for him, and where he had no special need
or call to go. It is not true that success in Parliament is
incompatible with literary distinction. Macaulay and
Grote, and two of Thackeray's own craft, Lord Beacons-
field and Lord Lytton, may be called as recent witnesses
to disprove that common impression. But these were men
who had a distinctly political object, or who loved politi
cal life, and were only following their star when they
sought seats in the House of Commons. Thackeray had
no such vocation, and would have been as much out of
place in Parliamentary debate as a painter or a musician.
He had no need to covet Parliamentary reputation. As it
was well said when the news of his defeat at Oxford
reached London, the Houses of Lords and Commons to
gether could not have produced " Barry Lyndon" and
"Pendennis." His early death was a source not only of
national but of world-wide regret. It eclipsed the Christ
mas gayety of nations. Thackeray was as much admired
and appreciated in America as in England. Mr. Russell,
the correspondent of the Times, has given an amusing ac
count of a Southern Confederate leader engaged in an
attempt to run the Northern blockade, who kept talking
all the time, and even at the most exciting and perilous
moments, about the various characters in Thackeray's
novels. If Thackeray died too soon, it was only too soon
for his family and his friends. His fame was secure. He
could hardly, with any length of years, have added a cubit
to his literary stature.
A whole group of statesmen had passed prematurely
away. Sir James Graham had died after several years of

310 A History of Our Own Times.
a quiet career; still a celebrity in the House of Commons,
but not much in the memory of the public outside it. One
of his latest speeches in Parliament was on the Chinese
war of i860. On the last day of the session of 1861, and
when almost all the other members had left the House, he
remained for a while talking with a friend and former col
league, and as they were separating, Sir James Graham
expressed a cheery hope that they should meet on the first
day of the next session in the same place. But Graham
died in the following October. Sidney Herbert had died
a few weeks before in the same year. Sidney Herbert had
been raised to the peerage as Lord Herbert of Lea. He
had entered the House of Lords because his breaking
health rendered it impossible to stand the wear and tear of
life in the Commons, and he loved politics and public
affairs, and could not be induced to renounce them and
live in quiet. He was a man of great gifts, and was looked
upon as a prospective Prime-minister. He had a graceful
and gracious bearing ; he was an able administrator, and
a very skilful and persuasive debater. His style of speak
ing was what might be called, if it is lawful to coin an
expression for the purpose, the " pointed-conversational. "
He never declaimed; never even tried to be what is com
monly called eloquent ; but his sentences came out with a
singularly expressive combination of force and ease, every
argument telling, every stroke having the lightness of an
Eastern champion's sword-play. He had high social
station, and was in every way fitted to stand at the head of
English public affairs. He was but fifty-one years of age
when he died. The country for some time looked on Sir
George Lewis as a man likely to lead an administration ;
but he too passed away before his natural time. He died
two years after Sir James Graham and Sidney Herbert,
and was only some fifty-seven years old at his death. Lord
Elgin was dead and Lord Canning, and Lord Dalhousie
had been some years dead. The Duke of Newcastle died
in 1864. Mr. Gladstone, speaking at Glasgow, said of

Ebb and Flow. 3 1 1
these that "they had been swept away in the full maturity
of their faculties and in the early stages of middle life — a
body of men strong enough of themselves in all the gifts
of wisdom and of knowledge, of experience and of elo
quence, to have equipped a Cabinet for the service of the
country. " Nor must we omit to mention the death of Car
dinal Wiseman on February 15th, 1865. Cardinal Wise
man had outlived the popular clamor once raised against
him in England. There was a time when his name would
have set all the pulpit-drums of no-Popery rattling; he
came at length to be respected and admired everywhere in
England as a scholar and a man of ability. He was a de
voted ecclesiastic, whose zeal for his church was his honor
and whose earnest labor in the work he was set to do had
shortened his busy life.
During the time from the first outbreak of the Civil War
in the United States to its close, all these men were re
moved from the scene, and the Civil War was hardly over
when Richard Cobden was quietly laid in an English
country church-yard. Mr. Cobden paid a visit to his con
stituents of Rochdale in November, 1864, to address them
on public affairs. He was at the time struggling against
a bronchial attack which made it imprudent for him to at
tend a public meeting — especially imprudent to try to
speak in public. He had to travel a long way in bad
weather. His friends endeavored to dissuade him from
going to Rochdale ; but he was convinced that the con
dition of political affairs was so full of seriousness that he
could not consistently, with his strong sense of duty, put
off addressing his constituents. He had had probably
some presentiment of his death ; for not long before he had
passed, in company with his friend, Mr. Bright, the place
where his only son lay buried, and he told Mr. Bright that
he should soon be laid beside him. He went to Rochdale
and spoke to a great public meeting, and he did not appear
to have lacked any of his usual ease and energy. This
speech, the last he ever made, contained the famous pas-

312 A History of Our Own Times.
sage so often quoted and criticised, which compared the
undergraduate's knowledge of Chicago with his knowledge
of the Ilyssus. "I will take any undergraduate," said
Cobden, " now at Oxford or Cambridge, and I will ask this
young gentleman to walk up to a map of the United States
and put his finger upon the city of Chicago, and I will
undertake to say that he will not go within a thousand
miles of it. When I was at Athens I sallied forth one
summer morning to see the far-famed river, the Ilyssus,
and after walking some hundred yards up what appeared
to be the bed of a winter torrent, I came up to a number
of Athenian laundresses, and I found that they had dammed
up this far-famed classic river, and that they were using
every drop of the water for their linen and such sanitary
purposes. I say, why should not the young gentlemen
who are taught all about the geography of the Ilyssus
know something about the geography of the Mississippi,
the Ohio, and the Missouri?" Mr. Cobden has always been
charged on the faith of this contrast with a desire to throw
contempt on the study of the classics, and with an inten
tion to measure the comparative value of ancient and mod
ern literature by the relative commercial importance of
Chicago and the Ilyssus. He had no such purpose. He
merely meant to show that the men who dogmatized about
modern countries and politics ought to know something of
the subject before they spoke and wrote. He contended
that it is ridiculous to call a modern political writer edu
cated because he knows something about classic Greece
and nothing about the United States. The humorous
illustration about the Ilyssus Mr. Cobden had used in a
former speech, and, curiously enough, something to much
the same purpose had been said by Byron about the Ilyssus
before, without any one falling foul of the author of
"Childe Harold," and accusing him of disparaging the
culture of Greece. Byron wrote that "places without a
name and rivers not laid down on maps may one day,
when more known, be justly esteemed superior subjects

Ebb and Flow. 313
for the pencil and the pen to the dry ditch of the Ilyssus
and the bogs of Bceotia." Cobden had been a good deal
provoked, as most sensible persons were, by the flood of
writing poured out on the country during the American
Civil War, in which citations from Thucydides were habit
ually introduced to settle questions of military and politi
cal controversy in the United States. That was the day
for public instructors of the inspired school-boy type, who
sometimes, to say the truth, knew little of the Greek liter
ature from which they paraded their quotations, but who
knew still less about the geography or the political con
ditions of America; who were under the impression that
the Mississippi flowed east and west, and talked compla
cently of English war steamers getting into Lake Erie,
apparently making no account of so considerable an obsta
cle as the Falls of Niagara.
This was Cobden's last speech. He did not come up to
London until the March of 1865, and the day on which he
travelled was so bitterly cold that the bronchial affection
from which he was suffering became cruelly aggravated.
One of the last private letters he ever wrote inclosed to a
friend an unsolicited contribution for the relief of a poor
young Englishwoman whose husband, an American sea
man, had just died in London, leaving her with a newly
born infant. He sunk rapidly, and on April 2d he died.
The scene in the House of Commons next evening was
very touching. Lord Palmerston and Mr. Disraeli both
spoke of Cobden with genuine feeling and sympathy ; but
Mr. Bright's few and broken words were as noble an epi
taph as friendship could wish for the grave of a great and
a good man. Some critics found fault with Lord Palmer
ston for having spoken of Cobden's as " Demosthenic elo
quence." That simple conversational style, it was asked
— does Lord Palmerston call that Demosthenic? Did he
not use the word as a piece of unmeaning praise, merely
because it came first to his lips? On the contrary, it is
probable that Palmerston thought the word expressed ex-

3 14 A History of Our Own Times.
actly what he wished to say. We are apt to think of the
eloquence of Demosthenes as above all things energetic,
commanding, overbearing by its strength and its action.
But this is a superficial way of regarding the great orator.
What is the essential characteristic of the oratory of De
mosthenes, in which it differs from that of almost every
other orator, ancient and modern? Surely its intensely
practical nature ; the fact that nothing is spoken without a
present and determinate purpose; that no word is used
which does not bear upon the argument the speaker would
enforce. Cobden had not the power or the polish of De
mosthenes, nor can his manner have been at all like that
of the Athenian ; but his eloquence was always moulded
naturally and unconsciously in the true spirit of Demos
thenes. It was the eloquence of one who claimed only to
be heard for his cause, and for the arguments with which
he should commend it to the intelligence of his audience.
Those who found fault with Lord Palmerston's epithet
only failed to understand its application.
The Liberal party then found themselves approaching a
general election, with their ranks thinned by many severe
losses. The Government had lost one powerful member
by an event other than death. The Lord Chancellor, Lord
Westbury, had resigned his office in consequence of a vote
of the House of Commons. Lord Westbury had made
many enemies. He was a man of great capacity and
energy, into whose nature the scorn of forms and of lesser
intellects entered far too freely. His character was some
what wanting in the dignity of moral elevation. He had
a tongue of marvellous bitterness. His sarcastic power
was probably unequalled in the House of Commons while
he sat there; and when he came into the House of Lords
he fairly took away the breath of stately and formal peers
by the unsparing manner in which he employed his most
dangerous gift. His style of cruel irony was made all the
more effective by the peculiar suavity of the tone in which
he gave out his sarcasms and his epithets. With a face

Ebb and Flow. 315
that only suggested soft, bland benevolence, with eyes
half closed, as those of a mediaeval saint, and in accents
of subdued, mellifluous benignity, the Lord Chancellor
was wont to pour out a stream of irony that corroded like
some deadly acid. Such a man was sure to make enemies ;
and the time came when, in the Scriptural sense, they
found him out. He had been lax in his manner of using
his patronage. In one case he had allowed an official of
the House of Lords to retire, and to receive a retiring pen
sion, while a grave charge connected with his conduct in
another public office was, to Lord Westbury's knowledge,
impending over him; and Lord Westbury had appointed
his own son to the place thus vacated. Thus, at first
sight, it naturally appeared that Lord Westbury bad sanc
tioned the pensioning off of a public servant against whom
a serious charge was still awaiting decision, in order that
a place might be found for the Lord Chancellor's own son.
In the other case — that of an appointment to the Leeds
Bankruptcy Court — the authority of Lord Westbury had
been made use of by a member of his family to sanction a
very improper arrangement. In this case, however, it
was shown that Lord Westbury knew nothing of the pro
posal, and had never had any idea of assisting any member
of his family by his influence in the matter. No one be
lieved that, even in the former case, he had been influ
enced by any corrupt motive. He had been led into error
by a too easy good-nature toward certain members of his
family, and by a carelessness which the engrossing char
acter of his other duties might at least have excused, if it
could not have justified. Still, there could be no doubt
that the manner in which he had exercised his patronage,
or allowed it to be exercised, was deserving of reprehen
sion. The question was taken up by the House of Commons;
and, somewhat unfortunately, taken up, in the first in
stance, by a strong political opponent of the Government.
On July 3d, 1865, Mr. Ward Hunt moved a distinct vote

3 '6 A History of Our Own Times.
of censure on the Lord Chancellor. The House did not
agree to the resolution, which would have branded the
Lord Chancellor's conduct as " highly reprehensible, and
calculated to throw discredit on the administration of the
high offices of the State." It, however, accepted an
amendment which, while acquitting Lord Westbury of any
corrupt motive, declared that the granting of the pension
showed a laxity of practice and a want of caution with
regard to the public interests on the part of the Lord
Chancellor. The Government were not able to resist this
resolution. Lord Palmerston made the best effort he
could to save the Lord Chancellor; but the common feel
ing of the House held that the words of the resolution
were not too strong, and the Government had to bow to it.
The Lord Chancellor immediately resigned his office. No
other course was fairly open to him. The Government
lost a man of singular ability and energy. Lord West-
bury's fall was not, perhaps, so much the result of the one
or two transactions for which the censure was passed, as
of the growing dislike which both Houses had come to feel
for an intellect too keen to be scrupulous, and a nature
which brought, even to the uninspiring business of law
reforms, some of the fierce animosities to which the tongue
of a Swift would hardly have given a more bitter expres
sion. Many thought, when all was done, that he had
been somewhat harshly used. He would, perhaps, have
been greatly surprised himself to know how many kindly
things were said of him.
The hour of political reaction was evidently near at
hand. Five years had passed away since the withdrawal
of Lord John Russell's Reform Bill; and five years may
represent, in ordinary calculation, the ebb or flow of the
political tide. The dissolution of Parliament was near.
Lord Derby described the Speech from the Throne, at the
opening of the session of 1865, as a sort of address very
proper to be delivered by an aged minister to a moribund
Parliament. The Parliament had run its course. It had

Ebb and Flow. 317
accomplished the rare feat of living out its days, and hav
ing to die by simple efflux of time. On July 6th, 1865,
Parliament was dissolved. Mr. Disraeli's address to the
electors of Buckinghamshire, sent out before the dissolu
tion, distinctly declared that the issue which the country
would have to decide concerned the National Church and
the franchise. "The maintenance of a National Church,"
he said, "involves the question whether the principle of
religion shall be an element of our political constitution ;
whether the State shall be consecrated ; or whether, dis
missing the sanctions that appeal to the higher feelings of
man, our scheme of government should degenerate into a
mere system of police." " I see nothing," he proclaimed,
" in such a result but the corruption of nations and the fall
of empires." As regards the franchise he was vaguely
grandiloquent ; and both the vagueness and the grandilo
quence were doubtless deliberate and to serve a purpose.
"On the extension of the Electoral Franchise," he ob
served, "depends the distribution of power." He was of
opinion that " the primary plan of our ancient constitution,
so rich in various wisdom, indicates the course we ought
to pursue." What that course was Mr. Disraeli took good
care not to explain too clearly. The ancient constitution,
he showed, had " secured our popular rights by intrusting
power not to an indiscriminate multitude, but to the Estate
or Order of the Commons ; and a wise Government should
be careful that the elements of that Estate should bear a
due relation to the moral and material development of the
country." Public opinion, he suggested, might not be
yet ripe enough to legislate on the subject ; but the coun
try "might ponder over it with advantage, so that when
the time comes for action we may legislate in the spirit of
the English Constitution, which would absorb the best of
every class, and not fall into a democracy, which is the
tyranny of one class, and that one the least enlightened."
Translated into plain English, these pompous generalities
meant clearly enough, although perhaps men did not all

318 A History of Our Own Times.
see it just then, that Mr. Disraeli would be prepared, if
his turn should arrive, to bring in a Reform Bill, and that
he still had hopes of being able to satisfy the country
without going too far in the direction of popular suffrage.
But it seems evident now that he had left it open to him
to take even that course should it come in his way. No
matter how wide the extension of the franchise which he
found himself driven to make, he could always say that in
his opinion it only absorbed the best of a class, and did
not allow us to fall into a democracy.
"Which spills the foremost foeman's life, that party
conquers in the strife. " The first blow was struck in the
city of London, and the Liberals carried all the seats.
Four Liberals were elected. In Westminster the contest
was somewhat remarkable. The constituency of Westmin
ster always had the generous ambition to wish to be
represented by at least one man of distinction. Westmin
ster had been represented by Fox. It had more lately had
Sir Francis Burdett for one of its representatives, and
Cochrane for another. Byron's friend Hobhouse long rep
resented Westminster. More lately still it had had Sir
de Lacy Evans, not much of a politician to be sure, but a
very gallant soldier — a man whose name was, at all events,
to adopt the French phrase, " in the play-bill. " This time
Mr. Mill was induced to come out of his calm retirement
in Avignon and accept the candidature for Westminster.
He issued an address embodying his well-known political
opinions. He declined to look after local business, and
on principle he objected to pay any part of the expenses
of election. It was felt to be a somewhat bold experiment
to put forward such a man as Mill among the candidates
for the representation of a popular constituency. His
opinions were extreme. He was not known to belong to
any church or religious denomination. He was a philoso
pher, and English political organizations do not love phi
losophers. He was almost absolutely unknown to his
countrymen in general. Until he came forward as a

Ebb and Flow. 319
leader of the agitation in favor of the Northern cause
during the Civil War, he had never, so far as we know,
been seen on an English political platform. Even of the
electors of Westminster very few had ever seen him before
his candidature. Many were under the vague impression
that he was a clever man who wrote wise books, and died
long ago. He was not supposed to have any liking or
capacity for Parliamentary life. More than ten years be
fore it was known to a few that he had been invited to
stand for an Irish county, and had declined. That was at
the time when his observations on the Irish land tenure
system and the condition of Ireland generally had filled
the hearts of many Irishmen with delight and wonder —
delight and wonder to find that a cold English philosopher
and economist should form such just and generous opinions
about Irish questions, and should express them with such
a noble courage. Since that time he had not been sup
posed to have any inclination for public life, nor, we
believe, had any serious effort been made to tempt him
out of his retirement. The idea now occurred to Mr.
James Beal, a popular Westminster politician, and he
pressed it so earnestly on Mill as a public duty that Mill
did not feel at liberty to refuse. Mill was one of the few
men who have only to be convinced that a thing was in
cumbent on them as a public duty to set about doing it
forthwith, no matter how distasteful it might be to them
personally, or what excellent excuses they might offer for
leaving the duty to others. He had written things which
might well make him doubtful about the prudence of
courting the suffrages of an English popular constituency.
He was understood to be a rationalist; he was a supporter
of many political opinions that seemed to ordinary persons
much like "fads," or crotchets, or even crazes. He had
once said in his writings that the working-classes in Eng
land were given to lying. He had now to stand up on
platforms before crowded and noisy assemblies, where
everything he had ever written or said could be made the

320 A History of Our Own Times.
subject of question and of accusation, and with enemies
outside capable of torturing every explanation to his dis
advantage. A man of independent opinions, and who has
not been ashamed to change his opinions when he thought
them wrong, or afraid to put on record each opinion in the
time when he held to it, is at much disadvantage on the
hustings. He will find out there what it is to have writ
ten books and to have enemies. Mill triumphed over all
the difficulties by downright courage and honesty. When
asked at a public meeting, chiefly composed of working-
men, whether he had ever said the working-classes were
given to lying, he answered straight out, " I did ;" a bold,
blunt admission without any qualification. The boldness
and frankness of the reply struck home to the manhood of
the working-men who listened to him. Here they saw a
leader who would never shrink from telling them the
truth. Mr. Mill has himself described what followed his
answer. " Scarcely were these two words out of my
mouth, when vehement applause resounded through the
whole meeting. It was evident that the working-people
were so accustomed to expect equivocation and evasion
from those who sought their suffrages, that when they
found, instead of that, a direct avowal of what was likely
to be disagreeable to them, instead of being affronted they
concluded at once that this was a person they could
trust. . . . The first working-man who spoke after the in
cident I have mentioned (it was Mr. Odger) said that the
working-classes had no desire not to be told of their faults;
they wanted friends, not flatterers ; and felt under obliga
tion to any one who told them anything in themselves
which he sincerely believed to require amendment. And
to this the meeting heartily responded. " One is in doubt
whether to admire more the frankness of the speaker or
the manly good sense of those to whom he spoke. " As
much to my surprise," says Mr. Mill, "as to that of any
one, I was returned to Parliament by a majority of some
hundreds over my Conservative competitor."

Ebb and Flow. 321
In many other instances there was a marked indication
that the political tide had turned in favor of Liberal opin
ions. Mr. Thomas Hughes, author of " Tom Brown's
School Days," a Radical of the " muscular Christianity"
order, as it was called, was returned for Lambeth. Mr.
Duncan M'Laren, brother-in-law of Mr. Bright, and an
advanced Radical, was elected for Edinburgh, unseating a
mild Whig. Mr. G. O. Trevelyan, a brilliant young
Radical, nephew of Macaulay, came into Parliament. In
Ireland some men of strong opinions, of ability, and of
high character found seats in the House of Commons for
the first time. One of these was Mr. J. B. Dillon, a man
who had been concerned in the Irish Rebellion of 1848.
He had long opposed the idea of an armed rising, believ
ing it inopportune and hopeless, but nevertheless when the
movement was precipitated by events he went and took
his place in the front of it with his leader. Mr. Dillon
had lived for some years in the United States, and had
lately returned to Ireland under an amnesty. He at once
reassumed a leading part in Irish politics, and won a high
reputation for his capacity and his integrity. He prom
ised to have an influential part in bringing together the
Irish members and the English Liberals, but his untimely
death cut short what would unquestionably have been a
very useful career. Wherever there was a change in the
character of the new Parliament it seemed to be in favor
of advanced Reform. It was not merely that the Tories
were left in a minority, but that so many mild Whigs had
been removed to give place to genuine Liberals. There
seemed to be little doubt that this new Parliament would
do something to make its existence memorable. No one
surely could have expected that it would vindicate its
claim to celebrity in the peculiar manner that its short
history illustrates. Mr. Disraeli himself expressed his
opinion of the new Parliament after it had been but a
short time sitting. He spoke of it as one which had dis
tinctly increased the strength and the following of Mr.
Vol. II.— 21

322 A History of Our Own Times.
Bright. No one could fail to see, he pointed out, that Mr.
Bright occupied a very different position now from that
which he had held in the late Parliament. New men had
come into the House of Commons, men of integrity and
ability, who were, above all things, advanced Reformers.
The position of Mr. Gladstone was markedly changed.
He had been defeated at the University of Oxford by Mr.
Gathorne Hardy, but was at once put in nomination for
South Lancashire, which was still open, and he was elected
there. His severance from the University was regarded
by Liberals as his political emancipation. The Reformers
then would have at their head the two great Parliamentary
orators (one of them undoubtedly the future Prime-minis
ter), and the greatest philosophical writer and thinker of
the day. This Liberal triumvirate, as they were called,
would have behind them many new and earnest men, to
whom their words would be a law. The alarmed Tories
said to themselves that between England and the demo
cratic flood there was left but one barrier, and that was in
the person of the old statesman, now in his eighty-first
year, of whom more and more doubtful rumors began to
arrive in London every day.

PALMERSTON
From the Last Photograph from Life

CHAPTER XLVII.
THE DEATH OF LORD PALMERSTON.
" Unarm, Eros ; the long day's task is done, and we
must sleep!" A long, very long, day's task was nearly
done. A marvellous career was fast drawing to its close.
Down in Hertfordshire Lord Palmerston was dying. As
Mirabeau said of himself, so Palmerston might have said,
he could already hear the preparations for the funeral of
Achilles. He had enjoyed life to the last as fully as ever
Churchill did, although in a different sense. Long as his
life was, if counted by mere years, it seems much longer
still when we consider what it had compassed, and how
active it had been from the earliest to the very end. Many
men were older than Lord Palmerston; he left more than
one senior behind him. But they were, for the most part,
men whose work had long been done — men who had been
consigned to the arm-chair of complete inactivity. Palm
erston was a hard-working statesman until within a very
few days of his death. He had been a member of Parlia
ment for nearly sixty years. He entered Parliament for
the first time in the year when Byron, like himself a Har
row boy, published his first poems. He had been in the
House of Commons for thirty years when the Queen came
to the throne. He used to play chess with the unfortu
nate Caroline of Brunswick, wife of the Prince Regent,
when she lived at Kensington as Princess of Wales. In
1808, being then one of the Lords of the Admiralty, he
had defended the Copenhagen expedition of the year be
fore, and insisted that it was a stroke indispensable to the
defeat of the designs of Napoleon. During all his politi
cal career he was only out of office for rare and brief

324 A History of Our Own Times.
seasons. To be a private member of Parliament was a
short occasional episode in his successful life. In the
words of Sadi, the Persian poet, he had obtained an ear of
corn from every harvest.
It was only during the session of 1865 that Lord Palm
erston began to give evidence that he was suffering
severely at last from that affliction which has been called
the most terrible of all diseases — old age. Up to the
beginning of that year he had scarcely shown any signs of
actual decay. He had, indeed, been for a long time a
sufferer from occasional fits of gout, lately in hands as
well as feet. During the winter of the Trent seizure he
had been much disabled and tortured by a visitation of
this kind, which almost entirely crippled him. But in
this country the gout has long ceased to be an evidence of
old age. It only too commonly accompanies middle life ;
and indeed, like black care in the poet's verse, seems able
to cling on to any horseman. But during the session of
1865 Lord Palmerston began to show that he was receiv
ing the warnings which Death, in Mrs. Thrale's pretty
poem, is made to give of his coming. He suffered much
for some of the later months. His eyesight had become
very weak, and even with the help of strong glasses he
found it difficult to read. He was getting feeble in every
way. He ceased to have that joy of the strife which in
spired him during Parliamentary debate even up to the
attainment of his eightieth year. He had kept up his
bodily vigor and the youthful elasticity of his spirits so
long, that it must have come on him with the shock of a
painful surprise when he first found that his frame and his
nerves were beyond doubt giving way, and that he too
must succumb to the cruel influence of years. The col
lapse of his vigor came on almost at a stroke. On his
eightieth birthday, in October, 1864, he started, Mr. Ashley
tells us, "at half-past eight from Broadlands, taking his
horses by train to Fareham, was met by engineer officers,
and rode along the Portsdown and Hilsea lines of forts,

The Death of Lord Palmerston. 325
getting off his horse and inspecting some of them, crossing
over to Anglesey forts and Gosport, and not reaching home
till six in the evening." Earlier in the same year he rode
one day from his house in Piccadilly to Harrow, trotting
the distance of nearly twelve miles within one hour. Such
performances testify to an energy of what one would
almost call youthful vitality, rare, indeed, even in the
history of our long-living time. But in 1865 the change
set in all at once. Lord Palmerston began to discontinue
his attendances at the House ; when he did attend, it was
evident that he went through his Parliamentary duties with
difficulty, and even with pain. The Tiverton election on
the dissolution of Parliament was his last public appear
ance. He went from Tiverton to Brocket, in Hertford
shire, a place which Lady Palmerston had inherited from
Lord Melbourne, her brother; and there he remained.
The gout had become very serious now. It had flown to
a dangerous place; and Lord Palmerston had made the
danger greater by venturing with his too youthful energy
to ride out before he had nearly recovered from one severe
attack. On October 17th a bulletin was issued, announc
ing that Lord Palmerston had been seriously ill, in conse
quence of having taken cold, but that he had been steadily
improving for three days, and was then much better.
Somehow this announcement failed to reassure people in
London. Many had only then for the first time heard
that Palmerston was ill, and the bare mention of the fact
fell ominously on the ear of the public. The very next
morning these suspicions were confirmed. It was an
nounced that Lord Palmerston's condition had suddenly
altered for the worse, and that he was gradually sinking.
Then every one knew that the end was near. There was
no surprise when the news came next day that Palmerston
was dead. He died on October 18th. Had he lived only
two days longer he would have completed his eighty-first
year. He was buried in Westminster Abbey, with public
honors, on October 27th. No man since the death of the

326 A History of Our Own Times.
Duke of Wellington had filled so conspicuous a place in
the public mind. No man had enjoyed anything like the
same amount of popularity. He died at the moment when
that popularity had reached its very zenith. It had be
come the fashion of the day to praise all he said and all he
did. It was the settled canon of the ordinary English
man's faith that what Palmerston said England must feel.
To stand forward as the opponent, or even the critic, of
anything done or favored by him was to be unpopular and
unpatriotic. Lord Palmerston had certainly lived long
enough in years, in enjoyment, in fame. It seems idle to
ask what might have happened if a man of more than
eighty could have lived and held his place in active public
life for a few years more. But if one were to indulge in
such speculation, the assumption would be that in such an
event there must have been some turn in the tide of that
almost unparalleled popularity and success. Fortunate in
everything during his later years, Lord Palmerston was
withdrawn from chance and change just when his fortune
had reached its flood.
It is hardly necessary to say that the regret for Palmer
ston was very general and very genuine. Privately, he
can hardly have had any enemies. He had a kindly heart,
which won on all people who came near him. He had no
enduring enmities or capricious dislikes ; and it was there
fore very hard for ill-feeling to live in his beaming,
friendly presence. He never disliked men merely because
he had often to encounter them in political war. He tried
his best to give them as good as they brought, and he
bore no malice. There were some men whom he disliked,
as we have already mentioned in these volumes, but they
were men who for one reason or another stood persistently
in his way, and who he fancied he had reason to believe
had acted treacherously toward him. He liked a man to
be " English," and he liked him to be what he considered
a gentleman ; but he did not restrict his definition of the
word " gentleman" to the mere qualifications of birth or

The Death of Lord Palmerston. 327
social rank. His manners were frank and genial rather
than polished ; and his is one of the rare instances in which
a man contrived always to keep up his personal dignity
without any stateliness of bearing and tone. He was a
model combatant; when the combat was over, he was
ready to sit down by his antagonist's side and be his friend,
and talk over their experiences and exploits. He was ab
solutely free from affectation. This very fact gave some
times an air almost of roughness to his manners, he could
be so plain-spoken and downright when suddenly called
on to express his mind. He was not in the highest sense
of the word a truthful man; that is to say, there were
episodes of his career in which, for purposes of state-craft,
he allowed the House of Commons and the country to be
come the dupes of an erroneous impression. Personally
truthful and honorable, of course, it would be superfluous
to pronounce him. A man of Palmerston's bringing up
is as certain to be personally truthful as he is to be brave,
and to be fond of open-air exercise and the cold bath.
But Palmerston was too often willing to distinguish be
tween the personal and the political integrity of a states
man. The distinction is common to the majority of states
men; so much the worse for statesmanship. But the
gravest errors of this kind which Palmerston had com
mitted were committed for an earlier generation. The
general public of 1865 took small account of them. Not
many would have cared much then about the grim story
of Sir Alexander Burnes' dispatches, or the manner in
which Palmerston had played with the hopes of foreign
Liberalism, conducting it more than once rather to its
grave than to its triumph. These things lived only in
the minds of a few at the time when the news of his death
came, and even of that few not many were anxious to
dwell upon them. It was noticed at the time that the
London newspaper which had persistently attacked his
policy and himself since the hour when it came into exist
ence, appeared in deep mourning the day after his death.

328 A History of Our Own Times.
Some thought this show of regret inconsistent ; some de
clared it hypocritical. There is no reason to think it
either the one or the other. Without retracting one word
of condemnation uttered concerning Palmerston's policy,
it was surely natural to feel sincere regret for the death of
one who had filled so large a space in the public eye; a
man of extraordinary powers, and whose love for his coun
try had never been denied. " Dead ! that quits all scores !"
is the exclamation of the gypsy in " Guy Mannering" —
only a simple, untaught version of the "sunt lachrymae
rerum" of Virgil, which Fox quoted to explain his feelings
when he grieved for the death of the rival whose public
actions he could not even at such a moment pretend to
approve. Whether Lord Palmerston belonged to the first order of
statesmen can be only matter of speculation and discus
sion. He was not afforded any opportunity of deciding
the question. It was the happy fortune of his country
during all his long career to have never been placed in any
position of organic danger. Not for one moment was
there any crisis of the order which enables a man to prove
that he is a statesman of the foremost class. It would be
almost as profitable to ask ourselves whether the success
ful captain of one of the Cunard steamers might have been
a Nelson or a Columbus, as to ask whether, under the
pressure of great emergency, Palmerston might have been
a really great statesman. If we were to test him by his
judgment in matters of domestic policy, we should have
to rate him somewhat low. The description which Grattan
gave of Burke would have to be reversed in Lord Palmer
ston's case. Instead of saying that "he saw everything;
he foresaw everything," we should have to say, he saw
nothing ; he foresaw nothing. He was hardly dead when
the great changes which he had always scoffed at and de
clared impossible came to pass. Marshal MacMahon once
said that in some given contingency the chassepSts of the
French soldiers would go off of themselves. Such seemed

The Death of Lord Palmerston. 32a.
to be the condition of the very reforms which Palmerston
had persuaded himself to regard as un-English and impos
sible. They went off of themselves, one might say, the
moment he was gone. Nor was it that his strength had
withstood them. If he had been ten years younger they
would probably have gone off in spite of him. They
waited out of courtesy to him, to his age, and to the cer
tainty that before very long he must be out of the way.
But, of course, Lord Palmerston is not to be judged by
his domestic policy. We might as well judge of Frederick
the Great by his poetry, or Richelieu by his play. Palm
erston was himself only in the Foreign Office, and in the
House of Commons. In both alike the recognition of his
true capacity came very late. His Parliamentary training
had been perfected before its success was acknowledged.
He was, therefore, able to use his faculties at any given
moment to their fullest stretch. He could always count
on them. They had been so well drilled by long practice
that they would instantly come at call. He understood
the moods of the House of Commons to perfection. He
could play upon those moods as a performer does upon the
keys of an instrument. The doctor in one of Dickens'
stories contrives to seem a master of his business by
simply observing what those around the patient have been
doing and wish to do, and advising that just those things
shall be done. Lord Palmerston often led the House of
Commons after the same fashion. He saw what men were
in the mood to do, and he did it ; and they were clear that
that must be a great leader who led them just whither they
felt inclined to go. The description which Burke gave
of Charles Townshend would very accurately describe what
Lord Palmerston came to be in his later days. He be
came the spoiled child of the House of Commons. Only
it has to be added, that as the spoiled child usually spoils
the parent, so Palmerston did much to spoil the House
that petted him. He would not allow it to remain long in
the mood to tolerate high principles, or any talk about

33° A History of Our Own Times.
them. Much earnestness, he knew, bored the House, and
he took care never to be much in earnest. He left it to
others to be eloquent. It was remarked at the time that
" the Prime-minister who is now, and has been for years,
far more influential in England than ever Bolingbroke
was, wielding a political power as great as any ever
owned by Chatham or Pitt; as supreme in his own country
as Cavour was in Sardinia ; holding a position such as no
French statesman has held for generations in France, has
scarcely any pretension whatever to be considered an ora
tor, and has not, during the whole course of his long
career, affixed his name to any grand act of successful
statesmanship." Lord Palmerston never cared to go
deeper in his speeches than the surface in everything. He
had no splendid phraseology, and probably would not have
cared to make any display of splendid phraseology even
if he had the gift. No speech of his would be read except
for the present interest of the subject. No passages from
Lord Palmerston are quoted by anybody. He always
selected, and doubtless by a kind of instinct, not the argu
ments which were most logically cogent, but those which
were most likely to suit the character and the temper of
the audience he happened to be addressing. He spoke for
his hearers, not for himself ; to affect the votes of those to
whom he was appealing, not for the sake of expressing
any deep, irrepressible convictions of his own. He never
talked over the heads of his audience, or compelled them
to strain their intellects in order to keep pace with his
flights. No other statesman of our time could interpose
so dextrously just before the division to break the effect
of some telling speech against him, and to bring the House
into a frame of mind for regarding all that had been done
by the Opposition as a mere piece of political ceremonial,
gone through in deference to the traditions or the formal
necessities of party, on which it would be a waste of time
to bestow serious thought. A writer quoted by Mr. Ash
ley has remarked upon Lord Palmerston's habit " of inter-

The Death of Lord Palmerston. 331
jecting occasionally a sort of guttural sound between his
words, which must necessarily have been fatal to anything
like true oratorical effect, but which somehow seemed to
enhance the peculiar effectiveness of his unprepared, easy,
colloquial style." The writer goes on to say that this
occasional hesitation "often did much to increase the
humor of some of the jocular hits in which Lord Palmer
ston so commonly delighted." "The joke seemed to be
so entirely unpremeditated ; the audience were kept for a
moment in such amusing suspense, while the speaker was
apparently turning over the best way to give the hit, that
when at last it came it was enjoyed with the keener
relish." Nothing is more rash than to attempt to convey in cold
words an idea of the effect which a happy phrase from
Lord Palmerston could sometimes produce upon a hesitat
ing audience, and how it could throw ridicule upon a very
serious case. Let us, however, make one experiment.
Mr. Disraeli had once made a long and heavy attack on
the Ministry, opened quite a battery of argument and sar
casm against them or something they had done or had
left undone. Toward the close of his speech he observed
that it was no part of his duty to suggest to the Ministry
the exact course they ought to pursue ; he would abstain
from endeavoring to influence the House by offering any
opinion of his own on that subject. Lord Palmerston be
gan his reply by seizing on this harmless bit of formality.
"The right honorable gentleman," he said, "has declared
that he abstained from endeavoring to influence the House
by any advice of his own. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think
that is indeed patriotic." The manner in which Palmer
ston spoke the words ; the peculiar pause before he found
the exact epithet with which to commend Mr. Disraeli's
conduct ; the twinkle of the eye ; the tone of the voice — all
made this ironical commendation more effective than the
finest piece of satire would have been just then. Lord
Palmerston managed to put it as if Mr. Disraeli, conscious

332 A History of Our Own Times.
of the impossibility of his having any really sound advice
to offer, had, out of combined modesty and love of coun
try, deliberately abstained from offering an opinion that
might perhaps have misled the ignorant. The effect of
Mr. Disraeli's elaborate attack was completely spoiled.
The House was no longer in a mood to consider it seri
ously. This, it may be said, was almost in the nature of
a practical joke. Not a few of Palmerston's clever in-
stanteous effects partook to a certain extent of the nature
of a good-humored practical joke; but Palmerston only
had recourse to these oratorical artifices when he was sure
that the temper of the House and the condition of the
debate would make them serve his momentary purpose.
It was hardly better than a mere joke when Palmerston,
charged with having acted unfairly in China by first favor
ing the great rebellion, and then indirectly helping the
Chinese Government to put it down, blandly asked what
could be more impartial conduct than to help the rebels
first and the Government after. It was a mere joke to
declare that a member who had argued against Palmer
ston's scheme of fortifications had himself admitted the
necessity of such a plan by saying that he had taken care
to " fortify himself" with facts in order to debate the ques
tion. These were not, however, the purely frivolous jests
that when thus told they may seem to be. They had all
of them the distinct purpose of convincing the House that
Lord Palmerston thought nothing of the arguments urged
against him ; that they did not call for any serious con
sideration ; that a careless jest was the only way in which
it would be worth his while to answer them. It is certain
that not only was the opponent, not only were other possi
ble opponents, disconcerted by this way of dealing with
the question, but that many listeners became convinced by
it that there could be nothing in the case which Lord
Palmerston treated with such easy levity. They had all,
and more than all, the effect of Pitt's throwing down his
pen and ceasing to take notes during Erskine's speech, or

The Death of Lord Palmerston. 333
O'Connell's smile and amused shake of the head at the
earnestness of an ambitious young speaker, who thought
he was making a damaging case against him, and com
pelling a formidable and elaborate reply. The jests of
Lord Palmerston always had a purpose in them, and were
better adapted to the occasion and the moment than the
repartees of the best debater in the House. At one time,
indeed, he flung his jests and personalities about in some
what too reckless a fashion, and he made many enemies.
But of late years, whether from growing discretion or
kindly feeling, he seldom indulged in any pleasantries that
could wound or offend. During his last Parliament he
represented to the full the average head and heart of a
House of Commons singularly devoid of high ambition or
steady purpose; a House peculiarly intolerant of eccen
tricity, especially if it were that of genius; impatient of
having its feelings long strained in any one direction, de
lighting only in ephemeral interests and excitements;
hostile to anything which drew heavily on the energy or
the intelligence. Such a House naturally acknowledged
a heavy debt of gratitude to the statesman who never
either puzzled or bored them. Men who distrusted Mr.
Disraeli's antitheses, and were frightened by Mr. Glad
stone's earnestness, found as much relief in the easy,
pleasant, straightforward talk of Lord Palmerston as a
school-boy finds in a game of marbles after a problem or
a sermon. We have not now to pronounce upon Lord Palmerston's
long career. Much of this " History of Our Own Times" is
necessarily the history of the life and administration of a
statesman who entered Parliament shortly after Austerlitz.
We have commented, so far as comment seemed necessary,
on each passage of his policy as it came under our notice.
His greatest praise with Englishmen must be that he loved
England with a sincere love that never abated. He had
no predilection, no prejudice, that did not give way where
the welfare of England was concerned. He ought to have

334 A History of Our Own Times.
gone one step higher in the path of public duty ; he ought
to have loved justice and right even more than he loved
England. He ought to have felt more tranquilly con
vinced that the cause of justice and of right must be the
best thing which an English minister could advance, even
for England's sake, in the end. Lord Palmerston was not
a statesman who took any lofty view of a minister's duties.
His statesmanship never stood on any high moral eleva
tion. He sometimes did things in the cause of England
which we may well believe he would not have done for
any consideration in any cause of his own. His policy
was necessarily shifting, uncertain, and inconsistent; for
he moulded it always on the supposed interests of England
as they showed themselves to his eyes at the time. His
sympathies with liberty were capricious guides. Sympa
thies with liberty must be so always where there is no
clear principle defining objects and guiding conduct.
Lord Palmerston was not prevented by his liberal sympa
thies from sustaining the policy of the coup d'Ctatj nor did
his hatred of slavery, one of his few strong and genuine
emotions apart from English interests, inspire him with
any repugnance to the cause of the Southern slave-holders.
But it cannot be doubted that his very defects were a main
cause of his popularity and his success. He was able
always with a good conscience to assure the English peo
ple that they were the greatest and the best, the only good
and great people in the world, because he had long taught
himself to believe this, and had come to believe it. He
was always popular, because his speeches invariably con
veyed this impression to the English crowd whom he ad
dressed in or out of Parliament. Other public men spoke,
for the most part, to tell English people of something they
ought to do which they were not doing, something which
they had done and ought not to have done. It is not in
the nature of things that such men should be as popular
as those who told England that whatever she did must
be right. Nor did Palmerston lay on his praise with

The Death of Lord Palmerston. 335
coarse and palpable artifice. He had no artifice in the
matter. He believed what he said, and his very sincerity
made it the more captivating and the more dangerous. A
phrase sprung up in Palmerston's days which was em
ployed to stigmatize certain political conduct beyond all
ordinary reproach. It was meant to stamp such conduct
as outside the pale of reasonable argument or patriotic
consideration. That was the word "un-English. " It was
enough with certain classes to say that anything was " un-
English" in order to put it utterly out of court. No mat
ter to what principles, higher, more universal, and more
abiding than those that are merely English it might hap
pen to appeal, the one word of condemnation was held to
be enough for it. Some of the noblest and the wisest men
of our day were denounced as un-English. A stranger
might have asked in wonder at one time whether it was
un-English to be just, to be merciful, to have consideration
for the claims and the rights of others, to admit that there
was any higher object in a nation's life than a diplomatic
success. All that would have made a man odious and in
sufferable in private life was apparently held up as belong
ing to the virtues of the English nation. Rude self-
assertion, blunt disregard for the feelings and the claims
of others, a self-sufficiency which would regard all earth's
interests as made for England's special use alone — the yet
more outrageous form of egotism which would fancy that
the moral code as it applies to others does not apply to us
— all this seemed to be considered the becoming national
characteristic of the English people. It would be almost
superfluous to say that this did not show its worst in Lord
Palmerston himself. As in art, so in politics, we never
see how bad some peculiar defect is until we see it in the
imitators of a great man's style. A school of Palmerstons,
had it been powerful and lasting, would have made Eng
land a nuisance to other nations.
Certainly a statesman's first business is to take care of
the interests of his own country. His duty is to prefer

3)() A History of Our Own Times.
her interests to those of any other country. In our rough-
and-ready human system he is often compelled to support
her in a policy the principle of which he did not cordially
approve in the first instance. He must do his best to bring
her with honor out of a war, even though he would not
himself have made or sanctioned the war if the decision
had been in his power. He cannot break sharply away
from the traditions of his country. Mr. Disraeli often
succeeded in throwing a certain amount of disrepute oil
some of his opponents by calling them the advocates of
"cosmopolitanism." If the word had any meaning, it
meant, we presume, that the advocates of "cosmopoli
tanism" were men who had no particular prejudices in
favor of their country's interests, and were as ready to take
an enemy's side of a question as that of their own people.
If there were such politicians — and we have never heard
of any such since the execution of Anacharsis Clootz — we
could not wonder that their countrymen should dislike
them, and draw back from putting any trust in them at a
critical moment. They might be held to resemble some
of the pragmatical sentimentalists who at one time used
to argue that the ties of family are of no account to the
truly wise and just, and that a good man should love all
his neighbors as well as he loved his wife and children.
Such people are hopeless in practical affairs. Taking no
account of the very springs of human motive, they are
sure to go wrong in everything they try to do or to esti
mate. An English minister must be an English minister
first of all ; but he will never be a great minister if he
does not in all his policy recognize the truth that there are
considerations of higher account for him, and for England,
too, than England's immediate interests. If he deliber
ately or heedlessly allows England to do wrong, he will
prove an evil counsellor for her; he will do her harm that
may be estimated some day even by the most practical and
arithmetical calculation. There is a great truth in the fine
lines of the cavalier-poet which remind his mistress that

The Death of Lord Palmerston. 33*]
he could not love her so much, loved he not honor more.
It is a truth that applies to the statesman as well as to the
lover. No man can truly serve his country to the best of
his power who has not in his mind all the time a service
still higher than that of his country. In many instances
Lord Palmerston allowed England to do things which, if
a nation had an individual conscience, he and every one
else would say were wrong. It has to be remembered, too,
that what is called England's interest comes to be defined
according to the minister's personal interpretation of its
meaning. The minister who sets the interest of his coun
try above the moral law is necessarily obliged to decide,
according to his own judgment at the moment, what the
interests of his country are; and so it is not even the
State which is above the moral law, but only the states
man. We have no hesitation in saying that Lord Palmer
ston's statesmanship, on the whole, lowered the moral tone
of English politics for a time. This consideration alone,
if there were nothing else, forbids us to regard him as a
statesman whose deeds were equal to his opportunities and
to his genius. To serve the purpose of the hour was his
policy. To succeed in serving it was his triumph. It is
not thus that a great fame is built up, unless, indeed,
where the genius of the man is like that of some Caesar or
Napoleon, which can convert its very ruins into monu
mental records. Lord Palmerston is hardly to be called
a great man. Perhaps he may be called a great " man
of the time." Vol. II. — 22

CHAPTER XLVIII.

THE NEW GOVERNMENT.

Lord Russell was invited by the Queen to form a Gov
ernment after the death of Lord Palmerston. For a few
days a certain amount of doubt and speculation prevailed
in London and the country generally. It was thought not
impossible that, owing to his advanced years, Lord Rus
sell might prove unwilling to take on him the burden of
such an office as that of Prime-minister. The name of
Lord Clarendon was suggested by many as that of a prob
able head of the new administration. Some talked of
Lord Granville. Others had a strong conviction that Mr.
Gladstone would himself be invited to take that command
ing position in name which he must have in fact. Even
when it became certain that Lord Russell was to be the
Prime-minister, speculation busied itself as to possible
changes in the administration. Many persuaded them
selves that the opportunity would be taken to make some
bold and sweeping changes, and to admit the Radical ele
ment to an influence in the actual councils of the nation
such as it had never enjoyed before, and such as its un
doubted strength in Parliament and the country now
entitled it to have. According to some rumors, Mr.
Bright was to become Secretary for India in the new Cabi
net ; according to others, the great free-trade orator was to
hold the office of President of the Board of Trade, which
had once been offered to his friend Mr. Cobden ; and Mr.
Mill was to be made Secretary for India. It was soon
found, however, that no such novelties were to be an
nounced. The only changes in the Cabinet were that
Lord Russell became Prime-minister, and that Lord

The New Government. 33a,
Clarendon, who had been Chancellor of the Duchy of Lan
caster, succeeded him as Foreign Secretary. One or two
new men were brought into offices which did not give a
seat in the Cabinet. Among these were Mr. Forster, who
became Under-Secretary for the Colonies in the room of
Mr. Chichester Fortescue, now Irish Secretary, and Mr.
Goschen, who succeeded Mr. Hutt as Vice-president of the
Board of Trade. Both Mr. Forster and Mr. Goschen soon
afterward came to hold high official position and to have
seats in the Cabinet. In each instance the appointment
was a concession to the growing Liberal feeling of the day;
but the concession was slight and cautious. The country
knew little about either Mr. Forster or Mr. Goschen at the
time ; and it will easily be imagined that those who thought
a seat in the Cabinet for Mr. Bright was due to the people
more even than to the man, and who had some hopes of
seeing a similar place offered to Mr. Mill, were not satis
fied by the arrangement which called two comparatively
obscure men to unimportant office. The outer public did
not quite appreciate the difficulties which a Liberal minis
ter had to encounter in compromising between the Whigs
and the Radicals. The Whigs included almost all the
members of the party who were really influential by virtue
of hereditary rank and noble station. It was impossible
to overlook their claims. In a country like England one
must pay attention to the wishes of "the Dukes." There
is a superstition about it. The man who attempted to
form a Liberal Cabinet without consulting the wishes of
"the Dukes," would be as imprudent as the Greek com
mander who in the days of Xenophon would venture on a
campaign without consulting the auguries. But it was
not only a superstition which required the Liberal Prime-
minister to show deference to the claims of the titled and
stately Whigs. The great Whig names were a portion of
the traditions of the party. More than that, it was certain
that whenever the Liberal party got into difficulties, it
would look to the great Whig houses to help it out. Many

34° A History of Our Own Times.
Liberals began to speak with more or less contempt of the
Whigs. They talked of these shadows of a mighty name
as Thackeray's Barnes Newcome talks of the senior mem
bers of his family, his uncle more particularly. But when
the Liberal party fell into disorganization and difficulty
some years after, the influence of the great Whig houses
was sought for at once in order to bring about an improved
condition of things. Liberalism often turns to the Whigs
as a young scapegrace to his father or his guardian. The
wild youth will have his own way when things are going
smooth ; when credit is still good, and family affection is
not particularly necessary to his comfort. He is even
ready enough to smile at old-fashioned ways and anti
quated counsels ; but when the hour of pressure comes,
when obligations have to be met at last, and the gay
bachelor lodgings, with the fanciful furniture and the other
expensive luxuries, have to be given up, then he comes
without hesitation to the elder, and assumes as a matter of
course that his debts are to be paid and his affairs put in
order. Lord Russell had to pay some deference to the authority
of the great Whig houses. Some of them, probably, looked
with alarm enough at the one serious change brought
about by the death of Lord Palmerston : the change which
made Mr. Gladstone leader of the House of Commons.
Meanwhile there were some changes in the actual con
dition of things which did not depend on the mere alter
nation of a Cabinet. The political complexion of the day
was likely to be affected in its color by some of these
changes. The House of Commons, elected just before
Lord Palmerston's death, was in many respects a very
different House from that which it had been his last min
isterial act to dissolve. We have already mentioned some
of the changes that death had made. Palmerston was
gone, and Cobden, and Sir George Lewis, and Sidney
Herbert, and Sir James Graham. There were changes,
too, not brought about by death. The Lord John Russell

The New Government. 341
of the Reform Bill had been made a Peer, and sat as Earl
Russell in the House of Lords. Mr. Lowe, one of the
ablest and keenest of political critics, who had for a while
been shut down under the responsibilities of office, was
a free lance once more. Mr. Lowe, who had before that
held office two or three times, was Vice-president of the
Committee of Council on Education from the beginning of
Lord Palmerston's administration until April, 1864. At
that time a vote of censure was carried against his depart
ment — in other words, against himself — on the motion of
Lord Robert Cecil, for alleged " mutilation" of the reports
of the Inspectors of Schools, done, as it was urged, in
order to bring the reports into seeming harmony with the
educational views entertained by the Committee of Coun
cil. Lord Robert Cecil introduced the resolution in a
speech singularly bitter and offensive. The motion was
carried by a majority of 101 to 93. Mr. Lowe instantly
resigned his office; but he did not allow the matter to rest
there. He obtained the appointment of a committee to
inquire into the whole subject; and the result of the in
quiry was not only that Mr. Lowe was entirely exonerated
from the charge made against him, but that the resolution
of the House of Commons was actually rescinded. It is
probable, however, that Mr. Lowe felt that the Govern
ment of which he was a member had not given him all the
support he might have expected. It is certain that if Lord
Palmerston and his leading colleagues had thrown any
great energy into their support of him the vote of censure
never could have been carried, and would not have had to
be rescinded. This fact was brought back to the memory
of many not long after, when Mr. Lowe, still an outsider,
became the very Coriolanus of a sudden movement against
the Reform policy of a Liberal Government. The vigil
of him who treasures up a wrong, if we suppose Mr. Lowe
to have had any such feeling, had not to be very long or
patient in this instance. On the other hand, Mr. Layard,
once a daring and somewhat reckless opponent of Govern-

342 A History of Our Own Times.
ment and governments, a very Drawcansir of political
debate, a swash -buckler and soldado of Parliamentary
conflict, had been bound over to the peace, quietly en
meshed in the discipline of subordinate office. Not
Michael Peres himself, the " Copper Captain" of Beaumont
and Fletcher, underwent a more remarkable and sudden
change when the strong-willed Estifania once had him
fast in wedlock, than many a bold and dashing free lance
submits to when he has consented to put himself into the
comfortable bondmanship of subordinate office. Mr. Lay
ard was, therefore, now to be regarded as one subdued in
purpose. He seemed what Byron called an " extinct vol
cano;" a happy phrase, more lately adopted by Lord Bea-
consfield. Yet the volcanic fire was not wholly gone ; it
flamed up again on opportunity given. Perhaps Mr.
Layard proved most formidable to his own colleagues,
when he sometimes had to come into the ring to sustain
their common cause. The old vigor of the professional
gladiator occasionally drove him a little too heedlessly
against the Opposition. So combative a temperament
found it hard to submit itself always to the prosaic rigor
of mere fact, and the proprieties of official decorum.
The change in the leadership of the House of Commons
was, of course, the most remarkable, and the most mo
mentous, of the alterations that had taken place. From
Lord Palmerston, admired almost to hero-worship by
Whigs and Conservatives, the foremost position had sud
denly passed to Mr. Gladstone, whose admirers were the
most extreme of the Liberals, and who was distrusted and
dreaded by all of conservative instincts and sympathies,
on the one side of the House as well as on the other. Mr.
Gladstone and Mr. Disraeli were now brought directly
face to face. One led the House; the other led the Oppo
sition. With so many points of difference, and even of
contrast, there was one slight resemblance in the political
situation of Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Disraeli. Each was
looked on with a certain doubt and dread by a consider-

The New Government. 343
able number of his own followers. It is evident that in
such a state of things the strategical advantage lay with
the leader of Opposition. He had not to take the initia
tive in anything, and the least loyal of his followers would
cordially serve under him in any effort to thwart a move
ment made by the Ministry. The Conservatives naturally
have always proved the more docile and easily disciplined
party. Of late years their policy has necessarily been of a
negative character; a policy of resistance or of delay.
There is less opportunity for difference of opinion in a
party acting with such a purpose than in one of which the
principle is to keep pace with changing times and con
ditions. It came to be seen, however, before long that the
Conservative leader was able to persuade his party to ac
cept those very changes against which some of the follow
ers of Mr. Gladstone were found ready to revolt. In order
that some of the events to follow may not appear very
mysterious, it is well to bear in mind that the formation
of the new ministry under Lord Russell had by no means
given all the satisfaction to certain sections of the Liberal
party which they believed themselves entitled to expect.
Some were displeased because the new Government was
not Radical enough. Some were alarmed because they
fancied it was likely to go too far for the purpose of pleas
ing the Radicals. Some were vexed because men whom
they looked up to as their natural leaders had not been in
vited to office. A few were annoyed because their own
personal claims had been overlooked. One thing was
certain : the Government must make a distinct move of
some kind in the direction of Reform. So many new and
energetic Liberals and Radicals had entered the House of
Commons now that it would be impossible for any Liberal
Government to hold office on the terms which had of late
been conceded to Lord Palmerston. Mr. Gladstone had
always been credited with a sensitive earnestness of tem
per which was commonly believed to have given trouble
to his more worldly and easy-going colleagues in the

344 A History of Our Own Times.
Cabinet of Lord Palmerston. He had what Condorcet has
happily called an impatient spirit. It was to many people
a problem of deep interest to see whether the genius of
Mr. Gladstone would prove equal to the trying task of
leadership under circumstances of such peculiar difficulty.
Tact, according to many, was the quality needed for the
work — not genius.
Some new men were coming upon both sides of the
political field. They were needed. Many conspicuous
figures during former years of debate would be missed
when the new Parliament came to meet. Among the new
men, we have already mentioned Mr. Forster, who had
taken a conspicuous part in the debates on the American
Civil War. Mr. Forster was a man of considerable Par
liamentary aptitude ; a debater, who, though not pretend
ing to eloquence, was argumentative, vigorous, and per
suasive. He had practical knowledge of English politics
and social affairs, and was thoroughly representative of a
very solid body of English public opinion. In the House
of Lords the Duke of Argyle was beginning to take a
prominent and even a leading place. The Duke of Argyle
was still looked upon as a young man in politics. Noth
ing can be more curious than the manner in which the
landmarks of youth and age have of late years been re
arranged in our political life. What would be regarded
as approaching to middle age in ordinary society is now
held to be little better than unfledged youth in Parlia
mentary life. It is doubtful whether any advantages of
family influence or personal capacity could in our day en
able men to lead a House or a party at the age when Pitt
and Fox were accepted political chiefs. Human life
should, indeed, have stretched out almost to what are
called patriarchal limits in order to give a political leader
now an opportunity of enjoying a fairly proportionate ten
ure of leadership. The Duke of Argyle would have passed
as a middle-aged man in ordinary life, but he was looked
on by many as a sort of boy in politics. He had, indeed,

The New Government. 345
begun life very soon. At this time he was some forty-
three years of age, and he had been a prominent public
man for more than twenty years. Lord Houghton, in
proposing his health at a public dinner some years ago,
said good-humoredly that " the Duke was only seventeen
years old" — (he was, in fact, nineteen) — "when he wrote
a pamphlet called 'Advice to the Peers,' and he has gone
on advising us ever since. " Pursuing the career of his
friend, Lord Houghton went on to say that " soon after he
got mixed up with ecclesiastical affairs, and was excom
municated." The ecclesiastical controversy in which the
Duke of Argyle engaged so early was the famous struggle
concerning the freedom of the Church of Scotland, which
resulted in the great secession headed by Dr. Chalmers,
and the foundation of the Free Church. Into this contro
versy the Duke of Argyle, then Marquis of Lome, rushed
with all the energy of Scottish youth, but in it he main
tained himself with a good deal of the proverbial Scottish
caution. Dr. Chalmers welcomed the young controver
sialist as an able and important adherent. But the Marquis
of Lome was not prepared to follow the great divine and
orator into actual secession. The heirs to dukedoms in
Great Britain seldom go very far in the way of dissent.
The Marquis declined to accept the doctrine of Chalmers,
that lay patronage and the spiritual independence of the
Church were "like oil and water — immiscible." The
Free Church movement went on, and the young Marquis
drew back. He subsequently vindicated his course, and
reviewed the whole question in an essay on the ecclesias
tical history of Scotland.
Meanwhile the young controversialist had become Duke
of Argyle, on the death of his father in 1847. He did
battle in the House of Lords as he had done out of it. He
distinguished himself by plunging almost instantaneously
into the thick of debate. He very much astonished the
staid and formal peers, who had been accustomed to dis
cussion conducted in measured tones, and with awful show

346 A History of Our Own Times.
of deference to age and political standing. The Duke of
Argyle spoke upon any and every subject with astonishing
fluency, and without the slightest reverence for years and
authority. The general impression of the House of Lords
for a long time was that youthful audacity, and nothing
else, was the chief characteristic of the Duke of Argyle ;
and for a long time the Duke of Argyle did a good deal to
support that impression. He had the temerity, before he
had been very long in the House, to make a sharp personal
attack upon Lord Derby. The peers were as much aston
ished as the spectators round the tilt-yard in "Ivanhoe,"
when they saw the strange young knight strike with his
lance's point the shield of the formidable Templar. Lord
Derby himself was at first almost bewildered by the un
expected vehemence of his inexperienced opponent; but
he soon made up his mind, and bore down upon the Duke
of Argyle with all the force of scornful invective which he
could summon to his aid. For the hour the Duke of Ar
gyle was as completely overthrown as if he had got in the
way of a charge of cavalry; he was, in a metaphorical
sense, left dead on the field. Elderly peers smiled gravely,
shook their heads, said they knew how it would be, and
congratulated themselves that there was an end of the au
dacious young debater. But they were quite mistaken.
The Duke of Argyle knew of course that he had been
soundly beaten, but he did not care. He got up again,
and went on just as if nothing had happened. His cour
age was not broken; his self-confidence moulted no
feather. After a while he began to show that there was in
him more than self-confidence. The House of Lords
found that he really knew a great deal, and had a wonder
fully clear head, and they learned to endure his dogmatic
and professorial ways ; but he never grew to be popular
among them. His style was far too self-assured; his faith
in his own superiority to everybody else was too evident
to allow of his having many enthusiastic admirers. He
soon, however, got into high office. With his rank, his

The New Government. 347
talents, and his energy, such a thing was inevitable. He
joined the Government of Lord Aberdeen in 1852 as Lord
Privy Seal, holding an office of dignity, but no special
duties, the occupant of which has only to give his assist
ance in council and general debate. He was afterward
Postmaster-general for two or three years. Under Lord
Palmerston, in 1859, he became Lord Privy Seal again,
and he retained that office in the Cabinet of Lord Russell.
Mr. Stansfeld was believed to be one of the rising men
of the day. He was an advanced Radical, especially
known for his sympathies with the movements and the
cause of the more energetic of the Italian leaders. He
had made a speech during one of the Reform debates of
i860 which called forth a high compliment from Mr. Dis
raeli, who was always ready to welcome new ability and
promise on whatever side it displayed itself. He had
proposed a resolution in favor of reduction of expenditure,
when Lord Palmerston was most active in swelling the
war costs of the country. The resolution was well sup
ported, and apparently had a fair chance of success, until
Lord Palmerston contrived to alarm the House with the
idea that if he did not get his way he would resign ; and
in the eyes of not a few members the resignation of Lord
Palmerston appeared to be much the same thing as the
coming again of chaos. Mr. Stansfeld, however, became
a person of a certain political importance, and in 1863
Lord Palmerston invited him to take office as one of the
Lords of the Admiralty. While he held that office an in
cident occurred which gave rise to a controversy of rather
a curious nature. A plot was discovered in Paris for the
assassination of the Emperor of the French. The French
Government believed, or said they believed, that Mazzini
was connected with the plot. Mazzini was a close friend
of Mr. Stansfeld, and it appeared was in the habit of hav
ing his private letters sent for him under a feigned name
to Mr. Stansfeld's house. At the trial of the accused men
in Paris, it was stated by the Procureur-imp6rial in his

348 A History of Our Own Times.
speech, that a paper had been found in the possession of
one of the prisoners authorizing him to write for money to
"Mr. Flowers," at the address of Mr. Stansfeld, in Lon
don. Now it seemed that Mazzini 's letters were some
times addressed to him as Mr. " Fiori," or Flowers. After
what we have already told in this history concerning the
opening of Mazzini 's letters in the Post-office here, it is
not very surprising that Mazzini should prefer not to have
his letters addressed to his own name. On these facts,
however, some members of the House of Commons, Lib
erals as well as Tories, got up a sort of charge against Mr.
Stansfeld. Not that any man in his senses seriously be
lieved that Mr. Stansfeld had anything to do with an
assassination plot; nor, indeed, that there was any evi
dence to show that Mazzini was acquainted with the
peculiar designs of the accused persons in this case. Still,
it seemed a good chance for an attack on the Ministry,
through Mr. Stansfeld; and no one could deny that there
was a certain amount of indiscretion, not to say impro
priety, in Mr. Stansfeld's good-natured arrangement with
Mazzini. A man holding ministerial office, however sub
ordinate, is not warranted in allowing his house to be the
receptacle of secret letters for one engaged, like Mazzini,
in revolutionary plots against established governments.
Mr. Stansfeld felt himself called on to resign his office;
and Lord Palmerston, though at first he politely pressed
him to reconsider the resolve, consented after a while to
accept the resignation. Mr. Stansfeld, however, was sure
to be invited to take office again, and the whole episode
would probably have been soon forgotten if it were not
for one odd incident. During the discussions Mr. Disraeli
strongly condemned Mr. Stansfeld for his avowed friend
ship with Mazzini, and reminded the House of a statement
made by Mr. Gallenga, an Italian politician and journalist,
to the effect that Mazzini once encouraged him, then a
young man of wild and extravagant notions, in a design
to kill Charles Albert, King of Sardinia. Mr. Bright

The New Government. 349
came to Mr. Stansfeld's defence in a very kindly and gen
erous speech, made the more effective because of his well-
known lack of sympathy with the schemes of revolutionists
anywhere. He pointed out that the evidence of Mazzini 's
distinctly sanctioning regicide was by no means clear, and
that Mr. Stansfeld might well be excused if he attached
little importance to a story told of Mazzini at such a dis
tant time. Mr. Bright went on good-humoredly to show
that high-flown talk about tyrannicide was, unfortunately,
almost a commonplace with a certain class of young rhap
sodical political writers, and added that he believed there
would be found in a poem called "A Revolutionary
Epick," written by Mr. Disraeli himself some five-and-
twenty or thirty years before, certain lines of eloquent
apostrophe in praise of the slaying of tyrants. Mr. Dis
raeli rose at once, and with some warmth denied that any
such sentiment, or any words suggesting it, could be
found in the poem. Mr. Bright, of course, accepted the
assurance. He explained that he had never seen the
poem himself, but had been positively informed that it
contained such a passage, and he withdrew the statement,
with a handsome apology. Every one supposed the mat
ter would have dropped there. The " Revolutionary
Epick" was a piece of metrical bombast, published by Mr.
Disraeli a generation before, and forgotten by almost all
the living. Mr. Disraeli, however, declared that he at
tached great importance to the charge made against him,
and that he felt bound to refute it by more than a mere
denial. He, therefore, published a new edition of the
poem, which he dedicated to Lord Stanley, in order to
settle the controversy. "I have, therefore, thought it,"
he explains, " the simplest course, and one which might
save me trouble hereafter, to publish the 'Revolutionary
Epick. ' It is printed from the only copy in my possession,
and which, with slight exceptions, was corrected in 1837,
when, after three years' reflection, I had resolved not only
to correct, but to complete the work. The corrections are

35° A History of Our Own Times.
purely literary." The poem thus republished seemed
more a literary curiosity than a work of art. It had a
preface which was positively grotesque in its grandilo
quence. "It was on the plains of Troy," the writer in
formed the world, " that I first conceived the idea of this
work. " On that interesting spot it seems to have occurred
to him for the first time that " the most heroick incident
of an heroick age produced in the Iliad an Heroick Epick;
thus the consolidation of the most superb of empires pro
duced in the ^Eneid a Political Epick; the revival of
learning and the birth of vernacular genius presented us
in the Divine Comedy with a National Epick; and the
Reformation and its consequences called from the rapt
lyre of Milton a Religious Epick." Then the author nat
urally was led to ask, should the spirit of his time " alone
be uncelebrated?" As naturally came the answer, that
the spirit of Mr. Disraeli's time ought to be celebrated,
and that Mr. Disraeli was the man to celebrate it.
"Standing upon Asia and gazing upon Europe," the in
spiration descended on him. "For me," he exclaimed,
" remains the Revolutionary Epick." There was so much
of the youth, not to say of the school-boy, in these bursts
of extraordinary eloquence, that no one could have thought
of making any serious accusation against Mr. Disraeli in
his graver days, even if the pages of such a poem had
been enlivened by some nonsense about tyrannicide. The
work, as reprinted, certainly contained no passage to show
that the young writer entertained any such opinions.
Unfortunately, however, it was found that in the republi
cation the questionable passages had somehow undergone
a process of alteration. Very few copies of the original
edition were in existence. But the British Museum treas
ured one, and from this it was found that the new version
was not quite the same as the original. Thus in the new
edition, published specially for the purpose of repelling
the charge about tyrannicide, the lines about Brutus were
very harmless :

The New Government. 351
"Rome's strong career
Was mine ; the blow bold Brutus struck, her fate."
But in the original edition it ran thus to a much more
audacious note :
"The spirit of her strong career was mine ;
And the bold Brutus but propelled the blow
Her own and nature's laws alike approved. "
There were other slight modifications, too, into which
it is not necessary to enter. Enough has been said to show
that, by what we must suppose to have been some unlucky
accident, Mr. Disraeli came to publish as a final and com
plete refutation of the charge founded upon his " Revolu
tionary Epick," a version of that work which was altered
from the original in several passages, and in the passage
most important of all. We have spoken of a charge made
against Mr. Disraeli; but that is giving by far too serious a
name to the good-humored statement made by Mr. Bright.
Neither Mr. Bright nor any one else supposed for a moment
that Mr. Disraeli ever seriously approved of regicide.
Neither Mr. Bright nor any one else would have thought of
holding Mr. Disraeli gravely responsible for some youthful
rhodomontades published in a forgotten attempt at poetry.
All that Mr. Bright apparently meant to say was: " Don't
be too rigid in censuring the incautious utterances of
men's early and foolish years. Did not you yourself, in a
poem published thirty years ago, talk some nonsense
about nature's approval of tyrannicide?" The only serious
ness given to the matter was when Mr. Disraeli published
the new edition for the purpose of finally repudiating the
charge, and the new edition was found to have the peculiar
passages altered. That was unlucky. If Mr. Disraeli
printed from the only copy in his possession, and which he
had corrected after three years' reflection, it still was a
pity he did not leave the disputed passages uncorrected, or
restore them to their original shape. The question was
not whether, after three years' reflection, Mr. Disraeli was
entitled to alter in 1837 what he had published in 1834;

352 A History of Our Own Times.
the question was only as to what he had published in 1834.
Nor is it easy to understand how, considering what the
controversy was about, he could have regarded the cor
rections as purely literary. We are bound to say, how
ever, that the incident did Mr. Disraeli no particular
harm. The English public has always been curiously
unwilling to take Mr. Disraeli seriously. The great
majority laughed at the thing, and made no further ac
count of it.
There were some rising men on the Tory side. Sir
Hugh Cairns, afterward Lord Chancellor and a peer, had
fought his way by sheer talent and energy into the front
rank of Opposition. A lawyer from Belfast, and the son
of middle-class parents, he had risen into celebrity and
influence while yet he was in the very prime of life. He
was a lawyer whose knowledge of his own craft might
fairly be called profound. He was one of the most effec
tive debaters in Parliament. His resources of telling
argument were almost inexhaustible, and his training at
the bar gave him the faculty of making the best at the
shortest notice of all the facts he was able to bring to bear
on any question of controversy. He showed more than
once that he was capable of pouring out an animated and
even a passionate invective. An orator in the highest
sense he certainly was not. No gleam of imagination
softened or brightened his lithe and nervous logic. No
deep feeling animated and inspired it. His speeches were
arguments, not eloquence; instruments, not literature.
But he was, on the whole, the greatest political lawyer
since Lyndhurst, and he was probably a sounder lawyer
than Lyndhurst. He had, above all things, skill and dis
cretion. He could do much for the aboriginal Tories, if
we may use such a word, which they could not do of or for
themselves; and his appearance in the front rank of Con
servatism made it much more formidable than it was
before. Like Mr. Disraeli himself, however, Sir Hugh
Cairns was an imported auxiliary of Toryism. The Con-

The New Government. 353
servative party had always to retain their foreign legion,
as the French kings had their Scottish archers, their Swiss
guard, or their Irish brigade. In the House of Commons
there were very few genuine English Tories capable of
sustaining with Mr. Disraeli the brunt of debate. The
Conservative leader's most effective adjutants were men
like Sir Hugh Cairns, an Irish lawyer; Mr. Whiteside, a
voluble, eloquent, sometimes rather boisterous speaker,
also an Irishman and a lawyer; Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald,
a clever Irishman, who had at least been called to the bar.
Sir Stafford Northcote was a man of ability, who had had
an excellent financial training under no less a teacher
than Mr. Gladstone himself. But Sir Stafford Northcote,
although a fluent speaker, was not a great debater, and,
moreover, he had but little of the genuine Tory in him.
He was a man of far too modern a spirit and training to
be a genuine Tory. He was not one whit more Conserva
tive than most of the Whigs. Mr. Gathorne Hardy, after
ward Lord Cranbrook, was a man of ingrained Tory
instincts rather than convictions. He was a powerful
speaker of the rattling declamatory kind; fluent as the
sand in an hour-glass is fluent ; stirring as the roll of a
drum is stirring; sometimes dry as the sand and empty as
the drum. A man of far higher ability and of really great
promise was Lord Robert Cecil, afterward Lord Cran-
borne, and now Marquis of Salisbury. Lord Robert Cecil
was at this time the ablest scion of noble Toryism in the
House of Commons. He was younger than Lord Stanley,
and he had not Lord Stanley's solidity, caution, or political
information. But he had more originality ; he had bril
liant ideas ; he was ready in debate ; and he had a positive
genius for saying bitter things in the bitterest tone. The
younger son of a great peer, he had at one time no appar
ent chance of succeeding to the title and the estates. He
had accepted honorable poverty, and was glad to help out
his means by the use of his very clever pen. He wrote in
several publications, it was said; especially in the Quar-
Vol. 11. — 23

354 A History of Our Own Times.
terly Review, the time-honored and somewhat time-worn
organ of Toryism; and after a while certain political
articles in the Quarterly came to be identified with his
name. He was an ultra-Tory ; a Tory on principle, who
would hear of no compromise. One great object of his
political writings appeared to be to denounce Mr. Disraeli,
his titular leader, and to warn the party against him. For
a long time he was disliked by most persons in the House
of Commons. His gestures were ungainly ; his voice was
singularly unmusical and harsh; and the extraordinary
and wanton bitterness of his tongue set the ordinary lis
teners against him. He seemed to take a positive delight
in being gratuitously offensive. One night during the
session of 1862 he attacked Mr. Gladstone's financial
policy, and likened it to the practice of " a pettifogging
attorney." This was felt to be somewhat coarse, and there
were many murmurs of disapprobation. Lord Robert
Cecil cared as little for disapprobation or decorum as the
son of Tisander in the story told by Herodotus, and he
went on with his speech unheeding. Next night, when
the debate was resumed, Lord Robert rose and said he
feared he had on the previous evening uttered some words
which might give offence, and which he felt that he could
not justify. There were murmurs of encouraging ap
plause; the House of Commons admires nothing more
than an unsolicited and manly apology. He had, Lord
Robert went on to say, compared the policy of Mr. Glad
stone to the practice of a pettifogging attorney. That was
language which, on cooler consideration, he felt that he
ought not to have used, and therefore he begged leave to
tender his sincere apology — to the attorneys. There was
something so wanton, something so nearly approaching to
mere buffoonery in conduct like this, that many men found
themselves unable to recognize the really high intellectual
qualities that were hidden behind that curious mask of
offensive cynicism. Lord Robert Cecil, therefore, although
a genuine Tory, or perhaps because he was a genuine Tory,

The New Government. 355
could not as yet be looked upon as a man likely to render
great service to his party. He was just as likely to turn
against them at some moment of political importance.
He would not fall in with the discipline of the party ; he
would not subject his opinions or his caprices to its sup
posed interests. He was not made to swear in the words
of the leader who then guided the party in the House of
Commons. Some men on his own side of the House dis
liked him. Many feared him ; some few admired him ;
no one regarded him as a trustworthy party man. At this
period of its career, as at almost all others, Toryism, as a
Parliamentary party, lived and won its occasional suc
cesses by the guidance and the services of brilliant outsid
ers. Had it been left to the leadership of genuine Tories
it would probably have come to an end long before. At
this particular time to which we have now conducted it,
it lived and looked upon the earth, had hope of triumph
and gains, had a present and a future, only because it al
lowed itself to be led by men whom it sometimes dis
trusted; whom, according to some of its own legitimate
princelings, it ought to have always disavowed.

CHAPTER XLIX.

THE TROUBLES IN JAMAICA.

Demosthenes once compared the policy of the Athenians
to the manner in which a barbarian boxes. When the
barbarian receives a blow, his attention is at once turned
to the part which has got the stroke, and he hastens to de
fend it. When he receives another blow in another place,
his hand is there just too late to stop it. But he never
seems to have any idea beforehand of what he is to expect
or whither his attention ought to be directed. The im
mense variety of imperial, foreign, and colonial interests
that England has got involved in compels a reader of Eng
lish history, and, indeed, often compels an English states
man, to find himself in much the same condition as this
barbarian boxer. It is impossible to know from moment
to moment whither the attention will next have to be
turned. Lord Russell's Government had hardly come into
power before they found themselves compelled to illus
trate this truth. They had scarcely been installed when
it was found that some troublesome business awaited them,
and that the trouble, as usual, had arisen in a wholly un-
thought-of quarter. For some weeks there was hardly
anything talked of, we might almost say hardly anything
thought of, in England but the story of the rebellion that
had taken place in the island of Jamaica, and the manner
in which it had been suppressed and punished. The first
story came from English officers and soldiers who had
themselves helped to crush or to punish the supposed re
bellion. All that the public here could gather from the
first narratives that found their way into print was that a
negro insurrection had broken out in Jamaica, and that it

The Troubles in Jamaica. 357
had been promptly crushed; but that its suppression
seemed to have been accompanied by a very carnival of
cruelty on the part of the soldiers and their volunteer aux
iliaries. Some of the letters sent home reeked with blood.
Every writer seemed anxious to accredit himself with the
most monstrous deeds of cruelty. Accounts were given of
battues of negroes as if they had been game. Englishmen
told with exulting glee of the number of floggings they
had ordered or inflicted ; of the huts they had burned down ;
of the men and women they had hanged. "I visited,"
wrote an English officer to his superior, " several estates
and villages. I burned seven houses in all, but did not even
see a rebel. On returning to Golden Grove in the evening,
sixty-seven prisoners had been sent in by the Maroons. I
disposed of as many as possible, but was too tired to con
tinue after dark. On the morning of the 24th I started
for Morant Bay, having first flogged four and hung six
rebels. I beg to state that I did not meet a single man
upon the road up to Keith Hall ; there were a few prison
ers here, all of whom I flogged, and then proceeded to
Johnstown and Beckford. At the latter place I burned
seven houses and one meeting-house ; in the former, four
houses." Another officer writes : "We made a raid with
thirty men, flogging nine men and burning their negro
houses. We held a court-martial on the prisoners, who
amounted to about fifty or sixty. Several were flogged
without court-martial, from a simple examination." Then
the writer quietly added : " This is a picture of martial
law. The soldiers enjoy it; the inhabitants here dread it.
If they run on their approach, they are shot for running
away. " It will be seen that in these letters there is no
question of contending with or suppressing an insurrec
tion. The insurrection, such as it was, had been sup
pressed. The writers only give a description of a sort of
hunting expedition among the negro inhabitants for the
purpose of hanging and flogging. The soldiers are pic
tured as enjoying the work; the inhabitants, strange to

358 A History of Our Own Times.
say, are observed to dread it. Their dread would seem
to have been unfortunate, although certainly not unnatu
ral ; for if they ran away at the approach of the soldiers,
the soldiers shot them for their want of confidence. It
also became known that a colored member of the Jamaica
House of Assembly, a man named George William Gor
don, who was suspected of inciting the rebellion, and had
surrendered himself at Kingston, was put on board an
English war vessel there, taken to Morant Bay, where
martial law had been proclaimed, tried by a sort of drum
head court-martial, and instantly hanged.
Such news naturally created a profound sensation in Eng
land. The Aborigines' Protection Society, the Anti-Slavery
Society, and other philanthropic bodies, organized a depu
tation, immense in its numbers and of great influence as
regarded its composition, to wait on Mr. Cardwell, Secre
tary for the Colonies, at the Colonial Office, and urge on
him the necessity of instituting a full inquiry and recall
ing Governor Eyre. The deputation was so numerous
that it had to be received in a great public room, and in
deed the whole scene was more like that presented by some
large popular meeting than by a deputation to a minister.
Mr. Cardwell was so fortunate as to discover a phrase ex
actly suitable to the occasion. In the course of his reply
to the deputation, he laid it down that every one must be
careful not to " prejudge" the question. It was pointed
out to him that it can hardly be called prejudging if you
take men's own formal and official statements of what
they have done, and declare that on their own acknowl
edgments you are of opinion they have done wrong. The
word "prejudge" carried thousands of uncertain minds
along with it. All over the country there was one easy
form of protest against the proceedings of the philan
thropic societies. It was apparently enough to utter the
oracular words, "we must not prejudge." Mr. Cardwell,
however, did so far prejudge the case himself as to suspend
Mr. Eyre temporarily from his functions as Governor, and

The Troubles in Jamaica. 359
to send out a Commission of Inquiry to investigate the
whole history of the rebellion and the repression, and to
report to the Government. Sir Henry Storks, a man of
great ability and high reputation, both as soldier and ad
ministrator, who had been Lord High Commissioner of
the Ionian Islands, was summoned from Malta, where he
was then Governor and Commander-in-chief, to take the
Governorship of Jamaica for the time, and to act as Presi
dent of the Commission. He had associated with him Mr.
Russell Gurney, Recorder of London, a lawyer of high
standing and a distinguished member of Parliament ; and
Mr. J. B. Maule, Recorder of Leeds. The philanthropic
associations which had taken up the question sent out
two barristers to act as counsel for the widowed Mrs. Gor
don during the investigation ; Mr. Gorrie, afterward Chief-
justice of the Fiji Islands, and Mr. J. Home Payne. The
Commission held a very long and careful inquiry. No
one could question either the ability or the impartiality of
the Commissioners. There was a general disposition to
receive any report they might make as authoritative and
decisive. Meanwhile, however, it need hardly be said
that there was no disposition to wait for the story of all
that had happened until the Commission should have got
through its patient inquiries and presented its formal re
port. The English public have long learned to look to
the newspaper press as not only the quickest, but on the
whole the most accurate, source of intelligence in all mat
ters of public interest. In this case, as in most others, the
newspapers differed in their judgment as to the conduct
of the principal actors in the drama; but in this case, as
in all others of late years, each newspaper endeavored to
give a correct representation of the facts. Many wild ex
aggerations had found their way into some newspapers.
These came from private letters. It sometimes happened
that men who had been engaged in cutting down the in
surrection represented themselves as having done deeds
of savage vengeance of which they were not really guilty.

360 A History of Our Own Times.
In some instances it actually turned out that Mr. Card-
well's appeal to the public not to prejudge was warranted
even where men deliberately affirmed themselves to have
committed the acts which made people at home shudder and
exclaim. Such seemed to have been the fervor of repres
sion in Jamaica, that persons were found eager to claim
an undue share of its honors by ascribing to themselves
detestable excesses which in point of fact they had not
committed. It is needless to say that there was exagger
ation on the other side, and that affrighted colored people
in Jamaica sent forth wild rumors of wholesale massacre
which would have been impossible, even in the high fever
of repression. As the letters of the accredited correspon
dents of the newspapers began to arrive, the true state of
affairs gradually disclosed itself. There was no substan
tial discrepancy as to the facts ; and the report of the Com
missioners themselves, when it was received, did not add
much to the materials for forming a judgment which the
public already possessed, nor probably did it alter many
opinions of many men. The history of the events in Ja
maica, told in whatever way, must form a sad and shock
ing narrative. The history of this generation has no such
tale to tell where any race of civilized and Christian men
was concerned. Had the repression been justifiable in all
its details ; had the fearful vengeance taken on the wretched
island been absolutely necessary to its future tranquillity,
it still would have been a chapter of history to read with
a shudder. It will be seen, however, that excesses were
committed which could not possibly plead the excuse of
necessity ; that some deeds were done which most moral
ists would say no human authority could warrant, or hu
man peril justify.
Jamaica had long been in a more or less disturbed con
dition ; at least it had long been liable to periodical fits of
disturbance. We have already described in this history
some of the difficulties occasioned by the condition of
things existing in the island. When giving an account of

The Troubles in Jamaica. 361
the Jamaica Bill during the Melbourne administration, it
was mentioned that the troubles then existing were, in
fact, a survival of the slave system. So were the troubles
of 1865. "I suppose there is no island or place in the
world," said Chief- justice Cockburn, in his celebrated
charge to the Grand-jury at the Central Criminal Court,
in 1867, "in which there has been so much of insurrection
and disorder as the island of Jamaica. There is no place
in which the curse which attaches to slavery, both as re
gards the master and the slave, has been more strikingly
illustrated." What we may call the planter class still
continued to look on the negroes as an inferior race hardly
entitled to any legal rights. The negroes were naturally
only too ready to listen to any denunciations of the planter
class, and to put faith in any agitation which promised
to secure them some property in the land. The negroes
had, undoubtedly, some serious grievances. It may be
that some of the wrongs they complained of were imag
inary, or were exaggerated. But it is a very safe rule in
politics to assume that no population is ever disturbed by
wholly imaginary grievances. In such cases, unquestion
ably, where there is smoke there is fire. Man is by far
too lazy an animal to trouble himself much with agitation
about purely unreal and non-existing wrongs. The ne
groes of Jamaica had some very substantial wrongs. They
constantly complained that they could not get justice ad
ministered to them when any dispute arose between white
and black. The Government had found that there was
some ground for complaints of this kind at the time when
it was proposed by the Jamaica Bill to suspend the consti
tution of the island. Perhaps if the Melbourne Ministry
had been stronger and inspired by greater earnestness of
purpose at that time, the calamities and shames of 1865
might have been avoided. In 1865, however, the common
causes of dissatisfaction were freshly and further compli
cated by a dispute about what were called the "back
lands. " This was a question which might, under certain

362 A History of Our Own Times.
circumstances, have arisen in Ireland ; at least it will be
easily understood by those who are acquainted with the
condition of Ireland. Lands belonging to some of the
great estates in Jamaica had been allowed to run out of
cultivation. They were so neglected by their owners that
they were turning into mere bush. The quit-rents due
on them to the Crown had not been paid for seven years.
The negroes were told that if they paid the arrears of quit-
rent they might cultivate these lands and enjoy them free
of rent. It may be remarked that the tendency in Jamaica
had almost always hitherto been for the Crown officials to
take the part of the negroes, and for the Jamaica authori
ties to side with the local magnates. Trusting to the as
surance given, some of the negroes paid the arrears of
quit-rent, and brought the land into cultivation. The
agent of one of the estates, however, reasserted the right
of his principal, who had not been a consenting party to
the arrangement, and he endeavored to evict the negro
occupiers of the land. The negroes resisted, and legal
proceedings were instituted to turn them out. The legal
proceedings were still pending when the events took place
which gave occasion to so much controversy. Jamaica
was in an unquiet state. "Within the land," as in the
territory of the chiefs round Lara's castle, "was many a
malcontent, who cursed the tyranny to which he bent."
There, too, " Frequent broil within had made a path for
blood and giant sin, that waited but a signal to begin new
havoc such as civil discord blends." On October 7th,
1865, some disturbances took place on the occasion of a
magisterial meeting at Morant Bay, a small town on the
southeast corner of the island. The negroes appeared to
be in an excited state, and many persons believed that an
outbreak was at hand. An application was made to the
Governor for military assistance. The Governor of Ja
maica was Mr. Edward John Eyre, who had been a suc
cessful explorer in Central, West, and Southern Australia, ,
had acted as resident magistrate and protector of aborigines

The Troubles in Jamaica. 363
in the region of the Lower Murray in Australia, and had
afterward been Lieutenant-governor of New Zealand, of
the Leeward Islands, and of other places. All Mr. Eyre's
dealings with native races up to this time would seem to
have earned for him the reputation of a just and 'humane
man. The Governor despatched a small military force by
sea to the scene of the expected disturbances. Warrants
had been issued meanwhile by the Custos, or chief magis
trate of the parish in which Morant Bay is situated, for
the arrest of some of the persons who had taken part in
the previous disturbances — which it may be stated had for
their object the rescue of a man on trial for a trifling of
fence. When the warrants were about to be put into exe
cution, resistance by force was offered. In particular, the
attempt to arrest a leading negro agitator, named Paul
Bogle, was strenuously and successfully opposed. The
police were overpowered, and some were beaten, and others
compelled to swear that they would not interfere with the
negroes. On the nth the negroes, armed with sticks, and
the " cutlasses" used in the work of the sugar-cane fields,
assembled in considerable numbers in the square of the
Court-house in Morant Bay. The magistrates were hold
ing a meeting there. The mob made for the Court-house ;
the local volunteer force came to the help of the magis
trates. The Riot Act was being read when some stones
were thrown. The volunteers fired, and some negroes
were seen to fall. Then the rioters attacked the Court
house. The volunteers were few in number, and were
easily overpowered ; the Court-house was set on fire ; eigh
teen persons, the Custos among them, were killed, and
about thirty were wounded ; and a sort of incoherent in- /
surrection suddenly spread itself over the neighborhood.
The moment, however, that the soldiers sent by the Gov
ernor, at first only one hundred in number, arrived upon
the scene of disturbance, the insurrection collapsed and
vanished. There never was the slightest attempt made
by the rioters to keep the field against the troops. The

364 A History of Our Own Times.
soldiers had not in a single instance to do any fighting.
The only business left for them was to hunt out supposed
rebels, and bring them before the military tribunals. So
evanescent was the whole movement that it is to this day
a matter of dispute whether there was any rebellion at all,
properly so called; whether there was any organized at
tempt at insurrection ; or whether the disturbances were
not the extemporaneous work of a discontented and turbu
lent mob, whose rush to rescue some of their friends ex
panded suddenly into an effort to wreak old grievances on
the nearest representatives of authority.
On October 13th, the Governor proclaimed the whole of
the county of Surrey, with the exception of the city of
Kingston, under martial law. Jamaica is divided into
three counties ; Surrey covering the eastern and southern
portion, including the region of the Blue Mountains, the
towns of Port Antonio and Morant Bay, and the consider
able city of Kingston, with its population of some thirty
thousand. Middlesex comprehends the central part of the
island, and contains Spanish Town, then the seat of Gov
ernment. The western part of the island is the county
of Cornwall. At this time Jamaica was ruled by the Gov
ernor and Council, and the House of Assembly. The
Council was composed of twelve persons, nominated, like
the Governor, by the Crown; and the House of Assembly
consisted of forty-five members elected by the freeholders
of each parish. The Council had the place of an Upper
House ; the Assembly was the Representative Chamber.
Among the members of the Assembly was a colored man
of some education and property, George William Gordon.
Gordon was a Baptist by religion, and had in him a good
deal of the fanatical earnestness of the field-preacher. He
was a vehement agitator, and a devoted advocate of what
he considered to be the rights of the negroes. He appears
to have had a certain amount of eloquence, partly of the
conventicle and partly of the stump. He was just the sort
of man to make himself a nuisance to white colonists and

The Troubles in Jamaica. 365
officials who wanted to have everything their own way.
Indeed, he belonged to that order of men who are almost
sure to be always found in opposition to officialism of any
kind. Such a man may do mischief sometimes, but it is
certain that out of his very restlessness and troublesome-
ness he often does good. No really sensible politician
would like to see a Legislative Assembly of any kind
without some men of the type of Gordon representing the
check of perpetual opposition. On the other hand, Gordon
was exactly the sort of person in the treatment of whom
a wise authority would be particularly cautious, in order
not to allow its own prejudices to operate to his injury and
the injury of political justice together. Gordon was in
constant disputes with the authorities, and with Governor
Eyre himself. He had been a magistrate, but was dis
missed from the magistracy in consequence of the alleged
violence of his language in making accusations against
another justice. He had taken some part in getting up
meetings of the colored population ; he had made many
appeals to the Colonial Office in London against this or
that act on the part of the Governor or the Council, or
both. He had been appointed church-warden, but was
declared disqualified for the office in consequence of his
having become a "Native Baptist;" and he had brought
an action to recover what he held to be his rights. He
had come to hold the position of champion of the rights
and claims of the black man against the white. He was
a sort of constitutional Opposition in himself. The Gov
ernor seems to have at once adopted the conclusion urged
on him by others, that Gordon was at the bottom of the
insurrectionary movement. In the historical sense he may,
no doubt, be regarded as in some measure the cause of the
disturbance, whether insurrectionary or not, which broke
out. A man who tells people they are wronged is to that
extent the cause of any disturbance which may come of
an attempt to get their wrongs righted. A great many
persons declared that Fox was the author of the Irish re-

^66 A History of Our Own Times.
bellion of 1798, because he had helped to show that the
Irish people had wrongs. In this sense every man who
agitates for reform anywhere is responsible should any
rebellious movement take place; and the only good citizen
is he who approves of all that is done by authority, and
never uplifts the voice of opposition to anything. Gordon
was a very energetic agitator, and he probably had some
sense of self-importance in his agitation ; but we entirely
agree with Chief -justice Cockburn in believing that " so
far from there being any evidence to prove that Mr. Gor
don intended this insurrection and rebellion, the evidence,
as well as the probability of the case, appears to be ex
actly the other way." There does not seem to have been
one particle of evidence to connect Gordon with a rebel
lious movement more than there would have been to con
demn Mr. Bright as a promoter of rebellion, if the working-
men of the Reform period, soon to be mentioned in this
history, had been drawn into some fatal conflict with the
police. In each case it might have been said that only
for the agitator who denounced the supposed grievance all
would have been quiet ; and in neither case was there any
thing more to be said which could connect the agitator
with the disturbance. Mr. Eyre and his advisers, how
ever, had made up their minds that Gordon was the leader
of a rebellious conspiracy. They took a course with re
gard to him which could hardly be excused if he were the
self-confessed leader of as formidable a conspiracy as ever
endangered the safety of a State.
We have mentioned the fact that in proclaiming the
county of Surrey under martial law, Mr. Eyre had spe
cially excepted the city of Kingston. Mr. Gordon lived
near Kingston, and had a place of business in the city;
and he seems to have been there attending to his business,
as usual, during the days while the disturbances were
going on. The Governor ordered a warrant to be issued
for Gordon's arrest. When this fact became known to
Gordon, he went to the house of the general in command

The Troubles in Jamaica. 367
of the forces at Kingston, and gave himself up. The
Governor had him put at once on board a war steamer and
conveyed to Morant Bay. Having given himself up in a
place where martial law did not exist, where the ordinary
courts were open, and where, therefore, he would have
been tried with all the forms and safeguards of the civil
law, he was purposely carried away to a place which had
been put under martial law. Here an extraordinary sort
of court-martial was sitting. It was composed of two
young navy lieutenants and an ensign in one of her Maj
esty's West India regiments. Gordon was hurried before
this grotesque tribunal, charged with high treason, found
guilty, and sentenced to death. The sentence was ap
proved by the officer in command of the troops sent to
Morant Bay. It was then submitted to the Governor, and
approved by him also. It was carried into effect without
much delay. The day following Gordon's conviction was
Sunday, and it was not thought seemly to hang a man on
the Sabbath. He was allowed, therefore, to live over that
day. On the morning of Monday, October 23d, Gordon
was hanged. He bore his fate with great heroism, and
wrote just before his death a letter to his wife, which is
full of pathos in its simple and dignified manliness. He
died protesting his innocence of any share in disloyal con
spiracy or insurrectionary purpose.
The whole of the proceedings connected with the trial
of Gordon were absolutely illegal ; they were illegal from
first to last. It is almost impossible to conceive of any
transaction more entirely unlawful. Every step in it was
a separate outrage on law. But for its tragic end the
whole affair would seem to belong to the domain of bur
lesque rather than to that of sober history. The act which
conveyed Mr. Gordon from the protection of civil law to
the authority of a drumhead court-martial was grossly
illegal. The tribunal was constituted in curious defiance
of law and precedent. It is contrary to all authority to
form a court-martial by mixing together the officers of the

368 A History of Our Own Times.
two different services. It was an unauthorized tribunal,
however, even if considered as only a military court-mar
tial, or only a naval court-martial. Whatever way we
take it, it was irregular and illegal. It would have been
so had all its members been soldiers, or had all been
sailors. Care seemed to have been taken so to constitute
it that it must in any case be illegal. The prisoner thus
brought by unlawful means before an illegal tribunal
was tried upon testimony taken in ludicrous opposition to
all the rules of evidence. Chief-justice Cockburn says:
" After the most careful perusal of the evidence which was
adduced against him, I come irresistibly to the conclusion
that if the man had been tried upon that evidence" — and
here the Chief -justice checked himself and said: "I must
correct myself. He could not have been tried upon that
evidence ; I was going too far, a great deal too far, in as
suming that he could. He could not have been tried upon
that evidence. No competent judge acquainted with the
duties of his office could have received that evidence.
Three-fourths, I had almost said nine-tenths, of the evi
dence upon which that man was convicted and sentenced
to death was evidence which, according to no known rules
— not only of ordinary law, but of military law — according
to no rules of right or justice, could possibly have been
admitted; and it never would have been admitted if a
competent judge had presided, or if there had been the
advantage of a military officer of any experience in the
practice of courts-martial." Such as the evidence was,
however, compounded of scraps of the paltriest hearsay,
and of things said when the prisoner was not present; of
depositions made apparently to supplement evidence given
before, and not thought strong enough; strengthened,
probably, in the hope of thus purchasing the safety of the
witnesses, and on which the witnesses were never cross-
examined — such as the evidence was, supposing it admissi
ble, supposing it trustworthy, supposing it true beyond all
possibility of question, yet the Chief-justice was convinced

The Troubles in Jamaica. 369
that it testified rather to the innocence than to the guilt
of the prisoner. By such a court, on such evidence, Gor
don was put to death.
Meanwhile the carnival of repression was going on.
The insurrection, or whatever the movement was which
broke out on October 1 ith, was over long before. It never
offered the slightest resistance to the soldiers. It never
showed itself to them. An armed insurgent was never
seen by them. Nevertheless, for weeks after, the hang
ings, the floggings, the burnings of houses, were kept up.
Men were hanged, women were flogged, merely "suspect
of being suspect. " Many were flogged or hanged for no
particular reason but that they happened to come in the
way of men who were in a humor for flogging and hanging.
Women — to be sure they were only colored women — were
stripped and scourged by the saviors of society with all
the delight which a savage village population of the Mid
dle Ages might have felt in torturing witches. The re
port of the Royal Commissioners stated that four hundred
and thirty-nine persons were put to death, and that over
six hundred, including many women, were flogged, some
under circumstances of revolting cruelty. Cats made of
piano-wire were in some instances used for the better
effect of flagellation. Some of the scourges were shown
to the Commissioners, who observe that it is " painful to
think than any man should have used such an instrument
for the torturing of his fellow-creatures." The Commis
sioners summed up their Report by declaring that the
punishments inflicted were excessive ; that the punishment
of death was unnecessarily frequent; that the floggings
were reckless, and in some cases positively barbarous; that
the burning of one thousand houses was wanton and cruel. "
The fury at last spent itself. Lassata. necdum satiata.
When the story reached England in clear and trust
worthy form, two antagonistic parties were instantly
formed. The extreme on the one side glorified Governor
Eyre, and held that by his prompt action he had saved the
Vol. II. — 24

37° A History of Our OwnTimes.
white population of Jamaica from all the horrors of trium
phant negro insurrection. The extreme on the other side
denounced him as a mere fiend. The majority on both
sides were more reasonable ; but the difference between
them was only less wide. An association called the Ja
maica Committee was formed for the avowed purpose of
seeing that justice was done. It comprised some of the
most illustrious Englishmen. Men became members of
that committee who had never taken part in public agita
tion of any kind before. Another association was founded
on the opposite side for the purpose of sustaining Gov
ernor Eyre; and it must be owned that it too had great
names. Mr. Mill may be said to have led the one side,
and Mr. Carlyle the other. The natural bent of each
man's genius and temper turned him to the side of the
Jamaica negroes, or of the Jamaica Governor. Mr. Tenny
son, Mr. Kingsley, Mr. Ruskin, followed Mr. Carlyle ; we
know now that Mr. Dickens was of the same way of think
ing. Mr. Herbert Spencer, Professor Huxley, Mr. Gold-
win Smith, were in agreement with Mr. Mill. We have
purposely omitted the names of politicians, whom any
reader can range without difficulty according to his knowl
edge of their career and ways of thinking. No one needs
to be told that Mr. Bright took the side of the oppressed,
and Mr. Disraeli that of authority. The case on either
side may be briefly stated. We put out of consideration
altogether the position taken up by only too many of
those who proclaimed themselves advocates of Mr. Eyre,
and who volunteered a line of defence on his behalf for
which he would probably have given them little thanks.
That was what some one at the time, in blunt, expressive
words, described as the " damned nigger" principle; the
principle that any sort of treatment is good enough for
negroes, and, generally speaking, serves them right. This
kind of argument was very effective among considerable
classes of persons, but it was not allowed to make its ap
pearance much in public debate. In the House of Com-

The Troubles in Jamaica. 371
mons it never, at all events, got higher than the smoking-
room ; the reporters in the gallery were not allowed any
opportunity of recording it. Perhaps, on the other side,
we may fairly put out of our consideration the view of
those who, having from the most benevolent motives iden
tified themselves all their lives long with the cause of op
pressed negroes, fell instinctively and at once into the ranks
of any movement professing to defend a negro population.
The more reasonable of those who supported Mr. Eyre did
not concern themselves to vindicate the legality or even
the justice of all that he had done. Lord Carnarvon, the
new Colonial Secretary, frankly admitted that in his opin
ion acts of cruelty and injustice had been done during and
after the rebellion. Many were quite willing to admit
that the trial of Gordon had been irregular, and that his
hasty execution was to be deplored. What they did con
tend was that at a terrible crisis Mr. Eyre did the best
he could; that he was confronted with the fearful possi
bility of a negro insurrection, where the whites were not
one in twenty of the blacks, and where a moment's success
to the rebels might have put the life of every white man,
and the honor of every white woman, at the mercy of furi
ous mobs of savage negroes. "Say what you will," they
urged, " he stamped out the rebellion. He acted illegally
because there was no time for being legal. He sanctioned
unmerciful deeds, because he had to choose between mercy
to murderous blacks and mercy to loyal and innocent
whites. You complain of the flogging of black women ;
he was thinking of the honor and the lives of white wo
men. He crushed the rebellion utterly; he positively
frightened it into submission. He was dealing with sav
ages; he took the only steps which could have saved the
loyal people he had in charge from an orgy of cruelty and
licentiousness. Had he stayed his hand a moment all was
lost. Many things were done which we deplore; which
we would not have done; which he would not have done,
or sanctioned, if there were time to balance claims and

372 A History of Our Own Times.
consider nicely individual rights. But he saved the white
population, and put down the insurrection; and we feel
gratitude to him first of all. "
Such is, we think, a fair statement of the case relied
upon by the more reasonable of the defenders of Mr. Eyre.
To this the opposite party answered that in fact the in
surrection, supposing it to have been an insurrection, was
all over before the floggings, the hangings, and the burn
ings set in. Not merely were the troops masters of the
field, but there was no armed enemy anywhere to be seen
in the field or out of it. They contended that men are not
warranted in inflicting wholesale and hideous punishments
merely in order to strike such terror as may prevent the
possibility of any future disturbance. As an illustration
of the curious ethical principles which the hour called
forth, it may be mentioned that one of the best-instructed
and ablest of the London journals distinctly contended
that excess of punishment would be fully justified as a
means of preventing further outbreaks. "Consider" —
such was the argument — " what the horrors of a success
ful outbreak in Jamaica might be, or even of an outbreak
successful for a few days ; consider what blood its repres
sion would cost even to the negroes themselves ; and then
say whether any one ought to shrink from inflicting a few
superfluous floggings and hangings if these would help to
strike terror, and make new rebellion impossible? Even
the flogging of women — disagreeable work, no doubt, for
English soldiers to have to do — if it struck terror into
their husbands and brothers, and thus discouraged rebel
lion, would it, too, not be justified?" One cannot better
deal with this argument than by pushing it just a little
farther. Suppose the burning alive of a few women and
children seemed likely to have a deterrent effect on dis
loyal husbands and fathers generally, would it not be well
to light the pile? What would the torture and death of
a score or so of women and children be when compared
with the bloodshed which such a timely example might

The Troubles in Jamaica. 373
avert? Yet any sane man would answer that rather than
that he would brave any risk ; and so we get to the end of
the argument at once. We have only arrived at an ac
knowledgment of the fact that the repression of insurrec
tion, like everything on earth, has its restraining moral
code, which custom and civilization, if there were nothing
else, must be allowed to establish. The right of English
men to rule in Jamaica is a right which has to be exercised
with, and not without, regard for human feelings and
Christian laws. Not a few persons endeavored to satisfy
their own and the public conscience by praising the vir
tues of Governor Eyre's career, and casting aspersions on
the character of the unfortunate Gordon. Professor Hux
ley disposed once for all of that sort of argument by the
quiet remark that he knew of no law authorizing virtuous
persons as such to put to death less virtuous persons as
such. The Report of the Commissioners was made in April,
1866. It declared in substance that the disturbances had
their immediate origin in a planned resistance to author
ity, arising partly out of a desire to obtain the land free
of rent, and partly out of the want of confidence felt by
the laboring class in the tribunals by which most of the
disputes affecting their interests were decided; that the
disturbance spread rapidly, and that Mr. Eyre deserved
praise for the skill and vigor with which he had stopped
it in the beginning; but that martial law was kept in force
too long; that the punishments inflicted were excessive;
that the punishment of death was unnecessarily frequent;
that the floggings were barbarous, and the burnings wan
ton and cruel ; that although it was probable that Gordon,
by his writings and speeches, had done much to bring
about excitement and discontent and thus rendered insur
rection possible, yet there was no sufficient proof of his
complicity in the outbreak, or in any organized conspiracy
against the Government; and, indeed, that there was no
widespread conspiracy of any kind. Of course, this finished

374 A History of Our Own Times.
Mr. Eyre's career as a Colonial Governor. A new Gov
ernor, Sir J. P. Grant, was sent out to Jamaica, and a new
Constitution was given to the island. The Jamaica Com
mittee, however, did not let the matter drop there. They
first called upon the Attorney-general to take proceedings
against Mr. Eyre and some of his subordinates. The Gov
ernment had, meanwhile, passed into Conservative hands,
in consequence of events which have yet to be told ; and
the Attorney-general declined to prosecute. Probably a
Liberal Attorney-general would have done just the same
thing. Then the Jamaica Committee decided on prose
cuting Mr. Eyre and his subordinates themselves. They
took various proceedings, but in every case with the same
result. We need not go into the history of these proceed
ings, and the many controversies, legal and otherwise,
which they occasioned. The bills of indictment never got
beyond the grand-jury stage. The grand-jury always
threw them out. On one memorable occasion the attempt
gave the Lord Chief -justice of England an opportunity
of delivering the charge to the grand-jury from which we
have already cited some passages : a charge entitled to the
rank of a historical declaration of the law of England, and
the limits of the military power even in cases of insurrec
tion. Mr. Carlyle found great fault with the Chief -justice
for having merely laid down the law of England. " Lord
ship," he wrote, "if you were to speak for six hundred
years, instead of six hours, you would only prove the more
to us that, unwritten if you will, but real and fundamental,
anterior to all written laws and first making written laws
possible, there must have been, and is, and will be, coeval
with human society from its first beginnings to its ultimate
end, an actual martial law of more validity than any other
law whatever." The business of the Lord Chief -justice,
however, was not to go in philosophical quest of those
higher laws of which Mr. Carlyle assumed to be the inter
preter. His was the humbler but more practical part to
expound the laws of England, and he did his duty.

The Troubles in Jamaica. 375
The prosecutions can hardly be said to have been with
out use which gave opportunity for this most important
exposition from such high authority. But they had no
effect as against Mr. Eyre. Even the Chief-justice, who
exposed with such just severity the monstrous misuse of
power which had been seen in Jamaica, still left it to the
grand-jury to say whether after all — considering the state
of things that prevailed on the island, the sudden danger,
the consternation, and the confusion — the proceedings of
the authorities, however mistaken, were not done honestly
and faithfully in what was believed to be the proper ad
ministration of justice. After many discussions in Parlia
ment, the Government in 1872 — once again a Liberal Gov
ernment — decided on paying Mr. Eyre the expenses to
which he had been put in defending himself against the
various prosecutions; and the House of Commons, after
a long debate, agreed to the vote by a large majority.
The Jamaica Committee were denounced by many voices,
and in very unmeasured language, for what they had done.
Yet no public body ever were urged on to an unpopular
course by purer motives than those which influenced Mr.
Mill and his associates. They were filled with the same
spirit of generous humanity which animated Burke when
he pressed the impeachment against Warren Hastings.
They were sustained by a desire to secure the rights of
British subjects for a despised and maltreated negro popu
lation. They were inspired with a longing to cleanse the
name of England from the stain of a share in the abom
inations of that unexampled repression. Yet we do not
think, on the whole, that there was any failure of justice.
A career full of bright promise was cut short for Mr. Eyre,
and for some of his subordinates as well ; and no one ac
cused Mr. Eyre personally of anything worse than a fury
of mistaken zeal. The deeds which were done by his
authority, or to which, when they were done, he gave his
authority's sanction, were branded with such infamy that
it is almost impossible such things could ever be done

376 A History of Our Own Times.
again in England's name. Even those who excused, under
the circumstances, the men by whom the deeds were done,
had seldom a word to say in defence of the acts them
selves. The cruelties of that saturnalia of vengeance are
absolutely without parallel in the history of our times;
perhaps the very horror they inspired, the very shame of
the few arguments employed to defend them, may make
for mercy in the future. The one strong argument for
severity, on which so many relied when upholding the
acts of Mr. Eyre, is curiously confuted by the history of
Jamaica itself. That argument was that severity of an
extraordinary kind was necessary to prevent the repetition
of rebellion. Rigor of repression had been tried long
enough in Jamaica without producing any such effect.
During one hundred and fifty years there had been about
thirty insurrections, in some of which the measures of re
pression employed were sweeping and stern enough to
have shaken the nerves of a Couthon and disturbed the
conscience of a Claverhouse. The Chief-justice declared
that there was not a stone on the island of Jamaica which,
if the rains of heaven had not washed off from it the stains
of blood, might not have borne terrible witness to the
manner in which martial law had been exercised for the
suppression of native discontent. The deeds, therefore,
that were done under the authority of Mr. Eyre found no
plea to excuse them in the history of the past. Such
policy had been tried again and again, and had failed.
The man who tried it again in 1865 undertook the re
sponsibility of defying the authority of experience, as
well as that of constitutional and moral law.

CHAPTER L.
DRIVEN BACK ACROSS THE RUBICON.
The Queen opened the new Parliament in person. She
then performed the ceremony for the first time since the
death of the Prince Consort. The speech from the throne
contained a paragraph which announced that her Majesty
had directed that information should be procured in refer
ence to the right of voting in the election of members of
Parliament, and that when the information was complete,
" the attention of Parliament will be called to the result
thus obtained, with a view to such improvements in the
laws which regulate the right of voting in the election
of members of the House of Commons as may tend to
strengthen our free institutions, and conduce to the public
welfare. " Some announcement on the subject of Reform
was expected by every one. Nobody could have had any
doubt that the new Government would at once bring for
ward some measure to extend the franchise. The only
surprise felt was perhaps at the cautious and limited way
in which the proposed measure was indicated in the royal
speech. Some of the more extreme reformers thought there
was something ominous in this way of opening the ques
tion. A mere promise to obtain information on the sub
ject of the franchise appeared to be minimizing as much
as possible the importance of the whole subject. Besides,
it was asked, what information is required more than we
have already? Is this to be merely an investigation as to
the number of persons whom this or that scale of franchise
would add to the constituencies? Is the character of the
reform to be decided by the mere addition which it would

378 A History of Our Own Times.
make to the voters' lists rather than by the political prin
ciples which an extended franchise represents? Is there
to be what Burke calls "a low-minded inquisition into
numbers," in order that too many Englishmen should not
be allowed the privilege of a vote?
There was something ominous, therefore, in the man
ner in which the first mention of the new Reform Bill was
received, as well as in the terms of the announcement.
Many circumstances, too, made the time unpropitious for
such an undertaking. The cattle plague had broken out
toward the close of the previous year, and had spread
with most alarming rapidity. At the end of 1865 it was
announced that about 80,000 cattle had been attacked by
the disease, of which some 40,000 had died. From 6,000
to 8,000 animals were dying every week. The Govern
ment, the cattle-owners, and the scientific men were much
occupied in devising plans for the restriction of the mal
ady. Some keen controversy had arisen over the Govern
ment proposals for making good the losses of the cattle-
owners whose animals had to be killed in obedience to
official orders to prevent the spread of disease. There
were already rumors of the approach of that financial
distress which was to break out shortly in disastrous com
mercial panic. Cholera was believed to be travelling
ominously westward. There were threatened disturbances
in Ireland and alarms about a gigantic Fenian conspiracy.
It did not need to be particularly keen-eyed to foresee that
there was likely soon to be a collision of irreconcilable
interests on the Continent. There was uneasiness about
Jamaica ; there was uneasiness about certain English men
and women who were detained as prisoners by Theodore,
King of Abyssinia. Moreover, the Parliament had only
just been elected, and a Reform Bill would mean a speedy
dissolution, with a renewal of expense and trouble to the
members of the House of Commons. Certainly the time
did not seem tempting for a sudden revival of the reform
controversy which had been allowed to sleep in a sort of

Driven Back Across the Rubicon. 379
Kyffhaiiser cavern during the later years of Lord Palmer
ston's life.
Many Conservatives did not believe that the studied
moderation of the announcement in the Queen's Speech
could really be taken as evidence of a moderate intention
on the part of the Ministry. While Radicals generally
insisted that the strength of the old Whig party, "the
Dukes," as the phrase went, had been successfully exerted
to compel a compromise and keep Mr. Gladstone down,
most of the Tories would have it that Mr. Gladstone now
had got it all his own way, and that the cautious vague
ness of the Queen's Speech would only prove to be the
prelude to very decisive and alarming changes in the con
stitution. Not since the introduction by Lord John Rus
sell of the measure which became law in 1832 had a
Reform Bill been expected in England with so much curi
osity, with so much alarm, with so much disposition to a
foregone conclusion of disappointment. On March 12th
Mr. Gladstone introduced the bill. His speech was elo
quent; but the House of Commons was not stirred. It
was evident at once that the proposed measure was only a
compromise, and a compromise of the most unattractive
kind. The substance of the Government scheme may be
explained in a single sentence. The bill proposed to re
duce the county franchise from fifty pounds to fourteen
pounds, and the borough franchise from ten to seven
pounds. There was a savings-bank franchise and a lodger
franchise, but we need not discuss smaller details and
qualifying provisions. The borough franchise, of course,
was the central question in any reform measure ; and this
was to be reduced by three pounds. The man who could
be enthusiastic over such a reform must have been a per
son whose enthusiasm was scarcely worth arousing. The
peculiarity of the situation was that without a genuine
popular enthusiasm nothing could be done. The House
of Commons, as a whole, did not want reform. For one
obvious reason, the House had only just been elected;

380 A History of Our Own Times.
members had spent money and taken much trouble ; and
they did not like the idea of having to encounter the risk
and expense all over again almost immediately. All the
Conservatives were of course openly and consistently op
posed to reform; not a few of the professing Liberals
secretly detested it. These latter would accept it, and try
to put on an appearance of welcoming it, if popular ex
citement and the demeanor of the Government showed
that they must be for it or against it. Only a small num
ber of men in the House were genuine in their anxiety for
immediate change; and of these the majority were too
earnest and extreme to care for a reform which only meant
a reduction of the borough franchise from ten pounds to
seven pounds. It seemed a ridiculous anti-climax, after
all the indignant eloquence about "unenfranchised mil
lions," to come down to a scheme for enfranchising a few
hundreds here and there. It was hard for ordinary minds
to understand that a ten pounds' franchise meant servitude
and shame, but a seven pounds' franchise was national
liberty and salvation. All this for three pounds was a
little too much for plain people to comprehend. The bill
was founded on no particular principle; it merely said,
" We have at present a certain scale of franchise ; let us
make it a little lower, and our successors, if they feel in
clined, can keep on lowering it." No well-defined basis
was reached ; there seemed no reason why, if such a bill
had been passed, some politician might not move the ses
sion after for a bill to reduce the franchise a pound or two
lower. Absolute finality in politics is of course unattain
able, but a statesman would do well to see at least that a
distinct and secure ledge is reached in his descent. He
ought not to be content to slip a little way down to-day,
and leave chance to decide whether he may not have to
slip a little way farther to-morrow.
The announcement made by the Government had only
what is called in theatrical circles a succes d'estime. Those
who believed in the sincerity and high purpose of Lord

Driven Back Across the Rubicon. 381
Russell and Mr. Gladstone, and who therefore assumed
that if they said this was all they could do there was noth
ing else to be done — these supported the bill. Mr. Bright
supported it; somewhat coldly at first, but afterward, when
warmed by the glow of debate and of opposition, with all
his wonted power. It was evident, however, that he was
supporting Lord Russell and Mr. Gladstone rather than
their Reform Bill. Mr. Mill supported the bill, partly,
no doubt, for the same reason, and partly because it had
the support of Mr. Bright. But it would have been hard
to find any one who said that he really cared much about
the measure itself, or that it was the sort of thing he would
have proposed if he had his way. There were public
meetings got up, of course, in support of the bill, and the
agitation naturally gathered heat as it went on. Mr.
Gladstone became for a time a popular agitator on behalf
of his measure, and stumped the country during the Easter
holidays. It was during this political campaign that he
made the famous speech in Liverpool, in which he an
nounced that the Government had passed the Rubicon;
had broken the bridge and burned the boats behind them.
He truly had done so. His career was to be thencefor
ward as the path of an arrow in the direction of popular
reform ; but his Government had to recross the Rubicon ;
to make use of the broken bridge somehow for the pur
poses of retreat.
Before, however, the delivery of this celebrated speech,
the defects of the bill, and the lack of public interest in it,
had produced their natural effect in the House of Com
mons. The moment it was evident that the public, as a
whole, were not enthusiastic about the measure, the House
of Commons began to feel that it could do as it pleased in
the matter. It may seem rather surprising now that the
Conservatives, or at least those of them who had foresight
enough to know that some manner of change was inevita
ble, did not accept this trivial and harmless measure, and
so have done with the unwelcome subject for some time

382 A History of Our Own Times.
to come. Many of the Conservatives, however, were not
only opposed to all reform of the suffrage on principle,
but were still under the firm belief that they could stave
it off for their time. Others there were who honestly be
lieved that if a change were inevitable it would be better
for the good of the country that it should be something in
the nature of a permanent settlement, and that there should
not be a periodical revival of agitation incessantly per
plexing the public mind. Others, too, no doubt, saw even
already that there would be partisan chances secured by
embarrassing the Government anyhow. Therefore the
Conservatives as a man opposed the measure ; but they had
allies. Day after day saw new secessions of emboldened
Whigs and half-hearted Liberals. The Thanes were fly
ing from the side of the Government. Mr. Gladstone had
announced his intention also to bring in a bill dealing
with the redistribution of seats ; but he preferred to take
this after the Reform Bill. At once he was encountered
by an amendment from his own side of the House, and
from very powerful representatives of Whig family inter
est, calling on him to take the redistribution scheme at
once ; to alter the rental to a rating franchise ; to do all
manner of things calculated to change the nature of the
bill, or to interfere with the chances of its being passed
into law. The Ministerial side of the House was fast be
coming demoralized. The Liberal party was breaking up
into mutinous camps and unmanageable coteries.
The fate of this unhappy bill is not now a matter of
great historical importance. Far more interesting than
the process of its defeat is the memory of the eloquence
by which it was assailed and defended. One reputation
sprung into light with these memorable debates. Mr.
Robert Lowe was the hero of the Opposition that fought
against the bill. He was the Achilles of the Anti-Re
formers. His attacks on the Government had, of course,
all the more piquancy that they came from a Liberal, and
one who had held office in two Liberal administrations,

Driven Back Across the Rubicon. 383
The Tory benches shouted and screamed with delight, as
in speech after speech of admirable freshness and vigor
Mr. Lowe poured his scathing sarcasms in upon the bill
and its authors. Even their own leader and champion,
Mr. Disraeli, became of comparatively small account with
the Tories when they heard Mr. Lowe's invectives against
their enemies. Much of Mr. Lowe's success was undoubt
edly due to the manner in which he hit the tone and tem
per of the Conservatives and of the disaffected Whigs.
Applause and admiration are contagious in the House of
Commons. When a great number of voices join in cheers
and in praise, other voices are caught by the attraction,
and cheer and praise out of the sheer infection of sympa
thy. It is needless to say that the applause reacts upon
the orator. The more he feels that the House admires
him, the more likely he is to make himself worthy of the
admiration. The occasion told on Mr. Lowe. His form
seemed, metaphorically at least, to grow greater and
grander on that scene, as the enthusiasm of his admirers
waxed and heated. Certainly he never after that time
made any great mark by his speeches, or won back any
of the fame as an orator which was his during that short
and to him splendid period. But the speeches themselves
were masterly as mere literary productions. Not many
men could have fewer physical qualifications for success
in oratory than Mr. Lowe. He had an awkward and un
gainly presence ; his gestures were angular and ungrace
ful ; his voice was harsh and rasping ; his articulation was
so imperfect that he became now and then almost unin
telligible; his sight was so short that, when he had to read
a passage or extract of any kind, he could only puzzle over
its contents in a painful and blundering way, even with
the paper held up close to his eyes; and his memory was
not good enough to allow him to quote anything without
the help of documents. How, it may be asked in wonder,
was such a speaker as this to contend in eloquence with
the torrent-like fluency, the splendid diction, the silver-

384 A History of Our Own Times.
trumpet voice of Gladstone ; or with the thrilling vibra
tions of Bright's noble eloquence, now penetrating in its
pathos, and now irresistible in its humor? Even those
who well remember these great debates may ask them
selves in unsatisfied wonder the same question now. It
is certain that Mr. Lowe has not the most distant claim to
be ranked as an orator with Mr. Gladstone or Mr. Bright.
Yet it is equally certain that he did for that season stand
up against each of them, against them both— against them
both at their very best; and that he held his own.
Mr. Disraeli was thrown completely into the shade.
Mr. Disraeli was not, it is said, much put out by this.
He listened quietly, perhaps even contemptuously, looking
upon the whole episode as one destined to pass quickly
away. He did not believe that Mr. Lowe was likely to be
a peer of Mr. Gladstone or Mr. Bright — or of himself — in
debate. "You know I never made much of Lowe," he
said, in conversation with a political opponent some years
after, and when Mr. Lowe's eloquence had already become
only a memory. But for the time Mr. Lowe was the
master-spirit of the Opposition to the Reform Bill. In
sparkling sentences, full of classical allusion and of illus
trations drawn from all manner of literatures, he de
nounced and satirized demagogues, democratic govern
ments, and every influence that tended to bring about any
political condition which allowed of an ominous compari
son with something in Athenian history. Reduced to
their logical and philosophical meaning, Mr. Lowe's
speeches were really nothing but arguments for that im
memorial object of desire, the government by the wise and
good. They had nothing in particular to do with the
small question in domestic legislation as to whether seven
pounds or ten pounds was to be the limit of a borough
franchise. They would have been just as effective if used
in favor of an existing seven pounds' qualification, and
against a proposed qualification of six pounds fifteen shil
lings. Seven pounds, it might have been insisted, was just

Driven Back Across the Rubicon. 385
the low-water mark of the wise and good ; any lower we
shall have the rule of the unwise and the wicked. Nor
did Mr. Lowe show how, if the fierce wave of democracy
was rising in such terrible might, it could be dammed out
by the retention of a ten pounds' franchise. His alarms
and his portents were in amazing contrast to his proposed
measures of safety. He hoped to bind Leviathan with
packthread. Alaric was at the gates; Mr. Lowe's last
hope was in the power of the Court of Chancery to serve
the invader with an injunction. The simple-minded dep
uties who, during the coup d'e'tat in Paris, went forth to
meet the soldiers of the usurper with their scarfs of office,
in the belief that they could thus restrain them from vio
lation of the constitutional law, were on a philosophical
level with Mr. Lowe when he proclaimed to England that
her ancient system must fall into cureless ruin and become
the shame and scandal of all time if she abandoned her
last rampart, the ten pounds' franchise. But Mr. Lowe
was embodying in brilliant sarcasm and vivid paradox the
fears, prejudices, and spites, the honest dislikes and solid
objections, of a large proportion of English society.
Trades-unions, strikes, rumors of political disaffection in
Ireland, the angry and extravagant words of partisan
orators and agitators in London; a steady hatred of all
American principles; a certain disappointment that the
American Republic had not fulfilled most men's predic
tions and gone to pieces — these and various other feelings
combined to make a great many Englishmen particularly
hostile to any proposals for political reform at that mo
ment. Mr. Lowe was not merely the mouthpiece of all
these sentiments, but he gave what seemed to be an over
whelming philosophical argument to prove their wisdom
and justice. The Conservatives made a hero, and even an
idol, of him. Shrewd old members of the party, who
ought to have known better, were heard to declare that he
was not only the greatest orator, but even the greatest
statesman, of the day. In truth, Mr. Lowe was neither
Vol. II.— 25

386 A History of Our Own Times.
orator nor statesman. He had some of the gifts which are
needed to make a man an orator, but hardly any of those
which constitute a statesman. He was a literary man and
a scholar, who had a happy knack of saying bitter things
in an epigrammatic way ; he really hated the Reform Bill,
toward which Mr. Disraeli probably felt no emotion what
ever, and he started into prominence as an Anti-Reformer
just at the right moment to suit the Conservatives and
embarrass and dismay the Liberal party. He was greatly
detested for a time among the working-classes, for whose
benefit the measure was chiefly introduced. He not only
spoke out with cynical frankness his own opinion of the
merits and morals of the people " who live in these small
houses," but he implied that all the other members of the
House held the same opinion, if they would only venture
to give it a tongue. He was once or twice mobbed in the
streets ; he was strongly disliked and dreaded for the hour
by the Liberals ; he was the most prominent figure on the
stage during these weeks of excitement; and no doubt he
was perfectly happy.
The debates on the bill brought out some speeches
which have not been surpassed in the Parliamentary his
tory of our time. Mr. Bright and Mr. Gladstone were at
their very best. Mr. Bright likened the formation of the
little band of malcontents to the doings of David in the
cave of Adullam when he called about him "every one
that was in distress and every one that was discontented,"
and became a captain over them. The allusion told upon
the House with instant effect, for many had suspected and
some had said that if Mr. Horsman and Mr. Lowe had
been more carefully conciliated by the Prime-minister
at the time of his Government's formation, there might
have been no such acrimonious opposition to the bill. The
little third party were at once christened the Adullamites,
and the name still survives and is likely long to survive
its old political history. Mr. Gladstone's speech, with
which the great debate on the second reading concluded,

Driven Back Across the Rubicon. 387
was aflame with impassioned eloquence. One passage, in
which he met the superfluous accusation that he had come
over a stranger to the Liberal camp, was filled with a cer
tain pathetic dignity. The closing words of the speech,
in which he prophesied a speedy success to the principles
then on the verge of defeat, brought the debate fittingly
up to its highest point of interest and excitement. " You
cannot," he said, in his closing words, "fight against the
future. Time is on our side. The great social forces
which move on in their might and majesty, and which the
tumult of our debates does not for a moment impede or
disturb — those great social forces are against you ; they are
marshalled on our side, and the banner which we now
carry, though perhaps at this moment it may droop over
our sinking heads, yet soon again will float in the eye of
Heaven, and it will be borne by the firm hands of the
united people of the three kingdoms perhaps not to an easy
but to a certain and a not distant victory."
This speech was concluded on the morning of April
28th. The debate which it brought to a close had been
carried on for eight nights. The House of Commons was
brought up to a pitch of the most intense excitement when
the division came to be taken. The closing passages of
Mr. Gladstone's speech had shown clearly enough that he
did not expect much of a triumph for the Government.
The House was crowded to excess. The numbers voting
were large beyond almost any other previous instance.
There were for the second reading of the bill 318; there
were against it 313. The second reading was carried by
a majority of only five. The wild cheers of the Conserva
tives and the Adullamites showed on which "sword sat
laurel victory." Every one knew then that the bill was
doomed. It only remained for those who opposed it to put
a few amendments on the paper as a prelude to the bill's
going into committee, and the Opposition must succeed.
The question now was not whether the measure would be a
failure, but only when the failure would have to be confessed.

388 A History of Our Own Times.
The time for the confession soon came. The opponents
of the reform scheme kept pouring in amendments on the
motion to go into committee. These came chiefly from
the Ministerial side of the House. As in i860, so now in
1866, the Conservative leader of the House of Commons
had the satisfaction of seeing his work done for him very
effectively by those who were in general his political
opponents. He was not compelled to run the risk or incur
the responsibility of pledging himself or his party against
all reform in order to get rid of this particular scheme.
All that he wanted was being done for him by men who
had virtually pledged themselves over and over again in
favor of reform. The bill at last got into committee ; and
here the strife was renewed. Lord Stanley moved an
amendment to postpone the clauses relating to the county
franchise until the redistribution of seats should first have
been dealt with. This amendment was rejected, but not
by a great majority. Mr. Ward Hunt moved that the
franchise in counties be fourteen pounds' ratable value,
instead of gross estimated rental. This, too, was defeated.
Lord Dunkellin, usually a supporter of the Government,
moved that the seven pounds' franchise in boroughs be on
a rating instead of a rental qualification. The effect of
this would be to make the franchise a little higher than
the Government proposed to fix it. Houses are generally
rated at a value somewhat below the amount of the rent
paid on them, and therefore a rating franchise of seven
pounds would probably in most places be about equivalent
to a rental franchise of eight pounds. Therefore the op
ponents of reform would have interposed another barrier
of twenty shillings in certain cases between England and
the flood of democracy. Prudent and law-abiding men
might accept with safety a franchise of eight pounds, or
even say seven pounds ten shillings, in boroughs; but a
franchise of seven pounds would mean the Red Republic,
mob-rule, the invasion of democracy, the shameful vic
tory, and all the other terrible things which Mr. Lowe had

Driven Bach Across the Rubicon. 389
been foreshadowing in his prophetic fury. Lord Dunkellin
carried his amendment; 315 voted for it, only 304 against.
The announcement of the numbers was received with
tumultuous demonstrations of joy. The Adullamites had
saved the State. Lord Russell's last reform scheme
was a failure ; and the Liberal Ministry had come to an
end. Lord Russell and his colleagues tendered their resigna
tion to the Queen, and after a little delay, and some dis
cussion, the resignation was accepted. It would hardly
have been possible for Lord Russell and Mr. Gladstone to
do otherwise. Their Reform Bill was the one distinctive
measure of the session. It was the measure which espe
cially divided their policy from that of Lord Palmerston's
closing years. To abandon it would be to abandon their
chief reason for being in office at all. They could not
carry it. They had got as far in the session as the last
few days of June, and everything was against them. The
commercial panic had intervened. The suspension of the
great firm of Overend and Gurney had brought failure after
failure with it. The famous " Black Friday" — Friday, May
nth — had made its most disastrous mark in the history of
the City of London. The Bank Charter had to be sus
pended. The cattle-plague, although checked by the
stringent measures of the Government, was still raging,
and the landlords and cattle-owners were still in a state of
excitement and alarm, and had long been clamoring over
the insufficiency of the compensation which other classes
condemned as unreasonable alike in principle and in pro
portion. The day before the success of Lord Dunkellin's
motion, the Emperor of Austria had issued a manifesto
explaining the course of events which compelled him to
draw the sword against Prussia. A day or two after,
Italy entered into the quarrel by declaring war against
Austria. The time seemed hopeless for pressing a small
Reform Bill on in the face of an unwilling Parliament,
and for throwing the country into the turmoil and expense

390 , A History of Our Own Times.
of another general election. Lord Russell and Mr. Glad
stone accepted the situation, and resigned office.
The one mistake they had made was to bring in a
Reform Bill of so insignificant and almost unmeaning a
character. It is more than probable that the difficulties
Lord Russell had with the Whig section of his Cabinet
compelled him to compromise to a degree which his own
inclinations and his own principles would not have ap
proved, and to which Mr. Gladstone could only yield a
reluctant assent. But if this be the explanation of what
happened, it would have been better to put off the measure
for a session or two, and allow public opinion out-of-doors
to express itself so clearly as to convince the Whigs that
the people in general were really in earnest about reform.
No Reform Bill can be carried unless it is sustained by
such an amount of enthusiasm among its supporters, in
and out of Parliament, as to convince the timid, the selfish,
and the doubting that the measure must be passed. In
the nature of things, the men actually in Parliament can
not be expected to enter with any great spontaneous
enthusiasm into a project for sending them back to their
constituencies to run the risk and bear the cost of a new
election by untried voters. It will, therefore, always be
easy for the men in possession to persuade their con
sciences that the public good is opposed to any change, if
no strong demand be made for the particular change in
question. Now, the compromise which Lord Russell's
Government offered in the shape of a Reform Bill was not
calculated to stir up the enthusiasm of any one. The
ardor with which in the end it came to be advocated was
merely the heat which in men's natures is always gen
erated by a growing controversy and fierce opposition. The
strongest and most effective attack made by the Oppo
sition, that led by Mr. Lowe, was not directed against that
particular measure so much as against all measures of
reform; against the fundamental principle of a popular
suffrage, and, indeed, of a representative assembly. As

Driven Back Across the Rubicon. 391
soon as the doubtful men in the House discovered that
there was no genuine enthusiasm existing on behalf of the
bill, its fate became certain. When the more extreme
Reformers came to think over the condition of things, and
when their spirits were set free from the passion of recent
controversy, very few of them could have felt any great
regret for the defeat of the bill. Those who understood
the real feelings of the yet unenfranchised part of the
population knew well that some Administration would
have to introduce a strong measure of reform before long.
They were content to wait. The interval of delay proved
shorter than they could well have expected.
The defeat of the bill and the resignation of the Minis
try brought the political career of Lord Russell to a close.
He took advantage of the occasion, soon after, to make a
sort of formal announcement that he handed over the task of
leading the Liberal party to Mr. Gladstone. He appeared,
indeed, in public life on several occasions after his resig
nation of office. He took part sometimes in the debates
of the House of Lords ; he even once or twice introduced
measures there, and endeavored to get them passed.
During the long controversies on the Washington Treaty
and the claims of the United States, he took a somewhat
prominent part in the discussions of the Peers, and was
always listened to with attention and respect. About a
year after the fall of his Administration, he was one of the
company at a breakfast given to Mr. Garrison, the Ameri
can Anti-slavery leader, in St. James's Hall, and he won
much applause there by the frankness and good spirit of
his tribute to the memory of President Lincoln, and by
his manly acknowledgment of more than one mistake in
his former judgments of Lincoln's policy and character.
Lord Russell spoke on this occasion with a vigor quite
equal to that which he might have displayed some twenty
years before ; and, indeed, many of those present felt sur
prised at his resolve to abandon active public life while he
still seemed so well capable of bearing a part in it. Lord

392 A History of Our Own Times.
Russell's career, however, was practically at an end. It
had been a long and an interesting career. It was begun
amid splendid chances. Lord John Russell was born in
the very purple of politics ; he was cradled and nursed
among statesmen and orators ; the fervid breath of young
liberty fanned his boyhood; his tutors, friends, compan
ions, were the master-spirits who rule the fortunes of
nations; he had the ministerial benches for a training-
ground, and had a seat in the Administration at his dis
posal when another young man might have been glad of
a seat in a opera-box. He must have been brought into
more or less intimate association with all the men and
women worth knowing in Europe since the early part of the
century. He was a pupil of Dugald Stewart at Edinburgh,
and he sat as a youth at the feet of Fox. He had accom
panied Wellington in some of his Peninsular campaigns;
he measured swords with Canning and Peel successively
through years of parliamentary warfare. He knew Met-
ternich and Talleyrand. He had met the widow of Charles
Stuart, the young Chevalier, in Florence; and had con
versed with Napoleon in Elba. He knew Cavour and
Bismarck. He was now an ally of Daniel O'Connell, and
now of Cobden and Bright. He was the close friend of
Thomas Moore ; he knew Byron, and was one of the few
allowed to read the personal memoirs, which were unfor
tunately destroyed by Byron's friends. Lord John Russell
had tastes for literature, for art, for philosophy, for his
tory, for politics, and his aestheticism had the advantage
that it made him seek the society and appreciate the worth
of men of genius and letters. Thus he never remained a
mere politician, like Pitt or Palmerston. His public
career suggests almost as strange a series of contradictions,
or paradoxes, as Macaulay finds in that of Pitt. He who
began with a reputation for a heat of temperament worthy
of Achilles was for more than half his career regarded as
a frigid and bloodless politician. In Ireland he was long
known rather as the author of the Ecclesiastical Titles

Driven Back Across the Rubicon. 30.3
Bill than as the early friend of Catholic Emancipation ; in
England as the parent of petty and abortive Reform Bills,
rather than as the promoter of the one great Reform Bill.
Abroad and at home he came to be thought of as the Min
ister who disappointed Denmark and abandoned Poland,
rather than as the earnest friend and faithful champion of
oppressed nationalities. No statesman could be a more
sincere and thorough opponent of slavery in all its forms
and works ; and yet in the mind of the American people,
Lord Russell's name was for a long time associated with
the idea of a scarcely concealed support of the slave
holders' rebellion. Much of this curious contrast, this
seeming inconsistency, is due to the fact that for the
greater part of his public life Lord Russell's career was a
mere course of see-saw between office and opposition.
The sort of superstition that long prevailed in our political
affairs limited the higher offices of statesmanship to two
or three conventionally acceptable men on either side. If
not Sir Robert Peel, then it must be Lord John Russell ;
if it was not Lord Derby, it must be Lord Palmerston.
Therefore, if the business of government was to go on at
all, a statesman must take office now and then with men
whom he could not mould wholly to his purpose, and must
act in seeming sympathy with principles and measures
which he would himself have little cared to originate.
Lord Palmerston complained humorously in one of his
later letters, that a Prime-minister could no longer have
it all his own way in his Cabinet. Men were coming up
who had wills and consciences, ideas and abilities of their
own, and who would not consent to be the mere clerks of
the Prime-minister. Great popular parties too, he might
have added, were growing up in the country with power
ful leaders, men whose opinions must be taken into account
on every subject even though they never were to be in
office. It is easy enough to understand how under such con
ditions the minister who had seemed a daring Reformer to
one generation might seem but a chilly compromiser to an-

394 A History of Our Own Times.
other. It is easy, too, to understand how the career, which
at its opening was illumined by the splendid victory of
the Reform Bill of 1832, should have been clouded at its
close by the rather ignominious failure of the Reform Bill
of 1866. The personal life of Lord Russell was consistent
all through. He began as a Reformer; he ended as a
Reformer. If the "might-have-beens" were not always a
vanity, it would be reasonable as well as natural to regret
that it was not given to Lord Russell to complete the work
of 1832 by a genuine and successful measure of Reform in
1866.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 03747 3932

.