A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P R S T U V W X Z

The Grand Old Man

R >> Richard B. Cook >> The Grand Old Man




In November a conference of some of the European powers was held at
Vienna to avert the war by mediating between Russia and Turkey, but was
unsuccessful. Mr. Gladstone said: "Austria urged the two leading
states, England and France, to send in their _ultimatum_ to Russia, and
promised it her decided support.... Prussia at the critical moment, to
speak in homely language, bolted.... In fact, she broke up the European
concert, by which France and England had hoped to pull down the
stubbornness of the Czar."

Mr. Gladstone had opposed the war, not only on humanitarian and
Christian grounds, but also because the preparation of a war budget
overthrew all his financial schemes and hopes; a new budget was
necessary, and he as Chancellor of the Exchequer must prepare it.
Knowing that the struggle was inevitable, he therefore bent his energies
to the task and conceived a scheme for discharging the expenses of the
war out of the current revenue, provided it required no more than ten
million pounds extra, so that the country should not be permanently
burdened. It would require to do this the imposition of fresh taxes.

"It thus fell to the lot of the most pacific of Ministers, the devotee
of retrenchment, and the anxious cultivator of all industrial arts, to
prepare a war budget, and to meet as well as he might the exigencies of
a conflict which had so cruelly dislocated all the ingenious devices of
financial optimism."

Mr. Gladstone afterwards moved for over six and a half millions of
pounds more than already granted, and proposed a further increase in the
taxes. Mr. Disraeli opposed Mr. Gladstone's budget. He devised a scheme
to borrow and thus increase the debt. He opposed the imposition of new
taxes. Mr. Gladstone said: "Every good motive and every bad motive,
combated only by the desire of the approval of honorable men and by
conscientious rectitude--every motive of ease, comfort, and of certainty
spring forward to induce a Chancellor of the Exchequer to become the
first man to recommend a loan." Mr. Gladstone was sustained.

The war had begun in earnest. The Duke of Newcastle received a telegram
on the 21st of September announcing that 25,000 English troops, 25,000
French and 8000 Turks had landed safely at Eupatoria "without meeting
with any resistance, and had already begun to march upon Sebastopol."

The war was popular with the English people, but the ministry of Lord
Aberdeen, which inaugurated it, was becoming unpopular. This became
apparent in the autumn of 1854. There were not actual dissensions in the
Cabinet, but there was great want of harmony as to the conduct of the
war. The Queen knew with what reluctance Lord Aberdeen had entered upon
the war, but she had the utmost confidence in him as a man and a
statesman. She was most desirous that the war be prosecuted with vigor,
and trusted the Premier for the realization of her hopes and those of
the nation, but unity in the Cabinet was necessary for the successful
prosecution of the war.

Parliament assembled December 12, 1854, "under circumstances more
stirring and momentous than any which had occurred since the year of
Waterloo." The management of the war was the main subject under
discussion. The English troops had covered themselves with glory in the
battles of Alma, Balaclava and Inkermann. But the sacrifice was great.
Thousands were slain and homes made desolate, while the British army was
suffering greatly, and the sick and wounded were needing attention. Half
a million pounds were subscribed in three months, and Miss Florence
Nightingale with thirty-seven lady nurses, soon to be reinforced by
fifty more, set out at once for the seat of war to nurse the sick and
wounded soldiers. It is recorded that "they reached Scutari on the 5th
of November, in time to receive the soldiers who had been wounded at the
battle of Balaclava. On the arrival of Miss Nightingale the great
hospital at Scutari, in which up to this time all had been chaos and
discomfort, was reduced to order, and those tender lenitives which only
woman's thought and woman's sympathy can bring to the sick man's couch,
were applied to solace and alleviate the agonies of pain or the torture
of fever and prostration."

It was natural to attribute the want of proper management to the
ministry, and hence the Government found itself under fire. In the House
of Lords the Earl of Derby condemned the inefficient manner in which the
war had been carried on, the whole conduct of the ministry in the war,
and the insufficiency of the number of troops sent out to check the
power of Russia. The Duke of Newcastle replied, and while not defending
all the actions of the ministry during the war, yet contended that the
government were prepared to prosecute it with resolve and unflinching
firmness. While not standing ready to reject overtures of peace, they
would not accept any but an honorable termination of the war. The
ministry relied upon the army, the people, and upon their allies with
the full confidence of ultimate success.

Mr. Disraeli, in the House of Commons, attacked the policy of the
ministry from beginning to end. Everything was a blunder or a mishap of
some description or other; the government had invaded Russia with 25,000
troops without providing any provision for their support.

When the House of Commons assembled, in January, 1855, it became
apparent that there was a determination to sift to the bottom the
charges that had been made against the ministry regarding their manner
of carrying on the war. The Queen expressed her sympathy for Lord
Aberdeen, who was in a most unenviable position. Motions hostile to the
government were introduced in the House of Lords, while in the House of
Commons Mr. Roebuck moved for a select committee "to inquire into the
condition of the army before Sebastopol, and into the conduct of those
departments of the government whose duty it has been to minister to the
wants of the army."

Lord John Russell resigned his office and left his colleagues to face
the vote. He could not see how Mr. Roebuck's motion could be resisted.
This seemed to portend the downfall of the ministry. The Duke of
Newcastle, Secretary of War, offered to retire to save the government.
Lord Palmerston believed that the breaking up of the ministry would be a
calamity to the country, but he doubted the expediency of the retirement
of the Duke of Newcastle, and his own fitness for the place of Minister
of War, if vacated. Finally the Cabinet resolved to hold together,
except Lord John Russell.

In the debate it was declared that the condition of things at the seat
of war was exaggerated; but the speech of Mr. Stafford caused a great
sensation. He described the sufferings which he declared he had himself
witnessed. He summed up by quoting the language of a French officer, who
said: "You seem, sir, to carry on war according to the system of the
Middle Ages." The situation of the ministry was critical before, but
this speech seemed to make sure the passage of the resolutions.

It was under all these depressing circumstances that Mr. Gladstone rose
to defend himself and his colleagues. In a fine passage he thus
described what the position of the Cabinet would have been if they had
shrunk from their duty: "What sort of epitaph would have been written
over their remains? He himself would have written it thus: Here lie the
dishonored ashes of a ministry which found England at peace and left it
in war, which was content to enjoy the emoluments of office and to wield
the sceptre of power so long as no man had the courage to question their
existence. They saw the storm gathering over the country; they heard the
agonizing accounts which were almost daily received of the state of the
sick and wounded in the East. These things did not move them. But as
soon as the Honorable Member for Sheffield raised his hand to point the
thunderbolt, they became conscience-stricken with a sense of guilt, and,
hoping to escape punishment, they ran away from duty."

This eloquent passage was received with tumultuous cheers. Mr.
Gladstone claimed that there had been many exaggerations as to the state
of the army and there were then more than 30,000 British troops under
arms before Sebastopol. The administration of the War Department at home
was no doubt defective, but he declined to admit that it had not
improved, or that it was as bad as to deserve formal censure, and the
Duke of Newcastle did not merit the condemnation sought to be cast on
him as the head of the War Department.

Mr. Disraeli was eagerly heard when he rose to speak. He said that the
government admitted that they needed reconstruction, and that now the
House was called upon to vote confidence in the administration. It was
not the Duke of Newcastle nor the military system, but the policy of the
whole Cabinet which he characterized as a "deplorable administration."

The result of the vote was a strange surprise to all parties, and one of
the greatest ever experienced in Parliamentary history. The vote for Mr.
Roebuck's committee was 205; and against it, 148; a majority against the
ministry of 157. "The scene was a peculiar and probably an unparalleled
one. The cheers which are usually heard from one side or the other of
the House on the numbers of a division being announced, were not
forthcoming. The members were for a moment spellbound with
astonishment, then there came a murmur of amazement and finally a burst
of general laughter." The resignation of the Aberdeen ministry was
announced February 1st, the Duke of Newcastle stating that it had been
his intention to give up the office of Secretary of War whether Mr.
Roebuck's resolution had passed or not.

Thus was overthrown the famous coalition Cabinet of Lord Aberdeen--one
of the most brilliant ever seen--a Cabinet distinguished for its
oratorical strength, and for the conspicuous abilities of its chief
members. Mr. Gladstone, who was the most distinguished Peelite in the
Cabinet, certainly could not, up to this period, be suspected of
lukewarmness in the prosecution of the war. Lord Palmerston formed a
reconstructed rather than a new Cabinet. Mr. Gladstone and his friends
at first declined to serve in the new Cabinet, out of regard for the
Duke of Newcastle and Lord Aberdeen, the real victims of the adverse
vote. But these noblemen besought Mr. Gladstone not to let his personal
feelings stand in the way of his own interests, and not to deprive the
country of his great services, so he resumed office as Chancellor of the
Exchequer. Lord Palmerston had been regarded as the coming man, and his
name carried weight upon the Continent and at home. But the new
ministry was surrounded by serious difficulties, and did not pull
together very long. The War Minister, Lord Panmure, entered upon his
duties with energy, and proposed, February 16th, his remedy for existing
evils; but on the 19th of February Mr. Layard in the House of Commons
said, "the country stood on the brink of ruin--it had fallen into the
abyss of disgrace and become the laughing-stock of Europe." He declared
that the new ministry differed little from the last.

Lord Palmerston, in answer to inquiries, lamented the sufferings of the
army and confessed that mishaps had been made, but the present ministry
had come forward in an emergency and from a sense of public duty, and he
believed would obtain the confidence of the country. But another strange
turn in events was at hand. Mr. Roebuck gave notice of the appointment
of his committee. Hostility to the ministry was disclaimed, but Mr.
Gladstone, Sir James Graham and Mr. Sidney Herbert took the same view of
the question they had previously taken. They were opposed to the
investigation as a dangerous breach of a great constitutional principle,
and if the committee was granted, it would be a precedent from whose
repetition the Executive could never again escape, however unreasonable
might be the nature of the demand. They therefore retired from office.

The report of the committee, when presented, practically advised a vote
of censure upon the Aberdeen Cabinet for the sufferings of the British
army, hence the house declined to entertain it by a large majority of
107. As the appointment of the committee, however, was the only way to
allay the popular excitement, there were many who thought that the
Peelites would have done well to recognize the urgency of the crisis and
not to have abandoned the Government.

The resignation of Mr. Gladstone made him very unpopular. However, "the
wave of unpopularity lasted perhaps for a couple of years, and was
afterwards replaced by a long-sustained popularity, which has not been
exceeded by any statesman of the country. Greville referred to Gladstone
about this time as 'the most unpopular man in the country.'"

March 2d the Emperor Nicholas died suddenly, and there were momentary
hopes of peace; but his successor, Alexander, resolved to prosecute the
struggle rather than yield the positions taken by the late Czar. He
issued a warlike proclamation, and though he agreed to take part in the
Vienna Conference of European powers, to be held March 15th, there were
no signs that he intended to recede from the Russian claims.

Lord John Russell was sent to Vienna as English Plenipotentiary. The
English aimed to secure the limitation of the preponderance of Russia in
the Black Sea, and the acknowledgment of Turkey as one of the great
European powers. To gain these points would, it was thought, end the
war. Russia "would not consent to limit the number of her ships--if she
did so she forfeited her honor, she would be no longer Russia. They did
not want Turkey, they would be glad to maintain the Sultan, but they
knew it was impossible; he must perish; they were resolved not to let
any other power have Constantinople--they must not have that door to
their dominions in the Black Sea shut against them." The Conference
failed, and Lord John Russell was held responsible for its failure, and
was eventually forced out of the Cabinet on that account. The failure of
the Vienna negotiations produced great excitement, and the ministry were
attacked and defeated in both Houses of Parliament. Mr. Disraeli offered
a resolution of dissatisfaction in the House of Commons. Mr. Gladstone
spoke during the debate on the failure of the Vienna Conference, and
defended the war of the Crimea. He did not consider it a failure, for
Russia now agreed to most of the points raised by the allies, and the
only matter to be adjusted, was the proposition to limit the power of
Russia in the Black Sea. Personally, he had formerly favored the
curtailment of Russia's power there, but he now thought that such a
proposal implied a great indignity to Russia. He believed that the
proposal of Russia to give to Turkey the power of opening and shutting
the straits was one calculated to bring about a peaceful settlement. The
time was favorable to make peace. Lord John Russell replied vigorously
to Mr. Gladstone. The House decided by a majority of 100 to support the
ministry in the further prosecution of the war until a safe and
honorable peace could be secured.

But on the 10th of July Sir E. Bulwer Lytton offered the following
resolution: "That the conduct of our Ministry, in the recent
negotiations at Vienna, has, in the opinion of this House, shaken the
confidence of this country in those to whom its affairs are entrusted."
Lord John Russell again declined to face discussion and resigned. During
the debate on the motion Mr. Disraeli bitterly attacked Lord John
Russell and the Premier, Lord Palmerston. But Mr. Gladstone said that so
far from blaming the Ministry for hesitating about the offers of peace
at Vienna, he blamed them for not giving the propositions that
consideration which their gravity demanded, and for abruptly
terminating the Conference and closing the hope of an honorable peace.

Mr. Gladstone, on the 3d of August, made another powerful appeal for the
cessation of the war. He held that there was now no definite object for
continuing the struggle; defended the Austrian proposals; defied the
Western powers to control the future destinies of Russia, save for a
moment; and he placed "the individual responsibility of the continuance
of the war on the head of the Ministry."

But while Sebastopol held out there was no prospect of peace with
Russia. Finally, in September, that fortress was taken and destroyed,
and the Peace of Paris was concluded, March, 1856.

[Illustration: HOUSE OF COMMONS.]




CHAPTER XI


IN OPPOSITION TO THE GOVERNMENT

It was in February, 1855, that Mr. Gladstone resigned his seat in the
Cabinet. After the Treaty of Paris, March, 1856, which put an end to the
Crimean War, Mr. Gladstone found himself in opposition to the Ministry
of Lord Palmerston. He had assumed a position of independence,
associating politically with neither party. The political parties
dreaded criticism and attack from him, for he was not properly
constructed for the defense of either. He had himself declared his
"sympathies" were "with the Conservatives, and his opinions with the
Liberals," and that he and his Peelite colleagues, during this period of
political isolation, were like roving icebergs on which men could not
land with safety, but with which ships might come into perilous
collision. Their weight was too great not to count, but it counted first
this way and then that. Mr. Gladstone was conscientious in his
opposition. He said: "I greatly felt being turned out of office. I saw
great things to do. I longed to do them. I am losing the best years of
my life out of my natural service. Yet I have never ceased to rejoice
that I am not in office with Palmerston, when I have seen the tricks,
the shufflings, the frauds he daily has recourse to as to his business.
I rejoice not to sit on the Treasury Bench with him."

In August, 1855, Lord Aberdeen said; "Gladstone intends to be Prime
Minister. He has great qualifications, but some serious defects. He is
supreme in the House of Commons. He is too obstinate; if a man can be
too honest, he is too honest. I have told Gladstone that when he is
Prime Minister, I will have a seat in his Cabinet, if he desires it,
without an office."

During 1856, several measures came before Parliament which Mr. Gladstone
opposed. He vindicated the freedom of the Belgian press, whose liberty
some of the powers would curtail, and opposed resolutions to consider
the state of education in England and Wales, as tending to create a
central controlling power, involving secular instruction and endless
religious quarrels. He also opposed the budget of Sir G.C. Lewis, which
imposed more duties upon the tea and sugar of the working-man, and was
said to be generally at variance with the policy pursued by every
enlightened minister of finance. Besides, he condemned the continuance
of the war duties in times of peace. "He was a particularly acute thorn
in the side of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and criticised the
budget with unsparing vigor. 'Gladstone seems bent on leading Sir George
Lewis a weary life,' wrote Mr. Greville. But finance was by no means the
only subject of this terrible free-lance."

A resolution was offered in the House of Commons expressing
disapprobation with the English Cabinet for sanctioning, in 1855 and
'56, the violation of international law, by secretly enlisting the
subjects of the United States as recruits for the British army, by the
intervention of the English Ambassador. Mr. Gladstone said: "It appears
to me that the two cardinal aims that we ought to keep in view in the
discussion of this question are peace and a thoroughly cordial
understanding with America for one, the honor and fame of England for
the other. I am bound to say that in regard to neither of these points
am I satisfied with the existing state of things, or with the conduct of
Her Majesty's Government. A cordial understanding with America has not
been preserved, and the honor of this country has been compromised."

Lord Palmerston, though very popular with the people, had greatly
offended a large portion of the House of Commons by his interference in
China. A lorcha, called the _Arrow_, flying the British flag, had been
seized by the Chinese, and the question arose as to the right of the
vessel to the protection of England. The opponents of the government
contended that the vessel was built in China, was captured by pirates,
and recaptured by the Chinese, and hence had no claim to British
protection. To bring the matter to an issue Mr. Cobden introduced a
resolution of inquiry and censure. For five nights the debate was
protracted, and many able speeches were made on both sides, but Mr.
Gladstone made one of the most effective speeches, against the ministry.
He said: "Every man, I trust, will give his vote with the consciousness
that it may depend upon his single vote whether the miseries, the
crimes, the atrocities that I fear are now proceeding in China are to be
discountenanced or not. We have now come to the crisis of the case.
England is not yet committed. With you, then, with us, with every one of
us, it rests to show that this House, which is the first, the most
ancient, and the noblest temple of freedom in the world, is also the
temple of that everlasting justice without which freedom itself would
only be a name or only a curse to mankind."

The Premier ably defended himself, but the resolution of Mr. Cobden was
passed. Parliament was dissolved March 21, 1857, and Lord Palmerston
appealed to the country. He was victorious at the polls. Among the
prominent Liberals who lost their seats were Cobden, Bright, and Milner
Gibson. The Peelites suffered loss too, but Mr. Gladstone was again
elected for Oxford University. However, Mr. Greville writes, under date
of June 3d: "Gladstone hardly ever goes near the House of Commons, and
never opens his lips." But his indifference and silence were not to
last long.

When the Divorce Bill, which originated in the Lords, came up in the
Commons, Mr. Gladstone made an impassioned speech against the measure,
contending for the equality of woman with man in all the rights
pertaining to marriage. He dealt with the question on theological, legal
and social grounds. He contended that marriage was not only or chiefly a
civil contract, but a "mystery" of the Christian religion. By the law of
God it could not be so annulled as to permit of the re-marriage of the
parties. "Our Lord," he says, "has emphatically told us that, at and
from the beginning, marriage was perpetual, and was on both sides
single." He dwelt with pathetic force on the injustice between man and
woman of the proposed legislation, which would entitle the husband to
divorce from an unfaithful wife, but would give no corresponding
protection to the woman; and predicted the gloomiest consequences to the
conjugal morality of the country from the erection of this new and
odious tribunal. Nevertheless the bill became a law.

In 1858 a bill was introduced in the House of Commons by Lord
Palmerston, to make conspiracy to murder a felony. It grew out of the
attempt of Orsini upon the life of Napoleon III. The bill at first was
carried by an immense majority, but the conviction spread that the
measure was introduced solely at the dictation of the French Emperor,
and hence the proposal was strongly opposed. Mr. Gladstone said: "These
times are grave for liberty. We live in the nineteenth century; we talk
of progress; we believe we are advancing, but can any man of observation
who has watched the events of the last few years in Europe have failed
to perceive that there is a movement indeed, but a downward and backward
movement? There are few spots in which institutions that claim our
sympathy still exist and flourish.... But in these times more than ever
does responsibility centre upon the institutions of England, and if it
does centre upon England, upon her principles, upon her laws and upon
her governors, then I say that a measure passed by this House of
Commons--the chief hope of freedom--which attempts to establish a moral
complicity between us and those who seek safety in repressive measures,
will be a blow and a discouragement to that sacred cause in every
country in the world."

The bill was defeated by a majority of nineteen, and Lord Palmerston
again resigned. He was succeeded by Lord Derby, who once more came into
power. Mr. Disraeli again became Chancellor of the Exchequer, and leader
of the House of Commons. The new ministry, which existed largely on
sufferance, passed some good measures.

The one hundredth anniversary of the battle of Plassey was celebrated in
England June 23, 1857, to obtain funds for a monument to Lord Clive, who
secured India to England. The English then felt secure in the government
of that land, yet at that very time one of the most wide-spread,
destructive and cruel rebellions was raging, and shaking to its very
foundations the English rule in Hindostan. Suddenly the news came of the
terrible Indian mutiny and of the indiscriminate slaughter of men, women
and children, filling all hearts with horror, and then of the crushing
out of the rebellion. Lord Canning, Governor-General, issued a
proclamation to the chiefs of Oudh, looking to the confiscation of the
possessions of mutineers who failed to return to the allegiance of
England. It was meant as clemency. But Lord Ellenborough, the officer in
charge of affairs in India, dispatched "a rattling condemnation of the
whole proceeding." Says Justin McCarthy: "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 government in
India together during the most terrible trial ever imposed on it by
fate." The matter was taken up by Parliament. Lord Shaftesbury moved
that the Lords disprove the sending of the dispatch. In the Commons the
ministry were arraigned. But Lord Ellenborough took upon himself the
sole responsibility of the dispatch, and resigned. Mr. Gladstone was
invited to the vacant place, but declined.

Copyright (c) 2007. famouswriterz.com. All rights reserved.