CHAPTER XI. CLOUDS IN THE EAST. LORD ABERDEEN, an amiable and accomplished man, but who lacked the decision of character and the absence of prejudice requisite to lead a cabinet, had seen no little service in the state before having been called upon to form an administration. Twice he had held the seals as secretary of state for foreign affairs, and it was well known that the late Sir Robert Peel had entertained a high opinion of his talents. A scholar, a careful speaker, a man who thought much, almost too much, before he acted, an able composer of state papers, and of sound judgment when he was not too fearful of responsibility, he was one of those men who are excellent administrators under the guidance of some commanding spirit, but who, from the habit of relying upon others, become feeble and incompetent, owing to a too great sensitiveness to public opinion, when compelled to lead and organize. Overawed by the responsibilities of their situation, they regard every question from so many points of view, that they prefer rather to remain stationary than to adopt any decided course of action. The ministry formed by Lord Aberdeen was singularly strong one. With the exception of Mr. Disraeli, it enrolled within its ranks every member of marked ability in the House of Commons. Lord Cranworth held the great seal; Mr. Gladstone superintended the finances as chancellor of the exchequer; Lord John Russell controlled diplomacy from the foreign office; Lord Palmerston, who wished to extend his knowledge of administration, presided over the internal affairs of the country as home secretary; to the Duke of Newcastle was intrusted the supervision of our colonies; Sir James Graham was once more ruling naval matters at the Admiralty; Mr. Sidney Herbert was secretary at war; Sir Charles Wood, as president of the board of control, was not allowed the opportunity of introducing any further blundering budgets; Lord Granville sat as president of the council; the Duke of Argyle held the privy seal; the Marquis of Lansdowne had a seat in the cabinet without office. It was not, therefore, without some reason, that the Aberdeen administration was christened "All the Talents." The ministerial programme was soon announced. On the meeting of the Houses after the adjournment, Lord Aberdeen laid before his brother peers the course the new government intended to pursue. With regard to foreign powers, they would adhere to the principle which had been pursued for the last thirty years, and which consisted in respecting the rights of all independent states, in abstaining from interference in their internal affairs, and, above all, in an earnest desire to secure the general peace of Europe. Such a policy could be observed without any relaxation of those defensive measures which had been lately undertaken, and which had, perhaps, been too long neglected. At home the mission of the government would be to maintain and extend free-trade principles, and to pursue the commercial and financial system of the late Sir Robert Peel. A crisis in their financial arrangements would speedily occur by the cessation of a large branch of the revenue, and it would tax the ingenuity of all concerned to re-adjust their finances according to the principles of justice and equity. The questions of education and legal reform would also receive every THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD AND HIS TIMES. attention at the hands of the government; nor would an amendment of the representative system, undertaken without haste or rashness, be excluded from their mature consideration. The government would be conservative in preserving all that was sound and beneficial, and liberal in redressing all grievances that were justly complained of. A few days after the re-assembling of parliament, Mr. Disraeli, as leader of the Opposition, made his first attack upon the Treasury bench. Events had been rapidly marching in France during the last few months. It was the old story told so often in political revolutions-first a people dissatisfied with their monarchy; then the liberty, equality, and fraternity of a militant and divided republicanism; then the ambition of one individual; then plots, combinations, and manoeuvres, until the whip of rods is exchanged for the whip of scorpions, and the republic develops into a military despotism. The coup d'état had been successful, and Louis Napoleon had been installed at Nôtre Dame as President of France for the next ten years. Though advised by a state council, a senate of nobles, and a legislative assembly, the whole executive power was really in the hands of the new president. Ambition grows by what it feeds upon, and Louis Napoleon resolved, shortly after his accession to office, to obtain higher honours. He announced to the senate his intention of restoring the Empire, and gave orders that the people should be consulted on the change. France was canvassed, and voted by an immense majority in favour of the restoration of the Empire. The president of the French was accordingly declared emperor of France by the title of Napoleon III., and his title was acknowledged shortly afterwards by England and the rest of the European powers. This elevation to the imperial purple took place a few weeks before the fall of Lord Derby's government, and tended not a little to increase the fears as to the possibility of a French invasion of England. VOL. I. 249 Shortly before the meeting of the Houses, Sir Charles Wood had been entertained at dinner at Halifax by his constituents. In the course of the speech he delivered upon that occasion (February 7, 1853), after a few remarks glorifying the Liberal policy in the past, and the splendid results that had followed from it, he discussed the question of the extension of the franchise, to which he said he was averse until the people became better educated and more intelligent. "And surely, gentlemen,” he cried, "we have warning enough in what has taken place in foreign countries against precipitate and ill-considered measures of this description? There is hardly a country in Europe which, in the last four or five years, has not attempted a revolution. There is hardly a country in Europe in which, I may say, the mob has not for a time gained the ascendency; and there is not a country in Europe in which the reaction has not been such that, at the present moment, despotism rules from one extremity of Europe to the other, and the only power acknowledged is that of the sword. Take our nearest neighbours. Such a despotism never prevailed in France even in the time of Napoleon I. The press gagged; liberty suppressed; no man allowed to speak his opinion; the neighbouring country of Belgium forced to gag her press; no press in Europe free but ours, which, thank God, he cannot gag! And hence his hatred of our press, that it alone dare to speak the truth. But how has that despotism been constituted? Not by the intelligence of France, not by the intelligent electors; not by the educated classes of France, because he altered the constitution before he put the question of his power to the vote. Twice an appeal has been made in the form in which he chose to put it to the people of France. The votes in France were taken by universal suffrage and vote by ballot." Sir Charles concluded by expressing his fear of French aggression, and that, with so unscrupulous a man on the throne as the Emperor Na 32 poleon, it behoved England to be most wary | a natural hostility between the French and vigilant, so as not to be taken by sur- and the English nations. They are persons prise. Sir James Graham had also, about who may probably be placed in the same the same time, stigmatized the emperor as a category with those who think, or used to despot, who turned his people into slaves. think, that five per cent. is the natural rate Remarks so gross and incautious upon a of interest. But, at the same time, they sovereign with whom we were on terms of are persons influenced in many instances friendship and cordiality, were naturally by very sincere and patriotic feelings; not permitted to pass without encounter- and their opinions, though they may be ing severe criticism. Sir Charles Wood inveterate prejudices, are not to be despised had scarcely taken his seat as the re-elected at a conjuncture like the present. I know of Halifax when Mr. Disraeli, whose sym- that to persons influenced by such a conpathies with France were always strong viction it is in vain to appeal by any of and genuine, rose up on the order of the those economical considerations which are day to go into committee of supply (Feb- often mentioned in the present day. I ruary 18, 1853), to make some inquiries of know it is in vain to impress on them that, the government with respect to "our rela- in an age favourable to industry, ancient tions with France." His speech on this and civilized communities are diverted occasion was one of the most important from thoughts of war. I know it is in he delivered during the year. "Their rela- vain to appeal to the higher impulse of tionship with France," he said, "was the that philanthropy which many of us believe, gravest subject of modern politics. For in such communities, in societies under nearly forty years peace had existed be- such conditions of great antiquity and adtween England and France. During that vanced civilization, to be instigating the interval the social relations of the two coun- heart of nations. But I think it right to tries had become various and multiplied; appeal to stern facts which cannot be disfor there were no two countries, calling puted-to the past conduct of men which, themselves first-class powers, between whom according to the theories of these individuals, all questions of high policy were so identi- is the best test of what their future behaviour cal. It was therefore extremely strange will be; and I must say I do not see that that, under such circumstances, an idea the history of the past justifies the too should seem to have entered into almost prevalent opinion that between England every man's brain, and an expression into and France there is a natural rivalry and every man's mouth, that they were on the hostility. I know very well that if you eve of a rupture with France." He did not go back to ancient history-or rather to therefore think it unreasonable that, on the ancient history of the two countries going into committee of supply, when they were about to vote large sums to sustain the armaments of the country, he should make some inquiries on a subject of such absorbing interest, and offer a few remarks before the House went into committee. On such a topic, he said, it was most important that no false opinion should take possession of the public mind. "I know," proceeded Mr. Disraeli, "there are persons in both countries-persons born and bred probably during the last great struggle who are of opinion that there is that you may appeal to Cressy, and Poictiers, and to Agincourt, and believe there has always been a struggle between the two countries, and that struggle has always redounded to the glory of England. But it should be remembered that these were not wars so much between France and England as between the king of France and the king of England as a French prince-that the latter was fighting for his provinces of Picardy or Aquitaine and that in fact it was not a struggle between the two nations. which has prevailed, proves the tendency of all those causes which influence the conduct of both nations, and which lead to peace from a conviction of its advantage to both countries. I will not, therefore, dwell further upon this point except to express my protest against the dogma which I am sorry to see has been revived of late, not merely in England, although it is too prevalent in this country, that there is a feeling of natural hostility between the nations of Great Britain and France." "I take it for granted," he continued, | it-the fact that all should terminate in a that in considering this point our history peace of so permanent a character as that must not go back to a more distant period than to that happy hour when the keys of Calais were fortunately delivered over for ever to the care of a French monarch; and when we take that view, which is the real point of our modern history, as one that should guide us on this subject, we shall observe that the most sagacious sovereigns and the most eminent statesmen of England, almost without exception, have held that the French alliance, or a cordial understanding with the French nation, should be the cornerstone of our diplomatic system and the keynote of our foreign policy. No one can deny that both Queen Elizabeth and the Lord Protector looked to that alliance as the basis of their foreign connections. No one can deny that there was one subject on which even the brilliant Bolingbroke and the sagacious Walpole agreed-and that was the great importance of cultivating an alliance or good understanding with France. At a later date the most eminent of the statesmen of this century, Mr. Pitt, formed his system on this principle, and entered public life to establish a policy which, both for political considerations and commercial objects, mainly depended on an alliance and good understanding with the French nation. And therefore it is not true that there has been at all times, or at most times, a want of sympathy in England with the French people; but on the contrary, the reverse is the truth, and the alliance and good understanding that has prevailed between us has in my opinion been a source of great advantage to both countries, and has advanced the civilization of Europe. But what has occurred in our time proves, I think, the truth that the natural tendency of the influences that regulate both countries is to peace; because the fact that, after such extraordinary events as the European revolutions at the end of the last and beginning of this century, the great struggle that occurred, and the great characters that figured in Mr. Disraeli then proceeded to explain that the increase of the armaments of England was not due to the recent events that had taken place in France, for the vote for such increase had passed long before Louis Napoleon had attained to the position he now occupied. Science, he explained, had caused a great revolution in the art of war; and, therefore, ten years ago Sir Robert Peel had felt it incumbent upon himself, in the agitated state in which Europe then was, to commence a new system with regard to our defences, so that we should be fully prepared for any emergency that might arise, and not be ignorant of the new methods by which offensive and defensive operations were now conducted. It thus became necessary to place England in a state of safety and defence; yet such necessity was not caused by any changes in foreign countries, but by the changes in scientific warfare. He did not think there was any occasion to fear France. It was true that in France there was a military government, and that that country was now regulated by the army. "But," argued Mr. Disraeli, "there is a great error also, I apprehend, if history is to guide us, in assuming that because a country is governed by an army, that army must be extremely anxious to conquer other countries. When armies are anxious for conquest, it is because their position at home is uneasy, because their authority is not recognized, and because their power is not felt. It is the army returning from conquest that attempts to obtain supreme power in the state; but if an army finds that it does possess supreme power, you very rarely find that restless desire for foreign aggression which is supposed to be the inevitable characteristic of a military force. Now, there is one remarkable characteristic of the present military government in France, that that government has not been occasioned by the ambition of the army, but by the solicitation of classes of civilians, of large bodies of the industrial population, who, frightened whether rightly or wrongly by a state of disturbance and as they supposed of menacing anarchy, turned to the only disciplined body at command which they thought could secure order. I am led, therefore, to the belief that in the circumstance that there is a dynasty founded by a conqueror, but which is not a warlike dynasty; and that France is governed by the army, not in consequence of the military ambition of the troops, but in consequence of the disquietude of the citizens there is no reason for that great anxiety which is now prevalent." reminded his hearers that it was only a century ago since they themselves had abolished the censorship in their own country; and even when the censorship had ceased, they were under a law of libel which for nearly a century rendered the freedom of the press a most perilous privilege. He hoped that if the press was to be free, it would enjoy a complete freedom; still circumstances could arise which might render the liberty of the press far from desirable.* "Suppose," contended Mr. Disraeli, "that in England at this moment we had the greatest of all political evils-let us suppose that, instead of our happy settlement, we had a disputed succession. Let us suppose that we had a young Charles Stuart, for example, at this moment at Breda, or a young Oliver Cromwell at Bordeaux, publishing their manifestoes and sending their missives to powerful parties of their adherents in this country. We may even suppose other contingencies. Let us suppose that we had had in the course After the Reformation the censorship of the press in England, which had been established upon the discovery of printing, passed with the ecclesiastical supremacy to the crown. A licenser was appointed by the sovereign, without whose sanction no works or pamphlets could be legally published; publications issued without this royal authority brought both author and publisher into dire trouble. At first the power to print was restrained by various patents and monopolies, and under the reign of Elizabeth all printCambridge; after the Restoration the privilege was extended to York, and the passing of the Licensing Act in 1662 placed the entire control of printing in the hands of the government. Authors of objectionable works were punished by death, flogging, or mutilation, and it was deemed criminal to publish anything, whether of praise or blame, touching the government: a decree which effectually suppressed the few private newspapers then in existence. A few years after the Revolution the Licensing Act expired, and the press was in a measure free. Still the debates in parliament were not permitted to be published; and the stamp duty on newspapers and the law of libel continued to be great hindrances ing was prohibited elsewhere than in London, Oxford, and He, however, fully admitted that prejudice had been excited in England against the third Napoleon for having terminated a parliamentary constitution, and for having abrogated the liberty of the press. It is unnecessary for me to say," said Mr. Disraeli, with that noble self-respect which always prevented him from pretending to be the great temptation to meaner natures on attaining wealth or power-other than he really was, "that it is not probable I shall ever say or do anything which would tend to depreciate the influence or to dim-to the development of a really free press. The Daily Courant, inish the power of parliament or the press. My greatest honour is to be a member of this House, in which all my thoughts and feelings are concentrated; and as for the press, I am myself a 'gentleman of the press,' and bear no other scutcheon. know well the circumstances under which we have obtained in this country the invaluable blessings of a free press." Yet he I issued in 1709, was the first daily paper. As we shall see from this biography, the stamp duty was abolished in 1855, and the duty on paper, another drawback to newspaper circulation, in 1861. The law of libel as it then stood was, however, the greatest obstacle to the freedom of discussion in the press. This evil was finally removed by two famous acts. In 1792 the Libel Act of Mr. Fox was passed, which declared the right of juries on any trial or information for libel to give a general verdict of guilty or not guilty on the whole matter. By the Libel Act of Lord Campbell, passed in 1843, it was decreed that the defendant on an indictment plead its truth, and that its publication was for the public or information for a defamatory libel should be allowed to good. |