CHAPTER XIV. "PEACE." was to him that the governor of that town surrendered his sword. At Waterloo his gallantry won for him great distinction, and there he had the misfortune to be wounded, and sustained the loss of an arm. During the forty years' peace he worked assiduously at the Horse Guards, assisting successive commanders-in-chief with his able advice and co-operation, and being no less useful to his country than he had been eminent in time of war. So distinguished were his services, that he was honoured with a peerage. In spite of the obstacles against which he had to contend, his command of the army in the East, in all the operations in which it had been engaged, had been eminently successful. In his death England lamented the loss of a great soldier, a great general, and a great gentleman. A FEW days after the vacillating cabinet had | capture of that celebrated fortress, and it decided upon abandoning diplomacy for active hostilities, the hero of a hundred fights, to whom the fortunes of the British army were intrusted, passed to his rest. It was known, when Lord Raglan consented to accept the post of commander-inchief of our forces in the East, that his health was indifferent; still it was hoped that the campaign would be a speedy one, and that the gallant officer would not seriously suffer at his time of life from being again sent upon active service. But the difficulties of his situation, the unnecessary privations his men had to undergo, and the unjust censures then freely passed upon his command, all tended to depress and enfeeble his proud and sensitive spirit, and thus prepare the way for the sickness that was to lay him low. Yet he died a soldier's death, fighting the cause of his country in a distant land; and his last moments were soothed by the thought that his long career might by those who loved him be looked back upon without shame or fear. His life had been one incessant period of civil and military activity. At an early age he had embraced the profession of arms. In 1807 So distinguished a commander was not permitted to descend into the tomb without recognition. The following message was announced to parliament:-" Her Majesty, taking into consideration the great and brilliant services performed by the late Fitzroy James Henry, Lord Raglan, fieldhe was selected by the Duke of Wellington marshal in Her Majesty's army, and comto serve upon his staff on the occasion of mander-in-chief of Her Majesty's forces at the expedition to Copenhagen. So great the seat of war in the East, in the course were his talents, and cool his judgment, of the hostilities which have taken place that the great duke held Lord Fitzroy in the Crimea; and being desirous, in recogSomerset, as he was then called, in such high nition of these and his other distinguished estimation, that the two men were afterwards merits, to confer some signal mark of her inseparable. There was no action in which favour upon his widow, Emily Harriet the Duke of Wellington was engaged in Lady Raglan, upon his son and successor the Peninsular war in which the future to the title, Richard Henry Lord Raglan, Lord Raglan did not play a conspicuous and the next surviving heir male of the part. At the siege of Badajos he was body of the said Richard Henry Lord among the foremost in the breach at the Raglan-recommends to her faithful Com THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD AND HIS TIMES. mons the adoption of such measures as may be necessary for the accomplishment of that purpose." In both Houses this message was considered, and gave rise to a complimentary debate, in which the merits and services of the deceased commander were feelingly and eloquently commented upon. Lord Palmerston proposed that the annual sum of £1000 should be settled upon Lady Raglan, the widow, and a further annual sum of £2000 settled upon Lord Raglan, the son, in tail male. Mr. Disraeli seconded the proposition (July 3, 1855), in one of his customary graceful funeral orations. "I rise, sir," he said, "to second the resolution of the noble lord, which I doubt not will meet with the unanimous acceptance and approbation of this House. After half a century of public service, all that which was noble and sometimes illustrious ought not to be permitted to pass away without the record and recognition of a nation's gratitude. The career of Lord Raglan was remarkable. Forty years ago he sealed with his blood the brilliant close of a great struggle against the danger of universal empire; and after that long interval he has given to his country his life, in order to guard it against the menaces of a new and overwhelming enemy. The qualities of Lord Raglan were remarkable, and it may be doubted whether they will be supplied by a successor, however able. That which, perhaps, most distinguished him was an elevation and serenity of mind that invested him, as it were, with a heroic and classical repose; that permitted him to bring to the management of men and the transaction of great affairs the magic influence of character; and that often in his case accomplished results otherwise produced by the inspiration of genius. Perhaps there is no instance on record in which valour of so high a character was so happily and so singularly allied to so disciplined a discretion. Never were courage and caution united in so great a degree of either quality. Sir, over the tomb of the great 339 departed, criticism must be silent; but even here it must be permitted to all of us to remember that the course of events has sanctioned the judgment of that commander with respect to those difficulties with which it was his hard fate to cope, but which, his country must recollect, he did not choose or create. May those who succeed him encounter a happier fortune; they will not meet a more glorious end; for there is nothing more admirable than self-sacrifice to public duty. That was the principle which regulated the life of Somerset; it was the principle which he carried with him to the grave. I feel great pride in seconding the resolution." The resolution was agreed to (it being in the days before Ireland had degraded herself by sending her present representatives), without a dissentient vote. The popular chamber was, however, soon. to ring with a debate of a very different character. We have heard how Lord John Russell, immediately after his return from Vienna, had expressed in no doubtful terms his views as to the renewal of hostilities with Russia. The Czar had refused to limit his naval power in the Black Sea; he should therefore be compelled, cried the envoy, to submit to the proposals of diplomacy by the force of arms. Hence the world believed that the negotiations at Vienna had been broken off with the approval of the English plenipotentiary. It now appeared that, in spite of this bellicose tone, Lord John Russell had approved of the terms of peace suggested by Austria; he had laid them before the Congress, and he had returned home with the object of supporting them in the cabinet. This double-dealing was made public, not through ministers, but through the publication of certain Austrian official documents in the continental newspapers. No sooner had the discovery become known, than a strong feeling of indignation was excited throughout the country against our late envoy. Why, it was angrily asked, had not Lord John been himself the first to inform the House of Commons that the terms submitted by the Austrian government had met with his approval, and that he was still in favour of them? Why, with peace in his heart, did he consent to occupy a seat in a cabinet pledged to carry on war? Why did he not have the courage of his opinions and resign his post, as his French colleague, M. Drouyn de Lhuys, had resigned? What were the reasons he could assign for completely setting aside, upon coming home to England, his own convictions upon the most important question of modern times, and surrendering his judgment and abnegating his opinions to his colleagues in the cabinet? If such conduct were to be permitted to pass unquestioned, there was an end of all confidence in government and in the honour of public men. Such jesuitical diplomacy was, however, not to pass unquestioned. The case came before parliament, and Mr. Milner Gibson requested Lord John to explain his conduct, and how it was, if the facts were as reported, his lordship, bound by his promise to Count Buol the Austrian minister, still retained his place in a cabinet pledged to cripple Russia now that the proposals of the Congress had been rejected? The answer of the late plenipotentiary was among the most singular that refutation has ever set forth. It was quite true, replied Lord John, that he had concurred in the Austrian propositions; he had thought they would give not a certainty, but a very fair prospect of the duration of peace, and they had met with his full approval. On quitting Vienna he informed Count Buol that the instructions he had received from London led him to suppose that the Austrian proposals would not be accepted; but that his own opinion was that they ought to be, and might be accepted. He, therefore, promised the Count that on his return to England he would do his best to place those propositions in such a light that the Austrian government might hope for their adoption. He had fulfilled his promise. The Austrian suggestions had been deliberately considered by the cabinet; but the government had arrived at the conclusion that the peace proposed would not be a safe peace, and that they could not recommend its adoption. Why, then, asked Lord John, did he still continue a member of the government? He occupied a two-fold position. As a plenipotentiary it was for him to submit to the decision of the government; as a member of the cabinet it was his duty to consider the circumstances of the time. He had so lately abandoned his seat, there had been so many secessions from the cabinet, there had been so great a disposition on the part of the public to denounce all authority and to call in question the characters of all public men, that he did not think himself justified under the extraordinary circumstances in maintaining his own opinions. upon this grave question, by surrendering his seat in the cabinet which had overruled his own convictions, at the risk of bringing about another change. Though out of office, he might have given every support to the government; he felt that his resignation would have increased the instability of the administration and would have been considered the precursor of other changes. Within the cabinet it was the duty of the minority to give way to the majority, if there was a majority and a minority; it was the duty of the individual to defer to the sentiments of the cabinet in general, and to leave it to the House of Commons to decide whether or not ministers were to be trusted with the control of public affairs. This answer was rightly deemed most unsatisfactory, and keenly criticised by the House. It was said that if the example of Lord John Russell were to be considered as a precedent, it would strike at the very foundation of all confidence in public men, and render it impossible that the representative system could be carried on with success. The public had faith in public men because they believed that public men had certain opinions, were swayed by certain principles, and might be relied upon to act | on the part of his colleagues. They did according to their convictions. Lord John not agree in the policy which he recomRussell had acted throughout this affair in mended. They decided upon a course a mean and underhand fashion. He had totally adverse to that which he wished led the country to believe that he had to sanction. They decided on a course no returned from Vienna disgusted with the less decisive than the prosecution of that proposals for peace made in that city, and war which, in his opinion, ought to have that he was therefore anxious to stimulate terminated. The noble lord accedes to the the passion of the country in order that the suggestions of his colleagues. He remains war might be carried on more vigorously. in the cabinet of which he was a member Yet all the time he was the advocate of the during the negotiations; he remains in that Austrian proposals of peace, and considered cabinet-a minister of peace and as a that such proposals offered "a guarantee member of that cabinet he recommends for the security of Europe!" He was a the vigorous prosecution of that war in peace minister in a war cabinet. Such his place in this House. double-dealing with the confidence of the country it would be hard to equal. Mr. Disraeli did not permit the occasion to pass without addressing the House (July 6, 1855). "This evening," he said, "is memorable, and will long be memorable in the history of this country for the revelations and for the confessions on the part of a minister of state holding a very high and peculiar position-confessions and revelations which probably have not been before equalled in the memory of any man living. What have we heard to-night so unexpectedly, and which if I am not mistaken is destined to impress itself so seriously and painfully on the minds and opinions of this nation? We have had to-night an admission from the noble lord, the secretary of state for the colonies, who was recently employed by his sovereign in the high position of minister plenipotentiary to negotiate on a subject of no less moment than that of peace or war, that after having given, as he has admitted, great care and anxiety to the prosecution of his labours, he arrived at a favourable solution of the difficulties with which he had to contend, and had in his own mind accomplished measures which would have secured peace for this country, and that to recommend these measures to the government which employed him he returned to England. Strange to say, it seems the noble lord found no sympathy The reasons which the noble lord has given for this extraordinary course appear to me no less singular than his conduct. This is no slight question. The honourable and learned gentleman who has preceded me (Mr. Roebuck) in this debate has fairly said that it may be considered as the most important of all political questions. There is hardly a member of this House who would place any measure to regulate our internal condition, however high its aim, in the same category as a question whether peace should be accomplished or whether war should be prosecuted. The noble lord has told us to-night, notwithstanding it was his conviction that peace might be obtained and ought to be obtained, that he considered it his duty to support the policy of war, and which he has accordingly done, both as an eminent member of the cabinet and of this House. The noble lord has rested the vindication of his course on a principle which, according to his version, is calculated to raise his character as a public man, who by so acting has absolutely sacrificed his own feelings to his sense of public duty. I may differ from the view which the noble lord has taken on this subject; but I think that the question of peace or war, especially under the circumstances in which this country finds itself at present, is one that ought not to be an open question. Lax as have been the rules. and regulations in recent cabinets with regard to open questions, I certainly cannot found now, at the end of the session, that it had lost every opportunity of vindicating the policy it ought to have pursued? “I wish to know," inquired Mr. Disraeli," what is the position in which this country now finds itself with respect to the prosecution of this war, in consequence of the confession of the minister to-night? Two years ago, or less, when the whole country and the House were complaining of the great neglect displayed by the administration of this country in preparing for the war then impending, what was the excuse made for ten precious months which had been wasted? It was that we were preparing and securing those great alliances, without which there would be little prospect of the war being waged with success. Well, I want to know what probability there is of our obtaining the assistance of what were styled by a member of the then government the great German Powers, after the admission made to-night by a leading member of the government? How can we appeal again to Prussia, or ask any European power to assist us in this struggle, when we have acknowledged to Europe that just terms have been proposed by Austria on which peace might be obtained-when that has been acknowledged by our plenipotentiary extraordinary and one of our leading statesmen? Will not Austria, Prussia, or any other state, turn round and reply to the demands of our ministers, 'We do not at all agree with you in the necessity of making renewed efforts to curb the ambition of Russia; we think that the elements of a durable peace are in the power of able managers of circumstances, and our authority for so thinking is the distinguished statesmau you sent to Vienna to represent your interests, and to advocate such a settlement of these disturbed relations as might appear most advantageous.' Well, then, I say that the effect of the debate tonight on our prospect of conducting this war with success is of very evil tendency. Nor is it merely on our alliances that the conceal my surprise at learning to-night from high authority that peace and war are open questions in the existing administration. But what I want to ask, after these extraordinary revelations of the minister, is this-is this House for peace or for war? Because whatever may be the opinions of hon. gentlemen, whatever the opinions of those gentlemen who with great ability advocate their views in favour of peace, or those of gentlemen on this and on the other side of the House who think that the war should be prosecuted with vigour and energy, still I shall assume that we must all be of this mind, that there is very little chance of either obtaining a satisfactory peace or prosecuting a successful war, if in the very bosom of the cabinet such contrary sentiments prevail, and if the most eminent members in the councils of Her Majesty are influenced by ideas so conflicting on questions so vital. The question of peace or war must always in - all countries, but especially in a free country, be a subject of controversy; but all parties, nevertheless, will agree in this, that whether we are to have peace or war Her Majesty's ministers ought at any rate to be unanimous on the point. I cannot, indeed, see any chance of efficient and vigorous action in either respect, or for either result, if the present state of affairs continues such as it has been described to us to-night with startling candour by the noble lord, the secretary of state, whose revelations will, I doubt not, long linger in the ears of the people of this country." And now, asked Mr. Disraeli, was he wrong in having described such a state of affairs, except by such expressions as "ambiguous language and uncertain conduct?" Events had fully vindicated the course he had taken. After the speech of Lord John Russell, not a member of the House could not but feel that the country had suffered from that "ambiguous language and uncertain conduct." In what position did the House of Commons place itself when it |