« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
her people, suffering privations on account of this war, have, as yet, had no such consolation; that, on the contrary, we cannot withhold from her majesty the avowal of our conviction, that the conduct of the war has occasioned general dissatisfaction, and given rise to just complaints, and that we must humbly lay before her majesty our deliberate opinion that it is only through the selection of men for public employment, without regard to anything but the public service, that the country can hope to prosecute the war successfully, and to attain in its only legitimate object--a secure and honourable peace."
In speaking of Lord Palmerston's "pretended" knowledge of military affairs, the noble earl narrated a reminiscence of the Duke of Wellington. "I recollect sitting by the side of the Duke of Wellington in the House of Lords during the unfortunate difficulty between him and Mr. Huskisson which led to the resignation of a portion of the gentlemen forming the government. The Duke of Wellington was suddenly called out of the house, and when he returned he said to me, 'That was Palmerston who wanted to see me, to tell me if Huskisson went he must go too.' The duke continued, 'I said nothing; it was not for me to fire great guns at small birds.' That was the opinion of the Duke of Wellington." This was not a very remarkable story, and was not very appropriate as applied to the Palmerston of 1855. On the whole it may have been considered to have been at the expense of the memory of the Duke of Wellington rather than that of the existing prime minister.
Lord Granville, who before he came to the title was George Leveson Gower, took up the defence of the government chiefly on the ground that able, practical men engaged in commercial or other pursuits could not be induced to give up their business to accept political office. In the course of his remarks he referred with some humour to the charge made by the noble earl that the cabinet was composed of Gowers, Howards, and Cavendishes. "My lords," he said, "I had better make a clean breast of it at once; and I am obliged to admit that some of those who went before me had such quivers full of daughters
who did not die old maids, that I have relations upon this side of the house, relations upon the cross-benches, relations upon the opposite side of the house, and I actually had the unparalleled misfortune to have no fewer than three daughters in the Protectionist administration of my noble friend opposite."
The resolutions of the Earl of Ellenborough were rejected, and in the House of Commons a motion made by Major Reid, calling attention to the critical state of public affairs and to the necessity of at once introducing reforms in every branch of the state, was answered by Lord Palmerston, who said, in forming his government he was not influenced by family connections, but rather by the distinguished abilities which individuals had displayed in public affairs; and he only regretted that commercial men of the greatest ability and talent were generally so absorbed in their commercial pursuits that it was difficult-indeed, impossible-to obtain their assistance. The government as it stood was, he thought, such as should command the confidence of the public. He was aware that great improvements might be made in various branches of the public service, and the utmost attention was paid to the subject, with a view to their introduction. "It was intended to abolish the office of master-general of the ordnance, and also the ordnance board itself. The artillery and engineers would be placed under the same authority as the rest of the army. The civil department of the ordnance would be placed under the control of the secretary for war, as would also the medical department of the commissariat. The object which the government had most at heart was to render all the branches of the public service as effective and vigorous as possible; for he felt the war was with a colossal power, who would become dominant in Europe-France and England sinking into secondary statesif we should be worsted in the struggle."
There was something about this answer which brought up Mr. Disraeli, who insinuated that Palmerston was himself the author of the motion.
These tentative resolutions, if they produced no other effect, kept alive public criticism, and
SIR GEORGE CORNEWALL LEWIS-HIS BUDGET.
made it by no means an easy task for the government to hold their own, with Lord John Russell in office, and the question of the negotiations still unsettled.
The financial statement of Sir George Cornewall Lewis had been received with little or no opposition, and the budget was passed with alacrity, though it necessarily had to provide for an enormously increased expenditure.
Sir George Cornewall Lewis was just the kind of man whom the administrative reformers had asserted should hold office. He belonged to a family who had adopted politics as a business, and he had very considerable faculties for pursuing that business successfully. Probably the witty saying attributed to him, that "life would be tolerable if it were not for its amusements," was only one of the many humorous remarks for which this shrewd and able gentleman was famous among his friends. It might stand, however, as an expression of his capacity and liking for hard work and constant occupation in the business of the state. He had left the editorial chair of the Edinburgh Review to become chancellor of the exchequer, and had long been known to fame as a philosophical writer, his first important literary production having been a translation of Müller's History and Antiquities of the Doric Race. Another book, the Inquiry into the Credibility of Early Roman History, was of more importance in establishing his fame as an author, however; while in the field of political writing he had published an essay, On the Use and Abuse of Political Terms, a treatise On the Method of Reasoning in Politics, and one on the Government of Dependencies. These were rather painstaking and conclusive, than brilliant or very original efforts, but they displayed great liberality and just the kind of ability that might be expected of a man who, from a comparatively early age, followed his father in a career of practical, and one might also say, professional politics. The name of Sir Thomas Frankland Lewis was well known as the holder of the by no means popular office of chairman of the poor-law commission from 1834 to 1839; and his son became a member
of the board while he occupied that position. But Sir Frankland Lewis had achieved distinction before the latter date by a long course of public service. Belonging to a Radnorshire family of independent means, he had obtained a baronetcy from Sir Robert Peel, and had sat in parliament successively for Beaumaris, Ennis, and Radnorshire. His chief business, however, was on "commissions," and for about twenty years there was scarcely ever a parliamentary "inquiry" in which he did not take a part. In 1827 he was secretary to the treasury, then became vice-president of the Board of Trade, and then gained the lucrative post of treasurer to the navy, an office long ago abolished. Thus his son, Sir George, was trained to political life and had begun it early. In 1828, when he was twentytwo years old, he was already distinguished at Oxford, and three years later was called to the bar, with a view, as it seemed, to secure the seven years' legal standing" which was at one time, and is often still, regarded as an advantage to anyone seeking official position. In 1835 he began with the commission of relief of the poor in Ireland, and afterwards was on the Irish Church inquiry commission. From 1836 to 1847 he was on the poor-law board, and just before the defeat of Lord John Russell in 1850 had been joint secretary to the treasury. In 1851 he had lost his seat for Herefordshire, and it was in 1854 that his father's death left him at once the baronetcy and the representation of the Radnor district in parliament. His ability as chancellor of the exchequer was acknowledged by competent judges to be superior to that either of Sir Charles Wood or of Mr. Goulbourn; but he was far inferior to Mr. Disraeli in brilliant and incisive statement, and to Mr. Gladstone both in grasp of financial policy and in the power to make the usually dry details of a budget attractive. Still his fiscal arrangements were sound, and though a number of members did not stay to listen to the whole of the budget speech, that speech was not without real interest. The condition of the country was such that the necessity for procuring revenue left little choice to a practical and careful financier. It had become impossible to con
tinue the method employed by Mr. Gladstone to meet the expenses of the war out of annual revenue. Although the estimated income for the year was close upon 63 millions, the expenditure exceeded that sum by nearly 23 millions.
On the 20th of April Sir George explained that he proposed to meet the deficiency by raising sixteen millions on loan at three per cent., of which the whole had been taken at par by the Messrs. Rothschild and the Bank of England,-five millions by means of an additional twopence in the pound on the income-tax, and three millions by exchequer bills. Some of the details of his plan provoked discussion, but the resolutions for giving it effect were carried on the 23d without difficulty. The nation was thoroughly in earnest, and to achieve the objects of the war, it was prepared to find the necessary sinews without a murmur.
The progress of the war began now to be accompanied by some events which were fortunate for the ministry, inasmuch as they tended to raise public confidence. Of the resignation of General Canrobert we have already spoken. He felt his own want of the grasp and risk of responsibility which are requisite in a commander-in-chief. An admirable soldier, thoroughly in earnest, and loyally attached to the English, he differed from his successor Pelissier in many important respects. Marshal Vaillant had said, "Pelissier will lose 14,000 men for a great result at once, while Canrobert would lose the like number by driblets without obtaining any advantage." Canrobert had hesitated to seize and fortify the Mamelon hill, a piece of neglect which afterwards cost hundreds of lives and delayed the progress of the siege, and he waited to be attacked instead of leading the assault. Pelissier was another kind of commander. eral Changarnier had said of him, "If there was an émeute I should not hesitate at burning a quarter of Paris; Pelissier would not flinch from burning the whole." To him Canrobert had, with noble self-depreciation, handed over the army, active, well organized, and ready for hard duty, and asked that he himself might be permitted to serve as a general of division.
The visit of the Emperor and Empress of the French to the Queen had done much to maintain enthusiasm in favour of that alliance which Mr. Bright had so unmistakably disparaged, and, as we have seen, the arrival not only of Russian prisoners, but of our own maimed and wounded soldiers, had not tended to diminish the belligerent temper of the nation. The distribution of Crimean medals to the officers and soldiers who had been engaged in the battles of the Alma, Balaklava, and Inkerman, was another occasion which, while it touched the sympathy of the country, at the same time increased the determination to pursue the war until the pride of Russia was humbled, and peace could be made on a basis which it was imagined would prevent her from again attempting to control the destinies of Turkey. The war-fever was not allayed by the terrible sacrifices which had been made, nor by the deluge of blood that had been shed. If our troops had suffered much, and their numbers had been reduced by famine and sword, the Russians had suffered far more. "The loss and destruction and misery inflicted on the Russians have been threefold that inflicted on the whole armies of the allies," said Lord Lansdowne in reply to the Earl of Ellenborough's charge against the administration. "The noble earl has some idea, perhaps, of the extent to which that loss has gone, that, if our troops have suffered from want of clothing, of habitations, of the means of transport, the Russians have suffered ten times more; but I should astonish your lordships by stating what the amount of that loss to the enemy has been. I have here a statement, made on the very highest authority, and from this it appears that a few days before the death of the Emperor Nicholas a return was made up, stating that 170,000 Russians had died, and according to a supplementary return, made up a few days later, 70,000 were added to the list, making a total loss of 240,000 men." It is true that the thought of this dreadful destruction of human life sent a thrill through the house, and that the arrival of detachment after detachment of invalids, who were visited by the queen and the prince consort, kept alive public pity. As Mr. Bright had said, the beating of