Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

proceeded with his speech and condemned the "sesquipedalian words and inflated language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I was in a position to watch closely both right hon. gentlemen, and to observe the smile of one and the wrath of the other; for I was standing by the Speaker's chair, and, looking down the House, was able to see the countenances of both.

On July 24 her Majesty's Ministers enjoyed a whitebait dinner at Greenwich. Mr Whiteside was in the chair, and by his humorous and happy speeches contributed greatly to the hilarity of the day. The silver spoon, the prize for good conduct in having scored the largest number of divisions, was awarded to me. The wooden spoon went to Sir John Paking ton, who had been in the fewest divisions, but who appeared incapable of tolerating a harmless joke. Lord Malmesbury says Lord Malmesbury says that Lord Derby proposed Sir John Pakington and the wooden spoons of old England. This may account for Sir John's anger; but that toast was probably only suggested sotto voce, and was not given from the chair, and so did not reach my

end of the table.

In August I went to Cherbourg to witness the ceremonial at the completion of the breakwater and the reception of the Queen by the Emperor and Empress, particulars of which are narrated in the following letter to my mother :

"MORTIMER, Aug. 8, 1858. "The rendezvous on Tuesday was at Southampton. Dinner on board

the Pera at 8. the Pera at 8. We sailed about 4.30, reached Cherbourg at 11.15. We

went in the afternoon to see the auguration of the railway, the engines arrival of the Emperor and the inblessed by the priests and archbishop with holy water, &c.; returned to our boat to see the Queen arrive about 6, from all the guns of the forts on land, when we had a fine sight of the salute on the break water, and from the menof-war lying in the harbour, which was very grand. In the evening the ships were illuminated, and the Emperor went off in his beautiful barge to pay a visit to H.M. Thursday we chartered a little steamer for our party to move about the harbour and to go to and fro to the shore, from which The harbour presented we were anchored about a mile off. the most beautiful sight, perhaps 250 to 300 vessels of various kinds all draped with flags besides numbers of small boats.

We contributed the greater part of the show, for I daresay there were 70 or 80 English yachts, and they said not more than 2 French. Indeed as a naval display on the part muster of men-of-war, frigates, of the French it was eclipsed by our yachts, and steamers of all kinds. I should say that 3 out of 4 vessels you saw were English. Thursday was bour, in seeing the Emperor and spent in various trips about the harEmpress off to meet the Queen at the arsenal and conduct her to a dejeuner at the Prefecture. In the afternoon we were in the arsenal (which was Emperor and the Queen and the whole closed to the general public while the party walked about), and we were of course quite close to them and saw them all well. Both the Emperor and the Empress were looking well. The latter has gained flesh since she was in England three years ago, and has retained her beauty. The Prince of Wales was one of the party in his Highland uniform. the arsenal the Emperor conducted the Queen to her barge, and the English party went off to the royal yacht and we afterwards to the Pera. In the evening the Emperor came on board the Bretagne (his admiral's ship) and entertained the Queen at dinner. The whole fleet was brilliantly illuminated, as was the break water for

After leaving

three miles long. There was a grand display of fireworks from the forts and the royal yachts. On Friday morning we kept hovering about the royal yacht and witnessed the affectionate partings of all the royal personages, the Queen kissing the Emperor again and again; and after seeing the Emperor go on board the Bretagne we followed the Queen out

to the entrance of the harbour and gave her a parting cheer. We spent the afternoon in the town and sailed yesterday morning. Some of the party remained behind to witness the letting the water into the basin and to go to the ball, but after a division of about 48 to 30 we carried it to go home. We had altogether about 96 on board. Two Peers, about 85 members of the H. of C., and the Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms, Speaker's Chaplain, Secretary, &c. We had a splendid ship, and there never was anything more comfortable. I am very glad to have seen Cherbourg; it is a most formidable place, at present only for defence, but when they have the ships and men it must make us tremble for our naval superiority. Old Charley Napier, who was of our party and is a great alarmist, declares it would take 100 men-of-war and 100,000 men to take the place."

In December I was honoured by an invitation to spend two days at Windsor Castle. I give particulars of my visit in this letter to my wife:

"WINDSOR CASTLE, Dec. 1, 1858. "... At 8 o'clock a page came to my room to usher me into the corridor where were all the household, the gentlemen in Windsor uniform; thence I was passed on to the green drawing-room where were the other guests-Lord and Lady John Russell, Lord Kingsdown, Duke and Duchess of Manchester, Lady De la Warr, &c. Lord John Russell came up, very kindly shook hands, and introduced me to Lady John and Lady De la Warr. After a short time the Lord Steward and household preceded the Queen and Prince, and we followed

Honour. I was just opposite the Queen, who sat with the Duke of Manchester on her right. Dinner was quite as easy as an ordinary dinner-party. The band played, and the thing progressed very pleasantly. As soon as the ice had been handed round, the Queen rose and the ladies retired. We followed soon after. When we returned to the red drawingroom the Queen came round and said something to all the guests-had a long chat with Lord John and a little one with the Judge Advocate. The Prince also came up and had a short conversation with Lord Kingsdown, Dr Hawtrey, and myself. After a time the Queen moved off and walked into the green drawing-room, where we mustered before dinner. Then the band came in and began to play. The Queen sat down with the ladies, and some of the gentlemen were asked to sit down also. I had a rubber with Sir Charles Phipps and two others. At 11 the Queen rose and retired. That put an end to the rubber, and we followed into the corridor. The Prince asked the Duke of Manchester to shoot with him to-morrow also Lord John Russell. He sent messages to the same effect to Lord Kingsdown and myself. Then we all retired to our

rooms.

Dec. 2.-We assembled in the private chapel this morning about 40 in number at 9. The Dean of Windsor read prayers after that we had breakfast. The day is very wet, and the shooting is put off. At

dinner the Duchess of Kent, Princess Alice, the Marquis and Marchioness of Salisbury, Lord Portman, &c., formed part of the party. The Princess Alice delighted me much. She is very lively, pleasant, pretty, and intelligent-looking."

The Parliament of 1859 was opened on February 3. On the

28th the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced the Government Reform Bill. On March 1, Mr Walpole and Mr Henley announced their resignations. into the dining-room. I took in It is unnecessary to dwell long Miss Bulteel, one of the Maids of on that unhappy bill, which

VOL. CLXV.—NO. M.

Q

found few friends. Lord John and Lord Palmerston again beRussell met it with a hostile resolution, objecting to the disfranchisement, as he termed it, of the freeholders holding properties in boroughs. He told us an old story of a Devonshire freeholder, who, on coming to the poll, was asked if he had held his qualification more than a year, and replied, "More than a year! We have had it since William the Conqueror." Members on both sides objected to the uniformity of franchise in counties and boroughs. Mr Gladstone indulged and surprised the House with an elaborate defence of small boroughs, in a speech which he admitted to be "antiquated," and which certainly would have been very appropriate if it had been made in 1831. He said he concurred in everything which had been said against the bill. He spoke from the Ministerial side, below the gangway. He voted against Lord John's resolution and for the second reading, as did Mr Walpole and Mr Henley. The House divided on March 29. The Ayes were 291, Noes 330; majority against the bill 39. In April Parliament was dissolved. The new House met on June 7. Lord Hartington moved as an amendment to the Address a vote of want of confidence in Lord Derby's Government. Sir James Graham and Mr Sidney Herbert spoke and voted for the amendment. Mr Gladstone went into the lobby with the Government. House divided: for the amendment 323, against 310; majority against Government 13. Lord Derby at once resigned,

The

came Prime Minister. Lord
John Russell was Foreign Sec-
retary. The Cabinet included
Mr Gladstone and Mr Sidney
Herbert; John Bright and
Richard Cobden were left out
in the cold. Throughout the
debate on the Address, stress
was laid on the failure of the
Government to prevent the war
which had already commenced
between France, Sardinia, and
Austria. Magenta had been
fought on June 7, and appre-
hensions were entertained as to
the outbreak of a general Euro-
pean war. Lord Malmesbury
has recorded his opinion that
the Government would not
have been defeated if Mr Dis-
raeli had previously laid on the
table the Blue Books containing
the Italian and French corre-
spondence with our Foreign
Office. This may have been so.
There can be no doubt that
Lord Malmesbury's policy and
his ability were indicated by his
own despatches. But nothing
could have saved the Govern-
ment long. There was a ma-
jority, although a small
upon the whole return against
the Government; and the more
dignified course for the Govern-
ment, and the more satisfactory
for the Queen and the country,
was that the trial of strength
should take place as soon as pos-
sible, and that a new Adminis-
tration should be formed under a
Prime Minister who enjoyed the
confidence of the country. Lord
Palmerston possessed, to a re-
markable extent, the power of
conciliating opponents as well
as of retaining friends, and it is
a singular fact, as illustrating

one,

the extent of his personal influence, that he came into power with a majority in his favour of 13; that the result of the election petitions was to strike off on the balance eight members from the Ministerial side (making a difference on a division of 16 votes), and that nevertheless he retained power until his death in 1865, and handed on a majority in a new Parliament to Lord Russell, who succeeded him.

I do not propose to follow in any detail the proceedings of Parliament from 1860 to 1865. A Right Honourable friend of mine, who was more fond of making speeches than the House was of listening to them, described it as a "damnable dining Parliament"; and so it was. Bores were not encouraged; count-outs were frequent. I had the pleasure of finding full employment for many weeks in each session, as chairman of Election Committees and of Committees on Private Bills,-work which I always found congenial to my taste, and which brought me into association with members in all quarters of the House, and so encouraged and kept up that feeling of fraternity which prevailed among us.

The Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1860 proposed to repeal the paper duty, while it doubled the incometax. The bill for repeal of paper duty obtained a majority in the Commons of 53 on second reading, but of 9 only on third reading. In the Lords the bill was rejected by a majority of 89-Contents 104,

[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]

Non - Contents 193-after an admirable speech by by Lord Lyndhurst. There was much debate and discussion in the Commons about what Mr Gladstone characterised as a gigantic innovation"; but "action" was not taken by Lord Palmerston, and the matter rested for the year. The Reform Bill of 1860 was introduced on March 1"not a bad day," as Lord John drily observed the anniversary of the same day on which the famous Act of 1832 first saw the light. But the House at large showed little interest in the subject. The "steam was not on, and the noble lord appeared for that night in the character of "Languid Johnny rather than of "Glorious John." Mr Disraeli said it was a very bad bill. He knew only two members who approved it Lord John and Mr Bright. The second reading was moved on March 19. The debate was prolonged and inanimate, and adjourned over and over again; and the question was not put from the Chair until May 3, when the bill was read a second time without a division. June 4 was fixed for Committee, and on June 7 a motion for adjournment was made, when the Government obtained a majority of 21 only-for adjournment 248, against 269. On June 11 Lord John Russell withdrew the bill.

Lord John Russell must have been mortified at the treatment which the bill experienced at the hands of the Government and the new House of Commons. It was not so much the hostility which it encountered as the languid indifference

found few friends. Lord John and Lord Palmerston again beRussell met it with a hostile resolution, objecting to the disfranchisement, as he termed it, of the freeholders holding properties in boroughs. He told us an old story of a Devonshire freeholder, who, on coming to the poll, was asked if he had held his qualification more than a year, and replied, "More than a year! We have had it since William the Conqueror." Members on both sides objected to the uniformity of franchise in counties and boroughs. Mr Gladstone indulged and surprised the House with an elaborate defence of small boroughs, in a speech which he admitted to be " antiquated," and which certainly would have been very appropriate if it had been made in 1831. He said he concurred in everything which had been said against the bill. He spoke from the Ministerial side, below the gangway. He voted against Lord John's resolution and for the second reading, as did Mr Walpole and Mr Henley. The House divided on March 29. The Ayes were 291, Noes 330; majority against the bill 39. In April Parliament was dissolved. The new House met on June 7. Lord Hartington moved as an amendment to the Address a vote of want of confidence in Lord Derby's Government. Sir James Graham and Mr Sidney Herbert spoke and voted for the amendment. Mr Gladstone went into the lobby with the Government.

The

House divided: for the amendment 323, against 310; majority against Government 13. Lord Derby at once resigned,

came Prime Minister. Lord
John Russell was Foreign Sec-
retary. The Cabinet included
Mr Gladstone and Mr Sidney
Herbert; John Bright and
Richard Cobden were left out
in the cold. Throughout the
debate on the Address, stress
was laid on the failure of the
Government to prevent the war
which had already commenced
between France, Sardinia, and
Austria.
Austria. Magenta had been
fought on June 7, and appre-
hensions were entertained as to
the outbreak of a general Euro-
pean war. Lord Malmesbury
has recorded his opinion that
the Government would not
have been defeated if Mr Dis-
raeli had previously laid on the
table the Blue Books containing
the Italian and French corre-
spondence with our Foreign
Office. This may have been so.
There can be no doubt that
Lord Malmesbury's policy and
his ability were indicated by his
own despatches. But nothing
could have saved the Govern-
ment long. There was a ma-
jority, although a small one,
upon the whole return against
the Government; and the more
dignified course for the Govern-
ment, and the more satisfactory
for the Queen and the country,
was that the trial of strength
should take place as soon as pos-
sible, and that a new Adminis-
tration should be formed under a
Prime Minister who enjoyed the
confidence of the country. Lord
Palmerston possessed, to a re-
markable extent, the power of
conciliating opponents as well
as of retaining friends, and it is
a singular fact, as illustrating

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »