It has taken more than a generation and the education of much political vicissitude for the alliance of 1854 eventually to reach the entente cordiale now happily established. The chief subject of this protracted diary is the Indian Mutiny and its familiar tale of heroism and horror. In 1859 Lord Granville reached an epoch in his life. The rivalries of Lords Palmerston and John Russell were not adjusted. Accordingly the Queen sent for Lord Granville. He soon found that although either of the two aged statesmen would serve under the other, neither would serve under a third unless he was leader of the House of Commons. This, of course, was fatal to Lord Granville's hopes. But the interest of the situation lies in the adroitness of the refusal in either case, so as not to offend the Court and increase the other's chance of being sent for. We have on this point the criticism of Lord Clarendon at the time, who as a diplomatist understood the delicacy of the situation. "I feel certain," he said, "that notwithstanding their apparent cordiality to you, each in his heart is deeply mortified at not having been sent for by the Queen. Each in his own way answered you cleverly. Pam assented at once, and will be able to say that he did so; but rely upon it, he expected you to fail in your undertaking. John Russell assented on certain conditions which, when known, would be rather popular both in and out of the House of Commons with the explanation that he would give of them." He added, in reference to Lord Granville persisting in his task, that "knowing as you do the characters of the two men, you can hardly doubt that they will a little sooner or a little later make common cause against you, and that they will have endless means of doing this." It is seldom that the candid friend makes his appearance at the bar of history quite so decisively as this. It is the testimony of an intimate colleague of many years' standing. Lord John Russell shortly afterwards gave a decisive refusal and Lord Palmerston was sent for, Lord Granville possessing an influential position as the mediator on whom the Sovereign and colleagues alike relied, and Lord John, in spite of his pledges as to reform, undertaking the absorbing cares of the Foreign Office. Then followed the singular result that the two "ancient masters,' masters," as they were called, forgot their differences and were united over the Italian question, in which they were cordially supported by Mr Gladstone. "He, Johnny, and Pam," Lord Granville told Lord Canning, "are a formidable phalanx when they are united in opposition to the whole Cabinet in foreign matters." They frequently were. so during this long Administration, and to the Queen as well. They succeeded on the subject of Italian unity, worked out the results of Napoleon's war with Austria, and got all the credit which that "muddle-headed" mediocrity failed to secure. Then came the American Civil The "ancient War, and finally the pledge of instead of vehemently opposed, Lord Palmerston, who never and were supported by Gladappreciated the new force stone. They were all three which had burst upon his old enthusiastic in the cause of age and Europe in the person Italian freedom and unity. of Bismarck, to oppose armed The Queen, the Prince, and intervention in case Denmark their colleagues were apprewere attacked. On all three hensive that a widening of the of these momentous subjects area of disturbance in Italy Lord Granville led the opposi- and a further alteration of tion in the Cabinet. On the boundaries might bring Gerfirst he was in confidential cor- many into the field, and thereby respondence with the Queen justify a French attack on the and the Prince Consort, and Rhine frontier. then intermediary with the masters" resolved to ignore Cabinet. The details of the this danger, and events proved disputes are no longer of much that they were right; but Lord interest, except so far as they Granville was not alone in disraise a belated constitutional trusting the intimate alliance question. It is amusing to between them which had refind that Lord Granville in his placed former disunion. On character of mediator urges on the American question he was the Prince Consort that the in favour of watching events, Queen should show as much and discouraged the proposal kindness as possible to Lord to mediate between North and Palmerston, and appear to South, and in the event of communicate frankly with refusal to recognise the ConLord John. Notwithstanding federates. A Cabinet was this it seems that "Pam" was called to consider the question. "much perturbed by the Queen Lord Granville wrote to Lord objecting to all John Russell's Stanley of Alderley: "I have drafts, and by her consider- written to Johnny my reasons ing all advice as intervention." for thinking it decidedly premaLord John was described as ture. I, however, suspect you in a state of great indigna- will settle to do so! Pam, tion, saying that we might Johnny, and Gladstone would as well live under a despot- be in favour of it; and probism. The final upshot was ably Newcastle. I do not know that it all ended very well. about the others." Fortunately "Johnny has had a lesson the majority of the Cabinet that the Cabinet will support decided otherwise, with the the Queen in preventing him support of the Queen, who and Pam acting on important "had an instinctive dread of occasions without the advice war and all foreign complicaof their colleagues. A schism tions likely to result in war." very dangerous to the Court But it appears that the risk we and to the Government has ran of a contrary decision was, been postponed." It was 1851 in Lord Granville's opinion over again, except that the (and he had the best oppor"ancient masters" were united tunities of judging), greater or more appreciable than we have hitherto believed. With regard to intervention in favour of Denmark, which was rashly threatened by Lord Palmerston in the House of Commons, the Queen insisted in her letters to Lord Granville that the only chance of preserving peace for Europe is by not assisting Denmark. "Denmark," she declared, "is after all of less vital importance than the peace of Europe, and it would be madness to set the whole continent on fire for the imaginary advantages of maintaining the integrity of Denmark." After a touching reference to her her shattered nerves and terrible position, she relied on the support of the Cabinet, evidently as against the two "ancient masters," and was assured by Lord Granville that the advocates of peace meant to make themselves heard. It is a curious instance of the Sovereign being reduced to manipulate the Cabinet. The Queen has been proved by events to have been right in her view, and Lord Granville was the exponent of her policy in the Cabinet. But the incident was one of dire internal confusion, and could only arise where Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary had all the authority and also the failing faculties which follow age and long service. Lord Granville's resistance to war was eventually aided by Lord Clarendon, who at this time was readmitted to the Cabinet. Mr Gladstone also gave great satisfaction by throwing his influence into the scale against adventurous policy, and an The France refused all intervention which should be merely for the purpose of saving Denmark from dismemberment. Queen throughout this anxious period trusted "to Lord Granville's doing all he can to prevent momentary difficulty and excitement being allowed to outweigh the real momentous interests which are at stake. If we take any hasty and imprudent step it may ruin us." The biographer, in disregard of international circumstances tending in the same direction, sums up the transactions by saying that it was owing to the determined stand made by the Queen against her two principal Ministers that war was avoided. "In this stand Lord Granville was her main stay in the Cabinet. On him the Queen relied, and, as this narrative will have shown, she did not rely in vain." The whole episode shows that the Sovereign of this country possesses considerable power, if only it is exercised with discretion. Lord Russell succeeded Lord Palmerston as Premier, and of course superseded Lord Granville in the leadership of the House of Lords, a post which he resumed in December 1868 when Mr Gladstone formed his first Ministry. In 1870, on the death of Lord Clarendon, he again became Foreign Secretary, and held that critical office during the Franco-German war and the proceedings of the Geneva arbitration. He had the task of piloting Mr Gladstone's extensive legislation of that period through the House of Lords. At its close there is no indication in this Aberdeen Cabinet reproduced, book that the sudden dissolution of 1874 was due, as Lord Selborne said, to Mr Gladstone's unwillingness to incur the penalties for not having vacated his seat on taking the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer. According to Lord Granville, Gladstone said, "Our only chance is a financial success." Very probably Mr Gladstone had resolved on a dissolution at the time of taking the second office, and thought it unnecessary to be re-elected to a Parliament in which he would have no opportunity of sitting. After the verdict had gone against him he insisted on resigning his leadership into the hands of Lord Granville, Bright, and no doubt many others of the party, complaining "that the sudden dissolution was so much his own act," that he ought to have accepted the result and stood by and with his party. In less than two years the hermit of Hawarden reappeared as an active politician. We find in this book ample and authentic evidence of the extreme embarrassment caused to Lord Hartington as his successor by this proceeding. As the drama of the Eastern Question deepened, and Lord Beaconsfield was successfully combating the designs of Russia with the aid of determined support from all classes in the country, Lord Granville was principally occupied in preventing an open rupture in the party between the followers of Mr Gladstone and the followers of Lord Hartington. It was the discord of the with far less disaster to the country, on the Opposition benches. Mr Gladstone had "never been able to understand the cause of the split." Lord Hartington writes, "It is very clear why the split took place, and equally clear that if he does not see it, it will occur again before long." "We cannot," he adds, "submit our judgment to his, and in that case some will follow him, and some us." Lord Hartington considered the vote of credit a reasonable insurance against possible risks. Gladstone considered it "a foolish and mischievous proposition." In January 1878, the year of the Berlin Treaty, the differences had mounted so high that Lord Hartington wanted to resign the leadership and that Gladstone should take it. The latter, as we know, was consuming his nights and days in thwarting the policy of Lord Beaconsfield. The former refused to condemn it, writing, "I accept the policy of conditional neutrality, and I accept the conditions as well as the neutrality." In other words, he supported the Government. The only result of these distracted counsels was to double the majority of the Government (on the question of calling out the reserves it was 310 to 64), and to give force to Lord Beaconsfield's resolve. The result was peace with honour, but can any one doubt that if the Liberals had been in the ascendant we should have drifted on their divided counsels into a disastrous war. The letters in which Lord Hartington confides the intolerable annoyances of his position to Lord Granville expose beyond further dispute a state of things which was tolerably obvious to all observers at the time. The cleavage in the party seems to have been strongly defined, to have been deepened by the MidLothian agitation, and to have lasted. In fact, when Mr Gladstone became Prime Minister in 1880 he was at the head of a second Coalition Government, far more so than was suspected at the time, which turned out to be nearly as disastrous as its predecessor. We all remember the blaze of apology with which that Government began its career, and this biography shows with what tact Lord Granville secured for Austria the Prime Minister's apology for his wild Mid-Lothian denunciation. The details of foreign policy may, however, be passed over as well as those of Irish legislation and of the complications in Egypt. No new light is thrown on the melancholy fate of Gordon, and Lord Granville's direction of foreign policy at this time was not so purely a part of his personal career, in the sense of resulting in the main from his individual will and judgment, that we turn to it for light upon his career and character in preference to the details of his management within the Cabinet. There the differences which had arisen in Opposition seemed to increase. Mr Gladstone down to 1882 was persistently talking of resignation. Lord Hartington in 1884 was threatening that he would no VOL. CLXXVIII.—NO. MLXXXII. some and longer be responsible for the military policy in Egypt. Lord Northbrook had been sent to Egypt to return with a full report on its financial situation, and finding his proposals rejected by Mr Gladstone, threatened to resign, Lord Hartington feeling himself bound to go too. Mr Chamberlain made a great speech at Birmingham with a view to coerce dissentient colleagues, throughout headed a distinct party in the Cabinet. Mr Gladstone was on the point of going abroad for his health, in which event who would control, it was asked, the member for Birmingham? In fact, at the very moment when a new Russian difficulty was arising over the question of the Afghan boundary, the Cabinet was, says the biographer, "in a state of constant commotion and division, and in a chronic state of resignation." "I never knew such an imbroglio," wrote Lord Granville, who was father confessor of all Cabinet differences. There was an immense crisis in January 1885-" and at the moment when the Cabinet was at its worst, the question of the Afghan boundary entered on an acute phase," while, moreover, we had Egypt on hand and an army locked up in Africa. The picture of dire confusion thus drawn by a friendly hand reminds us of that burning question which Mr Gladstone addressed to the electors at the dissolution of 1880: "Is this the way in which you wish that your Government should be conducted?" This distracted Cabinet near3 I |
