Commons by the brilliant, but somewhat unscrupulous statesman
who had headed the revolt. With the exception of
Lord Derby.
Lord Derby and one other man, its members had
no experience of high office; and it had no chance
of commanding a majority of the House of Commons
in the existing parliament. It owed its position to the divisions
of its opponents. Profiting by their experience, it succeeded
in framing and passing a measure reconstituting the regular
militia, which obtained general approval. It is perhaps worth
observing that it maintained the machinery of a ballot, but
reserved it only in case experience should prove that it was
necessary. Voluntary enlistment under the new Militia Bill
was to be the rule: compulsory service was only to be resorted
to if voluntary enlistment should fail. This success, to a certain
extent, strengthened the position of the new ministry. It was
obvious, however, that its stability would ultimately be determined
by its financial policy. Composed of the men who had
resisted the free trade measures of the previous decade, its fate
depended on its attitude towards free trade. In forming his
administration Lord Derby had found it necessary to declare
that, though he was still in favour of a tax on corn, he should
take no steps in this direction till the country had received an
opportunity of expressing its opinion. His leader in the House
of Commons went much further, and declared that the time had
gone by for reverting to protection. The view which Disraeli
thus propounded in defiance of his previous opinions was confirmed
by the electors on the dissolution of parliament. Though
the new government obtained some increased strength from the
result of the polls, the country, it was evident, had no intention
of abandoning the policy of free trade, which by this time, it was
clear, had conferred substantial benefits on all classes. When
the new parliament met in the autumn of 1852, it was at once
plain that the issue would be determined on the rival merits
of the old and the new financial systems. Disraeli courted the
decision by at once bringing forward the budget, which custom,
and perhaps convenience, would have justified him in postponing
till the following spring. His proposal—in which he avowedly
threw over his friends on the ground that “he had greater
subjects to consider than the triumph of obsolete opinions”—was,
in effect, an attempt to conciliate his old supporters by
a policy of doles, and to find the means for doing so by the
increased taxation of the middle classes. He offered to relieve
the shipping interest by transferring some of the cost of lighting
the coasts to the Consolidated Fund; the West India interest
by sanctioning the refining of sugar in bond; and the landed
classes by reducing the malt tax by one-half, and by repealing
the old war duty on hops. He suggested that the cost of these
measures should be defrayed by extending the income tax to
Ireland to industrial incomes of £100 and to permanent incomes
of £50 a year, as well as by doubling the house tax, and extending
it to all £10 householders. The weight, therefore, of these
measures was either purposely or unintentionally thrown mainly
on persons living in houses worth from £10 to £20 a year, or on
persons in receipt of incomes from £50 to £150 a year. This
defect in the budget was exposed in a great speech by Gladstone,
which did much to ensure the defeat of the scheme and the fall
of the ministry.
On the resignation of Lord Derby, the queen, anxious to terminate a period of weak governments, decided on endeavouring to combine in one cabinet the chiefs of the Whig party and the followers of Sir Robert Peel. With this view she sent both for Lord Aberdeen, who had held Coalition, 1853. the foreign office under Sir Robert, and for Lord Lansdowne, who was the Nestor of the Whigs; and with Lord Lansdowne’s concurrence charged Lord Aberdeen with the task of forming a government. In the new ministry Lord Aberdeen became first lord of the treasury, Gladstone chancellor of the exchequer, Lord John Russell foreign minister—though he was almost immediately replaced in the foreign office by Lord Clarendon, and himself assumed the presidency of the council. Lord Palmerston went to the home office. One other appointment must also be mentioned. The secretary of state for the colonies was also at that time secretary of state for war. No one in 1852, however, regarded that office as of material importance, and it was entrusted by Lord Aberdeen to an amiable and conscientious nobleman, the duke of Newcastle.
The first session of the Aberdeen administration will be
chiefly recollected for the remarkable budget which Gladstone
brought forward. It constituted a worthy supplement
to the measures of 1842, 1845 and 1846. Gladstone
swept away the duty on one great necessary of life—soap;
Budget
of 1853.
he repealed the duties on 123 other articles; he reduced
the duties on 133 others, among them that on tea; and he found
means for paying for these reforms and for the gradual reduction
and ultimate abolition of the income tax, which had become
very unpopular, by (1) extending the tax to incomes of £100 a
year; (2) an increase of the spirit duties; and (3) applying the
death duties to real property, and to property passing by settlement.
There can be little doubt that this great proposal was
one of the most striking which had ever been brought forward
in the House of Commons; there can also, unhappily, be no
doubt that its promises and intentions were frustrated by events
which proved too strong for its author. For Gladstone, in
framing his budget, had contemplated a continuance of peace,
and the country was, unhappily, already drifting into war.
For some years an obscure quarrel had been conducted at Constantinople about the custody of the holy places at Jerusalem. France, relying on a treaty concluded in the first half of the 18th century, claimed the guardianship of these places for the Latin Church. But the rights which The holy places. the Latin Church had thus obtained had practically fallen into disuse, while the Greek branch of the Christian Church had occupied and repaired the shrines which the Latins had neglected. In the years which preceded 1853, however, France had shown more activity in asserting her claims; and the new emperor of the French, anxious to conciliate the church which had supported his elevation to the throne, had a keen interest in upholding them. If, for reasons of policy, the emperor had grounds for his action, he had personal motives for thwarting the tsar of Russia; for the latter potentate had been foolish enough, in recognizing the second empire, to address its sovereign as “Mon Cher Ami,” instead of, in the customary language of sovereigns, as “Monsieur Mon Frère.” Thus, at the close of 1852, and in the beginning of 1853, Russia and France were both addressing opposite and irreconcilable demands to the Porte, and France was already talking of sending her fleet to the Dardanelles, while Russia was placing an army corps on active service and despatching Prince Menshikov on a special mission to Constantinople. So far the quarrel which had occurred at the Porte was obviously one in which Great Britain had no concern. The Aberdeen ministry, however, thought it desirable that it should be represented in the crisis by a strong man at Constantinople; and it selected Lord Stratford de Redcliffe for the post, which he had filled in former years with marked ability. Whatever merits Lord Stratford possessed—and he stands out in current diplomacy as the one strong man whom England had abroad—there was no doubt that he had this disqualification: the emperor Nicholas had refused some years before to receive him as ambassador at St Petersburg, and Lord Stratford had resented, and never forgiven, the discourtesy of this refusal. Lord Stratford soon discovered that Prince Menshikov was the bearer of larger demands, and that he was requiring the Porte to agree to a treaty acknowledging the right of Russia to protect the Greek Church throughout the Turkish dominions. By Lord Stratford’s advice the Porte—while making the requisite concession respecting the holy places—refused to grant the new demand; and Prince Menshikov thereupon withdrew from Constantinople.
The rejection of Prince Menshikov’s ultimatum was followed by momentous consequences. Russia—or rather her tsar—resolved on the occupation of the Danubian principalities; the British ministry—though the quarrel did not directly concern Great Britain—sent a fleet to the Dardanelles and placed it under Lord Stratford’s orders. Diplomacy, however, made a fresh attempt to terminate the dispute, and in July 1853 a note
