The maintenance of the squadron off the coast of Africa belonged to his department while foreign minister; and both by the maintenance of that squadron in an efficient state, and by entering into treaties with the native chiefs, for the purpose of effecting a voluntary abandonment of the trade on their part, he never wavered nor even relaxed his exertions. There were many charges on that question; but there were none as regards Lord Palmerston. The maintenance of the squadron has been inveighed against as an unprofitable expense: even the old friends of the negro, some of them, came to the conclusion that a violent suppression of the traffic was neither possible nor desirable; but his lordship remained ever of the same opinion. The first blow which he struck was in 1840, and which was most effectively delivered by Captain Denman, son of the distinguished judge, who was then in command of the African squadron. It was at that time the practice of the Spanish and Portuguese slave-dealers to buy up large consignments of slaves from the African chiefs, and confine them in large wooden buildings, called barracoons, till a slave-ship was ready to start for Brazil or Cuba. It was obvious, therefore, that if the barracoons could be destroyed, one great facility for obtaining cargoes of slaves would be got rid of. Accordingly, Captain Denman was instructed to make a treaty with the chief of the district, to obtain permission to destroy the barracoons. The assent was gained-the thing was done; and the slave-trade in that form was nearly crushed. This blow was followed up by others equally effective: and the credit of this must be placed to Lord Palmerston's account. At the same time, while in opposition, he ridiculed the absurd idea of endeavouring to exclude slavegrown sugar on humanitarian grounds. As far, at least, as Palmerston was concerned, Peel did have the cordial support of the opposition in their march of improvement, when the latter was deserted by a powerful body of his own friends. The history of our foreign policy during the five years of Sir Robert Peel's government, it has been remarked, is peculiarly barren in great events, or in great political controversies. Europe was at peace, and seemed resolved to remain so. Monarchs and their advisers endeavoured, by their compliments and assurances, to persuade themselves, and each other, that the revolutionary hurricane was over, and that courts and thrones were now secure. The history of France, at this time, is a history of fulsome compliments, exchanged between the King of the French and his two representative Chambers. Louis Philippe assured the deputies that they never before enjoyed such a good constitution; and the deputies assured Louis Philippe that they never before had such a good king. * * În 1842, Raikes writes from Paris, in an encouraging tone, to the Duke of Wellington-" The nation, en masse, is au fond Conservative, because all classes here are, comparatively speaking, at their ease, and are fully sensible of what they might risk by a change. Would to God that England presented the same encouraging aspect. There is a force of 75,000 men in and about Paris, besides the national guard, who, to preserve their own property, will fight to the last man. The press here has been very much subdued by the recent proceedings against Dupotet; they continue merely to growl like a sulky mastiff after a sound beating, who is cowed, and dares not bite." France at peace, means Europe at peace; so, for a while, Lord Aberdeen had an easy time of it; and Lord Palmerston, as critic, has less to find fault with. His last words, out of office, deserve recording. In the discussion which ensued upon the resignation of Sir Robert Peel's ministry, in 1846, Lord Palmerston said "The right honourable baronet has paid a just and deserved compliment to the name of Richard Cobden. When the House and the country look to the highest point in the history of these events, they will see the name of Richard Cobden-a man distinguished by great zeal and enlightenment in advancing a great and important change in our commercial code; and a man, likewise, who presents, in his own person, a distinguished result of that parliamentary reform which has produced this among other great results." CHAPTER XLVIII. LORD PALMERSTON A THIRD TIME FOREIGN SECRETARY. ONCE more there has been a shuffle in the cards, and the destinies of England are placed in the hands of the Whigs. Earl Grey has swallowed his scruples with respect to Lord Palmerston, and sits in the same cabinet with his lordship. It is certain that the Foreign Secretary was indispensable to his party. It is equally certain that they were very anxious to do without him. On a former occasion, when, under William IV., the Whigs returned to power after Sir Robert Peel's short administration, it is certain that his lordship's resumption of the Foreign Office, was not the matter-of-course which it has been generally assumed. The secret intrigues of that period have not yet been fully divulged; but it is clear that many of the Whig statesmen had long been patriotically engaged in thwarting each other; and even the proud and highminded chief, Earl Grey, felt himself the object of much private jealousy. It is not surprising, then, to learn that the Foreign Secretaryship was offered, by Lord Melbourne, to Lord John Russell; and that it was only after the leader of the House of Commons had declined it, and selected another post in the government, that Lord Palmerston was again appointed to the Foreign Office. In the earlier part of her majesty's reign, even Lord Palmerston suffered much in popularity. He had not the credit of being a very earnest reformer; nor was he considered a statesman. He was, at best, considered a good man of business, combining pleasantry and jocularity with a certain steady-paced industry. Even Sidney Smith, the great wit of the Whigs, in the letters to Archdeacon Singleton, which amused all England, joined the assailants of the ministry in disparaging the Foreign Secretary. He was called by opprobrious names: he was constantly derided by some of the most powerful organs of the press. Of all the members of the Whig cabinet, perhaps, Lord Palmerston was, at the period of which we write, the most abused. Yet few of them were more retiring, or less responsible for some of those serious mistakes which weakened and divided the popular party. Credit was not given to him for measures in which he had been successful; and his perseverance in overcoming prejudices, and in the formation of commercial treaties, was completely overlooked. The admirable patience and activity of the Foreign Secretary were never more thoroughly exercised than in his attempts to induce foreign governments to consent to commercial treaties on the simple and honest principle of reciprocity. Lord Palmerston's commercial treaties, it has been remarked, are a peculiar feature of his ministerial career. They have been much misunderstood, and much misrepresented; and because he was not in every instance successful, they have been ridiculed, like most of his arduous endeavours to increase the power and the influence of this country. The mere mention of a commercial treaty has excited, in some minds, a sensation of horror. It is at once associated with a series of endless and wearisome negotiations, which are sure to have no useful result. Nor is this prejudice altogether destitute of some appearance of reason. Difficult, and almost hopeless, it was to get many foreign governments to admit that the world was wide enough for them all, and that free commercial intercourse would ultimately benefit all nations as much as England. From the year in which peace was established by the downfall of Bonaparte, our generous allies showed their gratitude to England, who had subsidised them so largely, by carrying on a new and extraordinary war. Brigades of custom-house officers now sprung up in grim hostility to the produce and manufactures of this country. Wherever the British merchant went, he was met by a fiscal blockade. An English ship of war might much more easily destroy a hostile fortress than a hostile commercial treaty. Russia, Austria, Prussia, and France might have subjects of dissension among themselves; but they were unanimous on the propriety of excluding English merchandise, wherever it was possible so to do. Lord Palmerston was determined that such wall of partition should be broken down; and he laboured at this most earnestly and indefatigably. Again and again rebuffed, again and again he renewed his efforts. When Sir Robert Peel resigned office in 1845, the son of the great Reform Prime Minister could not, of course, suppose that he would ever be excluded from a Liberal cabinet. He made also another mistake in fancying Lord John Russell could get on without the aid of Lord Palmerston. The conduct of Lord Grey was mischievous in this respect: not that it continued Sir R. Peel in power, for that, under the circumstances, was desirable; but that it revealed to the world, that it was on account of Lord Palmerston's sentiments with regard to France, that Earl Grey had thus questioned the propriety of his appointment. The King of the French and his ministers could not but agree with Lord Grey. Thus, when Lord Palmerston did again become foreign minister some months later, notwithstanding that he had, in the interval, visited Paris, and done all he could to remove this unfavourable impression from the minds of the rulers of France, he found, from no fault of his own, his relations with that government seriously compromised. Experience was necessary to teach some great Whig politicians the nature and the importance of the statesman who upheld them by adhering to their party, and also threw the weight of his ability, and, subsequently, of his popularity, into the political scale. They did not know that the people of England, when forming their judgment on foreign policy, are not partisans; that all they require is patriotism, courage, and sagacity; and that they will always stand by the minister who will stand by the country. Lord Palmerston returned to office, firmer and stronger, at a most critical juncture of affairs. On the night of the 28th of August, 1846, when the peaceful citizens of Madrid were wrapped in their slumbers, in the midst of a midnight orgie the consent of the young Queen of Spain to her marriage was wrung from her; and the official gazette announced, next day, to the astonishment of all her subjects, that her majesty had decided on marrying her cousin, Don Francisco. M. Bresson, in answer to Lord Palmerston's statement, denied that there was any orgie, or that he had taken any part in forcing the consent of the queen. Now it may be true that the French diplomatist never left his own house during that eventful night; but it is no less true that he left a very efficient agent at the palace, Maria Christina, who was both able and willing to do and say all that might be necessary. Lord Palmerston had good authority for what he said: nor, when it is remembered what scenes have been witnessed at midnight, within the same palace walls, is this orgie at all improbable. M. Bresson's assertion will not go for much. Night, and darkness, and revelry were the fitting accessories of that deed which blackened the fair fame of Guizot, and covered his master's crown with dishonour and disgrace. From the time when the announcement of the intended marriages arrived in London, the close friendship and alliance which had united England with the Orleans dynasty was broken for ever. From that time England took her own course, and left the false king and his false government to their deserved doom. It was, as Guizot confesses, a manifest defeat of English policy. It was more-it was a dirty trick. Without going so far as those who declare that the Spanish marriages were the cause of the downfall of Louis Philippe-a "frivolous mistake," as Guizot terms it—yet we cannot but agree with Dr. Charles Mackay, in his address to Louis Philippe, after his ignominious flight from his throne and country "Live on-thou hast not lived in vain A mighty truth uprears Its radiant forehead o'er thy reign, And Empire based upon a wrong "Though falsehoods into system wrought, May stand awhile, their power is nought- His revolutions speak in ours, And make his justice plain Old man forlorn, live out thine hours- Iniquity begets iniquity. Other nations were not slow in following French selfishness and bad faith. In October the Spanish marriages were celebrated. About the end of that month Louis Philippe had the exquisite gratification of receiving, at Paris, the infanta, as Duchess of Montpensier. On the 6th of November was signed, at Vienna, a convention, revoking and suppressing the treaties by which the independence of Cracow had been guaranteed for ever. M. Guizot then began to learn what he had lost in sacrificing the alliance of England. He remonstrated; he protested; he went so far as to declare that the whole of the treaties of Vienna had, for the future, no existence. The ministers of the three great powers treated M. Guizot's words and acts with contempt. He was not in a position to blame or remonstrate. It was in vain that he uttered reproaches. The perpetrator of the Spanish marriages had to get the beam out of his own eye before he ventured to find fault with the mote in his brother's. Lord Palmerston, too, protested against the annexation of Cracow, as he had protested against the consummation of the wickedness on the other side of the Pyrenees. He demolished the manifesto by which Prince Metternich pretended to vindicate the proceedings of the three powers; and her majesty, on opening parliament for the session of 1847, declared the annexation of Cracow to be a manifest violation of the treaty of Vienna. And when that act was condemned in the House of Commons, there was but one exception to the general voice of indignation. The exception was Mr. Disraeli, then struggling after a party of which he was to be the head. He defended the annexation of Cracow; he eulogised Prince Metternich; he approved of the violation of the treaty of Vienna; he calumniated the Polish nobility, and defended the partition of their unhappy country. He declared that "there must have been some good cause for that great and numerous race having met the doom which they had encountered." He asserted, that "he had no sympathy for the race so partitioned;" that "Poland was a ready conspirator, and a pamperer to the lusts of her aristocracy;" that "it was not the great powers who had caused the fall of Poland;" that "those who denounced the massacre in Galicia, and spoke well of the Polish nobility, raised a false cry, and appealed to morbid passions." Lord Palmerston replied to this speech in a thoroughly statesman-like manner. He proved the orator to be mistaken, both in his facts and in his inferences. It was not necessary, said the Foreign Secretary, for those who blamed the annexation of Cracow, and considered it a violation of the treaty of Vienna, to rely upon the annexed treaties: the 6th and 7th articles of the general treaty were quite sufficient for that purpose. Nor was it true, as it had been stated, that when the kingdom of the Netherlands was dismembered, the only governments which interfered in the matter were Russia and England: the convention of separation was signed by the ministers of all the five powers; and by one as soon as by another. Thus the argument of Mr. Disraeli, based on the fact that particular treaties might be set at nought by one party without the consent of the other contracting powers, and without injury to the general treaty, was fully met; and his instance of the establishment of the kingdom of Belgium proved to be quite erroneous. "It was impossible," said his lordship, "to deny that the treaty of Vienna had been violated by the late transactions at Cracow. The treaty of Vienna must be upheld. It could not be permitted to any government to pick out, with one hand, the articles of a treaty which it would observe, and, with the other, the articles which it was determined to violate; and he, therefore, hoped that the governments of Austria, Russia, and Prussia would recollect, that if the treaty of Vienna was not good on the Vistula, it might be equally invalid on the Rhine and the Po." Thus France and the cause of freedom suffered by the Spanish marriage-a marriage which forced upon a defenceless girl a man as husband, the object of her rooted aversion, and possessed of no qualities likely to conciliate her esteem. In Spain, under the new rule, matters went from bad to worse. Reactionary ministers were called to the royal councils. The pretender, Don Carlos, chose the occasion as a convenient one for the assertion of his claims, and a chronic state of misgovernment again occurred. In 1848, Lord Palmerston thought it necessary to indite the following severe rebuke to our ambassador at Madrid: "Sir, I have to recommend you to advise the Spanish government to adopt a legal and constitutional system. The recent downfall of the King of the French and of his family, and the expulsion of his ministers, ought to indicate to the Spanish Court and government the danger to which they expose themselves in endeavouring to govern a country in a manner opposed to the sentiments and opinions of the nation; and the catastrophe which has just occurred in France is sufficient to show, that even a numerous and well-disciplined army offers only an insufficient defence to the crown, when the system followed by it is not in harmony with the general system of the country. The Queen of Spain would act wisely, in the present critical state of affairs, if she were to strengthen her executive government by widening the bases on which the administration reposes, and in calling to her councils some of the men in whom the Liberal party places confidence." In 1847, Lord Palmerston makes his first prominent appearance in the columns of Punch. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whose correspondence has been anything but amicable with the great continental powers, is the showman of a booth, upon whose cloth are inscribed-"Spanish MarriageHorrible Treachery." "To be seen alive, the British Lion roaring:" to which is added, the "Confiscation of Cracow." John Bull was not then quite awake to foreign affairs; he cared little whom the infanta of Spain married; nor was he much excited by the violation of the treaty of Vienna. He turns his back upon the showman, and marches away with a very contemptuous air. In 1847, free constitutions and political reforms became the rage. Men were seeking for novelties; and at the head of this fashionable movement were the King of Prussia and the Pope of Rome. There were insurrections in Portugal and Switzerland. At this time all Europe was then heaving with the signs of the coming storm. The first intimation of it was in Switzerland. The Catholic cantons of the Swiss confederation had invited the Jesuits among them; and that astute party, according to their wont, had hardly got settled in the Catholic cantons, than they began to disturb the tranquillity of their Protestant neighbours. This went on for some time, the animosities and heartburnings continually increasing, until the majority of the cantons ordered the Jesuits to leave Switzerland altogether. But the Catholic states, though a minority of the whole, formed a union among themselves, to resist the decree of |