endeavoured to solve the first of these difficulties by sending
for Lord Granville, who led the Liberal party in the Lords, and
authorizing him to form a government which should combine,
as far as possible, all the more prominent Liberals. The attempt,
however, failed, and the queen thereupon fell back upon Lord
Palmerston. Lord John Russell agreed to accept office as foreign
minister; Gladstone consented to take the chancellorship of
the exchequer. Cobden was offered, but declined, the presidency
of the Board of Trade; and the post which he refused was
conferred on a prominent free trader, who had associated
himself with Cobden’s fortunes, Milner Gibson. Thus Lord
Palmerston had succeeded in combining in one ministry the
various representatives of political progress. He had secured
the support of the Peelites, who had left him after the fall of
Lord Aberdeen in 1855, and of the free traders, who had done
so much to defeat him in 1857 and 1858. His new administration
was accordingly based on a broader bottom, and contained
greater elements of strength than his former cabinet. And the
country was requiring more stable government. The first three
ministries of the queen had endured from the spring of 1835 to
the spring of 1852, or for very nearly seventeen years; but the
next seven years had seen the formation and dissolution of no
less than four cabinets. It was felt that these frequent changes
were unfortunate for the country, and every one was glad to
welcome the advent of a government which seemed to promise
greater permanence. That promise was fulfilled. The administration
which Lord Palmerston succeeded in forming in 1859
endured till his death in 1865, and with slight modifications,
under its second chief Lord John (afterwards Earl) Russell, till
the summer of 1866. It had thus a longer life than any cabinet
which had governed England since the first Reform Act. But
it owed its lasting character to the benevolence of its opponents
rather than to the enthusiasm of its supporters. The Conservatives
learned to regard the veteran statesman, who had
combined all sections of Liberals under his banner, as the most
powerful champion of Conservative principles; a virtual truce
of parties was established during his continuance in office; and,
for the most part of his ministry, a tacit understanding existed
that the minister, on his side, should pursue a Conservative
policy, and that the Conservatives, on theirs, should abstain
from any real attempt to oust him from power. Lord John
Russell, indeed, was too earnest in his desire for reform to abstain
from one serious effort to accomplish it. Early in 1860 he proposed,
with the sanction of the cabinet, a measure providing
for the extension of the county franchise to £10 householders,
of the borough franchise to £6 householders, and for a moderate
redistribution of seats. But the country, being in enjoyment of
considerable prosperity, paid only a languid attention to the
scheme; its indifference was reflected in the House; the Conservatives
were encouraged in their opposition by the lack of
interest which the new bill excited, and the almost unconcealed
dislike of the prime minister to its provisions. The bill, thus
steadily opposed and half-heartedly supported, made only slow
progress; and at last it was withdrawn by its author. He did
not again attempt during Lord Palmerston’s life to reintroduce
the subject. Absorbed in the work of the foreign office, which
at this time was abnormally active, he refrained from pressing
home the arguments for internal reform.
In one important department, however, the ministry departed
from the Conservative policy it pursued in other matters.
Gladstone signalized his return to the exchequer by
introducing a series of budgets which excited keen
opposition at the time, but in the result largely added
Gladstone’s budgets.
to the prosperity of the country. The first of these
great budgets, in 1860, was partly inspired by the necessity of
adapting the fiscal system to meet the requirements of a commercial
treaty which, mainly through Cobden’s exertions, had
been concluded with the emperor of the French. The treaty
bound France to reduce her duties on English coal and iron, and
on many manufactured articles; while, in return, Great Britain
undertook to sweep away the duties on all manufactured goods,
and largely to reduce those on French wines. But Gladstone
was not content with these great alterations, which involved a
loss of nearly £1,200,000 a year to the exchequer; he voluntarily
undertook to sacrifice another million on what he called a supplemental
measure of customs reform. He proposed to repeal the
duties on paper, by which means he hoped to increase the
opportunities of providing cheap literature for the people. The
budget of 1860 produced a protracted controversy. The French
treaty excited more criticism than enthusiasm on both sides of
the Channel. In France the manufacturers complained that
they would be unable to stand against the competition of English
goods. In England many people thought that Great Britain
was wasting her resources and risking her supremacy by giving
the French increased facilities for taking her iron, coal and
machinery, and that no adequate advantage could result from
the greater consumption of cheap claret. But the criticism
which the French treaty aroused was drowned in the clamour
which was created by the proposed repeal of the paper duties.
The manufacture of paper was declared to be a struggling
industry, which would be destroyed by the withdrawal of
protection. The dissemination of cheap literature and the
multiplication of cheap newspapers could not compensate the
nation for the ruin of an important trade. If money could be
spared, moreover, for the remission of taxation, the paper duties
were much less oppressive than those on some other articles.
The tax on tea, for example, which had been raised during the
late war to no less than 1s. 5d. a ℔, was much more injurious;
and it would be far wiser—so it was contended—to reduce the
duty on tea than to abandon the duties on paper. Notwithstanding
Paper
duties repealed.
the opposition which the Paper Duties Bill
undoubtedly excited, the proposal was carried in the
Commons; it was, however, thrown out in the Lords,
and its rejection led to a crisis which seemed at one
time to threaten the good relations between the two houses of
parliament. It was argued that if the Lords had the right to
reject a measure remitting existing duties, they had in effect the
right of imposing taxation, since there was no material difference
between the adoption of a new tax and the continuance of an
old one which the Commons had determined to repeal. Lord
Palmerston, however, with some tact postponed the controversy
for the time by obtaining the appointment of a committee to
search for precedents; and, after the report of the committee,
he moved a series of resolutions affirming the right of the
Commons to grant aids and supplies as their exclusive privilege,
stating that the occasional rejection of financial measures by
the Lords had always been regarded with peculiar jealousy,
but declaring that the Commons had the remedy in their own
hands by so framing bills of supply as to secure their acceptance.
In accordance with this suggestion the Commons in the following
year again resolved to repeal the paper duties; but, instead
of embodying their decision in a separate bill, they included it
in the same measure which dealt with all the financial arrangements
of the year, and thus threw on the Lords the responsibility
of either accepting the proposal, or of paralysing the whole
machinery of administration by depriving the crown of the
supplies which were required for the public services. The Lords
were not prepared to risk this result, and they accordingly
accepted a reform which they could no longer resist, and the bill
became law. In order to enable him to accomplish these great
changes, Gladstone temporarily raised the income tax, which he
found at 9d. in the £, to 10d. But the result of his reforms
was so marked that he was speedily able to reduce it. The
revenue increased by leaps and bounds, and the income tax was
gradually reduced till it stood at 4d. in the closing years of the
administration. During the same period the duty on tea was
reduced from 1s. 5d. to 6d. a ℔; and the national debt
was diminished from rather more than £800,000,000 to rather
less than £780,000,000, the charge for the debt declining, mainly
through the falling in of the long annuities, by some £2,600,000
a year. With the possible exception of Sir Robert Peel’s term
of office, no previous period of British history had been memorable
for a series of more remarkable financial reforms. Their
success redeemed the character of the administration. The
