The Shadow of Great Britain
Chapter 382 - 382 227 Harrison's Unexpected Gift 4K8_2

382: Chapter 227 Harrison’s Unexpected Gift (4K8)_2 382: Chapter 227 Harrison’s Unexpected Gift (4K8)_2 Statements like, “The early Peterloo incident was the deserved fate of the mob,” “The enactment of the Six Acts was a necessary evil to maintain social order,” and “The execution of the culprits behind the Cato Street Conspiracy: all evil will eventually be brought to justice,” and so on.

There were also mid-period comments like, “The occurrence of the Peterloo incident reflected the incompetence of Manchester’s local governance,” “The Six Acts were not an infringement on freedom of speech, and the scrutiny and banning of associations still hold their unique historical significance,” and “I deeply regret the occurrence of the Cato Street Conspiracy, the assassination of Cabinet members is unacceptable, and there were better ways for them to express themselves, such as publishing this book, for instance.”

And the later period remarks such as, “Walking through St.

Peter’s Square on the tenth anniversary of Peterloo: we may have made some insignificant mistakes,” “Freedom of speech is priceless: On the repeal of the Six Acts,” and “Give me liberty or give me death, standing on the high ground of Newgate Prison: Perhaps executing Mr.

Ince was a necessity, but beheading was too much.”

All in all, the various statements of Harrison always held value.

At a glance, there was no intelligence, just firm stances.

Such a man with various ‘prior offenses,’ without the support of the Tory Party, Arthur simply didn’t know how he could survive on Britain’s political stage.

Although party management within the Tory and Whig parties was not as strict as in modern times, and members often changed their allegiances.

Among them were many success stories, like Viscount Palmerston, a two-faced politician who was utilized by both the Tory and Whig parties, but Palmerston was obviously a player several levels above Harrison.

While he also frequently expressed sharp opinions, he was adept at using democratic vocabulary paired with oligarchic views, concealing bourgeois speculative policies with the condescending language of the old nobility.

When indulging others, he posed as the aggressor, and when betraying others, he posed as the protector.

He knew exactly how to charm the apparent enemies, while causing hidden allies to suffer.

He also knew when to stand with the strong against the weak at the right moment of dispute, and when the situation was against him, he could flexibly employ the skill of slipping away while still talking big.

After Viscount Palmerston recently became a reformer, his talents were put to full use.

In the face of his old supporters, Palmerston chose to issue the following statement.

“I support the reform not because I uphold the principle of reform, but because I am firmly against it,”

“Concessions made in a timely manner to the burgeoning industrial capital can become the most reliable means of preventing widespread reform,”

“Once the Reform Bill passes, the bourgeoisie will change their stance, transforming from being dissatisfied with the constitution to supporting it, thereby greatly strengthening and consolidating the constitution,”

And when addressing the land nobility, Palmerston emphasized that “The Reform Bill will not weaken the power of the nobility in the House of Lords, we still hold the power of veto over all bills,” “Land tenure shall not be shaken by this, it is the foundation of the state and the cornerstone of society in Britain.”

And Palmerston’s remarks, which were neither Whig nor Tory, infuriated Sir Peel, who couldn’t help but curse openly during a House of Commons session: “I wish to ask the Speaker to inquire on my behalf, whom exactly does Viscount Palmerston represent?”

In the recent issue of Poland, Viscount Palmeston, having just taken office as Foreign Secretary, again showed his unique character.

Mr.

Hunter, a member of the House of Commons, speaking on behalf of the Westminster Association, called for a petition for Poland and demanded the immediate dismissal of all of Lord Palmerston’s Cabinet positions, which had been deaf and mute on the Polish issue for months.

Whig reformist member, Joseph Hume, went head-to-head with him, openly condemning Palmerston in the House of Commons: “From the actions of Your Lordship, it seems that the government does not want to do anything for the Poles, it only wants to leave the fate of the Poles to Russia.

According to the ‘Treaty of Vienna,’ Russia should guarantee Poland’s territorial integrity and independence, but when it breached this, the Foreign Office did not even want to issue a condemnation statement.”

Palmerston’s classic response was: “Britain did indeed sign the Treaty of Vienna, a fact that cannot be overlooked, but this does not imply that we must ensure that Russia does not breach the treaty.”

While the House of Commons was in uproar over this issue, Palmerston had no choice but to employ a three-step strategy.

First, he announced: “It is impossible from both a moral and political standpoint to annihilate Poland, therefore, I think such exaggerated fears are superfluous.”

After the fall of Warsaw, Viscount Palmerston expressed his own opinion: “Before the occupation of Warsaw and the outcomes of military actions became clear, I had already communicated to the Russian government the opinion that the Treaty of Vienna signatories have the right to demand that the Polish constitution remains inviolate.

After the fall of Warsaw, I made the notification again.

Nevertheless, the Russian government still holds a different view.”

After the fall of Warsaw, even the Austrian Prime Minister Metternich was dissatisfied with Tsarist Russia’s violation of the ‘Treaty of Vienna’ and sent the Polish envoy Walewski to Paris and London to negotiate on the revival of the Kingdom of Poland.

And currently, the message from the Tuileries Palace in Paris seems quite positive.

Louis Philippe, who ascended the throne after the July Revolution, continues to maintain his progressive image from his revolutionary fighter days, publicly declaring, “If Britain agrees to the plan, France is willing to act jointly with Britain and give firm support.”