diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/63290-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/63290-0.txt | 15314 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 15314 deletions
diff --git a/old/63290-0.txt b/old/63290-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 8503eba..0000000 --- a/old/63290-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,15314 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Life and Times of Queen Victoria; vol. -2 of 4, by Robert Wilson - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license - - -Title: The Life and Times of Queen Victoria; vol. 2 of 4 - -Author: Robert Wilson - -Release Date: September 25, 2020 [EBook #63290] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE LIFE AND TIMES OF QUEEN *** - - - - -Produced by Chuck Greif and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was -produced from images available at The Internet Archive) - - - - - - - - [Illustration: H.R.H. THE PRINCE OF WALES. - - (_From a Photograph by Mr. A. Bassano, London._)] - - - - - THE - - LIFE AND TIMES - - OF - - QUEEN VICTORIA. - - BY - ROBERT WILSON. - - Illustrated. - - VOL. II. - - [Illustration] - - CASSELL & COMPANY, LIMITED: - _LONDON, PARIS & MELBOURNE_. - - [ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.] - - - - -CONTENTS. - - -CHAPTER XXI. - -COLONIAL HOME RULE AND FINANCIAL REFORM. PAGE - -Mr. Roebuck and Emigration--Self-Government and the -Colonies--Unsympathetic Whig Policy--Radicals and the Colonial -Office--The Peelites and Hudson’s Bay Company--Financial Reform--Mr. -Cobden at Variance with Mr. Bright--Combined Agitators--The -Demand for Retrenchment--Trade and the Flag--Tories and Taxes--A -_reductio ad absurdum_--A Raid on a Surplus--International -Arbitration--Parliamentary Reform--Parliament and the Jews--The -Tories oppose the Alteration of the Parliamentary Oath--Episcopal -Prejudice--Tory Obstructionists--An Ordnance Department Scandal--Mr. -Delane’s Attacks on Lord Palmerston in the _Times_--The Queen -Remonstrates against Lord Palmerston’s Recklessness--An -Anti-Palmerstonian Cabal--Lady Palmerston’s Intrigues--Lord Brougham -Betrays the Cabal--Palmerston’s Victory--Rome and France--The Second -War--The Disaster of Chillianwalla--Indignation of the Country--Lord -Gough’s Recall--Napier to the Rescue--The East India Directors Oppose -Napier’s Appointment--The Convict War at the Cape--Boycotting the -Governor 385 - - -CHAPTER XXII. - -FAMILY CARES AND ROYAL DUTIES. - -Education of the Prince of Wales--Selection of Mr. Birch as Tutor--The -Queen’s Jealousy of her Parental Authority--Her Letter to Melbourne on -the Management of her Nursery--Her Ideas on Education--Prince Albert’s -Plans for the Education of the Prince of Wales--Stockmar’s Advice--The -Visit to Ireland--The Queen at Waterford--“Rebel Cork” _en fête_--The -Visit to Dublin--Viceregal Festivities--The Visit to the National Model -Schools--Shiel’s Speech--The Queen and the Duke of Leinster--Farewell -at Kingstown--The Queen Dips the Royal Ensign--Loyal Ulster--The Visit -to the Linen Hall--Lord Clarendon on the Queen’s Visit--A Cruise on the -Clyde--Home in Balmoral--The Queen’s “Bothie”--The Queen’s University -of Ireland--First Plans for the Great Exhibition--Opening of the London -Coal Exchange--The Queen’s Barge--Death of Queen Adelaide 403 - - -CHAPTER XXIII. - -CLOUDS IN THE EAST AND ELSEWHERE. - -Political Wreckage--Force triumphs over Opinion--The State -of France--Election of Prince Charles Louis Bonaparte as -Prince-President--The Sad Plight of Italy--Palmerston’s Anti-Austrian -Policy--Defeat of Piedmont--The Fall of Venice--Fall of the -Roman Republic--A Cromwellian Struggle in Prussia--The Queen’s -Partisanship--Her Prussian Sympathies--The Hungarian Refugees in -Turkey--A Diplomatic Conflict with Russia--Opening of Parliament--Mr. -Disraeli and Local Taxation--Parliamentary Reform--The Jonahs of the -Cabinet--The Dispute with Greece--Don Pacifico’s Case--Coercion of -Greece--Lord Palmerston meekly accepts an Insult from Russia--French -Intervention--A Diplomatic Conflict in France--Recall of the -French Ambassador--False Statements in Parliament--The Queen’s -Indignation--The Don Pacifico Debate--The _Civis Romanus sum_ -Doctrine--Palmerston’s Victory--The West African Slave Trade 420 - - -CHAPTER XXIV. - -SOME EPOCH-MARKING LEGISLATION. - -The Colonies and Party Government--The Movement for Autonomy--Lord John -Russell’s Colonial Bill--Tory Opposition to Colonial Federation--Mr. -Adderley’s Plan--Mr. Gladstone’s Scheme for Colonial Church Courts--The -Colonial Bills Mangled in the House of Lords--More English Doles -for Ireland--An Irish Reform Bill--Lord John Russell Proposes to -Abolish the Lord-Lieutenancy--The Queen’s Irish Policy--Her offer -to Establish a Royal Residence in Ireland--The Bungled Budget--The -Demand for Retrenchment--The Tories Insist on a Reduction of Official -Salaries--Lord John Russell’s Commission on Establishments--The -Queen and the Church--The Ecclesiastical Appeals Bill--The “Gorham -Case”--Death of Peel--The Queen’s Sorrow--A Nation in Mourning--Peel’s -Character and Career--The Queen’s Alarm about Prince Albert’s -Health--The Queen at Work--The Queen’s Reading-Lamp 438 - - -CHAPTER XXV. - -FALL OF THE WHIG CABINET. - -Debates on “No Popery”--Mutiny of the Irish Brigade--Defeat of Lord -John Russell--Lord Stanley “sent for”--Timid Tories--Lord Stanley’s -Interviews with the Queen--A Statesman’s “Domestic Duties”--Is -Coalition Possible?--The Queen’s Mistake--The Duke of Wellington’s -Advice--Return of the Whigs to Office--The Queen’s Aversions--The -“No Popery” Bill Reduced to a Nullity--Another Bungled Budget--The -Income Tax Controversy--The Pillar of Free Trade--The Window Tax -and the House Duty--The Radicals and the Slave Trade--King “Bomba” -and Mr. Gladstone--Cobden on General Disarmament--Palmerston in a -Millennial Mood--The Whig-Peelite Intrigue--The Queen and the Kossuth -Demonstrations--Another Quarrel with Palmerston--A Merry Council of -State 463 - - -CHAPTER XXVI. - -THE FESTIVAL OF PEACE AND THE _COUP D’ÉTAT_. - -The World’s Fair--Carping Critics--Churlish Ambassadors Rebuked by the -Queen--Opening of the Great Exhibition--A Touching Sight--The Queen’s -Comments on “_soi-disant_ Fashionables”--The Duke of Wellington’s -Nosegay--Prince Albert among the Missionaries--The Queen’s Letter to -Lord John Russell--Her Pride in her Husband--The London Season--The -Duke of Brunswick’s Balloon “Victoria”--Bloomerism--The Queen at -Macready’s Farewell Benefit--The Queen’s Costume Ball--The Spanish -Beauty--An Ugly “Lion”--The Queen at the Guildhall Ball--Grotesque -Civic Festivities--Royal Visits to Liverpool and Manchester--A -Well-Dressed Mayor--The Queen on the “Sommerophone”--The _Coup -d’État_--The Assassins of Liberty--The Appeal to France--The Queen’s -Last Quarrel with Palmerston--Palmerston’s Fall--Outcry against the -Queen--A “Presuming” Muscovite--The Queen’s Vindication 480 - - -CHAPTER XXVII. - -A YEAR OF EXCITEMENT AND PANIC. - -Cassandras in the Service Clubs--The Tories and the Queen’s -Speech--Lord John Russell’s Triumph--The Militia Bill--Defeat of -the Russell Ministry--Fall of the Whig Cabinet--Palmerston’s “Tit -for Tat”--A Protectionist Government--Novices in Office--A Cabinet -of Affairs--Mr. Disraeli’s Budget--Lord John Russell’s Fatal -Blunder--The Second Burmese War--Dalhousie’s Designs on Burmah--How -the Quarrel Grew--Lambert’s Indiscretion--The Attack on Rangoon--Fall -of the Citadel--Annexation--Desultory Warfare--Dissolution of -Parliament--The General Election--Equipoise of Parties--Factions -and Free Trade--Palmerston’s Forecasts--Forcing the Hand of the -Ministry--Death of the Duke of Wellington--The Queen’s Grief--The -Nation in Mourning--The Lying-in-State--Shocking Scenes--The Funeral -Pageant--The Ceremony in St. Paul’s--A Veteran in Tears--The Laureate’s -Votive Wreath--Review of the Duke’s Character 496 - - -CHAPTER XXVIII. - -THE LAST YEAR OF “THE GREAT PEACE.” - -Abortive Attacks on the Ministry--Mr. Disraeli’s First Budget--Fall -of the Tory Cabinet--The Queen and Lord Aberdeen--Organising -the Coalition--A Ministry of “All the Talents”--The Queen and -South Kensington--A Miser’s Legacy to the Queen--Sport at -Balmoral--Proclamation of the Second Empire--The “Battle of the -Numeral”--The Queen Initiates a Policy--Personal Government in the -Victorian Age--A Servile Minister--Lord Malmesbury’s Spies--Napoleon -III. and “Mrs. Howard”--Creole Card-Parties at Kensington--Napoleon -III. Proposes to Marry the Queen’s Niece--Lord John Russell’s Education -Scheme--Mr. Gladstone’s First Budget--The India Bill--Transportation -of Convicts to Australia Stopped--The Gold Fever in Australia--The -Rush to the Diggings--The First Gold Ships in the Thames--Gold -Discoveries and Free Trade--Chagrin of the Protectionists--The Rise in -Prices--Practical Success of Peel’s Fiscal Policy--Strikes and Dear -Bread--End of the Great Peace 515 - - -CHAPTER XXIX. - -DRIFTING TO WAR. - -Origin of the Crimean War--Russia and “the Sick Man”--Coercing -Turkey--The Dispute about the Holy Places--A Monkish -Quarrel--Contradictory Concessions--The Czar and the Tory -Ministry of 1844--The Secret Compact with Peel, Wellington, and -Aberdeen--Nesselrode’s Secret Memorandum--The Czar and Sir Hamilton -Seymour--Lord John Russell’s Admissions--The Czar’s Bewilderment--Lord -Stratford de Redcliffe--The Marplot at Constantinople--A Hectoring -Russian Envoy--The Allied Fleets at Besika Bay--The Conference of -Vienna--The Vienna Note--The Turkish Modifications--The Case for -England--The British Fleet in the Euxine--A Caustic Letter of the -Queen to Lord Aberdeen--Prince Albert’s Warnings--The Massacre -of Sinope--Internal Feuds in the Cabinet--Lord John Russell’s -Intrigues--Palmerston’s Resignation and Return--The Fire at -Windsor--Birth of Prince Leopold--The Camp at Chobham--The Czar’s -Daughters--Naval Review at Spithead--Royal Visit to Ireland 540 - - -CHAPTER XXX. - -WAR. - -The War Fever in 1854--Attacks on Prince Albert--Aberdeen’s -Correspondence with the Queen--The Queen’s Opinion of -the Country--“Loyal, but a little mad”--Stockmar on the -Constitution--Prince Albert’s Position at Court--The Privileges of -a Reigning Queen’s Husband--Debates on the Prince’s Position--The -Peace and War Parties--Mr. Cobden’s Influence--A new Vienna Note--A -Challenge to Russia--The Russian Ambassador leaves London--Recall of -Sir H. Seymour from St. Petersburg--Russian Intrigues with the German -Powers--The Czar’s Counter-Propositions--His Sarcastic Letter to -Napoleon III.--An Austrian Compromise--Lord Clarendon’s _Ultimatum_ to -Russia--The Czar’s Reply--Declaration of War--Omar Pasha’s Victories -in the Principalities--The Siege of Silistria--Evacuation of the -Principalities--The Rising in Greece--The Allies at the Piræus--The -Allies occupy Gallipoli--Another English Blunder--Invasion of the -Crimea--The Duke of Newcastle and a Sleepy Cabinet--Lord Raglan’s -Opinion on the War--The Landing of the Allies at Eupatoria--Battle of -the Alma--Russian Fleet Sunk at Sebastopol--At Balaclava--Death of -Marshal St. Arnaud--The Siege of Sebastopol--Battles of Balaclava and -Inkermann--Mismanagement of the War--Public Indignation against the -Government--Mr. Roebuck’s Motion--Fall of the Coalition Ministry 574 - - -CHAPTER XXXI. - -PARTY GOVERNMENT AND WAR. - -Stratford de Redcliffe Cooling Down--Tory Distrust of the French -Alliance--The Queen’s Kindness to Lord Aberdeen--The Emperor Napoleon -and Prince Albert--The Prince Visits France--The Queen at Balmoral--Her -Feelings towards the Prince of Prussia--The Queen holds a Council -of War--She Demands Reinforcements for Lord Raglan--Napoleon’s -Alarm--Prince Albert’s Plan for an Army of Reserve--The Queen on -the Austrian Proposals--Her Anxiety about the Troops--Raglan’s -Meagre Despatches--The Queen and Miss Nightingale--At Work for -the Soldiers--Extorting Information from Lord Raglan--Ministerial -Changes--Lord John Russell’s Selfishness--A Miserly Whig Duke--The -Queen’s Disgust at Russell’s Treachery--Resignation of Russell--Fall of -the Coalition--The Queen and the Crisis--She holds out the Olive Branch -to Palmerston--Palmerston’s Cabinet--Quarrel between Mr. Disraeli -and Lord Derby--The Sebastopol Committee--Mr. Roebuck and Prince -Albert--The Vienna Conference and the Death of Czar Nicholas--The -Austrian Compromise--Parties and the War--Russell’s Humiliation--He -Resigns in Disgrace--The Queen Quashes the Peace Negotiations--A Royal -Blunder--The Queen tries to Gag the Peelites--Aberdeen Browbeaten by -the Court--Canrobert’s Resignation--Crimean Successes--Failure of the -Attack on the Redan--Death of Raglan 618 - - -CHAPTER XXXII. - -ROYALTY AND THE WAR. - -Financing the War--The Queen’s Opinion of War Loans--A Dreadful -Winter--Distress in the Country--The “Devil” in Devonshire--Bread -Riots--War Loans and a War Budget--The Queen and the Wounded -Soldiers--Her Condemnation of “the Hulks”--Presentation of War Medals -in Hyde Park--Visit of the Emperor and Empress of the French--A Plot -to Capture the Queen--Councils of War at Windsor--The Grand Chapter of -the Order of the Garter--Imperial Compliments--Napoleon III. in the -City--At the Opera--The Queen’s Birthday Gift to the Emperor--Scarlet -Fever at Osborne--Prorogation of Parliament--A Court Intrigue with -Dom Pedro of Portugal--The Queen Visits Paris--Her Reception at St. -Cloud--The Ball at the Hôtel de Ville--Staring at the “Koh-i-noor”--At -the Tomb of the Great Emperor--Prince Bismarck’s Introduction to the -Queen--Home again--Lord Clarendon on the Queen’s Visit to Paris--How -the Prince of Wales Enjoyed himself--At Balmoral--The Bonfire on -Craig Gowan--Sebastopol Rejoicings--“A Witches’ Dance supported by -Whisky”--Courtship of the Princess Royal--Prince Frederick William of -Prussia--His Proposal of Marriage--Attacks of the _Times_--Visit of -Victor Emmanuel--His Reputation in Paris--Memorial of the Grenadier -Guards--Fresh Charges against Prince Albert--His Vindication of the -Crimean Officers 643 - - -CHAPTER XXXIII. - -THE END OF THE WAR. - -Lord Raglan’s Successor--“Take Care of Dowb”--Lord Panmure’s -Nepotism--The Crisis of the War--Gortschakoff’s Last Struggle--The -Battle of the Tchernaya River--France and the War--A Despondent -Court--Divided Counsels among the Allies--The Bridge of Rafts--The -Grand Bombardment--French Attack on the Malakoff--British Attack on -the Redan--Why the Attack Failed--The “Hero of the Redan”--Pélissier’s -Message to Simpson--Appeal to Sir Colin Campbell--Evacuation of the -Redan--Fall of Sebastopol--Retreat of the Russians to the North -Town--Paralysis of the Victors--The Queen’s Anger--Her Remonstrances -with Lord Panmure--A New Commander-in-Chief--Taking Care of -“Dowb”--Codrington Chosen--The Wintry Crimean Watch--Diplomatic -Humiliation of Palmerston--France Negotiates Secretly Terms of Peace -with Austria--Palmerston’s Indignant Remonstrances--The Queen Objects -to Prosecute the War Alone--The Surrender of Palmerston--He Abandons -the Turks--An Unpopular Peace--The Tories Offer to Support the -Peace--The Queen and the Parliament of 1856 669 - - -CHAPTER XXXIV. - -PEACE AND PARLIAMENT. - -Opening of Parliament--A Cold Speech from the Throne--Moderation of -Militant Toryism--Mr. Disraeli’s Cynical Strategy--The Betrayal of -Kars--The Life Peerage Controversy--Baron Parke’s Nickname--More -Attacks on Prince Albert--Court Favouritism among Men of Science--The -Congress of Paris--How France Betrayed England--Walewski’s Intrigues -with Orloff--Mr. Greville’s Pictures of French Official Life--Snubbing -Bonapartist Statesmen--Peace Proclaimed--Popular Rejoicings--A Memento -of the Congress--The Terms of Peace--The Tripartite Treaty--The -Queen’s Opinion of the Settlement--Parliamentary Criticism on the -Treaty of Paris--Stagnation of Public Life in England--The Queen’s -“Happy Family” Dinner Party--A little “Tiff” with America--The -Restoration of H.M.S. _Resolute_--The Budget--Palmerston’s Tortuous -Italian Policy--The Failure of his Domestic Policy--The Confirmation -of the Princess Royal--Robbery of the Royal Nursery Plate--Prince -Alfred’s Tutor--Reviews of Crimean Troops--Debates on the Purchase -System--Lord Hardinge’s Tragic Death--The Duke of Cambridge as -Commander-in-Chief--Miss Nightingale’s Visit to Balmoral--Coronation -of the Czar--Russian Chicanery at Paris--A Bad Map and a False -Frontier--Quarrel between Prussia and Switzerland--Quarrel between -England and the Sicilies--Death of the Queen’s Half-Brother--Settlement -of the Dispute with Russia--“The Dodge that Saved us” 679 - - -CHAPTER XXXV. - -TWO LITTLE WARS AND A “PENAL DISSOLUTION.” - -The Queen’s New Year Greeting to Napoleon III.--A Gladstone-Disraeli -Coalition--A Scene in the Carlton Club--Mr. Disraeli’s Attack on Lord -Palmerston’s Foreign Policy--The Queen Consents to Reduce the Income -Tax--A Fallacious Budget, with Imaginary Remissions--The Persian -War--General Outram’s Victories--Unpopularity of the War--Making War -without Consulting Parliament--The Rupture with China--A “Prancing -Proconsul”--The Bombardment of Canton--Defeat of Lord Palmerston, -and his Appeal to the Country--A Penal Dissolution--Abortive -Coalition between the Peelites and Tories--Mr. Gladstone and the -Intriguers--Split in the Peelite Party--Palmerston’s Victory at -the Polls--The Rout of the Manchester School--The Lesson of the -Election--Opening of the New Parliament--The Work of the Session--Mr. -Gladstone’s Obstruction of the Divorce Bill--The Settlement of the -Neufchâtel Difficulty--The Question of the Principalities--Visit of the -French Emperor to the Queen 699 - - -CHAPTER XXXVI. - -THE INDIAN MUTINY. - -The Centenary of Plassey--Rumours of Rebellion--Causes of the -Mutiny--The Annexation of Oudh--Lord Dalhousie’s Indian Policy--Its -Disturbing Effect on the Minds of the Natives--The Royal Family of -Delhi--The Hindoo “Sumbut”--The Discontent of the Bengal Army--The -Grievances of the Sepoy--The Greased Cartridges--The Mystery of -the “Chupatties”--Mutiny of the Garrison at Meerut--The March to -Delhi--Sir Henry Lawrence at Lucknow--The Tragedy of Cawnpore--Death -of the Commander-in-Chief--Who took Delhi?--Sir John Lawrence in -the Punjab--The Saviour of India--Lord Canning at Calcutta--First -Relief of Lucknow--Despatch of Sir Colin Campbell--Second Relief of -Lucknow--Savage Fighting at the Secunder-baugh--The Queen’s Letter to -Sir Colin Campbell--His Retreat to Cawnpore--His Management of the -Campaign--Windham’s Defeat at the Pandoo River--Sir Colin Campbell’s -Victory over the Gwalior Army 720 - - -CHAPTER XXXVII. - -THE ROYAL MARRIAGE. - -Birth of Princess Beatrice--Death of the Duchess of Gloucester--A Royal -Romance--Franco-Russian Intrigues--The Art Treasures Exhibition at -Manchester--Announcement of the Marriage of the Princess Royal--Prince -Albert’s Views on Royal Grants--The Controversy on the Grant to the -Princess Royal--Visit of the Grand Duke Constantine--The Christening -of Princess Beatrice--Prince Albert’s Title as Prince Consort -Legalised--The First Distribution of the Victoria Cross--Opposition to -the Order--The Queen’s Visit to Manchester--Departure of the Prince -of Wales to Germany--The Queen and the Indian Mutiny--Her Controversy -with Lord Palmerston--Sudden Death of the Duchess of Nemours--The -Marriage of the Princess Royal--The Scene in the Chapel--On the Balcony -of Buckingham Palace--The Illuminations in London--The Bride and -Bridegroom at Windsor--The Last Adieus--The Departure of the Bride and -Bridegroom to Germany 738 - - - - - -LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS - - - PAGE - -The Prince of Wales (_From a Photograph by Mr. -A. Bassano, London_) _Frontispiece_ - -The Western Suburbs of Victoria, Vancouver -Island 385 - -St. George’s Chapel, Windsor 388 - -John Bright (1857) 389 - -Royal Palace, Naples 392 - -Lady Palmerston 393 - -Sir Charles Napier 396 - -The Battle of Gujerat 397 - -The British Troops Entering Multan 400 - -Sir Harry Smith 401 - -Victoria Castle, Killiney--Bray Head in the distance 404 - -Royal Visit to Ireland: the Queen Leaving Kingstown 405 - -Visit of the Queen and Prince Albert to the Linen -Hall, Belfast 409 - -Castleton of Braemar 412 - -At Balmoral: a Morning Call 413 - -The Royal Barge 416 - -Opening of the London Coal Exchange--Arrival of -the Royal Procession at the Custom-House Quay 417 - -The Chamber of Representatives, Brussels 420 - -Louis Kossuth (1850) 421 - -The White Drawing-Room, Windsor Castle 424 - -The Piræus, Athens 425 - -Grand Entrance, Westminster Palace 429 - -Mr. (afterwards Sir Alexander) Cockburn 432 - -Cape Town 433 - -Mr. Gladstone (1855) 436 - -Windsor Castle: View from the Quadrangle 437 - -View in Phœnix Park, Dublin 440 - -Mr. Horsman 441 - -The Funeral of Sir Robert Peel: the Tenantry -Assembling at the Lodge, Drayton Manor 444 - -The Funeral of Sir Robert Peel: the Ceremony in -Drayton Bassett Church 445 - -Meeting of the Ladies’ Committee at Stafford -House in Aid of the Great Exhibition 449 - -Cambridge House, Piccadilly (1854) 452 - -The Queen and Prince Arthur (_After Winterhalter_, -1850) _To face_ 452 - -Pate’s Assault on the Queen 453 - -Lord John Russell (1850) 456 - -The Royal Apartments, Holyrood Palace 461 - -St. Stephen’s Crypt, Westminster Palace 464 - -Mr. Locke King 465 - -The Green Drawing-Room, Windsor Castle 468 - -Sir George Cornewall Lewis 469 - -The Caffre War: Natives Attacking a Convoy 472 - -Group of Dyaks 473 - -Lord Carlisle 476 - -The Great Exhibition, Hyde Park 477 - -Sir Joseph Paxton 481 - -Opening of the Great Exhibition, Hyde Park -(_After the Picture by Eugène Lamé_) _To face_ 482 - -St. George’s Hall, Liverpool 484 - -The Royal Visit to Worsley Hall: the State Barge -on the Bridgwater Canal 485 - -The Queen’s Arrival in Peel Park: Children of the -Manchester and Salford Schools Singing the -National Anthem 489 - -The Coup d’État: Lancers Charging the Crowd in -the Boulevards of Paris 492 - -Prince Charles Louis Napoleon 493 - -Diana Fountain, Bushey Park 496 - -Harnessing the Black Horses at the Royal Mews, -Buckingham Palace (_After the Painting by -Charles Lutyens. In the Possession of the -Earl of Bradford_) 497 - -Sidney Herbert (_After the Statue by Foley_) 500 - -St. Albans, from Verulam 501 - -View near Rangoon 504 - -Major Fraser’s Storming Party Carrying the Stockade -in Front of Rangoon 505 - -Walmer Castle 508 - -The Duke of Wellington (_After the Portrait by -Count D’Orsay_) 509 - -The Wellington Monument in St. Paul’s Cathedral, -completed in 1878 (_By Alfred Stevens_) 513 - -North Terrace and Wykeham Tower, Windsor -Castle 516 - -The Duke of Argyle 517 - -View in Braemar 520 - -The Queen’s Visit to the Britannia Tubular Bridge 521 - -Queen Victoria (_After the Equestrian Portrait -by Count D’Orsay_) _To face_ 521 - -Notre Dame, Paris (West Front) 524 - -Comte de Montalembert 525 - -Mdlle. Eugenia de Montijo, afterwards Empress -of the French 529 - -Prince Jeróme Bonaparte 532 - -Sketch in the Outer Cloisters, Windsor Castle 533 - -The Conveying of Australian Gold from the East -India Docks to the Bank of England (_After the -Engraving in the “Illustrated London News”_) 537 - -Study of a Child (_After an Etching by the Queen_) 539 - -Off the Coast of Asia Minor (Turkey in Asia) 540 - -Bazaar in Constantinople 541 - -Convent of the Nativity, Bethlehem 544 - -Interior of the Chapel of the Nativity, Bethlehem 545 - -The Nicolai Bridge across the Neva, St. Petersburg 548 - -Lord Stratford de Redcliffe (_From a Photograph -by Messrs. Boning and Small_) 549 - -Town Hall, Vienna 552 - -Prince Menschikoff 553 - -The Mosque of Selim II. at Adrianople 557 - -The Duke of Newcastle 560 - -Destruction of the Turkish Fleet at Sinope 561 - -The Throne Room, Windsor Castle 564 - -Sebastopol 565 - -Fire in the Prince of Wales’s Tower, Windsor -Castle 568 - -The Queen at the Camp at Chobham _To face_ 568 - -Runnymede 569 - -Spithead 572 - -Balmoral Castle from the Road 573 - -The Outer Cloisters and Anne Boleyn’s Window, -Windsor Castle 577 - -Russian Repulse at Silistria 580 - -Lord Raglan 581 - -The Queen Waving Farewell to the _Duke of -Wellington_ Flag-ship 585 - -Marshal St. Arnaud 588 - -Forts Alexander and Peter the Great, Cronstadt 589 - -Omar Pasha 592 - -Map of the Crimea 593 - -The Barracks Hospital, Scutari 596 - -Odessa 597 - -Heights of the Alma 600 - -Sir John Burgoyne 601 - -Pembroke Lodge, Richmond 604 - -Codrington’s Brigade (23rd Royal Welsh Fusileers) -at the Alma 605 - -General Canrobert 608 - -Entrance to Balaclava Harbour 609 - -Sir Colin Campbell 612 - -Balaclava--“The Thin Red Line” (_After the Painting -by Robert Gibb, R.S.A. In the Possession -of Archibald Ramsden, Esq., Leeds_) 613 - -Valley of Inkermann 616 - -The Storm off Balaclava 617 - -Mr. Roebuck (1858) 620 - -Buckingham Palace, from St. James’s Park 621 - -Miss Nightingale and the Nurses in the Barracks -Hospital at Scutari 625 - -Henry VIII.’s Gateway, Windsor Castle 628 - -Refreshment Room, House of Lords 629 - -Mr. Sidney Herbert (afterwards Lord Herbert of -Lea) 632 - -The Winter Palace, St. Petersburg 633 - -Grand Reception Room, Windsor Castle 636 - -The Hundred Steps, Windsor Castle 637 - -View in the Crimea: The Palace Woronzow, -Alupka 641 - -The Wounded Soldier’s Toast--“The Queen!” 645 - -The Queen Distributing the Crimean Medal at the -Horseguards Parade Ground _To face_ 647 - -Windsor Castle from the Brocas 648 - -The Queen Investing the Emperor of the French -with the Order of the Garter 649 - -The Waterloo Room, Windsor Castle 652 - -The Royal and Imperial Visit to the Crystal -Palace: the Procession down the Nave 653 - -The Queen at the Fête in the Forest of St. Germain 657 - -Map of Crathie and Braemar 660 - -The Wooing of the Princess Royal 664 - -Count Cavour 665 - -Balaclava: at Peace (_From a Drawing made -Twenty-five Years after the Crimean War_) 668 - -Cathcart’s Hill, Crimea 669 - -French Attack on the Malakoff 672 - -General Todleben 673 - -The Throne Room, St James’s Palace (_From a -Photograph by H. N. King_) 677 - -View in the Crimea: Jalta 680 - -Miss Nightingale 681 - -The Emperor of Austria 684 - -The Conference of Paris, 1856 685 - -Visit of the Queen and Prince Albert to the -_Resolute_ 689 - -Portsmouth 692 - -Sir De Lacy Evans 693 - -View in Berne 697 - -Old Windsor Lock (_From a Photograph by Taunt -and Co., Oxford_) 701 - -Sir John Bowring 705 - -Chinese Lorchas in the Canton River 709 - -The Cascade: Virginia Water 712 - -Plan of Windsor Castle 713 - -The Duke of Cambridge (_From a Photograph by -Bassano_) 717 - -The Barracks at Meerut 721 - -Sir James Outram 725 - -Cawnpore 729 - -Lord Lawrence 733 - -Scene at the First Relief of Lucknow 736 - -The Hastings Chantry, St George’s Chapel, -Windsor 741 - -The Victoria Cross 744 - -The Queen Distributing the Victoria Crosses in -Hyde Park 745 - -The Crimson Drawing-Room, Windsor Castle 749 - -Marriage of the Princess Royal (_After the Picture -by John Philip, R.A._) _To face_ 751 - - - - -[Illustration: THE WESTERN SUBURBS OF VICTORIA, VANCOUVER ISLAND.] - - - - -CHAPTER XXI. - -COLONIAL HOME RULE AND FINANCIAL REFORM. - - Mr. Roebuck and Emigration--Self-Government and the - Colonies--Unsympathetic Whig Policy--Radicals and the Colonial - Office--The Peelites and Hudson’s Bay Company--Financial - Reform--Mr. Cobden at Variance with Mr. Bright--Combined - Agitators--The Demand for Retrenchment--Trade and the Flag--Tories - and Taxes--A _reductio ad absurdum_--A Raid on a - Surplus--International Arbitration--Parliamentary - Reform--Parliament and the Jews--The Tories oppose the Alteration - of the Parliamentary Oath--Episcopal Prejudice--Tory - Obstructionists--An Ordnance Department Scandal--Mr. Delane’s - Attacks on Lord Palmerston in the _Times_--The Queen Remonstrates - against Lord Palmerston’s Recklessness--An Anti-Palmerstonian - Cabal--Lady Palmerston’s Intrigues--Lord Brougham Betrays the - Cabal--Palmerston’s Victory--Rome and France--The Second War--The - Disaster of Chillianwalla--Indignation of the Country--Lord Gough’s - Recall--Napier to the Rescue--The East India Directors Oppose - Napier’s Appointment--The Convict War at the Cape--Boycotting the - Governor. - - -Another notable event in the Colonial history of 1849 was the -introduction by Mr. Roebuck, on the 14th of May, of a Bill for the -better government of the Colonies. The debate on this measure brought -vividly before the minds of thoughtful men the folly upon which our -step-motherly treatment of the Colonies was based. “Emigration by -itself,” exclaimed Mr. Roebuck, “is misery;” and yet the idea of -colonisation which prevailed at the Colonial Office was simply to -transport as many people as possible to distant wilds, utterly -regardless of their ultimate fate. Why should we not introduce something -like system, asked Mr. Roebuck, into our Colonial policy, and recognise -the fact that it was now not tribute, but trade that we might expect to -get from them? His proposal was to have one plan for settling a colony, -another for organising it when settled, and a third for groups of -colonies in confederation or union. His panacea for all Colonial ills -was to get rid of “red tape” at the Colonial Office and to give the -Colonies Home Rule. The difficulties, said Mr. Hawes, as representing -Lord Grey and the Colonial Office, in the way of granting Home Rule to -North-American Colonies would be insuperable; besides, England had far -too many Colonies already, so that it was of little use to bring forward -schemes for settling new ones! Whigs like Lord John Russell condemned a -policy which tended to substitute a fixed Parliamentary rule for the -discretion of a responsible Minister, and contended that physical -impediments rendered the union of Canada into one Dominion impossible. -Mr. Gladstone, however, warmly supported Mr. Roebuck’s policy. Even then -the leaven of the Home Ruler was working in his mind. Mr. Roebuck was -beaten by 116 to 73. But this did not put a stop to these Colonial -debates. - -On the 26th of June Sir William Molesworth moved an Address to the Queen -begging for a Commission to inquire into the Administration of the -Colonies, more especially with a view to lessen the cost of their -government, and to give free scope to individual enterprise in -colonising. He startled the House by quoting figures which showed that, -in fifteen years, “a series of remarkable events in the Colonies” had -cost England the modest sum of eighty millions sterling. It could not -have cost more to settle 4,000,000 able and energetic emigrants in -Australia alone; and yet in the whole Colonial Empire in 1849, it -appears there were not more than 1,000,000 persons of British or Irish -descent. Charles Buller some years before had condemned the Colonial -Office for its arbitrary character, its indifference to local feeling, -and its ignorance of local wants, its procrastination and vacillation, -its secrecy and irresponsibility, its servitude to parties and cliques, -its injustice, and its disorder. In this debate Lord Grey’s -Administration was held to aptly illustrate all these vices; and yet -Lord Grey had become Colonial Minister because he stood pledged to cure -them. Lord Grey’s idea of Colonial government seemed to be either to -rule the Colony with a high hand from London, or, if it had some -semblance of representative institutions, to govern it by means of a -violent Party minority in the popular Chamber, co-operating with a -majority of the Council nominated by the Crown. Self-government for -Colonies that were fit for it, and intelligent government for those that -were not, were Sir William Molesworth’s remedies. A strong plea for -reducing the extravagant outlay on official salaries and useless -military expenditure was pressed; and protests against convict -emigration, which, together with our misgovernment, drove honest English -Colonists to the United States, were entered. Mr. Hume and Mr. -Gladstone, on behalf of the Radicals and Peelites, gave a general -support to the motion; but the indefatigable Mr. Hawes came smilingly to -the defence of Lord Grey with his stereotyped “_Non possumus_,” and Lord -John Russell declared that the scope of the reference to the Commission -was too vast and wide for practical purposes. His novel argument was -that to attempt to define the limits of Imperial and local questions -must end in bitter disputes between the Colonies and the mother country. -Undeterred by the failure of the Radicals to force a rational Colonial -policy on the Whigs, the Peelites next took up the matter, and on the -19th of June Lord Lincoln moved an Address to the Crown expressing the -opinion that the Hudson’s Bay Company, to which Vancouver Island had -been granted by Royal Charter, was ill-adapted for ruling or developing -the resources of a colony founded on principles of political and -commercial freedom, and generally challenging the validity of the grant. -One would have thought that it needed little argument to demonstrate the -unwisdom of founding a colony to be ruled by an absentee proprietary, -earning its revenues by a trading monopoly. The history of the United -States was full of examples of this species of folly, and both Lord -Lincoln and Mr. Hume argued their case with the greatest ability. But -they spoke to no purpose, for just as Mr. Hume was warming to his work -the House was counted out! In these days, when the air is full of -schemes for Imperial Federation, and Home Rule, it is interesting to -note how, in 1849, the battle of Colonial Reform was fought by a -combination of Conservative Peelites and “stalwart” Radicals, against -the Whigs, who were jealously opposed to all extensions of Colonial -autonomy. - -After Colonial policy, and not long after it in point of interest, came -Finance. The erratic schemes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the -preceding year, together with the distress which afflicted the country, -had made everybody dissatisfied with the financial policy of the -Government. The Protectionists were always at hand to suggest that the -pressure of taxation was due to Free Trade. The Free Traders were never -weary of retorting that it was due to extravagant expenditure, and could -be remedied by retrenchment. Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright thus felt that -their mission in life did not end with the Repeal of the Corn Laws. If -they were to keep the ground they had taken, it seemed to them they must -start an agitation to reduce public expenditure. Mr. Bright rather -favoured the notion of agitating for an extension of the Franchise, on -the supposition that, if more taxpayers had votes, Government, in -deference to their prejudices, would be chary of augmenting public -burdens. Ultimately, however, they agreed to combine the two -agitations,[1] and work with each other as before. The popular feeling -in favour of economy was first manifested by the formation of Financial -Reform Associations in the large towns--that of Liverpool being -especially energetic--and they were soon busy discussing a practical -plan, which emanated from the fertile brain of Cobden, for the remission -of the Malt Tax and other public burdens. Cobden’s scheme was simply to -effect retrenchment by going back to the scale of expenditure that was -deemed adequate in 1835, and in this way he proposed to reduce taxation -by about £10,000,000 sterling. Quite a flutter of excitement ran through -the - -[Illustration: ST. GEORGE’S CHAPEL, WINDSOR.] - -House of Commons when, on the 26th of February, he brought his plan -under its notice. He contended that military expenditure had caused the -increase of £10,000,000, which he desired to reduce. Therefore he moved -that the expenditure under this head be diminished with all practicable -speed. The insular position of England was itself a sure defence against -her enemies. - -[Illustration: JOHN BRIGHT (1857).] - -Provided she did not interfere recklessly with foreign nations, she had -less to fear in 1849 than in 1835. Why, then, should the military and -naval expenditure of 1835 be exceeded? Vast sums of money, too, were -spent on the Colonies. Here also a reduction might be effected, for the -English taxpayer got no more food from the Colonies than the foreign one -did. At this period it was evident that Mr. Cobden had not put to the -test the sound maxim that “trade follows the flag.” The answer of the -Chancellor of the Exchequer was that in 1835, to the expenditure of -which Mr. Cobden wanted to revert, no adequate provision had been made -for the true wants of the country; and that, since then, many things had -happened to increase expenditure unavoidably. The introduction of steam -into the Navy was an illustration of these changes. Moreover, the -Government had reduced expenditure by about a million and a half -sterling--and that was surely a pledge of their earnestness as financial -reformers. - -The Tories put Mr. Herries forward to attack both parties. He blamed -Ministers for encouraging the financial reformers, and denounced Mr. -Cobden for the violence of his speeches out of doors on the subject. The -policy of the Tories was to demand that expenditure should not be -lessened, whilst there was ground for anxiety as to foreign affairs. One -of their arguments was an odd one. It was that, as the revenue was still -maintained in spite of the repeal of vast sums of taxation, there was no -ground for pretending that retrenchment was necessary because the people -felt that taxation was pressing hard on them. They did not seem to see -that this was either an argument in favour of raising revenue without -imposing any taxes at all--which was a _reductio ad absurdum_--or an -argument to show that reductions of taxation still left Government with -enough money in hand to defend the interests of the country, which was -virtually an admission that Mr. Cobden’s plan, if tried, could do no -harm. The Free Traders made a bid for the rural vote by arguing that, if -the landed interest wanted the relief which the Protectionists promised -them, they ought to vote for the reduction in expenditure, which would -enable Parliament to grant that relief. Mr. Cobden’s first scheme of -Financial Reform was rejected by a vote of 275 to 78. But this did not -allay the uneasiness of the public, who began to fret over the -extraordinary delay that took place in the production of the Budget. It -was not till the 29th of June that Sir Charles Wood made his financial -statement to the House. It was not a cheering one. The expenditure, -which was £53,287,110, had exceeded the Ministerial estimate by -£1,219,379, and it exceeded the revenue of the year by £269,378. Of -course, by excluding unexpected outlays on Irish distress, Canadian -emigration, &c., a more favourable state of accounts could be shown; -but, as the excluded money had been spent, there was really no reason -for ignoring it. For the coming year his estimated expenditure, he said, -would be £52,157,696, and his estimated receipts would yield, he hoped, -a surplus over that of £94,304. Sir Charles Wood’s strongest points were -that every effort would be made to keep current expenditure within -current income, and that instead of using small surpluses to remit small -sums of taxation, they would be kept as the nucleus of large surpluses, -for the reduction of large amounts of taxation. The Radicals and -Financial Reformers were not satisfied with Sir Charles Wood’s long list -of objectionable taxes that had been removed. In spite of all that, -expenditure increased--and what was worse, there was a steady increase -in permanent burdens on the revenue, in the shape of charges for the -Public Debt. Mr. Hume demanded that Excise be done away with, and that -the example of Sir James Graham, who reduced the expenses of the -Admiralty by £1,200,000, be followed. Mr. Milner Gibson attacked the -paper duty, the newspaper stamp duty, and the tax on advertisements, as -taxes on knowledge; and he cited the petition of the Messrs. Chambers -of Edinburgh, who declared that the paper duty had stopped the -continuance of a work for the humbler classes which they were bringing -out, and of which there had been a sale of 80,000 copies. Everybody -wanted some special duty repealed, either that on hops, bricks, soap, -beer, malt, tea, or timber. The Budget was felt to be unsatisfactory, -for, as Mr. Cobden said, it made the two ends barely meet. At the close -of the Session (20th of July) Mr. Herries supplemented this discussion -by starting another question--that of raising some portion of the -supplies of the State by a fixed duty on corn. The Protectionists argued -that Sir Charles Wood’s estimates were too sanguine, and that more taxes -must be imposed on the people, unless a small duty were put on foreign -corn. This was not to be a protective duty, but one merely for revenue -purposes, and as such surely it was justifiable. It would be only a tax -on food in name; in fact, the defence of the proposal was like the Irish -vagrant’s apology for the existence of her baby--“Please, sir, it’s only -a very little one.” Of course the Free Traders sprang upon Mr. Herries -with great glee. The Tories were going round the country promising the -farmers Protection. But when they came to the House of Commons all they -ventured to ask for was a small fixed duty on corn, which was to be -levied not for protective but for revenue purposes. The position was an -awkward one for Mr. Herries. Either his small fixed duty did or did not -raise the price of corn. If it did, he was deceiving the House of -Commons. If it did not, he was deceiving his clients among the farmers. -His move was obviously one for putting heart into a desponding faction. - -It has been said that Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright had come to the -conclusion that, side by side with the agitation for retrenchment, there -should be pressed forward that for Parliamentary Reform. Accordingly, -Mr. Hume introduced his motion for Parliamentary Reform in the House of -Commons on the 4th of June, demanding Household Suffrage, Vote by -Ballot, Triennial Parliaments, and something approaching to equal -electoral districts. The opposition of the Whigs, who argued that reform -was unnecessary because many good measures had been passed by -Parliament, and that to extend the franchise would endanger the -Monarchy, induced the House to reject the motion by a vote of 268 to 82. - -But a topic far more interesting to the Queen, whose speciality is -Foreign Policy, was brought under the notice of the House of Commons by -Mr. Cobden a few days after Mr. Hume’s motion was disposed of. He -suggested a plan whereby wars might cease, and civilised nations might -compose their quarrels by Arbitration. On the 12th of June Cobden moved -an Address to the Crown, praying that Foreign Powers might be invited to -concur in treaties binding them to accept Arbitration in settling their -disputes with each other. The Government did not openly resist the -motion. They got rid of it by putting up Lord Palmerston to move the -“previous question;” but the tone of the debate showed that, though the -House was dubious about the practicability of Mr. Cobden’s plan, it had -been profoundly impressed with his reasoning. - -[Illustration: ROYAL PALACE, NAPLES.] - -The Whigs, embarrassed by the refusal of Jewish Members to take the -Parliamentary Oath, next introduced a Bill expunging from the form of -the oath the words “on the true faith of a Christian.” The only bitter -opponents of the measure were the Tories, for most of the Peelites, like -Mr. Gladstone, supported it. The Commons passed the measure readily -enough; but in the House of Lords the hostility of the Episcopal Bench -was fatal to it. Another measure was sacrificed to the ecclesiasticism -which was then prevalent in Parliament. That was the Bill to legalise -marriage with a Deceased Wife’s Sister, which Mr. Stuart Wortley -introduced on the 3rd of May, and the most vehement opponents of which -were Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Gladstone, and Sir R. Inglis. Mr. Wortley carried -the Second Reading without much difficulty; but when Mr. Goulburn -threatened to use the forms of the House to obstruct the further -progress of the measure, it was withdrawn. - -Foreign affairs originated some acrimonious debates in both Houses -during the Session. On the 6th of March a question was put by Lord -Stanley to - -[Illustration: LADY PALMERSTON.] - -Lord Lansdowne asking if it were true that a Government contractor had -been allowed to withdraw arms from a Government store, and supply them -to the insurgents in Sicily. Lord Lansdowne could not deny that the -allegation was true; and the incident not only caused a great deal of -excitement in the country, but it was one that gave much pain to the -Queen, who naturally saw in it the reckless hand of Lord Palmerston. The -secret history of the affair was this: Mr. Delane, the editor of the -_Times_, happened to meet a Mr. Hood--an Army contractor--accidentally. -In conversation Mr. Hood incidently mentioned to Mr. Delane that when -certain Sicilian agents applied to him for stores, he explained that he -had none on hand, having supplied all he possessed to the Government. -But he observed that if he could persuade the Government to let him have -these back, he would hand them over to the Sicilian insurrectionary -agents, replacing the Government stores in due time. The contractor -applied to the Ordnance Department, stating that his application had a -political, as well as a commercial, object. The Department, therefore, -referred the matter to Lord Palmerston, who sanctioned the transaction. -The _Times_ immediately published this story, and its attacks on Lord -Palmerston for having insulted Austria, and connived at insurrection in -Sicily, annoyed the Queen so seriously that Lord John Russell compelled -Lord Palmerston to apologise to the King of Naples, for whom he -cherished a supreme contempt. But when the scandal grew clamant, Mr. -Bankes opened up an attack in the House of Commons on Lord Palmerston. -He, however, mixed up with it a great deal of general criticism on the -policy of the Government in Italy, and gave Lord Palmerston an -opportunity of winning an easy victory by posing as a friend of freedom, -and a martyr to the doctrine of nationalities. Lord Palmerston, writes -Mr. Greville, delivered, in reply to his antagonist, “a slashing, -impudent speech, full of sarcasm, jokes, and claptrap, the whole -eminently successful. He quizzed Bankes unmercifully, he expressed -ultra-Liberal sentiments to please the Radicals, and he gathered shouts, -laughter, and applause as he dashed and rattled along.” - -On the 22nd of March Lord Aberdeen headed another abortive attack on the -Foreign Policy of the Government. He complained that whereas Lord -Palmerston had been active in menacing Austria if she meddled with -Sardinia, he had spoken smooth things to Sardinia--never going further -than warning her that if she broke existing treaties, she would be doing -a dangerous thing. Aberdeen’s attack was regarded as a semi-official -expression of the ideas of the Sovereign on Lord Palmerston’s policy; -and it came to this, that Palmerston had made England an object of -aversion in every capital in Europe, by interfering between Governments -and their subjects, in a manner which brought on him the animosity of -both. He had been arrogant to the despots, and, whilst he had encouraged -the rebels, he had tamely abandoned them, whenever it became irksome to -defend them. In this debate the Foreign Office was convicted of having -suppressed an important despatch relating to Austro-Sardinian affairs in -the papers laid before Parliament. The truth is that the Cabinet did not -know what was and what was not included in the papers that Lord -Palmerston chose to publish; and Lord Palmerston sometimes did not even -give his colleagues enough information to enable them to answer -questions. One example of this is worth recording, because it directly -affected the Queen. In May, Lord Lansdowne, in reply to a question of -Lord Beaumont, told the House of Lords that “no communication whatever -had been made by the Austrian Government to ours relative to their -intervention in Italy.” But Collosedo, the Austrian Minister, had five -days before that gone to Lord Palmerston and communicated to him, by -order of the Austrian Government, their objects in interfering in Italy. -Palmerston kept his colleagues in utter ignorance of this interview; and -when the truth leaked out, Lord Lansdowne had to set himself right the -best way he could. As for Palmerston, when he was challenged with -deceiving his colleagues, and suppressing the fact that this Austrian -communication had been made to him, he replied impudently that “he had -quite forgotten it.” His needlessly violent anti-Austrian policy, -coupled with delinquencies of this kind, was intensely annoying to the -Queen. Writing under the date of June 3rd, Mr. Greville, in his Journal, -says, “The Duke of Bedford told me a few days ago that the Queen had -been again remonstrating about Palmerston more strongly than ever. This -was in reference to the suppressed Austrian despatch which made such a -noise. She then sent for Lord John Russell, and told him she could not -stand it any longer, and he must make some arrangements to get rid of -Lord Palmerston. This communication was just as fruitless as all her -preceding ones. I don’t know what Lord John said--he certainly did not -pacify her; but, as usual, there it ended. But the consequences of her -not being able to get any satisfaction from her Minister have been that -she has poured her feelings and her wrongs into the more sympathetic -ears of her late Ministers, and I believe that the Queen has told Peel -everything--all her own feelings and wishes, and all that passes on the -subject.” - -In these circumstances an anti-Palmerstonian cabal was naturally formed. -Lord Aberdeen, a devoted friend of the Queen, attempted to organise a -movement for driving Palmerston from office; but the great obstacle was -Peel. Nothing could induce him to upset the Ministry which was pledged -to procure a fair trial for Free Trade. The Court Party, however, -suggested that, if censured, Palmerston might resign and his colleagues -stay in; or that they might all resign, and then, when it was shown that -no other Government could be formed, and that the Peelites could render -the formation of another Ministry impossible, Lord John Russell and his -colleagues might come back to power, without Lord Palmerston. The scheme -failed; but, as Mr. Greville says, the curious thing to note about it is -“the _carte du pays_ it exhibits,” and the remarkable and most improper -position which Palmerston occupied _vis-à-vis_ the Queen and his own -colleagues. “I know not,” writes Mr. Greville, “where to look for a -parallel to such a mass of anomalies--the Queen turning from her own -Prime Minister to confide in the one who was supplanted by him; a -Minister talking over quietly and confidentially with an outsider by -what circumstances and what agency his colleague, the Minister for -Foreign Affairs, might be excluded from the Government; the Queen -abhorring her Minister, and unable to rid herself of him; John Russell, -fascinated and subjugated by the ascendency of Palmerston, submitting to -everything from him, and supporting him right and wrong, the others not -concealing from those they are in the habit of confiding in their -disapprobation of the conduct and policy of their colleague, while they -are all the time supporting the latter and excusing the former, and -putting themselves under the obligation of identifying themselves with -his proceedings, and standing or falling with them.”[2] - -[Illustration: SIR CHARLES NAPIER.] - -Ultimately, however, a confederacy was formed between Lords Aberdeen, -Stanley, and Brougham to oust Lord Palmerston during the last days of -the Session, and the Queen, like every other prudent politician in the -country, who had been alarmed by Palmerston’s restlessness, rejoiced in -the prospect of getting rid of him. Unfortunately, the only Peer of the -three who was in earnest in this business was Lord Aberdeen; and yet, -when the 20th of July, the day for the attack, drew nigh, it was certain -that the Government would be defeated. Palmerston then played his trump -card. Lady Palmerston wrote a letter to Brougham, who was to lead the -attack, conveying to him some mysterious threat, and he promptly -betrayed his associates. “He made a miserable speech,” writes Mr. -Greville, “which enraged his colleagues and all the opponents of the -Government, who swore - -[Illustration: THE BATTLE OF GUJERAT.] - -(and it was true) that he had sold them.” Brougham’s speech, however, -contained one good point which deserved to live. It was in it that he -condemned the interference, not only of our regular diplomatic body in -the affairs of the Mediterranean Powers, but also the interference of -“that mongrel sort of monster--half nautical, half political--diplomatic -vice-admirals, speculative ship-captains, observers of rebellion, and -sympathisers therewith.” The Government were in a minority in the House, -but they contrived to get a majority of twelve by proxies, in obtaining -which Lady Palmerston had displayed marvellous address. Thus was the -great game of faction played at the expense of the people in the early -years of the Queen’s reign. Not that the people cared much about the -matter, for it was only those who were behind the scenes who could -fairly appreciate what Lord Palmerston’s spirited policy really meant. -It was Radical, but it was reckless; and not only the Queen, but every -well-informed statesman--including Liberals like Mr. Cobden and Mr. -Bright--simply lived in daily terror, lest the Foreign Secretary might -suddenly involve the country in a wanton and purposeless European war. - -Another important debate was raised by Lord Beaumont, on the 14th of -May, on French intervention in Rome. The States of the Church had long -been preparing for a revolt against Papal misgovernment. Pius IX. -therefore determined to modify the policy of his predecessors, and a -hapless scheme for satisfying the democracy, by appointing lay -councillors to work with or check a priestly government was tried--the -Pope refusing to bate one jot or tittle of his temporal authority. The -lay councillors could only meet and debate. They could not initiate -reforms. No sooner had this constitution been granted than the -revolution swept over Italy, and the Romans demanded the same -concessions as had been extorted by the Neapolitans. Concessions were -given with the intention that they should be withdrawn. Rossi--once -French ambassador at Rome--was made Prime Minister, and to extricate the -country from financial embarrassment, he proposed to mortgage the -property of the Church. He was, however, assassinated when entering the -Capitol; and then the Cardinals began to retract the concessions which -had been made to Liberalism. The people rose, insisting that the Pope -should protect the Constitution, and assuring him of their fidelity. He -then fled to Gaeta. Attempts to reconcile the Pontiff and his people -failed. The Roman Republic was proclaimed, and peace established, when -suddenly France interfered to restore his Holiness. It was to prevent -France from having a pretext for interfering in Italy that Lord Minto’s -mission was undertaken, and thus another failure had to be debited to -Lord Palmerston’s foreign policy. Naturally Lords Aberdeen and Brougham -taunted the Government with the failure of the Minto mission. But taunts -were powerless to extort from Ministers a statement of their relation to -the French expedition. In the House of Commons, however, those who -objected to French interference with the Roman people succeeded in -obtaining from Lord Palmerston an expression of disapproval of the -course which France had taken; but that was all. - -Far and away the most important foreign debate of the Session was that -which Mr. Osborne raised on the Austro-Hungarian question in July. -Hungary had been crushed by the aid which Russia, unrebuked or -unrestrained by the shadow of a protest from Palmerston, had given her -Austrian masters; and the Liberal Party, always jealous of Austria as -the representative of Absolutist ideas, were wrathful accordingly. But -the discussion had no practical result. It was merely marked by a -declaration from Lord Palmerston, which came too late to be useful, to -the effect that the heart and soul of the country were enlisted on the -side of Hungary. - -For Englishmen no debate was graver than the one on the state of the -nation, which Mr. Disraeli raised at the end of the Session. He -attributed the distress in the country to Free Trade, and he attacked -every branch of Ministerial policy. But the weak point of his brilliant -harangue was that it meant nothing, for not only was he unable to take -over the Government himself, but he had no practical proposal to make, -save his insinuated suggestion to restore Protection. Sir Robert Peel’s -speech, however, carried the House in favour of the Government. It was a -complete vindication of his fiscal policy, and its conclusion was -memorable, because in it he traced our immunity from revolutionary -excesses to his abandonment of taxes on food in 1846. - -Early in the year the Queen was disturbed by evil tidings from India. -Hard fighting was reported from the banks of the Chenab. The Sikhs, it -was true, were in retreat; but our victory was a barren one, as we -captured neither prisoners, guns, nor standards, and sacrificed two of -our Generals (Cureton and Havelock), who fell at the head of their -regiments. In losing Cureton, her Majesty lost the finest cavalry -officer in her service. The fact was that, though we had conquered, we -had not subdued the Sikhs at the end of our first war with them. In -April, 1848, a Sikh chief murdered two British officers at Multan. This -was followed by a general outbreak, which was met on the whole -successfully by the desperate efforts of Lieutenant Edwardes and a mere -handful of men. Multan was besieged in June, 1848; but 5,000 of our Sikh -auxiliaries deserted to the enemy, and our army had to retreat. We had -not enough troops in the Punjab to control the rising, and our -auxiliaries under the Maharajah were not trustworthy. On the other hand, -the rebel chief Shere Sing, at the beginning of 1849, had 40,000 men -under his orders, and once again British supremacy in India was -trembling in the balance. On the 5th of March, however, still worse news -came to London. Lord Gough, with inconceivable recklessness, had, on the -14th of January, attacked the enemy in a strong position at -Chillianwalla with a small British force worn out by fatigue. The -conditions of the combat ensured disaster. Our troops, it is true, took -the Sikh positions, but during - -[Illustration: THE BRITISH TROOPS ENTERING MULTAN.] - -the night had to abandon them. The loss of life on our side was -enormous, and Lord Gough, though he fought like a hero in the thickest -of the _mêlée_, was not to be found at a critical moment to give orders. -The news of this disaster was received with universal indignation. The -Government attempted to allay public feeling by appointing Sir William -Gomm to succeed Lord Gough; but as Sir William was believed to be -equally incompetent, a demand for Sir Charles Napier’s appointment -became clamant. “We dined,” writes Lord Malmesbury, in his Diary on the -4th of March, “with the Colchesters, and were introduced to Sir Charles -Napier. He is a little - -[Illustration: SIR HARRY SMITH.] - -man, with grey hair brushed back from his face, with an immense hooked, -pointed nose, small eyes, and wears spectacles, very like the -conventional face of a Jew. He is appointed to retrieve our affairs in -India, and when the Duke of Wellington named him to the post he at first -hesitated, until the Duke told him if he did not go he would go -himself.”[3] Why did Napier hesitate? Because, it seems, the Directors -of the East India Company not only objected to his appointment, but -threatened to prevent him from having a seat on the Council, an insult -which Napier could hardly brook. “You have no idea of the difficulties -I have had in dealing with these men,” said Sir John Cam Hobhouse, then -President of the Indian Board of Control, to Mr. Greville. “I have -brought the Government, the Duke of Wellington, _and the Queen_ all to -bear upon them, and all in vain.” Mr. Greville advised Hobhouse to bring -another power--that of the House of Commons--to bear on the Company. In -other words, he advised the Government to go down boldly and inform -Parliament that they had appointed Napier, and if the Directors of the -Company refused to pay his salary as a Member of Council, to ask the -House to vote it. The Cabinet appointed Napier, and the Directors -acquiesced, fearing to face the responsibility of thwarting the -Government in doing what the Queen and the country desired. - -But before Gough could be recalled, he redeemed the disaster of -Chillianwalla at Gujerat. The news of this successful battle, which was -fought on the 21st of February, reached the Queen on the 1st of April. -It meant that the crisis in India was over, and it lifted from her mind -the burden of a supreme anxiety. Multan, too, had fallen, and finally -the East India Company, admitting at last that it was impossible to -protect their frontier from attack, annexed the Punjab on the 29th of -March, 1849, thus closing the history of the Sikhs as an independent -nation. England had found in them the most fearless and formidable of -enemies. Since the annexation of their country, they have been the -staunchest and the most loyal of the Queen’s Indian subjects. - -One serious colonial dispute must be noticed, for it led to an early -experiment in “boycotting.” Lord Grey, on the 4th of September, 1848, by -an Order in Council, had turned the Cape of Good Hope into a convict -settlement. The colonists resented this act with the hottest -indignation. Angry meetings were held at Cape Town; and the Governor, -Sir Harry Smith, was violently blamed because he refused to take on -himself the responsibility of suspending the “injurious and degrading -measure.” When the first convict ship, the _Neptune_, arrived in Simon’s -Bay on the 19th of September, the church bells in Cape Town were tolled -in half-minute time. The Municipality demanded that the vessel be sent -back. The populace, in mass meetings, adopted what they called “the -Pledge”--an obligation to “drop connection with any person who may -assist convicted felons.” In fact, the process which in Ireland has -recently been termed “boycotting” was resorted to, and supplies were -refused to the army, navy, and all Government establishments. The law -was impotent in face of such opposition, and very soon the Governor, Sir -Harry Smith, was compelled to bake his own bread even in his own house. -The colonists finally triumphed. The Order in Council was withdrawn, so -far as it referred to the Cape, and the _Neptune_ left, without having -landed a single convict. The episode is one of the earliest instances on -record of the successful application of “boycotting” to defeat an -unpopular policy. - - - - -CHAPTER XXII. - -FAMILY CARES AND ROYAL DUTIES. - - Education of the Prince of Wales--Selection of Mr. Birch as - Tutor--The Queen’s Jealousy of her Parental Authority--Her Letter - to Melbourne on the Management of her Nursery--Her Ideas on - Education--Prince Albert’s Plans for the Education of the Prince of - Wales--Stockmar’s Advice--The Visit to Ireland--The Queen at - Waterford--“Rebel Cork” _en fête_--The Visit to Dublin--Viceregal - Festivities--The Visit to the National Model Schools--Shiel’s - Speech--The Queen and the Duke of Leinster--Farewell at - Kingstown--The Queen Dips the Royal Ensign--Loyal Ulster--The Visit - to the Linen Hall--Lord Clarendon on the Queen’s Visit--A Cruise on - the Clyde--Home in Balmoral--The Queen’s “Bothie”--The Queen’s - University of Ireland--First Plans for the Great - Exhibition--Opening of the London Coal Exchange--The Queen’s - Barge--Death of Queen Adelaide. - - -In April, 1849, Prince Albert is found writing a letter to the Dowager -Duchess of Gotha announcing a very important event in the Queen’s -family. “The children,” he says, “grow more than well. Bertie (the -Prince of Wales) will be given over in a few weeks into the hands of a -tutor, whom we have found in a Mr. Birch, a young, good-looking, amiable -man.” Mr. Birch, subsequently Rector of Prestwich, near Manchester, was -eminently qualified for the grave and delicate duty for which the Queen -selected him. He had taken high honours at Cambridge, and had been not -only Captain of the School, but had also served as an under-master at -Eton. Yet Mr. Birch can hardly be credited with the Scheme of Education -adopted in the Royal Family. That had been arranged by the Queen -herself, in consultation with her consort and Baron Stockmar. Her fixed -idea was that the heart as well as the head must be trained, and that -not only must the education of her children be truly moral, but it must -be essentially English. She resolved to discover the kind of tutor whom -she could trust, and then, having found him, to trust him implicitly. - -The Queen, it may here be said, has ever set an example to women of -exalted rank and station by reason of the undeviating support she has -given to those who undertook the education of her children. But in doing -this her Majesty has been most jealous in asserting her parental rights, -and punctilious in recognising the high responsibilities which they -involve. As far back as 1842, in a very pretty letter to Lord Melbourne, -she asked him for advice about the reorganisation of her nursery, and a -question came up as to the choice of the lady who should superintend it. -The Queen, accepting the fact that her public duties prevented her from -personally managing the education of her family as completely as she -might have wished, fully admitted that it was necessary to appoint a -lady of high rank and culture for that purpose. But then arose the -difficulty of satisfying her Majesty’s desire to retain in her own hands -the completest headship of her family. A governess of high rank really -competent to do the work as the Queen meant that it should be done - -[Illustration: VICTORIA CASTLE, KILLINEY--BRAY HEAD IN THE DISTANCE.] - -might choose to consider herself as an official responsible to the -country first, and to the parents of the Royal children afterwards. -Against such an idea the Queen most resolutely set her face. “I feel,” -her Majesty writes, on behalf of herself and her husband, that “she (the -Royal governess) ought to be responsible only to _us_, and _we_ to the -country and nation.”[4] It was in pursuance of this idea that her -Majesty made great sacrifices to keep her children as closely as -possible in contact with her. Many curious memoranda from her pen exist, -and through them all there runs the same thought--simplicity and -domesticity must be the leading characteristics of the training of the -Royal family. For example, whenever it was possible, the Queen insisted -on retaining in her own hands the _religious_ education of her family, -and it is now known that she did this from a dread lest their minds -might at the most plastic period of life receive a sectarian bias. High -Anglicanism was then militant, and many intrigues were set on foot by -its professors to effect a lodgment in the Palace. The education of the -Princess Royal, afterwards Princess Imperial of Germany, was almost -entirely supervised and directed by the Queen herself, and with results -much appreciated in Germany, where, through her tact, culture, high -character, and strong common sense, her Imperial Highness has won for -herself a position of unique political and social influence. The -education of the Prince of Wales, however, now came more directly under -the hands of Prince Albert; and one point of the highest importance to -decide was whether it should be conservative or - -[Illustration: ROYAL VISIT TO IRELAND: THE QUEEN LEAVING KINGSTOWN.] - -liberal in its character. Prince Albert decided that it must be liberal -in this sense, that it should prepare the Heir Apparent for taking his -position in a changeful state of society, whose institutions were, to a -great extent, in a transition stage. Every effort was to be made to -prevent him from getting into his mind a notion that existing -institutions were _sacrosanct_, and that resistance to all change was a -sacred and patriotic duty. The history of George III. had evidently not -been studied in vain. “The proper duty of Sovereigns in this country,” -wrote Stockmar to Prince Albert, “is not to take the lead in change, but -to act as a balance-wheel on the movements of the social body.” Above -all, it was determined that the education of the young Prince must be at -bottom English, and not foreign. Furnished with these principles to -guide him, and with general instructions to make the basis of the young -Prince’s training as broad and comprehensive as possible--to make it -scientific as well as classical--Mr. Birch essayed his arduous task, -aided not a little by shrewd advice from Bishop Wilberforce and Sir -James Clark, the Queen’s favourite physician. - -The sweetest days of summer were clouded for the Queen in 1849 by -painful memories of the shock she received on the 19th of May. On that -day an Irishman named Hamilton, with a morbid craving for notoriety, -tried to shoot her when she was driving with her children in her -carriage down Constitution Hill. Her Majesty, with great tact, engaged -the attention of her little ones by conversation, and with a sign -directed her coachman to drive on as if nothing had happened, so that -her husband, who was riding in advance, knew nothing of the affair--not -even of the attempt of the mob to “lynch” Hamilton. His pistol was -loaded with blank cartridge, but in spite of that he was sentenced to -seven years’ transportation. - -It has been said that Ireland, exhausted by the abortive rebellion of -1848, had been settling down into sullen tranquillity. There were many -signs visible of a better feeling towards the Government in the country. -The Queen accordingly suggested that it might be well to take advantage -of the improving condition of things, and pay a Royal visit to Ireland. -Her Majesty, however, primarily desired that the Irish people should -benefit, and not be burdened, by the presence of Royalty. She therefore -expressed a wish that the visit should not be made in such a form as to -put the country, which had suffered so much from distress, to any great -expense. Prince Albert, ever practical, suggested that in that case the -best way of carrying out the Queen’s idea was to make this visit a -simple yachting cruise. The Queen, he said, might call at the ports of -Cork, Waterford, Wexford, Dublin, and Belfast on her annual journey to -the North of Scotland, and perchance touch at Glasgow, thereby -compensating it for the loss of the Royal visit in 1847. Lord Clarendon -fully endorsed the views of the Queen and her husband in a letter to -Lord John Russell. “Everything,” he wrote, “tends to secure for the -Queen an enthusiastic reception, and the one drawback, which is the -general distress of all classes, has its advantage, for it will enable -the Queen to do what is kind and considerate to those who are -suffering.” - -On the 27th of June the official intimation that the Queen was to visit -Ireland was received by the Irish people with every manifestation of -delight. If there were some who, rebels at heart, sympathised little -with the tone of popular feeling, they concealed their aversion. The sex -of the Sovereign indeed ensured her a courteous reception, from a nation -proud of its gallantry, and justly renowned for the warmth of its -hospitality. It was then finally decided that the visit should be made -when Parliament rose. On the 27th of August the Queen, Prince Albert, -and their four eldest children accordingly embarked for Ireland. “It is -done!” writes the amiable and somewhat effusive Lady Lyttelton, who -watched the squadron from the windows of Osborne, till it faded from her -eyes. “England’s fate is afloat ... and _we_ are left lamenting.” There -was, however, no serious cause for anxiety. When the Royal squadron -steamed into the Cove of Cork, in the golden light of a summer sunset, -the air was soon gleaming with rockets, and bonfires, kindled by the -excitable and kindly peasantry, blazed on every height in welcome of -their Queen. The next morning, the 3rd of August, brought a happy omen. -The day was dull and grey, but no sooner did the Queen set her foot on -land at the Cove--since called Queenstown in honour of the event--than a -sudden sunburst lit up the scene with dazzling radiance. The Royal party -in the _Fairy_ steamed up “the pleasant waters of the river Lee,” and -all along the route crowds of loyal people lined the banks, cheering the -Queen and her family as she passed along. In Cork itself--“rebel -Cork”--there was no sign of disaffection. Nothing could be warmer or -more cordial than the welcome accorded to her Majesty, who was touched -by the hearty gaiety and good humour of her excitable hosts. A true -kindly Celtic welcome, such as any Sovereign might have envied, made her -experiences of Cork sunny memories for many long years afterwards. The -extreme beauty of the women seems, however, to have produced an equally -deep impression on her Majesty, who refers to this point in her diary of -the visit. - -On the 4th of August the Royal party proceeded to Waterford, which they -reached in the afternoon. Curiously enough, one of the ships in their -squadron of escort had actually been stationed there two years -previously, to overawe the rebellious people. Now all these dark and -bitter memories seemed to have passed away. Waterford vied with Cork in -its loyal demonstration, and the feeling of regret was universal that -the Royal party did not land and go through the town. Prince Albert and -his two sons, however, steamed up to the city from the anchorage -opposite Duncannon fort, ten miles from the town. Next came the visit to -Dublin--never to be forgotten in the annals of the Irish capital. - -It was on the 5th of August, as the sun was going down, that the Royal -squadron reached Kingstown--threading its way with some difficulty -through the craft, gay with joyful bunting, that crowded the sea. The -Queen was greatly struck by the picturesque appearance of the place, and -when she and the Prince landed next morning, amidst a salute from the -men-of-war in the harbour, her reception was a revelation even to those -who had anticipated that she would be lovingly greeted. Never was there -such cheering--especially from the ladies, whose hearts were captivated -by the Royal children. If, said one old lady, the Queen would only -consent to call one of the young princes Patrick, all Ireland would die -for her. The Royal party soon arrived at the Viceregal Lodge, in the -Phœnix Park, and the routefrom Sandymount Station was again lined by -crowds of enthusiastic and loyal sightseers. It was noted that even the -poorest houses were gay with flowers. “It was a most wonderful and -striking spectacle,” says the Queen, in her notes of her visit--“such -masses of human beings, so enthusiastic, so excited, and yet perfect -order maintained.” All that was worth seeing in Dublin was seen, and the -people were charmed with the simple, gracious bearing of her Majesty, -and the ease and freedom with which she went among them. A memorable -visit was made by the Queen to the National Model Schools, where she and -the Prince were introduced by Archbishop Whateley to the venerable -Archbishop Murray, a picturesque and patriarchal Catholic prelate, whose -saintly life and generous liberal ideas had previously attracted the -attention of Prince Albert. His Grace had indeed risked much by -protecting these schools against the attacks of some of the bigots of -his church, and the Queen was powerfully impressed with the excellence -of the system of instruction given at them. Speaking of this interesting -episode in the House of Commons, Richard Lalor Shiel--the last of the -great Irish rhetoricians--said, “Amongst the most remarkable incidents -that occurred when the Queen was in Ireland was her visit to the schools -of the National Board of Education, which took place (by accident, of -course) before she visited the College of the Holy and Undivided -Trinity. It was a fine spectacle to see the consort, so worthy of her, -attended by the representatives of the Presbyterian Church, by the -Protestant Archbishop of Dublin, and by the Catholic Archbishop of -Dublin--with those venerable ecclesiastics at her side, differing in -creed, but united by the common brotherhood of Christianity in the -performance of one of the noblest duties which their common Christianity -prescribed; it was a fine thing to see the Sovereign of a great empire -surrounded by groups of those little children who gazed on her with -affectionate amazement, while she returned their looks with fondness -almost maternal; and, better than all, it was noble and thrilling, -indeed, to see the emotions by which that great lady was moved when her -heart beat with a high and holy aspiration that she might live to see -the benefits of education carried out in their full and perfect -development.” There was a levée, of course, at which four thousand -persons attended to pay their respects to their Sovereign. There was a -brilliant review of the troops in the Phœnix Park, followed by visits to -the Royal Irish Academy, the College of Surgeons, and the Royal Dublin -Society, at whose cattle-shows Prince Albert was a frequent competitor. -His speech, in reply to an Address from the Society, attracted much -attention at the time, on account of his sound advice on the economic -condition of Ireland, and the grateful thanks which he gave to the Irish -people for their marks of warm attachment to the Queen and her family. -The Prince was one of the first rural economists to impress on the -chiefs of the Society the necessity for anticipating impending changes -in agriculture. He advised them to stimulate to the utmost -stock-breeding in Ireland. - -[Illustration: VISIT OF THE QUEEN AND PRINCE ALBERT TO THE LINEN HALL, -BELFAST.] - -A visit paid by the Queen to Carton appears to have made a strong -impression on her. Carton is the seat of the Duke of Leinster, and his -delicate attentions to her and her family, and his skill in planning a -pleasant excursion for them, elicits from her pen the remark in her -“Diary” that his Grace was “one of the kindest and best of men.” The -Royal leave-taking at Kingstown was quite an affecting ceremony. The -crowd at the pier was denser than it had ever been within living memory, -and its shouts rent the air. When the Queen heard how her kind hosts -were bidding her Godspeed, she immediately climbed up on the paddle-box -and stood waving her handkerchief in token of her appreciation of their -loyalty. She directed the ship’s engines to be slowed, so that the -vessel might glide slowly past the pier. By a felicitous inspiration she -ordered the Royal Standard to be dipped three times, in honour of the -people on the shore, and as a mark of her grateful appreciation of their -affection. - -Loyal Ulster was next visited, and, as might have been expected, the -reception of the Queen in this busy hive of industry was exceptionally -effusive, even for Ireland. Belfast was _en fête_ when the Royal -visitors landed, and old folk still speak of the scene on the quay as -marking a red letter day in their lives. Bunting was streaming -everywhere in the air. Dense crowds cheering and shouting, and waving -hats and handkerchiefs, occupied every coign of vantage, and though the -Queen had only four hours to spend in the city, she contrived, under -competent guidance, to see many of the more interesting places and -institutions which illustrate the strong character of the mixed race -whose energy, ability, pertinacity, and industry have made Ulster, with -her unkindly soil and climate, the richest province in Ireland. Ulster -commands the bulk of the linen trade of the world, and, naturally, the -institutions and factories connected with that industry arrested the -Queen’s attention during her flying visit to the commercial capital of -Ireland. An alarming gale detained her the next day in Belfast Lough, -but after it blew over the Royal party steamed away to the Scottish -shore. - -The Royal visit to Ireland had two good results. It brought home to the -minds of the Irish people the fact that their country, and their -interests, were of great personal concern to the Queen and her husband. -It demonstrated to the rest of the United Kingdom the fact that the -personal attachment of the Irish people to the Monarchy was as strong as -could be desired, and that if they were rebels at heart it was not the -Queen, but the Viceregal Bureaucracy in Dublin Castle, who had soured -their blood. Everybody who had observed the effect of the Queen’s -progress through Ireland was charmed with the success of the expedition. -“I saw Lord Lansdowne last night,” writes Mr. Greville in his Journal -(14th August), “just returned from Ireland, having had an escape on the -railroad, for the train ran off the rails. He said nothing could surpass -the success of the Queen’s visit in every respect; every circumstance -favourable, no drawbacks or mistakes, all persons and parties pleased, -much owing to the tact of Lord Clarendon, and the care he had bestowed -on all the arrangements and details, which made it all go off so -admirably. The Queen herself was delighted, and appears to have played -her part uncommonly well. Clarendon, of course, was overjoyed at the -complete success of what was his own plan,[5] and satisfied with the -graciousness and attention of the Court to him. In the beginning, and -while the details were in preparation, he was considerably disgusted at -the petty difficulties that were made, but he is satisfied now. Lord -Lansdowne says the departure was quite affecting, and he could not see -it without being moved; and he thinks beyond doubt that this visit will -produce permanent good effects in Ireland.”[6] Clarendon himself was -evidently more than delighted with the effect of the Royal visit. He -informed Sir George Grey that he believed “there was not an Irishman in -Dublin who did not consider that the Queen had paid him a personal -compliment by mounting the paddle-box of her steamer as she was leaving, -and ordering the Royal Standard to be dipped in acknowledgment of the -affectionate adieus which came from the crowds on the shore.”[7] But the -odd thing was that the members of the seditious clubs who had threatened -to create disturbances when the Queen’s visit was first mooted, caught -the prevailing contagion of loyalty, and professed to be among the most -affectionate of her subjects. Still, Clarendon was far too astute a -statesman to imagine that a Royal visit would smooth away all the -difficulties of his position and administration as Viceroy. It could -not, as he acknowledges in another letter to Sir George Grey, “remove -evils which are the growth of ages.” At the same time, it indirectly -helped the country by bringing some money into it. Royalty can always -beneficially direct the expenditure of Fashion, and after the Queen had -by her example shown that there was no danger to be dreaded in visiting -Ireland, rich English tourists began to go over there holiday-making, -greatly to the advantage of the people. But when all this was apparent -to the Queen’s advisers, it seems strange that they did not then deem it -their duty to devise a plan for strengthening the golden link of the -Crown between England and Ireland. If one brief Royal visit produced -such an excellent effect, why did they not propose another? If it were -impossible to provide for the residence for the Queen regularly during a -portion of the year in Ireland, it might have been possible for the -Royal Family to arrange that in their annual visit to Balmoral they -should cruise northwards along the Irish coast, and gladden some of the -Irish towns and provinces with their presence. - -Ugly weather followed the Royal squadron from Belfast Lough to the -Clyde, but a singularly brilliant reception at Glasgow compensated the -Queen for any discomforts she may have endured on the voyage. The visit -to “the second city of the Empire,” as its inhabitants love to call it, -was all too brief, for the Festival of St. Grouse had been celebrated -two days before, and Prince Albert was eagerly desirous of pressing on -to the moors. On the evening of the 14th of August--the day of the -reception at Glasgow--he wrote to Stockmar a hurried note, deploring the -“vile passage” on the 12th from Belfast to Loch Ryan, and saying how -much he had been impressed by their procession, through five to six -hundred thousand human beings all cheering wildly in the streets of -Glasgow. - -[Illustration: CASTLETON OF BRAEMAR.] - -On the 15th of August they were at Balmoral, the Queen recording in her -“Diary” that it seemed like a dream to her after all the excitement of -their tour to be in “our dear Highland home again.” For a brief time her -Majesty was able to enjoy a real holiday. She was not much worried by -politics--which have been, after all, the chief business of her life. -The seclusion, and the dry, bracing air of Balmoral, acted like tonics -on her mind and spirits. In a letter which he wrote to Stockmar on his -thirtieth birthday, which was gaily celebrated in the family circle at -Balmoral, Prince Albert said, “Victoria is happy and cheerful, and -enjoys a love and homage in this country, of which in the summer’s tour -we have received the most striking proofs. The children are well and -grow apace. The Highlands are glorious, and the game abundant.” One of -the pleasantest of surprises was prepared for the Queen a fortnight -after her arrival. It was an excursion to a small mountain cabin, or -“bothie” as the Highlanders call it, to which she had taken a fancy at -Alt-na-Giuthasach. In “Leaves from the Journal of Our Life in the -Highlands,” the Queen gives the following description of her -expedition:--“We arrived at our little ‘bothie’ at two o’clock, and were -amazed at the transformation. There are two huts, and to the one in -which we live a wooden addition has been made. We have a charming little -dining-room, sitting-room, bedroom, and dressing-room, all _en suite_; -and there is a little room where Caroline Dawson (the Maid of Honour) -sleeps, one for her maid, and a little pantry. In the other house, which -is only a few yards - -[Illustration: AT BALMORAL: A MORNING CALL.] - -distant, is the kitchen, where the people generally sit, a small room -where the servants dine, and another, which is a sort of store-room, and -a loft above in which the men sleep. Margaret French (my maid), -Caroline’s maid, Löhlein[8] (Albert’s valet), a cook, Shackle[9] (a -footman), and Macdonald are the only people with us in the house, old -John Gordon and his wife excepted. Our rooms are delightfully papered, -the ceilings as well as walls, and very nicely furnished. We lunched as -soon as we arrived, and at three walked down (about twenty minutes’ -walk) to the loch called ‘Muich’; which some say means ‘darkness’ or -‘sorrow.’ Here we found a large boat, into which we all got, and -Macdonald, Duncan, Grant, and Coutts rowed; old John Gordon and two -others going in another boat with the net.” - -But neither the Queen nor Prince Albert was of a mind that their Irish -visit should be a fruitless one, and soon their busy brains were -brooding over schemes for Ireland which marked their interest in her -affairs. The “Godless” Colleges, which had been founded by Sir Robert -Peel, were to be opened in October. They were three in number--one in -Belfast, one in Cork, and one in Galway, and their education was to be -secular and untheological. But each College gave facilities for -conducting the spiritual training of the students under “Deans” -appointed by the various sects and churches. The Queen and her husband -had many conversations with men of light and leading of all parties in -Ireland, as to the organisation of these Colleges, and the Prince, as a -practical educationist, soon hit the blot in it. Who was to confer the -degrees? Were the Colleges to do so? Or were they to be united by the -common federating bond of a University, whose officials should guide the -examinations, and form the policy that would best advance, not the -interests of one College, but the interests of all? Her Majesty and the -Prince, when they were in Ireland, came to the conclusion that unless -the Colleges were affiliated under a University, they would soon -degenerate into sectarian seminaries. But, before taking active steps in -the matter, they laid their opinions before Sir Robert Peel. He at once -concurred in the Prince’s views; and Lord Clarendon, who had at first -felt doubtful about their soundness, ultimately accepted them also. Thus -it came to pass that the Queen’s Colleges were federated under the -Queen’s University of Ireland, and that a general desire was manifested -that Prince Albert should be the first Chancellor. This office he -declined to accept, mainly in the interest of the Queen. The Colleges -and the University, he feared, might one day become the battle-grounds -of faction, and it would then be very distressing for her Majesty to -find her husband entangled in the political blood-feuds of Ireland. -Subsequent events proved that these anticipations were correct. Lord -Clarendon ultimately accepted the Chancellorship of the Queen’s -University of Ireland. - -At this time, as has been stated, the present Castle at Balmoral was not -built. Balmoral, in fact, was simply the modest family residence of a -Highland laird, and by no means well fitted for the establishment of the -Court. However, the business of the Court and the State could not be -neglected on that account, and Ministers and officials showed great zeal -and consideration in assisting her Majesty to the utmost of their power -in transacting it in such a remote corner of her Empire. In Mr. -Greville’s Journal we have a curious entry (15th September) bearing on -this point, and illustrating the holiday life of the Queen in the -Highlands at that time. “On Monday, the 3rd,” writes Mr. Greville, “on -returning from Hillingdon, I found a summons from John Russell to be at -Balmoral on Wednesday, the 5th, at half-past two, for a Council, to -order a prayer for relief against the cholera.... I started on Wednesday -morning at half-past six, and arrived at Balmoral exactly at half-past -two. It is a beautiful road from Perth to Balmoral, particularly from -Blairgowrie to the Spittal of Glenshee, and thence to Braemar. Much as I -dislike Courts and all that appertains to them, I am glad to have made -this expedition, and to have seen the Queen and Prince in their Highland -retreat, where they certainly appear to great advantage. The place is -very pretty; the house very small. They live there without any state -whatever; they live not merely like private gentlefolks, but like very -small gentlefolks--small house, small rooms, small establishment. There -are no soldiers, and the whole guard of the Sovereign and Royal Family -is a single policeman, who walks about the grounds to keep off -impertinent intruders or improper characters. Their attendants consisted -of Lady Douro and Miss Dawson, Lady and Maid of Honour; George Anson and -Gordon; Birch, the Prince of Wales’s tutor; and Miss Hildyard, the -governess of the children. They live with the greatest simplicity and -ease. The Prince shoots every morning, returns to luncheon, and then -they walk and drive. The Queen is running in and out of the house all -day long, and often goes about alone, walks into cottages, and sits and -chats with the old women. I never before was in society with the Prince -or had any conversation with him. On Thursday morning John Russell and I -were sitting together after breakfast, when he came in and sat down with -us, and we conversed for about three-quarters of an hour. I was greatly -struck with him. I saw at once (what I had always heard) that he is very -intelligent and highly cultivated; and, moreover, that he has a -thoughtful mind, and thinks of subjects worth thinking about. He seemed -very much at his ease, very gay, pleasant, and without the least -stiffness or air of dignity. After luncheon we went to the Highland -gathering at Braemar--the Queen, the Prince, four children, and two -ladies in one pony-carriage, John Russell, Mr. Birch, Miss Hildyard, -and I in another; Anson and Gordon on the box; one groom, no more. The -gathering was at the old castle at Braemar, and a pretty sight enough. -We returned as we came, and then everybody strolled about till dinner. -We were only nine people, and it was all very easy and really -agreeable--the Queen in very good humour, and talkative; the Prince -still more so, and talking very well; no form, and everybody seemed at -their ease. In the evening we withdrew to the only room there is besides -the dining-room, which serves for billiards, library (hardly any books -in it), and drawing-room. The Queen and Prince and her ladies, and -Gordon, soon went back to the dining-room, where they had a Highland -dancing-master, who gave them lessons in reels. We (John Russell and I) -were not admitted to this exercise, so we played at billiards. In -process of time they came back, when there was a little talk, and soon -after they went to bed.”[10] - -[Illustration: THE ROYAL BARGE.] - -[Illustration: OPENING OF THE LONDON COAL EXCHANGE--ARRIVAL OF THE ROYAL -PROCESSION AT THE CUSTOM-HOUSE QUAY. (_See p. 418._)] - -Shortly before the holiday at Balmoral ended, the Queen and Prince -Albert were a little mortified to find that one of their projects, or -rather one of the Prince’s projects, was going awry. This was the -preliminary movement which was intended to lead up to the organisation -of a great International Industrial Exhibition. The idea of holding such -an exhibition had occurred to the Prince in July, 1849. It seems to have -been suggested to him by the great Frankfort Fairs of the sixteenth -century. His Royal Highness had also noticed that one or two small -pioneer exhibitions held by the Society of Arts, had produced good -effects in improving the quality of English products. He argued that an -exhibition on an international scale would produce still greater -effects, not only on our manufactures, but on those of the world. It -would be a tournament of Peace, in which the Captains of Industry would -be the competitors in the lists. - -On the 30th of July, 1849, the Prince held a conference at Buckingham -Palace with four confidential persons--Mr. Henry Cole, Mr. Francis -Fuller, Mr. Scott Russell, and Mr. Thomas Cubitt, and they resolved to -hold the exhibition if possible, not in the quadrangle of Somerset -House, as the Government had suggested, but in Hyde Park itself. They -also arranged to take steps to test the feeling of the industrial -districts on the subject before going further. But in all this -preliminary work of “sounding” influential persons, the Prince had given -peremptory orders that his name should not be publicly mentioned. -Unfortunately, Mr. Cole, with Hibernian effusiveness, had been tempted -to disobey these orders at a meeting in Dublin, much to the annoyance of -the Queen and her husband. “Praising me at meetings,” wrote his Royal -Highness to Colonel Phipps, “looks as if I were to be advertised and -used as a means of drawing a full house, &c.”--and if there was anything -which was unspeakably offensive to the Queen, it was the use of her or -her husband’s name for purposes of puffery. - -A few days after this disagreeable little episode (27th September) the -Queen and her family left Balmoral for Osborne. They broke their journey -at Howick, where they spent a night with Lord Grey, and in a few days -after that they received tidings which filled their hearts with the -utmost sorrow. The ever-faithful Anson, the Prince’s first Secretary, -died, and the Queen’s household was filled with the deepest regret. The -Queen herself wrote a touching letter to King Leopold, which shows how -her heart bled for the widow of her most zealous servant; and Lady -Lyttelton, writing on the 9th of November, says: “Every face shows how -much has been felt; the Prince and Queen in floods of tears, and quite -shut up.” All through the record of the Queen’s life, indeed, we find -evidence of the cordial relations which bound her to those who served -her. Their zeal indeed has been great, but it has been more than -equalled by her sympathetic appreciation of it. - -Colonel Phipps succeeded Mr. Anson as Privy Purse, and Colonel -(afterwards General) Grey as the Prince’s Secretary. - -When the gloom of winter began to spread over London, the loyal citizens -were sadly distressed to learn that a projected Royal visit to the city -would be robbed of more than half its _éclat_. The Queen had promised to -come and open the New Coal Exchange on the 30th of October. But alas, -her Majesty had sickened with the chicken-pox, and the ceremony was -performed by Prince Albert alone. Yet the Londoners were not without -compensation. This visit to the City was memorable because of the first -public appearance in a pageant of State, of the Prince of Wales, and the -Princess Royal. The spectacle revived picturesque memories of “the -spacious times of Great Elizabeth,” for the Royal party proceeded to -London by the silent highway of the river. Twenty-seven brawny watermen -rowed the Queen’s Barge from Westminster Stairs to the City, and, -strange to say, for once the fog and murky atmosphere of London in early -winter cleared away, and the ceremony took place in the sunshine, under -a sky of Italian brilliancy. The crowds covered every possible corner -where human beings could cluster. The long lines of shipping on each -bank of the Pool were bright with bunting, and black with swarming -sightseers. The cheering was overpowering when the fair-haired young -Prince was seen in the barge, and both the Royal children, though they -went through the ordeal quietly and prettily, were obviously a little -frightened and nervous. “The Prince,” wrote Lady Lyttelton to Mrs. -Gladstone, “was perfect in taste and manner, putting the Prince of Wales -forward without affectation, and very dignified and kind himself.” The -procession on the water was gorgeous in the extreme. State liveries were -blazing everywhere. Civic costumes of feudal times kindled many ancient -memories; and the Lord Mayor’s barge, which led the way, was a miracle -of garish splendour. Lady Lyttelton says that what struck her most was -not only the cheering, but the affectionate expression on the faces of -the people when they craned forward to get a glimpse of the little -Prince and Princess. But of one civic speaker and his speech in the -Rotunda her ladyship says it “was most pompous; and he is ridiculous in -voice and manner. And his immense size, and cloak, and wig, and great -voice addressing the Prince of Wales about his being the ‘pledge and -promise of a long race of kings,’ looked quite absurd. Poor Princey did -not seem at all to guess what he meant.” The Queen was rather -sad-hearted at missing this first public reception of her children, -which was the occasion of such an outburst of popular enthusiasm, loyal -huzzas, and joy-bells ringing all over London town, not to mention -thunderous salutations from the Tower guns--“enough,” says Lady -Lyttelton, “to drive one mad.” - -On the 2nd of December the Royal home was turned into a house of -mourning. On that day the good Dowager-Queen Adelaide passed away from -among the small but appreciative circle of friends and relatives who -admired and loved her. The Queen’s grief was deep and sincere. “Though -we daily expected this sad event,” writes her Majesty to King Leopold, -“yet it came so suddenly when it did come, as if she had never been ill, -and I can hardly realise the truth now.... She was truly motherly in her -kindness to us and our children, and it always made her happy to be with -us and to see us!”[11] - -Queen Adelaide, it may be here noted, was one of the earliest of funeral -reformers. Struck by the wastefulness and the bad taste of funereal -pageants, she left what the Queen calls “the most affecting directions” -for her burial, ordering that it should be conducted with the utmost -simplicity and privacy--the only exceptional arrangement being that she -desired her coffin to be borne by seamen, in homage to the memory of her -husband, William IV., the Sailor-King. A simple-hearted, kindly, -Christian lady, whose hands were ever swift in doing good--such is a -brief abstract of the life and character of the Dowager-Queen Adelaide. - -[Illustration: THE CHAMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES, BRUSSELS.] - - - - -CHAPTER XXIII. - -CLOUDS IN THE EAST AND ELSEWHERE. - - Political Wreckage--Force triumphs over Opinion--The State of - France--Election of Prince Charles Louis Bonaparte as - Prince-President--The Sad Plight of Italy--Palmerston’s - Anti-Austrian Policy--Defeat of Piedmont--The Fall of Venice--Fall - of the Roman Republic--A Cromwellian Struggle in Prussia--The - Queen’s Partisanship--Her Prussian Sympathies--The Hungarian - Refugees in Turkey--A Diplomatic Conflict with Russia--Opening of - Parliament--Mr. Disraeli and Local Taxation--Parliamentary - Reform--The Jonahs of the Cabinet--The Dispute with Greece--Don - Pacifico’s case--Coercion of Greece--Lord Palmerston meekly accepts - an Insult from Russia--French Intervention--A Diplomatic Conflict - in France--Recall of the French Ambassador--False Statements in - Parliament--The Queen’s Indignation--The Don Pacifico Debate--The - _Civis Romanus sum_ Doctrine--Palmerston’s Victory--The West - African Slave Trade. - - -When the year 1850 opened the counter-revolution had been accomplished. -Much political and social wreckage disfigured the Continent, but the -tempest which had produced it was over. What remained was an uneasy -after-swell agitating the restless ocean of discontent. Force had, in -fact, triumphed over opinion, and Europe was at last tranquil. - -In France, after Louis Philippe fell, the country was left a prey to -four factions or parties. One demanded an absolute monarchy; another -demanded a parliamentary monarchy; a third demanded a military empire, -based on universal suffrage; a fourth demanded a republic. The partisans -of the republic triumphed in the first instance. But it fell, a victim -to the voracity of its own children. The Government of Lamartine was -poetic and Utopian, - -[Illustration: LOUIS KOSSUTH (1850).] - -and its experiment of creating national workshops in which the workers -were to be paid by the State, was not only fantastic but fatal. The -State found it had no work to give. It found it had no money to spend in -wages; and the artisans of the national establishments were accordingly -advised to join the army. This disastrous adventure in Socialism was -followed by another insurrection in Paris--in which, by the way, the -Archbishop of Paris and thousands of less eminent persons were slain. -What Prince Bismarck would call the “psychological moment” for the -interposition of a clever adventurer with a suggestion of compromise had -manifestly arrived. Accordingly, the advent of Prince Charles Louis -Bonaparte was hailed with a sense of relief by all parties--wearied to -despair by the futile conflicts of factions. Although M. Grévy vainly -endeavoured by a motion in the Chamber to procure the proscription of -the Prince, his Highness was elected President of the Republic on the -10th of December, 1848, by five and a half million out of seven and a -half million votes. He took the oath to preserve the Republic, without -compunction. But when the year 1850 opened, he was busily plotting for -its destruction, and manufacturing failure for its institutions. - -The plight of Italy was a sad one. Austria had successfully met the -attempt to seize her Italian provinces. She had crushed Piedmont so -completely that, in 1849, there was danger lest she might be tempted to -invade that State, and thus provoke the interference of Republican -France. Lord Palmerston accordingly endeavoured to mediate between -Austria and Piedmont. The idea of mediation was chimerical, for Austria, -having made heavy sacrifices to hold her Cisalpine territories, and -having succeeded in doing so by force, could hardly be expected to -accept with equanimity Lord Palmerston’s favourite dogma, that the -Italian provinces of Austria were to her not a source of strength, but -of weakness. Austria repudiated all proposals for a conference of -mediation, unless they were limited to discuss what Piedmont owed her as -an indemnity, and the guarantees which could be given against -Piedmontese turbulence. Diplomacy had well-nigh exhausted its resources -in endeavouring to bring Austria to submit the points at issue to a -Congress at Brussels, when the whole situation was suddenly changed. -Joseph Mazzini and his school, convinced that Austria was checked by -France and England, overthrew the Governments of Florence and Rome, -which were under Austrian tutelage. Revolution headed by a monarch had -failed. Its victory, argued Mazzini, under Republican leadership, would -be a signal triumph for the Republican idea. The success of Mazzini and -his followers led to the formation of a violent anti-Austrian Ministry -in Piedmont. - -But again Austria triumphed. Piedmont was crushed at Novara on the 23rd -of March, 1849. Venice was on the eve of surrender, and when the Pope, -who had fled to Gaeta, appealed to the Catholic Powers for aid, Austria -was thus quite free to help him. The prospect of Austria bringing -Central as well as North Italy under her sway alarmed France, and -accordingly the Republican Government in Paris sent an army under -Oudinot, which suppressed the Republican Government at Rome. The Grand -Duke of Tuscany was restored, the revolution in the Sicilies quenched in -blood, and the dream of Italian independence dissipated. Nor was this -the only triumph of Absolutism under Austria. The revolution in Hungary -was suppressed, but not till Russia came to the assistance of Austria. - -In Prussia, too, the monarchy, after a Cromwellian struggle with a -factious Parliament, had completely restored its authority, and to -Prussia the smaller German States now began to turn for leadership in -consolidating themselves into a German Empire. Unhappily the King of -Prussia failed to respond to this feeling when Austria was struggling -with the revolution in Italy. At the beginning of 1850 he accordingly -found the feeling in favour of unifying Germany opposed by three great -Powers--France, Russia, and Austria, the last, indeed, claiming, on -behalf of the Archduke John, to be the executive head and heir of the -defunct German Confederation of 1815. By the Constitution of Kremsir, -Austria had consolidated her possessions--German, Magyar, Sclavonic, and -Italian--into one federal State, and, in a sense, she had thereby -withdrawn from the German Confederation. Her policy of obstructing -consolidation in disintegrated Germany was therefore alike ungenerous -and unjust. - -Through this maze of difficulty the Queen and Prince Albert steered a -clear course. They were both partisans--one might say strong and zealous -partisans--of Teutonic consolidation under Prussia. Austria, they held, -had played for her own hand, and, by adopting Schwarzenberg’s policy of -consolidating her dominions in purely Austrian interests, she had -abandoned her claim to guide the destinies of the smaller German States, -in purely German interests. But, however strongly the Queen felt on this -point, her influence was used to moderate the extravagant anti-Austrian -antipathies of Lord Palmerston, and it largely contributed to keep the -country out of war. At last, however, a cloud rose in the East which -threatened us with calamity. - -When Austria, by summoning to her aid the armed hordes of Russia, -stamped out the movement for Hungarian independence, several Hungarian -and Polish patriots--Kossuth, Ban, and others--fled to Turkey. Austria -and Russia demanded their extradition. The Sultan refused to surrender -the refugees, and De Titoff and Stürmer, Russian and Austrian -ambassadors, suspended diplomatic relations with the Porte. The Sultan -appealed to Britain and France against this outrageous violation of the -unity of nations. Britain remonstrated in firm but courteous language, -and Austria and Russia both withdrew their demands, but not before the -British fleet had moved within the forbidden limits of the Dardanelles, -in anticipation of a refusal. Lord Palmerston’s apology for thus -violating the treaty of 1841 was that the fleet had been driven into -forbidden waters by “stress of weather.” As there was notoriously no -“stress of weather,” this explanation merely irritated the Czar, and -planted in his heart the germ of that fierce hatred of England, which -culminated in the Crimean War. - -Parliament was opened on the 31st of January, 1850, by Commission, and, -as had been anticipated, the Protectionists made, not an attack, but -rather a reconnoissance in force against the Government. During the -recess they had gone through the country painting the darkest pictures -of the condition of England. According to their speeches, one would have -imagined that another famine had smitten the nation; and for all this -pessimism there was but one justification. No doubt everybody who -depended on the soil for a livelihood was suffering from distress. -Prices had fallen, and farmers had not taken kindly to the new order of -things. But the masses of the people, especially in industrial centres, -were enjoying greater comfort than ever. The revenue was showing signs -of buoyancy; the foreign trade of the - -[Illustration: THE WHITE DRAWING-ROOM, WINDSOR CASTLE.] - -country had increased, and pauperism had diminished. All these cheering -facts were concealed from the public by the Conservative agitators, who -concentrated attention on one point--the admitted and deplorable -distress of the landed interest. The real desire of the Tory party at -this time was to turn out the Government and restore Protection. The -Duke of Richmond’s indiscreet speech on the Address in the House of -Lords proves that. But, conscious of the difficulty of suddenly -upsetting the fiscal system which was based on Free Trade, they -concealed their real purpose. Mr. Disraeli therefore supported a -Protectionist amendment to the Address in reply to the Queen’s Speech, -on the ground that the landed interests were entitled to a certain -amount of relief from public burdens, in compensation for the loss of -Protection. On the 19th of February, Mr. Disraeli had to show his hand. -He then moved for a committee to revise the Poor Law so as to mitigate -distress among the agricultural class. This debate is worth noticing, -because it may be said to have definitely originated the perennial -movement for local taxation reform, which is always an object of -enthusiasm to what may be called the country party, when out of office. -Mr. Disraeli’s idea was to transfer from local rates to the Imperial -Treasury (1), Poor Law establishment charges; (2), rates which had -nothing to do with the relief of the poor, and were only raised by - -[Illustration: THE PIRÆUS, ATHENS.] - -Poor Law machinery as a matter of convenience--such as rates for -registration of births, deaths, and marriages, for getting up jury -lists, and the like; and (3), the rate for supporting the casual poor. -His case was not decided on its merits. Members did not look to what was -in the motion, but to what was behind it, namely, the restoration of -Protection, or an increase in Income Tax to provide funds for the relief -of local burdens. Sir James Graham’s frank admission, as a landlord, -that relief in the rate would be swallowed by an increase in the rents, -and that it was the landlord and not the tenant who would profit, -determined many, who did not deny the abstract justice of Mr. Disraeli’s -contention, to vote against him. The sensational incident in the debate -was the speech of Mr. Gladstone, who supported Mr. Disraeli against his -own leaders. In fact, he replied to Sir James Graham. Despite the -support of Peel, the Government, instead of having a majority of forty, -as they expected, were saved from defeat only by a majority of twenty. -From that day till now a clever debater, by a skilful motion in favour -of relief of local taxation, has always been able to weaken the majority -of the strongest of Ministries. Local taxation is the vulnerable point -of Governments, and it is the one subject with which they all seem -afraid to deal in a bold and comprehensive spirit. All they do is to -denounce the evil in Opposition, and palliate its existence when in -Power. - -The agitation for Parliamentary Reform had increased. Some of the -Peelites, notably Sir J. Graham, had warned Lord John Russell that they -were in favour of an extension of the franchise, and Lord John himself -had abandoned the doctrine of finality. Mr. Hume, therefore, brought -forward his annual motion on the 28th of February, hinting plainly that -he would have no objection to extend its scope so as to include female -franchise, and the substitution of an elective for a hereditary House of -Lords. It was quite certain that Lord John Russell was by this time of -opinion that some safe concessions might be made to the Radicals. -Several of his colleagues, however--_e.g._, Mr. Labouchere--were of a -different opinion, and it is accordingly right to say that those who -denounced Lord John’s “apostasy,” when he opposed Mr. Hume, were -somewhat unfair. Had the Prime Minister produced a Reform Bill this -Session, every question which it might be possible to deal with would -have been put aside. But as he was not likely to carry his own -colleagues with him in advocating reform, not only would this sacrifice -have been made in vain, but a Government which, in the existing state of -parties, was indispensable to the nation, would have fallen. Mr. Hume -was beaten by a vote of 242 against 96, though the Prime Minister’s -argument against him was rather a plea for delay, than a defiant “_Non -possumus_.” - -Writing on the 10th of February, Mr. Greville says in his Journal, “The -brightness of the Ministerial prospect was very soon clouded over, and -last week their disasters began. There was first of all the Greek -affair, and then the case of the Ceylon witnesses--matters affecting -Lord Palmerston and Lord Grey”--the Jonahs of the Cabinet. “The Greek -case,” continues Mr. Greville, “will probably be settled, thanks to -French mediation, but it was a bad and discreditable affair, and has -done more harm to Palmerston than any of his greater enormities. The -other Ministers are extremely annoyed at it, and at the sensation it has -produced.” The Greek case was briefly this: Mr. Finlay, a British -subject in Athens, alleged that King Otho had enclosed a bit of his land -in the Royal Garden, and demanded compensation. The King offered him the -same compensation that had been accepted as fair by other owners of -enclosed land in Mr. Finlay’s position. This Mr. Finlay refused, and he -demanded £1,500 for the land which, it was admitted, he had bought for -£10. Don Pacifico, a Portuguese Jew from Gibraltar, sought damages for -the pillage of his house by the Athenian mob. He claimed £31,534. The -value of his furniture was shown to be £2,181. The balance was supposed -to represent the value of documents proving that he had a claim on the -Portuguese Government for £27,000. Mr. Finlay and Don Pacifico had not -raised their claims in the ordinary law courts, and to the amazement of -everybody, Lord Palmerston proposed to employ the mailed might of -England to collect their bad debts. He peremptorily ordered the Greek -Government to pay these exaggerated claims, on pain of inflicting on -Greece a blockade and reprisals within twenty-four hours. On the 18th of -January, Admiral Parker, with the Mediterranean Fleet, blockaded the -Piræus--for, contrary to Lord Palmerston’s expectations, Greece refused -to comply with his demands. The Greek Government appealed for protection -to France and Russia--whose Governments being with that of Britain joint -guarantors for the independence of Greece, were justly annoyed that -their good offices had not been invoked by Lord Palmerston. Count -Nesselrode, burning to avenge the defeat of the Czar over the question -of the Hungarian refugees in Turkey, sent a remonstrance to Lord -Palmerston, which was couched in the language of bitter contempt and -studied insolence. The French Government, on the other hand, pretending -that our agent in Athens had blundered, courteously offered to extricate -Lord Palmerston from his difficulties by using the influence of France, -to compose the dispute with Greece. On the 12th of February Lord -Palmerston ordered the British Envoy to inform Admiral Parker that he -must suspend coercive operations. It was not till the 2nd of March that -these instructions arrived, and in the interval the Admiral had been -vigorously coercing the Greeks. France was naturally irritated at this -untoward incident, all the more that Lord Palmerston’s explanation of -the delay was deemed unsatisfactory. Ultimately, the matter was settled -on Greece agreeing to pay Mr. Wyse, the British Minister, £8,500 to be -distributed by him as he thought just among the claimants--the value of -Don Pacifico’s lost vouchers against the Portuguese Government to be -determined by arbitration. - -This compromise, however, was made by negotiation in London. A French -steamer conveyed the purport of it to Mr. Wyse, the British Envoy at -Athens, on the 24th of April. He, however, said that he had no -instructions from his Government to countermand his original orders, -which were to renew coercion if the French Envoy at Athens could not -induce the Greeks to submit. Coercion was therefore again applied, and -the Greek Government on the 27th submitted to Mr. Wyse’s demands. These -were more onerous in some respects than the terms agreed on by the -London Convention, and Lord Palmerston persisted in adhering to the -Athenian arrangement. M. Gros at Athens, finding he could not persuade -Mr. Wyse to act on the London Convention, had on the 21st of April -officially intimated that his action as mediator was ended. This, argued -Lord Palmerston coolly, left the British Envoy--in the absence of -instructions from England--free to renew coercion, and to enter into the -Athenian arrangement. Palmerston, in other words, claimed the right to -take advantage of his own delay, in notifying to Mr. Wyse the result of -the London Convention, to refuse to act on the finding of that -Convention. It is but fair to say that the Queen was quite as indignant -as the Government of France, at Lord Palmerston’s rude and provocative -conduct. Lord John Russell intimated to her the fact that the French -Government had met the affront with which Lord Palmerston had rewarded -their efforts to extricate him from the effect of his own blunder, by -recalling M. Drouyn de Lhuys. Her Majesty promptly directed her husband, -who acted as her confidential secretary, to send the Prime Minister one -of those curt, cutting notes, which invariably indicate her displeasure. - - “MY DEAR LORD JOHN,--Both the Queen and myself are exceedingly - sorry at the news your letter contained. We are not surprised, - however, that Lord Palmerston’s mode of doing business should not - be borne by the susceptible French Government with the same good - humour and forbearance as by his colleagues. - - “Ever yours truly, - - “ALBERT. - - “Buckingham Palace, 15th May, 1850.”[12] - -The view which the Queen took was the fair and common-sense one, namely, -that we should act on the London Convention. The Convention of London -which we made with France gave us certain terms. By an accident, for -which Palmerston was responsible, Mr. Wyse at Athens had extorted better -ones for us at Athens. It was not high policy, but sharp practice; it -was not in the spirit of enlightened diplomacy, but in the spirit of the -meanest attorneydom, that any claim to benefit by the “accident” which -had given better terms to us at Athens than at London, was pressed by -Lord Palmerston. - -But the Queen’s troubles did not end here. Her birthday was celebrated -on the 15th of May, and the absence of the French and Russian -Ambassadors from the usual Foreign Office dinner on that occasion, -naturally roused suspicion. It was not known that the French -representative had been recalled, and that France and England were in -open diplomatic conflict. What was the meaning of the absence of these -ambassadors? asked Society at the great rout at Devonshire House on the -night of the 19th. Questions to this effect were put to Ministers in -both Houses. Lord Lansdowne said that the departure of M. Drouyn de -Lhuys was purely accidental; and Lord Palmerston had the effrontery to -declare, in reply to Mr. Milner Gibson, that M. de Lhuys had merely gone -to Paris as a medium of communication between the two Governments. But -the _Times_ reported in due course that General de la Hitte, Minister of -War, had intimated from the tribune of the French Assembly that, because -Lord Palmerston’s explanations in regard to points at issue between the -two Governments were not such as France had a right to expect, “the -President had ordered General de la Hitte to recall their Ambassador -from London.” Nothing could exceed the mortification of the Queen when -she was informed of the almost simultaneous publication of these -contradictory official statements. Her detestation of equivocal and -shuffling Ministerial explanations has long passed into a proverb. Her -Majesty’s theory, in fact, is that the Minister is for the time the -trustee of the honour of the Crown, and that, especially in foreign -countries, where the relation between the British Sovereign and her -Ministers is ill understood, the Crown is held personally responsible -for what the Minister says, in all matters affecting - -[Illustration: GRAND ENTRANCE, WESTMINSTER PALACE.] - -the external relations of the kingdom. In plain English, the Queen has -always held that if a Minister tells a lie in Parliament, nine people -out of ten on the Continent will suspect that she has ordered or induced -him to tell it. Hence her indignation on reading Lord Palmerston’s reply -to Mr. Milner Gibson’s question was tinged with a feeling of personal -humiliation and shame. Public opinion was similarly excited when the -newspapers were studied, and fuller questions were immediately put to -Lord Lansdowne and Lord John Russell. They gave evasive and -prevaricating answers, attempting to explain away the French -Ambassador’s letter of recall, much to the disgust of all parties in -Parliament. The tide of anger rose higher every day that the scandal was -discussed. Lord John Russell told his brother, the Duke of Bedford, that -Ministers must defend Palmerston on this occasion, but, after the -dispute came to an end, he would have Palmerston dismissed from the -Foreign Office. “He is,” writes Mr. Greville on the 19th of May, “to see -the Queen on Tuesday, who will of course be boiling over with -indignation;” for by this time Baron Brunnow, the Russian Ambassador, -had warned Lord John that he, too, must ask to be relieved from his -post, as “it was impossible for him to stay here to be on bad terms with -Palmerston.” - -The question has often been asked, Why did English statesmen get up in -both Houses of Parliament and tell a series of falsehoods which they -knew must be discovered in forty-eight hours by official refutation from -France? The fact is, Lord Palmerston had deceived his colleagues. He -assured them that M. de Lhuys had taken back to Paris explanations so -conciliatory, that his letter of recall would be quietly cancelled. -Assured by Palmerston that he had made the cancelling of the recall a -certainty, Lord Lansdowne and Lord John Russell assumed that the letter -of recall was suppressed, and they both answered as if it never had -existed. On the 25th of May, Mr. Greville writes:--“The morning before -yesterday the Duke of Bedford came here again. He had seen Lord John -since, and heard what passed with the Queen. She was full of this -affair, and again urged all her objections to Lord Palmerston. This time -she found Lord John better disposed than heretofore, and he is certainly -revolving in his mind how the thing can be done. He does not by any -means contemplate going out himself, or breaking up the Government. What -he looks to is this, that the Queen should take the initiative, and urge -Palmerston’s removal from the Foreign Office. She is quite ready to do -this as soon as she is assured of her wishes being attended to.”[13] - -Lord John Russell screwed up his courage to the point of contemplating -the removal of Lord Palmerston from the Foreign Office to some other -department of State, he himself undertaking the duties of Foreign -Secretary along with those of the Premiership. Such a combination is -never a wise one. Even in recent times, when Lord Salisbury attempted to -unite in his own person the two offices, the strain was found to be -greater than his strength could bear; and in the case of Lord John, -whose health was at this time capricious and precarious, it was perhaps -as well that at the eleventh hour he shrank from proposing the change to -Lord Palmerston. Lord John has been accused of lack of courage in -connection with this affair. The truth is, that a perverted chivalry -prompted him to stand by Lord Palmerston. The Greek affair was hardly -defensible. But it was bruited about that the Opposition, under cover of -condemning Lord Palmerston in that special case, meant to direct a -severe attack on the foreign policy of the Government as a whole. Lord -Palmerston’s colleagues had, however, permitted themselves not only to -be identified with that policy, but had thought fit to defend every -blunder he had made in carrying it out. Lord John Russell, then, cannot -be blamed for considering that to desert the Foreign Secretary on the -Greek Question, would have been tantamount to making him the scapegoat -of the Cabinet. Hence, in spite of the Queen’s strong feeling in the -matter, it was agreed that Palmerston should not be “thrown over.” - -After much fencing between the leaders of the two parties, the first of -the attacks, which led to a series of debates almost unparalleled in our -history as displays of sustained Parliamentary eloquence, was made in -the House of Lords on the 17th of June. Lord Stanley moved a vote of -censure on the Ministry for their coercive measures in Greece, -affirming, however, the general proposition that it was the right and -duty of the Government to secure to British subjects in foreign States, -the full protection of the laws of those States. The scene was a -memorable one. The House was crowded in every part, and the conflict -began with an amusing farce. The Peeress’s Gallery was crammed to -overflowing, and when Lady Melbourne and Lady Newport, under Lord -Brougham’s escort, went to their places, they found them filled, and -were ignominiously turned away. Brougham, however, espied Bunsen, the -Prussian Minister, in the gallery, and requested him to retire to his -proper seat in the Ambassadors’ quarter, but he refused. Then Brougham -went down to his own place, and avenged himself on Bunsen by calling the -attention of their lordships to the fact that there was “a stranger in -the Peeress’s Gallery,” adding, “if he does not come down, I shall move -your lordships to enforce the order of the House. It is the more -intolerable as he has a place assigned to him in another part, and he is -now keeping the room of _two Peeresses_.” As Bunsen was notoriously a -fat, overgrown man, Brougham’s malicious personality was received with -shouts of laughter. But it had no effect on the stolid Prussian, who -kept his seat till Sir Augustus Clifford, Usher of the Black Rod, made -him retire.[14] - -The issue before the House was simple enough. (1), Lord Palmerston had -agreed with M. Drouyn de Lhuys that if the terms which M. Gros, the -French Envoy at Athens, proposed on behalf of Greece were rejected by -Mr. Wyse, the British Envoy, coercion should not be again applied -without special orders from Britain. But if M. Gros threw up his office -of mediator because the Greeks declined to let him offer fair terms, -then of course Mr. Wyse was to - -[Illustration: MR. (AFTERWARDS SIR ALEXANDER) COCKBURN.] - -resort to coercion without further instructions. (2), M. Drouyn de Lhuys -and Lord Palmerston in London agreed on a settlement, the terms of which -were less onerous than those demanded by Mr. Wyse. (3), Though this was -informally communicated by the French to Mr. Wyse, he rejected the terms -which M. Gros offered on behalf of Greece, contending that he had no -instructions from Lord Palmerston as to the adoption of any other -course. (4), M. Gros then dropped the negotiations. Mr. Wyse, again -arguing that he was without instructions, ordered coercion to be -applied, upon which the Greek Government yielded. The pith of the -dispute centred in one point. Did Palmerston or did he not send Mr. Wyse -instructions as to the arrangement made in London with M. Drouyn de -Lhuys? The French said that their Envoy abandoned negotiations because -Mr. Wyse was unreasonable. Lord Palmerston contended that Mr. Wyse was -of opinion that M. Gros had dropped mediation because the - -[Illustration: CAPE TOWN.] - -Greeks were unreasonable, and that therefore, in terms of the -arrangement made in London, Mr. Wyse was justified in resorting to -coercion without further instructions. Mr. Wyse may have been mistaken -in supposing that M. Gros retired from the negotiations in the -circumstances which, according to the London Convention, would have -justified a resort to coercion without further reference to Lord -Palmerston. If that were the case, the Government had a good defence; -for it would have been unfair to censure them for Mr. Wyse’s blunder. -But was it the case? How could Mr. Wyse have blundered in interpreting -the conditions of the London Convention, if no instructions in -accordance with that Convention had been sent to him? The complaint was -that the Foreign Secretary had neglected to send these instructions, and -a close and careful examination of Palmerston’s own Blue-book, fails to -bring to light the slightest proof that they ever were sent. Therefore -it was clear (1), that England had broken a binding diplomatic compact -with France, and (2), that this breach of faith had enabled Mr. Wyse at -Athens to extort by force from a small, weak Power more onerous terms -than the English Government had agreed with France to accept in London. -The House of Lords took this view of the matter, and when the debate -ended, in the grey dawn of a summer’s morning, it was found on division -that there was a majority of 37 against the Government. - -Some members of the Cabinet were for resignation. Many friends of the -Government thought that Palmerston should personally offer the Queen his -resignation, begging her not to accept that of his colleagues if they -tendered theirs. But the Foreign Secretary made no offer to resign, and -at first the Cabinet resolved to take no more notice of the vote of -censure in the Upper House. Ultimately, they found that they must notice -it, and as their Foreign Policy as a whole was impugned, they decided -not to abandon the Foreign Secretary. On the 20th of June, Lord John -Russell explained why he would not resign. He gave two reasons--one good -and the other bad,--the first being one of which the Queen approved. It -was that a change of Government, in consequence of a resolution of the -House of Lords, would be unconstitutional, because, in his opinion, it -might be dangerous even to the House of Lords to lay upon it the -responsibility of controlling her Majesty’s Executive. Two precedents, -one a hundred years old, and one taken from 1833, when the Peers, on the -motion of the Duke of Wellington, censured Lord Grey’s Foreign Policy in -Portugal, were ingeniously cited by Lord John Russell in support of this -constitutional doctrine. But his second reason was characteristically -Palmerstonian. He said that the House of Lords had laid it down, that it -was the duty of the British Government to see that British subjects in -Foreign States got full protection from the laws of those States. That -was a _limitation_ of duty which Lord John Russell refused to recognise, -because, said he, a Foreign State might make bad laws, and it would be -the duty of England to prevent her subjects from being injured by those -laws. No principle is more clearly established in international law than -this--that a Sovereign State has an absolute right to dictate the terms -on which any alien shall abide on its soil.[15] If the alien does not -like the law of the Foreign State, he has no business to call on his own -countrymen to defend him by force of arms in refusing to obey it, seeing -that it was not at their request or in their interest, but of his own -free will, and in pursuit of his own fortune, he went to live or traffic -abroad. In fact, to lay it down that England might levy war on any -country, whose laws Englishmen residing in that country considered -inequitable, was tantamount to proclaiming her _hostis humani generis_. -Yet such was the doctrine which the House of Commons, in spite of the -protests of the Tories, of Radicals like Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright, and -Peelites like Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Gladstone, cheerfully accepted -from the Whigs at this period. The only thing that can be said in its -defence is that it is a doctrine which the House has never dared to -apply to a stronger Power than Greece--never to a Power like Russia, -which deports English Jews, nor like Germany, which deports English -residents, personally obnoxious to Prince Bismarck, in the most -arbitrary manner. It is doubtful if it would even dare to apply it to an -autonomous colony like Victoria, had her Government refused, as was -threatened, to permit the Irish informer, James Carey, to reside within -her frontier. - -Having decided to defy the House of Lords, the Government hit on an -ingenious plan for neutralising the vote of censure. They put up Mr. -Roebuck on the 21st of June to move a vote of confidence in them not -touching the Greek dispute, but approving generally of their Foreign -Policy as one likely “to preserve untarnished the honour and dignity of -this country.” The debate, which lasted five days, was a veritable -tournament of Titans. On both sides speeches were made that touch the -highest point to which Parliamentary eloquence can reach. Mr. Cockburn, -afterwards Lord Chief Justice, delivered an oration by which, at one -bound, he leapt into the first rank of British orators. Peel delivered -the last speech he was fated to make in the great assembly, on which for -years he had played with the easy mastery of a musician on his favourite -instrument. Palmerston himself spoke for four hours and a quarter with -more than his usual dash and intrepidity, and with surprising moderation -and good taste--basing his case virtually on the application of the -_civis Romanus sum_ doctrine to British Foreign Policy. This was the -point in it which Mr. Gladstone demolished in a passionate protest, that -may be said to have become classical. But in the end the Government -triumphed by a majority of 46! Yet, on the face of the facts, they had -absolutely no case. Why, then, were they victorious? For many reasons. -In the then divided state of parties, the Government was felt to be the -only possible Government. Palmerston, by adroitly spreading the report -that the attack on - -[Illustration: MR. GLADSTONE (1855).] - -him was really fomented by the agents of the despotic Powers, whose -policy he had persistently opposed, won strong support from the -Radicals. The Whigs felt that as the Foreign Policy of the Government as -a whole was attacked, they were bound to defend the Ministry, quite -irrespective of Palmerston’s possibly objectionable method of carrying -out that policy. Moreover, it was undoubtedly a weak point in the -tactics of the Opposition, that they did not venture to submit in the -House of Commons, the motion of censure which they had carried in the -House of Lords. But though Lord Palmerston’s triumph was complete, the -Queen continued to be dissatisfied - -[Illustration: WINDSOR CASTLE: VIEW FROM THE QUADRANGLE.] - -with his reckless manner of managing the Foreign Office. Pressure was -put on him by the concurrence of Lord John Russell, the Duke of Bedford, -Lord Lansdowne, and Lord Clarendon to take another department, which, -however, he refused to do. For the time--confident in his popularity--he -was able to hold his position, but ere a year had elapsed her Majesty’s -warnings were fulfilled, and Lord John was simply compelled to force him -to retire.[16] It must be here told how this whole controversy ended. -Before the debate closed, it was announced that we had accepted, with -some trifling modifications in detail, the French proposals made on -behalf of Greece. The demands of the claimants in support of whom we had -been brought to the brink of war with France, were finally assessed at -£10,000--about one-thirtieth part of the sum they originally asked! - -No other question of Foreign Policy agitated the House of Commons in -1850, save Mr. Hutt’s proposal to withdraw the British war-ships engaged -in suppressing the West African slave trade. The cost of the squadron -had made its maintenance unpopular even with Liberals, and when Lord -John Russell threatened to stake the existence of his Ministry on it, -the Queen was distressed to learn that there was every prospect of his -being defeated, at a time when a change of Government would have -produced the utmost confusion. A meeting of the Liberal Party was -convened by the Prime Minister at Downing Street, and pressure, which -they hardly dared to resist, induced the malcontents to support the -Government. Mr. Hutt’s motion was lost, many Ministerialists, however, -complaining bitterly that the Prime Minister had concussed them into -voting against their convictions. - - - - -CHAPTER XXIV. - -SOME EPOCH-MARKING LEGISLATION. - - The Colonies and Party Government--The Movement for Autonomy--Lord - John Russell’s Colonial Bill--Tory Opposition to Colonial - Federation--Mr. Adderley’s Plan--Mr. Gladstone’s Scheme for - Colonial Church Courts--The Colonial Bills Mangled in the House of - Lords--More English Doles for Ireland--An Irish Reform Bill--Lord - John Russell Proposes to Abolish the Lord Lieutenancy--The Queen’s - Irish Policy--Her offer to Establish a Royal Residence in - Ireland--The Bungled Budget--The Demand for Retrenchment--The - Tories Insist on a Reduction of Official Salaries--Lord John - Russell’s Commission on Establishments--The Queen and the - Church--The Ecclesiastical Appeals Bill--The “Gorham Case”--Death - of Peel--The Queen’s Sorrow--A Nation in Mourning--Peel’s Character - and Career--The Queen’s Alarm about Prince Albert’s Health--The - Queen at Work--The Queen’s Reading-Lamp. - - -Far more interesting, however, was the Colonial legislation of the -Government in 1850, which indeed might be termed epoch-marking. The -Queen had at the opening of the Session indicated in her Speech from the -Throne that a measure extending Constitutional government to the -Colonies would be introduced. It was known that she was personally of -opinion that the Colonies were giving promise of a growth so rapid, that -it would be impossible for any length of time to hold them in the -leading-strings of the Colonial Office. The incessant attacks which had -been made on Lord Grey in Parliament and in the Press merely served to -confirm the Queen in this opinion. It was, therefore, with great -satisfaction that she discovered that men of light and leading on both -sides of the House of Commons were so far agreed on the subject, that it -was deemed practicable by Lord John Russell to minimise the friction -between the Colonies and the Colonial Office, by conceding to the -Colonists large powers of representative self-government. Lord John -Russell explained the scheme which embodied these ideas on the 8th of -February. To the Cape Colony he granted two Chambers. The first was -representative, and elected under a property qualification. The second, -or Legislative Council, was to be elected by persons with a higher -property qualification, who had been named by the Crown or municipal -bodies for magisterial and municipal offices as individuals of weight -and influence. For Australia he proposed a system under which there -should be only one Legislative Council, two-thirds elected by the -people, and one-third named by the Governor, on the pattern of the -system adopted by New South Wales, but with power to the Colonists to -change to the bi-cameral or two-Chamber system if they preferred it. -Provision was made for constituting, on petition of any two Colonies, a -Federal Assembly representing all the Colonial Legislatures, to frame a -common tariff, or initiate a common policy for dealing with waste lands. -It was in introducing this great scheme that Lord John Russell said -that, whilst reserving questions of military defence, the central idea -of his Colonial policy was this: political freedom can be best promoted -in the Colonies by acting on the general rule, that while the Imperial -Government must be their representative in all foreign relations, it -will interfere in their domestic affairs no further than may be -manifestly necessary to prevent a conflict in the State itself. - -By finally and formally establishing this principle, the Government of -the Queen did all that was humanly possible to repair the wrong done to -England and the English people by her grandfather, George III., who -flung away, not a crown, as did James II., but a virgin continent, to -gratify an absolutist prejudice. - -The Bill passed the House of Commons, though the scheme was open to -objection. Had it not been open to objection, it would have been a -perfect Bill, “that faultless monster,” to adapt Pope’s line, “which the -world ne’er saw.” On the whole, however, it was wonderfully well -received. Its opponents objected mainly to the adoption of the -uni-cameral instead of the bi-cameral system, namely, that of governing -by one instead of by two Legislative Assemblies. Why, it was asked, -should Australia be limited to one Legislative Assembly when the Cape -was permitted to have two? Another objection was to the introduction of -a Federative Assembly, which was opposed bitterly as a novelty even by -Tory politicians like Mr. Disraeli, who in after-years strongly -advocated Imperial Federation. Another more valid objection urged by -Radicals like Sir W. Molesworth, was that the scheme gave the Colonial -Office too much power. There was good sense in his contention, supported -by Tories like Mr. Adderley (afterwards Lord Norton), that the Colonial -Parliament should not only be vested with all legislative powers which -were _not_ Imperial, but that this should be done by mentioning the -powers that _were_ Imperial, and leaving everything not mentioned in -that category, to be considered as Colonial. This point gave rise to an -able and thoughtful debate on the report of the Bill after it emerged -from - -[Illustration: VIEW IN PHŒNIX PARK, DUBLIN.] - -Committee, in which it may be interesting to state that Mr. Gladstone -delivered a speech in support of the Tory-Radical opposition, which may -be said to contain the germs of the principle on which his Irish Home -Rule Bill of 1886 was based. On the other hand, to Mr. Gladstone must be -credited the oddest and most ridiculous of all the amendments to the -measure. His ecclesiasticism induced him to propose that in every Colony -the Church of England be authorised to form a synod independent of the -Imperial or Colonial Government, and empowered to make laws binding on -Anglican Colonists. The idea of empowering the Anglican Church courts in -our free Colonies to make regulations, quite independently of the Crown -or the Colony, which were to be not only binding _in foro conscientiæ_, -but were also to have the force of law, in Royal and Colonial courts, -was not only mediæval, but monstrous. Yet it was only rejected by 187 to -182. Perhaps this accounted for what was by far the most trenchant -speech made in opposition to the Bill, that of the Bishop of Oxford in -the House of Lords, though even he did not venture to reject the -measure, his proposal being merely to refer - -[Illustration: MR. HORSMAN.] - -it to a Committee. It was a speech that would have defeated the -Government, but for Lord Grey’s conciliatory offer to go on with the -Bill even if the House struck out the clause enabling Colonial -Legislatures to alter their constitution, and the clause enabling the -Colonists to form a Federative Assembly. This won for the Government a -majority of 13. As the clause sanctioning a Federative Assembly was -carried in the Lords, against the bitter opposition of the Tories, only -by a majority of one, it was eventually abandoned. They further marred -the Bill by conferring exceptional political privileges on wealthy -squatters, and by prohibiting any Legislative Chamber from eliminating -its non-elective element. The interesting thing to notice is how the -Tory Party of the day completely stamped out the germ of that Imperial -policy of Colonial confederation which Lord John Russell and Lord Grey -so wisely strove to plant. As “amended” by the Lords, the Bill passed -into law, much to the satisfaction of the Queen, who, when she -sanctioned the measure, felt sure that a vigilant personal -superintendence of the details of Colonial, as well as foreign affairs, -would not thereafter be added to the already arduous duties and -anxieties of the Sovereign. - -Ireland, as usual, was this Session the object or victim of an -eleemosynary financial policy. She had hanging over her, in the shape of -relief loans made during ten years, an unliquidated debt of £4,483,000. -Besides that, some of the Poor Law Unions were so burdened with debt -contracted for local purposes--frequently purposes of jobbery--that they -needed help. Lord John Russell therefore proposed to consolidate the -unliquidated local debts since 1839, and, subject to existing conditions -of interest, extend the period of repayment to forty years. For the -immediate relief of bankrupt and semi-bankrupt Unions he proposed -another advance from the Treasury of £300,000. The justification for -these loans, which were sanctioned, was that the Irish landowners could -not pay the interest on the local debt, in addition to the existing -poor-rates. - -Ireland having been decimated by famine and emigration, it was -considered that it would not be unsafe to lower her elective franchise -to one of £8 of annual rateable value, more especially as such a -proposal tended to conciliate, without concession, the Radical agitators -for Parliamentary reform in England. It did not, however, conciliate Mr. -Hume, who caustically reminded Sir William Somerville, the Chief -Secretary for Ireland, when he introduced the Irish Franchise Bill, that -it put the franchise on a narrower basis than that of Cape Colony, and -contended that Irishmen should at least be treated as generously as -Hottentots. The Bill enacted that instead of each voter being compelled -to claim registration, local authorities should make up lists of voters, -subject to the usual objections--in other words, that the rate-book -should be a self-acting register. The Tories failed in their attack on -the Bill in the House of Commons; but in the Lords they succeeded in -raising the qualification to £15, and in altering the registration -clause so that new voters must each claim to be registered before they -were put on the voters’ roll. The two Houses ultimately accepted a -compromise. The Government agreed to increase the qualification from £8 -to £12, and the Tories agreed to abandon their alteration of the -registration clauses. - -On the 18th of May, Lord John Russell brought in a memorable Bill to -abolish the office of Lord-Lieutenant--an office the maintenance of -which has undoubtedly given an Imperial sanction to the Separatist -principle in Ireland. The idea of the Whigs was that the Lord-Lieutenant -was an anachronism. The Minister representing Ireland in the House of -Commons, though popularly called Secretary for Ireland, is really and -legally only Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant. Sometimes he sits -in the Cabinet when the Lord-Lieutenant does not, and then he is his -master’s superior. The Lord-Lieutenant, argued Lord John, had all the -responsibility, but never the freedom of action of a Minister of the -Crown, and the abolition of his office would facilitate that blending of -the Irish and Imperial administrations, which would go far to destroy -the Separatist feeling in Ireland. The Queen was very much inclined to -favour this step, and for a curious reason. Her Irish tour had impressed -her with the fact that her social influence in Ireland might be turned -to good account in winning the hearts of a chivalrous and generous -people, thereby converting the golden link of the Crown into a healing -institution of conciliation. But it was somewhat embarrassing to all -parties for the Sovereign to reside regularly in a country, in which the -official head of the State was her own Viceroy. Were the Viceroyalty -abolished, the Queen promised Lord John Russell that she would from time -to time visit Ireland in State, and keep up the Viceregal Lodge in -Phœnix Park as a Royal Palace. As for the business of Ireland, it would, -according to Lord John, be best carried on by a fourth Secretary of -State. The Tories opposed the Bill, because they contended that Lord -Clarendon’s success in governing Ireland proved that the Viceroyalty was -useful, and because the creation of a fourth Secretary of State was -objectionable, for it would necessitate an expensive administrative -establishment, and perchance lead to conflicts of authority between the -Irish Secretary and the Home Secretary. The Irish members were divided -in opinion. Some supported and some opposed the Bill, because it might -tend to stimulate Nationalism. Others supported and opposed it for -precisely the opposite reason. A third section, as to whose sincerity -there could be no doubt, opposed it because it would spoil the trade of -Dublin. The general feeling of the country was expressed by Peel, who -said he was willing that the experiment should be made, though he said -so with hesitancy, but he was also desirous, if it were possible, to see -the Irish Administration merged in the Home Office, and not conducted by -a fourth Secretary of State.[17] The measure was read a second time by a -vote of 295 to 70, but introduced as it was when the country was in a -fever of excitement over Lord Palmerston’s foreign quarrels, the country -took little interest in it, and it was not pressed further. - -Lord Clarendon having in October, 1849, dismissed from the Commission of -the Peers, Lord Roden and other Orange magistrates who had been privy to -a fray at Dolly’s Brae in the preceding July, their case was brought -before the House of Lords this Session by Lord Stanley, on the 12th of -July. Stanley delivered a bitter attack on Lord Clarendon, but when he -made it clear that he did not propose to do anything more than move for -papers and correspondence relating to the affair, it was obvious that he -had forced on a debate merely to gratify his Orange supporters. Lord -Clarendon defended himself successfully, and convinced everybody that he -had simply done his duty as an impartial administrator. - -The financial condition of the country was so favourable that Sir C. - -[Illustration: THE FUNERAL OF SIR ROBERT PEEL: THE TENANTRY ASSEMBLING -AT THE LODGE, DRAYTON MANOR.] - -Wood, in his Budget Speech of 15th March, said there was a surplus at -his disposal of £2,225,000. His estimates for the coming year, on the -basis of existing taxation and anticipated expenditure, led him to -expect a surplus of £1,500,000. Therefore, there was room for some -remission of taxes. The first charge on a surplus, he held ought to be -for the reduction of the National Debt--and for that purpose he set -aside half his hoped-for surplus. As to the rest, he proposed to exhaust -it: first, in reducing the Stamp Duties on the Transfer of Land, and on -mortgages under £1,000, and in converting the Stamp Duty on leases into -a uniform one of ½ per cent.; and secondly, in ameliorating the lot of -the badly-housed labouring classes by repealing the tax on bricks. -Though the Budget was ridiculed by the economists, Sir C. Wood’s -proposals were agreed to, with the exception of the alteration in the -Stamp Duties. It was argued successfully that though the new scale of -Stamp Duties would reduce the revenue derived from small sums, they -would increase, out of all proportion to this reduction, the revenue -from large sums, so that under the pretext of reducing, Sir Charles Wood -was actually increasing his revenue. Never was there such haggling and -bungling. Nobody seemed to understand a scheme which was complex in -detail, and explained by a Minister who was indistinct in his -articulation and confused in exposition. Sir Charles Wood had more than -once to withdraw his proposals, and substitute others, but finally he -accepted a reduction of ½ instead of 1 per cent. on legal conveyances, -and 1/8 instead of ½ per cent. on mortgages. The result showed that -his opponents were right, and that he was utterly wrong in his -calculations of the effect his reductions would have on the revenue of -the year. - -[Illustration: THE FUNERAL OF SIR ROBERT PEEL: THE CEREMONY IN DRAYTON -BASSETT CHURCH.] - -The demand for retrenchment which had been originally raised by the -Radicals, was now emphasised by the Protectionists. Following the -example of some of their party in the Colonies, they saw in an attack on -the cost of establishments, a means of annoying a Free Trade Government, -and perchance of relieving the rural taxpayers, who undoubtedly were -suffering by the loss of Protection. Mr. Henley accordingly first -appeared with a motion to reduce official salaries. Whereupon Lord John -Russell intervened with a motion for a Select Committee to inquire into -the subject. Mr. Disraeli opposed to this an amendment to the effect -that the House had enough information, and that the Government ought not -to shirk the responsibility of initiating, without delay, every -practicable reduction in the cost of establishments. His party followed -him faithfully, though some, like John Wilson Croker, condemned his -tactics and his speech as “Jacobinical.”[18] Mr. Hume also supported -him, but Mr. Bright thought that if a Committee recommended reductions, -they would be more patiently borne by the victims than if they were -enforced by the Government. Mr. Horsman outdid Mr. Disraeli and Mr. -Hume, for he demanded that ecclesiastical establishments should also -come within the purview of the Committee: Lord John, however, carried -his motion. Mr. Cobden then brought forward resolutions in favour of a -general reduction of expenditure, contending that it would be possible -to save £10,000,000 by cutting down expenditure to the standard of 1835. -The Radical financial reformers declared that their object was to reduce -taxation that pressed on Labour and impeded production, and that the -best way of doing that was to curtail expenditure on the Army and Navy, -which were in excess of the strength necessary for National Defence, -provided the Foreign Office pursued a policy of non-intervention. Whigs -and Tories united in defeating Mr. Cobden. Mr. Henry Drummond next, on -behalf of the Protectionist Tories, moved that adequate means be adopted -to reduce taxation, and thereby increase the wage-fund of the country. -His plan was to cut down all official salaries, and revise all burdens -that checked the growth of raw produce. The motion was disposed of by -carrying the “previous question,” because, though some Radicals like Mr. -Hume and Mr. Bright voted for it, most people saw in it a Protectionist -“trap.” Lord Duncan very nearly on a subsequent occasion repealed the -Window Tax,[19] but Mr. Milner Gibson failed in his attack on the Paper -Duty, as did Mr. Cayley in his effort to repeal the Malt Tax. - -After much determined opposition from the Tories, with whom Mr. -Gladstone acted on this occasion, the Government succeeded in carrying -the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the condition of -the Universities--a proposal which had the warm support of the Queen and -Prince Albert, in consequence of which some foolish people went about -saying that there was a conspiracy on foot to Germanise the academic -system of England. - -The Bishop of London’s Ecclesiastical Appeals Bill, which was introduced -into the House of Lords on the 3rd of June, touched on matters regarding -which the Queen has always been sensitive--the relation of the Church to -the prerogative of the Crown. The principle of the Bill was that -ecclesiastical appeals should be tried, not before the Judicial -Committee of the Privy Council as representing the Queen, but before an -assemblage of Bishops, whose decision should be binding, not merely on -the Judicial Committee, but on the Queen also. This, of course, -destroyed her supremacy over the Established Church of England, a -prerogative of the Crown which has always been tenaciously guarded. The -Bill was rejected. And here it may be well to record what it was that -led to its introduction. It was introduced to tranquillise the High -Churchmen and Tractarians, who were smarting over the decision of the -famous “Gorham case.” - -Mr. Gorham had been presented by the Crown to the benefice of Bramford -Speke in August, 1847. When the Bishop examined him, he found that he -was an extreme Low Churchman, and that he denied that spiritual -regeneration was conferred by the sacrament of Baptism; also that his -views on other matters, such as predestination and election, were those -of the narrowest Presbyterian Calvinists. The Bishop of Exeter refused -to institute Mr. Gorham, and, after much litigation, the case was -appealed by him from the Court of Arches to the Judicial Committee, who -decided that Mr. Gorham’s views were not incompatible with the -Thirty-nine Articles. The Judicial Committee on this occasion consisted -of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the Bishop of London. -Associated with them were the Master of the Rolls (Lord Langdale), the -Lord Chief Justice (Lord Campbell), Mr. Baron Parke, Vice-Chancellor, -Sir J. Knight Bruce, Dr. Lushington, and the Right Hon. Pemberton Leigh. -The complaint of the Churchmen was that the ruling of a Bishop and an -ecclesiastical court on a disputed point of doctrine was not only -considered, but actually reversed by a secular tribunal the large -majority of whose members were laymen, and the clerical members of which -could not vote, but merely gave their opinion to the lay members who -formed the Judicial Committee. Churchmen passionately resented these -proceedings, and the excitement they raised was fierce and -uncontrollable. The Gorham Appeal Case was the badge of the Church’s -servitude to the State. The Bishop of London’s Bill was an attempt to -remove that badge by constituting a purely ecclesiastical tribunal to -try all ecclesiastical appeals, thereby avoiding the necessity for -submitting them to lay judges. - -When the Queen prorogued Parliament the shadow of mourning was over both -Houses. Sir Robert Peel had died suddenly on the 2nd of July. Returning -on horseback from a visit to Buckingham Palace on the 29th of June, he -met Miss Ellice, one of Lady Dover’s daughters, on Constitution Hill. As -he bowed to her, his horse shied at the Green Park railings, and threw -him. His fifth rib was broken, and its jagged end pierced the lung with -a mortal wound. He lingered in great agony for three days, and it is -hardly possible to describe the extraordinary sensation his accident and -illness produced throughout the country. Party animosities vanished, and -the nation with one voice joined the Queen in the expressions of sorrow -which came from her when she said, “The country mourns over him as over -a father.”[20] - -Peel’s character will, for this generation, be an enigma. Look at one -aspect of it, and it seems as the character of a patriot of the pure -Roman type, who flourished in the days “when none were for a Party, and -all were for the State.” Look at another aspect of it, and it seems as -if it were permeated by the conscious insincerity of the unscrupulous -political intriguer, whose stock-in-trade was Party principle, which he -bought and sold for power in the Parliamentary market. One thing is -clear. His abandonment of Protection could not possibly have been due to -a love of office. He knew too well when he determined to repeal the Corn -Laws, that he doomed himself to political ostracism. Two things seem to -account for Peel’s difficulties with his partisans. He saw clearly, but -he did not see far. He used his influence as a political leader to -become a Minister, but the Minister of the Queen, and not the Minister -of his Party. Long before Catholic Emancipation triumphed he ought to -have seen that its triumph was inevitable, and the same may be said of -the repeal of the Corn Laws. When he suddenly awoke to the fact that in -the one case war, and in the other famine was impending, he reversed his -policy, but he had to change front so quickly that he had not time to -“educate his Party.” On both occasions he had to choose between his -Party and the nation. On neither did he shrink from making his choice as -a patriot, even at the cost of his reputation as a far-seeing statesman, -or a faithful Party leader. Mr. Disraeli said he was not the greatest -statesman, but the greatest Member of Parliament England ever produced. -That was a just estimate of his magical power of mastering and managing -the House of Commons. But it did no justice to his genius for -administration, his vast and accurate knowledge of affairs, and latterly -the serene judicial temper of mind, in which he dealt with the most -agitating and perplexing political problems. Coldness, secretiveness, -and egotism were the only flaws in a character, which otherwise almost -realised the loftiest ideal of British patriotism. - -At the beginning of 1850 the Queen became grievously alarmed about the -health of Prince Albert. The toil and anxieties of politics during the -years of revolution and counter-revolution had sadly worn his nervous -system. In addition to his work as confidential private secretary to the -Queen, his own occupations, which have been noticed from time to time in -these pages, had grown more numerous and varied each year. As Mr. -Gladstone once observed of Mr. Ayrton, “he was a cormorant for work.” As -Sir Theodore Martin says, “Ministers and diplomatists found him at every -interview possessed of an encyclopædic range of information, extending -even to the minutest details.” The Court at this time was a rich -treasure-store of information regarding the inner history of Courts and -Embassies on the Continent, on which our diplomatists were grateful to -draw for aid and suggestions, when appointed to difficult and delicate -missions. “But to the claims of politics,” writes Sir Theodore Martin, -“had to be added those which science, art, and questions of social -improvement were constantly forcing upon the Prince’s attention.... He -was habitually an early riser. Even in winter he would be up by seven, -and dispose of a great deal of work before breakfast, by the light of -the green German lamp, the original of which he had brought over with -him, and which has since become so familiar an object in our English -homes.[21] The Queen shared his early habits; but before her Majesty -joined him in the sitting-room, where their writing-tables stood always -side by side, much had, as a rule, been prepared for her -consideration--much done to lighten the pressure of those labours, both -of head and hands, which are inseparable from the discharge of the -Sovereign’s duties.”[22] These labours ultimately produced insomnia or -sleeplessness, and at the beginning of the year the Queen, writing from -Windsor to Baron Stockmar, alludes to a suggestion from their doctor -that his Royal Highness should take a trip to Brussels, and adds:--“For -the sake of his health, which, I assure you, is the cause of my shaken -nerves, I could quite bear this sacrifice. He _must_ be set right before -we go to London, or God knows how ill he may get.” - -[Illustration: MEETING OF THE LADIES’ COMMITTEE AT STAFFORD HOUSE IN AID -OF THE GREAT EXHIBITION.] - -The Queen’s affectionate desires could not be gratified. The business of -organising the Great Exhibition of 1851 proved more engrossing than had -been anticipated, not merely because the idea at the bottom of it was -her husband’s, but because he was found to be the only man in England -who thoroughly understood the scheme. As Lord Granville, in a letter to -Prince Albert’s secretary, remarked, his Royal Highness seemed to be -almost the only person who had considered the subject as a whole and in -details. “The whole thing,” said Lord Granville, “would fall to pieces -if he left it to itself.” - -On the 21st of February a brilliant meeting in support of the -undertaking was held at Willis’s Rooms, which was attended by the -diplomatic representatives of the leading nations. This was followed up -by a grand banquet at the Mansion House, which was attended by the great -dignitaries of State, the Foreign Ambassadors, the Royal Commissioners -for the Exhibition, and the heads of the county and municipal -magistracy. After the Royal Commission had been appointed, the questions -of site, space, and finance were those which pressed for settlement, and -without doubt the last gave the Queen the utmost anxiety. The public, -she saw, must be induced to support the scheme, and meetings be -organised for the purpose of making its advantages known. Prince -Albert’s speech at this banquet, however, struck the key-note of all the -subsequent advocacy which the Exhibition received. The age, said he, was -advancing towards the realisation of a unity of mankind, to be attained -as the result and product, and not by the destruction, of national -characteristics. Science, by abridging distance, was increasing the -communicability of ideas. The principle of the division of labour was -gradually being applied everywhere, giving rise to specialism, but -specialism practised in publicity, and under the stimulus of competition -and capital. Thus was Man winning new powers in fulfilling his mission -in the world--the discovery of Natural Laws and the conquest of Nature -by compliance with them. The central idea of this Exhibition of 1851 was -to give a true test, and a living picture of the point at which -civilised Man had arrived in carrying out his mission, and to serve as a -base of operations for further efforts which might carry Humanity -upwards and onwards to a larger and loftier stage. Such, in a brief -paraphrase, were the views of Prince Albert, and they ran through the -country amidst a chorus of approval. The whole nation responded to the -appeal of his Royal Highness, despite the metaphysics and mysticism -which slightly tinged it, and the delight of the Queen was -correspondingly great. We can easily understand that King Leopold was at -first under the impression that a speech of such stately but restrained -eloquence, rich in thought and fruitful in suggestion, must have been -read. The Queen, however, informed him that he was mistaken. It was, she -says, prepared most carefully and laboriously, and then written down; -after which it was spoken freely and fluently without reference to the -manuscript. “This,” says the Queen, in her letter to the King of the -Belgians, “he does so well that no one believes he is ever nervous, -which he is.” On the 23rd of February a meeting of ladies was held at -Stafford House, under the presidency of the Duchess of Sutherland, with -the object of inviting the women of England to assist in promoting the -success of the Exhibition, and a very influential committee was formed -for this purpose. - -When Easter arrived the Queen’s anxiety grew greater as she saw the -Prince showing signs of increasing fatigue. At last, yielding to her -importunity, he agreed to leave London and take a brief holiday at -Windsor. But his idea of a holiday was peculiar. It was to devise a -system of draining Osborne, and utilising the sewage, &c., of the -estate. - -Age and infirmity had now begun to tell sadly on the Duke of Wellington, -and he had become anxious as to the future of the army. Whilst he was -alive and strong, as he said, he could hold the Commandership-in-chief. -But his position was entirely exceptional for a subject, and in theory -at least the office ought to be vested in the Sovereign, or some one -very near the Throne. Englishmen have ever been a little jealous of -permitting this post to be occupied by a subject. The favour it confers -on him, and the influence which--if he has a magic personality--he may -wield, might, if wedded to ambition, lead to untoward changes. But the -fact that the Sovereign was a woman rendered it impossible to vest the -Commandership-in-chief in the Crown. The Duke, therefore, to the -surprise of the Queen, who apparently had never thought about the -matter, suddenly proposed that arrangements should be made for -installing Prince Albert as his successor. It says much for the sagacity -and good sense of the Queen and Prince that neither of them liked the -proposal--although it was one which would have presented an irresistible -temptation to most young men. The Prince pleaded want of military -experience. The Duke replied that his plan was to appoint under the -Prince, as Chief of the Staff, the general who had most experience in -the army. But this did not seem to weigh much with the Queen. Probably -she knew her husband’s nature better than the Duke, and was perfectly -well aware that he would never permit himself to hold office as an -ornamental “dummy.” The revolution he wrought in Cambridge after he -became Chancellor of the University gives us an indication of what must -have happened in the army had he consented to become the Duke’s -successor. It would be wrong to say that the Queen paid much heed to the -objection on the score of inexperience. Like the Duke, she fully -believed that her husband’s extraordinary power of work, and pertinacity -of resolution, would soon fit him for the post. But, on the other hand, -it was quite clear that the work would absorb all his time. In short, as -the Prince would be certain to insist on doing the duty of the office to -the fullest extent, and on his own responsibility, it was equally -certain that if he became Commander-in-chief, he must abandon all his -other occupations--even the chemical researches on the utilisation of -sewage, in his pursuance of which he imagined at the time that he had -within his grasp a discovery that would immortalise him as a benefactor -of humanity. Moreover, how was the Queen to replace him as her private -secretary? So much assiduous service could not be expected from any -other holder of that office as Prince Albert cheerfully gave, and it was -furthermore an office the duties of which, at a time when the Sovereign -was beginning to wield an ever-increasing consultative and moderating -influence on public affairs, were necessarily augmenting. Then the Queen -also urged that as she believed the Prince was undertaking too much work -already, she could not approve of his burdening himself with more. To -sum up the views of the Queen and her husband on this difficult and -delicate affair: many able generals could do the duty of -Commander-in-chief as well, if not better, than the Prince. Nobody, -however, in the kingdom could possibly do the work he was then doing for -the Queen as well as he did it, and so the flattering proposal was put -aside. Had it been accepted, and had the Prince overhauled the Horse -Guards as he did the University of Cambridge, perhaps the terrible and -shameful disasters of the Crimea might have been avoided. On the other -hand, it may be doubted if even his patient resolution would have -enabled him to reform in so short a time the military administration -which collapsed in 1854. In that case, the Court would have been blamed, -and blamed unjustly, for the departmental catastrophes that still invest -the Crimea with bitter memories for British soldiers. - -[Illustration: CAMBRIDGE HOUSE, PICCADILLY (1854).] - -On the 1st of May the Duke of Connaught was born. His birthday was -coincident with that of the Duke of Wellington, and he had as his -sponsors two of the most illustrious soldiers of Europe--the great Duke -himself, and Prince William of Prussia, afterwards Emperor of Germany. -The ceremony of baptism took place on the 22nd of June, when the Prince -was christened Arthur William Patrick Albert, the Duke and the Prince of -Prussia both being present. - -[Illustration: THE QUEEN AND PRINCE ARTHUR. - -(_After Winterhalter, 1850._)] - -As spring gave place to summer, the shadow of death fell on the Royal -Family. We have seen how genuine and profound was the Queen’s sorrow -over the death of Peel. But closely following that sad event came the -serious illness of the Duke of Cambridge, a kind-hearted Prince, noted -for his _bonhomie_ and for the profusion of his charities. The Queen was -assiduous in her attentions to her uncle, whom she dearly loved, and one -of her visits to his sick bed accidentally exposed her to a cowardly -outrage. When she was leaving Cambridge House, sad-eyed and sorrowful, a -man suddenly stepped forward and struck at her face with a cane. Her -bonnet protected her somewhat, but her forehead was cruelly bruised by -the assault. “The perpetrator is a dandy,” writes Prince Albert to -Stockmar, “whom you must have often seen in the park, where he makes -himself conspicuous.” He was one Robert Pate, formerly a lieutenant in -the army. After being tried for his offence on the 11th of July, he was -sentenced to seven years’ transportation. No motive could be assigned -for the outrage, and the jury refused to accept Pate’s plea of insanity. - -[Illustration: PATE’S ASSAULT ON THE QUEEN.] - -The Duke of Cambridge, it may here be said, died on the 8th of July. - -Meantime, as if to add to the Queen’s private griefs, an extraordinary -attack was made in the press upon Prince Albert and the Exhibition -Commissioners. The building was to be in Hyde Park, and this invasion of -one of the pleasure-grounds of “the people” was resented. The truth is -that a rich and selfish clique of families dwelling in the neighbourhood -objected to a great public show, likely to attract multitudes of -sightseers, coming between the wind and their nobility, and they -represented “the people” for the occasion. The extent to which they were -sensitive as to the rights of the populace may be indicated by one -suggestion which they made. It was that the Exhibition be transported as -a nuisance to the Isle of Dogs, where “the people” dwell in teeming -masses. At last an attack was organised on the Exhibition Commissioners -in Parliament, and the Queen, knowing well that if it were successful, -the project must be abandoned, was sorely grieved at the folly and -prejudice which inspired the opposition. The _Times_ was very bitter. -Even Mr. Punch, notorious for his sentimental devotion to the Queen, -proved himself a sad recreant on this occasion, and Leech made fun of -the Prince, because the public were a little niggardly with their -subscriptions,[23] which fell far short of £100,000, which was the -lowest estimate tendered for the building. But though the attempt of “a -little knot of selfish persons,” as the Queen calls them in a letter in -which she implores Stockmar to come and comfort her and her husband in -their troubles, to drive the Exhibition out of Hyde Park failed, and -their attacks in Parliament collapsed, the Prince was still “plagued -about the Exhibition,” and the old symptoms of insomnia reappeared, -greatly to the alarm of her Majesty. At last a way out of all their -difficulties was opened up. It was proposed to establish a guarantee -fund to meet any deficit that might be incurred, and on the 12th of June -it was started by a subscription of £50,000 from Messrs. Peto, the -contractors. In a few days the subscriptions sufficed to solve the -financial problem. Ultimately, to the surprise of those who had scoffed -at the Prince’s sanguine anticipations, not only were the guarantors -freed from all responsibility, but when the Exhibition accounts were -closed, the Commissioners found themselves with a balance of a quarter -of a million in hand. The work was accordingly begun without further -delay. - -But no sooner had one source of vexation vanished than another was -opened. In August the Queen, mortified at further displays of wayward -recklessness on Lord Palmerston’s part, and failing to inspire the Prime -Minister with enough courage to rebuke him, at last determined to take -the matter in hand herself. Although Palmerston was then at the height -of his popularity, owing to the triumph of his _civis Romanum sum_ -doctrine in the Don Pacifico debate, her Majesty penned a Memorandum to -Lord John Russell, which has become historic. It is dated the 16th of -August, and was written at Osborne. In it she accepts Lord Palmerston’s -disavowal of an intention to offer her any disrespect by his past -neglect, but, to prevent fresh mistakes, she deems it as well to say -that in future she requires-- - -“(1) That he (the Foreign Secretary) will distinctly state what he -proposes in a given case, in order that the Queen may know as distinctly -to what she has given her Royal sanction. (2) Having once given her -sanction to a measure, that it be not arbitrarily altered or modified by -the Minister. Such an act she must consider as failure in sincerity -towards the Crown, and justly to be visited by the exercise of her -Constitutional right of dismissing that Minister. She expects to be kept -informed of what passes between him and the Foreign Ministers before -important decisions are taken based on that intercourse; to receive the -foreign despatches in good time, and to have the drafts for her approval -sent to her in sufficient time to make herself acquainted with their -contents before they must be sent off.” Lord John Russell sent this -Memorandum to Palmerston, who lightly pleaded pressure of business in -palliation of his past faults, but promised to behave better in time to -come. Had he been a man of high spirit or sensitive feelings, he would -have resigned when the Queen’s Memorandum was sent to him. High spirit, -however, was not to be expected from the Minister that sent a British -fleet to coerce Greece, though he dared not utter a word of protest -against the Russian invasion of Hungary,[24] or who, whilst he could be -swift to resent an impertinence from a decrepit Power like Spain, -accepted with the utmost meekness a rebuke from Russia in reference to -the Greek affair, couched in the language of deliberate insult. On the -contrary, whilst his friends gave out that he was manfully fighting the -battle of the people against the Sovereign and the foreign Prince, who -was “the power behind the Throne,” Palmerston was abasing himself before -both. He implored Prince Albert to intercede for him with the Queen in -order that she might grant him an interview. The Prince, in a Memorandum -dated 17th of August, 1850, writes:-- - -“After the Council for the Speech from the Throne for the Prorogation of -Parliament on the 14th I saw Lord Palmerston, as he had desired it. He -was very _much agitated, shook, and had tears in his eyes_, so as to -quite move me, who never under any circumstances had known him otherwise -than with a bland smile on his face.” It was not the condemnation of his -policy, he told Prince Albert, that affected him most closely. The -“accusation that he had been wanting in his respect to the Queen, whom -he had every reason to respect as his Sovereign, and as a woman whose -virtues he admired, and to whom he was bound by every tie of duty and -gratitude, was an imputation on his honour as a gentleman, and if he -could have made himself guilty of it, he was almost no longer fit to be -tolerated in society.”[25] The “almost” is - -[Illustration: LORD JOHN RUSSELL (1850).] - -characteristically Palmerstonian. Her Majesty, according to Prince -Albert, did not impute any _intentional_ want of regard to Lord -Palmerston; but her complaint was that he never submitted any question -to her “intact,” that is to say, he always contrived to commit the -Government before the Queen could express an opinion. As her opinion had -of late been at variance with Lord Palmerston’s, this mode of doing -business was to her objectionable. Her Majesty had always been frank -with her Ministers, and when overruled, she had accepted loyally their -decision. “She knew,” said the Prince, “that they were going to battle -together, and that she was going to receive the blows which were aimed -at the Government; and that she had these last years received several -such as no Sovereign of England had before been obliged to put up with, -and which had been most painful to her.” She did not wish to trouble -her Ministers about details. But when principles were settled at their -conferences, she thought she too should be consulted and advised. -Palmerston’s excuse was the old one--want of time; but he said he was -willing to come to the Palace at any moment to Prince Albert, and give -any explanations that might be wanted either to the Queen or her -husband. - -If the Prince’s account be correct, the Minister seems to have conducted -himself throughout this interview with hysterical servility, which may, -however, have been simulated. As for his penitence, it was short-lived. -In September he had another quarrel with the Queen over the wording of a -despatch, in which he had foolishly gone out of his way to impugn the -honour of England. This despatch rose out of the Haynau incident. The -Austrian General Haynau had come to England on a visit, and the Radicals -stirred up public feeling against him on account of his brutality in -crushing the Hungarian insurrection, more especially for his cowardly -conduct in stripping women, and flogging them publicly. When he went to -visit the Brewery of Messrs. Barclay and Perkins, the workmen in the -place recognised him. They turned out _en masse_, assaulted, hustled, -and insulted “the Austrian butcher,” till he fled in terror from the -premises, and took refuge in a little public-house, from which the -police smuggled him away. Naturally, Lord Palmerston expressed his -regret to the Austrian Ambassador; but it was also necessary to send a -formal Note on the subject to the Austrian Government. This Note was a -model of Palmerstonian maladroitness. In the first place, it contained -an uncalled-for imputation on the English people, because it admitted -that they were so incapable of courtesy and self-control that no -foreigner was safe in England who happened to be unpopular. Secondly, it -implied that Haynau had been imprudent in visiting England at all. The -Queen, whose views were shared by the Prime Minister, objected to both -of these statements--one as derogatory to the honour of England, the -other as needlessly offensive to Austria. But, on her objecting, she -discovered that it was impossible to alter the Note, which had been sent -to the Austrian Ambassador _before_ the draft had been submitted to her. -The Queen, however, insisted on the withdrawal of the Note, and so did -Lord John Russell. Palmerston first of all tried to browbeat the Prime -Minister by threatening to resign. But when Lord John informed him (16th -of October) that the threat was futile, Palmerston submissively withdrew -the Note, and substituted for it another drawn up in accordance with the -Queen’s views. - -Another serious conflict of opinion between the Queen and Lord -Palmerston at this period arose out of the dispute between Denmark and -the German States as to the settlement of Schleswig-Holstein. The German -population of these Duchies had revolted against the petty tyranny of -the Danes, and it was notorious that they were supported secretly by -Prussia. The rebellion was suppressed; and though almost all the -Liberals of Europe were in favour of letting the Duchies be incorporated -in Germany, the Governments of the various Powers took the contrary -view. The Austro-Prussian Convention at Olmütz, of 29th November, -restoring peace and stipulating for the disarmament of the Duchies, left -the matter uncertain; but Austria was obviously for thwarting, whilst -Prussia was for gratifying, the aspirations of the German or national -party in the Duchies. All through this controversy the Queen was -anti-Austrian, and strongly in favour of letting the -Schleswig-Hoisteiners have their own way. Palmerston, and in this he was -powerfully supported by the Tories, was violently pro-Austrian, and used -the influence of England as far as possible to prevent the Duchies -gravitating to Germany. For the moment he was successful. But subsequent -events, as all the world knows, justified the wiser and more liberal -views of the Queen. - -On the 26th of August, 1850, Louis Philippe died; in fact, the sad news -of his death greeted the Queen and her husband a few days after their -return from a brief visit to the King of the Belgians at Ostend, and -marred the celebration of Prince Albert’s thirty-first birthday at -Osborne. - -On the 27th of August the Royal Family migrated northwards. The Queen -and Prince Albert opened the great railway bridges at Newcastle and -Berwick, and then went on to Edinburgh, where they stayed at Holyrood -Palace. - -The reception of the Queen in the “grey metropolis of the North” was -picturesque as well as enthusiastic. The Royal Company of Archers in -their quaint old costume, headed by the Duke of Buccleuch, claimed their -historic right of acting as the Queen’s body-guard, and they surrounded -her carriage as it drove through swarming crowds from the railway -station to the Palace, in which no Queen of Scotland had set foot since -Mary Stuart crossed its threshold, never to return to it again. -Immediately after her arrival, the Queen and her family began to explore -the Palace and its ruined precincts, and she records her delight in her -Diary at discovering in the crumbling Abbey the tomb “of Flora -Macdonald’s mother,” not the Flora Macdonald who assisted the Young -Pretender to escape, but a lady of the Clanranald family, who was then -serving as a Maid of Honour. Next morning the Queen and “the children” -drove round the park, and climbed Arthur’s Seat, and the Prince -proceeded to lay the foundation-stone of the National Gallery of Arts, -whilst the rest of the day was spent in sightseeing. At half-past eight -on the following morning her Majesty started for Balmoral, which she -reached in the afternoon. Here, as Prince Albert says in one of his -letters to Stockmar, they tried to strengthen their hearts amid the -stillness and solemnity of the mountains,[26] and truly they had much -need of rest. The harassing conflicts with Lord Palmerston, the deaths -of Peel, Louis Philippe, Queen Adelaide, the Duke of Cambridge, and the -faithful Anson, and the news that the Queen of the Belgians was dying, -contributed to produce in the Queen great depression of spirits. - -The sport on the hills delighted the Prince. The primitive life and -guileless character of the people vastly interested the Queen, who has -left on record her account of several curious excursions she made, and -of the gathering of clansmen at Braemar, which she witnessed. Writing on -the 12th of September, 1850, her Majesty says in her “Leaves from a -Journal of Our Life in the Highlands,” “We lunched early, and then went -at half-past two o’clock, with the children and all our party, except -Lady Douro, to the Gathering at the Castle of Braemar, as we did last -year. The Duffs, Farquharsons, the Leeds’s, and those staying with them, -and Captain Forbes and forty of his men who had come over from Strath -Don, were there. Some of our people were there also. There were the -usual games of ‘putting the stone,’ ‘throwing the hammer’ and ‘caber,’ -and racing up the hill of Craig Cheunnich, which was accomplished in -less than six minutes and a half; and we were all much pleased to see -our gillie Duncan,[27] who is an active, good-looking young man, win. He -was far before the others the whole way. It is a fearful exertion. Mr. -Farquharson brought him up to me afterwards. Eighteen or nineteen -started, and it looked very pretty to see them run off in their -different coloured kilts, with their white shirts (the jackets or -doublets they take off for all the games), and scramble up through the -wood, emerging gradually at the edge of it, and climbing the hill. - -“After this we went into the Castle, and saw some dancing; the prettiest -was a reel by Mr. Farquharson’s children and some other children, and -the ‘Ghillie Callum,’ beautifully danced by John Athole Farquharson, the -fourth son. The twelve children were all there, including the baby, who -is two years old. - -“Mama, Charles, and Ernest joined us at Braemar. Mama enjoys it all very -much; it is her first visit to Scotland. We left after the dancing.” - -The Court returned to Windsor late in the autumn, and one of the first -dismal communications made to her Majesty was that of the death of the -Queen of the Belgians on the 11th of October. “Victoria is greatly -distressed,” writes Prince Albert to Stockmar. “Her aunt was her only -confidante and friend. Sex, age, culture, feeling, rank--in all these -they were so much on a par, that a relation of unconstrained friendship -naturally grew up between them.” This friendship, it may be added, -survived even the treachery of Queen Louise’s father, Louis Philippe, in -the matter of the Spanish marriages. - -The end of the year 1850 was marked by another amazing epidemic of -bigotry on the part of the people and the Government, which was very -distressing to the serene and evenly balanced minds of the Queen and her -husband. This was known as the “Papal Aggression movement,” and it is -in these days difficult to understand how a sensible nation could have -been swept into its vortex. - -On the 24th of September the Pope issued a Brief re-establishing the -Roman Catholic hierarchy in England. In other words, he substituted -Bishops and Archbishops deriving their titles from their sees, for the -Vicars Apostolic who govern Romish missions in heathen lands. He -partitioned England into sees, very much as the Wesleyans had mapped it -into circuits and districts. The act was purely one of ecclesiastical -administration, and of no concern to any body but the small Roman -Catholic community in England. But prominent leaders of the Church began -to talk about it in extravagant terms, as if it constituted the -spiritual annexation of England to Rome, and as if it were a formal -assertion of the authority of the Pope over that of the Queen. The -Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, Dr. Nicholas Wiseman, and Father -(now Cardinal) Newman, were particularly indiscreet in their references -to the Papal Brief. Dr. Wiseman, for example, issued a pompous Pastoral -“Given out of the Flaminian Gate of Rome,” on the 7th of October, -boasting that “Catholic England had been restored to its orbit in the -ecclesiastical firmament, from which its light had long vanished.” - -Dr. Ullathorne, the Bishop of Birmingham, was one of those prelates who -had the sense and tact to see what mischief would spring from Cardinal -Wiseman’s folly, and he did his best to explain the real meaning of the -Papal Brief. But his voice was like that of one crying in the -wilderness. Did not Father Newman, preaching at Dr. Ullathorne’s -enthronisation, say that “the people of England, who for so many years -have been separated from the see of Rome, are about, of their own free -will, to be added to the Holy Church”? Was it not clear, despite the -reasonable explanations of Dr. Ullathorne and others, that what the -Papists really meant was that the Reformation was now reversed, and that -England was reconquered for Rome? Outraged Protestantism, arguing in -this fashion, without distinction of party or sect, accordingly rose in -its wrath, and hurled angry defiance at the Pope. The bigots, taking -advantage of this outburst of popular passion, demanded that the law -should step in and punish the insolent priesthood, who thus challenged -the prerogatives of the Crown. - -On the 4th of November, Lord John Russell addressed to the Bishop of -Durham a letter, almost equalling Cardinal Wiseman’s in its folly. The -Prime Minister, in fact, gave expression to the worst phase of -contemporary excitement, and fully endorsed the ridiculous notion that a -prelate, who had but recently been restored to, and even then was kept -on, his throne in Rome by foreign bayonets, had established his -supremacy over England, in a manner inconsistent with the authority of -the Queen. This Durham letter further stimulated the frenzy of -intolerance into which England plunged. Meetings were held everywhere -protesting against Papal aggression, and transmitting loyal addresses to -the Queen. Guy Fawkes’ Day was celebrated with more - -[Illustration: THE ROYAL APARTMENTS, HOLYROOD PALACE. - -1, Throne Room; 2, Breakfast Parlour; 3, Evening Drawing-room; 4, Grand -Staircase; 5, Morning Drawing-room.] - -than usual zeal, and in most towns effigies of the Pope and Cardinal -Wiseman were paraded through hooting crowds, and burnt in bonfires -amidst the derision of the populace. The Universities and the -Corporation of London in December sent deputations in great state to -Windsor to present addresses to the Queen, protesting against insidious -attacks on the authority, prerogatives, and exclusive jurisdiction of -the Crown. The Queen’s replies to these addresses were spirited but -calm, and absolutely free from intolerance. “I would never have -consented,” she tells her “aunt Gloucester” in a letter written after -the deputations had been received, “to say anything which breathed a -spirit of intolerance. Sincerely Protestant as I always have been and -always shall be, and indignant as I am at those who call themselves -Protestants, while they are in fact quite the contrary,[28] I much -regret the unchristian and intolerant spirit exhibited by many people at -the public meetings. I cannot bear to hear the violent abuse of the -Catholic religion, which is so painful and so cruel towards the many -good and innocent Roman Catholics.”[29] - -On the last day of December, 1850, the Queen was gratified to hear that -one of her husband’s cherished designs had been carried out. The -building for the International Exhibition had risen from the ground in -Hyde Park with the magical rapidity of a fairy palace. The design which -had been chosen was that of a French artist, and Londoners had looked on -with amazement at the erection of the great central dome of crystal, -which dwarfed even that of St. Paul’s into insignificance. The plan for -carrying out the design was suggested by Mr. Paxton, chief -superintendent of the Duke of Devonshire’s gardens, and it was but an -expansion of the grand conservatory which he had built for his Grace at -Chatsworth. Iron and glass were the materials used for its construction. -The cast-iron columns and girders were all alike--four columns and four -girders being placed in relative positions forming a square of 24 feet, -which could be raised to any height, or expanded laterally in any -required direction, merely by joining other columns and girders to them. -The building, therefore, grew up in multiples of twenty-four, and it -could be taken to pieces just as readily as if it had been a doll’s -house, and put up on any other site in exactly the same form. As a -matter of fact, after the Exhibition was held in 1851, this wonderful -Palace of Crystal was removed to Sydenham, where it has long been one of -the raree-shows of London. The building covered 18 acres of ground, and -gave an exhibiting surface of 21 acres; in truth, it was, within ten -feet, twice the width of St. Paul’s, and four times as long. The -contractors, Messrs. Fox, Henderson, and Co., accepted the order for the -work on the 26th of July, and though there was not a single bar of iron -or pane of glass prepared at that date, they handed the completed -building over to the Commissioners, ready for painting and fitting, on -the last day of the year. - - - - -CHAPTER XXV. - -FALL OF THE WHIG CABINET. - - Debates on “No Popery”--Mutiny of the Irish Brigade--Defeat of Lord - John Russell--Lord Stanley “sent for”--Timid Tories--Lord Stanley’s - Interviews with the Queen--A Statesman’s “Domestic Duties”--Is - Coalition Possible?--The Queen’s Mistake--The Duke of Wellington’s - Advice--Return of the Whigs to Office--The Queen’s Aversions--The - “No Popery” Bill Reduced to a Nullity--Another Bungled Budget--The - Income Tax Controversy--The Pillar of Free Trade--The Window Tax - and the House Duty--The Radicals and the Slave Trade--King “Bomba” - and Mr. Gladstone--Cobden on General Disarmament--Palmerston in a - Millennial Mood--The Whig-Peelite Intrigue--The Queen and the - Kossuth Demonstrations--Another Quarrel with Palmerston--A Merry - Council of State. - - -On the 4th of February, 1851, Parliament assembled with the din of the -agitation over Papal aggression ringing in its ears. Men talked of -nothing save the legislation that might be necessary to check the -encroachments of Rome. But it was not supposed that the course of the -Government would be other than smooth, for not only was the Prime -Minister in full accord with the popular feeling against Papal -aggression, but the great International Exhibition dwarfed public -interest in purely party questions. We shall see how these anticipations -were falsified by events, and how the Whig Government was hurried to its -doom. One of the politicians behind the scenes, who forecast the fall of -the Cabinet more accurately than the public, was Mr. Cobden. “I expect,” -he writes on the 19th of February in one of his letters, “that this ‘No -Popery’ cry will prove fatal to the Ministry. It is generally thought -that the Government will be in a minority on some important question, -probably the Income Tax, in less than a fortnight. The Irish Catholic -members are determined to do everything to turn out Lord John. Indeed, -Ireland is in such a state of exasperation with the Whigs, that no Irish -member having a Catholic constituency will have a chance of being -elected again unless he votes through thick and thin to upset the -Ministry.”[30] - -The Address to the Queen was carried in both Houses. The Queen’s Speech -promised a measure for resisting the assumption that a foreign Power had -a right to confer ecclesiastical titles in England; and some forthcoming -Chancery reforms, and reforms in the registration of titles, were also -promised. The Protectionists harped on their old string--agricultural -distress. The Radicals complained that the Government gave them no hope -of cutting down taxation, and grumbled because no reference was made to -Parliamentary reform. But they fought rather shy of the proposed -legislation against Papal aggression; yet speaking generally, the “No -Popery” cry was popular in both Houses of Parliament. - -[Illustration: ST. STEPHEN’S CRYPT, WESTMINSTER PALACE.] - -On the 7th of February, Lord John Russell moved for leave to introduce -his Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, which prevented the assumption of such -titles “in respect of places in the United Kingdom,” and he was met by a -scathing attack from Mr. Roebuck, who condemned the measure as -retrograde and reactionary. The feebleness of the Bill was in comic -contrast with the fierce agitation which had produced it, and with the -extravagant terms of the Premier’s speech, which might have led one to -suppose the Penal Laws were being re-enacted. As Mr. Roebuck said, if -Dr. Wiseman called himself Archbishop, instead of Archbishop of -Westminster, the Bill could not even touch him. For four nights did the -debate drag on, till ultimately leave to introduce the measure was -carried by a majority of 332. The Irish members, had they been sixty -Quakers instead of sixty Catholics, could dictate terms to any Ministry -in a keen party fight, and as they were determined to punish Lord John -Russell for his Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, it was obvious that on some -other question where a close division was expected the Government would -be beaten by the votes of their Irish supporters. It was an ominous sign -that they were saved from defeat only by a majority of - -[Illustration: MR. LOCKE KING.] - -sixteen on Mr. Disraeli’s motion for the relief of agricultural -distress. But the fatal blow came when Mr. Locke King, on the 20th of -February, brought forward his motion for leave to introduce a Bill for -equalising the town and county franchise, by reducing the latter to the -limit of £10 yearly value. Although Lord John Russell promised to bring -in a measure for improving representation, he resisted Mr. King’s -motion. It was then carried against him by a vote of 100 against 52. -“The Ecclesiastical Titles Bill,” writes Mr. Cobden to his friend Mr. J. -Parker, “is the real cause of the upset of the Whig coach, or rather of -the coachman leaping from the box to escape an upset. This measure -cannot be persevered in by any Government so far as Ireland is -concerned, for no Government can exist if fifty Irish members are -pledged to vote against them under all circumstances when they are in -danger. A dissolution would give at least fifty members to do that -work, and they would be all watched as they are now by their -constituents. This mode of fighting by means of adverse votes in the -House is far more difficult to deal with by our aristocratic rulers than -was the plan of O’Connell, when he called his monster meetings. They -could be stopped by a proclamation or put down by soldiers, but neither -of these modes will avail in the House. What folly,” adds Mr. Cobden, as -if he had even then foreseen the success of Parnellism in our day, “it -was to give a real representation to the Irish counties, and to think of -still maintaining the old persecuting ascendency.”[31] On the 22nd of -February, Lord John, as Mr. Cobden says, “leaped from the box,” for on -that day he and his colleagues resigned. - -The Queen sent for Lord Stanley, who frankly told her that he could not -undertake to form a Ministry. He, however, said he would try to form one -if Lord John Russell failed to reconstruct his defeated Cabinet. Lord -Stanley’s motive for refusing office is to be found in the fact that -there was a serious division of opinion among his followers, on the one -question that was vital to their existence as a party. Some of the -ablest of them, led by Mr. Walpole and Mr. Henley, objected to any -proposal to tax foreign corn, and yet if the Protectionists refused to -do that, their _locus standi_ in the country was gone. Her Majesty next -appealed to Lord John Russell to form a coalition with the Peelites. -This project proved to be hopeless. The Peelites were bitterly opposed -to the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, and though Lord John offered to -attenuate it to the verge of absolute nullity, they could not sanction -it in any shape or form. Moreover, Sir James Graham was afraid that if -he joined a Whig Ministry he might quarrel with Lord Palmerston, and -Lord Grey was equally afraid that he might quarrel with Sir James -Graham. The Peelite leaders also thought that before a Coalition -Government could be organised with any chance of success, it must be -preceded by co-operation in opposition, between the two parties to it, -and hence they wished Lord Stanley to form a Ministry which, from its -Protectionist policy, must needs have but a brief existence. This -abortive attempt to form an alliance between the Whigs and the Peelites -is memorable, because it was the first step that led them both on the -path which brought them to the celebrated and fateful Coalition of 1852. - -On the 26th of February, the Queen accordingly sent for Lord Stanley -again, and he, with a somewhat rueful countenance, pledged himself to -try and form a Cabinet. Again he failed, and for reasons which are given -by Lord Malmesbury in his diary under the date of the 28th of February. -“We met,” writes Lord Malmesbury, “at Lord Stanley’s in St. James’s -Square, and have failed in forming a Government. He had previously -requested me to take the Colonial Office, which I consider a great -compliment, as it is one of the hardest worked of places. Those -assembled were Mr. Disraeli, Sir John Pakington, Mr. Walpole, Lord -Hardwicke, Mr. Henley, Mr. Herries, Lord John Manners, and Lord -Eglinton. Everything went smoothly, each willingly accepting the -respective post to which Lord Stanley appointed him, excepting Mr. -Henley, who made such difficulties about himself, and submitted so many -upon various subjects, that Lord Stanley threw up the game, to the great -disappointment and disgust of most of the others present. Mr. Henley -seemed quite overpowered by the responsibility he was asked to undertake -as President of the Board of Trade, and is evidently a most nervous man. -Mr. Disraeli did not conceal his anger at his want of courage and -interest in the matter.... In the House of Lords, Lord Stanley announced -his failure, and did not conceal it as being caused by the want of -experience in public business which he found existed in his party. This -is possibly the case, but what really caused the break up of the -conference was the timid conduct of Mr. Henley and Mr. Herries.[32] Mr. -Herries,” adds Lord Malmesbury, “at this conference, looked like an old -doctor who had just killed a patient, and Mr. Henley like the undertaker -who was to bury him.” Lord Stanley gave a half-sarcastic turn to his -announcement in the House of Lords of the various motives which had led -his friends to refuse office. There was a titter when he said that one -gentleman had declined to serve because he was pressed with domestic -duties, which gave occasion for one of Lord Stanley’s brightest jokes. -Lady Jocelyn ironically asked Stanley who it was who was so anxious -about his domestic duties. “It is not Jocelyn,” was the cutting -reply.[33] An attempted combination with the Peelites had broken down, -though Mr. Gladstone was offered a high post in the Cabinet, and the -Queen then summoned the Duke of Wellington for his advice. - -Matters were at an absolute deadlock. There were three questions in the -public mind--Protection _versus_ Free Trade, Parliamentary Reform, and -Papal Aggression. As Prince Albert put it in a memorandum which he drew -up for the Duke’s consideration, on the _first_ question Peelites, -Radicals, and Whigs were united, and formed a solid working majority. On -the _second_ question they were also united against the Protectionists. -But on the _third_ question the Whigs and Protectionists were united -against the Peelites and the Radicals reinforced by the Irish party. Any -policy that could unite Peelites, Whigs, Radicals, and Irish would -therefore furnish a majority capable of keeping in office a Cabinet that -could carry on the Queen’s Government. But the Peelites, the Irish, and -the Radicals were just as determined that there should be no anti-Papal -legislation, as the Whigs and Protectionists were determined on -demanding it. Why not, in such circumstances, leave Papal aggression an -_open question_, in a Coalition Ministry of Whigs, Peelites, and -Radicals, allowing Lord John Russell to go on with an attenuated -Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, and Sir James Graham to oppose it? This -suggestion - -[Illustration: THE GREEN DRAWING-ROOM, WINDSOR CASTLE.] - -obviously sprang from the opinion which the Queen had held strongly ever -since the year 1846, that the country would never get an efficient -Government till a Coalition Ministry was formed. It was, however, quite -impracticable. The Queen made no allowance for the ease with which a -Cabinet loses prestige in the atmosphere of passion which pervades the -House of Commons, where the fact that a Cabinet is even suspected of -being divided destroys its moral authority. Neither the Duke of -Wellington nor Lord Lansdowne, who was also consulted, could advise the -Queen to put forward this project. The Duke, in fact, advised her to -send for Lord John Russell once again. This was accordingly done. “The -last act of the drama fell out last night,” writes Mr. Greville on the -4th of March, “as everybody foresaw it would and must.” Lord John -returned to office with his Ministry unchanged, which, says Mr. -Greville, “was better than trying some trifling patching-up, or some -shuffling of the same pack, and it makes a future reconstruction more -easy.” On the same night Lord Granville dined at the Palace. “The Queen -and Prince Albert,” writes Mr. Greville, “both talked to him a great -deal of what has been passing, and very openly. She is satisfied with -herself, as well she may be, and hardly with anybody else; - -[Illustration: SIR GEORGE CORNEWALL LEWIS.] - -not dissatisfied personally with Stanley, of whom she spoke in terms -indicative of liking him. She thinks Lord John Russell and his Cabinet -might have done more than they did to obtain Graham and the Peelites, -and might have made the Papal question more of an open question; but -Granville says that it is evident she is heart and soul with the -Peelites, so strong is the influence of Sir Robert, and they are very -stout and determined about Free Trade. The Queen and Prince think this -resuscitated concern very shaky, and that it will not last. Her -favourite aversions are, first and foremost, Palmerston, and Disraeli -next. It is very likely that this latter antipathy (which no doubt -Stanley discovered) contributed to his reluctance to form a Government. -Such is the feeling about him in their minds.” Mr. Disraeli, aware of -their antipathy, had, indeed, offered to efface himself or to accept any -office, no matter how humble, that would not bring him into personal -communication with the Sovereign, in order to facilitate the return of -his party to power. It may be here convenient to note that the Queen, -though entertaining strong personal opinions about the capacity of her -Ministers, has been ever prompt to change them when they gave her good -reasons for doing so. Her antipathy to Peel in 1839 was notorious. Yet -when Peel became Prime Minister he completely won her confidence. Her -antipathy to Palmerston ceased after he left the Foreign Office and -became Prime Minister, and the same may be said of her aversion to Mr. -Disraeli, who, as Lord Beaconsfield, received from the Crown a tribute -of homage and favour rarely accorded to any subject. - -The reinstatement of the Whigs pleased nobody. However, a dissolution -was dreaded, and all parties were therefore forced to tolerate them. But -they were, as a Government, utterly discredited, and their final fall -was imminent. On their return to office, the Government produced a new -edition of their Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. It consisted simply in a -declaration that the assumption of such titles was illegal. What may be -termed the stringent penal clauses were cut out, and in this form the -measure was received with universal displeasure, mingled with contempt. -The bigots complained that the measure was rendered futile. The Radicals -complained that it was a concession to the bigots. As for the Irish -members, they opposed what was left of it, simply to compel the -Government to drain the chalice of mortification to the lees. So -ingeniously was the Bill obstructed that it was not read a third time -till a month after its introduction. The House of Lords passed it after -debating the second reading for two nights. Its opponents predicted it -would be a dead letter, and events verified their prophecies. As Sir -George Cornewall Lewis said, “Neither the assumption of the territorial -title nor the prohibition to assume it was of the least practical -importance.”[34] - -The story of the Parliamentary Session of 1851 may be briefly told. The -obstruction of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill left little time for -legislation. Sir Charles Wood, as usual, bungled the Budget. He had a -comfortable surplus of £2,521,000. His estimates were careful and -judicious, and showed on the basis of existing taxation an anticipated -surplus of £1,892,000. It was in disposing of this sum that Sir Charles -plunged into a sea of difficulties. He said it would not enable him to -abolish the Income Tax, the retention of which, during the early days of -Free Trade, he recommended as necessary for the stability of the fiscal -system. Hence he proposed to spend his estimated surplus in (1), -reducing debt by about £1,000,000; (2), in commuting a tax “which bore -on the health and morals of the lower classes,” namely, the Window Tax, -into a house duty; (3), in reducing the duty on foreign and colonial -coffee to a uniform rate of threepence in the pound; (4), in reducing -the timber duty by fifty per cent.; (5), and by transferring to the -State a certain proportion of the local charge for maintaining pauper -lunatics. On the 17th of February, in Committee of Ways and Means, Sir -Charles accordingly moved that the Income Tax and Stamp Duties in -Ireland be renewed for a limited period. The manner in which the Budget -was received clearly showed that it would be unpopular. The Tories -attacked it because the Income Tax was to be retained, and the transfer -of the charge for pauper lunatics they ridiculed as a mockery of relief -to the distressed rural ratepayers. Mr. Hume complained that there was -no attempt made to reduce military expenditure by asking the Colonies to -bear the cost of their own defence. The representatives of the large -towns protested violently against commuting the Window Tax into a house -duty. The controversy was, however, cut short by Lord John Russell’s -resignation after his defeat on Mr. Locke King’s resolution, to which -reference has already been made. - -On the 5th of April Sir Charles Wood, after his usual manner, brought -forward a new Budget. He proposed now to levy a uniform duty of -ninepence on the annual value of houses, and sixpence on shops, without -reference to the number of their windows. This would in nearly all cases -impose a smaller burden on houses than the Window Tax, the capricious -and unequal incidence of which had made it intensely unpopular--the -greatest relief being given to the houses which had more windows than -were proportionate to their annual value. The loss from the Window Tax -and the reduction of the duty on coffee left a surplus of £924,000 for -emergencies, and Sir Charles Wood was still deaf to the demand for the -abolition of the Income Tax. The Tories contended that the tax had been -granted to meet a deficit. There was now no deficit, therefore the tax -ought to be removed. The Whigs admitted these facts, but denied the -conclusion drawn from them. The tax, they argued, ought not to be -removed, because a new reason had risen for its continuance, namely, -that the Income Tax enabled the Government to minimise the loss to the -revenue which might be entailed by the abandonment of protective duties. -This, in fact, is the clue to all the tangled Income Tax controversies -of the time. The Income Tax was in truth the keystone of Peel’s Free -Trade policy. The Tories, therefore, spared no pains to strike it out of -the fabric of fiscal legislation which he and the Whigs had built up. -Yet the injustice and frauds perpetrated under the Income Tax were -admitted on all sides; and finally an effort was made by Mr. Hume to -limit the renewal of the tax to one year, and refer the whole question -of its assessment and incidence to a Select Committee. Mr. Hume’s motion -was carried against the Government by a vote of 244 to 230. But the -fatal objection to it, as Mr. Sidney Herbert pointed out, was that, -unless the Government had the Income Tax secured to them for three -years, they could not make permanent - -[Illustration: THE CAFFRE WAR: NATIVES ATTACKING A CONVOY.] - -reductions in the duties on coffee and timber. It was absurd to dream of -entering on a policy which involved further remission of taxation, so -long as £5,000,000 of the revenue--for that was what the Income Tax -brought in--depended on an annual vote of the House. Then the _concordia -discors_ of the majority was made manifest. As everybody had voted with -Mr. Hume from different motives, it was impossible to get competent men -to serve on the Committee. That difficulty, however, was after much -trouble overcome, and the Government made the best of the situation. -They accepted defeat; Lord John Russell, however, stipulating that, -whatever might be done, the national credit must be maintained. In other -words, he accepted the proposal on the ground that, though the motion -granting the Income Tax for one year only was carried, there was no -serious intention of refusing to renew the tax if necessary; and that it -would be necessary was, of course, certain, unless the £5,500,000 -derived from it were replaced by protective duties. This was not a very -logical position, and Mr. Disraeli seized the opening which it gave him. -Hume’s victory, technically speaking, implied that the financial -arrangements of the country were in a provisional state. - -[Illustration: GROUP OF DYAKS.] - -Why, then, asked Mr. Disraeli, sacrifice any revenue at all till -something like permanence had been imparted to these arrangements? On -the 30th of July he brought forward a futile motion to this effect in a -grandiose speech, and was supported by Mr. Gladstone, whose antipathy to -the Government was fast becoming uncontrollable. Yet Mr. Gladstone’s -argument was sound enough. To surrender the Window Tax for one like the -hated House Duty, which rested on a narrow basis and was vitiated by -special anomalies of inequality and injustice of incidence, that had -secured its abolition in 1834, was surely bad finance. And what was -gained? Six-sevenths of the house property of the country were exempted -from taxation--house property being a fair enough subject for taxation, -provided it be assessed on fair general principles. Nothing could be -more precarious than the position of the Income Tax; yet but for it the -surplus in hand, which Sir Charles Wood was flinging away, would not -exist. Mr. Disraeli, however, in spite of Mr. Gladstone’s support, lost -his motion. His inconsistency in voting for Mr. Cayley’s proposal, on -the 8th of May, to abolish the Malt Tax, which yielded £5,000,000 of -revenue, and in protesting, on the 30th of June, against the sacrifice -of £1,600,000 of surplus, as ruinous to public credit, was, of course, -disastrous to his pleading. - -In the debates on Colonial Policy the Government were more successful -than could have been anticipated. Mr. Baillie’s motion censuring Lord -Torrington’s maladministration of the affairs of Ceylon was defeated by -a large majority, which, says Mr. Greville, set the Cabinet, smarting -from various reverses at the time, “on their legs again.” - -On the 18th of April a much more important subject was broached by Sir -W. Molesworth, who moved a series of resolutions demanding that the -Colonies should be made autonomous, and charged to provide for their own -defence. Other motions of the same sort as this one sprang from the -_animus_ against the Colonial Office which then existed among all -parties. As Mr. Urquhart said in debate, independent members were of -opinion that, if the good sense of the country did not put down the -Colonial Office, the Colonial Office would put down the Empire. The -objection of the Government to Sir W. Molesworth’s proposal was the old -one to all Colonial reforms--that it must lead to the abandonment of our -Colonial Empire. The debate was adjourned, and was not resumed. - -The chronic discontent of the Cape Colonists, smarting under Lord Grey’s -abortive design to quarter convicts on them, led to some acrimonious -discussions, which aggravated popular antipathy to the costly Caffre War -which was raging. Lord John Russell, however, contrived to evade attacks -by persuading the House of Commons to appoint a Select Committee to -inquire into the relations of the Colony to the Caffre tribes. - -The Radicals of the Manchester school had raised early in the Session an -agitation against Sir James Brooke, popularly called Rajah Brooke, of -Sarawak. Rajah Brooke had waged war on the Dyak tribes because they were -aggressive pirates. The Manchester school denied that the Dyaks were -pirates, and contended that Sir James Brooke simply levied war on the -natives in order to seize their territory. Mr. Hume insisted on -referring the matter to a Select Committee, but he was defeated by a -large majority, and the result of the debate was to exonerate Sir James -Brooke from the charges of brutality and barbarism that had been -advanced against him. - -The slave-hunting squadron in West Africa was another question as to -which the Government were sadly harried. The cost of keeping up the -squadron rendered it extremely unpopular, and Mr. Hume forced the -Government, in Committee of Supply, to make a statement as to its work. -According to Lord Palmerston, it was active, energetic, and successful -in suppressing the infamous traffic in slaves, and the House of Commons -thought that the results of the squadron’s operations were so valuable -that England ought not to grudge the money spent upon it. On the other -hand, the Party of Economy contended that the reduction in the slave -trade was due, not to the English squadron, but to the new policy of -Brazil, whose Government had begun to co-operate with ours in seizing -slave-traders, destroying barracoons, and releasing slaves. - -Foreign affairs but slightly interested Parliament in 1851. No doubt a -great deal of excitement was produced by the two letters on the State -prosecutions by the Neapolitan Government, which Mr. Gladstone addressed -to Lord Aberdeen, and much indignation was expressed at the stupid -tyranny of King “Bomba,” whose dungeons were full of political -prisoners. The charges of cruelty and injustice caused Sir De Lacy Evans -to question the Foreign Secretary on the subject in the House of -Commons, and from Lord Palmerston’s reply it turned out that above -20,000 persons were then confined in Neapolitan prisons for political -offences, most of whom had been deprived of liberty in flagrant -violation of the existing laws of their country. Copies of Mr. -Gladstone’s letter were sent by Lord Palmerston to every foreign -Government, in the hope that a joint-remonstrance from the Powers might -put an end to King Ferdinand’s outrages on civilisation. - -Mr. Cobden renewed his annual motion for bringing about a general -disarmament among the European nations; and undoubtedly his speech was -received with much more sympathy than usual by the House of Commons and -the country. It was the year of the International Exhibition, and all -the world was talking of fraternity among the nations, and of their -strife being limited, in the golden future, to peaceful contests in the -fields of industry. “We are witnessing now,” said Mr. Cobden in a -memorable passage of his speech, “what a few years ago no one could have -predicted as possible. We see men meeting together from all countries in -the world, more like the gatherings of nations in former times, when -they came up for a great religious festival; we find men speaking -different languages and bred in different habits associating in one -common temple erected for their gratification and reception.” The -Government, he held, might with everlasting honour to themselves seize -the favourable hour for broaching a peace policy, and endeavour to win -the assent of Europe to a project for universal disarmament. The idea -then in men’s minds was that England should set the example by -approaching France with a proposal, that each country should reduce its -armaments to the footing on which they stood at the time of the Syrian -dispute. Lord Palmerston approved generally of Mr. Cobden’s objects, and -was willing to say that he would do everything in his power to bring -about the friendliest relations with France. But he did not wish to be -fettered beforehand with definite instructions to open up at once -negotiations for mutual disarmament; and, professing himself satisfied -with this expression of opinion, Mr. Cobden withdrew his motion. - -The Jews in the Session of 1851 failed to remove the political -disabilities under which members of their community lay.[35] They -carried their point in the House of Commons. In the House of Lords, -however, the Tories threw the Jewish Disabilities Relief Bill out by a -vote of 144 to 108. A hot controversy arose over the attempt of Alderman -Salomons, the newly-elected member for Greenwich, to take the Oath -without repeating the words, “On the true faith of a Christian.” It -ended in the Alderman being removed from his seat by the -Serjeant-at-Arms, and in Lord John Russell carrying a motion denying Mr. -Salomons’s right to sit whilst he was unsworn. - -[Illustration: LORD CARLISLE.] - -The smaller measures of the Session included a Bill for strengthening -the appellate branch of the Court of Chancery by appointing two extra -judges. The Bill to legalise marriage with a deceased wife’s sister, -though carried in the House of Commons, was, as usual, rejected in the -Lords. Parliament was prorogued by the Queen in person on the 8th of -August, and the occasion - -[Illustration: THE GREAT EXHIBITION, HYDE PARK.] - -was interesting, for the representatives of the people for the first -time went into her presence from the new House of Commons, which had at -last been made ready for occupation. The long procession through the -grand corridors, between the two chambers, was accordingly a little more -orderly than usual. The Royal Speech was devoted to a brief review of a -barren but not unimportant Session. - -Legislation, in fact, had been brought to a standstill by the anti-Papal -Bill, which had been obstinately obstructed. The prestige of the -Ministry was gone, and their natural strength completely abated by the -mutiny of the Irish Whigs. And yet, when Lord John Russell resumed -office after his resignation, he gained rather than lost in power, and -the attack on him became more and more languid every day. The truth is -that the people did not think much about politics after May, 1851. The -Ministry was safe after the failure of the Tories to take their places. -But it was no stronger than when it had been beaten on Mr. Locke King’s -motion, and its lease of office depended largely on the tolerance of -disdain. The people were indeed preoccupied with the Great Industrial -Exhibition of All Nations to such an extent that they paid no more -attention, during the latter half of the Session, to the doings of the -Government, than to the debates of a local vestry. “There is,” writes -Mr. Greville on the 8th of June, “a picture in _Punch_ of the -shipwrecked Government saved by the ‘Exhibition’ steamer, which really -is historically true, thanks in great measure to the attractions of the -Exhibition, which has acted on the public as well as upon Parliament.... -There has been so much indifference and _insouciance_ about politics and -parties that John Russell and his Cabinet have been released from all -present danger. The cause of Protection gets weaker and weaker every -day; all sensible and practical men give it up as hopeless.”[36] That he -had been saved by the “Great Exhibition” steamer evidently did not -satisfy Lord John Russell. Hence he seems to have been ever hankering -after a plan for strengthening his Cabinet by the addition to it of a -Peelite element. Sir George Cornewall Lewis was sent down to Netherby in -September to intrigue with Sir James Graham for this purpose, but -Graham, though offered the Board of Control, or as it would now be -called the India Office, refused to join the Cabinet because he was -afraid lest Lord John Russell might make dangerous concessions to the -Party who were agitating for Parliamentary Reform. It is interesting to -note that Lord Palmerston strongly opposed this project of inviting -Graham to join the Whig Cabinet, and strove hard to induce his -colleagues to make their overtures to Mr. Gladstone. It is impossible to -blame Sir James for the course he took. Lord John Russell’s incurable -antipathy to statistical research induced him to hand over the question -of Reform to a small Ministerial Committee, consisting of Lord Minto, -Lord Carlisle, and Sir C. Wood, and so little did the Whigs love Reform, -that some of them, like Lord Lansdowne, had resolved to leave the -Cabinet if a strong Reform measure were proposed. - -Another circumstance helped to weaken the Ministry. Lord Palmerston, as -usual, succeeded during the autumn in again irritating the Queen and his -own colleagues by one of his singular freaks at the Foreign Office. When -Louis Kossuth, the Hungarian patriot, arrived at Southampton on the 23rd -of October, he was welcomed by a popular demonstration, and some leading -Radicals took part in it. Lord Palmerston immediately resolved to -receive him, and it became known that if he did this the Austrian -Government would recall their Ambassador. Lord John Russell pointed out -the impropriety of the step which Lord Palmerston obstinately insisted -on taking. Palmerston’s last word on the subject to the Prime Minister -was that he considered he had a right to receive M. Kossuth privately -and unofficially, and that he would not be dictated to as to the -reception of a guest in his own house, though his office was at the -disposal of the Government. A meeting of the Cabinet was immediately -summoned, and the matter was laid before those present by Lord John -Russell. It was agreed that Lord Palmerston could not with propriety -receive Kossuth, and he promised to submit to the decision of his -colleagues. Up to this point everything went smoothly, and the Queen was -greatly relieved in mind to learn that the Foreign Secretary had been so -reasonable as to promise _not_ to insult a friendly Power. Her feeling -on the subject was that, being at peace with Austria, we had no right to -get up demonstrations in favour of persons who had been endeavouring to -upset the Austrian Government. “I was at Windsor,” writes Mr. Greville -on the 16th of November, “for a Council on Friday. There I saw Lord -Palmerston and Lord John mighty merry and cordial, talking and laughing -together. Those breezes leave nothing behind, particularly with -Palmerston, who never loses his temper, and treats everything with -gaiety and levity. The Queen is vastly displeased with the Kossuth -demonstrations, especially at seeing him received at Manchester with as -much enthusiasm as attended her own visit to that place.... Delane[37] -is just come from Vienna, where he had a long interview with -Schwarzenberg, who treated, or at least affected to do so, the Kossuth -reception with contempt and indifference.”[38] Two days after Mr. -Greville made this entry in his Diary, to the amazement of the Queen and -Lord John Russell, Lord Palmerston, addressing a deputation that waited -on him from Finsbury and Islington, expressed on behalf of England his -strong sympathy with the cause of the Hungarian revolutionary leaders. -He had kept the word of promise to the ear, but had broken it to the -hope. What he had said was infinitely more irritating to Austria than -his reception of Kossuth could have been. The breach of faith with his -indignant colleagues was inexcusable, and it prepared the way for -Palmerston’s expulsion from the Cabinet, which followed his recognition -of the _coup d’état_ in December. - - - - -CHAPTER XXVI. - -THE FESTIVAL OF PEACE AND THE _COUP D’ÉTAT_. - - The World’s Fair--Carping Critics--Churlish Ambassadors Rebuked by - the Queen--Opening of the Great Exhibition--A Touching Sight--The - Queen’s Comments on “_soi-disant_ Fashionables”--The Duke of - Wellington’s Nosegay--Prince Albert among the Missionaries--The - Queen’s Letter to Lord John Russell--Her Pride in her Husband--The - London Season--The Duke of Brunswick’s Balloon - “Victoria”--Bloomerism--The Queen at Macready’s Farewell - Benefit--The Queen’s Costume Ball--The Spanish Beauty--An Ugly - “Lion”--The Queen at the Guildhall Ball--Grotesque Civic - Festivities--Royal Visits to Liverpool and Manchester--A - Well-Dressed Mayor--The Queen on the “Sommerophone”--The _Coup - d’État_--The Assassins of Liberty--The Appeal to France--The - Queen’s Last Quarrel with Palmerston--Palmerston’s Fall--Outcry - against the Queen--A “Presuming” Muscovite--The Queen’s - Vindication. - - -During the greater part of the Session of 1851 the English people, to -use a phrase of Mr. Disraeli’s, “were not up to politics.” It was the -year of the marvellous World’s Fair, or Great International Exhibition, -and the keen interest which it aroused diverted public attention from -Ministerial blundering. But though the interest of the country in the -Exhibition was strong, it was feeble compared with that which the Queen -and Prince Albert took in it. In spring, when the Court returned to -London, the Prince concentrated all his energies on the labour of -organising the arrangements for the opening of the Crystal Palace. All -through March and April he worked night and day, undaunted by the -carping criticisms of those who predicted that the direst calamities -would spring from the Exhibition. These foolish persons asserted that -the Exhibition Commissioners were simply organising a foreign invasion -of London. To attract to the capital dense crowds of foreigners, they -declared, would lead to riot, to the spread of revolutionary doctrines, -to the introduction of pestilence and of foreign forms of immorality, -and to the ruin of British trade, the secrets of which would be revealed -to our competitors in the markets of the world. Colonel Sibthorp, in the -Debate on the Address, actually implored Heaven to destroy the Crystal -Palace by hail or lightning, and others declared that the Queen would -most surely be assassinated by some foreign conspirators, on the opening -day of the great show. - -The diplomatic body in London also behaved churlishly to the promoters -of the scheme, arguing that foreigners, by coming in contact with the -democratic institutions of England, would lose their taste for -Absolutism. When Prince Albert proposed that the Ambassadors should have -an opportunity of taking part in the proceedings by presenting an -Address to the Queen, M. Van de Weyer, as senior member of the -diplomatic body in London, privately asked the opinion of his colleagues -on the subject. They all gave their assent with one exception, Baron -Brunnow, who was “not at home” when M. Van de Weyer called on him. But -at a meeting of the diplomatic body it was decided by a majority of them -not to present any Address to her Majesty. This decision was arrived at -mainly by the influence of Brunnow, who said he could not permit the -Russian nation or people to be mentioned in an Address of this kind. He -was also jealous of allowing M. Van de Weyer or any other Ambassador to -speak for the Russian Government. The Queen was chagrined at this -incivility, and instructed M. Van de Weyer to tell his colleagues that -of course she could not compel them “to accept a courtesy which anywhere -else would be looked on as a favour.” Brunnow, however, held out. In the -end it was agreed that the Ambassadors should present no Address, but -merely be formally presented to the Queen at the opening function, and, -having bowed, that they should file away to the side of the platform, -where they certainly did not cut an imposing figure during the ceremony -of inauguration. - -[Illustration: SIR JOSEPH PAXTON.] - -On the 29th of April the Queen made a private visit to the Exhibition, -and returned from it saying that her eyes were positively dazzled with -“the myriads of beautiful things” which met her view. Though some of the -Royal Family, like the Duke of Cambridge, were afraid that there might -be a riot on the opening day, the Queen was not affected in the least by -their warnings, asserting that she had the completest faith in the good -sense, good humour, and chivalrous loyalty of her people. Nor was this -confidence misplaced. On the day of the opening, she was received with -passionate demonstrations of loyal enthusiasm from the crowds, amounting -in the aggregate to about 700,000 persons, who came forth to see her -pass. As for those who entered the building, they seemed awestruck with -astonishment at the brilliant scene, radiant with life and colour, which -lay before their eyes. At half-past eleven on the 1st of May the Royal -_cortège_ left the Palace, and filed along in a stately procession -through the enormous crowds who swarmed in the Green Park and in Hyde -Park. “A little rain fell,” writes the Queen, “just as we started, but -before we came near the Crystal Palace the sun shone and gleamed upon -the gigantic edifice, upon which the flags of all the nations were -floating. We drove up Rotten Row, and got out at the entrance on that -side. The glimpse of the transept through the iron gates, the waving -palms, flowers, statues, myriads of people filling the galleries and -seats around, gave us a sensation which I can never forget, and I felt -much moved. We went for a moment to a little side room, where we left -our shawls, and where we found Maria and Mary [now Princess of Teck], -and outside which were standing the other Princes. In a few seconds we -proceeded, Albert leading me, having Vicky at his right hand and Bertie -[Prince of Wales] holding mine.... The tremendous cheers, the joy -expressed in every face, the immensity of the building, the mixture of -palms, flowers, trees, statues, fountains, the organ (with 200 -instruments and 600 voices, which sounded like nothing), and my beloved -husband, the author of this ‘Peace-Festival,’ which united the industry -of all nations of the earth--all this was moving indeed, and it was and -is a day to live for ever.”[39] When the National Anthem had been sung, -Prince Albert, at the head of the Commissioners, read their Report to -the Queen. She in turn read a short reply. A brief prayer was offered by -the Archbishop of Canterbury, and then the “Hallelujah Chorus” was sung. -The grand State procession of all the dignitaries was then formed, and -walked along the whole length of the crowded nave amidst deafening -cheers. “Every one’s face,” writes the Queen in her Diary, “was bright -and smiling, many with tears in their eyes. Many Frenchmen called out -‘Vive la Reine!’.... The old Duke and Lord Anglesey walked arm in arm, -which was a touching sight.” When the procession returned to the point -from which it started, Lord Breadalbane proclaimed the Exhibition open -in the name of the Queen, whereupon there was a flourish of trumpets and -more cheering. “Everybody,” writes the Queen, - -[Illustration: OPENING OF THE GREAT EXHIBITION, HYDE PARK. - -(_After the Picture by Eugène Lamé._)] - -“was astonished and delighted. Sir George Grey (Home Secretary) in -tears.” On the way home her Majesty again met with a magnificent -reception. After entering the Palace, she and the Prince showed -themselves on the balcony and bowed their adieus to the vast throng, -whose loyal shouts rent the air. The most perfect order was maintained, -and, writes the Queen, “the wicked and absurd reports of dangers of -every kind which a set of people, namely, _soi-disant_ fashionables and -the most violent Protectionists spread, are silenced.... I must not,” -she adds, “omit to mention an interesting episode of this day, namely, -the visit of the good old Duke on this his eighty-second birthday to his -little godson, our dear little boy.[40] He came to us both at five, and -we gave him a golden cup and some toys, which he himself had chosen, and -Arthur gave him a nosegay.” From every quarter congratulations on the -complete success of the day poured in upon the Queen, and though 700,000 -spectators lined the route between the Exhibition and the Palace, no -accidents and not a single police case could be traced to this enormous -gathering of sightseers. - -One result of the Exhibition was the celebration of the one hundred and -fiftieth anniversary of the Society for Propagating the Gospel in -Foreign Parts. It was thought that the great gathering of foreigners -offered a fitting occasion for celebrating an event of the kind, and -Prince Albert was asked to preside over the commemoration. His Royal -Highness agreed, but stipulated that the celebration was to have no -denominational or sectarian turn. Representatives of all parties, -therefore, were invited; and the Prince’s speech, which he prepared with -unusual care, was marked by broad catholicity of feeling, and was -admirably in harmony with the great festival of civilisation which he -himself had organised. Lord John Russell was so deeply impressed with -the speech, that he wrote to the Queen congratulating her on the effect -that it had produced. In reply the Queen wrote as follows:--“We are both -much pleased at what Lord John Russell says about the Prince’s speech of -yesterday. It was on so ticklish a subject, that we could not feel -certain beforehand how it might be taken.” At the same time, the Queen -felt sure that the Prince would say the right thing, from her entire -confidence in his great tact and judgment. The Queen, at the risk of not -appearing sufficiently modest (and yet why should a wife ever be modest -about her husband’s merits?), must say that she thinks Lord John Russell -will admit now that the Prince is possessed of very extraordinary powers -of mind and heart. She feels so proud of being his wife, that she cannot -refrain from herself paying a tribute to his noble character.”[41] - -As might have been expected, the London season of the Exhibition year -was an exceptionally brilliant one. It was marked by a strange -combination of eccentricity and gaiety. The Duke of Brunswick kept the -town talking with sufficient volubility, and his voyage to France in a -balloon, the “Victoria,” with Mr. Green, the aëronaut, was a nine days’ -wonder. In midsummer “Bloomerism” whetted the wits of Londoners. The -votaries of “Bloomerism” took their name from the wife of a gallant -American officer. This lady invented a new costume for women, consisting -of loose trousers gathered at the ankles, a short, full skirt, and a -broad hat. Adventuresses and “advanced” ladies tried to popularise the -costume, but failed. Ridicule killed their cause, and when barmaids in -public-houses and “fast” women generally began to adopt “Bloomerism,” -its doom was sealed. The season of 1851 was, indeed, clouded with but -one dismal fact; the aristocracy were somewhat pinched because -agricultural prices were low, and yet the nobility bore their part in -the great vortex of hospitality, which the World’s Fair had set -whirling, bravely enough. London swarmed with distinguished foreigners, -and balls and routs and dinner-parties went on without ceasing. - -[Illustration: ST. GEORGE’S HALL, LIVERPOOL.] - -The first striking event of the season was the withdrawal of Macready -from the stage on the 1st of February, and from the Memoirs of that -great actor we find that the Queen made a point of being present at his -farewell performance on the 26th of February at Drury Lane--the scene of -his triumphs, not only as an actor but as a manager, who had restored -Shakespeare’s plays to the stage in their fullest integrity. Nor was -this the only performance which her Majesty honoured with her presence. -Writing on May 17th, Lord Malmesbury records that “Lady Londonderry -appeared at the Duke of Devonshire’s play in a gown trimmed with green -birds, small ones round the body and down the sides, and large ones down -the centre. The beak of one of the birds caught in the Queen’s dress, -and was some time before it could be disentangled.” On the 12th of June -there was a grand fancy ball at the Palace, the period chosen for -illustration being the time of Charles II. The nobility and gentry -appeared in the characters of their ancestors. The high officers of -State donned the costumes of their predecessors in the reign of the -“Merry Monarch.” “We went to the Queen’s Ball,” writes Lord Malmesbury; -“it is said that her Majesty received 600 excuses out of 1,400 -invitations, and that she did not fill up their places. I thought it -very inferior to the first two. Most of the fancy dresses shabby, as if -they had been got up cheap.” - -[Illustration: THE ROYAL VISIT TO WORSLEY HALL: THE STATE BARGE ON THE -BRIDGWATER CANAL.] - -This was the season during which “the Spanish beauty,” Mademoiselle de -Montijo, afterwards Empress of the French, shone meteor-like in London -Society, and divided the honours with Narvaez, “an ugly, little fat man, -with a vile expression of countenance,” according to Lord Malmesbury, -and who, after being Prime Minister of Spain, and having headed many -pronunciamientos, uttered one famous _bon mot_ on his deathbed. When he -was asked by the priest to forgive his enemies, he answered, “I have -none, as I always got rid of them.”[42] - -On the 9th of July, however, the most remarkable event of the season -took place. It was the gorgeous ball given at Guildhall by the Lord -Mayor and Corporation of the City of London to celebrate the success of -the Great Exhibition. That success was now assured. The weekly takings -at the gates had never been less than £10,298. In one week they had -amounted to £22,189, and already Prince Albert was discussing, with his -confidential advisers, what they should do with the large surplus which -they were certain they would have in hand. The crowning triumph of the -undertaking was therefore celebrated by the City magnates with more than -their usual display of lavish magnificence. The Queen and Prince Albert -accepted invitations, and when they started in their State carriage from -Buckingham Palace, they drove through dense crowds of people, amidst -shouts of congratulations delivered in all sorts of tongues. Nay, when -they left the Guildhall on the morning of the 10th of July, at daybreak, -they were amazed to find loyal crowds still waiting to cheer them, with -no diminution of enthusiasm as they drove home. “A million of people,” -writes the Prince to Baron Stockmar on the 14th of July, “remained till -three in the morning in the streets, and were full of enthusiasm towards -us.” He says, also, that the ball passed off “brilliantly,”[43] but with -this must be read, as a mild corrective, the description given by Lord -Malmesbury in his Diary, which is as follows:--“July 10th.--Went in the -evening to Madame Van de Weyer’s. I hear the ball to the Queen at the -Guildhall was extremely amusing. People very ridiculous. The ladies -passed her at a run, never curtseying, and then returned to stare at -her. Some of the gentlemen passed with their arms round the ladies’ -waists, others holding them by the hand at arm’s length, as if they were -going to dance a minuet. One man kissed his hand to the Queen as he went -by, which set her Majesty off in a fit of laughter.” The ball, however, -marked the beginning of the end of this splendid season. “To-night,” -writes Prince Albert to Baron Stockmar in the letter just alluded to, -“we have our last ball. The day after to-morrow I come back here to dine -with the Agricultural Society.... On the 18th we return to Osborne for -good.” It was not, however, till the 28th of July that the Court removed -to Osborne, and on the 18th they visited the Crystal Palace once more. -This visit the Queen describes in a letter to Stockmar, in which she -says:--“The immense number of manufacturers with whom we have spoken -have gone away delighted. The thousands who are at the Crystal Palace -when we are leaving are all so loyal and so gratified, many never having -seen us before. All this will be of a use not to be described. It -identifies us with the people, and gives them an additional cause for -loyalty and attachment.” - -On the 27th of August the Queen, Prince Albert, and their family left -Osborne for Balmoral, which had now been purchased by the Prince from -its owner. On the journey northwards they were received at Peterborough -by the venerable Bishop of that see, who had been her Majesty’s tutor, -and a touching interview took place between the Queen and her old -preceptor. At Boston and Doncaster loyal addresses were presented, the -party passing the night at the Angel Inn, Doncaster, much to the delight -of the inhabitants of that town. On the 28th they reached Edinburgh, -where they occupied the State apartments at Holyrood, and drove through -the town in the evening. Next day they arrived at Balmoral, where they -remained till the 7th of October. During this holiday the Queen and her -husband devoted themselves to the rural occupations that always while -away the autumn in the Highlands--the Queen walking, driving, riding, -sketching, and visiting the cottages of the poor people in her -neighbourhood, with whom she had become an especial favourite--the -Prince pursuing his favourite sport of deer-stalking, with even more -than his wonted ardour. They also entertained many distinguished guests, -among whom may be mentioned Hallam the historian, and Liebig the -chemist, who were both charmed with the welcome which they received, and -with the easy simplicity of the Queen’s life in her northern home. - -On the 8th of October they proceeded to Edinburgh, and met with one or -two adventures by the way which brought vividly to the Queen’s mind the -hazards of railway travelling. When nearing Forfar the axle of a -carriage truck became overheated by friction, and the train was stopped -till the truck was uncoupled. At Kirkliston there was an explosion of -steam in one of the feeder-pipes of the engine, which delayed the train -for an hour, and prevented the Royal party from reaching Edinburgh till -eight o’clock at night. Next morning they resumed their journey. At -Lancaster, where they stopped for luncheon, the Queen and her children -went to view John of Gaunt’s ancient castle, and she was presented with -its keys at the gateway of the stronghold--two addresses being read to -her, which she herself has said were “very prettily worded.” In the -afternoon the Royal party reached Croxteth Park, the seat of the Earl of -Sefton. Next morning they started to visit Liverpool, calling on Lord -Derby at Knowsley Park on the way. - -They would have been welcomed with a splendid reception from the Mayor -and Corporation and inhabitants of the great northern seaport, had not -the weather broken, and had not torrents of rain poured down without -ceasing, veiling everything and everybody in the densest fog. Still the -Queen persisted in proceeding with the appointed programme, and, -good-naturedly determined to make the best of the unpropitious elements, -she visited the eastern and southern districts of the town, inspected -the docks by land, viewed them from the Mersey from the deck of the -_Fairy_, and made a return progress through the central and northern -streets, which by this time were one sea of mud, where, however, patient -and loyal crowds stood waiting to cheer their Sovereign and her family -as they passed. “We proceeded,” writes her Majesty, “to the Council -Room, where we stood on a throne, and received the addresses of the -Mayor and Corporation, to which I read an answer, and then knighted the -Mayor, Mr. Bent, a very good man.” What seems to have pleased the Queen -most was her visit to St. George’s Hall, a building which she -enthusiastically described as “being worthy of ancient Athens.” Here she -had to step out on the balcony and stand in the rain bowing her -acknowledgments to the vast crowd who stood cheering with undamped -ardour in the street below. From Liverpool the Queen and her party, -attended by Lady Ellesmere, the Duke of Wellington, Lord and Lady -Westminster, and Lord and Lady Wilton, proceeded in a barge along the -Bridgwater Canal to Worsley Hall, the seat of Lord Ellesmere. The barge -was towed by four horses, and whilst one half was covered in, over that -part which was open an awning was stretched. “The boat,” writes the -Queen, “glided along in a most noiseless and dream-like manner amidst -the cheers of the people who lined the sides of the canal.” At Worsley -Hall the Queen met Mr. Nasmyth, the inventor of the steam-hammer, and -she seems to have been greatly delighted with his conversation, and -fascinated by his drawings and maps explaining his investigations into -the geography of the moon. The evening, indeed, was devoted mainly to -scientific conversation, this ascetic turn being given to it by the -arrival of the news that the first great submarine telegraph cable had -been successfully laid between Dover and Calais. Next day, the 10th of -October, the weather brightened, and the Royal party visited Manchester, -the working people of the town turning out in holiday garb to welcome -their Sovereign. “A very intelligent but painfully unhealthy-looking -population they all were, men as well as women”--such is the Queen’s -description of her hosts. In the Peel Park, Salford, her reception by -82,000 school children of all sects and creeds, and their singing of the -National Anthem, appear to have surprised and impressed her profoundly. -She also remarked “the beautifully dressed” Mr. Potter, the Mayor of -Manchester, “the Mayor and Corporation of which town,” writes the Queen, -“had till now been too Radical to have robes.” Mr. Potter was duly -knighted for his courtesy and kindness to the Royal party, and the Queen -expressed herself as especially delighted with the order and good -behaviour of the crowds who followed. She notes, however, in her Diary -“that there are no really fine buildings” in Manchester--an observation -which serves to mark the progress made by this now splendid city since -1851. Next day the Royal party left Worsley Hall, passed again through -Manchester, and through Stockport, Crewe, Stafford, Rugby, Weedon, -Wolverton, and Watford, where their carriages were found waiting for -them ready to post to Windsor, which they reached at half-past seven in -the evening. - -On the 14th of October the Queen paid her final visit to the Great -Exhibition, and she records the fact that “an organ, accompanied by a -fine and powerful brass instrument, the Sommerophone, was being played, -and it nearly upset me.” The Sommerophone had a compass of five octaves, -and - -[Illustration: THE QUEEN’S ARRIVAL IN PEEL PARK: CHILDREN OF THE -MANCHESTER AND SALFORD SCHOOLS SINGING THE NATIONAL ANTHEM.] - -when played by its inventor, Herr Sommer--the only performer who could -make it discourse music--was one of the marvels of a year singularly -full of the marvellous. Next day the grand show was closed with somewhat -scant ceremony, the Queen writing in her Diary, “How sad and strange to -think that this great and bright time has passed away like a dream, -after all its triumph and success.” It is curious to observe that in the -contemporary expressions of public feeling which were prompted by the -wind-up of the Exhibition, the same note of melancholy is sounded, as if -there were abroad a half-conscious foreboding that the Festival of Peace -was only too likely to be followed by War. - -These forebodings were justifiable. Affairs abroad began to assume a -threatening aspect. It has been shown how the enthusiastic -demonstrations with which Louis Kossuth had been honoured in England had -caused the Queen many anxious moments. Her mind was sadly troubled, -also, by the ostentatious display of sympathy which Lord Palmerston -extended to the Hungarian patriot, and by the veiled threat of Austria -to recall her Ambassador if these demonstrations continued. Mr. Greville -has somewhat maliciously said that the Queen’s feelings on this subject -were caused by jealousy. Kossuth’s reception at Manchester, he observes, -had been even more enthusiastic than her own. _Hinc illæ lacrymæ._ Here -Mr. Greville does her Majesty a gross injustice. The abhorrence of the -English Court for Austrian Absolutism was strong and unstinted, and most -forcible expression is given to it in many letters from Prince Albert to -Stockmar. England, however, was at peace with Austria, and had no -interest in going to war with her. But the Queen argued that it would be -impossible to keep up even the semblance of friendly relations with -foreign States, if her Foreign Secretary were to pose as the friendly -protector of every rebel leader who had attempted to upset their -Government, or received addresses in which their rulers were stigmatised -as “odious assassins.” Her anger against Lord Palmerston was not to be -appeased by his apologists, who reminded her that he was taking a -popular and democratic line, which was sure to win for the Queen the -affection of the people, thereby more than compensating her for the loss -of Austria’s goodwill. Her answer, penned by herself in a vigorous -letter to Lord John Russell on the 21st of November, was:--“It is no -question with the Queen whether she pleases the Emperor of Austria or -not, but whether she gives him a just ground of complaint or not. And if -she does so she can never believe that this will add to her popularity -with her own people.”[44] We have already[45] described the action which -was taken by the Cabinet in relation to this business, and it now -remains to record the next quarrel which her Majesty had with Lord -Palmerston, and which ultimately led to his expulsion from the Ministry. - -On the morning of the 4th of December the Queen was at Osborne, and -there she was informed of the _coup d’état_ in Paris on the 2nd inst. -The Prince-President, Charles Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, though he had -sworn to protect the Republic, had, in concert with a clique of -conspirators,[46] long before the 1st of December determined to restore -the Empire. The first thing to do was to win over the army. The next to -disgust the nation with Parliamentary institutions. The former task was -easily accomplished. The latter, however, was somewhat more difficult, -and the manner in which the conspirators set about it was most -ingenious. Every newspaper that directed attention to the dangerous -drift of the Prince-President’s policy was suppressed. He began to -conspire, says Alexis de Tocqueville, “from November 10th, 1848. His -direct instructions to Oudinot, and his letter to Ney only a few months -after his election, showed his determination not to submit to -Parliamentary Government. Then followed his dismissal of Ministry after -Ministry, until he had degraded the office to a clerkship. Then came the -semi-royal progress, then the reviews of Satory, the encouragement of -treasonable cries, the selection for all the high appointments in the -army of Paris of men whose infamous character fitted them to be tools. -Then he publicly insulted the Assembly at Dijon, and at last, in -October, we knew his plans were laid. It was then only that we began to -think what were our means of defence, but that was no more a conspiracy -than it is a conspiracy in travellers to look for their pistols when -they see a band of robbers advancing.”[47] - -Two powerful motives urged the Prince-President forward. The time for -the revision of the Constitution was approaching, a fundamental law of -which was that he was ineligible for re-election at the expiry of his -term of office. This law virtually forced him to choose between -usurpation and obscurity, unless he could get it revised in his -interests. But it was evident to him that it would not be so revised, -unless popular pressure were put upon the Assembly, by some imposing -demonstration of the masses in his favour. To win their sympathies he -demanded the abolition of the Electoral Law of May 31st, 1850. That law -imposed a three years’ residential qualification on the voter, and in -practice it reduced the electorate from 10,000,000 to 7,000,000 -electors. The electoral law of May 31st was therefore the -Prince-President’s moral weapon against the Assembly. The Assembly, -however, refused to further his policy on both points, and endeavoured -to protect itself against reprisals by authorising its President to -exercise such control over the army as he might deem necessary for its -protection. This in turn was resented by the Prince-President as an -attack on the prerogatives of the Executive, and Cabinet after Cabinet -fell in the course of the struggle between the Chief of the State and -the Parliament. But the end was within sight when a Bill - -[Illustration: THE COUP D’ÉTAT: LANCERS CHARGING THE CROWD IN THE -BOULEVARDS OF PARIS.] - -determining the responsibility of the Prince-President and his Ministers -was brought forward. It provided for the punishment and trial of -Ministers and of the Prince-President in the event of their violating -the Constitution, and it was the last measure of importance which the -Chamber was permitted to consider. On the night of the 1st of December -the Prince-President and his coadjutors secretly printed a number of -decrees, which were posted before daybreak on the walls of Paris. These -announced the dissolution of the National Assembly and of the Council of -State; the abrogation of the law of May 31st, 1850; the convocation of -the French electoral colleges from the 14th to the 21st of December; and -the proclamation of a state of siege in Paris. The Prince-President -further submitted to the electors a new programme, of which the chief -points were (1), a responsible chief named for ten years; (2), Ministers -dependent on the Executive alone; (3), a Council of State; (4), a -Legislature elected by universal suffrage without _scrutin de liste_, -and (5), a Second Assembly, or Senate, filled with all the illustrious -persons of the nation. In a word, he proposed to revive the system under -which the First Consul transformed France into a military Empire. -Proclamations appealing to the army - -[Illustration: PRINCE CHARLES LOUIS NAPOLEON.] - -were also issued. As for the Chamber, its members were arrested when -they attempted to offer a protest. All prominent men who might have -organised opposition among the masses were suddenly captured and thrown -into prison. At the first show of popular resistance, the troops, who -had been plied with strong drink for the occasion, fired on the -people--in fact, the army seized France, and, having gagged and bound -her, laid her at the feet of the Bonapartists. When Mr. Senior asked M. -de Tocqueville if he did not think that the contest had been virtually -forced on by the Assembly, we have said that the French statesman denied -the charge. M. de Tocqueville contended that the proposition to put the -army under the orders of the President of the Chamber was absurd, -because it was impracticable, and need not have alarmed the -Prince-President. The army had been so corrupted that it would not have -obeyed the orders of the Chamber. As for the law of responsibility, that -was not meant as a step in a conspiracy to crush the Prince-President. -This law, M. de Tocqueville assured Mr. Senior, was sent up to the -Chamber by the Council of State, who had been two years at work on it, -and the Committee of the Chamber, fearing lest it might provoke a -collision with the President, actually refused to declare it urgent. -“Though I have said,” observed De Tocqueville, “that he (the -Prince-President) has been conspiring since his election, I do not -believe that he intended to strike so soon. His plan was to wait till -next March, when the fears of May, 1852, would be most intense. Two -circumstances forced him on more rapidly. One was the candidature of the -Prince de Joinville. He thought him the only dangerous competitor. The -other was an agitation set on foot by the Legitimists in the _Conseils -Généraux_ for the repeal of the law of May 31st. That law was his moral -weapon against the Assembly, and he feared that if he delayed, it might -be repealed without him.”[48] The brutality displayed by the police who -dispersed the Legislative Assembly, and by the soldiery who fired in the -most wanton manner on the 3rd of December, without any justification -whatever, on the houses, and on peaceful passers-by along the boulevards -of Paris, was stigmatised by the public opinion of England as barbarous -and outrageous. It set the educated classes in France without -distinction of party against the Prince-President to such an extent, -that it became a mark of social and intellectual distinction to refuse -to recognise or serve under the new _régime_. In the provinces the -Prince-President’s tactics of repression were equally successful, and -some 10,000 persons were seized and transported to penal settlements, -without being convicted by any form of legal trial. The papers of the -distinguished statesmen and generals who were alleged to have been -conspiring against the Prince-President were ransacked; but no trace of -evidence was found against them, and they were accordingly never brought -to trial at all. Having thus destroyed the Constitution by the sword, -Prince Charles Louis Bonaparte appealed for a vote of indemnity to a -nation which had no alternative but to choose between him and anarchy. -The result of this appeal was a vote of 7,439,000 votes in his favour, -and 640,737 against him--M. de Montalembert, to the grief and surprise -of the educated classes, being among those who joined the majority. - -What was the attitude of the Queen to these events? On the 5th of -December, Lord Palmerston sent a despatch to Lord Normanby, the British -Ambassador at Paris, stating that “it is her Majesty’s desire that -nothing should be done by her Ambassador at Paris which could wear the -appearance of an interference of any kind in the internal affairs of -France.” Lord Normanby accordingly called on M. Turgot, Minister of -Foreign Affairs, to communicate this instruction, and apologised for his -delay in making the communication. M. Turgot sarcastically replied that -the delay was not of importance, as he had two days before that heard -from M. de Walewski, the French Envoy in London, that Lord Palmerston -had approved of the deeds of the Prince-President. When the despatch -from Lord Normanby recording this interview reached the Queen, she sent -it to Lord John Russell, pointing out that Lord Palmerston’s approval of -the _coup d’état_ was not only a defiance of her own personal wishes, -but also of a resolution of the Cabinet. Lord John Russell complained to -Lord Palmerston about the matter, but instead of expressing regret, the -latter sent to Lord Normanby a despatch strongly approving of the _coup -d’état_, which, however, he concealed from the Prime Minister and the -Queen. It was not till the 18th of December that Lord John Russell was -able to inform the Queen that he had at last received from Lord -Palmerston an explanation, which was so unsatisfactory that he had been -compelled to write to that turbulent Minister “in the most decisive -terms.” In plain English, Lord John called on Palmerston to resign. He -sent in his resignation promptly enough, excusing himself by saying that -his approval of the _coup d’état_ was but the expression of a personal -and not of an official opinion. The whole correspondence was submitted -to the Queen, who accepted the resignation of the Foreign Secretary with -alacrity. “It was quite clear to the Queen,” writes Prince Albert in a -letter to the Prime Minister, “that we were entering on most dangerous -times, in which Military Despotism and Red Republicanism will for some -time be the only powers on the Continent, to both of which the -Constitutional Monarchy of England will be equally hateful.” The -calmative influence of England, her Majesty thought, should be used to -assuage and not embitter the conflicts abroad which produce such a -perilous state of things. But this influence, she held, had “been -rendered null by Lord Palmerston’s personal manner of conducting the -foreign affairs, and the universal hatred which he has succeeded in -inspiring on the Continent.” - -On the 22nd of December a Cabinet Meeting unanimously condemned -Palmerston’s conduct, and the post vacated by him was accepted by Lord -Granville, who was installed at the Foreign Office on the 27th of -December. Lord Palmerston’s friends forthwith began to fill the Press -with foolish reports, that he had been dismissed because foreign Courts -had influenced the Queen against him. These insinuations were utterly -unjust. For when Baron Brunnow asked Lord John Russell to contradict -these rumours, the Queen wrote to Lord John as follows:--“Baron -Brunnow’s letter is in fact very presuming, as it insinuates the -possibility of changes of government in this country taking place at the -instigation of Foreign Ministers, and the Queen is glad that Lord John -gave him a dignified answer.” Palmerston’s dismissal, in truth, was due -to his incurable recklessness, and his inveterate habit of not only -compromising both the Queen and the Cabinet without consulting them, but -of acting contrary to the course which had been definitely adopted by -Queen and Cabinet alike, in grave and delicate affairs. Louis Napoleon -was the only personage of distinction who regretted his fall. “So long -as he was in office,” remarked the Prince-President cynically, “England -would have no allies.” - -[Illustration: DIANA FOUNTAIN, BUSHEY PARK.] - - - - -CHAPTER XXVII. - -A YEAR OF EXCITEMENT AND PANIC. - - Cassandras in the Service Clubs--The Tories and the Queen’s - Speech--Lord John Russell’s Triumph--The Militia Bill--Defeat of - the Russell Ministry--Fall of the Whig Cabinet--Palmerston’s “Tit - for Tat”--A Protectionist Government--Novices in Office--A Cabinet - of Affairs--Mr. Disraeli’s Budget--Lord John Russell’s Fatal - Blunder--The Second Burmese War--Dalhousie’s Designs on Burmah--How - the Quarrel Grew--Lambert’s Indiscretion--The Attack on - Rangoon--Fall of the Citadel--Annexation--Desultory - Warfare--Dissolution of Parliament--The General Election--Equipoise - of Parties--Factions and Free Trade--Palmerston’s - Forecasts--Forcing the Hand of the Ministry--Death of the Duke of - Wellington--The Queen’s Grief--The Nation in Mourning--The - Lying-in-State--Shocking Scenes--The Funeral Pageant--The Ceremony - in St. Paul’s--A Veteran in Tears--The Laureate’s Votive - Wreath--Review of the Duke’s Character. - - -Eighteen hundred and fifty-two was a year fruitful in alarms and -excitement. The excitement arose from the discovery of gold in Australia -towards the end of the year 1851, and from the rich supplies of the -precious metal which came pouring in from the new El Dorado. The alarms -arose from the unsettled state of affairs abroad, the tortuous policy of -Louis Napoleon, and Cassandra-like warnings from military writers that -the national defences were utterly untrustworthy. A troublesome Caffre -War at the Cape had also been draining away the best blood of the army -during eighteen months, and absorbing troops who could be ill spared at -home. - -Parliament met on the 3rd of February, and members, of course, could -talk of nothing save the rupture between Lord Palmerston and the -Ministry. The Queen’s Speech suggested, as topics of legislation, -certain Reports of Commissions on the practice and proceedings in the -Supreme Court of Law and - -[Illustration: HARNESSING THE BLACK HORSES AT THE ROYAL MEWS, BUCKINGHAM -PALACE. - -(_After the Painting by Charles Lutyens, in the Possession of the Earl -of Bradford._)] - -Equity, the reorganisation of the Government of New Zealand, and -Parliamentary Reform. Why, asked the Tories, was there no allusion to -agricultural distress? Was it not absurd to congratulate the country on -the fact that remission of import duties had not diminished revenue, -when revenue was only maintained by the unpopular and iniquitous Income -Tax? Why was no notice taken of the open and ostentatious defiance by -the Roman Catholics of the Act against Papal Aggression? For the -tranquillity of Ireland the Government surely ought not to take credit, -inasmuch as it was due to the exodus of the Irish people to America. As -for Parliamentary Reform, Lord Derby declared contemptuously that there -were not 500 reasonable men in the country who wanted a new Reform Bill. -These criticisms, however, fell flat. The one question of the hour was, -Why had the Foreign Secretary resigned? and explanations were given by -Lord John Russell and Lord Palmerston. “In all my experience,” says Mr. -Greville, writing of this incident, “I never recollect such a triumph as -Lord John Russell achieved, and such complete discomfiture as -Palmerston’s.... Palmerston was weak and inefficient, and it is pretty -certain he was taken by surprise, and was unprepared for all that John -Russell brought forward. Not a man of weight or influence said a word -for him, nobody but Milnes [afterwards Lord Houghton] and [Lord] Dudley -Stuart. The Queen’s letter was decisive, for it was evident his conduct -must have been intolerable to elicit such charges and rebukes; and it -cannot fail to strike everybody that no man of common spirit, and who -felt a consciousness of innocence, would have brooked anything so -insulting.”[49] - -But Palmerston, though a fallen Minister, was not the man to sit meekly -under such a mortification. As he said himself, he would soon give Lord -John Russell “tit for tat.” His chance for retaliation came when the -arbitrary acts of the Prince-President of the French Republic roused the -fighting instincts of the English people. A wave of panic ran over the -country, and it was asserted that as Charles Louis Bonaparte had founded -his power by the sword, so by free use of the sword must he keep it. M. -Berryer had expressed in the Chamber the taunt which was freely -whispered through France, that the Prince-President’s aim was to -establish an “Empire without genius and without military glory.” Surely, -then, Englishmen argued, France under this unscrupulous usurper must be -forced into war, in order to divert her attention from the bondage in -which she is held by her Autocrat and his army. But if France must needs -make war so that the French people may get military glory in -compensation for civil liberty, a war on England, whose Press teemed -with insulting criticisms on the brutality of the _coup d’état_, was of -all wars the one most likely to be popular with the French soldiery. -From such reasoning it was but a corollary that England was, as usual, -utterly unprepared for attack, and a panic-cry was accordingly revived -in favour of strengthening her defensive forces. Yielding to this cry, -Lord John Russell introduced his celebrated Militia Bill, which -organised a local as distinguished from a general militia--that is to -say, a force whose regiments could be called on for service, not in any -part of the United Kingdom, but only in their own counties. This was the -weak point of the scheme, and the Duke of Wellington did not conceal his -bad opinion of it. Fortified by the Duke’s moral support, Lord -Palmerston assailed the Militia Bill of the Government with relentless -ferocity. On the 20th of February he carried against the Government, by -a majority of nine, an amendment in favour of organising a general -instead of a local militia, and Lord John Russell resigned on the 23rd -of February. Thus fell the last Whig Cabinet that has ruled England--all -succeeding Liberal Ministries being either coalitions of Whigs, -Peelites, and Radicals, or of Whigs and Radicals alone. - -For reasons which have been already given, the times were not propitious -for a coalition of this sort. The Queen had therefore no option but to -send for Lord Derby, and ask him to form a Protectionist Ministry. She -was, of course, deeply sensible of the fact that by recent declarations -in favour of Protection, no Ministry of which he was the head could -command the confidence of the nation. Indeed, Lord Derby himself was -aware of this. But as his followers had joined Lord Palmerston in -ejecting the Whigs, he felt that he could not in honour shrink from the -embarrassing task of forming a Cabinet to govern the country, with a -certain majority against him in the House of Commons, and a dubious -majority at his back in the House of Lords. A futile attempt was made to -induce Lord Palmerston to join the Tory Cabinet--the Queen agreeing to -accept him as a Minister, provided he did not go to the Foreign Office, -and was not entrusted with the leadership of the House of Commons. -Palmerston refused all Lord Derby’s overtures, because he did not care -to cast in his lot with a Party which was committed to Protection. One -Tory leader, however, shared none of Lord Derby’s fears for the future. -Writing in his Diary on the 20th of February, Lord Malmesbury -says:--“Went to Disraeli’s after breakfast, and found him in a state of -delight at the idea of coming into office. He said he ‘felt just like a -young girl going to her first ball,’ constantly repeating, ‘now we have -got a _status_.’” - -The chief appointments in the new Cabinet were as follows:--The Earl of -Derby, Prime Minister; Lord St. Leonards, Lord Chancellor; Mr. Disraeli, -Chancellor of the Exchequer, as to which the joke current in Society at -the time was “that Benjamin’s mess will be five times as great as the -others;”[50] the Earl of Malmesbury, Foreign Secretary; Sir John -Pakington, Colonial Secretary; Mr. Spencer Walpole, Home Secretary; Mr. -Herries, President of the Board of Control;[51] Earl of Lonsdale, Lord -Privy Seal. The only members of the Cabinet who had ever held office -before were Lord Derby and Lord Lonsdale, and the country was anxious as -to the competence of a Cabinet of novices to carry on the Government of -the Queen. “The new Government,” writes Mr. Greville, “is treated with -great contempt, and many of the appointments are pitiable.” Sir George -Cornewall Lewis, in a letter to Sir Edmund Head, remarks that “the chief -effect of the change has been that Graham and Cardwell have come to sit -among the Whigs, while Gladstone and Sidney Herbert sit below the -gangway.”[52] As for Lord Palmerston--though he got Lady Palmerston to -invite Lord John Russell to one of her parties, and otherwise showed in -public some desire to be reconciled to him--he told Lord Clarendon -privately that “John Russell had given him his independence, and he -meant to avail himself of that advantage.”[53] Moreover, to add to Lord -Derby’s perplexities, there soon arose great complaints against Mr. -Disraeli as Leader of the House of Commons. “They say,” writes Mr. -Greville, “that he does not play his part as Leader with tact and -propriety, and treats his opponents impudently and uncourteously.” - -[Illustration: SIDNEY HERBERT. (_After the Statue by Foley._)] - -The new Government promised the Queen that they would wind up the -affairs of the Session as quickly as possible, and as a dissolution was -objectionable at that critical moment, they assured her that they would -bring forward no contentious business. They introduced a Militia Bill, -designed to meet the objections of Lord Palmerston to the measure of -Lord John Russell. Though Mr. Walpole, the Minister in charge of the -Bill, covered the Cabinet with ridicule by proposing that every -militiaman who served two years should get a vote for the county in -which he was enrolled, public contempt was diverted from the Ministry to -the Opposition. By an inconceivable blunder, Lord John Russell, without -consulting with his colleagues, came down to the House of Commons and -opposed the second reading of a Bill, to the principle of which he knew -the majority were already committed by the vote that had expelled him -from office. He thus gave Lord Palmerston an opportunity of making a -bitter attack on him. He also led his Party to a defeat as sure as it -was disastrous. He discovered dissensions and divisions of opinion among -his followers, the exposure of which not only demoralised them, but -weakened public confidence in them as a competent governing -organisation. This blunder settled the destiny of Lord John Russell. All -sections of the Opposition now joined Mr. Bright in saying that Lord -John must never again be permitted to lead the Liberal Party. The -incident, unimportant as it seems, was of high historic significance. It -rendered the Coalition Ministry under Lord Aberdeen inevitable. It -rendered Whig Cabinets henceforth impossible in England. - -[Illustration: ST. ALBANS, FROM VERULAM.] - -Mr. Disraeli’s Budget speech was a brilliant performance which pleased -everybody but his own Party. Its principal point was to provide for the -continuance of the Income Tax for one year. But what made it interesting -was its glowing eulogy of the Free Trade measures of Sir Robert Peel, -not to mention the elaborate statistics by which Mr. Disraeli, while -silent on the Corn Duties, proved that incomparable benefits had been -conferred on the country by Peel’s tariffs, and by his reductions of -import duties. The oration was, of course, a bid for the accession of -Palmerston and the Peelites to the Tory Party. “Disraeli’s speech on -introducing his Budget,” writes Lord Malmesbury, “has produced a bad -effect in the country, for the farmers, though reconciled to giving up -Protection, expected relief in other ways, and he does not give a hint -at any measure for their advantage.”[54] A night or two afterwards, Mr. -Disraeli had therefore to make a vague recantation of his change of -opinions, and at a Mansion House dinner Lord Derby did his best to -explain away the Budget speech of his embarrassing colleague, by an -elaborate exposition of the doctrine of compromise, on which he said -British institutions were founded. - -During the first part of the Parliamentary Session of 1852 the cause of -Parliamentary Reform made but little progress. Mr. Hume, on the 25th of -March, moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the extension of the -Franchise. Though he tried to galvanise his party into vigorous life by -a scornful and defiant retort to Lord Derby’s recent attack on -democracy,[55] the discussion of the subject was felt to be academic -rather than practical, and his motion was rejected by a vote of 244 to -39. A similar fate attended Mr. Locke King when he, too, brought in his -motion to assimilate the County and Borough Franchise. Several debates -were devoted to the question of the prevalence of bribery at elections, -and Lord John Russell’s Bill, empowering the Crown to direct a -Commission of Inquiry into any place at which an Election Committee -reported the existence of bribery, was carried through both Houses of -Parliament. The disfranchisement of Sudbury and St. Albans for corrupt -practices had left four seats in the House of Commons to dispose of. Mr. -Disraeli’s scheme for allocating them to the West Riding of Yorkshire -and the Southern Division of Lancashire was, however, rejected on Mr. -Gladstone’s amendment--a defeat which was a sharp reminder to the -Ministry that, so long as they were in a minority and refused to -dissolve Parliament, they could not hope to control the House of Commons -when contentious business came before it. - -An attack on the endowment of Maynooth College by Mr. Spooner, who -demanded an inquiry into the system of education pursued at that -seminary, wasted much time. Both parties, with a General Election -impending, shrank from offending the Roman Catholic voters too deeply. -Yet they were equally afraid of displeasing the aggressive Protestantism -of the country. After repeated adjournments the matter dropped, chiefly -owing to a significant threat from Mr. Gladstone and Lord John Russell, -that to attack Maynooth was to reopen the whole question of the -distribution of ecclesiastical endowments in Ireland, a question the -discussion of which could not be advantageous to the Anglican minority -in that kingdom. A barren debate on the remission of the Hop Duty, and -Mr. Milner Gibson’s failure to carry resolutions condemning the Paper -Duty, the Duty on advertisements, and the Stamp Duty on newspapers, -together with Mr. Disraeli’s success in carrying his provisional Budget, -continuing the Income Tax for one year, sum up the financial business of -the Session. By the end of June all the measures which the Government -had proposed to pass were disposed of. - -Lord Derby’s first Government may have consisted of novices, but it -evidently did excellent practical work as a Cabinet of affairs. For -between its accession to office and the dissolution of Parliament it -passed the Militia Act, the New Zealand Constitution Act, several good -Law Reforms, including an Act to simplify special pleading and to amend -procedure in the Common Law Courts, an Act extending the jurisdiction of -County Courts, and another to abolish the office of the Masters in the -Court of Chancery. Besides these, they passed useful Acts for improving -the water supply of London, and restricting intramural interments. - -Parliament was prorogued by the Queen in person on the 1st of July, one -of the most interesting passages in her speech referring to the origin -of the second Burmese war, and the capture of Rangoon and -Martaban--events the record of which need not detain us long. - -The second Burmese war ostensibly arose out of a complaint made to the -Indian Government by a Mr. Sheppard, master of a Madras trading -vessel.[56] He alleged that he had been imprisoned and fined by the -Governor of Rangoon on the false charge of having thrown a man -overboard. This was followed by other complaints from British subjects, -who had been ill-used by the Burmese authorities, and the Rangoon -merchants declared that, unless they were protected against the lawless -exactions of the Governor’s subordinates and dependants--who had been -told by him to get money as best they could, seeing he had none with -which to pay their salaries--they must abandon all efforts to trade in -the country. The Governor-General of India came to the conclusion that -these complaints were justifiable, and easily proved that the Treaty of -Yandaboo, made at the end of the first Burmese war, had been violated. -Commodore Lambert was accordingly sent in H.M.S. _Fox_ and two steamers -to Rangoon, with a courteous message seeking reparation from the King of -Ava, on account of the conduct of the Governor of Rangoon. The request -was refused, and it was followed by a more peremptory demand. The Court -of Ava replied in a conciliatory tone, recalled the Governor of Rangoon, -and appointed a new one, who treated Commander Fishbourne, Lambert’s -second in command, with some discourtesy. Commodore Lambert forthwith -blockaded Rangoon, and seized a vessel belonging to the Burmese -king.[57] On the 10th of January, four days after the blockade was -established, the _Fox_ was compelled to destroy a hostile stockade on -the river. After some diplomatic fencing between the Indian Government -and the King of Ava, an ultimatum was sent to his Majesty. He still -refused to make any concessions, and war was declared. - -[Illustration: VIEW NEAR RANGOON.] - -General Goodwin, with a contingent from the Bengal Army, sailed from - -[Illustration: MAJOR FRASER’S STORMING PARTY CARRYING THE STOCKADE IN -FRONT OF RANGOON.] - -India for the mouth of the Irawaddy on the 28th of March. He arrived -there on the 2nd of April, and on the 5th stormed and captured Martaban, -where the enemy, five thousand strong, fought behind a river line of -defences extending over 800 yards. In the meantime, General Goodwin had -been reinforced by a contingent from Madras, and Commodore Lambert had -destroyed the stockades on the Rangoon river. It was then determined to -attack Rangoon on the 9th of April. On the 11th, Rear-Admiral Austen -cleared the way for the army by destroying the whole line of river -defences on both banks. On the 12th three regiments of infantry and part -of the artillery were landed, and the contest was, to the surprise of -the General, commenced by the Burmese, who left their stockades and -attacked the flanks of our advance. A strong stockade which stood in the -way was carried, after severe losses. Major Fraser, Commanding Engineer, -took the ladders to the fort, and mounting its defences alone, attracted -by his gallantry the storming party round him which drove the enemy from -the position. The troops were ordered to march on Rangoon, but by a -different road from that on which the Burmese had made preparations to -meet them. They carried by assault the Grand Pagoda, the fall of which -citadel made us masters of the town. All the posts on the river fell -into our hands in turn, and on the 27th of July Lord Dalhousie, the -Governor-General of India, arrived at Rangoon, and congratulated the -army on its victories. He then returned to Calcutta. On the 9th of -October General Goodwin occupied Prome with a strong force, and in -November an expedition was sent against Pegu, which was taken, after -some sharp fighting, on the 20th of that month. After this victory Lord -Dalhousie annexed the whole province to the British dominions; indeed, -had it not been that he had an objection to expose British India to -contact with the frontier of China, he would probably have annexed the -whole of Burmah. Our small garrison at Pegu was then subjected to -harassing attacks by the Burmese, and the war dragged slowly on. The -Burmese always fled to the jungle whenever our men attacked them, -returning to annoy our troops whenever they fell back on their quarters. -Our capture of the chief centres of population and defence was not -followed by the submission of the people. There were few roads in the -country. General Goodwin had not adequate transport for his artillery. -The climate had sadly weakened his forces, so that the unexpected -prolongation of the war, however disappointing to the country, was -inevitable. - -After the prorogation of Parliament, on the 1st of July, it was -dissolved on the 21st of August. On all important questions the -Government during the Session had held uncertain and ambiguous language, -appealing to the hopes of all parties alike. There was no strong feeling -in the country on any subject save that of Free Trade, and it soon -became apparent that the majority of the electors would not tolerate a -return to Protection, or the imposition of a protective duty on corn. -Still, the Protectionists were able to defeat some very able and -distinguished men, notably Sir George Cornewall Lewis in Herefordshire, -Sir George Grey in Northumberland, and Mr. Cardwell in Liverpool. In -each case their successors were feeble mediocrities. Edinburgh, however, -elected Macaulay without his even becoming a candidate. But though the -Tories did not gain enough seats to enable them to abolish Free Trade, -they had fully 300 staunch supporters who would vote like one man for -their policy. The Opposition was more numerous, but it was split up into -Whigs, Radicals, Peelites, and the Irish brigade, pledged not to give -any vote that might tend to bring Lord John Russell back to office. The -attitude of the Government was very equivocal during the contest. “They -have,” writes Mr. Greville, “sacrificed every other object to that of -catching votes; at one time, and at one place, representing themselves -as Free Traders, in another as Protectionists, and everywhere pandering -to the ignorance and bigotry of the masses by fanning the No Popery -flame. Disraeli announced that he had no thoughts, and never had any, of -attempting to restore Protection in the shape of import duties; but he -made magnificent promises of the great things the Government meant to do -for the farmers and the owners of land--by a scheme the nature and -details of which he refused to reveal.” This scheme was to be one -giving compensation by fiscal arrangements to the landed interest for -the loss of the Corn Duties. Fear of an alliance between the Whigs, the -Peelites, and the Manchester Radicals, on the basis of reduced -expenditure and fresh Reform Bills, caused many Whigs to desert their -Party. The Opposition was in a truly deplorable state. Their resentment -against Lord John Russell, to whose mismanagement they attributed their -electoral reverses, was deep and bitter. Malcontents openly advocated -that the leadership should be transferred to Lord Lansdowne; and Lord -Palmerston said that though he would be willing to join a Lansdowne -Cabinet if formed, he would never serve _under_ Lord John Russell, -though he had no objection to serve _with_ him. Lord Lansdowne’s -hostility to Parliamentary Reform rendered him incapable of leading a -Party that could not afford to dispense with Liberal votes. Moreover, he -objected from chivalrous motives to take the leadership unless Lord John -Russell asked him to do so. Lord John, on the other hand, told Sir J. -Graham that he had made up his mind not to join any Government unless he -was replaced in his post as Premier--an arrangement which would have -simply perpetuated those divisions and dissensions in the Liberal Party -that enabled the Tories to hold office. Lord Palmerston forecast the -fate of the Government with wonderful shrewdness, when he said that the -chances were they would fall on some mountebankish proposal for helping -everybody out of the taxes, without adding to the burdens on the -taxpayer.[58] - -The Queen’s Speech, so to speak, showed the cloven hoof of the -Protectionists. One paragraph filled the Free Traders with the darkest -suspicions. It ran as follows:--“It gives me pleasure to be enabled, by -the blessing of Providence, to congratulate you on the generally -improved condition of the country, and especially of the industrious -classes. If you should be of opinion that recent legislation, in -contributing with other causes to this happy result, has at the same -time inflicted unavoidable injury on certain important interests, I -recommend you dispassionately to consider how far it may be practicable -equitably to mitigate that injury, and to enable the industry of the -country to meet successfully that unrestricted competition to which -Parliament in its wisdom has decided that it should be subjected.” -Writing to his wife on the day after the debate on the Address, Mr. -Cobden alluded to this paragraph as “a queer, tricky allusion to the -Free Trade question,” which “brought on a sharp attack upon the -Government last night, and as all parties are agreed to force the -Disraelites, I hope we shall bring matters to an end soon.”[59] The -great aim of the Opposition, without distinction of faction, was to -force the Government to say, frankly and fairly, whether they did or did -not accept Free Trade in its entirety. But in the meantime an event -occurred which for the moment stilled the clamour of contending -parties, and united the whole nation in one great wail of mourning. - -That event was the death of the Duke of Wellington at Walmer Castle on -the 14th of September. This mournful calamity had been long expected. -But when it happened the people seemed incapable of realising it. “It -was,” said Prince Albert in a letter to Colonel Phipps, “as if in a -tissue a particular thread which was worked into every pattern was -suddenly withdrawn.” Moreover, it broke the last link that bound the -nineteenth to the eighteenth century. “He was,” wrote the Queen to King -Leopold, “the pride and good genius, as it were, of this country; the -most loyal and devoted subject, and the staunchest supporter the Crown -ever had. He was to us a true friend and most valuable adviser.... We -shall soon stand sadly alone. Aberdeen is almost the only personal -friend of the kind left to us--Melbourne, Peel, Liverpool, now the -Duke--all gone.”[60] - -[Illustration: WALMER CASTLE.] - -The Queen would at once, and of her own motion, have ordered a public -funeral, with the highest honours of State, for the remains of the -illustrious dead, following the precedent set in the case of Nelson. -She, however, - -[Illustration: THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON. - -(_After the Portrait by Count D’Orsay._)] - -deemed that a solemn vote of Parliament would confer additional -distinction on the ceremony. It was thus determined that the body of the -Duke should lie in the custody of a Guard of Honour until both Houses of -Parliament could meet in November and pass a resolution in favour of -burying, in St. Paul’s Cathedral, the Victor of Waterloo by the side of -the Victor of the Nile. The pages of _Hansard_ are full of the glowing -tributes to the memory of the great Duke, paid by the foremost orators -of the Senate. Of these, one of the most brilliant came from Mr. -Disraeli, and it subsequently gave rise to a good deal of scandal. A -morning paper published a translation--said to come from the pen of the -late Mr. Abraham Hayward, Q.C.--of the eulogium passed by M. Thiers in -the French Chamber on the Emperor Napoleon I. This certainly bore such a -suspiciously close resemblance to Mr. Disraeli’s oration, that the -English orator was accused of plagiarism. But the highest tribute of -homage to the Duke of Wellington came from the English people, to whom -the Duke seemed to embody all the manly virtues of their race. To this -fact Mr. Cobden himself bears striking, though grudging, testimony in a -letter to his friend Mr. Thomasson, of Bolton, condemning the militant -policy which led to an ever-increasing war expenditure. “Let as ask -ourselves candidly,” he writes, “whether the country at large is in -favour of any other policy than that which has been pursued by the -aristocracy, Whig and Tory, for a century and a half? The man who -impersonated that policy more than any other was the Duke of Wellington, -and I had the daily opportunity of witnessing, at the Great Exhibition -last year, that all other objects of interest sank to insignificance, -even in that collection of a world’s wonders, when he made his entry -into the Crystal Palace. The frenzy of admiration and enthusiasm which -took possession of a hundred thousand people of all classes at the very -announcement of his name, was one of the most impressive lessons I ever -had of the real tendencies of the English character.”[61] - -On the announcement of the Duke’s death every town in England displayed -the customary emblems of mourning. When, on the 10th of November, the -arrangements for the public funeral were well advanced, the corpse was -removed, under military escort, from Walmer Castle to the great hall in -Chelsea Hospital, where it was received by the Lord Chamberlain, and -laid in state on a bier prepared for the purpose. On the 11th, the -Queen, Prince Albert, and their family privately visited the Hospital, -and paid their last respects to their dead friend. After they left, the -Chelsea Pensioners, the Life Guards and Grenadiers, and the children of -the Duke of York’s Schools were admitted. On the 12th, the nobility and -gentry who held tickets of admission from the Lord Chamberlain came, and -then there ensued a scene of deplorable confusion. Eighteen thousand -persons passed before the bier between nine o’clock in the morning and -five in the afternoon, and many thousands more, after waiting wearily -outside in rain and gusty weather, turned away hopelessly when darkness -set in. - -When the public appeared next day (Saturday) claiming admission, the -crowd before the Hospital gates in the morning simply overwhelmed the -police. As it grew and gathered, the press became unbearable, and a -surging mass of spectators fought and struggled with each other for -their lives. Yells of agony rent the air; men and women were knocked -down, or fell fainting for want of breath. Screaming children were held -aloft in the air to escape suffocation by mothers, who themselves -disappeared every minute in the struggle. A great cloud of steam exhaled -from the heaving multitude, and far and near the approaches were -impassable. After some time the police, reinforced by soldiery, gained -control over the crowd, and some 50,000 persons then passed through the -hall. On Monday better arrangements prevailed, and 50,000 persons -passed the body with the greatest ease. On Tuesday 60,000, and on -Wednesday 65,000 persons were admitted. On Saturday three persons, and -on Tuesday two, perished in the crush. - -On Wednesday a squadron of cavalry conveyed the corpse to the Horse -Guards. - -As it became clear that the day of the funeral (the 18th of November) -would be kept as one of almost religious solemnity, and that no business -would be done in London, the Bills of Exchange and Notes (Metropolis) -Bill was passed quickly through Parliament. It enacted that bills -falling due on the 18th of November should become payable and be -presented on the 17th, but that, if paid before 2 p.m. on the 19th, they -should not be subject to charges for notarial protest. - -On the morning of the 18th of November the great funeral pageant, which -Charles Dickens irreverently termed “a masquerade dipped in ink,” passed -to St. Paul’s, through streets draped in black. Heavy rain and biting -wind did not prevent spectators from perching themselves all through the -preceding night on every spot where a glimpse of the procession could be -obtained. Windows, roofs of houses, porticoes, balconies, every “coign -of vantage” were covered with mourners. A million and a half of -spectators gazed at the procession, and few ever forgot the strange and -sudden silence into which the multitude was everywhere hushed, when the -head of the column appeared, led by the dark, frowning masses of the -Rifle Brigade, marching to the beat of muffled drum and the wail of the -“Dead March” in _Saul_. Solemnly, - - “Sad and slow, - As fits an universal woe,” - -one of the most wondrous of military pageants filed past to the strains -of mournful martial music. When the car with the remains of the Duke -appeared, a thrill of sorrowful emotion surged through the crowd at each -point of the route, as they saw “warriors carry the warrior’s pall.” -Strange unutterable thoughts were aroused at the sight of the narrow and -curiously emblazoned tenement which contained all that Time and Death -had left of him who had overcome the master of modern Europe, but who, -in turn, had himself fallen before a Conqueror unconquerable by the -mightiest. To this exaltation of feeling succeeded an outburst of homely -grief when the Duke’s favourite charger, led by his venerable groom, -appeared following his master’s coffin. When the procession came to -Temple Bar it was received by the Lord Mayor and Corporation, and at ten -minutes to twelve it reached St. Paul’s. - -The appearance of the cathedral will never be forgotten. Tiers of seats -covered with black cloth rose on every side of the nave. The sombre -draperies of the interior threw up the florid architecture of the great -Protestant temple in relief of dazzling whiteness, and rows of gas jets -round the cornices shed a soft, warm radiance on the scene. The service -was choral. The Dean read the lesson, and when the “Nunc dimittis” was -chanted, a dirge accompanied by trumpets followed, at the end of which -the body was slowly lowered into the vault, the while the organ and wind -instruments pealed forth the sad strains of the “Dead March.” As the -coffin slowly vanished from view a wave of intensely sorrowful emotion -passed over the vast assembly of mourners. Prince Albert visibly shook -with grief. The veteran Marquis of Anglesey lost control of his -feelings. Tears suddenly coursed down his furrowed cheeks, and, stepping -forward, he placed his trembling hand on the vanishing coffin, as if to -bid a last farewell to his old chief and companion in arms. The rest of -the service proceeded in the usual manner, the conclusion of the ritual -being Handel’s anthem--“His body is buried in peace.” Thereupon Garter -King at Arms stepped forward and proclaimed the style and titles of the -illustrious dead, and the Comptroller of the Household of the Duke -advanced, broke his staff of office, and handed the pieces to Garter -King at Arms, who laid them in the grave. The Bishop of London -pronounced the benediction, and all was over. - -The Queen and Prince Albert were of opinion that no _éloge_ on the great -Duke was in better taste than Lord John Russell’s; but, perhaps, the one -that will best stand the test of time was that of Alfred Tennyson:-- - - “Where shall we lay the man whom we deplore? - Here in streaming London’s central roar, - Let the sound of those he wrought for, - And the feet of those he fought for, - Echo round his bones for evermore. - - * * * * * - - Mourn, for to us he seems the last, - Remembering all his greatness in the past, - No more in soldier fashion will he greet - With lifted hand the gazer in the street. - O friends, our chief state-oracle is mute: - Mourn for the man of long-enduring blood, - The statesman-warrior, moderate, resolute, - Whole in himself, a common good. - Mourn for the man of amplest influence, - Yet clearest of ambitious crimes, - Our greatest yet with least pretence, - Great in council and great in war, - Foremost captain of his time, - Rich in sowing common-sense, - And, as the greatest only are, - In his simplicity sublime. - O good grey head, which all men knew, - O voice from which their omens all men drew, - O iron nerve to true occasion true, - O fall’n at length that tower of strength - Which stood four-square to all the winds that blew. - Such was he whom we deplore. - The long self-sacrifice of life is o’er. - The great World-victor’s victor will be seen no more.” - -[Illustration: THE WELLINGTON MONUMENT IN ST. PAUL’S CATHEDRAL, -COMPLETED IN 1878. (_By Alfred Stevens._)] - -Though much has been written about the career of the Duke of Wellington, -a brief review of his character may not be amiss here. “His striking -characteristic was his judgment,” writes Mr. Spencer Walpole. “He had no -doubt in addition capacity and courage. He could not have fought -Salamanca without the one, and he would not have held Waterloo without -the other. But in capacity he was not, possibly, superior to Moore; in -courage he was not superior to Gough. He was a great general, not -because he had a great intellect, but because he made fewer mistakes -than other men.”[62] His success in war was as conspicuous as his -failure in politics, and for the simplest of reasons. He was the only -great soldier of his time who understood that to triumph in battle it -is necessary to have the most exact and minute knowledge of the -mechanism of an army, to know as thoroughly how a soldier’s knapsack -should be buckled, as how a mighty campaign should be planned. In this -consisted his superiority over Napoleon I., who concentrated his mind on -the grand scheme of a battle or a campaign, leaving to his subordinates -the task of carrying it out in detail. All Napoleon’s subordinates could -do the work of subordinates better than their Imperial master. Not one -of Wellington’s subordinates, from the Marquis of Anglesey himself down -to the humblest private, could do his individual work better than the -Duke could do it for him. It was this easy mastery in handling all the -machinery of war that enabled him to readjust his arrangements so much -more quickly than his opponents could, when any part of a -carefully-planned scheme miscarried. But just because he did not possess -the same minute and exact knowledge of the political organism, he -constantly fell into grievous errors in statesmanship. Starting with -wrong premises in politics, he perpetually blundered into erroneous -conclusions. His saving virtue as a politician was his strong common -sense. It taught him with unerring certitude when a thing _must_ be done -long before his reasoning faculty, obscured by faulty data, taught him -that it ought to be done. He never regarded himself as in any sense the -servant of the people. It was as the sworn servant of the Crown that he -always spoke and acted, and the only test he ever applied to any project -of legislation was whether it was likely to strengthen or weaken the -Monarchy. No considerations of personal consistency, conviction, or -convenience could deter him from accepting or abandoning a policy or a -principle, if it could be shown that by doing either he prevented the -authority of his Sovereign from being undermined. Duty to the Crown was -the pole-star of his life. To gain a point for the advantage of his -Sovereign he would even push aside all considerations of personal -dignity. Sir Francis Doyle tells a story about him which illustrates -most curiously this dominant trait in his character. One day, when Sir -Francis Doyle’s father was dining at Apsley House, the Duke said to him, -“After the battle of Talavera I wanted the Spanish force to make a -movement, and called upon Cuesta to take the necessary steps, but he -demurred. He said, by way of answer, ‘For the honour of the Spanish -Crown I cannot attend to the directions of the British general, unless -that British general go upon his knees and entreat me to follow his -advice.’ Now,” proceeded the Duke, “I wanted this thing done, while as -to going upon my knees I did not care a twopenny damn, so down I -plumped.”[63] This little anecdote gives one a clearer insight into the -secret of the Duke of Wellington’s public life than all the biographies -of him that have ever been written. - - - - -CHAPTER XXVIII. - -THE LAST YEAR OF “THE GREAT PEACE.” - - Abortive Attacks on the Ministry--Mr. Disraeli’s First Budget--Fall - of the Tory Cabinet--The Queen and Lord Aberdeen--Organising the - Coalition--A Ministry of “All the Talents”--The Queen and South - Kensington--A Miser’s Legacy to the Queen--Sport at - Balmoral--Proclamation of the Second Empire--The “Battle of the - Numeral”--The Queen Initiates a Policy--Personal Government in the - Victorian Age--A Servile Minister--Lord Malmesbury’s - Spies--Napoleon III. and “Mrs. Howard”--Creole Card-Parties at - Kensington--Napoleon III. Proposes to Marry the Queen’s Niece--Lord - John Russell’s Education Scheme--Mr. Gladstone’s First Budget--The - India Bill--Transportation of Convicts to Australia Stopped--The - Gold Fever in Australia--The Rush to the Diggings--The First Gold - Ships in the Thames--Gold Discoveries and Free Trade--Chagrin of - the Protectionists--The Rise in Prices--Practical Success of Peel’s - Fiscal Policy--Strikes and Dear Bread--End of the Great Peace. - - -No sooner had the Duke of Wellington been buried than rival parties -resumed the war of faction. The Free Traders, who had been resuscitating -the old anti-Corn Law organisation in the North of England, resolved to -force from the Ministry an unambiguous declaration against Protection. -Mr. Charles Villiers accordingly moved a series of resolutions on the -23rd of November, affirming, that the Free Trade policy of the country -had been wise, just, and beneficial[64]--“three odious epithets,” said -Mr. Disraeli, which could not be accepted by the Tory Party. He -ridiculed this attempt to revive the cries of “exhausted factions and -obsolete politics.” He was himself fain, however, to propose a -resolution, which admitted that Free Trade had cheapened the necessaries -of life, which bound the Government to adhere to that policy, but which -did not contain any formal recantation of Protectionist principles.[65] -Mr. Bright hit the weak spot in these tactics when he asked, was it -safest to let the national verdict on Free Trade be drawn up by Mr. -Villiers, who advocated it, or by Mr. Disraeli, who did not advocate it, -and the majority of whose followers were pledged to exact from the -people some kind of compensation to the landed interest for the repeal -of the bread tax? Had it suited Lord Palmerston to let the Ministry be -beaten, nothing could have prevented their defeat. But, as we have seen, -he had resolved never to serve under Lord John Russell; and there was -too much reason to fear that at the moment Lord John was the only -possible Premier in the event of Lord Derby resigning office. - -“A moderate resolution,” writes Sir George Cornewall Lewis to Sir Edmund -Head, “had been prepared by Graham, and assented to by Lord John and -Gladstone. Charles Villiers was willing to move it, but Cobden insisted -on something stronger, in the secret hope that the House would reject -it, and thus damage itself in public opinion, thereby promoting the -cause of Parliamentary Reform. Palmerston got possession of the -resolution prepared by Graham, and moved it as an intermediate -proposition.”[66] The resolution affirmed the principle of Free Trade, -but not in terms obtrusively offensive to the Tories. It was eagerly -accepted by Mr. Disraeli, who saw in it the means of deliverance from -his enemies, and it was carried by a majority of 468 to 53--the minority -representing all the Tories who were prepared to cling to Protection, -even after it had been formally abandoned by Mr. Disraeli in his -audacious address to his constituents.[67] - -Mr. Disraeli’s tactics in thus evading defeat have sometimes been cited -as a proof of his skill. In reality, they were the outcome of -inexperience and exaggerated self-confidence. He did not correctly -understand why Sir James Graham and Mr. Gladstone desired to move a -moderate resolution. They were, of course, anxious not to turn out the -Ministry before Mr. Disraeli’s Budget saw the light. They were morally -certain that it would contain some fantastic proposals, which must not -only wreck the popularity of the Government, but destroy public -confidence for ever in Mr. Disraeli’s financial skill. Events proved -that they were right in their calculation. - -[Illustration: NORTH TERRACE AND WYKEHAM TOWER, WINDSOR CASTLE.] - -On the 3rd of December, in a speech of dazzling brilliancy, Mr. Disraeli -introduced his famous and fatal Budget. It reduced the Malt Tax by -one-half. The House Duty was raised from 9d. to 1s. 6d. in the £, and -extended from houses of £20 to houses of £10 rental. Light dues paid by -ships other than for the support of lighthouses pure and simple were -taken off. Tea duties were to be reduced gradually by small annual -amounts from 2s. 2¼d. to 1s. a - -[Illustration: THE DUKE OF ARGYLE.] - -pound. The Income Tax was to be extended to funded property and salaries -in Ireland. A distinction was drawn in taxing permanent and precarious -incomes, the exemption for industrial incomes being limited to £100 a -year, and for incomes from property to £50; and the rates of assessment -per £ were 7d. on incomes from rent of land and from funds, but only -5¼d. on incomes from farming, trade, and salaries. Farmers’ incomes -were to be taken as a third instead of a half of their rents. The -remissions were so balanced by the additions to taxation that no surplus -on the estimated revenue could be shown. A surplus of £400,000 was, -however, manufactured by appropriating as revenue the repayments on -local loans made to the Exchequer Loan Commission--repayments hitherto -used for clearing off debt. The scheme could not stand criticism. After -four nights’ debate, it was utterly demolished, Mr. Gladstone’s speech -attacking it being one of the few which are said to have ever really -turned doubtful votes in the House of Commons. The addition to the House -Tax, pressing, as it did, on those who would come within the extended -range of the Income Tax, infuriated the urban voters. The remission of -half the Malt Tax failed to satisfy a landed interest, hungering for -compensation for the abolition of the Corn Laws, because a reduced Malt -Tax, it was agreed, benefited nobody but the publicans and the brewers. -An extension of the Income Tax to funded property, Mr. Gladstone -contended, was a breach of Mr. Pitt’s pledge to the public creditor, in -1798, that no distinct and special tax should ever be laid on the -stockholder as such. Mr. Gladstone, like all the eminent financial -authorities, protested against recognising the illusory principle of a -graduated Income Tax, which lurked in the distinction made between -permanent and precarious incomes. He further protested against the -danger of estimating too narrowly for the services of the year, and -urged with incontestable force that it was a vicious principle to reckon -as surplus revenue £400,000 of repayments on the score of local -loans--that is to say, to regard the repayment of borrowed money as true -income. The Government were beaten on their Budget, by a vote of 305 to -286, on the morning of the 17th of December.[68] In the evening Lord -Derby handed his resignation to the Queen at Osborne. - -Her Majesty, fully aware of the reasons that rendered Lord John Russell -an impossible Premier, now saw her way to organising the strong -Government of capable and experienced statesmen which, ever since 1846, -she had held could only be formed by a coalition of the Whigs and the -Peelites. She accordingly summoned Lord Aberdeen and Lord Lansdowne to -assist her out of the Ministerial crisis. Gout prevented Lord Lansdowne -from attending at Osborne. His ill-health, together with his loyalty to -Lord John Russell, and the disinclination of the Peelites to serve under -him, rendered it impossible for him to accept the Premiership. It was -equally impossible for the Queen to ask Lord Palmerston to become Prime -Minister, after the recent events which had led to his dismissal from -the Foreign Office. Hence Lord Aberdeen, though the head of the smallest -faction, was the candidate for the Premiership who least divided the -Opposition. He was therefore charged with the task of forming a -Cabinet.[69] On the 28th of December the famous Coalition Ministry was -organised--Lord Cranworth was Lord Chancellor; Lord Aberdeen, Prime -Minister; Mr. Gladstone, Chancellor of the Exchequer; Lord Palmerston, -Home Secretary; Lord John Russell,[70] Foreign Secretary; the Duke of -Newcastle, Colonial Secretary; Mr. Sidney Herbert, War Secretary; Sir J. -Graham, First Lord of the Admiralty; Lord Granville, President of the -Council; Sir C. Wood, President of the Board of Control; the Duke of -Argyle, Lord Privy Seal; Sir W. Molesworth, Chief Commissioner of Works; -the Marquis of Lansdowne, a Minister without office. “The success of our -excellent Aberdeen’s arduous task,” writes the Queen to the King of the -Belgians, “and the formation of so brilliant and strong a Cabinet would, -I was sure, please you. It is the realisation of the country’s and our -own most ardent wishes, and it deserves success, and will, I think, -command support.”[71] The Queen here simply reflected public opinion. -Never had a Cabinet of abler men, individually speaking, ruled England -since the Ministry of “All the Talents” fell from power. But the -Sovereign and her people both forgot that in our strange and anomalous -constitution no Cabinet is, as a rule, so weak as a Cabinet of strong -men. This Ministry, which started on its career on the flood-tide of -Court and popular favour, was destined, by its vacillation in foreign -policy, to lead the country into the terrible calamity of a European -war. It was doomed to fall amidst the execrations even of those who, -like Mr. Cobden, declared that to his dying day he could never -sufficiently regret giving one of the votes that brought it into power. - -After the formation of the Government, the usual explanations of the -position of affairs were given in both Houses of Parliament, Lord Derby -attempting to show that the destruction of his Ministry had been plotted -by an unprincipled combination of hostile factions. On the contrary, as -Sir George Cornewall Lewis says in one of his letters, “there was no -real anxiety on the part of the Opposition to turn out the Government; -the sections of it were divided, and there was none of that ‘coalition’ -which Lord Derby spoke of. The Budget, however, was more than human -flesh and blood could bear. The promises of a substitute for Protection -which Disraeli had made at the Elections rendered it necessary that the -Government should propose something which appeared for the benefit of -the agriculturists. They sounded some of their supporters among the -county members as to a transfer from the local rates to the Consolidated -Fund; but I believe the answer they got was, that a measure which -destroyed the power of the magistrates and the local authorities would -not be acceptable to their party. They had nothing then to propose but a -reduction of the Malt Tax, which created a large deficit, and rendered -an increase of taxation necessary. This latter object was effected by -doubling and enlarging the House Tax. Disraeli was evidently very -confident of the success of his Budget, and impatient to produce it. But -when it had been out a week it was clear the country would not agree to -it. The farmers did not care about the reduction of the Malt Tax; but -the towns did care very decidedly for the increase of the House Tax, and -showed a strong objection to it.... Having made their Budget a means of -redeeming their promise to give their party an equivalent for -Protection, they could not modify it, and therefore defeat on it was -vital.”[72] On the 31st of December all the appointments under the new -Government were filled up, and Parliament was adjourned till the 10th of -February, 1853. - -[Illustration: VIEW IN BRAEMAR.] - -In the early part of the year the Queen was much distressed by reason of -her husband’s anxieties in connection with the affairs of the Great -Exhibition. His idea was to apply the surplus in the hands of the -Exhibition Commissioners - -[Illustration: QUEEN VICTORIA. - -(_After the Equestrian Portrait by Count D’Orsay_)] - -to the purchase of a site at South Kensington, for the Science and Art -Institution which he hoped to see created. Ninety acres of land were -bought for £342,500, of which sum Government advanced £177,500, with the -intention of transferring the National Gallery to the site. The agent of -the Commissioners, however, had in purchasing the land stupidly agreed -to take it on a building lease, under conditions which would have -destroyed their plans, and involved them in the dilemma of repudiating -their agent, or incurring liabilities to erect dwelling-houses, which -they dared not undertake. The vendor, Baron Villars, generously -permitted them to make other arrangements for buying the fee-simple of -the land; but the anxieties of the Prince during the period when the -issue was in suspense preyed terribly on his mind and health, and the -Queen has herself recorded how she exhausted all means in her power to -cheer and sustain him in his distress. - -[Illustration: THE QUEEN’S VISIT TO THE BRITANNIA TUBULAR BRIDGE.] - -Her Majesty’s birthday was spent in the sunshine of domestic happiness -at Osborne. In the festivities of the season the Queen, early in June, -assures her uncle, King Leopold, that she and her family joined only to -a limited extent. They gave two State balls and two State concerts. They -go, she says, three or four times a week to the play or opera, are -hardly ever later than midnight in going to bed and, but for the -fagging business of public affairs, the Season “would be nothing to us.” -During the summer, life at Osborne was diversified by several short -yachting excursions round the South Coast. In August the Queen planned -and carried out a brief visit to her uncle, King Leopold of Belgium, -reaching Antwerp on the 10th in the Royal yacht in a tempest of wind and -rain. At the King’s country seat at Laeken the Royal party spent four -bright and happy days, saddened only by the too visible gap in the -family circle, left by the death of Queen Louise. The disagreeable and -tempestuous voyage homeward was only broken by a charming visit to -Terneusen, where the simple hospitality and quaint old-world ways of the -villagers greatly delighted her Majesty, who seems to have passed a -pleasant day among them. - -On the 30th of August her Majesty was amazed to receive information at -Balmoral to the effect that an eccentric old barrister called Nield had -bequeathed a legacy of £250,000 to her. John Camden Nield was a miser, -who had pinched and starved himself for thirty years to add to his -patrimony. The Queen very properly resolved to refuse the legacy if Mr. -Nield had any relations living who had a claim to the money;[73] but as -it appeared he had none, she accepted the gift. The holiday at Balmoral -was as bright and happy as could be wished. “Nothing,” writes Lord -Malmesbury, who was in attendance on the Queen at this time, “can exceed -the good nature with which I am treated, both by her Majesty and the -Prince. Balmoral is an old country house in bad repair, and totally -unfit for Royal personages.... The Royal party consists of the Duchess -of Kent, the ladies in waiting, Colonel Phipps, and Sir Arthur Gordon. -The rooms are so small that I am obliged to write my despatches on my -bed, and to keep the window constantly open to admit the necessary -quantity of air; and my private secretary, George Harris, lodged -somewhere three miles off. We played at billiards every evening, the -Queen and the Duchess being constantly obliged to get up from their -chairs to be out of the way of the cues. Nothing could be more cheerful -and evidently perfectly happy than the Queen and Prince, or more kind to -every one round them. I never met any man so remarkable for the variety -of information on all subjects as the latter, with a great fund of -humour _quand il se déboutonne_.” The Prince himself records in his -Diary,[74] however, that “Balmoral is in full splendour, and the people -there are very glad that it is now entirely our own.” On the 4th of -September Lord Malmesbury writes:--“The Prince had a wood driven not far -from the house. After we had been posted in line, two fine stags passed -me, which I missed. Colonel Phipps fired next, and lastly, the Prince, -without any effect. The Queen had come out to see the sport, lying down -in the heather by the Prince, and witnessed all these fiascos, to our -humiliation.”[75] This happy holiday was sadly broken by the death of -the Duke of Wellington, which brought the Court unexpectedly back to -Windsor in October, their route being through Edinburgh, Preston, -Chester, and North Wales, where they inspected, on the 14th of October, -the Britannia tubular bridge over the Menai Straits. The Queen drove -through the bridge in a State carriage drawn by men, while Prince -Albert, accompanied by Mr. R. Stephenson, walked across on the roof of -the tube. On reaching the south end, the party descended to the water’s -edge, from which they obtained a complete view of the magnificent -proportions of the gigantic structure. - -During 1852 one striking event in Foreign Affairs that occupied the -attention of the Queen was the transformation of the French Republic -into the Second Empire. In Paris, on the 1st of January, Charles Louis -Napoleon was installed at Notre Dame as President of France, and he -promulgated a new Constitution, preserving little of the form and none -of the spirit of Liberty. The whole Executive was to be vested in the -President, who was to be advised by a Council of State, a Senate of -nobles nominated for life, and a powerless legislative body elected by -universal suffrage for six years, whose transactions at the demand of -five members could be kept secret. The next step taken by the -Prince-President was to issue Decrees on the 23rd of January, compelling -the Orleans Princes to sell their real and personal property in France -within a year, and confiscating the property settled on the family by -Louis Philippe previous to his accession in 1830. This raised a storm of -indignation among all Frenchmen who were not accomplices of the -Prince-President in the _coup d’état_, and it caused Montalembert to -resign his seat on the Consultative Commission of the 2nd of December. -De Morny and Fould also resigned, M. de Persigny replacing the -former.[76] To the Queen, whose partiality for the Orleans family was -well known, these Decrees were painfully offensive. The -Prince-President’s strongest partisan in England, Lord Malmesbury, wrote -a letter remonstrating with him, and the reply serves to illustrate the -character of the men who consented to serve in the Senate. “He (the -Prince-President),” says Lord Malmesbury in a letter to Lord Cowley, -British Ambassador at Paris, “declared the confiscation necessary, as -even some of his own Senators had been tampered with by Orleanist agents -and money.”[77] On September 13th this patriotic Senate prayed for “the - -[Illustration: NOTRE DAME, PARIS (WEST FRONT).] - -re-establishment of the hereditary sovereign power in the Bonaparte -family;” and on the 4th of November the Prince-President announced that -he had in view the restoration of the Empire, and ordered the French -people to be consulted on the matter. The French people, when consulted, -were for the restoration--7,839,552 voting “Yes,” and 254,501 “No.” The -vote was cast on the 21st of November, three days after Wellington was -laid in the grave. As Cobden said, one might almost picture the third -Napoleon rising from the yet open tomb of the vanquisher of the -first.[78] On the 2nd of December Charles Louis Napoleon was declared -Emperor of the French under the title of Napoleon III. The Constitution -of January was confirmed with some slight modifications. A Royal title -was given to Jérôme Bonaparte, Napoleon’s uncle. St. Arnaud, Magnan, and -Castillane were created Marshals of France; and then there arose the -first of the Imperial difficulties--that of obtaining recognition from -the European Courts. - -[Illustration: COMTE DE MONTALEMBERT.] - -The Queen took a thoroughly sensible view of the situation. The -atrocities of December and the confiscation of the Orleans property had -not prepossessed her Majesty in favour of the French Emperor. But in her -opinion there was no essential difference between such a Republic as had -been established by the _coup d’état_ strengthened by the Constitution -of January, and a military Empire without glory or genius. If the vast -majority of Frenchmen were desirous of transforming their -Prince-President into an Emperor, that was their affair, and Foreign -Courts had no concern in the matter. The Queen was, therefore, strongly -in favour of recognising the title of the Emperor of the French, and of -according to him the customary courtesy of addressing him in ceremonial -communications as _mon frère_.[79] The Northern Courts, however, could -not bring themselves to treat as an equal, an adventurer who, to use -his own expression in announcing his marriage in the Chamber on the 22nd -of January, 1853, “had frankly taken up before Europe the _position de -parvenu_.” Ultimately they all yielded to facts, and with the exception -of Russia, agreed to address Charles Louis Bonaparte as their “brother.” -The haughty autocrat of Muscovy, who had smiled on him approvingly when -he strangled Liberty in France, frowned on the attempt to raise on its -ruins a fabric of Empire, claiming parity with the ancient dominion of -the Romanoffs. The Czar, therefore, persisted in addressing the French -Emperor, not as “my brother,” but “my cousin.” This trivial slight is -mentioned here, because it had subsequently a potent influence on the -fortunes of England. - -“England,” writes Sir Theodore Martin, “conceded the phrase _mon frère_ -without a grudge.”[80] That is a somewhat misleading statement. It was -certainly decided in England that the Emperor should be recognised some -little time before the Empire was proclaimed, because everybody knew -that its proclamation was inevitable. Having determined that the -Prince-President was to be recognised in some fashion as Emperor, a -question as to style was raised by the pedants of diplomacy, which -showed where the “grudge” lay. It gave rise to that most grotesque of -diplomatic struggles--the once famous but now forgotten Battle of the -Numeral. Charles Louis Bonaparte, through his envoys, let it be known at -the Court of the Queen that he meant to call himself Napoleon III. “Why -Napoleon the Third?” asked alarmed Diplomacy. “Clearly he means to filch -from us a recognition of the ephemeral title of the Duc de Reichstadt, -the son and heir of Napoleon I., who was proclaimed when the First -Empire crashed into ruins.” It was a crafty device to avenge Waterloo -with the blast of a herald’s trumpet, and to wipe out fifty years of -French history, just as the Parliament of the Restoration tried to -efface the Commonwealth by dating the statutes of 1660, as of the -twelfth year of the Merry Monarch’s reign. The usurper might be -recognised by England as Napoleon II., perhaps, but never, argued Lord -Malmesbury, as Napoleon III., for that would have countenanced more than -our recognition of the Second Empire was actually meant to convey. It -would have implied a recognition of the Emperor’s _hereditary_, as -distinguished from his _elective_, title to the Throne. Most wearisome -were the disputes and most tiresome the conferences between Lord -Malmesbury, then Foreign Secretary, and the French Ambassador on this -subject. At last it was agreed that we should accept the disagreeable -numeral, after the French Government admitted in writing that it was not -to imply our recognition of the Emperor’s hereditary right to the -Imperial Crown of France. From first to last, however, Lord Malmesbury -and the other diplomatists were mistaken. Very little reflection might -have taught them that if the numeral were meant to efface Waterloo, and -the Monarchies of the Bourbons and the Barricades, the usurper would -have styled himself Napoleon V., and not Napoleon III., for his elder -uncle Joseph and his father Louis both survived the young and ill-fated -Duc de Reichstadt. A hereditary title, moreover, would not need to have -been consecrated by a _plebiscite_, and the reign of its wearer would -not have been dated from 1852, but from the date of Louis Bonaparte’s -death. It is, therefore, natural to ask how Charles Louis Bonaparte came -to style himself the Third and not the Second Emperor. The explanation -illustrates the facility with which the tragicomedy of fussy English -diplomacy is transformed into farce at the touch of fact. Lord -Malmesbury, who is rendered supremely ridiculous by the story, tells it -himself as follows in his Diary:-- - -“December 29 (1852). We went to Heron Court. Whole country under water. -Lord Cowley[81] relates a curious anecdote as to the origin of the -numeral III. in the Emperor’s title. The Prefect of Bourges, where he -slept the first night of his progress, had given instructions that the -people were to shout ‘Vive Napoléon!’ But he wrote ‘Vive Napoléon!!!’ -The people took the three notes of interjection for a numeral. The -President, on hearing it, sent the Duc de Mortemart to the Prefect to -know what the cry meant. When the whole thing was explained, the -President, tapping the Duke on the shoulder, said, ‘_Je ne savais pas -que j’avais un Préfet Machiavéliste._’”[82] - -After the proclamation of the French Emperor, his matrimonial schemes -touched the family connections of the Queen somewhat closely. The -Emperor’s marriage, in truth, was the favourite topic for gossip and -scandal in every high social circle in Europe. As a matter of fact, -Charles Louis Napoleon was averse from marriage. Two women were already -devoted to him; perhaps more zealously than any bride of exalted rank -could ever be. One was Madame Favart de l’Anglade, a creole, who lived -some time at Kensington Gate, and whose whist and dinner parties have, -perhaps, not yet been quite forgotten in the old Court suburb. (Lord -Malmesbury, it may be said in passing, was told by Kisseleff, the -Russian Ambassador at Paris, that had the _coup d’état_ failed, Charles -Louis Bonaparte and De Morny were to have fled for concealment to this -lady’s house.) The other woman who exercised so much influence on the -Prince-President’s life was a Mrs. Howard. She was his mistress, and he -created her Comtesse de Beauregard after he broke off his intimacy with -her.[83] This event was virtually an intimation of his intention to -marry. He was anxious to have an heir--for obviously none of the -Bonapartes were fit to succeed him. To perpetuate a dynasty a Royal -bride would be useful, and to enable him to obtain a Royal bride, -Charles Louis Bonaparte persuaded France to proclaim him Emperor. - -His first project was to seek in marriage the Princess Caroline -Stephanie de Vasa, a grand-daughter of the Grand Duchess of Baden, and -daughter of Prince Gustave de Vasa, son of the last King of Sweden of -the old legitimate dynasty. The proposal was not accepted, and the lady -afterwards married a German Prince. In December, however, Walewski was -sent to the English Court to ask the hand of the Princess Adelaide of -Hohenlohe for his Imperial master, greatly to the disquietude of the -Queen, who was her aunt. On the 28th of December, when the Tory -Ministers went to Windsor to deliver up their seals of office, the Queen -began at once to discuss this delicate affair with them. Lord Malmesbury -says:--“The Prince (Albert) read a letter from Prince Hohenlohe on the -subject, which amounted to this, that he was not sure of the settlement -being satisfactory, and that there were objections of religion and -morals. The Queen and Prince talked of the marriage reasonably, and -weighed the _pros_ and _cons_. Afraid the Princess should be dazzled if -she heard of the offer. I said I knew an offer would be made to the -father. Walewski would go himself. The Queen alluded to the fate of all -the wives of the rulers of France since 1789, but did not object -positively to the marriage.”[84] This project, however, fell to the -ground, and the Emperor, tired of being rejected by Princesses, acted on -the wise apophthegm of Ovid--_Si qua vis apte nubere, nube pari_. On the -22nd of January, 1853, he announced his intention of marrying Eugenia de -Montijo, Countess of Théba, daughter of the Donna Maria Manuela -Kirkpatrick, Dowager Countess de Montijo, by the Count de Montijo, an -officer of rank in the Spanish army. The father of the Donna Maria -Manuela Kirkpatrick was British Consul at Malaga, and supposed to be -descended from the assassin of the Red Comyn, whose family motto, “I mak -sickar” (“I make sure”), perpetuates grim - -[Illustration: MDLLE. EUGENIA DE MONTIJO, AFTERWARDS EMPRESS OF THE -FRENCH.] - -memories of his loyalty to the Bruce. His Majesty told the deputations -from the Senate, the Legislative Body and the Council of State, that -whilst it was his aim to place France once more within the pale of the -old Monarchies, that result would be better attained by policy than by -“Royal alliances, which create feelings of false security, and -frequently substitute family interests for those of the nation.” Now, -any dispute which engages Europe in diplomatic controversy that finally -leads to war, is apt to produce fresh groupings of the Powers. An -Imperial parvenu seeking for a respectable ally finds in these new -groupings excellent opportunities for insinuating himself into “the pale -of the old monarchies.” Hence the Emperor’s marriage was a sinister omen -for England, because it was his fixed idea that England was the most -profitable ally France could have. The Queen, however, on hearing that -the Emperor’s marriage was a love match, imagined that his abandonment -of an attempt to contract a Royal alliance gave additional force to his -assurance at Bordeaux, on the 9th of October, 1852, that the “Empire was -Peace,” and that under its guidance France was about to enter on a busy -epoch of Industrialism. English Society approved of the marriage,[85] -and the Press was loud in its praises of the Imperial pair.[86] Nobody, -indeed, had the faintest suspicion at the time that war was in store for -us--a war which gave the French Emperor that very alliance with England -for which he was then scheming. But before describing the events that -led up to the most disastrous calamity that darkens the Queen’s reign, -it may be well to sketch briefly the chief points in the Home Policy of -her Majesty’s Ministers during 1853. - -It has been said that there were only two great projects in which the -Queen interested herself during this year, filled, as it was, with -distracting anxieties as to foreign affairs--the Budget and the India -Government Bill. There was, however, a third: Lord John Russell’s -scheme--unhappily abortive--for establishing a national system of public -instruction. - -Parliament met on the 10th of February, and Mr. Disraeli called Sir -James Graham and Sir Charles Wood to account for speaking rudely of the -French Emperor in their hustings addresses. Nothing came of his pungent -attack, and public interest in politics was languid till April arrived, -when Mr. Gladstone introduced his celebrated Budget--the first of a -series that enabled him to divide with Sir Robert Peel the glory of -being the greatest Finance Minister of the Victorian age. - -Mr. Gladstone found that Mr. Disraeli, by under-estimating his revenue -and over-estimating his expenditure, had left him with a surplus, not of -£461,000, but of £2,307,000.[87] Unexpected military expenditure, due to -dread of a French invasion, had reduced this surplus to £807,000. The -primary feature in Mr. Gladstone’s Budget was the extension of the tax -on personal property devised by will to real property, and also to -personal property that passed by settlement. This, Mr. Gladstone -reckoned, would ultimately bring in £2,000,000, and put him in a -position to deal with the Income Tax, which came to an end in 1853. He -proposed to continue the Income Tax at sevenpence in the pound for two -years, then to reduce it to sixpence, and in three years after that to -reduce it to fivepence. He extended the tax to Ireland, but, by way of -compensation, remitted the debts which Ireland had recently incurred to -the Imperial Treasury. He increased the duties on Scotch spirits from -3s. 5d. to 4s. 8d., and on Irish spirits from 2s. 8d. to 3s. 4d. a -gallon, and thus, he reckoned, he had a surplus of £2,151,000 to spend. -How did he spend it? He abolished the duty on soap, thereby terminating -the last of the taxes on the four “necessaries”--salt, leather, and -candles were the other three--which Adam Smith condemned a century -before.[88] He reduced the taxes on 256 minor articles of food, besides -tea, advertisements, carriages, dogs, male servants, apples, cheese, -cocoa, butter, and raisins. He reduced the rate of postage to the -Colonies--a reduction which, it is surprising to find, had not been even -suggested by Mr. Disraeli or any of his predecessors in the highest of -Imperial interests. An ingenious feature in his Budget was his -manipulation of the Funds. Old Three per Cent. Consols, which could be -paid off at a year’s notice, sold for a little over par, that is to say, -£100 of stock sold for a little more than £100. New Three per Cents, -however, which were not redeemable for twenty years, sold for -£103--_i.e._, £100 of stock was worth in the market £103, the difference -of £3 representing the value of the State guarantee to pay interest on -the stock for twenty years. Hence, he said, if he gave a like guarantee -for some of the unguaranteed stock, he might lay hands on the increment -of value thereby added to it for the benefit of the State. He -accordingly permitted fundholders to exchange £100 of Consols, or -“Reduced Three per Cents.” for Exchequer bonds,[89] or for £82 10s. in -New Three and a Half per Cent. Stock, guaranteed for forty years to pay -£2 17s. 9d. of interest, or for £110 irredeemable Two and a Half per -Cent. Stock. Mr. Spencer Walpole has said - -[Illustration: PRINCE JÉRÔME BONAPARTE.] - -that “in breadth, in comprehension, in boldness, in knowledge, and in -originality,” Mr. Gladstone’s first Budget will compare with Peel’s -greatest efforts in 1842 and 1845.[90] But even Mr. Walpole admits that, -whereas Peel’s Budgets can be tested by results, Mr. Gladstone’s can be -judged of only from its intention. The Crimean war--which he did not -foresee, and which, as will be shown presently, was then brewing--upset -all his calculations. It was not favourable to conversion of debt; -moreover, the new succession duty did not bring in one-fourth of the -estimated sum.[91] Only one important change was effected in the scheme. -The duty on advertisements, which Mr. Gladstone proposed should be -reduced to 6d., was abolished by the odd and novel method of moving and -carrying an amendment substituting the cipher (0) for the figure 6(d.), -in the resolution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. Hume -challenged the competence of the House of Commons in Committee to adopt -a resolution with a “nought” in it instead of a definite figure, but the -Speaker ruled against him. - -[Illustration: SKETCH IN THE OUTER CLOISTERS, WINDSOR CASTLE.] - -The India Bill was introduced by Sir C. Wood on the 3rd of June, 1853. -The complaints against the system under which India was ruled were that -it led to wars, deficits, maladministration of justice, neglect of -public works and of education. The Dual Government of the Imperial Board -of Control and the Court of Directors of the East India Company was -maintained, but the Court of Directors was reduced from thirty members -to eighteen, twelve of whom were to be chosen by the Company, and six -nominated by the Crown, who were to be Indian officials of ten years’ -service. The new system, which was to prevail till Parliament chose to -change it, put an end to the old plan of leasing the Indian Empire for a -term of years to a Company of merchant adventurers. As to patronage, -competition was substituted for nomination as the mode of entering the -public service. Direct appointments to the Indian Army were, however, -left in the hands of the Directors of the Company. The scheme was warmly -discussed, the friends of the Company insisting on immediate -legislation; its enemies, thinking that in time they might be able to -educate the country up to the point of abolishing the authority of the -Directors, and transferring the government of India absolutely to the -Crown,[92] pressed for delay. Mr. Disraeli and the bulk of the Tories -were for postponing legislation, but in the end the Government carried -the Bill. - -Lord John Russell, on the 4th of April, explained his scheme for -establishing a system of national education. The main point in it was -that it empowered Municipal Authorities to raise a rate in aid of -voluntary schools, the rate to be applied to pay twopence in the week -for each scholar, provided fourpence or fivepence were contributed from -other sources. The scheme was, however, abandoned. Lord John had in his -speech foreshadowed the introduction of a Bill imposing drastic reforms -on the Universities, and this roused the Tory Party to obstruct his -proposals. It is but fair to draw attention to this Bill, because Lord -John Russell is entitled to the credit of having been the first -statesman to present a comprehensive scheme for organising primary -education, based on the principle that it is the duty of the community -to provide for the instruction of the people by levying an education -rate. This, said Mr. W. J. Fox, was “a most important step in the -progress of public instruction.” - -A Bill empowering the Local Governments in Canada to deal with Clergy -Reserves was introduced by Mr. F. Peel on the 15th of February. It is -notable because the debates on it illustrate the difference between the -ideas of the two parties in the State as to Colonial Government--the -Tories in those days being on the whole opposed to granting the Colonies -privileges of self-government, whilst the Liberals favoured such grants. -In 1791 it was enacted that whenever the Crown disposed of waste lands -in Canada, one-seventh of their value should be reserved for the support -of the Protestant clergy. The funds, it seems, had not been fairly -distributed, the Established Churches of England and Scotland having -received the largest share of them. In 1840 the Imperial Legislature had -confirmed this appropriation by restraining the Canadian Legislatures -from meddling with these funds. The Bill of the Government simply gave -the Canadian Legislature the right of dealing with them as it thought -fit, on the ground that the disposal of lands which derived their value -from Canadian capital and Canadian enterprise was a matter of Colonial -rather than of Imperial concern. The Bill was passed. - -On the 11th of July a Bill for altering the punishment of transportation -was introduced into the House of Lords by the Lord Chancellor. Only one -Colony--Western Australia--was willing to receive convicts, and not more -than 800 to 1,000 a year could be sent there. The Government proposed, -therefore, to limit transportation to such cases of crime as would carry -a sentence of fourteen years’ imprisonment, and substitute shorter -periods of imprisonment for offences, which up till now had been -punished by varying periods of transportation. - -This proposal, which was carried, was forced on the State by the great -changes which had been effected in the Australian Colonies after the -discovery of gold in New South Wales. Here it may be well to notice the -manner in which these gold discoveries were made, and their effect on -the prosperity of the Empire. - -It was on the 10th of September, 1852, that the West India mail steamer -brought news to England which revived the old yearning for the discovery -of the fabled El Dorado--dormant in the English breast since the days of -Raleigh. Gold, it was reported, had been found near Bathurst, in New -South Wales, where a frantic rush to the diggings had taken place. The -merchant left his warehouse, the shopman his counter, even the lawyers -deserted their clients--all eager to join in the headlong race to the -mines. But all the gold they were likely to win could not possibly -balance the loss caused to the Colony at the time by the mad stampede of -the shepherds, who abandoned their countless flocks for the mines. The -gold fever was further exacerbated by the subsequent discovery of -another rich deposit in Victoria. America had found her El Dorado in -California; Englishmen accordingly heard with pride that they, too, had -come into a richer heritage in the hitherto despised convict settlements -of Australasia. On the 23rd of November, 1852, three vessels from -Australia sailed into the Thames with a cargo of seven tons of solid -gold. The _Eagle_ brought 160,000 ounces, worth £600,000, and she had -made the passage from Melbourne to the Downs in seventy-six days; the -_Sapphire_ and _Pelham_, from Sydney, brought 14,668 ounces and 27,762 -ounces respectively; the _Maitland_, from Sydney, followed with 14,326 -ounces; the _Australia_, the first steamer that arrived from these -Colonies, next came in with a still larger quantity; and in December the -_Dido_ appeared with a cargo of gold-dust valued at £400,000. - -Politically the Protectionists tried to turn these discoveries to some -account. They had predicted that Free Trade would ruin the country. On -the contrary, £6,000,000 of taxation had been remitted since 1846, and -yet there was no shrinkage of revenue. Exports had risen from -£58,000,000 to £78,000,000, the shipping trade was brisker than ever, -and on the 1st of January, 1853, there were not quite 800,000 paupers in -the country.[93] Even the landed interest could not pretend to have been -ruined, seeing that the Income Tax assessment under Schedule B, which -is levied on rents of agricultural land, had risen from £46,328,811 in -1845 to £46,681,488 in 1852. This tide of prosperity under Free Trade -seemed certain to flow rather than to ebb, so that the Tories were -taunted with the utter failure of their dismal Protectionist prophecies. -It need hardly be said that the Queen, who, as a strong Free Trader, had -watched with deep anxiety the result of the great revolution in fiscal -policy which she had helped Peel to initiate, was intensely gratified, -not to say relieved in mind, when the figures illustrating the -commercial condition of her realm were brought under her notice. The -Protectionists, however, had an answer to these facts. It was, they -averred, the unexpected discovery of gold in Australia that had saved -the country from the ruin which they predicted must come from Free -Trade. It may be pointed out that the figures we have given for the -purpose of showing how the trade of the country stood after 1846, cover -the period _before_, and not the period _after_, gold was imported from -Australia--a circumstance which the Queen and Prince Albert were quick -to note and appreciate. The Tory Protectionists, in fact, completely -misunderstood the effect which would be produced by any sudden increase -in the supply of gold. That effect was two-fold: (1) on the mother -country, and (2) on the Australian Colonies. - -There is very little mystery about the effect of an increase in the -production of gold. The more we put into the market the less valuable -will it become. If we double the quantity of gold in circulation, it -follows that an article which could be bought for a sovereign will not -be sold for less than two sovereigns. The price of the article is thus -said to rise, whereas the value, or, properly speaking, the purchasing -power of the gold, for which it is exchanged, is said to fall. An -increase in the stock of gold ought, therefore, to lead to a rise in -prices, and to a fall or depreciation in the value of the metal. In 1853 -some foolish persons therefore predicted that gold would soon be as -cheap as silver; and yet, though the supply was trebled, gold was not -trebly depreciated in value. “Undoubtedly some effect,” says Mr. -Walpole, “was consequently made on prices; but the effect was probably -only slowly and gradually felt. Gold was absorbed in vast and -unprecedented quantities in the arts, and the supply which was actually -available for barter was not immediately augmented to the same -degree.”[94] It is difficult to understand how so able a writer has been -led into an error which must vitiate every deduction drawn from the -effect of the Australian gold discoveries on the prosperity of the -English people, in the Victorian period. Nobody has ever been able to -estimate even approximately the amount of gold that is absorbed in the -arts. All that we know is that the amount is so small, that it could not -affect such an enormous increase in the supply as that which came from -Australia.[95] Besides, as gold did not fall much in value, it was not -likely that it would be much absorbed in the arts. But, then, what -became of all the gold that was so suddenly poured into England from -Australia? Some of it was absorbed in coinage,[96] but not enough to -account for the absorption of the vast quantity that remained. The key -to the puzzle is, in truth, to be found in the statistics of commerce -which we have already cited. - -[Illustration: THE CONVEYING OF AUSTRALIAN GOLD FROM THE EAST INDIA -DOCKS TO THE BANK OF ENGLAND. - -(_After the Engraving in the “Illustrated London News.”_)] - -The value of gold was kept up in spite of the sudden increase in the -supply, because, under Free Trade, the commerce of the country began to -expand by leaps and bounds. The Australian supplies, in fact, were -absorbed in trade, for it is obvious that the sudden expansion of -business which followed from Free Trade must have caused a corresponding -demand for money, not only to conduct the operations of barter, but to -pay the wages of the additional workers who produced the articles sold -for money. When this fact is grasped, it is easy to understand what the -Australian gold discoveries did for England. Had no new supplies of gold -been found in 1853, Free Trade would have brought serious disasters in -its wake, but not precisely in the form predicted by the Tories. The -sudden expansion of trade would have caused a sudden demand for gold; -the value of gold must have risen. Supposing gold had thus doubled in -value, then the prices of commodities would have been halved, that is to -say, one hundred oxen would have sold only for as many sovereigns as -fifty sold for before the value of gold was thus increased. Everybody -who had to make a fixed money payment, such as rent or interest, would -have had their payment doubled, for they would have had to produce twice -as much to meet their obligations as originally sufficed for that -purpose. The burden of the National Debt, for example, would have been -doubled, for, to pay every pound’s worth of interest to the fundholder, -the public would have had to realise what represented two pounds’ worth -of wealth when the interest was first fixed. In fact, the only people -who would have gained, would have been the few who had to receive fixed -payments, at the expense of the many who had to make them. The discovery -of gold at a time when a liberated and expanding trade was causing an -increased demand for the metal was thus a providential coincidence. By -preventing the demand from outrunning the supply, it prevented a sudden -increase in the value of the metal, which must have reduced prices and -upset all the monetary arrangements of the country. - -What was the effect of the discovery of gold on the Australian Colonies? -Very much the same as the discovery of rich deposits of any other -saleable ore, excepting in this respect, that gold is the one metal that -commands an immediate sale, at a high and very slightly varying price. -Land, Labour, and Capital are the three great requisites of production. -Of these Australia, prior to 1853, had only the first in abundance. The -gold mines attracted a rush of emigrants to Australia. But gold mining -is a lottery in which the prizes fall to the few. The average earnings -of the digger were soon found to be lower than the wages paid in other -employments. Hence crowds of men who had been attracted to the mines -soon left them, and were ready to follow other pursuits, so that the -gold rush gave Australia the second element in production--labour. But -the gold which was won, and the demands of the mining population, soon -stimulated industry and increased wealth in the Colonies--in other -words, the gold rush brought to Australia the third requisite of -production--capital. - -The Australian gold discoveries, therefore, transformed an insignificant -penal settlement into a rich and queenly Commonwealth, and saved England -from the gold famine, with its disastrous fall in prices, which a sudden -expansion of trade must inevitably have produced after Protective duties -were abolished. There were, however, two shadows on the picture. The -gold rush to Australia depleted the labour market at home. The demands -of the Australian Colonies for British goods, after gold had been -discovered, were enormous. A sudden diminution in the supply of labour, -combined with a corresponding increase in the demand for the goods which -Labour produces, naturally led to a demand in England for increased -wages. Strikes broke out all over the country. Labour was scarce and -business brisk, and though the conflict was, except in rare cases, -unaccompanied by violence, it may be said that generally speaking -victory lay rather with the workers than with their masters. Wages were -forced up, which was perhaps fortunate, because, as the year wore on, it -soon became apparent that a bad harvest in England, France, and Germany -would seriously increase the price of food.[97] The enormous impetus -given to industry, and the rise in wages which followed, enabled skilled -labour to bear this increase in the price of bread. The unskilled -labourers, however, who from lack of organisation cannot “strike” with -much effect, suffered acutely, especially towards the end of the year. -But by that time a calamity was within measurable distance, which -diverted the minds of the English people from dear bread and bad -harvests. That calamity was the Crimean war, which rendered 1853 the -last year of “The Great Peace” which followed the battle of Waterloo. - -[Illustration: STUDY OF A CHILD. - -(_After an Etching by the Queen._)] - -[Illustration: OFF THE COAST OF ASIA MINOR (TURKEY IN ASIA).] - - - - -CHAPTER XXIX. - -DRIFTING TO WAR. - - Origin of the Crimean War--Russia and “the Sick Man”--Coercing - Turkey--The Dispute about the Holy Places--A Monkish - Quarrel--Contradictory Concessions--The Czar and the Tory Ministry - of 1844--The Secret Compact with Peel, Wellington, and - Aberdeen--Nesselrode’s Secret Memorandum--The Czar and Sir Hamilton - Seymour--Lord John Russell’s Admissions--The Czar’s - Bewilderment--Lord Stratford de Redcliffe--The Marplot at - Constantinople--A Hectoring Russian Envoy--The Allied Fleets at - Besika Bay--The Conference of Vienna--The Vienna Note--The Turkish - Modifications--The Case for England--The British Fleet in the - Euxine--A Caustic Letter of the Queen to Lord Aberdeen--Prince - Albert’s Warnings--The Massacre of Sinope--Internal Feuds in the - Cabinet--Lord John Russell’s Intrigues--Palmerston’s Resignation - and Return--The Fire at Windsor--Birth of Prince Leopold--The Camp - at Chobham--The Czar’s Daughters--Naval Review at Spithead--Royal - Visit to Ireland. - - -When Parliament was prorogued on the 20th of August, 1853, the following -passage was inserted in the Queen’s Speech. “It is with deep interest -and concern that her Majesty has viewed the serious misunderstanding -which has recently risen between Russia and the Ottoman Porte. The -Emperor of the French has united with her Majesty in earnest endeavours -to reconcile differences, the continuance of which might involve Europe -in war.” The war to which these differences led has ever been regarded -by the Queen as the one heart-breaking calamity of her reign--a calamity -hardly equalled by the great Mutiny, which, though it nearly wrecked her -Eastern Empire, ended in establishing her authority more firmly than -ever in her Asiatic dominions. No such tangible result as that followed, -however, from the war into which the country was now being rapidly -hurried. The results of this war--the battles, the siege operations, -“the moving accidents by flood and field”--are all well known; but its -causes are to this day very imperfectly understood by Englishmen. The -folly and weakness of the Aberdeen Ministry, the influence of Prince -Albert, the aggressive designs of Russia, the obstinacy and brutality of -the Turks, the determination of Napoleon III. to foment a disturbance -from which he might emerge with the status of a Ruler who had linked the -throne of a parvenu in an alliance with an ancient monarchy, the -factious desire of the Tory Opposition to entangle the Coalition -Ministry in Foreign troubles--to all these causes have different writers -traced the Crimean war. Let us, then, examine carefully, and closely, -the development of the dispute that broke the peace of Europe in -connection with the attitude to it--sometimes, it must be frankly said, -a wrong attitude--which the Queen and the Court of St. James’s held. - -[Illustration: BAZAAR IN CONSTANTINOPLE.] - -The geographical conditions of Russia, and the political state of -Turkey, favoured the outbreak of war between these States. Russia has no -outlet to the sea except through the Baltic in the north, which is -frozen in winter, and through the Bosphorus in the south, which is open -all the year, but which is dominated by the Sultan so long as -Constantinople is the capital of Turkey. Russia has, therefore, an -obvious interest either in making Turkey her vassal, or in expelling the -Turks from Europe, and establishing a Power at Constantinople in -servitude to the Czar. It is almost a heresy to say that Russia has not -aimed at seizing Constantinople herself. Yet if we are to base our -judgment on authentic historical documents, and not on the heated -imaginings of excited Russophobists, it is necessary to say this. The -Emperor Nicholas was the most aggressive of modern Czars, and there is -no reason to doubt the cynical candour with which he expressed his views -on this subject to Sir George Hamilton Seymour, in his conversations -with him early in the year.[98] Yet it is certain that his ideas as to -the reconstitution of European Turkey in the event of the Turkish Empire -breaking up, took the form of organising a series of autonomous States, -which, like the Danubian Principalities in 1853, should be under his -protection, though, perhaps, under the nominal suzerainty of the -Turks--by that time banished to Asia Minor--“bag and baggage.” These -ideas may have been right or wrong. It is, however, just to say that -they were the ideas of the Czar, and that they do not correspond with -the scheme for making Constantinople the capital of Russia, which most -popular English writers accuse him of cherishing.[99] The interest of -Russia being thus revealed, let us see where her opportunity lay. It lay -in the fact that the Ottomans, though they had enough bodily strength to -conquer, had never enough brain-power to govern a European Empire. In -this respect they differed signally from the equally savage hordes of -Manchu Tartars, who overran China, and who, instead of destroying, -adapted themselves to the civilisation with which they came in contact. -The Christian provinces of Turkey, and the Greek Christians, under the -rule of the Sultan were misgoverned, plundered, and at times tortured by -the myrmidons of a barbarous and feeble autocracy. The Russian Czar, as -head of a nation fanatically devoted to the Greek cult, could always -find in this misgovernment and oppression apt opportunity for -interfering between the Sultan and his Greek subjects. Moreover, in -every act of interference the Czar of Muscovy knows that he will be -supported to the death by the fervid fanaticism of the Russian people. - -But the example of other Powers was not wanting in 1853 to emphasise the -promptings of interest and opportunity. In 1852 the Turks determined to -strike a blow at Montenegro, with which they had for centuries waged -chronic warfare. The Sublime Porte sent Omar Pasha to occupy the -Principality of the Black Mountain. Austria, alarmed at the prospect, -despatched Count Leiningen to Constantinople, and instructed him to -press for the recall of Omar. The Porte yielded to this demand, and -recalled him.[100] - -Nor was Austria the only Power that was demonstrating the ease with -which Turkey might be coerced. France had a dispute pending with Turkey, -as to the privileges of the Roman Catholic monks in Jerusalem--a dispute -into which the French Emperor, when Prince-President in 1850, had -entered with vigour, for the purpose of conciliating the French clergy. -Mr. Kinglake insinuates that Napoleon III. manufactured this quarrel in -order to force on a European war that might strengthen his position. It -is but fair to say that the Emperor inherited the controversy from Louis -Philippe.[101] As it led to the assertion of claims on the part of -Russia, the rejection of which by Turkey caused the Crimean war, it may -be well briefly to set forth its salient points. - -In 1740 the Porte, in a treaty with France, granted to the Roman -Catholic monks and clergy in Jerusalem the custody of certain places in -the Holy Land, associated with the memory of Christ, and to which Greek -and Latin Christians were in the habit of making pilgrimages. The Great -Church of Bethlehem, the Sanctuary of the Nativity, the Tomb of the -Virgin, the Stone of Anointing, and the Seven Arches of the Virgin in -the tomb of the Holy Sepulchre, were among the Sacred Places thus -ceded.[102] During the Revolution, French zeal for maintaining the -privileges of the Romish clergy in Syria grew cool, and the Holy Places -in the custody of the Latin monks were shockingly neglected. The Greek -Christians, however, not only visited these consecrated spots as -pilgrims, but piously repaired them with the sanction of the Porte, thus -acquiring by firmans from the Sultan the privilege of worshipping in -them. The policy of the Porte seems to have been to induce Latins and -Greeks to share the use of the sacred shrines. But Latins and Greeks, -under the protection of France and Russia respectively, each claimed an -exclusive right of control and guardianship over them. The dispute had -been carried on in a desultory way till, in 1850, it was narrowed down -to this point: France, on behalf of the Latin monks, contended that, in -order to pass into the grotto of the Holy Manger, they should have -exclusive possession of the key of the Church of Bethlehem, and of one -of the keys--the other being in Greek custody--of each of the two doors -of the Holy Manger; further, that the Sanctuary of the Nativity itself -should be ornamented with a silver star, and the arms of France. In -February, 1853, the Porte adjudicated on the rival claims in a letter -addressed to the French Chargé d’Affaires, and in a firman to the Greek -patriarch. The representative of France was told that the Latins were to -have the keys they demanded. The Patriarch was told that Greeks, -Armenians, and Latins should have keys also, and that the Latins were -not to have any of the exclusive rights over the Holy Places that they -claimed. When it became known that the Porte had thus spoken with “two -voices,” France complained that the exclusive rights demanded by her -under the Treaty of 1740 were denied in the firman. Russia, on behalf of -the Greeks, claimed credit for moderation in accepting the firman as a -compromise, and insisted on its being publicly proclaimed at Jerusalem -as a charter of Greek privileges. The Porte, in deference to the -opposition of France, refused to make public proclamation of the -firman.[103] The Russian Consul-General left Jerusalem in high dudgeon. -“The Latins,” says Mr. Walpole, “on hearing the decision of the Porte, -that they should be allowed to celebrate mass once a year in the Church -of the Virgin, near Gethsemane, but that they should not be allowed to -disturb the altar and its ornaments, declared that it was impossible to -celebrate mass on a schismatic slab of marble, and before a crucifix -whose feet were separated.”[104] In this quarrel of a few ignorant monks -over the mummeries of their rival rituals lay the germ of that great war -in which England sacrificed the lives of 28,000 brave men, and spent -£30,000,000 of sterling treasure! - -[Illustration: CONVENT OF THE NATIVITY, BETHLEHEM.] - -The Porte endeavoured, by contradictory concessions, such as by publicly -reading the firman, and by permitting the Latins to put a star over the -altar of the Nativity, to please both parties--but in vain. Russia, -towards the end of 1852, had moved a _corps d’armée_ on the frontier of -Moldavia. France threatened to send her fleet to Syria; and in the end -of February, 1853, the Czar sent Prince Menschikoff on a special mission -to Constantinople, for the purpose of enforcing the Russian demands. - -The turn in affairs that placed Lord Aberdeen at the head of the Queen’s -Government did not tend to moderate these demands, or induce the Czar to -treat the Porte with any delicacy. The Czar, in fact, was honestly -convinced that his views as to the future of Turkey were, in the main, -shared by Lord Aberdeen, and therefore by the British Cabinet. It was - -[Illustration: INTERIOR OF THE CHAPEL OF THE NATIVITY, BETHLEHEM.] - -well known that when the Czar visited England, in 1844, he had discussed -the Eastern Question with the Queen and her principal advisers, and that -he and Lord Aberdeen had become personal friends. His Majesty had -propounded to Peel and Aberdeen his fixed idea that it would be well, in -view of the impending dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, that England -and Russia should agree as to the disposal of its European provinces. As -Austria would follow Russia, an Anglo-Russian coalition would -necessarily dictate terms to France, who, by her support of Mehemet Ali, -had shown that her interests were as hostile to those of England in -Egypt, as they were to those of Russia in Syria. In fact, the Czar’s -conversations with the Tory Ministers in 1844 were almost identical with -those which he subsequently held with Sir Hamilton Seymour in 1853. Sir -Theodore Martin asserts that Peel rejected these overtures, saying that -England did not regard the dissolution of Turkey as imminent, that she -wanted no Turkish territory for herself, that she merely desired to -prevent any government in Egypt from closing the road to India, and that -she must decline to pledge herself to accept Russian plans for disposing -of the Turkish territory, till events rendered its disposal a pressing -question.[105] Sir Theodore Martin, however, admits that there was “a -general concurrence in the principle expressed” by the Czar, that no -Great Power--least of all France--should be permitted to aggrandise -itself at the expense of Turkey. Now, it seems certain that up to the -very moment when war was declared, the Emperor Nicholas was convinced -that Lord Aberdeen’s Government would never take sides with France -against him, in any quarrel about Turkey. He was convinced, despite the -despatches of the British Ministry, that the ideas of the British -Government and his own in regard to the future of Turkey, were in -principle the same--and this conviction he evidently carried away with -him from England in 1844. He must have been, therefore, too stupid to -correctly understand what Peel said to him, or Peel must have said more -to him than Sir Theodore Martin felt himself at liberty to record, in -his masterly but discreet biography of Prince Albert. The manifest -reluctance of Lord Aberdeen to thwart the Russian Emperor, and his -obvious embarrassment when his duty forced him to comment publicly on -Russian diplomacy in 1853, indicate that something more _was_ said. What -it was has been revealed by Lord Malmesbury in an entry in his Diary -under date the 3rd of June, 1853. “There is,” says Lord Malmesbury, who -speaks with the authority of one who had held the seals of the Foreign -Office, “a circumstance which I think must strongly influence Lord -Aberdeen at this moment; which is, that when the Emperor Nicholas came -to England in 1844, he, Sir Robert Peel (then Prime Minister), the Duke -of Wellington, and Lord Aberdeen (then Foreign Secretary) drew up and -signed a memorandum, the spirit and scope of which was to support Russia -in her legitimate protectorship of the Greek religion and the Holy -Shrines, and to do so without consulting France. When Lord Derby’s -government came in, at first, I was unable to understand the mysterious -allusions which Brunnow[106] made now and then, and which he retracted -when he saw that either I knew nothing of this paper, or that I desired -to ignore it. Since it was composed and written, the position of affairs -in Europe is totally changed, and is even reversed. In 1840 the events -in the East had then estranged England and France from one another, and -Louis Napoleon did not exist as a factor in European policy. Now he is -Emperor of the French, and the Duke and Peel are dead, yet it is not -unnatural to believe that Nicholas, finding Lord Aberdeen Prime -Minister, and the sole survivor of these three English statesmen, should -feel that the moment had arrived, so long wished for by Russia, to fall -upon Turkey.... He believes that Lord Aberdeen never will join France -against him, and probably thinks Palmerston stultified by the drudgery -of the Home Office.”[107] This passage in Lord Malmesbury’s Diary -explains why Lord Beaconsfield used to say that he knew as a fact within -his own knowledge, that had Lord Aberdeen not come to power in 1852, the -Crimean war would never have broken out.[108] Perhaps it explains why -Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright declared that if the Tories had not been -driven from Office in 1852, the Crimean war would have been avoided. It -is now only too easy to understand that, if he had this Secret -Memorandum in his possession, the Czar Nicholas naturally believed that -the British Government were not serious in their antagonism. It is also -easy to understand why Lord Aberdeen always shrank from speaking the -firm word of warning, which would have induced Russia to pause ere her -troops crossed the Pruth, and draw back whilst it was possible to draw -back with honour. - -The existence of an informal understanding between the Czar and the old -Tory Government of 1844 shows us why his Majesty, in conversation with -Sir Hamilton Seymour, on the 9th and 14th of January, 1853, reopened the -question which he believed he had virtually arranged with that -Government. The last living representative of it--Lord Aberdeen--was -Prime Minister of England; Turkey was in a more decrepit condition than -ever; France seemed bent on reviving the Napoleonic legend--of evil omen -to England in Egypt; nay, she was challenging the claim of Russia to -secure protection for the Greek Christians in the Ottoman Empire--a -claim which the Tory leaders in 1844 were disposed to favour.[109] The -Czar therefore thought it most opportune to say to Sir Hamilton Seymour, -as he had said to Wellington and Peel, that Turkey, “the Sick Man,” was -dying on their hands, that England and Russia should either agree what -should or should not be done with his heritage when he died, and, -further, to suggest that the Christian provinces of Turkey should be -organised as independent States under Russian protection, whilst England -occupied Egypt and Candia.[110] Lord John Russell’s reply to these -conversations must have also misled the Czar, preoccupied as he was with -the fact that, in terms of the Secret Memorandum of 1844, England and -Russia had agreed on a common policy in Turkey. Lord John, in effect, -said that, as the British Government did not think that the Turk was -quite moribund, it was premature to discuss any project, negative or -positive, for disposing of his territory, and that England had no desire -for territorial aggrandisement. But he went on to add that he thought -the Sultan should be “advised” to treat his Christian subjects justly -and humanely, because, if he did so, the Czar would not find it -“necessary to apply that exceptional protection which his Imperial -Majesty has found so burdensome and inconvenient, though no doubt -_prescribed by duty and sanctioned by treaty_.” The words here -italicised were not altogether in accord with the facts, for no treaty -sanctioned in plain, definite terms this “exceptional protection;” -moreover, they admitted the whole Russian case; for, as will be seen, it -was precisely because the Czar was supposed to be bent on extorting from -Turkey an extension of the sanction given by existing treaties to the -Russian Protectorate over her oppressed Christian subjects, that Turkey -and England went to war with Russia. Whether that war was right or -wrong, this is certain: it was waged by the English Government to rebut -a claim, which that Government at the outset admitted. The Czar, through -Count Nesselrode, expressed himself satisfied with the self-denying -pledges which had passed between the Russian and English Governments, -and, as England had promised not to entertain any project for the -protection of Turkey without a previous understanding with Russia, so -Russia, he said, gave a similar undertaking to England. But he observed -that the surest way to prevent the fall of Turkey would be to induce the -Porte to treat the Greek Christians with equity and humanity. The -English Government, delighted with this friendly communication, advised -the Porte to compose the dispute between France and Russia, by offering -to accept any arrangement which these two Powers would take as -satisfactory. It remonstrated with France for having been the first, not -only to raise the quarrel about the Holy Places, but also to support her -demands by a threat of war. This was a second admission on the part of -England that in this controversy Russia was in the right. Napoleon III. -recalled M. de Lavalelle, his hectoring Envoy at Constantinople, and -sent M. de La Cour in his place. Russia ceased her warlike preparations -on the Moldavian frontier, and the war-cloud on the horizon began to -melt away. - -[Illustration: THE NICOLAI BRIDGE ACROSS THE NEVA, ST. PETERSBURG.] - -Unfortunately for the prospects of peace, Lord Aberdeen ordered Lord -Stratford de Redcliffe to resume his duties as Ambassador at -Constantinople. - -[Illustration: LORD STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE. - -(_From a Photograph by Messrs. Boning and Small._)] - -Stratford de Redcliffe was a man of indomitable strength of character, -restless energy, and invincible tenacity of purpose. His fitness for the -office of a mediator between Turkey, Russia, and France, charged -specially to avert war, may be estimated by the following entry in Lord -Malmesbury’s Diary, under date February 25th, 1854:--“Lord Bath,” writes -Lord Malmesbury, “has come back from Constantinople, and says that Lord -Stratford openly boasts having got his personal revenge against the Czar -by fomenting the war. He told Lord Bath so.” According to Lord -Malmesbury, his hatred to the Czar dated from the time when his Majesty -refused to receive him as Ambassador at St. Petersburg. It is now beyond -doubt that Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, from the beginning to the end -of the negotiations between the Powers, acted the part of a Marplot. As -Prince Albert, in a letter to Baron Stockmar on the 27th of November, -said, “The prospects of a peaceful settlement in the East do not -improve. Lord Stratford fulfils his instructions to the letter, but he -so contrives that we are getting constantly deeper and deeper into a war -policy.” It is impossible to describe in truer words the malign and -baneful influence of the diplomatist who, to gratify his personal -rancour, inflicted the torture of war upon his country. - -Lord Stratford de Redcliffe reached Constantinople on the 5th of April, -1853. There he found that Prince Menschikoff, at the head of a menacing -mission, had arrived before him on the 28th of February. Menschikoff -began operations by refusing to treat with Fuad Effendi, the Foreign -Minister. Fuad resigned in favour of Rifaat Pasha. The tone of the -Russian envoy then alarmed the Grand Vizier, who sought advice from -Colonel Rose,[111] British Chargé d’Affaires. Colonel Rose immediately -begged Admiral Dundas to bring the Mediterranean squadron to the mouth -of the Dardanelles, but the Admiral refused to sail without instructions -from the Cabinet, and the Cabinet disapproved of Rose’s action. France, -however, thought that this act indicated an intention on the part of -England to forestall her, and despatched the Toulon squadron to Salamis, -without waiting to hear whether Colonel Rose’s action had been -sanctioned by his Government.[112] The presence of the French fleet so -near the scene of an acrid controversy between France and Russia, would -have tended to neutralise the conciliatory diplomacy of England, even if -Lord Stratford de Redcliffe had honestly meant to work in the interests -of peace. - -Lord Stratford, when he arrived at Constantinople, found the Sublime -Porte in a panic. Though Russia had assured the English Government that -no question then remained open between her, France, and Turkey, except -that of the Holy Places, Menschikoff had demanded from the Porte a -treaty, the negotiation of which, he said, must be kept secret from the -Powers, acknowledging the right of Russia to a protectorate over all -Greek Christians in Turkey. Ultimately he offered to accept a Note; but -the objection to the concession in any such shape, was that it virtually -transferred to the Russian Czar the allegiance of 12,000,000 of the -Sultan’s subjects. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe advised the Porte to -begin by settling the question of the Holy Places, which was the _fons -et origo_ of the dispute. That question was quickly settled, and then -Menschikoff promptly and peremptorily pressed the new claim of Russia to -a protectorate over the Greek Church in Turkey. On the 5th of May he -sent an ultimatum to the Porte demanding its surrender on this point -within five days. On Lord Stratford’s advice the Porte refused to -surrender, and Prince Menschikoff and his suite left Constantinople in -wrath.[113] At this crisis the voice of Nicholas was for war; but that -of Nesselrode, his able and tranquil Minister, was for peace. As a -compromise the Czar therefore determined that the Danubian -Principalities should be occupied by his troops, and held till Turkey -guaranteed to Russia “the rights and privileges of all kinds which have -been granted by the Sultan to his Greek subjects.”[114] On the 31st of -May Nesselrode wrote to Reschid Pasha that Russian troops would cross -the Pruth, and on the 2nd of June Admiral Dundas was ordered to proceed -with the Mediterranean squadron to Besika Bay. The French fleet was -ordered to go there also, and the allied squadrons made their appearance -in Turkish waters about the same time.[115] The quarrel up till now had -been one between France and Russia. It was thus suddenly transformed -into one between France and England on the one side and Russia on the -other. On the 2nd of July Prince Gortschakoff entered the -Principalities; and then Austria, which had selfishly held aloof, became -nervous as to the control of the Danube, and manifested a desire to act -with the Western Powers. Turkey was advised not to treat Russian -aggression on the Principalities as a _casus belli_, and the Porte met -it with a protest, though it was very nearly forced by its fanatical -Moslem subjects to declare war. In England the Government was condemned -for its extreme reticence in Parliament as to the turn affairs were -taking; and up to this point the Cabinet certainly committed three -blunders. In the first place, they permitted Lord Stratford to encourage -the Porte to resist Russia, without having come to a clear and definite -determination to support that resistance by force, if Russia proved -unbending. Secondly, they relied too much on Count Nesselrode’s smooth, -pacific assurances after they knew, or ought to have known, from Prince -Menschikoff’s proposal of a secret treaty to the Porte, and from the -warlike demonstration on the Moldavian frontier,[116] that these -assurances were illusory. Thirdly, they did not meet the proposal for a -secret treaty and the demonstration on the frontier by ordering Dundas -to Besika Bay, and they met the occupation of the Principalities by -sending Dundas, not to the Black Sea, but only to Besika Bay. Lord -Aberdeen’s apologists allege that the latter step would have caused -Russia to occupy Constantinople. That is a feeble defence, for -subsequent events showed that Russia could not even mobilise enough -troops to hold the Principalities against the Turks. The English -Government did enough to irritate the Czar, and though they did not do -enough to check him, they did too much to enable them to extricate -themselves with honour from the quarrel. - -[Illustration: TOWN HALL, VIENNA.] - -Something, however, had to be done for the Porte, after it had, at the -bidding of England and France, refrained from defending the -Principalities, which were in its dominions. A Conference of the Powers -was therefore assembled at Vienna, on the 24th of June, to arrive at a -pacific solution of the difficulty, and on the 31st they adopted the -Vienna Note, which has become famous in European history. It was sent to -Russia and Turkey for acceptance as a settlement which, in the opinion -of Europe, would be equally honourable and fair to both. The Czar -accepted it promptly on the 10th of August. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, -in his official capacity, advised Turkey to accept it; but he played his -Government false, by plainly indicating his personal objections to it. -The Porte acted on his private advice, and refused to accept the Note -unless it were modified. Turkey thus dashed all hopes of peace by -repudiating the advice of the Powers, and, by thus putting herself in -the wrong, she put Russia in the right. - -[Illustration: PRINCE MENSCHIKOFF.] - -Here Lord Aberdeen and his colleagues committed another blunder. On -balancing the gain against the loss to Turkey which was likely to accrue -from concessions that would prevent war, they might fairly enough have -told the Porte that, if it rejected the Vienna Note, it would be left to -struggle with Russia single-handed. Austria, however, followed by -France, England, and Prussia, asked the Czar to accept the modifications -of Turkey. The Czar refused to do this, and instructed Count Nesselrode -to give his reasons for refusing, whereupon Austria and Prussia veered -round, and again recommended the Porte to accept the original Note. -England and France, on the contrary, alleging that Count Nesselrode’s -despatches proved that the Czar attached a different meaning to the Note -from that which they attributed to it, declined to join Austria and -Prussia in pressing Turkey to accept it. The European concert was -destroyed, and it was the European concert which alone rendered war -impossible.[117] Unfortunately, on this occasion, the Queen, wary and -ingenious as she has shown herself during other crises in checking the -“drift” of Cabinets towards war, fell too easily under the influence of -Lord Aberdeen, for whom personally she ever entertained the warmest -regard. He sent Nesselrode’s despatch to her, but he prepossessed her -mind by pointing out to her first, that Nesselrode’s reasons for -refusing to accept the Turkish modifications of the Vienna Note, showed -that Russia put a different interpretation on it from that which its -framers meant it to bear; and secondly, that it would be dishonourable -to ask the Porte to accept it in the face of this fact. Her Majesty, -easily touched by such an appeal, wrote from Balmoral a strong letter to -Lord Aberdeen supporting his view with much ability. “It is evident,” -she said, “that Russia has hitherto attempted to deceive us, in -pretending that she did not aim at the acquisition of any _new_ right, -but required only a satisfaction of honour, and an acknowledgment of the -rights she already possessed by treaty--and that she does intend, and -for the first time lays bare that intention, to acquire new rights of -interference.” The Queen then made a suggestion which was carried out. -It was that England should lay the whole case before Europe, declaring -that the Russian demands were inadmissible, and “that the continuance of -the occupation of the Principalities, in order to extort these demands, -constitutes an unwarrantable aggression upon Turkey, and infraction of -the public law of Europe.”[118] As matters stood, such an intimation to -the fiery Czar was virtually a challenge to mortal combat. - -Those who hold the destinies of great nations in their hands are now -chary of committing themselves to war for the sake of honour or the -public law of Europe. The subterfuges by which Russia disorganised -Bulgaria in 1886, and got rid of Prince Alexander, whose anti-Russian -proclivities had been encouraged by England, touched British honour more -closely than the “explicative Note” of Count Nesselrode. Yet England, -guided solely by her interests, did not make Russian interference with -Bulgaria in 1886, a _casus belli_. A greater statesman than Aberdeen in -1853, also eliminated all considerations of “honour” from his policy, -and looked solely to the material interest of his country. Prussia was -scoffed at by Prince Albert as “a reed shaken by the wind.” But Prussia -not only refused to join the Western Powers against Russia, but deterred -Austria from joining them. And why? Because Herr von Bismarck had enough -influence with the King to convince him that the interest of Prussia did -not lie in strengthening the Western Powers, or in offending Russia, -whose benevolent neutrality might one day be valuable to his country. -Why, he argued, should Prussia waste her strength in helping France and -Austria to weaken Russia, without the prospect of winning for Prussia “a -prize worthy of us”? He was “appalled” by the notion that “we may plunge -into a sea of trouble and danger on behalf of Austria, for whose sins -the King displays as much tolerance as I only hope God in Heaven will -one day show to mine.” The “interest of Prussia,” he said, after the -Crimean war was over, “is my only rule of action, and had there ever -been any prospect of our promoting this interest by taking part in the -war, I should certainly never have been one of its opponents.”[119] Lord -Salisbury, on the 9th of November, 1886, speaking at the Guildhall, has -in our time said that England has no interest to resist Russian -aggression in European Turkey, where Austria has none. Tested by that -principle the policy of the Cabinet and the Crown in 1853 was -chivalrous, but indefensible. Yet if the Sovereign and her Ministers -erred, what is to be said of the Nation? It was simply mad for war with -Russia, and the section of the Cabinet headed by Palmerston and Russell -vied with the Tories in inflaming the war-fever of the hour. Aberdeen -was vilified as a Russian agent--because he was desirous of maintaining -peace. Prince Albert was attacked with equal scurrility as a tool of the -Czar, because he was not a Russophobe, and because he did not conceal -his opinion that the Turkish Government was brutal, fanatical, and -ignorant. - -Had Turkey accepted the Vienna Note, had the Powers not asked Russia to -accept the Turkish amendments to it, had Nesselrode in refusing to -accept these refrained from giving reasons for his refusal, peace would -have been preserved. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the points -that were at issue when the Vienna Note was rejected by Turkey. This is -to be done by comparing together Menschikoff’s original Note with the -Vienna Note, and the Turkish modification of it. Menschikoff started by -assuming that Russia and Turkey “being mutually desirous of maintaining -the stability of the orthodox Greco-Russian religion, professed by the -majority of their Christian subjects, and of guaranteeing that religion -against all molestation for the future,” should agree (1) that “no -change shall be made as regards the rights, privileges, and immunities -which have been enjoyed or are possessed _ab antiquo_ by the Orthodox -Greek Churches, pious institutions, and clergy, in the dominions of the -Sublime Ottoman Porte, which is pleased to secure the same to them in -perpetuity on the strict basis of the _status quo_ now existing. (2) The -rights and advantages conceded by the Ottoman Government, or which shall -hereafter be conceded, to the other Christian rites by treaties, -conventions, or special arrangements, shall be considered as belonging -also to the Orthodox Church.”[120] The Vienna Note differed but slightly -from this--and it may be well to put it side by side with the Turkish -modifications--reproducing only the controversial passages. - -VIENNA NOTE. - -“If the Emperors of Russia have at all times -evinced their active solicitude for the [_maintenance -of the immunities and privileges of the -Orthodox Greek Church in the Ottoman Empire, -the Sultans have never refused to confirm -them_] by solemn acts testifying their ancient -and constant benevolence towards their Christian -subjects. - - * * * * * - -The undersigned has, in consequence, received -orders to declare by the present Note that the -Government of his Majesty the Sultan will remain -faithful to [_the letter and to the spirit of -the Treaties of Kainardji and Adrianople relative -to the protection of the Christian religion, -and_] that his Majesty considers himself bound -in honour to cause to be observed for ever, and -to preserve from all prejudice either now or -hereafter, the enjoyment of the spiritual privileges -which have been granted by his Majesty’s -august ancestors to the orthodox Greek Eastern -Church, which are maintained and confirmed -by him; and, moreover, in a spirit of exalted -equity, to cause the Greek rite to share in the -advantages granted [_to the other Christian rites -by convention or special arrangement_].” - - -Turkish Modifications. - -orthodox Greek worship and Church (le culte et -l’Église orthodoxe Grecque), the Sultans have -never ceased to provide for the maintenance of -the privileges and immunities which at different -times they have spontaneously granted to that -religion and to that Church in the Ottoman -Empire, and to confirm them - -the stipulations of the Treaty of Kainardji, -confirmed by that of Adrianople, relative to the -protection by the Sublime Porte of the Christian -religion, and he is, moreover, charged to make -known - -or which might be granted to the other Christian -communities, Ottoman subjects. - -Were the points of difference between the Vienna Note and that Note as -modified by the Porte worth fighting for? - -It is inconceivable that any English Minister or diplomatist having even -a cursory acquaintance with Turkish history could agree with the Porte -in affirming that the Ottoman Sultans had “never ceased to provide for” -the maintenance of the privileges of their Christian subjects. “Never -honestly attempted to provide for” would have been the truer statement -of the fact. So the _first_ modification of the Porte may be summarily -dismissed. As to the _second_, the Turks averred that it was necessary -(1) because the Vienna Note extended the scope of the Treaties of -Kainardji and Adrianople, and (2) because it gave the Czar new powers of -interfering between the Sultan and his subjects. The 7th and 14th -Articles of these Treaties, when studied, show that the Porte[121] - -[Illustration: THE MOSQUE OF SELIM II. AT ADRIANOPLE.] - -was clearly wrong on one point. The Sultan, said the Porte, will in -future recognise the stipulations relative to protection given _by the -Porte_ alone; but the Treaty had also stipulations relative to -protection which was to be given by Russia. The Czar was therefore not -unreasonable in suspecting that the Turks were trying, by their -amendment of the Vienna Note, to cancel some of his rights under the -Treaty of Kainardji. The other point at issue must be decided with -reference to history. It is plain that Menschikoff’s Note, from its -terms and from the tone of the Envoy who presented it as an ultimatum, -might fairly be considered offensive to Turkey, and that she, therefore, -had plausible reasons for rejecting it. It might be so construed as to -extend to the whole Empire the Russian right of special protection, -which the Treaty of Kainardji limited to a single Christian temple, and -that of Adrianople restricted to two Principalities. On the other hand, -the Porte, by saying that the Sultan would in future “remain faithful to -the stipulations of the Treaty of Kainardji, confirmed by that of -Adrianople,” was justly suspected of wriggling out of other stipulations -in the latter Treaty, which were not in the former, and which made the -Czar the special guardian of Christian rights in the Principalities. But -holding in view the history of Turkish misrule and oppression, together -with Lord Stratford de Redcliffe’s denunciations of the bad faith of the -Turkish Government in keeping its promises of reform, it is impossible -to blame the Czar for rejecting the Turkish amendment. That amendment -consisted simply in cutting out of the Vienna Note the all-important -words, “letter and spirit.” The Czar denied that Turkey had been -faithful to the letter of existing treaties guaranteeing Christian -privileges. All Europe admitted that she had not been faithful to the -spirit of them, and that if, under Russian pressure, she ever kept the -word of promise to the ear, she usually broke it to the hope. Turkey, -when asked to pledge herself to be true to the spirit as well as the -letter of her obligations, was, therefore, trifling with Europe in -refusing to commit herself to a pledge that would have bound her by both -the letter and spirit of her engagements. Here again, it seems, judgment -must go against Turkey. The object of her third amendment was quite -clear. The stipulation of the Vienna Note that privileges given to any -Christian Church should be also enjoyed by all Greek Christians in -Turkey, was a sort of “most favoured nation clause.” It made the -contract keep all sects automatically on the same level. The Porte, -however, by its amendment, promised Russia to give Greek Christians, not -the privileges it gave to all other Christians, but only to other -Christians who were Turkish subjects. No doubt the Vienna Note would -have given Russia a right of complaint against Turkey in the case of -Greek Christians, who were refused privileges granted to (1) Greek -Christians, (2) Roman Catholics, (3) Protestants, and (4) Armenians who -were not Turkish subjects. But these were few in number, and the affair -of the Holy Places showed that this right of complaint could be pressed -by Russia to some purpose, whether conferred by treaty or not. It almost -seemed as if the third amendment of the Porte were designed to bar -Russia from similar acts of intervention; in other words, to put her in -a worse position than that which she held without any fresh compact -whatever. Strangely enough, the one strong objection which Turkey had a -right to make to the Vienna Note--namely, that it did not make the -evacuation of the Principalities a condition precedent of the -settlement--was not strongly pressed by Europe. - -One argument, and one only, was urged with even the shadow of -plausibility by England. It was that the Czar might claim, under the -Vienna Note, a protectorate over the Greek Christians in Turkey, which -would transfer to him the allegiance of nearly all the Sultan’s European -subjects. As the Vienna Note gave the Czar nothing but what he could -claim according to “the letter and to the spirit” of two existing -treaties, it is difficult to understand how the English Government could -advance such an argument, unless, indeed, they meant to affirm that it -was futile to ask Turkey to abide by “the spirit” of any of her pledges. -But if the contention of the English Cabinet is to be taken as true, -what must we say of the wisdom with which the world is governed? The -four Ambassadors, the four Cabinets, and the four Sovereigns of the -European Powers who had the clearest interest in preserving the -independence of Turkey drew up, studied, debated, and revised again and -again every word and phrase of a Joint Note which they declared could be -honourably and justly accepted by the Sublime Porte. When Turkey -rejected it, these very same Ambassadors, Cabinets, and Sovereigns -suddenly turned round and said that they had unwittingly so worded their -Note that it threatened with ruin the empire which they meant it to -save! And of these Powers two--England and France--entered on a -profitless and calamitous war, because their Ambassadors, Ministers of -State, and Sovereigns did not understand the meaning of their own words -in a solemn diplomatic instrument! It is upon this hypothesis--at once -so grotesque and incredible--that Lord Aberdeen’s Government justified -itself in advising Turkey to reject the Vienna Note, and in making war -on Russia because the Czar adhered to it after he had accepted it at the -request of Europe. - -England, it has been said, following the lead of Austria, encouraged the -Porte to resist, and pressed Russia to accept the Turkish modification -of the Note. It has been shown how, when Russia refused to do this, -Austria, with whom Prussia acted, suddenly wheeled round and pressed the -original Note on Turkey. England, however, had made herself sufficiently -ridiculous in first recommending Turkey to accept the Note, and in then -supporting her in rejecting it. Lord Aberdeen’s Government accordingly -refused to recommend the Note again to Turkey, and the Government of -France took the same course. The concert of the Powers which thus alone -rendered peace possible was broken, and neither England nor France -seemed to have made any serious effort to repair it. On the contrary, -they not only approved of Lord Stratford’s conduct in summoning two -ships of war from Besika Bay to Constantinople, but in September, -yielding to Palmerston,[122] they put the whole fleet at his disposal. -It was contrary to the Treaty of 1841 for the Porte to admit war-ships -to the Bosphorus in time of peace. To send the English fleet to -Constantinople was therefore a declaration on the part of England that -Turkey was at war with Russia. Turkey formally declared war on Russia on -the 5th, and the British Fleet entered the Bosphorus on the 30th of -October. To order our Fleet to defend the Turks in the Euxine if they -were attacked by Russia was a perilous step to take. Yet it is curious -to observe that the Queen was the only high personage engaged in this -transaction who, in the midst of the popular war frenzy, foresaw the -peril of it. Even her habit of deference to Lord Aberdeen, which -unfortunately led her to sanction without demur the blunders which have -now been recorded, could not induce her to approve of this last and, as -will be seen, most fatal error. Her trenchant criticism of it, -unanswered and unanswerable to this day, is to be found in a letter -which she wrote to the Prime Minister, in which she said:--“It appears -to the Queen that we have taken on ourselves, in conjunction with - -[Illustration: THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE.] - -France, all the risks of an European war, without having bound Turkey to -any conditions with respect to provoking it. The 120 fanatical Turks -constituting the Divan at Constantinople are left sole judges of the -line of policy to be pursued, and made cognisant at the same time of the -fact that England and France have bound themselves to defend the Turkish -territory. This is entrusting them with a power which Parliament would -be jealous of confiding even to the hands of the British Crown. It may -be a question whether England ought to go to war for the so-called -Turkish independence, but there can be none that, if she does so, she -ought to be the sole judge of what constitutes a breach of that -independence, and have the fullest power to prevent by negotiation the -breaking out of the war.”[123] Had the Queen subjected - -[Illustration: DESTRUCTION OF THE TURKISH FLEET AT SINOPE. (_See_ p. -562.)] - -every act of the Cabinet from the day on which Menschikoff arrived at -Constantinople, to the same kind of pitiless logical analysis, even the -Coalition Cabinet would have found it difficult to blunder into war. -There was also another calm but acute observer of events who could not -be diverted from his devotion to tangible British interests by -passionate outbursts of popular _chauvinism_, and who saw at a glance -the risks the Government were running. In a letter to Baron Stockmar, -dated the 27th of November, Prince Albert says:-- - -“Six weeks ago Palmerston and Lord John carried a resolution that we -should give notice that an attack on the Turkish fleet by that of Russia -would be met by the fleets of England and France. Now the Turkish -steam-ships are to cross over from the Asiatic coast to the Crimea, and -to pass before Sebastopol! This can only be meant to insult the Russian -fleet and entice it to come out, in order to make it possible for Lord -Stratford to bring our fleet into collision with that of Russia, -according to his former instructions, and so make an European war -certain.”[124] - -Just before the allied fleets were sent to defend Turkey in the Black -Sea the Porte ordered Omar Pasha to demand the evacuation of Moldavia -within fifteen days, and, failing compliance, to attack the Russians at -once. The Russians held their ground, standing on the defensive, and the -Turks crossed the Danube, inflicting on them defeats that, of course, -deeply wounded the pride of the Czar. He therefore ordered the Russian -squadron at Sebastopol to retaliate in the Euxine. On the 30th of -November it discovered a Turkish fleet at Sinope, which, the Turks -declared, was bound for Batoum. The Russian admiral, however, believed -it was on its way to the Circassian coast, for the purpose of stirring -up an insurrection against Russia in the Caucasus. Instead of watching -it or blockading it, as he might have done, he attacked and destroyed -it. - -This catastrophe, of course, brought England nearer to war. A fierce cry -of wrath went up from the English people. Their fleet had been sent to -defend Turkey against Russia, yet it had tamely allowed Russia to -perpetrate “the massacre of Sinope.” Russia knew that England stood -pledged to protect Turkey from attack in the Euxine. Sinope was, -therefore, a direct challenge to England, and it must be promptly taken -up. The foresight of Prince Albert was thus amply justified. The -Government had stupidly sent to the Black Sea a fleet strong enough to -provoke Russia, but not strong enough to protect Turkey, and -insinuations of treason were freely made. “The defeat of Sinope,” wrote -the Prince, “upon our own element--the sea--has made the people furious; -it is ascribed to Aberdeen having been bought over by Russia.” Nor was -Aberdeen the only one who suffered. Prince Albert was scurrilously -attacked by Tories and Radicals of the baser sort, and, almost in as -many words, accused of being a Russian spy, whose influence with the -Queen was paralysing her Government. But if the English Government -blundered foolishly in sending the British fleet to the Black Sea with -orders to protect Turkey, without first making sure that Turkey would -not provoke attack, or that our fleet was strong enough to defend her, -Russia blundered, not foolishly, but criminally, in attacking the Turks -at Sinope. Mr. Spencer Walpole says:--“Though the attack on Sinope may -be justified, its imprudence cannot be excused.”[125] But surely if it -cannot be excused it is idle to “justify” it. The Czar was warned that -England and France would defend Turkey if the latter was assailed in the -Euxine. An attack on Turkey at Sinope, in spite of that warning, he must -have known would be taken by the English and French people as a -defiance, which would so madden them, that the war party in France and -England must forthwith control the situation. Therefore, to say it was -an “imprudence” is to say that, in the circumstances, it was a crime -against civilisation. As will be seen later on, it provoked France and -England to order their fleets to patrol the Black Sea, and require every -Russian ship they met to put back into Sebastopol, so that a second -Sinope might be prevented. - -During most of this anxious time it is hardly necessary to say that the -domestic life of the Queen was one of wearing excitement. At the outset -of the diplomatic disputes in which her Government entangled the country -it seems that she paid rather less attention than usual to foreign -affairs. Palmerston was no longer at the Foreign Office, and in Lord -Aberdeen, who was at the head of the Government, the Queen put the most -implicit confidence. She had formed a habit of regarding him as the -_beau idéal_ of a “safe” Minister, and thus, when she sat down every -morning to read her official correspondence, her Majesty approached all -the projects of her Government, if not with a decided bias in favour of -them, at any rate without that wholesome prepossession of suspicion, -that rendered her a keen and searching critic of the Foreign Policy of -the country when it was under the direction of Lord Palmerston. It was -not till late in the autumn that the Queen’s correspondence, so far as -it has been made public, shows a disposition on her part to resume the -tone of independent, outspoken, but confidential criticism, that so -often checked the vagaries of Lord John Russell’s Cabinet. The Queen, in -fact, put too much confidence in the sagacity of the Coalition -Government. The Coalition Government, conscious that, so long as -Aberdeen could be persuaded to endorse their doings, they would not be -very jealously scrutinised by the Crown, entered with a light heart on -the most dangerous course of diplomacy. The Queen, the Prime Minister, -the Cabinet, and the Czar all set out with the most sincere and -unbounded confidence in each other. In little more than twelve months -they were accordingly in almost irreconcilable controversy. - -[Illustration: THE THRONE ROOM, WINDSOR CASTLE.] - -After the Coalition Ministry was formed, what the Queen dreaded most was -that it might break up over the question of Parliamentary Reform, or -over some dispute as to the Premiership, in the event of Lord Aberdeen -resigning office. Aberdeen was old and somewhat infirm, and there can be -little doubt that he would have resigned soon after the Coalition was -organised had not the Eastern Question risen to tie him to his post. -Lord John Russell had some notion that he would be Aberdeen’s successor, -and it was his fixed idea that his scheme for reforming Parliament would -not have a fair chance, unless it were launched by him with all the -prestige of the Premier’s advocacy in its favour. Some members of the -Cabinet did not desire that this scheme should be launched at all; -others, like Palmerston, were determined that it should not be launched, -and that Lord John should not be Premier. A few weeks after the Ministry -was constituted Lord John resigned the seals of the Foreign Office to -Lord Clarendon, becoming a Minister without an office, but retaining the -leadership of the House of Commons. The Queen warned him that he would -grow discontented with - -[Illustration: SEBASTOPOL.] - -this position, but her warning was unheeded; and yet Lord John soon had -reason to regret that he did not lay it to heart. After the Session -ended he began to give Aberdeen broad hints that it would be well for -him to retire, and to indicate that he himself might have to secede, if -these hints were not acted on. His secession would have broken up the -Coalition, which, Aberdeen knew, the Sovereign had set her heart on -keeping together. Hence, every effort was made to conciliate Lord John -Russell, and, as he soon became, next to Palmerston, the most zealous -member of the War Party in the Cabinet, he was therefore able to exert a -baneful influence on the Foreign Policy of the Ministry. This was, -indeed, one reason why that policy perpetually alternated between energy -and apathy. Still, the Cabinet kept together till Russell’s Reform -scheme was thrust upon it. Then, on the 15th of December, the world was -startled to find that Palmerston had resigned. This event, occurring as -it did immediately after the massacre of Sinope, created a dreadful -sensation in the country. The Press declared that Palmerston had been -turned out because of the Eastern Question. He was the victim of a Court -intrigue. It was whispered that Prince Albert, as a spy of Russia, had -persuaded the Queen to get rid of a high-spirited Minister because he -was eager to avenge against Russia the insult offered to England at -Sinope. The Prince, it was said, had been detected betraying the secrets -of the Government to foreign Courts. One day it was actually reported -that he had been committed to the Tower on a charge of high treason, and -a gaping crowd collected to see him locked up as a traitor. This clamour -was raised by the Palmerstonian clique, and it gave infinite pain to the -Queen. She knew as well as Lord Palmerston and his friends that these -attacks were based on a tissue of falsehoods, for, as a matter of fact, -Lord Palmerston had resigned simply on the question of Reform. His idea -was that Lord Lansdowne, who also disliked Reform, would resign along -with him, and that the public outcry would be so great that the Ministry -must be shattered. The outcry _was_ great, but it was too obviously that -of a personal _claque_; and Palmerston, astounded to find that the -nation did not regard his retirement as an irreparable calamity, -immediately begged the Cabinet to let him come back again. This they -did, having, however, forced him to swallow ignominiously his objections -to Lord John Russell’s Reform Bill. Then the Palmerstonian newspapers -suddenly dropped their attacks on the Queen and Prince Albert, though -the Tory organs kept them up in the true old crusted Protectionist -style. “The best of the joke,” writes the Prince to Stockmar, “is that -because he [Palmerston] went out the Opposition journals extolled him to -the skies in order to damage the Ministry, and now the Ministerial -journals have to do so in order to justify the reconciliation.” -According to Prince Albert, it was the Duke of Newcastle and the -Peelites who induced the Cabinet to let the black sheep that had gone -astray, return to the fold of the Coalition.[126] - -Till the Eastern Question assumed a grave aspect towards the end of the -year, the Court seems to have busied itself chiefly about non-political -affairs. The Queen, who shared her husband’s artistic tastes, -encouraged him in early spring to form a splendid collection of copies -of all Raphael’s known works, a fine series of original drawings by that -master in Windsor being the nucleus of this interesting collection. It -was alas! left to her Majesty to complete it, after the death of her -husband made her the sole sad heir of that and many other cherished -projects which they had planned together. - -Curiously enough, about this time the art treasures of Windsor were very -nearly destroyed. A disastrous fire broke out in the Castle on the 19th -of March in one of the apartments on the floor over the dining-room on -its north side. It burnt outwards, but limited itself to the upper -portions of the Prince of Wales’s Tower. It would have destroyed the -plate-rooms and the priceless collection known as the Jewelled Armoury, -which contained, by the way, the jewelled peacock of Tippoo Sahib among -its trophies, adjoining the Octagon-room. The Queen and Prince Albert -were not in the Castle when the fire was discovered, but they, with the -officials of the household, were soon on the spot. The scene was one of -excitement, without confusion. The firemen worked with a will, but the -bustle was greatest among the servants and others, who undertook to -dismantle the rooms whose costly treasures were in danger. The fire -began at ten on Saturday night, and was put out at four o’clock on -Sunday morning. The Queen, it seems, was much agitated at first, but she -and her ladies soon regained their composure, and watched the -conflagration from the drawing-room all through the night.[127] - -On the 7th of April another Prince was born to the Royal pair, and on -the 18th the Queen was able to write to her uncle, the King of the -Belgians, informing him of the event, and of her intention of naming her -child after him. “It” [Leopold], she says, “is a name which is the -dearest to me after Albert, and one which recalls the almost only happy -days of my sad childhood.” The Prince’s other names were to be George, -Duncan, and Albert--George after the King of Hanover, and Duncan, so the -Queen said, as “a compliment to dear Scotland.” The compliment paid to -that country in subsequently conferring on this Prince the title of Duke -of Albany was a fateful one for him. It is an unlucky title, and Prince -Leopold was not exempt from the evil fortune of most of those who have -worn it. On the 23rd of April the Court removed to Osborne, and on the -27th of May the Queen reluctantly returned to London for the season, -greatly reinvigorated by her holiday. - -One of the events of the London season of 1853 was the establishment of -an experimental military camp at Chobham for the purpose of practising -sham-fighting. The camp took the place in the season of ’53, that had -been held by the Great Exhibition in ’51, and young men of rank who were -braving the perils of mimic warfare on the Sussex ridges were the idols -of the hour. On - -[Illustration: FIRE IN THE PRINCE OF WALES’S TOWER, WINDSOR CASTLE. -(_See_ p. 567.)] - -the 21st of June serious operations began in the presence of the Queen. -She rode to the ground on a superb black charger, accompanied by Prince -Albert, the King of Hanover, and the Duke of Coburg, the scene as she -passed along the lines being most impressive. The moving incidents of -the field, the noise of the firing, the shifting panorama of colour, -delighted the fashionable crowds who followed her Majesty to what Mr. -Disraeli would have called an arena “bright with flashing valour.” On -the 14th of July the camp was broken up, and other contingents took the -places of the regiments which had formed it. They, however, attempted a -movement of real difficulty in endeavouring to effect the passage of the -Thames at Runnymede, where the river is deep and the current rapid. -Artillery on Cooper’s Hill played on the pontoon bridge murderously, in -spite of which, however, it is stated in newspaper records of the day, -that several regiments contrived to pass over safely. But the horses -that dragged the second gun taken across, took fright, and one of them -pulled the rest, with gun and gunners, into the water. The men were -saved. The four leading horses, however, met with a strange death. They -rose to the surface, and, with eyes and nostrils dilated with terror, -beat the water in vain, for the gun, of course, held them - -[Illustration: THE QUEEN AT THE CAMP AT CHOBHAM.] - -with the wheelers in the river. Yet such was the strength which terror -imparted to them, that they dragged not only the gun but the wheelers -also, close to the bank before they succumbed. - -On the 28th of June Prince Albert, who had been “roughing it” with the -Guards in camp, returned to town complaining of a slight cold. The -Prince of Wales had measles at the time, and, to the surprise of -everybody, Prince Albert, the Queen, all the Royal children except the -two youngest, the Crown Prince of Hanover, the Duke and Duchess of -Coburg, were smitten,[128] Prince Albert suffering more severely than -any of the others. This illness prevented the Queen and her husband from -visiting the camp till the 6th of August. On the 28th it broke up. - -[Illustration: RUNNYMEDE.] - -Two of the Czar’s daughters had come over on a visit to the Queen, with -an autograph letter from their father recommending them to her Majesty’s -protection. Care was of course taken to make them acquainted with the -intense anti-Russian feeling which pervaded England, and they seem to -have been utterly amazed to find that hardly any body put the slightest -faith in their father’s word. They were invited to accompany the Queen -to see the great naval review at Spithead, which took place on the 11th -of August--a superb demonstration of the strength of England on the -high seas. Twenty-five stately ships of war--six steam-ships of the -line, three sailing-ships, and sixteen steam-frigates and -sloops--composed the squadron that took part in this magnificent -spectacle. The fleet carried 1,076 guns, 10,000 men, and was moved by -steam equivalent to the power nominally of 9,680 horses, but really of -double that amount--in other words, by more horse-power than the cavalry -of the British army could muster at the time. The smallest of its guns -was as large as the largest carried by Nelson’s ships at Trafalgar, -whilst the largest threw a solid shot of 104 lbs. The review was an -event that stirred to its inmost depths the pride of England, because, -for the first time, a mighty fleet propelled by steam was manœuvred -under the eye of the Sovereign, as if it were engaged in actual battle. -The occasion was rendered unique by the presence at the review of the -House of Commons--in fact, the House, on the day of the review, could -not form a quorum till half-past eleven o’clock at night.[129] - -About 10 o’clock in the morning, the Queen, her husband, her family, and -her Russian and German guests, bore down in the Royal yacht on Admiral -Cochrane’s flagship, the _Duke of Wellington_. Having remained on board -her for some little time, they returned to the yacht, and then, led by -the Queen in the _Victoria and Albert_, this invincible Armada put out -to sea in two divisions. The weather was exceptionally fine, and most -majestic was the progress of the fleet as it steamed, at the rate of -eleven miles an hour, down to the Nab, where it formed line with an ease -and precision of movement that astonished all beholders. Then “the -enemy,” under Admiral Fanshawe, were sighted, and a memorable sham fight -began amidst cyclopean thunders of artillery. When it was over, each -ship made for port at racing speed, the winner being the _Agamemnon_. -The effect of it all, not only on the Queen’s guests but on the country, -was duly reported by Prince Albert to Stockmar, who replied, “I am well -pleased that the ladies (the Russian princesses) should have been -present at the manœuvres of the fleet. For what the eyes see that does -the heart believe, and with what that is full of the mouth will overflow -in letters to St. Petersburg.”[130] At this time the political barometer -at Court was pointing to “fair,” and the Queen and Prince Albert were -congratulating each other that the acceptance of the Vienna Note by -Russia, would settle honourably the Russo-Turkish dispute. Though the -evacuation of the Principalities was not insisted on in that Note as it -ought to have been, the Queen and her husband alike regarded it as a -_sine quâ non_, and never doubted that Russia would withdraw her army of -occupation.[131] - -At the end of August the Queen determined to visit Dublin on her way to -Balmoral; and on the 29th she and her family landed at Kingstown -Harbour.[132] Thence they proceeded to the Irish capital, where in their -progress to the Vice-regal Lodge they met with an enthusiastic reception -that recalled pleasant memories of their last tour. In the evening the -city was illuminated in honour of its Royal guests. On the 30th they -visited the Exhibition of Irish Industry, which had been organised at -the sole expense of Mr. Dargan, a public-spirited citizen, whose simple, -manly bearing so charmed the Queen that she says in one of her letters, -“I would have made him a baronet but he was anxious it should not be -done.” Nor was she less delighted with the products of native industry, -which she inspected most carefully, and which she says convinced her -that the display would be of vast use in encouraging the spirit of the -people, by showing them what excellent work they could turn out by their -own efforts. Though the Queen met with wretched weather, yet she records -her delight with her visit--“a pleasant, gay, interesting time” she -calls it--and speaks gratefully of the extreme kindness shown to her by -all classes of the people. On the 3rd of September she left Kingstown, -and on the 6th was enjoying the bracing air of Balmoral once more. - -It was here, on the evening of the 12th, that she heard that the Vienna -Note was rejected by the Turks, and that the Eastern question was again -simmering in the fatal cauldron of diplomatic incapacity. From that day -her Majesty’s great aim was to work, like Lord Aberdeen, for peace; but -there was an end to holiday repose at Balmoral. Foreign affairs became -more and more unsettled, and on the 6th of October Stockmar was implored -to come over and give the Queen and her husband the benefit of his -advice. Sir James Graham was staying with them at the time, and his -depressed spirits reacted on the Royal family. To refuse to protect the -Sultan the Queen saw would so rouse public opinion that the Coalition -Ministry, which she was so anxious to support, must fall. To declare war -on Russia, Prince Albert assured her, would with equal certainty -ultimately destroy that Ministry. One thing only was clear to them. -Aberdeen must abandon all idea of resigning in favour of Lord John -Russell, and, despite age and infirmity, must remain at the head of -affairs till the war-cloud passed away. On the 14th of October the Queen -accordingly returned to Osborne, painfully anxious lest the concessions -which Lord Aberdeen had made to Palmerston and Russell as leaders of the -War Party, and on which she commented caustically in her letter of the -11th of October to the Prime Minister, would bring the country still -nearer to war. What were we to go to war for? That was the question -which troubled the Queen. She could understand that in some dire -extremity it might be right to exact the most terrible of sacrifices -from her people, to keep the Russians out of Constantinople, and prevent -the balance of power from being upset to the detriment of England. That -was an intelligible war - -[Illustration: SPITHEAD.] - -for the tangible interest of England and the civilised Powers. But such -a war was a very different affair from the kind of war for which -Palmerston clamoured--a war for the maintenance of the complete -integrity of the Ottoman Empire. If waged, it must surely not be so -waged that it would end by putting the oppressed Christians in Turkey -once again in the absolute power of such a cruel dominion as that of the -Porte. To this conclusion her Majesty had been forced by her close study -of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe’s own despatches, describing the brutal -treatment to which the Christians in Turkey were even at that time -subjected. But then, of what use was it to suggest these ideas to the -Cabinet, even though Lord Aberdeen supported them? When Prince Albert, -at the Queen’s request, put them into the form of a Memorandum, -Palmerston wrote a flippant reply to it only too closely in harmony with -the popular frenzy of the time, the gist of the answer being that it was -the duty of England to make war for Turkey and for Turkey alone, quite -irrespective of any considerations affecting her treatment of her -Christian subjects. To ask Turkey for concessions to civilisation, he -argued, somewhat inconclusively, meant that we must connive at her -expulsion from Europe. As for all the stories of Turkish fanaticism -that had frightened the Queen, Lord Palmerston scoffingly described them -as “fables invented at Vienna and St. Petersburg.”[133] - -[Illustration: BALMORAL CASTLE FROM THE ROAD.] - -The Czar’s Manifesto of the 1st of November still further excited the -War Party, and it was followed by a letter to the Queen, written by his -own hand, begging her Majesty to decide between him and her Government -in the dispute which had arisen from his attempt to apply the principles -of the Treaty of Kainardji to the new situation which French pretensions -in Syria had created in Turkey. To this the Queen replied with dignified -courtesy, saying that, after repeatedly reading and studying the 7th -Article of that Treaty, she could not fairly say that the Czar’s -interpretation of it was correct, and adding that the continued -occupation of the Principalities must lead to events “which I should -deplore, in common with your Majesty.”[134] The year closed with the -ferocious attacks of a certain portion of the Press on Prince Albert, -and as for the future, it was dark with the signs and omens of impending -war. - - - - -CHAPTER XXX. - -WAR. - - The War Fever in 1854--Attacks on Prince Albert--Aberdeen’s - Correspondence with the Queen--The Queen’s Opinion of the - Country--“Loyal, but a little mad”--Stockmar on the - Constitution--Prince Albert’s Position at Court--The Privileges of - a Reigning Queen’s Husband--Debates on the Prince’s Position--The - Peace and War Parties--Mr. Cobden’s Influence--A new Vienna Note--A - Challenge to Russia--The Russian Ambassador leaves London--Recall - of Sir H. Seymour from St. Petersburg--Russian Intrigues with the - German Powers--The Czar’s Counter-Propositions--His Sarcastic - Letter to Napoleon III.--An Austrian Compromise--Lord Clarendon’s - _Ultimatum_ to Russia--The Czar’s Reply--Declaration of War--Omar - Pasha’s Victories in the Principalities--The Siege of - Silistria--Evacuation of the Principalities--The Rising in - Greece--The Allies at the Piræus--The Allies occupy - Gallipoli--Another English Blunder--Invasion of the Crimea--The - Duke of Newcastle and a Sleepy Cabinet--Lord Raglan’s Opinion on - the War--The Landing of the Allies at Eupatoria--Battle of the - Alma--Death of Marshal St. Arnaud--Russian Fleet Sunk at - Sebastopol--At Balaclava--The Siege of Sebastopol--Battles of - Balaclava and Inkermann--Mismanagement of the War--Public - Indignation against the Government--Mr. Roebuck’s Motion--Fall of - the Coalition Ministry. - - -No writer has described more effectively than Mr. Cobden the sudden -change that hurried the country into the military alliance with France -against Russia which was made operative in 1854. Suppose, he said, an -invalid had been ordered in the spring of 1853 to go to Australia and -back for the benefit of his health. When he left home he must have noted -that “the Militia was preparing for duty; the coasts and dockyards were -being fortified; the Navy, Army, and Artillery were all in course of -augmentation; inspectors of artillery and cavalry were reported to be -busy on the Southern coast; deputations from railway companies, it was -said, had been waiting on the Admiralty and Ordnance to explain how -rapidly the commissariat and military stores could be transported from -the Tower to Dover or Portsmouth; and the latest paragraph of news from -the Continent was that our neighbours on the other side of the Channel -were practising the embarkation and disembarkation of troops by night. -He left home amidst all these alarms and preparations for a French -invasion. But he returns, and, supposing he has not been hearing or -giving heed to tidings from Europe, in what condition does he find his -country? He steps on shore at Liverpool, and the first newspaper he sees -informs him that the English and French fleets are lying side by side in -Besika Bay. An impending naval engagement between the two Powers is -naturally the idea that first occurs to him; but, glancing at the -leading article of the journal, he learns that England and France have -entered on an alliance, and that they are on the eve of commencing a -sanguinary struggle against Russia.”[135] He would have also found the -Tory organs of public opinion vieing with the demagogic Press in -denouncing the Queen’s husband as a traitor to his wife and as a servile -spy of Russia; from which, if he had been a shrewd man, he would have -inferred that the Queen had been again guilty of the atrocious crime of -differing from Lord Palmerston, and that Prince Albert had been -criticising rather too plainly his bellicose Foreign Policy. - -During the first few weeks of 1854 society, indeed, could talk of little -else than the “treason” of Prince Albert. The Queen’s vexation found -frequent expression in letters to Lord Aberdeen, and that amiable -Minister did what he could to comfort her. The Prince, however, treated -his slanderers with well-simulated contempt, but, in spite of that, -their injustice stung him to the quick, and he suffered much both in -health and spirits. Yet nothing could be done in his defence till -Parliament met, and the Queen was, therefore, fain to believe that the -country, as she says in a letter to Stockmar, was “as _loyal_ as ever, -only a little mad.” Long and ponderous essays from Stockmar on the -Constitutional prerogatives of the Crown, and the political functions of -Prince Albert, as her Majesty’s private secretary, did little to dispel -the gloom that settled over the Court. The fact is that Stockmar -slightly erred in imagining that the hostility to the Prince was really -due to wrong ideas on these interesting points. As Prince Albert bluntly -put it, one main element in the agitation against him was the hatred of -the old High Tory Party towards him, in the first place, because of his -friendship with Peel, and, secondly, because of his success with the -Great Exhibition.[136] The grumblers of the military clubs, too, joined -in the cry against his Royal Highness because, when Adjutant-General -Browne resigned, after quarrelling with Lord Hardinge, the -Commander-in-Chief, about the weight of the soldier’s knapsack, the -Prince was supposed to have taken Lord Hardinge’s side. The masses, too, -had never seriously thought out the question of the position which an -able man who was husband of a reigning Queen was certain, through the -mere dictates of nature, to take in the counsels of the Sovereign. It -struck them like a galvanic shock when they discovered that for fourteen -years the Prince had been actively helping to govern them, whilst the -omniscient flunkeys of the Press were almost daily smothering him with -adulation for his “wise abstinence from politics.” Having stupidly -deceived themselves as to the precise influence which the Prince -wielded, they were in the right state of mind to be deceived by the -Prince’s enemies as to the influence which he did not wield, and which -he never sought to wield. These reasons, and not the dubiety of the -British Constitution as to the political rights of the husband of an -English Queen, gave rise to much of the foolish clamour of the hour. - -It need hardly be said that when Parliament met on the 31st of January, -the leaders of both parties in both Houses summarily disposed of the -falsehoods which had been uttered to the discredit of the Court. The -Debates on the Address on this occasion are of high historical and -Constitutional importance, because they defined with great precision the -position of the consort of a queen regnant in the British Constitution, -establishing beyond doubt his right to assist the Sovereign with advice -in all matters of State. The address of Lord Campbell may be usefully -referred to as giving the legal view of the question; but the speeches -which delighted the Queen most were those of Lord John Russell, who, she -says, in a letter to Stockmar, “did it admirably,” and “dear, excellent -Lord Aberdeen, who has taken it _terribly to heart_.” It was, however, -Lord Campbell’s address which gave most satisfaction to Prince Albert. -The common-sense view of the question obviously was, that if the husband -of a queen regnant in England embarrassed her Majesty’s responsible -Ministers by unconstitutional interference, the fault must be theirs and -not his. The Constitution places in their hands the formidable weapon of -resignation, and resignation in such circumstances simply means that -government is rendered impossible till the unconstitutional interference -which is objected to is stopped. - -Nobody has stated with greater correctness the political situation of -the country at the beginning of 1854 than Sir George Cornewall Lewis. -“If,” said he, in a letter to Sir Edmund Head, “war is averted, there -will be a Reform Bill, which is likely to lead to an early Dissolution. -If war arrives, the Reform Bill and all other similar measures likely to -produce party struggles and divisions must be postponed.”[137] The -Tories had, therefore, one strong temptation to encourage the War Party. -Those Whigs who, like Lord Palmerston, dreaded Reform, were in like -case, except Lord John Russell, who, with a Reform Bill on the anvil, -was foolish enough to share with Palmerston the leadership of the War -Party in the Cabinet. As the war would be one against Russia, the -mainstay of despotism in Europe, the Radicals, mindful of how the -revolution was stamped out in Hungary, were for once on the side of war. -Nobody, in fact, had any genuine desire for peace save the Queen, Prince -Albert, and the Peelites, who desired “peace with honour,” and the -Cobdenites, who seemed to desire “peace at any price.” The Peace Party -was strong in brains and common-sense, but weak in numbers. The -strength - -[Illustration: THE OUTER CLOISTERS AND ANNE BOLEYN’S WINDOW, WINDSOR -CASTLE.] - -of the War Party lay in its numbers, and it would be absurd to assert -that, with leaders like Derby, Disraeli, Palmerston, and Russell, it -lacked intellectual ability. As usual, numbers won the day, and an -abnormal alliance of “the classes and masses” rendered the Peace -Party--sadly weakened in moral authority by the Moravian fanaticism of -the Cobdenites--utterly impotent. Mr. Cobden cherished the illusion that -his influence had strengthened the Peace Party. Yet, with the exception -of Lord Palmerston, Lord John Russell, Lord Derby, and Lord Lyndhurst, -no public men did more to make peace impossible than Mr. Cobden and Mr. -Bright, the tone of whose pacific speeches acted on the pugnacious -temper of the country as soothingly as a sting on an open and irritable -wound.[138] - -As might be expected, the Eastern policy of Ministers was fiercely -attacked in both Houses of Parliament. But to understand the point of -these attacks and the relation of the Queen to them, one must explain -what was done after Sinope drove England into a frenzy of anger only -comparable with that of the Danes when Nelson destroyed their fleet at -Copenhagen. - -To rightly appraise the criminal blunder of Russia at Sinope, it is -necessary to remember that when that “massacre” occurred, the European -Powers had agreed on a new Note embodying what they considered an -honourable settlement of the dispute between Russia and Turkey. That was -the Note of the 5th of December, and Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, under -orders from Lord Clarendon, persuaded the Porte to accept it. This was a -great step towards peace, for all that remained was to induce the Czar -to be equally reasonable. But on the very day (the 13th of January, -1854) when the Powers, in concert at Vienna, decided to press this -settlement on Russia, Sir Hamilton Seymour was instructed by Lord -Clarendon to intimate to Count Nesselrode at St. Petersburg that England -and France had lifted the gage of battle flung to them at Sinope. Russia -was informed that the English and French fleets had sailed for the Black -Sea, charged to “require” every Russian ship they met to put back to -port. This irritated the Czar, who professed to regard it as “a flagrant -act of hostility.”[139] Yet the Czar, or rather Nesselrode--who, like -Lord Aberdeen, was braving infinite obloquy on account of his pacific -proclivities--was willing to condone the act, if England would only -state formally that she would impose on Turkish ships the same -restrictions she imposed on those of Russia. Lord Clarendon, in his -despatch, dated the 31st of January, did not make this statement, and -accordingly, on the 4th of February, the Russian Ambassador in London -announced that he and his retinue must return at once to St. Petersburg. -On the 7th of February Lord Clarendon ordered the British Ambassador at -the Court of the Czar to return to England; the French Government took -the same course, and thus the rupture between Russia and the Western -Powers became complete. It was in such circumstances hopeless to expect -that the Note of the 5th of December, which had been accepted by the -Porte, and which the Four Powers agreed to recommend to Russia on the -very day that the despatch of the allied fleets to the Euxine was -notified to Count Nesselrode (the 13th of January), would be accepted by -the Czar. Indeed, but for Nesselrode, it would have been ignored with -contempt.[140] Russia, however, temporised. Taking advantage of the -false step of England and France in sending their fleets to the Euxine -without consulting Austria and Prussia, Russia artfully attempted to -detach the German States from the European Concert. Having failed in -this, the Russian Government sent two replies to the Protocol of the -13th of January, transmitting the settlement which the Powers had agreed -upon, and which the Porte had accepted. - -The proposal of the Powers provided, amongst other things, for (1) the -evacuation of the Principalities as soon as possible; (2) the renewal of -the ancient treaties; (3) a formal guarantee by Turkey to all her -non-Mussulman subjects of their spiritual privileges, which should -likewise be communicated to all the Powers, including Russia, -“accompanied with suitable assurances” to each of them; (4) a pledge -from the Porte to reform its system of administration; and (5) the -customary promise on the part of the Sultan to uphold the old rights and -immunities granted to his Christian subjects by existing treaties. -Russia rejected these proposals, and committed the blunder of extending -her demands in her first series of counter-propositions.[141] But -subsequently she submitted a second series of propositions, in which she -withdrew the stipulations as to political refugees, and her ungenerous -demand that the Porte should negotiate terms of peace at St. Petersburg, -or at the Russian headquarters in Moldavia. The Powers decided that the -Russian settlement could not be recommended to Turkey, their main -objection being, that while their terms embodied a recognition of the -principle that the Turkish concessions and guarantees were given to -Europe as well as to Russia, the Russian terms proceeded on the -assumption that they were given to Russia alone. The Czar here was in -the wrong. In the war on the Danube the Turks had been victorious. He -insisted, however, that they should sue for peace, as if they were -prostrate in defeat. On the other hand, the Four Powers proposed terms -which did not imply that victory or defeat rested with either -belligerent. The only defence that can be made for the obstinacy of the -Emperor Nicholas in thus refusing to cross the golden bridge of -honourable retreat built for him by the Powers is, that the War Party in -Russia was as rabid as the War Party in England. “The Emperor,” wrote -Sir H. Seymour to Lord Clarendon on the 2nd of January, “is infinitely -more moderate than the immense bulk of his subjects,” who denounced -Nesselrode “as an alien, a traitor, and a man bought by English -gold”--precisely the language which the same kind of people in England -applied to Lord Aberdeen. In fact, the Czar himself was rapidly losing -his popularity and authority because of the deference he was showing to -the Powers, and it is probable that if he had made further concessions -he would have been assassinated. But inasmuch as Nicholas himself, in -spite of the advice of his three ablest servants,[142] had roused the -fanaticism and fury of his subjects by his policy, even this defence, -though it explains, does not justify his conduct. - -[Illustration: RUSSIAN REPULSE AT SILISTRIA.] - -[Illustration: LORD RAGLAN.] - -Yet, by a strange stroke of fortune, war between Russia and the Western -Powers was still avoided. War with Russia was hateful to the French -people--almost as hateful as a military alliance with Turkey. But the -Emperor Napoleon III., for dynastic reasons, was committed to such a -war, and on the 29th of January he accordingly wrote a pacific letter to -the Czar couched in language certain to provoke his wrath. Nicholas -answered it with infinite _hauteur_, two contemptuous sentences in his -reply stinging the Bonapartists into rage.[143] France now had her War -Party rampant, and this did not improve the outlook. Still, one last -effort was made in the cause of peace. On the 22nd of February the -Austrian Minister, Count Buol, told the French Ambassador at Vienna -that if England and France would only fix “a delay”[144] for the -evacuation of the Principalities, and agree to keep the peace till that -term ran out, Austria would join them in sending Russia a summons to -retire across the Pruth. It was tolerably certain that what Austria did, -Prussia would do, and here again the European Concert was united in -putting irresistible diplomatic pressure on Russia. Lord Clarendon, -hearing of this, very naturally asked the German Powers how they would -act if the joint summons were ignored by the Czar. Clarendon seems to -have taken it for granted that they would in that case join England in -going to war, for, without waiting for their reply, he sent to St. -Petersburg on the 27th of February an ultimatum to Russia, demanding the -evacuation of the Principalities under threat of war. When the replies -from the German Powers arrived on the 28th of February, Lord Clarendon -found that Austria merely promised to support England in sending the -summons, but not to support her in any action she might take in the -event of its being ignored; whereas Prussia, though she thought the -summons a good thing to send, was not quite sure if she would join the -other Powers in sending it. Thus the English Government, by Lord -Clarendon’s impetuous indiscretion, again broke up the European Concert; -but now under circumstances of supreme peril, for he had positively -committed England to enforce alone against Russia, a proposal which not -only originated with Austria, but in the enforcement of which the -interest of Austria, menaced by a Russian occupation of Moldavia, was -obviously greater than that of either England or France. France joined -England in this foolish step, and the German States, well pleased to see -the Western Powers fighting their battles, and relieved from -responsibility by Lord Clarendon’s precipitate action on the 27th of -February, astutely kept out of the fray. The Czar instructed Nesselrode -to inform Consul Michele at St. Petersburg on the 18th of March that he -did not think fit to reply to Lord Clarendon’s ultimatum,[145] and thus, -with France as an ally, England went into the war--for the evacuation of -the Principalities. - -The case of the Tory Opposition in Parliament against the Government was -now unanswerable. Their leaders had systematically blamed the Government -for not warning Russia at the outset that the invasion of the -Principalities would be a _casus belli_. Had that been done, Russia -might have held her hand, whereas it was not done till retreat for -Russia meant humiliation. - -But, strange as it may seem, the English Government had still one more -blunder open to them. The Turks, under Omar Pasha, had not only held the -line of the Danube against Russia, but they had won important victories. -In May, 1854, the Russians, under Paskiewitch, attacked Silistria; but -the Turks, animated by the heroism and admirably served by the skill of -some English officers, beat off the enemy, and on the 22nd of June the -Russians raised the siege. Two weeks afterwards Gortschakoff was -repulsed at Giurgevo, and the Russians were soon driven back across the -Pruth. - -The evacuation of the Principalities, to bring about which England had -gone to war, was thus achieved. The one blunder which was now left for -England to commit was to ignore this fact and refrain from taking -advantage of it. And this was precisely what England did. Yielding to -the popular passion of the hour,[146] the Government found a new object -to fight for, namely, the destruction of Russia as an enemy to Mankind. -And yet, with this amazing fact on record, there are still people on the -Continent who aver that England is a practical nation, which never -fights for an idea! - -War was declared by England against Russia on the 28th of March, and by -France on the 27th, the military alliance between the two Powers being -signed on the 12th. Lord Raglan had been appointed to command the -British army, whilst Marshal St. Arnaud headed that of France, and the -British troops had departed for the seat of war on the 20th of February, -amidst scenes of great excitement and popular enthusiasm, which -naturally inflamed the bellicose feeling of the metropolis. On the 30th -of March the French occupied Gallipoli, in European Turkey, a little -above the point where the Dardanelles expand into the Propontis or Sea -of Marmora. The English detachments began to arrive on the 5th of April. -The allies threw fortified lines across the peninsula, so that if Russia -had driven back the Turks from the Danube and, crossing the Balkans to -Adrianople, had made a dash for Constantinople, as in 1829, the Turks -would have been paralysed by the allied forces on their right flank. But -the pride of England as a maritime Power had to be gratified, and, as -the ice was breaking in the Baltic, it was decided to order a great -fleet to reduce Cronstadt and let the Czar hear the voice of England -thundering from her cannon at the very gates of his capital. Sir Charles -Napier, the Admiral appointed to command the magnificent Armada at -Spithead, was entertained at an absurd Reform Club banquet on the 7th of -March. There he, Lord Palmerston, and Sir James Graham, delivered -themselves of flippant, vaunting orations, which Mr. Bright, in the -House of Commons, denounced as “discreditable to the grave and -responsible statesmen of a Christian nation.”[147] Very different was -the feeling of the Queen when, on the 11th of March, she reviewed the -stately procession of war-ships at Spithead, as they steamed past her -yacht, while she waved her handkerchief to the Admiral and crew of the -colossal _Duke of Wellington_, which brought up the rear. Before leaving -town she wrote to Lord Aberdeen, “We are just starting to see the fleet, -which is to sail at once for its important destination. It will be a -solemn moment.[148] Many a heart will be very heavy, and many a prayer, -including our own, will be offered up for its safety and glory.”[149] On -the 12th of April Napier sailed from Kiöge Bay and completely blockaded -the Gulf of Finland. Russia was thus paralysed when she evacuated the -Principalities. Omar Pasha kept her at bay on the other side of the -Pruth. Napier locked up her fleet and shipping in the Baltic. The allied -armies covered Constantinople. The allied fleets swept the Euxine. The -“material guarantees” which she had seized for the purpose of forcing -her terms on Turkey were wrested from her hands, and as war abrogates -all treaties, she had even lost the shadow of a claim to exercise her -old rights of protection over the Sultan’s Christian subjects. Russia -was now at the mercy of the Western Powers, and had they simply remained -passive, she would soon have been compelled to sue for peace on their -terms. But the War Party in England, disappointed that this supreme -advantage had been gained without gilding British arms with glory, -scoffed at the idea of settling the original dispute between Russia and -Turkey on these terms. The British Government accordingly resolved, not -merely to bring Russia to reason, but to humiliate her and punish her in -such a manner that her power in South-Eastern Europe would be utterly -broken. As it was this determination which led to the calamitous -invasion of the Crimea, it may be well to trace the diplomatic history -of such an astounding blunder. - -On the 9th of April, after war had been declared, the four -Powers--England, France, Austria, and Prussia--signed a Protocol at -Vienna which bound them (1) to remain united in maintaining the -integrity of Turkey, and in safeguarding, under the guarantee of Europe, -the liberties of her Christian inhabitants by every means compatible -with the independence of the Sultan; (2) to enter into no arrangement -with Russia or any other Power which might be inconsistent with this -object without first of all discussing it in concert. On the 20th of -April Austria and Prussia concluded an offensive and defensive alliance. -In separate Notes they summoned Russia to evacuate the Principalities. -On the 29th of July, when Omar Pasha was just about to drive the -Russians back to their territory, Count Nesselrode replied to Austria -stating that the Czar accepted the principles of the Protocol of the 9th -of April. But before evacuating the Principalities, he requested the -Cabinet of Vienna to give - -[Illustration: THE QUEEN WAVING FAREWELL TO THE “DUKE OF WELLINGTON” -FLAG-SHIP.] - -him some guarantee that hostilities would cease.[150] Austria was -willing to persuade England and France to agree to the condition which -the Czar thus made, a condition _sine quâ non_ of evacuation, but Count -Buol Schauenstein instructed the Austrian ambassador at St. Petersburg -to warn Nesselrode that if the Maritime Powers remained obdurate, -Austria must still insist on the withdrawal of Russia from Moldavia and -Wallachia. Prussia, however, refused to take part in a Conference which -Austria suggested might advantageously be held to consider the Russian -terms. King Frederick William and Manteuffel thought that in offering to -evacuate the Principalities, Russia had made a sufficient concession to -the interests of Germany. But Lord Clarendon was of a different -opinion.[151] England, he saw, would no longer be content with the mere -evacuation of the Principalities, which was the sole object of the war. -Imitating the initial blunder of the Czar, he insisted on getting a -“material guarantee” against any future molestation of Turkey. The -exclusive right of Russia to protect Moldavia and Wallachia must, he -said, be abolished, and instead of it a European Protectorate -established. Russia must also cease to control the chief mouth of the -Danube. The ill-defined relations of Russia to the Christian subjects of -the Porte, embodied in the Treaty of 1841, must be defined in the -interests of the balance of power in Europe, and the independence of -Turkey. Russia must finally renounce her claim to exercise any -individual or official right of protecting Turkish subjects, no matter -what their religion might be. The position of Russia as a naval Power in -the Black Sea must also be modified.[152] The Czar rejected these -terms[153]--indeed, if he had accepted them when as yet he had not -suffered any crushing defeat from the Western Powers, his life would not -have been worth many days’ purchase. Austria and Turkey concluded a -Treaty on the 14th of June, in virtue of which Austria was to occupy the -Principalities on behalf of the Sultan. On the 23rd of August the -Austrian army entered Wallachia, thus setting the Turks free to -co-operate with the Allies for the defence of Constantinople. But at -this point the war passed from the defensive to the offensive stage, and -it will therefore be convenient to trace the movement of opinion in -England which powerfully influenced the change in our plans. - -The attacks on Prince Albert created an unusual interest in the opening -of Parliament on the 30th of January, 1854. When the Queen passed in her -State procession from her palace to the House of Lords, the route was -lined by a seething crowd of enthusiasts, who cheered her wildly as she -went by. She was evidently more popular than even the Turkish -Ambassador, who was the idol of West-End mobs in these mad, foolish, and -to us, the rising generation, far-off days. The Speech from the Throne -referred somewhat hopefully to the diplomatic negotiations which were -then going on between the Powers. But it contained an ominous intimation -that her Majesty thought it necessary to increase the strength of the -army and navy, “with the view of supporting her representations, and of -more effectually contributing to the restoration of peace.” She -announced a comprehensive programme of domestic legislation, comprising -a Reform Bill, with Bills to remodel Parliamentary Oaths, to reform the -methods of selection for the Civil Service, to change the law of removal -and settlement, and to renovate the tribunal for trying disputed -Parliamentary Elections. If Ministers imagined that they would thus -divert attention from the Eastern Question they were mistaken. In both -Houses the Opposition attacked the Speech bitterly. They denied that the -Government had used its best efforts to preserve peace, because its -policy was a tangle of vacillation and inconsistency. They complained -that the part played by England had been shrouded in secrecy and -mystery, so that the country had to look to foreign sources for such -scraps of information as had come to it. Ministers had shown such lack -of energy that the Emperor of Russia had been led to regard them as his -instruments, or, if that were not the case, as men who had not the -courage to vindicate British honour by British arms. Were we at war with -either or both of the belligerent Powers--Russia or Turkey--or were we -not? If not, why send our fleet to the Black Sea to enforce against -Russia a compulsory armistice? If we were, why was war not waged boldly -and with vigour? Was it not foolish to dissipate the energies of the -country in Reform controversies when it might any day find itself forced -to make war in real earnest? The Vienna Note was denounced as a betrayal -of Turkey, and the aggressive policy of Russia was unsparingly -condemned. The Ministerial defence was weak and spiritless. - -After the Russian Ambassador left London the Government was pressed to -divulge what it knew of Count Orloff’s suspicious mission to -Vienna,[154] as to which it was wondrously secretive; and various -debates sprang up, notably one in the House of Commons on the 17th of -February, which was raised by Mr. Layard on the official papers that had -been published. To remove the impression produced by adverse criticism, -Ministers seemed to think that the more bellicose they made their -speeches the better.[155] “We mean to fight, so do not weaken the hands -of the Government unless you are prepared to take its place”--this was -the gist of the Ministerial rhetoric. As to their policy of protracted -negotiation, Ministers argued, reasonably enough, that forbearance in -the circumstances could not be a crime. Mr. Hume and Mr. Roebuck took -this view, and, on the whole, the debates, together with the Blue-books, -may be said to have won for the Government a favourable verdict from the -country. Mr. Cobden, however, had the audacity to challenge this verdict -and to oppose, on what to the present generation seem sensible grounds, -the whole policy of the war. His long speeches and pamphlets on this -subject can be summed up in three sentences. Either we were going to -fight Russia for the sake of Turkey, or for the sake of protecting the -liberties of Europe from the encroachment of the Russian autocrat. If we -were fighting for the sake of Turkey, we were fighting in a cause that -we ought to be ashamed of. If we - -[Illustration: MARSHAL ST. ARNAUD.] - -were fighting to protect European civilisation from Russia, we ought to -let the Powers nearest to the source of danger--Austria and -Germany--begin first. This argument was indeed the only one that had the -least effect on the House. Members were, however, so completely -frightened by the clamour of London Society and the London Press, that -even those who agreed with Cobden did not dare to say so.[156] His -simple but lucid exposition of the Turkish system of Government which we -were asked to maintain, had unexpectedly disturbed the minds, not only -of the Nonconformists, but of many good Churchmen - -[Illustration: FORTS ALEXANDER AND PETER THE GREAT, CRONSTADT.] - -also. It was, perhaps, slightly emphasised by the taunt of the Czar in -his Manifesto of the 9th of February to the effect that England and -France were fighting for Islam against Russia, who was striving to -protect Christianity. The War Party feared that there might be a -reaction against them, and accordingly they very cleverly induced Lord -Shaftesbury, on the 10th of March, to answer this portion of the -Manifesto, and not only to prove that the Grand Turk did more than the -Czar to advance the progress of Christianity, but also to defend the -righteousness of making an alliance with any Power, heathen though it -might be, to maintain “the cause of right, justice, and order, against -the aggressions even of professing Christians.” Of this speech Lord -Shaftesbury says in his Diary that nothing pleased him more than the -statement of Lord Clarendon that the debate which he originated “was -most opportune.”[157] From a Ministerial point of view it was opportune. -Mr. Morley complains that the Nonconformists, who “have so seldom been -found fighting on the wrong side,” were now so seriously divided that -they did nothing to help Mr. Cobden to resist the warlike policy of the -Government.[158] Their neutrality explains why Clarendon was so effusive -in his congratulation to the Peer whose influence over this section of -the community was supreme. - -But the whole question soon passed out of the region of debate. On the -27th of March, the Queen’s message proclaiming war--though oddly enough -the word war is not mentioned in it--was read to both Houses of -Parliament; and on the 31st a loyal address agreeing to it was duly -moved and carried, after a debate which was worthier of such an occasion -than many others that had preceded it. The Opposition leaders seem to -have been sobered by the solemnity of the moment, and all parties -practically supported the Government with the helpless unanimity of -despair. In the Upper House, Lord Grey alone uttered a strong protest -against the war. In the House of Commons, Mr. Bright and the Marquis of -Granby were the only speakers who were for peace. The violent -Russophobists found in Mr. Layard an energetic champion. He condemned -the Government, first, because it had not coerced Russia immediately -after the massacre of Sinope, and secondly, because even now Ministers -did not specifically declare that the object of the war was to lock up -Russia within well-defined limits, so as to cripple her for ever. The -Tory leaders were more cautious. They naturally made capital out of the -Secret Correspondence,[159] already referred to (pp. 546-7). They had -little difficulty in convicting the Government of misleading the Czar as -to their rooted objection to his Turkish policy. Lord John Russell had -not rejected the Russian proposals with the sternness of one who had -serious hostility to them. He had, indeed, admitted the very claim which -he and his colleagues were now about to rebut by war.[160] A “hybrid -policy of credulity and connivance,” as Mr. Disraeli once called it, -could have no other result than that of tempting the Czar to advance -pretensions which he could not withdraw without prejudicing his Imperial -position, and it is strange that this aspect of the affair was dealt -with somewhat leniently by the critics and enemies of the Ministry. The -questions that seemed to be of supreme interest to both Houses were -really two--What was the object of the war? Where were our allies? To -the one question the answer was vague. To the other the reply was -neither frank nor candid. Lord Clarendon said that the object of the war -was “to check and repel the unjust aggression of Russia”--which, as -things stood, meant to force her out of the Danubian Principalities. -But, he added, to ask what was the object of the war was to ask on what -terms peace would be made?--a question the answer to which must depend -on chances nobody could forecast. As for allies, it was easy to say that -France was with us. The difficulty was to say what the German Powers -would do. Ministers felt that Cobden had pierced their armour when, in -the adjourned debate on Mr. Layard’s motion (20th Feb.), he asked -whether it would not be sensible to let those Powers who were nearest -Russia--and must therefore suffer first from her aggression--begin the -fighting. Parliament must therefore be cajoled into a belief that -Austria and Prussia would join us. Both Houses knew that though Austria -and Prussia had concurred with England and France in recommending Russia -to evacuate the Principalities, they had not pledged themselves to -co-operate with us in war. Still, said Lord John Russell, when Austria -was asked what she would do in the event of war breaking out, “the -answer was at the time satisfactory,” and if Prussia had only fallen in -with her views, he would have had a most satisfactory statement to make -to the House. Though Prussian views seemed to Lord John “too narrow, -taking in German interests alone,” he (Lord John) trusted that a short -time would bring Prussia “to the conclusion that the disturbance of the -balance of Power and the aggrandisement of Russia were matters of -concern to Prussia as well as to other Powers.” - -Lord John Russell unscrupulously deceived the House of Commons and the -country on both points. The whole course of the negotiations had shown -first, that Prussia considered the Czar’s final concessions sufficient, -and, secondly, that Austria, though regretting that Russia did not do -more to mollify Lord Clarendon, refused to admit that a declaration of -war was necessary for that purpose. Lord John Russell’s statement as to -Prussia was not only untrue, but the dates of the official despatches -prove that he and his colleagues must have known it to be untrue.[161] -When it was made in the House of Commons by him, and virtually in the -same form in the House of Lords by Lord Clarendon, neither Austria nor -Prussia had given any direct answer whatever to the question as to what -they would do if war broke out. The Prussian Minister, indeed, said he -did not think that Prussia would join the Powers in such a - -[Illustration: OMAR PASHA.] - -war.[162] But a still grosser deception was the delusive assurance that -Prussia would yet come to our assistance. The Government knew too well -that the views of Prussia were such as to absolutely destroy this hope. -The King of Prussia looked upon war against Russia on the issue raised -as a crime, and he had written an autograph letter to the Queen, a fact -which was concealed from Parliament, saying so in the plainest words. He -reminded her of what it is to be feared the Queen, like most of her -countrymen, did not then sufficiently realise--the agonies of a great -war such as that of 1813-15--agonies that he had seen, but which, alas! -her Majesty and the new generation had only read about. Yet that was a -war worth the horrors of its sacrifices. Was this one now impending -worth similar sacrifices? - -[Illustration: MAP OF THE CRIMEA.] - -Hardly, argued the King, for even England had at last become ashamed of -the cause she had taken up--that of the Turk, and her endeavour now was -to persuade herself and the world that it was for another cause--the -equilibrium of Europe, menaced by the preponderance of Russia--that she -was about to draw the sword. “The preponderance of Russia,” he writes in -this letter, “is to be broken down! Well! I, her neighbour, have never -felt this preponderance, and have never yielded to it.” It was war for -an idea, and, adds the King with intense earnestness, “Suffer me to ask, -‘Does God’s law justify war for an idea?’” He implores the Queen to -reconsider the Russian proposals in a friendly spirit, sifting what is -really objectionable from them, and pledges himself that if a golden -bridge is built to save the Czar’s honour, the Czar will cross it. But -one word the King craves leave to speak plainly to the Queen: “For -Prussia and myself,” he writes, “_I am resolved to maintain a position -of complete neutrality_; and to this I add, with proud elation, _my -people_ and myself are of one mind. They _require_ absolute neutrality -from me. They say (and I say), ‘What have we to do with the Turk?’ -Whether he stand or fall in no way concerns the industrious Rhinelanders -and the husbandmen of the Riesengeberg and Bernstein.” Russia, he -admits, might have perhaps pressed hard on the Turk. However, “it was -the Turk, not we, who suffered, and the Turk has plenty of good -friends, but the Emperor is a noble gentleman, and has done us no harm. -Your Majesty will allow that this North German sound practical sense is -difficult to gainsay.” Yet it was with such a letter in their possession -that the Government led the country to believe, first, that Austria, who -could not possibly move without Prussia, would join us in the war; and, -second, that Prussia would also draw her sword for a cause which she -declared we ourselves were even then ashamed of! - -On the 17th of March, 1854, the Queen, nettled by the rough practical -“North German sense” in this letter from the King of Prussia, -endeavoured to answer it--her draft being submitted to Lord Clarendon -and Lord Aberdeen for approval. Her answer, according to Sir Theodore -Martin, indicates a “firm hand” and “admirable tact.”[163] To the -political student of the present day it indicates neither the one nor -the other. There was no tact in scoffing at the King’s “North German -sound practical sense” by saying, “Had such language fallen from the -King of Hanover or of Saxony, I would have understood it,” and there was -more weakness and sentimentality than firmness and statecraft in the -hand that added, “But up to the present hour I have regarded Prussia as -one of the five great Powers which, since the Peace of 1815, have been -the guarantors of treaties, the guardians of civilisation, the champions -of right, and ultimate arbitrators of the nations; and I have for my -part felt the holy duty to which they were thus divinely called, being -at the same time perfectly alive to the obligations, serious as they -are, and fraught with danger, which it imposes. Renounce these -obligations, my dear brother, and in doing so you renounce for Prussia -the status she has hitherto held.”[164] If the example thus set by -Prussia--that of making the interests of the Prussian people the supreme -object of her policy--should find imitators, the Queen contended, -“European civilisation is abandoned as a plaything to the winds; right -will no longer find a champion, nor the oppressed an umpire to appeal -to.” - -Such was the reply which the Queen made to what Sir Theodore Martin -calls “the amiable but most mischievous weakness” that pervaded the -letter from the King of Prussia. Such was the appeal which she made to -what Sir Theodore calls “a sentiment higher than the short-sighted and -selfish policy which it announced.” The King’s letter was perhaps -amiable--but it was not weak. Its policy was perhaps selfish--a -Sovereign who draws or sheathes the sword, save from motives of national -selfishness, is guilty of a crime against his people--but it was not -shortsighted. As Mr. Lowe, in his biography of Prince Bismarck, says, -“Every one is now agreed, in the words of Leopold von Ranke, that his -(the King of Prussia’s) neutrality during the Crimean War was the -condition precedent of the great achievements which afterwards made -Germany one.”[165] Prussia, in fact, was at this moment master of the -situation; and it is amazing that the Queen, through her German -connections, did not know it. Herr von Bismarck had been sent on a -secret mission to the minor German States. His intrigues had rendered it -certain that if Austria joined the Western Powers in war, Prussia would -step into her place as the dominant power in Germany.[166] In fact, but -one excuse is given for the grave error of the English Court in not -seizing the opportunity offered by the letter of the King of Prussia for -building the “golden bridge” over which his Majesty pledged his word the -Czar would even then have gladly retreated. The Queen’s reason in her -reply was that the resources of diplomacy--its Protocols, Notes, -Conventions, &c., &c.--had been exhausted, and that “the ink that has -gone to the penning of them might well be called a second Black -Sea.”[167] A sanguine and proud young Princess must not be too harshly -judged by History for a light jest, even on such a momentous issue. In a -few brief months it was wiped out with her tears and her people’s blood. -Moreover, her Majesty, as will be seen later, did not forget the hard -stern lesson read to her by this “war for an idea,” when she saved -England from a similar calamity in the dispute between Germany and -Denmark over the Duchies. - -Only one thing now vexed the hearts of the War Party. The Address in -answer to the Queen’s Message announcing war was carried. But the debate -did not definitely commit the Government to a war for the purpose of -breaking the power of Russia. - -There was, however, an insurrection in the Greek provinces of Turkey, -which gave promise of bloodshed, for early in March Nesselrode had -authorised the agents of Russia to support the insurgents. King Otho of -Greece gave them unofficial support. The atrocious cruelty of the -Turkish Bashi-bazouks, according to one party, had caused the rising, -whilst another party held that it was due to Russian intrigue. Doubtless -it was due to both causes, more especially as it was the hope of getting -rid of the torture of Turkish misrule, that led the Greeks to listen -eagerly to the Russian intriguers. The insurrection was easily strangled -by the Allies who occupied the Piræus on the 25th of May; but one of its -incidents was the expulsion of the Greeks from Constantinople. Now, as -the Greeks in those days carried on nearly all the trade of Turkey, -dealing with Manchester and Glasgow to the extent of £3,000,000 a year, -a strong attack might have been made against the Ministry. They could -have been taunted with going to war for British interests in support of -the Turks, who were destroying our trading agencies in Turkey. Mr. -Cobden saw this point clearly, and though he put it before the House of -Commons, he spoilt it by foolishly arguing, on sentimental grounds, that -we ought not to support an act as barbarous as the Edict of Nantes. Lord -John Russell won an easy victory over him by virtually ignoring the -question of English commercial interests, and showing that there was no -parallel between the expulsion of Frenchmen from France on account of -their religious opinions, and the expulsion from Turkey of the subjects -of a foreign Prince who was fomenting rebellion. As for the atrocities -of the Turks, the House of Commons was, of course, told that they were -the natural results of Russian ambition, “for which there was scarcely -one apologist but Mr. Cobden!” - -[Illustration: THE BARRACKS HOSPITAL, SCUTARI.] - -In the meantime the war had to be financed, and the country reconciled -to increased taxation. Mr. Gladstone’s ordinary, as distinguished from -his War Budget, was introduced on the 6th of March, when his position -was this. - -[Illustration: ODESSA.] - -He had collected £54,025,000 of revenue, or £1,035,000 in excess of what -he had counted on. He had spent £51,171,000, which, in spite of military -operations, was less by £1,012,000 than he had estimated. His balance in -hand from the past year was £2,854,000. For the coming year his -estimates must necessarily be increased by additional military -outlay,[168] which would bring up his estimated expenditure to -£56,189,000. As the revenue he could depend upon from existing taxes was -only £53,349,000, he had therefore a deficit of £2,840,000. Had there -been no need to increase his estimates,[169] he might have had a surplus -of £1,166,000 for the remission of taxation. As things stood, how was -the deficit to be met? Not by a loan, answered Mr. Gladstone, because no -nation had mortgaged its industry to such a frightful extent as England, -whose National Debt of £750,000,000 exceeded that of all countries in -the world put together. Without pledging themselves to pay all future -war charges out of the revenue of each year, Mr. Gladstone said it was -as yet possible for the House of Commons “to put a stout heart upon the -matter, and to determine that so long as these burdens are bearable, and -so long as the supplies necessary for the service of the year can be -raised within the year, so long we will not resort to the system of -loans.” The expenses of a war, he observed, “are the moral check which -it has pleased the Almighty to impose upon the ambition and the lust of -conquest that are inherent in nations.” He therefore proposed to -increase the Income Tax by one-half, but to collect the whole of the -increase in the first six months of 1854; in other words, he doubled the -tax in the first half year. He was assailed on two grounds. The Tories -protested against the doctrine of meeting war expenditure out of current -revenue, and they taunted him with the failure of his scheme for the -conversion of the debt,[170] which, they pretended, had been disastrous. -“The next Party conflict,” wrote Prince Albert in a letter to Stockmar -on the 18th of April, “will be upon finance. Gladstone wants to pay for -the war out of the current revenue, so long as he does not require more -than ten millions sterling above the ordinary expenditure, and to -increase the taxes for the purpose. The Opposition are for -borrowing--that is, increasing the debt--and do not wish to impose in -the meantime any further burdens on themselves. The former course is -manly, statesmanlike, and honest; the latter is convenient, cowardly, -perhaps popular. We shall see.”[171] This is a masterly summary of the -great financial controversy that raged throughout the Session of 1854. -It leaves nothing more to be said save this, that when Mr. Gladstone -explained his second or War Budget (8th of May), after war had been -declared, his eloquence carried the country in favour of his policy. He -obtained his war expenditure by doubling the Income Tax and increasing -the duty on spirits and malt, and he pointed to the rapidly-growing -trade of the nation as a proof that it ought not to adopt the course -which Pitt found ruinous,[172] and which Prince Albert so justly -described as “convenient and cowardly.” - -Perhaps the first Budget in February had slightly sobered the -country--at all events, the 26th of April was set apart for a day of -Fast, Humiliation, and Prayer. Over this a slight controversy had broken -out. The Queen was a little offended that Lord Aberdeen had announced, -without consulting her, in the House of Lords, on the 31st of March, -that such a Fast would be proclaimed. She thought Fasts of Humiliation -were resorted to too often, and that it was hypocritical to publicly -confess in the stereotyped form that “the great sinfulness of the nation -had brought about this war.” Therefore she desired that the Fast should -be called a Day of Prayer and Supplication, and urged Lord Aberdeen “to -inculcate the Queen’s wishes into the Archbishop’s mind, that there be -no Jewish imprecations against our enemies.” Her desire was to adapt the -prayer in the Church Service, “To be used before a Fight at Sea,” to the -occasion.[173] According to Mr. Greville, bankers in the City pointed -out that if the word “Fast” were omitted, Bills would be payable on that -day and not on the day before, as Masterman’s Act provides in such -cases. The Queen was, therefore, persuaded by Lord Aberdeen to proclaim -“a Day of Solemn _Fast_, _Humiliation_, and Prayer, to be kept on the -26th.” It was observed solemnly in the United Kingdom, India, and the -Colonies, by British subjects of all races and creeds. - -When it was found that the object for which the war was undertaken--the -evacuation of the Principalities--had been effected by the retreat of -the Russians across the Pruth on the 28th of July, there was some fear -lest the taxpayers, who were painfully digesting Mr. Gladstone’s War -Budget, might consider enough had been done to bring Russia to reason. -Russia, it has been shown, was now in such a position that her -surrender, under the passive pressure of the Powers, was inevitable, so -as a matter-of-fact enough _had_ been done. But the growth of this -feeling had to be stopped, for the War Party insisted that Russia must -be rendered incapable of again disturbing Europe. It was a curious -revival of a policy, the practicability of which Napoleon I. had ruined -himself to illustrate. Yet on the 19th of June Lord Lyndhurst invited -the House of Lords to preside at its resurrection. The long, virulent, -and passionate harangue by which he endeavoured to excite the hatred of -England against Russia, his indictment of her as an enemy of the human -race, his appeals for her destruction in the sacred interests of liberty -and civilisation, drew forth cheer after cheer even from that frigid -Assembly of patricians. It produced a prodigious effect on the country, -and forthwith Englishmen worked themselves up into a belief that unless -a mortal blow were dealt at Russia, Europe would be overrun by Cossacks, -and every honest man in England would be buried alive in Siberia. Lord -Aberdeen ventured to protest against Lyndhurst’s extravagant and -scurrilous abuse of the Czar, and to remind the Peers that in 1829, when -Turkey was at his mercy, he had not seized Turkish territory, but had -been content with the Treaty of Adrianople. For this Aberdeen was -denounced as a tool of Russia, who desired to patch up a hasty and -dishonourable peace. - -[Illustration: HEIGHTS OF THE ALMA.] - -[Illustration: SIR JOHN BURGOYNE.] - -Mr. Layard, on the 23rd of June, gave notice of motion in the House of -Commons, “that, in the opinion of this House, the language held by the -First Minister of the Crown was calculated to raise grave doubts in the -public mind as to the objects and results of the present war, and to -lessen the prospect of a durable peace.” Even the Queen wrote to the -aged statesman a letter scolding him because he had annoyed the public -by “an impartial examination of the Emperor of Russia’s conduct.” She -admired Aberdeen’s courage and honesty, but expressed a hope--in the -circumstances her “hope” was a command--that in any explanation of his -unlucky speech “he will not undertake the ungrateful and injurious task -of vindicating the Emperor of Russia from any of the exaggerated charges -brought against him and his policy, at a time when there is enough in -that policy to make us fight with all our might against it.”[174] What -Aberdeen said was that he objected to Russian aggression on Turkey, but -as for Russian aggression on Europe, he did not fear it in the least. -There was nothing in that to cause offence, except to those who, -suddenly finding that Russian aggression on Turkey had been repelled by -Omar Pasha, supported by the hostile demonstrations of the Western -Powers, were now at a loss to discover another form of Russian -encroachment, real or imaginary, to repel. There must therefore, cried -Lyndhurst and the War Party, be no talk of peace till the Russian fleet -in the Black Sea was destroyed, and the walls of Sebastopol razed to the -ground. “For the future,” exclaimed Lord Derby, “it was impossible to -permit the Black Sea to be a Russian lake, or that the Danube should be -a Russian ditch, choked with mud and filth.”[175] A great army had been -sent to Turkey; but the fighting and the glory had fallen to Omar Pasha -on the Danube. As Lord Hardwicke said, in the debate in the House of -Lords on a Vote of Credit (24th of July), “if the present campaign -closed without some great deed of arms equal to the power and dignity of -this country, Her Majesty’s Government would lie under a heavy -responsibility.” - -Lord John Russell, in defending this Vote of Credit in the House of -Commons, said that the Government had now three objects in view besides -the evacuation of the Principalities: (1) to place Turkey under the -protection of the European Powers, to whom, and not to Russia alone, she -should be asked for the future to guarantee the privileges of her -Christian subjects; (2) to deprive Russia of her special right of -protecting the Principalities under the Treaty of Adrianople; (3) to -reduce the power of Russia in the Black Sea, so that she should not be -able to menace Turkey. In connection with this third aim, Lord John -threw out a sinister allusion to the destruction of Sebastopol, which -Mr. Disraeli protested he heard with “consternation,” and which Lord -John vainly endeavoured to explain away. The German Powers objected as -much to the occupation of Russian territory by England or Turkey, as to -the occupation of Turkish territory by Russia. Lord John Russell had, -therefore, emulated Lyndhurst in his eagerness to give Austria and -Prussia a pretext for refusing England and France their co-operation. - -It was in truth easy to whet the fashionable appetite for adventure and -glory. The country sulked over the inaction of the British fleet in the -Baltic and the army at Varna. Yet the fleet under Napier, though it -failed to make good the foolish vaunting of its commander when he -started, did some useful work. It found the frowning fortifications of -Cronstadt impregnable,[176] but at all events it shut up the Russian -navy in their harbours, and swept their commerce from the sea. Captain -Hall’s daring reconnoissance of Hango Bay in the month of May, elicited -a tribute of admiration from the Grand Duke Constantine himself. Admiral -Plumridge destroyed Bomarsund, a fortress built to dominate the Gulf of -Bothnia. But in the Pacific the Allies were decidedly less successful in -August in their attack on Petropaulovski. The English Admiral, Price, -had committed suicide, and was succeeded by Sir F. Nicholson. On the 4th -of September an attempt was made to take the place in the rear, but -owing to the treachery of two guides, our men were misled and repulsed. -They were driven over a precipice 70 feet high which lay between them -and the shore, many of them being killed, and still more being wounded -in taking a headlong leap for their lives. - -In the Black Sea the record was more brilliant. The first shot fired in -the war was at Odessa, which was bombarded for ten hours on the 22nd of -April, in revenge for an outrage committed by the Russians, who fired on -a flag of truce. This was followed by a challenge to the Russian fleet -in Sebastopol, which was not accepted. On the 12th of May the _Tiger_ -ran aground off Odessa, and had to strike her flag. Her crew were made -prisoners, but treated with the utmost kindness and courtesy by the -Russians. The captain (Gifford) died of his wounds on the 19th of June, -and the lieutenant (Royer) was sent to St. Petersburg by order of the -Czar, who at once set him free. Captain Parker, on the 8th of July, -destroyed the Russian works at the Sulina mouth of the Danube. - -In May there were 20,000 French on the European and 10,000 British -troops on the Asiatic side of the Danube. Gallipoli was fortified, and -works thrown up in order to check the Russians had they crossed the -Danube. Constantinople was also fortified, and then the Allies -concentrated at Varna, ready, if need be, to carry war into the enemy’s -territory. They were encamped at a spot which was saturated with the -germs of malaria, and which was chosen with a reckless disregard of -sanitary considerations. During June and July malaria, dysentery, and -cholera decimated their ranks. They sat brooding listlessly in the -shadow of death all through that fatal summer, chafing, as did their -countrymen at home, over their inglorious fortune. Cardigan’s -reconnoissance of the country up to Trajan’s Wall on the confines of the -Dobrudscha alone broke the monotony of their existence, and on his -return they were cheered by his news of the disastrous retreat of the -Russians on Bessarabia. On the 26th of August a Council of War was held -at Varna, and the rumour that the army was to be led to the invasion of -the Crimea flew through the disheartened camp like tidings of great joy. -It has been shown by what steps the English Government was lured on to -this fatal decision. Yet it is due to Lord Aberdeen’s Cabinet to say, -that it was not at first unanimous as to the expediency of widening the -area of conflict, and attempting to break the power of Russia, “by -razing Sebastopol to the ground.” Mr. Kinglake[177] has stated that this -enterprise was sanctioned at a Cabinet meeting held on June 28 in Lord -John Russell’s house (Pembroke Lodge). Mr. Kinglake, at a loss to -explain to posterity how a number of intelligent men could have approved -an act of such stupendous folly, has invented an ingenious theory. The -Duke of Newcastle, as Secretary of State for War, subsequently blamed -Lord Raglan for mismanaging the campaign. But Mr. Kinglake has -constituted himself Lord Raglan’s champion, and he accordingly -endeavours to lay as much blame as possible on the Duke. The Duke came -to the meeting, says Mr. Kinglake, with a ponderous despatch, which he -proposed, with the approval of his colleagues, to send to Lord Raglan -ordering him to invade the Crimea. As he went on reading it, one -Minister after another fell asleep. When he finished, they awoke, and -sanctioned the Duke’s instructions without knowing what they were. It is -unfortunately not possible to save the reputation of the Aberdeen -Ministry by making drowsiness an excuse for blundering. Sir George -Cornewall Lewis, in one of his letters,[178] gives the flattest -contradiction to Mr. Kinglake’s amusing fable, and so does Sir Theodore -Martin. - -[Illustration: PEMBROKE LODGE, RICHMOND.] - -[Illustration: CODRINGTON’S BRIGADE (23RD ROYAL WELSH FUSILIERS) AT THE -ALMA.] - -An eccentric Member of the House of Commons, Mr. H. Drummond, in one of -the debates on the War, said that there was a division of labour in the -operations, for whilst we found the money, the French Emperor found the -brains. The project of wounding Russia in a vital point by invading the -Crimea, was originated by the French Emperor, who possibly thought his -illustrious uncle’s experiment at Moscow needed no verification. The -French Emperor’s plan was submitted to the Queen on the 14th of March as -one approved of by Lord Raglan, Lord de Ros, Lord Clarendon, and the -Duke of Newcastle. It was dropped because some sensible person suggested -that it would be hardly safe to leave Constantinople, then covered by -the allied troops, at the mercy of the Russians. But after -Constantinople was fortified against attack, the mischievous idea was -revived. On the 28th of June it was embodied in the draft despatch -containing the instructions to Lord Raglan, which was sanctioned by -that fatigued Cabinet, the Members of which, according to Mr. Kinglake, -fell asleep. One other fact may be cited against Mr. Kinglake. The plan -was opposed by certain Members of the Ministry who, though they thought -something should be done to limit Russia’s opportunities of interfering -with Turkey in future, felt sure that an invasion of the Crimea must end -in failure. They complained that nobody knew what could be done with the -Crimea even if it were taken, or how the Russians could be stopped from -rebuilding Sebastopol, except by another war, after it was destroyed. -But why has there ever been any controversy over the point at all? -Simply because the project was such a mad one, that everybody who had -anything to do with it, has been anxious to blame somebody else for -originating it. The Ministry and their apologists declared that they -left the whole affair to the discretion of Lord Raglan. He was only -instructed to invade the Crimea if as a soldier he thought an invasion -practicable. Lord Raglan and his friends declared that he had no -discretion in the matter, and that the instructions of the Cabinet -amounted to an order from the Secretary of State for War, which he as -the General in command had no option but to obey. Lord Aberdeen’s -account of the matter to the Queen was that, “although the expedition to -the Crimea was pressed very warmly” on Lord Raglan, “the final decision -was left to the judgment and discretion” of Raglan and St. Arnaud, -“after they should have communicated with Omar Pasha.” Sir George -Cornewall Lewis, in the letter already quoted, says he does not think -that the Cabinet could have given Raglan a wider discretion, because -they would have probably thought they were throwing too much -responsibility on him. But the obvious truth is that, as the Cabinet and -the General had approved of the plan in March, they were alike -responsible for it, and that if it had not been disastrous to their -reputations, they would have each claimed credit for it.[179] Mr. -Kinglake says that St. Arnaud was also opposed to the invasion of the -Crimea, but it was his Imperial Master’s plan, and he had to adopt it -against his better judgment. Possibly, Raglan’s doubts, confided to Sir -G. Brown at Varna, sprang from conferences with St. Arnaud.[180] - -The order to invade was dated the 28th of June, and two months were -spent in preparing for the expedition. At the last moment it was found -that there was no means of embarking and disembarking the cavalry and -artillery. This difficulty was cleverly overcome by Mr. Roberts, a -master in the navy. “Roberts did more for us than anybody,” said Lord -Raglan to Admiral Lyons. He set the Turkish caïques in rows, and built -great pontoons on them buoyant enough to support the enormous weight of -horses and guns.[181] On the 13th of September the expedition sighted -the shores of the Crimea. The allied troops skilfully disembarked -without loss or confusion at the Old Fort, a spot twenty miles south of -Eupatoria. Twenty thousand French and twenty thousand English soldiers, -with a powerful artillery, were thus thrown upon a hostile coast in -perfect marching order in one single day. On the 19th of September they -moved southwards, and got touch of the Russians under Prince -Menschikoff. These were 40,000 strong, and they held a fortified -position on the heights of the Alma, a little river which flowed between -them and the Allies. On the morning of the 20th the battle began. St. -Arnaud was to attack, and if possible turn the Russian left. When that -had been done, the English were to dash at the right wing of the -Russians. St. Arnaud was farther away from his objective point than our -men, and before he completed his manœuvre, he seems to have asked Lord -Raglan to advance. Abandoning the original plan of the battle, Raglan -moved forward on the swarming masses of Russians in front of him, and -drove them from their position. In this contest one sees nothing -admirable save the rough masculine vigour of the English attack, and the -skill with which the battle was planned by St. Arnaud. Lord Raglan’s -conduct was likened by the Secretary of State to that of the Duke of -Wellington. As a matter of fact, at the outset he seems to have plunged -into the river with his Staff, dashed on into the enemy’s lines, till he -found himself on the extreme left of the French, without any control -over his army. It was really led into action by his Generals of -Divisions, who, till after the crisis of the battle was over, seemed -scarcely conscious of the existence of their Commander-in-Chief.[182] -The French attack was dashing, but somehow it did not succeed -quickly.[183] As for the Russians, they were clumsily handled. -Menschikoff chose a good position--so good that he staked his field -defence of Sebastopol on it. But he manœuvred in massive columns, so -that his front did not nearly cover all his ground. He seemed nervously -anxious to meet attacks in detail, hurrying regiments from point to -point wherever he thought his troops were being hard pressed, to the -utter confusion of his formation. His subordinates were so stupid that -they did not even think of bringing their strongest arm, the cavalry, -into action. - -[Illustration: GENERAL CANROBERT.] - -Curiously enough at this point, the expedition, owing to Menschikoff’s -bungling, had success within its grasp. The defence of Sebastopol was -staked upon the army of the Alma. The stronghold lay at the mercy of the -Allies after that army was routed, and could have been taken next -morning by a _coup de main_. Raglan, to do him justice, was eager to -press on, but St. Arnaud held him back. The Allies then spent three days -in burying the dead, and by that time the Russians had considerably -strengthened their fortifications. Raglan again urged that the city -should be attacked, but, as St. Arnaud was unwilling to risk an -assault, it was agreed that the invaders should march round to the south -of the citadel, and attack it from that aspect. On the 29th St. Arnaud, -whose health and brain had been long failing him, died, and Canrobert, -an equally sluggish soldier, succeeded to his command. Whilst the Allies -were, at Raglan’s instigation, marching round to the south of -Sebastopol, they were for a whole day exposed to a flank attack from the -enemy, which, had it been delivered, would have simply cut them to -pieces. Menschikoff’s incapacity saved them from this disaster, and on -the 28th of September the Russians, who had been looking for an attack -from the north, to their surprise found their feeble works on the south -at the mercy of their enemies. Some of the divisional commanders, like -Cathcart and Campbell, were eager for storming the place at once, and, -had they done so, they could have captured it with hardly any -appreciable loss. Sir John Burgoyne--then supposed to be infallible as a -military engineer--and General Canrobert thought the risks too great, -and said that the army must wait till the siege-train was brought up. -Raglan yielded to Canrobert’s hesitancy and Burgoyne’s ignorance. - -[Illustration: ENTRANCE TO BALACLAVA HARBOUR.] - -The Russians, who expected every moment to see the enemy swarming over -their walls, must have looked on the unintelligible paralysis of the -Allies as an intervention of Providence on their behalf. Oddly enough, -when Raglan was making his flank march from north to south, Menschikoff, -instead of springing on him and destroying his army, was marching with -equal stupidity from the south to the north.[184] Here the allied attack -was looked for; here all available troops were hurried. Nachimoff, who -remained on the south bank of the harbour, had just 3,000 troops to hold -indefensible works against an army of 40,000 men. He behaved with high -spirit; he sank his ships so as to block the channel. Admiral Korniloff -hastened from the north side to his aid and took command, and filled the -troops with his own determination to hold out to the last, no matter how -heavy were the odds against them. Colonel Todleben--whose master mind -was about to revolutionise the art of fortification--accompanied him, -and these two perfectly dauntless men, profiting by the blunder of -Canrobert and Burgoyne, simply wrecked the expedition of the Allies. The -time spent in waiting for the siege-train was precisely what Todleben -prayed for. - -Inspirited by Korniloff’s enthusiasm, and guided by Todleben’s genius, -the Russians toiled like galley-slaves to strengthen their -fortifications. Korniloff succeeded in inducing Menschikoff to march -25,000 troops into the town, so that on the 17th of October, when the -siege-train of the Allies had arrived, Sebastopol, which had been at -their mercy on the 25th of September, was virtually impregnable. On the -17th of October an attempt was made to demolish the earthworks of the -enemy by a general bombardment, after which it was the intention of the -Allies to dash forward and storm the southern half of the town.[185] The -English batteries did not fail, for they seriously damaged the Redan -Fort of the enemy. Nachimoff’s sacrifice of the sunken fleet, however, -prevented our ships from getting far enough up the harbour to assist our -land force, and though the sea batteries were open to attack, shoal -water prevented our ships from getting close enough to them to do them -much harm.[186] The failure of the bombardment was followed up by a -series of attacks on the position of the Allies, the results of which -may now be summarised. The great flank march from north to south had -left every road from Russia open to the enemy. Reinforcements swarmed -into the Crimea, even from the Russian Army of the Danube, which was -liberated when the Austrians occupied the Principalities. The English -army at the end of October numbered 25,000. The French had 40,000 in the -field. But 120,000 combatants had rallied to the standards of Prince -Menschikoff. They held not a fortress but a great entrenched camp, -defended by impregnable works on which, says Lord Raglan, plaintively, -in one of his despatches, “an apparently unlimited number of heavy guns, -amply provided with gunners and ammunition, are mounted.” Now, it is a -rule of warfare that the besieging force should be five times as strong -as the besieged. No general with a grain of prudence will attempt to lay -siege to a stronghold unless his force is three times as strong as that -of the garrison, and unless he has an army of observation besides to -protect him from molestation. Before Sebastopol the besiegers were only -half as strong as the besieged, and they had no covering force whatever. -Like the Athenians at Syracuse, the besiegers had become the besieged. -If Lord Raglan did not complete the parallel by sacrificing his army to -an eclipse of the moon, he did his best to emulate that historic -achievement by sacrificing it to the flank march from the Belbeck to -Balaclava.[187] - -In these circumstances the Russians promptly adopted offensive tactics. -Menschikoff ordered Liprandi to march round to the rear of the British -position and attack Balaclava, from which we drew our supplies, and on -the 25th of October the Russians suddenly drove the Turks from the -redoubts that formed one of our chief defences. This gave him the -northern half of the Balaclava valley. The British cavalry were -withdrawn from the southern half westwards behind redoubts, which were -still in our hands, and the road to Balaclava, with all our shipping and -our stores, was clear. Yet not quite clear. Sir Colin Campbell and the -93rd Highlanders were in the way, and his consummate skill and their -stubborn valour saved our base of operations. At a glance Campbell saw -that Liprandi meant to annihilate the Scots, by hurling against them -overwhelming masses of cavalry covered by artillery. To such an onset a -single regiment in square formation could obviously offer no effective -resistance whatever. In an instant Campbell conceived the novel and -daring project of receiving the Russian cavalry in line.[188] Such a - -[Illustration: SIR COLIN CAMPBELL.] - -manœuvre could be possible only where a commander and his troops had -implicit confidence in each other, and where officers and men, instinct -with barbaric strength and courage, went forth to battle under the iron -discipline of civilised warfare. In grim silence the Scots obeyed the -stern, curt orders of their leader, and formed the famous “thin red line -tipped with steel,” on the solidity of which, for a moment, the fate of -the army depended. Their flanks were covered by the Turks who had fled -from the redoubts. A hundred sick men, who crawled from the hospital to -rally round their chief, were formed under Lieutenant-Colonel Daveney as -“supports.” The Russian commander, with great ability, modified his plan -of attack and struck swiftly not only at the centre, but strongly at -Campbell’s right flank, where the Turks were posted. The dense masses of -cavalry first reeled and then broke up when they came within the central -zone of fire, but the Turks fled, leaving the “thin red line” uncovered -on the right. The Russians, feeling that the game was now in their -hands, charged again, confident that they could roll up the line at this -unprotected spot. Campbell was, however, equally alert. When the Turks -ran away he ordered his grenadier company to wheel to the right. It went -swiftly and silently round, with automatic precision, like a door on a -hinge, and met the - -[Illustration: BALACLAVA--“THE THIN RED LINE.” - -(_After the painting by Robert Gibb, R.S.A., in the possession of -Archibald Ramsden, Esq., Leeds._)] - -Russian squadrons with a scorching storm of fire, that sent them flying -in confusion from the field. “During the rest of the day,” said Sir -Colin Campbell, with a touch of grim humour in his despatch, “the troops -under my command received no further molestation from the Russians.” A -still more formidable body of Russian horse, however, had swooped down -on our Heavy Cavalry (Brigadier-General Scarlett). The Scots Greys and -Enniskilling Dragoons sprang forward to meet them, tore through the -first and second lines of the enemy, and, supported by the Dragoon -Guards, broke up their heavy masses in utter rout. At this moment Lord -Raglan ordered Lord Lucan, who was in command of the cavalry, to advance -his Light Brigade and prevent the Russians from carrying away some of -the guns which the Turks had abandoned in the redoubts. When the order -was carried to Lucan by Captain Nolan, Raglan’s aide-de-camp, the -Russians had recovered from their reverses and had completely re-formed -on their own ground. Raglan’s order, therefore, had come to mean that -Lucan was to hurl his slender Light Cavalry Brigade, utterly devoid of -supports, against a great army holding a strong position, flanked and -covered on all sides by murderous artillery. For a moment he hesitated, -appalled by the hideous madness of the order. A taunt from Nolan stung -him to the quick, and he spoke the word that sent Cardigan into the -“valley of death” with the far-famed Six Hundred. - - “Long shall the tale be told, - Yea, when our babes are old”-- - -how they rode onward--through the smoke and fire that belched forth from -the iron throats of the Russian cannon--how they clove their way through -the Russian masses and cut down the gunners at their guns--how they cut -their way back, “stormed at with shot and shell,” a broken remnant of -wounded and dismounted troopers, who had to report that they had failed -to do that which even the demigods of ancient legend would not have been -reckless enough to attempt. Nolan was killed at the very first -onset--whilst riding far in advance cheering on the Brigade.[189] “It -was magnificent, but it was not war” was the comment of the French -General Bosquet, on this horrible sacrifice--a sacrifice so horrible -that, when it was over, even the Russians ceased firing and stood -motionless and awe-stricken, gazing at the sickening scene. They claim -Balaclava as a victory. Certainly they took more than half the field -from us; but on the other hand, thanks to the obstinate tenacity of the -93rd Highlanders, we repelled their attack on our base of operations, -which was, of course, their objective point.[190] - -After this fight the Russians concentrated an overwhelming force and -planned an attack on our position at Inkermann. Its weakest point, in -spite of the warnings of Lieutenant-General Sir De Lacy Evans, had been -left badly protected, and on the 5th of November the Russians surprised -our pickets. Having driven them in they fell on our Second Division, who -had barely time to stand to their arms when they found themselves -struggling with overwhelming masses of the enemy. Pennefather was in -command, for, unfortunately, De Lacy Evans was disabled. Instead of -retiring in order and attempting to ward off the attack by artillery, -Pennefather hurried up little mobs of troops to his outposts, and there -waged a dreadful hand to hand fight against an army ten times as strong -as his own. It was “a soldiers’ battle” that raged through the morning -on these misty heights--a confused _melée_, in which officers lost their -men, and men lost their officers--in which, when ammunition failed, the -English troops fought with bayonets; when these broke or bent, with -stones; and when these failed, with clenched fists. Column after column -of Russians was hurled at our little force--but without avail. No man -could be moved from his position till he was shot or cut down, and the -indomitable courage of the Duke of Cambridge and his Guards--for his -Royal Highness, though he lacked skill and knowledge, never lacked -pluck--held the Russians in check so long, that the French had time to -come to the rescue. Then the enemy beat a retreat. We retook the -positions we had lost, and once again demonstrated that the English -infantry were without a rival in the world. The Russian plans were so -laid, that it was a mathematical certainty our army must be driven into -the sea. Two sons of the Czar had been invited to witness this -catastrophe. And, in spite of the splendid fighting qualities of our -men, the catastrophe must have happened, had it not been for two -blunders which the Russians committed. In the first place, Menschikoff, -who seems to have been even a stupider person than Raglan or Burgoyne, -attacked in massive columns. This so reduced his fighting front that our -weak detachments formed in line decimated them with their fire, and when -our artillery came into action every shot and every shell also told on -them with deadly effect. The Russian sortie from Sebastopol, moreover, -was mismanaged. The commander lost his way in the mist, and instead of -falling on us, he found himself entangled with the French far away on -our left, so that he gave no real aid to the main attack. - -The Russians lost 12,000 men in this battle, the French lost 1,800, and -the British lost 2,600. It was therefore clear that the siege must be -raised, or that the Allies must enter on a winter campaign. Up till now -the troops had suffered very little hardship; but, alas! when winter set -in they were doomed to cruel suffering. A terrific storm on the 14th of -November blew - -[Illustration: VALLEY OF INKERMANN.] - -down their tents and destroyed twenty-one vessels in Balaclava Bay laden -with supplies. It rendered the valley from Balaclava to the camp--a -distance of nine miles--almost impassable. Two-thirds of the transport -horses died, and there was hardly any forage obtainable for the -remainder. Cholera--the germs of which had been carried to the Crimea -from Varna--raged in our lines, and those who escaped it fell victims to -scurvy, dysentery, or fever. “Between the beginning of November,” writes -Mr. Spencer Walpole, “and the end of February, 8,898 British troops -perished in hospital. At the last of these dates 13,608 men were still -in hospital.”[191] The state of the hospitals was so bad that men died -there more quickly than on the field. Part of the ghastly tale of -mismanagement had been told by Mr. W. H. Russell, the special -correspondent of the _Times_, when Parliament met on the 12th of -December, and empowered the Queen to raise a foreign legion and utilise -the Militia for foreign service--measures forced on the Ministry by -Prince Albert. But soon after it separated the cry of distress from the -Crimea grew too loud to be stifled. When it rang through England the -people turned on the Government in furious anger, and called them to -account for their gross mismanagement of the war. The Duke of Newcastle, -being Secretary of State for War, was blamed because he was alleged to -be incompetent. Aberdeen was blamed because it was said he was at heart -a Russian. The scurrilous charges against Prince Albert were revived, -and he was accused of impeding the operations of our army by his -treacherous interference. As a matter of fact, these charges were all -untrue. Prince Albert, Aberdeen, and Newcastle were the three men who -alone had courage to face the situation, when they suddenly discovered -that the military system of England had failed them, and that the -military machine which they inherited from Wellington had broken down. -They had toiled long and wearily to mend it when the distinguished -persons who afterwards attacked them were away enjoying their holidays. -But when Parliament reassembled on the 23rd of January, 1855, the -gathering storm broke on the head of the Government. Mr. Roebuck gave -notice of a motion for the appointment of a committee to inquire into -the mismanagement of the war; Lord John Russell deserted his colleagues -and resigned. The Ministry, who resisted Mr. Roebuck’s motion, were -beaten, on a division, by 305 votes to 148, and the Coalition Government -resigned on the 31st of January, 1855. The army was starving, with -abundance of supplies within its reach, through the sheer stupidity of -those whose duty it was to feed it. Its camp was a hospital, and its -hospitals were pest-houses. The nation was utterly humiliated. As for -the War Party, which was really responsible for the invasion of the -Crimea, it naturally destroyed the Ministry which had stooped to be the -instrument of its braggart passions and its ignorant policy. - -[Illustration: THE STORM OFF BALACLAVA.] - - - - -CHAPTER XXXI. - -PARTY GOVERNMENT AND WAR. - - Stratford de Redcliffe Cooling Down--Tory Distrust of the French - Alliance--The Queen’s Kindness to Lord Aberdeen--The Emperor - Napoleon and Prince Albert--The Prince Visits France--The Queen at - Balmoral--Her Feelings towards the Prince of Prussia--The Queen - holds a Council of War--She Demands Reinforcements for Lord - Raglan--Napoleon’s Alarm--Prince Albert’s Plan for an Army of - Reserve--The Queen on the Austrian Proposals--Her Anxiety about the - Troops--Raglan’s Meagre Despatches--The Queen and Miss - Nightingale--At Work for the Soldiers--Extorting Information from - Lord Raglan--Ministerial Changes--Lord John Russell’s - Selfishness--A Miserly Whig Duke--The Queen’s Disgust at Russell’s - Treachery--Resignation of Russell--Fall of the Coalition--The Queen - and the Crisis--She holds out the Olive Branch to - Palmerston--Palmerston’s Cabinet--Quarrel between Mr. Disraeli and - Lord Derby--The Sebastopol Committee--Mr. Roebuck and Prince - Albert--The Vienna Conference and the Death of Czar Nicholas--The - Austrian Compromise--Parties and the War--Russell’s Humiliation--He - Resigns in Disgrace--The Queen quashes the Peace Negotiations--A - Royal Blunder--The Queen tries to Gag the Peelites--Aberdeen - Browbeaten by the Court--Canrobert’s Resignation--Crimean - Successes--Failure of the Attack on the Redan--Death of Raglan. - - -During the Parliamentary Session of 1854, it was very plainly shown that -Government by Party is not the best kind of Government for carrying on -diplomacy or warfare. The Opposition in the House of Commons, instead of -checking the drift of the Cabinet towards war, seemed ever bent on -hounding them on. They hardly ever gave a vote save for the purpose of -discrediting and weakening the Ministry. It is, therefore, not unfair to -infer that they rejoiced in the prospect of war, because they foresaw -that its hazards and its chances might lead to the destruction of the -Government. The temper of the Tories at this time was admirably -illustrated by Mr. Disraeli. When a motion was brought before the House -of Commons by Mr. Chambers early in February, 1854, to investigate the -claims of an English company at Madeira against Portugal, Lord -Malmesbury writes of the Ministerial defeat as follows: “I fear Disraeli -voted against the Government, as it is his policy to join with anybody -to defeat them.”[192] With such a spirit of faction animating the -Opposition, it was hardly possible for the Ministry to steer a steady -course in the stormy sea of diplomatic intrigue on which it had -embarked. Yet it is but right to say that there were some patriotic -Tories who objected very strongly to the tactics and strategy of their -Party. John Wilson Croker was so firmly opposed to the policy of the -war, and the entangling alliance with the French Emperor,[193] that he -severed his connection with the _Quarterly Review_ on this account. -Croker’s belief was that France was an unsafe ally, that the French had -manufactured the quarrel with Russia and inveigled us into it; that our -Government knowing, from the Secret Memorandum of 1844, what the Czar’s -views were, should have urged Turkey to resist the intimidation of -France at the outset. We should have warned her of the peril she stood -in from Russia, whilst at the same time we warned Russia that, though we -had no objection to induce Turkey to do her justice, we could not -sanction the partition of the Ottoman Empire. This course, says Mr. -Croker, in a remarkable letter to Lord Lyndhurst, “would have placed the -matter on its real grounds--that is, a struggle between France and -Russia, in which we should have been spectators, and eventually -mediators, but not parties, till some pretensions contrary to the -permanent balance of power should be raised by any of the -belligerents.”[194] Lyndhurst himself began towards the end of the year -to doubt whether our alliance with the French was not as dangerous as -Russian pretensions. Very few members of the House of Commons, however, -shared these doubts. The House, in fact, rapidly became unmanageable, -and, as Lord Malmesbury says in his “Memoirs” would support nothing but -the war. Bill after Bill had to be withdrawn by Aberdeen’s Government, -so that its legislative achievements can be briefly recorded. During the -first Session of the year the Oxford University Bill was passed. It -substituted for an incompetent governing oligarchy a Council of eminent -and talented men, and gave the Colleges great powers for -self-improvement. Mercantile laws were consolidated into one Act. Usury -laws were abolished. The principle of allowing traders to form Joint -Stock Companies under limited liability of partnership was affirmed by -the House of Commons, and the old system of granting such undertakings -charters from the Board of Trade, finally condemned. Lord John Russell’s -Reform Bill was one of the measures which were introduced, debated, and -withdrawn. It had produced a second crisis in the Cabinet in early -spring, which was overcome by Lord Aberdeen’s mediation between Lord -John and Lord Palmerston. This episode seriously disturbed the Queen’s -peace of mind, and in one of her letters she expresses her deep -gratitude to the Prime Minister for his devotion to her. Nothing, -indeed, is more touching than the references to the aged statesman with -which the Queen’s letters are filled at this period. She is found -frequently devising plans for the purpose of lightening the burden of -care that was crushing his spirits. On the 1st of May, Prince Arthur’s -birthday, she writes as follows:--“Though the Queen cannot send Lord -Aberdeen a card for a child’s ball, perhaps he may not disdain coming -for a short time to see a number of happy little people, including some -of his grandchildren, enjoying themselves.” In September, again, she -writes to him from Balmoral, peremptorily insisting on his leaving -London and proceeding to Scotland at once to recruit his health. At -Haddo, she says, he will be near her, and, she adds, “Lord Aberdeen -knows that his health is not his own alone, but that - -[Illustration: MR. ROEBUCK (1858).] - -she (the Queen) and the country have as much interest in it as he and -his own family.”[195] In midsummer she gave him her best support and -sympathy when the Peelites and the Whigs almost openly quarrelled, and -attacks on the Prime Minister were freely indulged in by his own -supporters. “Aberdeen,” writes Prince Albert in July to Stockmar, “is a -standing reproach in their eyes, because he cannot share the enthusiasm -while it is his part to lead it. Nevertheless he does his duty and keeps -the whole thing together, and is the only guarantee that the war will -not degenerate into crack-brained, fruitless absurdities”--such as the -re-organisation of Poland, the seizure of Finland, a mad project of -certain Tories like Lyndhurst, and the annexation of the Crimea. Before -Parliament met in January, 1855, the Queen was indeed so keenly sensible -of the injustice of the attacks on Lord Aberdeen, that she insisted on -his accepting the Order of the Garter as a public testimony of her -confidence in his administration, and of “her personal feelings of -regard and friendship” for himself. The end of the London season, when -the Court came to the capital to prorogue Parliament, was gloomy. -Cholera was spreading fast through the town, and even the world of -fashion had to offer up its tale of victims.[196] The Queen was -therefore fain to hurry back to Osborne as quickly as possible; and, on -the 29th of August, she writes to the King of the Belgians that she is -reconciling herself to the prospect of a long parting from her husband, -who was about to visit Napoleon III. - -[Illustration: BUCKINGHAM PALACE, FROM ST. JAMES’S PARK.] - -Prince Albert’s visit to France was planned by the Emperor Napoleon for -the purpose of raising his status in the eyes of his people, whose -cultured and aristocratic classes looked askance at his upstart court -and his mushroom nobility. First of all, he sounded Lord Cowley on the -subject. The Queen thought that such a visit might render the French -alliance more trustworthy than she was disposed to consider it, and the -Prince soon let Lord Cowley know he would visit France whenever he was -invited. Napoleon III. accordingly, on the 3rd of July, asked the Prince -to come and inspect the summer camp of 100,000 troops which was to be -formed between St. Omer and Boulogne, and the Prince promised to go. He -sailed from Osborne on the 3rd of September, carrying an autograph -letter from the Queen to the Emperor, who met his guest on the quay at -Boulogne on the 4th. On the 8th he returned to Osborne, on the whole -well pleased with his visit. - -The 15th of September found the Court at Balmoral; indeed, it was there -that the Queen received most of the stirring news that made English -hearts beat fast during these anxious months when the Crimean struggle -was begun. She was greatly cheered by the successful landing of the -troops near Eupatoria, and her pride when the tidings of the victory of -the Alma arrived, is frankly and ingenuously expressed in her -correspondence. - -On the 11th of October the Court returned to Windsor, the Queen visiting -Edinburgh, Hull, and Grimsby on the way. It was at Edinburgh that she -first heard of the abandonment of the attack on the northern front of -Sebastopol, and of Raglan’s foolish “flank march” to the south side of -the town. Prussian diplomacy had at this time again irritated both the -Queen and her husband, for when Austria was once more pressed to take -the field with us, Prussia held her back by threatening to withdraw from -the offensive and defensive alliance which had been signed between the -two countries. Prince Albert remonstrated with the Crown -Prince--afterwards Emperor of Germany--but in vain. The conduct of -Prussia was especially provoking to the Queen, because she even then saw -certain signs which indicated that the son of the Crown Prince would -probably be soon a successful suitor for her eldest daughter’s hand. Her -Majesty next induced her uncle, King Leopold, to remonstrate with the -King of Prussia. Prussia was warned that France would seize the left -bank of the Rhine, and that England would abet her. Herr Von Bismarck, -who made it his business to thwart King Leopold’s schemes, met this -threat by pointing out that whoever held the Rhine was master of -Belgium--a trifling circumstance which the Queen and Prince Albert seem -to have overlooked, when they persuaded King Leopold to press Prussia -into the service of the Allies. - -When October brought the first hints of bad news from the Crimea, the -heart of the Queen grew heavy with anxiety. She now knew, by advices -from Raglan, that he had not enough troops for the task that was imposed -on him. The country was growing restive over the sluggishness of the -attack. The Queen and Prince Albert therefore implored Lord Aberdeen to -consider how reinforcements were to be sent out. On the 11th of November -her Majesty asked the Prime Minister to visit her at Windsor, and, with -the Duke of Newcastle, talk over a project of the Prince’s for raising -the Militia by ballot and sending them abroad, and for organising a -legion of foreign mercenaries. The Queen desired this step to be taken -at once, assuring her Ministers that they would have no difficulty in -getting a Bill of Indemnity from Parliament; but her suggestion was -overruled. And yet at this time Raglan was begging the Secretary for -War to send out 10,000 troops without delay! Meanwhile Napoleon III. was -alarmed to find that the English army was vanishing before Canrobert’s -eyes. Hence he offered to send out every French soldier he could muster, -if England would only find the transports. Sir James Graham found them, -and they carried, not only French troops to the Crimea, but all the -lavish stores of food and comforts which never reached those for whom -they were supplied. The terrible loss of life at Inkermann again -prompted the Queen to press on the Duke of Newcastle the necessity for -reinforcing our shattered army. Prince Albert was equally urgent in his -importunity, and on the 1st of December he was successful in persuading -the Cabinet to adopt his plan for forming an Army of Reserve at Malta. - -Meantime, diplomacy was again appealed to for the purpose of ending the -war. “If Austria did her duty,” writes the Queen when as yet the tidings -of carnage were fresh in her mind, “she might have prevented much of -this bloodshed. Instead of this, her Generals do nothing but juggle the -Turks of the Principalities, and the Government shuffles about, making -advances and then retreating. We shall see now if she is sincere in her -last propositions.”[197] These were that certain demands should be made -by her on Russia. If Russia rejected them, then Austria would be willing -to join us in the war. But, on the other hand, if Russia accepted the -Austrian proposals, England and France must agree to make peace. What -then, asked Austria, were the terms which France and England would -insist on having? Prince Albert was asked by Lord Clarendon to suggest -an answer. The Prince replied very sensibly that he should not ask for -anything beyond the “Four Points” on which Austria was prepared to -insist, though it might be well, he said, to define their somewhat -elastic terms. These points were the substitution of a European for a -Russian Protectorate over the Principalities; the freedom of navigation -on the Danube; the revision of the Treaty of 1841 so as to destroy the -preponderance of Russia in the Black Sea; a guarantee from the Sultan to -the Great Powers confirming the liberties and privileges of his -Christian subjects, instead of a guarantee from the Sultan to Russia -alone. The Queen greatly approved of the Ministerial Despatch which was -drawn up on the lines of Prince Albert’s advice, and in a letter to Lord -Clarendon she gave him sound reasons for her belief that Austria was -acting honestly in the transaction, and not, as Lord Clarendon -suspected, seeking to evade her moral responsibilities. - -But it was the condition of the army itself during the winter of 1854 in -the Crimea, rather than the diplomacy of the struggle that disturbed -most grievously the mind of the Queen. Official Despatches, especially -those of Lord Raglan, were culpably silent on the subject. Private -letters, however, from officers and men, teemed with complaints, and -officers in the Guards kept the Court well informed about the actual -state of things. Early in October, the _Times_ newspaper generously -opened a subscription for the benefit of the army, and sent Mr. -Macdonald to the Crimea to administer it. The services which this -gentleman rendered to the troops will never be forgotten. He seemed to -make his pence go as far as other men’s pounds, and to his skilful -administration may be traced many most important reforms which were -adopted by the Government in their methods of issuing rations to the -army. The Queen was now of opinion that the time had come for appealing -to the generosity of the people on behalf of the sufferers from the war. -On the 13th of October a Royal Commission was issued, headed by Prince -Albert, to establish the Patriotic Fund for the relief of the families -of those who had perished in the Crimea. A staff of hospital nurses was -organised under Miss Florence Nightingale--a lady whose good deeds and -kindly offices to the sick and wounded at Scutari have given her -imperishable fame. On the 5th of November she reached the scene of her -labours--as the wounded men were being brought in from Balaclava--and -the hospital which had been a foul and disorderly pest-house, was soon -rendered a wholesome and serviceable sanatorium. It was Mr. Sidney -Herbert who requested Miss Nightingale to undertake this work, and he -was bitterly condemned at the time for sanctioning such an innovation as -the introduction of a volunteer staff of thirty-seven lady nurses into a -military hospital.[198] Nor was the Queen contented merely to help all -these good works by her counsel, sympathy, and support. With her own -hands she, her daughters, and the ladies of her Household knitted -woollen comforters, socks, and mittens, and plied their needles as -busily as the most toilworn seamstresses in the East-end, making -under-clothing for the soldiers. Their example was quickly followed by -every lady of leisure in the three kingdoms. Prince Albert sent fur -coats to his brother officers in the Guards, and bountiful supplies of -tobacco for the men. He devised a series of forms in order to extract, -or rather extort, full information from Lord Raglan and his subordinates -as to the condition of the troops, and it was not till his system of -tabulated returns was adopted that the Government had the data necessary -for devising measures of relief for the miseries of the army. On the -first day of the year 1855, the Queen, in sending her congratulations to -Lord Raglan, speaks in touching language of the grief which a long -stream of Crimean reports have caused her. She urges vehemently that -every effort be made to save her troops from privation. She even goes -into particulars, and speaks sharply about the blunder which led to -green coffee beans instead of ground coffee being served out--a blunder -that was one of the notorious scandals of the time.[199] - -[Illustration: MISS NIGHTINGALE AND THE NURSES IN THE BARRACKS HOSPITAL -AT SCUTARI.] - -One curious change in the organisation of the Ministry took place in -1854, which, however, does not seem to have greatly concerned the Court. -The Secretaryship of State for War had hitherto been an appendage of the -Colonial Office. It was now made a separate Secretaryship, and, in an -unfortunate moment for himself, the Duke of Newcastle elected to take -the appointment, letting Sir George Grey become Secretary of State for -the Colonies. Mr. Sidney Herbert remained as “Secretary _at_ War”--a -Parliamentary secretary representing the War Office in the House of -Commons,[200] Lord John Russell becoming President of the Council.[201] -Lord John, however, who seems to have been the fly in the ointment pot -of the Coalition, soon began to find fault with the readjustment of -offices. In November he told Lord Aberdeen that the War Office ought to -be put in stronger hands than those of the Duke of Newcastle. This -suggestion, described afterwards by Mr. Disraeli as “a profligate -intrigue” worthy of the “Memoirs” of Bubb Doddington, gave offence to -the Queen. It seemed to her a treacherous attempt to disintegrate the -Cabinet, and she did not conceal her sympathy with the statesman thus -attacked. The Duke, however, generously offered to sacrifice himself so -that Lord John Russell might not have a pretext for embarrassing the -Crown by breaking up the Government at a critical moment; but the -Cabinet would not permit the Duke to be sacrificed. Even Palmerston, to -do him justice, repudiated the idea, and so Lord John again threatened -to resign. Aberdeen met this threat by persuading the Queen to overcome -her personal aversion to Palmerston, and obtaining her leave to appoint -him Leader of the House of Commons, in the event of Lord John Russell -deserting his post. - -Lord John, now finding that he had made a mistake, succumbed on the 16th -of December; and so the scandal was hushed up. The Queen, however, felt -ill at ease, for, by this time, she knew that the Ministry had no -stability, and that Lord John would soon again give his colleagues more -serious trouble. But he remained in the Cabinet fully cognisant of -everything that was done by the War Department, and never expressing the -least disapproval of its management till Parliament met in January, -1855. Then, when Mr. Roebuck gave notice of his motion for inquiring -into the conduct of the war, Lord John, without the slightest warning, -resigned, saying that as he agreed with Mr. Roebuck he did not see how -the motion could be resisted. The Duke of Newcastle again offered to -retire in favour of Lord Palmerston, if haply Lord John Russell could be -thereby induced to withdraw his resignation. But again, his colleagues -refused to sacrifice him, and so they all offered to resign. This was a -cruel blow to the Queen. She protested that there was no precedent for a -Ministry resigning in the midst of a war till they were dismissed. She -implored Lord Aberdeen not to desert her at a moment when the very worst -possible effect would be produced by the spectacle of the nation -struggling through war without a Government. The Cabinet accordingly -determined to face Mr. Roebuck’s motion; but when he carried it against -them, as has already been recorded, they were compelled to retire from -office. Then the Queen had to meet one of the most perplexing and -anxious Ministerial crises of her reign. Lord Derby was appealed to. But -he found he could only obtain “independent support” from Lord -Palmerston, Mr. Sidney Herbert, Mr. Gladstone, and Lord Aberdeen’s -friends--which, he observed cynically, was “support which could never be -depended on.” He did not seem to have much faith in his own colleagues, -and he consequently declined to form a Ministry. But he sympathised with -the Queen in her vexation at the turn which events had taken--quoting to -her a remark of Walewski’s--“What influence can a country like England -pretend to have without an army and without a Government?” Lord -Lansdowne was next consulted. He was willing to form a Cabinet, but then -he was old and broken in health. He could not possibly serve for more -than a few months, and obviously his enforced retirement would again -cast everything into confusion. Lord John Russell, of course, had long -been under the hallucination that he could form an Administration -without the aid of the Peelites. His cantankerous treachery to his -colleagues, and his unscrupulous pertinacity in disintegrating the -Coalition Cabinet in circumstances most damaging to the country, -rendered him objectionable to the Queen. But still acting on Lansdowne’s -advice, she determined to let him try, so that the mortification of -failure might perchance dispel his delusion that he had still a name to -conjure with as a Party leader. He tried, and, of course, failed -ignominiously. No man trusted him or cared to serve under or with him. -The Queen, however, in her letter to Lord John, very shrewdly and -gracefully held out the olive branch to Palmerston by saying that it -would give her great pleasure if he would join the new Government. -Palmerston, feeling that the crisis was one which also called for -sacrifices on his part, offered to serve even under Lord John as -Secretary for War, if he could thereby extricate the Crown from its -difficulties. But he deemed it imperative that Lord Clarendon should -join the Ministry, and this Lord Clarendon stoutly refused to do. His -colleagues, he said, had all been loyal to him, and he would not serve -under a man who, from the time he entered the late Ministry, had -persistently embarrassed it, and intrigued for its destruction. Lord -John found that he had attempted the impossible, and on the 4th of -February the country was still without a Government, to the infinite -damage - -[Illustration: HENRY VIII.’S GATEWAY, WINDSOR CASTLE.] - -of its prestige in the eyes of foreign nations. The Czar rejoiced grimly -at our embarrassments. The French Emperor began to doubt whether a -stable alliance could be formed with a nation whose organic institutions -were so unstable. The Queen accordingly put an end to Russell’s -intrigues, which had wrought all this mischief, in a very summary -manner. Lord Palmerston’s public-spirited behaviour in the crisis had -obliterated all recollection of his faults in the past. Her Majesty -therefore called on Palmerston to organise a Government. The Whigs who -had served in the Coalition Cabinet agreed to serve under him. The -Peelites would have done so, but they declined because of their deep -personal regard for Aberdeen and Newcastle, who, they declared, had -been most unjustly and spitefully attacked by the majority that had -destroyed the Coalition Government.[202] Aberdeen and Newcastle, -however, remonstrated with them, and the result was that Mr. Gladstone, -Mr. Sidney Herbert, and the Duke of Argyle consented to take office -under Palmerston. When Lord Palmerston informed the Queen of this fact -she felt that for a time her troubles were over, that again she was -indebted to the disinterested devotion of Lord Aberdeen for a happy -release from her difficulties. Palmerston himself also expressed his -gratitude to Aberdeen in strong and cordial terms.[203] - -[Illustration: REFRESHMENT ROOM, HOUSE OF LORDS.] - -The new Cabinet was really the old one. Only Russell, Aberdeen, and -Newcastle were out of it, and Lord Panmure--a blustering person who was -clever enough to make the world believe that to be noisy was to be -energetic--was Secretary of State for War. This seemed rather to -disconcert the factious place-hunters. “The Whigs at Brooks’s,” wrote -Lady Palmerston to her son-in-law,[204] “were all up in arms at the -Government not being formed on more Liberal principles, or rather with -more of the Whig Party. They are disappointed at the Peelites joining, -and at under people of that party keeping their places, so that, in a -manner, there are hardly any places to fill up. They press, therefore, -very much for a Whig in the Duchy of Lancaster, so as to make the -Peelite division in a greater minority.” But the anger of the Tories -could scarcely be kept within bounds. They argued that, as Aberdeen and -Newcastle had not been evicted from office till after they had pretty -nearly succeeded in setting the War Department in order, their -successors would not only have a comparatively easy task, but would also -win all the glory and prestige of finishing a victorious war. Lord Derby -had missed a golden opportunity by refusing to form a Ministry; nay, he -had done something that was still more damaging to them. In his -explanation to the House of Lords he admitted that he could not govern -without the aid of the Peelites. This implied that, having tried his -colleagues in the work of administration, he had so little confidence in -their capacity, that he did not dare to trust to them alone. “Disraeli,” -writes Lord Malmesbury, “is in a state of disgust beyond all control. He -told me he had spoken his mind to Lord Derby, and told him some very -disagreeable truths.”[205] No sooner had the new Cabinet been formed -than it was seen that another effort would be made to break it up. What -was to be done with Mr. Roebuck’s Committee of Investigation? It was -somewhat unconstitutional to vest it with the functions of the -Executive, and Palmerston, on the 16th of February, appealed to the -House not to appoint the Committee, or at least to suspend its judgment -till the new Ministry had time to reform the War Department. Mr. Roebuck -denied that the Ministry was really a new one, and insisted on the -appointment of the Committee. The Peelites objected to the Committee as -a dangerous and unconstitutional precedent. Palmerston agreed with them, -but, like the majority of the Cabinet, he felt that to resist was to -court another defeat in the House of Commons; and so he decided to -yield. Sir James Graham, Mr. Sidney Herbert, and Mr. Gladstone -accordingly tendered their resignations, and in a fortnight after it was -formed the new Ministry was wrecked. On the 28th Sir George Cornewall -Lewis took Mr. Gladstone’s place as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord -John Russell re-entered the Cabinet as Colonial Secretary, and Sir C. -Wood succeeded Sir J. Graham as First Lord of the Admiralty. “Things -have gone mad here, the political world is quite crazy, and the Court is -the only institution which does not lose its tranquil bearing”--thus -wrote Prince Albert to the Dowager-Duchess of Coburg in the midst of the -agitation caused by the second Ministerial crisis of 1855. - -Meantime much had been done by Lord Aberdeen, the Duke of Newcastle, and -Prince Albert, to improve the condition of the army at the seat of war. -The railway from Balaclava to the camp was being pushed on rapidly; -reinforcements were pouring in steadily. On the 13th of March Sir J. -Burgoyne writes that “the men are beginning to look tolerably hearty and -cheerful again.” A Sanitary Commission, organised by Lord Shaftesbury, -had been despatched to aid the medical staff, and there was little for -the new Ministers to do but to follow the path which Aberdeen and -Newcastle had, by their toil and self-sacrifice during the recess, -smoothed for them. The Queen, like the Peelites, was of opinion that the -Roebuck Commission could do very little good, and, by diverting the -attention of the officials from the work in hand, might do a great deal -of harm. It was the expression of an angry desire to punish somebody, -and, as Prince Albert said, it could not hope to find the right person, -“because he does not exist.”[206] If any one was to blame, it was the -Duke of Wellington, who had left the country with a loose aggregate of -battalions which was in no true sense an organised army--without leaders -trained and practised in the duties of general officers; without a -reserve, a general staff, field commissariat, ambulance, or baggage -corps; without training in the combined use of infantry, cavalry, and -artillery, with their various systems of supply and transport; in fact, -without any effective instrument whatever for waging war at a distance -from England. In vain did the Committee endeavour to fix the blame for -the disasters in the Crimea on somebody. Mr. Roebuck soon found that an -examination of the Duke of Newcastle would rather tend to clear than to -damage his reputation, and then the inevitable scapegoat was sought in -the Queen’s husband. When Mr. Roebuck consulted the Duke privately on -the subject, his Grace told him that the only really valuable advice he -and Lord Aberdeen got was from Prince Albert. He added that the Queen’s -health had suffered dreadfully from her anxiety about the troops, and -that it was therefore absurd to imagine that the Prince had been -conspiring to wreck the expedition. The Sebastopol Committee was a -failure. It did not succeed in saddling any one with a definite -responsibility for the sufferings of the army; nay, the Chairman (Mr. -Roebuck), in speaking to a resolution censuring the Aberdeen Ministry -for their management of the war, freed the Duke of Newcastle, Mr. Sidney -Herbert, and Sir J. Graham, the heads of the incriminated Departments, -from blame.[207] The only severe censure was that passed on Lord Raglan -for continuing Mr. Ward as purveyor for the hospital at Scutari after he -had been pronounced unfit for his post. - -[Illustration: MR. SIDNEY HERBERT (AFTERWARDS LORD HERBERT OF LEA).] - -It had been agreed, partly on the advice of the Queen, to enter a new -Conference at Vienna for the purpose of patching up a peace. To get rid -of Lord John Russell, he was sent there by Lord Palmerston as the -representative of England; and it was whilst he was on his way that he -was offered and accepted the Colonial Secretaryship, vacated by the -resignation of Mr. Sidney Herbert.[208] The basis of the Conference was -the protocol containing the “Four Points” which had been accepted in -principle by Russia on the 16th of - -[Illustration: THE WINTER PALACE, ST. PETERSBURG.] - -November, 1854, though Nesselrode in his despatch of 26th August to -Prince Gortschakoff, the Russian Ambassador at Vienna, had rejected -them. On the 2nd of March, the chief figure in the tragic drama of the -war passed suddenly from the scene. The failure of his plans in the -Crimea had broken the imperious spirit and proud heart of the Czar, and -he died with words of thanks to his army on his lips. “Tell my dear -Fritz” (the King of Prussia), he said to the Czarina with his last -breath, “to continue the friend of Russia, and faithful to the last -words of papa”--faithful, that is, to the principles of the Holy -Alliance. The old monarchies and the old conservatism of Europe thus -lost their most powerful champion, and a seventh part of the globe found -a new master. The Emperor Nicholas was succeeded by his son, Alexander -II., who immediately proclaimed his intention of following out loyally -the policy which his father had inherited with his crown. On the 10th of -March, Nesselrode intimated to the Russian Agents abroad that the young -Czar would enter the Vienna Conference “in a sincere spirit of concord.” -And as it was only possible to secure the neutrality of Austria by -keeping alive negotiations for peace, Russia had a powerful motive for -continuing them. But at the meetings of the Conference Prince -Gortschakoff refused to accept the plan for giving effect to the Third -Point. It proposed to destroy Russian preponderance in the Black Sea, by -binding her and Turkey never to have there more than “four ships, four -frigates, with a proportionate number of light vessels and of unarmoured -vessels exclusively adapted to the transport of troops.” Russia, as an -alternative, suggested that ships of war of all nations might have free -access through the Dardanelles or Bosphorus to the Black Sea, or, if it -were preferred, that the Sultan might admit the vessels of the Western -Powers, or of Russia, in such numbers as he pleased. This would, of -course, enable the Western Powers to check Russian preponderance. But it -would also involve the right of Russia to send ships to the -Mediterranean. To that the Western Powers would not consent, and so the -Conference was at an end. At this stage Count Buol suggested a -compromise. Why not, he asked, solve the difficulty by applying the -principle of counterpoise? One way of doing that obviously would be to -establish an actual equilibrium between the Black Sea fleets of Turkey -and Russia--the Sultan having the right to open the straits to the ships -of his allies if threatened with attack. M. de Drouyn Lhuys and Lord -John Russell did not consider that their instructions permitted them to -accept this compromise. But they both privately expressed their personal -approval of it, and promised to urge the Governments of France and -England to assent to it. The French Emperor and the British Cabinet -rejected it. M. Drouyn de Lhuys accordingly resigned office--whereas -Lord John Russell remained in the Cabinet. But he had the amazing -indiscretion after this to advocate the prosecution of the war in an -extravagant speech,[209] whereupon the Austrian Government revealed the -fact that at Vienna he had said peace might be honourably made on the -basis of Count Buol’s compromise. No English Minister in our time has -ever placed himself in a more humiliating position. Not a word could be -said in his defence. All he himself could say was that he was afraid he -might embarrass his colleagues if he retired, or if he let it be known -that he thought they were carrying on war, when peace might honourably -be concluded. The outcry against his dishonesty was so loud, that he -resigned as soon as Sir E. B. Lytton gave notice of a motion in the -House of Commons condemning his conduct. - -The failure of the Conference gave rise to heated debates in Parliament, -in which the Government was attacked by a curious combination of -Parties. The House of Lords with singular want of patriotism and dignity -encouraged Lyndhurst to vilipend Prussia and sneer at Austria, at the -very moment when it was vital to our diplomatic success to conciliate -these Powers. His violent speeches prove that, despite his eloquence, he -lacked the one quality necessary to justify his interference in any -debate on Foreign Affairs. He was utterly incapable of appreciating the -difference between the interests of England and France, and those of -Austria in the negotiations--the difference between the interests and -the prepossessions of actual and contingent belligerents. But all this -criticism of the Conference, even from the point of view taken by -rhetorical mischief-makers like Lyndhurst, failed to lay bare the one -blunder in strategy which the Plenipotentiaries had perpetrated.[210] -The House of Commons, it must be allowed, came out of the debates more -creditably than had been expected. The Tories, led by Mr. Disraeli, -seemed to keep their heads cool, and scrupulously refrained from -clamouring for war because Russia had rejected the Third Point. They -refused to support the Radicals, who were for moving an Address to the -Crown virtually binding the Government to accept the Austrian proposals. -But they condemned the Ministers for the ambiguity of their policy in -reference to these proposals, and brought forward a motion assuring the -Crown that the House would support the Executive to the utmost in -prosecuting war till peace was obtained. The combative Whigs would have -committed Parliament to a declaration that the reduction of the naval -power of Russia in the Black Sea, was the essential condition of peace. -In the end, a motion, which was the Tory proposal with the implied -censure on the Ministry cut out, was carried. But all through the -debate, Peelites, Tories, and Radicals condemned the suggestion to limit -the naval power of Russia by Treaty. And they were right, for, as Mr. -Gladstone is reported to have said in conversation, it was a proposal -“to slap Russia on the face without tying her hands.” It was, in fact, -an attempt to inflict on Russia a perpetual indignity without reducing -her real power, which was not naval but military. Mr. Disraeli and Lord -Robert Cecil--afterwards Lord Salisbury--considered it an impolitic -scheme for the humiliation of Russia, and the ablest debaters pointed -out that it was one which Russia would ever be tempted to violate, -whilst the Powers had now no check on her save that of chronic war. Yet -it was for the sake of forcing this indignity on Russia, who had now -yielded every demand we made when we invaded the Crimea, that the war -was prolonged! From this moment, it is not too much to say, that the war -was no longer a hateful but an unavoidable incident of State policy. It -was the consummation of a hideous crime against humanity, for which Lord -Palmerston and his colleagues were directly responsible.[211] - -[Illustration: GRAND RECEPTION ROOM, WINDSOR CASTLE] - -When Lord John Russell excused himself for first recommending the -Austrian compromise, and then backing out of his opinion and advocating -war, he said mysteriously that something had come to his knowledge which -altered his views. It was suggested at the time by Mr. Disraeli that -Lord John was overawed by the objections of the Emperor of the French to -the compromise. Even had that been the case, it would not have justified -him in remaining in the Cabinet, seeing that the Emperor’s Minister, who -was in - -[Illustration: THE HUNDRED STEPS, WINDSOR CASTLE.] - -like case, had resigned rather than hold himself responsible for an -indefensible war. It is, however, possible to account for Lord John’s -conduct more easily by attributing it to sycophancy than to treachery, -for it is a regrettable fact that when the Austrian project was laid -before the Queen by Lord Clarendon, she used all her influence to quash -it. She wrote to him a curt note saying:--“How Lord John Russell and M. -Drouyn can recommend such proposals to our acceptance is beyond her (the -Queen’s) comprehension.” Then she encloses a brief memorandum from -Prince Albert, in which he says:--“To limit the Russian naval power to -that existing in 1853 would therefore be simply to perpetuate and -legalise the preponderance of Russia in the Black Sea, a proposal which -can neither be made nor accepted as a development of the Third -Point.”[212] It is unfortunate that such clear thinkers as the Queen and -her husband did not observe that what Austria fixed was merely the -maximum and not the minimum limit, that by mutual agreement Russia and -Turkey might cut down their ships from six to one if they chose, and -that even the maximum could be always counterbalanced by Turkey. Yet -Prince Albert would insist that a proposal which automatically -established an equilibrium was one to perpetuate a preponderance! It is -only fair to the memory of the late Emperor of the French to say that, -according to Sir Theodore Martin’s admissions, the first strong and -contemptuous rejection of the Austrian compromise came from the Queen; -that when Napoleon III. first considered the matter he hesitated before -endorsing the views which Palmerston and his colleagues meekly accepted -from the Court. What renders the policy of the Court--or rather of Baron -Stockmar, who inspired it--at this stage unintelligible is, that a month -afterwards it actually pressed upon the Cabinet a proposal for -organising a great League of the Powers to defend Turkey diplomatically -against Russia. This proposal was made on the ground that it was -impossible to inflict on Russia such losses as would force her to submit -to humiliating terms.[213] - -Nor was this the only instance which can be adduced of mistaken -interference on the part of the Court. When Palmerston succeeded in -forming his Government, he pledged himself to follow out the foreign -policy of Lord Aberdeen. Aberdeen’s friends had publicly declared that -the terms which we sought to impose on Russia were needlessly -humiliating, and that in the Austrian compromise there was an ample -basis for a fair settlement, and a good reason for continuing -negotiations at Vienna. It was a matter of notoriety that Aberdeen -himself shared these views, and there were many who complained -querulously that if they had not destroyed his Ministry, the Vienna -Conference would not have been abortive. In these circumstances Prince -Albert, knowing Aberdeen’s devotion to the Queen, wrote to him -complaining especially about Mr. Gladstone’s speech on Mr. Disraeli’s -motion of the 24th of May. For the rejection of that motion had not -ended the controversy. Sir F. Baring’s amendment, which was finally -carried, was coming up for discussion on the 4th of June, and the Court -evidently did not desire a repetition of speeches containing -unanswerable arguments against abandoning negotiations for peace.[214] -Aberdeen, in fact, is summoned in this letter to the Palace to be -lectured. He is warned that the conduct of his party has displeased the -Queen, and he is warned in a tone only to be justified by the close -relations of personal friendship, which bound him to the Court, and the -Court to him. - -The Queen and Prince Albert, however, utterly failed to gag the Peelites -in the debate, or browbeat them into approving of the continuance of a -bloody and wasteful war, when an honourable peace could be obtained by -patient diplomacy. To his honour it must be stated that Sir James -Graham,[215] Lord Aberdeen’s representative in the House of Commons, -delivered a speech which was even much more damaging and convincing than -Mr. Gladstone’s. Nobody attempted to answer it except Mr. Roebuck. His -tirade of invective sprang from a delusion that Graham was willing to be -satisfied with paltry concessions as the result of a great war. As he -afterwards confessed, he was completely misled by the ferocity with -which Lord John Russell in this debate condemned as worthless the very -settlement which he had vainly urged his colleagues to accept as -satisfactory. In truth, there is some reason to suspect that the -harassing toil of winter, the prolonged and exhausting anxieties of a -sad and pitiless war, had temporarily blunted Prince Albert’s keen -perceptions. Had this not been the case he would hardly have delivered -at the Trinity House banquet in June, the famous speech in which he said -that “Constitutional Government is under a heavy trial”--as if the -failure of obsolete leaders in the field, or the stupid bigotries and -moral cowardice of place-hunters in council, proved that Constitutional -Government was a dubious experiment. At a moment when the Queen’s -personal interference with the Foreign Policy of her Government, usually -so wise, prudent, and beneficial, had led to bad results, it was -maladroit on the part of Prince Albert to gird at Constitutional -Government. Very little reflection should have served to show the Court -that it was only under the Muscovite autocracy that blunders in war and -statecraft, _more_ ghastly even than our own, could possibly be -perpetrated. - -When the Conference at Vienna closed, Austria, as might have been -foreseen, refused to join England in carrying on the war. On the other -hand, the King of Sardinia had, on 26th January, entered into a military -convention with the Allies, and, in return for their guarantee of his -territory, engaged to send an army of 15,000 men to the Crimea. - -The war in 1855 was carried on under more favourable conditions than in -the previous year. Reinforcements were sent out quickly. The -commissariat, sanitary, and transport services were put into effective -working order. On the 17th of February, the Turks under Omar Pasha -gallantly repelled a Russian attack on Eupatoria--a feat which revived -the drooping spirits of the Allies, and restored confidence in the -fighting power of the Osmanli. The news of this defeat was peculiarly -humiliating to the Czar, whose contempt for the Turk was unbounded, and -his bitter vexation at being beaten by a despised enemy, perhaps had -some effect in undermining the vitality of his iron constitution. The -bombardment of Sebastopol began again in April--but, though the allied -trenches were pushed closer and closer to the fortress, no serious -impression was made on it. The English troops were eager for action, but -Canrobert’s weakness and irresolution held Lord Raglan back.[216] - -On the 19th of May Canrobert resigned in favour of Pélissier--a soldier -with a name stained by barbarous atrocities in Africa, but still a man -of energy and determination. In a moment of happy inspiration it was -determined to intercept the supplies which the enemy was drawing from -his Circassian provinces; and on the 22nd of May an expedition of 3,800 -English, 7,500 French, and 5,000 Turks, under Sir George Brown and -General d’Autemarre, left for Cape Takli at the south-west extremity of -the Straits of Kertch. It arrived there on the 24th. The Russians -evacuated Kertch on the 25th, destroying before they left vast -quantities of food and forage. The troops penetrated as far as Yenikale, -and Captain Lyons, with his little fleet of steamers, advancing up the -Sea of Azov, destroyed not only many ships but a large amount of stores. -This expedition was cleverly planned, and it destroyed supplies -sufficient for an army of 100,000 men for four months. It returned on -the 12th of June. Writing to Stockmar on the 17th of June Prince Albert -says, “At the seat of war everything is going on well.... Pélissier is a -_trouvaille_, energetic, and determined. Oddly enough, they are in Paris -(I mean Louis Napoleon is) very much dissatisfied since our successes, -‘low’ about our prospects, anxious, &c. I am at a loss to know why.” The -fact is, that the war was more unpopular in France than ever, since the -rejection of the Austrian compromise at Vienna, and the Emperor’s -proposal to go out to the Crimea, and command in person alarmed Persigny -and the Bonapartists as to the safety of the Imperial _régime_. Failure -meant ruin, and failure was on the cards.[217] Yet, on the 7th of June, -the Allies had met with a brilliant success. The French stormed the -Mamelon, and the English the Gravel Pits--an outwork in front of the -Redan. But the two formidable works--the Malakoff and Redan--were yet to -be taken, and in an evil moment Lord Raglan was persuaded by Pélissier -to sanction a combined attack on these strong-holds. The ablest -practical soldiers in the British camp declared that the Redan could not -be taken by direct assault, though it must fall if the Malakoff were -captured. Raglan was of that opinion himself. But he yielded to his -French colleague, and the result of the combined attack on both places -was a painful failure. French and English were alike repulsed, and the -loss of life which this blunder caused was sickening to contemplate. -“Cries of ‘Murder!’” writes Mr. Russell, the _Times_ correspondent, -“from the lips of expiring officers have been echoed through the camp, -but they have now died away in silence, or in the noise of active -argument and discussion.”[218] Heartbroken by this defeat, Lord Raglan -took to his bed and died on the 28th of June. - -[Illustration: VIEW IN THE CRIMEA: THE PALACE WORONZOW, ALUPKA.] - -The shock of Raglan’s death silenced at the time all just criticism on -his career. The most that can be said for him is said by Lord Malmesbury -in his “Memoirs of an Ex-Minister.” “I knew him well,” he writes, “and -cannot recollect a finer character. He was the Duke’s right-hand man -through the Peninsular war, and was greatly esteemed by him. Handsome -and high-bred in person, and charming in society, he was one of the most -popular of its members. He was remarkable for his coolness under fire, -and St. Arnaud, in his famous despatch after the battle of the Alma, -says of him: ‘Il avait toujours ce même calme qui ne le quitte jamais.’” -It is, alas! not given to every man to wield the Arthurian brand -Excalibur, and whatever he may have been in the Peninsula under -Wellington, in the Crimea, Raglan was almost as incompetent as St. -Arnaud, Canrobert, and Menschikoff. His blunders were as follows: (1), -According to Sir T. Martin, he approved of the invasion of the Crimea in -utter ignorance of the ground, when the campaign was proposed by the -French Emperor.[219] (2), He consented to invade the Crimea _after_ he -had discovered that it was a mad project, and when the discretionary -clause in his instructions from the Duke of Newcastle gave him an -opportunity of remonstrating with the Cabinet. (3), He invaded the -Crimea without an organised Transport Corps. (4), His blunders at the -Alma, Balaclava, and Inkermann have been already noted. (5), Till -pressure was put on him by Prince Albert, he concealed the miserable -state of the army from the Government. (6), By neglecting to make a road -between Balaclava and his camp he brought all the miseries of the winter -of ’54-’55 on his troops. (7), By attacking the Redan when he knew quite -well it was impossible to capture it, he doomed his troops to useless -and avoidable slaughter. No defence has been made for him except on the -last two counts of the heavy indictment against him. He did not make a -road from Balaclava to the camp, says Mr. Kinglake, because he had not -enough men at his disposal. This is an explanation rather than a -defence. His first duty as a general was to connect his camp with his -base. If he was unable to do that, he ought to have abandoned his -position. But is not Mr. Kinglake’s defence just a little absurd, taken -in connection with the Homeric episodes of the war? Had anybody enough -men to do anything great or valuable in the Crimea? Campbell had not -enough men to turn the tide of battle, in our favour at the Alma. But he -did it. He had not enough men to save our base at Balaclava--but he -saved it. Scarlett and Cardigan had not enough men to break through the -Russian columns in “the Valley of Death”--but they broke through them. -The Duke of Cambridge had not enough men to hold his ground at -Inkermann--but he and his Guards held it, till it was positively soaked -and saturated with their blood. Mr. Kinglake’s advocacy, indeed, -provokes one to say that scarcity of men never kept Lord Raglan back -from any enterprise, when, as at Balaclava and the Redan, the only -attainable end was the purposeless butchery of his battalions. The -feeble attack on the Redan has been justified on the ground that, as -Pélissier was determined to assault the Malakoff, and was certain to be -beaten, he was equally certain to attribute his defeat to the timidity -of the English, unless they co-operated with him. It is, however, the -business of an English general to win battles for his country--not to -lose them in deference to the childish petulance of a foreign colleague. -At the same time, it must be admitted that Raglan was greatly -embarrassed from the first by his French coadjutors, and it is because -some of his errors sprang from enforced concessions to their views, that -these have been omitted from the present catalogue of his blunders. The -truth is, that Lord Raglan was really a diplomatist, and his diplomatic -ability was essential to the consolidation of our military alliance with -France in the field. That was the sole justification for his appointment -as Commander-in-Chief. His personal courage--rivalling that of -antiquity, said St. Arnaud--was the only soldierly quality he possessed. -“He was a very perfect gentle knight,” too sweetly graceful for the rude -ravishment of war, or the weary travail of a siege. His generosity of -heart, his charm of manner, his exquisite tact, his serene temper, his -chivalrous sense of honour, his high and courtly bearing, rendered him -worthy of - - “The goodliest fellowship of famous knights, - Whereof this world holds record”-- - -though not worthy to hold the post to which he was appointed in the -Crimea. But if he was not a great general, he was a great gentleman; and -so, when he passed away, the hand of censure fell very lightly on his -career. - - - - -CHAPTER XXXII. - -ROYALTY AND THE WAR. - - Financing the War--The Queen’s Opinion of War Loans--A Dreadful - Winter--Distress in the Country--The “Devil” in Devonshire--Bread - Riots--War Loans and a War Budget--The Queen and the Wounded - Soldiers--Her Condemnation of “the Hulks”--Presentation of War - Medals in Hyde Park--Visit of the Emperor and Empress of the - French--A Plot to Capture the Queen--Councils of War at - Windsor--The Grand Chapter of the Order of the Garter--Imperial - Compliments--Napoleon III. in the City--At the Opera--The Queen’s - Birthday Gift to the Emperor--Scarlet Fever at Osborne--Prorogation - of Parliament--A Court Intrigue with Dom Pedro of Portugal--The - Queen Visits Paris--Her Reception at St. Cloud--The Ball at the - Hôtel de Ville--Staring at the “Koh-i-noor”--At the Tomb of the - Great Emperor--Prince Bismarck’s Introduction to the Queen--Home - again--Lord Clarendon on the Queen’s Visit to Paris--How the Prince - of Wales Enjoyed himself--At Balmoral--The Bonfire on Craig - Gowan--Sebastopol Rejoicings--“A Witches’ Dance supported by - Whisky”--Courtship of the Princess Royal--Prince Frederick William - of Prussia--His Proposal of Marriage--Attacks of the _Times_--Visit - of Victor Emmanuel--His Reputation in Paris--Memorial of the - Grenadier Guards--Fresh Charges against Prince Albert--His - Vindication of the Crimean Officers. - - -Early in 1855 her Majesty became anxious, not to say nervous, as to the -plans that were to be adopted for financing the war. Her personal -prepossessions were all in favour of Mr. Gladstone’s policy--which was -that of meeting expenditure out of current revenue. But then the cost of -the campaign was now so enormous that it was impossible to increase -taxation so as to cover it. The winter had been severe. Though the end -of December and the first thirteen days of January had been like summer, -during the night of the 13th, says Sir F. Hastings Doyle, “the wind -shifted suddenly to the N.N.E., and a savage frost came on which lasted -at least two months without intermission or abatement.”[220] Outdoor -workers found themselves without employment. Gangs of hungry-eyed -labouring men began to parade the streets of London, levying black-mail -on well-to-do householders. Ultimately mobs of roughs attacked and -plundered the bakers’ and chandlers’ shops in the East End on the 21st -and 22nd of February, and in Liverpool, where some 15,000 riverside -labourers were out of work, terrible scenes of riot and outrage were -enacted. It was a time when the abstraction of capital from the country -by raising a war loan would be a slight evil, compared with that which -might follow from the imposition of heavy war taxes on a discontented -and suffering industrial population. It was therefore decided that the -cost of the war should be met by a loan. - -Sir George Cornewall Lewis brought forward his Budget on the 30th of -April. He could estimate for a prospective revenue of £63,000,000. This, -however, still left him with a deficit of £23,000,000, which he raised -(1), by a Three per Cent. Loan of £16,000,000; (2), by an addition to -taxation which brought in £4,000,000; (3), by raising £3,000,000 on -Exchequer Bills. “The additional taxes,” Sir George Lewis wrote to his -friend Sir E. Head, “were, however, assented to without resistance by -the House, who feared a larger addition to the Income Tax, and thought -that if they objected to my proposition, taxes which they disliked still -more would be substituted.” As for the loan, the Money Market, he says, -“was in a state favourable for such an operation; for at present there -is an abundance of money, but a want of profitable investment for the -purpose of trade.”[221] The loan of £2,000,000 to Sardinia was -sanctioned without much demur, but the loan of £5,000,000 to Turkey was -violently objected to--especially by the Tories and Cobdenites. It was -raised under the joint guarantee of France and England--an arrangement -which many people thought might create disputes between the guarantors. -Lord Palmerston, in fact, only carried the loan through by a vote of 135 -to 132. Lord Aberdeen’s followers opposed the transaction, and their -opposition was resented by the Queen, who had already concluded and -ratified the arrangement with the French Emperor for guaranteeing the -loan. - -[Illustration: THE WOUNDED SOLDIER’S TOAST--“THE QUEEN!”] - -In other respects, however, the relations of the Court to the war were -less open to criticism. It has already been stated how her Majesty -toiled with her own hands to aid those who were striving to mitigate the -sufferings of the army during the Crimean winter. She wrote a letter to -the Commander-in-Chief on the subject that touched the heart of every -soldier in camp or hospital. Mr. Augustus Stafford, in the debate on Mr. -Roebuck’s motion in the House of Commons (26th of January), thrilled his -audience by telling them how he saw a wounded man, after hearing the -letter read, propose the Queen’s health in a draught of bark and -quinine. Mr. Stafford said to him it was a bitter cup for a loyal toast; -to which the man replied, with a smile, “Yes, and but for these words of -the Queen I could not have got it down.” Nor was her Majesty less -assiduous in her attention to the wounded, when their haggard and -mournful contingents began to return. On the 3rd of March she went down -to Chatham with her husband and her two eldest sons to inspect the -Military Hospital at Fort Pitt and Brompton. The wounded men who could -crawl from their beds were drawn up on the lawn, each bearing a card -with a description of his name, services, and wounds. Along this gaunt -array the Queen passed, sad-eyed and thoughtful, speaking a few kind and -cheering words to the sufferers whose wounds or services especially -attracted her notice. Contemporary reports of course stated that the -Sovereign was well pleased with the manner in which those poor men were -treated. But two days afterwards she sent a sharp letter to Lord -Panmure, which showed that she had been using her eyes to good purpose -during her inspection. He must, she says, have some really serviceable -military hospitals built for the sick without delay. The poor men at -Fort Pitt were well treated; but, she complains, “the buildings are -bad--the wards more like prisons than hospitals, with the windows so -high that no one can look out of them--and the most of the wards are -small, with hardly space to walk between the beds.” Her criticisms on -the dining arrangements are trenchant; and then she goes on to argue -that though Lord Panmure’s plan of building hulks may do very well at -first, it will not do for any length of time. “A hulk,” she contends, -“is a very gloomy place, and these poor men require their spirits to be -cheered, as much as to have their physical sufferings attended to. The -Queen is particularly anxious on this subject, which is, she may truly -say, constantly in her thoughts, as, indeed, is everything connected -with her beloved troops, who have fought so bravely and borne so -heroically all their sufferings and privations.”[222] - -“I myself,” said Queen Elizabeth to her troops at Tilbury, “will be your -general and your judge, and the rewarder of every one of your virtues in -the field.” If Queen Victoria has never either in statecraft or power -attained the position held by that leonine woman, she did not fail to -emulate her in her devotion to the gallant men who bled and died for -England in the desolate Chersonese. The Queen’s visit to the hospital at -Chatham, and her reception there by the soldiers, prompted her to take -the unusual course of suggesting to Lord Clarendon, on the 22nd of -March, that she should with her own hands present war medals to the -officers and men who were at home disabled or on leave. On the 18th of -May a Royal daïs was accordingly put up in the centre of the Horse -Guards parade ground, with barriers enclosing from the crowd of -spectators, a space for the heroes of the ceremony. At eleven o’clock -the Queen, Prince Albert, and their family appeared, and at a signal the -soldiers who were to be decorated stood before her. They passed along in -single file, each handing a card recording his name and services to an -officer, who delivered it to the Queen. She then presented each hero -with his medal, saying a kindly word to every man as he went by. It was -a strange and impressive spectacle. Gaunt, pallid forms, maimed and - -[Illustration: THE QUEEN DISTRIBUTING THE CRIMEAN MEDAL AT THE -HORSEGUARDS PARADE GROUND.] - -mutilated, hobbled along on crutches--or staggered forward, aided by -walking-sticks--and for officers and men alike the Queen had words of -sympathy that drew tears from many an eye. From the highest Prince of -the blood--the Duke of Cambridge was the first to step forward for his -medal--to the humblest private, writes the Queen to King Leopold, “all -received the same distinction for the bravest conduct in the severest -actions, and the rough hands of the brave and honest private soldier -came for the first time in contact with that of their Sovereign and -their Queen. Noble fellows! I feel as if they were my own children; my -heart beats for them as for my nearest and dearest.”[223] Captain -Currie, of the 14th, was so feeble that he almost failed to reach the -daïs on his crutches, and his condition profoundly touched the heart of -the Queen. Captain Sayer, of the 23rd Fusiliers, could not be lifted out -of his chair, so the Queen bent over him gracefully and pinned his medal -to his breast, with a few words of comfort and hope. Colonel Sir T. -Troubridge, of the 7th Fusiliers, who, when he had both his feet shot -away at Inkermann, refused to leave his command till the battle was won, -was also unable to leave his chair. When the Queen gave him his medal -she whispered in his ear that she would reward his courage by making him -one of her own aides-de-camp, whereupon he answered, “I am now amply -repaid for everything.” It was a scene which moved the hearts of all who -took part in it, with the exception, perhaps, of the brusque and -churlish Secretary of State for War. Lord Malmesbury says, “After the -ceremony, Lady Seymour, whom I met, told me that Mrs. Norton, talking -about it to Lord Panmure, asked, ‘Was the Queen touched?’ ‘Bless my -soul, no!’ was the reply. ‘She had a brass railing in front of her, and -no one could touch her.’ Mrs. Norton then said, ‘I mean was she moved?’ -‘Moved!’ answered Lord Panmure, ‘she had no occasion to move.’ Mrs. -Norton then gave it up in despair.”[224] - -When the Emperor of the French first hinted at his intention of going to -the Crimea, the idea frightened everybody. His own _entourage_, knowing -his ignorance of the art of war, and convinced that defeat meant ruin -for him and for them, were in despair. The Queen, too, was alarmed, -because she foresaw infinite danger from the scheme. The Emperor would -naturally desire to take supreme command of both armies, whereas the -English people would not permit British troops to serve under a foreign -sovereign, whose antecedents were doubtful, and whose friendship was -uncertain. The French and English Governments therefore privately -suggested to the Queen that she should now invite the Emperor and -Empress to pay their promised visit to England, hoping that the Queen’s -influence might be used for the purpose of preventing him from -proceeding to the seat of war.[225] The invitation was accepted, and -the rooms in Windsor which had been occupied by the Czar Nicholas and -King Louis Philippe were set apart for the Imperial guests. - -[Illustration: WINDSOR CASTLE FROM THE BROCAS.] - -At noon on the 16th of April, after some mishaps in the dense fog which -shrouded the Channel, the Imperial yacht reached the Admiralty Pier at -Dover, where Prince Albert was waiting to receive his guests. The Prince -went on board, shook hands with the Emperor, and then going down to the -cabin reappeared with the Empress on his arm. They landed amidst -complimentary salvoes of artillery from the castle, the salutes of the -military, and the ringing cheers of the crowd. The Royal party then -proceeded to London, and when they arrived at the Bricklayers’ Arms -Station, they found dense masses of people assembled to welcome them. -Their route lay along the line of streets leading to the Great Western -station, where they took train for Windsor. Lord Malmesbury writes in -his Diary, “Lady Ossulton, Lady Manners, my wife and I went to Lord -Carrington’s house in Whitehall to see the Emperor of the French pass. -The weather was beautiful and bright, the streets were choked with -people. The _cortège_ made its appearance at 6.15 p.m.; there were but -six open carriages, four of them escorted by a squadron of Life Guards, -and a good many outriders in scarlet liveries. They passed very slowly -at a walk - -[Illustration: THE QUEEN INVESTING THE EMPEROR OF THE FRENCH WITH THE -ORDER OF THE GARTER.] - -and were enthusiastically cheered the whole way from the South Eastern -to the Great Western terminus.... On going up St. James’s Street, the -Emperor was seen to point out to the Empress the house where he formerly -lived in King Street. This was at once understood by the crowd, who -cheered louder than ever. On passing the Horse Guards the Emperor stood -up in his carriage and saluted the colours, and was of course immensely -cheered.”[226] At Windsor the excitement was intense, and the Queen was -on tiptoe of expectation. Referring to the arrival of the visitors, she -writes, “I cannot say what indescribable emotions filled me--how much -all seemed like a wonderful dream. These great meetings of sovereigns, -surrounded by very exciting accompaniments, are always very -agitating.”[227] Her Majesty advanced and the Emperor kissed her hand. -She saluted him once on each cheek, and then, as she says, “embraced the -very gentle, very graceful, and evidently very nervous Empress.” The -Duke of Cambridge and the Prince of Leiningen and the Royal children -were presented--“Vicky (now Princess Imperial of Germany) with very -alarmed eyes making very low curtesies.” In the Throne Room other -presentations followed. At dinner, however, the Emperor put the Queen -quite at her ease. He assumed the soft, low voice and the melancholy -manner of the hero of some romance of mystery. They talked about the -war--the Queen gently dissuading him from going to the Crimea, he -mournfully expressing his apprehension of disasters unless he went out, -and complaining of the blunders of the generals. Next morning (the 17th) -the subject was renewed during a long walk after breakfast. This time -the Empress was eager in pressing the Emperor to proceed to Sebastopol, -where, she said with truth, he was perhaps safer than in Paris. In the -afternoon the Royal Family and their Imperial guests reviewed the -Household troops, surrounded by gay crowds, full of effusive enthusiasm -for our Allies. At dinner they discussed the manifold iniquities of -Austria, and mourned over her decadence, because she would not fight to -vindicate a plan for reducing the Russian navy in the Black Sea to six -ships instead of eight. At night there was a ball in the Waterloo -Room--an odd place in which to find the granddaughter of George III. -dancing with the nephew of Napoleon I. The sombre memories of the hall, -however, did not prevent the Queen’s guest from dancing, as she herself -records, “with great dignity and spirit.” Next morning (the 18th) at -breakfast the Emperor received a telegram announcing the death of M. -Ducos, the Minister of Marine,[228] and at eleven o’clock a grand -Council of War was held in the Emperor’s rooms, at which those present -were Prince Albert, Lords Palmerston, Panmure, Hardinge, and Cowley, -Sir Charles Wood, Sir John Burgoyne, Count Walewski, and Marshal -Vaillant. “Something should be done somewhere, and by somebody in the -Crimea,” seems to have been the resolution to which the council came. -Though unanimous in urging the Emperor not to go there, it failed to -convince him that he ought to stay at home. In the afternoon Prince -Albert, when out walking with the Emperor, submitted a plan of his own -for reorganising the Allied Forces, which the Emperor approved. It was -sent on to Palmerston, Panmure, Hardinge, and Burgoyne, and they -resolved to draw up a memorandum on the subject for the next Conference. - -The Council of War of the 18th sat on from 11 till 2 p.m., and at 4 p.m. -a Grand Chapter of the Order of the Garter was held in the Throne -Room--the Emperor being invested with the insignia of the Order--in all -the pomp and circumstance of Royal State. The Queen sat at the head of -the table with a vacant chair on her right hand; Garter King-at-Arms -summoned each Knight in the order of his creation, beginning with the -Marquis of Exeter and ending with Lord Aberdeen. The Prelate of the -Order read the new statute dispensing with existing statutes in favour -of the Emperor of the French, who was then introduced by Prince Albert -and the Duke of Cambridge. The Queen and the assembled Knights stood up -to receive the Emperor, who passed on and sat in the chair on the -Queen’s right hand. Her Majesty having proclaimed the Emperor’s -election, the King-at-Arms presented the Garter to the Queen, who, -assisted by her husband, buckled it on the Emperor’s left leg, after -which she placed the riband over his Majesty’s left shoulder, the -Chancellor of the Order pronouncing the admonition. The accolade was -then presented to the new Knight, and the ceremony was over. “It is one -bond the more,” said the Emperor as he walked with the Queen to his -apartments--“I have given my oath of fidelity to your Majesty and to -your country.” But all the world knows, neither bond nor oath was strong -enough to prevent him from subsequently intriguing with Russia against -England, when the Congress of Paris met to settle the questions raised -by the sudden termination of the Crimean War. Yet, the Imperial -flatteries served the purpose of the moment, for the Queen wrote, “These -words are very valuable from a man like him, who is not profuse in -phrases, and who is very steady of purpose.”[229] After dinner her -Majesty seems to have been chiefly amused by Marshal Vaillant’s -confidential conversation with her, in which he manifested great terror -lest the Emperor would take command of the Army in the Crimea. In the -evening there was an orchestral concert. “The Queen, Emperor, and -Empress,” writes Lord Malmesbury, “with the Royal Family, their suites, -and those invited to the banquet, entered soon after ten, and seated -themselves without speaking to any one. As soon as music was over the -company passed before the Queen and Emperor.... The Queen had arranged -everything herself, made out the lists of invitations for both parties -at Windsor, and the concert for to-morrow at Buckingham Palace. Very -few, except Cabinet Ministers, are asked twice. Even Lady Breadalbane, -who is one of the Court, was invited only for the evening party last -night, and had to sleep at a pastrycook’s, there being no room at the -Castle.”[230] - -[Illustration: THE WATERLOO ROOM, WINDSOR CASTLE.] - -Next day (the 19th) the Emperor and Empress had to visit the City, and -hosts and guests seemed alike sad and nervous when the Royal party set -forth. There was just a chance that some sufferer from the crime of -December, 1851, might wreak his vengeance on the perpetrator of it. The -Lord Mayor and Corporation, however, gave their guests a splendid -reception. London decked itself forth with loyal bunting. Crowds cheered -the Emperor and Empress on their way, and the town rang with “_Partant -pour la Syrie_,” which dismal air Cockneydom in those days preferred to -the “Marseillaise,” as the symbol of the French alliance, and, perhaps, -also as being less trying to the nerves of its guest.[231] The -Corporation gave their Imperial visitor a sumptuous banquet. With -characteristic delicacy of taste they served him with sherry, which - -[Illustration: THE ROYAL AND IMPERIAL VISIT TO THE CRYSTAL PALACE: THE -PROCESSION DOWN THE NAVE.] - -they produced proudly, because it was from the famous butt that had been -bought for £600 by Napoleon I. in his palmy days. In the evening the -Imperial visitors went with the Queen to the opera, where _Fidelio_ was -played. “We literally drove through a sea of human beings,” writes the -Queen, “cheering and pressing near the carriage.”[232] When the Royal -party appeared after the first act was over, the audience in Her -Majesty’s Theatre rose and hailed them with deafening cheers, the Queen -leading the Emperor and Prince Albert the Empress forward, so as to -emphasise the fact that they were especially the objects of this -demonstrative greeting.[233] Next day, the 20th of April, was the -Emperor’s birthday. When the Queen congratulated him in the morning it -seems he looked confused, because for the moment he had forgotten all -about the event. He, however, kissed her hand gratefully when she -presented him with her gift--a little pencil-case--and was much touched -with the other present he received--“two violets, the flower of the -Bonapartes--from Prince Arthur.”[234] Amidst great crowds cheering most -enthusiastically the Royal party drove to the Crystal Palace. They went -through the building in perfect privacy, and then walked on to the -balcony to see the fountains play. But when they returned to luncheon -they found that quite a crowd of sightseers had been admitted, and were -lining the avenue of the nave. It was a trying moment. The rows of -spectators through which the Royal party had to walk were almost -touching them, and Emperor and Empress both dreaded assassination. The -Queen, nervous as she was, courageously took the Emperor’s arm, feeling -sure her presence would protect him; and so the day passed without any -unpleasantness. In the evening there was another meeting of the Grand -Council of War, the Queen being present. Again the Council failed to -decide on a plan of operations. But it was admitted that they could come -to an agreement as to the stake to be played for in the game of war, and -this agreement, under seven heads, was drawn up by Prince Albert, and -signed by Marshal Vaillant and Lord Panmure.[235] Next day (the 21st) -the guests left amidst tender farewells on both sides. At Lady -Malmesbury’s dinner-party that day, Lord Adolphus Fitzclarence told the -company that the leave-taking was very affecting. “Everybody cried--even -the _suite_. The Queen’s children began, as the Empress had been very -kind to them, and they were sorry to lose them, and this set off the -Maids of Honour.”[236] The Emperor’s last words to the Queen were, “I -believe that having spent my birthday with your Majesty will bring me -good luck, that and the little pencil-case you gave me.”[237] The Queen -wrote in her Diary, “I am glad to have known this extraordinary man, -whom it is certainly impossible not to like when you live with him, and -not even to a considerable extent to admire.... I believe him to be -capable of kindness, affection, friendship, and gratitude.” Prince -Albert’s admiration, on the other hand, was not quite so unqualified, -and the Queen notes that he preferred the Empress to the Emperor. When -the Emperor returned to Paris he found that his reception in England had -done much to increase his _prestige_. But he also discovered that he -must abandon his intention of going to the Crimea. On the 25th of April -he communicated this welcome news to the Queen in a letter abounding -with engaging expressions of gratitude, for her kindness and hospitality -to him and his Imperial consort. - -On the 28th of June Prince Albert writes to Stockmar saying, “Uncle -Leopold comes on Tuesday with Philippe and Carlo, and by the end of the -week we purpose to get away from the thoroughly used-up air of London. -The political folly and the levity of parties and the press, amidst the -terrible mass of business, makes our head reel.”[238] When these -visitors reached Osborne they found the Queen depressed and sorrowful. -Scarlet fever had attacked the Princes Arthur and Leopold and the -Princess Louise, and her Majesty was naturally afraid lest her young -Belgian relatives might be smitten also. Fortunately this peril was -avoided, and the Queen, encouraged by the approaching prorogation of -Parliament, gradually regained her cheerfulness. She had suffered from -intense anxiety during the Session, and it was with a deep sense of -relief that she found herself able to prorogue both Houses by Commission -on the 14th of August. The Speech from the Throne dwelt on the -advantages derived from cementing the French alliance. The Legislature -was also congratulated on having passed several useful measures--amongst -which those establishing local self-government in the metropolis, -sanctioning the formation of Limited Liability Companies, and abolishing -the stamp duty on newspapers, may be mentioned. - -The allusion to the French alliance was made with skill and tact. “You -will come to Paris this summer,” said the Emperor to the Queen when he -was bidding her farewell at Windsor. “Yes,” she replied, “if my public -duties do not prevent me.” These duties it was now obvious would in no -way prevent her, and it was therefore determined that the Queen and her -husband should spend eight days with the Emperor and Empress. The visit -was to begin on the 18th of August, and before that day came round the -British fleet in the Baltic and the allied armies in the Crimea had won -some slight successes, which rendered the war a little less unpopular -than it had been in France. Still, despite the victory at Tchernaya, it -was unpopular. France, according to Frenchmen, was spending blood and -treasure for English interests. The alliance between the two countries -was giving England the time and experience needed to improve her -defective military system--leaving her in relation to France stronger -than ever. As for the political parties--Legitimists, Orleanists, and -Democrats--they looked on the Queen’s visit with hostility, because it -was meant to strengthen the hands of a usurper, whom they all hated. The -visit therefore was not made under auspicious circumstances. Just before -the Queen started on this journey the King of Portugal arrived at -Osborne, and on the 4th of August the Prince tells Stockmar how they had -to lodge him on their yacht, to keep him out of danger from scarlet -fever--the two eldest children in the Royal Family having alone escaped -the malady. Many visits were interchanged, however, between the King and -the Queen and Prince Albert. The Queen, indeed, at the request of her -Ministers, had agreed to persuade King Pedro to join us in the war, a -proposal which he, however, very sensibly rejected.[239] - -It was in the early dawn of Saturday, the 18th of August, that the Queen -and Prince Albert, accompanied by the Prince of Wales and the Princess -Royal, embarked at Osborne, and, escorted by a steam squadron, proceeded -to Boulogne, where they arrived at one o’clock in the afternoon. Salutes -of cannon from the heights, volleys of musketry from the troops, and -enthusiastic cheers from the people greeted the visitors. When the Royal -yacht came to the pier the Emperor hastened on board, saluted the Queen, -kissing her hand and both cheeks, and then shook hands with Prince -Albert, the Prince of Wales, and the Princess Royal. The Queen and her -family drove to the station, the Emperor and Marshal Magnan riding on -each side of her carriage. They took train to Paris, where they were -cordially received. From the terminus of the Strasbourg Railway to the -Palace of St. Cloud the houses were all in festal array, and 200,000 -National Guards formed a double line for five miles along the route. -This brilliant display was somewhat lost on the Queen, for her arrival -was delayed till seven in the evening. She, however, had the pleasure of -seeing Paris under the flare of illumination, and when she approached -the Arc de Triomphe her escort carried blazing torches, which gave a -strange picturesque effect to the scene. She was welcomed to the Palace -of St. Cloud, which had been set apart for her, by the Empress and the -ladies and high officers of the household; and Prince Albert describes -their reception by the people as “splendid” and “enthusiastic.” The -Queen says in her Diary, “I felt bewildered but enchanted--everything is -so beautiful.” Sunday, the 19th, was devoted to a quiet morning drive -with the Emperor, who was in high spirits over the Crimean news, and to -church-going--service being held in one of the rooms of the palace by -the chaplain to the British Embassy. Then there was a charming drive in -the afternoon to Neuilly, and later on a dinner-party, at which -Canrobert appeared, almost fresh from the Crimean trenches. He sat next -the Queen, and was surprised to find that she was nearly as well -acquainted with the details of the war as he was himself. On Monday, the -20th, the Emperor escorted his guests to breakfast--“the coffee quite -excellent, and all the cookery very plain and very good,” writes the -Queen, and served “on a small round table as we have at home.” A visit -to the Exhibition of Fine Arts, luncheon at the Elysée, a long drive -through the chief streets of Paris, and a theatrical performance in the -evening (at the Palace) of the _Demoiselles de St. Cyr_, formed the -programme. Tuesday, the 21st, was dedicated to a visit to the Palace of -Versailles and the Trianon, associated with mournful memories of Marie -Antoinette and the ladies of her court, who used to retire at times to -this retreat to play at Arcadian simplicity. In the evening, after -dinner, the Queen and her hosts went to the Opera, where her Majesty’s -reception was most cordial and gratifying. The notabilities of Parisian -society were there, and they were all charmed with the easy, cheerful, -high-spirited bearing of the Queen. On Wednesday, the 22nd, she visited -the Exhibition of Industry, remarking that the English exhibits of china -were the most striking. Then she drove to - -[Illustration: THE QUEEN AT THE FÊTE IN THE FOREST OF ST. GERMAIN.] - -the Tuileries, and accepted an invitation from the Préfet and the -Municipality of Paris to a ball at the Hôtel de Ville. The Queen, Prince -Albert, the Prince of Wales, and Princess Royal next drove through Paris -_incognito_, and in the evening were entertained at a great dinner, at -which eighty guests were present. At this dinner the Queen and the -Emperor talked long and earnestly over the Anglo-French alliance--he -telling her that Drouyn de Lhuys had suggestively reminded him how Louis -Philippe became unpopular because of his alliance with England; the -Queen retorting that it was not Louis Philippe’s friendship with -England, but his insincerity and treachery, which caused his fall. On -Thursday, the 24th, the Louvre was visited, and in the evening the Queen -attended the ball at the Hôtel de Ville--the opening quadrille being -danced by her Majesty, the Emperor, Prince Albert, the Princess -Mathilde, Prince Napoleon, Lady Cowley, Prince Aldebert of Bavaria, and -Mdle. Haussmann, daughter of the Prefect of the Seine. The scene was -brilliant beyond conception. It was a triumph of decorative art having, -as the Queen said, “all the effect of the Arabian Nights.” Picturesque -Arabs from Algeria at one part of the proceedings came forward and did -homage to the Emperor and his guests, staring admiringly at the -Koh-i-noor which the Queen wore in her diadem. The Royal party made the -tour of the rooms, tarrying for a little in the _Salle du Trône_, where -Robespierre was wounded and Louis Philippe proclaimed; and where the -Emperor gallantly said to the Queen, “This occasion will banish from us -all sad remembrances.” On Friday, the 24th, the Queen visited a second -time the Palais d’Industrie, lunched at the École Militaire, and -witnessed a review of the troops. Their smart uniforms, her Majesty -writes, “are infinitely better made and cut than those of our soldiers, -which provokes me much.” After this the Queen drove to the Hôtel des -Invalides, to visit the tomb of the first Emperor. As she stood before -the coffin leaning on the Emperor’s arm, by a strange coincidence, while -the organ of the church was pealing forth the solemn strains of the -English National Anthem, a dreadful thunder storm broke overhead. At -dinner the Emperor and Queen that day entertained each other with -complaints about the incapacity of their generals in the Crimea, and in -the evening another visit, but not in State, was paid to the Opera. On -Saturday, the 24th, the Queen attended a hunt in the forest of St. -Germain, where she was received by the local _curé_ and a bevy of -village maidens, one of whom broke down in the middle of her -complimentary address to the visitors, though when the _curé_ prompted -her, greatly to the Queen’s amusement, she went on glibly to the end. In -the evening there was a grand State Ball at Versailles, the Empress, as -she appeared at the head of the grand staircase, says the Queen, -“looking like a fairy queen or nymph,” and surprising even the Emperor -into exclaiming, “_Comme tu es belle!_” (“How lovely you are!”) After a -splendid display of fireworks there was dancing, and many distinguished -guests were presented to the Queen, amongst others Count Bismarck, then -Prussian Minister to Frankfort. But he did not make himself agreeable to -her Majesty, for when she expressed her admiration for Paris as a -beautiful city, he replied, “Yes, even more beautiful than St. -Petersburg”--a very significant indication of his strong pro-Russian -sympathies. On Sunday, the 26th, Prince Albert’s birthday was quietly -celebrated, and the Queen and Emperor had some serious talk over the -persecution of her friends--the Orleans Princes and Princesses--in the -course of which she very frankly and honestly explained to the Emperor -the precise nature of her relations to them. Monday, the 27th, was -devoted to leave-takings and the journey home. At Boulogne there was an -inspection of troops and the camps of Hensault and Ambleteuse were -visited, and late at night the Queen steamed away in her yacht from -Boulogne Harbour. “_Adieu, Madame, au revoir_,” to which I replied, “_Je -l’espère bien_”--these, according to the Queen, were the parting words -which passed between her and her Imperial host. By half-past eight next -morning her Majesty reached Osborne, finding her younger sons waiting on -the beach to welcome her home. - -The Queen was deeply impressed, she says, with the Emperor’s quietness, -gentleness, and simplicity of manner. She felt encouraged to confide in -him without reserve, and was greatly charmed by his kindness and -attention to her children, and his admiration for Prince Albert. The -Prince, however, did not quite share the Queen’s enthusiasm for their -host, though he admitted that the Emperor had great powers of -fascination when he chose to exert them. Lord Clarendon, who was -Minister in attendance on her Majesty, told Mr. Greville that during -this visit “the Queen was delighted with everything, and especially with -the Emperor himself, who, with perfect knowledge of women, had taken the -surest way to ingratiate himself with her. This it seems he began when -he was in England, and followed it up at Paris. After her visit the -Queen talked it all over with Clarendon, and said ‘it is very odd; but -the Emperor knows everything I have done, and where I have been ever -since I was twelve years old; he even recollects how I was dressed, and -a thousand little details it is extraordinary he should be acquainted -with.’ She has never before been on such a social footing with anybody, -and he has approached her with the familiarity of their equal positions, -and with all the experience and knowledge of womankind he has acquired -during his long life, passed in the world and in mixing in every sort of -society. She seemed to have played her part throughout with great -propriety and success. Old Jérôme[240] did not choose to make his -appearance till just at the last moment, because he insisted on being -treated as a king, and having the title of ‘Majesté’ given him--a -pretension Clarendon would not hear of her yielding to.... Clarendon -said nothing could exceed the delight of the Queen at her visit to -Paris, at her reception, at all she saw, and that she was charmed with -the Emperor. They became so intimate, and she on such friendly terms -with him, that she talked to him with the utmost frankness, and even -discussed with him the most delicate of all subjects--the confiscation -of the Orleans property, telling him her opinion upon it. He did not -avoid the subject, and gave her the reasons why he thought himself -obliged to take that course; that he knew all this wealth was employed -in fomenting intrigues against his government, which was so new that it -was necessary to take all precautions to avert such dangers. She replied -that even if this were so, he might have contented himself with -sequestrating the property and restoring it when he was satisfied that -all danger on that score was at an end. I asked Clarendon what he -thought of the Emperor himself, and he said that he liked him and that -he was very pleasing, but he was struck with his being so indolent and -so excessively ignorant. The Prince of Wales was put by the Queen under -Clarendon’s charge, who was desired to tell him what to do in public, -when to bow to the people, and whom to speak to. He said that the -Princess Royal was charming, with excellent manners and full of -intelligence. Both the children were delighted with their _séjour_, and -very sorry to come away. When the visit was drawing to a close, the -Prince said to the Empress that he and his sister were both very -reluctant to leave Paris, and asked if she could not get leave for them -to stay there a little longer. The Empress said she was afraid this -would not be possible, as the Queen and Prince Albert would not be able -to do without them; to which the boy replied, ‘Not do without us! don’t -fancy that, for there are six more of us at home, and they don’t want -_us_.’”[241] - -[Illustration: MAP OF CRATHIE AND BRAEMAR.] - -Writing to the Dowager Duchess of Coburg from Osborne, on the 30th of -August, Prince Albert says--“We purpose making an escape on the 5th -(September) to our mountain home, Balmoral. We are sorely in want of the -moral rest, and the bodily exercise.” Balmoral was reached on the 7th, -and “the new house,” though not finished, was found to be quite -habitable, and “very comfortable.” The Queen was charmed with its -appearance, and the home-like welcome she received from her dependants, -an old shoe being thrown after her for luck when she entered the Hall. -And truly it brought luck--for in two days afterwards Deeside was ruddy -with the blaze of the bonfire which was lit on Craig Gowan heights to -celebrate the fall of Sebastopol. The bonfire had been prepared the year -before, when the false news of the fall of Sebastopol had arrived, and -the wind had blown it down on Inkermann Day (5th of November). It was -again built up, and on the evening of the 10th, writes Prince Albert to -Stockmar, “it illuminated all the peaks round about, and the whole -scattered population of the valleys understood the sign, and made for -the mountain, where we performed towards midnight a veritable Witches’ -Dance, supported by whisky.”[242] - -In the same letter the Prince writes, “Prince Fritz William comes here -to-morrow evening. I have received a very friendly letter from the -Princess of Prussia.” This, says Sir Theodore Martin, made Stockmar’s -heart beat fast. He was the recognised matrimonial agent of the House of -Coburg, and one of his cherished projects was to arrange a marriage -between the young and handsome heir of the Prince of Prussia and the -Princess Royal, who, of all the Queen’s children, was in an especial -degree his favourite. The young Prussian Prince was indeed the only -possible suitor in Europe whose prospects rendered him worthy to mate -with a daughter of England. The Queen felt that the day would come when -he would be Heir-Apparent not to the Crown of Prussia, but to the -Imperial Throne of the German Empire. His family was one of the -wealthiest in Europe. His father, afterwards the German Emperor, was a -very dear and valued friend of the Queen and her husband, and the young -Prince Fritz himself had all those qualities of mind and heart which -Prince Albert desired to see in the husband of his eldest child. But the -affair was one of some delicacy, because the Queen abhorred the idea of -what she called “a political marriage;” indeed, as she was on somewhat -unfriendly terms with the King of Prussia, and as Prussia was hated and -despised by the English people at the time, the alliance was, from a -political point of view, far from desirable. Her Majesty, moreover, had -no intention of sanctioning any engagement which might be objectionable -to her daughter, and the ultimate decision, therefore, lay with the -Princess herself, who at the time knew nothing of the hopes or fears -that centred round her. The gossip of Society had connected her name -with that of Prince Frederick William. But on the Queen’s return from -France at the end of August Prince Albert told Lord Clarendon there was -no truth in these rumours.[243] On the 20th of September the Prince laid -his proposal of marriage before the Queen and her husband, and they -accepted it so far as they were concerned, but asked him not to speak to -the Princess on the subject till after her confirmation. The Princess -was only sixteen years of age at the time, and the Queen was of opinion -that there should be no thought of marriage till the following spring, -when her daughter would have passed her seventeenth birthday. On the -23rd Prince Albert writes to Stockmar, telling him that “Victoria is -greatly excited. Still, all goes smoothly and prudently,” and that the -young Prince is “really in love” with the little lady, “who does her -best to please him.” The Crown Prince and Princess of Prussia, he says, -“are in raptures at the turn the affair has taken.” But when a handsome -young Prince is “really in love” with a charming young Princess who -“does her best to please him,” and they are both living in the free, -unrestrained intercourse of English family life in a romantic Highland -retreat, it is hardly practicable to prevent them from coming to an -understanding. The Prussian Prince seems to have appealed successfully -to the Queen’s good nature, and he soon obtained leave to make his -proposal to the Princess before his visit came to an end. “During our -ride up Craig-na-ban,” writes the Queen, in “The Leaves from a Journal,” -“he (Prince Fritz) picked up a piece of white heather (the emblem of -good luck), which he gave to her (the Princess Royal), and this enabled -him to make an allusion to his hopes and wishes as they rode down Glen -Girnoch.” The lady consented, and the happy pair were betrothed. “The -young people,” writes Prince Albert to Stockmar, on the 2nd of October, -“are passionately in love with each other, and the integrity, -guilelessness, and disinterestedness of the Prince are quite touching.” - -“Our Fritz,” as the Prince was affectionately called, was no idle youth -of fashion. He was already Colonel of the 1st Foot Guards, and a -thorough soldier.[244] In every branch of the Army he had gone through a -hard apprenticeship, as may be seen from the peremptory instructions -which had been issued when he was ordered to serve with Colonel von -Griesheim’s Dragoons. He had to master every elementary detail of drill -and organisation, and his knowledge was tested by stern judges.[245] -Col. von Griesheim gives the following account of an interview he had -with Prince Fritz’s mother in the autumn of 1854:--“Prince Frederick -William,” he says, “was then twenty-three. He was a young man of notably -amiable manners. I received orders to wait upon his mother the Princess -at the Palace, when she told me that she wished to speak to me as the -new Commander of the Regiment, and I must do her the justice to say that -she did not allow her motherly love for a son, or her anxiety to secure -his personal comforts, to stand in the way of his duty. On the contrary, -she begged me that I would in no way unduly spare the Prince, but insist -on his learning his profession in every branch, so that he might be in a -position to judge what was the real amount of labour which a military -life entailed. She also desired that in non-military matters no special -external respect might be shown him, expressing, at the same time, her -confidence that neither I nor my brother-officers would abuse the -relationship in which we were placed. She was sure I should not forget -that it was the training of our future king that was entrusted to me, -and that I should recognise the obligation of setting things in their -true light, that a true judgment might be formed concerning them. The -Princess was proceeding to talk over a number of incidental matters -when, quite unaccompanied, the Prince of Prussia came into the room. He -looked surprised, and said, ‘Ah! I see the new Commander is receiving -the orders of the dear mamma.’ He laughed good-humouredly, and holding -out his hand with the cordiality peculiar to him, added that I did not -need any instruction from him, and that the length of time he had known -me was a guarantee that the Prince was in good hands. Turning to his -wife he smiled, and said in an undertone, “I trained Griesheim, and now -he shall train our son.’”[246] - -Prince Frederick William had thoroughly fulfilled the hopes of his -parents and his tutor, and he was precisely the type of man likely to -win favour in Prince Albert’s eyes. It was, therefore, with supreme -disgust that the Queen and her husband discovered an attempt would be -made to prejudice public opinion against the marriage. The engagement -was not to be announced till after Easter. And yet the _Times_ began to -attack the Queen, Prince Albert, and the Prussian Court, for bringing -about such an alliance. The country was told that the Princess Royal was -being sacrificed to “a paltry German dynasty,” and Prince Fritz was -jeered at as a poor creature, who would have to pick up a livelihood in -the Russian service, and “pass these years which flattering anticipation -now destines to a Crown, in ignominious attendance as a General Officer -on the levee of his Imperial master, having lost even the privilege of -his birth, which is conceded to no German in Russia.” Malignity as well -as ignorance inspired this abuse, for it was at that time the cue of a -certain section of polite society to hold Prince Albert up to odium on -every possible occasion as a tool of the despotic European Courts. As a -matter of fact, the young Prince’s sympathies were with the Opposition -rather than with the Government in Prussia, and he was in the habit of -seeking Prince Albert’s advice as to how he should steer his course in -the stormy sea of Prussian politics. Very sound and wise guidance did -the Prince get from his future father-in-law, who viewed with delight -and hopefulness his assiduous efforts to fit himself for his high -destiny. “In another way,” he writes to the young Prince, “Vicky is also -busy; she has learned much in various directions.... She now comes to me -every evening from six to seven, when I put her through a kind of -general catechising, and, in order to give precision to her ideas, I -make her work out certain subjects by herself, and bring me the results -to be revised. Thus she is now engaged in writing a short compendium of -Roman history.”[247] - -[Illustration: THE WOOING OF THE PRINCESS ROYAL.] - -On the 30th of November the King of Sardinia, accompanied by Count -Cavour, arrived in London to visit the Queen and Prince Albert. A -rough, frank, good-humoured cavalry officer, passionately devoted to -field sports, and fired with an ardent love of Italy and a bitter hatred -of all foes of Italian Unity--such was our ally, Victor Emmanuel. He had -been preceded by his social reputation in Paris, which was, in truth, -such as to make the Queen somewhat nervous. Lord Malmesbury, writing in -his Diary on the 29th of November, says, “The King of Sardinia, who is -here (Paris), is as vulgar and coarse as possible.”[248] - -[Illustration: COUNT CAVOUR.] - -However, his Majesty was received with much kindness by the English -people, and on the day after his arrival the Queen and Prince took him -to see Woolwich Arsenal and the Hospitals, only too well filled with -wounded Crimean soldiers. The Artillery Parade on the Common was viewed -by the King with great delight. On Monday, the 3rd of December, Prince -Albert accompanied his Royal guest to Spithead, where they inspected -the fleet and went over the old _Victory_, and a new ship of war, to be -named after his Majesty. On Tuesday, the 4th, Victor Emmanuel visited -the City of London in State, where he met with an effusive welcome, that -greatly impressed him. The reply to the Address presented to him by the -Corporation, which was delivered by the King--though “writ in choice -Italian” for him by his crafty mentor, Cavour--pledging him to support -us to the last in our struggle with Russia if the peace negotiations -then going on failed, vastly increased his popularity. Next day he was -invested by the Queen with the Order of the Garter, and on Thursday he -left at five o’clock in the morning for Boulogne. It was bitterly cold -and bleak, yet, to the surprise of Cavour, the Queen was up betimes to -bid her guest farewell, with all the cordiality of a true English -hostess. Many good stories, most of which will not bear repetition here, -were told of this visit. “I was presented,” writes Lord Malmesbury on -the 5th of December, “to the King of Sardinia by Prince Albert, who told -him that I was an ‘_Ancien Ministre d’Affaires Etrangères_.’ ‘_A quelle -époque?_’ answered the King. I said, ‘In 1852, under Lord Derby’s -Government.’ The King replied, ‘_Que faites-vous à présent?_’ To which -the Prince said, ‘_II fait de l’opposition, car il faut toujours faire -quelque chose dans ce pays_.’ ‘_Ah_,’ replied the King, ‘_donc vous êtes -opposé à mon voyage en Angleterre, et à mon alliance_.’”[249] Lord -Clarendon, says Mr. Greville, “gave me an account of his conversations -both with the King and Cavour. He thinks well of the King, and that he -is intelligent, and he has a very high opinion indeed of Cavour, and was -especially struck with his knowledge of England, and our institutions -and constitutional history. I was much amused after all the praises that -have been lavished on Sardinia for the noble part she has played, and -for taking up arms in so _unselfish_ a manner, that she has, after all, -a keen view to her own interests, and wants some solid pudding as well -as so much empty praise.” In fact, Sardinia wanted some territorial -advantage, which, of course, in view of our relations with Austria at -the time, England could not obtain for her. Hence Victor Emmanuel -complained that after spending 40,000,000 francs on the war, he had -nothing to show his people for it.[250] “The King and his people,” -writes Mr. Greville, “are far better satisfied with their reception here -than in France, where, under much external civility, there was very -little cordiality, the Emperor’s intimate relations with Austria -rendering him little inclined towards the Piedmontese. Here the Queen -was wonderfully cordial and attentive. She got up at five in the morning -to see him depart. His Majesty appears to be frightful in person, but a -great, strong, burly, athletic man, brusque in his manners, unrefined in -his conversation, very loose in his conduct, and eccentric in his -habits. When he was at Paris his talk in society amused or terrified -everybody, but here he seems to have been more guarded. It was amusing -to see all the religious societies hastening with their addresses to -him, totally forgetting that he is the most dissolute fellow in the -world; but the fact of his being excommunicated by the Pope and his -waging war with the ecclesiastical power in his own country covers every -sin against morality, and he is a great hero with the Low Church people -and Exeter Hall. My brother-in-law said he looked at Windsor more like a -chief of the Heruli or Longobardi than a modern Italian prince, and the -Duchess of Sutherland said that of all the Knights of the Garter she had -seen, he was the only one who seemed as if he would have the best of it -with the Dragon.”[251] If Clarendon expressed to Mr. Greville great -admiration for the Sardinian Monarch, he must have been of a singularly -forgiving disposition. For Lord Malmesbury says that when Prince Albert -presented Lord Clarendon to his Majesty as the Secretary of State for -Foreign Affairs, Victor Emmanuel remarked, “_J’ai entendu parler de -vous_,” adding, “_C’est fini_,” which, says Lord Malmesbury, in plain -English meant--“Be off. I’ve nothing more to say to you.”[252] - -On the 6th of October, 1854, the Queen had issued a Royal Warrant for -regulating promotion and retirement in the army, which now caused her -much vexation. The warrant enabled lieutenant-colonels, after three -years’ service, to become by right full colonels. This privilege was -confined to line regiments, and the officers of the Guards accordingly -sent a memorial to the Crown begging that it should be extended to them -also. Prince Albert, as Colonel of the Grenadiers, had signed their -petition, and in the middle of December the _Times_ attacked him with -great acrimony for pampering the Guards, and charged him with using his -influence over the Queen for purposes of military jobbery. The old -story, accusing the Prince of interfering with the army and of having -intrigued to become Commander-in-Chief, was vamped up again. It has -already been seen that these accusations were absolutely false, and the -impossibility of contradicting them publicly gave her Majesty great -pain. She knew nothing about the Guards’ memorial, and all the Prince -knew about it was that he had signed it as a matter of formality, -because it was only through him as their colonel, that the officers of -his regiment could, according to the regulations, forward any petition -to the Government. The memorial was dealt with by the Secretary of -State, Lord Panmure, who, as a matter of fact, did _not_ grant its -prayer. That the Prince sometimes interfered with military -administration was quite true. When the War Department broke down he -toiled hard to help the Duke of Newcastle to set it on its legs again. -When the Queen began to fret over the meagreness of Raglan’s despatches, -he showed the Department how to draw up a series of forms that would -compel Raglan to keep the Secretary of State fully aware from day to -day of the state of the Crimean army. When the Prince of Prussia wrote -to him warning him that the conduct of the English officers in the -Crimea, who were supposed to be deserting their posts “on urgent private -affairs,” was bringing disgrace on the name of England, Prince Albert -did what ought to have been done by Lord Panmure, when the story was -promulgated in the press--that is to say, he sifted the facts, and gave -the lie direct to the slanderous fable.[253] To these attacks the Prince -had become indifferent; but they irritated the Queen, who resented their -injustice, and chafed against her powerlessness to give them public -denial. - -[Illustration: BALACLAVA: AT PEACE. - -(_From a Drawing made Twenty-Five Years after the Crimean War._)] - -[Illustration: CATHCART’S HILL, CRIMEA.] - - - - -CHAPTER XXXIII. - -THE END OF THE WAR. - - Lord Raglan’s Successor--“Take Care of Dowb”--Lord Panmure’s - Nepotism--The Crisis of the War--Gortschakoff’s Last Struggle--The - Battle of the Tchernaya River--France and the War--A Despondent - Court--Divided Counsels among the Allies--The Bridge of Rafts--The - Grand Bombardment--French Attack on the Malakoff--British Attack on - the Redan--Why the Attack Failed--The “Hero of the - Redan”--Pélissier’s Message to Simpson--Appeal to Sir Colin - Campbell--Evacuation of the Redan--Fall of Sebastopol--Retreat of - the Russians to the North Town--Paralysis of the Victors--The - Queen’s Anger--Her Remonstrances with Lord Panmure--A New - Commander-in-Chief--Taking Care of “Dowb”--Codrington Chosen--The - Wintry Crimean Watch--Diplomatic Humiliation of Palmerston--France - Negotiates Secretly Terms of Peace with Austria--Palmerston’s - Indignant Remonstrances--The Queen Objects to Prosecute the War - Alone--The Surrender of Palmerston--He Abandons the Turks--An - Unpopular Peace--The Tories Offer to Support the Peace--The Queen - and the Parliament of 1856. - - -When Lord Raglan died, General Simpson, who had been his chief of the -staff, was appointed to succeed him. It is enough to say that Simpson -was infinitely less capable than his predecessor; but, on the other -hand, he was a good-natured, pliable man, not likely to be troublesome -to the authorities at home. Mr. Alfred Varley, the eminent electrician, -told Colonel Hope, V.C., that when Lord Panmure’s despatch appointing -General Simpson to the chief command was received, the message ended -with the mysterious order--“Take care of Dowb.” Mr. Varley, who was on -duty, thinking “Dowb” was some unknown Russian general who had been -suddenly discovered by Lord Panmure, requested that the message should -be repeated. It turned out, however, that “Dowb” was merely an -abbreviation of Dowbigging, and that Dowbigging was one of Lord -Panmure’s relatives, whom he, as a Minister, pledged to suppress the -nepotism that had ruined the army, thus authoritatively recommended to -the good offices of the new Commander-in-Chief.[254] “Take care of -Dowb,” from that day till now, has indeed been the shibboleth of jobbery -and corruption in all branches of the Queen’s service. Thus, though the -crisis of the war had now come, it was only too obvious that little -could be expected from an army led by a feeble and subservient general, -and directed from home by an “administrative reformer” of Lord Panmure’s -type. - -On the 21st of July, General Simpson reported that his trenches were -within two hundred yards of the Redan, which had been greatly -strengthened since the last assault, and that they could not be pushed -farther. The loss of life in the trenches was so enormous, that the -assault could not be long delayed--and yet, till Pélissier took the -Malakoff, it was madness to attack the Redan. On the other hand, -overwhelming reinforcements were being poured in from Russia, and, on -the 16th of August, Prince Gortschakoff made a bold attempt to raise the -siege. He crossed the Tchernaya river, and attacked the French and -Sardinians, but was hurled back with great loss. This came as glad -tidings to the Queen, who had heard with apprehension that the French -were beginning to cry out against the war, and that they were -complaining that France was simply a tool in the hands of England. The -victory of the Tchernaya and the Queen’s visit to Paris silenced these -murmurs for a time. Prince Albert, however, was still despondent, for no -progress was made after this battle; and his letters from the Crimea -warned him that another winter campaign would yet have to be undertaken. - -The months of July and August produced in England a fresh crop of -censures in the newspapers. It was even suggested that, by way of -counteracting divided counsels among the allies, the siege should be -entirely left to the French, while the English, Sardinians, and Turks -should sally forth and attack the Russian army of observation in the -field. In September, the beginnings of a bridge of rafts between the -north and south sides of Sebastopol were seen, and, on the 5th of -September, the grand bombardment, preliminary to the assault on the -Malakoff and Redan, commenced--the French opening four miles of -cannonade at a given signal. A terrific hail of shot and shell was -almost continuously poured upon the hapless city till the 8th, when the -moment for the assault arrived. Pélissier was to hoist the tricolour on -the Malakoff when it was taken, and that was to be the signal for the -British attack on the Redan. For many hours a savage contest raged -round and on the Malakoff, but in the end the French captured the -stronghold. The British storming force of 1,000 men, with small covering -and ladder parties, then rushed forward to the outworks of the Redan. In -crossing the space of two hundred yards that intervened between their -trenches and the fortress, they were swept by a terrific fire, under -which they fell like swathes of corn before the reaper. The troops--for -the most part weedy young recruits--soon became demoralised, and many of -them had actually to be kicked into action by their sergeants. Somehow -they forced their way over the ramparts--a confused undisciplined mob in -a pitiful state of disorganisation. One figure alone stands out in this -scene of murky strife in heroic grandeur--that of Colonel Windham. He -strove with furious energy to rally the scattered remnants of regiments -which were mixed up with each other, and to hurl them against the inner -breastwork. But as at the Alma, there were no supports at hand, and -Windham sent messenger after messenger imploring Codrington to hurry -them on. His entreaties were unheeded, partly because some of the -messengers were shot, partly because Codrington, like most of the -English generals in the Crimea, did not seem to consider that slender -storming parties needed strong and instant support. At last Windham, -enraged at the useless and sickening slaughter of his men, determined to -go himself and force his chief to send the stormers succour. “Let it be -known,” he said to Captain Crealock, “in case I am killed, why I went -away.” He passed through the zone of fire in safety, reached Codrington, -and, whilst vainly arguing with him, he saw that the day was lost. The -subalterns and sergeants he had left behind--for most of the superior -officers were killed or wounded--could no longer hold the men to their -deadly work. First one, then another, and then a small group, were seen -to creep through the gaps in the Redan. Then a mad rush of -terror-stricken soldiers, yelling and shrieking in panic, proclaimed -that Windham’s mission was useless, and that the fight was over. As for -the Commander-in-Chief, where was he all the time? Cowering in a safe -corner of the trenches, where he could see little of the fight! There -Pélissier’s messenger found him when he came to ask if he would not -immediately assail the Redan again. “The trenches were,” according to -Simpson’s despatch, “subsequently to this attack, so crowded with -troops, that I was unable to organise a second assault.” - -General Simpson might as well have doomed his men to sudden death as -send such a slender column as had been repulsed, to storm the Redan. -This, then, is the sum of the matter. The first assault failed because -the stormers were too few; the second was not attempted, lest they might -have been too many! Ultimately, Simpson did what he ought to have done -in the first instance; that is to say, he fell back on Sir Colin -Campbell and the Scottish Brigade.[255] But when his Highland scouts -went to reconnoitre during the night, they found the place deserted. The -losses on our side were frightful, especially in officers and sergeants. -Of the 2,447 stormers who were killed and wounded, 1,435 belonged to the -Light Division; in fact, owing to Simpson’s imbecility in sending a mere -handful of men to the attack, and Codrington’s inexcusable neglect to -hurry on supports, we sacrificed more men in failing to carry the Redan, -than Wellington lost when he captured Badajoz.[256] During the night the -Russians set fire to the town. Crossing the bridge of rafts, the enemy -fled to the northern side of the harbour, leaving us in possession, not -of Sebastopol, but, as Gortschakoff said, of a heap of blood-stained -ruins. - -[Illustration: FRENCH ATTACK ON THE MALAKOFF.] - -On Sunday, the 9th of September, the news that Sebastopol had fallen -was proclaimed through England. And so the siege that had gone on for -the best part of a year, which had involved the construction of seventy -miles of trenches, and the expenditure of 1,500,000 shells, came to an -end--gloriously for the French with victory at the Malakoff, -ingloriously for England with ignominious defeat at the Redan. On the -29th of September, the Russians were repulsed at Kars; but on the 28th -of November, the neglected and famine-stricken garrison, whose heroic -defence under General Fenwick Williams was one of the most brilliant -episodes of the war, had to surrender. The occupation of Kinburn and the -bombardment of Sweaborg were the only successes won by us at sea. - -[Illustration: GENERAL TODLEBEN.] - -When Sebastopol fell, it was not the Russians but Generals Simpson and -Pélissier who were paralysed by the catastrophe. The Allies, in fact, -seemed to sit helplessly looking on, and gave the enemy time to render -his position on the north side of the city almost impregnable. Thus once -more the besiegers became the besieged, and found themselves in even a -more perilous position than that which they held before the fall of the -city. The Queen was greatly distressed to hear that all our sacrifices -had been in vain, and that Simpson and Pélissier were even more -incompetent than Raglan and Canrobert.[257] At last her Majesty’s -impatience could no longer be controlled, nor her irritation concealed. -On the 2nd of October she wrote to Lord Panmure saying, “there may be -good reasons why the army should not move, but we have only one.... When -General Simpson telegraphed before that he must wait to know the -intentions and plans of the Russians, the Queen was tempted to advise a -reference to St. Petersburg for them.” And the intensely provoking thing -was that if the Allies had only threatened a landing between Eupatoria -and Sebastopol after the fall of the city, the Russians would have been -compelled to evacuate the Crimea.[258] - -Naturally the Queen began to press the War Office to appoint a new -Commander-in-Chief, and then Ministers began to “take care of Dowb.” -There was but one great military reputation not made--for it had been -made long before--but somewhat enhanced in the Crimea. It was that of -Sir Colin Campbell, the only leader on whom even a shred of the mantle -of Wellington or Moore had fallen. The soldiers had confidence in no -other; in fact, he was the only divisional commander in the army who had -a native genius for war. But he had no “interest,” and had he been -appointed, his iron will and stubborn character would have soon asserted -themselves over the foolish counsels of Pélissier. A strong, competent -man without “interest” was in Lord Panmure’s eyes an objectionable -person. So he looked elsewhere for a successor to General Simpson. -Happening accidentally to hear from Mr. Greville of Colonel Windham’s -exploit at the Redan, Panmure suddenly resolved to appoint him -Commander-in-Chief. Mr. Greville was naturally amazed at this proposal, -and suggested that it would be better to try Windham first with a -Division before they put him over the heads of his seniors. Simpson, -however, was eager to come home; time pressed, and Campbell, having no -connection with “Dowb,” was of course impossible. As for Codrington, his -failure and bungling at the Redan ought to have rendered him impossible -also, but on the other hand he was not quite so incompetent as Simpson, -and he had “interest.” Finally, Prince Albert’s advice was taken, and -thus Codrington, as the candidate who “divided the authorities least,” -was appointed to the chief command. But the troops were divided into two -_corps d’armée_, the command of which was offered to the two senior -generals over whose heads Codrington had been passed. One of these, Sir -Colin Campbell, in bitterness of heart returned to England, firmly -determined to quit a service, which had rewarded half a century of -brilliant achievement with contemptuous neglect. The Queen, however, -came to hear of this, and touched with some twinge of remorse, sent for -the old man, and in the course of an interview with him persuaded him to -alter his intentions. She spoke to him of her anxiety as to the fate of -the army, and as a personal favour to herself, requested him to go back -to the Crimea. The rough, war-worn veteran in an instant forgot the -wrongs of a lifetime. Tears glistened in his eyes, as he assured the -Queen, in the broad provincial _patois_, which he always spoke when -under the excitement of battle or deep emotion, that he would return -immediately, and as for his rank--well, “if the Queen wished it, Colin -Campbell was ready for her sake to serve under a corporal.” To the -credit of her Majesty it must be remembered that this was the last time -Campbell was neglected. If it took him forty-six years’ hard, thankless -toil to rise to a Lieutenant-Colonelcy, in eight years he became a Field -Marshal. - -But besides keeping an idle wintry watch on the plateau before -Sebastopol, there was no work in store for the army in the Crimea. The -victories won by the sword were now about to be neutralised by the pen, -and for Lord Palmerston the supreme moment of humiliation and failure -was close at hand. The corner-stone of his foreign policy, it will be -remembered, was the French alliance. If that proved to be unstable, the -policy itself was _ab initio_ a fatal blunder. And the French alliance -broke down at the critical moment when England, full of confidence in -her reorganised army, expected that the war would be prosecuted till her -disgraceful defeats at the Redan were triumphantly avenged. France, as -has been repeatedly said, was sick of the war--a fact which Palmerston -never had the moral courage to face. The war had now served the -Emperor’s purpose, for the victory of the Malakoff had glorified the -dynasty. Napoleon III., therefore, resolved to desert his ally, and in -October Palmerston learnt with dismay that 100,000 French troops were to -be immediately withdrawn from the Crimea.[259] What was still more -serious, as Prince Albert says in a letter to Stockmar, the French were -now demanding territorial compensation either in Poland, Italy, or the -left bank of the Rhine. This last demand was particularly alarming to -the Queen, who, in the spring, had warned Clarendon of its probable -consequences. “The first Frenchman,” she says, in her letter of the 15th -of April, “who should hostilely approach the Rhine, would set the whole -of Germany on fire.” But in November, Palmerston’s policy compelled -Englishmen to drink the cup of humiliation to the lees. Napoleon III., -ignoring England, secretly negotiated with Austria the terms of peace -which were to be offered to Russia, and these were then transmitted to -the British Government, by Count Walewski, with an intimation that -England must accept them as they stood. Palmerston, angry at being thus -duped and slighted, sent a violent remonstrance to France, declaring -that England would carry on the war alone rather than accept such -terms.[260] The Emperor himself, however, wrote to the Queen advising -her to give way, and explaining why he could not consent to extort any -further sacrifices from France, for what he contemptuously called “the -microscopical advantages” which were the objects of Lord Palmerston’s -policy. The Queen in her reply says, “I make, then, full allowance for -your Majesty’s personal difficulties, and refuse to listen to any -wounded feelings of _amour propre_ which my Government might be supposed -to entertain at a complete understanding having been come to with -Austria--an understanding which has resulted in an arrangement being -placed cut and dry before us, for our mere acceptance, putting us in the -disagreeable position of either having to accept what we have not even -been allowed fully to understand (and which, so far as Austria is -concerned, has been negotiated under influences dictated by motives, and -in a spirit which we are without the means of estimating), or to take -the responsibility of breaking up this arrangement, of losing the -alliance which is offered to us, and which is so much wanted,[261] and -even of estranging the friendly feeling of the ally who advocates the -arrangement itself.”[262] One member of the Cabinet, Sir George -Cornewall Lewis, doubtless expressed the feeling of all his colleagues -when he told Mr. Greville that they felt they had no alternative but to -submit with a good grace. To this, says Mr. Greville, he “added an -expression of his disgust at the pitiful figure we cut in the affair, -being obliged to obey the commands of Louis Napoleon, and after our -insolence, swagger, and bravado, to submit to terms of peace which we -had just rejected; all which humiliation, he justly said, was the -consequence of our plunging into war without any reason, and in defiance -of all prudence and sound policy.” He might have added that it was the -inevitable result of plunging into war with a treacherous ally, on whose -fidelity Palmerston was senseless enough to stake the fortunes of the -Empire, and the sceptre of his Sovereign. The Queen personally -considered the terms which were thus thrust on England far from -adequate; still she set her face against Palmerston’s first proposal to -continue the war for the sake of winning prospective victories. After -some trivial modifications the - -[Illustration: THE THRONE ROOM, ST. JAMES’S PALACE. (_From a Photograph -by H. N. King._)] - -Franco-Austrian conditions were accepted by the British Government, -transmitted by Austria to Russia, and accepted by her on the 16th of -January, 1856. “Think,” said Sir George Lewis to Mr. Greville, “that -this is a war carried on for the independence of Turkey, and we, the -allies, are bound to Turkey by mutual obligations not to make peace but -by common consent and concurrence. Well, we have sent an offer of peace -to Russia, of which the following are among the terms: We propose that -Turkey, who possesses one-half of the Black Sea Coast, shall have no -ships, no ports, no arsenals in that sea; and then there are conditions -about the Christians who are the subjects of Turkey, and others about -the mouths of the Danube, to which part of the Turkish dominions are -contiguous. Now in all these stipulations so intimately concerning -Turkey, for whose independence we are fighting, Turkey is not allowed to -have any voice whatever, nor has she ever been allowed to be made -acquainted with what is going on except through the newspapers, where -the Turkish Ministers may have read what is passing, like other people. -When the French and Austrian terms were discussed in the Cabinet, at the -end of the discussion some one modestly asked whether it would not be -proper to communicate to Musurus (the Turkish Ambassador in London) what -was in agitation, and what had been agreed upon, to which Clarendon said -he saw no necessity for it whatever.”[263] But Palmerston by this time -had abandoned the Turks--indeed, he now became quite moderate, not to -say humble in his tone--permitting Clarendon to adopt or reject his -suggestions as he chose. This sudden docility naturally improved his -position at Court. “Palmerston,” writes Mr. Greville, “is now on very -good terms with the Queen, which is, though he does not know it, greatly -attributable to Clarendon’s constant endeavours to reconcile her to him, -always telling her everything likely to ingratiate Palmerston with her, -and showing her any notes or letters of his calculated to please -her.”[264] - -The Prime Minister and his colleagues it seems were surprised that -Russia assented so readily to the terms of peace, and were for a time -nervous as to the verdict of the English people. “All peaces are -unpopular,” wrote Sir George Lewis to Sir Edmund Head, “and all peaces, -it seems to me, are beneficial, even to the country which is supposed to -be the loser. How greatly England prospered after the peace of 1782, and -France after the peace of 1815! I suppose that this peace, if it takes -place, will be no exception to the general rule.”[265] Fortunately, the -Court supported the Ministry in acting with the other Powers, and Mr. -Disraeli and Lord Stanley privately informed the Cabinet, that they -would accept any peace which was sanctioned by the Crown. Thus the Queen -and her Ministers were enabled to meet the Parliament of 1856 with some -measure of confidence. - - - - -CHAPTER XXXIV. - -PEACE AND PARLIAMENT. - - Opening of Parliament--A Cold Speech from the Throne--Moderation of - Militant Toryism--Mr. Disraeli’s Cynical Strategy--The Betrayal of - Kars--The Life Peerage Controversy--Baron Parke’s Nickname--More - Attacks on Prince Albert--Court Favouritism among Men of - Science--The Congress of Paris--How France Betrayed - England--Walewski’s Intrigues with Orloff--Mr. Greville’s Pictures - of French Official Life--Snubbing Bonapartist Statesmen--Peace - Proclaimed--Popular Rejoicings--A Memento of the Congress--The - Terms of Peace--The Tripartite Treaty--The Queen’s Opinion of the - Settlement--Parliamentary Criticism on the Treaty of - Paris--Stagnation of Public Life in England--The Queen’s “Happy - Family” Dinner Party--A little “Tiff” with America--The Restoration - of H.M.S. _Resolute_--The Budget--Palmerston’s Tortuous Italian - Policy--The Failure of his Domestic Policy--The Confirmation of the - Princess Royal--Robbery of the Royal Nursery Plate--Prince Alfred’s - Tutor--Reviews of Crimean Troops--Debates on the Purchase - System--Lord Hardinge’s Tragic Death--The Duke of Cambridge as - Commander-in-Chief--Miss Nightingale’s Visit to - Balmoral--Coronation of the Czar--Russian Chicanery at Paris--A Bad - Map and a False Frontier--Quarrel between Prussia and - Switzerland--Quarrel between England and the Sicilies--Death of the - Queen’s Half-Brother--Settlement of the Dispute with Russia--“The - Dodge that Saved us.” - - -Parliament was opened by the Queen in person on the 31st of January, -1856, vast crowds flocking to Westminster for the purpose of testifying -their interest in the negotiations for peace. The Royal speech was a -brief and business-like summary of the events that had led up to these -negotiations, and it announced measures for assimilating the mercantile -law of England and Scotland, simplifying the law of partnership, and -reforming the system of levying dues on merchant shipping. Complaint was -made that the references to the achievements of the army were cold and -unsympathetic, as if the speech were that, not of a Sovereign, but of a -Minister, and Lord Derby was perhaps right in saying that had her -Majesty been left to the promptings of her heart, her Address would not -have been open to this objection. Those who had observed the warm -womanly sympathy she had shown to the wounded soldiers, or who had -witnessed her agitation when she decorated the maimed Crimean heroes, -knew well that had she been free to speak as she felt, she would have -uttered eloquent words of thanks and praise to cheer the troops still -keeping watch and ward in the Crimea. - -The general feeling expressed in both Houses of Parliament was that, if -we had determined to prosecute the war till Russia sued for peace, we -should certainly have obtained more honourable terms than those which -had been now accepted by us. But Mr. Disraeli wisely curbed the -bellicose spirit of his party, and declared that to continue the war -merely for the sake of adding lustre to our arms, would bring us no -honour. From being vindicators of public law we should in that case sink -to the level of “the gladiators of history.” Policy as well as prudence -forced moderation on militant Toryism. Mr. Disraeli in a letter to Lord -Malmesbury, written on the 30th of November, 1855, says, - -[Illustration: VIEW IN THE CRIMEA: JALTA.] - -“it seems to me that a Party that has shrunk from the responsibility of -conducting a war, would never be able to carry on an Opposition against -a Minister for having concluded an unsatisfactory peace, however bad the -terms.”[266] Lord Derby’s determination to refuse office when Lord -Aberdeen fell from power, therefore doomed the Opposition to meek -inactivity. “We are off the rail of politics,” said Mr. Disraeli in the -letter just quoted, “and must continue so as long as the war lasts.” -Hence one can have no difficulty in agreeing with Sir Theodore Martin -when he asserts, that “it was only to be expected of a statesman like -Mr. Disraeli, that he should refrain from embarrassing by a word the -Ministers on whom devolved the difficult duty of protecting the national -interests and honour, in negotiating terms of peace.”[267] There was no -division on the Address. But Lord Derby attacked the Government for the -abandonment of Kars, in deference, he insinuated, to the wishes - -[Illustration: MISS NIGHTINGALE.] - -of the French Emperor, who feared that the war in Asia Minor would -dangerously enhance British prestige in that region. On the 28th of -April Mr. Whiteside also raised a debate on the subject in the House of -Commons, but the Tory party was so unwilling to follow its leaders, that -Lord Derby regretted the matter had ever been stirred. The discussion -merely established the facts that Lord Stratford had cruelly neglected -to press General Williams’ appeals for reinforcements on the Porte, that -the Government had culpably neglected to give Williams the money -(£100,000) which would have provisioned Kars. But as the fortress was to -be restored to the Turks, and as General Williams was to be consoled -with a baronetcy, the House of Commons thought the matter had better -drop, and Mr. Whiteside’s motion was lost by a majority of 303 to 176. -Much more serious was the defeat inflicted on the Government on another -subject which deeply interested the Queen--that of Baron Parke’s life -peerage. - -Writing on the 9th of January, 1856, in his Diary, Lord Campbell says, -“Bethell, the Solicitor-General, has made Baron Parke a peer. The -judicial business of the House of Lords could not go on another session -as it did last. Pemberton Leigh was first offered a peerage, and I wish -much that he had accepted it, but he positively refused to be -_pitchforked_. I don’t know that anything less exceptional could be done -than applying next to Baron Surrebutter.”[268] At the Lord Chancellor’s -levee on the first day of Hilary Term, Lord Campbell asked him if there -was any truth in the story that Parke’s peerage was to be for life. On -hearing that it was, Lord Campbell replied, “Then sorry am I to say that -I must make a row about it.” At first he thought that the grant of a -life peerage was not illegal--for Coke asserted its legality--but merely -unconstitutional. When, however, Lord Campbell studied the precedents, -he became convinced that “no life peerage had been granted to any man -for more than 400 years, and that there was no authenticated instance of -a peer ever having sat and voted in the House of Lords having in him a -life peerage only--the life peerages relied upon being superinduced on -pre-existing peerages, _e.g._, De Vere, Earl of Oxford (a title which -had been in his family since the Conquest), was created by Richard II. -Marquis of Dublin for life.” Lord Campbell goes on to say, “My eyes were -opened. The power of the Crown to give a right to vote in the House must -depend on the exercise of the power; and no one _had_ voted in right of -a peerage for life more than _of a peerage granted during the pleasure -of the King_--for the granting of which there was at least one -precedent.”[269] - -When Sir Theodore Martin says that “the right of the Crown to create a -life peerage with a right to sit in Parliament” was “scarcely disputed -in the discussions which arose,” his anxiety to exaggerate the Queen’s -prerogative has led him into a grave error. As Lord Campbell says, “It -was not necessary to resort to the doctrine of desuetude,” for “the -non-exercise of a prerogative, ever since the Constitution was settled, -afforded a strong inference that it had never lawfully existed.” The -fact is that the arguments in favour of recognising the right of the -Crown to create a peer for life, with the right of voting in the House -of Lords, would have been equally good for creating a peer with a -similar right, during the Sovereign’s pleasure. A peer who could at any -moment be deprived of his rank and senatorial privileges would, of -course, either be a creature of the Court or the minion of the Minister. -Lord Lyndhurst, therefore, had little difficulty in carrying a motion -referring Baron Parke’s Letters Patent to a Committee of Privileges, -which reported against the right asserted by the Crown. The Government -yielded, and Sir James Parke was finally created an hereditary peer in -the ordinary way, under the title of Lord Wensleydale. - -The rebuff was annoying to the Queen; all the more that it led to a -fresh series of attacks on Prince Albert. He was accused of having -attempted to extend the Queen’s prerogative with the ulterior object of -packing the House of Lords with certain scientific men who were supposed -to be Court favourites.[270] In his “Memoirs,” according to Mr. -Greville, General Grey “told his brother, the Earl, that his Royal -Highness knew nothing of the matter till after it had been settled.” The -truth is that nobody was cognisant of the affair except the Lord -Chancellor, Lord Granville, and Lord Palmerston. Mr. Greville says, -“George Lewis told me that the life peerage had never been brought -before the Cabinet, and he knew nothing of it till he saw it in the -_Gazette_,”[271] which illustrates the thoughtless manner in which Lord -Palmerston allowed himself to be committed to a step, that roused public -jealousy against the Crown and the Court. Lord Malmesbury also states, -that when Lord Derby was dining one day with the Queen, she told him -that if she had had any idea that the question would have created such a -disturbance, she would never have dreamt of granting Parke his life -peerage.[272] - -Fortunately the negotiations for peace were now proceeding apace at -Paris. The Queen had written a letter to the French Emperor, which Lord -Clarendon had delivered to him, earnestly insisting on the necessity of -unity of action between France and England at the Congress of the -Powers. The Emperor told Lord Clarendon it was “a charming letter;” but -in spite of his flattering account of it, the influence of France from -first to last was turned against England in the discussions between the -plenipotentiaries. Possibly this was due to the constitutional indolence -and weakness of the Emperor, who permitted Walewski to manage matters -his own way, and as for Walewski, he betrayed Lord Clarendon at every -opportunity. Napoleon III. was really in the hands of his _entourage_, -and they were to a great extent in the hands of Russia.[273] Lord -Cowley, indeed, informed Mr. Greville that Walewski privately made known -to Orloff, the Russian plenipotentiary, not only the points he must -yield, but those as to which he might safely defy Lord Clarendon with -the open or secret support of France. - -“The signing of the Treaty of Peace with Russia,” writes Lord -Malmesbury - -[Illustration: THE EMPEROR OF AUSTRIA.] - -on the 30th of March, “was announced by the firing of cannon from the -Tower and Horse Guards. Numbers collected in the streets, but no -enthusiasm was shown.”[274] In fact, when the terms became known there -was much popular disappointment, and the _Sun_ newspaper actually -appeared in deep mourning over our national humiliation. On the next -morning a great crowd assembled in front of the Mansion House. At ten -o’clock the Lord Mayor, attended by the Sheriffs, the Sword-bearer, -Mace-bearer, and City Marshal, advanced to the stone balcony, and amidst -loud cheers read a despatch from the Home Secretary informing him that -the Treaty was signed. At noon the Lord Mayor proceeded in state to the -Royal Exchange, where a great number of ladies had mingled with the -crowd, and read the despatch again. - -[Illustration: THE CONFERENCE OF PARIS, 1856.] - -And what were the terms of peace? The Powers admitted Turkey to -participate in all the advantages of the public law of Europe, and they -agreed that in any future dispute with the Porte, the matter must be -submitted to arbitration before force was used by either side. The -Sultan was bound by the Treaty to communicate to the Powers a firman -improving the condition of his Christian subjects, but this instrument, -it was stipulated, gave the Powers no collective or individual right to -interfere between Turkey and her Christian subjects. The Black Sea was -neutralised--_i.e._, all ships of war were excluded from it, and the -establishment of arsenals on its coasts was prohibited. But the Euxine -was declared free to the trading vessels of all nations, and the Powers -were at liberty to keep a few armed ships of light draught for police -duty on the neutralised sea. The navigation of the Danube was declared -free. Russia ceded Bessarabia to Turkey. The privileges and immunities -of Wallachia, Moldavia, and Servia were guaranteed, but the Sultan was -permitted to garrison the latter province. Russia and Turkey were bound -to restore to each other the conquests they had respectively made in -Asia. On the invitation of France the Congress was asked to consider the -position of Greece, the Roman States, and the two Sicilies. It was also -asked to condemn the licence of the Belgian Press, and to formulate new -rules for maritime warfare. These discussions came to naught, but it was -agreed by the “Declarations of Paris” that privateering should be -abolished; that, with the exception of contraband, an enemy’s goods must -be free from capture under a neutral flag, a neutral’s goods being also -respected under an enemy’s flag; and that “paper blockades” should not -be recognised, _i.e._, a blockade to be effective must in future be -maintained by a force strong enough to cut off access to the coasts of -an enemy.[275] It will be observed that there was nothing in this -instrument to provide means for punishing Russia if she broke it. Hence, -on the 15th of April, France, Austria, and England signed what was -called the Tripartite Treaty, binding each other jointly or severally to -go to war against any Power that violated the Treaty of Paris. This -compact was treated like a dead letter when Russia attacked Turkey in -1877. “The peace,” said Prince Albert in a letter to Stockmar, “is not -such as we could have wished, still infinitely to be preferred to the -prosecution of the war, with the present complication of general -policy.” That was in truth the verdict of the country. Comparing the -terms with those which we might have obtained at Vienna in 1855, it was -a humiliating settlement for England, in no way justifying the -continuance of the war after the battle of Inkermann. Comparing them -with the terms which the Czar might have obtained before the invasion of -the Crimea, the settlement was humiliating to Russia. - -In Parliament the debates on the Treaty were on the whole favourable to -the Government. Complaint was, however, made that no effective steps had -been taken to protect Turkey from Russian aggression in Asia Minor; that -the Circassians had been abandoned; that Lord Clarendon in the Congress -had not protested with enough warmth against the attacks made on the -Belgian Press; that no definite provision had been made to prevent -Russia from building war-ships at Nicolaieff; that the government of -the Principalities had been left an open question; and that by the -Declarations rights of search at sea, which were extremely useful to a -naval power during war, were surrendered. It is true that, by agreeing -to abolish privateering, England sacrificed what may be called her right -of fighting with naval volunteers; and it seems as if the American -doctrine--namely, that to the merchant whose ships are plundered, it -matters little whether the mischief is done by a man-of-war or a -privateer--is sensible. On the other hand, it was obvious that England -could not carry on a naval war for a year on the principle that free -ships did not make free goods, without coming into collision with every -neutral State in the world. But to all objections there was, of course, -one answer. No better terms could be got unless England was prepared to -carry on the war alone. Yet, as a matter of fact, Russia had suffered so -severely during the winter, that it is probable she might have been more -complaisant at Paris, had Lord Clarendon been firmer, and had Napoleon -III. not perfidiously played into her hands. - -The solitary result of the Crimean War, says Mr. Spencer Walpole, was to -“set back the clock for some fourteen years.”[276] Still he seems to -think that it “was perhaps worth some sacrifice, to prove that England -was still ready to strike a blow for a weak neighbour whom she believed -to be oppressed.” This would have been a gain had it added to English -prestige. But the war really diminished that prestige. M. De -Tocqueville, after returning from a Continental tour, said to the late -Mr. Senior, “I heard universal and unqualified praise of the heroic -courage of your soldiers, but at the same time I found spread abroad the -persuasion that the importance of England had been overrated as a -military power properly so called--a power which consists in -administering as much as in fighting, and, above all, that it was -impossible (and this had never before been believed) for her to raise -large armies, even under the most pressing circumstances. I never heard -anything like it since my childhood. You are supposed to be entirely -dependent on us.... A year ago we probably overrated your military -power. I believe that now we most mischievously underrate it. A year ago -nothing alarmed us more than a whisper of the chance of a war with -England. We talk of one now with great composure. We believe that it -would not be difficult to throw 100,000 men upon your shores, and we -believe that half that number would walk over England or Ireland.”[277] - -After peace had been proclaimed, public life in England stagnated for a -time, and party rancour temporarily disappeared. Ministers and -Ex-Ministers met in society on the friendliest terms, and Lord -Malmesbury describes a dinner party which the Queen gave on the 7th of -May in honour of Baron Brunnow, at which the leaders of both factions -were present--“the happy family I call them,” says the Queen in a letter -to King Leopold. “Lord John Russell was there,” says Lord Malmesbury, -“and very civil to me, as when I arrived he crossed the room to come to -speak to me--a thing he never did before. He began by saying ‘You gave -it them well last night,’[278] and seemed quite delighted at the -Government being bullied.... I had to take Lady Clarendon to dinner. She -was at first very cross, but I ended by laughing her out of her bad -humour.”[279] A slight ripple on the calm waters was due to the -suspension of diplomatic relations with the United States. In raising -recruits under the Foreign Enlistment Act, it seems some overzealous -British agents had given the American Government not unreasonable cause -to complain that we were violating their law during the war. The dispute -became acute, when the British Minister to the United States was -requested to leave Washington--but the quarrel was not a serious one. -“The Americans,” Prince Albert informs Stockmar on the 16th June, “have -sent away our Minister, but accompanied the act with such assurances of -friendship and affection, and of their perfect readiness to adjust all -points of difference in conformity with our wishes, that it will be -difficult to give theirs his _congé_ in return.” As a matter of fact the -British Government apologised, and on the 16th of March, 1857, Lord -Napier was received at Washington as Mr. Crampton’s successor. In truth -there was no real ill-feeling at all between the two nations--and of -this a curious proof was given at the end of the year. H.M.S. _Resolute_ -which had been attached to the last Arctic expedition had been abandoned -in the ice. Some American explorers found her adrift and took her to the -United States. There she was re-fitted at the expense of the Government, -and sent back to England as a present to the Queen. When _Resolute_ made -her appearance at Cowes, the Queen insisted on going in person, on the -16th of December, to receive the gift. Her courteous reception of the -American officers touched them deeply, and Lord Clarendon informed her -Majesty that Mr. Dallas, the American Minister, told him, his countrymen -were quite overwhelmed with the kindness which they had everywhere -received. - -Lord Palmerston’s unwearied attention to business, and his popularity -after peace had been proclaimed, almost silenced criticism on his -domestic policy. It had been supposed that the Budget would tempt the -Opposition to attack him, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a -dismal story to tell when the House of Commons met after Whitsuntide. -The expenditure for the past year had come to £88,428,355, or -£22,723,854 in excess of the revenue. In fact, during the three years -ending with 1856 the war had cost England - -[Illustration: VISIT OF THE QUEEN AND PRINCE ALBERT TO THE “RESOLUTE.”] - -£77,588,000. After making the most cautious estimates, Sir George -Cornewall Lewis said that for the coming year, on the basis of existing -taxation, his expected revenue would fall short of his anticipated -expenditure by £7,000,000. As no new taxes were to be levied, he was -compelled to find the money by borrowing, and, of course, no remission -of taxation could in such circumstances be looked for. The House -sanctioned the scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he was -warned that in future reduced estimates would be demanded. - -More than one attempt was made by Mr. Disraeli to assail the Italian -policy of Lord Palmerston. That policy was somewhat tortuous, for whilst -the English Foreign Office was perpetually encouraging Sardinia to -protest against the Austrian occupation of North Italy, England had, -with Austria and France, become a party to the Tripartite Treaty -guaranteeing the execution of the Treaty of Paris. Mr. Disraeli argued -that it was inconsistent to stir up Sardinia and the discontented -populations of Italy against Austria, at a time when we had by the -Tripartite Treaty virtually bound ourselves in a close alliance with the -Austrian Empire. The tyrannical Government of Sicily also elicited -remonstrances from England, against which Russia protested, on the -ground that we had no right to interfere between King “Bomba” and his -subjects. But no enthusiasm was roused on these subjects--in fact, the -country did not desire a change of Government at the time, and every -effort to weaken the Ministry was therefore futile. Yet the home policy -of the Ministry was a signal failure. They succeeded in assimilating the -mercantile law of England and Scotland; but their first Bill to amend -the law of partnership was abandoned in March. A second one was -introduced, and abandoned in July. A Bill for the amendment of the Poor -Law met the same fate. The Bill to regulate lunatic asylums in Ireland, -and a Bill to relieve merchant vessels of tolls and dues were also -abandoned. Ministers were equally unfortunate with their Divorce Bill, -and with their Bills to establish jurisdiction over wills, and to check -the criminal appropriation of trust property. Their Church Discipline -Bill was rejected by the Lords. The Bills to reconstruct the Irish Court -of Chancery and the Insolvency Court were dropped.[280] The Jury Bill, -Juvenile Offenders Bill, and Dublin Police Bill were also given up. The -Civil Servants’ Superannuation Bill, the London Municipal Reform Bill, -the Bill for the local management of the metropolis, a burial Bill, a -vaccination Bill, a Bill dealing with the Queen’s College in Ireland, -and a Scotch education Bill were all abandoned. A Bill enabling two -Bishops to retire on handsome terms was passed, though the arrangement -was denounced as simoniacal, and the County Police Bill also became law. -But the legislative failures of the Government showed that it had no -firm hold over the House of Commons, and that its position was safe, -merely because the nation was not in a mood for change so soon after -its energies had been exhausted in a costly and inglorious war. -Moreover, Parties were still disorganised. Lord John Russell’s isolation -and the position of the Peelites being disturbing factors in the -situation. Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Disraeli, however, began to draw nearer -and nearer to each other, Lord Stanley being regarded as the connecting -link between them, and some of the Whigs, a little alarmed at the -prospect of a hostile coalition, began to hint that Palmerston would be -wise to attract the Peelites back to his standard. The fact is, the war -left the country profoundly disgusted with Party government. Sir James -Graham told Mr. Greville that hitherto the party system had been -efficient for government, because patronage had been “the great -instrument for keeping parties together.” Peel, however, broke up the -old party system in 1846, and now, said Sir James Graham, “between the -Press, the public opinion which the Press had made, and the views of -certain people in Parliament, of whom Gladstone is the most eminent and -strenuous, patronage was either destroyed or going rapidly to -destruction.”[281] To some extent the Queen shared these views, but in -the event of any mishap leading to Palmerston’s resignation, the idea of -the Court was to organise a coalition under Clarendon. Parliament was -prorogued on the 29th of July. - -Outside politics the life of the Queen during 1856 was not very -eventful. On the 20th of March the confirmation of the Princess Royal -brought together an interesting family gathering at the private chapel -at Windsor. Prince Albert led the princess in, and was followed by the -Queen and King Leopold of Belgium. The officers of State, and of the -household, and most of the members of the Royal Family, were present, -and the Bishop of Oxford, Lord High Almoner, read the preface, the -Archbishop of Canterbury performing the ceremony. Several guests were -present, and in describing the event to Stockmar the Prince dwells with -some pride on the fact that the Princess came through the ordeal of Dean -Wellesley’s preliminary examination a few days before with great -success.[282] The choice of the Navy as Prince Alfred’s profession had -now been made, and in April the Queen and Prince Albert, after much -anxious thought, selected a tutor for their son. He is described by the -Prince in one of his letters as “a distinguished and most amiable young -officer of Engineers ... one Lieutenant Cowell, who was Adjutant of Sir -Harry Jones at Bomarsund and before Sebastopol.... He is only -twenty-three, and has had a high scientific training. By this a great -load has been taken off my heart.”[283] - -[Illustration: PORTSMOUTH.] - -During the spring of the year the wounded from the Crimea had been -pouring in. In February the Queen presented Miss Florence Nightingale -with a jewel, somewhat resembling the badge of an Order of Knighthood, -for her services at Scutari. On the 16th of April her Majesty went to -Chatham with her husband to visit these victims of the war. She passed -through the wards much affected by the sight of some of the more ghastly -wounds, speaking kind and comforting words of sympathy to those who had -suffered most severely. The Camp at Aldershot was also visited on the -18th of April, and 14,000 troops were reviewed, her Majesty riding along -the line whilst the men presented arms. Next morning was a field day, -and the Queen appeared on the ground on horseback, wearing a -Field-Marshal’s uniform, with the Star of the Garter over a dark-blue -riding-habit. On the 23rd of April the splendid fleet - -[Illustration: SIR DE LACY EVANS.] - -at Spithead was reviewed. The spectacle was one of surpassing -magnificence, and upwards of 100,000 persons witnessed it, crowding -every spot from which a view could be obtained between Fort Monckton and -Southsea Castle. The Solent was alive with yachts and craft of all -kinds, decked with bunting, which fluttered gaily in the light breeze. -The Queen’s yacht left Portsmouth Harbour at noon, steamed down and -returned through the double line of war-ships. As the yacht rounded the -_Royal George_ and _Duke of Wellington_ they opened a Royal salute, and -their yards were suddenly manned, as if by magic, with seamen, each -trying to cheer louder than his comrade. This manœuvre was repeated in -succession by every ship in the fleet, and the effect was imposing and -impressive. A mimic attack on Southsea Castle followed, and at night -the whole fleet was suddenly and simultaneously illuminated with blue -lights from yards and portholes. - -“Our army,” Prince Albert wrote, in April, “has begun to return, and it -will require redoubled exertions to keep up its organisation.” In fact, -already an active party in the Cabinet had begun to demand heavy -retrenchment on military expenditure. The Queen had long been convinced -that hurried retrenchments led to wasteful panic expenditure, and was -very much concerned when she heard what was being mooted in the -Ministry. Hence she wrote to Lord Palmerston expressing her strong -feeling that retrenchment should be moderate and gradual. “To the -miserable reductions of the last thirty years,” she says, “is entirely -owing our state of helplessness when the war began;” and surely, she -urged, Ministers were not going to forget the lesson taught by our -sufferings in the Crimea. What, however, was most seriously wanted was a -new military system which would properly utilise the money already voted -for the army, and prevent it from being jobbed into the hands of -incompetent persons with powerful family interest. Sir De Lacy Evans, on -the 4th of March, made an effort to persuade the House of Commons to -abolish the purchase system, which he described as “a stain upon the -service and a dishonour to England,” and Lord Goderich warmly advocated -the application of some effective tests of competence to candidates for -commissions. But though everybody sympathised with Evans, nobody would -help him to carry out his ideas. In the abstract, said Lord Palmerston, -purchase was bad. No one would propose such a system if we were -establishing an army for the first time. It existed only in the British -army, but, then, it did exist, and it had existed so long that it was -hard to get rid of it without injustice to individuals,[284] and great -expenditure in compensation. Yet the highest estimate made of the value -of commissions did not exceed £8,000,000--less than half the sum voted -every year by the House of Commons for the troops; and even that sum -would have had to be paid, not at once, but over a long series of years, -under any scheme, to release an army which had been pawned to its -officers. Prince Albert, in conjunction with Lord Hardinge, drew up a -plan for a new military organisation, which, however, did not touch -questions of patronage or promotion. On the 19th of May the Queen laid -the foundation stone of the great military hospital at Netley, the first -of the kind in England, and an institution which we owe entirely to her -Majesty. “Loving my dear, brave army as I do,” she writes to King -Leopold, “and having seen so many of my poor sick and wounded soldiers, -I shall watch over this work with maternal anxiety,”[285] A visit from -Prince Frederick William of Prussia brought sunshine into the Royal -household, and gladdened the heart of the Queen’s eldest daughter, who -was supremely happy at once again meeting her betrothed. It was during -this visit that the Princess met with an accident, on the 25th of June, -that might have ended fatally. She was sitting at her table in -Buckingham Palace, reading a letter, when the sleeve of her dress caught -fire from a candle. Luckily Miss Hildyard and Miss Anderson (who were in -the room at the time) promptly rolled the Princess in the hearthrug and -extinguished the flames, though her arm was severely burnt from below -the elbow to the shoulder. - -On the 8th of July the Queen again went to Aldershot to review a great -body of Crimean troops, the Royal party including the King of the -Belgians and Prince Oscar of Sweden. Unfortunately the weather somewhat -marred the grandeur of the spectacle, but it became fair enough ere the -day was done to admit of the regiments forming in three sides of a -square round the Queen’s carriage. Then the officers who had been under -fire, with four men from each company and troop, stepped forward, and -her Majesty, rising, addressed them a few words of welcome and thanks. -She told them to say to their comrades that she had herself watched -anxiously over their difficulties and hardships, and mourned with deep -sorrow for the brave men who had fallen in their country’s cause. When -she ceased to speak, the cry of “God save the Queen” burst forth from -every lip. The air was black with helmets, bearskins, and shakoes, which -the men tossed up with delight. Flashing sabres were waving and glancing -along the lines, and on every hillside crowds caught up the cheering -that rose from the serried and glittering ranks of the army. Unhappily -the day was saddened by a strange and melancholy occurrence. Lord -Hardinge was seized with a fit whilst talking to the Queen. “He fell -forward,” says Prince Albert, “upon the table before which he was -standing. I assisted him to the nearest sofa, where he at once resumed -what he was saying with the greatest clearness and calmness, merely -apologising that he had made such a disturbance. When he was moved to -London it was found his right side was paralysed.” Next day the Guards -and Highlanders arrived, and were received by the Queen and enthusiastic -crowds in the Park. “They marched past in fours,” writes Lord -Malmesbury, “preceded by their colonels on horseback and their bands, in -heavy marching order. Certainly they looked as if they had done work; -their uniforms were shabby, many having almost lost all colour, their -bearskins quite brown, and they themselves, poor fellows, though they -seemed happy, and were laughing as they marched along, were very thin -and worn.”[286] Lord Hardinge’s career was now closed. On the 9th of -July he resigned, and on the 24th of September he died. On the 12th of -July the Cabinet accordingly advised the Queen to appoint her cousin, -the Duke of Cambridge, Commander-in-Chief, in succession to Lord -Hardinge, and her Majesty was gratified to find that the arrangement was -one which was highly popular with the troops. Thus the intention of -Wellington was fulfilled, and the army again passed under the direct -command of a Prince of the Blood Royal. - -The Prince and Princess of Prussia paid a visit to England in August, -arriving on the 10th and leaving on the 29th, by which time the Court -had retired to Osborne. On the 30th, after spending two days in -Edinburgh, the Queen and her family arrived at Balmoral. “We found the -house finished,” writes the Queen in her Diary, “as well as the offices, -and the poor old house gone!”[287] It was a stormy, tempestuous holiday, -but the Queen made the best of it. On the 21st of September Sir James -Clark introduced Miss Florence Nightingale to the Queen, who was greatly -charmed with her, and with whom her Majesty held grave consultations as -to the reforms that were needed in military hospitals. The coronation of -the Czar at Moscow, on the 7th of September, was attended by Lord -Granville as the Queen’s representative, and when his reports reached -Balmoral, Prince Albert, in a letter to Stockmar, said that they -regarded these as “an apotheosis and homage paid to the vanquished, and -which cannot fail to inspire both worshipper and worshipped with -dangerous illusions in regard to the real state of things.” - -The Queen was now getting alarmed as to the carrying out of the Treaty -of Peace. She saw Russia making strenuous efforts to separate France and -England. Instead of restoring Kars to the Turks, the Russians demolished -the fortifications, and prolonged their military occupation of the -country in defiance of the Treaty of Paris. They tried to filch Serpent -Island at the mouth of the Danube, under the pretext that it was inside -the new line of their frontier. They sought to push their new frontier -as far south as Lake Jalpuk, because the Powers, misled by a faulty map, -had permitted them to retain the Moldavian town of Bolgrad.[288] In each -case the Emperor of the French was inclined to support the Russian -claim. The British fleet was therefore ordered to occupy the Black Sea -till the deadlock was ended, and when Chreptovitch, the new Russian -ambassador, threatened to leave England because this step had been -taken, Lord Palmerston coolly told him “the sooner he did so the -better,” if he did not mean to give England satisfaction.[289] - -The King of Prussia now began to press the Queen to interfere in a -quarrel between him and the Swiss Republic. Neuenburg or Neufchâtel, by -dynastic inheritance, had come into the possession of Frederick I. in -1707. In 1806 it was ceded to Napoleon, who gave it to Berthier, the -most diplomatic of his generals. After the Great Peace it was granted an -oligarchic constitution, - -[Illustration: VIEW IN BERNE.] - -and received as a Canton into the Swiss Confederation, but its vassalage -to the House of Hohenzollern was formally acknowledged. In 1848 the -Republican citizens of Neuenburg broke the bond that tied them to the -Prussian crown, and though the Protocol of London of the 24th May, 1852, -recognised the Prussian claim to the Province, the Province ignored the -Protocol of London. In the autumn of 1856 the Prussian party in -Neuenburg attacked the Republicans, but the Swiss Federal troops -ruthlessly suppressed the rising, and not only killed twelve royalists, -but had the audacity to throw a hundred others into prison, simply -because they were loyal to their feudal lord. The King of Prussia -objected to their being put on trial, and demanded their surrender, but -it was a far cry from Berlin to Berne, and the stubborn Switzers paid no -heed to his demands. Napoleon III. menaced them in vain. Austria, always -pleased to see Prussia humbled in Germany, threw obstacles in the way of -Prussian troops marching through the territory of the Confederation to -coerce Switzerland, and Napoleon did not dare to outrage French opinion -by letting them march through Alsace-Lorraine. In England, Palmerston -smiled grimly over the embarrassment of Russia’s most faithful ally. He -said to the Hanoverian Minister in London when Prussia was threatening -coercion, “the Prussians will incur much expense, and in January -Switzerland will condemn the captives and then amnesty them; _donc la -farce sera finie, et la Prusse y sera pour les frais_.”[290] - -Nor was this the only anxiety at Court. King “Bomba’s” misgovernment in -southern Italy, and his brutal treatment of persons arbitrarily arrested -on suspicion of disloyalty, were provoking revolution. An outbreak in -the south must lead to a rising in the north, which in turn must involve -France and Sardinia in war with Austria. England and France, finding -their remonstrances disregarded by the Neapolitan Government, withdrew -their legations from Naples in October, and ordered the fleet to make a -demonstration in the bay. This step was sanctioned by the Queen not -without some misgiving, because to suspend diplomatic relations with a -State because its internal government is not to our liking, was to -establish a dangerous diplomatic precedent. It evoked from Russia a -cutting remonstrance, which, however, Lord Palmerston had to accept as -best he could. - -On the 19th of October the Court returned to Windsor, and on the 17th of -November, Stockmar, in response to a pressing appeal to come and advise -the Queen in the midst of her growing difficulties, paid her what was -destined to be his last visit. He found her heavily stricken with grief -because of the death of her half-brother, Prince Leiningen, on the 13th. -“We three,” (the Prince, the Princess Hohenlohe, and the Queen), she -writes to King Leopold, “were very fond of each other, and never felt or -fancied that we were not real _Geschwister_ (children of the same -parents). We knew but _one_ parent--_our_ mother.”[291] The last day of -the year brought with it one consolation. The Conference in Paris had -settled our dispute with Russia, and a map was signed by the -plenipotentiaries which met the requirements of the Czar, without giving -Russia strategical advantages which she had tried to obtain.[292] - - - - -CHAPTER XXXV. - -TWO LITTLE WARS AND A “PENAL DISSOLUTION.” - - The Queen’s New Year Greeting to Napoleon III.--A - Gladstone-Disraeli Coalition--A “Scene” in the Carlton Club--Mr. - Disraeli’s Attack on Lord Palmerston’s Foreign Policy--The Queen - Consents to Reduce the Income Tax--A Fallacious Budget, with - Imaginary Remissions--The Persian War--General Outram’s - Victories--Unpopularity of the War--Making War without Consulting - Parliament--The Rupture with China--A “Prancing Proconsul”--The - Bombardment of Canton--Defeat of Lord Palmerston, and his Appeal to - the Country--A Penal Dissolution--Abortive Coalition between the - Peelites and Tories--Mr. Gladstone and the Intriguers--Split in the - Peelite Party--Palmerston’s Victory at the Polls--The Rout of the - Manchester School--The Lesson of the Election--Opening of the New - Parliament--The Work of the Session--Mr. Gladstone’s Obstruction of - the Divorce Bill--The Settlement of the Neufchâtel Difficulty--The - Question of the Principalities--Visit of the French Emperor to the - Queen. - - -Writing on New Year’s Day in 1857, Lord Malmesbury says in his Diary, -“The Conference opened yesterday on the questions of Bolgrad and the -Isle of Serpents, which the Russians falsely claim as being included in -the Treaty of Peace. The Swiss are making energetic preparations for -resisting the threatened invasion of Neufchâtel by Prussia; whilst -England and France are using their utmost exertions to prevent a war. -England has declared war against Persia, and Admiral Seymour has -bombarded Canton to avenge an insult offered to our flag.”[293] The -Queen, in a letter conveying her greetings to the Emperor of the French, -also observes, mournfully, that “the New Year again begins amid the din -of warlike preparation;” and there was undoubtedly a feeling of -disappointment in England that the Peace of Paris had not brought peace -to the world. Yet the general condition of the country was prosperous. -Crime, however--especially fraud and murder--had increased shockingly, -and severe moralists in Pall Mall went about predicting that Parliament -must now devote a Session to social legislation--especially penal -legislation--so as to purge a corrupt people of its wickedness. But the -corrupt people, much to the Queen’s regret, was of quite another -opinion--and so were the political factions. The constituencies were -beginning to murmur against taxation. Now that war was over, they -demanded sweeping reductions in the income and other taxes, which -involved the diminution of the army and navy to such slender dimensions, -that her Majesty felt certain they would be as unfit to cope with a -sudden emergency as they were when the Crimea was invaded. As for the -factions, they were determined to turn out the Government, which they -knew existed solely on the credit Palmerston had obtained by carrying on -war when the nation wanted it, and ending it when the nation was getting -sick of the struggle. The Queen was hostile to any abrupt change of -Government at a time when she could see no means of replacing -Palmerston’s Cabinet by a stronger one, and she viewed with -disapprobation the subterranean intrigues which were going on between -the Tories and the Peelites. That Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Disraeli were -attempting, through the medium of Lord Stanley, to form a Coalition, was -known at the Court; nay, it was even said that Mr. Gladstone was to take -the leadership of the Tory Party in the House of Commons. Sir William -Jolliffe, the Tory Whip, when pressed on the point in December, 1856, -told Mr. George Byng that this was “not true at present; that he could -not say what might or might not happen hereafter, but that he (Mr. -Gladstone) could not be accepted as a leader, and must, in any case, -first serve in the ranks.” Only a short time before that some of the -younger members of the Party had visited the drawing-room of the Carlton -Club with the amiable intention of throwing Mr. Gladstone out of the -window. That they had now modified their repugnance to him indicates how -keen their hunger for office had grown. But that the Tory Party was -disorganised through Mr. Disraeli’s unpopularity, and also because Lord -Palmerston’s policy, though Liberal abroad, was really too Conservative -at home to be successfully attacked, is clear from a letter which Lord -Derby wrote to Lord Malmesbury on the prosperity of the Conservatives at -the close of 1856.[294] - -Parliament was opened on the 3rd of February, 1857, and the Queen’s -Speech naturally referred to the wars and rumours of war that filled the -air. Law Reform and the Bank Act were the only subjects of domestic -interest dwelt upon. Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Sidney Herbert now appeared -almost anxious to join Lord Derby; and the Tories, on their part, were -quite prepared to support Mr. Gladstone in demanding that the Income Tax -be reduced to 5d. in the current year, and abolished altogether in 1860, -as had been agreed on in 1853.[295] Mr. Disraeli’s attack, on the other -hand, was directed against the Foreign Policy of the Government. He -complained that at the very time Lord Clarendon was encouraging the -hopes of Count Cavour and of Italy at the Congress of Paris, France had -signed a Secret Treaty guaranteeing to Austria her Italian provinces, -and had signed it by the advice of England. Lord Palmerston denied the -existence of this Secret Treaty. But he admitted that in 1854, when -there was some hope that Austria would take part in the war, an -agreement was made to the effect that should Russia raise an -insurrection in North Italy, France would help Austria to put it down, -if Austrian armies were actually co-operating with the Allies against -Russia. In the Upper House, Lord Aberdeen voted for the amendment to the -Address with many of the Tories--a somewhat unusual thing for an -ex-Premier to do--and this, along with Mr. Gladstone’s cordial support -of Mr. Disraeli, was taken to be a sign that the Peelites desired to -coalesce with the Opposition. Lord John Russell, who was a kind of -political Ishmaelite, also spoke bitterly about the abortive -demonstration of the fleet at Naples, which had drawn upon us insulting -remonstrances, and had not coerced King Ferdinand into good behaviour. -On the 17th of February Mr. Disraeli compelled Lord Palmerston to admit -that “a military convention,” if not a Secret Treaty, between France and -Austria _had_ been signed, but only as a temporary arrangement. When, -however, Mr. Disraeli persisted in saying it was a Secret Treaty, and -that on the face of it there was no limit to the period of its -operation, Palmerston lost his temper, a circumstance so extraordinary -that it convinced the House he had been again caught tripping. - -[Illustration: OLD WINDSOR LOCK. - -(_From a Photograph by Taunt and Co., Oxford._)] - -After many harassing consultations, the Queen felt that it was -impossible for the Cabinet to resist the growing agitation against the -Income Tax. The coalition between Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Disraeli was too -ominous to be disregarded; and so, on the 10th of February, she wrote to -King Leopold, “We think we shall be able to reduce the Income Tax and -yet maintain an efficient navy, and the _organisation_ of the army, -which is even more important than the number of the men.”[296] When Sir -George Cornewall Lewis brought in his Budget on the 13th of February, it -was found that he reduced the Income Tax from 1s. 4d. to 7d. in the -pound; but of course this was still 2d. above the peace limit fixed in -1853. The complaint of the Opposition was that the Government imposed -that 2d. merely to promote what Mr. Disraeli called the “turbulent and -aggressive policy” abroad by which Lord Palmerston diverted the -attention of the country from its own affairs at home.[297] Mr. -Gladstone attacked the Budget all along the line. Sir George Lewis, he -said, pretended to remit £11,000,000 of taxation. But of that sum -£4,470,000 were war taxes, which necessarily dropped when war was over, -and though Sir George brought the tea duty down from 1s. 9d. to 1s. 7d. -on the lb., and on sugar from 20s. per cwt. to 18s. 4d., that still -raised from tea and sugar £1,400,000 more than the old peace duties drew -from them. The real remission, then, was not £11,000,000, but -£3,184,000. The faults of the Budget were obviously two. It virtually -ignored the pledge of the Government in 1853 to abolish the Income Tax -in 1860. Instead of cutting down expenditure so as to render it possible -to keep that pledge, it increased expenditure above the peace limit, so -as to make it impossible to surrender the Income Tax.[298] The accepted -financial policy of the country had been to grant an Income Tax during -peace solely to enable the Government to remit taxes on articles of -popular consumption. It was granted merely to give an elastic revenue -time to recover from sudden remissions of indirect taxation. Sir George -Lewis, however, still kept the tax above the peace limit, and his small -reductions on the tea and sugar duties left them standing above the -peace limit also. Moreover, he maintained his expenditure on a scale -which created deficits that rendered the continuance of the Income Tax, -without compensating remissions of indirect taxes, inevitable. In fact, -Sir George Lewis may be said to have introduced the vicious principle of -modern finance, by which a temporary Income Tax is insidiously converted -into a permanent one, and by which, under cover of extraordinary -disbursement during a war, the country is left after peace is declared -with a residue of that outlay clinging to the estimates, as ordinary and -permanent annual expenditure. The Budget, however, was carried through -in a slightly modified form, but the sudden dissolution of Parliament in -March compelled Sir George Lewis to levy his new taxes not on a -descending scale for three years, but for the ensuing year only. With a -view to the popular vote to which Lord Palmerston was about to appeal, -Sir George then surrendered 2d. of the tea duty, which brought it down -to 1s. 5d. on the pound. But he made no adequate provision for the -Persian war, or the war with China. His alteration of the tea duty of -course rendered his surplus a myth, and his Budget, with an inflated -expenditure, went forth, as Mr. Gladstone complained, with a deficiency -of ways and means. In fact, on the eve of an appeal to the -constituencies, a prudish Chancellor of the Exchequer “went to the -country” with a profligate electioneering Budget. - -Mention has been already made of a “little war” that was being waged -with Persia. It had sprung out of the irrepressible desire of the Shah -to hold Herat, and from the traditional belief of the Foreign Office -that when Herat was in Persian hands, “the key of India” was in the -pockets of the Czar.[299] In 1851 Persia had promised that she would not -meddle with Herat if the Afghans did not attempt to seize it. But the -Governor of Candahar advanced on the coveted city, whose ruler appealed -to Persia for protection. The Indian Government admitted that there was -no danger to India in Persia responding to this appeal. The Foreign -Office, however, suspended diplomatic relations with the Court of -Teheran.[300] Persia then agreed to retire from Herat when the Afghans -withdrew, and negotiations went on in a dilatory fashion till the -Crimean War broke out, when the Czar urged Persia to resist and become -his ally. The Shah’s Prime Minister held his Imperial master back, and -Mr. Thomson, a typical representative of the Foreign Office in Persia, -by way of further conciliating the friendly Premier, appointed as First -Secretary of the British Legation, a disreputable person who had been -dismissed from the Persian service, and whose family were among the most -active enemies of the anti-Russian Minister. The Minister refused to -receive this individual--Meerza Hashim by name. By way of compensating -him Mr. Murray, who succeeded Mr. Thomson, appointed him British agent -at Shiraz, a place where we had no right to have an agent at all, but -where, by the courtesy of the Persian Government, we had been allowed to -have one.[301] The Persian Premier then threatened to arrest Meerza -Hashim. As a matter of fact, he arrested his wife, and maliciously -insinuated in a despatch, when Mr. Murray demanded her release, that he -had compromised himself with the lady. Murray accordingly struck his -flag and demanded an apology, whereupon Persia issued a manifesto -declaring that the Afghans were advancing on Herat, and threatening to -seize that fortress. In July, 1856, a British force was ordered to -proceed from Bombay to occupy the island of Karrack and the city of -Bushire. By this time the Crimean War was over, and Persia could get no -aid from her Russian ally. A Persian ambassador therefore was sent to -Paris to negotiate for peace, but he broke his journey at Constantinople -to arrange the terms with Stratford de Redcliffe. Whilst there, news -came that Persia had captured Herat. Stratford demanded its evacuation, -and the dismissal of the Prime Minister. This latter demand the Persian -Envoy rejected. The English Government therefore went on with the war. -It was, however, declared by the Indian Government that war was waged -for the recovery of Herat, which Persia had offered to evacuate, whereas -the British Government, in their declaration, stated that their object -was the dismissal of the Persian Premier,[302] who had foiled the -attempt of Russia to drag the Shah into the Crimean War. The Expedition, -led by General Outram, occupied Karrack and captured Bushire. But these -victories did not really determine the issue. In England the war had -become unpopular. Palmerston had begun it, and carried it on without -consulting the House of Commons, by the simple expedient of using the -revenues of India to meet its expenses. This was a source of supplies -which the House, of course, could not control. At the beginning of the -Session it was currently rumoured that the Government would soon be -called to account for a proceeding which the Representative Chamber was -bound to view with jealousy and suspicion. - -These mutterings of hostility alarmed Palmerston, for he had already -determined to dissolve Parliament and appeal to the country against the -condemnation which the House of Commons had passed on his policy in -China. Whilst, as yet, the full bearing of his Persian policy was -imperfectly understood by the constituencies, he hastened to make peace, -and Persia, after her defeats, was not disposed to be obstinate. But the -Shah refused to dismiss his Prime Minister, and Palmerston was -accordingly fain to withdraw his demand, and be content with an apology -for the imputations which had been cast on Mr. Murray’s character. Such -was the inglorious end of a war which is one of the least creditable -events in Lord Palmerston’s career. As might be expected, when the -General Election was over, and the new Parliament met, Ministers were -fiercely attacked for declaring and prosecuting the war -unconstitutionally without consulting the House of Commons. The country -was now fully alive to the danger that lurked in such a monstrous -extension of the Queen’s prerogative as would permit her to use the -revenues of India, which the House of Commons could not control, for -carrying on war outside the Indian Empire. The only real control which -the people have over the Crown is their power to stop supplies for the -army. The Persian War, however, proved that the Crown could draw -supplies and troops from India, without any Parliamentary sanction -whatever. Palmerston’s policy had thus put into the hands of the Queen -a deadlier weapon of despotism than either the Tudors or the Stuarts had -dared to wield. But the attack, damaging as it was, failed to upset the -Ministry; though the House, in 1858, at Mr. Gladstone’s suggestion, -forced the Government to accept a clause in the India Bill which -disallowed such pretensions on the part of the Crown.[303] - -But at the beginning of the Session of 1857 it was not Persia but China -that really engrossed the attention of the country. A dispute between -Sir John Bowring, Governor of Hong Kong, and the Chinese authorities at -Canton, raised an issue which made it easy for the Peelites to unite -with the Tories, and the Cobdenites with both. - -[Illustration: SIR JOHN BOWRING.] - -The Chinese War of 1857 occupies an unique place in the events of the -Victorian epoch, because it was a war which was provoked by a member of -the Peace Society. In October, 1856, the Chinese authorities arrested -twelve Chinamen on board a native lorcha called the _Arrow_, on a charge -of piracy. The British Consul, asserting that the _Arrow_ was a British -ship, contended very properly that the accused should have been demanded -from him. Nine of the Chinamen were released. Sir John Bowring thereupon -insisted on the release of the other three, and an apology within -forty-eight hours, on pain of immediate reprisals. The three men were -released; but the Chinese Governor courteously refused to apologise, -because, he said, as the _Arrow_ was _not_ a British ship, no wrong had -been done to the British flag. This was literally true, for Sir J. -Bowring, as everybody now admits, was utterly mistaken as to the -nationality of the lorcha. The courtesy of the Chinese in surrendering -the prisoners in deference to an illegal demand, which Bowring had -couched in terms of offensive arrogance, was rewarded next day by the -bombardment of the luckless commercial city of Canton--a barbarous act -which could be justified by the laws neither of God nor of man. In fact, -“a prancing pro-Consul,” to use a famous phrase of Sir William -Harcourt’s, had virtually usurped the prerogative of the Crown, and -levied war on a foreign Government on his own responsibility. Instead of -recalling Bowring and the British Consul, Lord Palmerston, without -giving the matter much thought, identified himself with their -proceedings, though many Members of his Cabinet, notably Lord Granville -and Mr. Labouchere, who afterwards were forced to defend Bowring in -Parliament, personally disapproved of his conduct.[304] But Ministers -virtually abandoned the case of the _Arrow_ when the controversy grew -hot. “As usual,” writes Mr. Morley, “they shifted the ground from the -particular to the general; if the Chinese were right about the _Arrow_ -they were wrong about something else; if legality did not exactly -justify violence, it was at any rate required by policy; Orientals -mistake justice for fear; and so on through the string of well-worn -sophisms, which are always pursued in connection with such -affairs.”[305] The real truth, as the Tory leaders said in the debates -in both Houses of Parliament, was that Bowring’s vanity had been hurt -because the Chinese had refused to receive him in Canton. When he sent -Admiral Sir M. Seymour to bombard the port he tacked on to his original -ultimatum a demand that foreigners should be freely admitted to the -city, on the ground that this privilege, though ceded by the Treaty of -1846, had never been granted. Admitting that his interpretation of this -disputed point in the Treaty was correct, neither he nor Lord Palmerston -had any right to force that interpretation on China by war. Their duty -was to have acted in concert with the Governments of France and the -United States, who were equally interested in the question, and in this -way to exhaust the resources of diplomacy, before appealing to the -arbitrament of the sword. Every Member of both Houses of Parliament who -was not an infatuated partisan of Lord Palmerston’s took this view of -the case; and when Mr. Cobden, on the 26th of February, brought forward -a motion condemning the policy of the Government, he carried it, after a -debate which lasted many nights, by a majority of sixteen.[306] In the -House of Lords the Government repelled the attack, on the 27th of -February, by a majority of thirty-six; and had the division been taken -on the same night in the Commons, the majority, after Cobden’s and -Russell’s speeches, would have been so enormous that Palmerston would -hardly have dared to ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament. But he -adroitly delayed matters, held a meeting of his Party, harangued them, -and threatened them with a dissolution, and so, by the 4th of March, -when the division was taken, the majority against him dwindled to -sixteen. On the 5th of March, Ministers announced that Parliament would -be dissolved and the sense of the country taken on the issue. The -antipathy of the Queen to “penal dissolutions,” indeed, to any -dissolution of Parliament, if it can be avoided, was overcome by Lord -Palmerston representing that the majority against him was exceedingly -small--that it was made up of a coalition of factions, whose leaders, -agreeing only on one point, could not possibly form a stable Government. -On the other hand, from a General Election a Government of some kind -would be evolved with a solid working majority, an advantage of supreme -importance in the eyes of the Sovereign. - -Then the game of intrigue began. Lord Malmesbury was sent to Mr. Sidney -Herbert to negotiate an alliance between the Tories and the Peelites, -his proposal being, says Lord Malmesbury, “that we should not take a -hostile part towards each other’s candidates.” By this arrangement it -was supposed that no personal enmities would be made, and the difficulty -of organising an actual coalition, if such should be deemed necessary, -would therefore be minimised.[307] Mr. Herbert rejected these overtures, -because the Peelites had become so much divided in opinion and so weak -in influence, that his desire was to see them dispersed. Lord Malmesbury -then sounded Mr. Gladstone at the Carlton Club. “He had,” writes his -lordship, “seen Sidney Herbert, who told him of our interview, and -Gladstone said he quite disagreed with his views, and had told him -so.... His leanings are apparently towards us, but he was quite of my -opinion that no sort of agreement should be made beyond the one I had -proposed.”[308] In fact, Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Herbert had very nearly -quarrelled over the matter. Writing to Sir George Lewis on the 16th of -March, the late Mr. A. Hayward says, “Gladstone and S. Herbert have come -to an explanation which has ended very like the lovers’ separation in -Little’s poems:-- - - ‘You may down _that_ pathway rove, - While I shall take my way through _this_.’ - -Sidney Herbert takes the Liberal and Gladstone the Derbyite turn. I know -no one who will follow Gladstone’s lead in the matter, except, perhaps, -Lord A. Harvey.”[309] - -As a rule in England, the Minister who dissolves Parliament and appeals -to the country is beaten. The General Election of 1857 was a startling -exception to that rule. For Palmerston it was a complete victory. For -his opponents it was not a defeat--but a rout. Cobden, Bright, Gibson, -Fox, and Miall were rejected by the very men whose fortunes they had -made by their Free Trade policy. As Mr. Morley says, “nothing had been -seen like it since the disappearance of the Peace Whigs in 1812, when -Brougham, Tierney, Lamb, and Horner all lost their seats.”[310] The -Peelites suffered almost as cruelly. The Conservative ranks were sadly -thinned, for twenty-four counties were won by the Ministry; in fact, the -_Times_ declared, that the Tories would “never again, as a party, become -candidates for office.”[311] The “Manchester School” lost its -supporters, (1), because it had got the reputation of factiously -opposing all Governments; (2), because the manufacturers, enriched by -Free Trade, had ceased to be Radical; and (3), because they thought that -when Palmerston forced Bowring into Canton at the point of the bayonet, -cotton goods would go in with him. The Peelites were beaten (1), because -they were divided among themselves; and (2), because they were a small -faction, and in a General Election a small faction generally is crushed -in the collision between the great parties. The Tories lost adherents -(1), because the farmers resented their support of an amendment moved by -their natural enemy, Mr. Cobden; and (2), because rumours were spread -abroad by Lord Palmerston’s agents that they were about to coalesce with -Mr. Gladstone, who represented the principles of “the traitor Peel.” -Lord Palmerston triumphed (1), because his only Liberal rival, Lord John -Russell, had alienated the country by his tortuous disloyalty to two -Ministries, and incurred the hatred of the Dissenters by his defence of -Church Rates; (2), because his personal popularity, after bringing the -wars with Russia and Persia to an end, was unbounded; and (3), because -he and his satellites poured forth speeches, inflated with cheap and -vulgar “patriotic” claptrap, to such an extent that even Mr. Greville -says in his “Memoirs” that he was “disgusted at the enormous and -shameful lying with which the country is deluged.”[312] England, -moreover, was involved in a war with China, and after all Palmerston was -the only political leader who had proved that he could carry on a war -with least discredit to the country.[313] The election was, therefore, -a personal one. Constituents did not scrutinise closely the principles -or capacity of candidates, so long as they promised to support Lord -Palmerston,[314] and so numbers of Parliamentary Reformers crept -unnoticed into the House. But in such cases the loyalty of a majority -lasts no longer than the popularity of the leader. Let him make one -false step that forfeits popularity, and then his supporters desert him, -disinterring what they call their “principles” from buried election -addresses to justify their “new departure.” - -[Illustration: CHINESE LORCHAS IN THE CANTON RIVER.] - -It was unfortunate that neither the Queen nor Prince Albert recognised -this fact, and that they both imagined that Palmerston’s -principles--which, in domestic policy, were reactionary and -illiberal--were as popular as Palmerston himself. The only true and just -criticism of this historic Election, which sent 189 new Members to the -House of Commons, and for a time broke the old parties to pieces, was -passed by the Duke of Newcastle. Writing to Mr. Hayward on the 10th of -April, he says:--“I come to the conclusion that Palmerston will be -disappointed with his new Parliament. The gain to _Liberal opinion_ is -very great, and the Derby party is for the present smashed; but in these -gains are to be found Palmerston’s disadvantages. Nobody _can_ fear the -alternative of a Derby Ministry, and if Palmerston _rises_ to the -occasion he will soon find his popularity gone and his Government in -danger. It is all nonsense to suppose that the China vote has really -influenced the decision of the country; but there is a question which -alone Palmerston cares about (and that in an _adverse_ sense), which has -gained ground everywhere, and is now established as the question of the -day--Reform of Parliament; and I have no belief in a _good_ measure -coming from unwilling men; and _how_ unwilling are the influential men -in the present Cabinet my former association with them pretty well -informs me.”[315] - -From this Election the history of the Queen’s reign enters on a fresh -phase. Underlying every party intrigue and combination there is -henceforth to be detected an irrepressible though concealed antagonism -between the Parliamentary Reformers and their opponents. In England, it -is a curious fact that political parties always exhaust their ingenuity -in veiling the real issue between them. When a Government is punished by -dismissal, it is not dismissed for the blunder it has committed, but -because it has done, or refused to do, something else, which is hardly -hinted at in public, but which has offended a powerful body of its -supporters. Palmerston was a Minister whose ardent, impetuous -temperament, and confidence in his own dexterity, rendered him prone to -commit blunders. A Minister of that type can go on blundering with -impunity so long as he is supposed to be trustworthy on the one great -question which lies closest to the hearts of that section of his -supporters, who are prepared to sacrifice him for their cause. But -whenever they discover that he is not to be trusted, they take advantage -of his first mistake to combine with his enemies and overthrow him. In -the new Parliament of 1857, it was therefore clear that Palmerston’s -personal ascendency would last till the party of Parliamentary Reform -discovered that they had absolutely nothing to expect from him, save -open or concealed hostility. It was because the Queen did not grasp this -fact that she was startled to find, a few months after Parliament met, -how rapidly Palmerston’s popularity was waning. Prince Albert also, -strangely enough, mistook the verdict of the country in 1857, as being -one cast solely against “the peace-at-any-price people.”[316] - -On the 7th of May the House of Commons began the business of the new -Session. On that day the Lord Chancellor read the Queen’s Speech, which, -contrary to general expectation, did not contain any reference to -Parliamentary Reform. It was, says Lord Malmesbury, “the lamest -production, even for a Queen’s Speech, I ever read.”[317] However, it -gave a soothing account of foreign affairs, and intimated not only that -the main stipulations of the Treaty of Paris had been carried out, and -that the Neufchâtel difficulty was in a fair way of being settled, but -it announced the signature of a Treaty of Peace with Persia. The only -subject for regret in our foreign relations was, of course, the war with -China. The legislative programme was meagre in the extreme, for the only -important Bills promised were, one relating to the jurisdiction of the -Ecclesiastical Courts over wills and divorce, and another to check -fraudulent breaches of trust. The Address was carried with very little -debate, the Radicals being satisfied to let the question of -Parliamentary Reform sleep, because Lord Palmerston promised that during -the recess the Cabinet would give the subject serious consideration. It -was, in truth, a dull and uneventful Session. - -But a slight fillip of interest was imparted to it by the revival of the -old controversy as to the admission of Jews to Parliament. The election -of Baron Rothschild as one of the Members for the City of London -compelled the Government to deal with the matter, and Lord Palmerston -brought forward a Bill, on the 15th of May, to alter the law relating to -Parliamentary Oaths, and remove from the statute book one of the last -relics of mediæval bigotry. Although it was bitterly opposed by many -Tories, such as Sir F. Thesiger and Mr. Whiteside, the Bill passed the -House of Commons, but only to be thrown out by the House of Lords. Lord -John Russell then tried to solve the problem by bringing in a Bill to -extend the operation of the Act, 1 and 2 Vict. cap. 106, giving a -discretion as to the forms on which certain oaths are administered. But -while this Bill was in progress it was proposed to free the Jews from -their Parliamentary disabilities by applying to their case the -provisions of the Act 5 and 6 William IV. cap. 62. This Act was passed -to enable a solemn declaration to be substituted for an oath in certain -instances. The only question was whether the Act could be stretched so -as to include the oath imposed on Members of Parliament. On Lord John -Russell’s motion a Select Committee was appointed to inquire if the Act -applied to Parliamentary Oaths, but in due time they reported that it -did not. This virtually ended the controversy for the Session, and Lord -John Russell could only give notice that he would renew the agitation -next year. - -Undoubtedly the legal and social reforms proposed by the Government in -1857 were those which created most excitement in the country. The -Ecclesiastical Courts had been long threatened with extinction, and at -last the Government dealt them a fatal blow. Bills were introduced in -May transferring to purely secular tribunals their Testamentary -Jurisdiction and the greater part of their control over the Marriage -Laws, and though the establishment of the new Court of Probate was not -much opposed, the Divorce Bill was fiercely debated. Members who were -under sacerdotal influence attacked this measure with - -[Illustration: THE CASCADE: VIRGINIA WATER.] - -the utmost ferocity. Indeed, it was not opposed, but factiously -obstructed, clause by clause and line by line, Mr. Gladstone being the -most energetic of its opponents.[318] It was, however, passed, and -undoubtedly the Government won some credit in the country by the -pertinacity with which they piloted this embarrassing measure through -both Houses of Parliament. “I am very glad,” writes Lord Campbell, in -his Journal, “that the Divorce Bill finally passed the Commons framed -almost exactly according to the recommendations of the commission over -which I had the honour to preside, preserving the law as it has -practically subsisted for two hundred years: that a husband who has -conducted himself properly may obtain a dissolution of the marriage for -the adultery of the wife, and that a wife may obtain a dissolution of -the marriage for the adultery of the husband, attended by incest, or any -aggravation which renders it impossible for the connubial union to -continue; the - -[Illustration: PLAN OF WINDSOR CASTLE.] - -law being now to be administered by a regular judicial tribunal, instead -of the injured parties being obliged to petition the Legislature for -private Acts of Parliament to dissolve the marriage. We are assailed on -the one hand by those who hold that, according to divine law, marriage -cannot be dissolved even for adultery, and on the other by those who -think that for this purpose no distinction should be made between the -sexes,[319] and that in all cases the wife should be entitled to a -divorce on proof of any breach of the marriage vow by the husband. But I -think the true principle is, that the marriage ought only to be -dissolved when it is impossible for the injured party to _condone_, and -that Divine Providence has constituted an essential difference in this -respect between the adultery of the husband and the adultery of the -wife. I would rather run the risk of cases of great hardship occurring, -when it would seem desirable that women should be released from the -tyranny of profligate and brutal husbands, than give too great a -facility to divorce, which has a tendency most demoralising.”[320] - -Another measure of sound reform, with which Lord Campbell honourably -associated his name, gave rise to a curious incident, towards the end of -the Session, in the House of Commons. “Since I returned from circuit,” -says Lord Campbell, in his Diary, “my chief business has been to watch -the progress through the House of Commons of my Bill for checking the -trade in obscene publications by allowing them to be seized in the -_depôts_ of the dealers. Brougham had hardly ventured to oppose the Bill -as it passed through the Lords, but afterwards he wrote a violent -article against it in the _Law Magazine_, and he put up Roebuck to -assail it in the House of Commons. The Bill, being in Committee -yesterday (July 12th), I showed myself in the Peers’ Gallery to watch -its fate, and that I might be consulted, if necessary, during the -debate. Roebuck contented himself with reading a letter which he had -received from Brougham, pointing out the danger of country justices -perverting the Bill for the punishment of poachers; and it went through -the Committee with the amendments which I had suggested and assented to. -The Speaker then sent me a message by the Chancellor of the Exchequer -complaining that I had appeared in the House _to overawe their -deliberations_, like Cardinal Wolsey and Charles I., and that it would -become his duty to protest against such an unconstitutional -proceeding.”[321] - -Brief mention must also be made of the Fraudulent Trusts Bill, as one -of the Ministerial achievements during the Session of 1857. Several -glaring cases of embezzlement on the part of trustees had recently -occurred, and yet it was found that the existing criminal law could not -reach the guilty parties. Sir Alexander Cockburn, before his elevation -to the Bench, had promised to deal with this scandal, and now his -successor, Sir Richard Bethell, afterwards Lord Westbury, fulfilled that -promise. The object of his Bill was simply to make trustees of -settlements, directors of companies, and other persons invested with a -fiduciary character, criminally responsible for frauds, or for the -misappropriation of the funds entrusted to their care. The Bill passed -both Houses. The only serious opposition it met with was from Lord St. -Leonards, who dreaded lest its severity might deter honest and -substantial men from serving as trustees. - -These were among the chief results of the brief but useful Session of -1857, which was prorogued on the 28th of August. Up to midsummer the -House of Commons dozed through halcyon days, only too well pleased to do -the bidding of its master. Lord John Russell was meek, Mr. Gladstone was -an absentee, the Tories were discouraged, and the Radicals were docile. -To go to a division at this time on any question was to rush to -ignominious defeat. But about the middle of July the House began to show -signs of a quickened life. The debates on the Persian War roused the -combatant spirit of the Opposition; Mr. Gladstone reappeared, as -Ministers knew to their cost when the Divorce Bill was obstructed; and -it was remarked that even Palmerston’s most subservient followers no -longer hesitated to cheer Mr. Roebuck or Mr. Disraeli, when they made an -exceptionally clever attack on the Ministry. In August the shadow of the -Indian Mutiny darkened the prospects of the Government, and when -Parliament was prorogued there was some ill-concealed grumbling among -the captious critics of the Court, because the Queen went to Scotland at -a time when the British Empire in India was in dire peril. But on the -whole, Palmerston’s _prestige_ was not materially impaired. His domestic -programme, modest as it was, had been successfully carried out. -Moreover, for the first time in his career, his relations with the Court -had been put on a satisfactory footing. On this point Mr. Greville -records an interesting conversation with Lord Clarendon, who told him -that the Queen had treated Palmerston during the Session with unreserved -confidence. Palmerston, on the other hand, found it expedient to treat -the Queen with a deference and attention which had produced a favourable -change in her sentiments towards him. Mr. Greville says, “Clarendon told -me that Palmerston had lately been ailing in a way to cause some -uneasiness.... Clarendon talked one day to the Queen about Palmerston’s -health, concerning which she expressed her anxiety, when Clarendon said -she might indeed be anxious, for it was of the greatest importance to -her, and if anything happened to him he did not know where she could -look for a successor to him, that she had often expressed her great -desire to have a _strong_ Government, and that she had now got one, -Palmerston being a strong Minister. She admitted the truth of it. -Clarendon said he was always very earnest with her to bestow her whole -confidence on Palmerston, and not even to talk to others on any subjects -which properly belonged to him, and he had more than once (when, -according to her custom, she began to talk to him on certain things), -said to her, ‘Madam, that concerns Lord Palmerston, and I think your -Majesty had better reserve it for your communications with him.’ He -referred to the wonderful change in his own relations to Palmerston, -that seven or eight years ago Palmerston was full of hatred and -suspicion of him, and now they were the best of friends, with mutual -confidence and goodwill, and lately, when he was talking to Palmerston -of the satisfactory state of his relations to the Queen, and of the -utility it was to his government that it should be so, Palmerston said, -‘And it is likewise a very good thing that she has such boundless -confidence in her Secretary for Foreign Affairs, when after all there is -nothing she cares about so much.’”[322] - -And yet it cannot be said that in foreign affairs Lord Palmerston had -won any conspicuous triumph for British diplomacy. The dispute with -Persia did not end gloriously for England. It is true that the -controversy over Neufchâtel, in which the Queen, owing to her close -relations with the Royal Family of Prussia, was deeply interested, -terminated happily.[323] But on the other hand, the vexed question of -the Danubian Principalities was still open, and it was almost certain -that it would lead to the diplomatic humiliation of England. - -The future government of the two Principalities was left by the Congress -of Paris to be settled by the Treaty Powers. Russia desired their union -under a Native prince. France and Sardinia desired their union under a -foreign prince, fearing that a Native ruler would soon become a mere -satrap of the Czar. Turkey and Austria desired to keep the -Principalities separate, and this view was warmly supported by Lord -Palmerston and Lord Clarendon. At the Congress of Paris, France had -insidiously suggested to Austria that she should take the -Principalities, the object being to justify new territorial arrangements -on the Rhine in French interests. After that proposal was rejected, the -French Emperor drew closer and closer to Russia; but when the General -Election gave Palmerston a solid majority, Russia became effusively -civil to England. When, however, England persisted in acting with -Austria and the Porte, thereby resisting territorial changes, which -could only be made - -[Illustration: THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE. - -(_From a Photograph by Bassano._)] - -at the expense of Austrian and Turkish interests,[324] the French -Emperor took umbrage at our diplomacy. But Persigny’s influence was -successfully exerted to hold him true to the Anglo-French alliance, -Persigny’s chief argument being that a war with England would so -convulse France that, in the general confusion, the Bonapartist dynasty -might disappear. Napoleon III., therefore, determined to pay the Queen a -private visit, and, though her Majesty was not anxious to receive him, -she consented to do so, in the hope and belief that personal -communications between the two sovereigns might serve some useful -purpose. - -When this visit was paid, in August, the controversy over the -Principalities had become very serious. The Moldavian elections had -returned a majority of Separatists, and the French complained that this -result was due to the influence of English agents over the -constituencies. France, Russia, and Sardinia, in fact, threatened to -suspend diplomatic relations with Turkey unless the elections were -annulled. The Eastern Question, in short, had once more been re-opened, -and Europe was thus brought to the brink of war. The French Emperor, the -Queen, and Prince Albert freely interchanged their ideas on the question -at Osborne, whilst at the same time the French and English -Ministers--namely, Persigny, Walewski, Palmerston, and -Clarendon--carried on a series of conferences. The grievance of the -Emperor was that, though Turkey had promised France to annul the -elections, at the last moment she had, at the instigation of Lord -Stratford de Redcliffe, broken her promise. The Porte had admitted that -they were thus in the wrong, but had excused their conduct by saying -that they acted under pressure from England and the English Ambassador. -The annulment of the elections was now with France a point of honour; -and as Persigny had failed to bring Palmerston and Clarendon to reason -on the point, his Majesty had resolved to appeal to the Queen. The Queen -and her husband seem to have met the Emperor’s arguments with Lord -Stratford’s counter-statement, but in vain. The end of their conference -was a victory for France on the main point at issue. Lord Stratford was -to be ordered to reverse his course, and to call on the Porte to annul -the elections. “Lord Palmerston,” writes Lord Malmesbury on the 14th of -August, “has given way on the question of the Principalities, so the -Emperor has gained his point by his visit to Osborne. The dispute arose -on the question of the union of the Principalities, which France, -Russia, Prussia, and Sardinia supported. England, Austria, and Turkey -opposed the union; and the elections in Moldavia having been in favour -of England, the French, Russians, &c., accused the English Government of -having influenced them unfairly, and demanded that they should be -annulled. The Porte refused this, upon which the Ambassadors of France, -Prussia, and Sardinia struck their flags. The Emperor Napoleon, instead -of wasting time in useless correspondence, came over himself, and the -question was settled at once. I do not pretend to judge whether -Palmerston was right or wrong, but his defeat must have cost him a -bitter pang. Louis Napoleon’s Ministers have been completely won over by -the Russians, especially Walewski.”[325] The Queen was certainly of a -different opinion. She thought that Palmerston had succeeded in -effecting a compromise, and not a capitulation. Prince Albert was also -distinctly under the impression that whilst England surrendered on the -question of the elections, France had surrendered on the question of -uniting the Principalities. A Memorandum was drawn up on 9th of August, -embodying some arrangement of this sort, but Walewski refused to sign -it, upon the ground, says Sir T. Martin, “that the Emperor’s Government -desired to keep the satisfaction to be obtained from the Porte and the -arrangement subsequently to be made respecting the Principalities -distinct from each other, and, also because, were he to sign the -Memorandum, it would appear that France had made a concession on the -latter point for the purpose of inducing the Sultan to agree on the -former.” He also appears to have stated that it was not necessary to -sign the document, because “amongst men of honour writing was -unnecessary.” In May, 1858, at the second Congress of Paris, it was -discovered that writing in this case was extremely necessary. When the -British Plenipotentiaries contended that the French Emperor had yielded -on the point of the union of the Principalities, His Majesty denied that -he had done anything of the sort. The only concession he ever made, -according to his account, was that he would not insist on their being -ruled over by a foreign prince--a detail of secondary consequence. It -seems also to have been admitted on our side that we had agreed to -recognise the administrative union of the provinces, so that the -misunderstanding may have arisen out of a quibble over the terms -“administrative” and “political” union. - -During this visit, Lord Malmesbury tells us that extraordinary -precautions were taken by the Queen for the Emperor’s protection. -“Eighty detectives were sent down from London, besides French police. -The strictest guard was kept round the Palace and over the island. -Besides this, a number of men-of-war’s boats guarded the shore, and did -not allow a single boat to approach.”[326] From a memorandum of their -conversations which Prince Albert drew up, it is obvious that the -settlement of the question of the Principalities was not the sole object -of Napoleon’s journey to Osborne. He broached a great many insidious -proposals for a redistribution of European territory, also for a -revision of the Treaties of 1815, but they were all coldly and -sceptically received. He even suggested a wild scheme for converting the -Mediterranean into an European lake. “Spain might have Morocco, Sardinia -a part of Tripoli, England Egypt, Austria a part of Syria--_et que sais -je_,” writes Prince Albert, in describing this suggestion;[327] the -first step being a friendly understanding with England on the subject. -As his Majesty had told the Prince he was soon to have an interview with -the Russian Czar, it need hardly be said that no encouragement was given -by the Queen to these extraordinary projects. In truth, neither the -Queen nor her Ministers were at this moment in a mood for entering on an -adventurous foreign policy. The Indian Empire had been shaken to its -centre by the revolt of the Bengal Army, a revolt known in history as -the great Indian Mutiny, and the causes of which must now be traced. - - - - -CHAPTER XXXVI. - -THE INDIAN MUTINY. - - The Centenary of Plassey--Rumours of Rebellion--Causes of the - Mutiny--The Annexation of Oudh--Lord Dalhousie’s Indian Policy--Its - Disturbing Effect on the Minds of the Natives--The Royal Family of - Delhi--The Hindoo “Sumbut”--The Discontent of the Bengal Army--The - Grievances of the Sepoy--The Greased Cartridges--The Mystery of the - “Chupatties”--Mutiny of the Garrison at Meerut--The March to - Delhi--Sir Henry Lawrence at Lucknow--The Tragedy of - Cawnpore--Death of the Commander-in-Chief--Who took Delhi?--Sir - John Lawrence in the Punjab--The Saviour of India--Lord Canning at - Calcutta--First Relief of Lucknow--Despatch of Sir Colin - Campbell--Second Relief of Lucknow--Savage Fighting at the - Secunder-baugh--The Queen’s Letter to Sir Colin Campbell--His - Retreat to Cawnpore--His Management of the Campaign--Windham’s - Defeat at the Pandoo River--Sir Colin Campbell’s Victory over the - Gwalior Army. - - -With the exception of the Sicilian Vespers, no revolt ever smote a great -Empire so unexpectedly as the Indian Mutiny. Gaily was the centenary of -Plassey celebrated at a banquet in London on the 23rd of June, though -the sultry air of India was even then laden with rumours of a -wide-spreading rebellion. A few casual allusions to these reports were -made in both Houses of Parliament, but July brought with it the rush of -rising waters in the dull ears of the nation, when news of the -atrocities of Meerut and the rebel march on Delhi startled the country -from its apathy. - -To the end of time historians will probably differ as to what it was -that caused the Indian Mutiny. Some have laid stress on considerations -of general policy. Others have attributed the catastrophe to special -acts of administration. The acts of administration were, however, but -the sparks that exploded the forces of revolution, which had been slowly -accumulating in the country. To understand the origin of the Indian -Mutiny one must understand the administration of Lord Dalhousie, and -fairly estimate the last acts of his viceregal career. Of these none had -a more serious effect on the minds of the Native Courts than the -annexation of Oudh. Inasmuch as Dalhousie was personally a strong -opponent of annexation, the presumption is that the step, objectionable -as it seems, was inevitable. Oudh was misgoverned by a vicious but -feeble-minded Prince, and the people were tortured not only by his -besotted tyranny, but by the exactions of a corrupt aristocracy. At the -same time, the Kings of Oudh had long been trusty allies of the East -India Company, who had borrowed money from them, protected them against -their mutinous subjects, and used their territory as a recruiting ground -for the Sepoy army. One-half of Oudh had been given to the Company, by -the Treaty of 1801, on condition that a British army should be -maintained in the country for the support of the reigning dynasty. -Attempts had been made--notably by Lord - -[Illustration: THE BARRACKS AT MEERUT.] - -Auckland--to evade this obligation, but they were made in vain. After -the first Sikh war, Lord Hardinge had warned the King of Oudh that the -Company could no longer tolerate misrule in his territory, and -Dalhousie, in 1848, had sent Colonel Sleeman to reconstruct, if -possible, its internal administration. The task was a hopeless one, and -in 1851 Sleeman reported[328] that there was no choice but to assume the -whole government of the kingdom. Dalhousie shrank from taking this step, -and in 1854, when Sleeman resigned, Sir James Outram was appointed as -his successor, and asked to report on the whole case. Outram, though a -firm anti-annexationist, confirmed Sleeman’s statements. He admitted -that the duty imposed on the Indian Government by the Treaty of 1801 -rendered it necessary to have recourse to extreme measures. As a warm -advocate for maintaining Native States so long as they had any vitality, -it was, said Outram, painful and distressing to him to confess that in -continuing to uphold the sovereign power of an effete and incapable -dynasty we were inflicting infinite misery on 5,000,000 of people.[329] -Unfortunately, the Treaty of 1801 had stipulated that all improvements -in the administration of Oudh must be carried out by Native officers -under British advice. It was impossible, therefore, to transfer the -administration of Oudh to the servants of the Company, and equally -impossible to expect reforms from the servants of the King. Lord -Dalhousie’s notion was that the Treaty of 1801 should be -“denounced”--that the King should be told he must either sign a fresh -one, handing over the administration of his country to the Indian -Government, or forego the protection of the British force, which stood -between him and a revolution. Dalhousie ignored the fact that the -withdrawal of our troops from Oudh logically involved the retrocession -of that half of the kingdom which was given to us as payment for their -services, and yet there can be little doubt that had his demand been -pressed, the King of Oudh would have yielded. Dalhousie’s advisers -differed in their views, and in the end the Court of Directors settled -the matter by ordering the Governor-General to annex the country, -depriving the King of revenues, rank, power, and authority, and -allotting a suitable pension to him and his successors.[330] Dalhousie’s -plan, on the other hand, was to assume the administration, but not to -extinguish the dynasty of Oudh, and it was with reluctance that he -carried out the policy of his masters. The country was annexed by Sir -James Outram on the 7th of February, 1856, the King’s private property -being confiscated and sold. These are the essential facts of the case, -and it is easy to pass judgment on them. No Treaty conferred on the -Company the shadow of a right to do more than secure for the people of -Oudh good government. As it was quite possible to do that without -destroying and degrading the dynasty, the seizure of Oudh was simply an -act of rapine.[331] As the Kings of Oudh had been noted all over India -for their staunch loyalty to the English in India, every Native prince -regarded the annexation of Oudh as a menace to his throne. At every -Native Court it was whispered that to be loyal to England was simply to -invite ruin. Thus the last act of Dalhousie’s viceregal reign sowed the -seeds of suspicion, distrust, and even hatred in the hearts of the -Native dynasties. - -But the whole policy of this great and vigorous ruler, by a curious -irony of fate, had steadily prepared the minds of the Indian races for a -revolution. Dalhousie had covered India with railways, canals, roads, -and telegraphs. He had introduced a cheap postal system by which a -letter from Peshawur to Cape Comorin, or from Assam to Kurrachee, was -carried for three farthings--one-sixteenth of the old charge. He had -reformed the Civil Service, he had improved education and prison -discipline, he had passed laws that went to the root of family life, -such as those permitting Hindoo widows to marry again, and relieving -persons who changed their religion from forfeiture. As for his wars and -his annexations, he had the “tyrant plea, necessity.” When leaving -Calcutta he said mournfully, and with a trace of misgiving, as he looked -back on his brilliant achievements, “I have played out my part, and -while I feel that in my case the principal act in the drama of my life -is ended, I shall be content if the curtain should now drop on my public -career.” But the great work done by Dalhousie had not been done without -friction between the paramount power and its subjects and vassals. It -was, indeed, thought in England that Dalhousie handed India over to Lord -Canning in a state of profound tranquillity. Yet, looking deeper than -the surface, says an able writer on Indian history, “there were latent -causes of uneasiness which largely pervaded the minds of the Native -classes of all ranks and creeds.”[332] Dalhousie’s system of progressive -education was detested by Hindoo and Moslem alike, because it undermined -the whole fabric of their faith. The Moslem youth, it is true, did not -frequent the English schools. But young Hindoos flocked to them with an -eager thirst for knowledge, and they went to the missionary seminaries, -where Christianity was taught, quite as freely as to State schools, -where its teaching was prohibited. In their homes, they spoke of what -they were taught to their parents, who regarded the whole system of -English education as a diabolical device for corrupting the faith and -morals of their children. This suspicion was strengthened and confirmed -by the aggressive proselytism of the missionaries, to whose zeal one of -the soundest and best informed of Native civilians has directly traced -the origin of the Mutiny. The entire scheme of Dalhousie’s policy was -based on the assumption that the Natives would greet with loyalty and -gratitude the new era of progress that he ushered in. On the contrary, -as Colonel Meadows Taylor says, “the material progress of India was -unintelligible to the Natives in general. A few intelligent and educated -persons might understand the use and scope of railways, telegraphs, -steam-vessels, and recognise in them the direction of a great Government -for the benefit of the people; but the ancient listless conservativism -of the population at large was disturbed by them. ‘The English,’ it was -said, ‘never did such things before, why do they do so now? These are -but new devices for the domination of their will, and are aimed at the -destruction of our national faith, caste, and customs. What was it all -to come to? Was India to be like England? The earlier Company’s servants -were simple but wise men, and we respected them; we understood them and -they us; but the present men are not like them; we do not know them, nor -they us.’ No one cared, perhaps, very much for such sentiments, and -few--very few--English heard them; but they will not have been forgotten -by those who did.”[333] The Directors of the East India Company had, -prior to Dalhousie’s time, rigidly enforced on their servants a policy -of benevolent neutrality to the religious beliefs and social prejudices -of India. The government of the Company in its best days might have been -bad. But it was successful because it was, on the whole, popular, and it -was popular because it was intensely conservative. Ardent progressive -officials were repressed, whereas under Dalhousie their passion for -innovation had free scope and disastrous encouragement. - -Nor was Oudh the only centre of Court intrigues against the British -_raj_. The question of settling the position of the Royal Family of -Delhi, the last representatives of the old Emperors of India, had been -much debated in Dalhousie’s reign. When Lord Canning went to India, in -1856, it was again taken up, and a final decision given on the points -raised. The heir-apparent, Prince Fukhr-ood-deen, who had agreed to -evacuate the Palace, died on the 10th of July, 1856, and it was supposed -he had been poisoned. The Queen, Zeenut Mahál, immediately began to -intrigue for the purpose of procuring the recognition of her son as -heir-apparent, and the King of Delhi petitioned the Government of India -to this effect. But the petition could not have been granted without a -breach of the Mohammedan law, and so Mirza Korash, the next in legal -succession to Fukhr-ood-deen, was recognised as heir to the throne. But -whereas, in the case of Fukhr-ood-deen, the recognition of the -Government was the result of a compact or bargain between independent -authorities, in the case of Mirza Korash it took the form of an Imperial -decree, conferring rank and dignity on a vassal prince. The Royal Family -of Delhi resented the whole arrangement. “Remembering the old relations -between the Company and the Empire, the immense benefits originally -conferred on them, and the admitted position of the Company as servants -of the State, it was,” writes Colonel Taylor, “only natural they should -now be accused of perfidy. The efforts and intrigues of the spirited -Queen and several of the princes were now redoubled, locally as well as -in foreign quarters; and India, especially the North-West Provinces, -became filled with the most alarming rumours.”[334] - -Along with these there spread extraordinary tales of the decaying power -of England--tales which fawning courtiers poured into the willing ears -of Native princes, and with which embittered malcontents regaled the -Native servants of the Company. The sudden collapse of Palmerston’s -militant policy in the Crimea and in Persia convinced every enemy of -England in India that the omens were propitious for a revolt against -English rule. It was also an untoward coincidence that the year 1857-58 -was the Hindoo “Sumbut” 1914, and the centenary of Plassey. But when -that crowning victory was won, the astrologers had declared that the -_raj_, or rule, of the Company would last only for a century. Astrology -so dominates Indian life, that the people have a trick of fulfilling, by -their unconscious action, the prophecies of their soothsayers; and he -who predicts a successful insurrection on a given date has himself -furnished one of the strongest encouragements for its organisation. The -Sumbut 1914, therefore, could not arrive without suggesting to the -Indian mind that an opportunity for throwing off the yoke of England had -come. One of the stereotyped ceremonies of New Year’s Day is the public -recital of the almanack for the year in every Indian village. Hence, in -1857, every Hindoo villager was solemnly warned that wise men, who, a -century ago, held infallible commune with the stars, foretold that in -this fateful year the British _raj_ must end. - -[Illustration: SIR JAMES OUTRAM.] - -Unfortunately, the base on which the empire of the Company had rested -for a century was at this critical period extremely insecure. India was -won and India was held, not by English, but by Native soldiers. The -British Empire was, therefore, built up on the fidelity of the Sepoy, -and the Sepoy had become dissatisfied with his masters, especially in -Bengal.[335] The army of Bengal had not only been prone to mutiny, but -Napier had denounced its lack of discipline, and there were fewer -Europeans in it in proportion to Natives, than in the armies of Bombay -or Madras.[336] The Crimean War had drained the life-blood from the -British battalions in Bengal; and whereas six English regiments were -usually stationed between Calcutta and Allahabad, when Lord Dalhousie -left the country there were only two. Obviously, if the Sepoy was not to -be trusted, the whole fabric of empire in India was in such -circumstances resting on a rotten foundation, and although officers of -experience refused to doubt the loyalty of their men, the spirit of -mutiny was most certainly abroad in the Bengal army. The Sepoy had -grievances, and the Government had not sense enough to redress them. -These grievances were two in number. (1), When a Sepoy in the old days -marched to the conquest of a province he got increased pay and -allowances; but in recent times, when the province was annexed, it was -considered British territory, and the pay and allowances of the -Company’s mercenary forces were reduced to the scale of home service. -Conquests, therefore, while they imposed more work on the army, -practically reduced its pay. (2), Another cause of discontent was the -“General Service Order” of 1856. The Sepoy was originally enlisted for -service in India only. He could not be sent across the sea; in fact, -only low caste men dared cross “the black water.” During the first -Burmese War the Sepoys had to be marched round the Indian frontier to -the enemy’s territory; and when the second Burmese War broke out, the -38th Native Infantry refused to embark for Rangoon. Of course, though -they should not have been asked to go without having been previously -“sounded” on the subject, refusal in their case was tantamount to -mutiny. Dalhousie could not, however, legally punish them, so he sent -them to Dacca, where they were decimated, not by courtmartials, but by -cholera. Thus the Sepoy argued that he must in future choose between his -caste or a pestilential station, if he refused to serve across the sea. -But while the Sepoys were brooding over this dilemma in 1856, the -Governor-General promulgated the “General Service Order” to the effect -that no more Sepoys should be enlisted who would not take an oath to -cross the sea if called on to do so, and veteran officers, who had grown -grey in the Company’s service predicted that this Order would make -mischief in the army. And so it did. To the Sepoy, his service under the -Company was a source of pride, profit, and even of valuable civil -privileges.[337] To him it was as great a grievance to issue an Order of -this sort, as it would be to the English aristocracy to attach -conditions to military service, which should render it impossible for a -gentleman to hold the Queen’s Commission. The individual Sepoy, no -doubt, was not touched by the Order. But then his sons and grandsons, -whom he expected to become Sepoys, were. The army was thus closed to -every Native, unless they were prepared to submit to loss of caste. In -fact, a lucrative profession was, by Lord Canning’s Order, made the -monopoly of low-caste natives. Unfortunately, too, most of the recruits -were drawn from Oudh, the annexation of which had been a scandal, and -which was swarming with disbanded soldiers, who had been in the personal -service of the deposed King. - -Thus we had, in 1857, the following conditions prevailing in India: (1), -A popular belief was current in every village that the last year of the -British _raj_ had come; (2), The Native Courts were suspicious that the -annexation of Oudh was an indication of the fate that was in store for -them; (3), The high-caste Natives, whether in the army or in civil life, -were suspicious that the Government desired to defile their caste, and -sap the foundations of their religion.[338] The country was therefore in -such an inflammable condition that the first spark that fell on it would -produce an explosion. By an extraordinary act of stupidity the -Government not only struck this spark, but fanned it into flame. - -The Crimean War caused the British Army to substitute the rifle for the -old smooth-bore musket popularly called “Brown Bess.” In 1856 it was -determined to serve out Enfield rifles to the Indian Army, and in doing -this no heed was paid to Sepoy prejudices. The cartridge of the new -weapon could not be rammed home unless it were previously greased. But, -then, no Hindoo can touch the fat of ox or cow without loss of caste, -which is worse than loss of life, and no Moslem can touch pigs’ fat -without moral defilement. Yet no steps were taken to exclude these -substances from the grease for the Indian cartridges! A rumour -accordingly flew round the bazaars that in order to attack Hindoo and -Moslem alike the two objectionable fats had been mixed in the grease. -This story was traced to a curious source. One day a low-caste man at -Dumdum, near Calcutta, asked a Sepoy to give him a draught of water from -his _lotah_. The Sepoy refused, loftily observing that the vessel would -be polluted if a low-caste man touched it with his lips. The Lascar -replied, with a sneer, that the Sepoy would soon lose his own caste, for -the Government were making cartridges greased with defiling fats, which -he would have to bite in loading his rifle. The Sepoy, horror-stricken -at this tale, told it to his comrades. It flew from mouth to mouth, and -soon the Native Army of Bengal lay under the blight of a hideous -panic--every man going about his duty haunted by a dread of -soul-destroying defilement.[339] The men, half-crazy with fear, met of -nights to concert measures for their protection, and at Barrackpore -incendiary fires broke out. General Hearsey, who was in command, warned -the Government of what was going on, and orders were given that -ungreased cartridges should be issued--the men lubricating them with -whatever substance they chose to apply.[340] But no sooner had one -suspicion been banished from the Sepoy mind than another took its place. -A glazed paper was used for the ungreased cartridges, whereupon a new -rumour flew round to the effect that the glaze was produced by fat. -General Hearsey harangued his men, assuring them on his honour that -their suspicions were wrong, and they seemed satisfied; though, as -events showed, they were by no means satisfied. - -A detachment of the 34th was sent from Barrackpore to Berhampore. They -carried the tale about the glazed paper with them, and communicated the -fresh panic to the 19th Native Infantry at that station. The day after -the men of the 34th arrived the 19th Regiment had blank cartridges -served to them, which by some mistake had been made out of two different -kinds of paper. The men at once suspected that the new defiling -cartridges had been mixed with the old ones, so that their caste might -be destroyed, and they refused to take their percussion caps. Colonel -Mitchell, instead of reasoning with his Sepoys as Hearsey had done, flew -into a paroxysm of passion--which simply confirmed their suspicions. -Mitchell, in fact, mistook fear for mutiny, and it was in vain that the -Native officers, who of course knew the real state of the case, implored -him to keep his temper with his men. That night the 19th mutinied. -Mitchell had no European troops, but he closed round the mutineers with -two other Native regiments--cavalry and artillery--and then, sending for -the Native officers of the 19th, stormed at them in impotent fury. They -assured him that their men were only in a panic, and that if the cavalry -and artillery were withdrawn they would return to duty. The cavalry and -artillery were withdrawn, and the 19th went back to its quarters loyally -enough. - -Though Mitchell’s indiscretion drove the 19th into revolt, it had -unquestionably revolted. Lord Canning, therefore, was bound to punish -it, and he decided that the regiment must be disarmed and disbanded. But -he had no British troops to spare for this purpose. He accordingly had -to wait from the end of February till the end of March for the arrival -of an English regiment from Burmah to disarm the 19th, who were marched -down to Barrackpore to be broken up. On the 29th of March, two days -before the disbandment of the 19th Native Infantry, Private Mungul Pandy -of the 34th, in a fit of drunken fanaticism, attempted to get up a -mutiny among his comrades. He shot the horse of the Adjutant, Lieutenant -Baugh, who was cut down in trying to seize him. Only one man of the -quarter-guard responded to the order to arrest the mutineer, who was -finally captured, tried, and hanged on the 22nd of April. Evil -communications had passed between the 19th and the 34th, and it was -found that, though the Sikhs and Moslems in the regiment were loyal, the -Hindoos were mutinous to a man. Yet nothing was done to punish the 34th. -The discharged men of the 19th, however, carried the story of their -wrongs to their homes in Oudh and Bundelkund, and soon it came to be -believed that not only were the cartridges greased, but, in order to -produce a general pollution of the Natives, which would destroy all -caste, “that the public wells, and the flour, and ghee (a clarified -butter sold in the bazaars), had been defiled by ground bone-dust and -the fat of cows and pigs, while the salt had been sprinkled with cows’ -and hogs’ blood.”[341] Viceregal proclamations were issued to -contradict these rumours and reassure the people, but in vain. The -North-West Provinces had now become smitten with the terror which -hovered over India, and the Commander-in-Chief suggested that the -_depôt_ at Umballa might be broken up before the rifle practice began at -the annual training. Lord Canning, believing that his proclamations had -lulled the rising storm, refused to sanction this step. Fires next broke -out at Umballa, as at Barrackpore--the officers alleging that Sepoys, -who were as yet “undefiled,” set fire to the huts of those who had -accepted the defiling cartridges, and that the latter retaliated. Oudh -soon became affected, and in May Sir Henry Lawrence had to disarm the -7th Irregular Native Infantry at Lucknow. - -[Illustration: CAWNPORE.] - -In the North-West Provinces the famous “chupatties” began to make their -appearance. They consisted of small baked cakes, and they were passed on -from hand to hand, from hamlet to hamlet, spreading a strange -excitement wherever they went. The circulation of the “chupatties” was -evidently a signal of some sort, and yet, though Native society was -shaking with revolutionary tremors, nothing happened. At last an event -occurred which precipitated a general catastrophe. At Meerut eighty-five -men of the 3rd Native Cavalry had been tried and doomed to ten years’ -hard labour on the roads for refusing to bite their cartridges. They -were paraded and punished before the other Native regiments, who seem to -have been irritated, rather than overawed. Next day (10th May), the 3rd -Cavalry forced the gates of the gaol and released their comrades. The -men of the 20th and 11th Regiments flew to arms, shot every European -they met, set fire to their huts, and marched on to Delhi. Why, it will -be asked, was this revolt not quelled, seeing that a strong English -force was stationed at Meerut? The outbreak, it is true, occurred during -church hours on a Sunday; but even this hardly explains why General -Hewitt, who was in command, permitted the mutineers to pursue their -march to the city of the Mogul Emperors. There they proceeded, as if by -concert, to the King, who espoused their cause. The people of the city -rose and massacred the Europeans. The Native regiments in Delhi--the -38th, 54th, and 74th--joined the mutineers one by one, and though the -arsenal was held for a time by Lieutenant Willoughby, with Lieutenants -Raynor and Forrest, and six other Englishmen, they blew it up when it -was no longer tenable. The Mutiny was now a war of liberation. It had a -King for a rallying-point, and an Imperial city for a capital. - -The North-West had by this time fallen from the feeble hands of Colvin -into the grasp of the rebels. In Gwalior the British Resident, by his -personal ascendency, held Scindia to his loyalty, though Scindia’s army -revolted. But for George Lawrence, Rajpootana would have been lost. As -for Oudh, there the struggle was becoming tragic. On the eve of the -insurrection this province, seething with sedition, was put under the -rule of Sir Henry Lawrence. Lucknow, with 700,000 inhabitants, was a -hotbed of treason, and the success of the mutineers at Meerut agitated -them profoundly. At the end of May the Sepoys in Lucknow rose and -marched away to Delhi, leaving Lawrence with a handful of Europeans to -hold a rebellious city. Cawnpore is forty miles south of Lucknow, and -there General Wheeler and another devoted band were similarly situated. -On the night of the 21st of May, Wheeler and the English -population--about a thousand souls--withdrew into a kind of temporary -fortress which he had created, and which he defended by some 210 men. At -Cawnpore, in May, 1857, there was residing a young Mahratta noble, Nana -Sahib by name, whose popular manners had rendered him a favourite in the -English community. He had been the adopted heir of the last Peishwa of -Berari, and his grievance against the Government was that Dalhousie -refused to let him enjoy the pension guaranteed to the Peishwa and his -successors. Nana Sahib had spent a season in London to press his claims, -and had been most hospitably received. His agent, Azin Oolla Khan, had -returned to India after visiting the Crimea, and bearing to his master -tales which were partially true, of the defeats and humiliations which -England had suffered during her war with Russia. Nana Sahib had been -busy with plots against the English _raj_ for many years, and his agents -were ubiquitous. In Oudh they had been especially active, for they had -taken every advantage of the mistakes of an over-zealous -Commissioner--Mr. Coverley Jackson--to fan the flame of discontent in -that province. Yet Wheeler trusted the Nana Sahib so implicitly that he -put the treasury of Cawnpore in the charge of his personal retinue lest -his own Native troops might fail him. On the 4th of June General -Wheeler’s Sepoys revolted, joined Nana Sahib’s retinue in plundering the -treasury, and then, laden with spoil, set out for Delhi. But the Nana’s -idea was to win empire for himself rather than for a degenerate -descendant of the Mogul dynasty. He therefore persuaded the rebels to -return, and besiege the English garrison at Cawnpore. On the twentieth -day of the siege he sent one of his prisoners, an old lady named -Greenway, to General Wheeler, offering the beleaguered English a safe -conduct to Allahabad if they would surrender. The offer was accepted. On -the 27th of June the survivors--men, women, and children, about 450 in -all--marched to the boats which had been prepared for them. As soon as -they had embarked Nana Sahib treacherously opened fire on them, and -converted an exodus into a massacre. One hundred and twenty-two captives -were taken, and imprisoned in a house till the 15th of July, when they -were butchered. Next morning their bodies, some still quivering with -life, were thrown into a well. When tidings of this ghastly crime -reached Europe, the nation was for a moment horror-stricken, but only -for a moment. A cry of rage broke forth from the British people, and the -Government hastened to send avenging reinforcements to the East. They -could not, however, arrive in time to save Cawnpore, and when it fell, -the rebels closed round Henry Lawrence at Lucknow. Two days after the -siege began a stray shot mortally wounded him, and, after thirty-six -hours of intense agony, one of the noblest hearts in India had ceased to -beat for ever. - -“It is evident,” said the Queen, in a letter to Lord Palmerston, -commenting on these events, “from a comparison of the news with the map, -that whereas hitherto the seat of the mutiny was Oudh, Delhi, and the -Upper Ganges, to which localities all troops have been despatched, it -has now broken out in their rear, cutting them off from the base of -operations, viz., Calcutta, and that it has reached the gates of the -seat of Government itself.” The North-West and Oudh were, in fact, lost. -In the former province, a Mogul King held sway at Delhi, whilst Colvin -was clinging to Agra with feeble hands. In Oudh, Nana Sahib, the viper -of the insurrection, was installed at Cawnpore; whilst a small band of -Englishmen, bewailing the loss of their heroic leader, stood desperately -at bay at Lucknow. In six months, the Empire which had been created in a -century, was shattered and in ruins. Yet the English clung to these -ruins with the tenacity of despair, and what they had lost they were -determined to re-conquer. Fortunately, they had in India what they -lacked in the Crimea, two leaders who were alike competent to translate -a high resolve into prompt action. These were Lawrence at Lahore, and -Canning at Calcutta. - -When the Mutiny first broke out General Anson was Commander-in-Chief of -the Forces in India. It was said that he was a mere amateur soldier, and -that in Simla he had accordingly found a congenial Capua. Family -interest had sent him at one bound from the Turf some years before to -the command of one of the Presidency armies. When the -Commandership-in-Chief of the Indian Armies fell vacant, family interest -had again secured the post for him. Had he been a man of capacity and -energy the Mutiny would have been stamped out when it was feebly -sporadic. After it became what Canning called “epidemic,” the task of -repression was harder. Whether Anson would have risen to the level of -his responsibilities the world will never know now, because he died in a -fortnight after he began to grapple with the crisis.[342] His slender -force was then taken in hand by Sir H. Barnard, who pressed on to the -South, and who reached Alipore on the 5th of June, where he effected a -junction with Sir Archdale Wilson, who had marched from Meerut. On the -8th Barnard drove the rebels from their entrenchments at Budlee Serái, -four miles north of Delhi, where he repeated Raglan’s experiment in the -Crimea--that of besieging a fortress, whose garrison was really -besieging him. On the 5th of July Barnard died, to be succeeded by Reed, -who in turn was succeeded by Wilson on the 17th of July. All four were -sluggish generals, and it was well that John Lawrence, at Lahore, acted -on them like a goad. Englishmen will not readily forget his famous -telegram to Anson in May when he heard that the General was about to -entrench himself at Umballa--“Clubs are trumps--not spades?” A vain -controversy has arisen as to who can claim credit for the capture of -Delhi; whether it was due to Wilson’s slow but cautious tactics, or to -the engineering skill of Taylor, or the demoniac energy of Nicholson, or -the dashing enterprise of Chamberlain, who brought succours from the -Punjab. The man who really took the rebel stronghold was not a soldier -but a civilian, for it was John Lawrence, at Lahore, and not any of the -generals before Delhi, who was the bulwark of the war.[343] - -When the Mutiny broke out the Punjab was--by the prompt action of -Lawrence’s subordinates who disarmed sulking troops, and stamped out the -germs of mutiny whenever and wherever they were visible--saved and -secured. - -[Illustration: LORD LAWRENCE.] - -After this Delhi seemed to him to be the very keystone of the -insurrection. To take it there was no risk too great to run--no hazard -too perilous to undergo.[344] Though his own position at Lahore was -dangerous enough, he threw himself on the people, and staked everything -on the fidelity of the Sikhs. He summoned the old gunners of the Khálsa -from their fields. The low-caste “Muzbis” he converted into sappers. The -fierce chieftains, who had fought against us in ’48 and ’49, together -with their followers, he hurried on to the rebel city, thereby stripping -his province of local leaders who might have organised a rising. “From, -the Punjab arsenals,” says one of Lawrence’s critics, “the siege-trains -were equipped; from the Punjab districts vast amounts of carriage were -gathered and despatched systematically with their loads to Delhi; from -the Punjab treasuries the sinews of war were furnished. Men were raised -by tens of thousands to replace the Sepoys--raised, indeed, in such -numbers that--as constantly comes out in Lawrence’s correspondence--the -dread was for a long time never absent from his mind lest this might be -overdone, and new danger might arise from the Punjabis becoming -conscious of their strength.”[345] What wonder, then, that in England as -in India, where it was admitted that the fall of Delhi broke the neck of -the insurrection, all men who knew the circumstances of the case, who -knew how he had to stimulate laggards,[346] strengthen faint hearts, -overcome jealousies, sweep away obstructions--“all greeted Sir John -Lawrence by acclamation as the man who had done more than any single man -to save the Indian Empire”?[347] And justly. For had the great and -warlike Sikh nation, in the midst of which Lawrence stood like a lion at -bay, risen against the British _raj_, “all would have been lost save -honour.” He saw, in fact, that the Khálsa banner must be carried into -our own lines, otherwise it would be swept into the lines of the enemy; -and it was this inspiration of genius that really saved India. Delhi -fell before the attacks of the reinforced army, after six days’ -fighting, on the 20th of September, and on the 21st the Mogul king was -captured by Captain Hodson (“Hodson of Hodson’s Horse”), who next day -shot, with his own hand, his two sons, and hung up their bodies in the -most public place in the city.[348] - -The fall of Delhi was not the end, but the beginning of the end, of the -Mutiny. Oudh had to be recovered, and if it be said that Lawrence -captured Delhi, it is but right to say that Canning wrested Oudh from -the grasp of the insurgents. His position in Calcutta was an -embarrassing one. A terrible panic had paralysed those round him. Though -they seemed able to do nothing but clamour for vengeance and for -blood;[349] yet in the whirlwind of their passion Canning stood -“steadfast as a pillar in a storm.” He was one of those who at such a -moment “attain the wise indifference of the wise” to everything save the -paramount demands of practical duty. He sent to Bombay, Madras, and -Ceylon for reinforcements. He intercepted at Singapore the force that -was on its way to China to support Lord Elgin, who had been sent to -supersede Sir John Bowring,[350] and he armed Henry and John Lawrence -with absolute power in Oudh and the Punjab. On the 23rd of May, Neill -brought to Calcutta the first of the reinforcements from Madras. -Havelock followed with two regiments from Persia, superseding Neill; and -after him came Outram, who was to supersede Havelock and succeed Henry -Lawrence as Chief Commissioner in Oudh. Outram, however, refused to -deprive Havelock of the honour of relieving Lucknow, and accompanied him -merely in his civil capacity. On the 17th, Havelock forced his way to -the scene of the massacre at Cawnpore, where the sickening relics of -Nana Sahib’s crime were still visible. Onwards his Army of Vengeance -swept with hungry hearts to Lucknow, which they entered on the 25th of -September, after a great variety of perilous adventure. When the -imprisoned garrison, who had long been listening with strained ears for -the beat of the English drums, met their rescuers, the scene was -inexpressibly touching. The Highlanders, usually the most stolid and -least emotional of our troops, had become dangerously excited after they -entered Cawnpore; and, in the engagements on the march to Lucknow, they -had fought, contrary to their wont, more like savages than civilised -men. But when they marched into Lucknow their hearts softened. Oblivious -of discipline and decorum, they rushed from their ranks, shaking hands -with the ladies, lifting up the little children in their brawny arms, -and passing them along from hand to hand, to be pressed to rough and -bearded lips. Outram now took over the supreme command; but, finding -himself again surrounded by the enemy in overwhelming numbers, he -decided not to withdraw from the city. Lucknow had therefore to be -relieved again. - -The death of Anson, and the startling development of the insurrection in -midsummer, together with the pressing appeals of the Queen, roused the -Cabinet to action. They sent out reinforcements, and on the 11th of July -decided to appoint Sir Colin Campbell as Anson’s successor. When asked -by Lord Panmure when he could start, Campbell answered, laconically, -“To-morrow;” and, as a matter of fact, with little more than the kit of -a common soldier, the veteran did start next night.[351] On the 17th of -August he arrived at Calcutta, and toiled without ceasing to organise an -army. The greatest military historian of our time has said that Campbell -had a genuine and natural love for war, and he was one of those whose -hearts beat stronger in the hour of battle than at any other moment of -their lives. But he loved victory better than combat; and when he -fought, he fought to win. Hence the extraordinary pains he took with his -preparations, and the time he spent, or, as some of his panic-stricken -critics in Calcutta said, wasted, in making arrangements which would -virtually guarantee success. It was not till the 27th of - -[Illustration: SCENE AT THE FIRST RELIEF OF LUCKNOW.] - -October that he left Calcutta. On the 9th of November he got to -Cawnpore; and then by a brilliant forced march on the 12th he reached -the Alumbaugh--a summer palace of the kings of Oudh--from which he was -able to signal his arrival to Outram. A gallant civilian--Mr. -Kavanagh--contrived, in disguise, to make his way from Lucknow through -the enemy’s lines to the relieving force, and told the story of Outram’s -defence, an achievement, as Lord Canning said, without a parallel in -history, save Numantia and Saragossa. On the 14th Sir Colin Campbell -moved on the city. On the 16th he attacked the chief stronghold of the -rebels--the Secunder-baugh. The 93rd Highlanders and a regiment of Sikhs -forced their way in through a narrow breach, and then, finding that the -Sepoy garrison could not escape, they massacred them. The Highlanders -here fought with uncontrollable ferocity, neither asking nor giving -quarter. “_Cawnpore_, you----!” was the cry of rage with which each man -drove his bayonet home into the heart of his foe; and, excited by their -example, the Sikhs strove only too successfully to emulate the barbarity -of their Scottish comrades. For three terrible hours did the men of the -93rd satiate their passion for vengeance; and when they emerged from the -place with tartans soaked in blood, they left it packed high and close -with corpses--hardly a single rebel escaping to tell the tale. On the -17th of November Campbell had fought his way to the Residency, and -Lucknow was rescued a second time. - -The victory was hailed in England with pride and delight. The Queen sent -a letter to Sir Colin Campbell, congratulating him. “The Queen,” she -writes, “has had many proofs already of Sir Colin Campbell’s devotion to -his Sovereign and his country, and he has now greatly added to that debt -of gratitude which both owe him. But Sir Colin must bear one reproof -from his Queen, and that is, that he exposes himself too much. His life -is most precious, and she entreats that he will neither put himself -where his noble spirit would urge him to be--foremost in danger--nor -fatigue himself so as to injure his health.”[352] Her Majesty’s caution -was hardly needed. Sir Colin Campbell was a general who never exposed -himself or his troops to unnecessary danger. But when necessary, he -would spend his own and their blood as recklessly as if it were water. -It has been noticed that his brilliant victories in India were all won -with little loss of life.[353] The explanation is that his plans were -just the opposite of those pursued in the Crimea--that is to say, he -never wasted his men in futile assaults, or hurled them against -fortifications bristling with cannon, till his own artillery--an arm in -which he was always strong--had demoralised the enemy. - -Having removed the women, children, sick, and wounded, Campbell retraced -his steps to attack the rebel army concentrated at Cawnpore--his heart -saddened, and the lustre of his triumph dimmed by the death of the -heroic Havelock. At Cawnpore, General Windham, who commanded the rear -guard, had foolishly allowed himself to be outflanked by Tantia Topee, a -commander of great skill and courage. Windham’s blunder not only gave -the enemy possession of Cawnpore, but put the whole English force, whose -communications were thus threatened, in the greatest peril. Campbell, by -forced marches, came to the rescue on the 29th of November. Having sent -on his convoy to Calcutta, he attacked the rebels, under Nana Sahib and -Tantia Topee, on the 5th of December; and, on the 7th, there was not a -vestige of the 25,000 insurgents composing the Gwalior army to be seen -for miles round Cawnpore.[354] As the year 1857 closed, it was felt that -the worst of the crisis in India was over. - - - - -CHAPTER XXXVII. - -THE ROYAL MARRIAGE. - - Birth of Princess Beatrice--Death of the Duchess of Gloucester--A - Royal Romance--Franco-Russian Intrigues--The Art Treasures - Exhibition at Manchester--Announcement of the Marriage of the - Princess Royal--Prince Albert’s Views on Royal Grants--The - Controversy on the Grant to the Princess Royal--Visit of the Grand - Duke Constantine--The Christening of Princess Beatrice--Prince - Albert’s Title as Prince Consort Legalised--The First Distribution - of the Victoria Cross--Opposition to the Order--The Queen’s Visit - to Manchester--Departure of the Prince of Wales to Germany--The - Queen and the Indian Mutiny--Her Controversy with Lord - Palmerston--Sudden Death of the Duchess of Nemours--The Marriage of - the Princess Royal--The Scene in the Chapel--On the Balcony of - Buckingham Palace--The Illuminations in London--The Bride and - Bridegroom at Windsor--The Last Adieus--The Departure of the Bride - and Bridegroom to Germany. - - -It was when the country was passing through the crisis of Palmerston’s -“penal dissolution” that a Princess was added to the Royal circle--soon -to be diminished by the migration of her eldest sister to a home of her -own in a foreign land. The little Princess was born on the 14th of -April, and in a letter to King Leopold the Queen says: “She is to be -called Beatrice, a fine old name borne by three of the Plantagenet -Princesses, and her other names will be Mary (after poor Aunt Mary), -Victoria (after Mama and Vicky, who, with Fritz Wilhelm, are to be the -sponsors) and Feodore.”[355] On the 19th Prince Albert tells his -stepmother that the Queen was already able to leave her room, and her -recovery, therefore, could not have been retarded by the political -excitement and agitation of the times. - -As the month ended, however, sorrow fell on the Royal household. On the -30th of April the Duchess of Gloucester died--the “Aunt Gloucester” to -whom the Queen and her husband in their letters make so many -affectionate references. This Princess was the last child of George -III., and of all his family the best beloved. The story of her life was -in itself a romance, the pathos of which accounts for the Queen’s -frequent allusions to her nobility and unselfishness of character. -During her girlhood at Windsor the Princess Mary, as she was called, won -the hearts of the people by her quiet, unobtrusive philanthropic work -among the poor. She and her cousin, the Duke of Gloucester, fell in love -with each other, but when he attained the age of twenty-one their -romance was cruelly and abruptly ended. The Princess Charlotte was born, -and it was decreed that the Duke of Gloucester must remain single, so -that he might marry her if no eligible foreign prince claimed her hand. -The Princess Mary and the Duke of Gloucester waited in suspense for -twenty weary years--for she refused to encourage any other suitor. In -1814 a rift appeared in this cloud that overhung their lives. The Prince -of Orange, it was said, was about to wed the Princess Charlotte, and -the ladies of the Court noticed how the pining Princess Mary suddenly -began to look bright and happy. But the projected alliance with the -Prince of Orange was abandoned, and the Princess Mary began to droop -again. A few months, however, put an end to the long probation of the -Royal lovers. Leopold of Coburg married the Princess Charlotte, and -Court gossips chronicle the fact that when she came down the steps of -Carlton House after the ceremony, the Princess Mary rushed forward and -fell weeping into her arms. She was married to the Duke of Gloucester in -1816, and it may be noticed that they refused to ask Parliament for any -increase of income. During their lives they had devoted themselves to -benevolent work, and had not only learned the value of money, but how to -make their means serve their wants. Their married life was so arranged -that they not only lived on their private incomes, but won a great and -well-merited reputation for their wide and generous charity. The sweet -and gentle nature of the Duchess, to which the strange story of her life -imparted an additional charm, had ever a strong fascination for the -Queen. - -The triumph of Palmerston at the General Election had an immediate -effect upon those Franco-Russian intrigues for the settlement of the -Danubian Principalities which had given the Queen some uneasiness. The -approaching visit of the Grand Duke Constantine to Paris had been -commented on severely by the English press, and the Emperor of the -French, in writing to the Queen to congratulate her on the birth of the -Princess Beatrice, attempted to explain away the significance of the -visit. Lord Clarendon suggested that Prince Albert should reply to this -letter, telling the Emperor quite frankly why England was jealous of the -advances of Russia to France. An alliance between France and England, -said the Prince in his letter, could have no basis save the mutual -desire to develop as much as possible Art, Science, Letters, -Commerce--in a word, everything that is meant by Civilisation. But as -for an alliance with Russia, on what basis could that be raised? What -interest had Russia in Progress? What was there in common between modern -France and modern Russia? A Franco-Russian alliance, therefore, could -have no foundation but that of political interest--and hence the -prospect of it alarmed the free States of Europe. - -Prince Albert’s reception at Manchester, where he opened the great Art -Treasures Exhibition on the 5th of May, delighted the Queen. But of all -the incidents of his tour, perhaps none pleased her more than the manner -in which his speech at the unveiling of her statue in the Peel Park of -that city was criticised by the public. In his address he alluded to the -devotion of the people to their Queen, and spoke of it as the outcome of -their attachment to the Sovereign “as the representative of the -institutions of the country.” The phrase struck the popular fancy, and -to the Queen it seemed the formula of her position and her life. Two -days later the Court removed to Osborne, where the Queen gradually -recovered from the depression of spirits under which she had sunk after -the death of the Duchess of Gloucester. - -On the 16th of May the Prussian _Official Gazette_ announced the -forthcoming marriage of the Princess Royal and Prince Frederick William, -and on the 19th the same announcement was made to Parliament by a Royal -Message. In this Message the Queen expressed her confidence that the -nation would make a suitable provision for her eldest daughter, and it -is worth recording that at the outset the Cabinet were a little -uncertain as to the reception which such a Message would meet with. -Perhaps that was why Lord Palmerston, in moving the Address in reply to -it, took pains to tell Parliament that, quite apart from the personal -interest which Englishmen felt in this affair, it held out political -prospects “not undeserving the attention of the House.” Family alliances -tended, he argued, to mitigate the asperities which from time to time -spring from diversities of national interests. “Therefore,” he added, “I -trust that this marriage may also be considered as holding out an -increased prospect of goodwill and of cordiality among the Great Powers -of Europe.” - -But in those days the Representatives of the people, were more jealous -guardians of the public purse than they are now, and on both sides of -the House there was a strong feeling against increasing public -expenditure. The competition then was in economy--not as now in profuse -extravagance. There were three views current on the subject. One was -that of Prince Albert, who thought that the time had come when -Parliament should settle finally what provision ought to be made for -members of the Royal Family on their marriage, so as to avoid the -necessity of frequent eleemosynary appeals to Parliament. He held, and -as it now seems rightly, that the feeling of the country at the time ran -in favour of treating the Queen’s children generously. In one of his -letters to Baron Stockmar he says, “Seeing how marked was the desire to -keep questions relating to the Royal Family aloof from the pressure of -party conflict, and to have them settled, I believe it would have been -an easy matter to have carried through the future endowments of them -all, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s and Palmerston’s -original plan, which was subsequently dropped by the Cabinet.”[356] Then -there was the Ministerial view, which was that the Princess should be -voted a dowry and an annuity; and the Radical view, which was that the -nation should not be burdened with an annuity, but that whatever was -voted to the lady should be a lump sum, so that when the vote was passed -the Princess would cease to be a yearly charge on the country she was -leaving. Mr. Roebuck gave expression to this last view, even before the -Chancellor of the Exchequer laid his proposal before the House--which -was that the annuity should be £8,000, and the marriage portion £40,000. -The majority of the House, however, desired to come to a unanimous vote -on the subject, and they laughed at Sir George Lewis’s grave citations -from Blackstone and his precedents from the reign of George II. Still -more - -[Illustration: THE HASTINGS CHANTRY, ST. GEORGE’S CHAPEL, WINDSOR.] - -heartily did they laugh when he explained how the Queen had recently -been forced to bear very large expenses of a public nature, alluding -particularly to the visit to the Emperor Napoleon--“a visit,” said Sir -George, solemnly, “which was purely for public and State purposes, and -not for her individual pleasure.”[357] No doubt the visits of George IV. -to Hanover, Ireland, and Scotland were paid for by the State. But it was -as ridiculous to cite such a bad precedent as that, as to go back for -others to the reign of George III., when Parliament at different times -voted a total sum of £3,297,000 to pay the debts of the Royal Family. -The truth is, that the Sovereign cannot be held exempt from the ordinary -liabilities of exalted rank and station. Every person who accepts a high -public office is in the habit, now and then, of drawing on his private -income to enable him to discharge his public duties with greater -efficiency--in fact, this liability is simply one of the incidents of -great estate in every aristocratic country. But, unfortunately, the -Queen had on her accession surrendered her Crown revenues to Parliament -for a fixed annuity, on the more or less formal understanding that -Parliament would provide for her children when they settled in life. So -that the House of Commons felt there was really no choice in the matter, -save to vote the grant, and if possible, out of respect for the Queen, -vote it unanimously. Mr. Roebuck withdrew his opposition, but on the -report of the vote in Supply, Mr. Coningham, Member for Brighton, -entered a protest against the principle of voting annuities to the Royal -Family, and moved the reduction of the vote in this instance from £8,000 -to £6,000 a year. The motion was lost by 328 to 14. Mr. Maguire and Sir -J. Trelawny, supported by Mr. Coningham, then argued that the annuity -was enough, and moved that there be no dowry granted. They were beaten -by a vote of 361 to 18, and here the matter ended. “We have,” writes -Prince Albert to Stockmar, “established a good precedent, not merely for -the grant itself, but for the way and manner in which such grants should -be dealt with.”[358] This opinion he would perhaps have recast had he -lived to see the painful position in which the Royal Family have again -and again been placed by repeated applications of the precedent. - -Just before the Court left Osborne, the Grand Duke Constantine paid the -Queen his long expected visit. He arrived on the 30th and left next -night, after going with her Majesty to see the fleet at Spithead. His -visit was not quite a pleasant one for the Queen and Lord Palmerston. -The Grand Duke, to their surprise, spoke with almost cynical candour of -the Crimean War; indeed, it was not till his visit that the Queen had -brought home to her effectually the murderous mistakes of that campaign. -He told her about Menschikoff’s blundering, and showed her how -Sebastopol was at the mercy of the Allies after the Battle of the Alma, -because there were only two battalions in the city; and further indulged -in many cheering reminiscences of a similar sort, especially in -reference to the attacks on the Redan. But as he had just come from -Paris, one wonders if he told his English hosts how it was that the -Emperor discovered that the Malakoff was the weak point in the defences -of the town.[359] On the 3rd of June the Court returned to Windsor, and -the Queen went to Ascot Races, and admired the beautiful mare, Blink -Bonny, which was brought out for her inspection.[360] The first Handel -Festival at the Crystal Palace, however, provided a stronger attraction -than Ascot for the Queen and her husband, and her visit to it is -described in glowing terms by contemporary chroniclers. It was the -precursor of these great festivals which have since become world-famous, -and on the 17th, when the Queen was present, _Judas Maccabæus_ was given -by 2,500 performers. - -The christening of the Princess Beatrice took place in the private -chapel of Buckingham Palace on the 16th of June, and among the visitors -and guests the Archduke Maximilian of Austria was one of the most -prominent. He had become betrothed to the Princess Charlotte of Belgium, -a young and beautiful princess, to whom the Queen was deeply attached. -It was a love match, but the lives of the young people, radiant at the -outset with sunshine, were darkened at the end by the gloom of an awful -tragedy. In an evil moment the Archduke permitted the French Emperor to -lure him into his wild project for establishing a Transatlantic-Latin -Empire as a counterpoise to the Anglo-Saxon Republic of the West. He was -crowned Emperor of Mexico in 1863, and deposed and shot by order of the -President of the Mexican Republic in 1867. His unhappy consort passed -the rest of her existence in the living death of insanity. - -On the 25th of June the Queen conferred on her husband, by Royal Letters -Patent, the title of Prince Consort, which, however, had already been -given to him by the people, who never called him anything else. Still it -had been a popular, not a legal title, and Prince Albert could claim no -other precedence than what was accorded to him by courtesy. Moreover, -when he went abroad, although he held a kingly position in England, he -ranked merely as a younger Prince of Saxe-Coburg Gotha, and foreigners -raised difficulties about the precedence that should be given to him. “I -should have preferred its being done by Act of Parliament,” wrote the -Queen to King Leopold, in reference to the legalising of the new title, -“and so it may still be at some future period; but it was thought better -on the whole to do it now in this simple way”--namely, by Letters -Patent. - -On the 26th, her Majesty presided over one of the most interesting -functions of her reign--the first distribution of the Victoria Cross, or -Cross of Valour, to the men who had earned it by personal prowess in -war. It is a curious fact that till this period no English sovereign -ever decorated an Englishman for being brave. Courage in England is so -common and cheap, said Mr. Bright once, that it can be bought easily for -less than a shilling a day. Nay, there were some generals, like Colin -Campbell, who objected strongly to decorations being conferred for -valour--because, as Campbell said, you might as well decorate a woman -for being chaste as an English soldier for being brave.[361] But contact -with the French Army had altered the old-fashioned English ideas on the -subject, - -[Illustration: THE VICTORIA CROSS.] - -and the spectacle of private soldiers in the Crimea wearing the Legion -of Honour on their breasts had created a feeling in favour of some kind -of decoration which would be open to all ranks of the army. The Order of -the Bath could not be granted for mere bravery--it was granted for -bravery combined with exceptional skill and talent. But then, as the -private soldier had no chance of displaying any quality in war save -courage, it was obvious that the new Order must seek a basis in -individual heroism alone. The Queen, struck by the episodical incidents -of the Crimean War, was strongly of opinion in 1856 that exceptional -deeds of personal valour should have more distinctive recognition than -the war medal which every man received, however slight might have been -his share in the campaign. In that year, therefore, she instituted, by -the Royal Warrant of January 29th, 1856, the Order of the Victoria -Cross. The decoration was to be given to soldiers or sailors who had -performed some signal act of valour or devotion to their country in face -of the enemy--and a small pension of £10 a year was to be attached to -the Cross. It was not until late in 1857 that a list of persons -qualified for admission to the Order could be drawn up, and when it was -submitted to the Queen she resolved to decorate them with her own hands. -Public interest in the ceremony on the 26th of June was intense. At an -early hour crowds of well-dressed sightseers swarmed into Hyde Park, -where a vast amphitheatre of seats, capable of accommodating 12,000 -persons had been erected. In the centre stood a simple table, on which -were laid the bronze Maltese crosses--their red and blue ribbons being -the only patches of colour that caught the eye. In front, a body of -4,000 troops, consisting of the _corps d’élite_ of the army--Guards, -Highlanders, Royal Marines, the Rifle Brigade, Enniskillens, and -Hussars, Artillery and Engineers--was drawn up. Between them and the -Royal Pavilion stood the small group of heroes--sixty-two in number--who -were to be decorated. At 10 a.m. the Queen, the Prince Consort, Prince -Frederick William of Prussia, and a brilliant train, rode into the Park. -The Queen, mounted on a gallant and spirited roan, and wearing a scarlet -jacket, black skirt, and plumed hat, rode up to the table, but did not -dismount. One by one each hero was summoned to her presence, and bending -from her saddle, her Majesty - -[Illustration: THE QUEEN DISTRIBUTING THE VICTORIA CROSSES IN HYDE -PARK.] - -pinned the Cross on his breast with her own hands, whilst the Prince -Consort saluted him with grave and respectful courtesy. As each soldier -or sailor was decorated, the vast concourse of spectators cheered and -clapped their hands--whether he were an officer whose breast was already -glittering with stars and orders, or a humble private or Jack Tar whose -rough tunic carried no more resplendent embellishment than the ordinary -war medal. But of all the cheers none were heartier than those which -were given for a man who, when called out, stepped forward arrayed in -what was then the grotesque and pacific garb of an ordinary policeman. - -The Art Treasures Exhibition at Manchester, which had been opened in May -by the Prince Consort, had become amazingly popular. It was the first of -its kind seen in England, and the great difficulty which its organisers -had to overcome was the reluctance of private collectors to lend works -of art for exhibition. But for the Queen and Prince Albert it is -probable this obstacle would never have been surmounted,[362] and hence -it was but natural that her Majesty should desire to visit the -collection. Her reception at Manchester, on the 30th of June, was -enthusiastic, a crowd of a million people welcoming her, as she said -herself, with “kind and friendly faces.” The display of Prussian flags, -and the complimentary allusions to her husband and to her eldest -daughter’s approaching marriage, appear to have touched her deeply. At -the Exhibition, her Majesty knighted the Mayor, as she observes, “with -Sir Harry Smith’s sword, which had been in four general actions,” and on -the 2nd of July she left for Buckingham Palace, where she gave a great -musical party in the evening. The next event of importance in the -home-life of the Queen was the departure of the Prince of Wales to -Königswinter, where it had been arranged he was to carry on his studies. -He left in high spirits, and with the Queen’s anxious adieus, on the -26th of July, accompanied by young Mr. Frederick Stanley--now Lord -Stanley of Preston--General Grey, Sir H. Ponsonby, and his tutors. Mr. -Gladstone’s son, Mr. C. Wood, son of Lord Halifax, and the present Lord -Cadogan, were also selected by the Queen and Prince Consort to join him -as companions in his studies. - -From this time till the tide of war in India turned in our favour, the -Queen’s attention seems to have been absorbed by the crisis in our -Eastern Empire. Her political work was apparently concentrated in a -persistent effort to induce the Cabinet not only to hurry out -reinforcements, but to replace them by increasing the establishment at -home up to the full limit voted by Parliament, and for which estimates -had been taken. Lord Palmerston, on the other hand, in his light and -airy way, refused to regard the Mutiny as serious, and persisted in -sending out reinforcements in driblets, and then replacing them by -driblets of recruits. The Queen very sensibly contended that the force -absorbed by the Indian demand should “be replaced to its full extent and -in the same kind,” whereas the Cabinet was replacing whole battalions by -“handfuls of recruits added to the remaining ones.” It was in vain that -the Minister met her with the usual stock platitudes--that neither the -money nor the men could be got. The Queen replied that her project would -actually be more economical than the confused and unmethodical devices -of Palmerston and Panmure. The East India Company would find the money -for the reinforcements, which could be applied to the creation of new -battalions. But these could in turn absorb the old half-pay officers -reduced from the War Establishment, who would then cease to be a burden -on the Exchequer. As to the argument that the men could not be got, the -Queen wrote to Lord Palmerston, “This is an hypothesis, and not an -argument. Try, and you will see. If you do not succeed, and the measure -is necessary, you will have to adopt means to make it succeed. If you -conjure up the difficulties yourself you cannot, of course, succeed.” -One fact may be mentioned as curiously illustrating the shallowness of -understanding and feebleness of grasp with which Palmerston approached -any great question of State to which Foreign Office _formulæ_ could not -be applied. He, or some one at his instigation, seems to have tried to -frighten the Queen by warning her that the East India Company would -object to keep up such a large addition to her army in India. The Queen, -however, saw what Palmerston could not see--that the first shot fired in -the rebellion had virtually eliminated the Company as a dominating -factor in the Indian problem. “The Queen,” she writes to Palmerston, -“thinks it next to impossible that the European force could again be -decreased in India. After the present fearful experience the Company -could only send back (home) Queen’s regiments, in order to raise new -European ones of their own. This they cannot do without the Queen’s -sanction, and she must at once make her most solemn protest against such -a measure. It would be dangerous and unconstitutional to allow private -individuals to raise an army of Queen’s subjects larger than her own in -any part of the British dominions.” And at the close of the Memorandum, -which she haughtily desires Palmerston to communicate to his colleagues, -the tone becomes sharper as she sums up the net result of the bungling -military policy of the Cabinet. “The present situation of the Queen’s -army,” she writes, “is a pitiable one. The Queen has just seen, in the -camp at Aldershot, regiments which, after eighteen years’ foreign -service in most trying climates, had come back to England to be sent -out, after seven months, to the Crimea. Having passed through this -destructive campaign, they had not been home for a year before they are -to go to India for perhaps twenty years! This is most cruel and unfair -to the gallant men who devote their services to the country, and the -Government is in duty and humanity bound to alleviate their -position.”[363] - -In August a flying visit to Cherbourg in her yacht convinced the Queen -that the growing strength of this port as a place of arms was dangerous -to England, and on her return she called the attention of the Cabinet to -what she had seen, and demanded reports as to the precise state of the -defences on the South coast of England. As usual, nobody could find the -required information, and when it was obtained Lord Clarendon told the -Prince Consort that nobody could read such an account of our -shortcomings without immediately desiring to remedy them. September saw -the Court at Balmoral, where the Queen’s holiday was sadly overcast by -the Indian reports which came pouring in. As the Prince Consort said, in -one of his letters to Stockmar, they were “tortured by the events in -India, which are truly frightful!” The French Emperor’s courteous offer -to pass our reinforcements through France brought some cheerfulness to -the anxious Sovereign, not diminished by the friendly offer of two -regiments from Belgium--which was, however, rejected by Lord Palmerston, -who had sense enough to see that if England was to win at all she must, -as he said, “win off her own bat.” - -On the 16th of October the Court returned to Windsor, the Queen having -spent a night at Haddo House, where she went to visit her venerable -friend, Lord Aberdeen. The sudden death of the Duchess of Nemours, first -cousin of the Queen and Prince Consort, and wife of the second son of -Louis Philippe, now threw the Court into mourning. “We were like -sisters,” wrote Her Majesty to King Leopold, “bore the same name, -married the same year, our children are the same age; there was, in -short, a similarity between us, which, since 1839, united us closely and -tenderly. Now one of us is gone--passed as a rose, full-blown and -faded--from this earth to eternity, there to rest in peace and -joy.”[364] The commercial crisis of November caused Parliament to be -summoned before the year closed, and December was spent in making -preparations for the marriage of the Princess Royal. - -When the 19th of January, 1858, came round Buckingham Palace was full of -guests--the King of the Belgians and his sons, the Prince and Princess -of Prussia and their suites, being among the number. It was a brilliant -scene of bustle and excitement, covers for eighty or ninety guests being -laid daily at dinner. Four dramatic representations were given by -command at Her Majesty’s Theatre, where, writes the Queen, “We made a -wonderful row of royalties, I sitting between dear uncle and the Prince -of Prussia,” and where the audience cheered the young couple who were to -be so soon united with a cordiality that brought tears to their parents’ -eyes. Balls, dinners, musical parties, celebrated the coming event at -the Palace, till the 24th, which is recorded in the Queen’s Diary as -“poor dear Vicky’s last unmarried day ... an eventful one, reminding me -of my own.” Charming in its simplicity is the Queen’s description of the -family delight over the wedding gifts; and the tearful “Good-night” of -the 24th between the Princess and her parents is too sacred a subject -for more than passing allusion. On the 25th, the eventful day of the -wedding, the Queen writes, “I felt as if I were being married over again -myself, only much more nervous, for I had not that blessed feeling which -I had then, which raises and supports one, of giving myself up for life -to him whom I loved and worshipped--then and for ever.” But the sun -shone with happy omen as the morning advanced, and the wedding party, -amidst cheering crowds, proceeded to the Chapel Royal at St. James’s -Palace. - -[Illustration: THE CRIMSON DRAWING-ROOM, WINDSOR CASTLE.] - -This interesting building had been put to strange uses in its time. It -had been in turn a Roman Catholic chapel, a Protestant chapel, a -guard-room, and a store-room, before it ended as a chapel reserved for -Royal nuptials. Within its walls Queen Anne had married good-natured -George of Denmark, and George III. the shrew of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. It -was the scene of the wedding of the ill-fated Caroline of Brunswick and -the “First Gentleman of Europe,” who, it may be remembered, had to be -fortified with brandy ere he could undergo the ceremony. Here, also, -William IV. wedded the amiable and gentle Queen Adelaide, and his -successor plighted her troth to the husband of her heart. But not even -on that occasion was the chapel the scene of a more brilliant pageant -than when it witnessed the nuptials of the Princess Royal of England and -the son of the Prince of Prussia. The dingy edifice, which Holbein’s -admirers revere as a triumph of his genius, was now no longer dingy. -Hangings of crimson silk, gleaming with gold fringe and tassels, gilded -columns and scroll work, gold headings, and emblazoned shields and -ciphers, dispelled the customary gloom from the building. The altar, -too, was sumptuously equipped with quaint “services” of gold plate, -illustrative of the Augustan age of English Art. - -The marriage procession was formed at Buckingham Palace. It consisted of -more than twenty carriages, the first detachment of which conveyed the -Princes and magnates of the House of Prussia. At a short interval the -bridegroom and his suite followed; then the Queen and her family. When -it arrived at St. James’s Palace the procession was received by the -great officers of State, who conducted it to the chapel through the -splendid apartments, rich in sombre decorations of Queen Anne’s reign. - -The Prince Consort and King Leopold were radiant in the bravery of Field -Marshals’ uniforms, “the three girls,” writes the Queen, with quick -feminine memory for the details of such an occasion, “in pink satin -trimmed with Newport lace, Alice with a wreath, and the two others only -with bouquets in their hair of cornflowers and marguerites; next the -four boys in Highland dress.” As for the eight bridesmaids, they “looked -charming in white tulle, with wreaths and bouquets of pink roses and -white heather;” and “Mama” (the Duchess of Kent) “looking so handsome,” -says the Queen, “in violet velvet trimmed with ermine and white silk and -violet,” with “the Cambridges” and all the foreign Princes and -Princesses, made up a brilliant party. The wedding procession was, in -fact, formed in the Closet--the room in the Chapel which on Court days -is reserved for the Royal Family and the families of Peers, “just as at -_my_ marriage,” writes the Queen, “only how small the _old_ Royal Family -has become!” Lord Palmerston carried the Sword of State “with easy grace -and dignity,” says the _Morning Post_,[365] “with a ponderous -solemnity,” says the _Times_, in their respective accounts of the scene, -and the Queen, with the “two little boys” on each side, and followed by -her three daughters, walked after Lord Palmerston and the two elder -Princes. Amidst - -[Illustration: MARRIAGE OF THE PRINCESS ROYAL. (_See p. 751._)] - -beating drums and blaring trumpets, the procession entered the Chapel, -the appearance of the Queen crowned with a glittering diadem, being -greeted with a profound and reverential obeisance by the wedding guests -as she swept on to her chair of State on the left of the altar. The -entrance of the bride with her father and King Leopold sent a flutter of -excitement through the throng. When the Princess appeared her face -seemed pale, even in contrast with her snowy robe of rich moire antique. -She passed the Queen with a deep bow, and as her eyes met those of the -bridegroom, her cheeks suddenly flushed to deepest crimson. “My last -fear of being overcome,” writes the Queen, “vanished on seeing Vicky’s -quiet, calm, and composed manner.” The whole scene indeed recalled her -own marriage, and her eyes glistened with tears as the sweet memories of -her happy and busy life flitted through her mind. The ceremony was -performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishops of London, -Oxford, and Chester. The Archbishop was “very nervous,” however--much -more so than either bride or bridegroom, and the Queen records that he -omitted some of the passages in the Service. When the ceremony was over, -tender and affectionate congratulations passed between the married pair -and their relations. The bride and her mother fell weeping into each -other’s arms, and for a minute or so their agitation was manifestly -beyond their control. The bridegroom then kissed the bride, who, -escaping from his embrace, threw herself into the arms of her father, -whom she kissed again and again. The Princess of Prussia embraced her -son and kissed the Queen most affectionately; but the most touching -greeting of all was that which passed between the bridegroom and his -father, who seemed quite unnerved with emotion. The Prince clasped his -father passionately to his heart, and then, as if recovering -self-control, suddenly knelt down and reverently kissed his hand. These -congratulations were repeated when the register was signed by all the -Princesses and Princes present, including the Maharajah Duleep Sing. -Through cheering crowds bride and bridegroom and the splendid train of -wedding guests proceeded to Buckingham Palace, where the wedded pair and -their parents appeared on the balcony and bowed their thanks to the -kindly people who stood huzzaing outside. Then came the breakfast and -the parting, which is “such sweet sorrow” to mother and daughter on such -occasions. The married couple drove to Windsor, and at the railway -station were met by the Eton boys, who dragged their carriage all the -way to the Castle. London was one blaze of illuminations that night, and -the rejoicings at the Palace closed with a State concert. Nothing -pleased the Queen more than the demeanour of the populace. Their -demonstrations of loyalty were purely spontaneous and utterly -unaffected. So much was this the case that the foreign guests were -amazed to find that the Government offices were the only buildings which -were not illuminated; in fact, their gloomy darkness alone rendered the -general illumination of London a little less brilliant than that which -celebrated the Proclamation of Peace with Russia. - -On the 27th of January the Court removed to Windsor, where Prince -Frederick William was invested with the Order of the Garter, and a -dinner-party followed, at which the Duke of Buccleuch gratified the -Princess with his reports of the enthusiastic loyalty of the crowds in -London, among whom he had moved about _incognito_ on the night of the -wedding ceremony. Next day the whole family returned to London, and in -the evening went to see Sheridan’s _Rivals_ and the _Spitalfields -Weaver_ at Her Majesty’s Theatre, the Queen being greatly amused, as she -herself records, by the drolleries of Wright, the low comedian, in the -latter piece. On the 30th loyal addresses from the City of London and -all the great towns came pouring in, and what the Prince Consort calls -“a monster Drawing-Room” was held. On Monday the 1st of February the -Queen writes in her Diary, “The last day of our dear child being with -us, which is incredible, and makes me at times feel sick at heart,”[366] -and when the next day came round the Queen’s fortitude failed her. -Mother and daughter sat weeping in each other’s arms, and when the -“dreadful time,” as the Queen calls it, arrived, and they had to go down -into the Hall, filled with weeping friends and sad-eyed servants, the -scene was touching in the extreme. “Poor dear child,” writes the Queen, -“I clasped her in my arms and blessed her, and knew not what to say. I -kissed good Fritz, and pressed his hand again and again. He was unable -to speak, and the tears were in his eyes.” But the final parting could -be postponed no longer, and the Queen returned to her room in sorrow. -Instead of driving from Buckingham Palace to the Bricklayers’ Arms -Station by the shortest route, the Prince and Princess drove along the -Strand, Fleet Street, Cheapside, and London Bridge. The houses and shops -were profusely decked with flags, though the decorations were got ready -in a hurry. The day was bitterly cold, and snow fell fast. Yet the -inclement weather did not deter vast crowds from turning out to bid the -newly-married pair “Good speed.” When the Prince Consort, who had -accompanied his daughter and son-in-law part of the way, returned home, -the Queen’s grief broke out again. Even the sight of “the darling baby” -(Princess Beatrice) saddened her, for, as she writes, “Dear Vicky loved -her so much, and only yesterday played with her.” As for the Prince -Consort, he told the Princess, in one of his letters, that the void she -had left was not in his heart only, but in his daily life. In fact, -nothing save the cordial and brilliant reception which welcomed her in -Germany could have consoled him for the loss of a daughter whom he -proudly described to her husband as one who “had a man’s head and a -child’s heart.” - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[1] Morley’s Life of Cobden. - -[2] Greville’s Journal, Vol. III. p. 290. - -[3] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. I. p. 243. - -[4] Letter from the Queen to Lord Melbourne, cited by Sir T. Martin in -the Life of the Prince Consort. - -[5] This is not quite accurate. The details were arranged by Lord -Clarendon; the plan, or original idea, of the visit was the Queen’s. - -[6] Greville’s Journal of the Reign of Queen Victoria, Vol. III., p. -295. - -[7] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort. - -[8] “This faithful and trusty valet nursed his dear master most -devotedly through his sad illness in December, 1861, and is now always -with me as my personal groom of the chambers or valet. I gave him a -house near Windsor Castle, where he resides when the Court are there. -He is a native of Coburg. His father has been for fifty years Förster -at Fülbach, close to Coburg.”--_Footnote by the Queen._ - -[9] “Who was very active and efficient. He is now a page.”--_Footnote -by the Queen._ - -[10] Greville’s Journal of the Reign of Queen Victoria, Vol. III., pp. -296, 297. - -[11] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort. - -[12] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. XXXVIII. - -[13] Greville’s Journal of the Reign of Queen Victoria, Vol. III. p. -335. - -[14] Memorials of an Ex-Minister, by Lord Malmesbury, Vol. I. p. 261. - -[15] This, of course, applies only to States within the European comity -of nations. Semi-barbaric Asiatic or African States--_e.g._, Turkey -and Tunis--by special treaties or “capitulations,” surrendered to -England extra-territorial jurisdiction over cases in which her subjects -resident in their territories were concerned. - -[16] The details of this intrigue, it is understood, were recorded by -Mr. Greville, but the publication of them was withheld by the editor of -his “Journal,” for reasons which may easily be guessed. The whole story -will probably not be told during the lifetime of the Queen. - -[17] Had the Bill passed, Lord Clarendon would have been Irish -Secretary. - -[18] See a curious letter of Croker’s in the third volume of “The -Croker Papers.” - -[19] He was beaten only by a majority of 3. - -[20] See the Queen’s letter to King Leopold, cited in Martin’s Life of -the Prince Consort, Ch. XXXIX. - -[21] It is commonly called “the Queen’s Reading Lamp,” but it may be -said that Sir Theodore Martin is not quite correct in assuming that -this type of lamp was introduced into England by Prince Albert. A -similar lamp was in use in Cambridge long before the Prince came to -this country, and was known as the “Cambridge Reading Lamp.” - -[22] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. XXXI. - -[23] _Punch_, Vol. XVIII., p. 229. - -[24] Mr. Cobden always said that such a protest would have deterred -Russia from stamping out Hungarian liberty. - -[25] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort. - -[26] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort. - -[27] “One of our keepers since 1851. An excellent, intelligent man, -much liked by the Prince. He, like many others, spit blood after -running the race up that steep hill in the short space of time, and he -has never been so strong since. The running up-hill has in consequence -been discontinued. He lives in a cottage at the back of Craig Gowan -(commanding a beautiful view) called Robrech, which the Prince built -for him.”--_Note by the Queen in “Leaves from a Journal.”_ - -[28] The allusion here is to the Ritualists or Puseyites, or -Tractarians, as they were called then. - -[29] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort. - -[30] Morley’s Life of Cobden. - -[31] Morley’s Life of Cobden. - -[32] It is but right to say that Mr. Herries was now over seventy years -of age, and had been virtually shelved for twenty years. - -[33] According to Mr. Greville, it was Mr. Thomas Baring. - -[34] Letters of the Right Hon. Sir George Cornewall Lewis, Bart., to -various friends, edited by the Rev. Sir Gilbert Frankland Lewis, Bart., -p. 240. - -[35] Mr. Disraeli did not support the Tory opposition to the Jews. - -[36] Greville’s Journal of the Reign of Queen Victoria, Vol. III., p. -407. - -[37] The Editor of the _Times_. - -[38] Greville’s Journal of the Reign of Queen Victoria, Vol. III., p. -415. - -[39] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. XLII. - -[40] Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught. - -[41] Quoted by Sir Theodore Martin in his Life of the Prince Consort, -Chap. XLII. - -[42] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. I. pp. 284 and 288. - -[43] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. XLIII. - -[44] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. XLIV. - -[45] _See_ p. 479. - -[46] These were Morny (a natural son of the Prince-President’s mother, -the Queen Hortense, by Count Flahault), Persigny, Fleury, Maupas, -Marshal Mangan, and probably Rouher. - -[47] Correspondence and Conversations of Alexis de Tocqueville with -Nassau William Senior, edited by W. C. M. Simpson, Vol. II., p. 5. - -[48] De Tocqueville’s Conversations and Correspondence with Nassau W. -Senior, Vol. II., p. 6. - -[49] Greville’s Journal of the Reign of Queen Victoria, Vol. III., p. -447. - -[50] Lord Malmesbury’s Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. I., p. 309. - -[51] The corresponding office in our day is Secretary of State for -India. - -[52] Letters of the Right Hon. Sir George Cornewall Lewis, Bart., to -various persons, edited by the Rev. Sir Gilbert Frankland Lewis, Bart., -p. 251. - -[53] Mr. Greville’s Journal of the Reign of Queen Victoria, Vol. III., -p. 448. - -[54] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. I., p. 332. - -[55] On coming into office, Lord Derby announced that it was the -mission of his Government to “oppose some barrier against the -democratic influence that is continually encroaching, which would throw -power nominally into the hands of the masses, but practically into the -hands of the demagogues who lead them.” - -[56] This was the occasion, not the cause. The Americans and the French -were beginning to show themselves in the Eastern seas. According to Mr. -Arnold, it was because they were casting covetous eyes on the Delta -of the Irawaddy that Lord Dalhousie determined to forestall them by -annexing that region. _See_ Arnold’s Administration of Lord Dalhousie, -Vol. II., p. 14; Papers of the House of Lords, 1856, No. 161. - -[57] Lord Derby and Mr. Herries admitted that Lambert acted without -instructions. Hansard, Vol. CXX., p. 656; Memoirs of Herries, Vol. -II., p. 250; Parl. Papers relating to Burmah, 1852. Cobden also -accused Fishbourne of provoking the Governor. _See_ Cobden’s Political -Writings, Vol. II., p. 57. - -[58] Life and Correspondence of Lord Palmerston, by the Right Hon. -Evelyn Ashley, Vol. II., p. 247. - -[59] Morley’s Life of Cobden, Chap. XX. - -[60] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. XLVI. - -[61] Morley’s Life of Cobden, Chap. XXI. - -[62] Spencer Walpole’s History of England. London: Longmans, Green, and -Co. 1886. Vol. V., p. 43. - -[63] Reminiscences and Opinions of Sir Francis Hastings Doyle, Bart. -London: Longmans, Green, and Co. 1886. Pages 321-330. - -[64] Hansard, Vol. CXXIII., p. 351. - -[65] _Ibid._, p. 411. - -[66] Letters of the Right Hon. Sir George Cornewall Lewis, Bart., to -Various Persons, p. 259. - -[67] T. P. O’Connor’s Life of Lord Beaconsfield, p. 441; Hickman’s -Beaconsfield, p. 183. - -[68] Hansard, Vol. CXXIII., p. 1693. - -[69] It is worth while to recall this fact. After the resignation -of Mr. Gladstone in 1886, when the Tory Party attempted to form a -Coalition Ministry under Lord Hartington as Premier, and Lord Salisbury -as Foreign Secretary, the project was defended on the plea, that -just as the Whigs in 1852 bought up a small but powerful faction of -Peelites, by giving their leader the Premiership, so should the Tories -in 1886 buy up the small but powerful section of Liberal “Unionists” by -putting Lord Hartington at the head of affairs. The argument, it will -be seen, was based on a complete ignorance of party history and of the -ideas and policy of the Court in 1852, because it was for other reasons -altogether that Lord Aberdeen was elevated to the Premiership. - -[70] It was partly by Macaulay’s persuasion that Lord John permitted -himself to be embalmed in history as the fourth Prime Minister of the -century who, after serving as Premier, accepted an inferior rank. -The other three were Sidmouth, Goderich, and Wellington. “Russell’s -example,” says Mr. Spencer Walpole, “indicates that a man who has once -served in the highest place had better refuse all subordinate offices.” -Cf. Walpole’s History of England, Vol. V., p. 61; and Trevelyan’s Life -of Macaulay, Vol. II., Chap. XIII. - -[71] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXVII. - -[72] Letters of the late Sir G. C. Lewis, Bart., p. 260. - -[73] Lord Malmesbury, who was at Balmoral at the time, is the authority -for this statement. _Vide_ Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. I., p. 377. - -[74] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. XLVI. - -[75] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. I, p. 347. - -[76] “Persigny,” writes Lord Malmesbury, “whose real name was Fialin, -was one of those adventurers who looked forward with confidence to the -success of Louis Napoleon’s fatalism and dreams of ambition, and proved -it by the most absolute devotion, and, I must add, personal affection -for his master, whom he always accompanied through his failures and -imprisonments. Faithful to the Emperor, the Emperor was faithful to -him, and loaded him with honours. He was a courageous and impetuous -man, and his hot temper was against him as ambassador.”--Memoirs of an -Ex-Minister, Vol. I., p. 300. - -[77] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. I., p. 310. - -[78] Morley’s Life of Cobden, Chap. XXI. - -[79] On hearing of the _coup d’état_, the Queen, _without waiting -for Ministerial advice_, personally directed the Cabinet to follow a -policy of strict neutrality. Lord John Russell replied: “Your Majesty’s -directions respecting the state of affairs in Paris shall be followed.” -Note that the relations of the Crown and the Minister were identical in -this case with those which obtained under the Tudor Sovereigns. It is a -curious instance of a policy being _initiated_ by specific “directions” -from the Queen in an age when, according to constitutional practice, -the functions of the Crown are supposed to be limited to suggestion, -criticism, and sanction. - -[80] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. XLVII. - -[81] English Ambassador at Paris. - -[82] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. I., p. 379. - -[83] This person wielded an influence that few people suspected at the -time. For example, in September, 1852, Lord Malmesbury, then Foreign -Secretary, set a gang of police spies to watch the outraged victims of -the _coup d’état_ in London. Having put together all the information -he could get, he illustrated the spirited foreign policy of the day -by sending his private secretary and relative, Mr. George Harris, -to convey this information secretly to Charles Louis Bonaparte. But -that potentate did not deign to give Mr. Harris an interview. For -three days he was kept dancing attendance, and at last by a private -letter of introduction to an aide-de-camp of the President’s, he got -access to Canrobert, Tascher, and Roquet, who loftily told him that -in a week’s time perhaps he might have an audience. “Then,” writes -Mr. Harris to Lord Malmesbury, “I returned to Paris, and called on -Mrs. Howard, toadied and flattered her, stating that I was in a great -hurry to get back to London, and only wanted to see his Highness the -President for two minutes. She sent off an orderly at once, and before -night, I received an invitation from Louis Napoleon to accompany him -out shooting to say my say, at 5.30, and dine afterwards.”--Memoirs -of an Ex-Minister, Vol. I., p. 346. That the Foreign Minister of -England should act the part of a Bonapartist spy, is curious. That his -relative and private secretary should have accepted the mission of a -subordinate _mouchard_, and, in carrying it out, should have “toadied -and flattered” a Parisian _cocotte_ to get an audience from the -Prince-President, gives one a quaint glimpse of diplomatic manners and -customs in 1852. - -[84] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. I., p. 379. - -[85] The Imperial marriage took place--the civil ceremony on the 29th, -and the religious ceremony on the 30th of January, 1853. - -[86] Compare with such comments a passage in a letter written by -Mr. Nassau Senior, to M. de Tocqueville. “Mrs. Grote tells me that -you rather complain that the English papers approve the marriage, -a marriage which you all disapprove. The fact is that we like the -marriage because you dislike it. We are, above all things, desirous -that the present tyranny should end as quickly as possible. It can -end only by the general alienation of the French people from the -tyrant; and every fault that he commits delights us, because it is a -step towards his fall.”--Correspondence and Conversations of Alexis -de Tocqueville, Vol. II., p. 34. Cf. also Palmerston’s opinion from -another point of view. Ashley’s Life of Lord Palmerston, Vol. II., p. 7. - -[87] Mr. Disraeli reckoned the revenue of 1852 at £51,625,000. -It actually reached £53,089,000. He set down the expenditure at -£51,164,000, whereas it came only to £50,782,000. - -[88] Dowell’s History of Taxation, Vol. II., p. 322; Smith’s Wealth of -Nations, Vol. III., p. 337. - -[89] These bore interest at £1 10s. per cent., but were in future to -bear interest at £2 15s. up to 1864, and £2 10s. up to 1891. - -[90] Walpole’s History of England, Vol. V., p. 68. - -[91] Students of financial history may be referred to Hansard, Vol. -CXXL, p. 11, for Mr. Disraeli’s first Budget, and to Hansard, Vol. -CXXV., pp. 818, 1355, 1399, and 1423, for Mr. Gladstone’s. Cf, also -Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, 1870. - -[92] This was the principle which Mr. Fox and the “old Whigs” advocated. - -[93] Walpole’s History of England, Vol. V., p. 45. - -[94] Walpole’s History of England, Vol. V., p. 49. - -[95] For facts bearing on this point, see Fawcett’s Manual of Political -Economy, p. 490. - -[96] In 1847 the Mint coined £5,000,000, in 1850 £11,000,000, and in -1858 only £1,200,000. - -[97] Wheat which in June, 1853, stood at 45s. a quarter, on the 25th of -November went up to 72s. 9d. The 4-lb. loaf rose from 10½d. to 1s. -Annual Register, Vol. XCV., p. 165. - -[98] “You know,” said the Emperor on the 14th of January, to Sir -Hamilton Seymour, “the dreams and plans in which the Empress Catherine -was in the habit of indulging: these were handed down to our time; but, -while I inherited immense territorial possessions, I did not inherit -those visions--those intentions if you like to call them so.” And again -on the 22nd of February, “I will not tolerate the permanent occupation -of Constantinople by the Russians; having said this, I will say that -it never shall be held by the English, or French, or any other great -nation.” Secret Correspondence between Sir G. H. Seymour, British -Chargé d’Affaires at St. Petersburg, and Her Majesty’s Government. -Eastern Papers, Part V. - -[99] Secret Correspondence, Eastern Papers, Part V., p. 204. - -[100] Diplomatic Study of the Crimean War, from Russian Official -Sources, Vol. I., p. 115. - -[101] Consult on this subject Mr. Nassau Senior’s article in _North -British Quarterly Review_ for February, 1851, on “The State of the -Continent.” - -[102] Louis Philippe, it must be stated in justice to Napoleon III., -also claimed for the Latin Church the right of repairing the dome of -the Holy Sepulchre in the Latin instead of the Byzantine form, a claim -which was indescribably offensive to the Greek priests.--_North British -Quarterly Review_, February, 1851. - -[103] Dip. Stud. Crimean War, Vol. I., p. 134. - -[104] Spencer Walpole’s History of England, Vol. V., p. 79. - -[105] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. XI. - -[106] Russian Ambassador in London. - -[107] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. I., pp. 402, 403. - -[108] Mr. Disraeli’s Speech at Manchester, April 3, 1872. - -[109] See Count Nesselrode’s Memorandum embodying the views which, -according to the Czar, were agreed on in the conversations he held -with the Tory Ministers in 1844.--Eastern Papers, 1854, Part VI. -This document, probably the one referred to by Lord Malmesbury, was -transmitted to England on the Czar’s return to St. Petersburg, and -deposited unchallenged in the secret archives of the Foreign Office. - -[110] Eastern Papers, 1852, Part VI. pp. 10, 11. - -[111] Afterwards Lord Strathnairn. - -[112] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. I., pp. 387-389. It is right to -state the fact as communicated to Lord Malmesbury by the French Emperor -in conversation, because Mr. Walpole rather unfairly asserts that the -Emperor of the French saw in Rose’s fear “a fresh excuse for embroiling -France.”--Walpole’s History of England, Vol. V., p. 84. - -[113] Russia argued that she might fairly exercise the same kind of -protectorate that France had always asserted over Roman Catholics and -England over Protestants in Turkey. Against this it was urged that -there was a difference in degree between the two cases which amounted -to a difference in kind, for, whereas the Catholic and Protestant -subjects of the Sultan were only a few thousands, his Greek subjects -were 12,000,000. - -[114] Official Note of the Porte to the Powers, 28th of May. - -[115] On the 1st of June Menschikoff’s Note of the 18th of May, -intimating his withdrawal from Constantinople and threatening Turkey -with coercion, arrived in London. - -[116] It would have been also more candid at this juncture to have -warned Russia that England would object to any actual invasion of -the Principalities, before the resources of European diplomacy were -exhausted. - -[117] When these events had passed into history, Earl Russell, in his -Recollections and Suggestions, said that, if he had been Premier in -1853, he would have insisted on Turkey accepting the Vienna Note. He -was not Premier, but he was one of the leaders of the War Party in the -Cabinet which supported Turkey in rejecting it. Lord Russell was, in -fact, not the only statesman of the period who grew “wise after the -event.” - -[118] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. XLVIII. - -[119] Prince Bismarck: an Historical Biography by Charles Lowe, M.A., -Vol. I., p. 205. - -[120] Eastern Papers, Part I., p. 169. - -[121] In the 7th Article of the Treaty of Kainardji it is provided -that “_The Sublime Porte promises to protect constantly the Christian -religion and its Churches_, and also it allows the Ministers of the -Imperial Court of Russia to make on all occasions representations as -well in favour of the new Church at Constantinople, of which mention -will be made in the 14th Article, as in favour of those who officiate -therein.” The 14th Article provides that “it is permitted to the High -Court of Russia, in addition to the chapel built in the house of the -Minister, to construct in the Galata quarter, in the street called Bey -Oglu, a public church of the Greek rite, which shall be always under -the protection of the Ministers of that Empire, and shielded from all -obstruction and all damage.” The first words in italics appear to give -Russia the same general kind of pledge to protect the Greek Christians -in Turkey, the insertion of which in the Vienna Note was supposed to -vitiate it. The issue, however, was so close that diplomacy ought to -have prevented the disputants from coming to blows. - -[122] Ashley’s Life of Palmerston, Vol. II., p. 276. - -[123] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. XLIX. Compare this -with Lord Salisbury’s statement at the Guildhall banquet on the 9th of -November, 1886, that England’s Eastern policy is to pledge herself to -fight on the side of Austria, when Austria thinks fit to go to war. By -substituting “Austria” for “Turkey” in the first two sentences of this -important State Paper of the Queen’s, very interesting deductions might -be drawn by students of Constitutional history. - -[124] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. XLIX. - -[125] Walpole’s History of England, Vol. V., p. 99. - -[126] Lord Malmesbury says that it was Mr. Gladstone and Lord Aberdeen -who begged Palmerston to come back.--Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. -I., p. 418. But Prince Albert’s statement is the truer one, though -it is not so palatable to those writers who have for a quarter of a -century devoted themselves to the heroic idealisation of Palmerston’s -character and career, and who at one time tried to persuade themselves -that, as a condition of his return, he forced the Ministry to send -a fleet to avenge Sinope. In the middle of September, however, -Palmerston and Russell had already persuaded the Cabinet to warn -Russia that any attack on the Turkish fleet would be met by the fleets -of England and France. Palmerston resigned, however, on the 15th of -December. Moreover, it has not been noticed by Palmerstonian partisans -that Prince Albert’s statement is curiously confirmed by Sir George -Cornewall Lewis. Writing to Sir E. Head on the 4th of January, 1854, -he says:--“Since I last wrote to you there has been the strange -escapade of Palmerston. He disliked the Reform Bill, partly as being -too extensive to suit his taste. He therefore resigned solely upon this -measure; but he probably expected that a threat of resignation would -bring his colleagues to terms, and was surprised at being taken at his -word. When he went out he found that the country took his resignation -very coolly, and that he was so much courted by the Derbyites that he -could not avoid becoming their leader in the House of Commons in the -next Session. He could not hope to occupy a neutral place, and so, -finding that his position was a bad one--that it was too late in life -for him to set about forming a new party--he changed his mind, and -intimated to the Government that he wished to return.”--Letters of the -Right Hon. Sir George Cornewall Lewis, Bart., p. 275. - -[127] Letter of Prince Albert to the Dowager-Duchess of Coburg, in -Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. XLVII. - -[128] Medical men may be interested to know that the Duke and Duchess -transmitted it unconsciously “to the Duke of Brabant and Count of -Flanders, whom they met on their way back to Coburg, and before they -were aware they had taken the seeds of the illness from England with -them.”--Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort. - -[129] Contrast this with the habits of the House in the time of Charles -I., when it met at eight in the morning and rose at noon; and in Sir -Robert Walpole’s time, when the mere suggestion of a Member that -“candles be brought in” was regarded as phenomenal. - -[130] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort. See also a reference to -the Grand Duchess Olga’s “Mission” in Lord Malmesbury’s Memoirs of an -Ex-Minister, Vol. I., p. 404. - -[131] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. XLVIII. - -[132] _Annual Register_ for 1853. - -[133] Ashley’s Life of Lord Palmerston, Vol. II., p. 13. For Lord -Aberdeen’s answer to Palmerston’s bellicose special pleading, see -Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. XLVIII. - -[134] This letter, dated the 14th of November, was not sent till it had -been submitted to Lord Aberdeen and Lord Clarendon for their approval. -The precedent should be noted, because, as Sir Hamilton Seymour told -Count Nesselrode at the time, “these correspondences between sovereigns -are not regular, according to our Constitutional notions.” At the same -time, when personally addressed by a foreign sovereign, the Crown -cannot, as a matter of courtesy, reply through a Minister of State. The -course taken by the Queen in this instance is obviously the prudent one. - -[135] Cobden’s Collected Writings, Vol. II., p. 269. - -[136] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. L. - -[137] Letters of Sir G. C. Lewis, p. 276. - -[138] It is only just to the memory of Mr. Cobden to state that towards -the end of his career some suspicion of the truth crept into his -mind. Speaking on the American Civil War, he said:--“From the moment -the first shot is fired or the first blow struck in a dispute, then -farewell to all reason and argument; you might as well reason with mad -dogs as with men when they have begun to spill each other’s blood in -mortal combat. I was so convinced of the fact during the Crimean War; -I was so convinced of the utter uselessness of raising one’s voice -in opposition to War when it has once begun, that I made up my mind -that so long as I was in political life, should a war again break out -between England and a great Power, I would never open my mouth upon -the subject from the time the first gun was fired till the peace was -made.”--Cobden’s Speeches, Vol. II., p. 314. See also Mr. John Morley’s -masterly defence of the Cobdenites in 1854, in his Life of Cobden, -Chap. XXII. - -[139] Count Nesselrode’s Despatch to the Russian Ambassador in England, -dated the 16th of January, 1854. - -[140] See Sir H. Seymour’s Despatch to Lord Clarendon, dated the 30th -of January, 1854. - -[141] Amongst other things, she demanded that some fresh arrangement -should be made as to the right of asylum granted to political refugees -in Turkey. This obviously pointed at Turkey’s refusal to surrender the -Hungarian patriots after the Revolution of 1848 was suppressed; and, -knowing the opinion of England on the subject, it was absurd to add -such stipulations to new preliminaries of peace. - -[142] Nesselrode, Orloff, and Kisseleff. - -[143] “Russia, as I can guarantee, will prove herself in 1854 _what she -was in 1812_.... My conditions are known at Vienna.” - -[144] Observe _not_ “a day,” as Kinglake has it. - -[145] “L’Empereur ne juge pas convenable de donner aucune réponse à la -lettre de Lord Clarendon.”--Eastern Papers. Consul Michele’s Despatch -to Lord Clarendon, dated St. Petersburg, 19th March, 1854. - -[146] Mr. Kinglake blames the London Press, especially the _Times_, -for manufacturing this passion. Mr. Cobden took much the same view. -Educated people who were rich, but ignorant of geography and military -history, however, all clamoured for war. “I have had the satisfaction -of seeing the rascally Czar defeated by the unassisted Turks, and -obliged to cross the Pruth. Now for Sebastopol!” Thus wrote Lord -Campbell in his Journal on the 14th of August.--See Mrs. Hardcastle’s -Life of John, Lord Campbell, Vol. II., p. 326. - -[147] “In proposing success to the guest of the evening, he -(Palmerston) made a speech in that vein of forced jocularity with -which elderly gentlemen give the toast of the bridegroom at a wedding -breakfast.”--Morley’s Life of Cobden, Chap. XXII. - -[148] Compare this with almost the identical expression in Mr. Bright’s -speech in the House of Commons of the 13th of March, for delivering -which Lord Palmerston jeered at him as “the honourable and _reverend_ -gentleman.” - -[149] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LII. - -[150] “For if the hostilities continue, if the Powers, released from -all apprehension in Turkey, should be free either to pursue us on -the evacuated territory, or to employ all their disposable forces in -invading our European or Asiatic dominions, with a view to impose on -us conditions which could not be accepted, it is evident that the -demand made by Austria was that we should weaken ourselves morally and -materially by a sacrifice wholly useless.”--Count Nesselrode’s Despatch -to Count Buol Schauenstein of 29th of July, 1854. - -[151] See Lord Clarendon’s Despatch to the Earl of Westmoreland, dated -the 22nd of July, 1854. - -[152] France explained this by demanding in the official _Moniteur_ -that the fleet of Russia in the Black Sea should be reduced in strength. - -[153] Diplomatic Study of the Crimean War, Vol. II., p. 18. - -[154] Orloff was sent by the Czar to extract from Austria a pledge -of absolute neutrality. The Austrian Emperor asked if the Czar would -promise not to cross the Danube or seize territory, and if he would -evacuate the Principalities when war was over. Orloff said “No.” The -Emperor then replied that Austria would preserve perfect freedom of -action. Baron de Bulberg failed at Berlin to extract a similar pledge -from Prussia.--Despatch of Lord Westmoreland to Lord Clarendon, dated -8th February, 1854. Eastern Papers. - -[155] “Ministers are preparing for war; the quarrel has now become -an European quarrel and must have an European settlement. We ask for -20,000 more men for the army and navy; we propose to add £21,000,000 to -our expenditure, and is _this_ an occasion on which you should potter -over Blue-books?”--Sir James Graham’s speech, in reply to Mr. Layard, -in the House of Commons on the 17th of February, 1854. - -[156] Writing to Mrs. Cobden about this speech, Cobden says, “No -enthusiasm of course; that I did not expect; but there was a feeling -of interest throughout the House which is not bumptious or warlike to -the extent I expected, and not disposed to be insolent to the ‘peace -party.’ In fact, I find many men in the Tory Party agreeing with me. -After I spoke, Molesworth took me aside and said he and Gladstone -thought I never spoke better.”--Morley’s Life of Cobden, Chap. XXII. If -the men who agreed with him privately had been bold enough to say so in -public, there would have been no invasion of the Crimea. - -[157] Life and Work of the Seventh Earl of Shaftesbury, K.G., by -Edwin Hodder, Vol. II., p. 465. Cassell and Co. (Limited). Palmerston -was chief of the War Party in the Cabinet. Lady Palmerston was Lord -Shaftesbury’s mother-in-law. - -[158] Morley’s Life of Cobden, Chap. XXII. - -[159] The history of its publication is as follows: On the 13th of -March Lord Derby drew the attention of the Peers (1) to “An Official -Answer of the Emperor of Russia to a speech of Lord John Russell in -the House of Commons,” published in the _St. Petersburg Journal_, -wherein it was alleged that the English Cabinet had been frankly told -at the outset what course the Czar desired to pursue in Turkey; (2) -to statements in the _Times_ to the effect that though an indignant -refusal had been Lord John’s answer, yet the Czar had in 1844 attempted -to gain over the Government of the day to his designs. Lord Derby -called for the production of this Secret Correspondence, and as -Russia, by her official reference to it, had virtually challenged its -publication, it was in due course laid before both Houses of Parliament. - -[160] The English case against Russia was that the Czar persisted in -asserting an exceptional right of protecting the Greek Christians in -Turkey under existing treaties. In Lord John Russell’s despatch of 9th -of February, 1853, in which he expressed a disapproval of the Czar’s -overtures to Sir Hamilton Seymour, he counselled forbearance, and then -said: “To these cautions Her Majesty’s Government wish to add that, in -their view, it is essential that the Sultan should be advised to treat -his Christian subjects in conformity with the principles of equity -and religious freedom, which prevail generally among the enlightened -nations of Europe. The more the Turkish Government adopts the rules of -impartial law and equal administration, the less will the Emperor of -Russia find it necessary to apply that _exceptional protection_ which -His Imperial Majesty has found so burdensome and inconvenient, _though -no doubt prescribed by duty and sanctioned by Treaty_.” - -[161] See _ante_, p. 582. - -[162] Eastern Papers, Part VII., contain proofs of the deception -perpetrated by the Coalition Government on Parliament as to the extent -to which England might depend on the German States for support. - -[163] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LIII. - -[164] An appeal to fear rarely influences German statesmen. In 1868, -during the debate in the Customs Parliament at Berlin, the Separatist -Party objected to the discussion of national politics, lest, as one of -them said, they might provoke an attack from France. Bismarck’s retort -was that “an appeal to fear had never yet found an echo in German -hearts.”--Lowe’s Life of Bismarck, Vol. I., p. 458. - -[165] Lowe’s Life of Bismarck, Vol. I., p. 206 (Cassell and Co.). - -[166] It is due to Lord Clarendon to say that in a letter to Prince -Albert (26th March) he expresses a shrewd suspicion of this danger. -But the Prince, whose authority on the secret diplomacy of Germany -no Cabinet Minister, except, perhaps, Palmerston, ever dared to -question, promptly silenced his suspicions. On the 27th the Prince -wrote to Clarendon, saying, “I don’t think that Austria has anything -to fear from Prussia or Germany if she were to take an active part in -the war against us.” That the Queen and her husband were mistaken or -misinformed is proved by Mr. Lowe in his Life of Prince Bismarck, Vol. -I., pp. 200, 202, and 203. - -[167] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LIII. - -[168] He allowed for a force of 25,000 men at £50 a head, or a total of -£1,250,000. - -[169] Other estimates besides those for 25,000 men had to be provided -for, _e.g._, extraordinary expenditure on the Navy, Ordnance, and -Commissariat Departments. In fact, the mere prospect of war had thus -added, not £1,250,000, but £4,307,000 to the estimates of the coming -year in the ordinary Budget _before_ war was declared. - -[170] Their real objection was that the conversion scheme caused Mr. -Gladstone to take £8,000,000 from his Exchequer balances, which, -however, had been kept perniciously high. Had this money been in hand, -of course there would have been less need to levy a war tax. The -conversion scheme had resulted in a small loss from changes in the -Money Market, due to rumours of war and a bad harvest. - -[171] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LIII. - -[172] Pitt was first called “the Heaven-born Minister” by the -loan-mongers of the City, because he tried to make war on loans instead -of taxes. In 1792 he had a war deficit of £4,500,000 to meet. He raised -a 4 per cent. loan in the City, for which they made him pay £4 3s. 4d. -per cent.; in 1794 he borrowed £11,000,000 at £4 10s. 9d.; in 1795, -£18,000,000 at £4 15s. 8d.; in 1796, £25,000,000 at £4 13s. 5d.; in -1797, £32,500,000 at £5 14s. 10d.; in 1798, £17,000,000 at £6 4s. 9d., -and he had to give the usurers bonuses, commissions, and inducements -to subscribe, which compelled him to add £34,000,000 of capital to the -National Debt to get this £17,000,000. His system added £250,000,000 -to our National Debt, for which the nation never really got a penny. -In 1797 Pitt, however, saw that the country must soon be drained of -its resources by the loan-mongers, and he made convulsive efforts to -escape from their clutches. He began to raise taxes to meet his war -expenditure and pay the principal and interest of his debts. He first -tried to raise £7,000,000, and only got £4,000,000 by assessed taxes. -In 1798 he returned to the charge, and increased the Income Tax by 40 -per cent. That year the revenue was £23,100,000. In 1806, when he died, -he had raised it by successive turns of the screw to £50,900,000. In -1807 an addition of 10 per cent. to the Income Tax raised the revenue -to £59,300,000. Up to 1816 it fluctuated between £60,000,000 and -£70,000,000, but between 1806 and 1816 the war charges and the interest -on the Debt were all paid out of current revenue. In fact, after 1797 -it is clear Pitt and his successors resolved to exact any sacrifices -from the people, rather than float war loans in the City. - -[173] Lord Shaftesbury, in a letter to Lord Aberdeen, dated 22nd of -February, says that a conversation he held with the Prime Minister -on the subject had “terrified” him. “It implied,” writes Lord -Shaftesbury, “that the country had entered on a war which you could -so little justify to your own conscience as to be unwilling, nay, -almost unable, to advise the ordinance of public prayer for success -on the undertaking. Why, then, have we begun it? You asked whether -‘the English nation would be brought to pray for the Turks?’ Surely, -if they are brought to fight for them, they would be induced to pray -for them in a just quarrel.”--Life and Work of Lord Shaftesbury, by -Edwin Hodder, Vol. II., p. 466 (Cassell and Co.). See also Greville -Memoirs--Third Part (Longmans), 1887. - -[174] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LIV. - -[175] Russia held the Sulina mouth of the Danube by the Treaty of -Adrianople, and, though she took toll of passing ships, had neglected -the channel, greatly to the hindrance of navigation. - -[176] Dundonald would have been appointed instead of Napier, had it not -been that he insisted on destroying Cronstadt by an “infernal” machine -which he had invented. Greville Memoirs--Third Part, p. 136 (Longmans), -1887. - -[177] Kinglake’s History of the Invasion of the Crimea, Vol. II., p. -249 and p. 407. - -[178] “His (Mr. Kinglake’s) attempt to throw all the credit or blame of -the expedition to Sebastopol upon the Duke of Newcastle is a complete -delusion. His story about the sleepy Cabinet may be partially true, -but the plan of the expedition had been discussed by the Cabinet -at repeated sittings, and the despatch in question only embodied a -foregone conclusion.”--Letters of Sir George Cornewall Lewis, p. 426. -Sir George Lewis was Lord Clarendon’s brother-in-law, and Editor of the -_Edinburgh Review_. His letters, and the articles in the _Edinburgh_ -on public affairs at this time, are of high authority. See also a very -conclusive answer to Mr. Kinglake by Sir Theodore Martin in a Note in -his Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LIV. - -[179] In a letter to Sir Edmund Head (29th December, 1854), the -common-sense view of the case is pithily put by Sir George Cornewall -Lewis as follows: “The fact is that the Government were urged into -the Sebastopol adventure by popular clamour; that they undertook it -with an imperfect knowledge of the difficulties of the enterprise; -and that the military men anticipated that if the army could once be -landed the place would speedily fall. This delusion was shared by all -the world in September, and even October last; but now events have -dispelled the illusion, the people forget their own mistake, and visit -its consequences on the head of the War Minister.”--Sir G. C. Lewis’ -Letters, p. 288. - -[180] Mr. Kinglake gives an entertaining description of a conversation -between General Sir George Brown and Lord Raglan over the Ministerial -order. Brown told his chief that they were all so ignorant about the -Crimea that it was foolish to invade it; but that he had better obey, -for refusal would only lead to his dismissal. - -[181] But for Mr. Roberts the expedition must have been abandoned till -the following spring. His services were contemptuously ignored, and he -died heart-broken by the bitter ingratitude of the Government. He was -an able officer--but without “interest.” - -[182] The attack on the central redoubt by Sir G. Brown’s Light -Division was a confused rush by an armed mob. It failed because the -Duke of Cambridge, who led the First Division, did not bring up his -supports. But for the remonstrance of Sir Colin Campbell, one of his -Brigadiers, he would even have made his Guards ignominiously retire and -re-form at a critical moment in the advance, which would have spread -panic, and lost the battle. De Lacy Evans and Campbell were the only -commanders in this fight who seemed capable of handling troops in a -workmanlike manner. Colonels Hood of the Grenadiers, and Ainslie of the -93rd Highlanders, also displayed skill. - -[183] It is a melancholy satisfaction that the French Prince Napoleon -proved himself to be as incapable as the English Royal Duke. He lost -a regiment of his Zouaves who, getting tired of him, went away into -the fray on their own account. One of Brown’s Brigadiers (Buller) also -lost himself, and spent most of the day with his men in hollow square, -waiting to receive imaginary cavalry. - -[184] It is an amusing fact that Raglan’s van actually came on -Menschikoff’s rear, as the lines of march intersected, and that neither -General had the faintest idea of what the other was about. - -[185] It may be pointed out that the works on the north side of the -town, where the citadel was, commanded those on the south side. -Raglan’s vaunted flank march had left the Russian garrison in the North -Town open and safe communication with their base, and their army of -observation in the field. He had given them ample time to make affluent -use of this advantage. It was, therefore, a moral certainty that if we -had taken the South Town after the bombardment of the 17th our position -would not have been tenable. Though Cathcart and Campbell would have -walked into it easily had they been allowed on the 25th of September, -the failure of the bombardment of the 17th of October was thus probably -a fortunate occurrence. - -[186] The ships were also dreadfully _underhanded_--4,000 of their -fighting force being on shore with the army. - -[187] It may not be quite fair to blame Lord Raglan too much for -this ridiculous manœuvre. At one time his partizans claimed for him -the honour of planning it. But Prince Albert ascribed it to Sir John -Burgoyne, and so did many others. Burgoyne’s own correspondence seems -to show that the Prince was right. (Lieutenant-Colonel Wrottesley’s -“Life and Correspondence of Sir John Burgoyne,” Vol. II., pp. 95-164.) - -[188] Receiving heavy masses of cavalry in this fashion was but a -development of another piece of tactics which Campbell always used -“contrary to the regulations.” That was advancing in line--as at the -Alma--firing on dense masses of infantry all the time. This he learnt -from Sir J. Cameron, colonel of the 6th Regiment, in the Peninsula. -Oddly enough Cameron’s son commanded the Black Watch under Campbell in -the Crimea, and he, too, had, “contrary to regulations,” taught his -father’s tactics to his men. Colonel Hood, of the Grenadiers, had a -glimmering of this idea at the Alma. But he did not venture to advance -in line firing until the enemy’s column was demoralised. The Scottish -Regiments used the manœuvre for the purpose of demoralising the enemy. -But it should never be used except by troops of coarse nerve-fibre, in -perfect training, and whom their leader can hold in hand as in a vice. - -[189] The responsibility for this fearful butchery has been cast on -Lord Lucan. He certainly lacked moral courage in obeying an order -which nobody but a maniac would, in the circumstances, have issued. -But Nolan’s insinuation that Lucan was afraid to attack forced the -general’s hand. Nolan was a brave man, with a crazy fad as to the -capacity of English cavalry to go anywhere and do anything. He -had written a book to show that they could--and he was bitterly -disappointed because the campaign had not been conducted so as to -illustrate by practical experiments the soundness of his views. He took -it on himself to ride in advance of the Brigade, with which he had -nothing to do, and excite the men by voice and gesture, as if their own -officers, who were personally responsible for their lives, were not fit -to lead them. This would indicate that he was one of those meddlesome -_aides-de-camp_, whose interference with operations in the field -renders them the pest of British armies. - -[190] The success of the Heavy Brigade was due to Scarlett attacking -in line, when, to his surprise, he found he was riding with a slender -force against enormous masses of Russian cavalry, and to the Russians -perpetrating the atrocious blunder of halting to receive the fierce -onset of the Scottish and Irish horsemen. Only a third of the Light -Brigade were rescued from the “valley of death,” and they owe their -lives to a brilliant and impetuous charge which a fiery squadron of -French _Chasseurs d’Afrique_ made on a Russian battery, that was -cutting our troopers to pieces during their retreat. - -[191] History of England, Vol. V., p. 125. - -[192] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. I., p. 424. - -[193] Stratford de Redcliffe was now for peace, because he found the -war substituting French for Russian influence at Constantinople, and -of the two he preferred the latter.--Greville Memoirs, Third Part -(Longmans), 1887. - -[194] The Croker Papers, Vol. III., p. 320. Lyndhurst, long after -delivering his ferocious speech demanding that Sebastopol should be -razed to the ground, had written to Croker for advice. “The political -world is in a most complicated state,” says Lyndhurst in this letter, -“and I feel quite at sea.” - -[195] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LVII. - -[196] One of the most appalling cases was the death of Lord Jocelyn in -Lady Palmerston’s drawing-room. - -[197] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LVIII. - -[198] Mr. Herbert’s policy was amply vindicated. The experiment -succeeded so well that Miss Stanley, sister of the late Dean Stanley, -was sent out afterwards with forty-seven nurses to reinforce Miss -Nightingale’s staff. - -[199] See a lively correspondence between Sir J. Graham and John Wilson -Croker on this subject. Graham showed that the Admiralty was not to -blame, but urged in excuse of “the poor idiot,” as Croker called him, -who blundered at Balaclava, that “this was the first time coffee had -ever been issued to a British army on foreign service.”--Croker Papers, -Vol. III., p. 328. - -[200] Financial Secretary to the War Office is now the name of this -post. - -[201] This change was brought about by Russell rudely turning out Lord -Granville to make room for himself, and dismissing Mr. Strutt from -the Duchy of Lancaster to make room for Lord Granville. Strutt got a -Peerage as Lord Belper. Russell threatened to break up the Ministry if -he did not get the Presidency of the Council, although there was no -precedent--except a doubtful one in Henry VIII.’s reign--for appointing -a commoner to the office. The Duke of Bedford told Mr. Greville that -Lord John, being poor, was now determined to get an office carrying -a high salary. The Duke had met his expenses, but was growing more -miserly every day his colossal fortune was accumulating, and, says Mr. -Greville, “he falls in very readily with his brother’s notion of taking -an office for the sake of its emoluments.”--Greville Memoirs--Third -Part, Vol. I., p. 148 (Longmans), 1887. - -[202] “Whatever may be the qualities of different Ministers, I am -the bond by which they are united together. That once destroyed, the -whole fabric falls.”--Letter of Lord Aberdeen to John Wilson Croker, -explaining why the factions concentrated their hostility on him -personally.--The Croker Papers, Vol. III., p. 348. - -[203] Evelyn Ashley’s Life of Palmerston, Vol. II., p. 80. - -[204] Palmerston wanted Lord Shaftesbury to be Chancellor of the -Duchy. He had to withdraw his offer of the post, and in this letter -Lady Palmerston explains why.--Life and Work of the Seventh Earl of -Shaftesbury, K.G., by Edwin Hodder, Vol. II., p. 493 (Cassell and Co.). - -[205] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 8. - -[206] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXI. - -[207] The opposition of the Peelites to the Committee on grounds of -high policy and constitutional legality was soon justified. “Lord -Stanley,” says Lord Malmesbury on the 3rd of March, “writes that Louis -Napoleon objects strongly to the Committee of Inquiry into the War, and -says if it takes place, though his army will still act on the same side -as ours, it can no longer do so along with it. He is evidently alarmed -at the laches of his own Ministers and generals being shown up to -Europe and endangering his position.”--Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. -II., p. 11. Little wonder that the investigation was “incomplete” and -“inconclusive.” - -[208] Mr. Sidney Herbert succeeded Sir George Grey in this office when -Palmerston reorganised the Coalition. Mr. Herbert went out with the -Peelites a fortnight after the new Ministry was formed. - -[209] Hansard, Vol. CXXXVIII., 1075. - -[210] This was, of course, discussing and coming to a unanimous -agreement with Russia at the very outset on the Second Point--the -navigation of the Danube. This was the point in which Austria had had -a vital interest. If it had been kept open to the last, she might have -been more zealous in overcoming the difficulties as to the Third Point -which wrecked the Conference. - -[211] The proof of this is as follows: (1) The Turks would have taken -the Austrian compromise, which, by the way, was the development of -a suggestion made by the French Envoy, as the basis of a feasible -plan for giving effect to the Third Point. (2) Lord John Russell--the -most violent and bellicose of the anti-Russian Ministers--was in -favour of it. (3) The position of Russia in the matter was officially -misrepresented to the English people. Russia said her defeats were not -such as to justify her as a Great Power in letting the Allies _force_ -on her a reduction of her Black Sea fleet. But she had no objection -to any plan limiting her preponderance if it sprang from mutual -negotiation between her and Turkey--acting as principals on an _equal -footing_--to establish, by _mutual consent_ a naval equilibrium in the -Black Sea. (4) She did not absolutely exclude the idea of reducing her -fleet as was falsely stated, not only in the English press, but in -Parliament. Article 2 of Count Buol’s compromise provided that Turkey -and Russia should “propose by common agreement to the Conference the -effective _equality_ of the naval forces which the two coast Powers -will keep up in the Black Sea, and which shall _not exceed the actual -number of Russian ships afloat in that Sea_.” (See Annual Register, -Vol. XCVII., pp. 214-217.) The use of the word “exceed” shows that -the Article provided a _maximum_ limit--not a minimum. It was simply -foolish to argue, as representatives of the Government did, that -negotiations for peace had to be abandoned because Russia refused to -accept a practical and reasonable plan for preventing her from having -more ships than Turkey in the Black Sea. The statement of facts on this -subject by Sir T. Martin in Chap. LXIII. of his Life of the Prince -Consort is as misleading as Mr. Spencer Walpole’s account of the -Austrian Compromise (History of England, Vol. V., p. 135). Mr. Walpole -says that Count Buol’s proposal was one “under which any addition to -the Russian Fleet might be followed by the admission of a corresponding -number of war vessels of the Allies into the Euxine.” This is not a -correct summary of Article 2 of the Compromise. - -[212] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXIII. - -[213] “If,” writes Prince Albert in a Memorandum dated 3rd of May, -1855, “Austria, Prussia, and Germany will give the diplomatic guarantee -for the future which I have here detailed, we shall consider this an -equivalent for the material guarantee sought for in the limitation -of the Russian Fleet.”--Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. -LXIII. But the odd thing to note is, that the Prince was one of those -responsible, not perhaps for suspending, but for finally breaking -up the Conference of Vienna, that had already adopted the principle -of his plan. He and the Queen ignored the fact that it was already -embodied in the Memorandum agreed to by the Conference, for giving -effect to Ali Pasha’s project for more completely connecting Turkey -with “the European equilibrium.” The Queen first coerced--for her -note to Clarendon was a coercive instrument--Palmerston to abandon -negotiations in Conference, because Russia would not submit to a -humiliating material guarantee. Then Prince Albert suggests as a -substitute for that a diplomatic guarantee, which Russia had already -accepted, and which was a far less effective protection to Turkey than -the Austrian compromise which the Queen imperiously condemned. The only -original point in the Prince’s plan is the inclusion of Prussia. She -had been excluded from the Conference in deference to the prejudices -of those who hated peace negotiations, and who declared that she was a -mendacious slave of the Czar. - -[214] And yet on the day before the Prince wrote to Aberdeen he -says, in a letter to Stockmar:--“The Vienna Conferences, which it -would have been better to have left open, must now be closed, if -only to _get the Ministry rest in Parliament_. Oh, Oxenstiern! Oh, -Oxenstiern!”--Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXIV. - -[215] Mr. Sidney Herbert was another Peelite who resisted Prince -Albert’s intimidation. - -[216] Canrobert’s neglect to seize the Mamelon Hill before the Russians -crept into it on the 9th of March and fortified it, was one of the -fatal blunders that protracted the siege. - -[217] Lord Malmesbury records a conversation in his Diary with Persigny -on this point. “Persigny strongly for peace, and says France is all for -it.... He says, if the Emperor is to go to the Crimea, there must be -peace at any price to prevent it. If not, the war ought to go on; but -if the French army is lost then there will be a revolution.”--Memoirs -of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 16. - -[218] The War, by W. H. Russell, p. 498. London: Routledge and Co., -1855. - -[219] Napoleon III. was abjectly ignorant of military geography. At -the council of 1854, said Persigny to Lord Malmesbury, his Majesty -“announced the attack on Baltic.” Persigny asked if he meant Cronstadt. -“No, of course not, it would require 100,000 men, _cavalry_ included,” -said the Emperor, loftily. “But,” replied Persigny, “Cronstadt is an -island.” “No, it is not,” said the Emperor, as he went for a map. -Everything, said Persigny, was done with the same ignorance and -carelessness. Yet it was a campaign--devised by this charlatan against -the opinion of his best officers, that Lord Raglan, according to Sir T. -Martin, approved! See Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 15. - -[220] Reminiscences and opinions of Sir F. H. Doyle (Longmans, 1886), -p. 414. There was a terrible snow storm in Devonshire this year. It was -made memorable by the footmarks of some creature which nobody could -identify. These created a sort of panic in the West of England, for the -people thought that the devil was abroad among them. - -[221] Letters of Sir George Cornewall Lewis, p. 295. His additional -taxes were, (1), 3s. per cwt. on sugar; (2), 1d. per pound on coffee, -raising the duty from 3d. to 4d.; (3), 3d. per pound on tea, raising -the duty from 1s. 6d. to 1s 9d.; (4), equalisation of duty on Scotch -and English spirits, bringing the former from 6s. to 7s. 10d. per -gallon; (5), increase of duty on Irish spirits from 4s. to 6s; (6), -increase of 2d. on Income Tax, raising it from 1s. 2d. to 1s. 4d. in -the £. - -[222] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXI. It was this -letter that ultimately led to the founding of Netley Hospital. - -[223] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXIII. - -[224] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 24. - -[225] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 12. Martin’s Life of the -Prince Consort, Chap. LXII. - -[226] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 18. See also _Times_, -17th of April, 1855. - -[227] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXII. - -[228] Ducos was personally hostile to England, though he pretended to -be in favour of the alliance. Lord Malmesbury says that he and General -Changarnier were the authors of a plan in 1851 for a piratical descent -on the Isle of Wight, and for seizing the Queen’s person at Osborne. -See Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. I., pp. 360 and 396. General -Cavaignac also thought at the time such a plan to be feasible in the -event of a war with England. - -[229] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXII. - -[230] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 19. - -[231] It was said to be composed by his mother, Queen Hortense. - -[232] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXII. - -[233] Vast numbers had been unable to find seats--in fact, as much -as £100 was given for a box. When the curtain rose, crowds of ladies -and gentlemen in evening dress were seen packed closely together -at the back of the stage behind the artists--a curious revival of -the old practice, in virtue of which persons of quality and rank -frequented this part of the house in preference to any other. Jenny Ney -played “Leonora.” It was her first performance on the English stage. -Tamberlik, Formes, Tagliafico, and Luchesi took the male parts. - -[234] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXII. - -[235] No account of the Memorandum is given by Sir T. Martin, and -probably it was a ceremonial rather than a serious document. - -[236] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 20. - -[237] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXII. - -[238] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXV. - -[239] This resort to the dreaded instruments of “personal Government” -and “Court intrigue” by Palmerston was adopted after diplomatic means -had failed. Mr. Greville, in the Third Part of his “Journal,” gives an -amusing description of how we touted for a Portuguese alliance in these -days. - -[240] It is not generally known that “Old Jérôme” really caused -the Emperor to abandon his intention of going to the Crimea. Every -argument pressed by his Ministers and the Queen failed to shake his -determination. Part of his plan was to make Jérôme not Regent, but -Chief of the Council of Ministers in his absence. The Ministers -artfully persuaded Jérôme, who was a vain man, to refuse this office -unless he were vested with the same despotic power as the Emperor. -This frightened the Emperor, and he immediately gave up his Crimean -expedition. See a conversation between Lord Cowley and Mr. Greville in -the Greville Memoirs, Third Part, Vol. I., p. 263 (Longmans), 1887. - -[241] Greville Memoirs, Third Part, Vol. I, pp. 283-286. - -[242] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXVII. - -[243] They crossed over from France on the 28th of August. Mr. Greville -says, “While they were in the yacht crossing over, Prince Albert -had told him (Clarendon) that there was not a word of truth in the -prevailing report and belief that the young Prince of Prussia and the -Princess Royal are _fiancés_, that nothing had ever passed between -the parents on the subject, and that the union never would take place -unless the children should become attached to each other.”--Greville -Memoirs, Third Part, Vol. I., p. 287. On the 13th of September, -however, Prince Albert writes to Stockmar, saying, “I have received a -very friendly letter from the Princess of Prussia.” In this letter the -Princess (now Empress of Germany) intimated the fact that her son came -with the consent of his parents and the King of Prussia to sue for the -hand of the Princess Royal. - -[244] The Crown Prince of Germany--A Diary. London (Sampson Low), 1886. - -[245] “The Officer in command is directed to arrange times so that -the Prince may have ample opportunities of becoming acquainted with -such various matters as horseshoeing, fencing, vaulting, limbering -and unlimbering guns, and stable work, as well as the routine of -lessons and singing in the schools.”--Extract from Von Griesheim’s -Instructions. The Crown Prince of Germany--A Diary, p. 24. - -[246] The Crown Prince of Germany--A Diary, p. 28. - -[247] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXVIII. - -[248] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 37. - -[249] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 38. - -[250] It is now known that Cavour suggested that Austria might be asked -to retire from that part of Papal territory which she occupied. - -[251] Greville Memoirs, Third Part, p. 303. - -[252] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol II., p. 38. - -[253] “Exclusive of officers who have come back by reason of wounds, -sickness, or promotion to the depôt battalions, only thirty-three out -of an army of 52,000 men have come home on private affairs.”--Letter -of Prince Albert to the Prince of Prussia. Martin’s Life of the Prince -Consort, Chap. LXIX. - -[254] See a curious letter on this subject from Colonel Hope, V.C., in -the _Daily Chronicle_ of 14th September, 1886, and a note appended to -it from the pen of the Editor of that newspaper. - -[255] Simpson was bitterly blamed for not asking Campbell’s Division -of Guards and Highlanders, who were picked and seasoned soldiers, to -assault in the first instance. Campbell, however, though he often -exacted cruel sacrifices from his men, was parsimonious of blood, and -it was said in the camp that he refused to attack till he had time to -make the necessary preparations. Then he observed, grimly, he would -not “attack, but ‘tak’ he Redan.” Codrington seems to have imagined -that there was no need for all this caution. He attacked, but did -not take, the fortress; in fact, to take it on his plan was an utter -impossibility. - -[256] That was partly due to the fact that our trenches were 200 yards -from the Redan. This space was enfiladed by a murderous fire when -crossed by the stormers. The French, 20,000 strong, were only 20 yards -from the Malakoff. Simpson’s excuse for hastening the attack instead of -pushing the trenches closer was that every day the French were losing -200 and we 60 men in the trenches. - -[257] The Duke of Newcastle, who had gone to the seat of war to examine -affairs on the spot, in a letter to Clarendon, says that Simpson seemed -“never to be doing but always mooning. He has no plan, no opinion, no -hope but from the chapter of accidents.” He thought Pélissier just -as incompetent. “I believe,” he adds, “Pélissier’s officers have no -confidence in him, and I know his soldiers dislike him.” Martin’s Life -of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXVII. The Sardinian De La Marmora was the -only one of the Allied Commanders-in-Chief who had any marked ability. - -[258] So the Russians afterwards said. This plan was proposed by Sir E. -Lyons, but Pélissier laughed scornfully in his face when he suggested -it, and poor Simpson, as usual, concurred with Pélissier. - -[259] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXVIII. - -[260] Evelyn Ashley’s Life of Lord Palmerston, Vol. II., p. 322. - -[261] The excuse for the Franco-Austrian intrigue was that the -rejection of the terms by Russia bound Austria to join France and -England in going on with the war. But of course Austria had taken -pains to find out what terms Russia would accept before she gave her -pledge, so that she never had the remotest intention of fighting on -our side. As for the terms they were, as Mr. Greville puts it, but a -second edition of the proposals which we had rejected at the Vienna -Conference. There was, says Mr. Greville, this difference: “while on -the last occasion the Emperor knocked under to us and reluctantly -agreed to go on with the war, he is now determined to go on with it no -longer, and requires that we should defer to his wishes.”--Greville -Memoirs, Third Part, Vol. I., p. 297. - -[262] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXVIII. - -[263] Greville Memoirs, Third Part, Vol. I., p. 310. - -[264] Greville Memoirs, Third Part, Vol. I., p. 315. - -[265] Sir G. C. Lewis’s Letters, p. 309. - -[266] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 37. - -[267] Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXX. Sir Theodore, when he -penned this, had not seen Mr. Disraeli’s cynical letter to Lord -Malmesbury, otherwise he would probably not have added “such generosity -among statesmen may always be counted on as a matter of course.” - -[268] This was a nickname which Serjeant Hayes had stuck to Parke -on account of his prejudice in favour of fossilised forms and -precedents.--Life of Lord Campbell, Vol. II., p. 388. - -[269] Life of Lord Campbell, Vol. II., p. 340. - -[270] Mr. Babbage, Dr. Lyon Playfair, and Sir R. Murchison, it was -said, were to be the first batch of life scientific peers. - -[271] Greville Memoirs, Third Part, Vol. II., p. 51. - -[272] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 43. - -[273] Mr. Greville, writing on March 9, says, “Called on Achille Fould, -who introduced me to Magne, Minister of Finance, said to be a great -rogue. Everything here is intrigue and jobbery, and I am told there is -a sort of gang, of which Morny is the chief, who all combine for their -own purpose and advantage: Morny, Fould, Magne, and Rouher, Minister of -Commerce. They now want to get out Billault, Minister of the Interior, -whom they cannot entirely manage, and that minister is necessary to -them on account of the railways, which are under his management.” -Greville Memoirs, Third Part, Vol. II., p. 31. At a party at Lord -Holland’s house in Paris, where a great many aristocratic ladies were -present, Mr. Greville says that when MM. de Flahault and Morny were -announced, “the women all jumped up like a covey of partridges and -walked out of the room, without taking any notice of the men.” - -[274] The Treaty of Paris was signed on Sunday, March 30. Each of the -fourteen plenipotentiaries originally intended to keep the pen with -which he signed it as a _memento_ of the occasion. They, however, -yielded to the request of the Empress Eugenie, who begged that only one -pen should be used, which should be retained by her as a souvenir. Only -one was accordingly used. It was a quill plucked from an eagle’s wing, -and richly mounted with gold and jewels. - -[275] In 1870 the neutrality of the Black Sea was abandoned--Russia -having declared she would no longer respect the Treaty on that point. -After the last Russo-Turkish war, Russia took back Bessarabia. The -“Declarations,” in fact, are the only portions of the Treaty that -remain in force. - -[276] History of England, Vol. V., p. 143. - -[277] Correspondence of A. de Tocqueville with Mr. Nassau Senior, Vol. -II., pp. 99, 101. - -[278] This refers to Lord Malmesbury’s attack in the House of Lords on -the Treaty of Peace. - -[279] Continuing a year after this, Lord Malmesbury records his -impressions of a conversation with Lady Ely on the famous “happy -family” dinner of 1856. He says, “It looks as if her Majesty made up -the dinner of these discordant materials for fun, and, from the same -_malice_, made me take Lady Clarendon to dinner, as it was only two -days after I had attacked Lord Clarendon in the House of Lords, and -Lady Clarendon would not speak to me at first, but I ended by making -her laugh. The Queen, who was opposite, was highly amused, and could -hardly help laughing when Lady Clarendon at first would not answer -me.”--Memoirs of an ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 67. - -[280] Nobody regretted this, for they created a host of highly-paid -place-holders. Mr. Disraeli declared that these measures were at first -supposed to be an ingenious means of compensating Ireland for the -failure of the Tipperary Bank. - -[281] Greville Memoirs, Third Part. Vol. II., pp. 42-45. - -[282] A few days before this event, on the 10th inst., the Royal -Nursery was robbed. The Royal Household is, of course, under the -control of the Lord Steward. One of his sub-departments is called “The -Silver Pantry,” which has three yeomen, one groom, and six assistants -attached to it. Yet, when the nursery plate had to be sent to Windsor, -these gorgeous functionaries, with their staff of porters, horses, -grooms, and carts, could not condescend to convey it. It was trusted -to a common carrier, who unhappily, when on his way, stopped at a -public-house for refreshments. He and his men were “only absent for -five minutes,” but in that time a light spring cart had driven up to -the carrier’s waggon, and when it drove away, the box containing the -Royal nursery plate had vanished. The plate chest was found in Bonner’s -Fields containing everything but the bullion. The knife-blades and -packing, which latter consisted of women’s dresses, were found, but the -plate was never traced. - -[283] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXXII. - -[284] De Lacy Evans’ proposal was referred to a mixed Commission of -civilians and military men. - -[285] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXXII. - -[286] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 49. - -[287] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXXII. - -[288] When the frontier was drawn, Count Orloff said to Lord Clarendon -that he should take it as a favour if he would draw it a little -farther south so as to include Bolgrad, which was the capital of some -Russian military colonies in which the Czar was greatly interested. -This was done as a matter of courtesy to the Czar, Orloff pointing to -the position of Bolgrad on the map--a French map--and showing that -it was such a long way from Lake Jalpuk, that the concession did not -give Russia access to a Moldavian lake on which she might, perchance, -one day build a threatening flotilla. After the Treaty was signed, -it turned out that the place marked as Bolgrad on the French map was -really Tabak, and that Bolgrad was actually far to the south of it, on -the northern shore of Lake Jalpuk. The Russians therefore, insisting -on the letter of the Treaty, claimed Bolgrad, on the left shore of the -lake, leaving the right shore to Moldavia. - -[289] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 50. - -[290] Lowe’s Bismarck, Vol. I., p. 218. - -[291] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXXIII. - -[292] The French Emperor was pledged to support Russia against us. But -after his return from Biarritz, he found political parties were using -his disagreement with England to weaken the Anglo-French alliance, and -discredit his foreign policy. The secret history of the transaction, -however, was not creditable to Palmerstonian diplomacy. Lord Malmesbury -writes on the 21st of November, “Persigny told me Walewski is in -disgrace. The difficulty about Bolgrad and the Isle of Serpents arises -from the Emperor having been entrapped into a promise by the Russians; -but Persigny has suggested a solution, which has been accepted by the -Emperor and our Government, namely, a Congress, which is to assemble, -into which Sardinia is to be admitted, _on condition of voting against -Russia_. Austria goes with England, and Prussia is of course excluded. -This gives England a majority, and the Emperor an excuse for giving -way.”--Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II, p. 53. Lord Clarendon, had, -up till the beginning of December, refused to submit the dispute to a -Congress, for the point which Russia raised about Bolgrad was simply -a point of obvious chicanery which it was beneath the dignity of -England to debate. Lord Palmerston and he yielded, however, and, as Mr. -Greville says scornfully, by “this dodge saved us.”--Greville Memoirs, -Third Part, Vol. II., p. 68. - -[293] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 55. - -[294] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 58. See also Greville -Memoirs, Third Part, Vol. II., p. 69. - -[295] The Duke of Beaufort and eighty Members of the Lower House, -however, threatened to leave the Party if places in a Tory Government -were given to the Peelites.--Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 57. - -[296] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXXV. - -[297] On the estimate of expenditure and revenue for 1856-1857 there -was a deficit of £10,000,000. To meet this Sir George Lewis had -borrowed £7,499,000, and he had raised £1,000,000 in Exchequer Bills. -The total receipts from all sources, said Sir George Lewis in his -Statement (_Annual Register_, Vol. XCIX., p. 29), would, when the -financial year closed, be £79,384,000, and the expenditure £78,000,000, -leaving a surplus of £1,384,000. This was a wrong calculation. The net -income of the year was £75,569,575, or, after deductions, £72,963,151, -showing a deficit on the expenditure of the year of £3,254,604. For -the coming year, 1857-1858, Sir George estimated his expenditure at -£63,224,000, to which £2,000,000 had to be added for the service of war -loans. The revenue he estimated at £66,365,000; so that he expected a -surplus of £891,000. - -[298] Quite apart from the cost of the Crimean War, Mr. Gladstone -showed that £6,000,000 had been added to the _ordinary_ expenditure of -the country during the four years ending 1856-1857. - -[299] Of course, Lord Beaconsfield before he died educated the Foreign -Office up to the truth, which is, that “the key of India” is held -in London--and that the defensible gates of India are those on our -frontier which we can protect by our arms. But the amazing thing is -that when the Foreign Office _did_ believe that Herat was the “key of -India,” they never would let it be held by a Power which, like Persia, -was strong enough to keep it safe with British help. Persia was the -natural ally of England against Russia. But every effort of the Indian -Government to conciliate Persia has been thwarted by the Foreign -Office. Since we abandoned her for the sake of the Russian alliance -against Napoleon I., the English Foreign Office has exhausted the -resources of its diplomacy in betraying, browbeating, and irritating -her. And yet it is a fact, that without the goodwill of Persia, -which enabled Russia to draw supplies from “the golden province of -Khorassan,” Russia could never have marched from the Caspian to the -gates of Merv. - -[300] Correspondence respecting relations with Persia, Parliamentary -Papers, 1857, pp. 21-39. - -[301] This story of diplomatic blundering is told in the speeches of -Mr. Layard and Lord Palmerston. Hansard, Vol. CXL., pp. 1717-1722. - -[302] Papers respecting Persia, p. 211. - -[303] India under Lord Canning, by the Duke of Argyll, p. 72. See also -21 and 22 Vict., c. 106, Section 55. Lord Beaconsfield made another -attempt to evade this section by bringing Indian troops to Malta during -the Russo-Turkish War in 1877. - -[304] Greville Memoirs, Third Part, Vol. II., p. 93. - -[305] Life of Cobden, Chap. XXIV. - -[306] The vote was 247 for, and 263 against, the Ministry. See Cobden’s -Speeches, Vol. II., pp. 121-156, for his indictment. - -[307] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 63. Mr. Greville declares -that Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli had “made up their minds to coalesce -with Gladstone and the Peelites on the first opportunity.”--Greville -Memoirs, Third Part. Vol. II., p. 93. Lord Malmesbury says that at -a private meeting of the Tory Party on the 4th of March, Lord Derby -denied that he had coalesced with Mr. Gladstone, but refused to be -dictated to by any member of the party as to “the course he should -pursue with regard to any political personages whatever,” a declaration -which was loudly cheered. The general opinion was that such a -coalition, though the Tory leaders favoured it, would have split up the -Tory Party. - -[308] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 64. Note that the -attitude of the Peelites to the Tory Party curiously resembled that of -the Liberal Unionists in 1887. - -[309] Correspondence of Abraham Hayward, Q.C., from 1814 to 1844. -Edited by Henry E. Carlisle. 2 Vols. London, Murray, 1886. - -[310] Life of Cobden, Chap. XXIV. - -[311] Annual Summary of the _Times_ for 1857. On the 24th of February, -1858, the Tories formed, Lord Derby’s second Government. - -[312] Greville Memoirs, Third Part, Vol. II., p. 99. - -[313] Lord Derby had shrunk from carrying on the Crimean War when Lord -Aberdeen resigned. - -[314] Even new Tory candidates, when they saw how the current of public -opinion was setting, began to beg support by saying that if they had -been in the House when the China vote was taken, they would have voted -for Lord Palmerston.--See Greville Memoirs, Vol. II., p. 100. - -[315] Correspondence of Abraham Hayward, Q.C., Vol. I., pp. 312, 313. - -[316] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXXV. On the 5th of -March, 1858, he writes to Stockmar:--“Lord Palmerston’s sudden decline -in popularity was a remarkable phenomenon.”--Martin’s Life of the -Prince Consort, Chap. LXXXIV. - -[317] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 70. - -[318] This was one of the first recorded cases of “obstruction” in the -modern sense of the word. Mr. Parnell used, at one time, to justify -his tactics by citing as a precedent Mr. Gladstone’s opposition to the -Divorce Bill. - -[319] That no such distinction should be made is the view which seems -to be gaining ground now. The French Chamber adopted it in their -Divorce Bill of 1886, and it has been adopted in the law of Scotland, -where, as in France, paramours are not permitted to marry after divorce -is granted. In England the marriage of paramours, outside the forbidden -degrees of affinity and consanguinity, strongly condemned by Bishop -Wilberforce in the debates on the Divorce Bill, is permissible. Though, -as a concession to Wilberforce and his followers, it was enacted that a -clergyman might refuse to perform the ceremony, the concession did not -satisfy anybody.--See Life of Wilberforce, Vol. II., pp. 343-347. - -[320] Life of Lord Campbell, Vol. II., p. 351. - -[321] Life of Lord Campbell, Vol. II., p. 353. - -[322] Greville Memoirs, Third Part, Vol. II., p. 3. - -[323] This dispute was settled by a Conference which met at Paris -on 5th March, 1857, France, Austria, England, and Russia being -represented, Prussia and Switzerland being occasionally admitted with -a consultative voice. Frederick William IV. resigned all his rights -to Neufchâtel for a pecuniary indemnity, which he generously refused -afterwards to take, and the royalist prisoners were set free. The -severance of this province was as great an advantage to Prussia, as the -separation of Hanover was to England. - -[324] France and Sardinia would have made an Austrian occupation of -the Principalities ground for demanding, by way of compensation, the -retirement of Austria from Northern Italy. - -[325] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., pp. 78, 79. - -[326] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 78. - -[327] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXXIX. - -[328] Sleeman’s Tour in Oudh, Vol. II., p. 353. - -[329] Oudh Blue Book, p. 46. - -[330] Oudh Blue Book, p. 235. - -[331] If we go behind the facts and pretexts of the official case we -can easily discern better though unstated reasons for the annexation of -Oudh. After the annexation of Scinde and the conquest of the Punjab, -Oudh was left protruding into British territory, so as to cut it into -two parts. Oudh was in our way, and it was therefore taken. - -[332] The History of India, by Meadows Taylor, p. 710. - -[333] Curiously Mr. Cobden was among the few Englishmen who both -knew and cared. In a letter to Mr. Bright, dated the 24th of August, -1857, he says, “From the moment that I had satisfied myself that a -feeling of alienation was constantly increasing with both Natives and -the English--we had some striking evidence to this effect before our -Committee in 1853--I made up my mind that it must end in trouble sooner -or later.”--Morley’s Life of Cobden, Chap. XXV. - -[334] Meadows Taylor’s History of India, p. 713. - -[335] India under Lord Dalhousie, by the Duke of Argyll, pp. 57-60. -Sir J. Kaye says that the Indian army consisted, in round numbers, of -300,000 men, of whom 40,000 were Europeans.--Kaye’s Sepoy War, Vol. I., -p. 341. When Lord Canning reached India the Native army, as a matter of -fact, consisted of 233,000, the Europeans of 45,000 men. - -[336] Now we maintain in India one English to every two Native -soldiers. Dalhousie maintained one English to every five Native -soldiers. - -[337] See on this curious subject Kaye’s Sepoy War, Vol. I., and -Appendix, p. 619. - -[338] “The Mutiny would perhaps never have occurred if British -officers, turning themselves into missionaries, had not fostered -the notion that the Company was anxious to convert its subjects to -Christianity.”--Walpole’s History of England, Vol. V., p. 430. - -[339] Holmes’ Indian Mutiny, p. 82. India under Lord Canning, by the -Duke of Argyll, p. 77. - -[340] Parliamentary Papers. Mutinies in the East Indies, p. 1 _et seq._ - -[341] Meadows Taylor’s History of India, p. 720. - -[342] Anson first heard of the outbreak at Simla, on the 12th of May. -He was at Umballa on the 15th. On the 27th he died of cholera at -Kurnaul. - -[343] Lawrence himself says modestly, in a letter to Lord Dalhousie -(June 14th, 1858): “To Nicholson, Alec Taylor, of the Engineers, and -Neville Chamberlain, the real merit of our success is due.” But this -does some injustice to Colonel Baird Smith, who was Taylor’s chief, and -who deserves credit for forcing Wilson on to attack the city. - -[344] Life of Lord Lawrence, by R. Bosworth Smith, M.A., Vol. II., p. -30. - -[345] _Quarterly Review_ for April, 1883. - -[346] “Whilst the siege was in progress, Wilson had, “more than -once,” says Nicholson, in one of his letters to Lawrence, spoken of -withdrawing the guns. Nicholson, who was the Roland and Hotspur of -the war, and Lawrence’s trustiest lieutenant, says of Wilson, “Had -he carried out his threat I was quite prepared to have appealed to -the army to set him aside and elect a successor.” Three days after -penning that letter this fiery Bersekir fell mortally wounded, leading -the stormers of the Cashmere Bastion. Wilson, feeling it difficult to -maintain the occupation of the city, wanted to withdraw. When this was -communicated to Nicholson, he turned on his death-bed, convulsed with -passion, and exclaimed, “Thank God, I have yet strength enough to shoot -that man!” - -[347] Life of Lord Lawrence, by R. Bosworth Smith, M.A., Vol. II., p. -225. - -[348] The king died in prison three months afterwards. Hodson’s defence -was that he feared a rescue. - -[349] Lord Canning himself has described their conduct--especially -that of the terror-stricken officers, “with swords by their sides”--as -“disgraceful.”--Life of Sir H. Lawrence, p. 575. - -[350] Elgin’s patriotism and generosity in surrendering these -troops were justly extolled by Sir William Peel, the leader of the -Naval Brigade, who said that the Chinese Expedition really relieved -Lucknow.--Walrond’s Letters and Journals of Lord Elgin, p. 188. - -[351] Shadwell’s Life of Lord Clyde, Vol. I., p. 405. - -[352] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXXXII. - -[353] At Lucknow, after four days’ hard fighting, he had only 122 -killed and 414 wounded. - -[354] Campbell’s retreat from Lucknow to Cawnpore was managed -with consummate address. But it was censured. The defence of it -is this:--(1), He had to relieve himself from the encumbrance of -the women, children, sick, and wounded; (2), He had to save his -communications, which Windham’s defeat at the Pandoo River had put at -Tantia Topee’s mercy; (3), He could easily come back and take Lucknow; -and (4), he was anxious to make an immediate impression on Rohilkund. - -[355] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXXV. Feodore was the -name of the Queen’s half-sister. - -[356] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXXVI. - -[357] As to precedents, the eldest daughter of George II. received -a dowry of £80,000, and an annuity of £5,000. But when the Princess -Royal, daughter of George III., married, she was voted a dowry of -£80,000 without any annuity. The Irish Parliament had to vote her an -annuity of £5,000. - -[358] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXXVI. - -[359] In the “Journal de Goncourt: Mémoires des la Vie Littéraire,” -published in 1877, the secret history of the Emperor’s instructions -to Pélissier is told. The Prussian Military Attaché at St. Petersburg -sent to the King of Prussia, through MM. de Gerlach and Niebuhr, the -secret details of the campaign. Manteufel, the King’s Foreign Minister, -desirous of possessing this information which the King kept to himself, -bribed certain persons who had access to these letters to copy them. -Then the French hearing of the matter bribed Manteufel’s agents to let -them have copies also. In this way Napoleon III. discovered that the -Malakoff was the one vulnerable point in the defences, although the -repulse of the 18th of June made most people think it was invulnerable. - -[360] This year the great race at Ascot--that for the Gold Cup, which, -by the way, was of silver--was won by Lord Zetland’s “Skirmisher.” - -[361] A story used to be told of one Scottish regiment that got into -sad disgrace because of the contempt with which they treated the Cross -of Valour. A goodly number of Crosses were allotted to it, for it had -won exceptional distinction. The superior officers, on being asked to -nominate recipients, said, “Oh, hand the thing over to the subalterns.” -The subalterns said, “The sergeants would probably like to have the -decorations at their disposal.” The sergeants said, “Oh, it would be -best to let the men get them,” and the men, with grim humour, selected -as bravest of the brave, two pioneers, whose duty it had been to go -round with the “greybeards” when the regiment was in action, and serve -out the regulation ration of whisky or rum, as the case might be. Was -this the reason why no member of the Scottish Brigade figures in the -_Annual Register’s_ list of Victoria Crosses given in 1857? - -[362] The Queen promptly ordered the Royal Collections to be put at the -disposal of the Exhibition. The Prince Consort suggested a plan for -appealing to private collectors which had the desired effect. He said -that collectors of rank would not shrink from refusing to lend works of -Art when it was widely known that their refusal might mar a national -purpose; and he advised the appeal to be based on the fact that though -England invested more money in Art than any other country, she had done -less than any other for Art education, which such an exhibition might -easily be made to promote. He even sent them a practical proposal for -drawing up a catalogue that would powerfully appeal to the sympathies -of collectors, and to his suggestions the success of the undertaking -was largely due. - -[363] It may not be amiss to say that this stinging Memorandum was the -Queen’s reply to a frivolous communication from Lord Palmerston. In it -he met her growing remonstrances by saying that “measures are sometimes -best calculated to succeed which follow each other step by step.” He -further added, rather impudently, that “Viscount Palmerston may perhaps -be permitted to take the liberty of saying that it is fortunate for -those from whose opinions your Majesty differs, that your Majesty is -not in the House of Commons, for they would have had to encounter -a formidable antagonist in argument.”--Martin’s Life of the Prince -Consort, Chap. LXXVIII. - -[364] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXXXI. - -[365] The _Post_ was “inspired” by Lady Palmerston at this period. - -[366] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXXXII. - - - - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Life and Times of Queen Victoria; -vol. 2 of 4, by Robert Wilson - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE LIFE AND TIMES OF QUEEN *** - -***** This file should be named 63290-0.txt or 63290-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/6/3/2/9/63290/ - -Produced by Chuck Greif and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was -produced from images available at The Internet Archive) - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions -will be renamed. - -Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no -one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation -(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without -permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, -set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to -copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to -protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project -Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you -charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you -do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the -rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose -such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and -research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do -practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is -subject to the trademark license, especially commercial -redistribution. - - - -*** START: FULL LICENSE *** - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project -Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at -http://gutenberg.org/license). - - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy -all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. -If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the -terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or -entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement -and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" -or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the -collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an -individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are -located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from -copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative -works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg -are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project -Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by -freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of -this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with -the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by -keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project -Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in -a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check -the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement -before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or -creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project -Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning -the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United -States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate -access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently -whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, -copied or distributed: - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived -from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is -posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied -and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees -or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work -with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the -work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 -through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the -Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or -1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional -terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked -to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the -permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any -word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or -distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than -"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version -posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), -you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a -copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon -request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other -form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided -that - -- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is - owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he - has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the - Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments - must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you - prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax - returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and - sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the - address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to - the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." - -- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or - destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium - and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of - Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any - money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days - of receipt of the work. - -- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set -forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from -both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael -Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the -Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm -collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain -"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or -corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual -property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a -computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by -your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with -your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with -the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a -refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity -providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to -receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy -is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further -opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER -WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO -WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. -If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the -law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be -interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by -the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any -provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance -with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, -promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, -harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, -that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do -or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm -work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any -Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. - - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers -including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists -because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from -people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. -To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 -and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive -Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at -http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent -permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. -Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered -throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at -809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email -business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact -information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official -page at http://pglaf.org - -For additional contact information: - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To -SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any -particular state visit http://pglaf.org - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. -To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate - - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm -concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared -with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project -Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. - - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. -unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily -keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. - - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: - - http://www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |