CASSELL'S ILLUSTRATED HISTORY OF ENGLAND

CASSELL'S
HISTORY OF ENGLAND

FROM THE DEATH OF SIR ROBERT PEEL TO
THE ILLNESS OF THE PRINCE OF WALES

WITH NUMEROUS ILLUSTRATIONS,
INCLUDING COLOURED
AND REMBRANDT PLATES

VOL. VI

THE KING'S EDITION

CASSELL AND COMPANY, LIMITED
LONDON, NEW YORK, TORONTO AND MELBOURNE
MCMIX

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

CONTENTS.

[CHAPTER I.]

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

PAGE

The Papal Aggressions—The Ecclesiastical Titles Bill—Mr. Locke King's Motion on County Franchise—Resignation of the Government—The Great Exhibition—The President of the French Republic and the Assembly—Preparations for the Coup d'État—The Barricades—The Plébiscite—Weakness of the Russell Administration—Independence of Lord Palmerston—The Queen's Memorandum—Dismissal of Palmerston—The Militia Bill—Russell is turned out—The Derby Ministry—The General Election—Defeat of the Conservatives—Death and Funeral of the Duke of Wellington—The Aberdeen Administration—Mr. Gladstone's Budget—The Eastern Question again—The Diplomatic Wrangle—The Sultan's Firman—Afif Bey's Mission—Difficulties in Montenegro—England and France—The Menschikoff Mission—Lord Stratford de Redcliffe's Instructions—The Czar and Sir Hamilton Seymour—Menschikoff at Constantinople—The English and French Fleets—Arrival of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe—Menschikoff's ulterior Demands—Action of the Powers [1]

[CHAPTER II.]

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

Widening of the Question—The Fleets in Besika Bay—Lord Clarendon's Despatch—The Czar and Lord Stratford de Redcliffe—Nesselrode's "Last Effort"—Military Preparations—Blindness of the British Cabinet—Nesselrode's Ultimatum rejected—Occupation of the Principalities—Projects of Settlement—The Vienna Note—Its Rejection by the Porte—-Division of the Powers—Text of the Note—Divisions in the British Cabinet—The Fleets in the Bosphorus—The Conference at Olmütz—The Sultan's Grand Council—Lord Stratford de Redcliffe's last Effort—Patriotism of the Turks—Omar Pasha's Victories—The Turkish Fleet destroyed at Sinope—Indignation in England—The French Suggestion—It is accepted by Lord Clarendon—Russia demands Explanations—Diplomatic Relations suspended—The Letter of Napoleon III.—The Western Powers arm—An Ultimatum to Russia—It is unanswered—The Baltic Fleet—Publication of the Correspondence—Declarations of War [19]

[CHAPTER III.]

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

Attitude of the German Powers—The Lines at Boulair—The Campaign on the Danube—The Siege of Silistria—It is raised—Evacuation of the Principalities—The British Fleet in the Black Sea—Arrival of the Allied Armies—A Council of War—The Movement on Varna—Unhealthiness of the Camp—An Attack on the Crimea resolved on—Doubts of the Military Authorities—Despatch to Lord Raglan—Lord Lyndhurst's Speech—Raglan's reluctant Assent—The Expedition sails—Debarkation in the Crimea—Forays of the French Troops—Composition of the Allied Armies—The Start—The first Skirmish—St. Arnaud's Plan—Slowness of the British—Battle of the Alma [35]

[CHAPTER IV.]

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

Two Days on the Alma—Retreat of the Russians—Raglan proposes a Flank Movement—Korniloff and Todleben—Death of St. Arnaud—The Allies in Position—Menschikoff reinforces Sebastopol—Todleben's Preparations—The Opposing Batteries—The Sea—Defences of Sebastopol—Doubts of the Admirals—Opening of the Bombardment—The French Fire silenced—Success of the British—Failure of the Fleets—The Bombardment renewed—Menschikoff determines to Raise the Siege—The Attack on Balaclava—Lord Lucan's Warning—Liprandi's Advance—Capture of the Redoubts—The 93rd—Lord Lucan's Advance—Charge of the Heavy Brigade—Raglan, Lucan, and Nolan—Charge of the Light Brigade—The Valley of Death—The Goal—End of the Battle [50]

[CHAPTER V.]

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

Effects of Balaclava—Attack on Mount Inkermann—Evans defeats the Russians—Menschikoff is reinforced—The Guards to the Rescue—Arrival of Lord Raglan—Bosquet's Help refused—The Fight at the Sandbag Battery—The Coldstreams—The Guards' Charge—Defeat of Cathcart—Charges of the Zouaves—The Russians slowly retreat—Canrobert hesitates to pursue—Loss of the Allies—Their Plight—The Baltic Fleet—Changed Position of the Allies—Determination of the British Nation—Storm of November 14th—Destruction of the Transports—Sufferings of the Troops—Conduct of the War—-Timidity of the Government—Enlistment of Boys—Autumn Session—The Paper Warfare—Hostile Motions in Parliament—Lord John Russell's Resignation—Palmerston forms a Ministry—Resignation of the Peelites [64]

[CHAPTER VI.]

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

State of the Army—Food, Clothing, and Shelter—Absence of a Road—Want of Transport—Numbers of the Sick—State of the Hospitals—Miss Nightingale—Mr. Roebuck's Committee—Military Operations—The French Mistake—Improvement of the Situation—Arrival of General Niel—Attack upon the Malakoff Hill approved—The Russian Redoubt constructed—Death of Nicholas—Todleben's Counter-Approaches—Raglan and Canrobert disagree—The second Bombardment—Egerton's Pit—Night Attack of General de Salles—The Emperor's Interference—Canrobert's Indecision—The Kertch Project—Arrival of the Sardinian Contingent—The Emperor's Visit to Windsor—The Emperor's Plan of Campaign—It is rejected by Raglan and Omar—Resignation of Canrobert [80]

[CHAPTER VII.]

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

The Course of Diplomacy—Austria's Position—The Four Points—The Czar agrees to negotiate—Russell's Mission to Vienna—Prince Gortschakoff's Declaration—The Third Point broached—Its Rejection by Russia—Count Buol's final Proposition—The War debated in Parliament—Lord John Russell resigns—Strength of the Government—The Sardinian and Turkish Loans—Vote of Censure on the Aberdeen Cabinet—Finance of the War—General Pélissier—The Fight for the Cemetery—Success of the French—Occupation of the Tchernaya—Expedition to Kertch—Description of the Peninsula—Sir George Brown's Force—The Russians blow up their Magazines—Occupation of Kertch and Yenikale—Lyons in the Sea of Azoff—Result of the Expedition—Attack upon Sebastopol decided—Ordnance of the Allies—The Attack—The French occupy the Mamelon—The British in the Quarries—Lord Raglan overruled—New Batteries—Pélissier's Change of Plan—The Fourth Bombardment—Preparations for the Assault—Mayran's Mistake—Brunet and D'Autemarre—The Attack on the Redan fails—Abandonment of the Assault—General Eyre—Losses on both Sides—Death of Lord Raglan [91]

[CHAPTER VIII.]

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

Changes in the Allied Camp—Advance upon the Malakoff and Redan—Prince Gortschakoff determines to Attack—The Allied Camp on the Tchernaya—Gortschakoff's Reinforcements—The Russian Plan—Read's Precipitation—Check of the Russian Attack—The French Counter-stroke—Gortschakoff changes his Front—The Battle is won—Allied Losses—The French sap towards the Malakoff——The British Bombardment—Combats before the Malakoff—Gortschakoff secures his Retreat—Council of September 3rd—Plan of Attack—The Last Bombardment—The Hour of Attack—The Signal—Assault of the Malakoff—MacMahon and Vinoy—Failures upon the Curtain and Little Redan—MacMahon is Impregnable—Failure to take the Redan—Evening—Gortschakoff's Retreat—End of the Siege [113]

[CHAPTER IX.]

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

Gortschakoff clings to Sebastopol—Destruction of Taman and Fanagoria—Expedition to Kinburn—Resignation of Sir James Simpson—Explosion of French Powder Magazine—The Fleets in the Baltic—The Hango Massacre—Attack on Sveaborg—What the Baltic Fleet did—Russia on the Pacific Coast—Petropaulovski blown up—The Russian Position in Asia—The Turks left to their Fate—Foreigners in Kars—Defeat of Selim Pasha—Battle of Kuruk-Dereh—Colonel Williams sent to Kars—Mouravieff arrives—His Expeditions towards Erzeroum—The Blockade begins—The Assault of September 29th—Kmety's success—The Tachmasb Redoubt—Attack on the English Lines—Victory of the Turks—Omar's Relief fails—Sufferings of the Garrison—Williams capitulates—Terms of the Surrender [128]

[CHAPTER X.]

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

Winter of '55—Visit of the Czar to the Crimea—State of the British Army—Sufferings of the French—Destruction of Sebastopol—The Armistice—Views of Austria and Russia—And of the Emperor Napoleon—Britain acquiesces in Peace—Walewski's Circular—Austria proposes Peace—Buol's Despatch—Nesselrode's Circular—The Austrian Ultimatum—Russia gives way—The Congress fixed at Paris—The Queen's Speech—Speeches of Clarendon and Palmerston—Meeting of the Congress—The Armistice—An Imperial Speech—The Sultan's Firman—Prussia admitted to the Congress—Birth of the Prince Imperial—The Treaty signed—Its Terms—Bessarabia and the Principalities—The Three Conventions—The Treaty of Guarantee—Count Walewski's Four Subjects—The Declaration of Paris—International Arbitration mooted—The Kars Debate—Debates on the Peace—General Rejoicings—Cost of the War—First Presentation of the Victoria Cross [144]

[CHAPTER XI.]

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

Prorogation of 1853—End of the Kaffir and Burmese Wars—The Wages Movement—The Preston Strike—The Crystal Palace—Marriage of the Emperor of the French—His Visit to England—The Queen's Return Visit—Festivities in Paris—Lord Lyndhurst on Italy—Lord Clarendon's Reply—Similar Debate in the Commons—Withdrawal of the Western Missions from Naples—The Anglo-French Alliance—The Suez Canal—The Arrow Affair—Mr. Cobden's Resolution—Mr. Labouchere's Reply—Lord Palmerston's Speech—The Division—Announcement of a Dissolution—Retirement of Mr. Shaw-Lefevre—Lord Palmerston's Victory at the Polls—Mr. Denison elected Speaker—Betrothal of the Princess Royal—Abolition of "Ministers' Money"—The new Probate Court—The Divorce Bill in the Lords—The Bishop of Oxford's Amendments—Motions of Mr. Henley and Sir W. Heathcote—Major Warburton's Amendment—The Bill becomes Law—The Orsini Plot—Walewski's Despatch—The Conspiracy to Murder Bill—Debate on the Second Reading—Defeat of the Government—The Derby Ministry [160]

[CHAPTER XII.]

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

Condition of India—The Bengal Army—The Greased Cartridges—The Prudence of Hearsey—The Chupatties—Disarming of the 19th—Inactivity of Anson—The Sepoys at Lucknow—A Scene at Barrackpore—At Meerut—The Rebellion begins—The Rush on Delhi—The City is sacked—The Powder Magazine—It is exploded—The Fall of Delhi—Sir Henry Lawrence—Energetic Measures at Lahore—Mutiny at Ferozepore—Peshawur is saved—Action of the Civil Authorities—The Siege Train—Death of Anson—John Lawrence in the Punjab—Cotton disarms the Sepoys—The Trans-Indus Region is secure—Mutiny supreme elsewhere—Progress of the Rising—Lucknow—Oude ripe for Revolt—The first Outbreak suppressed—The Ranee of Jhansi—The Five Divisions of Oude [182]

[CHAPTER XIII.]

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

March of the British on Delhi—Battles on the Hindon—Wilson joins Barnard—Hodson reconnoitres Delhi—The Guides arrive—The Delhi Force in Position—An unfulfilled Prophecy—Lord Canning's Inaction—Lord Elphinstone's Discretion—Troops from Madras and Persia—Benares is saved—So is Allahabad—Cawnpore—Nana Sahib and Azimoolah—The Europeans in the Entrenchment—The Mutiny—Sufferings of the Garrison—Valour of the Defence—The Well—The Hospital catches Fire—Incidents of the Siege—Moore's Sortie—Nana Sahib's Letter—The Massacre at the Ghaut—Central India—Lawrence fortifies the Residency at Lucknow—The Death of Lawrence. [203]

[CHAPTER XIV.]

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

Havelock to the Front—Nana Sahib's Position—Cawnpore reoccupied—Nana Sahib's Vengeance—Havelock pushes on for Lucknow—End of Havelock's first Campaign—Lord Canning and Jung Bahadoor—Mutiny at Dinapore—Its Effects—Before Delhi—Attempt to surprise a Convoy—Death of Barnard—Wilson's Discipline—John Lawrence's Perplexities—Disarmament at Rawul Pindee and Jhelum—Mutiny at Sealkote—It is avenged by Nicholson—The Drama at Peshawur—Reinforcements for Delhi—Nicholson arrives—The Crisis in the Siege. [219]

[CHAPTER XV.]

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

Defect of the Delhi Fortifications—The British Advance—Nicholson's Column—The Cashmere Gate exploded—Nicholson mortally wounded—Failure at the Lahore Gate—The British possess the City—Capture of the King—The Princes shot—Effect of the Fall of Delhi—Greathed's Column—The Relief of Agra—Affairs at Lucknow—The Garrison—Character of the Attack—Explosion of Mines—Inglis's Report—Sir Colin Campbell at Calcutta—Havelock superseded by Outram—Position of Havelock's Army—Eyre's Exploits—Havelock crosses the Ganges—Combat of Mungulwar—Battle at the Alumbagh—The Plan of Attack—The Goal is reached—The Scene that Evening—Havelock's Losses—Outram determines to remain—Energy of the Indian Government—The Force at Cawnpore—Sir Colin to the Front—Kavanagh's daring Deed—Campbell retires on Cawnpore—Death of Havelock. [233]

[CHAPTER XVI.]

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

Windham at Cawnpore—Sir Colin Campbell to the Rescue—Battle of Cawnpore—Seaton advances from Delhi—His Campaign in the Doab—Hodson's Ride—Campbell at Futtehghur—Condition of Central India—Rose at Indore—Oude or Rohilcund?—Plans for the Reduction of Lucknow—Waiting for the Nepaulese—Campbell's final Advance—Outram crosses the Goomtee—Death of Hodson—The Fall of Lucknow—Lord Canning's Proclamation—The Conquest of Rohilcund—Nirput Singh's Resistance—Sir Colin marches on Bareilly—Battle of Bareilly—The Moulvie attacks Shahjehanpore—It is relieved by Brigadier John Jones—Sir Colin returns to Futtehghur—End of the Campaign. [255]

[CHAPTER XVII.]

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

The State of Central India—Objects of Rose's Campaign—The two Columns—Capture of Ratghur—Relief of Saugor—Capture of Gurrakota—Annexation of the Rajah of Shahghur's Territory—Capture of Chandaree—Rose arrives at Jhansi—The Ranee and Tantia Topee—Jhansi is stormed—Battles of Koonch and Calpee—Tantia Topee captures Gwalior—Smith and Rose rescue the Place—Lord Elphinstone's Proceedings—Flight of Tantia Topee—Lawrence in the Punjab—Banishment of the King of Delhi—The Subjugation of Oude—Hope Grant's Flying Column—Transference of the Government to the Crown—The Queen's Proclamation—Clyde enforces the Law—Disappearance of the Begum and Nana Sahib—The Country at Peace—The Last Adventures of Tantia Topee—Settlement of India—The Financial Question—The Indian Army—Increase of European Troops—The Native Levies—Abandonment of Dalhousie's Policy. [270]

[CHAPTER XVIII.]

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

Termination of the Hudson's Bay Monopoly—British Columbia and Vancouver—Mr. Locke King's Bill for the Abolition of the Property Qualification—Attempt to abolish Freedom of Arrest for Debt—Mr. Bright agitates for Reform—The Conservatives propose a Reform Bill—Mr. Disraeli's Speeches—Secession of Mr. Walpole and Mr. Henley—Lord John Russell's Resolution—Seven Nights' Debate—Replies of Lord Stanley and Sir Hugh Cairns—Mr. Bright's Speech—Speeches of Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Disraeli—Defeat of the Government—Lord Derby announces a Dissolution—The General Election—Parliament reassembles—Lord Hartington's Amendment—Defeat of the Government—Lord Malmesbury's Statement in his "Memoirs"—Union of the Liberal Party—Lord Granville's attempt to form a Ministry—Lord Palmerston becomes Premier—His Ministry—The Italian Question in Parliament—State of the Peninsula—Speeches of Napoleon and Victor Emmanuel—Ambiguous Attitude of Napoleon—Lord Malmesbury's Diplomacy—Lord Cowley's Mission—The Austrian Ultimatum—Malmesbury's Protest—"From the Alps to the Adriatic"—The Armies in Position—First Victories of the Allies—Magenta and Milan—Battle of Solferino—The Armistice—Treaty of Villafranca—Lord John Russell's Commentary. [287]

[CHAPTER XIX.]

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

The Peace of Zurich—Its Repudiation by Italy—The Idea of a Congress—Garibaldi in Central Italy—The Cession of Nice and Savoy—The Sicilian Expedition—Garibaldi lands at Marsala—Capture of Palermo—The Convention for Evacuation signed—Battle of Milazzo and Evacuation of Messina—Garibaldi master of Sicily—Attempts to prevent the Conquest of Naples—A Landing effected—The victorious March—Flight of the King—Garibaldi occupies Naples—He is warned off Venetia—The Sardinian Troops occupy the Papal States—Battle of the Volturno—Victor Emmanuel's Advance—His Meeting with Garibaldi—Accomplishment of Garibaldi's Programme—Refusal of his Demands—He retires to Caprera—Lord John Russell's Despatch. [303]

[CHAPTER XX.]

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

The Session of 1860—Debates on Nice and Savoy—Mr. Gladstone's Budget—The French Commercial Treaty—The Paper Duties Bill—Lord Palmerston's Motion of Inquiry—Mr. Gladstone's Resolution—Lord John Russell's Reform Bill—Mr. James Wilson and Sir Charles Trevelyan—The Defences of India and Great Britain—The Massacre by the Druses—The French Expedition—China once more—Repulse on the Peiho—Lord Elgin and Baron Gros—The Advance on Pekin—Capture of the Taku Forts—The Summer Palace looted—Release of Mr. Parkes—Lord Elgin decrees the Destruction of the Palace—The Treaty of Peace—The Prince of Wales in Canada—Death of the Duchess of Kent—The American Civil War—Election of Lincoln—Secession of South Carolina—The Confederate States—The British Cabinet declares Neutrality—Affair of the Trent—The Paper Duties Bill and the Church Rates Bill—Sidney Herbert and the Volunteers [310]

[CHAPTER XXI.]

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

The Queen's Visit to Ireland—The Royal Family at Balmoral—Illness and Death of the Prince Consort—The Address in Parliament—The Education Code—The American War in Parliament—The Nashville—The Blockade and the Cotton Famine—The Game Act—Palmerston and Cobden—Prorogation of Parliament—The Garotters—The Alabama—Mr. Adams and Earl Russell—The Alabama sails—Progress of the War in America—Greece and the Ionian Islands—The Society of Arts—The Exhibition of 1862—Jealousy of Prussia and France—The Colonial Exhibition—The Cotton Famine in 1863—Engagement and Marriage of the Prince of Wales—Mr. Gladstone's Budget—"Essays and Reviews"—Obituary of the Year—Russell and Gortschakoff—The Polish Revolution—Russell and Brazil—The Coercion of Japan—The American War in 1863—The Crown of Mexico offered to the Archduke Maximilian—Captain Speke in Central Africa [326]

[CHAPTER XXII.]

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

Peace and Prosperity in 1864—Birth of an Heir to the Prince of Wales—Mr. Gladstone's Budget—Mr. Stansfeld and Mazzini—The Government and the London Conference on the Danish Question—Mr. Gladstone on Parliamentary Reform—Resignation of Mr. Lowe—Lord Westbury on Convocation—Garibaldi's Visit to England—The Shakespeare Tercentenary—"Essays and Reviews" again—The Colenso Controversy—Mr. Disraeli and the Angels—The Fenians in Dublin—Origin of the Belfast Riots—The Ashantee War—The Maori War—Waitara Block and its consequences—Suppression of the Rebellion—Final Defeat of the Taepings—Bombardment of Simonasaki—The Cyclone at Calcutta—Its Ravages. [343]

[CHAPTER XXIII.]

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

The Schleswig-Holstein Question—The Nationalities of Denmark—The Connection between Schleswig and Denmark—The Declaration of 1846—Incorporation of Schleswig with Denmark—The Rebellion and its Suppression—The Protocol of London—Defects of the Arrangement—Danification of the Duchies—A Common Constitution decreed and revoked—The King's Proclamation—Schleswig incorporated in Denmark—Federal Execution voted—Russell's high-handed Diplomacy—Death of Frederick VII.—The Augustenburg Candidate—Austria and Prussia override the Diet—Russell's abortive Conference—The Austrian and Prussian Troops advance—Collapse of the Danes—Russell proposes an Armistice—Russell and M. Bille—France declines to interfere—Possibilities of Swedish and Russian Intervention—The Cabinet divided—An Armistice—A futile Conference—The War resumed—Fate of Denmark is sealed—To whom do the Spoils belong?—Summary of Events in Mexico and North America—Southern Filibusters in Canada—Their Acquittal at Montreal—Excitement in America—The Sentence reversed [353]

[CHAPTER XXIV.]

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

The National Prosperity in 1865—Debate on the Malt Tax—Remission of Fire Insurance Duty—Mr. Gladstone's Budget—The Army and Navy Estimates—Academic Discussions of large Questions—Mr. Lowe on Reform—The Union Changeability Bill—The New Law Courts Bill—Debate on University Tests—The Catholic Oaths Bill—Other Ecclesiastical Discussions—The Edmunds Scandal—Mr. Ward Hunt's Motion—Lord Westbury resigns—The General Election—The Rinderpest—The Fenian Conspiracy—Stephens the Head-Centre—His Arrest and Escape from Richmond Gaol—The Special Commission—Obituary of the Year—Lord Palmerston and Mr. Cobden [363]

[CHAPTER XXV.]

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

The Quietness of Europe—Debate on Poland—The English Prisoners in Abyssinia—Mr. Newdegate and the Encyclical—Visit of the French Fleet—Conclusion of the American War—The Death of Lincoln—Inflated Prosperity of India—The Canadian Defences—The Maori War continues—Mr. Cardwell's Policy—The Jamaica Rebellion—Gordon is hanged—The total of Deaths—Excitement in England—The Jamaica Committee—Eyre committed for Trial—The Chief Justice's Charge—The Bill thrown out—Recovery of Jamaica—Reform again—The Bill of '66—Mr. Gladstone's Speech—Mr. Lowe and Mr. Horsman—"The Cave"—Lord Grosvenor's Amendment—The Government perseveres—The Redistribution Bill—Its Details—Mr. Bouverie's Amendment—It is accepted—Captain Hayter's Amendment—Mr. Disraeli's Strategy—Lord Stanley's Attack—Mr. Walpole's Amendment—Amendments of Mr. Hunt and Lord Dunkellin—Gross Yearly Rental and Rateable Value—The Debate on the Dunkellin Proposal—Defeat of the Government—Their Resignation—Mr. Gladstone's Statement—Earl Russell and the Queen—Lord Derby's Conservative Ministry—The Refusals—Mr. Disraeli's Election Speech—Peace in Parliament—Indian Finance—The Hyde Park Meeting—The Queen's Speech and the Rinderpest [378]

[CHAPTER XXVI.]

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

The Cholera—Laying of the Atlantic Cable—Reform Demonstrations—Mr. Bright and the Queen—The Government prepares a Bill—"Black Friday"—The Overend and Gurney Failure—Limited Liability—Royal Marriages—Prize-Money—The Loss of the London—A bad Harvest—The Fenian Trials—Lord Wodehouse's Letter—Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act—Rapid Legislation—Wholesale Arrests—Renewal of the Act—Lord Kimberley's Speech—Sweeny and Stephens—The Niagara Raid—Whewell and Keble [406]

[CHAPTER XXVII.]

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

The Schleswig-Holstein Difficulty—Austria favours a Settlement—Bismarck's Terms rejected—His high-handed Proceedings—Convention of Gastein—Bismarck at Biarritz—The Italian Treaty—Question of Disarmament—Fresh Austrian Proposals—Bismarck advocates Federal Reform—La Marmora's Perplexity—He abides by Prussia—Efforts of the Neutral Powers—Failure of the projected Congress—Rupture of the Gastein Convention—The War begins—The rival Strengths—Distribution of the Prussian Armies—Collapse of the Resistance in North Germany—Occupation of Dresden—The Advance of the Prussian Armies—Battle of Königgratz—Cession of Venetia—Italian Reverses—The South German Campaign—Occupation of Frankfort—The Defence of Vienna—French Mediation—The Preliminaries of Nikolsburg—Treaty of Prague—Conditions awarded to Bavaria and the Southern States—The Secret Treaties—Their Disclosure—Humiliation of the French Emperor—His pretended Indifference [418]

[CHAPTER XXVIII.]

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

Parliamentary Reform—Mr. Disraeli's Resolutions—Mr. Lowe's Sarcasms—The "Ten Minutes" Bill—Lord John Manners' Letter—Ministerial Resignations—Mr. Disraeli's Statement—The Compound Householder—The Fancy Franchises—Mr. Gladstone's Exposure—Mr. Lowe and Lord Cranborne—The Spirit of Concession—Mr. Gladstone on the Second Reading—Mr. Gathorne Hardy's Speech—Mr. Bright and Mr. Disraeli—The Dual Vote abandoned—Mr. Coleridge's Instruction—The Tea-Room Cabal—Mr. Gladstone's Amendment—His other Amendments withdrawn—Mr. Hodgkinson's Amendment—Mr. Disraeli's coup de théâtre—Mr. Lowe's Philippic—The County Franchise—The Redistribution Bill—Objections to It—The Boundaries—Lord Cranborne and Mr. Lowe—Mr. Disraeli's Audacity—The Bill in the Lords—Four Amendments—Lord Cairns's Minorities Amendment—The Bill becomes Law—The "Leap in the Dark"—Punch on the Situation—The Scottish Reform Bill—Prolongation of the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act—Irish Debates—Oaths and Offices Bill—Mr. Bruce's Education Bill—The "Gang System"—Meetings in Hyde Park—Mr. Walpole's Proclamation and Resignation—Attempted Attack on Chester Castle—Attack on the Police Van at Manchester—Explosion at Clerkenwell Prison—Trades Union Outrages at Sheffield—The Buckinghamshire Labourers—The French Evacuation of Mexico—The Luxemburg Question—The Austrian Compromise—Creation of the Dual Monarchy—The Abyssinian Expedition—A Mislaid Letter [433]

[CHAPTER XXIX.]

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

More Coercion for Ireland—The Scottish Reform Bill—The Church Rates Bill—Mr. Disraeli succeeds Lord Derby—Reunion of the Liberals—The Irish Reform Bill—Mr. Gladstone's Irish Church Resolutions—Maynooth Grant and the Regium Donum—The Suspensory Bill—Lord Stanley's Foreign Policy—General Election—Mr. Gladstone's Ministry—Martin v. Mackonochie—Obituary of the Year—Lord Brougham, Archbishop Longley, and Others—The Abyssinian War—Rise of Theodore—The unanswered Letter—Theodore's Retaliation—Mr. Rassam's Mission—His Interview with Theodore—The King's Charges against Cameron—Dr. Beke's Letter—Rassam's Arrest—Mr. Flad's Journey—The Captives' Treatment—Merewether's Advice—Lord Stanley's Ultimatum—Constitution of Sir R. Napier's Expedition—Friendliness of the Natives—Attitude of the Chiefs—Proceedings of Theodore—Massacre of Prisoners—Advance on Magdala—Destruction of Theodore's Army—Negotiations with Theodore—Release of the Prisoners—A Present of Cows—Bombardment of Magdala—Suicide of Theodore—The Return March—The "Mountains of Rasselas"—Sketch of Continental Affairs [464]

[CHAPTER XXX.]

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

England in 1869—The Irish Church Difficulty—Mr. Gladstone unfolds his Scheme—Debate on the Second Reading—A Bumper Majority—The Bill passes through the House of Commons—Lord Redesdale and the Coronation Oath—The Opposition in the Lords—Dr. Magee's Speech—Amendments in Committee—Concurrent Endowment—Danger of a Collision between the Houses—The Queen and Archbishop Tait—Conference between Lord Cairns and Lord Granville—Their Compromise—Its Terms accepted by Mr. Gladstone—The Bill becomes Law [493]

[CHAPTER XXXI.]

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

Mr Lowe's Budget—The Surplus disappears—Mr. Lowe creates a Surplus and proposes Remissions of Taxes—Cost of the Abyssinian Expedition—Sir Stafford Northcote's Explanation—The Endowed Schools' Bill—Speech of Mr. Forster—The Commissioners—Religious Tests at the Universities—Sir John Coleridge's Bill—Sir Roundell Palmer's Speech—The Bill passes through the Commons—It is rejected by the Lords—The Mayor of Cork—The O'Sullivan Disability Bill—Mr O'Sullivan resigns—The Bill dropped—Life Peerages—Lord Malmesbury's Speech—Fenianism in Ireland—Deaths of Lord Derby and Lord Gough—European Affairs: the Emperor prophesies Peace—The General Election—The Senatus Consultum—Official Candidates—The Revolution in Spain—Wanted a King—General Grant the President of the United States—The Alabama Convention rejected [507]

[CHAPTER XXXII.]

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

Law-making in 1870—The Queen's Speech—The Irish Land Problem—Diversities of Opinions—The Agrarian Agitation—Mr. Gladstone's Land Bill introduced—Its Five Parts—Grievances of the Irish Tenant—Free Contract—The Ulster Custom—Compensation for Eviction—The Landlord's Safeguards—The Irish Labourer—Mr Gladstone's Peroration—Direct and Indirect Opposition—The Second Reading carried—Agrarian Outrages—Mr. Fortescue's Coercion Bill—Mr. Disraeli's Amendment to the Land Bill—A Clever Speech—Mr. Lowe's Reply—Progress of the Debate—The Bill becomes Law [518]

[CHAPTER XXXIII.]

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

The Elementary Education Bill—Mr. Forster's Speech—Mr. Dixon's Amendment—Mr. Forster's Reply—Mr. Winterbotham's Speech and the Churchmen—Partial Concessions—Changes in the Bill—It becomes Law—Outrage in Greece—Seizure of Tourists by Greek Brigands—Murder of the Prisoners—Army and Navy Estimates—The Budget—Disaster in the Eastern Seas—Obituary of the Year [529]

[CHAPTER XXXIV.]

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

France in 1870—The Ollivier Ministry—Lull in European Affairs—The Hohenzollern Incident—Benedetti at Ems—His Second Interview with King William—War declared at Paris—Efforts of the British Government—Bismarck divulges a supposed Franco-German Treaty—Benedetti's Explanation—Earl Russell's Speech—Belgian Neutrality guaranteed—Unpreparedness of the French Army—The Emperor's Plans—Saarbrück—Weissenburg—The Emperor partially resigns Command—Wörth—MacMahon at Châlons—Spicheren—The Palikao Ministry—Bazaine Generalissimo—Battle of Borny—Mars-la-Tour—Gravelotte—English Associations for the Sick and Wounded—Palikao's Plan—MacMahon's Hesitation—De Failly's Defeat—MacMahon resolves to Fight—Sedan—The Surrender—Napoleon and his Captors—Receipt of the News in Paris—Impetuosity of Jules Favre—A Midnight Sitting—Jules Favre's Plan—Palikao's Alternative—Fall of the Empire—The Government of National Defence—Suppression of the Corps Législatif—The Neutral Powers: Great Britain, Austria, and Italy [548]

[CHAPTER XXXV.]

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

The Vatican Council—The Doctrine of Papal Infallibility—Victor Emmanuel determines on the Occupation of Rome—The Popular Vote—The Papal Guarantees—The Spanish Throne—The Savoy Candidature—Death of Prim—Paris after the Revolution of September—Jules Favre's Circular—Bismarck's Reply—The Negotiations at Ferrières—The Fortifications of Paris—The Investment completed—Thiers and Gambetta—Fall of Strasburg—Bazaine in Metz—Regnier's Intrigue—The Army of Metz capitulates—Thiers negotiates in vain—The Army of the Loire—D'Aurelle de Paladines reoccupies Orleans—Chanzy's Defeat and Recapture of Orleans—The Second Army of the Loire—Garibaldi in the East—The New Year in Paris—Dispositions of the German Armies—Battle of Amiens—Faídherbe's Campaign—Bapaume—St. Quentin—An Unpleasant Incident—Le Mans—The Bombardment of Paris—The Armistice—Termination of the Siege—Bourbaki's Attempt—Action at Villersexel—The Eastern Army crosses the Swiss Frontier—The National Assembly at Bordeaux—Prolongation of the Armistice—Resignation of Gambetta—Preliminaries of Peace—Occupation of Paris—Acceptance of the Preliminaries—The Definitive Treaty—German Unity [571]

[CHAPTER XXXVI.]

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

Army Reform—Mr. Trevelyan's Agitation—The Abolition of Purchase—Mr. Cardwell's Bill—History of Purchase—Military Opposition in the Commons—Rejection of the Bill by the House of Lords—Abolition of Purchase by Royal Warrant—Indignation in Parliament—The cost of Compensation—Mr. Lowe's Budget—The Match-Tax—Its withdrawal—Mr. Goschen succeeds Mr. Childers—The Ballot Bill—The Epping Forest Bill—Rejected Measures—The Religious Tests Bill—Marriage of the Princess Louise—Sir Charles Dilke's Lecture—The real State of the Civil List—Illness of the Prince of Wales—Crises of the Disease—The Prayers of the Nation—The Thanksgiving Service—Unpopularity of the Government—The 25th Clause—Landing of the ex-Emperor of the French—Resignation of Speaker Denison—Riot in Dublin—The Home Rule Movement—Mr. Gladstone at Aberdeen—Assassination of Mr. Justice Norman—Australian Federation—Russia repudiates the Black Sea Clauses—Lord Granville's Despatch—Prince Gortschakoff's Reply—A Conference suggested—Meeting of the Plenipotentiaries—Their Deliberations—Settlement of the Difficulty—Obituary of the Year—Sir John Burgoyne, Lord Ellenborough, Grote, Sir William Denison, and others [595]

[INDEX] [609]

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

[LIST OF PLATES]

Reproduced by André & Sleigh, Ltd., Bushey, Herts.

WINDSOR CASTLE.

FROM A WATER-COLOUR PAINTING BY ALFRED W. HUNT R.W.S. IN THE NATIONAL GALLERY OF BRITISH ART.

[[See larger version]]

THE CRYSTAL PALACE IN HYDE PARK, LONDON, 1851

CASSELL'S
ILLUSTRATED HISTORY OF ENGLAND.

——♦♦♦——

CHAPTER I.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

The Papal Aggressions—The Durham Letter—Meeting of Parliament—The Ecclesiastical Titles Bill—Debate on the Second Reading—Amendments in Committee—The Bill in the Lords—Mr. Locke King's Motion on County Franchise—Resignation of the Government—The Great Exhibition—Banquet at York—Opening of the Exhibition—Success of the Project—The President of the French Republic and the Assembly—Preparations for the Coup d'État—The Army gained—Dissolution of the Assembly—Expulsion of the Assembly—Their Imprisonment—The High Court of Justice—The Barricades—St. Arnaud and Maupas—The Plébiscite—Weakness of the Russell Administration—Independence of Lord Palmerston—The Queen's Memorandum—Dismissal of Palmerston—The Militia Bill—Russell is turned out—The Derby Ministry—Its Measures—The General Election—An Autumn Session—Defeat of the Conservatives—Death and Funeral of the Duke of Wellington—The Aberdeen Administration—Mr. Gladstone's Budget—The Eastern Question again—The Diplomatic Wrangle—The Sultan's Firman—Afif Bey's Mission—Difficulties in Montenegro—England and France—Attempts to effect direct Negotiations—The Menschikoff Mission—Lord Stratford de Redcliffe's Instructions—The Czar and Sir Hamilton Seymour—Menschikoff at Constantinople—The English and French Fleets—Arrival of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe—The Difficulty settled—Menschikoff's ulterior Demands—Action of the Powers.

FROM the Revolution of 1688, when the Roman Catholic hierarchy was abolished with the arbitrary power of James II., the government of the Roman Catholic clergy was maintained in England by "vicars apostolic." England was divided into four vicariates, and this state of things continued until 1840, when Gregory XVI. ordained a new ecclesiastical division of England, doubling the number of vicariates, which were thenceforward named the London, the Western, the Eastern, the Central, the Welsh, the Lancastrian, the York, and the Northern districts. In consequence of the increase of Roman Catholics in Great Britain, and the removal of their civil disabilities by the Emancipation Act, a desire grew up for the re-organisation of the regular episcopal system of the Church of Rome, and Pius IX. resolved to establish it in 1850. England and Wales were divided by a Papal brief into twelve sees; one of them, Westminster, was erected into an Archbishopric, and Dr. Wiseman, soon afterwards created a Cardinal, was appointed to it.

Perhaps there never was a document published in England that caused so much excitement as this pastoral letter; nor was society ever more violently agitated by any religious question since the Reformation. The pastoral provoked from Lord John Russell a counterblast in the shape of a letter to the Bishop of Durham, in which he gave deep offence to the Roman Catholics by stating that "the Roman Catholic religion confines the intellect and enslaves the soul." The Protestant feeling in the country was excited in the highest degree. The press was full of the "Papal aggressions." Meetings were held upon it in almost every town in the United Kingdom. It was alluded to in the Speech from the Throne, and during the Sessions of 1851 and 1852 it occupied a great portion of the time and attention of Parliament.

In both Houses of Parliament this topic occupied a prominent place in the debates on the Address, and on the 7th of February, 1851, the Prime Minister introduced his Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, which prevented the assumption of such titles in respect of places in the United Kingdom. He referred, in connection with the subject, to recent occurrences in Ireland. Dr. Cullen, who had spent most of his life at Rome, had been appointed Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of all Ireland, though his name had not been returned by the parish priests of the diocese, who were accustomed to elect three of their number to be submitted to the Pope as dignus, dignior, dignissimus. He was afterwards transferred to Dublin as the more influential post, with the powers of legate, which placed him at the head of the hierarchy. Then there was the Synod of Thurles, which condemned the Queen's Colleges, and interfered with the land question, and other temporal matters. He argued from the terms of the Pope's Bull that there was an assumption of territorial power of which our Roman Catholic ancestors were always jealous.

The Bill was vehemently opposed by the Irish Roman Catholic members. Mr. Bright and Mr. Disraeli also opposed the measure, which was supported by the Attorney-General, Lord Ashley, Mr. Page Wood, and Sir George Grey. Several other members having spoken for and against the Bill, its introduction was carried by the overwhelming majority of 395 to 63.

Various alterations were subsequently made in the Bill, to prevent its interfering unnecessarily with the Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland. The second reading was moved on the 14th of March. Mr. Cardwell refused his assent to the second reading, believing that, by supporting the measure, he would affront Protestant England, and do much to render Ireland ungovernable. Lord Palmerston supported the Bill, because churches were like corporate bodies, encroaching; because it would supply an omission in the Act of 1829; and as the Church of Rome obeyed that Act, she would also obey this. Sir James Graham, on the contrary, expressed his conviction that the passing of this Bill would be a repeal of the Emancipation Act, and then the Dissenters must look about them. Mr. Gladstone ably criticised the Bill, and concluded as follows:—"For three hundred years the Roman Catholic laity and secular clergy—the moderate party—had been struggling, with the sanction of the British Government, for this very measure, the appointment of diocesan bishops, which the extreme party—the regulars and cardinals at the Court of Rome—had been all along struggling to resist. The present legislation would drive the Roman Catholics back upon the Pope, and, teasing them with a miniature penal law, would alienate and estrange them. Religious freedom was a principle which had not been adopted in haste, and had not triumphed till after half a century of agonising struggles; and he trusted we were not now going to repeat Penelope's process without her purpose, and undo a great work which had been accomplished with so much difficulty." Mr. Disraeli expressed his sentiments, and those of his party, upon the general question and the particular measure. He denied that the Pope was without power. He was a prince of very great, if not the greatest power, his army being a million of priests; and was such a power to be treated as a Wesleyan Conference, or like an association of Scottish Dissenters? Sir George Grey having replied to the objections of Mr. Gladstone and others, the House divided, when the second reading was carried by a still greater majority than the first, the numbers being—for the bill, 438; against it, 95; majority 343.

Considering that Sir James Graham, Mr. Gladstone, and all the leading Peelites, as well as Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Bright, and the advanced Liberals, joined the Roman Catholics on this occasion, the minority was surprisingly small, showing how deep and wide-spread was the national feeling evoked by the Papal aggressions. Several amendments were moved in committee; but they were nearly all rejected by large majorities. On the 27th of June Sir F. Thesiger proposed certain amendments with a view of rendering the measure more stringent, when about 70 Roman Catholic members retired from the House in a body. Lord John Russell, alluding to this "significant and ostentatious retirement," said it would not save them from the responsibility, as it would cause the passing of the amendments. They were accordingly carried against the Government. On the 4th of July, the day fixed for the third reading, Lord John Russell moved that those amendments should be struck out. One of them was that it should be penal to publish the Pope's Bulls, as well as to assume territorial titles; and another to enable common informers to sue for penalties. There was a division on each of these clauses. The question was then put by the Speaker, "that this Bill do now pass." Another long debate was expected; but no one rising, the division was abruptly taken, with the following result:—For the third reading, 263; against it, 46: majority, 217.

On the 21st of July the Bill was introduced by the Marquis of Lansdowne, into the Upper House. The debate there was chiefly remarkable for the speech of Lord Beaumont, a Roman Catholic peer, who gave his earnest support to the Bill as a great national protest, which the necessity of the case had rendered unavoidable. The Duke of Wellington remarked that "the Pope had appointed an Archbishop of Westminster; had attempted to exercise authority over the very spot on which the English Parliament was assembled. And under the sanction of this proceeding, Cardinal Wiseman made an attack upon the rights of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster. That this was contrary to the true spirit of the laws of England, no man acquainted with them could doubt, for throughout the whole of our statutes affecting religion we had carefully abstained from disturbing the great principles of the Reformation." Lord Lyndhurst supported the Bill in an elaborate and able speech. The second reading was carried in this House also by an overwhelming majority, the numbers being—for the bill, 265; against it, 38. On the 29th of July it was read a third time and passed, and shortly afterwards received the Royal Assent, after occupying nearly the whole of the Session. So far as the assumption of titles and the actual establishment and working of the Roman Catholic hierarchy were concerned, the Act undoubtedly proved a dead letter; but it is not to be inferred from this fact that it did not substantially answer its purpose in materially restraining aggression and keeping our jurisprudence clear of the Roman canon law. Cardinal Wiseman and his suffragans in England, on the whole, pursued a moderate and conciliatory course. But a very different course might have been pursued had not the national feeling been so strongly expressed, and been legally embodied in the Ecclesiastical Titles Act.

Lord John Russell's Administration had been for some time in a tottering state. Early in the Session of 1851 the Government was defeated on a motion by Mr. Locke King, for leave to bring in a Bill to make the franchise in counties in England and Wales the same as in boroughs; that is, the occupation of a tenement of the annual value of £10. The motion was carried against the Government by a majority of forty-eight. The Budget came on shortly afterwards, and gave so much dissatisfaction, that there was a general conviction that the Cabinet could not hold together much longer. It was felt that the times required a strong Government; but this had become gradually one of the weakest. The announcement of its resignation, therefore, excited no surprise; but the anxiety to learn what would be the new Ministerial arrangements was evinced by the crowded state of the House of Commons on Friday, the 21st of February. On the order for going into Committee of Ways and Means being read, the Prime Minister rose and requested that it might be postponed till the 24th. On the 24th both Houses were full. In the Upper House, Lord Lansdowne stated that in consequence of divisions which had recently taken place in the House of Commons, the Ministers had unanimously resigned; that Lord Stanley had been sent for by the Queen, and a proposal was made to him to construct a Government, for which he was not then prepared. Lord Stanley gave an account of his gracious reception by her Majesty, but reserved his reasons for declining to undertake the task. In the Lower House, on the same evening, Lord John Russell stated that her Majesty had sent for Lord Stanley, who had declined to form an Administration, and that her Majesty had then asked him to undertake the task of reconstructing one, which he said he had agreed to do. He asked the House to adjourn to the 28th, and when that day arrived, matters were still in a state of confusion. Lord John Russell had failed to reconstruct his Cabinet; Lord Aberdeen and Sir James Graham had refused to concur in forming an Administration. Lord Stanley had also failed in a similar attempt, owing, according to Lord Malmesbury's "Recollections of an Ex-Minister," to the feeble counsels of Mr. Henley and Mr. Herries. From explanations given by Lord Aberdeen, Lord Stanley, Sir James Graham, and Lord John Russell himself, it appeared that the attempts to reconstruct the Cabinet, or to form a new one, arose from two difficulties in the way of any coalition between the leaders of existing parties—Free Trade, and the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. There could be no union between the Whigs and the Peelites on account of the latter, nor between the Peelites and the Protectionists on account of the former. Lord Stanley remarked that the Peelites, with all their ability and official aptitude, seemed to exercise their talents solely to render any Ministry impossible. A purely Protectionist Administration was out of the question, as it would have to contend against a large majority in the House of Commons. In this dilemma the Queen sent for the Duke of Wellington, and he advised her Majesty that the best course she could adopt in the circumstances was to recall her late advisers; and Lord John Russell's Cabinet resumed their offices accordingly in exactly the same position that they had been before the resignation.

The year 1851 will be for ever memorable by reason of the Great Exhibition in Hyde Park. The idea is generally said to have originated with Prince Albert, who took a lively interest in everything that tended to promote industrial progress and to improve the public taste. As President of the Society of Arts, his attention had been attracted to the Exposition at Paris, under the guidance of the Minister of the Department of Commerce and Industry; and his Royal Highness thought that a similar exhibition in London, open to competitors from all nations, would be useful in a variety of ways, especially in uniting together the people of various countries by the bonds of mutual interest and sympathy. The proposal, from whatever source it originated, was embraced with alacrity by the British public. On the 21st of March, 1850, the Lord Mayor of London gave a splendid banquet at the Mansion House to the chief magistrates of the cities, towns, and boroughs of the United Kingdom, to stimulate their combined interest in the proposed Exhibition. The banquet over, his Royal Highness addressed the guests in an admirable speech, in which the tendencies of the age, the modern developments of art and science, the rapid intercommunication of thought, all realising the unity of mankind, were strikingly presented. The Ministers, past and present, the foreign ambassadors, prelates, and peers, vied with each other in expressing the high value they attributed to the design for the Exhibition.

A similar banquet was given by the Lord Mayor of York, when the Prince Consort and the Lord Mayor of London, the Prime Minister, the Earl of Carlisle, and many of the nobility were present. The Archbishop of York and the High Sheriff of Yorkshire headed the provincial guests, while the Lord Provost of Edinburgh and the Lord Provost of Glasgow appeared as the chiefs of the municipal magistrates. The ancient capital of the north of England brought forth upon that occasion a gorgeous display of historical memorials. There was a collection of maces, State swords, and various civic insignia belonging to corporate bodies, wreathed with flowers and evergreens through which gleamed the bosses and incrustations of gold on the maces that had been wielded by generations of mayors, with the velvet shields and gaudy mountings of gigantic swords of State. Among the ornaments appeared the jewel-bestudded mace of Norwich, presented by Queen Elizabeth. York, on this occasion, surpassed the City of London in the splendour of the banquet. The Prince, in returning thanks for his health, paid a well-turned tribute to the memory of Sir Robert Peel.

A Royal Commission was appointed to manage the Exhibition. Hyde Park in London was fixed upon as the most appropriate site for the building, and Mr. Paxton, head-gardener to the Duke of Devonshire, though not an architect, furnished the plan of the Crystal Palace, as the Exhibition building was called. It was chiefly composed of iron and glass, being 1,848 feet long, 408 feet broad, and 66 feet high, crossed by a transept 108 feet high and also 408 feet in length, for the purpose of enclosing and encasing a grove of noble elms. Within, the nave presented a clear, unobstructed avenue, from one end of the building to the other, 72 feet in span, and 64 feet in height. On each side were aisles 64 feet wide, horizontally divided into galleries, which ran round the whole of the nave and transept. The wings exterior to the centre or nave on each side had also galleries of the same height, the wings themselves being broken up into a series of courts, each 48 feet wide. The Palace was within 10 feet of being twice the width of St. Paul's and four times the length. The number of columns used in the entire edifice was 3,230. There were 34 miles of gutters for carrying off the rain-water to the columns, which were hollow, and served as water-pipes, 202 miles of sash bars, and 900,000 superficial feet of glass, weighing upwards of 400 tons. The building covered about 18 acres of ground, and with the galleries gave an exhibiting surface of 21 acres, with 8 miles of tables for laying out goods.

PRINCE ALBERT.

(From a photograph by Mayall and Co., Limited.)

The plan was accepted on the 26th of July, 1850; and Messrs. Fox, Henderson, and Co. became the contractors, for the sum of £79,800, if the materials should remain their property, they being at the expense of removal; or £150,000 if the materials became the property of the Commissioners. It actually cost £176,030. The first column was fixed on the 26th of September, 1850; the contract to deliver over the building complete to the Commissioners on the 31st of December was virtually performed; and on the 1st of January, 1851, the Commissioners occupied the vast space with their carpenters, painters, and various artisans. The Crystal Palace excited universal admiration, from the wonderful combination of vastness and beauty, from its immense magnitude united with lightness, symmetry, and grace, as well as admirable adaptation to its purpose. And when it was fully furnished and open to the public, on the 1st of May, 1851, the visitor felt as if he had entered a fairy-like scene of enchantment, a palace of beauty and delight, such as one might suppose mortal hands could not create. The effect on the beholder far surpassed all that its most sanguine projectors could have anticipated.

The scene was impressive on the opening on that beautiful May morning by the Queen and Prince Albert, followed in procession through the building by a long train of courtiers, Ministers of State, foreign ambassadors, and civic dignitaries; while the sun shone brightly through the glass roof upon trees, flowers, banners, and the picturesque costumes of all nations, the great organ at the same time pealing gloriously through the vast expanse, which was filled by a dense mass of human beings, representing the grandeur, wealth, beauty, intelligence, and enterprise of the civilised world. The number of exhibitors exceeded 17,000, of whom upwards of 3,000 received medals. It continued open from the 1st of May till the 15th of October, altogether 144 days, during which it was visited by 6,170,000 persons, giving an average daily attendance of 42,847. The greatest number in one day (October 8th) was 109,760. The greatest number in the Palace at any one time was 93,000, which surpassed in magnitude any number ever assembled together under one roof in the history of the world. The charges for admission were half-a-crown on particular days, and one shilling on ordinary days. The receipts, including season tickets, amounted to £505,107, leaving a surplus of about £150,000, after paying all expenses; so that the Exhibition was in every sense pre-eminently successful. However, it did not, as was anticipated, inaugurate an era of peace.

We have already seen that Louis Napoleon, when President of the French Republic, solemnly and vehemently vowed to maintain the Constitution. These vows were repeated from time to time in his speeches and declarations, which he was always ready to volunteer. The National Assembly, however, had suspected him for some time to be entertaining treasonable designs, and plotting the ruin of the republic. One of the symptoms of this state of mind was found in the rumours propagated in France about the failure of Parliamentary government, and the designs of the Red Republicans. In this way vague fears were generated that another bloody revolution was impending, and that, in order to save the State, it was necessary to have a strong Government. In fact, the conviction somehow gained ground that a monarchical régime was the best fitted for France. The army was probably inclined the same way. The first thing the President did, of course, was to sound its disposition, and ascertain how far he might be able to wield its irresistible power against the liberties of his country. But however the soldiers might be disposed to aid his designs, it was well known that its generals would not allow a shot to be fired without orders from the Minister of War; and the man who held that post was not a character likely to lend himself as the instrument of a treasonable plot. Louis Napoleon therefore found it necessary to enlist others in his service. The principal of these were daring and needy adventurers, namely—his half-brother M. de Morny, a great speculator in shares; Major Fleury, a young officer who had squandered his fortune in dissipation, entered the army as a common soldier, and risen from the ranks; St. Arnaud, an Algerian officer; M. Maupas, who had been a prefect, and had been guilty of conspiracy to destroy innocent persons by a false accusation of treason; and Persigny, alias Fialin, who had entered the army as a non-commissioned officer. St. Arnaud was made Minister of War, and Maupas Prefect of Police. General Magnan, the Commander-in-Chief of the army at Paris, readily entered into the plot which was originally fixed for September but postponed on the advice of Fleury. On the 27th of November 1851 he invited twenty generals who were under his command to meet at his house. There they matured their plans, and after vows of mutual fidelity, they solemnly embraced one another. In the meantime the common soldiers were pampered with food and wine, stimulated by flattery and exasperated by falsehood against the "Bedouins" of Paris. On Monday night, the 1st of December, the President had an assembly at the Elysée, which included Ministers and others who were totally ignorant of the plot. The company departed at the usual hour, and at eleven o'clock only three of the guests remained—Morny, who had shown himself at one of the theatres, Maupas, and St. Arnaud.

Meanwhile the State printing-office was surrounded by gendarmerie, and the compositors were all made prisoners, and compelled to print a number of documents which had been sent from the President. These were several decrees, which appeared on the walls of Paris at daybreak next morning, to the utter astonishment of the population. They read in them that the National Assembly was dissolved, that the Council of State was dissolved and that universal suffrage was re-established. They read an attack upon the Assembly, in which it was charged with forging arms for civil war, with provocations, calumnies, and outrages against the President. These things were said to be done by the men who had already destroyed two monarchies, and who wanted to overthrow the republic; but he, Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, would baffle their perfidious projects. He submitted to them, therefore, a plan of a new Constitution: a responsible chief, named for ten years, Ministers dependent on the executive alone, a Council of State, a Legislative Corps, a Second Chamber. There was also an appeal to the army, which told the soldiers to be proud of their mission, for they were to save their country, and to obey him, the legitimate representative of the national sovereignty.

At half-past six o'clock in the morning M. de Morny took possession of the Ministry of the Interior. The army and the police were distributed through the town and had all received their respective orders. Among these were the arrest of seventy-eight persons, of whom eighteen were representatives and sixty alleged chiefs of secret societies and barricades. All these arrests were effected accordingly. At the appointed minute, and while it was still dark, the designated houses were entered. The most famous generals of France were seized and dragged forth from their beds—Changarnier, Bedeau, Lamoricière, Cavaignac, Leflo—all were placed in carriages, ready at their doors to receive them, and conveyed to prison through the sleeping city. Precisely at the same moment the chief members and officers of the Assembly shared the same fate.

All the trusted chiefs and guides of the people being thus disposed of, De Morny from the Home Office touched the chords of centralisation, and conveyed to every village in France the unbounded enthusiasm with which the still sleeping city had hailed the joyful news of the revolution which had been effected. When the free members of the Assembly heard of the arrest of their brethren, they ran to the Hôtel de Ville, the entrance of which was guarded. Those who had got in by a private passage were rudely expelled, some of them being violently struck by the soldiers. They then reassembled at the Mairie of the 10th Arrondissement, at which they passed a resolution depriving Louis Napoleon of authority, but the Chamber was not long permitted to deliberate in peace. Two commissaries of police soon entered, and summoned the representatives to disperse. "Retire," said the President. After some hesitation the commissaries seized the President by the collar, and dragged him forth. The whole body then rose, 220 in number, and declaring that they yielded to force, walked out, two and two, between files of soldiery. In this way they were marched through the street, into the Quai d'Orsay, where they were shut up in the barracks, without any accommodation for their comfort. During the day eleven more deputies were brought to the barracks, three of whom came for the express purpose of being incarcerated with their brethren. After being left for hours on a winter's evening in the open air, the Assembly were driven into the barrack rooms upstairs, where they were left without fire, almost without food, and were obliged to lie upon the bare boards. At ten o'clock most of the 220 members of Parliament were thrust into large prison vans, like felons, and were carried off, some to the fort of Mont Valérien, some to the fortress of Vincennes, and some to the prison of Mazas. Before dawn on the 3rd of December, all the leading statesmen and great generals of France, all the men who made her name respected abroad, were lying in prison.

The High Court of Justice met on the 2nd of December, and having referred to the placards that had been issued that morning, made provision for the impeachment of Louis Napoleon and his fellow-conspirators. But while the court was sitting, an armed force entered the hall, and drove the judges from the bench. Before they were thrust out, they adjourned the court to "a day to be named hereafter," and they ordered a notice of impeachment to be served upon the President at the Elysée.

These astounding acts did not produce the alarm that might have been expected. Hitherto Louis Napoleon was not regarded with terror, as the inscrutable and the unpitying, but rather with a feeling of contempt and derision by the citizens of Paris. But the citizens had been disarmed; the leaders of the Faubourgs had been carried off by the police. In the absence of such leaders, the members of the Assembly who happened to be at large called upon the people to resist the usurpers. During the night of the 3rd, therefore, barricades were rapidly erected along the streets which lay between the Hôtel de Ville and the Boulevards Montmartre and des Italiens. But the troops were ready for action, 48,000 strong, including cavalry, infantry, artillery, engineers, and gendarmes. They had been supplied with rations, wine, and spirits in abundance. They had been ordered to give no quarter, either to combatants or to bystanders; but to clear the streets at any cost. Magnan's conscience, however, caused him to hesitate long, and was on the point of making a coward of him. There was a small barricade which crossed the boulevard close to the Gymnase Theatre, which was occupied by a small advanced guard of the insurgents; and facing this, fifty yards off, was an immense column of troops, which occupied all the boulevard, and also the whole way to the Madeleine. The windows and balconies along the line were filled with ladies and gentlemen gazing at the grand military spectacle, which seemed only to be a demonstration to overawe the disaffected, there being no visible enemy to contend with.

Suddenly a few musket shots were fired at the head of the column. The troops returned the fire so regularly that it seemed at first a feu-de-joie. The column advanced, still firing, and to the utter consternation of the spectators, the shots were directed at the windows and balconies, shivering the panes of glass, smashing the mirrors, rending the curtains, and rattling against the walls. This continued for a quarter of an hour, the inhabitants endeavouring to save themselves by lying prostrate on the floor and flying to the back apartments. There is no doubt that this fusilade was the result of a panic among the troops, who apprehended an attack from the windows. Many persons were shot down in the streets, some endeavouring to escape into the houses. Next day pools of blood were to be seen round the trees along the boulevard. Fortunately the massacre did not last long. When the barricade of St. Denis had been carried, the insurrection was at an end; but while it did last, it was fearful. Many women and children were victims.

In order to save the conspirators from the effects of the universal horror which these atrocities were calculated to excite, it was necessary to set forth in a public manner the reasons for the usurpation of power by Napoleon. St. Arnaud did not hesitate to say all that was thought needful. There was only one ground on which a shadow of excuse could be offered for the deeds that had been done—that was, that it was necessary to save society from Red Republicanism, and this was the topic of his order of the day. But to give the full appearance of truth to this lying proclamation to the army, it was necessary that the police should play their part. Therefore De Maupas sent forth a circular to the commissaries of police, stating that arms, ammunition, and incendiary writings were concealed to a large extent in lodging-house, cafés, and private dwellings. The National Guard was disbanded on the 7th, as another precautionary measure. There was one order of men, however, which could neither be disbanded nor sent off in prison vans, but which, if conciliated, could be made powerful auxiliaries of despotism; while, if alienated and exasperated, they would be its most dangerous enemies—the Roman Catholic clergy. Therefore Louis Napoleon hastened to announce the restoration of the Panthéon to its original use as the Church of St. Geneviève.

The next step was a proclamation to the French people, stating that he had saved society, that it was madness to oppose the united and patriotic army, and that the intelligent people of Paris were all on his side. Then followed the vote by universal suffrage, which was put in this way:—"For Louis Napoleon and the new Constitution, Yes or No." This was putting before the nation this alternative—a strong Government or anarchy. The result of the voting was, for Louis Napoleon, 7,481,231; against him, 640,737. Thus armed, the President met his consultative commission on the last day of the year, and told them that he understood all the grandeur of his new mission, that he had an upright heart, that he looked for the co-operation of all right-minded men.

On the public mind in England, as the facts were made known through correspondence, the effect produced was a general feeling of alarm. But it had political consequences of a serious nature, for it caused the fall of the Russell Administration. That weak-kneed body had not benefited much by its temporary popularity in the year of the Great Exhibition. The Budget of 1851 contained a most unpopular proposal for the substitution for the window tax of a duty of 1s. in the pound on houses, and 9d. on shops, which had to be considerably reduced, and Mr. Hume, with the assistance of the Conservatives, carried against the Government the limitation of the income-tax to a year. Further, Lord Naas, afterwards Earl of Mayo, placed them in a minority on a resolution connected with the spirit duties. The Cabinet naturally became divided and dispirited, and not the least source of its disunion was the boldness and insubordination of Lord Palmerston. We have already mentioned his rash despatch to Sir Henry Bulwer, which led to that Minister's dismissal from Madrid. This communication was written both without the knowledge and against the express orders of the Prime Minister. The Queen naturally resented this independent action, and Lord Palmerston speedily found himself at variance with the Prince Consort, who was in favour of a German Customs Union, whereas the Foreign Minister resented its formation as injurious to Free Trade. During the revolution of 1848 Palmerston acted with more than his usual contempt for control, and remonstrances from the Queen were frequent and strongly worded. They culminated in a memorandum, which ran as follows follows:—

THE OPENING BY QUEEN VICTORIA OF THE GREAT EXHIBITION IN HYDE PARK, LONDON, 1ST MAY, 1851.

FROM THE PAINTING BY H. C. SELOUS IN THE VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM, SOUTH KENSINGTON.

[[See larger version]]

"The Queen requires, first, that Lord Palmerston 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; secondly, 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 failing 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 upon 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. The Queen thinks it best that Lord John Russell should show this letter to Lord Palmerston."

THE COUP D'ÉTAT: EVICTION OF THE JUDGES. (See p. [7].)

This was sent to Lord Palmerston by Lord John Russell, and it was acknowledged by Lord Palmerston as follows:—"I have taken a copy of this memorandum of the Queen's, and will not fail to attend to the directions which it contains." This occurred in August, 1850, more than twelve months before the occurrence of the coup d'état in Paris, and in the interval Palmerston, with difficulty dissuaded from receiving Kossuth who was on a visit to England, accepted an address from the Radicals of Islington in which the Emperors of Russia and Austria were stigmatised as despots, tyrants, and assassins. A few days later he committed a fresh indiscretion in conversation with Count Walewski, the French Ambassador, to whom he expressed a strong approval of the coup d'état. When Palmerston was asked to explain his conduct, he evaded the point by a long defence of the action of Louis Napoleon, and Lord John Russell at last summoned up courage to dismiss him from his office.

Soon after the opening of Parliament in 1852, Lord John Russell related to the House what had happened in connection with this matter. Our Ambassador in France had been instructed to abstain from all interference with the internal affairs of that country. Lord Palmerston was alleged to have held a conversation with the French Ambassador inconsistent with those instructions. The Premier wrote to him on the subject, but his inquiries had for some days been met with a disdainful silence; Lord Palmerston having meanwhile, without the knowledge of his colleagues, written a despatch, containing instructions to Lord Normanby, who had previously been advised to observe a strict neutrality, which Lord John Russell considered was putting himself in the place of the Crown and passing by the Crown; while he gave the moral approbation of England to the acts of the President of the Republic, in direct opposition to the policy which the Government had hitherto pursued. In these circumstances Lord John said he had no other alternative but to declare, that while he was Prime Minister Lord Palmerston could not hold the seals of office. The noble Foreign Secretary had been accordingly dismissed.

Lord Palmerston then rose to explain his conduct. He stated that the French Ambassador had given a highly coloured version of a long conversation, to the effect that he had entirely approved of what had been done, and thought the President of the French fully justified. Lord Normanby wrote for authority to contradict that statement, and, though Palmerston did not say so, complained of the false position in which he was placed. Lord Palmerston repeated, however, his opinion that it was better the President should prevail than the Assembly, because the Assembly had nothing to offer in substitution for the President, unless an alternative obviously ending in civil war or anarchy; whereas the President, on the other hand, had to offer unity of purpose and unity of authority, and if he were inclined to do so he might give to France internal tranquillity, with good and permanent Government. Lord Palmerston retaliated on Lord John Russell by stating that both he and other members of the Cabinet had also expressed opinions, in conversation with the French Ambassador, not very different from his own. The defence was generally regarded as wholly unsatisfactory.

Lord Palmerston had been succeeded as Foreign Secretary by Earl Granville; but the noble lord soon had his revenge on the Prime Minister. Feelings of anxiety prevailed at this time with regard to the national defences, and it was thought necessary to organise a large militia force, which would constitute a powerful reserve in case of war with any foreign country. Lord John Russell therefore brought in a Bill on the subject on the 16th of February. Lord Palmerston suggested that the word "local" should be left out of the Bill, and the regular militia, which had practically been suspended since Waterloo, reconstituted. He accordingly moved amendments in committee. Upon this Lord John Russell stated that if the House decided to leave out the word "local," the chairman of the committee and Lord Palmerston must bring in the Bill. Upon a division, however, the word was left out by a majority of eleven. Lord John Russell then said that he must now decline the responsibility of the measure. Lord Palmerston expressed his extreme surprise at this abandonment by the Government of their functions in that House. Lord John replied that he was stopped at the threshold, and told by the division that the House had no confidence in the Government. The cheers with which this statement was received confirmed its truth. The Ministry therefore resigned. "I have had my tit-for-tat with John Russell," wrote Palmerston in exultation to his brother, "and turned him out."

The Queen sent for Lord Derby, formerly known as Lord Stanley, who succeeded in forming the following Cabinet:—Prime Minister, Lord Derby; Chancellor, Lord St. Leonards; Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Disraeli; President of the Council, Lord Lonsdale; Privy Seal, Marquis of Salisbury; Home Secretary, Mr. Walpole; Foreign Secretary, Lord Malmesbury; Colonial Secretary, Sir John Pakington; Admiralty, Duke of Northumberland; Board of Control, Mr. Herries; Postmaster-General, Lord Hardwicke; Board of Trade, Mr. Henley; Public Works, Lord John Manners. Only two members, Lord Derby and Mr. Herries, had ever held Cabinet rank before. The new Ministry carried through a Militia Bill, which passed the House of Commons by large majorities, in spite of the factious opposition of Lord John Russell. In the Lords, the second reading was moved on the 15th of June. It passed through all its stages without difficulty, and received the Royal Assent in due course. By this excellent measure a militia was constituted, available for service in any part of the United Kingdom, and recruited by voluntary enlistment, though a compulsory ballot was reserved for seasons of emergency. Many other useful measures were also passed during the Session of 1852, among which may be mentioned the New Zealand Constitution Act, several measures of Law Reform, including the procedure in the Court of Chancery, and an extension of the jurisdiction of the County Courts. Lord Lyndhurst, reviewing the Session, said that, "during the four months that had elapsed since Lord Derby came into office, Bills of greater importance had passed than in any Session since the commencement of the present Parliament." On the 1st of July the Queen prorogued Parliament in person, and delivered a Speech, in which she expressed her satisfaction at the "final" settlement of the affairs of Holstein and Schleswig. The order for the dissolution of Parliament appeared next day in the Gazette. The General Election, which took place in due course, left the state of parties very much as it had found it, though many of the Peelites lost their seats.

The new Parliament assembled on the 4th of November. Mr. Charles Shaw-Lefevre was re-elected to the Speaker's chair without opposition. The Royal Speech was delivered by the Queen in person on the 11th, when her Majesty announced the existence of the most amicable relations with all Foreign Powers. The Session was occupied principally with commercial matters and financial questions, with regard to which the majority of the House were at issue with the Government. They were suspected of a leaning towards Protection, though Mr. Disraeli, in producing his preliminary Budget, jauntily threw over the principle, and dilated in favour of Free Trade. In vain Mr. Villiers attempted to force his hand by a resolution expressing unbounded confidence in the Act of 1846; he was saved by Lord Palmerston's alternative proposal expressing a platonic attachment to the system, which was carried by a large majority. The Budget, however, when finally produced, was discovered to be framed on the lines of ingenious rather than of sound finance, and was held by experts, notably by Mr. Gladstone, to be unfairly burdensome to the £10 householders. This fact was brought to the test by a division, after a long debate, on the 10th of December, when the Government was defeated by 305 to 286. This led to the resignation of the Derby Cabinet. A coalition between the Whigs and the Peelites was next tried, with Lord Aberdeen as Prime Minister; after which the House adjourned to the 10th of February.

The Duke of Wellington, whose name has been so often mentioned in this history, terminated his long and glorious career at Walmer Castle, on the 14th of September, 1852, in the eighty-fourth year of his age. Foreign princes united with the Sovereign, and Parliament, and citizens of his own country, to honour the hero, whom Talleyrand once called "the most capable man in England," and whom Mr. Disraeli, as leader of the House of Commons, designated "the greatest man of a great nation—a general who had fought fifteen pitched battles, captured 3,000 cannon from the enemy, and never lost a single gun." And he truly added, he was not only the greatest and most successful warrior of his time, but his protracted civil career was scarcely less splendid and successful; and when he died, "he died at the head of that army to which he had left the tradition of his fame." The Queen was at Balmoral at the time of his death, and she immediately conveyed her wishes to the Government that his remains should be honoured by a public funeral. Lord Derby proposed a resolution in reply to her Majesty's message, which was unanimously adopted; and a Select Committee was appointed to consider the mode in which the House might best assist at the ceremony. A similar course was adopted in the Commons. The public obsequies commenced when the remains were committed to the officers of the Lord Chamberlain, to be conveyed to the hall of Chelsea Hospital, there to lie in state. The arrangements for the admission of the public were not satisfactory, and the consequence was dreadful confusion and crushing, attended in some cases with fatal consequences. Order was ultimately restored, and it was calculated that from 50,000 to 65,000 people passed daily through the hall. Three persons, two women and one man, lost their lives by the crushing on the 13th.

Late on the night of the 17th of November the corpse was conveyed to the Horse Guards, escorted by a squadron of cavalry. The procession took place next day. First appeared the infantry, six battalions, then the artillery, next the cavalry, five squadrons, and then martial men on foot, pensioners, trumpets and kettle-drums, deputations from public bodies in carriages, persons connected with the late Duke's household, military dignitaries, judges, Ministers and officers of State, archbishops, the Prince Consort and her Majesty's household, in three carriages drawn by six horses each, officers connected with foreign armies, pall-bearers, the funeral car, which weighed twelve tons, drawn by twelve horses, and decorated by trophies and heraldic achievements, the hat and sword of the deceased being placed on the coffin. The coffin was borne into St. Paul's, where nearly 20,000 persons were assembled. At the conclusion of the dirge the mortal remains were lowered into the crypt, and the great Duke was buried "with an Empire's lamentation."

The new Ministry was constituted as follows—Lord Aberdeen took the Treasury, and of the other Peelites Mr. Gladstone, the Duke of Newcastle, Sir James Graham, and Mr. Sidney Herbert, became respectively Chancellor of the Exchequer, Colonial Minister, First Lord of the Admiralty, and Secretary at War. The new Chancellor was Lord Cranworth, who had been a member of Lord Melbourne's Administration. Of the leading Whigs, Lord John Russell was induced, after much persuasion, to accept the Colonial Office, and after a brief tenure of the Foreign Office, Lord Palmerston, to the universal surprise, became Home Secretary. Lord Granville was President of the Council, the Duke of Argyll Privy Seal, Lord Lansdowne entered the Cabinet without office. Sir Charles Wood went to the Board of Control, and Sir William Molesworth, who had usually voted with the Radicals, became First Commissioner of Works. The Cabinet has been stigmatised as a coalition; as a matter of fact it was composed of moderate free-traders to the exclusion of Radicals like Cobden and Bright, and on the whole was fairly homogeneous.

The great event of the Session of 1853 was Mr. Gladstone's Budget, a bold and sweeping measure which contained an important novelty in the shape of a succession duty, estimated to produce some £2,000,000 a year, and a reduction of the income-tax, of which two-sevenths were ultimately to be abolished. It also contained the reduction of duties on 133 articles, their total abolition on 123, and, taken altogether, was one of the most comprehensive financial statements ever produced by a Chancellor of the Exchequer. Not content with these innovations Mr. Gladstone proposed a conversion of the National Debt, by which the old 3 per cent. bonds which stood at par were to be exchanged for Exchequer bonds or for 3¹/₂ or 2¹/₂ stocks which stood at 163. It was a magnificent Budget, based however on a false assumption, that the era of peace was to be long protracted, a sanguine estimate which was very far indeed from being realised. Moreover the new succession duty did not produce one-fourth of the sum which its author had anticipated, and owing to the advent of war the reduction of the income-tax was found to be wholly impracticable. "The best-laid schemes of mice and men aft gang agley."

Europe was allowed scant breathing-time after the wars which sprang from the political movements of 1848 had come to an end. An old danger, one which at intervals, sometimes as a grim shadow, sometimes as a near reality, had threatened the general peace, appeared once more. In 1852 it became known that the Emperors of France and Russia, were, in the names of their respective Churches, wrangling over the Holy Places of Palestine, where members of both the Latin and Greek Churches had set up rights of worship. The Prince-President of the French Republic had raised the demon of the Eastern Question, and the policy which Prince Louis Napoleon initiated as President, he pursued with fresh vigour when he became Emperor. That policy was one of the causes which led directly to those great events which we know under the collective name of the Crimean War.

The first movement of France in this Eastern Question was made in 1850. The Latin priests in Jerusalem were always clamouring against their rivals, and a fresh complaint reaching Paris, the Prince-President directed his ambassador at the Porte, General Aupick, to claim the fulfilment of a treaty in favour of the Latin Church, obtained in 1740. The gist of the grievance was that, by Russian influence, and by degrees, the Greeks had gained possession of certain churches and other holy places, in contravention of this treaty, and by the connivance of the Porte. And it was natural that as, since 1740, Russia had exercised a greater pressure on the Porte than France, so she had brought it to bear to exact concessions in favour of the priests of her faith, and give them a predominance at the holy shrines. For a century France had acquiesced; but in 1850 the country had fallen under a ruler more active in the employment of French power than any ruler since Louis XIV., except Napoleon I., and for purposes almost personal he determined that France should acquiesce no longer. The clerical party in France were gratified by the mere knowledge that General Aupick had raised the question of the Holy Shrines at the instance of the President. Throughout the year 1850 nothing was done of a serious character. The French Minister made demands, and the Porte evaded them as best it might. But in the very beginning of 1851 General Aupick imparted new life to the negotiations. M. de Titoff, the Russian Minister, struck into the fray, and warned the Porte that he should insist on the status quo. Then General Aupick grew still warmer in his language, and the Austrian Minister supported him. In the spring, the Marquis de Lavalette, a more energetic, indeed, a "zealous" man, replaced General Aupick as the representative of France at the Porte, and in his hands the business soon began to make progress. During this period the British Minister, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, acting on instructions from home, held quite aloof from the disputes, and contented himself with watching closely the contest between the Porte and the French Minister. He thought that the Porte would not give way unless forced, and the Emperor of Russia was so fully persuaded of the strength of his influence at Constantinople that he felt convinced that no change in the matter of the Holy Shrines would occur. But in this respect, as in so many others, he was mistaken. In the autumn of 1851 the British Minister began to see the gravity of the contest going on under his eyes; for the Marquis de Lavalette, growing impatient at the delay of the Porte in according his demands, talked in a menacing tone of the use that France could make of the strong fleet then assembled at Toulon. It was at this moment, November, 1851, that the quarrel visibly assumed the character of a struggle between France and Russia for influence at Constantinople and throughout the East.

THE BURIAL OF WELLINGTON. (See p. [11].)

The Turks, having no interest in the religious question, proposed various arrangements, which proved agreeable to neither party. When something like the basis of an agreement had been arranged, a strong letter from the Emperor Nicholas to the Sultan forced the Porte to retract it. Learning this, M. de Lavalette said that his Government, having embarked in the question, could not stop short under the dictation of Russia. The Russian Emperor would not desist from opposition at the dictation of France. Each presented himself to the Sultan, one with the treaty of 1740, the Charter of the Latins; the other with documents, antecedent and subsequent to that date, embodying concessions made to the Greeks. The Porte, desirous of satisfying both the powerful complainants, exhausted its ingenuity in devices, yielding now to Russian, now to French menaces, and looking keenly for assurances of support in the event of danger. The Turks consulted Lord Stratford de Redcliffe; but he was powerless to aid them, for his Government had determined to take no part. Nevertheless, he did his utmost to prevent precipitate action on all sides, on a question "involving little more than a religious sentiment, and the application of a treaty permitted to be more or less in abeyance for a century." He was only partially successful, for M. de Lavalette continued to talk of breaking off negotiations unless his demands were complied with, and M. de Titoff stood out against any alteration of the status quo. At length, at the beginning of 1852, by the exertions of M. de Lavalette, the questions at issue seemed to be settled, and the Porte embodied the whole of the arrangements respecting the Holy Places in an "imperial firman invested with a hatti-scherif." The Turkish Ministers hoped that both parties would be satisfied by concessions. This was a delusion, for the Porte in its trepidation gave conflicting pledges to the fighting embassies. In giving the assurance by letter which calmed for a time the abounding zeal of M. de Lavalette, the Porte promised that the firman should not be publicly read, but simply registered. The Russian chargé d'affaires got wind of this, and insisted, with effect, that the firman should be read. M. de Lavalette, hearing probably that the Porte had promised M. de Titoff, months before, that the key of the "great door" of the church at Bethlehem should not be given to the Latins, grew very keen in his instructions to the French Consul to see that it was given up. M. de Lavalette became extremely violent. "He more than once," wrote Colonel Rose, the chargé d'affaires, in November, "talked of the appearance of a French fleet off Jaffa (in case the stipulations were not fulfilled), and once he alluded to a French occupation of Jerusalem, 'when,' he said, 'we shall have all the sanctuaries.'"

Nevertheless, the Turkish Government tried to appease France without offending Russia. In the autumn of 1852 there was a striking spectacle at Jerusalem. Afif Bey had been sent on a special mission to inform the contending Churches of the decisions arrived at in Constantinople. But Afif Bey did nothing except declare how desirous the Sultan was to gratify all classes of his subjects. The Russian Consul-General demanded the public reading of the firman, which was understood to declare the Latin claims to the shrines null and void. Afif Bey pretended not to know what firman was meant, then said he had no copy of it, then no directions to read it. Thus both parties were angered: the Latins because the key was withheld, and they were only allowed to celebrate mass once a year before "a schismatic altar"; the Greeks because the firman was not read. It was these proceedings, arising out of the irreconcilable hostility of Russia and France, which led to fresh threats from their respective envoys at the Porte. The Grand Vizier, driven hither and thither by the violence of the disputants, resolved, come what might, to make an end of the business. He gave up the keys to the Latins, and caused the firman to be read. Had there been sincerity on the part of the French or Russian Governments, here the matter should have ended; but neither had triumphed sufficiently over the other, and the quarrel did not come to a close.

THE WRECK OF H.M.S. "BIRKENHEAD."

FROM THE PAINTING BY THOMAS M. HEMY.
BY PERMISSION OF MESSRS. HENRY GRAVES & CO. LTD., PALL MALL, S.W.

[[See larger version]]

And here, at the beginning of December, 1852, we find the origin of that now famous demand for a protectorate over all the Greek Christians in Turkey, which, when advanced by Prince Menschikoff, led at once to war. The claim purported to be based on the Treaty of Kainardji, but that treaty expressly limited the Russian Protectorate to two chapels—one in the Russian Legation, the other a chapel to be built in Galata. This baseless demand irritated the French, frightened the Turks, and filled the English with apprehension. But it was not then pressed. Another incident occurred, showing the critical temper of the time. The Porte was at war with the tribes who inhabit Montenegro. Austria, affecting to see danger to herself in the continuance of a contest so near her frontier, sent Count Leiningen to Constantinople, with a peremptory demand for the cessation of the war. It is not improbable that this was a Russian project; for the Czar felt, or affected to feel, that Austria would do all he desired in the Eastern Question; and no sooner was the Austrian demand made, than he supported it. But the Porte, beset by enemies, determined wisely to satisfy Austria, and thus to deprive Russia of any pretext for hostilities on that score. Russia was baffled, but not diverted from her purpose; for the Emperor now began to be impassioned, to feel the sting of French rivalry, and to commit himself almost too deeply to recede. In vague, but menacing terms, he declared that the Porte should be required to fulfil its engagements with him, and to that end he set troops in motion. "It was necessary that the diplomacy of Russia should be supported by a demonstration of force," and he prepared for a violent struggle. Two corps d'armée, above 100,000 men, were ordered to march towards the frontier of the Turkish empire.

It was an anxious moment for statesmen; but the attention of the great European public was not turned towards the East. In England the strife of parties had led to the downfall of the Tories, and to the undisguised joy of the Czar Nicholas Lord Aberdeen became the head of a new Cabinet. The Emperor conceived vast hopes of support from the new British Government, with several members of whom, on his visit to England, he had discussed the Eastern Question; the British public looked for social reforms from a composite Cabinet which unquestionably included in itself the ablest servants of the State. If the people thought of danger, it was danger from France, for the Prince-President, to the intense indignation of the Czar, had made himself Emperor; and a desire to see a completion of economical reforms was mingled with a determination to look to the defences of the nation. Ministers were not, and could not be, blind to the perils which threatened peace; but, as will be seen, they placed an unfounded reliance on the personal honour of the Emperor Nicholas, and they did not appreciate the provocative policy of France. Yet whatever qualms of apprehension they may have felt, they carefully kept to themselves, and even so late as April, 1853, Lord Clarendon assured Parliament that as regarded Turkey there was no danger of the peace of Europe being disturbed.

Yet between the 1st of January and the 30th of April the British Government had become possessed of facts which should have clouded their sanguine anticipations. For the conflict, hitherto confined to Constantinople, was transferred for a time to Paris, London, and St. Petersburg, and did not improve by its extension. Lord Cowley suggested direct negotiations between France and Russia. The suggestion was adopted, but it only served to embitter the relations between the two Courts, and it was open to the objection that it took out of the hands of the Porte a question which nearly concerned its sovereignty. This was met by the device of requesting the Porte to sanction such an arrangement as the two Courts might recommend in common. It had no other result than the exchange of sharp observations between Count Nesselrode and General de Castelbajac. For Russia had determined on a totally different course. The Emperor resolved to treat directly with Turkey, and obtain from the Porte his demands.

The real policy of the Czar was steadily developing itself. It was on the 4th of February, 1853, that Count Nesselrode informed Sir Hamilton Seymour of the intention of the Czar to send Prince Menschikoff to Constantinople, and at the same time gave assurances that the Prince would be provided with instructions of a conciliatory nature; and that "although bred to arms," the negotiator was "animated by intentions the most pacific." A few days later Count Nesselrode again declared that the Prince's instructions, though "necessarily vague," were moderate; and he volunteered the further information that there would be no question of attempting to regain from the Latins any privileges which they might have acquired since the year before. Subsequent events showed what this studied moderation and vagueness were intended to cover, and how the Czar was aiming at larger game than the privileges conferred by the acquisition of keys and the affixing of stars at the Holy Places. At the same time, the Russian Government, preparing for a grand coup, resolved not to prosecute further the direct negotiation with France opened at St. Petersburg, but to transact the business in hand at Constantinople. For the great conflict, the scope of which none but the Russians foresaw, all the Governments prepared.

England, at the end of February, directed Lord Stratford de Redcliffe to proceed to Constantinople by way of Paris and Vienna. The Earl of Clarendon had succeeded Lord John Russell at the Foreign Office, although the latter still remained in the Ministry. It was Lord Clarendon's duty to draw up the instructions to Lord Stratford de Redcliffe; they were broad and wise; they left the diplomatist a large discretion; they entrusted to him the power of ordering Admiral Dundas to hold his fleet in readiness; but at this stage of the dispute, the Ambassador was not to direct the admiral to approach the Dardanelles without positive instructions from her Majesty's Government. Although Austria had interfered between the Porte and Montenegro, she had told the British Government that she would not depart from her conservative policy in the East; and although France had thrust the Porte into so deep a peril, she had in the opening of 1853 officially stated that she regarded her interests in the East as identical with those of England, and it was everywhere given out that the two Western Powers were acting in concert. To carry out her objects in the East, France sent, as successor to M. de Lavalette, M. de la Cour, a mild diplomatist, who had none of the fiery qualities of his predecessor, and who was not likely to quarrel with Lord Stratford de Redcliffe. The British Government believed it could neutralise, by moral influence, the evils springing from the action of France and Russia, and thus, by imposing moderation on both, stave off a catastrophe involving all. But at this juncture, as Russia grew more menacing, France grew more moderate: indeed, for some time to come she hardly appears in the quarrel at all: the original question of the Holy Places fades rapidly out of sight, and a new one arises, in which the opponents are Russia and Turkey, with Lord Stratford de Redcliffe as the supporter of the Sultan. In fact, France, supposing her ruler desired war, had no need to stir a finger, for the rage of the Czar had got the better of his judgment, and he was bent on working out his will.

The Emperor Nicholas, knowing that he was about to enter upon a very hazardous policy in the East, sought, on the 9th of January, 1853, an apparently accidental meeting with Sir Hamilton Seymour, at the palace of the Grand-Duchess Helen. His object was to convey to Sir Hamilton his opinion how very essential it was, especially at that moment, that Russia and England should be on the best terms. "When we are agreed," he said, "I am quite without anxiety as to the West of Europe; it is immaterial what others may think or do. As to Turkey, that is another question: that country is in a critical state, and may give us all a great deal of trouble." Five days later the Czar told Sir Hamilton that, in the event of a dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, he thought it might be less difficult to arrive at a satisfactory territorial arrangement than was commonly believed. "The Principalities are," he said, "in fact, an independent State under my protection: this might continue. Servia might receive the same form of government. So again with Bulgaria: there seems to be no reason why this province should not form an independent State. As to Egypt, I quite understand the importance to England of that territory. I can, then, only say, that if, in the event of the distribution of the Ottoman succession upon the fall of the empire, you should take possession of Egypt, I shall have no objection to offer. I would say the same thing of Candia: that island might suit you, and I do not know why it should not become an English possession." Here, then, was a disclosure implying the kind of understanding which the Czar desired to arrive at; and it need not be said that the British Government adhered to its old views, and declined to be a party to any such understanding. But these conversations had one effect—they created in the minds of the British Ministers a baseless confidence in the honour of the Czar.

It was just as the Porte, yielding to the advice of England, had satisfied the Austrian demands touching Montenegro, and just as the question of the Holy Places seemed to be dying away, that Prince Menschikoff, at the end of February, landed at Constantinople. Attended by his showy suite, but himself plainly attired, the Prince went to the Porte and presented himself to the Grand Vizier. One of the Sultan's household then invited him to visit Fuad Effendi, the Foreign Minister, whose offices were next to those of the Turkish Premier. But the Prince said he should not, as Fuad Effendi had broken faith with the Emperor; and, having put this slight on Fuad, he passed by the line of troops and the very door of the Minister, which had been opened to receive him.

CHAPEL OF SAINT HELENA, JERUSALEM.

For a moment there was a panic in high places at Constantinople. The Grand Vizier was indignant and terrified, and, fearing the worst, trembling lest a mortal blow should be struck before help could arrive, if help were deferred, he asked Colonel Rose to request Admiral Dundas to bring up the British squadron to Vourla Bay. Colonel Rose did not hesitate. He knew how forward were the warlike preparations of the Czar, and he immediately complied with the wish of the Grand Vizier. But this bold step was premature. The Czar had not made up his mind to strike a sudden blow, and Count Nesselrode told Sir Hamilton Seymour that the tendency was rather to slacken than to push on military preparations—a statement destitute of truth. Fuad Effendi, of course, refused to hold office any longer, and the Sultan, for the first time, accepted the resignation of a public servant, replacing him by Rifaat Pasha. When Admiral Dundas received the request of Colonel Rose, he declined to act upon it, and his Government approved of the conduct of the admiral, and disapproved of the bold haste of Rose. But the French Government, hearing of what had occurred, without consulting the British Ministers, ordered their fleet at once to set out on a "cruise in Greek waters." The fleet sailed, and Lord Clarendon instantly expressed the regret of his Government that France had taken so strong a measure. Her Majesty's Government, he said, had received from the Czar his most solemn assurance that he would uphold the Turkish Empire, and not change his policy without notice of his intention; and, as no such notice had been received, the British Government were "bound to believe, until they had proofs to the contrary, that the mission of Prince Menschikoff was not of a character menacing to the independence and integrity of Turkey."

In the meantime, Prince Menschikoff conducted himself so mysteriously and so quietly at Constantinople, and Sir Hamilton Seymour received such positive assurances at St. Petersburg, that no one except the French chargé d'affaires, and perhaps the French Government, suspected the bad faith of Russia. It seems to have been the common talk in Pera and Galata that the Russian Minister was intent on obtaining from the Turks a secret treaty. But Prince Menschikoff went about the business in so strange a manner, that Rifaat Pasha, with whom he talked, did not appear to comprehend at what the Prince was driving. It was at this juncture that Lord Stratford de Redcliffe arrived.

The first step of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe was to discover the actual position of affairs and to learn how far the demands of Prince Menschikoff were moderate or threatening. On the day after he landed, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe saw the Grand Vizier and Rifaat Effendi; but while he learnt that there was some prospect of settling the tiresome question of the Holy Places, he could gain no distinct statement respecting the ulterior views of the Czar. Nevertheless they admitted the existence of ulterior demands, and they were pressing in their requests for advice. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe gave it willingly. He recommended them to keep the question of the Holy Places separate from the ulterior proposals, and he set before them a variety of considerations carrying comfort with them in case the ulterior demands took an inadmissible form. Next he saw the Sultan and offered his good offices, and, alluding to the secret Russian demands, said he was convinced the Sultan, in making reasonable concessions, "would be careful to admit no innovation dangerous to his independence." This from Lord Stratford de Redcliffe's lips meant more than the mere words convey. As a last resource he brought the Russian and Turkish Ministers face to face, and in a short time sent them away, and with them the settlement of the dispute, so that nothing remained but to embody the compromise in a firman. In little more than a fortnight after his arrival the points raised by Aupick in 1850 were put to rest, but out of them had grown a huger quarrel, which could only be appeased by an appeal to arms.

It was during the closing days of the combat about the Holy Places that Lord Stratford de Redcliffe became aware of the arrival of despatches expressing the dissatisfaction of the Czar at the slow progress made by his envoy. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, on the 22nd of April, learnt that, four or five days before, "fresh and pressing instructions" had reached Menschikoff from St. Petersburg. In fact, Rifaat Pasha placed in the hands of the English Minister a document called a note verbale, which Prince Menschikoff had put in. In this note the Prince demanded a categorical answer on certain points, some of which were settled by the agreement come to in regard to the Holy Places, together with an entirely fresh demand, that the Porte should accept a treaty from Russia guaranteeing the Greco-Russian religion from all molestation. The British Government, it should be remarked, persisted in believing that Prince Menschikoff had no authority to make these ulterior demands which so disturbed Europe. The French Government were not deceived. But they affected to regard the demand of Russia for a protectorate as one concerning all the other Powers, and they declared themselves ready to consult and act with them, but not to act alone. The conduct of the British Government is the more remarkable, for Lord Stratford de Redcliffe pointed out, in a despatch which reached Lord Clarendon on the 6th of May, that the omission of Count Nesselrode, in his remarks to Sir Hamilton Seymour, to make any mention of the ulterior demands corresponded with the endeavours of Prince Menschikoff to isolate the Porte. The Austrian Minister at the Porte had no doubts respecting the intentions of Russia, and told the British Minister that he could only advise the Porte to give its unqualified assent to the Czar's demands. This drew from Lord Stratford de Redcliffe the severe remark that he was "not prepared to take part in placing the last remains of Turkish independence at the feet of any Foreign Power."

In the meantime events had been marching rapidly at Constantinople. Urged on by the impatient orders of his master, Prince Menschikoff, on the 5th of May, sent by a common messenger a note to the Porte, having all the character, though it did not bear the name, of an ultimatum. It embodied the obnoxious demand for a protectorate in a most offensive form, and it gave the Porte only five days of grace. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe advised the Porte to reject the ultimatum, and his advice was obeyed. On the 22nd of May the Prince and his whole suite embarked on board a man-of-war and steered for Odessa.

CHAPTER II.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

Widening of the Question—The Fleets in Besika Bay—Lord Clarendon's Despatch—The Czar and Lord Stratford de Redcliffe—Nesselrode's "Last Effort"—Military Preparations—Blindness of the British Cabinet—Nesselrode's Ultimatum rejected—Occupation of the Principalities—Projects of Settlement—The Vienna Note—Its Rejection by the Porte—Division of the Powers—Text of the Note—Divisions in the British Cabinet—The Fleets in the Bosphorus—The Conference at Olmütz—The Sultan's Grand Council—Lord Stratford de Redcliffe's Last Effort—Patriotism of the Turks—Omar Pasha's Victories—The Russian Fleet puts forth—Lord Stratford de Redcliffe refuses Support to the Turks—The Turkish Fleet Destroyed at Sinope—Indignation in England—The French Suggestion—It is accepted by Lord Clarendon—Russia demands Explanations—Diplomatic Relations suspended—The Letter of Napoleon III.—The Western Powers arm—An Ultimatum to Russia—It is unanswered—The Baltic Fleet—Publication of the Correspondence—Declarations of War.

WHEN Prince Menschikoff presented his ultimatum the Eastern Question underwent a complete change. Up to that moment the quarrel had been confined, first to Russia and France, next to Russia and the Porte; and the struggle, although supported on one side by the advance of armies, was still a diplomatic struggle. Prince Menschikoff's formal demand for a protectorate, the violence of his language, and his imperious request for an answer in a limited time, converted the question at once into a European question of the first magnitude.

The earliest news that the Prince had presented an ultimatum to the Porte created a profound impression in the Courts of Paris and London, and even in the Courts of Berlin and Vienna, where Russia had so many friends. The British Government heard of it with "extreme surprise and regret." They had been wronged by the conduct of the Czar, and a strong revulsion followed from confidence to mistrust. The Emperor had broken his word.

The intelligence of the last violence offered to the Porte by Prince Menschikoff reached England on the 30th of May. The British Cabinet took a decisive resolution. On the 31st of May a despatch went forth from the Foreign Office, placing the fleet under Admiral Dundas at the "disposal" of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, to be ordered whithersoever he would, but not to be allowed to enter the Dardanelles, except on the express demand of the Sultan. Two days afterwards, by a direct order, Admiral Dundas was instructed to proceed at once from Malta to the neighbourhood of the Dardanelles; and three days later, the French Government learning this, and being desirous of acting in concert, the Emperor sent orders to his squadron to quit Salamis, and proceed to Besika Bay. It was not possible—it was not, at that stage of the question, desirable—to do more. The two fleets were placed within call of the Sultan, and the treaty of 1841 was not broken or strained.

The temper of the British Government now underwent a great change. Its trust in the Emperor Nicholas was gone. On the same day that Lord Clarendon entrusted the fleet to Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, he wrote a despatch to Sir Hamilton Seymour, recapitulating, with trenchant brevity, those "most solemn assurances" which the Czar had given over and over again. It is a long catalogue; there are no less than sixteen distinct pledges that the question of the Holy Places, and that alone, required to be resolved. Yet at this very time the Czar was urging on Prince Menschikoff to extort from the Porte a treaty which would have laid that independence at his feet. The "explicit, precise, and satisfactory assurances" which came day by day from St. Petersburg were day by day proved to be worthless at Constantinople. The assurances of the Czar, and the language and acts of his Minister at the Porte were in flagrant contradiction. This flagrant "discrepancy," as the British Secretary of State mildly called it, he did not fail to set forth as the ground of a demand for explanations; nor did he fail to remark that Prince Menschikoff had been supported by a display of force, with what object he desired the Russian Government to explain. At the same time Lord Clarendon distinctly informed the Russian Government that England was determined to abide by that policy which held the preservation of Turkish independence and integrity to be essential to the peace of Europe. Sir Hamilton Seymour had already confronted Count Nesselrode with his promises. Nothing can exceed the cool effrontery with which the wily old Chancellor maintained that he had concealed nothing. His language, he averred, had always pointed to the exact reparation which Prince Menschikoff had demanded, and against which the Turkish Ministry and the British Ambassador had raised such "unaccountable" objections. Well might Sir Hamilton remark that "a long-cherished object" had been "sought by a tortuous path." Indeed, few finer specimens of treacherous diplomacy can be found than those which are furnished by the authentic records of the correspondence between the Czar and the British Government in the first five months of 1853.

The anger and violence of the Emperor Nicholas at his defeat were augmented by the fact that Lord Stratford de Redcliffe was the British Envoy at the Porte. In spite of the evidence pouring in upon him from day to day, the Czar would believe that Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, overawing the Ministers, and coercing the Sultan, had alone been the cause of the rejection of the treaty. The Czar writhed at the thought. Count Nesselrode—and in reading his words we read, no doubt, the words of Nicholas—imputes the failure of Menschikoff to the vehemence of, "the Queen's Ambassador." Lord Stratford de Redcliffe was accused of displaying an "incurable mistrust, a vehement activity." Russia was aware of the efforts he employed with the Sultan and the Council, and how deaf he had proved to the prayers of Reschid Pasha. No; the rupture had been brought about by "passion," by "a blind obstinacy," by forcing the Porte "to brave" Russia by "distrust as unfounded as it was offensive." In short, the Czar believed, or affected to believe, that he had suffered a moral defeat at the hands of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe; and that he would not endure.

Lord Clarendon's catalogue of Count Nesselrode's worthless promises was crossed on its way to St. Petersburg by a despatch from that Minister to Baron Brunnow, quite as insolent as any Prince Menschikoff had addressed to the Porte. In the most haughty style of the Russian Foreign Office Britain was warned not to drive the Porte, by a policy of mistrust, to the verge of an abyss in which the moderation of the Emperor had alone prevented her from being swallowed up. This heated language, this avowal that the Czar regarded himself as the destiny of Turkey, did not open the eyes of Lord Aberdeen, did not enable him to see that the Czar was resolved, cost what it would, to have his will obeyed. Nor did the ultimatum addressed to Reschid Pasha, insolent and peremptory as it was, reveal to Lord Aberdeen the true state of the case. Declaring that the Czar had been always friendly and generous and moderate, and that by opposing his intentions, by showing distrust without cause, by giving refusals without excuse, a serious offence had been committed against "a sincere ally and well-disposed neighbour," Count Nesselrode had the tact to appeal, not only to the wisdom, but to the "patriotism" of the Turkish Minister, and almost ordered him to surrender without delay, under penalty of seeing a portion of the dominions of his master taken, and held as a "material guarantee." Such was the character of the "last effort" made by this moderate, this conciliatory, this generous potentate, this "sincere ally and well-disposed neighbour," to extort from a weak Power the essence of sovereignty over twelve millions of subjects.

The fiery ultimatum went on its way to Constantinople. The force to back it received fresh marching orders. Baron Manteuffel told Lord Bloomfield that Prince Gortschakoff had been appointed to command the Russian army on the frontier of Turkey; and that his horses and baggage had, on the 5th of June, already reached headquarters. A strong force of gunboats went up the Danube to Ismail to prepare a means of crossing the river, and the merchants at Odessa were warned to wind up their affairs. The Turks also were bent on making ready for the worst. The small squadron of Turkish men-of-war took up a position in the Black Sea mouth of the Bosphorus. A flying camp was established between the Black Sea and Kilia, and Omar Pasha was ordered to Shumla. But Varna was defenceless, and the works at the mouth of the Bosphorus were out of repair, and the guns worthless; and except the resistance which the Anglo-French fleet might offer, there was none which the navy and army of Nicholas could not overcome. The whole disposable force of the Sultan consisted of 80,000 men, mainly militia. In the face of the menacing preparation of Russia, the British Government did nothing but form a camp for 10,000 men at Chobham!

For they did not believe in the outbreak of war. Lord Clarendon's despatches breathed of nothing but peace. The British Government could not shake off its old confidence in Nicholas, although he was in arms at the threshold of Constantinople. The policy of England, it was said, was "essentially pacific." No hostile feelings were entertained towards Russia, but every allowance was made for the difficulty in which the Emperor "had been placed"—by his own acts, in the main, the Foreign Secretary should have said. The British Government seemed to regard the threatened occupation of the Principalities as something inevitable, and while they still hoped to bring about a peaceful settlement, they did nothing and said nothing to prevent this further violation of right. It was a matter of course that they should appeal to the German Powers, telling them that France and Britain, in sending their fleets to Besika Bay, and in approving of the stand made by the Porte, were actuated by the sole desire to uphold Turkish independence, and begging them, especially Austria, to exert their influence upon the Czar in favour of peace. It is strange, indeed, that the British Ministers did not see the drift and persistency of Russia; and that, from the temper of the Czar, war was so probable that they could not do too much to place themselves in a position to bear a part becoming Britain. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe saw more distinctly. He told the Ministers that the master view of the Czar was to obtain a predominant influence over the counsels of the Porte, as a means of securing, if not hastening, its downfall; and he said rightly that if Turkey were to be left to struggle single-handed, the sooner the Porte were apprised of its helpless condition the better. But the British Government had taken up the weak position of desiring, almost resolving, to defend the Sultan, yet of neglecting to provide the means lest that very act should precipitate war. And so, while they went on the road to war, by thwarting the Emperor's designs over the Ottoman Empire, they prevented themselves from making war with effect by abstaining from preparation.

CONSTANTINOPLE.

When the second Russian ultimatum arrived, the Turkish Government did not hesitate a moment respecting the answer which it should receive—they determined at once to reject it. But being now assured, by the coming of the fleets, of the support of Britain and France, they betrayed no anxiety in so doing, and Lord Stratford de Redcliffe had no difficulty in obtaining the assent of the Sultan to the suggestion that he should protest, but not declare war, and should, on the contrary, offer to open fresh negotiations by sending an Ambassador to St. Petersburg. It was not supposed that the Emperor would assent to this, but the offer was in unison with the policy of the friendly Powers, and placed the aggressor still further in the wrong. On the 16th of June, the date of the answer to Count Nesselrode, when the step taken by the Porte was irrevocable, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe waited on the Sultan. His ostensible object was to present a letter from Queen Victoria announcing the birth of Prince Leopold, and to offer her Majesty's condolence on the severe affliction the Sultan had sustained in the loss of his mother, the Sultana Validé. Having accomplished this, he gave the Sultan more substantial comfort, by informing him with what friendly sentiments and "eventual intentions" the powerful fleet of Admiral Dundas, then at anchor in Besika Bay, had been placed at the Ambassador's disposal. At the same time, and in obedience to his instructions, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe told the Sultan that peace was the great object of British policy, and that the fleet would be used only to protect the Sultan from foreign aggression. On the 17th of June M. Balabine quitted Constantinople, carrying with him to Odessa the answer to Count Nesselrode's ultimatum, and the whole of the archives and correspondence of the Russian Legation. The answer was received in St. Petersburg about the 25th of June. It had been anticipated by the Russian Court, and orders were at once issued for the troops to cross the Pruth and occupy the Principalities.

Between the 1st and 30th of July, while the Russians were settling down in the Principalities and acting like proprietors, projects of settlement grew and withered apace. The Four Powers were endeavouring to find out what each thought and what each would do. The idea of a Conference at Vienna occurred to several persons at once. Lord Clarendon started a scheme, based on the project of a Convention between Russia and Turkey, which he drew up. M. Drouyn de Lhuys framed a note to be signed by Turkey, and accepted by Russia. There was Count Buol's project of a fusion of Russian and Turkish ideas. Independently of all this, the representatives of the Four Powers at Constantinople got up a scheme of their own, which proved to be distasteful to everybody but the Turks. Peace projectors abounded, while Russia steadily went on with her design, occupied the Principalities in a military fashion, seized on the post-office, intercepted the Sultan's tribute, sent gunboats up the Danube, and when the Porte recalled the Hospodars, induced them to disobey the Sultan's mandate, and forced him to dismiss them. Nor did Russia stop here. She sent emissaries into Servia and Bulgaria; she scattered her manifesto broadcast; she strove to raise a spirit of disaffection; and she replied with haughtiness to the complaints of the Western Powers. In the dominions of the Sultan a corresponding spirit arose. The Czar's manifesto had been read in all his churches; the Ulemas answered by sermons calculated to raise a spirit of counter-fanaticism. It was manifest that Turkish ardour was not extinct. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe began to fear more from the rashness than the timidity of the Divan. Military and naval preparations went on briskly, and by the middle of August the Sultan had the satisfaction of knowing that he could defend Shumla, the Balkan, and the Bosphorus, if pressed by the Czar. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe did not fail to lay before his Government the real issues at stake, nor did he disguise his doubts of the possibility of coming to a settlement without resort to war.

It was in these circumstances that Count Buol exerted himself at Vienna to frame a plan of conciliation. He took the draft of a note drawn up by M. Drouyn de Lhuys, and by the aid of the representatives of the Four Powers at Vienna, and after frequent communication with London and Paris, he constructed out of this draft a note which he hoped would prove acceptable alike to Russia and Turkey. The design was to ascertain whether the Czar would accept the note, and if he agreed to do so, to send it to Constantinople, accompanied by urgent recommendations from the Four Powers to the Porte advising its acceptance. In taking this course, Austria acted as mediator at the request, or at least with the assent, of Russia; but the Russian Ambassador at Vienna would not attend the Conference, and his master was only represented there by a sort of friend. After great labour the note was framed, and a copy sent to St. Petersburg. The Powers took steps immediately to ascertain whether the Czar would accept the note, and they found that, although it did not give him satisfaction, he was content to accept it in a spirit of conciliation, as an arrangement devised by a friendly Government; and he was willing to take it from the hands of a Turkish Ambassador, provided it were not altered in any way. This was the famous "Vienna Note" which attracted so much attention, and raised so many hopes in the summer of 1853. But while Austria and the other Powers had consulted Russia and learnt her views, they had forgotten Turkey, for whose benefit the thing was supposed to be devised. They had not ascertained whether Turkey would or could sign it, and, indeed, in framing it, the Powers seemed more anxious to devise a form of words satisfactory to the Czar than safe in the eyes of the Sultan. And so, when it reached Constantinople, although backed by strong advices from all the Powers, and not least by England, the Porte declined to sign it, except in an amended form, which Lord Stratford de Redcliffe drew up, and to which the representatives of the Four Powers at the Porte agreed. The note, indeed, was found to confer rights on Russia almost as extensive as those she claimed through Prince Menschikoff. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, although he saw this, scrupulously executed the instructions of his Government, and pressed the note on the Porte. But the Sultan, the Ministers, and the Grand Council were firm. After much deliberation, the Grand Council, of sixty members, comprising the most distinguished statesmen of the capital, adopted a form of note embodying their views, but rather deferring to the plan suggested at Vienna. "If the decision," wrote Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, on the 20th of August, "does not completely represent the feeling of this country, it only fails in being framed with too much forbearance and moderation."

The news that the Porte would not sign the note, except in a modified form, vexed both Austria and England. Count Buol was chagrined, Lord Clarendon was angry. What the Four Powers most interested in preserving Turkish independence regarded as securing that independence, was surely, they said, a form of words which the Sultan might accept. They did not object to the changes made in the note as unreasonable in themselves—M. Drouyn de Lhuys, indeed, thought they were decided improvements—but they objected to them as unnecessary. The Four Powers would have assented to the interpretation put upon the note by the Porte, and Lord Clarendon had no doubt that Russia would have agreed with the Four Powers. But the Porte seemed to desire war, and had certainly made peace more difficult by the course it had pursued. In short, the friends of the Sultan were very angry with him for exercising his undoubted right, and looking sharply after his own independence. But if the Powers were angry, the Czar was enraged. He was beside himself when he thought on the fact that the Porte had refused what he had accepted. He would not at first discuss the modifications themselves. He would not think about them. What he objected to was, "any alteration—to the principle of alteration, to the fact of the Porte having done that which, out of regard to the wishes of the Allied Powers, his Imperial Majesty had refrained from doing." Count Nesselrode expressed his master's views with such asperity as polite diplomatists permit themselves to indulge in. If the Turks, he said, had had "the faintest perception of their own interests, they ought to have clutched at the note with both hands. That which the Emperor received without change or hesitation in the course of twenty-four hours, should unquestionably have been received by the Turks with the same expedition." The Emperor again saw in this defeat the hand of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, and felt sure that the Turks had not been "made sufficiently sensible" of the dangers they incurred. The Emperor would concede no more. "Concession had reached its term." Further, a memorandum of Count Nesselrode's to his master was allowed to find its way into a Prussian paper, from which it appeared that the Czar placed an entirely different interpretation on the note to its authors'.

Nothing shows more clearly how far, although still professing identical views, the German Powers were separated from England and France, than the fact that Count Buol and Baron Manteuffel, after they were aware of the interpretation put on it by Russia, moved by the emphatic language of Count Nesselrode, did once more urge the Porte to sign the original note, and thus to sign away its independence. Far from being in real concert in August, they were less in concert with the Western Powers in the middle of September. The only Power which acted straight through with Britain was France, and the only divergence of policy apparent was this—the French Government did not seem to think the pace of the alliance fast enough, and were constantly urging the transmission of orders to the admirals to enter the Dardanelles. The plea was that the anchorage at Besika was unsafe. But this was seen to be absurd, and twice Lord Clarendon resisted the appeals sent by Louis Napoleon with the view of forcing the fleets upon the Sultan, and depriving Lord Stratford de Redcliffe of any discretion in the matter. This occurred during the negotiations on the new aspect imparted to affairs by the Russian acceptance and the Turkish rejection of the note. The German Powers, knowing what was the interpretation put upon the note by Russia, persisted in pressing it upon the Sultan. The Western Powers, always more respectful to Turkey, would not take part in this move: indeed, they could not do so. Count Nesselrode's comments on the modified note, showing that the Emperor of Russia did desire to seek new rights and extended power in Turkey, had proved to Britain and France that the apprehensions of the Porte, so far from being groundless, were justified by the Russian construction. Instead of asking the Porte, as they were disposed to do before they were in possession of the Russian views, to reconsider its decision, they now asked the Emperor to reconsider his. Austria, on the contrary, declared that if the Porte again disregarded her counsels, she should consider her efforts to effect a reconciliation at an end: further, that if Britain and France would not support her in this step, there would be an end to the conference at Vienna. In this opinion Britain and France agreed, and the conference at Vienna came to an end accordingly. The German Powers went one way, the Western Powers another; both professed to be hastening towards the same goal, but the German Powers went astray, whereas the Western Powers kept in the straight path. The secret of this was the personal ascendency which the Czar exercised over the German Courts, and which diverted them from their true course on the Eastern Question.

It may here be proper to describe in more detail the Vienna Note, on the terms of which, and on its modification, and the circumstances attending and following both, the preservation of peace depended. This note began by setting forth the desire of the Sultan to re-establish friendly relations between himself and the Czar; and then went on to state the terms of the proposed compromise. A difference arose on the first practical clause. As worded at Vienna, the note implied that immunities and privileges of the Orthodox Church existed as something independent of the Sultan's will, and declared that the Sultans had never refused to confirm them by solemn acts. The Turks could not subscribe to this. It was not historically true. It impeached the sovereign power of the Sultan. It implied that the Czar was protector by right of the Greek Church. Accordingly, the Porte, in modifying the note, took care to use words showing that these immunities and privileges had been "granted spontaneously," and confirmed spontaneously from time to time by the Sultans. This was the first amendment. The second practical clause, the origin of which was referred to the complaints of Prince Menschikoff, needed other corrections. The Vienna Note made the Sultan say that he would remain faithful "to the letter and spirit of the Treaties of Kainardji and Adrianople, relative to the protection of the Christian religion." Here was established an active protectorate. Now the Treaty of Kainardji applied only to one church in existence, and to one that was to be built, and gave Russia no rights to protect the Christian religion. This clause in the note would then have actually given an extension to that treaty. The Porte demurred, and rightly, modifying the clause by undertaking to remain faithful "to the stipulations of the Treaty of Kainardji, confirmed by that of Adrianople, relative to the protection by the Sublime Porte of the Christian religion." No one who knows the meaning of words can fail to see the practical distinction existing between the two forms of expression. In the Vienna Note the Sultan was made to declare that he would cause the Greek rite to share in the advantages granted to other Christian rites by convention or special arrangement. The Porte substituted the words, "granted or which might be granted to the other communities, Ottoman subjects," for the last words of the note. This was also an important and a needful change. Under various treaties Austria enjoyed large rights of interference respecting the Roman Catholic subjects of the Sultan. The terms of the original note would have conferred similar rights on Russia. "Such a concession," wrote Lord Stratford de Redcliffe on the 20th of August, "when practically claimed by Russia, would leave her nothing to desire as to the means of exercising a powerful influence on all the concerns of the Greek clergy, and interfering even on behalf of the Greek laity, subjects of the Porte.... Confined to Austria, the privilege in question may be exercised with little inconvenience to the Porte; but in the hands of Russia, applicable to twelve millions of the Sultan's tributary subjects, the same right becomes a natural object of suspicion and well-founded apprehension." In fact the original Vienna Note was as huge a diplomatic blunder as could possibly have been devised; Count Nesselrode's comments confirmed the view taken of it by the astute Turks; and combined with the temper displayed by Russia, convinced Britain and France that they had been flagrantly in the wrong when they assented to Count Buol's note and pressed its acceptance on the Porte.

There was, indeed, a peace party in the British Cabinet, prominent among whom was Lord Aberdeen, who still urged that the discrepancies in the two drafts were immaterial, and that the note in its original form might well be pressed on the Porte. They were, however, overruled by the advocates of a bolder policy, of whom Lord Palmerston was the most prominent, backed up by Lord John Russell, who, dissatisfied with his subordinate position, was in a discontented and captious frame of mind. In fact, the Cabinet became disunited on more than one question. Lord John Russell was pledged to introduce a Reform Bill, and Lord Palmerston, who disliked the re-opening of the question particularly in a time of foreign complications, resigned. He was induced to withdraw his resignation, but the breach thus made was not easily healed.

OMAR PASHA.

In the middle of September matters had come to a crisis. On the 22nd news arrived at Paris, in the shape of a telegraphic despatch from M. de la Cour, stating that the Porte was apprehensive of a "catastrophe," in consequence of the excitement among the Turkish population. The lives and properties of Europeans, and even the throne of the Sultan, were, in the opinion of the Grand Vizier, in danger. M. de la Cour also reported that he and Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, in order to afford protection to the Europeans, had ordered up four steamers from Besika Bay. This was very vague and indefinite news. It was alarming, because it was indefinite. No account of the affair was sent by Lord Stratford de Redcliffe; and the British Government, to whom the news was reported, were compelled to rely upon the view of M. de la Cour. What should they do? The French Government, always eager for a movement of the fleet, at once proposed that in addition to the four steamers the whole of the united fleet should be directed to proceed to Constantinople. Count Walewski was instructed to request from Lord Clarendon an immediate decision, and was further to state that the Emperor's Government regarded the advance of the fleets as "indispensably necessary." The British Government agreed "without hesitation" to a course which Lord Palmerston had been urging for weeks, and orders went out at once from both capitals to Admiral Dundas and Admiral Hamelin. This was undoubtedly a serious step, as by the treaty of 1841 the Powers were prohibited from sending fleets within the Bosphorus in time of peace. Had the Government waited for the usual despatches of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, they would have seen that the danger reported by M. de la Cour disappeared very rapidly, and that Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, in describing the circumstances, took a cooler view of the dangers and did not even suggest the advance of the fleet. It may be doubted whether the British Government did not act with as much precipitation as M. de la Cour. For it cannot be denied that this fresh move of the fleet—a move so decisive, so completely pledging the two Powers to the defence of Turkey, and so irritating to Russia—lessened the chances of peace, if any were remaining.

At this time there were two contemporaneous sets of incidents going on which influenced largely the course of events. The scene of the one set was Olmütz; that of the other, Constantinople. Throughout the summer the Czar had not neglected to court the German Powers of all dimensions. At some of the smaller Courts his influence was supreme. At the larger, after the first shock occasioned by the discovery of Prince Menschikoff's designs, he attempted to recover the ground lost, and did recover it in a great degree. September afforded him an opportunity of exerting his direct personal influence upon the Sovereigns of Austria and Prussia. The Austrian Emperor, ambitious of military distinction, had assembled about 50,000 men in a camp at Olmütz, for purposes of field exercise on an extensive scale. The Emperor of Russia and the King of Prussia resolved to be present on the occasion, not only to witness what they had seen before—a fine military display—but to discuss the affairs of the East, the Czar hoping to gain thereby. It was here that the Czar disclosed a new plan of action. The Four Powers were to take upon themselves to transmit to the Porte "a declaration founded upon assurances given by the Emperor of Russia." Count Buol and Count Nesselrode drew up a draft of the note, and sent it to the other Powers. This was a very notable document. The Czar wished to make the Four Powers his sponsors at the Porte; and, in fact, as Lord Cowley observed to M. Drouyn de Lhuys, convert the Four Powers into the advocates of Russia. But it was open to more serious objections. In the first place, its terms were ambiguous. In the second place, its value, as far as it had any, was neutralised, if not quite destroyed, by the famous interpretations placed by Count Nesselrode upon the Vienna Note. The plan gave Russia the advantage of two documents, contrary to each other, which she might use as she pleased. When the project was submitted to the French Government the Emperor would not decide what he would do. He thought it might be sent to the Porte; but he could hardly recommend it, and he desired first to know the opinion of the British Government. No one could be more careful than the Emperor Napoleon not to commit himself to any course alone. The British Government decided at once. They rejected the project, because in no circumstances would they recommend the Porte to accept the Vienna Note; because it would be useless, as the Turks would not accept it; because Count Nesselrode's analysis of that note left no doubt that Russia intended through the note to establish rights and influences she never before possessed in Turkey; because "no settlement was possible by notes requiring explanations, and accompanied by vague assurances." Thus this last Russian scheme fell through, and Austria again, now siding with Russia, advised the Western Powers to abandon Turkey. The fruit of the Czar's visit to the Emperor at Olmütz was this further separation of Austria from the Western Powers.

For another incident had occurred during those momentous five days. It was about the time when the conferences at Olmütz began, and when, at the urgent request of the French Government, Britain agreed to issue orders for the fleets to enter the Dardanelles—that is, about the 23rd of September—that the Porte learnt the refusal of Russia to accept the modifications of the Vienna Note. The Sultan could bear the suspense no longer. Notwithstanding the advice of the envoys of the Four Powers, he summoned his Grand Council to meet on the 25th and 26th and determine the question of peace or war. Hearing this, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe made a last effort to prevent war. He begged Reschid Pasha to prevail on the Council, whatever might be its decision, to allow time for one more appeal to the Four Powers, on the basis of their concurring in the Porte's interpretation of the Note. It was in vain. The Porte saw no safety but in war. The Council met. One hundred and seventy-two distinguished Turks obeyed the summons of the Sultan, and unanimously agreed, on their first meeting, that the Vienna Note could be by no means accepted without modifications; and at their second, they adopted a report to the Sultan, recommending that Omar Pasha should be directed to summon Prince Gortschakoff to quit the Principalities within fifteen days from the receipt of the summons, that a refusal should be regarded as a declaration of war, and that thereupon war should be declared. Within three days the Sultan assented to the report, and the necessary instruments for executing the measures resolved on were prepared by the 4th of October. A form of summons was forwarded the next day to Omar Pasha, a manifesto to the Empire was issued, and a formal appeal for aid was sent to the Western Powers. Thus the irrevocable step was taken, and war was certain.

There was scant time for further negotiations. Nevertheless, although Lord Stratford de Redcliffe regarded the chance of averting war as hopeless, so desirous was he of preserving peace that he proposed another mode of extricating all parties from their difficulties. It embraced the alternative of a new note or arbitration. But although looked upon favourably in England, the Austrian Government would not take it into consideration. As the Cabinets of London and Paris, said Count Buol, had not thought proper to support the Austrian plan—that is, the Czar's astute scheme—the Austrian Government could not support Lord Stratford de Redcliffe's plan, especially at a moment when the Porte was declaring war against Russia. There was, for the time, an apparent breakdown in the whole diplomatic machinery; but nevertheless the British Cabinet still persevered in the work of framing notes, and Austria and Prussia did not fail to give advice which could not be accepted, while Russia and Turkey prepared for war.

At this period the conduct of the Turks made a favourable impression on Europe. The manifesto of the Sultan was sensible and temperate, and still left open a door to negotiations. A spirit of self-devotion, unaccompanied by fanatical demonstrations, showed itself among the highest functionaries of the State. The Ulemas offered a large sum of money, and the Sultan, with reluctance, gave consent to the raising of a loan. The Egyptian Viceroy prepared to send ships and troops; the Grand Vizier and the leading Ministers gave many horses for the service of the artillery; men were forthcoming, and troops were constantly on the march for the Danube and the Georgian frontier. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, taking a comprehensive view of the merits of the quarrel, and of the interests at stake, justified the Turks in having recourse to arms. "Having," he wrote on the 28th of September, "witnessed the whole course of pretension and intimidation to which the Sultan and his Ministers have been subjected, and the conciliatory though firm consistency with which so many vexatious proceedings have been met, I may be allowed, while lamenting the necessity for war, to admire the gallant and orderly spirit which has prevailed, with slight exceptions, in all the proceedings of this Government." On the 9th of October the summons of Omar Pasha reached Prince Gortschakoff at Bucharest; and on the 10th he answered that he was not empowered to treat of peace or war, or the evacuation of the Principalities. This reply the Porte considered as constituting a state of war. The Anglo-French fleet was in the Dardanelles, and the admirals had instructions to defend the territory of the Sultan, but their power to operate in the Black Sea was limited. The Western Powers were as yet committed only to a policy of resisting any aggression of Russia. The German Powers declared themselves neutral, and Austria, deeply interested in the issue, assumed for herself the character of mediator.

The first anxiety of the British Cabinet when they learnt that the Sultan had determined on war, was to prevent the outbreak of actual hostilities. But this was no easy task, though the Russians professed moderation. On the 14th of October, Count Nesselrode, in these words, described the then position of his country:—"War," he said, "has been declared against us by Turkey; we shall, in all probability, issue no counter-declaration, nor shall we make any attack upon Turkey; we shall remain with folded arms, only resolved to repel any assault made upon us, whether in the Principalities or on our Asiatic frontier, which we have been reinforcing; so we shall remain during the winter, ready to receive any peaceful overtures which, during that time, may be made to us by Turkey: that is our position." On no account would he take the first step. That, Turkey must do. But if Austria thought she could induce the Turks to take it, and the Maritime Powers to accept an Austrian proposition, Austria might proceed. Acting on this suggestion, and finding the British Cabinet eager to negotiate once more, Count Buol renewed the lapsed conference at Vienna. But while these industrious diplomatists were engaged in their work, and had even prepared bases of negotiation which were formally embodied in a protocol, to which the Porte agreed, events had occurred, followed by acts on the part of the Western Powers, which helped to frustrate their benevolent designs, and put an end, for a time, to their abounding use of the pen. The Turks had won victories; the Russians had exacted vengeance; the Western Powers had determined to occupy the Black Sea.

As soon as the fifteen days of grace accorded by the Porte to Prince Gortschakoff had expired, and while Lord Stratford de Redcliffe was urging the Sultan to defer hostilities, Omar Pasha began the war. Drawing together large forces at points so widely separated as Widin and Turtukai, a place between Rustchuk and Silistria, he resolved to pass the Danube in two columns, with the apparent design of marching on Bucharest, where Prince Gortschakoff had his headquarters. On the 28th of October the Turks threw a large body of men over the Danube at Widin, and occupied Kalafat, which they at once entrenched and armed with heavy guns. This secured them a passage over the river on the flank of Prince Gortschakoff's line of occupation, and it diverted attention for a moment from operations at Turtukai. It was here that the Turks obtained their first success in the campaign, and startled Europe and enraged the Czar by beating his troops at Oltenitza. During eleven days Omar Pasha held his ground. Diplomacy forbade him to advance, and perhaps it was as veil for him that it did. Prince Gortschakoff came down with the largest force he could collect; but he did not venture to make an attack on the strong Turkish lines. Rain, however, descended, and the Danube, and the island, and low left bank became flooded and unhealthy; and Omar Pasha, without being molested, withdrew his guns and his troops to Turtukai. At the same time a small force which had crossed from Silistria, repassed the river; but Omar Pasha knew too well the value of his entrenched camp at Kalafat to give up that also. On the contrary, he reinforced the garrison, and left that thorn sticking in the side of the Czar. He also held several islands in the Danube, and jealously watched the enemy from the Dobrudscha; but his main army he put into winter quarters. Both sides were suffering from the sickness incident to all campaigns, and more especially to winter campaigns, and it is probable that at this time fully one-tenth of the troops on each side were non-effective. Nevertheless, in January, Omar Pasha won a further advantage at Zetati. The effect of the operations of the Turks on the Czar was immediate. He ordered the troops of Osten-Sacken and Lüders to march towards the Principalities; but their divisions did not arrive until the end of December.

Nor was his activity confined to the valley of the Danube. He determined to show his strength in the Black Sea. The Turks had been active on the Armenian frontier, and had greatly harassed the Russian outposts, but without obtaining any marked success. Schamyl was also spurred forward by the calamities which had befallen his old foe; and hence it was resolved to increase the army in the Caucasus and in the Transcaucasian countries to 180,000 men. The Czar seems to have believed that the Turks were reinforcing their posts on the shores of Anatolia, and sending arms and ammunition to the Circassian tribes. This he resolved to prevent. He was anxious, also, to strike some blow at sea which should hurt the Turks; and thus in November the Sebastopol fleet went forth to scour the Euxine. The Turks were indeed imprudently eager to employ their fleet. Before the allied squadrons had entered the Bosphorus, the Turkish Ministers ordered four line-of-battle ships and ten frigates to enter the Black Sea. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe becoming aware of this, set about preventing it, and he caused the Porte to be informed that until the enterprise was abandoned he would not order up the remainder of the allied squadron. He would not, he said, be drawn into the wake of the Porte; and he caused Reschid Pasha to be told that, if he wanted the support of the Allies, he must be content to respect their opinions. The Turkish Ministers appeared to comply with his earnest request, but in reality they left a light squadron between the Bosphorus and Trebizond, and hence it happened that, while the allied fleets were in Beikos Bay, ready at any moment to move into the Black Sea, the Russians were able to fall upon the Turks at Sinope.

The Russian squadron went out from Sebastopol about the middle of November, steering for the Asiatic coast, and so disposed as to intercept any Turkish ship proceeding from Constantinople to Trebizond or Batoum. On the 20th they captured a Turkish war steamer, and one or more Turkish merchant ships. The news of these captures reached Sinope, where a Turkish squadron lay, and its commander for a moment indulged in the notion that he would go out and fight the Russians. Better counsels, however, prevailed, and he remained in port. On the 23rd the enemy's fleet, seven sail of the line and two steamers, hove in sight ten miles from Sinope; and the next day part of this squadron looked in at the Turks, but did not attack. From the manner of their proceeding, it might be judged that the admiral doubted whether he should attack, and that before doing so he obtained some order from Prince Menschikoff at Odessa. Such was the case. The British Consul at Samsoun, and the Turkish admiral, sent off news of the presence of the hostile squadron to Constantinople, but it did not reach the Porte in time to prevent the calamity which followed. On the 29th Nachimoff had received his orders, and had rallied the whole of his squadron. On the 30th, while the Porte and the ambassadors were consulting, Admiral Nachimoff sailed into the port of Sinope, and signalled the Ottoman squadron to surrender. The superiority of the Russian force would have justified compliance, but the Turks answered the summons by opening fire. Thereupon the Russians ranged up, and firing shot and shell, not only into the ships but into the town, soon set both on fire. The seven poor Turkish frigates and three corvettes, whose heaviest guns were only twenty-six pounders, were no match for the line-of-battle ships which poured in broadside after broadside of heavy shot and Paixhan shells. Nearly 4,000 men had perished! One steamer alone escaped and fled to Constantinople. Having completed the task of devastation, and repaired damages, the Russian fleet sailed back to Sebastopol.

THE RUSSIAN ATTACK ON SINOPE. (See p. [28].)

It would be difficult now to make the reader feel what the people of Britain felt when, a fortnight after it occurred, they received the news of this disaster. They asked for what purpose fleets had been sent to Constantinople if not for the purpose of protecting the Turks. They asked why Ministers continued, and had continued, to rely upon the equivocal language of the Czar, and they met with derision the assurance of the Government that, after the Ottoman squadron had been crushed by a force of ten times its strength, the allied fleets had entered the Black Sea. The fact is that the public, in its eagerness to punish Russia, saw more clearly than the Ministers. The prevailing sentiments in London and in the embassies at Constantinople were indignation at the bad faith and violence of Russia, and an almost morbid longing to preserve the peace. It was the latter sentiment which made Lord Stratford de Redcliffe slow to send the fleets into the Black Sea. He and his Government were afraid that some conflict would break the finely spun web of peace negotiations which they thought promised so fairly, and which, if they failed, would at least put the Czar utterly in the wrong. Then the French admiral raised objections and expressed doubts whether his instructions warranted him in running the risk of an encounter; and the British Ambassador would not send British ships alone into the Euxine, fearing it might produce a bad political effect. More than this, supposing the assurance of the Czar that he would not attack applied to the sea as well as the land, the case did not seem urgent; and above all there appears to have been a real ignorance of the fact that there was an exposed Turkish squadron in the Euxine. And, after all, the fleets would have been ordered out, had not Admiral Hamelin declined to employ his ships on the weak plea that he could dispose of fewer than Admiral Dundas. These considerations only palliate, but do not excuse, the conduct of the Allies in refraining from taking at an earlier period a decided course.

When the mischief was done they did not fail to adopt the most severe measures. The French were the first to move. On the 15th of December M. Drouyn de Lhuys wrote a despatch which reached Lord Clarendon the next day. In this, after showing that Russia had given out that she would take the offensive "in no quarter," and how her action had falsified that assurance, he proposed that Admiral Dundas and Admiral Hamelin should declare to the Russian admirals, that every Russian ship met at sea by the Allies should thenceforward be "invited" to return to Sebastopol, and that every subsequent act of aggression should be repelled by force. Lord Cowley was desired by the Emperor personally to urge this measure on the Government, and convey to them a sense of his great disappointment if the suggestion were not adopted. On the same day, and before he received Lord Cowley's letter, Lord Clarendon wrote to Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, informing him that the most effectual means should be taken to guard against a disaster similar to that of Sinope. He had no doubt, he said, that the combined fleets had entered the Black Sea. "Special instructions," he wrote, "as to the manner in which they should act do not appear to be necessary. We have undertaken to defend the territory of the Sultan from aggression, and that engagement must be fulfilled." On the 24th of December Lord Clarendon informed Lord Cowley that her Majesty's Government agreed to the French proposal. It was not until the 27th that he sent the formal instructions to Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, directing him to inform the Russian admiral of the determination arrived at by France and Britain. It was not until the same day that Lord Clarendon instructed Sir Hamilton Seymour to make known to Count Nesselrode the nature of the orders sent to the East, orders issued with "no hostile design against Russia," but rendered imperative by Russian acts. Russia was not to mistake forbearance for indifference, nor calculate on any want of firmness in the execution of a policy having for its object the maintenance of the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire.

Was it judicious at a moment when the last attempt to obtain peace by negotiation was making progress, to send the fleet into the Black Sea, and to send it with such orders? It may be said that this course was injudicious. The Porte had agreed to terms of peace; the Conference had signed these terms; they were sent by a special Minister to St. Petersburg, and arrived on the very day on which the resolution of the Western Powers was communicated to Count Nesselrode. How could the Western Powers hope that these terms would be accepted at a time when they had almost made war upon Russia? The demand for explanations was made in London on the 23rd, and in Paris on the 24th of January, 1854. Baron Brunnow placed in the hands of Lord Clarendon a despatch from Count Nesselrode, in which the Chancellor vindicated the conduct of the Russian fleet at Sinope, and declared that Russia could not look upon the exclusion of her flag from the Black Sea in any other light than that of a violence offered to her belligerent rights. He protested against the notification, and refused to admit its legality. Baron Brunnow asked, in writing, whether it was intended to establish a system of reciprocity in the Black Sea—that is, whether Russian ships as well as Ottoman ships were to be allowed to keep up communication with their respective coasts? Lord Clarendon, in answer, while professing peaceful sentiments, re-stated, in precise terms, the order given to clear the Black Sea of the Russian flag. But while striving for peace, England would not shrink from the duty imposed on her by Russia. In a letter written on the same day to Sir Hamilton Seymour, Lord Clarendon branded the Czar as "the disturber of the general peace," and traced to his unprovoked conduct all the evil consequences that had already ensued. On the 4th of February Baron Brunnow, firing a parting shot, announced his departure; and, on the 7th, Sir Hamilton Seymour was directed to quit St. Petersburg. The same scenes had been enacted in Paris. M. de Kisseleff departed, and M. de Castelbajac was recalled. Whatever may have been the feelings of the French people, the British nation openly expressed its joy that the season of suspense was over.

At this time the Emperor of the French had taken a remarkable step on his own account, and without consulting his allies. He wrote a letter himself to the Emperor Nicholas, in the hope of averting the dangers which menaced the peace of Europe. It was dated January 29th, five days after M. de Kisseleff had demanded explanations, but before that envoy had announced his determination to quit Paris. The Emperor Napoleon began his letter, "Sire"—not "Sire, my brother," the usual form—for Nicholas had never addressed him in the usual form. He ended it by styling himself his Majesty's "good friend," and good friend was long a cant name at St. Petersburg for the Emperor Napoleon. In this extraordinary Imperial missive the French Emperor coolly recapitulated the history of the Eastern Question, not from the beginning, but from the time of the Menschikoff mission; and he told it in a manner showing, and intended to show, that the Emperor Nicholas had by his acts caused the Maritime Powers to adopt what Russia called a system of pressure; but what the Emperor Napoleon said was a system "protecting, but passive." It was the Czar, he said, who, by invading the Principalities, took the question out of the domain of discussion into that of facts. Now, there must be a prompt understanding or a decisive rupture. He offered the Czar peace or war. Let him sign an armistice, and let all the belligerents' forces be withdrawn. Then he politely told the Czar, in direct terms, that, as he desired, he "should" send a plenipotentiary to negotiate with a plenipotentiary of the Sultan, respecting a convention to be submitted to the Four Powers. The letter drew from the Czar a haughty and brief reply.

The diplomatists still talked of peace, and gossipped over schemes of accommodation; but the Governments of the West and North prepared for inevitable war. The Western Powers entered upon an intimate alliance; Sir John Burgoyne and Colonel Ardent were sent on a military mission to Turkey, and in the middle of February it was notified to the Porte that Britain and France would send a considerable force to Constantinople. Greece, which showed a disposition, and more than a disposition, to take sides actively with the Czar, was told, in so many words, to choose between the goodwill of France and Britain, and the blockade of Athens. Servia, where Russian agents invoked the spirit of disaffection, was warned to be upon her good behaviour. Austria and Prussia were implored to adopt a bolder policy, and unite with the Maritime Powers. From his vast resources the French Emperor proceeded to select a choice army, taking by preference the picked troops which had been seasoned in Algerian warfare; and Britain, with smaller means, laid hands on whatever regiments were nearest. The fleet was not forgotten, and seamen were rapidly raised to man a squadron for service at the earliest moment in the Baltic. Britain, in fact, grown rusty during a long peace, was ill-prepared for the work she had undertaken. Neither her military nor her naval establishments were up to the exigencies of war; while her administration was a painful chaos of routine and contradiction. But her energy and goodwill were never doubtful, and with a steadfast heart, but unready hand, she plunged into a war with that Northern Empire which boasted of its destiny to control the fortunes of the East of Europe by land and sea.

GATCHINA PALACE, ST. PETERSBURG.

It was now the policy of Russia to watch the moves of the Western Powers. She would not declare war, flattering herself she would thereby escape the responsibility of that momentous decision. Accordingly she held her peace. Before declaring war, the Western Powers had recourse to one more step—a step which can be hardly termed peaceful, but one which placed them in the right, and showed Russia in the wrong. They determined to summon Russia to evacuate the Principalities within a given time, and they spared no pains to induce Austria and Prussia to support the summons, though, somewhat rashly, they did not await their reply. Eventually these two Powers agreed to support the summons at St. Petersburg, but Prussia expressly declined to undertake to enforce it if refused, and Austria, after much shilly-shally, reserved her liberty of action. The summons was entrusted to a special messenger, who was to pass through Vienna and Berlin. This document declared, in effect, that unless Russia ordered Prince Gortschakoff to retire from the Principalities at once, and to complete the evacuation by the 30th of April, Britain and France would consider her refusal equivalent to a declaration of war. The bearer was told to wait at St. Petersburg six days for an answer, and no longer. Captain Blackwood carried this stringent demand. He arrived at Vienna just as fresh proposals for peace reached Count Buol from St. Petersburg, the last effort to detach Austria. Captain Blackwood was detained a few hours while the Conference at Vienna examined these proposals, and while the ambassadors informed their Governments, by telegraph, of this new incident, and requested instructions. These Russian proposals were found to be as objectionable as ever. Except that Russia ceased to require that a Turkish Minister should be sent to St. Petersburg, "it was that same old story," of which even diplomatists had become thoroughly weary. So the Conference, having duly examined the document, and having found it utterly inadmissible, recorded the fact after the solemn fashions of diplomacy; and messenger Blackwood, with his summons and its supporting despatches, jumped into the train and started for the North. He arrived at St. Petersburg on the morning of the 13th of March, and Consul Michele, in charge of British interests, at once sent to the French consul and the Austrian legate the packets brought for them. On the 14th Mr. Michele and M. de Castillon waited on Count Nesselrode, who, however, declined to see them together, and called for the British consul. The interview was short. The summons was duly delivered, and the positive instructions to the messenger to return in six days were made known. The Emperor was then in Finland, whence he did not arrive until the 17th; and it was not until the 19th, the last day of grace, that Count Nesselrode requested Mr. Michele to wait on him for an answer. "On entering the room," writes the consul, "his Excellency's greeting was of the most friendly description. He said, 'I have taken his Majesty's commands with reference to Lord Clarendon's note, and the Emperor does not think it becoming to make any reply to it.'"

PEERS AND COMMONERS PRESENTING THE PATRIOTIC ADDRESS TO THE QUEEN ON THE EVE OF THE CRIMEAN WAR. (See p. [34].)

The Western Powers having had no misgivings respecting the nature of the reply their summons would receive, had accelerated their preparations for war. Before the summons was in the hands of Count Nesselrode, the British fleet intended for the Baltic had steamed out from Portsmouth, in the presence of Queen Victoria. This took place on the 11th of March, when her Majesty witnessed the departure of sixteen steamers, subsequently augmented to forty-four ships, of which only six were sailers. The whole, under the command of Sir Charles Napier, mounted 2,200 guns, and were manned by 22,000 men. Three battalions of the Guards and several regiments of the line had already embarked for Malta, and cavalry and infantry were in course of rapid preparation. At the same time the French Government began to collect troops at Toulon and Marseilles, and in Algeria. The Commanders-in-Chief of both armies were appointed—Lord Raglan for Britain, and Marshal St. Arnaud for France. The first had been the comrade and friend of Lord Wellington, the second was a soldier of Algerian growth, and Minister of War on the 2nd of December, 1851.

While the British courier was on his way from St. Petersburg with the contemptuous message of Nicholas to the British Government, an incident occurred, both of which helped to stimulate the indignation of England. The Journal of St. Petersburg thought fit to reply to some sharp language about disturbers of the peace, used by Lord John Russell in the House of Commons, by charging the British Government with having stated what was not true when they said Russia had deceived Europe, and, with incredible audacity, referring, for proof of its statement, to the secret communications which took place between the Czar and the Queen's Government in 1853. Lord Derby at once seized the occasion to assail the Government and demand the production of the correspondence; and Lord Aberdeen remarked that since Russia had shown no reluctance to disclose its character, her Majesty's Government had none, and the whole should come out. And come out accordingly it did, producing effects quite different from those expected by Russia. Instead of blowing the Ministers out of their offices and branding them with discredit, the mine, sprung by the Czar himself, spent its force upon him, and the very means he took to support the British peace party not only recruited the war party, but filled all men with a righteous anger.

Thus the flames kindled by the pride of the Czar and the ambition of his Western rival, grew fiercer, and began to burn with astonishing power and intensity. Nothing was wanting to war but the formal declaration; and this was not wanting long. Captain Blackwood had landed with the Czar's negative defiance. On the 27th of March the Queen sent down a royal message to Parliament, stating that all the endeavours of her Government to preserve the peace had failed, and that she relied on the zeal of her Parliament to support her in protecting the dominions of the Sultan from Russian encroachments. On the 28th war was declared, and on the 31st both Houses agreed to an Address, recording the aggressions of Russia, and expressing a firm determination to resist them. On the 3rd of April a very large body of peers of all parties, and three hundred members of the House of Commons, headed by the Speaker, presented the Addresses in answer to the royal message, to her Majesty at Buckingham Palace, who, seated on her throne, with Prince Albert on the one hand, and the Prince of Wales on the other, received these genuine representatives of the spirit and determination of her whole people. On the day that war was declared the British fleet anchored in the bay of Kiel. On the 11th of April the Czar published his declaration of war, in which he again, in a strain of religious exaltation, declared that Russia took up arms for no worldly interests, but for "the Christian faith, for the defence of her co-religionists oppressed by implacable enemies." "It is for the Faith and for Christendom that we combat! God with us—who against us?"

CHAPTER III.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

Attitude of the German Powers—The Lines at Boulair—The Campaign on the Danube—The Siege of Silistria—It is raised—Evacuation of the Principalities—The British Fleet in the Black Sea—Arrival of the Allied Armies—A Council of War—The Movement on Varna—Unhealthiness of the Camp—An Attack on the Crimea resolved on—Doubts of the Military Authorities—Despatch to Lord Raglan—Lord Lyndhurst's Speech—Raglan's reluctant Assent—The Expedition sails—Debarkation in the Crimea—Forays of the French Troops—Composition of the Allied Armies—The Start—The first Skirmish—St. Arnaud's Plan—Slowness of the British—Battle of the Alma—Menschikotf's Position—The Disposal of his Troops—Final Arrangements of the Allies—A British Blunder—Partial Failure of the French—The British Advance—Evans's Division—Exploits of Sir George Brown—Lord Raglan on the Hill—The Duke of Cambridge hesitates—Attack of the Vladimirs—Crisis of the Battle—Final Advance of the Allies—St. Arnaud declines to pursue.

THUS by a series of complex events, beginning in 1850 with the restless interference of the French, met with corresponding readiness by Russia, who, out of a political quarrel with the French Emperor, developed a large and aggressive design against Turkish independence—a series of events which culminated in 1854—the Czar found himself at war, not with Turkey only, but with France and Britain. And what was the attitude of the German Powers, whose arms and influence should have exercised so great a pressure in this quarrel? The offence committed by Nicholas was an offence not only against Turkey, but against Europe. By Europe, no doubt, it should have been met and defeated, and the common disturber should have been punished, if need were, by the common force. But, although Britain and France were prompt in pledging themselves to meet force by force, the German Powers would not pledge themselves to more than the meeting of force by diplomacy. The concert was incomplete. Austria was more willing than Prussia to adopt strong measures; but Austria did not do more than take up a negative and neutral position during the winter and spring of 1853-4. Yet she could not evade the danger which grew every day; and, therefore, on the 9th of April, Austria—Prussia going with her so far—signed, in common with the Western Powers, a protocol taking note of the existence of war, and declaring that the summons addressed to Russia was "founded on right;" that the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire was and remained an essential condition of peace; that means should be found of bringing that empire within the European system; and that the Four Powers would not enter into any arrangement with Russia, or any other Power, which did not accord with these principles, without previously deliberating in common. So far there was union; but there was no union in arms. Yet the very requirements of the protocol were those which, as every fact had shown, Russia would not agree to without an application of adequate force. A wide chasm separated the Western from the German Powers—the gulf of war.

The Allies do not appear to have entered on the war with any very definite notions. Britain and France formed an alliance together, and then allied themselves with the Sultan. In defending the Sultan, they were to defend a fundamental principle of European policy in the concrete, and they were to take no advantage to themselves by the act. But their earlier notions were limited even from the defensive point of view. They determined to secure a line of retreat for their ships, and a base of operations from which, in the event of the Turkish army being driven over the Balkan, they could effectively defend Constantinople. At this time there was existent an exaggerated dread of Russian power. The Czar was so strong, the Sultan so weak, so men thought, that it was deemed possible the Russians might force both the Danube and the Balkan by the rapid marches of an overwhelming force, and thus confront the Sultan in his capital. To provide against this, and also to cover their weakness, the Allies determined to land their troops at Gallipoli at the mouth of the Dardanelles. Therefore, as the allied troops began to arrive in March and April, they were employed in throwing up entrenchments, known as the lines of Boulair, extending from the Gulf of Saros to the Sea of Marmora. It was in the camps near Gallipoli that the whole of the French and part of the British army were organised for active service; but while they were assembling there, the Turks were fighting so manfully on the Danube, and so effectually thwarting Russia, that the lines became useless, and the Allies found it needful to take post on the northern instead of the southern slopes of the Balkans.

When it grew certain that war would ensue, the Emperor Nicholas reinforced his army in the Principalities, and raised it to the strength of about 150,000 men, including an immense force of cavalry, and no fewer than 520 guns. Against this mass the Sultan could barely array a nominal force of 120,000 men, and a number of guns far inferior to that of his foe. The bulk of the Russians were in Wallachia, posted in detachments from Kalafat to Galatz. Their plan of operations was to concentrate a mass of troops opposite Silistria, to hold in check the Turks at Kalafat, on one flank, while on the other they invaded the Dobrudscha. It was then intended that the main body should cross the Danube at Kalarasch, and joining the troops coming up the river upon Silistria, invest and capture that fortress. This done, they hoped to capture or mask Varna, and forcing Shumla, debouch through the passes of the rugged Balkans upon the plains of Roumelia. Marshal Prince Paskiewitch had been appointed to command the army, and such is assumed to have been his plan of operations. But the plan was essentially vicious. They could not fail to lose men in the pestiferous Dobrudscha. So long as the Turks held Kalafat the Russians were never secure on that flank. Then, assuming that they kept the Kalafat army at bay, and even captured Silistria, it was in the highest degree improbable that they could force Shumla, and impossible that they could take Varna, so long as the allied fleets held the Black Sea. Nor were these the only dangers incurred by the Czar. The plains of Wallachia lie between the ridges of the Carpathians and the Danube. On their northern slopes Austria was collecting a formidable army. Austria, though not resolved to fight, was growing more menacing in her language and in her attitude. It was true that she trammelled herself by a treaty with Prussia, laying down the march of the Russians on the Balkans as a casus belli. But Russia had no security that circumstances might not occur to produce a change in Austrian councils, or that the very success of her preliminary movements might not bring Austria to act. And if she acted, she would move across the Russian line of communications, and the mere threat to do that would almost ruin the Russian plan.

Nevertheless the first operations were successful, and on the 20th of May Prince Paskiewitch crossed the Danube, and inspected the attack on Silistria. He brought with him Prince Gortschakoff, who took the command of the besieging force. It so happened that two Englishmen, Lieutenant Butler and Lieutenant Nasmyth, travelling for pleasure, had entered Silistria, and had volunteered to aid in the defence. They took their posts in the advanced works, and their presence and bearing produced such an effect on the Turks that the latter never thought of yielding, but fought with a steadfastness and devotion equal to any troops in the world. After the failure of the seventh and last assault the Russians began to mine. By sap and mine they had taken the place in 1829. They fell back upon the old methods. Unable to storm over the low rampart, they sought to blow it up from below. Here again the British officers frustrated them, for they caused the Turks to cut a fresh entrenchment in rear of the first; and, if need were, another behind that, and then another, but always, whatever happened, to stand fast and fight with them. The Turks did as they were bidden, and their coolness under fire, and indifference to danger, provoked the warm admiration of the British officers whose confidence was so liberally repaid. And thus the siege went on.

The investment was so imperfect that General Cannon, an Englishman in the service of the Porte, contrived to pass between the Russian covering armies, and enter the place, to the great joy of the besieged. In the meantime the enemy had come so close that a Turk dared not speak above a whisper without drawing upon himself a Russian bullet. It is to a remark in too loud a tone that the death of Lieutenant Butler is attributed. He was speaking to General Cannon, when a Russian bullet, passing obliquely through the earthwork, gave him a wound, of which he died. Shortly afterwards General Cannon, obeying, it is supposed, an order, withdrew from the fortress with the troops he had brought, and carried Lieutenant Nasmyth with him, but left behind another British officer, Lieutenant Ballard. The middle of June had now arrived. The siege had lasted five weeks. The Russian army had lost thousands of men from disease as well as wounds, yet, except that their works were close to those of the Turks, nothing had been gained. They resolved to abandon the enterprise. On the 22nd of June they opened a tremendous fire on the place from all their batteries. When daylight dawned on the 23rd the Turks became aware that the trenches were tenantless, and soon saw that the bulk of the army had repassed the bridge, and had encamped about Kalarasch. The siege was at an end. A fortnight later a chance reconnaissance, which brought Omar Pasha across the Danube at Giurgevo, induced Gortschakoff to attack him with another army. But the Turks, supported by British gunboats, beat off the Russians at every point, and Gortschakoff in despair evacuated the Principalities. The object of the campaign was won.

ZOUAVES LOOTING A VILLAGE IN THE CRIMEA. (See p. [40].)

The causes which led to this failure of the Russian arms were, first, the shining valour and noble resolution of the Turkish soldiers, and, next, the arrival of the Allies at Varna, the operations of their fleets in the Black Sea, and the new position taken up by Austria. For Austria, eager for the evacuation of the Principalities, had, on the 14th of June, while yet the issue of the siege of Silistria was uncertain, made a separate treaty with the Porte, whereby the Emperor engaged "to exhaust all the means of negotiation, and all other means, to obtain the evacuation of the Principalities" by the foreign army which occupied them. In other words, Austria undertook to occupy the Principalities herself—an engagement which, if the Russians did not withdraw, rendered it incumbent on Austria to use force for their expulsion. It is easy to see that, unless the Czar was ready to incur the hazards of a war with Austria, in addition to a war with the Allies, this pressure put upon him, coming at the back of a defeat before Silistria, and the gathering strength of Britain and France ashore and afloat, would compel him to yield up the material guarantee which he had so recklessly seized. And it did so. But now we must glance at the incidents which preceded it in the Black Sea, and on the shores of the Bosphorus and the Hellespont.

On the Black Sea the combined fleet had ridden triumphant. In a cruise of twenty days they met no foe, but picked up prizes in considerable numbers. One incident had occurred which added to the wrath and mortification of the Czar. The Furious was sent to Odessa to bring away the British Consul. As her boat, bearing a flag of truce, was returning to the ship, she was fired upon; and no satisfactory explanation being given, Admirals Dundas and Hamelin appeared off Odessa on the 21st of April with a combined squadron and demanded redress. General Osten-Sacken having refused to grant any redress, the admirals sent in a steam squadron the next morning and bombarded the war-port, but tried to spare the town. In twelve hours they had blown up a powder-magazine, destroyed, by shot and shell, a goodly number of ships, and many buildings containing stores. The loss of the Allies was three killed and twelve wounded. After inflicting this chastisement for a breach of the usages of war, the squadron cruised off Sebastopol, but met no enemy; and on the 5th of May Sir Edmund Lyons with a squadron steamed away for the Circassian coast, where his presence caused the Russians to abandon all their forts, except those of Anapa and Sujak Kaleh, lying at the northern end of the coast, near the straits of Kertch. The Circassians took immediate advantage of this, and confined the garrisons of the two forts within the walls; while the Turks occupied Redut Kaleh and Sukhum Kaleh, in Mingrelia and Abasia.

During the spring the troops of the Allies gradually assembled in the dominions of the Sultan; and in the month of March, and for many subsequent months, the blue waters of the Mediterranean were ploughed by the fleet of transports, under steam and sail, all bound eastward; while the straits which divide Europe from Asia were almost as crowded as the Thames. The pressing question at the beginning of May was to organise the military machine; to put it into fighting and marching order; to provide more for its future than its present wants; to lay up stores of provisions and depôts of ammunition; and, above all, to gather together the means of setting the military machine in motion when it was completed. This was no easy task. The French, by habit, were better prepared for war than the British, but the former found it difficult to give legs to their transport corps. As to the latter, they had been hurried into action almost totally unprepared. They had neither a military train, nor even the nucleus of such a corps; they had no effective medical staff; they had an inexperienced and undermanned commissariat. They had magnificent regiments, individually perfect; but they had no army. Everything had to be done on the spot; and being done in a hurry, and by men not accustomed to the work, it was imperfectly done. The British had not been a week in Turkey before there was an outcry for transport. Lord Raglan had a splendid collection of soldiers; but he could not have marched them fifty miles.

Marshal St. Arnaud was, to judge from his letters, in a state of feverish impatience for action; but, according to the statements of Kinglake, he was also in a disturbed as well as ambitious frame of mind. It is said that he tried first to obtain the command of the Turkish army, next to effect an arrangement which would have given him a control over that of Britain. These vagaries of a vain and ambitious man were frustrated by Lord Stratford de Redcliffe and Lord Raglan, and they did not meet with the approval of the Emperor. But events pressed. The Russians were certain not to wait until the Allies had devised some plan. It became imperative to see the facts a little more clearly than they could be seen at Constantinople; and, in the middle of May, Lord Raglan and the marshal went to Varna, to meet the Turkish general, and hear from Omar Pasha his view of the situation, and his conception of its requirements. Omar Pasha told them he had 45,000 in Shumla, and with these he could defend it. He had 18,000 in Silistria; but these, he believed, could not hold the place longer than six weeks, that is, to the end of June. He had about 20,000 at Kalafat. The rest of his forces were scattered in detachments. He naturally suggested Varna as the point of concentration for the Allies. The two generals agreed to bring up their troops to Varna.

Owing to St. Arnaud's abrupt changes of plan, the movement on Varna, begun on the 29th of May, was not completed until the 4th of July. The camps were pitched in beautiful places. The white tents crowned a green knoll, or extended along a sandy plateau, and looked out upon broad sweeps of turf broken by groups of fine trees, and overlooking a shining lake skirted by meadow lands, and backed by the rugged outlines of the Balkans. But the peculiarity of the country was the absence of inhabitants. Except those in the service of the commissariat, drivers of mule carts and bullock drays, and now and then a wandering Bulgarian, none were to be seen. Fear had driven them to desert their homes; and it was not one of the least disadvantages attending the armies of the Allies that they had to operate in a country practically deserted. The want of transport, felt even at Scutari and Gallipoli, became a positive evil in Bulgaria. The porter and ale sent out for the consumption of the troops could not be carried inland for want of carts and horses; the water was bad, and the men drank the red wine of the country, and, in consequence, fell victims to disease. Diarrhœa, dysentery, cholera, made their appearance in the camps, and the graveyards began to fill. Then the air was polluted with horrid exhalations, and in addition the men pined for action. So that, although the sites of the camps looked healthy, bad management, imperfect food and drink, intemperance, a burning sun by day and chilling dews by night, and ennui, soon reduced the physical and moral stamina of the troops.

Though the object of the campaign had been gained when the Russians recrossed the Pruth, the allied Powers, active agents in the war, had resolved on a mode of reaching Russia. They had determined to carry the war into the Crimea, and capture Sebastopol. This was no sudden resolve. It grew naturally, and, one may say, inevitably out of the war itself. The object of the war was, first, the defence of the Sultan's territory; next, the placing of the territory in security. But there were other means essential to complete success. For a quarter of a century all military observers had seen the military importance of the Crimea. This peninsula, united to the mainland only by the Isthmus of Perekop, and the sandy ledge of Arabat, was the seat of enormous power. At its southern extremity, within a few hours' sail of Constantinople, stood Sebastopol, upon an inlet of the sea forming an excellent harbour. The Russian Government had spent millions in constructing here a series of fortresses impregnable to a maritime attack, and within the harbour and on the shores of a creek running southward they had built vast docks, overlooked by extensive barracks for sailors and soldiers. Long before the phrase was used in Parliament or by statesmen, soldiers had come to regard Sebastopol as a "standing menace" to the Turkish empire; and at the very outbreak of war, the Duke of Newcastle, British War Minister, had directed the attention of Lord Raglan to this point. But the military men, knowing how precarious are operations based on the sea, were doubtful of success. Very little trustworthy information respecting the obstacles in the way, and the numerical strength of the Russian army in the Crimea, could be obtained. Lord Raglan could get none. The French had none. The British Cabinet, looking to all the circumstances, seeing that the allied fleets had entire control of the Black Sea, and that any reinforcements sent to the Crimea must march thither by Perekop, sure that Austrian battalions would cover the road to Constantinople, pressed upon their ally the project of an invasion of the Crimea. The nation went entirely with them in this. Being responsible, they naturally hesitated longer than those who were not responsible; but it is not true to say, as Mr. Kinglake says, either that the Times brought about the decision, or that the Government merely obeyed the popular voice. Those who were responsible for the expedition were the Cabinet, the Parliament, the people—in short, the British nation. And the nation was right. For unless Sebastopol and the naval power of Russia in the Euxine were destroyed, a treaty of peace would have been a mere truce devoid of any sound security either to Turkey or to Europe. It is really puerile to contend that Russia could determine the war by relinquishing the Principalities. The wrongful act which led her there was only a symbol, a manifestation of the existence of a state of things injurious to Europe. When she retired, that state of things was not changed; Russia was still the domineering Power, and still held in her hands the means of disquieting, threatening, nay, of attacking Turkey. No doubt the object of the war enlarged with its progress; but that, within certain limits, is common to all wars. Having gone to the vast expense of sending armies and fleets to Turkey, the Allies would have been culpable had they neglected to obtain the amplest possible security for the independence and integrity of Turkey.

Towards the end of June the British Cabinet were engaged in considering the important project submitted by the Duke of Newcastle. After some deliberation, all parties assented, and the terms of the despatch to Lord Raglan were finally agreed to on the 28th. In this despatch Lord Raglan was instructed "to concert measures for the siege of Sebastopol, unless," so the terms ran, "with the information in your possession, but at present unknown in this country, you should be decidedly of opinion that it could not be undertaken with a reasonable prospect of success.... If, upon mature reflection, you should consider that the united strength of the two armies is insufficient for this undertaking, you are not to be precluded from the exercise of the discretion originally vested in you, though her Majesty's Government will learn with regret that an attack from which such important consequences are anticipated must be any longer delayed." He was further informed that, as no safe and honourable peace could be obtained until the fortress was reduced, and the fleet taken or destroyed, nothing but "insuperable impediments" was to prevent an early decision. These are what have been called the "stringent instructions" directing the invasion of the Crimea. They were supported by the voice of the nation and its Parliament. Before the Cabinet had taken its decision, before it was known that the siege of Silistria had been raised, Lord Lyndhurst in his place, on the 19th of June, declared that "in no event, except that of extreme necessity, ought we to make peace without previously destroying the Russian fleet in the Black Sea, and laying prostrate the fortifications by which it is defended." And in answer, Lord Clarendon, with more reticence of language, spoke to the same effect.

The attitude of France was not so precise. Concurring with the British Cabinet in its views respecting the necessarily enlarged objects of the war, the slow and cautious character of the Emperor led him to acquiesce in the proposed invasion of the Crimea rather than urge it forward. His general in Turkey was instructed to support the decision Lord Raglan might come to, and not by any means to plead for the invasion; but if the council of war decided in favour of the British project, then, of course, Marshal St. Arnaud was to give his amplest co-operation. Practically, therefore, the decision rested with Lord Raglan; for although Admiral Dundas was not under his orders, yet it was not to be supposed that he could or would stand out against the wishes of his Government. Lord Raglan did not delay his decision. The despatch of the War Minister reached him on the 16th of July; on the 18th he called a council of war; on the 19th he wrote to the Duke of Newcastle that he accepted the task imposed upon him; but accepted it, as he did not fail to express, "more in deference to the views of the British Government, and to the known acquiescence of the Emperor Louis Napoleon in those views," than in deference to his own opinion: for he frankly stated that neither he nor the admiral had been able to obtain any information upon which an opinion could be founded. Indeed, there were not in the council any ready supporters of the project except Admirals Lyons and Bruat. Dundas and Hamelin were both opposed to it; but, as we have seen, St. Arnaud and his admirals were directed to acquiesce. Dundas was not likely to do more than express an opinion; and hence the council took its tone from Lord Raglan, and proceeded to consider how and when the enterprise should be carried out. After two months' delay caused partly by the sickness of the troops, partly by the necessity for preparation, the allied troops sailed. They would never have started had not Roberts, a master in the navy, devised means for the transport of the cavalry and artillery, by buying up the boats of the country and building rafts upon them. Yet this man was allowed to die unhonoured and unpromoted.

The expedition reached the Crimea on the 13th of September, and the armies lay four days in position off the points of debarkation. Each day there was work enough to be done in completing the operation of landing. On the 15th the wind blew heavily on shore, and sent a rough surf dashing over the shingle and sand. But, later in the day, the wind went down a little, and the British were enabled to put on shore more guns and the greater part of the cavalry; and the French landed more guns and their 4th division. Lord Raglan also went on shore, and established his headquarters on a rising ground, and rode round the outposts. The men and officers slept once more in the open air. They made beds of fern and lavender; but, although the rain did not descend in steady streams, a heavy dew saturated beds, and blankets, and kits. On the 16th the tents were landed, in the hope that transport for them could be found in the country. It was not found, and all the tents were taken on shipboard before the army marched.

And why could not transport be found? When the Allies first landed, the country people, simple farmers and shepherds, quiet and inoffensive, came into the camp; and brought fowls, and eggs, and sheep, and were glad to sell them. They also were willing to let out their carts and bullocks. According to the British system, these men were well treated and well paid. Wellington, even in France, could always secure a well-supplied market, and even transport, by treating the people civilly and paying them well. So it would have been here. But the French acted on a different system. It is allowed in all countries that stores belonging to the Government of your enemy are good prize. You may, by the strict rules of war, take private property if you need it. Yet, as a general rule, it is prudent to respect private property; or, if you take it, to pay for it. The French took both alike. On going his rounds on the evening of the 16th Lord Raglan learnt that a body of Zouaves had entered and plundered the village of Baigaili, within the British lines, and had even abused the villagers, men and women. Of course a speedy end was put to such brutalities. At the same time Captain de Moleyns, with a squadron of Spahis, went out of the French camp, and returned driving before him flocks of sheep and cattle, a few camels, a number of arabas, or country carts, and a group of natives, the captives of his spearmen. The effect of these predatory forays was to reduce to a minimum the supplies of all kinds, animate and inanimate, to be derived from the country. While these Zouaves and Spahis were ravaging the villages, it was remarked that the Turks, who had landed on the 15th and 16th, "the much-abused Turks, remained quietly in their well-ordered camp, living contentedly on the slender rations supplied from their fleet." Nevertheless, the Commissary-General, by aid of military force and money, ultimately managed to get together about 350 country waggons, with bullocks and drivers, for the supply of the British section of the invading army.

SAVING THE COLOURS: THE GUARDS AT INKERMAN (1854).

FROM THE PAINTING BY ROBERT GIBB R.S.A.

[[See larger version]]

SKIRMISH ON THE BULGANÂK: MAUDE'S BATTERY COMING INTO ACTION. (See p. [42].)

The operation of landing occupied four entire days, and the fifth was spent in terminating the preparations for the march. The 4th British division, under Sir George Cathcart, except two battalions, arrived and were put ashore. The French landed 26,500 men, 72 guns, and a few Spahis. The Turks landed 7,000 men, all infantry, and no mention is made of their field artillery. The British landed 26,800 men, including 2,100 artillerymen, 60 guns, and 1,100 horsemen. The total force was, therefore, in round numbers, 61,000 men and 132 guns. The French force consisted of four divisions, under Canrobert, Bosquet, Prince Napoleon, and Forey. The Turks were under Selim Pasha.

The British army was composed as follows:—

LIGHT DIVISION, SIR GEORGE BROWN.—1st Brigade, 7th, 33rd, 23rd, Brigadier Codrington; 2nd Brigade, 19th, 88th, 77th, Brigadier Buller; 2nd Battalion Rifle Brigade.

1ST DIVISION, THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE.—1st Brigade, Grenadier, Fusilier, and Coldstream Guards, Brigadier Bentinck; 2nd Brigade, 42nd, 93rd, 79th Highlanders, Brigadier Colin Campbell.