XVIII. THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued)…

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--Evils of the old System--Cordial Reception of the Measure--Attempt to abolish Freedom of Arrest for Debt--Mr. Bright agitates for Reform--The Conservatives propose a Reform Bill--Mr. Disraeli's Speech--His New Franchises--Liberal Objections--Secession of Mr. Walpole and Mr. Henley--Mr Henley's Explanation--Lord John Russell's Resolution--Seven Nights' Debate--Replies of Lord Stanley and Sir Hugh Cairns--Mr. Bright's Speech--Progress of the Debate--Speeches of Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Disraeli--Defeat of the Government--Lord Derby announces a Dissolution--Prorogation of Parliament--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.

The vast territory of the Hudson's Bay Company was converted into a British colony in 1857. For nearly half a century the varied productions of this territory had enriched that Company--fur and skins of various kinds, fish, timber, all of excellent quality. Agriculture was discouraged and the land was preserved as well as possible for the use of fur-bearing animals, although the soil was in many places extremely rich; it was watered by magnificent rivers, and abounded in minerals. Several attempts had been made to open this region for the purposes of colonisation, and thus to connect the Atlantic with the Pacific, the whole intervening country being the property of the British Crown. The monopoly of the Hudson's Bay Company, however, effectually resisted those attempts until its licence expired, contemporaneously with the discovery of gold in 1857. This discovery attracted an immense number of adventurers from California and other parts of the United States, and from China, as well as Great Britain, its dependencies, and the American colonies. The time was therefore come when a regular government for the whole territory should be provided, and in the Session of 1858 Sir E. Bulwer Lytton, then Colonial Secretary in Lord Derby's Government, brought in a Bill for the purpose. He stated that the Government intended the following year to resume possession of Vancouver's Island, and to include it within the new colony, which was first called "New Caledonia," but the name was afterwards changed to British Columbia. Sir E. Bulwer Lytton, at the conclusion of his speech, remarked--"I do believe that the day will come, and that many now present will live to see it, when a portion at least of the lands on the other side of the Rocky Mountains, being also brought into colonisation, and guarded by free institutions, one direct line of railway communication will unite the Pacific with the Atlantic," a prophecy fulfilled by the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. In the Queen's Speech at the close of the Session her Majesty expressed a hope that this new colony on the Pacific might be but one step in the career of steady progress by which her dominions in North America might be ultimately peopled, in an unbroken chain from the Atlantic to the Pacific, by a loyal and industrious population of the subjects of the British Crown. This hope was destined to be realised sooner than even sanguine minds anticipated, by the rapid progress of colonisation and the creation of the Dominion of Canada, stretching across the Continent from ocean to ocean.

To turn to home affairs, Mr. Locke King honourably distinguished himself by his persevering efforts to extend the franchise in counties; but he was more successful in his endeavours to remove a great blot from the system of parliamentary representation by abolishing the property qualification of members. This was always regarded as a highly conservative feature of the Constitution; and at the time the Reform Bill was passed it would perhaps have been impossible to carry its abolition. It had, however, so notoriously become a sham, and involved so much that was discreditable, false, and immoral in the efforts to evade the law, that although the Conservatives were now in power, the Bill of Mr. Locke King encountered no serious opposition in either House. A member for a county was obliged to swear that he had a clear estate in perpetuity worth £500, or for a borough £300 a year. But it was well known that the oath was not true, but merely conventional, and that the qualification was often created by fictitious conveyances, which if obtained for any other purpose would have been regarded as positively fraudulent. Adventurers and men of straw entered the House without any difficulty when returned by English and Irish constituencies; while in Scotland, where there was no property qualification, men of standing and worth were almost invariably selected as representatives. Besides, the existing system was rendered still more obnoxious by the fact that the sons of peers were exempt from the operation of the law, and could enter the House of Commons without any property qualification. The law, therefore, was universally understood to be an unreality, a sham, and a snare; while, as Lord Fortescue remarked in the Upper House, it limited the freedom of choice among the electors, and was an infringement of the rights of the people. Earl Grey, indeed, considered the measure to be only one of a series put forward by a party that desired to effect a total change in the representative system--a change that would bring it closer to a democracy, which they hoped to effect by degrees and in detail. But the Earl of Derby met this objection fully: it did not follow that because the House of Commons passed this measure, it would also pass those which Earl Grey deprecated--the £10 franchise in counties, for example. He did not believe the abolition of the qualification would make any substantial difference in the condition of the representation. The Bill passed without much further opposition.

The success of the measure encouraged an attempt to abolish the privilege of freedom from arrest for debt; but it was defended on the ground that it protected the independence of members, and was shared in by barristers attending the courts or on circuit, justices of the peace at sessions, suitors and witnesses, the Queen's servants, and foreign ambassadors with their servants; and on the ground that the Bill drew a distinction between peers and members of the House of Commons. It was read a second time by a considerable majority on the 30th of June, but it was allowed to drop.

One of the most singular anomalies connected with the relations of political parties in England occurred in the Session of 1859. The defects of the Reform Act had occupied the attention of politicians from time to time, and fruitless attempts had been made by Lord John Russell and others to remedy those defects and supplement the great measure of 1832. Mr. Bright agitated the subject in the North with his usual eloquence and power of argument, and not without considerable effect on the public mind in the manufacturing districts; but the nation at large could not be induced to take much interest in the subject. No urgent need was generally felt for a reform in the representation, the prevalent conviction being that the House of Commons as it stood was quite competent to perform all its duties as a representative body; but if any attempt were made to give fuller effect in the Commons to the will of the people, nothing could be more unlikely than that it should be made by a Conservative Government, supported by men who had strenuously resisted Reform at a time when it was imperatively demanded by the nation. Yet, in the Royal Speech at the opening of the Session, the Queen was made to say--"Your attention will be called to the state of the laws which regulate the representation of the people in Parliament, and I cannot doubt but that you will give to this great subject a degree of calm and impartial consideration proportioned to the magnitude of the interests involved in the result of your deliberations."

In pursuance of this announcement, Mr. Disraeli, Chancellor of the Exchequer and leader of the Commons, introduced a Reform Bill, on the 28th of February, in a crowded House, full of interest and curiosity to learn what might be the nature of a measure of the kind proceeding from a Conservative Cabinet. The right honourable gentleman spoke in a manner worthy of an occasion so remarkable and a position so equivocal. The question as he viewed it was more important than one of peace or war. It was beset with difficulties, but they were mitigated by the absence of passion and the advantage of experience. There was a general wish to settle the question, and the Government offered a solution not based upon any mean concession or temporary compromise, but consistent with the spirit and principles of the Constitution. Since the great measure of 1832 the progress of the nation had been extremely rapid, there being no instance in history of such an increase of population and accumulation of capital as had taken place within that period. Hence Parliamentary Reform had become successively a public question, a Parliamentary question, and a Ministerial question. Lord John Russell in 1852, and Lord Aberdeen in 1854, counselled her Majesty to announce from the throne a measure of Parliamentary Reform, nor was the House reluctant to deal with the question. What, in these circumstances, was Lord Derby's duty? It might have been practicable by evasion to stave off the difficulty; but was it to be left in abeyance as a means for reorganising an Opposition, as a desperate resource of faction? Lord Derby's Cabinet were unanimous in thinking that the question should be dealt with in a sincere and earnest spirit, nor was there anything in the antecedents or position of the Premier--whom Lord Grey had summoned to his Cabinet in 1832--to preclude him from dealing with it, or to justify the taunts that were so freely used against the Ministry for undertaking the task. Mr. Disraeli argued against the principle of basing representation upon population. If the House of Commons were re-constructed according to that principle, it would find itself in the ignominious position from which it had been emancipated more than two centuries ago. His plan would combine population with property, adding the new principle of representing property in the funds; a new kind of franchise, founded upon personal property; and another founded upon education. He would give a vote, therefore, to persons having property to the amount of £10 a year in the funds, Bank Stock, and East India Stock; to persons having £60 in a savings bank; to pensioners in the naval, military, and civil services receiving £20 a year. He would also give a vote to lodgers, or persons occupying a portion of a house, whose aggregate rent was £20 a year. He would give the franchise to graduates of the universities, clergymen of all denominations, members of the legal profession, of the medical body, and to a certain class of schoolmasters. He proposed an identity of suffrage between counties and boroughs, in order to bring about general content and sympathy between the different portions of the constituency. Thus a £10 franchise would be given to counties, which would add 200,000 to the county constituency. Commissioners were to be appointed to adjust the borough boundaries to the altered circumstances of the country, so as to embrace the population that had sprung up. Discarding the principle of population, and accepting as a truth that the function of the House was to represent, not the voice of a numerical majority, or the predominant influence of property, but the various interests of the country, the Government proposed to add four members to the West Riding of Yorkshire, two to South Lancashire, and two to Middlesex; and also to give members to Hartlepool, Birkenhead, West Bromwich, Wednesbury, Burnley, Staleybridge, Croydon, and Gravesend, for which purpose one member was to be taken from each of a number of small places then represented by two.

Strong objections were made to this measure by members representing various classes of reformers. Mr. Baxter complained that it excluded Scotland, and moved as an amendment that "it is expedient to consider the laws relating to the representation of the people in England, Scotland, and Ireland, not separately, but in one measure." Mr. Fox said that the Bill did nothing for the working classes. Lord John Russell condemned the clause which would take away from freeholders in towns the right of voting in counties. Mr Roebuck denounced it as a measure of disfranchisement, leading to a worse state, and not giving one iota of power to the working classes. Mr. Bright also strongly censured the measure for excluding the working classes from power. The new franchises were absurd, and seemed intended merely to make it appear that something was given. He thought that a Government representing a party that had always opposed the extension of political power to the people ought not to have undertaken to settle this question. It would have been better if it had adopted a measure of its opponents, than to introduce a Bill that must create anger and disgust throughout the country--a Bill that would disturb everything and settle nothing.

But one of the greatest blows to the measure was the secession of Mr. Walpole and Mr. Henley, two of the ablest members of the Cabinet. On the the evening after the introduction of the Bill, the former rose and read a letter to the Premier, stating the grounds of his resignation. He said that he found it utterly impossible to sanction or countenance the policy which the Government had determined to adopt on the important subject of Parliamentary Reform. He regarded the reduction of the county occupation franchise to a level with that which existed in boroughs as utterly contrary to every principle that the Conservatives, as a party, had always maintained--as a complete destruction of the main distinction that had hitherto been recognised and wisely established between the borough and the county constituencies. It was to his mind a most dangerous innovation, giving to temporary and fluctuating occupations a preponderating influence over property and intelligence; while it would throw large masses into the constituencies who were almost exempt from direct taxation, and therefore interested in forcing their representatives to fix that taxation permanently on others. Mr. Henley, stating that he had taken as his guide the principles laid down by Lord Derby in 1854, said it was his opinion that identity of suffrage, which was the principle of the Government Bill, would be fatal to the Constitution of the country. If they took a paintbrush to draw a line across the country, and said that all the people upon one side were to have the franchise, and all the people upon the other were not to have it, as sure as the sun was in heaven they would find the people upon the outside of the line, some day or other, making a very ugly rush to break over it, and when they did break over it, it would not be easy to maintain the Constitution.

A few days after the introduction of the measure, Lord John Russell, now anxious to rejoin the Liberal party, prepared the battle-ground by giving notice of the following resolution, on which issue was taken:--"That this House is of opinion that it is neither just nor politic to interfere in the manner proposed by this Bill with the freehold franchise as hitherto exercised in counties in England and Wales; and that no re-adjustment of the franchise will satisfy this House or the country which does not provide for a greater extension of the suffrage in cities and boroughs than is contemplated in the present measure." There never perhaps was a Ministerial proposal of reform of any kind so badly supported by the country. Notwithstanding the influence of Government--generally great, no matter what party is in power--only three petitions had been presented in favour of the Bill when it came on for the second reading on the 20th of March, while an immense number was presented against it. The debate on the second reading occupied seven nights, and was sustained throughout with remarkable ability and animation. The first speech was delivered by Lord John Russell, on moving his amendment to the motion of Mr. Disraeli, which was made without any remarks. The noble lord argued that the Bill would completely change the Constitution of the country, destroy rights that had existed since the Conquest, deprive men of their county votes who had not shown themselves unworthy of the trust, and enable persons of landed property to flood small boroughs with fagot votes, and make them what they were before 1832--nomination boroughs; while in counties the measure would lead to the formation of electoral districts, which Lord Derby five years before had said would destroy one of the main balances of the Constitution. He concluded in these words:--"With regard to this great question of Reform, I may say that I defended it while I was young, and I will not desert it now that I am old." Lord Stanley, in reply to Lord John Russell, taunted him with having allowed the question to fall in abeyance, and with having brought forward his motion as virtually a vote of censure, and as such it was met on the part of his colleagues, who declared that the noble lord's motion would be fatal to the Bill. Sir Hugh Cairns, the Solicitor-General, also shone in this debate. Referring to an alleged compact between Lord John Russell and Mr. Bright, he said, "We all know and admit the noble lord's attachment to this question; but we also know that there is a form of the tender passion which sometimes develops itself in jealousy of any attention to the object of its affection from any other quarter. I think the noble lord exposes himself to some misconstruction on this point. The English people," he continued, "do not like a 'dodge.' They do not like it in business, they do not like it in politics; but least of all do they admire it in a man who, at a time when the best interests of his country at home, and our most peaceful hopes abroad, demand all the patriotism, all the candour, and all the forbearance of a statesman, approaches the consideration of a great national question like this, not fairly to criticise, not boldly to reject, but with a crafty and catching device to confuse, and, if it may be, to dislocate parties, and on that confusion and dislocation to secure his own political aggrandisement and private advantage." Mr. Bright ably exposed the main defects of the Bill. The people out-of-doors understood by a Reform Bill a large enfranchisement, and larger, freer constituencies. The Bill did not meet that demand: it got rid of the most independent electors from counties, and insidiously proposed to alter the boundaries of boroughs to complete the work. The object was to make the representation of counties more exclusively territorial, and to gratify the hundred and fifty gentlemen who sat behind Mr. Disraeli elected by the territorial interest. As to small boroughs, which were only a refuge for the politically destitute, he knew no limit whatever to the amount of corruption in them that would be occasioned by the Bill. It would, at the same time, exclude the working classes, telling them that they were dangerous, notwithstanding their improved mental, moral, and physical condition.

Lord Palmerston, whose hatred of Reform was notorious, supported the amendment of Lord John Russell. On the other hand, Mr. Whiteside denounced it as "an inscrutable resolution to stifle truth and prevent discussion--a crafty contrivance to defeat the Bill, and, if possible, the Ministry." Sir J. Pakington complained strongly of the speech of Lord Palmerston, stating that he had adopted a tone of arrogance altogether unusual between gentlemen who sat opposite to each other in that House, and that his language could be looked on in no other light than as wanting in due respect to the Crown. Mr. Gladstone, who, as may be gathered from the "Life of Bishop Wilberforce," was at this time well disposed to the Conservatives, remarked upon the singular coincidence of opinion on all sides with respect to the great question of Parliamentary Reform. There was no controversy traceable to differences between political parties, and he thought it was to be regretted that the House was now in hostile conflict with a division before them, which would estrange those by whose united efforts alone a satisfactory settlement could be come to. The resolution was unprecedented in form, being an amendment on the second reading of a Bill, referring to a portion of a measure that might be dealt with in committee. Pleading for consideration to the Government, he described the failures of their predecessors who had engaged in a similar task, and proved how consistently the Liberals had shirked the question. Mr. Gladstone defended small boroughs. He regarded them as a means of supplying a race of men who were trained to carry on the government of the country--the masters of civil wisdom, like Burke, Mackintosh, Pelham, Chatham, Fox, Pitt, Canning, and Peel, all of whom first sat for small boroughs. If there was to be no ingress to the House but one, and that one the suffrages of a large mass of voters, there would be a dead level of mediocrity. The extension, the durability of our liberty, were to be attributed under Providence to distinguished statesmen introduced to the House at an early age. But large constituencies would not return boys, and therefore he hoped the small boroughs would be retained. Those facts formed a reason for going into committee, where Lord John Russell could carry his views. Mr. Gladstone earnestly deprecated the postponement of the question. It was a golden opportunity which they should not let slip. Mr. Disraeli, in replying, defended his measure with vehemence, and not without personal acrimony towards Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell, whom he charged with living in an atmosphere of combinations and cunning resolutions when out of office. By bringing forward this untoward motion, and by sneering at Lord Malmesbury at a moment when negotiations were pending, when an awful responsibility rested on the Minister, Lord John had not only embarrassed the Government, but had injured the public service. The Government, he said, had been sustained in all its arduous struggles by a conviction of the justice of the people of England, and were sustained by it at that moment, amid all the manœuvres of Parliamentary intrigue and all the machinations of party warfare. The House then proceeded to a division, in the midst of a scene of extraordinary excitement, the issue being rather uncertain till the last moment. It was, however, decisive against the Government, the numbers being--for the second reading, 291; against it, 330; majority 39. The division took place on the 1st of April.

Next day Lord Derby had an audience of the Queen; on the same evening, in the Lords, he stated that the majority against him left him but one alternative, either to resign or dissolve Parliament. He regarded the vote as equivalent to a vote of want of confidence, and he thought the Government would have laid themselves open to a charge of indifference if they took no notice of such a division. The distracted state of parties in the House of Commons, he said, rendered it almost impossible to administer the affairs of the nation. He excepted from this censure the Conservative party, whose support had been unwavering, cordial, and generous. According to his lordship's view, the chief mischief-maker was Lord John Russell, who, from the restless energy of his disposition, had the peculiar fortune to overthrow many Governments, not only of his opponents but also of his friends; the consequence of which conduct was, that hardly a year now passed without a Ministerial crisis, and if the system were persevered in, it would put an end to all government; for it inflicted injury at home and damaged the influence of the country abroad. One of the questions bequeathed to him by the late Government was the damnosa hæreditas of Parliamentary Reform. He had in consequence introduced a Bill to meet that question. An opportunity had thus been given to the House of Commons to settle this question, but the Opposition preferred the interests of party to the interests of the country. Lord Palmerston had said that "the Ministers should be condemned to keep their places and do our bidding." But Lord Derby begged to tell him that he would do no one's bidding but that of the Queen, so long as he retained her confidence. But whose bidding were they to do? Was it that of the motley and heterogeneous Liberal party? He then announced that, considering the grave condition of European affairs and the domestic interests of the country, he had deemed it his duty to recommend to her Majesty an early dissolution of Parliament, stating that he looked with confidence to the result of the appeal about to be made to the country.

Mr. Disraeli gave a somewhat similar explanation in the Lower House. Lord Palmerston acknowledged the courtesy and fairness of his statement. He did not consider the late vote as one of censure; as such he would not have supported it. He thought the advice given to her Majesty was very unwise. If he were to attempt to prophesy the result, he would say that the new Parliament would be far more likely than the present to decide that power should be transferred to other hands. After some more discussion on the dissolution, the House hastened to wind up the Session by disposing of the necessary business, which was interrupted only by a short debate on the affairs of Italy. On the 9th of April, therefore, Parliament was prorogued by commission. The Royal Speech was a mere formal production, except the concluding paragraph, which stated that the appeal that her Majesty was about to make to her people had been rendered necessary by the difficulties experienced in carrying on the public business of the country, as indicated by the fact that within little more than a year two successive Administrations had failed to retain the confidence of the House of Commons; and she prayed that the step she was about to take would have the effect of facilitating the discharge of her high functions, and of enabling her to conduct the government of the country under the advice of a Ministry possessed of the confidence of her Parliament and her people.

The results of the general election, at which the Government, as might be expected, put forth all its influence to secure a working majority, fully verified the predictions of Lord Palmerston, for the new Parliament was not even disposed to give the Derby Cabinet a fair trial. The Tories had gained considerably at the polls, but had failed to secure a majority. Still, they formed a compact party in the House of Commons more than 300 strong. The Session was opened on the 7th of June, the process of swearing-in having been then completed. The Queen delivered the Royal Speech in person. It contained nothing remarkable, except a suggestion that the subject of Parliamentary Reform should be postponed till next Session. The debates on the Address in both Houses were unusually animated. Lord Granville expressed regret that, in spite of the result of the elections, the Ministry had determined to carry on the government in a minority. Lord Ellenborough stated that what the country required was a strong Government; and he expressed his conviction that this result had not been obtained by the general election. Lord Derby defended the conduct of his Government and, in reference to some of the Irish elections, denied that any compact existed between him and Cardinal Wiseman. If he saw any chance of a strong Government, he would gladly lay down the responsibility he had assumed; but considering the state of foreign affairs, he thought it his duty to his Sovereign to remain at his post. The Address in the Lords was agreed to without a division; not so in the Commons, where an amendment was moved by the Marquis of Hartington, leading to a debate that lasted for three nights. He admitted that it was a party move, in order that power should not be left in the hands of a party antagonistic to all progress. In the course of this debate great distrust in the foreign policy of the Government was betrayed; and the Italian question had much more to do with the premature dissolution of the Cabinet than the Reform question. The nation sympathised warmly with the cause of freedom in Italy, and had a decided conviction that a Conservative Government was not a fitting medium through which that sympathy might be conveyed. Upon a division, therefore, the numbers were as follows:--For the amendment, 323; against it, 310; majority against the Government, 13.

There is a curious statement in Lord Malmesbury's "Memoirs" to the effect that the defeat of the Government was due entirely to Mr. Disraeli's neglect to lay on the table of the House the Blue Book containing the Italian and French correspondence with the Foreign Office, and that after the despatches had appeared, numerous Liberals, Mr. Cobden among them, expressed their regret in the lobby at having voted against the Ministry. But Lord Malmesbury was certainly mistaken as far as Mr. Cobden was concerned, since he was out of England at the time of the division, and it is probable that the whole story is an exaggerated recollection of one or two private expressions of opinion. The simple explanation of Mr. Disraeli's supposed neglect would seem to be that the book was not printed, and that Ministers felt so certain of defeat that they did not think it worth while to hurry on its appearance. With the re-union of the Liberal party all chance of their continuance in office was at an end, and that long-delayed object was at length accomplished after much negotiation by party managers, male and female. The great obstacle was the long-standing rivalry between Lord John Russell and Lord Palmerston. The latter was induced to pave the way to a reconciliation by a letter to Sir James Graham, which contained the suggestion that one of them should be Prime Minister, presumably with a peerage, the other leader of the House of Commons. This equal division of the spoils was, however, by no means to Lord Palmerston's taste; nevertheless, at a meeting of the Liberal party held at Willis's Rooms on the 6th of June they agreed to serve under one another if either was sent for by the Queen, and the result of their amity was Lord Hartington's resolution.

In consequence of the adverse division, Lord Derby announced the resignation of his Cabinet on the 19th of June. On the same evening Mr. Disraeli made a similar announcement in the House of Commons. Lord Palmerston was then called upon by her Majesty to form an Administration, the Queen having at first applied to Earl Granville to relieve her from the "invidious unwelcome task" of choosing between Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell. He failed, however, to secure their support, and somewhat compromised himself by indiscreet communications to the press. The following are the names of the members who comprised the new Cabinet:--Lord Palmerston, Prime Minister; Lord Campbell, Chancellor; Lord Granville, President of the Council; the Duke of Argyll, Privy Seal; Sir George Cornewall Lewis, Home Secretary; Lord John Russell, Foreign Secretary; the Duke of Newcastle, Colonial Secretary; Mr. Sidney Herbert, Secretary for War; Sir Charles Wood, Secretary for India; Mr. Gladstone, Chancellor of the Exchequer; the Duke of Somerset, First Lord of the Admiralty; Lord Elgin, Postmaster-General; Sir George Grey, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; Mr. Milner Gibson, Chief Poor-Law Commissioner; Mr. Cardwell, Chief Secretary for Ireland; the Earl of Carlisle, Viceroy. The list of names included the flower of the Peelites, Whigs, and Radicals. Lord John Russell's emphatic determination to have the Foreign Office or nothing caused the exclusion of Lord Clarendon, and the blandishment of the Prime Minister, together with the offer of the Board of Trade, failed to secure the allegiance of Mr. Cobden, who feared, and with some justice, that the Ministry would play fast and loose with Parliamentary Reform. In expressing that opinion he noted the weak point of the Ministry--it was strong in talent, but divided in opinion. The three important members, Lord Palmerston, Lord John Russell, and Mr. Gladstone, were of one mind in their sympathy for the Italian cause, but the Premier was far more conservative in his domestic policy than the two other statesmen, and while at issue with Russell on Reform held different views from Mr. Gladstone as to the propriety of strengthening the national defences. However, they continued to agree to differ.

Before commencing the deeply interesting narrative of the last Italian war, which resulted in the establishment of the kingdom of Italy, it is desirable to dispose of the Italian question, in its international aspects, and in its relations to the state of political parties in the United Kingdom. The influence of that question on the fortunes of the Conservative leaders was very great. Nothing militated so strongly against Lord Derby, or contributed so much to alienate from him the confidence of the mass of the British people, as his apparent want of sympathy with the Italians in their struggles for independence; while the well-known sentiments of Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell upon this subject tended in a very high degree to strengthen their influence and extend their popularity. As a matter of fact the Conservative statesman was actuated mainly by a desire to preserve the status quo, and the extreme Austrian view was propounded by the Whig politician, Lord Clarendon. "The bubble of Italian unity," he said, "had at length burst, and the detestable party of Mazzini and his accomplices was almost extinct. Supposing that Austria was driven out, and Lombardy was annexed to Piedmont, the people of Milan and Venice would never agree with those of Sardinia, but would be even more discontented than they are now. Piedmont was nothing more than the advanced guard of France, and he considered that the defeat of Austria would only substitute one master for another." Lord Derby, it is true, like other statesmen, failed to forecast the future in the event of a war. "It would not," he said, "be localised in Italy; it would be impossible to confine it to that country. It would extend itself, and involve the world in universal conflagration." It would bring the whole of Germany into the field. England, which could not look unmoved at the occupation of the Adriatic and the Mediterranean, would be drawn into the vortex. But the chance of peace, he thought, would be immeasurably strengthened if it were known that Great Britain would not remain an unmoved spectator of any event in which her honour was concerned.

The long-cherished dream of Italian unity, which Lord Clarendon treated with so much scorn, was as little likely as any other political dream to be realised. The difficulties lying in the way seemed to be absolutely insuperable. The country was cut up into sections called principalities. It was the policy of their numerous Sovereigns, while cultivating a fraternal feeling among themselves, to foster animosities between their respective populations, lest by any chance they should unite for their own deliverance. The shadow of Austrian power, like an immense poison-tree, shed a blighting influence over the whole land, and under its shelter the petty princes exercised their despotic arts according to their own capricious wills. In 1815 a defensive alliance was concluded between the Emperor of Austria and the Duke of Tuscany for the defence of their respective States, Austria engaging to furnish 80,000 men of all arms, and the Grand Duke 6,000. In 1847 the Emperor made a similar treaty, called a special convention, with the Duke of Modena, by which the Emperor of Austria was bound, as soon as applied to, to give immediately all the military support necessary to put down any insurrectionary movement. It was, however, a singular fact that the means adopted to extinguish all hope in the hearts of the people and to render deliverance impossible, should have been the very means by which that deliverance was effected. Had Austria confined herself to her own possessions secured to her by treaty, it would have been difficult for Victor Emmanuel, or Louis Napoleon, to find a cause of quarrel sufficient to justify a war. But she had usurped the virtual sovereignty of the duchies of Tuscany, Modena, and Parma; and her troops occupied the Legations, while the King of Naples and the Pope were little more than her creatures. It was this crushing domination of a foreign Power that warranted foreign intervention, and excused even the ambition of France and Piedmont.

Such was the state of things at the close of the year 1858, when, save this one dark spot in the political horizon, everything indicated profound peace. On New Year's Day the French Emperor was accustomed to receive the foreign ambassadors at the Tuileries. On the 1st of January, 1859, he turned to M. Hübner, the Austrian Minister, and abruptly said to him, "I regret that our relations with your Government are not so good as they have been hitherto; but I beg you to assure the Emperor that my personal feelings towards him are not changed." A portentous meaning was generally ascribed to this remark, and in order to allay the apprehensions it excited, the Moniteur was instructed to declare that there was nothing in the diplomatic relations of the two Courts to warrant the prevailing rumours of war. But this pacific assurance was more than counteracted by the speech of Victor Emmanuel in opening the Sardinian Chambers on the 10th of the same month. "The horizon," he said, "was not entirely serene, but encouraged by the experience of the past, he was prepared resolutely to encounter the eventualities of the future. His country, small in territory, had acquired credit in the councils of Europe, because it was great through the ideas it represented and the sympathies it inspired. This position," said the King, "is not exempt from perils, since, while we respect treaties, we are not insensible to the cry of suffering which reaches us from so many parts of Italy. Strong by our concord, confiding in our good right, we await, prudent and decided, the decrees of Divine Providence."

It was generally believed at this time that a secret alliance had been formed between the Emperor and the King, though its exact nature could not be conjectured. That it implied much to the advantage of France, or to the family of the Emperor, as the price of his armed intervention, was inferred from the marriage of Prince Napoleon to the Princess Clothilde, eldest daughter of Victor Emmanuel, then only sixteen years of age. Her hand was demanded by General Niel on the 23rd of January, and the marriage took place a week after. As a matter of fact Count Cavour had held secret interviews with the Emperor Napoleon at Plombières in the previous July, where the Emperor of the French had agreed to aid Sardinia in obtaining Lombardy, Venetia, and perhaps something more in return for the cession of Nice and Savoy. These and other indications of the designs of the French Emperor warned the Austrian Government to make energetic preparations for the defence of its possessions in Italy; and a manifesto on the subject was issued on the 5th of February in the form of an address from the Prime Minister, Count Buol, to the representatives of Austria at foreign Courts. This was an appeal to the German Confederation to act as a united Power, if Austria, by an attack on her possessions in Italy, should be called upon to take up arms against one of the greatest military States in Europe. While thus appealing for support to the other German Governments, Austria was pushing forward extraordinary armaments along the frontier of the Po and Ticino. Strong masses of troops were quartered at Cremona, Piacenza, and Pavia, assuming an aggressive aspect towards Piedmont. Orders had been given to hold military stores and quarters in readiness in many places. A decree was issued forbidding the exportation of horses into Piedmont. As another indication of war, Austria had contracted a loan of 150,000,000 francs. These facts were alluded to in the Sardinian Chamber, as warranting that Government in contracting a loan of 50,000,000 francs. This was carried in the Chamber by a majority of 116 to 35. The Prime Minister, Count Cavour, also issued a counter-manifesto to the Sardinian agents at foreign Courts, vindicating his policy, as being rendered necessary by the hostile manifestations on the part of Austria.

The attitude of France towards Austria and Italy was the subject of much discussion and great difference of opinion previous to the commencement of the war. Notwithstanding the emphatic declaration of Louis Napoleon, that the Empire meant peace, there was a strong suspicion, especially in Conservative quarters, that the Imperial policy would be guided by a spirit of war and conquest. The Emperor took great pains to remove this impression, especially from the minds of English statesmen. In a conversation with Lord Cowley, he remarked--"What I said to M. de Cavour I repeat now. My sympathies always have been, and still are, with Italy. I regret that Lombardy should be in the possession of Austria; but I cannot and do not dispute the right of the latter. I respect existing treaties, because they are the only landmarks we have; so long as Austria remains within her own frontier, she is, of course, mistress to do as she pleases. With regard to Sardinia, if she provokes hostilities unjustly, and places herself in the wrong, she must expect no support from me."

Lord Malmesbury, our Foreign Secretary, exerted himself with each of the parties as a zealous peacemaker, taking his stand upon the treaties of 1815. At the same time in a despatch to Sir James Hudson, our Minister at Turin, he fully acknowledged the grievances of Italy. Lord A. Loftus, our representative at the Court of Vienna, pleading for peace with Count Buol, received the following answer:--"If you wish to preach peace and to prevent war, address yourselves with firmness to France and Piedmont. We are not meditating war; we shall not be the aggressors. Tell the Emperor Louis Napoleon that Great Britain will not passively look on if his Majesty should commence hostilities. Say to him that should he take such a course, it will be at his own risk and peril. On the other hand, warn King Victor Emmanuel that England will not sanction any act of wilful aggression, undertaken in full peace by Piedmont against Austria. If Great Britain is prepared to hold this language, no war will arise." Lord A. Loftus did not seem satisfied with the statement that Austria did not mean to be the aggressor, and he therefore demanded from Count Buol an assurance that in no case would Austria move a single soldier across her frontier in Italy, without previous concert with France. Then he would consider that war might be averted. But Count Buol could not give that assurance. "It would be a surrender," he said, "of the sovereign power of Austria;" but he asked, "What will you say to Piedmont if she were to attack us?" To which the British Minister replied, "I cannot imagine such an eventuality. It would be a mouse attacking the lion." Count Buol then went on to say that they could never come to an understanding with France on Italian affairs, because France sympathised with and protected the cause of nationalities; while Austria supported sovereigns, governments, and established order. Besides, he said, it was a great mistake to suppose that Italy required change. All she wanted was quiet--that agitation should be put down, and the hopes of interested agitators extinguished.

In the month of February Lord Cowley was sent on a special mission to Vienna, which resulted only in an elaborate defence of the Austrian policy in Italy from Count Buol, in reply to objections and proposals made by Count Walewski. Lord Cowley had to encounter in the Austrian Government the idea that France was determined on war, and that to make concessions was only to put off the evil day; and also a bitter feeling of hostility against Sardinia. His proposals were (1) the evacuation of the Roman States by Austria and France, (2) reforms in the administration of those States, (3) security for better relations between Austria and Italy, (4) the abrogation or modification of the Austrian-Italian treaties of 1849. These conditions, which in the circumstances of the case were certainly not unfavourable to Italy, were adopted by Russia as the bases for the proposed convocation of a Congress, with a view to prevent the complications to which the state of Italy might give rise. This proposal seemed to meet with general acquiescence and highly pleased Lord Malmesbury, who expressed his satisfaction to the Sardinian Ambassador. Sardinia naturally claimed the right of being represented in it. To this Austria decidedly objected and demanded, moreover, that before it assembled Sardinia should be required to disarm, which was afterwards modified into a proposal that there should be a simultaneous disarming of the Great Powers. This was one of a series of proposals made by the British Cabinet, as a last attempt to preserve the peace of Europe. But all efforts at conciliation proved unavailing, as Napoleon simply played with them in order to gain time for his military preparations. Thus he agreed to disarm himself, but refused to make any representation to Sardinia. Strange as it may seem, it was the patience of the phlegmatic German that first gave way.

On the 23rd of April an aide-de-camp of the General Gyulai, who commanded the army in Lombardy, then massed along the Austrian frontier, was the bearer of a peremptory demand that Sardinia should disarm within three days, and that in the event of refusal war would immediately commence. To this demand Count Cavour returned an answer which, like all the documents that issued from his pen, was a conclusive argument that the great adversary of Piedmont was in the wrong, and had sent a threatening summons instead of compliance with the propositions that the Great Powers had deemed reasonable, and he made a similar defiance in a popular manifesto. The rashness of Austria in commencing the war by an invasion of Piedmont alienated the British Government. On the 22nd of April Lord Malmesbury, in writing to Lord Augustus Loftus, referred to the strong feeling of indignation against her which prevailed in England, and told him that his language could not be too strong with regard to the course adopted by that Power, and requesting that he would give Count Buol clearly to understand that the refusal of Austria to stop the march of her armies would enlist against her the feelings of the Government and of all classes in Britain. He was instructed to inform Count Buol that her Majesty's Government felt it due to themselves and to the great interests of humanity, which they had so earnestly striven to uphold, solemnly to record their protest against the course that Austria--regardless of the terrible consequences to Europe and indifferent to the public opinion of the world--had so rashly and so unjustly adopted. He said, "They assign to Austria and fix upon her the last responsibility for all the miseries and calamities inevitably consequent on a conflict which was on the eve of being averted, but which, once begun, will infallibly produce a more than ordinary amount of social suffering and political convulsion." He urged the German States to remain quiet, but gained no credit at the Tuileries, as the despatch was suppressed by the Foreign Minister, Count Walewski.

On the 3rd of May the Emperor caused a communication to be made to the Corps Législatif, in which he said that Austria "had brought matters to this extremity, that she must rule up to the Alps, or Italy must be free to the shores of the Adriatic; for in this country every corner of territory which remains independent endangers her power. Hitherto," he said, "moderation has been the rule of my conduct; now energy becomes my first duty. Let France arm, and resolutely tell Europe, I desire not conquest, but I desire firmly to maintain my national and traditional policy. I observe the treaties on condition that no one shall violate them against me. I respect the territories and the rights of neutral Powers; but I boldly avow my sympathies for a people whose history is mingled with our own, and who groan under foreign oppression." The Emperor proceeded to explain the object of the war in which he was about to engage. It was to restore Italy to herself--not to impose on her a change of masters; and we shall then have upon our frontiers a friendly people, who will owe to us their independence. "We do not," he said, "go into Italy to foment disorder, or to disturb the power of the Holy Father, whom we have replaced upon his throne, but to remove from him this foreign pressure, which weighs upon the whole peninsula, and to help to establish there order, based upon pure, legitimate, satisfied interests. We are going, then, to seek upon this classic ground, illustrious by so many victories, the footsteps of our fathers. God grant that we may be worthy of them!" In this spirit the Emperor set out on his mission for the liberation of Italy "from the Alps to the Adriatic." Instead of obeying the order of Austria, his ally, Victor Emmanuel, summoned Garibaldi to take the command of the little army of Volunteers, which included in its ranks members of the noblest families in Italy, and Garibaldi obeyed. The Volunteers had got the general whom of all others they preferred, and whose name had magic power with all Italian patriots. Piedmont stood prepared for the threatened invasion by Austria. That false step was taken on the 27th of April, 1859, when the Austrian Commander-in-Chief, Gyulai, ordered two columns of his army to cross the Ticino. On the 2nd of May the King called the nation to arms. He was himself Commander-in-Chief. In the meantime three Austrian corps d'armée were encamped on the plains of Piedmont, on both banks of the Po; and it was expected that an attempt would be made to take Turin by a coup de main before the arrival of the French. But these were hurrying to the field of battle from the slopes of Mont Cenis and Mont Genèvre, and a junction was duly effected.

The Austrians had taken up their ground at leisure, and occupied strong positions. The allied army was drawn up in a large crescent, which extended without interruption from Vercelli to Voghera. The first engagement with the enemy began on the 20th of May, at Genestrello, from which, after some hours' hard fighting, the Austrians were driven out. They then took up a fresh position at Montebello. There they were attacked--though 20,000 strong--by a body of about 6,000 infantry and six squadrons of Sardinian cavalry, by which they were routed in a few hours. General Forey was the commander of the French troops in this battle, and was the chief hero of the first victory over the Austrians. The Austrian general was completely outmanœuvred by the Emperor and the King. Unknown to the enemy, the allied army changed its line of battle, turning on its left wing from the right bank of the Po to the left. Thus this army of 200,000 men extended its undulating lines like an immense serpent, which had its head at Cameriano, its tail at Casale, and its centre at Palestro, on the other side of the Sesia. By this means the allied generals were enabled to effect movements that compelled the enemy to retreat to the left bank of the Sesia. This river was crossed on the 30th by General Cialdini. The King, followed by his whole army, also crossed on a bridge of boats. The Austrians were strongly fortified at Vinzaglio, on elevated ground, with ten field guns and two howitzers. The position was boldly attacked by General Cialdini. As soon as his men got within twenty paces of the entrenched camp, they rushed on and carried the position at the point of the bayonet, after showers of bullets had thinned their lines. As the Austrians were supported by reserves pouring in from the roads leading to the camp, the contest assumed a deadly character, and Cialdini would have been compelled to retire had not a second brigade been despatched to support him. In less than an hour, however, the victory was his--the enemy retreating towards Novara, leaving 300 muskets, with a considerable number of prisoners and wounded. A similar fate attended the Austrians posted at Casalino. The Sardinians won a still more brilliant victory at the village of Palestro, which caused the enemy to retreat on Robbio.

The actions of the war followed one another with astounding rapidity. Bulletin after bulletin, telegraphed "from the Emperor to the Empress," announced a succession of triumphs for the French arms. One of the most important of these victories was won on the 4th of June, at Magenta, when 5,000 Austrians were taken prisoners, and 15,000 killed or wounded. The loss of the French was about 2,000 placed hors de combat, and had it not been for the timely advent of MacMahon the victory would probably have been converted into a defeat by the poor generalship of Napoleon. The routed Austrians transferred their headquarters to Abbiate Grosso, while the allies marched on Milan. This city had risen against the Austrian garrison, which evacuated the place precipitately, leaving their cannon and the treasure of the army behind them. On the 8th of June the Emperor and the King made their triumphal entry into the city, where they were received with unbounded joy. Victor Emmanuel immediately assumed the authority of Sovereign by universal acclamation. The Emperor and the King did not rest long upon their laurels at Milan; they followed the retreating Austrians across the plain of Milan, meeting no check till they reached the Mincio on the 23rd of June. The line of the two armies was formed, and extended from the shores of the Lago di Garda, at Desenzano, along the western edge of the hilly country, till, bending back, it touched the Chiese at Carpenedolo. The Emperor, with the guards as a reserve, took up his position at Montechiaro; and the King, with his staff, at Sonato. Contrary to expectation, the Austrians crossed the Mincio and assumed the offensive. The whole Austrian army formed the line of battle, which extended five leagues in length, from Peschiera--on which they leant their extreme right--down into the plain of the Mincio, intersecting the great road to Goito. The Emperor of Austria was present, having chosen for his headquarters Cavriana, a place in the centre of the line, the village of Solferino being the key of the whole position. Each of the armies had mistaken the movements of the other, though the French had sent up a man to reconnoitre in a balloon; it consequently happened that they came unexpectedly into collision. This occurred on Friday, the 25th of June, when after much blundering strategy on both sides, the Austrians were compelled to abandon all their positions, and they withdrew during the night, having blown up the bridge of Goito.

In the meantime the Austrians had retreated to the Quadrilateral, and taken their position behind the lines of those celebrated fortifications, which were believed to be impregnable. The allies had crossed the Mincio in pursuit. The French headquarters were established at Valeggio, in the villa of the Marchioness Maffei, which had been previously occupied by the Austrian Emperor. Two days after the battle of Solferino, Count Cavour, with his friend and secretary, Nigra, had a long interview with the French Emperor. They found him exceedingly disgusted with the quarrels of his generals, deeply impressed by the horrible scenes of war he had just witnessed for the first time in his life; but apparently proud and delighted that the military glory of France, and the superiority of her army over the Austrians, had been once more splendidly asserted. In reality he was perplexed by the increasing difficulties of his position. The count returned to the camp in high spirits and full of hope, under the impression that the Emperor was determined to prosecute the war with vigour to its conclusion, and that, in case it should be necessary for the accomplishment of that object, he would not scruple to appeal to the Hungarians. In the course of a day or two afterwards, however, mysterious rumours were afloat in the camp, that a French general had been sent to Verona on some inexplicable mission to the Austrian Emperor. These rumours proved to be well founded. When both armies were fully marshalled, prepared for action at any moment, when there was some apprehension that their lines would be attacked by the enemy, or that they would be ordered to march on Verona, General Fleury was despatched with a proposal for an armistice. This had been prefaced by an attempt to secure the mediation of the British Government, but Lord John Russell was not to be caught. This step was taken without any communication with Victor Emmanuel, and without the knowledge of any human being except the bearer of the message. At seven o'clock next morning he returned with a letter to his Imperial master, announcing the success of the mission. The result was the conclusion of an armistice for one month. The announcement, it need scarcely be said, spread consternation through the Sardinian camp, and excited the deepest disappointment and indignation throughout Italy. Coming upon the Italians while still in the flush of victory and full of hope, they felt it not only as a terrible shock, but as a betrayal of their cause and a national humiliation. Cavour promptly flung up office.

The great statesman resigned, rather than endorse a peace concluded without his Sovereign or himself being consulted, and Ratazzi received orders to form a Cabinet. The ex-Premier had scarcely departed in his carriage, amidst shouts of "Long live Cavour!" when the Emperor and Prince Napoleon drove up to dine with the King. It is said to have been a sad party, during which little was spoken by the royal host. On the 12th of July the Emperor returned to Paris, passing through Milan and Turin, where he had been so recently received with enthusiastic acclamations. He must have painfully felt the contrast, when the victor of Magenta and Solferino was permitted to return from the scenes of his military glory without a cheer from the people whose country he had promised to free from the Alps to the Adriatic; but which he seemed now to abandon, leaving his "mission" but half accomplished.

Before his departure, he issued a proclamation in the following terms:--"Soldiers,--an armistice has been concluded on the 8th instant between the belligerent parties, to extend to the 15th of August next. This truce will permit you to rest after your glorious labours and, if necessary, to continue the work which you have so gloriously inaugurated by your courage and your devotion. I am about to return to Paris, and shall leave the provisional command of my army to Marshal Vaillant; but as soon as the hour of combat shall have struck, you will see me again in your midst to partake of your dangers."

The armistice was immediately followed by the basis of a treaty of peace, the terms of which were arranged--and the treaty itself was provisionally signed--on the 11th of July at Villafranca by the two Emperors. Its conditions were these:--

"The two Sovereigns will favour the creation of an Italian Confederation. That Confederation will be under the honorary presidency of the Holy Father. The Emperor of Austria cedes to the Emperor of the French his right over Lombardy, with the exception of the fortresses of Mantua and Peschiera, so that the frontier of the Austrian possessions shall start from the extreme range of the fortress of Peschiera, and shall extend in a direct line along the Mincio, as far as Grazio; thence to Scorzarolo and Suzana to the Po, whence the actual frontiers shall continue to form the limits of Austria.

"The Emperor of the French will hand over the ceded territory to the King of Sardinia. Venetia shall form part of the Italian Confederation, though remaining under the Crown of the Emperor of Austria. The Grand Duke of Tuscany and the Duke of Modena return to their States, granting a general amnesty.

"The two Emperors will ask the Holy Father to introduce indispensable reforms into his States. A full and complete amnesty is granted on both sides to persons compromised in the late events in the territories of the belligerent parties."

This fantastic scheme was severely criticised by Lord John Russell in his usual incisive style, both in despatches and in Parliament. Lord John thought that such a confederation would be possible; but he doubted if it was practicable at that time, and whether a confederation with the Pope as chief, and the Emperor of Austria as one of its members, would be desirable. How could such a body assent to a religious toleration or liberty of conscience? How could the Grand Duke of Tuscany, who had forfeited his rights by abdication be forced back upon his subjects, who had asserted their independence? Then how could the difficulty about the Pope be got over? The Emperors recommended to him indispensable reforms, but he declined to take their advice. It would never do, however, for a Minister of the Crown of Great Britain to say that England, which had taken part in all the concerns of Europe since 1815--in the formation of the kingdom of Greece and in the formation of the kingdom of Belgium--should now, suddenly and without reason, withdraw from a meeting of the Powers, if there were any chance that the situation of Italy might be improved, that peace might be confirmed, and the independence of the Italian States secured by her taking part in the Congress.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

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.

Plenipotentiaries were appointed to arrange the terms of a definitive treaty of peace at Zurich, where they met on the 6th of August, and it was signed on the 11th of November following. The document consisted of three parts, which might be regarded as three distinct treaties, the first containing a conveyance of Lombardy to France, the second a conveyance of the same province from France to Sardinia, and the third re-establishing peace between the three Powers.

The Venetian territory was still in the possession of Austria, with the right of entering into the proposed Italian confederation, under the presidency of the Pope. It was the height of absurdity to suppose that the Pope would ever consent to be the president of any confederation of the kind, or that Venice could derive advantage from the nominal concession of any rights so long as she was subject to the foreign domination of Austria. One of the most unsatisfactory portions of the treaty was the stipulation for the restoration of the Dukes of Tuscany and Modena to their dominions, from which they had fled in consternation, their subjects having revolted, almost to a man, against them. According to the Treaty of Villafranca, and the state of things which it recognised, the whole gain to Italy resulting from the war was the rescuing of Lombardy from Austria and annexing it to the kingdom of Victor Emmanuel. This was no doubt a great advantage--an important accession to the cause of constitutional government; but as the fortresses of Austria still menaced the independence of Piedmont, the whole results were in the highest degree disappointing, not only to the people of North Italy, but to the provinces that had thrown off the yoke of their petty princes and had already established provisional governments. In rapid succession Parma, Modena, and Tuscany voted for annexation to Italy, and the Papal States were evidently ripe for revolt.

In the midst of his perplexities Napoleon caught at the idea of a European Congress in order to prevent his treaty from becoming mere waste paper. The idea was highly unacceptable to the British Cabinet, which believed the Italian confederation to be a wholly unworkable plan. Lord Palmerston bitterly remarked that "l'Italie rendue à ellemême" had become "l'Italie vendue à l'Autriche," and Lord John Russell bluntly informed the Austrian Court that every free Italian State had a right to decide its own destiny. Queen Victoria was inclined to favour the Austrian position, deeming that the language used by her Ministers was much too strong, and even went so far as to appeal from Lord John and Palmerston to the Cabinet as a whole. They were compelled to inform her that unless their views were adopted they would have no alternative but to resign their offices. Presently events began to favour Lord John's policy. In order to reconcile the British Government to the idea of a Congress, Napoleon III. declared himself ready to constitute a confederation without Austria, and added that he had no intention of employing force to restore the Dukes of Tuscany and Modena. Lord John thereupon informed the Sardinian Envoy that the defence of Tuscany from internal disorder would be perfectly legitimate, and the advice was promptly acted upon, in spite of the indignation of Napoleon. Further, in September Austria admitted that she was not prepared to use force. So that when the invitations for a Congress were issued shortly after the signature of the treaty, it was clear its meeting would be perfectly futile if the treaty was to be taken as a basis of discussion. This Napoleon saw and, though the British Government accepted the invitation, the Emperor gave the project its death-blow by causing an adverse pamphlet to be written, entitled "Le Pape et le Congrès." In his subtle machinations he had been foiled by one man, and that man was the simple-minded Garibaldi.

Amidst all that was doubtful, ambiguous, or perplexing in the Italian revolution, which resulted so happily in the establishment of the Kingdom of United Italy under the constitutional government of Victor Emmanuel, there was at least one character which always appeared without a shadow--which shone with unclouded lustre to the end. Garibaldi was the real hero of the Italian war. He was the man of action who realised the great thoughts of Mazzini. If the latter was the first to conceive the idea of Italian unity, it was the former that made it a fact. The campaign of the hero in the Valteline displayed uniformly the qualities of a great general and extorted the admiration of the enemy. The Austrian officers encamped on the Stelvio spoke of him in the highest terms of praise and thought him a truly wonderful man; as for the Croats, they firmly believed that he was the son of the devil. Garibaldi, it may well be supposed, felt as deeply as Cavour the blow inflicted on the hitherto triumphant cause of his country by the French Emperor in the Treaty of Villafranca. When Cavour resigned, the General went to the King to give up his commission, with all the officers of his corps; but Victor Emmanuel said--"No; Italy still requires the legions you command, and you must remain." Garibaldi consented. Then followed in Italian affairs a period of uncertainty, perplexity, confusion, and mystery. The "Ratazzi Ministry had no settled plans, and not knowing what was best to do, did nothing." The Sardinian envoys were recalled from the duchies and the Romagna; Garibaldi was requested to resign the command of the Æmilian army; the vote of the different provincial Parliaments for annexation to Sardinia was neither refused nor accepted; the nomination of Prince Carignano to the regency of the provinces was declined after England had refused her armed support, and Buoncompagni, who had not been asked for, was sent in his stead. The organisation of the Sardinian army also was neglected, and the incorporation of the Lombard provinces with Piedmont was conducted so inefficiently as to cause great discontent. At this juncture the volunteers were thrown into Tuscany. Wherever Garibaldi went in his tour of inspection, the inhabitants received him with unbounded joy. He accepted all the demonstrations gladly, as inspired by devotion to their country and loyalty to Victor Emmanuel; but this did not save him from the jealousy of the generals of the regular army, particularly La Marmora, who refused to recognise Garibaldi's nominations, and gave orders to dismiss all the volunteers from Central Italy, that they might serve in their own province. It is stated that as many as 18,000 or 20,000 of these passed through Modena; but not one could be induced to enter the regular army, so sickened were they of their Piedmontese experience; but all were ready to follow Garibaldi. General Fanti, who had resigned the chief command of the army, became Minister of War at Modena, and thwarted Garibaldi in every possible manner; going so far as even to send confidential messages to his officers, warning them not to execute his orders. These studied annoyances were designed to cause the high-spirited General to give up his command, in compliance, it is believed, with the desire of the French Emperor. In consequence of these intrigues Garibaldi retired, but by that time the unity of Central Italy with Sardinia was practically secure.

In January, 1860, the Ratazzi Cabinet resigned, being indignant at Lord John Russell's suggestion that Cavour should come to Paris and London, "congress or no congress"; and Count Cavour was charged with the formation of a new Ministry. At the general election Garibaldi was returned as a member of the Chamber for Nice, his native city, the authorities, at the same time, presenting him with a sword of honour. Soon after the conclusion of peace, rumours were rife that Nice and Savoy were to be surrendered to France, as a reward for her services. This was deemed incredible, for the French Emperor had emphatically disclaimed any interested motives or any desire for the acquisition of territory, and it could not be supposed that Victor Emmanuel would ever consent to alienate the cradle of his dynasty. When Cavour was questioned on the subject by Garibaldi, he distinctly denied that he had ever dreamt of such a thing. This denial was often repeated; but when the fact of a secret compact to this effect became notorious, the Emperor authorised Lord John Russell to assure the House of Commons that, however confident in the justice of his claim, he would not take any step to carry it into effect without first consulting the Great Powers of Europe. Yet he shortly afterwards quietly entered into possession without troubling them on the subject. Not a word of discussion on the matter was permitted by Cavour in the Sardinian Chamber; and without any appeal to his Parliament, the King withdrew his governors and his troops; whereupon Savoy and Nice were immediately occupied by French soldiers. On the 12th of April Garibaldi, in his place in the Chamber, made an attempt to defeat the scheme by showing that the transfer of territory without the consent of Parliament was unconstitutional and illegal. His motion was lost; but his effort to save the fair city--an Italian city that had fought for the common cause--won for him an enthusiastic reception from the people outside, by whom he was actually carried away in triumph. The first act of the Italian Parliament was to ratify the sale of the people of Nice. This transaction caused an irreconcilable breach between Garibaldi and Cavour. Lord John Russell launched a vigorous protest against the annexation and the doctrine of "natural frontiers," which Napoleon enunciated in its defence, but his remonstrances in the nature of things went unheeded, even though his declarations in the House of Commons were outspoken in the extreme. "But this means war," said General Flahault to Palmerston. "Very well," was the reply, "if it is war, it is war." Things, however, took their natural course, though Russell's language undoubtedly prevented French intervention in the events that we are about to relate, and therefore helped freedom's cause.

The Romans and Venetians were still in bondage, and there seemed as yet no way opened for their liberation. The former were kept down by a powerful French garrison, which could be increased to any extent at the shortest notice; the latter dwelt under the shadows of the Quadrilateral, the strongest fortresses in the world, and Austria was determined to hold that province with its seaboard at any cost. But it occurred to Garibaldi and his friends that something might be done to overthrow the feeble government of the King of Naples in Sicily. Mazzini had sent an agent there, who reported that it would be dangerous to attempt anything in that quarter. Still, there was a chance that if Garibaldi placed himself at the head of an expedition to that island, the immense prestige of his character, and the magic of his name, might work wonders amongst the people. Mazzini took this view, and promised the support of the secret societies, with all the funds he could collect in England and other countries. The General had resigned his commission in the Piedmontese service, and was therefore free to act independently. We must assume that the Government of Victor Emmanuel considered this attempt of Garibaldi extremely rash and hopeless. Whatever might be their motives, they did all in their power to prevent the enterprise. They accordingly seized upon the funds and the arms that had been deposited at Genoa and Milan, and neither arms nor money were ever afterwards restored to Garibaldi. This was a great discouragement, as the supplies that had been collected were far too scanty. Garibaldi had only 1,000 volunteers, while the military force with which his expedition would have to contend consisted of twelve times as many well-appointed regular troops. With his small army, numbering not more than a single regiment, he started from a country house near Genoa on the night of the 5th of May, 1860, to make war against the King of Naples, with whom his own Sovereign was at peace. Two steamers, with appropriate names--the Piedmonte and Lombardo--were seized by the volunteers in the roadstead at Genoa, and steaming along the coast, they picked up their comrades at the points previously fixed upon. The Sardinian Government, hearing of the embarkation, immediately sent out the fast screw frigate Maria Adelaide, under the orders of Admiral Persano, in pursuit of the expedition. Lord John Russell did not altogether approve of the enterprise; nevertheless he declined to interfere, and warned Napoleon that the annexation of Sardinia by France as compensation "would be viewed with extreme displeasure by Great Britain."

The "thousand heroes" steered their course to the harbour of Marsala, where the men had just time to land on the 11th of May, and get their guns and stores on shore, before two Neapolitan ships, which were pursuing at full speed, could come within reach. Some broadsides were fired at the Garibaldians, but without effect. Sicily had been prepared for the advent of the deliverer. Some partial attempts to effect a revolution had been crushed with great brutality by the Neapolitan troops, but the effect was to extend throughout the island the spirit of revolt. The Neapolitan army was commanded by General Lanza, who, in an order of the day, proclaimed his intention to extinguish the firebrand of Italy, the outlawed filibuster of South America. Nothing daunted by this bravado, Garibaldi, on the 15th of May, attacked the enemy in their strong positions. The battle lasted three hours; Garibaldi had 200 men hors de combat, while his son Menotti, and the son of the great Manin, and Baron Stocco were amongst the wounded. From Calatafimi to Palermo, the liberators marched on, fighting and conquering, and carrying out, under the guidance of Garibaldi, the most admirable strategical plans. The General, after crossing the mountains, feigned a hasty retreat, which so completely deceived the Neapolitan generals in that quarter that they telegraphed to Lanza at Palermo, stating that Garibaldi had fled and that his troops were being utterly demoralised. But on the morning of the 27th the Commander-in-Chief received, while yet in bed, the startling intelligence that the despised "filibuster" was encamped in the vicinity of that city. It was defended by 12,000 troops. In less than four hours they were dislodged from their positions. Before night Garibaldi was in possession of the whole of the town, with the exception of the royal palace, its immediate vicinity, and the forts, from which, as well as from the Neapolitan ships hard by, a shower of projectiles fell upon the Italians, for the enemy had opened fire upon the city in spite of the energetic protest of the English Rear-Admiral Mundy. The result of this marvellous success was a conference with Garibaldi, which was held on board the British flagship Hannibal on the 30th of May, in presence of the French, American, and Sardinian naval commanders. An armistice was agreed to, and ultimately a convention, signed on the 6th of June, by which the Neapolitans were to evacuate Palermo, and the whole of Sicily, except Messina, Melazza, and some other less important fortresses. The Italians paid a just tribute to the humanity, energy, and diplomatic skill of Admiral Mundy, but for whose exertions the city would have been almost totally destroyed by a treacherous bombardment after the hour for a conference had been fixed.

The next step in Garibaldi's liberating progress was to dislodge the enemy from Milazzo. The garrison was commanded by General Bosco, who had under him four regiments of rifles, numbering 4,800 men; the 15th Regiment of the line, 1,000 strong; two squadrons of dragoons, five pieces of artillery, and twelve field pieces, all remarkably well mounted. He had, besides, every advantage in point of position. Garibaldi's forces were greatly inferior in point of numbers, amounting to only about 4,400 men, with three guns, two of them old ship twelve-pounders, and a six-pounder, cast in the seventeenth century. But his little army was enthusiastic and daring, having unbounded confidence in its chivalrous leader, and after a tough battle the enemy was thoroughly beaten. The Dictator, for so Garibaldi styled himself, had now learned, from an intercepted letter, that the King of Naples, despairing of Sicily, had ordered his troops to evacuate the island. He therefore resolved to prevent the departure of the troops, and to force the garrison of Messina to come to terms, to which the general agreed without difficulty, signing a convention, by which he surrendered the town and all the forts, except the citadel. Messina and the harbour were to be respected, and no bombardment was to take place without provocation on the part of the Garibaldians; the towns of Syracuse and Augusta were also to be evacuated by the royal troops; thus Garibaldi became master of Sicily, and had obtained from the enemy large supplies of war material to enable him to effect the liberation of Naples.

In the meantime the King, alarmed at the progress of revolution, and fearing the loss of his throne, supplicated the interposition of the French Emperor, promising a constitution and all sorts of reforms. Napoleon, therefore, wrote in very urgent terms to Victor Emmanuel, deprecating the invasion of Naples. In consequence of this interposition, Count Litta was sent to remonstrate with Garibaldi. Garibaldi resolved to disobey the royal injunctions. He wrote a reply full of devotion and affection, in which he declared nothing on earth should influence him to swerve from his mission till it was accomplished--until he made his Majesty King of United Italy. Napoleon then had recourse to England, and suggested that France and Great Britain should combine to stop Garibaldi's passage. Lord John Russell, however, declined to accede to this view and Naples was left to its fate by the Powers.

On the 18th of August Garibaldi embarked, with an expedition of 4,000 men, for the conquest of a kingdom defended by a well-organised army of at least 80,000. He surprised Reggio, whose garrison capitulated and was placed on board the Neapolitan ships. As the liberating army advanced, Garibaldi and his officers everywhere out-manœuvred the Neapolitans, giving them to understand that a small reconnoitring band was but the advanced guard of a powerful army and inducing them to retire or surrender. Garibaldi pursued his conquering march with the utmost rapidity. On arriving at Monteleone he found that the Neapolitan corps under General Ghio had decamped the evening before. Hastening on to Tiriolo, he was joyfully greeted by the National Guards. At Savoria a sudden attack spread terror amongst the royal troops, though the town contained 7,000 infantry, with cavalry and artillery. Colonel Peard was sent forward to General Ghio to demand that he should capitulate, to which he assented without any difficulty. At length the Liberator arrived at Salerno, which was his last resting-place before entering the capital. On the 5th of September it was decided that the King and Queen with their court should quit Naples and retire to Gaeta, leaving their loyal Ministers and generals to defend the capital and throne as well as they could. As soon as the King had departed, the Ministers who had been left to preserve order held a meeting, and decided that a deputation should proceed at once to Salerno, and make arrangements for the public entry of Garibaldi into the capital. "The warrior of Freedom" made his entrance into Naples accompanied only by a few followers. He passed unguarded under the guns of Castel Nuovo and St. Elmo, still garrisoned by the troops of the departed King. As his carriage advanced with difficulty through the applauding multitude the crowd grew thicker and thicker. At last the hero arrived at the Palace of Forestiera, where he was received by the National Guard and the Municipal Council. In compliance with the demand of the people, he immediately showed himself on the balcony and delivered a brief address, in which he told them that they must prove to Italy that they were the worthy descendants of Massaniello. The Neapolitan garrison, however, which still held the fortress of St. Elmo, overlooking and commanding the town, occasioned much anxiety, as the troops remained faithful to the King and might possibly bombard the city. But the alarm was set at rest by the capitulation of the garrison. So far everything went well; but Garibaldi could not organise a government and began to squabble with Mazzini as to the destiny of his conquests. Should they be surrendered to Victor Emmanuel or should they be a republic?

Here the British Government wisely interposed. On the 9th of September, Mr. Elliot, the British Minister at Naples, received a telegram from Lord John Russell, desiring him to express to General Garibaldi the hope that no attack would be made upon Venetia. On September 10th General Garibaldi and Mr. Elliot met on board the Hannibal at eleven o'clock. "After I had made her Majesty's Minister and the Dictator acquainted with each other," wrote Admiral Mundy, "I requested the latter to desire his attendant staff to leave the cabin, as Mr. Elliot was desirous of a private conversation, and Captain Farquhar took them on the lower deck to watch the gunnery exercise. Mr. Elliot having expressed to General Garibaldi the astonishment with which, in common with all the world, he had witnessed the marvellous results he had accomplished with such trifling means, informed him that though he could have no official relations with him, he should remain at Naples until he received further instructions from her Majesty's Government. This information appeared to give great satisfaction to the Dictator, who said he fully understood that official intercourse was not practicable. Mr. Elliot then informed him that Lord John Russell had charged him to express the hope that no attack would be made on Venetia, as, in his lordship's opinion, it would be calculated to bring the greatest calamities upon Italy. Garibaldi replied by stating that he would make no concealment of his plans, which were plain and straightforward. He intended to push on at once to Rome, and there place the crown of United Italy on the head of King Victor Emmanuel, upon whom would devolve the task of the liberation of Venetia, and in which he would himself be but the lieutenant of his Majesty. If that liberation could be accomplished by purchase or by negotiation, so much the better. He added that he was sure that Lord John Russell, in counselling the abandonment of Venetia, did not fairly represent the generous feelings of the people of England towards the Italian nation, although he cheerfully recognised the obligation Italy was under to her Majesty's Government for the sympathy they had exhibited with regard to Rome." Nevertheless the warning, accompanied by another to the King of Sardinia, was not without its effect.

The speedy annexation of Naples to Piedmont was most desirable; and the main difficulty that stood in the way was the antagonism between Garibaldi and Cavour. The former wrote to the King requesting that the obnoxious Minister might be removed from office; but Victor Emmanuel answered that he could not, as a constitutional Sovereign, withdraw a Minister who enjoyed the confidence of the majority of his subjects. Garibaldi, however, lost no time in making all necessary arrangements for the annexation, which was hastened by the march of events in another quarter. The celebrated French General, Lamoricière, had tendered his sword to the Pope and had organised an army of volunteers which began to assume alarming proportions. Garibaldi would have marched to meet this new enemy and would have attacked Rome. The French garrison of that city must then have interfered and France would have been forced into actual war against the liberators of Italy. This complication of circumstances led the Emperor to consent to the invasion of the Papal States by Victor Emmanuel, which was the very thing that Cavour desired. Consequently, with but a few days' notice, the Sardinian army crossed the Papal frontier, scattered Lamoricière's forces, compelling himself to fly for safety, and added some of the finest provinces in Italy to the new Italian kingdom.

Towards the middle of September Garibaldi had permanently established his headquarters in the magnificent palace of Caserta, the summer residence of the ex-royal family. The organisation of the army was his first care after his arrival in Naples. Altogether Garibaldi could muster an army of 37,000 men by the middle of September. He distributed his forces so as to be in a position to be able to repel any attack that might be made by the Royalists, and to be at the same time free to cross the Volturno and assume the offensive. Up to September the 17th there had been no encounter between the two armies but slight skirmishes, in which the Royalists were invariably worsted. On that day Garibaldi ordered a forward movement, which was conducted by Colonel Turr, and was followed by an attack upon Capua. In presence of the advancing column of Major Cattabene, the enemy abandoned the town of Cajazzo, a strong position which the Garibaldians were thus enabled to occupy. But they were only 600 in number, and separated by a river from their base of operations, which was four miles distant. Two days afterwards they were attacked by an overwhelming force, which cut off half their number and took the major prisoner to Capua. This unfortunate affair, which occurred on the 19th, was only a preliminary encounter. The advance of the Piedmontese army through the Papal States, threatening the rear of the Neapolitans, compelled them to assume the offensive against Garibaldi. It was consequently determined by a council of war that, on the 1st of October, the whole army should cross the Volturno at different points and fall upon the Garibaldian lines. The principal attack was directed against Garibaldi's line between Santa Maria and St. Angelo. It was vigorously conducted, and well supported by powerful artillery; but the military genius of Garibaldi and the enthusiasm of his troops prevailed, though the victory was by no means decisive. The remnant of the royal forces were withdrawn to Gaeta.

The advance of Victor Emmanuel's army on the Garigliano decided the fate of Southern Italy and of the Bourbon dynasty. It seemed rather a triumphal progress than a contest between two fighting armies. A Sardinian division under General de Sonaz landed at Manfredonia on the 14th of October, and marched on Maddaloni; while the main body of the Sardinian army, under General Cialdini, was pushing on from the Abruzzi towards Capua, compelling the Neapolitans to fall back on Gaeta. Garibaldi had, meantime, concentrated his forces at Calvi, whence he sent Colonel Missori to convey his respects to Victor Emmanuel at Teana. The King received Missori most affectionately, evincing the liveliest interest in the army of Garibaldi and complimenting the gallant envoy on his own exploits at Melazzo. It was agreed that the King should meet the Dictator next day at the foot of a hill called Santa Maria della Croce. The two great leaders of Italian unity cordially shook hands, and showed by their faces that the action was the expression of a true sentiment of affection on Garibaldi's part, and of the greatest admiration on the part of the King. The King complimented the General by saying that without his daring expedition the unity of Italy would not be a reality for ten years to come. "It may be, sire," answered Garibaldi; "but I could not have attempted my expedition had not Victor Emmanuel been the most noble and generous of kings."

The triumphs of the Piedmontese army were rapid. The earthworks were stormed, the Garigliano was crossed, and the main body of the Neapolitan army was driven back to Gaeta. Capua having been bombarded for forty-eight hours, the garrison surrendered on the 2nd of November, yielding almost without conditions. Meanwhile, universal suffrage had declared Victor Emmanuel King of the Two Sicilies; there being but about 10,000 votes for the Bourbon, against 1,300,000. The task of Garibaldi was now gloriously accomplished; his programme, as conqueror and Dictator, exactly fulfilled. On the 7th of November Victor Emmanuel made his triumphal entry into Naples. The General now asked three things of the King, in return for the two crowns he had given him, namely: first, to be appointed Governor of Southern Italy for three years; secondly, that the decrees he had signed during his dictatorship should be ratified, so far as they were in accordance with the constitutional laws of the country; and thirdly, that the rank conferred by him, in virtue of his dictatorship of the Two Sicilies, on his companions in arms, should be recognised by the new Italian Government. A peremptory refusal was given to the first request, which, indeed, it was impossible to grant. The two last the King's Ministers were disposed to grant, but upon certain conditions to be named by themselves. In the end, the King renewed the royal promise he had previously made, that Garibaldi's volunteers should be incorporated with the regular army, and be subject to the scrutiny of a mixed commission--a promise that was afterwards broken by his Ministers. In these circumstances it is not surprising that Garibaldi declined all the offers afterwards made to him and retired, poor and unrewarded, to Caprera. Although the task of Garibaldi and Victor Emmanuel was accomplished, yet the diplomatic situation was gloomy in the extreme. Napoleon III. sent a threatening squadron of ships in order to avert, if possible, the surrender of the final stronghold of the Neapolitans at Gaeta, but the Italian army persisted in the siege and the demonstration was a complete failure. Then France and Spain withdrew their Ministers from Turin; Austria and Prussia expressed their indignation and displeasure, and Russia followed suit by directing her Minister to depart. Lord John Russell thereupon wrote a famous despatch, dated the 27th of October, 1860. He declined to follow in the wake of the Powers, and after asserting that the people of Naples and the Roman States had taken up arms for good reasons, concluded with these stirring words--"Such having been the causes and concomitant circumstances of the revolution of Italy, her Majesty's Government can see no sufficient grounds for the severe censure with which Austria, France, Prussia, and Russia have visited the acts of the King of Sardinia. Her Majesty's Government will turn their eyes rather to the gratifying prospect of a people building up the edifice of their liberties, and consolidating the work of their independence, amid the sympathies and good wishes of Europe."

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

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--It falls flat--Mr. James Wilson and Sir Charles Trevelyan--The Defences of India and Great Britain--Foreign Affairs in the Queen's Speech--The Massacre by the Druses--The French Expedition--Palmerston's Distrust of Napoleon--China once more--Repulse on the Peiho--Lord Elgin and Baron Gros--The Advance on Pekin--Capture of the Taku Forts--Futile Negotiations--Treacherous Treatment of the British Envoys--The Summer Palace looted--Release of Mr. Parkes--Lord Elgin decrees the Destruction of the Palace--It perishes in the Flames--The Treaty of Peace--The Prince of Wales in Canada--Death of the Duchess of Kent--The American Civil War--Causes of Dispute between North and South--Election of Lincoln--Secession of South Carolina--Her Example followed--The Confederate States--Fall of Fort Sumter--Lincoln calls out the Militia--He places the South under Blockade--The British Cabinet declares Neutrality--The Order in Council--Affair of the Trent--Capture of Mason and Slidell--Excitement in England--Canadian Loyalty--Russell's Ultimatum--His Correspondence with Seward--Release of the Envoys--The Paper Duties Bill and the Church Rates Bill--Sidney Herbert and the Volunteers.

The Session of 1860 opened on the 24th of January, her Majesty delivering the Royal Speech in person. In the debates on the Address, affairs in Italy became a prominent topic of discussion, especially the part that France had played after the war in demanding the cession of Savoy and Nice. In the Upper House Lord Brougham expressed his opinion that the Italians should be allowed to work out their own freedom, without the interference of foreigners, whether French, Sardinian, or Austrian. No doubt they would do it, if Austrian interference could be got rid of; but that was precisely the difficulty that rendered the interference of the other Powers necessary. Lord Derby objected to Britain joining any conference on the subject at all. On the 7th of February the Marquis of Normanby brought forward a distinct motion upon the subject. The noble lord--who had been distinguished as a Whig, and something more, and whose ultra-Liberalism when Viceroy of Ireland had exposed him to much animadversion, was converted to ultra-Conservatism by his residence as ambassador in Italy--became during this Session the zealous partisan of the despots whom the people had deposed. He moved an Address to the Queen on the subject of the proposed annexation of Savoy. After some strong language from Lord Derby and others the motion was withdrawn. But, on the 14th of the same month, Lord Normanby brought forward another motion in reference to the new Government of Central Italy, which he denounced in the strongest terms of reprobation. The Marquis of Clanricarde ably answered the vituperative speech of Lord Normanby and contradicted his allegations from his own personal knowledge. The fiscal burdens under which, according to Lord Normanby, the people of Sardinia groaned, the noble marquis declared to be as nothing compared with the taxation endured by Venetia, which was, in fact, absolute confiscation. The motion was for the production of papers, and it was agreed to. There had been similar discussions in the House of Commons, which led Lord John Russell, on the 12th of March, to make a formal statement about Italy, the object of which was to vindicate the course taken by the Government. But the discussions led to no practical result; inasmuch as, whatever might be the feeling about the extension of the French frontiers by the annexation of Savoy and Nice, the House was unanimously of opinion that it should not be made a ground of war with France.

Great interest was felt at the opening of this Session about the forthcoming financial statement of Mr. Gladstone, and the Treaty of Commerce with France, which had been recently signed, but the terms of which had not been laid before Parliament. This very important concession to the doctrines of Free Trade had been negotiated by Mr. Cobden and M. Rouher, the French Minister, and represented the better side of Napoleon's policy. The 6th of February was fixed for the Budget, but the illness of Mr. Gladstone caused its postponement to the 10th. His speech on that occasion lasted four hours and was distinguished by all his accustomed clearness, force, and eloquence. On the 21st of February Mr. Du Cane moved a resolution against the Budget to the effect that, while recognising the necessity of providing for the increased expenditure of the coming financial year, the House was of opinion that it was not expedient to add to the existing deficiency by diminishing the ordinary revenue, and was not prepared to disappoint the just expectations of the country by re-imposing the income-tax at an unnecessarily high rate. A debate followed, which was continued by adjournment on the two following days; and the result was a division, which, in a very full House, gave to the Government a majority of 116; thus deciding the question of its financial policy and of the Treaty of Commerce with France. A more formal sanction, however, to this treaty was afterwards given on the motion of Mr. Byng, who proposed to present an Address to her Majesty, expressing the acknowledgment of the House for the treaty. The motion was seconded by Mr. Baines; but Mr. Horsman moved an amendment to the effect that the treaty imposed unnecessary and impolitic restrictions on the Crown and Legislature of this country and prayed for the omission of the 11th article from the treaty. This amendment was rejected by a majority of 282 against 56.

The financial measures of the Government raised an important constitutional question as to the power of the House of Lords. When the Paper Duty Repeal Bill, which had passed the House of Commons, came up for first reading in the Upper House, Lord Monteagle gave notice that he should, at the proper time, move its rejection. The second reading was moved by Lord Granville on the 21st of May. Having explained the measure, he asked in conclusion, whether it was desirable that the House of Lords, now so popular, should furnish ground for declamation and agitation by introducing a new system, and making its hand seen and felt in every burden that pressed upon the people. The question, as raised by Lord Lyndhurst in an able speech, was, whether the Lords had a right to reject a money Bill that the Commons had adopted. Undoubtedly they possessed the right, but it had been long in suspense. "No one," wrote Lord John Russell to Lord Palmerston, who took the matter very lightly, "can deny the right of the Lords to throw out the Paper Duty Repeal Bill any more than they can deny the right of the Crown to make a hundred peers a day or of the Commons to reject the Mutiny Bill. But the exercise of a right that has lain dormant since the Revolution must give a great shock to the Constitution." The result, after a long and able debate, was that the Bill was rejected by a majority of 89, the numbers, including proxies, being for the bill, 104; against it, 193. Lord Malmesbury, in his "Memoirs," gives the curious piece of information that he gratuitously offered through Lady Palmerston, in the name of Lord Derby, the support of the Conservative party for the remainder of the Session, in the event of the resignation of Lord John Russell and Mr. Gladstone, and that the offer was gladly accepted. The rejection of the Bill was hailed as a great Conservative triumph; but among the Liberal party, both in the House of Commons and out of doors, it excited a strong feeling against the Lords, who were believed to have arrogated to themselves unconstitutional power in subjecting the nation to a continuance of financial burdens, not being representatives of the people. The feeling of hostility, however, was mitigated by the consideration that the Lords were right in deeming it inexpedient, at that time, when the Continental situation was full of anxiety, to forego the income derived from the paper duties. There was, of course, great irritation in a large section of the House of Commons, but any further collision was averted by Lord Palmerston, who moved the appointment of a committee of 21 to search for precedents on the subject. The report of the committee was purely historical. The Premier adroitly made it the basis of a series of resolutions which he moved on the 6th of July, to the effect that the right of granting aids and supplies to the Crown is in the Commons alone, as an essential part of their constitution; and the limitation of all such grants as to the matter, manner, measure, and time, is only in them. In moving this resolution, the noble lord noticed one fact which furnished an excuse for the course adopted by the Lords--namely, that during the interval between the second and third reading in the Commons, the majority had dwindled down from fifty-three to nine; a fact that could not be overlooked. He advised the House, therefore, as the most dignified course, to be satisfied with the declaration of its constitutional privileges. Three amendments were proposed; but as Mr. Disraeli offered to Lord Palmerston the tribute of his adhesion to the "patriotic speech" with which he had introduced the motion, the amendments were withdrawn and the resolution was unanimously adopted. These resolutions were not believed by the Liberal party to go as far as the case demanded. Accordingly, on the 17th of July, Lord Fermoy moved the following resolution:--"That the rejection by the House of Lords of the Bill for the repeal of the paper duties is an encroachment on the rights and privileges of the House of Commons; and it is therefore incumbent on this House to adopt a practical measure for the vindication of its rights and privileges." Lord Palmerston, however, deprecated the renewal of the discussion and moved the previous question. It was generally felt that Lord Fermoy's motion was ill-timed. It was accordingly negatived by a majority of 177 to 138.

The question of the paper duties, however, the abolition of which was assumed in the French Treaty, was yet to be settled; and Mr. Gladstone--who was at serious issue with his chiefs on many points, notably the expediency of spending nine millions on the fortifications of Portsmouth and Plymouth--moved a resolution upon the subject, on the 6th of August, when he exposed and refuted the arguments of the paper manufacturers, showing that they were nothing better than the old fallacies of the Protectionists; and he argued, moreover, that the House was bound by the French Treaty to abandon the paper duty. So far as intention was concerned, the articles of the treaty showed, beyond the possibility of dispute, that our meaning was to part with every vestige of the protective policy. The House of Commons had given its consent to the treaty, and a specific pledge that it would take the necessary steps to give it effect. With regard to the absence of reciprocity, the protectionist interest in France was too strong for the Government. But Mr. Gladstone regarded the prohibition of the export of rags as utterly insignificant, because France was a dear country for rags, and was obliged to import them for its own use. Mr. Puller moved, as an amendment, "That without desiring to prejudice the question of a reduction, at a future period, of the duty on books and paper, this committee does not think fit at present to assent to such reduction." The amendment was rejected, and the resolutions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, abolishing the duties, were adopted.

On the 1st of March Lord John Russell experienced in his own person the wonderful changes in public sentiment that had passed over England in the course of a single generation. He still clung to the idea that it was necessary to do something to complete the great measure of Parliamentary Reform, to supply its defects, and to adapt it to the altered condition of society produced by the marvellous development of manufacturing industry. Having been mainly instrumental in defeating the Reform Bill of the Conservative Administration, he felt it the more incumbent upon him to redeem the promises repeatedly made to complete the reform of the representation of the people. He did not find fault with his own great measure of 1832; on the contrary, with true paternal affection, he avowed his firm belief that no measure had so few faults. What he proposed to do was, in a simple manner, to supply its unavoidable omissions and remedy its necessary defects. He then went into details, to which it is unnecessary here to allude. The public took no interest whatever in the question, as Lord Palmerston told him in language of remarkable bluntness. This undeniable fact suggested a topic in his favour, the noble lord no doubt forgetting that he had relied on arguments and facts of an opposite kind thirty years before. He thought that the Legislature ought not to wait for an agitation that would force demands upon Parliament. The concession of just claims should not be delayed because they were not urged. Leave was given to bring in a Bill for England; Mr. Cardwell, Chief Secretary for Ireland, brought in a similar Bill the same evening for that country, as did the Lord Advocate for Scotland. The second reading took place on the 19th of March; but the report of the proceedings describes the debate as so utterly devoid of interest that it was difficult to keep the House together. Lord Palmerston made a speech, which, as Mr. Disraeli happily said, was "not so much in support of as about Reform." It was protracted by repeated adjournments from the 19th of March till the 3rd of May, when the second reading was adopted without a division. The 4th of June was fixed for going into committee on the Bill, when Lord John Russell explained the course which the Government meant to take. But Sir J. Fergusson moved an amendment on the motion that the Speaker leave the chair, seconded by Colonel Dickson, that the debate should be adjourned until the Irish and Scottish Bills were before the House, in order that the three might advance pari passu. After a debate on this motion, the House divided, when it was rejected by a majority of 21, the numbers being--For the adjournment, 248; against it 269. But as the public seemed to care little what became of the measure, and as it was now quite evident that it could not pass during that Session, its noble author, on the 11th of June, had to make the humiliating avowal that the Government had determined to withdraw the Bill. He acknowledged to Lord Palmerston that "the apathy of the country was undeniable, nor was it a transient humour," but the Radicals were furious with the Premier, and as Cobden's biography proves, speculated on his overthrow.

The affairs of India occupied considerable attention during the Session of 1860. Its finances had got into a state of confusion, the public debt was increasing every year, and it was found impossible, by those charged with the administration, to equalise the income and the expenditure. In these circumstances, the Home Government had, in the previous year, sent out Mr. James Wilson as financial member of the Legislative Council at Calcutta. On his arrival in India he devoted himself to the study of Indian finances; and when he had mastered the subject, he matured a plan for the reduction of expenditure, which, in connection with improvements in the system of taxation, would, he hoped, make matters right. He brought this plan before the Council in an able and elaborate speech. It was well received in India and also most favourably in Great Britain; but it did not meet the approbation of Sir Charles Trevelyan, who had been recently appointed Governor of Madras and considered himself a very high authority on Indian affairs. He was betrayed into the indiscretion of attacking Mr. Wilson's scheme. The conduct of a great public functionary in India, in thus openly assailing the measures of the Government under which he served, especially in the then critical state of Indian affairs, presented an example of imprudence so dangerous that it could not be tolerated; and, accordingly, the Home Government gave orders for the immediate recall of Sir Charles Trevelyan. He found able defenders--Mr. Bright among them--in Parliament. Afterwards, in a debate on Indian finance, which occurred on the 13th of August, the Secretary for India, Sir Charles Wood, stated that the recall of Sir Charles Trevelyan was the most painful duty of his public life. He then went into a discussion of the rival schemes and came to the conclusion that there must be new taxes. In fact, the classes best able to bear taxation had hitherto in a great measure escaped it; merchants and fund-holders could be reached only by means of an income-tax and this measure was therefore adopted. The result of Mr. Wilson's scheme realised the most sanguine expectations of its supporters. He was unfortunately removed by death in the midst of his labours, being cut off by cholera, at Calcutta, on the 11th of August, after a residence of about a year in India; but the system he inaugurated was ably carried out by his successor, Mr. Laing; in consequence of which the resources of India were very rapidly developed and the country entered upon a career of prosperity quite unprecedented in its history. Railways were constructed, irrigation works were restored, private enterprise was encouraged, and social progress was promoted in every direction; a remarkable instance of the good that may be effected by sound economic principles, honestly carried out.

An Act was passed this year for the reorganisation of the Indian army, which was one of the consequences of the transfer of the government from the East India Company to the Queen--a benefit to India of immense magnitude, resulting from the late mutiny. The India Council was opposed to the change in the army; but the Cabinet sustained Sir Charles Wood and Parliament sanctioned the measure. On the 12th of June Sir Charles Wood brought in a Bill to alter the regulation of her Majesty's local European forces in India. The East India Company had maintained three armies, one at each presidency, part of which consisted of Europeans, enlisted in Great Britain for local service in India, the proportion of which to the Company's native troops was two to one. After the mutiny had been put down, there was much discontent among the European soldiers with reference to the new arrangements; in consequence of which many of them were discharged and sent home. It was resolved, after much consideration, that our military power in India should consist of a uniform force, instead of the anomaly of two European armies. After a lengthened debate, Sir Charles Wood replied to the objections that had been made to the Bill, and the House divided, when the second reading was carried by a majority of 289 to 53. The Bill also encountered some opposition in the Lords, but the second reading was carried nem. con., and it quickly passed through the other stages and became law. Equally important was the vote for nine millions for coast defences, defended by Lord Palmerston in a masterly speech enumerating the dangers to which England was exposed. It caused great friction in the Cabinet, so much so that Lord Palmerston wrote to the Queen, "however great the loss to the Government by the retirement of Mr. Gladstone, it would be better to lose Mr. Gladstone than to run the risk of losing Portsmouth or Plymouth." The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, remained in office, after a hard-hitting correspondence with the Premier. The Bill passed by large majorities.

The Session was brought to a close on the 28th of August. The Queen had gone to Scotland and the Royal Speech was delivered by the Lord Chancellor. It referred to frightful atrocities that had been committed by the Druses on the Christian population of Syria, who had been massacred in great numbers in the most treacherous and barbarous manner. Those atrocities inspired the Queen with the deepest grief and indignation and her Majesty had cheerfully concurred with the Emperor of Austria, the Emperor of the French, the Prince Regent of Prussia, and the Emperor of Russia, in an engagement with the Sultan to send him military assistance, so long as it would be necessary, to re-establish order in that part of his dominions. The only one of the parties who fulfilled this engagement, however, was the Emperor of the French, whose Syrian expedition accomplished the mission assigned to it in a satisfactory manner. The Speech also alluded to a joint expedition of French and British forces sent to the Chinese seas, which were to advance to the northern provinces of the empire, in order to support the just demands of the Allied Powers, and to give all possible weight to the diplomatic action of Lord Elgin, who had gone out as special ambassador for this service. It was he who had negotiated the Treaty of Tientsin, the faithful and full performance of which was now demanded from the Emperor of China.

The massacre of the Maronite Christians in Syria, referred to in the Royal Speech, was one of the most frightful occurrences of the kind on record. Lord Dufferin, who was appointed British Commissioner in Syria, describes some of those scenes in his despatches to Sir H. Bulwer, the British Ambassador at Constantinople. He attributed the massacres and all the wars, quarrels, and disturbances that had agitated the Lebanon for the last fifteen years, to the dissatisfaction of the Turkish authorities with the measure of self-government enjoyed by the Christians. Their policy was to prove the scheme adopted by the Great Powers in 1845 as impossible. With this object they stimulated, as occasion served, the chronic animosity existing between Maronites and Druses. In proportion as foreign influences exalted the arrogance and fanaticism of the Christians, their independence became more insufferable to the Turks, and a determination was arrived at to inflict on them, through the instrumentality of the Druses, a severer chastisement than they had yet received. But he states also, that the Christians had been long meditating an onslaught on the Druses, which was to end in the overthrow of the Turkish authority in Lebanon. On the 28th of May a general attack was made on the Maronite villages in the neighbourhood of Beyrout and Lebanon, and they were burnt to the ground. Next day Hasbeya, a large town under Mount Hermon, was attacked by the Druses. The Turkish commander told the inhabitants that if they laid down their arms he would protect them. They did so, and were sent under a small escort towards Damascus, and were seized on the way by a body of Druses. Having got rid of the armed men, the treacherous commander abandoned the place; and, on the 5th of June, the Druses rushed in and murdered indiscriminately the whole male population in the most revolting circumstances, the Turkish soldiers assisting in the work of slaughter. Several other towns were treated in the same manner. The number of killed in this horrible massacre has been variously estimated; some say that 900, and others that 1,800 persons were slain. Beyrout itself was threatened by the infuriated and victorious Druses; and the presence of an English pleasure-yacht in the harbour, with a single gun, is supposed to have had more effect in averting the danger than all the troops of the Turkish Pasha, whose conduct, in fact, showed that he connived at the massacres. On the 9th of July similar outrages began at Damascus. A mob of the lowest order of Moslem fanatics assembled in the streets, and instead of being dispersed by the Turkish troops--of whom there were 700 in the town, under the command of Ahmed Pasha--they were allowed to increase until they began a general attack upon the houses in the Christian quarter and committed many murders. The soldiers sent to quell the disturbance joined the mob and next day the work of destruction was renewed with greater violence. On the 11th of July there were about 18,000 or 20,000 Christian inhabitants in the city, and 7,000 or 8,000 poor refugees from other quarters. Between 11,000 and 12,000 were collected in the castle and fed by the Government.

These deplorable events, of course, caused strong representations to be made to the Sultan by the ambassadors of the Christian Powers, in consequence of which he sent Fuad Pasha, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, with a strong force, to Syria, to execute summary justice upon the guilty parties. He did so with a vengeance. At Beyrout he hanged and shot a great number of Moslems; and the following despatch, transmitted by him to Constantinople from Damascus, dated August 4, will show the vigour with which he executed his task:--"Yesterday I arrested 330 persons guilty of having taken part in the massacres. To-day the number of arrests exceeds 400. By the day after to-morrow, at the latest, the principal persons who are seriously compromised will have been apprehended." The French expedition was under the command of General Beaufort d'Hautpoul, and left Marseilles in the beginning of August. It numbered about 12,000 men and met with little resistance. By a later convention between the Great Powers, the stay of the French troops was prolonged till the 26th of June, 1861, to enable a plan to be formed for the organisation of the government of the Lebanon and to secure the tranquillity of Syria. Lord Palmerston was alarmed at this, and believed that Napoleon was determined on a permanent occupation of the country. From these and other causes he went so far as to tell the French Ambassador, Count Flahault, that it was impossible to trust the Emperor any longer, and that if war was forced on England, England would fearlessly accept it. However, at the end of July Lord Dufferin was appointed to act as British Commissioner, in conjunction with commissioners on the part of France, Austria, Prussia, and Russia. The object of the commission was to inquire into the origin of the disturbances and outbreak, to alleviate the sufferings and losses of the Christians, and to make arrangements for the future administration of Syria, so as to prevent, as far as possible, a recurrence of similar calamities.

It would seem as if the difficulties with China were destined never to have an end. The Treaty of Tientsin provided for the appointment of ambassadors on the part of Great Britain and China to reside at their respective Courts, and for the permanent establishment of the British Minister at the Court of Pekin. The Honourable Mr. Bruce, brother of Lord Elgin, was accordingly sent out in March, 1859. Anticipating the usual obstacles of Chinese diplomacy in the way of the plenipotentiary to the metropolis, he was required to do his duty firmly and admit of no excuses; but insist on the right of presenting his credentials to the Emperor in person and to require the literal fulfilment of the treaty with regard to the establishment of the mission permanently at Pekin. A sufficient naval force was to accompany him to the mouth of the Peiho. He arrived at Hong Kong in the month of May, and was joined there by M. de Bourboulon, the French Ambassador. When they reached Shanghai, it was proposed to them by the Chinese authorities that the ratifications should be exchanged there, or that, if they must go to Pekin, it should be by land, a journey of two months, instead of ascending the river Peiho. They, however, insisted on the latter route, and were escorted by a squadron of gunboats and some other vessels under the command of Admiral Hope. Proceeding in advance to reconnoitre the fortifications, he found those demolished last year now strengthened by additional ditches, with an increased number of more powerful booms. Few guns were visible, but there were numerous embrasures masked with matting. After waiting for some days, tantalised with false promises and evasive answers, Admiral Hope was resolved to force his way up the river. The first barrier was penetrated, when a tremendous fire suddenly opened from the forts, where guns of large calibre had been concealed. The Plover was disabled, the Kestrel sunk in her position, and the admiral was severely wounded. He then determined to take the forts by coup de main. A landing was effected, in obedience to his orders, on the evening of the 21st of June, but the attempt completely miscarried.

In consequence of this humiliating repulse, Lord Elgin was again sent out as British Plenipotentiary, with a powerful expedition, to enforce the execution of the treaty of which he was the author. General Hope Grant, then in India, was appointed to the chief command, and several Sikh regiments volunteered their services. Baron Gros, the French Plenipotentiary, accompanied Lord Elgin. They arrived at Hong Kong on the 21st of June, 1860. On the 25th of July the French expedition joined the British near the mouth of the Peiho river; disembarking at Pehtang, where they remained encamped to the 12th of August. In the meantime an ultimatum had been sent to Pekin, demanding satisfaction for the treacherous attack on the British, the immediate ratification of the treaty at Pekin, permission to proceed in a British vessel to Tientsin, and an escort to conduct the British Ambassador with due honour to Pekin. The French Ambassador joined in these demands, which also included an indemnity for the losses sustained. The Great Council answered this despatch, stating that its contents had filled them with the greatest astonishment, and that they were altogether contrary to "decorum."

Nothing now remained for the Allies but to fight their way to the metropolis. They advanced along the banks of the Peiho, constructing bridges over the creeks and ditches, till, arriving within a mile of Taku, they encountered the enemy's batteries, which they carried by storm, routing the Chinese garrison, and capturing forty-five guns. They then advanced against the Taku forts, which they assailed with Armstrong guns at 2,000 yards' range, the Chinese firing upon the troops from all their forts within range so effectively that our sappers were unable to lay down the bridge, the men who carried it being knocked over and the pontoon destroyed. A breach, however, was soon made, our men swarming across and entering single file in the most gallant manner. At the same time the French effected an entrance, the garrison was driven back step by step and hurled pell-mell through the embrasures on the opposite side. After an hour's desperate fighting, the whole of the forts on both sides of the river hauled down their war banners and hoisted flags of truce, but they refused to surrender. In the course of the evening, however, they abandoned all their positions, leaving 400 guns in the hands of the Allies. Admiral Hope then advanced to Tientsin, which he occupied. There he found a placard posted on the walls, announcing that the barbarians were defeated, and were suing for peace, and that the inhabitants need not be alarmed. Negotiations were then opened by fresh commissioners of high rank, whom Messrs. Parkes and Wade were sent to meet at Tangchow, twenty-five miles distant. On the 15th of September they returned, having made satisfactory arrangements for Lord Elgin's reception; and camping-ground had been assigned to the British forces. On arriving at the spot, however, they found it occupied by a large Chinese army; while batteries had been hastily thrown up and armed so as to flank the proposed site of the British camp. Mr. Parkes started back to Tangchow to see the High Commissioners, and ask the reason of this move. He was accompanied by Mr. de Morgan, attaché to the British Legation, and by Mr. Bowlby, correspondent of the Times. Meanwhile, the Chinese cavalry, which were very numerous, had almost entirely surrounded the British forces. Sufficient time had elapsed for the party to arrive from Tangchow. While anxiously waiting for them, a sudden attempt was made to assassinate Colonel Walters and others, including some French officers. Mr. Parkes and his companions, however, did not return. They were all taken prisoners by the Chinese, carried off into the interior, and treated with frightful cruelty; their hands and feet being so tightly bound with cords that in some instances the flesh burst and mortification ensued.

In consequence of the treachery of the Chinese, their camp was attacked by the allied forces and the enemy was completely defeated. The authorities were now willing to negotiate once more; but Lord Elgin refused unless the prisoners were surrendered in three days, threatening that otherwise his army would advance to the assault on Pekin. Prince Kung, who now became the chief negotiator, persisting in the system of evasion, the allied armies marched forward, and on the 6th of October the French entered the Summer Palace of the Emperor, which they looted of its inestimable treasures. Two days afterwards Mr. Parkes and his companions were released and permitted to join the camp.

The siege guns were placed in position before the walls of the mysterious metropolis of the vast Chinese empire, and notice had been given to its defenders that unless it were surrendered before noon of the following day the attack would commence. The Emperor had departed, on the pretext that he was obliged to go on a hunting expedition, deputing his authority to Prince Kung and his Ministers. The latter thought it the wisest course to surrender unconditionally, in order to save the city from destruction. The gates were thrown open and the flags of Britain and France were soon seen floating from the walls. It was the first time for thousands of years that the sanctity of the Imperial capital was thus violated. In the terms proposed Lord Elgin stipulated that, if the garrison surrendered, the city would be spared. He was then in ignorance of the fate of some of the British prisoners; but when he became acquainted with the horrifying details he resolved to inflict signal punishment for such barbarous outrages against humanity: he therefore proposed that the Summer Palace of the Emperor, the place in which some of the worst tortures had been inflicted upon the prisoners, should be burnt to the ground. Baron Gros declined to take part in this measure, but Lord Elgin determined to act in the matter on his own responsibility. He wrote to Prince Kung, reminding him that of the total number of twenty-six British subjects seized in defiance of honour and of the law of nations, thirteen only had been restored alive, all of whom carried on their persons evidence, more or less distinctly marked, of the indignities they had suffered; while thirteen had been barbarously murdered. He declared that until this foul deed should be expiated, peace between Great Britain and the existing dynasty of China was impossible. He announced that the Summer Palace must be forthwith levelled with the ground. He required that the sum of 300,000 taels should be at once paid down, to be appropriated, at the discretion of her Majesty's Government, to those who had suffered and to the families of the murdered men; and, lastly, that the whole of the indemnity stipulated in the Treaty of Tientsin should be paid before the armies of Britain and France removed from the city, should the Governments of those countries see fit to adopt that course.

Notwithstanding the indiscriminate loot by which the Summer Palace had been stripped of all that was portable among its precious treasures, there yet remained much that was beautiful and gorgeous in that wonderful abode of Oriental pomp and luxury. It consisted of a series of elegant and picturesque buildings spread over an extensive park. Lord Elgin was determined that not a trace of this grandeur should remain and that the spot on which the blood of British subjects had been so treacherously and cruelly shed, should for ever remain a monument of British power and of retributive justice. Accordingly, the buildings were set on fire by a detachment of our troops and totally destroyed. The Chinese authorities were now brought to a sense of their real position. They no longer dared to talk of Lord Elgin's want of decorum, but humbly signed the convention on the 24th of October. In that treaty the Emperor expressed his deep regret at the breach of friendly relations that had occurred by the conduct of the garrison of Taku in obstructing her Majesty's representative when on his way to Pekin; he conceded the right to her of having an ambassador resident in that city if she thought proper; he agreed to pay a sum of 8,000,000 taels, in certain fixed instalments, as indemnity for the cost of the war. It was also provided that British subjects were to be allowed to reside and trade at Tientsin, and that Chinese subjects should be at liberty to emigrate to British colonies, and to ship themselves and their families on board British vessels; and the Queen was to have the option of retaining a force at Tientsin and at other specified places, until the indemnity should be paid. The ratifications were duly exchanged and the allied armies retired from Pekin to Tientsin on the 5th of November, 1860.

The Session of 1861 was opened on the 5th of February, by the Queen in person, who informed her Parliament, among other matters, that she was glad to take the opportunity of expressing her warm appreciation of the loyalty and attachment to her person manifested by the Canadians on the occasion of the residence of the Prince of Wales among them. The Prince arrived in America on the 24th of July, 1860 and remained there till the 20th of October. During his tour he was everywhere received with the greatest enthusiasm, the people of the United States vieing with the Queen's subjects in Canada in the honours paid to him in popular demonstrations, addresses, and ovations. If he were to be their own Sovereign, and if they were royalists of the highest type, they could not have manifested greater ardour than they did wherever his Royal Highness went. Not the least interesting incident connected with this tour was his visit to the tomb of Washington. Yet royal festivities were accompanied by royal bereavement. The Duchess of Kent died on the 16th of March, 1861, aged seventy-five years. She had throughout her life enjoyed the respect of the public, and won the gratitude of the empire, by the excellent manner in which she had educated and trained the Princess Victoria for her high destiny as Queen of England. Addresses of condolence on this melancholy event were therefore unanimously adopted by both Houses--that of the Upper House being moved by Earl Granville and seconded by the Earl of Derby; and that of the Lower House by Lord Palmerston and seconded by Mr. Disraeli, who thus happily concluded his speech:--"For the great grief which has fallen on the Queen there is only one source of human consolation--the recollection of unbroken devotedness to the being whom we have loved and whom we have lost. This tranquil and sustaining memory is the inheritance of our Sovereign. It is generally supposed that the anguish of affection is scarcely compatible with the pomp of power; but that is not so in the present instance. She who reigns over us has elected, amid all the splendour of empire, to establish her life on the principle of domestic love. It is this--it is the remembrance and consciousness of this--which now sincerely saddens the public spirit and permits a nation to bear its heartfelt sympathy to the foot of a bereaved throne and whisper solace even to a royal heart."

But these domestic affairs were overshadowed by events in the United States. Since the beginning of the year, affairs in North America had assumed a more and more unhappy and alarming character, and the British Government had felt itself compelled to issue, on the 14th of May, its celebrated proclamation of neutrality. It is now time, therefore, to revert to the circumstances in which the great American Union was for a time broken up and a war of colossal magnitude waged during nearly four years between the Northern and Southern States. For many years a feeling of estrangement had been gradually growing up, grounded partly on differences of economic policy, partly on original want of sympathy between the inhabitants of each region, but most of all on the continual collisions to which the question of slavery gave rise. The national tariff had long been so adjusted as to protect the interests of New England manufacturers by excluding, with more or less rigidity, the manufactured products of Great Britain and other European countries; and the Morrill tariff, passed in March, 1861, carried this principle of exclusion to a still greater height. That this commercial policy was injurious to the interests of the South cannot be doubted, since, as they had no manufactures, they reaped no benefit from protection; while the tariff impeded that free interchange of their own teeming supplies of raw material with the products of the industry of other nations, which was necessary to the full development of their material civilisation. Again, the original contrast between Virginia and New England--the one settled by men of aristocratic connections, ruled by territorial instincts and disposed to Toryism in Church and State; the other by persons of the middle rank, predisposed to trade and industry and clinging fast to the "dissidence of Dissent" as their great religious principle--this contrast was ever present to embitter any misunderstanding that might arise. But lastly, and chiefly, the relations between North and South were disturbed by quarrels arising out of slavery. At the time when the colonies achieved their independence, all the thirteen provinces held slaves and legalised slavery. But in course of time natural causes--the labour of a slave not being comparable to that of a free labourer in a temperate climate--produced the diminution and, finally, the extinction of slavery in the Northern States. Northern slaveholders sold their slaves to Southern planters and trusted to the continuous and ever-increasing emigration from Europe, supplemented by a considerable number of free blacks, to supply the wants of the labour market. The time came when the citizens of States that but a short time before had harboured slavery themselves denounced slavery as a sin. The Abolitionists, among whom Garrison was the most prominent person, became a strong party at the North, especially in the New England States; associations were formed for obstructing the operation of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 and facilitating the escape of slaves to Canada; and during the ten years that this law was in force, collisions of more or less magnitude between the Federal and State judicatures were continually taking place. The death of John Brown at Harper's Ferry, while attempting to liberate slaves, was only one of many incidents. But, on the other hand, the proceedings of the slaveholders and their partisans were, and had been for years, of a character so outrageous, that conscientious men might well begin to ask themselves whether, in yielding obedience to the Federal legislation, which, in order to preserve the Union, sanctioned such things, they were not breaking a law of higher and more sacred obligation. There was also a danger, as exemplified in the formation of the new State of Kansas, that slavery would extend in the territories of the Republic, for Kansas did not become a Free State until the two sides had shed one another's blood.

The time came for the election of a President to succeed Mr. Buchanan. The great Republican party at the North represented the feelings that were lacerated and the convictions that were outraged by the recent course of events, of which we have given an outline; and in November, 1860, this party carried its candidate, Abraham Lincoln, against the two Democratic candidates, Douglas and Breckinridge. The meaning of this nomination was plain. It announced, "We will have no more compromises." But as, under the constitution of the United States, every State sends two members to the Senate, the members of which were at this time pretty evenly balanced, half from Free, and half from Slave States, the effect of the triumph of the Republican party, and of the foreseen application of the above policy in dealing with the territories, could only be that in a few years the balance of parties in the Senate would be destroyed, as more and more new, and, necessarily Free, States were admitted into the Union. Then, argued the slaveholders, the Abolitionists will become more intolerable than ever; if they give to our domestic institutions for a time an insulting toleration, it will only be while they gather their forces for an open assault; the Fugitive Slave Law will be repealed as soon as they obtain the requisite majority in Congress, and our negro property will be everywhere depreciated in value, while on the borders of Free States it will be utterly valueless. Impelled by such motives as these, the people of South Carolina, which of all the States in the Union had for years been known to be the most restive under the Federal obligation, met in convention at Columbia, and on the 20th of December, 1860, voted the State out of the Union.

The South Carolina politicians had rightly calculated that the example thus set would soon be followed by other Slave States. Between this date and May, 1861, the following States adopted ordinances of secession, voting themselves out of the Union: Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina. The last four States seceded unwillingly from the Union, and only because, hostilities having broken out, it was practically impossible for them to remain neutral, and community of interest attracted them to the Slave States that had already seceded. The first shot fired in anger in this civil war was aimed from a battery on Morris Island, on the 9th of January, 1861, at a vessel bringing reinforcements to Fort Sumter. South Carolina sent commissioners to Washington to negotiate with the President for the peaceful surrender to her of Federal forts and property within the limits of the State. Mr. Buchanan, on the eve of retirement, declined to recognise them in any other capacity but that of private citizens of South Carolina; however, a sort of informal understanding was arrived at, that so long as each side remained passive force should not be resorted to. On the 18th of February the leading men in the seven States that had then seceded having by this time arranged the terms of a new Federation, to be called "The Confederate States of America," Mr. Jefferson Davis and Mr. Stephens were inaugurated at Montgomery, Alabama, as President and Vice-President of the new confederacy. A Constitution was adopted nearly resembling that of the United States, the main difference being that the President was to be elected for six years instead of four, and could not be re-elected during his term of office.

Mr. Lincoln, in his sincere anxiety to avoid bloodshed, did not attempt to reinforce the garrison of Fort Sumter; but he declared that he must reprovision it and would use any force that might be required for the purpose. This was rendered necessary by the conduct of the South Carolinans, who had stopped the supply of provisions to the fort from the shore. A fleet was accordingly prepared and despatched to Charleston. About the same time Major Anderson, the Federal commandant, removing his men from all the other posts and batteries that he had hitherto held in the harbour, concentrated his force in the island fort of Sumter. These measures were declared by the South Carolinans a breach of the understanding that had hitherto subsisted and their general was ordered to summon the fort. General Beauregard accordingly summoned Major Anderson to surrender; upon his refusal, fire was opened from batteries, the positions of which had been carefully selected so as to surround the fort with a girdle of fire; the Federals made what resistance they could; but after the barracks had been burnt, and they were in imminent peril of the explosion of the magazine, they capitulated on honourable terms. In this the first conflict of the war, singular to relate, not a man was killed or mortally wounded on either side. Fort Sumter fell on the 13th of April, 1861.

The news came like a thunder-clap on the feverishly expectant people of the North. The suspense of the last three months had seriously interfered with trade, and painfully affected all classes with a sense of uncertainty and insecurity. Now there must be no more parleying or coaxing; the flag of the Union had been fired at--had been lowered--it must be raised again at all hazards. Mr. Lincoln, justly interpreting the general sentiment, issued on the 15th of April a proclamation calling out the militia in all the loyal States of the Union, to the number of 75,000 men, in order to put down certain "combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings," which were obstructing the execution of the laws in the seven seceded States. The men of the Free States hastened to obey the call, and to send regiments of militia to Washington to defend the national capital. But upon the Slave States that had not yet seceded the effect of Mr. Lincoln's appeal was very different. The Governors of these States--Maryland, Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas, North Carolina, Virginia, and Kentucky--flatly, and in most cases indignantly, refused to call out troops for any such purpose as that indicated by Mr. Lincoln's proclamation. And, since neutrality for communities situated between the North and the seceded States became every day more difficult, and the common interest of slaveholding strongly impelled the leading men in the border States to throw in their lot with their seceded brethren, it was not long before all the States above-named, with the exception of Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky, adopted ordinances of secession and voted themselves out of the Union, and Missouri afterwards did the same. Besides calling out 75,000 of the militia, Mr. Lincoln, by his proclamation of the 19th of April, declared the ports of all the seceding States to be in a state of blockade, and that any vessel attempting, after being once warned, to violate such blockade, would be captured and sent into a Federal port for adjudication before a prize court. By a supplementary proclamation of the 27th of April the blockade was extended to the ports of Northern Virginia.

These proceedings, as soon as they became known in Europe, formed the subject of anxious consideration with the British Government. The Cabinet determined on a proclamation of neutrality, which appeared in the London Gazette of the 14th of May. It began by taking notice that "hostilities had unhappily commenced between the Government of the United States of America and certain States styling themselves the Confederate States of America;" announced the Queen's determination "to maintain a strict and impartial neutrality in the contest between the said contending parties," and commanded her subjects to observe a like neutrality. The substantial part of it was the public declaration that, in the judgment of the Executive, a state of war existed, with all those incidents that are attached to a state of war by the law of nations. The "incident" most interesting to British subjects was the now recognised liability to capture and condemnation of any British vessel going to Charleston for cotton, or taking hardware to New Orleans. A few days afterwards (June 1st) an Order in Council was adopted, interdicting the vessels of war or privateers of either belligerent from carrying prizes into any British port, at home or in the colonies. The operation of this order, the adoption or nonadoption of which was entirely optional with the British Government, was exclusively favourable to the Federals, since any prizes taken by their cruisers could be carried into their own ports; whereas a Confederate captain, after taking a prize, his own ports being blockaded and British ports not open to him, had no alternative between taking a bond from her master, the future liquidation of which was highly problematical, and destroying his prize at sea. France and the other Maritime Powers quickly followed the example of Great Britain, both as regarded neutrality and the disposal of prizes (except that France allowed a captor to bring his prize into a French port, but not to sell it there); so that the Confederates soon found out that privateering was unprofitable and abandoned it. The captures and destructions of which we heard so much during the remainder of the war were all made by commissioned cruisers of the Confederate navy. The attitude of the British Government pleased neither party. The North thought, on the one hand, that even belligerent rights should not have been conceded to the seceding States. The South argued that the independence of a large and important country might fairly have been recognised. Their cause gained advocates from the result of the first campaign; the raw levies of the North were defeated in the battle of Bull Run towards the end of July, and for the next two months the forces of the South appeared to be entirely triumphant. The blockade of the Southern ports had, moreover, entailed a terrible cotton famine in Lancashire, and the Government was earnestly pressed by many competent persons to recognise the South and break the blockade. Mr. Gladstone gave expression to a prevalent feeling, when in a famous speech at Manchester he declared that Jefferson Davis had made an army, a navy, more than that a nation. The Emperor Napoleon was early in the field with remonstrances against the policy of Lord John Russell, and there was a moment when even Lord Palmerston wavered. Fortunately the Foreign Secretary stood firm, and declined to be a party to any intervention of the Foreign Powers in the contest, and his prudence was thoroughly justified by the transient character of the Confederate successes.

Meanwhile the conduct of the Federal Government, though high-handed at first, averted a menacing peril, which, had it fallen upon them, might have been fatal to all their plans of conquest, gigantic as they were. The Confederate Government, being desirous of sending accredited representatives to the principal nations of Europe, appointed Messrs. Mason and Slidell on a special mission to the Governments of Great Britain and France. The real object of this mission, it was well understood, was to obtain recognition for the new State, or, at least, to pave the way for recognition. To the Northern Americans and their Government the thought of this was intolerably exasperating. There is a well-known maxim of Sir William Scott's that "you may stop your enemy's ambassador on his passage." Fortifying themselves with this, and forgetting in their haste to inquire into the exact nature of the circumstances to which the dictum applied, and in defiance of the advice of their legal officers, the American Government gave orders to its naval commanders to seize Messrs. Mason and Slidell wherever they could catch them. The English mail-steamer Trent, Captain Muir, sailed from Havana for Southampton on the 7th of November, 1861, having on board a large quantity of specie and numerous passengers, among whom were the Confederate Envoys already mentioned, with their respective secretaries, who, having run the blockade from New Orleans, had reached Havana. On the next day, as the Trent was passing through the Bahama Channel, a large steamer, having the appearance of a man-of-war, but showing no colours, was observed ahead. As the Trent approached, the stranger--an American vessel, the San Jacinto, commanded by Captain Wilkes--fired a shot across her bows and compelled the surrender of the envoys. The Trent pursued her way, first to the island of St. Thomas, and thence to Southampton. In Great Britain upon the arrival of the news of what had befallen her, the feeling of astonishment and indignation was universal. Could anything be more infatuated, it was argued, on the part of the Federal Government than to insult thus wantonly, to provoke thus recklessly, a Power which it was of the utmost consequence to them to be on the best understanding with; and which, if their enemy, could brush away their blockading squadrons like so many flies, and supply herself at once, with full right and a clear conscience, with the cotton for want of which the population of Lancashire was in a state of semi-starvation? Anyhow, whatever came of it, the sacredness of the right of asylum must be maintained; the wrong that had been done must be undone; the guests that had been rudely torn from England's board must be given back again. Such feelings were, as nearly as possible, universal; nor did the Government show itself a dull and inapt interpreter of the people's mind. A demand, made in terms of studied courtesy, for the restoration of the captured persons was immediately forwarded to the American Government. It was the last despatch read by the Prince Consort and was modified on his sick bed in accordance with his views. M. Thouvenel, in the name of the Emperor of the French, as well as the Governments of Prussia, Austria, and Russia, wrote friendly despatches to Washington, reprehending the act of Captain Wilkes and counselling the dignified abandonment of untenable ground. But as the issue seemed doubtful, particularly since the Northern press had, with scarcely an exception, approved the seizure, and the House of Representatives had actually passed a vote of thanks to Captain Wilkes for the promptitude and vigour of his proceedings, it was thought advisable to prepare for the war that would have inevitably followed the refusal of our demand. The din of preparation resounded through our arsenals and dockyards and troops were hastily forwarded to Canada. The unexpected warmth and heartiness with which the Canadians met the appeal thus suddenly made on their loyalty, the zeal with which they called out their militia and volunteers and prepared to strengthen the defences of their frontier, awakened a warm sense of satisfaction in the Mother Country.

The language used by Mr. Seward in the despatch announcing the intention of the American Government to surrender the captives, seemed to show that that Government was so strongly disposed to consider the seizure good and lawful, that it is fair to conjecture that a very little wavering, the least sign of a disposition to recede from the resolute attitude that Britain had taken up, would have turned the scale in America in favour of a rejection of our demand. In a despatch of prodigious length, displaying great reach of thought and mastery of language, united to an extraordinary power of subtle distinction and analysis, Mr. Seward discussed the Trent incident in connection with the established principles of international law, and also with other principles not yet established, but which he thought might by parity of reasoning be deduced from those universally admitted, and without the definition of which a case that presented in many respects novel features could not easily be determined. The upshot was this--that the American Government justified the conduct of Captain Wilkes in every point but one: he was right in stopping the Trent; he was right in searching her; he was right in seizing the persons of the Confederate Envoys and their secretaries; but he was wrong in allowing the Trent to proceed quietly on her voyage after the seizure. What he ought to have done was, to put a prize crew on board the Trent, and send her to the nearest American port where there was a Court of Admiralty, in order that she might either have been condemned as a lawful prize, or else released. Thus the omission of an act, which to obtuse understandings on the British side of the Atlantic would have given to the whole incident a yet more aggravated and intolerable character than that which it already bore, was transcendentalised in the subtle apprehension of Mr. Seward into the one flaw in an otherwise perfect crystal, which vitiated the procedure of Captain Wilkes, invalidated the else unimpeachable case of America, and which--for he had to come at last to the point--compelled the American Government to accede to the demands of Britain, and place the captured persons at the disposal of Her Majesty. They were accordingly transferred on board H.M.S. Rinaldo, a ship belonging to the squadron stationed at Halifax, whence they soon found their way to their respective destinations.

The despatch of Earl Russell in reply to that of Mr. Seward, though not to be compared with the latter in point of diplomatic finesse and argumentative subtlety, nevertheless fairly met and disposed of the chief arguments by which the American Minister had endeavoured to establish that the captured persons were "contraband of war." Thus, with reference to the dictum of Sir William Scott, that "you may stop your enemy's ambassador on his passage," Earl Russell proved that the meaning of that great legist was, not that this might be done anywhere, on the territory or within the jurisdiction of a friendly neutral for instance, but that it might be done in any place of which you were yourself the master, or in which you had a right to exercise acts of hostility, that is, in any part of the enemy's country. But the American Government was not the master on board the Trent, nor had it a right to exercise acts of hostility on board of her, England being a neutral Power; it was manifest, therefore, that this dictum of Sir William Scott could not be adduced in support of the act of Captain Wilkes.

The Session of 1861 was not fruitful in important legislative enactments. The remission of excise duty in regard to paper was, perhaps, of all the measures agreed to by Parliament, the one that has been most prolific in results. This remission was proposed by Mr. Gladstone, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his speech on the Budget, and though vigorously opposed, was at length carried. Cheap literature and journalism, and along with these the harmless entertainment of the people, have benefited enormously by the change. Doubtless the cheapness of the material has led at times to the abuse of the benefit conferred. It is found, however, that the sale of corrupting works is limited and that the immense majority of the cheap newspapers and periodicals that the reduction of the paper duty has brought into existence are, though often dull and in bad taste, respectable and moral in their tone. The Government brought in a Bill for the abolition of church rates, which passed the second reading by a considerable majority. This stimulated the Tory party to unwonted efforts; the third reading of the Bill, contrary to the usual practice of the House, was opposed, and on a division the numbers were found to be equal--274 voting that the Bill do pass, and the same number supporting the amendment of Mr. Estcourt, that it be read a third time that day six months. The Speaker had to give his casting vote, and he gave it against the Bill, justifying his vote in a short and statesmanlike speech, on the ground that the exact equipoise of parties seemed to indicate that the House itself felt that the Bill might be the better for revision.

The country sustained grievous losses in the deaths this year of Sir James Graham, a politician of a somewhat "cross-bench" disposition, and Lord Herbert of Lea, better known as Sidney Herbert. The breakdown in our military departments which the Crimean War had witnessed, required unflagging diligence, strong sense, and uncommon strength of constitution in the administrator who undertook the task of reparation. Of these requisites Sidney Herbert possessed the first two in an eminent degree; and the thorough efficiency of the expeditionary force that marched to Pekin in 1860 attested the improvement which the indefatigable labours of the Secretary at War had introduced into every branch of the service. The labours imposed upon the Minister for War at this particular period were almost more than human strength could grapple with. The Volunteer movement had to be promoted and watched; the Indian army was to be fused with that of the Queen without detriment to individual rights and interests; coast defence had to be readjusted in conformity with the enlarged powers of the new rifled artillery. His name is honourably connected with the institution, as a set-off to the aggressive attitude of France, of the National Volunteer Association, which was formed on the 16th of November, 1859. In May of the same year the formation of volunteer corps of riflemen had begun, under the auspices of the Government; and by the end of the year many thousands were enrolled in all parts of Great Britain. On the 7th of March, 1860, 2,500 volunteer officers were presented to the Queen; after which they dined together, the Duke of Cambridge occupying the chair. On the 23rd of June following, there was a grand review in Hyde Park, when 18,450 volunteers defiled before the Queen in admirable order. A great national rifle shooting match was held at Wimbledon, from the 2nd to the 7th of July, when Captain Edward Ross obtained the Queen's prize of £250, and the gold medal of the association. Again, on the 7th of August, the Queen reviewed 20,000 volunteers at Edinburgh. In the beginning of 1861 the association had an annual income of £1,500, with a capital of £3,000; the volunteers in Great Britain then numbering at least 160,000. The sudden rise of this vast volunteer army, composed of the finest men in the world, was the answer which Great Britain gave to the threats of French invasion.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XXI. THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued)

The Queen's Visit to Ireland--The Royal Family at Balmoral--Movements of the Court--Illness and Death of the Prince Consort--The National Lamentation--The Laureate's Lines--The Address in Parliament--A peaceful Session--The Education Code--The American War in Parliament--The Nashville--The Blockade and the Cotton Famine--The Defences Vote--The Game Act--Palmerston and Cobden--Prorogation of Parliament--The Garotters--The Alabama--Mr. Adams and Earl Russell--Blunders and Delays--Russell's Excuses--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 Six Points--They are ignored by Russia--The Polish Revolution--Russell and Brazil--The Coercion of Japan--The American War in 1863--Mexican Affairs--Intervention of England, France, and Spain--The French Emperor's Designs--Withdrawal of the British and Spanish Expeditions--The Crown of Mexico offered to the Archduke Maximilian--Captain Speke in Central Africa.

The year 1861, in the earlier months of which the Queen had been called to sustain a severe affliction through the death of her mother, the Duchess of Kent, was destined not to close without bringing her Majesty face to face with a still more terrible bereavement. But all looked bright and prosperous for a time. In the summer the Queen paid a visit to Ireland, the third since she ascended the Throne. In 1849 she made a voyage along the eastern coast, calling at Cork, Waterford, Dublin, and Belfast. In 1853 she visited the Dublin Exhibition, accompanied by the Prince Consort, the Prince of Wales, and Prince Alfred. On the 21st of August the Royal party, including the Queen, the Prince Consort, the Princess Alice, the Princess Helena, and Prince Arthur, crossed from Holyhead to Kingstown in the Royal yacht, arriving in the night, and dropping anchor in the middle of the harbour. The Royal party proceeded to Dublin by train and took up their residence at the Viceregal Lodge in Phœnix Park. During the day they drove about Dublin, visiting various public buildings. Afterwards the Royal party, including the Prince of Wales, started for the Lakes of Killarney. The Queen was hailed with enthusiasm along the whole line by the inhabitants, who thronged in multitudes to see her. The Queen took up her residence in Kenmare House at Killarney--the beautiful mansion of the Earl of Kenmare. It had been arranged that the Queen should divide her time equally between the two magnates who owned equally the wondrous Killarney Lakes--the Earl of Kenmare and Mr. Herbert, whose seat at Muckross was placed amid scenery surpassing even that about Kenmare House, and took in the interesting ruins of Muckross Abbey. After several days spent in this terrestrial paradise, the Queen left Killarney en route for Scotland, by way of Dublin and Holyhead.

The Queen, the Prince Consort, and the Royal Family proceeded at once to Balmoral on their return from Ireland. The time was spent there in the usual pursuits and exercises most conducive to health--in driving, riding, walking, sketching, fishing, deer-stalking, visiting, and rural sports of various kinds. It is not easy to conceive a picture of greater human felicity than the Queen and her family presented this year. Her eldest daughter had been married to the Prince of Prussia, and had given birth to an heir to the Throne of that country. The Prince of Wales, the Heir Apparent to the Throne of England, had, in his American tour and in his residence in Ireland, won the hearts of all with whom he came in contact. Prince Alfred had entered the naval service and was, if possible, a still greater favourite with the public. The Princess Alice had been engaged to his Royal Highness the Prince Louis of Hesse-Darmstadt, who was now on a visit to Balmoral. The rest of the Royal children were all that the fondest parents could desire. The Prince Consort was regarded as the best of husbands and fathers; and if any one could have pointed out an individual in her Majesty's dominions as singularly blessed in all the relations of life, and as likely for many years to enjoy his happy lot, he would have named the husband of the Queen. He enjoyed good health; he was in the prime of life, only forty-two years of age; and never perhaps had he enjoyed life with greater zest. But how soon was this bright prospect overcast! Who could have imagined that before the end of the year that home would be visited by death, and that the Queen, then so happy, should become a heartbroken widow--smitten down by a calamity the shadow of which was to rest upon her spirit throughout the whole of her future life?

The Queen left Balmoral on the 22nd of October, and slept that night in the palace of Holyrood. On the following day the Prince Consort laid the foundation-stone of the new General Post Office in Edinburgh, and afterwards performed the same ceremonial for the Industrial Museum of Scotland. On the same evening the Royal party resumed their journey to England, and arrived at Windsor Castle at half-past eight the following morning. On the 1st of November the Queen, as Sovereign of the most exalted Order of the Star of India, held her first investiture in great state. This Order had been instituted a few months before, to provide a means for adequately recognising and honouring services rendered to the British Crown in India, whether by native princes or by British subjects. It consisted of a Grand Master (who was the Viceroy of India for the time being), and twenty-five knights, together with such extra and honorary knights as her Majesty might from time to time see fit to appoint.

Nothing unusual was heard of the Royal Family till the middle of December; and the heavy toll of the great bell of St. Paul's gave the first intimation to many of the people of London that the Prince Consort had been suffering from any dangerous illness. On the previous Saturday the Court News had announced that the Queen had driven out in an open carriage, and that the Prince had been confined to his apartments during the week by a feverish cold, attended with pains in the limbs. On the following Wednesday a bulletin stated that he was suffering from fever not attended by unfavourable symptoms, but likely from its nature to continue for some time. On Saturday, however, rumours were abroad at the West-End that the Prince was dangerously ill and that he was sinking fast. Then it was reported that he had rallied and that even at the Castle no serious alarm existed. When, therefore, the bell of St. Paul's tolled at midnight over the hushed city, it inspired a feeling of apprehension which was too sadly realised next morning. The news of the death of the Prince on the 14th was then flashed along every wire throughout the United Kingdom and over the Continent of Europe. It being Sunday, it was not till the people went to church and noticed the omission of the Prince's name in the Liturgy, that the truth was realised. The grief was universal, pervading every household, as if each had lost some dear and honoured relative. The funeral took place on the 23rd of December. At the express desire of the departed Prince, it was of a private character; but all the chief men of the State attended the obsequies at the Royal Chapel. Nature seemed to sympathise with the national feeling of depression and gloom. The weather was cold and damp, the sky dull and heavy. There was a procession of State carriages to St. George's Chapel, at the door of which the Prince of Wales and the other Royal mourners were assembled to receive the corpse. The grief of the Royal children was very affecting; little Prince Arthur especially sobbed as if his heart were breaking. When all was over, and the last of the long, lingering train of mourners had departed, the attendants descended into the vault with lights, and moved the bier and coffin along the narrow passage to the royal vault. The day was observed throughout the realm as one of deep solemnity. The bells of all the churches were tolled, and in many churches special services were performed. In the towns the shops were closed, and the window blinds of private residences were drawn down. A large number of persons appeared in mourning, and in seaport towns the flags were hoisted half-mast high. The words of the Poet Laureate were scarcely too strong when he said--

"The shadow of his loss drew like eclipse Darkening the world. We have lost him: he is gone: We know him now: all narrow jealousies Are silent; and we see him as he moved, How modest, kindly, all-accomplished, wise; With what sublime repression of himself, And in what limits, and how tenderly; Not swaying to this faction or to that: Not making his high place the lawless perch Of wing'd ambitions, nor a vantage ground For pleasure; but thro' all this tract of years Wearing the white flower of a blameless life, Before a thousand peering littlenesses, In that fierce light which beats upon a throne, And blackens every blot: for where is he Who dares foreshadow for an only son A lovelier life, a more unstain'd than his?"

Indeed, were it not that his character lacked variety, and from its German formalism was sometimes out of harmony with English sentiment, the Prince was an ideal Sovereign. The loss that the nation had sustained naturally occupied the attention of Parliament at the opening of the ensuing Session. In the Royal Speech, which was delivered by commission, the following allusion was made to this all-engrossing subject:--"We are commanded by her Majesty to assure you that her Majesty is persuaded that you will deeply participate in the affliction by which her Majesty has been overwhelmed, by the calamitous, untimely, and irreparable loss of her beloved Consort, who has been her comfort and support. It has been, however, soothing to her Majesty, while suffering most acutely under this awful dispensation of Providence, to receive from all classes of her subjects the most cordial assurances of their sympathy with her sorrow, as well as of their appreciation of the noble character of him, the greatness of whose loss to her Majesty and to the nation is so justly and so universally felt and lamented." In the Queen's answer to the Address we have the mournful key-note of many an utterance that afterwards came from her widowed heart. Her Majesty said:--"I return you most sincere thanks for your dutiful and affectionate Address, especially for the manner in which you have assured me of your feelings on the irreparable loss sustained by myself and the country, in the afflicting dispensation of Providence which bows me to the earth."

Parliament had met on the 6th of February. In the Royal Speech the death of the Prince Consort was naturally the prominent topic. Among other results of the deep and universal sympathy with the Queen in her sorrow, was a general determination, rather tacit than expressed, on the part of statesmen of all parties, that the Session should be a quiet one. The first question warmly debated this Session related to the new code of regulations, commonly called "the Revised Code," which had been promulgated by the Committee of Council for Education in the preceding summer. Two great defects had gradually become apparent in the working of the system by which State aid was extended to primary schools. The nature of the first will be apparent when it is stated that, till now, every teacher in a school receiving an annual grant, and every pupil teacher, had been separately recognised and dealt with by the Education Department; and since the number of such schools had been enormously increased since the Committee of Council commenced its operations, the strain on the organisation of the Department had by this time become nearly intolerable. The other defect of the system of annual grants Mr. Lowe (then Vice-President of the Council) considered to be this, that, notwithstanding the check of Government inspection, it did not provide sufficient security for the economical application of the public money. A large proportion of the teachers--such was his argument--concentrate their attention on their highest classes and their cleverest boys; the annual examination thus becomes an occasion for the display of carefully selected pupils, and ceases to be a careful scrutiny. It was on the strength of considerations such as these that Mr. Lowe drew up his Revised Code, which was at once to relieve the strain on the administrative machinery of the Department, and to introduce the principle of "payment by results." All recognition of, and all grants to, teachers and pupil teachers were to cease, and the Department was henceforward to have dealings with none but the managers of schools. Secondly, the establishment grants for fixed sums, which had been hitherto made to teachers and pupil teachers certified to be efficient by the Government inspector, were to be replaced by capitation grants, regulated in the following manner:--On the day of the annual examination, all pupils who during the previous twelve months had attended school at least one hundred times, might be presented by the teacher to be examined by the inspector in reading, writing, and arithmetic. Six "standards," varying in difficulty with the age of the pupils, were settled in each of these subjects; and a certain small grant was to be obtainable in respect of any pupil who might pass satisfactorily in any one of the three. The plan of the Government was severely criticised by many Conservative members, and met with little favour out of doors among those who had been most active in the establishment, and continued most zealous in the support, of primary schools. Especially the clergy of the Church of England complained of the suddenness of the change, of the utter disregard shown to the claims and services of the pupil teachers, of the pecuniary difficulties in which they themselves as managers would in many cases be involved by it. Mr. Walpole moved, on the 11th of March, a series of resolutions, declaring it to be inexpedient to adopt the principle of payment by results exclusively and censuring many other portions of the Code. The House, however, went into Committee; but shortly before the Easter recess the Government took into its serious consideration the objections that had been raised to their plan, and resolved to introduce such modifications as would disarm the opposition of the more influential and reasonable objectors. The chief concession was the re-introduction of a small establishment grant, having nothing to do with "payment by results," to the extent of 4s. per annum for each child in daily attendance; something also was done for the pupil teachers. The Opposition was satisfied and Mr. Walpole withdrew his resolutions; and the scheme for regulating the apportionment of the public grant in aid of primary schools received the sanction of Parliament.

The progress of the Civil War in America excited a restless feeling in Britain, which naturally found its expression within the walls of Parliament. An incident happened in January which brought forcibly home to the minds of Britons the difficulties and embarrassments of that neutrality in the American struggle which we had proclaimed, and were resolved honestly to maintain. An armed steamer, named the Nashville, ran up the Southampton Water and anchored near the town. It soon transpired that she was a Confederate cruiser, and that, having just captured at sea a large American merchant ship, the Harvey Birch, she had, after removing her crew and such plunder as was not too bulky, set fire to and destroyed her. This proceeding was an inevitable consequence of the British proclamation forbidding either belligerent to bring prizes into any British port. In a few days the United States steam frigate Tuscarora, her captain and crew boiling over with wrath and the desire for battle, came up the Southampton Water and anchored within a short distance of the Nashville. To avert a collision, the Admiralty immediately sent a man-of-war to Southampton. Greatly to his chagrin, the captain of the Tuscarora found himself compelled to conform to the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act, which enjoined the authorities of any port in which two vessels belonging to belligerent States might be present at the same time, to allow to the one that should leave first a clear interval of twenty-four hours before the other might pursue. Thanks to this provision, the Nashville (which was no match for the Tuscarora) made her escape; but her career was of no long continuance, as she was soon afterwards chased into Gibraltar and there sold.

The tidings of sanguinary conflicts occurring along the whole frontier territory, from the west of Missouri to the shores of Virginia, shook the mind of Britain to its inmost depths and, according to the preconceived sympathies of different characters and classes, were variously judged and interpreted. Merchants, impatient at the cotton famine, found spokesmen in Parliament to inveigh against the fitfulness and inefficiency of the blockade of the Southern ports and to urge the Government to interfere. But since, to say nothing of the strong evidence produced on the other side proving that the blockade was as effective as was possible in the circumstances, the very fact that there was a cotton famine established the point to any reasonable mind without more ado, the advocates of British interference on this ground gained nothing by their motion. Mr. Lindsay, the chief representative of that portion of the mercantile community of Britain which desired the recognition of the Confederacy as an independent State, proposed a resolution, in July, suggesting the propriety of offering mediation with a view of terminating the hostilities between the contending parties. The matter was warmly discussed, but in the end the counsels of prudence and caution prevailed and the resolution was rejected. In order to meet the distress in Lancashire occasioned by the cotton famine, a measure was passed, called the "Union Relief Aid Bill," for enabling the Unions in that county to borrow money, when the pressure and burden of pauperism had reached a certain point, upon the security of the rates. Alarmed by the formidable destructive efficacy which the Confederate ironclad the Merrimac (or Virginia) had exhibited in her attack upon the wooden ships of the Federals, the Government proposed, and the House readily sanctioned, a vote of £1,200,000 for the strengthening and reconstruction of our forts and arsenals.

Sir Baldwin Leighton's Act, the object of which was to enlist the services of the county police as assistant gamekeepers to the country gentlemen, had been originally introduced in the Upper House by Lord Berners, but failed to pass. The Bill was then adopted by Sir Baldwin Leighton in the Lower House, and by careful tactics, and arranging that a sufficient number of its friends should always be within call so as to ensure a superiority of force at the decisive moment, the country gentlemen carried it through all its stages and passed it. The Lords then had no scruple about accepting a Bill that naturally could not but command their sympathies and the Bill became law. This result was the more singular, inasmuch as the Government opposed the Bill at every stage. But, owing to the apathy of the borough members (an apathy proved by the smallness of the numbers on the division lists), the opposition failed. The Bill empowered a constable to search a person suspected of being in the possession of game, and imposed a penalty not exceeding five pounds.

Although in the debates of the Session there had been, according to that joint understanding with which it was begun, little exhibition of party heat or rancour, yet the spectacle of a large section of the Tory party almost openly avowing their sympathy with Lord Palmerston and his policy, and the evident congeniality between him and them, were not suffered to pass without observation. Towards the close of the Session, Mr. Cobden, in a carefully prepared and powerful speech, arraigned the policy of the Prime Minister as that of a man who was fighting, or pretending to fight, under a banner not his own, and whose acts were nicely calculated to gain the approval of his ostensible adversaries and carry discouragement into the ranks of his nominal adherents. He asked, What had been the professed principles of the Liberal party? They were economy, non-intervention, and reform. But the present was the most extravagant Government that had administered the affairs of the country in time of peace during the present generation. This assertion he supported by an elaborate comparison, and proceeded to ascribe the whole of this increased expenditure to Lord Palmerston, who himself represented a policy that had cost the country no less a sum than £100,000,000. After adverting to the wars with China, where Colonel Gordon, who was afterwards to die at Khartoum, was saving the empire from the anarchy of the Taeping rebellion, as instances of the departure of the Ministry from the policy of non-intervention, he turned to the state of great Liberal questions and of parties in the House, which, he said, was not an honest state. Lord Palmerston was not governing the country by his own party, but with the aid of his political opponents, who were then in power without the responsibility of office. He analysed Lord Palmerston's Liberalism by his acts. The Ballot, and other questions in which members on that side of the House took an interest, were going back under the noble lord's leadership. Rather than continue as they were, he would prefer being in opposition. Comparing Lord Palmerston with Mr. Disraeli, he thought the latter would be quite as desirable upon the Treasury bench. The veteran Premier defended himself against this vehement attack with the skill and adroitness which his thorough knowledge of Parliament, his tact, bonhomie, and cheerful elasticity of temper, rendered habitual and natural to him. He urged that if his zeal in the cause of Reform appeared to have grown somewhat cold, he was therein only reflecting faithfully the general feeling of the House, while the House no less faithfully reflected the general feeling in the country. As to economy, he could, of course, urge the continual rise in the costliness of national armaments, owing to the invention of new engines of destruction, and maintain that to spend money on fortifying the points where it was vulnerable to attack, was, in fact, a nation's best and truest economy. On the delicate question of the state of parties and Conservative support he said little, and that little was eminently judicious and discreet.

Parliament was prorogued on the 7th of August, and home affairs went on as quietly as usual for the remainder of the year. Pauperism increased, owing to the collapse of industry in Lancashire; nevertheless, the population was greater by a quarter of a million at the end of the year than it had been at the beginning of it. But a number of persons equivalent to about one half of this increase emigrated in the course of the year. In the autumn the honest and law-abiding citizens of London were alarmed by the outbreak and rapid increase of a new species of crime, the "garotte robbery." The villains who introduced it did not observe an absolutely uniform practice, but the usual modus operandi was this:--The victim who had been marked out for attack was seized from behind round the throat by one of the confederates; at the same instant another coming up in front dealt him a violent blow in the stomach; he was then thrown violently down on his back, thus being rendered insensible, and in this position his pockets were rifled, murderous blows and kicks being freely administered in case of any symptom of returning consciousness. After many cases of garotte robbery had occurred, in some of which the victims had died of the injuries received, while in all the constitution and health were permanently shaken, the garotting of a member of Parliament, Mr. Pilkington, drew the special attention of the Home Secretary to the condition of the streets. The police became suddenly active and arrested a number of known criminals on suspicion; these were tried en masse by Baron Bramwell, and all who were identified as having been implicated in garotte robberies were sentenced to heavy terms of penal servitude. The class of ferocious human wolves to which the condemned persons belonged was partly dispersed, partly cowed, by this judicious severity.

About this time the Alabama escaped from the Mersey through a want of vigilance on the part of the British authorities; and, inasmuch as her evasion led to such momentous consequences, we propose to narrate in some detail the circumstances connected with that event. There can be no doubt that, on the part of those who ordered and paid for her, the Alabama was intended from the first for a Confederate vessel of war. She was built in the yard of the Messrs. Laird, Birkenhead. Of course, her armament was not put into her till after she had left the Mersey. But that she was being built and fitted for a vessel of war no one who knew anything about naval architecture could doubt. Indeed, the matter was notorious at Liverpool, where the sympathies of the mercantile community ran strongly in favour of the Confederates. While she was building much correspondence passed between the Federal Consul at Liverpool and his Government and the American Minister in London; but Mr. Adams desired to wait until he could lay before Earl Russell sufficient evidence to justify him in attaching the vessel and prosecuting the builders under the Foreign Enlistment Act. Meanwhile, on the 15th of May, the vessel was launched under the name of the "290."

On the 23rd of June Mr. Adams thought that he had acquired sufficient proof. On that day he wrote to Earl Russell, saying that a new and powerful vessel was being fitted out at Liverpool "for the especial and manifest object of carrying on hostilities by sea," and soliciting such action as might "tend either to stop the projected expedition, or to establish the fact that its purpose is not inimical to the people of the United States." Before replying, Earl Russell obtained a report on the subject from the Customs department at Liverpool, which, on the 4th of July, he enclosed to Mr. Adams. The report stated that there had been no attempt on the part of the builders of the "290" "to disguise, what is most apparent, that she is intended for a ship of war." It proceeded to recommend that the American Consul at Liverpool should submit such evidence as he could obtain to the collector there, who would thereupon take such measures as the Foreign Enlistment Act would require, and concluded by saying that the officers at Liverpool would keep a strict watch on the vessel. Mr. Adams then instructed the consul to follow the course indicated in the Customs officials' report. The consul accordingly submitted a statement on the 9th of July, but the collector replied that the details given were not, in a legal point of view, sufficient to justify him in taking upon himself the responsibility of the detention of the ship. Mr. Dudley (the consul) then directed his utmost endeavours to obtaining direct legal proof, and in this he at last succeeded, laying it, in the form of affidavits, before the collector on the 21st of July. The affidavits were on the same day transmitted by the collector to the Board of Customs at London, with a request for instructions by telegraph, "as the ship appeared to be ready for sea and might leave any hour."

Up to this point, if the action of our authorities had not been all that the Federal Government might have desired, at any rate it had been neither unfriendly nor inefficient. The collector at Liverpool could not proceed to detain the vessel without legal evidence; but as soon as such evidence was supplied, he immediately sent it to the head of his department and, while requesting instructions, indicated the extreme urgency of the case. But now there unfortunately occurred an act of gross administrative laches, of which the American Government and people had just reason to complain. From the Board of Customs at London the affidavits and the collector's letter were sent to the Treasury. This must have been done--at any rate, ought to have been done--on the 22nd of July, and the Treasury, seeing the urgency of the case, should, if unwilling to act on its own responsibility, have laid the affidavits immediately before the law officers of the Crown and requested their opinion. Nor was it by this channel only that the affidavits showing the true character of the Alabama reached Government. Copies of the most material among them were sent by Mr. Adams to Earl Russell on the 22nd of July, together with the opinions of an eminent counsel, Mr. Robert Collier, and again on the 24th. One would have thought that here, again, either immediate action would have been taken or the opinion of the law officers obtained with all practicable expedition. But what happened? The affidavits were considered by the law officers of the Crown on the 28th of July, six days after the letter from Liverpool had reached London, stating that the vessel might leave any hour. They soon made up their minds and their report was in Earl Russell's hands on the morning of the 29th. Orders were then immediately sent to Liverpool to stop the vessel. But it would appear that in some mysterious manner intelligence of the intention of the Government to detain the vessel had reached the persons at Liverpool who had charge of her. The Customs department at Liverpool, on receiving the order for detention, telegraphed that "the vessel '290' came out of dock last night, and left the port this morning." Even then she might have been detained by the British authorities in other ports. Lord Russell advocated this proceeding in the Cabinet, but none of his colleagues, except the Duke of Argyll, supported him, and the project was most unfortunately dropped.

In a conversation with Mr. Adams, two days afterwards, at the Foreign Office, Earl Russell remarked that a delay in determining upon the case of the "290" "had most unexpectedly been caused by the sudden development of a malady in the Queen's advocate, Sir John D. Harding, totally incapacitating him for the transaction of business. This had made it necessary to call in other parties, whose opinion had at last been given for the detention of the gunboat, but before the order got down to Liverpool the vessel was gone." Such an excuse could not be expected to satisfy the American Government, but neither is it satisfactory from a British point of view. The matter being known to be urgent, if, on its being referred to Sir John Harding, that official was found to be incapacitated by ill health or any other cause, what was done ultimately should have been done at first--"other parties" should have been called in. This too easy-going, laissez aller mode of conducting public business on the part of Government departments in 1862 cost the United Kingdom three millions sterling in 1873.

The Alabama steamed down the Mersey and proceeded to Moelfra Bay, on the coast of Anglesey, where she lay two days. The American Government considered, and it is difficult to contravene their opinion, that there was culpable negligence somewhere in permitting a ship, the seizure of which had been ordered, to lie unmolested in British waters for two whole days. From Moelfra Bay the vessel proceeded to the Azores, and remained at Terceira till the arrival of a vessel from London, having on board six guns, ammunition, coals, etc., for the new cruiser. Two days afterwards the screw-steamer Bahama arrived, having on board Commander Raphael Semmes, of the Confederate navy, and other officers, besides two more guns. The transfer of the guns and stores having been completed without hindrance from any one, Captain Semmes hoisted his flag on the 24th of August, and the Alabama, now first known by that name, sailed from Terceira with twenty-six officers and eighty-five men.

The British Government was all the more unpopular with the North Americans because the operations of the war were by no means decisive. General Grant, after a severe battle at Pittsburg, cleared Tennessee of the Confederates and they slowly lost ground in Arkansas. On the other hand, the Federal general McLellan was driven out of Virginia by General Lee, who also routed with great loss the covering army under Pope, and, though Lee could make no impression upon Maryland, he carried off the honours of the campaign by driving Burnside from before Richmond. In Kentucky Bragg foiled the Northerners at every point. The capture of New Orleans in April by the gallant Farragut was undoubtedly a serious blow to the Confederates, but one that might have been retrieved had resources been equal to demands. As the world now knows, they were not; but to close observers at the time, for instance the Emperor Napoleon, the cause of the Southerners appeared to be still in the ascendant.

A revolution, more akin to the ridiculous than to the sublime, took place this year in Greece. In October, while King Otho and his queen were absent from Athens, the people rose, the troops mutinied, the Bavarian dynasty was declared to have ceased to reign, and a provisional Government installed itself in office, with Demetri Bulgari at its head. A plebiscite was decreed, in humble imitation of the Napoleonic prototype, for the election of a king of Greece; every Greek above twenty years of age was to have a vote. The result of the voting was, that Prince Alfred, second son of Queen Victoria, was chosen king by an overwhelming majority. But it had been previously agreed between the plenipotentiaries of the protecting Powers, Britain, France, and Russia, that all members of the reigning families of these nations should be excluded from the Greek succession. The election of Prince Alfred was thus nullified. The further progress of the Greek revolution belongs to a later year; nevertheless, it will be convenient to give at this place a connected view of the whole series of transactions, so that it will be unnecessary hereafter to return to the subject. At the end of December, 1862, Mr. Henry Elliot was commissioned by the British Government to inform the provisional Government at Athens that England was disposed to cede the Ionian Islands (over which she had exercised a protectorate since the Congress of Vienna) to Greece, provided that the form of government remained monarchical; that Greece abstained from aggression against neighbouring States; that the king selected were a prince "against whom no well-founded objection could be raised;" lastly, that the cession were shown to be in accordance with the unanimous, or nearly unanimous, wish of the Ionian population. The Greeks and Ionians accepted the proffered terms with enthusiasm. After long consideration and discussion, a suitable occupant for the throne was found in Prince George, son of the King of Denmark, and brother to the Princess of Wales. A Greek deputation, proceeding to Copenhagen in June, 1863, tendered the Crown to Prince George, who accepted it and soon afterwards went to Greece, where he was received with general enthusiasm. Britain, thoroughly satisfied with this selection, proceeded to carry out her promise. Sir Henry Storks, the Lord High Commissioner, dissolved the Ionian Parliament in August, and summoned a new one, on which the express mandate should devolve of taking into consideration the contemplated re-union of the islands to Greece. The new Parliament met, and unanimously ratified the cession. One difficulty, however, still remained. Greece was a weak State: Corfu possessed a capacious and important harbour and, by the care of the protecting State, had been converted into a formidable fortress: were the fortifications handed over intact, it might be apprehended that, in some future European war, a great Power allying itself to Greece would employ the fortifications of Corfu for the purpose of strengthening its own position in the Mediterranean. The British Government, therefore, in concert with the four other great Powers, decided that the Ionian Islands should, from the time of their cession to Greece, "enjoy the advantages of a perpetual neutrality," and that the fortifications that had been constructed in Corfu, as no longer required after the concession of such neutrality, should be demolished previously to the evacuation of the island by the British garrison. This was in November, 1863; the demolition was at once proceeded with; but it was not till far on in 1864 that the troops finally quitted the island, and the annexation to Greece was consummated.

The year 1862, during which the truce of politics continued, was marked by a second grand display, on a scale of colossal magnitude, of the products of the material and artistic civilisation of the age, contributed by the industry of all countries, but especially by that of Britain and her colonies. The Society of Arts, a body through whose exertions the Exhibition of 1851 in great measure originated, began, with the countenance of the Prince Consort, to take preliminary measures in 1858 and 1859 for the purpose of ascertaining whether a sufficiently strong feeling existed in the country in favour of decennial repetitions of that great experiment to justify the prosecution of the scheme. The Continental war of 1859 caused a temporary suspension of proceedings; but on peace being restored, the Society resumed the consideration of the question, although at a period too late to allow of the Exhibition being ready by the year 1861, which was their original desire. The Society obtained decisive proof of the existence of a general desire for a second Great Exhibition in the most satisfactory form--namely, the signatures of upwards of 1,100 individuals for various sums of from £100 to £10,000, and amounting in the whole to no less than £450,000, to a guarantee deed for raising the funds needed for the conduct of the Exhibition. The scheme having thus been started, the Commissioners for the Exhibition of 1851, in the most liberal spirit, placed at the disposal of the managers of the new undertaking, free of all charge, a space of nearly seventeen acres on their Kensington Gore Estate, and afterwards, when the original area was found insufficient, an additional plot of eight acres, being all the land that could be made available for the purpose. In this way was the scheme originated, the cost of the necessary buildings provided for, and an eligible site obtained.

The contractors for the greater part of the work were Messrs. Kelk and Lucas, and it could not have been in abler hands. But for the eastern dome the contract was taken by the Thames Iron Company. This dome was begun long before that on the western side; but a "generous rivalry" sprang up between the builders, which resulted in something like a neck-and-neck race between them at last. The work was commenced in the latter part of 1861, and the contractors were bound to deliver the shell of the building, complete, to the Royal Commissioners on the 12th of February, 1862. The contract was kept, and the building handed over on the 12th of February. Applications for space from exhibitors were then invited, and the fitting up of the courts and galleries was proceeded with; but with such numerous and varied interests to adjust, the commissioners could not ensure the same rapid progress as that made in the erection of the building; and a large part of the edifice was still in confusion, heaped up with packing-cases and litter, when the Exhibition was opened on the 1st of May. Thirty thousand persons witnessed the spectacle. The procession of the Queen's Commissioners for opening the Exhibition was formed at Buckingham Palace, and proceeded, fortunately under a bright and sunny sky, to the entrance of the building in Cromwell Road. As was to be expected, neither the Queen nor any of her children was present; but the Royal Family was ably represented by the Duke of Cambridge, supported by the Crown Prince of Prussia, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and other august personages. The Lord Mayor of London lent his historical presence to the ceremonial, coming in great state, with a suite of aldermen, common-councilmen, and City officers, in seventy carriages.

The Exhibition was like an enormous bazaar, containing everything that the fancy and the invention of all countries had at any time taxed themselves to produce for the use and the enjoyment of men. According to the ground-plan of the Exhibition building, there was an immense area, in the angle between the southern transept and the nave, reserved for the French department; and a curious circumstance occurred in connection with this, which, when one thinks of the later relations between France and Prussia, is not without interest. The French asked and obtained permission to enclose their court, and they accordingly erected high wooden partitions all round it, greatly to the disgust of Prussia, exhibiting in a more limited space west of the south transept. The French were appealed to to reduce the height of their partitions; but the representatives of "la grande nation" would not recede an inch: they agreed with their Emperor that "when France is satisfied, the world is at rest," at any rate, ought to be; and as the partitions perfectly answered the purpose of the French exhibitors, why should they put themselves out of the way for the sake of the semi-barbarous peoples beyond the Rhine?

A few words now as to the magnificent collection of pictures. England had an advantage here over foreign countries; for, whereas it was allowable to exhibit any English picture painted within the century previous to the opening of the Exhibition--and, in fact, the best part of the collection did date from the last century--the foreign collection included, with but trifling exceptions, none but works by living artists. Six thousand works of art, exclusive of sculpture, were displayed in these galleries. Such a gathering of the masterpieces of our best artists--Reynolds, Gainsborough, and Hogarth--was never seen before. The Pre-Raphaelite school, and all the more eminent living or recently deceased artists, with the exception of J. M. W. Turner, were well represented. The productions of the British colonies occupied a considerable area near the eastern dome, and were exceedingly interesting, especially those from Australia and New Zealand, in the curiosities from which there was a large native element that gave a piquant and peculiar character to the display. The Exhibition was closed on the 1st of November, having been open for the period of six months. Yet vast as were the multitudes that daily thronged it, the concourse of visitors did not quite come up to the number in 1851. The total number was found to have been 6,117,450, about 50,000 under the gross number of visitors to the Exhibition of 1851.

The year 1863, on which this history now enters, was one which, so far as England was concerned, was unmarked by political agitation and unclouded by the anxieties of war. There was much distress in Lancashire, owing to the entire or partial stoppage of innumerable looms, till now dependent on American cotton. The world was hunted through by the agents of the great cotton industry, in order to find out new sources of supply, or, by introducing or fostering cotton culture in various suitable localities, to secure at least an increased supply in the future. In India, every road leading down the Western Ghauts was traversed by an unwonted string of country carts, conveying the precious commodity to some port of shipment; still, notwithstanding all that could be done, the supply of cotton remained exceedingly limited, and much of what came was of a very inferior quality. A general subscription, set on foot towards the end of 1862, produced in the first month of 1863 the sum of £750,000 for the relief of the distress, and in April £2,735,000. It was observed that the general trade and industry of the country continued to prosper, notwithstanding the collapse of this one branch of it. Especially in every branch of the hardware trade, particularly in the sale of arms and munitions of war, immense quantities of which were made in Great Britain to the order of both belligerents, an activity was apparent exceeding all former experience. The basis upon which, under the régime of Free Trade, the industry of this country reposed, was proved by this experience to be far broader and more solid than the most destructive storm, so long as it affected only one portion of the field, could seriously impair.

Parliament was opened by commission in the first week of February. The first clause of the Royal Speech informed both Houses of what every one was aware of, that, since they last met, her Majesty had "declared her consent to a marriage between his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and her Royal Highness the Princess Alexandra, daughter of Prince Christian of Denmark." The marriage was celebrated in the following month, and the rejoicings which accompanied it were so genuine and so universal that it seems worth while to dwell at some length on the circumstances of the auspicious event. The preliminaries were settled during a visit paid by the Queen to the Continent in the autumn of 1862, and the Princess became a guest at Osborne in November. Her father, Prince Christian of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, was then Heir-Presumptive to the Crown of Denmark, to which he succeeded in 1865. The yacht Albert and Victoria received the bride and her suite on board at Antwerp, and an escorting squadron, among which was the then formidable ironclad the Warrior, attended and welcomed her to the shores of her new country. The Princess, after a fine passage, landed at Gravesend on the 7th of March, and travelled to Windsor. Demonstrations of loyal and affectionate interest were not wanting along any part of the line of route. The marriage took place on the 10th of March, and the ceremonial employed on the occasion was brilliant and effective to a degree which public pageants in England seldom reach. Four processions or cortèges left the castle in succession. The first, that of the Royal guests, among whom were the Maharajah Dhuleep Singh, and a crowd of petty German princes not yet Bismarckised, set out an hour before the time fixed for the wedding. The second cortège, in eleven carriages, conveyed the Royal Family and the Queen's household. The third cortège was the procession of the bridegroom, and the fourth the procession of the bride. The marriage was performed in St. George's Chapel. The Archbishop of Canterbury, of course, officiated, and the Eton boys cheered lustily as the happy pair drove away, en route for Osborne. On the same night London and all the principal towns in England were illuminated. An immense and thoroughly good-humoured crowd filled all the streets, and admired the coloured transparencies, the Prince of Wales's feathers, the true love-knots, the A A's, and fifty other devices, which the inventive affection of the people had rapidly improvised. At Birmingham the outline and the chief structural lines of the tower and cupola of St. Philip's Church stood out in flame against a dark and starless sky. The city of Edinburgh, whose situation lends itself to effective displays of this sort, was strikingly illuminated. The noble castle was lined with small paraffin lamps, which clearly defined its contour, and fireworks blazed till a late hour from the Salisbury Craigs and Arthur's Seat. In London the illuminations were characterised by the utmost splendour, but untoward events cast a shadow over the popular rejoicing. Though nothing could be more orderly and well-disposed than the behaviour of the crowd, yet the pressure of the enormous multitudes that filled the City thoroughfares up to a late hour of the night was fatal to six women, crushed or trodden to death between the Mansion House and the foot of Ludgate Hill, and was the cause of more or less severe injuries to not less than a hundred persons. The Prince of Wales addressed a feeling letter to the Lord Mayor on the subject of these sad accidents, expressing his deep regret that what was meant for rejoicing should have become an occasion of mourning. The House of Commons, on the motion of Lord Palmerston, cheerfully granted to the Prince and Princess of Wales, in addition to and augmentation of, the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, amounting to about £60,000 per annum, a revenue of £50,000 a year from the Consolidated Fund, of which sum £10,000 was separately settled on the Princess. It was further proposed by the Premier, and assented to, that a jointure of £30,000 a year should be secured to the Princess in the event of her surviving her husband. Among the subsequent ceremonies at which the Royal pair assisted was the inauguration of the Albert Memorial at South Kensington.

The financial statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Gladstone, was made on the 16th of April, and was universally considered to be a masterly and very satisfactory exposé of the monetary and commercial condition of the country. The estimates of revenue and expenditure for the coming financial year showed a large probable surplus; and this surplus Mr. Gladstone applied to the reduction of the tea duty and of the income tax. Certain minor features of the financial programme were not allowed to pass unchallenged. One such consisted in levying a licence duty on clubs, on the ground that, as wine and spirituous liquors were sold in them to the members, they ought not to be exempted from the burden which every hotel-keeper and licensed victualler was liable to. But as there were not wanting many to point out the obvious and essential differences between a club and a public-house, this portion of the financial scheme was abandoned. The other feature referred to was Mr. Gladstone's proposal for the taxation of charities. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had conceived the notion that the exemption from income tax enjoyed by charitable institutions was equivalent to a burden of corresponding amount imposed on the general body of taxpayers. The sum lost to the revenue through the exemption from income tax of the property of charities was estimated by Mr. Gladstone to amount to at least £250,000. The great charitable institutions of the metropolis and elsewhere at once took the alarm, and a deputation, formidable in numbers, rank, and respectability, was soon organised to wait on the adventurous financier. In the end it became so evident to Government that the feeling of the House was opposed to the taxation of charities that the measure was withdrawn.

Towards the end of February there was great agitation among the well-wishers and ill-wishers of the Church of England, on account of a suit brought in the Chancellor's Court at Oxford by the Rev. Dr. Pusey against Professor Jowett, charging him with having maintained heresy in certain of his published writings, particularly in the publication so well known as "Essays and Reviews." The Assessor, Mr. Montague Bernard, after hearing the case fully argued, gave judgment. He first of all overruled the exception which the defendant had made to the jurisdiction of the Court; and then, after examining the statute under which he thought himself empowered to try the case, he decided that it was so vague in its terms as to leave him, in his opinion, a discretionary power whether to proceed to judgment or not; in the exercise of which power he declined to let the case go forward. Notice was given of appeal against this judgment, but the intention was afterwards abandoned.

Seldom has a year witnessed the disappearance from the scenes which their genius, valour, or virtue had adorned, of a greater number of illustrious men than the year 1863. Two of the heroes of the Indian Mutiny, Sir James Outram and Lord Clyde; four distinguished statesmen, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Lansdowne, Lord Elgin, and Sir George Cornewall Lewis; the veteran politician, Mr. Ellice, often called the Nestor of the Whig party; and two great authors, Archbishop Whately and Thackeray, were among those who within the twelvemonth paid the debt of nature.

The desperate effort made this year by the gallant and unfortunate Poles to shake off the despotic yoke of Russia, riveted the gaze and engaged the sympathy of nearly every nation in Europe. We say nearly, for Prussia, as represented by its Government, assisted, on grounds at the time little understood, the Muscovite gaoler to remanacle his victim. In January the Russian Government revived by an ukase the system of conscription. Lord Napier, the British ambassador at St. Petersburg, described it as "a design to make a clean sweep of the revolutionary youth of Poland; to shut up the most energetic and dangerous spirits in the restraints of the Russian army: it was simply a plan to kidnap the opposition, and carry it off to Siberia or the Caucasus." At midnight on the 14th of January police agents and soldiers commenced the work in Warsaw and the revolution began. The misfortunes of Poland led to one of those diplomatic and didactic interventions of which Britain about this time was so liberal and of which the issue was so invariably and so notoriously unfortunate. Earl Russell wrote (March 2nd, 1863) in a somewhat curt style of remonstrance to Lord Napier at St. Petersburg, setting forth the view of the British Government concerning the rights of the Poles under the Treaty of Vienna, maintaining the right of Great Britain, as a party to that treaty, to interfere, with a view to the sincere execution and fulfilment of its stipulations, declaring that since the time of the Emperor Alexander I. Russia had broken faith with Poland in withholding the free institutions which had been promised, and concluding with the demand that a general amnesty should be proclaimed, and the just political reforms required by the Poles conceded. Prince Gortschakoff, "acting in a spirit of conciliation," declined to send a written reply to Earl Russell's despatch, but expressed to Lord Napier, in conversation, his adverse views upon its principal clauses. Nevertheless an amnesty was granted, but rejected by the insurgents.

Earl Russell had by this time formulated, in concert with Austria and with the knowledge of France, the plan for the regeneration of Poland which he had been long meditating, and was now prepared to propose for the acceptance of the Russian Government. The plan, as unfolded in his despatch of the 17th of June, comprised the following six points or articles:--

1. A complete and general amnesty.

2. National representation in a form resembling that which had been granted by Alexander I.

3. A distinct national administration carried on by Poles and possessing the confidence of the country.

4. Full and entire liberty of conscience, involving the repeal of the restrictions imposed on Catholic worship.

5. The Polish language to be recognised in the kingdom as the official language and used as such in the courts of law and in the schools.

6. The establishment of a regular and legal system of recruiting.

All these reforms were just and desirable per se; but to propose them was tantamount to an interference in the internal politics of a foreign State. "The Principal Secretary of State of her Britannic Majesty," said Prince Gortschakoff, writing in July, "will dispense us from giving an answer to the proposed arrangement for a suspension of hostilities. It would not resist a serious examination of the conditions necessary for carrying it into effect." Turning the tables on the remonstrating Powers, he said that the speedy re-establishment of order depended largely "upon the resolution of the Great Powers not to lend themselves to calculations on which the instigators of the Polish insurrection found their expectation of an active intervention in favour of their exaggerated aspirations." The end of the diplomatic comedy was not far off. The Emperor Napoleon, observing that the views of the three Powers--Britain, France, and Austria--as expressed in their communications to their representatives at St. Petersburg, were not precisely in accord, proposed to the other two Courts to take, in the form of a convention or protocol, an engagement to pursue in concert a regulation of Polish affairs, by diplomatic methods, or otherwise if necessary. The meaning of these words plainly was, that if diplomatic methods failed, the three Powers would not shrink from the arbitrament of war, in order to compel Russia to do justice to Poland. "Our proposition," the statement quoted from drily continues, "was not accepted." The Russian Government consequently assumed a defiant tone, and Prussia came to her assistance by drawing a military cordon against the fugitives round the frontier. The propositions of the three Powers were quietly ignored; Russia proceeded in her task of restoring order by the methods familiar to despotic Governments and the fate of Poland was sealed.

Pacific modes of obtaining redress were not invariably preferred by Earl Russell. When an act of vigour could be performed that did not risk involving the country in war, he was ready to perform it. Thus he justified the conduct of the British Envoy at Rio Janeiro, Mr. Christie, who had instructed (January 2, 1863) the British naval commander on the station to seize several Brazilian merchant vessels in reprisal for the pillage of the Prince of Wales, an English merchant ship. Much angry correspondence ensued; the Brazilian Government dismissed two of its officials for want of promptitude in the matter and prosecuted to conviction eleven other offenders; but the British Government still considered that more vigorous measures should have been taken, in order to prevent such outrages for the future, not less than to punish the actual offenders. A claim for compensation on account of the pillage of the cargo was advanced by the British Government; this claim seems to have been regarded in Brazil as excessive. Mr. Christie was then instructed to propose arbitration, but accompanied with conditions which the Brazilian Government thought it inconsistent with their honour to accept. Reprisals were then authorised to be made and were carried out as above mentioned. The Brazilian Government then paid the sum demanded under protest and a rupture of diplomatic relations between the two countries ensued. Another matter that had caused ill feeling--the unwarrantable arrest of three officers belonging to a British frigate, the Forte, by a guard of Brazilian police--had been referred to the arbitration of the King of the Belgians, who pronounced his opinion (June 18, 1863), that in the mode in which the laws of Brazil had been applied towards the English officers, there was neither premeditation of offence nor offence given to the British navy.

The British squadron in Japan, under Admiral Kuper, was under the necessity, this year, of resorting to measures of coercion against one of the Daimios, or half independent princes, of Japan, which involved the loss of many lives. The Prince of Satsuma was the ruler of a large and fertile territory in Kiusiu, the southernmost of the islands of Japan, and it was at a place within his jurisdiction that an Englishman, Mr Richardson, was murdered, and a murderous assault committed on an English lady and two gentlemen who were riding with him, in September, 1862. The British Government, when the news of this outrage was received, directed Colonel Neale, the British chargé d'affaires in Japan, to demand ample compensation for the murder, from the Tycoon, the temporal sovereign of Japan, and from the Prince of Satsuma. The former was required to pay £100,000 as an indemnity, the latter £25,000. After much parleying, the Tycoon agreed to pay the sum demanded, which was accordingly brought to Yokohama, in June, 1863, and counted out in the presence of Colonel Neale. But the Prince of Satsuma could in no way be brought to reason, for which contumacy his ships were taken, his town was burnt, and his palace destroyed by the British squadron from Yokohama. The Prince had certainly suffered reprisals to an extent exceeding many times the amount of the indemnity demanded. Yet these very injuries--so strange is the working of the Asiatic mind--appear to have induced him to make overtures for peace. These were signs of overwhelming power, and power is almost the only thing that the Asiatic truly reverences. As a matter of fact, before the close of the year the Prince offered to pay, and actually paid, to the British chargé d'affaires at Yokohama, the £25,000 which had been originally demanded from him as compensation money for the murder of Mr. Richardson!

The civil war continued, meanwhile, to rage in America, where at the beginning of the year General Lee found himself confronted by Hooker at the head of a powerful force. The latter's attempt to force the position of Fredericksburg was a complete failure, though the victory of Chancellorsville was dearly purchased by the death of "Stonewall" Jackson, most daring of the Confederate soldiers. Lee thereupon advanced upon Gettysburg, where a series of battles resulted in his decisive defeat and he was again forced to retire into Virginia. Elsewhere the cause of the Confederates was gravely affected by the constant successes of General Grant in Mississippi. They were forced to retire from Jackson and on the 3rd of July the important fortress of Vicksburg surrendered. Bragg held his own in Tennessee until Grant, fresh from his victories, was sent to supersede Rosecrans. Ably seconded by Hooker, he forced Bragg into Georgia; and the fortunes of the Federals were obviously in the ascendant, when Meade followed Lee into Virginia and harassed him during another campaign. Upon the coast-line the naval superiority of the Northerners caused itself to be powerfully felt; and after a preliminary attempt on Fort Wagner had failed, the siege of Charleston began on August the 21st and continued until the end of the year. Fort Wagner was abandoned by the Southerners on the 7th of September, but then the operations declined into a languid bombardment. Nevertheless the inevitable end of the struggle could now be foreseen.

While the United States were thus distracted by civil war, and not in a position to assert, much less to enforce, what is called the Monroe doctrine, that is, the claim of the United States to prevent European States from intervening in the internal affairs of American States, the French Emperor was playing a singular game in Mexico. The enterprise had sprung out of the unpretending joint expedition agreed to by Britain, France, and Spain at the close of 1861. Mexico had so vexatiously and so long evaded its pecuniary obligations to its British and Spanish creditors, and had left so many outrages on individual Britons and Spaniards unredressed, that the Governments of the two countries were at last compelled to resort to coercive measures. France also desired to be a party to the convention, nor was it at first understood that the aims of the French Emperor differed materially from those of his confederates. The expedition sailed in December, 1861, having on board 6,000 Spanish soldiers; the British military contingent was only a force of 700 marines; the French contingent was at first weaker than that of Spain, but it was soon increased. A landing was effected, without resistance, at Vera Cruz. On the 10th of January, 1862, the allied Commissioners published a manifesto, addressed to the Mexican people, couched in somewhat ambiguous language, yet declaring that neither conquest nor political dictation was the object of the allied Powers, which had long beheld with grief a noble people "wasting their forces and extinguishing their vitality through the violent power of civil war and perpetual convulsions," and had now landed on their shores to give them an opportunity of constituting themselves in a permanent and stable manner. Yet all this time the views of the French Emperor were extended to ulterior aims of which his allies never dreamed. A pamphlet, well known to be "inspired," from the facile pen of M. de la Guerronière, appeared in Paris, clearly pointing to the regeneration of Mexico by Cæsarism--to an Emperor and a plebiscite.

When, then, after the issuing of the manifesto, the commissioners of the allied Powers began to exchange ideas, the divergence of view between the French and the other two commissioners soon became apparent. The object of Britain and Spain was simply, by occupying a portion of the Mexican seaboard, to obtain a material guarantee for the redress of the wrongs of which their subjects had to complain. Whether this was done by the Government of Juarez (who was then President) or by any other Government, was a matter of perfect indifference to Britain and Spain. But the French Commissioner--with an eye to the eventual introduction of an imperial régime--refused, on the plea of perverseness, renewed outrages, and general impracticability, to hold any communication with the Juarez Government. However, the British and Spanish Commissioners, Sir Charles Wyke and General Prim, opened negotiations with the Government of Juarez. But there was a certain General Almonte in the French camp, who was well known as a promoter of the scheme for substituting imperial for republican institutions. The Mexican Government required that Almonte should be sent away; but to this the French Commissioner refused to consent. A conference between the commissioners of the allied Powers and others to be deputed by the Mexican Government, to meet at Orizaba, in April, 1862, was agreed to by Prim and Sir Charles Wyke, but rejected by the French Commissioner, who insisted that, instead of negotiating with Juarez, the proper course for the Allies was to march at once upon Mexico. Hereupon Prim and Sir Charles Wyke, finding that their views and those of their colleague were irreconcilable, withdrew on the part of their respective Governments from the expedition. Nevertheless the French forces, increased by 2,500 troops under the command of General Forey, appeared entirely successful. Puebla was captured in May, 1862; Mexico, the capital, occupied in June, and Juarez, though breathing defiance, was forced to retire into the interior. An assembly of notables resolved that Mexico should adopt monarchical institutions and the Crown was offered in 1863 to the Archduke Maximilian of Austria.

From the mysterious central lands of Africa information of the most interesting character came this year to England, being communicated by the enterprising travellers Captain Speke and Captain Grant, who landed at Southampton on the 17th of June, and five days afterwards received a public welcome at a special meeting of the Royal Geographical Society. Starting from Zanzibar, and penetrating the country in a north-westerly direction, Captain Speke had, though with incredible difficulty, and through the exertion of wonderful patience and adroitness in bribing, coaxing, mystifying, or browbeating the native rulers whose kingdoms he traversed, reached the shores of a vast lake, to which he gave the name of Victoria Nyanza, and seen the White Nile flowing out, at its northern end, in the direction of Gondokoro. Captain Speke too hastily assumed that he had found the true source of the Nile in the Victoria Nyanza, just as, nearly a hundred years earlier, Bruce was convinced that he stood at the fountain head of the great river when he had merely traced up the lesser current of the Blue Nile. The brave explorer's career came to a premature and tragic end. A day had been fixed, in the autumn of 1864, for a discussion between him and Captain Burton on the question of the Nile sources, before a meeting of the British Association at Bath, when a sudden and lamentable accident put a period to Speke's life. He was shooting in Neston Park, in Wiltshire; and from the posture in which the body was found, he appeared to have been getting over a low stone wall, when by some mischance his gun exploded while the muzzle was pointed at his breast. Death ensued in a few minutes.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us