Anonymous

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PRINCE ALBERT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The Queen requires, first, that Lord Palmerston will distinctly state what he proposes in a given case, in order that the Queen may know as distinctly to what she has given her royal sanction; secondly, having once given her sanction to a measure, that it be not arbitrarily altered or modified by the Minister. Such an act she must consider as failing in sincerity towards the Crown, and justly to be visited by the exercise of her constitutional right of dismissing that Minister. She expects to be kept informed of what passes between him and the foreign Ministers before important decisions are taken based upon that intercourse; to receive the foreign despatches in good time; and to have the drafts for her approval sent to her in sufficient time to make herself acquainted with their contents before they must be sent off. The Queen thinks it best that Lord John Russell should show this letter to Lord Palmerston."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAPEL OF SAINT HELENA, JERUSALEM.