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 manoeuvres 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.

OFFICE OF THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY, 10, DOWNING STREET, LONDON.