Anonymous

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

The Session of 1860—Debates on Nice and Savoy—Mr. Gladstone's Budget—The French Commercial Treaty—The Paper Duties Bill—Lord Palmerston's Motion of Inquiry—Mr. Gladstone's Resolution—Lord John Russell's Reform Bill—It falls flat—Mr. James Wilson and Sir Charles Trevelyan—The Defences of India and Great Britain—Foreign Affairs in the Queen's Speech—The Massacre by the Druses—The French Expedition—Palmerston's Distrust of Napoleon—China once more—Repulse on the Peiho—Lord Elgin and Baron Gros—The Advance on Pekin—Capture of the Taku Forts—Futile Negotiations—Treacherous Treatment of the British Envoys—The Summer Palace looted—Release of Mr. Parkes—Lord Elgin decrees the Destruction of the Palace—It perishes in the Flames—The Treaty of Peace—The Prince of Wales in Canada—Death of the Duchess of Kent—The American Civil War—Causes of Dispute between North and South—Election of Lincoln—Secession of South Carolina—Her Example followed—The Confederate States—Fall of Fort Sumter—Lincoln calls out the Militia—He places the South under Blockade—The British Cabinet declares Neutrality—The Order in Council—Affair of the Trent—Capture of Mason and Slidell—Excitement in England—Canadian Loyalty—Russell's Ultimatum—His Correspondence with Seward—Release of the Envoys—The Paper Duties Bill and the Church Rates Bill—Sidney Herbert and the Volunteers.

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

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

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

WILLIAM EWART GLADSTONE (1860).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GENERAL ROBERT LEE.