## The Project Gutenberg eBook of Cassell's History of England, Vol. 6 (of 8)

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Cassell's History of England, Vol. 6 (of 8)

Author: Anonymous

Release date: February 24, 2020 [eBook #61502]
Most recently updated: October 17, 2024

Language: English

Credits: Produced by Chris Curnow, Jane Robins and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CASSELL'S HISTORY OF ENGLAND, VOL. 6 (OF 8) ***

# CASSELL'S ILLUSTRATED HISTORY OF ENGLAND

## CASSELL'S
HISTORY OF ENGLAND

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

WITH NUMEROUS ILLUSTRATIONS,
INCLUDING COLOURED
AND REMBRANDT PLATES

VOL. VI

THE KING'S EDITION

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

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

[v]

## CONTENTS.

### CHAPTER I.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

> PAGE

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

### CHAPTER II.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

### CHAPTER III.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

### CHAPTER IV.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

### CHAPTER V.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

### CHAPTER VI.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

[vi]

### CHAPTER VII.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

### CHAPTER VIII.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

### CHAPTER IX.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

### CHAPTER X.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

### CHAPTER XI.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

### CHAPTER XII.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

[vii]

### CHAPTER XIII.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

### CHAPTER XIV.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

### CHAPTER XV.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

### CHAPTER XVI.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

### CHAPTER XVII.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

### CHAPTER XVIII.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

[viii]

### CHAPTER XIX.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

### CHAPTER XX.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

### CHAPTER XXI.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

### CHAPTER XXII.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

### CHAPTER XXIII.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

### CHAPTER XXIV.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

[ix]

### CHAPTER XXV.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

### CHAPTER XXVI.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

### CHAPTER XXVII.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

### CHAPTER XXVIII.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

### CHAPTER XXIX.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

### CHAPTER XXX.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

[x]

### CHAPTER XXXI.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

### CHAPTER XXXII.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

### CHAPTER XXXIII.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

### CHAPTER XXXIV.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

### CHAPTER XXXV.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

### CHAPTER XXXVI.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

> INDEX 609

[xi]

## LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

| PAGE
The Crystal Palace in Hyde Park, London, 1851 | 1
Prince Albert | 5
The Coup d' État: Eviction of the Judges | 9
The Burial of Wellington | 13
Chapel of St. Helena, Jerusalem | 17
Constantinople | 21
Omar Pasha | 25
The Russian Attack on Sinope | 29
Gatchina Palace, St. Petersburg | 32
Peers and Commoners presenting the Patriotic Address to the Queen on the Eve of the Crimean War | 33
Zouaves looting a Village in the Crimea | 37
Skirmish on the Bulganâk: Maude's Battery coming into action | 41
The Highlanders at the Alma | 45
Lord Raglan | 48
On the Battle-Field of the Alma: the Mission of Mercy | 49
Plan of Sebastopol, showing the Defence | 53
Charge of the Heavy Brigade | 57
General Todleben | 61
Balaclava | 65
The Guards recovering the Sandbag Battery | 69
The Hospital and Cemetery at Scutari, with Constantinople in the distance | 73
The Late Sir W. H. Russell, Correspondent of the Times in the Crimea | 77
The Lady with the Lamp: Miss Nightingale in the Hospital at Scutari | 81
The "Block" at Balaclava | 85
The Zouaves assaulting the Rifle-pits | 89
Sebastopol from the Right Attack | 93
The Emperor Nicholas | 96
Sappers destroying the Russian Trenches | 97
Volunteers of the Flying Squadron firing the Shipping at Taganrog | 101
Marshal Pélissier | 105
The Assault on the Redan | 109
Reconnaissance of French Cavalry in the Baidar Valley | 113
General Simpson | 117
The French in the Malakoff | 121
The Struggle in the Redan | 125
Evacuation of Sebastopol | 129
Sir Colin Campbell | 133
Kars | 137
The repulse of the Russians at Kars | 141
Uniforms of the British Army in 1855 | 144
Napoleon III | 145
The Czar renewing his Army at Sebastopol | 149
Scene during the Preston Strike | 157
The Duke of Newcastle | 161
The Queen opening the Crystal Palace | 165
Chinese Officers hauling down the British Flag on the "Arrow" | 169
Victoria, Hong-Kong, from the Chinese Mainland | 173
Mr. Speaker Denison | 177
Outbreak of the Indian Mutiny: High Caste v. Low Caste | 185
General Hearsey and the Mutineers | 188
The Rebel Sepoys at Delhi | 189
Disarmament of the 26th at Barrackpore | 193
Sir John Lawrence (afterwards Lord Lawrence) | 197
De Kantzow defending the Treasury at Mynpooree | 201
Hodson reconnoitring before Delhi | 205
The Palace, Delhi | 209
Sir Henry Havelock | 213
Memorial at the Well, Cawnpore | 217
The Highlanders capturing the Guns at Cawnpore | 221
How Major Tombs won the Victoria Cross | 225
Blowing up of the Cashmere Gate at Delhi | 229
Hooseinabad Gardens and Tomb of Zana Ali, Lucknow | 233
Sir Hope Grant | 237
Ruins of the Residency, Lucknow | 240
The Mausoleum at Akbar, Agra | 241
Incident in the Defence of Lucknow | 245
Lieutenant Havelock and the Madras Fusiliers carrying the Charbagh Bridge at Lucknow | 249
Sir James Outram | 253
The Slaughter Ghat, Cawnpore | 257
The Relief of Lucknow | 261
Death of Hodson | 265
The Martinière, Lucknow | 269
Sir Hugh Rose (afterwards Lord Strathnairn) | 273
Proclamation of the Queen as Sovereign of India | 277
Gwalior, from the south-east | 281
Capture of Tantia Topee | 285
Lord Canning | 288
Street in Peshawur | 289
Earl Russell | 293
Office of the First Lord of the Treasury, 10, Downing Street, London | 297
Entry of Napoleon and Victor Emmanuel into Milan | 301
Meeting of Garibaldi and Victor Emmanuel | 305
William Ewart Gladstone (1860) | 312
Demonstration against the Christians in Damascus | 313
The Imperial Palace, Pekin, looking north | 317
Capture of John Brown at Harper's Ferry | 321
General Robert Lee | 325
Funeral of the Prince Consort | 329
Hindoos bringing Cotton through the Western Ghauts | 333
Abraham Lincoln | 336
Marriage of the Prince of Wales | 337
Mr. Phelps planting the Shakespeare Oak on Primrose Hill, London | 345
Scene in the Belfast Riots | 349
Amalienborg Palace, Copenhagen | 353
Lord Palmerston | 357
The Fight between the Alabama and the Kearsarge | 361
Confederate Raid into Vermont | 365
The Foreign Office, London, from St. James's Park | 369
Arrest of Head-Centre Stephens | 373
Reception of the French Fleet at Portsmouth | 377
General Grant | 381
Meeting of Lee and Grant at Appomattox Court-House | 384
The Attack on the Court-House, St. Thomas-in-the-East | 385
Street Scene, Kingston, Jamaica | 389
John Stuart Mill | 393
Scene in the House of Commons: a Narrow Majority | 397[xii]
The Lobby, House of Commons | 401
Reform Leaguers at the Marble Arch | 405
Arrival of the "Great Eastern" at Trinity Bay | 409
Robert Lowe (afterwards Lord Sherbrooke) | 413
Kilmainham Gaol, Dublin | 417
The Battle of Koniggrätz | 421
The Battle of Langensalza | 425
Count Von Moltke | 429
The Palace, Dresden | 432
The Old War Office, Pall Mall | 433
Lord Malmesbury | 437
Tea-Room, House of Commons | 441
Meeting at the Reformers' Tree, Hyde Park, London | 445
John Bright | 449
"Gang System" of Farming | 453
Fenian Attack on the Police Van in Manchester | 457
Skating Disaster in Regent's Park, London | 461
Lord Cairns | 465
Scene in the Birmingham "No Popery" Riots | 469
Coronation of the Emperor of Austria as King of Hungary | 473
King Theodore's House, Magdala | 477
Mr. Rassam's Interview with King Theodore | 480
The Emperor Theodore granting an Audience | 481
Sir Robert Napier (afterwards Lord Napier of Magdala) | 485
Death of the Emperor Theodore | 489
St. Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin | 493
Archbishop Trench | 497
Dr. Magee, Bishop of Peterborough, addressing the House of Lords | 501
New Palace Yard, Westminster | 505
The Quadrangle, Somerset House | 509
Sir Stafford Northcote (afterwards Earl of Iddesleigh) | 513
Street-Fighting in Malaga | 517
Mr. Chichester Fortescue (afterwards Lord Carlingford) | 521
A Visit from Captain Moonlight | 524
An Eviction in Ireland | 525
The Duke of Richmond and Gordon | 528
Office of the London School Board, Thames Embankment | 529
Mr. W. E. Forster | 533
Office of the Education Department, Whitehall | 537
Capture of English Tourists by Greek Brigands | 541
The Royal Palace, Athens | 545
The Boulevard Montmartre, Paris | 548
Émile Ollivier | 549
"À Berlin!" Parisian Crowds declaring for War | 553
Prince Bismarck | 557
Franco-German War, Sketch-Map of the Campaign in the Rhine Country | 561
Sedan | 564
Marshal MacMahon | 565
Camden Place, Chislehurst (Napoleon's Home in England) | 569
The Vatican, Rome | 573
Dr. Döllinger | 576
Palace of the Quirinal, Rome | 577
Siege of Paris: Map of the Fortifications | 580
L. A. Thiers | 581
Evacuation of Metz | 585
Léon Gambetta | 589
German Troops passing under the Arc de Triomphe in Paris | 593
Mr. (afterwards Viscount) Cardwell | 597
Procession of Match-Makers to Westminster | 601
The Prince of Wales (afterwards Edward VII.) in his Robes as a Bencher of the Middle Temple | 604
The Thanksgiving Service in St. Paul's Cathedral | 605

## LIST OF PLATES

WINDSOR CASTLE. (By Alfred W. Hunt, R.W.S.) | Frontispiece |
THE OPENING BY QUEEN VICTORIA OF THE GREAT EXHIBITION IN HYDE PARK. (By H. C. Selous.) | To face p. | 9
THE WRECK OF H.M.S. Birkenhead. (By Thomas M. Henry) | " | 14
SAVING THE COLOURS: THE GUARDS AT INKERMAN. (By Robert Gibb, R.S.A.) | " | 41
THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE AT BALACLAVA. (By R. Caton Woodville) | " | 62
"ALL THAT WAS LEFT OF THEM, LEFT OF SIX HUNDRED." (By R. Caton Woodville) | " | 86
QUEEN VICTORIA REVIEWING THE CRIMEAN VETERANS (1854). (By Sir John Gilbert, R.A., P.R.W.S.) | " | 90
LORD RAGLAN VIEWING THE STORMING OF THE REDAN AT THE SIEGE OF SEBASTOPOL. (By R. Caton Woodville) | " | 126
MAP OF INDIA, 1856. | " | 182
THE FLIGHT FROM LUCKNOW. (By A. Solomon) | " | 217
THE SECOND RELIEF OF LUCKNOW, 1857. (By Thomas J. Barker) | " | 262
THE NORTH-WEST PASSAGE. (By Sir J. E. Millais, Bart., P.R.A., D. C.L., etc.) | " | 287
QUEEN VICTORIA AT OSBORNE. (By Sir Edwin Landseer, R.A.) | " | 326
THE MARRIAGE OF THE PRINCE OF WALES, 1863. (By G. H. Thomas) | " | 338
A COTTAGE BEDSIDE AT OSBORNE. (Gourlay Steell, R.S.A.) | " | 408
MARRIAGE OF PRINCESS HELENA. (By C. Magnussen) | " | 412
THE WHITE TOWER, TOWER OF LONDON. (By H. E. Tidmarsh) | " | 481
W. E. GLADSTONE. (By Sir J. E. Millais, Bart., P.R.A.) | " | 500
REARING THE LION'S WHELPS. (By W. L. Wyllie, A.R.A.) | " | 544
THE THANKSGIVING SERVICE, 27TH OF FEBRUARY, 1872: THE PROCESSION AT LUDGATE HILL. (By N. Chevalier) | " | 602

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

WINDSOR CASTLE.

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

[See larger version]

[1]

THE CRYSTAL PALACE IN HYDE PARK, LONDON, 1851

## CASSELL'S
ILLUSTRATED HISTORY OF ENGLAND.

——♦♦♦——

## CHAPTER I.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

FROM the Revolution of 1688, when the Roman Catholic hierarchy was abolished with the arbitrary power of James II., the government of the Roman Catholic clergy was maintained in England by "vicars apostolic." England was divided into four vicariates, and this state of things continued[2] until 1840, when Gregory XVI. ordained a new ecclesiastical division of England, doubling the number of vicariates, which were thenceforward named the London, the Western, the Eastern, the Central, the Welsh, the Lancastrian, the York, and the Northern districts. In consequence of the increase of Roman Catholics in Great Britain, and the removal of their civil disabilities by the Emancipation Act, a desire grew up for the re-organisation of the regular episcopal system of the Church of Rome, and Pius IX. resolved to establish it in 1850. England and Wales were divided by a Papal brief into twelve sees; one of them, Westminster, was erected into an Archbishopric, and Dr. Wiseman, soon afterwards created a Cardinal, was appointed to it.

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

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

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

Various alterations were subsequently made in the Bill, to prevent its interfering unnecessarily with the Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland. The second reading was moved on the 14th of March. Mr. Cardwell refused his assent to the second reading, believing that, by supporting the measure, he would affront Protestant England, and do much to render Ireland ungovernable. Lord Palmerston supported the Bill, because churches were like corporate bodies, encroaching; because it would supply an omission in the Act of 1829; and as the Church of Rome obeyed that Act, she would also obey this. Sir James Graham, on the contrary, expressed his conviction that the passing of this Bill would be a repeal of the Emancipation Act, and then the Dissenters must look about them. Mr. Gladstone ably criticised the Bill, and concluded as follows:—"For three hundred years the Roman Catholic laity and secular clergy—the moderate party—had been struggling, with the sanction of the British Government, for this very measure, the appointment of diocesan bishops, which the extreme party—the regulars and cardinals at the Court of Rome—had been all along struggling to resist. The present legislation would drive the Roman Catholics back upon the Pope, and, teasing them with a miniature penal law, would alienate and estrange them. Religious freedom was a principle which had not been adopted in haste, and had not triumphed till after half a century of agonising struggles; and he trusted we were not now going to repeat Penelope's process without her purpose, and undo a great work which had been accomplished with so much difficulty." Mr. Disraeli expressed his sentiments, and those of his party, upon the general question and the particular measure. He denied that the Pope was without power. He was a prince of very great, if not the greatest power, his army being a million of priests; and was such a power to be treated as a Wesleyan Conference, or like an association of Scottish Dissenters? Sir George Grey having replied to the objections of Mr. Gladstone and others, the House divided, when[3] the second reading was carried by a still greater majority than the first, the numbers being—for the bill, 438; against it, 95; majority 343.

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

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

Lord John Russell's Administration had been for some time in a tottering state. Early in the Session of 1851 the Government was defeated on a motion by Mr. Locke King, for leave to bring in a Bill to make the franchise in counties in England and Wales the same as in boroughs; that is, the occupation of a tenement of the annual value of £10. The motion was carried against the Government by a majority of forty-eight. The Budget came on shortly afterwards, and gave so much dissatisfaction, that there was a general conviction that the Cabinet could not hold together much longer. It was felt that the times required a strong Government; but this had become gradually one of the weakest. The announcement of its resignation, therefore, excited no surprise; but the anxiety to learn what would be the new Ministerial arrangements was evinced by the crowded state of the House of Commons on Friday, the 21st of February. On the order for going into Committee of Ways and Means being read, the Prime Minister rose and requested that it might be postponed till the 24th. On the 24th both Houses were full. In the Upper House, Lord Lansdowne stated that in consequence of divisions which had recently taken place in the House of Commons, the Ministers had unanimously resigned; that Lord Stanley had been sent for by the Queen, and a proposal was made to him to construct a Government, for which he was not then prepared. Lord Stanley gave an account of his gracious reception by her Majesty, but reserved his reasons for declining to undertake the task. In the Lower House, on the same evening, Lord John Russell stated that her Majesty had sent for Lord Stanley, who had declined to form an[4] Administration, and that her Majesty had then asked him to undertake the task of reconstructing one, which he said he had agreed to do. He asked the House to adjourn to the 28th, and when that day arrived, matters were still in a state of confusion. Lord John Russell had failed to reconstruct his Cabinet; Lord Aberdeen and Sir James Graham had refused to concur in forming an Administration. Lord Stanley had also failed in a similar attempt, owing, according to Lord Malmesbury's "Recollections of an Ex-Minister," to the feeble counsels of Mr. Henley and Mr. Herries. From explanations given by Lord Aberdeen, Lord Stanley, Sir James Graham, and Lord John Russell himself, it appeared that the attempts to reconstruct the Cabinet, or to form a new one, arose from two difficulties in the way of any coalition between the leaders of existing parties—Free Trade, and the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. There could be no union between the Whigs and the Peelites on account of the latter, nor between the Peelites and the Protectionists on account of the former. Lord Stanley remarked that the Peelites, with all their ability and official aptitude, seemed to exercise their talents solely to render any Ministry impossible. A purely Protectionist Administration was out of the question, as it would have to contend against a large majority in the House of Commons. In this dilemma the Queen sent for the Duke of Wellington, and he advised her Majesty that the best course she could adopt in the circumstances was to recall her late advisers; and Lord John Russell's Cabinet resumed their offices accordingly in exactly the same position that they had been before the resignation.

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

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

A Royal Commission was appointed to manage the Exhibition. Hyde Park in London was fixed upon as the most appropriate site for the building, and Mr. Paxton, head-gardener to the Duke of Devonshire, though not an architect, furnished the plan of the Crystal Palace, as the Exhibition building was called. It was chiefly composed of iron and glass, being 1,848 feet long, 408 feet broad, and 66 feet high, crossed by a transept 108 feet high and also 408 feet in length, for the purpose of enclosing and encasing a grove of noble elms. Within, the nave presented a clear, unobstructed avenue, from one end of the building to the other, 72 feet in span, and 64 feet in height. On each side were aisles 64 feet wide, horizontally divided into galleries, which ran round the whole of the nave and transept. The wings exterior to the[5] centre or nave on each side had also galleries of the same height, the wings themselves being broken up into a series of courts, each 48 feet wide. The Palace was within 10 feet of being twice the width of St. Paul's and four times the length. The number of columns used in the entire edifice was 3,230. There were 34 miles of gutters for carrying off the rain-water to the columns, which were hollow, and served as water-pipes, 202 miles of sash bars, and 900,000 superficial feet of glass, weighing upwards of 400 tons. The building covered about 18 acres of ground, and with the galleries gave an exhibiting surface of 21 acres, with 8 miles of tables for laying out goods.

PRINCE ALBERT.

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

The plan was accepted on the 26th of July, 1850; and Messrs. Fox, Henderson, and Co. became the contractors, for the sum of £79,800, if the materials should remain their property, they being at the expense of removal; or £150,000 if the materials became the property of the Commissioners. It actually cost £176,030. The first column was fixed on the 26th of September, 1850; the contract to deliver over the building complete to the Commissioners on the 31st of December was virtually performed; and on the 1st of January, 1851, the Commissioners occupied the vast space with their carpenters, painters, and various artisans. The Crystal Palace excited universal admiration, from the wonderful combination of vastness and beauty, from its immense magnitude united with lightness, symmetry, and grace, as well as admirable adaptation to its purpose. And when it was fully furnished and open to the public, on the 1st of May, 1851, the visitor felt as if he had entered a fairy-like scene of enchantment, a palace of beauty and delight, such as one might[6] suppose mortal hands could not create. The effect on the beholder far surpassed all that its most sanguine projectors could have anticipated.

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

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

Meanwhile the State printing-office was surrounded by gendarmerie, and the compositors were all made prisoners, and compelled to print a number of documents which had been sent from the President. These were several decrees, which appeared on the walls of Paris at daybreak next morning, to the utter astonishment of the population. They read in them that the National Assembly was dissolved, that the Council of State was dissolved and that universal suffrage was re-established. They read an attack upon the Assembly, in which it was charged with forging arms for civil war, with provocations, calumnies, and outrages against the President. These things[7] were said to be done by the men who had already destroyed two monarchies, and who wanted to overthrow the republic; but he, Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, would baffle their perfidious projects. He submitted to them, therefore, a plan of a new Constitution: a responsible chief, named for ten years, Ministers dependent on the executive alone, a Council of State, a Legislative Corps, a Second Chamber. There was also an appeal to the army, which told the soldiers to be proud of their mission, for they were to save their country, and to obey him, the legitimate representative of the national sovereignty.

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

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

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

These astounding acts did not produce the alarm that might have been expected. Hitherto Louis Napoleon was not regarded with terror, as the inscrutable and the unpitying, but rather with a feeling of contempt and derision by the citizens of Paris. But the citizens had been disarmed; the leaders of the Faubourgs had been carried off by the police. In the absence of such leaders, the members of the Assembly who happened to be at large called upon the people to resist the usurpers. During the night of the 3rd, therefore, barricades were rapidly erected along the streets which lay between the Hôtel de Ville and the Boulevards Montmartre and des Italiens. But the troops were ready for action, 48,000 strong, including cavalry, infantry, artillery, engineers, and gendarmes. They had been supplied with rations, wine, and spirits in abundance. They had been ordered to give no quarter, either to combatants or to bystanders; but to clear the streets at any cost. Magnan's conscience, however, caused him to hesitate long, and was on the point of making a coward of him. There was a small barricade[8] which crossed the boulevard close to the Gymnase Theatre, which was occupied by a small advanced guard of the insurgents; and facing this, fifty yards off, was an immense column of troops, which occupied all the boulevard, and also the whole way to the Madeleine. The windows and balconies along the line were filled with ladies and gentlemen gazing at the grand military spectacle, which seemed only to be a demonstration to overawe the disaffected, there being no visible enemy to contend with.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[See larger version]

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

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

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

Soon after the opening of Parliament in 1852,[10] Lord John Russell related to the House what had happened in connection with this matter. Our Ambassador in France had been instructed to abstain from all interference with the internal affairs of that country. Lord Palmerston was alleged to have held a conversation with the French Ambassador inconsistent with those instructions. The Premier wrote to him on the subject, but his inquiries had for some days been met with a disdainful silence; Lord Palmerston having meanwhile, without the knowledge of his colleagues, written a despatch, containing instructions to Lord Normanby, who had previously been advised to observe a strict neutrality, which Lord John Russell considered was putting himself in the place of the Crown and passing by the Crown; while he gave the moral approbation of England to the acts of the President of the Republic, in direct opposition to the policy which the Government had hitherto pursued. In these circumstances Lord John said he had no other alternative but to declare, that while he was Prime Minister Lord Palmerston could not hold the seals of office. The noble Foreign Secretary had been accordingly dismissed.

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

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

The Queen sent for Lord Derby, formerly known as Lord Stanley, who succeeded in forming the following Cabinet:—Prime Minister, Lord Derby; Chancellor, Lord St. Leonards; Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Disraeli; President of the Council, Lord Lonsdale; Privy Seal, Marquis of Salisbury; Home Secretary, Mr. Walpole; Foreign Secretary, Lord Malmesbury; Colonial Secretary, Sir John Pakington; Admiralty, Duke of Northumberland; Board of Control, Mr. Herries; Postmaster-General, Lord Hardwicke; Board of Trade, Mr. Henley; Public Works, Lord John Manners. Only two members, Lord Derby and Mr. Herries, had ever held Cabinet rank before. The new Ministry carried through a Militia Bill, which passed the House of Commons by large majorities, in spite of the factious opposition of Lord John Russell. In the Lords, the second reading was moved on the 15th of June. It passed through all its stages without difficulty, and received the Royal Assent in due course. By this excellent measure a militia was constituted, available for service in any part of the United Kingdom, and recruited by voluntary enlistment, though a compulsory ballot was reserved for seasons of emergency. Many other useful measures were also passed during the[11] Session of 1852, among which may be mentioned the New Zealand Constitution Act, several measures of Law Reform, including the procedure in the Court of Chancery, and an extension of the jurisdiction of the County Courts. Lord Lyndhurst, reviewing the Session, said that, "during the four months that had elapsed since Lord Derby came into office, Bills of greater importance had passed than in any Session since the commencement of the present Parliament." On the 1st of July the Queen prorogued Parliament in person, and delivered a Speech, in which she expressed her satisfaction at the "final" settlement of the affairs of Holstein and Schleswig. The order for the dissolution of Parliament appeared next day in the Gazette. The General Election, which took place in due course, left the state of parties very much as it had found it, though many of the Peelites lost their seats.

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

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

Late on the night of the 17th of November the corpse was conveyed to the Horse Guards, escorted by a squadron of cavalry. The procession took place next day. First appeared the infantry, six battalions, then the artillery, next the cavalry, five squadrons, and then martial men on foot, pensioners, trumpets and kettle-drums, deputations from public bodies in carriages, persons connected with the late Duke's household, military dignitaries, judges, Ministers and officers of State, archbishops, the Prince Consort and her Majesty's household, in three carriages drawn by six horses each, officers connected with foreign armies, pall-bearers, the funeral car, which weighed twelve tons, drawn by twelve horses, and decorated by trophies and heraldic achievements, the hat and sword of the deceased being placed on the coffin. The coffin[12] was borne into St. Paul's, where nearly 20,000 persons were assembled. At the conclusion of the dirge the mortal remains were lowered into the crypt, and the great Duke was buried "with an Empire's lamentation."

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

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

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

The first movement of France in this Eastern Question was made in 1850. The Latin priests in Jerusalem were always clamouring against their rivals, and a fresh complaint reaching Paris, the Prince-President directed his ambassador at the Porte, General Aupick, to claim the fulfilment of a treaty in favour of the Latin Church, obtained in 1740. The gist of the grievance was that, by Russian influence, and by degrees, the Greeks had gained possession of certain churches and other holy places, in contravention of this treaty, and by the connivance of the Porte. And it was natural that as, since 1740, Russia had exercised a greater pressure on the Porte than France, so she had brought it to bear to exact concessions in favour of the priests of her faith, and give them a predominance at the holy shrines. For a century France had acquiesced; but in 1850 the country had fallen under a ruler more active in the employment of French power than any ruler since Louis XIV., except Napoleon I., and for purposes almost personal he determined that France should acquiesce no longer. The clerical party in France were gratified by the mere knowledge that General Aupick had raised the question of the Holy Shrines at the instance of the President. Throughout the year 1850 nothing was done of a serious character. The French Minister made demands, and the Porte evaded them as best it might. But in the very beginning of 1851 General Aupick imparted new life to the negotiations. M. de Titoff, the Russian Minister, struck into the fray, and warned the Porte that he should insist on the status quo. Then General Aupick grew still warmer in his language, and the Austrian Minister supported[13] him. In the spring, the Marquis de Lavalette, a more energetic, indeed, a "zealous" man, replaced General Aupick as the representative of France at the Porte, and in his hands the business soon began to make progress. During this period the British Minister, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, acting on instructions from home, held quite aloof from the disputes, and contented himself with watching closely the contest between the Porte and the French Minister. He thought that the Porte would not give way unless forced, and the Emperor of Russia was so fully persuaded of the strength of his influence at Constantinople that he felt convinced that no change in the matter of the Holy Shrines would occur. But in this respect, as in so many others, he was mistaken. In the autumn of 1851 the British Minister began to see the gravity of the contest going on under his eyes; for the Marquis de Lavalette, growing impatient at the delay of the Porte in according his demands, talked in a menacing tone of the use that France could make of the strong fleet then assembled at Toulon. It was at this moment, November, 1851, that the quarrel visibly assumed the character of a struggle between France and Russia for influence at Constantinople and throughout the East.

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

[14]

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

Nevertheless, the Turkish Government tried to appease France without offending Russia. In the autumn of 1852 there was a striking spectacle at Jerusalem. Afif Bey had been sent on a special mission to inform the contending Churches of the decisions arrived at in Constantinople. But Afif Bey did nothing except declare how desirous the Sultan was to gratify all classes of his subjects. The Russian Consul-General demanded the public reading of the firman, which was understood to declare the Latin claims to the shrines null and void. Afif Bey pretended not to know what firman was meant, then said he had no copy of it, then no directions to read it. Thus both parties were angered: the Latins because the key was withheld, and they were only allowed to celebrate mass once a year before "a schismatic altar"; the Greeks because the firman was not read. It was these proceedings, arising out of the irreconcilable hostility of Russia and France, which led to fresh threats from their respective envoys at the Porte. The Grand Vizier, driven hither and thither by[15] the violence of the disputants, resolved, come what might, to make an end of the business. He gave up the keys to the Latins, and caused the firman to be read. Had there been sincerity on the part of the French or Russian Governments, here the matter should have ended; but neither had triumphed sufficiently over the other, and the quarrel did not come to a close.

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

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

[See larger version]

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

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

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

The real policy of the Czar was steadily developing itself. It was on the 4th of February, 1853, that Count Nesselrode informed Sir Hamilton Seymour of the intention of the Czar to send Prince Menschikoff to Constantinople, and at the same time gave assurances that the Prince would be provided with instructions of a conciliatory nature; and that "although bred to arms," the negotiator was "animated by intentions the most pacific." A few days later Count Nesselrode again[16] declared that the Prince's instructions, though "necessarily vague," were moderate; and he volunteered the further information that there would be no question of attempting to regain from the Latins any privileges which they might have acquired since the year before. Subsequent events showed what this studied moderation and vagueness were intended to cover, and how the Czar was aiming at larger game than the privileges conferred by the acquisition of keys and the affixing of stars at the Holy Places. At the same time, the Russian Government, preparing for a grand coup, resolved not to prosecute further the direct negotiation with France opened at St. Petersburg, but to transact the business in hand at Constantinople. For the great conflict, the scope of which none but the Russians foresaw, all the Governments prepared.

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

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

It was just as the Porte, yielding to the advice of England, had satisfied the Austrian demands touching Montenegro, and just as the question of the Holy Places seemed to be dying away, that Prince Menschikoff, at the end of February, landed[17] at Constantinople. Attended by his showy suite, but himself plainly attired, the Prince went to the Porte and presented himself to the Grand Vizier. One of the Sultan's household then invited him to visit Fuad Effendi, the Foreign Minister, whose offices were next to those of the Turkish Premier. But the Prince said he should not, as Fuad Effendi had broken faith with the Emperor; and, having put this slight on Fuad, he passed by the line of troops and the very door of the Minister, which had been opened to receive him.

CHAPEL OF SAINT HELENA, JERUSALEM.

For a moment there was a panic in high places at Constantinople. The Grand Vizier was indignant and terrified, and, fearing the worst, trembling lest a mortal blow should be struck before help could arrive, if help were deferred, he asked Colonel Rose to request Admiral Dundas to bring up the British squadron to Vourla Bay. Colonel Rose did not hesitate. He knew how forward were the warlike preparations of the Czar, and he immediately complied with the wish of the Grand Vizier. But this bold step was premature. The Czar had not made up his mind to strike a sudden blow, and Count Nesselrode told Sir Hamilton Seymour that the tendency was rather to slacken than to push on military preparations—a statement destitute of truth. Fuad Effendi, of course, refused to hold office any longer, and the Sultan, for the first time, accepted the resignation of a public servant, replacing him by Rifaat Pasha. When Admiral Dundas received the request of Colonel Rose, he declined to act upon it, and his Government approved of the conduct of the admiral, and disapproved of the bold haste of Rose. But the French Government, hearing of what had occurred, without consulting the British Ministers, ordered their fleet at once to set out on a "cruise in Greek waters." The fleet sailed, and Lord Clarendon instantly expressed the regret of his Government that France had taken so strong a measure. Her Majesty's Government, he said, had received from the Czar his most solemn assurance that he would uphold the Turkish Empire, and not change his policy[18] without notice of his intention; and, as no such notice had been received, the British Government were "bound to believe, until they had proofs to the contrary, that the mission of Prince Menschikoff was not of a character menacing to the independence and integrity of Turkey."

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

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

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

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

[19]

## CHAPTER II.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

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

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

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

The temper of the British Government now underwent a great change. Its trust in the Emperor Nicholas was gone. On the same day that Lord Clarendon entrusted the fleet to Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, he wrote a despatch to Sir Hamilton Seymour, recapitulating, with trenchant brevity, those "most solemn assurances" which the Czar had given over and over again. It is a long catalogue; there are no less than sixteen distinct pledges that the question of the Holy Places, and that alone, required to be resolved. Yet at this very time the Czar was urging on Prince Menschikoff to extort from the Porte a treaty which would have laid that independence at his feet. The "explicit, precise, and satisfactory assurances" which came day by day from St. Petersburg were day by day proved to be worthless at Constantinople. The assurances of the Czar, and the language and acts of his Minister at the Porte were in flagrant contradiction. This flagrant "discrepancy," as the British Secretary of State mildly called it, he did not fail to set forth as the ground of a demand for explanations; nor did he fail to remark that Prince Menschikoff had been supported by a display of force, with what object he desired the Russian Government to explain. At the same time Lord Clarendon distinctly informed the Russian Government that England was determined to abide by that policy which held the preservation of Turkish independence and integrity to be essential to the peace of Europe. Sir Hamilton Seymour had already confronted Count Nesselrode with his promises. Nothing can exceed the cool effrontery with which the wily old Chancellor maintained that he had concealed nothing. His language, he averred, had always pointed to the exact reparation which Prince Menschikoff had demanded, and against which the[20] Turkish Ministry and the British Ambassador had raised such "unaccountable" objections. Well might Sir Hamilton remark that "a long-cherished object" had been "sought by a tortuous path." Indeed, few finer specimens of treacherous diplomacy can be found than those which are furnished by the authentic records of the correspondence between the Czar and the British Government in the first five months of 1853.

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

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

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

For they did not believe in the outbreak of war. Lord Clarendon's despatches breathed of nothing but peace. The British Government could not shake off its old confidence in Nicholas, although he was in arms at the threshold of Constantinople. The policy of England, it was said, was "essentially pacific." No hostile feelings were entertained towards Russia, but every allowance was made for the difficulty in which the Emperor "had been placed"—by his own acts, in the main, the Foreign Secretary should have said. The British Government seemed to regard the threatened occupation of the Principalities as something inevitable, and while they still hoped to bring about a peaceful settlement, they did nothing and said nothing to[21] prevent this further violation of right. It was a matter of course that they should appeal to the German Powers, telling them that France and Britain, in sending their fleets to Besika Bay, and in approving of the stand made by the Porte, were actuated by the sole desire to uphold Turkish independence, and begging them, especially Austria, to exert their influence upon the Czar in favour of peace. It is strange, indeed, that the British Ministers did not see the drift and persistency of Russia; and that, from the temper of the Czar, war was so probable that they could not do too much to place themselves in a position to bear a part becoming Britain. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe saw more distinctly. He told the Ministers that the master view of the Czar was to obtain a predominant influence over the counsels of the Porte, as a means of securing, if not hastening, its downfall; and he said rightly that if Turkey were to be left to struggle single-handed, the sooner the Porte were apprised of its helpless condition the better. But the British Government had taken up the weak position of desiring, almost resolving, to defend the Sultan, yet of neglecting to provide the means lest that very act should precipitate war. And so, while they went on the road to war, by thwarting the Emperor's designs over the Ottoman Empire, they prevented themselves from making war with effect by abstaining from preparation.

CONSTANTINOPLE.

When the second Russian ultimatum arrived, the Turkish Government did not hesitate a moment respecting the answer which it should receive—they determined at once to reject it. But being now assured, by the coming of the fleets, of the support of Britain and France, they betrayed no anxiety in so doing, and Lord Stratford de Redcliffe had no difficulty in obtaining the assent of the Sultan to the suggestion that he should protest, but not declare war, and should, on the contrary, offer to open fresh negotiations by sending an Ambassador to St. Petersburg. It was not supposed that the Emperor would assent to this, but the offer was in unison with the policy of the friendly Powers, and placed the aggressor still further in the wrong. On the 16th of June, the date of the answer to Count Nesselrode, when the step taken by the Porte was irrevocable, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe waited on the Sultan. His ostensible object was to present[22] a letter from Queen Victoria announcing the birth of Prince Leopold, and to offer her Majesty's condolence on the severe affliction the Sultan had sustained in the loss of his mother, the Sultana Validé. Having accomplished this, he gave the Sultan more substantial comfort, by informing him with what friendly sentiments and "eventual intentions" the powerful fleet of Admiral Dundas, then at anchor in Besika Bay, had been placed at the Ambassador's disposal. At the same time, and in obedience to his instructions, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe told the Sultan that peace was the great object of British policy, and that the fleet would be used only to protect the Sultan from foreign aggression. On the 17th of June M. Balabine quitted Constantinople, carrying with him to Odessa the answer to Count Nesselrode's ultimatum, and the whole of the archives and correspondence of the Russian Legation. The answer was received in St. Petersburg about the 25th of June. It had been anticipated by the Russian Court, and orders were at once issued for the troops to cross the Pruth and occupy the Principalities.

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

It was in these circumstances that Count Buol exerted himself at Vienna to frame a plan of conciliation. He took the draft of a note drawn up by M. Drouyn de Lhuys, and by the aid of the representatives of the Four Powers at Vienna, and after frequent communication with London and Paris, he constructed out of this draft a note which he hoped would prove acceptable alike to Russia and Turkey. The design was to ascertain whether the Czar would accept the note, and if he agreed to do so, to send it to Constantinople, accompanied by urgent recommendations from the Four Powers to the Porte advising its acceptance. In taking this course, Austria acted as mediator at the request, or at least with the assent, of Russia; but the Russian Ambassador at Vienna would not attend the Conference, and his master was only represented there by a sort of friend. After great labour the note was framed, and a copy sent to St. Petersburg. The Powers took steps immediately to ascertain whether the Czar would accept the note, and they found that, although it did not give him satisfaction, he was content to accept it in a spirit of conciliation, as an arrangement devised by a friendly Government; and he was willing to take it from the hands of a Turkish Ambassador, provided it were not altered in any way. This was the famous "Vienna Note" which attracted so much attention, and raised so many hopes in the summer of 1853. But while Austria and the other Powers had consulted Russia and learnt her views, they had forgotten Turkey, for whose benefit the thing was supposed to be devised. They had not ascertained whether Turkey would or could sign it, and, indeed, in framing it, the Powers seemed more anxious to devise a form of words satisfactory to the Czar than safe in the eyes of the Sultan. And so, when it reached Constantinople, although backed by strong advices from all the Powers, and[23] not least by England, the Porte declined to sign it, except in an amended form, which Lord Stratford de Redcliffe drew up, and to which the representatives of the Four Powers at the Porte agreed. The note, indeed, was found to confer rights on Russia almost as extensive as those she claimed through Prince Menschikoff. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, although he saw this, scrupulously executed the instructions of his Government, and pressed the note on the Porte. But the Sultan, the Ministers, and the Grand Council were firm. After much deliberation, the Grand Council, of sixty members, comprising the most distinguished statesmen of the capital, adopted a form of note embodying their views, but rather deferring to the plan suggested at Vienna. "If the decision," wrote Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, on the 20th of August, "does not completely represent the feeling of this country, it only fails in being framed with too much forbearance and moderation."

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

Nothing shows more clearly how far, although still professing identical views, the German Powers were separated from England and France, than the fact that Count Buol and Baron Manteuffel, after they were aware of the interpretation put on it by Russia, moved by the emphatic language of Count Nesselrode, did once more urge the Porte to sign the original note, and thus to sign away its independence. Far from being in real concert in August, they were less in concert with the Western Powers in the middle of September. The only Power which acted straight through with Britain was France, and the only divergence of policy apparent was this—the French Government did not seem to think the pace of the alliance fast enough, and were constantly urging the transmission of orders to the admirals to enter the Dardanelles. The plea was that the anchorage at Besika was unsafe. But this was seen to be absurd, and twice Lord Clarendon resisted the appeals sent by Louis Napoleon with the view of forcing the fleets upon the Sultan, and depriving Lord Stratford de Redcliffe of any discretion in the matter. This occurred during the negotiations on the new aspect imparted to affairs by the Russian acceptance and the Turkish rejection of the note. The German Powers, knowing what was the interpretation put upon the note by Russia, persisted in pressing it upon the Sultan. The Western Powers, always more respectful to Turkey, would not take part in this move: indeed, they could not do so. Count Nesselrode's comments on the modified note, showing that the Emperor of Russia did desire to seek new rights and extended power in Turkey, had proved to Britain and France that the apprehensions of the Porte, so far from being groundless, were justified by the Russian construction. Instead of asking the[24] Porte, as they were disposed to do before they were in possession of the Russian views, to reconsider its decision, they now asked the Emperor to reconsider his. Austria, on the contrary, declared that if the Porte again disregarded her counsels, she should consider her efforts to effect a reconciliation at an end: further, that if Britain and France would not support her in this step, there would be an end to the conference at Vienna. In this opinion Britain and France agreed, and the conference at Vienna came to an end accordingly. The German Powers went one way, the Western Powers another; both professed to be hastening towards the same goal, but the German Powers went astray, whereas the Western Powers kept in the straight path. The secret of this was the personal ascendency which the Czar exercised over the German Courts, and which diverted them from their true course on the Eastern Question.

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

There was, indeed, a peace party in the British Cabinet, prominent among whom was Lord Aberdeen, who still urged that the discrepancies in the two drafts were immaterial, and that the note in its original form might well be pressed on the Porte. They were, however, overruled by the advocates of a bolder policy, of whom Lord Palmerston was the most prominent, backed up by Lord John Russell, who, dissatisfied with his subordinate position, was in a discontented and captious frame of mind. In fact, the Cabinet became disunited on more than one question. Lord John Russell was pledged to[25] introduce a Reform Bill, and Lord Palmerston, who disliked the re-opening of the question particularly in a time of foreign complications, resigned. He was induced to withdraw his resignation, but the breach thus made was not easily healed.

OMAR PASHA.

In the middle of September matters had come to a crisis. On the 22nd news arrived at Paris, in the shape of a telegraphic despatch from M. de la Cour, stating that the Porte was apprehensive of a "catastrophe," in consequence of the excitement among the Turkish population. The lives and properties of Europeans, and even the throne of the Sultan, were, in the opinion of the Grand Vizier, in danger. M. de la Cour also reported that he and Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, in order to afford protection to the Europeans, had ordered up four steamers from Besika Bay. This was very vague and indefinite news. It was alarming, because it was indefinite. No account of the affair was sent by Lord Stratford de Redcliffe; and the British Government, to whom the news was reported, were compelled to rely upon the view of M. de la Cour. What should they do? The French Government, always eager for a movement of the fleet, at once proposed that in addition to the four steamers the whole of the united fleet should be directed to proceed to Constantinople. Count Walewski was instructed to request from Lord Clarendon an immediate decision, and was further to state that the Emperor's Government regarded the advance of the fleets as "indispensably necessary." The British Government agreed "without hesitation" to a course which Lord Palmerston had been urging for weeks, and orders went out at once from both capitals to Admiral Dundas and Admiral Hamelin. This was undoubtedly a serious step, as by the treaty of 1841 the Powers were prohibited from sending fleets within the Bosphorus in time of peace. Had the Government waited for the usual despatches of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, they would have seen that the danger reported by M. de la Cour disappeared very rapidly, and that Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, in describing the circumstances, took a cooler view of the dangers and did not even suggest the advance of the fleet. It may be doubted whether the British Government did not act with as much precipitation as M. de la Cour. For it cannot be denied that this[26] fresh move of the fleet—a move so decisive, so completely pledging the two Powers to the defence of Turkey, and so irritating to Russia—lessened the chances of peace, if any were remaining.

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

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

There was scant time for further negotiations.[27] Nevertheless, although Lord Stratford de Redcliffe regarded the chance of averting war as hopeless, so desirous was he of preserving peace that he proposed another mode of extricating all parties from their difficulties. It embraced the alternative of a new note or arbitration. But although looked upon favourably in England, the Austrian Government would not take it into consideration. As the Cabinets of London and Paris, said Count Buol, had not thought proper to support the Austrian plan—that is, the Czar's astute scheme—the Austrian Government could not support Lord Stratford de Redcliffe's plan, especially at a moment when the Porte was declaring war against Russia. There was, for the time, an apparent breakdown in the whole diplomatic machinery; but nevertheless the British Cabinet still persevered in the work of framing notes, and Austria and Prussia did not fail to give advice which could not be accepted, while Russia and Turkey prepared for war.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[30]

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

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

Was it judicious at a moment when the last attempt to obtain peace by negotiation was making progress, to send the fleet into the Black Sea, and to send it with such orders? It may be said that this course was injudicious. The Porte had agreed to terms of peace; the Conference had signed these terms; they were sent by a special Minister to St. Petersburg, and arrived on the very day on which the resolution of the Western Powers was communicated to Count Nesselrode. How could the Western Powers hope that these terms would[31] be accepted at a time when they had almost made war upon Russia? The demand for explanations was made in London on the 23rd, and in Paris on the 24th of January, 1854. Baron Brunnow placed in the hands of Lord Clarendon a despatch from Count Nesselrode, in which the Chancellor vindicated the conduct of the Russian fleet at Sinope, and declared that Russia could not look upon the exclusion of her flag from the Black Sea in any other light than that of a violence offered to her belligerent rights. He protested against the notification, and refused to admit its legality. Baron Brunnow asked, in writing, whether it was intended to establish a system of reciprocity in the Black Sea—that is, whether Russian ships as well as Ottoman ships were to be allowed to keep up communication with their respective coasts? Lord Clarendon, in answer, while professing peaceful sentiments, re-stated, in precise terms, the order given to clear the Black Sea of the Russian flag. But while striving for peace, England would not shrink from the duty imposed on her by Russia. In a letter written on the same day to Sir Hamilton Seymour, Lord Clarendon branded the Czar as "the disturber of the general peace," and traced to his unprovoked conduct all the evil consequences that had already ensued. On the 4th of February Baron Brunnow, firing a parting shot, announced his departure; and, on the 7th, Sir Hamilton Seymour was directed to quit St. Petersburg. The same scenes had been enacted in Paris. M. de Kisseleff departed, and M. de Castelbajac was recalled. Whatever may have been the feelings of the French people, the British nation openly expressed its joy that the season of suspense was over.

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

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

[32]

GATCHINA PALACE, ST. PETERSBURG.

It was now the policy of Russia to watch the moves of the Western Powers. She would not declare war, flattering herself she would thereby escape the responsibility of that momentous decision. Accordingly she held her peace. Before declaring war, the Western Powers had recourse to one more step—a step which can be hardly termed peaceful, but one which placed them in the right, and showed Russia in the wrong. They determined to summon Russia to evacuate the Principalities within a given time, and they spared no pains to induce Austria and Prussia to support the summons, though, somewhat rashly, they did not await their reply. Eventually these two Powers agreed to support the summons at St. Petersburg, but Prussia expressly declined to undertake to enforce it if refused, and Austria, after much shilly-shally, reserved her liberty of action. The summons was entrusted to a special messenger, who was to pass through Vienna and Berlin. This document declared, in effect, that unless Russia ordered Prince Gortschakoff to retire from the Principalities at once, and to complete the evacuation by the 30th of April, Britain and France would consider her refusal equivalent to a declaration of war. The bearer was told to wait at St. Petersburg six days for an answer, and no longer. Captain Blackwood carried this stringent demand. He arrived at Vienna just as fresh proposals for peace reached Count Buol from St. Petersburg, the last effort to detach Austria. Captain Blackwood was detained a few hours while the Conference at Vienna examined these proposals, and while the ambassadors informed their Governments, by telegraph, of this new incident, and requested instructions. These Russian proposals were found to be as objectionable as ever. Except that Russia ceased to require that a Turkish Minister should be sent to St. Petersburg, "it was that same old story," of which even diplomatists had become thoroughly weary. So the Conference, having duly examined the document, and having found it utterly inadmissible, recorded the fact after the solemn fashions of diplomacy; and messenger Blackwood, with his summons and its supporting despatches, jumped into the train and started for the North. He arrived at St. Petersburg on the morning of[33] the 13th of March, and Consul Michele, in charge of British interests, at once sent to the French consul and the Austrian legate the packets brought for them. On the 14th Mr. Michele and M. de Castillon waited on Count Nesselrode, who, however, declined to see them together, and called for the British consul. The interview was short. The summons was duly delivered, and the positive instructions to the messenger to return in six days were made known. The Emperor was then in Finland, whence he did not arrive until the 17th; and it was not until the 19th, the last day of grace, that Count Nesselrode requested Mr. Michele to wait on him for an answer. "On entering the room," writes the consul, "his Excellency's greeting was of the most friendly description. He said, 'I have taken his Majesty's commands with reference to Lord Clarendon's note, and the Emperor does not think it becoming to make any reply to it.'"

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

[34]

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

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

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

[35]

## CHAPTER III.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

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

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

[36]

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

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

The investment was so imperfect that General Cannon, an Englishman in the service of the Porte, contrived to pass between the Russian covering armies, and enter the place, to the great joy of the besieged. In the meantime the enemy had come so close that a Turk dared not speak above a whisper without drawing upon himself a Russian bullet. It is to a remark in too loud a tone that the death of Lieutenant Butler is attributed. He was speaking to General Cannon, when a Russian bullet, passing obliquely through the earthwork, gave him a wound, of which he died. Shortly afterwards General Cannon, obeying, it is supposed, an order, withdrew from the fortress with the troops he had brought, and carried Lieutenant Nasmyth with him, but left behind another British officer, Lieutenant Ballard. The middle of June had now arrived. The siege had lasted five weeks. The Russian army had lost thousands of men from disease as well as wounds, yet, except that their works were close to those of the Turks, nothing had been gained. They resolved to abandon the enterprise. On the 22nd of June they opened a tremendous fire on the place from all their batteries. When daylight dawned on the 23rd the Turks became aware that the trenches were tenantless, and soon saw that the bulk of the army had repassed the bridge, and had encamped about Kalarasch. The siege was at an end. A fortnight later a chance reconnaissance, which brought Omar Pasha across the Danube at Giurgevo, induced Gortschakoff to attack him with another army.[37] But the Turks, supported by British gunboats, beat off the Russians at every point, and Gortschakoff in despair evacuated the Principalities. The object of the campaign was won.

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

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

On the Black Sea the combined fleet had ridden triumphant. In a cruise of twenty days they met no foe, but picked up prizes in considerable numbers. One incident had occurred which added to the wrath and mortification of the Czar. The Furious was sent to Odessa to bring away the British Consul. As her boat, bearing a flag of truce, was returning to the ship, she was fired upon; and no satisfactory explanation being given, Admirals Dundas and Hamelin appeared off Odessa on the 21st of April with a combined squadron and demanded redress. General Osten-Sacken having refused to grant any redress, the admirals sent in a steam squadron the next morning and bombarded the war-port, but tried to spare the town. In twelve hours they had blown up a[38] powder-magazine, destroyed, by shot and shell, a goodly number of ships, and many buildings containing stores. The loss of the Allies was three killed and twelve wounded. After inflicting this chastisement for a breach of the usages of war, the squadron cruised off Sebastopol, but met no enemy; and on the 5th of May Sir Edmund Lyons with a squadron steamed away for the Circassian coast, where his presence caused the Russians to abandon all their forts, except those of Anapa and Sujak Kaleh, lying at the northern end of the coast, near the straits of Kertch. The Circassians took immediate advantage of this, and confined the garrisons of the two forts within the walls; while the Turks occupied Redut Kaleh and Sukhum Kaleh, in Mingrelia and Abasia.

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

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

Owing to St. Arnaud's abrupt changes of plan, the movement on Varna, begun on the 29th of May, was not completed until the 4th of July. The camps were pitched in beautiful places. The white tents crowned a green knoll, or extended along a sandy plateau, and looked out upon broad sweeps of turf broken by groups of fine trees, and overlooking a shining lake skirted by meadow lands, and backed by the rugged outlines of the Balkans. But the peculiarity of the country was the absence of inhabitants. Except those in the service of the commissariat, drivers of mule carts and bullock drays, and now and then a wandering Bulgarian, none were to be seen. Fear had driven them to desert their homes; and it was not one of the least disadvantages attending the armies of the Allies that they had to operate in a country practically deserted. The want of transport, felt even at Scutari and Gallipoli, became a positive evil in Bulgaria. The porter and ale sent out for the consumption of the troops could not be carried inland for want of carts and horses; the water was bad, and the men drank the red wine of the country, and, in consequence, fell victims to disease. Diarrhœa, dysentery, cholera, made their appearance in the camps, and the graveyards began to fill. Then the air was polluted with horrid exhalations, and in addition the men pined for action. So that, although the sites of the camps looked healthy, bad management, imperfect food and drink, intemperance, a burning sun by day and chilling dews by night, and ennui, soon[39] reduced the physical and moral stamina of the troops.

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

Towards the end of June the British Cabinet were engaged in considering the important project submitted by the Duke of Newcastle. After some deliberation, all parties assented, and the terms of the despatch to Lord Raglan were finally agreed to on the 28th. In this despatch Lord Raglan was instructed "to concert measures for the siege of Sebastopol, unless," so the terms ran, "with the information in your possession, but at present unknown in this country, you should be decidedly of opinion that it could not be undertaken with a reasonable prospect of success.... If, upon mature reflection, you should consider that the united strength of the two armies is insufficient for this undertaking, you are not to be precluded from the exercise of the discretion originally vested in you, though her Majesty's Government will learn with regret that an attack from which such important consequences are anticipated must be any longer delayed." He was further informed that, as no safe and honourable peace could be obtained until the fortress was reduced, and the fleet taken or destroyed, nothing but "insuperable impediments" was to prevent an early decision. These are what have been called the "stringent instructions" directing the invasion of the Crimea. They were supported by the voice of the nation and its Parliament. Before the Cabinet had taken its decision, before it was known that the siege of Silistria had been raised, Lord Lyndhurst in his place, on the 19th of June, declared that "in no event, except that of extreme necessity,[40] ought we to make peace without previously destroying the Russian fleet in the Black Sea, and laying prostrate the fortifications by which it is defended." And in answer, Lord Clarendon, with more reticence of language, spoke to the same effect.

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

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

And why could not transport be found? When the Allies first landed, the country people, simple farmers and shepherds, quiet and inoffensive, came into the camp; and brought fowls, and eggs, and sheep, and were glad to sell them. They also were willing to let out their carts and bullocks. According to the British system, these men were well treated and well paid. Wellington, even in France, could always secure a well-supplied market, and even transport, by treating the people civilly and paying them well. So it would have been here. But the French acted on a different system. It is allowed in all countries that stores belonging to the Government of your enemy are good prize. You may, by the strict rules of war, take private property if you need it. Yet, as a general rule, it is prudent to respect private property; or, if you take it, to pay for it. The French took both alike. On going his rounds on the evening of the 16th Lord Raglan learnt that a body of Zouaves had entered and plundered the village of Baigaili, within the British lines, and had even abused the villagers, men and women. Of course a speedy end was put to such brutalities. At the same time Captain de Moleyns, with a squadron of Spahis, went out of the French camp, and returned driving before him flocks of sheep and cattle, a few camels, a number of arabas, or country carts, and a group of natives, the captives of his spearmen. The effect of these predatory forays was to reduce to a minimum the supplies of all kinds, animate and inanimate, to be derived from the country. While these Zouaves and Spahis were ravaging the villages, it was remarked[41] that the Turks, who had landed on the 15th and 16th, "the much-abused Turks, remained quietly in their well-ordered camp, living contentedly on the slender rations supplied from their fleet." Nevertheless, the Commissary-General, by aid of military force and money, ultimately managed to get together about 350 country waggons, with bullocks and drivers, for the supply of the British section of the invading army.

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

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

[See larger version]

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

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

The British army was composed as follows:—

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

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

2ND DIVISION, SIR DE LACY EVANS.—1st Brigade, 41st, 47th, 49th, Brigadier Adams; 2nd Brigade, 30th, 55th, 95th, Brigadier J. Pennefather.

3RD DIVISION, SIR R. ENGLAND.—1st Brigade, 4th, 50th, 38th, Brigadier J. Campbell; 2nd Brigade, 1st, 44th, 28th, Brigadier Eyre.

4TH DIVISION, SIR G. CATHCART.—1st Brigade, 20th, 57th, Rifle Brigade 1st Battalion, 50th, Brigadier Goldie (who, with 57th, had not arrived); 2nd Brigade, 21st, 63rd, 46th, Brigadier Torrens.

CAVALRY, THE EARL OF LUCAN.—4th Light Dragoons, 8th and 11th Hussars, 13th Light Dragoons, and 17th Lancers, Brigadier the Earl of Cardigan.

ARTILLERY, Colonel Strangways. ENGINEERS,[42] Brigadier Tylden. Adjutant-General, Estcourt; Quartermaster-General, Airey; Commander-in-Chief, Lord Raglan.

The French preparations were completed by the morning of the 18th. They had far less to land than the British. The weather was no real obstacle to the landing of infantry, or even of stores; but it materially delayed the debarkation of the horses; and independently of the artillery and baggage animals, and chargers for the staff of all the divisions and brigades, the British had to land 1,100 troop horses. In spite of his knowledge of all these facts, Marshal St. Arnaud grew impatient of the delay. On the following day the British were ready. The troops arose from their damp beds at an early hour on the 19th, and paraded in marching order. Much time was still spent in accommodating the baggage and stores of so many thousands to the limited number of carts at the disposal of the Commissariat. Everything not indispensable in a military point of view was left behind. There was so much scattered on the beach, that Sir George Cathcart had to part with his only brigadier, Torrens—for Goldie had not arrived—and also part of his division; and Lord Lucan had to detach the 4th Light Dragoons from his weak brigade of cavalry to guard the beach, and see all the stores, and tents, and baggage safely on shipboard. Time wore on, the sun was high in the cloudless heavens before the word was given to move. It was about nine o'clock. Marshal St. Arnaud, according to the French writers, had then been two hours on the march.

The French were the first to cross the river Bulganâk. When our troops came up, the French had halted in position and were at rest. But it was our lot to fire the first gun. The divisions were crossing the river when the Cossacks showed themselves on the slope which ascends from its bank. The cavalry were ordered to look after them; and as they retired over the ridge, Lord Cardigan followed. As he descended into the next valley, he found himself face to face with a tolerably strong force of horsemen. The skirmishers on each side began firing; but, as the Cossacks did not come on, Lord Lucan ordered our squadrons to retire alternately. Suddenly the enemy opened fire from horse artillery, and kept it up pretty smartly upon the British, now halted, waiting for the guns. They had not to wait long, for over the ridge came bounding Maude's troop of horse artillery. Famous for rapidity, our gunners instantly came into action, and replied to the enemy with such spirit and accuracy that the Russians quickly ceased firing, and sheered off over the next ridge. By this time the Rifles and part of the leading divisions had crowned the ridge in rear of our cavalry; and our horsemen, with a loss of five wounded, and the guns together with the infantry, returned to the position on the Bulganâk, where they rested for the night. The Russians were a reconnoitring party, strong in infantry, which kept out of sight. The cavalry present could not have been less than 2,000. Some of them visited the French, but were driven off by the artillery. So ended the first day's march. The Allies bivouacked on the south bank of the Bulganâk; and, in order to guard against a flank attack, the British divisions faced to the eastward, that is, nearly at right angles to their line of march.

During the evening Marshal St. Arnaud visited Lord Raglan, whose headquarters were in a posthouse on the Bulganâk. What passed at this interview is painfully uncertain. It is said that the French marshal brought with him a plan for attacking a position he had not seen; that he proposed to turn both flanks; one division of his own army and the Turks sweeping round the Russian left, and the whole of the British round their right, while the remainder of the French fell upon and demolished the centre. It is said also that Lord Raglan did not assent to or dissent from this plan, yet that the French marshal left with an impression that it was to be executed. How he came by the impression, one can never know; but this one can know, that Lord Raglan ought not to have allowed Marshal St. Arnaud to leave him with any doubts on his mind. He ought to have distinctly explained that he could assent to no plan until he knew what was to be attacked. He ought to have said in plain language—and he could use plain language—that the plan of a battle must be determined by the nature of the enemy's position, the number of troops by which it was held, and the mode in which they were distributed. The allied commanders were seven miles from the enemy. Neither had seen him, nor his position, nor how he held his position. In these circumstances the proceeding of Marshal St. Arnaud was absurd; and in plain, but polite language, he should have been told so.

The dawn of the 20th of September was soft, balmy, and sunny. The troops were afoot early, and soon under arms. Far away on the right the smoke above the cliffs showed that the war-steamers were on the alert, and prepared to work on that flank. Next to the sea, in execution of[43] that part of the marshal's plan not open to objection, General Bosquet, about six o'clock, began to lead forth his division in two columns, followed by four Turkish battalions. He moved on for an hour, and then halted, just as the centre should have moved, to be followed by the British. But the British were not ready. It is said they should have been in line about seven. Whence arose the delay? Some of it must, no doubt, be set down to the constitutional slowness of the British temperament; some to that imperfect concert which is the bane of a divided command. The remainder was caused, undoubtedly, by the fact that the British, in consequence of the arrangements made overnight, had to effect a great change in their array before they could begin to march. Then, that the two armies might be in close proximity, so as to present an unbroken front, the whole had to move obliquely to the right. These evolutions necessarily took up a great deal of time.

Prince Menschikoff was the Commander-in-Chief of the naval and military forces of the Czar in the Crimea. It seems that Nicholas did not believe the Allies would venture upon the daring exploit of invading that peninsula, or else that their rapidity of movement, slow as it seemed to lookers-on, anticipated the arrival of his reinforcements; or he may have thought that British and French armies and navies would not long act in concert, and that some incident would bring about the abandonment of the expedition. If so, he miscalculated the strength of will of those who held in their hands the public forces of the Western Powers—the Emperor and the British people. At all events, the Czar had comparatively few troops in the Crimea—perhaps not altogether 50,000 men, including the sailors and marines. These troops, in the early days of September, were partly encamped at different places around and to the north of Sebastopol. By the 14th the lights of the fleet were visible from the heights of the Alma. He might take up a position on the left flank of the line of march the Allies would be compelled to follow, and thus force them to quit the sheltering sea-coast in search of him; or he might take up the strongest position he could find across the road they must follow, and thus try to impede their march until reinforcements could reach him from Odessa. By adopting the former plan he could have evaded an action or accepted one far from the sea, for the Allies would not have dared to pass him, and thus he might have played with them until reinforced. But he adopted the second plan, believing that he had found a position which he could hold for several weeks. That position was on the south bank of the Alma, fifteen miles from Sebastopol; and on this point he directed the march of every disposable bayonet, sabre, and gun. It was indeed a strong position. Facing the north, the left seemed secured from attack by the steepness of the cliffs; the centre afforded excellent ground for artillery on its terraces and knolls, and the dips in the hills might be used to conceal the defenders; on the right the Kourgané height overlooked all, and bending backwards, offered protection to that flank. The lower slopes were quite open, and fell down to the river with sufficient rapidity to try the fortitude of an assailant, and yet not so abruptly as to deprive artillery of a full command of the ascent, the river, and the plain beyond. There was one path up the cliff practicable for infantry, and where the precipice ended there were two up which guns could be got with great difficulty. Beyond this troops of all arms could pass the stream and ascend the position. On a point of the highest ground, to the west of the post road, and about two miles from the sea, stood a tower, unfinished, for war had interrupted the workmen, called the Telegraph station, as the peak became known as the Telegraph Hill. The strength of the position lay in the wall of cliff, the steep open downs to the east and west of the road to Sebastopol, and in the river, with its high banks and enclosures. Its weakness lay in its extent, compared with the number of troops at Prince Menschikoff's disposal.

Here the Prince hoped to stop the march of the Allies, with the troops he had, until the divisions from the army of the Danube came up and drove them to their ships. To occupy the position he had 42 battalions, 16 squadrons of cavalry, 11 sotnias of Cossacks (1,100 lances), and 96 guns; that is, about 38,000 men of all arms. His infantry was 31,500, and his cavalry 3,400 strong, including the Cossacks. The remainder were artillerymen and sappers. In disposing of his forces, Prince Menschikoff placed the bulk on the right and centre. To strengthen the position the Prince had devised two fieldworks of the humblest kind. On the extreme right, just below the brow of the great hill there, he had thrown up an entrenchment, in the form of a flattened arrow-head; and on the lower slope of the same hill, nearer to the centre, he had constructed another fieldwork, the embrasures of which were formed by throwing up the earth on[44] each hand. This he armed with the twelve (some say fourteen) heavy guns brought from Sebastopol. These two works were improperly called redoubts. The regiments were formed in column, chequer-wise, on each flank of the fieldworks, and were not all visible to the approaching army. The right of the Russian line was commanded by General Kvetzinsky, the centre by Prince Gortschakoff, the left by General Kiriakoff. It will be seen that the bulk of the troops and artillery were in position to the east of Telegraph Hill, that is, on the Russian right of the great road, while only one-third of the troops and one-fifth of the guns were on or in front of the Telegraph Hill, and towards the sea. Against this force and this position marched, in round numbers, about 63,000 men and 128 guns.

The allied army now came slowly nearer to the Alma, visible in its whole extent to the Russians. The fleet of war-steamers, eight French and one British, went on ahead towards Cape Lookout and the mouth of the Alma. The direction taken by the French brought General Bosquet opposite the village of Almatamak, towards which one of his brigades wended its way, covered by skirmishers in thick rows, while the other, with the Turks, under General Bouat, made for the mouth of the Alma. Next on the left came the divisions of Canrobert and Prince Napoleon, the latter almost in contact with the right of our 2nd Division, and a little to the west of Bourliouk. In rear, as a support, was General Forey. These three divisions of the French army halted, while Bosquet continued to move on. Lord Raglan had had a final conference with Marshal St. Arnaud. They had seen the enemy and the enemy's position. The great accumulation of Russian troops on their right and centre was manifest. It was plain that the French force was not adequate to show a front to the whole Russian line, while the British turned the right, and when the question was pointedly put to him, would he turn the right or attack in front, Lord Raglan declined to undertake the flank movement. It was arranged that the French should turn the Russian left, covered by the fire of the ships, and that when this movement had shaken the Russian line, the British should assail the right and centre. The two commanders parted, and the whole line from right to left drew nearer to the Alma. The steamers opened fire between twelve and one.

While Bosquet's first brigade was ousting the Russian skirmishers from the river and the clefts in the hills leading upwards, the whole army moved still nearer to the foe, and halted in readiness to close. The French divisions remained in columns. They were not to advance until Bosquet's diversion had made itself felt. The British divisions had deployed into line, and had moved on until warned, about half-past one, that they had come within range, when the men were ordered to lie down. It was about half-past one. The 1st French division was crossing the river and swarming up the steeps, when the Cossacks simultaneously fired the corn stacks about Bourliouk. Instantly the waving sheets of flame leaped up, and a stifling smoke rising on a lazy wind spread over the meadows. For a time the centre of the Russian position was hidden from view, and the smoke long continued to curl over the ground. This fiery village and dense cloud of smoke proved a great inconvenience to Evans's division, in whose front it was; for, pressed on one side by Prince Napoleon's division, on the other by the Light, and deprived of a large space in front by the conflagration, Sir De Lacy Evans was compelled to divide his brigades, and encroach on the ground occupied by Sir George Brown, so that when they were deployed, the left front of the 2nd overlapped the right of the Light Division. This was a great fault. While the regiments lay prone under a severe fire, the French were executing their share of the plan on the right.

According to the plan agreed upon, the British were not to attack until the French columns were firmly established on the heights. Bosquet's 1st brigade, under D'Autemarre, had easily swept before them the handful of light troops which alone were placed on the extreme flank of the Russian line. Having gained the plateau with his infantry, he next brought in succession two batteries of artillery, and posted them in front of the brigade which had deployed, resting its left on the verge of the cliff. Bouat and the Turks were so distant that they could lend no aid, and the brigade and its guns were thus practically alone. At the same time the Russian batteries, towards the centre of their position, cannonaded the bulk of Prince Napoleon's division, which still lingered in the valley on the left bank, unable to get on. For the want of guns seemed to paralyse the advance of General Canrobert, and D'Aurelles' brigade of Forey's division had passed round the right of Prince Napoleon, and had jammed itself into a steep and narrow track on the left of Canrobert; so that while Bosquet, although alone on the heights, made play with his batteries and steadily gained ground, Canrobert and D'Aurelles,[45] and the bulk of Prince Napoleon's troops, were lying inactive, unable to strike for want of artillery. For the rest, the Russian guns on the right and centre continued to pour an incessant storm of shot and shell upon the British soldiers lying exposed in line upon their faces, and our gunners, it is said, did not fire because their shot, they found, fell short.

THE HIGHLANDERS AT THE ALMA. (See p. 49.)

[46]

At this time Lord Raglan, himself riding up and down near the British right, and watching the progress of the French, seems to have grown impatient. We have no very clear account of his views and frame of mind; but Mr. Kinglake's version, if it be true, leads to the direct inference that Lord Raglan, who, it seems, had been frequently appealed to by the French, could no longer bear to see his soldiers prostrate and inactive, especially as there was an appearance of tardiness and inability to push forward on the part of his ally. He therefore gave the order to assault the front of the position; and Captain Nolan, a genuine soldier, swiftly bore it to the combatants. First the 2nd Division and then the Light started to their feet, and in a moment the red line, extending far to the east, was gliding across the meadows which intervened between them and the stream. As they descended the slope towards its banks, the guns followed, and, drawing up on both sides of the great road, began to reply to the fire of the enemy. All the time they moved under a heavy fire from the Russian batteries, and the Russians were amazed that the islanders should approach their dark columns and destructive artillery in a two-deep line. The passage of some vineyards and enclosures disordered the troops, and the beautiful symmetry of the first advance was soon broken far more by these inert obstacles than by the bounding shot and bursting shells. In spite of their disorder they reached the river, and plunging into its shot-torn waters, scrambled through and gained the shelter of the opposite bank. Here they halted and hung in clusters, no longer presenting the fine parade spectacle visible to admiring eyes a short time before. The bank was eight or nine feet high; and while it afforded shelter from the artillery, it did not prevent daring Russian skirmishers from approaching the edge, and firing down into the groups below. Here, under such fiery leaders as were with them, the British troops could not long remain.

The parts of the Russian position they fronted were these. Evans's division extended across the entrance to the ravine up which ran the great road. This road passing the river by a wooden bridge, partially destroyed by the enemy, climbed a low ridge between two higher ridges, and on these higher ridges were two Russian batteries supported by six battalions. It was not only their fire, but that of the left shoulder of the field work on the slope of the Kourgané Hill, to which they were exposed; for while the guns on each side of the road swept the front, the heavier metal searched the left flank. The Light Division fronted the steep sides of the Kourgané Hill itself, and had to bear the fire of the big guns and of two batteries—that is, sixteen pieces posted on both sides of the entrenchment,—to meet the musketry and bayonets of sixteen battalions, and to stand prepared for the dense columns of cavalry which showed themselves on their left. Before Evans was rough and broken ground; before Sir George Brown, a bare hill-side. The troops were not allowed to cling long to the protection of the bank. On the right Evans's colonels got their men up to the mouths of the ravine; but there were only three battalions to contend with six; and although they were aided somewhat by the fire of the artillery massed on the east of Bourliouk, it required all the fortitude of officers and men to stand fast. For the battalions had been rent by the heavy artillery fire, and Evans himself had been wounded; yet he kept his place in the midst, and held his men together as became a veteran who had ridden in the thick of great battles thirty years before; and now his weak force was opposed to heavy odds, and had to endure, without flinching, shot, shell, and musketry.

On their left the four regiments of the Light Division, and the 95th, were about to perform a most daring exploit. Nearly at the same moment Sir George Brown, Brigadier Codrington, and Colonel Yea forced their horses up the bank, and found themselves almost in the midst of the Russian skirmishers. Their men, unformed as they were, crowded up, and presented to the view of the Russian gunners an extended line, indeed, but in so much disorder that the Russian generals, in their reports, described them as a cloud of skirmishers. Once at the foot of the slope, they were face to face, not only with the battery, but with two heavy columns, one on the right, the other on the left of the rude fieldwork, whose weighty guns had done so much mischief. There was no manœuvring, no order, no neat soldiership. The advance of the Light Division was the steady rush of a fierce crowd into and through the jaws of death; for though hundreds strewed the hill-side,[47] the survivors were not to be dismayed, but were resolute to win. Such a sight, except at a deadly breach, in some bloody siege, had rarely been seen in war. The line wavered and surged to and fro, but it gained ground. And now it reaped the fruits of its daring. The great battery fired one tremendous volley, and when the smoke grew thin, it was seen that the enemy were carrying off the guns! The four regiments had carried the battery, and forced the enemy to hurry away his guns by sheer hardihood and will; and now came the question—could they keep their prize, or would the Guards and Highlanders come up in time to relieve or sustain them?

When Lord Raglan had given the order to advance, he rode off with his staff along a pathway leading round the western side of Bourliouk, in the track followed by Brigadier Adams, with the 41st and 49th Regiments and Turner's battery. Probably the British commander wished to gain a nearer view of the French operations, and also to get a glimpse of the Russian line of battle unobscured by the smoke of Bourliouk. While he was cantering across the meadows the Light and 2nd Divisions were working up to the river under that heavy fire we have described. Approaching its banks, he came under a sharp fire from the Russian guns on his left front, the guns which faced Evans's troops, a fire which became heavier as the whole staff plunged into the river at the ford, and two officers were wounded. Lord Raglan had not been unobservant of the country which rose before him. He saw a hill in the heart of the Russian position, but unoccupied by the enemy, a hill whence he would see in profile the whole of our own and of the Russian line opposed to it. The use to which it could be put occurred to him immediately. Turning to one of his staff, he was heard to say, "Ah, if they can enfilade us here, we can certainly enfilade them from the rising ground beyond [pointing to the knoll]. Order up Turner's battery." His presence on the hill undoubtedly scared the Russians; at the same time his troops were out of his control.[48]

LORD RAGLAN.

Now the scene was about to change. The force possessed by the Allies was about to be applied with irresistible vigour in all parts of the field. But before this force fell with all its weight upon the enemy, he was destined to snatch a momentary success. For the four regiments of the Light Division which had so hardily stormed the breastwork had remained unsupported! Either because he was too diffident of his own ability, or because he did not really see that it was time to strike, and strike hard, the Duke of Cambridge hesitated. General Evans, seeing that the Light Division was outstripping the supports, sent Colonel Steele to urge an immediate advance. General Airey himself rode up and explained how needful it was that the 1st should be within striking distance of the Light Division. At one moment some officer, whose name is not mentioned, said, "The brigade of Guards will be destroyed; ought it not to fall back?" When Sir Colin Campbell, says Mr. Kinglake, "heard this saying, his blood rose so high that the answer he gave—impassioned and far-resounding—was of a quality to govern events! 'It is better, sir, that every man of her Majesty's Guards should be dead upon the field, than that they should turn their backs upon the enemy!'" Doubts and questionings ceased. The division went forward, but not soon enough to prevent a disaster. The four regiments holding the Russian breastwork were now in the presence of a powerful force of infantry. For the four battalions of the Vladimir Regiment, marshalled by Prince Gortschakoff, were descending upon the work and had already begun to open fire. The British soldiers lying under the parapet, and looking over, were able to throw a storm of shot into the mighty mass, which, solid and close, came down the hill. Soon its front ranks began to fire, and officers and men began to fall. This was a most trying moment for General Evans, waging an unequal fight, and for Colonel Yea, with his shattered battalion waging a more unequal fight. General Codrington sent down an aide-de-camp to urge the advance of the Scots Fusiliers, the central battalion, and soon the whole brigade rushed up on to the slope. The Grenadiers on the right, under Colonel Hood, formed up in regular order before they moved. The Coldstreams did the same. But, urged by Codrington's message, the Scots Fusiliers sprang forward and began to ascend the hill with eager steps. It was too late. The Vladimirs had persisted in moving on, regardless of the fire from our straggling line; and suddenly, none knows exactly why, the British soldiers rose, and quitting the shelter of the entrenchment, began to descend the hill. The fire of the Russians redoubled; the disordered masses of red-coated men, who hate retreating, halted in clusters, more or less dense, and flung back a dropping shower of bullets. This could not go on long. Presently the pace became brisker, and the men getting massed in heavier groups, and hurrying down the hill, came full upon the Scots Fusiliers, broke the order of the regiment, and compelled what should have been a support to withdraw with them. But the Grenadiers and Coldstreams, separated for a time by a wide interval, went on; and farther on their left came the Highlanders, with what fortune we shall presently see. For now of the battery ordered up to the knoll by Lord Raglan, two guns had arrived. The men had not reached the spot, and Colonel Dickson and other officers loaded, laid, and fired the guns. The effect, it is said, was instantaneous. The guns were trained to bear upon the batteries which checked the advance of Evans's men; and it so happened that at the same time the British artillery of the 2nd, Light, and 3rd Divisions came powerfully into action against the batteries on the road; so that assailed at once in front and flank, and uncertain what new strength the flank fire might gain, the Russian commander limbered up all his guns, and withdrew them to a higher and distant ridge. Then Sir De Lacy Evans pushed forward his three battalions, and these, bringing up their right shoulders, came up to the relief of the 7th just as the Grenadier Guards were approaching on the other flank. The 7th, which had so nobly stood its ground, and suffered very great loss, now, by order of Sir George Brown, allowed the Grenadiers to pass them. The spectacle along the whole line was at this moment magnificent. For the masses of the French on the Telegraph Hill were now rapidly coming into action. Bosquet's artillery had shaken the huge column with which Kiriakoff had threatened the troops of Canrobert. Bouat and Lourmel showed themselves on the hills towards the sea, ever gaining on the Russian left rear. Canrobert had got his guns up, and his lines and columns were moving[49] on to assault the Russians gathered round the Telegraph. Lord Raglan's presence and Turner's artillery must have deeply alarmed Prince Gortschakoff and General Kvetzinski for the safety of their line of retreat. Evans's forward movement, the fire of thirty guns, many of them over the river, combined with the proud march of the Grenadiers and Coldstreams and the Highland Brigade—all these co-operating causes contributed to the catastrophe. It was the crisis of the battle. In vain the battalions of Suzdal endeavoured to succour their comrades of Kazan and Vladimir, standing stiffly behind and about the breastwork. The Highlanders, coming up in succession from the right, smote each column in flank as it passed its front, while every moment the rigid line of red coats and black bearskins and busy rifles crept closer and closer and fired with deadlier effect. The discomfited Light Division also partially reformed, and the Scots Fusiliers were rapidly filling up the interval between the Grenadiers and Coldstreams. Active artillery officers had brought their guns into action nearly on the site occupied by the Russian batteries which so long vexed the 2nd Division. At length the Russian battalions, unable to bear any longer the pressure brought upon them, yielded, when, with a loud shout, the Guards brought down their bayonets, and came steadily on. In a brief space the breastwork was again carried; the Highlanders, most skilfully led, disposed of the Russian reserves; and as Lord Raglan, who had quitted his knoll, came riding up, he found the field his own and the enemy in retreat.

ON THE BATTLE-FIELD OF THE ALMA: THE MISSION OF MERCY. (See p. 50.)

By this time, also, the Russian left was getting away from the French. When the Guards were half way up the hill, and the 2nd Division was crowning the ridges in its front, Canrobert advanced, and bringing his guns into play, swept up the bare hill; and after some severe fighting with the Russian troops, disposed so as to cover the retreat, captured the Telegraph Station. Prince Napoleon and Marshal St. Arnaud now appeared on the plateau, and the horse artillery, hurrying to the front, cannonaded the retreating enemy. The 41st and 49th British Regiments had also[50] moved up into that part of the field which lies between the great road and the Telegraph Hill, and thus formed the extreme right of the British line. So that the whole allied front, from the peak of the Telegraph Station to the eastern slopes of the Kourgané Hill, crowned the Russian position. The Russians fell back in pretty good order, although they were pounded in retreat by the artillery of the Allies, which had hurried up to the front. Lord Cardigan brought his cavalry over the Alma, and rode in upon the stragglers who formed the rear, but could effect little, as the Russians halted on the next ridge, and for a short time showed a bold front. Then they went about, and, unpursued, disappeared from view.

Lord Raglan had desired an immediate pursuit, such a pursuit as would have brought the French upon the flank of the yielding columns, while the British, with horse, foot, and artillery, burst in upon their rear. He had two divisions which had not fired a shot; he had more than a thousand lances and sabres; he was ready to go on. But although the French had suffered comparatively little loss, whether it were that his illness clouded his mind, or that he feared to compromise his army, or that he did not relish a request to pursue coming from the English commander, Marshal St. Arnaud declined to move any men from the field. So the victorious soldiers took up their quarters on the line of hills, and began to gather up the wounded. The battle, which reflects little credit on the commanders-in-chief, had been won by the leaders of divisions. It was not decisive, and it did not bring about the attainment of the great end of the invasion—the immediate capture of Sebastopol.

## CHAPTER IV.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

> Two Days on the Alma—Retreat of the Russians—Raglan proposes a Flank Movement—Korniloff scuttles his Ships—The Russian Retreat—Korniloff and Todleben—The Flank March decided—The Armies Intersect—Death of St. Arnaud—The Allies in Position—Menschikoff reinforces Sebastopol—Todleben's Preparations—The Point of Attack—French and English Opinions—The Opposing Batteries—The Sea—Defences of Sebastopol—Doubts of the Admirals—Opening of the Bombardment—The French Fire silenced—Success of the British—Failure of the Fleets—The Bombardment renewed—Wild Rumours at Home—Menschikoff determines to Raise the Siege—The Attack on Balaclava—Lord Lucan's Warning—Liprandi's Advance—Capture of the Redoubts—The 93rd—Lord Lucan's Advance—Charge of the Heavy Brigade—A Pause in the Battle—Raglan, Lucan, and Nolan—Charge of the Light Brigade—The Valley of Death—The Goal—Colonel Shewell—The Retreat covered—The Loss—End of the Battle.

THE allied armies spent two days on the battle-field of the Alma. There were the wounded to tend and carry on board ship—the wounded of each army, for the Russians left hundreds on the ground—and the dead to bury. All through the evening, nay, throughout the night, our soldiers were groping about in search of comrades, and carrying water to assuage their thirst, and at dawn officers and men streamed over the hills and into the ravines on this errand of mercy. Surgeons were landed from the fleet to aid the scanty medical staff, and sailors to bear away those whose wounds had been dressed; but, looking to the resources of the fleet, one is surprised that these labours should have occupied eight-and-forty hours. Time was precious; it was always believed that the Allies must fight at least one battle before they reached Sebastopol, yet the means of moving swiftly, after it had been won, had not been prepared. So while the Allies were engaged in tending their wounded, burying their dead, replenishing their ammunition stores, reorganising the regiments that had suffered the most, and even taking care of the Russian wounded, the Russian army, retiring hurriedly and in alarm, had relinquished successively the strong positions on the Katcha and the Belbek, had abandoned all the open country north of Sebastopol, and, passing the bridge of Inkermann, had entered the place itself.

During the halt of the armies there had arisen a grave doubt in the mind of Lord Raglan. Even on the beach of Kamishli, pondering on the task before him, he had come to question the practicableness of assailing Sebastopol from the north, and feared that "a flank movement to the south side would be necessary." Here, on the heights of the Alma, he seems to have[51] felt the pressure of doubt more strongly; for on the 21st of September, probably at his suggestion, Sir John Burgoyne—who shared, if he did not originate his doubts—drew up a formal memorandum, setting forth all the advantages of a march round the head of the harbour to Balaclava on the south coast. And when the short march to the Katcha ended, a singular incident, reported at headquarters, gave the British officers fresh arguments. On the 22nd, steamers of both fleets had looked into Sebastopol harbour, and had reported that all the vessels of war were still there. They were, however, so posted as to attract the attention of naval men, who took particular note of a line of ships moored across the entrance to the harbour, from north to south. The next day, when the fleet came up from Cape Loukoul to the Katcha, the whole line of Russian ships was observed to settle down in the water until only their tops were visible. The enemy, at the suggestion of Admiral Korniloff, had thus disposed of part of a fleet with which he could not keep the sea, and a wise measure it proved to be. The news was sent at once to the headquarter camps on the Katcha, and it probably gave Lord Raglan an additional argument in favour of a march to the south side. The Allies halted on the Katcha until late on the 24th, when they advanced to the Belbek.

Meanwhile the Russian army had quitted its position at an early hour. There was considerable disorder in some parts of the field, where battalions falling back came under the fire of the Allied guns; but there were others untouched and unsubdued, and these, with the Hussars and artillery, had made that show of covering the retreat. The Russians did not halt. Night overtook them among the hills; still they plodded along. They left behind them the steep banks of the Katcha, the steeper banks and rougher ridges of the Belbek, and moving to the head of the harbour of Sebastopol, crossed the bridge of Inkermann on the morning of the 21st, and encamped to the south-west of the town. Some battalions were left on the north side, destined to be the garrison of the largest work on the plateau, called the Star Fort. There, we are told, all was confusion and dismay; but this may be doubted. Two or three very firm men were at that time in Sebastopol—the Admirals Korniloff and Nachimoff, and the German engineer Todleben. This remarkable soldier had been sent to the Crimea in the month of August, at a time when the Czar was just beginning to believe in the probability of a descent. He arrived there at the end of the month, a few days after the Malakoff, or White Tower, on the south side had been completed. Prince Menschikoff requested the engineer to report upon the defences, and it is recorded that the substance of his report was that with two divisions of infantry, say 24,000 men, and field artillery, he would undertake to be master of the town in three hours. This was not a pleasant report, nor does it appear that much was done to supply the deficiency of defence until the Allies were almost before the place. On the 21st Prince Menschikoff held a council. It was then that the sturdy admirals and the great engineer showed their metal. They resolved to extemporise earthen defences on the south side, and sink a part of the fleet across the mouth of the harbour—a task which they executed with promptitude and skill. But Prince Menschikoff seems to have been uncertain what part his army should play; and had the Allies appeared on the Belbek on the evening of the 21st they would have found the extra defences not begun, the army still under the influence of the staggering blow delivered at the Alma, and its chief perplexed and vacillating. Even at the moment when they crowned the heights of the Belbek, and could see from the loftier elevations the white forts on the margin of the water, the works on the northern side had only just received their garrisons, and were in a most weak condition. This the Allies knew not, nor did they know that when they were discussing the propriety of the flank march to the south, Prince Menschikoff had just begun a flank march from the south, so as to gain the main road leading to Russia. Had the Allies been quicker, they would have caught the Russians in their moment of weakness and doubt, and Sebastopol would have been theirs.

It was the morning of the 25th. The Allied camp spread out over the plateau, within three miles and a half of the nearest defences of Sebastopol. The question to be resolved was, Should they at once attack the northern works, or should they file through the rough woods and appear suddenly on the southern plateau? We have seen that Lord Raglan, as early as the 15th or 16th, doubted the ability of the Allies to carry the northern forts by a coup de main, and contemplated the other alternative; and that, the day after the battle of the Alma, he had set Sir John Burgoyne to draw up a memorandum, showing the advantages of the latter course. It is probable that these arguments were first placed before[52] Marshal St. Arnaud at the bivouac on the Katcha; but the ultimate decision was not taken until the morning of the 25th, at the bivouac on the Belbek. After that St. Arnaud had declined to risk an assault. Early on the 25th Lord Raglan went to the quarters of Marshal St. Arnaud, who was now attacked by cholera, and too much broken to be able to take an active part; and in his presence, and that of General Canrobert and others, debated the project of Sir John Burgoyne. Certainly, all were not agreed; but Canrobert was not made of that stuff which leads a general to take upon himself the burden of a heavy responsibility, and he yielded to the arguments of the English. It was therefore ordered that the flank march should be undertaken forthwith; and for four-and-twenty hours the Allied armies were at the mercy of their opponents. Had Menschikoff possessed a spark of genius, he would have cut his enemies to pieces on the 25th of September; but he was employed on a movement of his own, when he ought to have been watching the enemy.

About noon the march began. The artillery—so little was apprehended from the enemy—took the lead; then the English cavalry and infantry, then the baggage, and, next, the French. The 4th British Division was left on the heights "to maintain the communication with the Katcha," until the new base had been secured. The march was most painful and harassing; but, leaving the infantry to tear their way through the low forest by compass, let us follow Lord Raglan. According to his wont, he rode on towards the front, taking the narrow bridle-path. The guns had halted when he came up, because they were entirely without support. Half a battalion of skirmishers might have destroyed all the horses, and killed the gunners. When Lord Raglan rode up, he sharply ordered them to resume their march, and passed on to the front. Suddenly he came softly back. As he emerged from the trees he saw a strange sight—a body of Russians, with a baggage-train, were moving northward along the road. It was the rear guard of Prince MenschikofF, on its way to join the army at Batchiserai. Lord Raglan eagerly inquired for the cavalry, and the cavalry were not to be found. Some time elapsed; the Russians, ignorant of the nearness of their foes, continued to march quietly along. Lord Raglan grew impatient, and sent officers in search of his light horse, while he placed his own escort and a troop of horse artillery in readiness to act. After some time, parts of two Hussar regiments were brought up, and the 2nd battalion of the Rifle Brigade; but the Russians had now detected the presence of an enemy on their left flank, and had begun to run. Then the guns opened, and the horsemen and light infantry went at the enemy, who, abandoning his waggons, fled hastily away. Neither Menschikoff nor Raglan had the slightest notion of one another's intentions during this extraordinary chapter of blunders.

Next day the British army took up a position in front of Balaclava; but the French remained on the Tchernaya. Marshal St. Arnaud, who had been carried from the Belbek in a carriage captured at the Alma, now became, in the opinion of those around him, incapable of commanding the army any longer. He was, indeed, at the point of death, and on the morning of the 26th he formally handed his command over to General Canrobert. In a day or two he embarked in the Bertholet, but died at sea, midway between Balaclava and the Bosphorus. Marshal St. Arnaud was not a soldier of the stamp to which our forefathers were accustomed in the great wars against Napoleon. He was gifted with a showy, yet still genuine courage; he was impetuous and daring. His long and painful sickness, and the peculiarity of his position, no doubt, ought to be taken into account when we judge of his soldiership; but, having made allowance for these obstructions to the display of military ability, we are bound to say that we do not find in the marshal any faculties of a high order. His ambition, his vanity, his assumption, are as conspicuous as his frankness, warmth of heart, and readiness to yield under pressure, whether it came from Paris or the British headquarters; but, on the whole, he was a flashy and insubstantial man. His successor, General Canrobert, came of the same Algerian stock, and he had at least as much ability as Marshal St. Arnaud, and one quality the marshal had not—modesty.

The French army crossed the plain on the 28th, and encamped in front of Balaclava. The day before Lord Raglan had sent the Light and 2nd Divisions up to the slopes which overlook Sebastopol; on the 29th the French army followed, and by the 1st of October all the infantry of the Allies, except the 93rd, the Turks, and some Marines landed from the fleet, were on those hills. Here, then, for many months, was to be the scene of their mighty labours and cruel sufferings: these rugged heights, and ravine-riven plains, and sheltered valleys, were to be the mute witnesses[53] of the most extraordinary siege of modern times, and one of the most remarkable recorded in military annals.

PLAN OF SEBASTOPOL, SHOWING THE DEFENCE.

The Russians had profited by the change in the plans of the Allies. Prince Menschikoff had moved his army upon Batchiserai on the 24th and 25th, in order to regain his communications with Perekop and the eastern part of the Crimea, whence, as he knew, large reserves were approaching to succour the cherished city of the Czar. He hoped to place himself in rear of the Allied armies, which, he supposed, would attack the northern works of Sebastopol, and preserve his position there until he was strong enough to fight a battle for the relief of the place. When the attack of the Allies on his rear-guard, and intelligence from Sebastopol of the capture of Balaclava, revealed to him the change of plan, he was persuaded by Korniloff's remonstrances to move at once from Batchiserai and take up a position on the Katcha, whence, on the 1st of October, he marched his army through the village of Belbek, and rested for the night on the left bank of the stream. The next morning the army was moved up to the northern works, and thence transported across the harbour to aid in throwing up the defences; so that, two days after the Allies had planted their camps on the southern plateau, 20,000 men of Prince Menschikoff's beaten army had re-entered Sebastopol.

During the fortnight that had elapsed since the battle of the Alma a striking change had been made in the landward defences of Sebastopol. When the Allies landed the defensive works were few and disconnected. On the eastern face—that is, from the Careening Bay to the great ravine—there were but three works, the centre of which was the Malakoff tower on its commanding hillock. On the western face there was a long loop-holed wall, running from the sea in front of Artillery Bay to a stone tower, called the Central Bastion, opposite a cemetery, and a second work made of earth, called the Flagstaff Bastion, crowning a hill at the southern apex of the town, and on the western side of the great ravine. Not more than fifty guns were mounted on these works at[54] that time. In the interval, the genius of Todleben had converted the place into a strongly entrenched camp. The sailors and soldiers, the civilians, and even women, were employed, without stint, in throwing up earthworks and in mounting guns. Inspired by the energy of Korniloff, a tough Russian, directed by the skill of Todleben, supplied by the vast resources of an arsenal crammed with means and appliances of all kinds, the workers, in a few days, surrounded the city with powerful defences. Batteries, connected by entrenchments, arose on all sides; so that when the Allies sat down before the place, and looked out over the waste towards the goal of their efforts, instead of finding an open town, they found an entrenched camp, which grew stronger under the gazer's eye. They had shrunk from the northern works, because they were too strong; they marched up to the southern works, and discovered that these were stronger. They had come thither to take a town by a coup de main, and, in the opinion of Sir George Cathcart, could have walked into the place on the 28th of September without the loss of a soldier. They soon found that they were in front of an entrenched position which no troops could assail and live. Therefore the siege guns were landed with all practicable speed, and it was resolved to raise batteries, not to breach the works, but to silence the fire of the guns, and then to storm in on all sides.

But the more minutely the Allies looked into the ground they would have to take up, and the works they would have to execute, the less likely did it appear that they would readily reduce the place. The plateau occupied by the British sloped down to the Russian works. It was broken into ridges by five deep ravines, whose sides became more precipitous as they fell towards the South Bay or Dockyard Creek. The left ravine was the largest and the most profound. Towards its termination in the South Bay, the two next ravines towards the right ran into it, leaving flat slopes between. The second, on the right, was the larger and more important, and along its bottom ran the Woronzoff road, whence it became known as the Woronzoff ravine. Next, on the right, was a smaller ravine, called Karabelnaia, because it led to that suburb; and the next, having its source near Inkermann, ended in the Careening Bay. The Malakoff tower, with its surrounding entrenchments, stood between the Careening and Karabelnaia ravines. Then on the south-west of the Malakoff, but on the opposite bank of the Karabelnaia, stood the now famous Redan, and the works known as the Barrack batteries. In order to attack these, the engineers were forced to trace their parallels on the flats between the ravines; but such was the nature of the ground that the batteries raised to fire on the Redan were obliged to be erected, not on the plateau which descended to it, but on the opposite side of the Woronzoff ravine; while those intended to batter the Malakoff were placed, not on the plateau which ran down to the Malakoff, but on that which ran down to the Redan. Thus the two systems of attack were separated by these deep gullies. They were called the right and left attacks, and were the scenes of the principal labours and loss of the British.

It was the opinion of Sir John Burgoyne and the engineers that the proper point of attack was the Malakoff. On the ridge leading down to this work was a remarkable mound, first called Gordon's Hill, but afterwards known as the Mamelon. It afforded a good site for batteries directed against the Malakoff, and as the hill on which this work was placed commanded the city and the anchorage, Sir John wished to make this the principal point of attack, and direct the main efforts of the besiegers to its mastery; while the French held the enemy in check on their side, and a battery west of the Woronzoff ravine—that is, our left attack—kept down the fire of the Redan. But the French engineer, General Bizot, did not agree with Sir John Burgoyne. In his opinion, the Flagstaff Battery, a bold salient work on the west of the South Bay, was the key of the position. Sir John desired to employ our 3rd Division against the Malakoff, but the French objected, and it could not be done. Wherefore, the imperfect plan of attack which we have indicated was resolved upon.

The landing of the siege train occupied eight days, and on the 16th of October, 41 pieces of ordnance, including five 10-inch mortars, had been mounted in batteries on the left attack, and 32 pieces of ordnance, including five 10-inch mortars, had been mounted on the right attack. The guns and mortars in these batteries were to direct a cross fire on the Malakoff, the Redan, and the Barrack batteries, or to search the flank of the Flagstaff on one side, and the men-of-war in the Careening creek on the other. Thus in less than a week the British had put these 73 guns into position; but in the meantime Todleben had shown such amazing industry and skill, that he had brought no less than 107 guns to bear upon the British attack alone, 82 of which were heavy siege guns, and 130 against the French. The garrison[55] was augmented daily; first by Menschikoff's army, then by troops from Taman and Kertch, then by battalions from Odessa; so that in a few days there were in Sebastopol no fewer than 23,000 soldiers, and 12,000 sailors armed and drilled as soldiers; and about the heights of Mackenzie's Farm and Inkermann, a corps of observation, numbering 25,000 men, giving a total of 60,000 men, a force equal to that of the Allies.

No place in the world could be more impregnable to an attack from the sea. At the mouth of the roadstead there were three mighty forts. On a low point of land, under the cliff on the northern side, rose the immense work named Fort Constantine, showing 110 guns, in three casemated tiers, with another tier on the roof. On the south shore, also low down, and having a good command of the sea, first the Quarantine Fort, with its sixty guns, and beyond that, Fort Alexander, with its ninety guns, defied all assailants, so that in first line, an invading fleet would have to encounter the fire of 260 guns, securely placed in solid works. Looking from the sea, these three forts impressed the beholder with the strength of the place. But these were not all. Beyond Alexander rose Fort Nicholas, armed with 110 guns; and beyond this, Fort Paul, with its eighty-six guns, standing at the mouth of the south bay. Altogether, there were no fewer than 700 guns looking towards the sea from their secure casemates. Nor should the small work, called the Wasp Battery, above Fort Constantine, improvised on the spur of the moment, be overlooked. It deserved its name. Such were the formidable defences which the allied fleets were to attack in wooden ships, and which some sanguine persons expected them to reduce to helplessness. No greater delusion could exist.

The real hour of trial had now come. The batteries of the Allies were ready to open fire, and on the night of the 16th of October orders went forth from both headquarters that the embrasures should be unmasked in the obscurity of the dawn; that the troops in camp should be held in readiness to fall in at a moment's notice ready to storm; that the fire of the land batteries should open soon after six; and that the fleet, moving up, should assail the great forts overlooking the sea. Both admirals, it is understood, were opposed to this proceeding. They held the sound opinion that the fleet could not effect anything against the forts. The safety of the army, they said, depended on the safety of the fleet, and it would be imprudent to risk the fleet in an encounter with forts so well placed and so heavily armed. The mouth of the harbour was closed by the sunken ships. A shoal, running out in front of Fort Constantine, prevented the great men-of-war from placing themselves near enough to batter the walls with effect. The sailing ships must be towed or propelled by steamers, and would fight at a disadvantage. These arguments did not prevail. Admiral Hamelin was under the absolute command of General Canrobert, and not at liberty to disobey. Admiral Dundas was not under the absolute command of Lord Raglan; but he could not well refrain from executing his wishes, or look on while the French attacked. The allied generals were pressing in their orders, as they held that an attack from the sea would operate as a diversion, and favour the attack from the land. Therefore it was decided that the ships should go in, take the risk, and do their utmost to damage the enemy.

The first spectacle that arrested the eye when the first cloud of smoke rolled away was the broken Malakoff. The 68-pounders, in Peel's battery, more than 2,000 yards from the work, had dismounted the guns and ruined the tower. Then it was seen that the French were inferior to their foes. Their light brass guns and hastily constructed works were no match for the heavier metal of the Russians. The batteries were beginning to look deformed, their fire wanted the force and continuity of ours. The Russians pounded them in front, and sent their heavy shot and shell into their left flank; and, seeing the effect, redoubled their energy. Our magazines were small, and the rapid firing soon exhausted the supply; but the artillerymen drove down to the trenches, under a fierce cannonade; and their daring was rewarded, for they met with few casualties. Then, freshly supplied, the gunners went to work with renewed vigour. About twenty minutes to nine there was an explosion, so loud that it struck everyone with amazement, and caused a perceptible slackening of the fire. A Russian shell had broken through the great magazine of the principal French battery. In a moment all the guns were dismounted, 100 men were killed and wounded, and the battery rendered absolutely useless. A shout of triumph arose in the town, and its roar reached even the lines of the besiegers. The French guns were now nearly silenced, so heavy had been the storm directed upon them when it was found that they were giving way; and between eleven and twelve, with one battery destroyed and two silenced, General Canrobert gave orders to cease firing. Thus before noon the French had retired from the contest altogether.

[56]

The British hardly relaxed a moment. Their batteries were mauled, but their gunners never ceased to hurl forth their shot and shell. We had, by this time, so reduced the fire from the Barrack batteries, on the Russian right of the Redan, and from the earthwork round the Malakoff, that these batteries were regarded as silenced. But, when the French ceased, the left flank guns of the Flagstaff and Garden batteries, a little in its rear, but facing our trenches, and the Redan, went on as furiously as ever. The Russians fought their guns with a skill and persistence deserving the greatest praise. They were now testing the worth of all their defences. The costly casemated forts were replying to the allied ships; two steamers and a line-of-battle ship in the harbour were exchanging shots with our Lancaster guns and 68-pounders; while Todleben's extemporised batteries were in full play. But the British fire was so good that, about three o'clock, a shell found its way into the magazine of the Redan, and, setting it on fire, caused an explosion which silenced that work for half-an-hour. Then they got one or two guns to work, and with these they kept up a fire all the rest of the day. But this earthwork suffered so severely that its garrison was replaced three times between sunrise and sunset. Along the whole line opposed to our batteries we had, by the evening, established a complete superiority over the fire of the enemy; and had the French been equally successful, it is probable that an assault would have been hazarded. During the day we had demolished the Malakoff tower, exploded its magazine, the magazine in the Redan, and a magazine in the town; we had killed Admiral Korniloff, and killed or wounded 500 men, and dismounted thirty-five guns; and we had driven the line-of-battle ships out of the creek, and damaged a steamer in the harbour. In return our whole loss was 130 men killed and wounded, one Lancaster gun burst, and seven guns disabled in consequence of injuries to wheels and carriages.

The operation of the fleets had been a glorious display of courage, and that was all. The fleets were divided into three squadrons. The British took the left, the Turks the centre, and the French the right. In order to carry the great sailing ships into action, steamers were lashed to the side next the offing, and one hour was occupied in turning the Britannia, in order to place her in the proper position. The French were drawn up in two lines, eight ships of the line with one Turkish ship, in the first line, and eight, with a Turk, in the second. These were the first, about 1,800, the second about 2,000 yards from the Quarantine Fort and Forts Nicholas and Alexander on the south shore of the harbour. The British fleet consisted of twenty-six ships of war, but some of the steamers were used to carry the large sailing ships into position. They had to contend with Fort Constantine and the batteries on the cliff, notably the Wasp. A shoal running out from the spit on which the fort is built prevented a nearer approach than 800 yards; but the Agamemnon and Sanspareil, the first with only two feet of water under her keel, did not hesitate to run within that distance of the 130 guns of Fort Constantine. There was no wind, and the sea was smooth. About a quarter past one the conflict began, and it did not cease until dark. And what was the upshot? The forts looked "speckled." It is stated that the gunners were driven from their guns more than once, and that some pieces were dismounted; but the Russians again steadily resumed their fire, and fired on to the end. The superiority of stone forts, and even earthworks, over ships, remained as firmly established as ever. The fleets did not venture again to attack the great forts at Sebastopol.

At dawn, on the 18th, the cannonade was resumed. This time it was a duel between the British and the Russians, for the French had not recovered from the destructive blows they received on the 17th. The Russian fire was far heavier than on the preceding day. The batteries round the Malakoff, the Redan, the Barrack, the Garden, and left face of the Flagstaff batteries, were more vigorous than ever. But our fire did not equal in intensity and weight the fire of the first day. Then, our gunners were lavish of ammunition; now, they hoarded the slender store. Each gun fired once in ten minutes. But the enemy, having behind them the best stocked arsenal in the world, pitched in every kind of missile without stint. Although they could not touch our magazines, again we blew up one of theirs—this time in the Malakoff. The first day we fired as fast as we could, in the hope of subduing their fire and storming in; but on the second day all idea of instant storming had been given up. We fired to continue the bombardment and enable the French to recover. One ominous sign marked the 18th—the Russians made a reconnaissance from the Tchernaya in the forenoon, upon the lines of Balaclava. Their heavy masses appeared above Tchorgoun, and on the Fedoukine heights, but did not approach nearer. It was the first instalment of the great bodies on the road from Bessarabia. The superiority of the Russians was now established. They had more[57] men, more guns, more supplies of all kinds. On the 19th they fired more shots; they fired steadily, and they had increased their number of guns. The artillery of the besieged was double that of the besiegers. It was all artillery of great weight and great range. The Russian general had men enough to serve all his guns, and to keep very strong parties on guard. Each night he more than repaired the damage done in the day. Todleben seemed to be sleepless. In short, the whole character of the operation, so far as the Allies were concerned, had become changed, not by their will, but by time and the will of the Russians. On the morning of the 20th the British store of ammunition had been so reduced that very few rounds per gun remained. They had fired 20,000 the first day. Moreover, the enemy was evidently gathering in force in the valley of the Tchernaya. Therefore the generals took counsel together, and determined to await the arrival of reinforcements, both of men and means, and then to recommence a fresh bombardment, with a greatly increased force of artillery.

CHARGE OF THE HEAVY BRIGADE. (See p. 60.)

[58]

The expedition to the Crimea was undertaken on the idea that Sebastopol could be taken by a landing, a battle, a march, and a coup de main. The Allies landed on the 14th. The news of the battle of the Alma reached Paris and London on the 30th of September. On the 1st and 2nd of October came a report that the place had been taken on the 25th. This report was believed by most people, including the British Government, and it was believed by them because they were cognisant of the real nature of the plan. Those who felt and expressed doubts respecting the truth of the story were indignantly silenced. The French Emperor shared in the general delusion, and it was not until the 4th of October that it was dispelled by the arrival of Lord Raglan's despatch of the 28th, stating that he had only just reached Balaclava. In the midst of their labours in the trenches, and when the grave fact, that Sebastopol could not be taken without a regular siege, was becoming more apparent every hour, this wild story reached the allied camp with the English journals, and excited feelings of the warmest indignation. This incident is narrated to show how great were the expectations of the people and the Governments, and how little either knew of the real nature of the enterprise which they had promoted and sanctioned. In England there was a passion to take Sebastopol, and it cannot be doubted that the failure of the original plan, while it intensified that passion, also made the people angry with the heads of the army and the heads of the State.

The Czar Nicholas was also angry at the invasion of his dominions and the defeat of his troops; and anger and prudence alike dictated the reinforcement of Prince Menschikoff and the resumption of offensive operations. Accordingly, he gave orders for the march of the 3rd and 4th Corps d'Armée to the Crimea, and by the end of October the Russians outnumbered the Allies by two to one. Prince Menschikoff meanwhile was meditating a counter-stroke, and devising plans to force the Allies to raise the siege. Surveying their position, he deemed it assailable on two points; from the Tchernaya, in front of Balaclava, and from the head of the harbour on the British right flank opposite Inkermann. Perhaps the feasibility of the latter operation was then only germinating in his mind. He was seduced into another operation. The apparent weakness of the British position about Balaclava made him impatient to attack it. From the lofty ridge of Mackenzie, on the north, and from the heights to the east, which on one side look towards the Baidar valley and the road to the Crimean undercliff, and on the other into Kamara and the Balaclava plain, he saw the weak-looking defences of the Allies in front and flank. The little knolls crowned by the Turkish redoubts lay exposed in the plains, nearly two miles from any support. They ran in a curved line north-west from Kamara—No. 1, on a mound called Canrobert's Hill, being nearest to Kamara; and No. 5 being almost under the ridge of Mount Sapoune. Between them and Balaclava and Kadikoi, and on to the Col and the fortified ridge, there was nothing except the Marines on the eastern Balaclava heights, the 93rd in front of the gorge leading to the harbour, the sailors' gun-battery above Kadikoi, and the camps of the British Cavalry Brigades, north-west of that village. Could he not by a rapid and vigorous movement sweep through these defences, expel the Turks, destroy the 93rd, seize Balaclava, destroy the shipping, and cut off the British from their road out to the sea? Having won Balaclava and the heights on both sides, could he not next carry the Col, and so break into the rear of the allied camps, and place them between his guns and bayonets and those of Sebastopol? General Liprandi had arrived with the 12th Division and four regiments of horse and 44 field-guns, and reinforcing these from his over-abundant garrison, Menschikoff determined to attempt the enterprise.

Sir Colin Campbell, who commanded at Balaclava, feared an attack from Kamara and on this side, and he had done all that was possible, with[59] the scanty means at his disposal, to provide against it. As he watched daily, his keen eye detected the increasing symptoms of the coming storm, but so weak was our force that we could do little, except place guns in the Turkish redoubts, a measure which did not meet with general approval; and in case of attack to rely for safety upon the arrival of troops from the main body in time to give battle to the assailants. General Liprandi, as early as the 23rd, had collected on the Tchernaya his own 12th Infantry Division, and he was then reinforced by seven battalions and fourteen guns from Sebastopol. This gave him a force of about 21,000 men, including 3,200 cavalry and 52 guns. The 24th was spent in reconnoitring the position, and Sir Colin Campbell heard the same evening, from a spy, that an attack in force would be made at dawn; information which Lord Lucan sent by his own aide-de-camp to headquarters. But it does not appear that any measures were taken in consequence. Perhaps no trust was placed in the spy. Perhaps Lord Lucan did not enjoy that confidence at headquarters which a really good cavalry commander would not have failed to inspire. In any case it does not appear that special measures were taken to meet the attack.

Long before dawn of the 25th of October the Russians stood to their arms. The valley of the Tchernaya, the plain beyond, and the hill sides were shrouded in a thick clammy mist. This was favourable to the assailants. The plan of General Liprandi was to move in three separate columns upon the redoubts occupied by the Turks. The Turks were alarmed. They opened fire, but as the enemy's troops rolled on towards them they lost heart. Arrived within a hundred yards, the Russian infantry made a rush over the intervening space, and the first redoubt was won. The Turks fled, some over the valley, some into the next redoubt; but some fought, for the Russian general reports that 170 were slain in the work. The English artilleryman in charge of the 12-pounders had spiked them. Moving swiftly forward, bringing up his right and pushing his horsemen along on the flank, Liprandi forced the Turks to flee from the next two redoubts; and the Cossacks were soon over the slopes, dashing among the fugitives, and spearing them as they ran. The Turks still fled. Panic ran along the whole line. The last redoubt was abandoned, and the Russians occupied the whole line of outposts, and bringing up their artillery, opened a heavy fire. But General Liprandi, fearful of thrusting his men under the fire of the heavy guns about Balaclava and Kadikoi, halted in full career, and refrained from pressing an attack which, at one moment, seemed likely to sweep like a tide through the whole valley.

Nevertheless, he resolved to continue his offensive movement, but with his horsemen alone. When the Russians were first seen advancing through the mist, Lord Lucan, who expected them, was in one of the redoubts. He immediately rode off to join his division, and to send the unwelcome news to Sir Colin Campbell and Lord Raglan. The cavalry were soon in the saddle and in fighting order, the Heavy Brigade on the right, the Light on the left. Sir Colin Campbell drew out the 93rd, under Colonel Ainslie, and posted them on a rising ground in front of the gorge leading to the port. He had no other force except Captain Barker's 9-pounder foot battery, with which he covered his right. Some of the fugitive Turks were rallied by Sir Colin, and placed on his right flank, but no dependence could be put on them. The only staunch infantry on the plain were the 93rd, drawn up in line along a little ridge—a mere streak of red compared with the dark compact masses of the impending foe.

They came down with a gallop and a yell. The few Turks on the right of the Highlanders fired a volley at once and ran, crying, "Ship, Johnny, ship!" The Cossacks were elated, and they swung round their left flank as if they would roll up "the thin, red streak, tipped with a line of steel." But Sir Colin threw back his right flank company, and when the screaming horsemen were within 600 yards, he threw in a volley. The guns on the heights sent in heavy shots, yet the Cossacks were not to be deterred. In a short space, instead of fleeing, the 93rd poured in another volley from their rifles, a volley heard afar, as it rang out clear and compact, and echoed among the hills. The Cossacks found that the men in red were not to be scared away like Turks, although they stood alone far out in the plain, and only two deep. So, when the great column was closing with our heavy horse, the mere fire and steadfastness of the Highlanders drove the lesser column back to the redoubts, while the guns of Barker's battery smote them as they fled.

When the British cavalry fell back, Lord Lucan placed them near the two most westerly redoubts. His object in doing this was twofold. He desired, first, to give a clear and unobstructed range to Sir Colin Campbell's guns; and secondly, to post the cavalry at a point whence, if the Russians moved directly on Balaclava, he could take them in flank.[60] For this reason he made them front to the east. Now Lord Raglan did not approve of the disposition of the cavalry, and, being Commander-in-Chief, he had the audacity to direct a change of position. Lord Lucan was "discomfited." He seems to have thought that Lord Raglan did wrong to interfere with him. But he obeyed, and changed the front from east to north. Then Lord Raglan appears to have thought that the infantry near Balaclava should not be wholly without the support of the horse, and he directed Lord Lucan to send eight squadrons of the Heavy Brigade towards Balaclava. He obeyed. There was a long orchard running north and south, round which, on the western side, the cavalry had to move. It so chanced that, coincidently with this order from the English general, Liprandi had also given an order. He had massed his cavalry behind the redoubts, and he now directed them, with a force of Cossacks on the left flank, to push over the ridge and pour the larger body into the cavalry camps that lay to the south-east of the orchard, and the flanking Cossacks to attack the 93rd. As Lord Lucan was riding along, he saw, through a break in the fruit-trees, the head of the huge column of Russian cavalry, some glittering in blue and silver uniforms, crown the ridge and descend the slope. He rode at speed, and joined the Greys and Enniskillens, as they were rounding the south end of the orchard. He wheeled them into line, almost in the cavalry camp, and placing them under General Scarlett, he directed them to anticipate the Russian charge. All this was visible to the men and officers who swarmed on Mount Sapoune. They sat or stood, French and British, looking down with breathless interest on the scene below. They saw the Russian horse, nearly 3,000 strong, sweep majestically over the rising ground, the front of their broad and deep column protected by outstretched wings on each flank; and they saw—at first in something like disorder, apparent not real—the little squadrons of the Heavy Brigade, which altogether did not equal a fifth of the force swooping down upon them. No British soldier could have desired a fairer occasion for a display of valour and skill.

As the Russians rolled over the ridge, they instinctively fronted towards the tiny squadrons which they saw entangled in their standing camp. "They," wrote Mr. W. H. Russell, who witnessed the scene, "advanced down the hill at a slow canter, which they changed to a trot, and at last nearly halted. Their first line was nearly double the length of ours, and it was at least three times as deep. Behind them was a similar line equally strong and compact. They evidently despised their insignificant-looking enemy, but their time was come. The trumpets rang out through the valley, and the Greys and Enniskilleners went right at the centre of the Russian cavalry. The space between them was only a few hundred yards; it was scarce enough to let the horses 'gather way,' nor had the men quite space enough for the play of their sword arms. The Russian line brought forward each wing as our cavalry advanced, and threatened to annihilate them as they passed on. Turning a little to their left, so as to meet the Russian right, the Greys rushed on with a cheer that thrilled every heart. The wild shout of the Enniskilleners rose through the air at the same instant. As lightning flashes through a cloud, the Greys and Enniskilleners pierced through the dark masses of Russians. The shock was but for a moment. There was a clash of steel, and a light play of sword blades in the air, and then the Greys and dragoons disappeared in the midst of the shaken and quivering columns. In another moment we saw them emerging with diminished numbers and in broken order, charging against the second line." In less than five minutes, by the vigorous attack in front, and a well-timed assault in flank, and the dash upon the wings as they were closing in upon our first line less than 700 British swordsmen had beaten 3,000 Russian horse in compact and close array into a disorderly crowd, and had driven them off so completely that they did not draw rein until two miles from the scene of the combat and well behind their own guns and between their own infantry. Fortunately, General Scarlett, who had the conduct of this brilliant charge, kept his men in hand, and brought them up before they came under the range of the enemy's guns. Thus were exemplified before the eyes of our allies the highest and the rarest qualities of cavalry—the swift, unhesitating charge, and the faculty for stopping ere it is too late. But the British general must have seen with regret, as the French officers saw with astonishment, the inactivity of the Light Brigade. One word from their leader, a few strides round the north of the orchard, and the brigade might have buried itself deep in the Russian right rear, and have taken hundreds of prisoners, if it had not half destroyed Liprandi's cavalry. But fear of responsibility kept Lord Cardigan's lips closed. He had been "placed there," and until he was ordered to move, there he must remain. Few men have ever thrown away a more fortunate moment, and in battle such moments fly never to return.

[61]

So far the conflict. The Russians had surprised a line of outposts, and had taken seven guns, and now held the greater part of the line they had surprised; but their cavalry had suffered a deep disgrace, and had been driven in, and their general was compelled to form a strong line of battle, not for offence, but defence. He placed seven battalions and eight guns on the south and south-west slopes of the Fedoukine heights. In the valley leading to the Tchernaya were the rallied horse, with their flanks thrown forward, and guns in their front; and on the redoubt ridge, and on both sides of it, and in three of the redoubts, was the remainder of the infantry in column, as far as Kamara, supported by strong lines of guns. He seemed to wait an opportunity, and was tempted again, by the weak appearance of the defence of Balaclava, to try and debouch from Kamara; but the steady fire of Barker and the Marines daunted him effectually. Thus stood the aspect of the field between nine and ten o'clock, when the action cooled down to a cannonade, and the Russians, who were proud of their victory over the Turks seemed to entertain no desire whatever for a further acquaintance with their other foes at close quarters.

GENERAL TODLEBEN.

Lord Raglan, from his post of vantage, had watched the enemy's disposition, and he thought he saw a chance of recapturing the redoubts. He gave an order to Cathcart to that effect, but it was executed with great slowness. He, therefore, no doubt again to the discomfiture of Lord Lucan, directed him to move his cavalry, and take advantage of any opportunity that might present itself to prevent the removal of the guns. The infantry divisions had not yet entered the valley. The[62] order sent to Lord Lucan was not well constructed, but the sense was plain. It ran thus:—"Cavalry to advance, and take any opportunity to recover the heights. They will be supported by the infantry, which have been ordered. Advance on two fronts." Lord Lucan, who resented interference with him, put upon it the construction that he was to attack the guns at the eastern end of the valley, and being out of humour, asked for no explanation. Soon afterwards, feeling that Lord Lucan had not advanced far enough according to his view, Lord Raglan directed Quarter-master-General Airey to send the following instructions to Lord Lucan: "Lord Raglan wishes the cavalry to advance rapidly to the front, follow the enemy, and try to prevent the enemy carrying away the guns. Troop of horse artillery may accompany. French cavalry is on your left. Immediate." These instructions were placed in the hands of Captain Nolan, a far-famed cavalry officer, who believed British horsemen, well led, could ride over anything. Nolan galloped swiftly down the slope and over the plain, and drawing rein, presented the paper to Lord Lucan. "After carefully reading this order," writes Lord Lucan to Lord Raglan afterwards, "I hesitated, and urged the uselessness of such an attack, and the dangers attending it. The aide-de-camp [Nolan], in a most authoritative tone, stated that they were Lord Raglan's orders, that the cavalry should attack immediately. I asked [in a very complaining tone] 'Where, and what to do?' [a sensible question], neither enemy nor guns being in sight. He [Nolan] replied, in a most disrespectful but significant manner, pointing to the farther end of the valley, 'There, my lord, is your enemy; there are the guns!'" Here is a dramatic interlude on a bare plain in the Crimea; Nolan's blunder had confirmed Lucan's misconception.

After the fierce dialogue we have recorded, Lord Lucan rode over to the Light Brigade. He found them dismounted, and orders were given to mount. "Lord Lucan," says Lord Cardigan, in a sworn affidavit, "then came to our front and ordered me to attack the Russians in the valley. I replied, 'Certainly, sir; but allow me to point out to you that the Russians have a battery in our front, and batteries and riflemen on each flank.' Lord Lucan said, 'I cannot help that; it is Lord Raglan's positive order that the Light Brigade attacks immediately.'" Well might a thrill of horror run through the spectators on the heights, when they saw the Light Cavalry speed off to their glorious doom.

For at this moment the Russians presented a strong line of battle. The Fedoukine hills were black with heavy masses of infantry, no fewer than sixteen guns looked into the valley, and a body of foot Cossack riflemen were extended as skirmishers on the lower slopes; all this force of artillery and musketry being on the left flank of the valley down which Lord Lucan was about to hurl the Light Brigade. Across the mouth of the valley leading to the bridge over the Tchernaya and to Tchorgoun, with both flanks thrown well forward, stood the cavalry defeated by the Heavy Brigade, having in front, and parallel to the line of attack, a battery of guns belonging to a Cossack regiment. On the right of the line of advance two redoubts were occupied, and more than half the Russian infantry and a body of lancers were in position. Riflemen were extended along both sides of the valley. But, on our right flank, the artillery, except that in the second redoubt, fronted towards Balaclava. It was through a valley thus defended on the flanks, and thus barred at the end, that our Light Brigade were ordered to ride. The feat they accomplished is, perhaps, unparalleled in war.

Lord Cardigan had formed his ten squadrons in two lines, numbering from the right, the 13th Light Dragoons, the 17th Lancers, and the 11th Hussars; in the second, the 8th Hussars and the 4th Light Dragoons. Lord Lucan did not approve of this arrangement, and, drawing the 11th Hussars from the first line, he placed them in the left rear of the 17th Lancers. Thus the brigade formed three lines. The whole did not amount to many more than 600 men. Lord Cardigan took post in front of the centre of the first line. He was conspicuous, for he wore the uniform of the 11th Hussars, with its bright cherry-coloured trousers and gorgeous jacket, and he rode a strong and beautiful chestnut horse, with white heels. The signal was given, and—

"Into the valley of death
Rode the six hundred."

The brigade went over the shoulder of the hill at a trot. At once they came under the fire of the guns on the Fedoukine heights. The brave Nolan was in the van. He had not gone far when a piece of shell struck him, ripping open his chest. On went the brigade. In the race of death they had to run the course was more than a mile long. The guns on their left, the battery in front, served by Cossacks—who only sponged out after every sixth round, so that their fire might be rapid—the guns from the redoubt on their right, sent shot, and shell, and grape into the brilliant and swiftly gliding lines, the thunder of whose trampling hoofs[63] was heard afar. The ranks were broken. The valley was strewn with heroes. The mere sight of this steadfast band swooping down upon them, made upon the Russians an impression so terrible that they instinctively drew back. "Their fierce attack," wrote Liprandi, "forced General Rijoff to retire by the road that leads to Tchorgoun." The infantry on the left went back nearer to Kamara, and ran into squares. "The enemy's attack," continued Liprandi, "was most pertinacious. He charged our cavalry in spite of the grape fired with great precision from six guns of the light battery, No. 7, in spite of the fire of the skirmishers of the regiment 'Odessa' [on the Russian left], and of a company of riflemen on the right wing, and even unheeding the guns of General Yabrokritski," on the slopes of the Fedoukine heights. Ignoring all this mass of destructive machinery, the Light Brigade swept on. The steadfast artillerymen fired their last round as the first line, rent and torn, closed upon the muzzles and, with a fierce cheer, dashed in. The gunners were caught before they could retire, and only those escaped who crept under the guns and waggons. Some Cossacks charged to save their guns. Lord Cardigan had encounters with several, but escaped with a lance thrust through his sleeve, and then he "rode away apparently unhurt." After the first line came Colonel Douglas, with the 11th, and then the 4th and 8th. In a short space, the first line, which had charged home so impetuously, was now broken into groups, and began to straggle back; but, some of them meeting the 11th, faced about once more and went on. All the regiments had passed the battery. Some of the men were even galloping right into the Russian cavalry, who had fallen back towards Tchorgoun.

THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE AT BALACLAVA.

BY R. CATON WOODVILLE

(BY PERMISSION, FROM THE ENGRAVING PUBLISHED
BY MESSRS H. GRAVES & CO., LTD., PALL MALL, S.W.)

[See larger version]

The British horse were thus for a moment far within the enemy's position. The Russians were almost stunned by the hardihood of the charge. But General Liprandi, who was watching the fight, gathered up a body of Lancers on his own left, and poured them into the space in front of the battery, between our troopers and their line of retreat. Fortunately, Colonel Shewell, of the 8th Hussars, had kept his regiment well in hand throughout. He had come on at a steady, deliberate pace, on the right of the 3rd line, but not so fast as the 4th. He had charged through the battery, and had shown front to the Russians beyond; but, like a good officer, he still kept his men in hand. His skill was rewarded. Across the rear came the Russian Lancer regiment, and some of our men and some officers thought for a moment it was the 17th, and proposed to form upon it. They were soon undeceived. Colonel Shewell did not hesitate. He wheeled about his squadrons just as Major Mayou, who had brought back a knot of the 17th from their charge towards Tchorgoun, joined him; and, leading the way, Shewell carried his men clear through the Russians, and thus removed the worst danger from the path of the little groups and single men, some wounded, some with wounded horses, some without horses, who were struggling back over the corpse-strewn valley, still under that terrible cross-fire.

Lord Lucan had brought up the Heavy Brigade to the crest of the ridge to protect the retreat, and they came under fire and lost men, and his lordship himself was slightly wounded. The Chasseurs d'Afrique had made a most daring and skilful charge on a battery on the Fedoukine heights, and had silenced its fire, with great loss to themselves. This was an admirable feat, deserving all the praise it received. While the Heavy Brigade was under fire, Lord Cardigan rode up and began to complain. At this time the remnants of his brigade were still in the Russian position, or just passing from it; for he had passed Lord Lucan, who was in advance of his brigade, before the returning heroes of the Light Cavalry were within Lord Lucan's sight. So deponeth Lord Lucan and his statement was amply confirmed. From which, taken in connection with Lord Cardigan's sworn statements, we learn that Lord Cardigan rode well into the battery, and fought with the Cossacks, but that he never had the brigade well in hand, and though alive, was not in the midst of his men at the moment when they required a guide and leader to extricate them from the heart of the Russian position.

Far from the guns of the enemy, the remnant of that valorous band re-formed. Lord Cardigan rode up to the front, and said, "Men, this is a great blunder; but it is no fault of mine." And the men cheered and replied, "Never mind, my lord, we are ready to go back again." And this was the charge of the Light Brigade, such a grievous waste of life, yet so sublime, and of such sterling quality, that its fame has rung through all lands, and its influence still permeates all armies. Out of the 670 who rode into the valley, there were left only 195 mounted men. The brigade had lost 12 officers killed and 11 wounded; 147 men killed and 110 wounded or missing; and 325 horses killed in the charge. All this devotion and daring had been shown, all this havoc wrought, within the short period of twenty minutes! Well[64] might Lord Raglan say to Lord Lucan, "Why, you have lost the Light Brigade!" Let us be just. The responsibility, whatever it may be, for ordering that dreadful charge must be divided between three men. The whole blame should not fall on Lord Lucan. General Airey and Captain Nolan must share it with him.

The charge of the Light Brigade virtually terminated the battle. The Guards, indeed, the 4th Division, and a French division did advance farther eastward, and this, with the fire of the British guns, forced the Russians successively out of all the redoubts, and compelled Liprandi to take up a contracted position on the high ground between Kamara and Tchorgoun. Lord Raglan and General Canrobert debated the propriety of a further attack; but decided that it would be undesirable to waste life in the attempt, as, if regained, the heights could not be reoccupied. So the battle ended about one o'clock with a cannonade. At dusk the French troops and the British infantry divisions, save the Highland Brigade, which remained to reinforce the garrison of Balaclava, returned to the plateau. The Russians admit a loss of 550 men in their cavalry alone, but admit also that this was a hasty report. There is no other. The whole British loss in cavalry was 37 officers and 353 men killed, wounded, and missing.

## CHAPTER V.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued.)

> Effects of Balaclava—Attack on Mount Inkermann—Evans defeats the Russians—Menschikoff is Reinforced—His Plan of Attack—The Advance in the Fog—Soimonoff and Pauloff—Pennefather's Mistake—Repulse of Soimonoff—The Guards to the Rescue—Arrival of Lord Raglan—Bosquet's Help refused—The Guns ordered up—The Fight at the Sandbag Battery—The Coldstreams—The Guards' Charge—Defeat of Cathcart—Ammunition falls short—Arrival of the French—Charges of the Zouaves—The Russians slowly retreat—Canrobert hesitates to pursue—Loss of the Allies—Their Plight—The Baltic Fleet—Its real Objects—Capture of Merchant Vessels and Destruction of Stores—Sveaborg and Cronstadt reconnoitred—Bomarsund—Capture of the Fortress—End of the Naval Campaign—Changed Position of the Allies—Determination of the British Nation—Storm of November 14th—Destruction of the Transports—Sufferings of the Troops—Conduct of the War—Unpreparedness of the Army—The Duke of Newcastle—Timidity of the Government—Enlistment of Boys—Autumn Session—The Paper Warfare—Hostile Motions in Parliament—Lord John Russell's Resignation—His factious Conduct—Palmerston forms a Ministry—Resignation of the Peelites.

THE lower range of heights in front of Balaclava, and the seven British guns taken from the Turks, were the only material advantages gained by the enemy on the 25th of October. Moral advantages, beyond those implied in the capture of guns, he gained none. In order to strike a severe blow, Liprandi should have carried Balaclava as well as the Turkish redoubts; and had the British cavalry or the 93rd Regiment shown the least hesitation, the slightest symptom of wavering, it is most probable that the Russians would have instantly overrun the valley, and have swept like a torrent through the gorge into the little port. The charges of the cavalry and the steadfastness of the 93rd balked the Russian general. The Russian horse and Russian infantry fell again under that moral ascendency established at the Alma, and never lost. Therefore the moral advantages of the combat of Balaclava were with the Allies.

Prince Menschikoff, who still commanded the Russian army, seems to have had no clear, decisive views of the course he ought to adopt; for, having alarmed the Allies at Balaclava, he now determined to rouse their suspicions on the side of Inkermann. On the 26th, accordingly, the very day after the capture of the Turkish redoubts, he directed a force of 5,000 or 6,000 men, and abundance of guns, to attack the 2nd Division. These troops quitted the fortress by the Russian left of the Malakoff, and ascended the right bank of the Careening ravine. Their skirmishers were soon heard exchanging shots with the pickets of the 49th and 30th. These, falling back to a good defensible post, kept the Russians at bay for some time; so that the whole of the 2nd Division, under Sir De Lacy Evans, had time to form. But numbers prevailed, and the pickets were driven in; and the Russians soon showed a mass of columns on and about Shell Hill, and presently eighteen or twenty guns were brought to the front on that height. By this time the regiments of the 2nd Division were lying down in line on the crest in front of[65] their camp; and their twelve guns were in action, while the skirmishers were busy on the slope between the two hills. At first the Russians threw some spirit into their advance. Under cover of their artillery on the hill they sent a heavy column down the slope which, by its steadiness and weight, looked as if it intended to sweep all before it. But a great calamity befell these brave men. The fire of our artillery, concentrated on the Russian guns, was so quick, precise, and severe, that the whole of the Russian batteries disappeared over the brow. Then the British artillerymen, with ready energy, turned their eighteen pieces full on the column of infantry which had so manfully come forward towards our line. The effect of the fire was immediate. The Russian infantry, thus deserted by their artillery, and exposed to the shot from our guns and to the bullets of our skirmishers, turned to the left and hurriedly sought the shelter of one of the many deep hollows. While they were thus concealed, the second column was seen to rise above the brow, and on them the guns poured their shot and shell. The officer commanding, observing what had befallen the first column, immediately withdrew his second over the ridge. All this time the Russian skirmishers in the scrub which roughened the hill side kept up the conflict. Presently the column which had fled into the ravine on the left emerged in broken order, and was seen climbing the slopes to rejoin the main body in rear of Shell Hill, and our artillery once more visited them with shot and shell and quickened their pace; while our right skirmishers, under Colonel Herbert, plied them with musketry. The 2nd Division, led by Major Mauleverer and Major Champion, Major Eman, and Major Hume, were now let loose upon the skirmishers in the space between the ridges; and they fell on with so much vigour and effect, and with such eagerness, that General Pennefather had great difficulty in arresting their fiery march. In an hour the action was over, and the enemy in full retreat.

BALACLAVA.

Signs of the presence of the enemy in great strength were now visible almost daily. The two remaining infantry divisions of Dannenberg's corps arrived at Batchiserai on the 28th of October.[66] The 10th Division, under General Soimonoff, entered Sebastopol on the 3rd of November, and on the same day, the 11th, under General Pauloff, took up its quarters among the hills about the ruins of Inkermann. The arrival of these troops had been seen by the Allies, and the generals became convinced that, it might be in a few hours, the enemy would make an attack upon some point or points. Yet not a single change was made in the arrangements, except that the British cavalry—the wreck of two splendid brigades—were marched up to the plateau, and posted in the rear of the French lines upon Mount Sapoune. The Allies, had, for all purposes, little more than 60,000 men. Prince Menschikoff had under his orders, exclusive of the sailors, 70,000 infantry, 9,000 horse, 3,000 artillery, and 282 guns. What use should he make of a force which exceeded that of the Allies by one-fourth?

According to the Russian accounts, Prince Menschikoff had been informed that the Allies intended to open fire once more upon the place from all their batteries, and, after a short and sharp bombardment, storm. His information was correct. In order to anticipate the Allies, he determined to assume the offensive himself, and, if possible, force them to raise the siege. Two Grand-Dukes, sons of the Czar, were on their way to the army, hoping to arrive in time to witness the total defeat of the arrogant Western Powers. It was decided that there should be one real and two false attacks—the real attack from Inkermann, the false attacks from the Tchernaya valley upon Mount Sapoune, and from the Quarantine Bay upon the left of the French siege works. Thus, to begin with, Prince Menschikoff divided his disposable force into three parts, separated from each other by such wide intervals that neither could aid the other. Thus, it will be seen, Prince Menschikoff devised a very wide plan for the destruction of the Allies. He hoped that the attacks from the town and from the Tchernaya would entirely occupy the French; and that General Dannenberg would be able to catch the British alone and unaware, and deliver the fortress by passing over their bodies. Had Prince Gortschakoff attacked the French with energy, this might have happened, for there were, counting everything, only 22,343 British troops effective, and of these 16,308 were infantry, rank and file—that is, in technical language, bayonets. The consequence was that the immense lines they had to guard were thinly manned, and so scarce were labourers that there were none to repair the trenches in the night attack.

In November the sun rises earlier in the Crimea than it does in England. The rays of the dawn shoot up behind the snows of the Caucasus about five o'clock; hence this hour was selected for the movement of the Russian troops on the 5th of the month. But although the upper air was growing brighter, a thick white fog overspread the hills around Sebastopol, and settled down in heavier masses in the valleys. Hidden within its folds the Russian columns stole unobserved out of Sebastopol, and Pauloff began to throw a bridge over the Tchernaya, close to its mouth. As soon as it was completed, the infantry poured over and the guns followed. The fog deadened the sound of the hundreds of wheels emerging from the east and west, and the grey-coated infantry, in silence and obscurity, tramped along. The pickets of the 2nd Division were in the hollow between their camp and Shell Hill and on the old post road, and those of the Light Division were in the Careening ravine and on both its banks. There was not more than usual watchfulness, for the Russian secrets had been kept, and no attack was expected that morning more than any other. General Codrington had ridden out at dawn to visit the outposts, and was riding back to camp when the report of a rifle struck on his ear, and he halted and listened. A sputter of musketry followed, and seemed to come from the Careening ravine; and soon after the same ominous sound, its natural, sharp, angry note being muffled by the fog, was heard on the right. The skirmishers of the two Russian columns had touched the line of British pickets. Codrington galloped off to turn out the Light Division. The battle of Inkermann had begun.

Soimonoff, moving out of the Russian lines, had quitted the plateau on which stood the Malakoff, and instead of resting his left on the Careening ravine, by some mistake, crossed; and thus carried his twenty-nine battalions along the proper right bank of the ravine towards the heights, where Pauloff's troops had begun to assemble. It was his advanced parties who came in contact with the outposts of the Light Division, whom they drove into and over the Careening ravine, and whom they followed. Pauloff had not got all his force up the heights; but as soon as the British pickets were thrust back, he had hastened to put his heavy guns in battery on the highest ground, and his lighter guns on the slopes beneath them, within twelve hundred yards of the camp of the 2nd Division. He at once opened fire to cover an assault of infantry and thus it happened that[67] Evans's British regiments had no sooner formed than they were exposed to an iron shower of shot, shell, and grape. Evans, who had been disabled by an accident, was on board a ship at Balaclava, and Sir John Pennefather commanded the division. Protected by the fire of fifty guns, Soimonoff directed a strong column to cross the Careening ravine; while Pauloff threw forward by the old post road the two rifle regiments of Borodino and Taroutino; so that both flanks of the English position were about to be assailed at once.

The British troops at this moment in the front line were those of the 2nd and Light Divisions. General Pennefather, instead of relying on his artillery, rashly rushed to the support of the pickets, sending Adams's Brigade to the right of the post road with three guns, and keeping his own on the left of the road. Sir George Brown brought up the Light Division. Codrington's gallant soldiers were arrayed on the left bank of the Careening ravine, not far from the 68-pounder battery, and Buller moved up into the space between the left of Pennefather and the right of Codrington. The front was contracted; but narrow as it was, the troops were so few that there were gaps between the four brigades. At the first onset of the enemy, the other brigades were not present. Soon after six an orderly rode into headquarters with the news that the right flank was assailed in force; and, indeed, the sound of cannon, not only at Inkermann, but from the fortress and from the Balaclava front, told the Allies with emphasis that the enemy was upon them. Lord Raglan soon convinced himself that the real attack was at Inkermann, and he determined to ride thither after issuing such orders as seemed expedient. The Guards had not even reached the front when the Russian columns began to surge up against our thin, straggling line.

The British guns had come into action on the crest as fast as they arrived, and were at once exposed to an unequal combat with the heavier guns of the enemy. And now the dense fog was made more dense by the volumes of smoke which, breaking out from the guns in clouds, unfolded itself, and lay almost motionless close to the surface of the miry ground. Through this thick atmosphere the opposing troops made their dubious way, and thus it happened that our men, hastening up to the front, came suddenly upon enemies, who seemed to spring out of the hill side. Soimonoff, on reaching the scene of action, found himself trenching upon the ground apportioned to the columns of Pauloff. The huge masses had converged upon a comparatively narrow front, and the Russians complain that they had not room to range their men for a powerful and simultaneous onset. Soimonoff had taken the wrong road, and instead of effecting a junction with Pauloff at the head of the Careening ravine on the site of the 2nd Division camp, he had joined Pauloff on the east of the ravine, and found that hollow way between him and the troops he had been directed to overwhelm—the Light Division. An ambiguous order had caused this mistake. To retrieve his error, while the Taroutino and Borodino regiments were climbing the hills to attack the Sandbag Battery, Soimonoff plunged into the ravine, and led his men to the charge. Thus he came full on the front of Codrington's Brigade, deployed on the left bank. The heroes of the 7th, 19th, and 23rd were not dismayed by the masses which loomed large and portentous in the fog, but opened upon them such a heavy fire that the Russians heaped together in the deep hollows, and descending the steep sides, never reached the opposite bank, but fell into disorder, recoiled, and receded from view. These early combats rudely disarranged the Russian plans.

In the centre the regiments of the 2nd Division had come upon enemies as soon as they had formed. These were the leading companies of the Borodino battalions, and they were at once set upon by Pennefather's brigade, and pushed back. On the extreme right, half-way down the spur, whose crags drop on one side into the Tchernaya valley, and on the other into the Quarry ravine, Pennefather had posted the 41st and 49th, with three guns, under Captain Hamley. They had no sooner arrived than heavy Russian columns were seen indistinctly moving down the opposite slope. The guns opened on them, but the Russians turned their artillery to that side, and our guns, though steadfastly served, were too weak to contend with the heavy metal opposed to them. The columns went down into the hollow, and soon reappeared, flocking up the British side of the hill. The Taroutino regiment turned upon the Sandbag Battery, and part of the Borodino went with them up the road to break against Pennefather's brigade. The Russians came on without faltering. Our troops were outnumbered and outflanked; our guns were in danger of being taken. The 41st and 49th, quitting the Sandbag Battery, fell back, and the hill seemed in danger of being lost; but at this moment the bearskins of the Guards were becoming visible. The Duke of Cambridge, when he had turned out his brigade, moved it to the right of[68] Pennefather, and went to succour the hardly-pressed 41st and 49th. The Guards came steadily down the slope of the spur, and, passing to the right and left of the guns, cheered and charged, checked the advance of the enemy, and recovered the battery. Hitherto they had only used the bayonet; they now brought their rifles into play, and smote the retreating Russians with deadly precision. The regiment Taroutino was so broken that it retired even into the Inkermann valley to re-form. The brigade was not complete when the Guards charged into the battery; but the Coldstreams came up at once, and the three regiments took ground, the Grenadiers on the right, the Coldstreams in the centre, and the Fusiliers on the left of the recovered work.

It was at this time—about seven o'clock—that Lord Raglan arrived. The fog had cleared somewhat, but the smoke of battle had taken its place. He rode down the spur towards the Sandbag Battery just as the Guards had recovered it; and he sought to penetrate the thick mist, and discern the numbers and intentions of the foe. He could see but little through the rifts in the smoke. He saw enough to make him feel the peril of his position, and that of the whole army. Upon his tenacity hung the fate of every soul on the plateau. Lord Raglan was a calm and steadfast man. If danger rose high, his resolution rose higher; and knowing that his soldiers were like himself, children of a proud and obstinate race, he felt that he could do his duty, and hold fast to that narrow strip of rugged ground, which formed, as it were, the gate into the lines drawn about the southern defences of Sebastopol. He therefore resolved to stand on the defensive, and dispute for the gate with the enemy until he won or his troops were destroyed. The British soldiers actually before the enemy at the end of this first heavy onset of Soimonoff and Pauloff did not number more than 6,000 men. The 4th Division on the march would bring the number up to 8,000, and beyond this he could not array a bayonet, for the 3rd Division had to guard the trenches, and the Highland Brigade was at Balaclava. Lord Raglan knew he could rely on aid from General Bosquet. That officer at the first had offered several battalions to the Duke of Cambridge and Sir George Brown, but these two, though ignorant of the serious character of the attack, took upon themselves to refuse. Had it not been for this proud unwillingness to accept French aid, or this fear of responsibility, Bosquet would have been earlier in the field; for Gortschakoff had so feebly acted on the side of Balaclava that the quick Frenchman soon saw through his weak devices. As soon as he received a request for troops from Lord Raglan he at once put three battalions in motion. But he had two miles to march; the earth was soaked with a night's rain, and part of the way lay through thick scrub. Some time, therefore, was required to force the troops along. Two battalions were directed upon the right rear of the 2nd Division, and the third was ordered to take post near the Canrobert Redoubt at the extremity of the entrenchments on the Sapoune ridge.

During the pause of the fight, while the artillery maintained the combat and the infantry were merely keeping up a brisk skirmish in the bush, Lord Raglan became sensible that his 9-pounders were over-matched by the Russian guns, which, besides being many of them of heavier metal, were nearly twice as numerous. Moreover, as fast as guns were disabled the Russians supplied their places with fresh pieces from their immense train of artillery. Lord Raglan soon remembered that there were in the artillery park two 18-pounders, the same guns which had been used in the Sandbag Battery to crush the Russian guns, mounted among the Inkermann ruins. These he ordered to be brought up. Before they came into action the infantry battle had been renewed. As Codrington's brigade of the Light Division, fighting on the left bank of the Careening ravine, often within it, and sometimes over it, protected effectually the left of Buller, and as the occupation of the spur, on which was the Sandbag Battery, covered the right flank of Pennefather, General Dannenberg saw that he could not force the centre and break through on to the plateau until he had cleared the Sandbag Battery spur. Between eight and nine he had rallied two of Soimonoff's regiments, Tomsk and Kolyvan, and he counted on these, supported by the Boutirsk regiment in reserve, to maintain the fight with the left of Buller and the whole of Codrington. Then he sent forward the infantry of the 11th Division—three regiments, each of four battalions, Yakutsk, Okhotsk, and Selenginsk—with two rifle companies, to act as skirmishers. They were ordered to carry the Sandbag Battery, clear the whole of the slope, and sweep up the post road into the camp. Gallant soldiers, and opposed to the British for the first time, they made their way up to the battery with great spirit and unusual speed. It may be remembered that the Guards occupied the battery, and the ground to the right and left of it, and that Cathcart, with[69] Torrens's brigade, was in support on the right rear.

THE GUARDS RECOVERING THE SANDBAG BATTERY. (See p. 70.)

Now began a contest about the battery which has been truly called sublime. The Russians were nearly 6,000 strong, quite fresh, full of fight, and very resolute. They came on in successive columns of regiments, making loud and rude noises which our men called yells. The first to rush at the battery were the Okhotsk men. As they came up the rifles of the Guards told severely upon them, but did not arrest their course. A fierce combat ensued, first heavy firing, then hand to hand fights, then a fearful pressure of men on both flanks of the battery which it was hard to resist. The heavy guns on Shell Hill took the British defenders almost in reverse, yet they still clung to the ground. The regiment in the battery was the Coldstreams. And now the enemy had swept round the flanks. For a moment the Coldstreams fronted their foes on all sides, and kept them at bay on the open rear of the battery. Then, with a cheer and a rush, they dashed through, scattering their enemies right and left, and, bleeding, broken, but unconquered, made their way up the slope to rejoin the British line. But they had fourteen officers killed or wounded in that bloody Sandbag Battery, and one or two, simply wounded, were murdered by the enraged enemy. They had, however, slain many of the barbarous Okhotsk, and wounded their colonel; and better than this, they had maintained their good name.

The fight at this time seemed going dead against the handful of British. The other two regiments were coming on, Yakutsk up the post road, and Selenginsk in reserve. On their right the rallied battalions of Soimonoff were fighting with the British centre; while the fifty or sixty Russian cannon on the heights never ceased hurling their iron shower into the British lines. Unless the new attack were repelled at once, the Russians would emerge from the ravines, and gaining the more open ground, deploy their masses and sweep over the plateau. To prevent this, the Guards were led once more to regain the Sandbag Battery. The three regiments formed a line of no great[70] length, but they went into the fight with their usual decision. With a steady rush they came down upon their foes. The Russians met them bayonet to bayonet. There was a brief conflict at close quarters. Steel glistened in the air and muskets were brandished as clubs, and men loaded and fired on the flanks, but still the Guards bored their way into and through the mass, and passing over the slain, cheered as they stood once more in the battery—now a charnel-house—and resumed their deadly fire.

During this charge part of the Yakutsk regiment had halted on the post road, and had turned to its left to aid its comrades. The Selenginsk men had moved also to their left and had passed down the slope to outflank the battery on the Inkermann side. The Russians were resolute to win. The fierce charge of the Guards had made them angry, and they desired revenge. While these two bodies were moving upon the little redan, the Okhotsk rallied, so that the Russians renewed the contest for the battery with a larger force than ever. It so chanced that Sir George Cathcart, thinking he could take the enemy in flank, of his own accord carried Torrens's brigade down the slope to the right. Thus the hostile forces were converging on the same point, Selenginsk intent on the same object as Cathcart. But Selenginsk mustered 3,000 men and Cathcart 400, for part of Torrens's brigade was on the flank of Pennefather. And now, while the Guards once more withstood the shock of the Russian infantry in front, the Selenginsk men suddenly discovered the little band that Cathcart had led below them. They at once opened a crushing fire on our men. Instead of flanking the Russians, Sir George found himself in danger of being cut off and destroyed. His men, too, were short of ammunition. To extricate himself from this position, Cathcart ordered the men to charge, but the ground did not admit of that, and the men fell back. Torrens then rallied the 68th, and prepared to try once more a charge up hill. Sir George called out to him, "Nobly done, Torrens; nobly done!" But it availed nothing. Torrens was shot down, and the men halted. Indeed, the movement was hopeless. The fire of the Russians was so close that Sir George Cathcart was shot dead, and Colonel Seymour, who rushed up to him, was shot also. The men were led back through the greatest perils.

Simultaneously with the defeat of Cathcart, the Russians had rolled in heavy masses on the Guards. It was only the fringe of the left of the Selenginsk battalions which had slain and driven the men of the 4th Division. The right of that regiment, the Okhotsk, and the left of the Yakutsk, were pressing upon the Guards in numbers that were irresistible. Our men fell sullenly back. At this crisis the Duke of Cambridge rode along in front of the line of the Guards, and between them and the foe, and urged his soldiers to stand firm and fire. "We have no ammunition," was the unanswerable reply; and without ammunition, but with a firm countenance, and slowly, the Guards gave ground until they reached the line of the 2nd Division. Had the enemy then come resolutely on, he might have won the day, for the spur at length was his. He had now room to deploy. He might ascend the post road, and the slope he had conquered, and burst out upon the plain. We were in great straits, but the soldiers were as stubborn as ever, and the officers as cheerful and daring. But the loss had been terrible. The only cheering feature in the battle at this time, apart from the pluck of the men, was the execution done by the two 18-pounders which had been brought into action and were hammering effectually the Russian guns on Shell Hill. Bosquet, too, was approaching, and General Canrobert was at Lord Raglan's side. Fresh ammunition had been served out to the men; and although they were in disorder, men of different regiments being mixed together, yet fight they did, and in the crisis of the engagement held fast.

The two French battalions, the 6th and 7th Light Infantry, which had been sent forward by Bosquet at the request of Lord Raglan, were now brought over the crest to support the right. It is said that when they came first into the storm of shot and shell which fell upon the ridge they blenched, as if amazed, halted, wavered and gave ground. But the hesitation of the Frenchmen did not last long. Recovering their presence of mind, they went over the ridge and into the battle, and, side by side with our men, and sometimes mixed with them, stood as stoutly and charged as bravely as the best. Behind them came other French battalions. Dannenberg was preparing for a thundering attack along the whole line; but before he could assume the offensive with decision he found himself assailed. The French were about to win back the Sandbag Battery spur, which innumerable foes had torn from the grasp of our exhausted men. The clarion of the Zouaves and the drums of the Light Infantry were heard; 3,000 Frenchmen were about to prolong the line to the right, and contend with the enemy for[71] possession of the ground, now strewn thickly with British and Russian dead.

Three French batteries had come up, and had taken their places in line with ours; but still the worst enemies of the Russian gunners were our two 18-pounders, fired with steadiness and deadly precision. The Russians were forming for an assault in force, when Bourbaki took them in flank by an impetuous charge. The gallant Russians were surprised, and thrust right and left. The British centre, still in front of their camp, had quite enough to do to keep back the foes who were pressing up the road; and, as the Russians had been smitten but not subdued, driven over the brow but not defeated, they turned, extended, and enveloped the flanks of the French in turn, so that those had to give ground. At this time D'Autemarre came up with his brigade, a regiment of Zouaves, one of Algerians, and one of the Line. These fresh troops brought the enemy to a stand, and as Bosquet pushed them into the thick of the combat, they fought their way down the spur beyond the Sandbag Battery. The charge of the Zouaves was a magnificent spectacle; they swept the Russians from the hill. But on their left the enemy held his ground. The French light infantry regiments of Bourbaki, and the little groups of British soldiers, could scarcely keep their place, under the fire of artillery and musketry from Shell Hill and the post road. For a moment the Russians wrested a gun from the 6th French Regiment, and its colours; but Colonel Camas roused his men, and by a desperate charge, in which he fell, Camas recovered both colours and gun. Bosquet was nearly captured; and the resistance of the Russians was so fierce that the French had to fall back a pace, and re-form. The Chasseurs d'Afrique had been brought up, and our light cavalry approached within fire, but both were sent back and held in reserve.

But practically the battle was won. The Russian infantry only resisted in order to cover the retreat of the heavy guns, which could no longer bear up against the 18-pounders. According to the French accounts, the Russian regiments made one more charge, in which they were repelled, but it was only the effort of men determined to prevent a close pursuit. General Dannenberg had still several untouched battalions, and these he formed up to protect the retreat of the brave men who had so nobly borne the brunt of this bloody battle. Two war-steamers at the head of the harbour also began to throw huge shells into the allied position. As the French followed the retreating enemy, he turned repeatedly and fired with both cannon and musketry. The slowness and order of the Russian retreat had, at its commencement, an air of majesty in its movement which drew expressions of admiration from those who witnessed it. But as the fire of their artillery slackened, the Russian masses nearest the Allies fell into confusion and hurried away; followed at a distance by a crowd of skirmishers in similar confusion, Guards and Zouaves, French Linesmen and English Linesmen, all mingled together. The battle was at an end.

The Russians fell back as fast as they could. Part of their infantry and artillery took the road to Sebastopol; the remainder crossed the Tchernaya bridge. Lord Raglan, it is said, was anxious that the enemy should be pursued as soon as the artillery left Shell Hill. He had not a man to spare for this purpose himself, for our troops were worn out with their tough, enduring struggle, and all the more so as officers and men alike had gone into action fasting. But General Canrobert had Monet's brigade of Prince Napoleon's division, which had been sent up from the Siege Corps, and kept up to this time in reserve. Not a man had seen or felt the enemy. But Canrobert hesitated to use them. He is said to have asked that the Guards should go with them, if they went, for his troops had great confidence in "les Black Caps." But to this Lord Raglan, of course, could not consent, for the Guards were a mere handful. At length Canrobert agreed to push forward two battalions of Zouaves and a battery of 12-pounders, and these, with the two Commanders-in-chief, ascended the heights abandoned by the Russians, and arrived in time to see that the enemy had escaped beyond range. The guns opened fire and did some mischief to the stragglers; but the main force had made good its retreat. The Russian Grand Dukes and Prince Menschikoff had the mortification to witness the ruin of those splendid dreams in which they had indulged with such confidence when their great army moved out at dawn. The battle of Inkermann won for Lord Raglan the bâton of a British Field Marshal, which he deserved for his valour, though hardly for his strategy. The losses of the Allies were very great. The British lost 2,816 men of all ranks. Of these three generals and 43 officers were killed, and six generals and 100 officers were wounded; 586 men were killed, and 2,078 were wounded. The French lost 1,800 men killed and wounded at Inkermann and in front of their trenches. Their exact loss at Inkermann is not stated, but is roughly put at[72] 900 men. Among the wounded was Canrobert. The Russian loss was some 12,000. Prince Menschikoff was slightly hurt. The field of battle presented a more than usually horrible spectacle, for the dead and wounded lay within a space about a mile and a half long and half a mile deep, while about the Sandbag Battery the corpses were piled in heaps.

No one alive on that bloody field, except Lord Raglan, had ever seen so sad a spectacle. The Duke of Cambridge was so deeply affected by the loss of the Guards alone that he fell sick, and shortly afterwards went home. Sir De Lacy Evans, ill though he was, had come up from Balaclava in time to see the crisis and the close of the fight; and he is said to have taken the gloomiest views of the prospects of the Allies, and even to have advised the abandonment of the whole enterprise. And, indeed, the Allies were in a dreadful plight. They had won a victory, but at a cost which forbade all further progress with the siege for some time.

But now we must quit the Black Sea and its shores for a space, and narrate the proceedings of the fleet in the Baltic; and then proceed to blend together the winter incidents in the Crimea and the astonishing proceedings of the British Parliament and the British people.

The British nation is naturally and justly proud of its navy; but, considering that they are a maritime people, they are—or were in 1854—singularly ignorant of the true functions of a fleet. When Queen Victoria led the squadron under Sir Charles Napier out of Spithead, on the 11th of March, the popular impression was that the admiral, with eight screw line-of-battle ships, four screw frigates, and three paddle-wheel steamers, would be able, not only to keep the Russian fleet in harbour, but demolish Cronstadt and Sweaborg, and this impression Ministers and admiral did their best to strengthen by vainglorious speeches at a public banquet.

The real fact is, that the Government prescribed to themselves very limited and reasonable but highly useful objects. The Russian fleet in the Gulf of Finland consisted of no less than twenty-seven sail of the line, seventeen lesser men-of-war, frigates, and corvettes, and an unknown number of gunboats—perhaps one hundred and fifty. These ships and boats were well manned, and mounted upwards of 3,000 guns; but their situation was peculiar. They were all in the Gulf of Finland, except a few gunboats; and the Gulf of Finland was frozen. Supposing they could get out of the Gulf of Finland, they would have been able to cruise in the Baltic, menace both Copenhagen and Stockholm (if that were deemed expedient policy), and send their lighter ships, and some of the heavier, through the Great Belt or the Sound into the North Sea, to prey on the commerce of the Allies. It was therefore of the last importance that this Russian fleet should be prevented from leaving the Gulf of Finland. That was the primary object of the occupation of the Baltic to be effected by Sir Charles Napier. If he did this, and could do no more, much would be done.

It would be tedious and profitless to follow the British men-of-war in their wanderings to and fro in these northern seas. As the Russians would not come out and fight, all that could be done, even after the French arrived, was to maintain a blockade of the ports, and inflict such damage on the coasts of the enemy as the means at the disposal of the admirals would permit. Before the French arrived Admiral Plumridge had reconnoitred the Åland Islands, and had swept the Finnish coast of the Gulf of Bothnia, taking within a month forty-six merchant ships, and destroying immense quantities of pitch and tar and naval stores. He had visited the important ports, and, by the aid of his boats, had done this damage between Abo and Brahestad. The stores destroyed were public property, for private property he respected.

In the meantime Sir Charles Napier went up the Gulf of Finland to look at Sweaborg. On the 13th of June Admiral Parseval-Deschenes joined him at Bomarsund, bringing twenty-eight ships, of which six were sailing line-of-battle ships and only one a screw line-of-battle ship. The allied fleet, exclusive of the ships doing duty as blockaders, now amounted to forty-seven sail. The Russian fleet lay in two divisions, one at Cronstadt, the other at Sweaborg; and although Sir Charles gave them plenty of opportunities, neither of them would come out and fight him together or singly. As there was so great a clamour in England for an attack upon the fortresses, it is supposed that the Russians hoped the admirals would attack one or the other, so that while they were suffering from the fire of the forts, the Russian fleets might sail out, fall upon and destroy them. The two admirals, however, were not to be so caught. They went together, in the middle of June, to reconnoitre Cronstadt, and, as was anticipated, found it out of their reach. The water was so shallow and so commanded by forts that a direct attack[73] would have been a criminal folly, while the enemy had blocked up with sunken obstructions the passage on the northern side by which, it was just possible, the lighter ships might have got into the rear of the place. The fact is, that without gunboats and light ships, and, above all, without an army, neither Cronstadt nor Sweaborg could be attacked with success.

THE HOSPITAL AND CEMETERY AT SCUTARI, WITH CONSTANTINOPLE IN THE DISTANCE.

But there was one place within their power. At the southern end of the Gulf of Bothnia, over against Stockholm, and within a few miles of the Swedish coast, lie the Åland Islands. On one of these islands, the Czar, at great cost, had built the fortress of Bomarsund. It was to Stockholm what Sebastopol was to Constantinople—a "standing menace." Built on an island, it lay within reach of the Allies, and they resolved to capture and destroy it. But this could not be done without troops. So the French Government agreed to supply 10,000 men; and they were embarked at Boulogne in British ships, and commanded by General Baraguay d'Hilliers. The plan of the Allies was to land the troops, and, taking the outworks, breach the main fort from the rear. This was practicable, with the force in hand, because our ships commanded the sea and no army could march to succour the place.

The Allies resolved to land on the western shore of the bay and on the northern shore of the island on the 8th of August. Day breaks early in those high latitudes, and at two o'clock some French and British ships opened fire on the woods to cover the landing, while others attacked the battery and shelled Fort Tzee to occupy their attention. In a short time the battery was abandoned, and the Allies were in possession of it. All this time the troops had been pouring ashore, and by eight o'clock 10,000 men were marching through the woods, turning the enemy's works. They encamped about two miles from Fort Tzee, on the north of a glen affording plenty of water, while the fir groves furnished wood. The French battery opened fire on Fort Tzee on the 13th; and while the shot from the heavy guns and the shells from the mortars tore down the walls, the riflemen lying among the rocks threw into the embrasures a fire so searching,[74] that the enemy's gunners found it difficult to load their pieces. In the afternoon the Russians hung out a white flag. It is said they asked an hour to bury their dead, and that the boon being granted, they used the time to replenish their store of ammunition. The fire was renewed, and later another flag of truce was displayed. This time General Baraguay d'Hilliers refused to parley, because of the abuse of the previous suspension of the cannonade. The next morning, the guns of the fort being silent, the French riflemen dashed in and captured the work with fifty prisoners. The British battery had been constructed under a heavy fire. It was finished on the 14th, but not being wanted, its guns were turned upon Fort Nottich on the 15th; and at six in the evening, one side of the tower being demolished, the garrison surrendered. On the morning of the 16th the main fort and the Presto tower alone held out. They had been under the fire of the ships for some days, and now the great fort was entirely commanded from the rear by the shore batteries. General Bodisco, having no hope of succour, was without warrant for a bloody defence. So at noon he hung out a white flag and surrendered. It was resolved to blow up all the works—a resolution carried out very completely by the beginning of September.

With this exploit the showy work of the naval campaign in the Baltic ended. The blockade was maintained until the ice interposed an utterly impassable barrier; Sweaborg was reconnoitred, and very antagonistic schemes were propounded for its capture; some misunderstandings arose between Admiral Napier and the First Lord of the Admiralty, Sir James Graham; but in the end the ice and the fierce tempests came, and arrested the cruising of ships, although they could not stop the squabbling of men. The British fleet was the first to enter and the last to leave the Baltic, and the frigates did not reach home until November.

We have already stated that after the battle of Inkermann the British general found himself compelled, with diminished forces, to maintain a purely defensive attitude in the face of a weakened, but still numerous and vigilant enemy. The character of the expedition had wholly changed. It was intended to be a temporary operation, swift and complete. It became a permanent invasion. Not only the enemy, but the winter had to be fronted. The Czar counted on his generals, January and February, as well as on Todleben and Gortschakoff. He trusted to rain, mud, and snow to weaken the forces, and wear out the hardihood of the British, and exhaust the spirit of the French. Like many others he cradled himself in delusions. For, whatever may have been the effect of suspense on the French soldier, the French Emperor could not afford to fail; and it so happened that the British nation, with astonishing unanimity, had set its heart on the destruction of Sebastopol; and rarely in history can you find an instance of failure to accomplish a settled purpose really formed by the British nation. In this present case they were severely tried; but, though they were truculent, and angry, and irrational because Sebastopol had not been taken in October; though they turned furiously upon the Government at home and the general in the Crimea; yet not for one moment did they relent or shrink from their fixed resolve; rather did they insist, with a vehemence without parallel, on the full achievement of the main object, until the phrase—"vigorous prosecution of the war," heard on every lip, became a tedious but still vital commonplace.

The general and the troops who were working out their resolve in the Crimea were tried more severely than they. With November had come, not only a bloody battle, but a painful change in the climate. The soft, calm, sunny days of October faded away. The Black Sea began to show the appropriateness of the name it bore. Thick mists covered the surface of its dark grey waters; heavy clouds overspread the clear blue sky. Rain fell, sometimes in drenching showers, sometimes in thick, small drops; and the earth absorbing the moisture, began to change into mud. Then, with a fierceness gathered from a triumphant rush over the whole breadth of the Black Sea, there came swooping upon the southern shores of the Crimea a tempest memorable for its potency and destructiveness—the famous storm of the 14th of November.

The wind came from the south. First came heavy squalls and pelting rain; then the wind became more continuous and stronger, and the rain thicker, beating on the earth with a hoarse sound, and forcing its way through the canvas of the tents. It was early morning, and weary sleepers were awakened by the uproar. In a few minutes nearly every tent on the plateau was down. No fires could be lighted, no food cooked. All around was one common desolation; for the hospital tents had shared the fate of the others, and the sick lay exposed to all the violence of the tempest. The wooden structures erected by the French for their sick went down before the gale, and only a few planks remained. Generals, officers, soldiers, sick and[75] wounded, hale and well, were in a like predicament. And when the wind fell a little—that is, became a little less violent—the air became colder, and the rain became sleet and snow, men and horses perished from exposure.

But the horrors of that day were most horrible off Balaclava. There hundreds of lives were lost in a few hours. Outside the port, at anchor in deep water, were twenty-two ships. Among them were the four war-steamers Retribution, Niger, Vulcan, and Vesuvius; four fine steam transports, including the Prince, whose hold was filled with warm clothing for the troops; ten sailing transports, and four freight ships. Caught by the full violence of the storm, some were washed ashore, others, including the Prince, went down.

This terrible tempest was the climax of our misfortunes. The battle of Inkermann had proved that the army must winter on those desolate hills; the effects of the storm made it manifest that the troops would have to face the winter without adequate supplies. No fewer than 2,500 watch coats, 16,000 blankets, 3,700 rugs, 53,000 woollen frocks, 19,000 lamb's-wool drawers, 35,700 socks, 12,880 pairs of boots, 1,800 pairs of shoes, and stores of drugs and other necessaries were lost in the Prince. Fourteen of the wrecked transports were laden with forage and provisions—namely, 359,714 pounds of biscuit, 74,880 pounds of salt meat, 157 head of cattle, 645 sheep, 8,000 gallons of rum, 73,986 pounds of rice, 11,200 pounds of green coffee, 1,116,172 pounds of forage corn, and 800,000 pounds of pressed hay. With the Resolute were engulfed several million rounds of ball cartridge, and the reserve ammunition for the artillery. Even these losses do not measure the extent of the calamity, for many ships were injured so much that the army was for a long time deficient in sea transport, and consequently in the means of repairing the ravages inflicted by the storm on stores of all kinds. Although the harbour of Balaclava was, after the 25th of October, in danger of being seized by the enemy, there seems to have been no good reason why that risk should not have been incurred, and the Prince and the Resolute allowed to anchor inside. Lord Raglan, immediately after the battle of Inkermann, had taken steps to obtain clothing and shelter, and ample supplies of food. But in the interval the troops suffered greatly. For the remainder of November it rained almost without cessation, and the plains became one vast quagmire. So the road to the camps became a track of liquid mud; the valley of Balaclava desolated and melancholy; the town as muddy as the plains, and the tideless harbour a common sewer. For several weeks the men were without proper clothing, fuel, or food, and the result was an outbreak of cholera. In the camp hospitals men lay down to die upon the bare ground; in the hospitals at Scutari, ignorance, dirt, and confusion prevailed, besides a want of ambulance to carry the invalid soldier from camp to port, and of accommodation on board ship.

When the people heard of the sufferings of their soldiers in the Crimea and at Scutari they became indignant and unreasonable: they ascribed the failure of the expedition and the distresses of the troops to the wrong causes, and they demanded the recall of the general and the dismissal of the Government. To understand how this came about, we must consider how the Government conducted the war, and the means at hand wherewith to conduct it.

For nearly forty years the British nation had not taken any part in a war in Europe. The vast expense of the war against the first Napoleon, the suffering it caused, the habits of despotic government which it induced, the obstinate resistance of a great party to needful reforms, had all served to inspire a dread of a standing army. The consequences were most serious. The nation was in danger of having no army at all. At no period subsequently to 1815 was Britain in a condition to go to war. The pith of the army, the infantry, consisted of a number of very fine regiments, kept down at the lowest numerical condition. The cavalry regiments were good, but in numbers they were each barely equal to two good squadrons. There were in England but a very few guns in fighting order. There was a weak commissariat; there was no land transport corps or military train. Such a thing as a camp of exercise was unknown until 1853. There were no opportunities for handling large masses of all arms. The militia even was suffered to fall into abeyance for many years. There were men in England fully alive to the consequences of this neglect of the military machine; but their voices were not heeded until the revolutions of 1848 and the success of Louis Napoleon in 1851 roused the whole nation from its apathy. An improved tone in public feeling, a better estimate of the real value of a good army, and a real dread of danger from without, led to some improvements. The militia force was revived. Lord Hardinge had the courage to insist on the adoption of the Minié rifle, and Mr. Sidney Herbert prevailed on his colleagues to establish a camp. The artillery was placed in a state of great[76] efficiency. But that man would, in 1852-3, have been regarded as mad who proposed a military train, an ambulance corps, and an effective military staff. These necessary parts of an army were not in existence.

The army in 1853 consisted of little more than 102,000 men for the service of the British Empire, exclusive of India. In 1854 Ministers proposed and carried, in February, an augmentation of 10,000, bringing up the total to 112,000. These men they had to obtain by enlistment, for the militia then was young, and little more than a paper force. It was not embodied, nor had the Government power to embody a single regiment; for the militia had been raised to resist invasion only, so jealous were the Commons; and Ministers, before they could call out a man, except for the annual training, were obliged to obtain an Act of Parliament. Moreover, just on the threshold of war, so rotten was the system of promotion and retirement, that they were compelled to appoint a Royal Commission to report on the best mode of enabling the Queen to avail herself of the services of officers in the full vigour of life. Thus Europe was astonished at the spectacle of a great Power remodelling its military system, enlarging it, and strengthening it, on the brink of a conflict with the vast and well-appointed armies of Russia. For it was soon found that the Ministry of War must be separated from that of the Colonies; and when this was done, no minute defining the powers and functions of the new department was framed; so that the Duke of Newcastle, who left the Colonies for the new War department, had to grope his way towards the vital work he had undertaken to do. The duke was a man of some hardihood, and great energy and industry; but he was new to the business, he had not sufficient weight in the Cabinet; one at least of his colleagues envied him the place he filled; and it may be surmised that with all his good intentions, Lord Aberdeen's innate repugnance to war exercised, unconsciously, a paralysing influence over the whole Cabinet. A more vigorous and decided mind at the head of the executive would have begun in 1853 to make those preparations which, made then, would have prevented so much suffering in the winter of 1854. A man of greater weight at the War Office would, even in 1854, have been able to impress his colleagues with a sense of the magnitude of the impending conflict, and have obtained their assent to the most vigorous exertions, made with a distinct perception of all that was required to enable Britain to carry on her share of the war in a manner consistent with the wishes of the people and her character as a great Power.

The Government doubted—at least the Aberdeen section—if the House of Commons would sanction the policy which they had pursued. There was one man in the Cabinet who had what the first Napoleon called "popular fibre" in his constitution, but he was in the Home Office. Lord Palmerston understood the crisis better than any of his colleagues, and would, in 1853, have taken means to back up his diplomacy. Lord Aberdeen was afraid of appearing to threaten, or to do anything which might lay him open to the factious charge of provoking hostilities. So timid were the Government that, as we have said, they allowed 1853 to slip by without obtaining power to embody the militia, except in the improbable event of an invasion; and when Parliament met, they only asked for an addition to the army of 10,000 men, because they thought the House of Commons should sanction their policy before they brought the army, even on paper, up to a reasonable strength. Such was the fruit of an unwholesome dread of war, a lingering belief that peace was still probable, and a misapprehension of the character of the Czar.

Yet, although at the opening of the Session it was manifest that the Ministry had nothing to fear from the Opposition beyond the usual criticism, and that, as a set-off against this, they had the cordial support of the people, it was not until March that they asked for 15,000 more men, and not until May that they demanded an additional 15,000, and obtained the ready assent to the embodiment of the militia, and power to accept the offer of their services for the Mediterranean and colonial garrisons. But this was too late, for it was found that only boys enlisted; and although, in two months, so far as mere drill goes, you can make a good infantry soldier, in two months a boy does not grow into a man. The Duke of Newcastle drew off from the colonies every man he could lay his hands on, and formed a reserve, which, in June, went to the East under Sir George Cathcart. He then formed another reserve, by abstracting more regiments from the colonies, and denuding the Mediterranean fortresses of regular troops. This second reserve went to the Crimea after the battle of Inkermann. Then the supplies of real soldiers were quite exhausted. We had nothing to send but raw youths, unfit to sustain the hardships of a winter campaign. We could only send gristle, instead of bone and sinew. This was the consequence of not augmenting the army in[77] 1853. Correctly speaking, it was a consequence of the neglect to maintain an efficient and numerous army for many years.

THE LATE SIR W. H. RUSSELL, CORRESPONDENT OF THE "TIMES" IN THE CRIMEA.

The violence of national feeling was rising, thanks chiefly to the graphic reports sent home by the correspondent of the Times, Mr. Russell, when Ministers found it necessary to summon Parliament that they might obtain power to raise a Foreign Legion, and power to accept the offers of militia regiments to do garrison duty abroad—two measures due to suggestions of the Prince Consort. The two Houses met on the 12th of December, and sat until the 23rd. The whole policy of the war was discussed as well as the state of the army in the Crimea; but although the Opposition, led by Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli, tried to defeat both measures, they were carried by considerable majorities. The speeches delivered during this short Session served to herald the storm that was about to burst over the Government in January.

The virulence of the paper war at home increased during the recess. Every victim on the muddy and half-frozen plains of the Crimea sent home doleful and indignant accounts of his sufferings. Many of these terrible stories were pure inventions; but everything, without discrimination, was printed and believed. Many were the pieces of foolish advice tendered to the Government. But next to a genuine desire to relieve the suffering of the soldiers, was a desire to punish somebody. The attacks in the newspapers became more fierce when it was known or surmised that there were members of the Cabinet who reeled under this storm of public censure; and it was soon manifest that when Parliament again assembled the Ministers would be driven from power.

[78]

Parliament met on the 23rd of January, 1855, and Lord Ellenborough, Mr. Roebuck, and Lord Lyndhurst at once put hostile notices of motion on the paper. Mr. Roebuck proposed an inquiry, by a committee of the House, into the condition of the army in the Crimea, and the conduct of the departments whose duty it was to minister to the wants of that army. Lord Ellenborough intended to ask for returns showing the number of the force sent out, and the number of killed, wounded, and sick. Lord Lyndhurst's notice of motion embodied a censure on the Government. These were symptoms of the exasperated state of public feeling. More than this, there was a statesman who flinched from sharing with his colleagues the responsibilities of the moment. On the very day, the 25th, set apart for the discussion of Mr. Roebuck's motion, it became known that Lord John Russell had resigned. From that moment the fate of the Ministry was decided. On the 26th Lord John stated why he had abandoned his colleagues. His reasons were twofold:—First, he could not resist Mr. Roebuck's motion for inquiry, because it was notorious that the condition of the army in the Crimea was melancholy—nay, horrible and heart-rending; but he failed to show how inquiry would better its condition. Next, in a tone of complaint, he insinuated that he had long been dissatisfied with the management of the War department, and that his suggested reforms had not been adopted. It appeared that, although he had concurred in the appointment of the Duke of Newcastle, he had, in November, that is, when the tide seemed flowing against the Allies, thought that there should be a strong Minister of War, and that Lord Palmerston should be that Minister. To this Lord Aberdeen demurred. Lord John gave up his point at the suggestion of Lord Palmerston, and dropped the subject. But when Mr. Roebuck made his motion, he saw the danger it involved and ran away. Lord Palmerston very properly said that the course taken by his noble friend was not in correspondence with the usual practice of public men. He ought to have given his colleagues the option of considering whether they would accept his views or lose his services. Lord John had attended in his place on the 23rd; he had walked from the House with a colleague, giving no hint of his intention. At midnight he sent a note tendering his resignation. The Government, he added, would not run away from Mr. Roebuck's motion. "It would be disgraceful not to meet it standing in the position which we now occupy—minus my noble friend." They did meet it, and it was carried by 305 to 148. Lord Aberdeen and his colleagues immediately resigned, and, as it was justly and shrewdly said, the Duke of Newcastle was made the "Byng" of the day. The sole object of the motion was to turn out the Ministry, and that object was accomplished. The public demanded a victim, and, as usual, one was provided. In the meantime those measures which remedied the evils in the Crimea were already in operation, and the committee about to sit became a committee for the gratification of curiosity, and for the raking together of materials to form a bill of indictment against the Duke of Newcastle and the Aberdeen Government. It was absolutely powerless to do a single act for the bettering of the condition of the soldier, or the promoting of the success of our arms.

Lord John Russell's conduct on this occasion was a blot upon a very bright escutcheon. He had all along been jealous of the Duke of Newcastle. He had, and it was a right thing to do, forced on a division of the Ministries of War and the Colonies, but he had done so without providing a definite plan for the conduct of the new department. When the Cabinet determined to separate the two secretaryships, he was annoyed that the Duke of Newcastle selected the post of danger—the War department. He had actually thought of occupying it himself, thus justifying the famous remark of Sydney Smith, that Lord John would not hesitate to take the command of a Channel fleet. When the duke was seated, with the full consent of his colleagues, Lord John pursued him with foolish criticisms, which were immediately disposed of as they deserved. When all seemed to be going well, Lord John wrote to the Duke of Newcastle, "You have done all that could be done, and I am sanguine of success." When calamity began to fall upon the army, Lord John revived the old exploded criticisms, and wished to substitute Lord Palmerston for the duke. But the whole Cabinet dissented. Lord John retained his opinion, and intended to insist upon it; but before Parliament met in December, he told Lord Aberdeen that, having consulted his friends, he had changed his views, and no longer wished to oust the duke from his office. From that time to the meeting of Parliament in January he gave no sign. But public opinion was loud and fierce, and Lord John could not bear its anger; and in the dead of the night, from his domestic hearth, he wrote the hurried and brief announcement of his intention to fly from a sinking ship.

There were some difficulties in forming a new[79] Ministry. The Queen sent for Lord Derby; he accepted her Majesty's commission to frame a Cabinet, and he invited the co-operation of Lord Palmerston, Mr. Gladstone, and Mr. Sidney Herbert—the very Ministers whom his party had just censured! They declined; and as Lord Derby, much to the chagrin of Mr. Disraeli, would not venture without them, he threw up his commission. Lord Lansdowne declined the Premiership. As the contingent led into the Opposition ranks by Lord John formed part of the majority, her Majesty then commanded him to form a Cabinet. But in the circumstances he could get no one to back him, and then her Majesty called in Lord Palmerston. But few days had elapsed since he and others had fallen under a vote of censure. Yet he now was able to construct a new Ministry out of old materials. Lord Aberdeen, Lord John Russell, and the Duke of Newcastle, of course, could not well form part of the new Cabinet. Lord Palmerston succeeded Lord Aberdeen; Lord Panmure replaced the Duke of Newcastle; Earl Granville succeeded Lord John as President of the Council; and Lord Canning obtained a seat in the Cabinet. These were the only material changes. It was understood that the policy of the new Cabinet should be the policy of the old one. So that nothing was gained except the exclusion of two men by a vote of the House, and the self-exclusion of a third. This Government, however, lasted only a few days. Lord Palmerston declared that he was still opposed to the Committee of Inquiry as unconstitutional and inefficient for its purpose. The Government, he said, had already begun the needed reforms—had remodelled the War department, established a transport board at the Admiralty, and were about to send commissioners to the Crimea and reorganise the medical department at home. But Mr. Roebuck insisted on appointing his committee; and as Lord Palmerston was not willing to run counter to the desire of the public, which found expression in Mr. Roebuck's motion, and would no longer resist the appointment of the committee, Mr. Sidney Herbert, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Cardwell, and Sir James Graham resigned. So the committee was appointed, and Lord Palmerston formed a fresh Ministry.

The new members were Sir George Cornewall Lewis, Chancellor of the Exchequer; Lord John Russell, Colonial Secretary; Mr. Vernon Smith, India Board; the Earl of Harrowby, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; while Sir Charles Wood, quitting the India Board, became First Lord of the Admiralty, and Lord Carlisle went to Ireland in the room of Lord St. Germans. The object of the original movers in this business had now been accomplished: the Peelites had been driven out of the Government altogether. So much of the home history of England it seemed needful to introduce here. We must now return to the Crimea, and endeavour to describe what really happened there, and show how far the popular outcry was justified.

[80]

## CHAPTER VI.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

> State of the Army—Food, Clothing, and Shelter—Absence of a Road—Want of Transport—Numbers of the Sick—State of the Hospitals—Miss Nightingale—Mr. Roebuck's Committee—Military Operations—The French Mistake—Improvement of the Situation—Arrival of General Niel—Attack upon the Malakoff Hill approved—The Russian Redoubt constructed—Attacks and Counter-Attacks—Death of Nicholas—Todleben's Counter-Approaches—The 23rd of March—Raglan and Canrobert disagree—The second Bombardment—Egerton's Pit—Night Attack of General de Salles—The Emperor's Interference—Canrobert's Indecision—The Kertch Project—Orders and Counter-Orders—Recall of the Expedition—It is finally abandoned—Arrival of the Sardinian Contingent—The Emperor's Visit to Windsor—The Emperor's Plan of Campaign—It is rejected by Raglan and Omar—Resignation of Canrobert.

THE state of the army in the Crimea after the battle of Inkermann was most painful. The troops had to preserve their own existence, and to defend the ground they occupied in the face of a watchful enemy. Their base of operations, their source of supply, was Balaclava; and the road, or, rather track, from that place to the camp was a mere quagmire. As we have already stated, the numbers of the army were inadequate to the work imposed upon them, and the suffering they endured arose in a great part from that cause, but not entirely. The men were not "starved," as stated at the time. Up to the middle of November no army had ever been better fed. The rations were large and varied, and the troops received them just as regularly as if they had been at home. After November, parts of the extra rations were not always delivered; but not a day passed on which the men did not obtain a good supply of the necessaries of life. But then it was said they were not clothed. Now, although the Government did not anticipate that the army would winter in the Crimea, they did, in the summer, make provision for supplying that army, which must winter somewhere, with winter clothing. The requisitions were made upon proper departments as early as July. The ships freighted therewith sailed from England in October, and of these the Prince only was lost. When the news of that calamity arrived in England, while Lord Raglan had sent to Constantinople for warm clothing, the Duke of Newcastle issued fresh orders at home, and saw that they were executed. There never was a time after the end of November when there was not more warm clothing at Balaclava than the means at the disposal of the army could carry to the front. In the same way there was a deficiency of shelter. The troops, when covered, were covered only by single canvas, except in some rare instances where old campaigners had made themselves imperfect huts out of stones and branches of trees. But from the end of November there was a large quantity of wood at Balaclava. It was the same with fuel. There was always charcoal to be had at Balaclava by those who could fetch it. Moreover, there were enormous magazines of provisions and large herds of cattle at Constantinople. Nor were forage and chopped straw ever deficient; and even the supply of hay, which had to be sent all the way from England, was only interrupted for a short time. So that the supplies of these essentials—food, clothing, shelter, fuel, forage—were duly provided for the army. Private benevolence had come in to supplement public exertion; and Balaclava, in the winter, was choked up with luxuries and essentials.

But there were two things which had not been provided, and these were also essentials. No road had been made; and, in the absence of a road, no transport able to overcome the tremendous difficulties of the transit from Balaclava to the camp had been collected. Here were the sources of the greater part of the suffering and loss endured by the army. What was called the road was a mere track across the open country. While the fine weather lasted, it was hard and sound. When the rain fell continuously, it broke up; that is, became a strip of deep mud, varied by deep holes full of water, impassable to carts and waggons, passable only by men and horses with great labour and fatigue. But why not repair it? The thing was tried and failed. Turks were employed to mend this road, but they could not do it. The truth is that the road required to be made; that is, built upon a good foundation, and kept in order by constant attention. Why was this not done? For a plain and sufficient reason. It is usual for an army to find its own labourers. An army makes its own roads, builds its own bridges, erects its own batteries, constructs its own depôts. The army in the Crimea was too weak to make a road from Balaclava to the front, and no one had sufficient resource to send for labourers from England.

THE LADY WITH THE LAMP: MISS NIGHTINGALE IN THE HOSPITAL AT SCUTARI.

(After the Picture by Henrietta Rae [Mrs. Normand.)]

[82]

In these circumstances the horrors of the winter could only be mitigated by an ample supply of mules and horses. By the breaking up of the road, the land transport at the disposal of Commissary-General Filder was reduced to one-sixth; for whereas a horse and cart could transport six hundred pounds' weight to the front, a horse alone could only carry two hundred pounds'. It follows that the supplies could only be maintained by extra work on the part of the animals, or by an extra number of animals. At a critical moment, when he wanted more horse power, Mr. Filder sent a steamer to fetch animals from his depôt; but, by some cause unexplained, the steamer was detained at Constantinople for three weeks. Then, although there was a large park of ponies and horses on the Bosphorus, they not being forthcoming, the valuable chargers of the cavalry, and even the teams of the artillery and the horses belonging to the officers, were put in requisition. Still all this was not enough. The horses, from hard usage by their drivers and keepers, from overwork and exposure, from neglect to feed them, although forage was at hand, died by scores. The drivers, imported from Turkey, died, deserted, refused to work: they could not stand the exposure and fatigue. The consequence was that, during the most critical period, there was never more transport than was sufficient to feed the troops irregularly and from hand to mouth, and to keep the men and guns supplied with the minimum of ammunition consistent with safety. The burden of responsibility, the amount of work required from the commissariat, was too heavy and too vast for a body so imperfectly organised and so undermanned. The harbour of Balaclava was too small, its shores were too confined, for the service demanded at an emergency. Months of labour were required to make it suitable. But making every allowance—and the exceptional position of the commissariat, with large extra labours imposed upon it, requires in justice large allowance—it is plain that, from some cause never fully explained, the commissariat failed to import and keep in the Crimea a supply of transport adequate to the extraordinary demands of the army. When the perilous position of the army dawned upon them, Ministers thought of an Army Works Corps, employed Messrs. Peto & Co. to make a railway, and instructed Colonel M'Murdo to raise a Land Transport Corps. But then it was too late. So we come round again to the original sources—not of all the suffering, for war and suffering are inseparable—but of the peculiar kind of suffering endured by the army in the Crimea, namely, inadequate and unorganised military establishments; and the responsibility for this rested not upon one Government alone, but upon all Governments from 1830 up to that time, and not upon all Governments only, but also upon the nation.

Had there been a good road from Balaclava to the camp—had there been plenty of transport, plenty of clothing, plenty of shelter, plenty of fuel—the sufferings of the army from hard work and exposure would have been very great; for war is not a condition of existence conducive to health and long life, even in the most favourable circumstances; and when war is carried on through the winter, when the form of that war is a siege, when the army carrying on the siege is itself besieged by the enemy, and restricted to one narrow pass leading to a little bay for all its supplies, for everything to keep it alive except water, the ordinary miseries and hardships of war become intense, terrible, and destructive. So it was in the Crimea. Scantily clothed, irregularly fed, existing, when on duty, in the mud and water of the trenches, sleeping, when they returned to their tents, in wet clothes on a wet floor, improvident of the little means within their reach which would have lessened their sufferings, none but the most iron constitutions could endure this and live. Our brave, obstinate, hardy soldiers were like children in all that lies beyond the range of their regular duties, and many perished because they were ignorant and reckless. But the bulk of the sickness and mortality was caused by overwork and exposure, necessarily consequent upon the discharge of their duty. A few figures will suggest better than pages of writing how much this army suffered. On the 1st of October—that is, just after the arrival of the army before Sebastopol—the number of men and officers in a state fit for duty was 23,000; and the number sick, including the wounded, was 6,713. On the 3rd of November the number fit for duty had fallen to 22,343, the number of sick had increased to 7,116. Then came the battle of Inkermann. On the 14th of November the effective force was 20,780, the number of sick and wounded 8,366. The force of "bayonets"—that is, privates and corporals of infantry, "rank and file," as the technical term is—had fallen to 14,874; and it is on the bayonets that a quartermaster-general relies for his working and fatigue parties. But now reinforcements began to trickle in. Troops to the number of[83] 3,480 men arrived. Yet so severe was the pressure, even in the middle of November, that this augmentation only raised the effective force from 20,780 to 22,825. The next item explains this. The roll of sick had risen from 8,366 to 9,170, an increase of 804 in one week. A week later, on the 30th of November, in spite of the reinforcements, the effective force had fallen to 21,895; the sick had increased to 10,095, although 640 men had landed in the interval. Let us pass over a month—a month in which nearly 5,000 men landed at Balaclava. What do we find? That on the 1st of January, 1855, the effective force stands at only 21,973, or 78 more than it stood on the 30th of November; while the number of sick had increased to 13,915. A fortnight later, and the effective force was 20,444; the sick 16,176; while the force of bayonets was actually fewer by 36 than it was on the 14th of November, before any of the 10,000 reinforcements had arrived. Nor must it be forgotten that all this time the dead were being buried, and the convalescents were returning to duty, and going again into the hospital. These figures are the measure of the unspeakable sufferings of the army in the Crimea, the main and unavoidable causes of which we have described.

But these figures do not convey a full idea of the agonies of that winter campaign, except to those gifted with a lively imagination. It was the treatment of the sick and wounded, both in and out of the Crimea, that occasioned the worst of these agonies. The medical department utterly broke down under the burden thrown upon it. Although more medical men and more medicines and medical comforts were sent out to the East than ever were supplied to a force of similar strength, yet, in consequence of want of foresight, want of faculty, want of administrative skill, the medicines and medical comforts were so badly arranged and distributed, that, especially in the Crimea, they were not at hand when most required. The state of the hospitals at Scutari was the first thing that roused the public indignation. Government, having failed to organise a medical staff corps, had recourse to Miss Nightingale and a number of trained nurses collected by her, and sent them to the East; and the brightest picture in the dark story of the winter of 1854-5 is that of Florence Nightingale bringing order out of chaos, and tending the sick and wounded soldiers of England, in those far-off hospitals on the Asiatic shore of the Bosphorus. That was the work of Government. The public feeling showed itself in another form. Sir Robert Peel proposed to raise £10,000 for supplying the sick with comforts, to be called the Times Fund, and put down £200 towards it; and in a few days the whole amount demanded had reached Printing House Square. Three gentlemen were sent to superintend the expenditure, and it is to Miss Nightingale principally, and to these private persons, that we are bound to attribute the alleviation of the sad state of the sick and wounded at Scutari in the winter of 1854-5. The truth is, that Government had been kept in the dark as to the condition of the hospitals. Knowing that amply sufficient supplies had been sent to the East, they were confounded when they heard that not comforts only, but actual necessaries, were wanting. When we look into the facts, it is manifest that the medical department in the East had not been well organised on a scale sufficiently large, and that it had not been governed by men of energy, foresight, and decision. Hence the horrible condition of the tent-hospitals in the Crimea, and the various hospitals on the Bosphorus. It is impossible to exonerate Government from censure, but it is equally impossible not to see the evil influence of a system adapted to a state of peace suddenly applied to a state of war. By slow degrees all the hospitals were improved, and finally brought up to a state of high efficiency; but in the meantime thousands had died, and hundreds had become permanent invalids; and it is this loss of life which is the heaviest charge that lies at the door of the Aberdeen Administration.

Hence grew the demand for the Select Committee on the Army before Sebastopol. Those who originated it used, throughout the inquiry, the great power it gave them as a means of obtaining grounds, real and colourable, to sustain the preconceived conclusions with which they began their inquisition. It was a most imperfect investigation. "The fulness of the investigation," as the Committee had the candour to confess, "has been restricted by considerations of State policy, so that in the outset of this report, your Committee must admit that they have been compelled to aid an inquiry which they have been unable satisfactorily to complete." Indeed, to have probed the matter to the bottom, the Committee should have called at least General Canrobert and the Emperor of the French from the ranks of our allies, and in no case could any investigation be fair which did not include the evidence of Lord Raglan, General Airey, Mr. Filder, Miss Nightingale, and Lord Stratford de Redcliffe. Yet,[84] without having examined any of these, Mr. Roebuck coolly asked the Committee to endorse the most sweeping and arrogant charges against the principal persons concerned, including those who were absent, and unable to say a word in their own defence. And although the report drawn up by Mr. Roebuck and Mr. Layard was rejected by all the other members of the Committee, by his casting vote Mr. Roebuck was enabled to append a paragraph replete with epigrammatic assertions that were untrue. By the time this Committee had ended an inquiry that they could not, from the very character of the investigation, complete, the army had recovered its health, strength, and efficiency, and the new Minister of War, Lord Panmure, had, in his place, candidly ascribed the change in the army, in great part, to the measures of the very Minister, the Duke of Newcastle, who had been made the victim of the national fury.

It is a relief to turn from party conflicts and the exhibition of national wrath, not in the wisest form, to the military operations of that grievous winter campaign. The first renewed sign of military activity was seen on the 20th of November. In the vicious plan of siege adopted the British played a wholly secondary part. The French theory was, that by assailing and carrying the Flagstaff Bastion at the southern apex of the town, they would obtain possession of a commanding position, which would necessitate an abandonment of the place by the enemy. To this end they worked. But as the batteries on the eastern face of the enemy's lines took their approaches almost in flank, our engineers had to construct batteries intended to draw off and keep down the fire of these Russian works. Thus the British attacks were subordinate and supplementary to the great French attack. The British theory was that the Malakoff was the key of the whole position on the southern side of the great harbour; but the French engineers could not see the justness of this theory, and General Canrobert was not a man of sufficient moral strength to overrule his engineers, even supposing that he had sufficient military insight to comprehend the views of Sir John Burgoyne. Therefore the French persisted in their original error; and a dreary period ensued, during which the Russians made frequent sorties with partial success, while on the side of the Allies the chief success was the capture of the Russian rifle-pits by Lieutenant Tryon on the 20th of November. And so the winter wore away.

January, during which the troops suffered most from disease, was nevertheless the turning-point from gloom to brighter days. For huts and warm clothing had arrived in superabundance, and transport was improved. The shores of Balaclava bay had been rendered passable by roads on both sides, and wharves had been built. The railway was creeping out of the port and ascending the hills towards the front; and as the French had at last sent a brigade to reinforce the right at Inkermann, our men got less labour and more rest. The French had as yet no huts. They were still sheltered only in dog-tents. But they were tolerably fed and clothed, and large reinforcements, including a brigade of the new Imperial Guard, had brought their numbers up to 80,000 men. The resolve of the Allies to take Sebastopol, far from suffering any abatement, had become stronger, and every energy and resource was applied to secure its fulfilment. The Russian Emperor, the cause of this heroic conflict, was not less resolute, and day and night his thoughts were bent upon frustrating at any and every cost the designs of the Allies. The government of Lord Aberdeen had obtained from the King of Sardinia the promise that he would join the alliance, and furnish 15,000 men for service in the Crimea, and there was some reason to suppose that Austria would at length take the field; but whether it was that Austria resented the entry of Sardinia into the Western league, or whether timid counsels prevailed at Vienna, Austria did not change her position from that of a passive to that of an active ally.

The month of February was marked by many important incidents. On both sides there were renewed vigour and activity, in spite of the severity of the weather. For the French Emperor, discontented with General Canrobert, who had failed to realise the expectations formed of him, had sent out the Duke of Montebello to examine the state of the siege, and report thereon. The consequence was that General Niel, one of the first engineers in the French service, received orders to hasten to the Crimea and direct the engineering operations. Niel had not been long in the French camp before he justified the early and oft-repeated counsels of Sir John Burgoyne, and declared that the Malakoff Hill was the key of Sebastopol. It was at once determined to break ground on that side. By every fair consideration, the right of doing so should have been made over to the English. But no. There were two overmastering reasons. The British had fewer numbers by almost one-half, and the French are always greedy of glory. Lord Raglan could not insist—the alliance depended on submission. The French Emperor was bent on[85] reaping the lion's share of the glory. He needed it for himself and his army. Thus, by force of circumstances, the British were left in their old positions, one of which, the left attack, led no whither, the other led to the Redan, which it was impossible to reach; while the French took up their ground on the plateau leading to the Malakoff, and on the heights on the right of the Careening Ravine.

THE "BLOCK" AT BALACLAVA. (See p. 80.)

Having once determined on the right point of attack, the French began to work with their usual industry, and by the middle of the month they had formed their first parallel from the Careening Ravine to the steep cliffs of the Great Harbour, had connected that parallel with the British right, and had constructed a strong redoubt and place of arms, called the Victoria Redoubt, on the upper part of the slope running down to the Malakoff. The Russians, seeing these works in progress, began to pull down the ruined tower on the Malakoff Hill, and to construct around its site that enormous redoubt which so long defied its assailants. On its right and left they were equally busy, and soon they took the daring and wise resolution of constructing counter-approaches in this quarter.

In the middle of the month, while these works of preparation were in progress, Omar Pasha won fresh laurels by repelling a vigorous attack on Eupatoria. The Allies lost 107 killed and 294 wounded. The Russian loss was estimated at 500 men. This success served to raise the reputation of the Turks and dispirit and vex the enemy, who could not feel altogether at ease with 20,000 good soldiers within two or three marches of his great north road. The day after this combat, and while the news of it was ringing through the allied camp, Lord Raglan and General Canrobert agreed upon a plan for surprising the Russians on the Tchernaya at Tchorgoun; for Prince Gortschakoff had again sent only small bodies over the river, and it was believed that the whole force on both sides of the stream might be captured. It was therefore arranged that on the 20th, while yet dark, General Bosquet should lead 12,000 men from the French camp, to co-operate with 3,000 from the British force at Balaclava, under Sir Colin[86] Campbell, in this enterprise. But Bosquet did not move, and the affair miscarried. Nothing of importance took place during the remainder of February.

On the 2nd of March an event occurred which sanguine men thought would bring the war to a speedy end; and they thought this the more because negotiations for peace were at that moment pending in Vienna. The event was the rather sudden death of Nicholas, Czar of all the Russias. He died in the middle of the day, and five hours afterwards the news had been flashed along the electric wire to every European capital. His heir, Alexander II., who immediately ascended the throne, was described as mild and pacific by nature; nevertheless, he did not fail to tell his awe-stricken subjects that he would incessantly pursue the aims of Peter, of Catherine, of Alexander I., and of his father; aims incompatible with the peace of Europe, and the independence and integrity of Germany, Sweden, and Denmark, as well as Turkey. The news reached the allied camp on the 6th, and perhaps the "sensation" in this quarter was greater than in the capitals of Europe, for here were men engaged in frustrating one of the grandest of the comprehensive aims of Catherine and Nicholas. But really, it was not the Czar only with whom Europe was contending; it was the ambition of the Russian nobles and the traditional policy of the house of Romanoff. There was a kind of poetical justice in this sudden death of the man whose arrogance had brought calamity on his subjects.

The month of March was spent by the Allies in making preparations for a second bombardment, and by the enemy in prodigious efforts to meet and frustrate it. Far from reviving operations against the new Russian works on the Careening Ridge called by the Allies the White Works, the French allowed the enemy to strengthen and complete them. General Todleben had devised a system of counter-approaches. As the operations against Sebastopol were mainly of the nature of an attack by one army on another posted in a strongly entrenched position, the Russian engineer saw the great assistance he would derive from solid outposts, as by that method he would not only anticipate the Allies in the occupation of commanding points, but would seriously injure and annoy them. Knowing also the importance of the Mamelon, which was higher than the Malakoff Hill, the Russian general caused the Mamelon to be occupied in greater strength, and began to dig and delve upon its crest. First making rifle-pits and then connecting and enlarging these, he soon raised the nucleus of a very formidable work right in the path of the French advance on the Malakoff. Had the army been under one commander, this hill would have been seized in October. Now the French could not even sap up to it, much less assault it, because the enemy had been allowed to become so strong on our right of the Malakoff Ridge. The British immediately framed a battery with guns bearing on the Mamelon; but although they obstructed the working parties by day, at first, their fire at night was little heeded, and this outpost, set up in the face of the Allies with great hardihood, grew into a stronghold.

Having plenty of men—for they, too, had been reinforced—the Russians supported their system of counter-approaches by energetic sorties. In the month of March these fell principally upon the French. In addition to the redoubt on the Mamelon, the enemy had formed his rifle-pits in advance, like skirmishers in front of a column. The riflemen within them were very troublesome; and two or three nights in succession the French assaulted these pits. Two or three companies of Zouaves would leap out of the trenches, dash into the pits, and drive off the defenders. Then the supports would hurry up on the Russian side, and the Zouaves would have to fly before they could make good their hold. From the French trenches more men would issue. The rattle of musketry would raise the camp; horses would be saddled at headquarters, and aides would stumble hither and thither in the gloom. Suddenly the firing would die away and cease. The French had been frustrated. Determined to succeed, they began to sap towards the rifle-pits and took the outworks on the 21st. This led to something like a general action on the night of the 23rd of March.

It was about eleven o'clock when the Russians, issuing from both flanks of the Mamelon, dashed into the lodgments held by the French. They came on in such numbers and with so much resolution that the French were forced out of the pits and chased into the parallel. The Russians followed, leaping over the parapet and forming up within the trench, and continuing the fight. At the same time the batteries of the place opened a hot fire upon our lines, by way of diversion, and the right of Chruleff's heavy column of counter-assault burst in on the extreme right of our line. Then the French supports, coming down with suddenness and decision, drove the enemy over the parapet. Surprised, but not discouraged, the Russians charged again, and deadly hand to hand[87] combats followed along the whole front. This fierce combat, lighted up by the incessant flashes of opposing musketry, and rendered bloody by the free use of the bayonet, was maintained for nearly two hours. The French not only kept the Russians at bay, but perceiving signs of yielding, they assumed the offensive and, charging, forced their foes to retire into the Mamelon. Towards the close of this fight the second and third Russian columns fell suddenly, one on the left of the right, the other on the left of the left attack. In both cases they forced their way into the British trenches. After a rough contest the enemy was driven out of our lines. This was the most severe action that had yet been fought in the trenches. The Russians lost 1,500 men killed and wounded, according to their own returns. The Allies lost 727, of whom 85 were British, so that the French must have borne the brunt of the fighting.

"ALL THAT WAS LEFT OF THEM,
LEFT OF SIX HUNDRED."

FROM THE PAINTING BY R. CATON WOODVILLE.

By permission of Messrs. Henry Graves & Co., Ltd., Pall Mall, S.W.

[See larger version]

After the fierce combat on the 23rd of March the Allies busied themselves with preparations for a second bombardment of Sebastopol. Enormous masses of shot and shell and powder were brought up from Balaclava and Kamiesch, and deposited in the magazines. The forwardness of the railway had greatly diminished the labours of the British, and the French were so numerous that they found no difficulty in getting fatigue parties to carry on the works of approach, and to supply their guns with ample store of munitions. It was about this time that Lord Raglan and General Canrobert began to disagree on essential points. The French commander, naturally afraid of responsibility, was also much embarrassed by the perpetual interference of the Emperor Napoleon in the conduct of the war. That potentate, newly seated on the throne, was ambitious of commanding an army in the field. He had formed the plan of proceeding himself to the Crimea. The news thereof was bruited abroad throughout Europe, and of course it was known in the camp of the Allies, where, creating a state of expectation, it did not tend to impart vigour to the proceedings at the French headquarters. General Canrobert leaned to his master's views, and was afraid of doing anything which might be disapproved of at Paris. The Emperor wanted to operate in the field, and the French general, apparently desirous of keeping the army in a high state of numerical efficiency, was indisposed to thorough measures before the place. So from day to day the opening of the bombardment was deferred; sometimes at the instance of the French, sometimes at the instance of the English general. The first would be desirous of reinforcing the army by bringing up 14,000 Turks from Eupatoria, and the second, having acquiesced in the necessary delay, would begin fresh batteries, and then require further time to complete them. At length, on the 8th, Omar Pasha and his troops landed at Kamiesch, and Lord Raglan, although two of his newest and most advanced batteries were not complete, willingly gave his consent to the opening of the second bombardment on Easter Monday, the 9th of April, exactly six months from the date of the first bombardment.

During the morning of the 9th, while it was yet dark, the batteries and trenches were manned. There were in the magazines 500 rounds per gun, and 300 per mortar. The orders were to fire as soon as the enemy's works became visible. At half-past five the officers in command decided that the moment had come, and five minutes later the report of a solitary gun gave the signal so eagerly desired. In a moment the whole of our guns were in action; and in another the French began to fire; so that by a quarter to six on that dreary morning, the missiles of five hundred guns, showing a line of fire from the head of the Quarantine Bay to Inkermann, were pouring into the defences and the town of Sebastopol. No second elapsed without a shot or shell. Day after day, night after night, for a whole week, the bombardment went on with a dreadful monotony; and although our fire inflicted evidently serious damage upon the enemy, he managed to repair his works and mount fresh guns at night. The Russian writers admit a loss of fourteen guns disabled every day; yet this was comparatively of little moment to him, as he had such a boundless store of artillery. Besides the guns in the arsenal, there were all the guns of the fleet, and these resources were used unsparingly. On our side the resources of the Allies in guns and ammunition were limited. The object of the bombardment was definite. It was to reduce the fire so far as to permit of an assault. Very early in the week this effect had been produced to the utmost extent possible. Still the assault was delayed. The British alone had fired 47,000 projectiles into the enemy's works, and the French must have fired three times that number. Yet the enemy, though shattered and weakened, was unsubdued, and it was plain that this duel of opposing ordnance might go on till doomsday without a decisive result. Lord Raglan, from the first, had always proposed a heavy bombardment to be followed by a prompt and unflinching assault. To this the French general could not be got to agree.

In the meantime the British had pushed on[88] towards the Redan. There were three large rifle-pits on the left of the third parallel of the right attack, whence the enemy annoyed our working parties and our gunners. Colonel Egerton, with a party of the 77th, was directed to carry these pits, and on the night of the 19th he moved his men out of the parallel, followed by some companies of the 33rd in support. Egerton was a very fine soldier; and although his movement was detected by the enemy, he did not give his own men time to reply to their fire, but led them on with the bayonet. The Russians, surprised, turned and hurried away; and our working parties at once began to turn the faces of the pits towards the Redan, and to connect them by the sap with the third parallel. This labour was carried on under a smart fire of shot and musketry, but it was quite successful. Colonel Egerton unhappily was killed. We retained one pit, and the next night destroyed the other two, carrying a demi-parallel in rear of them through Egerton's pit. Equally brilliant was the storming on May 1st of the pits in front of the central bastion by a French force under General de Salles. Both sides lost many hundred officers and men; but the gain of ground on the part of the French was the more important to them because it put a limit to the daring system of counter-approaches on that side. The Russians showed great jealousy of the progress of the British attacks, and on the 9th and 11th of May they made two sorties upon our parallels. The first was directed against the right attack, the second against the left. On both occasions they were met stoutly by the British troops on guard, and after a good deal of firing, driven away. In the second sortie, however, they got into one battery, and had to be expelled by the bayonet. These sorties presented splendid pyrotechnic spectacles, as they usually finished with a boisterous cannonade. They cost both sides many men, but did not stay the advance of the assailants.

We have now cleared the way for the narration of a series of very remarkable facts which occurred between the last week in April and the middle of May, and ended in a change of the chief command of the French army.

The French Emperor desired to take the most conspicuous place in the allied camp. He desired to command the allied army, and to try his skill in strategy. Early in the year he sent part of his Guard to the Crimea, and later, giving out that he intended to join the army, he directed the whole of the Guard, except the depôts, to proceed to Maslak, near Constantinople, and hold themselves ready for active service. The dominant idea in the mind of the Emperor at this time was sound enough in principle. He thought that Sebastopol could best be taken after an army operating in the field had driven the Russians beyond the Putrid Sea, and enabled the Allies to invest the place on all sides. There can now be no doubt he designed to lead that army in person. General Canrobert was allowed to have some, perhaps not very complete, glimpse of this plan. He was warned not to neglect a favourable moment, but not to risk anything. The knowledge that the Emperor was planning and scheming in Paris how he could compass the command of the Allies, weighed upon the mind of Canrobert, and greatly increased his natural shrinking from responsibility. Lord Raglan was decidedly for a general assault of Sebastopol. For a moment, on the 24th of April, Canrobert gave way before his arguments, and General Pélissier, nothing loth, received orders to prepare a force sufficient to storm the principal works, and the British plan of attack was decided on in detail. But no sooner had this been settled in council, than Canrobert recurred to his secret instructions; his doubts began as soon as he left the presence of Lord Raglan. Moreover he got fresh news from Paris that the Emperor would certainly arrive in the Crimea early in May. On the 25th, therefore, he sent two generals to Lord Raglan, to tell him that he no longer agreed with the plan of an assault, and, in consequence, all the orders given were withdrawn, and the siege relapsed into its ordinary posture.

While General Canrobert was in this dubious and painful frame of mind, Lord Raglan proposed a subsidiary project. He asked his colleague to join in an expedition having for its object the capture of the town and straits of Kertch, with the ulterior aim of naval operations in the Sea of Azoff. This project had the hearty support of Admiral Bruat and Admiral Lyons. General Canrobert unable to resist the force of the arguments addressed to him, yielded his assent, then recalled it, then, on the 1st of May, once more fell in with Lord Raglan's views. It was arranged that General d'Autemarre should take 8,000 French, and that the British should furnish 3,000, including a troop of horse, with one British and two French batteries; the whole under Sir George Brown, who was nominated for the command by Canrobert himself. These troops were collected, marched to Kamiesch, and embarked on the 3rd. They sailed away with great ostentation, going north, to bewilder the enemy; and, at night, or when out of sight of land,[89] they went about and steered for Kertch. But, in the evening, just as our headquarters were congratulating themselves on the fact that the expedition was well on its way, General Canrobert appeared, and said he must recall the French troops at once. Why? Because he had received a peremptory order from the Emperor's Cabinet, direct by electric telegraph, to concentrate his troops. Lord Raglan said that the Emperor, when he gave that order, was not aware that the expedition had sailed, and for a moment the French general consented reluctantly to take the view it implied. But two hours later, that is, about midnight, he sent Colonel Trochu, the chief of his staff, to say that, on considering the dispatch once more he must recall and had recalled the French part of the expedition by a special steamer. Lord Raglan was vexed at this vacillation, but he could show no resentment. The expedition, if it returned, would reveal its object. The enemy might prepare to parry a similar blow. Feeling this, in his despatches to Admiral Lyons and Sir George Brown, he informed them of the falling off of their allies; but he told them they might go on alone, if they deemed it expedient, and he would shoulder the responsibility. The French steamer caught up the fleet just as it sighted Kertch, and General d'Autemarre, with some chagrin, found he must desert his comrades. Then the British steamer came up, and Lyons and Brown, considering Lord Raglan's hardy offer, thought it inexpedient to go on alone. So, to the amazement of both armies, and the profound astonishment of the Russians, the expedition returned, after revealing its object.

THE ZOUAVES ASSAULTING THE RIFLE-PITS. (See p. 86.)

The French Emperor, finding he had unwittingly spoiled a fine design, sent another telegraphic message, ordering Canrobert to resume the expedition, if Lord Raglan assented. Lord Raglan, thinking the enemy, apprised of the intended attack, might have strengthened the place, said it would now be prudent to employ a larger force. To this Canrobert demurred. The fact was, he had lost a good many men in the trenches, and he was employing a whole division in perfecting the lines at Kamiesch, that essential prelude, according[90] to Imperial views, of the Imperial plan of campaign. Omar Pasha was willing to spare 14,000 of his best troops for the Kertch expedition, but Lord Raglan did not deem it expedient to accept this offer. About this time the Sardinian contingent, under General la Marmora, landed in the Crimea. The far-sighted policy of Count Cavour had led him to join the Western League. Austria, who had not fulfilled her qualified pledge to engage in active war, was now less inclined than ever to do so. By sending her contingent to the Crimea, under the flag of Italian unity, Sardinia took rank among the effective Powers of Europe, and won that place in the general councils of Europe which Cavour knew so well how to use for the profit of his country. The Sardinian troops were under the orders of Lord Raglan. The British force now numbered 32,600 men, effective; the arrival of the Sardinian troops raised it to 47,600 men, not counting the sick.

The troubles of General Canrobert now reached a climax. His Emperor found that he could not go to command the allied army in the Crimea. The "voice" of the French people, the "prayers" of the French people, and we suspect something more potent than either, showed the Emperor that he must abandon this dream of ambition. But he was eminently gratified by the realisation of another. Louis Napoleon, Emperor of the French, and Eugénie, his Empress, became the guests of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert at Windsor Castle—recognition of royalty more precious than the glory of commanding a huge army in the Crimea.

When it was decided that his Imperial Majesty must refrain from his projected adventure in the East, he sent an aide-de-camp with a grand plan of campaign; and poor General Canrobert, already harassed by Imperial interference, had to submit this scheme of operations to Lord Raglan, and press it upon his acceptance. This he did about the 12th of May. The Emperor's proposal was to divide the armies into three. One he proposed should consist of 60,000 men, half French and half Turks. This, under Pélissier, was to hold Kamiesch and the trenches, not with the object of continuing the siege, but of blockading the south side. The French were to guard their own batteries; the Turks were to hold ours. The second army, 55,000 strong, composed of the British, with the Sardinians and certain French and Turks, the whole under Lord Raglan, was to hold the Tchernaya in front of Balaclava. Behind these, 40,000 Frenchmen were to gather ready to pour into the valley of Baidar, while 25,000 from Maslak landed at Alouchta, forced the pass of Ayen, and being joined by the 40,000 men from the valley of Baidar, moved in a compact body upon Simpheropol. Then, if the Russians advanced towards Batchiserai, Lord Raglan was to storm the heights of Mackenzie, and seize the "position" of Inkermann; but if the Russians awaited an attack on the north side, then Lord Raglan was to file through the Baidar valley, and joining Canrobert at Albat, the combined force was to advance and throw the Russians into Sebastopol or into the sea. If the pass of Ayen could not be forced, the 25,000 men sent to Alouchta were to return to Balaclava, and in that case the whole disposable force of 65,000 men was to enter the Baidar valley, and break through the mountain chain by Albat. Such was the pretty paper plan sent by the Emperor. The alternative plan was an advance from Eupatoria upon Simpheropol; but this he only discussed to destroy by numberless objections. Napoleon early in his reign acquired the habit of meddling in matters of which he was ignorant.

When General Canrobert unfolded his scheme before Lord Raglan and Omar Pasha, both the English and the Turkish chief deemed it impracticable. The immense extent of the works before Sebastopol rendered it impossible of execution in their eyes; for they rightly judged that 60,000 men, one-half Turkish, could not hold the trenches, now crowded with artillery. Lord Raglan would not entrust British guns to the guardianship of the Turks. He preferred to go on with the siege; but if he adopted any plan of field operations, he would have chosen an advance from Eupatoria or the mouth of the Alma, and, failing that, an attempt to turn the heights of Mackenzie by Baidar and Albat. The council of war broke up without coming to any decision. On the 16th, unable to face the difficulties that beset him, General Canrobert resigned; the Emperor accepted his resignation, and General Pélissier was appointed to the command of the army of the East. By carrying out the will of the Emperor, Canrobert felt, as he said, that he had got into a false position, and he withdrew, much to his credit. But, more to his credit, he begged that he might remain with the army and that he might be reinstated in the command of his old division. This request was granted. From the 19th of May to the end of the siege, Pélissier commanded the French army in the Crimea and Canrobert resumed his position of general of division.

By permission of F. Vincent Brooks, Esq. Reproduced by André & Sleigh, Ld., Bushey, Herts.

QUEEN VICTORIA REVIEWING CRIMEAN VETERANS (1854).

FROM THE PAINTING BY SIR JOHN GILBERT, R.A., P.R.W.S.

[See larger version]

[91]

## CHAPTER VII.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

> The Course of Diplomacy—Austria's Position—She becomes a Peace-maker—The Treaty of the 2nd of December—The Four Points—The Czar agrees to negotiate—Russell's Mission to Vienna—Opening of the Conference—Prince Gortschakoff's Declaration—The Third Point broached—Its Rejection by Russia—Count Buol's Compromise—A Diplomatic Farce—Count Buol's final Proposition—Resignation of Drouyn de Lhuys—The War debated in Parliament—Lord John Russell resigns—Strength of the Government—The Sardinian and Turkish Loans—Vote of Censure on the Aberdeen Cabinet—Finance of the War—General Pélissier—The Fight for the Cemetery—Success of the French—Occupation of the Tchernaya—Expedition to Kertch—Description of the Peninsula—Sir George Brown's Force—The Russians blow up their Magazines—Occupation of Kertch and Yenikale—Lyons in the Sea of Azotf—Result of the Expedition—Attack upon Sebastopol decided—Ordnance of the Allies—The Attack—The French occupy the Mamelon—The British in the Quarries—Lord Raglan overruled—New Batteries—Pélissier's Change of Plan—The Fourth Bombardment—Preparations for the Assault—Mayran's Mistake—Brunet and D'Autemarre—The Attack on the Redan fails—Abandonment of the Assault—General Eyre—Losses on both Sides—Death of Lord Raglan.

WHILE the armies in the Crimea had been occupied in holding their ground, and recovering from the effects of the winter campaign, the political action of the allied Governments had been directed into a channel of negotiations opened by Austria and conducted at Vienna.

Austria had not approved of the expedition to the Crimea. She had, to a certain extent, joined the Western Powers; and although Russia might not deem it expedient to turn upon Austria and make war upon her, still that was possible; for Austria had given a cause of war to Russia by exerting that pressure—severe, though distant and indirect—which impelled the Czar to raise the siege of Silistria, and then abandon the Principalities. Then the troops of Austria, by slow degrees, occupied the country as far as the Pruth, and thus enabled the Western Powers to divert their armies upon Sebastopol. But when they took that direction, and left Austria alone face to face with Russia, supported only by a few Turks, and having a very doubtful ally in Prussia, Austria was discontented. She had, however, gone too far to recede. She was committed to the course of armed neutrality, verging always upon open war. Becoming aware of her situation, and having, just before the war broke out, reduced her army by 90,000 men, she now spent £16,000,000 sterling in order to place her public force on an effective war footing. For a moment, in the victory of the Alma and the first bombardment of Sebastopol, she saw prospects of a speedy termination of the war. The dark cloud of Inkermann and the failure of the bombardment suddenly hid those prospects from her view. The Allies had not been beaten, but they had been frustrated; and Austria saw in the new circumstances an opening for a new effort to bring about peace. Her special object had been gained when the Russian monopoly of the Lower Danube had been removed, and she did not appear to appreciate the larger objects of the Allies, namely, a definite reduction of Russian power in the Black Sea; or she did not feel capable of aiding in their accomplishment by a direct participation in hostilities. She therefore renewed her part of peacemaker.

In order to place herself in a better position as regards the Western Powers, she agreed to sign a treaty known as the Treaty of the 2nd of December, 1854. This document stated that the Three Powers, being desirous of bringing the war to an end as speedily as possible, and of re-establishing peace on a solid basis, and being convinced that nothing would be more conducive to this result than the complete union of their efforts, they had resolved to conclude this treaty. By it they undertook not to make peace without first deliberating in common. Austria engaged to defend the frontier of the Principalities against any return of the Russian forces; in case war ensued between Austria and Russia, the Three Powers mutually promised to each other their offensive and defensive alliance; and in case peace should not be re-established before the 1st of January, 1855, the Three Powers agreed "to deliberate, without delay, upon effectual means for obtaining the object of their alliance." Here, then, it seemed, were fetters binding Austria to the fortunes of the alliance; and the Western Powers believed that at last they had a fair prospect of aid from Austrian arms, especially when she concluded a defensive alliance with Prussia. The object of Austria, however, was not war, but negotiation. By giving what seemed a proof of her willingness to share the fortunes of the Allies, she took up a position which enhanced[92] the value of any peace proposals she might devise. Accordingly, she set to work, contriving how, upon the bases of the negotiations carried on in the summer, which took the shape of the Four Points, she could present a scheme which Russia would be willing to consider. These four points were a further definition of the Protocol signed by the Powers at the beginning of the war, by which the purpose of the contest was set forth. If she succeeded, she would relieve herself from the obligation of fighting imposed by the treaty; if she failed, some excuse might be evolved in the process of failure. Thereupon negotiations were quietly resumed at Vienna between Count Buol and the Ministers of the Allies. Prussia, having declined to accede to the treaty of December 2nd, had no part in these proceedings. By the 28th of December the Ministers had agreed to a paper defining the sense of the Four Points. Those points were first, the cessation of the Russian protectorate in the Principalities, and the substitution therefor of a European protectorate; second, the free navigation of the Danube; third, an arrangement having "for its object to connect the existence of the Ottoman Empire more completely with the European equilibrium, and to put an end to the preponderance of Russia in the Black Sea;" fourth, renunciation by Russia of her pretentions to exercise a protectorate over the Christian subjects of the Sultan. These bases of negotiation were presented to Prince Gortschakoff, Russian Minister at Vienna, and by him transmitted to the Cabinet of St. Petersburg. The Emperor of Russia was not at all disinclined to treat. He had nothing to lose by negotiations, and, as it was possible something might occur at a conference to disturb the harmony of the Allies, he might have something to gain. Then it may well be that he counted on the presence of a Prussian envoy, and consequently of a backer; and therefore in December he gave his Minister at Vienna conditional, and on the 7th of January definite, power to negotiate. But the British Ministry falling under the shock of a popular tempest, it became impossible to send any plenipotentiary to Vienna until the Government of England was once more in such a position, as regarded Parliament, that it could act with authority. Lord Palmerston adopted the resolution of sending Lord John Russell to attend a conference at Vienna. While at Paris Lord John received and accepted an offer of the post of Colonial Secretary. He had been sent off so hurriedly that his written instructions were not prepared until two days after he had sailed. Passing through Paris and Berlin, and conferring in each capital with the highest personages of the State, he did not reach Vienna until the 4th of March, and even then ten more days passed before the Conference held its first sitting.

This took place on the 15th of March, in the Austrian Foreign Office. The Plenipotentiaries were, for Austria, Count Buol-Schauenstein and Baron Prokesch-Osten; for France, Baron de Bourqueney; for England, Lord John Russell and the Earl of Westmorland; for Turkey, Aarifi Effendi; and for Russia, Prince Gortschakoff and M. de Titoff. Count Buol, as a matter of course, became the President of the Conference. At the very outset there was a faint foreshadowing of the discussion which subsequently occurred. The Czar Nicholas had just died, but his successor had declared with emphasis that he should pursue the policy of Peter, Catherine, Alexander, and Nicholas. When, therefore, the mild tones of conciliation in which Count Buol opened the Conference had died away, and Baron de Bourqueney and Lord John Russell had, on behalf of their Governments, reserved the right of making special conditions over and above the four guarantees, Prince Gortschakoff seemed to regard this as a challenge. At all events, he took it up as such, and answered promptly. He hoped, he said, they all had a common object, the object of arriving at an honourable peace. "If," he added, "from whatever quarter they come, conditions of peace were wished to be imposed on Russia which should not be compatible with her honour, Russia would never consent to them, however serious might be the consequences." He did not contest the right of the belligerent Powers to add new demands according to the chances of the war; but, for his part, he considered himself under the obligation to keep within the limits of the Four Points. Having thus broken ground, the Conference went at once into the details of the First Point, and determined to debate them in the order laid down. We need not enter into these details. It is sufficient to state that in five sittings the plenipotentiaries had agreed upon a form of words, fully embodying the spirit of the original basis of the first two Points. It was on the third, the key-stone of the whole, that they split asunder.

It was on the 26th of March that Count Buol broached the question. It may be remembered that the object in view was to connect Turkey with the European system, and, in the words used by Lord Clarendon's instructions to Lord John, to[93] abrogate the supremacy of Russia in the Black Sea. For this, indeed, three fleets and three armies were thundering against the stronghold of the Czar. It was this supremacy and the temptation it held out to Russia which had led her Sovereign into arrogant courses, and had brought on the war. In opening the debate on this now famous Third Point, Count Buol, speaking not only for himself but his allies, suggested that it would be the better course for the Ministers of Russia and Turkey to state to the Conference what means they thought adequate to accomplish the ends desired. The French and British Ministers supported this suggestion, Lord John enforcing it with the courteous remark, called forth by Prince Gortschakoff's early declaration touching the honour of his country, that England and her allies deemed "the best and only admissible conditions of peace would be those which, being the most in harmony with the honour of Russia, should at the same time be sufficient for the security of Europe." Of course, Prince Gortschakoff could only be gratified, and could not do less than agree to ask his Cabinet whether they would act on the suggestion of Count Buol. The Turks did the same. As it was unavoidable that some time should elapse before answers were received, Count Buol proposed to pass to the Fourth Point; but to this neither the Cabinet of Britain nor that of France, and both were consulted, would consent. Thus several days were wasted, during which the French and Turkish Ministers for Foreign Affairs were hurrying towards Vienna to take part in these very critical negotiations.

SEBASTOPOL FROM THE RIGHT ATTACK.

At the ninth sitting, on the 9th of April, these two, M. Drouyn de Lhuys and Aali Pasha, were formally introduced. But no other business was transacted, because Prince Gortschakoff had not received instructions from his Court in regard to Count Buol's suggestion touching the views of Russia on the Third Point. On the 17th the Conference again assembled. Would Russia take the initiative and propound a plan for the abrogation of her preponderance? The question was answered at once, and all the more readily, perhaps, because the second bombardment of[94] Sebastopol had failed. Russia would not take the initiative; moreover, "Russia would not consent to the strength of her navy being restricted to any fixed number, either by treaty or in any other manner." The Allies were, or affected to be, in consternation. They had no plan, and M. Drouyn de Lhuys suggested that they should meet at once to decide what they should demand. Lord John Russell blurted out the opinion that the refusal of Russia had diminished the chances of peace. Prince Gortschakoff rejoined that Russia would consider any mode except that of limitation. That was not consistent with honour. The high spirit and bold front maintained by the new Czar are shown in nothing more than the arrogance with which, at this period, his Ministers endeavoured to prevent the Allies from meeting to consult on and arrange the terms to be offered to Russia! Of course, the Allies would not suffer such arrogant pretensions. They retired to debate among themselves, and a singular debate it was. The Austrian Cabinet clearly wished to shrink out of the engagement of the 2nd of December. Although in favour of the complete neutralisation of the Black Sea, preferring limitation to counterpoise, and agreeing to support the plan of limitation, Count Buol not only declined on behalf of Austria to make a refusal by Russia of the two former a casus belli, but suggested the extravagant plan of simply binding Russia not to increase her naval force in the Black Sea beyond the point at which it stood before the war! To this, strange to say, Lord John Russell assented, telling his Government that if this system of settlement could be made an ultimatum by Austria, the Western Powers ought to accept it. But when, a few days afterwards, Count Colloredo, in London, submitted the scheme to Lord Clarendon, the Minister did not hesitate a moment in rejecting it.

In the meantime, with this tendency to give way on the side of the Allies, the Conference had become a farce. They met on the 19th, after consulting, and propounded a plan. The first proposition declared that the Powers undertook to respect, as an essential condition of the general equilibrium, the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire. The Russians concurred, but—did not intend thereby to pledge their Court to a territorial guarantee! So the virtue of the article vanished at once. Then came the proposal intended to take away Russian preponderance by limiting the number of her ships in the Black Sea. Prince Gortschakoff demanded time to consider the project, and M. de Titoff took the liberty of regretting that Russia had not the option of settling the whole question by discussion with a State "free in its movements and resolutions"—meaning Turkey, which he knew, as well as the other Ministers, was, like Britain and France, bound to act on the basis of a common understanding. The taunt is of no moment, except as an illustration of the assurance of the Russian envoys. They had not exhausted the ample stock of that commodity they brought to Vienna. Indeed, it seemed to increase under the influence of Austrian vacillation and timidity. The Conference held two more sittings. On the 21st of April Prince Gortschakoff refused point-blank to accede even to the mild and inadequate proposal of limitation, and brought forward an alternative plan for throwing open the Black Sea and, of course, the Dardanelles and Bosphorus to the war ships of all nations—a very startling mode of liberating Turkey from menace, and preserving her independence. The Ministers of Britain and France at once declined to discuss such a proposal, and declared their instructions to be exhausted; and Lord John Russell started for London. M. Drouyn de Lhuys lingered to attend another conference, and to hear Prince Gortschakoff, as if in mockery of the Allies, put forth a proposition to maintain the old plan of keeping the Strait closed, and—admirable benevolence!—giving the Sultan the right, a right he already possessed, of opening the Strait, and calling up the ships of his Allies when he was menaced. The Conference closed, leaving the Russians exulting at the skill with which they had done what they were sent to do—that is, to feel the pulse of Austria, to find out whether she would actively join the war or only make a brave show of resolution before all Europe.

Although the Conference had closed, Count Buol persisted in thinking that he could devise terms of peace. He had pledged himself to discover such terms, and when the British Government pressed upon Austria the fulfilment of the treaty of December, the answer was that Count Buol was engaged in his search after a satisfactory measure of pacification. Now it happened that, although the Western Powers were not averse from an honourable peace, which they did not believe Russia would grant, they were extremely desirous to obtain the active support of Austria in the war. Therefore Count Buol went on with his search, and by the middle of May he had hit upon a scheme so weak and ineffective that the Allies warned him beforehand they could not assent to it. This scheme contained the guarantee of[95] independence and integrity for Turkey; maintained the principle that the Strait should be closed, but gave the contracting Powers the right of keeping two frigates in the Black Sea; laid it down that Turkey and Russia should agree as to what force they would maintain there, the amount not to exceed, on either side, the force of Russian vessels then (May, 1855) afloat in the Euxine; and stipulated that this agreement should form an integral part of the treaty. Subsequently an article was added whereby Austria bound herself to regard as a casus belli such additions to the Russian fleet in the Black Sea as would bring it up to the number existing in 1853! As the Western Powers would not agree to any such proposals, Austria declared that she had fulfilled her part; that Russia was now no longer exclusively to blame for the failure of negotiations; that Austria regarded herself as absolved from her pledge in the treaty of December 2nd, and that she had nothing to do but wish success to the Allies. So the great central German Power shuffled out of her engagements; and it cannot be doubted that one of her reasons for so acting was to be found in the fact that the flag of Italy was waving in the breezes of the Crimea. There was a meeting of the Conference on the 4th of June, called solely that Austria might record her propositions, and place herself in a position to say that she had redeemed her promises. The only result of it was this: it enabled Prince Gortschakoff to boast that Austria had proposed bases which she deemed sufficient, but which her Allies deemed insufficient, and thus to publish the dissension in the allied camp. Such were the conferences at Vienna in 1855. The Allies had agreed to them solely at the instance of Austria, and because she had made her active co-operation in the war depend upon the failure of attempts to conclude peace on the terms agreed upon between the Three Powers. The Allies were, therefore, discredited in the eyes of Europe by their complaisance towards Austria; but although she gained her end, which was to evade the obligations she had undertaken of her own free will, the conferences served to show Europe more clearly than ever that Alexander was as obstinately bent as Nicholas upon maintaining Russian preponderance in the Black Sea.

There was something enervating in the atmosphere of Vienna; for, as the Conference proceeded, the spirit and firmness with which M. Drouyn de Lhuys and Lord John Russell began their task diminished visibly. Lord John became painfully conscious that Austria would not propose or support any efficacious plan to abrogate Russian preponderance in the Black Sea if the support she gave led her into war. "The occupation of the Principalities by Russia," he wrote to his Cabinet, "she felt to be dangerous to her existence as a great Power, and she risked a war to put an end to it. But that point accomplished, I fear we must not count upon her aid to save Constantinople from the encroaching ambition of Russia." This is the language of despair. Britain and France could continue the war, "but the waste of life and money would be enormous." This was written on the 16th of April. On the 17th Lord John had become so down-hearted that he consented to support the Austrian proposal fixing the Russian maximum at the force possessed by Russia before the war. If this, which would have sacrificed the whole of the exertions of the Allies, could have been made an ultimatum by Austria, he thought the Western Powers should accept it. The Western Powers had resolved not to sink so low. M. Drouyn de Lhuys, who was equally despondent and submissive, went home and resigned, because he had compromised his Government by giving even a qualified assent to terms so disastrous. Lord John Russell went home, pleaded his cause in the Cabinet, and being overruled, did not resign. He remained in office, and, on the first opportunity, made a speech, not in favour of his Vienna views, but in favour of "the vigorous prosecution of the war."

The resignation of the French Minister of Foreign Affairs did not pass without comment. The reason soon became apparent, and it was broadly stated that Lord John Russell himself had participated in the line of action adopted by M. Drouyn de Lhuys at Vienna. Count Buol himself, resenting the publication of the protocols of the Conference, issued a circular in which he stated that the English Plenipotentiary had supported the Austrian scheme of pacification. Then followed the publication by the British Government of several despatches, showing clearly the course taken by the British Plenipotentiary and the British Cabinet; and in July Mr. Milner Gibson brought the conduct of Lord John under the notice of the House, and demanded explanations. Lord John explained and defended the course he had taken; but not to the satisfaction of any one. The public feeling was strong; and the Opposition, taking advantage of the incident, Sir Edward Lytton gave notice of a motion censuring the whole of the Government. In the meantime there was commotion in the Ministerial[96] ranks. The Minister then offered to resign, and in answer Lord Palmerston frankly said that it was for Lord John to judge; but if he determined not to resign, then the Cabinet would stand by him. But Lord John was informed that a large number of the Liberals could not resist the motion, and, to save himself from censure, and the Government from defeat, he resigned. Thus the Opposition was foiled. The resignation did not prevent a debate, although it prevented a division; and Lord John, having six months before broken up one Ministry by a rapid retreat, now saved another by a similar manœuvre. This may be called the climax of the ill-fated Vienna Conference of 1855.

THE EMPEROR NICHOLAS.

During the course of the Session the Opposition had done what it considered to be its duty as a body of critics on the proceedings of the Government. It was well known to Mr. Disraeli that, independently of the purely party votes he could command, a number of gentlemen of various opinions, if they did not vote with him, would at least help him to damage the Cabinet. When, therefore, in the middle of May, Mr. Milner Gibson gave notice of a motion in favour of peace, Mr. Disraeli promptly took it out of his hands with his full consent, and framed a resolution which, while it censured the Government for its ambiguous language and uncertain conduct in reference to the great question of peace or war, yet promised to give her Majesty every support in the prosecution of the war until a safe and honourable peace had been obtained. Mr. Disraeli's motion was rejected by 319 to 219; and when Lord Grey made a similar motion in the House of Peers, Lord Derby would not even divide the House upon it, so plainly was the general[97] conviction against it. Nevertheless the debates in the House of Commons—debates raised upon amendments to Mr. Disraeli's motion—went on for several days, revealing the true character of the different sections, and showing the inadequate views which many had formed of the objects at stake. Mr. Bright and Mr Cobden thought Russia had a claim to preponderance in the Black Sea. Mr. Sidney Herbert, Mr. Gladstone, Sir James Graham, and their friends declared that the negotiations had been broken off on a question of "terms," mere phrases, a few ships more or less; that enough had been done to show that Russia could not be dominant in Europe; and that the propositions of Count Buol were adequate bases of a safe and honourable peace.

SAPPERS DESTROYING THE RUSSIAN TRENCHES. (See p. 99.)

But while we lament the defective judgment and blindness of the Peelites, and the utter incapacity to understand the dynamics of the question displayed by the peace-at-any-price party, we are bound to admire and applaud the courage of both. They did their duty bravely—for it is the duty of the chief men of a nation to speak out; and no nation is well served in which the chief men, yielding to menace or succumbing to apathy, withhold their opinions in moments of great trial. The debates on the policy of the war, on the conduct of the war and of the negotiations, ended by rallying a larger support than ever to the Government; for even the leading Tories admitted that the war was so just that the Government ought not to have avoided it if they could, and so necessary that they could not have avoided it if they would, while no less a person than Lord Derby, allowing his judgment to get the better of his party feeling, insisted that it would be humiliation for Britain and France to retire from the contest baffled before Sebastopol.

Nevertheless, when the Government proposed to become a joint guarantee with France for a loan of £5,000,000 to be contracted by Turkey, Mr. Disraeli, who had earlier in the Session cavilled at a loan of £2,000,000 to Sardinia, now, seeing a prospect of obtaining a majority by a surprise, divided the House against the project and was only defeated by a majority of three. Yet the[98] propriety of both measures was manifest. We wanted the aid of 15,000 Sardinian troops, and it was not too much for so small a State to ask us to lend her the means of placing them fairly on the theatre of war. In the same way the war had disordered more deeply the deeply involved finances of Turkey. By giving a guarantee, in conjunction with France, that the interest should be paid to the lenders, we enabled the Sultan to raise the money at smaller cost to the Turkish Treasury, and by so doing we were, of course, aiding her as effectually, in kind but not in degree, as we were by our fleets and armies. But a Turkish loan was a good subject for a hostile division. Mr. Disraeli saw his chance, seized it, and nearly surprised the Ministry. He would have been content to imperil the alliance and the war at the price of a Parliamentary victory.

Mr. Disraeli pursued a similar course, but with a divided party and no chance of success, upon another occasion. Mr. Roebuck, the head and front of the incomplete and abortive Sebastopol inquiry, moved on the 17th of July a vote of censure on all the members of the Aberdeen Cabinet, whose counsels led to what he was pleased to term the disastrous results of the winter campaign in the Crimea. General Peel, as one of the committee, moved the "previous question," on the ground that the inquiry was incomplete, and that the greater part of the sufferings of the army arose in the very nature of the duty which it fell upon them to perform. Mr. Disraeli and the bulk of his supporters made the motion a party question. But the course of the debate was decidedly against them, and they and Mr. Roebuck failed utterly in procuring from the House, either a retrospective censure on a dead Administration, or an endorsement of the Sebastopol Blue Books. The House decided, by 289 to 182, that the question should not even be put from the chair. Thus ended an attempt, first to discover evidence which would bear out the fierce accusations advanced during the winter, and then to base upon the imperfect and conflicting evidence discovered a censure not deserved.

The Government had, since January, 1855, effected considerable changes in the machinery for carrying on the war, chiefly, however, in the concentration of power in the War Department. They had raised the total force of the army to 193,595 men, including 14,950 who formed the Foreign Legion; and they had increased the number of sailors to 70,000. They had embodied fifty militia regiments, some of whom were in the Mediterranean garrisons; and from the whole militia force they had drawn 18,000 recruits for the army. Having found that the expenses of the war were outrunning the estimates of the spring, they increased those estimates, making the total for the whole service of the army, navy, transport, commissariat, and ambulance purposes, £49,537,692, bringing up the total estimated expenditure for the year to more than £88,000,000; to cover which they provided £96,339,000, leaving a large margin for contingencies. Among the ways and means were a loan of £1,600,000, and power to issue £10,000,000 Exchequer bills or bonds. The active navy consisted almost wholly of steamers, and among the supplementary votes of August was one to provide for the cost of a host of steam gunboats to be used, if required, in 1856.

General Pélissier, the new Commander-in-Chief of the French army, was a hardy soldier, who had taken part in many campaigns, and had gained in Algeria a name not only for military ability in the field, but for skill in the cabinet as an administrator. A cloud hung over his reputation for a time, because he had caused a number of obstinate Arabs, who would not surrender, to be suffocated in the caves of Dahra. But when he went to the Crimea, men only faintly remembered this dreadful act, while all recognised the stern energy, sound military judgment, and stout moral courage of the new chief. Henceforth they felt there would be no faltering, no hesitation, no undue deference for opinions formed in Paris, no terror of responsibility. Pélissier brought to his task a will quite as firm as that of the Emperor Napoleon, and a reputation for soldiership higher than that of his Imperial Majesty. He was told to abide as nearly as possible by his instructions; and if he modified them, he was to do so in concert with Lord Raglan. We have already pointed out that these two officers did not differ on the question before them. General Pélissier differed from the Emperor, not from Lord Raglan. He recognised the soundness of the measures recommended over and over again by Sir John Burgoyne; and he resolved to take Sebastopol by capturing the key of the place—the Malakoff. It was more arduous now than it was two months before, because the Russians had been allowed to develop their hardy system of counter-approaches on the Malakoff ridge, and above the Careening Bay, consisting of the Mamelon Redoubt on the former, and what were called the White Works on the latter. These it was essential to capture and hold before the final blow could be levelled at the Malakoff.

[99]

It was on the 19th of May that he took command. On the 22nd, three days afterwards, the expedition to Kertch sailed, and on that very night Pélissier began a bloody contest for the possession of the ground about the cemetery to the west of Quarantine Bay. The Russians had seen the advantage which works of more pretension than rifle-pits would give them on this quarter. They, therefore, began to connect the pits with the place by sinking a covered way across the ravine, and by connecting the pits with each other by a gabionade, that is, a parapet made of large baskets filled and then covered with earth. The incipient stages of this design were observed by the French on the 21st of May. General Todleben's object went further than the mere establishment of a series of strong rifle screens. He had in view the construction of a regular battery on the Russian left of the line, which would have poured a raking flanking fire through the principal works of the besiegers. To prevent this, Pélissier ordered General de Salles, now commander of the Siege Corps, to storm and hold the new Russian line.

This line was of very great extent, stretching from flank to flank for nearly three-quarters of a mile along the broken ground. The whole of it was under the fire of the place, and the conformation of the ground between the Cemetery and Sebastopol, a ravine widening towards its mouth, gave the enemy great facilities for bringing up troops to feed the combat. The French general placed upwards of 4,000 men, including two battalions of the Light Infantry of the Guard, under the orders of General Paté. At nine o'clock the signal was given, and, dashing out of the trenches, the two columns fell upon the enemy so impetuously that he was driven out at the first shock. But it so chanced that at this very moment the troops, the battalions destined to furnish and cover the working parties of the enemy, had paraded in front of the place, under the orders of General Chruleff. Therefore the French had no sooner driven off the Russians who held the lines, than these fresh troops, moving rapidly across the ravine, first smote them with a crushing fire, and then coming on with lowered bayonets, engaged in a combat so close, and fierce, and vehement, that the French were overthrown on their right, and forced back into their trenches; while on their left General Brunet sustained with difficulty the forward position he had won. General la Motterouge, who commanded the French right column, was not the man to yield so easily. Re-forming his men, and bringing up his reserves, he flung them once more into the fight. The combat now raged along the whole line. As the French poured in fresh troops, the enemy, resolved to win, brought up eight battalions, our old foes at the Alma, the regiments of Minsk and Uglitz. And thus through the night the battle continued, sometimes dying away into a faint flicker of fire, and then bursting out again with sudden and appalling fury. When the French gained an advantage and pushed the enemy, their sappers in the rear of the confused roar of struggling men began to destroy the Russian lines; and then in the midst of their work, the battle would roll back upon them and sweep over the disputed ground. Just before daybreak the masses on both sides retired under shelter from the cannon of the opposing batteries; but General Brunet kept the line he had won, and turned the face of the rifle-pits and gabions towards the enemy.

Throughout the next day there was a brisk cannonade kept up on both sides, each intent on preventing the other from occupying in force the contested ground. At night the combat was renewed. General Couston, with four battalions, reinforced General Brunet's position, in order to defend it against any attack, and to complete the works of approach begun on that side. General Duval, with six battalions, issuing from the French trenches and assailing the Russian left, drove out the enemy's troops posted there, and held the ground in front, while the working parties, in the midst of a heavy fire from the main batteries of Sebastopol, rapidly transformed the Russian trench into a parallel of attack, giving ample shelter to the besiegers. Thus, in two nights, the French won this important ground, and connecting all their works together, showed a united front, and left but a comparatively narrow space, formed by the ravine across which they could not work their way, between them and the town. This line on the ridge a little east of the Cemetery was the limit of their regular approaches in that quarter.

Another result of the change of commanders was the occupation of the line of the Tchernaya by a combined force of French, Sardinians, and Turks. This was effected on the 25th. General Canrobert led his own division and that of General Brunet across the valley, and took post on the Fedoukine heights. General la Marmora and his Sardinians took up a position on the Hasfort Hill, above Tchorgoun. Sir Colin Campbell moved the Marines out of their lines near the sea to the ridge looking down on Kamara on one side, and the Baidar valley on the other. Omar Pasha, with 16,000[100] Turks, occupied the whole line of low hills on which stood the redoubts on October 25th. The whole force was about 43,000 strong. There were but few Russian troops on the river, and these gave way and retired up the opposite hills as soon as they felt the advance guard of the Allies. Thus the line of the Allies now extended from the sea on the right, through Kamara and Tchorgoun to the Fedoukine heights, just out of range of the Russian batteries, east of the Inkermann ruins. There were many who thought this a beginning of operations in the field. They were doomed to be disappointed. The Allies had now very large forces in the Crimea, but while Lord Raglan could not assent to the Emperor's plan of a regular campaign, the Emperor could not concur in Lord Raglan's suggestions; and thus, as a compromise, the Allies continued the siege, and undertook no other operation except one which we are now about to narrate—the naval and military expedition to the inhospitable and foggy regions of Kertch and the Sea of Azoff.

The Russian forces in the Crimea were dependent chiefly for their supplies upon the mainland itself, for the Crimea is a peninsula, projecting from the steppes of Southern Russia, and joined on to it only by the narrow neck of land at Perekop. The road through Perekop was the chief line of communication, leading as it did to Nicolaieff and Odessa. But there were other roads by which the enemy received supplies. At the eastern part of the Crimea was a small peninsula, called the Peninsula of Kertch, from the town of that name. In order to deprive the enemy of at least one road, and to ruin all his depôts within reach, and deprive him of the waterway over the Sea of Azoff to Yenikale and Arabat, and force him upon a more circuitous route, it was determined to seize Kertch, push through the Strait into the Sea of Azoff, and destroy the ships on its waters and the magazines in its ports. In order to accomplish this, it was deemed expedient that a military force should occupy the towns of Kertch and Yenikale, which are within the Strait, and thus, by taking the land defences in reverse, open a road into the Sea of Azoff for the light steamers. The Strait is narrow, especially where the waters of the Sea of Azoff pour into it. In 1854 the Russians had sunk many ships in the channel below Kertch, but in the winter, the waters of the Sea of Azoff, fed by the swollen streams of Southern Russia, rushing through the confined space in full volume, and at the rate of between three and four miles an hour, swept away the wreck; so that what was not possible in 1854 became possible in 1855.

What the Allies required was to get command of the Strait; and to put all resistance out of the question, it was determined, on the very day after General Pélissier assumed command, that the force sent should be overwhelming. Sir George Brown was again to take command of the expedition. The French supplied 6,800 men, including fifty Chasseurs d'Afrique and three batteries, under D'Autemarre; the Turks furnished 5,000 men and one battery; and the British 3,800 men, namely—the 42nd, 71st, 79th, and 93rd Highlanders, a battalion of Marines, fifty men of the 8th Hussars, and a battery. The force thus amounted to 15,600 men and thirty guns. The naval force consisted of twenty-four French ships, including three sail of the line, under Admiral Bruat; and thirty-four British vessels, including six sail of the line, under Admiral Lyons. The gunboats and light steamers were organised into a flying squadron, consisting of fourteen British and five French steamers, the whole under Captain Lyons, son of the admiral, and, like his sire, a bold and resourceful sailor.

Starting from Kamiesch and Balaclava on the 22nd, though obstructed by a dense fog, the ships were, on the morning of the 25th, off Cape Takli, the south foreland of the Strait; and soon after daylight the ships having troops on board rounded the cape and running as near the shore as the water would allow, proceeded to disembark the men. No enemy appeared, and the troops speedily got ashore; the French taking the right, and the British the left or exposed flank, while the Turks were held in reserve. But the enemy, though not in sight, was audible enough on land; for the troops had no sooner stepped ashore than the air was rent with the noise of repeated explosions, and tall pillars of white smoke rose up on the right of the allied forces. All along the coast, from Fort Paul towards Yenikale, the Russians were blowing up their magazines. On the sea a British gunboat, followed by another, was seen chasing the Russian ships and engaging the batteries, not yet abandoned, on both sides of the Strait. At the same time other vessels came up and silenced the battery on the spit opposite Yenikale; and the Russians, feeling resistance to be hopeless, blew up one magazine after another on both sides of the Strait; so that by the morning of the 25th there was not a gun or a man to resist the Allies. General Wrangel, who, with 6,000 men, had charge of the peninsula, retired to[101] Argin, midway between Kertch and Kaffa, and in no way molested his opponents.

VOLUNTEERS OF THE FLYING SQUADRON FIRING THE SHIPPING AT TAGANROG. (See p. 102.)

Therefore, on the 25th, the steamers of light draught went up to Yenikale; and the troops, quitting their bivouacs, set out to march on the same place. They proceeded in three columns, the French on the right next the sea, the British on the left, covering their flank, and the Turks in the rear. When they came to Kertch, the whole broke into one column and filed through the town, and by mid-day the troops reached Yenikale. The fleet had come up, and the generals and admirals held a consultation in the afternoon. The sailors having buoyed the channel into the Sea of Azoff, Captain Lyons led his flying squadron at once into those waters. Already, in two days, the Allies had captured upwards of a hundred heavy guns, many new; had destroyed immense stores of corn and flour; had seized a mass of naval stores, and had forced the enemy to burn or wreck thirty or forty ships. By day clouds of smoke rose upward on all sides, and at night the sky was lurid with flames. The strength of the Allies, and the swiftness with which it was applied, soon completed the work and dismayed the enemy. It is with pain that we record the shameful fact that the allied soldiers and sailors disgraced themselves by plundering the houses and public buildings of Kertch and Yenikale. The predatory instincts of our troops were repressed severely, but Sir George Brown had no real control over our allies, and the French generals and Turkish pashas did nothing to restrain their men. The plunder of Kertch and Yenikale is a blot upon this brilliant expedition.

The flying squadron under Captain Lyons really deserved its name. Speed was essential to success, for delay would have given the mass of shipping employed in feeding the Russian army time to run up the Don, or enter the Strait of Genitchi and push into the Putrid Sea. Captain Lyons was as swift as a spirit of fire. It was his business to destroy every sail afloat, to visit and burn all the public magazines of the Russian Government within the reach of his guns and boats, and to bombard every fortified place on the[102] shore. He fulfilled his task. Within four-and-twenty hours he was off Berdiansk, the best port in the sea. Here he landed his small-arm men, and burnt stores worth £50,000, and many merchant ships. Then detaching ships to watch Genitchi and the mouth of the Don, he steamed with the rest of the squadron to Arabat. Here the Russians had a fort, mounting thirty guns, and Lyons and the French shelled the place and blew up the magazine. In three days he had destroyed a hundred transports laden with provisions for the enemy. Without delay he made for Genitchi. Lyons bombarded the place in order to cover the passage of his boats through the Strait into the Putrid Sea. The boats' crews worked through, fired the shipping and corn depôts, and returned; but the wind shifting, it became necessary to go in again and complete the work. This was done by three volunteers: Lieutenant Buckley, Lieutenant Burgoyne, and Mr. John Roberts. These men had the hardihood to land alone, and, in the face of the Cossacks, performed the duty they undertook; and then the boats, under a fire of field-pieces, set fire to the shipping which had escaped before. At the end of the 29th of May the squadron had destroyed, in the Sea of Azoff, four war steamers, 246 merchant ships, and corn and flour worth £150,000. On the 2nd of June the indefatigable Lyons was off Taganrog. The governor would not accept terms of surrender, which would have saved private property; and under cover of the gunboats, in the face of 3,000 troops, Lieutenant Buckley and a band of volunteers landed repeatedly and performed the desperate service of firing the stores and Government buildings. Marioupol shared the fate of Taganrog. Thus Captain Lyons made a tour of the Sea of Azoff. Not one place escaped him or his able lieutenants, Sherard Osborn, Cowper Coles, Horton, Hewett, M'Killop, and his French coadjutors. The Russians lost not only the command of this sea, but masses of corn, forage, fish, and marine stores, and ships which it is impossible to estimate. Hewett and Lambert effectually destroyed all the means of connecting the spit of Arabat with the Crimea; and, after Captain Lyons had left, to meet an untimely death before Sebastopol, Sherard Osborn kept the sea, and left the enemy not a moment's rest. But ere this the French and British troops, leaving the Turks to hold a fortified camp at Yenikale, had returned to the camp at Sebastopol.

The losses inflicted by the flying squadron were not the only losses sustained by the enemy. When he quitted Kertch on the 24th of May, he destroyed himself 4,166,000 pounds of corn, and 508,000 pounds of flour; and it was estimated that this, with the quantity destroyed in the Sea of Azoff, would have furnished four months' rations for 100,000 men. The amount of supplies drawn from Kertch is shown by the fact that just before the Allies landed, the Russians had been sending off daily convoys of 1,500 waggons, each containing half a ton weight of grain or flour. Besides this, the fortress of Anapa, on the appearance of an allied fleet, was blown up by the garrison, and 245 guns rendered useless thereby. The garrison retired across the Kuban River, abandoning the last post held by them in that part of Circassia. Thus the expedition to Kertch and the Sea of Azoff surpassed in its effects the most sanguine expectations of its designers, and struck a severe blow at the vitals of the Russian army.

Once more the tide of war carries us back to the trenches before Sebastopol. General Pélissier had, on taking command, accepted Lord Raglan's proposals for carrying on the siege by vigorous and direct attacks. The two officers being of one mind, and recognising the Malakoff as the true key of the place, determined, in council by themselves, that the Russians should be immediately deprived of their counter-approaches, and forced back into the body of their works. They agreed that on one and the same day, by simultaneous assault, the Quarries under the Redan, the Mamelon in front of the Malakoff, and the White Works above the Careening Bay, should be wrested from the enemy. This comprehensive operation was a necessity, for these three works supported each other. The Mamelon flanked, and was flanked by, the other two, and hence all three had to be taken together. Having determined to take them, they requested their generals to submit plans for the execution of their resolve. Accordingly, a council of war was held for this purpose. There were still in the French camp officers who were strongly in favour of operations in the field, and as strongly opposed to an assault, even of the outworks. The chief of these were Niel, Bosquet, and Martimprey, all able men. But at the council, when Pélissier announced the decision of the generals, and named the day for the assault, and General Bosquet ventured to dissent, the Commander-in-Chief stopped him with the peremptory statement that the attack was "decided." The French generals had no choice but to obey.

The main points being settled, the work of preparation finished, the magazines well filled, the[103] troops all eager, orders went forth that the bombardment should begin on the morning of the 6th of June, and should continue four-and-twenty hours, and that then the works should be carried by storm. By dint of great exertions, and drawing from our large resources, we were able to put in battery 157 pieces of ordnance. All the lighter pieces, the siege guns of an older period, the famous 24-pounders of the early years of the century, were withdrawn. The 32-pounder was the lightest gun in the trenches. So heavy an armament had never before been arrayed at any siege. There were in battery no fewer than twenty-seven 13-inch, seventeen 10-inch mortars, and forty-nine 32-pounders. The remainder were 68-pounders, and 10-inch and 8-inch guns. The French batteries, were armed with 300 pieces, but the bulk of these were opposed to the western face of the town, and, for some unexplained reason, did not maintain a fire equal in intensity to those on the east front. According to the plan laid down, our left attack, while pouring a torrent of missiles into the Redan, was also to keep up a combat with the Barrack and Garden Batteries, in which they were to be supported by the French on their left. Our right attack was to devote nearly the whole of its might upon the Mamelon and Malakoff, in aid of the direct fire of the French, and these latter were to pound at the White Works, as well as the Malakoff and Mamelon. Thus it will be seen that the fire of at least a hundred and fifty guns and mortars was to be concentrated on these works.

The 6th of June was a clear, sunny day, and the mighty lines of the enemy stood out in bold relief against the western sky. About half-past two in the afternoon, at a given signal, the allied batteries opened all at once, with a roar that rent the air and shook the earth. In two hours the effects of the ceaseless shower of shot and shell upon the Malakoff and Mamelon were visible to practised eyes; and the comparatively rare responses made by the enemy showed that his guns had suffered as well as his earthen parapets. From that time until nightfall, the complete superiority of the allied fire was secured; but as the French on the left fired feebly, the Barrack and Garden Batteries, and some of the guns in the Redan, stoutly maintained the combat with our left attack. When darkness set in, the firing did not cease; for the huge shells from our big mortars rushed upward all night, and fell crashing and exploding within the enemy's works. At daybreak on the 7th the smoke and the mists of the morning hung over the hills and ravines. The growing light showed that, although the enemy had worked hard in repairing damages, yet the outlines of the great entrenchments were less shapely and trim than heretofore. Once more the batteries on both sides put forth their might, and the deafening roar was renewed. The enemy showed some vigour at first, but the Malakoff and Mamelon were soon forced to succumb. It was plain, however, to all eyes and ears that, on the vital points, the enemy was the weaker, and that the attack had got the mastery over the defence. Late in the afternoon, and for an hour or two preceding the assault, the fire of our guns became quicker than ever. The men in the batteries put forth their whole energies, and for an hour before the assault the cannonade was fiercer and more deadly than at any preceding period.

The British had told off about 3,200 men of the Light and 2nd Divisions to carry the Quarries. Two small columns, each 200 strong, were to turn the flanks of the work, and then advancing towards the Redan, lie down, and cover by their fire a working party, 800 strong, whose duty it was to turn the face of the work towards the Redan. About 1,000 men were held in support in the trenches, and two battalions were posted in the Woronzoff Road to cover the flank of both our attacks. The French, having a more serious operation, and being more accustomed to act in masses, detailed about 28,000 men for the two assaults. General Mayran had the direction of the operations against the White Works—redoubts on the Careening Ridge, one more advanced than the other, and standing between the Great Harbour and the Careening Ravine. Two of his brigades—the right under De Lavarande, the left under De Failly—were to storm the redoubts, while General Dulac held an entire division in reserve to support both; and besides these, there were two battalions in the Careening Ravine, intended to push down it, and cut off the retreat of the enemy. General Camou was entrusted with the attack on the Mamelon. One brigade, under Wimpfen, was to carry that work; while another brigade and an entire division were drawn up in the middle ravine between the French left and our right. Behind them were two battalions of the Imperial Guard, and in rear of all, near the Inkermann battle-field, was a complete division of Turks. The whole operation was under the control of Bosquet, who proved himself quite equal to the occasion. The fire of the allied batteries was at its height when three rockets fired from the[104] Victoria Redoubt, at 6.45 p.m., let loose the excited soldiers, who dashed at once upon the enemy.

The brigades on the extreme right went up to the White Works at a run, Lavarande's men first storming the redoubt on the right at the point of the bayonet, and De Failly rushing past this work, and being equally successful in carrying its counterpart; while the battalions in the ravine marched down it, and swept up a number of the flying garrison. Led away by a furious impulse, the troops even entered a third work, just above the Careening Bay, but this they could not hold. The other two redoubts, however, were firmly grasped and held in spite of the fire of the batteries on the north.

At the same time Wimpfen's brigade issued from the trenches in three columns, and went impetuously up the slope of the Mamelon, led by Colonel Brancion, of the 50th Regiment of the line. On his left were the 3rd Zouaves, on his right Algerian Native Light Infantry. Soon they were at the ditch, firing into the embrasures, and receiving from the parapets a telling fire. Then the 50th dashed into the ditch, and began to scramble up the slope of the work, and Zouave and Algerine closed bodily with it. In a few moments the redoubt was full of Frenchmen. They had won the victory with such comparative ease that their passions got the better of their judgment. Disobeying all orders, the Zouaves and Algerines pursued the Russians towards the Malakoff, into which our batteries were now pouring a terrible fire. It was an unhappy move; for the enemy immediately lined his parapets and brought his guns to bear, and the Zouaves, although they stood well and fought well, and although they were aided by shells pitched into the Malakoff from our batteries, yet they only stood to be slain. In the meantime, alarmed by some appearances indicating a mine, the troops holding the Mamelon all ran out, and the Zouaves and Algerines, returning from their mad rush on the Malakoff, pursued by a heavy and angry column of Russians, found the Mamelon empty. Shattered as they were, they could not hold it, and thus the enemy burst in triumph into his stronghold once more. It was an anxious moment, but General Bosquet was prompt in supplying a remedy. Throwing forward a fresh brigade, and giving it ample support, these new troops, rallying hundreds who had fled in terror at the idea of a mine, went steadily up to the work. There was a brief combat, and rattling volleys; but, overpowered, the enemy sullenly yielded possession and retired back into the town, this time unpursued. Thus the French stormed, and lost, and regained the famous Mamelon.

Soon after the first advance on the Mamelon, Colonel Shirley, obeying a signal from Lord Raglan, launched his little band against the Quarries. The men of the Light and 2nd Divisions carried the work and its outlying trenches without firing a shot, and then advancing, began to ply their rifles against the gunners of the Redan. Anticipating an assault, the enemy had filled this work with troops, and a horrible carnage was the consequence. Either to escape this fire or to succour the Malakoff, for a time the garrison of the Redan ran out of that work, and some British soldiers actually went up and peered into it, and saw it was empty. But when night came, the Russians returned to the Redan, and six times during the night they strove to expel the little band of Britishers who occupied the Quarries, and at one time, by turning the left flank, they succeeded for a brief space; then, with a rolling cheer, our soldiers went at them with the bayonet, and regained and held the lines, which were at once turned into a new parallel, and the site of a new and most formidable battery.

After the success of the 7th of June the question immediately arose—should that success be pushed, and should the whole place be at once assailed on all sides? To answer this question there was a council of war. It should always be remembered that the British played a very subordinate part in the siege of Sebastopol. They had reaped their glory at the Alma and at Inkermann. They had soon lost that equality in point of numbers with which they began the war, and the views of Lord Raglan could now only prevail by dint of their comparative sagacity. He had, of course, a certain authority as the representative of Britain; but it was one of the penalties we paid for making war side by side with France, that he should often have to succumb, and that in place of one plan or another a medium course should be struck out and acted on. Whatever we did in the siege was purely secondary after Inkermann. Our batteries, indeed, were very formidable, and paved the way for the French successes against the Mamelon and finally against the Malakoff; but our troops were so placed by the stress of circumstances, that it was impossible for them to perform any striking action. It would appear that Lord Raglan's plan of taking Sebastopol would have been to follow up a heavy fire by, if need be, repeated assaults at all points—some by way of diversion, to keep a large force of the enemy[105] occupied, others driven home with the view of carrying the place. So that it is not surprising he should have wished to continue the bombardment on the 8th, and then assault at the moment when the enemy's batteries were at the lowest ebb of their power. But to this the French would not agree. They wanted more time to build more batteries, to push approaches nearer; and as they furnished the large assaulting columns on the vital point, Lord Raglan had no choice but to acquiesce. He knew that he could not take the place. He knew, and all knew, that if the Redan were captured, it could not be held so long as the Malakoff was in the hands of the Russians. Therefore he was obviously bound to assent when General Pélissier proposed to defer the assault until the Mamelon and White Works were armed, and a battery established in the Quarries.

MARSHAL PÉLISSIER.

The French and British at once began to strengthen and arm their acquisitions, and to sap onward towards the enemy's lines. But this caused great losses day by day. Mortars from behind the Malakoff threw shells into the Mamelon, mortars from the Redan threw shells into the Quarries; guns and mortars from the north side threw their missiles into the White Works. On the left the French did little more to aid the siege. There was mining and counter-mining in plenty in front of the Flagstaff, and some new batteries were constructed and armed on the extreme left; but they did not now push the attack as they had done before. They had come at last to recognise the Malakoff as the true point of attack, and against this they turned all their energies. They worked out above a hundred and fifty yards from the Mamelon, formed a large[106] sheltered place in which to assemble troops, and covered the front with a curving line of parapet. The British built up and armed a six-gun battery in the Quarries, which looked into the enemy's communications behind the Malakoff, and was destined to play an important part; and they also increased the armament in the two attacks until the 13-inch mortars alone amounted to thirty.

The Russians were not a whit less active. Their energies also were bent upon making more complete the formidable defences of the Malakoff. They were especially careful to close the gaps on its proper left towards the Careening Bay, to open new batteries sweeping the ground at the head of that bay, and to construct interior retrenchments and flanking batteries. Their line of works, beginning from the South Harbour and extending to the Great Harbour, was broken only at one point. About a quarter of a mile to the proper left of the Redan, the Karabelnaia, or Middle Ravine—that which ran between the British right attack and the French Malakoff attack—broke the line of the Russian works. On the opposite bank of the ravine, the outer defences of the Malakoff Redoubt began with a work called the Gervais Battery, connected by a curtain with the Malakoff. But in rear of this, as well as in rear of the Little Redan on the proper left of the Malakoff, and in rear of the connecting curtains, the enemy had thrown up retrenchments. In short, General Todleben developed his plan of defence to meet the plan of attack, and as he had plenty of men, and a boundless supply of guns and material, he could execute all his admirable designs. He was a worthy foe.

As usual, the plan of attack was debated at headquarters when it had been decided by superior generals that the guns should open on the 17th, and that the assault should take place the next day. How should this be carried out? It was arranged that the French on the west face of the town should attack its salient defences, the Flagstaff, Central, and Quarantine Bastions, in three columns, under General de Salles; and it was anticipated that if these attacks did not succeed, they would keep many thousands of the enemy employed, and might, if occasion offered, be converted into real attacks, pushed home. The British were to send a brigade down the South Ravine, to seize the cemetery lying at the bottom of its basin, and, in conjunction with a French force, threaten the enemy in that quarter. The main British assaults were to be made on the Redan. If the Redan was carried, then the column in the South Ravine was to climb up to the Barrack Battery, and join the Redan column in the rear. The French were to attack in three columns on the extreme right. One was to follow the Careening Ravine, and storm the Little Redan; a second was to rush upon the proper left of the Malakoff; while a third, issuing from the Middle Ravine, carried the Gervais Battery, and worked round thence to the rear of the Malakoff. The fleet was to send in steamers on the nights preceding the assault, to keep the enemy on the alert in his sea batteries. Immense reserves were to be provided along the whole line. Such was the original plan. It was settled on the 16th, but in the afternoon General Pélissier desired to make an important modification. General de Salles urged that, as the attacks on the left could not succeed, they had better not take place; and General Pélissier, much to the discontent of Lord Raglan, notified that this change had been made. Lord Raglan did not press his objections, and thus the French were merely to "demonstrate" on the left front. No other change was made, except that Lord Raglan decided to send a third column against the Redan, having for its object the salient angle of that work. Finally it was decided that the British should not attack until the French were in possession of the Malakoff. The reason for this was that the guns on the right face of the Malakoff commanded the Redan and the road to the Redan. The whole of the 1st British Division was brought up from Balaclava. The Imperial Guard was marched up to the open ground at the head of the Malakoff Ridge; and 10,000 Turks were posted on the field of Inkermann. There were in the British batteries 166 pieces of ordnance, and nearly 300 in the French.

The bombardment opened at daylight on the 17th with great effect. The Malakoff and the Redan were the objects of our gunners, and the torrent of shot and shell poured into these works had, by nine o'clock, reduced the fire of the Malakoff to an occasional gun. Throughout the day it was the same. The Redan, although it soon ceased to fire with any vigour, flung shells from small mortars with low charges into the Quarries. The Barrack and Garden Batteries were, as usual, conspicuous for their vivacity. But the fire of the Allies completely overpowered that of the eastern front. Its severity may be estimated by the fact that the ammunition consumed in the British batteries alone on the 17th and 18th was 22,684 projectiles, including 2,286 13-inch shells. It[107] must have been nearly impossible for the Russians to work their guns, and quite impossible to work them without awful loss. When the sun went down on the 17th the mortars continued to hurl forth their monstrous missiles; and three or four of the steamers standing in opened a fire of shot, shell, and rockets on the town. It was on one of these occasions that Captain Lyons, fresh from his triumphs in the Sea of Azoff, was struck in the leg by a fragment of shell. The wound proved mortal, and death deprived the British navy of one of its most promising officers.

From the comparative silence of the Russian batteries, Lord Raglan and General Pélissier inferred that the enemy was at the end of his resources. They hoped that at length he had exhausted his stores of artillery. It was a vain delusion. In spite of the bombardment, which went on all night, the enemy managed to replace the pieces in his batteries, and at dawn, as will be seen, he was ready to begin anew. This advantage, indeed, might have been counteracted had the Allies remained faithful to their original plan. There was, in the French camp, a sort of passion for an assault at the very first flush of the dawn. Their officers, Pélissier excepted, had urged that the attack on the Mamelon should be given at daybreak. They were overruled. Now they came to the charge afresh. The whole scheme of the assault rested on the basis that the fire of the enemy had been crushed. To make sure, however, it was originally planned that the assault should be preceded by a three hours' violent cannonade. This would have searched every part of the enemy's works, and prevented him from massing his troops in them in large numbers. On this basis all the orders were given.

Literally at the eleventh hour, the French changed the whole plan. On the evening of the 17th, when all orders had been issued, General Pélissier informed Lord Raglan that his officers declared they could not place their infantry in the trenches without their being seen by the enemy, and that consequently he desired the time of the assault to be altered and fixed for daybreak. Lord Raglan was justly much annoyed, but he yielded. It was a fatal concession. But how could he oppose a colleague who commanded a force nearly double that under Lord Raglan's orders? Therefore, a few hours before the assault was to take place, the old orders were revoked, and fresh orders were issued. This occupied the British commander nearly all night, and left him but one hour for repose.

Throughout the night the troops appointed to storm and support the stormers and the reserves were moving to their appointed places. Down into the British trenches went the men of the Light 2nd and 4th Divisions, under Sir John Campbell, Colonel Lacy Yea, and Colonel Shadforth; while Eyre's Brigade of the 3rd Division moved deep into the South Ravine, and Barnard's Brigade of the same division was placed higher up in support. The right column was to attack the left face of the Redan, the left column the right face. If these succeeded, then the centre column was to charge in at the salient. Eyre was to move towards the works at the end of the South Ravine. The French, in addition to the ordinary guards, marched three entire divisions, about 16,000 men, into their trenches, and placed in reserve a part of the division of the Imperial Guard, bringing the force up to about 24,000 men. The right division, under the orders of General Mayran, marched into the Careening Ravine; the centre, under General Brunet, had one brigade in front of the right of the Mamelon, the other in the trenches behind; the left, under General d'Autemarre, placed one brigade on the left front of the Mamelon, the other in the trenches in the rear. The trenches and the ravines were choked up with troops, all silent and crouching in the dark. Some were sitting under the parapets, others lying flat in the ravines. But there was also a good deal of movement, for the troops had to be placed so that they could most easily and with slightest disorder move swiftly out of the trenches. Seen from the higher ground in the rear, the soldiers are said to have looked, in the deep obscurity, like the people of a world of shadows.

The allied generals had intended to surprise the place; to break into it when its defenders were the least prepared. Some suppose that the enemy was forewarned by spies and deserters of the coming assault, for, far from being taken unawares, the Russians were as much on the alert as the Allies. Behind those dark and silent entrenchments there were thousands of soldiers under arms, and waiting in silence to do their duty at the first tap of the drum or bray of the trumpet. It needed not spies or deserters to forewarn them. The custom of armies when near each other is to parade before break of day, and this is not less the custom of garrisons when besieged, or of an army, like that in Sebastopol, defending a mighty entrenched camp. So it was on the 18th. Behind the huge Malakoff and the Great Redan, in rear of the connecting parapets, and in the houses of[108] the suburb, lay 16,000 men ready to clutch their arms and fall on. In front of the works were watchful sentries, and in the works the gunners stood by their pieces, prompt to fire. The steamers in the harbour, sheltered under the cliffs, had their fires lighted and their steam up, and were prepared to throw shell, and grape, and canister on the assaulting columns. But had Lord Raglan's plan of a three hours' bombardment been carried out, the fire could not have failed to disarrange the plan of defence, the chances of surprising the defenders would have been great, and the assailants, moving upon what they could see, would have stormed with greater unity and greater confidence.

It was still dark. General Regnault de Saint Jean d'Angely, with the Imperial Guard, was in the Lancaster Battery. Lord Raglan was at his post, watching for the signal. The unemployed spectators, officers and amateurs, were on the hills in groups here and there. General Pélissier was still on his way, and upwards of half a mile from his post. Hope, nay, confidence reigned in every breast. The British were cool, ready, and quiet. The French, to use their own expression, were quivering with eagerness, but their centre columns were not yet placed.

Suddenly, none knew why, flashes of fire, followed by a sullen uproar, were seen and heard on the extreme right. The flashes grew brighter and more frequent, the noise of exploding gunpowder grew louder. The roar of big guns rose above the crash of musketry, and the roll of drums and shrill notes of trumpets were heard in the transitory lulls of the larger tumult. What had happened? No signal rockets had climbed upwards from the Lancaster Battery to break into a bouquet of coloured fires. General Pélissier, hurrying through the dark over the plateau, was perplexed and furious. Still the combat raged about the head of the Careening Bay, and the fire of the place grew fiercer and more sustained. Ten minutes elapsed—minutes that seemed weeks to the wondering spectators. The French general entered the battery in a fury; demanding sharply who had given the signal, his wrath changed into astonishment when he was told no signal had been given, and his astonishment into vexation when he learned that General Mayran had mistaken a military rocket, fired from the Mamelon, for the signal to assault! The unity and suddenness of the assault were thus destroyed; but General Pélissier, without hesitation, ordered the rockets to be fired, and, at seven minutes past three, the clustering stars of fire hung for a moment up in the black sky, and then paled and vanished. The French troops dashed out in the gloom to the assault.

A fatal accident had precipitated the conflict. General Mayran had been up all night engaged in disposing himself the division he commanded. He had them all in hand in the Careening Ravine, and he was eager, he was impatient for the fray. In this frame of mind he was disposed to take every rocket fired from the Mamelon for the signal agreed on; and when, a little before three, one of these blazing missiles writhed and bounded through the air towards the Russian lines, he called out, "That is the signal." The rash step was taken; his division was ordered to move. With the first brigade Mayran went himself; the second was commanded by De Failly. But the troops no sooner rushed out than they were smitten by a heavy fire. The leading soldiers, after the fashion of their countrymen, began to fire on the retreating Russian outposts, and the flash and the sound guided the Russian artillery in training their guns. Then it was still dark, and the troops were unable to see the nature of the ground. Instead of following the left bank of the Careening Bay, and striving to turn the line of entrenchments, they went full in the teeth of a battery. The steamers came up to the mouth of the bay, and, at short range, poured in showers of grape and shell. So that this unhappy column, struggling in the obscurity over rough ground, was torn through and through by the iron sleet hurled at it in front and flank. Mayran was soon among the wounded, but he would neither retire nor give up the command. Another grapeshot striking him in the body, he was carried off mortally wounded; and part of his troops, after a vain but gallant stand, hurried back into the Careening Ravine, shattered and disorganised. But De Failly, bringing up the reserve, rallied them in a hollow, and held his ground.

[109]

THE ASSAULT ON THE REDAN. (See p. 110.)

In the meantime, at the signal from the Lancaster Battery, D'Autemarre and Brunet gave the word to advance. Brunet's men were not in order; and in disorder, and as they could, they scrambled into the open. The disorder was increased when a shot struck and killed the general as he quitted the trenches. General Lafont de Villiers took command. Part of the division went towards the Malakoff, under Colonel Lorencez, while the rest were held in hand to meet the exigencies of the moment. The men engaged, like those on the right, were exposed to a crushing fire,[110] and could make no way, but they would not retreat. The attack on the right had, by this time, utterly failed. The attack on the centre made no progress. The left attack was more fortunate. D'Autemarre, on spying the signal, sent forward two battalions, one of rifles, the other of the line. Day had dawned, and the twilight revealed the column to the enemy, but it also allowed the troops to see where they were going. With steady tread in the face of a searching fire, D'Autemarre's men pressed along the ridge, on the right of the Middle Ravine; Garnier, the commander of the rifles, kept his men together and prevented them from firing; and thus they arrived at the ditch of the Gervais Battery, on the proper right of the Malakoff, all together. In a moment they were seen scrambling over the parapet, and then firing their rifles, point blank, they went in with the bayonet. The strife was close, but the French prevailed; and the 19th Line regiment coming up, the two battalions were actually established within the enemy's lines, among the ruins of houses, and under the mighty Malakoff. The column on the right had by this time been reinforced by part of the Guard, chiefly for the purpose of securing it from attack, but also to have a body of men ready to take advantage of any opportunity. The head of Brunet's column was under the Malakoff, exchanging volleys with the enemy's troops, who fired exultingly from their parapets. D'Autemarre's two battalions, as we have said, were inside the Russian lines, and their gallant leaders, Garnier and Manèque, both wounded, had sent officer after officer to the rear begging for reinforcements. Ten minutes had slipped away since Pélissier gave the signal, and such was the condition of the combat.

Lord Raglan had been a spectator of this engagement in the grey dawn. He had seen and heard the false movement of Mayran; he had watched the confused march of Brunet's troops; he had seen dimly the soldiers of D'Autemarre storm the Gervais Battery. The French had not succeeded; but the British commander, admiring their showy bravery, and feeling that he ought to risk something to aid them, directed Sir George Brown to order the assault on the Redan. Alas! here, too, the enemy were prepared. They had a mass of infantry in the Redan; its guns, loaded with grape, were ready to belch it forth; and between the stormers and their object there was the abattis with its strong woodwork and deep ditch. The British columns were small—400 men in each. They were covered by a scattering of riflemen, and with them were to march a party of sailors under William Peel, carrying ladders, a party of soldiers with sacks of wool, and a party of artillerymen to spike the guns of the Redan. When the signal was given, all these gallant men climbed over the parapets and alighted in the open. Then the guns of the Redan opened with energy and effect. The rifles, in open order, gained the abattis, and began to fire on the enemy's gunners. Parts of the two columns of attack struggled in utter disorder up to the same place. But the sailors under Peel were so cut up that only one ladder was borne to the abattis, and Peel was wounded. It was in striving to make the men in the right column form, and in leading them on by voice and gesture, that the brave Lacy Yea met his death. He was struck by grape, and almost instantly died. On the left, Colonel Shadforth was slain as soon as he had left the trenches; and Sir John Campbell, leaping over the parapet, went at once to head the column, and carried them up to the abattis. But there, cheering his soldiers, Campbell was also shot dead. Indeed, the storm of grapeshot strewed the ground with red coats and bluejackets. Lord West and Colonel Lysons found it a vain sacrifice to keep the men under that awful fire, to which musketry was now added from the parapets of the Redan; and accordingly, the remains of the devoted stormers were hurried back into the trenches.

The French attack had failed also. Seeing Brunet's men exposed to a fire of small arms from the parapets of the Malakoff, Colonel Dickson endeavoured to drive the Russians down by shells. But they did not appear to feel these missiles, and Dickson changing to round shot, soon cleared the parapet. D'Autemarre's two battalions held the Gervais Battery for more than half an hour. Their brave commanders, grim and blood-stained, looked eagerly, but in vain, for the reinforcements they had demanded. And as these did not arrive, these two heroic soldiers were forced to withdraw. When the French quitted the Russian entrenchments, the Russian infantry followed. The French halted in a depression of the ground, and as part of their reinforcements had now come up, they turned with the bayonet upon their pursuers and forced them back into the work. Other battalions coming up, these men held fast, and General Pélissier, unwilling to throw a chance away, ordered up the Zouaves of the Guard, and had a momentary thought of making a fresh attack; but receiving unfavourable reports, he halted the Guard, and recalled all the troops. The attack[111] was at an end, and once more the dogged tenacity of the Russian peasant had won the day.

But while Pélissier was thinking of renewing the assault, he sent General Rose with a message to Lord Raglan, saying that he hoped Raglan would agree to a fresh onslaught. At the same time Lord Raglan, seeing how completely our fire had mastered that of the place, ordered Sir George Brown to bring up the supports, and prepare for another assault. He then sent Commander Vico, the French officer at the British headquarters, to inform General Pélissier of the steps he had taken, and to propose that another attempt should be made after the bombardment had continued a few hours longer. Lord Raglan thought that in this way the enemy might be surprised, and the place be won. The two messengers met each other in the trenches, and thus the messages crossed each other. Lord Raglan, therefore, determined to see Pélissier himself. Reaching the Lancaster Battery shortly after seven o'clock, Lord Raglan found the French general ready to fall in with his views. But while they were discussing the details, General D'Autemarre, now senior officer in the French trenches, sent word that the French troops had lost so many men and were so discouraged, that he feared it would be impossible to assault again. It was, therefore, decided that no fresh assault should be made; the troops were withdrawn; and the batteries slackened fire.

We have now to narrate a remarkable episode in the incidents of the morning. It will be remembered that General Eyre was to make a demonstration in the South Ravine. A French force was to aid him by covering his left flank. Their first object was to capture two rifle-pits. The French took one, and our volunteers the other, with ease. Then the French halted, the officer in command having no warrant to go farther. General Eyre, however, exceeding, or rather straining, his instructions, did go farther, and a handful of French breaking from restraint kept pace with him. In the ravine, just before it is joined by the Woronzoff Ravine on the right, there was a cemetery where the Russians had a post. This was carried by our troops, after a very slight resistance; and, not content with this success, they pushed still farther. There were clusters of houses under the cliffs on both sides of the broad basin formed by the juncture of the two ravines. Into these the enemy retired, and General Eyre deeming it desirable to occupy as forward a position as possible, drove the Russians out of the houses, and held them as well as the Cemetery. The troops were now under the Garden Batteries on the one side, and the Barrack Batteries on the other; and before them was the battery at the head of the South Ravine, called the Creek Battery. They were thus exposed to fire on three sides. Nevertheless they still made progress, driving the enemy out of the houses and up the sides of the ravine. Some of them ascended the steep, a few looked into the works in rear of the Flagstaff Bastion, others climbed the opposite side and got shelter at a point commanding the Creek Battery. Thus they were ready, if fortune favoured the assaults on the Redan and Malakoff, to sweep either into the town or make way through the Barrack Battery to the Redan. But the Russians had no sooner fled from the ravine into the place, than the batteries opened on our daring soldiers. Nevertheless here they remained all day, offering to the French in the right of their left attack a splendid spectacle of hardihood. General Eyre was wounded early in the day; but he did not give up the command of his men until five in the afternoon. About nine in the morning he had heard of the failure of the grand assault. Requesting instructions from Lord Raglan, he was told that the French would send a force to relieve him, and hold part of the ground he had won; but that if at nightfall the French had not arrived, then he was to evacuate the ravine. The French did not come; and this noble brigade, bringing with them nearly all their wounded, and these were many, regained the trenches at nightfall. The Cemetery, however, remained in our possession.

The losses of both sides were very great. Of the British there were 22 officers killed and 78 wounded; 244 men killed and 1,209 wounded. The French lost 33 officers killed, 257 were wounded, and 21 were missing. They also lost 1,340 men killed, 1,520 wounded, and 390 missing. The wounded men thus exceeded the dead by 180 only—an unusual proportion. The totals stand—for the British, 1,553; for the French, 3,561 killed, wounded, and missing. The Russian loss, as usual, it is difficult to ascertain. Prince Gortschakoff's published despatch fixes the losses during the 17th and 18th at 16 officers killed and 153 wounded; 781 men killed and 4,826 wounded; giving a total of 5,776 as the amount of the Russian loss from the bombardment and the combat. The Allied losses on the 18th were 5,106. On the 17th, 37 men were killed or wounded in the British trenches. As the French placed more men in their batteries and parallels than we did,[112] they may have lost 100. Adding 137 to the total of the Allied loss in the two days, it still falls short of the loss of the enemy by 533 men. The errors of the day were the fatal change which dispensed with the bombardment; the refusal of the French to assault on the left; the mistake of Mayran, and the consequent failure in the unity of the assault. To these it may be added, that the British assaulting columns, except that led by Eyre, were all too weak, and would probably have failed against the Redan, even had the French succeeded against the Malakoff. And, reviewing the whole operation carefully, there is some ground for the inference, that, although a preliminary bombardment would have given a chance of success, yet, at this stage, it is probable that failure would have been equally the result, because the distance which the stormers and supporters had to traverse to reach the enemy was so great, and also because the spirit of that enemy was still too high, and his losses, immense though they were, not enough to warrant that profound discouragement which precedes the final efforts of a desperate cause.

And now a severe misfortune was impending over the British army. It was about to lose its beloved Commander-in-Chief. On the 23rd, Colonel Calthorpe from headquarters wrote to his friends in England that every one was more or less out of spirits. "Lord Raglan is, perhaps, the most cheerful of any one, considering how much he has had lately to worry and annoy him. But at the same time, I fear that it [the failure of the 18th] has affected his health. He looks far from well, and has grown very much aged latterly." He fell ill seriously on the 26th, but no one, not even the doctors, thought that he was sick unto death. He grew no better, but he slept well, watched over by his staff and Dr. Prendergast. On the 28th he seemed so much better to some of the medical men that they were about to quiet the anxiety in England by sending a message to that effect by telegraph; but Dr. Prendergast was doubtful, and a dubious message was sent. In the afternoon the Field Marshal became visibly worse, but it was not supposed that death was so near him. At four o'clock the truth burst upon all—he was dying. His staff, his nephew, Colonel Somerset, General Simpson, General Airey, and Colonel Lord George Paget gathered round his bed, and the principal chaplain came, and read and prayed. Gradually, quietly, in a holy calm, that noble spirit ebbed away, so peacefully that it was scarcely possible to tell the moment when he ceased to be. At five-and-twenty minutes to nine in the evening of the 28th of June, an end had come to the earthly career of the British Commander-in-Chief. He died in his bed, but he died, like a knight of old, with his harness on. His remains were conveyed to England in the Caradoc. She arrived at Bristol on the 24th of July, and landed her sad burden, which was conveyed through a town in mourning to Badminton; and there, on the 26th, in a quiet village church, surrounded by a group of living comrades, who had fought beside him under the Great Duke more than half a century before, the remains of Lord Raglan, a fine man but second-rate soldier, found their last resting-place.

[113]

RECONNAISSANCE OF FRENCH CAVALRY IN THE BAIDAR VALLEY. (See p. 114.)

## CHAPTER VIII.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

> Changes in the Allied Camp—Advance upon the Malakoff and Redan—Attempt to raise the Siege—Prince Gortschakoff determines to Attack—The Allied Camp on the Tchernaya—Gortschakoff's Reinforcements—The Russian Plan—The Allies partially surprised—Read's Precipitation—Check of the Russian Attack—The French Counter-stroke—Gortschakoff changes his Front—A last Effort—The Battle is won—Allied Losses—Progress of the Siege—The French sap towards the Malakoff—The British Bombardment—The Covering Army—The Allies on the alert—Combats before the Malakoff—The Crisis arrives—Gortschakoff secures his Retreat—Council of September 3rd—Plan of Attack—The Last Bombardment—The Hour of Attack—Disposition of the Allied Troops—The Russians—The Signal—Assault of the Malakoff—Description of the Works—MacMahon and Vinoy—Failures upon the Curtain and Little Redan—MacMahon is Impregnable—Failure to take the Redan—Evening—Gortschakoff's Retreat—End of the Siege.

GENERAL JAMES SIMPSON succeeded to the command of the British army, and General Barnard became Chief of the Staff. Captain Keppel succeeded Captain, now Admiral, Sir Stephen Lushington in the command of the Naval Brigade. Sickness also drove home Sir Richard England, and Sir William Eyre took the 3rd Division. Lieutenant-General Markham, coming from India (there was a clamour for the appointment of Indian officers), succeeded to the 2nd Division, and Sir William Codrington to the Light Division. In the French camp there had been some changes. General Canrobert was recalled to France. General Bosquet reassumed the command of the French troops on the right, and General Herbillon, as senior officer present there, commanded the French on the Tchernaya.

The great object of the Allies was now to press as closely as possible to the body of the place. The French had begun to see distinctly that the Malakoff was the key of the whole defences on the eastern side, and that, with the fall of that redoubt, the town and the western side would be[114] untenable. Accordingly, they continued with vigour the works of approach begun after the capture of the Mamelon. They descended the eastern slope of this hillock, burrowing in the ground where the soil was soft, planting gabions and piling up sand-bags, and using blasting powder where it was hard and rocky. Day after day the space between the Mamelon and Malakoff showed signs of their labours; the works on the Careening Ridge were extended and strengthened; and the whole front protected by being tied together by a connecting parallel. But the loss of men was very great. The fire of guns and mortars, although not heavy, was constant, and the shells, flung with low charges from a short distance, burst in the parallels and batteries, and among the working parties, with destructive effect. The labour required was prodigious; for every approach had to be protected by traverses from an enfilading fire. The watchful eyes of Todleben were never turned from the works of the Allies, and as fast as they projected a new approach, he found means of taking it in flank or raking it from his side. Unseen mortars, far in the rear, sent their shells into the Allied works. The steamers were still active, and, although they were frequently fired at, yet they were rarely, if ever, hit. Then the fire of musketry was incessant, and so from shell, and shot, and bullet the soldiers in the trenches lost numbers night and day. The British were quite unable to work the rocky soil in front of the Quarries. They pushed out but a little way under an irregular but searching fire of shells, flung in clusters of eight or ten and sometimes twelve at a time. The engineers were chiefly engaged in enlarging and strengthening the works, and in placing a still heavier armament in the batteries. The British loss was also very large—between thirty and forty men per diem were put hors de combat.

So, through the month of July and the beginning of August, these deadly labours were continued, and the Allies crept nearer and nearer to the Malakoff and the Redans, and to the ramparts on the western face. In the meantime came reports that the Russian Government, determined to strike one blow for victory, had directed several divisions from Poland towards the Crimea. These reports were true. An effort was about to be made to raise the siege. As no attack could be made from the head of the harbour, it was plain that the covering army would be assailed from the Heights of Mackenzie and the Valley of Chouliou; wherefore the Sardinian infantry from Tchorgoun made several excursions into the hilly region to the north-east, yet they found no enemy. The Turks also entered the mountains, and the French cavalry in the Baidar Valley kept an eye on all the rugged passes leading into that fertile spot. They found no enemies in force, and they obtained from the valley a boundless supply of forage. But in the beginning of August it was observed that the Russians were constructing new works on the road from the Tchernaya to the Heights of Mackenzie, at points whence they could fire into the front and flanks of an advancing column. Clusters of Cossacks came down more frequently to the brow of the hills, gazed curiously into the valley, and sometimes skirmished with the French outposts. Small parties of the same useful troops hung about the French cavalry camps in the Baidar Valley, and one or two were caught by the active Chasseurs d'Afrique. From the end of the first week in August the Allies were on the look-out for an assault in force upon the Tchernaya.

It was the fact that Prince Gortschakoff, having received large reinforcements, in obedience to orders from St. Petersburg—for the Emperor on the Neva, like the Emperor on the Seine, interfered in the conduct of the war—proposed to assail the Allies. He was painfully aware of the strength of their position. He knew the ground. It had long been visible to him throughout its whole extent. He could see the Sardinian entrenchments from the heights above Tchorgoun, and his very batteries could almost reach the French camps from the heights of Inkermann. He had two batteries, called by the French Gringalet and Bilboquet, upon these heights, whose missiles amused the French outposts, and sometimes annoyed them, but seldom did any harm. Knowing the ground well, and the strength of the force holding it, he designed a clever plan of attack, based on that knowledge, but depending entirely for success upon a surprise, followed by rapid movements urged on without hesitation.

The French were encamped on the crown of the Fedoukine hills. Their outposts on the left, or western side, were on the banks of the Tchernaya, and they held an angular entrenchment or redan on the right bank, to defend the access to the bridge. The valley in front of the French camps, looking north, was a meadowy plain, through which ran the road to the Heights of Mackenzie and Inkermann. The troops occupying this position were seven battalions of Turks, with four guns, whose duty it was to watch the ford of Alsou, and guard the course of the Tchernaya thence to the confluence of the Kreuzen, having[115] ten battalions in support near Kamara, on the other side of the affluent. Next, the Sardinians under La Marmora, consisting of the divisions of Durando and Trotti, encamped on the Hasfort Hill, and in the plain the cavalry under Saviroux. The Sardinians had thirty guns, and a British battery of position, 32-pounder howitzers, under Captain Mowbray. Then came the three French divisions—that of Fancheux on the right, that of Herbillon in the centre, that of Camou on the left. The French cavalry, Morris's division, were encamped in the plain on the left of the Sardinians. The artillery park was in the rear of the Fedoukine heights. General Herbillon commanded the whole. Five brigades held the heights, and one occupied the eastern slopes of Mount Sapoune, and thus connected the army of observation with the corps engaged in pushing the attacks against the Malakoff. Including the British cavalry, 3,000 strong, there were nearly 40,000 men and 120 guns in line between Alsou and Mount Sapoune.

The information brought in by our spies and the reports of deserters had led the allied generals to look either for a sortie from the town, or for an attack on the line of the Tchernaya. On the 14th of August the troops in camp were under arms before daybreak, but nothing occurred on one side or the other. On the 15th more positive news arrived. General d'Allonville from the Baidar Valley notified by the semaphore that he had troops in front of him, or rather that his patrols had discovered bodies of the enemy moving down into the Valley of Chouliou. Signal lights flashed from Mackenzie to Inkermann, and from Inkermann to Sebastopol. An ostentatious gathering of troops in rear of the Redan and Malakoff was discovered from the tops of our men-of-war, and at the same time a suspicious movement of Russians towards Inkermann. All the commanders were warned, and orders were issued to be more than usually vigilant; General La Marmora directing his brigades to get under arms before daylight the next morning.

Prince Gortschakoff had, indeed, resolved to surprise if he could, if not, to force, the line of the Tchernaya. His reinforcements consisted of the 4th, 5th, and 7th divisions of infantry. To these he was able to add the 17th, 12th, 6th, and 11th; of these the 11th, 12th, and 17th had long been in the Crimea, and had fought at the Alma and Inkermann; but the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th were fresh troops, which had arrived recently from Poland and Bessarabia. In fact, as soon as it was certain that Austria did not mean to fight, the Czar put in motion all the troops that could be spared from the Austrian frontiers. Had all these divisions been in full strength, Prince Gortschakoff could have brought into line 78,000 infantry alone. But long marches had weakened some regiments, and others had suffered great losses in the field and the trenches; and instead of 78,000, he could only dispose of 50,900 infantry. To support them he had 7,200 cavalry, chiefly regulars, and 262 guns; in all about 60,000 men.

The plan of the Russian general was to move the bulk of his force, on the night of the 15th, by the roads leading from the Mackenzie Heights into lower ground, while two divisions marched from Korales down the Valley of Chouliou, and joined the left of the main body above Tchorgoun. The right column he entrusted to General Read. It consisted of the 7th and 12th divisions, and sixty-two guns. The left was under the orders of Liprandi, and was composed of the 5th, 17th, and 6th, and some ninety cannon. The 11th and 4th were in reserve, and remained so. General Liprandi led the way. On quitting the defile he was to move to his left, and before daylight drive the Sardinian outposts from the Mamelon, occupy that hill, and also the heights above Tchorgoun and Karlovka. The object of this was to give the Russians a good site, whence they might cannonade Mount Hasfort, and cover an infantry attack on that position. While Liprandi formed on the Sardinian Mamelon, Read was to bring his two divisions into line, but out of range; hold himself prepared to storm the Fedoukine heights, but not to make that attempt until he got orders to do so from Prince Gortschakoff.

All night on the 15th the Russian columns were moving silently down the steep road from Mackenzie, along the wooded valley of Chouliou, spreading out over the slopes, and pushing nearer and nearer to the outposts and patrols of the Allies. While this formidable host was approaching, the allied soldiers were asleep, and only the usual guards were under arms, and the usual patrols were moving across the front. Before daylight, however, the Sardinians got under arms; but the French do not appear to have turned out earlier than usual. Long security had bred confidence, and no doubt they relied upon their advanced posts, and not without reason. A thick fog hid everything in the valley, and hung heavily over the low meadows on both sides of the Tchernaya. Under cover of this, Prince Gortschakoff had got his troops into the positions he had designed them to occupy.

[116]

But the sentries were on the alert. There was a splutter of musketry in front of the bridge—a French patrol had stumbled in the fog upon the skirmishers of Read! Then followed a few reports near the Sardinian outpost, and a quick fire of musketry. General La Marmora, with great promptitude, sent a support across the Tchernaya to aid the riflemen on the Mamelon in delaying the advance of the enemy, while he made his final preparations. Liprandi had, while it was still dark, brought up such a heavy force, that although the Sardinians stood their ground with great gallantry, they were so pressed on all sides as to be forced out of their entrenchments, and were retiring down the hill as the support came up. The whole then gave ground before the enemy, and fell back upon the rocky elevation in front of the left of the Sardinian line, whence they were not expelled.

In the meantime the guns of Liprandi and Read were both in action; and the whole line of the Allies began to seize their arms and form. Morris's Chasseurs d'Afrique, 2,400 strong, formed between the left of the Sardinians and the right of the French, one regiment being at the head of the defile leading to the bridge. Saviroux's Sardinian cavalry, 300 men, came up on their right; and General Scarlett, turning out the British cavalry, a splendid force, 3,000 strong, moved them across the plain, and drew up in rear of the French and Italian squadrons. The Turkish and Sardinian guns were answering the fire of Liprandi's artillery; and two French batteries were ready to engage Read. So thick was the fog that the enemy's troops were still invisible, and pending the development of their attack, Generals La Marmora and Herbillon simply reinforced their outposts. Prince Gortschakoff has stated that about this time he had ridden on to the Sardinian Mamelon to survey the ground, and proceed with the execution of his original plan. While he was meditating and trying to pierce through the fog, he heard a violent fire of musketry on his right. General Read, without orders, as his superior officer avers, had begun the attack, and frustrated the whole scheme. From this moment the battle of the Tchernaya was a battle mainly between the French and Russians; the former, however, being assisted by the deadly fire of the British and Sardinian guns.

The Russian cannonade had thoroughly roused the French, but uncertain from what quarter the real attack of the enemy would come, the brigades were kept drawn up near their camps, ready to move in any direction. Suddenly dark masses were seen dimly through the mist moving down on the Tchernaya. They came on with great resolution, and very fast. At one and the same moment a column from the 12th Division assailed the bridge, and another from the 7th attacked the French left. The onset was so impetuous that the French outposts were at once thrust away from the river all along the line, and forced over the aqueduct. The advance of the 7th Division had been equally successful. Issuing from the fog, boldly passing the river, closing in from all sides on the French, the latter, outnumbered, were compelled to retire with all speed up the slopes of the Fedoukine hills. Now the tide of combat was going to change. In crossing the aqueduct the Russians had lost their regular formation, and they had to recover it as well as they could under a heavy fire. Thus their charge was stopped at the moment when victory depended upon its continuance; and while the troops in their front kept them in play, the French generals were executing movements intended to effect a bloody counter-stroke. The column of the 7th Division fell first under this calamity. They had crossed the river and aqueduct with comparatively little opposition, apparently only that of the outposts and the supports. They were advancing up the hill, when General Wimpfen, who commanded a brigade of General Camou's division, sent the 3rd Zouaves to check them. This brought the Russians to a stand. The heavy column, growing vaster as the men scrambling over the aqueduct came up, gave and received a telling fire, but did not advance. All this time, by the orders of Wimpfen, a battalion of the 82nd Regiment was rapidly coming down the hill to the aid of the Zouaves. As soon as the 82nd appeared, the French attacked with the bayonet. The Zouaves went headlong into the right, the 82nd into the left flank of the enemy. The outward ranks were lifted off their feet by the violence of the shock, and the column loosening at the rear, turned and hurried, in dreadful confusion, back over the aqueduct. A battery of artillery on the left of the line of attack poured grape into the flying mass, and augmented the slaughter.

So far the attack on the left had been repelled, but the beaten troops were still at hand to take advantage of any success that might fall to the share of their comrades, who had carried the bridge and were assailing the centre and right.

The Russians had poured over in three irregular columns. Those who crossed by the bridge formed[117] the centre; what may be called the wings had forded the river and the aqueduct. Each column was bravely encountered and overthrown. When General Wimpfen saw that his Zouaves and one battalion of the 82nd were sufficient to deal with the Russian extreme right, he sent the whole of the 50th, with the remainder of the 82nd as a reserve, to fall upon the central Russian columns. Thus, while the battalions of Herbillon's division assailed the centre, the 50th, moving obliquely down the hill, came upon the flank of the Russian column which had passed the aqueduct on the Russian right of the bridge. Exposed to such an assault, the Russians were unable to stand, and, after a brief musketry fight, they turned and sought shelter beyond the aqueduct and the Tchernaya. At the same time, General de Failly, in the centre, had charged, and the effect of the combined movement was to sweep the enemy over the river. The mass of the French were kept behind the aqueduct; but Colonel Danner, with portions of the 97th and 95th, was sent over to re-occupy the bridge-head. On the other side of the road to Balaclava the Russian column had proved too strong for the 19th Chasseurs; and after driving them up the eastern hillock, had, regardless of the tearing flank fire of the Sardinian artillery on Mount Hasfort, sought to deploy and storm the height. They were just moving up when the 2nd Zouaves came over the crest. The Russians began to fire, but the Zouaves continued to march forward, and then, with loud shouts and levelled bayonets, they went down the hill at a charging pace, and literally lifting the Russians off their legs, drove them pell-mell over the aqueduct.

GENERAL SIMPSON. (From a Photograph by Fenton.)

[118]

Prince Gortschakoff had heard the beginning of the attack upon the French left. He was, he says, astonished. General Read had frustrated his design of first driving the Sardinians from their entrenchments, and taking himself a solid grasp of Mount Hasfort. To effect this object he had in hand four divisions of infantry, and he was preparing to hurl his bolt when the uproar of Read's untimely onset broke upon his ear. At once he suspended the movement of these divisions, and changed the whole tide of his battle. He felt that he must support the troops of Read, for he could not be sure that the Allies would not assume the offensive, and, by good luck, they might interpose between him and the Mackenzie Heights, and throw the bulk of his army upon the hills and narrow valleys towards Aitodor and Chouliou. Wherefore he directed the cavalry to move up, and should the infantry be repulsed, hold themselves in readiness to charge or to cover the retreat of the 7th and 12th Divisions, and enable them to rally. At the same time he directed the 5th Division to move by its right into the plain and assail the French at and above the bridge. The 17th Division was ordered to descend the Sardinian Mamelon and cross the river, and strive to penetrate through the open space between Mount Hasfort and the most eastern slopes of the Fedoukine heights. The 6th Division moved up to guard the ground opposite the Sardinians above Karlovka and Tchorgoun, and the 4th Division remained in the rear up the valley of Chouliou as a reserve. The attack was vigorous enough, but the columns were defeated in detail and driven back.

But the enemy would not yet own himself beaten. The 17th Division had arrived on the right bank of the Tchernaya. It was formed of regiments that had met the Allies at the Alma and Inkermann. Undismayed by defeat, determined to risk another throw of the dice, Prince Gortschakoff ordered a brigade, composed of three regiments—that is, twelve battalions—supported by a large body of cavalry, to cross the river, and push in between the French and Sardinians. The march of these troops had been seen by the Allies. General Herbillon had reinforced the right by three regiments of Cler's brigade and part of Sencier's brigade, and General La Marmora had directed Mollard's brigade of Trotti's division to descend from Mount Hasfort and, crossing the valley, support the French right. The support, as it happened, was not needed, but it would have been most timely and effectual had the French been overmatched. As it was, the Russians crossed the river and the aqueduct, pushing the French before them, and partly turning their right. They moved with evident resolution, for their columns were struck by the fire of a powerful artillery in flank. A French battery, disregarding the shot and shell poured upon it by the Russian guns on the opposite hills, devoted all its might to the injury of the enemy's infantry. These were now smitten on all sides except their right. For when they saw the deep masses of cavalry facing the gorge into which they had entered, and when they felt the Sardinians on the left of their line of advance, they turned to the right and made a desperate attempt to crown the hillock. The first column which reached the crest was immediately assailed in flank by a French regiment of Cler's brigade, and driven helplessly into and over the aqueduct. But the other deep columns now filling the whole space between the aqueduct and the river still came on with unfaltering resolution, and flung themselves into a focus of fire. But they could make no way. The guns and musketry were too much for them. In vain their officers ran out and waved their swords and showed the way. In vain the columns tried to get along. Presently they fell into confusion; then turned and hurried back over the river, pursued by volleys of musketry and flights of grape and roundshot.

The Russians brought up into line a number of batteries to cover the retreat of the infantry, and their splendid-looking cavalry drew up in glittering lines out of range to protect the guns. But the heavy British pieces in the Sardinian earthworks, opening on the enemy's artillery, soon made them move farther away. It was about eight o'clock of the morning of the 16th. The battle was won.

In this action the Allies lost 1,747 men killed and wounded, of whom only 196 were killed. The Sardinians lost one general officer, the Count Montevecchio. But the Russian loss was awful. The French buried upwards of 2,000 bodies; the Russians more than 1,000. There were 2,250 prisoners in the hands of the French, some wounded, some whole. General Read and two other generals of his corps were among the dead; and among the wounded were eight generals and ten colonels. The Russian loss altogether could not have been less than 15,000 men. The battle of the Tchernaya sealed the fate of Sebastopol.

The battle of the Tchernaya did not interrupt the progress of the siege. The Russians only succeeded in drawing upon themselves the bulk[119] of the covering army, for although the French showed a strong line of troops on the old Inkermann ground, and kept up a sharp look-out upon their own left, this did not hinder the working parties in the advanced works from continuing their labours.

It should still be borne in mind that the French had fully recognised the fact that the Malakoff was the key of Sebastopol, that their main efforts were directed towards it, and that all the other attacks had become subordinate to this one. In short the attack on the Malakoff had become what is termed regular. But Sebastopol was not invested. The supply of guns in the place was practically unlimited. As much ammunition as the enemy could find transport for could be and was carried into the town. Hence, although the progress of the sap went on against the Malakoff and the Little Redan alone, the whole fire of the Allies could not be concentrated on those works, because they had to reply to the other batteries used so vigorously by the enemy. These conditions of the siege had been long established; the new feature in it was the determined attack upon the Malakoff, to which the other attacks were made subordinate.

The moment the French began to descend the western slope of the Mamelon, and push up the eastern slope of the Malakoff, they became sensible of the arduous nature of the undertaking. Their trenches had to be designed with the utmost care, their connecting parallels to be constructed with rapidity and solidity in the face of a destructive fire. About the period of the battle of the Tchernaya they were losing a hundred men a night in the trenches. Batteries, low down in the Russian works and unseen by the Allies, flung shells into the trenches and batteries with fatal accuracy. Nevertheless, the French steadily gained ground. They had descended one slope, they were ascending the other. But when they had reached within a hundred yards of the ditch of the Malakoff they could go no farther. The work of the night was destroyed by the enemy the next day. In vain the sharpshooters in their pits and in the most advanced cover kept up a deadly fire on the embrasures of the Malakoff. The enemy's guns were so numerous and so well placed that there seemed to be always some capable of firing, and with the dawn came the destruction of the labours of the night.

In these circumstances, General Simpson agreed to open on the 17th of August the heaviest possible fire upon the Malakoff; and the batteries of the French on the left were to bombard the town front to prevent the Russians on that side from overwhelming our left attack. Accordingly, on the 17th, the British opened fire; but the French, for some reason, did not support them, and the Russians in the town batteries did us considerable damage and killed two good officers. Yet this did not prevent the British from accomplishing their object. They maintained so crushing a fire on the Malakoff that the Russian artillerymen were soon obliged to quit their pieces, and only fire a gun now and then. At six in the evening a magazine blew up in a work between the Redan and the Malakoff. This battery was ruined. All night the mortars of the Allies fired heavily into the Malakoff and Redan, to hinder the enemy from repairing damages; and all night the French worked lustily at their trenches, doing more in twenty-four hours than they had done in a fortnight. The bombardment continued on the 18th. On the night of that day signal was made that masses of Russians were in the Redan. Thereupon the mortars were directed upon this work, and the heavy shells must have destroyed many men. There was a considerable exchange of musketry fire between the advanced trenches and the place, but the enemy did not venture out. The French on the left, who had been almost silent, now found that, in order to complete their approaches to a certain point, they also must open a general fire. This they did on the evening of the 20th, taking the enemy somewhat by surprise. While under cover of this fire they pushed forward their sap.

From this time to the end of the month there were constant alarms on the side of the Tchernaya. The French had been very active in the valley of Baidar immediately after the battle of the 16th. General d'Allonville had caused his infantry to penetrate the passes leading to the Tchernaya from the north, and establish posts of observation on the hills. At the same time the Sardinians strengthened their formidable works on Mount Hasfort, and the French constructed three batteries for guns intended to sweep the ground about the Stone Bridge. On the right they mounted twelve pieces of heavy artillery, naming the work the Raglan Battery. On the other flank they placed the same number of guns in a battery named after La Boussinière, a gallant artillery officer, distinguished at the Alma, and killed before Sebastopol. These guns looked obliquely up the road to the Mackenzie Heights. Then farther to the rear, and on the right of the road to Balaclava,[120] they constructed a work for twelve pieces, whose fire would sweep the whole road as far as the bridge, and named it Battery Bizot. Behind these works they re-made the old Turkish redoubts of October, 1854. Thus the Allies covered Balaclava with a triple line, the third being the now famous line of Balaclava, constituting a position as strong as any in the world.

Although it seemed improbable that the Russians would repeat the enterprise of the 16th of August, yet the information that reached headquarters, the partial disappearance of the Russians from the North Camp, the incessant flashing of signal lights from the eastern mountains to Inkermann, and from Inkermann to Sebastopol, induced the Allies to keep on the alert. General Simpson reconnoitred the whole position on the Tchernaya. The troops were under arms, both on the plateau and on the Tchernaya, long before daylight for several days, dispersing only when the sun rose. The men-of-war in the harbour of Balaclava were in readiness to take up positions whence they could do the most damage to the enemy. The splendid cavalry of the Allies turned out every day, and showed its thousands of sabres and lances in the plains of Balaclava; a spectacle gratifying to the military eye, and not encouraging to the enemy. The Highland Division took post above Kamara. The field artillery of the Allies was in constant readiness. From the hills that enfold the Baidar valley to the heights of Inkermann all was vigilance. Prince Gortschakoff, who had his army on the plateau of Mackenzie, and in the little valleys leading down towards the outposts and main position of the Allies, probably looked upon this scene, enacted daily; if he did so, what he saw must have extinguished any notion of breaking into the allied lines at any point. There was no weak place in the chain.

Nevertheless, the siege works made steady progress towards the Malakoff. There the assailants and defenders were within a few yards of each other. The Russians had a series of rifle-pits on the slope under the Malakoff Redoubt itself. The French works had approached so near that it became necessary to seize these pits, and incorporate them with the main body of the approaches. Accordingly, on the 23rd of August, a body of Zouaves worked all day in opening a trench leading towards the pits; and in the evening the light infantry of a line regiment went in and carried them. But the Russians, determined not to lose their shelter without a struggle, dashed out of the Malakoff, and expelled the Frenchmen. The Russians, however, did not long enjoy their triumph, for the expelled troops, being supported by their comrades, returned to the assault, reconquered and held the work. The next day the enemy kept up a heavy fire on the Mamelon, in spite of the support that our batteries afforded to the French. But the onward march of the latter could not be arrested. On the evening of the 24th they seized the whole line of Russian works on the glacis. Again the enemy violently essayed to prevent the French from making good their hold. Before the morning the whole line was complete, and the French works were within thirty-four yards of the salient of the Malakoff. The efforts of the enemy were directed chiefly against the Mamelon and the approaches therefrom, the quarter, as they well knew, where their greatest peril lay. On the night of the 28th they made a lucky shot. One of their shells rolled into a magazine in the left or southern face of the Mamelon Redoubt. There were at the time 15,000 pounds of powder in the magazine. This exploded with an awful roar, awakening the whole camp, and killing or wounding 150 Frenchmen. This vast explosion of powder did not seriously damage the Mamelon; but it delayed the final assault, because the store of powder, thus expended, had to be replaced.

For the remainder of the month the trying labour of getting close to the Malakoff and Little Redan went on in the usual way. But the crisis of the long siege had now come. Neither side could bear much longer the horrible losses inflicted by this deadly strife. The Russians might endure, hoping against hope, to hold out until the winter once more became their keen ally; but the French and British felt that they must risk an assault or raise the siege.

When Prince Gortschakoff saw that the French had opened their seventh parallel within a few yards of the Malakoff, he must have felt certain that an assault would soon be attempted. He was quite as well aware as the allied generals that the Malakoff was the key of the place. General Todleben had, from the first, shown a just appreciation of the ground, and upon those two salient and commanding points, the Flagstaff and the Malakoff, he had exhausted the resources of his art. Once firmly established in one of these, he knew that the Allies must win the city. He knew also that if the Flagstaff only were taken, he could defend the place long enough to secure a retreat; but that if the Malakoff fell before a raft-bridge could be constructed, the[121] Russians must surrender or die fighting, for the Malakoff Hill commanded the harbour. Here one cannot but admire the foresight of a general, who, while he defended his lines to the last, took early and ample precautions to secure a retreat. The great raft-bridge over that arm of the sea we call the Harbour, which is half a mile wide, was begun in July, and finished by the end of August. This stupendous work was designed and executed, no doubt, partly with the object of enabling the Russian general to pour troops rapidly into Sebastopol, but mainly to enable him to avoid capture in the last extremity. Nor was this the only work undertaken with the view of preparing against a calamity. The genius of Todleben had designed an inner line of works in rear and to the east of the Malakoff; and this must have been done only to gain time for the evacuation of the place in the event of the capture of that work.

THE FRENCH IN THE MALAKOFF. (See p. 124.)

The Russians were quite right in assuming that an assault would be hazarded at no distant day. It was the uppermost thought in the minds of the allied generals. The approach of winter, the expenditure of men and ammunition, the vast extent of the works, the proximity of the trenches to the place, and the impossibility of pushing them farther in certain quarters, dictated imperiously a resolution to storm. General Pélissier and General Simpson, therefore, directed the principal officers of artillery and engineers to meet and report on the propriety of making an assault, and on the best means of carrying it out. They met on the 3rd of September, and drew up a memorandum. In the attack on the town, that is the French left attack, from the Flagstaff to the Quarantine, they said, the works of approach had remained for a long time stationary, and they declared that these works could not be pushed farther without causing great loss. The British had made some progress before the Redan—their works had stopped short at 200 yards from the salient angle. Here again these officers were of opinion that the approaches could not be advanced, because serious impediments interposed; in other words, because the ground was rocky and enfiladed by several Russian batteries on both[122] sides of the South Harbour. In front of the Malakoff, the report went on to state, the French artillery had attained a marked superiority over that of the place, and under its protection—and, as we may add, the protection of the British batteries—the approaches had arrived within five-and-twenty yards of the enemy's lines. The French were also within thirty yards of the Little Redan. Here it was impossible to work nearer, because the ground was living rock. Therefore, for these reasons, the officers decided unanimously that the moment had arrived for assaulting the place. How should this be done?

It was assumed, and justly, that if the Malakoff could be captured and held, the fall of the Karabelnaia suburb, that is, the whole space east of the South Ravine, would be inevitable. Therefore the main attack was to be directed against the Malakoff, and in order that it might be successful, while a powerful column rushed into the work itself, two other columns assailed simultaneously the Little Redan, and the long rampart or curtain connecting it with the Malakoff. But as the Allies were fighting, not against a mere garrison of limited number, but against a numerous army, and as the enemy, knowing the importance of the position, would do his uttermost to keep, or, if he lost, to regain it, so it was held to be necessary that other attacks should be simultaneously made upon the place, in order to prevent the Russians from concentrating their forces at the vital point. It was with this object that the officers of the Engineers recommended an assault by the British on the Redan, and by the French on the west or town front. These, it should ever be borne in mind, were to be subordinate assaults. It was held essential to success that the assault should be preceded by a heavy bombardment for three days. Such was the scheme devised by the principal officers of artillery and engineers of both armies on the 3rd of September. The day chosen was the 8th of September, the hour, noon exactly.

The sixth and last bombardment began at daybreak on the 5th of September. Nearly the whole of the 800 pieces of ordnance in battery opened on the place. The sun shone brightly; a light air from the south-east blew over Sebastopol. One moment the old familiar scene was visible—the still majestic town, the serene waters of the harbour, the dark and rugged outline of the defences, the Black Sea, and the allied fleet. The next moment the rolling clouds of smoke, boiling up and extending on all sides, hid everything from view. It was the policy of the Allies to fill the mind of the enemy with doubt as to their projects, and thus force him to keep at a strained attention on all sides. Therefore it was from the 350 guns and mortars in the fifty-two batteries directed against the western face of the ramparts of Sebastopol that the most furious volleys issued. Even the official report of the British engineers calls it a "terrific cannonade." The fire from our batteries, and that of the French right, was what is called steady and careful. It was incessant but not hurried. This was calculated to make the enemy believe that the assault would be on the town front and not on the suburb, and, therefore, to keep more men in readiness in that quarter. Nevertheless, the mere weight of metal directed upon the Malakoff entirely silenced that work from the first. Upwards of 200 guns and mortars were levelled and trained to bear upon its outward faces, its embrasures, and its interior. The 7th passed like the 5th and 6th, opening with a volley along the whole four miles of batteries, then, of set purpose, dying away, and suddenly bursting forth again. The wind had changed. The smoke and dust were driven back from Sebastopol by a northern blast, and men strained their eyes in vain to catch a glimpse of the place. Yet patient watchers peering through the rifts in the sombre cloud saw enough to convince them that the enemy was suffering almost beyond endurance. At night fires were visible in several places; about eleven o'clock a magazine blew up; and at the same time a huge two-decker was burning solemnly in the Harbour. Up to this time the enemy had lost 4,000 men, exclusive of gunners, who, says Prince Gortschakoff, perished in great numbers, shot down at their guns.

Hitherto the allied generals had kept secret the hour of the assault. At noon they held a fresh council, and took their last resolutions. Now the secret was divulged. Precisely at noon of the following day the stormers were to make their rush. In order to secure uniformity of movement the staff officers met at headquarters, and set their watches in concert. Next morning General Bosquet, who had the immediate command on the Malakoff side, went into the sixth parallel; and between eleven and twelve General Pélissier took post in the Mamelon. General Codrington and General Markham were in the front of our Redan attack; and a little before noon General Simpson went to a spot selected for him by the engineers in the first parallel. With him went Sir Harry Jones.

[123]

We have already described the plan of attack; we have now to set forth the means of executing it. To ensure success in the attack on the Malakoff works, General Pélissier employed 25,000 men. There were not only the whole of the corps of Bosquet, but Mellinet's Brigade of the Imperial Guard, and Marolles' Brigade of the Reserve. MacMahon, with 5,000 men, was to storm the Malakoff Redoubt, and in support were Wimpfen's Brigade, 3,000 strong, and two battalions of the Zouaves of the Guard; thus giving 10,000 men to take and hold the Malakoff itself. General La Motterouge was entrusted with 4,300 men to storm the curtain between the Malakoff and Little Redan; and General Dulac had 4,600 wherewith to carry the Little Redan itself, and 3,000 under Marolles wherewith to make good his grip of this work, and thence carry the unfinished interior lines of defence. There was no special support allotted to La Motterouge, but General Bosquet had upwards of 3,000 men as a general reserve. In addition, two batteries of artillery were held in readiness to drive through the trenches and over the open, and take part in the combat in case they were required. On the western front General de Salles commanded. He had 18,500 men available, including Cialdini's 1,200 Italians. Levaillant, with 4,300 men, was to make two attacks on the Central Bastion, and D'Autemarre, with 5,280 men, was to furnish a support. In case of success, and when one of the storming columns had turned the Flagstaff Bastion on its proper right, D'Autemarre's division, Cialdini at its head, was to turn the proper left of the Flagstaff. The remaining troops were in reserve. Thus Pélissier had set apart 43,000 men for the assaulting and supporting columns.

The British arrangements were not on this colossal scale. Two divisions, the Light and Second, were directed to furnish both stormers and supports. Each division supplied a covering party, a ladder party, a storming party divided into two sections, and a working party. The whole amounted to 1,600 men. The covering parties, riflemen intended to spread out and keep down the fire of the unsubdued Russian guns, were under Captain Fyers and Captain Lewes. The ladder parties, intended to be stormers as soon as they had placed their ladders, were under Major Welsford. The storming parties were under Lieutenant-Colonel Handcock, Captain Grove, Brigadier Shirley, and Colonel Windham. The supports consisted of 750 men of each division, and the remainder of both were held in reserve. Thus General Simpson had resolved to try and take the Redan by dribbling into it about 3,100 men; and the whole force he kept in hand in case of emergencies was about 4,000 more. At the same time the Highland Division was posted next to the French attack, while the Third and Fourth were held back in the rear of the right attack, and the First was under arms in camp.

The Russians had no fewer than 75,000 men in Sebastopol. There were sixteen battalions in the works on the proper left of the Malakoff, and twelve battalions in reserve on this side. In the Malakoff were four battalions and some companies, and four battalions in the Gervais Battery on its proper right. There were besides sixteen battalions in reserve. They had been called up from the town by General Chruleff, when his suspicions were aroused by the information that the French trenches seemed to be full of troops. Thus there were about 22,000 men under arms for the defence of the Malakoff system of works. In the Redan and to the right and left of it were nine battalions and sixteen in reserve. The battalions in the front line were chiefly our old foes of the Alma and Inkermann. Their numbers were about 13,000. In addition to these troops there were no fewer than 10,000 in reserve for general purposes. The total number for the defence of the line from the Barrack Battery to the Harbour was therefore 45,000 men; or 2,000 more than were set apart by the French alone for all their attacks, and 10,000 more than the combined numbers of the English and French on the eastern side. In the town the Russians had 20,000 men, 2,000 more than the number at the disposal of General de Salles. The front line of works from the Quarantine to the Flagstaff was strongly manned; and besides the special reserves of the different bastions, there was a general reserve nearly 10,000 strong. Such a vast force, fighting behind the strongest entrenchments ever raised, was certain to be hard to conquer; and although it was divided into huge fragments, and one half was separated from the other by an arm of the sea—the South Harbour—we have shown that in mere numbers alone the Russians were in every point superior to their assailants. This should be remembered in view of what followed.

At mid-day the officers gave the signal. The clarions sounded, the drums beat, the men cried "Vive l'Empereur!" and dashing over the trenches, went headlong towards the Malakoff, the curtain, and the Little Redan. At the first rush all these places were surprised and overrun; but the attack[124] on the great redoubt was the only one destined to be permanently successful.

The Malakoff Redoubt was a mighty keep, 380 yards long, and 160 wide; the ditch was upwards of six yards deep and seven wide, and its slope next to the work was very steep. In the interior were, first, the ground floor of the old stone tower, and then a multitude of traverses, huge ramparts of earth and timber designed to minimise the effect of shell fire. It was a closed work, that is, fortified on all sides, with one narrow opening in the rear, so that when once the assailants mastered the interior and closed the gorge the vast ramparts were defences for and not against them. This brief description will enable the reader to form some notion of the difficulties in the way of the stormers, and of the advantages which told in their favour when they had subdued the garrison. The Little Redan was also a closed work, but the long curtain connecting it with the Malakoff was exposed to the fire of the Russian second line, thrown up about 300 yards in the rear. The Great Redan was an open work, like a very straddling V, and its flanks were well supplied with traverses. The old trace of the entrenchment, as it existed in 1854, formed a sort of low retrenchment at the open end, in no sense formidable except as affording cover behind which infantry could rally. Here, it will be observed, the disadvantages were on the side of the assailants. Although the defenders might not be able to keep their foes out, in all probability they could prevent them from remaining in, unless they entered in overwhelming numbers, and succeeded in closing the rear against the attacks of the expelled enemy. In order to make the separate scenes of the 8th of September clear, it will be necessary to treat them separately, trusting the reader to remember that several actions were fought simultaneously.

The leading troops of MacMahon's division were the 1st Zouaves and the 7th of the Line. The Zouaves darted out on the right, and the Linesmen on the left. The heads of the columns reached the deep ditch together, leapt into it without waiting for ladders, swarmed up the opposing bank, and climbing, some over the parapet, some through the embrasures, jumped into the midst of the astonished Russians. In a short space half the force of the two regiments was in the work; but the engineers had thrown a ladder bridge so swiftly over the ditch that the rear companies of the 7th were able to cross it. At the same time four companies of Chasseurs had crossed the ditch, and entering the work at its point of junction with the Gervais Battery, drove its defenders out at the point of the bayonet, and made good their hold upon the battery. The Zouaves and the Linesmen in the Malakoff had attacked with such impetuosity and in such numbers that the Russians were obliged to fight in disorder, about the base of the old White Tower. But Frenchmen rushed in on all sides. There was a brief and bloody combat. Assailed in front, turned on both flanks, unable to retreat, above a hundred Russians ran into the lower storey of the old tower, and began to fire through the loopholes. By this time the Zouaves and the 7th had driven the enemy completely out of the space round the tower. Quickly rallying, the Russians collected behind the first huge line of traverses, and, in spite of the efforts of the French, held for awhile their ground. Foot by foot the French had gained upon them. They dashed at the openings, they wound in and out around the flanks, they crept along the parapets, and just as Vinoy's brigade was entering the work in support of Decaen, the latter's men had succeeded in forcing the enemy to seek shelter behind the second great line crossing the Malakoff at its widest part. Here the Russians rallied stronger than ever. They were plainly gathering for a rush. Hundreds had fallen on both sides, but the fury of the combat did not abate. The great French flag floated in the smoke and dust over the tower, but the Malakoff was yet to win. Until the gorge was gained and closed nothing was gained. So thought MacMahon. Vinoy was bursting in to his aid, but he determined to be secure, so he sent one of his staff for part of the Imperial Guard and Wimpfen's reserve. Before these could arrive, Vinoy, a prompt and gallant soldier, had led his men into the work and made use of them with striking skill. He had thrown the bulk of his force on the right of the assailants. With the 20th he supported the right of the Zouaves, and with the 27th, by a most soldier-like movement, he turned the Russian left. Paralysed by this rapid manœuvre, executed with unfaltering impetuosity, as soon as he saw the 27th in the rear of his left, and rapidly approaching the gorge, the enemy quitted his hold of the great line of traverses, and made for the sole exit from the redoubt. The French burst through like a flood. The more daring of the enemy turned several times, and spent their strength in brave but useless charges. Though they were swept along by the torrent of foes which streamed upon them, they made a brilliant resistance; and it was only when they felt that the 27th of the Line, so skilfully led,[125] so relentlessly bent on gaining the gorge, would soon reach it, that they rushed out of the work. MacMahon and Vinoy swooped upon their prize, closed the gorge, and forbade all return.

THE STRUGGLE IN THE REDAN. (See p. 126.)

During this time the French on the extreme right had fought with great bravery but adverse fortune. The parallels of approach had been pushed up close to the Little Redan, and the heads of the columns of attack were close under the work; Dulac's leading brigade, therefore, had at the appointed hour started like the rest and had at once seized the Little Redan. Somewhat later in point of time, because the distance to be overcome was greater, General La Motterouge had sent his first brigade under Bourbaki against the curtain. Here again the French succeeded. The whole line from the Malakoff to the Little Redan was in their hands. Eager to take advantage of this burst of success, the leading brigades, as soon as the supports were well up, dashed forward. Bourbaki led his men against the second line, while St. Pol, issuing from the Little Redan, sought to turn the line at its point of intersection with the rear defences of the latter work. But the Russians were now fully alive. The batteries on the north side opened on the assailants. Three war-steamers ran up to the mouth of the Careening Bay, and poured in broadside after broadside. Field guns were promptly brought up to the second line, and used to hurl forth showers of desolating grapeshot. The Russian reserves came up, and charging the disordered columns of the French, forced them violently back—Bourbaki, as far as, and over, the curtain; St. Pol into the Little Redan. So prompt and vigorous was this counter-stroke, so deadly was the fire of the steamers, that St. Pol could not keep his hold even of the Little Redan. He was driven out, and the French, with difficulty, ensconced themselves on their own side of the curtain and in its ditch. The attempts to recover these positions were unsuccessful. Similarly on the extreme right they failed to carry the Central Bastion.

The afternoon was wearing away. The British attack on the Great Redan, which we shall presently describe, had failed. The guns on the[126] left face of this work were shooting down the French on the slopes of the Malakoff. General Chruleff had tried by three desperate charges to break into the gorge of the key of the place, and tear away from MacMahon his blood-stained prize. But the defence was too strong. The Russians only dashed up to the gorge and tried to pull down the gabions that closed it, or endeavoured to scramble up the ramparts, to meet death from the crushing musketry fire that blazed from the parapets. A huge column had emerged from the houses, and for a moment seemed resolved to sweep the gallant Chasseurs out of the Gervais Battery. Suddenly the massive column was rent by round shot and disordered by shell, and struck in flank by musketry. The British gunners in the Quarry Battery had caught sight of this column, and in an instant had trained and fired their pieces. Finding only five guns bore upon the enemy, they tore down the sides of the other embrasures, and brought promptly seven into action. That was the source of the torrent of shot and shell. The streams of musketry rolled from the western flank of the Malakoff, and from the Chasseurs in the Gervais Battery. The column broke up under this fire and fled to the rear. Prince Gortschakoff had arrived from the north side, and scanning the Malakoff, saw that life would be vainly wasted in further attempts to retake it. He therefore forbade them; but he ordered his generals to resist to the last on the other points.

It is now time to narrate the attack of the British on the Redan. There were in and near the work, and specially appointed to defend it, no less than, at the lowest computation, 12,000 men, exclusive of a great reserve. Against these we were about to send not altogether, stormers and supports, more than one-fourth of the number. This handful of men were expected to take and hold an open work defended by thirty-two battalions of Russian infantry. The men did not hesitate. In a few minutes the salient was won. The Light Division column had stormed in at the apex, the Second Division column had been led to the right, and had entered the work on its proper left face, some yards from the salient. Now the crisis of the combat arrived. Driven back by the impetuous charge of the British, the Russians in the salient, and on each flank ran to the rear, and collected behind the breastwork, up to which they speedily brought field artillery. The handful of British who had got in did not, unhappily, even attempt to carry the breastwork by a rush. The British soldier is a creature of habit, and he instinctively fell into his old ways. Instead of storming on, he extended himself on parapet or traverse, and began to fire. The officers saw how fatal this would prove, and tried to get the men out from cover, and to form them for a rush. In this work Colonel Windham and others were conspicuous. But it availed nothing. During this musketry combat weak supports, in disarray, arrived from the British trenches; but the Russians had now gathered in immense force. Pauloff, who commanded here, had called up about 8,000 men. Throwing these into the fight as they came up, he sent some along the flanks, while he kept a strong line, aided by field guns, behind the breastwork, and from that point directed a converging fire into the salient. Considering his numbers, the Russian general was singularly slow in his movements. But by degrees, and by sheer weight of men, his masses pressed the British closer and closer. These, firing with all their might, soon exhausted their stock of ammunition, and were forced to use stones. Then the supports from the trenches, on reaching the salient, imitated the example of their precursors and fired until their store was gone. Colonel Windham sent three officers to beg for troops in formation. Not one reached General Codrington. This officer was perplexed and irresolute, and at length Windham arrived himself to demand a well-formed support. It was too late, assuming that such a support could have reached the Redan and have expelled its numerous garrison. Just after Windham had quitted the work on this errand, Pauloff grew emboldened by his numbers, and pressing down upon the salient, closed with the British soldiers still holding on. A short and terrible combat ensued at close quarters. Our men were unwilling to surrender the little space they had so dearly won; but the pressure of fire and steel was irresistible. The remnant of the stormers was forced over the parapet, but not away from it. There, on our side, they still hung, and were fed from the trenches by sections of men who had survived the path of fire by which alone they could reach the enemy. But this could not last long. At length the enemy made a mighty effort, and swept every British soldier from the parapet into the ditch. Those who were able to scramble up had to run the gauntlet of a fire of grape and musketry on their return to the trenches, whither they arrived breathless, bleeding, exhausted. The Russians cheered, manned their parapets, fired into the chaos of human beings weltering in heaps in the ditch, and even brought up two field-pieces, and with grape from these pursued the fugitives. For this they paid a heavy penalty. Our batteries instantly opened a deadly fire on the Redan, crushing the field-pieces at once, and smashing the masses of infantry whose numbers choked the work. But the enemy had gained his point, and had worsted the victors of the Alma and Inkermann.

LORD RAGLAN VIEWING THE STORMING OF THE REDAN AT THE SIEGE OF SEBASTOPOL.

FROM THE PAINTING BY R. CATON WOODVILLE.

By permission of Messrs. Henry Graves & Co., Ltd, Pall Mall, S.W.

[See larger version]

[127]

From his post of vantage on the Mamelon General Pélissier had witnessed our defeat; and he now sent to inquire whether General Simpson intended to renew the assault, telling him at the same time that the French were inexpugnably placed in the Malakoff. General Simpson was compelled to say that he could not renew the assault, for the trenches were full of the beaten troops; but he promised to strike at the Redan once more in the morning. The sun went down, and in the British camp gallant men groaned in bitterness of heart over their splendid failure.

In the desperate efforts they made to recapture the Malakoff, the Russians had lost hundreds of men and several generals. At five o'clock orders for a general retreat were issued. As soon as it was dark the enemy placed bodies of riflemen and artillerymen in all the works remaining to them, and these were instructed to keep up a steady fire. Behind them were some battalions in reserve, occupying the street barricades and houses. Thus protected, the troops in the town were to march directly to the raft-bridge, and across it to the north side in regular order. Those in the suburb were to move upon the point where stood Fort Paul. Thence steamers and other craft would transport them to the great bridge. Then the reserves were to follow, and finally, at a given signal, the rear-guard were to spike the guns, fire the trains of the magazines, and beat a retreat over the bridge. All this was accomplished with great skill and celerity. The Allies were uncertain of the intentions of the enemy, and, moreover, they stood in awe of the mines supposed to exist. So all night the long and heavy columns of men, with field artillery, some of which they were obliged to throw into the sea, were passing over the bridge, which swayed to and fro under the great weight. It was a marvellous feat and forms a splendid finale to the siege; but it should be remembered that it was the retreat of an army by an unassailable line; and what is admirable in the action is the promptitude of the general's decision, and the coolness and speed with which it was executed. The town was committed to the flames and the magazines were exploded. On the 11th our guns had been brought to bear on the Russian steamers still afloat, and the enemy, to prevent us from sinking them, burnt them at night, making a second conflagration nearly as brilliant as that of the blazing town. The Russian Black Sea fleet had ceased to exist.

Thus ended this now famous and unique military operation. The losses had been enormous on both sides during the last days of the siege. In four days in August the admitted loss of the enemy was 5,500 men from the brief bombardment alone. From the 22nd of August to the 4th of September the Russians had lost upwards of 7,000 men. During the cannonade and bombardment which preceded the assault—that is, in three days—their loss was 4,000, giving a total of 16,500 men, exclusive of the artillerymen killed at their guns. On the 8th their loss, estimated by themselves, was 11,690. So that between the 16th of August and the 9th of September their force was diminished by 28,190 men killed and wounded. Included in this total, which is understated, are a few hundred "missing," but most of the missing were among the slain. The losses of the Allies, although very severe every day, were not so great. Allowing 200 a day for the last three weeks of the siege, we have a total of 4,200, and if we add to these the loss on the 8th—7,557 for the French, and 2,610 for the British—we have a total loss of 14,367, a dear price for the prize that was won.

[128]

## CHAPTER IX.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

> Gortschakoff clings to Sebastopol—Inactivity of the Allies—D'Allonville's Expedition to Eupatoria—Destruction of Taman and Fanagoria—Expedition to Kinburn—Description of the Fortress—Its Capture—Resignation of Sir James Simpson—Explosion of French Powder Magazine—Naval Operations—The Fleets in the Baltic—The Hango Massacre—Coast Operations—Attack on Sveaborg—Results of the Action—What the Baltic Fleet did—Russia on the Pacific Coast—Petropaulovski blown up—Insignificant results of the Campaign—The Russian Position in Asia—The Turks left to their Fate—Incompetency of the Sultan's Generals—Foreigners in Kars—Want of Supplies—Defeat of Selim Pasha—Battle of Kuruk-Dereh—Colonel Williams sent to Kars—Fortification of Erzeroum and Kars—Situation of Kars—Williams's objects—Mouravieff arrives—His Expeditions towards Erzeroum—The Blockade begins—Relief is slow—The Assault of September 29th—Kmety's success—The Tachmasb Redoubt—Attack on the English Lines—Victory of the Turks—Omar's Relief fails—Sufferings of the Garrison—Williams capitulates—Terms of the Surrender—Reflections on the Siege.

IMMEDIATELY after the fall of Sebastopol the Russians resumed the work of fortifying the north side. If, for a moment, they entertained the notion of retiring to Simpheropol, that moment must have been very brief. Prince Gortschakoff had long studied the habits and customs of an allied army under two or three Commanders-in-Chief. He knew well the benefits he derived from a divided command in the camp of his adversaries. He knew also the strength of his mountain position; and if, indeed, he thought of retreating inland, that thought must have been suggested, not by any fear that he should be forced, but by a fear that he might not be able to feed his diminished host. Placing his cavalry on the Belbek, where water abounded, he took up a long line with his infantry and Cossacks, stretching from the high table-land above Fort Constantine, along the Inkermann and Mackenzie ridges to Aitodor in the heart of the mountains above the Baidar valley. New batteries sprang up by magic among these rugged bluffs, and in a few days the Russian front of defence was as powerfully organised as ever.

At this time the Allies had nearly 200,000 men in the Crimea; including upwards of 10,000 horsemen, and a very numerous and efficient force of field artillery. Having so vast an army, one is astonished to find that no effort worthy of the name was made to strike another blow at the main body of the enemy. The French did, indeed, place their right wing, 33,000 strong, with 54 guns, in the valley of Baidar, with a larger force and more guns on the Tchernaya, backed by a powerful reserve, exclusive of the Imperial Guard on the plateau. But this demonstration, made as early as the 11th of September, did not in the least deceive Prince Gortschakoff. It was manifest that no threatening movements of troops, no amount of marching and countermarching between Balaclava and the Baidar passes, would induce him to budge a foot. He knew that to reach him through the mountains his adversaries could only show a narrow front, and thus obtain no advantage from numbers; and that to assail the Heights of Mackenzie, they must advance under a terrible fire to force rugged passes and deep defiles. So he did not change his ground, much less run away. What he dreaded was a decided advance from some point of the coast upon his lines of communication—from Kaffa or from Eupatoria, or from the mouth of the Alma—but whether it was that the allied generals could not agree, or that the Governments of Paris and London thought enough had been done, or whether it was that Marshal Pélissier did not wish to risk his laurels, or whether the season was held to be too far advanced for the accomplishment of large enterprises, certain it is that none were undertaken. For ten days after the fall of the place the only change in the relative situations of the two armies was that the French occupied more ground.

At the end of that time there was a delusive symptom of more extended activity. General d'Allonville, with his division of horse, embarked at Kamiesch, for Eupatoria, on the 18th of September. Arrived there, he took the command of the whole force, namely, 17,000 Turco-Egyptian infantry, 2,500 cavalry, and 48 guns. Expectation ran high in the camp, especially as the allied fleets went to sea on a cruise along the coast, reminding observers of the experimental trips made in August, 1854. But there was very little danger in the air. General d'Allonville, with the force at his disposal, was strong enough to raise the blockade of Eupatoria on the land side, but not strong enough to move far from the place, or hazard his line of retreat for a moment. He[129] found a well-disciplined Moslem force at Eupatoria. The Turkish general, Ahmed Pasha, had employed the summer in training these battalions, and the French general was pleased to find such excellent infantry under his orders. But he felt 20,000 men were too few for the execution of any great scheme, and it is doubtful whether, had he been disposed to march inland, his superiors before Sebastopol and in Paris would have permitted the risk involved. He therefore confined himself to the simpler task of driving away the Russians, and giving his cavalry officers the chance of winning a cross and ribbon. The expedition was brilliantly successful. The pursuit was kept up for some miles, and the French cavalry had the satisfaction, not only of routing the Russian horse, but of carrying from the field six guns, twelve caissons, a forge, 169 prisoners, and 150 horses. This brilliant operation relieved Eupatoria from the too pressing attentions of the Russian horse.

EVACUATION OF SEBASTOPOL. (See p. 127.)

[130]

At the other extremity of the Crimea an expedition, organised at Kertch, had crossed the Straits, and had occupied and destroyed Taman and Fanagoria; but it would have been more to the purpose had the allied generals seized Kaffa and Arabat, and threatened the road over the Putrid Sea at Tchongar, whence the enemy derived large quantities of supplies. Instead of this they adopted a different plan. The navy had long desired some opportunity of doing service. Now it happened that the Emperor Napoleon had invented or adopted certain floating batteries cased with iron, and was anxious to test their quality in actual war. It happened also that there was a fort isolated and exposed to attack whereon the experiment might be tried, and a further stress put upon the enemy. It was the fort of Kinburn on the estuary of the Dnieper that the Allies designed to capture. It might have been assumed that their aim in so doing was to pave the way for an advance in force either upon Kherson or Nicolaief; but Prince Gortschakoff knew as well as the Allies that it was too late in the year to make the attempt even; and thus the expedition to Kinburn only served the purpose of testing the worth of the new floating batteries, and seizing another material guarantee, which, when the time for negotiation came, would prove useful. In the first week of October upwards of 7,700 infantry embarked on board the French and British men-of-war. There were thirty-eight ships in the French squadron, and thirty-four in the British. The former included the three floating batteries, Dévastation, Tonnante, and Lave. The British had six, the French four ships of the line; the former were under Sir Edmund Lyons, the latter under Admiral Bruat. General Bazaine commanded the French land forces. After a demonstration before Odessa, on the morning of the 14th of October the ships got under steam, and made for Kinburn, where they anchored off the spit the same evening.

Kinburn, as we have said, stood on the southern shore of the estuary of the Dnieper, and formed, with Oczakov, the defence of those waters. It was a regular fortress, built almost on a level with the sea. The northern face looked up the spit, the southern along the road that led to Kherson and Perekop; the eastern looked on to the estuary, and the western on to the Black Sea. Thus it presented four strong casemated faces, and north and south were deep ditches, supplied with sea water. It mounted fifty-one guns, but they were only 18-pounders and 24-pounders. To the southward there was a small village, and some large stacks of wood. To the north there were two batteries—one called the Point Battery, mounting eight, the other called the Middle Battery, mounting eleven guns. These were connected by a deep covered way, and their guns commanded the channel, which, inside the spit, ran along near the shore. There were in these works some 1,500 men, under General Kokanowitch.

The Allies had arrived, determined to capture the place. Their plan was to land their soldiers to the south, thus investing the fortress on that side, and preventing any force from Kherson from relieving the besieged; then to place their ships, gunboats, and floating batteries on both sides of the fortress and its outworks, and thus overwhelm them with a concentrated and concentric fire. The troops landed on the 15th, the British being the first to step ashore. As soon as they were assembled, lines of defence were marked out, and working parties began to ply the spade and throw up entrenchments in the sand. The British were entrusted with the task of showing a front on the Kherson road, which ran along the spit, while the French moved up towards Kinburn. The guns of the enemy at once opened upon the French, who replied with musketry and field artillery. This combat continued. The fleets could not take part because the sea was too rough, and night fell upon the scene, leaving the fleet in the offing and the troops ashore. On the 17th the wind had fallen; the sky was clouded, but the sea was calm. Then a movement began in the fleet. The gunboats and mortar vessels steered for the[131] positions assigned them, some going southward to fire on the south-westerly angle, others steering northward to double the point and range along the inner side. The floating batteries were carried in nearer to the fort, until they were within about 700 yards of the south-west angle. The frigates went forward towards the batteries on the spit, one line on the Black Sea side, the other in the estuary. The Hannibal, line-of-battle ship, took position opposite the extreme northern end of the spit, and raked its defences. The Russians defended their post with energy; but they were overmatched. The interior of the fort was soon in flames. Part of the garrison ran out into the dry ditches for shelter, but here they were exposed to French musketry and grape-shot. In order to terminate the contest the gunboats went closer in, and the line-of-battle ships, steaming up in line abreast, brought their guns to bear upon the torn and shattered and smoking ramparts. The Russian guns were now completely silenced. The batteries on the spit continued to fire a gun here and there, but five hours' cannonade and bombardment had placed Kinburn fort hors de combat. Seeing this, and not wishing to prolong a useless engagement, Admirals Lyons and Bruat made the signal to cease firing. They then summoned the garrison to surrender. General Kokanowitch complied. The next day the Russians blew up the fort at Oczakov, thus leaving the Allies in full possession of the estuary of the Dnieper and of the mouth of the Bug. But the capture of Kinburn was the only solid piece of work done by this expedition.

Thus the pleasant autumn weather passed away. All was quiet round Sebastopol, beyond the Tchernaya and around the Baidar Valley, and the only activity displayed was in those expeditions we have described on the extremities of the Crimea—at Kinburn, at Eupatoria, at Kertch, and in the Sea of Azoff. The reasons for this inactivity may be safely traced to differences at Paris and London touching the conduct and field of war, and to the desire of making peace, which the Allies were resolved should be honourable and satisfactory to them, and which the Russians were anxious should involve the minimum of sacrifices on their side. But there was another reason of great weight. General Sir James Simpson had sent home his resignation immediately after the fall of Sebastopol. He was a brave and able soldier, but he had passed the prime of life, and not knowing the French language, he was in a false position, and unable to struggle with success against the natural self-assertion of Marshal Pélissier. He had also been unjustly assailed because a few hundred British soldiers had not been able to wrest the Redan from thousands of Russians, supported by heavy flanking batteries. The Government accepted his resignation. That was easy. Whom should they put in his place? They were at a loss for an answer. The fittest man was Sir Colin Campbell—old, it is true, but still as hardy and active and vigorous as ever. But a report had been industriously spread that Campbell would quarrel with the French, and he did not, besides, belong to the privileged few. Perhaps the Cabinet wanted a safe man, one who would not propose or urge decisive action. At all events, they found one. Sir William Codrington—a guardsman who had not seen a hundredth part of Campbell's service, who had not a hundredth part of Campbell's ability, but who was an average soldier, a brave leader in battle, and one of the "right set"—was selected to command the Anglo-Sardinian armies.

Three days afterwards a great calamity befell the French, and inflicted several losses upon us. On the 14th of November the powder magazines in the park of the French siege train, containing 250,000 pounds of gunpowder, blew up; not powder only, but an immense quantity of shells, carcasses, rockets, and cartridges. Happily all were not panic-stricken. General van Straubenzee, calling for volunteers from the gallant 7th, Lieutenant Hope and a number of men stood forward. These brave fellows headed by their officer, quickly joined by others, ascended the walls of the roofless mill used as a powder magazine, and by great labour succeeded in covering up the powder with wet blankets. It was a service where the risk was awful, for all around were conflagrations; the air was full of fleeting flames, and there stood the great magazine without doors, windows, or roof; all had been blown in or torn off. Yet the daring deed was well done, and the place saved. By this calamity we lost ten men killed and sixty-nine wounded. One of the killed was Deputy-Assistant Commissary Yellon. The French lost six officers killed and thirteen wounded, and 166 men killed and wounded. The cause of this catastrophe was never discovered.

We must now leave the Crimea to narrate the operations of the British fleet in the Baltic and Pacific. The naval operations of the Allies in 1855 were again entirely confined to encounters between ships and forts. The war seemed to be made on purpose to furnish illustrations[132] of the superiority of a well-designed scheme of coast and harbour defence over a navy, be it ever so powerful. It is further remarkable as a war between Maritime Powers unmarked by a single naval action. The Russians, of course, outnumbered everywhere, except in the Gulf of Tartary, were not bound to fight, and they were, except in the Pacific, shut up in narrow seas. These are and must be their only legitimate excuses for yielding up their waters to the Allies without striking or attempting to strike a blow.

The British fleet was more powerful in 1855 than in 1854. Government had built several gun and mortar boats, and destined for the Baltic a larger force of frigates and ships of the line. Sir Charles Napier had pushed his quarrel so far with the Admiralty that it was impossible to give him the command again. The officer selected was Rear-Admiral Richard Saunders Dundas, with Rear-Admiral Michael Seymour as second, and Rear-Admiral Baynes as third in command; and Captain Pelham, who distinguished himself in the attack on Bomarsund, as captain of the fleet. A light squadron, under Captain Watson of the Impérieuse, consisting of six ships, started for the Baltic on the 19th of March, and on the 4th of April Admiral Dundas sailed from Portsmouth with thirteen sail of the line and four frigates; Queen Victoria and the Prince Consort being present on board the royal yacht. The Russians did not show a sail in the Baltic. The frigates, as soon as the ice permitted, scoured the narrow seas, capturing some prizes, and establishing a blockade. The Gulf of Finland was closed in May, when the main body of the fleet lay off Nargen, where they could watch Revel and Helsingfors. The French fleet, under Rear-Admiral Penaud, did not sail till later. They were not in the Baltic until the 21st of May. The British fleet had gone up the Gulf of Finland towards Cronstadt, and it was here on the 1st of June that the French joined them. The British ships lay across the gulf, and as the French came up, out of compliment to their allies they formed a second line, and after communication with Admiral Dundas, the two fleets formed combined squadrons, showing both flags in front line to the enemy. But the Russians, who had not been tempted by the smaller, showed no disposition even to look at the larger force. All their ships, except a few steamers, were dismantled, and lying under the protection of the forts. There was nothing to be done but reconnoitre, fish up "infernal machines," and engage in small operations. For three weeks the fleet lay off Cronstadt. On the 14th of July part sailed for Nargen, leaving Admiral Baynes with a powerful squadron to watch Cronstadt.

While the allied fleet was off Cronstadt an incident had occurred which showed that the enemy, irritated by his losses, could descend to acts of revenge and treachery. At Inkermann the wounded had been slain in cold blood, and the parties gathering up the wounded had been shelled by the war steamers. At Odessa, in 1854, a flag of truce had been fired upon by the shore batteries; and now a party, from H.M.S. Cossack, bearing a flag of truce, were massacred at Hango on the coast of Finland. Six sailors were killed, and the event, which was cynically defended by the Russian Minister of War, Prince Dolgorouky, aroused universal reprobation. A thrill of horror and indignation ran through the British people.

During the month of July the lighter craft performed some smart actions on the enemy's coasts. Captain Storey had already destroyed 20,000 tons of shipping near Nystad, in the Gulf of Bothnia. On the 4th of July Captain Yelverton, with the Arrogant and two other vessels, appeared off Swartholm. Here the enemy had abandoned and blown up a fort of immense strength, commanding the approaches to Lovisa; and on the 5th, Captain Yelverton, shifting his flag to the Ruby gunboat, and accompanied by the boats of the squadron, went up to Lovisa, landed, and made search for Government stores. He found they were in the town, and therefore he spared them, lest in burning the stores he should burn the town—a magnanimous answer to the Hango massacre. Nevertheless, Lovisa was burnt down, not by the British, but by accident. On the 20th, Captain Yelverton, with three frigates and a gunboat, attacked, and in one hour silenced, a six-gun battery at Frederiksham, between Sveaborg and Lovisa. His loss was three men wounded. On the 26th, with three frigates and four mortar vessels, Captain Yelverton made a successful descent upon the island of Kotka, drove out the garrison, and, landing the marines, burnt the Government buildings and immense stores of timber. Thus the whole coast, from Viborg on the east almost up to Sveaborg, had been visited, and the enemy harassed; while Rear-Admiral Baynes, steaming up the channel north of Cronstadt, showed his flag to the inhabitants of St. Petersburg, and from the yards of his ship looked on the Russian capital. The remainder of the fleet, except the flying squadrons and blockaders, was at Nargen, preparing for an attack upon Sveaborg.

[133]

SIR COLIN CAMPBELL.

(After the Portrait by Sir Francis Grant, P.R.A.)

This is the bulwark of the south coast of Finland, and, if the enemy's soldiers did their duty, it was quite beyond the reach of any fleet, no matter how powerful or numerous it might be. Built on rocky islands, facing a shallow and treacherous sea, it was plain, even to the eyes of a tyro in military science, that Sveaborg, though it might be bombarded, could not be taken without the aid of a land force. The allied fleet arrived off Sveaborg on the 6th and 7th of August. Admiral Dundas and Admiral Penaud had no troops under their orders. They had determined not to assail the place with ships of the line, but to rely upon their gunboats and mortar vessels to set fire to the buildings and blow up the magazines of the enemy. The British had sixteen, and the French five gunboats. The British had sixteen, and the French five mortar vessels. Beside these there were several ships of the line, frigates, and corvettes; but, on the whole, it will be seen that the gun and mortar boats did the work. Two days were spent in preparations. The small vessels with which it was intended to fight were placed in position. They were ranged in curving lines, the French in the centre. The mortar vessels were anchored; the gunboats were directed to protect them, and to keep constantly in motion. On an islet Admiral Penaud constructed a battery for four mortars, nearly opposite Gustavswert, and this formed the centre of the line. Two gunboats, armed with Lancaster guns, were directed to fire at the three-decker barring the channel into the harbour. Two ships of the line and a frigate were detached to cannonade Sandham, and a frigate and two[134] corvettes were sent to occupy the attention of a body of troops on the island of Drumsio, on the extreme west.

The action began about seven o'clock on the morning of the 9th of August. The fire of the guns and mortars was to be pressed to the fullest extent deemed proper by the officers in command; and as soon as the accuracy of the range was tested the whole mass of ordnance afloat began and sustained a most rapid fire. The Russians estimated that thirty shells per minute fell into their batteries. At first they replied with great spirit, but although the range of their heavy guns extended far beyond the allied lines, yet they were unable to do any damage, either to the passive mortar vessels or the restless gunboats. While the action was raging in the centre the detached ships were busy on the flanks, especially off Sandham, where the liners were engaged in a combat with earthen batteries, on which they could make little impression. Within three hours after the beginning of the bombardment in the centre the incessant hail of shells within the fortress had told with effect. The fire, so brisk before, now began to slacken. The Russian gunners could not hit the small boats of the Allies, while they were exposed to a crushing fire. About ten o'clock the Russian buildings were on fire. Soon a loud report showed that a magazine had been pierced, then another and another. The third explosion, about noon, was very destructive. When it grew dark, and the gunboats had been recalled, and the mortars ceased to fire, the boats of the fleet, fitted with rocket-tubes, ran in nearer to the fortress, and poured forth their incendiary missiles till the flames rose to the height of a hundred feet, swaying to and fro in a brisk breeze.

The mortars and guns went nearer to the place at daylight on the 10th, and resumed their destructive labours. It was observed that the three-decker had been removed from the channel between Gustavswert and Bak Holmen. Three times she had been on fire. Although the garrison were beset by the flames of their burning barracks and stores, yet on the 10th they opened a more sustained fire than on the preceding day. The operations, however, were of the same character, and they produced the same effects, except that the explosions ceased. Again at night the rocket-boats were called into play, and this time the mortars were steadily active all night. By the morning of the 13th the admirals considered that enough had been done—that, in fact, they could do no more; neither destroy the forts nor touch the squadron they sheltered. The place was gutted, but "the sea defences in general were little injured," as the admiral reported. We had inflicted this loss on the enemy at a cost to ourselves of one officer, Lieutenant Miller, and seventeen men wounded. The enemy, on the contrary, lost heavily in men and material. According to the British Minister at Stockholm, the loss in men was not less than 2,000. Every magazine in the place was destroyed; also immense stores of rope, cordage, tar, and other naval supplies. The incessant activity of the admirals and captains had swept the enemy's commercial marine from the sea, had taken many ships, had destroyed vast stores, had kept a large body of troops employed, had harassed all the accessible parts of the coast, had shown the British and French flags to the enemy in his capital, and had gutted a first-rate fortress, with an insignificant loss to themselves. To do more—to take Cronstadt, and conquer Sveaborg—would have required an army equal to the reduction of Finland, an enterprise which would have put a severe strain on the resources both of France and Britain, and one that might yet have failed: for the seasons in those regions fight on the side of Russia, and if these heavy blows could not have been struck in six months, the fleet and army must have decamped, under penalty of being frozen up and destroyed.

On the Pacific coast there was an important, although to a great extent an ineffectual, campaign. Russia, driven on by a desire to reach the open sea somewhere, had pushed her settlements from Siberia down the great river Amoor, which enters the Gulf of Tartary opposite the northern end of the Japanese island of Saghalien. At Castries Bay, on the coast of this tract, they had built a town called Alexandrovsk, and still farther south they had a settlement, named after Constantine, at Port Imperial, or Barracouta Bay. In short, before 1854, and still more so afterwards Russia was bent on making a solid establishment on the Pacific, as an outlet to Siberia and as the base of a Pacific fleet. She had also a town and forts at Petropaulovski on the coast of Kamschatka, and, before the war, in Aniwa Bay, at the south end of the island of Saghalien. Here was the nucleus of a strong position on the Pacific, and it gave Russia great influence both in Pekin and Yedo. More than this, it threatened British supremacy in the Eastern seas.

No attempt on the mouth of the Amoor was made in 1854. But in 1855 the allied squadron[135] was strengthened, both on the China and Pacific stations. There were five steamers—one French, the others British—and twelve sailing vessels, four of which were French. The total guns of the squadrons amounted to 480. Admiral Bruce and Admiral Fournichon commanded the Pacific squadron, Admiral Stirling the China squadron. On their side the Russians had augmented the fortifications at Petropaulovski, and had erected new works, and assembled a strong garrison, on the Amoor. But their naval force was of no value; they had only seven vessels, mounting ninety guns; of these four were in the beginning of the year at Petropaulovski. Two British steamers arrived off this place on the 14th of April, but while they were waiting for the squadron the Russians cut a channel through the shore ice, and, favoured by a fog, escaped on the 17th and reached Castries Bay. When, at the end of May, the allied squadron arrived, the place was found to be abandoned; there were only three Americans there. They consequently destroyed the batteries and burnt the Government stores. Admiral Bruce sent one ship to join Admiral Stirling, and with the rest returned to the American coast.

Admiral Stirling, in the meantime, had detached Commodore Elliot with three ships—a frigate, and two steamers—into the Gulf of Tartary. He found the Russian vessels which had escaped Admiral Bruce, in Castries Bay; but he did not attack them, judging the disadvantages to be too great. Yet the weight of metal was in his favour; his ships were free to fight, being unencumbered, while the enemy was deeply laden with the garrison, the inhabitants, and the stores of Petropaulovski. However, Commodore Elliot decided not to risk an action. Instead of that, he sent a steamer for reinforcements, and while he was waiting for them, the enemy got away. At the time it was supposed he had escaped by some inner channel leading to the Amoor, but no such channel exists. The Russians went by the sea under the noses of their opponents. Commodore Elliot returned to the southern shore of Saghalien, where he found two British and two French ships. After some delay Admiral Stirling, taking with him five British vessels, steered for the Sea of Okhotsk. Although the British ships remained cruising off the Russian coasts until late in October, they effected nothing remarkable. The opportunity of striking a blow at the colonisation of the Amoor was lost.

Meanwhile, what was the position of Russia in Asia? "The cession of the Asiatic fortresses, with their neighbouring districts," wrote Lord Aberdeen in 1829, in commenting on the Treaty of Adrianople, "not only secures to Russia the uninterrupted occupation of the eastern coast of the Black Sea, but places her in a situation so commanding as to control at pleasure the destiny of Asia Minor. Prominently advanced into the centre of Armenia, in the midst of a Christian population, Russia holds the keys both of the Persian and the Turkish provinces; and whether she may be disposed to extend her conquests to the East or to the West, to Teheran or to Constantinople, no serious obstacle can arrest her progress." Assuming that the Western Powers did not interfere with the execution of the march to the West, every year sufficed to show the soundness of the conclusions to which Lord Aberdeen came in 1829; and although the presence of the allied fleets in the Black Sea did offer a serious obstacle in 1854-5, yet that was an accident, which only for a time diminished the value of the Russian position in Armenia. Without the aid of a fleet the Russians were still very formidable. The strong fortress of Gumri not only barred the road to Tiflis, the capital of Georgia, but commanded the plain of Kars. The fort of Akalzik shut out the Turks in Kars from direct communication with the seaport of Batoum. The tracing of the frontier of the province of Erivan placed Russia within a couple of marches of Bayazid. Both sides in 1854 knew the value of the prize for which they were contending. The Turks owed the preservation of Anatolia to the energy and courage of a Hungarian and a few Englishmen. The Russians sent one of their best generals to command on that frontier, and had not the European officers stopped him by holding Kars until they were on the brink of famine, that general would have carried the flag of Russia to Trebizond.

Such being the importance of the frontier, it is not surprising that the British Ministers watched with anxiety the progress of hostilities in that quarter; and with all the more anxiety because they were comparatively powerless to render aid. It required all the energies of Britain to maintain an army in the Crimea. She could not send troops, but she could send officers. France might have spared a force, but France had no wish to protect the Turks in Armenia, and had she done so we should have looked with jealousy on her efforts. There was the Turkish army under Omar Pasha, which, after the Austrians entered the Principalities, was, at least in the spring of 1855,[136] comparatively useless. But here again France stepped in, and would not consent to the employment upon the Armenian frontier of the only efficient general in the Sultan's service. Therefore the struggle in Asia Minor was carried on by the Turks alone, with the aid of a few European soldiers.

The Turkish Pashas on the Russian frontier drew supplies and pay (when they could get it) for 40,000 men, but they never commanded a force so large. The difference they put in their own pockets. Corruption and peculation and frauds of all kinds characterised the conduct of the greater part of these Turkish officers quite as much—and that is a high estimate—as their incapacity and cowardice. The true policy of the Turks in Armenia would have been to wage a defensive war. In that course they would have found in the nature of the country a great ally; and if they had preserved the frontier intact, they would have done the Sultan and the common cause good service. But the Turkish leaders had that kind of impetuosity which accompanies incompetence. As soon as the war broke out they began to assail the enemy. A party from Batoum captured Fort Nicholas, just across the frontier, by surprise. This was not a bad move, for it stimulated the ardour of the soldiers. Unfortunately, the ambition of the Pashas was stimulated also. The commanders on the Kars frontier took the offensive, and began to engage the Russian outposts. The Commander-in-Chief was Abdi Pasha. He had been educated in the military schools of Austria, and had some talent and knowledge, yet this was marred by constitutional inactivity and slowness. His second in command was Ahmed Pasha, an incompetent man, who shone in the intrigues of the Turkish ante-rooms. The Russians were posted at Baindir and Akisha. Learning the amount of their force at the former place, Abdi Pasha sent against them a body of troops superior in number, who, falling upon them unawares, routed them and drove them headlong into Gumri. At the same time Ahmed Pasha had moved upon Akisha. His movements were slow, and the enemy, being prepared, inflicted upon him a severe repulse. Learning this, Abdi Pasha ordered his subordinate at once to retreat upon Kars. Ahmed Pasha would not obey nor disobey. It is a convincing proof of his stupidity that he divided his forces, sending part back to Kars, and remaining with the rest within reach of the enemy. Prince Andronikoff, who commanded the Russians, saw his opportunity, and seized it with great spirit. He quitted his entrenchments and offered battle. Nothing loth, the Turk stood to fight. He was still superior in numbers. He was able to show an equal front, and at the same time to outflank his opponent. Nevertheless the Russians utterly routed their foes. The troops hurried back to Kars in confusion. They were "a mere rabble." The Russians did not pursue, otherwise Kars might have fallen in 1853. The untoward conduct of Ahmed ruined the whole campaign. Nor were the destructive powers of the Pashas limited to action in the field. In the winter they allowed the army to rot in Kars.

It was now the spring of 1854, and the Western Powers were just sending troops to the East. Through the long winter there had been a few Europeans at Kars, and to these the army owed everything. There was the Englishman Guyon, who had carved himself a name on the records of the Hungarian War of Independence. There was George Kmety, a Hungarian leader of valiant Honved battalions in 1848-9, and, like Guyon, driven into Turkey when Russia, throwing her sword into the scale, turned it in favour of Austria. Kmety was an excellent soldier, and although an infantry officer, he took in hand and made great use of the Turkish irregular horse, with which he covered the front, and guarded Kars for months from all chance of falling by a coup de main. These two, until the arrival of Zarif, the new commander, were the principal supports of Turkish power.

It was a great fault of the Turkish Government that it had established no depôts in Armenia. Everything, except wood and grain, had to be transported from Constantinople. The Russians had been allowed to purchase the grain crops in the two preceding years; another instance of the long-sighted policy of Nicholas, and his wilful determination to break up the Turkish Empire. Had the Turks formed a large magazine at Erzeroum, and constructed a strong camp at Kars, supposing an honest and capable Pasha could have been found, the disasters and sufferings of 1853-4 might have been avoided. On the contrary, nothing having been done in time, all that was needed had to be done in a hurry, and the army had to be supplied from Constantinople, first by sea to Trebizond, then by execrable roads over rugged mountains to Erzeroum, and thence by roads equally difficult to Kars. It was by this route that supplies and reinforcements reached the front in the spring of 1854.

Neither side as yet showed any activity. The Russians were not in great strength, and the[137] Turks had only just recovered from the evils of the winter. But in June the enemy showed that he was capable of striking a blow. On the 8th he made a simultaneous advance along the whole line. On the 8th of June the Russians threatened Ardahan, and the Turks reinforced the post, but no action took place. At the same time a body of Cossacks appeared near Bayazid; these were utterly routed by the Turkish irregulars. In the meantime, Prince Andronikoff had pushed forward towards Urzughetti. Selim Pasha, alarmed at his approach, retreated in haste over the frontier. Compelled at length to stand, he took up a strong position, and received battle on the 16th of June. He was totally defeated, with the loss of all his guns and baggage; and he hurried with the wreck of his army to Batoum. The Russians had opened the campaign with a fruitful victory.

KARS.

In July, having nothing more to fear from the army of Batoum, Prince Bebutoff resolved to try the mettle of the Kars army, marched out of Gumri, and crossing the Arpa-Chai, encamped on Turkish territory within a few miles of the Pasha's camp at Soobattan and Hadji Veli Khoi. For weeks Zarif declined action, and the Russian boldly sent a detachment which beat the Turks at Bayazid. In this exigency, as soon as he learned the news of the defeat, Zarif resolved to fight Bebutoff. There was still time. The detachment was still on the march from Bayazid. But when he should have acted with decision, the Turk wavered and hesitated; and before he decided, the Russian army was again united in his front. It was on the 5th of August that he made up his mind to fight the next morning. He should have acted on the 2nd, when the enemy was still looking for his coming troops. It was now too late. The Bayazid detachment had rejoined Prince Bebutoff. The spies in the Turkish camp had informed the Russian of an intended movement. The result was that Zarif was defeated after a stubborn contest. The Turks lost 3,500 in killed and wounded, 2,000 in prisoners, and 15 guns. More than 6,000 men went home, but many of these returned, and for days the irregular cavalry were bringing in stragglers. Nearly all the Turkish officers ran[138] away, and thus only one regimental commander was killed, and one general of brigade slightly wounded. The Russian loss was very great. They admit that upwards of 3,000 were killed or wounded, including no fewer than 111 officers, of whom 21 were killed. In truth, the Russian officers were obliged to expose themselves in order to stimulate the men, and had the Turks been as brave, the day might have had a different ending. The loss inflicted on the Russians is a terrible testimony to the efficiency of the Turkish artillery. The Turks lost the battle, because they were commanded by an intriguer who had never been a soldier; because the troops were undrilled, and had no officers worthy of the name; because, with such troops and such officers, they were directed to make so perilous a movement as a night march; because their cavalry ran away, and because they fought in fragments. Such was the battle of Kuruk-Dereh. It took its name from a village within the Russian lines, and it tended to increase vastly the influence of the Russians in Asia.

The campaign in Armenia ended with this battle. On the 17th of August, eleven days after his victory, Prince Bebutoff deemed it prudent to return to Gumri. The fruits of the campaign, besides the three victories, were many. The Turkish army was diminished and demoralised; the road from Turkey to Persia was rendered unsafe, and the Kurds were induced to revolt. Russia might well be proud of successes in Armenia, which were some compensation for losses on the Circassian coast of the Black Sea.

As it was foreseen that Russia would make fresh efforts in Asia, the British Government, moved by the reports of the British Consuls, who faithfully described the unhappy condition of the Kars army under its wretched and criminal commanders, appointed, on the 2nd of August, Lieutenant-Colonel Williams to be Her Majesty's Commissioner at the headquarters of the Turkish army in Asia. He was to place himself in communication with Lord Raglan and Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, to keep them informed of all matters connected with the state of the Asiatic army, and to correspond with Lord Clarendon. Colonel Williams arrived at Constantinople on the 14th of August, and on the 19th he saw Lord Raglan at Varna. Returning to Constantinople, he was in constant communication with Lord Stratford de Redcliffe until the 31st, when he sailed for Trebizond. On the 24th of September he reached Kars. With him went Lieutenant Teesdale, Dr. Sandwith, and Mr. Churchill. Throughout his journey he had kept an eye on the state of affairs, and long before he arrived at Kars had complained seriously to Constantinople. As soon as he had quitted Trebizond he encountered two siege guns deserted in the snow. On arriving at Erzeroum he found that no provision had been made for the troops who were to winter there, and no adequate measures taken to defend the place. But it was on reaching Kars that the truth burst upon him in all its grossness—that the Sultan's army was a mere rabble in rags. The muster-rolls of the Turkish army showed on paper a force of 22,754 men. The number actually existing, including sick, was 14,600—a clear proof of the peculation practised by the Pashas. The clothes of these men were ragged and thread-bare. Their trousers, shoes, and stockings were not fit to be seen. They subsisted from hand to mouth, and in October there were only provisions for three days in the magazine.

In November Colonel Williams returned to Erzeroum in order that he might thence enforce the measures necessary for the supply and reinforcement of the army. Captain Teesdale was left at Kars to look after the feeding, accommodation, and drill of the troops. In executing the laborious task of fortifying Erzeroum, preparing barracks, obtaining transport, making arrangements for supplies of grain and forage, pressing for reinforcements, pay, clothing, arms, accoutrements, the British officers at Kars and Erzeroum passed the winter. Besides contending with jealous Pashas, General Williams found himself obliged to use his influence in Kurdistan to put an end to a dangerous insurrection. He was well known to the Kurds, and when he proposed terms they not only trusted to British honour, but the leader surrendered. In the spring General Williams found it necessary to ask for additional help, and the British Government sent him from the Indian army, Colonel Lake, Captain Olpherts, and Captain Thompson, the whole of whom reached Kars in March, 1855. Under the direction of Colonel Lake, and with the aid of these officers, the rough, dilapidated, and badly placed entrenchments about Kars were rectified, and new works were constructed. It was known that the enemy was collecting a large force in Georgia, under General Mouravieff, an officer of skill and experience. There was, therefore, no time to lose, and as soon as the snow melted, and work became practicable, Colonel Lake began his task.

The town of Kars stands in the midst of mountains, on a plateau, some 7,000 feet above[139] the level of the sea. It has been a place of strength for centuries. But its defences proved to be too weak to resist a skilful soldier, and Prince Paskiewitch took it from the Turks in three days in 1828. In fact, the fortress was commanded by the Karadagh on the east, and by the mountains across the river on the west. Therefore, when the European officers reached the town in 1854, they set about remedying these defects by fortifying the Karadagh, surrounding the town suburb with low entrenchments, and throwing up two or three works on the high ground upon the left bank commanding the place. Pontoon bridges were thrown over the river to facilitate the passage of troops from one bank to the other, saving time in the transit. On the left bank, the heights immediately commanding the town were entrenched. Three redoubts, named after Colonel Lake and others, and called the English Lines, stretched from an eminence due west of the Karadagh to the river below the town; and above the town, and commanding it, the river, and the bridges, there was a large redoubt, named after Vassif Pasha. These works, as events showed, were still insufficient. The English Lines, though commanding everything eastward, were not the true key of the place; but that fact had to be demonstrated by the enemy. At the end of May, 1855, the place was secure from an assault on the east—that is, on the side of Gumri—and on the south; but not yet on the west—that is, on the side of Erzeroum. In the entrenched camp, at the beginning of May, there were 10,000 infantry, 1,500 artillerymen, and 1,500 useless cavalry. Afterwards this force was largely increased, but it never exceeded 20,000 men of all arms.

The great object of General Williams was to create a strong and impregnable camp at Kars, and to store up provisions there to such an extent that the garrison would be able to hold out until the winter, when it was assumed the enemy would be compelled, by stress of weather, to quit the bleak highlands, and seek shelter in Gumri. Erzeroum was in like manner made strong, so that it might serve as a base for the Kars army, should that army be able to keep open its communications; and as a place where a force might assemble in safety to relieve Kars, or at least to harass the enemy, and make his position intolerable. But these long-sighted views were frustrated by the wretched organisation of the Turks, the corruption and sloth of the Pashas, and the inability of their regulars to act in the open field. The stores intended for Kars never reached that place, and it is a marvel how it held out so long. Turks, however, will live where other troops would starve.

The Russians were very well informed of the state of things on the Turkish side; they knew that the Allies, engaged so deeply in the Crimea, would not spare any European troops for service in Asia; and that, for reasons of his own, the French Emperor would not consent to the employment of the best Turkish troops and Omar Pasha, the best Moslem general, in Armenia. This made them bold. At the end of May General Mouravieff had assembled 35,000 men and sixty-four guns at Gumri; and in the beginning of June he crossed the Arpa-Chai, and encamped on Turkish territory. General Williams, hearing this, set out at once from Erzeroum, and on the 7th of June arrived at Kars. He did not appear a moment too soon. Vassif Pasha had proposed a retrograde movement on Erzeroum, and Mouravieff had pitched his camp on the Kars-Chai, eight miles north-east of the town. The presence of Williams inspired the garrison with fresh courage, and ended all doubts in the mind of the Pasha. The Kars army was destined to stand by Kars to the last.

The Russian general was a skilful soldier. As soon as he moved out of Gumri and took post at Zaim, about eight miles north of Kars, he halted, and sent out strong detachments to Ardahan and Tchildir among the mountains on his right flank, with the double object of collecting or destroying stores and ascertaining whether the Turks at Batoum were preparing to assist their comrades at Kars. He soon found that the Batoum army was not likely to trouble him, and such was his correct estimate of its value, that for the rest of the campaign he scarcely troubled himself about the doings of that force. Accordingly, on the 14th of June, he drew nearer to Kars, and being powerful in cavalry, he, on that day, drove the whole of the Turkish horsemen watching the valley back upon the entrenched camp.

Mouravieff had inspected the approaches and defences fronting the road to Gumri, and, satisfied that he could not break in on that side, he quitted his camp on the 18th, and, marching in order of battle, crossed that road within sight of the garrison, but far out of range, and encamped on the south side, about four miles from the town. This cautious mode of going to work showed that the general feared to risk an assault. He seemed to be feeling his way about the fortress, but in such a manner, that, although he respected the Turks behind earthworks, he clearly had no fear of them in the field. Posted now close to the road[140] to Erzeroum, his cavalry threatened the direct communications with that place, and forced the couriers of the garrison to take a wide sweep to the north through the mountains, in order to carry the despatches to Erzeroum. From his new camp his cavalry went forth and secured or wasted several small magazines which the reckless idleness of the Turks had left exposed. For a few days heavy falls of rain suspended all movement, but as soon as the rain ceased, the Russian general once more, under cover of a great display of force, reconnoitred the south or town side. The Russian officers thought their general was about to attack. The Turks were on the alert, and every parapet and battery was manned. But at the end of an hour the Russians countermarched and returned to their camp. This was on the 26th of June. Mouravieff had made up his mind that he would lose too many men in risking an assault, and knowing that the Turks could not act in the field, he determined to starve them into submission. On the 29th he divided his army into two parts, leaving one to watch Kars, and proceeding with the other himself over the mountains towards Erzeroum. The movement of Mouravieff on to the Erzeroum road had already induced Vely Pasha to retire from Toprak-Kaleh to Kupri-Keui, so as to place himself between Mouravieff and the capital of Armenia. The Russian general's object, however, was not Erzeroum. He had learned that there was a Turkish magazine in an exposed situation at Yeni-Keui. It was of the last importance to the garrison of Kars, and its stores ought long before to have been moved into that camp. There were two months' supplies at Yeni-Keui. Upon these Mouravieff pounced with the swoop of an eagle, and what he could not carry away he destroyed. A second expedition, which caused great alarm, followed in August.

During this expedition of General Mouravieff towards Erzeroum, General Brunner, commanding the besieging army, advanced against the town defences on the 8th of August. He brought up large masses of infantry, cavalry, and guns, with the object of enticing the Turks out of their lines. Not only did he fail, but he managed to get within range of the ordnance in the south-west redoubt, called Kanli Tabia, and suffered a severe loss in killed and wounded, including a general. This was the last experiment on the plain; the enemy thenceforth turned his attention to the western heights; and, seeing this close scrutiny, Colonel Lake completed his defences on that side. At the end of August Mouravieff returned to the camp. The approaches to Kars were more closely watched than ever. Desertion began in the garrison, and was not stopped until some men, caught in the act, were shot. The garrison now began to be pinched for food. The men were on three-quarter rations in the middle of August, on half rations in the first week of September. Forage could no longer be cut outside. The stores of barley had come to an end. All the cavalry were, therefore, sent away, and many scores managed to pass the Russian pickets, but some hundreds were taken. The plan of capture by blockade was slowly securing success. The Russian grasp grew tighter; the garrison weaker. The appeals of General Williams for aid were in vain.

Not that they were unheeded; not that generals, diplomatists, ministers, emperors did not write and talk about the straits of the Kars army, and about plans for its relief. As early as June—but that was a thought too late—we read of plans for the relief of Kars. The British Government felt all the importance to British interests of a stout defence at least of Armenia. They knew that Russian success would diminish their influence in Persia, and possibly shake their power in India. Precisely for that reason the French Emperor was indisposed to aid in or consent to any timely or reasonable plan. As early as July it was proposed that an expedition should sail for Redout Kaleh, on the Mingrelian coast, and landing there, should so threaten Kutais and Tiflis that Mouravieff, alarmed, would be compelled to quit Kars in order to defend the heart of Georgia. But the British Government did not approve of this plan, preferring the direct advance of a relieving army from Trebizond upon Erzeroum. The British had raised a Turkish contingent under British officers; but Lord Clarendon would not consent to its employment, on the ground that it was not fit to cope with Russians in the field. Omar Pasha proposed to take his own troops from Balaclava, and others gathered up from Bulgaria and Batoum, and land at Redout Kaleh. To this the French Emperor would not consent, on the ground that they could not be spared from the Crimea. As the matter grew more urgent the plans for the relief of Kars increased; but the obstructions to the formation of the army were so great, Governments could agree upon so few points, that weeks—nay, months—passed, before the relieving army could be formed and sent across the Black Sea. Thus Kars and its gallant defenders were left to strive with two deadly foes—a tenacious Russian general and starvation.

[141]

THE REPULSE OF THE RUSSIANS AT KARS. (See p. 141.)

General Mouravieff had heard of the projected advance of Omar Pasha's troops from Batoum, as he was told, and of another relieving army from Erzeroum, upon Kars; and believing the reports, resolved to assault Kars on the 29th of September. This led to a conflict which claims and deserves a high place among great military actions. The Russian general had the command of more than 30,000 men. He selected for attack the heights to the westward, which General Kmety occupied with a garrison of 6,450 men, whereof 5,270 were infantry. These heights he resolved to surprise by an assault at daybreak on all points, while a diversion was made on the town side. The garrison, however, were on the alert, and gave the enemy a warm reception. The Russian left column, exposed to a heavy fire of artillery, marched steadily on. Neither the round-shot, nor, as it came nearer, the grape-shot, and then the musketry, converging upon its head, and searching its flanks, nor the rocky ground it traversed, stopped the majestic march of these noble troops. For half an hour it was tormented with shot, and yet it still moved forward. When about a hundred yards from the works, the head of the column, its patience exhausted, opened fire, but still without halting. On it came. General Kmety now brought up fifty rifles of the Sultan's Guard, and formed them parallel to the head of the column. It was now enveloped in fire; nevertheless, these stubborn Russians pressed up to within ten yards of the ditch. That was the limit of their advance. Brave men as they were, they could bear no more; they slowly turned, and slowly fell back on their guns. The Turks had exhausted their ammunition, and the men were flinging stones at the retiring foe. The artillery was deficient in grape-shot. The Turks had no horsemen. The enemy was beaten; he might have been destroyed. In the track of the column lay a thousand corpses, and from the pouches of their dead enemies the Turks, leaping over the parapets, replenished their empty pouches.

At this moment of victory Kmety learned that Yarim-ai-Tabia, on his left, had been captured; that the Tachmasb lines had been turned, and that[142] Hussein Pasha, in spite of a dogged resistance, was shut up in the Tachmasb redoubt. To rally his men, Kmety called out that the foe was in the rear; and at this call they ran back to their ranks. Sixteen Russian guns, drawn up in the rear of the extreme left of the Tachmasb lines, now came into action and pounded the Turks; but General Williams and Mr. Churchill, from Yassif and Tek-Tabias, brought a heavy cross-fire to bear upon these guns, and drove them away. At this time Kmety had reached Yusek-Tabia, and organising a column of assault, fell on with the bayonet, and cleared the breast-works of Yarim-ai. The Tachmasb redoubt was now quite surrounded. The enemy were massed on all sides, and so close that the grape from the redoubt made horrible havoc. The Russian artillery on the exterior front were throwing shells, but more burst among their own infantry in the tents than in the redoubt.

The chances of victory, although the enemy made no way against Tachmasb, were not altogether against him; for just about the time that Kmety recovered Yarim-ai, a strong force of infantry, cavalry, and guns appeared before the English Lines. These works were not well placed; they were weakly manned; the ground in front fell so rapidly that an advancing foe could not be seen until he came within grape range. About a quarter to seven the Russians crowned the ridge, fired three rounds, and in ten minutes were masters of the lines. The enemy's infantry piled arms, and breaking down a part of the parapet, he poured a battery through, and began shelling the town and firing into Fort Lake. It is probable that this force was directed to hold the ground won until joined by the enemy from the west. But this could not be permitted. Arab Tabia opened on them. Captain Thompson dragged a 32-pounder from the eastern to the western side of the Karadagh. Colonel Lake turned three guns from the front to the rear of his fort. This cross fire inflicted severe losses on the enemy. Yet the Russians stood gallantly for an hour and a half. At the end of that time a body of infantry sent by Thompson, and another sent by General Williams, had wound their way across the river, and, uniting with a battalion pushed forward by Colonel Lake, charged the enemy with the bayonet, and drove him out of the lines. The Russian horse essayed a charge, but fell under the fire from the reconquered parapets, and rolled over each other in the deep holes, called trous de loup, which had been dug in front of the lines. Curiously enough, however, the enemy carried off five guns.

The fighting about the Tachmasb redoubt was going on with great fierceness; but, from the moment the Russians were driven away from the English Lines, the issue of the day ceased to be doubtful. Kmety had first recaptured the right breastwork at Tachmasb, though the enemy stood firmly in the tents within fifty paces. But Kmety brought his two field-pieces into action. Within the redoubts the Turks wanted cartridges. Hussein Pasha supplied the want by heading sorties. Thus, part of the garrison was employed in stripping off the pouches of the killed and wounded, and throwing them to their comrades, who maintained the fire. The heavy guns of the forts in the second line came into play, so that the dogged enemy was in a circle of fire. To the last he was supplied with fresh troops, but these did not do more than augment the slain. At length the Turks took the offensive. The enemy stole away towards the left, and sought to escape out of the lines. So far as their slender means allowed—and they had few horses—the Turks pressed the retreat of the Russians, and drove off their remaining guns. The battle was at an end; it had raged for seven hours; and during that time a mere handful of Turks, well led, had defeated three times their own number. There are few battles more remarkable for the stubbornness of both sides than this battle of Kars. The Turks had 1,094 killed or wounded; the Russians had at least 6,500 killed, for the bodies were buried by the garrison.

Although the garrison had won a victory, their sufferings were not at an end. It was hoped that General Mouravieff would retreat, both because he had been so thoroughly beaten, and because Omar Pasha was at length afoot and troops were about to land at Trebizond. But Mouravieff did not go; on the contrary, he began to erect permanent huts. Nor did he relax the rigour of the blockade. He drew his lines more closely around Kars; for he knew the plight of the garrison. He judged that no relief would arrive; and he judged correctly. Selim Pasha did not land at Trebizond until the 11th of October; he did not make his appearance at Erzeroum until the 25th. The British officers there, and Consul Brant, plied him with every kind of stimulant to provoke him to advance upon Mouravieff's rear. He knew the state of the garrison of Kars, but he would not undertake the task. He marched a little way, when his heart failed him and he halted. All hope of aid from that side was at an end. Omar Pasha, with a really fine army, had landed at Sukhum-Kaleh at the end of October. He was an[143] immense distance from Kutais and Tiflis. On the 5th of November he forced the passage of the Ingour, winning a brilliant but useless victory. Moving on through Mingrelia, he approached Kutais, until the rains began to fall, and the swollen streams and deep roads brought him to a halt. Then he retreated to Redout Kaleh. In the meantime Kars had fallen a prey to famine. The movements of Omar Pasha had been absolutely without any influence on the result.

The glorious garrison of Kars actually managed to maintain itself for two months after the battle of the 29th of September. The cholera appeared, and slew a thousand men in a fortnight. The rations of the troops were reduced to eleven ounces of bread, and some very weak soup, containing an ounce of nutriment. The hospitals grew fuller day by day. The people and soldiers tore up the grass to feed on the roots. Some of the grain abstracted from the magazines, and a depôt of coffee and sugar, accidentally discovered, came in most opportunely as a relief. The horses remaining were now killed sparingly, and from the flesh broth was made. Hunger and cold—for the clothing of the troops was worn out—drove scores daily to the hospital, where they died. They never failed in duty or loyalty; neither want of food, nor hope deferred, nor the incessant night alarms of the foe, shook these patient, faithful men. Three days' provisions were collected in the batteries, for a false report had come that Selim Pasha was near, and it was thought advisable to be ready for a sortie. The hungry soldiers stood sentry over these provisions, yet did not touch a single biscuit. Then snow fell; the scanty grass was hidden; its roots were difficult to obtain. At length the people, who had borne their suffering well, cried out that they could bear no more. General Williams now received a message from Consul Brant, saying that Selim Pasha would not move; that Omar Pasha was too far off, and that the Kars garrison had nothing to depend on but itself. At first it was resolved to attempt a retreat; but this was impracticable. Then it was resolved to surrender, and General Williams and Captain Teesdale repaired on the 25th of November to the Russian camp, and, with the permission of the former, General Kmety and General Colman—Hungarian refugees—rode through the Russian outposts, and reached Erzeroum.

Mouravieff was quite prepared to treat. The terms were soon agreed upon. They were embodied in these articles, dated the 27th of November:—"1. The fortress of Kars shall be delivered up intact. 2. The garrison of Kars, with the Turkish commander-in-chief, shall march out with the honours of war, and become prisoners. The officers, in consideration of their gallant defence of the place, shall retain their swords. [This was dictated by Mouravieff himself.] 3. The private property of the whole garrison shall be respected. 4. The Redifs (militia), Bashi-Bazouks, and Laz shall be allowed to return to their homes. 5. The non-combatants—such as medical officers, scribes, and hospital attendants—shall be allowed to return to their homes. 6. General Williams shall be allowed the privilege of making a list of certain Hungarian and other European officers, to enable them to return to their homes. [This was done to save Kmety and others.] 7. The persons mentioned in Articles 4, 5, and 6 are in honour bound not to serve against Russia during the war. 8. The inhabitants of Kars will be protected in their persons and property. 9. The public buildings and the monuments of the town will be respected." With difficulty the Turkish pashas accepted these favourable terms, and on the 28th the garrison marched out and laid down its arms.

Thus ended the campaign in Asia in 1855. The Russians occupied the whole of Turkish Armenia until the peace, but made no further attempt to extend their conquests. On looking back, it becomes manifest that the relief of Kars might have been effected by an early and decisive march of Omar Pasha's army from Trebizond upon Erzeroum. To this he was opposed, as well as the Emperor of the French and the Sultan's Government; but that it was the only feasible plan might readily be shown. Kars was really sacrificed to the exigencies of the alliance and of the Crimean campaign. The French Emperor would not give his consent that anything should be risked to save Kars; nor did he want to save it; for the success of Russia in Asia was not only not indifferent, it was gratifying to him. The success of Russia was a diminution of British prestige in the East. Moreover, the Emperor, as we shall see, soon resolved that peace should be made; and that remark carries us back to Europe and the incidents of the winter of 1855-6.

[144]

UNIFORMS OF THE BRITISH ARMY IN 1855.

## CHAPTER X.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

THE expedition to Kinburn, the destructive raid of the Allies into Taman and Fanagoria, the unfruitful marches and counter-marches from Eupatoria towards Simpheropol, closed the military operations of 1855. The French—who had taken military possession of the beautiful valley of Baidar, and had pushed their outposts to the summits of the ridges leading towards the Belbek—withdrew to the inner slopes, and contented themselves with watching the main roads, both towards the north and towards the east and south. The Sardinians remained in their old quarters. French divisions still occupied the mamelons covering the bridge over the Tchernaya, supported by their own and the British cavalry. The Highlanders were above Kamara, but the bulk of the British army was on the plateau in the old position. There, also, was at least one-half of the French, including the Imperial Guard, who, however, embarked early in the month of November for France. In the course of November 18,000 French troops went home, and they were relieved by fresh troops[145] amounting to 11,162. But the British Cabinet had learnt with dismay that Napoleon had decided upon withdrawing 100,000 men from the Crimea; further, that the Parisians were demanding that France should be compensated for her losses by advantages in Northern Italy, or the left bank of the Rhine. Obviously no dependence could be placed upon an uncertain ally and a shifty monarch.

NAPOLEON III.

(From a Photograph by Messrs. W. and D. Downey.)

Although the Allies in December had upwards of 200,000 men in the Crimea—the French alone boasted of 141,476 men—undoubtedly a longing for peace had sprung up in some quarters soon after the fall of Sebastopol. This the Russians knew. Confident, therefore, that the Allies would not undertake any large operation, and knowing winter to be at hand, they held their ground. Moreover, their Emperor had visited his gallant army. Quitting St. Petersburg in September, soon after the fall of his cherished city in the south—the stepping-stone from Nicolaief to Constantinople—he proceeded to Moscow. In his addresses to his army he still imitated the language of his father; and, while he praised his gallant soldiers as they deserved to be praised, while he frankly confessed that Russia had been severely tried, he boldly claimed for his cause the support of the Deity, and declared his steadfast resolve to defend orthodox Russia, who had taken up arms for the cause of Christianity. After another visit to Odessa, the Czar, passing through Nicolaief, went forward by Perekop to Simpheropol, where he arrived on the 8th of November. To reach his army he had travelled sixteen hundred miles through his own territory, and had been[146] nearly two months on the road. By the 12th of November he had reviewed the army in the Crimea, looked on the ruins of Sebastopol, the wrecks of his fleet, the camps of his enemies. No doubt his presence cheered the soldiers who had borne so much at his bidding. For those who had defended the lines of Todleben he provided a silver medal, to be worn at the button-hole with the ribbon of St. George. The medal bore the names of Nicholas and Alexander, and, said the Czar to his soldiers, "I am proud of you, as he was.... In his name, and in my own, I once more thank the brave defenders of Sebastopol." But in spite of his pride in his soldiers, the heart of the Czar must have been sad, for he was a kindly man, and the aggressive policy of his father—the consequences of which he could not escape—had cost Russia 500,000 men. The Czar returned to St. Petersburg by rapid journeys, arriving there on the 19th of November. The Czar had seen for himself; and when he reached his capital on the Neva he was, perhaps, in a better frame of mind for receiving those peace propositions which Austria was already seeking to frame.

The Allies had begun to make ample preparations for the winter. The weather in 1855-6 was very different from that which had beset them twelve months before. They also were differently situated: they were triumphant, and in a secure position. They had the resources of Sebastopol, in wood and stone at least, wherewith to defend themselves against the cold and the rain. They had huts and plenty of tents. The British had abounding supplies of the warmest clothes of all kinds, and most ample rations—fresh meat and bread three days a week, and pork and biscuit on the other days. The troops had plenty of time for drill, though they were still called upon to perform hard work in road-making. Thus they were employed all day, without being overworked. Their health was so good, that during this winter the average of the sick was lower than among the troops at home. Some regiments did not lose a man—some were less fortunate; but the most afflicted regiments did not lose more than two per cent., and it was rare indeed that the sick exceeded four per cent. of the whole force. No army was ever more cared for, or thrived more under good treatment. And so it really grew stronger as the weeks glided away, until, when the spring came, Sir William Codrington had under his orders a healthy, well-drilled force of 70,000 men, ready for any enterprise, and well provided with all those means and appliances which were wanting in 1854.

Not so our French Allies. Their system broke down. Their losses from typhus in the first three months of 1856 are something fearful to contemplate. An epidemic broke out in the French camp in January, and from that time to the end of March 40,000 Frenchmen died from disease. More than 5,000 died in the transports or men-of-war on their way from the Crimea to the Bosphorus. In the Crimean hospitals their men died at the rate of between 200 and 250 per day. In the hospitals on the Bosphorus the rate was hardly less. The effective force of the French army on February 1st was 143,000 men. On the 30th of March it was 120,000, of whom only 92,000 were present under arms. These figures are official, showing a loss in two months of 23,000 men, and they do not account for 28,000 men not present under arms. But the other returns, on which the statement of the vast losses mentioned are based, are also official, with this advantage, that the latter are medical, the former military returns, such as it was deemed inexpedient to make public. Throughout the war the French understated their losses from disease and defective arrangements. In 1854-5 they suffered nearly as much as the British; but there was no free press in France, and no free Parliament, to make known the sufferings and privations of the soldiers.

In the meantime, both British and French were engaged in blowing up the forts, docks, basins, and barracks in Sebastopol. The work had been divided between the two. The French took the northern half of the docks, the English the southern. These works were so solidly constructed and so vast that their destruction required almost as much skill as their construction. The engineers of each nation, however, rivalled each other in expedients, and in the application of scientific principles to the end in view. The whole of the work on the docks was completed on the 1st of February. Fort Nicholas was blown up on the 4th, and Fort Alexander on the 11th of the same month; and similar processes afterwards laid low the aqueduct which brought the water of the Tchernaya into the docks and the great barracks and storehouses in the marine suburb. The Russian fire, though brisk at times, and often accurate, did not interrupt the labours of the French and British engineers. By these means the offensive character of Sebastopol was cut up by the roots, for it was as a great war-port and arsenal that it was a "standing menace," and at the end of February it had ceased to be.

On the 28th of February news reached the allied camps that the Governments sitting in Paris,[147] London, and St. Petersburg had just agreed to a suspension of hostilities until March 31st. In the course of the day the French and British generals were officially informed of the fact by their Governments. The next day the chiefs of the staffs of the three armies—General Martimprey, General Windham, and Colonel Petikti—met General Timovief at the Bridge of Traktir on the Tchernaya, and there these officers debated the limits which it would be desirable to fix as military frontiers. Thus, just as the weather was becoming suitable for field operations, the diplomatists managed to chain up the armies, and having got the representatives of the belligerents round a table at Paris, they contrived to bring all parties to an agreement, and bring about a peace. How that was accomplished we have now to learn.

In the early part of the winter of 1855 there were two Powers—Austria and Russia—eager, and one—France—willing to conclude a peace as soon as possible. Austria was eager for peace, because another year of war must have brought her into the field as a belligerent. She could not hope that the theatre of operations would remain restricted to a corner of the Crimea, nor, indeed, to the whole of the Crimea; for she knew that if the war went on, the troops of the Allies would appear either in Southern or Western Russia. The contest could not go on without raising the question of Poland as well as Finland; and if the former question were raised, Austria must take one side or the other. Her engagements with the Allies, her political necessities, forbade her taking part with Russia. Yet she was barely prepared to act against her, and would have done so only with the greatest reluctance. Yet, as will be seen, under certain conditions and contingencies she did make up her mind to cast in her lot frankly with the Allies. But what she really wanted was peace, for war to her was not only full of political dangers, but threatened her with something like financial ruin. Russia was eager for peace, because she had lost so much by war. The drain of adult males was enormous. The drain upon the southern provinces for transport, for horses and cattle, for carts and waggons, was prodigious. The harvests of Southern Russia and the forage went the same road. Nor was it only men and transport and food which had been used up with astonishing prodigality, first by the Emperor Nicholas, and then by his son, to whom he bequeathed that fatal legacy, a devouring war. The Russian treasury was empty, and although the credit of Russia had always been good, still, capitalists were shy, and money was hard to obtain, could not be obtained, even on terms very unfavourable to the borrower. In these circumstances, and looking to the energetic preparations of Britain by land and sea, Russia saw that she could not gain anything, and probably would lose greatly on all sides, if she were exposed to another year of war.

On the other side, France was willing to make peace. The Emperor had gained all that he wanted out of the war. He had displayed the eagles of the Empire in the face of Europe. He had won glory. Sebastopol had given to France a military duke. The war had raised France, as Frenchmen phrased it at the time, to the foremost rank among nations. The Emperor had figured in war as an ally of Britain. He had visited the Queen at Windsor, and had taken his place in the chapel of St. George's as a Knight of the Garter. Moreover, and this was not the least gratifying fact, Britain had played a secondary part in the Crimea, and she had suffered a blow from the effects on Persia and Hindostan of the fall of Kars. The Emperor, it is true, was a faithful ally, and did not spare his army in the common cause. That must be put down to his credit, although nobody thinks of claiming credit for Britain because she also was a faithful, not to say a subservient ally. But, as no one can fail to see, at the close of 1855 the Emperor had gained all he could gain by the British alliance, and peace would conduce most to his interest, especially a peace signed at Paris. He did not like to see the development of the material power of Great Britain, which was fast outstripping him at sea. He did not wish to witness the destruction of the maritime fortresses of Russia, still less to hear that a British army had expelled Russia from Georgia. He thought that he could make friends with Russia. In the previous November he had taken the extreme course of concerting terms of peace with Austria without consulting Britain, and was only partially deterred from these tortuous courses by the vigorous remonstrance of Lord Palmerston, addressed to the French Ambassador, in which the Prime Minister declared that Britain would sooner continue the war alone than accept unsatisfactory conditions.

The British Government and the British people were not so ready or willing to make peace. The real strength of the British power was only just beginning to tell. Its armaments, by land and sea, were only just acquiring bulk and organisation. A strong feeling was very[148] generally held that the task of curbing the aggressive ambition and checking the greed of Russia, which the Allies had undertaken, was only half completed. There was a desire to see Russia expelled from Asia Minor and from Finland, and to weaken if not overthrow her in Poland, as well as to expel her from the Crimea, and root up the mighty establishments with which she menaced Turkey. In this feeling there was some reason. But the statesmen charged with the conduct of the war could not forget that, although it would have been just to take that opportunity of diminishing the vast power of the Czar, yet that the primary object of the war was the safeguarding of European interests, so seriously menaced in the Black Sea and the Baltic, and that, providing Russia could be brought to agree to terms securing the safeguards required, it would be expedient to bring the war to an end. They felt the impossibility of securing the prolonged co-operation of France, and the folly of continuing the struggle without her. The British Government, therefore, was induced to consider terms of peace, and the people acquiesced with sullen reluctance. Neither wanted war for the sake of war, or glory for the sake of glory; nor did either want victories to augment or secure the moral influence of their country in the affairs in Europe. The reluctance to make peace was due solely to a gnawing sense that the ambition of Russia had been only partially restrained. In reality, the injury done to the enemy was greater than the British people believed it to be; but in the winter of 1855 they did not know how deeply the blows of the Allies had struck.

It must not, however, be supposed that either of the belligerents allowed any of the symptoms of their desire for peace to be seen. The lateness of the season accounted for the languid operations of the Allies after the fall of Sebastopol. The resolve of the Czar to cling to the north side of that fortress covered his weakness; and the success of Mouravieff in Armenia allowed him even to boast that his gains were equal to those of the Allies. On the surface there was every sign that the war would go on in the spring more extensively than ever; for not only had the British prepared hundreds of gun and mortar boats for service in the Baltic—not only had the British Government raised and drilled a German legion numbering 17,000 men, and a Turkish contingent under British officers, 20,000 strong, but Austria had increased her army, and the Allies held frequent councils of war in Paris, with the object of settling plans of campaigns for 1856. It is true that the Emperor of the French had made a remarkable speech, as early as the 15th of November, in which he gave some hints that peace would not be unacceptable. The occasion was the closing of the Paris Exposition of 1855, an imitation of the London Exhibition of 1851. Such a gathering in the midst of war the Emperor regarded as a great example, and as a sign that the war was held to be dangerous only to those who had been its cause, and by others as a pledge of independence and security. "Tell your countrymen," he continued—and this is the point of the speech—"that, if they wish for peace, they must at least openly express their wishes for or against us; for, in the midst of a great European conflict, indifference is a bad speculation, and silence is a mistake." These sentiments told upon Germany. In order to clinch the effect of these remarks, which were at once an overture and a threat, Count Walewski was directed to inform all the Courts by circular that the Emperor meant what he said; that he desired peace, and that the neutral Powers could help powerfully in bringing it about by openly expressing their opinions in the actual crisis. There was, therefore, a crisis; and the crisis involved peace or a continuance of the war.

The Allies had resolved not to make any overtures themselves—that is, any direct overtures. There was nothing in the public language of Lord Palmerston, at this time, at all like that which we have seen in the language of the French Emperor. The British Premier spoke of obtaining the objects of the war, and so did every public speaker not opposed to the war from the beginning. It was the French Emperor who hinted that it was time for some neutral to step in and suggest peace. In these circumstances Austria, who understood the situation, stepped in to propose peace. She set her diplomatists to work, and sounded both sides, but more especially sought to extract from the Allies the terms on which they would agree to a peace. As the French Emperor was so well disposed to come to terms, this was not difficult; but he still had to shape his course so as not to endanger the British alliance, from which he had not yet derived all the advantages it contained for him. The Emperor, however, had only to allow his inclination to be felt, and then to drift, or appear to drift, along the current of British views. Ostensibly the Western Powers were not engaged in any negotiations for peace; but in reality they did entertain the proposals of Austria, and gave a general assent to the terms which that Power undertook to send to St. Petersburg; and this for the sound reason that it would have been useless for Austria to press upon Russia the acceptance of terms to which the Western Powers would not agree.

THE CZAR REVIEWING HIS ARMY AT SEBASTOPOL. (See p. 146.)

[150]

The Austrian Government selected Count Valentine Esterhazy to carry on this delicate negotiation with the Cabinet of St. Petersburg. He took his instructions direct from the Emperor Francis Joseph, and they were formally embodied in a despatch written by Count Buol on the 16th of December. To his despatch he annexed the "four points" or indispensable preliminaries, set forth at some length, so as to avoid the chance of a misunderstanding; but substantially they were these:—1. That the Russian protectorate in the Danubian Principalities should be completely abolished, and that these principalities should receive such an organisation as might be suited to their wants and interests, to be recognised by the Powers, and sanctioned by the Sultan as suzerain. That, in exchange for the strong places and territories occupied by the allied Powers, Russia should consent to the "rectification" of her frontier with Turkey in Europe. 2. That the freedom of the Danube and its mouths should be secured efficaciously. 3. That the Black Sea should be open to merchant ships, and closed to war ships—except a limited number for coast service—and consequently that no naval or military arsenals should be created or maintained there. 4. That the immunities of the Christian subjects of the Porte should be secured without infringing the independence of the Sultan. To these was added a fifth, of great moment, as it was, in a measure, the touchstone of Russian sincerity. It was this:—"The belligerent Powers reserve to themselves the right which appertains to them of producing in European interest special conditions over and above the four guarantees." These were tolerably stringent conditions; and it was easy to see that the fifth, so indefinite in its nature, would test the sincerity of Russia to the uttermost.

Count Esterhazy arrived in St. Petersburg on the 24th of December. During his journey a very singular incident had occurred. The Cabinet of Russia had either guessed, or had been duly informed of, the nature of the trial to which they would be subjected. The probability is, that the Austrian Court gave the requisite information unofficially to Count Nesselrode. That astute politician was not long in making use of the opportunity. On the 22nd of December, while Count Esterhazy was journeying through Russian Poland, Count Nesselrode despatched a circular, embodying terms of peace to which his Government would agree. This was an adroit manœuvre, as it gave to Russia the appearance of dictating terms of peace. In this document it was laid down that Russia had always desired peace; that it was not her fault, but the fault of the Allies, that peace had not been made in 1855; and that the wish for a prompt and durable peace openly expressed by the Emperor Napoleon was the dearest wish of the Emperor Alexander. Russia had, in the summer of 1855, accepted the four points as a basis, and still accepted them; but they were susceptible of different interpretations. As long as his enemies appeared resolved to substitute the right of might for the spirit of justice, the Czar felt bound to remain silent; but as soon as his Majesty learned that his enemies were disposed to resume the negotiations for peace, he did not hesitate to meet them; and he was willing to put the most liberal interpretation on the third point, relating to the so-called neutralisation of the Black Sea. The liberal interpretation put by Russia on this point was that no war-ships should enter the Black Sea except those which, by a separate agreement between Russia and Turkey, those Powers should think proper to retain.

The Austrian Envoy was indeed the bearer of something more than conditions. He carried in his pocket instructions which amounted to a menace Russia could not afford to despise. If he did not obtain an acceptance of his conditions within a limited time, he was to quit St. Petersburg, taking with him the whole of the Austrian Legation. On the 27th he saw Count Nesselrode, read to him the despatch of Count Buol, and handed in the paper of conditions. The Russian Cabinet fought hard against the conditions. They wished to modify this Austrian ultimatum—for such was its real character—and thus sustain that claim to independent action put forward by Count Nesselrode on the 22nd of December. They wished to make the Allies accept Kars and the surrounding country for Sebastopol, Kertch, Kinburn, Eupatoria, the Black Sea, and the Sea of Azoff, and parts of Mingrelia and Imeritia. They wished to avoid the unforeseen demands that might lurk in the fifth point. They desired to hold fast to the left bank of the Danube, and keep the Isle of Serpents. But the Czar was made aware that he could look for no aid from any German Power. France and Britain had just concluded an offensive and defensive alliance with[151] Sweden under certain conditions very adverse to Russia; and the Czar, like the rest of the world, knew it. Sardinia was certain to act with the Western Powers as long as the war lasted. Even Prussia was drifting towards the Western Powers. Britain was just acquiring that strength which would enable her blows to tell in another campaign. This the Czar knew also, and, moreover, he knew that France would do everything to make the terms of the treaty as little distasteful as possible. To crown all, the Austrian Government demanded an unconditional acceptance of the five points, the alternative being an instant rupture of diplomatic relations. Count Esterhazy was forbidden to discuss the contents of the ultimatum. He had simply to demand an answer, yes or no. Russia first sent an answer to Vienna; but as it was not a categorical reply, but a series of counter-propositions, Count Buol told the Russian Minister at Vienna that, unless the ultimatum were accepted on or before the 18th of January, the whole of the Austrian Embassy would quit St. Petersburg without a moment's delay.

This was a great deal to bear. The Russian Government delayed their answer until nearly the last moment. The time for decision allowed to them by Austria had not quite expired before the Czar made up his mind. The public anxiety in every capital of Europe was extreme; but while on the Continent the anxiety was for an affirmative, in England there was a sort of dread lest an affirmative answer should proceed from the cabinet of the Czar. Three weeks had passed away in these negotiations on the Neva. On the 16th of January, 1856, Count Nesselrode informed the Austrian Envoy that the Czar had given way. Russia had complied with the demand of Austria, and had given her unconditional assent to the Austrian ultimatum. This was Count Buol's greatest triumph. The next day the fact was known in every capital in Europe.

There was another triumph in store for the Emperor Napoleon. When Russia had accepted the Austrian proposals, it became necessary to determine where the Conference or Congress of the treaty-making Powers should be held. This occasioned some little difficulty. There was a talk of Brussels and Dresden; and it was said that London, Paris, and Vienna were out of the question. There is little doubt now that it was intended the Congress should be held in Paris. The Governments took to paying each other compliments. France suggested London, and Britain suggested Paris. Russia, for good reasons of her own, settled the amicable dispute by adopting the suggestion of Britain. Therefore, it was in Paris, where famous peaces had been made, that this peace was to be made. Then came another question. Who should sit at this European council? Prussia put in a claim based on her share in determining the Czar to yield. But—independently of the fact that Prussia had all along acted like an ally of Russia, and had only taken engagements hostile to Russia on behalf of German interests, and therefore would enter the Congress as a friend of Russia—Prussia had really no right at all to sit with the belligerent Powers, because she had separated from them in the summer of 1855. Therefore Prussia was not invited to the Paris Congress. The other Power whose right was for a moment questioned, but only for a moment, was Sardinia. But Sardinia was a belligerent. One of the inducements which led her to take an active part in the war was the opportunity of showing herself as a European Power. For that she had incurred the expense and the risk. Therefore she was admitted, with the reluctant assent of Austria. The Powers to be represented at the Congress, therefore, were Britain, France, Austria, Sardinia, Turkey, and Russia. Each Power sent a special plenipotentiary, and each plenipotentiary was to be assisted by the resident ambassador. The British plenipotentiary was the Earl of Clarendon, assisted by Earl Cowley; France was represented by Count Walewski and Baron de Bourqueney; Austria sent the cautious and much-pondering Count Buol and the clever Baron Hübner; Sardinia confided her interests to her greatest statesman, Count Cavour, whose second was the Marquis of Villa-marina; Turkey was present in the person of Aali Pasha, one of her ablest men, and Mehemed Djemil Bey; the Czar sent his father's friend, Count Orloff, and Baron Brunnow, cool, astute, and experienced. Some time elapsed before these men—some of them travelling from the extremities of Europe—could reach Paris; and before they could meet there was an important step to take. It is usual to frame a preliminary treaty. In this case, to save time and avoid the chances of discord, it was agreed, at a meeting of the Ministers of France, Britain, Austria, Russia, and Turkey, at Vienna, on the 1st of February, that they should sign a protocol, recording the acceptance of the Austrian proposals by Russia as a basis of peace, and that this should be regarded as a preliminary treaty. It was further agreed that[152] the Congress should open at Paris on the 26th of February.

The British Parliament was opened by Queen Victoria in person on the 31st of January. The public were not certain that the signs of peace could be depended on. They were doubtful of the sincerity of Russia; they were eager to hear the explanations of Ministers. The Queen's Speech was anxiously awaited—the more anxiously because the contents were not permitted to appear in the newspapers of the morning. While determined to prosecute the war with vigour, her Majesty said she deemed it her duty not to decline any reasonable overture promising peace. "Accordingly," she continued, "when the Emperor of Austria lately offered to myself and to my august ally, the Emperor of the French, to employ his good offices with the Emperor of Russia, with a view to endeavour to bring about an amicable adjustment of the matters at issue between the contending Powers, I consented, in concert with my Allies, to accept the offer thus made; and I have the satisfaction to inform you that certain conditions have been agreed upon, which I hope may prove the foundation of a general treaty of peace. Negotiations for such a treaty," her Majesty added, "will shortly be opened at Paris." And she continued—"In conducting these negotiations, I shall be careful not to lose sight of the objects for which the war was undertaken; and I shall deem it right in no degree to relax my naval and military preparations until a satisfactory peace shall have been concluded."

When the Address came under debate, Lord Gosford, the mover, expressed the feeling of the country when he said he found himself reluctantly an advocate of peace. That sentiment prevailed in both Houses. There were some who, like Mr. Roebuck, gave utterance to a positive condemnation of peace. But Mr. Roebuck was only continuing his career as accuser-general. Lord Clarendon pointed out that when the Austrian Government offered its good offices to bring about a peace, the British Government could not refuse them. "However confident," he said, speaking for his colleagues, "they might have been that another campaign would have increased the military fame of England, and might have led to a treaty of a different and more comprehensive character, yet such anticipations would have been wholly unjustifiable, if they had induced us to prolong the war when a prospect appeared of obtaining the objects for which the war was undertaken." On the Continent the common belief was that the British Government was insincere. This Lord Clarendon denied in explicit terms, and there is no reason to believe he did not express the sentiment of the nation. Lord Palmerston was far more emphatic than his Foreign Secretary in repudiating the notion that Britain desired to go on with the war for the sake of glory. "No doubt," he said, "the resources of the country are unimpaired. No doubt the naval and military preparations which have been making during the past twelve months, which are now going on, and which will be completed in the spring, will place this country in a position, as regards the continuance of hostilities, in which it has not stood since the commencement of the war. We should therefore be justified in expecting that another campaign—should another campaign be forced upon us—would result in successes which might perhaps entitle us to require—perhaps enable us to obtain—even better conditions than those which have been offered to us, and have been accepted by us. But if the conditions which we now hope to obtain are such as will properly satisfy the objects for which we are contending—if they are conditions which we think it is our duty to accept, and with which we believe the country will be satisfied—then undoubtedly we should be wanting in our duty, and should not justify the confidence which the country has reposed in us, if we rejected terms of that description, merely for the chance of greater successes in another campaign." The country—that is, the judgment of the country—approved; but, as Lord Gosford said, with reluctance, much doubting whether the work undertaken had been finished. The reluctance sprang from that feeling, and by no means from a thirst for naval and military glory. The nation accepted the proposal to make peace, trusting, but not too blindly, that it would be safe and honourable; and whether it would be so remained to be seen.

In the meantime Russia, who had yielded, but yielded with misgivings, was very anxious it should be understood that she would not stand any very stringent development of that fifth point, those special conditions which the Allies had reserved their right to demand. She would not pay any indemnity to Turkey; she hoped that no one would think of prohibiting the re-fortification of the Åland Islands; she even suffered her organs to talk of keeping Kars and part of Turkish Armenia. But this was all bravado; the loud talking being intended to cover the fact that Russia had been worsted, and to make it appear[153] that she would enter Congress as a Power proposing conditions. Prussia was very busy; very anxious to be invited to the Congress; very eager to demonstrate that it was her influence which finally induced the Czar to grant peace to Europe. Austria did not fail to submit her peace propositions to the German Diet, and to obtain the assent of that singularly-constituted and abortive political corporation. Prussia again made a bid for a seat in the Congress by supporting the proposals of Austria before the Diet; and Austria, to please the minor German Powers, dwelt on the effect of the expression of their opinions at St. Petersburg. Count Rechberg, who then represented Austria at the Diet, expressed his firm conviction that the right of proposing new conditions reserved in the fifth point would not be exercised in a sense likely to frustrate the hopes of peace. Neither Prussia nor the Diet was invited to the Congress; but this mysterious discussion of the fifth point raised doubts in the minds of the public, who were not told that the Powers had already determined that there should be no difficulties, and that peace should be made.

February had nearly passed away before the plenipotentiaries began to assemble. The Congress met on the 25th of the month, one day earlier than the time fixed upon provisionally at Vienna. It was a matter of course that Count Walewski should preside over this meeting. It is the custom for the Minister of that Sovereign to preside in whose capital a congress is held. But this was not done without a formal motion, made in this case by the Austrian Plenipotentiary, and assented to unanimously by all present. Then the Congress settled what are called the preliminaries—that is, they gave their sanction to the transaction at Vienna on the 1st of February. Next they resolved that an armistice should be concluded between the belligerents, to terminate on the 31st of March unless renewed; but not to extend to any blockade established or to be established. It was understood, however, that no hostilities should occur off the coasts of the enemy. Wherefore the British sent a light squadron again into the Baltic, but merely as a measure of precaution; and, of course, the Black Sea and Sea of Azoff remained in the hands of the Allies.

The Emperor Napoleon opened the Session of 1856 on the 4th of March. He contrasted the state of affairs, the last time he had met them—"Europe, uncertain, awaiting the issue of the struggle before taking sides"—with their state at the time he was addressing them, when the struggle for Sebastopol had been decided in favour of the Allies, and had brought Europe over to their side openly. As a "fact of high political significance"—truly, very high to him and his—he reminded his subservient hearers of the visit of "the Queen of Great Britain" to his Court, and cited it as "a proof of her confidence in and esteem for our country." He told them also of the visit of the King of Piedmont—a visit more significant, if his hearers could only have foreseen—and then he said:—"These Sovereigns beheld a country some time so disturbed and fallen from her rank in the councils of Europe, now prosperous, peaceable, and respected, making war, not with the hurried delirium of passion, but with that calm which belongs to justice, and all the energy of duty. They have seen France, which had sent 200,000 men across the sea, at the same time convoke at Paris all the arts of peace, as if she meant to say to Europe: 'The present war is but an episode for me, and my strength is always in great measure directed towards peaceful occupations. Let us neglect no opportunity of coming to an understanding, and do not force me to throw into the battlefield the whole resources and power of a great nation.'" Such was the attitude, as it is called, of the Emperor Napoleon in the spring of 1856. The alliance with Great Britain, the glories of the Crimea, the Congress of Paris, had established his throne, and had made him respectable in the eyes of his people, and for the future dreaded in Europe.

The scene in Constantinople on the 21st of February was very different from that in Paris. In the capital of Turkey there had also been a conference—a conference whereat the British, French, and Austrian Ministers had assisted the Turks in drawing up a grand Charter for the Christians. At a solemn meeting in the room of the Grand Council this charter was read. This firman is a very amazing document, promising almost more than any Government could perform. It is a sweeping Charter of civil and religious liberty, surprising to meet with in the latitude of the Bosphorus. It decreed freedom of religion, admission to the national schools and to public offices. There were to be mixed tribunals for all civil and criminal cases where the parties differed in religion, and open courts. Flogging and torture in prisons were abolished, and the use of them made penal. As all were liable to taxes, as all were placed on an equality of rights before the law, so there should be an equality of duties; and the duty of serving in the army, almost a patent of[154] nobility in a Moslem State, became one of the duties of the Christians. In addition to these reforms, the firman provided for the improvement of the mode of collecting the taxes; for the publication of the Budget; for annual assembling of a grand council of delegates; for free trade; for the right of all to hold land. In short, it declared the resolve of the Sultan to execute very sweeping reforms in all departments of the State, and on all the great lines of public policy. Clearly this was more than an executive so weak as that of the Sultan could effect, and remained for the most part a dead letter. The Emperor of Russia did not fail to make use of this famous firman, and tell his subjects that one of the reasons that induced him to make peace was that the Sultan had granted that act of justice, the want of which led the father of the Czar to make war. These two documents—the Imperial Speech and the Sultan's firman—mark, the first, the solid establishment of the personal power of Bonaparte; the second, the most considerable step yet taken towards the full emancipation and uplifting of the Christian races in the East.

The Congress of Paris sat seven weeks, opening its proceedings, as we have seen, on the 25th of February, and closing them on the 16th of April. The first five weeks were devoted to the discussion of the articles of the treaty—indeed, they were determined on in the first month; put into final shape during the last week in March, and signed on the 30th. When the work was substantially done—that is, on the 12th of March—Prussia was at length gratified by an invitation to send plenipotentiaries, and to accede to what had been already determined on. As she had abstained from taking part in the war, Prussia could have no place in a conference assembled to settle terms of peace. But as the articles to be negotiated trenched upon treaties relating to the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, to which Prussia was a party in 1840 and 1841, it was thought fit to invite her to accede to the conclusions adopted by the other Powers. Prussia, of course, readily accepted such a pretext for putting the names of her Ministers and her Sovereign at the foot of a European treaty; and thus on the 18th of March, at the tenth sitting of the conference, Baron Manteuffel and Baron Hatzfeld took their seats at the round table in the Hall of Ambassadors. Thus there were seven Powers represented around that green board at the closing scenes of a diplomatic conference which was so gratifying to the Emperor and all Frenchmen. Nor was this the sole piece of good fortune that befell his Majesty, for on the 16th day of March there came into the world a Prince Imperial, the only child of the marriage between Louis Napoleon Buonaparte and Eugénie de Montijo, the bright Spanish beauty chosen by him when his overtures at imperial and royal Courts went for nought. As in duty bound, the plenipotentiaries waited on the Emperor to congratulate him, and Paris, as in duty bound, covered itself with illuminations.

It was on a Sunday afternoon, a fortnight after this event, that the treaty of peace was signed by the plenipotentiaries. The Treaty of Paris was not a very long or complicated document. It consisted of a preamble and thirty-four articles, and there were attached to it three conventions, each having the same force as the general treaty. In the preamble the six Powers declared their intention to establish and consolidate a peace "by securing, through effectual and reciprocal guarantees, the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire," and, further, they recorded that Prussia was invited to participate in the arrangements come to. Peace being established, Russia was to restore Kars and the country occupied by her troops in Turkish Armenia, and the Allies were to restore the towns and ports of Sebastopol, Balaclava, Kamiesch, Kertch, Yenikale, and Kinburn, and all other Russian territory occupied by them. Each Power was to grant an amnesty to those of their subjects who had been employed against them, or who had otherwise compromised themselves. This was done to meet the case of Poles who had taken service with the Allies. All prisoners of war were to be given up. The whole of the seven Powers declared formally that the Sublime Porte should be admitted to participate in the advantages of the public law and system of Europe. "Their Majesties," the treaty went on (Article VII.), "engage, each on his part, to respect the independence and territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire; guarantee in common the strict observance of that engagement, and will, in consequence, consider any act tending to its violation as a question of general interest." If a quarrel arose between the Porte and one of the Powers, before force was resorted to, the other Powers were to have an opportunity of preventing by mediation the outbreak of war. It was then recorded that the Sultan would communicate to each Power the firman he had issued touching his Christian subjects; but it was expressly declared that this act of the Sultan did not confer on all, or any, of the Powers any right to interfere in[155] the internal affairs of his empire. The Black Sea was "neutralised"; that is, all ships of war, with recognised exceptions, were prohibited from entering its waters, while it was to be free to the mercantile marine of every nation. The exceptions were specified in a convention between Russia and Turkey, annexed to the general treaty, and equally valid with it. By this convention the two Powers were each to maintain not more than six steamships of 800 tons, and four light vessels of 200 tons. It was also provided in the treaty that no military-maritime arsenal should be maintained by either Power on the coasts of the Black Sea. Consuls were to be admitted to any port. The navigation of the Danube was declared to be free, and a commission was to be appointed to clear the mouths, improve and regulate the navigation, and pay the expenses out of a shipping rate. Thus the Black Sea was set apart for commerce and the Danube opened to all the world. This was what, in the language of diplomacy, was called the neutralisation of the Black Sea. Russia would not admit that the terms of this treaty applied to the building-yards of Kherson and Nicolaief, or to the Sea of Azoff; but Count Orloff gave a promise, which was recorded in the protocols, that Russia would not build "anywhere on the shores of the Black Sea, or in its tributaries, or in the waters dependent on it," any ships other than those allowed by treaty. This was accepted as a binding engagement.

In order to show that the Allies did not exchange the territories held by them in return for Kars, it was expressly stated that in exchange for the ports in the Crimea held by the Allies, and the better to secure the free navigation of the Danube, Russia consented to what was absurdly called "the rectification of the frontier of Bessarabia." The new frontier was to start from the river Pruth, at a point where it was not navigable, and follow a line which would exclude Russia altogether from the Danube, and take from her the fortress of Ismail and Kilia Nova. A commission was to trace the new line, and of that we shall have to speak at a later stage, as it nearly gave rise to a renewal of the war. The remainder of the treaty provided for the future status of the Danubian Principalities. They were placed under the collective guarantee of the seven Powers. Their rights and privileges were to be secured, their laws and statutes revised, and a commission was to report on their new organisation, after taking counsel of Divans called for the purpose of expressing the wants of the people. Finally, the Sultan was to give his sanction to the new arrangements, and then the Principalities passed under the protection of the seven Powers. These were the chief stipulations of this remarkable treaty.

We have said that there were three conventions annexed to the general treaty. One we have described already. The second, signed by all the Powers, recorded the declaration of the Sultan that he would continue to prohibit the entry of ships of war into the Straits of the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus, and would not admit any so long as he was at peace; and the other Powers agreed to respect this determination of the Sultan. There were exceptions, as in the case of ships bearing ambassadors, admitted by permission of the Sultan, and of ships that the contracting Powers might send to keep watch over the mouths of the Danube. The third convention was signed by the Ministers of France, England, and Russia, and it recorded the undertaking of the Czar "that the Åland Islands shall not be fortified, and that no military or naval establishments shall be maintained or created there." We may here remark that the Allies, after the capture of Bomarsund, offered these islands to Sweden, but that Sweden, fearing to offend Russia, and apprehensive of the burden they might prove, declined the gift. The islands lie at the mouth of the Gulf of Bothnia, off the Swedish capital. It was in the interest of Sweden that this convention was made.

By this treaty and these conventions the Allies secured the object of the war, which really was the reduction of the power of Russia. They not only destroyed Sebastopol and the Black Sea fleet, they prohibited the revival of fleet or arsenal; they removed Russia from the Danube; they deprived her altogether of that exclusive protectorate over the Danubian Principalities which she had extorted from the Porte, and declared null and void that pretended protectorate over the Christian subjects of the Sultan to which Nicholas violently laid claim; they gave Turkey a collective guarantee, and they thus delivered her from the grinding pressure of Russia, and struck out of the hands of the Czar those two formidable weapons of coercion—a mighty arsenal and fleet. Without these, it was thought, an invasion of Turkey from the north would be almost impossible, and the chances of working down upon Constantinople from the east—that is, from Kars—would become very slight. Moreover, by newly organising the Principalities, the Powers provided for the growth of a national Christian State, one of a group which, when the time comes, will take the[156] place of the Turk on the Danube, the Bosphorus, and the European shores of the Levant. In the Baltic the Allies reduced the power of the Czar, and delivered Sweden from a standing menace. So that, on the whole, the fruits of the war were considerable, though not so considerable as they might have been had the war gone on. That peace was then justly made no rational man will deny; for, although all had not been accomplished, enough had been done to meet the exigencies of the period.

With these stipulations Britain, Austria, and France were not content. They took a remarkable step. They, on the 15th of April, signed a treaty of guarantee. That is to say, they jointly and severally guaranteed the integrity and independence of the Ottoman Empire; and declared that "any infraction of the stipulations" of the general treaty, signed on the 30th of March, would be considered by these three Powers as a casus belli. This was a very strong measure; and when it became known, as it soon did, Russia, though offended at a want of confidence, saw that she must not attempt to wriggle out of the conditions she had subscribed. Nevertheless, she did, at a later period, succeed in frustrating the intention of that stipulation which removed her altogether from the Danube, and thrust back her frontier from its banks and waters.

The Congress of Paris did not restrict its attention to those points which arose directly out of the war. The Congress indeed sat for a fortnight after the peace treaty had been concluded, and took some remarkable steps. On the 8th of April, for instance, Count Walewski, as president, submitted to the Congress no fewer than four important subjects, and invited discussion. It was a rather unusual proceeding; but it showed the tendency, which afterwards became more manifest, to draw all great questions for settlement to Paris, and to bring about a sort of government of Europe by congresses. Count Walewski called for the opinions of the plenipotentiaries on the condition of Greece, Italy, and Belgium, and suggested a new declaration of maritime law. Greece had been occupied by the Allies for contumacious conduct; before the troops were withdrawn, the evils must be remedied. In Italy, France, "the eldest son of the Church," occupied Rome—that was abnormal, and the Emperor was ready to withdraw his troops as soon as he could do so without injuring the interests of the Pope—a safe promise. Count Walewski hoped Count Buol would say the same for Austria, whose troops were in the Romagna and Tuscany. Then there was a violent attack on Belgium. What Count Walewski said on this topic was that there were outspoken enemies of the Emperor in Belgium, that they abused the freedom of the press, that this might be dangerous for Belgium, and that the Powers, perhaps, would be good enough to say that Belgium must pass severe laws and repress these excesses. This was very uncalled for, not to say insolent, conduct on the part of the French Minister. Lord Clarendon and Count Cavour spoke with some freedom, and seemed to concur with Count Walewski's Italian views, joining in the blows aimed at Austria and Naples. Count Cavour, indeed, was eloquent on the subject of the Austrian occupation of the Romagna, and the very tyrannical conduct of the King of the Two Sicilies. But the other plenipotentiaries seemed to be rather taken by surprise by the French manœuvre and said little. Even Lord Clarendon did not repel with sufficient, with any vigour, the unwarranted attack on Belgium. So that Count Walewski, in summing up the results of the conversation, could record some sort of hollow agreement as to the principles he laid down affecting Greece, Italy, and Belgium. In fact, the object of the French minister was to bring Italy bodily before the Congress, to pave the way for a policy which was to put a violent end to Austrian occupation, and leave French occupation as flourishing as it was when Count Walewski affected to lament its existence before the Congress of 1856. Italy was introduced to satisfy also the urgent demands of Count Cavour, who had already begun to meditate on plans for his country's liberation with the aid of Britain or France. Italy therefore, at the Congress of 1856, was the shadow of a coming event.

The suggested new declaration on maritime law also took the plenipotentiaries by surprise. They demanded time, but a week afterwards—namely, on the 16th of April—they agreed to a declaration which was annexed to the treaty, and understood to be binding on those who signed it and on those who might accede to it. The points solemnly set forth as for the future international law were these:—"1. Privateering is, and remains, abolished. 2. The neutral flag covers enemies' goods, with the exception of contraband of war. 3. Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to seizure under an enemy's flag. 4. Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective—that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of an enemy." This forms a great landmark in the history of[157] belligerent and neutral rights. It marks the enlargement of neutral, and the restriction of belligerent rights; and by many it was thought that the surrender of the right to take enemies' goods wherever found would prove injurious, unless accompanied by an abolition of the right of capturing private property at sea altogether. Certainly Britain surrendered a great deal to the neutral and non-maritime Powers; and when she had done so, the greatest, the United States of America, would not accede to the declaration—would not agree to abolish privateering unless Europe agreed to abolish the right of capturing private property at sea.

SCENE DURING THE PRESTON STRIKE. (See p. 162.)

Another incident worth notice occurred at this Congress, and chiefly because it relates to the adoption of a principle for which marked success cannot yet be claimed. Much moved by the Peace party, Government permitted Lord Clarendon to propose a sort of arbitration clause. He observed that the treaty embodied the principle as applied to differences between the contracting Powers and Turkey. He proposed that the happy innovation should receive a more general application without prejudice to the independence of Governments. Count Walewski and Baron Manteuffel concurred, but Count Buol and Count Orloff gave it merely their personal assent. "Whereupon," so runs the protocol, "the plenipotentiaries do not hesitate to express in the name of their Governments the wish that States between which any serious misunderstanding may arise should, before appealing to arms, have recourse, as well as circumstances might allow, to the good offices of a friendly Power. The plenipotentiaries hope that the Governments not represented at the Congress will unite in the sentiment which has inspired the wish recorded in the present protocol." The principle of international arbitration, though generally accepted in theory, is still far from being reduced to practice.

On the very day when the peace documents were laid before the British Parliament, April 28th, the Opposition determined to censure the Government for the loss of Kars. To this end it was necessary to treat the fate of Kars as a matter[158] entirely under the control of the Government; to forget that Britain was engaged with Allies, and to assume that the British Government had shown a deficiency of "foresight and energy." On that ground Mr. Whiteside, acting for his party, based a motion of censure. Lord Malmesbury, in the House of Peers, had also given notice of a similar motion, but found it expedient to withdraw his notice, and accept battle in the House of Commons. This debate unhappily, like so many others, was a mere party encounter. The Opposition did not believe that Kars could have been saved by the British Government in the circumstances; but they found in the facts of the campaign admirable material for a party attack. The real causes of the loss of Kars were twofold—the indolence and corruption of the Turkish Pashas, whose conduct deprived Kars of the provisions actually collected to victual the place; and the indisposition of the French Emperor to permit the diversion to Asia of any effective troops, who might have operated in time to relieve the garrison. Britain, as happened in all cases where it acted in combination with Imperial France, played a secondary, one might almost say a subordinate, part. That is the price it paid for an active alliance with France. Consequently no effective measures were taken to defend the Turkish frontier in Asia. The House, not being prepared to censure the Government for deference to an ally—a deference which could not be avoided without risk to the alliance—rejected Mr. Whiteside's motion of censure by a majority of 303 to 176.

As a matter of course the peace treaty, when communicated to Parliament, became a subject of high debate. The Address to her Majesty, agreed to by both Houses, thanked the Queen for communicating the treaty to Parliament, and assured her that, while they would have cheerfully supported her had the war gone on, yet that they had learned with "joy and satisfaction" that a peace had been concluded on conditions which so fully accomplished the objects for which the war was undertaken. The Address took note of the aid given by Powers not belligerents towards the restoration of peace, and expressed a hope that it would be lasting. The debates in both Houses were really without life or novelty, and do not concern posterity. The Opposition only pretended to be dissatisfied. One called it a "base" peace, yet would not divide against it; and another proposed to omit the word "joy," yet leave in the word "satisfaction." In fact, the division on the Kars resolution took the sting out of the Opposition speeches; and the Address, unaltered, was agreed to without a dissentient. On the 8th of May thanks were voted to the army and navy; and the Queen sent down a message to state that she had raised General Williams to the dignity of a baronet, with the style and title of Sir Fenwick Williams of Kars, and had resolved to grant him a pension of one thousand pounds a year. This gave great satisfaction, and met with ready support. On the 29th of May the Queen's birthday was kept, and London illuminated in celebration of the peace. Prince Albert inspected the Guards; the Queen held a Drawing Room; and in the evening—her Majesty and her family witnessing the spectacle from the balcony of Buckingham Palace—there were four grand and continuous outbursts of fireworks, from the Green Park, from Hyde Park, from Primrose Hill, and from Victoria Park. So London rejoiced, and the towns in the country rejoiced also, that the war was at an end.

We have seen how the war arose, how it was waged, and how the objects sought were accomplished. It is right that the cost in life and money should also be recorded. According to Lord Panmure, our total loss up to the 31st of March, 1856, of killed, dead of wounds and disease, and discharged, was 22,467 men. The Russian loss was upwards of 500,000. The cost in money, as estimated by Sir George Lewis, was fifty-three millions. We increased the funded and unfunded debt by £33,604,263, and we raised by increased taxation above £17,000,000. But the war left us with very largely increased establishments; and the peace of Europe has since been so often threatened that our Chancellors of the Exchequer have not been able to reduce the expenditure to the comparatively low level of the years immediately preceding the revival of the French Empire. The navy was greatly augmented, having been raised from a force of 212 to a force of 590 effective ships of war. The organisation of the army and navy was much improved; and in 1856 Great Britain stood in a better position as regards offensive and defensive operations than it had done at any previous period since the peace of 1815.

The execution of the conditions of the treaty of peace went on for many months after its conclusion; but ultimately the Danubian Principalities received a definite organisation, and succeeded, even in spite of the temporary opposition of Britain, Austria, and the Porte, in obtaining a united Government by the junction of Wallachia and[159] Moldavia under the name of Roumania. The new frontier also was traced; but not without involving Europe in the danger of war. First of all Russia claimed the Isle of Serpents, off the mouth of the Danube, and occupied it. Admiral Lyons at once placed it under the watch and ward of a man-of-war. The object of tracing a new frontier in Bessarabia was to remove Russia from the Danube. In deciding the line roughly on maps produced by the French at Paris, it was agreed that the Russian frontier should run to the south of a place called Bolgrad, it being understood that this Bolgrad was not on the banks of a lake—Lake Jalpukh—which ran into the Danube. But the frontier commission found that Bolgrad was actually on the lake. The maps exhibited were delusive. The place called Bolgrad on these maps was Bolgrad-Tabak. There had either been a deception practised, or a misunderstanding on all sides. The Russians, however, insisted on the letter of the treaty; and strangely enough, the French Government showed a disposition to support them. But Britain, Austria, and Turkey stood out. At one moment, in consequence of the lurch of the Imperial mind towards Russia, war was possible. Better counsels prevailed, and it was arranged that a conference should sit to decide this knotty point. The conference sat on the 31st of December, 1856, and the 6th of January, 1857. The result of its secret deliberations was that Russia had to give up the Isle of Serpents and both Bolgrads; but she gained a considerable slice of Moldavia, though not on the Danube, as "compensation." The delta of the Danube reverted to Turkey; the remainder of the ceded territory to Roumania. The French Emperor supported the Russian demands. It was owing to the firmness of Lord Palmerston that Russia, in spite of the aid of the Emperor Napoleon, was restrained from then becoming one of the river-bordering Powers on the Danube.

By way of a pleasant epilogue to the Crimean War came the first distribution of the Victoria Cross, a ceremony which took place in Hyde Park on the 26th of June, 1857. It had long been felt that a distinctive token was wanted to meet the individual acts of heroism in the army and navy, and this impression was strengthened by the numerous deeds of valour by which the struggle for Sebastopol had been rendered illustrious. Accordingly the Queen had issued a royal warrant in the previous year by which a new naval and military decoration was instituted, to be styled "The Victoria Cross," and inscribed "For Valour," which was only to be issued to men who had especially distinguished themselves in the presence of the enemy. The destined recipients paraded at an early hour on the appointed day, and were found to be sixty-two in all, twelve from the Royal Navy, two from the marines, five from the cavalry, five from the artillery, four from the engineers, and the remainder from the line. The popular favourite was Lieutenant John Knox, who after greatly distinguishing himself in the Fusilier Guards, lost his arm in the attack on the Redan. Already more than 100,000 people were assembled in the Park, where a vast semicircle of seats to hold 12,000 had been erected for the favoured few. It was a glorious morning, when at 10 a.m. the Queen—accompanied by the Prince Consort, Prince Frederick William of Prussia, and a brilliant military suite—rode into the Park on a favourite roan horse. The actual ceremony was of the briefest; the Queen, without dismounting, pinned the cross upon the breast of each of the men as they were brought up to her one by one, and in ten minutes the honours had been bestowed. But the assembled multitude was highly delighted by the march past of the 4,000 soldiers who had been brought on the ground to give brilliancy to the occasion, and taken as a whole the brief record in the Prince Consort's diary—"a superb spectacle"—was amply merited.

[160]

## CHAPTER XI.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

THE war with Russia, the conclusion of which has just been recorded, and its effects on political parties and Cabinets, so fully absorbed the attention of Parliament and the public while it lasted, that comparatively little progress was made in the work of domestic legislation. It was not, however, altogether neglected. At the prorogation on the 20th of August, 1853, her Majesty congratulated Parliament on the remission of taxes which tended to cramp the operations of trade and industry; on the extension of the system of beneficent legislation, which increased the means of obtaining the necessaries of life; on the buoyant state of the revenue; on the steady progress of foreign trade; on the prosperity that pervaded the great trading and producing classes, without even a partial exception—all affording continued and increasing evidence of the enlarged comforts of the people. The Queen at the same time announced the termination of the Kaffir War, which had lasted since the beginning of 1851, the Kaffirs having repeatedly defeated our troops, and spread havoc through the villages. At length they were enabled to bring against us an army of 6,000 horsemen. They were attacked by the Governor-General Cathcart, with 2,000 British troops, and defeated with great loss. The result was that they accepted the terms of peace he proposed. The Royal Speech expressed the hope that the establishment of representative government in the Cape Colony would lead to the development of its resources, and enable it to make efficient provision for its own defence. Another subject of congratulation was the termination of the war with Burmah, which commenced in January, 1851, and was caused by the exactions of the Governor of Rangoon from British traders. At first the Court of Ava promised redress, but the Governor refused to receive the British representative, Captain Fishbourne, and Lord Dalhousie's ultimatum was treated with contempt. Accordingly a British naval force arrived before Rangoon, under Commodore Lambert, who, on January 4th, 1852, destroyed the fortifications of the Irrawaddy, and a few months later stormed Martaban, Rangoon, and Bassein. Later in the year Pegu was captured, and annexed to our Indian Empire. The objects of the war having been thus fully attained, and due submission made by the Burmese Government, peace was proclaimed.

[161]

THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE.

The Session of 1853 had been a fruitful one—116 Bills had been introduced by the Ministry, of which 104 passed into law, 10 having been withdrawn, and 2 only rejected. This was the peaceful work of the Coalition Ministry, under the Earl of Aberdeen, which was destined to end its existence so ingloriously. Two powerful causes came into operation soon after, which clouded the political atmosphere, and gradually spread feelings of discontent and despondency throughout the nation—a bad harvest and a costly war miserably conducted. The effects of the short harvest were greatly aggravated by what was called "the Wages Movement," which commenced in April. It was generally felt by the skilled artisans that, though their employment was constant and their wages good, they did not obtain a fair measure of the extraordinary profits resulting from their labour. The consequence was a general organisation of the trades to extort better terms from their employers, enforced—if need were—by strikes. The artisans engaged in the woollen manufacture led the way in putting forth their demands. They were followed by carpenters, shipwrights, waggon-wrights, and almost every class of operative. Large concessions were made to some classes, and those employed in the coal trade especially received enormous wages. But, as the prices of provisions continued to rise the movement spread to every part of the United Kingdom, assuming its most formidable aspect in the manufacturing districts, where strikes became general, and many mills were closed. A common fund was established for the purpose of supporting the unemployed workmen, and it was hoped that the manufacturers would soon be compelled to give way. But the masters formed a counter-combination, and wherever a partial or local strike occurred, they all agreed to close their works, and thus to starve the operatives into surrender. The result was a bitter controversy, and a desperate struggle between capital and labour, which lasted with unabated obstinacy throughout the year, but, happily, unaccompanied by such acts of violence as attended strikes in former times, when the working classes were not so well educated. The leaders of the movement were able, intelligent, and energetic. The plan of the campaign was to conquer in detail, directing the attack against some particular town, compelling the firms to succumb individually till the capitalists of that district were subdued, and then carrying the war to another place. They hoped by this means to receive ample supplies for continuing the contest, because the great mass of workmen would always be employed, and would be able to support those that were out on strike. Preston and Burnley were the places in which the operations commenced on a large scale, and the contest that followed will be long remembered as "the Preston Strike." In that town, upwards of 15,000 idle hands were supported by contributions from the employed, which were so abundant, at[162] first, that the enormous sum of £3,000 was distributed weekly—equal to about five shillings a head on an average. On this allowance they managed to exist for thirty-seven weeks. The effects were in some respects like those produced by the cotton-famine in Lancashire. First, the deposits in the saving-banks, and the sums insured for age and sickness, were consumed in obtaining the necessaries of life. Personal ornaments and wearing apparel were next sacrificed—sold for trifling sums to meet the cravings of hunger. With poor, scanty food, ragged clothes, and domestic discomfort of every kind, the habits of the operatives became debased and their tempers morose. The retail traders who depended upon them became bankrupt; many substantial shopkeepers were ruined; trade everywhere languished and the distress grew general. Still the operatives held out heroically, they insisted on one-tenth of the profits of their labour; the watchword still passed from rank to rank; they shouted enthusiastically, "Ten per cent. and no surrender!" It was stated that the passion produced by this abstract idea became a sort of religious conviction, and in one place the people assembled in a chapel and sang a hymn to "ten per cent."

But, as in wars between nations, the belligerents were ultimately compelled to come to terms by sheer exhaustion; the workers, as invariably happens in such suicidal contests, were the first to fail. In April, 1854, the supplies were diminished to a miserable pittance, the cardloom hands receiving but a shilling a week each. The contributions from distant towns fell off, while the demand was more than doubled by the men of Stockport, to the number of 18,000, suddenly throwing themselves upon the fund. As Stockport had contributed £200 a week to the fund which they thus overburdened, the struggle was necessarily brought to an abrupt conclusion. On the 1st of May, therefore, the committee announced that the employers had succeeded in their "unholy crusade" and that the operatives generally had deserted them in their hour of utmost need. The mills were opened and work was resumed; but some thousands failed to find employment and were reduced to destitution and pauperism. It has been computed that the sums expended in maintaining the unemployed in Preston alone amounted to £100,000. The loss of wages was more than three times that amount; and altogether the loss to the working classes by that disastrous strike could not be less than £500,000. The loss of capital to the manufacturers must have been incalculable, not to speak of the ruin of a multitude of shopkeepers. The principal leader was afterwards imprisoned for debt, contracted in carrying on the war.

We pass from this painful subject to a scene that furnishes a contrast. On the 10th of June, 1854, the Queen opened the Crystal Palace at Sydenham. Many of those who witnessed the Exhibition in Hyde Park deplored the demolition of that magnificent structure, which the Commissioners of Woods and Forests would not suffer to remain. The materials were purchased by a private company, and removed to a new site on the summit of Penge Hill, upon which a new palace was constructed. A full description of this structure would be out of place here. It had three transepts, the centre one being 120 feet wide, and 208 feet high from the garden front. The whole nave was covered with an arched roof. This palace crowned an eminence from which there is a commanding view of the metropolis and of the rich and vast plains of Surrey and Kent. Internally, the palace was constructed upon the principle of illustrating the architecture of different ages, keeping in view its purposes as an educational institution. Thus it comprised a series of palaces, Egyptian, Assyrian, Grecian, Byzantine, Moorish, German, French, English, and Italian. All these buildings, excepting the Egyptian, were reproduced on the scale of their originals. The building was filled with statues, casts of the great masterpieces of art, paintings, representations of savage tribes, exotic shrubs and plants, and art-collections of various kinds; while in the way of concerts, exhibitions, festivals, and fireworks, multitudes of pleasure-seekers were congregated. Though created by the enterprise of a private company, the Crystal Palace was in every respect worthy of the metropolis, and continued to be patronised by the masses, rather than the classes, though its immense size and cost of maintenance prohibited its becoming a distinct commercial success.

The inauguration was witnessed by 40,000 spectators. Around the dais in the centre transept were gathered the representatives of Britain's greatness and nobility. The Lord Primate and Ministers of State were on the left of the throne; on the right sat the diplomatic body. In front were the directors of the company, in court dresses, with the Lord Mayor of London, his brothers of Dublin and York, and other provincial magnates. The members of Parliament and their families filled the lower galleries of the great transept. The[163] Queen and Prince Albert arrived at three o'clock, and entered the palace, preceded by Sir Joseph Paxton and Mr. Laing. With her Majesty were the King of Portugal, his brother, the Duke of Oporto, the Prince of Wales, the Princess Royal, Prince Alfred, the Princess Alice, the Duchess of Kent, and the Duchess and Princess Mary of Cambridge. The National Anthem having been performed with very grand effect, Mr. Laing, the chairman of the company, presented an address to her Majesty, to which a most gracious answer was returned. The designers of the building, and the scientific gentlemen who had undertaken the formation of the different departments, were then presented. This ceremony gone through, a procession was formed to perambulate the palace, the Queen in her circuit being warmly welcomed as she passed. This done, her Majesty and her immediate circle returned to the elevated platform, the Ministers of State and other public functionaries surrounding the dais as before. Then the One Hundredth Psalm, in all its simple grandeur of harmony, was pealed by the thousand voices and accompanying instruments of the choir. This led, by a natural transition, to the Archbishop of Canterbury's dedicatory prayer. The prayer was followed by the Hallelujah Chorus—a triumph of music; and the Queen, through the Lord Chamberlain, pronounced the Crystal Palace open. Once more the National Anthem rose and swelled under the lofty vaults and then the Queen departed.

The Emperor of the French left nothing undone to secure his position and establish his dynasty. All the Continental monarchs of Europe, except the Czar, admitted him into the family of Sovereigns, addressing him as "Monsieur, mon frère." The Emperor Nicholas could not overcome his scruples on the point of legitimacy, and had recourse to a compromise, and addressed him as "Mon cher ami," a slight which Louis Napoleon felt, but prudently passed over. The next step was to choose an empress. It was said at the time that his overtures of matrimonial alliance with several royal families were rejected, and these statements are now known to have been correct. He consoled himself with satisfactory reasons why such an alliance would not be desirable, and that he did much better by selecting for his bride Eugénie de Montijo, Countess-Duchess of Teba. The speech of the Emperor, announcing his intended marriage, on the 22nd of January, 1853, to the Senate and Corps Législatif, is remarkable. He avowed at the outset that the union did not accord with the traditions of ancient policy; but therein lay its advantage. A royal alliance would create a feeling of false security, and might substitute family interest for that of the nation. Besides, for the last seventy years foreign princesses had ascended the steps of the throne only to behold their offspring dispersed and proscribed by war or revolution. One woman only brought with her good fortune, the good and modest wife of General Buonaparte, and she was not the issue of a royal family. "When," he said, "in the face of all Europe a man is raised by the force of a new principle to the level of the long-established dynasties, it is not by giving an ancient character to his blazon, and by endeavouring to introduce himself, at any price, into the family of kings, that he can get himself accepted; it is rather by always bearing in mind his origin, by preserving his peculiar character, and by frankly taking up before Europe the position of one who has arrived at fortune (position de parvenu)—a glorious position, when success is achieved by the free suffrage of a great people." He then lauded the bride-elect for her varied moral, mental, and personal accomplishments, saying, "I have preferred a woman whom I love and respect to one unknown, and whose alliance would have advantages mingled with sacrifices—placing independence, qualities of heart, and family happiness above dynastic prejudices and calculations of ambition." The marriage ceremony, preceded by the civil contract, was performed with great pomp by the archbishop in Notre Dame.

In September, 1854, the Emperor being in the north of France, on the pretext of inspecting the camp established there, he had the gratification of being honoured with several royal visits. The King of the Belgians, with his eldest son, and the King of Portugal, with the Duke of Oporto, went to see him at Boulogne, and met with a very cordial reception. But what gratified him more than all was a visit from the Prince Consort. The Emperor, attended by a splendid suite, went down to the quay to receive him and they both warmly shook hands. Nothing was left undone that could gratify the English visitor, and the Duke of Newcastle, Lord Harding, Lord Seaton, and other noblemen who accompanied him. Reviews, illuminations, fireworks, banquets, balls, followed one another in rapid succession during the time of the visit, which had the effect of strengthening the entente cordiale between the two Courts.

It was further ratified by the visit of the Emperor and Empress to the Queen on Monday the 16th of April, 1855—an event which produced a[164] profound impression throughout Europe. It was indeed a strange phenomenon that an Emperor of France, the heir and successor of Napoleon, should be a welcome and popular guest in England, honoured by the Sovereign and cheered by the people; this guest being moreover the author of the coup d'état. Prince Albert went to Dover to meet the illustrious visitors, who landed amid the salutes of the military and the booming of guns on the heights, the Empress leaning on the Prince's arm. The line of streets between the London terminus and the Great Western Railway was decorated with flags and evergreens, and the Imperial party, as they drove along, were received with enthusiastic cheers. At seven p.m. they arrived at Windsor Castle, and were received by her Majesty and the Royal Family, with the great officers of State and of the Household, in the grand hall, whence the guests were conducted up the grand staircase, and through the music-room and throne-room, to the reception-room. That evening there was a dinner-party in St. George's Hall; next day the same, followed by a brilliant evening party. On Wednesday the Queen made the Emperor a Knight of the Garter—a very significant ceremony in the circumstances, which was performed with the utmost magnificence, the Prince Consort helping her Majesty to buckle the garter on the left leg of the Emperor. Her Majesty accompanied the Emperor to his apartments, followed by the Empress and the Prince Consort, and attended by the ladies and gentlemen of the royal suites. On the evening of that day the Queen gave a State dinner, when, by her Majesty's command, the Lord Steward of the Household gave the toast of "The Emperor and the Empress of the French." The State apartments which were occupied by the Imperial guests were gorgeously decorated for the occasion.

On Thursday the Emperor and Empress proceeded to London in order to visit the City, the Queen and the Prince accompanying them to Buckingham Palace. On the route from Nine Elms to the palace they enjoyed a continual ovation. The Emperor and Empress and suite were conveyed thence to the City in six of the Queen's State carriages, the principal one being drawn by cream-coloured horses; the Life Guards escorting the carriages, and Carabineers and Blues keeping the ground. As they proceeded along the Mall, the Strand, Fleet Street, Cheapside, to Guildhall, a vast and orderly multitude thronged the streets, looked down from the windows and house-tops, from the roofs of omnibuses, and every available position; while the scene was enlivened by a profusion of union-jacks and tricolors, lively peals of church bells, hearty cheers from the people, martial music, and brilliant sunshine. It was calculated that more than a million spectators witnessed the sight. They were received at the Guildhall by the Lord Mayor and Lady Mayoress, with the City magnates. The Emperor was dressed as a general of division, wearing the insignia of the Garter and of the Legion of Honour. After receiving an address from the Corporation, the Imperial party partook of déjeuner and then proceeded by a different route to Buckingham Palace. In the evening the Queen and her guests paid a State visit to the Royal Italian Opera, the house being fitted up superbly for the occasion. In the evening the City and the West End were splendidly illuminated. On Friday the Queen and her guests visited the Crystal Palace at Sydenham, where an immense assembly had an opportunity of seeing them as they leisurely promenaded through the building. On Saturday the Emperor and Empress departed, accompanied to Dover by the Prince Consort and the Duke of Cambridge. The Imperial visit was eminently satisfactory to all parties, and a friendship between the royal families was established which was destined to outlive good days and endure into misfortune so far as the Napoleons were concerned. It was politically important, inasmuch as it arose out of an alliance between nations regarded as hereditary enemies, and was so far from being within the calculations of statesmen that the whole policy of the Continental Powers was based upon its assumed impossibility.

[165]

THE QUEEN OPENING THE CRYSTAL PALACE. (See p. 163.)

Her Majesty was pleased to return the Imperial visit on the 18th of August following. In a historical point of view this event was most interesting. No English sovereign had beheld the French capital for four centuries, since the infant Henry VI. was crowned at Paris in 1422. The Queen, accompanied by the Prince Consort, the Prince of Wales, and the Princess Royal, started from Osborne at half-past four in the morning on the 18th of August, 1855, and arrived at Boulogne at half-past one the same day. The appearance of the royal squadron was announced by discharges from cannon on the heights and batteries on shore, by volleys of musketry, and the cheers of a vast multitude of spectators. A pavilion had been erected on the pier, in which the Emperor, surrounded by a brilliant suite, awaited the approach of his royal guests. The instant the royal yacht ran alongside, he hastened on board[166] and saluted the Queen, kissing her hand and both cheeks. He then shook hands with the Prince Consort, the Prince of Wales and the Princess Royal, and with every mark of joy and welcome conducted them to the pavilion. He rode beside the Queen's carriage to the railway station. At half-past two the train started for Paris. From the terminus of the Strasburg railway to the Palace of St. Cloud the houses were gaily dressed with tapestry, flowers, and evergreens; the windows and streets were crowded by people in every variety of costume; 200,000 soldiers and National Guards formed double lines five miles long. The glitter of the arms, the splendour and variety of the dresses, mingling their colours with the verdure of the trees in the Champs Élysées and the Bois de Boulogne, presented a spectacle of extraordinary brilliancy and beauty. The Parisians had been on the ground in great numbers from noon and waited patiently for hours; but, unfortunately, the train was behind time, the evening became dark and cold, and when at length her Majesty appeared at half-past seven, the demonstration was shorn of much of its splendour. Nevertheless, the boulevards, streets, and avenues were still crowded and Her Majesty met with an enthusiastic reception. As the carriages approached the Arc de Triomphe the outriders and escort carried torches, which added much to the effect. The Palace of St. Cloud was placed entirely at the disposal of the Queen and her party. She was received by the Empress, the Princess Mathilde, with the ladies of the officers of the Household, and the high officers of State. It was Saturday evening, and the next day—Sunday, the 19th of August—was devoted to rest, relieved only by a drive in the Bois de Boulogne.

On Monday their Majesties visited the Palais des Beaux Arts, a portion of the great Industrial Exhibition. The route to the building was one dense mass of spectators, who received her Majesty with every demonstration of joy and respect. The royal party lunched with Prince Napoleon at the Élysée, then visited Sainte Chapelle and Notre Dame, and went through the city to view its principal buildings. The Parisians were everywhere delighted with the Queen and the royal children, whose gracious bearing and frank manners quite won their hearts. On Tuesday her Majesty visited the magnificent Palace of Versailles. The Emperor was so charmed with his visitors, that it was remarked he conversed with an animation of manner and countenance quite surprising to those accustomed to his usual impassiveness. Two more visits were paid to the Industrial Exhibition. On Thursday evening the Municipality of Paris gave a ball in the Hôtel de Ville, which surpassed in splendour and magnificence all previous experience. There was a grand review next day, and after that a visit to the tomb of Napoleon. On Saturday evening the Emperor gave a splendid fête at the Palace of Versailles, which outdid even the magnificence of the Hôtel de Ville. At half-past ten the Emperor opened the ball with the Queen of Great Britain. At eleven the Court proceeded to supper in the theatre. Their Majesties' table was laid in the State box, commanding a view of all the others, which were filled with ladies. Orchestra and pit were turned into a festive hall. On all sides flowers, lights, and brilliant toilettes gave an air of satisfaction, joy, and delight, impossible to describe. It was like a glance at fairy-land. Their Majesties left Versailles amid the warmest demonstrations of enthusiasm. After their departure the ball was kept up till morning, and during the whole of the night the road was thronged with brilliant equipages conveying back the guests to Paris. Sunday was dedicated to repose, Monday to travel. Immense crowds lined the streets to witness the Queen's departure. The Emperor accompanied his illustrious guests to Boulogne, where her Majesty reviewed the magnificent army encamped on the heights. The Imperial host and his guests parted about midnight, when the British Court re-embarked, and arrived at Osborne at nine a.m. the following morning. The Earl of Clarendon, who was the Secretary of State in attendance on her Majesty, addressed an official letter to Sir George Grey, which contains the following testimony of her Majesty's pleasure:—"The Queen is profoundly sensible of the kindness with which she has been received by the Emperor and Empress, and of those manifestations of respect and cordiality on the part of the French nation by which she has everywhere been greeted. On personal and political grounds, the visit to Paris has afforded the highest gratification to her Majesty."

In July, 1856, the question of intervention or non-intervention was fully discussed in Parliament, in connection with the affairs of Italy. Read in the light of subsequent events and of later occurrences, and with a view to pending eventualities, the debate is full of interest. The subject was introduced by Lord Lyndhurst, who, in the course of an eloquent and argumentative speech, expressed the warmest sympathy with Italy, while exposing and denouncing the horrible oppression under[167] which she groaned. He declared, that of all military tyrannies, that of Austria was the most galling and odious, as shown not only in Italy, but in her Danubian provinces. In Italy she had, in violation of the Treaty of Vienna, not only usurped the government of the Legations, but had taken possession of the Duchy of Parma, and kept the whole country in a state of siege, subjecting the population to martial law. Her excuse was, that when she could remove her garrisons without danger of insurrection she would do so. Lord Lyndhurst showed, with admirable clearness, the effect of this plea. A bad Government produced dissatisfaction, disturbance, possibly insurrection. That ended in invasion by the military force of a neighbouring Power, which necessarily increased the dissatisfaction and the tendency to revolt; so that, according to the Austrian argument, the occupation of the disaffected districts by a foreign military force could have no termination. "In adverting to the state and prospects of Italy," continued the noble and learned lord, "it was impossible to avoid speaking of the proceedings of the Neapolitan Government; nothing could exceed its infamous conduct. The same infamous system of tyranny and oppression—founded on no law, not even the law of arbitrary government—described by Mr. Gladstone some years since, was at this very moment pursued with greater secrecy, and, in the present political trials, carried on now, as then, in disregard of every principle of justice and in violation of every feeling of right." Lord Lyndhurst contended that there were cases in which it was the bounden duty of foreign Governments to interfere in the internal affairs of another State, and if there ever was such a case, it was Naples. The king of that country denied the right of Britain to interfere, and had positively refused to give any explanation or reply to the remonstrances addressed to him. Yet Britain declined to use her power. From this Lord Lyndhurst could draw but one conclusion, which was—that there was a feeling at Naples that there was some backwardness and lukewarmness on the part of France to co-operate with us in the objects we had in view. "This, then," he said, "is the state to which we are reduced. We threaten a foreign Government, declaring that its conduct is infamous and atrocious, and that we require it to be changed; they refuse to listen to our remonstrances, and we sit quietly down and take no further steps. What, then, has become of the power and prestige of England?"

Lord Clarendon, then Foreign Secretary, stated that urgent remonstrances had been addressed to the King of Naples, in the most friendly spirit, pointing out to him the danger of the existing state of things to the stability of his throne, and suggesting the establishment of a better administration of justice, a general amnesty for political offences, and a system of government that would secure the confidence of the people. But he did not believe that until the joint pressure of Britain and France could be brought to bear in all its force, the desired amelioration of the condition of the Italian people would be obtained; and he declared that that was a matter which Government had as much at heart as Parliament or the people. The Marquis of Clanricarde remarked that it was clear from the statement of Lord Clarendon that the King of Naples had taken a stand upon his own absolute independence, and had treated with contumely the attempt of her Majesty's Government to meddle with the affairs of his territory. The Marquis of Lansdowne expressed a hope that the existing system of foreign interference in Italy would be ultimately got rid of; and he trusted that, if ever British interference should become necessary, the war would be vigorously conducted, so that it might be speedily ended.

In the House of Commons also, at the same time, the Italian question was debated. Lord John Russell moved that an Address be presented to her Majesty for copies or extracts of any recent communication which had taken place between Government and the Governments of Austria, Rome, and the Two Sicilies, relating to the affairs of Italy. He called attention to the nature of the declarations made at the Paris Conference, reading the statements made by Count Walewski, Lord Clarendon, Count Buol, and Count Cavour; and then referred to the Austrian occupation. That occupation was the result of bad government. It had existed seven years, and the government was worse. What prospect was there that it would ever be better? Austria was taking fresh precautions to perpetuate the oppression. Without advocating interference with the internal affairs of foreign States, he maintained that, at whatever risk, we were bound to support the King of Sardinia. We should nourish the growing spirit of Italian independence. "I remember," said Lord John Russell, "very long ago, having had an interview in the Isle of Elba with the first Napoleon. The Emperor talked much of the States of Italy, and agreed in the observation which I had made that there was no union among them, and no likelihood of any effectual resistance by them to their oppressors; but when I asked[168] him why Austria was so unpopular in Italy, he replied it was because she governed not with the sword [this was probably not a reflection which Napoleon I. would make], but that she had no other means of governing except by the stick. I believe, sir, that that is the secret of the whole disfavour with which Austria is viewed in Italy."

Lord Palmerston observed that at the Paris conferences the representative of Austria held out no expectation that her consent would be obtained to the cessation of foreign occupation in Italy. Her Majesty's Government felt that that cessation was an object of European interest. If disturbances broke out in Naples, the King would apply to Austria for assistance, and complications would thence arise that would endanger the peace of Europe. But with regard to Naples, as well as to Rome, he did not despair. The King of Sardinia, having associated himself with Britain and France in the war which had just closed, had a right to support and protection against an unprovoked attack. Britain and France were bound by the ties of honour to assist him to the utmost.

Mr. Disraeli could not understand why the question of Italy was introduced into conferences and protocols if all that was intended to be done was no more than diplomatic action. Nothing could be more irrational, he said, than to address violent representations to Austria, with a view of terminating the occupation of the Roman States, unless France was also prepared to quit them. Their "admonitions," without fleets or armies, to the ruling Powers would set Italy in flames. It was said that the case of Naples was exceptional, but why was it exceptional more than the case of Austria or Russia, except that those were strong Powers and Naples was a weak one? But it was not only a contest between worn-out dynasties and an intelligent class that was going on in Italy; there were the secret societies which did not care for constitutional government. "Rome is not far distant from Naples. The passage from Naples to the States of the Church is not difficult. You may have triumvirs again established in Rome; the Pope may again be forced to flee. What will be the consequences of that? The two great Catholic Powers of Europe—France, whose Emperor boasts in these protocols of being the eldest son of the Church, that ally with whose beneficent co-operation Italy is to be emancipated, and Austria—will pour their legions over the whole peninsula. You will have to withdraw the British fleet; your admonitions will be thrown into the mud, as they deserve; and your efforts to free Italy from the occupation of foreign troops will terminate by rendering the thraldom a thousand times more severe, and by aggravating the miseries of the unfortunate people, whose passions you have fired and whose feelings you have this night commenced to rouse. If they were not prepared," he said, in conclusion, "to interfere in Italy with fleets and armies, let them abstain from stirring up the passions of the people—a policy that would only aggravate the thraldom of Italy, and might lead to consequences still more fraught with disaster to Europe." Lord John Russell, in reply to Mr. Disraeli, said, "that as to secret societies, a despotic Government, supported by foreign troops, was not likely to put them down. Those things acted upon one another. There were secret societies, therefore there was foreign occupation. There was foreign occupation, therefore there were secret societies. The people resorted to secret societies because there was no other mode of stating their grievances." The motion was negatived without a division.

In consequence of the discussions which took place during the Paris conferences with regard to the state of Italy, Britain and France despatched earnest remonstrances to the King of Naples, in order to induce the Government to mitigate the system of oppression under which his subjects groaned, and to adopt a course of policy calculated to avert the dangers which might disturb the peace that had been recently restored to Europe. These friendly remonstrances were scornfully rejected by the infatuated monarch, in terms which left no alternative with the Western Powers but to withdraw their missions from his Court. The fact was announced in the Queen's Speech at the opening of the Session in 1857, and led, of course, to Conservative attacks upon the Administration for their interference with the domestic concerns of another country.

The maintenance of the Anglo-French Alliance despite the tortuous courses to which the Emperor was addicted, was due to the peculiarly close relations of the two Courts, and the friendship that existed between Lord Palmerston and the French Ambassador, Count Persigny. Persigny's Imperial master, however, was regarded by the Prime Minister with but little confidence. In particular his notable scheme for dividing the Sick Man's heritage through the occupation of Tunis by Sardinia, Morocco by France, and Egypt by Britain was rejected at once. How could Britain and France, Lord Palmerston contended, who had just guaranteed the integrity of the Turkish Empire,[169] proceed like the partitioners of Poland, to strip the Sultan of his outlying dominions? Besides, we did not want Egypt; all we wished was that the country should not belong to any other European Power, and that we should have a free passage across it. It was undoubtedly distrust of the Emperor which induced Lord Palmerston to oppose the construction of the Suez Canal scheme, which he did with such insistence that the Sultan's firman was not granted until after his death. His public reasons, which were much ridiculed at the time, were that the canal would never be made, that even if it was made, it would not pay, and that by rendering Egypt virtually independent of the Porte, it would impair the integrity of the Turkish Empire. His private objections, as given in a letter to Lord John Russell, were far more statesmanlike. They were that a canal open to all nations would deprive Britain of the commercial monopoly with the East which she at present possessed, and that "it required only a glance at the map of the world to see how great would be the naval and military advantage to France in a war with Britain to have such a short cut to the Indian seas, while we should be obliged to send ships round by the Cape."

CHINESE OFFICERS HAULING DOWN THE BRITISH FLAG ON THE "ARROW." (See p. 169.)

The most momentous debates in the Session of 1857 were connected with the affairs of China. They resulted in the defeat of Lord Palmerston's Administration, which was followed by the dissolution of Parliament. It was a seemingly trivial incident in a remote part of the globe that led to these important consequences. Sir John Bowring had been appointed British Consul in Canton in 1849. In 1854 he was appointed her Majesty's Plenipotentiary in China and Governor of Hong Kong. While he occupied this position he came into hostile collision with the Imperial Government. On the 8th of October, 1856, a lorcha named the Arrow, which bore the British flag, was boarded by Chinese officers, for the purpose of arresting some of their countrymen charged with piracy. The British flag was torn down, and twelve out of a crew of fourteen were carried off prisoners. Sir John Bowring in vain endeavoured to obtain redress for this outrage. The Imperial[170] Commissioner Yeh paid no attention to his remonstrances, or only returned evasive answers. Menaces being equally unavailing, the matter was referred to the British admiral, Sir Michael Seymour. Troops were obtained from India and Ceylon, and Sir John Bowring, on his own responsibility—without any authority from the Government at home—made war upon the most ancient and extensive empire in the world. The forts along the river were one after another attacked and reduced. The public buildings in the city of Canton were shelled. A large fleet of war-junks was destroyed, and the city lay defenceless under our guns.

The news of these events had reached England during the autumn, and produced a great deal of excitement and discussion. On the 16th of February the Earl of Derby gave notice of a motion on the subject, and in the House of Commons a similar notice was given by Mr. Cobden. Both these statesmen delivered speeches memorable for the masterly and eloquent discussion of the principles of international law and the duties incumbent upon civilised Powers in their dealings with semi-barbarous nations. Lord Derby moved his resolutions on the 24th, and then described the proceedings at Canton as most violent in their character, and as having inflicted the greatest injury upon trade and commerce. The Arrow, it was said, was a British vessel within the meaning of the treaty, and entitled to carry a British flag; but he contended that she was a China-built ship, captured by pirates, recaptured by the Chinese, sold afterwards by the Chinese, and ultimately bought, owned, and manned by Chinese. It was an essential characteristic of a British merchant's ship that she must be wholly owned by British subjects. But even if the Arrow were a British vessel, no infraction of the treaty had been committed: no one would think of enforcing "the colonial ordinance," in the case of the vessels of any European country, trading on the coasts of that country. Besides, the very existence of the ordinance had not been made known to the Chinese until some time after it was established. In any case there could be no doubt that the Arrow had no legal right to carry the British flag, because it was admitted by Sir John Bowring that her licence had expired before the seizure. The governor had said to Consul Parkes, that the lorcha could not claim British protection, although he made a contrary statement to Commissioner Yeh; and it was by such means that the British nation was drawn into a destructive and expensive war! It was true that by treaty the British were entitled to be admitted into the city of Canton. The admission was denied by the Chinese authorities, on the ground that it would lead to conflicts between the natives and the foreigners. This had been held by Sir G. Bonham to be a sufficient reason for not pressing the claim; but Sir John Bowring was determined to enforce it at all hazards, and considered no sacrifice too great to effect his object. In the correspondence upon the subject, the tone of the Chinese was throughout forbearing, courteous, and gentleman-like; while that of our representative, with hardly an exception, was menacing, disrespectful, and arrogant. Lord Derby believed that Sir John Bowring and Mr. Parkes had determined beforehand that they would not consent to anything proposed, but would tack to the lorcha grievance Sir John Bowring's monomania for obtaining admission to the city. The military operations were advised and planned within twelve days after the cause of quarrel, while every overture for peace on the part of the Chinese was evaded. Sir John Bowring had charged the Chinese with shameful violation of treaties; but these treaties remained unfulfilled, with the acquiescence of her Majesty's Government, upon reasons assigned and representations made. Lord Derby concluded his speech with an earnest appeal to the bench of bishops to come forward on this occasion and vindicate the cause of religion, humanity, and civilisation from the outrage which had been inflicted upon it by the British representatives at Canton. He solemnly called upon the hereditary peers not to tolerate the usurpation by authorities abroad of that most awful prerogative of the Crown, the right of declaring war, not to tolerate, upon light and trivial grounds, the capture of commercial vessels, the destruction of forts belonging to a friendly country, the bombardment of an undefended city, and the shedding of the blood of unwarlike and innocent people, without warrant of law and without moral justification. He then moved three resolutions embodying his sentiments.

Lord Clarendon defended the conduct of the British representatives at Canton. He denied that the Arrow had forfeited her licence, because, though the term had expired, the vessel was still at sea, and therefore still entitled, under the terms of the ordinance, to bear the British flag. He contended that if Mr. Parkes, whose discretion and moderation deserved all praise, had shrunk from demanding redress, he would have failed in his duty, and given the Chinese reason to believe that[171] they might proceed to still greater insults. Such an outrage could not occur among nations who respected international law, and it was necessary to make the Chinese sensible of the law of force. He believed that the assumed popular hostility to the admission of the British into Canton was a mere bugbear, and that the Queen's officers were justified in taking advantage of the dispute about the Arrow to endeavour to obtain a partial fulfilment of the treaty. He declared that the resolution prohibiting hostilities against a foreign people, without express instructions received from her Majesty's Government, would endanger the lives and property of all British subjects in China, would cast dishonour upon our name and our flag, and would bring ruin upon our trade with that country. The Lord Chancellor, in reply to Lord Lyndhurst, took the same view of the subject; and after a powerful speech on the other side by Earl Grey, Earl Granville, having defended the conduct of Sir John Bowring, sarcastically remarked upon the zeal with which noble lords on the opposite side of the House constituted themselves lay-readers to the episcopal bench, and admonished right reverend prelates with moving sermons whenever they were in doubt about which way their votes would go. He was sure the bishops would vote according to the dictates of their consciences, and be guided only by what they believed and felt to be the principles of justice and humanity. The Bishop of Oxford was the only prelate who spoke in the name of the bench. He declared his belief that the claim made on behalf of the lorcha was not founded on the principles of either law or justice; therefore the war which had sprung from that claim was indefensible, and its principle untenable among Christian men. He reprobated the conduct of a great Christian nation like England spreading the horrors of war among a weak and unoffending people. If the House gave the weight of its great authority to support an act so unjust, it would go against a Power which took its own time for vindicating eternal justice, and which never allowed a wrong to pass unavenged—a Power which could find in the very weakness of China sufficient elements to abase and rebuke the lawless oppression of this country. All these appeals failed to avert a decision in favour of the Government, which had a majority of thirty-six; but this majority was made up chiefly of persons who had not heard the arguments. The proxies for Lord Derby's motion were fifty-seven, and the proxies against it seventy-five.

Mr. Cobden, on the 26th of February, moved a resolution to the effect that the House had heard with concern of the conflicts that had occurred between the Chinese and British authorities on the Canton river; and considered that the papers laid on the table failed to establish satisfactory grounds for the violent measures adopted in the affair of the Arrow. He moved that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the state of our commercial relations with China. He asked the House to inquire how all this warfare and devastation began—would they have dealt in a similar manner if the transaction had taken place at Charleston, and the Government assailed had been at Washington? Referring to the correspondence between our consul and the Chinese Commissioner, he said that Mr. Parkes, a young man, seemed to have made up his mind not to be satisfied, in spite of the logical arguments of Governor Yeh, which would have done credit to Westminster Hall. Mr. Cobden conscientiously believed that there had been a preconceived design to pick a quarrel with the Chinese authorities, for which the world would cry shame upon us. He regarded the papers laid before the House as a garbled record of trumpery complaints. It was an insult to bring down such a book in order to make out a case for Lord Clarendon. Englishmen carried with them a haughty demeanour and inflexible bearing towards the natives of other countries, and the demands of our mercantile men in this instance were characterised by downright selfish violence. Sir John Bowring, acting on their behalf, had not only violated the principles of international law, but had acted contrary to his instructions, and even to express directions from the Home Government.

Sir Bulwer Lytton, on the same side, censured the language of Consul Parkes to Commissioner Yeh as repugnant to the rules of diplomatic intercourse, and denounced hostilities carried on upon such a miserable plea. Lord John Russell reviewed the whole question, and argued that the alleged provocations furnished no sufficient ground for the extreme measures resorted to, which were not the proper modes of settling such a great question. Government should consider that their officials had committed a serious offence. And where was the matter to end? The worst part of the case, he said, was the conduct of Sir J. Bowring, who, while he declared that the vessel had lost all right to British protection, set up that claim against the Chinese Commissioner, and required an apology for the British flag as having been rightfully used. Mr. Gladstone protested[172] against making Sir John a stalking-horse for diverting attention from the real matter at issue, which involved the interests of humanity and the honour of England. We talked of the violation of treaty by the Chinese, but was there no violation of treaty on our part? The purpose for which Hong Kong was given to us was that it should be a port in which British ships might tarry and fit. Was not our contraband trade in opium a breach of treaty obligations? Had our Government struggled to put it down, as bound by treaty? Had they not encouraged it by organising a fleet of lorchas under the British flag? They who thus acted had stained the British flag. For what were we at war with China? If the House had the courage to assert its prerogative and adopt this resolution, it would pursue a course consistent at once with sound policy and the principles of eternal justice. Mr. Disraeli thought that Sir John Bowring had been unfairly treated in the debate. If his conduct had been ratified by Government, it should not be impugned by the House. The question at issue was the policy of Government, which was to extend our commerce in the East, not by diplomacy, but by force. Lord Palmerston—"the very archetype of political combination without principle"—complained that he was the victim of conspiracy. Then let him appeal to the country.

The foregoing is an outline of the case made against Government in the course of a debate which lasted four days, and which excited extraordinary interest, because it was felt not only by the House, but by the public, that the fate of Government depended upon the issue. The following is an outline of the defence, which was commenced by Mr. Labouchere. He said that when the case was fairly and impartially considered, the House would be of opinion that no blame justly attached to our local authorities at Canton or to Government at home, who could have pursued no other course than that they had taken without betraying the interests entrusted to their care, and lowering the British character in the eyes of the world. The transactions had taken place before the great community of merchants who had been libelled by Mr. Cobden. French and American merchants had coincided with ours in their view of the conduct of the Chinese authorities, which had become absolutely unbearable. He denied that the British functionaries had evinced any want of forbearance. On the part of Government at home, he should regret if it had been so weak and pusillanimous as to fail in supporting officials placed in a difficult position, whose conduct had been applauded by the representatives of foreign nations. We were not at war with the Court of Pekin, but with the local government at Canton, and he hoped that the result of these hostilities would be to place the relations of Europe with China upon a safer and more satisfactory footing. Mr. Lowe contended that the real question was not one of legality, but of the animus of the Chinese authorities, and it was impossible to acquit them of bad animus in the matter. Much as he deplored the consequences, it appeared to him that upon those authorities, not upon the British Government or its officials, rested the responsibility. The Lord Advocate of Scotland argued upon the facts, that there was no ground for asserting that international law had been transgressed by our authorities abroad. He contended that the Hong Kong ordinance of 1855 was a valid law as respected the Chinese, and whether or not it was contrary to our municipal law had nothing to do with the question. The boarding of the lorcha was no doubt preconcerted; it was regarded by Sir John Bowring as an outrage, as an international and deliberate insult; and he wanted to know what Sir John was to have done. He warned the House to pause before it put between us and China a barrier which might be far more dangerous than any yet offered.

Lord Palmerston began his speech by observing that he should not have expected from Mr. Cobden such a motion, or such a speech in its support, nor should he have anticipated the bitterness of his attack upon Sir John Bowring, an ancient friend, a man who had raised himself by his talents, attainments, and public services, and who was a fit person for the situation he held. If there was any man less likely than another to get the country into hostilities, it was Sir John Bowring, who had been a member of the Peace Society. But what most surprised him in Mr. Cobden's speech was the anti-English spirit which pervaded it, and an abnegation of the ties which bound men to their country and their countrymen. With regard to the question under discussion, the noble lord said that we had a treaty with the Chinese, stipulating that British vessels should not be boarded without a previous application to the British Consul; and the question is, What did the Chinese know or believe about the nationality of the Arrow? Did they consider her a British vessel? He affirmed they did, and if they knowingly violated the treaty, it was immaterial[173] whether, according to the technicalities of the law, the register had expired. It was the animus of the insult, the wilful violation of the treaty, that entitled us to demand reparation for the wrong, and an assurance of future security. He insisted that, after the refusal of reparation—only one of many violations of treaty rights by the Chinese—hostilities were amply justified, and that our proceedings were marked with extreme forbearance, compared with the proceedings of the Americans when their flag was insulted. The outrage was only part of a deliberate system to wrest from us a right essential to our commerce in those waters. Lord Palmerston referred to the barbarities of the local authorities at Canton; the Commissioner Yeh having beheaded 70,000 persons in less than a year. What was the Government expected to do—to send out a message to Yeh that he was right? This would be withdrawing from the British community protection against a merciless barbarian. It would disgrace this country in the eyes of the civilised world, and especially in the estimation of Eastern nations. The House, therefore, had in its keeping not only the interests, the property, and the lives of many of our fellow-subjects abroad, but the honour and the character of the country. As the Government expected defeat, the latter part of the Prime Minister's speech was a stirring appeal to the nation against the coalition of Radicals, Tories, and Peelites, which, as Greville remarks, was "very bow-wow." Mr. Cobden having briefly replied, and having withdrawn the first paragraph of his resolution, the concluding portion was put to the vote—to the effect that the papers laid before the House failed to establish satisfactory grounds for the violent measures resorted to at Canton. The numbers were—for the motion, 263; against it, 247; majority against the Government, 16.

VICTORIA, HONG-KONG, FROM THE CHINESE MAINLAND.

This important division took place on March 3rd. Two days of anxious suspense passed, during which the political world was full of speculation as to the alternative Lord Palmerston would adopt—resignation or dissolution. Mr. Disraeli had challenged him to appeal to the country, but without such a provocative, that was the course which a man of Lord Palmerston's spirit and[174] determination was most likely to adopt. Accordingly, on the 5th, Lord Granville in the Upper House, and the Prime Minister in the Lower, announced that her Majesty's Ministers had advised her to dissolve Parliament. The latter explained the grounds of his decision. In ordinary circumstances, the result of a vote of censure would be resignation, and to those who had obtained a majority in favour of such a vote would be left the responsibility of conducting the affairs of the country. But the present case seemed to Lord Palmerston of so peculiar a character that he did not think it his duty to adopt that course. The vote did not seem to imply a general want of confidence, though it would render it very difficult, if not unseemly, to conduct the business of the country in the ordinary manner during the remainder of a long Session. The Parliament was then in its fifth Session, and might be considered comparatively a very old Parliament, for it had witnessed more important events than had fallen to the lot of most Parliaments to see. It had seen three Administrations; it had seen the transition from a state of profound peace to a great European war; it had seen the transition from a great European war to the fortunate restoration of European peace. Consequently, as concerned the events of which it had been a spectator, it had done as much as could be expected to fall to the lot of one which had completed its full term of existence. He therefore proposed that the House should content itself with such provisional and temporary measures as might be necessary to provide for the public service until the earliest period at which a new Parliament could assemble. Mr. Disraeli concurred in this course and said he would give every possible facility to public business. Mr. Cobden inquired what the Government were about to do in order to carry out the solemn vote to which the House had come. If any danger to British residents in China was to be apprehended from the vote, the first consideration ought to be their safety, and a competent person should be sent out by the next steam-ship, armed with full authority to supersede all existing British authority in China, and to act according to circumstances. If Lord Palmerston did not intend to take this course, what course would he take? A new Parliament could not meet until the end of May. Mr. Cobden then attempted to give the Premier a lesson in electioneering, but the listener, as the event showed, knew more about the subject than the teacher. Lord Palmerston replied to the various questions as to the policy to be adopted in China. Every one knew that if a great extension of commercial intercourse between the nations of Europe and China ever obtained, it would be an immense advantage to the cause of civilisation and productive of great benefit to the industry of the nations trading with that country. The difficulty having been greatly increased by the unfortunate events that had occurred, it must strike every one that the selection of a person to whom should be committed the grave and important charge of conducting negotiations should be a subject of serious deliberation. It must strike every one that he should be imbued with the feelings of Government on this subject; and that, being the recipient of their verbal instructions, he would be likely to carry more weight than any person who might happen to be now in China. He by no means undervalued the services of Sir John Bowring, to whom the greatest injustice had been done, and whose merits had been disparaged to a degree that astonished him; at the same time, Government could not shut their eyes to the gravity and importance of the matters in hand. But the House must expect their policy to remain the same—it was, to maintain the rights and to protect the lives and property of British subjects, to improve our relations with China, and in the selection of those means and the arrangement of them to perform the duty they owed to the country. In other words the war was to be continued.

The House of Commons turned from the angry discussions about the Chinese war to a much more agreeable theme. Mr. Shaw-Lefevre, who had filled the office of Speaker for nearly eighteen years, now announced his intention of retiring. On the 9th of March he addressed the House, and said that he could not contemplate the termination of his official career without great pain; nor could he allow it to close without offering to the House his sincere and grateful acknowledgments for that uniform confidence and support which he had received, not only from every political party in it, but he might say, with perfect truth, from every individual member. He was quite aware that, in the discharge of the delicate and very onerous duties of the Chair, he had much need of the kind indulgence which had always been extended to him, and especially of late, when he had been so frequently reminded of his increasing inability to do full justice to the task imposed upon him. It had been his constant aim to improve and simplify their forms of proceeding; but at the same time striving to maintain unimpaired all their rights and privileges, together with all those rules and orders,[175] sanctioned by ancient usage, which long experience had taught him to respect and venerate, and which he believed never could be relaxed, or materially altered, without prejudice to the freedom and independence of the House of Commons. On the motion of Lord Palmerston, seconded by Sir. J. Pakington, the House then resolved that an Address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she would bestow some signal mark of her favour upon the retiring Speaker, and stating that the House would make good the expense. The Queen having returned a gracious answer, and the House having gone into committee on the message, they unanimously resolved that an annuity of £4,000 a year should be conferred upon Mr. Shaw-Lefevre, who was subsequently created Viscount Eversley.

The remaining business of Parliament having been rapidly disposed of, Parliament was prorogued, with a view to its dissolution, on March 21st, the Royal Speech, which was brief, being delivered by commission. Her Majesty stated that it was her fervent prayer that the constituencies of the United Kingdom might be guided by an all-wise Providence to the selection of representatives whose wisdom and patriotism might aid her to maintain the honour and dignity of her crown, and to promote the welfare and happiness of her people. Parliament was convoked for the 30th of April. The result of the general election showed how well grounded was the confidence with which Lord Palmerston appealed to the country, and how correct, as Lord Malmesbury tells us, had been Mr. Disraeli's anticipation that if the Conservatives forced a contest on that issue they would suffer complete defeat. The popularity the Prime Minister had won bore him triumphantly over the most formidable opposition; while those who had been instrumental in the defeat of his Government seemed not to have pleased their constituencies; some eminent statesmen were rejected to make way for untried and ordinary men, whose chief recommendation was that they would give their zealous support to Lord Palmerston, whom they believed to have vindicated the honour of the country. In fact the name of Palmerston was made a popular rallying cry at almost every hustings in Great Britain. Mr. Cobden, not venturing to face the West Riding of Yorkshire, where he had been a popular idol, was defeated at Huddersfield, and kept out of Parliament. Mr. Bright and Mr. Milner Gibson were driven from Manchester, Mr. Layard from Aylesbury, and Mr. W. J. Fox from Oldham. The small but powerful phalanx of Peelites, whose experienced and accomplished debaters had given the Premier so much annoyance, was completely scattered. Thus his most formidable opponents were driven from the field, while he was enabled to meet the new Parliament at the head of a numerous body of zealous supporters.

Mr. John Evelyn Denison was unanimously elected Speaker in the room of Lord Eversley. Lord Palmerston congratulated him on the dignity to which he had been raised, pointing out the onerous nature of the duties he had to discharge, and presenting the example of the late Speaker as a model which it was impossible to surpass. The Royal Speech was delivered on the 7th of May, and Parliament at once proceeded to business. The Queen expressed her heartfelt gratification at witnessing the continued well-being and contentment of her people, and the progressive development of productive industry throughout her dominions. The Address was agreed to in both Houses nem. con. The first matter that came before the Commons was a message from her Majesty, announcing that a marriage had been negotiated between Prince Frederick William of Prussia and the Princess Royal. It need hardly be said that so interesting an event as the betrothal of the Queen's eldest daughter attracted much attention.

In the House of Commons on the same evening, the Premier made some observations in reference to the approaching marriage:—"I cannot refrain from saying that those who have had the good fortune to be acquainted with the Princess Royal must have observed that she possesses, both in heart and in head, those distinguished qualities which adorn her illustrious parents, and that she bids fair to hold out in the country of her adoption a repetition of that brilliant example which her illustrious parents have held out in this country, of a domestic happiness worthy to serve as a model of imitation for the most exalted or the humblest of her Majesty's subjects. Sir, it is impossible not to see that this marriage—independently of the prospect which I trust it holds out of happiness to her Royal Highness, from the high qualities of the prince whom she has selected as her future husband—also holds out to the country political prospects not undeserving of the attention of this House. We all know how family alliances tend to mitigate those asperities which from time to time must be produced by those diversities of policy which inevitably arise occasionally between great and independent Powers, and therefore I trust that this marriage may also be considered as[176] holding out an increased prospect of goodwill and of cordiality among the Powers of Europe."

In connection with the dowry of the Princess Royal, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement, in which he contrasted the position of the Crown as to revenue with what it had been in past times. The Crown, deprived of its hereditary revenues, was now dependent upon Parliament for a maintenance suitable to its dignity. The Civil List of George III. amounted to more than £447,000; whilst that of the present Queen was only £385,000. George III. also received the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall; the Queen devoted part of them to the education of the Prince of Wales, and allowed the rest to accumulate for his benefit. During the reign of George III., Parliament voted £3,297,000 in payment of debts incurred by the Royal Family; the Queen had incurred no debts. Allowances were granted to the younger branches of the family of George III.; no grant of the kind had been made to the children of her Majesty. The expenses of the visits of George IV. to Hanover, to Ireland, and to Scotland, were paid by the country; whereas Queen Victoria visited the Emperor Napoleon at Paris at her own cost, although the visit was not made for her own personal enjoyment, but for the public good. Her Majesty had paid £34,000 for the furniture and repairs of Buckingham Palace; and she paid £6,180 a year for the peace income-tax, and £15,500 for the war income-tax. As to precedent, the eldest daughter of George II. received an annuity of £8,000 and a dowry of £80,000, and similar sums were granted to the eldest daughter of George III. Sir George Lewis proposed that the Princess Royal should receive an annuity of £8,000, and that her marriage portion should be £40,000. Mr. Roebuck moved, by way of amendment, that a certain sum should be given at once, and no annuity, in order to avoid an entangling alliance, and with a view to the large family the nation would have to provide for. As representatives of a hard-working people, they ought, while generous, to be just. At the request of Lord John Russell, Mr. Disraeli, Lord Elcho, and other members, Mr. Roebuck eventually withdrew his motion. On subsequent days Mr. Coningham, Mr. Maguire, and others, made attempts to reduce the amount; but their amendments were rejected by overwhelming majorities.

A reform of some importance to Ireland was effected during the present Session, namely, the abolition of "Ministers' Money"—a tax which was imposed upon householders in Dublin, Cork, and other places for the support of the clergy of the Established Church. It was only about £12,000 a year; but as it was, in the majority of cases, a direct payment from Roman Catholics to Protestant ministers, it had been a source of much irritation. Mr. Fagan, of Cork, brought in a Bill for its abolition, with the assent of the Government, providing that the sum should be made good by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners out of the Church revenues at their disposal. On the ground of principle, the measure was strenuously opposed by Mr. Napier, Mr. Whiteside, Sir F. Thesiger, and Mr. Walpole; and supported by Sir G. Grey, Mr. Horsman, Mr. J. D. Fitzgerald, Lord John Russell, and Lord Palmerston. The second reading was carried by a majority of 139. In the House of Lords the Bill was opposed by the Earl of Derby, the Bishop of Kilmore, Lords Dungannon, Wicklow, and Donoughmore. It was defended by Earl Granville, the Earl of Harrowby, Lord Talbot de Malahide, Lord Ellenborough, and the Duke of Newcastle. It narrowly escaped rejection there, the second reading being passed only by a majority of five.

The first Session of the new Parliament was distinguished by the passing of two measures of great social importance—the transfer of testamentary and matrimonial cases from the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts, and the establishment of a new Probate Court, and a new Divorce Court. As might be expected, all the supporters of vested rights and interests in the Church offered to these measures the most determined opposition. In the previous Session the Lord Chancellor had introduced the Probate and Administrations Bill, which there was not then time to pass. It was altered in the meantime, and on the 18th of May the second reading was moved by the Lord Chancellor. He proposed that the then present judge of the Prerogative Court should be the first judge of the new Court of Probate, with a working salary of £4,000 a year, and a retiring pension of £2,000. He proposed that he should also be the judge of the Divorce Court. The proceedings were to be all conducted vivâ voce, and whenever matters of fact were in dispute they should be referred to a jury. The County Courts were to have jurisdiction in will cases, where the estate did not exceed £200 in personalty, or £300 in real property. The Bill was severely contested in both Houses; but, with certain amendments, it ultimately passed into law.

[177]

MR. SPEAKER DENISON.

The Divorce Bill—a measure of much greater importance—touching deeper social interests, and powerful religious feelings connected with the sanctity and indissolubility of marriage, met with the most determined and persevering opposition. The second reading was fixed for the 18th of May, when the Lord Chancellor reviewed the state of the law with regard to marriage. In 1850 a Commission had been appointed to inquire into the whole subject, and it was on the recommendation of their report that the present Bill was founded. Nothing could be more absurd, vexatious, and expensive, than the law as it previously stood. The principle that marriage might be dissolved had been adopted by the Legislature; but practically, the separation of husband and wife was a privilege reserved for the aristocratic and wealthy classes, although the causes which made separation necessary or desirable affected all classes. Before a divorce could be obtained a vinculo matrimonii, proceedings must first be taken in the Ecclesiastical Court, a verbist must be obtained against the adulterer, and all the facts must be again established, at enormous cost, before the bar of the House of Lords. The Bill proposed to substitute one tribunal, by which the matter was to be investigated and finally decided. The action for crim. con., then an indispensable preliminary to a divorce, would be rendered unnecessary. The Archbishop of Canterbury gave his assent to the second reading; but he declared that he would oppose in committee the clause which permitted the guilty parties to be united in legal marriage. Lord Lyndhurst was most anxious for the success of the Bill. He believed that it was a scriptural doctrine that marriage might be dissolved in case of adultery; but our law on the subject was derived from the system which[178] prevailed when the country was under Roman Catholic rule. One hundred and fifty years ago recourse had been had to palliatives; but these means were available only for the rich. The law ought to embrace both rich and poor. Upon this principle it was impossible that any solid objection could be made to the alterations proposed by the Bill. Instead of facilities for severing the marriage tie being demoralising, he contended that the present law led to great immoralities among the poorer classes of the people, because they now had no redress against the adulterer. But he was of opinion that the Bill did not go far enough. One objection he had to the Bill was its great inequality between the two sexes. He called upon their lordships to do justice. The more they considered this part of the measure, the more they would be satisfied of the unsoundness of the argument urged against women who applied for a divorce on the ground of adultery on the part of the husband. But if their lordships could not concur in that suggestion, he hoped they would allow wilful desertion to be a sufficient ground for divorce. By deserting his wife the man violated the very purposes for which marriage was instituted.

The Bill was opposed by several of the bishops, particularly by the Bishop of Oxford; but the Bishop of London gave to the measure his hearty approval, and the second reading was carried by a majority of twenty-nine. In committee several amendments were proposed and rejected. The Archbishop of Canterbury moved a clause restricting the person against whom the divorce was pronounced from marrying the companion in guilt. This was carried by fifty-three to forty-seven; but another amendment by the same prelate was rejected, its object being to exempt from censures or penalties clergymen who should conscientiously object to officiate in marrying divorced parties. The Bill passed the third reading on the 23rd of June. It came on for the second reading in the House of Commons on the 24th of July. Numerous petitions had been presented there against the measure, one of which was signed by 6,000 clergymen. Mr. Henley moved that it should be postponed for a month, in order to allow time for deliberation; but Lord Palmerston pronounced the motion to be a pretence too shallow to be entertained, though it was supported by Lord John Manners, Mr. Napier, Mr. Malins, and Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Henley's motion was negatived by 217 to 130.

In moving the second reading on the 30th of July, the Attorney-General traced the progress of legislation on marriage from the Reformation down. Before the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church, holding marriage to be a sacrament and indissoluble, had recourse to fictions to escape the operation of the law. But Parliament, proceeding upon settled and permanent principles, had acted as a tribunal for administering the law of divorce. The present Bill gave concise expression to the law, simplified it, and transferred its administration to a more convenient tribunal. He argued that the dissolution of marriage for adultery is not contrary either to the letter or spirit of Scripture, and that the intermarriage of the guilty parties had been supported by the precedents of 150 years. The operation of the ecclesiastical law by which a divorce was obtained a mensa et thoro was no effectual relief to an injured wife, as it allowed the husband to retain his power over her property. Many cruel and barbarous cases had occurred, in which the wife was driven to sue for this sentence, and had afterwards by industry in the exercise of intellectual ability obtained for herself an independent position, and become the owner of property, till the husband returned, laid his hand on her hard-earned gains, and swept all away to gratify his own dissolute propensities. This reproach of our law, this relic of its savage character as regards the relation of husband and wife, would, he trusted, be effectually removed by the provisions of the Bill. Sir W. Heathcote moved that the second reading be deferred for three months. The Bill was also opposed by Mr. Gladstone, who argued against it at length, both on the law of the case and on the authority of Scripture. Adverting to the religious view of it, he asked whether it was consistent with the respect and reverence due to the revelation of God, for Parliament to take into its own hands great mysteries, and the remodelling of religious rites? Touching, lastly, upon the social question, he urged the evils to be apprehended from the licence of divorce, and from shaking the idea of the sacredness and indissolubility of marriage, founded upon the great precedents of human history, and warned the House against entering upon a road which would remove us from a point to which Christianity had brought us. The Attorney-General replied and the motion against the Bill was rejected by a majority of 111; the numbers being—for the amendment, 97; against it, 208. In committee, Mr. Walpole urged the Government to accept an amendment proposed by Major Warburton, to the effect that no priest or[179] deacon should be liable to any suit, penalty, or censure, for solemnising, or refusing to solemnise, the marriage of any person who should be divorced by virtue of the Act. The Attorney-General solemnly warned the committee of the consequences of this concession. "You are about," he said, "to give the clergy an exemption; and upon what ground? Upon the ground of the sin, guilt, and criminality of the charge affecting those who come before them with a request that a religious ceremony may be performed. But if that exemption be granted, where are we to stop? Will the clergy not reason most consecutively from this exemption when they say, 'You have exempted us from doing violence to our consciences in this matter; but why do you leave us under the necessity of submitting to the violation of our consciences in others, i.e. the marriage of notorious free-livers and so forth?'" The committee, however, decided in favour of the clause by 73 votes against 33, and it was added to the Bill.

In consequence of the adoption of the foregoing clause another was added—namely, "That when any clergyman refused to perform the marriage ceremony in the case of divorced parties, it might be lawful for any other minister of the Church of England, licensed within the diocese, to perform that ceremony." The Bill, very much altered, having passed the Commons was sent up to the Lords to have the amendments sanctioned. Lord Redesdale moved that the amendments of the Commons be taken into consideration that day six months. The Lord Chancellor and Lord Campbell reprobated this motion, and Lord Lansdowne affirmed that it was contrary to the practice of the House for forty years for any peer thus to move the rejection of a Bill of which he was neither the author nor the mover. Lord Redesdale then withdrew his motion. The amendments of the Commons were considered on the 24th of August, the House having agreed to do this only by a majority of two. All the amendments but two were adopted. The Commons concurred, and the Bill became the law of the land. The court established under the Act soon became well known under the efficient presidency of Sir Cresswell Cresswell, who was instrumental in giving relief and freedom to an immense number of aggrieved husbands and wives. The number of cases that came before him, however, might lead to a false impression with regard to the state of matrimonial life in England, because cases had been accumulating for many years, in consequence of the want of a legal remedy. When this accumulation was cleared off, the amount of business in the court indicated a much more favourable condition of married life in the middle and lower classes of English society. The Act did not extend to Scotland or Ireland. The Scots did not need its facilities for divorce, and the Irish indignantly protested against the extension of its provisions to their country.

The opening of the year 1858 was signalised by a daring attempt on the life of the Emperor Napoleon. On the 14th of January, at half-past eight o'clock, just as he arrived with the Empress at the door of the Italian Opera in the Rue Lepelletier, three explosions were heard proceeding from hollow projectiles, one of which perforated the hat of the Emperor, and another struck the neck of his aide-de-camp, General Roquet, who was sitting in front. A considerable number of people standing at the doors of the theatre, and some soldiers, were wounded, but only two mortally. Two of the footmen also were wounded. One of the horses of the Imperial carriage was killed, and the carriage itself was broken by the force of the explosion. The escape of the Emperor and Empress seemed almost miraculous. This was the celebrated Orsini plot, which was very near involving Great Britain in a war with France and led to proceedings in the British Parliament that resulted in the overthrow of Lord Palmerston's Administration. On the 20th of January Count Walewski sent a despatch to Count Persigny, then French Ambassador in London, in which he charged, in very strong terms, the British Government and nation with something like complicity with the assassins. "This fresh attempt," he wrote, "like those which preceded it, has been devised in England. It was in England that Pianori formed the plan of striking the Emperor; it was from London that, in an affair the recollection of which is still recent, Mazzini, Ledru Rollin, and Campanella directed the assassins, whom they had furnished with arms. It is there also that the authors of the last plot have leisurely prepared their means of action, have studied and constructed the instruments of destruction which they have employed, and it is thence that they set out to carry their plans into execution." He stated that the Emperor was persuaded of the sincerity of the sentiments of reprobation which the crime created in England. He appreciated and respected the liberality with which England exercised the right of asylum to foreigners, victims of political struggles. He did not complain of that, but very different was the case of the skilful demagogues[180] established in England. It was no longer the hostility of misguided individuals manifesting itself by all the excesses of the press—no longer even the work of the factions, seeking to rouse opinion and provoke disorder. It was assassination, elevated to a doctrine, preached openly and practised in repeated attempts, the most recent of which had just struck Europe with amazement, and he asked, "ought the right of asylum to protect such a state of things? Is hospitality due to assassins? Ought the English Legislature to contribute to favour their designs and their plans, and can it continue to shelter persons who, by their flagrant acts, place themselves beyond the pale of common right, and under the ban of humanity?"

Lord Clarendon, who was then Foreign Secretary, did not send an official communication to Lord Cowley in answer to this despatch, but contented himself with giving private instructions to lay before the French Government the sentiments, views, and intentions of her Majesty's Government, which was thought to be a much more prudent course to be adopted with a view to allaying the excessive irritation of the French nation and army at the time. The despatch of Count Walewski, however, excited general indignation in England, which was rendered more intense by the fact that very violent military addresses to the Emperor, full of abuse and threats towards England, had been inserted in the official Moniteur. There was afterwards a good deal of correspondence, which assumed a conciliatory tone on both sides; but in the course of which the Emperor insisted on the necessity of passing a new law, in order to prevent conspiracies like that of Orsini. Towards the end of January he wrote to his ambassador in London, saying, "I do not deceive myself as to the little efficacy of the measures which could be taken, but it will still be a friendly act, which will calm much irritation here. Explain our position clearly to the Ministers of the Queen; it is not now a question of saving my life; it is a question of saving the alliance."

Yielding to his pressure, Government, on the 8th of February, brought in a Bill to "amend the law relating to the crimes of conspiracy and incitement to murder, either within or without her Majesty's dominions, and whether the person killed or to be killed were a subject of her Majesty or not." Such was the state of facts that became the subject of discussions in Parliament which led to the defeat of Government. The signal for commencing the war was given by the introduction of the Conspiracy Bill, the alleged necessity for which was urged by Lord Palmerston. If our law was defective, we should not abstain from altering it because other nations had given way to impulses of passion, perhaps of fear. To the motion for the introduction of the Bill, Mr. Kinglake moved the following amendment:—"That this House, while sympathising with the French nation in its indignation and abhorrence at the late atrocious attempt made against the life of the Emperor, and anxious, on a proper occasion, to consider the defects of the criminal law of England, the effect of which may be to render such attempts vain, deems it inexpedient to legislate in compliance with the demand made in Count Walewski's despatch of January 20th, until further information be obtained, and until after the production of the correspondence between the two Governments subsequent to this despatch." Leave was given to introduce the Bill by a majority of 299 to 99. But the indignant feeling of the country at anything like foreign dictation slowly gathered strength, and at length became terrible and irresistible. Public meetings were held at which the Conspiracy to Murder Bill was denounced in the strongest terms. It came on for the second reading on the 19th of February, when Lord Palmerston did all in his power to mitigate the hostility against it, and its supporters generally laboured to keep out of view its political and international bearings, and to treat it merely as a domestic question of law reform. An amendment was moved by Mr. Milner Gibson, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. In the course of his speech he quoted from the Times a passage, which was received with cheers, to the effect that there was no constituted authority in Europe with which Lord Palmerston had not quarrelled, no insurrection that he had not betrayed; while, on the other hand, when he had made up his mind to court the good will of a Foreign Power, no sacrifice of principle or of interest was too great for him. Mr. Gladstone, at the conclusion of a powerful speech, made the following impressive remarks, as to the tendencies of modern society on the Continent:—"Sir," he said, "these times are grave for liberty. We live in the nineteenth century; we talk of progress; we believe that we are advancing; but can any man of observation, who has watched the events of the last few years in Europe, have failed to perceive that there is a movement indeed; but a downward and backward movement? There are a few spots in which institutions that claim our[181] sympathy still exist and flourish. They are secondary places; nay, they are almost the holes and corners of Europe as far as mere material greatness is concerned, although their moral greatness will, I trust, ensure them long prosperity and happiness. But in these times, more than ever, does responsibility centre upon England; and if it does centre upon England, upon her principles, upon her laws, and upon her governors, then I say that a measure passed by this House of Parliament—the chief hope of freedom—which attempts to establish a moral complicity between us and those who seek safety in repressive measures, will be a blow and a discouragement to that sacred cause in every country in the world." Mr. Disraeli, though he voted for the introduction of the Bill, now voted for its rejection. The question now was, not between this country and France, but between the House of Commons and the British Premier. After a spirited reply from Lord Palmerston, the House divided; when the Bill was rejected by a majority of 19, the numbers being, ayes 215, noes 234. So entirely had the debate been mismanaged that many observers thought Government were courting defeat, in consequence of the pending question of the extremely unpopular appointment of Lord Clanricarde to the office of Privy Seal, but that explanation is rejected by Greville. A vote of censure upon Government, touching the great principles of national policy, left no alternative but resignation. Lord Palmerston could not go to the country again in such circumstances, for if he did, his supporters would be sure to be defeated in the existing temper of the public mind. Addressing the House, therefore, on the 22nd of February, the noble lord announced that Ministers had tendered their resignation to her Majesty, which had been accepted. He understood that Lord Derby had been sent for by the Queen, and he moved the adjournment of the House for a few days to afford time for the formation of the new Ministry.

Lord Derby succeeded in forming an Administration. The Cabinet was composed of the following members:—Prime Minister, Earl of Derby; Lord Chancellor, Lord Chelmsford; President of the Council, Marquis of Salisbury; Lord Privy Seal, Earl of Hardwicke; Home Secretary, Mr. Walpole; Foreign Secretary, Lord Malmesbury; Colonial Secretary, Lord Stanley; War Secretary, General Peel; Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Disraeli; First Lord of the Admiralty, Sir John Pakington; President of the Board of Control, Lord Ellenborough; President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Henley; First Commissioner of Works, Lord John Manners. Sir Fitzroy Kelly was Attorney-General; Sir Hugh Cairns, Solicitor-General; Mr. Inglis, Lord Advocate of Scotland; and Mr. Baillie, Solicitor-General. The Irish Government was composed as follows:—Viceroy, Earl of Eglinton; Lord Chancellor, Mr. Napier; Chief Secretary, Lord Naas; Attorney-General, Mr. Whiteside; Solicitor-General, Mr. Edmund Hayes. Lord Derby had made overtures to Mr. Gladstone, the Duke of Newcastle, and Lord Grey, but all three declined.

[182]

## CHAPTER XII.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

> Condition of India—The Bengal Army—Its Want of Discipline—Effects of Caste—System of Promotion-Independent Spirit of the Sepoys—Position of the Regiments—The Greased Cartridges—The Prudence of Hearsey—The Chupatties—At Berhampore—Mangul Pandy—Disarming of the 19th—Inactivity of Anson—The Sepoys at Lucknow—A Scene at Barrackpore—At Meerut—The Rebellion begins—The Rush on Delhi—The City is sacked—The Powder Magazine—It is exploded—The Fall of Delhi—Sir Henry Lawrence—The Telegraph saves the Punjab—Energetic Measures at Lahore—Philour and Jallandhar—Mutiny at Ferozepore—Kangra and Mooltan—Peshawur is saved—Anson at Simla—Action of the Civil Authorities—The Siege Train—Death of Anson—John Lawrence in the Punjab—Cotton disarms the Sepoys—Noushera and Hotee Murdan—The Trans-Indus Region is secure—Mutiny supreme elsewhere—Progress of the Rising—Lucknow—Oude ripe for Revolt—The first Outbreak suppressed—Shahjehanpore and Bareilly—Seetapore—The Ranee of Jhansi—The Five Divisions of Oude—The Province is free from British Control.

THE stipulations of the Treaty of Paris had not been fully carried out by the high contracting parties ere Britain found herself involved in war with Persia on the west, and China on the east of her Indian Empire. The Persian war had been caused by the Shah's temporary occupation of Herat on the pretext of suppressing disorder, followed by certain insults to Mr. Murray, the British representative at Teheran, events in which Lord Palmerston saw "the first opening of the trenches against India by Russia." After a mission to Constantinople had failed to effect an arrangement of the dispute, an army was sent into the country under Outram. A few months of active hostilities brought the Shah to reason, and happily released the troops employed and enabled them to return to India; while the regiments sent out from England to quell the Cantonese arrived in the Indian Ocean just in time to lend material aid in suppressing the mutiny of the Sepoy army in Bengal; and the rebellion of the people of several native States. It was the spring time of 1857. Lord Canning had been one year Governor-General of India. The King of Oude had just been deposed, and his kingdom annexed to the British dominion by Lord Dalhousie, on the ground that he was utterly unfit to rule. This act was productive of the gravest consequences, and is technically indefensible; nevertheless it was justified by its later results, and apparently excited but little notice at the time. On the surface all was peace at the opening of the year. In a few weeks there was a sputter of mutiny; in a few months an army was in revolt from Calcutta to Peshawur; the British were lying dead, or flying for their lives, or fronting and conquering the mutineers, or shut up in forts; and the last of the Great Moguls was ruler in the famous city of Delhi. There was first a struggle for existence, then a fierce and determined effort to regain ascendency; finally, well-planned and successful measures to secure what had been won back literally from the jaws of death. The mutiny of the Bengal Sepoys is an event unique in modern history. It furnishes a story of confidence abused, treachery punished, and heroism rewarded. It vindicates the moral superiority of the European over the Asiatic. But if it has illustrated our strength, it has also illustrated our weakness and folly, for from them it sprang.

The Bengal native army was upwards of a hundred thousand strong. It consisted of troops of all arms. There were seventy-four regiments of regular and twenty of irregular infantry; there were ten regiments of regular and eighteen of irregular cavalry; and besides these there was a due proportion of artillery brigades. The distinction between regular and irregular regiments consisted mainly in this: that the regular had the usual number of European officers, while the irregular had only three or four. There was no substantial difference in drill and discipline. In addition to this fixed native establishment, there were five corps d'armée furnished by native States, and called contingents. They were drawn from Gwalior, Bhopal, Kotah, Malwa, and Joudpore. These were small armies complete in themselves: the Gwalior contingent, supplied by the Maharajah Scindia, was the most formidable of these forces, being strong in numbers of all arms, and admirably drilled. Like the regular and irregular regiments of the Bengal army, those of the contingents were officered by Europeans. In one short year the whole of this force, except five irregular cavalry regiments and three regular infantry regiments, and the whole of the contingents, had either mutinied or been disarmed.

[See larger version]

In order to form any reasonable idea of the[183] causes of the mutiny which we are about to describe, it is necessary to explain the nature of the instrument which broke in the hands of the rulers of India. In outward form it was splendid. From the drill-sergeant's point of view, few things in this world could be more perfect. The infantry were tall, shapely, handsome. They moved with precision and regularity. They made a brave show at parades. The cavalry were also well-made men, being excellent horsemen, with a dashing bearing. The artillery were famous for the neatness and accuracy of their movements, and their ability to serve and point their guns. Such was the appearance of these troops. Their officers were proud of them, and years of unquestioned fidelity and obedience had made these officers confident that their men would follow them anywhere. But, as Colonel Jacob wrote in 1851, "the thing was rotten throughout, and discipline there was none." The wonder to this observant soldier was, even then, that "the outward semblance of an army had still been maintained." For the officers of this army, from various causes, had ceased to possess a hold on the confidence and regard of the men. They were no longer accessible as of old. They lived apart. "Young men," writes Mr. Gubbins, "were no longer taught to take a pride in their regimental duty." They were taught to look out for staff employment, that is, employment in either civil or military tasks away from their regiments. It was not that there were few officers left behind to do the ordinary duty that caused the evil; it was "the want of interest felt in their work by the officers present with the corps." Nor was this the fault of the officers. It arose from a vicious system, gradually introduced, which deprived the commanding officer of his due share of power. "The commanding officer of a regiment in Bengal," to quote Colonel Jacob again, "is almost powerless for good. He is allowed to do nothing; his men are taught to despise him; and in many instances of late years the Sepoys have been allowed and encouraged to forward written complaints (secretly) against their commanders direct to headquarters. What can be worse than this? It is utterly destructive of military discipline and soldierlike pride."

Then there was the grave evil arising out of caste. The Bengal army was composed mainly of high-caste men from Oude and Behar and Rohilcund. A very large part came from the same districts and were relatives. The army was, in fact, a sort of military club, and caste, as in other clubs, determined admission or exclusion. But what were the consequences? The army became subject to the control of Brahmins and Fakirs. A man was not chosen on account of his fitness to be a soldier, but because he was tall and handsome and of high caste. "Whatever be his other qualifications," writes Colonel Jacob in 1851, as we must repeat, "if a man think that a stone with a patch of red paint on it is not to be worshipped as the Creator—still more, if he have been a shoemaker, etc.—he is not to be admitted into the ranks of the Bengal army, for fear of offending the lazy and insolent Brahmins. The consequences are ruinous to discipline. By reason of this, a native soldier in Bengal is far more afraid of an offence against caste than of an offence against the Articles of War, and by this means a degree of power rests with the private soldier which is entirely incompatible with all healthy rule. Treachery, mutiny, villainy of all kinds, may be carried on among the private soldiers unknown to their officers, to any extent, where the men are of one caste of Hindoos, and where the rules of caste are more regarded than those of military discipline." By this subservience to caste all real power rested in the hands of the private soldier. Thus the Bengal Sepoy would not form what is called a "working party," and it was thought a perfect wonder that in Afghanistan, when fighting for life, a Sepoy regiment handled the spade. A native cavalry regiment would not unsaddle, picket, feed, and groom its horses—a host of inferiors, grooms and grass cutters, were kept for those purposes. To such an extent was this system carried that men were kept to strike the gongs at the guard-houses; the high-caste Sepoy would not do it. And all this time—while the troops of all arms in Bengal were petted and ruined in this way, on the ground that no rule of caste must be infringed lest it should lead to mutiny—in Bombay, Sepoys from the same villages in Bengal, relatives of the pampered gentlemen we have described, did all that their officers required of them, and drilled, lived, and slept side by side with men of many inferior castes. The army wherein caste was the first thing thought of, and discipline and a soldier's duties the second, mutinied from end to end. The army wherein caste was not considered remained faithful, and did good service against the mutineers. Nor was this all. Colonel Jacob's splendid regiment of Scinde Irregular Horse was composed to a very great extent of exactly the same material as that of the Bengal army. It was disciplined on sound principles, in accordance, as we may say, with the laws of Nature. Consequently it did[184] anything and went anywhere at the orders of its officers.

But there were other evils in this unhappy Bengal army. The bad system of promotion was, in the opinion of Colonel Jacob, the worst of all. "In the Bengal army," he says, "the promotion of natives is made to depend on seniority only, so that if a man keeps clear of actual crime, and lives long enough, he must become a commissioned officer, however unfit for the office. Under this system, the private soldier feels himself entirely independent of his officers; he knows that they neither hasten nor retard his advance in the service. He has nothing to do but to live and get through his duties with listless stupidity, and with the least possible trouble to himself. No exertion on his part can help him—neither talent, courage, fidelity, nor good conduct is of any avail. Confidence and pride in each other between men and officers cannot exist. There is no real co-operation; for the one being powerless to aid, the other becomes careless of offending. This is the effect on the private soldier. The system is equally if not more baneful as respects the native officers, commissioned and non-commissioned. The whole of the native commissioned officers are entirely useless; the amount of their pay is a dead loss to the State; every one of them is unfit for service by reason of imbecility, produced by old age, or where, in rare instances, the man may not be altogether in his second childhood, he is entirely useless from having been educated in a bad school."

With an army managed as this was, the really surprising thing is not that it mutinied in 1857, but that it did not mutiny years before; indeed, partial revolts were of fairly frequent occurrence, especially when the Sepoys were called upon to serve out of India. Except in the mere outward show, it was not an army at all, and all that was required to destroy it was opportunity. The fact that there were good officers in the Bengal army, beloved and trusted by their men, does not invalidate the opinion we have set forth. These officers had triumphed over the system in so far as the system tended to make the Sepoy despise his officers; but they could not triumph over the system in so far as it affected the men. That bad influence went on with unfaltering steadiness. Day by day the Sepoys felt that they became more and more the masters of India. Day by day a sense of their own importance grew and flourished in their breasts. They were able to conspire with safety under the very noses of the Europeans; and the gulf which separated them from their officers enabled intriguers to sow the seeds of mutiny unchecked and unseen. Thus the native army of Bengal became combustible, ready to take fire and flame up if a spark fell on it. This combustible state was not produced in a year or ten years; it had been growing for a quarter of a century. In short, it grew as the vicious system of depriving commanders of power was developed; as the Sepoys, on plea of caste, shirked more and more the duties of soldiers, and as the senile system of promotion by seniority produced its inevitable effects. The recent annexation of Oude, the late Russian war, the spread of British dominion beyond the Indus, the scanty garrison of Europeans actually in India in 1857—these were only the collateral influences, and only to a limited extent causes. They were, indeed, rather occasions than causes; the root of the whole colossal evil being the absence of discipline in the Bengal army.

Let the reader figure to himself this army scattered about the country in military posts, from the eastern provinces on the Irrawaddy to spurs of the mountains beyond the Indus on the north-western boundary. Here they are gathered in brigades of two or three regiments of all arms; there stands a solitary regiment of infantry or cavalry; in another place a squadron or a company. From Fort William in Calcutta, up the valley of the Ganges, and beyond it across the Punjab to Peshawur, ran a chain of military stations; throwing out detachments to the right and left, on one side towards the Himalayas and Nepaul, on the other over the jungles of Central India and Rajpootana, until the outposts touched those of Madras in Nagpore and the Deccan, and those of Bombay in the valley of the Nerbudda. In each of the stations there are the native lines with open parades in front, and the detached quarters of the European community; long rows of thatched dwellings, and cottages standing in gardens or "compounds." In some there are no European troops; indeed, so few are the Europeans in this vast region, that their presence is the exception and not the rule. For instance, the great fort and magazine of Allahabad, at the junction of the Ganges and Jumna, is in the hands of native troops. The fortified city of Delhi, with its two magazines, is entirely occupied by native infantry. In the whole of Oude there is only one European regiment, the 32nd, at Lucknow. At Cawnpore, a very important station, there are no Europeans. Mooltan, the key of the valley of the Indus, is, in like manner, almost destitute of Europeans. In[185] other stations there are one or two European regiments or parts of regiments. Thus, at the great station of Dinapore there was the 10th Foot; at Agra, the 3rd Bengal Fusiliers; at Meerut, a whole European brigade of all arms, 6th Dragoon Guards, 60th Rifles, and artillery; at Lahore, the 81st Foot and some artillery; and at or near Peshawur the 27th, 70th, and 87th Foot. In the hill stations of the North-West and in the Punjab the European element was stronger than elsewhere, for there were fourteen regiments, including two of horse, scattered about in that quarter. There were thus about 12,000 Europeans north and west of Delhi, but there were upwards of 40,000 Hindostanees, and beside these several thousand Sikhs and Punjabees. Between the Jumna and the Nerbudda there was not a single European regiment. British India altogether was six regiments short of her complement of European troops; but four of these were in Persia making war on the Shah, and with them were Generals Outram and Havelock. Such was the state of affairs at the end of 1856, when India stood on the threshold of an awful calamity and knew it not. The country seemed to be profoundly tranquil, but there were 5,000 fewer British soldiers than was usual to secure or defend the sway of their race.

OUTBREAK OF THE INDIAN MUTINY: HIGH CASTE V. LOW CASTE. (See p. 185.)

Government had determined to arm the Sepoys with the Minié rifle. It followed, as a matter of course, that Schools for Instruction in Musketry were established. With the old musket instruction was of little avail, for Brown Bess could not be relied on to shoot straight for a distance of a hundred and fifty yards. Therefore, at various points men from several regiments of the native army met to be taught how to load and fire the new rifle. This weapon was loaded with a greased cartridge. It was usual in those days to bite the cartridge, in order to pour out the powder. At Dumdum, near Calcutta, there was an arsenal, and here these cartridges were made up, chiefly by native servants. Early in January one of these men asked a Sepoy of the 2nd Grenadiers for a draught of water from his lotah, or brass drinking-pot. The high-caste native was astonished at the[186] insolence of the man, for he was low caste; and if the lips of the latter touched the pot, it would be defiled. He refused with disdain. The low-caste man was one of those who made up the cartridges, and he retorted with a sneer that the Sepoy need not be so particular about his caste; for the new cartridges were greased with bullock's fat, and every Sepoy would lose caste when he bit off the end. The Sepoy spread the tale abroad among his comrades. The Hindoos were told that the grease was the grease of the sacred cow, and the Moslem soldiers were informed that it was the fat of the unclean swine; and finally, to meet the case of both, the story ran that the grease was a compound of the fat of pigs and cows. This story has been received as authentic. Whether it be true or not in detail, it illustrates the feeling that the new cartridges, with their unctuous ends and ill odour, had aroused in the native mind. Here, then, was a plot to deprive the whole army of its caste, striking high and low alike, and with its caste of its religion! The fatal story flew on the wings of the wind from cantonment to cantonment from station to station. In a few weeks the native army was ready to rise and slay.

At first, indeed, the men at Dumdum appeared to be perfectly reasonable. Called on at parade to state complaints, they objected to the cartridge, and suggested the use of wax and oil. The Government ordered an investigation, and in the meantime changed the drill, so that in future the end of a cartridge was to be torn not bitten off. General Hearsey, an experienced soldier, well known to all the Sepoys, harangued his division at Barrackpore, showing them how impossible it was that they could be made Christians by the mere biting of cartridges. But all was of no avail. A native lieutenant informed the authorities that the Barrackpore brigade was preparing to mutiny. General Hearsey wrote to Calcutta, saying, "We have at Barrackpore been dwelling upon a mine ready for explosion." He admitted that the native officers were of no use, being afraid of their men, and he suggested that a European regiment should be sent up to the station.

At this time, the middle of February, another singular sign was observed. A native policeman entered a village of Oude, carrying two chupatties, or cakes. He ordered his fellow official there to make ten more, and give two to each of the five nearest village policemen, with the same instructions. In a few hours the whole country was astir with watchmen flying about with these cakes. This proceeding was and remains a mystery. One officer who saw a watchman run in with his cakes, asked what it meant. He was told that when the malik, or chief, required a service from his people, he sent round these cakes to prepare them for the execution of his orders. "And what is the order now?" inquired the officer. And the answer, with a smile, was, "We don't know yet." Whatever may have been the reason for this flight of cakes, there it stands in the forefront of calamity, and is regarded as one of its signs. "How little was it thought," writes Mr. Cave Browne, "that therein was really hidden an Eastern symbol of portentous meaning! Five centuries before (1368), the Chinese had, by a somewhat similar plan, organised and carried out a conspiracy by means of which their dynasty of Mongol invaders was overthrown." This is a far-fetched illustration. No doubt, the chupatty mystery had a meaning, though it may never have been clearly ascertained.

From Barrackpore a detachment of the 34th Native Infantry went to Berhampore, once a great and important station, 120 miles north of Calcutta. Here were quartered the 19th Native Infantry, the 11th Irregulars, and two guns. The 19th feasted their comrades, and these in return told the story of the cartridges with great additions. John Company had sent Lord Canning to convert India to Christianity, and he had been ordered to begin by destroying the caste of the whole army! The men of the 19th heard, and forthwith believed. They made no inquiries of the English officers. What were the "stranger gentlemen" to them? How could their words in such a matter affect what their brethren had told them? On the day after the detachment had come in, Colonel Mitchell, commanding at the station, ordered a parade for the following morning. The men were to meet for exercise with blank cartridge, and it was served out. These cartridges were not new, and had inadvertently been made of two kinds of paper, whereupon the Sepoys imagined that one sort must be the greased cartridges fatal to their caste. So the men refused to take them. Not ripe at the moment for mutiny, they yielded when threatened with a court-martial. But the same night their passions got the better of them, and they rose and seized their arms. Aroused by the noise and confusion, Colonel Mitchell ordered out the cavalry and the guns. But the night was dark. Torches were necessary. The ground was broken. Neither guns nor horsemen, it is said, could be used. Colonel Mitchell doubted whether he could depend on his native troopers and native gunners. He therefore harangued the mutineers,[187] explained the groundlessness of their fears, and begged them to give up their arms. The Sepoys, still unready for revolt, made a counter-proposition. They would give up their arms if the Colonel would withdraw his cavalry and guns. He complied, and with this transaction the tumult ended. Here, then, was decided mutiny. It broke out with a running accompaniment of fires in different places, the work of wilful men bent on spreading the contagion of alarm and treason.

On learning what had happened at Berhampore, the Government in Calcutta called up the 84th Queen's Regiment from Burmah, and ordered the 19th Native Infantry to march to Barrackpore to be disbanded. As they were marching down, an emissary from the 34th met them with a proposal that, when within a march of the station, the 19th should murder their officers, while the 34th did the same; but the 19th refused, and marched quietly into the cantonment. Here they found the 84th, a wing of the 53rd Foot, two troops of horse artillery, and the Governor-General's body-guard of picked Sepoy troopers. Two days before they were disbanded, a Sepoy of the 34th, Mangul Pandy by name, endeavoured to rouse his regiment. In the presence of the guard, who stood by, he wounded Adjutant Baugh. While those were in deadly strife, the British sergeant-major dashed in; but he was cut down, and the native lieutenant and guard took part in the fray, striking the Europeans. A Mahometan, however, was faithful, and, with the assistance of General Hearsey and other officers Baugh was rescued and Mangul Pandy seized. Riding up to the mutinous guard, with a loaded pistol in one hand, and ordering them back, Hearsey threatened to shoot the first man who disobeyed him, and on this they returned to their posts. Mangul Pandy and the native lieutenant were hanged in due course, and the Mahometan and sergeant-major were rewarded; but for these acts, such was the style of management that prevailed in Bengal, General Hearsey was reprimanded! Otherwise the regiment was unpunished. On the 31st of March—a long delay caused by the fact that there was absolutely no regiment that could be trusted with the disarmament until the return of the 84th Foot from Burmah—the 19th were deprived of their arms, paid up all their arrears, solemnly lectured in the presence of the whole force at the station, European and native, disbanded, marched out of the station, and sent to their homes. The 19th were really not so much in fault as appeared, for they offered, if pardoned, to serve in China or anywhere; but Government held it necessary to make an example. For now the fires in cantonments were more rife than ever all up the valley of the Ganges, the midnight meetings of the Sepoys more numerous, and the excitement of the whole army was fast rising to a climax.

These symptoms of mutiny were manifest in Oude and in the North-West. General Anson, the Commander-in-Chief, was on his way to comfortable quarters in the hills. He was altogether unfitted for the deadly conflict impending. He did not understand its gravity, and if he had caught a glimpse of the facts, he would have been unable to deal with them. In the middle of March, with the 36th Native Infantry for escort, he went to Umballa. Two non-commissioned officers of this regiment were at the rifle school. They went out to meet their comrades, and were by them repulsed as outcasts—men who had touched greased cartridges and were defiled. In fact, these natives had not touched greased cartridges, for there were none in the school. But that made no difference to the infatuated 36th. The Sepoys pretended that the rifle with its cartridge was "a Government missionary to convert the whole army to Christianity." By this time the whole army had become aware of its strength, and was in communication from Calcutta to Peshawur. General Anson inspected the depôt, and suspended the musketry practice of the Sepoys until further orders. He ordered an inquiry, and when all the symptoms were disclosed to him, he actually censured the Sepoys who had made known the fact that they had been repulsed and treated as outcasts by their corps! He next forced the Sepoys, not yet ripe for revolt, to use the cartridge. They did so, but at night they burnt a number of Government buildings. A Sikh now reported the existence of a conspiracy which was to break out in the beginning of May, either at Delhi, Umballa, or Meerut. But General Anson would not believe the information. He was already nestled snugly in the hills, playing whist. And so the month passed away, lighted at its close by blazing cantonments, and marked by the most flagrant signs of universal military disaffection. In addition to this the agents of the King of Delhi and the Shah of Persia and the Moslem priests were at work, preaching a religious war by stealth, while the Hindoo pundits openly prophesied that the reign of the English had lasted its appointed time, and that it was now coming to an end.

The month of May came. It was the height of[188] the hot season. There is little doubt that the Sepoys, who had seen that their European masters feared the sun, had calculated on its enervating effects. The storm was gathering to a head. The strife was going on sullenly at Meerut as well as at Umballa. At Lucknow, also, it was in progress. On the first days of May the 7th Oude Irregular Infantry refused to touch cartridges, which, they admitted, were in every respect such as they had been accustomed to. The men were in absolute, but passive mutiny. On the 3rd of May, threatening to kill the European officers, they seized their arms and the magazine; but a force of cavalry and artillery arriving, the mutineers were panic-stricken and gave up their arms. It was then discovered that the 7th Oude and the 48th Native Infantry were actually conspiring. Thus face to face with danger, Sir Henry Lawrence, Commissioner in Oude, began to make preparations that enabled him to cope effectually with the crisis. He had already struck down promptly the first mutinous regiment. He was destined to save the power of Britain in Oude, and to sacrifice his life in so doing.

GENERAL HEARSEY AND THE MUTINEERS. (See p. 187.)

This scene at Lucknow aroused the Government at Calcutta. But mild measures were the order of the day. A native lieutenant at Barrackpore had been caught in the lines of the 70th, urging his men to revolt. He was tried by a native court-martial and sentenced to dismissal. The effect on the Sepoys is indescribable. "This," they said, "the only punishment for mutiny! They are afraid of us; we can do as we like." But, alarmed by the mutiny at Lucknow, Lord Canning determined to disband another regiment. The corrupted 34th was to be so punished this time. Directing the 84th Queen's, a wing of the 53rd, and two batteries of artillery upon Barrackpore, he ordered the officer commanding at the station to disband the mutinous regiment. It was done, but the punishment was felt to be no punishment and the men went off exulting with their pay. In the order of the Governor-General, disaffected soldiers were told that mutiny would draw down upon them sharp and certain punishment like that inflicted[189] on the 34th. But the Bengal Sepoys had been long hardened to radical insubordination, and the sharp and certain punishment of disbandment for mutiny had no effect on them. This scene occurred at Barrackpore on the 6th of May. It was the second instance of paltering with mutineers. The Government seem to have thought that they had destroyed the mutiny, root and branch. In five days from that time Meerut was sacked, and the streets of Delhi were running with European blood.

THE REBEL SEPOYS AT DELHI. (See p. 191.)

The town and station of Meerut lies about forty-five miles north of Delhi, in the upper part of the Doab of the Jumna and Ganges. As no European troops could be stationed in Delhi, without violating the arrangements made when the Great Mogul was dispossessed of his territories, Meerut was fixed on as a station for European troops, and here were the 6th Dragoon Guards, or Carabineers, the 1st Battalion of the 60th Rifles, and two troops of Horse Artillery. There were also the 11th and 20th Native Infantry and the 3rd Native Cavalry. The commander of the station was General Hewitt, a worn-out old officer, of whom it had once been reported officially that he was totally unfit for any command. As the disaffection of the Sepoys was manifest, Colonel Carmichael Smith, of the 3rd Cavalry, determined to bear it no longer. He paraded a part of the regiment, ninety men, and ordered them to take the cartridges, showing them, at the same time, that the end was to be torn not bitten off. Only five obeyed. The rest were deaf to exhortations and warnings. They stood still, in passive mutiny. This fact was reported to Brigadier Archdale Wilson, and by his order the whole of the mutineers were arrested. They were tried, as usual, by a native court-martial and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. On the 9th of May, by order of General Hewitt, the whole of the force in the cantonment, European and native, was paraded. As soon as they were drawn up, the Europeans were directed to load. Then the mutineers were marched in, and so placed that any resistance would be followed by their destruction. Their uniforms were stripped off and they were placed[190] in irons. The only sign of emotion was one deep sigh which burst at once from all the battalions. The disgraced troopers actually reproached their comrades for permitting the execution of the sentence; and we may well believe that nothing but the loaded guns in front, and the grim men of the Rifles and Carabineers, prevented the armed Sepoys from attempting a rescue. The shackled troopers were marched off to the gaol and placed under a guard of native policemen; and the Sepoys returned to their lines to plot treason and communicate their intentions to the regiments at Delhi. The sun went down on that Saturday, May the 9th, and darkness covered up the meetings of swarthy soldiers planning a general revolt for the next day.

About five o'clock next day the quiet of the evening was broken. A rocket flew upwards in the Sepoy lines. The 3rd Cavalry rushed forth, seized their arms, and slew at once four of their officers. A party of them gallop away to the gaol, whirling their sabres over their heads. There is only a native guard at the gaol; the doors are thrown open with shouts; they set their imprisoned comrades free. Fourteen hundred convicts are at the same time let loose, who rush eagerly away to reap the harvest of plunder and violence. A party of the Sowars, with the 20th, went to the lines of the 11th, to turn the tide of disaffection in its ranks, for it was not yet entirely gained over. Colonel Finnis was there, endeavouring to address the men and keep them to their duty. They instantly fired at the unfortunate gentleman, whose death decided the wavering regiment. The Sepoys of the 11th now joined with the rest, but protected the officers and ladies. It was the plan of the mutineers to set upon and massacre the Europeans assembled in church. Fortunately, the signal was given too early. The Sepoys fall upon and kill everybody they meet; joined with the rabble of the bazaars, they run to plunder the long line of beautiful cottages in which the European families resided. They push their muskets into the thatch, and fire; in a few minutes they are all in a blaze. Ladies and children are seized with exultation and tormented to death. The Europeans who get clear fly away to the English barracks. All the bungalows in the native lines are burned and sacked. For two hours the work of hell goes on—tumult, murder, pillage, conflagration. They fight for the spoil and kill one another. And what are our soldiers doing? They are all armed and ready, panting with fury, eager to rescue their dying countrywomen, eager for blood and vengeance. To them thus ready for the fray General Hewitt's order comes. What is it? "Defend your lines!"

Such was the fatal order. Instead of attacking the mutineers with horse, foot, and artillery, he stood on the defensive. At length he was prevailed on to move; but when he did, the mischief had been completed and the mutineers were speeding southward to Delhi. Moving in the gloom, the angry Europeans came up within sight of some of their foes, and the guns poured a shower of grape into the darkness as the Sepoys vanished. There was no pursuit. Captain Rosser offered to ride after them with horsemen and guns, and follow them to Delhi; but General Hewitt would not hear of it, and returned to his lines!

In Delhi all was peace. There were no signs of mutiny in the city or cantonments. There had been a sign of Mahometan disaffection, for a placard had been posted on the walls of the Jumma Musjid, declaring that the Shah of Persia was coming to drive the Europeans from India. The old King of Delhi and his sons and grandsons could not be expected to love us or be loyal to us. They lived a life of conspiracy in those stormy times; they were all sensual, cruel, and idle; but they dared not act openly against the Company. There were three native regiments in the city and cantonments, the 38th, 54th, and 74th, and a native battery. Brigadier Graves commanded the brigade, and he and all the officers had the most complete confidence in the loyalty of their men. It was nine o'clock; from the magazine, which also looked on to the river, a sharp eye saw a body of troopers coming down the Meerut road. The news spread to the Europeans; one after the other they heard of these galloping horsemen. The brigadier, warned by Mr. Hutchinson, at once ordered the 54th, under Colonel Ripley, and two guns, to march. Sir Thomas Metcalfe warned Lieutenant Willoughby at the magazine, and wished that two guns might be planted to sweep the bridge. Fraser and Captain Douglas went into the palace to rouse and induce the king to exert his influence. In the meantime the troopers had ridden up to the bridge, had cut down the sergeant in charge, had crossed over, and were in the palace and the city.

They were prompt men, these troopers. So long as there was one white face left, they felt that they were not masters. So when Mr. Fraser expostulated with them, they shot at him, wounded Mr. Hutchinson, and killed a European clerk.[191] Mr. Fraser seized a gun and shot a trooper; but there were none to aid him, and he had to fly. Sir Thomas Metcalfe tried the police; they stood unmoved. Sir Thomas drove away. As yet there were only troopers in the city; but they had been looked for by the native troops, and though few, they were sufficient, since there were none to oppose them. Fraser, Hutchinson, and Douglas had gone into the palace. There were the troopers, a mob from the city, and convicts delivered from gaol. The British gentlemen still faced the mutineers, reasoning, reproaching, exhorting. Suddenly one of the king's servants cut down Fraser, and then a body rushed up the stairs and there slew Hutchinson, Douglas, the Rev. Mr. Jennings, Miss Jennings, and Miss Clifford. The ladies were killed outright on the spot and suffered no dishonour. Then the troopers rushed forth to complete the massacre of the white men and the native Christians. They scoured through the European quarters, with reeking blades—the centre of a horde of ruffians steeped in cruelty, crying, "Deen! Deen!" and sparing none. Some gallantly resisted; some were smitten at their desks and employments. Mr. Beresford, at the bank, fought stoutly, but was slain, and all who belonged to his household. The dwellers in the College shared the same fate; the whole force of the Delhi Mission fell. In the midst of their fury they were not likely to forget the telegraph. The chief clerk was slain, but the rebels were not quick enough in getting to the office to prevent his assistant from sending his message to Lahore, ere the troopers cut him down "The Sepoys have come in from Meerut, and are burning everything. Mr. Todd is dead, and, we hear, several Europeans. We must shut up." They died; like good men and true, they fell at their posts, but they had saved the Punjab.

Brigadier Graves had not been idle. He first sent word that all Europeans in the city should muster at the Flagstaff Tower, a stone building, with battlements, standing on the centre of the ridge; but his orders were too late, or rather the troopers and felons were too speedy for the orders to be of service. Then, as we have stated, he sent the 54th, followed by two guns, to quell any tumult. But the 54th had no sooner entered the Cashmere Gate than some troopers rode up and shot Colonel Ripley and all his officers, except three who got away. Major Patterson now entered with the guns, and at sight of these the troopers rode off. But the 54th immediately broke up and joined the mutineers. Brigadier Graves sent down three companies of the 74th and two more guns. These only provided fresh mutineers, for not a man would obey orders. The guns were ordered back; but on their road a party of mutineers met them, wounded the horse of the officer in charge and carried the guns back to Delhi. All the Sepoys now became active mutineers.

There were two magazines in the station: a large one, containing above a thousand barrels of powder, placed two miles outside the city walls, and at anybody's mercy, and a smaller one within the walls, not far from the palace, containing not more than fifty barrels. It is of the latter we have to write. Sir Charles Napier had condemned this building. Its gates were so weak, he said, a mob could push them in. On the 11th of May there were nine officers and men to defend this magazine. They were Lieutenant George Willoughby in command, Lieutenants Forrest and Raynor; Conductors Buckley, Shaw, and Scully; Sub-Conductor Crow, and Sergeants Edwards and Stewart. Their memories are worthy of all honour. In the forenoon they were beset by a crowd, raging, tumultuous, demanding admission. Seeing this, Willoughby prepared for defence. He closed and barricaded the gates, and a train was laid by Conductors Buckley, Scully, and Sergeant Stewart, ready to be fired at a preconcerted signal, which was that of Conductor Buckley raising his hat from his head, on the order being given by Lieutenant Willoughby.

The mob had been balked at the outset. They had been reinforced by a body of the king's soldiers, but still they were kept at bay. But when the old king and his counsellors found that the troops in cantonments were in revolt, that the spies he sent out returned reporting that no British were coming from Meerut, and that the Native Infantry from Meerut had entered Delhi, then fresh troops poured down upon the magazine. The whole of the besieging crowd were eager for powder and arms. The king's soldiers summoned the Europeans to surrender. They were defied. Then the crowd swarmed to the attack and opened fire. At the first round the natives in the magazine fled. But the nine Englishmen remained. Scaling-ladders were brought; Sepoys mounted the tombs in the burial-ground overlooking the enclosure, and fired on the little garrison. These plied their foes with grape, but as fast as the iron sleet swept away one body, another followed. For five hours the gallant nine maintained the unequal contest. Scully stood by the trunk of a tree, ready to fire the mine. Every moment the attack[192] grew hotter and the defence weaker: for Edwards and Crow were killed; Forrest and Buckley were wounded. All hope was gone. Willoughby passed the word to Buckley to raise his hat, the signal for firing the train, and Scully coolly and with deliberate care applied the match. In a moment the whole building was rent by the explosion, and hundreds of the enemy, crowding on, were buried in the ruins. Forrest, Raynor, Willoughby, Buckley, and Scully made their way out, scorched and bruised, but alive. A trooper cut down the brave Scully, and Willoughby was killed by marauders in a village on the road to Meerut; but Forrest, Raynor, Stewart, and Buckley succeeded in reaching that place alive, and each received the Victoria Cross as a reward.

The explosion of the magazine may be regarded as the last act in defence of Delhi. The fugitives who had reached the Flagstaff Tower were now crowded within it, uncertain of their fate. The Sepoys who surrounded the two guns were watched by armed Europeans from the roof of the tower; but it would have been destruction to fire. The ladies were loosening cartridges, and the men were resolving on defence when defence was hopeless. One by one the fugitives had come in. Major Abbott had brought up a cartload of dead and wounded officers. The Sepoys were growing defiant. When the magazine blew up they became excited; they had long refused to obey orders; they now told the officers they had better be gone, "this was no longer a place for them." The words were true. All who could got carriages or horses, and those who could get neither, set out on foot. The Sepoys did not oppose them. The brave Brigadier Graves, Captain Nicholl, and Dr. Stewart lingered to the last; but at length these went also, and Delhi was in the power of the king and the Sepoys. An attempt had been made to blow up the great magazine, but the Sepoys frustrated it, and so ended the scene. One Sepoy only followed the officers in their flight. The fugitives bent their steps towards Kurnaul, and only some arrived. They were beset by the village marauders, who robbed and wounded, or murdered, all parties alike. Some were nearly naked, their clothes having been torn from them; some were severely wounded; some lay down to die from fatigue and grief. It was a dreadful night; and in Delhi there were still forty-three persons, chiefly women and children. They had taken refuge in the palace; on the 18th of May the poor creatures were given up to the mutineers, and massacred in a body by them and the king's brutal sons.

Sir Henry Lawrence, ever vigilant and prompt, saved Lucknow for a time, by disarming the 7th Oude Irregulars, on the 3rd of May. On the 12th Sir Henry held a durbar, and rewarded, with solemn forms, a subahdar, a havildar, and two Sepoys, who had been instrumental directly in arresting emissaries who were preaching sedition. Sir Henry made a noble speech to the soldiers representing all the native forces in the cantonment, praised, warned, exhorted them, and so he gained a month to prepare for a doom that was inevitable; a month to prepare and provision a fortified post in the heart of Lucknow, where a handful of Europeans and a few faithful natives were destined, with endless honour, to uplift and keep flying the British standard in one of the centres of rebellion.

The electric telegraph saved the Punjab. We have already told how from the office in Delhi went a message along the wire to Lahore. It was read at Umballa, en route; it was read at Lahore; it was shot north-westward to Sir John Lawrence at Rawul Pindee, and to Herbert Edwardes, John Nicholson, and Sydney Cotton at Peshawur. They had it by noon in Lahore: a messenger coming in from Meerut confirmed it. By eventide Sir John Lawrence had read the momentous words at Rawul Pindee; by midnight they were scanned at Peshawur. They fell into the hands of men prompt to face and to overcome danger; keen of sight and swift of action. There was to be no paltering with mutiny in the Punjab. The Britons were resolved to be masters in that land. The morning of the 12th of May brought fresh and fuller tidings, and out of them grew a fixed resolve. The Europeans had kept the secret imparted by the magic dial, and determined to be first in the field.

There were at Mean Meer, six miles from Lahore, three regiments of native infantry and one of cavalry. These Brigadier Corbett and Mr. Montgomery and others, after brief deliberation, resolved to disarm. The means at hand were slight, but sufficient for brave men. They were the 81st Queen's, and two troops of horse, and four companies of foot artillery. A ball had been appointed for the night of the 12th, and it was agreed that this festivity should be held, and that the troops should parade on the morning of the 13th. The 12th brought fresh news. A Sikh discovered and revealed a plot to seize the fort in Lahore, and massacre every white man. The authorities kept their discovery to themselves, and prepared by a bold stroke to anticipate the conspirators. The ball was held. The revel was kept[193] up till nearly dawn, when the officers stole away to attend a parade which was to determine the fate of British rule in the country of the five rivers. During that night a company of the 81st were driving along in carts to Govindghur, three companies were held in readiness to relieve the conspirators of the 26th in Lahore Fort, and six companies were left in cantonments to perform a principal part on the parade ground. The pretence for the parade was to read a general order touching the disarmament of the 34th, at Barrackpore. When the regiments were in line, an order was read aloud to the Sepoys, explaining to them that they were about to be deprived of their arms to prevent them from disgracing themselves and their colours by yielding to the temptations of bad men, and rising in mutiny. At the conclusion of the reading, the order went forth to "pile arms." By this time the 81st had moved to the rear of the guns. There were twelve, each loaded with grape, and by each gun stood an artilleryman port-fire in hand. Colonel Renny of the 81st also gave the order to load, and the ring of the steel ramrods told the Sepoys there was no hope for them. The infantry piled arms, the cavalry took off their sabres and pouches; a company of the 81st swept them up; the crisis was past, and Lahore was saved on the third morning after the outbreak at Meerut. On that memorable morning, too, three companies of the 81st marched into the fort of Lahore. The 26th, astonished and surprised, laid down their arms without a murmur.

DISARMAMENT OF THE 26TH AT BARRACKPORE. (See p. 193.)

On the same day there were other deeds performed between the Ravee and Sutlej. On the right bank of the latter river, and commanding the Great Road from Delhi to Lahore, stands the fort of Philour. To the south-east, over the river, is the cloth-working town of Loodiana, also on the Great Road, and to the north-west the cantonment of Jallandhar. Philour was wholly in the hands of the Sepoy guard, and a native regiment, the 3rd, was encamped under its walls. There were only eight Europeans in the fort, one of whom, Mr. Brown, had arrived on the 12th of May with telegraphic apparatus to open communication with Jallandhar. For when the[194] officer commanding at the latter station heard of the mutiny, his first thought was for the safety of Philour. He sent Mr. Brown and his apparatus in a light cart, and he marched out 150 men of the 8th Queen's at night to garrison the fort. The gallant eight had one gun. They closed the fort, and loaded the piece with grape; and kept watch over the Sepoys within and the Sepoys without. It was an anxious night, and the gun was not quitted for one moment. Before day had dawned, up came the men of the 8th, with the welcome addition, picked up on the road, of two horse-artillery guns and some Punjabee troopers, under the chivalrous Probyn. The Sepoys in the fort were surprised and dismayed when they were relieved, and marched out of the fort. They, too, were to have risen on the 15th, and Philour was to have been the rendezvous of all the mutineers in the Punjab.

At Jallandhar itself very vigorous measures had been taken. We have seen how Philour was saved. Mr. Ricketts, at Loodiana, was also warned to look sharply after the bridge of boats which carries the traffic of the Great Road over the Sutlej. The troops at Jallandhar were, the 6th Cavalry, the 36th Native Infantry, and the 61st Native Infantry, the 8th Queen's, and one troop of Horse Artillery. Brigadier Hartley would have disarmed the natives, but he feared for the out-stations; so he contented himself with taking ample precautions, by an able disposition of his guns and his European infantry. The civil chief of the station appealed for aid to the Rajah of Kuppoorthulla, a Sikh chief, whose territories lie between the Beas and the Sutlej, and the Rajah responded with promptitude, bringing up at once a body of troops and guns. This was the first evidence of the goodwill of the Sikh chieftains in this district. They were destined to render the most valuable services in the trying days at hand. Thus was mutiny for a time parried at Jallandhar.

Far different had been the incidents of the crisis at Ferozepore. This town stands on the left bank of the Sutlej, nearly due south of Lahore, and below Loodiana; it contained the largest arsenal in Upper India and its importance was immense. The brigade at the station consisted of the 10th Cavalry, the 45th and 57th Native Infantry, the 61st Queen's, and three batteries; the whole under Brigadier Innes, who had just arrived from Mooltan. Strong symptoms of disaffection had appeared among the 57th but not in the 45th, or the 10th Cavalry. When on the 13th decisive news arrived, the brigadier held a council of war; but here, as in all other stations, his avowed suspicions of the native troops were sharply combated by their own officers. He adopted a half measure: he resolved to divide the two native regiments, placing them so that the Europeans and the guns would be between them, and he intended to disarm them the next day. On the evening of the 13th he held a parade, at the same time threw a hundred men of the 61st into the magazine, and selected the best positions for his artillery. From the parade he directed the 57th to march in one direction, and the 45th in another. The former obeyed, and encamped quietly in their new quarters; but the 45th took a route that brought them in sight of the magazine, which they made an unsuccessful attempt to rush. In the meantime the 61st had to guard the barracks, where the women and children had sought shelter, as well as the magazine, and thus were compelled to look on while the mutineers and the mob burnt the cantonments. The 57th took no part in the mischief, and the next day gave up their arms and colours. The 45th were still bent on wrong doing, and as a precaution, the brigadier blew up the regimental magazines. Then the 45th, except a few, broke into open mutiny, and set out for Delhi, pursued by the Europeans and the 10th. Very few escaped, for the 10th caught some, and the villagers brought in others. Brigadier Innes had now leisure to secure all the powder and stores. Of the native force, the 10th alone retained their arms and received General Anson's thanks for their loyalty. In a few weeks they too were mutineers.

There were three other points of moment: one of supreme importance in the Punjab-Peshawur. The others were Kangra and Mooltan. Kangra was to the Rajpoots of the hills what Umritsir was to the Sikhs of the plains—a place invested with a moral prestige. Major Lake, getting one of Mr. Montgomery's notes from Lahore, marched a body of Punjab police into Kangra and it was secured. We have already seen the men of the 8th enter Philour at dawn. Mooltan, standing on the left bank of the Chenab, a few miles above its junction with the Indus, was the key of the whole country around the point where the five rivers become one. It commanded the navigation; it was the connecting link between the Punjab and Scinde and the Punjab and South Afghanistan. There were only sixty Europeans there, and 3,500 natives. Of these the most dreaded were the 62nd and 69th Native Infantry; their officers alone were full of trust in them. Major Crawford[195] Chamberlain could rely only on his sixty Europeans and some 250 Punjabees; he had hopes of a regiment of irregular cavalry, his own regiment, known all over India as Skinner's Horse. His policy was to temporise and prepare; and most ably he did both. It was pluck and skill which saved Mooltan.

Peshawur was, after all, the critical point in the Punjab. Five infantry regiments of the Bengal army were there, the 21st, 24th, 27th, 51st, and 64th; three cavalry regiments, the 5th Regulars, and the 17th and 18th Irregulars. In three adjacent forts were detachments of a Hindoo regiment, called the Khelat-i-Gilzies. The British force consisted of the 70th and 87th, and four batteries; in all about 2,000 men. At Noushera, the station at the east end of the Peshawur Valley, and more than twenty miles off, were the 27th Queen's, the 55th Native Infantry, the 10th Irregulars, and a battery. At Hotee Murdan, a mountain station, sixteen miles north of Noushera, were the Guides, natives, but true as steel, because raised, officered, and disciplined on sound principles. These were the forces, native and British, north of the Indus. The Europeans were outnumbered by three to one.

The telegram from Lahore was received here and kept secret. The men who had to deal with probable mutiny were Brigadier Sydney Cotton, Colonels Edwardes, Nicholson, and Neville Chamberlain, for General Reid, the Commander-in-Chief, was not one of the prime moving spirits. On the morning of the 12th a council was held, and swift were its decisions. The bold spirit of John Nicholson suggested at once that the British should take the initiative and form a movable column, so that aid might be rendered where it was required, and visible tangible power shown to all. To form this column, the 55th Native Infantry were ordered to occupy Hotee Murdan; so that the Guides might join the 27th Queen's at Noushera, and that these two should form the kernel of the column. At the same time the 64th Native Infantry were split up into three parts, and sent to the forts near Peshawur. The next morning, the 13th, the council heard the news of the disarming at Lahore, and proceeded with the work. Sir John Lawrence, though at Rawul Pindee, talked with his coadjutors by telegraph, and at his suggestion General Reid joined him, and thus the heads of the two public services were united. The measures taken extended over a wider field. The Punjabee infantry and the Sikh regiments, the remains of the old Khalsa army, were called in from all quarters to join the movable column. Not only was the station made safe, and the passage of the Indus at Attock secured, but Edwardes and Nicholson took advantage of their popularity on the frontier to call for aid from the very tribes whom it had been their business to rule, and to rule with no unsteady hand. For the moment these men, by boldness, promptitude, and sagacity, held down the raging element of mutiny on both banks of the Indus, and finally drew its teeth with little loss.

But for the present we must leave them with these armed traitors all around, to show what General Anson was doing in the first week after the outbreak at Meerut.

We have already caught a glimpse of General Anson, whose distinction among men it was to be the greatest whist-player in either hemisphere. We have seen him at Umballa, misunderstanding the mutiny, and snubbing Sepoys and Sepoy officers for telling tales. He was on the road to Simla, and to Simla he went. Below him were spread out the Cis-Sutlej States, governed chiefly by native Sikh chiefs who owned allegiance to the Company. It was among these that we had sought and found our earliest allies. We have seen how the Rajah of Kuppoorthulla cast his lot at once with ours. There were others ready to follow his example. The whole country below had been for three days in the ferment of mutiny; the troops at Lahore had been disarmed; the movable column had been formed, an outbreak of the 5th and 60th Native Infantry at Umballa on the 10th of May had been frustrated by a mere accident; and blood had been shed at Ferozepore, before General Anson heard that there was any serious mutiny in the army. When the famous message from Delhi reached Umballa, General Barnard sent off Captain Barnard, his aide-de-camp, to inform the Commander-in-Chief. As he passed through Kussowlie, he warned the 75th Foot to be ready to march at a moment's notice. On the 12th he astonished the Commander-in-Chief by presenting the Delhi telegram! It was fortunate for General Anson that he had with him at that moment men like Colonel Chester and Major Norman. Whatever indecision there may have been in the mind of the chief, there was none in that of his subordinates, and when he could not decide, they decided for him. Orders were sent that very night for the march of the 75th and for the 2nd Fusiliers to be ready for marching, and the 1st Bengal Fusiliers at once to Umballa; But General Anson did not stir. Fresh news came in on the 13th, as precise as it was horrible. The[196] 2nd Fusiliers were ordered to march. On the 14th the general and his staff quitted Simla, and the next day they were at Umballa. The 1st Fusiliers arrived the same day; having marched in two nights sixty miles. The 75th had come in, and these, with the 9th Lancers, under Colonel Hope Grant, and two troops of horse artillery, formed a weak but respectable brigade. On the 17th they were joined by the 2nd Fusiliers.

Pending the arrival of General Anson the civil authorities had not been idle. Acting under the inspiration and on the orders of Sir John Lawrence, whose comprehensive mind embraced the whole state of affairs north of Delhi, Mr. Barnes and Mr. Forsyth had called upon the Maharajah of Putteeala, and the Rajahs of Jheend and Nabha, for the aid of troops, provisions, carriage, and it was instantly granted. Detachments of their forces were sent to guard fords and places of importance in the country, to Loodiana, and on the road to Kurnaul. The military commissaries could not meet the immense demand for transport; it was met by the civilians. These were days of vast activity. For the first time European soldiers mounted sentry, and European officers rode and walked in the burning sun. With the aid of the native princes the civilians took firm hold on the country between the Jumna and the Sutlej, and thus secured the road from Delhi to the Punjab, whence troops and ammunition and spirited counsels alone could come.

One of the first acts of General Anson, or rather of his able staff officers, was to organise a siege train at Philour. The order, however, did not reach that fort until the 17th, and four days elapsed before it could be prepared. In the meantime, a Ghoorka battalion near Simla, which nobody doubted was badly managed, broke into mutiny, creating a disgraceful panic at Simla. The siege train had to be entrusted to the escort of the 3rd Native Infantry, encamped at Philour. Part of this regiment, and of the 4th Cavalry, had already been sent to guard a small supply of ammunition for the Europeans. It was said the 3rd had sworn the siege-train should never reach Delhi, and it is not an improbable story; nevertheless, when, hearing that the Ghoorkas were in revolt, they volunteered to act as escort, the offer was accepted. The train crossed the Sutlej, and two hours afterwards the bridge was carried away. Perplexed and harassed by the responsibility thrown upon him, General Anson reached Kurnaul on the 25th; on the 26th he was attacked by cholera, and on the 27th of May he died. It may be said he died of a consciousness of his own incapacity to contend with the gigantic difficulties around him. It was not his fault that he was neither a Lawrence nor a Montgomery, neither a Havelock nor a Campbell; but it was the fault of the British Government that they selected a man of such moderate abilities and no force of character to command the Indian army. On the 26th the Delhi Field Force under Sir Henry Barnard reached Kurnaul, and Sir Henry assumed command. It was now nearly the end of May, twenty days since the mutiny began; and here were the troops from Umballa and the brigade from Meerut converging on a point, to effect a junction and lay siege to Delhi.

By this time the Punjab had been the theatre of more decision and vigour. Sir John Lawrence, Mr. Montgomery, and their able coadjutors had shown how mutiny should be dealt with. No half measures were adopted. They went upon the time-honoured principle that he who is not for us is against us. "Treason and sedition," writes one of the Punjab men, "were dogged into the very privacy of the harem, and up to the sacred sanctuaries of the mosques and shrines." Mr. Montgomery banished red tape. All letters were intercepted; all important ferries, fords, and roads were watched. Rewards were offered for fugitive mutineers, dead or alive. It was soon found that the population were on our side, and the villagers ready to stop mutineers, or to report their movements. The Hindostanee soldiers had boasted throughout the Punjab that they had conquered it, and now it was the turn of the Sikh and the Punjabee. The Sikhs were burning to march on Delhi. More than a century and a half before, Aurungzebe, the Great Mogul, had beheaded a prophet of the Sikhs in his palace at Delhi, and there was a prophecy current that the Sikhs, in conjunction with the British, should sack Delhi, and avenge the death of their martyr Gooroo. This made the work of the British leaders less difficult; but it was, in the middle of May, still a problem whether we should stand or fall.

[197]

SIR JOHN LAWRENCE (AFTERWARDS LORD LAWRENCE).

The Punjab still had to be made safe. Peshawur was not yet secure. The blow to be struck there by the Sepoys had only been parried. The hill tribes looked on with suspicion and doubt. The cantonments were full of intrigue. The Sepoys were the first to draw down on themselves the doom awaiting them. The 55th had been sent from Noushera to Hotee Murdan, and the 64th into their forts near Peshawur. This had reduced the force to be watched to four infantry and three cavalry regiments. They had all heard of the success of their "brothers" at Meerut and Delhi. In spite of vigilant watching and severe measures, these regiments were in close communication. But some of the letters seized not only showed that an extensive conspiracy existed, but revealed its nature. Happily, Colonel Nicholson felt danger in the air, and induced Sir John Lawrence to send back half the 27th Foot to the Indus. Happily, also, the Punjabee troops on the frontier were coming in. But there was no time to lose. The Sepoys in the station were ripe for revolt, and the plot formed was only discovered eight-and-forty hours before the time fixed for its execution. The 51st Native Infantry at Peshawur sent a letter to the 64th and the Khelat-i-Gilzies, inviting them to march into Peshawur on the 22nd of May, and hinting what should then be done. The letter got safely to hand, but the Sepoy who received it took it to the officer commanding at one of the three forts. The officer sent it back instantly to Peshawur, and thus saved the station. Now was the time to disarm the whole of the native troops. It was the 21st of May. Edwardes had just come in from Rawul Pindee. Promptly a council was held, and although the colonels of the Sepoy regiments—as they did every where—vehemently refused to believe that their men were mutinous, Cotton, Edwardes, and Nicholson saw more clearly, and would not be gainsaid. News from Noushera and Hotee Murdan quickened their resolves into acts. The 55th were in open mutiny. Brigadier Cotton decided that the 24th, 27th, and 51st Native Infantry, and the 5th Cavalry should be disarmed on the 22nd. The 21st Native Infantry and the 7th and 15th Irregular Cavalry were still trusted. The hazardous operation was performed with complete[198] success. The British had won again. While the issue was doubtful, the chiefs of the valley had refused to take sides. "Show us that you are stronger," they said, "and there shall be no lack of support." The demonstration of strength was given. On that very day recruits came in by the hundred. "The chiefs of the valley crowded in upon General Cotton, flung their swords on the ground at his feet, and tendered the services of themselves and their vassals." Such it is to be morally intrepid at the right moment and in the right way.

More had to be done, for the 55th were in open mutiny at Noushera and Hotee Murdan. The first-named station lies on the road from Peshawur through Attock on the Indus to Rawul Pindee and Lahore. The second lies to the north, over the Cabul river, which, twisting down through the rocky bottom of the Khyber pass, joins the Indus near Attock. The 55th had marched to Noushera on the 13th. The 27th Foot had gone eastward. The Guides were hurrying towards Delhi. The 55th held Hotee Murdan, had two companies at Noushera, and one on the right bank of the Indus, opposite Attock. There, too, were a hundred Pathans, under Futteh Khan, once a captain in the Guides, and in the fort of Attock were the 5th Punjabees. The 55th men opposite Attock tried to seduce the Pathans from their allegiance; but these were true and revealed the secret. Finding they were discovered, the 55th men mutinied and made for Noushera. Here they were met and captured by the 10th Irregulars, but from these they were rescued by their comrades in the station. It happened that Lieutenant Davies had under his orders a few men of the 27th Foot, who were guarding the sick, and the women and children of the regiment, and these, though few in number, displayed so bold a front that the mutineers recoiled, and hurried away to Hotee Murdan. But, finding that the bridge of boats over the Cabul river had been broken, the greater part marched back and only a few joined their regiment. When the 55th heard that a force under Nicholson was coming against them from Peshawur, they prepared to hurry off into the hills, but were caught and scattered like dust before the wind.

From Hotee Murdan, the Peshawur column, under Colonel Chute, moved upon the three forts, garrisoned by the 64th Native Infantry and the Khelat-i-Gilzies. Chute reached the first fort, Aboozai, and easily disarmed the men of the 64th who were there. He reached Subkuddur the next day, and disarmed the men of the 64th, both in that fort and in Fort Michnee. Peshawur was no longer in danger; the whole of the trans-Indus region had been secured. It had been shown that although the Irregular Hindostanee Cavalry could not be trusted, yet that the Punjabees were true, for the men of the 5th had not hesitated a moment to shoot a cavalry mutineer, who had incited his comrades to murder an officer. Improving on their bold policy, the leaders at Peshawur levied new corps among the frontier tribes—hitherto our direst foes—and found them trusty warriors; drew enough men from the British Infantry to make a squadron of horse, and mounted them on the chargers of the disarmed native cavalry; formed in like manner a battery, took the Sikhs out of the disarmed regiments, re-armed them, and placed them in a separate regiment. The old Sikh leaders eagerly came forward, and soon there was the nucleus of a new and trusty native army of Sikhs and Punjabees. It is recorded of a frontier chief that when he heard the story of the Meerut and Delhi atrocities, filled with rage, he spat on the ground, and said with wrath, "Who can charge us with ever touching a helpless woman or defenceless child? No! we would not do it, not for a prince's ransom!" And it was true.

The North-West was now completely cut off from Calcutta. The 9th Native Infantry, stationed at different towns on the trunk road between Agra and Delhi, mutinied on the 20th, 22nd, 23rd, and 24th of May, and marched to Delhi. Some gallant Europeans—Mr. Patterson Sanders, a zemindar of those parts, among them—forming a little squadron of cavalry, remained for months afterwards about Allyghur; but with this exception British rule ceased in the Doab below Delhi. At Agra, indeed, the British stood out bravely amid a sea of mutiny roaring around them, suffered their moments of peril, had their combats and hair-breadth escapes, but nevertheless survived. At the end of May mutinies increased on all sides. Let the reader bear in mind that, from the 10th of May onwards, there were, day after day, incessant explosions of Sepoy regiments, sometimes bloody and cruel, sometimes mild—that is, not followed by the slaughter of many of our kin. The track of the mutiny ran from the Delhi country eastward, through the Doab into Behar, and north and south, marking Rohilcund and Oude, and Central India, with many bloody spots; for the Sepoys were many, and the British were few—so few, that they could be reckoned by hundreds, while their exasperated foes were numbered[199] by thousands and tens of thousands. While the Delhi field force was getting itself together, siege train and all, while the men of the Punjab were fighting their great fight with their Sepoys, the military revolution was growing supreme in every province garrisoned by Hindostanees, until only Agra and Lucknow, like rocks in that turbulent ocean, were left to bear the British flag and shelter men of British race. Before following the army to Delhi, let us look nearer at the mutiny, now blazing so far and wide.

We shall take the events in chronological order. On the 16th of May the native sappers stationed at Roorkee were ordered to march to Meerut. They mutinied, slew Captain Fraser, and strode away to Delhi. On the 20th, a spy, caught and surrendered by the 9th Native Infantry at Allyghur, was hanged in the presence of the regiment, the bulk of whom seemed to approve. But one suddenly crying, as he pointed to the corpse, "Behold a martyr to our religion!" the whole of the companies present broke into mutiny. They spared the officers, but plundered the place, liberated the convicts, and marched to Delhi. In four days the whole regiment was in revolt; but it is distinguished among other regiments, because it did not commit murder. At Mynpooree, Lieutenant De Kantzow rendered himself conspicuous by his sterling courage. He stood up against the mutineers, exhorting, remonstrating, threatening. When some pointed their muskets at him, he folded his arms and bade them fire if they dared. When they tried to storm the treasury, he was there to resist, and, aided by the gaol-guard, he induced the raging multitude to turn away. They went off to Delhi, and De Kantzow received the thanks of Lord Canning, and a command. On the 28th the Hurrianah battalion rose at Hansee and Hissar, a few miles south-west of the Great Road from Delhi to Kurnaul, and murdered every European they could overpower; and on the same day, showing how the mutineers acted from a common feeling, the 15th and 30th Native Infantry stationed at Nusseerabad, in Rajpootana, seized their arms and a native battery, and began to shed blood. The 1st Bombay Lancers charged them, but without effect, and then retreated, with the surviving Europeans, to a place of safety, while the mutineers went forth towards the common centre, Delhi.

Two days afterwards, the Lucknow Brigade showed itself in its true colours; within twelve hours the Bareilly Brigade revolted, and within a week the whole of Rohilcund and Oude, save Lucknow, had been wrested from British rule. Lucknow city stands on the right bank of the Goomtee, one of the tributaries of the sacred Ganges. Within the city was a most turbulent population; without, a camp swarming with mutinous Sepoys. The only men who could be trusted wholly were the 32nd Foot and the Europeans, civilians, merchants, and traders dwelling in Lucknow. The chief commissioner was Sir Henry Lawrence; the Financial Commissioner, Mr. Gubbins. Another commissioner was Major Banks. Colonel Inglis commanded the 32nd Foot, and Brigadier Gray the native troops. In and near the cantonments were 4,800 foot, and 2,100 horse, with two batteries of artillery. In the whole of Oude there were 19,200 native troops, and only one British regiment and one company of British artillery, in all 800 men. These last were at Lucknow. Thus, there were upwards of twenty to one against us. But in the mutinies about to occur, all our enemies did not turn upon us at once; and such preparations had been made to secure a stronghold, that, when nearly all had fallen away, there still remained a place of refuge for the civilians and traders, and a place for all to defend.

Nearly the whole of the troops in Oude were ripe for revolt, and the people were becoming suspicious of our ability to maintain our power. The state of transition from the rule of the ex-king to that of the Governor-General helped to create disaffection. The sway of the former was irregular and inequitable; the sway of the latter, though regular and equitable, had not come fully into play. In Oude, the maxim of all was, and had long been, every one for himself. The villagers were accustomed to resistance; the talookdars, rulers of petty and sometimes extensive districts, were accustomed to revolt. In the latter end of May Sir Henry Lawrence sent a small column, under Captain Hutchinson—who wrote an interesting memoir of the mutinies—to move about between the Goomtee and the Ganges, and fourteen miles from Lucknow this column was watched by armed villagers. The great province of Oude, so full of fighting men, had not, like the Punjab, been disarmed when it was annexed, and we were about to pay the penalty of over-confidence. This column had not been gone two days before the troops in the cantonment mutinied.

As usual, they gave no premonitory sign. It was well known that the native troops might break out any day, and on the 30th of May a Sepoy reported that the troops would rise in the[200] evening; but the brigadier did not believe the report, and did not forward it to Sir Henry Lawrence. In the twilight the 71st and the 7th Cavalry turned out and began firing. They tried to surprise the officers and the mess-house, but these were too quick for them. Sir Henry repaired to the camp of the 32nd, which was soon under arms, with the guns ready for action. The mutineers shot Brigadier Handscomb dead, and then essayed to charge the 32nd and the guns. But grape shot proved enough for them. Falling back, they slew Lieutenant Grant, The 13th and 48th were drawn up on parade, but would not act, and only a few of the 71st, and 200 of the 13th, and fifty-seven of the 48th could be got to follow their officers to the side of the British. The Sepoys seized the magazine, and plundered the officers' bungalows, in spite of some gallant efforts to prevent them. The 32nd, with the few faithful Sepoys, remained under arms all night. In the morning Sir Henry pursued the mutineers, who fled away before him. The scoundrels in the city now rose, but they were speedily and severely punished; and Sir Henry was able to raise 3,000 police, who, under Captain Carnegie, did good service. Some of the mutineers struck across country for the Ganges and Delhi.

On the very day after this outburst at Lucknow, on Sunday, the 31st, Bareilly and Shahjehanpore were the scenes of horrible atrocities. At the latter, the 28th Native Infantry selected the moment when the Europeans were at church, and tried to slay them altogether; but they failed. Mr. Ricketts was killed in the church, with others, and Major James fell on the parade ground. The greater number took to the country, and reached Mohumdee. Here they found Captain Patrick Orr, with a company of the 9th Oude, and these were reinforced by fifty men from Seetapore. Captain Orr extracted from the native officers an oath binding them to escort the whole party to Seetapore; but they had not gone far before the troops turned them adrift to go where they pleased. They went, but the ruffian Sepoys soon followed, and near Aurungabad began the work of murder. The Sepoys, strangely enough, saved Orr and a drummer boy, and took them to Lonee Singh, of Mithowlee.

The tragedy at Bareilly made a deep impression. That Sunday was a day fatal to the British. At Bareilly there were two regiments of native infantry, one of cavalry, and a battery, under Brigadier Sibbald. Happily, the women and children had been sent to the hills. There were no European troops in Rohilcund; the Sepoys had nothing to fear. They had only delayed the execution of their intentions in the hope that their officers could be induced to call their wives and children from Nynee Tal. Finding the hope vain, they mutinied in the most complete way. On that quiet Sunday, being all agreed, they suddenly opened with both grape and musketry on the officers, while a detachment released 3,000 felons, and the fierce Rohillas rushed out to burn and slay. The devastation of the camp completed the day's work. Khan Bahadar Khan, an old servant of the Company, proclaimed himself king, and appointed a native officer of artillery to be his general. Then he held a court, tried two European judges, found them guilty, and caused them to be hanged. The Bareilly Brigade was not long in marching to Delhi, but nothing, except the fatuity of General Hewitt, saved it from disruption, if not destruction, at a ferry over the Ganges.

Seetapore, in the westernmost division of Oude, lies on the Sureyan river, about fifty miles north of Lucknow. It was the seat of government for Khyrabad. The commissioner there was Mr. George Christian. The troops there consisted wholly of natives, one regiment being the 41st Native Infantry, the others being Oude Irregulars. Here, too, mutiny was felt to be in the air. Here, too, the British officers refused to believe that their men could revolt, and even Mr. Christian believed he could trust the Oude Irregulars. All the troops were paid on the 2nd of June; on the 3rd they broke into mutiny. Like the regiments at Bareilly, these men reproached their officers because they had sent their women and children into the commissioner's house. How many were actually slain at Seetapore is not known, but twenty-four can be named and numbered—among them Mr. and Mrs. Christian. Among those who escaped towards the hills on the north was Captain Hearsey of the Military Police, whose men protected him and even saved two ladies. The wanderings of Captain Hearsey and the fugitives from different quarters whom he met, surpass in romantic incidents the inventions of the novelist. After eight months' wanderings, Hearsey rejoined the army of Sir Colin Campbell, by making an immense detour through the hills, and issuing into the plains far north of Meerut.

[201]

DE KANTZOW DEFENDING THE TREASURY AT MYNPOOREE. (See p. 199.)

The mutiny of Jhansi was even more tragic than this of Seetapore. Jhansi was formerly one of the independent principalities of the extensive region known as Bundelcund. It stands between the Betwa and the Sinde rivers, two affluents of the Jumna, and is 100 miles from Calpee and 150 from Agra. It had been annexed by Lord Dalhousie. He had refused to recognise the adopted heir of the last Rajah, and the Ranee, his wife, refused, so angered was she, to accept a pension from the British Government. There were parts of two regiments at Jhansi. The Ranee, an able and bold woman, saw her opportunity for revenge had come. As soon as she heard of the successful mutinies of the Sepoys in the North-West, she instigated the regiments in her city to follow their example. The Europeans had determined to make a stand in the fort, and this they provisioned; but a company of Sepoys entered on the 4th of June, and declared they intended to hold the fort, thus depriving the British of a defensible post. A parade was held; the Sepoys were respectful, and swore to stand by their officers. The place of refuge now selected by the residents was the town fort. In a few hours the whole native force was in revolt. The cavalry began the fray. Riding over the plain, they met and shot two officers of the 12th Native Infantry. "They then made a rush at their own commanding officer, who, well mounted, was making for the fort; but, though they managed to wound him, he reached the fort in safety, and our countrymen on the ramparts, opening fire on his pursuers, killed some five or six of them.... With loud shouts, the mutineers then proceeded against the fort, and on the second day the Ranee sent her guns and elephants to assist them. But there was not only force without, there was treachery within. The Europeans numbered only fifty-five, including women and children; the natives who were with them were numerically superior. Two of these, brothers, were discovered in the act of opening one of the gates to the enemy. Lieutenant Powys, who saw them, instantly shot one dead, and was himself cut down by the brother. Captain Burgess avenged him in a second, and the assassins lay side by side in the ditch. But provisions were failing them; two attempts to communicate with Nagode and Gwalior had been abortive; some Europeans who had tried to escape over the parapet had been caught and killed; all appeared[202] hopeless. At this crisis the Ranee sent to say that if they would surrender their lives should be spared, and they should be sent safely to some other station. She swore, the troopers of the cavalry swore, the Sepoys swore, the native gunners swore, to adhere to these terms. Seizing this as the only chance of life—unable, indeed, to hold out for twenty-four hours longer—the garrison surrendered. They came out, two and two; as they advanced through the line of cavalry and infantry, they saw none but hostile faces; but there was no movement against them. At last, every Christian had quitted the fort. Then was commenced a deed of ruthless treachery, unsurpassed even by the Nana Sahib. The gates were shut behind them; they were seized, the men and women separated, and tied together in two rows, facing one another; the children standing by their mothers. The men were then decapitated, the children were seized, and cut in halves before their mothers' eyes; and last of all, the ladies found what, under those circumstances, they must have felt to be a happy release in death."

In the interval between the 4th and the 10th of June the whole of the troops at Cawnpore and throughout Oude had revolted. Cawnpore demands a separate story, and we turn again to Oude.

There were five considerable stations. On the 8th the troops at every one became their own masters. The military station in the Bareytch division, north of Lucknow, was Secrora. The Commissioner of the Division, Mr. Wingfield, later Chief Commissioner of Oude, was at Secrora. Feeling that the two regiments and battery there would mutiny, the ladies and children were sent by the officers to Lucknow on the 7th, and were met halfway by a body of Sikhs and volunteer horse, and taken to the residency. Mr. Wingfield rode off to Gonda, determined to take refuge at Bulrampore. The next day all the remaining officers, except Lieutenant Bonham, started for Gonda, for the troops rose and bade them go. Lieutenant Bonham was protected by his men for a day. Then he, too, was obliged to leave, and he made his way across country to Lucknow. The Europeans at Gonda were now forced to retreat, and they were fortunate in finding shelter at Bulrampore, and they finally got into Goruckpore, and were saved. But three officers, all in the civil service, retreating from Bareytch disguised as natives, were recognised at the main ferry over the Gogra, and all murdered, after they had made a gallant defence.

The division of Fyzabad lies to the south-east of Lucknow, and extends from the Ganges to the Gogra. The chief station was Fyzabad, a town on the left bank of the Gogra, just then notorious for the sharp quarrel which had occurred in the previous February between the Moslems and Hindoos. Here lay in gaol that moulvie who had traversed Hindostan preaching sedition, and whose daring had compelled the Government to employ force against him, and to put him in prison. There were two regiments of infantry, one of cavalry, and a horse battery at Fyzabad. These were known to be so disposed to mutiny that the civilians had sent their wives and children to Shahgunge, a fort belonging to Rajah Maun Sing, a powerful talookdar. Several other European women and children joined them, but some of the officers' wives remained. On the 8th it was clear that the dreaded moment was at hand. Mutineers were coming up the river from Goruckpore and Azimghur, notably the 17th Native Infantry, whose agents entered the lines at Fyzabad, and summoned the troops there to join. This they did on the night of the 8th of June. "They did not go through the form of pretending a grievance, but said they were strong enough to turn us out of the country, and intended to do it." Nevertheless, these men would not murder their officers. They provided them with money and boats wherewith to descend the Gogra, and then, with horrible treachery, instigated the 17th to waylay the boats at Begumgunge and kill the Europeans. Twenty officers and sergeants and one lady embarked in four boats. Of these only six escaped; for as the boats approached Begumgunge, the Sepoys of the 17th opened fire on the fugitives. Some fell wounded, others were killed.

At Sultanpore were Fisher's Irregulars and two foot regiments. Colonel Fisher, the commandant, sent away the ladies and children, who, befriended by Madho Sing, reached Allahabad, plundered, but alive. But the Military Police shot Colonel Fisher, his own men, who "liked him," looking on. They slew Captain Gibbings, and ordered Lieutenant Tucker to be gone. Mr. Block and Mr. Stroyan were also cruelly and treacherously murdered near Sultanpore. The British at Salone on the Sye, and Durriabad, north of the Goomtee, receiving protection from zemindars and talookdars, their lives were preserved. It was thus that, in ten days, all the native troops in Oude freed themselves from British control; and by a sort of common impulse directed their steps towards Nawabgunge Bara Baukee, which became the point of concentration for the meditated attack on Lucknow.

[203]

## CHAPTER XIII.

Reign of Victoria (continued).

> March of the British on Delhi—Battles on the Hindon—Wilson joins Barnard—Hodson reconnoitres Delhi—Battle of Badlee Serai—Behold Delhi!—The Guides arrive—Outbreak at Jallandhar—Johnstone and Ricketts—The Delhi Force in Position—The Enemy assume the Offensive—A "Mistake of Orders"—Destruction of a Battery—A Three Days' Battle—An Unfulfilled Prophecy—Reinforcements arrive—Lord Canning's Inaction—Lord Elphinstone's Discretion—Troops from Madras and Persia—Benares is saved—So is Allahabad—Cawnpore—Nana Sahib and Azimoolah—The Europeans in the Entrenchment—The Mutiny—The Sepoys start for Delhi—Nana Sahib brings them back—Sufferings of the Garrison—Valour of the Defence—The Well—The Hospital catches Fire—Incidents of the Siege—Moore's Sortie—Nana Sahib's Letter—The Massacre at the Ghaut—Central India—Lawrence fortifies the Residency at Lucknow—An ineffectual Sortie—The Defences contracted—The Death of Lawrence.

IT is necessary to return to Delhi again, to bring the British force well up before its walls, and show the Punjab authorities once more in action. We left the troops under Sir Henry Barnard advancing slowly towards Delhi. Among them were the 60th Native Infantry; but instead of disarming them, he placed Colonel Thomas Seaton at their head, and sent them to Rhotuck, in the vain hope that they would escape the contagion. Of course in due time they mutinied, but did not kill their officers; and we may dismiss them here with the remark that the Sepoys swelled the rebel army, and the officers joined the British. Thanks to the journey made by the gallant Hodson, of Hodson's Horse, the Meerut force were under orders to march on Bhagput, where there was a bridge over the Jumna. They were to reach this place and cross on the 1st of June. Accordingly, on the 27th of May, Colonel Archdale Wilson collected his little brigade. It consisted of half a battalion of the 60th Rifles, two batteries, and two squadrons of the Carabineers, with a few native sappers and troopers. The King of Delhi had got wind of this movement, and he sent out a body of mutineers to meet the column. Wilson's force encamped on the 30th on the Hindon, a feeder of the Jumna, crossed by an iron bridge at Ghazeeoodeen Nugger. The rebel force took up a position on their own side of the river. The warning of their proximity given by the outposts was followed by the fire of their cannon. Two heavy round shot were flung into the camp, wounding two bearers. In a moment the force was under arms. A company of the Rifles took possession of the bridge. Major Tombs, with four guns and a troop of dragoons, dashed along the river and took the enemy in flank, while two 18-pounders, posted in front, soon shook the nerves of the rebel gunners over the river. Then, seeing their fire growing unsteady, the Rifles on the bridge were reinforced, and, led by Colonel John Jones, they charged and captured five rebel guns. Thus in a short time the mutineers were worsted in the first pitched battle. They hurried away so fast that pursuit was impossible, and were so cowed that the very Goojurs despoiled their stragglers of arms and accoutrements. We lost one killed and thirty-one wounded. But fresh forces came out from Delhi to retrieve their lost military honour. Our advance was now over the bridge in a burnt village. The enemy, who came up on Whitsunday, the 31st of May, posted themselves on a ridge, with a village on their left. The fight began by a fire from their heavy guns, which were rapidly answered, by Tombs and Light, with 9- and 18-pounders. For two hours the contest was one of artillery, during which the Carabineers were drawn up in the open ground to protect our guns. Then the Rifles charged upon the village occupied by the enemy, and forced them out. The Sepoys, in this fight, kept as far as possible out of musketry range and would not allow our soldiers a chance of coming to close quarters. As we moved on, although we were hundreds and they thousands, they fell back, and when we crowned the ridge the discomfited army was seen in the distance hurrying along the Delhi road. Our loss was six killed in battle, three by sunstroke and twelve were wounded. After this fight, Wilson's force halted four days, during which 100 Rifles and the Sirmour battalion of Ghoorkas, under Major Reid, came up from Meerut—a welcome addition to the brigade.

Marching towards the Jumna on the 4th of June, they crossed it on the 6th by the bridge of boats at Bhagput, which Hodson had taken care should be in order. On the 7th they joined the main body under Barnard, which had arrived at Alipore. The force now numbered 2,400 infantry, 600 horsemen, and twenty-two field guns.[204] The siege train from Philour, with 100 European artillerymen, strengthened the little army, and all was ready for grappling with the enemy. Very early on the 7th Hodson rode out, accompanied by a dozen native troopers. He went up to the very parade ground before Delhi, scaring away the rebel vedettes and reconnoitring the place so well that it was on his information the general based his plans. The infantry were divided into two brigades; one, consisting of the 75th and the 1st Bengal Fusiliers, under Colonel Showers; the second, consisting of the 60th Rifles, the 2nd Bengal Fusiliers, and the Ghoorkas, under Brigadier Graves. With each brigade went some horse and guns; the remaining horse formed a cavalry brigade under Colonel Hope Grant, with two troops of horse artillery. These soldiers had come down from Umballa and Meerut, under a blazing sun of the Indian June with the wind blowing, when it blew, in a current of "liquid fire." Cholera had stricken down officers and men. The soldiers were fretful from impatience to fight. Few armies have ever marched to battle animated by so fiery a spirit of revenge.

Before daylight on the 8th of June the army began its forward movement. The Sepoys had taken a post of vantage a few miles north of Delhi. They formed across the Great Road at the serai of Badlee. A serai is a square walled enclosure, having a tower at each angle, one door, and a flat roof. It contains many small chambers for the use of travellers, and is loopholed all round. Thus, it is really a strong post. Badlee Serai lay a little to the west of the Great Road. Around it was the Sepoy camp; and in front, on a hillock commanding the road, they had made a sandbag battery for four heavy guns and an 8-inch howitzer for grape. On both sides of the road the ground is swampy, having pools here and there. The left flank of the Sepoys was covered by the Delhi canal, which ran parallel to the road, and was crossed by bridges not far from each other. This was the position which Hodson had looked at the day before. The plan of attack was simple. Sir Henry Barnard, with the main body, was to assail the front from the Great Road; while Hope Grant turned the left flank with three squadrons of the 9th Lancers, under Colonel Yule, fifty Jheend Horse, under Hodson, or 350 lances, and ten horse-artillery guns, under Tombs, Turner, and Bishop. This little force moved out of camp first, and crossed the canal near Alipore, with the intention of recrossing it in rear of the Sepoys, thus cutting them off from Delhi. The main column, 1,900 infantry, 170 horse, and fourteen guns, marched later, but still in the dusk before dawn. A march of five miles brought them within sight of the Sepoy camps, where the lights were still burning. As our troops were moving down the road the enemy opened fire, and our guns coming rapidly into action, the battle began. The left brigade, under Graves, was still in the rear, when the 75th and the 1st Fusiliers deployed to the right of the road, and soon felt the weight of the heavy shot from the sandbag battery, which our light guns could not silence. Time was precious, but men were more so, and it would never do to play at long bowls with the mutineers. Grant's horsemen were not in sight, but the left brigade were hurrying up, when Sir Henry Barnard ordered the 75th to carry the battery. The men eagerly obeyed. Moving on steadily over rough and watery ground, they were exposed to a fire so heavy that in a few minutes nearly a hundred fell. But without a halt they pressed on, and bringing down the bayonet to the charge, surged into the battery. The 1st Fusiliers had supported the 75th, and soon joined them, when the two regiments dashed at the serai and stormed it. The left brigade had now come up. Grant's cavalry, delayed by watercourses which obstructed the progress of the guns, debouched on the left rear of the rebels, and these scattering and fleeing, left our troops masters of their camp and the greater part of their guns.

The enemy had fled, but not yet into Delhi. They had halted on the ridge overlooking that city, and here seemed disposed to make a stand. Sir Henry Barnard, with one brigade and guns, moved to the left, upon the cantonment lines, while Brigadier Wilson with the remainder took the road to the Subzee Mundi, a suburb of Delhi, while Reid's Ghoorkas extended between the two. The march of the main body had to be performed under fire, which, as the troops were filing over a canal bridge, proved very galling. But they went on with a will, and emerging from the old lines, near the Flagstaff Tower, opened fire and instantly silenced the enemy's guns. The 60th and the 2nd Fusiliers, charging, took the guns, and sweeping along the ridge, arrived at a building at the right extremity, called the Hindoo Rao's house, and destined to be famous in the siege. Here the whole force rallied, Wilson having cleared the Subzee Mundi and captured a gun. All this time the Sepoys in Delhi cannonaded the British from the walls. It was now noon, and the troops withdrew behind the ridge to the camp, after posting pickets[205] at the Hindoo Rao's house, and in the Flagstaff Tower. Thirteen guns had been captured; our loss was fifty-one killed and 152 wounded; among the former was Colonel Chester, Adjutant-General. The loss of the enemy is supposed to have been about 400 killed and wounded. So far, a good beginning had been made; but instead of rushing into Delhi with the enemy, here was the little force obliged to sit down and begin a siege destined to last three months.

HODSON RECONNOITRING BEFORE DELHI. (See p. 204.)

At length, then, behold Delhi. There lay the prize which might have been seized by a bold march from Meerut, on the night of the 10th of May, under an Edwardes or a Nicholson, but which now, swarming with the soldiers of sixteen or eighteen corps of our own training, having in its arsenal and magazine a practically inexhaustible supply of guns and ammunition, defied the gallant few who, after a month's delay, once more looked down upon the handsome walls and beautiful buildings. And trooping along from all points were mutineers hastening to rally round the Great Mogul, and dispute for empire with the pale faces.

Early on the morning of the 9th there was a scene in camp well worth recording, because, in many respects, it illustrates forcibly the transition from the old to the new. There came into the camp squadrons of swarthy horsemen and dusky foot. An officer was out riding; suddenly horse and foot closed upon him, surrounding him, shouting, and "behaving like frantic creatures." They seized his bridle, his dress, his hands, his feet; they threw themselves before his horse, and wept for joy, hailing him in their own tongue as "Great in Battle." The officer was Hodson, the warriors were the horse and foot of the Guide Corps, which had started just three weeks before, from Hotee Murdan, beyond the Indus, 580 miles away. These real soldiers had crossed the Punjab and the Cis-Sutlej States in twenty-one days, doing thirty miles a day, and halting only three days, and then by order. Three hours after they entered the camp the Sepoys showed fight, and the Guides were at once to the front, engaging the enemy[206] hand to hand, and coming out with one officer, Quentin Battye, mortally, and every other officer more or less, wounded. Such was the first exploit of the force which had been raised through the prescience of Sir Henry Lawrence.

While the British, the Ghoorkas, and the Guides were establishing themselves before Delhi, a fresh mutiny in the Punjab threatened for a moment the safety of the Great Road to Lahore. The Sepoys broke out at Jhallandhar. The reader will remember that here were the 36th and 61st Native Infantry and the 6th Cavalry; that it was from this station the troops went out who secured Philour; and that here incipient mutiny, on the 12th of May, had been checked by menace and precaution. Brigadier Johnstone succeeded Colonel Hartley on the 17th of May, and from that time the effects of a feebler hand are discernible. The brigadier humoured the Sepoys, listened to the prayers of their colonels, who here, as elsewhere, were infatuated, and, on the plea of conciliation, gave in to their demands. He was exhorted to disarm Sepoys who could not be expected to resist the contagious example of their brothers, neither could he resist the reproaches and appeals of their officers. He had an ample European force. Captain Rothney halted his famous 4th Sikhs, and Charles Nicholson brought in the 2nd Punjab Cavalry, to aid in the disarming. The brigadier could not make up his mind; and these could stay no longer. At length, when it was too late, Brigadier Johnstone determined to do what he should have done before: too late, for the Sepoys took the initiative, rose on the 7th of June, led, as usual, by the Moslem cavalry, fired the station and shot some of their officers. They called on the native gunners to join, but these replied with grapeshot and would have given more such effective replies had not the brigadier stopped them. All was soon confusion. The Europeans were not allowed to act. The mutineers had it all their own way. For an hour and a half they burnt, plundered, and murdered, and then marched off, unpursued. About 200 remained staunch to their officers; and one whole company, kept in order by a subahdar, preserved the treasury, containing £10,000. The rest decamped, part going towards Loodiana, part taking the hill road, and striking the Sutlej higher up. The former got safely off, the latter met with unexpected resistance, being intercepted by Mr. Ricketts with a small force of Sikhs. And where was the European force from Jhallandhar? In camp near Philour, within hearing of the sound of Ricketts' solitary gun, yet forbidden to move by the brigadier, who thought them too fatigued! Had half the force marched up the river, and opened only on those mutineers who had not crossed, how different would have been the result! As it was, the mutineers were able to enter Loodiana, open the gaol, burn the church and the mission houses, try ineffectually to destroy the powder in the fort, and then fly in a panic across country towards Delhi. Had they moved down the Great Road they would have swept everything before them. A few days later Mr. Ricketts, having the passing aid of Coke's Punjabees, disarmed the town, seized and punished the ringleaders in the late riots and inflicted a heavy fine on the community. Sir John Lawrence also felt the necessity of securing Umritsir, and thither he sent Nicholson with the movable column; while at the other extremity of the Punjab, Crawford Chamberlain, acting on Sir John's orders, very deftly disarmed the native infantry and cavalry at Mooltan by the aid of two Punjab regiments and a European battery.

While these blows were parried in their rear, the army before Delhi had made good its position. It was strong and defensible. To the north of Delhi, some two miles, there is a sandstone ridge running nearly parallel to the course of the Jumna—that is, north-north-east. The slope from the city walls is gradual, but somewhat broken. The plateau on the summit is tolerably flat, and along the whole course of the ridge, but well in rear—that is, north of it,—lay the lines of the camp. The ridge, in fact, may be roughly described as the right bank of the Jumna, to which it approaches at its northern, and from which it recedes at its southern, end. This was the position of the besieging army. Its left rested on the ridge near the river; its centre was behind the Flagstaff Tower; its right at the butt end of the ridge, where the ground fell rapidly towards the Subzee Mundi and Kishengunge, suburbs of Delhi, facing its western walls and set in gardens and groves. At this end the ridge was crowned by a house formerly belonging to a Mahratta chief, and called the Hindoo Rao's house; and here we quickly established a battery, and made a strong post to defend that side. The Grand Trunk Road to Loodiana and Lahore, going from the Cashmere Gate, ascended the ridge, and crossed it to the east of the Flagstaff Tower, and a good road ran along the interior of the ridge parallel to it, thus tying together the position. From this ridge, but especially from Rao's house, Delhi was visible, standing up bold and distinct in the clear air, with its stout red[207] walls and bastions, and white buildings embowered in trees. Between the ridge and the city the ground was rugged, and dotted all over with houses, mosques, tombs, and ruins, rising up among clumps of trees. Such was the base of our attack; for on the south, the whole of the country, as far as Agra, was in the hands of the enemy; the river protected the eastern face, and we had no choice but to assail the north.

As soon as the force settled down on the ridge, the enemy commenced a series of attacks which may be described as incessant. This was policy, for it harassed the besiegers, and kept the Sepoys in good heart, although they were invariably beaten. The first of these was on the 9th of June. They issued from the Lahore Gate on the west, covered by a cannonade from the Moree bastion, at the north-western angle, and, moving on the right flank of the position, strove to storm the ridge. But in vain. The Guides, coming up to support the Rifles and Ghoorkas, charged so vigorously that the Sepoys were driven up to the very walls with great loss. On the 10th and the 11th the mutineers sent up fresh men to turn and carry the right, and paid heavily for their temerity. The heavy guns were now in battery on a knoll forming part of the garden of the Hindoo Rao's house, but their fire was not sufficient to silence, barely to cope with, that of the enemy from his bastions. Our officers began to respect the rebel artillerymen, whose guns were so accurately laid that some could only account for it by supposing that there were European deserters in their ranks. On the 12th the enemy, tired of trying the right, fell unexpectedly on the left. There, in front and due east of the Flagstaff Tower, stood the house and grounds of Sir T. Metcalfe, just where the fertile soil ends and the sands of the Jumna begin. Here the mutineers had established a garrison and a battery; and from this, on the morning of the 12th, they pushed out a large force, which by stealthy movements approached within musket-shot of the Flagstaff Tower, without being detected. There were a few of the 75th and two guns in position. The Sepoys turned its flank and, pressing vigorously forward, gained the ridge and even crossed it. For a moment the whole of that side was in extreme peril; but the 75th soon rallied, and the guns began to play. Then supports came up—1st Fusiliers, Guides, Rifles. A steady charge was made, and the enemy, cut up and bayoneted, rolled down the hill. The charge became eager. The pursued went fast, but the pursuers were almost as speedy; and seeing the opportunity, chased the men into and out of Metcalfe's house, and up to the walls of Delhi. Thus won, this advanced post was held and made the most of, completely barring the way to any force directed on our left, and placing us so far nearer Delhi. This sharp onset had no sooner been repulsed than the enemy showed himself on the right. It was a clumsy attempt at a combined attack on both flanks. Issuing from the Subzee Mundi, on our right rear, the Sepoys made a fruitless effort to mount the hill. The Ghoorkas and Rifles on picket, and part of the 1st Fusiliers, met them, drove them back, and chased them out of the enclosures, killing a goodly number. No quarter was given. The loss inflicted on them in these fights was estimated at 400 killed.

On the 11th five young officers, Hodson, Wilberforce, Greathed, Chesney, and Maunsell, were directed to sit in council, and draw up a plan showing how they would take Delhi out of hand. Their plan was simple enough. They proposed that all the infantry available, some 1,800 men, should move at midnight down to the walls, blow in two gates with powder bags and, storming in, surprise and capture the place. The general took the plan, considered it, adopted it, and issued his orders. The thing was to be done on the night of the 12th, on the heels of the repulse inflicted that day. The young men were sanguine of success, and eager to try—none more so than Hodson. Part of the troops marched; they reached their stations, then halted and reconnoitred: all was still; but the remainder did not arrive; instead of the remainder, came an order to retire. Brigadier Graves refused to believe that the general intended to leave the camp in charge of native troops and horsemen; and in place of sending his infantry, went himself to remonstrate with Sir Henry Barnard. The brigadier admitted readily that the city could be taken, but doubted whether it could be held. Sir Henry hesitated, time was lost, and so he gave way. The conduct of the brigadier is described both by Hodson and Norman as a "mistake of orders." This mistake was bitterly censured at the time, but we cannot help agreeing with those who are thankful for the delay, since even success would have saved no one from massacre, and would have sent a horde of armed ruffians pouring down the unprotected south road; whereas for three months Delhi served as a rallying-place and the Sepoys were kept together.

Unsuspicious of the danger hanging over them, the enemy were still full of fight, and encounters, more or less sharp, continued every day. The front[208] and flanks of the position were now more strongly secured, as it was plain that Delhi could not be taken until large reinforcements of infantry, more guns, and especially more gunners, arrived. Major Reid held the Hindoo Rao's house with his Ghoorkas, commanding Kishengunge and protecting the batteries. Major Tombs had charge of a post to the right rear, over against the Subzee Mundi. The whole front was strengthened by entrenchments, and Hodson kept both eyes on the rear. But they were not content to stand still and repel attacks. Few though they were, they could show their teeth on occasions. On the 17th the enemy, under cover of a very severe cannonade, threw a large force on to a hill near the Eedgah, a walled enclosure, and there began to work on a battery, which, when finished, would enfilade the position on the ridge. Sir Henry Barnard determined to stop this dangerous move; in the afternoon he formed two columns, one under Major Reid, the other under Major Tombs. Starting from our right flank, Reid pushed straight through Kishengunge, and emerged on the right of the new rebel battery, while Tombs, having made a detour, fell upon their left. The new battery was soon carried; the magazine blown up; the mutineers were hunted from garden to garden; the doors of four serais were destroyed, and one gun was carried off by the gallant Tombs. The enemy lost about 300 killed and wounded. Considering the nature of the country, our loss was trifling—three killed and twelve wounded.

The rebels, however, now received a large reinforcement. The brigade that had mutinied at Nusseerabad, in Scindia's country, on the 28th of May, entered Delhi on the 17th of June, and on the 19th were sent out to fight their old masters. Their tactics were new. They resolved to operate strategically, and cut us off from the Punjab. With this object they marched out with much ostentation at mid-day, filing bravely through the Lahore Gate, traversing Kishengunge, and disappearing from view to the westward. The movement had been, of course, observed by Reid and Tombs, and the whole force turned out, but they turned in again when the Sepoys vanished from view. But late in the afternoon news came in from the rear that the Sepoys had worked round, and were in position across the Great Road. This was serious. Colonel Hope Grant could only oppose them with seven troops of British cavalry and the Guides and twelve guns. Although the odds were so great against them—3,000 to about 350—Grant did not hesitate to attack. The guns, under Turner, Tombs, and Bishop, went rapidly into action. The cavalry, under Yule and Daly, of the Guides, charged with headlong gallantry as often as opportunities presented themselves. Right and left the mutineers were checked, by lance and sabre, and cannon, until night drew near. But the rebel infantry worked through the enclosures, and fired on our gunners, while their artillery, splendidly served, did considerable execution. Our cavalry and guns were obliged to fall back before the masses crowding in upon them on all sides, when 300 infantry from the camp reached the field. Yule had fallen dead; the Guides had brought off Daly wounded; two guns were in the hands of the Sepoys. At this moment our foot, Rifles and Fusiliers, went in with the bayonet, and in a few moments the tide of rebel success was arrested and the guns were won back. Night had fallen; the enemy retreated, covering himself with a random fire in the dark, and the action was over.

The next morning Colonel Hope Grant rode on to the field and found it abandoned; dead men and horses were lying about, and he brought in a deserted 9-pounder. Soon came a fresh alarm. The enemy brought up his guns—the famous Jellalabad battery, part of the "illustrious" garrison—and his round shot rolled through the camp. But his triumph was short. Sweeping down with every available bayonet, Brigadier Wilson closed with the rebels and swiftly drove them away. They hurried off, carrying away their guns, and, having had enough of strategy, returned by a roundabout march to Delhi. It was a critical moment in the history of the siege. We were triumphant, but our little force was diminished by 100 men killed and wounded. Precautions were now taken to guard the rear as effectually as the smallness of the force would permit. On the very day of the first attack, Captain M'Andrew, acting on a mere rumour of an attack, had drawn off the force guarding Bhagput Bridge over the Jumna, and Hodson was obliged to ride thither and restore this line of communication with Meerut. M'Andrew was censured for running away without even seeing an enemy.

On the 21st, the Jhallandhar Brigade augmented by the 3rd Native Infantry, picked up at Philour, entered Delhi. The rebels were now so numerous that they encamped outside the place, but out of our reach, and under their own guns. On the 23rd, 850 men, including Rothney's 4th Sikhs, arrived in the British camp. It was a timely succour. The 23rd of June was the[209] anniversary of Plassey. For 100 years the British "raj" had endured. Now crazy, or wily, pundits brought to light a prediction that, on the 23rd of June, 1857, British rule would end. So the Delhi garrison moved out in great excitement to fulfil the prophecy. They paid for it, and dearly. Crowding into the Subzee Mundi, and bringing guns up to the Eedgah, they raked the right flank and skirmished up the slope with their infantry. These attacks were easily repulsed, but the artillery fire was very destructive; and Brigadier Showers begged Sir Henry Barnard to assume the offensive. He assented. The first attacks failed, with the loss of two officers and several men. Then the column was reinforced. The 4th Sikhs, and part of the 2nd Fusiliers, just in from a march of twenty-two miles, went gaily into action and, using the bayonet very freely, rapidly cleared the Subzee Mundi, killing great numbers of rebels, who had shut themselves up in a temple, and forcing the remainder to fly, galled by the fire of our batteries on the ridge. This action gave us the Subzee Mundi, which we occupied, connecting it by a breastwork with the ridge, thus securing the position on that side; but it cost us thirty-eight killed and 118 wounded to prove to the Sepoys that our "raj" had not yet come to an end.

THE PALACE, DELHI. (From a Photograph by Frith & Co., Reigate.)

Thus the position of the British before Delhi became gradually more extensive, stretching now from the Subzee Mundi to Metcalfe's house, and thus commanding both roads leading to our rear. Neville Chamberlain arrived to act as adjutant-general. Then came further reinforcements: half the 8th Foot, a hundred European artillerymen, and many score old Sikh gunners who had served at Sobraon, a battery, and the 2nd Punjab Cavalry, bringing up the force present to about 6,600 men of all arms. This was the force destined to hold on to that ridge, and two months afterwards, when aided by John Nicholson, to rush into Delhi. But now we must leave these heroes for a time, to track the bloody steps of mutiny on the Ganges and Jumna.

It cannot now be denied that at the outset of the mutiny the magnitude of the crisis was totally[210] misapprehended at Calcutta. Lord Canning was new to India. He was a man of a powerful but a slow intellect. With time to think, he acted wisely. But on the first days of the mutiny the civil servants—the Grants, Beadons, Dorins, men of a stamp very different from the clear-sighted and determined statesmen of the Punjab—sadly misled him. They treated the mutiny in the army as a military squabble that would soon be quelled. The civil servants looked down on the military servants of the Company, and from the height of their conceit lived on in blessed ignorance of military affairs. To this we must trace the paltering way in which the Government dealt with the mutiny at the outset; and the severe rebuffs they administered to all—not of the Government—who offered either counsel or advice. It is true, the Governor-General had very few European troops under his hand—only the 53rd at Fort William, and the 84th at Barrackpore. But at an earlier, he ought to have done what he did at a later stage: he might have called in troops from Madras, Ceylon, Mauritius, and the Cape. On the 10th of May, before he knew of the outburst at Meerut, Sir John Lawrence had telegraphed his opinion to Calcutta that the whole regular army was ready to break out. And then he gave this large-minded counsel:—"Send for troops from Persia. Intercept the force now on its way to China, and bring it to Calcutta. Every European soldier will be required to save the country if the whole of the native troops turn against us. This is the opinion of all leading minds here"—in the Punjab. But at Calcutta, had the civilians been as quick-sighted as Lawrence, this advice would have been needless, for the course it recommended would have been adopted in March, or at least in April. After Meerut, it was too late to prevent, though not to cure. Lord Elphinstone, indeed, at Bombay, saw what was coming; and as soon as he knew that peace had been made with Persia—that is, in April—he pressed on General Outram the necessity of sending back to India the European troops at once. The Governor-General allowed him to act on his discretion, and Sir James, being discreet, complied with the urgent request of the Governor of Bombay. Yet General Havelock did not quit Mohamerah, at the head of the Persian Gulf, until the 15th, nor did he land at Bombay until the 29th of May, when he was astounded by the news that Delhi was in the hands of mutinous Sepoys. He at once set out for Calcutta by sea; but being wrecked off Ceylon, he did not reach Calcutta until the 17th of June. With him went from Madras Sir Patrick Grant, who, on the death of Anson, was appointed Commander-in-Chief. By this time the Bengal native army had practically "gone."

It was not until the middle of May that Lord Canning, getting some insight into the facts, sent to Ceylon, Mauritius, and Madras for troops, and despatched a steamer to lie in wait for the regiments bound to China, and ordered the late army of Persia to come to Calcutta. The first to arrive were the Madras Fusiliers, under Colonel Neill, a man swift to see and to strike, who did not understand the system of paltering with mutiny. The Madras Europeans arrived on the 23rd of May, and were at once, with the 84th, despatched towards the North-West.

While Neill was hastening onwards towards Benares, and Allahabad, and Cawnpore, the native regiments at these and other stations had thrilled to the shock of the news from Delhi and were prepared to imitate the example. There was one European regiment, the 10th Foot, and three native regiments, at Dinapore, near Patna, 130 miles from Benares; at Benares there were a Sikh regiment, and two Bengal regiments, and thirty European artillerymen; at Allahabad there were a few Sikhs under Braysher—a gallant soldier who had risen from the ranks—and the 6th Native Infantry. Benares, the sacred city, was the headquarters of Hindooism. Its population, numbered at 300,000, mainly Hindoos, was turbulent. Within its walls lived many dethroned princes, from Nepaul and Sattara, a branch of the Delhi family, and several Sikhs. Here, if anywhere, disaffection was certain to exist; and here were only thirty British soldiers and the civil servants. Among these civil servants was Mr. Frederick Gubbins, a very resolute man; and when news of the Meerut mutiny came, although he saw the peril, he determined to stand stiffly up against it and resist. On the 3rd of June the vanguard of the Madras Fusiliers arrived—sixty men—and the question of at once using them and the Sikhs to disarm the 37th Native Infantry was debated. News came that the 17th Native Infantry at Azimghur had just mutinied, and it was resolved on the 4th to disarm the regiment the next day. At this crisis Colonel Neill came in. He saw no good in delay. "As soon as the 37th hear of the mutiny at Azimghur," he said, "they will rise. Do it at once." Brigadier Ponsonby yielded. The troops were paraded; the Sikhs and irregular cavalry on the left, the artillery on the right, of the 37th. The latter at once mutinied, and began[211] firing. Two or three officers fell. The artillery opened fire. By some mistake, never explained, the Sikhs fired on their officers and on the Fusiliers. Then the guns opened on them, and all was confusion. Brigadier Ponsonby fell from sunstroke. Neill took command, and with his handful of thirty gunners and Fusiliers, routed the rebels. The whole district around for many miles rose in revolt at once; but such was the stern energy of Neill, the occult and long-acquired influence of Gubbins, the devotion of men like Venables and Chapman, indigo planters, that not only was the city population held down, but in a very short time we regained our power here also. At this time gibbets were set up and, for many months, traitors and mutineers of every caste and rank were mercilessly hanged thereon.

The safety of Benares was important in a political point of view and it was guarded by thirty European artillerymen! The safety of Allahabad was essential in a military point of view and it did not contain a single European soldier! Its absolute masters were the 6th Native Infantry, a native battery, and part of the Ferozepore regiment of Sikhs. Yet what was Allahabad? It was not only a very strong fortress, commanding the confluence of the Ganges and Jumna; it was not only the point of passage over the Jumna into the Doab on one side, and thence to the north-west, and over the Ganges on the other into Oude and the valley of the Goomtee; it was the greatest arsenal in India—full of guns, stores, ammunition; our sole base of operations upwards towards Cawnpore and Lucknow. The 6th Native Infantry were quite ready to mutiny. Fortunately, Government in a moment of alarm—for it had its moments of alarm as well as its moments of confidence—ordered up from Chunar some sixty European artillerymen, all invalids, yet fit for garrison duty. These arrived on the 23rd of May, and entered the fort. They saved this invaluable post. The 6th had volunteered to march on Delhi, and Government was so delighted that on the 5th its commander, Colonel Simpson, was directed by telegraph to thank the regiment, and tell them the order would appear in the next Gazette. On that very day came news of the mutiny at Benares, and on the 6th of June, twenty-four hours after it had been thanked for loyalty, the 6th rose, and the men shot nearly every one of their officers. In the fort all was anxiety. The real nature of the contest raging in cantonments was not known until an officer, naked from a swim in the Jumna, ran in. Then, by the steadfastness and skill of Braysher, the Sikhs were induced to disarm the company of the 6th, and the fort was saved. But the rabble invested the fort! For five days this was permitted and not a gun allowed to be fired. Colonel Neill, with forty men, came up on the 11th from Benares. The bridge of boats was in the hands of the rebels, but he got a boat and crossed below it. Then, without resting, he organised a plan for recovering the bridge; and early next morning he executed it with vigour and promptitude. From that time he continued to regain the lost sway over the city. Neill became a name of terror all along the banks of the Ganges, and by his wise as well as severe measures he made it possible for Havelock to avenge Cawnpore.

Cawnpore is a large station. Seated on the right bank of the Ganges, it is midway between Lucknow and Calpee and Agra and Allahabad. Thus, it was one of the most important stations in the Doab of the Ganges and Jumna—a central point whence troops might move on an enemy or intercept one on four great lines. There were three regiments of native infantry, the 1st, 53rd, and 56th, and one regiment of native cavalry, in the station. There were about sixty European artillerymen and six guns. The commandant was Sir Hugh Wheeler, a soldier who had served under Lord Lake fifty-four years before, and who then and since had led Sepoys in battle in half a dozen great campaigns. There were at Cawnpore the wives and children of the men of the 32nd Foot; a number of ladies, wives of officers and civilians, and many merchants and traders and their families. Agitated by the earlier incidents of the mutiny, the natives were more deeply stirred by the outbreak at Meerut and Delhi, and General Wheeler felt that no trust could be placed in the men he commanded. But he was absolutely powerless. He had only sixty-one Europeans. He could not disarm the Cawnpore garrison. He could only wait and watch, and prepare some ark of refuge, however frail. Nor had he much time. News of the Delhi massacres arrived on the 14th of May. The troops gave no outward sign. A few days afterwards Mrs. Fraser entered the station. Her husband had been slain at Delhi, and she had travelled down 266 miles in safety. A native had undertaken to perform the journey, and he did. This lady was a real heroine, and in the dreadful days at hand, regardless of herself, she gave up everything to soothe and minister to the wounded.

On the 20th of May all communication with Delhi and Agra had ceased. Fires broke out in[212] the native lines, and prophecies of evil were uttered. Sir Hugh Wheeler entrenched an old hospital—two brick buildings, one thatched, one roofed with stone. The entrenchment was so slight that a British horseman could have leaped in anywhere. In this enclosure the guns were placed, and the women and children were ordered to take up their quarters therein. Stores of food, but not sufficient, were laid up. Happily, ammunition was plentiful. There were nine guns in the work. Still there was no sign of mutiny. But, as the treasure was exposed, Sir Hugh and Mr. Hillersden requested the Nana Sahib of Bithoor to supply a guard. He complied, bringing down troops of his own, and taking up his quarters in the civil lines. Who was the Nana Sahib? He was the son of a Brahmin living near Bombay. His name was Seereek Dhoondoo Punt. Bajee Rao, the last Peishwa, having no issue of his own, adopted him; and when, for his treachery, Bajee Rao was dethroned, the Government granted him a pension, and sent him to live at Bithoor, on the Ganges, a few miles above Cawnpore. When he died, the Nana, by forging a will, obtained his enormous wealth; but Government refused to continue the pension allowed to the late Peishwa. That Nana Sahib never forgave, but he showed no sign of resentment. He lived a life of the lowest sensual indulgence in the splendid fort at Bithoor. He was on the most friendly terms with the British officers, frequently entertaining them at Bithoor, but accepting no hospitality in return. He had for prime minister, or chief agent, one Azimoolah, originally a waiter, then teacher in the Government schools at Cawnpore, then agent to Nana Sahib. Azimoolah was sent to London to pray the Board of Directors to grant the Nana his pension. He came in 1854, was a lion in society, much admired by the ladies, at one time nearly carrying off one to grace his harem. He returned to India by way of Constantinople, and was there in the depths of that dreary winter when our soldiers were holding the heights at so much cost.

After the 20th of May the Sepoys did not conceal their feelings. They held nightly meetings; the character of those meetings was known from spies. The 2nd Cavalry, especially, displayed hostility; and when Sir Hugh sought to remove the treasure, the Sepoys would not part with it, and it had to be left under the joint care of them and Nana Sahib. On the 21st, all the European residents, except one, Sir George Parker, cantonment magistrate, entered the entrenchment. The next day a company of the 32nd, under Captain Moore, arrived from Lucknow, lent by Sir Henry Lawrence. For a week there was dreadful suspense; then 160 men of the 84th Foot and Madras Fusiliers arrived, with the cheering news that more troops were on their way. On the 26th Sir Hugh thought he should soon be able to dispense with the 32nd men, and hold his own until troops came from Calcutta. But the mutinies at Benares and Allahabad put an end to the fulfilment of that hope. There is every reason to believe that at this time Nana Sahib was playing a double game, and that he found willing agents in the 2nd Cavalry. But up to the last moment the Sepoys affected loyalty, and actually gave up one man on a charge of spreading sedition. But the poison of mutiny had worked deeply into their hearts, and the day of disaster duly arrived.

Up to the 4th of June the officers had slept in the native lines. After that day Sir Hugh would not allow them to do so any more, and they found corners in the entrenchment. The signs of approaching mutiny were now plain. There were 210 soldiers of the artillery, the 32nd, the 84th, and the Madras Fusiliers, about a hundred officers, the same number of merchants and clerks, and forty drummers; giving a total of 450 fighting men, and nine guns. It has been well said that these could have fought their way out in any direction; but encumbered with 330 women and children, they could do nothing but remain and wait for succour. On the night of the 6th of June the 2nd Cavalry rose. Captain Thomson, one of the few survivors of the Cawnpore tragedy, thus describes the mutiny: "An hour or two after the flight of the cavalry, the 1st Native Infantry also bolted, leaving their officers untouched upon the parade ground. The 56th Native Infantry followed the next morning. The 53rd remained till, by some error of the general, they were fired into. I am at an utter loss to account for this proceeding. The men were peacefully occupied in their lines, cooking; no signs of mutiny had appeared amidst their ranks; they had refused all the solicitations of the deserters to accompany them, and seemed quite steadfast, when Ashe's battery opened upon them, by Sir Hugh Wheeler's command, and they were literally driven from us by 9-pounders. The only signal that had preceded this step was the calling into the entrenchments of the native officers of the regiment. The whole of them cast in their lot with us, besides 150 privates, most of them belonging to the Grenadier company. The detachment of the 53rd posted at the treasury held their ground against[213] the rebels about four hours. We could hear their musketry in the distance, but were not allowed to attempt their relief. The faithful little band that had joined our desperate fortunes was ordered to occupy the military hospital, about 600 yards to the east of our position, and they held it for nine days, when, in consequence of its being set on fire, they were compelled to evacuate. They applied for admission to enter the entrenchments, but were told that we had not food sufficient to allow of an increase to our number. Major Hillersden gave them a few rupees each, together with a certificate of their fidelity."

SIR HENRY HAVELOCK. (After the Portrait by F. Goodall, A.R.A.)

The first impulse of the mutineers was to march on Delhi. There, they rightly judged, the struggle would be fought out. They had laden elephants with treasure, and carts with ammunition and plunder. They had marched forward on the road, when Nana Sahib beset them with offers of service, and incitements to destroy their white masters. For some time they resisted; but the temptations proved to be too seductive, and they enlisted, as it were, under the flag of one who dreamed of restoring the Mahratta empire. So the whole force turned back towards Cawnpore, and sat down before the entrenchment. To please his new followers, Nana Sahib hoisted two standards—the Moslem and the Hindoo flag. To gratify his troops, he directed the sack of the European houses, and even those of wealthy natives in Cawnpore. He took possession of the store of shot and shell; he mounted heavy guns. To give a colour of fairness to his conduct, he notified to Sir Hugh Wheeler by letter that he intended to attack him, and he followed up the threat by opening fire on the 8th of June.

[214]

The little garrison of Cawnpore, thus beleaguered, held out for twenty days, and even then yielded honourably to famine, not arms. Their sufferings during this time can neither be imagined nor described. The entrenchment was about 250 yards square. The mud wall had been made by digging a trench and throwing the earth outwards. Thus, about five feet cover was obtained; but where the spaces were left for the guns there was no cover at all. From the eastern side a little redan was made and armed, and at three other points there were small batteries. As muskets and ammunition abounded, five or six loaded muskets, with bayonets fixed, were placed near each man in the trenches, so as to ensure a rapid fire. In the centre of the entrenchment was a well. Near it were two buildings, each having only a single storey, and one only a stone roof. They were intended to accommodate a company of a hundred men. Within them were stowed more than three hundred women and children, and the sick. The heat was so fierce that it was often impossible to hold a musket barrel, and once or twice muskets exploded from heat alone. Think, then, what these women and children must have suffered, crowded together in those barracks. As soon as the place was beleaguered, men drew water at the risk of their lives, and from the beginning of the siege not a drop could be spared for purposes of cleanliness. With scanty clothing, meagre diet of flour and split peas; with water, often bought for its weight in silver from the men who drew it, and measured out in drops; with cannon thundering day and night, with shot and shell tearing through the buildings, with the sickness of hope deferred upon them, who can imagine the agonies of those weary hours? The men, all save one officer, went forth to fight, but the women could only watch and wait, and listen to the piteous cries of children, whose throats were parched, whose lips were baked with thirst. For the men there was the chance of a death-struggle, or death from shot or shell. Nothing but patience and longsuffering for the women. Some went mad; some sought death; but others behaved as angels may, with a courage, a fortitude, a forgetfulness of self, men may imitate but not excel.

This little enclosure was defended solely by the courage of the garrison. The Sepoys had seen how white men fight, how they dare danger in every shape, almost in sport, above all, how in battle they stand by each other with never-failing confidence. The prestige of the British soldier never stood him in better stead than in this Indian mutiny. Driven to bay here with such slender defences as we have described, it is a fact that the surrounding multitudes never once charged home. In a very few days the original force of mutineers was tripled. There came up men of the 6th from Allahabad, and men of various regiments from Oude, and hordes of scoundrels from all the country side, until there were 10,000 armed men raging round the little force. They had three mortars and ten guns firing night and day, in addition to the musketry of the Sepoys. The entrenchments were entirely commanded from two buildings, and all around there was plenty of cover; yet with all these numbers and advantages the cowards did not venture on a hand-to-hand fight. On the west of the fort was a series of unfinished barracks. They were connected with the entrenchment by a sort of covered way, made of carts; two or three of these were held by small detachments of fifteen or twenty men, one composed of railway engineers and platelayers. With nothing but musketry and this cover, these gallant fellows kept the enemy at bay, and inflicted on them great losses. On one occasion a host of Sepoys charged up with the seeming intention of getting in. The garrison of seventeen men killed eighteen assailants at pistol-shot range, and drove them away. On another, Captain Moore, the soul of the defence, resolved to try a new trick; he and Lieutenant Delafosse, suddenly leaped out, calling in a loud voice, "Number one to the front!" The skulking scoundrels, thinking a company was about to charge, rose from their cover like a flock of sparrows, and gave the defenders an opportunity of pouring in a deadly volley.

All this time the thermometer ranged from 128° to 138°. Tortured by this dreadful heat, grimed with dirt, devoured by myriads of flies, suffering agonies from thirst, enduring the severest pangs of hunger, exposed to death in every shape, our beleaguered countrymen and countrywomen still bore up against fate, with grim and steadfast determination. The Sepoys took every advantage; not a little child could stray out from the scanty shelter of shattered walls or holes in the trenches without drawing upon itself the fire of a hundred muskets. If any one went to the well, he was a mark for big guns and bullets; and at night the sound of the creaking wheels revealing the fact that men were drawing the water, called forth a hail of shot. Yet men went out and endured this fate by day and night, to draw water for the women and the wounded. "My friend, John M'Killop, of the Civil Service," writes Captain Thomson, "greatly distinguished himself here; he became,[215] self-constituted, Captain of the Well. He jocosely said that he was no fighting man, but would make himself useful where he could, and accordingly he took this post; drawing for the supply of the women and the children as often as he could. It was less than a week after he had undertaken this self-denying service, when his numerous escapes were followed by a grape-shot wound in the groin, and speedy death. Disinterested even in death, his last words were an earnest entreaty that somebody would go and draw water for a lady to whom he had promised it."

Besides this well there was another near one of the unfinished barracks. "We drew no water there; it was our cemetery." Stealthily at night, the bodies of the dead were carried out, and thrown into this well; and in three weeks it was choked up with the remains of 250 persons! On the 13th of June a great misfortune befell the garrison. One of the buildings in the entrenchments was used as a hospital. It had a thatched roof. On the evening of the 13th a shell or "carcase" set this on fire, and the whole building was soon in a blaze. By the light of the flames the Sepoys poured in a heavy fire on the women and children running out, and on the men bearing off the wounded, some of whom perished there, while all the medicines and surgical instruments were destroyed! This moment of trial the enemy selected for an attack, hoping to find the garrison unprepared. They were deceived. Every man was on the alert. The mutineers were allowed to come close up, and then the guns opened with grape, and the infantry firing muskets, ready loaded, as fast as they could pick them up, drove off the yelling assailants, with great slaughter. At another time they approached, rolling before them bales of cotton, but these were speedily set on fire with shells, after which grape-shot soon thinned the ranks of the flying crew. These attacks were repeated in different ways, but always with the same result.

But a few details abridged from Captain Thomson's narrative of what he called the superficial horrors of the siege, will better enable the reader to conceive the agonies of those three weeks, than pages of general description. A group of soldiers' wives were sitting in the trenches. A shell fell among them, and killed and wounded seven. "Mrs. White, a private's wife, was walking with her husband, under cover, as they thought, of the wall, her twin children one in each arm, when a single bullet passed through her husband, killing him. It passed also through both her arms, breaking them, and close beside the breathless husband and father fell the widow and her babes; one of the latter being also severely wounded. I saw her afterwards in the main-guard, lying upon her back, with the two children, twins, laid one at each breast, while the mother's bosom refused not what her arms had no power to administer." An ayah, nursing a baby, lost both legs from a cannon shot, while the infant was uninjured. Mrs. Evans was killed by falling bricks brought down by a round shot. Mr. Hillersden, the collector, was talking to his wife, when he was cut in two by a round shot. Two days afterwards a mass of falling bricks killed his wife. Here are two other terrible pictures. In the unburnt, but not unbroken barrack, "Lieutenant G. R. Wheeler, son and aide-de-camp of the general, was sitting upon a sofa, fainting from a wound he had received in the trenches; his sister was fanning him, when a round shot entered the doorway, and left him a headless trunk. One sister at his feet, and father, mother, and another sister, in different parts of the same room, were witnesses of the appalling spectacle. Mr. Herberden, of the railway service, was handing one of the ladies some water, when a charge of grape entered the barrack, and a shot passed through both his hips, leaving an awful wound. He lay for a whole week upon his face, and was carried upon a mattress down to the boats, where he died. The fortitude he had shown in active service did not forsake him during his extraordinary sufferings, for not a murmur escaped his lips."

Enough of these horrors. It is a relief to turn from them to the recorded acts of daring, of which let this one suffice. As Sir Hugh Wheeler was too old to take an active share in a defence, which he, nevertheless, helped to sustain by his unconquerable spirit, Captain Moore, of the 32nd, was the real leader of the garrison. A genuine soldier, he conceived the idea of making a sortie by night, and spiking the Sepoy cannon. He was at the time suffering from a wound; yet, one night, he led out fifty men, spiked three guns near the church, killed several gunners, and spiked two 24-pounders at the mess-house, with the loss of one killed and four wounded. This illustrates the active valour of this garrison. It availed little, for fresh pieces were brought up the next day.

Aware that aid was approaching, though slowly, Nana Sahib now had recourse to a devilish expedient in order to get the garrison in his hands. He had in his power a Mrs. Greenway, one of a family who had paid to the Nana £30,000 as a ransom, yet who were all slain. This poor woman,[216] half naked, and carrying an infant, he sent with a message to the entrenchment. It was addressed "To the subjects of her Most Gracious Majesty Queen Victoria," and it ran as follows:—"All those who are in no way connected with the acts of Lord Dalhousie, and are willing to lay down their arms, shall receive a safe passage to Allahabad." At first Sir Hugh Wheeler was utterly opposed to any dealing with Nana Sahib, but he finally agreed to treat. Accordingly a negotiation was begun, and rapidly concluded, Nana Sahib signing a treaty of capitulation to the effect that the garrison should march out under arms, with sixty rounds of ammunition per man, and should be sent, with the women and children, in boats to Allahabad. No precautions were neglected by Sir Hugh or Captain Moore. Their sole error was in placing any trust in Nana Sahib.

On the 27th the woe-begone and tattered procession set out for the ghaut, or landing-place. The women and children went on elephants and in palanquins, the men, except the sick and wounded, walked. When they found the boats—but they were all aground on sandbanks—every one, men, women, and children, had to wade knee-deep to embark. Suddenly, at the signal to start, the native boatmen, firing the thatched roofs of the boats, leaped into the water, and rushed to the shore. Then, first a dropping fire of carbines, succeeded by volleys of musketry, and round shot from four 9-pounders, opened on the fugitives. The banks were lined, the neighbouring houses were filled with assassins. Soon the boats were in flames, the water was full of women and children on whom the shot was poured. Only two boats got off and one was instantly sunk by a round shot. The other, crowded with survivors, some of whom had swum to her side, began to float down the stream, when guns opened on her from the Oude side. Her rudder was shot away, the oars were gone, but the current bore her on, now stranding her on a shoal, now drifting her off, aided by the use of a spar or two of wood. All day long this boat was chased and one by one her occupants became fewer. Some fell overboard, some sank wounded to the bottom of the boat. At night she stranded and the Sepoys fired lighted arrows at her to set her on fire. The next morning they were beset again; a boat full of armed Sepoys came down and grounded near, when the British at once charged through the water and slew their pursuers. A hurricane of rain and wind followed, and once more the boat with its starving and bleeding freight was afloat; but it soon stuck again in shoal water. Here Captain Thomson, Lieutenant Delafosse, Sergeant Grady, and eleven privates landed by order to drive away the Sepoys while the boat was eased off. The boat and its occupants they never saw again. They quickly drove back the enemy, but could not find the boat on their return, and so they were forced to retreat along the banks; pursued, they took refuge in a small temple and held it against a host, until the enemy lighted brands at the door and began to throw bags of gunpowder on them. The little band charged at once and made for the river; seven out of fourteen reached it alive and plunged in; the number was soon reduced to four. These swam on and on, six miles down stream, and, exhausting pursuit, went ashore. Here they found a protector in one whose name should be preserved—Diribijah Singh, of Moorar Mhow, in Oude. He saved their lives. At this time Thomson's clothing consisted of a flannel shirt; Delafosse wore a cloth round his waist; Murphy and Sullivan were naked. Every one except Delafosse was wounded. These were the sole survivors of the massacre at the ghaut. About 130 of the women and children were taken out of the water and carried prisoners into Cawnpore. We shall hear of them again.

During this period mutiny had been making great progress elsewhere. Bombay had been saved by the energy of Lord Elphinstone and the prompt appearance of the 37th from Mauritius, just as Madras had been quieted by the landing of a regiment from Ceylon. But in Central India not a station remained. The Europeans had been driven away from Indore, the residence of Holkar. At Mhow, near by, some officers were killed, but the others, with the women and children, took shelter in the fort. The Maharajah remained true and they were saved. At Gwalior the contingent had mutinied, killing some officers, but the women and children got away to Agra; and Scindia, acting on the advice of his minister, Dinkur Rao, the ablest native in India, so managed the contingent that they did not move until months afterwards. Mr. Colvin, at Agra, in the North-West, after paltering with mutiny, had been forced to disarm two regiments there on the 31st of May, and to prepare and occupy the fort; for the Khotah contingent mutinied, and there were no regular soldiers on whom dependence could be placed but the 3rd Europeans, a battery of artillery, thirty or forty volunteer horse, and the armed civilians. Such was the state of the country from the Himalayas to the Nerbudda, from the sand[217] deserts of Bikaneer to the frontiers of Behar. Here and there, as at Saugor, Agra, Lucknow, there were little knots of beleaguered Britons, and all around them a raging sea of anarchy.

By permission of the Leicester Corporation Art Gallery.

THE FLIGHT FROM LUCKNOW (1857).

FROM THE PAINTING BY A. SOLOMON IN THE POSSESSION OF THE LEICESTER CORPORATION ART GALLERY.

[See larger version]

MEMORIAL AT THE WELL, CAWNPORE. (From a Photograph by Frith & Co.)

The reader will remember that the 8th of June was a day of disaster in the history of the Oude mutinies, and that from this day Lucknow alone remained in the hands of the British; and even this was held by a precarious tenure. Sir Henry Lawrence, seeing himself alone, and observing no signs of prompt support from any quarter, soon began to fortify the Residency. At first he contemplated the occupation of a larger position. He garrisoned and fortified the Muchee Bhowun, a strong fort commanding the iron bridge; and his military police held several parts of the town. At a later period he found how necessary it was that he should contract his lines, bring all his troops in from the cantonments, and make himself as strong as he could around the Residency. Before he came to that conclusion the work of preparation and provisioning went on with ardour under a burning sun. A large gateway, from the top of which the Residency enclosure was commanded, was blown down. Many lacs of rupees were buried, to save the trouble of guarding them. Upwards of 200 pieces of ordnance, many of large calibre, were found, and with great labour brought in. Neighbouring houses were cleared away or unroofed. Large bodies of coolies were kept at work upon the defences, which now began to assume shape and order and connection. The racket court was full of forage; the church was crammed with grain; the fuel, stacked in vast piles, formed a rampart in front of the Residency. Every day the volunteer cavalry were drilled, and the civilians, merchants, clerks, were organised, and posts were assigned them. The heat was almost insupportable. Cholera, small-pox, fever, broke out. Evil news came in day after day. Finally, the troops were withdrawn from the cantonments and placed in the Residency and Muchee Bhowun. All this time the courts had sat and business went on, malefactors, traitors, mutineers, were tried and executed, and order was maintained. Patrols went out on the road to[218] Cawnpore and Fyzabad. The news of the massacres of the Futtehghur fugitives, and of the Cawnpore garrison, and of officers on all sides, came in; and Colonel Neill reported his arrival at Allahabad, and promised to move up as soon as he could. A price was set upon Nana Sahib—£10,000 was offered for him, dead or alive.

For three weeks the Oude mutineers had been gathering at Nawabgunge, on the Fyzabad road, about twenty-five miles from Lucknow. Sir Henry Lawrence thought it would be desirable to attack them when he heard they were marching on the city. Keeping his intention secret, he collected a force consisting of four European and six Oude guns, and one 8-inch howitzer, the whole under Major Simons; thirty-six European and eighty Sikh horse; 300 of the 32nd Foot, and 220 Sepoys, the faithful few who had not mutinied. With these he marched, and his advance guard fell in with the enemy near Chinhut. They were in great strength, a complete army, having in the field cavalry, infantry, and artillery. The mutineers began the fray by a heavy fire of cannon, and then extending their wings, bore down on both flanks of the British. The volunteer cavalry charged boldly, but the Sikhs fled. The Oude gunners abandoned their pieces. The mutineers pressing on, turned our flank completely, and repulsed the 32nd in an attempt to drive them out of a village. The combat was now lost, and Sir Henry ordered a retreat. All fell back in confusion, leaving the howitzer behind. A body of horsemen tried to cut them off, but the volunteer cavalry, careless of odds, charged and routed them. Agonised with thirst, for the water-carriers had deserted, our little force fell back, turning and firing as often as they could, covered by the gallant volunteer horse, and so reached the iron bridge, and filed over into the city. They had lost 200 men killed and wounded (112 Europeans being among the slain), and four guns were missing. The pursuit was only checked by the fire of an 18-pounder from the redan, which commanded the iron bridge. The mutineers had brought into the field 5,000 infantry, 800 horse, and 160 gunners. As a sequel to this unhappy adventure, it may be stated that the military police and the companies of Oude regiments in the city at once mutinied. The troops from Chinhut crossed the river lower down, and invested the Residency. It was then found that the detachments in the Muchee Bhowun would be required to defend the Residency. But the enemy were in force between the two. No messenger could pass. In this crisis, at great risk, for the enemy kept up a heavy fire, four officers rigged a telegraph on the roof of the Residency, and thus sent orders that the Muchee Bhowun should be evacuated and blown up. That night the feat was achieved. The garrison had just reached the Residency, and were filing in, when a tremendous explosion shook the earth—240 barrels of powder and 594,000 rounds of ammunition had destroyed the Muchee Bhowun.

The next day, July 2nd, Sir Henry Lawrence was mortally wounded by a piece of shell, and died on the 4th. Shot and shell raining on the Residency, confusion all around, were the accompaniments of his last hours. He was not only an able man, but a good man, with a heart abounding in charity for all. Few men have left a brighter track on the dark stream of Indian history. Schools and asylums are as much his monuments as deeds of statecraft, and it may be that the Lawrence Asylum for European children, up in the hills of the North-West, will bear his name vividly to a posterity which will have only a faint idea of the early administration of the Punjab.

[219]

## CHAPTER XIV.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

> Havelock to the Front—His Advance from Allahabad—Battle of Futtehpore—Battle of Aong—Battle of Cawnpore—Nana Sahib's Position—It is turned by Havelock—The Enemy resist obstinately—The final Charge—Cawnpore reoccupied—Nana Sahib's Vengeance—Havelock pushes on for Lucknow—Battle of Onao—First Battle of Busserutgunge—The second Battle—The third—Havelock recrosses the Ganges—Battle of Bithoor—End of Havelock's first Campaign—Lord Canning and Jung Bahadoor—Mutiny at Dinapore—Its Effects—Before Delhi—Attempt to surprise a Convoy—Death of Barnard—The British Lines attacked—The Assault renewed—The Remainder of July—Wilson's Discipline—John Lawrence's Perplexities—Disarmament at Rawul Pindee and Jhelum—Mutiny at Sealkote—It is avenged by Nicholson—Cooper shoots Sepoys in Batches—The Drama at Peshawur—Reinforcements for Delhi—Nicholson arrives—Battle of Nujuffghar—The Crisis in the Siege.

WE have seen the rebels assailed at Delhi, and subjected to a siege; we have seen them become the besiegers of the British at Lucknow, and triumphant by horrible treachery at Cawnpore. We left Colonel Neill at Allahabad preparing the way for Havelock; and it is now time to describe the marvellous career of that general from Allahabad to Cawnpore. Havelock, as we have said heretofore, reached Calcutta on the 17th of June, and on the 20th he was appointed to command a movable column which was to be collected at Allahabad. Five days afterwards he quitted Calcutta, and on the 28th of June, one day after the bloody business at Cawnpore, he arrived at Benares. On the 30th he reached Allahabad. That very day, with the sanction of Sir Patrick Grant, Commander-in-Chief at Calcutta, the first detachment prepared by Neill marched for Cawnpore. It consisted of 400 Europeans, 420 natives, chiefly Sikhs, and two guns, the whole under Major Renaud. Havelock, soon after he arrived, sent 100 men in a steamer up the Ganges, to cover the right flank, but was himself obliged to wait, not only for carriage, but for troops, until the 7th of July before he could start. On the 3rd he learned the state of the Cawnpore garrison, and found that his duty, instead of saving them, would be first to recover Cawnpore and then essay to relieve Lucknow. On the 7th of July he set out to join Renaud, taking with him about 1,000 bayonets, furnished by the 78th Highlanders, the 64th, the 84th, the Madras Fusiliers and Braysher's Sikhs, the bulk of whom were with Renaud. Havelock had also eighteen volunteer horsemen and six guns. Such was the force which, on the afternoon of the 7th of July, 1857, moved out of Allahabad to perform one of the most striking campaigns in the history of India.

Major Renaud had pushed onwards about seventy miles towards Cawnpore, and had halted, according to orders. For Havelock, by dint of a judicious use of money, had secured excellent information of the enemy's proceedings; and knowing that Nana Sahib was advancing on Renaud, intent on snapping him up, Havelock pushed on by forced marches, and joining him on the night of the 11th, both hastened forward to Belinda, a few miles from Futtehpore. Lo! the rebels were there. It was now Havelock's chance. He resolved to force an action, although he had only 1,800 men and eight guns to match against their 3,500 men and twelve guns.

The Sepoy mutineers were in position across the road. They occupied ground broken by swamps, groves, and hillocks, as a front line, with the enclosures of Futtehpore to fall back upon. The Trunk Road ran through the position, and formed the best line of advance. Havelock put his guns in the centre, and covered them with 100 riflemen. He disposed of his other troops in columns preceded by skirmishers, and he put his handful of horse on the flanks. In this order he advanced. Some of the troops had Enfield rifles, and with these, deftly used, he struck the rebels at ranges which filled them with amazement. In ten minutes, says Havelock, the action was decided, so distressed were they at the fire of the rifle and Maude's artillery. The enemy at once abandoned three guns. "As we moved forward," writes the general, "the enemy's guns continued to fall into our hands, and then, in succession, they were driven from the garden enclosures, from a strong barricade on the road, from the town wall, into and through, out of, and beyond the town." Here they tried to stand; the 2nd Cavalry charged, and our irregulars fled leaving the volunteers alone; but the Rifles got into action, and the guns came up, and the rebels bolted altogether, leaving in our hands eleven guns. We actually did not lose a single man at the hands of the enemy, but twelve[220] died of sunstroke. They had been afoot fourteen hours, had fought without food, and now sank exhausted.

Resting on the 13th, Havelock took three of the captured guns and added them to his train, and sent 100 Sikhs to guard his communications. At daybreak on the 15th Havelock's force found itself again in front of the enemy. He had entrenched the Great Road in front of the village of Aong, and garnished his line with two guns. This was a strong outpost covering the main position of the rebels behind the stone bridge over the Pandoo Nuddy, a stream, now swollen by the rains. It was necessary to pass Aong, and push on as fast as possible to the bridge. General Havelock divided his little army into two parts. One part he placed under the orders of Colonel Tytler. This was destined to assail the enemy. With the other the general himself guarded his train and baggage from the enemy's horse. Tytler moved up, the Volunteer Cavalry, under the gallant Barrow, leading the way. The enemy's guns opened, and the Sepoys, intending to attack while the troops were forming, advanced with a confident air from their position to a village. Thereupon Major Renaud, with his Madras Fusiliers, pounced upon them like lightning and drove them back; but in the combat he received a mortal wound. Then Tytler closed with the enemy, expelled him from gardens and buildings and put him to flight, but could not reach his guns. Havelock, for his share, had beaten off repeated onsets of cavalry, and these now retired to rejoin their comrades. Halting his men, Havelock anxiously awaited reports respecting the doings of the enemy on the Pandoo Nuddy. The news came. The enemy were engaged in strengthening their position on this river by mining the bridge. The moment was critical, if they were permitted to succeed in this work, the march of the army would be arrested for several days. On the other hand, the troops had been on foot since midnight and had not fed. But Havelock did not hesitate. Two hours' march under a burning sun brought his band to the bank of the river. The Sepoys were arrayed beyond the bridge; they were at work under one of the arches; and they had two 24-pounders, so planted that their fire swept the Great Road. The plan of attack was soon decided on. Eight guns were drawn up in positions which enabled them to concentrate their fire on the bridge. There was a bend in the river at this point, and the Madras Fusiliers, armed with the Enfield rifle, at once took advantage of this, by pushing up in open order above and below the bridge, and from the banks of the river pouring in a hail of bullets on the rebel artillerymen. This shook the steadiness of the enemy, the fire of our guns increased his alarm; and when the mine in the bridge was seen to explode, yet failed to injure the structure, the artillerymen lost heart. As the fire slackened, Major Stephenson gathered up his Fusiliers, and dashing at the bridge carried it with a rush and seized the guns. Thereupon the mutineers took to their heels and made off for Cawnpore.

There was another battle before them. They marched the next morning, the 16th. Cawnpore was twenty-four miles away. Before them lay an arid road. The sun was more formidable than the foe. Nana Sahib, alarmed at the progress of Havelock, and enraged by the repeated defeats of the mutineers, had concentrated all his forces, about 5,000 men and eight guns, and had posted them a few miles from Cawnpore, determined there to give battle. Havelock marched his men sixteen miles, then halted for three hours, resumed his march at two o'clock, leaving his baggage under a guard in the village, and quickly came within sight of the enemy. The mutineer army had been posted with some skill. It was drawn up across two roads, one leading to the cantonments at Cawnpore, the other being the Great Trunk Road to Delhi. Each flank rested on a native village; another village strengthened the centre. All were entrenched or walled. The Ganges was distant about a mile from the left, and on the right rose the half-finished embankment for the railway. The rebel infantry were drawn up in a concave line from flank to flank. Their horse were in a body on the left, and their guns were so disposed along the line as to sweep the two roads. About 1,200 yards from the centre of the lines the roads became one, that is, the cantonment road diverged at this point from the Trunk Road. Beyond the point of junction a fringe of wood ran towards the Ganges. In taking up this position the enemy had calculated on a front attack. He had measured out distances along the roads, and his gunners stood ready to fire as soon as the British came within range.

But he had to deal with a general versed in warfare. On coming within sight of the enemy, Havelock took steps to ascertain from the country folk the nature of the country on both flanks of the rebel host, for he had resolved to turn one or the other. He found that the enemy's left was the more assailable. Thus a force marched for about a mile and a half behind the screen of trees,[221] while the little body of Volunteer Horse showed themselves on the Trunk Road, as if they were the forerunners of a front attack.

THE HIGHLANDERS CAPTURING THE GUNS AT CAWNPORE. (See p. 221.)

Suddenly the enemy became aware of the object of the manœuvre, as he caught glimpses, through breaks in the wood, of a column moving behind the trees. He opened fire. Our troops, without heeding shot and shell, moved silently on, until they arrived at a point parallel to the rebel position. Then they wheeled into line. The guns came up and opened fire, and the Madras riflemen once more spread out and made play with their splendid weapons. But Havelock was not the man to trifle with an advantage of position such as he had gained by his skilful march. He ordered an advance in échelon from the right. The Madras men went first in open order; the 78th Highlanders came next, then the 64th and 84th combined, and lastly the Sikhs. There were three 24-pounders on the enemy's left, well entrenched behind a village. The 78th were launched upon them. Moving up steadily under a fire of grape, until they were within eighty yards, their colonel, Hamilton, in front, the bagpipes playing in the rear, the Highlanders suddenly rent the air with a fierce shout, and, charging in, carried the village, and captured the guns, breaking the enemy's left into two parts, hurling one in confusion on the centre, and shouldering the other to the rear. In the meantime the 64th had come abreast of the Highlanders, and the Madras Fusiliers, on the other flank, had successfully encountered and defeated the rebel cavalry. Reforming the 78th, Havelock rode to the front, and pointing to the rally of the enemy on his centre round a howitzer, cried, "Now, Highlanders, another charge like that wins the day." The charge was made, and, with the aid of the 64th, the gun was captured. The Volunteer Horse, too, making a daring charge up the road, fell upon the enemy and slew many. The whole of the British force was now united again after its rough fight. The position of the enemy and several of his guns had been won, and our troops, emerging in the rear of it, reformed. The Sepoys had again rallied, with commendable promptitude, on Suktipore, a village between the[222] two roads. From this they had to be driven. Havelock's voice was again heard animating his soldiers to renewed exertions, and again, this time unsupported by any artillery fire from our side, did those noble foot soldiers of Britain drive the foe before them. Yet again he rallied, so stubborn was he in this combat. Nana Sahib, present on the field, was seen to be encouraging his troops. He brought them up as the sun was setting, and prepared for a last effort. He still had a 24-pounder and two pieces of smaller calibre, and with these he commanded our men, now lying down, awaiting their artillery. The sun went down. There were about 900 British soldiers, only awaiting a signal from Havelock. "The final crisis," he writes, "had arrived. My artillery cattle, wearied by the length of the march, could not bring up the guns to my assistance; and the Madras Fusiliers, the 64th, 84th, and 78th detachments, formed in line, were exposed to a heavy fire from the 24-pounder on the road. I was resolved this state of things should not last; so, calling upon my men, who were lying down in line, to leap on their feet, I directed another steady advance. It was irresistible. The enemy sent round shot into our ranks, until we were within 300 yards, and then poured in grape with such precision and determination as I have seldom witnessed. But the 64th, led by Major Stirling and by my aide-de-camp [his son, Henry Havelock] who had placed himself in their front, were not to be denied. Their rear showed the ground strewed with wounded; but on they steadily and silently came; then, with a cheer, charged and captured the unwieldy trophy of their valour. The enemy lost all heart, and after a hurried fire of musketry gave way in total rout. Four of my guns came up, and completed their discomfiture by a heavy cannonade; and as it grew dark, the roofless barracks of our artillery were dimly descried in advance, and it was evident that Cawnpore was once more in our possession."

The next morning spies brought in the dreadful news that Nana Sahib had retreated from Cawnpore after butchering all the prisoners. Havelock immediately sent forward an advanced guard to test the truth of this, and as they came up to the old cantonments, an explosion shook the earth. It was the old magazine which the troopers of the enemy's rear-guard had fired. The army now entered the place. It was a memorable day, the 17th of July, when Cawnpore was recovered, for the horrors it brought to light kindled to an intensity beyond conception the passions of the British soldiers.

For the first thing done was to visit the entrenchment, and the house in which the prisoners had been confined. At the sight thereof strong men wept, and a fierce thirst for vengeance seized them and made them terrible in battle. From subsequent inquiries, it appeared that Nana Sahib had preserved the lives of 47 of the women and children from Futtehghur, and 163 of the old Cawnpore garrison. These he kept prisoners. "The captives," writes Captain Thomson, "were fed with only one meal a day of dhâl and chupatties, and these of the meanest sort; they had to eat out of earthen pans, and the food was served by menials of the lowest caste (mehter), which in itself was the greatest indignity that Easterns could cast upon them. They had no furniture, no beds, not even straw to lie down upon, but only coarse bamboo matting of the roughest make. The house in which they were incarcerated had formerly been occupied as the dwelling of a native clerk; it comprised two principal rooms, each about twenty feet long and ten broad, and besides these, a number of dark closets rather than rooms, which had been originally intended for the use of native servants; in addition to these, a courtyard, about fifteen yards square."

After the defeat of his troops on the Pandoo Nuddy—that is, on the 15th of July—Nana Sahib ordered all the prisoners to be slain. It must have been anger and hate and a love of cruelty which prompted this dastardly act. When our troops arrived, Mr. Sherer, the newly-appointed magistrate, began an investigation, from which we learn the facts as nearly as they can be known. "When Mr. Sherer," writes Captain Thomson, "entered the house of horrors, in which the slaughter of the women had been perpetrated, the rooms were covered with human gore; articles of clothing that had belonged to women and children—collars, combs, shoes, caps, and little round hats—were found steeped in blood; the walls were spattered with blood, the mats on the floor saturated; the plaster sides of the place were scored with sword-cuts, and pieces of long hair were all about the room. No writing was upon the walls, and it is supposed that the inscriptions, which soon became numerous, were put there by the troops, to infuriate each other in the work of revenging the atrocities that had been perpetrated there. There is no doubt that the death of the unhappy victims was accomplished by the sword, and that their bodies, stripped of all clothing, were thrown into an adjacent well. A Bible was found that had belonged to Miss Blair, in which[223] she had written; '27th June—Went to the boats. 29th.—Taken out of boats. 30th.—Taken to Sevadah Kothi; fatal day.'" Such was the scene which tore the hearts of our valiant soldiers, and the recital of which made the whole world shudder. It is related that the Highlanders, on coming to a body which had been barbarously exposed, and which was supposed to be that of Sir Hugh Wheeler's daughter, cut off the tresses, and counting the hairs, swore that for every hair a rebel should die.

The reaction which followed his great successes, combined with the critical position in which he found himself, for a moment depressed the spirit of the undaunted Havelock. Here was this fearful massacre; here was news from Lucknow of the death of Henry Lawrence; from Delhi, of the death of General Barnard; from Agra, of a defeat of the troops there; and from Bithoor, that Nana Sahib had garrisoned that stronghold with 5,000 men. But one night's brief repose restored to the general his wonted calmness. Getting news of the march of a reinforcement, under Neill from Allahabad, he, on the 12th, selected a situation for a fort, commanding the passage of the Ganges, and prepared all things for an attempt to cut his way to Lucknow. Meanwhile Nana Sahib had evacuated Bithoor, and crossed into Oude.

On the 29th Havelock marched upon Onao. Here the rebels had occupied the ground with considerable skill. A deep swamp covered their right. Onao itself protected their left. In front was a village, and a garden entrenched like a bastion. In front of the village were enclosures. Thus the general found that he could not turn the position on either hand. He was forced to assail it in front. The order was given. With ready valour the Highlanders and Fusiliers drove the enemy out of the garden. They fell back on the village; their fire was hot; the 64th had to be brought up; and, all charging together, the village was stormed and the guns captured. This enabled Havelock to interpose his force between the enemy and Onao, towards which town they were hurrying. Firmly lodged on a piece of dry ground in the midst of swamps, and assailable only on a narrow front, Havelock saw his advantage, and allowing the enemy to come near, he shot them to pieces as they crowded on the road. The Oude native artillery, which had been carefully drilled, behaved with great gallantry; many gunners served their pieces to the last, and fell beside them under the rifles of the Fusiliers and the bayonets of the British Linesmen. Havelock stood victor, and master of fifteen of the enemy's guns.

The troops, after a halt of three hours to rest and eat, once more marched. The rebels had rallied at Busserutgunge. This was a walled town. The gate facing our troops was entrenched, and mounted four guns, and was flanked by towers. The road to Lucknow, running through the place, emerged at the opposite gate, and then was carried on a causeway through one of those large pieces of water called jheels. Concentrating a fire of artillery on the gate, Havelock held the Fusiliers and Highlanders ready to storm it, while he detached the 64th to the left to turn the town and cut off the retreat of the enemy. While the guns were in action, the storming column lay down; but when the fire of the defence slackened, and the Sepoys, frightened at the flank movement, began to run, the Highlanders and Fusiliers, with stern shouts, sprang up and carried the gate at a bound. The enemy fled over the causeway—for the 64th had not come up—and the battle was won.

But Havelock was destined to disappointment. A mutiny at Dinapore had prevented the arrival of the 5th and 90th regiments. He had lost nearly a hundred men on the 29th; a third of his ammunition was expended; cholera, smiting down scores, was in his camp; he had little or no spare transport; so, with a bitter feeling, he fell back to Mungulwar. Here he received five more guns and 257 men, but was obliged to disarm his native gun Lascars. The enemy—mutineers from Oude and Saugor, in Central India—was now gathering in force at Bithoor, and Neill was apprehensive of an attack; but Havelock, determined to try again, told Neill to hold his communications, and on the 4th of August marched to Onao, and on the 5th once more to Busserutgunge. Here the enemy were again. Knowing the ground better this time, the general, while he prepared to cannonade the front of the village, sent a force round their left flank. When this force emerged, he began the cannonade. The effect was instantaneous. Smitten by a point-blank fire of shot and shell, the rebels fled. The 64th and 84th dashed into the gate, while the Highlanders and Fusiliers and four of Maude's guns caught them as they streamed out on to the causeway. But, with great courage, the enemy rallied again in a village on both flanks. These were carried in brilliant style. The Sepoys carried off their cannon, but left 250 men on the field. Havelock could not improve his victories, because he had no cavalry. This was a fatal defect, as it[224] gave the enemy time to rally. Our loss—so swift and able had been our movements—was only two killed and twenty-three wounded.

Yet even now Havelock could not go on. As the Oude folk defended every post, he felt that he could only reach Lucknow with a force too weak to break in, much less carry off the garrison. He heard also that the Gwalior contingent was moving up to the Jumna, and he knew that Nana Sahib was not far off in Oude, and that the mutineers at Bithoor were growing every day stronger. Therefore he once more fell back to Mungulwar. The troops were indignant, but there is no doubt the general was right. His army was the only force we had between Behar and Delhi, and he was bound not to throw it away uselessly. He, therefore, drew up at Mungulwar, entrenched it, and made good his raft bridge over the Ganges, hoping in vain that reinforcements would arrive. Neill now urged him to send over aid to drive the enemy from Bithoor, who were meditating offensive operations. Havelock then resolved to abandon Oude altogether. He had begun to re-cross the river, when he learned that 5,000 men, with artillery, had occupied Busserutgunge. He saw that if he retreated under such a threat without striking a blow, he would lose much of that moral influence his daring actions had secured. So, before crossing he turned upon his foe. Two marches brought him up to the position. Again the enemy had made a skilful choice of position; and again, by skill and courage, our troops thrust him out of it, with heavy loss to him and little to them. Thus they had been thrice beaten on this one battlefield. Having struck this heavy blow, Havelock retreated at once, and on the 13th of August crossed to the right bank of the Ganges; then the bridge was broken up, and the boats brought over to the Cawnpore side. Such was the first effort to relieve Lucknow. It failed; but it is impossible not to admire the devotion and resolution of the general and his men, who—in spite of such odds as were arrayed against them—in spite of the fervid heat and its effects fever, cholera, lassitude—had eight times encountered victoriously the enemy on the field of battle.

On the 16th he went forth to his ninth action. The rebels at Bithoor were now to feel the weight of his hand. They were a "scratch pack," from five regiments, but they had a strong position, and many of them were very brave men. They were drawn up in fields of sugar-cane, with a village and an enclosure here and there, and behind a line of breastwork. Behind these was a stream crossed by a stone bridge. Instead of having this in their rear, the enemy should have had it in front. No doubt he relied on his numbers. After a march, under a cloudless August sun, the troops came up with the enemy, and speedily routed him out of his cane-brakes, but not before, in some cases, men of the 42nd Native Infantry had crossed bayonets with the Madras Fusiliers. The real work had now to be done. Covered by his breastwork, the enemy fought with great obstinacy, keeping his great guns going, and maintaining a fire of musketry equal, so thought the general, to that of the Sikhs at Ferozeshah. Our artillery could not silence the Sepoy guns. There was nothing for it but the bayonet. Our infantry got the word they loved so much, and charging in upon the enemy, lifted him clean over the bridge, captured his guns, and put him to flight. Havelock halted at Bithoor one night, and then returned to Cawnpore. Before he left he had cleared the town, and had blown up the remains of the Nana's buildings. The reason for retreating was that the defeated force might have doubled round upon Cawnpore, and sacked it in the absence of the troops. This action terminated Havelock's first campaign. He now learned, to his chagrin, that Sir James Outram had been appointed to take command of the troops destined for the relief of Lucknow. Here we must quit for a time this noble soldier, whose services were inestimable. But before we return to Delhi, we must tell by what accumulation of stupidities the reinforcements destined for Havelock were delayed on the road.

The reasons lie in the defective resolution of the Calcutta Government. At an early stage in the mutiny, Jung Bahadoor, of Nepaul, had offered his assistance, and Major Ramsay, our agent at his capital, had transmitted the offer. He proposed to send six regiments of Nepaulese to Benares or Allahabad. The Government did not like to acquiesce in this destination of the troops. Benares and Allahabad were too important to be held by any natives. The proposal was declined; but, after a lapse of some days, when our prospects grew every moment more gloomy, Jung Bahadoor's offer was accepted, but he was directed to move on and occupy Goruckpore. Here he might do good and could do little harm. In this opinion not only the Calcutta Government, but Mr. Tucker at Benares, and Havelock at Cawnpore acquiesced, and the last declared that he could not accept aid from the Nepaulese, unless their women and children and sick were left in some place as a sort of hostages, so profound was the distrust at this time[225] of any natives. Lord Canning has been censured with regard to his treatment of the Nepaulese, but we do not think wisely. His treatment of the Sepoys at Dinapore, however, does not admit of defence or excuse.

HOW MAJOR TOMBS WON THE VICTORIA CROSS. (See p. 227.)

Dinapore was a military station, ten miles west of Patna, and was the capital of the province of Behar inhabited by a turbulent population, numbering 300,000, a large proportion of whom were Mohammedans. There could be no security in the province until the Dinapore regiments were disarmed. Nothing would have been easier. In the middle of July, the 5th Foot, just landed from Mauritius, and half the 37th Foot were on their way up the Ganges. On their arrival at Dinapore these might have been landed, and, in conjunction with the 10th Foot, every native might have been disarmed in an hour. But Lord Canning left it to General Lloyd to say if the regiments should be disarmed, and General Lloyd had faith in the Sepoys. Moreover, Lord Canning refused to allow the 5th to land for an hour at Dinapore. The consequence of throwing the responsibility on Lloyd, and of refusing to detain the 5th, was very serious. General Lloyd thought it would be enough to take away from the Sepoys the percussion caps. This half-measure was executed on the 25th of July, just when Havelock was preparing to spring into Oude. The Sepoys murmured, threatened, but for the moment were quieted, and the general, thinking all over, went to lunch on board a steamer. Suddenly shots were heard. It appeared that when the Sepoys were ordered to deliver up the caps in their pouches, they fired; thereupon the 10th marched upon their lines and opened fire. The Sepoys at once decamped; some ran to the Ganges and tried to cross, but a sharp fire from a steamer sank their boats. The greater part made off, unpursued, towards Arrah. Their enterprise was not easy; they had the Sone to cross. A quick pursuit would have found them seeking boats on its right bank. No pursuit was made for three days, and in that time they had crossed the river and entered Arrah. Kour Singh, a large landowner, a man who exhibited a gun at the Great Exhibition in[226] 1851, joined the mutineers, supplied boats, counsel, leadership. They marched on Arrah, intending to plunder the treasury, and crossing the Ganges at Buxar, enter Oude. They were frustrated by the bravery of some ten civilians and fifty Sikhs, who held the place with dauntless resolution until they were splendidly relieved by Major Vincent Eyre.

The effects of the Dinapore mutiny were felt all over Behar. The 12th Irregulars mutinied, cutting off the heads of Major and Mrs. Holmes; two companies of Sepoys at Hazareebagh broke out and burnt the station; magistrates and Europeans fled in all directions, and weeks elapsed, and a large display of force had to be made, before order was restored. Moreover, Kour Singh and the broken mutineers went to Nagode and raised the 50th Native Infantry; and several other regiments and parts of regiments took fire and exploded. These were the causes that arrested the march of reinforcements to Havelock, and frustrated his splendid efforts to reach Lucknow.

To return to Delhi, the reader will remember that at the beginning of July reinforcements from the Punjab had raised the British army before that place to 6,600 men. At the same time, however, five native regiments and a battery of artillery arrived on the left bank of the Jumna opposite Delhi from Rohilcund. This added upwards of 4,000 fresh men to the rebel army. With them came Mohamed Bukt Khan from Bareilly, formerly a subahdar of artillery, now a general of brigade, and, soon after his arrival, Commander-in-Chief of the Sepoy army. When they came up, the swollen river had broken the bridge of boats, which was not re-established for two days. Our forces were so few that we were compelled to look on while the enemy performed this operation at leisure. In the beginning of July the new arrivals so raised the spirits of the mutineers that they engaged in several desperate actions. Their first operation was daring, and a dangerous one for us. The road to the Punjab, so vital to our safety, was entirely guarded by native troops, perfectly trustworthy, but in weak detachments, placed here and there to keep the road clear of marauders. It was along this road that our sick and wounded were sent to Umballa, and that our convoys of treasure and ammunition passed to the camp. The Sepoys, of course, knew this, and were moderately well informed of the goings and comings of convoys. They had heard that a quantity of treasure was coming down, and that a number of sick were going up; they resolved to capture the first and to murder the second. So on the 3rd about 6,000 men of all arms, with several guns, moved out of the Lahore Gate, and went round our right. They were not unseen. All night they marched, making for Alipore, one march in the rear of our camp. Here they drove off the Sikh guard, but found neither sick nor treasure; the former had passed on the 2nd, the latter, delayed on the road, had not come up. The Sepoys, instead of pushing for Kurnaul, as they might have done, countermarched on Delhi. Major Coke, with 1,100 men and 12 guns, had been sent out to intercept them. Hodson and his horse had been on the look-out, and gave Coke ample information. But although our troops got within cannon-shot, and engaged the enemy, they did little except capture an ammunition waggon and a store cart, and recover the plunder of Alipore. In order to check these attacks on our line of communications, it was resolved to blow up all the bridges over the canal except one, and also to destroy part of an aqueduct, one of the mighty works of the former Mohammedan rulers of Delhi. These enterprises were effected during the next week, and thus greater safety was secured for the rear, and the country folk were able to bring provisions into our markets without danger from the Sepoys.

On the day after the attack on Alipore General Barnard sickened of cholera, and by night he was dead. Himself a distinguished soldier, and the son of a more distinguished soldier, Sir Andrew Barnard, he had found himself in a situation unsuited to his abilities; for having served in the Crimea as chief of the staff, he had only arrived in India a few months before the mutiny broke out. He was greatly respected and beloved in camp, but it must be owned he was hardly fit for the work in hand. He was succeeded by a seniority general of no mark, who in turn fell ill, and going off on sick leave, left Brigadier Archdale Wilson in command of the troops before Delhi.

On the 9th of July the newly-arrived Sepoys again sought to distinguish themselves by an assault upon our lines. Among the troops from Bareilly which had just entered Delhi were the troopers of the 8th Irregulars. A wing of the 9th was in our camp, and many men in it had friends in the mutinous 8th. The incidents of the day showed that these two regiments were in communication. "About ten o'clock in the morning," writes Captain Norman, "the insurgents appeared to be increasing in numbers in the suburbs on our right, when suddenly a body of cavalry emerged[227] from cover on the extreme right of our right flank, and charged into camp.... The troop of Carabineers, all very young, most of them untrained soldiers, and only thirty-two in number of all ranks, turned and broke, save the officer and two or three men, who nobly stood. Lieutenant Hills, commanding the guns, seeing the cavalry come on unopposed, alone charged the head of the horsemen, to give his guns time to unlimber, and cut down one or two of the sowars, while the main body of horsemen riding over and past the guns, followed up the Carabineers, and a confused mass of horsemen came streaming in at the right of the camp. Major Tombs, whose tent was on the right, had heard the first alarm, and, calling for his horse to be brought after him, walked towards the picket just as the cavalry came on. He was just in time to see his gallant subaltern down on the ground, with one of the enemy's sowars ready to kill him. From a distance of thirty yards he fired with his revolver, and dropped Hills's opponent. Hills got up and engaged a man on foot, who was cut down by Tombs, after Hills had received a severe sabre-cut on the head. Meanwhile great confusion had been caused by the inroad of the sowars, most of whom made for the guns of the native troop of horse artillery, which was on the right of the camp, calling on the men to join them. The native horse artillerymen, however, behaved admirably, and called to Major Olpherts' European troop, which was then unlimbered close by, to fire through them at the mutineers. The latter, however, managed to secure and carry off some horses, and several followers were cut down in camp. Captain Fagan, of the artillery, rushing out of his tent, got together a few men, and followed up some of the sowars, who were then endeavouring to get away, and killed fifteen of them. More were killed by some men of the 1st Brigade, and all were driven out of the camp, some escaping by a bridge over the canal-cut in our rear. It is estimated that not more than 100 sowars were engaged in this enterprise, and about thirty-five were killed, including a native officer. All this time the cannonade from the city, and from many field-guns outside, raged fast and furious, and a heavy fire of musketry was kept up upon our batteries, and on the Subzee Mundi pickets from the enclosures and gardens of the suburbs. A column was therefore formed to dislodge them, consisting of Major Scott's horse battery, the available men of the 8th and 61st Foot and 4th Sikh Infantry—in all about 700 infantry, and six guns, reinforced en route by the headquarters and two companies of the 60th Rifles, under Lieutenant-Colonel J. Jones; the infantry brigade being commanded by Brigadier W. Jones, C.B., and Brigadier-General Chamberlain directing the whole. As this column swept up through the Subzee Mundi, Major Reid was instructed to move down and co-operate with such infantry as could be spared from the main picket. The insurgents were cleared out of the gardens without difficulty, though the denseness of the vegetation rendered the mere operation of passing through them a work of time. At some of the serais, however, a very obstinate resistance was made, and the insurgents were not dislodged without considerable loss. Eventually everything was effected that was desired, our success being greatly aided by the admirable and steady practice of Major Scott's battery under a heavy fire, eleven men being put hors de combat out of its small complement. By sunset the engagement was over, and the troops returned to camp, drenched through with rain, which, for several hours, had fallen at intervals with great violence. Our loss this day was one officer and 40 men killed, 8 officers and 163 men wounded, 11 men missing."

Not content with the result of the 9th, the mutineers, on the 14th, renewed the attack. They moved, as usual, out of the Lahore Gate, and made for the Subzee Mundi. The position on this side, however, had been strengthened greatly since the inroad of the troopers on the 9th, and the Sepoys were easily repelled. The fight became one of artillery and musketry, each party availing itself of good cover. At length we had to put an end to it in the usual way. Brigadier Chamberlain formed a column, and led them against the enemy—literally so; for our troops, not liking the look of a wall lined with Sepoys, stopped short, instead of charging at it. Thereupon Chamberlain, spurring his horse, leaped clean over the wall into the midst of the enemy, daring his own men to follow. They did, but Chamberlain got hit in the shoulder. Once on the move, our infantry kept the Sepoys going, and drove them from garden to garden and house to house up to the walls of Delhi. For this they paid heavily; for when they began to retire, the Sepoys took heart, and, issuing out, opened with musketry and grape. Luckily, Hodson, who had seen the column go in, followed with a few of his horse, and arrived at the moment of peril. Aided by some officers and the boldest spirits among the European and Guide Infantry, he stopped the enemy's cavalry, and then retired fighting, until two guns came up, and soon "drove[228] the last living rebel into his pandemonium," as they called Delhi in those days. But we lost 15 killed, and had 150 wounded.

During the remainder of July there were two more actions. The Jhansi regiments entered Delhi on the 16th; our spies in the city warned the general of an impending attack; and on the 18th the fresh regiments began what they boasted should be a four days' fight. There was nothing in the combat to distinguish it from so many of its predecessors. The alarm sounded, our troops turned out; the Sepoys, swarming among the ruins about the Subzee Mundi, retired as soon as they were assailed, and our men followed them as far as prudence dictated, and then drew off. The Sepoys did not keep their promise. One day's fighting seemed to have satisfied them. On the 23rd they sallied from the Cashmere Gate, and tried to establish a battery near the house called Ludlow Castle; but they were sharply assailed by a force under Brigadier Showers, and driven into the city. Unfortunately, in trying to take their guns, the troops got too near the walls, and suffered accordingly. No other fighting of moment occurred for the rest of the month; but in the meantime there had been hot work in the Punjab.

General Wilson, looking for troops from the Punjab, had changed materially the system of warfare before Delhi. He resolved to make more secure the position on the ridge, and connected the isolated batteries with a continuous line of breast-works. He determined to confine himself as much as possible to a system of resistance, and not give the enemy the opportunities he appeared to covet of luring our columns under the fire of the walls. He established a system of reliefs, so that part of the force got some rest while the bulk was on duty. The result was that the discipline of the troops, which had been growing somewhat slack, was rendered more rigorous, and a higher tone was imparted to the whole body. Rest and food, at stated times, soon improved the health of the army. The great point was to stand fast until the remaining troops which could be spared from the Punjab should arrive. We have now to tell what detained them.

To all suggestions that the siege of Delhi should be abandoned, Sir John Lawrence had offered instant and peremptory resistance. He would rather have restored the Peshawur valley to the Afghans than have abandoned Delhi. As a measure of despair he had even contemplated and discussed the surrender of the valley. His wisest counsellors were vehemently opposed to the latter move; they would have preferred the raising of the siege. Happily neither measure was forced upon him. He was burdened with a vast responsibility, for by severing the electric wires the Sepoys had made him Governor-General of the Punjab and the North-West above Agra. Aided by men like Montgomery, and Edwardes, and Nicholson—supported by such unflinching lieutenants as Frederick Cooper, Reynell Taylor, Spankie, Barnes, and Forsyth—he was able to quell his own mutineers, and pour down on Delhi those reinforcements which enabled Wilson to take it by storm.

That brilliant invention, the movable column, had not been idle during the month of July. There were five regiments of infantry and two of cavalry still in arms. Six of these regiments were in stations where there was not a single European soldier. The problem was how to get their arms. It was resolved first to deal with the 58th Native Infantry at Rawul Pindee and the 14th at Jhelum. He had little difficulty with the 58th. At first they seemed inclined to resist, but soon yielded. The two companies of the 14th, however, fled. They were pursued by mounted Punjabees, and those that escaped were brought in by the villagers. At Jhelum there was a battle. Sir John had sent 260 of the 24th Foot, three guns, and 150 police, all under Colonel Ellice, to disarm the 14th. These were followed by 700 Mooltanees, partly mounted, and the two bodies joined on the 6th. On the 7th Ellice sent part of the Mooltanee horse to guard the river, and with the rest marched towards the station. The 14th had been called under arms, and as soon as they saw the Europeans moving towards them, they began to load. Then there was a dropping fire. Presently the Sepoys broke, the Mooltanees charged, and did some execution, but the mutineers got into their quarters, and defied the horse. The Mooltanee foot came up. These were beaten off. The guns arrived, and opened. The Sepoys, well sheltered, would not budge. Colonel Ellice then arrived with the 24th Foot, and forming a small column, carried the lines with the bayonet. Ellice being wounded at the head of his men, Gerard took command. The Sepoys fled into a fortified village and stoutly resisted every onset. When night fell the troops were obliged to retire, leaving behind a howitzer, which was taken by the enemy. In the night the mutineers retreated, but did not escape. Out of 500 men only fifty were not "accounted for." No fewer than 150 fell in action, 180 were captured by the police, and 120, who reached Cashmere, were surrendered. But we suffered a loss of 44 killed, and 109 wounded, of whom one-half were Europeans.

[229]

BLOWING UP OF THE CASHMERE GATE AT DELHI. (See p. 235.)

[230]

Nor was this the worst loss. There were two native regiments at Sealkote—a few score miles distant east of the Chenab. They had long been suspected. They might have been disarmed in May, when there were European troops in the station. Brigadier Brind, the commandant, a brave old officer, remonstrated against the withdrawal of the 52nd Foot and Bourchier's European battery to form the movable column. He did not like to be left with only Hindostanee troops. "He was requested," says Mr. Montgomery, "to remove the cause of alarm by disarming them. He did not see his way to do this, and the column marched on." Sir John Lawrence had directed the ladies of the station and the soldiers' wives and children to be sent to Lahore. The latter were marched to Lahore under escort; several of the former remained. Brigadier Brind kept up a show of confidence in the 46th Native Infantry and the wing of the 9th Cavalry in the station; but he knew they were mutinous in spirit. The wonder was they had not gone before. Perhaps they waited for a signal from Delhi, and there is some evidence that the signal reached the station simultaneously with the news of the fight at Jhelum on the 7th. Be that as it may, on the 9th all the native troops mutinied. The officers, roused from sleep, mounted and rode among the men, but found remonstrance useless. They all made for an old fort, which Tej Singh, a Sikh chief, had placed at their disposal. But only some escaped.

Nor was this all. The movable column was at Amritsir. Here were the 59th Native Infantry. They had shown no symptoms of disaffection; but on the 8th General Nicholson heard of the fight at Jhelum. He saw at once the peril of the moment, and the duty. On the 9th he disarmed the 59th. It was only done just in time. On the evening of that day in came a messenger from Lahore, telling of the mutiny at Sealkote, and directing Nicholson to march on Gordaspore and intercept the Sealkote men. Nicholson did not hesitate. Disarming and dismounting the men of the 9th Cavalry, who were at Amritsir, he set out on the night of the 10th for Gordaspore, and by daylight he had made twenty-six miles. On the 12th, certain information came that the mutineers had crossed the Ravee at Trimmoo Ghaut, a ferry on the river. Nicholson moved out at once, and by noon sighted the rebel vedettes, men of the 9th Cavalry. The whole had not got over, and some were still crossing. Covering his front with mounted Punjabee levies, mere recruits for Hodson's Horse, Nicholson moved up his guns and infantry. The Sepoys were behind a strip of deep water, passable only by a bridge. In their rear was the Ravee, growing wider and deeper every hour, for the snows were melting in the hills, and swelling all the streams. As Bourchier's guns went over the bridge, down came the men of the 9th at the charge; the levies fled; the Sepoy skirmishers ran up and opened a steady fire. But the ugly symptoms soon vanished. The Sepoys had no guns. They were not soldiers who could stand against the 52nd. In twenty minutes grapeshot, shrapnel, and rifle-balls silenced the fire of the rebel line. In half-an-hour the mutineers were in retreat, leaving three or four hundred killed and wounded on the field. Nicholson had no dragoons, or there the business would have ended. He caused his few Sikhs to pursue, and these captured all the baggage and stores which the enemy had brought to the left bank. In the river there was an island. To cross that night was impossible. In the night the river rose and caught the rebels in a trap. On the 11th they had been able to ford the stream; on the 13th it had risen several feet. The dawn found the enemy prisoners, with the swift flood of the Ravee rolling around them, and a relentless foe preparing the means of destroying them. Three days passed before boats could be procured. On the 16th all was ready. Covered by the fire of seven guns on the other bank, and headed by Nicholson, the 52nd swept on in line, and in a few minutes the mutineers went in a crowd to the rear. A few resolute men died around the gun; others were overtaken in fight and slain; a mob ran to the end of the island, and those who escaped the bayonet, and swam over the river, were captured by the villagers. Not more than a hundred got away into Cashmere, and these we compelled the Maharajah to surrender. Thus did John Nicholson break in pieces this horde of mutineers, and save the Punjab between the Jhelum and the Sutlej. On the 22nd the column was again at Amritsir. Three days afterwards it was again on the march, en route for Delhi, in earnest this time, for now the Punjab had been made secure by the disarming of nearly every Hindostanee regiment, and the raising of new levies among the Punjabees.

But there were still days of peril between the Sutlej and the Indus, and over the Indus; and before carrying the reader with us to Delhi, to witness the final strife there, it will be as well to note in passing the tragic incidents at Lahore and Peshawur.

[231]

The disarmed Hindostanees at Meean Meer, near Lahore, writhed under the degradation which it had been so necessary to inflict upon them. Frequent reports reached the brigadier that one or more of the regiments intended to break out and run away, but day after day passed, and there were no signs, and only the usual precautions were taken. At length, however, the 26th Native Infantry tried the experiment, and their fate proved an example to discourage the other regiments. On the 30th of July, at mid-day, they broke out. They fled up the left bank of the Ravee. Fortunately, the deputy-commissioner at Amritsir was Mr. Frederick Cooper. As soon as he heard of the flight of the 26th, he got together some Punjabee horse and foot, and after a severe march, struck the trail of the mutineers. He found them in sorry plight. They had swum the river or floated over on pieces of wood, and were lodged on an island about a mile from the shore. By stratagem he got them all from the island, and had them secured with cords. Then they were escorted to the police-station at Ujnalla, six miles distant, and before they arrived the Sikh infantry came up. There were 282 prisoners. Sending his Hindostanee troopers back to Amritsir, Mr. Cooper prepared to execute the whole. On the 1st of August they were led out in batches of ten; their names were taken down; they were marched to the place of execution. Two hundred and thirty-seven were so executed, and forty-five were found dead in the gaol. All the bodies were thrown into a dry well by men of the lowest caste, and Cooper wrote, "there is a well at Cawnpore, but there is also a well at Ujnalla." To read of this execution in cold blood makes one shudder; but those who have studied the state of the Punjab at that moment will agree with Mr. Montgomery, that the punishment so sternly inflicted by Mr. Cooper was "just and necessary." Sir John Lawrence congratulated him on his success, though privately acknowledging that his despatch was "nauseous." Mr. Montgomery wrote at the time—"All honour to you for what you have done; and right well you did it;" and in 1859 solemnly reviewed and justified the execution. Lord Canning approved.

The drama at Peshawur was equally serious and bloody. In the middle of August there came a holy man, who sat himself down at the mouth of the Khyber Pass, hoisted the green flag, and preached what Colonel Edwardes calls a "crescentade." "The most evident restlessness," writes Colonel Edwardes, in his report, "pervaded the disarmed regiments; arms were said to be finding their way into the lines in spite of all precautions, and symptoms of an organised rise began to appear; General Cotton, as usual, took the initiative. On the morning of the 28th of August he caused the lines of every native regiment to be simultaneously searched, the Sepoys being moved out into tents for that purpose; swords, hatchets, muskets, pistols, bayonets, powder, ball, and caps, were found stowed away in roofs, and floors, and bedding, and even drains; and, exasperated by the discovery of their plans, and by the taunts of the newly-raised Afridi regiments, who were carrying out the search, the 51st Native Infantry rushed upon the piled arms of the 18th Punjab Infantry, and sent messengers to all the other Hindostanee regiments, to tell them of the rise. For a few minutes a desperate struggle ensued; the 51st Native Infantry had been one of the finest corps in the service, and they took the new Irregulars altogether by surprise. They got possession of several stand of arms, and used them well. Captain Bartlett and the other officers were overpowered by numbers, and driven into a tank. But soon the Afridi soldiers seized their arms, and then began that memorable fusilade which commenced on the parade ground at Peshawur and ended at Jumrood. General Cotton's military arrangements in the cantonment were perfect for meeting such emergencies—troops, horse and foot, were rapidly under arms and in pursuit of the mutineers. Every civil officer turned out with his posse comitatus of levies or police, and in a quarter of an hour the whole country was covered with the chase." By these means the regiment was in thirty-six hours "accounted for." It was 871 strong. The example sufficed. The disarmed regiments were paralysed by the sudden retribution. Peshawur was stronger than ever.

At the beginning of August it had been resolved to make a supreme effort to dispose of Delhi. Nicholson's column, growing stronger at every step, had already started from Amritsir. A first-class siege train was prepared in the arsenals of Philour and Ferozepore. It consisted of four 10-inch mortars, six 24-pounders, eight 18-pounders, and four 8-inch howitzers, with ample supplies of ammunition. Thus there were en route for Delhi a powerful column and a splendid siege train. General Wilson's plan meanwhile was to act on the defensive. He therefore confined himself to repelling attacks on our position, and to protecting his communications with Kurnaul. Twice or thrice the enemy tried to bridge the waterways[232] covering the flank of the Great Road, and so get to Alipore, and clutch at convoys. But they failed. Three or four times during the month of August they assailed the ridge, but their failures were costly to them. On the 7th one of their magazines blew up, and it is said that 500 men perished in the explosion. On the 8th they again tried to plant a battery at the house called Ludlow Castle, opposite our left front. General Wilson resolved to have it. At four in the morning of the 12th Brigadier Showers led a strong column of infantry down from the ridge, and so well did he manage that he surprised the enemy, overpowered him, killed several hundred, and captured and brought off four guns. On the 13th of August Nicholson's column marched into camp. It consisted of the 52nd Foot, half the 61st Foot, the 2nd Punjab Infantry, and Bourchier's battery. There were on the way the 4th Punjab Infantry, half the 1st Belooch Battalion from Scinde, three companies of the 8th Foot, and several score recruits. Beside these, the general had to wait for the siege train. Sir John Lawrence could do no more. These were the last batches of troops he could spare. They mustered about 4,200 men, of whom 1,300 were Europeans.

In the meantime, alarmed by news of the coming siege-train, the mutineers sent out 6,000 men and 16 guns, under Bukt Khan, of Rohilcund, to capture the train. Hearing this, Nicholson girded himself up for a stroke at them. They moved out on the 24th; he started on the 25th, with 1,600 infantry, 500 horses, and 16 guns. The enemy had marched to Nujuffghur by the Rhotuck road. The Sepoy position consisted of a serai in their left centre, where they had four guns; a village in rear on each flank; a third village, and the town of Nujuffghur. In their rear ran a canal, crossed by a single bridge, over which they had come from Delhi. Nicholson determined to carry the serai, thus breaking the left centre of the line; then swinging round his right, to sweep the enemy's line of guns, and, if possible, cut him off from the bridge. This plan was energetically carried out. Detaching the 1st Punjab Infantry, under Lieutenant Lumsden, to drive the enemy out of Nujuffghur, and Blunt to watch the left, Nicholson arrayed the 1st Bengal Fusiliers, the 61st Foot, and the 2nd Punjabees against the serai. There was a crash of musketry, down came the bayonets, and with a fierce cheer on dashed the line. The Sepoys fought well, and some crossed bayonets with our men; yet they could not stand against the impetuous onset, and the serai and guns were won. Changing his front, Nicholson now turned the line of the remaining guns of the enemy, and advanced. The Sepoys, although strongly posted, seeing the bridge in danger, made for it at full speed, and crowded over, pursued by the fire of our artillery. They succeeded in getting away with three guns, leaving thirteen in our possession, captured on the field. We also took their camp and baggage, horses and camels and seventeen full waggons of ammunition. In the meantime Lumsden had cleared the rebels out of Nujuffghur, and was moving up to join the main body, when he was ordered to drive a band of Sepoys out of a village into which they had thrown themselves when cut off from the bridge. Having no retreat, these men fought desperately. The 61st were sent up, but these, too, suffered heavily before the village was taken. Halting near the bridge, the sappers blew it up—an important service—and the troops, who had been afoot all day, slept on the ground without food. By such an exploit did Nicholson signalise his arrival before Delhi.

The fate of Delhi was drawing nigh. The old king, after he learned the truth—a long time kept from him—about the battle of Nujuffghur, suffered alike from impotent anger and impotent despair. He felt that we must win; and he felt rightly. The last reinforcements came up in the first week of September, and with them the siege train. There was now no time to lose. Cholera and ague were rife in our camp. Not only the malaria from the swamps, but the fetid odours from dead cattle were more fatal than the shot of the enemy. Out of 11,000 men, more than a fourth were sick. Everything—the feverish state of the Punjab, the unhealthiness of the camp—made it imperative on General Wilson to take Delhi. He had powerful assistants. Baird Smith was there to direct the engineering operations; Nicholson to impel and guide; Hodson and Chamberlain and Norman to apply the spur, if it were needed. At the back of all, the commanding voice of Sir John Lawrence could be heard from the Punjab. Delhi must be taken out of hand. Thus the month of August closed, and September began the fourth of the mutiny and the third of the siege. The crowning act is a little story by itself, and must have a separate chapter.

[233]

HOOSEINABAD GARDENS AND TOMB OF ZANA ALI, LUCKNOW. (From a Photograph by Frith & Co., Reigate.)

## CHAPTER XV.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

> Defect of the Delhi Fortifications—The Batteries are constructed—An effective Cannonade—The Plan of Attack—The British Advance—Nicholson's Column—The Cashmere Gate exploded—Entry into the City—Campbell's Column—Nicholson mortally wounded—Failure at the Lahore Gate—Cavalry and Artillery save the Situation—A Lodgment in Delhi—Excesses of the Troops—The British possess the City—Capture of the King—The Princes shot—Significance of their Fate—Effect of the Fall of Delhi—Greathed's Column—The Relief of Agra—Affairs at Lucknow—Weakness of the Defences—The Garrison—Character of the Attack—Effort against the Redan—Explosion of Mines—The Daily Wear-and-Tear—Inglis's Report—Sir Colin Campbell at Calcutta—Havelock superseded by Outram—Position of Havelock's Army—Eyre's Exploits—Havelock crosses the Ganges—Combat of Mungulwar—Battle at the Alumbagh—The Plan of Attack—The Charbagh Bridge is won—Under the Kaiserbagh—The Goal is reached—The Scene that Evening—Havelock's Losses—Outram determines to remain—Energy of the Indian Government—The Force at Cawnpore—Sir Colin to the Front—Kavanagh's daring Deed—The Canal is crossed—Capture of the Secunderbagh—Sortie of the Garrison—The Relief accomplished—Campbell retires on Cawnpore—Death of Havelock.

THE crisis in the siege of Delhi had now arrived. Although the Sepoys had shown some skill and some enterprise in defence of Delhi, our engineers, scanning the place, had long seen that they had committed a capital fault. We were forced to assail the north front of the city, because we were tied to the plateau and the ridge, by the fact that our line of communications lay in rear of the ridge, and because we could not establish any base of supplies in any other quarter. Now, the fortifications on this side consisted, starting from the Jumna, on our left, of the Water Bastion, the Cashmere Bastion, and the Moree Bastion. A curtain wall, loopholed for musketry, but not pierced or prepared for guns, connected each bastion with the other. The consequence was that guns were mounted only on the bastions, and not on the curtains; and the effect of this was that we were enabled to erect a line of batteries strong enough to silence the guns on the bastions and breach the curtain walls. Had the mutineers possessed an engineer of ordinary faculty, he would have seen the use to which the curtains could have been put. He would have caused a thick rampart of earth to be[234] piled up behind the curtains. On these he would have mounted guns drawn from the magazine—there were 200 new pieces in store—and thus the whole of the north front, from the Moree to the Water Bastion, would have been one bristling line of batteries. Fortunately for us the enemy did not find this out until it was too late. It was not likely that an engineer so accomplished as Colonel Baird Smith would overlook the capital defect of the enemy. He did not; and his plan of attack, executed by Captain Taylor, took ample advantage of the opportunity afforded by the negligence of the foe.

The active operations of the siege began on the 7th of September. That night it was resolved that the right battery, No. 1, should be completed and armed. It was an immense undertaking, but was successfully accomplished.

As soon as it was light the mutineers in the Moree and along the curtain beheld with indignant astonishment the newly built battery, and opened upon it with a destructive fire, under which it had to be finished, gun after gun opening as it was got into its place. The effect of our fire was soon manifest, for by the afternoon of the 8th the Moree was a silent heap of ruins. Nevertheless, at intervals throughout the bombardment, the enemy sticking to the Moree, now and then opened fire from a gun until it was knocked over. On the same day, the 7th, a strong force had surprised and occupied Ludlow Castle, and the Koodsia Bagh, a garden to the left of it, and under the Water Bastion. It was in this quarter that the real siege batteries were to be constructed, and the work had been commenced on the right with the double object of crushing the Moree, and drawing off the attention of the enemy from the Cashmere Gate and Bastion. On this side four batteries were speedily made, all under a heavy fire, for they were within musketry range, and the broken ground between the batteries and the place afforded excellent cover. There were two batteries in front of Ludlow Castle, an array of eighteen guns; a mortar battery in line with them, but farther to the left; and a fourth battery near the customhouse, within 150 yards of the Water Bastion. Until all was ready the embrasures were masked with gabions, and when the time came to open fire, these were removed by volunteers, who for the time were exposed to the enemy's shot. These were great and successful operations, and without native labour could not have been accomplished. But the natives worked well for pay, and readily plied the spade and pick under a searching fire. The losses were heavy, but the work was very urgent.

The mortars had been in steady play from sunset on the 10th, and on the 11th the breaching battery of eighteen guns opened with such effect on the Cashmere Bastion, and the curtain between it and the Water Bastion, that the guns on the former ceased to reply, and the latter came clattering down in huge cantles. The shot shook down the wall, the shells tore open the parapets. Hour by hour the breach grew wider. The right of the Cashmere Bastion and the left of the Water Bastion were crumbling away under the ceaseless blows. But these were not given without a sharp return of fire. The mutineers covered their whole front with a trench, and lined it with infantry. They brought light guns on to the ramparts. They skilfully planted a battery to the left of the Moree in such a position that it took the right and centre batteries in flank, and could not itself be seen by any gun of ours; while across the Jumna there was a second battery, which enfiladed the left, though with less effect. In spite of all this our troops worked their guns with unfaltering steadiness. For three days this went on incessantly; the big guns firing by day, the mortars shelling the breaches and parapets all night. On the 13th there were two great breaches in the walls. If these were practicable, it was determined that the place should be assaulted forthwith, as the Sepoys were at length engaged in piling up earth behind the curtain connecting the Moree and Cashmere Bastions in order that they might line the wall with heavy guns. The engineers—no officers were called upon to do more, or answered the call better, than the officers of this corps—were ordered to examine the breaches, and reported that the attempt was quite feasible.

The general had already drawn up his plan of assault. The chief engineer advised that it should be delivered at daybreak the next morning. His advice was adopted, and accordingly the welcome order went through the camp, and roused the soldiers for an encounter they so sternly desired. In order to capture the city, the general formed five columns. Of these, the first, under Nicholson, consisted of the 75th Foot, the 1st Fusiliers, and the 2nd Punjabees. It was to break in at the Cashmere Bastion, through the breach. The second, under Brigadier Jones, consisted of the 8th Foot, the 2nd Fusiliers, and the 4th Sikhs. This column was directed to enter the Water Bastion breach. The third column, under Colonel Campbell, of the 52nd, consisted of the 52nd Foot, the Kumaon[235] Battalion, and the 1st Punjabees. To them was entrusted the duty of rushing in at the Cashmere Gate after it had been blown open. The fourth column, under Major Reid, the constant and gallant defender of the Hindoo Rao's house, was formed of a detachment of British, his own Ghoorkas, and part of the Cashmere Contingent. They were to carry the suburb of Kishengunge, the enfilading battery under the Moree, and, if possible, the Lahore Gate. The fifth column, under Brigadier Longfield, formed the reserve. The whole force did not exceed 5,000 men.

Before daybreak the first three columns and the reserve moved down from the ridge towards Ludlow Castle and the Koodsia Bagh. Just before reaching the former, Nicholson marched to the left and Campbell to the right of Ludlow Castle, while Jones led his men into the jungles of the Koodsia Bagh. The whole then lay down under cover, while the 60th Rifles in advance took post in open order within musket-shot of the walls, their duty being to fire on the mutineers on the parapets of the curtain flanking the breaches. It was now seen that the enemy had improvised defences in the breaches during the night, and the batteries once more opened on them to clear away the obstructions, and to shake the courage of the Sepoys. The Rifles springing up with a cheer, and moving forward, was to be the signal for the batteries to cease firing, and for the columns to go in simultaneously. Presently the dark forms of the 60th rose from their cover; their cheering shouts were followed by the crack of their rifles; a burst of musketry from the walls replied with a steady vigour; the columns emerged, and each went as straight at the object before them as the ground would permit. With throbbing pulses, but firm, quick tramp, they swept along. So the columns closed with the enemy who had kept them at bay four months.

Nicholson's column, headed by the ladder party, which was led by the engineers, Medley, Lang, and Bingham, rushed towards the breach. But the mutineers shot closely and fast, and the party were so smitten on the edge of the ditch, that minutes elapsed before the ladders could be got down: at length the thing was done. Then the leaders and the stormers slid down the slope, planted the ladders against the scarp below the breach, and began to ascend. The enemy fought furiously and yelled furiously, and rolled down stones and sustained a terrific fire, and dared our men to come on. They got a speedy answer. Up went Lieutenant Fitzgerald, of the 75th, the first to mount, but he was instantly shot dead. But others followed fast, and seeing how resolute their assailants were, the enemy fled, and the breach was won. Swarming in, the column poured down into the main guard. They had assailed the proper right of the bastion. On the proper left was the famous Cashmere Gate, and here an exploit had been performed, which, for daring, ranks amongst the choicest exploits recorded in the history of war.

That exploit was the blowing in of the gate in broad daylight. The men ordered to perform this feat were the engineer officers, Lieutenants Home and Salkeld; the sapper sergeants, Carmichael, Burgess, and Smith, and Havildar Madhoo, with seven native sappers to carry powder-bags. With them went Robert Hawthorn, bugler of the 52nd, whose duty it was to sound the advance when the gate was blown in. Campbell's column, as we have seen, was lying down awaiting the signal. As soon as it was given, the explosion party started on their dreadful errand. Captain Medley has described the scene that ensued so well that we must quote from his pages. There was an outer barrier gate, which was found open. Through this went Home. Before him stretched a broken drawbridge spanning the ditch. Over its shattered timbers, accompanied by four natives, each carrying a bag of twenty-five pounds of powder, he went, and placed them at the foot of the great double gate. "So utterly paralysed were the enemy at the audacity of the proceeding that they only fired a few straggling shots, and made haste to close the wicket, with every appearance of alarm, so that Lieutenant Home, after laying his bags, jumped into the ditch unhurt. It was now Salkeld's turn. He also advanced with four other bags of powder, and a lighted port-fire. But the enemy had now recovered from their consternation, and had seen the smallness of the party, and the object of their approach. A deadly fire was poured upon the little band from the top of the gateway from both flanks, and from the open wicket not ten feet distant. Salkeld laid his bags, but was shot through the arm and leg, and fell back on the bridge, handing the port-fire to Sergeant Burgess, bidding him light the fusee. Burgess was instantly shot dead in the attempt. Sergeant Carmichael then advanced, took up the port-fire, and succeeded in the attempt; but immediately fell mortally wounded. Sergeant Smith, seeing him fall, advanced at a run; but, finding that the fusee was already burning, threw himself down into the ditch, where the bugler had already conveyed poor[236] Salkeld. In another moment a terrific explosion shattered the massive gate."

Ere the roar of the powder had died away, the bugle of the steadfast Hawthorn rang out the well-known notes, which told his comrades to come on. Campbell gave the word, and the column, headed by the noble old 52nd, started forward. First went Captain Bayley and a company of the 52nd. These, rushing over the drawbridge, and through the gate, were quickly followed by fifty men from each battalion, and these by the whole force of the column. There was no resistance. The exploding powder had killed all the defenders of the gate but one, and he was soon despatched. As the men were forming afresh for work, down came Nicholson's column from the other side. So far the work had been well and quickly done. The second column in its advance on the Water Bastion breach had suffered great losses, three-fourths of the ladder-party falling, together with Greathed and Hovenden, the engineers. Part of the column, however, got in at the breach; but a large number straggled off to the right, and followed the track of Nicholson. Once inside, Campbell and Nicholson got their men into order. The work of the first was to clear the buildings near the Cashmere Gate, and then march straight forward upon the Chandni Chowk, having for object the possession of that High Street of Delhi, and the strong and lofty Jumma Musjid, which rose up just beyond it. The second undertook to sweep along the ramparts, capture in succession the Moree, Cabul, Burun, and Lahore Bastions, give admission to Reid's column, if it carried the suburbs, and, connecting with Campbell in the Chandni Chowk, press on to the Ajmere Gate. We must follow each column in turn.

Colonel Campbell's column, before it started inwards, cleared the cutchery, the church, and several houses, and sent a company into the Water Bastion, where the enemy still lingered. Then gathering up his men, and guided by Sir Theophilus Metcalfe, who knew every inch of the city, he made his way through the streets and gardens towards the Chandni Chowk. On the road the detached company, which had cleared the Water Bastion, rejoined the main body, having worked its way through the narrow streets from the waterside. The column met with little opposition. Working through the Begum Bagh, the column found the gate closed; but an adventurous native policeman, and half a dozen 52nd men, speedily broke open the gate, and the force emerged into the Chandni Chowk, and at once occupied the Kotwallee, or police-station. Then they tried the Jumina Musjid; but the enemy had closed the gate and bricked up the side arches. He had swarmed into the houses on each side, and his cavalry, even, were galloping about the streets. As Colonel Campbell had neither powder-bags nor guns, he could do nothing; so he fell back into the Begum Bagh under a smart fire. Here he waited some time, in the hope of seeing Reid's and Nicholson's men sweep up the Chandni Chowk from the Lahore Gate. They did not come; and he therefore relinquished the ground won, and fell back upon the church.

In the meantime, Nicholson had led his men along the Rampart Road, which runs the whole circuit of the city within the wall. He rapidly seized the Moree Bastion and the Cabul Gate, and was pressing on for the Lahore Gate, when the column met with a check. They had gone some distance, the 75th Foot in front, writes Mr. Cave Browne, when, "at a curve in the road, a gun in the Burun Bastion opened fire upon them. In the lane, too, was a slight breastwork with a brass gun to dispute the road; but this was soon withdrawn before the brisk fire of the 75th. Unhappily, no rush was made to capture it. The men in advance hesitated, and fell back to the Cabul Gate, with three officers—Captain Freer (of the 27th), Wadeson, and Darrell—wounded. Here Nicholson, who had mounted the Moree Bastion to reconnoitre the movements of the enemy outside, joined them, and found the aspect of affairs suddenly changed. In the lane, which had before been comparatively clear, one of the guns (originally placed at the Lahore Gate to sweep the Chandni Chowk) had now been run some distance down the lane, and another placed at the entrance to support it. The windows and roofs of the low houses on the left were also now swarming with riflemen; and where a short time before a vigorous rush might have cleared the almost empty lane, and taken the gun and carried the Lahore Gate in flank, with probably but little loss, now every inch of ground had to be fought, and the advance made in the face of a deadly fire from the field-piece, through the lane alive with a concealed foe. Nicholson saw the emergency, and resolved on recovering, if possible, the lost ground. He pushed on the 1st Fusiliers, who answered to his call right gallantly. One gun was taken and spiked; twice they rushed at the second. The grape ploughed through the lane, bullets poured down like hail from the walls and houses. Major Jobson fell mortally wounded at the head of his[237] men; Captain Speke and Captain Greville were disabled; the men were falling fast—there was hesitation. Nicholson sprang forward, and while in the act of waving his sword to urge the men on once more—alas for the column, alas for the army, for India!—he fell back mortally wounded, shot through the chest by a rebel from a house window close by, and was carried off by two of the 1st Fusiliers. The command of the column devolved on Major Brookes, of the 75th Regiment, who, on Colonel Herbert's retiring wounded at the glacis, had taken command of that regiment. They now fell back on the Cabul Gate, which was for some time to be our advanced position. The delay had lost us the Lahore Gate and Nicholson."

SIR HOPE GRANT. (From a Photograph by Elliott & Fry.)

It was this check which compelled the retreat of Campbell from the Begum Bagh, and of Ramsay, with his Ghoorkas from the Kotwallee, in the Chandni Chowk, a post he had held for five hours. By this time the reserve had entered the city, and Bourchier was bringing in his guns, when the aspect of affairs outside directed attention to that quarter.

The attempt to reach the Lahore Gate, by carrying the suburb in front of it, had failed. The Sepoys, who, as we have remarked, were not wanting in military qualities, had prepared for an attack on Kishengunge. Indeed, one reason for hurrying on the assault of Delhi was that they were known to be making a battery for seventeen guns in this quarter, with which to take in flank our whole line of batteries. So that when Major Reid, starting from the ridge, led his weak column from the Subzee Mundi towards the Kishengunge suburb, he found the gardens and houses full of troops, two or three breast-works in his path,[238] plenty of guns, and several squadrons of horsemen hovering about on the watch for a chance. His troops were under the fire of the western bastions of the city, and artillerymen were so scarce that the three guns with him were under-manned. The column moved on, and came in contact with the enemy. The Cashmere Contingent, forming the right of the line, rushed prematurely into action, and ran as prematurely out of it. Their conduct obliged the handful of Rifles and Ghoorkas to precipitate their attack, and in the first onset they stormed the first line of the enemy's defences. But at this crisis, Major Reid, who had escaped scot-free in twenty-five actions, fell severely wounded in this his twenty-sixth; and the enemy, developing an immense force of all arms, Captain Muter, of the Rifles, who succeeded to the command, withdrew the whole column, covered by the fire of the ridge batteries.

This was a moment of real peril. If the victorious foe wheeled to his right, he might have swept along the line of the siege batteries, and fallen on the flank and rear of the assaulting columns. Or he might have tried to capture the ridge and camp. To prevent this, the cavalry performed a rare exploit in war. Brigadier Hope Grant, whose horsemen had been in the saddle since three in the morning, descended from the ridge with 600 sabres and lances and a few guns, led by the gallant Tombs, and rode under the city walls, so as to interpose between the assaulting troops and the enemy. "In an instant," writes Hodson, "horse artillery and cavalry were ordered to the front, and we went there at the gallop, bang through our own batteries, the gunners cheering us as we leapt over the sand-bags, etc., and halted under the Moree Bastion, under as heavy a fire of round-shot, grape, and canister, as I have ever been under in my life. Our artillery dashed to the front, unlimbered, and opened upon the enemy; and at it they both went, 'hammer and tongs.' Now, you must understand we had no infantry with us. All the infantry were fighting in the city. They sent out large bodies of infantry and cavalry against us, and then began the fire of musketry. It was tremendous. There we were—9th Lancer, 1st, 2nd, 4th Sikhs, Guide Cavalry, and Hodson's Horse—protecting the artillery, who were threatened by their infantry and cavalry. And fancy what a pleasant position we were in, under this infernal fire, and never returning a shot.... Well, all things must have an end. Some infantry came down and cleared the gardens in our front; and, as their cavalry never showed, and we had no opportunity of charging, we fell back, and (the fire being over in that quarter) halted and dismounted."

When the evening of the 14th arrived we had made a lodgment in Delhi. We held the ramparts from the Cabul Gate, along the north front, to the Jumna. We held the church and the college, and several houses. The palace, the magazine, the Selimghur, the great gardens, the Jumma Musjid—four-fifths of the city—were still in the hands of the enemy. To win what we had won had cost the little army 66 officers and 1,104 men killed and wounded—nearly a third of the whole force engaged! The position gained was fortified, and preparations were made for pushing on the work next day. But, unhappily, the troops found plenteous stores of liquor, and, demoralised by prolonged labour, with systems exhausted by the burning climate, they drank without stint, and on the night of the 14th and the morning of the 15th the Sepoys might have driven the helpless host out of the place. General Wilson was so alarmed that he talked of retreating to the ridge! Happily there were firmer minds about him, and he had sense enough to take their advice, and hold on. Nicholson's voice pealed up from his death-bed against the madness of the thought, the bare mention of which raised a storm of anger in our lines. To put a stop to intoxication, General Wilson sent a party into the warehouses to destroy every bottle of beer, wine, or spirits that could be found. It was done, and the army was saved at the expense of the sick and wounded, who needed the stimulants poured out in waste in the cellars of Delhi.

Once rescued from drunkenness, the troops steadily carried out their arduous enterprise, and at the end of six days Delhi was ours. On the 16th the walls of the magazine were breached, and the 4th Punjabees and Beloochees, going in with the bayonet, drove out or killed the defenders. The enemy, losing courage, withdrew from Kishengunge, and the Ghoorkas replaced them. On the 17th the Delhi Bank House was carried, and a mortar battery planted to bombard the palace. All this time the enemy kept up a heavy fire from every point of vantage; but this did not prevent us from making progress. On the 18th the Burun Bastion was taken by surprise, and the Rifles had sapped their way through the houses up to the palace, the main gate of which was now exposed to a severe cannonade. The people and the Sepoys were now hurrying out of the city on all sides. Hosts of women had passed through our lines towards our camp, guarded by our soldiers, for we[239] did not make war on women. There were signs that the palace had been deserted, and, rushing in, the troops found only a few fanatics inside, and these soon received the death they sought. On the 20th we were in entire possession of the city, every large building and fortified post having been taken or abandoned.

But the King of Delhi, the descendant of Timur—the man around whom insurrection would gather its thousands—had not been taken. With the blood-stained princes of his house, he had found refuge in the Tomb of Humayoun, and the ruins of old Delhi. Hodson, who always saw into the heart of the business in hand, now felt that without the capture of the king, the capture of Delhi would be shorn of half its fruit. He therefore implored the general to allow him to take a body of his horse, and bring in the king, on the sole condition that his life should be spared if he surrendered. Wilson was obdurate. He did not want to be "bothered" with the king and the princes. He could not spare European troops, and so on. Neville Chamberlain threw the weight of his counsel into Hodson's scale, and again the words of Nicholson were forthcoming on the same side. The general gave way. He gave Hodson authority to spare the life of the king, but he declined to be responsible for the enterprise. Hodson selected fifty troopers from his Horse. The ruins were swarming with townspeople and the followers of the king. The peril was very great. Here was one white man; he had fifty faithful swordsmen with him; around him were a host of natives, chiefly Moslems. But he did not hesitate, and the king surrendered. The march towards the city began—the longest five miles, as Captain Hodson said, that he ever rode; for of course the palkees only went at a foot pace, with his handful of men around them, followed by thousands, any one of whom could have shot him down in a moment. His orderly said that it was wonderful to see the influence which his calm and undaunted look had on the crowd. They seemed perfectly paralysed at the fact of one white man (for they thought nothing of his fifty black sowars) carrying off their king alone. Gradually as they approached the city the crowd slunk away, and very few followed up to the Lahore Gate.

This adventure was followed by one still more striking, more tragic—the capture and summary execution of the felon princes. Again the general had to be entreated earnestly to permit their capture. Having obtained permission, Hodson called up his lieutenant, Macdowell, and ordered him to bring a hundred men. They set out about eight in the morning of the 21st, and arriving at the Tomb, the troopers were so posted as to invest the huge building, in which were several thousands of armed men. In spite of this support the princes surrendered. Writes Macdowell, recounting the story to a friend, "As we got about a mile off, Hodson turned to me and said, 'Well, Mac, we've got them at last;' and we both gave a sigh of relief. Never in my life, under the heaviest fire, have I been in such imminent danger. Everybody says it is the most dashing and daring thing that has been done for years (not on my part, for I merely obeyed orders; but on Hodson's, who planned and carried it out). Well, I must finish my story. We came up to the princes, now about five miles from where we had taken them, and close to Delhi. The increasing crowd pressed close on the horses of the sowars, and assumed every moment a more hostile appearance. 'What shall we do with them?' said Hodson to me. 'I think we had better shoot them here; we shall never get them in.' There was no time to be lost; we halted the troop, put five troopers across the road, behind and in front. Hodson ordered the princes to strip (that is, to take off their upper garments), and get again into the cart; he then shot them with his own hand. So ended the career of the chiefs of the revolt, and of the greatest villains that ever shamed humanity. Before they were shot, Hodson addressed our men, explaining who they were, and why they were to suffer death. The effect was marvellous—the Mussulmans seemed struck with a wholesome idea of retribution, and the Sikhs shouted with delight, while the mass moved off slowly and silently." The bodies were taken into the city, and flung down in the Chandni Chowk, in front of the Kotwallee, the very place where, four months before, they had exposed the bodies of our countrywomen whom they had slain! Our soldiers looked on this as poetic justice. To the Sikhs it had a deeper significance. Two hundred years before, the great King Aurungzebe, a fanatical Moslem, as intolerant as an inquisitor, had cut off the head of the Sikh prophet, Tej Singh, and had caused his body to be thrown on that very spot. Here, also, had come retribution for them, and the awful fulfilment of one of their cherished prophecies. There lay three scions of the hated house of Timur, on the public way. Hodson, who had fulfilled their desire of vengeance, and who had done rough justice at the same time, at once rose tenfold in their estimation.

Delhi captured, the king in captivity, the Sepoy[240] army routed, broken, demoralised—and all without any aid from England—the back of the mutiny in the North-West was broken. This was the work of Lawrence, and Edwardes, and Montgomery, and the able men who were their assistants. That Delhi did not fall a moment too soon is shown by the fact that, contemporaneously with its fall, a rebellion broke out in Gogaira, the country lying between Mooltan and Lahore, a wilderness inhabited by predatory tribes. Nearly two months were occupied in quenching this fresh flame; but long before that the road to Mooltan was cleared. The incident itself showed what combustible material was scattered over the Punjab. Had Delhi not been taken, there would have been perhaps a general revolt. As it was, the "good fortune" of the British filled the people with awe and admiration, for nothing succeeds like success, especially in Asia. The name of Sir John Lawrence, always powerful in the Punjab, was now more powerful than ever. All doubt of our might disappeared, and recruits to any amount were forthcoming at the slightest hint that men were wanted. But this supremacy had not been reasserted without measures of extreme severity. No mercy was shown anywhere to mutineers or rebels. All caught in the act were hanged or blown from guns. The only justification for this sweeping destruction of life is the old one—necessity. It was their lives or ours. Sometimes, no doubt, men were killed who may have been innocent, but on the whole, considering the peril of the hour, justice was done.

RUINS OF THE RESIDENCY, LUCKNOW. (From a Photograph by Frith & Co., Reigate.)

Once established in Delhi, it became of the utmost importance to clear the Doab, or country between the Jumna and Ganges, as far as Agra, and re-open communications with Calcutta by way of Cawnpore. It was reported everywhere that we had been foiled at Delhi, and that the Padishah was still a great king. Ocular and tangible proof of the contrary was required, and on the 22nd a column 2,790 strong, with sixteen guns, traversed Delhi, crossed the Jumna, and emerged into the purer air of the open country. The whole were under Colonel Greathed. Crossing the Hindon by[241] the suspension bridge, the scene of Wilson's first successes, the force swept round to the right, and marched on Bolundshuhur. Here a smart action ensued; but in three hours the enemy was routed, driven through the town, and his guns were captured. Crossing the Kalee Nuddee, it was found that Walidad Khan, the rebel chief, had fled from Malaghur across the Ganges. The fort was blown up, but in that operation Lieutenant Home, who had earned the Victoria Cross by his exploits at the Cashmere Gate of Delhi, was accidentally killed. Marching on, the column did justice on the road upon well-known and flagrant offenders, and had passed Alighur, when expresses came from Agra demanding instant help. For 10,000 mutineers from Delhi and elsewhere were moving from Dholpore upon Agra, and Colonel Fraser, who had succeeded Mr. Colvin, had got alarmed beyond measure.

THE MAUSOLEUM OF AKBAR, AGRA.

(From a Photograph by Frith and Company, Reigate.)

Greathed put his troops in motion at once, and on the 10th of October, after two forced marches, filed over the Jumna, passed through Agra, and pitched his camp on the other side. His wearied soldiers little thought they were on the very threshold of a battle. He had been told that the enemy had retreated. So much for the intelligence of Colonel Fraser. A crowd of sight seers followed the soldiers to the Native Infantry parade ground, a fine open plain. Many of the troops went to sleep immediately, and officers rode off to see friends in the fort. Few tents were up, the baggage was coming in, when suddenly a round shot crashed through the camp; then another, and finally a salvo from twelve guns. The sight-seers fled at the first gun; but the war-worn and war-trained troops sprang to arms with admirable alacrity, turning out with such clothes as they had on. The enemy had surprised the camp, but he was surprised in turn, for our artillery soon answered his fire; our infantry and horse were promptly in motion. The whole force closed with the enemy, and delivered such stunning blows that he fled nine miles, almost without a halt to breathe. On his track, swift and sharp, were the horse batteries and cavalry. This splendid little action relieved Agra. After resting three[242] days, a rest well deserved, the column, now under Hope Grant, moved out for Cawnpore, which it reached on the 26th of October.

The Punjab army had thus sent help towards, instead of receiving aid from, Calcutta. Matters had greatly changed in this quarter since we left Havelock a victor at Bithoor in August; and how the change had been brought about we must now narrate. The reader will remember that we left the small garrison of Lucknow beleaguered in its extemporised lines by the rebel force of Oude; and that we narrated the first campaign of Havelock to relieve the garrison, and its failure. The result of that campaign simply enabled us to recover Cawnpore, and to show the mutineers that we had still power to rout them in the open field; and this was an immense gain at that time. We have now to recount the story of the defence of the Lucknow Residency and its various outposts, and then to show how the noble garrison was first succoured by Havelock and Outram, and finally rescued by Sir Colin Campbell.

The defeat of the British forces at Chinhut, the abandonment of the Muchee Bowun, the defection of all but a few hundreds of the native troops, the suddenness of the disaster, created great confusion. The position occupied consisted of a number of buildings around the Residency. The defences begun early in June were still incomplete. There were large gaps at vital points. The engineers had been permitted to level only a few of the surrounding houses, and this only on the north side facing the river. Hence the enemy, as soon as he closed around, was able to occupy the near houses, and from these, as well as from the more distant buildings, the vast palaces and stronger houses, to open at once, and maintain almost without intermission, a terrible fire of shot, shell, and musketry. Consequently, the defences had to be completed under fire; and had the enemy shown the least courage, he might have stormed in at more than one point; but, strong in numbers, he was weak in bravery, and he feared to grapple at close quarters, even with the few hundreds encircled by his fire. The position occupied was a piece of table land, on the crown of which stood the Residency. The ground fell sharply towards the river, and all along the northern face ran a low rampart, eked out with sand-bags, and having a ditch in front. The north-eastern and eastern fronts consisted of lines of buildings connected by barricades and banks of earth. Here were the hospital, the Treasury, the Bailey Guard, a strong gateway well banked up with earth, Dr. Fayrer's house and enclosures, the Financial Garrison House and wall, Sago's house, and Anderson's house, which was entrenched and formed the south-eastern angle of the position. Then, looking south, came the Cawnpore Battery, so named because it swept the Cawnpore Road. From this point the line of available buildings trended in a westerly direction, until the house of Mr. Gubbins was reached. This was made by that energetic civil servant into a very strong post at the eleventh hour. The western face of the position was the series of houses connected with the north face by an entrenchment running along the brow of the high land on that side. Within the outer line were inner posts, some of which commanded those in front, and at suitable points batteries were constructed and armed with guns. Nevertheless, it was soon found that there were few spots into which the projectiles of the enemy did not make way. In fact the whole position was encircled by hosts of foes, who, from batteries placed within a hundred yards, from houses still nearer, from the roofs and upper storeys of the lofty and more distant palaces on the east, kept up an incessant hail of shot.

The garrison consisted of the men of the 32nd Foot, under Brigadier Inglis, portions of the 13th and 48th Native Infantry, some Sikhs of the 71st, many officers of the mutinied regiments, the civil servants of the East India Company, and several merchants: in all 1,692 men, of whom 765 were natives. The force of the assailants varied in numbers. Always formidable, never less than 30,000 men, the nucleus of whom were the Oude Sepoys, the number sometimes rose to 100,000. Chiefs came in from the country districts, bringing their retainers, stayed as long as they deemed expedient, and went away. Then Havelock's advance drew off a portion of the investing force for a long period. Nevertheless, the active operations of the siege went on without cessation for nearly four months. The investment all this time was so strictly maintained that until after the arrival of Outram and Havelock in September, only one messenger, Ungud by name, was able to go out with despatches and return.

Within the first week of the siege the enemy had established batteries on every side. He had also manned the houses. The round shot and shell brought down the walls of the larger buildings, and the bullets fell in every part of the place like rain. It was only by keeping close under shelter that any one escaped. In some spots balls fell so thickly that soldiers and officers crossing the space on duty,[243] were obliged to run at speed. Many refused to run, and of these not a few fell, sacrificed to an excessive spirit of honour. It was this perpetual fire, and not the assaults of the enemy, that caused the greatest losses. The brave men among the besiegers were few. They would lead an assault and fall, and then, instead of pressing the charge home, their companions would run back to the first cover. Strict watch had to be kept night and day, and the sentries would often fire at anything mistaken for a dark form. At night the garrison were compelled, not only to repair damages, but to bury the dead, and not only the dead bodies of their comrades, and of women and children, but of the cattle and horses—the latter at first numerous—that fell under the enemy's fire. They had to cook their own food, for there were few servants in the lines, and their food soon became scanty. Fortunately they had an abundance of guns and an immense supply of ammunition. They had, also, the one thing needful—a stoutness of heart that never failed, a determination to perish rather than yield. Even the sick soldiers came out of hospital of their own accord, looking like ghosts of men, and when reproved and ordered back again, nobly replied, "Well, sir, in these times a man must do his best." The ladies and women shared in the labours and the dangers, ready to cook for the strong, and to attend on the sick; and the virtues of the tender sex never shone out more brightly than in this siege.

Up to the 20th of July the enemy contented himself with keeping up an incessant fire of cannon and musketry, to which with musketry and cannon we replied. They had been busy underground. They had begun to mine. Their first effort was against the Redan. On the morning of the 20th they sprang their mine, but it did no harm. "As soon as the smoke had cleared away," writes Brigadier Inglis in his famous report, "the enemy boldly advanced under cover of a tremendous fire of cannon and musketry, with the object of storming the Redan; but they were received with such a heavy fire, that after a short struggle they fell back with much loss. A strong column advanced at the same time to attack Innes' post, and came on to within ten yards of the palisades, affording to Lieutenant Loughnan—13th Native Infantry, who commanded the position—and his brave garrison, composed of gentlemen of the uncovenanted service, a few of her Majesty's 32nd Foot and the 13th Native Infantry, an opportunity of distinguishing themselves, which they were not slow to avail themselves of, and the enemy were driven back with great slaughter. The insurgents made minor attacks at almost every outpost, but were invariably defeated; and at two p.m. they ceased their attempts to storm the place, although their musketry fire and cannonading continued to harass us unceasingly as usual."

The action thus described was a very severe one. The enemy, in more than one place, got close under the defences, and some among our volunteers, especially the half-castes, engaged in a war of insults with the enemy, in which our own Sepoys joined. The defenders were few, the assailants many, but in no place did the latter penetrate the lines. After this struggle the old state of things recurred,—a ceaseless cannonade and fusilade, constant deaths and wounds, sleepless watchfulness. Day after day passed with a horrible monotony, varied only by the deaths of friends. Still the garrison kept up its courage, and stood ever ready to fight. The besiegers were again at work underground, and we had begun to countermine, doing considerable damage to the works of the enemy. But on the 10th of August they fired a mine on the south side, which entirely destroyed the defences of the place for the space of twenty feet, and blew in a wall, forming a breach "through which a regiment could have advanced in perfect order." Another mine was sprung on the east side, and a general attack commenced. A few went gallantly up to the first breach, but fell under a flank fire. On the eastern side some ran up under the walls, and laid hold of the bayonets through the loopholes: these were soon shot down. Another party attacked the Cawnpore Battery. They rushed on with fixed bayonets and trailed arms. They dashed through the stockade, and reached the mound in front of the inner ditch; but no farther; the fire in front and flank was too sharp and telling; the leading men all fell. Again and again the chiefs cried, "Come on, the place is taken!" but those who obeyed were soon driven back. About a hundred got under the Cawnpore Battery, carrying ladders; but a few hand grenades, dropped among them, sent them flying.

In these encounters the enemy lost immense numbers, the killed alone on the 10th amounting to 470 men, by the admission of the natives themselves. "On the 18th of August," says the brigadier's report, "the enemy sprang another mine in front of the Sikh lines with very fatal effect. Captain Orr, Lieutenants Mecham and Soppitt, who commanded the small body of drummers composing the garrison, were blown into the air; but providentially returned to earth with no[244] further injury than a severe shaking. The garrison, however, were not so fortunate. No less than eleven men were buried alive under the ruins, whence it was impossible to extricate them, owing to the tremendous fire kept up by the enemy from houses situated not ten yards in front of the breach. The explosion was followed by a general assault of a less determined nature than the two former efforts, and the enemy were consequently repulsed without much difficulty. But they succeeded, under cover of the breach, in establishing themselves in one of the houses in our position, from which they were driven in the evening by the bayonets of her Majesty's 32nd and 84th Foot." The enemy made one more serious assault, this time on the 5th of September. He sprang two mines in succession, and strove to storm into the place. He brought up scaling ladders, and tried to mount, but could not stand against the fire of musketry and the explosion of hand grenades. On this, as on other occasions, he was routed with immense slaughter.

But these actions were not what the garrison had most to dread. The glory of the defence did not lie in these fierce combats, but in the unfaltering fortitude which enabled all to bear the incessant fire, the daily losses, the horrid stench, the ever-present dread of mines, the absence of the common conveniences of life, the want of a knowledge of the events occurring in the outer world, the fear lest all the natives should desert. The unceasing cannonade knocked down the walls, and tore through and through some of the buildings. It seemed as if, by sheer force of heavy shot, the enemy would level the defences in one common ruin. But it is astonishing what an amount of cannonading a clump of well-built houses will bear. The enemy, fortunately, did not possess a good supply of shells, so that the arrival of these destructive missiles was comparatively rare. We had shells, but no howitzer to fire them from, and to supply this want, Lieutenant Bonham ingeniously rigged a carriage for a mortar. It was called "the ship," and did good service in horizontal shell firing. The history of the mining operations is not the least remarkable. The enemy was ever employed in digging and mining all round the place, and hence we were compelled to countermine. Shafts were sunk and galleries run out in the direction of the enemy's mines, that direction being discovered by close observation above, and intense listening under, ground. In this very severe work the Sikhs and Hindostanees behaved extremely well. As there was more skill in the garrison than in the rebel army, so the former were more fortunate in their mines.

INCIDENT IN THE DEFENCE OF LUCKNOW. (See p. 243.)

The eloquent report of Brigadier Inglis contains at once the most authentic and most touching account of the sufferings and endurance of this illustrious garrison, and we cannot do better than quote it. After a description of the mining operations, he says—"The whole of the officers and men have been on duty night and day during the eighty-seven days which the siege had lasted up to the arrival of Sir J. Outram, G.C.B. In addition to this incessant military duty, the force has been nightly employed in repairing defences, in moving guns, in burying dead animals, in conveying ammunition and commissariat stores from one place to another, and in fatigue duties too numerous and too trivial to enumerate here. I feel, however, that any words of mine will fail to convey any adequate idea of what our fatigues and labours have been—labours in which all ranks and all classes, civilians, officers, and soldiers, have all borne an equally noble part. All have together descended into the mine; all have together handled the shovel for the interment of the putrid bullock; and all, accoutred with musket and bayonet, have relieved each other on sentry without regard to the distinctions of rank, civil or military. Notwithstanding all these hardships, the garrison has made no less than five sorties, in which they spiked two of the enemy's heaviest guns, and blew up several of the houses from which they had kept up the most harassing fire. Owing to the extreme paucity of our numbers, each man was taught to feel that on his own individual efforts alone depended in no small measure the safety of the entire position. This consciousness incited every officer, soldier, and man to defend the post assigned to him with such desperate tenacity, and fight for the lives which Providence had entrusted to his care with such dauntless determination, that the enemy, despite their constant attacks, their heavy mines, their overwhelming numbers, and their incessant fire, could never succeed in gaining one inch of ground within the bounds of this straggling position, which was so feebly fortified that had they once obtained a footing in any of the outposts, the whole place must inevitably have fallen. If further proof be wanting of the desperate nature of the struggle which we have, under God's blessing, so long and so successfully waged, I would point to the roofless and ruined houses, to the crumbled walls, to the exploded mines, to the open breaches, to the shattered and disabled guns and defences, and lastly to the long and melancholy[245] list of the brave and devoted officers and men who have fallen. These silent witnesses bear sad and solemn testimony to the way in which this feeble position has been defended. During the early part of these vicissitudes we were left without any information whatever regarding the posture of affairs outside. An occasional spy did, indeed, come in, with the object of inducing our Sepoys and native servants to desert; but the intelligence derived from such sources was, of course, entirely untrustworthy. We sent messengers daily, calling for aid and asking for information, none of whom ever returned, until the twenty-sixth day of the siege, when a pensioner, named Ungud, came back, with a letter from General Havelock's camp, informing us that they were advancing with a force sufficient to bear down all opposition, and would be with us in five or six days. A messenger was immediately despatched, requesting that on the evening of their arrival on the outskirts of the city, two rockets might be sent up, in order that we might take the necessary measures for assisting them in forcing their way in. The sixth day, however, expired, and they came not; but for many evenings after officers and men watched for the ascension of the expected rockets, with hopes such as make the heart sick. We knew not then, nor did we learn until the 29th of August, or thirty-five days later, that the relieving force, after having fought most nobly to effect our deliverance, had been obliged to fall back for reinforcements; and this was the last communication we received until two days before the arrival of Sir James Outram on September 25th. Besides heavy visitations of cholera and small-pox, we have also had to contend against a sickness which has almost universally pervaded the garrison. Commencing with a very painful eruption, it has merged into a low fever, combined with diarrhœa; and although few or no men have actually died from its effects, it leaves behind a weakness and lassitude which, in the absence of all material sustenance, save coarse beef and still coarser flour, none have been entirely able to get over.... I cannot refrain from bringing to the prominent notice of his Lordship in Council the patient endurance and the Christian[246] resignation which have been evinced by the women of this garrison. They have animated us by their example. Many, alas! have been made widows, and their children fatherless, in this cruel struggle. But all such seemed resigned to the will of Providence, and many—among whom may be mentioned the honoured names of Birch, of Polehampton, of Barbor, and of Gall—have, after the example of Miss Nightingale, constituted themselves the tender and solicitous nurses of the wounded and dying soldiers in the hospital."

Sir Colin Campbell had just arrived in Calcutta. When the news of General Anson's death reached London, the name of only one man occurred to the Duke of Cambridge, as that of a soldier fit to restore to us an empire in the East. By a sort of instinct, in moments of real peril, nations select their commanders; and when the Duke of Cambridge sent for Sir Colin Campbell, he only anticipated the national choice of a fit leader. The scene at the Horse Guards was characteristic. The Duke offered the command of the Indian army to the veteran who but a few months before was simply a colonel. Sir Colin accepted the appointment, and when he was asked how soon he would be ready to start, he replied—in four-and-twenty hours. He was as good as his word, and embarking for India at once, arrived in Calcutta on the 13th of August, two months and a half after the death of Anson. But the army he was to command was slowly steaming and sailing round the Cape of Good Hope. The French Emperor had offered to our Government free passage for troops through France, but we had not become so humiliated as a nation as to be in a position to accept that offer, and for the same reason Lord Palmerston rejected the proffered assistance of Belgium from full confidence that Britain "could win off her own bat." Many persons urged the Government to send the Indian reinforcements through Egypt as if Egypt were our own. Had the Government done so, a doubtful precedent would have been set, one that might have provoked unpleasant relations with certain Continental Powers. Therefore the Government wisely sent the troops by the sea route, even though in doubling the Cape an amount of time would be inevitably consumed that could hardly be spared.

As soon as he heard of Sir Colin's arrival, Havelock reported to him, and begged that he might be reinforced. The Indian Government, however, had taken the unusual step of superseding Havelock by Sir James Outram, and left the former to learn his supersession from the columns of the Calcutta Gazette. Havelock felt this keenly, but he was a good soldier, and did not complain. His friends supplied the required amount of indignation, and his biographers, from excusable motives, have not failed to censure the Government. It cannot, however, be contended that there was anything unfit in placing over Havelock the man under whom he had so recently served in Persia.

The position of Havelock at Cawnpore was one of great peril; enemies were accumulating all around him. There was a mutinous force at Futtehpore; the Gwalior Contingent, kept inactive by the skill of Scindia and his able Minister, Dinkur Rao, nevertheless threatened to move on Calpee. The Oude insurgents had occupied the abandoned position at Mungulwar, and scouring the left bank of the Ganges, threatened to strike at his line of communications with Allahabad. Agra, it must be remembered, was beset. Delhi, it should be borne in mind, had not been taken; indeed, Nicholson had only just entered the camp with the movable column. Central India was ablaze with mutiny. To hold Cawnpore we had not more than 1,000 men. Deducting the force required to guard an entrenched position covering the point of passage over the river, and a hundred men sent down the Ganges in a steamer to destroy the boats collected on the Oude bank for an inroad into the Doab at Futtehpore, Havelock could only muster 685 Europeans. Thus it was impossible that he could act in the field. Indeed, at the end of August he was forced to contemplate the fatal step of retreating on Allahabad, unless he were speedily reinforced.

But these reinforcements did not arrive very quickly. As soon as he assumed command, Sir Colin Campbell requested General Outram to push on the 5th and 90th from Behar to Allahabad, together with all the detachments available, as fast as possible. The 90th had no sooner started than the civilians called them back. Then Koer Singh reappeared in the field, and part of the troops destined for Cawnpore had to be detained to watch and counteract him. Moreover, Sir James Outram conceived a new plan of campaign—a march up the Gogra or Goomtee, combined with the advance of Havelock from Cawnpore, instead of the dash of a single column from Cawnpore on Lucknow. To this both Sir Colin and Lord Canning were opposed. And when Sir James Outram heard that Havelock could not hold Cawnpore unless reinforced he gave up his own views at once, and set his face towards Cawnpore. At the same[247] time he apprised Havelock of his approach, and told his old comrade in arms that he would not supersede him. "I shall join you with reinforcements," so ran his message; "but to you shall be left the glory of relieving Lucknow, for which you have already struggled so much. I shall accompany you as civil commissioner, placing my military service at your disposal, should you please, serving under you as a volunteer." Well might Sir Colin Campbell say, "Seldom, perhaps never, has it occurred to a Commander-in-Chief to publish and confirm such an order."

Outram's column had reached Aong, the scene of one of Havelock's victories, when news arrived that a force from Oude had crossed the Ganges, the forerunner of a regular irruption, intent on interrupting our communications. Sir James saw at once how necessary it would be to put a stop to that, and he detached Major Eyre at the head of 150 men, two guns, and forty native troopers, under Captain Johnson and Lieutenant Charles Havelock, to attack the invaders. Eyre put his infantry on elephants, and, making a rapid march, came upon the enemy at daybreak. Detaching his horsemen, to keep them in play, and urging on his elephants, he found that the enemy had fled to his boats, and that the cavalry were gallantly engaging him and holding him to the shore. The infantry went briskly into action and the guns were brought to bear. The Oude men were smitten with terror, and bundling into the river tried to escape by swimming. So deadly was the fire of grape and musketry that only three men out of the host succeeded in recrossing the Ganges. This was a deadly blow and left a deep impression. Another body had come over, four miles above, and Eyre at once turned upon them; but they had got news of the slaughter of their comrades, and before Eyre could strike them, they had swept back into Oude. Eyre then made a forced march and joined Sir James at Futtehpore.

To this swift and sharp blow the Lower Doab was indebted for future security. The Oude borderers did not again get within reach by attempting to molest the roads in our rear. Sir James Outram reached Cawnpore on the evening of the 15th, and with him came the last of the reinforcements. The two chiefs now had all the men they could possibly obtain. Brigadier Inglis had named the 21st of September as the day he could hold out to. There was no time to be lost. Indeed, Havelock had already begun to take measures for the reconstruction of his bridge of boats. The bridge was established in three days, the enemy watching the operation supinely from Mungulwar. Leaving 400 men to guard the entrenchment at Cawnpore, Havelock on the 19th crossed the Ganges with 3,179 men and 18 guns, confident that, if he arrived in time, he should save the noble Lucknow garrison. The heavy guns and stores for thirteen days were carried over the bridge on the 20th, and on the 21st the army began its march in two brigades, the first under General Neill, the second under Colonel Hamilton, of the 78th.

The progress of the force was far more rapid than that of Havelock when he first crossed into Oude. Moving upon Mungulwar, he found the enemy posted there with six guns. Mindful of former defeats, the enemy made no stand, and being started from cover by the infantry and guns, were chased by Outram with the Volunteer Horse as far as Busserutgunge, where two guns, much ammunition, and a standard were captured. The whole force came up the same night, and slept on the scene of Havelock's three brilliant combats. The next day the troops marched fifteen miles. They found the bridge over the Sye unbroken and they encamped on the opposite bank. On the 23rd, ten miles from the Sye, they found the enemy in position at the Alumbagh. This was a large park or garden, devised as a pleasaunce for one of the favourite wives of a former King of Oude. The park was enclosed by a wall, with turrets at each angle; it was entered by a handsome gateway and contained a large palace.

The enemy had brought up 10,000 men, including 1,500 horse from Lucknow, and supported them with many guns. Part of his front was covered by a morass, his centre stood across the road, and his left was in the Alumbagh. In order to get at him, the whole column had to move along his front under fire, having the water of the swamp between it and the foe. But when once this obstacle was surmounted, and it became possible to open with heavy guns, both artillery and cavalry fell away to the rear in confusion. One gun alone remained. Its gunners were gallant well-trained regulars, and they went through their work without flinching. Suddenly a little band of horse swept down upon them and, closing in, cut them down. It was Lieutenant Johnson and his native irregulars. He was now more than half a mile in front of our line, and of course could not keep the gun, but the enemy did not go near it again. However he put two pieces into the Alumbagh, making holes in the wall, to serve as embrasures. This stood the foe in no stead, for[248] the 5th Foot charged him, and drove him out of the garden and palace. We captured five guns, and pressed the enemy back upon Lucknow, with the Volunteer Horse at his heels.

Havelock was now in actual contact with the assailants of the garrison in Lucknow. He was within sight of the goal he had done so much to reach. It had been comparatively easy to defeat the enemy in the open field. The task of breaking into Lucknow, through its tortuous lanes and mighty buildings, was far more arduous. It had to be undertaken with resolution, but also very circumspectly: it was needful to temper daring with craft.

The 24th was spent by the generals in devising a plan of attack. First, it was wisely proposed to hold the Alumbagh, which thus served as an intermediate base of operations. It was highly defensible, and plentifully supplied with water. All the baggage was to be deposited here, and a garrison of 250 men, under Colonel M'Intyre, was entrusted with the defence. The next step—the choice of a route into Lucknow—was more difficult. One plan was to force the Charbagh Bridge, and to cut a passage to the Residency along the Cawnpore road. This plan was at once abandoned because the route which the column would have to take lay through the heart of the city, and because every yard presented an obstacle. Another plan was to move the whole column to the right, seize the Delkoosha Palace and park, and, under cover of its excellent defences, bridge the Goomtee, throw the column over, and sweeping up the left bank of the river, capture the iron bridge, and so release the garrison.

The actual plan adopted was a compromise between the two. It was resolved that the Charbagh Bridge should be carried, but that, instead of pushing forward into the city, the column should wheel to the right, and fight its way through the palaces and large houses lying to the east of the Residency. There is reason to believe that the second plan would have been adopted, as the safer and less costly in life, but it would have taken some days to execute it, and the latest communications from Brigadier Inglis painted the dangers of the garrison from mines, and the possible defection of the native troops, in such colours, that the idea was abandoned and the deadlier project adopted. Havelock determined to take with him his heavy guns, and well it was that he did so. Therefore, leaving in Alumbagh, including the sick and wounded, about 400 men, the force paraded on the 25th to fight its way into Lucknow.

The troops moved off between eight and nine. First went a brigade of infantry, followed by the guns, under Sir James Outram; then the remainder of the infantry, under Havelock himself. As soon as the skirmishers had passed the picket the column came under fire. But, in spite of this fire, on it swept; and, led by Captain Maude, the artillery got through, but with a loss of a third of the men. On the right was a large garden called the Charbagh, on the left clusters of enclosures, in front the bridge over the canal. The enemy had planted a battery of six guns to defend the bridge, and had filled all the neighbouring houses with infantry. Meeting the storm of shot at a turn in the road, the troops were ordered to lie down until the guns could be got into position. But the narrowness of the road did not enable our artillery captains to place more than two upon it, and with these two Maude contended with six. In order to bring a flank fire to bear on the bridge, Outram led a body of infantry into the Charbagh. The unequal artillery combat continued. Maude's gunners fell rapidly; infantry soldiers replaced them. General Neill, now leading the first brigade, listened anxiously for the sound of Outram's musketry. All was silent in the Charbagh. Feeling that this protracted artillery duel would not help them into Lucknow, Neill resolved to carry the bridge with the bayonet. The word had scarcely been given ere Lieutenant Arnold and a few of the Madras Fusiliers charged on to the bridge. With them went Colonel Tytler and Lieutenant Henry Havelock. The first blast of the enemy's grape swept them all down, Havelock excepted. For a moment he was seen standing alone on the bridge, a target for scores of muskets, waving his sword, and calling to the Madras Fusiliers. The next moment they were with him. With a loud cheer the Fusiliers dashed over the bridge, and bayoneted the gunners at their pieces before they had time to load again. Thus was the bridge of the Charbagh won. Sir James Outram and his men appeared on the bank of the canal just as the guns were captured.

Now the whole column rolled over the bridge. As if they were about to storm along the Cawnpore road, the 78th moved up the street, contending with the enemy in the houses, and occupied its outlet. But this was only a feint. To the surprise of the Sepoys the main column wheeled to the right, and disappeared from view. The baggage followed in a steady stream. Enraged at being thus foiled, the enemy, seeing the Highlanders without support, turned upon them. For three[249] hours the gallant 78th kept the street against all odds. They held the houses at a point where two roads met. When the enemy became too audacious, they sallied out and scared him away. When he brought up two guns, the 78th dashed out of the houses and captured the guns, a feat which won for Captain Macpherson the Victoria Cross. The surgeon of the regiment, Macmaster, was to be seen nobly doing his duties under the hottest fire, and a Cross was granted to him also. At length the last waggon passed over the bridge. Young Havelock, who had been charged with the safety of the convoy, was now shot in the arm, just as he had ordered the 78th to withdraw.

LIEUT. HAVELOCK AND THE MADRAS FUSILIERS CARRYING THE CHARBAGH BRIDGE AT LUCKNOW. (See p. 248.)

Once through that fiery passage of the Charbagh Bridge, the column went on between the canal and the city with comparative ease, for the enemy's defences had been turned. The interval of comparative quiet was the hour occupied by the march of the main column from the bridge through the tortuous lanes as far as the building known as the Motee Munzil. On approaching this, the column moved to the left, facing westward towards the Residency; and the enemy, massed in the Kaiserbagh, a vast palace of the Kings of Oude, and in the houses, catching sight of our troops, opened a tremendous fire. Eyre brought his heavy guns to bear on the enemy's battery at the gate of the Kaiserbagh, and twice compelled the gunners to flee within the gate; while our troops and trains got under cover in the walled passages and buildings. Halting for a time, to wait for the 78th and the Volunteer Horse, the force moved once more, and crossing a narrow bridge partially under fire, they plunged into the Chutter Munzil and Furhut Buksh Palaces, out of the storm.

In the meantime the 78th and the horsemen, guided by the sound of the guns, had, on reaching a point where two roads met, quitted the track of the main body, and boldly advanced along a cross lane leading directly to the gate of the Kaiserbagh. Here they came suddenly on the flank of the enemy's battery, which they stormed at once, driving the foe into the palace. Spiking the largest gun, they pressed on and came up with the main body in the palaces above-mentioned.[250] Here they found the whole body in great confusion, and here for a moment there was a pause.

For the generals were debating the important question whether they should rest there for the night, or push on. Outram was for halting; Havelock for completing the work that night. Little more than a quarter of a mile intervened between the troops and the Bailey Guard. The garrison were eagerly expecting them, for the watchers had seen officers in shooting-jackets and men in sun helmets, and European soldiers coming towards them, and trembled with the near prospect of deliverance. The distance, though so short, was every inch under fire. But at length Outram consented. The troops formed up, the generals rode forth at their head, the Highlanders and Sikhs leading the column; and giving a loud cheer, they dashed through an archway into the main street which led to the Bailey Guard Gate. The enemy occupied the windows and roofs of the houses on each side, and poured forth a torrent of fire. The road was cut by deep trenches, so that the artillery had to seek another road, but neither musketry nor trenches could stop that column. It was while seeing that the rear was properly brought up that Neill was shot by a party of the enemy through the ceiling of the archway under which the whole column had passed. No man who fell was more regretted. But the work had been done. Lucknow was relieved.

The garrison had seen the advance of that noble column; seen the Highlanders and Sikhs charge up the main street at a rapid pace, loading, shouting, firing as they stormed along; and almost before a cheer could be raised, Outram rode up, and dismounted at the embrasure of Aitken's Battery, near the Bailey Guard Gate. "Nothing," writes Mr. Gubbins, "could exceed their [the soldiers'] enthusiasm. The Highlanders stopped every one they met, and with repeated questions and exclamations of 'Are you one of them?'—'God bless you!'—'We thought to have found only your bones,' bore them back towards Dr. Fayrer's house, into which the general had entered. Here a scene of thrilling interest presented itself. The ladies of that garrison, with their children, had assembled in the most intense anxiety and excitement under the porch outside, when the Highlanders approached. Rushing forward, the rough and bearded warriors shook the ladies by the hand, amidst loud and repeated gratulations. They took the children up in their arms, and fondly caressing them, passed them from one to another to be caressed in turn; and then, when the first burst of enthusiasm and excitement was over, they mournfully turned to speak among themselves of the heavy loss which they had suffered, and to inquire the names of the numerous comrades who had fallen on the way. It is quite impossible to describe the scene within the entrenchment that evening. We had received no post, nor any but the smallest scrap of news, for 113 days since the date of the outbreak at Cawnpore. All had relatives and friends to inquire after, whose fate they were ignorant of, and were eager to learn. Many had brothers, friends, or relatives in the relieving force, whom they were anxiously seeking. Every one wished for news of the outer world, of Delhi, Agra, Calcutta, and of England. Everybody was on foot. All the thoroughfares were thronged; and new faces were every moment appearing of friends which one had least expected to see."

It was the Sikhs and Highlanders who had carved out a road to the Residency by the main street. The remainder of the column, with all the guns except two, were guided by Lieutenant Moorsom—a brave and accomplished young soldier—along streets and lanes that turned some of the Sepoy defences, and brought them to the place with little loss. At the same time, Lieutenant Aitken, with some of the faithful Sepoys of the 13th Native Infantry, sallying forth, materially aided the progress of the guns, and secured a parallel route to the Chutter Munzil. The loss of Havelock's force, since it crossed the Ganges on the 19th of September, was 535 killed and wounded. Thus Lucknow was relieved at the cost of a sixth of the little band that had started from Cawnpore.

It was anticipated that Sir James Outram, who now assumed command, would carry off the garrison. This was not found to be practicable, except at great risk and heavy cost of life. On making due inquiry, it was found that, with the supplies brought in, there was abundance of provisions for several weeks. Sir James, therefore, determined to remain. He divided his force into two parts. Colonel Inglis was left in command of the lines he had so long defended. Havelock was directed to take the remaining troops, and establish himself in the palaces and buildings to the east, on the road through which the troops had come in. This was done in three days. The soldiers now made themselves at home in the luxurious palaces of Lucknow. They were in comparative comfort and safety, but shut out from the rest of India: comparative, for the enemy renewed his mining operations; directing[251] them now against the buildings under Havelock's charge. But at this work he was foiled by the skill and science of Colonel Robert Napier and Captain Crommelin. Guarding against these tricks of the enemy, enduring a fire of guns and musketry less severe and less deadly, and poorly fed, our men, without a murmur, held on for eight more weeks, when the Commander-in-Chief himself arrived, and snatched them, as it were, from the jaws of death.

The Government of India had now become fully aware of the character of the mutiny, which in Oude, Rohilcund, and Central India, had been supplemented by an insurrection. In Oude a strong spirit of hostility was manifested; and although many talookdars held aloof from the rebels, they did not join the Europeans. In Rohilcund and Central India the insurrectionary forces were masters of the field from the Ganges to the frontiers of Oude, from the Nerbudda to the Jumna. In Bombay there were intermittent signs of disaffection, and sharp remedies had to be promptly applied. Lord Elphinstone ruled with an iron hand—clad in a velvet glove, it is true, but none the less effective for that. He had his own difficulties to contend against—hostility in Kolapore, and Sattara, and Candeish; mutiny also in some recently-raised regiments—but all these he overcame. Madras was quiet, and as Bombay sent troops to the Nerbudda Valley and Rajpootana, so Madras sent a column to cover the frontier of Nagpore, and reinforcements to Bengal—European infantry, who took part in several battles, and native infantry and native guns, which did good service.

Except during the spring, neither the Indian nor the Home Government underrated the magnitude of the struggle, and the thousands of troops embarked in the summer began to pour into Calcutta by battalions at the end of September. The China troops had all been intercepted before that time, and had been sent up the country. The sailors of the Pearl and the Shannon had been landed with some of their heavy guns, and had been sent up the Ganges, with Captain William Peel and a sailor brigade, forming a part of the army rapidly gathering at Allahabad and Cawnpore. For as soon as it became certain that Outram and Havelock could not bring off the Lucknow garrison, treasure, women and children, guns and ammunition, Sir Colin began to organise a force for their relief and rescue. Throughout the month of October this force was being collected at Cawnpore. Except the China regiments, all the troops employed were those already in India. The whole strength was about 4,550 men, with forty-nine guns, including Peel's eight heavy pieces, manned by his gallant tars. This force, gradually collected, was completed by the arrival of Greathed's force from Delhi, which, we have already stated, arrived at Cawnpore on the 26th of October.

As soon as he heard of Greathed's arrival, Sir Colin Campbell quitted Calcutta, and "travelling like a courier," reached Cawnpore on the 5th of November. Part of the troops had already gone on, with large convoys, to the Alumbagh, which, it will be remembered, was held by part of Outram's force, now under the orders of Brigadier Hope Grant, who arrived in time to repel a smart attack made by the enemy. The troops had commenced the passage on the 30th of October, and the bulk of the troops were near Alumbagh by the 5th of November. On the 9th Sir Colin reached that place, and on the 11th he reviewed his army. As the Gwalior Contingent—a force of all arms, the nucleus of a large native army—had come up to Calpee, it was not without some apprehensions that Sir Colin left General Windham, of Redan renown, with about 500 men, to guard the small entrenchment that protected the bridge over the Ganges. Nevertheless, as he knew Windham would be reinforced by the troops coming daily up the Ganges from Calcutta, and as it was imperative that Lucknow should be relieved, he left Windham to do his best, and gathered up his strength for a deadly blow at the Oude insurrection.

As soon as General Outram was informed of the early approach of Sir Colin Campbell, he sent plans of the city and its approaches to the Alumbagh, and arranged with Brigadier Grant a code of signals to be worked by means of the old semaphore. The garrison also sent a guide. Fired with the desire of winning the Victoria Cross, Mr. Kavanagh, of the uncovenanted service, volunteered to join the Commander-in-Chief. The offer was accepted. Staining his face, shoulders, and hands with lampblack, putting on the gay dress, and carrying the simple arms of an irregular mutineer, Kavanagh, guided by a native scout, forded the Goomtee at night, dressed on the opposite bank, walked up the river, and recrossing at the iron bridge, made his way through the heart of the city of Lucknow. Emerging in the open country through the enemy's pickets, he pushed on and reached Sir Colin's camp. This is one of the most daring acts ever done in India, since James Outram made his way from[252] Afghanistan to Bombay disguised as a groom. And Kavanagh had his reward, obtaining not only the Victoria Cross in due time, but a reward of £2,000 and admission into the regular civil service. The telegraph soon told not only that Kavanagh had come in safely, but that on the 14th Sir Colin would march on Lucknow.

At nine o'clock on the 14th the army was in motion. Passing to the rear of the Alumbagh, Sir Colin directed his columns upon the Delkoosha Palace and Park, and a fantastic building a little to the west of it, called the Martinière. This side of Lucknow was a mass of groves, gardens, enclosures, and palaces, with stretches of green-sward and cultivated patches between. By sweeping so far to the eastward Sir Colin avoided the defences which the Sepoy mutineers and their allies had accumulated on the canal, and about the bridge stormed by Havelock. They had dammed the canal, in order to deepen the water above, and thus outwitted themselves, for they left it dry below, and easy of passage even for heavy guns. After a brief march, the skirmishers came under fire, but pressing on, they chased the enemy through and out of the park, and entered the palace. Then, turning half left, the troops made for the Martinière. Here there was a smarter defence, for the enemy had begun to comprehend the drift of Sir Colin's manœuvre. A number of guns opened on both sides, and the rattle of musketry shook the air; but the infantry leaped over the wall, and with the bayonet soon cleared the building and the enclosure, while the horsemen, dashing through, hunted the enemy over the canal into the suburb on the other side. The troops were now in position from the canal on the right to the Delkoosha Park wall on the left. To cover that flank and protect the road to the Alumbagh, Brigadier Russell seized two villages in front of the left and garrisoned them with Sikhs. Thus posted, the troops prepared to pass the night, when suddenly the enemy assailed the whole position. The troops turned out rapidly and drove them back with great slaughter, and to guard against a similar occurrence, a strong force of all arms bivouacked on the canal. The next day the troops rested in position, and completed the arrangements essential for the safety of the baggage and the line of communications. The garrison of Lucknow were disappointed, and looked on with apprehension; but on the evening of the 15th they were rejoiced to see the telegraph at work, and to read off the signal, "advance tomorrow." For they had prepared the means of making a diversion in favour of the assailants, and the powder in the mines was getting damp during this delay.

Early on the 16th the guns and infantry, except the Sikhs, were withdrawn from the left, and the columns were formed to attack the enemy's position. This consisted of the Secunderbagh across the canal, and near to the Goomtee. Sweeping to the right, the troops moved on, and about mid-day reached the front of the enemy's lines. The Secunderbagh was surrounded by a high wall, loopholed on all sides, and flanked by towers. The whole formed a formidable front, as each group of buildings was supported by another. Nevertheless, the exterior defences were rapidly carried. The guns dashed up under a cross fire and opened on the villages, and the infantry, in open order, closing with the defenders, expelled them. The bulk of the leading brigade then turned upon the Secunderbagh, while the skirmishers stretched away to the left, sweeping the foe before them, and seizing each post of vantage. In the meantime two 18-pounders had been engaged in breaching the main wall of the garden. They had broken down a part of the wall, a small hole through which three or four men could enter abreast. Sir Colin thought his men could carry it, and he started the 93rd and 53rd and 4th Punjabees at the place. They bounded in with a cheer. The houses and the garden were full of Sepoys. Four regiments, upwards of 3,000 men, were caught in this trap. Burning with rage, our troops plied the bayonet with such good will that the enclosure, 120 yards square, became a mere pile of carcases. "There never was a bolder feat of arms," wrote Sir Colin; and rarely, perhaps never, such a horrible slaughter. Still on went the column. The work was not over. Several strong places intervened between the assailants and their friends inside. A little farther on was the Shah Nujeef. Here was another feat of arms. "Captain Peel," says Sir Colin, "led up his guns, with extraordinary gallantry, within a few yards of the building, to batter the massive stone walls. The withering fire of the Highlanders effectually covered the naval brigade from great loss. But it was an action almost unexampled in war; Captain Peel behaved very much as if he had been laying the Shannon alongside an enemy's frigate." This terminated the operations of the day. Indeed, the closing scenes were acted in darkness, illumined only by the fire of the guns, the rockets, and the shells. Thus far had Sir Colin penetrated towards the Chutter Munzil. Between him and it lay the[253] Motee Munzil, to reach which he must come under the guns and musketry of the Kaiserbagh. During this contest outside, Havelock and Outram had not been idle. By dint of mine and battery they had so wrought that, not only had they cleared a part of the road between them and their friends, but had materially assisted in engaging the Kaiserbagh and other buildings full of men and guns. They had made a desperate sortie, and wrought a passage by powder, bayonet, and torch. From the top of the Chutter Munzil the whole scene—domes, minarets, palaces, groves and gardens, all alive with combatants, and mantled in smoke—was visible, and there, aloft, Outram and others, under fire from the other side of the Goomtee, watched the progress of Sir Colin, till night fell.

SIR JAMES OUTRAM.

The next day the first step of Sir Colin Campbell was to make his left rear and line of communications more secure, and with that view he caused a body of troops to occupy a large building near the canal, called Banks's House, and a series of bungalows on the south of the lanes leading to the Delkoosha Park. When this was accomplished, he turned his attention to the Mess House of the 32nd, and the Observatory, which stood on the flank of his road into the Residency. Determined to use his guns as much as possible, Sir Colin directed them upon the Mess House, while Outram caused Eyre's Battery in our lines to join in the fire. Then the place was stormed and found to have been abandoned; but the fire from the Observatory was so heavy that the flag of the 90th, planted by Captain Wolseley, was twice shot away. Wherefore the troops turned furiously upon the Observatory, drove out the enemy, and set it on fire. Only the Motee Munzil remained,[254] and the obstacles here offered were soon overcome. Pouring into this palace under fire from the Kaiserbagh, the troops rapidly filled it; the sappers broke through into other buildings, and the lines of the Residency were won. Forth from them came Lieutenant Moorsom, of the 52nd, ever foremost, and greeted the army of rescue. The troops emerge, Outram and Havelock issue forth, and Sir Colin has the "inexpressible gratification" of greeting them before the fighting is quite at an end. Thus the relief of the besieged garrison was accomplished, and great was the rejoicing among the battered walls, and broken minarets, and gorgeous palaces of Lucknow.

The chiefs of the relieved garrison, ignorant of the state of affairs on the Jumna and in the Doab, thought that Sir Colin would immediately complete the conquest of the city. Sir Colin knew better. Nothing but imperative necessity led him to advance on Lucknow before he had defeated the Gwalior Contingent. He did not know but that, at the very moment when he entered the Chutter Munzil, the enemy might not have fallen upon Windham, and driven him from Cawnpore. To withdraw the garrison and treasure was therefore his first care and his first duty. He had no secure base of operations. His army was, indeed, scattered about in groups, and every man for a week had been constantly on duty. He therefore set himself to devise a plan of taking all away with him as soon as possible. His device was very simple, yet very ingenious. He directed his heavy guns to breach the Kaiserbagh, in order that the enemy might suppose he meant to storm it. Then he ordered the whole force, the women and children, and the trains, to file through his pickets on the night of the 22nd of November. The guns that could not be brought off were burst. The women made their little packages; transport was scarce, and many had to walk; and all going out during daylight were more or less under fire. Before the troops moved, the sick and wounded, the women and children, the stores of grain, and the large mass of treasure, were safely got through to the Delkoosha. Then the troops moved off. "Each exterior line came gradually retiring through its supports, until at length nothing remained," writes Sir Colin, "but the last line of infantry and the guns, with which I was myself to crush the enemy if he had dared to follow up the pickets." Halting one night in the Delkoosha Park, the army, with its enormous train, marched off and halted at the Alumbagh, without having been molested at any point by the enemy, who had a wholesome dread of the splendid cavalry which covered the operation. All arrived safely at the Alumbagh, and Sir Colin, on the 27th of November, leaving a strong force there under Sir James Outram—3,000 men and 18 guns—started off with the rest of the troops to escort a train, ten miles long, to Cawnpore.

But before the Commander-in-Chief marched away, the army had suffered a heavy loss: General Havelock had passed away. Just as he had become the pride of England, he died. The nation exulted when there came news of Havelock's glorious campaign in the Doab, and his determined efforts to reach Lucknow. The Queen at once conferred on him the order of Knight Commander of the Bath; and Sir Colin, when he entered Lucknow, astonished his old comrade by calling him Sir Henry. But Havelock only heard five days before he died that this honour had been bestowed on him. The labour, the anxiety, perhaps the foul atmosphere of Lucknow, proved too much for his strength. On the 20th of November signs of cholera appeared. He was instantly moved out of the city to the Delkoosha Park. Lying on his bed, tended by his son, surrounded by the affection of the army, Havelock declared he should die happy and contented. "I have for forty years so ruled my life," he said to Outram, "that when death came I might face it without fear." He passed a less restless night, but at nine on the morning of the 24th he quietly passed away, dying as became a Christian soldier.

[255]

## CHAPTER XVI.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

> Windham at Cawnpore—His Indecision—Partial Success followed by Defeat—Sir Colin Campbell to the Rescue—Battle of Cawnpore—Seaton advances from Delhi—His Campaign in the Doab—Combats of Gungaree and Puttiala—Hodson's Ride—Campbell at Futtehghur—Condition of Central India—Relief of Mhow—Capture of Dhar—Fighting in Malwa—Battle of Mundasore—Relief of Neemuch—End of the Campaign—Rose at Indore—The Problem of the Recovery of India—Oude or Rohilcund?—Combat at Shumshabad—Plans for the Reduction of Lucknow—Waiting for the Nepaulese—Franks's March—Battle of Budhayan—Campbell's final Advance—The Enemy's Position—Outram crosses the Goomtee—Capture of the Martinière—Outram's Successes—The work of the 11th—Death of Hodson—Capture of the Imambara and the Kaiserbagh—The Loot—Outram pauses—The Fall of Lucknow—Lord Canning`s Proclamation—The Conquest of Rohilcund—Nirput Singh's Resistance—Sir Colin marches on Bareilly—Battle of Bareilly—The Moulvie attacks Shahjehanpore—It is relieved by Brigadier John Jones—Sir Colin returns to Futtehghur—End of the Campaign.

IT was rather a misfortune for Sir Colin that he had been obliged to leave at Cawnpore, not a Neill or a Havelock, but General Windham, who owed his military good fortune not to especial or eminent military qualities, but to the place he occupied in correspondence from the Crimea, and to the part he played—that of a brave soldier—in the last attack on the Redan. His position at Cawnpore was an arduous one, too arduous for an officer who was simply brave. Enemies were gathering round him. He had to preserve the bridge over the Ganges into Oude, to keep up the communication with Allahabad, to watch night and day the hostile force at Calpee, of which the famous Gwalior Contingent formed the nucleus, and to improve his defences. He had general instructions, and of course he was ordered not to assume the offensive unless compelled. But these instructions supplied guides to his discretion; they did not fetter it.

The Gwalior Contingent, knowing that Sir Colin had passed into Oude, crossed the Jumna themselves in the middle of November, and approached Cawnpore. They moved slowly, and spread themselves out as if they intended to attack the place on all sides, and overwhelm the defenders by sheer weight of numbers. Had they moved rapidly they might have done so; but had Windham possessed Havelock's military skill and resolution, he would have cut them up in detail before they could reach him in masses. Unfortunately he deemed it necessary to submit every plan to the Commander-in-Chief, and even when he found that the road from Cawnpore to Lucknow was closed by roving parties of the enemy, he still deemed it his duty to wait for an answer. Windham not only delayed, but fearing that Sir Colin might be in difficulties himself—as if Sir Colin Campbell with 5,000 good troops was likely to get into a scrape—Windham parted with a body of Native Infantry from Madras, and sent them to Bunnee in Oude.

Fortunately for him, although no doubt acting on a sound principle in striking at Cawnpore, the enemy was timid in his approaches, and a long time making up his mind. Thus the hesitation was tolerably equal on both sides. In the meantime four regiments from Oude went over to the enemy, and he seemed disposed to join issue. Windham, gaining confidence as his numbers grew, encamped outside the city, with the canal covering his front. The enemy had pushed up his advanced guard to within three miles. There were 3,000 men with guns on the banks of the Pandoo Nuddee, now the mere bed of a stream. On the 26th of November Windham moved out with 1,500 men and eight guns, and falling briskly upon them, routed chem in a short time and captured three cannon. Our loss was fourteen killed and seventy-eight wounded. Although the troops defeated were not the Gwalior men, the result of this action showed the advantage of prompt and judicious offensive. But that mode of warfare had been adopted too late. When he had carried the enemy's position, Windham saw, from a hill, the main body of the enemy not far distant, and he returned to Cawnpore with the certainty that he should be attacked.

Yet even now he did not give the enemy credit for audacity greater than his own. He thought they had been checked by the stroke he had just delivered. So he went into camp among some hillocks and brick-kilns on the Calpee road outside the town. Thus the town was in his rear. When he rose on the 27th there was no sign of the foe. The Gwalior men were playing a fine game. They intended a surprise, and they succeeded, for Windham does not seem to have known how to get intelligence—a great defect in a general. In broad daylight, at ten a.m., while he was[256] reconnoitring, the enemy, who had moved up unobserved, opened fire in front and flank, and took the general by surprise. They had advanced with much boldness, crossed the Delhi road and the Bithoor road, and thus showed a front extending from the canal on their right nearly to the Ganges. Windham met them in front with the 88th and the Rifles, and on the right flank with the 34th and 82nd. There were ten guns in action on our side, the enemy had forty. Then ensued a most unsatisfactory combat: assailed in front and flank, Windham's troops resisted for five hours. All that time the enemy confined himself to a cannonade. But he was creeping up on both flanks; and, greatly alarmed for his bridge, Windham gave orders to retreat. As the camp followers and drivers had fled, he had to abandon his standing camp to the foe. Thus he retired in the face of an enemy who had not courage sufficient to molest him in retreat!

Windham now disposed his troops in position where they could cover the entrenchment, and spent an anxious night, not knowing well what to do. He had forwarded alarming letters to Sir Colin Campbell, and three of these in succession were delivered to the Commander-in-Chief, as he was marching from Bunnee towards the cannonade, of which he could hear the noise. All that day, the 28th, as Campbell's immense train was working through the dusty roads of Oude, Windham was fighting for his post. On the left, Walpole, with the Rifles and four guns, successfully defended that flank and actually captured two pieces of cannon. On the right the enemy came on in greater force, swarming down the Bithoor road, hoping to carry the entrenchment, or at least to take positions that would give them the control of the bridge of boats. Brigadier Wilson, a zealous officer, led part of the 64th against four guns, and captured them at the cost of his life; but when taken they could not be held. The enemy came on like a tide, rolling nearer and nearer every hour, except on the left, where Walpole kept him at a distance. On the right front of the entrenchment were a church, a chapel, and the assembly rooms. These were all defensible posts, but at dark Brigadier Carthew deemed it expedient to withdraw. It was at this moment the leading troops under Hope Grant, with Peel's naval guns, arrived in sight of the bridge, and found that it was under the fire of the enemy's cannon. Staff officers rushed over to inquire for Sir Colin. He had crossed the bridge, after ordering the naval brigade to post their guns on the left bank to answer and extinguish the fire of the enemy. Sir Colin's presence rescued Windham from the plight into which he had got himself from an undue fear of responsibility. His force was diminished by upwards of 300 men. Sir Colin at once took measures to secure the bridge. He pushed the infantry, with the cavalry and some field guns, across, and during the night brought over the wounded, and women and children. The infantry and horse had, in the meantime, occupied positions covering the road to Allahabad; and under cover of these, and the fire from the left bank and from the fort, the huge convoy from Lucknow moved day by day over the bridge. It was not until the 30th that the last cart came across, and not until the 3rd of December that the convoy with the women and children had been despatched under escort for Allahabad. Two more days were consumed in caring for the wounded. All this time Sir Colin was obliged to permit the enemy to remain in Cawnpore, and to maintain a desultory skirmish, using guns when the mutineers showed any audacity. Free from his encumbrances, Sir Colin at once struck a heavy blow.

His plan of action was based on the position of the enemy. He observed that the town of Cawnpore separated the right from the left; that on the right was the camp of the Gwalior Contingent, and behind the right the road to Calpee, the line of the enemy's advance and his line of retreat. Sir Colin saw that by falling with his whole force on the right, he could smash the enemy in detail. He therefore, on the morning of the 6th, drew up his troops under cover of some old buildings on the Allahabad road, and ordered Windham to open a heavy fire from the entrenchment, to deceive the enemy into the belief that the attack was coming from that side. The camp was struck and the baggage put under a guard near the river. Then Windham opened fire about nine, and at eleven o'clock Sir Colin deployed his infantry and attacked the enemy. For a brief time the guns on both sides were engaged; then the infantry columns dashed over the bridge of a canal that covered the enemy's front, Captain Peel and a soldier of the 53rd, named Hannaford, leading over one of them with a heavy gun. The whole line, filing over, re-formed on the other side, covered by Punjab infantry in skirmishing order, and then went steadily into the heart of the enemy's right. The attack was irresistible. The enemy gave way at all points, and in two hours our troops were in his camp, and his men were flying in disorder along the Calpee road. The cavalry had[257] been sent to the left, in order that they might get well in the rear, but, badly guided, they went too far to the left, and came up late, but still in time. Without losing a moment, Sir Colin sent them, with Bourchier's light guns, in hot pursuit, supporting them with infantry. On reaching the enemy's camp he had detached General Mansfield, his accomplished chief of the staff, with a strong column, to the right, to assail the enemy's left, now gathering round a tank, called the Soubahdar's Tank. The pursuing column, headed by the artillery, followed the fugitives closely, Bourchier's Battery going two miles without a check, and alone, and coming four times into action in that distance. Then the battery halted until the cavalry came up and the pursuit was renewed. In the meantime Mansfield had routed the enemy on the Bithoor road, and driven them off in that direction. The next day Hope Grant followed them with a strong force. He made a march of five-and-twenty miles, and coming upon the enemy as they were crossing the Ganges, succeeded in capturing all their guns and ammunition.

THE SLAUGHTER GHAT, CAWNPORE.

There was now no hostile force of any magnitude in the Doab, except that which the Nawab of Furruckabad had collected round him, and with which he domineered over the country between the Ganges and Jumna, as far to the north-west as Allyghur, and to the south-east as Etawah. Before dealing with the enemy who swarmed in the regions north of the Ganges, from Goruckpore to Rampoor, it was necessary to clear the whole of the Doab, restore and secure complete communication between Allahabad and Delhi, by way of Agra, and procure from the North-West ample supplies of transport. In order to accomplish this, a vast convoy had been collected at Delhi, and a column organised under the orders of Colonel Thomas Seaton, to escort it to Cawnpore. The plan was for Seaton to take his convoy to Allyghur, leave it there under the guns of the fort, defeat the enemy, whose bands made the roads insecure, and then join Sir Colin, whose force, divided into two columns, was, when united and reinforced by Seaton, to concentrate on Futtehghur, the fort which commanded Furruckabad and the passage of[258] the Ganges. By these means it was thought the whole of the Doab would be cleared of the enemy; and the means proved to be equal to the end. At the same time, the engineer brigade and some Muzbee sappers, with guns and ammunition, were sent from Agra to Allyghur, there to meet Seaton. The latter force reached Allyghur on the 10th of December, and on the 11th Seaton's column and convoy came in from Delhi. Leaving his convoy under the guns of the fort, Seaton at once began active operations against the enemy, and fought a brief, spirited, and important campaign in the Doab. He had with him two regiments of infantry, the 1st Bengal Fusiliers and the 7th Punjabees, a squadron of Carabineers, and Hodson's Horse, under Hodson himself, and eight guns. At daybreak on the 12th he marched out in search of the enemy, and was not long in finding him.

Crossing the Ganges Canal a few miles from Allyghur, Seaton halted for the night at Julalee, and the next day moved on to Gungaree. Here the troops arrived about eight o'clock. The camp was pitched, and all prepared to rest for the day as usual. Suddenly the pickets began firing. Instead of waiting to be attacked in their lines at Khasgunge, the enemy, 5,000 strong, had become the assailant. This somewhat astonished the officers, and they only understood the reason later. It appears that the enemy, acting on false information, had moved out, hoping to surprise a weak detachment of the Belooch Battalion. Hence their boldness. They came on with some spirit, but were shocked to find themselves in front of a strong force of all arms. In a moment our guns dashed to the front and opened fire. The Carabineers charged the enemy's battery and took their guns, but lost three out of four officers. At the same time, Macdowell, commanding Hodson's Horse, seeing the Carabineers attacking, shouted "Charge!" and rode into the foe with such goodwill that he scattered them in all directions.

The next day the troops marched to Khasgunge, Hodson leading, and on the 16th pushed on to Suhawun. Here they heard that the enemy had rallied at Puttiala, where they had entrenched themselves, resolved to fight. On the 17th the column moved out, and the advanced guard under Hodson found the enemy in position in front of a fortified village, his right resting on a ravine, his centre across the road, covered by slight entrenchments, and his left "in the air," as the military phrase is, resting on nothing, and entirely dependent on a mass of cavalry for protection. Colonel Seaton at once determined to attack the left. Our infantry were moved out to that flank, and Hodson's Horse held in readiness. The Carabineers and four guns made a demonstration on the other wing. The artillery shook the cavalry by a smart fire of shell, and then advancing, got into position, which enabled them to rake the whole line. Hodson had followed the guns, and seeing the enemy waver, called on his men to charge. They willingly obeyed, dashing into the camp and through the village, and down upon the enemy flying in disorder towards Furruckabad. The cavalry pursued eight miles. They met with no resistance, and slew hundreds of the enemy. We lost but one man killed and one wounded. Our officers felt pity for the poor wretches whom duty compelled them to destroy. And well they might. The enemy were country folk, ignorant and misled, with no heart in the cause, and no discipline. We took that day fourteen guns and all the ammunition. The leader of the beaten army had fled at the first sound of our guns.

After halting three days at Puttiala, the column, having thus effectually scared the enemy, returned to Gungaree, to cross the Kallee Nuddee there, and then striking across country, fell into the trunk road again at Etah. The Rajah of Mynpooree had collected a force wherewith to dispute the road, and Seaton bent his steps towards him. There on the 27th he attacked the rajah and his men, and routed him out of hand, taking six guns, and following the fugitives for many miles. Thus the road down the Doab was cleared by Seaton's column, and the convoys from Agra and Allyghur began to move down towards Cawnpore. Seaton was made a brigadier and elevated to the dignity of Knight Commander of the Bath.

In the meantime Brigadier Walpole, with a small column, had marched from Cawnpore on the 18th of December, had cleared the left bank of the Jumna, and reached Etawah on the 29th. Sir Colin Campbell, with the main body, had moved up from Cawnpore towards Futtehghur. On the 29th news reached the camp of Seaton, at Mynpooree, that Campbell was at Goorsaigunge, about thirty-eight miles distant, and Hodson at once volunteered to ride over and open communication between the two columns. On the 30th, accompanied by Macdowell and seventy-five of his Horse, he started. Halting at Bewar to feed, he left fifty men there and pushed on with the rest to Chibberamow. Here he left the remaining twenty-five and with Macdowell rode off for the camp of the chief. But when he arrived at Goorsaigunge he found that the camp was fifteen[259] miles farther off. Nevertheless thither he went, and there he found Sir Colin, who made him heartily welcome. After dinner, Hodson and his friend set off on their long ride of fifty-four miles, and reached their destination in safety after several narrow escapes. This was a daring feat, and such feats made Hodson famous among all soldiers, and adored by his own. Seaton now brought down his convoy, Walpole came in from Etawah, passing Mynpooree, and overtaking Seaton at Bewar on the 3rd of January, 1858. That day Sir Colin had reached the Kallee Nuddee. His engineers were busy repairing the suspension bridge, when the Nawab of Futtehghur brought up all his force and attacked the working party. Thus assailed, Sir Colin fell upon him, and in a short time routed him off the field and took all his guns. The same day he moved close up to Futtehghur. The nawab blew up his palace, and escaped into Oude; but Nazir Ali Khan, chief instigator of the massacres that had taken place there, was captured and hanged. The fort had been abandoned and thus was Futtehghur recovered. It was an important place. Here was the depôt of the Gun Carriage Agency, and here were stores of clothing. Seaton and Walpole having come in, headquarters were established at Futtehghur.

Here we will leave the Commander-in-Chief meditating important schemes, while we lead the reader into fresh fields, and bring up a long arrear in our narrative, to pave the way for the splendid campaign of Sir Hugh Rose in the burning plains of Central India. The tempest that broke over Bengal and the North-West had swept away every atom of our authority in Central India, except at Saugor and at Mhow, the hill fort near Indore. From the middle of June we had no representatives in the districts between the Nerbudda and the Jumna. The shock had reverberated, though faintly, in Madras and Bombay, having been counteracted in the latter presidency by the energy of Lord Elphinstone, and having only slightly affected the mounted force there. But it had been felt in the Deccan, over which ruled the Nizam, who, like the Guicowar, in Gujerat, derived his authority originally from the Great Mogul, and who now subsisted, as a native prince, by virtue of British forbearance, and the dictates of good policy, if not of justice.

The task of restoring British authority in Central India devolved upon the Bombay and Madras Governments, but especially on the former; and Lord Elphinstone was not found wanting in the hour of trial. He was not satisfied with the repression of mutiny and signs of mutiny in the territory under his rule. He sought aid from Ceylon; he intercepted the China force; he urged the instant return of the troops from Persia; and he organised a movable column at Aurungabad to march upon Mhow. On the 13th of June the 1st Cavalry of the Hyderabad Contingent—that is, the force supplied by the Nizam, refused to obey orders, then mutinied and fled. General Woodburn, to whose hesitation the disaster was due, shortly afterwards obtained leave on sick certificate, and Colonel Stuart, of the 14th, took command. The column marched from Aurungabad on the 12th of July; on the 21st it crossed the Taptee; on the 29th, after being joined by all the cavalry of the Hyderabad Contingent, under Captain S. Orr, the force effected the passage of the Nerbudda, then rapidly rising from the rains in the Vindhya Mountains; and on the 2nd of August the troops entered Mhow, which, rejoicing to be "relieved," fired a salute. Here they remained for two months, their progress stayed by the rains; and during this period they reconstructed the fort, making it larger and more easily defensible.

Neither Holkar nor Scindia, although powerful princes, could restrain their troops from mutiny. To the west of Mhow is the little State of Dhar; and since the greater princes could not control their mercenaries, it was not to be expected that the lesser should succeed in so doing. The Dhar troops revolted; the Bheels and budmashes joined them; the rajah was powerless. They seized the fort of Dhar, and harried the country side. In the middle of October the brigade set out to drive them from Dhar, and to restore order in the Malwa country. The force arrived in front of Dhar on the 22nd of October. The enemy, with more valour than prudence, left their stronghold to fight a battle. They were charged and routed by the 25th Bombay Native Infantry, their three guns were captured, and they were driven into the fort. On the 24th the siege train came in after a fatiguing march through heavy roads; and Brigadier Stuart immediately laid siege to the fort. The place was invested; batteries were thrown up; and the wall in one place was breached. The enemy, who had made a good defence, now pretended to parley. Firing was suspended; and while we parleyed with them, they examined the breach, and they rejected all terms, asserting that they could only treat with the rajah. The next day the sappers inspected the breach, and reported it practicable. The stormers rushed in, and found[260] the place empty. The enemy had got through the cavalry outposts unobserved. In Dhar our troops took an immense booty. It was the property of the infant rajah, who was not in arms against us, but himself a sufferer; and, contrary to all justice, we declared it prize and divided it amongst the brigade. In addition to this, Dhar was annexed.

The enemy, flying from Dhar, went to Mahidpore and there were joined by the contingent of that little State. Tho palace and fort of Dhar were blown up and burned—a most unjustifiable proceeding. Leaving this ruin behind them, the column moved north-west towards Mundasore, with the legitimate object of punishing the Mahidpore Contingent, and rescuing the fertile plains of Malwa from men who were no better than robbers and marauders. They were burning villages, beating the inhabitants, and carrying off the women. On the 14th of November Captain Orr, who had closely followed the enemy, surprised him in his camp at Rawul. Giving them no time to recover their equanimity, and without waiting for reinforcements, the Hyderabad Horse, charged the guns, regardless of the shower of grape they poured forth, and fought with such good will that the enemy was routed and the guns were taken. The enemy, chiefly Arabs, fought bravely and we lost a hundred killed and wounded. The column pursued, passing through Jacra, where they were joined by the Nawab, who had remained faithful, and thence onward towards Mundasore, the headquarters of the enemy, now mustering 5,000 strong. Crossing the Chumbul without opposition, the column halted a day to try seventy-six mutineers, all of whom were shot for the murder of their European officers and non-commissioned officers. On the 21st of November the force was before Mundasore.

Here the enemy fought a battle. Their right rested on a village, their left on Mundasore, their centre stood across the parade ground. Our troops drew up opposite, the cavalry being held in readiness to charge. The combat, however, was short. Plied by a heavy fire of artillery, the enemy soon showed symptoms of weakness; and as our infantry dashed into the village, the whole of the natives began to run. Then the cavalry went forward, and drove them headlong into Mundasore. It was not Brigadier Stuart's object then to assault the town. He desired to reach Neemuch and rescue the Europeans, who, since the mutiny of the 3rd of June, had been shut up in a fort, surrounded by enemies. He therefore crossed the Sore river, and made a flank march past Mundasore on the 22nd, in order to reach Neemuch, which lay to the north-west of the rebel stronghold.

The enemy in Mundasore made a sally, which was easily repelled, and the column took up the route for Neemuch, eager to be there, for the heroic garrison was reduced to the last straits for food. Hearing of the approach of the column, the enemy quitted Neemuch and drew up across the road. Here they were found on the 23rd, posted among the tall waving crops, behind deep watercourses, full of water. After disposing of his baggage, Stuart brought up his guns, and, under cover of their fire, formed his line, infantry in the centre and cavalry on the flanks. Then ensued a very severe fight. In spite of the fire of our cannon, the enemy became the assailant, but found the 25th Bombay Regiment too much for him, while the cavalry charged and captured the guns. The enemy now fell back fighting, inflicting considerable loss upon us; while his friends from Mundasore attacked the baggage, but were driven off by the dragoons. Routed from the field and thrown into disorder at all points, a strong body established themselves in a village, and here defied the whole army. The place was set on fire with shells, but the Rohillas would not give in, and night fell, leaving them in full possession. The next day the cannonade was resumed, and continued until the village was burnt to a mere shell; yet still these brave fellows held on. A little later about 200 surrendered and then our infantry took the place by storm.

This action relieved Neemuch effectually. The pent-up Europeans came forth to tell how many desperate attacks they had beaten off and how grateful they were for their rescue. The column marched back upon Mundasore, and found that the enemy had fled on learning the issue of the combat on the 23rd. Leaving the Hyderabad Contingent in Mundasore, and breaching the wall of the fort to make it untenable, Brigadier Stuart led his column back to Indore, by way of Mahidpore and Oojein. The object of this march was to disarm Holkar's refractory troops, who did not submit to his will until they saw the head of Stuart's column moving upon the town. Holkar thus recovered his power, and we ours. Sir Robert Hamilton, a most able man, succeeded the somewhat imperious and brusque Durand, as Political Agent, and on the 16th of December Sir Hugh Rose arrived to take command of the army. The campaign in Malwa had thus ended, and it was not until January, 1858, that Rose set out on his brilliant campaign in Central India.

[261]

THE RELIEF OF LUCKNOW. (See p. 250.)

[262]

The mere struggle for existence had long been over. The work of regaining empire was about to begin. Nearly 30,000 men had come out from England, and the remaining part of our story will show how they were employed, and how their work was done. We left the Commander-in-Chief encamped at Futtehghur in the beginning of January, 1858. Here he remained for the rest of the month; his troops engaged in watching the enemy on the opposite shore of the Ganges, and himself occupied in an important correspondence with Lord Canning with regard to the next step in the war. The problem to be solved was whether the army, now augmenting daily, should be used against Lucknow or Bareilly, whether Oude or Rohilcund should be first conquered. It was an exceedingly difficult question. The whole country from the mountains to the Ganges as far as Allahabad swarmed with enemies. The two centres were Bareilly in Rohilcund and Lucknow in Oude. The larger number and the better forces were in Oude; the more active and threatening, so far as the upper and central parts of the Doab were concerned, the districts of Meerut and Saharunpore, were in Rohilcund. To crush the latter first, and thus remove all chance of an irruption on the Great Trunk Road, and into any part of the country on the right bank of the Ganges, seemed to Sir Colin the wiser plan; but Lord Canning thought differently. He saw less political danger from the new-born royalty of Khan Bahadoor at Bareilly than from the resuscitated royal government at Lucknow; for one of the wives of the late king had set her son on the throne. The Governor-General feared the effect upon Jung Bahadoor—now leading 9,000 of his Ghoorkas from the hills to operate in Goruckpore—of leaving the rebels in Oude untouched while Sir Colin cleared Rohilcund; and he apprehended that an attempt would be made by Oude men to break into the fertile provinces on the left bank of the Lower Ganges. It was at best a choice of evils which lay before the soldier and the statesman; and it may be presumed that, in a military point of view, the former was right; while, from the political point of view, the balance of reason was on the side of Lord Canning.

In the meantime Sir Colin kept a sharp watch upon parties of the enemy who were known to have assembled both above and below Futtehghur, intent on breaking into the Doab and plundering. Walpole watched the fords below and Hodson above. Adventurous parties of the Rohilcund forces crossed the Ganges at Soorajpore, about twenty miles up the river, and a large body prepared to follow. Well informed of their movements, Sir Colin waited until they crossed, and approached near enough to be within reach. They numbered about 9,000, and came on very confidently, and, giving out that they intended to attack Furruckabad, they encamped at Shumshabad, and were fairly in the trap. The enemy were beaten, pursued, and driven over the Ganges. Their guns and ammunition, as usual, were captured.

This action ended, Sir Colin left Walpole with a small force at Futtehghur, and marched for Cawnpore. The Governor-General had come up to Allahabad, in order to be nearer the scene of action, and thither Sir Colin went to settle, in a personal interview, the more important details of the campaign. The result of this interview was the completion of an extensive plan for the reduction of Lucknow, and the dispersion of the armed mob who held it. Sir Colin Campbell, with the main body, 18,000 strong, with 180 guns, was to march from Cawnpore; while General Franks, with 2,500 European troops, and as many Ghoorkas from Jung Bahadoor's army, now in Goruckpore, as he could obtain, was to move up the Goomtee. At the same time General Penny and General Chamberlain were to invade Rohilcund, while the Ghoorkas at Nynee Tal were to descend into the plains. Sir Hugh Rose also was afoot, marching from Indore upon Saugor; and General Whitlock, with a Madras force, was to move from Jubbulpore on Banda. Other columns were on the move from Bombay into Rajpootana, where our troops had not only relieved Neemuch, as already recorded, but had recovered Ajmere and Nusseerabad. In this quarter the Rajahs of Tonk and Bikaneer were our fast friends. Thus at the beginning of 1858 the numerous troops sent from England began to tell, and from all quarters the rebels and mutineers were threatened with certain destruction.

The main body under Sir Colin had been in great part pushed across the river from Cawnpore, and occupied camps on the road to Lucknow, Onao, which the reader knows, Nawabgunge, deeper into Oude, Bunnee, where there is a bridge over the Sye, Jellalabad, a fort near the Alumbagh, and finally the Alumbagh itself, where Outram had held his own so long in front of the insurgent army. Sir Colin was ready to march early in February; but he had to wait, until his patience was quite exhausted, for the march of Jung Bahadoor up the Goomtee. Lord Canning hoped to produce a great moral effect upon the mind of the Hindoos by showing them so stout a Hindoo as Jung Bahadoor as his ally. But the Nepaul chief moved slowly. He did not bring with him the men of the fighting caste of Nepaul. He brought the scum of the hills, and these worthies plundered every rood of ground over which they passed. Lord Canning had no sooner got them from the hills than he wished them back again; but as they were there, and as their chief was burning for military distinction, he was obliged to let them go on. Therefore Sir Colin made all his arrangements for moving on Lucknow and so disposed his troops that he could concentrate them at the Alumbagh, as soon as it was plain that Jung Bahadoor was near at hand, or that he could be stayed for no longer.

THE SECOND RELIEF OF LUCKNOW, 1857.

FROM THE PAINTING BY THOMAS J. BARKER.

[See larger version]

[263]

In the meantime Brigadier General Franks, who had been warring successfully near Allahabad and Jounpore, had collected a column 5,700 strong, 2,000 of whom were Europeans, the rest being Ghoorkas, with twenty-four guns at Sigramow on the road from Benares to Lucknow. His orders were to march up the right bank of the Goomtee, and arrive within one march of Lucknow by the 1st of March. The population were hostile; there were 30,000 men in arms on the line of operations; the roads were in many places unbridged, in others almost impassable; the distance to be traversed was about 130 miles. On the 18th of February Franks was at Sigramow. In his front were two bodies of the enemy, 8,000 at Chanda and 10,000 more eight miles distant. He designed to beat them in detail. He therefore gave out that he should march on the 20th. The rebel chief ordered his troops to concentrate on the 19th. But Franks moved on the 19th himself; before noon he had beaten the 8,000 at Chanda; and resting his men, turned at eventide on the 10,000 coming up on his left flank, and routed them also. The enemy were thus skilfully driven off the road to Lucknow with a loss on our side of only eleven men; and seizing the moment, Franks pushed his column, with its immense baggage train, through the defile of Budhayan, without the loss of a cart or a man. This was a fine piece of work.

The enemy, making a wide detour—which, as Franks was so encumbered, he was unable to do—reappeared on the Lucknow road two miles beyond Sultanpore. Here were collected 25,000 men, of whom 1,100 were horse and 5,000 Sepoys, with 25 guns. They occupied a compact position, showing a line a mile and a half long, the front being covered by a ravine, the left resting on the Goomtee and the right on a serai. The road to Lucknow ran through the position at right angles, and was commanded by five heavy guns at the point where it crossed the ravine. There were six guns on the right, the remaining fourteen being distributed along the front. Franks marched from Budhayan on the 23rd; and, feeling the enemy, he approached him in order of battle, brought up his troops in columns, the British Brigade in front, the Ghoorkas in rear, and making a show of assaulting the position in front, rode up with his cavalry, sixty horse, and a few score riflemen, and drove the enemy's pickets over the ravine. His design was to impress the enemy with the belief that he was about to assault their centre; and to prevent them from discovering his real intentions, he kept the horsemen close to the ravine. Riding off to the left, he hoped to find a point where he could cross the nullah, and turn their right. This he found. Then swiftly and secretly marching the British Brigade to the left, while he kept the Ghoorkas on the road, he turned the enemy's right so completely that he forced his way on to the Lucknow road, captured the guns, and pushed the enemy into the ravine. The Ghoorkas charged upon the front and finished the action. By these skilful movements, showing real soldiership, Franks, at the cost of eleven men, turned the enemy's position, killed and wounded 1,800 men, dispersed an army, and captured twenty-one guns. This was a great exploit. The fruit of it was an open road to Lucknow, by which he marched to join Sir Colin Campbell.

Sir Colin had become impatient of further delay. He knew that Jung Bahadoor was on the Gogra on the 24th, and that Franks had thrashed the enemy on the 23rd; and as he knew Franks would be up to time, and as he could do without Jung, he determined to cross into Oude. The troops, as we have said, were in camp on the road to Lucknow. The enemy, growing suspicious of all these preparations, resolved to assume the offensive. The Sepoys, horse and foot, came out of Lucknow, and assaulted Outram's camp on several occasions. On the 27th the headquarters crossed the Ganges, and on the 1st of March Sir Colin was at Buntera, ready for work. All the men were drawn together. The engineering preparations were complete. A cask-bridge had been made, whereon to cross the Goomtee. The heavy guns were up. Franks was close at hand, and Jung Bahadoor over the Gogra. Leaving his heavy guns at Buntera, Sir Colin, on the 2nd, marched[264] with a strong force of all arms to seize the Delkoosha palace and park, in order that he might make this the base of his operations against the city. He took the post with little resistance from the enemy, and established his headquarters at Bibiapore, on the Goomtee, east of the park. On the 3rd the siege train arrived, and on the morning of the 4th General Franks marched in and joined the grand army. The same evening the siege began.

The advanced posts of the enemy were over the canal, the principal outpost being the Martinière on the left front. On the north bank of the Goomtee the enemy occupied some of the few buildings and the suburb; but he had no works on that side. This was a strong position, but it had a great defect, and of this defect Sir Colin Campbell took full advantage. As the enemy's entrenched line rested on the Goomtee, and as the other bank was not defended, by crossing the river Sir Colin saw that he could take each of the enemy's lines in reverse, and so render them untenable. He wished to capture the place with as little loss as possible, and to make his artillery do the work. Therefore he gave Outram a strong force of all arms, and directed him to cross the Goomtee at Bibiapore, march up the left bank, establish his batteries, and force the enemy out of his lines. One bridge was finished on the night of the 4th, and a party of infantry was sent over to cover the men building the second. The enemy now scented danger, brought down troopers and guns, and opened on the bridge. But the picket of infantry scared the cavalry by a random volley, and our guns, replying to the enemy, soon made him withdraw. He was now too late. The second bridge was finished, and the column ready to cross.

On the morning of the 6th, Outram's column of all arms marched through the woods to the Goomtee, and began to cross. He led it at once up the Goomtee. The enemy, becoming aware of the movement too late, hurried out to oppose him. From the Delkoosha our officers could mark his progress by the clouds of dust above the trees, coming nearer and nearer; then the rush of fugitives in white; then the clearing of the cloud by the Queen's Bays in scarlet uniform, riding with flashing sabres; finally, the Horse Artillery coming out at a bound, and trying in vain to overtake, with shot and shell, the bulk of the enemy. Outram had routed him with ease, and he encamped for the night on what was once the Lucknow race-course. This being done successfully, Sir Colin threw up batteries in his front to play on the Martinière, to keep down the fire of the enemy's line, and to attract his attention from Outram. Captain William Peel, disdaining the enemy as his wont was, took his naval guns into his battery across the open ground, the sailors conducting their guns with a coolness equal to that of their famous leader. Although a considerable impression was made on the fantastic Martinière, the enemy held on to it, and one gun seemed quite beyond our reach, for none of ours could touch it, or reduce it to silence. But another enemy was coming on them. Outram, who had been attacked on the 8th—an attack which he easily repelled—became the assailant himself on the 9th, and pushing everything before him, closed with the Goomtee, and bringing up a mass of guns, ploughed up the rear of the first line of hostile trenches. At the same time the batteries in front of the Delkoosha, especially Peel's, were rapidly smashing the Martinière; and Sir Colin, seeing how matters were going—how effective the fire was, both from his own and Outram's guns, directed the assault of the Martinière. The Martinière was very easily taken. The leading regiments were the 42nd and 4th Punjabees; the supports were the 38th, 53rd, 90th, and 93rd. The storming party used the bayonet only. The guns covered the attack. The whole force was under Lugard.

Outram had been most successful. He had pushed his conquering column up to and within the walls of the Badshahbagh, and his heavy guns had so raked the enemy's lines in front of Campbell that they appeared to be deserted. An officer volunteered to cross the Goomtee and see. Plunging in, he swam over. "Suddenly," writes Dr. Russell, who was in the Martinière, "we saw a figure rising out of the waters of the Goomtee, and scrambling up the canal parapet, which just terminates at this place. He gets up, stands upright, and waves his hand. 'What is he?' 'He must be one of our fellows, sir; he has blue trousers and red stripe.' And so it was—Butler, of the Bengal Fusiliers," had done this exploit. The Highlanders and Sikhs now dashed at the line, and were soon in possession of the extreme left, and the portion in front of the Martinière. All this time our guns were pounding the city on our left; and such was the effect of Outram's flank movement that the enemy abandoned Banks's House and the whole line, and our troops took secure possession. On the 10th we were occupied on both sides of the river in battering the place,[265] and preparing for the next move. By the incessant exertions of Lieutenant Patrick Stewart the telegraphic wire followed the Commander-in-Chief everywhere, so that he was in direct communication with Calcutta every morning, and with Outram also, for Stewart carried a branch line over the Goomtee.

DEATH OF HODSON. (See p. 266.)

On the 11th both forces made great progress. Jung Bahadoor brought his army into camp, and was sent to hold the left on the canal. Outram made a vast stride forward. Dividing his force into two columns, he sent one to the iron bridge and one to the stone bridge. The troops advanced, literally chasing the enemy before them, and slaying hundreds. Both bridges were taken, but it was not deemed expedient to hold the stone bridge, and the right column returned to a position in a musjid west of the Badshahbagh. But the iron bridge was held by a strong force. All day Outram's batteries had been firing steadily into the huge buildings on the other bank, especially into the Kaiserbagh, and were enfilading the enemy's second line with effect. Nor were Sir Colin's batteries idle. They were breaching the Begum's Kothie. When the breach was practicable, the Highlanders, this time the 93rd, and a Sikh regiment, went at this place, and carried it with a rush. Adrian Hope led the column. Mounting to a window by the aid of his men, he tumbled through among a crowd of Sepoys, who fled at "the apparition of a huge red Celt, sword and pistol in hand." The men followed, carrying everything before them at the point of the bayonet, until the place was cleared of all except skulkers, who were even found next day, and who from dark holes slew some of our men. On the right the 53rd had carried the Secunderbagh without opposition, and even the Shah Nujeef; Captain Medley, with a handful of native sappers, gallantly holding it all night. This brought the Commander-in-Chief into direct communication with Outram over the river. The mortar batteries were at once turned upon the Kaiserbagh and the Imambara, and up towards the latter Robert Napier, a most accomplished soldier, was pushing a sap by the aid of his engineers. Thus a great[266] day's work had been done. The Kaiserbagh and the Mess House alone remained in the enemy's hands, but the former was strong. While Mansfield was superintending the capture of the Begum's Kothie, Sir Colin had to go through the disagreeable duty of receiving Jung Bahadoor. The reputation of the Nepaulese was of ill savour; and it was not pleasant to a frank soldier like Colin Campbell to take the hand of a man who had murdered his kindred.

The work of the 11th was most satisfactory; but in the storming of the Begum's Kothie, as in the assault on Delhi, Britain suffered a great loss. At the latter fell Nicholson, at the former Hodson was mortally wounded. On his way to select a camping-ground for his Horse, he heard firing, and, riding up, found Brigadier Napier directing the attack on the Begum's Kothie. With the assaulting column, beside Robert Napier, he went into the place. It was taken; but Sepoys were still in hiding, and the soldiers were looking for them. Turning to his orderly, he said, "I wonder if any of the rascals are in there." He looked into a dark room—it was full of Sepoys; a shot was fired and, staggering back, Hodson fell. The Highlanders rushed in, and killed every man in the room; while poor Hodson's orderly, a large, powerful Sikh, carried his master out of danger. He was taken to Banks's House, and there the next day he died, in the presence of Napier and his faithful orderly, who hung over the corpse crying like a child. He was buried on the 13th, Sir Colin Campbell and a host of officers attending his funeral, to mark his regret and esteem for "the most brilliant soldier" under his command.

The work of sapping up to the Imambara, the next place to be taken, now went briskly on. Napier's sappers were engaged in opening wide communications to the rear, and in breaking through the houses in front, so that heavy guns might be brought up to breach the walls. Into the enemy's posts poured an incessant fire of shell from the batteries of Outram, as well as those of Sir Colin; and the rattle of musketry never ceased while there was daylight. The army was now extended from the Badshahbagh, on the right, over the Goomtee to the front of the Imambara; and the moment had now arrived when this building could be breached with effect. The guns were placed behind a wall thirty yards from the building, and their huge shot went crashing through the massive structure, breaking down several walls at each blow. From the house-tops and the windows and loopholes the enemy fired heavily at random, and did little harm. Then came the order to assault; and in went the 10th Foot and Braysher's Sikhs with a rush. The enemy, as usual, fled; and being pursued with much eagerness, our troops emerged through the great gateway into the main road, to find that they had turned the whole of the second line of defence. Fortune gave them the whole second line; and now, lo! they were in rear of the third. They had pushed up to the Kaiserbagh itself, having broken into the rear of the entrenchments covering the great gate. Seizing the opportunity, heavy supports were brought up from the right, and Franks and Napier determined to take the palace itself. The order was given, and the soldiers dashing in, the whole of the vast buildings fell easily into our hands, so thoroughly broken was the spirit of the enemy.

"Here and there," wrote Dr. Russell, "the invaders have forced their way into the long corridors, and you hear the musketry rattling inside, the crash of glass, the shouts and yells of the combatants, and little jets of smoke curl out of the closed lattices. Lying amid the orange groves are dead and dying Sepoys; and the white statues are reddened with blood. Leaning against a smiling Venus is a British soldier, shot through the neck, gasping, and at every gasp bleeding to death. Here and there officers are running to and fro after their men, persuading or threatening in vain. From the broken portals issue soldiers laden with loot or plunder; shawls, rich tapestry, gold and silver brocade, caskets of jewels, arms, splendid dresses. The men are wild with fury and lust of gold—literally drunk with plunder. Some come out with china vases or mirrors, dash them to pieces on the ground, and return to seek more valuable booty. Others are busy gouging out the precious stones from the stems of pipes, from saddle-cloths, or the hilts of swords, or butts of pistols or fire-arms. Some swathe their bodies in stuffs crusted with precious metals and gems; others carry off useless lumber, brass pots, pictures, or vases of jade and china. Court after court the scene is still the same. These courts open one to the other by lofty gateways, ornamented with the double fish of the royal family of Oude or by arched passages in which lie the dead Sepoys, their clothes smouldering on their flesh. The scene of plunder," he continues, "was indescribable. The soldiers had broken up several of the store-rooms, and pitched the contents into the court, which was lumbered with cases, with embroidered cloths, gold and silver brocade, silver vessels, musical instruments, arms, banners, drums, shawls, scarfs, mirrors, pictures, books, accounts,[267] medicine bottles, gorgeous standards, shields, spears, and a heap of things, the enumeration of which would make this sheet of paper like a catalogue of a broker's sale. Through these moved the men, wild with excitement, 'drunk with plunder.' I had often heard the phrase, but never saw the thing itself before. They smashed to pieces the fowling-pieces and pistols to get at the gold mountings and the stones set in the stocks. They burned in a fire, which they made in the centre of the court, brocades and embroidered shawls for the sake of the gold and silver. China, glass, and jade they dashed to pieces in pure wantonness; pictures they ripped up or tossed on the flames; furniture shared the same fate." In a military point of view the capture of this palace was a piece of great good fortune, as it virtually gave us the command of the city. There were now only the houses and buildings towards the old Residency; and with Outram on their flank, they could easily be taken, and taken at leisure.

Yet, the action on the 13th might have been more successful. When the Kaiserbagh fell, the troops on the right swept forward from the Shah Nujeef nearly up to the old Residency, and the 20th Foot caught a host of Sepoys in the engine-house, and slew nearly every man. At this time Sir James Outram was ready to burst across the iron bridge. His column was prepared, his men were eager. Lieutenant Wynne, with some sappers, had gallantly thrown down the breastwork across the end of the bridge—a service which won for him the Victoria Cross. But Outram did not advance. His orders were precise, and he construed them literally. He was to advance; but on the condition that he could do so without the loss of a single man. Seeing a gun bearing down the long street which led to the bridge, a gun steadily fired, Outram knew that if he charged across, he must lose at least one man, perhaps many. He obeyed the conditional order, and the Sepoys escaped. But had he crossed at the moment the Kaiserbagh fell, he must have inflicted a terrible loss upon the enemy, though suffering some loss himself.

Virtually Lucknow was now taken, but much still remained to be done. The troops rested on the 14th, except the gunners, who were rarely or never quiet. On the 15th, Sir James Outram, leaving a force near the iron bridge, crossed the Goomtee, and a general attack was made on the buildings west of the Kaiserbagh. A great deal of irregular fighting ensued, but the enemy stood nowhere. Outram's column worked up through the old battered Residency to the iron bridge; and as the enemy fled in disorder over the stone bridge higher up, our guns on the iron bridge kept up a heavy fire. That night we occupied the Muchee Bowun, and by the 18th every place was captured, except the Moosabagh, out in the country; the city itself was occupied, and direct communication established with the Alumbagh. Prize agents had now been appointed to secure the plunder; but order was not restored, and every street and house had its horrible scenes. The place was full of powder; our men were careless, and explosions were frequent, in one of which Captain Clarke, Lieutenant Brownlow, and thirty men were killed. On the 19th a concerted attack was made on the Moosabagh. Here were the resolute Moulvie, stout and cunning; the courageous and undaunted Begum, who had been the soul of the defence, her cowardly paramour Munnoo Khan, her son, the titular King of Oude, and some 8,000 men. The object was to catch them, but the combination failed. Somehow the cavalry sent out to cut off the fugitives lost their way. The enemy stayed just long enough to see the approach of the infantry and guns; then their hearts failed them and they fled. There was one more desperate skirmish in the city with a band of budmashes; that was the last fight, and the capital of Oude was recovered, after being so many months in the possession of the enemy. We took 120 guns, tons of ammunition, and much treasure; and so splendidly was the work done that our loss did not exceed 700 men killed and wounded.

The Governor-General now issued a proclamation, which, after setting forth the wickedness of the rebellion, and rewarding some talookdars by granting them a hereditary right to their lands, declared that, with these exceptions, the proprietary right in the soil of Oude was confiscated to the British Government. To those who made immediate submission, life and honour were promised, but nothing more. Those who had murdered Europeans were to expect no mercy. This proclamation created a great ferment in India and in England. It was held to be monstrous that Lord Canning should confiscate a province, though it is remarkable that when in the previous year he had drawn up a proclamation which distinguished the guilt of the rebels, he was scoffed at as "Clemency Canning." Sir James Outram resigned rather than carry out the scheme; and Mr. Montgomery, who succeeded him, obtained full permission to deal with each case on its merits. In England, Lord Ellenborough, then at the Board of Control, was so angry that he wrote a most insolent despatch to Lord Canning, on mere newspaper report; and, not[268] satisfied with this, he published it before he posted the document to Lord Canning. It was an uncourteous and an ungentlemanly act, and Lord Ellenborough had to resign his seat to save the Derby Cabinet from censure. The fact is, the proclamation was completely misunderstood. The confiscation was not permanent deprivation. It enabled the Government to take a position in Oude calculated to restore men to their real rights—to reward the faithful and punish the wrong-doers; and, above all, under the settlement made by Mr. Montgomery, and his successor, Mr. Wingfield, all those proprietors held from the Crown. In the end the measure worked well, and was essentially just and politic; and, in a long despatch, Lord Canning fully refuted the melodramatic impertinences of Lord Ellenborough.

But in the spring of 1858, not only Oude but Rohilcund had to be conquered. For a time the proclamation was a dead letter; the army had still to be employed; and in April, Sir Colin, after an interview with Lord Canning at Allahabad, broke up his force and proceeded to the work of conquest. General Walpole started, on the 7th, with a fine brigade towards Rohilcund. Sir Edward Lugard, with another, set out eastwards towards Gorruckpore, where Koer Singh and a host of enemies were afoot. A garrison was left in Lucknow, which was to be strongly fortified, and the remaining troops marched for Cawnpore on the 13th, to move up the Doab and enter Rohilcund from Futtehghur. The plan of campaign now was this: Sir Colin was to effect a junction with Walpole on the Ramgunge, opposite Futtehghur, and thence march on Bareilly by Shahjehanpore; while General Penny, with a brigade collected at Roorkee, and Brigadier Jones, from Moradabad, crossed the Ganges, and also made for Bareilly. Walpole marched his column by Sundeela. Near Rhodamow he came upon a mud fort in the jungle, occupied by a force under Nirput Singh. The place was reconnoitred, and the cavalry reported that it could be easily assailed in the rear; but Walpole thought that he could take it by rushing at the front. He did not even use his heavy guns, but sent the 42nd and 93rd against the rampart. They were driven back by the fire of the enemy. Many men fell killed and wounded; but the greatest loss was Adrian Hope, the pride of his brigade. The Highlanders were on the verge of mutiny, and the officers were savage with this unskilful mode of warfare. In the night, Nirput Singh, knowing his own weakness, ran away, and then it was seen how easily the place might have been taken. Walpole marched on towards the Ramgunge. On his way he heard that a body of the enemy were guarding a bridge of boats over that stream; and dashing on with cavalry and guns, he surprised and routed them with heavy loss. Sir Colin, marching by Cawnpore and Futtehghur, crossed the Ganges on the 27th, and joined Walpole at Tingree. In the meantime that gallant sailor and hope of the British navy, Sir William Peel, had died of small-pox at Cawnpore (April 27th).

Sir Colin entered Shahjehanpore on the 30th of April without meeting any resistance. Here he learned that Penny, leading his column through Budaon, misled by a civilian, who trusted to native information, got into an ambuscade and lost his life. His troops carried the position occupied by the enemy, and marched on. Jones also had made progress, and was approaching Bareilly from Moradabad. On the 2nd of May Sir Colin moved out of Shahjehanpore, leaving behind a small force with four guns to hold the gaol. He had not gone far before the energetic Moulvie, bringing a great body of all arms, fell upon Shahjehanpore; and although he failed to take it out of hand, he invested it, and put the little garrison in peril. Sir Colin got news of this, but he was then near Bareilly, and had a large army in his front whom it was necessary to fight.

Disregarding the Moulvie, and his skilful onslaught on the rear, Sir Colin pursued his march to Bareilly, where Khan Bahadoor Khan had 40,000 or 50,000 men of all arms, and forty guns. Here, in front of Bareilly, on the 5th of May he engaged the enemy. Penny's force had already joined him; Brigadier Jones was on the other side of the city. While Sir Colin attacked the enemy on the east, Jones broke into the place from the west. The enemy were defeated, but managed to escape in a disordered and broken state, some flying for the Ganges and some for Oude. During this action a body of Ghazees—fanatic Moslems—made a dash on the 93rd and 42nd. Sir Colin was near the Highlanders, but the Ghazees came on so rapidly that he had only time to call on his men to stand firm, and bayonet them as they came on, before the dare-devils were in their midst. A number of them got round the flank of the 42nd, dragged Colonel Cameron from his horse, and cut General Walpole over the head. Both were saved by the Highlanders. "Sir Colin had a narrow escape. As he was riding from one company to another, his eye caught that of a quasi-dead Ghazee, who was lying, tulwar in hand, just before[269] him. The chief guessed the ruse in a moment. 'Bayonet that man!' he called to a soldier. The Highlander made a thrust at him, but the point would not enter the thick cotton quilting of the Ghazee's tunic; and the dead man was rising to his legs, when a Sikh, who happened to be near, with a whirling stroke of his sabre, cut off the Ghazee's head at one blow, as if it had been the bulb of a poppy!" The enemy's troopers also got round the rear and did considerable mischief before they were driven off. But Bareilly was captured, and the enemy dispersed. Sir Colin's first thought was for the safety of Shahjehanpore. He sent off Brigadier Jones with his brigade to relieve Colonel Hale; and, having established a garrison in Bareilly, followed himself. Jones easily drove off the Moulvie's troops on the 11th, and covered the place. Sir Colin himself marched from Bareilly on the 15th. Arriving at Shahjehanpore on the 18th, he marched through the town, and drew up on the eastern side. There the Moulvie had made a demonstration with an immense force of horsemen. The action, however, was almost wholly carried on by the artillery. When the infantry were deployed and developed, the enemy retired. Sir Colin now handed the army over to the command of Brigadier John Jones, and with a weak escort set off suddenly for Futtehghur. Jones marched on Mohumdee, the last stronghold of the rebels on the eastern frontier of Rohilcund; but the enemy would not wait for him. This ended the campaign for the summer in Oude and Rohilcund. While the Commander-in-Chief had been thus engaged, Sir Hope Grant, with a flying column from Lucknow, had scoured the country towards Fyzabad, and had surprised and defeated the enemy at Nawabgunge. Sir Edward Lugard had relieved Azimghur, and, following up Koer Singh, had passed the Ganges, driven the valiant old chief into the jungle, and restored confidence in Behar. The troops were put under cover as far as possible, but there was still considerable fighting at different points in the Doab, and north and south of Allahabad; while Colonel Rowcroft kept down the rebel element on the north of Goruckpore, and facilitated the march of Jung Bahadoor and his plunder back to the mountains of Nepaul.

THE MARTINIÈRE, LUCKNOW. (From a Photograph by Frith & Co.)

[270]

## CHAPTER XVII.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

> The State of Central India—Objects of Rose's Campaign—The two Columns—Capture of Ratghur—Relief of Saugor—Capture of Gurrakota—Annexation of the Rajah of Shahghur's Territory—Capture of Chandaree—Rose arrives at Jhansi—The Ranee and Tantia Topee—Bombardment of Jhansi—Tantia Topee beaten off—Jhansi is stormed—Battles of Kooneh and Calpee—Tantia Topee captures Gwalior—Smith and Rose rescue the Place—Lord Elphinstone's Proceedings—Flight of Tantia Topee—Lawrence in the Punjab—Banishment of the King of Delhi—Other Rewards and Punishments—The Subjugation of Oude—Hope Grant's Flying Column—Britain does her Duty—Transference of the Government to the Crown—The Queen's Proclamation—Clyde enforces the Law—The Hunt for Bainie Madho—Further Flights and Pursuits—An Accident to Lord Clyde—His Last Action—Disappearance of the Begum and Nana Sahib—The Country at Peace—The Last Adventures of Tantia Topee—His Flight into Oodeypore—He is headed from Rohilcund—And from the Deccan—He joins Feroze Shah—Disappearance of the latter and Execution of Tantia Topee—Settlement of India—The Financial Question—The Indian Army—Increase of European Troops—The Native Levies—Abandonment of Dalhousie's Policy.

SIR HUGH ROSE, it will be remembered, arrived at Indore on the 16th of December, 1857, and assumed command of the Central India Field Force, mustering 6,000 men, of whom nearly one half were Europeans. He had a severe task to accomplish with these means. The whole country north of the Vindhya range of mountains was in the hands of the enemy. The only British post was Saugor, where several hundred Europeans were shut up in a fort, but where, strange to state, the 31st Native Infantry and part of the 42nd were faithful. Deeper in the country, towards the Jumna, the Ranee of Jhansi held the town and district of that name, and kept up communication with the disaffected subjects of Scindia, the remains of the Gwalior Contingent reorganising itself at Calpee, and the rebel bands who wandered up and down the Jumna, and made dashes into the Doab, from Allahabad to Agra. Sir Hugh Rose was entrusted with the duty, first, of relieving Saugor, then of capturing Jhansi, and finally of making his way to Calpee. He was to be supported on his left by another column from Bombay, under General Roberts, which was collected at Nusseerabad, in Rajpootana; and on his right by a Madras column, under General Whitlock, whose starting-point was Jubbulpore, on the higher waters of the Nerbudda. Thus, while Rose swept the country between the Sinde and the Beas, and Whitlock marched on his right between the Beas and the Sone, his object being Banda, Roberts was to march eastward by Kotah, then in the hands of the rebels and mutineers, into the Gwalior country.

Sir Hugh Rose divided his force into two columns or brigades. The first, under Brigadier Stuart, was formed at Indore; the second was collected at Sehore, about ninety miles to the north-east, on the road to Bhopal. The first was ordered to march on Chandaree, a very strong place on the left bank of the Betwa. The second, or right brigade, with which Rose himself marched, was directed from Sehore upon Ratghur and Saugor. Stuart's brigade was not to leave Indore until Rose had started for Bhopal, so that the two columns, although separated by a wide interval, might march in parallel lines, and then converge to a point north of Chandaree. Stuart's course lay down the left bank of the Betwa, and he had no serious hostility to apprehend until he approached Chandaree.

Rose's column was joined on the 15th of January, 1858, by the siege-train from Sehore. After executing 149 mutineers of the Bhopal Contingent, Rose started on the 16th. On the 21st the column entered Scindia's territory, and encamped at Bilsah, famous for tobacco. Three more marches brought the brigade in front of Ratghur, the first obstacle to be overcome on the road to Saugor; for the enemy had occupied the fort, and showed a readiness to bar the road. On the 24th Rose drove in the outposts of the enemy, and invested the place. Having disposed his troops around the place, keeping a good look-out towards Saugor, whence interruption might come, he pushed his siege guns, under a sufficient escort, up the hill and through the jungle, making a road for the heavy pieces as he advanced. All this time the troops around the town were engaged in constant skirmishes against irregular forces on the outside. By dint of perseverance these were driven off, and the town was occupied. Then the heavy guns were mounted in a battery, made by the Madras Sappers, most efficient soldiers, on the north hill, within 300 yards of the north wall, and opened fire, while other guns shelled the fort from the plain, and the Enfields were busy duelling with[271] the matchlock-men. The breach had been examined, and declared to be practicable. It was supposed that it would be stormed on the 29th; but when that day dawned, two enterprising officers, suspecting the quiet, climbed up the breach, and found that the enemy had fled. The garrison had scrambled down a precipice, women and all, and had got away through the lines of the Bhopal Contingent, who were supposed to be guarding that side. The cavalry went in pursuit, but were not able to catch the fugitives: indeed, the latter halted eight miles distant. Sir Hugh went out to attack them, and defeated them, yet could not take their guns. But the effect of these actions was that the roads to Saugor and Indore were freed from the enemy; and, on the 3rd of February, the Europeans shut up so long in Saugor were liberated by the arrival of Sir Hugh. They drove out to meet him, "looking pale and careworn," as it was natural they should look after eight months' imprisonment.

The next obstacle to be removed was a body of mutineers, men of several regiments, who had thrown themselves into the fort of Gurrakota, which fifty years before had defied a European army. This fort lies over the Beas, east of Saugor, and until it was taken Rose could not move on Jhansi nor Whitlock on Banda. The Sepoys entrenched the road into the fort from the south. But the troops advanced from the west. The horse artillery ranged up and opened fire in this unexpected quarter. Whereupon the Sepoys, greatly to their credit, sounded the advance and, moving boldly out, seemed disposed to charge the guns. Upon this the 3rd Europeans came into play and drove them back. Not satisfied yet, the enemy re-formed and came up with great steadiness and obstinacy, and were not broken and routed until they were close upon the guns. When they fled, the Hyderabad horsemen were soon amongst them, and their charge split them in two, one body hurrying into the fort, the other rushing off to the south and suffering loss at every step. Batteries were at once erected to breach the west face. The enemy worked their guns with vigour and coolness, but they were soon silenced, all but one, and this one was finally knocked over by Lieutenant Smith, of the Bombay Artillery. On the 13th of February the enemy were seen escaping from the fort, and the infantry, hastening in upon them, found that nearly all had gone. The fugitives were pursued five-and-twenty miles by the Hyderabad Horse. In the fort were found great stores of provisions, and quantities of plunder taken from Europeans in the mutiny. Provided for a long siege, the Sepoys had been ousted in three days, and such of the provisions as could not be carried away were given to the starving villagers whom they had so long oppressed. Gurrakota was blown up by the sappers. The troops returned to Saugor on the 17th, and halted until they could be adequately furnished for a long march through Central India.

The troops rested ten days, Sir Hugh Rose marching for Jhansi at two a.m. on the 27th, the time when Sir Colin crossed the Ganges into Oude. There were two means of access—the Pass of Malthon and the Pass of Mudanpore. Malthon was the northern outlet and stood directly in front of the line of march followed by the column. Here the enemy were supposed to be encamped, and indeed it was soon found that they held the fort of Barodia as an outpost. From this they were rapidly expelled by a few shells. This also helped the purpose of Sir Hugh, which was to deceive the enemy and make them believe that he intended to storm the Malthon Pass, while he really turned it by Mudanpore. But the enemy were not wholly deceived, for they occupied both passes. Leaving a small party of all arms to attack Malthon, or rather keep the enemy occupied, Sir Hugh, with the bulk of the brigade, went south along the foot of the hills through the pathless jungle. He then turned toward the gorge and at once came under fire. The Rajah of Shahghur, in whose territory the pass was situated, headed the enemy, and his general, late a Sepoy sergeant, had occupied the hills on both sides of the pass. Thence he opened such a storm of cannon shot and musketry that he brought our men to a halt, and even obliged Sir Hugh, whose horse was shot under him, to withdraw the guns farther to the rear. The check was only momentary. Keeping up a hot fire, Sir Hugh directed his infantry upon the flanks of the pass, and Europeans and Hyderabad natives went with shouts into the jungle. This was more than the enemy could endure, and without waiting for the assailants, they ran down the hills into the pass and through it, carrying off their guns. Our troops followed towards the town. The enemy endeavoured to stand once more, but his heart soon failed him. Nevertheless, he got away with his guns. Encamping near the fort of Soorai, the troops halted while this fort was destroyed. On the 6th of March the brigade moved on Murowa, seized the fort, and declared the territory of the rebel rajah to be annexed to the British possessions. While here the detachment sent against Malthon[272] came into camp. They had marched through with little opposition, as the men who were to hold it grew alarmed when they heard the cannon at Mudanpore and, alarm becoming panic, they ran away.

In order to protect the friendly ruler of Tehree, Sir Hugh sent thither the Hyderabad Contingent and marched himself upon Baunpore, where he came within hearing of the cannonade directed by his 1st Brigade against Chandaree. This brigade had laid siege to the strong fort in due form, and was reducing it with heavy guns. Quitting Baunpore, Sir Hugh, having determined to clear his right effectually, marched upon Tal Behut, from which the Hyderabad Contingent, that most active force, had driven the enemy. He arrived on the 14th of March. The fort had been abandoned, luckily for him, as it was a place of very great strength and might have been defended for weeks. Having opened communication with the 1st Brigade, and having learned that it was making good progress, Sir Hugh detached the sappers and contingent to secure the fords of the Betwa; then, turning westward, he marched the whole column to the river, and crossed it on the 17th of March. That day the 86th Foot and the 25th Bombay Infantry had carried Chandaree by storm; the 86th, an Irish regiment, fighting none the worse because it was St. Patrick's Day.

Having heard of the fall of Chandaree, Sir Hugh Rose marched at once upon Jhansi. On the 19th the brigade halted, while cavalry and guns reconnoitered Jhansi, and on the 21st the whole force set out and halted before that place. Jhansi, the reader will remember, was the scene of one of the bloodiest tragedies in India, the scene of a foul massacre, accomplished by treachery, and only exceeded in magnitude by that at Cawnpore. The brave but vicious Ranee was, like the Begum of Oude, determined to hold her own. Since she had been in full possession she had repaired the strong walls surrounding the city, mounted guns upon them and on the flanking bastions, cleared out the ditches, erected outworks well devised and well built, and even when the British encamped before her stronghold, her willing subjects were still hard at work throwing up fresh defences. She had been aided by Tantia Topee, a retainer of Nana Sahib. This remarkable man had served in the Bengal Artillery. He was a weaver by trade—hence his name, which means the "weaver artilleryman." After leaving the British service he entered that of Nana Sahib at Bithoor, and when the latter struck for empire, the talents of his artilleryman soon came into play. Tantia Topee had the brain of a soldier without the heart. He could plan, and scheme, and raise armies, and direct their movements, but he could not lead them. An avowed coward, the natives regarded his cowardice as an infirmity, and were willing to accept his services without demanding from him qualities he did not possess. As Sir Hugh Rose appeared before Jhansi, Tantia Topee rode off to Calpee, there to organise a relieving army around the wreck of the famous Gwalior Contingent.

The British troops encamped on a plain without shelter of any kind, for, with great judgment, the Ranee had caused the trees to be destroyed. As soon as he encamped, Sir Hugh Rose surveyed the place thoroughly, riding all day in the burning sun and seeing everything for himself. Thus he was enabled to direct the investment of Jhansi with his cavalry, a work that was completed on the 22nd. That night the first battery was constructed, about 300 yards from the town wall. It was done silently and effectually. But daylight disclosed the work and the enemy began to pound it, soon getting the range, and to raise a counter-battery intended to enfilade it. By the 24th four batteries were constructed and in action. Their shot silenced several guns and demolished the works of the enemy and their shells set fire to the town; while the infantry, spread out in front, skirmished with the Sepoys in the cottages and enclosures. The force was now strengthened by the arrival of the 1st Brigade from Chandaree, and Sir Hugh immediately extended his front of attack and established batteries on his left. For the next five days the bombardment continued. The enemy fought his guns admirably, and showed great determination. Our troops grew excited with the work. They were eager to storm and sack a city infamous for the murder of so many of their countrymen and countrywomen, and they laboured in the summer heat with a cheerfulness and constancy that must have made glad the heart of Sir Hugh Rose.[273]

SIR HUGH ROSE (AFTERWARDS LORD STRATHNAIRN).

(From a Photograph by A. Bassano.)

On the 31st a new danger, not wholly unforeseen, appeared. Sir Hugh, anticipating a movement of the rebel army at Calpee, had established a telegraph on the hills to the east, worked with flags. On the 31st the flags waved saying, "Here come the enemy in great force from the north." Sir Hugh was not at all disconcerted. He had expected that an effort would be made to relieve the place and had meditated on the best mode of thwarting it. As soon as he heard, therefore, that Tantia Topee had brought 20,000 men from Calpee, and placed them on his right flank, close to the city, he knew what to do. It was evening when the news came. Knowing where the enemy was, the general prepared a surprise for them. He determined to fight the enemy and continue the siege—one of the hardiest resolutions ever taken by any general, especially when we consider the fact that he had only 1,200 men available for battle. As soon as it was dark he caused his 1st Brigade to strike tents, and then he marched them silently into a position on the left flank of the foe. Then he reinforced it by two 24-pounders, so placed that they swept the road to the city. The enemy were the more elated because they saw but few tents in our camp, and they halted at dusk close on the front of the 2nd Brigade and made merry. But morning showed them another sight. At daylight we opened on them with artillery, cutting up their left flank. The unexpected fire of the 1st Brigade guns soon shook them; and, swiftly discerning symptoms of unsteadiness, our cavalry went in with a crash, Rose leading one body, Prettyjohn another. The flank was rolled up in a moment, and the infantry following the cavalry, the enemy was driven back with great slaughter. Then the infantry, moving across the battle field, fell upon the opposite flank, cut the rebels off from the city and followed them up with vigour. Tantia Topee had prepared a second line, but Rose left him no time to use it. Bursting in on both flanks, our troops forced the enemy to retreat upon the Betwa, and pursued so sharply that they drove the rebels over the river with the loss of every gun brought into the field. Thus did 1,200 men, of whom only 500 were Europeans,[274] defeat 20,000, while their comrades carried on the siege with unrelenting vigour. This battle was fought on the 1st of April; on the 3rd it was resolved that Jhansi should be taken by storm. From the right batteries the walls were to be carried by escalade; on the left the stormers were to sweep in through a breach; the signal was to be the opening of guns on the west face, as though an attack were to be made there.

The moon shone brightly as the columns marched out of their camps to the appointed places. The Sappers, the 3rd Europeans, and the Hyderabad Infantry were to scale the walls; the 86th Foot and the 25th Native Infantry were to go in at the breach. The signal was given and the men emerged from cover into the broad moonlight. The enemy were on the alert and met the columns with a storm of shot. "We had upwards of 200 yards to march through this fiendish fire," writes Mr. Lowe, who, as medical officer to the Sappers, accompanied the right column, "and we did it. The Sappers planted the ladders against the wall in three places for the stormers to ascend; but the fire of the enemy waxed stronger, and amid the chaos of sounds, of volleys of musketry, and roaring of cannon, and hissing and bursting of rockets, stink-pots, infernal machines, huge stones, blocks of wood, and trees, all hurled upon their devoted heads—the men wavered for a moment, and sheltered themselves behind stones. But the ladders were there, and there the Sappers, animated by the heroism of their officers, keeping firm hold until a wound or death struck them down beneath the walls. At this instant, on our right, three of the ladders broke under the weight of men, and a bugle sounded on our right also for the Europeans to retire. A brief pause, and again the stormers rushed to the ladders, led on by the engineer officers," and carried the position.

As soon as they were in, they heard the shouts of the left column, who had broken in at the breach and came rushing along the ramparts. The two columns joined and dashed into the town. No quarter was given. The city and its people were held to be accursed. There were fights in every street, almost in every house; and in the palace and stables, battle and slaughter and conflagration. The Ranee, who had fled into the fort, kept up a fire on the palace. The Sepoys and rebels were surrounded in the town and out of it and very few escaped who stayed to bear the shock of fight. This went on all the 3rd and 4th, and on the 5th Lieutenant Baigrie, of the 3rd Europeans, found the fort had been abandoned. Our loss in this storm of Jhansi was 300 killed and wounded.

The weather was now so hot, and the force so exhausted, that Sir Hugh found himself obliged to give the troops some rest, and also to replenish his stores. He halted three weeks, and then, after leaving a garrison in the place, resumed active operations. The 1st Brigade marched for Calpee on the 25th; the 2nd a few days afterwards. The sufferings of the troops on the march were dreadful, chiefly from want of water—a want that the transport animals, even the camels, felt keenly. On the 5th of May the two brigades, reinforced by the 71st Highlanders, united. The enemy made a stand at Koonch and was routed, with the loss of eight guns. The battle of Koonch would have been more disastrous for the enemy had not Brigadier Stuart held back his brigade. The sun killed more on our side than the enemy and Sir Hugh Rose himself was prostrated three times with the heat.

The enemy, weakened and disheartened, drew up at Calpee. Here were the Ranee of Jhansi, the Nawab of Banda—driven off by Whitlock's column, which had slowly and without adventure worked its way as far as Banda—and Tantia Topee. Here they drew up among the tombs and ravines on the south side of Calpee. But Sir Hugh Rose swept round to the east, and encamping on the Jumna, entered into communication with Colonel Maxwell, who held his brigade on the opposite bank of the river. It was now the 15th of May. The strong front of the enemy's position had been turned, but he found in the ravines that ran between Sir Hugh's camp and Calpee endless facilities for attack; and every day until the 22nd the enemy made repeated attacks. On the 20th Maxwell sent over a few troops, and on the 21st his artillery shelled the town. On the 22nd the enemy came out in great force, and attacked Sir Hugh in position at Gowlowlee. This combat was, perhaps, the sharpest in which Sir Hugh had been engaged. The enemy, in thousands, not only attacked the front with great resolution, but repeatedly tried to turn the left flank. Several times his infantry charged up to the guns. For some time, so numerous were the assailants, it was with the greatest difficulty that our soldiers held their ground; and had not the right been promptly reinforced it must have been overpowered. But Sir Hugh Rose, at the right moment, assaulted the enemy's right with a vigour that was irresistible; and then, advancing the whole line, drove the enemy in disorder from the field. He retired to[275] Calpee; but on the 23rd of May he was driven out without much trouble, pursued by the cavalry, and relieved of all his guns.

Such seemed to be the natural termination of this astonishing campaign in the hot season. The troops had traversed Central India from Indore to Calpee, had been four months in the sun, and were literally exhausted. But now came startling news. Gwalior was in the hands of the rebels, and the Maharajah Scindia a fugitive at Agra. Defeated at Gowlowlee, driven out of Calpee, Tantia Topee and his shattered troops hurried off towards Gwalior. It was a bold stroke, worthy of the subtle brain of the ablest leader of the Hindoos. Scindia had not befriended the rebel cause: nay, he and his sagacious Minister, Dinkur Rao, had helped the Europeans in every way; yet the Gwalior people were hostile to the British. Why not, then, dethrone Scindia and, seizing Gwalior, hoist the Mahratta flag in the capital of that great Mahratta State? Tantia Topee was equal to the emergency. Preceding the army by forced marches, he secretly entered Gwalior and began to intrigue with the leaders of the disaffected. The fruits were soon seen. Hearing of the approach of the rebel force, Scindia marched out to attack them on the 30th of May. But when the combat began, half his army threw down their arms and fled. The Maharajah's body-guard of horse alone fought, charging the enemy repeatedly, and only retiring when two-thirds were slain. Then the faithful remnant hurried their chief out of the field. They took the direction of Agra, and falling in with a troop of British horse, Scindia entered Agra a fugitive on the 3rd of June. Tantia Topee entered Gwalior in triumph and proclaimed Nana Sahib Peishwa of the Mahrattas. It was the news of this that brought Sir Hugh Rose from his sick bed and set his weary brigades in motion once more. They marched at once, one from Calpee, the other from Jaloun, to unite at Indoorkee.

A great movement of concentration on Gwalior was in progress. A body of Europeans marched out of Agra. Orders were sent to Brigadier Smith operating in the heart of Scindia's country, to hasten on to Gwalior from Goona. It was needful that a severe blow should be struck, and struck at once, lest Tantia Topee should succeed in raising the whole country south of the Jumna, and in spreading the contagion to the Deccan, where the Nizam's Minister, Salar Jung, another able Hindoo, held down the disaffected with difficulty; therefore the troops marched with rapidity under the scorching sun. Sir Hugh pushed up close to Gwalior, and then waited for Scindia, whose presence with the army gave it a moral weight and, it was hoped, would save the city from plunder. On the 17th Brigadier Smith, issuing from the Pass of Antree, south of the town, found himself in front of the rebel army. It was led by the Ranee of Jhansi, who, it is said, was dressed like a man and who fought like one. Brigadier Smith, after surveying the enemy's position, drove off their cavalry by a charge of the 8th Hussars, who had to ford a ravine full of water before they could get at the enemy. Then the infantry went in and, fighting and marching all day, expelled the enemy from his position and drove him back upon Gwalior. Smith encamped within range of the enemy's guns, and they pounded him at intervals, although the troops were not allowed to light fires. The next day Sir Hugh Rose arrived and the two columns, united, assailed the enemy with such fury, on the 19th, that, after a sharp combat of five hours, they drove him away. Tantia Topee fled to the west pursued by the British cavalry. The Ranee of Jhansi, mortally wounded on the 17th, was carried from the field, and Rose wrote, "the best man upon the side of the enemy was the woman found dead." All night the fort fired guns at intervals; but in the morning, when the troops entered, it was found that this was the work of eleven fanatics, only two of whom knew how to load and fire a gun.

As soon as Gwalior fell, the Agra brigade came up, and Scindia was ceremoniously restored to his throne by Sir Hugh Rose. Thus, within the space of three weeks, the Mahratta prince had been worsted in battle and driven from his capital by men of his own race and religion; and they in turn had been routed from the field and he had been restored by the white men from the Western world. A great danger had been met with energy and overcome. The lesson was not lost on the native princes far and near. It made our hold on the neighbouring Doab more secure, and it relieved the mind of Sir Colin Campbell of any apprehension he might have felt touching an irruption on his flank and rear from the south of the Jumna. On the 28th of June Sir Hugh Rose, having done his work and being really ill, resigned his command and started for Bombay.

The reader will be naturally solicitous to know how Brigadier Smith came to be at Goona and thus in a position to aid Rose in the vital operation of recovering Gwalior. The brigadier's column had come from the west. Lord Elphinstone's[276] first care had been to recover Indore and reassure Holkar. This was effected by the troops Rose had collected at Mhow and Indore and by Stuart's campaign at Malwa. Lord Elphinstone's next care was to assemble troops in Western Rajpootana, in order to recover that country, keep the enemy out of Gujerat and, by a forward movement to the east, defeat the mutineers and rebellious chieftains between the Sinde river and the Chumbul. As reinforcements arrived from England, they were sent into Rajpootana. Camps were formed in the winter of 1857-8, and when Rose moved from Saugor, General Roberts, who commanded in Rajpootana, marched upon Kotah. On the 30th of March, the day he attacked the place, he was joined by 1,500 horsemen, who had marched from Cutch. Having dispersed these rebels, the division under Roberts broke up and engaged in diverse harassing expeditions during the whole of the year. Part of the force (Smith's brigade) marched over the Chumbul into the Gwalior country. When Sir Hugh Rose had captured Jhansi, the rebels, pressed from the west by Roberts, assembled in detached bodies in Rose's rear, and Smith's brigade was occupied in marching and fighting and dispersing the enemy. It was thus that, in June, he was at Goona and was called up to drive Tantia Topee out of Gwalior city.

After that defeat the rebel chief hurried westward, was defeated again, with the loss of his remaining guns, and pursued by Sir Robert Napier, who succeeded Rose in command of the Central India Field Force. But although the weaver-artilleryman attracted towards himself a host of enemies—Napier from Gwalior, Showers from Agra, Roberts from Nusseerabad—he managed to slip through their hands; to raise fresh armies as often as his soldiery were surprised and broken; to steal artillery from native rajahs; to fight and fly, and fly and fight, and to keep all the troops between the Jumna and Nerbudda constantly employed for six months. His great object was to reach the Deccan or Candeish; and to accomplish this he made incredible efforts. But the story of his wanderings and adventures belongs to a later stage in the revolt.

While Campbell had been capturing Lucknow and Bareilly, and Rose had marched and fought from Indore to Gwalior, by way of Calpee, the great force that held down the North-West and made the Punjab a tower of strength had not ceased to exert itself for the weal of the empire. Mr. Montgomery had issued an order in the very midst of our troubles, declaring that the system of caste could no longer be permitted to rule in our service; that soldiers and Government servants should be entertained irrespective of class, caste, or creed, and inviting native Christians to seek our service, promising to appoint those who were properly qualified. This was a great step; not taken before it was needed. Moreover, the Punjab Government determined that all loyal natives who had suffered in consequence of the acts of mutineers should be compensated by contributions levied in the offending districts—thus rewarding the faithful at the expense of the malcontents. Sir John Lawrence in the summer of 1858 was able to organise a plan for relieving himself of the huge army of disarmed Sepoys. He separated the faithful from the faithless. He sent off all the latter to their homes, passing them on in small batches of twenty a day, under escort, until they reached their native States, and then turned them adrift. Only two regiments, those at Mooltan, resisted and they met with terrible punishment. Three regiments and one wing of a fourth were re-armed. Another body, faithful men from several regiments, was formed into a new regiment, to be known in future as the Wuffadar Pultun, or faithful regiment; while the 21st, which had been armed all along, which had resisted every appeal from its fellows, and the Khelat-i-Ghilzies, were all that remained untouched in any way of the 41,000 Bengal Sepoys who in May, 1857, were in the Punjab and the Upper Doab.

During the spring of 1858 the King of Delhi had been tried, convicted, and sentenced to banishment. It was clearly proved that he was guilty of rebellion and murder. The rebellion was patent: he had proclaimed himself Emperor of India. The murders were proved: it was shown that he gave express permission for the massacre of the forty-nine women and children whom he had in confinement, and that one of his sons took an active part in the foul work. The old man was fairly tried; had not Hodson, with the sanction of General Wilson, promised him life, he would have been hanged. As it was, he was banished to Burmah. Thus Mohamed Bahadoor Shah, the last of the Moguls, terminated the dynasty of Timour; and in the words of the Advocate-General, he was degraded by his crimes to a felon, and the long glories of a dynasty were effaced in a day.

[277]

PROCLAMATION OF THE QUEEN AS SOVEREIGN OF INDIA. (See p. 279.)

[278]

Before the trial of the king had come to an end, the rebel Nawab of Jhujhur and the rebel Rajah of Bulubgurh had been hanged; both having been proved to be accomplices of the king and participators in the rebellion. At the same time the Maharajah of Puttiala, the Rajahs of Jheend, Nabha, and Kuppoorthulla—all of whom had given unhesitating aid in men, money, and provisions, and who had taken the field in person—were amply rewarded by an increase of dignity and territory. Besides these several minor chiefs in the same district also received acknowledgments for their services. Thus, justice and political equity and expediency were alike satisfied. We showed those chiefs that in trusting to us they trusted not only to the strong, but to the just. By able and judicious measures Sir John Lawrence rapidly organised the territories over which he exercised unquestioned sway, and turned all the strength at his disposal to the promotion of the Imperial cause.

In another quarter the work to be done was of a different kind. The presence of such large masses of rebels in Oude led to great disturbance on the eastern frontier of that country. The marches and battles of Franks, and the progress of Jung Bahadoor had not crushed opposition, nor had the capture of Lucknow reduced Oude. It was in this extensive district that Colonel Rowcroft, with a small force of European and Ghoorka infantry, and Sotheby's Naval Brigade, chiefly sailors of the Pearl, and a mere handful of Bengal yeomanry cavalry, made head against an enemy who outnumbered them ten to one. It was to their exertions, aided by detachments from Dinapore, that Sarun was saved from invasion, and that the rebels could gain no footing in Azimghur and Goruckpore. Sometimes acting together; sometimes working in detachments; now repelling with heavy loss an attack; now beating up the enemy's quarters and shattering his masses, this energetic and much-enduring force did most admirable service. Throughout the year, and with unvarying fortune, our soldiers and sailors continued the combat, shielding the eastern provinces of Bengal, north of the Ganges.

During the hot months, also, Sir Hope Grant, justly styled indefatigable, had moved about Oude with a flying column, to prevent the enemy from establishing himself too strongly at any point. In June Sir Hope returned to Lucknow from one of these expeditions. He had received information that the Begum had collected an army at Nawabgunge Bara Bankee, the place selected for a rendezvous by the Oude regiments at the outbreak of the mutiny, and whence they advanced upon Chinhut and finally to Lucknow. Now Sir Hope Grant determined to attack them. He had with him about 4,000 men and eighteen guns. The enemy mustered 20,000 men and an unknown quantity of guns. They were routed from the field with a loss of 600 killed. One advantage of this action was seen in the great moral effect that it produced in the country north of the Goomtee.

The cause of the Oude rebels had grown desperate. They had lost their ablest leader, the famous Moulvie, who fell in a fight before a mean mud fort; and now, their largest force beaten at Nawabgunge, they began to see that they had little, indeed no, hope of winning the game. Yet, with a good deal of fortitude, the Oude chiefs held out, and there was yet to be a cold weather campaign before the conquest of Oude was complete. Hope Grant marched from his camp at Nawabgunge in July to Fyzabad, and drove off a body of the enemy who were besieging Maun Singh, the most powerful talookdar in those parts, and who now unhesitatingly rallied to our side. From Fyzabad he detached Brigadier Horsford, an excellent soldier, to Sultanpore, where he defeated the enemy; and, being reinforced by Grant himself, drove him from all his works and secured that part of the country. Thus the summer campaign ended. There were only two Oude armies of any strength at large. The Begum was on the north-east of the Gogra, between that river and the Raptee; and Bainie Madho, of Amethie, held Roy Bareilly and the country around south of the Goomtee, and between that river and the Sye. The Begum had an open line of retreat to the hills. Bainie Madho was supposed to be surrounded by our posts. When these two were defeated, Oude would be again in our possession.

Britain had not forgotten India. In 1857 she sent out thousands of troops, as in duty bound, to suppress the mutiny, and her patriot sons and daughters subscribed tens of thousands of pounds to relieve the sufferings of those who had fallen a prey to the merciless Sepoys. For the dead nothing could be done; for the living much—and much was done. Britain had been filled with horror, and her horror was succeeded by a rage that, for a time, overpowered every other feeling. In 1858 she sent more troops—nearly 30,000; but she did more. Her Legislature effected a grand reform in the Government of India, and a measure undertaken by Lord Palmerston was carried out, with great improvements, by Lord Derby. An Act was passed that abolished the rule of the East India Company and transferred the government of India to the Crown. Thenceforth, instead of a Board of Directors and a Board of Control, there were to be a Council of India, and a[279] responsible Minister—a Secretary of State for India—through whom and by whom all business was to be transacted. The Company, which had endured so long and had been so mighty, ceased to have any political power and continued to exist solely because its machinery was required to look after certain pecuniary interests and distribute dividends upon East India Stock. As a matter of course the local European army was afterwards absorbed into and amalgamated with the Queen's army and the civil and military servants in India became servants of the Crown. This was an immense change, not only in name, but in principle; for thus India became virtually a part of Britain, and directly under the control of British Governments. On the passing of the Act a proclamation by the Queen in Council was addressed to the princes, chiefs and people of India, and sent to Lord Canning, who was appointed "first Viceroy and Governor-General," to administer the Government in the name and on behalf of Queen Victoria. This proclamation was received in the autumn of 1858, when Oude alone remained to be reconquered; and when Colin Campbell, then just raised to the peerage by the title of Lord Clyde, was preparing to overthrow the rebel hosts of the Begum and Nana Sahib. It was determined that before he marched into Oude the Queen's proclamation should be published; and Lord Clyde, all being in readiness on his part for action, went to Allahabad, at the end of October, to be present when the Governor-General solemnly published the proclamation. This was done on the 1st of November. A platform was erected near the fort. Lord Clyde and General Mansfield accompanied Lord Canning to this appointed spot, and there the first Viceroy read the document that created a revolution in the fundamental principles of Indian government. The ceremony, we are told, was tame and spiritless; but the fact behind it was one of the most solid and substantial in India. The pith of the proclamation was the transfer of power—the extinction of the Company Bahadoor. But it also went on to describe the spirit in which the Queen, through her Viceroy, would rule in the land.

"We hereby announce," said the Queen, "to the native princes of India, that all treaties and engagements made with them by or under the authority of the Honourable East India Company are by us accepted, and will be scrupulously maintained; and we look for the like observance on their part.

"We desire no extension of our present territorial possessions; and while we will permit no aggression upon our dominions or our rights to be attempted with impunity, we shall sanction no encroachment on those of others. We shall respect the rights, dignity, and honour of native princes as our own, and we desire that they as well as our own subjects should enjoy that prosperity and that social advancement which can only be secured by internal peace and good government....

"Firmly relying ourselves on the truth of Christianity, and acknowledging with gratitude the solace of religion, we disclaim alike the right and the desire to impose our convictions on any of our subjects. We declare it to be our royal will and pleasure that none be in any wise favoured, none be molested or disquieted, by reason of their religious faith or observances; but that all shall alike enjoy the equal and impartial protection of the law; and we do strictly charge and enjoin all those who may be in authority under us, that they abstain from all interference with the religious belief or worship of any of our subjects, on pain of our highest displeasure....

"Already in our province, with a view to stop the further effusion of blood, and to hasten the pacification of our Indian dominions, our Viceroy and Governor-General has held out the expectation of pardon on certain terms to the great majority of those who in the late unhappy disturbances have been guilty of offences against our Government, and has declared the punishment which will be inflicted on those whose crimes place them beyond the reach of forgiveness.

"We approve and confirm the said act of our Viceroy and Governor-General, and do further announce and proclaim as follows:—

"Our clemency will be extended to all offenders, save and except those who have been, or shall be, convicted of having directly taken part in the murder of British subjects. With regard to such the demands of justice forbid the exercise of mercy.

"To those who have willingly given asylum to murderers, knowing them to be such, or who may have acted as leaders or instigators in revolt, their lives alone can be guaranteed; but, in apportioning the penalty due to such persons, full consideration will be given to the circumstances under which they have been induced to throw off their allegiance, and large indulgence will be shown to those whose crimes may appear to have originated in too credulous acceptance of the false reports circulated by designing men.

"To all others in arms against the Government we hereby promise unconditional pardon, amnesty,[280] and oblivion of all offence against ourselves, our crown and dignity, on their return to their homes and peaceful pursuits. It is our royal pleasure that these terms of grace and amnesty should be extended to all those who comply with their conditions before the first day of January next.

"When by the blessing of Providence internal tranquillity shall be restored, it is our earnest desire to stimulate the peaceful industry of India, to promote works of public utility and improvement, and to administer its government for the benefit of all our subjects resident therein. In their prosperity will be our strength, in their contentment our security, and in their gratitude our best reward. And may the God of all power grant to us and to those in authority under us strength to carry out these our wishes for the good of our people." The last sentence was, says Sir Theodore Martin, added by the Queen's own hand.

Such are the principles upon which the future government of India was to rest. Armed with this proclamation, and one issued in his own name, in which he promised protection to all who submitted, Lord Clyde, that same night, crossed the Ganges and entered Oude to enforce the law and reduce the last remaining rebels to obedience. We have already stated that one great body of rebels, led by Bainie Mahdo, held the forts and jungles between the Goomtee and the Ganges. It was against him that the Commander-in-Chief directed his first efforts. His own camp was near Pertabgurh on the Sye, and his troops formed the main central column. On the right was Sir Hope Grant, near Sultanpore; on the left Colonel Wetherall, near the Ganges. These columns were to sweep the country before them, and concentrate on Amethie, a strong mud fort held by the rajah of that ilk, and garrisoned by 20,000 men of all sorts with thirty guns. The rajah, after much shuffling, surrendered.

Dismantling the fort, Lord Clyde despatched three columns in pursuit of the fugitives; and conjecturing rightly that they would in the main make for Shunkerpore, the stronghold of Bainie Madho, the columns marched towards that place, halting at Oodeypore. But Bainie Madho had fled. From Shunkerpore Lord Clyde continued the pursuit of the enemy; but, as intelligence of the whereabouts of Bainie Madho was contradictory, he halted a few hours near Roy Bareilly in order to obtain exact information. It did not come, but some information came which warranted a move, and the army defiled through Roy Bareilly and went up the Sye. Colonel Evelegh, commanding a light column, was ordered to follow and not lose sight of Bainie Madho, while the army crossed the Sye above Roy Bareilly. Then in came a courier from Evelegh, with certain news that he had tracked the foe to Dhondiakera, on the Ganges. Lord Clyde immediately marched on the fort. A bridge was thrown over the Ganges below the rebel position, from the opposite bank, and a force crossed over, while cavalry and guns from Cawnpore patrolled the Doab shore. It was supposed that Bainie Madho had about 8,000 Oude Sepoys and many thousands of irregular levies; and the British brought up 6,000 men. For a brief space there was brisk exchange of musketry, then the enemy opened with cannon, and our guns were ordered up to the front, just as our line pushed on. From that time the British advance was continuous, Lord Clyde still leading the eager skirmishers. After a brief but heavy cannonade, our "advance became a run. The men cheering, broke out into a double, at last into a regular race, Lord Clyde himself leading them on." The ridge was crowned just in time to see the enemy in full flight up and down the banks of the Ganges. In a moment the cavalry and horse artillery and some of the foot went off in pursuit, while another body, with two guns, opened upon a host of fugitives who were trying to escape across the Ganges. But the rebel chief escaped with his treasure, and lost only some hundreds killed and his stronghold. Nevertheless the blow was in one sense effective. The rebel force was broken up; its leaders were convinced that there was no safe place for them south of the Goomtee, and they fled even beyond the Gogra.

Lord Clyde, directing his army from Lucknow, encamped there a short time. More talookdars surrendered. Practically, Southern Oude was free from organised revolt, and it now only remained to deal with the Begum, reinforced by Bainie Madho, and with Nana Sahib, all of whom had been driven to seek refuge in Beyratch, with their backs to a pestiferous belt of forest land, called the Terai, that skirts the foot of the Himalayas. The British forces were now widely distributed in posts all over the country, and when in December Lord Clyde heard that the rebels were assembling on the Gogra, not far from Nawabgunge, he had to collect a column wherewith to attack them. He marched north from Lucknow on the 4th of December. On the 6th he heard that the enemy were in force at Beyram Ghat on the Gogra. Directing the infantry to follow, he made a forced march with the cavalry and four guns, hoping to surprise the enemy and drive them into the river[281] before they could destroy their boats. But, although he rode at speed all the way, he reached the river only to find that the enemy had just fled.

GWALIOR, FROM THE SOUTH-EAST.

The army was next marched to Fyzabad, and thence it crossed the Gogra into Beyratch. Maun Singh and his brother accompanied the force. Halting for some days in the town of Beyratch to receive and answer letters from the rebel leaders, some of whom were willing to come in on terms, Lord Clyde would not listen to anything but unconditional surrender, and finding it impossible to effect an arrangement, the army marched on Nanparah. A few miles beyond, the troops came up with a body of the enemy in the jungle, but the latter would not stand an attack. They fled in all directions before the cavalry and the guns. Here it was that Lord Clyde met with a severe accident. Galloping over the fields, his horse put one foot in a hole, and coming down threw the Commander-in-Chief with such force that his right shoulder was dislocated. This was soon remedied by the surgeons, but Lord Clyde was much shaken and obliged to follow the troops in a litter.

The operations were now rapidly coming to an end. On the 27th of December, hearing that a body of the enemy had collected in the fort of Mejidiah, Lord Clyde marched upon them, drove them out with his guns and then went in and took their artillery. It was a very strong place and its easy capture showed that the enemy had lost confidence. On the 30th Lord Clyde was informed that Nana Sahib and Bainie Madho were at Bankee, twenty miles north of Nanparah. He determined to march all night, and if possible, surprise them. This was the last action of the war on this side and resulted in a complete defeat of the enemy, who made hardly any stand. Nana Sahib, unhappily, got away. He was in a wood, two miles in rear of the position, when the guns opened. He gave orders for flight at once, and with elephants, bearing himself and his treasure, dashed over the Raptee into the Terai and Nepaul. Sir Hope Grant had followed his brother, Bala Rao, into the jungle beyond Toolsepore, and had dispersed his soldiery, taking fifteen guns. "Thus," says Lord Clyde, in his official report, "the contest in Oude[282] has been brought to an end, and the resistance of 150,000 armed men subdued with a very moderate loss to her Majesty's troops, and a most merciful forbearance towards the misguided enemy." One after another the chiefs surrendered, and Major Barrow held his court to receive these rebels, who acknowledged that they had lost the game. The rebels, with the Nana and the Begum, were held fast in the Terai, where they perished one by one. The Nana and the Begum never reappeared. They may have found shelter in Nepaul or Tibet, but the probability is that they were eaten by wild beasts. All the other leaders, except Feroze Shah, of Delhi, were either captured, killed in action, or surrendering, were punished according to the nature of their crimes. Oude was disarmed, the forts of the talookdars were demolished; Lucknow was fortified, and the province was permanently occupied. Mr. Montgomery, and after him Mr. Wingfield, were left to reorganise the government. Lord Clyde went to Simla to restore his health, and Lord Canning returned to Calcutta to undertake the gigantic task of reorganising the whole Government of India on the new basis of Imperial rule, and as a fundamental step was obliged to take in hand the finances, which the mutiny had so greatly disordered. After the end of January, 1859, there were combats and skirmishes here and there with bodies of turbulent men, the dregs of the native armies raised by the rebellious chiefs; but they only measured the regular subsidence of the great tempest which had swept over the land. With one exception, we have now followed the track of every rebel leader to its close. That exception is the career of Tantia Topee, who, with Kour Singh, was the only able man thrown to the surface by these great events. His romantic course is worth sketching, at least in outline.

Driven from Gwalior, Tantia rode off to the westward. Pursued and stricken by Robert Napier, turned aside by the appearance of Brigadier Showers with the Agra troops at Futtehpore Sikri, he made with all speed for Jeypore, seizing camels, horses, elephants, carts, provisions, as he went. His object was to seize some large town and plunder it, taking arms and cannon and coin, and getting together as large a mass of mounted men as he could. The native ruler of Jeypore was on our side and there was, therefore, a double motive for saving him. Accordingly, General Roberts, as soon as he learned that Tantia was marching on Jeypore, broke up his camp at Nusseerabad and, by rapid forced marches, interposed just in time between the rebel and his prey. Frustrated in his move upon Jeypore, Tantia turned abruptly southward and rode straight for Tonk, a town and native principality on one of the affluents of the Chumbul. Roberts now followed and other columns closed from different quarters towards the rebel line of march. Tantia was first at Tonk. The rajah shut himself up in his fort and kept the enemy at bay, but he plundered the town and carried off four guns. Colonel Holmes now took up the chase, but was soon stopped by want of carriage. Then Roberts went on and by long marches overtook the enemy, forced him to an action and routed him. The light-heeled rebels rushed away towards Oodeypore. Roberts followed and overtook them again, this time getting well among them with his horsemen, cutting them up and retaking the Tonk guns. The enemy scattered to avoid the pursuing cavalry, and then crossing the Chumbul, and being reinforced by the desperadoes of the country-side, laid siege to and took the important town of Julra Patun. Here they levied very heavy contributions and obtained a large number of guns. This was Tantia's greatest triumph. He had sacked Julra Patun in the teeth of our troops.

But he dared not halt. Roberts was following. Smith's troops on the Agra trunk road were approaching him. The Mhow force, under General Michell, was preparing to strike. Tantia's object was now the Bhopal State; his ultimate design being to cross the Nerbudda and the Taptee, and breaking into the Deccan or Nagpore, raise a mighty insurrection and gather the Rohillas to his flag. This was a great danger, and it was necessary to strain every nerve to ward it off. Smith detached Robertson, of the 25th Bombay Native Infantry, and Michell moved up from Mhow. Robertson overtook part of the rebel force at Bajapore, mostly Sepoys, many wearing medals. He came upon them as they were cooking, drove them into and over a river, and killed many hundreds. Michell had even better fortune, for he routed the main body on the 13th of September, and took nearly thirty guns, the spoil of Julra Patun. Thus, headed off from Bhopal, Tantia hastened to Seronge, on the Betwa, and halted to refit and recruit. But he dared not stay long. His spies told him that columns were afoot, east, west, north, and south. So he broke up from Seronge a few hours before Captain Mayne rode in with part of Smith's force, and going northwards, attacked and captured Esaughur, a fortress belonging to Scindia. Smith and Mayne followed him, making a march on Esaughur in concert with troops from Jhansi and Gwalior. Again the rebel rapidly retreated,[283] striking in between the advancing troops, and making eastward for the Betwa. He crossed this river on the 9th of October, intending to seize and plunder the friendly native State of Tehree. Here he had the aid of an ally. The Nawab of Banda came up the river on the left bank to oppose Michell advancing from Seronge, while Tantia sacked Tehree. But on the very day when Tantia crossed the Betwa, Michell met the nawab and, fighting him at once with characteristic vigour, routed him with great loss. In the meantime Tantia had formed a column on the road to Tehree; and when, on the 11th, he was moving back to the Betwa, Michell, who had crossed that river at Mungrowlee, fell in with Tantia at Sindwah and took four of his guns.

Thus frustrated and defeated, this persevering partisan fled first towards the north, but doubling back, stole away between his pursuers, and made for the Nerbudda, by way of Ratghur. He had not effected this movement without suffering one more defeat at the hands of the energetic and tireless Michell. In spite of these defeats Tantia was now apparently nearer than ever to the object of his endless manœuvres; for, at the end of October, he actually crossed the upper waters of the Nerbudda, east of Hoosingabad. He had but to pass one line of posts, and he would be in Nagpore, or the Deccan. This was the one moment of great peril for us. If Tantia, with even a broken force of 7,000 men, entered the Deccan, he would in a week have been at the head of 100,000 men. The Government was really alarmed; but as the danger was greater, so were the means of parrying it greater, since Lord Elphinstone had pushed up a large force of European and native cavalry to render the hunt after Tantia more effective; while, from Kamptee, in Nagpore, to the Gulf of Cambay, there was a great stir of troops, and a readiness to move at the shortest notice to guard the passes, and fords, and great roads southwards. And the measures adopted proved to be effective. Tantia found he could not get farther than the hills of Sindwarra. Out of these he was forced by Lieutenant Kerr. Flying by devious routes, he sought the Nerbudda again; but, being headed, he turned westward, and traversed the hills between the Taptee and Nerbudda at racing speed. It is assumed that his aim was Candeish. Moving into Nimar, he actually prevailed on 1,000 men of Holkar's Horse to desert and join him, and with this reinforcement rode off to Burwanna, evading our troops. Finding it impossible to remain in the valley of the Nerbudda, or to break into Candeish, he once more crossed the great river and hurried into Malwa; not, however, before he had been hit very hard by a new enemy—the Camel Corps; that is, infantry mounted on camels. It was this force that drove Tantia over the river. Brigadier Parke now came up. He formed a flying column, all horsemen, except 100 Highlanders. With these he crossed the river, and marched 241 miles in nine days; he caught Tantia near Chota Oodeypore. Forced to fight, the rebel chief showed his usual judgment in the selection of a position on broken ground. Parke put his handful of Highlanders in the centre, and placed horse on the flanks, and formed a reserve wholly of cavalry. Then, although overlapped on both flanks, he charged in upon the foe, drove him from his strong ground, and pursued him for miles. He fled deeper into Malwa.

In the meantime Feroze Shah, who had been fighting in Oude, found a gap in Lord Clyde's line, and crossing the Goomtee, he made his way over the Ganges into the Doab. Here Brigadier Percy Herbert marched upon him, and, wresting from him his only gun, drove him over the Jumna. Feroze Shah made for the west. Robert Napier, hearing at Gwalior of the advent of this new foe, took with him 300 men, horse and foot, and marching 140 miles in four days, came up with the rebels at Runnode, smote them heavily and forced them to turn towards Kotah. Met at various points, Feroze Shah wound in and out and at length succeeded in crossing the Chumbul near Inderghur. Tantia Topee, smarting under the rough punishment inflicted by Parke, now sought to join the Delhi Shazadah. In spite of numerous defeats, he made for the Chumbul again, crossed it, and joined Feroze Shah somewhere in the Jeypore country. The whole of these operations were performed at racing speed between the 20th and 30th of December. Brigadier Showers got wind of their whereabouts, and marching ninety-four miles in three days, overtook the two worthies on the 16th of January, 1859, and slew some of their followers, but failed to catch chiefs who were so prone to fly at the sound of the cannon. Thus reduced to extremities, Feroze Shah disappeared and was never captured. Tantia Topee, making a fruitless effort to break into Bikaneer, doubled back again to Central India and, his fightings and flyings over, took to the jungle. Beset on all sides, having made many enemies, he dared not venture abroad, and his very life now depended on the fidelity of those who knew his secret. In April a native betrayed him; he was captured in the jungle near[284] Seronge, tried by court martial, and hanged at Sepree, having furnished for ten months ample occupation to all the troops in Central India. With the capture and execution of Tantia Topee the war came to an end.

The struggle was over then, but now a new one arose. The stupendous exertions required to suppress the mutiny had created great confusion. Order, in another sense, had to be restored. The mutinous Sepoys, the rebellious rajahs and their followers, had been exterminated or quelled. Now it became of the last consequence to revive public confidence, to bring back order and solidity to the finances of the country, to re-establish the principles of government, and to reorganise the army. This gigantic task Lord Canning, aided by the Home Government, had to undertake and accomplish; a task not so exciting as that of suppressing a mutiny backed by insurrection, but perhaps even more laborious and exhausting, because more tedious.

A very few figures will serve to prove the magnitude of the financial undertaking. Just before the mutiny the Indian Budget showed a small surplus—contrary to the rule, which was that it should show a deficit. But the mutiny, as a matter of course, rapidly restored, in an aggravated form, the normal state of the finances. With a revenue of nearly £32,000,000, the Budget of 1857-8 showed a deficit of nearly £9,000,000, which in the next year rose at a bound to nearly £15,000,000, making a total deficit in two years of £24,000,000. The revenue, by dint of taxation, had actually increased during the first year of the mutiny; a fact that testified to the wonderful elasticity of the resources of India. The great deficit was provided for by loans, nearly one-half of which were raised in India itself, showing that public confidence in British power and good fortune had not been impaired, although the debt rose in two years to £81,500,000, and in three to £95,000,000. The question for Lord Canning and the Home Government to solve was, how to balance revenue and expenditure. In order to effect this, Sir Charles Wood determined to present India with a Chancellor of the Exchequer. In England, as all know, the Chancellor who has to meet the expenditure has also to provide the ways and means, and has, of course, considerable power and influence in the Government which decides on the policy, and, as a consequence, the expenses to be incurred. But in India the department that provided the money had no connection with the department that spent it. There were consequently carelessness, extravagance, and confused accounts. The first remedy, then, was to send out Mr. James Wilson, the well-known economist, a statesman familiar with our mode of keeping accounts, to take charge of the Indian department, with power and authority sufficient to combat and overcome the tendency to delay and obstruct but too common among the servants of both the great branches of the Government. Mr. Wilson went, restored order to the finances, and died in his duty; a great loss to India and to England. In addition to the gain we looked for by the adoption of a sound system worked out with vigilant superintendence, the Indian Government was obliged to have recourse to extra taxation. These labours began as soon as the insurrection was suppressed; and within five years of the end of these great troubles not only had the revenue increased, but the expenditure was appreciably diminished, and the Government of India was even able to reduce taxation and secure a small surplus.

The army presented difficulties as great as the finances. No sooner was one mutiny at an end than Government was threatened with another. We have already recorded the transfer of authority from the Company to the Crown. Under that Act the army became, of course, the Queen's army. Here, however, arose a serious difficulty. There were nearly 20,000 European soldiers who had enlisted to serve, not the Queen, but the Company. Technically, no doubt, they had all along been servants of the Queen, whose agent the Company was. But soldiers do not understand these refined distinctions; and when the men were simply told that they would in future be Queen's soldiers, they first murmured and then mutinied. The act of mutiny is always indefensible. In this case, however, it admits of some excuse; for, as the men said, the Government had no right to transfer them from one service to another, "like cattle." It was true: they had no moral and only a barely legal right. If, instead of dealing with the soldiers as if they were cattle, the Government had told them of the transfer, and given them a small bounty, the men would have been pleased with the consideration displayed; as it was, every one sympathised with the men who were punished, and even the Queen's troops betrayed a strong inclination to take their part, and gave unmistakable signs of their anger. And, after all, the Government had to do with an ill grace what it should have done at first with a good grace. And at great cost; for a bounty of £2 sterling per man[285] would have amounted to only £40,000; whereas the course adopted—that of giving every man the option of taking his discharge—cost nearly a million; and many of the men, when brought home, re-enlisted.

CAPTURE OF TANTIA TOPEE. (See p. 283.)

This European mutiny had a very important political consequence. At first, after the abolition of the Company, the Home Government seemed disposed to increase rather than diminish, much less abolish, the army raised for local service in India. Many were of opinion that we should have a separate army for service in India, China, the Cape, Australia, New Zealand, and the islands we hold in the Indian Ocean. The mutiny of the Company's Europeans, mild though it was, turned the scale in favour of abolishing them altogether. The consequence was an Act that amalgamated the Company's European troops with the Queen's army, and thus the European infantry became regiments of the line. In order to prevent that abstraction of officers from their regiments to do staff duty, civil as well as military, so common under the Company's régime, a Staff Corps was organised, admission to which was obtained by undergoing an examination. For a long time, of course, it was difficult to pronounce any opinion on the working of these extensive changes, but on the whole it was thought that they worked well.

The result of the mutiny was to bring about an enormous increase in the number of European troops in India. The number of Europeans, including officers of native regiments, was, before the mutiny, only 45,522; the number of native troops was 249,153, giving a total of 294,675. But at the end of 1859 there were in India no fewer than 110,320 Europeans—an enormous drain upon our resources in men. There were of native troops 207,765, one-half of whom were new levies, enlisted during the fight. So that of regular soldiers there were 318,085, and if we add to these the Military Police, a thoroughly military body, there was a total of 407,914.

Here, then, was the field for reduction, and a fine rich field it was. By dint of great resolution and an unsparing pen in 1864 there were 30,000 fewer European, and perhaps 100,000 fewer native[286] troops. Still it was a subject of serious reflection to statesmen that India should require and receive from us 70,000 or 80,000 British soldiers to hold a land that we once held with 50,000 at the outside. It was obvious that from this point of view our Indian Empire weakened our force and diminished our weight in Europe; and that so long as we felt it needful to keep 80,000 soldiers in India, we could not again take that part in European questions which we had taken up to that time. As to the native army, which, after all, we could not do without, it was composed mainly of Sikhs and Punjabees, and it was believed to be organised on sounder principles than the rotten Bengal machine which exploded in 1857. But there were not wanting those who anticipated a Sikh mutiny.

One other great change must not be forgotten. In 1858-9 Lord Canning made a royal progress throughout the North-West, even into the farthest Punjab. He held durbars, and rewarded the faithful native princes, some with gifts of honour, some with fair speeches, others with more solid gifts of territory. During this progress he hinted here and there at the coming change of policy—the concession of the right of adoption to all the princes of India. At a later period this momentous concession was made in a formal shape. What did it mean? It meant the renunciation of the policy of annexation, nothing more nor less, and it gave assurance that the native States would in future be maintained as a part of our internal policy. Lord Dalhousie had made annexation a system. He had annexed four kingdoms and five territories. It is assumed that, had he remained to carry out his policy, India would have been one homogeneous military monarchy. This is doubtful; but it is not doubtful, it is certain, that when he retired the whole fabric fell with a crash. The mutiny and insurrection rooted up the fundamental principle of the Dalhousie system of foreign policy. The native States allowed to survive broke the force of the revolt. The Cis-Sutlej States enabled Sir John Lawrence to retake Delhi. Bikaneer and Bhawlpore and Jeypore were stumbling-blocks in the way of the enemy. The loyalty of Scindia, Holkar, and the Nizam saved Bombay and Madras from the fate of the North-West. Rewah served to curb Kour Singh. The minor rajahs and ranees, in many places, furnished material support and aid. It is to Lord Canning's credit that he perceived not only the changed position of affairs, but the mode in which that change might tend to consolidate the supremacy of the Crown. A diplomatist of less acumen would have guaranteed the States as independent powers. Lord Canning took from them the last vestige of independence; called them openly feudatory princes; compelled the proudest to retire backwards from the chair of the Viceroy, and then guaranteed their rights as barons of the empire. The concession was accepted with delight. The concession was the right to adopt an heir when they had no issue, a privilege that secured the continuance of the State as an entity. Thus we have gone back to the period before Lord Dalhousie ruled, or rather we have adopted, with considerable emphasis, a new principle—that native States are desirable. The working of this principle is the more easy in India because there the princes have never claimed independence in the European sense. They have always been taught to look up to a paramount power, and the British Viceroy, far more effectually than the Great Mogul ever played that part, is, indeed, a paramount lord.

THE NORTH-WEST PASSAGE.

"IT MIGHT BE DONE, AND ENGLAND SHOULD DO IT."

FROM THE PAINTING BY SIR J. E. MILLAIS. BART., P.R.A., D.C.L., &c. IN THE NATIONAL GALLERY OF BRITISH ART.

[See larger version]

[287]

## CHAPTER XVIII.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

> Termination of the Hudson's Bay Monopoly—British Columbia and Vancouver—Mr. Locke King's Bill for the Abolition of the Property Qualification—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[288] 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.

LORD CANNING. (After the Portrait by George Richmond, R. A.)

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[289] 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.

STREET IN PESHAWUR.

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,[290] 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[291] 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[292] on this point. The English people," he continued, "do not like a 'dodge.' They do not like it in business, they do not like it in politics; but least of all do they admire it in a man who, at a time when the best interests of his country at home, and our most peaceful hopes abroad, demand all the patriotism, all the candour, and all the forbearance of a statesman, approaches the consideration of a great national question like this, not fairly to criticise, not boldly to reject, but with a crafty and catching device to confuse, and, if it may be, to dislocate parties, and on that confusion and dislocation to secure his own political aggrandisement and private advantage." Mr. Bright ably exposed the main defects of the Bill. The people out-of-doors understood by a Reform Bill a large enfranchisement, and larger, freer constituencies. The Bill did not meet that demand: it got rid of the most independent electors from counties, and insidiously proposed to alter the boundaries of boroughs to complete the work. The object was to make the representation of counties more exclusively territorial, and to gratify the hundred and fifty gentlemen who sat behind Mr. Disraeli elected by the territorial interest. As to small boroughs, which were only a refuge for the politically destitute, he knew no limit whatever to the amount of corruption in them that would be occasioned by the Bill. It would, at the same time, exclude the working classes, telling them that they were dangerous, notwithstanding their improved mental, moral, and physical condition.

Lord Palmerston, whose hatred of Reform was notorious, supported the amendment of Lord John Russell. On the other hand, Mr. Whiteside denounced it as "an inscrutable resolution to stifle truth and prevent discussion—a crafty contrivance to defeat the Bill, and, if possible, the Ministry." Sir J. Pakington complained strongly of the speech of Lord Palmerston, stating that he had adopted a tone of arrogance altogether unusual between gentlemen who sat opposite to each other in that House, and that his language could be looked on in no other light than as wanting in due respect to the Crown. Mr. Gladstone, who, as may be gathered from the "Life of Bishop Wilberforce," was at this time well disposed to the Conservatives, remarked upon the singular coincidence of opinion on all sides with respect to the great question of Parliamentary Reform. There was no controversy traceable to differences between political parties, and he thought it was to be regretted that the House was now in hostile conflict with a division before them, which would estrange those by whose united efforts alone a satisfactory settlement could be come to. The resolution was unprecedented in form, being an amendment on the second reading of a Bill, referring to a portion of a measure that might be dealt with in committee. Pleading for consideration to the Government, he described the failures of their predecessors who had engaged in a similar task, and proved how consistently the Liberals had shirked the question. Mr. Gladstone defended small boroughs. He regarded them as a means of supplying a race of men who were trained to carry on the government of the country—the masters of civil wisdom, like Burke, Mackintosh, Pelham, Chatham, Fox, Pitt, Canning, and Peel, all of whom first sat for small boroughs. If there was to be no ingress to the House but one, and that one the suffrages of a large mass of voters, there would be a dead level of mediocrity. The extension, the durability of our liberty, were to be attributed under Providence to distinguished statesmen introduced to the House at an early age. But large constituencies would not return boys, and therefore he hoped the small boroughs would be retained. Those facts formed a reason for going into committee, where Lord John Russell could carry his views. Mr. Gladstone earnestly deprecated the postponement of the question. It was a golden opportunity which they should not let slip. Mr. Disraeli, in replying, defended his measure with vehemence, and not without personal acrimony towards Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell, whom he charged with living in an atmosphere of combinations and cunning resolutions when out of office. By bringing forward this untoward motion, and by sneering at Lord Malmesbury at a moment when negotiations were pending, when an awful responsibility rested on the Minister, Lord John had not only embarrassed the Government, but had injured the public service. The Government, he said, had been sustained in all its arduous struggles by a conviction of the justice of the people of England, and were sustained by it at that moment, amid all the manœuvres of Parliamentary intrigue and all the machinations of party warfare. The House then proceeded to a division, in the midst of a scene of extraordinary excitement, the issue being rather uncertain till the last moment. It was, however, decisive against the Government, the numbers being—for the second reading, 291; against it, 330; majority 39. The division took place on the 1st of April.[293]

EARL RUSSELL. (From a Photograph by Elliot & Fry.)

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[294] 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[295] 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[296] 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[297] 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.

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

Lord Malmesbury, our Foreign Secretary, exerted himself with each of the parties as a zealous peacemaker, taking his stand upon the treaties of 1815. At the same time in a despatch to Sir James Hudson, our Minister at Turin, he fully acknowledged the grievances of Italy. Lord A. Loftus,[298] our representative at the Court of Vienna, pleading for peace with Count Buol, received the following answer:—"If you wish to preach peace and to prevent war, address yourselves with firmness to France and Piedmont. We are not meditating war; we shall not be the aggressors. Tell the Emperor Louis Napoleon that Great Britain will not passively look on if his Majesty should commence hostilities. Say to him that should he take such a course, it will be at his own risk and peril. On the other hand, warn King Victor Emmanuel that England will not sanction any act of wilful aggression, undertaken in full peace by Piedmont against Austria. If Great Britain is prepared to hold this language, no war will arise." Lord A. Loftus did not seem satisfied with the statement that Austria did not mean to be the aggressor, and he therefore demanded from Count Buol an assurance that in no case would Austria move a single soldier across her frontier in Italy, without previous concert with France. Then he would consider that war might be averted. But Count Buol could not give that assurance. "It would be a surrender," he said, "of the sovereign power of Austria;" but he asked, "What will you say to Piedmont if she were to attack us?" To which the British Minister replied, "I cannot imagine such an eventuality. It would be a mouse attacking the lion." Count Buol then went on to say that they could never come to an understanding with France on Italian affairs, because France sympathised with and protected the cause of nationalities; while Austria supported sovereigns, governments, and established order. Besides, he said, it was a great mistake to suppose that Italy required change. All she wanted was quiet—that agitation should be put down, and the hopes of interested agitators extinguished.

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

On the 23rd of April an aide-de-camp of the General Gyulai, who commanded the army in Lombardy, then massed along the Austrian frontier, was the bearer of a peremptory demand that Sardinia should disarm within three days, and that in the event of refusal war would immediately commence. To this demand Count Cavour returned an answer which, like all the documents that issued from his pen, was a conclusive argument that the great adversary of Piedmont was in the wrong, and had sent a threatening summons instead of compliance with the propositions that the Great Powers had deemed reasonable, and he made a similar defiance in a popular manifesto. The rashness of Austria in commencing the war by an invasion of Piedmont alienated the British Government. On the 22nd of April Lord Malmesbury, in writing to Lord Augustus Loftus, referred to the strong feeling of indignation against her which prevailed in England, and told him that his language could not be too strong with regard to the course adopted by that Power, and requesting that he would give Count Buol clearly to understand that the refusal of Austria to stop the march of her armies would enlist against her the feelings of the Government and of all classes in Britain. He was instructed to inform Count Buol that her Majesty's Government felt it due to themselves and to the great interests of humanity, which they had so earnestly striven to uphold, solemnly to record their protest against the course[299] that Austria—regardless of the terrible consequences to Europe and indifferent to the public opinion of the world—had so rashly and so unjustly adopted. He said, "They assign to Austria and fix upon her the last responsibility for all the miseries and calamities inevitably consequent on a conflict which was on the eve of being averted, but which, once begun, will infallibly produce a more than ordinary amount of social suffering and political convulsion." He urged the German States to remain quiet, but gained no credit at the Tuileries, as the despatch was suppressed by the Foreign Minister, Count Walewski.

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

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

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

In the meantime the Austrians had retreated to the Quadrilateral, and taken their position behind the lines of those celebrated fortifications, which were believed to be impregnable. The allies had crossed the Mincio in pursuit. The French headquarters were established at Valeggio, in the villa of the Marchioness Maffei, which had been previously occupied by the Austrian Emperor. Two days after the battle of Solferino, Count Cavour, with his friend and secretary, Nigra, had a long interview with the French Emperor. They found him exceedingly disgusted with the quarrels of his generals, deeply impressed by the horrible scenes of war he had just witnessed for the first time in his life; but apparently proud and delighted that the military glory of France, and the superiority of her army over the Austrians, had been once more splendidly asserted. In reality he was perplexed by the increasing difficulties of his position. The count returned to the camp in high spirits and full of hope, under the impression that the Emperor was determined to prosecute the war with vigour to its conclusion, and that, in case it should be necessary for the accomplishment of that object, he would not scruple to appeal to the Hungarians. In the course of a day or two afterwards, however, mysterious rumours were afloat in the camp, that a French general had been sent to Verona on some inexplicable mission to the Austrian Emperor. These rumours proved to be well founded. When both armies were fully marshalled, prepared for action at any moment, when there was some apprehension that their lines would be attacked by the enemy, or that they would be ordered to march on Verona, General Fleury was despatched with a proposal for an armistice. This had been prefaced by an attempt to secure the mediation of the British Government, but Lord John Russell was not to be caught. This step was taken without any communication with Victor Emmanuel, and without the knowledge of any human being except the bearer of the message. At seven o'clock next morning he returned with a letter to his Imperial master, announcing the success of the[301] mission. The result was the conclusion of an armistice for one month. The announcement, it need scarcely be said, spread consternation through the Sardinian camp, and excited the deepest disappointment and indignation throughout Italy. Coming upon the Italians while still in the flush of victory and full of hope, they felt it not only as a terrible shock, but as a betrayal of their cause and a national humiliation. Cavour promptly flung up office.

ENTRY OF NAPOLEON AND VICTOR EMMANUEL INTO MILAN. (See p. 300.)

[302]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[303]

## CHAPTER XIX.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

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

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

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

Amidst all that was doubtful, ambiguous, or[304] perplexing in the Italian revolution, which resulted so happily in the establishment of the Kingdom of United Italy under the constitutional government of Victor Emmanuel, there was at least one character which always appeared without a shadow—which shone with unclouded lustre to the end. Garibaldi was the real hero of the Italian war. He was the man of action who realised the great thoughts of Mazzini. If the latter was the first to conceive the idea of Italian unity, it was the former that made it a fact. The campaign of the hero in the Valteline displayed uniformly the qualities of a great general and extorted the admiration of the enemy. The Austrian officers encamped on the Stelvio spoke of him in the highest terms of praise and thought him a truly wonderful man; as for the Croats, they firmly believed that he was the son of the devil. Garibaldi, it may well be supposed, felt as deeply as Cavour the blow inflicted on the hitherto triumphant cause of his country by the French Emperor in the Treaty of Villafranca. When Cavour resigned, the General went to the King to give up his commission, with all the officers of his corps; but Victor Emmanuel said—"No; Italy still requires the legions you command, and you must remain." Garibaldi consented. Then followed in Italian affairs a period of uncertainty, perplexity, confusion, and mystery. The "Ratazzi Ministry had no settled plans, and not knowing what was best to do, did nothing." The Sardinian envoys were recalled from the duchies and the Romagna; Garibaldi was requested to resign the command of the Æmilian army; the vote of the different provincial Parliaments for annexation to Sardinia was neither refused nor accepted; the nomination of Prince Carignano to the regency of the provinces was declined after England had refused her armed support, and Buoncompagni, who had not been asked for, was sent in his stead. The organisation of the Sardinian army also was neglected, and the incorporation of the Lombard provinces with Piedmont was conducted so inefficiently as to cause great discontent. At this juncture the volunteers were thrown into Tuscany. Wherever Garibaldi went in his tour of inspection, the inhabitants received him with unbounded joy. He accepted all the demonstrations gladly, as inspired by devotion to their country and loyalty to Victor Emmanuel; but this did not save him from the jealousy of the generals of the regular army, particularly La Marmora, who refused to recognise Garibaldi's nominations, and gave orders to dismiss all the volunteers from Central Italy, that they might serve in their own province. It is stated that as many as 18,000 or 20,000 of these passed through Modena; but not one could be induced to enter the regular army, so sickened were they of their Piedmontese experience; but all were ready to follow Garibaldi. General Fanti, who had resigned the chief command of the army, became Minister of War at Modena, and thwarted Garibaldi in every possible manner; going so far as even to send confidential messages to his officers, warning them not to execute his orders. These studied annoyances were designed to cause the high-spirited General to give up his command, in compliance, it is believed, with the desire of the French Emperor. In consequence of these intrigues Garibaldi retired, but by that time the unity of Central Italy with Sardinia was practically secure.

In January, 1860, the Ratazzi Cabinet resigned, being indignant at Lord John Russell's suggestion that Cavour should come to Paris and London, "congress or no congress"; and Count Cavour was charged with the formation of a new Ministry. At the general election Garibaldi was returned as a member of the Chamber for Nice, his native city, the authorities, at the same time, presenting him with a sword of honour. Soon after the conclusion of peace, rumours were rife that Nice and Savoy were to be surrendered to France, as a reward for her services. This was deemed incredible, for the French Emperor had emphatically disclaimed any interested motives or any desire for the acquisition of territory, and it could not be supposed that Victor Emmanuel would ever consent to alienate the cradle of his dynasty. When Cavour was questioned on the subject by Garibaldi, he distinctly denied that he had ever dreamt of such a thing. This denial was often repeated; but when the fact of a secret compact to this effect became notorious, the Emperor authorised Lord John Russell to assure the House of Commons that, however confident in the justice of his claim, he would not take any step to carry it into effect without first consulting the Great Powers of Europe. Yet he shortly afterwards quietly entered into possession without troubling them on the subject. Not a word of discussion on the matter was permitted by Cavour in the Sardinian Chamber; and without any appeal to his Parliament, the King withdrew his governors and his troops; whereupon Savoy and Nice were immediately occupied by French soldiers. On the 12th of April Garibaldi, in his place in the Chamber, made an attempt to defeat the scheme[305] by showing that the transfer of territory without the consent of Parliament was unconstitutional and illegal. His motion was lost; but his effort to save the fair city—an Italian city that had fought for the common cause—won for him an enthusiastic reception from the people outside, by whom he was actually carried away in triumph. The first act of the Italian Parliament was to ratify the sale of the people of Nice. This transaction caused an irreconcilable breach between Garibaldi and Cavour. Lord John Russell launched a vigorous protest against the annexation and the doctrine of "natural frontiers," which Napoleon enunciated in its defence, but his remonstrances in the nature of things went unheeded, even though his declarations in the House of Commons were outspoken in the extreme. "But this means war," said General Flahault to Palmerston. "Very well," was the reply, "if it is war, it is war." Things, however, took their natural course, though Russell's language undoubtedly prevented French intervention in the events that we are about to relate, and therefore helped freedom's cause.

MEETING OF GARIBALDI AND VICTOR EMMANUEL. (See p. 309.)

The Romans and Venetians were still in bondage, and there seemed as yet no way opened for their liberation. The former were kept down by a powerful French garrison, which could be increased to any extent at the shortest notice; the latter dwelt under the shadows of the Quadrilateral, the strongest fortresses in the world, and Austria was determined to hold that province with its seaboard at any cost. But it occurred to Garibaldi and his friends that something might be done to overthrow the feeble government of the King of Naples in Sicily. Mazzini had sent an agent there, who reported that it would be dangerous to attempt anything in that quarter. Still, there was a chance that if Garibaldi placed himself at the head of an expedition to that island, the immense prestige of his character, and the magic of his name, might work wonders amongst the people. Mazzini took this view, and promised the support of the secret societies, with all the funds he could collect in England and other countries. The General had resigned his commission in the Piedmontese service, and was therefore free to act[306] independently. We must assume that the Government of Victor Emmanuel considered this attempt of Garibaldi extremely rash and hopeless. Whatever might be their motives, they did all in their power to prevent the enterprise. They accordingly seized upon the funds and the arms that had been deposited at Genoa and Milan, and neither arms nor money were ever afterwards restored to Garibaldi. This was a great discouragement, as the supplies that had been collected were far too scanty. Garibaldi had only 1,000 volunteers, while the military force with which his expedition would have to contend consisted of twelve times as many well-appointed regular troops. With his small army, numbering not more than a single regiment, he started from a country house near Genoa on the night of the 5th of May, 1860, to make war against the King of Naples, with whom his own Sovereign was at peace. Two steamers, with appropriate names—the Piedmonte and Lombardo—were seized by the volunteers in the roadstead at Genoa, and steaming along the coast, they picked up their comrades at the points previously fixed upon. The Sardinian Government, hearing of the embarkation, immediately sent out the fast screw frigate Maria Adelaide, under the orders of Admiral Persano, in pursuit of the expedition. Lord John Russell did not altogether approve of the enterprise; nevertheless he declined to interfere, and warned Napoleon that the annexation of Sardinia by France as compensation "would be viewed with extreme displeasure by Great Britain."

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

The next step in Garibaldi's liberating progress was to dislodge the enemy from Milazzo. The garrison was commanded by General Bosco, who had under him four regiments of rifles, numbering 4,800 men; the 15th Regiment of the line, 1,000 strong; two squadrons of dragoons, five pieces of artillery, and twelve field pieces, all remarkably well mounted. He had, besides, every advantage in point of position. Garibaldi's forces were greatly inferior in point of numbers, amounting to only about 4,400 men, with three guns, two of them old ship twelve-pounders, and a six-pounder, cast in the seventeenth century. But his little army was enthusiastic and daring, having unbounded confidence in its chivalrous leader, and after a tough battle the enemy was thoroughly beaten. The Dictator, for so Garibaldi styled himself, had now learned, from an intercepted[307] letter, that the King of Naples, despairing of Sicily, had ordered his troops to evacuate the island. He therefore resolved to prevent the departure of the troops, and to force the garrison of Messina to come to terms, to which the general agreed without difficulty, signing a convention, by which he surrendered the town and all the forts, except the citadel. Messina and the harbour were to be respected, and no bombardment was to take place without provocation on the part of the Garibaldians; the towns of Syracuse and Augusta were also to be evacuated by the royal troops; thus Garibaldi became master of Sicily, and had obtained from the enemy large supplies of war material to enable him to effect the liberation of Naples.

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

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

Here the British Government wisely interposed. On the 9th of September, Mr. Elliot, the British Minister at Naples, received a telegram from Lord John Russell, desiring him to express to General Garibaldi the hope that no attack would be made upon Venetia. On September 10th General Garibaldi and Mr. Elliot met on board the Hannibal at eleven o'clock. "After I had made her Majesty's Minister and the Dictator acquainted with each other," wrote Admiral Mundy, "I requested the latter to desire his attendant staff to leave the cabin, as Mr. Elliot was desirous of a private conversation, and Captain Farquhar took them on the lower deck to watch the gunnery exercise. Mr. Elliot having expressed to General Garibaldi the[308] astonishment with which, in common with all the world, he had witnessed the marvellous results he had accomplished with such trifling means, informed him that though he could have no official relations with him, he should remain at Naples until he received further instructions from her Majesty's Government. This information appeared to give great satisfaction to the Dictator, who said he fully understood that official intercourse was not practicable. Mr. Elliot then informed him that Lord John Russell had charged him to express the hope that no attack would be made on Venetia, as, in his lordship's opinion, it would be calculated to bring the greatest calamities upon Italy. Garibaldi replied by stating that he would make no concealment of his plans, which were plain and straightforward. He intended to push on at once to Rome, and there place the crown of United Italy on the head of King Victor Emmanuel, upon whom would devolve the task of the liberation of Venetia, and in which he would himself be but the lieutenant of his Majesty. If that liberation could be accomplished by purchase or by negotiation, so much the better. He added that he was sure that Lord John Russell, in counselling the abandonment of Venetia, did not fairly represent the generous feelings of the people of England towards the Italian nation, although he cheerfully recognised the obligation Italy was under to her Majesty's Government for the sympathy they had exhibited with regard to Rome." Nevertheless the warning, accompanied by another to the King of Sardinia, was not without its effect.

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

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

The advance of Victor Emmanuel's army on the Garigliano decided the fate of Southern Italy and of the Bourbon dynasty. It seemed rather a[309] triumphal progress than a contest between two fighting armies. A Sardinian division under General de Sonaz landed at Manfredonia on the 14th of October, and marched on Maddaloni; while the main body of the Sardinian army, under General Cialdini, was pushing on from the Abruzzi towards Capua, compelling the Neapolitans to fall back on Gaeta. Garibaldi had, meantime, concentrated his forces at Calvi, whence he sent Colonel Missori to convey his respects to Victor Emmanuel at Teana. The King received Missori most affectionately, evincing the liveliest interest in the army of Garibaldi and complimenting the gallant envoy on his own exploits at Melazzo. It was agreed that the King should meet the Dictator next day at the foot of a hill called Santa Maria della Croce. The two great leaders of Italian unity cordially shook hands, and showed by their faces that the action was the expression of a true sentiment of affection on Garibaldi's part, and of the greatest admiration on the part of the King. The King complimented the General by saying that without his daring expedition the unity of Italy would not be a reality for ten years to come. "It may be, sire," answered Garibaldi; "but I could not have attempted my expedition had not Victor Emmanuel been the most noble and generous of kings."

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

[310]

## CHAPTER XX.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

> The Session of 1860—Debates on Nice and Savoy—Mr. Gladstone's Budget—The French Commercial Treaty—The Paper Duties Bill—Lord Palmerston's Motion of Inquiry—Mr. Gladstone's Resolution—Lord John Russell's Reform Bill—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[311] 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[312] 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.

[313]

DEMONSTRATION AGAINST THE CHRISTIANS IN DAMASCUS. (See p. 315.)

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[314] 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[315] 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[316] 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[317] 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."

THE IMPERIAL PALACE, PEKIN, LOOKING NORTH.

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[318] 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[319] 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[320] 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[321] 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.

CAPTURE OF JOHN BROWN AT HARPER'S FERRY. (See p. 320.)

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;[322] 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[323] 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.[324] 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[325] 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.

[326]

## CHAPTER XXI.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

> The Queen's Visit to Ireland—The Royal Family at Balmoral—Movements of the Court—Illness and Death of the Prince Consort—The National Lamentation—The Laureate's Lines—The Address in Parliament—A peaceful Session—The Education Code—The American War in Parliament—The Nashville—The Blockade and the Cotton Famine—The Defences Vote—The Game Act—Palmerston and Cobden—Prorogation of Parliament—The Garotters—The Alabama—Mr. Adams and Earl Russell—Blunders and Delays—Russell's Excuses—The Alabama sails—Progress of the War in America—Greece and the Ionian Islands—The Society of Arts—The Exhibition of 1862—Jealousy of Prussia and France—The Colonial Exhibition—The Cotton Famine in 1863—Engagement and Marriage of the Prince of Wales—Mr. Gladstone's Budget—"Essays and Reviews"—Obituary of the Year—Russell and Gortschakoff—The Six Points—They are ignored by Russia—The Polish Revolution—Russell and Brazil—The Coercion of Japan—The American War in 1863—Mexican Affairs—Intervention of England, France, and Spain—The French Emperor's Designs—Withdrawal of the British and Spanish Expeditions—The Crown of Mexico offered to the Archduke Maximilian—Captain Speke in Central Africa.

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

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

QUEEN VICTORIA AT OSBORNE.

AFTER THE PAINTING BY SIR EDWIN LANDSEER, R.A.

[See larger version]

The Queen left Balmoral on the 22nd of October,[327] and slept that night in the palace of Holyrood. On the following day the Prince Consort laid the foundation-stone of the new General Post Office in Edinburgh, and afterwards performed the same ceremonial for the Industrial Museum of Scotland. On the same evening the Royal party resumed their journey to England, and arrived at Windsor Castle at half-past eight the following morning. On the 1st of November the Queen, as Sovereign of the most exalted Order of the Star of India, held her first investiture in great state. This Order had been instituted a few months before, to provide a means for adequately recognising and honouring services rendered to the British Crown in India, whether by native princes or by British subjects. It consisted of a Grand Master (who was the Viceroy of India for the time being), and twenty-five knights, together with such extra and honorary knights as her Majesty might from time to time see fit to appoint.

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

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

Indeed, were it not that his character lacked variety, and from its German formalism was sometimes out of harmony with English sentiment, the Prince was an ideal Sovereign. The loss that the nation had sustained naturally occupied the attention of Parliament at the opening of the ensuing Session. In the Royal Speech, which was delivered by commission, the following allusion was made to this all-engrossing subject:—"We are commanded by her Majesty to assure you that her Majesty is persuaded that you will deeply participate in the affliction by which her Majesty has been overwhelmed, by the calamitous, untimely,[328] and irreparable loss of her beloved Consort, who has been her comfort and support. It has been, however, soothing to her Majesty, while suffering most acutely under this awful dispensation of Providence, to receive from all classes of her subjects the most cordial assurances of their sympathy with her sorrow, as well as of their appreciation of the noble character of him, the greatness of whose loss to her Majesty and to the nation is so justly and so universally felt and lamented." In the Queen's answer to the Address we have the mournful key-note of many an utterance that afterwards came from her widowed heart. Her Majesty said:—"I return you most sincere thanks for your dutiful and affectionate Address, especially for the manner in which you have assured me of your feelings on the irreparable loss sustained by myself and the country, in the afflicting dispensation of Providence which bows me to the earth."

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

[329]

FUNERAL OF THE PRINCE CONSORT. (See p. 327.)

[330]

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

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

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

Although in the debates of the Session there had been, according to that joint understanding with which it was begun, little exhibition of party heat or rancour, yet the spectacle of a large section of the Tory party almost openly avowing their sympathy with Lord Palmerston and his policy, and the evident congeniality between him and them, were not suffered to pass without observation.[331] Towards the close of the Session, Mr. Cobden, in a carefully prepared and powerful speech, arraigned the policy of the Prime Minister as that of a man who was fighting, or pretending to fight, under a banner not his own, and whose acts were nicely calculated to gain the approval of his ostensible adversaries and carry discouragement into the ranks of his nominal adherents. He asked, What had been the professed principles of the Liberal party? They were economy, non-intervention, and reform. But the present was the most extravagant Government that had administered the affairs of the country in time of peace during the present generation. This assertion he supported by an elaborate comparison, and proceeded to ascribe the whole of this increased expenditure to Lord Palmerston, who himself represented a policy that had cost the country no less a sum than £100,000,000. After adverting to the wars with China, where Colonel Gordon, who was afterwards to die at Khartoum, was saving the empire from the anarchy of the Taeping rebellion, as instances of the departure of the Ministry from the policy of non-intervention, he turned to the state of great Liberal questions and of parties in the House, which, he said, was not an honest state. Lord Palmerston was not governing the country by his own party, but with the aid of his political opponents, who were then in power without the responsibility of office. He analysed Lord Palmerston's Liberalism by his acts. The Ballot, and other questions in which members on that side of the House took an interest, were going back under the noble lord's leadership. Rather than continue as they were, he would prefer being in opposition. Comparing Lord Palmerston with Mr. Disraeli, he thought the latter would be quite as desirable upon the Treasury bench. The veteran Premier defended himself against this vehement attack with the skill and adroitness which his thorough knowledge of Parliament, his tact, bonhomie, and cheerful elasticity of temper, rendered habitual and natural to him. He urged that if his zeal in the cause of Reform appeared to have grown somewhat cold, he was therein only reflecting faithfully the general feeling of the House, while the House no less faithfully reflected the general feeling in the country. As to economy, he could, of course, urge the continual rise in the costliness of national armaments, owing to the invention of new engines of destruction, and maintain that to spend money on fortifying the points where it was vulnerable to attack, was, in fact, a nation's best and truest economy. On the delicate question of the state of parties and Conservative support he said little, and that little was eminently judicious and discreet.

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

About this time the Alabama escaped from the Mersey through a want of vigilance on the part of the British authorities; and, inasmuch as her evasion led to such momentous consequences, we propose to narrate in some detail the circumstances connected with that event. There can be no doubt that, on the part of those who ordered and paid for her, the Alabama was intended from the first for a Confederate vessel of war. She was built in the yard of the Messrs. Laird, Birkenhead. Of course, her armament was not put into her till after she had left the Mersey. But that she was[332] being built and fitted for a vessel of war no one who knew anything about naval architecture could doubt. Indeed, the matter was notorious at Liverpool, where the sympathies of the mercantile community ran strongly in favour of the Confederates. While she was building much correspondence passed between the Federal Consul at Liverpool and his Government and the American Minister in London; but Mr. Adams desired to wait until he could lay before Earl Russell sufficient evidence to justify him in attaching the vessel and prosecuting the builders under the Foreign Enlistment Act. Meanwhile, on the 15th of May, the vessel was launched under the name of the "290."

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

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

In a conversation with Mr. Adams, two days afterwards, at the Foreign Office, Earl Russell remarked that a delay in determining upon the case of the "290" "had most unexpectedly been[333] caused by the sudden development of a malady in the Queen's advocate, Sir John D. Harding, totally incapacitating him for the transaction of business. This had made it necessary to call in other parties, whose opinion had at last been given for the detention of the gunboat, but before the order got down to Liverpool the vessel was gone." Such an excuse could not be expected to satisfy the American Government, but neither is it satisfactory from a British point of view. The matter being known to be urgent, if, on its being referred to Sir John Harding, that official was found to be incapacitated by ill health or any other cause, what was done ultimately should have been done at first—"other parties" should have been called in. This too easy-going, laissez aller mode of conducting public business on the part of Government departments in 1862 cost the United Kingdom three millions sterling in 1873.

HINDOOS BRINGING COTTON THROUGH THE WESTERN GHAUTS. (See p. 336.)

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

The British Government was all the more unpopular with the North Americans because the operations of the war were by no means decisive. General Grant, after a severe battle at Pittsburg, cleared Tennessee of the Confederates and they slowly lost ground in Arkansas. On the other[334] hand, the Federal general McLellan was driven out of Virginia by General Lee, who also routed with great loss the covering army under Pope, and, though Lee could make no impression upon Maryland, he carried off the honours of the campaign by driving Burnside from before Richmond. In Kentucky Bragg foiled the Northerners at every point. The capture of New Orleans in April by the gallant Farragut was undoubtedly a serious blow to the Confederates, but one that might have been retrieved had resources been equal to demands. As the world now knows, they were not; but to close observers at the time, for instance the Emperor Napoleon, the cause of the Southerners appeared to be still in the ascendant.

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

The year 1862, during which the truce of politics continued, was marked by a second grand display, on a scale of colossal magnitude, of the products of the material and artistic civilisation of the age, contributed by the industry of all countries, but especially by that of Britain and her colonies. The Society of Arts, a body through whose exertions the Exhibition of 1851 in great measure originated, began, with the countenance of the Prince Consort, to take preliminary measures in 1858 and 1859 for the purpose of ascertaining whether a sufficiently strong feeling existed in the country in favour of decennial repetitions of that great experiment to justify the prosecution of the scheme. The Continental war of 1859 caused a temporary suspension of proceedings; but on peace[335] being restored, the Society resumed the consideration of the question, although at a period too late to allow of the Exhibition being ready by the year 1861, which was their original desire. The Society obtained decisive proof of the existence of a general desire for a second Great Exhibition in the most satisfactory form—namely, the signatures of upwards of 1,100 individuals for various sums of from £100 to £10,000, and amounting in the whole to no less than £450,000, to a guarantee deed for raising the funds needed for the conduct of the Exhibition. The scheme having thus been started, the Commissioners for the Exhibition of 1851, in the most liberal spirit, placed at the disposal of the managers of the new undertaking, free of all charge, a space of nearly seventeen acres on their Kensington Gore Estate, and afterwards, when the original area was found insufficient, an additional plot of eight acres, being all the land that could be made available for the purpose. In this way was the scheme originated, the cost of the necessary buildings provided for, and an eligible site obtained.

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

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

A few words now as to the magnificent collection of pictures. England had an advantage here over foreign countries; for, whereas it was allowable to exhibit any English picture painted within the century previous to the opening of the Exhibition—and, in fact, the best part of the collection did date from the last century—the foreign collection included, with but trifling exceptions, none but works by living artists. Six thousand works of art, exclusive of sculpture, were displayed in these galleries. Such a gathering of the masterpieces of our best artists—Reynolds, Gainsborough, and Hogarth—was never seen before. The Pre-Raphaelite school, and all the more eminent living or recently deceased artists, with the exception of J. M. W. Turner, were well represented. The productions of the British colonies occupied a considerable area near the eastern dome, and were exceedingly interesting, especially those from Australia and New Zealand, in the curiosities from which there was a large native element that gave a piquant and peculiar character to the display. The Exhibition was closed on the 1st of[336] November, having been open for the period of six months. Yet vast as were the multitudes that daily thronged it, the concourse of visitors did not quite come up to the number in 1851. The total number was found to have been 6,117,450, about 50,000 under the gross number of visitors to the Exhibition of 1851.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

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

THE MARRIAGE OF THE PRINCE OF WALES (1863).

FROM THE PAINTING BY G. H. THOMAS IN THE ROYAL COLLECTION

[See larger version]

[338]

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

The financial statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Gladstone, was made on the 16th of April, and was universally considered to be a masterly and very satisfactory exposé of the monetary and commercial condition of the country. The estimates of revenue and expenditure for the coming financial year showed a large probable surplus; and this surplus Mr. Gladstone applied to the reduction of the tea duty and of the income tax. Certain minor features of the financial programme were not allowed to pass unchallenged. One such consisted in levying a licence duty on clubs, on the ground that, as wine and spirituous[339] liquors were sold in them to the members, they ought not to be exempted from the burden which every hotel-keeper and licensed victualler was liable to. But as there were not wanting many to point out the obvious and essential differences between a club and a public-house, this portion of the financial scheme was abandoned. The other feature referred to was Mr. Gladstone's proposal for the taxation of charities. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had conceived the notion that the exemption from income tax enjoyed by charitable institutions was equivalent to a burden of corresponding amount imposed on the general body of taxpayers. The sum lost to the revenue through the exemption from income tax of the property of charities was estimated by Mr. Gladstone to amount to at least £250,000. The great charitable institutions of the metropolis and elsewhere at once took the alarm, and a deputation, formidable in numbers, rank, and respectability, was soon organised to wait on the adventurous financier. In the end it became so evident to Government that the feeling of the House was opposed to the taxation of charities that the measure was withdrawn.

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

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

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

Earl Russell had by this time formulated, in concert with Austria and with the knowledge of France, the plan for the regeneration of Poland which he had been long meditating, and was now prepared to propose for the acceptance of the Russian Government. The plan, as unfolded in[340] his despatch of the 17th of June, comprised the following six points or articles:—

> 1. A complete and general amnesty.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The British squadron in Japan, under Admiral Kuper, was under the necessity, this year, of resorting to measures of coercion against one of the Daimios, or half independent princes, of Japan, which involved the loss of many lives. The Prince of Satsuma was the ruler of a large and fertile territory in Kiusiu, the southernmost of the islands of Japan, and it was at a place within his jurisdiction that an Englishman, Mr Richardson, was murdered, and a murderous assault committed on an English lady and two gentlemen who were riding with him, in September, 1862. The British Government, when the news of this outrage was[341] received, directed Colonel Neale, the British chargé d'affaires in Japan, to demand ample compensation for the murder, from the Tycoon, the temporal sovereign of Japan, and from the Prince of Satsuma. The former was required to pay £100,000 as an indemnity, the latter £25,000. After much parleying, the Tycoon agreed to pay the sum demanded, which was accordingly brought to Yokohama, in June, 1863, and counted out in the presence of Colonel Neale. But the Prince of Satsuma could in no way be brought to reason, for which contumacy his ships were taken, his town was burnt, and his palace destroyed by the British squadron from Yokohama. The Prince had certainly suffered reprisals to an extent exceeding many times the amount of the indemnity demanded. Yet these very injuries—so strange is the working of the Asiatic mind—appear to have induced him to make overtures for peace. These were signs of overwhelming power, and power is almost the only thing that the Asiatic truly reverences. As a matter of fact, before the close of the year the Prince offered to pay, and actually paid, to the British chargé d'affaires at Yokohama, the £25,000 which had been originally demanded from him as compensation money for the murder of Mr. Richardson!

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

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

When, then, after the issuing of the manifesto, the commissioners of the allied Powers began to exchange ideas, the divergence of view between the French and the other two commissioners soon became apparent. The object of Britain and Spain was simply, by occupying a portion of the Mexican seaboard, to obtain a material guarantee for the[342] redress of the wrongs of which their subjects had to complain. Whether this was done by the Government of Juarez (who was then President) or by any other Government, was a matter of perfect indifference to Britain and Spain. But the French Commissioner—with an eye to the eventual introduction of an imperial régime—refused, on the plea of perverseness, renewed outrages, and general impracticability, to hold any communication with the Juarez Government. However, the British and Spanish Commissioners, Sir Charles Wyke and General Prim, opened negotiations with the Government of Juarez. But there was a certain General Almonte in the French camp, who was well known as a promoter of the scheme for substituting imperial for republican institutions. The Mexican Government required that Almonte should be sent away; but to this the French Commissioner refused to consent. A conference between the commissioners of the allied Powers and others to be deputed by the Mexican Government, to meet at Orizaba, in April, 1862, was agreed to by Prim and Sir Charles Wyke, but rejected by the French Commissioner, who insisted that, instead of negotiating with Juarez, the proper course for the Allies was to march at once upon Mexico. Hereupon Prim and Sir Charles Wyke, finding that their views and those of their colleague were irreconcilable, withdrew on the part of their respective Governments from the expedition. Nevertheless the French forces, increased by 2,500 troops under the command of General Forey, appeared entirely successful. Puebla was captured in May, 1862; Mexico, the capital, occupied in June, and Juarez, though breathing defiance, was forced to retire into the interior. An assembly of notables resolved that Mexico should adopt monarchical institutions and the Crown was offered in 1863 to the Archduke Maximilian of Austria.

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

[343]

## CHAPTER XXII.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

> Peace and Prosperity in 1864—Birth of an Heir to the Prince of Wales—Lord Derby's happy Speech-Fruitlessness of the Parliamentary Debates—Mr. Gladstone's Budget—Mr. Stansfeld and Mazzini—The Government and the London Conference on the Danish Question—Votes of Censure in both Houses—Mr. Gladstone on Parliamentary Reform—The Premier's Forecast—Resignation of Mr. Lowe—Lord Westbury on Convocation—Garibaldi's Visit to England—His Reception in London—The Duke of Newcastle and Nassau Senior—The Shakespeare Tercentenary—"Essays and Reviews" again—The Colenso Controversy—Mr. Disraeli and the Angels—The Fenians in Dublin—Origin of the Belfast Riots—Their Progress—Excesses of Orangemen and Roman Catholics—The Military Called Out—Trials of the Rioters—The Ashantee War—The Maori War—Waitara Block and its consequences—Suppression of the Rebellion—Final Defeat of the Taepings—Bombardment of Simonasaki—The Cyclone at Calcutta—Its Ravages.

THE year 1864 was for Britain as uneventful as the years which immediately preceded and followed it. The course of peaceful industry and the accumulation of wealth went on undisturbed, and the gradual abatement of the distress in Lancashire diffused a general feeling of relief and satisfaction. The revenue was found to display a wonderful elasticity. The Session of Parliament was opened by commission on the 4th of February. In the Royal Speech her Majesty expressed her confidence that Parliament would sympathise with her in her gratitude to the Almighty on account of the Princess of Wales having given birth (January 8) to a son, "an event which has called forth from her faithful people renewed demonstrations of devoted loyalty and attachment to her person and family."

In the debate on the Address Lord Derby adverted, with that felicity of phrase for which he was notorious, to the birth of an heir to the Prince of Wales, afterwards known as Prince Albert Victor and the Duke of Clarence and Avondale. "At this time last year," he said, "we offered our humble congratulations to her Majesty on the auspicious marriage of the heir to the Throne with a Princess every way qualified to share the high destiny reserved for him, and whose personal beauty and attractions, and the natural and unaffected charm of whose manner, secured for her, from the first moment of her entrance into this kingdom, the admiration and, I may say, the affection of her adopted country. On this occasion we have to congratulate her Majesty and the nation on the happy issue of that marriage, in the birth of an heir to the Throne in the second generation; and although, my lords, happily for this country monarchical institutions are so firmly established in the hearts and affections of the people, and their attachment to them has been so strengthened by the private virtues and personal qualities of the illustrious lady who occupies the throne that it is not with us, as it might be with other countries, a subject of additional congratulation that we thereby obtain greater stability for the Throne, or greater security for the dynasty, yet we may be permitted to rejoice at the prospect we have before us of a direct line of succession from the present illustrious wearer of the crown and her immediate descendants—from a Sovereign who has done so much to cast a lustre on that crown, and also to strengthen the hold which monarchical institutions have upon this nation.... I am sure there is not one of your lordships who does not offer up a fervent prayer to the Throne of Grace that that bright prospect may remain unclouded, and that, long after the youngest of your lordships has passed away from this scene, the throne of these realms may be occupied by the descendants of the illustrious Prince and of his new-born heir—

Et nati natorum, et qui nascentur ab illis."

In the course of this Session many measures of political or social reform—the Ballot, the Reduction of the County Franchise, the Abolition of Church Rates and of Tests, the Permissive Bill—were introduced into Parliament and discussed, but in no single instance were they carried. Sterility attended all the legislative throes of our political assemblies. Nor are the debates on foreign affairs either pleasant or profitable reading; for in the midst of much acrimonious criticism of the proceedings of the Ministry, the general result comes out clearly, that the critics, had they been in the place of the Government, would have pursued substantially the same policy. Thus, although Mr. Cobden, in his speech on the resolution brought in by Mr. Disraeli censuring the foreign policy of the Government, severely blamed the proceedings of Lord Russell with reference to Schleswig-Holstein, the grounds of his censure were, not that we had disregarded treaties, or broken faith with[344] Denmark, but that we had laboured so much as we had done to maintain the former and preserve the latter. Similarly, the cautious and pacific temper of the man of business, so strikingly contrasted with the temper of the senators and statesmen which in former times inspired our policy, appeared in the review which he took of the British army and navy, dispersed about the world, and engaged in the protection of our colonies; thence inferring that to engage in a war with any of the great Continental Powers would be for Britain attended with extreme difficulty and expense. And the same prudential spirit appeared, in various degrees, to animate the majority of our public men.

The financial statement of Mr. Gladstone was again, among all the domestic transactions of the Session, the chief point of attraction. His expectations of buoyancy and expansion in the revenue, as a consequence of that very reduction in fiscal burdens which ostensibly tended to diminish it, were again remarkably verified. On a comparison of the revenue with the expenditure of the past year, it appeared that there was a surplus of £2,037,000. On the general prosperity of the trade of the country, Mr. Gladstone entered into some striking details. The aggregate amount of that trade, it appeared (including imports and exports), had been, in 1861, £377,000,000; but in 1863 it had risen to the unprecedented sum of £444,000,000. The disposal of the surplus was the next point of importance. A great fight was made by the farmers' friends to prevail upon the Government to apply at least a portion of it to the reduction of the malt tax. But the Government wisely resisted all these overtures, and in so doing were supported by a decided majority of the House. That tax, producing so many millions to the revenue, was felt to be too important to be made the subject of experiments; if it was to be touched at all, it must be thoroughly and systematically revised. But although the Government thus resisted the attempts to take off or diminish the duties on malt used in the manufacture of beer, they made a concession to the agriculturists in the shape of a remission of so much of the duty as had been hitherto levied upon malt used for the consumption of cattle. The House finally agreed to apply the surplus in the manner proposed by Mr. Gladstone—that is to say, partly in effecting a substantial reduction in the duties on sugar, partly by taking off a penny in the pound from the income tax.

In course of the discussions on the Navy Estimates a singular incident occurred, which cost the Government the services of one of the Junior Lords of the Admiralty. A trial had recently been held in Paris, in which two conspirators, Greco and Trabucco, were charged with a plot against the Emperor's life. In the course of the trial the Procureur-Général stated that a paper had been found on the person of Greco, directing him, if in want of money, to apply to a Mr. Flowers, at 35, Thurloe Square, Brompton. This, the Procureur added, is the residence of an English member of Parliament, who, in 1855, was appointed banker to the Tibaldi conspirators against the Emperor's life. A reference to the Post Office Directory showed that the member in question was Mr. Stansfeld, the member for Halifax, and one of the Junior Lords of the Admiralty; nor was it difficult to discover that Mr. Flowers, alias M. Fiori, was no other than Mazzini, the ex-triumvir. Mr. Cox, one of the members for Finsbury, first drew the attention of the House, and of the member for Halifax, to the passage in the Procureur-Général's speech, when Mr. Stansfeld, in reply, expressed great indignation that the Crown prosecutor of a friendly Power should have ventured to connect him, a member of the British Parliament and a Minister of the Crown, with the atrocious crime with which the prisoners were charged. He knew nothing either of Greco or of Mr. Flowers, whose letters were addressed to his house. As to Mazzini, he gloried in the friendship of such a man, the greatness and nobility of whose character were little appreciated; and he was persuaded that to say that Mazzini had ever incited to assassination was as base a libel as could be uttered. Mr. Stansfeld's first explanation left the matter still involved in considerable mystery. The subject was revived by Sir Laurence Palk a few nights afterwards and warmly discussed, Mr. Pope Hennessy reading extracts from letters written by Mazzini, with reference to other transactions, in which he appeared to justify assassination in certain cases. Again, on the motion for going into Committee of Supply, Sir H. Strachey moved as an amendment, "That the speech of the Procureur-Général on the trial of Greco, implicating a member of this House, and of her Majesty's Government, in the plot for the assassination of our ally the Emperor of the French, deserves the serious consideration of this House." Mr. Stansfeld admitted that he had at one time allowed his name to be inscribed on bank-notes (issued probably by the society of Carbonari, or revolutionary conspirators to procure the liberation of Italy), which he believed would have been[345] used, not in the interest of assassins, but to aid in the establishment of a free and united Italy; but, acting on the advice of friends, he had withdrawn the permission. Lord Palmerston and other members of the Government warmly defended their colleague, and the amendment of Sir H. Strachey was rejected by a majority of ten. Nevertheless, Mr. Stansfeld resigned his post as Junior Lord.

MR. PHELPS PLANTING THE SHAKESPEARE OAK ON PRIMROSE HILL, LONDON. (See p. 348.)

The existence of the Government was seriously imperilled in July, when Lord Malmesbury, in the Lords, and Mr. Disraeli, in the Commons, moved the following resolution: "That this House has heard with deep concern that the sittings of the conference recently held in London have been brought to a close without accomplishing the important purpose for which it was convened. That it is the opinion of this House, that while the course pursued by her Majesty's Government has failed to maintain their avowed policy of upholding the integrity and independence of Denmark, it has lowered the just influence of this country in the councils of Europe, and thereby diminished the securities for peace." The event concerned is related in the following chapter; at present we notice it merely as an incident in the political history of the Session. In the Lords the Government was defeated by a majority of nine; but this was not unexpected. In the Commons there were some brilliant passages of arms between the party leaders; but Mr. Horsman, it was generally felt, was not far from the truth when he said that "the Government had made mistakes, but their opponents had endorsed them; so the parties were pretty much upon an equality." On a division, the amendment to Mr. Disraeli's resolution, moved by Mr. Kinglake, was carried by a majority of eighteen in a very full House, and Government was saved.

On the question of Parliamentary Reform little interest was at this time felt in the country, and the apathy of the constituencies extended itself to their representatives in the House of Commons. Yet the question may be justly held to have advanced a stage, in consequence of a remarkable[346] declaration made by Mr. Gladstone during the debate on Mr. Baines' Bill for substituting a £6 rental qualification for the existing £10 householder franchise in boroughs. The previous question had been moved by Mr. Cave; but Mr. Gladstone declared that although there was a concurrence of opinion that the present was not a suitable time for the introduction by the Government of a comprehensive measure of Reform, yet he could not vote for the amendment, because it went to deny that the question of the reduction of the franchise was one which ought to be discussed and, if possible, settled. Mr. Baines' Bill was lost by the adoption of the previous question, but it was evident to all that the £10 limit was condemned in general opinion, and could not much longer be maintained. On account of these and similar utterances of his Chancellor, Lord Palmerston said to Lord Shaftesbury, "Gladstone will soon have it all his own way, and whenever he gets my place, we shall have strange doings."

Another Minister was compelled by circumstances to execute upon himself the "happy despatch" before the end of the Session. This was Mr. Lowe, the Vice-President of the Council, whom Lord Robert Cecil (afterwards Lord Salisbury) charged with mutilating the annual reports of Inspectors of Schools, and cutting out passages that did not chime in with his own views, before submitting them to the House. An adverse resolution grounded on this allegation was carried in a thin House, and Mr. Lowe had no choice but to resign. But the explanation which he afterwards offered made it so abundantly clear that the charge was founded on a misunderstanding, and that he had done nothing but what the practice of his and other departments justified, that Lord R. Cecil frankly admitted that, had this explanation been made at first, he should have abandoned his charges; and the House was induced with little difficulty, on the motion of Lord Palmerston, to rescind the inculpatory resolution which it had just passed.

The Convocation of the Province of Canterbury—which, instead of being prorogued immediately after its opening, as had been the case since the reign of Anne, has gradually obtained the royal licence, since the friendly intervention of Lord Derby in 1852, of proceeding to the despatch of business—after discussions of extraordinary prolixity, passed what was called a "Synodical Judgment" (June 21, 1864), condemning the well-known work entitled "Essays and Reviews." Some time afterwards the matter was brought before the Peers, Lord Houghton desiring to know what was the legal effect of the judgment, and whether, in passing it, the Convocation had not exceeded its powers. On this occasion the Lord Chancellor (Lord Westbury) made a speech, the like of which for scathing wit and contemptuous banter, has been seldom heard. "There are," he said, "three modes of dealing with Convocation, when it is permitted to come into action and transact real business. The first is, while they are harmlessly busy, to take no notice of their proceedings. The second is, when they seem likely to get into mischief, to prorogue them, and put an end to their proceedings; the third, when they have done something clearly beyond their powers, is to bring them before a court of justice and punish them." He went on to state that should any attempt be made to give validity to any act of Convocation, without the consent of the Crown, the persons so offending would incur the penalties of præmunire. "I am afraid my noble friend has not considered what the pains and penalties of a præmunire are, or his gentle heart would have melted at the prospect.... I have not ventured—I say it seriously—I have not ventured to present the question to her Majesty's Government; for, my lords, only imagine what an opportunity it would be for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to spread his net, and in one haul take in £30,000 from the highest dignitary, not to speak of the bishops, deans, archdeacons, canons, vicars, all included in one common crime, all subject to one common penalty.... Assuming that the report of the judgment which I have read is a correct one, I am happy to tell your lordships, that what is called a synodical judgment is simply a series of well lubricated terms—a sentence so oily and so saponaceous that no one could grasp it. Like an eel, it slips through your fingers—it is simply nothing; and I am glad to tell my noble friend that it is literally no sentence." Bishop Wilberforce, to whose nickname, "Soapy Sam," the last passage was an obvious allusion, made a vigorous and dignified reply to this masterpiece of irony.

Parliament was prorogued on the 29th of July; and the records of the remaining five months of the year contain little or nothing of public interest. Earlier in the year, the visit of a distinguished foreigner had been attended with so much of popular excitement and enthusiasm that it deserves a passing notice. There was sufficient real feeling and real knowledge about the Italian question among the masses of the metropolis to secure the champion of a free Italy a warm reception, but before his arrival the infectious enthusiasm of the[347] well-informed few had spread to the ignorant many, to those who scarcely knew that such a country as Italy existed, and only thought vaguely of Garibaldi as a friend of the poor and oppressed. All along the line from Southampton to the capital crowds filled the stations, while at Nine Elms, where the General was to alight, a multitude of working men, arranged in procession according to their trades, awaited him on that April afternoon. Side by side with them stood peers and members of Parliament, and when Garibaldi arrived he was received like a prince, though there was a touch of passion in the reception which is granted to few princes. At Wandsworth Road a halt was made while a monster procession of trades unions filed past. Upwards of 30,000 men took part in it, and as they passed the General one and all broke out in cheers and cries. To the dense multitude gathered at Vauxhall and Kennington, 30,000 men would have been as nothing. Trafalgar Square was one vast sea of faces as the procession entered it, while along Pall Mall the clubs were lit up, and the windows and balconies filled with spectators. At last Stafford House was reached, and the long, fatiguing, exciting journey came to an end. Garibaldi was hoarse and wearied; the excitement had been almost too much for him, and after his introduction to the Duke and Duchess of Sutherland, his friends saw his retirement in the care of his host with relief. So far his visit had been an unexampled success; London had given him a noble welcome, as the most cynical confessed. He was fêted, the best houses in London were open to him, while the leaders of society vied with one another in efforts to please and amuse him. Throughout it all he remained his simple unconscious self, unfeignedly pleased by the admiration and attention shown him, but always glad when he could escape the throng around him for a minute or two, and chat in a corner with a friend. On the 20th, when he went to receive the freedom of the City of London, the same unmixed enthusiasm greeted him. It began to be said, at the end of the General's visit, that the red shirt was an emblem of revolution, and that if he stayed longer in England, a dangerous temper might be developed among the workmen who cheered him so lustily. That his visit was shortened by a hint from the Government is well known, but the actuating motive was not fear of a rising at home, but the representations of the Austrian and Italian Ministers. On the 27th of April he quitted Plymouth in the Undine.

Few of those who departed in the course of this year from their wonted places among men awakened in the hearts of the mourning survivors more sad and sympathetic regrets than Henry Pelham Clinton, fifth Duke of Newcastle. But fifty-three years old, and endowed by nature with an eager and buoyant temperament, he was just the man who might have been expected to pass a long life in doing good and faithful service for his country, and then to die in harness. But the gloom of a ghastly private sorrow had long hung over him; the incurable wound of an intolerable injury rankled in his soul. Nassau William Senior, the eminent political economist, died this year at the age of 74. He was an eminent and representative member of the English school of economists, in whose hands the science of wealth tended to be mathematical and precise and aimed at excluding those moral and sentimental considerations from which most Continental economists thought that it could not be disjoined. His mind, remarkable for the clear dry light that it brought to the analysis and classification of facts, was deficient in imagination and sensibility, though it made advances in this direction in the course of his later years, as his journals and letters testify.

On the 23rd of April, 1864, exactly three hundred years would have elapsed since the birth of Shakespeare; and before the anniversary arrived there was a general stir in literary and dramatic circles, out of a persuasion that a date so marked should be signalised by a national festival of a splendid character, which would show the world how England honoured her greatest poet. Something, eventually, was done, and, to some limited extent, well done. A pavilion was erected by public subscription at Stratford-upon-Avon, which was to serve the threefold purpose of dining-room, theatre, and hall of discussion. On the morning of the 23rd of April the Mayor of Stratford received, in the Town Hall, an address from the "Free German Institute of Arts and Sciences at Frankfort-on-the-Main." Professor Max Müller, in presenting this address, delivered a remarkable and somewhat inconclusive speech. He urged that hero-worship should henceforward replace for England that veneration of the saints which was so dear to our forefathers. In London the memory of Shakespeare was honoured in various ways, but the only truly public demonstration was that arranged by the Working Men's Committee. It was resolved to plant an oak in honour of Shakespeare at the foot of Primrose Hill. A young oak sapling was, by the Queen's permission, obtained from Windsor Park; a procession of trades was organised from[348] Russell Square; and after an oration had been delivered by Mr. George Moore, the chairman of the committee, Mr. Phelps, the celebrated actor at Sadler's Wells Theatre, planted the tree, and a Mrs Banks, sprinkling it with water brought from the Avon at Stratford, christened it "Shakespeare's Oak."

The progress of Rationalism on all sides, and even among the clergy of the Establishment, made itself felt this year in various ways. The same Lord Chancellor, who made so merry in Parliament with the "synodical judgment" of Convocation upon "Essays and Reviews," had previously, in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, given to two of the contributors to that volume the full benefit of the extremely latitudinarian character of his own theological sentiments. Dr. Rowland Williams and Mr. Wilson had been condemned in the Court of Arches on two of the reformed articles of charge exhibited against them, and sentenced to a year's suspension. One article exhibited against Dr. Williams which the Court below held to be proved, charged him with maintaining that the Bible, or Holy Scripture, was "an expression of devout reason," and the written voice of the congregation—not the Word of God, nor containing any special revelation of His Truth, or of His dealings with mankind, nor of the rule of our faith. Another charged him with alleging that "the doctrine of merit by transfer is a fiction," and argued that this was at variance with the express language of the eleventh of the Thirty-nine Articles, which teaches that "we are accounted righteous before God only for the merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and not of our own works and deservings." With regard to the first article, the judgment of the Judicial Committee, as delivered by the Lord Chancellor, was to the effect that the language used by Dr. Williams had been harshly interpreted; as to the second, the Court accepted Dr. Williams's explanation, that by the term "fiction" he did not intend "false or fictitious statement," but merely "the phantasm in the mind of an individual that he has received or enjoyed merit by transfer." Upon the whole, the committee were of opinion that Dr. Williams had not outstepped the limits imposed by the formularies of the Church of England on the freedom of thought and discussion, and therefore decided that the sentence of a year's suspension must be reversed. In the case of Mr. Wilson, charged with encouraging the hope that the last judgment of God upon the wicked might not be really one consigning them to eternal punishment, the committee similarly held that this opinion was fairly tenable by clergymen of the Church of England, and therefore reversed the penal sentence of the Court of Arches.

An incident in the great Colenso anomaly, which occurred partly in this and partly in the following year, when stripped of the legal technicalities in which it was enveloped, resulted no less favourably for the advocates of free thought than the trial of Dr. Williams and Mr. Wilson. In virtue of letters patent issued from the Crown, erecting Capetown into a metropolitan see, with Dr. Gray for its first bishop, and Natal as one of the suffragan sees—giving also to the metropolitan bishop jurisdiction over his suffragans, with a right of appeal only to the Archbishop of Canterbury—Bishop Gray had cited Bishop Colenso to appear in his diocesan court of Capetown and answer to the charges of heresy, founded on the novel doctrines broached in his Essay on the Pentateuch, which had been brought against him. Dr. Colenso denied the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Capetown in hac re, and declined to appear; nevertheless, Bishop Gray proceeded to hear the charges and, having decided them to be proved, pronounced a sentence of deposition against Bishop Colenso, and prohibited his clergy from paying him canonical obedience. Dr. Colenso, however, in due course lodged an appeal with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, as the depositary of the royal supremacy in ecclesiastical causes, and prayed, not only that the sentence against him might be declared null and void, but that the letters patent conferring jurisdiction on the Bishop of Capetown might be declared to have been illegal and of no effect ab initio. The case was argued on the 14th of December and following days, but the judgment of the Judicial Committee was not delivered till March in the following year, when the court decided that the proceedings of Bishop Gray were null and void as law. The fact was that the zeal of the Bishop had outrun his discretion and entirely disregarded the remonstrances of Dr. Tait, the judicious Bishop of London.

But the Rationalising and anti-dogmatic party were not allowed to carry all before them; their flank was vigorously assailed by Mr. Disraeli, in November, who, in a speech delivered at a meeting of the Oxford Diocesan Society, attacked the new scepticism with all the resources of his bitter wit and unsparing rhetoric. He spoke of the clerical underminers of the doctrines which at their ordination they had vowed to maintain, whose works, he said—insufferably dull and interminably prolix—would, if we were compelled to peruse them, go far[349] to realise for us that perpetuity of punishment which their authors denied. The highest science, he went on to say, was that which interpreted the highest nature, namely, the nature of man; but when he compared the new interpretations with the old, he was not prepared to say that the lecture-room was more scientific than the Church. "What is the question which is now placed before society with the glib assurance which to me is most astounding? That question is this—Is a man an ape or an angel? My lord, I am on the side of the angels. I repudiate with indignation and abhorrence these new-fangled theories. I believe they are foreign to the conscience of humanity; and I say more—that even in the strictest intellectual point of view I believe the severest metaphysical analysis is opposed to such conclusions."

SCENE IN THE BELFAST RIOTS. (See p. 350.)

In Ireland, the unhappy consequences which result from the secular oppression of one race or religion by another were painfully illustrated this year by the riots at Belfast. Earlier in the year a significant event had occurred in Dublin, which first disclosed the strength and wide extension of the Fenian conspiracy. A Fenian convention had met the year before in America, but that the society numbered thousands and tens of thousands of enthusiastic supporters in Ireland itself was not generally known before the Rotunda meeting, on the 23rd of February, 1864. This meeting—having been called by The O'Donoghue, Mr. A. M. Sullivan, and other leaders of the National party, to testify their indignation at the proposal to erect a monument in Dublin to the memory of the Prince Consort—was mobbed, soon after the proceedings began, by a preconcerted attack of Fenians, and after a good deal of fighting vanquished and dispersed.

But the desperate riots which took place at Belfast, in the autumn, threw all minor scuffles into the shade. There had been a great demonstration at Dublin, on the 8th of August, in honour of Daniel O'Connell, and a monument had been inaugurated to his memory. The demonstration itself went off quietly. But the Protestants of Belfast felt, when the accounts of the Dublin proceedings reached them through the newspapers,[350] extremely annoyed. Accordingly they eagerly prepared a counter-demonstration. An insulting effigy of O'Connell was made and carried through the streets, attended by thousands of mill-workers; and in the evening it was publicly burnt. Nor was this all. Next day the Protestants announced that having burnt O'Connell, they must now proceed to bury him. A coffin was prepared and borne solemnly to the gate of the Friar's Bush Cemetery, where it was, of course, refused admittance; after which it suffered the same fate as the effigy, and the ashes were thrown into the river running through the town. The bonfire, however, was still blazing, and the crowds around it were still engaged in hooting the "Liberator," when it became known that the Catholics were out in the Protestant quarters of the town, smashing windows and breaking furniture.

Night put an end to the disturbance for the time, but on the following day matters became serious. Between five and six o'clock in the morning, affrays occurred between various bodies of mill-workers going to work. The day passed off quietly, but in the evening an encounter took place between the Catholics and the inhabitants of Brown Square. The Catholics were for the time beaten off; but returning, armed with brickbats and other missiles, they fell upon the constabulary, who had by this time arrived upon the scene, leaving five or six severely wounded. All through the night the fray continued. The police made some captures, but nothing damped the spirit of the Catholic mob, and the rioting continued unabated during the whole of the following day, and throughout Friday and Saturday. Sunday was quiet, but Monday brought with it fresh scenes of disorder. A body of Roman Catholic navvies attacked the Protestant houses in Brown Street and the national school, wrecking both the buildings and their contents. While thus engaged, they were set upon by a party of exasperated Orangemen, and a regular fight ensued. The authorities saw that it was high time extreme measures were taken. The military were called out, under Mr. Lyons, J.P., and posted in the Protestant districts. But the Irish blood was up, and the sight of the soldiers produced none of the hoped-for effect upon the reckless mob. Next day, both soldiers and police fired upon the people. Two were shot dead in the mêlée, and between fifty and sixty seriously injured. There was a fearful rumour in the course of the day that the ship-carpenters, mostly Orangemen, had seized upon the gunpowder stores. The gunpowder, however, was saved by the prompt action of the authorities. On the 17th the ship-carpenters vowed vengeance upon the navvies, who had wrought such havoc at the outset of the riots, and having forced their enemies into the mudbanks in the harbour, they fired upon them from the shore, killing one and wounding nine or ten. It being quite evident that the Belfast authorities had no adequate force at hand, large reinforcements were sent to the number of about 4,000 men. These troops, encamped in the city, succeeded in preventing any further violence on a large scale. At length, on the 24th, Belfast was reported tranquil, and the bruised and sobered rioters began to look forward uneasily to the reckoning to come. Unfortunately, the mischief did not end with Belfast; other parts of Ireland caught the spirit of the rioters. But the authorities had been put on their guard, and the prompt despatch of troops to Dundalk and Newry nipped the disturbances there in the bud. At the spring assizes in the following year, 1865, many persons concerned in the riots were brought up for trial. The judge dwelt on the serious nature of the disturbances. According to the report of Dr. Murney, surgeon to the General Hospital, 316 persons had received more or less severe injuries, 219 had recovered, 11 died; while at the time the report was presented (November 6, 1864) there were 98 cases of gun-shot wounds still under treatment. "This," said Baron Deasy, "reads more like the Gazette after a very serious military or naval engagement, than the return presented to a judge of assize at the assizes in this country." In most cases a verdict of guilty was returned, and the sentences varied from two years' imprisonment with hard labour to three months'.

It can seldom happen in a vast Empire that a year should pass without some hostile collision taking place, either in one of its outlying colonies, or in one of the semi-civilised yet wealthy communities which its merchants frequent. In 1864 little wars raged at the Cape Coast in Africa, and in New Zealand, at that time Britain's youngest and fairest colony; while both in China and Japan hostilities, in which we were more or less engaged, were carried on. The Governor of Cape Coast Castle having refused to give up to the King of Ashantee two of his slaves who had taken refuge within British territory, the King made an incursion into the lands of the Fantees, a friendly tribe inhabiting that portion of the coast which adjoins our settlement. Thereupon Governor Pim ordered a force to proceed on an expedition into the Ashantee country, which, however, produced no coercive[351] effect on the barbarian, and resulted in a heavy loss in officers and men, owing to the pestiferous nature of the climate. The matter was of no great consequence, yet, when it came to be debated in the House of Commons, it nearly upset the Government. Sir John Hay moved a resolution of censure, and, while acquitting the inferior authorities of blame, endeavoured to fix it all on the Cabinet. Sir John Hay's resolution, in a rather full House, was rejected by the narrow majority of seven.

In New Zealand, where a native war had existed since 1860, some decided advantages were gained this year by General Cameron, and certain native tribes gave in their unconditional submission. The war arose out of a quarrel respecting what was known in the colony as "the Waitara purchase." An individual Maori, named Teira, belonging to the tribe of Wiremu Kingi (Anglicè, William King), offered to the Government for sale, in 1859, a block of land on the river Waitara, near Taranaki. The Government, believing that no other rights over the land existed except those of the vendor, agreed to purchase it; but this decision was vehemently protested against by Wiremu Kingi. Troops were sent to Taranaki in 1860, by the aid of whom the block of land was occupied; and thus commenced a harassing and inglorious Maori war, in the course of which the town of Taranaki was seized and plundered, and the entire settlement ravaged by the native insurgents. To Major-General Pratt, who did little more than hold his ground against the Maoris, succeeded Major-General Cameron, an officer of great vigour and ability; but still the resistance of the Maoris, favoured by the wooded nature of the country, and the sparseness of the European population, continued. In 1861 the Duke of Newcastle summoned Sir George Grey (formerly Governor of New Zealand for several years at a most critical period) from the Cape Colony, and entrusted him with the government of New Zealand. After a careful investigation into the original cause of quarrel, Sir George Grey wrote to the Duke of Newcastle (April, 1863) that it was his settled conviction "that the natives are, in the main, right in their allegations regarding the Waitara purchase, and that it ought not to be gone on with." Proclamation was accordingly made to the natives that the purchase was abandoned. But the passions of the Maoris had been roused by the long continuance of a state of war; the proclamation, therefore, produced little effect. On the part of the natives, the war chiefly consisted in the surprise and murder of scattered settlers, or in a guerilla warfare against outposts and small detachments of the troops; on our part, it consisted in a series of attacks on their fortified pahs, or stockades, and in the securing of our flanks and rear by the construction of good military roads. In some cases pahs were stormed with little loss; but the troops were not always so fortunate. The Maori position of Orakau (April, 1864) cost us a loss of sixteen killed and fifty-two wounded to storm; and in an attack on a strong pah at Tauranga, on the north coast, the troops were actually repulsed, with a loss of ten officers and twenty-five rank and file killed, and four officers and seventy-two rank and file wounded. The pah was evacuated by the Maories on the following night, and they were soon after routed with heavy loss while endeavouring to entrench themselves near Tauranga. The Maoris of this district soon afterwards (August, 1864) submitted themselves unconditionally to the Governor, who expressed his intention of dealing leniently with them. The war was thus at an end on the north coast, but lingered on for some time longer in the Waikato country and around Taranaki.

In China, the rebellion of the Taepings was this year almost entirely suppressed, chiefly through the aid of British officers. An Order in Council had been passed authorising British subjects to enter into the service of the Emperor of China; and Colonel Gordon, taking advantage of the order, assisted by other English and American officers, drilled and disciplined a body of Chinese soldiers in the European fashion, and employed them in driving the Taepings and other disorderly characters beyond the thirty-five mile radius which had been stipulated for on behalf of the treaty ports. Following up his advantage, and co-operating with the military mandarins, Gordon, in the summer of 1864, aided them to reduce the town of Soochow, the last stronghold of the Taepings, of whom 30,000, including women and children, were cruelly massacred by the mandarins after the surrender. When the news of the massacre reached the British Government, the Order in Council authorising British subjects to enter the Chinese service was immediately revoked. This, however, did not avert a severe arraignment of their policy in Parliament, in which the Opposition were joined by several non-intervention Radicals. Lord Palmerston's reply was cogent and unanswerable. He pointed out that the general policy of Great Britain towards China was guided by the principle of the extension of commerce, and all the interferences of the Government had been rendered necessary by circumstances connected with the protection of the[352] mercantile interests of Englishmen. As to the cruelty and perfidy of the imperialists, however that might be, the Taepings were infinitely the worse of the two, each of them possessing the normal characteristics of the Chinese.

In Japan several more horrid murders of Englishmen were committed by fanatical natives during the year; and an attempt was made, which was only partially successful, to destroy the batteries of Simonosaki. These batteries commanded the entrance into the inland sea of Japan, and the ruler of the place was in the habit of trying their range on any foreign vessel, of whatever nationality, that attempted to pass. An expedition, consisting of British, French, and Dutch ships-of-war, was organised at Yokohama and, sailing to Simonosaki, subjected the batteries to a heavy cannonade (September 5th), which was, however, vigorously returned and with considerable loss to the expedition. Parties of sailors and marines landed, spiked the guns in some of the batteries, and brought others, to the number of sixty, with three mortars, on board the ships. On the 10th of September a Minister from the ruler of the country, the Prince of Nagato, came off, armed with full powers to conclude a convention, which was ultimately arranged on the following terms:—(1) That the Strait of Simonosaki should be opened to the vessels of all nations; (2) that the shore batteries should neither be armed nor repaired; (3) that the Allied Powers should receive an indemnity, the amount of which was to be fixed by their representatives at Jeddo.

An appalling calamity befell the capital of our Indian empire in the autumn of this year. On the morning of the 5th of October a heavy gale set in from the north-east at Calcutta; gradually it veered round to the eastward, increasing in fury all the time, then to the southward, and finally to the south-west, so as to leave no doubt that it was a true cyclone, or revolving storm. Nearly all the churches and chapels in Calcutta were unroofed or otherwise seriously damaged, and scarcely a house in the city escaped without some injury. The native huts, especially in the suburbs, were nearly all blown down. Except the cocoa-nut and other palms, hardly a tree was anywhere left standing after the storm had passed away. The beautiful avenues in Fort William were entirely destroyed and the Eden Gardens turned into a wilderness. But it was on the river that the storm was attended with the most disastrous consequences. Of more than two hundred ships in the Hooghly, it was said that only ten were left at their moorings after the storm, the rest having been stranded or sunk. The Bengal, one of the Peninsular and Oriental Company's steamers, another British steamer, and a French ship were fairly lifted up and deposited on shore. The total loss of life was very considerable, but does not appear to have been accurately ascertained. In the city and suburbs of Calcutta it was reported at forty-one natives, and two Europeans, besides some twenty seriously wounded by the fall of their houses, and some hundreds of lives were lost on the river. Great distress ensued owing to the scarcity of food, and a relief fund was promptly opened in England and the three Presidencies. In one day Bombay subscribed no less than £10,000.

[353]

AMALIENBORG PALACE, COPENHAGEN.

## CHAPTER XXIII.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

THE series of transactions on which we have now to enter is one in regard to which few Englishmen, even of those most wedded to the principle of non-intervention, can look back to the part played by their country without pain and some degree of misgiving. In 1864, Schleswig and Holstein, provinces that had been dependent on the crown of Denmark (though under different titles), the first since 1027, the second since 1386, were invaded and overrun by the armed hosts of Austria and Prussia, and forcibly severed from the Danish crown. This was done in disregard of the remonstrances and in defiance of the menaces of England, and in spite of the known disapproval of France. But first for the sake of clearness, a few geographical details may properly be given. Continental Denmark consisted, before the war of 1864, of four provinces—Jutland, in the extreme north; Schleswig to the south of Jutland, bounded on the south by the river Eider; Holstein between the Eider and the Elbe; and Lauenburg, a small province to the east of Holstein, lying between it and Mecklenburg. The[354] language and nationality of Denmark proper are wholly Danish; in Schleswig the population is pretty nearly divided between those who speak Danish and those who speak German, the former occupying the northern, the latter the southern districts of the duchy. Holstein and Lauenburg are wholly German. In religious profession there was no difference of any moment throughout the Danish monarchy; Lutheranism was the prevailing creed of Danes and Germans alike.

Let us now trace back to its origin the connection of the Duchies with Denmark. In the fourteenth century Schleswig, which had previously been conquered by Denmark, was ceded to a Count of Holstein, on the condition that it should never be united to Denmark. Thus the Count-Duke, while still owing allegiance to the German Empire in respect of Holstein, did homage to the Sovereign of Denmark for the Duchy of Schleswig. His line expired in 1375, when it was succeeded by a branch of the House of Oldenburg. In 1448 Duke Adolf's eldest nephew, Count Christian of Oldenburg, had been raised to the throne of Denmark, and soon afterwards, probably not without pressure from his uncle, he confirmed the Constitution, first made in 1326, to the effect that Schleswig should never be united to the Danish Crown. Moreover, when, by Adolf's death, the ducal throne was vacant, the Landrath, or Estates, of Schleswig-Holstein, with whom by ancient constitutional right the choice of a new ruler rested, met in 1460, and elected their late Duke's nephew, Christian I., King of Denmark, to be their Duke, "not as a King of Denmark, but out of affection towards his person." A personal union was thus established between Denmark and Schleswig, which was tolerably well respected during the next two centuries. The incoming King of Denmark was elected, as a matter of course, Duke of Schleswig (and also Count of Holstein), provided that he first swore to ratify the ancient rights and privileges of the united lands. But the union between Denmark and Schleswig became gradually closer, and was extended, in 1533, to offensive as well as defensive alliance. The arrangement was confirmed in 1773, when Schleswig-Holstein reverted to Denmark under the same conditions as had held good under Christian I.

After 1773 there is nothing in the relations between Denmark and Schleswig that need detain us until we come down to the nineteenth century. During the disruption of the German Empire in 1806 the Duchies were formally incorporated into his kingdom by Christian VII., and even after 1815 the German Diet declined to interfere at the request of the Holsteiners. The old Estates having long before come to an end by desuetude, Frederic VI., in 1831 and 1834, granted separate constitutional Chambers to Schleswig and Holstein, by which they were accepted and worked till February, 1848. After 1835, the probability of the extinction of the male line of the House of Oldenburg, through the eventual death without issue of Frederic, only surviving son of Christian VIII., became stronger with each succeeding year. To keep the Danish monarchy together became, therefore, the one paramount object of Danish statesmanship. At first the Danish Court thought of persuading or bribing the Duke of Sonderburg-Augustenburg, representing the younger branch of the elder or royal line of the House of Oldenburg, to whom, if females were excluded, both Schleswig and Holstein would descend at the failure of male heirs in the royal line, to resign his right to the succession. This plan was abandoned by Christian VIII., who appointed a special commission to examine the ancient laws, treaties, and other historic documents in the Danish archives. The result of the commission appeared in the King's letters patent of 8th July, 1846, in which Christian VIII. stated it as his firm conviction that, so far as Schleswig was concerned, in consequence of the letters patent of 1721, and the homage then done, the succession in Schleswig was now the same as in Denmark, and that he should exercise and maintain his right accordingly; while, in regard to Holstein, or certain parts of it, there existed facts militating against an equally positive opinion.

In the ferment that arose in every capital of Europe after the Revolution in Paris of February, 1848, a violent Danish national feeling manifested itself at Copenhagen, and forced the King, Frederic VII., to issue a proclamation declaring that Denmark and Schleswig were thenceforth to form an inseparable union under a common free constitution. The Duchies, incited by a strong democratic and national feeling that had arisen in Germany, regarded this proclamation as a breach of their Constitution, and broke out into rebellion. They were aided, but in a hesitating, irresolute way, by the King of Prussia, and carried on the war with Denmark with various success to the end of the summer of 1850. By the end of 1849 Austria had subdued both Hungary and Sardinia, and had now leisure to look after her interests in Germany. She disapproved of the advances which[355] Frederic William had made to the German democracy, and of his making war on Denmark, and convened a meeting of the Diet at Frankfort with the view of counteracting Prussian schemes. The weak King immediately yielded, especially as Russia was giving urgently and imperiously the same advice, abandoned the Duchies, made peace with Denmark (July 2nd, 1850), and actually assisted her in the task of subjugation. The Duchies resolved to continue the war, but they were defeated in a great battle and soon afterwards compelled to submit. Schleswig was thus recovered; but the Danish troops halted on the frontier of Holstein, in obedience to an article in the Treaty of the 2nd of July, 1850, requiring Denmark to apply for the intervention of the Bund before resorting to hostilities against Holstein. This application was made; and, in reply to it, an Austro-Prussian army, acting in the name of the Bund, marched into Holstein and required the de facto Government to lay down its arms. Thus was the whole of Schleswig-Holstein pacified (January 11, 1851); but military occupation of Holstein was still retained by the German Powers, pending the attainment of a definitive arrangement for the affairs of the Duchies. Negotiations were at once opened between the King of Denmark, on the one part, and Austria and Prussia, representing the Bund, on the other part, and were protracted through the whole of the year 1851. By the Protocol of London of August, 1850, and the Treaty of 1852, the succession to the Kingdom and Duchies was assigned to Prince Christian of Glucksburg; the integrity of the whole Danish monarchy was declared permanent, but the rights of the German Confederation in respect of Holstein and Schleswig were reserved. This arrangement was mainly the work of Lord Palmerston, and was signed by England, France, Austria, Russia, Sweden, and Denmark. Count Vitzthum, in "St. Petersburg and London," declares that it was imposed upon him by Russia as the price for the Czar's acquiescence in his coercion of Greece; but there is no reason for supposing that he was acting otherwise than proprio motu.

The matter thus seemed to be settled, but it really was not. For, in the first place, all that the Princess Louise, niece to Christian VIII. and wife of Christian of Glucksburg, could surrender to any one was her right to the succession in Denmark (and possibly in Schleswig); she had no right whatever to the succession in Holstein, because that could only pass to male heirs. Secondly, it was highly questionable in law whether the Princess could execute a valid renunciation of her rights in favour of one who did not stand next in the order of succession to herself, without the consent of those whose right intervened between her and him; but no such consent was ever obtained. Thirdly, the Duke of Augustenburg might with some reason allege that his abandonment of his rights was not made freely, but under compulsion, or else one of his sons (as actually happened) might declare that his father's act did not bind him. Fourthly, even supposing the renunciation of the Duke of Augustenburg and his family to be persevered in, there were other Princes of the Sonderburg line whose rights, at any rate to the Holstein succession, were prior to that of Prince Christian, and who had not renounced those rights. Fifthly, and chiefly, the German Confederation was not a party to the Treaty of London; it was therefore free to resist the arrangement it contained, if it considered the interests of Holstein and the Bund to require it.

Yet, after all, the arrangements provided by the Treaty of London would probably have resulted in a solid settlement, had not the relations between the Danish Government and the German population of the Duchies, during the eleven years following the Treaty of London, become strained and embittered to a dangerous extent. For this result Denmark was chiefly responsible, and it was in flagrant breach of the Treaty of London, by which Denmark was pledged to observe the ancient rights of the Duchies. The majority in the Rigsraad was largely influenced by the views of the Eider Dane party, a set of politicians fanatically bent upon the elevation and extension of the Scandinavian nationality. This party, unable to expel from their minds the feelings of animosity which the war had engendered, regarded the German inhabitants of the Duchies as the population of a conquered country, and resolved, so far as they dared, and in spite of the engagements by which their King was bound to Austria and Prussia, to make them feel and taste their subjection. The protective Danish tariff was extended to both Duchies, their revenue appropriated to the interests of the kingdom; their military establishment, hitherto kept separate from the Danish forces, was incorporated in that army. The best offices in Schleswig were given to Danes. In the churches and schools of Schleswig the Danish language was substituted for the German, even in districts where not one in twenty understood a word of Danish, and the inhabitants were prohibited from employing private German teachers[356] in their families. It is therefore abundantly clear that the engagement, by which Denmark had pledged her word to Austria and Prussia that "the German and Danish nationalities in Schleswig should meet with equal protection," was not kept. Nor can it be reasonably doubted that the engagement—"That all ties of a non-political kind between Holstein and Schleswig should remain intact"—was not faithfully observed. But, in point of form, it was not the breach of either of these engagements, but that of a third, binding Denmark to submit the common Constitution of the monarchy to the previous examination of the four local Diets, which led directly to the Federal execution and all its momentous consequences. The sequence of events was as follows:—A common Constitution for the monarchy was framed in 1854, and having passed the Danish Parliament, was published by Royal Ordinance (October 2nd, 1855), for the Duchies of Holstein, Schleswig, and Lauenburg, without any previous consultation of their Diets. The matter was taken up by the German Federal Diet, which, in 1858, declared that by Federal law the common Constitution proclaimed in 1855 was illegal, so far as Holstein and Lauenburg were concerned, because it had not been assented to by the Legislatures of these States, and decreed a Federal execution in Holstein in case of the non-abrogation of that Constitution. After many endeavours to evade compliance, Denmark (November, 1858) did abrogate the common Constitution, so far as Holstein and Schleswig were concerned. The execution was accordingly stayed (1860), but on the understanding that the king and his Holstein subjects would in concert frame some arrangement by which, in a manner acceptable to them and to the Diet, Holstein might participate in the common Constitution. But on the 30th of March, 1863, the king published, of his own mere motion, a proclamation fixing the future position of Holstein in the monarchy. The ruling idea of this proclamation was, that since Holstein would not come in to the common Constitution on Denmark's terms, and since it was backed up by the Bund in this resolve, it must be allowed to remain outside; while, as between Denmark and Schleswig, the common Constitution of 1855 should still be maintained. The most important clause was this: That, as regarded the common affairs of the monarchy, the legislative power should be exercised by the king and the Holstein Diet conjointly. The effect of the proclamation was—or would have been—the severance of the Danish monarchy into two distinct groups, united by the personal nexus only—the line of intersection falling between Holstein and Schleswig. When this proclamation became known in Germany, it aroused a strenuous spirit of opposition. The Diet, in July, demanded the retractation of the Ordinance of March 30th, and on the Danish Government's refusal to comply, decreed that Federal execution should take place with the due forms. So far from attempting to appease the rising wrath of Germany, the Danish Government made matters worse by issuing (November 18th) a new Constitution for Denmark and Schleswig, intended to complete the scheme of government which the Patent of March 30th had commenced.

On the 7th of December the Diet voted for immediate execution, and entrusted the fulfilment of its mandate to Saxon and Hanoverian troops. Denmark then withdrew the Ordinance of March 30th; but the excitement in Germany had by this time risen to such a point that the execution could no longer be stayed, though its character was somewhat altered. The Danish troops quietly marched out of every town of Holstein just before the Germans marched in. In most places the Danish arms were then taken down, and the Schleswig-Holstein tricolour was hoisted; but the execution was completed without bloodshed, and on the last day of the year the troops of the Bund were facing the Danes along the line of the Eider.

It is now time to ask what part Britain had been taking in the transactions and negotiations that had resulted in so grave a complication. In September, 1862, Lord Russell had proposed, with reference to the dispute between the Bund and Denmark as to the common Constitution, that the schedule of "common affairs" should be greatly curtailed, and that a large part of what had been hitherto deemed such should be placed within the legislative competence of the local Diets. This proposal Denmark had rejected, on the ground that its adoption must inevitably lead either to anarchy or to a return to arbitrary government. Again, in July, 1863, some days after the decree of the Bund ordering execution in Holstein, Lord Palmerston, then Prime Minister, had declared, in his place in Parliament, with reference to the proceedings of the German Powers, that (in certain circumstances) "it would not be with Denmark alone they would have to contend." This public declaration inspired the Danes with a firm confidence that England would come to their assistance in case of need, and doubtless made them resist the demands of[357] Germany more obstinately. The despatches of Lord Russell to Lord Bloomfield at Vienna (July 31st) and to Sir Alexander Malet at Frankfort (September 29th) assume a high—almost a menacing—tone. Taught, however, by their experience of British intervention in favour of Poland, German diplomatists were not disturbed by the vehemence of tone that characterised the despatches from the British Foreign Office. Baron von der Pfordten, the Bavarian Envoy to the Diet, told Sir Alexander Malet one day that "he looked on Earl Russell's despatches as so much waste paper." Still the greater German Powers thought it expedient to proceed with caution; and as Lord Russell, in a Memorandum dated November 24th, 1863, had said that "should it appear that Federal troops had entered the Duchy on international grounds, her Majesty's Government might be obliged to interfere," Austria and Prussia persuaded the Diet to proceed by way of execution, and not, as Bavaria and other States would have wished, by way of "prise de possession"—a formally hostile and therefore international act. Up to the end of 1863, then, although British remonstrances had not met with much attention, the general policy of Great Britain in regard to Denmark had not suffered a defeat.

LORD PALMERSTON. (From a Photograph by Fradelle & Young.)

But even before the execution an event had occurred that aggravated tenfold the difficulties of the situation. Frederic VII., King of Denmark, died suddenly on November 15, 1863. On the next day Prince Frederic of Augustenburg, son of a Duke of Augustenburg who had accepted a sum of money for his forfeited estates from Denmark in 1852, and agreed not to oppose the new succession, issued a proclamation, addressed to the[358] "Schleswig-Holsteiners," in which he claimed the succession to both Duchies. The minor States of Germany were inclined to support him; for an independent German State of Schleswig-Holstein would have been an accession of strength to their party in the Diet, and helped them to stand their ground against their two great overbearing confederates, Austria and Prussia. But by this time Count Bismarck, whose one guiding thought was the aggrandisement of the Prussian monarchy out of all these complications, had decided upon his policy. For some months in 1863 the minor States had carried matters their own way; and Baron von der Pfordten, the Bavarian envoy, the ablest exponent of their policy, was for a time the most powerful man in Germany. But now Bismarck, having secured the cordial support of Austria by guaranteeing, on the part of Prussia, the integrity of her possessions, proceeded to take the initiative. On the 28th of December Prussia and Austria proposed to the Diet that since the new Danish Constitution of the 18th of November amounted to a distinct violation of the pledge given in 1851-2, not to incorporate Schleswig with Denmark, nor to take any steps leading thereto, the Diet should, upon international grounds, order the military occupation of Schleswig, as a material pledge for the fulfilment by Denmark of her engagements. Bismarck had probably satisfied himself that no opposition of a material kind would be offered by England in any circumstances; or else, now that Prussia was firmly allied with Austria, he did not fear such opposition. No action was taken by the Diet on this proposal for the moment, and a few days afterwards it was renewed with greater urgency by the two Governments, on the ground that the 1st of January, 1864, was the day on which the new Constitution was fixed to come into force. The minor States had different views; they wished first to get Duke Frederic firmly enthroned in Holstein, after which they would have proceeded quietly to take up the question of Schleswig. When the proposal came to be voted upon in the Diet (January 14, 1864), a combination of the minor States rejected it by a majority of 11 to 5. The representatives of Austria and Prussia then informed the Diet that their Governments intended to carry out the proposal in spite of the adverse vote.

Yielding to the advice of Lord Russell, the Danes had offered no resistance to the execution; but when—probably after hearing of the proposal made to the Diet by Austria and Prussia on the 28th of December—the Foreign Secretary sent Lord Wodehouse to Copenhagen to induce the Danish Government to revoke the Constitution of the 18th of November, the mission was ineffectual. In a despatch of the 31st of December Lord Russell proposed to the Diet that a conference of representatives of the Powers who signed the Treaty of London, together with a representative of the Bund, should meet and take into their consideration the points in dispute between Denmark and Germany; and that in the meantime, and until the conference had finished its labours, the status quo should be maintained. The proposal was received with cold disapproval by most of the members of the Diet, and Sir Alexander Malet wrote, a few days afterwards (January 8th, 1864), "there is an absolute persuasion that England will not interfere materially, and our counsels, regarded as unfriendly, have no weight."

Prussia and Austria, having announced their intention of acting independently of the Diet, carried out their plans with energy and celerity. The Danes saw the gathering storm, yet made no sign of yielding. The truth is, Denmark reckoned with tolerable confidence on receiving material aid from the Western Powers, particularly from England; and this hope was encouraged by the knowledge that Earl Russell was indefatigable in writing to, and sounding the intentions of, nearly every Court in Europe, and that in a despatch to Paris he had spoken of "material assistance" to Denmark to prevent her dismemberment. The Danes also placed considerable reliance on the strength of the Dannewerke, an immense system of earthworks, strengthened by forts, but it was carried on the 5th of February. Retreating northwards, the Danes concentrated under the guns of the fortress of Fredericia, on the borders of Schleswig and Jutland, and behind the lines of Düppel, which command the approach to the island of Alsen. On the 7th of February Wrangel, commander of the Austro-Prussian army, issued a proclamation announcing that Austrian and Prussian commissioners would administer the civil government of Schleswig, and ordered that the German language should be thenceforth used in all branches of the administration. The fortified lines of Düppel were stubbornly defended by the Danes, and their gradual reduction was not effected without severe loss to the assailants. On the 18th of April the last remaining bastions were stormed, and the Prussians became masters of the place. The main body of the Danish army, or rather garrison, retreated into Jutland, leaving a pretty[359] strong force to occupy Alsen. Fredericia, which had been expected to offer a serious resistance, was evacuated soon after the fall of Düppel, the garrison crossing over into Fünen. The Prussians, satisfied with having taken Düppel, made for the present no attempt upon Alsen, and there was a pause in the strife.

The only expedient which seems to have occurred to Earl Russell was to write (February 10th) to Berlin, urging that the belligerents—the war having lasted exactly ten days—should agree to an armistice! The request was, it need hardly be added, ineffectual. But now the Danish Government took measures formally to remind Lord Russell of the obligations under which England lay. M. Torben Bille, the Danish Minister in London, in a despatch, dated February 11th, 1864, stated that his Government indulged the hope that Earl Russell appreciated the steps which Denmark had taken with a view to the maintenance of peace, seeing that these steps had been taken by the Danish Government on the pressing advice of the Cabinet of London; that, however, the pacific desires of Denmark had been frustrated by the ambition of Austria and Prussia, and war had actually broken out; that in this war Denmark, if unaided, must eventually be crushed by the overwhelming numerical superiority of her opponents; that it was necessary, therefore, that, while there was yet time, the Powers friendly to Denmark should come to her aid, "and among those Powers there is none which the Danish Government address with more confidence than England." This was a categorical request, and the chilling reply which it elicited from Lord Russell must have been a bitter mortification to the overmatched and harassed Danes. After admitting generally that Denmark had followed the advice of the British Government, without which that Government "could not have given even its good offices to Denmark to prevent, if possible, the outbreak of hostilities," Lord Russell remarked that, as to "the request that friendly Powers should come to the assistance of Denmark, her Majesty's Government could only say that every step they might think it right to take in the further progress of this unhappy contest could only be taken after full consideration and communication with France and Russia." Such a reply plainly foreshadowed that Great Britain did not intend to fulfil her engagements if other Powers did not fulfil theirs.

Still there can be no doubt that Government felt a real reluctance to abandon Denmark to its fate; and if France had shown any zeal in the matter, it seems not improbable that intervention would have gone the length of material assistance. But the French Emperor had been not a little mortified by Lord Russell's abrupt and decided rejection of his proposal for a general Congress of Powers, made in the autumn of 1863. That proposal, starting from the assumption that the Treaties of 1815 were "upon almost all points destroyed, modified, misunderstood, or menaced," urged the expediency of a joint endeavour, on the part of the nations of Europe, "to regulate the present and secure the future in a Congress." No other European Power, great or small, had absolutely rejected the Emperor's proposal; most had assented to it on the condition of a previous definition of the subjects that should be laid before the Congress; but Lord Russell's unconditional refusal had caused the scheme to fall through. The feeling of mortification thence arising in the mind of the French Emperor led him to view the diplomatic efforts of Great Britain on behalf of Denmark with coldness, and her proposal for a limited Conference on Danish affairs with little favour. Still France, like Great Britain, was bound by the Treaty of 1720, and the fidelity of the Danes to the first Napoleon, and the sufferings which they had undergone in his cause, constituted a moral claim that ought not to have been lightly disregarded. But the Emperor was also deeply mortified by the refusal of Great Britain to interfere on behalf of Poland; accordingly, when Lord Clarendon went to Paris, he was informed, without much circumlocution, that France did not intend to stir in the matter of assisting the helpless Danes.

It may, however, be questioned whether, considering the small number of troops that England could bring into the field, there was any chance of a material intervention being successful in the face of the numerous battalions of two great military monarchies. Had both Austria and Prussia entered into the design of despoiling Denmark with equal heartiness, it may be admitted that material intervention on our part, though it might have retarded, would not have prevented, the catastrophe. But this was not the case; the Austrian Government was acting in the matter rather from a jealous disinclination to allow Prussia to take the lead and decide by herself questions in which German feeling was so deeply engaged, than because it desired to turn Denmark out of a Duchy which had been linked to it for 800 years. It is also nearly certain that Russia[360] and Sweden, whose people sided most warmly with Denmark, would have immediately joined us had we resolved upon giving material aid. Both Russell and Palmerston wished to risk the chance, but their colleagues declined to countenance the step. Accordingly no action was attempted, though Palmerston made what he called "a notch off his own bat" by informing the Austrian Minister, Count Apponyi, that if the Austrian fleet sailed along the British coast and went to the assistance of the Prussians in the Baltic, he, for one, would not endure such an affront. Even this threat produced a strenuous remonstrance from Lord Granville.

The exertions of the Foreign Secretary to procure the consent of the belligerents and other great Powers to a Conference were at last crowned with a certain measure of success. Austria and Prussia agreed to the Conference but without an armistice. The first meeting was held on the 25th of April, and the prime immediate object of the plenipotentiaries of the non-belligerent Powers was to obtain a suspension of hostilities. Denmark at first insisted that during the armistice her fleets should be allowed to maintain the blockade of the German ports, as an equivalent for the military occupation of the Duchies; but to this the German Powers would not consent. Ultimately Denmark, pressed by Lord Russell, consented to give up the blockade, and an armistice was arranged to last from the 12th of May to the 12th of June. It is painful to trace the course of the negotiations that followed, and their complete futility may dispense us from the task of doing so at any considerable length. It soon became clear that the German Powers deemed the Treaty of 1852 to have been cancelled by the outbreak of war, and the envoy of the Diet declared that Germany would not consent to the re-union of the Duchies to Denmark under any conditions whatever. Austria and Prussia proposed that Schleswig and Holstein should form an independent single State, under the sovereignty of Prince Frederick of Augustenburg; but such a solution the Danish Plenipotentiaries declared to be wholly inadmissible. Lord Russell then brought forward the English proposal, which was that Holstein, Lauenburg, and the southern part of Schleswig, as far as the Schlei and the line of the Dannewerke, should be separated from the Danish monarchy. This arrangement, to the principle of which the Danish Plenipotentiaries acceded, would have left Denmark in possession of about three-fourths of the Duchy of Schleswig. The negotiations being now placed upon the basis of a partition of territory, the neutral Powers obtained with great difficulty the extension of the armistice from the 12th to the 26th of June. Austria and Prussia agreed to a partition, but insisted that the line of demarcation should be traced from Apenrade to Tondern, thus leaving less than half of the Duchy to Denmark, and depriving her of the purely Danish island of Alsen. Denmark would not yield this, and Prussia and Austria would concede no more. On the 18th of June, eight days before the expiration of the armistice, Lord Russell proposed that the question of boundary should be referred to the arbitration of a friendly Power, but to this neither belligerent would consent. Finally, the French Plenipotentiary proposed that the method of plébiscite, or popular vote, should be resorted to, and that the votes of the communes in Schleswig should be taken on the question whether they preferred continued union with Denmark or separation. The Danish Envoy, M. de Quaade, positively negatived this proposal, which was also extremely unpleasing to Austria, in whose Italian dominions the application of the principle of the plébiscite would have instantly terminated her rule. Thus the debates of the Conference came to an end, having produced no result.

The remainder of this melancholy history may be told in a few words. Hostilities recommenced, and on the 29th of June the Prussians forced their way across the narrow sound which divides the island of Alsen from the mainland, and stormed with great gallantry the fieldworks that had been thrown up on the opposite shore. The Prussians carried the position, but the greater part of the Danes made good their escape out of the island. The strong fortress of Fredericia had previously been abandoned; the Prussians were preparing to cross to Fünen; and now nothing remained for the Danes, isolated as they were and without hope of aid, but to submit. Negotiations were opened immediately at Vienna, and on the 1st of August the preliminaries of peace were signed, and embodied in the following October in a formal treaty—the Treaty of Vienna. Denmark ceded Schleswig, Holstein, and Lauenburg, without reserve, to the Emperor of Austria and King of Prussia. Though thus compelled to ratify her own spoliation, the brave little kingdom came out of the struggle with honour, and with an undiminished right to the respect of Europe: it were much to be wished that of all the neutral Powers that looked on and did nothing the same could be said. During the second spell of war Russell[361] made several applications to the Emperor of the French to induce him to interfere in concert with England. At one moment Napoleon wavered, but when Russell discovered that his projects embraced the liberation of Venetia and the conquest of the left bank of the Rhine, he as abruptly withdrew his overtures. Accordingly the war ended in the complete humiliation of British diplomacy. But Prussia declined to surrender the Duchies to the Augustenburg candidate, much to the indignation of the German Diet, and it was clear that another appeal to arms must occur before the spoils could be divided.

THE FIGHT BETWEEN THE "ALABAMA" AND THE "KEARSARGE." (See p. 361.)

Meanwhile, stirring events were in progress in the New World. In Mexico the Archduke Maximilian, having in an evil hour accepted the fatal gift of Napoleon, assumed the Imperial crown, and, aided by French bayonets, proceeded to put down the resistance of the Juarists. But clearly his position was tenable only whilst the expeditionary corps remained, and the American Republic was occupied by its internal dissensions. There, however, the end was in sight, thanks to the overwhelming resources of the North. It is true that the Confederates snatched marked successes in the outlying districts of the vast territory, but in Virginia Grant made good his threat—"I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all the summer," and, though Lee's masterly disposal of his forces thwarted the advance upon Richmond and the capture of Petersburg, the Confederate strength was being rapidly drained. In Western Virginia Grant's subordinate, Sheridan, easily held his own against Early and then proceeded to lay waste the territory. Meanwhile Sherman was executing his famous march into Georgia, by which he cut his way through the heart of the enemy's territory, and divided it in twain by a broad belt of wasted country. His progress was facilitated by the substitution of the rash Hood for the cautious Johnston, and, thanks to the incapacity of that general, Savannah, one of the most important towns in the Confederacy, was Sherman's before the end of the year. The naval transactions comprised an action between the notorious Alabama and the Kearsarge, which[362] resulted in the former being sunk off Cherbourg, while the capture of the Mobile forts closed one of the few harbours still open to blockade-runners. The re-election of President Lincoln for a further term of office showed that the North was not going to blench when the supreme crisis was at hand.

An unpleasant incident occurred in the autumn, which, but for the firm and moderate attitude of Mr. Lincoln, might easily have involved us in a serious difficulty with the United States. A considerable number of Confederate refugees had gradually gathered in Canada, men rendered desperate by the wreck of their property and the misfortunes of their country. Some twenty-five of these men, in the month of October, crossed the border into the State of Vermont, and entering the little town of St. Albans in the dead of night attacked and plundered the bank, shooting dead several of the townspeople, and escaping back into Canada. They were soon arrested by the Canadian authorities and the money was recovered. The case being an important one, it was removed from the jurisdiction of the magistrates of St. John's to that of the Supreme Court at Montreal and a writ of habeas corpus was refused. The American Consul, Mr. Edmonds, was instructed to demand their extradition, but this was refused on legal grounds and an investigation was instituted into the affair under the Ashburton Treaty. In the end Judge Coursol decided that his court had no jurisdiction in the case and ordered the release of the raiders from custody. The Canadian Government wisely resolved that so flagrant a miscarriage of justice should not be permitted; in fact, their law advisers gave it as their opinion that the Judge's decision was bad in law; and accordingly warrants were issued for the reapprehension of the criminals. But the news of the Judge's decision, releasing the raiders, had reached New York before the subsequent conduct of the Canadian Government was announced, and it aroused, not unnaturally, great excitement and indignation. However, in his message to the new Congress (December 6, 1864) Mr. Lincoln expressly stated that the colonial authorities of Canada were not deemed to be internationally unjust or unfriendly towards the United States; but that, on the contrary, there was every reason to expect that, with the approval of the home Government, they would take the necessary measures to prevent new excursions across the border. These anticipations were fully justified by the subsequent conduct of the Canadian Government. A strong force of militia was stationed at various points along the frontier, several of the raiders were arrested under the warrant for their re-apprehension, the Court at Montreal reversed its former decision and declared that it had jurisdiction, those captured were tried anew, and at least one of them was adjudged on the evidence to be guilty of robbery and ordered to be given up to the United States.

[363]

## CHAPTER XXIV.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

> The National Prosperity in 1865—Debate on the Malt Tax—Remission of Fire Insurance Duty—Mr. Gladstone's Budget—The Army and Navy Estimates—Academic Discussions of large Questions—Mr. Lowe on Reform—The Union Chargeability Bill—The New Law Courts Bill—Debate on University Tests—The Catholic Oaths Bill—Other Ecclesiastical Discussions—The Edmunds Scandal—The Wilde Scandal—Mr. Ward Hunt's Motion—Lord Westbury resigns—The General Election—Mr. Mill and Mr. Gladstone—Result of the Polls—Fictitious Prosperity of Trade—The Rinderpest—Suggestions of the Commissioners—Inaction of the Government—Spread of the Disease—The Fenian Conspiracy—Its Constitution—Lord Wodehouse's Measures—Raid upon the Office of the Irish People—Stephens the Head-Centre—His Arrest and Escape from Richmond Gaol—The Special Commission—Trial of Luby—Documents and Informers—Obituary of the Year—Lord Palmerston and Mr. Cobden.

WHEN Parliament met for the Session of 1865 the Lord Chancellor truly described in a few words the state of Great Britain. "Her Majesty," said the Queen's Speech, "commands us to inform you that the general state of the country is satisfactory, and that the revenue realises its estimated amount." In truth, the opening of the year was as calm, both at home and abroad, as could possibly be, excepting the echoes of storm that still continued to be heard in the West. India was prosperous, save for the cyclone that broke over Calcutta a few months before. In one only of the colonies, New Zealand, was anything visibly disturbed, and there the Maori war seemed to have passed its climax. At home, Lancashire distress had abated; the harvest had been good; the public purse was full. Everybody, so far as politics was concerned, was waiting quietly for the dissolution of Parliament, for which, as Lord Derby said, "all its experienced advisers could do was to find it some gentle occupation, and take care that its dying moments were not disturbed by any unnecessary excitement."

In financial matters, before Mr. Gladstone brought forward his Budget, there had been two important debates in the House of Commons which bore upon it. The first was that on a resolution moved by Sir Fitzroy Kelly, afterwards Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer, to the effect, "That in any future remission of indirect taxation, this House should take into consideration the duty on malt, with a view to its immediate reduction and ultimate repeal." The malt duty, from which at that time the revenue received six or seven millions sterling a year, had always been more or less of a grievance to the agriculturists; and the representatives of agricultural constituencies were ever ready to argue against it. Sir F. Kelly and his supporters—Sir E. B. Lytton, the novelist, being his seconder—brought forward several plausible arguments for his motion, principally selected or parodied from the grammar of Free Trade. But Mr. Neate, the member for Oxford, always notable in the House for the crotchety cleverness with which he handled questions of political economy, turned the tables upon the landed interest by an amendment. He moved, "That considering the immunities from taxation now enjoyed by the owners and occupiers of land, they are not entitled to any special consideration on account of the pecuniary pressure of the malt tax; and that if, on other grounds, that tax should be reduced or abolished, compensation to the revenue should be sought, in the first instance, by withdrawing from landed property the advantage it now has in the shape of total exemption from probate duty, and partial exemption from succession duty and income tax." This, however, the House of Commons could not stand; it was too much, at least for an unreformed Parliament. The supporters of the Government—especially Mr. Milner Gibson, who was its spokesman—contented themselves with attacking the resolution and left the amendment alone. The question was met on two grounds—first, that the revenue could not afford to do without it; and secondly, that though malt was a raw material, stimulants and their components were fit subjects for taxation. Sir Fitzroy Kelly's motion was rejected, the previous question having been carried by a majority of 251 to 170.

The other point in which it was proposed to give an instruction to the Government as to the disposal of part of the surplus was Mr. R. B. Sheridan's motion for extending last year's remission of the fire insurance duty to "houses, household goods, and all descriptions of insurable property." This resolution was carried by a large majority, though the Chancellor of the Exchequer opposed it, thinking it rash to bind the Government to any special course before the exact surplus was known. The vote secured that Mr. Gladstone should[364] carry out the reduction in question in his Budget. When the day came for the Budget to be presented, Mr. Gladstone found himself, as usual, in the presence of a crowded and eager House. He did not disappoint his hearers. His Budget speech was, in the words of one of his admirers, one of those "deliverances, crammed with arithmetic and argument, epigram and eloquence, figures and fancy," which he and no other Finance Minister that ever lived in England knew well how to give. In this instance Mr. Gladstone had an unusual opportunity for effective display, from the fact of Parliament having arrived at the end of its existence; he had five previous years spread out before him for review, and could strike out brilliant comparisons and draw large inferences at his pleasure. Some of his figures may be given. He said that the actual expenditure of the year that had just elapsed was £65,951,000, a reduction of £1,514,000 upon the first year of that Parliament and that Ministry, and a reduction of £6,547,000 upon the year 1860-61, when the alarms consequent on the Italian War had caused us to spend vast sums upon the army and navy. As to a comparison between revenue and expenditure, he found himself with a surplus in hand of £3,231,000. Customs, Excise, and all other great heads of revenue had given more than their estimated amount, Excise especially yielding a million and a half of increase. The prosperity of the country he tested on an even larger scale than this, by a comparison of annual revenues during the last twenty-five years; and showed that whereas the average growth of the revenue from year to year, from 1840 to 1852, was £1,030,000, the same growth was, from 1853 to 1859, at the rate of £1,240,000, and from 1859 to 1865 at the rate of £1,780,000. The paper trade, in spite of the outcry of the papermakers when he abolished the duty, was increasing, the amount of raw material imported in 1865 being exactly five times what it had been in 1859. The trade with France, thanks to Mr. Cobden's Commercial Treaty, had doubled in five years. The total amount of exports during the year ending September 30, 1864, was £487,000,000, an increase of £219,000,000 since 1854. In other words, the export trade of the country had nearly doubled in ten years. To all this encouraging retrospect Mr. Gladstone added his own gifts for the future. He had a large surplus to dispose of, and what was he to do with it? As he said, there are always "crowds of hungry claimants" for a surplus; everybody who suffers from a tax that his neighbours are exempt from thinks he suffers an injustice and struggles to get it redressed. It is enough to say that the malt tax was not touched; and that the duty on tea was lessened by sixpence per pound, and the income tax lowered from sixpence to fourpence in the pound. It is needless to add that these reductions were received with gladness by the House and the country, though the irrepressible malt tax repealers felt themselves hardly used.

The other two important financial statements were, of course, those made in moving the Army and Navy Estimates. Of neither is there very much that needs to be recorded. The Marquis of Hartington showed great clearness of head and general administrative ability in moving the Army Estimates; but he had little to say except to move for a reduction of 4,000 men in the establishment. The alarm of 1860 had passed away, and the alarm of 1870 had not come; so there was neither increase nor re-organisation to be accomplished. The only difficulty with which Lord Hartington had to deal was the everlasting gun question, new phases of which were always demanding full consideration. Similarly with the navy, for which a little over ten millions were voted, there was to be a reduction, especially in the coastguard and marines; and fresh ships were also to be built on fresh models. Lord Clarence Paget, who moved the Estimates, pronounced himself satisfied with the efficiency and discipline of the service; and the House generally agreed with him.

Turning from finance to the other departments of public business, one is not surprised to find that in the last Session of an old Parliament, with Lord Palmerston still living and directing its course, but little positive legislation was accomplished. An expiring Parliament is never fertile: it produces infant measures, but has not the force to bring them to maturity; and in the consciousness of approaching death, it makes its peace with the future by recording good resolutions. Lord Palmerston, too, in the last year of his life, showed no intention of departing from his well-known home policy—namely, to let things be ever doing, never done. Thus it happens that the history of the Session of 1865 reads like a table of contents of the five or six Sessions that followed it. Almost all the important questions that were afterwards solved, or at least handled, by the Government of Mr. Gladstone, were brought forward, discussed, and left unanswered in 1865. The Irish land question was touched upon, in a debate on a motion of Mr. Pope Hennessy, at the[365] beginning of the Session, and discussed at length on Mr. Maguire's moving, on March 31st, for a select committee. The Irish Church question was raised by Mr. Dillwyn, and the debate which followed was remarkable as extracting from Mr. Gladstone a clear statement of the views that he afterwards put into effect. Mr. Berkeley brought forward his Ballot Bill, but in vain. The Test question was raised by Mr. Goschen. National Education, both in England and Ireland, was before the House of Commons in two important debates. The O'Donoghue moved an Address to the Crown referring to the question of University Education for Ireland. And lastly, Mr. Baines took the feeling of the House on the question, soon to become all-important, of Parliamentary Reform. Besides these, which may be called premonitory symptoms of future legislation, there was, of course, a good deal of important but unpretending work accomplished, which we may shortly record. But first it will be worth while to dwell for a moment upon one of the abortive measures, that of Mr. Baines, the highly respected member for Leeds.

CONFEDERATE RAID INTO VERMONT. (See p. 362.)

The main object of Mr. Baines' Bill was substantially the same as that of the Government Bill of the next year—namely, to reduce the limit of the borough franchise from a rental of £10 per annum, where it had been fixed by the Reform Bill of 1832, to a rental of £6. The measure was, as we said, abortive; its introduction seems indeed to have been only intended to stimulate popular interest in the question of Reform; but the debate has become historical from the great speech in which Mr. Robert Lowe, member for Calne, in Wiltshire, passed at once and beyond all question from the second to the front rank of Parliamentary orators. Mr. Lowe had chosen his opportunity well. In proportion to the popular interest in the question, in proportion to the shortness of its own remaining life, was the dislike of the existing House of Commons to the very name of Reform. Hence from the Whig as well as from the Conservative benches—from all, in fact, except the benches below the gangway on the Liberal side—the cheers rang out as Mr. Lowe, the most impartial of cynics, the narrowest of utilitarians, a[366] Liberal without enthusiasm, a Tory without prejudices, delivered the first of his famous philippics against the democracy of the future. The line of argument that he adopted was, first, to show the vanity of any assumption of an abstract right of all men to have a share in their own government—in other words, to establish one standard by which questions of this kind were to be judged, namely, the standard of public utility; and next, to show that in this case public utility demanded that the qualifications for the franchise should remain as they were. "If these abstract rights to a vote exist," said Mr. Lowe, "they are as much the property of the Australian savage and the Hottentot of the Cape as of the educated and refined Englishman. Those abstract rights are constantly invoked for the destruction of society and the overthrow of government, but they can never be successfully invoked as a foundation upon which government may securely rest." This kind of protest against the doctrine of "abstract rights" was followed by a series of illustrations, immensely relished by the House, of the evils of democracy in other countries and of the ruin it would bring upon England. Mr. Lowe attacked in turn "the sentimental argument," "the fatalistic argument," and "the argument of necessity;" denying that the franchise, when made cheap and vulgar, would elevate the working classes; denying that sooner or later the upper class would have to give way; and denying that the working classes were "thundering at the gates" of the upper class and demanding admission with dangerous noise. The rest of the debate is not specially memorable. Sir George Grey, speaking from the Treasury bench, expressed the feelings of the Whigs when he declared, almost in so many words, that the Government had not made up its mind and when he implied that he at least approached the whole question with reluctance.

But, as we said above, not all the measures proposed in this Session failed to be carried; one at least of great practical importance became law. This was the Union Chargeability Bill, brought in by Mr. Villiers, the President of the Poor Law Board. The object of this Bill was to improve still further the working of the new Poor Law of 1834. The principles of the law were, that while all necessitous persons had a claim to relief, this relief was only to be given on conditions—namely, in the case of the able-bodied, in exchange for labour, and this labour to be given, not at the pauper's own home, but in the workhouse. The increased importance of workhouses led to their being consolidated. Instead of a separate and, probably, ill-appointed house in each parish, a large and well-appointed house was established for Unions of parishes, and these were to be under the control of properly elected guardians and of a central office. It appeared from Mr. Villiers that, however well this system had worked in general, much inequality was caused by the overburdening of some parishes, and the inducement which the landowners and occupiers in some others had to drive away the poor. Hence followed a capricious distribution of the burden of the rates. Mr. Villiers proposed the simple plan—a plan, however, strongly opposed by the strenuous defenders of the strict parochial system—that the Union fund should for the future have to support all the poor within the Union, so that where its administration reached its charges should reach too. This very simple and just measure, denounced by some and applauded by others as the first step towards a system of national rating, was a good deal opposed by members of the Conservative party, but was finally carried both through the Commons and the Lords by considerable majorities. Mr. Villiers acknowledged that he proposed it as an instalment towards the removal of "settlement" altogether—that is, towards allowing a pauper to claim to be taken in to any workhouse, no matter what his domicile or "settlement" might be. Few other measures of importance passed into law during this Session. One at least, however, was important enough: this was the Bill for the concentration of the courts of justice into one great building, the site indicated by the promoters being either one on the Thames Embankment, near the Temple, or the space of ground between the Strand and Lincoln's Inn Fields. The proposal was received with satisfaction by the House, the lawyers, and the country; and every sane man was gratified at the thought that English law would be at last administered in courts that were properly built and decently ventilated. Only a few objectors, led by Lord St. Leonards, found fault with the proposal for paying the cost of the building out of the accumulated "Suitors' Fund" in Chancery. It was thought, however, that the great public convenience to be gained amply justified the wrong done to purely imaginary sufferers. The Bill was passed, and, as all Londoners know, the Carey Street site, between the Strand and Lincoln's Inn, was decided upon. But, as is equally well known, beyond choosing the site and demolishing the houses upon it, and selecting a plan to be modified periodically, nothing was done for many years.[367] In due course, however, the Royal Palace of Justice was completed and opened in November, 1882. Greenwich Hospital was also reformed in this Session. A Public Schools Bill was brought forward, but postponed.

This year was a quiet one in the religious world. In the course of it several interesting measures relating to religious tests and subscriptions were brought into Parliament; and though in the end little or nothing was done towards a practical settlement of the questions raised, still public attention was kept alive to them and to the importance of the convictions and feelings at issue. Thus regarded, as steps in an inevitable road, even abortive Reform Bills and Tests Bills lost in the Commons have a lasting interest and value. The University Tests Bill of 1865 was introduced by Mr. Goschen, then one of the members for the City of London, and the motion for the second reading was seconded by Mr. Grant Duff. The Bill, said Mr. Goschen, did not propose to admit Dissenters to the governing body of the University, although it might lead to that result eventually, but to enable degrees to be conferred without reference to religious tests. It would also go beyond the Cambridge Act and give a vote in Convocation; whilst it would admit to certain privileges and emoluments, to obtain which under the present system the degree of Master of Arts was an essential qualification. He could not believe that these concessions would lower the tone or impair the prestige of Oxford. So far from injuring the University, they would rather widen its basis and make it more useful and acceptable to the country, for he was convinced that no system could flourish that practically excluded one half the population from their traditional seat of learning. In a short effective speech Mr. Grant Duff gave three reasons for his support of the Bill: (1) That it would be beneficial rather than hurtful to the Church; (2) that it was an act of simple justice to the Dissenters, who had been from the beginning of their history altogether excluded from the higher education of England; (3) that it would be useful to the University, by enabling it to understand more fully its duties to the nation and the proper scope of its influence and training. But the time was not yet come for the admission of the principle upon which these arguments were based. Lord Cranborne and Mr. Gladstone, alarmed by certain conclusions advanced in Mr. Goschen's speech and persuaded that the effect of the Bill would be to give over the government of the University to Dissenters, offered a warm opposition to it. The promoters of the Bill, said Mr. Gladstone, openly avowed their desire to separate education from religion, and that was a principle to which he was resolutely opposed. Mr. Gathorne Hardy and Mr. Henley followed suit. Finally, Lord Cranborne's amendment—that the Bill should be adjourned for six months—was negatived by 206 votes to 190. But it was felt that with so small a majority it was useless to push the Bill any farther. If such was the temper of the Commons it was well known that the Lords would make short work of it and the measure was temporarily abandoned.

The Roman Catholic Oaths Bill again brought forward the subject of religious tests, only, however, to afford another triumph to religious conservatism. The object of Mr. Monsell, its introducer, was to alter the form of the oath required from Roman Catholic members of Parliament under the Relief Act of 1829, and to substitute for it the simple oath of the Queen's supremacy. The oath as administered under that Act required a Roman Catholic member to swear that he renounced, rejected, and abjured the doctrine that princes excommunicated or deposed by the Pope or any authority of the See of Rome might be deposed or murdered by their subjects or by any person whatever; that he disclaimed, disavowed, and abjured any intention to subvert the Established Church; and that he would never disturb or weaken the Protestant religion, or the Protestant Government in the United Kingdom. Such an oath, it was argued, was not an anachronism; it was a grievance and a degradation. The oath was, indeed, a remnant of the state of things before Catholic Emancipation, and there could be no doubt that the just and liberal course would have been to oblige all members of Parliament, without exception or variation, to take a uniform oath. A strong and finally successful opposition, however, was advanced. Mr. Whalley's and Mr. Newdegate's Protestant consciences took the alarm; "in the interests of social and political order and the peace of families," they felt themselves bound to resist the measure. Sir George Grey, who supported the Bill, was taunted with his Ultramontane leanings; and, according to Mr. Whiteside, the proposed change affected the Constitution, the Church, and the property of the country! However, by the help of Government support, given, said the Opposition, from electioneering motives, the Bill was read a second time and successfully maintained in committee. Substantially unaltered, it was sent up to the[368] Lords, where, however, a night's debate disposed of it. Lord Derby made a long and powerful speech, appealing to every Tory cry and every Tory prejudice, till the measure assumed such formidable proportions that it frightened even its supporters. Lord Harrowby, Lord Chelmsford, and others followed suit, and, in spite of the efforts on the Liberal side, the Bill was lost on division by twenty-one votes.

A word of notice is called for by some other Parliamentary discussions that took place this year on ecclesiastical matters; but as none led to any practical result, they may be dismissed with a word. Mr. Dillwyn's motion about the Irish Church has been already mentioned; it called forth, as we have said, an emphatic declaration from Mr. Gladstone, and to that declaration is to be traced, in a great measure, his rejection by Oxford University. Mr. Newdegate attempted, but without success, to substitute a rate of twopence in the pound on real property for the existing Church rates. In the House of Lords Lord Lyttelton, with the approval of most of the Bishops, proposed a resolution in favour of an increase of the Episcopate—a subject always dear to the High Church party, but considered by the Evangelical party to be of less importance than a development of the parochial system. The dioceses of Exeter, Winchester, and London were pointed to as those that ought to be relieved by the creation of new bishoprics. The resolution, however, was not put to the vote, nor had it any legislative result.

The end of the Session of 1865 was troubled by certain transactions that caused great tribulation to the Government of Lord Palmerston and proved fatal to the career of one of the highest officers of State. These transactions are commonly grouped together under the name of "the Edmunds scandal." The case of Mr. Edmunds was as follows:—In 1833 Lord Brougham, at that time Lord Chancellor, had appointed Mr. Leonard Edmunds to the post of Clerk of the Patents, at the salary of £400 a year, afterwards increased to £600. In 1854 a quarrel took place between Mr. Edmunds and Mr. Woodcroft, also an official of the Patent Office, and each charged the other with irregularities, mismanagement, or worse. Two lawyers of position—Mr. Hindmarch and Mr. Greenwood, both Queen's Counsel—were appointed to make a full inquiry into the cross-accusations; and their finding was adverse to Mr. Edmunds. The authorities, however, were lenient enough to allow him to resign, on his repaying the sums due to the Treasury. Then arose the question which brought Lord Chancellor Westbury into his unfortunate position. Mr. Edmunds, as well as being clerk in the Patent Office, was clerk in the House of Lords; and it was to his evident interest to resign that post before rumours of his troubles in his other office should reach the ears of the Parliament Office Committee and defeat his chance of a pension. Accordingly the Lord Chancellor himself presented Mr. Edmunds' petition; himself moved that the resignation should be accepted and that the question of pension should be referred to a select committee, of which he was to be one; and this without one word of reference to the grave charges hanging over the head of Mr. Edmunds. The select committee was appointed and recommended to the House that a pension of £800 a year should be conferred on Mr. Edmunds; and this recommendation the House adopted. Meanwhile, the Lord Chancellor appointed his son, the Honourable Slingsby Bethell, to the post in the House of Lords vacated by Mr. Edmunds. Before long, however, the floating rumours about Mr. Edmunds' conduct in the Patent Office had caught the public attention, and Lord Stanley expressed the general uneasiness about the affair in some questions that he addressed to the Attorney-General in the House of Commons. Next night the Lord Chancellor himself took up the matter and, courting inquiry, moved for the appointment of a select committee to examine all the circumstances. The committee sat; reported that the charges against Mr. Edmunds were fully proved by evidence; and, by a majority of one, gave it as their opinion that the Lord Chancellor had failed in his duty when he presented Mr. Edmunds' petition without informing the committee of the facts of the case. But, by way of softening their censure, the select committee added, "that they had no reason to believe that the Lord Chancellor was influenced by any unworthy or unbecoming motives in thus abstaining from giving any information to the before-mentioned committee."

[369]

THE FOREIGN OFFICE, LONDON, FROM ST. JAMES'S PARK.

Upon this, the House revoked Mr. Edmunds' pension and there apparently the matter ended. The committee had not condemned the Lord Chancellor; his position remained as before; and yet everybody felt uncomfortable. Hence it was in no lenient mind that the public heard rumours of a fresh scandal, touching the Lord Chancellor still more nearly, in the matter of certain appointments in the Leeds Bankruptcy Court, which Mr. Ferrand brought before the House. The appointment of a select committee followed, and five members were chosen, with Mr. Howes for chairman, to inquire into the whole affair. The result of their investigations, during which all the persons concerned, including the Lord Chancellor, were examined, was to bring to light a most lamentable state of things, the principal facts being the following:—Mr. Wilde, the Registrar of the Leeds Court of Bankruptcy, had been charged, in the year 1864, with improperly passing the accounts of his subordinates, and with borrowing money of them "to the destruction of his independence and efficiency." The Lord Chancellor, through Mr. Miller, the Chief Registrar, called upon him, in May, 1864, to explain the charges; but apparently no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming, for, on the 26th of June, Mr. Miller, by order of the Chancellor, wrote to Mr. Wilde, offering him in a peremptory way the option of resignation, or of appearing in open court to show cause why he should not be dismissed. But Mr. Miller added, without the Chancellor's authorisation, that if Mr. Wilde chose to resign upon a medical certificate, he might perhaps claim a pension; and he took the hint. Mr. Wilde was allowed to retire on a pension, and Mr. Welch was appointed by Lord Westbury to the office he had resigned. Now Mr. Welch was a friend of Mr. Richard Bethell; he was a barrister on the Northern Circuit, and he had money; Mr. Bethell, on the other hand, had, in the month of May, been compelled by his father to resign his post as Registrar in Bankruptcy on account of debt, and money was of importance to him. Here came the scandal. A certain Reverend George Harding gave his evidence before the committee to the effect that, in May, 1864, an arrangement had been made between himself, Mr. Welch, and Mr. Richard Bethell, of the following nature. Mr. Welch was to give Mr. Bethell £500 for his good influences with his father, the Lord Chancellor, and a further £1,000 on receipt of an appointment, one-third of this latter sum to go to Mr. Harding as his share in the transaction. In February, 1865, after Mr. Bethell had been for some time abroad, his claims for a new office were pressed on the Chancellor by Mr. Miller; and[370] hopes were held out that Mr. Welch might be transferred to London, and Mr. Bethell appointed to Leeds. Presuming on this, he went down to Leeds on the 24th, and talked to the officials as if the arrangements were concluded, but meanwhile the Lord Chancellor had changed his mind, and did not appoint his son. The report of the select committee acquitted the Lord Chancellor "from all charge except that of haste and want of caution in granting a pension to Mr. Wilde;" but it went on to say that the inquiry had been a most necessary one. The newspapers were immediately filled with criticisms of the Chancellor's conduct; but Parliament was just about to be prorogued and it was generally supposed that he was to be left free from authoritative censure. But just before the prorogation a motion on the matter was put on the notice-book of the House of Commons by Mr. Ward Hunt, member for Northamptonshire, and afterwards Mr. Disraeli's Chancellor of the Exchequer. He proposed that the Lord Chancellor should be compelled to resign; and a lively debate ensued on the question whether, on the one side, scandalous blunders in the matter of patronage were to be held a capital offence, or whether, on the other side, the blunders were to be held venial and condoned by a comparison of them with the Chancellor's services and successes. The debate ended in the adoption, after the Government had been defeated on the question of adjournment, by a majority of 14 in a House of 340, of an amendment, proposed by Mr. Bouverie, substantially the original vote of censure clothed in milder terms. The next day Lord Westbury resigned, and on the day after made a farewell statement in the House of Lords—a statement in which a genuine contempt for the majority which had condemned him was veiled by language of the most respectful submission. He passed from the Woolsack, to be succeeded by Lord Cranworth, Chancellor for the second time; and the public career of one of the greatest of law reformers closed in disgrace.

A scandal of this kind was by no means a pleasant end to the life of a Parliament, and for the Government by no means a pleasant prelude to a general election. But it cannot be said that public feeling was very deeply or very generally stirred. There was no question of deciding upon the life or death of a Ministry; it was a "natural dissolution;" Parliament had died of old age, and not by the violent hands of a defeated Minister. So most of the constituencies fought out their battles quietly and uneventfully; the Liberals making Reform their war cry, and the Conservatives making answer that Reform was neither necessary nor expedient. It was generally expected that Lord Palmerston's Government would have a considerable majority. Only two contests were looked upon with a very high degree of interest—that for the University of Oxford, where Mr. Gladstone was opposed by Mr. Gathorne Hardy; and that for Westminster, where Mr. John Stuart Mill came forward as a candidate. It was almost the first time, perhaps the very first time, in English history that a philosophical and economical writer of the first rank had come forward to ask for the vote of a constituency solely on the ground of his writings. A large committee was formed, including most of the leading Liberal names in England, to carry him into Parliament at no expense to himself. The exertions of his admirers, the novelty of the experience, and the influence of Mr. Mill's own dignified presence, seen as it was by so many for the first time, carried him to his seat. But enthusiasm for an idea does not hold its ground for very long in England, and thus it came to pass that at the general election of 1868 Mr. Mill was sent back again to private life.

The other election which concentrated public attention was that for the Oxford University. Mr. Gladstone had represented that exceptional constituency for eighteen years, though many attempts had been made to remove him from his seat, as from time to time his opinions showed fresh divergence from those of his youth. On this occasion a powerful opponent was brought forward in Mr. Gathorne Hardy, one of the most influential members of the Conservative party. The constituency of the University was composed of the members of its Convocation—that is, of all persons who had taken a degree not lower than that of Master of Arts, and who retained their names on the register by certain payments. In this election, for the first time, it was legal to use voting-papers, which enabled members to vote without coming up to Oxford to record their votes in person. This provision, passed only in the last Parliament, was fatal to Mr. Gladstone. His Liberalism, supposed to be extreme, and believed to favour views not wholly adverse to the disestablishment of State Churches, cost him his seat. He was beaten by Mr. Hardy by a majority of 180, the numbers being—Hardy 1,904, Gladstone 1,724. Mr. Gladstone took his farewell of the University in an address that expressed his "profound and lasting gratitude" for its support during the "arduous connection of eighteen years." The very night of[371] his defeat, he owned, in the Liverpool Amphitheatre, that he had "clung to the representation of the University with desperate fondness." That day, the 18th of July, was typical of the whole of his life. He stood, to use words of his own, between the "ancient, great, and venerable University" and the "hives of teeming enterprise." He went from Oxford to South Lancashire, and after a campaign of magnificent speech-making, was returned by a narrow majority. We shall have to record, in the history of the next election, his subsequent loss of the same seat; but that loss mattered comparatively little. The real turning-point in his political career, and in the history of his party, was his rejection for Oxford University. From that moment he was, politically speaking, another man.

The total result of the elections was the return of 367 Liberals and 290 Conservatives—a gain of nearly fifty votes to the former party. It will be seen, however, that a large number of those who described themselves as Liberals soon showed their dissent from the policy of the Liberal Government; so that the majority was in reality very much smaller than might have been supposed. The political history of the year ends with the elections. From July to December political passions slept, political voices were dumb; only the Cabinet were at work on the questions of the next year—questions which, after Lord Palmerston's death, became more pressing and important.

Trade and finance were prosperous during this year, though the cotton market had not quite recovered from the shock of the American War. It had, however, partially recovered; and to the manner of its recovery, indeed, is to be indirectly traced much of the disastrous panic of 1866. The history of that panic will be told in a future chapter; at present we may remark that the stoppage of the American supplies caused first of all a stoppage, more or less complete, of English trade; that a new cotton supply was looked for from India, and that hence new and various channels were opened for trade; that thus arose all kinds of feverish, unsteady, and unwise speculation, the newspapers being crowded with daily advertisements of new enterprises, many of them on a gigantic scale. For this year, all went well. Two hundred and eighty-seven new "Limited Liability" companies were started, embracing every kind of undertaking, from the negotiation of foreign loans to the manufacture of an improved blacking. Everybody turned investor. The price of Consols went down from 91³⁄₈ in April to 86³⁄₄ in December, showing that where so many profitable investments were open, people would not buy stock which would pay them only three per cent. In a word, everything looked well, and every one was busy; the crash was as yet far distant, and all had their fortunes to make.

The general prosperity of the country received, however, a severe blow in the outbreak of the cattle plague, which first appeared in June in this year; but by the end of December had carried off more than forty thousand head of cattle. The disease, which was in a high degree contagious, was that known in Germany under the name of Rinderpest; and all that was ascertained of its origin is told in the admirable First Report of the Royal Commissioners (Lord Cranborne, Mr. Lowe, Dr. Lyon Playfair, and several others) who were appointed to investigate it. Two English cows, says the report, were purchased at the Islington Cattle Market on the 19th of June, and on the 27th a veterinary surgeon first noticed symptoms of disease in them. They were in the shed of the cowkeeper who had bought them. Two Dutch cows, bought at the same time and place, were also taken with the disease in another shed. Immediately afterwards, the plague—for it had become a plague—broke out in numerous London sheds, and spread very fast and very destructively. The Islington cowkeeper lost her whole herd, ninety-three in number. In a very few weeks the disease had passed out of London to nearly every county in England, and even to Scotland. It had gone across the sea to Holland with some Dutch oxen that had been sent for sale to the London market, but which were sent back again, because they could not be sold at a remunerative price. Now, among the foreign cattle that had been sold in the Metropolitan Cattle Market about this time were some oxen from Revel on the Baltic; and it was shown that some of these were ill at the time of their landing with what afterwards proved to be the disease. But this, though not improbable in itself, was considered by the Commissioners to be not proved; and they left it an open question whether the plague had been imported this way or viâ Holland. Anyhow there was and is little doubt that the original home of the disease is the steppe country of Southern Russia. Four times at least in previous centuries had the plague, or one very similar to it, appeared in England; the last attack—which continued for the twelve years from 1745 to 1757, carrying off several hundred thousand cattle—formed a precedent of great value for the guidance of the authorities in the present visitation.

[372]

The Commissioners found the only regulations in force to be certain Orders in Council, published as a Consolidated Order in September, 1865, under the authority of an Act of Parliament originally passed in 1848, which gave to orders of the kind the force of law. This Consolidated Order appointed inspectors, or caused them to be appointed by the local authorities, gave these inspectors full power to enter any shed, etc., and then and there destroy any infected animal; and made strict regulations forbidding the transit of diseased animals, and closing the Metropolitan Cattle Market, "except for purposes of immediate slaughter." This order, as the Commissioners said, was good but insufficient. The report told the country plainly that difficulties and sacrifices must be expected; that London must import her meat dead and not alive; that the only way to get rid of the disease quickly was to prevent the movement of cattle absolutely. But at the same time such a prohibition would have been a very serious step; it would have caused a sudden and alarming interruption in trade and would probably have led to an evasion of the law. Hence the Commissioners—though a majority of them ventured to recommend the total stoppage of all movement of cattle as the best course—advised certain alternative measures in case the difficulties of that course should be found too great. These alternative recommendations forbade the transit of lean or store stock, and imposed strict regulations on the movements of fat stock for slaughter. The report also suggested great restrictions on the importation of foreign cattle; such as that they should only be allowed to land at certain ports, that the fat stock should be immediately slaughtered, and that various forms of quarantine should be imposed upon the stock not immediately meant for the butcher. For Ireland, where the disease had not appeared, the Commissioners urged the extreme importance of being prepared in case it should appear, and of being ready and able to stamp it out.

These recommendations were, of course, open to the objection that the measures they pointed to were centralising, imperial—in other words, un-English. It was in vain that it was answered that it was the disease which was un-English; that it was against the disease that the objection lay and not against the recommendations. Lord Russell's Government knew that the very breath of an Englishman's life is the liberty "to do what he likes with his own." So the Ministry did what commended it to the people, and what did less than nothing to check the disease. It "empowered the local authorities." It gave to mayors of boroughs and to the county quarter sessions certain powers, apparently extensive, really very limited, towards hindering the plague. It did not even empower the justices in quarter sessions to prevent the movement of sheep, or pigs, or goats from place to place within their jurisdiction. The result was, that the tradition of English liberty was preserved, and that the disease spread like wild-fire. The first report of the Commissioners was dated October 31, 1865; the orders followed very soon; and yet the number of animals attacked, which had been 11,300 up to October 7, increased by January 27 to 120,740. To mark the mortality from the disease it may be observed that of these hundred and twenty thousand, only 14,162 are known to have recovered. Although the fear of approaching contagion drove the farmers to send unusually large numbers of cattle for slaughter—and, therefore, the supply, instead of falling off, increased—the price of meat rose enormously. Instead of eightpence or ninepence, tenpence or a shilling became the common price for a pound of meat. With this increase came a corresponding and more justifiable rise in the price of milk, especially in London. The 7,000 cattle that had been attacked in the London district up to the end of the year were almost entirely milch-cows. Of course, an immediate rise in the price of milk followed and a dislocation of the London milk trade. The dairymen became importers instead of producers. The railways began to develop new facilities for the carriage of milk from the country into London; and then were first to be noticed on a large scale, trucks loaded with great broad-bottomed cans bringing up the produce of the country meadows for the use of the metropolis. No disinterested person can regret this at least among the results of the plague.

Among the results of the American War, that which came home most rapidly and strikingly to the English mind was the organisation of the Fenian Conspiracy. Every American knows well the extent of the "Irish element" in the United States. The end of the war threw hundreds of Irishmen out of work. It mattered little whether they had fought for North or South; hatred of "the Saxon," and the chance of making a display in the cause of Erin, were strong bonds of union. Hence arose the Fenian Brotherhood—a military conspiracy, with civil branches, having for its object "the overthrow of the Queen's government in Ireland, and the establishment of the Irish[373] Republic." No one seems to know certainly the origin of the name "Fenian;" but it is probably derived from "Fianna," the ancient Irish militia. At all events, the name of the organisation was suggested by John O'Mahony, of New York, a Celtic scholar of some repute, who had to fly from Ireland, with his life in his hands, in "'48," for an abortive attempt to excite the Tipperary peasantry to armed resistance. "There is no time to be lost," wrote one of the leaders (John O'Leary, afterwards editor of The Irish People); "this year—and let there be no mistake about it—must be the year of action.... The flag of Ireland, of the Irish Republic, must this year be raised." "I was told," said a witness at one of the Fenian trials, "that arms were to be given to carry out those objects.... They told me that the Fenians in Ireland were to be officered by French officers; and since the war was over in America, that they were to be officered by Federal officers." Again a Thomas Mooney wrote, "We have an Irish leader in John O'Mahony, backed by 50,000 veteran Irish soldiers in America ready for the word." These are a few indications, taken at random from many documents that were produced at the trials of various prisoners.

ARREST OF HEAD-CENTRE STEPHENS. (See p. 375.)

In the possession of one of the convicted prisoners, by name Moore, a blacksmith, was found a pamphlet containing the rules and by-laws of the Fenian Brotherhood, from which the following passages are extracted. They are sufficient to show that the abortive Fenian movement was a thing that had been undertaken in earnest by serious men.

##### "CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS.

"1. The Fenian Brotherhood.—The Fenian Brotherhood is a distinct and independent organisation. It is composed, in the first place, of citizens of the United States of America, of Irish birth and lineage; and in the second place, of Irishmen, and of friends of Ireland, living elsewhere on the American continent, and in the provinces of the British Empire wherever situated. Its headquarters are, and shall be, within the limits of the United States of America. Its members are bound together by the following general pledge:—

[374]

"2. General Pledge.—I [...] solemnly pledge my sacred word of honour as a truthful and honest man, that I will labour with earnest zeal for the liberation of Ireland from the yoke of England, and for the establishment of a free and independent Government on the Irish soil; that I will implicitly obey the commands of my superior officers in the Fenian Brotherhood; that I will faithfully discharge my duties of membership as laid down in the constitution and by-laws thereof; that I will do my utmost to promote feelings of love, harmony, and kindly forbearance among all Irishmen; and that I will foster, defend, and propagate the aforesaid Fenian Brotherhood to the utmost of my power.

"3. Form of Organisation.—The Fenian Brotherhood shall be subdivided into state organisations, circles, and sub-circles. It shall be directed and governed by a Head Centre, to direct the whole organisation; State Centres, to direct state organisations; Centres, to direct circles; and Sub-Centres to direct sub-circles. The Head Centre shall be assisted by a central council of five; by a Central Treasurer, and Assistant Treasurer; by a Central Corresponding Secretary, and a Central Recording Secretary; and by such intermediate officers as the Head Centre may from time to time deem necessary for the efficient working of the organisation.

"4. The Head Centre shall be elected annually by a general congress of representatives of the Fenian Brotherhood, which congress shall be composed of the State Centres and the Centres, together with elected delegates from the several circles of the organisation—each circle in good standing being entitled to elect one delegate."

This document is sufficient to show the kind of organisation and the nature of the designs of the brotherhood. Although a prosecution had been resolved upon before it came into the hands of the authorities, enough was known to make severe measures not only justifiable, but necessary, if Ireland was to be saved from civil war. Lord Wodehouse (afterwards created Earl of Kimberley) was Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland at the time, and the credit or responsibility of most of the measures taken rests with him. The blow of authority first fell on the press. A paper called The Irish People had for some time been published in Dublin and widely circulated, which made no secret that its design was to incite the people of Ireland to insurrection and to a forcible severance of the union with England. A Privy Council was held at the Castle on the evening of the 15th of September; Mr. Stronge, the Chief Magistrate, was instructed to draw out warrants; a strong body of police was told off for sudden duty. The warrants were given to the police and they were marched to Parliament Street to the office of The Irish People. Ten persons were arrested in the house, the principal of whom was O'Donovan Rossa; and an immense amount of letters, printed papers, type, and numerous important lists of Fenians were seized and carried off to the Castle yard. Very little disturbance and absolutely no resistance ensued. Nor was any greater difficulty encountered by the Cork police, who made a descent upon the Fenians in that city at the same time. Indeed, the Irish police in general showed themselves very active at this juncture and many of the southern towns were the scene of interesting captures. Each important arrest led to more, or gave a direction to the search, from the discovery of papers compromising other people. One person, for instance, who gave his name as Charles O'Connell, but whose real name was Rafferty, was arrested as he entered Queenstown harbour in a steamer from New York. He had been an American captain and his papers gave an illustration of the aid which Fenian agents had received from officers of high rank on the Federal side.

There were at this time two Head Centres—one in the United States (John O'Mahony), and one in Ireland (James Stephens). This latter—a personage of the highest importance in the brotherhood—was known under many names; his commonest designations being "J. Powell," and "James Stephens;" though he occupied his comfortable house in the neighbourhood of Dublin under the name of James Corbett. Stephens, it ought to be related, had passed three years in the country previous to the establishment of The Irish People. He had traversed and re-traversed the country in a variety of disguises and under a cloud of aliases, sounding the peasantry as to their readiness for rebellion and succeeding even in corrupting the loyalty of small portions of the Irish regiments. He went so far as to try his capacity for "organisation" by making overtures to the Orangemen of the North, but his advances were coldly repelled. The movement, however, was doomed to failure almost from its inception. When the long-threatened blow was on the eve of being struck, discontent broke out amongst the rank and file of the insurrectionary battalions. Hundreds of men who had worn the American uniform were starving in the garrets and kennels of Dublin and London;[375] whilst the great Head Centre and financial fountain himself was living in an extravagant manner. Disgusted at their treatment, about fifty of the immigrants proposed to end the matter promptly by shooting him and precipitating a rebellion on their own responsibility. Stephens was warned of the plot and took steps to pacify his infuriated subordinates. He distributed money amongst them freely and to this sudden outburst of judicious liberality he probably owed his life. This generosity came too late, for America unexpectedly ceased to send supplies and the old murmurings broke out again with redoubled vehemence. This it was that broke the back-bone of the conspiracy and saved Ireland from the horrors of civil war. The police discovered that this James Corbett was the man they were in search of and accordingly surrounded his house early one morning. They met with little resistance, though Stephens and his friends were well supplied with arms. In the same house with Stephens three other prominent Fenians were arrested, one of them being the "Charles J. Kickham" who had been looked for ever since the razzia upon The Irish People newspaper. When the prisoners were brought up for examination, Stephens protested most indignantly against the very existence of the law under which he was to be tried; he refused to take measures for his defence and defied punishment. As it happened, and as perhaps he had guessed beforehand, he never came in want of legal assistance or in danger of punishment. "Bolts and bars could not hold him." He escaped from Richmond Bridewell on the night of November 24, and no amount of police activity or Government reward could secure his recapture. The naked truth is, that at a meeting of the Fenian Secret Council, held in Townsend Street, in Dublin, on the morning of November 22, it was decided to spend £250 in rescuing the imprisoned chief. The service had been offered, the reward was punctually paid, and the "General," as his followers called him, was rescued from his gaolers. It was plainly impossible that an escape of the kind, managed simply by unlocking seven of the prison doors one after another, could have been effected without collusion with some official or other. So Government thought, and suspended the governor of the gaol, and got Byrne, the turnkey, committed for trial. But Stephens never came back. It was not without reason that he had defied English punishments.

But even though the Head Centre was lost, there were enough prisoners in hand to make it necessary to try them by means of a Special Commission. In this case the judges were Baron Fitzgerald and Justice Keogh—both of them men of marked ability and neither likely to act with much leniency towards convicted political prisoners. Their work lasted more than a fortnight in Dublin; then they went to Cork; and then again returned to Dublin, where it was several weeks before the work was over. An example of the mode of trial and of the evidence produced may be found in the case of Thomas Clarke Luby (a man whose father was a Senior Fellow and who was himself a student of Trinity College), which was the first that came before the court. Mr. Luby had been a registered proprietor of The Irish People newspaper, jointly, it appears, with O'Donovan Rossa. Indeed, he was the foremost writer in that paper; to which Stephens, during his entire connection with its personnel, contributed only one sorry article, headed "Isle and Doom." So popular, however, did the journal become amongst the disaffected classes that the older "National" organs had reason to tremble for the security of their existence. Luby was indicted for the crime of treason-felony—a crime newly created by Act of Parliament. According to the Act that creates it, treason-felony may consist of either or all of three offences—compassing or intending to depose the Queen from her Royal authority as Queen of Great Britain and Ireland; intending to levy war against the Queen in order to induce her to change her measures; and conspiring to invite foreigners to invade this realm. It was with these three offences that the prisoner was charged; the Attorney-General for Ireland (Mr. Lawson) prosecuting him and Mr. Butt defending him. The trial seems to have been meant chiefly as an exposure of the nature of the conspiracy and this the evidence certainly effected. Among the documents, perhaps the most important was a letter or commission found in the prisoner's house at the time of his arrest, sealed with black wax and addressed to "Miss Frazer." The police-sergeant who arrested Luby opened this, though he was told it was "a private matter between Mrs. Luby and a lady friend;" and he found it to be the following:—

"I hereby empower Thomas Clarke Luby, John O'Leary, and Charles J. Kickham, a committee of organisation, or executive, with the same supreme control over the home organisation—England, Ireland, and Scotland—that I have exercised myself. I further empower them to appoint a committee of appeal and judgment, the functions[376] of which committee will be made known to every member. Trusting to the patriotism and abilities of the executive, I fully endorse their actions beforehand. I call on every man in our ranks to support and be guided by them in all that concerns the military brotherhood.

"J. Stephens."

Side by side with this document, which, while it incriminated Luby, threw further light upon the proceedings of the Fenians, came the evidence of the two informers, Pierce Nagle and Patrick Power. They were both Fenians; Power at least had taken the Fenian oath, and Nagle "acted as a member of the society, but did not take the oath." Nagle told of meetings of the society, mostly near Clonmel; of intriguing in America, in which he had had a part; of "swearing in" new brethren; and of Luby's complicity with all this. He described the way in which the enumeration of members was managed:—"Papers ruled in squares by means of perpendicular and horizontal lines; the squares did not extend to the top, but there was a blank space on which the name of the captain or B was entered; the squares then showed how the captain, the sergeant or C, and the rank and file or D, were armed, also the strength of the company.... A 'V' signified a man armed with a rifle. If it was an inverted 'V,' it signified a man armed with a gun or pistol. A stroke signified that a man was armed with a pike. Where there was a circle, it signified a man—captain, sergeant, or private—not armed at all." Farther on, Nagle described the mode of enrolling:—"I myself enrolled ten or twelve into the society. The mode of enrolling a member was, in the first instance, to administer the oath, which in substance was, that the party should be a member of the Irish Republic, now virtually established, and should be ready to take up arms at a moment's notice." Again, "Cornelius Dwyer Keane reported to Stephens that there were nearly 500 new men in the neighbourhood of Clonakilty. Stephens said he did not know what he should do with the number of men he had, there were so many of them." Evidence also was given as to the manufacture of arms in Ireland, especially pikes. "Give bearer fifty rods," said a note of the Head Centre; and "rods" was the pleasant alias of the formidable "pikes." Lastly, one more document was read at Luby's trial from the packet addressed to "Miss Frazer." It contained three resolutions, and was signed by the great John O'Mahony himself; the first two being a pledge on the part of the American Fenians to get the Irish Republic recognised by every free Government in the world; and a declaration, "that the national organisation at present existing on Irish soil is almost entirely owing to the devoted patriotism and indomitable perseverance of its Head Centre." What was proved, then, in his trial (for we have given the principal points of the evidence) was the existence of a widespread conspiracy, having its roots in America and having for its object the forcible extinction of British rule in Ireland. Luby, also, was proved to have been a prominent conspirator. He was the first to be found guilty and was sentenced—as were some others after him, though many received less—to the punishment of twenty years' penal servitude.

Perhaps a greater number than usual of distinguished persons died in 1865. The names of Lord Palmerston and Mr. Cobden will occur to every one. Of persons less widely famous, the English army lost one of its patriarchs in Viscount Combermere, and one of its most distinguished officers in General Sir George Brown; science lost Sir William Jackson Hooker; and popular scientific enterprise Sir Joseph Paxton and Sir John Richardson; the Roman Catholics of England lost their Cardinal Nicholas Wiseman; and literature lost its distinguished sons Charles Waterton and Isaac Taylor, and its still more distinguished daughter Mrs. Gaskell. On the afternoon of the 18th of October in this year, the news arrived in London of the death of Lord Palmerston, which had taken place that morning at Brockett Hall, Hertfordshire. Had he lived two days longer, he would have been eighty-one years of age; but for some months the strength of the hale old man had been failing, and for a week it had been pretty well known that the end was near. Lord Palmerston had been for fifty years a personage of such importance in British and even European politics, that his death, however much expected, was deeply felt throughout all classes of English society. All alike regarded it as the end of a political period. What was to follow, some looked on with hope, others with dread, none with indifference. Still his genuine if somewhat cynical patriotism was gratefully remembered. Just six months before his own death, Lord Palmerston rose in Parliament to call attention to "the great loss which the House and the country had sustained in the death of Mr. Cobden." There was something strange and a little jarring in the words of official praise in which the successful veteran spoke of the merits of the simple, unobtrusive, yet greater man that was gone, though he, too, had his limitations. More true, moretouching, were the few sentences in which his friend and brother-worker, Mr. Bright, told of his own sorrow in Cobden's death; and all who read the words the next morning felt a throb of sympathy. "Sir," he said, "I feel I cannot address the House on this occasion, though every expression of sympathy has been most grateful to my heart; but the time which has elapsed since I was present when the manliest and gentlest spirit that ever actuated or tenanted a human form took its flight is so short, that I dare not even attempt to give utterance to the feelings by which I am oppressed. I shall leave it to some calmer moment, when I may have an opportunity of stating to some portion of my countrymen the lesson which I think may be learned from the life and character of my friend. I have only to say now that, after twenty years of the most intimate and the most brotherly friendship with him, I little knew how much I loved him until I found that I had lost him."[377]

RECEPTION OF THE FRENCH FLEET AT PORTSMOUTH. (See p. 380.)

[378]

## CHAPTER XXV.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

> The Quietness of Europe—Debate on Poland—The English Prisoners in Abyssinia—Mr. Newdegate and the Encyclical—Visit of the French Fleet—Conclusion of the American War—Sherman's victorious March—Sheridan's Campaign—Lee's last Efforts—Evacuation of Richmond and Petersburg—Lee's Retreat—The Surrender at Appomattox—Grant's General Order—The Death of Lincoln—Inflated Prosperity of India—The Canadian Defences—The Maori War continues—Mr Cardwell's Policy—The Jamaica Rebellion—Grievances of the Blacks—The Trespass Laws—Governor Eyre—The First Riots—Excesses of the Negroes—Their Extent exaggerated—The Rebellion spreads—Governor Eyre proclaims Martial Law—"The Suppression"—Anderson the Informer—Colonel Hobbs—The Maroons—Elkington's Letter—Gordon Ramsay—Some typical Trials—G. W. Gordon—The Court-Martial—The Evidence produced—Gordon is hanged—The total of Deaths—Excitement in England—The Jamaica Committee—Eyre committed for Trial—The Chief Justice's Charge—The Bill thrown out—Recovery of Jamaica—Reform again—It becomes a Government Measure—The Bill of '66—Mr. Gladstone's Speech—Mr. Lowe and Mr. Horsman—"The Cave"—The Easter Recess—The second Reading—Lord Grosvenor's Amendment—A brilliant Debate—Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Gladstone—A Majority of Five—The Government perseveres—The Redistribution Bill—Its Details—Mr. Bouverie's Amendment—It is accepted—Captain Hayter's Amendment—Mr. Disraeli's Strategy—Lord Stanley's Attack—Mr. Walpole's Amendment—Amendments of Mr. Hunt and Lord Dunkellin—Gross Yearly Rental and Rateable Value—The Debate on the Dunkellin Proposal—Defeat of the Government—Their Resignation—Mr. Gladstone's Statement—Earl Russell and the Queen—Lord Derby's Conservative Ministry—The Refusals—Mr. Disraeli's Election Speech—Peace in Parliament—Indian Finance—Prohibition of the Hyde Park Meeting—The Procession marches—Destruction of the Railings—Mr. Walpole weeps—Discussion on his Conduct—The Queen's Speech and the Rinderpest.

IN European history the year 1865 will always be looked upon as an interregnum, a breathing time, between the two eventful years that preceded and followed it. It was the interval between two wars; and its history is the history of passions that smouldered and of intrigues that worked in secret. The underground records of diplomacy have much to tell of it; but as for events, there are none. Nor, so far as England is concerned, is there very much to record under the head of foreign policy. The dullness of such foreign debates as Parliament saw in this year contrasts sharply with the keen excitement of the debates of 1864, when Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Gladstone flung in each other's face their opposing views of what constitutes the honour of England. Schleswig and Holstein were irrevocably gone now; rightly or wrongly we had stood by and seen them taken; and it was of no use to protest after the event, or to debate about our duty. On the other hand, the quarrel about the division of the spoil had not yet broken out; so we have few despatches from Lord Russell and few scoldings by the Times. The only debate on European affairs that need be chronicled was one on a motion brought forward by Mr. Pope Hennessy on the treatment of Poland by Russia. The terms of the motion referred to Russia's palpable violation of the Treaty of 1815 and entered a protest against it. But Lord Palmerston, and the good sense of the House with him, refused to entertain the resolution; for such a resolution means less than nothing unless it means war if its request is not complied with. Neither Mr. Pope Hennessy nor any one else thought seriously of a war with Russia. In this matter of Poland, in this year at least, we escaped the blunder which we had[379] committed so often and so ludicrously in 1864; as we did not mean to enforce our opinion, we kept it to ourselves.

It was in this year that the public began to hear stirring accounts of the British prisoners in Abyssinia, who were, a short time afterwards, to be raised to a position of such national importance. The full story of their captivity is perhaps better deferred till the time comes for treating of the Abyssinian War, set on foot to rescue them; but the points at issue may shortly be recorded here, as they were told by Lord Chelmsford in the House of Lords during this Session. In July, 1862, Captain Cameron had been sent to Abyssinia as consul, with flattering messages and presents to King Theodore, a half-savage chieftain professing a kind of spurious Christianity. He was well received by the King and treated with honour; especially when, on the breaking out of a war between Egypt and Abyssinia, he attempted to mediate in favour of King Theodore. But this mediation was ill received by the Egyptian authorities and Consul Cameron was induced to desist. This made the King very angry; especially as he had received no answer to an autograph letter that he had written to Queen Victoria on Captain Cameron's arrival in July. With the fickleness of a savage, he turned round upon the consul and began to treat him with great indignity; and matters were complicated by the action of certain missionaries, Mr. Stern and some others, whom the King and his grandees considered to have been acting against the interests of Abyssinia. One of Mr. Stern's interpreters was beaten to death; he himself was also beaten very severely; and then first he and the other missionaries and afterwards Consul Cameron himself were imprisoned and loaded with chains. So they continued for a long time: the British Foreign Office found itself in the difficult position of having either to leave British subjects to take their chance, or run the risk of rousing to fury an African chieftain renowned for his fierce temper, and of arming him against the lives of the unhappy captives. Matters had been in this position about eighteen months, when Lord Chelmsford in the House of Lords, and Sir Hugh Cairns in the Commons—both great Opposition lawyers—questioned the Government very severely about the whole circumstances of the case. Lord Russell and Mr. Layard both made the same defence of the Foreign Office—that it could literally do nothing without sending the captives to certain death. It is well known that the event proved the Foreign Office wrong. But we shall give at a later stage an account of the war of release undertaken by Mr. Disraeli's Government; and to that chapter we must defer the rest of the romantic story.

There was considerable excitement abroad at the opening of this year, especially among the clergy, concerning the Pope and the Roman Question. It will be remembered that in September, 1864, there had been a Convention between France and Italy, under which Italy guaranteed the undisturbed possession of the Pontifical Dominions to the Pope, while France on the other hand engaged to withdraw her troops from Rome. M. Thiers spoke out boldly on the subject of this convention; he saw in it the beginning of the end, and professed little faith in the guarantees of Italy. The object of the French Government was, he maintained, to appear to Italy willing to help her to the possession of Rome, while persuading all the rest of the world to the contrary. The Ultramontanes therefore were distrustful and alarmed, and—when the Encyclical Letter arrived in France, and a circular was issued by the Minister of Justice, forbidding the clergy to distribute the letter among their flocks, or to read in public the first half of it, on the plea that it contained "propositions contrary to the principles on which is founded the Constitution of the Empire,"—several of the more prominent Anti-Gallican bishops broke out into warm remonstrance. The fame of the Encyclical Letter next reached England and created some stir among the ultra-Protestant party. Mr. Newdegate, speaking in the House of Commons on the Roman Catholic Oaths Bill, said that, in his opinion, that was a singularly inopportune moment to propose any change in the test imposed upon Roman Catholic members, seeing that the French Government were just then occupied in grave discussions on the best means of dealing with the latest Papal aggression in the shape of the Pope's Encyclical Letter, which in the interests of order and peace could not be allowed to pass unnoticed. How the Encyclical Letter could affect the question of the Roman Catholic Oaths Bill, Mr. Newdegate's hearers failed to see; it was one of that gentleman's many cries of "Wolf" in Roman Catholic matters. The Convention between France and Italy had no doubt disappointed the Papacy, and the Letter may be looked upon as more or less an expression of that disappointment; but the French Government knew very well that Rome lay too much in the power of France for any serious affront to be offered, and after a little more diplomatic skirmishing they let the matter drop.

Towards the end of August in this year there[380] was a pleasant interchange of courtesies between the French and British fleets at Portsmouth. A British squadron of six ships, five of which were ironclads, received the French Fleet at Spithead. Eleven fine screw steamships and screw frigates, headed by the Emperor's yacht, the Reine Hortense, hove in sight on the morning of the 28th, and were greeted by our ironclads with a gay display of flags, manned riggings, and a succession of deafening salutes. The Admiralty yacht, Osborne, having on board the Duke of Somerset and the other Lords of the Admiralty, went out to meet the Reine Hortense, and accompanied her into the harbour of Portsmouth, the Victory, that gallant old relic of a bygone day, saluting the yachts with nineteen guns as they passed. No sooner were they anchored than the naval grandees on board the Osborne passed over to the Reine Hortense, to pay their respects to the French Minister of Marine, M. Chasseloup-Laubat, and the French admirals accompanying him. The usual compliments were paid, the usual invitations given, after which the Minister of Marine, accompanied by his staff, Chief Almoner, Monseigneur Coquereau, and a splendid show of English vice- and rear-admirals, entered a State barge, and was landed at the King's Stairs in the dockyard. The day was spent by the French guests in paying visits to the different officers of the garrison and in inspecting some new barracks and forts close to Portsmouth; while in the evening the First Lord of the Admiralty entertained them at dinner on board the Duke of Wellington. The landsmen, not to be outdone by the sailors, illuminated Portsmouth and gave a banquet to the French officers. On the 30th of August the same round of visits and festivities was gone through. At a great dinner given at the Royal Naval College in the evening, the Duke of Somerset, after expressing the pleasure which he and his colleagues felt in being able to return the hospitalities showered by France upon the British fleet a month previously at Brest and Cherbourg, proposed the health of the Emperor and Empress, to which M. Chasseloup-Laubat responded by proposing that of the Queen in a speech marked by that French grace and ease which makes a French public dinner so much less formidable than an English one. The French Minister had hardly sat down, and the cheers were still ringing in answer to the toast of "Queen Victoria," when there was a discharge of guns and rockets from the Victory, and immediately the calm summer sea beyond the harbour was alive with thousands of twinkling lights; every ship in the allied squadron stood outlined in many-coloured fires, and hundreds of rockets, sent up from every deck, fell in showers through the clear air of an August evening. Again and again, just as the distant hulls were growing dark, the fairy-like spectacle was renewed. Nor was the town behind-hand; illuminations ran along the shore, and land and sea vied with one another. This magical scene lasted for about half an hour, then one by one the ships faded from sight, the sparkle on the water died out, and, peer as it might into the darkness gathering round Spithead, the eye could distinguish nothing but a distant group of black forms on a grey sea. The dinner was then resumed and a few more toasts and speeches followed; but the event of the evening was over and at an early hour the French guests returned to their ships. For three days more festivities were kept up, and balls, concerts, and déjeuners followed each other in quick succession. The French squadron left Portsmouth on the 2nd of September, after a visit full of pleasure and amusement to all who took part in it.

To the great relief of England the long agony of the Southern Confederation was now rapidly approaching its termination. Sherman's great march had brought him and his army of 60,000 men to Savannah, the capital of Georgia; but it did not end there. His movements were delayed by heavy rains; but on the 1st of January, 1865, he set forth, moving his army directly northward, as if Augusta were the point of attack. Suddenly turning to his right, and crossing the river Savannah, he entered the swampy fertile plains of South Carolina. Devastation marked the track of his columns. Beauregard had not a force under his orders sufficient for the defence of Columbia, and he therefore directed General Wade Hampton, who was in command there, to evacuate the city. That general did so, having first caused to be brought out into the streets and set on fire all the large stores of cotton which the place contained, lest it should fall into Federal hands. A portion only of Sherman's army entered the town, in the middle of the day on the 17th of February, but before the night it was in flames. The loss of Columbia involved the fall of Charleston, including Fort Sumter and other defences; for since the sea was closed against them from behind by the blockading fleet, no hope of ultimate escape remained for the defenders, if they waited till they were hemmed in by a superior force on the land side. From Columbia Sherman advanced on the 23rd of February, but instead of marching to the[381] attack of Raleigh, the capital of North Carolina, he struck off to the right, crossed the Great Pedee River, and passing the State boundary at Sneedsboro', again concentrated his army at Fayetteville (March 11). General Johnston, who ought never to have been superseded, was now re-appointed to the command of the Confederate army opposed to Sherman. As the Federal left, under Slocum, was advancing from Fayetteville towards Goldsboro', Johnston vigorously attacked at Bentonville (March 20) hoping to envelop and crush it before it could be supported; but the success of the attempt did not correspond to his expectations. Sherman's victorious march terminated at Goldsboro', for to that point a strong Federal force under General Schofield had fought its way up from the coast just before his arrival.

GENERAL GRANT.

The last act of the great drama was now to open. The campaign in Virginia was commenced by Sheridan, who, at the head of a well-equipped and most formidable force of 10,000 cavalry, moved from Winchester in the Shenandoah valley (March 2nd) with the intention of striking Lynchburg, the town among the ranges of the Alleghanies whence Richmond now drew its principal supplies. Early met him at Waynesboro' and was utterly routed; but the intelligence that he received from his scouts led Sheridan to believe that Lynchburg was too well defended to fall to a mere cavalry force; he changed his plan, therefore, and led his troopers round the left and rear of Lee's army, intending to join Grant in his encampment before Petersburg. The Confederate arrays of cavalry, which two years before had been the terror of Pennsylvania and Washington, were now so attenuated by death and hardships that no effectual[382] resistance could be offered to Sheridan, who, carrying blight and destruction in his train, burning bridges and stores, tearing up railways and destroying canals, moved across the enemy's country to White House on the Pamunkey river, whence he marched to the James, and reported to Grant in front of Petersburg on the 27th of March.

Seeing that the force in his front was continually being augmented, Lee appears to have concluded that the only course left for him was to deal a heavy and unexpected blow at the least guarded point about the centre of Grant's lines, which, if successful, would cut his army in two, enforce new arrangements for concentration, and perhaps leave time for the detachment of a portion of Lee's army to the assistance of Johnston, sufficient, with the troops under that general's command, to meet and defeat Sherman. The point which he selected was Fort Steadman, nearly due east of Petersburg. Here General Gordon, with two divisions, bore down at daybreak on the 25th of March on the Federal lines, and captured at the first onset Fort Steadman and three adjoining batteries, turning their guns against the retreating defenders. But an overwhelming force was soon brought up by General Meade, which not only drove the Confederates out of the works they had occupied, taking 2,000 prisoners, but, pursuing the advantage, pushed back the whole of that part of the Confederate line, thus rendering Lee's contemplated movement into North Carolina more than ever hazardous. A still more decisive success was gained on the 1st of April, when Sheridan, attacking Lee's right wing, under Pickett, at Five Forks, with a force two or three times as numerous, turned its left at the same time that he attacked in front, and, being successful in both operations, utterly broke and routed the Confederates, 5,000 of whom were taken prisoners. On the next day (Sunday, April 2) Grant ordered a general advance against the defences of Petersburg. The attack was made at daybreak, and although the exhausted Confederates stood bravely to their arms, so great was the preponderance of numbers that they could not prevent the Federals from wresting several redoubts from their hands, so that Petersburg itself stood in danger of falling before the next vigorous assault. Such was the position of affairs at 11 o'clock, when Lee, who had just seen A. P. Hill, one of the most trusted of his lieutenants, shot dead while directing a charge to regain a portion of the works, and fully recognised the imminent peril to which Richmond was exposed through the inability of the gallant army that had so long defended it to hold its ground any longer against the overwhelming masses of the enemy, felt it his duty to send a message of warning to the Confederate President. The message was in nearly these words:—"My lines are broken in three places. Richmond must be evacuated this evening." Before retiring General Ewell set some warehouses on fire and soon a full third of the city was destroyed. Petersburg was evacuated simultaneously with Richmond. After desperate attempts to evade his pursuers of whom Sheridan was the most persistent, Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox Court-house on April the 9th.

The capitulation of the Army of Virginia was a signal for the close of hostilities everywhere. Sherman, on hearing of the fall of Richmond and Petersburg, advanced from Goldsboro' against Johnston, who soon proposed to surrender upon terms. Sherman was induced to sign a provisional convention (April 18th), the effect of which would have been to continue and confirm to the existing State Governments in the Confederate States the enjoyment of legislative and executive powers. Of course, this convention was instantly disallowed at Washington, and in signing it, even provisionally, it is clear that Sherman exceeded his powers. Johnston then surrendered his army (April 26th) on precisely the same terms as those that had been granted to Lee. A general order, addressed by Grant on the 2nd of June to the "Soldiers of the Armies of the United States," in thanking them for their patriotic exertions, formally announced the termination of hostilities. The armies were everywhere disbanded as soon as possible, the men returning to the pursuits of industry; by the 15th of October upwards of 785,000 men had been mustered out of the service. But a terrible crime cast a gloom over the rejoicings with which the people of the Northern States were celebrating the conclusion of the war, namely, the assassination of Lincoln at Ford's Theatre, Washington, by the actor, John Wilkes Booth. The great President was shot on the 14th of April and died on the following day. In the course of the war recruits to the number of 2,688,523 men had been enlisted into the armies of the Union. Of these, about 1,500,000 were effective soldiers. On the Union side, 275,000 men were either killed outright or died of their wounds, or perished by disease; and on the Confederate side the loss of life must have been little if at all less.

"Her Majesty rejoices at the continued tranquillity and increasing prosperity of her Indian[383] dominions; and she trusts that the large supply which those territories will afford of the raw material of manufacturing industry, together with the termination of the Civil War in the United States of North America, will prevent the recurrence of the distress which long prevailed among the manufacturing population of some of the northern counties." These words, from the Queen's Speech which closed the Session of 1865, give a true insight into the state of the most important of the dependencies of Britain. India was, in 1865, very tranquil and exceptionally prosperous. As the events of the next year showed, it was even too prosperous; the successful attempt to introduce the cultivation of cotton, and, partially at least, to make India take the place of America as a source of cotton-supply, had led to over-speculation and a reckless spirit of investment. It is the fault of all speculators in exceptional times to fancy that the exceptional times will last for ever. The Bombay merchants, with rashness, and, indeed, ignorance that must now appear scarcely credible, presumed upon the long continuance of the American War; they imagined an eternal blockade of Charleston and thought that the mills of Manchester would look for ever to the cotton-fields of Gujerat. Hence this year of which we are speaking was a year of extraordinary prosperity in India. The prosperity, too, affected the revenue; and Sir Charles Wood was able to present a satisfactory Indian Budget when he made his financial statement before the House of Commons. As usual, the statement was deferred till the end of the Session, for Parliament had little patience for the concerns of its vast Eastern empire; but the figures showed a surplus, and a surplus is always welcome. The most notable point was Sir Charles Wood's statement of the money that had been spent in public works during the six previous years. This amounted to no less than seventy-three millions sterling; £34,500,000 on irrigation, roads, buildings, etc., and £38,500,000 on railways. This last figure speaks volumes; some notion of the extension of the internal commerce of India may be derived from it.

It was natural that the termination, or the approach of the termination, of the American War should cause some anxiety as to the views of the United States with regard to Canada. This anxiety was not lessened by a notification that was received early in this year from the Washington Government to the effect that the United States intended to withdraw from an agreement entered into with Britain in 1817, by which both Powers had agreed not to equip naval armaments on the Canadian lakes. This intention of the United States Government was the result of certain "raids" made by Confederate guerillas from a base of operations in Canada, without encouragement of course, but unfortunately without successful hindrance, from the Canadian authorities. The two Houses of Parliament took prompt notice of the action of the United States; and the matter was linked on to the question of a grant for the defences of Quebec, moved in the Commons by Lord Hartington, Secretary at War. A good deal of vigorous language was used, not too friendly to America, not too complimentary to Government; for many persons felt that there was a possibility of serious complications, even of war, between the two countries, on the ground of supposed breaches of neutrality on the part of Great Britain during the American struggle. Events, however, have proved that Mr. Bright was right when he said that if there came a war, it would be one not arising out of national necessities, but out of Cabinet manœuvring; "and that," he said, "I consider a most improbable event." The matter ended by a vote of £50,000, part of a larger installment, being carried for the defences of Quebec; it being understood that the Canadian Government were to fortify Montreal out of their own revenues. But a few days afterwards Mr. Cardwell eased the apprehension of the House by announcing the receipt of intelligence that the Washington Government intended to withdraw its notice for the abrogation of the agreement of 1817. In the course of a few months the American War ended, as has just been described, and the relations between the United Kingdom and the United States entered upon a new phase.

With the exception of the events in Jamaica about to be related, nothing of much importance seems to have taken place in the remaining colonies of Great Britain during the year 1865. The Maori War, however, in New Zealand still dragged on, and formed the subject of a debate in the House of Commons, which called forth from Mr. Cardwell the views of Government as to the proper policy to be pursued by Britain. Mr. Cardwell's statement indicated that there was a disposition on the part of the home authorities to consider whether the time had not come for taking a new departure. He said that "the former arrangement, by which the colony could command the services of a large force of the Queen's troops on[384] paying a merely nominal contribution to the expenses incurred for that force, was at an end." It was decided, in other words—and this with the willing acquiescence of the Governor, Sir George Grey—that the best policy for the interests of the colony was to leave it pretty much to take care of itself. British opinion declared strongly against a war of extermination, in the outset of which the natives had, by the confession of the British Governor, been in the right; and it was thought that, by teaching the colonists that they could not always look to Britain to fight their battles for them, a more pacific mode of dealing with the natives would be entered upon, to the benefit both of the colonists and the Maoris.

MEETING OF LEE AND GRANT AT APPOMATTOX COURT-HOUSE. (See p. 382.)

It was towards the end of October in this year that the alarming news arrived of an insurrection of the negroes in Jamaica, which was at once seen to be the most serious event that had happened in any British colony or dependency since the Indian Mutiny. Few, however, suspected that the importance of the event itself would be lost in the still greater importance of the secondary issues which it raised—the questions of the duties of Colonial Governors, of the legality of martial law, and so forth. These, as will appear in the sequel, were the questions to which the Jamaica insurrection, or riot, gave rise. They were argued in the newspapers, in Parliament, and in courts of law, with passionate earnestness on both sides; for both those who approved of the acts done in the suppression, and those who disapproved of them, felt that a crisis of great magnitude had arrived, and that a proper settlement of the points at issue was essential to the welfare of the colonies, and, through them, to the welfare of Britain.

[385]

THE ATTACK ON THE COURT-HOUSE, ST. THOMAS-IN-THE-EAST. (See p. 386.)

Jamaica, as everybody knows, is the largest of the British colonies in the West Indies, and has been in British possession since the time of Cromwell. Commercially and socially, the island had never recovered the collapse that followed the abolition of slavery in 1834. Thus, while in 1830 the amount of sugar exported was 100,000 hogsheads, in 1850 it had fallen to 40,000; while in 1809 the coffee exports were 52,500,000 lbs., in 1850 they were 5,120,000, or not quite one-tenth. This state of things, distressing to every one, and especially to those who regard the emancipation of the slaves as a right act, is clearly shown by a comparison of the accounts with those of all the other West India Islands to have been the result of some cause not operating in them. That cause was bad government. Distress was very prevalent in 1865, especially in the eastern part of the island; wages were extremely low; capital was withdrawn from the country; everything pointed to such legislation and such administration of the law as should conciliate, and even relieve, the great and growing poverty of the labouring class. Instead of this, new "Trespass Laws" were made, creating offences out of what the negroes had always as their right—gathering yams, picking occasional sugar-canes in passing by a field, and so on; and also converting into a "trespass" the occupation of certain lands, to which the occupiers thought they had a right rent free. Popular opinion, naturally warm enough on points like these, was roused to great heat by agitation, especially by a letter directed in 1865 to Mr. Cardwell, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, by Dr. Underhill, a well-known Baptist. This letter was taken up by the local Radical party, led by Mr. G. W. Gordon; meetings were held in many places, and, as is natural from the character of the negro, the language used was often not over-wise. Still there were real grievances; and it is an undoubted fact that these grievances were met in a scandalous manner by the Government of the island. Mr. Gordon was treated by Governor Eyre, not as the representative of a suffering class, but as a firebrand whom it was right to extinguish. The magisterial benches—badly constituted, as the Royal Commission afterwards declared—were filled up by unpopular men; the complaints of the blacks were hardly noticed; memorials sent up to the Colonial Office through the Governor were tampered with in transit; obnoxious laws remained unrepealed; the "piccaninny gangs," or gangs of children for field labour, were not discouraged;—in a word, nothing was done to remedy a very serious condition of affairs; they were left to break out in a violent explosion—the natural result.

[386]

Whatever doubts may exist as to the antecedent events, and the state of the island before the outbreak, the facts of the outbreak itself, and of the measures taken in suppression or retaliation, are clear beyond all question, and may be told on the authority of official documents, and of the statements of witnesses before the Royal Commissioners. The early stages of the riots have been recorded by one of the victims of the 11th of October, Baron von Kettelholt, custos of St. Thomas-in-the-East. They comprised the beating and illegal imprisonment of some policemen by the mutineers, and further outrages were anticipated. His letter was dated the 10th of October, and was received by Governor Eyre on the morning of the 11th, and he immediately ordered Major-General O'Connor, the senior military officer, to send off 100 men in a man-of-war to the scene of the disturbances. Meanwhile, however, the regular attack which the custos had dreaded had been made. The magistrates and others were in the court-house at about three o'clock in the afternoon; the volunteers, thirty or so in number (according to the evidence of Mr. Rutty, who was one of them), had been drawn up for two hours or more, when a bugle was heard and a large mob was seen approaching. They were armed with "cutlasses and bayonets fixed on long sticks, muskets and pistols, and various kinds of weapons." They advanced irregularly; once they halted; a bandsman went forward extending his arms as if to make peace, the custos from the court-house shouted "Peace," and then, when they were within a few yards of the volunteers, there came a shower of bricks and stones. The order was given to the volunteers, whether from their captain or the custos is uncertain, to fire and a volley was poured in. The mob was roused to frenzy; the volunteers retreated into the rooms under the court-house and into other shelter, and the people fired in upon them and upon those assembled in the court-house, through the windows. Presently the school-house was set on fire and soon the burning spread to the court-house, in which the whites were assembled. Mr. Georges, who was one of them, tells us that he leaped out of a back window and got into the committee-room underneath, and that while there he saw Mr. Walton leap out after him and run for his life, but to no purpose. Baron Alfred von Kettelholt, son-in-law of the custos, just escaped; but his father-in-law was killed. Mr. Georges, with three gunshot wounds in his thigh, lay hidden in some shrubs till midnight and so escaped. Dr. Gerrard was allowed his life, "because he was the doctor;" but the negroes kept him among them by the expedient of taking his boots off. Mr. Rutty, a volunteer, tried to pass for his assistant, but was beaten almost to death, stripped to his shirt, and left to die or recover as he might. Mr. Price, a negro, was with the custos and the magistrates, so he was pronounced "a black man with a white heart" and was killed. Lieutenant Hall, Captain Hitchings, Mr. Herschell, a clergyman, and many more of the whites assembled, were killed.

Many charges of revolting barbarity were made against the rioters; but it is only just to say that nothing more atrocious than murder has been proved against them. For instance, in Governor Eyre's first despatch to Mr. Cardwell he mentioned numberless rumours of horrible deeds—how Lieutenant Hall had been pushed into a building which was set on fire, till he was "literally roasted alive;" how the fingers of the custos were cut off "and kept as trophies by the rebels." It was proved, however, by Mr. Rutty, who was present, that Lieutenant Hall was shot dead in the heat of the struggle, and the hand of the custos was mutilated, but not, apparently, with any specially barbarous intent. He and many of the rest were put to death with "cutlasses," that is, the knives or bill-hooks used in dressing the sugar-cane; and cutlasses in the hands of a mob are likely to be wildly used. These facts it is important to bear in mind; for half the criminality of the proceedings of the soldiers afterwards springs from the fact that they were done upon hearsay evidence, upon rumours of barbarities which, dreadful as the original murders had been, were enormously exaggerated. Neither during the attack on the court-house, nor in the plunder of Amity Hall, nor elsewhere, were any women or children injured, though, in many cases, the rioters had them in their power. This fact, at least, happily distinguishes the deplorable Jamaica outbreak from such carnivals of savagery as the Indian Mutiny of 1857.

During the next day or two there was undoubtedly great excitement among the negro population throughout all the east end of Jamaica, and the white residents were in danger. The Morant Bay rioters broke up into parties, and dispersed in two or three directions—up Blue Mountain valley, towards Manchioneal, towards Golden Grove, and elsewhere. In some parts they were joined by the negroes of the neighbourhood; many excesses, almost entirely in the way of plunder, were committed. A mob attacked[387] Hordley estate and wrecked the furniture and set fire, but without effect, to one of the "trash-houses" (a house used in sugar-making); but something may be learned of the absence of the worst kind of ferocity from the fact that the ladies of the house were in the other trash-house and were never looked for or discovered. The great cry was "Colour for colour," but more energy was spent in shouting the cry than in seeking out whites to wreak vengeance on.

These events were, of course, enough to move the white population of the island to a high pitch of excitement and to call for prompt action from the Government. Governor Eyre's proceedings may be told nearly in his own words, as given in his report to Mr. Cardwell and in his evidence afterwards before the Royal Commission. His official residence was Spanish Town, an inland town, fourteen miles from Kingston. His private residence was at Flamstead, fourteen miles from Kingston and twenty-three from Spanish Town, where, according to the Opposition papers in the colony, he spent a good deal of time rearing chickens. How Mr. Eyre wrote to General O'Connor, requesting 100 men to be sent to Morant Bay, has been already told. After that order had been sent, Mr. Eyre returned to his residence at Flamstead, "to be present at a dinner-party which was to meet there the next day." This was Thursday, the 12th, the day after the riot; and the news came just in time to spoil the Governor's dinner-party. At half-past five a letter came from a magistrate with the news and the Governor at once rode off to Kingston, to concert fresh measures. It is enough to say that 200 men were immediately despatched to Morant Bay; a detachment of white troops was ordered to march from Newcastle to intercept the march of the "rebels" into Blue Mountain valley; and the Governor himself took measures for proceeding to the scene of action. Just before he started, that is, between eight and ten on the morning of the 13th, he presided at a council of war and, on the advice of the Attorney-General of the island, drew up a proclamation of martial law.

The events which followed, and which had their support and authority in this proclamation, are commonly called "the suppression." From the time when Captain de Horsey, of the sloop Wolverine, wrote to Governor Eyre that he had landed a company of soldiers at Morant Bay, and was preparing to detach 114 of his own sailors to co-operate with them, to the time when "Martial Law" expired, not only was all law suspended throughout the east of the island, but all the guarantees of evidence were dispensed with, and the life of every negro man and negro woman hung upon the will of an angry soldiery and an excited Provost-Marshal. Hence the Morant Bay disturbance—which, grave and shocking as it was, has been proved beyond question to have been a local riot and not the first outbreak of a rebellion—was seized upon without question and at once as a rebellion, and to be punished as such. The soldiers, sailors, and marines acted in three or four directions at once; from Morant Bay, from Port Antonio on the north-east side, and from Newcastle towards the mountainous region in the centre of the country. The towns were all occupied and their inhabitants, who were as much frightened as Governor Eyre had been, were not much injured by the soldiery; but the whole of the country districts were scoured with troops; negroes, unarmed as well as armed, were shot down as they ran from soldiers, or captured, tried by summary courts-martial, convicted on the evidence of informers, or on no evidence at all, and hanged or flogged, or flogged first and hanged afterwards. It was enough that a man should have been unpopular with the authorities of his district, or that he should have a bad character, or that a witness should inform against him, or that he should have been "seen with Bogle," and he was forthwith hanged or flogged as a rebel. This last charge, in fact, touches the root of the whole matter. Paul Bogle, the leader of the attack on the court-house, was a dangerous man and a rebel. Undoubtedly he was guilty of high treason and his life was forfeit. But by all the evidence given before the Commission, and notably that given by William Anderson, the informer, it appears that the only real "rebels," that is, the only persons who intentionally and of their own free will took up arms against the Government of the Queen, were Paul Bogle, M'Laren, and perhaps half a dozen more. The rest were on the first day a riotous mob, who thought that, by making a demonstration before the court-house, they would obtain the repeal of a burdensome law and the removal of an unpopular custos; and afterwards they were a mob afraid for their lives, herding together for defence against the "white men," and still acting, without power of resistance, as Paul Bogle bade them. The part played by this William Anderson, from whose evidence that statement comes, is typical of the nature of the "suppression." He was one of those who went with Bogle, on Bogle "calling for five tamarind switches to make a rod, and for guns."[388] He ran away on the first opportunity; he was taken up by a constable, tried by court-martial, and was offered his life on condition that he would be a guide to the soldiers. It was Colonel Hobbs, commanding the 6th Royals, who undertook the task of acting upon the evidence of this Anderson, who, of course, was careful to ensure his own safety by handing over a sufficient number of his countrymen to the colonel's justice. Nor were the soldiers of Colonel Hobbs alone or exceptional in their method of vengeance. The "black soldiers," that is the maroons, descendants of the old Spanish slaves, and the enemies of the African negro population, shot one hundred and sixty on the road to Manchioneal. One thousand houses of the natives were burnt down by the soldiers. And how these acts were regarded by the superior officers at Kingston, cannot be better shown than in the words of the afterwards celebrated letter of Lieutenant-Colonel Elkington, Deputy Adjutant-General, to Colonel Hobbs. "I send you an order," he wrote on the 18th of October, "to push on at once to Stony Gut, but I trust you are there already. Hole is doing splendid service with his men all about Manchioneal, and shooting every black man who cannot account for himself (sixty on the line of march): Nelson, at Port Antonio, hanging like fun by court-martial." Nor was it the officers alone who had life and death in their hands—it was the soldiers individually; above all, it was the Inspector of Police, Gordon Ramsay. For instance, some soldiers, accompanied by the same Dr. Morris who fired two shots with his revolver into the body of the negro Donaldson as he was hanging, dragged out of his cabin one Ned Bryan, tied him to a tree and forthwith shot him. Bryan and his brother had been at Kingston all through the riots, and only landed at Manchioneal on the 15th of October! That is one instance, literally taken at random from a mass of evidence. To illustrate Ramsay's proceedings is easier still. He owned to the hanging of 184, six of them females; to the flogging of 237, eight of them females—but in this last respect he was perhaps outdone by Captain Hole, who owned before the Commission that he had flogged sixteen women and among them one woman twice! Those who care to read of Ramsay's brutality, and of the nature of the "cat" frequently used—whipcord mixed with knotted wire—had better consult the evidence of R. Clarke, of P. Bruce, and of Ramsay himself.

But the story would only be half instructive were we to omit the record of the quasi-judicial proceedings by which some of the barbarities were guaranteed. Three memorable reports of trials are printed at the end of the Commissioners' blue-book, and to them, as showing what a court-martial may be, what a foregone conclusion, what a mockery of justice, we may refer any curious readers. The cases are those of William Grant, George M'Intosh, and Samuel Clarke—all of whom were sentenced to death by court-martial. The case of M'Intosh is, perhaps, the most instructive of the three. He was sentenced by Colonel Lewis—and General Nelson approved the sentence—literally for no crime at all, except for having spoken at a public meeting in the house of Mr. George William Gordon, whose friend he was. The evidence which hanged the others was about equally valuable.

But the case that was the most outrageous, and rapidly became the most famous of all, was that of Mr. G. W. Gordon himself. On his trial and execution was based the greater part of the attempt to obtain legal redress in the English courts of law; around his body, so to speak, was fought the question of the legality of martial law, of the responsibility of officers and colonial governors, and of the rights of colonists. The story need not be told at great length. It is sufficient to say that Mr. Gordon was a negro gentleman, a member of the Jamaica Assembly, a prominent Baptist and leader of Opposition, the friend of the poorer classes of negroes, and in high disfavour with Governor Eyre. This gentleman was residing peacefully at Kingston at the time of the outbreak. Governor Eyre's own words show how little he cared for legality. "Throughout my tour in the Wolverine and Onyx," writes the Governor to Mr. Cardwell, "I found everywhere the most unmistakable evidence that Mr. George William Gordon, a coloured member of the House of Assembly, had not only been mixed up in the matter, but was himself, through his own misrepresentation and seditious language addressed to the black people, the chief cause and origin of the whole rebellion. Mr. Gordon was now in Kingston, and it became necessary to decide what action should be taken with regard to him. Having obtained a deposition on oath that certain seditious printed notices had been sent through the post-office, directed, in his handwriting, to the parties who have been leaders in the rebellion, I at once called upon the custos to issue a warrant and capture him. For some little time he managed to evade capture; but finding that, sooner or later, it was inevitable, he proceeded to the house of General O'Connor, and there gave himself up. I at once had him placed on board the Wolverine[389] for safe custody and conveyance to Morant Bay."

STREET SCENE, KINGSTON, JAMAICA.

(From a Photograph by J. Valentine and Son, Dundee.)

Now, even supposing the proclamation of martial law to have been legal, which we believe it not to have been, it expressly excluded Kingston from the operation of martial law. What Governor Eyre did, therefore, was to seize a political opponent, to carry him off in a ship of war from a district under civil jurisdiction to a district under military jurisdiction, and then to hand him over to the tender mercies of a court-martial. The court was composed of two naval lieutenants and an ensign lately gazetted; one of the lieutenants being the same Lieutenant Brand who with a couple of "dingy boys" from his ship, had "had the pleasure" (his own words) of hanging the first "rebel," and shooting him with his own revolver as he hung; who had openly said that "nothing would give him greater pleasure than hanging this——Gordon." Mr. Gordon was an old man; he had been barbarously treated; he was wretchedly ill. Before his trial he was called out by Ramsay, the Provost-Marshal, to witness the execution of Grant, who had been a political friend of his. "Look there," said Ramsay; "that is your friend Grant, and you will be hanged like him." A Mr. Joseph G. Smith, a volunteer, thus tells, in his evidence before the Commission, how witnesses were collected against Mr. Gordon:—

"Afterwards I went into the guard-room, and he [Ramsay] was then swearing five of the prisoners, with their hands fastened and a rope round their necks, and he was swearing them in these words, 'You shall well and truly state what G. W. Gordon has to do with the rebellion;' and between each part of this a sailor came down with the whip over their shoulders."

On evidence of this kind, the evidence of men who had had the promise of their lives if they would accuse him, Mr. Gordon was tried. As to the taking of the evidence, we have the words of the Lord Chief Justice of England, Sir Alexander Cockburn, in his famous charge to the grand jury in the case of Nelson and Brand: "He could not be tried on that evidence. No competent judge acquainted with his duties could have received that[390] evidence. Three-fourths—I had almost said nine-tenths—of the evidence upon which that man was convicted and sentenced to death, was evidence which, according to no known rules—not only of ordinary, but of military law—according to no known rules of right or justice, could possibly have been admitted." But even supposing it had been admitted, all that was proved was that Mr. Gordon had written letters to, and been on friendly terms with, some of the rioters; but none of the letters were produced except one, where he said that "the people of Jamaica were very wretched." He was proved to have called the Governor "a bad man." He was proved to have had an action-at-law against the late custos von Kettelholt. Above all, he was proved to have spoken at public meetings, and to have dwelt on the misery of the negroes and the way in which their case was misrepresented to the Colonial Office. For these offences—literally for none other—he was sentenced to death. Lieutenant Brand signed his sentence, and Brigadier Nelson approved it. "He asked to see the Reverend Mr. Panther, Wesleyan minister," wrote Brigadier Nelson; "I considered it inexpedient." Without the consolations of religion, condemned on less than no evidence by an unauthorised and incompetent tribunal, Mr. Gordon was hanged on the 23rd of October, 1865. He had been in life the representative of the negroes of Jamaica in their cry for equal government; in death he was their representative in their cry for justice.

"The total number of deaths caused by those engaged in the suppression amounted to 439, and the total number of dwellings burned was 1,000.... The whole number subjected to the degrading punishment [of flogging], during the continuance of martial law, we think could not be less than 600." These are the words of the Report of the Royal Commission, consisting of General Sir Henry Storks, Governor of Malta, Mr. Russell Gurney, Recorder of London, and Mr. Maule, Recorder of Leeds, who were sent out to Jamaica in the beginning of 1866, and who sat for fifty-one days examining witnesses. Long before the Commission went out, however—in fact, as soon as the news of the "suppression" arrived in England—public opinion had been roused. Public meetings took place, and a committee—the Jamaica Committee—was formed headed by Mr. John Stuart Mill, to see that full investigations were made, and that legal remedies were sought against those who had been guilty of illegal excess. Mr. Carlyle came forward as a champion of Governor Eyre. The Jamaica Committee announced that, "having been advised that the facts disclosed in the Report of the Royal Commissioners afford a proper ground for an indictment for murder to be preferred against Mr. Eyre and the other persons concerned in the trial and execution of Mr. Gordon, and that no other mode of vindicating the law in reference to those facts is open to them, they have instructed their solicitors to proceed forthwith with an indictment against Mr. Eyre." They did proceed with an indictment against Mr. Eyre, Brigadier Nelson, and Lieutenant Brand. Mr. Eyre was domiciled in the country—he had been recalled from Jamaica and superseded—and the question of committing him for trial was argued before a Shropshire bench of magistrates. The Shropshire bench of magistrates declined to commit him. The London stipendiary magistrate, being a trained lawyer, understood his duty differently in the case of Nelson and Brand; he committed them for trial at the Central Criminal Court. The prosecution failed in the end; but not before it had elicited from the Lord Chief Justice a charge to the grand jury so elaborate, so learned, so telling, and so clear, that it may be said to have once for all defined the scope of "martial law," and to have once for all settled the rights and duties of local authorities in dealing with riot or insurrection. Two points stand out clear from the Chief Justice's charge: first, that martial law, exercised in Great Britain or in any of her dependencies, means the law administered by courts-martial—the law, that is to say, which is laid down for the trial of military offenders by military courts; secondly, that, by the Petition of Right and all the statutes and examples which have confirmed it, civilians are in no case amenable to this law. What, then, the Governor and the military authorities in Jamaica had the right to do, was to use all diligence in suppressing what, for a moment—though probably wrongly—appeared to be a formidable insurrection; and to do this by military force. They had undoubtedly the right to put to death or flog any rebel captured with arms in his hands; their justification in this was, that highest law—necessity and the right of self-preservation. They had also the right to seize any dangerous persons and hand them over to the civil courts. But they had no right to assume a jurisdiction over the whole actions of civilians, to hang and flog and burn on mere charges of "complicity" or of past guilt. The trial of Mr. Gordon—all the trials that took place in the county of Surrey in that dreadful time—were no trials at all; they were military cruelty and race tyranny[391] aping the forms of law. The grand jury threw out the bill, but made a formal presentment, "strongly recommending that martial law should be more clearly defined by legislative enactment." Mr. Eyre and his subordinates escaped, and in 1872, numerous suits instituted by his opponents having failed and a considerable revulsion of feeling having taken place in his favour, his expenses were paid by Government. It is a consolation that the changes which followed upon her ordeal of fire were fruitful to Jamaica. After Sir Henry Storks returned from his temporary government of the island, a new Governor was found in a distinguished and able Indian official, Sir John Peter Grant. Under his rule security was established and brought a moderate measure of prosperity in its train.

During the whole of the year 1866 two great subjects occupied everybody's mind—the war in Germany, its antecedents and its consequences, and Parliamentary Reform at home. We may proceed at once to tell the story of the unsuccessful attempt of Lord Russell's Government to carry the Reform Bill, and of the serious popular agitation that followed upon their overthrow. The cause of the defeat of the Bill of 1860 was undoubtedly the indifferent attitude of Lord Palmerston, which represented that of the public. In 1865 Mr. Baines brought in a Bill, which was defeated. Soon afterwards Lord Palmerston died and the principal barrier to a successful Bill was removed. Even before his death, in the months that were spent in canvassing for the general election, "both among Liberal and Tory candidates," said Mr. Bright, "the question of Reform was mentioned in some way or other, either in their written or spoken addresses to their constituents." But when, after the news arrived that the veteran Prime Minister had died, Lord Russell succeeded to his place, and Mr. Gladstone took the position of unfettered leader of the House of Commons, it was known that Reform was to be immediately approached as a Government measure. Many of their colleagues were averse from re-opening the question and to overcome their scruples a mild Bill was promised.

Parliament opened amid general interest and excitement with regard to Reform; and in March Mr. Gladstone brought in his "Bill to extend the Right of Voting at Elections of Members of Parliament in England and Wales." This important Bill, upon which was based so much of the Reform Bill of 1867, was at first sight extremely moderate. In the first place, it advanced the property qualification for the borough franchise which Lord Russell's Bill had fixed at £6 to £7—a step which Mr. Gladstone explained as follows: "A £6 rental, calculated upon the most careful investigation, and after making every allowance and deduction that ought to be made, would give 242,000 new voters, whom I should take as all belonging to the working class. I should then arrive at a gross total of 428,000 persons" (that is, by adding together old and new electors), "which would, in fact, probably place the working classes in a clear majority upon the constituency. Well, that has never been the intention of any Bill proposed in this House. I do not think it is a proposal that Parliament would ever adopt.... I do not think that we are called upon by any overruling or sufficient consideration, under the circumstances, to give over the majority of the town constituencies into the hands of the working class. We therefore propose to take the figure next above that which I have named—namely, a clear annual value of £7." Under the £7 qualification it was calculated that 144,000 voters of the working class would be admitted to the borough franchise—enough to give the artisan class its due weight and share in elections, without swamping the other elements of the constituency. Mr. Gladstone also proposed—by means of the abolition of the ratepaying clauses of the Reform Act of 1832, by registration of compound householders, and by a lodger franchise applicable to persons occupying rooms of the annual value of £10—to further increase the number of borough voters by 60,000, giving a general increase of 204,000. To this increase must be added the proposed number of new county voters, "fourteen-pound tenants," 172,000 in number; and the depositors in saving-banks, etc., 24,000 more. In all, the number of new voters to be added by the Bill was estimated at 400,000, equally divided, according to the belief of the framers of the Bill, between the middle class and the artisans.

Mr. Gladstone introduced his Bill on March 12th, 1866, in a speech worthy of the occasion. At the outset he read the passage in the Queen's Speech which bore upon the question:—"When that information (relative to the existing rights of voting) is complete, the attention of Parliament will be called to the result thus obtained, with a view to such improvement in the laws which regulate the rights of voting in the election of members of the House of Commons as may strengthen our free institutions and conduce to the public welfare." Words like these[392] gave him a good starting-point. He appealed to them and to the numerous occasions on which the same recommendation had been given from the Throne. "By no less than five Administrations, in no less than six Speeches of the Queen anterior to that of the present year," had the need of Reform been suggested to the House. Such an accumulation of authority, he went on to say, seemed to excuse him from the necessity of arguing the abstract question of the advisability of Reform. He took that for granted. Again, Mr. Lambert's work had been so well and quickly done that Government found itself ready to offer the Bill at once, without waiting a year. But—here was the important point—partly with a view to break up the opposition to Government's proposals, partly to prevent the Bill from becoming unwieldy and its progress too slow, it was to consist really of two Bills. The first was a Bill for the Extension of the Franchise; the second, to be considered after the settlement of the first, was to be concerned with the Redistribution of Seats. Into Mr. Gladstone's details we need not follow him, for we have already sketched the main provisions of his Bill. He commended it to the House, hoping that "if, unhappily, issue was to be taken adversely upon the Bill, it would be, above all, a plain and direct issue"—that is, whether or not there ought to be enfranchisement downwards. In other words, Mr. Gladstone, though he had nearly ignored the general question of the need of Parliamentary Reform, courted discussion of that general question. He brought in his Bill, not like a Trojan horse (he said) "approaching the walls of the sacred city, and filled with armed men, bent upon ruin, plunder, and conflagration," but rather as bringing recruits to the Parliamentary army—children to the Parliamentary family. "Give to these persons," ran his peroration, "new interests in the Constitution; new interests which, by the beneficent processes of the law of nature and Providence, shall beget in them new attachment; for the attachment of the people to the Throne, the institutions, and the laws under which they live is, after all, more than gold and silver, and more than fleets and armies; at once the strength, the glory, and the safety of the land."

The night following the introduction of the Bill was marked by the second of Mr. Lowe's famous Reform speeches, and the first of those fierce attacks upon the Russell Ministry which more than anything else contributed to bring in the Conservatives in the following year. Mr. Lowe was then member for Calne. He had held office under Lord Palmerston as Vice-President of the Council from 1859 to 1864, and had long been known in the House as an accomplished man and ready debater; but probably few, in 1866, had any idea of the real greatness of his oratorical gift, and of the splendid displays he was to make of it before the close of the Session. At the very outset of his speech on the 13th of March he denied the necessity of Reform altogether. And then came the famous passage that made Mr. Lowe the bugbear of the working classes. "Look at what a [working-class] majority implies. I shall speak very frankly on this subject, for—having lost my character by saying that the working man could get the franchise for himself, which has been proved to be true, and for saying which, he and his friends will not hate me one bit the less—I shall say exactly what I think. Let any consider—I have had such unhappy experiences, and many of us have—let any gentleman consider the constituencies he has had the honour to be concerned with. If you want venality, if you want ignorance, if you want drunkenness and facility for being intimidated; or if, on the other hand, you want impulsive, unreflecting, and violent people, where do you look for them in the constituencies? Do you go to the top or to the bottom?" Lastly, Who asked for the Bill? Not the people, not the House of Commons, but the Radical leaders, as a salve for a theoretical and not a practical grievance! "All I can say," concluded Mr. Lowe, "is, that if my right honourable friend does succeed in carrying this measure through Parliament, when the passions and interests of the day are gone by, I do not envy him his retrospect. I covet not a single leaf of the laurels that may encircle his brow. I do not envy him his triumph. His be the glory of carrying it; mine of having, to the utmost of my poor ability, resisted it." The cheers that greeted this speech—and not only the Opposition, but for a moment the Ministerialists, were carried away by its eloquence and wit—were a kind of omen of the difficulties that the Government were to meet with during the progress of the measure. In this debate on the first reading, Mr. Horsman, the Liberal member for Stroud, took up the same position of hostility to the measure as Mr Lowe; and it was in answer to him that Mr. Bright threw out his famous nickname for the new party. "He has retired into what may be called his political cave of Adullam, and he has called about him every one that was in distress, and every one that was discontented." The name of "Adullamites" was ever afterwards given to the group of seceding[393] Liberals, and their position was called the "Cave."

JOHN STUART MILL. (From a Photograph, by F. Hollyer, of the Painting by G. F. Watts, R.A.)

The Bill was brought in, and read a first time, and the House adjourned for the Easter Holidays to think over the situation. It was evident that a storm was coming and questions perhaps graver than that of the fate of a Cabinet or of a measure were dependent on the issue. A great meeting was held at Liverpool, at which Mr. Gladstone made a speech in defence of the Bill. Mr. Lowe's Liberal constituents at Calne wrote him a strong protest against his conduct and clearly indicated that he must not ask for a continuance of their confidence. His answer to them was, in fact, an answer to a perfect chorus of invective with which he was greeted by every Liberal newspaper and in every meeting of Liberals throughout the country.

He maintained that he had but fulfilled the announcement which he had made to them at the time of his election in 1865, when the words of his address had been, "I attach too much importance to the blessings we already enjoy, to risk them in pursuit of ideal perfection, or even of theoretical improvement." And, while with perfect frankness he affirmed his belief that "ignorant, drunken, venal, violent" people were to be found at the bottom of the constituencies, he denied that he had meant the words to apply to a whole class of his countrymen. But this disclaimer availed little; the words had been spoken, and they stuck. The popular excitement which they caused continued after the failure of the Bill and throughout the winter of 1866, and was directed mainly against the "renegade Liberals."[394] Mr. Gladstone's Liverpool speech was of the most uncompromising kind. "We do not desire," he said, "we should be the first to resist, sudden and violent sweeping changes; but the progressive enlargement of the popular franchise—with due regard to the state and circumstances of the country—we do not consider liable to the application of any of these epithets. Having produced this measure, framed in a spirit of moderation, we hope to support it with decision.... We stake ourselves, we stake our existence as a Government, and we also stake our political character, on the adoption of the Bill in its main provisions. You have a right to expect from us that we should tell you what we mean, and that the trumpet which it is our business to blow shall give forth no uncertain sound. Its sound has not been, and I trust will not be, uncertain. We have passed the Rubicon, we have broken the bridge and burned the boats behind us.... The defeat of the Bill, what would it procure? an interval, but not an interval of repose—an interval of fever, an interval of expectation, an interval for the working of those influences which might extend even to the formidable dimensions of political danger."

The great debate on the second reading began on the 12th of April; and never within living memory had a finer display of eloquence, argument, and energy been witnessed within the walls of the House of Commons. Mr. Gladstone had seen enough of the spirit of opposition that had been awakened to render it necessary for him to make an elaborate speech on moving the second reading, directed mainly against the amendment of which notice had been given by Lord Grosvenor, the eldest son of the Marquis of Westminster. This amendment, which was to be seconded by Lord Stanley, was to the effect "that it was inexpedient to consider this Bill until the House had before it the whole scheme of representation;" that is to say, that it was inexpedient to break up the Reform legislation into two parts, to separate the question of the franchise from the question of redistribution. Mr. Kinglake, a supporter of Government, moved an amendment to the same effect, though he was ready to postpone redistribution until the second reading had been carried. This compromise was accepted by Government. It is not necessary to go through the points that Mr. Gladstone raised; for to do so would be to anticipate the course of the debate, so exhaustive and voluminous was his eloquence. The former part of the speech was of a more general kind than that which had introduced the Bill originally; it was a sort of answer to Mr. Lowe and to those who had denied the necessity and the demand for Reform, and it dwelt with immense force upon the pledges given in past years by Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Horsman, and others, now strenuous opposers of Reform in any shape. Mr. Gladstone had previously denounced as a "deplorable arrangement," "a gross blunder springing from that kind of cleverness which so often outwits itself," the design of the opponents of the Bill to place themselves under the guidance of "the representatives of two of our noblest and most ancient houses." Indeed, it looked very much like a combination of aristocracy against democracy, when from the Liberal side of the House rose Lord Grosvenor to move an amendment, and from the Conservative side rose Lord Stanley to second it. Lord Grosvenor's speech was not specially effective, except from the family weight of the speaker. It mainly turned upon the affront put upon the Whig families by Government, in not having sufficiently taken them into their counsels. Lord Stanley was more telling. Alluding to the coming general election, he protested against the chance of allowing the extension of the suffrage to be dealt with by one Parliament, and the redistribution of seats by another. The Franchise Bill, if carried, would confer a great increase of power upon the Radical element in the constituencies—an increase of power which would lead to the return of a much more Radical Parliament than the present, pledged by the very circumstances of its existence to extreme measures. Was it safe to leave to its tender mercies a question involving so many complicated interests as that of the redistribution of seats? Mr. John Stuart Mill, in an able speech, followed Lord Stanley, and had no difficulty in showing this to be the real grievance and bugbear of the great families who had still so much influence over British politics, though Lord Stanley had hardly ventured to put it into such a definite form; but were there any real grounds for this fear of the working classes? For it was at bottom that and nothing else. The blue book of Mr. Lambert, said Mr. Mill, after an eloquent vindication of the rights of the workmen as a class, had revealed the fact that but twenty-six per cent. of the electors were of the working classes.

Mr. Mill's speech may be said to have established his parliamentary reputation, and many of the subsequent speakers took great pains to answer his arguments. Indeed, it was necessary to do so,[395] if the opposition to the Bill was to be justified, for Mr. Mill's speech had been a vigorous attempt to show that on many important questions legislation would be wiser and better if the working classes were more represented. Education, sanitary reform, the diminution of pauperism, the diminution of crime—in a word, the social side of politics—would, he maintained, be better handled by a reformed than by an unreformed Parliament; and, if so, an approach to democracy should rather be welcomed than feared. These were the points chiefly dwelt upon by the Opposition speakers—by the orthodox Conservatives like Sir Hugh Cairns, by Mr. Disraeli, by the "Cave," represented by Mr. Laing, Mr. Horsman, Lord Elcho, and notably Mr. Lowe.

Mr. Disraeli's summing up of the case of the Opposition was clever, but not very telling; it was, except at the end, too vague. The end, however, gave Mr. Gladstone what he wanted. Quoting from the late Sir George Cornewall Lewis, and addressing himself to Mr. Gladstone's famous assertion that the working classes were "the same flesh and blood" as the upper classes, Mr. Disraeli said:—"Sir George Lewis would not have built up the constituent body on the rights of man. He would not have entrusted the destiny of the country to the judgment of a numerical majority. He would not have counselled the Whig party to reconstruct their famous institutions on the American model, and to profit in time by the wisdom of the children of their loins. Sir, it is because I wish to avert from this country such calamities and disasters that I shall vote for the amendment of the noble lord."

When the leader of the Tory party sat down, Mr. Gladstone rose and took for his starting-point the last words of Mr. Disraeli. "At last, sir," he said, "we have obtained a clear declaration from an authoritative source; and we now know that a Bill which, in a country with five millions of adult males, proposes to add to the present limited constituency 200,000 of the middle class and 200,000 of the working class is, in the judgment of the leader of the Tory party, a Bill to reconstruct the Constitution on American principles." The speech which followed was, for sheer eloquence, one of the very greatest of Mr. Gladstone's parliamentary efforts; it began at one o'clock in the morning, and, after reviewing the whole course of the debate, it ended at three. "You may drive us from our seats," he ended, "you may slay, you may bury the measure that we have introduced. But we will write upon its gravestone for an epitaph this line, with certain confidence in its fulfilment—

'Exoriare aliquis nostris ex ossibus ultor!'

You cannot fight against the future. Time is on our side. The great social forces which move onwards in their might and majesty, and which the tumult of these debates does not for a moment impede or disturb, those great social forces are against you; they work with us; they are marshalled in our support. And the banner which we now carry in the fight, though perhaps at some moment of the struggle it may droop over our sinking heads, yet will float again in the eye of heaven, and will be borne by the firm hands of the united people of the Three Kingdoms, perhaps not to an easy, but to a certain and not distant victory."

It was three o'clock in the morning when Mr. Gladstone finished his speech, but the crowded and excited House showed no signs of fatigue. When the Speaker put the question, the roar of "Ayes" and "Noes" which answered him was heard far beyond the walls of the House by the waiting crowds outside. Amid great excitement the two camps parted into their respective lobbies, and shortly afterwards the result of the division was announced as follows:—For the second reading, 318; against it, 313. Majority for Government, 5. Both sides of the House cheered the announcement of these critical numbers—the Liberals for the fact of a majority, the Conservatives for the smallness of it. When the uproar had somewhat abated, Mr. Gladstone stated that he would declare what course the Government proposed to take on the Monday following, the 30th of April. In the few days which intervened there were many rumours abroad as to the probable resignation of the Cabinet. However, when the House re-assembled, Mr. Gladstone announced that the Government did not consider the division on Lord Grosvenor's motion any sufficient reason for resigning, and that they were prepared to proceed with the Bill in the manner which the House seemed to prefer. They would now lose no time in producing the Redistribution Scheme as well as the Scottish and Irish Bills, and they promised that the House should have ample time to consider the Redistribution Scheme before going on with the Franchise Bill. In answer to some reproaches of inconsistency from the Opposition benches, Mr. Gladstone replied that the Government had indeed pledged themselves to stand or fall by the Bill, but as yet the Bill had[396] not fallen—the alteration now effected in it was, after all, a question of arrangement only, and did not affect any vital principle of it.

On the 7th of May the Redistribution of Seats Bill was introduced. The Bill provided, first, for the redistribution of seats, properly so called; and secondly, for a more accurate settlement of borough boundaries than had been accomplished by the Reform Bill of 1832. With regard to the first question, Mr. Gladstone announced that Government had no intention of trying to get rid of bribery by a wholesale extinction of small boroughs. In the first place, to get rid of bribery was not the object of the Bill; and secondly, corruption, that "leprosy of English politics," was not confined to small boroughs, and no hard and fast line of electoral purity could be drawn between boroughs above or beneath the ten thousand line of population. Moreover, the question of small boroughs had since the Reform Act assumed a very different aspect. In 1832 the extreme measure of extinction—"capital punishment," as Mr. Lowe called it—had to be employed wholesale, since in many places throughout England the exercise of the franchise had become a mere "mockery of the representative system." Now, however, every member did in some way or other represent the views, as well as the interests, of a real local community; and the representation of the small boroughs was in so much better a state generally that no such summary measures as those adopted in 1832 ought now to be taken with regard to it. No borough, then, was to be absolutely extinguished, but "the fair demands of justice and growing population," in other words, the electoral deficiencies of the great manufacturing towns, were to be met by the milder expedient of arranging small boroughs in groups—a principle which had been already successfully adopted in Scotland and Wales. These groups were to be arranged according to geographical convenience; in some cases they were to consist of two boroughs, in others of three, and in one case of four. "When the population amounts to less than fifteen thousand we propose to assign one representative, and when it exceeds that number we propose to give it two." Mr. Gladstone then proceeded to run through the names of the various groups proposed. There were eight pairs of boroughs: in seven instances the group was composed of three, and in one, as we have said, of four. That is to say, that where two or more small towns had been accustomed to return each of them a representative, they were, in future, to constitute a group returning one jointly. Mr. Gladstone calculated that by these arrangements forty-nine seats would be set free for redistribution, and having now sketched the disenfranchisement side of the scheme, he proceeded to consider the still more important question of enfranchisement. The franchise was to be given for the first time to the six boroughs of Burnley, Stalybridge, Gravesend, Hartlepool, Middlesborough, and Dewsbury. Government proposed to apportion the remaining forty-three seats as follows:—Twenty-six additional members were to be given to the English counties, a third member to Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds, one member to the University of London, four additional members to the metropolitan constituencies of Chelsea and the Tower Hamlets, and one to the borough of Salford. The seven seats still remaining were to be handed over to Scotland. Ireland and Wales, Government considered, were already adequately represented, and they were, therefore, left out of account in this division of the spoils of redistribution. With regard to the question of borough boundaries, a vexed and difficult one, the Bill proposed little in the way of actual legislation. It provided that "wherever the municipal boundary includes any area that is not now within the parliamentary boundary, the parliamentary boundary is to be so far enlarged as to include that area." The Commissioners of Enclosures were to decide the boundaries of the newly enfranchised towns, of the newly separated halves of the Tower Hamlets, and, in cases of municipal extension—such as occurred when any outlying suburb of a town became large enough and united enough to claim municipal privileges—the parliamentary line was to follow whatever local line might be adopted.

In conclusion, Mr. Gladstone stated that Government was prepared to treat the two Bills—the Franchise Bill and the Redistribution Bill—exactly as the House thought best. They were willing, if the House desired it, to make one Bill out of them, but in no circumstances would Ministers advise a prorogation of Parliament till both questions had been disposed of. This marked concession to the demands of the Opposition only produced some captious remarks from Mr. Disraeli, to the effect that Government did not know its own mind; and that, in leaving the choice of the mode of procedure to the House, it was abdicating its functions.

[397]

SCENE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS: A NARROW MAJORITY. (See p. 395.)

After leave was given to bring in the Bill, the Scottish and Irish Reform Bills were introduced. The Scottish Bill provoked some discussion, but, on the whole, the House seemed to have made up its mind to let the Franchise question comparatively alone till the Redistribution of Seats, which most members considered a far more personal and pressing question, should have been settled. In the week that intervened between the introduction and the second reading of the Redistribution Bill, two notices were put upon the order book of the House, which gave Government ample warning of a troublesome time coming. One was Mr. Bouverie's motion to consolidate the Franchise Bill and the Redistribution Bill and make one measure of them; the other and more important one, moved by Captain Hayter, was to the effect "that in the opinion of this House the system of grouping proposed by Government is neither convenient nor equitable, nor sufficiently matured to form the basis of a satisfactory measure." Before they came on for discussion, however, the Redistribution Bill passed the second reading without formal opposition, though Mr. Disraeli took the opportunity of making a vigorous defence of small boroughs. After the Whitsuntide holidays the hottest part of the contest began. Lord Russell wrote a strong appeal to Lord Grosvenor, but without effect. Government announced that they were prepared to fuse the two Bills, and that they were willing to give every facility for discussion of Captain Hayter's amendment, but the "Cave" and the Conservatives were not to be conciliated; and Sir Rainald Knightley's motion, to add to the twofold Bill, already unwieldy in size, provisions against bribery and corruption at elections, both surprised and annoyed Ministers. Mr. Gladstone opposed it warmly. As he said afterwards, "We had already an overweighted measure, and it was impossible to find time to consider it alone," without adding to it any fresh material for discussion. But the Opposition rallied round the motion, and it was carried by a majority of ten against Government. Mr. Gladstone once more gave way and announced that if Sir Rainald Knightley could produce a matured scheme for the prevention of bribery at the proper time and place, Government would not oppose the discussion of it. Captain Hayter's amendment[398] against the system of grouping was brilliantly debated for five nights. Mr. Mill, Mr. Lowe, Sir Hugh Cairns, Mr. Gladstone, and Mr. Disraeli showed themselves at their best; and the clever skirmishing of Mr. Lowe, and the more serious but hardly more logical speeches of Mr. Disraeli, contrasted well with Mr. Mill's grave sarcasms upon the "dense solid force of sheer stupidity" in the Conservative party, and the sincere enthusiasm of Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Disraeli, in the speech which concluded the debate, did his best to defend his party from the charge of factious opposition; but when one considers what a much more sweeping Bill than the one they were at present opposing, on the ground of its Radical tendencies, was passed by him and his party in the following year, his arguments appear hardly convincing. When he resumed his seat, the amendment was negatived by 403 to 2, the greater part of the Opposition having left the House to avoid voting, seeing that Lord Grosvenor's defection from their ranks left them little or no chance of obtaining a majority against Government.

So far, and upon questions of general principles, Government had in the main, though with great difficulty, and at least one hair-breadth escape, been successful; that is to say, the House as a whole, with the exception, perhaps, of Mr. Lowe, were agreed that Reform in some shape or other was inevitable. But the Opposition were also agreed in the determination not to let the Russell Ministry settle the question. A successful Reform Bill would have continued the Liberals in power, as later it kept the Conservatives in office, and Mr. Disraeli saw his opportunity and seized it. Reform, especially that side of it which is concerned with the redistribution of seats, rouses the most apathetic Conservative member, and Mr. Disraeli could therefore count upon the undivided support of his party. But Mr. Gladstone's majority would have baffled all their efforts, had it not been for the unexpected defection of the "Cave." The opposition of Lord Grosvenor, Mr. Lowe, Mr. Horsman, and others to the Bill meant victory to the Conservatives; and Mr. Disraeli would not have been Mr. Disraeli had he not known how to use the advantage thus given him. So that while in committee the fortunes of the Bill went wavering backwards and forwards over the debatable ground of "rateable value," or "gross yearly rental," all the world knew that it was in reality no question of details, no question indeed of Reform, but a question of a Liberal or a Conservative Ministry that was being so obstinately fought out. The general consciousness of this gave an unusual piquancy to the discussion of even the dullest of those details of which a Reform Bill is full. The cleverness and determination of the opponents of the Ministry were notably shown in a most unexpected attack upon the Bill made by Lord Stanley on June 7th. The House in committee was engaged in debating the 4th clause of the now consolidated Bill, relating to the county franchise, which it was proposed to reduce to £14. Mr. Gladstone had just made an elaborate defence of the clause against a hostile amendment moved by Mr. Walpole, and all seemed going on as usual, when, to the amazement of the Tory side of the House, no less than of the Liberals, Lord Stanley, the member for Lynn, advanced quietly to the table and moved "that the portion of the joint Bill which relates to the redistribution of seats be taken first," or, in other words, that the Franchise Bill should be postponed sine diê. "This brief speech," says the historian of the year, "had the effect of a coup de théâtre." Lord Stanley went on to give various plausible reasons for the motion, but the House, in spite of its astonishment, was not to be taken in.

The tendency of the motion and the animus which prompted it were very plainly visible, and the indignant Liberal benches applauded every word of Mr. Gladstone's speech in answer to it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ironically complimented the Opposition upon their perfect knowledge of the "art of ambush." At last, it seemed, they had made up their minds, so long in uncertainty, as to what step they should take next, and this new strategy was the result of their cogitations. Loudly cheered by his supporters, Mr. Gladstone went on to say that Government would never suffer the conduct of the measure to be taken out of their hands by such a motion. They were pledged to accomplish, or at least to attempt, the enfranchisement of the people, and to that object they would adhere so long as they retained the support of the House. Lord Stanley's motion was defeated by a majority of 27, a larger majority than had yet fallen to the lot of Government since the beginning of the Reform debates, for the strong sense of unfair treatment among the Liberals kept several waverers loyal to the Ministry who would otherwise have voted with the Opposition. Nor was this all. "The engineer was indeed for once hoist with his own petard," for the feeling awakened by Lord Stanley's motion did Government good service in the next division which they had to encounter, namely, upon Mr.[399] Walpole's amendment, the debate on which had been interrupted by Lord Stanley's speech. Mr. Walpole was beaten by a majority of 14.

A far more vital question, however, was raised on June 11th by Mr. Ward Hunt, member for Northamptonshire, and one leading to much more important consequences. He proposed to make the basis of the county franchise, not the "gross yearly rental" of any given property, but its "rateable value;" while Lord Dunkellin followed suit with a similar motion with regard to the borough franchise. The Bill as originally drawn up gave the borough franchise "to the occupier, as owner or tenant of premises of any tenure within the borough, of a clear yearly value of seven pounds or upwards;" and the same expression was used in the case of the county franchise; clear yearly value meaning the same as "gross estimated rental."

The "gross estimated rental" of a house, according to the Union Assessment Committee Act of 1862, is defined as "the rent at which the hereditaments might reasonably be expected to let from year to year, free from all usual tenants' rates and taxes and tithe commutation rent-charge, if any." But the rateable value, the yearly value, that is to say, at which the house is assessed in the rate-books for rating purposes, is computed from the "gross estimated rental" by making various deductions. The scale of these deductions varies according to local needs; thus, in some places, "rateable value" is ascertained by deducting 10 per cent. from "gross estimated rental," in others 15 per cent., and in others as much as 35 or 36 per cent. The substitution of "rateable value" for "clear yearly value" in clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill would considerably diminish the number of new voters to be enfranchised by the Bill. That is to say, a £5 rating franchise would even hardly admit as many voters as the £7 rental franchise, because the "rateable value" was always something below the "gross estimated rental," and sometimes, as we have seen, very much below it. Mr. Ward Hunt said frankly that the object of his amendment was to raise the county franchise to a higher standard than if the clause passed without amendment. He thought the £14 franchise would admit an excessive number of votes.

Mr. Gladstone in a short, clear speech defended the basis adopted by Government, and once more patiently explained what was meant by the terms "rateable value" and "gross estimated rental," an explanation of which many members of the House stood greatly in need. A smart passage of arms followed between the Solicitor-General and Mr. Disraeli; and finally, upon a division, the amendment was negatived by a narrow majority of seven votes. Lord Dunkellin's motion, to the same effect with respect to the borough franchise, met with very different success. Its mover supported the principle of rating rather than rental, because he believed it, he said, to be the more convenient, inexpensive, and constitutional method of giving the franchise of the two. Whatever were the inequalities of rating, the inequalities of rental, he contended, were greater still. Mr. Gladstone again rose in answer, this time to give so determined a statement of the course Government intended to pursue, that it was at once felt that the crisis of the whole matter had at last been reached. A warm and exciting debate followed. Mr. Bright strongly supported Government, urging that if the amendment were carried, the great aim and object of the Bill would be defeated, and the legitimate hopes of the working classes once more disappointed. Other speakers followed, but all the world knew there was not much to be said now on either side. Finally, Mr. Gladstone clinched his first speech by the brief repetition of Government's determination not to accept the amendment, and to regard the carrying of it as incompatible with the further progress of the Bill. It was a quarter-past one o'clock when the crowded House divided, and amid a scene of great excitement the following numbers were announced: For the amendment, 315; against it, 304. Majority against Government, 11. Long and loud was the cheering of the Opposition. Mr. Disraeli had won his battle, and the immediate political future, at least, was in the hands of the Conservatives.

On the day following this important division it was generally known that the Russell Ministry was at an end; in fact, in the evening Lord Russell and Mr. Gladstone formally announced to the two Houses that the Ministry had sent in their resignations to the Queen, and motions of adjournment to the following Monday, the 25th of June, were agreed to. It was on Tuesday, the 26th, however, that Mr. Gladstone made his promised statement in the House of Commons. The House was crowded in every part, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose, he was greeted with a burst of tumultuous cheering. "Sir," he said, "the suspense, which the House yesterday so kindly consented to prolong, is at an end, and her Majesty has been pleased to accept the resignation of their offices, which was last week tendered by the Government. The House is[400] aware that her Majesty thought fit in her wisdom to postpone the acceptance of that tender when it was first made. It appeared to her Majesty that, upon the first aspect of the vote which led to the tender of our resignation, it might, perhaps be considered as a matter of mere machinery and detail, susceptible of adjustment, rather than as one which tended to break up the framework of the Bill; and her Majesty also felt, and I think the House and the country, without distinction of party, will agree in that sentiment, that, in the present state of affairs on the continent of Europe, there is necessarily a disadvantage in a change of Government. Without the slightest approach to any invidious preference or distinction, it may truly be said that at such a moment it is not easy for any incoming Administration to step at once into the exact conditions of relations with Governments and Ministers abroad which was enjoyed by their predecessors; and that difficulty, whatever may be its amount, is in itself a public disadvantage." Upon these grounds, then, the Queen had been for some little time unwilling to accept their resignation, until a long conference with Lord Russell had convinced her that the step was inevitable, and the resignations were accepted.

The accuracy of this statement is fully borne out by the correspondence between Lord Russell and the Queen, published by Mr. Spencer Walpole in his "Life of Lord John Russell." From the first her Majesty had desired that, in view of the serious state of the Continent, the Ministry should act in a spirit of compromise and conciliation. The Prime Minister fully acknowledged the critical condition of foreign affairs, and therefore strongly advised her Majesty to postpone her visit to Scotland. But he also wrote that "Lord Russell would ill serve your Majesty's interests and those of the country if, by any premature concession, he were to expose his own character and that of Mr. Gladstone to the loss of public confidence, and those who would most taunt and reproach them with such a concession would be their implacable and inveterate enemies." This was before the division on Lord Dunkellin's motion; after it had occurred, he wrote that the proceedings of the last few weeks had convinced the Ministry that nothing was to be gained by protracted discussions on the Bill, that the reasons against a dissolution, founded on the general apathy of the South of England, appeared to them valid, and that there was no alternative to a resignation. The Queen replied that she had been completely taken by surprise, as she understood that there was no crisis, and that she did not consider Ministers were fulfilling their duty to herself or the country by abandoning their posts in consequence of a defeat on a matter of detail and not of principle. The Premier stuck to his text that Lord Dunkellin's amendment was a vital issue; he thought, however, that it might be possible to postpone the Bill with a declaration that it would be submitted unaltered to the present or a new Parliament. Finally, the Cabinet determined that if they could obtain from the House an expression of confidence together with a desire for the reintroduction of the Bill at an early period, they would retain their offices. When there appeared no reasonable prospect of the fulfilment of these conditions, they had no option but to resign.

The dislocation of the Liberal party was so complete that no reasonable prospect remained of a stable Government being formed by any of the fractions into which it had been temporarily shivered. When, therefore, the Queen sent for Lord Derby and requested him to form a Ministry, that statesman, although the Conservative party was in so decided a minority in the House of Commons, accepted without hesitation the responsibility of undertaking the government of the country. Mr. Disraeli became Chancellor of the Exchequer; Mr. Walpole went to the Home Office; Lord Stanley and Lord Cranborne were appointed Secretaries for Foreign Affairs and for India respectively; General Peel and Sir John Pakington accepted the chief posts in the War Office and the Admiralty; Lord Carnarvon became Secretary for the Colonies; and the Marquis of Abercorn accepted the Vice-royalty of Ireland. This, it will be evident, was a purely Conservative Administration; such, however, had not been the desire of Lord Derby, who made overtures to some of the leaders of the recalcitrant Liberals, which were declined. Mr. Lowe was approached, so were Lord Grosvenor and Lord Lansdowne; the last would have joined, had not his sudden death intervened. Lord Shaftesbury also declined, and so did Lord Clarendon, either because, according to Bishop Wilberforce, he "hated Disraeli," or because, according to Lord Malmesbury, the Conservative irregulars were preparing an attack on his foreign policy. The Adullamites would have joined a Government under Lord Stanley, whose explanation of his father's ill success with the dissentient Whigs made a few days later to his constituents at Lynn, was doubtless the true one. "We have not desired," he said, "to form our Administration upon any narrow party basis[401] There are many of the Whig party whose sympathies are well known to be with us, whose support in debate and divisions we have no doubt of receiving, and whose official co-operation, where it has been asked, has only been withheld not on account of any real or wide difference of political opinion, but rather from that natural and honourable scruple which makes men shrink from the appearance of changing their party—of walking, as the phrase is, across the floor of the House—under circumstances where they may possibly appear to be personal gainers by the change."

THE LOBBY, HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Mr. Disraeli went down for re-election to his constituents in Buckinghamshire, and there delivered an address that adumbrated with considerable clearness the course which the new Government intended to, and which it actually did, pursue. There was a notion that the Conservatives were more favourable to intervention in the affairs of foreign countries than the Liberals; that in their hands the country was more likely to drift into war; and this notion, so fatal to the popularity of any political party with that pacific generation of Englishmen, Mr. Disraeli took great pains to dispel. "The abstention of England from any unnecessary interference in the affairs of Europe is the consequence, not of her decline of power, but of her increased strength. England is no longer a mere European Power; she is the metropolis of a great maritime empire, extending to the boundaries of the farthest ocean. It is not that England has taken refuge in a state of apathy, that she now almost systematically declines to interfere in the affairs of the continent of Europe. England is as ready and as willing to interfere as in old days, when the necessity of her position requires it. There is no Power, indeed, that interferes more than England. She interferes in Asia, because she is really more an Asiatic Power than a European. She interferes in Australia, in Africa, and in New Zealand, where she carries on war often on a great scale. Therefore it is not because England does not recognise her duty to interfere in the affairs of the continent of Europe, that persons are justified in declaring that she has relinquished her imperial position, and has taken[402] refuge in the otium cum dignitate which agrees with the decline of life, of power, and of prosperity. On the contrary, she has a greater sphere of action than any European Power, and she has duties devolving upon her on a much larger scale." On the subject of Parliamentary Reform Mr. Disraeli was decidedly explicit. He would not for one moment allow that Reform was a Liberal preserve, and that in dealing with the question the Conservatives were poaching on forbidden ground. "I hear very often," he said, "that the subject of Parliamentary Reform is the great difficulty of the present Ministry, and will be their stumbling-block. I am quite of a different opinion. I see no difficulty in the subject at all; and if we stumble, rest assured we shall not stumble over the subject of Parliamentary Reform. If Parliamentary Reform is to be dealt with, I consider the present Government have as good a right to deal with it as any body of statesmen in existence. The great Reform Bill of 1832 was mainly devised by Lord Derby, and was entirely carried by his energy; and with regard to the only measure on the subject, since the great Reform Bill, ever mentioned with respect, why, I myself brought it in. I have remarked, during the recent campaign in the House of Commons, that every division that took place, and every strong manifestation of opinion which was expressed, ratified the principle upon which the Bill of 1859 was founded. And night after night, sitting in that House opposite to me, distinguished Liberals of all hues rose, and, in a tone of courteous penitence, publicly avowed how much they regretted they had voted against the Bill of 1859."

On the 9th of July, the new arrangements having been completed, Lord Derby made a Ministerial statement in the House of Lords, the leading ideas of which were in close agreement with those enunciated by Mr. Disraeli in the speech from which we have just quoted. At this late period of the Session, the Budget for the year having been already discussed and settled, it was out of the question that the new Government should do more than wind up the business of legislation with all possible despatch, and then dismiss the members to their homes. In a considerable section of the large Liberal majority that now crowded the Opposition benches, a determination was apparent to give the new Ministry a fair trial, and neither to join in, nor permit the success of, any factious or precipitate attempt to place them in a minority.

Besides that of the Premier, but one important Ministerial statement was made before the close of the Session; this, which was delivered by Lord Cranborne on the 19th of July, related to the finances of India, and was regarded on both sides of the House as a masterly and lucid exposition. Though so far satisfactory, inasmuch as it showed that, during the last three years, the Indian Government had very nearly succeeded in establishing an equilibrium between receipts and expenditure, it was calculated to occasion some anxiety on account of the proofs which it afforded of the inelastic character of a large proportion of the sources from which the Indian revenue is derived, of the complete failure of the income tax, on the introduction of which such ardent hopes had been founded, and of the degree in which the prosperity of Indian finance was dependent on the rise or fall of the opium tax. The estimate of revenue from this single tax was £8,500,000; and Lord Cranborne reluctantly admitted that "opium had become the essential element in Eastern finance." Yet the general picture which he drew of the material condition of India was eminently satisfactory. The railway expenditure had been a source of enormous success; the Great Indian Peninsula line paid 7 per cent. on its capital, and the East Indian nearly 5 per cent., though neither of them was fully and thoroughly opened. Taking a comprehensive survey of the condition of India, he said that "education was progressing; public works, particularly of irrigation, were going on; railways advancing; the Ganges Canal had been rendered more fitted for its great purposes; and there was much evidence of prosperity."

The administrative skill and prudence of the new Home Secretary were severely tested before the close of the Session. On the committee of the Reform League of London Mr. Edmond Beales and Colonel Dickson were the most influential persons, and in a series of meetings they had taught their audiences to believe that without manhood suffrage and the ballot the British Constitution was one-sided and imperfect. The advent to power of a Conservative Ministry raised the ardour of the Leaguers to a pitch of yet more enthusiastic warmth than before, and it was announced that a great public meeting would be held in Hyde Park, on the evening of the 23rd of July, in order to demand the immediate extension of the suffrage. The authorities feared that the demonstration, occurring at so late an hour, might be taken advantage of by the "roughs" to create a disturbance, under cover of which thefts on a large scale might be perpetrated; it was resolved, therefore, that this meeting should be prohibited. Placards signed by the Chief Commissioner[403] of Police, Sir Richard Mayne, were, early in the afternoon, extensively posted throughout London, stating that the park gates would be closed to the public at five o'clock. The League and its adherents viewed the attempt to suppress their oratory with the deepest indignation, and a written notice was forwarded by the "Demonstration Committee" to the various sub-committees, to the effect that the members were to march in procession to the park, and, if prevented from entering it, were then to form four deep, and proceed by way of Grosvenor Place, Victoria Street, and past the Houses of Parliament to Trafalgar Square. The Procession of Leaguers was formed on Clerkenwell Green, when several speeches of a highly inflammatory nature were delivered before the march was commenced.

The procession set out shortly before five o'clock, and proceeded along Holborn and Oxford Street to the Marble Arch. Here things presented an animated appearance. A force of foot and mounted police, numbering 1,600 or 1,800, had been assembled within the park, under the direction of Sir Richard Mayne and Captain Harris; and at five o'clock the gates were closed. A large number of spectators had previously entered the park, to witness the arrival of the procession; and with these the police did not interfere. Arrived at the Marble Arch, Mr. Beales, Colonel Dickson, and other prominent Leaguers, alighted from the foremost carriages, and going up to the gate, demanded admission to the park from the police. This was refused, on the authority of "our Commissioner;" and then Mr. Beales, re-forming the procession as well as he could in the midst of the dense crowd, led as many as would follow him down Park Lane, and, by the streets already named, to Trafalgar Square. Here several speeches were delivered, but all accounts represent the proceedings as remarkably tame.

Meanwhile the mob that had gathered about the Marble Arch, both in Park Lane and in Bayswater Road, exasperated at the loss of the excitement which the meeting would have afforded them, and partly, no doubt, animated by resentment at what seemed needlessly arbitrary conduct on the part of the police, pressed close up to the park railings; the bolder spirits seized them, shook them; grasped by hundreds of strong hands at once, they swayed—they gave way. In an instant a hundred practicable breaches afforded that admission into the park which the police had denied. Down came the police, horse and foot, upon the invaders; but they were distracted by the multitude of inroads, and disconcerted by the ease with which the railings were laid prostrate in every direction. They used their truncheons freely, and many a head was cut open; but the mob, besides the advantage of overwhelming numbers, took to stone-throwing, and many of the police were severely injured. Sir Richard Mayne, who had himself been wounded, then sent for the military. A detachment of Foot Guards soon arrived, followed by a troop of Life Guards. The mob cheered the soldiers, who posted themselves near the Marble Arch, occasionally marching upon any specially dense assemblage of persons, and compelling them to shift their ground. Speeches were made by excited orators at various points within the park, after the mob had forced their way in; but the confusion that prevailed was such that little attention seems to have been paid to them. On the southern side of the park also, in the Knightsbridge Road, a number of mischievous persons congregated, and broke down two hundred yards of the park railing. After the arrival of the soldiers, the police endeavoured to make a number of arrests, in doing which they met with violent resistance, and were in many cases severely handled. The partisans of order were presently reinforced by a second detachment of Foot Guards, who, with the first detachment, received orders to be in readiness to fire, should it become necessary. Encounters between the police and the mob then grew less frequent, and finally quiet was restored when another body of Life Guards arrived, and assisted in removing the mob from the park. Much stone-throwing was all this time going on in the streets, and the windows of the Athenæum and United Service Clubs, as well as of a number of private houses, were broken. No lives were lost, though a considerable number of persons received severe injuries.

Mr. Walpole, the new Home Secretary, a man of remarkable humanity and gentleness, was afflicted beyond measure by the turn matters had taken. He received a deputation of the Leaguers at the Home Office two days afterwards, and in conversation with them actually shed tears, and came to the somewhat ignominious understanding with them, that Government would cause the police and the military to be withdrawn from the park until the question as to the legal right of the people to claim admission to it had been decided, the League meanwhile undertaking to do its best to prevent any breach of the peace or other misconduct within the park enclosure! The consequence of such deplorable weakness may be conceived. In a London paper of the following[404] week it was stated: "The park is still infested, night after night, by numerous bands of thieves and ruffians, who are left to prey on defenceless passengers or unwary loungers after dusk, without the slightest interference of the park-keepers or the police. Several gross outrages, perpetrated in Hyde Park, about eight or nine o'clock in the evening, since the enclosure was destroyed last week, have been narrated by the sufferers themselves, or by witnesses to the fact, in letters to the daily papers.... A herd of men and boys, estimated at 300 or 400, of the worst class of habitual malefactors, are permitted to assemble and prowl about the ground, waiting for an opportunity of plunder."

In Parliament the conduct of Government in prohibiting the meeting was much canvassed and, by some speakers, severely censured. Mr. Ayrton said that, instead of appealing at once to force, the Home Secretary ought to have met the people in a conciliatory spirit on the matter of right and should have issued a temperate notification explaining how the case really stood. Mr. Mill declared that if the people had not a right to meet in the parks, they ought to have it. He added that, as Government seemed inclined to enrol their names on the list of those who could do more mischief in an hour than others could repair in years, he exhorted them to consider seriously the gravity of what they had done on this occasion. But the majority of speakers on both sides of the House, including statesmen of long experience, were of opinion that Government, though perhaps every step taken by Mr. Walpole might not have been judicious, were substantially justified in what they had done; and Mr. Disraeli declared that "it had never entered the minds of Ministers that the real working man, whose general orderly conduct he cordially acknowledged, would commit acts of riot, but they believed that the scum of the great city would take advantage of such an assemblage, and the justice of their apprehensions was proved by the event."

The Queen's Speech at the close of the Session was read by the new Lord Chancellor (Lord Chelmsford) on the 10th of August. It contained several paragraphs on the Fenian conspiracy, and the doings of the Fenians both in Ireland and in Canada, recording in terms of grateful acknowledgment the good faith and promptitude of the United States Government in checking at the outset "any attempted invasion of a friendly State." It alluded with satisfaction to the fact that, although the late Ministry, in the presence of a financial crisis of almost unexampled severity, had authorised the Bank of England to infringe the letter of the Bank Charter Act of 1844, if such a step were required for the accommodation of their customers, yet no such infringement had actually taken place, the Bank having been able to weather the storm without it. It spoke of the gradual mitigation of the cattle plague, of the late visitation of cholera, and of the successful laying of the Atlantic cable. The murrain had, indeed, continued its ravages during the earlier half of the year; but, fortunately, as time went on, the stringent precautions that had been enforced by the Privy Council produced the desired effect: the cases showed a progressive reduction in number; and by the end of the year the plague, though not extinct, was in a material degree abated. Wales continued almost wholly exempt from the disease; in the South of England its virulence was continually on the decline; only in the north-western counties it seemed to hold its ground tenaciously, and in the dairy farms of Cheshire many ancient pastures were given up in despair to the plough. The total loss to the country from the disease, even in this year of improvement, was computed at not less than £3,500,000 in money.

[405]

REFORM LEAGUERS AT THE MARBLE ARCH. (See p. 403.)

[406]

## CHAPTER XXVI.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

> The Cholera—Laying of the Atlantic Cable—Previous Failures—The Great Eastern's first Attempt—Her second Voyage—The Undertaking accomplished—Recovery of the broken Cable—Reform Demonstrations—The Guildhall Meeting—Meetings at Manchester, Leeds, and Elsewhere—Mr. Bright and the Queen—The Government prepares a Bill—"Black Friday"—The Overend and Gurney Failure—Limited Liability—Royal Marriages—Prize-Money—The Loss of the London—A bad Harvest—The Fenian Trials—Lord Wodehouse's Letter—Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act—Rapid Legislation—Wholesale Arrests—The Army purged—Renewal of the Act—Lord Kimberley's Speech—Sweeny and Stephens—The Niagara Raid—General Spear's Exploit—A peaceful Winter—Whewell and Keble.

THE visitation of the cholera in England in 1866 was light in comparison with what it was in some foreign cities, and with what it had been in former years in London. The deaths did not materially affect the returns of mortality for the year; they fell short of eight thousand. In Austria it was computed that at least 100,000 persons were carried off by cholera in this year, and there was hardly a week in which the deaths in London were not exceeded by those in some Continental cities with scarcely a tenth of its population. This result was certainly owing in great part to the sanitary precautions and improvements carried out by the Cholera Committee. The disease kept extending itself as the summer advanced, until it reached its culminating point in the fortnight between the 21st of July and the 4th of August; in the week ending on the last-named day 1,053 deaths from cholera were reported in London. Then all at once it began to subside, and before the month of August had passed, the Lord Mayor was enabled to suggest a large appropriation of the funds which had been liberally subscribed by charitable persons (the Queen sent £500) for the formation and support of cholera hospitals, to the assistance of those who had been left orphans by the epidemic.

The enterprise of laying an insulated electric cable at the bottom of the Atlantic in order to secure instantaneous telegraphic communication between Europe and America—first attempted in 1857, crowned with a fleeting and illusory success in 1858, and partially accomplished in 1865—was in the summer of this year completely realised, not only by the successful laying of the cable of 1866, but by the recovery from the bottom of the sea of the cable of 1865, which was then pieced on to a new wire rope, and carried safely onward to the shore of Newfoundland. A brief survey of the previous unsuccessful attempts will not be uninstructive. In the first, that of 1857, the cable was of a clumsy and ponderous description, if compared with the lighter and relatively stronger ropes afterwards adopted. Two men-of-war, the Agamemnon and the Niagara, composed the expedition; the Niagara paying out the cable. When 380 miles had been paid out, the cable broke and the ships returned to port. In 1858 the same ships were employed and a new plan was tried. The ships proceeded to the middle of the Atlantic, each with 1,500 miles of cable on board; here they effected a splice of the two ends of their respective cargoes and proceeded in different directions, the Agamemnon to the eastward, the Niagara to the westward, paying out as they went. Even to the uninitiated this plan would appear to expose the cable to a needless amount of additional strain, and therefore to increase the risk of fracture. Twice the cable broke after less than fifty miles had been paid out; a third time the cable broke, when about 140 miles had been submerged; a third time the vessels returned to the watery rendezvous, but they now failed to meet, and each returned separately to Queenstown. A fourth attempt, at the end of July, was more successful; though the signalling was repeatedly interrupted during the paying-out process, the cable did not actually break and the object was supposed to have been accomplished. The Niagara brought her end to Trinity Bay on the 5th of August, and on the same day the Agamemnon brought hers to Valentia. Messages of congratulation were interchanged between the Queen and the President of the United States (Mr. Buchanan), and for a short time there was exultation. But a suspiciously great expenditure of electricity was required on one side of the ocean in order to affect the instrument on the other. The indications became feebler and feebler, and before any commercial use had been made of the cable, they ceased entirely.

Much disappointment was felt in both continents and for some years no fresh attempt was made. In 1864 a new company was formed, under[407] the auspices of which a new cable was manufactured on a simpler and better plan, and in July, 1865, the Great Eastern, accompanied by the Sphinx and the Terrible, men-of-war, commenced to lay it from Valentia. One thousand two hundred miles of cable had been paid out, and a distance of only 600 miles remained to be traversed, when, while engaged in hauling in upon the cable, in order to discover and remove a "fault," the adventurers had the mortification of seeing it suddenly part. All three ships then began to fish for the cable with the greatest diligence; but although repeatedly grappled, it always snapped before it could be raised to the surface and, after losing an inconceivable amount of rope, the expedition returned to England.

From the diary kept by the Secretary of the Anglo-American Telegraph Construction Company on board the Great Eastern, we extract a few interesting particulars with reference to her successful voyage in 1866. She took her departure from Berehaven, Bantry Bay, on the 12th of July, having the cable stowed away in large coils in two immense tanks, one forward, the other aft. The ship was commanded by Captain Anderson; the "cable crew" and everything connected with the laying of the cable were under the superintendence of Mr. Canning. The plan was, that the immense vessel, propelled both by paddles and screw, and, therefore, more manageable than a vessel dependent on one source of motion, should steam slowly ahead, paying out the cable as she went over the stern, through machinery invented for the purpose in the preceding year by Messrs. Canning and Clifford, which had been found to answer admirably. The shore end of the cable, which had been laid at Foilhummerum Bay, in Valentia Island, some days previously, was brought on board the Great Eastern on the 13th, and made fast to the cable; as soon as the splice was effected, the paying-out process immediately commenced. For some days the weather was everything that could be wished. Three men-of-war took part in the expedition, ready to give immediate aid, if necessary—the Terrible, the Albany, and the Medway. The insulation of the cable was perfect; communication between the ship and Valentia was uninterruptedly maintained, and the last news from Europe, received through the cable, was printed each day on board, under the title of The Great Eastern Telegraph. The chief check to the prosperous progress of the undertaking occurred on the 18th of July, and it was a very alarming one. A "foul flake," or tangle, took place in the after-tank, containing, originally, more than 800 miles of cable, while the paying-out was tranquilly going on, a short time after midnight, and was not cleared for an hour and a half. From this time no incident of much moment marked the progress of the expedition. As the Great Eastern neared Newfoundland, the weather became foggy, and the Albany was sent on to Heart's Content, a harbour in Trinity Bay, Newfoundland, to clear the north-east side of the harbour of shipping, and place a boat with a red flag for Captain Anderson to steer to for anchorage. By dint of good management—the men-of-war forming a line of communication between the shore and the Great Eastern, and that one which was nearest to her guiding her through the fog by the repeated firing of guns—she was piloted into Trinity Bay without accident on the morning of the 27th of July. The shore end was quickly laid and the electric union of Europe and America was at last complete. On the 28th Lord Carnarvon telegraphed to Lord Monck at Ottawa felicitations on the happy result of an enterprise which could not fail to draw closer the ties of amity and fellowship uniting Canada to England; and on the 30th congratulatory messages were exchanged between the Queen and President Johnson.

But this was not all. The task of fishing for the broken end of the cable of 1865, which the loss of all her spare rope had, as we have seen, compelled the Great Eastern to abandon in the previous September, was now resumed with all the eager hope and confidence engendered by success. The cable had been lost at the depth of about 2,000 fathoms, and experience had shown that to pick it up at one lift from that enormous depth was impracticable, the mere weight of the cable, in its resistance to the force employed by the picking up machinery, being sufficient to snap it. It was arranged, therefore, that the Great Eastern herself, and the attendant men-of-war, tracing back the cable for the space of several miles from the point of fracture, should grapple for it, and when found raise it, not to the surface, but to various heights from the bottom, so that several miles of cable should be raised to an altitude intermediate between the bottom and the surface, and be secured there by buoys attached to the grappling ropes; and thus the final lift, being only from this intermediate altitude, might present reasonable chances of success. But this plan of operations, simple though it be in the telling, involved a great amount of anxious and exhausting labour, and mechanical and practical difficulties of various[408] kinds. Eventually it was recovered on September 1st and was found to be perfectly sound.

The miscarriage of Mr. Gladstone's Reform Bill led to periodical demonstrations during the summer and autumn in favour of the extension of the franchise. An organised agitation provided that mass meetings should be held in several of the largest cities in Great Britain at convenient intervals of time. The riots in and near Hyde Park arose, as we have seen, out of a Reform demonstration; and the irrepressible Mr. Beales, whom Mr. Walpole's exquisite sensibility on the subject of broken heads had probably rather emboldened than mollified, arranged, in concert with the London Working Men's Association, a great Reform meeting in the Guildhall on the 8th of August. The Lord Mayor took the chair and opened the proceedings with the melodramatic declaration that "the man must have a heart of stone who could witness this magnificent sight without the deepest emotion." Mr. Beales, in moving the first resolution, feelingly alluded to the perils which he had undergone in the cause of the people on the 23rd of July, and concluded by saying, "The prohibition of the League meeting on the 23rd July, and the exclusion of the public from Hyde Park on that day, have done far more than a hundred such meetings could have done to advance the cause of Reform, and unite the people in its support.... No half-and-half measure of Reform will now be listened to. The banner of the League, having inscribed on it, 'Residential and Registered Manhood Suffrage, and the Ballot,' is now hailed in all quarters." Mr. Odger, seconded the next resolution, which menaced the existing Government with the withdrawal of all sympathy and support on the part of the Reformers if they did not speedily introduce a Bill for the amendment of the representation of the people. Mr. Coffey, also, and Mr. Charles Bradlaugh spoke in the course of the evening.

About six weeks after this (September 24th) a meeting, supposed to be larger than any that had been ever assembled in England, was held at Manchester. Bodies of men from the numerous manufacturing towns and villages in the neighbourhood were marching into Manchester all the morning, carrying flags inscribed with the words "National Reform Union," and proceeded to a large open space called Campfield, where six platforms had been erected. Notwithstanding the torrents of rain that continued throughout the day, the numbers assembled were estimated at between 100,000 and 200,000 persons. In connection with each of the six platforms three identical resolutions were moved and passed; the general effect of these resolutions was to identify the people of Manchester, in opinions and political action, with Mr. Beales and his fellow-agitators. A high tribute was paid to some of the members of the late Government and other friends of Reform, particularly Mr. Bright, and Mr. Mill. A resolution passed in the evening at a great meeting in the Free Trade Hall showed how deeply the eloquent and sarcastic invectives of Mr. Lowe were felt and resented by their objects:—"This meeting, while recording its indignation at the insults offered in Parliament and by the press to the working classes and their advocates, calls on the people of this country to allow themselves no longer to be trifled with by an oligarchic few, and to rally round those men who have upheld their cause." On the 8th of October a great Reform meeting was held at Leeds. The dreary open space above the town, called Woodhouse Moor, was the scene of the gathering, at which it was estimated that not less than 200,000 persons were collected. Resolutions of a similar character to those adopted at Manchester were passed; several speakers fiercely attacked Mr. Lowe and vindicated the character of the working men from the aspersions that had been heaped upon it; nor was the usual vote of confidence in Mr. Bright forgotten. A similar demonstration took place in Edinburgh in November. An immense working man's meeting had been arranged for the 3rd of December, to be held at Beaufort House, Kensington, but it proved to be less imposing than the promoters had intended, not much more than an eighth of the 200,000 working men whose presence had been reckoned upon, actually making their appearance. The oratory was somewhat reckless, but an antidote was speedily forthcoming. At a Reform meeting of the London Trades in St. James's Hall (December 4th), Mr. Ayrton was understood to censure the Queen for not recognising the people when they gathered in such numbers in front of one of her palaces. In reply to these remarks, Mr. Bright said:—"I am not accustomed to stand up in defence of those who are possessors of crowns, but I could not sit and hear that observation without a sensation of wonder and of pain. I think that there has been, by many persons, a great injustice done to the Queen in reference to her desolate and widowed position. And I venture to say this, that a woman—be she the Queen of a great realm, or be she the wife of one of you labouring men—who can keep alive in her heart a great sorrow for the lost object of her life and affections, is not at all likely to be wanting in a great and generous sympathy with you." Every sentence of this vindication was greeted with cheers, and at its close there was loud and prolonged cheering, amidst which the body of people in the hall arose and sang a verse of "God save the Queen."

A COTTAGE BEDSIDE AT OSBORNE.

AFTER THE PAINTING BY GOURLAY STEELL, R.S.A.

[See larger version]

[409]

So persevering and wide-spread an agitation in pursuit of a political object in a country constitutionally governed must have disposed the Conservative Government, even if originally averse from mooting it, to make the question of Parliamentary Reform the serious subject of their counsels. But we have already seen, from the speech of Mr. Disraeli in Buckinghamshire, that, although the Government regarded itself as wholly unpledged, the question of Reform was one that had no terrors for the versatile and experienced leader of the party in the House of Commons; and in the course of the winter it became known that the Ministry were engaged in framing a large and comprehensive measure, and would introduce it early in the ensuing Session.

ARRIVAL OF THE "GREAT EASTERN" AT TRINITY BAY. (See p. 407.)

One of the severest commercial crises ever known in Great Britain will make the months of May and June, 1866, memorable in the history of banking and finance. The crash that caused so many goodly and solid-seeming commercial and financial structures to topple over and collapse in irretrievable ruin was the natural reaction after a period of feverish, over-sanguine, and partly unsound speculation. The year 1865 had witnessed the launch on the money market of a vast number of new undertakings, carried on by companies offering the advantage of limited liability to their shareholders, and professing to hold out to the fortunate investor opportunities of enriching himself beyond the wildest dream of avarice. As the spring of 1866 wore on, the solvency and utility of some of these speculations came seriously into question, and a tendency to realise manifested itself. There was one immense financing firm which in the magnitude of its discounts had no equal in London. This was the Limited Liability Company of Overend, Gurney, and Co., the shareholders of which had, as a great privilege, purchased[410] the goodwill of the business of the well-known firm of Overend and Gurney the year before, for the sum of £500,000. At the time they thus sold their business, the firm, as the subsequent judicial investigation proved, was hopelessly insolvent to the extent of many millions. The representatives of the new company must have been either quixotically confiding, or culpably remiss, or financially incompetent, not to have obtained some inkling, at the time of the negotiations for the purchase, of the real state of affairs; it seems certain, however, that their ignorance was as complete as that of the world outside. In March or April it became known that certain firms and companies, with which Overend, Gurney, and Co. had had large transactions, were in difficulties or had suspended payment; a feeling of uneasiness arose; the shares of the company, which had been quoted at a good premium, fell below par; and some of the new shareholders, becoming alarmed, commenced to sell out. An immediate further depreciation of the shares was, of course, the consequence; this led to increased alarm and to pressure from the company's creditors. The directors, perceiving ruin to be imminent, sought assistance from the Bank of England; but the authorities of that establishment, after investigating the affairs of the company sufficiently to convince themselves that no slight or temporary measures of relief would be of the least avail, declined to grant the accommodation requested. Meanwhile, the run upon them was increasing, and the price of the shares continually falling; and on the afternoon of May 10th the company had no choice but to close its doors and suspend payment. The liabilities were stated at the enormous sum of £11,000,000; the assets, it was feared, and with great reason as the events proved, would, even if realised in the most favourable circumstances, leave an enormous margin of indebtedness. Friday morning ushered in a day of universal panic and consternation in London city, such as had not been seen since the disastrous year of 1857. The multitude of buyers and sellers, bulls and bears, knaves and dupes, brokers and investors, who swarm during the business hours of the day in the streets surrounding the Royal Exchange, consented together, as if by a tacit understanding, to call the day "Black Friday." Every half-hour some well-known firm or company, which but the day before had presented a smiling and prosperous front to the world, was announced to have suspended payment. Crowds of despairing depositors collected round the door of Overend, Gurney, and Co., in Lombard Street, and discussed in tones of anger or despondency the prospects of the bankruptcy. Upon all the private banks the run was intensely severe; the managers of these sought assistance from the Bank of England, and, when the securities were unexceptional, were in no instance refused. But the consequence was that the Bank, whose reserves at the beginning of the day were close upon £7,000,000, although it charged 9 per cent. all day for accommodation, found itself, when the business of the day was over, with the reserves reduced to little over £3,000,000. What measures the Bank authorities were driven to in face of this alarming reduction will presently be related. The crash of falling houses was resounding all day in the financial ear. The English Joint-Stock Company was one of the first to go, dragging down with it thirty-one provincial branches in its fall. Failures for less than half a million were so comparatively unimportant as to arouse little attention. The convulsion reached its climax towards the close of the day, when the stoppage of the great firm of railway contractors, Peto, Betts, and Co., with liabilities exceeding £4,000,000, was announced. The authorities of the Bank of England communicated to the Treasury, as in duty bound, the drain that menaced the exhaustion of their reserves. The emergency was so serious that Lord Russell and Mr. Gladstone, after conferring with a great number of bankers and directors of finance companies, agreed to allow the credit of the country to be employed, though the permission involved an infringement of the law. Late on Friday night Mr. Gladstone announced in the House of Commons that an authority would be sent next morning from the Treasury to the Bank, to continue discounting good bills, even though their reserves should thereby be reduced below the minimum required by law, provided that they made no such discounts at a lower rate of interest than 10 per cent. The panic in the City was greatly allayed when the decision of the Government was made known; confidence began to revive; and eventually the Bank did not find it necessary to infringe the law. Yet one more gigantic failure occurred before the crisis passed. This was the stoppage of Agra and Masterman's Bank, a house of old standing, and with a most extensive Indian connection, the business of which, as in the case of Overend and Gurney, had been lately transferred by its former proprietors to a limited liability company. The run on this particular bank was so persistent that in the four[411] weeks which intervened between the beginning of the crisis and their own stoppage, they paid away more than £3,000,000 over the counter, yet were unable to avert the catastrophe.

In consequence of the disasters thus described, and many other minor failures that we have not noticed, numbers of families found themselves reduced from affluence to poverty; many had to descend to a lower position in society, and an extensive contraction of expenditure took place, the effects of which were felt through all the channels of trade, and especially by those who minister to the amusements and luxuries of the affluent. It was remarked that the principle of limited liability, which, when first introduced, was held to confer so great a boon upon investors, inasmuch as it sheltered the individual proprietors of any joint-stock adventure from that awful responsibility for the whole debts of the concern, which the law, as it formerly stood, imposed upon them—had come to be so worked in practice as to make this immunity from risk, in numberless cases, illusory. It had become customary to announce a new company with a nominal share capital of large amount, but to state in the prospectus that only one or two pounds would be called up on each share, and skilfully to induce the belief, by glowing accounts tending to impress the reader with a sense of the safe and lucrative character of the speculation, that no further calls would require to be made. Suppose there to be five new companies, each coming out with a share capital of £200,000, in £20 shares, and calling up £1 per share, with an intimation that it was not probable that any further call would be necessary, but that in no possible circumstances, so certain was the prospect of speedy and ample profits, could the calls exceed £3 per share. A man who had saved £3,000 might think he was following a wise and safe course by investing part of that sum in the shares of the five companies, buying, let us say, two hundred shares in each, on which he would have to pay up £1,000, and supposing that, if the worst came to the worst, he would not be called upon for more than his £3,000. But a commercial crisis arrived; the companies got into difficulties; they had, perhaps, launched out into expense far exceeding the amount paid upon the shares, and every one who had a claim upon them turned round and pressed for his money. In such circumstances, whether the companies suspended payment or not, they were obliged to make fresh calls upon the unpaid portion of the shares. Thus our imaginary investor might find himself, in an extreme case, called upon to furnish £20,000 upon his shares, instead of the £3,000 which he had fondly fancied to be the utmost that would ever be demanded of him. It was in this way that the shareholders of many limited liability companies found themselves, unless persons of large capital, face to face with ruin, because they had unthinkingly entangled themselves in a liability which, limited as it was, yet, when pressed to its full extent, was more than they could sustain.

A variety of minor incidents falling under the year 1866 may here be briefly noticed. The House of Commons gave proof of its unabated loyal attachment to the House of Hanover by voting to the Princess Helena, on the occasion of the announcement of her intended marriage to Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg, an annual allowance of £6,000 a year, and a dowry of £30,000—a donation similar to that which had been granted to the Princess Alice. The marriage took place at Windsor Castle on the 5th of July. Another marriage, which excited much popular interest—for the well-known geniality and good-nature of the bride made her a universal favourite—was that of the Princess Mary of Cambridge, at Kew, on the 12th of June, to the Duke of Teck. The great Banda and Kirwee prize-money case was argued, and decided in this year. From the magnitude of the booty which was the subject of litigation, and the number and position of the claimants, the pleadings were followed with interest. In the course of the campaign of 1858 in Central India, which stamped out the last remains of the mutiny in that region, General Whitlock had led a British force to Banda, driven out the Nawab, and taken possession of a rich booty in gold and jewels collected there, the value of which was estimated at not less than £800,000. The question to be decided was—to whom did this booty of right belong? Ought it to be awarded to General Whitlock's force exclusively, by which Banda was taken—or were other divisions, even though serving at a distance, entitled to their share, on the ground that it was by their co-operation that the taking of Banda was rendered possible? The family of Lord Clyde, who was Commander-in-Chief in India at the time, also appeared as claimants. Dr. Lushington delivered judgment in the case on the 30th of June. He included under the description of "General Whitlock's forces," to whom he awarded the sum in litigation, "any troops left by General Whitlock on his march, but which at the time of the capture formed a portion of his division, and were still[412] under his command." Lord Clyde and his staff were also declared entitled to share in the booty captured at Banda and Kirwee; but the claim of Sir Hugh Rose and his army, employed at the time in the important collateral operation of the siege of Jhansi, but which had never effected an actual junction with General Whitlock, and all other claims, were disallowed. The foundering of the London, a large iron steamship, in the Bay of Biscay, in the January of this year, with a loss of two hundred and twenty lives, including Dr. Woolley, the principal of the new Sydney University, and the well-known actor, Gustavus Brooke, was memorable for the calm courage displayed by the captain, Captain Martin, who sent off his chief engineer in the only boat that could be launched, saying that his own duty was to stay by the ship. This boat, with nineteen persons on board, was picked up by a passing vessel. The wonderful procession of meteors, radiating from a point in the north-eastern sky, seen on the night of the 13th of November, though not a proper subject for a political and social history, could never be forgotten by any that witnessed it. A deficient harvest deepened the painful impression which the monetary disasters of 1866 had left on the minds of the people. In the critical months of August and September the weather was unusually wet and stormy, and the wheat crop suffered much in consequence. A great deal of corn was housed in bad condition and no inconsiderable portion wasted or spoiled. The result was a yield considerably below the average and the prices of grain were consequently much enhanced. The prices of other necessaries were also raised; although this was probably to a great extent due to a permanent cause, with which the bad harvest had nothing to do-viz. that gradual rise in the price of all articles of necessary consumption, which, commencing from the discovery of the gold-fields of California, the continual influx of gold, in quantities before unknown, into the markets of the world, slowly but surely effected. These untoward circumstances, combined with a contraction of the demand for labour, arising from commercial failures and discredit, made the winter of 1866-67 a period of considerable suffering to the poor in England.

The state of Ireland in 1866 was such as to excite grave and sorrowful reflections. We have described in a former chapter the circumstances in which Stephens, the chief head-centre, effected his escape from confinement in 1865, and how a special commission was appointed, in order to try Fenian prisoners. During January the Fenian trials were going on in Dublin before Mr. Justice Keogh, and a number of the accused were sentenced to terms of penal servitude, varying from ten to five years. But the terrors of the law, and the grave and solemn tones of ermined justice, reprobating the guilt and folly of the Fenian conspiracy, were contumaciously set at naught by many of the prisoners. Patrick Hayburne, of the "Emmet Guard," in the Fenian brotherhood, a young man, the only support of his mother, on being found guilty, requested the judge to sentence him to a term of penal servitude rather than to two years' imprisonment. Mr. Justice Keogh expressed his pity for the misguided youth, and passed the latter sentence, on which the prisoner exclaimed, "I will have the same principles afterwards." In Dublin, and still more in Limerick, the populace loudly cheered Fenian prisoners as they were being taken to gaol. A number of strangers continued to arrive in Dublin, many of them betraying by their military bearing that they had seen service in the field, whom the police knew to be in communication with those suspected of Fenianism, but who were careful to commit no overt act that would bring them within the grasp of the law, and, on being questioned, said that they were come to Ireland to see their friends. Arms of all kinds were continually being seized; even three pieces of artillery were discovered, just on the point of being despatched to Drogheda. The attempts to seduce soldiers from their allegiance, in spite of the severity of the Special Commission against this particular offence, were found to increase in frequency. In addition to the former reward of £1,000 offered by the Government for the apprehension of Stephens, a further sum of £1,000 was now offered for such private information as should lead to his capture; but no informer came forward. All this was generally known before the meeting of Parliament; but the despatch of the Lord-Lieutenant, dated February 14th, proposing the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, proved that matters were more grave than the public had any idea of. Lord Wodehouse wrote:—

THE MARRIAGE OF PRINCESS HELENA.

FROM THE PAINTING IN THE ROYAL COLLECTION, BY C. MAGNUSSEN.

"The state of affairs is very serious. The conspirators, undeterred by the punishment of so many of their leaders, are actively organising an outbreak, with a view to destroy the Queen's authority. Sir Hugh Bose details the various plans they have in contemplation, and he draws no exaggerated picture. There are scattered over the country a number of agents, who are swearing[413] in members, and who are prepared to take the command when the moment arrives. These men are of the most dangerous class. They are Irishmen, imbued with American notions, thoroughly reckless, and possessed of considerable military experience, acquired in a field of warfare [the Civil War in America] admirably adapted to train them for conducting an insurrection here. There are 340 such men known to the police in the provinces, and those known in Dublin amount to about 160, so that in round numbers there are 500. Of course, there are many more who escape notice. This number is being augmented by fresh men constantly arriving from America. In Dublin itself there are several hundred men (perhaps about 300 or 400) who have come over from England and Scotland, who receive 1s. 6d. a day, and are waiting for the time of action. Any one may observe these men loitering about at the corners of the streets. As to arms, we have found no less than three regular manufactories of pikes, bullets, and cartridges in Dublin. The police believe that several more exist. Of course, bullets are not made unless there are rifles to put them in. The disaffection of the population in some counties, such as Cork, Tipperary, Waterford, and Dublin, is alarming; and it is day by day spreading more and more through every part of the country. But the most dangerous feature of the present movement is the attempt to seduce the troops. Are we to allow these agents to go on instilling their poison into our armed force, upon which our security mainly depends?" Lord Wodehouse concluded his despatch by declaring that he could not be responsible for the safety of the country if power was not forthwith given to Government to seize the leaders; on that condition he hoped still to avert serious mischief.

ROBERT LOWE (AFTERWARDS LORD SHERBROOKE).

(From a Photograph by Fradelle and Young, London.)

On the receipt of this letter, Sir George Grey,[414] then Home Secretary, immediately requested Lord Russell to summon a meeting of the Cabinet and, when it was convened, laid Lord Wodehouse's letter before them, and urged that his application with regard to the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act should be acceded to. The Cabinet unanimously agreed that there was no choice but to accede to the application, and it was determined that a Bill for the purpose should be introduced into the House of Commons on the next day (Saturday, February 17th), and carried through all its stages, so as to receive the Royal Assent, and become law on the same day, and be carried into execution by the Irish Government not later than Monday. This was accordingly done. At twelve o'clock next day Sir George Grey brought in a Bill to suspend for six months the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland. His arguments were chiefly derived from Lord Wodehouse's letter, and they were of a nature that the governments of nations, in the legislative no less than in the executive branches, usually find irresistible. Yet it was a saddening thought, that sixty-five years after the Union, and thirty-four years after the first Reform Bill, so little progress had been made in attaching the masses of the Irish people to the Constitution under which an Englishman thought it his happiness to live! Mr. Bright gave impressive utterance to this feeling, when he spoke of the shame and humiliation which he felt at being called on for the second time, in a Parliamentary career of twenty-two years (the first occasion was at the time of Smith O'Brien's rising in 1848), to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland. He asserted that Ireland was in a state of chronic agitation, and that the numerical majority of the Irish people were in favour of a complete separation. Although this was not the occasion for entering upon the general question of the state of Ireland, and the nature of the remedial measures that were required, he could not but express his conviction that the institutions under which Irishmen were required to live were not such as could command their affection or call forth their loyalty; yet he believed there was a mode of making Ireland loyal, and he threw the responsibility of discovering it on Government and on the Imperial Parliament. Mr. Roebuck, alluding to the asserted fact that the Catholic clergy in Ireland were opposed to the Fenians—who on their side scouted the notion of submission to priestly authority, and endeavoured to undermine the influence of the clergy over the people—said that nevertheless he attributed much of the present discontent to the Roman Catholic priesthood, who for years had taught the people to hate English rule, but who, now that they found themselves threatened by this conspiracy, had become wondrous loyal. He went on to ridicule the sentiment of nationality, on the ground that every great empire in the world's history had been made up of different nationalities. Leave was given to introduce the Bill by a majority of 364 to 6 votes; it passed through all its stages without further discussion and was then sent up to the Lords, who disposed of it with equal celerity. But the Royal Assent had to be given before the measure could become law; and the Queen was at this time at Osborne. As soon as the Bill had passed the Lords, a telegram announcing the result was sent to Earl Granville, who was in attendance on her Majesty at Osborne, and who thereupon solicited and obtained the Queen's signature to the usual formal document, authorising her assent to be given to the Bill by Commission. The sittings of both Houses were suspended till 11 p.m., by which time it was calculated that the special train conveying the document might have arrived. But midnight came and still the messenger did not appear; at half-past twelve, however, the despatch box, bearing the important document, was brought to the Lord Chancellor. Some time elapsed before it was properly filled up and then the clerk entered, carrying the Royal Commission. The House of Commons was sent for to hear the Royal Assent given to the Bill in question, and soon the Speaker, accompanied by about fifty members, appeared at the bar of the House. The Commissioners then stated that it was her Majesty's will and pleasure to give her assent to the Bill and it became law. This was about twenty minutes to one on the Sunday morning. Probably no statute could ever pass with much more celerity than this, the first Act of the new Parliament.

But rapid as were the operations of the legislature, the Dublin executive considered the state of affairs so critical as to justify it in anticipating the passing of the law. On Saturday morning, February 17th, the arrests of suspected persons commenced, and were continued through the day, nearly 250 persons being in custody at nightfall. No resistance was in any case offered to the police, nor were any captures of arms effected on this day. Thirty-seven American citizens, of Irish extraction, most, if not all, of whom had served in the Civil[415] War, were among the persons arrested. The suddenness of the blow appears to have utterly disconcerted the conspirators. The suspicious-looking strangers, who had for weeks past haunted the streets of Dublin, disappeared; the steamers to Liverpool were crowded with passengers; and for several days the steamboats sailing for America took away numbers of bellicose gentlemen, who found that the Irish revolution was not to come off just yet. The authorities, however, neglected no necessary precaution; the vans conveying prisoners to Kilmainham or Richmond were guarded by troops; all the soldiers of the garrison not on duty were confined to their quarters all night, ready to turn out at a moment's notice; and no strangers were admitted within the gates of the Pigeon-house Fort, which guards the mouth of the Liffey, on any pretence. The most important arrest was believed to be that of Patrick J. M'Donnell, said to have been at the head of the movement since the escape of Stephens. In the provinces some noteworthy incidents occurred. On the same night on which the arrests were effected in Dublin, a body of Fenians were practising drill at a place called Cullen in county Tipperary; a patrol of police came up and endeavoured to disperse them; the Fenians then fired upon and wounded some of the police, one man mortally. At Trim, in county Meath, several arrests were made, among them that of Mr. Malone, one of the wealthiest and most respectable merchants in the town; other persons moving in a respectable position were also captured. At Queenstown, about a month later, two of the Town Commissioners were arrested. These instances showed that the passage in the Queen's Speech at the opening of the Session, speaking of the Fenian movement as "a conspiracy adverse alike to authority, property, and religion, and disapproved and condemned alike by all who are interested in their maintenance," was unfortunately not quite exact.

In making a great display of force at the outset, the Irish executive was probably pursuing the wisest and also the most humane course. Troops kept pouring into Dublin; the 1st Battalion of the Coldstream Guards and the 85th Regiment arrived there before the end of February, and were followed by the 6th Dragoon Guards and a body of artillerymen, as well as a detachment of the Military Train corps from Woolwich. The most stringent measures were taken for stamping out any signs of disaffection that might manifest themselves among the troops; nor was this severity without cause, for not privates only, but several non-commissioned officers, were found to have either taken the Fenian oath, or uttered treasonable language, or been seen habitually in the company of notorious Fenians. Through the greater part of March frequent arrests continued to be made; and by that time the ranks of the disaffected were so depleted and discouraged, partly by the arrest of the leaders, partly by the rush to America and England of those who knew themselves to be most compromised among their followers, that all fear of an outbreak was at an end.

The Act for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus was originally passed for six months only, and would have expired on the 1st of September; but as the new Ministry felt that to allow it to expire would endanger the public peace, they sought and obtained from Parliament at the beginning of August the enactment of a Bill renewing the former Act for an indefinite period. Lord Naas, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, stated that from the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act up to the 23rd of July, 419 persons who had been imprisoned had been discharged, generally on condition that they should leave the country. From every authority he learned that it would be dangerous to permit the sudden and simultaneous liberation of the 320 prisoners who remained in custody; yet such liberation was unavoidable if the Act were allowed to expire. He spoke of the fact that, although suppressed in Ireland, at any rate as to any public manifestations, the Fenian conspiracy still existed in force in another country; that there were still in Ireland newspapers advocating the Fenian cause, which disseminated seditious and treasonable sentiments through the country; and that secret drillings of the population had been lately renewed. Mr. Maguire protested against the renewal of the Act, on the ground that there was no disorder now in Ireland which the ordinary powers of the law were not adequate to deal with. On the other hand, Mr. Gladstone—while stating his opinion that the renewal of the Act burdened Government with a very heavy responsibility, and made it incumbent on them to investigate with renewed ardour, and to remove by wise legislation, whatever grievances and inequalities, existing in the laws and institutions of Ireland, supplied a necessary aliment to the disaffection of the Irish people—declared that if the late Government had been still in power it would have been their duty to have made the same application to Parliament as that which was then being made by the existing Government. The[416] Bill was passed by a large majority in the Commons, and on being sent up to the House of Lords, was supported in a remarkable speech by the Earl of Kimberley, formerly Lord Wodehouse. The ex-Lord-Lieutenant declared that if he had remained in office he should have recommended the adoption of this Bill by Parliament. No one except those intimately acquainted with the facts could be aware how formidable the Fenian conspiracy had been. Since 1798 there had not existed so dangerous a condition of the public mind as in the past year. The promoters of the scheme had not been found in the poorer and more ignorant classes, but belonged to the class that was best described as artisans and small tradesmen; whilst in the south-west of Ireland, if a rebellion had broken out, there was no doubt the farmers also would have been ready to take part in it. Adverting to the alleged grievances of Ireland, the speaker observed that the question of land tenure was one that must shortly occupy the earnest attention of Parliament, and that the anomaly of the Irish Church must also be considered. The Bill soon became law; and, although nothing like an open rising was attempted during the remainder of the year, nor was a drop of blood shed, still it is impossible to doubt but that the extraordinary powers placed in the hands of the executive enabled them to act with far greater promptitude against the first symptoms of insurrection, and with far less of friction and popular irritation, than would have been possible in conjunction with the somewhat cumbrous safeguards and formalities which in quiet times protect the personal liberty of the subject.

Seditious and alarmist articles in Irish papers, rumours carefully propagated of Fenian expeditions about to land on some point of the Irish coast, and the certainty that arms were being continually manufactured or imported, and distributed through the country, kept the Government on the qui vive all through the autumn; but the rumours were probably malicious, and certainly false, and no actual outbreak occurred. In America matters did not proceed quite so smoothly. Since the arrival of Stephens in the United States, the Fenians in that country had been distracted by a split that arose between their leaders. That the British Empire should be destroyed was a political axiom admitted both by Sweeny and Stephens: it was only upon the modus operandi that these redoubtable chiefs differed. Sweeny appears to have considered that it was necessary to annex Canada first, and thence proceed to the conquest of Ireland; Stephens, on the other hand, desired that all other plans should be made subordinate to the preparation of a formidable Fenian expedition, which should disembark at some point in the west of Ireland. Loud was the debate and voluble the discussion. The Fenian "senate" and most of the American Fenians adhered to Sweeny, while the Irish whose expatriation was of recent date swore by Stephens. Sweeny denounced Stephens as a "British spy," and doubtless Stephens was not at a loss for a fit epithet by which to characterise Sweeny. The valiant Sweeny, as the year wore on, took measures to test the soundness of his strategic plan for the invasion of Ireland viâ Canada. On the morning of the 1st of June, 1866, a body of Fenians, numbering 1,000 men, under the command of a Colonel O'Neil, crossed the Niagara River from Buffalo, where it enters Lake Erie, and occupied the farm or hamlet called Fort Erie on the Canadian shore. The news of this absurd raid, with which the Fenians of the United States had been threatening Canada for months past, quickly reached Toronto; and the authorities there at once despatched all the troops they could collect to the scene of action. One thousand five hundred men, mostly regulars, under the command of Colonel Peacocke, marched by way of the Falls of Niagara and the village of Chippeway; while 500 militiamen, under Colonel Dennis, were sent by rail to Port Colborne. The Fenians made no forward movement that day, nor were they molested at Fort Erie; but by some extraordinary accident Colonel Dennis and a few of his men allowed themselves to be taken prisoners by them. The command of the militia then devolved upon Colonel Booker, who, on the morning of June 2nd, led his men forward from Port Colborne, along the margin of Lake Erie, to attack the invaders. Colonel Peacocke, misled by a report that the Fenians were marching upon Chippeway, led his forces to that place, and thus had no share in the trifling action that ensued. Arrived at a village called Ridgway, about half-way between Port Colborne and Fort Erie, Colonel Booker fell in with the Fenian column, which was advancing along the lake. A skirmish ensued, in which six militiamen were killed and forty wounded, the Fenians suffering about equally. Finding himself outnumbered, Colonel Booker retired towards Port Colborne. The Fenians did not pursue; probably by this time they had heard of the proximity of Colonel Peacocke with his regulars. Wisely deeming discretion the better part of valour, they recrossed the Niagara on the night of the 2nd of July, leaving a few[417] of their wounded and some stragglers—in all about sixty men—in the hands of the loyalists.

KILMAINHAM GAOL, DUBLIN.

(From a Photograph by W. Lawrence, Dublin.)

Another raid, still more foolish and reckless than the first, was executed by the Fenians on the 7th of June, when, to the number of 2,000 or 3,000 men, led by a General Spear, they crossed the frontier from the State of Vermont and occupied a little village called Pigeon Hill, not far from Montreal. Some slight skirmishes between this force and some bodies of yeomanry and militia that were hastily sent against them took place; after which Spear led his warriors back again, and was immediately arrested, along with Sweeny and another Fenian leader called Roberts, by the United States authorities. Indeed, nothing could be more honourable than the conduct of the American Government during the whole affair. President Johnson issued a proclamation denouncing the act of the Fenians in carrying war into the territories of a friendly nation as a gross violation of the laws of the United States, and requiring all Union officials to repress such illegal acts by every means in their power, and to place under arrest any persons who should be found committing them. The indignation of the Canadians at these outrages—as disgraceful as they were absurd—was very great; and the funerals of the slain militiamen were celebrated with extraordinary pomp, and attended by an immense concourse of persons.

Fenianism had its victims in America; in Ireland, as has been seen, its ebullitions were so far bloodless. The day before Christmas-day, which rumour had assigned as the date of a rising, passed off in tranquillity; and the threats and predictions of the national journals were found to be mere waste of words. The conspirators must have been conscious that their proceedings hitherto had been less formidable than ridiculous, and they determined, if they could, to give the authorities some justification for the additional precautions that had been taken.

One of the most strongly marked personalities of the day—that of William Whewell, Master of Trinity College, Cambridge—was taken from English society in the March of this year. Cambridge[418] men all over the world associated for many years their recollections of the University with the well-known form of the Master of Trinity. His towering and stalwart form, flashing eye, strong vibrating voice, the generally menacing and formidable aspect of the man, were external characteristics that deeply impressed every freshman on his arrival, and were never forgotten in after life. Many works on various subjects attested the activity and versatility of his intellect; but it is only those on mathematical and physical problems that possess exceptional value. John Keble, who died at Bournemouth on the 29th of March, in his seventy-fourth year, participated but little in the public life of England. His was not the dignified and conspicuous career of the ecclesiastical luminary of a great city; the press did not circulate the masterpieces of his pulpit eloquence; nor was he a frequenter of missionary or charitable platforms; yet it is probably no exaggeration to say that for thirty years no one man so powerfully influenced the inner life of the Church of England as the vicar of Hursley. The readers of Cardinal Newman's "Apologia" will remember how strikingly this point is brought out by him, how clearly he traces back to the mind of John Keble, rather than to that of any other single man, the germ of the great Tractarian movement, while the "Christian Year" appealed to the devotional necessities of innumerable souls.

## CHAPTER XXVII.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

WHILE the strife of parties was raging in the lobbies of the House of Commons during the Reform debates of 1866, a warfare of a more decisive kind was in course of preparation in Germany. Its connection with English history, however, being of the slightest, we shall confine ourselves to a brief notice. At the close of 1864 the first symptom of ill-will between the allied Powers that had cut with the sword the Schleswig-Holstein knot made itself apparent. To Austria every day during which the joint occupation was prolonged brought fresh cause of trouble and anxiety. However long she might keep her troops in the duchies, not an acre of soil, she knew well, could ever fall to her share; the expense of the occupation was considerable; and a quarrel with Prussia must instantly, as she clearly foresaw, render her position untenable. Her policy, therefore, was to get the Schleswig-Holstein question settled as soon as possible and settled in the way that would least benefit Prussia, and be most for the advantage of Austria's position in Germany. The Austrian Government thought that they saw their way to such a satisfactory settlement when they observed the continued loyalty and enthusiasm with which the German population of the duchies clung to the Prince whom they regarded as their rightful Duke, and also noted the strength of the desire that animated the Governments of the middle and many of the minor German States to favour the erection of an independent State and disappoint the ambition of Prussia. The Prussian Minister seemed himself to waver in the face of the compact opposition which the disclosure of the designs of Prussia upon the duchies had called forth, though he secured a declaration from the Prussian jurists that the claims of the Augustenburg candidate were invalid. In February, 1865, he sent a despatch to Vienna, in which he expressed the willingness of the King that Schleswig-Holstein should become an independent German State, but upon condition that its military force should be at[419] the disposal of Prussia, and that to the same Power certain fortresses in the duchies, with suitable territory attached to them, should be made over. These proposals were rejected by Count Mensdorff and the German Diet. Bismarck thereupon proceeded to fresh aggressions. Prussia transferred her naval station on the Baltic from Dantzic to Kiel, and declared her intention of fortifying the harbour: the Austrian commissioner protested, and ordered up two Austrian ships of war to Kiel; yet his Government gave way, and Prussia established herself firmly at that important harbour. Bismarck also ejected from Schleswig-Holstein the Prince of Augustenburg. It was clearly seen at Vienna that the plan of joint administration would no longer work: if war was to be staved off, some different modus vivendi must be established in the duchies. But the Minister was moving too fast for his master, accordingly, a meeting was arranged between the King of Prussia and the Emperor of Austria at Gastein, in Tyrol. Hither came the Sovereigns in August, attended by their chief Ministers; an understanding was speedily arrived at, and the Convention of Gastein was the result.

By this convention, dated August 14th, 1865, it was agreed that the joint occupation should cease; that—although the right of sovereignty of either Power over both duchies, as acquired by the Treaty of Vienna, remained inviolate—Austria should for the future confine her troops and officials to Holstein, and Prussia hers to Schleswig; that the Powers would propose to the Diet to erect Rendsburg into a Federal fortress; that the duchies should join the Zollverein, or German Customs-union; and that the Emperor of Austria should cede to the King of Prussia his sovereign rights over Lauenburg, acquired by the before-cited Treaty of Vienna, in exchange for the sum of 2,500,000 Danish rix-thalers. The Prussian Chambers, the members of which were still for the most part favourable to the Augustenburg claim, disliked this convention, and let it be understood that they would not vote the money required for the purchase of Lauenburg; but the King of Prussia paid the stipulated sum out of his private purse, and the convention was carried into effect without delay, Austrian troops withdrawing from Schleswig, and Prussian troops withdrawing from Holstein. General Manteuffel was appointed Prussian Governor of Schleswig, and Austria placed General von Gablenz in the similar post in Holstein.

Bismarck was still determined on war. One point alone was doubtful and disquieting—what would France do in the event of war breaking out between Prussia and Austria, especially if Italy took part in the contest? Count Bismarck resolved to seek an interview with Napoleon, in order, if possible, to gain some security that France would be neutral. What passed in the interviews between him and Napoleon at Biarritz is variously stated; but the result proved that the success of the Prussian statesman was complete. On his return through Paris, Bismarck saw the Italian Minister, the Chevalier Nigra, and told him that war between Prussia and Austria was inevitable. "He showed himself full of confidence that France would not be hostile to it;" and so deeply had he reflected on all the conditions of the political problem, so keenly did he realise the importance to Prussia of the Italian alliance, in distracting the attention and dividing the forces of Austria, that he playfully said to Nigra that "if Italy did not exist, it would be necessary to invent her." The French Emperor is supposed to have approved of the project of alliance between Prussia and Italy; and it is certain that he looked forward with pleasure to the severance of Venetia from the Austrian Empire as one result of the anticipated war. But how was France to be indemnified if she observed a friendly neutrality? There can be no doubt that Bismarck, in spite of his later denials, held out such hopes of territorial extension for France, either on the side of the Rhine, or in the form of an annexation of Luxemburg or some part of Belgium, to be actively aided by Prussia, as induced the French Emperor to regard the Prussian programme with favour and hopeful anticipation, and readily to give the desired promise of neutrality. Napoleon would the less care to exact a distinct promise from Bismarck in regard to territorial indemnification, because he, like the rest of Europe at the time, did not share in the superb confidence which the negotiator expressed of the ability of Prussia to overpower Austria; he must have reckoned on the war lasting for a considerable time, with mutually exhaustive results, in which case France might play the part of a mediator, and, while performing that dignified office, not lose sight of her own interests in the general re-adjustment.

Step by step, as though by an inevitable destiny, or unalterable concatenation of events, the fatal hour drew on. At the end of March General Govone was in Berlin, charged by the Italian Prime Minister, General La Marmora, with the duty of negotiating a treaty of alliance, offensive and defensive, with Prussia. That Italy would forego the opportunity which a rupture between Prussia[420] and Austria afforded her of obtaining by force the Venetian territories of the latter Power, was hardly to be expected; for such a chance, once let slip, might never occur again. But to Prussia also the alliance of Italy was of the highest importance. With her vast superiority of population, Austria, could her military force have been wholly concentrated against Prussia, though she might have lost battles, could not have been crushed and compelled to yield; such a consummation was only rendered possible by the division and dilution of her strength necessitated by the attack of Italy upon Venetia. Could even Austria have been content to cede Venetia itself, and take Venetia's money value, she might have rid herself of her Transalpine foe and employed her whole strength in Bohemia. Secret overtures had been made at Vienna by the Italian Premier, in the autumn of 1865, for the cession of Venetia by purchase; but the Emperor conceived his military and ancestral honour to be involved and absolutely rejected the proposal. On April 8th the treaty of alliance between Prussia and Italy was signed at Berlin. Prussia, under it, reserved to herself the right of declaring war within three months, in which case Italy bound herself to attack Austria; but Prussia did not bind herself to declare war in Germany, or to help the Italians on their own ground, if Austria attacked Italy. Each Power bound itself not to make peace separately from the other, and to continue the war till Italy had gained Venetia and Prussia secured a corresponding augmentation of territory in Germany. Already—between March 29th and 31st—orders had been issued for the mobilisation of the whole Prussian army, and the necessary movements were effected with extraordinary celerity. Austria, though she had commenced her preparations earlier, was soon distanced by her opponent, and, when the war broke out, her arrangements were still far from complete. The King of Italy published a decree on the 25th of March, increasing the Italian army by 100,000 men.

For several weeks after the treaty between Prussia and Italy had been signed, continual diplomatic fencing was maintained on the part of the two Governments. First there were criminations and recriminations on the question of priority of armaments. On the 6th of April a note from the Prussian Foreign Office was sent to Vienna, insisting on the magnitude of the Austrian preparations, which could not be adequately accounted for by the alleged apprehension of disturbances in Bohemia, and ending with the declaration that nothing was farther from the views of the King than an offensive war. Yet only two days after this, as we have seen, the alliance was concluded with Italy. Nevertheless, there was a basis of truth in the statement as to the King of Prussia's inclinations: he was, in truth, earnestly, almost superstitiously, averse from being the first to resort to arms; and Bismarck had infinite trouble to bring his royal master up to the point of commencing the war. Accordingly the negotiations were conducted in a conciliatory tone. The real feelings of Count Bismarck we learn from a telegram from Count Barral, the Italian Minister at Berlin, sent on the previous day to the Italian Premier, General La Marmora, and published by the latter in his remarkable work, entitled, "A Little More Light on the Political and Military Events of the Year 1866." Count Barral telegraphed, "The impression of the General [Govone] and myself is, that Bismarck is disappointed by the Austrian proposition, and visibly discouraged by the new pacific phase upon which the conflict is about to enter." But now Count Mensdorff found himself in a difficulty. The attitude of the Italian army on the frontiers of Venetia was believed at Vienna to have grown so menacing that it was impossible for Austria to replace matters on a peace footing in Venetia, short of a positive understanding with Italy similar to that which seemed on the point of being concluded with Prussia. We have the distinct assurance of General La Marmora, in the work just quoted, that at this time Italy had made no concentrations of troops whatever—had, in fact, taken no warlike step of any kind. But he admits that the impression to the contrary which prevailed at Vienna was a bonâ fide one, and accounts for its existence in a very curious manner. It was, he thinks, the British Government—the warm and importunate advocate of European peace—which, misled by reports from English diplomatic agents in Italy, who had imagined some inconsiderable movements of troops that were really directed against brigands to be part of a scheme for concentrating the Italian army near the frontier, had conveyed, of course, with the most friendly intentions, this false information to the Austrian Cabinet. However this may have been, the effect of the erroneous persuasion as to Italian armaments, which Austria had taken up, in overclouding the prospects of peace was soon apparent.

[421]

THE BATTLE OF KONIGGRÄTZ. (See p. 427.)

Besides disarmament, two other important subjects[422] were debated in the correspondence between Austria and Prussia in these critical weeks. One related to Schleswig-Holstein, the other to the reform of the Confederation. Anxious to withdraw from her hazardous position in the duchies, but to make her withdrawal in such a way as would augment her popularity with the minor German States, Austria invited the Prussian Government, in a note dated April 26th, to make in the Diet a joint declaration that the two Powers would cede the rights acquired by them under the Treaty of Vienna to that claimant of the sovereignty of the duchies whom the Diet recognised as having a predominant right to the succession. Although some collateral offers, such as that Prussia should have full and permanent possession of certain strategic points in the duchies, at Kiel and elsewhere, were added to the main proposal, in order to make it more palatable to the condominant Power, Count Mensdorff probably expected a refusal, and he was not disappointed. Count Bismarck, in his reply (May 7th), professed in the strongest terms Prussia's intention to adhere faithfully to the Treaty of Vienna and the Gastein Convention, but maintained that by those instruments the intervention of any third party, not excepting the Diet, in the affairs of the duchies was precluded. The note went on to say that Prussia, while repudiating the interference of any third party, was always ready to treat with Austria as to the conditions on which she would be disposed to cede her share of the rights accruing to her by the Treaty of Vienna. King William's hesitation was fast disappearing.

The other subject discussed was the reform of the Confederation. The Prussian Envoy proposed in the Diet on the 9th of April that, within a period to be precisely fixed, the Diet should decree the convocation of a National Assembly to be elected by universal and direct suffrage, for the purpose of receiving and deliberating on the proposals of the German Governments for the reform of the Confederation. This proposition, which caused great surprise and excitement in Germany, was referred by a Dietal vote of the 21st of April to a committee of nine; at the same time the Diet requested Prussia to state the nature of the proposals which it intended to submit to the Assembly when convened. Count Bismarck sharply replied (April 27) that the determination of the date at which such a Parliament or Assembly should meet was of the essence of the Prussian proposition; the modes of procedure habitual to the Diet would, he knew, lead to the indefinite adjournment and final miscarriage of the project; however, he would bring under the notice of the committee such information as would show to what regions of political life the Prussian proposals would extend. This promise he redeemed on the 11th of May by laying before the Committee of the Diet the heads of the changes that Prussia deemed necessary. These included the completion of the central power by means of a freely elected German Parliament, the concession to the central power so reorganised of a wide legislative competency, the removal of all fetters on German trade, an improved military system, and the formation of a German navy. Bavaria, as chief of the secondary States, acceded to the proposal on condition that both parties should disarm. Promises were given, but as Austria declined to discontinue her preparations against Italy, Bismarck was able to charge her with insincerity.

Italy, though she had enlarged her army, had not made any distinctly warlike preparations before the appearance of General La Marmora's circular of the 27th of April. From that time war was looked upon as inevitable; and in order to enlist the national feeling more fully in its favour, a decree was published at Florence on May 8th ordering the formation of twenty volunteer battalions, to be placed under the immediate command of Garibaldi. But the Italian Premier was in sore perplexity. He thoroughly distrusted Bismarck, whom he thought quite capable of patching up a peace with Austria and leaving Italy in the lurch, and he had received tempting offers from Paris. On the 5th of May General La Marmora received a telegram in cipher from Paris, of which the first words were, "Decipher for yourself." After he had done so, he found the purport of the telegram (which was from the Chevalier Nigra) to be this—that Austria was willing to cede Venetia to the Emperor Napoleon, who would at once transfer it to the King of Italy, on condition that she should be left free to recoup herself at the expense of Prussia. La Marmora telegraphed back that his first impression was that it was a question of honour and good faith for Italy not to break her engagements with Prussia. Again (May 6th) came the tempting voice from Paris, saying that the Emperor had told Nigra that Prince Metternich was formally authorised to sign the cession of Venetia in exchange for a simple promise of neutrality. If his resolution had been momentarily shaken, other telegrams soon arrived, of a nature to confirm him in it. On May 6th Count Barral telegraphed that he had been just informed by Count Bismarck that the Prussian army might now be regarded as entirely mobilised; and on the 9th Nigra telegraphed from Paris that Govone had just arrived from Berlin, and was under the[423] full conviction that Prussia had absolutely decided to draw the sword, at latest, towards the beginning of June, and would, in any case, declare war if Italy were attacked. Setting against the risks of war the odium which the acceptance of the French proposal, involving as it did a direct breach of faith with Prussia, would bring down upon the young Italian kingdom, and the painful and inconvenient consequences that might ensue from Italy's debt of obligation to France being so greatly extended, the Italian Premier wisely determined to be true to his first faith; and the project for the cession of Venetia to France vanished for the present into space.

The efforts of neutral and friendly Powers were, of course, not wanting to the cause of peace. From the beginning of May the project of a Congress of the five great Powers, together with Italy and the German Confederation, to discuss the three European questions of the most urgent interest—the cession of Venetia, the fate of Schleswig-Holstein, and the reform of the German Confederation—had found favour with the Emperor Napoleon. Russia had cordially accepted the scheme, and Britain also was favourable to it, though with a proviso that marks the progress which Lord Russell, through sad experience and many failures, had made in his diplomatic education. For, although the actual Foreign Minister at this time was the Earl of Clarendon, yet the empressement with which the British Government, at the outset of the negotiations, volunteered a statement that its interference would in no possible circumstances be carried beyond the limits of persuasion, evidently bespeaks the hand of the Minister whose previous attempts at a dictatorial intervention had failed so disastrously. The Marquis d'Azeglio telegraphed on May 11th from London, that "England accepted the Congress in principle, and also the bases which France proposed with reference to the three urgent questions, but refused categorically to bind herself to impose any decision of the kind otherwise than by persuasion."

Some time elapsed before the three mediating Powers could arrive at a precise understanding as to the form in which the Congress should be proposed to Prussia and Austria. Of the three topics for discussion, the first was described by France as "the cession of Venetia;" this was afterwards modified to "the question of Venetia"; but even in this form the Russian Government considered that there was something in the phrase wounding to the susceptibilities of Austria, and obtained the consent of France to the substitution of the words, "difference between Austria and Italy." Everything at last appeared to be in train; it was arranged that the Congress should be held in Paris, and that the principal Ministers for Foreign Affairs in the different States should attend it. Bismarck, knowing the settled resolve of the Emperor Napoleon to facilitate and promote the cession of Venetia to Italy, was not disposed to refuse the invitation to the Congress; he said to those around him that it would end in nothing and that they would simply adjourn from the Congress-chamber to the battle-field; and he told Count Barral (May 26th) that the Congress was a vain simulacrum, and that he saw no human power capable of preventing war. Yet even Bismarck, three days later, was confounded by the insistance with which France appeared to labour to avert war, and said to Barral, in a tone of deep dissatisfaction, "The Emperor of the French now wishes for peace at any price." To go to war against the will of France was, as Bismarck had before admitted to Govone, hardly within the bounds of possibility. An unfriendly neutrality west of the Rhine would have compelled a concentration of Prussian troops in Westphalia and Rhineland which would have left her too weak to contend with Austria in Saxony or Bohemia. On the 28th of May, notes, couched in almost identical terms, from the Governments of France, Britain, and Russia, communicated to the Powers at variance the proposal of the mediating Courts for the convocation of a Congress. Count Bismarck, while stipulating that the proceedings should be brief, and that the opening of the Congress should not be delayed if the representatives of the Confederation were not nominated in time, accepted the proposal for Prussia, but he took an opportunity of declaring to the French Ambassador, M. Benedetti, in vehement and impassioned tones, that the position of affairs was become intolerable and must be brought to a close at all risks. Italy also agreed to the Congress, as well she might, knowing the settled opinion and desire of the Emperor Napoleon with regard to the cession of Venetia. For Austria, the desirable course was not so clear. If she rejected the Congress, she alienated the good opinion of the neutral Powers. Yet if she accepted it, she knew that she could expect no good from its deliberations. The Chevalier Nigra wrote to La Marmora, on the 24th of May, that the French Foreign Minister, Drouyn de Lhuys, had assured him that it was "well understood between the three neutral[424] Powers that the Congress should discuss the cession of Venetia." Beyond question the existence of this "understanding" was known at Vienna; the Austrian statesmen knew that they would enter a Congress the members of which had already made up their minds on the one subject of discussion that vitally affected her interests and her honour. It is true that Austria had a month before offered to cede Venetia; but at that time she reckoned on compensation. If Italy could be induced by the cession to stand neutral, Austria hoped to overrun and annex Silesia. Yet to refuse the Congress absolutely was not to be thought of. Austria, therefore, hit upon a middle course; she professed a readiness to send a plenipotentiary to the Congress, but only on condition that no combination should be discussed which would result in an extension of territory for any one of the States invited. Such a limitation—especially when the preconceived views of the neutral Powers are remembered—was felt on all sides to render the project of a Congress nugatory, and it was accordingly dropped.

Simultaneously Austria invited the Diet to take the affairs of Schleswig-Holstein under its direction, and convoked the Holstein estates. In reply Count Bismarck sent a despatch, on June 3rd, to Vienna, renewing the protest that had been made by the Prussian Envoy in the Diet against the infraction by Austria of the Convention of Gastein, and declaring that Prussia now considered herself justified in reverting to the basis of the Treaty of Vienna, and that the Government had consequently placed the defence of its condominate rights in the hands of General Manteuffel. At the same time, the Prussian Minister addressed a circular to the Prussian representatives at all foreign Courts, accusing Austria of giving direct provocations to Prussia, with the manifest intention of settling the matters in dispute by an appeal to arms. This circular was couched in terms of the bitterest invective and sufficiently indicated that all prospect of accommodation was renounced. Already General von Gablenz had retreated from Holstein before Manteuffel into Hanover. Thereupon Austria demanded from the Diet the mobilisation of the Federal armies, whereupon the Prussian representative, declaring the union dissolved, withdrew from Frankfort, after handing in his plan of reform. Diplomatic relations between Austria and Prussia were suspended on June 12th; on the 15th Bismarck requested Hanover, Saxony, and Hesse-Cassel to disarm. They declined and the war began.

The forces ranged against each other at the opening of the war of 1866 may be briefly exhibited in tabular form, thus:—

Prussian army (exclusive of depôt and garrison troops) | 351,000
Armies of German States allied with Prussia | 28,600
Italian army | 240,840
| ———
| Total ... 620,440

> Artillery: Prussian guns, 1,092; Italian guns, 480: total, 1,572.

Austrian army:—Infantry, 321,140; cavalry, 26,621; artillery, 24,601; engineers and pioneers, 11,194: total | 383,556
Armies of German States allied to Austria | 160,586
| ———
| Total 544,142

> Artillery: Austrian guns, 1,036; German guns, 360: total. 1,396.

Thus, merely reckoning the field armies on both sides, the accession of Italy threw a decided preponderance, even of numbers, into the scale of Prussia. Austria, to oppose the Italian army, was obliged to keep 150,000 of her best troops south of the Alps; had one-third of these stood in line at Königgrätz, the fortune of the day would probably have been different. In the special and scientific services Prussia had an additional superiority over Austria; she had 30,000 cavalry, 35,000 artillery, and 18,000 pioneers, while the Austrian strength in each of these branches was considerably smaller. Besides, the Austrian system was thoroughly obsolete, and its organisers had neglected to adopt the needle-gun despite its proved superiority in the Danish war. The Prussian army, thanks to Von Roon and Von Moltke, had been raised, on the contrary, to the highest degree of efficiency.

The forces of the Prussians, which were formed into three armies, were distributed in the following manner. The First Army, commanded by Prince Frederick Charles, the King's nephew, consisted of three infantry and one cavalry corps, numbering 120,000 men; its headquarters were at Görlitz, close to the eastern frontier of Saxony. The Second Army, commanded by the Crown Prince, contained the Guards corps and three others, numbering 125,000 men; the headquarters were at Neisse in Silesia, being purposely placed so far to the south in order to induce a belief that the objective of this army was Olmütz or Brünn, and to disguise as long as possible the real design of leading it across the mountains into Bohemia. The Third Army was that of the Elbe, commanded by General Herwarth von Bittenfeld, whose headquarters were at Halle; it numbered about 50,000 men, including cavalry. Besides[425] these three armies, which were all designed to act against Austria, special forces to the number of about 60,000 men were prepared to invade Hanover and Hesse-Cassel, and afterwards to operate against the forces of the southern States friendly to Austria, as circumstances should direct. The forces that were to attack Hanover were under the command of Lieutenant-General von Falkenstein, the military governor of Westphalia. Those that were detailed against Hesse-Cassel were commanded by General Beyer, whose headquarters were at Wetzlar, the chief town of a small Prussian enclave, surrounded by the territories of Nassau, Hesse-Cassel, and Hesse-Darmstadt.

THE BATTLE OF LANGENSALZA. (See p. 426.)

In the North of Germany the campaign was brief indeed, although it opened with a Prussian reverse. Through some mismanagement the real superiority of force which the Prussians could bring to bear against the Hanoverians was not made available, and Major-General Flies, the Prussian commander, was about to attack an army considerably more numerous than his own. Misleading reports as to the movements both of the Bavarians and Hanoverians had reached Von Falkenstein at Eisenach. He therefore ordered Goeben with his division to watch the Bavarians, who were supposed to be advancing from the south, and despatched Manteuffel towards Mühlhausen, a town between Göttingen and Langensalza, under the erroneous belief that the Hanoverians were now retreating northwards, and meant to seek a strong position among the Harz Mountains. The Hanoverian general, Arenttschildt, entertained no such intention, but, expecting to be attacked from Gotha, he had drawn up his little army on the northern bank of the Unstrut, a marshy stream that runs past Langensalza in a general easterly direction, to join the Saale near Leipsic. The Prussians advanced gallantly, drove in the Hanoverian outposts on the right or south bank of the Unstrut, and attempted to cross the river. But the Hanoverian artillery, judiciously posted and well served, defeated this attempt. A number of partial actions, in which great bravery was exhibited on both sides, occurred in different parts[426] of the field. The Prussians, however, being decidedly over-matched, were unable to gain ground; and about one o'clock General Arenttschildt ordered his brigade commanders to cross the Unstrut and assume the offensive. This was done—ineffectually for a time on the Hanoverian left, where the swampy nature of the ground by the river presented great obstacles to an advance—but with complete success on their right, where General Bülow drove the Prussians steadily before him, and was able to use his superior cavalry with considerable effect. The excellent military qualities of the Prussian soldier, and the deadly rapidity of fire of the needle-gun, prevented the retreat from becoming a disaster. However, General Flies had no choice but to order a general retreat, and fall back in the direction of Gotha. Two guns and two thousand stand of arms fell into the hands of the victors, whose cavalry continued the pursuit till half-past four, making many prisoners. The Hanoverian situation, however, was really desperate, and on the arrival of the main body of the Prussians the Hanoverians were compelled to capitulate. The King fled into Austria, but his ally the Elector of Hesse-Cassel was made a prisoner of war.

On June 16th Prince Frederick Charles, moving from Görlitz, crossed the Saxon frontier, and advanced upon Dresden. A junction was effected with Herwarth near Meissen, and both marched to Dresden, which was occupied without opposition on the 18th. By the 20th of June, the whole of Saxony (with the exception of the virgin fortress of Königstein in the Saxon Switzerland) was in the hands of the Prussians. The war had lasted but five days, and already the vigour and rapidity with which Prussia dealt her blows had secured for her advantages of inestimable value. Her right flank was now secure from attack through the prostration of the power of Hanover and Hesse-Cassel; the prestige and the terror of her arms were greatly enhanced by the occupation of the beautiful capital of Saxony; and the conquest of that kingdom had rendered possible the union of two Prussian armies, and secured a corresponding shortening and strengthening of her lines. The Saxon army retreated into Bohemia, and joined the main body of the Austrians under General Benedek.

The Prince broke up his headquarters at Görlitz on the 22nd of June, and marched thence with the main body of the First Army direct for Zittau, the last town in Saxony towards Bohemia. The passes through the mountains were found to be undefended; in fact, the rapid movements of the Prussians had left no time for Benedek to take the necessary measures. Count Clam Gallas, in command of the 1st Austrian Corps, was defeated in a series of battles, extending from the 26th to the 29th of June, and driven behind Gitschin. While the First Army and the Army of the Elbe were thus advancing from the north, the Second Army was moving from Silesia, in circumstances of far greater difficulty and peril, to effect a junction with them in Bohemia. After a defeat at Trautenau, the Crown Prince established communications with Prince Frederick Charles, the movements of the three armies being directed by telegraph from Berlin by Moltke, the chief of the staff. On the 30th the King of Prussia, accompanied by Count Bismarck and General Moltke, left Berlin, and reached headquarters at Gitschin on the 2nd of July. Thus the First Army and the Army of the Elbe were brought into communication with the Army of Silesia; and the imminent peril which had existed of an attack by Benedek, in overwhelming force, upon one of these invading armies, before the other was near enough to help it, was now at an end. Military authorities are agreed in casting great blame on the generalship of Benedek. That he did not take the initiative by an advance into Saxony was probably not his fault; but if compelled to receive the attack, it was manifestly his policy, as he knew the Prussians to be advancing on two sides, to detain one of their armies by a detachment, with orders to throw all possible difficulties in its path, while avoiding a pitched battle; but to fall upon the other with the full remaining strength of his own army, and endeavour to inflict upon it, while isolated, a crushing defeat. He had been thwarted by the energy of the Crown Prince's attack, and, seeing that the campaign was lost, had telegraphed to the Emperor on the 1st of July that a catastrophe was inevitable unless peace was made.

The position which Benedek had taken up, on a mass of rolling hilly ground, the highest point of which is marked by the village and church of Chlumetz, bounded on the west by the Bistritz, and on the east by the Elbe, and with the fortress of Königgrätz in its rear, would have been an exceedingly good one, had he had no other army but that of Frederick Charles to think of. As against the First Army, the line of the Bistritz, with its commanding ridge, its woods affording shelter for marksmen, and the difficulties presented by the (in places) marshy character of its valley, presented a defensive position of the first order. But Benedek had to reckon also with the army of the Crown Prince, and this he well knew; for an[427] Austrian force had been driven out of Königinhof by the Prussian Guards on the evening of the 29th. Prince Frederick Charles attacked at daybreak, advancing through the village of Sadowa, and for hours sustained an unequal struggle with the superior forces of the Austrians. Herwarth was also, about one o'clock, checked in his advance. The First Army could do no more; it was even a question whether it could hold its ground; and the Prussian commanders on the plateau of Dub turned many an anxious glance to the left, wondering why the columns of the Crown Prince did not make their appearance. The King himself frequently turned his field-glass in that direction. The heavy rain that had fallen prevented the march of the Crown Prince from being marked by those clouds of dust that are the usual accompaniment of a moving army. Some Austrian guns about Lipa, it is true, appeared to be firing towards the north, but it was not certain that they were not directed against some movement of Franzecky's division. Yet all this time two corps belonging to the army of the Crown Prince had been in action since half-past twelve with the Austrian right, and one of them was pressing forward to the occupation of ground the defence of which was vital to the continued maintenance of its position by the Austrian army. Their onslaught on Benedek's right at once decided the battle, and, effecting a retreat across the Elbe with the utmost difficulty, he fled eastwards, leaving 18,000 on the field and 24,000 prisoners.

The Emperor, seeing his capital threatened, and the empire menaced with dissolution, determined to rid himself of one enemy by removing the ground of dispute. He accordingly ceded Venetia to the Emperor of the French, with the understanding that it was to be transferred to the King of Italy at the conclusion of the war. Napoleon accepted the cession, and from that time was unremitting in his endeavours to bring hostilities to a termination. His proposal of an armistice was accepted in principle by the King of Prussia, with the reservation that the preliminaries of peace must first be recognised by the Austrian Court. Meanwhile the Italians had suffered decisive defeats at the hands of the Austrians. La Marmora, who took command, crossed the Mincio with 120,000 men, but was defeated by the Archduke Albrecht with smaller numbers upon the field of Custozza (June 24th), and compelled to fall back in disorder. A naval action at Lissa off the Istrian coast also terminated in a complete victory for the Austrians under Admiral Tegethoff.

The course of events in the western portion of the theatre of war must now be briefly described. It will be remembered that, for the purpose of sudden and simultaneous operations against Hanover and Hesse-Cassel, a considerable Prussian force had been collected—drawn partly from the Elbe duchies, partly from the garrisons of neighbouring fortresses—and placed under the command of General Vogel von Falkenstein. After the surrender of the Hanoverians on the 29th of June, this force was concentrated about Gotha and Eisenach, and was free to act against the armies that had taken the field in the cause of Austria and the Diet farther south. Falkenstein had two separate armies in his front—the Bavarians under their Prince Charles, now numbering upwards of 50,000 sabres and bayonets, with 136 guns, and the 8th Federal Corps, commanded by Prince Alexander of Hesse and numbering little short of 50,000 men, with 134 guns. Devoid of co-operation, they suffered a series of defeats at the hands of Falkenstein and Manteuffel in a campaign marked by small battles and intricate manœuvres. On the 16th of July the Prussians marched into Frankfort with all military precautions, a regiment of cuirassiers with drawn swords leading the way. They posted two guns in the great square, and stacked their arms there and in the Zeil. Late at night they broke into groups, and went to the different houses, on which, without previous consultation with the municipality, they had been billeted, forcing their way in without ceremony wherever a recalcitrant householder was found. It was observed that especially large numbers of soldiers were billeted on the houses of those citizens who were known to be anti-Prussian in their politics. One of these, Herr Mumm, was required to lodge and feed 15 officers and 200 men. General Falkenstein took up his quarters in the town, having issued a proclamation announcing that, by orders of the King of Prussia, he had assumed the government of the imperial city, together with Nassau, and the parts of Bavaria that were in Prussian occupation. He at once imposed upon the citizens a war contribution of 7,000,000 gulden (about £600,000), besides 300 horses, and other contributions in kind. The Burgomaster Fellner and the Syndic Müller visited this modern Brennus, to endeavour to obtain some diminution of the impost; but they were only treated to a Prussian version of the classic declaration, "Væ Victis." Falkenstein roughly told the burgomaster that he used the rights of conquest; and is said to have threatened that if his demands[428] were not promptly complied with, the city should be given up to pillage. Thus Count Bismarck paid off his old scores against the German Diet.

Meanwhile the victorious career of Prussia was carrying her arms without a check to the banks of the Danube and under the walls of Vienna. Marshal Benedek, after having put the Elbe between the Prussians and his exhausted troops, had to decide instantly what was to be done. An armistice was thought of; and Von Gablenz was sent on a mission to the Prussian headquarters to see if one could be obtained; but on this, and on a subsequent visit made with the same object, he failed. Benedek found that his army was so disorganised and disheartened by the defeat of the 3rd of July, that it was idle to think of defending the line of the Elbe. He resolved, therefore, to retire within the lines of the fortress of Olmütz, and there re-form his broken ranks and recruit his dilapidated resources. But the press and populace of Vienna clamoured vehemently for his dismissal from the post of Commander-in-Chief; and this was presently done, though not in such a manner as to disgrace him. The Archduke Albrecht, the victor of Custozza, was appointed to the command of the Austrian Army of the North, with General von John for his Chief of the Staff. Benedek was left in command at Olmütz, with orders to send all the corps lately under his command, as soon as they were ready for the field again, by rail to Vienna, there to be united under the Archduke for the defence of the capital. The junction was effected, but the Prussian advance was alarmingly rapid, and on the 20th of July the advance-posts of Herwarth were within fifteen miles of Vienna.

Another battle lost—and with inferior numbers, inferior arms, and inferior strategy, the Austrians could not reasonably count on victory—must have laid Austria utterly prostrate at the feet of Prussia, and would probably have resulted, considering the difficult and exasperating constitutional questions at that time still unsettled between the Emperor's government and the subject kingdoms, in her dismemberment and political degradation. From this fate Austria was saved, not by the moderation of Prussia, but by the firm and friendly mediation of France. The Prussians, both officers and soldiers, were eager to march on to the assault of Vienna, though the Government was deterred by the facts that Hungary was still intact, and the Italian army paralysed by the dissensions of its commanders. But France, having accepted Venetia as a pledge that she would discharge the office of mediator, discharged it effectually. That description of mediation, to which Lord Russell was so much attached, which proclaimed beforehand that it would employ no other agency but "persuasion," did not commend itself to the French mind. It is absurd to suppose that Count Bismarck would have paid any attention to the pleadings of Benedetti had he not well understood that France was mediating sword in hand. On this point the Count's own frank declaration, made in the Prussian Lower House in the December following the war—though its immediate reference is to the question of Schleswig—does not permit us to remain in doubt. He said: "In July last France was enabled, by the general situation of Europe, to urge her views more forcibly than before. I need not depict the situation of this country at the time I am speaking of. You all know what I mean. Nobody could expect us to carry on two wars at the same time. Peace with Austria had not yet been concluded; were we to imperil the fruits of our glorious campaign by plunging headlong into hostilities with a new, a second enemy? France, then, being called on by Austria to mediate between the contending parties, as a matter of course did not omit to urge some wishes of her own upon us." Everything seems to show that Austria owed to France, at this critical moment, her continued existence as a great Power.

But for the time the negotiations hung fire, as Napoleon declined to recognise the federation of all Germany under Prussian leadership, even though Bismarck hinted that France should be allowed to annex Belgium by way of compensation. On the 17th of July the King of Prussia arrived at Nikolsburg, a place about forty miles to the north of Vienna, close to the frontier line of Moravia and Lower Austria. Benedetti was already at Nikolsburg, empowered by the Emperor of Austria to agree to an armistice of five days, nearly upon the conditions originally proposed by Prussia, viz. that Austria should withdraw all her troops, except those in garrisons, to the south of the Thaya; in other words, abandon all Moravia except the fortress and entrenched camp of Olmütz, to the Prussians. On these conditions an armistice was concluded at Nikolsburg, to take effect from noon on the 22nd of July, and to last till noon on the 27th. It was well understood on both sides that this armistice was preparatory to negotiations for peace. These were conducted actively at Nikolsburg, Austria being represented by General Degenfeld and Count Karolyi; Prussia by General Moltke and Count Bismarck. Preliminaries of[429] peace between the two Powers were signed on the 26th of July. The terms agreed to were—That Austria should cease to be a member of the German Confederation; that she should pay a contribution of 40,000,000 thalers towards Prussia's expenses in the war; and that she should offer no opposition to the steps that Prussia might take with regard to Northern Germany. The principal measures thus sanctioned were—the annexation of Hanover, Hesse-Cassel, Nassau, and the portion of Hesse-Darmstadt which lies to the north of the Main; the concession to Prussia of the reversion of Brunswick on the death of the Duke then living, who was without issue; the entry of Saxony into the new North German Confederation about to be formed; and the grant to Prussia of the supreme military and diplomatic leadership in that Confederation. The Prussian armies were to be withdrawn beyond the Thaya on the 2nd of August, but were to occupy Bohemia and Moravia till the conclusion of the final treaty of peace, and to hold Austrian Silesia until the war indemnity was paid. It was with great difficulty that the Emperor Francis Joseph wrung from the King of Prussia his consent to the continued independence of Saxony. But the little kingdom and its monarch had stood so nobly by Austria during the war that honour demanded of the Emperor that he should not permit them to be sacrificed, even though, by insisting, he risked the re-opening of hostilities.

COUNT VON MOLTKE.

The definitive treaty of peace between Austria and Prussia was signed at Prague on the 23rd of[430] August. Austria was represented in the negotiation by Baron Brenner, and Prussia by Baron Werther, Bismarck having been obliged to return to Berlin to be present at the opening of the Chambers. In substance the treaty did little more than put into precise and legal form the stipulations agreed to at Nikolsburg. The article respecting Venetia declared that, "his Majesty the Emperor of Austria on his part gives his consent to the union of the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom with the kingdom of Italy, without imposing any other condition than the liquidation of those debts which have been acknowledged charges on the territories now resigned in conformity with the Treaty of Zurich." The fifth article transferred to Prussia all the rights that Austria had acquired in the Elbe duchies under the Treaty of Vienna; but the influence of the French Emperor, who would not miss what seemed to him so good an opportunity for the application of his favourite principle of the popular vote, obtained the addition of a clause providing that "the people of the northern district of Schleswig, if by free vote they express a wish to be united to Denmark, should be ceded to Denmark accordingly." With regard to Saxony, the King of Prussia declared himself willing (Article VI.), "at the desire of his Majesty the Emperor of Austria," to allow the territory of that kingdom to remain within its existing limits, reserving to himself the right of settling in a separate treaty the share to be contributed by Saxony towards the expenses of the war, and the position which it should eventually hold within the North German Confederation. This separate treaty was not concluded till the 21st of October of the same year. Under it Saxony retained little more than a nominal independence. She agreed to pay a war contribution of 9,000,000 thalers, to give up all her telegraphs to Prussia, and to enter the North German Confederation; her troops were to form an integral portion of the North German army, under the supreme command of the King of Prussia; Königstein, her strongest fortress, was to be given up to Prussia, and Dresden to be held by a garrison half Prussian, half Saxon. While Prussia was stipulating for the cessation of all common interests between her and Austria, and for the exclusion of the latter from Germany, the question naturally rose: What relations are to subsist hereafter between Prussia and the other South German States—such as Bavaria and Baden—which are neither to join the North German Confederation, nor yet to be excluded altogether from Germany? This question was answered in the fourth article of the treaty, in which the Emperor of Austria, after promising to recognise the North German Confederation which Prussia was about to form, "declares his consent that the German States situated to the south of the line of the Main should unite in a league, the national connection of which with the North German Bund is reserved for a further agreement between both parties, and which will have an international independent existence." The Treaty of Prague further settled that from the war indemnity of 40,000,000 thalers which Austria had agreed to pay, a sum of 15,000,000 thalers should be deducted on account of war expenses claimed by the Emperor from the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, and a further sum of 5,000,000 thalers on account of the maintenance of the Prussian troops in the Austrian States which they occupied till the conclusion of peace. The remaining net indemnity of 20,000,000 thalers was to be paid within three weeks of the exchange of ratifications. This sum, it may be mentioned, amounts to £3,000,000 of English money. The principal articles of the treaty between Austria and Prussia having been thus briefly summarised, it now only remains to state that the ratifications of the treaty were formally exchanged at Prague on the 29th of August.

The war was over, but the task of establishing the new internal relations that were henceforth to prevail in Germany remained. Armistices were agreed to on the 2nd of August between Prussia, on the one hand, and Bavaria, Baden, Würtemberg, and Hesse-Darmstadt, on the other, to last for three weeks. At first Bavaria was very roughly dealt with. The Bavarian Ambassador, Baron von der Pfordten, was some days at Nikolsburg before he could obtain an audience of Count Bismarck. At last (July 27th) he obtained a few minutes' conversation with the Prussian Minister, who curtly stated as the terms of peace, the cession of all Bavarian territory north of the Main to Prussia, the cession of the Bavarian Palatinate to Hesse-Darmstadt, and the payment of a war indemnity. But the final treaty of peace, signed at Berlin on the 22nd of August, was less onerous for Bavaria, it imposed, indeed, a contribution of 30,000,000 gulden; abolished shipping dues on the Rhine and Main, where those rivers were under Bavarian jurisdiction; and transferred all the telegraph lines north of the Main to Prussian control; but it required no such cessions of territory as were exacted by the preliminaries. The causes of this apparent lenity, which must have puzzled those acquainted with the Prussian character,[431] will be explained presently. The treaty with Würtemberg, signed on the 13th of August, imposed a war indemnity of 8,000,000 florins on that kingdom, and provided for its re-entry into the Zollverein. A similar treaty with Baden, signed on the 17th of August, burdened the Grand Duchy with a war indemnity of 6,000,000 gulden. Peace with Hesse-Darmstadt was only concluded on the 3rd of September. Great resentment was felt in Prussia against the Grand Duke, who had been throughout a staunch friend to Austria. On the other hand, the Court of Russia, for family reasons, intervened with urgency on behalf both of Würtemberg and of Hesse-Darmstadt; and the terms imposed on these States were consequently more lenient than had been expected. Darmstadt was required to give up Hesse-Homburg and certain other portions of its territory to Prussia; it was, however, indemnified to a considerable extent at the cost of what had been the independent States of Hesse-Cassel, Nassau, and Frankfort; the general effect being to consolidate and render more compact the territories both of Prussia and of Darmstadt, where they were conterminous. Hesse-Darmstadt, moreover, though, in respect of that portion of her territories which lay south of the Main, she was a South German State, agreed to enter the North German Confederation.

Besides the public treaties with the States of South Germany which have been just described, Prussia concluded with them at the same time certain secret articles, which were not divulged until months afterwards. According to these, Bavaria, Baden, and Würtemberg severally entered into a treaty of alliance, offensive and defensive, with Prussia, with guarantee of their respective territories, and the concession of the supreme command in time of war to the King of Prussia. Count Bismarck knew that he had been playing a perilous game; he had mortified and exasperated the French Emperor, immediately after the close of the war, by refusing to cede to him certain demands for the Bavarian Palatinate and the Hessian districts west of the Rhine. French vanity had been wounded by the victories, French jealousy had been aroused by the aggrandisement, of Prussia. The whole North German Confederation did but represent a population of 25,000,000; if Germany was to be safe against France, she must be able to dispose at need of the military resources of a population of at least equal magnitude. Weighing all these things with that profound forecast which characterised him, Count Bismarck would seem to have purposely imposed at first harsh conditions on Bavaria in order that he might obtain, as the price of their subsequent remission, the adhesion of that kingdom to an arrangement that would bring its excellent soldiers into line with those of Prussia. Upon all these South German States he skilfully brought to bear an argument derived from the recent demand of France for German territory which he promptly divulged—a demand which, he said, would infallibly be renewed; which it would be difficult in all circumstances to resist; and which, if it had to be conceded, could hardly be satisfied except at the expense of one or other of them. Isolated, they could not resist dismemberment; united with Prussia, and mutually guaranteeing each other's territories, they were safe.

These secret treaties between Prussia and the South German States first came to light in April of the following year. Count Beust, who was then the Austrian Premier, commenting on the disclosure in his despatches to Austrian representatives at foreign Courts, said that Austria would make no complaint and ask for no explanations; at the same time, with much dry significance, he directed their attention to the fact, that the Prussian Government had actually concluded these treaties with the South German States before it signed the Treaty of Prague, the fourth article of which was by them rendered null and meaningless. The Count justly pointed out that an offensive alliance between two States forced the weaker of the two to endorse the foreign policy and follow in the wake of the stronger, and practically destroyed the independence of the former.

For the French Emperor, in spite of the efficacy of the French intervention in favour of Austria, the events of this year must have been full of secret mortification. In Mexico, the empire that he had built up at heavy cost was crumbling to pieces; and he did not feel himself strong enough on the throne—nor was he, in fact, gifted with sufficient strength of moral and intellectual fibre—to persevere in the enterprise against the ill-will of the American Government and the carpings of the Opposition at home. He made up his mind to withdraw the French troops from Mexico, and get out of the affair with as little loss of credit as possible. In spite of checks and disappointments, Napoleon still wore a bold front, and in his public utterances continued to assume the oracular and impassable character that had so long imposed on the world. In the sitting of the Corps-Législatif on the 12th of June an important letter from the Emperor to M. Drouyn de Lhuys was read, in which it was[432] declared that France would only require an extension of her frontiers, in the event of the map of Europe being altered to the profit of a great Power, and of the bordering provinces expressing by a formal and free vote their desire for annexation. The last clause was a judicious reservation, particularly as the doctrine of the popular sovereignty, expressed through plébiscites, was not at all consonant with Prussian ideas, so that there was no chance of Rhine Prussia, or any part of it, being allowed the opportunity, supposing it had desired it, of voting for annexation to France. However, notwithstanding the imperial declaration, the map of Europe was altered to the profit of a great Power, and France obtained no extension of territory. Soon after the close of the Austro-Prussian War, the Emperor asked from the Prussian Government the concession of a small strip of territory to the extreme south of her Rhenish provinces, including the valuable coalfield in the neighbourhood of Saarbrück and Saarlouis, besides acquiescence in the annexations from Bavaria and Hesse-Darmstadt. This was the last of a series of demands for compensation dating from 1862, by judiciously playing with which Bismarck had kept Napoleon quiet during two European wars. Count Bismarck met the request with a decided refusal, on the ground that the state of national feeling in Germany rendered the cession of a single foot of German territory to a foreign Power an impossible proceeding. The Emperor's mortification must have been extreme; he concealed it, however, and nothing was more hopeful or optimistic than the tone of the circular which he caused to be sent on the 16th of September to the French diplomatic agents abroad. Its object was to convince the nation and all the world that France had not been humiliated, nor disappointed, nor disagreeably surprised, by the late events; on the contrary, that she was perfectly satisfied with what had happened. As to annexations, France desired none in which the sympathy of the populations annexed did not go with her—in which they had not the same customs, the same national spirit with herself. From the elevated point of view occupied by the French Government, "the horizon appeared to be cleared of all menacing eventualities."

THE PALACE, DRESDEN.

[433]

WAR OFFICE, PALL MALL.

## CHAPTER XXVIII.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

> Parliamentary Reform—Mr. Disraeli's Resolutions—Their Text—Mr. Lowe's Sarcasms—The "Ten Minutes" Bill—Sir John Pakington's Revelations—Lord John Manners' Letter—Ministerial Resignations—A New Bill promised—Meeting at Downing Street—Mr. Disraeli's Statement—The Compound Householder—The Fancy Franchises—Mr. Gladstone's Exposure—Mr. Lowe and Lord Cranborne—The Spirit of Concession—Mr. Gladstone on the Second Reading—Mr. Gathorne Hardy's Speech—Mr. Bright and Mr. Disraeli—The Dual Vote abandoned—Mr. Coleridge's Instruction—The Tea-Room Cabal—Mr. Gladstone's Amendment—His other Amendments withdrawn—Continued Debates and Divisions—Mr. Hodgkinson's Amendment—Mr. Disraeli's coup de théâtre—Mr. Lowe's Philippic—The County Franchise—The Redistribution Bill—Objections to It—The Boundaries—Lord Cranborne and Mr. Lowe—Mr Disraeli's Audacity—The Bill in the Lords—Four Amendments—Lord Cairns's Minorities Amendment—The Bill becomes Law—The "Leap in the Dark"—Punch on the Situation—The Scottish Reform Bill—Prolongation of the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act—Irish Debates—Oaths and Offices Bill—Mr. Bruce's Education Bill—The "Gang System"—Meetings in Hyde Park—Mr. Walpole's Proclamation and Resignation—Attempted Attack on Chester Castle—Collapse of the Enterprise—Attack on the Police Van at Manchester—Trial of the "Martyrs"—Explosion at Clerkenwell Prison—Trades Union Outrages at Sheffield—The Crimes of Broadhead—Tailors and Picketing—The Buckinghamshire Labourers—Distressing Accidents—Royal Visitors—Foreign Affairs—The French Evacuation of Mexico—The Luxemburg Question—The London Conference—Neutralisation of the Duchy—The Austrian Compromise—Creation of the Dual Monarchy—The Autumn Session—The Abyssinian Expedition—A Mislaid Letter.

ON the 11th of February, 1867, in pursuance of the pledges given by the new Ministry in their various speeches before the beginning of the Session, the House of Commons was once more invited to consider the question of Reform, under the guidance, however, of Mr. Disraeli, instead of Mr. Gladstone. The Conservative party naturally felt somewhat strange to the work; they had turned out the Liberal Government upon various pleas, all of which they were to abandon, more or less completely, before the close of the Session of 1867; they had no such traditional or inherited policy to guide them in framing a popular Reform Bill as the Liberals had; and they had a dread[434] of the Opposition, which, considering their own conduct towards the defeated Reform Bill of the preceding year, was, perhaps, not unreasonable. Still the fact that the whole question had been already fully canvassed and discussed—that the House had become familiarised with the details as well as the general principles of Reform, and that its members had, one and all with more or less sincerity, it is true, pledged themselves to Reform in some shape or other—was in their favour. When the pros and cons of the situation are considered, the course adopted by Mr. Disraeli, in introducing the subject, seems, at first sight, both natural and ingenious. "We desire no longer," said the Conservatives, "to risk the settlement of the whole question upon a question of detail; the House is pledged to Reform; let us then, instead of dictating to it a definite policy, instead of bringing in a Bill of our own immediately, endeavour to ascertain the general sense of the House upon disputed points before framing it, that we may not frame it in the dark, and meet the common fate of those Ministries that have hitherto dealt with the subject." This was the meaning of Mr. Disraeli's famous Resolutions, which he explained to the House in his opening speech. In this speech, throughout ingeniously indefinite, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer provided such men as Mr. Lowe, possessing a keen sense of humour, with ample food for ridicule. After the resolutions had been sufficiently debated, Government promised to bring forward a Bill embodying the general opinion of the House, so far as the discussions on the resolutions should have enabled them to ascertain it. Mr. Gladstone, in answer to Mr. Disraeli, reproached Government with wishing to shift the whole responsibility in the matter from their own shoulders to those of the House. The principle of Ministerial responsibility was one sanctioned by long usage, and was not to be lightly abandoned. With regard to the resolutions themselves, though at first sight he disliked the plan, he was willing to give them a fair trial, provided they were not mere vague preliminary declarations which it would be of no practical advantage to discuss. The resolutions appeared in the papers next day, and produced general disappointment. It was felt that Government, in spite of all their protestations, were really "angling for a policy," and that they were treating neither the House nor the nation straightforwardly. The resolutions were as follows:—

1. "That the number of electors for counties and boroughs in England and Wales ought to be increased.

2. "That such increase may best be effected by both reducing the value of the qualifying tenement in counties and boroughs, and by adding other franchises not dependent on such value.

3. "That while it is desirable that a more direct representation should be given to the labouring class, it is contrary to the Constitution of this realm to give to any one class or interest a predominating power over the rest of the community.

4. "That the occupation franchise in counties and boroughs shall be based upon the principle of rating.

[It will be remembered that it was upon this very question of rating, as against rental, that the Russell Ministry had been thrown out of office in the preceding year. After Lord Dunkellin's amendment, the Conservatives were bound to make the principle of rating a part of any scheme brought forward by them. How much they were obliged to modify it before the end of the matter, and how amply justified Mr. Gladstone's arguments against it were proved to be, will be seen hereafter.]

5. "That the principle of plurality of votes, if adopted by Parliament, would facilitate the settlement of the borough franchise on an extensive basis.

6. "That it is expedient to revise the existing distribution of seats.

7. "That in such revision it is not expedient that any borough now represented in Parliament should be wholly disfranchised.

8. "That in revising the existing distribution of seats, this House will acknowledge, as its main consideration, the expediency of supplying representation to places not at present represented, which may be considered entitled to that privilege.

9. "That it is expedient that provision should be made for the better prevention of bribery and corruption at elections.

10. "That it is expedient that the system of registration of voters in counties should be assimilated as far as possible to that which prevails in boroughs.

11. "That it shall be open to every Parliamentary elector, if he thinks fit, to record his vote by means of a polling paper, duly signed and authenticated.

12. "That provision be made for diminishing the distance which voters have to travel for the purpose of recording their votes, so that no expenditure for such purpose shall hereafter be legal.

13. "That a humble Address be presented to her[435] Majesty, praying her Majesty to issue a Royal Commission to form and submit to the consideration of Parliament a scheme for new and enlarged boundaries of the existing Parliamentary boroughs where the population extends beyond the limits now assigned to such boroughs; and to fix, subject to the decision of Parliament, the boundaries of such other boroughs as Parliament may deem fit to be represented in this House."

The House and the country were naturally dissatisfied with such vague statements as these, and between the 11th and the 25th of February, when Mr. Disraeli promised something more definite, many attempts were made to induce Government to declare themselves more plainly. "The Resolutions of the Government," said Mr. Lowe later, borrowing a happy illustration from the "Vicar of Wakefield," "have no more to do with the plan of the Government than Squire Thornhill's three famous postulates had to do with the argument he had with Moses Primrose, when, in order to controvert the right of the clergy to tithes, he laid down the principles—that a whole is greater than its part; that whatever is, is; and that three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles." However, Mr. Disraeli kept his secret, in spite of attacks from Mr. Ayrton and arguments from Mr. Gladstone, till the night of the 25th, when he rose to explain the resolutions and to suggest certain constructions of them on the part of Government; a very different thing, it will be understood, from bringing in a Bill by which the framers of it are bound in the main to stand or fall. In the first place, then, Government proposed to create four new franchises—an educational franchise, to include persons who had taken a university degree, ministers of religion, and others; a savings bank franchise; a franchise dependent upon the possession of £50 in the public funds; and a fourth dependent upon the payment of £1 yearly in direct taxation. By these means the Government calculated that about 82,000 persons would be enfranchised. In boroughs the occupier's qualification was to be reduced to £6 rateable value, and in counties to £20 rateable value—reductions which it was supposed would admit about 220,000 new voters. With regard to the redistribution of seats, four boroughs, convicted of extensive corruption, and returning seven members between them, were to be wholly disfranchised; and in addition to these seven members, Mr. Disraeli appealed "to the patriotism of the smaller boroughs" to provide him with twenty-three more, by means of partial disfranchisement. The thirty seats thus obtained were to be divided as follows:—Fifteen new seats were to be given to counties, fourteen to boroughs (an additional member being given to the Tower Hamlets), and one member to the London University. The points of likeness and unlikeness between this scheme and that of the Liberals in 1866 will be easily perceived by any one who takes the trouble to examine the two plans.

This meagre and unsatisfactory measure, however, was short-lived; and the secret history of it, as it was afterwards told by various members of the Government, affords an amusing insight into the mysteries of Cabinet Councils. The fact was that before the beginning of the Session, and during the time that the thirteen resolutions were lying on the table of the House, two Reform schemes were under the consideration of Government, "one of which," said Lord Derby, "was more extensive than the other." When it was seen that the House would have nothing to say to the resolutions, and that a Bill must be brought in without delay, it became necessary to choose between these two schemes. At a Cabinet meeting on Saturday, February 23rd, the more extensive one, based upon household suffrage, guarded by various precautions, was, as it was supposed, unanimously adopted, and Mr. Disraeli was commissioned to explain it to the House of Commons on the following Monday, the 25th. The rest of the story may be told in Sir John Pakington's words. "You all know," he said, addressing his constituents at Droitwich, "that, on the 23rd of February, a Cabinet Council decided on the Reform Bill which was to be proposed to Parliament. On Monday, the 25th, at two o'clock in the afternoon, Lord Derby was to address the whole Conservative party in Downing Street. At half-past four in the afternoon of that day—I mention the hour because it is important—the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to explain the Reform Bill in the House of Commons. When the Cabinet Council rose on the previous Saturday, it was my belief that we were a unanimous Cabinet on the Reform Bill then determined upon. [Lord Derby, however, afterwards stated that General Peel, one of the three seceding Ministers, had some time before the Cabinet of the 23rd expressed his strong objections to the Reform Bill then adopted, but had consented to waive his objections for the sake of the unity of the Ministry.] As soon as the Council concluded, Lord Derby went to Windsor to communicate with her Majesty on the Reform Bill, and I heard no more[436] of the subject till the Monday morning. On the Monday, between eleven and twelve o'clock, I received an urgent summons to attend Lord Derby's house at half-past twelve o'clock on important business. At that hour I reached Lord Derby's house, but found there only three or four members of the Cabinet. No such summons had been anticipated, and consequently some of the Ministers were at their private houses, some at their offices, and it was nearly half-past one before the members of the Cabinet could be brought together. As each dropped in, the question was put, 'What is the matter? Why are we convened?' and as they successively came in, they were informed that Lord Cranborne, Lord Carnarvon, and General Peel had seceded, objecting to the details of the Bill which we thought they had adopted on the Saturday. Imagine the difficulty and embarrassment in which the Ministry found themselves placed. It was then past two o'clock. Lord Derby was to address the Conservative party at half-past two; at half-past four Mr. Disraeli was to unfold the Reform scheme [adopted on the previous Saturday] before the House of Commons. Literally, we had not half an hour—we had not more than ten minutes—to make up our minds as to what course the Ministry were to adopt. The public knows the rest. We determined to propose, not the Bill agreed to on the Saturday, but an alternative measure, which we had contemplated in the event of our large and liberal scheme being rejected by the House of Commons. Whether, if the Ministry had had an hour for consideration, we should have taken that course was, perhaps, a question. But we had not that hour, and were driven to decide upon a line of definite action within the limits of little more than ten minutes."

In Lord Malmesbury's "Recollections" is to be found a letter from Lord John Manners, which corroborates this ingenuous confession. "I am truly sorry," he wrote on February 26th, "to hear of the cause of your absence from our distracted councils, and hope that you will soon be able to bring a better account of Lady Malmesbury. I really hardly know where we are, but yesterday we were suddenly brought together to hear that Cranborne and Carnarvon withdrew unless we gave up household suffrage and duality, upon which announcement Peel said that, although he had given up his opposition when he stood alone, now he must be added to the remonstrant Ministers. Stanley then proposed that to keep us together the £6 and £20 rating should be adopted, which, after much discussion, was agreed to. We have decided to abandon the Resolutions altogether, and to issue the Boundary Commission ourselves. We are in a very broken and disorganised condition."

It was soon felt, however, by the Ministry that this condition of things was unsound, and could not last. The measure explained on the 25th satisfied neither Conservatives nor Liberals. A large meeting of Liberals held at Mr. Gladstone's house decisively condemned it; while from their own friends and supporters Government received strong and numerous protests against it. What was to be done? Lord Derby once more called his Government together, and they agreed to retrace their steps, even at the cost of the three objecting Ministers. Upon the 4th of March Lord Derby, in the House of Lords, and Mr. Disraeli, in the Commons, announced the resignation of Lord Cranborne, Lord Carnarvon, and General Peel (who were replaced by the Dukes of Richmond and Marlborough and Mr. Corry), the withdrawal of the measure proposed on the 25th, and the adoption by Government of a far more liberal policy than that represented. Both in the House and in the country there were naturally some rather free criticisms passed upon a Government who, three weeks before the announcement of a Reform Bill brought forward by them, had not come to an agreement upon its most essential provisions, and upon a sudden emergency, and to keep their members together, adopted and introduced a makeshift measure, which their own sense of expediency, no less than public opinion, afterwards obliged them to withdraw. In these marchings and counter-marchings of Government much valuable time had been thrown away. "No less than six weeks of the Session," said Lord Grey, "have been wasted before any step whatever has been taken." The Conservative leaders, however, vehemently protested that it was no fault of theirs; and now that the confession had been made, and the three refractory colleagues got rid of, affairs did at length assume a businesslike aspect. "It is our business now," said the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "to bring forward, as soon as we possibly can, the measure of Parliamentary Reform which, after such difficulties and such sacrifices, it will be my duty to introduce to the House. Sir, the House need not fear that there will be any evasion, any equivocation, any vacillation, or any hesitation in that measure."

In the interval between these Ministerial explanations and the production of the real Reform[437] Bill in Parliament meetings of their supporters were held by the lenders of both parties. At a meeting held in Downing Street on the 15th of March, Lord Derby explained to 195 members of the Conservative party the distinctive features of the proposed Bill. Startling as the contemplated changes in the franchise must have seemed to every Conservative present, only one dissenting voice was heard—that of Sir William Heathcote, who declared, in strong terms, that he wholly disapproved of the measure, and that he believed, if carried out, it would destroy the influence of rank, property, and education throughout the country by the mere force of numbers. The scheme, of which only a few fragments were as yet generally known, was given to the public on the 18th of March, when Mr. Disraeli described it at much length in the House. And although the measure at first proposed was so largely altered in its passage through Parliament that by the time it had become part of the law of England its original projectors must have had some difficulty in recognising it as theirs, it is worth while to take careful note of its various provisions as they were originally drawn up, that the action of the two great parties engaged throughout the subsequent struggle may be the more plainly understood.

LORD MALMESBURY.

(From a Photograph by Elliott & Fry, Baker Street, W.)

The first quarter of Mr. Disraeli's speech was taken up by a review of the past history of the question—an old and well-known story, somewhat impatiently listened to by the House. He picked the various Reform schemes of his predecessors to pieces, and finally declared that the principle at the bottom of them all—the principle of value, regulated whether by rental or rating—had been[438] proved by long experience to be untenable and unpractical, and Government were now about to abandon it altogether. Nor was Mr. Disraeli slow to disclose his secret. The very next paragraph of his speech announced that, in the opinion of Government, any attempt to unite the principle of value with the principle of rating, any such solution as a £6 or £5 rating franchise, would be wholly unsatisfactory. In the boroughs of England and Wales, Mr. Disraeli went on to say, there were 1,367,000 male householders, of whom 644,000 were qualified to vote, leaving 723,000 unqualified. Now, if we examined these 723,000, we should find that 237,000 of them were rated to the poor and paid their rates. So that if the law were changed in such a manner as to make the borough franchise dependent upon the payment of rates only, unrestricted by any standard of value, these 237,000 would be at once qualified to vote, making, with the 644,000 already qualified, 881,000 persons in the English and Welsh boroughs in possession of the franchise. There would still remain 486,000, belonging mostly to the irregular and debatable class of compound householders—householders paying their rates, not personally, but through their landlords. Now, since Government thought that the franchise ought to be based upon a personal payment of rates, it became a great question as to what was to be done with these 486,000 compound householders. "Ought the compound householders to have a vote?" As a compound householder Government thought he ought not to have a vote. But he was not to be left altogether in the cold. Ample opportunities were to be afforded him for raising himself out of the anomalous position to which the Small Tenements Acts had consigned him. Let him only enter his name upon the rate-book, and claim to pay his rates personally; and having fulfilled the constitutional condition required, he would at once succeed to the constitutional privilege connected with it. It had been said that the working classes did not care enough about the suffrage to take so much trouble to obtain it. "That, however," said Mr. Disraeli, oracularly, "is not the opinion of her Majesty's Government." Thus 723,000 additional persons might, if they wished, obtain the franchise under the new Bill. To these were to be added all those who paid 20s. a year in direct taxes, whether compound householders or not; while, to prevent the working classes from swamping the constituencies and nullifying the influence of the middle and upper classes, Government brought forward the curious expedient of dual voting. "Every person," said the Chancellor of the Exchequer," who pays £1 direct taxation, and who enjoys the franchise which depends upon the payment of direct taxation, if he is also a householder and pays his rates, may exercise his suffrage in respect of both qualifications."

The dual vote, however, provoked such hot opposition that, as will shortly be seen, Government eventually withdrew it. The direct taxes qualification, Mr. Disraeli calculated, would add more than 200,000 to the constituency; and the three other "fancy franchises," as they were called—the education franchise, the funded property franchise, and the savings bank franchise—another 105,000. In all, Government held out the splendid promise of an addition of more than 1,000,000 voters to the borough constituency. In counties the franchise would be lowered to £15 rateable value—a reduction which would enfranchise about 171,000 additional voters; while the four lateral franchises mentioned above would bring the number of new county voters up to about 330,000. With regard to the redistribution of seats, Government had substantially the same proposals to make as those originally described to the House on the 25th of February. Mr. Disraeli, however, vigorously defended them from the charge of inadequacy which had been brought against them in the interval. Neither Government nor the country, he said, was prepared to go through the agitating labour of constructing a new electoral map of England; and this being the case, all that would be done would be to seize opportunities as they arose of remedying grievances and removing inequalities by some such moderate means as those proposed in the Bill.

Alas! for Mr. Disraeli's figures when they came to be handled by Mr. Gladstone. Instead of 237,000, it was stoutly maintained by Mr. Gladstone that scarcely 144,000 would be admitted to the franchise by extending it to all who personally paid their rates. And as to the facilities to be offered in such tempting profusion to the compound householder for obtaining a vote, they amounted to this—that he was to have the privilege of paying over again that which he had already paid. It was difficult to believe that he would ever avail himself of this privilege to any great extent. Practically, the Bill did nothing for the compound householder; so that, while it would introduce household suffrage—nay, universal suffrage—into villages and country towns where there was no system of compounding for rates, in large towns,[439] like Leeds, with a population of a quarter of a million, where the majority of the inhabitants were compound householders, its effect would be little or nothing. In fact, the results of the Bill, had it been passed as it was originally drawn up, would have been almost grotesque. In Hull, for instance, where the Small Tenements Act was almost universally enforced, the number of personally rated occupiers under the £10 rental who would have been enfranchised by the Bill would have been 64 out of a population of 104,873; while in the small borough of Thirsk, where the system of compounding for rates was not in use, 684 would have obtained the franchise as personal ratepayers. In Brighton, where compound householders abounded, the Bill would have enfranchised 14 out of every 10,000 occupiers under the £10 line; while in York it would have enfranchised 100 out of every 1,000. The enfranchising effect of the Bill would have been between "six and seven times as great in the boroughs not under Rating Acts as in the others." It is more than probable that in framing their measure Government foresaw none of these anomalies, and that they were revealed to them and impressed upon them in the course of debate. There was, in fact, no adequate knowledge among them of the working of those complicated details of rating machinery upon which they made the whole effect of their Bill ultimately depend. With regard to the secondary franchises—the direct taxes franchise, the education franchise, etc.,—Mr. Gladstone contended that the figures quoted by Mr. Disraeli were wholly erroneous and visionary, and that the new voters it was supposed they would admit were no more substantial than Falstaff's men in buckram. For himself, he had no belief in the principle of rating as a bulwark of the Constitution; and to base the possession of the franchise upon the personal payment of rates, he thought fundamentally wrong. To the proposition of dual voting as a safeguard of household suffrage, he declared himself inflexibly opposed. It could only serve as a gigantic instrument of fraud, and was nothing less than a proclamation of a war of classes. And where was the lodger franchise, so highly praised by the Conservatives in 1859, which all the world had expected to find in the Bill? If that were added, and the so-called safeguards of dual voting and personal payment of rates done away with, the Liberal party would accept the Bill as a whole.

A short debate followed, in which Mr. Lowe reappeared, to do battle as warmly against the Reform Bill of the Conservatives as he had formerly waged it against that of the Liberals. Mr. Lowe had been duped, but he was not yet prepared to confess it. Later, when concession after concession had been made by Government, and a far more Radical measure than any Liberal Ministry had ever dreamt of was on the point of becoming law, Mr. Lowe did indeed make ample and public confession of his mistake, and loud and bitter were the expressions of his wrath and mortification. But at this stage of the matter the "Cave" had still some confidence in Conservative principles and time-honoured Conservative traditions, and refused to believe that the party they had helped to put into power would ever betray them so completely as was afterwards actually the case. They disliked the Bill and said so; but for some little time they trusted to the genuine Conservative influence still existing behind the Ministerial benches for its modification. Lord Cranborne, a seceder from the Tories, as Mr. Lowe had been from the Liberals, made a short but energetic attack upon the Bill on this occasion. "If the Conservative party accept the Bill," he said, "they will be committing political suicide: household suffrage, pure and simple, will be the result of it, for no one can put any faith in the proposed safeguards; and, after their conduct last year, it is not the Conservatives who should pass a measure of household suffrage."

During the interval between the introduction of the Bill and the motion for the second reading, an important meeting of the Liberal party was held at Mr. Gladstone's house on March 21st, to consider whether opposition should be offered to the second reading. Mr. Gladstone said, "Since the printing of the Government Bill, having applied myself day and night to the study of it, I have not the smallest doubt in my own mind that the wiser course of the two would be to oppose the Bill on the second reading." He thought, however, "that the general disposition of the meeting would not bear him out in that course;" and to maintain the unity of the party, he was willing to sacrifice his own personal opinion. "If Ministers were content to abandon the dual voting, and to equalise the privileges and facilities of the enfranchised in all cases, however the qualification arose, then the measure might be made acceptable. If they would not concede these points, then he thought that the Liberals should not permit the measure to go into committee." It was already evident that both sides had made up their minds to pass some kind of Reform Bill during the Session, and that both were prepared to make concessions rather than[440] offer to the country once more the pitiable spectacle of a great measure of necessary Reform overthrown by party spirit and party warfare. Still the Liberals were determined to wrest certain points from Government; and in his speech on the second reading (March 25th) Mr. Gladstone thus summed up the defects in the Bill, which must, he said, be amended before the Liberals could give in their adhesion to it:—

1. Omission of a lodger franchise. 2. Omission of provisions against traffic in votes of householders of the lowest class, by corrupt payment of their rates. 3. Disqualifications of compound householders under the existing law. 4. Additional disqualifications of compound householders under the proposed law. 5. The franchise founded on direct taxation. 6. The dual vote. 7. The inadequate distribution of seats. 8. The inadequate reduction of the franchise in counties. 9. Voting papers. 10. Collateral or special franchises. Every one of these ten points, except the second, was finally settled more or less in accordance with the demands of the Liberals,—an instructive comment on the experiment of "government by minorities," which Mr. Disraeli was making with such great success.

In contradistinction to Lord Cranborne, Mr. Gladstone maintained that while the Bill seemed on the face of it to be a measure of household suffrage, it was in reality nothing of the kind; every concession in it was balanced by a corresponding restriction, and what it gave with one hand it took away with the other. For the dual vote he had nothing but hard words: "At the head of the list stand those favoured children of fortune—those select human beings made of finer clay than the rest of their fellow-subjects—who are to be endowed with dual votes. Upon that dual vote I shall not trouble the House, for I think that my doing so would be a waste of time." And, indeed, the general opinion of the House had already pronounced so decidedly against it, that no purpose would have been served by discussing it at length. Mr. Gladstone went on to declaim afresh against the fine which the Bill would inflict upon the compound householder before he could obtain his vote. Then followed an elaborate and masterly examination of the probable results of the Bill if passed in its original form. Making use of some important statistics, the return of which had been lately moved for by Mr. Ward Hunt, he attacked the Bill as one that would "flood some towns with thousands of voters, and only add a few in other towns." After reading a long series of these damaging statistics, Mr. Gladstone might well ask, "Is it possible that any one on the Treasury benches can get up in his place, and recommend those clauses respecting the compound householder with all their anomalies?" Men, however, were not lacking to defend them, and to defend them with ability and vigour. Mr. Gathorne Hardy, then Commissioner of the Poor Laws, after a graceful tribute to the power of Mr. Gladstone's speech, made out, perhaps, the best case for the Ministerial measure that had yet been attempted. He denied that the Bill was a Household Suffrage Bill; the proper name for it was a Rating Franchise Bill; and so far from excluding anybody, as Mr. Gladstone had tried to prove, it opened the franchise to every one who chose to claim it. And as to the "fine" which it was said would be imposed upon the compound householder by the Bill, he could recover whatever rates he paid from the landlord—a statement in support of which Mr. Hardy quoted an Act of Queen Victoria, allowing "any occupier paying any rate or rates in respect of any tenement where the owner is rated to the same, to deduct from his rent or recover from his landlord the amount so paid." The Act, however, did not really bear out Mr. Hardy's argument, since it only enabled the tenant to recover the reduced rate, while the Bill obliged him to pay the full rate before obtaining his vote. The personal payment, of rates, and the two years' residence clauses, were, he admitted, meant as safeguards and limitations; but he believed them to be just and reasonable, and such as would be approved by the country.

The debate was vigorously kept up—the Ministry being only represented by Mr. Gathorne Hardy and Mr. Disraeli, and supporters and opponents of the Bill being found promiscuously on both sides of the House. In truth, people had not yet got over their surprise, and neither Liberals nor Conservatives quite knew what to think of a measure so Liberal at heart, though cased with Conservative safeguards, brought in by a Conservative Government. It was only towards the end of the debate, when Mr. Bright spoke, and Mr. Disraeli made answer on the whole case, that the country began clearly to see which way things were going. Mr. Bright was in a happy vein; he mixed in an effective way solid criticism on the details of the Bill with sarcastic descriptions of its framers, and earnest denunciation of what he called the "deception and disappointment" of which it bore the marks. He regarded the Bill as really equivalent to a measure for £8 suffrage, and therefore less thorough than the Bill of the previous year. It was too much inclined to a "set off"—the[441] enfranchising of higher class voters to counteract the lower, which, of course, would not be the removal of the real grievance that the workmen felt. Then, after protesting that he would be the first person in the House to support a "fair and honest measure" of Reform, Mr. Bright went on: "I will be no party to any Bill which would cheat the great body of my countrymen of the possession of that power in the House on which they have set their hearts; and which, as I believe, by the Constitution of this country, they may most justly claim."

TEA-ROOM, HOUSE OF COMMONS.

When Mr. Disraeli rose to end the debate, the House clearly saw that, though he was supporting his Bill most strenuously, he was really speaking in the spirit of his own resolutions. Those, it will be remembered, had been brought forward early in the Session with the avowed purpose of "feeling" or "taking the sense of" the House. Mr. Disraeli made no secret then of his readiness to do as he was bid by the majority; and now, though he pretended to make a secret of it, the same readiness was to be detected in his speech. There was a vast amount of epigram directed at Mr. Gladstone; but Mr. Disraeli, in taking up the amendments indicated by him, confessed that "if satisfactory arguments were brought forward in committee," no doubt the House would adopt them; and the House might adopt them, he implied, without endangering the Government Bill. To the lodger franchise—of which Mr. Disraeli claimed himself to be the father—he was not personally opposed; it might be left to the committee. The compound householder amendment—why was it that Lord Russell and Mr. Gladstone, in schemes of their own, had wished to keep up the distinction between classes of ratepayers, and now wished to abolish those distinctions? Yet that amendment might be referred to the committee. In the same way with the amendment about voting papers, about the qualification of residence, about the county franchise, about redistribution of seats. On one and all of these points Mr. Disraeli's watchword was "elasticity." The Bill's chief merit was that it was elastic, whereas Mr. Gladstone's £5 rating Bill would have been rigid and hard. This Bill, he said, was so drawn as to secure the "fitness and variety" that were to become[442] security against democracy. Then Mr. Disraeli ended, saying that it was the one wish of Government to co-operate with the House in settling this question once for all. Till the settlement was arrived at they would not desert their posts. Any concessions, he implied, any withdrawal of obnoxious clauses, or substitution of amending clauses, would be consented to. Government, the House, the country, only asked for one thing—settlement. The Bill must be passed at any cost; no personal feeling should make Government either withdraw it or resign until it had been passed. "Pass the Bill," he concluded, "and then change the Ministry if you please." A speech of which this was the tone very naturally disarmed the Opposition. The only danger was lest the Conservative rank and file, irritated by their leader's tone of concession, should mutiny. There was no mutiny, however, though there was some murmuring, and the Bill was read a second time on the 26th of March, without a division.

The committee was fixed for the 8th of April. On the 1st Mr. Disraeli made the first of his promised concessions; he announced that Government were prepared to withdraw the clause relating to the dual vote. That removed one of the bugbears of the Liberal party, and left them to direct their interest to the interminable and vexatious question of the compound householder. The enormous number of small occupiers who compounded for their rates—amounting, it was confidently said, to two-thirds of the occupiers under £10—showed the importance of the question. The compound householder rose first into prominence at a large meeting of Liberal members held at Mr. Gladstone's house on the 5th of April. There it was agreed that the point in the Government Bill that lay most open to attacks from the Liberals, now that the dual vote had been withdrawn, was this point of the personal payment of rates. Without amendment on this head the Government Bill was illusory; it gave with one hand what it took away with the other. Mr. Gladstone recurred to what he had himself said earlier in the Session—that there should properly be a "hard and fast line," below which occupiers should neither pay rates nor exercise the suffrage. This was, in fact, a proposal for a £5 rating franchise; for the abolition of all distinctions between persons who paid their rates directly and those who paid them through their landlord; and for the relief of all those who occupied tenements at less than £5 rateable value from the liability to be rated at all. With a view to carrying his amendment, he proposed that Mr. John Duke Coleridge, member for Exeter, should move an instruction to that effect.

At the meeting where this line of action was planned there was some criticism, but little open dissent from the course. During the three days that were to elapse before the proposal of Mr. Coleridge's amendment, however, an ominous change took place in the position of affairs. Mr. Disraeli had promised he would not resign, and that he would not withdraw the Bill; but he had not promised that he would not dissolve Parliament, supposing the conduct of the Opposition were to drive him that way. Now, the threat of a dissolution is always terrible to many members. Hence, when the word "dissolution" began to be whispered, the Opposition began to disunite. A meeting of dissatisfied members took place in the tea-room of the House of Commons, transformed for the moment into a new cave of Adullam; and a cabal was formed for breaking up the plans of the Liberals in reference to Mr. Coleridge's instruction. Forty-eight members of the Liberal party agreed to vote against the amendment, and a deputation waited upon Mr. Gladstone to inform him of their decision. In the face of such a defection it was, of course, impossible to proceed. Mr. Coleridge practically withdrew his instruction, reserving his right to proceed on the subject of it in committee; Mr. Gladstone began to feel that, as concerned really Liberal amendments, his hands were not so free as he hoped; and Government faced the committee with new strength and satisfaction.

Mr. Gladstone, however, was not satisfied with the result of the tea-room cabal; for much of the discontent that had promoted it had been directed at the "hard and fast line" of the £5 rating franchise. It was resolved, therefore, to divide upon a different amendment—one which should relieve the compound householder from the disabling clauses of the Bill, but which should still keep to the original basis of household rating suffrage. Mr. Gladstone's amendment inserted in the restrictive clause the words "whether he in person, or his landlord, be rated to the relief of the poor;" and the arguments which, with his usual force, he urged upon the House in its support were, first, that the houses below £10 rental that compounded for their rates were two-thirds of the whole number of such houses, and that therefore a Bill that excluded compounding householders from the franchise was an illusion; and secondly, that the case standing so, the "settlement" for[443] which Government were clamouring would not be attained unless the Bill were amended. The debate on Mr. Gladstone's amendment occupied two nights, and was chiefly valuable as showing the extraordinary difference of opinion that prevailed among the supporters of the Bill, and the equally different points of view from which members were found to oppose it. When the division came, however, Government triumphed. The numbers were found to be—For the amendment, 289; against, 310—majority for Government, 21. This was an important majority, and, as the division lists showed, it implied far more unanimity among the Conservatives (in spite of the defection of Sir W. Heathcote and Lord Cranborne) than among the Liberals. Twenty-five of the old "Adullamite" party voted with Mr. Disraeli—a fact sufficiently indicating the opinion which was held as to the tendency of the amendment. The Adullamites voted for the original Bill because they wanted the compound householder—the dangerous being who occupied a house below £10 annual rent—to be kept without his vote.

The immediate effect of this division was to draw from Mr. Gladstone an important statement of policy. He wrote a letter to Mr. R. W. Crawford, member for the City of London, to say that he felt it useless to proceed personally with the other amendments standing in his name. He was compelled to own that the Liberals who thought together on the question of Reform were not a majority, but a minority, "and they have not the power they were supposed to possess of limiting or directing the action of the Administration, or of shaping the provisions of the Reform Bill. Still," Mr. Gladstone went on, "having regard to the support which my proposal with respect to personal rating received from so large a number of Liberal members, I am not less willing than heretofore to remain at the service of the party to which they belong; and when any suitable occasion shall arise, if it shall be their wish, I shall be prepared again to attempt concerted action upon this or any other subject for the public good.... I shall not proceed with the amendments now on the paper in my name, nor give notice of other amendments such as I had contemplated; but I shall gladly accompany others in voting against any attempt, from whatever quarter, to limit still further the scanty modicum of enfranchisement proposed by the Government, or in improving, when it may be practicable, the provisions of the Bill." This letter showed that Mr. Gladstone was disheartened, but his discouragement only increased the zeal of the reforming party throughout the kingdom. The House broke up for the Easter holidays immediately after the vote; and during the recess meetings were held in every important town in England and Scotland, to express confidence in Mr. Gladstone and to encourage him and his followers in their attempts to liberalise the Bill. The number, enthusiasm, and unanimity of these meetings had, in all probability, much to do with Mr. Disraeli's later concessions.

When the House met again, the first important act of the committee was to accept Mr. Ayrton's amendment, substituting one year for two years as the period of residence necessary for borough voters. There seems to have been a general idea in the House that to require two years' residence in a borough before a man could be entitled to vote in an election of members of Parliament was vexatious; and in spite of the strenuous efforts of Government, Mr. Ayrton's amendment was carried by the large majority of 81. A majority as large as this is never, however, so much to be dreaded by a Government as one a fourth of its size. Accordingly Mr. Disraeli stated on the next day that he and his colleagues "deferred to the opinion of the House." Then came Mr. Hibbert's notice to amend the Bill, by allowing all compound householders who chose to pay personally to pay reduced rates—a proposal that became celebrated, from the conduct of the Government "whip" with regard to it. It came out in the course of the debate—Mr. Bernal Osborne revealed it—that the whip, Colonel Taylor, had undertaken, "as a gentleman and a man of honour, to press upon the Cabinet the desirability of adopting Mr. Hibbert's amendment;" and also that Colonel Taylor had stated to Mr. Dillwyn, a Liberal member, that "he believed Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli to be personally in favour of accepting it." That is to say, just before a division, the Government whip entered into negotiations with some of the enemy's forces, and endeavoured to win them over to his side by a statement—afterwards disavowed on authority—of the opinions of his chief. The episode afforded an interesting comment upon the manœuvres of party government.

The debate on Mr. Hibbert's motion turned on the question—Whether, supposing a compound householder wanted a vote (which, according to the Bill, would require him to pay his rates personally), he should be compelled to pay as much as other non-compounding householders, or whether the[444] same amount should be accepted from him personally as had been accepted previously from his landlord on his account? Mr. Disraeli aimed not only at making him pay the full rate, but even at repealing a section of Sir William Clay's Act (14 and 15 Vict., c. 14) which had defined certain electoral rights of householders above £10. That Act had allowed non-rated occupiers—compounders above £10—to claim to be rated, in order to be put upon the register of voters, and had declared them liable only for the reduced or commuted rate. Under that Act, according to Mr. Bright, electoral rights were guaranteed to not less than 94,000 persons; and Mr. Disraeli's proposal, to say nothing of its immediate effect in excluding new voters, simply amounted to a proposal either to disfranchise these 94,000 altogether, or to make them pay higher rates than they had previously paid. We can understand the spirit in which Mr. Bright spoke of this as an "audacious proposal." Still, audacious or not, the proposal of Government for the time succeeded. The division was taken on the question, whether the borough voter should be rated as an "ordinary occupier," always and without exception, and Government had a very great majority with them, affirming that he should. The numbers were—Ayes, 322; Noes, 256—majority for Government, 66.

Eight days afterwards they had changed their minds. Another amendment was proposed in the meantime, and Mr. Gathorne Hardy, in the debate that followed, gave an artless explanation of what Government intended by their emphatic cry of "personal payment." He said—"The Government insisted upon the personal payment of rates. But the Bill had not the phrase, 'personal payment of rates.' That was a description rather of the Government's intention. The Bill required that a man should be responsible for his rates. It was necessary, in order to come within the provisions of the Bill, that a man should have his name upon the rate-book, and be personally responsible." But Mr. Hardy forgot, in stating this as the essential principle of the Bill, that he was only stating what was already law. He forgot that the Small Tenements Act provided that rates assessed upon the landlord are recoverable, not only by distraint upon the landlord's goods, but by distraint upon the occupier's, "in the same way as if the rates were assessed on such occupier." That is to say, the occupier was, and always had been, responsible for his rates. The compound householder was as much responsible as the non-compounding householder. Mr. Disraeli's Bill, if this was its foundation, was founded upon an illusion. This fact seems to have suddenly dawned upon the minds of the House of Commons between the 13th and the 17th of May. On the latter day, Mr. Hodgkinson, member for Newark, moved the insertion of the following words, which Mr. Disraeli afterwards calmly called, "not an amendment, but a proviso,"—"Provided always that, except as hereinafter provided, no person other than the occupier shall, after the passing of this Act, be rated to parochial rates in respect of premises occupied by him within the limits of a parliamentary borough, all Acts to the contrary notwithstanding."

This was to cut the Gordian knot at a stroke, by abolishing the compound householder altogether. Mr. Hodgkinson brought forward his amendment, the effect of which would be to make all occupiers of tenements personal ratepayers, and therefore, according to the Bill, voters. In other words, household suffrage pure and simple was offered to the acceptance of the House. Mr. Gladstone saw the importance of the moment; he saw that the question lay between "an extension of the franchise, limited, unequal, equivocal, and dangerous," accompanied with certain social and economical advantages, and "an extension of the franchise which was liberal, which was perfectly equal," without those social and economical advantages. As the leader of the Liberal party, he chose the "lesser evil," he preferred the liberal extension, and he was willing to sacrifice the convenience of compounding. That was only to be expected from the Liberal leader; but what was the amazement of the House when Mr. Disraeli, by a sudden coup de théâtre, rose to accept Mr. Hodgkinson's amendment likewise! Nay, he rose not only to accept the amendment, but to greet it with strong welcome and approval. It is true that, on the 9th of May, eight days before, Mr. Disraeli had declared that the advice of those who wished to supersede or repeal the Rating Acts was "rash counsel." It is true that, on the 13th, only four days before, Mr. Disraeli had branded with two names, which immediately became famous—"obsolete incendiaries," and "spouters of stale sedition"—a deputation of 360 gentlemen, headed by seventeen members of Parliament, which had waited on Mr. Gladstone, with a view to remove the disqualification laid by the Bill on the lower class of ratepayers. It is true that, on the morning of the 17th, the Government "whip" had sent a circular to the Conservatives, asking their attendance at the House, plainly with the intention of opposing Mr. Hodgkinson's amendment. These facts, however, were nothing to Mr. Disraeli. He was bent on a coup, and he made it. The Bill was entirely transformed in a single evening; and Government, through their Chancellor of the Exchequer, vowed that they had all along been meaning to produce the transformation scene themselves. To show the importance of the change, it is enough to say that the total number of new voters which the original Bill would have made was 118,400, and that the number of new voters added by the Bill, plus Mr. Hodgkinson's amendment, was 427,000. Nothing more is needed to show that the compound householder was a person of importance, and that it was only natural that his destiny should be a matter of interest to both sides of the House.

[445]

MEETING AT THE REFORMERS' TREE, HYDE PARK, LONDON. (See p. 454.)

[446]

The concession made by Mr. Disraeli was not accepted without a protest on the part of some of his own followers, and a still louder protest on the part of the consistent anti-reformers, Lord Cranborne and Mr. Lowe. Lord Cranborne insisted upon at least an adjournment, that the House might not vote blindfold; and Mr. Lowe spent the three days' recess in preparing a new philippic. Both sides of the House came in for their share of reproof from this impartial censor; both alike, he said, were weary of the subject of Reform, and willing to adopt any solution of the question; both were afraid of a dissolution; both alike were miserably anxious not to give offence to the classes about to be enfranchised. He declared that no great number of members really and honestly either desired or approved the change about to be made. Which party in the House, save and except a few of the extreme Liberals below the gangway, really wanted household suffrage and the enfranchisement of the new voters? The question had changed since last year. "The question now is not—what is the opinion of the élite of the working classes? but—what is the opinion of the unskilled labour class? For instance, in the borough which I represent you will, I rather think, give us some Wiltshire labourers with 8s. a week wages. Will any gentleman favour me with a précis of the politics of these men?" It was like 1866 over again; but Mr. Lowe was powerless to change the intentions of the House. The amendment was adopted without a division on May 20th, though Mr. Disraeli attempted, a short time afterwards, to tone it down and practically to replace what it had abolished, by making it optional to continue the compounding system. The attempt, doubtless suggested to him by some timid follower, was unsuccessful; and the law came to be that "no owner of a dwelling in a parish, either wholly or partially within a borough, is to be henceforth rated to the poor rate instead of the occupier." In this way the vexed question of "personal rating" was solved, and household suffrage in its simple form was established in the boroughs.

With regard to the county franchise, the history of the Bill was not so full of incident. The original proposal of Government had been to give the franchise to "rated occupiers of premises of any tenure within the county of the rateable value of fifteen pounds and upwards;" the words "any tenure" referring to the various modes—freehold, copyhold, leasehold, annual tenancy, etc.—on which premises may be held. There were also various "fancy franchises" proposed in the counties as in the boroughs, but these were very soon withdrawn. The substantial proposal of Government was modified in various ways. On Mr. Colvile's motion, the franchise was extended to copyhold tenants of premises of the value of £5 per annum—that is, to such persons as, without being freeholders, were practically the owners of their dwellings; and very soon afterwards Government acceded to the proposal of Mr. Hussey Vivian to extend the franchise to "leaseholders under sixty years' leases of lands worth £5 a year." Finally Mr. Locke King proposed to substitute £10 for £15 as the figure down to which county occupiers were to have a vote; and though he did not press his motion, he obtained from Government the concession of reducing the figure from £15 to £12.

The part of the Bill that related to the redistribution of seats was very roughly handled during the early stages of the Bill, and the treatment it received in committee was equally severe. But when all was done, there still remained much that failed to satisfy the reforming party in the country. Government proposed to deal with thirty new seats—namely, with the seven provided for them by the total disfranchisement of Lancaster, Reigate, Great Yarmouth, and Totnes, and the twenty-three from the same number of small boroughs which were to lose one of their two members. This number was soon enlarged. On May 31st Mr. Laing, member for the Wick Boroughs, moved that "no borough which had a smaller population than 10,000 at the census of 1861 shall return more than one member to Parliament." This motion, which gave thirty-eight seats to the House in place of twenty-three, was carried by a great majority (306 to 179),[447] though the Chancellor of the Exchequer opposed it. There, however, the House paused in the process of disfranchisement. Mr. Serjeant Gaselee's motion to extend the principle of Mr. Laing's amendment, by wholly depriving towns of less than 5,000 inhabitants of their member, was not carried.

Mr. Disraeli's treatment of the delicate task of redistribution was this. He proposed to give twenty-five seats to the counties, two new members being given to each of the following: Cheshire, Derbyshire, Devonshire, Essex, West Kent, North Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Somersetshire, Staffordshire, East Surrey, and the West Riding of Yorkshire, and one new seat being given to South Lancashire. A member apiece was to be given to thirteen large manufacturing or commercial towns, till now unrepresented: Barnsley, Burnley, Dewsbury, Darlington, Gravesend, Hartlepool, Keighley, Luton, Middlesborough, St. Helens, Stalybridge, Stockton, and Wednesbury. Chelsea and Hackney were to be constituted boroughs, each with two members. Salford and Merthyr Tydvil were each to return two instead of one. The Universities of London and Durham were to combine to return one member.

This scheme enfranchised a certain number of new towns, and its county redistribution in some cases gave a more direct voice to the industrial population; but it left the great manufacturing towns of Birmingham, Manchester, and the rest exactly where they were, and it retained what was thought to be too much power in the hands of the small boroughs. Mr. Disraeli, however, declined the proposal of Mr. Laing to give a third member to the six great manufacturing and commercial towns—Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham, and Bristol; and again he opposed Mr. Hadfield's and Mr. Berkeley's proposals in favour of Sheffield and Bristol. And when he assented to Mr. Horsfall's motion to give a third member to Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham, it was only on condition that the members given to them should be taken away from some of the other towns which Government admitted to have claims for increased representation.

The remaining time during which the Bill was in committee was occupied with a discussion of the complicated question of boundaries. It was necessary, in order to give completeness to the Bill, to examine the boundaries of existing boroughs and counties, as well as to determine those of the new boroughs created by the Bill. For this purpose, after much debating on minute points connected with the rights conferred by different kinds of ownership in boroughs and counties, a Parliamentary Commission was appointed "to inquire into the boundaries of all the boroughs of England and Wales, with a view to ascertain whether the boundaries were to be enlarged;" to investigate also the local conditions of the new boroughs, and to ascertain what alterations should be made in the divisions of counties. The report of the Boundary Commissioners was to be laid before Parliament, and, till its adoption, provisional regulations were made on the points in question. At last, at the end of a long and weary Session, the moment arrived—the "supreme and solemn moment," as Mr. Beresford Hope described it—when the Reform Bill was to be read a third time. It was the evening of the 15th of July. Mr. Disraeli's success was at hand. But, first of all, although no more divisions were to be faced, and although the passing of the Bill was certain, Government knew they were not to escape a whipping from exasperated enemies and candid friends. In the presence of a crowded House Lord Cranborne rose to deliver his soul. From the day when he had resigned office, and refused to work with Mr. Disraeli, the rooted antipathy between the late Secretary for India and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been growing in strength. In incisive language, and with the slow measured action to which his tall figure so readily lent itself, he deliberately charged the Tory leaders with a betrayal of their trust. He ridiculed the idea of the Bill being called "a Conservative triumph." "The real parent of the Bill, as we are about to pass it," he said, "is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer [Mr. Disraeli], but the member for South Lancashire [Mr. Gladstone]." The Bill that had been offered to the House in March was wholly unlike the Bill that was now waiting its final approval. The "checks and counterpoises," of which Mr. Disraeli had spoken so confidently, were gone. Mr. Gladstone had demanded ten alterations in the Bill, and had carried nine of them—the lodger franchise, the abolition of the compound householder, the provision against traffic in votes, the abolition of the "taxing franchise," the omission of the dual vote, enlarged redistribution of seats, reduced county franchise, the omission of voting papers, of the educational and of the savings bank franchises. "If the omission of these clauses, and the adoption of the principles of Mr. Bright, be a triumph, then the Conservative party has never in the whole course of its history won a triumph so signal as this." Then, in words of profound seriousness, he went[448] on: "I desire to protest, in the most earnest language which I am capable of using, against the political morality on which the manœuvres of this year have been based. If you borrow your political ethics from the ethics of the political adventurer, you may depend upon it the whole of your representative institutions will crumble beneath your feet.... Even if I deemed this measure to be most advantageous, I still should deeply regret that the position of the Executive should have been so degraded as it has been in the present Session. I should deeply regret to find that the House of Commons has applauded a policy of legerdemain; and I should, above all things, regret that this great gift to the people—if gift you think it—should have been purchased at the cost of a political betrayal which has no parallel in our Parliamentary annals."

This, from a seceding Conservative, from one who, even in opposition, retained the confidence of the Conservative back benches, was severe; and no less severe was the language of Mr. Lowe, who spoke immediately after. If Lord Cranborne was bitter because he, and genuine Conservatives with him, had been sacrificed to keep, as he said, "political adventurers" in office, Mr. Lowe was furious because he had succeeded in turning out the Liberal Government in 1866 only to make way for a more revolutionary Tory Government in 1867. "Was it to be conceived," he said, "that right honourable gentlemen, who had given no indications of the extreme facility of changing their opinions and lending themselves to the art of treachery, would, for the sake of keeping a few of them in office for a short time and giving some small patronage to half a dozen lawyers, have been prepared to sacrifice all the principles, all the convictions, all the traditions of their lives; while others were prepared to turn round upon their order and the institutions of their country, merely for the purpose of sitting behind these right honourable gentlemen, and hearing, with the knowledge that it is all true, language such as that the noble lord [Cranborne] has used to-night?" However, Mr. Lowe had, in the midst of his wrath, what may be called "lucid intervals" of foresight and practical reflection upon the consequences of the Bill. Every one admitted that it was to pass; every one admitted that its effect would be striking and immediate. What, then, ought to be the attitude of Parliament and public opinion? Clearly, to soften "the blow which had been levelled at our ancient institutions" as much as possible. "We must," said Mr. Lowe, in an afterwards famous epigram—"we must persuade our masters to learn their letters."

Several other speeches followed, none of them very complimentary to Government, and Mr. Disraeli was not happy in his attempt to answer them. He had to perform the impossible task of showing that the Conservative party had in this measure acted in a purely Conservative spirit, and in a manner consistent with previous professions. Instead of taking up the tenable ground that the Conservative party had seen good cause, on an examination of figures and facts, to change their old opinions, he boldly asserted that the old opinions remained unchanged and were embodied in this Bill. With a noble audacity he declared that even in 1859—the year when Lord Derby's first Reform Bill was projected—"the Cabinet was unanimous ... that if we attempted to reduce the borough qualification which then existed, we must have recourse to household suffrage;" an assertion which it is sufficient to say was flatly contradicted soon afterwards by Lord Carnarvon in the House of Lords. But neither questionable paradoxes on Mr. Disraeli's part, nor fierce invective on Mr. Lowe's, had any influence on the success of the Bill. When the Speaker put the momentous words from the chair, "That this Bill do now pass," only one obstinate voice cried "No;" and a shout of "Aye," audible far beyond the limits of the House, gave Mr. Disraeli the happy assurance that his Bill had passed the Commons.

The Bill had passed the Commons, but it was not yet law. Indeed, when Lord Derby rose to move the second reading of the Reform Bill in the House of Lords on July 22nd—exactly a week after it had left the Commons—he found his own party by no means so manageable as Mr. Disraeli had found them in the Lower House. The debate was long and the speeches were able, and though in the end the second reading passed without a division, yet the speeches were very nearly unanimous in disapproving of the measure. Lord Cairns, indeed, approved the Bill warmly, and made no secret of his hopes from "the residuum." "We know that on most subjects there is a considerable difference of opinion between what are called the higher artisan class and those below them," said he; that is, we know that there is a gulf fixed between the bricklayer and the bricklayer's labourer. Lord Cairns appealed, in the name of the Conservatives, from the bricklayer to the bricklayer's labourer. This, he said, was the distinction between the Bill of[449] 1866 and the present Bill: the line of £7 rental would let in the "higher artisan class" only—a class presumed to be hostile to Conservatism; and household rating suffrage would let in the "class below them"—a class easily manageable at election times. This dangerous argument was, however, not generally supported in the House. Lord Shaftesbury said: "To proceed as is done by this Bill, to lift by the sudden jerk of an Act of Parliament the whole residuum of society up to the level of the honest, thrifty working-man, is, I believe, distasteful to the working-men themselves. I am sure it dishonours the suffrage." This was in the debate raised by Lord Grey's amendment, which was to the effect that "the Representation of the People Bill does not appear to the House to be calculated, in its present shape, to effect a permanent settlement of this important question, or to promote the future good government of the country." Lord Grey, however, did not mean to oppose the second reading, but only to show to the Commons what the Lords considered to be weak points in their Bill, and in the end, finding that the common opinion of the House accepted the Bill as inevitable, he withdrew his amendment—not, however, before Lord Carnarvon, one of the seceding Ministers, had spoken in words that almost echoed the furious charges of Lord Cranborne and Mr. Lowe in the other House. Speaking of Mr. Disraeli's assertion, to which we have already referred, that household suffrage had been the secret doctrine of the Conservatives ever since 1859, he gave it the most emphatic contradiction.

JOHN BRIGHT.

(From the Portrait by Frank Holl, R.A. By Permission of the Corporation of Birmingham.)

[450]

In the end four important amendments were proposed by the Lords, who showed a very different attitude from that which their fathers had shown in 1832. There was throughout the whole of the speeches of the peers a note of sadness and dissatisfaction; but none thought seriously of rejecting the Bill altogether. And the amendments, important in themselves, did not touch the household suffrage, which was the bugbear of the Bill, and did not even attempt to restore the compound householder for the purpose of robbing household suffrage of its sting. The important amendments were:—(1) To raise the qualification for lodgers to £15, instead of £10—proposed by Lord Cairns; (2) To restore £10, instead of £5, as the copyhold qualification in counties—proposed by Lord Harrowby; (3) To secure a representation of minorities in the "three-cornered constituencies"—proposed by Lord Cairns; (4) To allow the employment of voting papers at elections—proposed by the Marquis of Salisbury. Of these, the first was passed by a majority of 121 to 89; the second by a majority of 119 to 56. Both these decisions were, however, finally reversed by the Commons by large majorities; nor was the amendment allowing the use of voting papers any more successful. The Lords, with a good grace, submitted to correction, and the Bill remained, in these respects, the same as it had been when it originally passed the House of Commons.

With regard to Lord Cairns's more successful amendment relating to the rights of minorities, a little more may be said. It was not a new idea; the claims of minorities to a voice in affairs had long been felt to be a serious question by political theorists, especially Mr. Mill and Mr. Thomas Hare; and Mr. Lowe had attempted, earlier in the Session, to get those claims recognised in the Bill by the introduction of some clauses resembling those of Lord Cairns. Lord Cairns proposed, "That at a contested election for any county or borough, no person shall vote for more than two candidates"—adding, a short time afterwards, that in elections for the City of London, where four members are returned, no one should vote for more than three candidates. This amendment, the object of which was to enable the minority in the boroughs of Manchester, Liverpool, and Birmingham, in the City of London, and in certain counties, to "lump" their votes on one candidate, and so secure his return, was carried by a large majority—142 to 91. When the amendment came down to the Commons, after the amended Bill had been read a third time in the House of Lords, it was warmly debated. Mr. Lowe's previous motion, to allow any elector to have as many votes as there were vacant seats, and to give all his votes to one candidate if he chose, had been rejected by a majority of 141; but now the opinion of many members had changed. The debate was carried on quite independently of the ordinary party divisions; instead, the division seemed to be between those who wished in all cases to follow the outlines of English political precedent, and those who believed that those precedents were sometimes clumsy and inconvenient. For once, the House enjoyed the unusual sight of Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Disraeli, and Mr. Bright all taking one side on a contested question; the principal supporters of the other side being Mr. Mill and Mr. Lowe. Strange to say, the accustomed leaders of the House failed to carry their views into effect. The amendment was passed by a majority of 253 to 204.

It is enough to add that, on the Report being presented to the Lords, that House agreed to the corrections of the House of Commons, and was content to have carried one of its four amendments. On August 15th, 1867, the Royal Assent was given to the "Representation of the People Act;" and for a time at least the Reform question was settled.

Lord Derby ushered the Bill out of the House on the third reading with words that immediately became famous: "No doubt we are making a great experiment, and taking a leap in the dark." That, indeed, was the feeling of many of the Conservatives, and even of many of the moderate Liberals; and few of the cartoons of Punch have been more effective than that which, illustrating the Prime Minister's words, represented him as a steeple-chaser, charging with shut eyes at a fence of portentous thickness, beyond which lay an unknown country. But another of Punch's cartoons gave the honour of the Bill to its real author, though there were long afterwards those who asserted, in agreement with Mr. Bright, that it was "Lord Derby's Bill." On the walls of the Royal Academy had hung in that year's exhibition a wonderful picture by a new artist—Mr. Poynter's "Israel in Egypt." It showed the mighty form of the Sphinx, the mysterious Egyptian monster that still remains half buried in sand in the Theban Desert, dragged upon a car to its place by a thousand toiling Israelitish slaves. The spectator, as he gazed upon the picture, could almost hear the crack of the slavedriver's whip, and the groan of the miserable wretch who fell under the wheels; the crowd of bending forms seemed alive, the car[451] seemed moving. This was the picture that Punch parodied. To a place in the Temple of Success and Fame a car was moving, dragged by straining multitudes; the multitudes bore the well-known likeness of the members of the English House of Commons, and the figure on the car wore the mysterious, Sphinx-like, Oriental features of Mr. Disraeli! "Israel in Egypt" became "Disraeli in Triumph;" the slaves bending beneath the weight, and torn by the merciless lash of necessity, were her Majesty's Ministers and the blind, dazed, unwilling, but yet obedient members of the Conservative party.

Parliamentary Reform occupied nearly all the time of the House of Commons during the first of the two Sessions of 1867; but still on the "off days" there were several important discussions and some important legislation. The Reform Bill only applied to England and Wales, and in the unquiet state of Ireland Government did not propose to make any alterations in the electoral law of that country. To Scotland they wished to apply a measure very similar to the English one—only differing from it, in fact, so far as the exigencies of Scottish law required. Household suffrage in its simple form in the boroughs, in the counties a reduction of the qualification like that effected in England, and a moderate redistribution of seats were the main features of the Government measure. It was not, however, carried during this year from want of time.

Although Ireland had not assumed that prominence in the debates of Parliament which she held afterwards, there were "Irish debates" in plenty; and political prophets saw clearly that Ireland was to be the immediate question for the Reformed Parliament to grapple with. First came the proposal of Lord Naas, unfortunately rendered necessary, for the continued suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. The Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant explained that he had hoped to be able to dispense with these extraordinary powers, but that fresh signs of activity had appeared among the disaffected population. When the mysterious "invasion" of Chester happened (an event to be immediately described), a simultaneous attempt at a rising was made at Cahirciveen, in the county of Kerry; and symptoms of revolt made themselves apparent in some of the large towns. He, therefore, with great regret, asked for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act for three months longer; and the gravity of the emergency was shown by the fact that the seconder of the motion was Sir John Grey. The suspension was allowed by the House, and also by the House of Lords; but it was with considerable alarm that, three months later, the country heard that Government had found it necessary to apply again to Parliament for a further suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. The Queen's Speech at the beginning of the Session had "trusted that Parliament might be enabled to dispense with the continuance of any exceptional legislation" for Ireland, and yet the continuance was twice asked for. This was generally felt to be an instance of a want of foresight on the part of the Ministry; though Lord Naas announced that the disturbances in Ireland were caused by the resolutions adopted at a Fenian meeting held at New York in January, when an attempt at insurrection was decreed. The debate that took place on Lord Naas making his second proposal called forth a great deal of that fund of contradictory opinion on Irish questions which was so richly exhibited in the debates of two years later. The request of Government was, however, granted without difficulty. Bills tending to the prevention of discontent, as well as to its cure, were also discussed during the Session, but they only served to show what was afterwards proved by Mr. Gladstone's Ministry, namely, that the question of Irish remedies was far too complicated, far too debateable, to be disposed of in a casual debate or two thrown in amidst a busy Session. No motions of private members, such as was that of Sir Colman O'Loghlen, no Ministerial afterthoughts, like the Bill of Lord Naas for "promoting the improvement of land by tenants," could solve the Land Question; and the House showed its sense of this by allowing these measures to drop after short discussions. In the same way with the Irish Church Question. Sir John Gray brought it forward on the 7th of May, in the thick of the Reform campaign, and, of course, his motion—"That the House would on a future day resolve itself into a committee to consider the temporalities and privileges of the Established Church of Ireland"—had no chance of success at such a time. It drew, however, from Mr. Gladstone another of those emphatic statements of disapproval of the existing Establishment which, begun in 1865, had cost him his seat for Oxford University, and which ended in 1869, when he carried Disestablishment. In the House of Lords, Lord Russell moved for a Royal Commission to inquire into the revenues of the Established Church of Ireland, and his motion was agreed to. The investigations made by the Commissioners appointed in consequence of this motion formed the basis of the action of the Liberal Government two years later.

[452]

Other subjects that occupied the attention of Parliament during the year were, besides various points of foreign policy, Church Rates, Religious Tests in the Universities, Religious Disabilities in various offices in Ireland, Increase of the Episcopate, National Education, the Factory Acts and their possible extension, the Agricultural Gangs, and the Right of Meeting in the London Parks. In the second and extraordinary Session of Parliament, which was called together in the autumn to vote supplies for the Abyssinian expedition, a few other matters were brought forward; but the principal concern of that short Session was the subject that had called the House together. That, however, is a matter that may fairly be left until we come to speak of the year 1868, when the whole story of the causes, circumstances, and results of the expedition will be told. On the other questions we have mentioned little actual legislation was achieved, but the tendency of future legislation was foreshadowed.

The Oaths and Offices Bill had for its object the removal of the restriction that prevents a Roman Catholic from being Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and of various small disabilities, relics of the old penal laws, which Roman Catholics still suffered in Ireland. The Bill was passed after some discussion. Mr. Coleridge's Bill for abolishing religious tests required from members of Oxford University in taking certain degrees and in being elected to certain offices, was not so fortunate. The House of Lords rejected it after it had been passed by the Commons—and passed in an extended form, applying to Cambridge as well as to Oxford. The Lords seem to have thought that their concessions on the subject of Reform were as much as could be expected from them in one Session. Nor did they accept with any unanimity Lord Lyttelton's Bill for extending the Episcopate; and the Bill had to be withdrawn. National Education was approached, but no more, in a Bill brought in by Mr. Bruce, a prominent member of the Opposition. Mr. Bruce based his Bill upon many of the same statistics that afterwards lent strength to Mr. Forster's advocacy of a similar proposal—as, for instance, where he showed that in the diocese of London, containing 361,000 children who ought to be at school, only 182,000 (almost exactly one half) were actually at school. The Bill was in some points singularly like Mr. Forster's Bill of 1870, and in many points unlike it; it showed the same favour to the local system, and proposed the appointment of "school committees" with the functions, or nearly the functions, of the school boards afterwards established; and it showed the same regard for religious education. It was not proposed with any intention of being carried into law; it was only an instance of the common Parliamentary device of inviting a Government to declare itself, and of showing to the Opposition, in case of an unsatisfactory Government answer, what the tactics of their own leaders would be if they were to be restored to power. Other measures especially affecting the wage-earning classes that were carried into law were measures for extending the operation of the Factory Acts to certain occupations not included in them, and thus increasing the protection afforded to women and children in the great towns; and also strong legislative restrictions upon what is known as the "gang system." This last, which prevailed especially in the eastern counties, was the system by which children of both sexes were gathered together in gangs by a contractor, or "ganger," and let out to the farmers to work in the fields at weeding or sowing. It is obvious that a system of this kind was full of danger, both to the physical and moral well-being of the children. Too often the contractors were hard men, whose one object was to make as much money as possible out of their gangs; and for this they would overwork the children's bodies and leave them morally uncared for. An Act was passed applying the same principles to the agricultural gangs as had been applied to the factories, and asserting the right of Parliament to protect the children and limit the powers of the gang-masters. It laid down hours beyond which it was unlawful for the children to work, and imposed other restrictions on the employment of girls. It worked well even at first; and later, when supplemented by the Elementary Education Act of 1870, it put it still more out of the power of parents to sell their children's whole time, to give them up body and soul, to the weary drudgery of farm labour.

[453]

"GANG SYSTEM" OF FARMING. (See p. 452.)

[454]

The time of Parliament was further occupied with discussions on the Right of Meeting in the Metropolitan Parks. The way in which, in 1866, the populace and Mr. Beales took this question into their own hands and marched into Hyde Park across the ruins of the railings has already been recorded; and it has been said how keenly Mr. Secretary Walpole felt the distress of the situation. Again in this year the Reform League was active. The conduct of Government with regard to Reform had not, at least early in the Session, pleased the ardent Reformers; they distrusted Mr. Disraeli's obscure eloquence, they thought the "system of checks and counterpoises" was far too clever to be satisfactory. Accordingly, it was resolved by the leaders of the League to hold another meeting in the Park, on the 6th of May. But on the 1st of May a proclamation appeared whereby all persons were warned and admonished to abstain from attending, aiding, or taking part in any such meeting, or from entering the Park with a view to attend, aid, or take part in any such meeting. This was an instance of the "spirit of conciliation and compromise" English statesmen are so fond of, which succeeds so poorly in times of high excitement. Government intended to leave the Park gates open, and not to attempt to disperse the meeting by force, and yet it "admonished" people not to attend. Of course, the proclamation excited much discussion in Parliament; and Mr. Bright made an energetic statement of his belief that the parks were "public places," and an energetic protest against the proposal to swear in special constables—a measure which, he said, always tends to promote class hostility, and to create breaches between the divisions of the people. With this declaration of "the Tribune" to back them, the Reform League carried out its plan in the face of the Government admonition. Seventy thousand persons formed the audience of the speakers in the Park; a hundred thousand more, drawn partly by real interest in Reform, and partly by curiosity, filled the approaches and the open spaces; and "the Ring" was filled with the carriages of rich people, who had come to look on. There was absolutely no disturbance. The O'Donoghue, Mr. Beales, Colonel Dickson, Mr. Odger, Mr. Lucraft, and other well-known Reformers made speeches, and the meeting quietly dispersed at dusk, with no occasion for the 5,000 police and the soldiers who were in readiness close by to come in and restore order. But Government felt that they had received a check. Mr. Walpole resigned, "in consequence of the onerous duties imposed upon him," and his place was filled by a man of less susceptibility and more energy—Mr. Gathorne Hardy. He made many attempts during the remainder of the Session to pass a Government Bill abolishing the right of public meeting in the parks, but without success. The Reform Bill occupied too exclusively the time of the House; and it was felt that there was a certain invidiousness in passing a measure that would seem to be directly aimed at the prominent Reformers at the very time when their demand for Reform was being granted. Immediately after the passing of the Representation of the People Act, Parliament was prorogued; but before the year was over it was convoked again for an extraordinary Session, to be described when we come to speak of the Abyssinian War.

The first occurrences outside Parliament that demand our attention are those connected with the Fenian outbreak, which this year were marked by a rare audacity, and occasioned great alarm in the public mind and severe retributive measures. We have already said that in February a rising took place in the county of Kerry. In December a martello tower near Cork was attacked, and the arms were carried away; and in several places gunsmiths' shops were broken into and robbed of their contents. But the alarm caused by these outbreaks on Irish soil was as nothing compared with that caused by certain outbreaks of Fenianism in England. The first of these was a supposed attempt to take Chester Castle and make off with the arms and ammunition contained in it.

Chester Castle is a mediæval fortress, and in 1867 it was used as a garrison for a small number of troops, and a storehouse for arms. As was afterwards discovered, a meeting had been held in New York early in the year, in which it had been decided to attempt a rising in Ireland; and a band of fifty men was sent over in detachments to the United Kingdom to organise the rising. A central "Directory" of fifteen members was understood to be established in London, and branch directories were placed in many of the great towns. In obedience to orders from these authorities, a movement was made upon Chester on February 11th. The Castle contained at the time 9,000 stand of Enfield rifles, 4,000 swords, 900,000 rounds of ammunition, and some arms belonging to the militia; and the only guard consisted of a handful of men belonging to the 54th Regiment. During the night of the 10th information was given to the Chester authorities by the Liverpool police that an ex-officer in the American service—himself a Fenian—had come to them, and made known the Fenian design, which was to assemble in large numbers in Chester the next day, seize the Castle, carry off the arms, break the telegraph wires, and tear up the rails on the railway, and themselves escape, viâ Holyhead, to Ireland with their booty. Very early in the morning the information began to be verified, and large numbers of young men, apparently of the artisan or labouring class, kept arriving by every train from[455] Manchester, Liverpool, Stalybridge, Preston, and other manufacturing towns. Meanwhile, the civil and military authorities of Chester were actively employed; telegrams were passing between them and the Assistant Adjutant-General at Manchester, and Government and the Commander-in-Chief were also kept informed. Early in the morning the volunteers were called out; and Mr. Walpole having telegraphed instructions that they ought not to be employed as soldiers in putting down a riot, but that they might as individuals assist the authorities, and even, if necessary, use their arms, they were sworn in as special constables. Still the invaders kept massing in the town. For some reason, though their errand was very well known, they were not arrested in detachments in the places from which they started, but were allowed to come to Chester unimpeded. By five o'clock the strangers amounted to 1,500 in number, and yet the only force at the disposal of the authorities was a company of soldiers of the 54th, some of the county constabulary, and the volunteers as special constables. Yet, by extraordinary good fortune, this most inadequate force was not put to the test of fighting. The Fenians, seeing that some preparations had been made for their reception, suspected that others might have been secretly made. So no attack was made upon the Castle, although, between six and seven o'clock, when all the invading force was present, and the great reinforcements had not arrived for the defence, there were abundant opportunities, and good hopes of success. During the evening a public meeting of the "friends of order" was held, and 500 special constables were sworn in—a poor defence against thrice their number of desperate men armed with revolvers. But the special constables patrolled the town throughout the night, and by the morning it was found that the Fenians had melted away. They had walked off in small batches to Warrington and the other large towns in the neighbourhood. After they had gone some relics of their visit were found, in the shape of two haversacks containing privately-made ball-cartridges, and there were other indications that they were prepared to fight. During the morning of the 12th a battalion of 500 Foot Guards arrived from London—too late to have prevented the attack, supposing the Fenians had made it when they had so fair a chance; but not too late to relieve the anxious minds of the inhabitants of Chester from the alarm and terror of the past day. It is enough to add that sixty-seven "suspicious characters," all of them probably members of the invading force, were arrested at Dublin, on the morning of the 12th, as they landed from the Holyhead steamer. Nothing very conclusive was found upon them to illustrate the history of the Chester fiasco; but the authorities, acting on the powers conferred by the Act that suspended the Habeas Corpus, kept them in safe custody in Richmond Bridewell. Finally some of the ringleaders, among whom was Michael Davitt, were condemned to terms of imprisonment.

For some months after this Fenianism lay comparatively inactive, and the public alarm had time to subside. But in September England was again unpleasantly reminded of it by an event that took place at Manchester, and which, in the audacity of its design and the desperate manner of its execution, was sufficiently startling. The Manchester police, about the 10th of the month, arrested two men who were behaving in a suspicious manner at dead of night, and on each of them was found a loaded revolver. From communications held with the Irish police, it was discovered that these men were Fenians of considerable military rank in the brotherhood—Colonel Kelly and Captain Deasey. They were remanded at the police-court on their arrest; and on the 18th, after their second examination, they were to be removed in the ordinary police-van to the city gaol. As they were about to enter the van, the police saw two more suspicious-looking men loitering about, and a constable seized one of them, who attempted to stab him. This caused the police to handcuff Kelly and Deasey, and they then entered the van. Seven policemen rode outside and four more followed in a cab; but none of these were armed except with the usual policeman's staff. The van drove off along its accustomed route, over Ardwick Green and along the Hyde Road, in the outskirts of Manchester. There is a railway-bridge that crosses this road; and the van approached this bridge about four o'clock. As it did so, a tall fair-haired young man ran out in front of it into the road, and presenting a revolver at the driver summoned him to stop. A large body of men made their appearance at the same moment; and then fired several shots at the driver and the other policemen on the roof, shot the horses one after another, hurled a stone that brought the driver from his seat, and clambered up to the roof of the van to be in readiness to break it open if the door could not be forced. The small body of unarmed constables made a brave defence of the door; but axe and crowbar were being vigorously employed, and forty or fifty[456] men armed with revolvers were carrying on the attack and firing without mercy. A crowd began to gather, but the Fenian revolvers kept them back for the most part. Two of the constables, Bromley and Trueman, were wounded; a civilian named Sprossen was shot in the ankle. Still the door resisted; a hole had been made in the roof, and stones had been let fall on the head of Sergeant Brett; he had been summoned to give up the keys, but he steadily refused. Then a panel of the door gave way, and one of the assailants, the tall young man who had led the attack, and who was afterwards identified as William O'Meara Allen, presented his revolver at the wounded policeman with a fresh demand for the keys. When this was refused, he fired at the lock of the door and blew it open. Again he demanded the keys—for the cells of the van were each of them locked—and again was refused. Then he fired point blank at the head of Brett, who fell mortally wounded, the bullet having passed straight through the skull. The keys were now secured, the doors unlocked, the two prisoners released. As a witness at the trial swore, Allen said to one of them, "Arrah, Kelly, I'll die for you before I'll deliver you up!" Then Kelly and Deasey made off, Allen threatening to shoot any one who followed. The Fenians then dispersed, running across the fields or into the town; and all of them escaped for the time with the exception of four, including Allen, who were run down. Brett died very soon after receiving the shot.

It may be imagined that so bold a rescue created consternation in the minds not only of the inhabitants of Manchester, but of all English people. It was the most reckless act the Fenians had as yet attempted; and the uncompromising use of force, while it horrified people, showed them once for all what a dangerous thing the Fenian conspiracy was. The seriousness of the occasion was such that Government issued a special commission for the trial of the prisoners, who, with the four who were captured just after the rescue, numbered twenty-nine. The judges were Justices Blackburn and Mellor, and before them twenty-six of the men who had been arrested were arraigned, in different detachments, on counts extending from the charge of wilful murder to the charge of riot and assault. There is no need to state the facts of the trial at length; when the law had once been laid down, the case became one simply of identification. The Attorney-General, Sir John Karslake, held the Crown brief, and explained the law—namely, that if men conspired and combined to effect a rescue, prepared to use force if they were opposed, and if from their action during the rescue death resulted, that amounted to the crime of murder. The prisoners Allen, Larkin, Gould, Maguire, and Shore were all identified by numerous witnesses as having led the attack on the van; and many witnesses swore to Allen's having fired the fatal shot. They were all found guilty, and, though each of them denied having actually committed the murder, they were sentenced to death. To Maguire, however, who was convicted in spite of very clear evidence of an alibi, the Home Office sent a pardon; and Shore's punishment was commuted, because he had not been armed with a revolver, but had only thrown stones. But with the others the law took its course. Great efforts were made to obtain a reprieve, and much energy was displayed by a section of the press in showing that the crime for which they were to suffer was political, and was not murder. But it was of no avail; the Ministry then in power was not likely to take that view, nor even to recognise the proposition that no political offences are capital. On November 23rd Allen, Larkin, and Gould were executed at Manchester, in the presence of enormous crowds of people. Their memory was consecrated by "processions" of their countrymen, held on December 1st—a Sunday—in Manchester, and in Dublin, Limerick, and other Irish towns. The Irish populace persisted in regarding the three men as martyrs, and Mr. T. D. Sullivan commemorated the deed in the popular ditty, "God save Ireland."

Whatever ultimate effect the execution had, it did not prevent certain desperate sympathisers from outdoing in nefarious audacity the executed men. It was known that the feelings of a large class of Irishmen were embittered by the execution; but it was not suspected that within a very short time a deed would be perpetrated in London that would throw the Manchester rescue into the shade. Such a deed was, however, done; and, once for all, it implanted in the minds of all classes of English people a feeling of intense hatred towards Fenianism.

[457]

FENIAN ATTACK ON THE POLICE VAN IN MANCHESTER. (See p. 455.)

Two men, named Burke and Casey, had been arrested in London on a charge of being Fenians; they were imprisoned, under a remand, in the Clerkenwell House of Detention. This prison had an exercising-ground within its walls, and at a fixed hour in the afternoon the prisoners were exercised there. The wall of the exercising-ground ran along Corporation Lane; it was about twenty-five feet in height and two feet in thickness, becoming slightly thinner towards the top. The partisans of the Fenian prisoners determined to blow down this wall during exercise-time, to give them a chance of escaping in the confusion. Accordingly, about a quarter to four on the afternoon of December 13th, a man came along the lane wheeling a truck, on which was a barrel covered with a white cloth. This truck he left opposite the wall, disappeared for a moment, and returned with a long squib, which he fixed in the barrel. He then coolly borrowed a light from some boys who were playing about close by, applied it to the squib, and ran off. In a few seconds a horrible explosion took place, sounding like the discharge of a park of artillery, and sending a shock through all that district of London. The prison wall tottered and fell. The houses opposite were shaken to their foundations, and several of them, after rocking for a moment, came crashing down. The screams and groans of wounded people mingled with the noise of falling rafters, and the clouds of dust that rose from the ruins, choking the light of such lamps as stood the shock, added to the horror of the scene. When search could be made, it was found that at least forty people, many of them women and children, were seriously hurt; one was dead already, and three died soon afterwards in the hospital. The others, with their various degrees of injury, were taken care of at St. Bartholomew's and at the Free Hospital, Gray's Inn Road, until their recovery. It may be added that Burke and Casey did not escape, the governor of the prison having, for that day, changed their hour of exercise, so that when the explosion came they were safely in their cells. Thus the attempt of the miscreants to release the prisoners was completely frustrated. The excitement caused by this outrage was such as cannot be described. Crowds of people thronged the scene of the explosion, and 500 police and a body of soldiers were necessary to keep order. Rumours of all kinds found their way about London—that the Bank of England was blown up and sacked; that the Tower of London was destroyed; that the explosion was but the first of a series of plotted outrages meant to avenge the "Manchester martyrs." These ideas,[458] however, subsided when the facts came to be known. Nevertheless Mr. Gladstone afterwards declared that the Fenian outrages, by fixing public attention upon deeply-rooted Irish grievances, had brought the Disestablishment of the Irish Church "within the region of practical politics."

It was in this year that society was startled by certain revelations of the proceedings of trades unions which were made before a commission sitting at Sheffield. A number of mysterious outrages had taken place periodically in that town; and a Royal Commission, which had been appointed to investigate the nature and working of trades unions, determined to probe to the bottom the supposed connection between these acts and the unions. Accordingly it delegated its functions to three barristers, of whom Mr. Overend, Q.C., was chairman, and sent them down to Sheffield to inquire into the matter. A special Act of Parliament was passed, allowing these gentlemen to give "certificates of indemnity" to any witness who should confess to any illegal acts, for it was known that without such certificates the questions of the commissioners would never be answered. The result of the inquiry was to discover facts that thrilled all England. A kind of vehmgericht, or secret tribunal, seemed to have been set up, which passed sentence of death, and had its sentences executed; which punished offenders against its secret laws by acts the perpetrators of which could never be brought before their country's justice; and which deprived obnoxious workmen of the means of life, setting the rules of the trade in the place of law.

The cases that most excited public interest were those of crimes instigated by one Broadhead, the secretary of the Sawgrinders' Union. A man named Linley had broken the rules of the trade by taking more apprentices than the proper number. In the words of the trade, he was "filling it with lads." For this offence, which was supposed to injure the chances of the men, Broadhead confessed that he had "set on" two workmen, named Crookes and Hallam, to "do for" Linley—that is, to disable him, or even to kill him, if necessary. This fact, which is but one out of many, was revealed first of all by Hallam himself. When called upon to give his evidence he was completely unmanned. He twice fainted away; and when he came to himself, he could only speak in a whisper. In this way he confessed with slow articulation how they had murdered Linley. They had first bought a revolver and followed Linley about every night for six weeks, watching their opportunity. Then they changed their plan and bought an air-gun, of which they first of all made trial upon some rabbits in a neighbouring wood. Afterwards they marked Linley down in a public-house in Scotland Street; they entered a backyard, and saw him sitting in a parlour. Then with great difficulty Hallam induced Crookes to shoot. The bullet entered Linley's head and he died some time afterwards. The two murderers ran off and escaped, and the coroner's jury was obliged to return a verdict of "wilful murder against some person or persons unknown." Hallam got £7 10s. for the deed. He confessed that he did not know Linley, and that he owed him no personal grudge. He took his life merely because he was injuring the trade. Hallam's evidence was confirmed by Crookes, and the evidence of both by Broadhead. The revelations made by the latter were what really brought home to the public mind the strength, the rigour, the unscrupulousness of the trade organisations. Under promise of a certificate he confessed not only to the murder of Linley, but to the destruction of machinery, the blowing up of houses, the mutilation, or attempted mutilation, of whole families. "I hired Dennis Clark," he said, "for £3 or £5, to blow up Hellewells." He owned that he had paid a large sum to blow up the house of a certain Parker, and £19 for blowing up Reaney's engine-house; and he admitted many more acts of the same kind. Moreover, he admitted that he had arranged many of the outrages with the secretaries of other unions—one, Bromhead, secretary of the Pen and Pocket Blade Grinders', and William Hides and William Skidmore, secretaries of the Saw-handle Makers' and of the Jobbing Grinders'. He even confessed that he had written letters to the newspapers, denouncing, as "infamous deeds" and "hellish deeds," the very acts that he had himself instigated and paid for. The outrages were very varied in character, some being merely cases of rattening—that is, preventing a man from working by spoiling his tools or machinery; others being cases of injury to the person, or of the destruction of premises. The most common form of these grosser outrages was to hang a canister of gunpowder in the chimney of the obnoxious workman or master, or to fling a canister of powder into the fire through the window. In other cases, as in that of Linley, shooting was resorted to. The evidence of Broadhead and others revealed the whole system in its full details; and disclosures of the same kind, scarcely less terrible, were made before commissioners who sat at Manchester.

[459]

Other proceedings of the trades' unions, which attracted much attention during the present year, were those connected with the strike of the London tailors, and of the engine-drivers on the London and Brighton Railway. The former began on the 28th of April and lasted for several months. In August, ten of the working tailors were indicted at the Central Criminal Court for a misdemeanour in "conspiring together, by unlawful ways, contrivances, and stratagems, to impoverish Henry Poole, George Wolmershausen, and certain other persons, in their trade and business, in restraint of trade, and the freedom of personal action." In the course of the trial the public learnt many facts about the system of "picketing," which was a common device of workmen on strike towards workmen who would not join them. One witness said, "On the 3rd of May I saw over 200 opposite Mr. Stohwasser's shop in Conduit Street. The general conduct of the persons acting as pickets was the following and hissing workmen who had not struck on leaving their work in the evening. They were called cowards, and by other offensive names. That was the general conduct of the pickets from time to time. The pickets also used to resort to certain public-houses—ten or a dozen—which they called committee-rooms. I have seen them meet there early in the morning, and then go on picketing." Another witness, a pensioned sergeant of police, said that he had seen customers go to shops in carriages, and the pickets hang about the carriages until the customers went away. Much evidence was given of a similar character, showing that, although no outrages like the Sheffield outrages were committed, the union had used its forces to prevent obnoxious workmen, by threats, abusive language, and other annoyances, from working at their trade. Baron Bramwell, who presided at the trial, laid down the law on the matter very clearly. He said that the common law of the land made it a criminal offence for two or more persons to conspire by threats, intimidation, or molestation, to deter or influence another in the employment of his industry, talents, or capital. On the other hand, an Act of 1859 declared that "no workman, merely by reason of his endeavouring peaceably, and in a reasonable manner, and without threat or intimidation, direct or indirect, to persuade others from working or ceasing to work, should be guilty of an offence under the former Act of Parliament." After some deliberation, the jury found the leading defendants guilty, but strongly recommended them to mercy on the ground of the obscurity of the law; and a similar verdict was returned immediately afterwards in a case of some more of the tailors. The judge, however, did not wish the conviction to be more than a warning, and the defendants were released on entering into their own recognisances to come up for judgment when called upon.

In the case of the engine-drivers' strike, the dispute ended by the directors conceding most of the points in dispute, and the grave public inconvenience that had been feared was happily avoided. Another strike, however, took place in the same month of March, which, though it was not immediately successful, was the beginning of a movement that within a few years acquired national importance. This was a strike of agricultural labourers in Buckinghamshire, rising in revolt against the system that allowed a family to starve on nine shillings a week. It was not, however, till some years later that the agricultural labourers became organised and succeeded in obtaining their rights.

This year was memorable for various distressing accidents, some of them destructive only of property, others grievously destructive of life. Her Majesty's Theatre in London was burnt down; and not only was the building itself, the scene of many operatic triumphs during seventy-five years, destroyed, but the music library with all its priceless manuscripts of Handel, Rossini, and the rest, perished. But more lamentable than this was the memorable ice accident in the Regent's Park, London, on the 15th of January. There was a severe frost, and the ice on the Ornamental Water was crowded with skaters. Suddenly it began to part away from the bank, and for a moment the skaters found themselves supported by a floating sheet of ice. Almost instantly this broke up and two hundred persons were in the water. It need only be added that, in spite of all the efforts of the bystanders and of the Humane Society's men, more than forty persons were drowned. The depth of the water was afterwards reduced in accordance with the recommendation of the coroner's jury. Before the year ended, other accidents as startling, though happily not so widely destructive of life, took place. An explosion of gunpowder at the Faversham Powder Mills, in the month of December, blew eleven men into the air; a still more frightful explosion of nitro-glycerine, at Newcastle, killed five men, and showed that the destructive power of modern chemical invention is liable to nullify all measures of safety that can be taken to counteract it; and a fire that took place in March at Accrington, by which nine children[460] were burnt alive in their schoolroom, added an unprecedented element of horror to the catalogue of accidents.

There was, however, as if to compensate for these darker facts, an unusual amount of gaiety imported into England during the summer months by the arrival of certain distinguished foreign visitors. The Belgian volunteers came over, more than a thousand strong, and were entertained in a very fraternal manner by their English brethren. The Viceroy of Egypt came, and was fêted by the richer classes of England with considerable expenditure and effect. But his star paled before the greater glories of a visitor who arrived when the Viceroy had been a few days in London—no less a person than the Commander of the Faithful himself. Britain is so much an Asiatic power, and has under her sway so many millions of Mohammedans, that it was excusable for her to make the most of her opportunity of welcoming the Sultan of Turkey, the recognised head of all those who profess the orthodox Mussulman faith. All questions as to the real character of the man and of his government were lost sight of by the London public in the contemplation of his retinue, his jewels, his swarthy complexion, and the white Arab that he rode. He was bandied about from dinner to opera, from opera to ball; the days were filled with reviews, and processions, and fêtes. The Lord Mayor gave him a ball at the Guildhall; the Secretary for India spent £10,000 out of the revenues of India upon a single evening's entertainment at the India Office. But the noblest and most creditable display attempted in his honour was the naval review at Spithead. Fifteen ironclads and sixteen unarmoured ships, with sixteen gunboats, formed a mighty avenue, through which the royal yacht, bearing her Majesty and the Sultan, the Prince of Wales, and other great personages, passed, amid deafening salutes. Only one thing was wanting to complete the Sultan's full enjoyment of the scene. A strong north-easter was blowing all the time, and, by common consent of the staff of his Majesty, the spectacle of the naval review proved rather impressive than pleasant. The Sultan left England on the 23rd of July, after a visit of twelve days.

The year 1867 was a time of profound peace in Europe, except so far as it was disturbed by revolutionary movements which had for their object the overthrow of the Papal Government, and which collapsed with the defeat of Garibaldi at Mentana. Besides the consummation of the failure of his costly experiment in Mexico, a new mortification befell the Emperor of the French this year in connection with the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg. Yet he continued to put the best face upon everything, to claim increasing influence for Napoleonic ideas, and to credit his foreign policy with success in all directions. Justly indeed might he declare—in the speech delivered at the opening of the Chambers on February 14th—that "the voice of France had influence enough to arrest the conqueror at the gates of Vienna." But when, in the "Livre Jaune" (the "Yellow Book," containing the usual annual exposition of the views of the French Government on foreign policy), the recall of the French troops from Mexico was said to have been "resolved upon in the full plenitude of our liberty of action,"—when it was intimated that "anything having the character of external pressure could only have placed us in the position, despite ourselves, of having to prolong a state of things which we should wish to abridge,"—when he said that "the Government of the United States understood that want of conciliation would only have prolonged the occupation [of Mexico], and embittered relations which, for the welfare of both countries, should remain friendly,"—these brave words could not hide from the keen-witted politicians of France the real nature of the pusillanimous surrender they were intended to disguise. Still less could the truth be hidden when the unfortunate Maximilian, dissuaded by his followers from abdication, was taken prisoner and ignominiously shot (June 19, 1867). Many keen observers prophesied that the Second Empire was nearing its end.

[461]

SKATING DISASTER IN REGENT'S PARK, LONDON. (See p. 459.)

The Emperor formally opened the Paris International Exhibition on the 1st of April. Two days before, a question had been discussed in the North German Parliament which might easily have rekindled another war in Europe. The discussion bore on the negotiations, then first divulged, that had been proceeding for some time between the Emperor Napoleon and the King of Holland for the cession of the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg to France. The King of Holland, as ruler of Limburg and Luxemburg, had voted on the side of Prussia in the memorable division of the 14th of June, 1866; Count Bismarck had therefore no excuse for seizing Luxemburg as he did Hanover and Hesse-Cassel. When the war was over, and the organisation of the new North German Bund was being gone on with, the King of Holland expressed his desire that neither Limburg nor Luxemburg should be included in the new Bund. To this Prussia acceded, yet retained her garrison in Luxemburg. Such a possession as the Grand Duchy, separated by Belgian territory from his Dutch dominions, and interposed between two powerful States the relations between which were continually becoming more perilous and inflammable, was productive of more anxiety than profit to the King of Holland; and could he have quietly ceded it to France, for a consideration, nothing would have pleased him better. It came to this, that the King of Holland declared himself ready to sell Luxemburg to France, if the consent both of the population and of Prussia could be first obtained. But it was quite another thing to gain the consent of Prussia. The King of Holland had no sooner given to the Prussian Government an intimation of the contemplated cession, than the matter was debated in the North German Parliament, and warmly, not to say angrily, canvassed in newspapers, in streets, and in houses, through the length and breadth of Germany. It was an intolerable thought to men who had just won so large a measure of national unity, and were full of pride and exultation in the retrospect, that an old German land, which had formerly given a line of emperors to Germany, should pass under the power of France. The negotiation respecting Luxemburg, had it now been transferred from the Hague to Berlin, must, considering the excitement of German feeling, have become acrimonious, and would probably have ended in war. For this the Emperor, who was engaged in plans for the re-organisation of the French army, and the introduction of a new weapon, was not as yet prepared; he therefore abandoned the notion of purchasing Luxemburg, forbore to open direct negotiations with Berlin, and called in the assistance of the neutral Powers. It was arranged on the initiative of the Russian Government that the King of Holland, in his capacity of Grand Duke, should be invited by Britain, Prussia, Austria, Italy, and Belgium, to propose a Conference, to be held in London, for the settlement of the Luxemburg question. The King of Holland did so. Representatives of France and Prussia also, as well as the Powers above mentioned, were sent to the Conference, which held its first[462] meeting in London on the 7th of May, 1867. The nature of the work to be done was pretty generally understood before the Conference met, and its deliberations were soon over. On the 18th of May a treaty was signed, by which it was stipulated that Luxemburg should remain, as before, under the rule of the House of Orange-Nassau, without any political connection with Holland, but that it should be for the future a neutral State, its neutrality being guaranteed by the Powers that were signatories to the treaty, with the exception of Belgium, itself a neutral kingdom. In accordance with its acquired character of neutrality, the capital of the Grand Duchy was to cease to be a fortified town; its fortifications were to be razed within a specified time; and the Prussian troops were to be withdrawn after the ratifications of the treaty had been exchanged. In this way the question was equitably and honourably settled without war, thanks to the diplomacy of Lord Stanley, who had actively promoted the project of a Conference. Earlier in the year he had written to Lord Malmesbury that unless the Prussian garrison was withdrawn from Luxemburg "Napoleon must fight."

Elsewhere Englishmen observed with satisfaction the healing of old sores. Austria, with her armies shattered and her prestige departed, burdened with debt, and distracted by the demands of a dozen different nationalities, displayed in this year that wonderful tenacity of life which she has before exhibited on many a historic emergency. In Count Beust, the late Saxon Minister, the Emperor found a statesman of great capacity, astuteness, and perseverance, whom he appointed to the post of Foreign Minister at the end of October, 1866. At that time dismemberment was openly talked of; for the difficulties of the monarchy were so great that no one could see his way out of them. The other chief Ministers were Prince Esterhazy and Count Belcredi, the authors of what was called the policy of "inhibition," under which, until a common and equal representation of the whole monarchy could be devised, the Constitution of February, 1861, giving a Parliament or Reichsrath to Western Austria, was suspended; the central power governed absolutely; and parliamentary life throughout the empire was confined within the walls of the provincial Diets. Hungary still held aloof from the rest of the empire, like a half severed limb, having its own Parliament for local affairs, but unrepresented in the imperial councils, and sullenly obeying the administrative and executive dispositions of the central power. Count Beust placed two leading political aims before him—to effect a compromise with Hungary, and to revive constitutional and parliamentary life in Western Austria. To bring about the first, it was necessary to come to an understanding with M. Déak and the party which he represented, since he, above all other living men, possessed the confidence of the Hungarians. Now M. Déak was firmly convinced that a system of complete dualism between Austria and Hungary would alone meet the exigencies of the case—a system under which, certain common affairs being reserved and separately provided for, all Hungarian affairs should be managed by a separate Administration, appointed indeed by the Emperor, but responsible to the Hungarian Parliament. At the opening of this Parliament, on the 19th of November, 1866, an imperial rescript was read, holding out hopes of a responsible Ministry for Hungary, and of concessions to the views of M. Déak. The plans of Belcredi, who desired to convoke an "Extraordinary Reichsrath," representing all the other nationalities along with Austria, but excluding Hungary, were swept away; and he himself was compelled to resign soon afterwards. Count Beust was then made Prime Minister. A deputation from the Hungarian Diet, headed by Count Andrassy, arrived in Vienna about the end of January, and proceeded to negotiate with Count Beust and the other Austrian Ministers respecting the terms of the compromise. Early in February, 1867, the Emperor appointed Count Andrassy his Minister President for Hungary, and entrusted him with the formation of a Hungarian Ministry. At last, on the 17th of February, appeared the imperial and royal rescript, restoring to Hungary her full parliamentary rights as they had existed before 1848. The terms of the compromise between Austria and Hungary were settled in the following manner:—"Common affairs" were defined to include the foreign policy of the empire, with its diplomatic representation abroad, and a joint army under the command of the Emperor. Both parts of the Empire were to contribute proportionately to the cost of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and of the army; and this proportion was afterwards fixed, somewhat unjustly, at 70 per cent, for Austria and 30 per cent, for Hungary. Hungary was likewise to contribute to the payment of the interest of the State debt. All international treaties were to receive the sanction of both Legislatures. All other affairs requiring a joint consideration, such as the Customs duties, indirect taxes, and the currency, were to be regulated by treaties, subject to the[463] approval of both moieties of the realm. On the 8th of June a memorable pageant graced the streets, the noble river, and the ancient cathedral of the double capital of Hungary. On that day the Emperor Francis Joseph, who had never yet received the crown of St. Stephen, was solemnly crowned King of Hungary in the cathedral of Buda, amidst the joyful acclamations of a reconciled people.

So passed an uneventful recess. The necessity for sending an armed force to Abyssinia, in order to compel the Sovereign of that country to release a number of British subjects, made it advisable for the Government of Lord Derby to convene Parliament for a short winter Session, in order that the exact state of the question might be explained to both Houses, their approval of the expedition secured, and the grant of the necessary advances obtained from the House of Commons. Parliament accordingly was summoned to meet on the 19th of November for the despatch of business, and was opened by commission. With regard to the legislative labours of the Session, Reform Bills for Scotland and Ireland were promised, which should assimilate the franchises of those countries to those recently established in England, and also measures on public schools and elementary education. On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, £2,000,000 were voted for the Abyssinian expedition, the total cost of which, unless the Emperor Theodore should succumb, and give up his prisoners without fighting, was estimated by Government at about £3,500,000. To meet this expenditure, the House of Commons voted the addition of a penny to the income tax, and sanctioned the payment of the Indian troops engaged out of Indian revenues. Objections were raised to the expedition from various quarters, but they were sustained with little earnestness. In the Commons it was said that the Ministers had involved the country in war without keeping Parliament duly informed of the progress of the difficulty in its earlier stages; in the Upper House, a noble lord predicted failure, and said that for the army to keep up its communications with the sea after having penetrated into the highlands of Abyssinia would be found impossible. However, the general feeling, both in Parliament and in the country, went along with Government in thinking that all peaceful modes of settlement had been exhausted, and that there remained only the alternative of an appeal to arms.

In one of the debates in the House of Commons respecting relations with Abyssinia, a singular and really strange fact came to light. Mr. Bernal Osborne and Colonel Sykes drew the attention of the House to a certain letter addressed by King Theodore to Queen Victoria several years before, to which no answer had been sent. It now appeared from the papers published in the Blue Books that Theodore's resentment on account of this slight had much influenced his later conduct. A lively debate ensued. Mr. Layard, who had been Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs under Lord Russell at the time (February, 1863) when Theodore's letter reached the Foreign Office, gave the best explanation that he could of the neglect, but it was a very lame one. He said that he himself (owing to some division of duties between himself and the permanent Under-Secretary, Mr. Hammond) had never seen the letter; but that when, after a delay of eighteen months, the despatch of Consul Cameron, covering the King's letter, was looked for and found, it appeared that it had a minute written on it by Lord Russell, directing the correspondence to be sent to the India Office, "which was the usual course taken in all matters relating to Abyssinia." It was found afterwards, first, that Theodore's anger was caused by the writings of the missionaries, in which they had alluded, one to the King's mother's history in disrespectful terms, and the other by reflecting on his own conduct; secondly, that Consul Cameron had returned to Abyssinia against the King's injunction without taking back with him an answer to the letter addressed to the Queen.

But what became of the letter after it had reached the India Office? The answer was given by Colonel Sykes, who had obtained his information from the officials at the India Office. This letter, on which the most momentous consequences hung—in which the ruler of the one Christian nation in Africa entreated the Christian Queen of a Christian nation to co-operate with him in his endeavours to drive the encroaching, cruel, bigoted Turks from his ancestral domains—this letter, on reaching the India Office, appears never to have passed beyond the notice of the chief clerk. It was supposed that the letter had been already answered from the Foreign Office, and so no action was taken about it. Years passed away and still Theodore received no answer to his letter. One may conceive what interpretations, what crude reflections and deductions, would sweep through the soul of a passionate semi-barbarian monarch at finding the letter into which he had thrown all the rough sincerity of his heart treated with silent contempt.

"The postage of that letter," said Colonel Sykes, "will cost us five millions."

[464]

## CHAPTER XXIX.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

> More Coercion for Ireland—The Scottish Reform Bill—Government Defeats—The Church Rates Bill—Mr. Disraeli succeeds Lord Derby—Reunion of the Liberals—The Irish Reform Bill—Mr. Gladstone's Irish Church Resolutions—His Victory—Disraeli's Strategy—Neither Dissolution nor Resignation—Maynooth Grant and the Regium Donum—The Suspensory Bill—Remainder of the Session—Lord Stanley's Foreign Policy—General Election—Mr. Disraeli resigns—Mr. Gladstone's Ministry—Attempt on the Life of the Duke of Edinburgh—Trial of O'Farrel—Murphy Riots—Martin v. Mackonochie—Obituary of the Year—Lord Brougham, Archbishop Longley, and Others—The Abyssinian War—Christianity in Abyssinia—The Crescent and the Gallas—European Intercourse—Mr. Plowden—Rise of Theodore—His enlightened Views—Deaths of his best Friends—Arrival of Consul Cameron—The unanswered Letter—Theodore's Retaliation—Provincial Rebellions—Mr. Rassam's Mission—His Interview with Theodore—The King's Charges against Cameron—His Humour changes—Dr. Beke's Letter—Theodore becomes obdurate—Rassam's Arrest—Mr. Flad's Journey—The Captives' Treatment—Merewether's Advice—Lord Stanley's Ultimatum—Constitution of Sir R. Napier's Expedition—Annesley Bay—Difficulties of Transport—Arrival of Napier—Friendliness of the Natives—Attitude of the Chiefs—Two Plans—An unopposed March—Proceedings of Theodore—Massacre of Prisoners—Advance on Magdala—Destruction of Theodore's Army—Negotiations with Theodore—Release of the Prisoners—A Present of Cows—Bombardment of Magdala—Suicide of Theodore—The Return March—The "Mountains of Rasselas"—Sketch of Continental Affairs.

ON the 7th of December Parliament was adjourned till the 13th of February, 1868. When it recommenced its sittings on that date the political situation was, of course, unchanged; the Tory Government was in a minority of from sixty to seventy voices in the House of Commons; yet, through the amazing suppleness, versatility, and adroitness of its leader in the Commons, ably seconded by the heavier metal of Lord Cairns, it made headway for a time against all its opponents with surprising courage and success. One of the first measures proposed by Government was to renew the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland for a twelvemonth. Already had the Habeas Corpus Act been suspended for two years in the sister island; yet, although Fenianism was less menacing than it had been, it still appeared to the Irish Government unsafe to dispense with the extraordinary powers for the repression of disorder that had been first granted in 1866. In asking leave to bring in a Bill for the continuance of the suspension, Lord Mayo, Chief Secretary for Ireland, stated that though the Fenian leaders had recently transferred the scene of their active operations to England, there were still events occurring in Ireland that made it necessary that the Government should have this power. That the enlarged powers of repression conferred by the law on the executive had not been ineffectual, he proved by reading an extract from an American paper, which showed that out of forty-three military leaders sent from America to aid and direct the Fenian movement, the three principals had never reached Ireland, and the others had either been brought to justice or were exiles. The Bill passed through all its stages in both Houses with very little opposition.

LORD CAIRNS. (From a Photograph by Russell and Sons.)

Time had failed in the Session of 1867 to carry through Parliament measures for the enlargement of the constituencies in Scotland and Ireland similar to Mr. Disraeli's Reform Bill for England. The matter was now taken up by Government, and Bills were introduced, and eventually passed, for reforming the representation of the people both in Scotland and Ireland. The circumstances attending the progress of these Bills were in some respects unprecedented, and such as involved no slight humiliation to the Government, which, in spite of all Mr. Disraeli's adroitness, was compelled either to allow the details of the measures to be settled pretty nearly as the opposing majority might think fit, or to resist at the imminent peril of defeat and expulsion from office. The measure for Scotland was introduced by the Lord Advocate, Mr. Paton, on the 17th of February. It proposed that the franchise should be settled on nearly the same basis as in England, both for counties and boroughs; so that in the former there would be an ownership franchise of £5 clear annual value, and an occupation franchise of £12; while in boroughs every householder rated and paying rates would have a vote. It further gave seven additional seats to Scotland, without disfranchising any boroughs in England or Ireland; so that, if the Bill had passed in this form, there would have been a permanent increase in the numbers of the House of Commons. No sooner was the draft Bill in the possession of the House, than Scottish members, as if by one consent, set to work to tear it to pieces. It is unnecessary to repeat all the[465] objections that were raised, and the more so because all parties ultimately agreed to pass the second reading, affirming the principle of the Bill; each trusting to obtain the modifications desired in committee. So far all had gone well for Government; but when the House went into committee, their practical powerlessness was apparent to all the world, and must have been painfully mortifying to themselves. Mr. Baxter moved, "That it be an instruction to the committee that, instead of adding to the numbers of the House, they have power to disfranchise boroughs in England having by the Census returns of 1861 less than 5,000 inhabitants." He pointed out that there were ten such small boroughs in England; these he proposed to disfranchise, and to add the ten seats thus obtained to the representation of Scotland. Sir Rainald Knightley proposed that, instead of disfranchising any boroughs, the committee should take one member from each of those boroughs in England returning two members to Parliament which in 1861 had less than 12,000 inhabitants. Mr. Disraeli, on the part of the Government, accepted Sir Rainald Knightley's proposal. But Mr. Gladstone seconded the motion of Mr. Baxter, and it was carried on a division by a majority of 217 to 196. Government was fain to acquiesce; and the only modification that Mr. Disraeli could obtain consisted in reducing the number of the boroughs marked out for immolation from ten to seven. Another and still more damaging alteration in the Government Bill was carried by Mr. Bouverie, who proposed to get rid of the ratepaying qualification in Scotland altogether, by omitting the words making the payment of rates (as in the English Bill) a[466] necessary condition of the franchise. We have seen, in the course of the Reform debates, how devotedly, one might almost say sentimentally, attached was Mr. Disraeli to the principle of the rating franchise. Yet, when defeated on Mr. Bouverie's motion, he resigned himself with a sigh to the excision of his darling principle, not only with reference to boroughs, but also to counties. The occupation franchise for counties was fixed at £14, the reference to rateable value being omitted. Thus amended, the Bill passed through committee, and, meeting with hardly any opposition in the House of Lords, became law.

The author of "Church and State" succeeded in carrying through Parliament this year a Bill for the abolition of church rates. In the debate on the second reading Lord Cranborne said, "What shall we gain if we adhere to the principle of 'No surrender'? That is a question which must be answered by the circumstances of the time. We must look not only to the disposition of the nation out of doors, but to the course of events in this House—the principles upon which parties guide their movements—the laws by which public men regulate their conduct. Looking to these matters, and taking the most impartial view in my power, I am bound to say that I do not think any gain to the Church will arise from prolonging the resistance." After speaking of the deep reluctance he felt to give up anything that the Church possessed, he concluded with the words, "I think it wiser to accept the terms that are now offered to us, because I am distinctly of opinion that we may go farther and fare worse." The passing of this measure, though it could not be said to have reconciled the main body of the Dissenters in any appreciable degree to the existence of the Church as an establishment, at least closed a long and wearisome chapter of local bickerings, distinguished by cheap martyrdom on one side and indiscreet coercion on the other.

Age and the undermining effects of his hereditary malady, the gout, had told heavily this winter on the vigorous constitution of Lord Derby, and he felt no longer equal to the cares and toils of office. His retirement from the Ministry was announced by his son, Lord Stanley, in the House of Commons on the 25th of February, and drew forth expressions of warm and respectful sympathy from both sides of the House. The way was thus naturally opened for the gratification of the great and worthy ambition of a lifetime. Mr. Disraeli was sent for by the Queen, and requested to take the post of Premier and reconstruct the Government. On the 27th Mr. Disraeli had an audience of her Majesty, and kissed hands upon his appointment as First Lord of the Treasury. To pass over two or three minor changes, the new Premier declined to include the Chancellor, Lord Chelmsford (Sir Frederic Thesiger), in the re-constructed Ministry; and that high functionary, despite an appeal to Lord Derby, was therefore compelled to resign the seals, which were given to Lord Cairns. The great ability, industry, and readiness in debate of the new Chancellor were much needed to strengthen the Ministerial side in the House of Lords. On the 5th of March Mr. Disraeli addressed a meeting of his Parliamentary supporters, and encouraged them to look hopefully forward to the future, and to remember through what storms and sunken rocks they had been safely steered.

He admitted the difficulties that lay in their path as a minority having to deal with the great question now pressing on their attention. But the past two years had given them great triumphs, and he had every confidence that with a firm front they might add to them fresh triumphs in 1868. But there were others who felt confident, and with better reason—unfortunately for him—than Mr. Disraeli. That condition of the Liberal party described in the caustic observation of Mr. Bouverie, when it had "leaders that wouldn't lead, and followers that wouldn't follow," was now at an end. Mr. Gladstone, who assiduously felt the pulse of his party, soon discovered that those who had played truant were willing to submit to discipline once more, and his exultation was extreme. "Having put our hand to the plough," he said, at a dinner given to Mr. Brand, the Liberal whip, at the end of March, "we shall not look back. I have entertained from the first a confident hope and belief that a long and arduous struggle would be accompanied by complete success." The battle-ground which the Liberal leader had chosen was well adapted to bring together all the scattered sections of the party; it was the proposal to disestablish the Irish Protestant Church. The perturbed and discontented state of Ireland was a continual source of anxiety. The proposal to abolish the State Church was satisfactory to the Liberals who were only politicians, because it involved what they deemed a useful and tranquillising concession to the feelings of the Roman Catholic majority of the Irish people. It was also satisfactory to that large and important class of Liberals who had Dissenting sympathies, because it aimed at doing away with an Established Church, and reducing its ministers to find their[467] subsistence through reliance on the principle of Voluntaryism.

Although we shall be departing from the strict order of time, we prefer to describe the more important measures that the Government succeeded in carrying through Parliament this Session, before entering upon the narrative of the party contest which resulted in their defeat and paved the way for their resignation. These measures were three in number. Of one, the Scottish Reform Bill, we have already given the history; the two others were the Irish Reform Bill, and the Bill for defining the boundaries of boroughs in England and Wales. The Irish Reform Bill was brought in by Lord Mayo on the 19th of March. It was in appearance a much simpler affair than the corresponding Bill for Scotland; it gave to Ireland no new members, and made no change in the county franchise, which had been fixed at a £12 rental for Ireland some years before. In the boroughs the Bill enacted that the rates of all houses valued at less than £4 a year should be paid by the landlord, and fixed the franchise at £4 a year rental. Practically, therefore, it was a ratepaying franchise as in England. It also contained a redistribution scheme, which proposed to disfranchise six small boroughs, and allot one of the seats thus obtained to Dublin, and the other five to different counties that were inadequately represented. The Bill was read a second time on the 7th of May, and then the real battle began. The redistribution scheme appeared to please no one, and Government withdrew it. The Irish Liberal members complained that the Bill, which only added about nine thousand new names to the register of voters, was absurdly insufficient; they alleged that the qualification for the county franchise was far too high, and that the retention of the freeman franchise was an error. Sir Colman O'Loghlen moved an amendment which, if carried, would have swept away the freeman franchise of Dublin and other cities; and Colonel French endeavoured to reduce the county qualification from £12 to £8. Other amendments also were moved; but from some cause or other Government were always victorious when it came to a division; and the Bill passed through committee substantially as its authors had framed it, minus the redistribution clause. The Irish members complained bitterly of this result, declaring that but for the apathy of English and Scottish Liberals, who had neglected to come to the House to support them, they would have carried the amendments above described, and greatly improved the Bill. As for the county qualification, Sir John Gray declared that though nominally the same as in England, a rental of £12 a year in Ireland was really equivalent to one of £30 a year in England.

The Bill for regulating the boundaries of boroughs in England and Wales was founded on the report of a Royal Commission that had minutely investigated the subject. When introduced into the House there appeared to be an indisposition to accept it as it stood, because the municipalities of a number of boroughs whose boundaries had been extended by the commissioners remonstrated against such extension and petitioned the House that the ancient boundaries might be preserved. A motion was accordingly made and accepted by Government, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. The recommendations of the Select Committee went to undermine many of the conclusions of the Commission, and independent members moved amendments that were derogatory to the recommendations of the committee. Great wrangling and confusion ensued, but in the end the Bill was carried as altered by the Select Committee; and fifteen important boroughs—among which Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool, and Manchester were included—were permitted to retain their ancient boundaries, contrary to the recommendations of the Commission. The Bill was not passed by the House of Lords till near the end of the Session.

At a much earlier period Mr. Gladstone sprang his first mine against the Government position with destructive effect. Three years before, when Mr. Dillwyn had brought up the question of the anomalous spectacle presented to Europe by the Irish Church, Mr. Gladstone had both spoken and written to the effect that, while admitting the scandal and the danger of the existing state of things, he did not believe the question to be within the range of present politics, and considered that a long period must elapse before it would be ripe for settlement. Now, however, he had convinced himself that "the hour was come, and the man." On the 23rd of March he laid three resolutions before the Commons, of which the first declared that, "in the opinion of this House, it is necessary that the Established Church of Ireland should cease to exist as an establishment, due regard being had to all personal interests, and to all individual rights of property." The object of the second and third resolutions was to prevent the creation of any more vested interests for the future. Vacancies occurring in the higher ecclesiastical appointments were not, if in public[468] patronage, to be filled up pending the decision of Parliament; and the Queen was to be humbly solicited by the House to place at the disposal of Parliament with a view to the aforesaid purposes, her interest in the archbishoprics, bishoprics, and other ecclesiastical dignities and benefices of Ireland. Mr. Disraeli, had all his Cabinet been of one mind, would probably have met the resolutions by a direct negative. But his Secretary for Foreign Affairs—Lord Stanley—the high descent and great wealth of whose family, coupled with his own unquestioned ability, enforced consideration for his opinions—was by no means disposed to maintain a war à outrance in defence of the Church of Ireland. It was accordingly agreed that Mr. Gladstone's resolutions should be met at the first stage by an amendment, to be moved by Lord Stanley: "That this House, while admitting that considerable modifications in the temporalities of the united Church in Ireland may, after pending inquiry, appear to be expedient, is of opinion that any proposition tending to the disestablishment or disendowment of the Church ought to be reserved for the decision of the new Parliament." The amendment was ingeniously framed, because it contained an implied menace that the Government, if defeated on the resolutions, would dissolve Parliament sooner than allow the Irish Church Question to be dealt with by the "unreformed" constituencies; thus sending back members to their constituents to face all the trouble and expense of an election many months before the time that they had calculated upon. This disagreeable prospect might again, it was hoped, cause a split in the Liberal party. But the manœuvre did not succeed this time. The debate on the resolutions commenced on the 30th of March, and was continued over four nights; the question being, whether the Speaker should leave the chair so that the House might go into committee on the resolutions, or whether Lord Stanley's amendment should be affirmed. In the course of the debate, Mr. Lowe, the great deserter, who had now returned to his colours, made a vehement and powerful attack on Government for their attempt to link the fortunes of the Church of England with those of the sister Establishment in Ireland. This, he said, was a Mezentian union—an attempt to link the living with the dead.

The division resulted in the rejection of Lord Stanley's amendment by a majority of 61; the numbers being 270 for, and 331 against it. No further progress was made for the moment, as the defeat of Government occurred on the eve of the Easter recess. During the short interval the sense of the country was variously expressed by two great meetings held in St. James's Hall—one for, the other against, Disestablishment. At the first, presided over by Lord Russell, the Chairman professed himself ready to sacrifice what was, in his own opinion, the best course—the plan of concurrent endowment by paying the priests. Great unanimity prevailed. At the Conservative meeting, the only argument put forward that was of much weight was this—that the ill-feeling which prevailed in Ireland towards England was more deep-seated than most Englishmen supposed; and that the disestablishment of the Irish Church, which was far from being a generally unpopular institution, would do nothing to remove this feeling in the minds of the majority, while it would tend to diminish the attachment of the Protestant minority to Great Britain. Parliament resumed its sittings on the 20th of April, and the 27th was fixed for the debate in committee on Mr. Gladstone's first resolution. Three more nights were consumed in the discussion of the question in all its bearings; on the 30th of April the division took place, and resulted in the affirmation of the first resolution, by a majority against Government of sixty-five.

Upon the numbers being announced, Mr. Disraeli rose and said that the vote at which the committee had arrived had altered the relations between Government and the House; he therefore moved that the House should adjourn to Monday, the 4th of May, to enable Government to consider their position. Few imagined that after defeats so decisive Government would be able to follow aught but one of two courses—either immediate resignation or immediate dissolution. Many, indeed, of the Liberal leaders maintained that the only constitutional course open to the Ministry was resignation. But his opponents did not know all that the accomplished and versatile Premier was capable of. Mr. Disraeli was not yet at the end of his resources. He contrived to extract out of defeat a secure tenure of office for seven months longer, and all the rage and vituperation of the baffled victors could avail nothing against his imperturbable front. On the 4th of May he rose in his place, and stated that, having waited on her Majesty, he told her that "the advice which her Ministers would, in the full spirit of the Constitution, offer her, would be that her Majesty should dissolve this Parliament, and take the opinion of the country upon the conduct of her Ministers, and on the question at issue;[469] but, at the same time, with the full concurrence of my colleagues, I represented to her Majesty that there were important occasions on which it was wise that the Sovereign should not be embarrassed by personal claims, however constitutional, valid, or meritorious; and that if her Majesty was of opinion that the question at issue could be more satisfactorily settled, or that the interests of the country would be promoted by the immediate retirement of the present Government from office, we were prepared to quit her Majesty's service immediately, with no other feeling but that which every Minister who has served the Queen must entertain, viz. a feeling of gratitude to her Majesty for the warm constitutional support which she always gives to her Ministers, and I may add—for it is a truth that cannot be concealed—for the aid and assistance which any Minister must experience from a Sovereign who has such a vast acquaintance with public affairs. Sir, I, in fact, tendered my resignation to the Queen. Her Majesty commanded me to attend her in audience on the next day, when her Majesty was pleased to express her pleasure not to accept the resignation of her Ministers, and her readiness to dissolve Parliament so soon as the state of public business would permit. Under these circumstances, I advised her Majesty that, although the present constituency was no doubt admirably competent to decide upon the question of the disestablishment of the Church, still it was the opinion of her Majesty's Ministers that every effort should be made that the appeal should, if possible, be directed to the new constituencies which the wisdom of Parliament provided last year; and I expressed to her Majesty that, if we had the cordial co-operation of Parliament, I was advised by those who are experienced and skilful in these matters that it would be possible to make arrangements by which that dissolution could take place in the autumn of this year."

SCENE IN THE BIRMINGHAM "NO POPERY" RIOTS. (See p. 475.)

This speech, so charmingly blended and tempered as it was, concealed under a cloud of plausible words the exact point which every one wanted to know—how far the Ministerial plan was due to the Queen's own initiative, and how much was suggested to her by the Premier. The only point[470] about which there could be no mistake was that the Ministers meant to stay in till the autumn. The Liberals were greatly incensed; and although many of them must have keenly relished the joke, and internally done homage to the genius of this master of political legerdemain, the leaders of the party felt it as a very serious matter to be kept so long out of the fruits of a triumph which they had deemed secure. Mr. Disraeli was questioned and cross-questioned as to the exact nature of the communications that had taken place between the Queen and himself, and as to an apparent discrepancy between his own explanation of the circumstances, and that given by the Duke of Richmond in the other House. Nothing could be more ingenuous and candid than Mr. Disraeli's replies; nevertheless, the transaction continued to be wrapped in some degree of mystery and Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Lowe, and others protested against the course taken by the Ministry as unconstitutional and unprecedented. According to Lord Malmesbury, Mr. Gladstone wished to stop supplies, but could not obtain the support of his party. Mr. Bright, however, severely chastised Mr. Disraeli for his use of the Queen's name, and the Prime Minister winced under the castigation. To the statement of Mr. Lowe, that in not resigning the Ministry was treating the House with disrespect, since the large majorities by which Government had been defeated on the Irish Church Question amounted virtually to a vote of want of confidence, Mr. Disraeli replied that many of those who sided with the majority on these occasions had assured him that they did not so understand the votes they gave; and he challenged Mr. Lowe and those who agreed with him to propose a direct vote of want of confidence, which could be argued and decided on that plain issue. The challenge was not taken up, and the excitement on this particular matter gradually subsided.

To the three original resolutions of Mr. Gladstone a fourth was added in the course of the discussion, relating to the Maynooth Grant and the Regium Donum. The former, which was originally fixed at £8,000 a year, was raised by Sir Robert Peel, in 1845, to £30,000 a year, and charged upon the Consolidated Fund. It was devoted to the sustentation of the great Roman Catholic seminary for the training of priests at Maynooth, and was administered by the Irish bishops, subject to the control of the Executive. Before Maynooth was established, the Irish priests were generally educated in France, whence they brought back, as it was supposed, feelings of alienation and hostility towards England; it was therefore considered to be an act of wise statesmanship to subsidise a seminary in Ireland itself, so that the priests might be educated at home. The Regium Donum was an annual grant of about £38,000, first instituted by Charles II., in favour of the Irish Presbyterian Church, and distributed among the ministers in stipends of £75 each. Evidently the grounds of justice and conciliation upon which Mr. Gladstone relied in moving for the disendowment of the Irish Church were inapplicable in the case of the Maynooth Grant and the Regium Donum, both of which were of very modest amount relatively to the size of the religious communities to which they were allotted, and the payment of which involved no injustice nor inequality. But it was necessary for Mr. Gladstone to include these also in his scheme of disendowment, as, otherwise, he would have forfeited the support of the English Dissenters and the Scottish Radicals. With these the disendowment of the Irish Church was popular, not so much as an abatement of an injustice, as because it committed the State pro tanto to the principle of Voluntaryism. "Levelling down" was the only kind of equalisation which they approved of; they desired that all religious organisations should be denuded of State aid equally with themselves, whether that aid were much or little. This applies more particularly to the Dissenters; with the Scottish members the detestation of everything Roman Catholic was the chief motive for their claiming that the Maynooth Grant should be included in the work of demolition. Mr. Gladstone, in order to preserve the unity of his party, which he had just patched together again with such infinite trouble, was obliged to consent to this enlargement of his scheme; and the fourth resolution accordingly ran thus: "That when legislative effect shall have been given to the first resolution of this committee, respecting the Established Church of Ireland, it is right and necessary that the grant to Maynooth and the Regium Donum be discontinued, due regard being had to all personal interests."

The resolutions having been carried, in their final shape (May 8th), the Address to her Majesty respecting the temporalities of the Irish Church was duly presented. Some inconsiderate persons supposed that either Mr. Disraeli would advise the Queen, or that the Queen herself, under the influence of an imagined scruple as to the bearing of the Coronation Oath, would refuse, to surrender to Parliament her interest in the Irish[471] temporalities in the manner requested. But both Mr. Disraeli and the Queen knew better the path prescribed to each by constitutional duty. The answer of her Majesty to the Commons' Address, received at the House on the 12th of May, stated that, relying on the wisdom of her Parliament, the Queen desired that her interest in the temporalities of the Irish Church should not stand in the way of the discussion of any measure that Parliament might deem necessary for the welfare of Ireland. To advise her Majesty to any other course would have been the less excusable, because it was quite unnecessary; Mr. Disraeli being serenely confident that the Tory majority in the House of Lords would allow no measure touching the temporalities to pass into law—at any rate that year. This was soon made evident, when, as soon as possible after the receipt of the Queen's consent to legislative action, Mr. Gladstone brought in a Suspensory Bill, the object of which was to stop the creation of new vested interests, by preventing for a limited time any new appointments in the Irish Church, and to restrain for the same period in certain respects the proceedings of the Irish Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The Suspensory Bill passed easily through the House of Commons; but when it came to the Lords it was criticised with great severity, and the second reading was refused by a majority of ninety-five.

The rest of the Session passed away with little that was eventful to mark its course. Government brought in an Education Bill, which contained one noteworthy and excellent feature—the provision of a real Minister of Education, in the shape of a new Secretary of State for that special department. But the general scheme proposed in the Bill was slight and not deeply considered; it therefore failed to stand its ground against the numerous objections raised against it, and was before long withdrawn by its promoters. The financial statement of Mr. Ward Hunt, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, showed that the revenue continued to exhibit that character of elasticity which it had maintained for several years. The plan for the public endowment of the Irish Catholic University fell to the ground at an early period of the Session. The Irish prelates (Archbishop Leahy and Bishop Derry) who had been appointed to conduct the negotiation on the part of the University authorities with the Chief Secretary, Lord Mayo, demanded powers so extensive, not only as to the appointment and dismissal of professors and other officers, but also as to the use and prohibition of books, that Government abruptly closed the correspondence. It afterwards appeared that the prelates had not put forward these demands as an ultimatum, and might have abated their terms upon good cause being shown. But it is probable that Mr. Disraeli, knowing how extremely averse was popular feeling from any concession to Romanism, felt little regret that the large demands of the prelates had furnished him with a decent excuse for abandoning the project.

Several measures introduced by Government in the course of the Session met with a similar fate to that which befell the Education Bill. One really useful Act was passed—that for enabling the State to treat with the various electric telegraph companies for the purchase of their lines, in order that the whole telegraphic communication of the country might be placed under the control of the Postmaster-General. The adjustment of the various interests involved was a work of great labour and patience; it was, however, accomplished, and the telegraph companies agreed to accept twenty years' purchase of the net profits of their undertakings. It was calculated that Government would require about £6,000,000 in order to carry the scheme into full effect, the greater part of which sum would be borrowed from the Savings Banks Fund; but the financial part of the arrangement was reserved for the next Parliament. Mr. Scudamore, the originator of the scheme, calculated that the Post Office would derive a net profit of £200,000 a year from taking the telegraph lines into its own hands; but the purchase gave rise, then and afterwards, to much hostile criticism.

The home policy of the Tory Government, checked and foiled as it was at every turn, by the fact of its supporters being a minority in the House of Commons, cannot be deemed, however brilliant it may have been in inception, to have been more than moderately successful in what it achieved. With foreign affairs it was otherwise. Lord Stanley presided over the Foreign Office, and controlled the relations of the country with Foreign Powers with a firmness and dignity that recalled English statesmen of the old school. Of his conduct in the Luxemburg business we have already spoken; of his management of the Alabama question we shall have to speak hereafter. Making a reasonable deduction for partisanship, we may admit that there was much truth in the lofty language used by the Prime Minister with regard to the foreign policy of his Government, in a speech delivered at a banquet in Merchant Taylors' Hall, on the 17th of June. "When we acceded[472] to office," he said, "the name of England was a name of suspicion and distrust in every foreign Court and Cabinet. There was no possibility of that cordial action with any of the Great Powers which is the only security for peace; and, in consequence of that want of cordiality, wars were frequently occurring. But since we entered upon office, and public affairs were administered by my noble friend, who is deprived by a special diplomatic duty of the gratification of being here this evening, I say that all this has changed; that there never existed between England and Foreign Powers a feeling of greater cordiality and confidence than now prevails; that while we have shrunk from bustling and arrogant intermeddling, we have never taken refuge in selfish isolation; and the result has been that there never was a Government in the country which has been more frequently appealed to for its friendly offices than the one which now exists."

A short Act—the Registration of Voters Act—was passed before Parliament separated, in order to facilitate early elections under the Reform Bill of 1867; and the Session came to a close on the 31st of July. After the prorogation of Parliament the Ministry lost no time in making the necessary preparations for a dissolution and general election. The registers of the enlarged constituencies were actively proceeded with and so far completed that it was found possible to dissolve Parliament on the 11th of November, and to summon a new one, to be elected under the Reform Act of 1867, for the 10th of December. The great public question at issue was the existence of the Irish Establishment; and, on a general view, the verdict of the constituencies was given in favour of Mr. Gladstone's proposals, and disappointed the sanguine anticipations of Mr. Disraeli. There was a gain to the Liberal party, as the net result of the elections, of fifteen seats, equal to thirty votes on a division. But their triumph was chequered by several minor reverses, among which the rejection of Mr. Gladstone for South Lancashire was the most remarkable. Every resource that unflagging industry, careful organisation, and incessant oratory could put in requisition was resorted to in order to secure the return of the Liberal leader, but all efforts were in vain; the Conservative candidates—Messrs. Cross and Turner—were returned at the head of the poll, Mr. Gladstone having two hundred and sixty fewer votes than Mr. Turner, who was about fifty below Mr. Cross. There were two principal causes accounting for this result; one the extreme unpopularity of the Irish in South Lancashire, owing to the increased turbulence, drunkenness, and pauperism which their presence in large numbers occasioned, and also to the fact that their competition beat down wages; the other, the influence of the house of Stanley and other great Conservative families in that part of the country. Mr. Gladstone had to console himself with the suffrages of Greenwich, which had generously elected him while the issue in South Lancashire was still undecided. In other parts of Lancashire the same feeling of soreness against the proposal to disestablish the Irish Church, because it seemed to involve a triumph for the locally unpopular Irish Catholics, produced a similar result. This great and representative county, taking boroughs and shire-divisions together, returned twenty-one Conservatives against eleven Liberals. On the other hand, the Scottish electors accepted Mr. Gladstone's proposal with extraordinary favour. Not only did the Scottish boroughs return Liberals without exception, but many counties which had returned Conservative members for years were on this occasion carried for Liberals. Of the whole number of members who came up from Scotland, only seven were Conservatives. In Ireland also there was a Liberal gain, though one of less magnitude. At the election for Westminster—to the deep regret of all who could appreciate the profound political insight and philosophical treatment of great questions which were thus lost to the House of Commons—Mr. John Stuart Mill was defeated by the Conservative candidate, Mr. William Henry Smith.

[473]

CORONATION OF THE EMPEROR OF AUSTRIA AS KING OF HUNGARY. (See p. 468.)

By the beginning of December it was abundantly evident that Mr. Gladstone would be supported in the new House of Commons by a considerably larger following than before. Mr. Disraeli thereupon took a bold and judicious resolution. He would not go through the forms of meeting Parliament as if he were the master of the situation—of advising a Royal Speech that must either omit all mention of the Irish Church, or mention it in a tone at variance with the sentiments of the great majority of the House,—of renewing or seeing renewed a debate that he knew could only end one way. He resolved, therefore, to resign office before Parliament met, and this resolution he communicated to his friends and supporters by a circular dated the 2nd of December. Mr. Disraeli and his colleagues accordingly resigned, and the Queen, of course, sent for Mr. Gladstone, as the recognised leader of the party, and the ablest exponent of the policy of which the majority of the[474] constituencies had just recorded their emphatic approval. The outgoing Premier declined a peerage for himself, but accepted one for his wife, who became Viscountess Beaconsfield. Mr. Gladstone became First Lord of the Treasury, and the principal offices were thus filled up:—Lord Chancellor, Lord Hatherley (late Sir W. Page Wood); President of the Council, Lord de Grey and Ripon; Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Lowe; Home Secretary, Mr. Bruce; Foreign Secretary, Earl of Clarendon; Colonial Secretary, Earl Granville; Secretary for War, Mr. Cardwell; Secretary for Ireland, Mr. Chichester Fortescue; Secretary for India, Duke of Argyll; First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. Childers; President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Bright; Chairman of the Poor Law Board, Mr. Goschen; Vice-President of the Council, Mr. W. E. Forster. The new Ministers, having necessarily vacated their seats on taking office, were not present at the meeting of Parliament on the 10th of December, and the only proceedings then taken were of a formal character, including the re-election of Mr. Evelyn Denison as Speaker, and the swearing-in of the new members who were more than 200 in number. Parliament was then adjourned to the 29th of December, at which date, the re-election of the new Ministers having been in no instance opposed, the House reassembled, with Ministers all in their places, but only to be again immediately adjourned to the 16th of February, 1869.

Some events, non-political in their character, which belonged to the year 1868, may here be brought together. In the course of the spring the intelligence of an attempt to assassinate the Duke of Edinburgh while in Australia created much excitement in London. Prince Alfred, the second son of the Queen, having taken to a naval life, rose rapidly in the service, and at the time of the attempt was in command of the Galatea, a frigate attached to the Australian station. In the course of a long visit to the colony of New South Wales the Prince had consented to be present at a large picnic at Clontarf (a place on Middle Harbour, Port Jackson), organised partly to do honour to his Royal Highness, partly to benefit the funds of a Sailors' Home. Here, under the bright Australian sky, while all was mirth and enjoyment around, the Prince being engaged in conversation with Sir William Manning, the Attorney-General, while the Governor (Lord Belmore) and the Lord Chief Justice were at a short distance, a person was observed to take deliberate aim at the Prince with a revolver and fire. The Duke fell forward on his hands and knees, exclaiming, "Good God! my back is broken." Sir William Manning rushed at the fellow to seize him, but, seeing him on the point of firing another shot, stooped to evade the bullet, and in the act of stooping lost his balance and fell. But there were so many persons on the ground that the criminal had little or no chance of escape. A stalwart coachbuilder of the name of Vial ran up and seized him from behind, pinioning his arms to his side. The man struggled hard, attempting to liberate his right arm sufficiently to discharge the pistol at Vial over his shoulder; but, finding this impossible, he fired in the direction of the spot where the Duke was lying, with the supposed intention of wounding him again. The bullet, which had struck the back and traversed the ribs, was extracted without difficulty, and the progress of his Royal Highness to recovery was rapid and without check. While the Duke was being borne away, a painful scene occurred. Before the police could take him in charge, the misguided wretch was surrounded by a mob of infuriated loyalists, incapable of restraining either their feelings or their fists. By these the criminal was so mauled, so brutally beaten and bruised, that, when the police at last arrived, he was covered with blood from head to foot and scarcely retained the semblance of humanity. "Lynch him!" "Hang him!" "String him up!"—such were the cries that issued from a hundred throats. When he was brought down to the man-of-war from which he was to be removed to gaol, the sailors were about to hang him at the yard-arm incontinently; but Lord Newry interposed and saved him. After much preliminary investigation, in order to ascertain whether or not the man had accomplices, he was put on his trial on the 26th of March. He gave his name as Henry James O'Farrel, admitted that he had intended to kill the Prince, as a prominent representative of English tyranny over his native land, and at first used language which pointed, like that of Mucius Scævola on a similar occasion, to a secret conspiracy in which he was but one of the adepts and accomplices. When, however, he was condemned to death, he wrote and signed on the day before his execution (April 21st) a full and clear statement, declaring that he had had no accomplices, and that the design of assassinating the Duke had been conceived in his own brain, and communicated to no other person. He admitted that he was a Fenian, but denied that he was connected with, or even cognisant of the existence of, any Fenian organisation in New South Wales. Before he suffered, he was brought to a becoming sense[475] of the guilt of the criminal act he had so nearly consummated. The Duke of Edinburgh, after his recovery, interceded with the Colonial Government, but without effect, for the pardon of the culprit.

The scandalous scenes caused in 1867 by the discourses of the "No Popery" lecturer Murphy were renewed in the May of 1868 with yet more calamitous results. A traveller, passing through the streets of Birmingham, on the night of June 19th, 1867, saw Park Street in ruins; the traffic stopped in the great thoroughfare of High Street and Bull Street; Carr's Lane, Moor Street, etc., strongly occupied by soldiers, and Irishwomen weeping over the destruction of their little property and their wrecked homes. On the 9th of May, 1868, the furious spirit of bigotry which Murphy's lectures had awakened in the breasts of his English auditors, at Dukinfield, Stalybridge, and Ashton-under-Lyne, important manufacturing towns in South Lancashire, found vent in a combined movement against the quarter inhabited by the Catholic Irish in the last-named town. Much fighting ensued, but the party of the assailants was in superior force, and, after having done considerable damage to a small chapel with its school in the Irish quarter, they attacked the principal chapel (St. Mary's). The chapel bell was rung, and the Irish flocked to the aid of their priest; but they were overpowered by numbers, and the fittings and window-frames of the chapel were destroyed. Shots were fired, but no lives were lost. On the 11th there was a renewal of rioting; the English attacked Reyner's Row, the inhabitants of which were mostly Irish, and commenced systematically to sack and gut the houses, and destroy the furniture. Troops were at last sent for by the Mayor; the rioters cheered the soldiers, and adjourned to another street merely to renew the work of devastation. It was the riots of 1780 repeated on a smaller scale. In one of the rushes made by the mob a respectable woman was knocked down and trampled to death. A number of special constables were sworn in; the most mischievous of the rioters were arrested or disarmed, and the disturbance was gradually got under. An attempt was made to renew the same outrages at Stalybridge; but here the authorities were well prepared, and the mob was at once charged and dispersed by a combined force of constables and specials.

In December, a decision, which had been awaited with deep interest by both the great parties in the Church, was delivered by Lord Cairns in the name of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The judgment was in the case of Martin v. Mackonochie. The latter, one of the leading Ritualist clergy in London, and the incumbent of St. Alban's, Holborn, was charged with lighting candles on the communion-table at the time of the celebration of the communion, and with superstitiously prostrating himself before the elements after pronouncing the prayer of consecration. On both charges submitted the judgment was against Mr. Mackonochie. Lighted candles, according to the Judicial Committee, were not "ornaments" within the meaning of the Rubric; and with regard to the prostrations, it was evident that they introduced and implied an adoration to a supposed Divine presence, objectively understood, which the Reformers had carefully eliminated from the worship of the Anglican Church. Mr. Mackonochie was condemned in the costs of the appeal, as well as in the costs of the hearing in the court below.

There died in this year (May 7), at an extreme old age, one whose name recalled the Liberal reaction that set in in Great Britain at the beginning of the century, who had worked with Mackintosh and Charles James Fox, and stood up to defend the unhappy Queen of George IV. This was Lord Brougham, whose splendid talents were neutralised by a restless ambition, which had condemned him, since his ostracism by Lord Melbourne, to a long career of political sterility. Longley, once head-master of Harrow, who since the death of Sumner had been Archbishop of Canterbury, died this year (October 27), and was succeeded by Dr. Tait, the Bishop of London. A life brilliantly commenced, but clouded latterly by many disappointments, was also closed this year (June 11)—that of Sir James Brooke, the Rajah of Sarawak. The adventurous story of his early life—how, finding himself possessed of wealth, and with no special work to do, he fitted out a yacht, and sailed to the Eastern Archipelago; how he settled down at Sarawak in Borneo, and, as a beneficent friend and lawgiver, taught the Dyaks the benefits of law, and the arts and enjoyments of a higher life; how he warred upon the pirates of the coast and the freebooters of the interior—all this is told, simply and well, in Captain Keppel's "Voyage of the Dido." Milman, the historian of the Jews and of Latin Christianity, also passed away; and Bishop Hampden, whose name was associated with university controversies, and Bishop Jeune, whose name recalls university reform.

The sequence of events in Abyssinia that terminated in the death of the Emperor Theodore and the storming of the rock fortress of Magdala,[476] commenced with the conclusion of a treaty of amity and commerce, in 1848, between Queen Victoria and Ras Ali, the ruler of central Abyssinia. This treaty was the work of Lord Palmerston; and to understand his motives, it is necessary that the reader should have some general knowledge of the previous history of Abyssinia. The natives of this portion of the ancient Ethiopia—which, though within the tropics, enjoys a healthy and delightful climate, on account of its great elevation above the sea—were converted to Christianity by St. Frumentius, sent from Alexandria by the great Athanasius in the fourth century of our era. They never for any long time together broke their connection with Egypt; for centuries the Abuna, or patriarch, of the Abyssinian Church, had been appointed, whenever the dignity fell vacant, by the Coptic Patriarch in Egypt, and submissively accepted by the Abyssinian Christians. Unfortunately, the Copts in Egypt having ages ago adopted the heresy of the Monophysites, the connection between the two countries propagated the same heresy in Abyssinia, and thereby raised in some degree a barrier between the Abyssinians and the rest of Christendom. But the motive that originally induced the Neguses, or Emperors, of Abyssinia to seek the head of their Church from Egypt was wise and laudable; they saw Mohammedanism spreading all around them, cutting them off from all other Christian countries; and they hoped by this ecclesiastical arrangement to guard themselves in some measure against the fatal effects of that isolation.

Ages rolled by and the troubles of Abyssinia continually thickened. Once, before Mohammed arose, she had had the command of the Red Sea and had subdued the southern portion of Arabia, where her dominion for a time promised to be permanent. Gibbon speculates on the strangely different course which human affairs might have taken if the Christian rulers of Abyssinia had been able to subjugate the whole of Arabia and stifle Islam in its cradle. But the Crescent rose higher and higher in the heavens; the Turkish power gradually extended itself along the shores of the Red Sea, and about 1570 succeeded in permanently occupying Massowah and other points on the west coast, thus cutting off Abyssinia from the sea. A still worse infliction came on the unfortunate country about the same time, in the invasion of tribes of savage and heathen Gallas from the south. They came again and again; though often defeated and driven out, they still returned in greater numbers and with greater ferocity than before. These intruding Gallas had become Mussulman, while the Galla tribes to the south remained heathen.

The Portuguese, soon after they had discovered the passage round the Cape of Good Hope, conceived a high idea of the importance of Abyssinia as the key of North-Eastern Africa, and opened diplomatic and commercial intercourse with its rulers. For about a century and a half this heroic little nation, partly by its soldiers, partly by its Jesuit missionaries, maintained a close and constant communication with Abyssinia. About the year 1640 the Portuguese power, succumbing to some mysterious law of national decay, began everywhere to decline. Thenceforward, till official relations were opened between Britain and Abyssinia, near the beginning of the century, it does not appear that any European nation had any intercourse with the country except through the visits of individual travellers or adventurers. The ancient royal family, which bore the sovereign title of Negus (properly "Nagash"), was deposed about 1770, shortly before the visit of James Bruce, the celebrated traveller; and Abyssinia was split up into three or more independent States, the chief of which were Tigré, Amhara, and Shoa. Official communication was first opened between Britain and Abyssinia in 1810, when Mr. Salt, the British Envoy, paid a formal visit to Ras Walda Selassyé, the Prince of Tigré, at Antalo, and presented him with two three-pounder field guns and other presents. But Mr. Salt's visit was an isolated act, and led to nothing. Nor was the visit of Major Harris to the King of Shoa, in 1841, undertaken by orders of the Bombay Government to arrange a treaty of commerce with that potentate, productive of more lasting consequences; although it furnished the materials for one of the most popular and interesting books of travel that the last generation produced. The visit of Walter Plowden, a private Englishman, who first found his way to Abyssinia in 1843, led eventually to more important consequences than either of the official visits just mentioned. After a residence of nearly four years in the country, he returned to England, bearing some presents from Ras Ali, then chief of central Abyssinia, to the Queen. While in London he submitted several memoranda on Abyssinian affairs to Lord Palmerston. The intelligent clearness with which these were written, and the prospect which they held out of extending British trade and influence in those parts of Africa, appear to have made a strong impression on Lord Palmerston, and he appointed Mr. Plowden British[477] Consul at Massowah, for the protection of British trade in Abyssinia. He also entrusted him (Jan., 1848) with presents for Ras Ali, and instructed him to conclude with that ruler a treaty of amity and commerce. Plowden was soon back in Abyssinia and zealously fulfilled his instructions. Ras Ali, an indolent man, had no objection to sign the treaty, but he said he did not expect that it would bring any British traders to Abyssinia. In truth, while the Turks (or rather the Egyptians, for Turkey ceded her possessions on this shore in 1866 to the Pasha of Egypt) were allowed to cut off Abyssinia from the sea, no European trade with the country could flourish.

KING THEODORE'S HOUSE, MAGDALA.

Consul Plowden had been residing six years at Massowah when he heard that the Prince to whom he had been accredited, Ras Ali, had been defeated and dethroned by an adventurer, whose name, a few years before, had been unknown outside the boundaries of his native province. This was Lij Kâsa, better known by his adopted name of Theodore. He was born of an old family, in the mountainous region of Kwara, where the land begins to slope downwards towards the Blue Nile, and educated in a convent, where he learned to read, and acquired a considerable knowledge of the Scriptures. Kâsa's convent life was suddenly put an end to when one of the marauding Galla bands attacked and plundered the monastery. From that time he himself took to the life of a freebooter and, through his superior intelligence and undaunted courage, soon attained the reputation of being successful in all his enterprises. Adventurers flocked to his standard; his power continually increased; and in 1854 he defeated Ras Ali in a pitched battle, and made himself master of central Abyssinia. His ambition widened in proportion to its gratification; he now sent to Oobye, the ruler of Tigré, requiring that he should pay him tribute, and insisted that the Abuna, then resident at the Court of Oobye, should be sent to Gondar, which, since the fall of Ras Ali, had been Kâsa's capital. His demands were scornfully rejected, and the Abuna excommunicated him. But Kâsa was equal to the occasion. Monseigneur de Jacobis, a Roman Catholic missionary of great ability and saintly life, was at that time in Abyssinia, with the authority of Vicar-Apostolic; him Kâsa threatened[478] to recognise as bishop unless the Abuna came to Gondar. The Abuna then yielded, revoked the excommunication, and came to live at Gondar, thus giving a kind of religious sanction to the adventurer's power. Fortune still attended the arms of Kâsa. In 1855 he defeated Oobye at a place called Derezgye, in the province of Semyen, and all Tigré submitted to the conqueror. He now resolved to assume a title commensurate with the wide extent of his dominion. In the church of Derezgye he had himself crowned by the Abuna as King of the Kings of Ethiopia, taking the name of Theodore, because an ancient tradition declared that a great monarch so called would one day arise in Abyssinia. Courtly genealogists were not wanting who deduced his pedigree from the line of the ancient kings.

These startling events reached the ears of Mr. Plowden at Massowah and he resolved to visit the new monarch. He arrived at the camp of Theodore in March or April, 1855, and found that a former fellow-traveller, an Englishman named Bell, who had married an Abyssinian lady, was already in Theodore's service, with the title and functions of Grand Chamberlain. At this time Theodore's character and aims were such as to command the admiration and respect of Plowden and Bell, both of whom were able and excellent men. "Plowden said of him that he was generous to excess, and free from all cupidity, merciful to his vanquished enemies, and strictly continent; but subject to violent bursts of anger and possessed of unyielding pride and fanatical religious zeal." His views of government were far more enlightened than those of the majority of his countrymen. He abolished the slave trade, put an end to many vexatious imposts on commerce, and aimed at curtailing or suppressing the feudal privileges of a number of petty chiefs, who were the tyrants of the districts over which they ruled. Consul Plowden thus concluded his report on Theodore's character and policy:—"Some of his ideas may be imperfect, others impracticable; but a man who, rising from the clouds of Abyssinian ignorance and childishness, without assistance and without advice, has done so much, and contemplates such large designs, cannot be regarded as of an ordinary stamp."

Some years passed and the power of Theodore was ever on the rise. After his coronation, the first object which he set before him was the subjugation of the Galla tribes in Abyssinia; after which he said that any Galla who would not abjure Islam and receive baptism should be expelled from the country. This object he partly accomplished by the subjection of the Wolo Gallas to his rule. To keep these wild tribes in check, and also to serve as his own principal stronghold, he about this time made choice of Magdala, an amba, or natural fortress, beyond the river Beshilo, east of the Lake of Dembea, and in the midst of the territory of the Wolo Gallas. He then invaded and reduced Shoa, taking Ankober, the capital, and bringing away with him Menelek, the young heir of Shoa, to bring up with his own son. The whole of Abyssinia was now subject to his power. But a series of misfortunes presently fell upon him and changed the whole aspect of his career. In 1860 his true and judicious friend and counsellor, Consul Plowden, while journeying to his camp, was intercepted by an ally of the chief Negussye, who had set up the standard of revolt in Tigré; and in the fight that ensued Plowden was mortally wounded and taken prisoner. Theodore immediately raised from the merchants of Gondar the sum demanded for his ransom and procured his release; but Plowden died a few days afterwards. About the same time Bell, the King's Grand Chamberlain, fell in battle; and within a few months Theodore lost his first wife, the beautiful and virtuous Tawabeteh. His naturally violent temper was soured and embittered by these losses. He took a terrible revenge on the chiefs who had been instrumental in the deaths of Bell and Plowden; and he bade farewell for the rest of his life to that marital fidelity for which, while Tawabeteh lived, he had been conspicuous. He married for his second wife the daughter of Oobye, the Tigré chief whom he had dethroned; but the union was one of policy, not of affection, and Theodore's illicit amours were both numerous and scandalous. In 1861 he got the rebel Negussye into his power, together with his brother, and put them to death with horrible cruelty.

Theodore was now at the height of his power, and European Governments evinced a considerable desire to court his friendship. The French Government nominated M. Lejean as French Consul at Gondar, but on account of some real or imagined affront paid to an emissary whom Theodore had sent to Paris, with a letter to the Emperor, M. Lejean was sent at a day's notice out of the country. The British Government, on hearing of the death of Plowden, immediately replaced him at Massowah by the appointment of Captain Cameron. This gentleman arrived at Massowah in February, 1862, and visited Theodore at his camp in the following October, bearing a few[479] presents, and a letter in the Queen's name, thanking him for his exertions in ransoming poor Plowden. Captain Cameron was very well received. Theodore told him that he had executed 1,500 of the followers of the chief who had killed Plowden, to revenge his death, and that he might thereby win the friendship of the Queen of Great Britain. He also spoke with great bitterness of the encroachments of the Turks and Egyptians, both on the sea-coast and also on his north-western boundary, on what he called his ancestral dominions. In the following month, when Cameron left his camp, he entrusted him with the famous letter to the Queen of England; the postage of which, as Colonel Sykes said, cost us five millions. In this letter the two ideas then prominent in his mind—to deserve and win the friendship of the Queen, by executing wholesale vengeance on those who had killed Englishmen; and to gain her help in his darling project of humbling the Mussulman—received distinct expression.

The reader already knows what became of this remarkable letter when it reached England. Consul Cameron—after expediting the letter to Massowah, whence it was conveyed to Aden, and home by the Indian mail steamer—turned aside to visit the district of Bogos, a little Abyssinian upland, nearly surrounded by the Egyptians and other Mussulmans of the plains. The Christians of Bogos had on some former occasion complained to the Consul at Massowah of ravages committed in their territory by the neighbouring tribes, and Captain Cameron wished to know whether things were now quiet there, and also whether there was any opening for trade. Mainly with this latter object, he next visited the Egyptian town of Kassala. He arrived at Djenda, near the Lake of Dembea, in August, 1863, calculating that he would thus be in the country when the expected reply from England to the King's letter arrived. It appears that Theodore, who had become prone to suspicion, was offended when he heard that Consul Cameron had been at Kassala, among his mortal enemies the Egyptians; and his dissatisfaction, probably through the channel of Mr. Walker, the Vice-consul at Massowah, had become known at the Foreign Office. Moreover, Lord Russell—who wrote soon after this to a British agent, that "he trusted that interference on behalf of a Christian country, as such, would never be the policy of the British Government"—entirely disapproved of the consul's interesting himself in the Bogos people because they were Christians; his business was only to promote trade. The letter already alluded to contained a proposal by Theodore to the Queen of Great Britain for an offensive and defensive alliance against the Moslem powers. It was well known that if that eccentric offer had been rejected, which, of course, could not have been otherwise, the danger of Consul Cameron and the other British subjects, who were in the power of Theodore, would become very grave. However, through the indiscretion of Consul Cameron in having returned to Abyssinia without an answer to the King's letter, when the missionaries had already got into disgrace, he had to share their misfortune in ill-treatment and imprisonment. The Rev. Mr. Stern had fallen under the heavy displeasure of the King, and had been flogged, almost to death, for having, as Theodore alleged, intruded one day on his privacy before giving a notice of his intended visit in accordance with the Abyssinian court etiquette. Stern had also written a book, entitled "Wanderings among the Falashas in Abyssinia," in which he had reflected upon the avocation of Theodore's mother as a vendor of a purgative herb called kosoo. Mr. Stern was called upon to divulge the name of his informant (who was supposed to be the Coptic Metropolitan of Abyssinia), and, as he refused to do so, the King had him tortured, together with his companion Mr. Rosenthal, Consul Cameron, and other British subjects, until he was forced to confess. They were shortly afterwards sent to the fortress at Magdala, and put in irons.

Absolute power and sensual indulgence had by this time turned Theodore's head, and many of his subsequent actions seem hardly to be those of a sane man. His cruelty, fickleness, and suspicion made his rule more and more intolerable to all his subjects. Rebellions were plotted in every province and after a time broke out. Menelek, the young heir of Shoa, escaped from confinement and, expelling Theodore's lieutenant, established himself as the independent ruler of that country. The chief Gobazye raised the standard of revolt in central Abyssinia, and one of his lieutenants, a chief of the best blood of Tigré, rebelling against his principal, made himself independent in that province. The fabric of Theodore's Christian empire, ruined through his own degeneracy, was fast crumbling to pieces. Meanwhile, the news of Captain Cameron's imprisonment had caused considerable sensation in Britain. Government resolved to send out a regular mission, bearing a letter, signed by the Queen, in answer to Theodore's long-neglected epistle, to demand the release of Cameron and the other captives. The head of the mission was Mr. Hormuzd Rassam, of Chaldean[480] nationality, born at Mossul, near ancient Nineveh, since so well known in connection with Assyrian and Babylonian discoveries. He had held different important political appointments under the Indian Government. He was then acting as first Assistant Political Resident at Aden, and possessed great influence amongst the Arabian and African tribes along the coasts of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. To Rassam were added Dr. Blanc and Lieutenant Prideaux, two officers from the Bombay establishment.

MR RASSAM'S INTERVIEW WITH KING THEODORE. (See p. 480.)

A curt permission to enter the country having been granted, Mr. Rassam's first interview with the King was on the 28th of January, 1866. Theodore was seated on a sofa, and wore the common robe of the country, called a shamma. The letter of Queen Victoria, dated the 26th of May, 1864, was presented by the envoy, and Theodore received it graciously. He then entered upon the subject of his grievances. The cause of all the mischief, the prime offender, was the Abuna Salama, the Coptic Patriarch, who had told false and malicious stories about him to various Europeans. Against the missionaries he had a great deal to say, particularly against Mr. Stern. Against Mr. Cameron, besides the offence of never having brought him back an answer to his letter to the Queen, he laid the charge of having gone to visit the Turks and Egyptians, and of having been friendly with them; and, on one occasion, when he was at Kassala with the Pasha, of having brought the King and his army into contempt by ordering his Abyssinian servants to imitate the war-dance of the royal troops. This story was told to the King by a discharged servant of Mr. Cameron's, named Ingada Wark, who had quarrelled with his master, and it is probably devoid of foundation. We give it here as a sample of the kind of insults and injuries over which the suspicious and wayward mind of Theodore was continually brooding, and of which Mr. Rassam's interesting report is full. When the Queen's letter had been translated for him into Amharic, Theodore was much pleased with its contents. On the 29th of January[481] he sent for Mr. Rassam, and told him that, for the sake of his friend the Queen of England, and in return for the trouble that he had taken in the matter of Consul Cameron, he was pleased to pardon all the European captives, and he had ordered their immediate release. He then ordered a scribe to read an Arabic translation of the letter which he had just written to the Queen, announcing the release of the captives. There is a touching humility, a childlike simplicity, in the tone of this letter, which, coming from one who so often appeared in the light of a bloodthirsty and capricious tyrant, affords a curious study of the complexities of human character. A day or two afterwards Mr. Rassam had another conversation with the King. The misdeeds of Mr. Cameron again formed a prominent topic; and it is worth while to record a part of the King's indictment, because the language which he used on this occasion seems to cast a strong light on the actual sequence of feelings and ideas that influenced him in committing Cameron to prison. Theodore said that after he had written his famous letter to the Queen in the autumn of 1862, he gave it to Consul Cameron, requesting that he would take it down to the coast, and bring up an answer himself; that he gave him money for the journey, and ordered the chiefs of all the provinces between Gondar and Massowah to supply him and his followers with food, and treat him with respect and honour. What he chiefly wanted to effect by the letter was this—that since he had no navy of his own, the Queen should send a vessel to convey his ambassador to Suez, and should procure for him a safe conduct through Egypt. Instead of complying with his request, Mr. Cameron "had gone to play with the Turks" (this refers to the visit to Kassala), and after a long time came back to Gondar, but without an answer to his letter. Six months afterwards, Cameron sent him a letter, which he had received from his Government, and demanded his dismissal, that he might go down to Massowah. The King asked why he had returned to Abyssinia if he wished to be at Massowah? Getting no satisfactory answer to this question, Theodore continued, "I sent and told him, by the power of God you shall be detained in prison until I find out whether you are really the servant of the Queen." For why, Theodore would naturally argue, if he is indeed the servant of the Queen, has he not brought me long ere this an answer to my letter?

THE WHITE TOWER, TOWER OF LONDON

FROM THE PAINTING BY H. E. TIDMARSH.

[See larger version]

THE EMPEROR THEODORE GRANTING AN AUDIENCE.

[482]

But the coming of Mr. Rassam, for whom Theodore, though he afterwards used him so roughly, seems to have conceived a genuine affection, appeared at first to have removed all difficulties. It was arranged that the mission should travel to Korata, a beautiful village on the south-eastern shore of Lake Dembea, and there await the arrival of the captives from Magdala; after which they should all leave the country together. For several days' march the mission accompanied the King and his army; but Theodore turned aside to Zagé, a place on the western shore of the lake, facing Korata across the water. Mr. Rassam reached Korata on the 14th of February. Some weeks elapsed, on almost every day in which the King sent a friendly message or letter to Rassam. The first indication of difficulty was on the 7th of March, when the King wrote, "When the people [prisoners] reach you, we will consult;" that is, "You shall not go home at once, as heretofore arranged, but the whole matter shall be reconsidered." The words filled Mr. Rassam with dismay. About the same time a letter was delivered to the King from the traveller Dr. Beke, who had come out to Massowah, enclosing a petition from the relations of Cameron, Stern, and several other captives, entreating the King to release them. Colonel Stanton, the British agent in Egypt, and Sir William Merewether, the Political Resident at Aden, feared that Dr. Beke's action would perplex the King and lead him to doubt the reality of Mr. Rassam's mission. They tried in vain to make Dr. Beke see the prudence of abstaining from any interference in the difficult and delicate negotiation. For the King had now begun seriously to entertain the thought of detaining Rassam and his party till the envoy should have obtained for him from England a scientific man to teach his people the mechanical arts. On the 12th of March, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Stern, Mr. and Mrs. Rosenthal, and eleven other captives, mostly Germans, arrived at Korata from Magdala. On the same day the King wrote to Rassam, saying that he must have them all over to Zagé and put them on their trial again. Rassam, however, obtained leave to try them at Korata; and, having gone through the forms of a mock trial, he wrote to the King that they all confessed that they had done wrong. It was thought prudent that the captives should throw themselves on the King's mercy; but the fabrication did no good, and probably would have been better left unattempted. The King wavered. On the 25th of March he held separate consultations at Zagé, first with the German artisans, and afterwards with a body of Abyssinian chiefs, and propounded at each the question, whether to detain Rassam or let him go? The chiefs and the artisans were equally unanimous in deciding that Rassam ought to be allowed to depart. Theodore was shaken, and yet he was not quite satisfied. The pressure, however, seemed to be telling upon him, and he wrote to Rassam (April 8th), desiring that he would come and pay him a farewell visit at Zagé "after the light of Easter," and bring Mr. Cameron and the other captives with him. This, however, Mr. Rassam—knowing the hatred that the King bore to Mr. Cameron and one or two others among the captives—thought it more prudent not to do. He obtained the King's consent to leave them behind at Korata, with the understanding that they were to start on a given day on their homeward journey, and himself proceeded to Zagé, on the 13th of April, along with the other members of the mission. Unfortunately for them, Theodore for some time past had been drinking heavily, and the effect of this on his moody imagination and suspicious temper was to fill his mind with a thousand preposterous apprehensions. When, therefore, Mr. Rassam with his two companions arrived at Zagé, to pay, as they supposed their farewell visit, they were seized, cross-examined, and their money and arms taken.

Such treatment of a mission, which even in Abyssinia ought to have been safe under the protection of the law of nations, was, of course, outrageous and unprecedented. At this stage an acute crisis seemed to be reached, calling for the most careful treatment at every point. However, there was nothing to be done at the time but to humour Theodore as far as was practicable, and to use every effort to make their situation known to the British Government. In effecting the latter object Mr. Rassam found very little difficulty. Only one of his messengers appears to have been stopped; all the rest carried safely to the coast, not his letters only, but frequently large sums of money, with praiseworthy honesty and regularity. With regard to artisans from England, Theodore wrote to Mr. Rassam (April 17th), that he wished the envoy to obtain for him, from the Queen, "a man who can make cannons and muskets, and one who can smelt iron, and an instructor of artillery."[483] It was thought expedient to comply with the request, and Mr. Rassam wrote accordingly to the Secretary of State on the following day. Mr. Flad, a lay missionary, was selected as the bearer of Mr. Rassam's letter. As his wife and children were left in Abyssinia in Theodore's power, Mr. Flad's speedy return was counted upon with confidence.

For several weeks the captives were detained at Zagé. During this period Theodore's behaviour was almost that of a madman: at one time he would storm and threaten, throw the captives into irons, and make them tremble for their lives; at another time he would publicly express his sorrow for having ill-treated them, and humbly ask their pardon. In June, cholera having broken out in the King's camp, he transferred his headquarters to Debra Tabor, a large village about twenty miles to the east of Gondar, which at that time served him for a capital. Here he arrived—the captives, of course, accompanying him—on the 16th of June. In regard to Mr. Rassam and the other members of the mission, his frantic behaviour reached a climax on the 3rd of July, 1866, when having summoned them to his presence, he made a wild rambling speech, rehearsing a string of trumpery charges, old and new, against them and the other captives. A few days after this interview, it being at the time the King's purpose to march northward against the rebels, the captives were sent, under the guard of an escort of 200 men, to be confined in the fortress of Magdala, where they arrived on the 12th of July. On the broad level top of the amba, so long as they kept within the boundary fence or palisade, they were free to wander as they pleased; Theodore caused them to be liberally provided with food; and with the exception that they were detained there against their will, they had no cause to complain of their treatment.

On his way home to convey to the British Government Theodore's request for skilled workmen and machinery, Mr. Flad saw Colonel Merewether, the Resident at Aden, and communicated to him the state of affairs. That zealous officer, who seems to have thoroughly understood Theodore's character, and had little hope that he would ever release the captives, except under compulsion, resolved to return to England with Mr. Flad. They arrived in England in the summer of 1866, and reported themselves to Lord Stanley, who had just taken over the administration of the Foreign Office. Lord Stanley decided that Theodore's request to be supplied with mechanics should be complied with, in the hope that this would lead to the liberation of the captives. But, while Colonel Merewether was engaged in selecting and making agreements with artisans, news reached London that Rassam and his companions were no longer simply detained, but that they had been seized and imprisoned. Colonel Merewether now recommended that Mr. Flad (whose wife and children were in the King's camp) should at once be sent back to Abyssinia, with a letter demanding the release of all the prisoners; and that, should this step be vain, prompt measures should be taken to enforce compliance. But Government, unwilling to renounce the hope of obtaining the desired end by peaceable means, determined to send out the artisans, together with a costly cargo of presents, to Massowah, with instructions to proceed no farther until the captives should have all arrived safely at that port. Six skilled artisans, headed by a civil engineer, together with machinery and other presents to the value of about £3,500, were sent out in November, 1866, and arrived in due course at Massowah. But after waiting there nearly six months—it being apparent that the prospect of the release of their countrymen was indefinitely remote—they were sent back to England. In April, 1867, Lord Stanley addressed a final letter to Theodore, informing him that the presents would be sent home again unless the prisoners were released within three months.

As he perceived that a warlike demonstration was inevitable, Merewether's recommendation was that the invading force should consist of one European and six native regiments of infantry, together with other troops, so as to compose an army of about 6,000 men. However, Government resolved to let the period of three months expire which had been named in Lord Stanley's note. When that was over, and still Theodore showed no sign of yielding, Government decided upon sending out an expedition. Bombay was fixed upon as the most convenient base of operations, and the Governor of that Presidency was directed to take the necessary measures. Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald, the new Governor of Bombay, desired the Commander-in-Chief of the Bombay army, Sir Robert Napier, to state what number of troops was, in his opinion, required for the service. That officer reported that, in his judgment, 12,000 was the smallest number that it would be safe to employ. Acquiescing in the opinion that so large a force was required, the Bombay Government considered that Colonel Merewether, who now for some years had taken[484] the lead in all matters connected with Abyssinia, was too young a man to be placed in supreme command. Or rather such was the opinion of the India Council and the War Office at home. Sir Stafford Northcote, on whom, as Secretary for India, a large share of the responsibility for the right management of the expedition rested, wrote (August 16th, 1867) that, while Government trusted that Colonel Merewether's valuable services would be made available in aid of the expedition, "his rank was not high enough to enable him to take the supreme command of such a force as it was probable would have to be employed." In August, 1867, Sir Robert Napier was appointed to the command of the expedition, and Major-General Sir Charles Staveley, an officer who had served in the Crimea, was nominated second in command. The force employed was to consist of 4,000 British and 8,000 Indian native troops. An advanced brigade, consisting of about 1,200 Indian troops, under the command of Colonel Merewether, was despatched from Bombay in September, preceded by a reconnoitring party under the immediate orders of the colonel himself. The vessel containing the reconnoitring party arrived in Annesley Bay early in October.

It was a matter of considerable importance to choose the best point on the coast where the force should disembark, and whence it should begin its march on Magdala. Distance from Magdala was one, but not the most important, element in the selection. The high table-land of Abyssinia is bastioned on the north and east by ranges of magnificent mountains, descending frequently in sheer cliffs, many thousand feet high, into the strip of sandy plain that borders the coast. At Annesley Bay, which penetrates far into the land, the mountains approach nearer to the sea than at any other point where the landing of a large force is possible. In this respect, however, Massowah was little inferior, while in facilities for landing it was superior, to Annesley Bay, from which it is about thirty miles distant; but besides that it was somewhat farther from Magdala, political considerations rendered it inexpedient that the British Government should incur so great an obligation to the Pasha of Egypt as would have been involved in the landing of so large an army, with all its baggage and stores, at a much-frequented Egyptian port. Annesley Bay, then, was to be the point of disembarkation. The best pass for the march of an army into the interior was the next subject of inquiry. The first person to point out to Colonel Merewether the superiority of the Senafé Pass was Father Zechariah, a native Abyssinian priest educated at Rome. But the colonel was not satisfied till he had carefully examined several other defiles leading up to the table-land, and had convinced himself that the Senafé Pass, difficult as it was, could be made practicable for the expedition with less trouble than any other.

The route having been decided upon, all that remained was to land the troops as quickly as possible, organise an efficient transport service, and then advance upon Magdala. The distance of the fortress from Annesley Bay was about 400 miles; but the climate on the table-land is magnificent, the difficulties of the road were easily within the power of the strong pioneer force that was at the general's disposal to surmount them, and it became more and more certain that no serious opposition would be met with. A hitch, however, occurred; and it was, as usual, in the transport service. Supplies of food, stores, and ammunition could most easily be transported along the rough and narrow Abyssinian roads on the backs of mules. The world was accordingly ransacked for mules; from Egypt, India, Syria, and Spain they were poured into Annesley Bay in thousands. Any one can buy a mule, but it takes an experienced person to manage him when bought. The Transport department engaged as muleteers thousands of men who are described as "the vilest sweepings of Eastern cities"—men whose languages no one could understand, and who were utterly ignorant of their business. Again, being landed in such vast numbers on a sterile plain like that which divides the sea from the mountains at Annesley Bay, the mules could pick up scarcely anything for themselves; and, with such unmanageable ruffians for muleteers, it was impossible to distribute properly among them the forage that had been brought by sea to the anchorage. In consequence of all this, the mules soon began to die by scores. To supply the animals with water, since the arid shore had next to no resources in this respect, the steamers at the anchorage condensed water at the rate of 32,000 gallons a day (at a cost of nearly £3,000 a month), which was then conveyed along a shoot 480 feet long, raised on trestles above the sea, to tanks on shore. But, whether from the unwholesomeness of this water or some other cause, an epidemic broke out among the animals on shore, and carried off great numbers of them, especially the horses. The 3rd Dragoons lost 318 horses out of 499 landed. In these circumstances Colonel Merewether resolved to push on with his advanced brigade to the healthier[485] position of Senafé, as soon as ever the road through the pass was declared practicable. The main body of the brigade, which had landed on the 30th of October, was accordingly moved forward from Mulkutto (so the landing-place was called) about the end of November, and, threading the pass with little difficulty, arrived at Senafé on the 6th and 7th of December. The Shohos—Mohammedan tribes that infested the mountain valleys and ravines running to the Red Sea—were converted by the power of British gold from being rapacious depredators and thieves into the character of useful traders and carriers.

SIR ROBERT NAPIER (AFTERWARDS LORD NAPIER OF MAGDALA).

Sir Charles Staveley, with the second brigade, arrived at Annesley Bay early in December. The 33rd, a British regiment, was with them, and was before long sent on to Senafé, where it arrived on the 12th of January, 1868. Sir Charles set himself energetically to work to bring things into order at the port, while the movements of all the departments were quickened by his presence. The greater part of the troops, as they arrived were sent up to Senafé. Sir Robert Napier himself landed at Mulkutto on the 7th of January and assumed the command. Leaving orders that a transport train should be organised immediately, and a railway laid down from Mulkutto to the foot of the Senafé Pass, he hastened forward to the front. He was at first under the impression that no dependence could be placed for the subsistence of the army on the resources of the country itself and that it would not be safe to move forward from Senafé until six months' supply of food had been accumulated there for a force of 9,500 men. But when he arrived at Senafé and found how admirably General (he had[486] just been made local Brigadier-General) Merewether, and Colonel Phayre, the Quartermaster-General, had made amicable arrangements with the principal men of the neighbourhood, and attracted the natives from all parts to the markets of the camp by the prospect of the liberal payment which they received for their meat, corn, and other produce, Sir Robert Napier saw reason to change his opinion. In fact, the friendliness and openness of the people towards the British were truly strange to European ideas. Their country was being invaded, and its prestige, if it had any, humiliated; but this singular people felt no throes of indignant patriotism, were well pleased to think that the formidable King, who had come to be a dangerous tyrant and freebooter, was to be put down without any trouble to themselves, and pocketed with the utmost satisfaction, inwardly marvelling no doubt at the simplicity of the stranger, the large new silver dollars which they got for their country produce.

With these reassuring prospects before him, the Commander-in-Chief thought that he might safely commence the march into the interior before any very large quantity of stores had been brought up to Senafé. No opposition was to be feared from the rulers of provinces. Immediately after landing General Merewether had dispersed as widely as possible copies of a proclamation, declaring that the sole motive of the British invasion was the desire to liberate the captives; that Britain's quarrel was with Theodore, not with the Abyssinian nation; and that the inhabitants, if they maintained a peaceful attitude, would be treated well and liberally. Mr. Rassam had been in constant communication with Kassa, the Prince of Tigré, and also with Wakshum Gobazye, the Prince of Lasta. They both showed great kindness to his messengers, and rendered them the protection they needed between Magdala and Massowah for two whole years. As soon as Rassam informed them of the intention of the British Government to send a force to punish Theodore, their enemy, they promised their friendship to the troops, and Wakshum went so far as to cause it to be proclaimed through his districts by beat of drum that all his subjects were to supply the British army with whatever they required, and that they were not to fear, as the troops were Christians, and would pay the full price for everything. Kassa wrote a letter to General Merewether, offering friendship and assistance, soon after his arrival at Senafé. To confirm him in these pacific sentiments, Major Grant, the well-known African explorer, was sent to his capital of Adowa, where he was received with great cordiality; and Sir Robert Napier himself, mounted on an elephant, had a formal interview with Kassa on February 19th near Adigerat. Wakshum Gobazye—who for the last three years, though fearing to meet Theodore in the field, had occupied each province of central Abyssinia as Theodore led his army out of it, and who was now employed in consolidating his power—probably regarded the British intrusion in much the same light as Kassa. And there is reason to believe that, after the invasion had been achieved successfully, Wakshum felt hurt that he had not been treated with like consideration to that shown to the Prince of Tigré.

The force that Sir Robert Napier considered necessary amounted finally to upwards of 16,000 men. Four British infantry regiments, the 33rd, the 4th, the 45th, and the 26th, and one cavalry regiment, the 3rd Dragoon Guards—in all about 3,400 men—besides a company of Sappers, formed part of the force; the rest were all Indian troops. The men of the Transport Train numbered 12,600, and the camp-followers about 3,200; so that a host numbering about 32,000 men, exclusive of those attached to the Commissariat and Quartermaster-General's Departments, was collected at Annesley Bay. But a small portion of these was required to overcome the feeble resistance of Theodore's army, and to scale the height of Magdala. To oppose to this large and disciplined force, Theodore had only some 3,000 soldiers armed with percussion muzzle-loaders, 1,000 matchlock-men, a number of spearmen, and about thirty pieces of ordnance, including one enormous mortar which his German artisans had cast for him at Debra Tabor, the management of which no one in his army properly understood.

After Sir Robert Napier had come up to Senafé, discussion arose and much doubt was entertained as to the best method of applying the force in hand to the attainment of the one paramount object of the expedition, the rescue of the captives. There were many who thought, forming their judgment from the ordinary experience of the conduct of uncivilised rulers, that if Theodore (who was known to be on the march from Debra Tabor to Magdala) should reach the fortress before the British army, he would, after the inevitable defeat and dispersion of his army, be certain, in an access of impotent rage and revenge, to put to death the English and other prisoners there confined. It was urged therefore that what ought before all things to be aimed at was to intercept the march of Theodore, and prevent him from ever reaching Magdala.[487] But to effect this it would be necessary to march at once with a lightly equipped force of about 2,000 men, who, while drawing a portion of their supplies from the stores that were already at Senafé, should be largely dependent on the resources of the country through which they marched. The other plan was to wait till stores were accumulated at Senafé in sufficient quantity to support a force capable of marching upon and capturing Magdala (to take which it was thought that siege operations might be required), with only slight dependence on local supplies. It was decided that the march should be on Magdala; and the safety of the prisoners was left to the generosity of the strange monarch, who in all his cruelties and excesses never wholly forgot that he was a Christian King.

It would weary the reader if we were to describe in minute detail a march that was never opposed, and movements of troops involving no triumphs but those of the Control department. The 350 miles of road that separated Senafé from Magdala were indeed full of difficulty; for many steep and lofty ranges had to be crossed; many narrow and uneven tracks to be repaired and widened; many long marches to be made under a tropical sun. The advance guard of the army moved from Senafé on the 18th of January; and the headquarters were established at Buya camp, near Antalo, rather more than half way from the coast to Magdala, on the 2nd of March. When the march was resumed a new arrangement of the forces was adopted. A large proportion of the Indian troops was left at the Buya camp; the column destined to march on Magdala was formed into two brigades and a pioneer force. The latter, commanded by the active Quartermaster-General, Colonel Phayre, consisted of about 500 men. Both brigades were under the command of Sir Charles Staveley; with the first marched the Commander-in-Chief and the headquarters. The total strength of the column was about 3,000 men. From the 12th of March, on which day the march was resumed, seventeen days were required to bring the column to the top of the Wadela plateau, a distance of 118 miles. This plateau, rising in precipitous cliffs from the southern bank of the Takkazye river (a large feeder of the Blue Nile) to the height of nearly 10,000 feet, runs for many miles in a nearly unbroken wall from east to west, and forms one of the most striking natural features in the country. At the time when our troops were scaling Wadela, Theodore arrived in the immediate vicinity of Magdala; that is, he had outstripped our army by a distance of nearly sixty miles. Marching to the right along the flat Wadela plateau, descending by a zigzag road that Theodore had just cut for his guns into the deep valley of the Jidda, crossing it, and ascending the Dalanta plateau, the British army (April 8th), on reaching the southern edge of this last, above the river Beshilo, beheld in front of them the goal of their labours—the table-topped mountain of Magdala.

We must now return to Theodore, who, since he put Mr. Rassam and his companions into irons, had been chiefly stationed at Debra Tabor, in the province of Beguemder. Here he kept his German artisans fully employed in casting guns and mortars, and constructing carriages for their conveyance. His revenues being gone, he obtained subsistence for his army simply by plunder, until the people of Beguemder rose against him, and commenced a desultory warfare against his half-starved soldiers, numbers of whom were continually deserting. The once noble nature of the man was now marred by licentiousness, drunkenness, and cruelty. But when—the resources of the country round Debra Tabor being destroyed by cruel and long-continued rapine—it became necessary to take and act upon a decision, Theodore, it would seem, woke up from his sensual dream, and for a while became himself again. He resolved to return to Magdala, and to transport thither the heavy ordnance that had just been constructed. First setting fire to Debra Tabor, his own capital, he began his march on the 10th of October, 1867, with his European workmen, about 6,000 soldiers, and a host of camp followers. Although the distance to Magdala did not exceed a hundred miles, the difficulties in the way of transporting guns, owing to the want of roads and the mountainous nature of the country, were enormous. Thus labouring on for weeks and months, and conveying his guns and stores without loss on twenty heavy waggons dragged by his soldiers along the roads that he had previously built, Theodore arrived at last (March 25th) on the plateau of Islamgyé below Magdala. On the 29th he came up to Magdala and sent for Mr. Rassam. The interview was very friendly, and the King, who seems to have really liked the envoy, was gracious and affable. His army, through continual desertions, had by this time dwindled down to about 3,000 men. He afterwards told Mr. Rassam that when he was excited he was not responsible for his actions. It is to be hoped that it was so, and that in the fact some palliation may be found for the horrible massacre that he ordered a few days later. On the 9th of April, having on the previous[488] day caused all his native prisoners, 570 in number, to be brought down to Islamgyé from Magdala, he set a considerable number free, including all, or almost all, the women and children. After that he drank deeply and went to lie down in his tent. Those who were retained in captivity, no order having been given to take them back to Magdala, were kept on the barren top of Islamgyé; and having nothing to eat, they began to clamour for food. This enraged him to such a degree that, starting up in a drunken fury, he commanded them all to be put to death, and commenced the butchery by cutting one down with his sword, and shooting two others with his pistols. The rest were hurled alive over the precipice of Islamgyé, and those who showed any signs of life were fired upon by the soldiers stationed below. The massacre lasted from about 4 till 6.30 P.M., and there were no less than 197 victims, only thirty-five of whom were criminals.

Meanwhile the toils were being drawn closer round the doomed King. The 12th Bengal Cavalry and six companies of the 45th Regiment, having been ordered up from the coast by Sir Robert Napier, arrived at the camp on the 8th of April. The 45th accomplished the distance from Mulkutto to the Beshilo River in twenty-five days. The force before Magdala, with these accessions, numbered upwards of 3,700 men, including a rocket brigade consisting of eighty sailors of H.M.S. Dryad. On the 9th of April, the whole force being now concentrated on the Dalanta plateau, the approaches to Magdala were carefully reconnoitred. It was suggested to Sir Robert Napier to send a force round to the saddle connecting Magdala with the Tanta plateau, so as to cut off Theodore's retreat while he was attacked in front. But the Commander-in-Chief deemed that the force at his disposal was not large enough to allow of its being divided with safety. It was finally resolved to attack the position of Magdala by way of the great projecting mass of Fâla, from which the lower terrace of Islamgyé could be easily reached.

Early on the morning of the 10th of April Sir Charles Staveley led the 1st Brigade down the steep side of the Dalanta plateau, forded the Beshilo, and, mounting the bold spur of Gumbaji, proceeded along it in the direction of Fâla. His intention was to choose a suitable site for an encampment, and await the arrival of the 2nd Brigade, led by the Commander-in-Chief, which was to pass the night in the valley of the Beshilo. Meanwhile, Colonel Phayre, with the pioneer force under his command, was moving up the Wark-Waha ravine, parallel with, and to the left of, the march of Sir Charles Staveley, in order to examine the position of the enemy. He ascertained that neither in the ravine, nor on any part of the great open slopes and terraces of which he obtained a view, right up to the ascent of Fâla, was there any trace of a hostile force; and he sent back a message to this effect to Sir Robert Napier, which on its way was read by Sir Charles Staveley. Sir Robert, on receiving Colonel Phayre's report, ordered the Naval Brigade, Colonel Penn's battery of mountain guns, and the baggage of the 1st Brigade, which had been left at the Beshilo by Sir Charles waiting orders to advance, to press forward up the Wark-Waha ravine. They did so, the sailors leading the way. It was about four o'clock when the Naval Brigade, followed by the battery, emerged by a steep ascent from the ravine on to the diversified surface of the Arogé plains, just above which, to their right, on the Aficho terrace, the 1st Brigade was posted. Presently a gun, followed by several others in succession, was fired from the crest of Fâla; the direction being good, and the elevation from which the guns were discharged considerable, the shot came plunging into the ground near the British ranks. Then, from the top of the mountain, rushing down the steep sides of Fâla, came Theodore's warriors in headlong charge. There were about 1,000 musketeers, armed with double-barrel guns, 2,000 men carrying match-locks, and a multitude of spearmen. They reached the bottom of the hill, and began advancing towards the British, part plunging down a ravine called Dam-Wanz on the British left, to attack the baggage train.

With such an inequality of arms as existed between the combatants, no real fighting was possible. The sailors, on seeing the enemy swarming down the hill, quickly got their rocket tubes into position, and opened upon them. Sir Charles Staveley ordered all the infantry of his brigade to come down the steep ascent from Aficho to Arogé, and advance firing against the enemy. Against the Sniders of the British infantry, what was the use of smooth-bore muzzle-loaders and undisciplined valour? The brave chief Gabriyé—Theodore's Fitaurari or Quartermaster-General—after doing all that man could do to encourage his followers, was shot down, and many other chiefs with him. Finding it impossible to get near their enemy, the Abyssinians after a time lost heart and turned to flee. Those who had gone down into the Dam-Wanz ravine were hemmed in there between the Punjab Pioneers and baggage guard in their front,[489] and some companies of the 4th, whom Sir Charles Staveley had sent against their left flank, and mown down with terrible slaughter. As the fugitives retreated up the hill-side, the Naval Brigade advanced, and sent rockets among them with destructive effect. Evening closed in; Theodore, who had watched the action from the top of Fâla, knew that his army was destroyed and his power at an end; the British army seeing its task well-nigh accomplished, but full of anxiety for the fate of the captives, bivouacked that night on the slopes of Aficho and Arogé. The loss of the Abyssinians in this action was estimated at between 700 and 800 killed, and 1,500 wounded. On the English side twenty men were wounded, two mortally.

DEATH OF THE EMPEROR THEODORE. (See p. 491.)

Theodore, clearly perceiving all further resistance[490] to be vain, now desired to come to terms with the British general. Early on the morning of April 11th he sent down from Selassyé, where he had passed the night, two of the captives, Lieutenant Prideaux and Mr. Flad, to bear his proposals to the British camp. They were instructed to say that the King now desired to be reconciled with the British. The delight and enthusiasm caused by the presence of Lieutenant Prideaux in the camp may be easily imagined. But the "reconciliation" sought by the King, which would have left him seated on his throne, could not, it was thought, be granted. As far as Britain was concerned, if the captives were all given up, her honour was satisfied, her aims were fulfilled, and her troops might be at once withdrawn. But it was considered by the Commander-in-Chief that the British had been welcomed in their country by the Abyssinians, and that the various chiefs had abstained from impeding or molesting the march, on the tacit but clearly implied understanding that Theodore's power was to be destroyed, and that he was to be a king in Abyssinia no longer. No terms, therefore, could be granted which did not involve his absolute submission and deposition from the throne, and a letter to that effect was conveyed to him, which he haughtily returned, together with a cartel of defiance. After a frustrated attempt at suicide, the King held a council of war, and asked the opinions of the bravest and most influential of the surviving chiefs. Most of them gave counsel, like the soldiers on board St. Paul's vessel, "to kill the prisoners, lest they should escape," and then to fight to the last. It is to the credit of Theodore that he resisted this counsel. Doubtless he thought that their release might be the means of relieving him from further demands, but friendly feeling towards Mr. Rassam, and even towards his poor artisans, had probably much to do with his decision. About four o'clock in the afternoon (Saturday, April 11th) the King sent the Governor of Magdala to Mr. Rassam and the other Europeans with the following message: "Go at once to your people; you can send for your property to-morrow." The prisoners made haste to depart, and descended the steep path from Magdala to the saddle of Islamgyé, and thence to Selassyé, where the King still was. Here Mr. Rassam had a final interview with him. Theodore acknowledged that he had behaved ill to the envoy, but said that it was through the conduct of bad men.

Early on the following morning (Easter Sunday, April 12th) Theodore sent down a letter to Sir Robert Napier, the object of which was to do away with the effect of the defiant letter of the previous day, and to request the acceptance of a present of cows. According to Abyssinian ideas, the acceptance of a present would mean that the receiver was satisfied and granted peace to the giver. This letter on reaching the camp was translated by the bearer from the Amharic into Arabic and from Arabic by Mr. Rassam into English. Sir Robert Napier afterwards declared that he authorised no answer to be given that could have led Theodore to believe that he accepted one jot less than the terms of his first demand; and he ordered a letter to be prepared (which, however, was never sent), accepting the cows provisionally, upon the understanding that Theodore would surrender himself as well as all the Europeans. At the time, he verbally authorised Mr. Rassam—or the latter so understood him—to accept the present of cows. Theodore, upon hearing that his gift had not been spurned, was overjoyed. He believed that life and honour were now safe and that the victorious general would not require of him the intolerable humiliation of a personal surrender. He sent down the present, consisting of 1,000 cows and 500 sheep, being all the live stock that he had in his possession; and in the course of the afternoon he sent down all the remaining Europeans and half-castes, fifty-seven in number, with their baggage, to the British camp.

But on that Sunday evening Theodore was informed by the chief whom he had sent down with the cattle, that the cows had been stopped at the first picket and had not been admitted into the camp. He saw at once that he had been misled and that the British commander intended to abate nothing from the original terms. At[491] dawn the next morning (Easter Monday, April 13th), he called on the warriors who loved him to take nothing but their arms and follow him; the time had come, he said, to seek another home. Followed by four chiefs and a few soldiers, he went up into Magdala, passed through it and out at the other side through the gate leading to the saddle that communicated with the Tanta plateau. But after having gone a little way, his men refused to follow him, and he returned with them into Magdala, and thence went down again to Islamgyé. Meanwhile information had reached the British camp that Theodore had fled from Magdala. The troops were immediately put in motion, while a notice was sent among the Gallas offering a reward for the King's capture. The two brigades scaled the steep ascent of the saddle connecting Fâla with Selassyé, meeting with no opposition whatever. The British regiments slowly advanced until they reached the nearer end of the saddle of Islamgyé. Here they found the greater number of Theodore's guns with their ammunition. A number of chiefs, richly dressed, were seen at the farther end of Islamgyé, galloping wildly about and occasionally firing off their rifles. These in a short time were seen to ascend the steep path leading up into Magdala, pass through the gate called the Koket Bir, and close it after them. About this time authentic information reached the general that Theodore had not escaped, but was still in Magdala. He was one among those who had been just seen to ascend from Islamgyé into the fortress. Sir Robert Napier thought it necessary, in these circumstances, to cannonade Magdala with all the artillery at his disposal. Theodore, and the few followers who remained faithful to him, upon entering the place at the Koket Bir, closed the gate and blocked it up with large stones. This gate stood some distance below the edge of the plateau, at the very brink of which was a second gate. On the rocks, between the two gates, attended by a faithful few, Theodore sat and watched the practice of the English guns. The shells burst all around him; his faithful Minister Ras Engeda and his brother were killed by the same shell.

At 4 P.M. a storming party—consisting of the 33rd Regiment led by Major Cooper, the 10th Company of Royal Engineers, and a company of Madras Sappers—was ordered to attack the Koket Bir. The long line of red-coats wound up the steep pathway, keeping up a hot fire on the hedge and gate above them. A feeble dropping fire was the only reply. For when the bombardment became too hot, nearly all Theodore's followers consulted their safety and fled, taking refuge in the huts on Magdala. The King, and about ten persons who still adhered to him, went down into the Koket Bir when the soldiers commenced to climb the steep, and fired upon them through some rudely constructed loop-holes. Seven men were wounded by this fire. When the soldiers reached the gate, it was found impossible to force it, owing to the large stones with which it had been blocked up; but, after a short delay, a way was made through the hedge on each side of the gate, and the 33rd thus got within the place, removed the stones, and opened the doors to admit the rest of the storming party. The King, meanwhile, had retired up the hill and passed within the second gate. Of his ten companions, six were wounded, more or less seriously. Here he dismissed all his surviving followers, except his faithful valet Walda Gabir, telling them to leave him and save their own lives. "Flee," he said, "I release you from your allegiance; as for me, I shall never fall into the hands of the enemy." As soon as they were gone, he turned to Walda Gabir, and said, "It is finished! Sooner than fall into their hands, I will kill myself." He put a pistol into his mouth, fired it, and fell dead; the ball passing through the roof of the mouth and out at the back of the head.

So ended the career of a man who, if he had inherited a purer and more practical Christianity, and learned to control his passions, might have raised his country's name from obscurity, spread the influences of religion and civilisation through Eastern Africa, and lived in history as one of the benefactors of mankind. Wrath and sensuality were his ruin.

The rest may be briefly told. The huts on Magdala were burnt by order of the British general, and this outpost of Christianity fell again into the hands of the ferocious Gallas. North of the river Beshilo, Sir Robert recognised the authority of the Wakshum Gobazye. Theodore's Queen, Terunesh, and her little boy, Alamayahu, were among the inhabitants of Magdala at the time of its capture, and were consigned to the care of Mr. Rassam. The Queen said that it had been Theodore's last wish that his son should be taken charge of by the British; and this wish was complied with. The boy, who was about ten years old at this time, was placed in charge of the Rev. Dr. Jex Blake, then Principal of Cheltenham College. The unfortunate youth died in 1879. The Queen herself wished to return to her native province, Semyen; but on the way down she died, and was[492] buried at Chelicut near Antalo. The British army commenced its return march on the 18th of April. The arrangements for the march to the coast and the embarkation were made with great judgment and forethought, and the last man of the expedition had left Annesley Bay before the end of June. The landing-piers, wells, roads, and whatever plant had been left behind as not worth removal, came into the possession of the Egyptians, and Abyssinia was sealed up again from intercourse with the outer world, as before the expedition.

Honours were lavished freely on the chief officers in command of the expedition. Sir Robert Napier received the Grand Cross of the Bath and a pension, and was made a peer with the title of Lord Napier of Magdala. General Merewether was made an extra Knight Commander of the Star of India. In moving that the thanks of the House of Commons be given to Sir Robert Napier and his army, Mr. Disraeli, after an eloquent enumeration of the obstacles which they had surmounted, said that that had been accomplished which not one of them ten years ago could have fancied even in his dreams, and they had seen "the standard of St. George hoisted upon the mountains of Rasselas."

Meanwhile Europe was disturbed by those admonitory gusts which portend a coming storm. In France the year passed over uneventfully, but there were many indications of growing discontent. Rochefort began to write in the Lanterne his withering satires against the Imperial Government; and at a public distribution of prizes at the Sorbonne, the son of Marshal Cavaignac, encouraged by his mother and by the sympathy of his fellow-students, refused to receive his prize from the hands of the Prince Imperial. The continual progress of Russia in Central Asia, silent mostly and unmarked, like the rising tide, arrested this year the attention of all Europe, when the news arrived that Samarcand, the ancient capital of Turkestan, and the favourite residence of Timour, had fallen before the arms of General Kaufmann. The Ameer of Bokhara was defeated in several engagements; and Bokhara itself was taken by the Russians, but not permanently occupied, and thenceforward the Cossack advance towards India seriously affected British foreign policy. The Cretan insurrection—which broke out in the summer of 1866, and in which the insurgents, aided by the continual influx of volunteers and supplies from Greece, had resisted for two years and a half the utmost efforts of the Turkish monarchy for its suppression—came to an end at the close of 1868, through the sheer exhaustion of the islanders. To Turkey also the situation of things had become intolerable, and the Turkish Minister at Athens delivered an ultimatum to the Greek Government on the 10th of December, demanding the dispersion within five days of the volunteers enlisted for the Cretan insurgents, and a pledge that no more should be permitted to be enrolled; and requiring Greece to act for the future in conformity with existing treaties. Greece refused the ultimatum, and diplomatic relations were broken off between her and Turkey. The Great Powers interposed, and it was arranged that a conference should be held at Paris early in 1869 to treat of the relations between Turkey and Greece. At this conference, which met on the 9th of January, the discussion lasted over ten days. It was finally decided that Greece should abstain for the future from favouring or tolerating within its territory the formation of bands destined to act against Turkey; and should also take the necessary measures to prevent the equipment in its ports of vessels destined to aid or comfort, in whatever manner, insurrection within the dominions of the Sultan. In Spain, the Bourbon sovereign Isabella, driven from the throne this year by a successful revolution, was compelled to seek as an exile and a suppliant the land that had nursed her ancestors, thanks to the arbitrary régime of her Ministers. A Provisional Government, with Marshal Serrano for President and Prim for Commander-in-Chief, was established. Except that they were not Republicans, the new rulers of Spain proceeded to adopt measures of the usual revolutionary hue. The absolute liberty of the press was decreed; and universal toleration was proclaimed, except for the Jesuits, whose colleges and institutions were ordered to be closed within three days in Spain and the Spanish colonies, the Order itself being suppressed and its property sequestrated to the State. The Republican party was dissatisfied and rose in arms at Cadiz in December. General Caballero di Roda marched against them and persuaded them to submit to the Government. The disintegrating tendency was checked for the moment, only to reappear afterwards in a more virulent form. The general sentiment of the Spanish people was in favour of monarchy, but no monarch could for a long time be found and the search was to involve Europe in short but destructive war.

[493]

ST PATRICK'S CATHEDRAL, DUBLIN. (From a Photograph by W. Lawrence.)

## CHAPTER XXX.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

> England in 1869—The Irish Church Difficulty—The Bishops in Debate—The Queen's Speech—Mr. Gladstone unfolds his Scheme—Provisions relating to Persons and Property—Private Endowments—Churches and Glebe-Houses—Conversion of the Church Property into Money—Disposal of the Surplus—The Maynooth Grant and the Regium Donum—Mr. Gladstone's Peroration—Debate on the Second Reading—A Bumper Majority—The Bill passes through the House of Commons—Lord Redesdale and the Coronation Oath—The Opposition in the Lords—Dr. Magee's Speech—Amendments in Committee—Concurrent Endowment—Mr. Gladstone rejects the Lords' Amendments—Lord Salisbury's Vigour of Language—Danger of a Collision between the Houses—The Queen and Archbishop Tait—Conference between Lord Cairns and Lord Granville—Their Compromise—Its Terms accepted by Mr. Gladstone—The Bill becomes Law—Its Neutral Results.

THE condition of the British empire at the beginning of 1869 was externally far from unsatisfactory. The successful and complete accomplishment of the objects for which the Abyssinian expedition had been undertaken was considered to reflect credit on the military administration; the state of Ireland was so much improved that the renewal of the Act suspending the Habeas Corpus in that country was deemed no longer necessary; above all, trade and finance were beginning to show signs of substantial recovery from the effects of the collapse of 1866, and to hold forth the promise of a new and vigorous expansion. With regard to the new Ministry which the deliberate preference of a large majority of the constituencies had just installed in power, confidence in Mr. Gladstone, and in his power to deal adequately with the great question of the day, was widely felt and freely expressed. Yet the difficulty of carrying a just and adequate measure of disestablishment, which should carefully unravel the thousand threads that in the course of three centuries had variously linked the ecclesiastical with the civil establishment of Ireland—a measure that should satisfy[494] the just claims of individuals, and wisely dispose of the portion of the expropriated property not required for the purposes of compensation—was felt to be so great that few expected it to be overcome in the present Session. A succession of contests—a slow and painful adjustment—the attainment of a practical equilibrium after many trials, spread over two or three years—such seemed to be the prospect before the country. That the result was different and that this great work of demolition was accomplished in a single Session, was due to the thoroughness with which Mr. Gladstone laboured at the preparation of the necessary measure and to his genius for the perfecting of details.

There was considerable doubt as to the course that would be adopted by the Bishops. Wilberforce early made up his mind that some sort of surrender was inevitable and, as soon as the election returns left no doubt as to the country's answer to Mr. Gladstone's appeal, wrote to the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Trench—"The time seems now absolutely come, of which we have so often spoken, when you and we should consider whether any and what compromise is possible." The Primate, however, looked rather to a defeat of the Bill in Committee owing to a defection among Mr. Gladstone's following, when he considered that the Prime Minister, to get out of his difficulties, would offer terms that might be accepted. The Bishop of Oxford in a semi-public letter pointed out that such resistance would only aggravate the situation, and that disestablishment might be considered a matter determined. "Some believe that the measure may be resisted a little shorter, some a little longer time, but all are secretly convinced, or are ready openly to avow their opinion, that it is a question practically settled. Wholly unprincipled men like Disraeli are content to use religion, as they would use any other precious thing, as an instrument of obtaining ever so short a tenure of place at the cost of ever so entire a sacrifice of what they so use." He thought, however, that a stand might be made on the question of disendowment and that the following claims must be advanced: (1) entire freedom from State interference, (2) that the Irish Church should be constituted a corporation capable of self-government and of holding property, (3) that the satisfaction-money for vested interests should be in a common fund under common management. This middle course, embodied by Bishop Wilberforce in a pamphlet in the form of a letter to Lord Lyttelton, which, however, he was dissuaded from publishing, was by no means favoured by the Episcopal majority. Indeed, after two private debates, on the 10th of February and the 6th of May, they separated without coming to any conclusion. Though the accuracy of his notes on these discussions, which are reproduced in the third volume of his biography, was afterwards disputed, it is clear that many agreed with the Bishop of Rochester, who abruptly remarked, "I think the Bill iniquitous, and that it ought not to pass."

The formal business involved in the opening of a new Parliament had been despatched in the month of December, 1868. On the 16th of February, 1869, the real Session began. On this unique occasion, the like of which had not occurred since the assembling of the first Parliament elected after the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832, it might have been expected that the Queen would be present and deliver the Royal Speech; that duty, however, was, as on so many previous occasions, discharged by the Lord Chancellor. Mr. Gladstone afterwards explained that it had been her Majesty's earnest wish to meet her Parliament, but that her health, impaired by the severe nervous headaches to which her Majesty was subject, was found unequal to the effort; should, however, the House agree to the Address, her Majesty was desirous of coming to London and receiving it in person from both Houses of Parliament. This proposal was warmly received on both sides of the House; but the serious illness of the youngest son of her Majesty, Prince Leopold, occurring just about this time, prevented the execution of the design. In the Royal Speech, after allusion had been made to the settlement lately effected in the Conference at Paris of the rupture between Greece and Turkey, and to some insignificant disturbances that had broken out in New Zealand, the great legislative project of the year was thus vaguely shadowed forth:—"The ecclesiastical arrangements of Ireland will be brought under your consideration at a very early date, and the legislation which will be necessary in order to their final adjustment will make the largest demands upon the wisdom of Parliament." The Address was agreed to in both Houses without difficulty, Lord Cairns observing that he could not go into the subject of the Irish Church without more light than was afforded by the "rather fortuitous collocation of nouns and adjectives in which the Speech alluded to it." In the Commons Mr. Gladstone, the new Premier, lost no time in giving notice that, on the 1st of March, he should move that the Acts relating to the Irish Church[495] Establishment and the grant to Maynooth College, and also the Resolutions of the House of Commons in 1868, be read; and that the House should then resolve itself into a committee to consider of the said Acts and Resolutions.

The appointed day arrived, and Mr. Gladstone, after causing the Clerk to read the titles of the Acts and the Commons' Resolutions of 1868, proceeded, in a speech of three hours' duration, to unfold to a crowded and expectant House the particulars of the scheme by which he proposed to redeem the pledge of disestablishing the Church of Ireland which he had induced the House to take in the preceding year. So perfect a mastery of all the details of a very complicated measure, joined to so rare a gift for marshalling and harmonising his matter, was perhaps never before found in an English statesman. There were facts to be told, explanatory narratives to be given, reasons to be unfolded, objections to be met, changes to be proposed, and arrangements necessitated by those changes to be precisely defined, as to times, places, and persons; and all these various requirements were to be satisfied in a single speech, and in such a manner that the thread of the exposition should never be broken, nor the interest of the hearer suffered to flag. All this was accomplished by Mr. Gladstone in this memorable speech.

Certain dates were first of all named, by keeping which in memory it became more easy to grasp the general bearing of the scheme. On the 1st of January, 1871 (this, however, was a date which the speaker did not regard as unalterable), the disestablishment of the Irish Church was to take legal effect. At that date the union between the Churches of England and Ireland would be dissolved, all ecclesiastical corporations would be abolished, the ecclesiastical courts would be closed, and the ecclesiastical laws would no longer be binding as laws, although they would still be understood to exist as part of the terms of a voluntary contract subsisting between clergy and laity till they were altered by the governing body of the disestablished Church. Secondly, from the date of the passing of the Act, the Irish Ecclesiastical Commission would cease and determine, and would be replaced by a temporary Commission, appointed for ten years, in which the property of the Irish Church would immediately vest. Thirdly, after a date which it was impossible exactly to define, but which would give time for the complete execution of all those complicated arrangements to which the satisfaction of vested interests under the Act would lead, the residue of the funds of the disendowed Church would be available for employment in such manners and on such objects as should be specified in a later portion of his statement.

From this point, since we cannot follow Mr. Gladstone into the extended exposition of every portion of his plan with which he favoured the House, we propose to describe the contents of the Bill on a different principle, and to consider the leading features of the scheme—(1) in its application to persons; (2) in its application to property.

The persons to whom the provisions of the new measure were to be primarily applied, who from the official clergy of a State Church were to be converted into the ministers of a voluntary association, were these following—two archbishops, ten bishops, and about 2,380 parochial clergy and curates. Before considering and guarding the rights of these persons, it was necessary to provide for the case of those who should, by nomination or election, be added to their number, in the interval between the passing of the Act and the date fixed for the legal disestablishment of the Church. It was provided that during this transition period the patronage exercised in favour of such persons should confer no freehold, and create for them no vested rights of any kind. In the case of episcopal vacancies, the Crown would still appoint, but only at the prayer of the bishops of the province in which the vacancy occurred for the consecration of an individual to be named by them. These interim appointments would carry with them no vested interest and no rights of peerage. With regard to the existing prelates and clergy, the former, as has been already stated, would lose their right to seats in the House of Lords from the date of the legal disestablishment. Before the 1st of January, 1871, the clergy and laity of the Church were invited to meet together and re-organise the institution on a voluntary basis, appointing at the same time a "governing body," through which it might communicate with the Government of the day by the intervention of the Ecclesiastical Commission nominated in the Act. The Irish Convocation had not met, Mr. Gladstone said, for a period of fully a century and a half, if not of two centuries; and not only were there great technical difficulties in the way of its revival, but there also existed a special statute called the Convention Act, certain clauses of which rendered it doubtful whether the Convocation could be legally convoked at all. One of the earliest enactments in the Bill was, accordingly,[496] the repeal of the Convention Act, so far as it affected the Irish Church, and the removal of all disabilities of whatever kind that might hinder the clergy and laity from meeting in synod and reorganising the Church as a voluntary society. The Government would take no power for the Crown to interfere in the election of the governing body, but would merely require that it should be truly representative, as resulting from the joint action of bishops, clergy, and laity. The governing body so appointed would be recognised by the Government, and it would become incorporated under the present Act.

When the 1st of January, 1871, the date fixed for disestablishment, had arrived, the provisions of the Act for satisfying the vested interests, not only of the Protestant clergy, but also of the students and professors of Maynooth, and of the ministers of the Presbyterian Church, would begin to take effect. What is a vested interest? Mr. Gladstone defined it thus, after stating that the "expectation of promotion" could not possibly be comprehended in the definition:—"The vested interest of the incumbent [whether of a see or a benefice] is this—it is a title to receive a certain net income from the property of the Church, in consideration of the discharge of certain duties, to which he is bound as the equivalent he gives for that income and subject to the laws by which he and the religious body to which he belongs are bound." In the possession of such net income, subject only to deductions for the curates whom he might have permanently employed, every incumbent was secured by the Act for the term of his natural life, so long as he continued to discharge the equivalent duties. He might, however, if he chose, commute his right to receive his net income annually from the State for a capital sum to be calculated at a rate of interest of three and a half per cent. This commutation could only be made upon the application of the incumbent, and the sum of money would then be paid to the Church body, "subject to the legal trust of discharging the obligation or covenant which we had ourselves to discharge to the incumbent—namely, to give him the annuity in full so long as he discharged the duties." This commutation would be voluntary; but as it would be greatly to the interest of the State to relieve itself as quickly as possible from the task of maintaining relations of payment with the individual clergymen, the scale on which it was computed would be a liberal one; and Mr. Gladstone hoped that it would be very largely resorted to. The various incidents of the freehold tenure on which the existing incumbents now held their benefices or lands would be allowed to subsist during their lifetime, with two exceptions. The Tithe Rent charge (which, for various important reasons, it was desirable to have the power of dealing with immediately after disestablishment) would, from the date of the passing of the Act, vest in the new Commissioners without any intervening life-interest, the faith of Parliament being, of course, pledged to the payment of the whole proceeds that the clergymen could derive from it. The other exception related to ruined churches, the freehold of which might be in the incumbent; in these cases it would be taken from him and vested in the Irish Board of Works, with an allocation of funds necessary to preserve the churches from desecration or further injury. The vested interest of all incumbents, whether bishops or presbyters, was thus provided for. With regard to curates, Mr. Gladstone distinguished between those who were permanently and those who were temporarily employed. The Act left it to the Commissioners to determine in each case whether a curate applying for compensation had really been in permanent employment, stipulating only that, in order to be entitled to that character, he should have been employed on the 1st of January, 1869; and that he should continue to be so employed on the 1st of January 1871; or that, if he had ceased to be so employed, the cessation should be due to some cause other than his own free choice or misconduct. Such curates were to be held entitled to receive their stipends for life or to commute them, exactly on the same principles as the Act applied to incumbents. Curates of the transitory class were to be compensated by simple gratuities, on the principle recognised in the Civil Service Superannuation Acts.

We now proceed to the consideration of the manner in which the Act proposed to deal with the property of the Irish Church. The annual value of that property, roughly stated, came to about £670,000, and was derived from the following sources of income:—

Income of Ecclesiastical Commissioners | £93,950
Revenues of Episcopal Sees | 85,879
Tithe Rent charge | 404,660
Glebe and Chapter lands let to Tenants | 80,812
Other sources | 5,199
| ————
| £670,500

To this must be added the annual value of glebelands farmed by incumbents, which was not, however, very considerable.

An important and difficult question immediately[497] presented itself, to the solution of which Mr. Gladstone devoted all his powers of analysis and all his resources of expression. It was this: among the various endowments enjoyed by the Irish Church, which of them were of a public nature, and had accrued to it as the representative of the ancient endowed Church of the country? which of them were, on the other hand, of a private nature, and were made with the full knowledge and intention of the donors that they were assisting by their benefactions the Protestant Episcopal Church of Ireland, bound by such and such Articles, and using such and such a liturgy? In the adjustment of so complicated a matter mathematical accuracy was out of the question; but Mr. Gladstone considered that substantial justice would be done by fixing a date, all endowments anterior to which should be deemed public, and those posterior to it private. This date he proposed to fix at the epoch of the Restoration, 1660, on the ground that the Irish Establishment did not attain its regular organisation and definite Protestant character much before that date. On the whole, he thought that the value of the private endowments, so limited, did not exceed half a million sterling; and this sum the Act awarded in compensation for them to the disestablished Church.

ARCHBISHOP TRENCH.

(From a Photograph by Elliott and Fry.)

By drawing the line at the year 1660, Mr. Gladstone excluded from the category of private endowments the grants of land in Ulster, which James I., after having planted large numbers of his Scottish countrymen in the room of the exterminated native proprietors, assigned to the dominant Church. These lands were commonly known as the Ulster glebes. A strenuous effort was made in the House of Lords to effect their retention for the Church, on the ground that they partook rather of the nature of private than of public benefactions. But Mr. Gladstone stood firm, and refused to allow these royal grants,[498] the original motive for which was unquestionably in large measure political, to be treated differently from the general mass of the Church property.

An important item of the material belongings of the Establishment, yet one that could not easily be made to enter into any financial estimate, consisted in the churches themselves. As to these, the Act provided that, wherever the "governing body" made an application, accompanied by a declaration that they meant either to maintain the church for public worship, or to remove it to some more convenient position, it would be handed over to them. In the case of St. Patrick's Cathedral, and about a dozen other churches partaking of the character of national monuments, the Commissioners were empowered to allot a moderate sum for their maintenance. Churches not in use, or in ruins, were to be handed over to the custody of the Board of Works.

With regard to glebe-houses, Mr. Gladstone announced that he had changed the opinion that he had expressed in the preceding year. Then he was inclined to consider them as "marketable property," like lands or tithes, and as such to withhold them from the disestablished Church, and allow only a life interest in them to their present possessors. But having investigated the matter more closely, and discovered that although an expenditure of £1,200,000 upon them could be distinctly traced, their annual value could not be rated above £18,600, while there was a quarter of a million of building charges upon them, which the State would have to pay on coming into possession, he had come to the conclusion that the glebe-houses were not, in the strict sense of the words, "marketable property." The Act therefore proposed to hand over the glebe-houses to the Church body, on their paying the building charges; and they would also be allowed to purchase a certain amount of glebe-land round the houses at a fair valuation. The burial-grounds adjacent to churches went with the churches; all burial-grounds were to be reserved: and other existing rights to be handed over to the Poor Law Guardians.

The scheme being thus far developed, the aspect of affairs at the end of two years promised to be this—the churches and glebe-houses, together with strips of land around the latter, would then be the permanent property of the disestablished Church, while the tithes and Church lands, subject to various life-interests, would be vested in the State through its organ the "Commissioners of Irish Church Temporalities." But that the State should long retain all this mass of real property in its own hands was most undesirable. Mr. Gladstone therefore propounded an elaborate scheme for the final extinction of the tithe rent charge within forty-five years, and for the conversion of the lands into money. Landlords would be allowed, if they chose, to purchase the rent charge, so far as it affected their own properties, at twenty-two and a half years' purchase paid down; but if they declined to avail themselves of this option, power was taken for disposing of it to them by a compulsory sale, at a rate which would yield 41⁄2 per cent. interest, they being at the same time credited with a loan at 31⁄2, payable in instalments in forty-five years. Thus, if a landlord's property were burdened with the tithe rent charge to the extent of £90 a year, the State would compel him to buy it out and out for the sum of £2,000; which sum, however, he would not have to pay immediately, but only by instalments coming in the shape of an annual rent of £70, and terminating at the end of forty-five years. How greatly the landlords were gainers by this transaction is obvious. With regard to the Church lands, the tenants on them were to have a right of pre-emption, and three-fourths of the purchase money might be left on the security of the land; one way or other, they were to be converted into money with all practicable despatch.

When by these sales the property of the Irish Church should all have been realised, and its affairs wound up, Mr. Gladstone calculated that the balance sheet would stand as follows. The Tithe rent charge would have yielded £9,000,000; the lands and perpetuity rents would have been sold for about £6,250,000; these sums, together with a balance of £750,000 in money, would make a grand total of £16,000,000. Of this, the Bill would dispose of £7,350,000—viz.: Vested interests of incumbents, £4,900,000; ditto of curates, £800,000; lay compensation, £900,000; private endowments, £500,000; building charges, £250,000. To these would have to be added the sums required for the commutation of the Regium Donum and the Maynooth Grant, the particulars of which will be given presently, amounting to £1,100,000; and finally the expenses of the Commission, £200,000. Consequently there would remain, after the satisfaction of all claims, a surplus of between £7,000,000 and £8,000,000. After discussing various suggestions for the disposal of this surplus, and giving his reasons for[499] not devoting any part of it to the endowment of any religious body or institution, Mr. Gladstone stated that, in the opinion of Government, it would be most fitly and profitably applied to the relief of "unavoidable calamities and suffering," not provided for by the Poor Law. Assuming that the surplus fund would produce an annual return of about £311,000 a year, the Act would allot £185,000 of this revenue to lunatic asylums, £20,000 to idiot asylums, £30,000 to institutions for the harbouring and training of the blind, and of deaf mutes, £15,000 to training-schools for nurses, £10,000 to reformatories, and £51,000 to county infirmaries; thus disposing of the whole revenue.

The arrangements for the extinction of the Regium Donum and the Maynooth Grant have still to be considered. The sum to be dealt with amounted to about £70,000, of which £26,000 was the Maynooth Grant, and the remainder was distributed among the various denominations of Presbyterians. The expectation of life among the clergy being known to be between thirteen and fourteen years, Mr. Gladstone had fixed fourteen years' purchase as the basis of commutation in the case of the incumbents of the Irish Church, and he now adopted the same scale for the Presbyterian Churches and for Maynooth. A sum amounting to fourteen times the annual grant in each case was to be set aside out of the Irish Church Fund, and devoted to the satisfaction of life-interests, or to their commutation, on conditions substantially agreeing with those already explained in the case of the Establishment. About £1,100,000 would be required for the purpose, two-thirds of which would go to the Presbyterians.

At the conclusion of his speech, Mr. Gladstone invited criticisms and suggestions as to the details of the Bill, which it was the desire of its framers to render as little harsh and onerous as possible, consistently with the complete and final execution of the task which they had undertaken. "I trust, Sir," he said, "that although its operation be stringent, and although we have not thought it either politic or allowable to attempt to diminish its stringency by making it incomplete, the spirit towards the Church of Ireland, as a religious communion, in which this measure has been considered and prepared by my colleagues and myself has not been a spirit of unkindness. Perhaps at this time it would be too much to expect to obtain full credit for any declaration of that kind. We are undoubtedly asking an educated, highly respected, and generally pious and zealous body of clergymen to undergo a great transition; we are asking a powerful and intelligent minority of the laity in Ireland, in connection with the Established Church, to abate a great part of the exceptional privileges they have enjoyed; but I do not feel that in making this demand upon them we are seeking to inflict an injury. I do not believe they are exclusively or even mainly responsible for the errors of English policy towards Ireland; I am quite certain that in many vital respects they have suffered by it; I believe that the free air they will breathe under a system of equality and justice, giving scope for the development of their great energies, with all the powers of property and intelligence they will bring to bear, will make that Ireland which they love a country for them not less enviable and not less beloved in the future than it has been in the past. As respects the Church, I admit it is a case almost without exception. I don't know in what country so great a change, so great a transition has been proposed for the ministers of a religious communion who have enjoyed for many ages the preferred position of an Established Church. I can well understand that to many in the Irish Establishment such a change appears to be nothing less than ruin and destruction; from the height on which they now stand the future is to them an abyss, and their fears recall the words used in King Lear when Edgar endeavours to persuade Gloster that he has fallen over the cliffs of Dover, and says:—

'Ten masts at each make not the altitude
Which thou hast perpendicularly fell;
Thy life's a miracle!'

And yet but a little while after the old man is relieved from his delusion, and finds he has not fallen at all. So I trust that when, instead of the fictitious and adventitious aid on which we have too long taught the Irish Establishment to lean, it should come to place its trust in its own resources, in its own great mission, in all that it can draw from the energy of its ministers and its members, and the high hopes and promises of the Gospel that it teaches, it will find that it has entered on a new era—an era bright with hope and potent for good.... This measure is in every sense a great measure—great in its principles, great in the multitude of its dry, technical, but interesting details, and great as a testing measure; for it will show for one and all of us of what metal we are made. Upon us all it brings a great responsibility. We upon this bench are especially chargeable—nay, deeply guilty—if we have either dishonestly or even[500] prematurely or unwisely challenged so gigantic an issue. I know well the punishments that follow rashness in public affairs, and that ought to fall upon those men, those Phaetons of politics, who, with hands unequal to the task, attempt to guide the chariot of the sun. But the responsibility passes beyond us, and rests on every man who has to take part in the discussion and decision on this Bill. Every man approaches the discussion under the most solemn obligations to raise the level of his vision and expand its scope in proportion with the greatness of the matter in hand. The working of our constitutional government itself is upon its trial, for I do not believe there ever was a time when the wheels of legislative machinery were set in motion under conditions of peace and order and constitutional regularity to deal with a question greater or more profound. And more especially, Sir, is the credit and fame of this great assembly involved. This assembly, which has inherited through many ages the accumulated honours of brilliant triumphs, of peaceful but courageous legislation, is now called upon to address itself to a task which would indeed have demanded all the best energies of the very best among your fathers and your ancestors. I believe it will prove to be worthy of the task." The right honourable gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.

The leader of the Opposition, Mr. Disraeli, said that his own opinion, and that of his party, remained unaltered; they thought disestablishment was a political blunder, and disendowment a legalised robbery; but as the sense of the country had been clearly expressed in favour of dealing with the question, he should not object to the introduction of the Bill, but should offer it a determined opposition on the second reading. The Bill was then introduced, and read a first time, and the 18th of March was fixed for the second reading. On that day Mr. Disraeli moved in the usual form that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. In his speech there was little that was remarkable except where he protested against the confiscation of the Church property on the ground that it would probably end in the sole benefit of the landlords. He ridiculed in particular the project for the extinction of the tithe rent charge, predicting that the end of the whole operation would be that the property of the Church would go into the pockets of the landlords; and the consequence of these sacrilegious proceedings must be such deep discontent that either there must be restitution, or the same principles must be applied to the English Church,—and this, he declared, Mr. Gladstone by his language clearly contemplated. Experience of the absorption of commons and forests by the large landowners justified, it must be owned, a jealous and rigorous examination of this part of the measure; which on the very face of it, as above explained, made a present to the landlords of full twenty-two per cent. of the tithe rent charge to which their properties were previously liable. Mr. Bright made a telling speech in favour of the measure; and the same may be said of Mr. Lowe. On the other side, Sir Roundell Palmer, who had braved the loss, or, to speak more correctly, the postponement of high professional promotion, because he could not go with Mr. Gladstone on this question, disputed the doctrine that the State had the power absolutely to strip the Church of its property, though he admitted its right to restrict or reapportion it. Mr. Gathorne Hardy, who, among the abler opponents of the Bill, was perhaps the only one who spoke with absolute and entire conviction, delivered a bold and trenchant philippic, based on the old dicta of the superiority of the Protestant religion, and the right and duty of England to govern Ireland, not according to the wishes of the Irish, but upon principles approved by the majority of Englishmen. After a four nights' debate, the House divided on the second reading, with the following—for Government—triumphant result: for the second reading, 368; against it, 250; majority, 118. With so compact a majority against them, in a very full House, it was useless for the Conservatives to attempt to make considerable alterations in the Bill in committee. Substantially unchanged it emerged from the ordeal of committee, and the third reading was carried by a majority of 114 votes.

[501]

WILLIAM EWART GLADSTONE.

FROM THE PAINTING BY SIR J. E. MILLAIS, BART., P.R.A., IN THE NATIONAL GALLERY.

When the Bill reached the House of Lords, it found a tribunal disposed to view it with unfriendly eyes, and to subject it to a searching criticism. A question put to Government by a noble lord before the Easter recess indicated the temper that largely prevailed in the Upper House. Lord Redesdale asked whether the Ministry intended to propose any alteration in the Coronation Oath, since according to the present form, as taken by her Majesty at her accession, the Sovereign undertook to maintain "to the utmost of his power," not merely the Church, but the Churches of his dominions in all their rights, the oath having been so modified at the date of the Union that the Sovereign thenceforward was obliged to swear to maintain the United Church in[502] the possession of all its rights and privileges. Lord Granville replied, on the part of Government, that he entered with reluctance into the line of inquiry started by the noble lord. He conceived, however, that the Coronation Oath was somewhat in the nature of a compact between Sovereign and people, and that if the people, through Parliament, expressed its wish and determination to modify the terms of the compact, the Sovereign was thereby constitutionally released from the obligation of observing it more strictly than the altered mind of Parliament desired. Legislation would be ridiculous, whether the principle of the noble lord or that adopted by the Government were preferred. If Government were right that the Sovereign was released by the voice of the people, as shown by the votes of Parliament, then the passing of a Bill in both Houses on the particular point in question, and its presentation to her Majesty for her assent, relieved her ipso facto from the obligations of the oath. But if, as the noble lord seemed to think, there were some abstract obligation on the Sovereign, something between her and her God, which no arrangement or compromise between her and her subjects could alter, it was clear that any Bill altering the oath would be utterly inefficacious.

DR. MAGEE, BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH, ADDRESSING THE HOUSE OF LORDS. (See p. 502.)

The chief brunt of the opposition to the Bill in the House of Lords fell on Lord Cairns. Warned, however, by the large majorities that had carried the Bill through every stage in the Commons, the party of resistance eventually renounced the idea of opposing the second reading, but indulged the hope that they would be able so to cut up and refashion the Bill in Committee, in the direction of granting more favourable terms to the Irish Church, that the disendowing clauses of the Act at any rate would become little more than nominal. Of course, there were many Tory lords who hoisted the flag of "No surrender" and would not yield an inch; nor could the Irish representative bishops be expected to be parties to their own political annihilation. An eloquent, and in every way remarkable, speech against the Bill was made by the Bishop of Peterborough (Dr. Magee), who had been recently translated to that see from an Irish deanery by the Government of Mr. Disraeli. The bishop probed the sores of Ireland deeply, and told Government that they would get no thanks from the Irish people unless they carried the expropriation of land much farther than the present Bill proposed to carry it. "How stands the case?" he argued. "At the time of the Rebellion, England confiscated large estates belonging to the Celtic rebels. On nine-tenths of those estates England planted laymen; on the remaining tenth she planted Anglican pastors. Now I ask this one question: Was the confiscation of the land of the rebels just or unjust? If it was unjust, then undo it all. If, in the name of justice, you are to trace back so far the roots of things in Irish history; if you are to make your resolutions in the sacred name of justice, then, in the name of that justice, give back to the descendants of those owners the confiscated estates that you took from them. But do not mock them—for it is mocking them—by telling them that Protestant ascendency is an evil thing. And then, how do you propose to deal with it? By telling them their land is divided into nine-tenths and one-tenth—the nine-tenths in the hands of the Protestant landlords, and the one-tenth in the hands of the Protestant clergy—and we propose to satisfy their demand for justice by ousting from the land the one proprietor, who is the most popular, most constantly resident, and least offensive, while you retain, in all the bitter injustice of their original tenure, the proprietors who are the most detested, and whose possessions they most covet. Do your lordships imagine that the Irish people will be satisfied with that? Do not forget that you have to deal with the most quick-witted people in Europe—people whose eyes are intently fixed on this question—and do you think that they will feel other than the most bitter disappointment when you tell them that you are about to tear down the hateful flag of Protestant ascendency, and they find that you only tear off a single corner of it—or about the fortieth part of the whole? The Irish peasant has already given his answer to your offer of pacification—your pacification consisting in refusing him the land which he does want, and giving him the destruction of the Church, which he does not—the Irish peasant writes his answer, and a terrible answer it is, in that dread handwriting which it needs no Daniel to interpret, and which so often makes English statesmen tremble; and in that answer he tells you that he will be satisfied with nothing else than the possession of the land—which I do the members of her Majesty's Government the justice to believe they have no intention to give."

After having laboured to prove that the Bill was unjust and impolitic, the Bishop denounced it with withering sarcasm as ungenerous. "What a magnanimous sight! The first thing that this magnanimous British nation does in the performance of this act of justice and penitence, is to put into her pocket the annual sum she has been[503] in the habit of paying to Maynooth and to compensate Maynooth out of the funds of the Irish Church. The Presbyterian members for Scotland, while joining in this exercise of magnanimity, forgot the horror of Popery which was so largely relied on, and so loudly expressed, at the last elections in Scotland. They have changed their mind, on the theory that a bribe to Popery is nothing if preceded by plunder of the Protestant Episcopacy. Putting two sins together, they make one good action. Throughout its provisions this Bill is characterised by a hard and niggardly spirit. I am surprised by the injustice and impolicy of the measure, but I am still more astonished at its intense shabbiness. It is a small and pitiful Bill. It is not worthy of a great nation. This great nation in its act of magnanimity and penitence has done the talking, but has put the sackcloth and ashes on the Irish Church, and made the fasting be performed by the poor vergers and organists."

The opponents of the measure were not sufficiently numerous to prevent the second reading, which was carried (June 19th) by a majority of 33, chiefly owing to a large number of abstentions. But now the real work of the adversaries of the Bill began. The Archbishop of Canterbury moved that the Ulster glebes be regarded in the light of private endowments, and made over to the disestablished Church; and this was carried. The same prelate moved that the preamble be altered by the insertion of 1872 as the legal date of disestablishment, instead of 1871. This amendment also was carried by a large majority. Lord Carnarvon moved and carried an amendment to the clause respecting the redemption of life annuities, giving considerably more favourable terms to the Church. Lord Salisbury proposed and carried an amendment, by which the delivery of the glebe-houses to the Church would be made free of the building charges resting upon them. On the motion of Lord Cairns, the House made an important alteration in the preamble of the Bill, wherein it was stated that no part of the surplus was to be devoted to religious or denominational purposes, but that it should be wholly applied to the relief of unavoidable calamities and infirmities. Lord Cairns moved, and successfully, that the whole question as to the disposal of the surplus should be reserved for the decision of a future Parliament. The question of the date was then again brought up, it being understood that the Irish clergy were themselves opposed to the postponement of the date of disestablishment as proposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. On the motion of Lord Cairns, the 1st of May, 1871, was finally agreed to.

The object and effect of all the amendments hitherto described was to secure for the Church, after disestablishment, a large portion of its property, in addition to the sums required for the satisfaction of life-interests. Many peers saw clearly that if passed in this way, the Bill, besides causing dissatisfaction among English Dissenters, would arouse feelings of disappointment and indignation among Irish Roman Catholics, who had been led to expect that the disendowment would be real and bonâ fide, no less than the disestablishment. Attempts were therefore made to keep the balance even by applying a portion of the surplus to the use and benefit of the Roman Catholic and Presbyterian Churches in Ireland. A proposal of the Duke of Cleveland tending in this direction was rejected; but just before the Bill was read a third time, Earl Stanhope moved and carried an amendment, authorising a certain measure of "concurrent endowment." By this amendment, the clause conveying the glebe-houses to the disestablished clergy received an enlarged scope, so that it should be in the power of the Commissioners to make provision for residences, in cases where they were wanting, for Roman Catholic priests and Presbyterian ministers, as well as for Protestant Episcopalian bishops and clergy. Government, bound by their election pledges to the Dissenters, strenuously opposed this amendment; Lord Granard also, professing to speak for his Catholic countrymen in Ireland, refused his consent to it. On the other hand, Lord Dunraven, a Catholic peer, supported it; and Earl Russell expressed an opinion in its favour, drily remarking, that he doubted whether there would be much feeling of religious equality in Ireland so long as the Protestant clergy were comfortably housed, and the Roman Catholic priests lived in hovels. Lord Stanhope's amendment was carried by a narrow majority, and the Bill was then read a third time and passed, a protest being first signed by Lord Derby and forty-three temporal and two spiritual peers. Lord Derby had previously denounced the Bill with the impressive solemnity of a dying man. "My lords," he said, "I am an old man, and, like many of your lordships, past the allotted span of three score years and ten. My official life is at an end, my political life is nearly closed, and in the course of nature my natural life cannot be long.... If it be for the last time that I have the honour of addressing your lordships, I declare that it will be[504] to my dying day a satisfaction that I have been able to lift up my voice against the adoption of a measure, the political impolicy of which is equalled only by its moral iniquity."

The Bill, as amended by the Lords, came back to the House of Commons; and it became the duty of Government to consider how far they could give way, in order not to imperil the safety of the Bill. In the main it was deemed impossible to accept the measure in the altered form in which it came from the hands of the Lords. Mr. Gladstone announced (July 15th) that he should propose to disagree from all the more important amendments, with the exception that, in the case of Lord Carnarvon's proposal, Government would consent to a modification of the original clause, so as to make it slightly more favourable to the clergy. A few amendments of minor importance he was willing to accept. The course proposed by the Prime Minister was approved by the House, and all the more important of the Lords' amendments were rejected by large majorities.

Violent language was heard in the House of Lords when the Bill, restored nearly to its original shape, came back to them from the House of Commons. The Marquis of Salisbury said that "his reason for opposing the Government project for appropriating the surplus was that it was false and that it was foolish. In the first place, it implied a partial application of the fund for spiritual teaching; and, in the second place, it was a vain attempt of the House of Commons, which distrusted its own resolution against concurrent endowment, to bind itself, like a drunkard taking the pledge, against changing its mind in the future. In truth, the only argument for it was, that the House of Commons had passed it; and the only reason why that House had done so was, that the Prime Minister had bidden it. Why the Prime Minister bade it, he could not search deep enough into the labyrinthine recesses of that mind to detect, unless it were that Mr. Gladstone had desired to give this House a slap on the face. So far from agreeing with the Earl of Shaftesbury's appeal to the House to waive its amendments in deference to the Commons, he believed this was just an occasion on which it was the duty of this House to interfere between the country and the arrogant will of one man." The motion that the House should insist on its amendment, altering the preamble in relation to the surplus, was carried by a large majority.

The state of things was now very serious. A collision between the two Houses seemed to be on the point of taking place which would have strained the Constitution to the last point of tension. Plans for overcoming the resistance of the Lords were openly propounded and generally discussed. It was said that the Ministry would advise her Majesty to bring the Session immediately to a close, that Parliament would be summoned to meet again for the despatch of business in the autumn, that Mr. Gladstone's Bill for disestablishing the Irish Church would then be passed again by the House of Commons in its original shape, and again be sent up to the House of Lords; and that this process must and would be repeated until that House agreed to pass it. Fortunately the new Primate, Archbishop Tait, whose recommendation had been one of Mr. Disraeli's last efforts, was a man peculiarly fitted to mediate between contending parties. Despite his deep sympathies with the cause of Episcopacy in Ireland, which found expression on May 6th, 1869, in a strongly worded resolution against disestablishment and disendowment moved by him in St. James's Hall, he, like Bishop Wilberforce, promptly perceived that the unmistakable declaration of the constituencies had rendered futile any further resistance. The Queen was of similar mind, and under her Majesty's wise command the archbishop had placed himself in communication with Mr. Gladstone early in February. He found the Prime Minister far more moderate than some of his lieutenants, and was able to report to the Queen that the proposed safeguards were admitted in principle, though some of Mr. Gladstone's intentions, particularly for dealing with post-Reformation grants and bequests, did not go as far as he wished. On the 8th of May he held a private conference at Lambeth with eight lay peers, representing the various parties, and in vain endeavoured to persuade them to consent to the second reading of the Bill. On the 3rd of June he again received the Queen's commands to put himself in communication with Mr. Gladstone, but without much success, nor did a letter to Earl Cairns, asking him to persuade his followers to consent to the second reading, produce the desired effect. On the contrary Lord Cairns informed him that at a meeting held at the Duke of Marlborough's house the Conservative peers had authorised Lord Harrowby to move the rejection of the Bill. The Queen wrote in alarm, saying that, though her objections against the measure still existed in full force, she considered that "the rejection of the Bill on the second reading would only serve to bring the two Houses into collision, and to prolong a dangerous[505] agitation of the subject, while it would further tend to increase the difficulty of ultimately obtaining a measure so modified as to remove, or at least to mitigate, the fears of those who are conscientiously opposed to the present Bill as it stands." Accordingly the archbishop not only advised Lord Granville to introduce the Bill in a conciliatory speech, but himself spoke in such a moderate tone as greatly to influence the issue of the debate. After the second reading had been carried—as we have already mentioned—and the Bill had been amended in committee, Archbishop Tait received a further despatch from her Majesty, which ran—"The Queen must say that she cannot view without alarm the possible consequences of another year of agitation on the Irish Church, and she would ask the archbishop seriously to consider, in case the concessions to which the Government may agree should not go so far as he himself may wish, whether the postponement of the settlement for another year would not be likely to result in worse rather than in better terms for the Church." The archbishop accordingly set himself to mediate between the contending parties as represented by Earl Cairns and Mr. Gladstone, and his diary, as published in his biography by Dr. Randall Davidson and Dr. Benham, gives a vivid expression of his hopes and fears. On Tuesday evening he records "a violent and apparently hopeless quarrel between Cairns and Gladstone"; on Thursday, after negotiations with all parties—Irish bishops, Conservative peers, Mr. Gladstone, Lord Salisbury, and Earl Cairns—he could write that "by five o'clock all was settled." On the 22nd of July Lord Cairns announced the result of these negotiations to the House. The point about the date he was willing to waive, so that the legal disestablishment would take place, as originally fixed, on the 1st of January, 1871. Government had made various concessions which, while still thinking them inadequate to the justice of the case, he was willing to accept, rather than run the hazard of a collision between the two branches of the Legislature. They consented that the liabilities of incumbents for the salaries of curates should be confined to the case where a curate had been[506] employed for five years. As to diocesan commutation, Government—who had already added seven per cent. to the amount of the annuities obtainable by commuting incumbents—now agreed to grant five per cent. more; this involved a diminution of the surplus by upwards of £700,000. Better terms for curates had been already conceded. The acceptance of commutation by three-fourths, instead of four-fifths, of the clergy of a diocese was to be held sufficient. Government had also agreed to exempt from the commutation any residence and land in an incumbent's own occupation if the incumbent should so desire. Lastly, there was the question of the disposal of the surplus. Government on this point had consented to amend the 68th clause, so that it would provide for the employment of the surplus for the relief of unavoidable calamity and in such manner as Parliament should hereafter direct.

NEW PALACE YARD, WESTMINSTER.

(From a Photograph by G. W. Wilson and Co., Aberdeen.)

A general sense of relief, mingled with admiration for the consummate ability and discretion with which Lord Cairns had managed his case, pervaded the House at this announcement. That he deserved less credit for the arrangement than the Queen and Archbishop Tait must now be conceded, but the workings of their wise diplomacy were not revealed until many years had passed. The compromise which the earl had agreed to on his own responsibility was adopted with hardly a dissentient voice, and the Bill was then returned to the House of Commons, where (July 23rd) it received a final consideration. Mr. Gladstone did not conceal that he deemed the last grant of five per cent. in augmentation of the commutation fund to be a matter of great importance, and a concession against the principle of the Bill. But looking to the mischief of leaving the controversy open, and in deference to the opinion of the House of Lords, and wishing to preserve the harmony between the two Houses (which had never been so severely tried, but which, he thanked God, had withstood the trial), Government had not felt justified in refusing the overtures made to them on the point. The Lords' amendments were then agreed to; and the Bill received the Royal Assent on the 26th of July.

This important measure accordingly passed into law. Those who declaimed against the disendowment of the Church as an act of spoliation—confiscation—sacrilege, and predicted that the disregard for the rights of property shown by Government in this instance would fatally weaken the respect for property in the minds of the general community, forgot the fact, of which Mr. Chichester Fortescue took care to remind them, that "the Bill was no more confiscation than the original transfer of the Church property from Roman Catholic to Protestant hands had been; and Parliament, which made that change, might now convert the property to other Irish purposes." On the other hand, the brilliant anticipations of concord and contentment which Mr. Bright indulged in were not realised. He said the Bill was put forward by Government as the means of creating a true and solid union, and of removing Irish discontent, not only in Ireland, but across the Atlantic. Archbishop Trench could not conceal his chagrin. The proposal to disestablish the Irish Church was made, he thought, with levity and precipitation; the Roman Catholics would be but feebly and languidly pleased, whilst the Protestants would entertain the liveliest and most enduring resentment for the wrong inflicted upon them. The former saw that all the changes which the Bill underwent in its progress through Parliament were in the direction of making fresh inroads upon the surplus in favour of the disestablished clergy. Even before the Lords' amendments had so greatly swelled the amounts to be given in commutation and compensation, the O'Donoghue observed, on behalf of his Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen, that the compensation clauses went much farther than was the due of the Irish Protestants, and that to increase them would be an injustice to the Irish people. And while the disendowed Church was thus being, to a large extent, re-endowed, Lord Stanhope's clause—the one solitary indication of a friendly feeling towards the religion of the majority which the Bill would have contained—was summarily and inexorably rejected. It is true that this rejection was promoted by the Irish members themselves. A compact had been entered into between the Irish Liberals and those English and Scottish members who viewed with uncompromising hostility all national establishment or endowment of religion, by which, on condition of the Irish members renouncing everything in the nature of an endowment for the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, the English and Scottish Liberals agreed to support the Irish Land Bill when it should be brought forward. Among politicians this was well understood; but to the masses of the Irish people the disestablishment of the Church must have seemed to be carried out in such a way as to establish little claim on their gratitude.

[507]

## CHAPTER XXXI.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

THE new Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Lowe, brought forward his Budget, in a speech of great ability, on the 8th of April, 1869. The state of the revenue, he said, was moderately flourishing, although the receipts for the past financial year had fallen somewhat short (to the extent of about half a million) of Mr. Ward Hunt's estimate. His predecessor had calculated upon a revenue of £73,180,000, but the actual amount received did not quite reach £72,600,000. Passing now to the current year, Mr. Lowe estimated the expenditure at £68,223,000, and the revenue at £72,855,000, which would leave an available surplus of £4,632,000 at the end of the year. Nothing could be more satisfactory than such a prospect. Visions of a lowered income tax, of enlarged grants for special purposes, of general easiness in money matters, must have flitted before the minds of the assembled legislators. But Mr. Lowe had no sooner raised the hopes of his hearers than he dashed them to the ground. The whole of this large surplus, it appeared, except the trifling sum of £32,000, would be required to defray the cost of the Abyssinian expedition. The real cost of that expedition was now for the first time made known. Mr. Disraeli had asked for and obtained a vote of £3,000,000, in November, 1867, and a further sum of £2,000,000 had been voted for the expedition in the early part of the Session of 1868. During 1868 every one supposed that £5,000,000 would cover the cost; but this was found to be by no means the case, and a third vote of £3,600,000 was taken in March, 1869. The total cost, Mr. Lowe feared, would hardly fall short of £9,000,000. Now, of the £8,600,000 that had been voted, ways and means had been found only for £4,000,000, so that £4,600,000 had still to be provided for. This sum would just be covered by the anticipated surplus, leaving a balance of £32,000.

Here an ordinary financier would have stopped, content to have balanced the revenue, and to have defrayed out of current receipts, so as not to add a penny to the National Debt, the heavy and unforeseen charges entailed by the Abyssinian expedition. But Mr. Lowe was not an ordinary financier, and, as a surplus did not exist, he resolved that one should be created. He proceeded to unfold a plan for the more economical collection of the revenue, by concentrating in one payment, to be made in January, the income tax and the assessed taxes, instead of dividing the former into two instalments, payable in April and October. This plan he proposed to bring into operation for the first time in January, 1870; so that (no collection being made in October, 1869) the taxes for three quarters, ending the 31st of March, 1870, should be paid next January, in which month the whole of the income tax and the assessed taxes would have to be paid in future years. That is to say, Mr. Lowe proposed to collect five quarters' taxes within twelve months. The reader will think that it is not difficult to create a surplus in this way. Nevertheless, Mr. Lowe showed that the proposed change in the mode of collecting these taxes was based on common sense and sound economy, and that a sum of £100,000 would be saved merely by having one collection instead of two, and employing the Excise officials instead of amateur collectors. He also discussed the assessed taxes with great force and acuteness, and proposed to convert most of them into licence duties, following the successful precedent of the dog tax, and that they should be payable for the future at the beginning of each year, instead of by two instalments in April and October. Assuming that the House adopted his scheme, Mr. Lowe calculated that before the end of the financial year (March 31st, 1870) there would have been paid into the Exchequer, £600,000 of the Excise licences, £950,000 of the land tax and assessed taxes, and £1,800,000 of the income tax—in all[508] £3,350,000—which, with the £32,000 surplus of revenue over expenditure, would put the Government in possession of a surplus of £3,382,000. How was this surplus (which Mr. Lowe might well describe as a "windfall") to be disposed of? As the chief inconvenience attending the transition from the half-yearly to the annual method of payment would fall on the income tax payers, Mr. Lowe thought that they had the first claim to relief from the surplus; he therefore proposed to take off a penny from the income tax. Next he proposed to abolish the import duty of one shilling on every quarter of corn, left by Sir Robert Peel when he repealed the Corn Laws in 1846. This duty, though it produced £900,000 a year, combined in Mr. Lowe's opinion all the bad qualities which a tax could possibly have, and prevented England from becoming a great entrepôt of corn. The fire insurance duties were also to be given up, though this reduction would not take effect till after Midsummer. The total remission of taxes thus foreshadowed would amount to £2,940,000, leaving, when deducted from the estimated surplus, a balance of £442,000. Mr. Lowe admitted that his plan was attended by certain drawbacks. Under its operation the Treasury would be in a state of plethora at one part of the year and starved at another; and there might be taxpayers to whom the concentration and unification of the State's demands on their purses might be inconvenient. But he had various expedients to meet the first objection, the chief among which was that during the non-productive months of the year Government should be empowered to borrow at their discretion from the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt; while with regard to the second objection, the taxpayer, like the eel in the adage, would find the change nothing when he had become used to it. Mr. Lowe's Budget was of course sharply criticised, and the delusive character of a surplus obtained by a financial trick was loudly insisted upon; but the real merits of the scheme, which were obviously great, carried it through.

The statement made by Mr. Lowe, en passant, with regard to the aggregate expenditure on the Abyssinian expedition naturally attracted much attention. The Conservative Government had estimated that the total cost would not exceed £5,000,000; how then, when no unforeseen circumstance had occurred, none but the most shadowy opposition been encountered, and no reinforcements been needed, could the expenses have shot up to the enormous figure of £9,000,000? It appeared that by far the greater portion of the money—more than £7,000,000—had been spent by the Bombay Government. The duty of explanation accordingly fell on Sir Stafford Northcote, Secretary for India in the late Government. Sir Stafford Northcote stated that when the first estimate was framed (that for £3,000,000, laid before the House by Mr. Disraeli, in November, 1867), the expedition had not left India; and that the second estimate (for £2,000,000, additional) was necessarily vague and loose, and exceeded, in fact, the information furnished by the departments. He pointed out, among the reasons for the insufficiency of the estimate, our entire ignorance of the country into which the expedition was despatched, its actual barrenness of supplies, and the necessity of taking precautions against events that never occurred. Much of the excess, he added, had arisen since the period up to which the estimate extended, and in conveying the troops from Abyssinia to India after the expedition was over. These explanations failed to remove the suspicion that there had been culpable laxity on the part of the Bombay Government. The suddenness of the last rise in the estimate was quite mysterious. Mr. Ward Hunt stated, in the discussion that took place in March, 1869, when the supplementary vote of £3,600,000 was demanded, that so recently as the 8th of December, 1868, the Indian Government had telegraphed that they had only spent £5,000,000.

Although the time of Parliament was too much taken up with discussions arising out of the Irish Church Act to allow of any comprehensive educational measure being brought forward in this Session, yet an important Act was passed, by which a machinery fitted to grapple with the long-standing abuses connected with the endowed schools of the country was successfully established. The condition of these schools had lately been inquired into by a Royal Commission, the report of which had been laid before the House. Upon the basis of this report Government were now prepared to legislate, and the duty of preparing a Bill fell into the hands of Mr. W. E. Forster, the Vice-President of the Council. The recommendations of the commissioners had been of a very sweeping character; besides advising that full power of inquiring into the efficiency of every endowed school, and of putting an end to waste and abuse of trust funds, should be taken by Government, they had recommended the formation of a central examining council, and of provincial boards throughout the country[509] under the control of the central authority. But Government did not see their way to the appointment of provincial boards for the present; and the Select Committee to which the Bill was referred, after the second reading, struck out all the clauses that proposed to constitute an examining council. What remained, however, of the Bill was sufficient to make a useful working measure of reform.

THE QUADRANGLE, SOMERSET HOUSE.

In moving the second reading of the Bill, Mr. Forster took occasion to explain in general terms the principal conclusions at which the Commission of Inquiry into Secondary Education, of which he had been himself a member, had arrived. In estimating the provision already existing in the country for the education of the "middle classes," the commissioners found that the schools that came under their observation naturally fell into three groups—denominated by them respectively first grade, second grade and third grade schools, according to the age at which the scholars whom they instructed usually left them. In the first grade schools the average age of leaving was between eighteen and nineteen; in the second grade schools, between sixteen and seventeen; while in those of the third grade, constituting the immense majority in point of numbers, the age of leaving was about fourteen years. As a rule, the parents of boys in the first grade schools were persons of wealth, to whom money was little, if at all, an object in the education of their children The schools themselves were pretty much on a par with the Public Schools, whose condition had been inquired into by a separate commission; and, as in the case of these, a considerable proportion of the scholars left school for the universities. Schools of the second grade were attended chiefly by the sons of professional persons, and of those engaged in commercial pursuits, whose sons were destined to follow similar vocations. In the third grade schools the scholars were found to be for the most part the sons of small farmers, small tradesmen and shop-keepers, and superior artisans. In the schools of all three grades a thorough education was found to be hardly ever imparted, except in Latin and Greek; and efficiency even in these[510] branches was chiefly confined to schools of the first grade. Mr. Forster quoted the evidence of many competent witnesses who had been examined by the commission, to the effect that secondary education in England, considered as a preparation for any of the learned professions or for an industrial career, laboured under grievous deficiencies; yet there was probably no country in Europe in which the bounty of individuals in past ages had provided such liberal endowments for secondary education as was the case in England. Taking these two facts together,—the low standard of actual education and the liberal provision made for it in endowed schools—Mr. Forster drew the obvious conclusion that these schools, under their existing management, failed both to fulfil the intentions of their founders, and to satisfy the needs of society. In support of this conclusion, he adduced some curious evidence from the report of the commission. The head-master of a certain endowed school told an assistant commissioner that "it was not worth his while to push the school, as with the endowment (about £200 a year) and some other small source of income, he had enough to live on comfortably without troubling to do so." In the case of another school, with an endowment of £651 per annum, the master put his nephew and son into the posts of second and third masters. The assistant commissioner "found the discipline most inefficient and the instruction slovenly, unmethodical, and unintelligent; there was no one subject in which the boys seemed to take an interest, or which had been taught with average care or success." At another school, where the endowment was £613 a year, there were thirteen pupils. At another, enjoying an income of £792 from the charity, the head-master taught three boarders and no others and the under master attended when he chose. In a school where the endowment was £300 a year and a house, one boy was found under instruction, while there was a private school with eighty boarders close by. To facts of this kind—lamentable as they were—Mr. Forster did not desire to attach undue weight; he did not conceal from the House that among the endowed schools of every grade many excellent and useful institutions might be found; but he maintained that a case had been made out for interference on the part of the State, in order that where, through negligence or worse, the charitable intentions of a founder were defeated, the endowments might be restored to the beneficial use from which they had been diverted. Since the plan of provincial boards had been given up, the organisation which the Bill proposed to create was exceedingly simple. A small commission, consisting of only three persons, would be appointed; this commission would send round inspectors to inquire into the local circumstances of the endowed institutions, and on receiving their report, would, if change were necessary, draw up schemes for the future government and conduct of the schools. The schemes, when prepared, were to be communicated to the trustees of the different endowments, that they might suggest alterations or modifications; they were then to be submitted to the Education Department, and that department would, after approval, lay them before Parliament. After having lain for a certain time on the table of each House, and not been objected to, a scheme would ipso facto come into operation.

In the course of the fuller explanations which were required of Mr. Forster by various members during the debate, he stated that the Bill dealt with nearly three thousand schools, viz. 782 grammar schools and 2,175 foundations, mostly elementary, with a gross income of £592,000, and a net income for education of £340,000, a sum which, well applied, might effect much; but the money was to a great extent wasted. Requested to name the commissioners to whom he proposed to entrust the preparation of the schemes, Mr. Forster gave the names of Lord Lyttelton, Mr. Arthur Hobhouse, and Canon Robinson. After being passed in the Commons, the Bill was subjected to a searching examination in the House of Lords. Lord Salisbury proposed to exempt from the jurisdiction of the new commissioners all endowed schools founded within the last hundred years, the period named in the Bill being fifty years. But the amendment was lost on a division, and this valuable measure soon afterwards became law.

A Bill for the abolition of religious tests in the universities and colleges of Oxford and Cambridge was brought in in February by the Solicitor-General, Sir John Coleridge. With regard to the universities, the Bill rendered unlawful not only the requirement of any subscription or other test from the candidate for any university degree, but also the exaction of any declaration in the nature of a religious test from any professor, teacher, lecturer, or university officer of any kind, as a condition of his taking or holding office. With regard to the colleges, the Bill only removed all restrictions upon their freedom of action that had been imposed on them from time to time by the authority of Parliament itself. "It leaves the colleges," said the[511] Solicitor-General, "controlled by their statutes; it leaves them controlled by the feelings of their members; it leaves them controlled by all the associations which gather round them, and which are, after all, upon most men's minds as effective as any Parliamentary action can be; and it relieves them only from those restrictions which have been imposed from time to time by Acts of Parliament." He mentioned the case of a Jew who had come out Senior Wrangler at Cambridge that very year, but was deprived by his religion of that natural culmination and reward of great academical distinction which a fellowship usually conferred. Other cases, he added, had come under his knowledge of Oxford men who had renounced fellowships and other offices of emolument sooner than subscribe their belief unreservedly to every part of the Thirty-nine Articles. In cases such as these, should a college desire to open its doors more widely, it would no longer, should his Bill become law, be impeded in doing so by the operation of any law of the land. Its own statutes might still hamper its action in the direction of liberty, but a method of altering these, should the great majority of the governing body desire it, had already been provided by the University Reform Act of 1854. It was true that there were certain colleges the statutes of which could not be altered without the consent of their respective visitors, and that these visitors were sometimes bishops, who were professionally unlikely to be willing to extend the benefit of the foundation to Nonconformists. This defect the present Bill did not deal with, but the Solicitor-General pretty clearly intimated that it would be made the subject of future legislation.

Mr. Mowbray, the Conservative member for the University of Oxford (who had lately been elected to the seat held for many years by Sir William Heathcote), spoke in opposition to the Bill; but the general feeling of the House was strongly in its favour. It even received the powerful support of Sir Roundell Palmer, who announced that, since the question was last discussed in the House, reflection had induced him considerably to modify the point of view from which he had formerly regarded it. He was now opposed to tests, partly because they were ineffective for the purpose intended; partly because, even if effective, they were impolitic. They were ineffective to keep out the unprincipled atheist or sceptic, who was ready to swallow with a philosophic smile the toughest theological formula that might be presented to him. Nor were they of the slightest use in the case of a man who was orthodox at the time of taking the test, but had afterwards become a free-thinker, since neither law nor custom permitted that a man who had once become a member of Convocation should be liable to any further questioning. But even if they were supposed to operate effectually to the exclusion of all but orthodox Churchmen, Sir Roundell Palmer was now disposed to doubt the policy of retaining them. It was vain, he thought, to endeavour to keep the universities up to a level of churchmanship essentially higher than that which prevailed in society at large. In proportion as members of the Nonconformist body forced their way to the front in all departments of political and social life, in that, or nearly in that, proportion it was desirable that they should be found also among the governing and representative men of the universities. If Churchmen had no cause to dread the competition of Nonconformists on the former fields, neither need they dread it on the latter. At the same time, in order to guard the principle of religious education, and give to it more prominent expression in the language of the Bill itself, Sir Roundell Palmer proposed a slight alteration in the preamble, and the introduction of two new clauses. By the first, the established system of religious worship, education, and discipline within the colleges was expressly reserved intact. By the second, it was provided that every professor, tutor, or lecturer in an English university should, after his appointment, and before entering on the duties of his office, make and subscribe a declaration before the Vice-Chancellor, or before the head of his college, that he would "never endeavour, directly or indirectly, to teach or inculcate any opinion, opposed to the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, or to the doctrine or discipline of the Church of England as by law established." A test similar to this, but omitting of course all reference to the Church of England, was substituted in 1853 in lieu of the old and rigid Calvinistic test for lay professors in the Scottish universities. After an admirable speech from Dr. Lyon Playfair, in support of the Bill, it was considered in committee. Sir Roundell Palmer carried the first of his two clauses without difficulty, but abandoned the second, mainly, it would seem, in consequence of an appeal from Dr. Lyon Playfair, whose long and intimate acquaintance with the Scottish universities enabled him to speak with authority. The corresponding declaration required of lay professors in Scotland was, he admitted, not felt nor objected to, because it was considered to be, on the whole, "innocent and[512] irrelevant;" but it had degenerated into a mere formality, and could not be supposed to exercise the slightest preservative effect on the religious belief of either professors or students. "It is not that test," added the honourable gentleman, "which preserves religion in our Scottish universities, but the inherent truths of religion itself." The Bill then passed through committee, and was read a third time.

When, however, the University Tests Bill reached the Lords, it was treated with little ceremony. It was past the middle of July, and the Peers were still smarting under the sense of the disrespectful treatment which their amendments to the Irish Church Bill had met with in the other House, and indignant at the menacing comments of the press. Farther in the road of Liberalism they were resolved not to be pushed this Session. Lord Carnarvon, when the Bill came on for the second reading, moved the previous question, and, after a short and unimportant debate, his motion was carried on a division by a majority of 91 to 54.

The attention of Parliament was taken up on many nights during this Session by a singular incident, half painful, half ludicrous, which occurred in the sister island. Mr. Daniel O'Sullivan had been elected by the corporation mayor of Cork for the year 1869. Under the Municipal Act for Ireland the Mayor is a justice of peace for the city of Cork during his year of office, and cannot be removed either by the Lord-Lieutenant or by Government. Soon after the beginning of the year Mr. O'Sullivan commenced to sit as a magistrate in the police court of Cork. From almost the first day that he took his seat on the bench down to the beginning of May his conduct was systematically devoted to lowering the administration of the law and bringing it into contempt, and in using insulting and abusive language towards his brother magistrates. But all this was a trifle compared with what followed. On the 27th of April the mayor presided at a banquet given in Cork in honour of two discharged Fenian prisoners, called Colonel Warren and Costello. In proposing the toast of "Our Exiled Countrymen," the mayor said that "he believed a spirit of concession had been aroused on the part of the dominant race. He did not say whether it was owing to Fenianism or to the barrel placed outside the prison at Clerkenwell; but he believed he paid a solemn act of justice to his own countrymen—as solemn an act of justice as if he were a high priest—when he said those noble men, Allen, Barrett, Larkin, and O'Brien, who sacrificed their lives for their country, ought to be remembered and respected as good Catholics and good patriots. There was at this moment in the country a young prince of the Irish nation. When that noble Irishman, O'Farrel, fired at the Prince in Australia, he was imbued with as noble and patriotic feelings as Larkin, Allen, and O'Brien were." (Here the speaker was interrupted by great cheering, and cries of "He was.") This foolish and criminal rant was received with loud demonstrations of applause by Mr. O'Sullivan's audience. Government were soon informed of what had happened, and the conduct of the mayor formed the subject of more than one interpellation in Parliament. The hands of Government were presently strengthened by receiving a memorial addressed to the Irish Executive by more than thirty magistrates of the city of Cork, presided over by the Lord-Lieutenant of the county, Lord Fermoy, in which complaint was made of the seditious language and disorderly behaviour of the mayor, as tending to spread disaffection and throw contempt on the administration of justice. There was not much time to be lost, for the Mayor of Cork is entitled by his office to sit as first commissioner in any commission to be executed within the county of Cork; so that, unless promptly deposed or disenabled, Mr. O'Sullivan would be associated with her Majesty's judges in the Commission of Assize during the ensuing summer. There was no resource but legislation; a general law might be passed, placing the mayors of all Irish corporations under the control of the Crown; or else a short Act, disqualifying Mr. O'Sullivan by name, but affecting the rights of no other person. Government preferred the latter course, and the O'Sullivan Disability Bill was prepared accordingly, and leave to introduce it was moved for by the Irish Attorney-General (Mr. Sullivan) on the 5th of May. A long and animated discussion followed; but in the end leave was given to bring in the Bill, a copy of which, and of the order for the second reading, was ordered to be forthwith served on Mr. O'Sullivan. But on the day appointed for the second reading, when counsel in support of the Bill were about to be heard, and witnesses examined, Mr. Maguire, one of the members for Cork, rose and produced a letter, which he read, from Mr. O'Sullivan, placing his resignation of the mayoralty in the hands of Mr. Maguire and the O'Donoghue. In fairness to the mayor, one or two sentences from this letter ought to be quoted. He declared,[513] in the most solemn and emphatic manner, that the language attributed to him did not in any way express or represent his real meaning; and, further, he solemnly declared that he would himself be the first person to rush to the protection of human life if he knew it to be in danger. "I may also state that I look to the regeneration of my country through constitutional and remedial measures such as that [the Irish Church Act] now passing through the House of Commons, and my belief that the battle of my country is to be fought on the floor of that House." Mr. O'Sullivan must surely have held with the cynic philosopher, that "language was given to man to conceal his thoughts;" for if these were indeed his sentiments, no language could have been devised better calculated to disguise them than that which he used at the Fenian banquet. After hearing the letter, Mr. Gladstone rose and said that, assuming Mr. O'Sullivan's resignation to be, though not technically, yet really and substantially complete, Government would proceed no further with the Disability Bill.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE (AFTERWARDS EARL OF IDDESLEIGH).

A fresh attempt was made this year, and was very nearly successful, to obtain legislative sanction for the creation of life peerages by the Crown. The subject had slept since the celebrated resolution of the House of Lords in the case of Lord Wensleydale, to the effect that he, having been created a peer for the term of his natural life only, was not entitled to sit and vote in that House. Lord Wensleydale's patent of creation was then altered into the usual form, and everything remained as before. Now the subject was[514] revived by Lord Russell, and the Bill which he introduced was at first received with much favour on both sides of the House. The Crown was to be authorised to create peers for life, subject to certain restrictions, the chief of which were, that not more than twenty-eight such peers should sit in the House at the same time, and that not more than four should ever be created in the same year. The Bill made slow but sure progress; it was read a second time; its mover showed an open and conciliatory spirit in reference to various amendments that were proposed, and accepted one, limiting the creation of life peers to two in one year; and even the ordeal of committee was safely passed. The last stage was at hand; but when (July 8th) Earl Russell moved that the Bill be read a third time, Lord Malmesbury moved, as an amendment, to add the words "that day three months." The noble lord ably paraded the reasons which made it, in his opinion, unnecessary and undesirable to admit life peers to the privileges of the Upper House. It was unnecessary, because that House did not, as was asserted, require to be "popularised," since it possessed, besides great landowners, numerous representatives of the great commercial, manufacturing, mining, and banking interests of the country, and also many distinguished officers of the army and navy, besides fifty peers, at the very least, who had formerly sat in the House of Commons, so that there could be no pretence that on any subject on which they were called upon to deliberate with a view to legislation, numbers of persons would not be found in that House possessed of every qualification for offering an opinion that experience, ability, and personal interest could supply. It was undesirable, because those who held these transitory dignities would not be really the "peers" of the older members of the House,—because they would be destitute of that which was the very essence of nobility, the power to transmit their rank and privileges to their descendants,—and because, since those whom the House would gladly see added to their numbers would decline to accept so equivocal a position, the life peers whom the influence of a Ministry might cause to be created would probably be such persons as the House would not deem a desirable accession, and would therefore, instead of adding to, impair the lustre of that assembly, and weaken its influence in the country. This unexpected attack was feebly met by Earls Russell and Granville, and on a division Lord Malmesbury's motion was carried by a majority of thirty (Contents, 76; Non-contents, 106), and the Bill was consequently lost.

This year was one of considerable suffering to large masses of the population, as the increase of pauperism too plainly showed. Trade was in a state of stagnation, but partially revived towards the close of the year, and gave indications of a more prosperous future. Although Fenianism had been so far suppressed in Ireland that Government ventured to allow the Act for the suspension of Habeas Corpus to expire, the temper of disaffection was as widely spread as ever, and now took the form of an agitation to obtain the release of the Fenian prisoners. The same revolutionary spirit, though under strangely different forms, which caused sympathy to be widely felt in Italy for the conspirators who blew up the Serristori barracks, filled thousands of Irish hearts with a wild desire to obtain the liberation of the heroes of Clerkenwell. Agrarian discontent also was rife, and several agrarian murders were committed in the latter part of the year. Some of the Fenian convicts who were less deeply implicated than the rest were released by Government; but so far was this lenity from having any good effect, that the first use which the liberated prisoners made of their freedom was to proclaim their unabated hostility to the British Government, and, so far as in them lay, before taking their departure for America, to stimulate the minds of their countrymen whom they left behind with exhortations to undying animosity. There was an election for the county Tipperary in the autumn, with the following result:—O'Donovan Rossa, a Fenian, who was at the time in prison, was returned at the head of the poll, beating Mr. Heron, a distinguished Queen's Counsel and a Roman Catholic, by 103 votes. As a matter of course, the election was declared null and void, and the returning officer required to make a fresh return.

In October, 1869, a noble and commanding figure, which had occupied for many years a prominent place in the eyes and thoughts of Englishmen, disappeared from the scene, namely Edward Geoffrey Stanley, fourteenth Earl of Derby. The author of the sketch of his life given in the Times thus eloquently sums up the enumeration of his eminent qualities: "We have spoken of Lord Derby chiefly as a statesman. But, after all, it was the man—ever brilliant and impulsive—that most won the admiration of his countrymen. He was a splendid specimen of an Englishman; and whether he was engaged in furious debate with demagogues, or in lowly conversation on religion[515] with little children, or in parley with jockeys while training Toxophilite, or rendering 'Homer' into English verse, or in stately Latin discourse as the Chancellor of his University, or in joyous talk in a drawing-room among ladies, whom he delighted to chaff, or in caring for the needs of Lancashire operatives—there were a force and a fire about him that acted like a spell. Of all his public acts none did him more honour, and none made a deeper impression on the minds of his countrymen, than his conduct on the occasion of the cotton famine in Lancashire. No man in the kingdom sympathised more truly than he with the distress of the poor Lancashire spinners, and perhaps no man did so much as he for their relief. It was not simply that he gave them a princely donation; he worked hard for them in the committee which was established in their aid: he was indeed the life and soul of the committee; and for months at that bitter time he went about doing good by precept and example, so that myriads in Lancashire now bless his name. He will long live in memory as one of the most remarkable, and indeed irresistible, men of our time—a man privately beloved and publicly admired; who showed extraordinary cleverness in many ways; was the greatest orator of his day, and the most brilliant, though not the most successful, Parliamentary leader of the last half-century."

The death of the gallant Irishman, Lord Gough, recalled the thoughts of many to the tumultuous scenes of the Peninsular War in which the earlier portion of the veteran's life was passed. To Sir Hugh Gough was entrusted the command of the land forces in the opium war with China in 1842, when he took Canton, Amoy, Ning-po, and Chin-Kiang-Foo, forced his way, in conjunction with Admiral Sir W. Parker, for a hundred and seventy miles up the Yang-tse-Kiang, and dictated peace to the Emperor of China at Nankin. After this he was appointed Commander-in-Chief in India, and held that office during the Sikh War in 1845, though to the tactics of Sir Henry Hardinge, the Governor-General, who consented to serve under Gough, the decisive victories of Moodkee, Ferozeshah, and Sobraon are usually ascribed. When the Sikhs rebelled at the beginning of 1849, Gough marched against them, and, though he met with a severe check at Chilianwallah, inflicted such a crushing blow on the enemy at Goojerat, a few weeks later, that the war was practically brought to an end. A grateful country did not fail to recognise and reward his military achievements. He was created a Viscount, received a pension both from the Crown and from the East India Company, and was raised, in 1862, to the dignity of a Field Marshal.

All through the year 1869 France remained at peace with all her neighbours, and the Emperor and his Ministers vied with each other in making pacific declarations on every suitable occasion. Yet there was a different ring about a speech which he made to the soldiers at the camp at Châlons. He told them always to keep alive in their hearts the remembrance of the battles fought by their fathers, and those in which they had been themselves engaged, "since the history of our wars is the history of the progress of civilisation." According to this doctrine, though all things now wore a peaceful appearance, yet if France were to go to war for whatever cause (for the justice of a war was superbly ignored by the speaker), the interests of civilisation would necessarily be advanced. But for the present the French Government was content to live quietly. In Italy, according to an announcement made by the Foreign Minister, the Marquis de Lavalette, though the Pope's Government was making progress in the organisation of its forces, the time had not yet arrived for France to return purely and simply to the September Convention, and to evacuate the Pontifical territory. With regard to Prussia, the language of the Emperor and of the French Foreign Office was uniformly friendly.

The Chambers which had been elected in 1863 were dissolved in April of this year, and new elections were ordered. This was a favourable opportunity for the Emperor's Government to put in practice the aspirations towards greater liberty and a more constitutional system with which the Emperor had declared himself to be animated. If the Government had left the people alone, and allowed them to return the representatives of their choice, it might have been believed that there was some sincerity in those aspirations. But, on the contrary, there never were elections at which the system of official candidates was more unsparingly resorted to, nor where the freedom of the electors was more unblushingly interfered with. The elections were going on all through May. Thiers and Jules Favre were returned for Paris, and Gambetta, Picard, Jules Simon, and other Liberals for the department of the Seine; yet so Conservative were the instincts of the general population, and so assiduously did the Government by its action labour to encourage and reward these instincts, that the number of Opposition candidates returned for the Legislative Body did not much[516] exceed thirty. Napoleon seems to have felt that his government was too successful. Though the Imperial system was founded on the crime of the 2nd of December, the Emperor, to do him justice, earnestly desired to make its origin forgotten by conforming it to the march of ideas and to the needs of French society. It may be questioned whether, in thus acting, he was really consulting its stability. Perhaps if he had carried on the government silently and resolutely, keeping the army in good humour by bribes and flatteries, and not trying to make compromises either with Liberalism or with the honest patriotism of men like Guizot, he might have given to it a longer duration. But he wished to be two things at the same time—a ruler supported on bayonets and a ruler supported on ideas; and this was not a feat easy of accomplishment. Besides his strength was being undermined by a wasting and painful disease, and he wished to preserve the Imperial crown for his son. In the summer he announced his intention of introducing the system of the responsibility of the Ministers to the majority in the Chambers, together with various other privileges and liberties which the French Legislature had been deprived of since the coup d'état; he declared that the system of personal government was distasteful to him and that he desired to abandon it. A Senatus Consultum embodying these reforms was introduced into and discussed in the Senate with great parade in the month of September. It was received with something of coldness and reserve by the majority of the Senators, for which they were rebuked by Prince Napoleon, in a speech which, while expressing gratitude to the Emperor for what he had conceded, disgusted by its broad Radicalism the Emperor's best friends and supporters in both Chambers. Several of the Ministers—among whom were Rouher, Lavalette, and Baroche—unable to see their way to a practical reconciliation between the Empire and the maxims of constitutional government, resigned their posts on the introduction of the Senatus Consultum. It was, however, carried, and with a good effect, doubtless, so far as foreign opinion was concerned; in France, the measure and motives of the Emperor's liberalism were so well understood that the new project awakened little interest.

The Corps Législatif, as soon as it was assembled, proceeded to examine questions connected with election returns. Illegalities and abuses of power were reported from all parts of the country. That odious tool of despotism, the "official candidate," had never been so generally and so offensively put forward. One election in particular, that for the Haute Garonne, in which the Government nominee, an obscure marquis, had defeated the illustrious M. de Remusat, attracted special attention from the impudent illegalities that had been resorted to in order to secure the seat. In one parish 141 electors had deposited their voting-papers in the electoral urn, which the mayor then put away in his bedroom! When the votes came to be examined, 133 were found to be for the official candidate, and only five for M. de Remusat. But forty-one of the electors went before a notary and signed a solemn declaration that they had voted for M. de Remusat. But in spite of corrupt practices of all kinds, which a scrutiny brought to light in this and other elections, the servile majority in the Chamber usually sustained their validity. Nevertheless, the position of the Minister of the Interior, after all these disclosures, was not an agreeable one; and M. Forcade de la Roquette, together with his colleagues, resigned office. The Emperor accepted their resignations and addressed himself (December 27th) to M. Émile Ollivier, formerly a member of the Opposition, requesting him to form an Administration and submit for his approval the names of those who were to fill the different offices.

In Spain the revolution continued its desolating course. Early in the year a republican insurrection broke out at Malaga, and was not suppressed without much bloodshed. The constituent Cortes, for the election and assembling of which careful preparations had been made by Serrano and Prim in the preceding year, met at Madrid on the 11th of February. In a House of 350 members, about 240 (of whom nearly two-thirds were Progresistas and the rest Unionists) were found to be supporters of the Government, 70 or 80 were Republicans, and about 20 Carlists. A committee was appointed to prepare a new Constitution. Its report was read on the 31st of March; it proposed the retention of monarchy and of the principle of hereditary succession, the adoption of the system of two Chambers, and of Ministerial responsibility; the Catholic religion to continue to be the religion of Spain, but all other forms of belief and worship to be tolerated, subject only to the laws of universal morality. The article of the Constitution establishing a monarchy was finally carried (May 20th) by 214 to 71 votes. But the difficulty of finding a monarch remained for the time insuperable. Till an eligible candidate could be found, it was thought desirable, in order to give greater solidity to the Government, to raise Serrano to the[517] Regency. The ceremony of his installation was performed with great pomp and circumstance on the 13th of June. Divergences of opinion manifested themselves among the prime movers of the September revolution. Prim, the ablest and most daring among them, publicly declared that the late dynasty should never reascend the throne of Spain, and that he would never, directly or indirectly, aid in any endeavours in favour of the Prince of the Asturias. Serrano was more cautious; he was generally supposed to be a secret adherent of the said Prince. Topete was an avowed supporter of the Duke of Montpensier. The crown was first offered to the King of Portugal, but he declined to accept it. Prim then conceived the strange notion of offering it to the Duke of Genoa, a boy of fifteen, then being educated at Harrow. With his usual energy Prim overcame all opposition among his colleagues to this extraordinary scheme, except so far as Topete was concerned. The sturdy Admiral thought it absurd and quitted the Ministry rather than have a hand in carrying it out. But the opposition of the King of Italy and of the young Duke's mother caused this plan to fall to the ground. In the autumn republican risings took place in many of the large towns. The insurgents at Valencia proclaimed the democratic and federal Republic in a high-flown and flowery manifesto, the chief parts of which consisted in an infatuated and ridiculous eulogy on their own brilliant virtues. But the troops remained faithful to the Government; Valencia was reduced after a three hours' bombardment, and in the other cities revolt was ultimately put down. A law was passed in October, similar in its object to a Habeas Corpus Suspension Act in England, for the suspension of individual guarantees.

STREET FIGHTING IN MALAGA. (See p. 516.)

General Grant was inaugurated President of the United States on the 4th of March, 1869. The convention for the settlement of the Alabama and other claims, which had been agreed to by Lord Stanley and Mr. Reverdy Johnson, was rejected by the Senate in the course of the year, and an important diplomatic correspondence on the subject passed between Mr. Fish, the American Secretary of State, and Lord Clarendon.

[518]

## CHAPTER XXXII.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

> Law-making in 1870—The Queen's Speech—The Irish Land Problem—Diversities of Opinions—The Agrarian Agitation—Mr. Gladstone's Land Bill introduced—Its Five Parts—Grievances of the Irish Tenant—Free Contract—The Ulster Custom—Compensation for Eviction—The Landlord's Safeguards—The Irish Labourer—Mr. Gladstone's Peroration—Direct and Indirect Opposition—The Second Reading carried—Agrarian Outrages—Mr. Fortescue's Coercion Bill—Mr. Disraeli's Amendment to the Land Bill—A Clever Speech—Mr. Lowe's Reply—Progress of the Debate—The Bill through the Commons—Tactics of the Lords—Amendments proposed and withdrawn—Avoidance of a Collision between the Houses—The Bill becomes Law.

BY the side of the vast Continental events that made the year 1870 one of the memorable years of the world, domestic politics looked small and feeble. And yet they were by no means small; few years, in fact, had so much to show of work actually done and finished by the cumbrous Parliamentary machine. It was a well-known maxim of English politics, that a Ministry could never depend upon carrying more than one measure of first-rate importance in a single Session. Whatever nominal majority might sit behind a Minister, he knew that in the actual state of society interests were so complicated, prejudices so many-sided, that it was hard enough to lead the majority into the lobby once in the year on a great question, and he seldom attempted to do more. Yet the year 1870 presented the strange phenomenon of a Session marked by the carrying of two great measures, each of them met by vigorous opposition, each of them full of interference with vested interests—the Irish Land Act and the Education Act. Mr. Bright expressed the general sense of the difficulty of much legislation when he said at Birmingham, in January, "You cannot easily drive six omnibuses abreast through Temple Bar." But Mr. Forster happily took up his metaphor a short time afterwards: "Let the Irish Land omnibus pass through first, and Lord de Grey and I will drive our Education omnibus in afterwards."

Parliament met on the 8th of February, and the great measure of the Session—the Irish Land Bill—was soon afterwards brought forward. Of the three branches which, according to Mr. Gladstone's figure, had grown upon the tree of Protestant ascendency in Ireland, one—the Church—had fallen; there remained the Land and Education. The last, which proved in the end the most difficult question, was to be left to a future Session; but with regard to the Land the Queen's Speech was explicit. "It will be proposed to you," it said, "to amend the laws respecting the occupation and acquisition of land in Ireland, in a manner adapted to the peculiar circumstances of that country, and calculated, as her Majesty believes, to bring about improved relations between the several classes concerned in Irish agriculture, which collectively constitute the great bulk of the people. These provisions, when matured by your impartiality and wisdom, as her Majesty trusts, will tend to inspire, among persons with whom such sentiments may still be wanting, that steady confidence in the law, and that desire to render assistance in its effective administration, which mark her subjects in general; and thus will aid in consolidating the fabric of the Empire."

This utterance, clothed in the English peculiar to Speeches from the Throne, showed definitely that Government were committed to a measure of a comprehensive kind. All through the previous autumn and winter, in fact, public opinion had been ripening for such a measure. The newspapers began to be full of articles on the subject; statistics—official, semi-official, and unofficial—were being collected and published in all directions. The Times sent a special commissioner to Ireland, and published his letters in a place of honour. Pamphleteers abounded; every one, from crotchety landlords or crotchety tenant-right-men or peasant-proprietor-men, up to such authorities as Mr. (afterwards Sir) George Campbell, a well-known Indian administrator, wrote down their views. The class in possession were uneasy; and yet, as the event proved, there was very little for them to be uneasy about—or rather, the limitations that were finally imposed on them were not very severe. In fact, the history of the treatment of the Irish Land Question is throughout extremely singular. It is perfectly true, as Lord Cairns said, that "at all times and in all countries there is no kind of agitation which ever has been so serious or so difficult to deal with as an agitation[519] on the subject of land." It is also true in a measure, to continue his words, that "for fourteen months this subject had been exciting the minds of the people." Agrarian crime was rife in Ireland—the Fenian spirit was for the moment all the more savage for the attempt at conciliation made in the passing of the Church Disestablishment Act. Fifty-nine grave cases—cases of delicta majora—were recorded in 1869; and of these, eighteen were murders, most of them agrarian. On the other hand, as we have said, the public press, both in England and in Ireland, was teeming with discussion of land problems, yet in spite of all this evidence of excitement, it is undoubtedly true that the Land Bill was passed through both Houses with far less difficulty than had been the case with the Church Bill; and that the debates upon it, the criticisms passed on it, and the reception it met with, were, on the whole, quiet, satisfactory, and dignified. The "agitation" of which Lord Cairns spoke was, except for the numerous single crimes that accompanied rather than belonged to it, singularly temperate. The importance of the occasion, the strong sense in almost every mind of a dangerous existing injustice, seemed to compel the advocates of both sides into a course of mutual forbearance. Fenianism had done at least that good: it had shown that Irish discontent was a reality and that its first element was an agrarian element.

The debate on the Address showed clearly what the expectations of both parties in Parliament were: Mr. Disraeli's speech consisted of indications of what, according to him, the Government Bill ought not to be; and Mr. Gladstone's answer was an appeal for a patient hearing. On the 15th of February Mr. Gladstone brought forward his Land Bill—the anti-Fenian character of which was shown by a motion proposed a short time before by him, to the effect that O'Donovan Rossa, the Fenian convict, who had been elected member for Tipperary, "had become, and continued incapable of being elected or returned as a member of the House," and 293 members had voted for this motion against 16 on the other side. The formal motion of the Prime Minister was "to obtain leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the occupation and ownership of land in Ireland," and the Bill which he brought forward was divided into five parts. The first part (secs. 1—31) deals with the Law of Compensation to Tenants, giving a legal status to the "customs" known as the Ulster tenant-right custom and others that prevail in different parts of Ireland, and establishing the principle of compensation to the tenant for improvements and for disturbance by the act of the landlord. The second part deals with the Sale of Lands to Tenants; the third, with Advances by, and Powers of, the Board of Works; the fourth, with Legal Proceedings and the Court which was to try cases; the fifth, with miscellaneous questions relating to new tenancies. In his speech—as lucid and interesting as his great expository speeches always were—Mr. Gladstone began by a review of the history of the Parliamentary treatment of the question since the first Reform Act. That history was to be summed up in one word—procrastination. "What I hope is," he said, "that having witnessed the disaster and difficulty which have arisen from this long procrastination, we shall resolve in mind and heart by a manful effort to close and seal up for ever, if it may be, this great question which so intimately concerns the welfare and happiness of the people of Ireland." Government had certainly made, he declared, and were making, this "manful effort;" they had cleared their mind of all the anti-Celtic prepossessions so common in England; they had made themselves masters of all the facts which the recent voluminous literature of the question had brought to light. Then he passed to the "present sensitiveness" of Ireland, which he traced to recent interruptions of Irish prosperity, to evictions, and to the conversion of much land from tillage to pasture. But the flaws of existing legislation had much to do with it also; notably the Act which in some respects had done much good, the Encumbered Estates Act. This Act had sprung from a desire to introduce capital into Ireland, and it created great facilities in the sale of land owned by impoverished proprietors. But it contained "one fatal oversight." Lord Devon's Commission in 1845, endorsed by Sir Robert Peel's Government, had recognised the right of the tenant to be invested with a title to improvements—that is, to claim a full allowance for the value of improvements effected by him in the land he occupied. This claim, Mr. Gladstone said, was doubtless generally admitted by the landlords; but when the properties came, as they so often did, into the Encumbered Estates Court, the tenant found himself legally robbed of his equitable claim. The Court sold the lands just as they were, and took no notice of the distinction between the soil itself and the improvements made by the tenant. "So," he went on to say, "the improvements were sold away from the tenant to persons who paid a price for them and the price was paid to the outgoing landlord, who undoubtedly ought not to have been[520] entitled to claim the property in them, and would not have been so entitled if the legislation recommended in 1845 had been adopted." In this and similar ways the Prime Minister showed that Acts which had been passed at various times with the most benevolent intentions towards Ireland, had defeated themselves, and helped ruin, instead of strengthening, the peace and prosperity of the country. The same thing, he added, might be said about emigration—a process natural and divinely beneficial when voluntary and free; but when compulsory, as was practically the case with Ireland, hardly to be distinguished from banishment.

These being some among the practical grievances of the Irish people with regard to their land, it was proposed to do away with them, or at least to diminish their force, by law. Free contract, said Mr. Gladstone, is undoubtedly the best arrangement, ideally speaking, in the relations between landlord and tenant, as in the other relations of life; but free contract is often practically impossible, and in some cases is with general approval overridden by the law. "You will not allow the man who has a factory to contract with the persons he employs on terms which suit their inclinations, but which you have forbidden.... These are cases which justify interference; but much stronger is the case for Ireland, because in substance these contracts, though nominally free, have not been really free under the peculiar conditions of life which that country offers." The Irishman is practically dependent on the soil—he has no choice of careers as he has in a mining and manufacturing country. "Strict freedom of contract, then, having been proved to be a great evil, what is the precise nature of that evil? The Devon Commission has pointed it out. It is that insecurity of tenure which not only abridges the comforts of the cultivator of the soil, but which limits and paralyses his industry, and at the same time vitiates his relations in a number of cases with the landlord, and in a still greater number with the law under which and the society in which he lives." To remedy this insecurity, a number of plans were extant; and already some were crying out for stability, some for perpetuity, some for fixity of tenure—phrases which all meant the same thing, the conversion of occupiers into owners. These plans Mr. Gladstone rejected, and went on to ask if no more moderate arrangement had been discovered, or could be found in the actual facts of Ireland. Certainly such arrangement could be found, notably in the "Custom of Ulster," and in the customs more or less analogous to it prevailing in other parts of Ireland; and to lands held under these customs Mr. Gladstone first looked. "It is not necessary at present," he said, "to investigate the history of the Ulster custom; whether it represents the ancient Irish ideas derived from the period of tribal possession; whether it represents the covenants which were inserted by James I. in the Charters granted to the settlers in the province; whether it has grown out of the happy political relations subsisting, for the most part, between the landlords and the occupiers, which have induced landlords to view favourably the growth of such a usage; or whether, lastly, it represents the payment of a kind of insurance for the safety of the incoming tenant when he obtains that possession of land which is so prized and valued in that country." Whatever were the origin of the custom, Government was content to take the Ulster custom as matter of fact, to convert it into a law, and to allow it to be examined into as a simple question of fact, in cases where a dispute might arise, by the Courts which would be established under this Bill. As such the Ulster custom would be regarded, where it existed, as including two elements—compensation for improvements, and the price of goodwill. The customs which prevailed in other parts of Ireland, being all of them much more partial, vague, and uncertain, were only to be made law under certain conditions. First, under such customs, a tenant was only to be allowed to claim payment of money on leaving his holding if he was disturbed in his tenancy by the act of his landlord. Secondly, he was not to be allowed to claim if evicted for non-payment of rent. Thirdly, he was not to be allowed to claim if he sublet his land (except for cottages) without his landlord's consent. Fourthly, not only arrears of rent, but damages done to the farm, might be pleaded by the landlord as a set-off. Fifthly, a landlord might bar the pleading of any such custom if he gave the tenant a lease, under certain conditions, of not less than thirty-one years.

[521]

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE (AFTERWARDS LORD CARLINGFORD).

(From a Photograph by Fradelle & Young, Regent Street, W.)

But what was to be done where no such protecting custom could be pleaded? Outside Ulster—outside the shelter of similar usages—the tenant, if not protected by any lease, "felt the full force of that tremendous evil of insecurity of tenure." To meet the case of such persons, Government proposed a scale of damages for evictions, with power to those tenants "having a farm not rented, but valued in the public valuation at £100 and upwards, to contract themselves out of this section of the Act." This was the most important clause in the Bill, and, as will appear, the most memorable divisions afterwards took place upon it and in connection with it in committee and in the Lords. The compensation was of course to be decided by the Courts established by the Bill; and in applying the scale, the judge, said Mr. Gladstone, "is required by the Act to have regard to two things—first, the improvements which have been executed by the tenant on his farm; and, secondly, the loss which the occupier is about to sustain by being ejected from his holding." The "improvements" were to include ordinary improvements, such as draining and fencing, and also the greater improvements, such as permanent buildings and reclamation of land. The scale was to be—if the holding was valued in the public valuation at over £10, the judge might award to the tenant a sum not exceeding seven years' rent; if the holding was between £10 and £50, he might award a sum not exceeding five years' rent; if between £50 and £100, a sum not exceeding three years' rent; if above £100, a sum not exceeding two years' rent. "In the ordinary case of eviction for non-payment of rent," Mr. Gladstone added, "or for subdividing the land, the House will understand that the scale does not apply at all." Moreover, the word "improvement" was rigidly defined, and was to be taken to mean "something which would add to the letting value of the land, and suitable to the nature of the holding as an agricultural holding"—not any fancy improvements which were not suitable to the purposes of agriculture. The great change which the Bill effected was, in fact, a change in the legal presumption. Previously, as Mr. Gladstone said, the[522] law had presumed all improvements to be the work of the landlord, and had given them to him. The Bill proposed to reverse this presumption, and to presume that improvements were the work of the occupier, giving to the landlord the business of showing the presumption wrong in any special case.

The importance which Government attached to these enactments about improvements is shown by the elaborate machinery which they devised to enable the landlord, if he chose, to bar the claim. This was a machinery of leasehold tenure, which was to allow the landlord to keep the general claim for goodwill off his estate. "This cannot be done by one lease," said Mr. Gladstone, "for if the landlord, at the end of one of these statutory leases, does not think fit to continue the system of leases, goodwill will immediately grow up as a plant grows from the ground." A series of leases would be required to do it, and, by continuous leases, a landlord might keep his land perfectly free from any claim to goodwill.

"I may now, perhaps, be asked," added Mr. Gladstone, "what we have done for the Irish labourer. For him we have done what the case will permit. We have allowed the tenant to subdivide and sublet for cottages and gardens.... We have offered advances from the Public Funds.... But the one great boon—and it is a great boon—which it is in the power of the Legislature to give to the agricultural labourer in Ireland, is to increase the demand for his labour, and, by imparting a stimulus to that part of the country, to insure its requiring more strong arms to carry it on, and thereby to bring more bidders into the market for those arms, and raise the natural and legitimate price of their labour.... If we can only convince every man that, from the time this Act passes, he will be able to prosecute his industry in security and in the manner most advantageous to himself, we shall confer upon the agricultural labourer the greatest boon which it is in our power to bestow."

These were the main features of the Bill which Mr. Gladstone committed to the House in a peroration singularly dignified and self-restrained. It was not, he said, to be expected that evils of such long standing as Irish evils were should be cured in a day, and it was impossible that they should be cured if the Bill were to be "poisoned by the malignant agency of angry or bitter passions." The passing of the Bill was to be looked on, not as the triumph of party over party, but "as a common work of common love and goodwill to the common good of our common country." "With such objects and in such a spirit," he concluded, "the House will address itself to the work and sustain the feeble efforts of Government. And my hope, at least, is high and ardent that we shall live to see our work prosper in our hand; and that in that Ireland which we desire to unite to England and Scotland by the only enduring ties—those of free will and free affection—peace, order, and a settled and cheerful industry will diffuse their blessings from year to year and from day to day over a smiling land."

A Bill of this complicated kind could obviously not be discussed on the first reading, so no debate took place until the second reading on the 7th of March. From the reception given to Mr. Gladstone's statement on February 15th, it was clear that the Conservatives did not mean to offer a point-blank opposition to the principle of the Bill. Mr. Gathorne Hardy, who acted as leader of the Opposition on that night, owned that his party "had a keen sense of the evils existing among the landlords, tenants, and labourers of Ireland at present," and hinted that they would reserve their principal criticisms till the Bill was in committee. The direct hostility to the Bill came from another quarter—from the extreme Irish party. Mr. Bryan, who was one of them, and Captain White, member for Tipperary, proposed and seconded an amendment to the second reading, to the effect that the Bill should be read again that day six months. But the views of members who protested against the principle of a landlord being ever allowed to raise his rents, and who openly asked not only for "fixity of tenure," but for fixity at nominal payments, could hardly hope to find favour in a Parliament of landlords. The principal speakers who criticised the Government plan were men of quite other views. Dr. Ball, Colonel Wilson-Patten, Mr. Henley, Mr. Ward Hunt, and Mr. Disraeli protested, not against the insufficient rights bestowed upon the occupier, but against the injury done to the landlord. Dr. Ball, the member for Dublin University, who brought to the Conservative side a remarkable contribution of eloquence and force, protested very strongly against the principle of interfering with freedom of contract. "You in England," he said, "have been working for centuries to make landlord and tenant not ascertain their rights by litigation, but have them established on the solid basis of contract.... I say you have got the best system; and I believe it to be the best because I believe that Englishmen, having set their hearts on the best[523] system, would be content with nothing less. What do I ask for my country? I ask the right to rise to the same standard as yourselves. I demand that you will not lay down a rule of this kind and say, 'This is good enough for Ireland. There is a positive incapacity in the Irish landlord to deal with his tenants by contract, and in the Irish tenant to take care of himself by contract. The Scotch and English are able to do it. Therefore the true system shall be reserved as a privilegium for them; but the Irish shall not be able to attempt it, because we shall put a clause in an Act of Parliament to prevent it.'" And Mr. Disraeli, in a similar strain, protested both against legalising the custom of Ulster ("because it does not exist," he said) and against interference with the freedom of contract. And yet, as we said, it was plain that the Conservative party were too well convinced of the strength of Government to attempt a wholesale rejection of the Bill. In the division that closed the debate on the second reading, Mr. Gladstone carried them into the lobby with him, and the principle of the Bill was affirmed by 442 against 11.

This majority was a clear enough intimation that the principles of the Government Bill were accepted by the House. Among the eleven "Noes" were found only three Tories—among them the veteran Mr. Henley, whose staunch adherence to landlord-right was not to be shaken by any amount of "political necessity," such as Mr. Disraeli talked of. But Mr. Henley, Sir W. Bagge, and Mr. Lowther—who for once found themselves in the strange company of the Extreme Left of Home Rulers and Roman Catholics—could only offer an ineffectual protest against the "tenants' Bill." The principle, that of legalising customs of compensation where found, and of making a statutory scale of compensation for loss of occupancy in the absence of any custom, had been once for all affirmed. It was evident, however, that the Bill would be severely handled in committee; and the prospect became all the clearer from certain fresh signs of agrarian terrorism which began to appear just after the second reading. County Mayo began to be disturbed by the visits of masked and armed men to the farmhouses, with the object of making the farmers swear to "break up their pasture lands." These outrages—more like the proceedings of Australian bushrangers or American Ku-klux men than of inhabitants of these islands—did not dispose Parliament to leniency in regard to Irish disaffection. Mr. Chichester Fortescue proposed, on the 17th of March, a Bill which would effectually meet these agrarian cases; and in a fortnight it became law. Its effect was to place certain districts of Ireland practically in a state of siege; it forbade the possession of firearms by unlicensed persons; it gave rights of search to constables; it took more stringent measures against threatening letters; it allowed discretionary arrests of suspected persons; it allowed the grand jury to give damages, chargeable on the county, to the families of murdered men; and it increased almost indefinitely the right of Government to seize newspapers. This Bill, which nothing but extreme necessity could have justified, passed Commons and Lords almost without a struggle; the Lords especially agreeing with Lord Salisbury, who said, "You must teach the Irish people to fear the law before you can induce them to like it."

Never has a Bill been visited with a more imposing show of amendments than the Land Bill in committee. Three hundred alterations, like the three hundred conspirators against King Porsenna, were banded together to work its fall, or at least to hamper its activity. The Ulster custom was debated for many hours, and met with all kinds of observations—from those alike who said with Mr. Disraeli, "You cannot legalise the custom of Ulster, because it does not exist," and those who regarded the Bill as a poor instalment of reform, to be accepted under protest. When the third clause came before the House, Mr. Disraeli brought forward an important amendment, directed against the principle of compensation for eviction as distinguished from compensation for improvements. He wished to insert the words, limiting the compensation, "in respect of unexhausted improvements made by him, or any predecessor in title, and of interruption in the completion of any course of husbandry suited to the holding." Mr. Disraeli charged Government with changing their original Bill in one most important point—namely, with intending to bring in a new clause practically extending the Ulster custom to the other parts of Ireland. The third clause, as originally drawn, proposed to give the outgoing tenant compensation for the improvements—"a subject on which both sides were unanimous; the marrow of all Land Bills; the result on which investigation and discussion have enabled the country to arrive at a mature conclusion, and which, if secured," said Mr. Disraeli "would, in my opinion, do all that in justice is required." But there were words at the end of the original clause which were ambiguous; "that compensation[524] should be given for the loss sustained by the tenant on quitting his holding." These words Mr. Disraeli declared that he and his friends had understood to mean what his amendment now stated—namely, that over and above receiving compensation for his improvements, "the tenant would, on quitting his holding, be secured the fair usufruct of any husbandry or skill in the tillage of the land which he had not yet received." So that Mr. Disraeli had originally intended his amendment to be a mere declaratory amendment, for the removal of a verbal ambiguity. But to his great surprise, he found that at the last moment Government had themselves amended the clause; that they had thrown the proposal for compensation for improvements into the background, and brought out as a chief part of the clause "that compensation is to be given to any tenant at the termination of his lease, on the assumption that the termination of his occupancy is a grievance for which the tenant ought to be compensated. This clause, then, in its later form, is a clause which does not conceal that, in the opinion of the framers of the Bill, occupation involves a right of property."

A VISIT FROM CAPTAIN MOONLIGHT. (See p. 523.)

Here was ground on which the question of the Bill might very well have been fought on the second reading; and it is not unlikely that, if the clause had originally been drawn as it afterwards was, Government would not have been allowed to wait so long without a struggle. That "occupation should be held to involve a right of property"—that a tenant should have a right to claim part-ownership in the land he occupied—was a notion which the English landlord shuddered to contemplate. Mr. Disraeli played very skilfully upon that landlord sentiment. He dwelt upon the fact that the principle was "opposed to all the fundamental principles of our legislation for the country generally;" and protested against applying principles to Ireland without considering their effect upon England and Scotland. And even in Ireland, he maintained, this admission of tenant-right in so extreme a form would have disastrous results. The landlord, finding that the new law gave his tenant a right to a third of his freehold—seven[525] years' rent; twenty-one years' rent being the average value of a freehold in Ireland—and seeing an escape from this claim in the clause which barred the right in the case of non-payment of rent, would take advantage of this, "the only position of strength left him." He would wait till the tenant did not pay his rent—a very frequent occurrence in Ireland—and then he would evict mercilessly. To escape a repetition of the danger he would consolidate his farms, and the old tenants would have to wander away to new homes. They, to avoid this last extremity, would appeal to "those rural ethics with the consequences of which we are all familiar." The rural logic of the Irish tenant would run thus: "I have lost my holding because I did not pay my rent. Can anything be more flagrantly unjust than that a man should be deprived of his contingent right to a third of the freehold because he does not pay his rent?" Or in other words, "Am I to lose seven years' rent because I have failed to pay half a year's?" As a consequence the Irish tenant would act upon his rural ethics, and either have his landlord's land or his life. "So far from the improvement of the country, so far from terminating all these misunderstandings and heartburnings which we seem now so anxious upon both sides of the House to bring to a close, you will have the same controversies still raging, only with increased acerbity, and under circumstances and conditions which inevitably must lead to increased bitterness and increased perils to society."

AN EVICTION IN IRELAND.

Mr. Disraeli's speech, which, clever as it was, struck rather at the exclusion of tenants evicted for non-payment of rent from the benefits of the Bill than at the compensation given for eviction on other grounds, was answered both by Mr. Lowe and Mr. Chichester Fortescue. Mr. Lowe called his language a "declaration of war;" and indeed an amendment moved by the leader of the Opposition upon a Government Bill is seldom anything else. Mr. Lowe dwelt upon the "terrible state of Ireland" springing from the habit of wholesale eviction; upon the need of sometimes transgressing the strict laws of political economy; upon the happy mean of the Government Bill, which verged[526] neither towards the Scylla of Mr. Disraeli nor towards the Charybdis of the advocates of fixity of tenure. "There is no doubt," he said, "that harsh conduct by the landlord, and evictions in times long past, have popularised murder in Ireland, and have made people look upon a murderer as a man not entirely in the wrong. When this feeling has once been created, observe the progress it makes. It has now passed from the landlord and tenant to the people themselves; outrages which used to be mainly directed against the landlord and persons in his employ are now directed against others: no injury is too slight—the discarding of a servant, the dismissal of a porter by a railway official, underselling by a tradesman—anything is a sufficient excuse for shedding blood. What is the fountain of bitterness from which these waters first flowed? Has not this demoralising practice sprung up mainly because the law did not give the tenant relief, and the tenant grew to think he was entitled to take the law into his own hands?" Again, what better established rule of political economy was there than that every man should be free to exercise any calling he liked? Yet we had a system of trade licences—a plain violation of this rule; and other rules might be found similarly violated for purposes of State necessity—the Government monopoly of the Post Office, for instance. And as to the "middle course" of Government, "we have gone," said Mr. Lowe, "to neither extreme. We have endeavoured, without shaking the foundations of property, to give adequate relief to the tenants; we have entirely repudiated the notion of fixity of tenure; and I think the Irish landlords are very wise in acquiescing. What would be the only result suppose the Bill failed? Why, they would be in this most miserable position: they would find themselves in the claws of the right honourable gentleman who would then be at the head of the Government, with a fine working minority in the House. When that time came," said the speaker, in allusion to Mr. Disraeli's Reform Bill, and his power of "educating his party"—"when that time came they might indeed tremble. I think I already hear the speech which the right honourable gentleman would make to the House. He would say it was a mockery and a delusion to give compensation to the tenant in case of eviction; such a remedy would fail because it did not go deep enough; and the only panacea for Ireland was fixity of tenure, with a periodical re-valuation of rents."

This gloomy prospect, however, was not to be realised. It was not reserved for Mr. Disraeli to repeat the tactics of 1866 and 1867, and first to turn out a Government on Conservative grounds, and then out-Herod their Liberalism by a Bill of his own. The debate flowed on. Mr. Gathorne Hardy was furious with Mr. Lowe, and then went on to denounce the clause: "I say that by doing this you are creating a property that did not exist before. You are giving a man something which he never had before; and you cannot give it him without taking it from somebody else." Sir Roundell Palmer, who, on questions of property as on ecclesiastical questions, was always rather Conservative than Liberal, took the opportunity of criticising the whole Bill from the point of view of "caution," and suggested many difficulties in the way of the treatment of prospective tenancies. But Mr. Chichester Fortescue, and Mr. Gladstone after him, maintained both the moderate character of the Bill generally, and the fact that "this clause was the central and essential part, without which it would not be worth the while of Parliament to pass the Bill." Mr. Gladstone's speech was at once temperate and firm. He dwelt upon the fact which Mr. Disraeli had slighted—the fact that the Bill was "wholly and absolutely exceptional." He did not attempt an abstract justification of its principles; on the contrary, he admitted fully that such interference with the laws of political economy was only to be justified by stern necessity. In fact, Government hoped that this measure might soon work such a cure in the Irish temper as to cut away the ground of necessity from under its own feet, in which case it would naturally fall into abeyance. "Twenty years, and thereafter until Parliament shall otherwise determine"—that was to be the limit of the operation of the Bill: a limit clearly showing both the conviction of Government as to its exceptional character, and their hope that it would one day cease to be necessary. But at present no such alteration could be made in it as that which Mr. Disraeli proposed, aimed, as it was, against "one of the main pillars of the Bill." "One of the grand provisions of the Bill was the confirmation of Irish customs. Another grand principle was that improvements made by the tenant were the property of the tenant. And a third principle of the Bill, which was by far the most prominent in the lengthened statement it was my duty to inflict upon the House, was that damages for eviction were to be paid to the tenant."

The division which followed upon this debate was perhaps the most important of the Session,[527] and it was a great triumph for the Government. The Ayes were 220; the Noes, 296; so that by a majority of 76 the new principle, which did most undoubtedly confer a new property upon the Irish tenant, was affirmed by the House of Commons. With this great victory the success of the Government Bill became assured; and the frequent divisions upon the later clauses, and upon amendments moved from both sides of the House, were one and all Government successes. The next night to that on which Mr. Disraeli's amendment was lost, Mr. Gladstone carried his own amendment, inserting after the word "compensation," the words, "for the loss which the Court shall find to have been sustained by him in quitting his holding," by a majority of 111. The further alteration which the clause underwent, was that all tenants of holdings at £50 a year and upwards were placed in the class of those with whose freedom of contract the Bill did not interfere—a different thing from excluding them altogether from the right to claim damages for eviction in the absence of contract. The former amendment was consented to by Mr. Gladstone, although unwillingly; the latter, proposed by Mr. W. Fowler, was lost by a majority of 32. But there is no necessity for us to follow the Bill through every little stage of its progress through committee. On the 30th of May it appeared in its amended shape, waiting for the third reading; and it passed without a division, amid murmurs of protest from the Conservative benches, and articulate protest from Mr. Hardy, who confessed that he looked to the Lords to assert themselves in the interest of landed property, and remedy the injustice of "damages for eviction." Mr. Gladstone knew his strength, and said little on that point. He only appealed to the consciences of the Irish landlords. "If," he said, "we were to put to the Irish landlords, categorically, the question, 'Will you take the Bill as it is, or will you have it lost?' I may be wrong, but my firm conviction is that the cry of those landlords would be, 'Let the Bill pass into law!'" And, so far as the House of Commons was concerned, it did pass into law that night.

There remained the House of Lords. The second reading was moved by Lord Granville, who had, of course, a much less difficult task to perform than Mr. Gladstone had had on the first introduction of the Bill in the House of Commons. The subject had been so long before the public, the discussion of it had been so full, that not only did the Lords know the details of the Bill already, but their own opinions of it were pretty well known to one another. Lord Granville did not expect much opposition to the main outlines of the Bill, nor did he meet with much. The Duke of Richmond, the Conservative leader, fixed mainly upon the duration of the leases specified by the Bill, and wanted to shorten the length of those leases which would exempt parties from its operation from thirty-one to twenty-one years. When this was the chief objection made by the leader of the Opposition, it was evident that the Bill would not be seriously imperilled, though Lord Salisbury might "condemn with his whole heart" the principle of compensation for eviction; though Lord Leitrim might object to "every part of it, from the title downwards;" and though Lord Clancarty might cry out that "it was a Bill of pains and penalties against the Irish landlord." The second reading passed without a division, though the Opposition declared their intention of making serious alterations in committee. Committee, indeed, is the proper battle-ground—the only possible battle-ground—for a Bill of this nature. A Bill may be rejected on the second reading when it is a Bill of one principle, definite and unmistakable; but the Irish Land Bill had three principles at least, according to Mr. Gladstone's enumeration; and according to the Lord Chancellor's, it had six. To reject it on the second reading, therefore, would have been to reject not one principle, but three, or even six, which, as the House of Commons was not composed entirely of Mr. Henleys, nor the House of Lords of Lord Leitrims, was hardly possible.

In committee the Duke of Richmond appeared much more hostile than he had appeared on the second reading. He carried, by 92 to 71—not large numbers, considering the importance of the question and the number of the Peers who actually compose the House—a most important amendment, reducing the scale of compensation for eviction. He demanded that the full scale of seven years' rent should only be awarded in the case of holdings under £4 a year—not under £10, as the Government figure stood; and the rest of the compensation clause was altered by him in a similar spirit. Of the other amendments carried by him, the most notable were—one which forbade a tenant to claim compensation if he had "assigned," i.e. let, his farm to another, without the landlord's approval; another, which aroused a feeling of indignation in many hearts, forbade a tenant to let gardens to his labourers under penalty of losing the protection of the Act; another was the same as that which he had given notice of at the time of the second[528] reading. Two other amendments of great importance were also carried—one, by Lord Salisbury, fixing £50, instead of £100, as the maximum rental under which a tenant might claim compensation for eviction; and one, by Lord Clanricarde, removing the legal presumption which the Bill had declared was to be in favour of the tenant, and providing that all claims for compensation for improvements should be proved by actual evidence. But before the Bill was finally sent down to the Commons, the chances of a collision between the two Houses, which seemed threatening, were very much lessened by the spontaneous reversal by the Lords of many of their own amendments. In particular, that of Lord Salisbury—which he had carried in defiance of the nominal chief of his party; and which, if persisted in, would have robbed the measure of half its force—was withdrawn. In the end, the only one of the Lords' amendments that was allowed to remain in the Bill was that which assured to the landlord a modified veto on his tenant's right to assign; and with this alteration the Bill was read for the third time. It received the Royal Assent on the 1st of August—a memorable day in the history of emancipation; and thus this measure, so novel in principle, so bold and yet so temperate in design, took its place among the laws of the United Kingdom. To say that it had much immediate effect in quieting the temper of the Irish people would be untrue; but it must be remembered that the bitterness of centuries is not cured in a year.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON.

(From a Photograph by Elliot & Fry, Baker Street, W.)

[529]

OFFICE OF THE LONDON SCHOOL BOARD, THAMES EMBANKMENT (1892).

## CHAPTER XXXIII.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

> The Elementary Education Bill—Mr. Forster—The existing State of Education—Deficiencies of the System—The Union and the League—Mr. Forster and the Cabinet—Mr. Forster's Speech—"Good Schools"—Undenominational Inspection—The Conscience Clause—Voluntary Schools and Compulsion—The School Boards—Districts and Fees—Powers of School Boards—The Religious Difficulty—Attendance—Mr. Forster's Peroration—Mr. Dixon's Amendment—Mr. Forster's Reply—Mr. Winterbotham's Speech and the Churchmen—Mr. Dixon's Motion withdrawn—Partial Concessions—The Cowper-Temple Amendment—Amendment moved by Mr. Richards—Mr. Forster's admirable Conduct—Changes in the Bill—It becomes Law—Outrage in Greece—Seizure of Tourists by Greek Brigands—Negotiations for their Ransom—The Brigands demand an Amnesty—Intrigues of the Opposition—The Greek Government determines on a coup de main—Mr. Erskine's Negotiations—The Troops move on Oropus—Murder of the Prisoners—Indignation in England—Army and Navy Estimates—The Budget—Other Legislation—Disaster in the Eastern Seas—Obituary of the Year.

TWO days after the introduction of the Irish Land Bill, on the 17th of February, Mr. Forster, the Vice-President of the Council, brought in his Elementary Education Bill, a measure which, fair as were its opening prospects, was destined ultimately to become far more of a bone of contention in England than many Irish questions. Mr. Forster had kept his secret admirably. It was, of course, known that Government had pledged themselves to deal with the Education Question during the Session, and that the construction of an Education Bill had been long ago entrusted to Mr. Forster. As the Radical member for Bradford, Mr. Forster had many times proved his Liberal principles, and had already gained the respect and attention of the House before taking office. His vigorous character, his capacity for hard work, and his known ability seemed to point him out as specially fitted to deal with the vexed and intricate problem of National Education. But how was he going to deal with it? What line were Government, as represented by him, about to take up with regard to the great questions of free education, compulsion, and State aid to denominational schools? The London newspapers guessed in vain. No one out of the Cabinet had any idea of the provisions of the Bill before the night of the 17th of February, when Mr. Forster[530] disclosed his scheme to a crowded House. His speech, as a speech, was perhaps a greater success than any he had achieved before. Perfect mastery of his subject gave a freedom and self-possession to his manner in which it had sometimes been wanting, and his whole demeanour was that of a man who had gone to the bottom of a great question, and who felt himself to be the most competent person to lead the opinion of the House and the country to a satisfactory decision with regard to it.

Before describing the means by which Government hoped to effect a radical change in the educational condition of the country, it may be as well to glance over the system of National Education as it existed at the time of Mr. Forster's speech. The whole system of National Education in England before the Act of 1870 was a matter of voluntary effort. In bygone ages, Greek philosophy had held the education of children to be one of the most essential duties of the State as such—a duty which could not be relegated to private hands, and which the State was bound to conduct with reference to the general welfare of the community. In more modern times Prussia had recognised this political view of education, and had made the training of every Prussian child a State matter. In England alone, with her over-fondness for self-government, and her love for the system of local provision for local needs, voluntaryism remained intact; and the education of the poor was left wholly at the discretion and in the hands of their richer and more intelligent neighbours. Voluntary effort must come first; then, indeed, State help would follow in the shape of building grants or annual grants, coupled with the condition of Government inspection; but in all cases the help given by the State had to be called forth by the prior voluntary action of some particular individual or some particular neighbourhood. It had long been felt that the results of this system were most unsatisfactory and inadequate; and as the Reform question advanced, and political enfranchisement had to be yielded step by step to the working classes, the gross and widespread ignorance prevailing among the lower orders began to force itself more and more strongly upon the attention of the country. Mr. Lowe only expressed the general feeling in a bitter and cynical way when, after the passing of the Reform Bill of 1867, he pointed out the power that it had conferred upon the working-man, and uttered the famous phrase, "Let us educate our masters!" The amount of educational destitution existing in England in 1870 may be roughly gathered from the following statistics. From the Census of 1851 it appeared that about one-fourth of the population of England were of an age to go to school—that is to say, from the ages of three to thirteen or four to fourteen. In 1870 the population of England was twenty-one millions, so that about five millions and a half of children would be of what is technically called the school age. Of these, 23 per cent. had to be allowed for as absent from school from allowable causes, such as sickness; half a million were at school for the upper or middle classes; and rather less than two millions and a half of the remaining three and a half millions were actually at school. There remained about one million one hundred thousand children who were not at school at all. Nor did this represent by any means the whole extent of the deficiency. Of the two and a half millions represented as actually at school, only a very small proportion indeed could possibly derive real benefit from the education offered them, because, as was abundantly proved by statistics, far the greater number of children were removed from school before their twelfth year—that is to say, before the age when the average child, much more the child of poor and uneducated parents, becomes capable of anything like lasting and profitable learning. This evil of short-lived and irregular attendance had been increasing during the years preceding 1870 rather than diminishing, and it was admitted on all hands to form one of the most serious elements of the educational difficulty. With regard to local deficiencies, especially to the educational needs of our large towns, let Mr. Forster speak for himself. "It is calculated," he said, "that in Liverpool the number of children between five and thirteen who ought to receive an elementary education is 80,000; but, as far as we can make out, 20,000 of them attend no school whatever, while at least another 20,000 attend schools where they get an education not worth having. In Manchester—that is, in the borough of Manchester, not including Salford—there are about 65,000 children who might be at school; and of this number 16,000 go to no school at all.... As a Yorkshireman I am sorry to say that, from what I hear, Leeds appears to be as bad as Liverpool; and so also, I fear, is Birmingham."

The educational need, then, could scarcely be denied, though extreme Conservatives, like Lord Robert Montagu, might attempt to palliate it. But the question of "how is this need to be supplied?" admitted of very different answers;[531] and opinion was indeed divided into at least two hostile camps with regard to it, represented by the National Education Union and the famous Birmingham League. The avowed object of both was "to bring a good education within the reach of every child in the country." But the Union proposed to accomplish this by means of the existing system, supplemented and reformed; the League, on the contrary, aimed at the destruction of the existing system, and at the gradual erection of something wholly different upon its ruins. The Union desired, above all things, to keep education in England denominational and founded upon religious teaching; while the League asserted strongly that education ought to be wholly undenominational, that State aid should only be given to secular instruction, and that religion should be provided by the voluntary efforts of all religious sects, the Church of England included. The doctrines of the League were supported inside the House of Commons by men like Mr. Mundella, Mr. Dixon, and Mr. Fawcett; and outside it, by the bulk of the Dissenting communities, who saw in the programme of the League a protest against the undisputed supremacy of the Church in education. On the other hand, the sequel showed that the partisans of the more moderate policy advocated by the Union had Mr. Forster himself in the main on their side, a large majority (both Liberals and Conservatives) in the House, and the whole influence and power of the Church of England. The Church talked of her "claims," and pointed triumphantly to the work done by her, and by her alone, in the cause of education; while the Dissenters complained of grievances, accused the clergy of intentional violations of the Conscience Clause then existing, and professed to regard their zeal for education as a mere cloak for widespread projects of priestly aggrandisement. Between these contending factions Mr. Forster had to take his stand, and to frame a Bill which should if possible satisfy both.

Mr. Forster had set about his great undertaking in that spirit of conscientious thoroughness which characterised him through life. From his well-known biography by Sir Wemyss Reid, we gather that so early as the 21st of October, 1869, he had submitted to the Cabinet an exhaustive memorandum, in which the four ideals of the Birmingham League, the National Education Union, Mr. Bruce's Bill of 1868, and Mr. Lowe's plan for supplementing voluntary effort by compulsory rates were submitted to the most searching criticism. He decided that Mr. Lowe's scheme was the best of the four, but suggested that it might be strengthened in various ways, and concluded—"In venturing to submit the above suggestions, I may be allowed to add my conviction that in dealing with this Education Question boldness is the only safe policy; that any measure which does not profess to be complete will be a certain failure; but that we shall have support from all sides if, on the one hand, we acknowledge and make use of present educational efforts, and, on the other hand, admit the duty of the central Government to supplement these efforts by means of local agency." His views found favour with the Ministry, but meanwhile the Birmingham League had begun to stir, and Mr. Forster was much annoyed by rumours that the Cabinet was of divided mind, and that the measure would in consequence be postponed. On the 6th of December we find him writing to Mr. Glyn, the Ministerial Whip, an earnest protest against procrastination. He received a fairly reassuring reply; nevertheless there were dissensions in the Cabinet. Mr. Gladstone was immersed in Irish land tenure, and Lord De Grey, the President of the Council, had to bring considerable pressure to bear so as to prevent the measure from being shelved. In the end Mr. Forster's memorandum was practically adopted, though his proposals for compulsion were made less stringent, and his provision that the aid given to already existing schools should be confined to secular education was, somewhat injudiciously, toned down.

We cannot do better than let Mr. Forster describe his Bill mainly in his own words. The first problem, then, to be solved, said the Vice-President of the Council, was this: "How can we cover the country with good schools?" The answer to this must be influenced by three considerations—considerations of the duties of parents to their children, of the duty of Government to the taxpayer, and of the duty of every educational reformer to those who were already labouring in the cause of education, and to the system which they at great cost had built up and supported. That is to say, "in solving this problem, there must be, consistently with the attainment of our object, the least possible expenditure of public money, the utmost endeavour not to injure existing and efficient schools, and the most careful absence of all encouragement to parents to neglect their children." The principles upon which the present Bill is founded, he continued, "are two in number—legal enactment that there shall be efficient schools everywhere throughout the kingdom; and[532] compulsory provision of such schools, if and where needed, but not unless proved to be needed. So much for the principles of the Bill. Coming now to the actual provisions by which they are to be enforced, it will suggest itself to the minds of all that there must be to begin with a system of organisation throughout the country. We take care that the country shall be properly mapped and divided so that its wants may be duly ascertained. For this we take present known divisions and declare them to be school districts, so that upon the passing of this Bill there will be no portion of England or Wales not included in one school district or another. We have taken the boundaries of boroughs as regards towns, and parishes as regards the country—and when I say parish, I mean the civil parish, and not the ecclesiastical district. With regard to the metropolis, we have come to the conclusion, subject to the counsel and advice of the metropolitan members, that the best districts we can take in the metropolis are, where they exist, the school districts already formed for workhouse schools; and where they do not exist, the boundaries of the vestries. Having thus got our districts, our next duty is to ascertain their educational condition, and for that purpose we take power to collect returns which will show us what in each district is the number of schools, of scholars, and of children requiring education. We also take power to send down inspectors and officers to test the quality of the schools and of the education given in them. Then if in any one of these districts we find the elementary education to be sufficient in quantity, efficient in quality, and suitable in character, that is to say, hampered by no religious or other restriction to which parents can reasonably object, we leave that district alone; and we shall continue to leave it alone so long as it fulfils those conditions. And I may as well state that for the purpose of ascertaining the condition of a district we count all schools that will receive our inspectors, whether private or public, whether aided or unaided by Government, whether secular or denominational."

Here Mr. Forster, before describing the means by which districts insufficiently supplied with schools were to be sufficiently supplied, explained an important change in the character of Government inspection to be introduced. "Hitherto," he said, "the inspection has been denominational; we propose that it shall no longer be so." The reasons for this change were obvious. In the first place, an invidious distinction was kept up between Church inspectors and inspectors of other denominations—the former alone having the right to inquire into the teaching of doctrines in any school. Thus both sides were in many cases aggrieved. Clergymen complained that their school children were subjected to examination in religious doctrine by an inspector whose religious views differed from their own, while a Wesleyan or an Independent school could not be subjected to any such examination at all. On the other hand, the Dissenters were justly irritated by a distinction that seemed to imply that their peculiar tenets were not, and could not be, recognised by the State in the same way as the doctrines of the Church. The denominational character of the inspection also very much complicated the whole system of inspection, introducing many practical difficulties into the division of inspecting-districts, and so on. In consideration of all these objections, and believing that the existing system was favourable neither to religion in general nor to the Church cause in particular, "we propose," said Mr. Forster, "that after a limited period one of the conditions of public elementary schools shall be, that they shall admit any inspector without any denominational provision."

The next provision of the Bill concerned the framing of a stringent conscience clause to be accepted by every elementary denominational school before public money would be granted to it. There had been at one time strong opposition on the part of a fraction of the Church party to any conscience clause whatever. It became evident, however, several months before the introduction of the Education Bill, that public opinion, both lay and clerical, was strengthening in its favour, and the adoption of a conscience clause into the programme of the National Education Union virtually settled the matter. The Conscience Clause in the Bill of 1870 ran as follows:—

"No scholar shall be required, as a condition of being admitted into or of attending or of enjoying all the benefits of the school, to attend or to abstain from attending any Sunday school, or any place of religious worship, or to learn any such catechism or religious formulary, or to be present at any such lesson or instruction or observance as may have been objected to on religious grounds, by the parent of the scholar sending his objection in writing to the managers or principal teacher of the school, or one of them."

By far the most practical objection that had been made to a conscience clause had been that it would be in reality of little or no use in any case where the clergyman or other manager of a school[533] should be bent on setting it aside. "That, however," said Mr. Forster, "is not the view that I have formed from my personal experience. In the first place, I do not know any case in which our present conscience clause has been applied in which it has not been found thoroughly effective; but our new clause will be different in this important respect, that whereas the old clause was applicable only in some cases to building grants, the new one will apply to all grants, and especially to all annual grants. It is perfectly clear in its operation, and I am quite sure that no manager of a school will risk the loss of the annual grant by violating its conditions."

MR. W. E. FORSTER. (From a Photograph by Russell & Sons.)

Mr. Forster went on to state that every opportunity would be afforded to the upholders of the voluntary system to do what was necessary for themselves, and thus avoid the interference of Government. "We have said," he continued, "that we must have provision for public elementary schools. The first question then is, by whom is it to be made? Now here for a time we shall test the voluntary zeal of the district. Not only do we not neglect voluntary help, but, on condition of respecting the rights of parents and the rights of conscience, we welcome it. To see, then, whether voluntary help will be forthcoming, we give a year to test the zeal and willingness of any volunteers who may be disposed to help; but we ought not to give longer time, because we cannot afford to wait." If therefore the educational need had not been met in any given district by voluntary effort at the expiration of the year of grace, the State would step in and supply the deficiency. The next point was one of great importance. The Bill admitted the principle of[534] compulsion, so often attacked as un-English; and in certain districts and under certain conditions, elementary education was in future to be enforced. It will be seen that Mr. Forster was afterwards obliged to defend himself from the charge of timidity and half-heartedness in this matter of compulsion. Having gone so far, it was asked, why not go farther; and having once admitted the justice of the principle of compulsion, why not make it the general law of the land, instead of allowing its application to depend upon the caprice of individual school boards who might adopt it here and there? Yet Mr. Forster was not to blame, but the Cabinet, though he loyally held his peace and never let it appear that he was defending a principle to which his private convictions were opposed.

The machinery of school boards—the newest and most prominent feature in the Bill—by means of which education was to be provided by the State where voluntaryism failed, had next to be explained to the House. For Government did not propose to educate the nation by means of an enormous and omnipotent central department. This would indeed have been un-English, for local action and self-government have been throughout English history the mainstays of English life. Local resources were still to supply local wants, but they were to be made to do this in a far more effective, systematic, and public manner than heretofore. "Voluntary local action," said Mr. Forster, "has failed, therefore our hope is to invoke the help of municipal organisation. Where we have proved the educational need, we supply it by local administration—that is, by means of rates, aided by money voted by Parliament, expended under local management, with central inspection and control.... Undoubtedly this proposal will affect a large portion of the kingdom. I believe it will affect almost all the towns and a great part of the country."

With regard to the area of the school districts, Mr. Forster had already indicated the boundaries established by the Bill. In the provinces, the parish was to be looked upon as the unit of area—Government of course reserving to themselves the power of throwing two or more parishes together if necessary—rather than the union, as being smaller, more convenient, and freer from practical difficulties. In London the existing school districts were to be taken, and, where these did not exist, the boundaries of vestries. And in every school district where the voluntary system had proved inadequate to meet the educational demand, a school board was to be elected—that is to say, a body of responsible and official persons, whose business it would be to provide sufficient and suitable education for the whole district over which their power extended. "But the next question that arises is—How are we to elect our school boards in the provinces (London having been already provided with school boards under a previous Bill), and whom are they to elect? Now first who is to elect? Well, the electoral body we have chosen for the towns is the town council. I do not think there can be much dispute upon that point. In the country we have taken the best body we can find—the select vestry where there is one, and a vestry where there is no select vestry. Secondly—Whom are they to elect?" The answer to this was very simple. The electors were to choose whom they thought fit without limitation of choice; but there was to be a limit of numbers. The school board was to consist of never less than three or more than twelve members. Mr. Forster had come to the conclusion that it was not desirable to add ex officio members to the board, thinking very rightly that "the very men fit to be ex officio members would come in with greater influence and almost equal certainty if subjected to popular election." Nor were the boards to be saddled with Government nominees—a proceeding that would make Government responsible for the failures as well as the successes of any given board. Government only reserved to themselves the rights of a final court of appeal in any case where the work of the board was either carelessly done or done in opposition to the spirit of the Act. In any such case Government claimed a right to step in and manage the district for as long as it thought fit.

The important question of school fees, important in one way to the poor parent and in another to the taxpayer, came next to be considered. Government, however, said Mr. Forster, had no intention of making elementary education in England free. In the first place, such a change could only be effected at the cost of a great sacrifice to the country—a sacrifice of some six or seven hundred thousand pounds yearly—an amount that it might fairly be calculated would be reached by the parents' pence under the new scheme. And in the second place, supposing that the country were ready to undertake the sacrifice, the framers of the Bill were, on general principles, wholly averse from it. To relieve the parent of all payment for his children's education would be, said Mr. Forster,[535] to weaken the sense of parental obligations in him, and to pauperise those who had hitherto kept themselves free from the taint of pauperism. Some provision, however, was to be made for extreme poverty, and real inability to pay school fees was in no case to prove a bar to any child's education. "We take two powers," said the speaker, "we give the school board power to establish special free schools under special circumstances, which chiefly apply to large towns, where, from the exceeding poverty of the district, or for other very special reasons, they prove to the satisfaction of the Government that such a school is needed and ought to be established.... We also empower the school board to give free tickets to parents who, they think, cannot really afford to pay for the education of their children; and we take care that those free tickets shall have no stigma of pauperism attached to them. We do not give up the school fees, and, indeed, we keep to the present proportions—namely, of about one-third raised from the parents, one-third out of the public taxes, and one-third out of local funds. Where the local funds are not raised by voluntary subscription, the rates will come into action." A question of rates is always, as Mr. Forster went on to say, treading on delicate ground, but the future education rate need alarm no one. Should it ever exceed threepence in the pound—a most unlikely event—Government would step in with a "very considerable extra grant out of the Parliamentary votes." And the education rate would save the prison rate and the pauper rate, and might thus prove the most hopeful and satisfactory of all economies.

With regard to the other powers to be granted to school boards, they were, first of all, to be allowed the choice of alternative courses—either they might meet the need of a particular district by providing extra schools of their own, or they might supply it by assisting and extending existing schools. But supposing they decided upon the latter alternative, they were to exercise their right in no prejudiced or limited manner. "If they do go on the principle of assisting, they must assist all schools on equal terms. They may not pick out one particular denomination and say, 'We shall assist you, but not the other.'" To this part of the Bill belonged the afterwards famous 25th clause, by which school boards were enabled to pay the fees of indigent children at denominational schools out of the rates—a point that was attacked with equal ardour by the liberal philosophers of the Fortnightly Review, the members of the Birmingham League, the Dissenters generally, and all other advocates of secular education, but the supposed iniquity of which was not discovered until after the Bill had passed through committee. For these last Mr. Forster held out no word of hope. Speaking of the restrictions that ought or ought not to be laid upon school managers with regard to religion, he denied the existence of any real religious difficulty at all, the great plea of the secularists. Or rather, he held that there was a theoretical difficulty that might occur to and perplex an honest man in his study, but no practical difficulty that would affect the parents and children considered by the Bill. The Bill decreed that no restriction was to be laid upon school managers with regard to religion. If the neighbourhood that elected them chose, they might leave religious teaching altogether alone, but they certainly should not be forbidden, in any case, to teach or to explain the Bible. "Now just look," said the speaker, "at the age of the children with whom we have to deal. The great majority of them are probably under ten years of age.... We want a good secular teaching for these children, a good Christian training, and good schoolmasters. It may be said that as these children can hardly be supposed to require doctrinal or dogmatic teaching to any great extent, 'Why do you not then prescribe that there should be no doctrinal teaching—why not, in the first place, prescribe that there shall be no religious teaching at all?' Why do we not prescribe that there shall be no religious teaching? Why, if we did so, out of the religious difficulty we should come to an irreligious difficulty.... If we are to prevent religious teaching altogether, we must say that the Bible shall not be used in our schools at all. But would it not be a monstrous thing that the book which, after all, is the foundation of the religion we profess, should be the only book that was not allowed to be used in our schools? It may be said that we ought to have no dogmatic teaching. But how are we to prevent it? Are we to step in and say the Bible may be read, but may not be explained? Are we to pick out Bible lessons with the greatest care, in order that nothing of a doctrinal character may be taught to the children?" A hard and thankless labour indeed, but one which Government would undertake were it convinced that such was the wish of the country. But it was convinced, on the contrary, that the country wished no such thing; and in no case could such a matter be satisfactorily undertaken or discharged by the[536] central Government. In fact, the framers of the Bill felt confident that the religious difficulty would turn out to be one of words and theories only. "Get your school boards together," they said; "give them the practical work to do of providing efficient secular education, and you will see that at the same time they will find ways and means of managing the religious education satisfactorily also. Put the fiercest of controversialists to the practical handling of details, and he will soon find that the imaginary parent possessed by an imaginary hatred of all religion, or a stubborn and exclusive preference for one form of religious teaching rather than another, is almost wholly the creature of his own fancy; and that the so-called religious difficulty is a phantom which vanishes before the open work-a-day atmosphere of facts."

Having now described the school districts, the school boards, and the various minor arrangements connected with them, Mr. Forster came finally to the important question of attendance. In other words, "Having got our schools, how are we to get the children to come to them in anything like sufficient numbers, and with anything like sufficient regularity?" In his answer to this, Mr. Forster enlarged upon the direct compulsion permitted by the Bill. The Short Time Acts, on which so many depended for securing the attendance of children, would no doubt contribute greatly to that object, and they might be so amended as to render them still more effectual. But the difficulty could not be met by their aid alone, and compulsory attendance was therefore to be resorted to, though as we said before, only in a limited and partial degree. "What we do in the Act," said Mr. Forster, "is no more than this. We give power to the school boards to frame by-laws for the compulsory attendance of all children within their district from five to twelve. They must see that no parent is under a penalty—which is restricted to 5s.—for not sending his child to school if he can show reasonable excuse,—reasonable excuse being either education elsewhere, or sickness, or some unavoidable cause, or there not being a public elementary school within a mile. These by-laws are not to come into operation unless they are approved by the Government, and unless they have been laid on the table of this and the other House of Parliament forty days and have not been dissented from."

Having thus described his Bill, with every detail of which he had shown himself perfectly familiar, Mr. Forster concluded in words of genuine and sincere enthusiasm, which could not but awaken the sympathy of all who had listened to him:—

"Upon the speedy provision of elementary education depends our industrial prosperity. It is of no use trying to give technical teaching to our artisans without elementary education. Uneducated labourers—and many of our labourers are utterly uneducated—are, for the most part, unskilled labourers; and if we leave our work-folk any longer unskilled, notwithstanding their strong sinews and determined energy, they will become overmatched in the competition of the world. Upon this speedy provision depends also, I fully believe, the good, the safe working of our constitutional system. To its honour, Parliament has lately decided that England shall in future be governed by popular government. I am one of those who would not wait until the people were educated before I would trust them with political power. If we had thus waited, we might have waited long for education; but now that we have given them political power, we must not wait any longer to give them education. There are questions demanding answers, problems which must be solved, which ignorant constituencies are ill fitted to solve. Upon this speedy provision of education depends also our national power. Civilised communities throughout the world are massing themselves together, each mass being measured by its force; and if we are to hold our position among men of our own race or among the nations of the world we must make up for the smallness of our numbers by increasing the intellectual force of the individual."[537]

OFFICE OF THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, WHITEHALL.

The short debate that followed was extremely flattering to Mr. Forster personally. Liberal and Tory complimented the speech and the Bill, regretting only that the framer should occupy what was nominally, at least, a subordinate position in the Ministry, and should speak as the Vice-President of the Council under its President, Lord de Grey, instead of as "the responsible Minister of Public Instruction." Scarcely a murmur of the coming struggle disturbed the amiability of the House, and on the morning of the 18th of February the newspapers were full of Mr. Forster and Mr. Forster's admirable Bill. For a while it seemed as if the concessions of the Bill, and the conciliatory tone of its advocate, had silenced both the League and the Nonconformists, until a series of ominous articles in the Daily News dispelled the illusion, and a cloud of hostile talk and writing began to gather definitely round certain portions of the proposed Act. By the time the second reading arrived, all the world knew that the Government would find the passing of the measure by no means a matter of such plain sailing as had seemed likely at first. And the motion for the second reading was met, in fact, by a motion of Mr. Dixon's (member for Birmingham and founder of the League), to the effect, "That no measure for the elementary education of the people could afford a permanent and satisfactory settlement which left the important question of religious instruction to be determined by the local authorities." Mr. Forster might well point out with some warmth that the success of such an amendment at the present stage of matters could have no other effect than to throw out the Bill and the Government. Such a question, he argued, should be discussed in committee; only when approached in detail could the religious difficulty be either satisfactorily debated or satisfactorily settled. "Unsectarian education"—which, however, throughout he carefully distinguished from secular education—he thought not at all difficult to reach in practice, though extremely hard to define, and personally he strongly supported it. But unsectarian education could never be attained by definite and minute legislation. "Surely," he said, "the time will come when we shall find out how we can agree better on these matters; when men will discover that on the main questions of religion they agree, and that they can teach them in common to their children. Shall we cut off from the future all hope of such an agreement, and say that all those questions which regulate our conduct in life and animate our hopes for the future after death, which form for us the standard of right and wrong—shall we say that all these are to be wholly excluded from our schools?... I confess I have still in my veins the blood of my Puritan forefathers, and I wonder to hear descendants of the Puritans talk of religion as if it were the property of any class or condition of men. The English people cling to the Bible, and no measure would be more unpopular than that which should declare by Act of Parliament that the Bible shall be excluded from the schools!" Cut the knot of the religious difficulty in this way,[538] and a far greater irreligious difficulty would be created. Instead of the few individuals who might, were the Bill passed in its present form, object to paying the school rate, multitudes would be found objecting to an education from which religion was left out. The greater part of Mr. Forster's speech consisted of an appeal on behalf of local government as against central government. What the amendment proposed, he said, was to force the central government to adopt one rigid line of policy, regardless of all the varying circumstances and wishes of the different localities, the result of which could only be to produce endless opposition and heart-burning. Under the Bill the will of the majority in any given neighbourhood would always take effect, whether that will was in favour of secular or religious education. Only let the House set its face against any abstract proposition like the present amendment. In committee would be the place and time to discuss the several points as they arose, fairly and calmly, and to take the sense of the House upon the religious question detail by detail.

The second night of the debate upon the second reading was marked by an effective and brilliant speech, in behalf of secular education, from Mr. Winterbotham, the young Liberal and Nonconformist member for Stroud. All the opinions and prejudices which the great majority of the House had been accustomed to consider as the mere vulgar talk of back-alley Dissent, they were now to hear expressed in logical and forcible English by a man of liberal culture and large experience, who, while freeing himself from what were regarded as the worst and most narrowing influences of the Nonconformist creed, was yet true to all its main articles, and unfeignedly proud of being a Dissenter. The speech represented far better, and more vividly than anything else in the Education debates, the real feeling of the great Nonconformist party. It embodied their whole claim, and stated their whole grievance with singular sharpness and vigour. It went to the root of the question, and the Church party were fairly startled by the depth and bitterness of the feeling disclosed. The cultivated Churchman, or the philosophic essayist, might equally deplore the additional narrowness and heat imported by Mr. Winterbotham into the controversy upon Education, when he represented the question as so largely affected by social differences and social jealousies. But the fact remained, and subsequent history only brought out more clearly the unhappy and lamentable truth, that the difference between Church and Dissent was, at least in many places throughout England, marked by the worst characteristics of a class quarrel. Such a speech as Mr. Winterbotham's could not but rouse the Churchmen of the House. The challenge was taken up in turn by Lord Robert Montagu, Mr. Beresford Hope, who thought it "impossible to conceive a speech worse-timed, or struck in a more unfortunate key," and that Churchman of Churchmen, Sir Roundell Palmer, who rebuked the Dissenters through Mr. Winterbotham, not without some dignity and reason, for "inflaming the religious difficulty." He declared in decisive language, "that the views advocated by the member for Stroud were such as never could be accepted as the basis of a common system of national education by that portion of the people who belonged to the Established Church." He argued from "the broad facts of existing schools" that the mind of the country as a whole was strongly opposed to the principle of secular education, and in favour of that of religious education. On the other hand, Mr. Miall and Mr. Auberon Herbert spoke strongly in favour of the amendment; while Mr. Samuelson, also a member of the League, announced, as did Mr. Mundella on the third night of the debate, that, while approving heartily of the principle of the amendment, he should vote against it, believing that the advocates of unsectarian education should reserve all their strength for the amendment of the Bill in committee, rather than risk, by such a motion as Mr. Dixon's, the indefinite postponement of the whole question. Mr. Lowe had as usual a witty remark to make upon the situation. It reminded him, he said, of a fine herd of cattle in a large meadow, deserting the grass that was abundant all about them, and delighting themselves by fighting over a bed of nettles in the corner of the field—the bed of nettles being of course the religious difficulty. He denied altogether that Government had "nailed their colours to the mast," and were determined to make no concessions. In fact, his cry was the same as Mr. Forster's: "Let us get into committee; then will be the time to make concessions on both sides." The third night of the debate was marked by several fine speeches. First of all came a clever, popular, ad captandum attack upon the Government by Mr. Vernon Harcourt. He returned Mr. Lowe's hard hits with others equally hard, and drew an amusing picture of the municipal elections of the future, when the Bill had introduced into them the fatal element of religious disagreement. Mr. Mundella and Mr. Jacob Bright took up the middle position[539] of voting against the amendment for conscience' sake, the speech of the former being memorable for its moderation and fairness of tone. Conservative speakers like Sir Charles Adderley were, of course, strong in their denunciations of Mr. Dixon's proposal; but though Government were sure of their majority, it was thought politic not to alienate their Radical supporters by allowing the question to proceed to a division. Mr. Gladstone rose to play the part of peacemaker—which, indeed, was his rôle throughout the Education debates—and promised large concessions on the three important points of compulsion, the election of school boards, and the relation of religious to secular teaching. With this promise the recalcitrant Liberals professed to be contented. Mr. Dixon withdrew his amendment, and the Bill was allowed to pass the second reading.

Except for an occasional question and answer as to the meaning of certain portions of the Bill, the subject of Education was not again brought forward in the House till three months had passed away. That time was spent by the Education Office in a careful collection of statistics, in the preparation of reports, and in various other routine business. And by the statesmen in charge of the Bill it was spent to great profit in observing and noting the true direction of public feeling on the matter. The general current of Liberal opinion was indeed unmistakable, and it was felt on all hands that concessions must be made to it in committee. And concessions indeed were made, so far as Mr. Forster considered the essential principles of the Bill allowed. Meanwhile he had to endure much undeserved opprobrium, since the League persisted in treating him as a scapegoat, and affected to exonerate the rest of the Ministry at his expense. There was a moment when Mr. Gladstone was disposed to yield to the clamour, but Mr. Forster, though much dispirited by the attacks of his former friends, particularly in Bradford, was resolute in adhering to the principles of voluntary schools and Bible teaching. Mr. Gladstone opened the debates in committee on the 16th of June by the announcement that the Government, while rejecting a motion of Mr. Vernon Harcourt's for "undenominational education," combined with "unsectarian instruction in the Bible," on the ground that such phrases were vague and unpractical, were prepared to accept Mr. Cowper-Temple's amendment, "to exclude from all rate-built schools every catechism and formulary distinctive of denominational creeds, and to sever altogether the connection between the local school boards and the denominational schools, leaving the latter to look wholly to the central grant for help." This amendment was practically identical with a compromise, which Mr. Forster had himself suggested in a letter to Lord Ripon written on the 18th of May. In consequence of this, the central grant to all schools, rate-built or voluntary, was to be increased from one-third to one-half the total cost. The remaining half was to be rates and school-pence in the case of board schools, and voluntary subscriptions and school-pence in the case of denominational schools. Mr. Disraeli, in reply, had a great deal to say with regard to this proposal, which he described as an "entirely new Bill;" but Government knew very well that at this particular juncture they had little to fear, and everything to hope, from the Conservatives, and the policy of the League was just now far more important to them than any skirmishing of Mr. Disraeli's. An amendment by Mr. Richards, to the effect that "in any national system of elementary education the attendance should be everywhere compulsory, and the religious teaching supplied by voluntary effort, and not out of public funds," provoked another long debate on the "religious difficulty," in which a few irreconcilable Conservatives joined with Mr. Winterbotham and Mr. Vernon Harcourt to harass the Government. Once more did Mr. Forster defend his position, winding up a practical and temperate speech with language unexpectedly determined. The Government, he said, meant to yield no more ground. "We have considered," he said, "the whole of the religious question, and we present the Bill to the House in the form in which we think we must adhere to it." Upon the supporters of the amendment, should it be successful, must "rest the responsibility of defeating the Bill, and preventing the settlement of the Education Question this year." Once more did Mr. Gladstone endeavour to pour oil on the troubled waters, promising that "effectual guarantees should be taken against the violation of conscience in rate-schools through the acts of a narrow or sectarian spirit," and pointing out to the Nonconformists that, in return for the great concession that was being made to them, in excluding all creeds and catechisms from rate-built schools, they owed some counterbalancing forbearance and consideration to the Church party, which felt as strongly as they, and had greater educational services to plead. But come what might, Government would stand by their Bill, and no more would be yielded. Mr. Richards' amendment, however, was thrown out by 421 to[540] 60—figures which might well give Government confidence. Nor were these proportions substantially altered in later divisions. The Bill was carried through triumphantly, in spite of ardent Churchmen like Sir Stafford Northcote, who were strongly opposed to the Government concessions, no less than of Mr. Dixon and Mr. Jacob Bright. In his diary Mr. Forster described the 30th of June as the day on which the Bill passed through its crisis, and shortly afterwards his position was greatly strengthened by promotion to a seat in the Cabinet. Night after night did he sit through the tedious debates, ready to answer every question and parry every attack, evincing throughout such unfailing good humour, combined with such unflinching determination, that the House was at once impressed and conciliated. Strong in the general support of the Conservatives, joined to that of the moderate Liberals, he defended his Bill at every essential point, regardless of the telling and often bitter criticism of the League. Still certain important alterations were made before the Bill became law; chiefly that the school boards were to be re-elected every three years; that the school rate was not to be levied under a distinct name; that the election of school boards should be on the cumulative principle—that is, that where each voter had a number of votes, he might bestow them all on a single candidate if he chose, instead of being compelled to divide them equally. Finally, after a debate of twenty-one days, the Bill passed the third reading without a division, but amid the anathemas of both classes of irreconcilables. While Mr. Dixon pronounced that Government had aroused "the suspicion, distrust, and antagonism of some of their own most earnest supporters," Mr. Gathorne Hardy charged them with "inaugurating a system of hypocrisy, treachery, and baseness." Mr. Forster enjoyed the fate of all neutrals—of being heartily abused by both belligerents.

In the House of Lords the Bill was well treated, the only important amendment being moved and carried by the Duke of Richmond, to the effect that vote by ballot should not extend to other than metropolitan elections. With this alteration the Bill passed through its last stages and became law, and it may be added that, whatever its defects, it marked an epoch in the history of our educational system. The religious difficulty did not disappear with the passing of the Bill, as was natural to a difficulty which after all was primarily not religious but social. The platforms of the League and the Union—of Nonconformity and the Established Church—were the platforms on which the later elections for school boards were generally fought; but the first elections largely showed that the Bill was being loyally accepted by all parties, and Mr. Forster was greatly pleased when Lord Lawrence, ex-Viceroy of India, agreed to become Chairman of the first School Board for London. Certainly the Act brought education within the reach of every English child, and "covered England with good schools;" and the rancour of the League defeated its own ends when Mr. Forster, on addressing his constituents in the autumn, was received with a vote of censure.

All minor legislative undertakings of the year, even the Land Bill and the Education Act themselves, were for the time wholly eclipsed and driven out of public memory by news that arrived in England, by telegraph, on the 22nd of April—news fraught with personal loss and sorrow to many, which roused throughout England generally a storm of grief and indignation. The facts were these: On the morning of the 11th of April, a party of residents and tourists, comprising Lord and Lady Muncaster, Mr. Herbert, Mr. Vyner, Mr. Lloyd, his wife and child, and Count de Boyl, set out from Athens to visit the battle-field of Marathon, that famous crescent-shaped piece of flat sea-shore, where the destinies of Europe were once staked upon a single throw, and the "teeming East" received that decisive check, the importance of which to subsequent European history none can over-estimate. The gentlemen of the party before setting out had made stringent inquiries in Athens respecting the rumoured presence of brigands in the country round Marathon. Mr. Herbert had received official information to the effect that Attica, was safe, and, the Government declared, perfectly free from brigands. Still, to guard against any possible danger, the Government engaged to send with them an escort of four mounted gendarmes, who were to be joined en route by others. Thus provided, they set out, and, after such a day as a party of cultivated people were likely to spend in such a place as Marathon, they were driving back to Athens in the warm spring evening. Only the four gendarmes were in sight of the carriage—two riding in front, and two behind; but the inmates knew that at least six foot-soldiers were a little way behind them, while it was rumoured that a further body of twenty-five soldiers had left Marathon in their wake, ready to render help if necessary.

[541]

CAPTURE OF ENGLISH TOURISTS BY GREEK BRIGANDS. (See p. 542.)

[542]

What followed may be described in the words of Mr. Erskine's despatch of the 12th of April to Lord Clarendon. "Just before they were to change horses," he says, "and as they were approaching the bridge of Pikermes, at about twelve or fourteen miles from Athens, they were suddenly fired at from the brushwood bordering the road; and at the first discharge the two gendarmes in front fell, badly wounded, from their horses. The carriage then stopped, and the whole party were compelled to alight, and with the two remaining mounted gendarmes, were hurried up the side of the mountain"—Mount Pentelicus, famous in old Greek days. In the midst of the general panic and uproar, the six foot-soldiers came up and opened fire on the brigands. But alas! they were now too late, whatever their help might have been worth a few minutes earlier. The brigands—of whom Mr. Herbert counted at least twenty-one—had formed themselves into a compact square, of which their captain made the centre. Thus arranged, they retreated gradually under the fire of the soldiers, which must for some little time have placed the lives of the prisoners in the utmost danger. Seeing that they produced no effect, and fearing to injure those whom they had been ordered to protect, the soldiers at last discontinued the pursuit and made off to Athens to give the alarm. The eight unfortunate travellers found themselves wholly at the mercy of this wild-looking band of black-browed men, who dragged them roughly up the slopes of Mount Pentelicus without any regard to the fatigue of the ladies and the strength of the little child who clung to them. At the top of the mountain a halt was made, and the ladies were told that they were to be immediately sent back to Athens, in a country cart that happened to be at hand. Ink and paper were supplied to Mr. Herbert, and he was peremptorily ordered to send by them to his friends in Athens a demand for the immediate payment of a ransom of £32,000. Driven by the countryman who owned the cart, the poor ladies—one of whom (Mrs. Lloyd) little knew that she had parted from her husband for the last time on earth—made their way back to Athens.

On the morning of the 13th, a note, conveyed by one of the mounted gendarmes—who had been liberated at the same time as the ladies—reached Mr. Erskine from Takos, the chief of the brigands, saying that if in three days a sum of £50,000 was not forthcoming for the ransom of the "lords," and if all pursuit throughout the kingdom was not suspended, the prisoners would be put to death. In the course of the day Lord Muncaster arrived in the capital, sent by the brigands to negotiate for the ransom. He brought the same message. Let the troops but come into collision with the brigands, and the lives of all the captives would be at once sacrificed. Mr. Erskine of course renewed the most strenuous representation to the Greek Government on the subject, and received in return from the Minister for War, General Soutzos, a solemn assurance that the brigands should remain unmolested till the prisoners were safely restored. General Soutzos treated the whole matter very lightly, would not allow for a moment that the lives of the prisoners were in any danger, and said that he had no doubt the amount demanded for their ransom might be considerably reduced if their friends felt inclined to make any difficulty about it. No thought of bargaining with the brigands, however, entered Mr. Erskine's or Lord Muncaster s head, and the ransom was speedily collected with the help of the chief banker in Athens, who showed himself most active and efficient. But, alas! no sooner was the money forthcoming, and means of transporting it secured, than a new element entered into the situation, and darkened the whole aspect of affairs. This was no less than a demand on the part of the brigands for a complete amnesty for all offences, not only for themselves, but also for such members of the band as had once belonged to it, but were now in prison. And should this fresh demand be refused, they again threatened to destroy their prisoners. The Greek Government found themselves thrown into a fatal dilemma, and it was to their reckless attempt to extricate themselves from it that the whole of the subsequent tragedy was owing. Under the Constitution that secured the throne of Greece to Prince George of Denmark, the King and Ministers were pledged to put down brigandage, the curse of Greek society, with the utmost rigour of the law. How, then, grant such an amnesty as this to the most powerful and most notorious band in Greece? Besides, the Ministry felt from the first that there was more in the demand than met the eye. Such a condition formed no part of ordinary brigand law, and would not have occurred spontaneously to any band of lawless men who saw the prospect of getting a large sum of money immediately after releasing their prisoners. It appeared only too clearly afterwards that the demand was originally none of their making, and that they were throughout supported and influenced by the corrupt and reckless chiefs of the Greek Parliamentary Opposition. It was a party move, meant to secure the[543] downfall of the Ministry; and the brigands, no less than their unfortunate prisoners, were but pieces in the game. Once suggested, the notion no doubt caught the fancy of Takos, the head of the band, a man of superior education to the rest; and elated by the rank and importance of his captives, he may have made up his mind to secure every possible advantage. The other members of the band were by no means eager for the amnesty, and when a few days later they were flying before the soldiery, they bitterly reproached their chief with having demanded it.

Fully alive to the gravity of the situation, Mr. Erskine sent telegram after telegram to Lord Clarendon. Lord Clarendon's answer was clear and peremptory. Britain could allow no constitutional consideration to weigh against the lives of her subjects. The Greek Constitution had been violated before in the same manner in the Cretan insurrection and in other cases; and Englishmen were not to be sacrificed to keep a weak Ministry in power. The Ministry meanwhile were preparing a desperate attempt to recover their reputation and escape from the snare laid for them. They hoped for a successful coup de main, which should at once rescue the prisoners, annihilate the brigands, relieve Government from the responsibility of the ransom, and strengthen the position of the Ministry. At the same time Mr. Erskine was still allowed to believe that, although the amnesty could not be granted, no movement of the troops against the brigands would be permitted until the prisoners were safe. Relying upon this, Mr. Erskine sent a messenger to the brigands, reiterating the assurance of the Government that no pursuit would be attempted; and entreating that they would leave the mountains and bring their prisoners down into the plains, where such delicate men as Mr. Herbert and Count de Boyl need not be exposed to all the hardships of an open-air life. The brigands, who had vowed to trust the word of no Greek Minister, believed Mr. Erskine, left their mountain camp and brought their captives down to the village of Oropus, where they seem to have been on the whole fairly well treated. A few days were then taken up in fruitless negotiations, conducted by a certain Colonel Theagenis, on behalf of the Greek Government—a man afterwards denounced by Sir Henry Bulwer in the House of Commons as the real murderer of the prisoners—and by Mr. Erskine, on behalf of Great Britain.

It is difficult to give a consecutive account of what followed. The Government had made up their mind to take the risk of employing the troops. Mr. Erskine was, above all, anxious that the brigands should not move their prisoners from Oropus, and he seems to have countenanced the action of the Government so far as to consent to a blockade of Oropus, to prevent them from doing so, insisting at the same time in the strongest terms that the brigands should not be in any way molested by the soldiery till the prisoners were safe. Colonel Theagenis was entrusted with the conduct of the whole matter, and it appeared plainly afterwards that he received instructions of which Mr. Erskine knew nothing, and to which he would never have consented. The suspicions of the brigands had been by this time aroused; the Government had been for some days silently moving up troops in the direction of Oropus, and the scouts of the band, posted on all sides of the village, were not slow to discover and report their movement. On the 20th of April, the day before the massacre, letters reached Mr. Erskine from Mr. Herbert, Mr. Lloyd, and Mr. Vyner, which must indeed have thrown him into despair. All spoke of the imminent danger in which these suspected movements of the troops had placed them, and entreated that something might be done to stay the progress of the soldiers. Mr. Noel, an English resident in Eubœa, who had taken a prominent part in the negotiations, telegraphed to say that he felt assured the terms offered would be accepted by the brigands, but that the soldiers must be withdrawn. The band were going to a place not far from Oropus called Sykamenos, whither he was about to follow them with every hope of a successful issue. It was this movement of the brigands, coupled with the orders given to the troops to pursue them should they leave Oropus, that brought about the tragedy of the 21st. On that day the brigands, suspecting the neighbourhood of troops, left Sykamenos before Mr. Noel could come up with them. The troops received information of their movement, followed them, and fired upon them. The brigands, driven to desperation, turned savagely upon their prisoners. They shot Mr. Lloyd before the eyes of the soldiers, who became infuriated at the sight of this murderous act, and made a fierce attack upon the brigands. Six of them were killed, including Christos Arvanitakis (Takos), and one or two were taken alive. The others fled up the country, dragging the other prisoners with them; and upon reaching a place named Skimatari, they stabbed them one by one, Mr. Vyner being the last to suffer. In an hour or two all the labour and[544] anxiety of the last ten days had been rendered fruitless, and four noble and valuable lives had been sacrificed to the culpable rashness and incapacity of those who had sworn to protect and rescue them. Mr. Noel telegraphed the fatal news to Mr. Erskine, and it almost seemed for a time as if another death were to be added to the list, so fearful was the effect of the tragedy upon the man who for ten days had strained every nerve to prevent it.

For a time all England was roused to a frenzy of wrath and grief. At one time it seemed as if nothing less than a war with Greece and the annihilation of her whole existing political system would satisfy English indignation. But there was one person in Greece for whom English people felt almost as much pity as for the victims themselves—and that was the poor young king, who throughout had been the dupe of the unscrupulous partisans about him,—who once in a moment of alarm had made the romantic offer to give himself up to the brigands in the place of the captives,—and who, now that all was over, wrote the most touching letters, full of keen personal shame and grief, to the English Government, while later he made large offers of indemnification out of his own private property to the families of the victims. It was well for Greece that nearly a month elapsed before the question came to be debated to any purpose in Parliament. During the interval the capture of nearly all the brigands had done something toward satisfying the public indignation. The wily leaders of the Opposition, at whose door lay the greater part of the blame, had laid their plans so cunningly that it was extremely difficult to detect and expose them. And after the confessions of the brigands had thrown some light upon this part of the matter, and a steady public opinion in England might perhaps have exacted a heavy penalty for the lives so basely trifled with from those who had used them only as so many pieces in the political game, English attention was diverted by the gigantic impending tragedy of the French and German War; and in the overwhelming interest of those first battle-fields of Wörth and Forbach, the fate of the captives of Marathon was, for the time at least, inevitably forgotten.

The story of the Greek massacre may now give place to the story of the tamer debates in Parliament that still remain to be described. The two great Acts that have already been recorded naturally fill the chief place in the Parliamentary history of the year; but there still remain some discussions that are worth describing, some measures whose fate has to be told. First in order come the naval and military proposals of Mr. Childers and Mr. Cardwell—memorable as showing the naval and military condition of Britain at the opening of the great war year, and as indicating more or less completely the lines upon which reorganisation afterwards proceeded. The Naval Estimates of Mr. Childers carried out very thoroughly those principles of economy on which the Liberal Government had laid so much stress on its accession to power. The proposals of the First Lord also included a scheme for the retirement of officers, and were full of details about the intentions of the Admiralty with regard to ships and guns—those never-ceasing perplexities of the modern naval administrator. The gross estimates reached a total of £9,250,000—three quarters of a million less than those of the previous year, and £1,700,000 less than those of 1868. This saving had been arrived at by different expedients; and, popular as the broad result was, the expedients, taken severally, were most of them doubtfully welcomed both in and out of Parliament. The most notable one had been the closing of several of the dockyards, and the consequent throwing out of employment of several thousand workmen. But Mr. Childers presented not only a justification of his policy to the House, but showed that Government had done very much to lessen the distress of the discharged workmen. Thus, of 2,000 who were thrown out of work by the closing of Woolwich Dockyard, 1,000 had been transferred to other establishments, 200 pensioned, gratuities given to 200, and 300 helped to emigrate. This, in fact, was all that could be done. Government found themselves in a dilemma—either they must abandon retrenchment, or they must harass certain interests. They chose to pursue their policy of retrenchment, trusting to their own remedial measures and to the chances of the market for providing for the discharged workmen. Mr. Childers' proposals with regard to keeping up a proper supply of ships were "to push on the most powerful class of armoured ships and the fastest cruisers," experience having shown that these were the two classes most likely to be of use in modern wars—the one for fighting, the other for pursuit. He had much to say about new guns; he promised to send another flying squadron round the world; he detailed his measures for forming a reserve of sailors; and, above all, he unfolded his new scheme of retirement for officers. The details of this scheme, stated shortly, were that admirals of the fleet were to be compelled to retire at 70 years of age, admirals and vice-admirals at 65, rear-admirals at 60, captains at 55, commanders at 50, and lieutenants at 45. With this he proposed a scale of pensions, and promised that the result would be a considerable benefit to the service and a saving to the country of about £300,000 a year.

"REARING THE LION'S WHELPS."

FROM THE PAINTING BY W. L. WYLLIE, A.R.A.

[See larger version]

[545]

THE ROYAL PALACE, ATHENS. (From a Photograph by Rhemaidez Frères, Athens.)

Mr. Cardwell's army proposals need not be described at length, for they merge into the far more comprehensive proposals of the next year, when the war had compelled the country to look its military affairs in the face, and to consent to a thoroughgoing scheme of reorganisation. Still, even in this year, Mr. Cardwell struck the note of a very decided reform. He proposed reductions both in the colonial and the home army, and laid down the two principles, though he did not fully work them out, upon which the reorganisation of 1871 was based—namely, short service and abolition of purchase. He abolished the rank of ensign and cornet, as a first step towards the latter; he announced his plan of enlistments for twelve years, six to be passed in the regular army and six in the reserve, as a preparation for the former. He proposed to disband the Canadian Rifles, the Cape Mounted Rifles, the 3rd West Indian Regiment, and the African Artillery. He reduced the Indian establishment, and proposed an elaborate method of reducing the strength of all home regiments. By all these measures he brought about a reduction of £1,136,900 on the estimates of the previous year, and of £2,330,800 on those of the year before. The figures by which he described the strength of the army at the beginning of this year were:—Regulars and others available for all services, home and foreign, 109,225; second army of reserve, 20,000; militia, 63,000; yeomanry, 15,300; volunteers, 168,477. In other words, a total of 376,002, nearly half of them being volunteers—figures that tempt one to speculate what would have been the result of all this reduction and economy had the German armies made their appearance before London instead of before Paris!

The revenue of the year, as Mr. Lowe announced in his Budget speech, amounted to £76,505,000; a sum of which nearly four millions were due to the new mode of collecting taxes instituted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—a mode that for the first year caused the revenue to appear far greater than it really was. The expenditure was £68,223,000; and the surplus was devoted to paying about half the cost of the Abyssinian War, to a reduction of the income tax by a penny in the pound, to a reduction of the sugar duties, and to various smaller reductions. In finance, at least, the annus mirabilis cannot be pronounced unfortunate, so far as England was concerned.

The history of Parliament in 1870 must be completed by a mention of a few Bills that became law, and a few that did not. This year saw the passing of a Bill that practically repealed the law that Pitt had carried in order to exclude Horne Tooke from the House of Commons—a Bill, moved by Mr. Hibbert, to remove the civil disabilities of clergymen. This provided that any clergyman wishing to relinquish the office of priest or deacon might do so by signing a deed, to be registered by the bishop. From the moment of his signing, he was to become free to practise any trade or profession, and to sit in Parliament—to become, in fact, a layman. It may be added that a considerable number of distinguished clergy took advantage of the Act soon after it was passed. Mr. Russell Gurney's Married Women's Property Bill was another of great practical importance; but unfortunately its success was only partial. It proposed to give married women the absolute control of their own earnings, instead of allowing the husband to seize them at his pleasure. The Bill was of course directed mainly towards the class of wage-earning people, where the wife often contributed largely to the family stock by the labour of her hands; and no one who had any knowledge of this class could be ignorant of the fearful amount of misery that a drunken or worthless husband might cause by compelling his wife to keep him in drink and idleness. Mr. Russell Gurney's Bill aimed at curing this state of things; and, in spite of the difficulties of the question, the advantage of protecting married women in the possession of their actual earnings was evident to almost everybody. But in the House of Lords, where there were no members pledged to support women's rights, the Bill was severely handled by the law lords and others. The unbelief of Lord Westbury, the peculiar experience of Lord Penzance, induced them to "amend" the Bill in its most essential points.[546] It passed, but passed mutilated; yet its advocates had helped to familiarise the public mind with its principle, and a measure much more consistent and comprehensive became law in a later year. The House of Lords also threw out for this Session the Bill of Sir John Coleridge for abolishing religious tests in the Universities, and also the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill, which the House of Commons had passed. This Bill, which has been described as "a Bill to enable a woman to marry her deceased sister's husband," found great favour with the Dissenters, and was pushed through the Lower House mainly by their exertions. But the House of Lords was more open to High Church influence—Lord Salisbury was a greater power there than Mr. Beresford Hope in the Commons—and was never too willing to pass Bills for the simple removal of disabilities, matrimonial or other.

In the first month of the year, before Parliament met, a terrible catastrophe occurred in the Eastern seas, through which a fine ship-of-war belonging to a friendly nation was run down by an English mail steamer and sunk, the accident being attended by a lamentable loss of life. The United States steam corvette Oneida left the anchorage at Yokohama, the port of Yedo, in Japan, at about five o'clock on the evening of the 24th of January, 1870. Two hours later the noble vessel had sunk beneath the waves and the greater part of her crew had been swept into eternity. It was nearly 7 P.M.; the officers were at dinner below, when the look-out man shouted, "Steamer lights ahead," and the midshipman on watch gave the order to port the helm. The approaching vessel (which proved to be the Peninsular and Oriental Company's steamship Bombay) was steering due north, and making for the port of Yokohama; the Oneida appears to have been steering a south-easterly course. Captain Eyre, commanding the Bombay, afterwards deposed on oath, that when the Oneida was first sighted, she was about a mile distant, and that he immediately ported his helm, and kept porting it for a considerable time, in order to clear her. While the Bombay was still heading off to starboard, Captain Eyre deposed that he saw the stranger putting her helm hard a-starboard, and crossing the bow of the Bombay with full sails and steam. The night being dark, the vessels were at that moment not more than a hundred feet apart. Captain Eyre instantly stopped his engines, and put his helm hard a-starboard, hoping to go clear of the approaching vessel. Unfortunately the vessels were too close together for this, and a collision occurred, the bows of the Bombay cutting into the starboard side of the Oneida, about the mizen rigging. Neither ship was entangled with the other; and Captain Eyre, not hearing or seeing, as he said, any signal of distress from the other ship, and being informed that the Bombay was making water, ordered the engines to be set going at full speed and made the best of his way for Yokohama. The unfortunate crew of the Oneida felt themselves to be cruelly abandoned; for, besides the shock and the danger of the collision itself—in consideration of which the unharmed or slightly harmed vessel ought in common humanity to have waited to ascertain the effects of the accident upon the other, before proceeding on her course—several of the Oneida's guns, which happened to be loaded at the time, were almost instantly fired to attract the attention of the Bombay and bring her back. Two of the ship's boats, containing fifty-six men, floated after she had gone down, and were picked up and brought safely to Yokohama; the rest of the officers and crew—a hundred and twenty in number—went down with the ship. A court of inquiry was held at Kanagawa, in Japan, to investigate the circumstances of the collision, and the result was that Captain Eyre's certificate was suspended for six months. The Board of Trade afterwards ratified the finding of the court of inquiry, and expressed their opinion that the sentence of suspension was "inadequate to the gravity of the offence."

We must now turn to the obituary of the year, omitting, however, according to our custom, the[547] domains of literature and art, which are reserved for a later chapter. A statesman of high rank, a judge of great and long-lived reputation, some illustrious soldiers, were among those who died. Of several of these—of Sir De Lacy Evans, of Sir G. F. Seymour, of Sir William Gordon, and of General Windham—it is not necessary to speak; nor of Dr. Gilbert, the cultivated Bishop of Chichester, once the well-known Principal of Brasenose College. More famous than these was Sir Frederick Pollock, formerly Chief Baron of the Exchequer, who began his public career by coming out as Senior Wrangler at Cambridge in 1806, and ended it sixty-four years later as a judge who had carried into his retirement the respect and affection of his colleagues and the bar. He was, too, a member of a notable family—for Sir David Pollock, once Chief Justice of Bombay, and Field-Marshal Sir George Pollock, the famous Indian soldier, were his brothers. It is rare for three brothers to reach, as they did, the very highest posts in their different professions, especially if, like these, they start with no advantages of wealth or birth. Lord Clarendon, who died on the 27th of June, had started with those advantages, but he had turned them to good account. He was the head of the Clarendon branch of the Villiers family, which has for a long time been Whig; and he carried out through a long official life the best traditions of Whig policy as a diplomatist, Foreign Secretary, and Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, though the chief responsibility for the Crimean War must always rest upon his memory.

[548]

THE BOULEVARD MONTMARTRE, PARIS.

## CHAPTER XXXIV.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

AT his usual New Year's Day reception (the 1st of January, 1870) the Emperor Napoleon expressed himself to the diplomatic body as highly satisfied with the relations existing between his Government and all Foreign Powers. He added, "The year 1870, I am sure, cannot but consolidate this general agreement, and tend to the increase of concord and civilisation." So it might easily have done, had not the rise or fall of his own prestige, and that of his family, been matters of much greater importance in the Emperor's mind—notwithstanding these fine words—than the peace of Europe and the happiness of France.

M. Ollivier, having succeeded in inducing several public men of a higher stamp than had ever before served the Emperor—notably Count Daru and M. Buffet—to join him in the effort that he declared himself resolved to make to give real political liberty to France, appeared before the Chamber with his Ministry fully constituted on the 3rd of January. But these honest politicians of the Left Centre—these men of honour, and character and known antecedents—must have felt considerable surprise, not to say mistrust, when they found what sort of persons they were associated with in the Government and in what hand the executive force of the Empire really lay. Marshal Lebœuf was continued in the post of Minister of War; and[549] courtiers like Marshal Vaillant, the Duc de Gramont, and General Fleury knew the Emperor's secrets and influenced his determinations much more than his responsible Ministers. M. Ollivier himself was a vain, impetuous man, abounding in self-confidence, but lacking in self-respect,—who was dazzled by the attentions shown him by the Emperor, and believed that he had converted his master to Liberal principles; whereas his master did but make a tool of him all along, and in the end caused him to lose the respect of everyone.

EMILE OLLIVIER. (From a Photograph by Benque and Co., Paris.)

Although the country was materially prosperous, the popularity, and therefore the stability, of the Empire had greatly diminished in the last five years. With the temper that ruled in the breasts of French politicians, the aggrandisement of a neighbouring State was necessarily regarded as a check to the policy and a kind of outrage to the feelings of France. Even so moderate a writer as Jules Favre seemed to think that if the candidature of Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern had not been withdrawn when it was, the elevation of a Prussian prince to the throne of Spain would have constituted a real casus belli for France. The line of French thought would appear to be this: "Prussia, by annexing a number of provinces without our consent, and not offering us a share, has brought herself relatively nearer to us in power than she was before, and has thereby done us a grievous wrong; if now the ambitious House of Brandenburg, not content with this provoking increase of power, should try to seat one of its princes on the throne—even though it be but a revolutionary throne—of Spain, we Frenchmen will not submit to it; our feelings will boil over; and we must go to war rather than allow it." It is[550] true these things were little felt by the working and trading millions, to whom "peace was their dear delight;" yet even to them a little "glory" now and then was necessary in order to embellish their existence; and, moreover, the Emperor was a man of ideas, knew the French people, and could calculate the force of epigrams and the undermining power of a hostile sentiment. Certainly he could not afford, nor could the Empire afford, to lose any more prestige. Yet at this very moment an incident of the most damaging and discreditable character covered the name of the Bonapartes with infamy, namely, the death of the journalist Victor Noir at the hands of the Emperor's ruffianly cousin Pierre, and the latter's acquittal before the High Court of Justice at Tours.

The position of the Government was strange and precarious; no one seemed exactly to understand it: with the exception of the extreme parties—the courtiers on one side, and the "Irreconcilables" on the other—all the actors on the political stage were moving they knew not precisely whither. M. Ollivier on one occasion (February 23rd) announced that the Government disapproved of the system of official candidatures, and would no more use pressure at the elections. No intelligence could be more unwelcome to a large proportion of the members on the Right, who had owed their seats to Government pressure, and knew that without it they had no chance of being re-elected. A split therefore began to develop itself in the ranks of the majority. But the Emperor still continued to support Ollivier and to play his Liberal game. His instincts and opinions were without doubt genuinely Liberal; and his life was consumed in the attempt to reconcile the gratification of these instincts with the conservation of his dynasty. And yet there must have been something in the apologetic tone that Ollivier often assumed in the Chamber, which must have been a little galling to Napoleon's pride. The Emperor resolved to teach his Liberal supporters a lesson and at the same time to reimpress a large and awkward fact on the minds of his enemies—namely, that he and his system were the choice of France. He instructed M. Ollivier (March 21st) to prepare a Senatus Consultum for the redistribution of powers between the two branches of the Legislature, so that the Senate—the less popular body—should be curtailed of many privileges which it had before enjoyed; while the Corps Législatif—the more popular body—would have its powers extended, especially by giving it the right of originating all money Bills. M. Ollivier introduced the measure into the Senate on the 26th of March. But a few days later he was startled on being informed by the Emperor, that since, in his opinion, the new constitutional changes involved a departure from the basis that the popular vote had ratified in 1852, he was resolved to submit them also to the ordeal of universal suffrage. Ollivier remonstrated vainly against this decision: the Emperor stood firm; and the Minister, either not seeing or not wishing to see the vast difference that his consent made in his position, agreed to continue at the head of affairs and arrange the machinery of the plébiscite.

But Count Daru and M. Buffet, more clear-sighted and self-respecting than their flighty colleague, refused to have anything to do with a plébiscite. For the meaning of it was simply this—that the popular vote covered everything, and was itself the source of right and legality; that France had no right to liberty and just government unless the masses voted to that effect; and that similarly the plébiscite of 1852, having sanctioned a system that arose out of perjury and violence, had made that system immaculate and unquestionable. In taking office, Count Daru and M. Buffet had never intended so to commit themselves; and they now accordingly resigned their bureaux. The Duc de Gramont, a courtier, received the charge of the Foreign Office in succession to Count Daru.

In resorting again to the device of a plébiscite, we cannot doubt that the Emperor had one main object in view—increased stability. The tide of Liberalism, he felt, was continually pushing him onward; piece by piece, the system of administration on which he had ruled France for eighteen years was giving way to its assault; and then, as he had once before said to M. Ollivier, "one always falls on the side on which one leans." Feeling the advances of age—conscious that his powers both of body and mind were being undermined by a harassing and incurable malady—he became more than ever desirous to secure the peaceable transmission of power to his son. If all France could be got to ratify the changes that were now being made in the system of government as decisively as it ratified his assumption of power after the coup d'état of 1851, surely the dynasty might then breathe freely. One would have thought that the friendship and the pledged word of two or three leading generals would have offered a more substantial security for the succession[551] of his son than the illusory test of a plébiscite. Perhaps, however, the Emperor had by this time half convinced himself that a popular vote, taken on a matter which the masses cannot properly judge of, was an honest and lawful mode of devolving power, and also a mode that imparted a peculiar strength and durability to the decision arrived at. The vote was taken in all the departments of France, and separately in the army and navy, with the following result: Oui, seven millions of civilian votes, and three hundred and nine thousand in the army and navy; Non, one million and a half (within five thousand) of civilian votes, and fifty-two thousand in the army and navy.

When, in the autumn of 1852, the Emperor demanded from the popular voice a condonation of the past and a sanction for the future, the Ayes numbered nearly 8,000,000, the Noes only 253,000. The returns of the voting in 1870 marked a notable progress of dissatisfaction since the commencement of the Empire. But it is known that the nature of the military vote was that which chiefly disquieted the Emperor. These fifty thousand soldiers who, in spite of the restraints of discipline and the ties of self-interest, had, by their "Noes," expressed their disapproval of the Imperial system, could not but be regarded as the more active and intelligent spirits in the army, who were more likely, unless their aims were attained, to estrange from the Empire the still loyal majority, than to be absorbed in that majority themselves. What, then, were their aims? In a warlike nation, where the humblest day-labourer is possessed by the sentiment of military glory, the more stirring and ambitious characters in the army are prone to become impatient in a long-continued peace; and this feeling is likely to be enhanced when a neighbouring people, the rival and antagonist of the soldier's country in many an historic campaign, has been winning spolia opima, and gaining victories of extraordinary brilliancy. Such reflections must have agitated the mind of Napoleon as he thought of those fifty thousand "Noes;" and the conviction must have come upon him with a lurid clearness, that the only way to regain the loyalty of the army and to secure the succession of his son lay through war. When the ruler of a great nation, having the absolute control of its military resources, arrives at such a conclusion as this, an occasion is not likely to be long wanting.

But for a time everything wore a peaceful aspect, and the results of the plébiscite were even considered on the whole to have strengthened the Emperor's position. It was a matter of course that, on receiving from M. Schneider (May 21st) the official report of the results of the voting, the Emperor should use the language of serenity and cheerful hope. "We must," he said, "more than ever look fearlessly forward to the future." In a debate on the Bill for fixing the army contingent for 1870, M. Ollivier, to whom the Emperor's mind was a sealed book, declared that the Government had no uneasiness whatever; that in no epoch was the peace of Europe more assured; and that no irritating question anywhere existed. When, after the death of Lord Clarendon, Earl Granville repaired to the Foreign Office to take up the portfolio of the deceased statesman, he was informed by Mr. Hammond, the Under-Secretary, that in all his experience he had never known so great a lull in foreign affairs. Two hours later, a telegram from Mr. Layard, the British Minister at Madrid, communicated the decision of the Spanish Council of State to offer the crown of Spain to Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern. On the same afternoon, the Duc de Gramont informed Lord Lyons, the British ambassador at Paris, that France would use her whole strength to prevent the election of a Prussian Prince, and he requested the co-operation of Britain in warding off this danger to the peace of Europe. On the following day (July 6th) the Duc de Gramont read in the Chamber a memorandum of the views of the Government, the unusual and menacing language of which spread alarm through all the capitals of Europe. "We do not believe," he said, "that respect for the rights of a neighbouring people obliges us to suffer a Foreign Power, by placing a prince upon the throne of Charles V., to disturb the European equilibrium to our disadvantage, and thus to imperil the interests and honour of France. We entertain a firm hope that this will not happen. To prevent it, we count upon the wisdom of the German nation and the friendship of the people of Spain; but in the contrary event, with your support and the support of the nation, we shall know how to do our duty without hesitation or weakness." These words were received with wild and enthusiastic cheering.

The candidature of Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern had been first broached so far back as March, 1869, but at that time it met with no encouragement at Berlin; while M. Benedetti, under instructions from the French Government, represented that such an election could only be[552] viewed by France with serious dissatisfaction. Now, after an interval of more than a year, the project was resumed, and that in circumstances of apparent trickery and intrigue that called forth disapprobation, not in Paris only, but also in London. At a later date the Duc de Gramont suggested, though he had no means of proving, that the idea of reviving the candidature of Prince Leopold came to General Prim from a Prussian source; and he pledged his veracity for the existence of a letter written to Prim by Count Bismarck some time in June, 1870, in which the Prussian Chancellor said that the candidature of the Prince of Hohenzollern was in itself an excellent thing, that it must not be abandoned, and that at a given moment it might be serviceable. The duke declared that though he had never seen this letter himself, it had been read by well-known eminent men. These and other details were related by the Duc de Gramont in order to bear out his theory that Prussia, and in particular Count Bismarck, was the real originator of the war, by means of a series of studied provocations and affronts, designedly framed so as to awaken the warlike passions of the French people, and hurry them into a strife for which he knew that Prussia was far better prepared than France. Whatever may be thought of this theory, it is certain that the suddenness of the whole thing (for the Council of Ministers at Madrid decided on the 5th of July to propose the Prince of Hohenzollern to the Cortes, and to convoke that body for the purpose on the 20th of July) was viewed with suspicion and disfavour in Britain, where no prejudice existed either against Prussia or France. The excitable imagination of Frenchmen immediately developed the incident into a hundred painful and humiliating consequences. "Prussia," they thought, "desires first to isolate us in Europe, and then to crush us. Just as she ruined Austria in 1866 by placing her between two fires—herself on the north, and Italy on the south—so it is her present aim to place France also between two fires—North Germany on the one side, and Spain, with a Prussian prince on its throne and its army reorganised on the Prussian system, on the other."

But the candidature was not adhered to; and this fact, in the absence of more weighty evidence on the other side than has yet been adduced, suffices in the judgment of most men to saddle France with the chief responsibility of the rupture. Lord Granville exerted all his influence at Berlin to procure the withdrawal of the dangerous candidature; and M. Olozaga, the Spanish Minister at Paris (a statesman of great experience, and sincerely friendly to France), alarmed at the terrible excitement around him, took measures with the Prince Anthony of Hohenzollern, the father of Prince Leopold, to induce him to exercise his parental authority and bring about the renunciation by his son of the honour proposed for him. Could this be accomplished, it seemed certain that the storm would blow over, for the Duc de Gramont himself said to Lord Lyons, on the 8th of July, that the voluntary renunciation of his candidature by Prince Leopold would be "a most fortunate solution" of the difficulty. Prince Anthony accordingly wrote to General Prim renouncing all pretensions to the crown of Spain on the part of his son; Prim communicated the renunciation to Olozaga, and by him it was conveyed to the French Government. M. Ollivier was greatly elated, and went about in the lobbies of the French Chambers, telling his friends that all difficulty was at an end, "l'incident est vidé." But, in fact, he was not behind the scenes: to the secret councils of the Emperor, in which the issues of peace or war were discussed, he was not summoned.

[553]

"À BERLIN!"—PARISIAN CROWDS DECLARING FOR WAR. (See p. 554.)

Finding, as the result of its pressing representations since the first announcement of the candidature, that the Prussian Government declined all responsibility in regard to it, and professed to consider it as a matter that only concerned the King of Prussia in his capacity of head of the Hohenzollern family, the French Government instructed M. Benedetti to seek an interview with the King, who was then at Ems, and obtain from him an explicit disavowal of all share in the project. "We are in great haste," wrote Gramont, "for we must gain the start in case of an unsatisfactory reply, and commence the movements of the troops on Saturday in order to enter upon the campaign in a fortnight." M. Benedetti accordingly went to Ems, where he obtained an interview with the King on the 10th of July. At first, the King of Prussia said that he had certainly consented to the Prince of Hohenzollern's accepting the crown of Spain; and that having given his consent, it would be difficult for him to withdraw it. Two days later, the Prince's renunciation was known at Paris, and it became then a serious question with the French Government what course it should take. By the peremptory and unusual language that they had employed in the tribune, they had excited the passions and raised the expectations of the people[554] to an extraordinary height, so that merely to accept the renunciation of the candidature appeared too lame and poor a conclusion to the tumult they had raised. The Duc de Gramont accordingly explained to Lord Lyons, on the 13th of July, that while the withdrawal of the candidature put an end to all question with Spain, from Prussia France had obtained literally nothing. M. Benedetti was ordered again to wait on the King and procure from him a guarantee that the project of raising his kinsman to the Spanish throne should not be renewed. The exact terms of the French demand, according to a memorandum placed by the Duc de Gramont in the hands of Lord Lyons, were these: "We ask of the King of Prussia to forbid the Prince of Hohenzollern to alter his present resolution. If he does so, the whole matter is at an end." M. Benedetti saw the King again at Ems, on the 13th, and endeavoured to obtain from him the assurance for the future required by the French Government. But to this the King, although M. Benedetti insisted warmly, and hinted at the serious consequences that might follow upon a refusal, declined to consent. Later in the day Benedetti sent to request another interview; but the King sent word that, as his mind was made up, and he had no other answer to give than that which he had given in the morning, it would be useless to re-open the question. This message—which seems to have been sent naturally and with perfect sincerity and in which M. Benedetti himself, as his despatches prove, saw no discourtesy—was so magnified and distorted as to create, on the minds of all who received the intelligence, the impression of an already consummated rupture. From Berlin the incident was officially telegraphed to most of the European Courts to the following effect—that M. Benedetti had accosted the King in the Kurgarten at Ems, and preferred his last extravagant demand; and that the King had thereupon turned round and ordered an aide-de-camp to tell M. Benedetti that there was no reply and that he would not receive him again.

In France the rumour flew that the King had affronted the French Ambassador and the ardour for war rose to fever heat. Immense crowds of Parisians gathered on the Boulevards (July 14th), singing the "Marseillaise" and eagerly discussing the chances of war. Three meetings of the Council of Ministers were held that day. At the first the peace party had the upper hand, but the voice of the Empress prevailed and at the third meeting, held shortly after midnight, the vote was given for war. At Berlin, on the same day, the King was received, on his return from Ems, by the acclamations of an immense multitude of persons, all animated by stern and enthusiastic resolution. On the next day occurred the memorable scene in the French Chambers which left no doubt remaining that the die was cast, and that the terrible eventuality of a war between France and Prussia was close at hand. The Duc de Gramont in the Senate, and M. Ollivier in the Corps Législatif, communicated a Ministerial message, in which it was stated that the King had refused to give the engagement required by France; that, notwithstanding this, in consequence of their desire for peace, they did not break off the negotiations; but that they had learned, to their surprise, that the King had refused to receive M. Benedetti and had communicated the fact officially to his Cabinet. "In these circumstances, we should have forgotten our dignity and also our prudence, had we not made preparations. We have prepared to maintain the war which is offered to us, leaving to each that portion of the responsibility that devolves upon him."

The Ministerial announcement produced an indescribable ferment in the Legislative Body. The majority applauded vehemently every expression that had a warlike sound; but there were a few sober-minded and independent men on the Opposition benches who endeavoured to gain a hearing,—who demanded that the despatches on which the action of the Government was founded should be laid before the Chamber,—who declared that since the withdrawal of the Hohenzollern candidature they could see no sufficient cause for war. Among these objectors the most prominent was M. Thiers. His remonstrances were met by passionate cries and invectives. "Offend me, insult me," he cried; "I am ready to endure anything to spare the blood of my countrymen, which you are ready to shed so imprudently. You will not reflect for a moment; you will not demand the contents of the despatches, upon which your judgment ought to be founded." "Keep your advice, we do not require it," exclaimed the violent Imperialist, M. Jérôme David. The sitting concluded with the vote of a credit of fifty millions of francs for extraordinary military expenses, as demanded by the Government, by a majority of 245 to 10 voices. On the next day, the Senate, with its President, M. Rouher, at their head, waited upon the Emperor with an address, conceived in the worst French taste, and marked by that appalling disregard of moral considerations which led a noble[555] country into such terrible misfortunes. "Your Majesty," he said, "draws the sword, and the country is with you, trembling with indignation at the excesses that an ambition over-excited by one day's good fortune was sure, sooner or later, to produce." As a matter of fact the war was popular in some sixteen only of the eighty-seven Departments of France.

All through the period of nine days that intervened between the announcement of the French Government on the 15th of July and the speech made by the Duc de Gramont on the 6th, the British Government had laboured heartily and indefatigably for the preservation of peace. All was, however, in vain. The French Ministry had, by the needless publicity and empressement which they had imported into the affair, raised such a tempest of passion and excitement, that soon neither they nor the Parisian public were in a condition to listen to reason. On the other hand, Count Bismarck, while remaining perfectly cool, was not disposed to take extraordinary pains to avert a struggle which he believed to be sooner or later inevitable, and which he was too well informed as to the comparative armaments of the two countries to view with apprehension.

The same spirit of rivalry and combativeness that impelled Count Bismarck in 1866, against the traditions of his country and the declarations of his whole life, to employ revolutionary agencies against Austria because they furnished him with a convenient weapon, now induced him, in contempt of the usages of men of honour and the bienséances of diplomacy, to bring forth from some secret drawer in the Prussian Foreign Office a document that he rightly thought was calculated seriously to damage France and the Emperor in the judgment of the neutral States. On the 25th of July there appeared in the Times what purported to be a textual copy of a project for a treaty of alliance, offensive and defensive, between France and Prussia. The paper containing it was communicated to the Times from the Prussian Foreign Office and was stated to be in the handwriting of M. Benedetti. The Emperor and the King agreed to the following bases: That France should recognise all the Prussian acquisitions of 1866, and should engage not to oppose the incorporation of the South German States, with the exception of Austria, in the North German Confederation; and that the King, on his part, would facilitate for France the acquisition of Luxemburg by means of an indemnity to be paid to the King of Holland, and would also "lend, if need were, the support of his arms for the conquest of Belgium." At the reading of this audacious proposal, a sentiment of stupefaction came upon the English mind, succeeded by a feeling of lively indignation. But as further correspondence developed accurately what had occurred, the case against France assumed a less unfavourable aspect. On the 29th of July the Duc de Gramont transmitted to London a letter from Benedetti, containing the following explanation of the circumstances. In the first place, he pointed out, that, if the project was a villainy, there were evidently two parties to it; on the very face of the document it was manifest that Prussia was not more averse from entertaining the question of the absorption of Belgium than was France. Secondly, whereas Count Bismarck had stated that this was but one of many such schemes with which he was continually being pestered by the French Ambassador, Benedetti asserted that since 1866 he had had no communications with the Prussian Chancellor upon any matter of the kind; but that in that year, and particularly while the negotiations for the Treaty of Prague were going on, Bismarck, fearful lest France should be provoked by the annexation of Hanover, Frankfort, etc., to Prussia, laid several proposals of this nature before him and discussed them with apparent seriousness. On one such occasion, wishing to put the substance of the conversation in a tangible shape, Benedetti wrote, almost under the direction of Count Bismarck, the rough draft now made public by the Prussian Government; Bismarck took it from him, saying he would show it to the King; after that Benedetti saw and thought no more of it. But when the project was submitted to the Emperor, Benedetti added, he at once rejected it; and he believed that it was also rejected by the King of Prussia.

Whatever might be the exact balance of truth between the conflicting statements, the painful impression was left on the minds of English statesmen, that neither France nor Prussia would have much scruple about destroying the independence of Belgium; and that, if that independence were worth preserving, from the point of view both of the honour and of the interests of Great Britain, new guarantees for its maintenance had become necessary. It is a pleasure to record the manly stand taken on this question by Lord Russell (which was in marked contrast with his abandonment of Denmark, in 1864), when (August 2nd) the subject came up in the House of Lords. Britain's duty, he said, was[556] clear. "It is not a question of three courses. There is but one course and one path—namely, the course of honour and the path of honour—that we ought to pursue. We are bound to defend Belgium. I am told that that may lead us into danger. Now, in the first place, I deny that any great danger would exist if this country manfully declared her intention to perform all her engagements and not to shrink from their performance." After saying that all these intrigues arose from the doubt that prevailed on the Continent whether Britain would adhere to her treaty engagements, he proceeded: "I am persuaded that if it is once manfully declared that England means to stand by her treaties, to perform her engagements—that her honour and her interests would allow nothing else—such a declaration would check the greater part of these intrigues, and that neither France nor Prussia would wish to add a second enemy to the formidable foe which each has to meet."

Being strongly urged forward by the expressions of opinion delivered both in and out of Parliament, Mr. Gladstone's Government acted on this critical occasion both promptly and skilfully. Earl Granville prepared the text of a treaty guaranteeing the independence of Belgium during the continuance of the war and twelve months afterwards, and proposed its acceptance, simultaneously, but separately, to the two belligerent Powers. The substantial proviso of the treaty was to this effect: "His Majesty [Emperor of the French, or King of Prussia] having declared that, in spite of the state of war existing between [France and North Germany], he is determined to respect the neutrality of Belgium as long as it shall be respected by [North Germany, or France], her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland declares, on her part, that if, during the continuance of hostilities, the [North German, or French] armies should violate that neutrality, she will be prepared to co-operate with [his Imperial Majesty, or his Prussian Majesty] with the view of defending, in such manner as shall be mutually agreed upon, by employing to that end her naval and military forces, and of maintaining, in conjunction with [his Imperial Majesty, or his Prussian Majesty], then and afterwards, the independence and neutrality of Belgium." The other contracting Power agreed to co-operate with Great Britain for the accomplishment of the same end. The treaty was to be in force during the continuance of the war between France and Germany, and for a term of twelve months after the ratification of any treaty of peace concluded between those Powers; after which time, the independence and neutrality of Belgium would continue, so far as the high contracting parties were respectively concerned, to be maintained, as heretofore, in accordance with the first article of the Quintuple Treaty of the 19th of April, 1839. This treaty was accepted and signed by Prussia immediately, and by France also, after a little hesitation. Its provisions slumbered indeed, but there is no reason to suppose that they were without effect. Had there been no such treaty, it is possible that, during the operations near the Belgian frontier which terminated in the capitulation of Sedan, the neutrality of the Belgian territory would have been forcibly violated by one or the other belligerent; the area over which the devastating effects of war were experienced would have been extended; and serious political complications, from which it would have been difficult for any one of the great Powers to hold aloof, must infallibly have supervened.

So much heat and haste had been apparent in the proceedings of the French Government since the first rise of the Hohenzollern incident that it was generally expected that very few days would pass after the formal declaration of war (July 19th) before the French Army of the North would be arrayed along the frontier of Rhenish Prussia, ready to take the field in overwhelming force. But day followed day and nothing decisive was done. It appears that the arrangements for mobilisation—especially in what relates to transport—were found to be extremely defective. In truth, the military system of France was rotten and honeycombed with abuses; wherever unexpected pressure was applied, it gave way. In the subordinate posts there were many excellent and honourable men—it needs but to mention such names as MacMahon, Trochu, and Vinoy to establish the fact—but the real power lay with the Emperor and his personal friends or favourites. He is said, after the first great disaster had occurred, to have had continually on his lips the words, "I have been deceived." Doubtless he had been deceived; "cooked" reports had been submitted to him; money received for substitutes, instead of being so applied, had gone no one knew where, and the regiments were disgracefully attenuated in consequence; jobbery and corruption, extending into every department, made every service on which the usefulness of soldiers depends less efficient by many degrees than it ought to have been. Thus it happened that it was not till quite the end of the month that a respectable French force was collected at the frontier, and it was in[557] sore stress for provisions. Meanwhile, the Prussians silently mustered three powerful armies behind the Rhine, intending to fall with an irresistible onset, when the fitting moment should arrive, on the heedless and vainglorious foe. The Emperor left Paris on the 28th of July, accompanied by his son Louis, and assumed the chief command of the army at Metz on the following day.

COUNT VON (AFTERWARDS PRINCE) BISMARCK.

Napoleon appears to have reckoned even to the last moment that dislike and jealousy of Prussia would move the South German Governments to separate their interests from hers in the great struggle that was impending, or at least to wait and see how events fell out before finally committing themselves. How—knowing as he did the existence of the secret treaties of 1866, by which Bavaria, Würtemberg, and Baden bound themselves to assist Prussia, if attacked—he could seriously entertain such a hope, it is not easy to understand. The Governments of those States, on this occasion in full sympathy with their subjects, were animated by a hearty indignation at the unwarrantable attack made on Germany and they speedily sent in their adhesions to Prussia. Their military contingents were assigned, under the supreme command of the King of Prussia, to the third of the great armies that were being formed for the protection of German interests. These armies furnished a grand total of 338,000 men, to which enormous force France could for the moment only oppose 200,000. Marshal Lebœuf unfortunately imagined that the Foreign Office had concluded alliances with Austria and Italy, and that a great part of the Prussian army would in consequence be detained on the southern frontier. He was justified to this extent that Austria was[558] willing enough to wound Germany, but yet afraid to strike. Count Beust saw that an immediate participation of Austria in the war would involve the appearance of Russia in the field on the side of King William. He determined therefore to restrict himself for the present to armed mediation in concert with Italy and to that end advised Napoleon III. to place the Italians in possession of Rome. Here were obviously the materials for a triple alliance and affairs were further advanced on the 2nd of August when the Papal States were evacuated by the French Government. Austria and Italy, however, stipulated for the preliminary success of the French troops as a condition of their armed support, in which case they promised to assume a position of armed neutrality, then to demand the exact performance of the treaty of Prague, i.e. the independence of the South German States, and to take the field in the event of refusal by the 15th of September. According to the Duc de Gramont a draft treaty had actually been drawn up, but before it could be signed the French armies had been dispersed.

The Emperor's plan of campaign, as explained in a pamphlet which he drew up while at Wilhelmshöhe, was to draw together 150,000 men from Metz and 100,000 from Strasburg, and with a force of 250,000 men cross the Rhine at Maxan, between Rastadt and Spires, while his rear was covered by the advance of a reserve force of 50,000, under Marshal Canrobert, from Châlons to Metz. Marching towards Dresden, the Emperor hoped to meet and defeat the North German forces, and, being thus interposed between North and South Germany, to intimidate the South German Powers into an attitude of acquiescence while he followed up his advantage against Prussia, and endeavoured to break up the newly cemented and, as he fain would believe, fragile ties that united Prussia to the countries annexed in the last war. If Germany had been unready; if Bismarck had been no more far-seeing than Persigny, and Moltke no more vigilant than Lebœuf; lastly, if the Emperor could have disposed of a hundred thousand more men, the plan might have been promising, perhaps even feasible. But when the Emperor remembered the enormous strength of the Prussian armies in 1866, and reflected that the populations then annexed were instantly brought within the cords of the Prussian military system, it is wonderful (even supposing him to have been under a complete delusion as to the probable conduct of Bavaria and Würtemberg) that he did not see that 250,000 men—on paper—was an utterly inadequate force wherewith to attempt so vast an enterprise as that he meditated.

The 2nd Corps, under General Frossard, was at Forbach, close to the Prussian frontier, just within which, on the river Saar, was the flourishing little town of Saarbrück, held by a battalion of infantry and three squadrons of cavalry belonging to the 8th North German Corps (First Army). General Steinmetz had assumed the command of that army at Coblenz on the 28th of July, and at the beginning of August had concentrated it in a position where it covered Trèves, and guarded against any sudden inroad into the Rhine province on the side of Thionville. On the 2nd of August Frossard received orders to drive the Prussians out of Saarbrück. The action began at 10.30 A.M., and soon afterwards the Emperor, with the Prince Imperial, arrived on the ground from Metz. The Prussians, though greatly outnumbered, held their ground tenaciously, but were gradually pushed out of the villages to the south of Saarbrück, and finally compelled to evacuate the town and retreat to the wooded heights that look down upon it from the north. The French did not attempt to occupy the town, nor to dislodge the enemy from the heights beyond.

Forty-eight hours after the French made this unmeaning demonstration at Saarbrück, the concentration of the German armies was completed, and their heavy masses were ready to be moved down to and across the French frontier. To the Third Army was given the honour of striking the first blow—doubtless because in it were arrayed the contingents from the South German States, and Prussia desired that France and the world should be convinced without delay of the futility of all calculations that took German dissension for their basis. On the 3rd of August the Crown Prince sent orders from Spires to his corps commanders to advance upon Weissenburg, just across the Alsatian frontier. At this point MacMahon had stationed his second division, commanded by General Abel Douay, in order to cover his communications with the 5th Corps, under De Failly, which was stationed round Bitche. Douay's force, which did not exceed 12,000 men, was left absolutely without reinforcements. The French were outnumbered, probably two to one, but they had a very strong position, and their field guns and chassepôts scattered destruction through the German lines as they slowly forced their way up the height. At one o'clock the assailants were in possession of the castle of Geissberg, near the top[559] of the hill. The leading brigade attacked from the eastward; the other, edging round to the left, and scaling the southern face of the hill, threatened to cut off the French from their line of retreat. Douay had been killed early in the action, and the officer who succeeded to the command, judging that further resistance was unadvisable, ordered a retirement.

On the day after the affair at Saarbrück the Emperor was exceedingly unwell, and the physicians would not allow him to quit his room. It was probably from a sense of great weakness that he came to the resolution of divesting himself of a portion of the responsibility of command, by appointing Marshal Bazaine to the command of the three corps (2nd, 3rd, and 4th) that formed the left wing of the Army of the Rhine, and Marshal MacMahon to that of the 1st; 5th, and 7th Corps, forming its right wing. This was carried out on the 5th, till which day Bazaine remained in ignorance of the Emperor's plan of campaign. The three corps that this order placed at the disposal of MacMahon—namely, his own at Strasburg and Hagenau, De Failly's at Bitche, and Félix Douay's at Belfort—would, if united, have formed an army of about 80,000 men. He wished to effect a concentration, but was overruled by the Emperor, who feared the political consequences of a retreat. Accordingly, in the course of the 5th, MacMahon drew up his army along the high ground to the west of the Sauer. In the first line were the three divisions of his own corps that had not yet been engaged; in the second line he placed the troops who had been beaten at Weissenburg, a division of the 7th Corps that had come up from Belfort and two brigades of cavalry, one of which consisted of two fine regiments of cuirassiers. De Failly was expected with his corps in the course of the day. On the 5th of August, the Crown Prince, still holding the 1st Bavarian Corps in reserve, moved the main body of his army, marching in four columns as before, from the Lauter towards the Sauer. At the headquarters of the Crown Prince no thought was entertained of fighting a battle on the next day, during which the Prince intended to have remained quietly at Sulz. But early on the morning of the 6th of August the impetuosity of the divisional commanders brought on a general battle, after the Germans had suffered severely for their rashness. Soon after twelve, the Crown Prince, finding that the troops already on the field were hotly engaged, and that the French showed no signs of an intention to retreat, determined to bring his whole force into action, in order to deal a crushing blow to an enemy whose greatly inferior numbers could not expect from any quarter to be adequately reinforced. A long cannonade ensued, to which the French, who were deficient in artillery, could not make an effective reply. Then Kirchbach ordered the advanced guard to storm Wörth, which was done about 12.30, and the victorious troops advanced up the hills on the left bank of the Sauer. Soon, however, they were brought to a stand by a biting fire from the French position and made no progress for a long time. A great artillery duel went on for hours on the centre and right of the line. About 11 A.M. the French right had made a forward movement across the Sauer, and drove the Germans out of Gunstett, but were unable to hold it long. Fresh troops continually coming up, General Bose moved his corps across the Sauer in support of Kirchbach; the Würtembergers also joined in this advance, and turning towards the north, after crossing the river, Prussians and Würtembergers steadily pressed forward, and took from the French the village of Elsasshausen about two o'clock; but the resistance was stubborn and the loss proportionately heavy. It was while the Germans were advancing by Elsasshausen that Michel's brigade, composed of two regiments of cuirassiers, made its celebrated but useless charge. With wild fury these devoted horsemen charged into the advancing masses, but the rapid discharges of the needle-gun smote and crushed their ranks, and not more than 150 unwounded men remained after the battle in the whole brigade. Froschweiler, the village to the north of Elsasshausen, attacked both from the south and from the east, was taken at 3.30. MacMahon, outnumbered and beaten, was now compelled to retreat. Keeping his centre and left pretty well together, he fell back on Niederbronn, where he found a division of De Failly's corps, which, through some telegraphic mistake, had not arrived in time to take part in the battle. These fresh troops checked the German pursuit. The French right, demoralised by defeat, and losing almost all its organisation, fled in headlong flight towards Hagenau and Strasburg.

On the day following the battle, MacMahon reached Saverne, on the Strasburg-Paris railway, and proceeded to despatch his troops to Nancy and Châlons. His only course now was to reorganise his army at the camp of Châlons, while Bazaine, with his portion of the Army of the Rhine, detained the enemy round Metz. De Failly,[560] prevented from marching towards Metz by the rapid advance of the First and Second German Armies into French territory, in consequence of the success we are about to describe, fell back from Bitche in a southerly direction, struck the Strasburg-Paris railway, and brought his corps to join MacMahon. The remainder of the 7th Corps was brought up to Châlons soon afterwards from Belfort. The Crown Prince, before crossing the Vosges in pursuit of MacMahon, detached General Werder with the Baden division to invest and besiege Strasburg. General Beyer, the divisional commander, summoned General Uhrich, the governor of the fortress, to surrender, but of course with no result. The town was then invested (August 10th) and several regiments of Prussian Landwehr were presently added to the besieging force.

A second disaster happened on the same day as the battle of Wörth. On the previous day, General Frossard, commanding the 2nd Corps, withdrew his troops from the valley of the Saar to the heights of Spicheren, where his right rested on a difficult wooded country; on his left was the little town of Forbach and the railway to Metz. General Kameke, commanding a division of the 7th Corps (First Army), pushed troops over the Saar at Saarbrück on the morning of the 6th, who came into action with the French batteries on the Rothe Berg (a hill jutting out from the Spicheren plateau) about 11.30 A.M. From that time the battle raged with varying success all through the day till nightfall. Von Göben came up and took the command about three o'clock; about five the Prussians carried the greater part of the heights of Spicheren, though at a terrible cost of life. On the other hand, the French left, between six and seven, advanced along the railway from Stiring and drove back the Germans nearly to the Saar. The bravery of the French in this battle was conspicuous; the losses they inflicted on the Germans were far heavier than those they themselves suffered; and there seems little reason to doubt that with more clear-sightedness and determination on the part of Frossard, and more energetic co-operation on the part of Bazaine (who was at St. Avold with the 3rd Corps, about fifteen miles from Spicheren), or, perhaps, on the part of Bazaine's lieutenants, the Germans would have been repulsed with heavy loss. Frossard does not appear to have held the plateau with a sufficient force; and in a critical period of the action, when German reinforcements were coming up from all sides, he telegraphed to Bazaine, asking him to send him a regiment! It was not till towards six o'clock that he telegraphed to Bazaine to assist him with all the forces at his disposal; but it was then too late. The French were sadly demoralised by their defeat. Frossard retired upon Saargemund, and thence, with what was left of his corps, joined the army that Bazaine was collecting near Metz.

On that fatal Sunday (August 7th) the full truth concerning Wörth and Forbach was known at Paris. A telegram from the Emperor was published, admitting that the army had suffered reverses, but feebly adding, "Tout peut se rétablir" ("All may yet be regained"). An indescribable ferment agitated all minds and hearts. The cry in the streets was for a levée en masse, and the word "déchéance" ("deposition") was often heard. The Corps Législatif met on the 9th of August. Jules Favre and the party of the Left urged the Emperor's recall from the army, and the appointment of a committee with full power for the conduct of war. Ollivier, who showed little sense of the terrible gravity of the situation, spoke in defence of the Ministry, but his speech was received with vehement interruptions and loud denials, and the majority cared not now to screen him from the attacks of the Left. A middle course was taken. The Empress sent for the Count de Palikao (August 10th), and requested him to form a Ministry. He was in command of the military centre of Lyons when summoned to Paris by the Empress. He succeeded in forming a Ministry, in which Magne took charge of the Department of Finance; the Prince de la Tour d'Auvergne, of Foreign Affairs; and Palikao himself became the Minister of War. Vigorous measures were instantly taken to make timely preparation for the worst, in case the armies still in the field should not be able to prevent the Germans from marching upon Paris. General Trochu, a brave and honest soldier, but a little too rigid and positive in his opinions, was appointed to the command of the forces of Paris; a new war loan of one thousand millions of francs was set on foot; the ranks of the National Guard and Mobiles were filled; and great efforts were made to bring into Paris as large a supply of provisions as possible from the surrounding country.

After Forbach there was nothing to hinder the Germans from pushing forward their armies into France. The First and Second Armies, facing to the westward, marched in the direction of Metz—Steinmetz keeping to the north, and Prince Frederick Charles to the south, of the railway[561] connecting Metz with Saarbrück. Bazaine on his part was doing his utmost to re-form and augment the French army round Metz. He was now possessed of uncontrolled authority; for Count Palikao, though he would not consent to Jules Favre's motion for the recall of the Emperor to Paris, lest the excited populace should rise and put a sudden end to the dynasty, wisely yielded on the main point, and prevailed upon the Emperor to resign the chief command.

FRANCO-GERMAN WAR: SKETCH-MAP OF THE CAMPAIGN IN THE RHINE COUNTRY.

Accordingly by an Imperial order of the 12th of August Bazaine was appointed generalissimo of the Army of the Rhine, with Colonel Jarras as his chief of the staff. Nevertheless, Napoleon, afraid to return to Paris, unwilling even to trust himself at the camp of Châlons, remained with the army and was the cause of much embarrassment and delay. Bazaine had now under his command the Imperial Guard, the 4th, 3rd, 2nd, and part of the 6th Corps, making a total of about 140,000 men. Finding that with his utmost efforts he could not bring together a force capable of coping with the First and Second German Armies in the field, Bazaine resolved to leave Metz for a time to the protection of its encircling forts and powerful garrison, and fall back towards Verdun and Châlons. The movements within the French lines, caused by the preparations for complying with this order, attracted the attention of General Steinmetz and brought on the battle of Borny. Prince Frederic Charles had moved with the Second Army to the southward, intending to cross the Moselle at Pont-à-Mousson and other places above Metz, and then seize the roads leading to Verdun and Paris. Steinmetz seems to have intended only a reconnaissance in force, but the eagerness of the German troops brought on an engagement along the whole line, some miles to the east of Metz, in which (August 14th) neither side gained a decided advantage, but a part of the French army was detained at Metz on the following day; which was the very thing that Steinmetz had desired. The German armies had but to cross the Moselle and Bazaine was caught in a trap.

On the morning of the 16th, no movement having been made that day by the French troops massed in front of Gravelotte on account of the[562] non-arrival of the 3rd and 4th Corps, the heads of the German columns, appearing from the southward about 10 A.M., pushed back Forton's cavalry division, which had bivouacked to the south of the lower Verdun road, and occupied Mars-la-Tour. At first the Germans were in no great force, but their numbers kept increasing and their artillery fire became more and more deadly. At noon Bazaine was compelled to bring up the Guard and place them in line. It was not till two o'clock that the 3rd and 4th Corps came into action on the right of the French line, which then extended in a north-westerly and south-easterly direction across both the Verdun roads, facing the Prussians who were coming up from the south and west. The battle raged all day with great violence; at nightfall the French held their positions and had taken a Prussian flag. But their loss, apparently owing to the superiority of the German artillery, was fearfully heavy; and the Germans were masters of the road to Vionville.

The French bivouacked on the battle-field. On the next day Bazaine found that it was impossible to continue his retreat on Verdun for several reasons. The enemy held the lower road in great force, so that an attempt to break through them would only have brought on another battle against augmented numbers; and almost the same might be said of the upper road, which for a long distance is only separated from the lower by a narrow tract of level or undulating country. Provisions also had fallen short and ammunition still more; and these could only be replenished from the Government establishments in Metz. On the 17th, therefore, the French were engaged all day in falling back to, and strengthening themselves upon a commanding position extending from Amanvillers on the north to Rozerieulles on the south.

In advance of the right front of this position is the village of Verneville, round which Bazaine stationed the 6th Corps under Canrobert. But observing that there was a strong position at the village of St. Privat, commanding the road to Briey, the occupation of which would extend northwards the line already taken up, and make a turning movement on the part of the enemy more difficult, Marshal Canrobert asked permission to move his corps to St. Privat. Bazaine gave his consent; the 6th Corps occupied St. Privat; and the symmetry and defensive strength of the French line were doubtless improved by the change. As in previous engagements the rashness of divisional commanders, particularly Steinmetz, caused the loss of whole brigades before the battle was won by the Germans. Thus a great combined attack of cavalry and artillery was ordered by Steinmetz between four and five. The batteries of the 8th Corps, and three reserve batteries of the 7th Corps, supported by a large body of horse, were pushed across the defile. But they fared no better than their predecessors. The 4th Light Battery, trotting up the hill to the right of St. Hubert, "suffered so severely that, after firing ten rounds, it was put hors de combat, and obliged to retire down the hill." The attack failed and both cavalry and artillery fell back by degrees on their original positions. But gradually the superiority of the Prussian artillery fire told, and Bazaine persisted in keeping his reserves, amounting to a third of his forces, out of the field of action. Finally the Saxon Corps, after a long détour, delivered their attack on the north flank. After several unsuccessful attempts, in which a great many men fell, a combined assault by the Prussian Guards and the Saxon Corps, simultaneously directed on St. Privat from three sides, the north, the west, and the south, forced the brave defenders, soon after seven, to relinquish their hold. The right of Canrobert's corps was then thrown back, but still faced the enemy, and darkness soon terminated the contest. The result was that the French had held their ground everywhere except on the extreme right, but that all the roads leading to Verdun had been taken from them. On the following day Bazaine withdrew his whole army from the plateau and brought them down to within the shelter of the guns of Metz. Only the half-trained levies at Châlons remained to bar the march of the invader upon the brilliant capital of France.

The intelligence of the great battles fought near Metz reached England in various conflicting forms. But it was clear that a French army was cooped up in Metz; that thousands of men were lying, disabled by sickness or wounds, in hospitals, many of which were of a provisional and inadequate character; and that great distress must infallibly fall upon the poor inhabitants of the north-east region of France, which formed the theatre of war. The reckless way in which the French Government began the war had aroused feelings of deep and indignant disapproval among all classes and parties in Great Britain; but now that it was a question of suffering to be alleviated, human needs to be supplied, the warm hearts of British men and women forgot all but the urgency and the duty of charity. Associations for the relief of the sick and wounded were formed in every direction,[563] and received overflowing support; and numbers both of men and women volunteered to tend the wounded of both armies under the protection of the red cross of the Geneva Convention. The German authorities, whose arrangements in view of these and other accidents of war admitted of little improvement, declined to avail themselves of the zeal of foreign volunteers; but by the French, whom overwhelming misfortune had surprised in a state of unreadiness that only brings out the rashness of their Government into stronger relief, all such services were thankfully accepted. Later a very useful organisation was set on foot by the Daily News newspaper for the special purpose of relieving the wants of the peasantry and others in the country round Sedan, whom the devastating fury of the war had left houseless and penniless.

As soon as a clear notion of what had occurred near Metz was obtained by the French Government, it became a matter of very anxious deliberation what course should be adopted. For some days Marshal MacMahon had been actively engaged in forming a new army at the camp of Châlons out of the heterogeneous materials that he had at his disposal. Altogether a force had been collected of 135,000 men. What was to be done with it? Made wise by the event, critics and historians without number have condemned MacMahon's flank march through the Argonne for the purpose of relieving Bazaine, and have written as if it was absurd and incapable of achievement from the first. Then, as it must have been undertaken from some motive, they have seen in the enterprise the reckless and desperate resolve of the Government of the Emperor to sacrifice the interests of France, which would have dictated MacMahon's retirement towards Paris, to the interests of the dynasty, and stake everything on the success of a most hazardous combination, the failure of which, while it was fatal to the Empire, involved France also in its ruin. The Empress and Palikao, so it is commonly said, forced MacMahon to march towards Sedan against his better judgment, they being influenced by purely dynastic considerations. Count Palikao replied to these critics in a book published after the war was over, and it is impossible to deny that his assertions seem to be of great weight. Was the scheme practicable? Count Palikao maintains that it was; and Colonel Rüstow, an independent witness, appears to be of the same opinion. The gist of their argument is that had MacMahon started at once and pursued a direct march, he would have eluded the Crown Prince and relieved Bazaine after a battle with the small force commanded by the Prince of Saxony.

MacMahon, however, when, after long resistance, he acceded to the policy of endeavouring to relieve Bazaine, considered that he would be exposing his right flank too much if he were to lead his army on the line indicated by Palikao: he preferred a more circuitous course which would take his army close to the Belgian frontier and bring it by way of Montmédy and Briey upon Metz. On the 23rd he marched northwards from Rheims, where he had delayed for two days. Even by this route he had sufficient start, in the opinion of Palikao, to have outmarched the Crown Prince, had he given way to no indecision, and made long marches every day without troubling himself about the number of stragglers whom he might leave behind him. He might, it is said, have reached Montmédy on the 25th of August, on the evening of which day the Crown Prince of Prussia first heard of his northward march. "On the 29th, or, at the latest, on the 30th, he could have united with Bazaine before Metz—that is, if the latter broke through the investing lines—and have fought a battle with Prince Frederick Charles, who would then have been no longer able to oppose him with equal forces." But instead of this, the head of MacMahon's army only reached Mouzon on the 28th of August, and he was therefore unable to bring his whole army across the Meuse before it was struck by the Crown Prince.

[564]

SEDAN. (From a Photograph by D. Stévenin, Sedan.)

That commander, immediately he heard of MacMahon's movements, hastened in hot pursuit together with the Prince of Saxony. On the 27th MacMahon became aware that his plan was discovered and wished to retreat but was overruled by the Empress from Paris. On the 30th of August the 5th Corps (De Failly) was at Beaumont near the Meuse. They had arrived there only that morning after a fatiguing march, and a defeat on the previous day; the soldiers were engaged in cooking; and the scouting and outpost duties appear to have been shamefully neglected. While engaged in the multifarious avocations of a camp, and dreaming of no danger, the doomed men were startled by the bursting of shells among them, fired by a battery belonging to the 1st Bavarian Corps (Von der Tann) which had advanced unperceived through the woods. Von der Tann was presently supported by the 4th Corps (Alvensleben II.) and the 12th Corps (Saxons). Surprised and outnumbered, the French made a feeble resistance, and were driven in confusion from the field. Of the beaten troops, some succeeded in crossing the Meuse, others fled northward in the direction of Sedan. MacMahon was deeply distressed on hearing of the ill conduct of the 5th Corps—of the negligence that had allowed it to be surprised, and the ease with which it had suffered itself to be dispersed and demoralised. A portion of the beaten troops had been, as we have seen, cut off from the Meuse, and thrown back in the direction of Sedan: it was this probably, as well as the knowledge that the head of Vinoy's column was at Mézières, which induced MacMahon—although the 1st and 12th Corps had already crossed the Meuse and were marching upon Montmédy, and the 7th Corps crossed it at Villers below Mouzon in the course of the 30th—to give orders on the evening of that day for the abandonment of his former line of march, and the concentration of all the forces under his command upon the heights surrounding the fortress of Sedan and on the right bank of the Meuse above the town. In the course of the 31st this movement was effected. By gross negligence the 11th German Corps was allowed by the French to throw two pontoon bridges, apparently without opposition, across the Meuse at Donchery, over which the whole 11th Corps was transported to the right bank by the morning of the 1st of September, and was shortly afterwards followed by the 5th Corps. By this operation the doom of the French army was sealed, the only fear of the Germans being lest it should cut its way into Belgium. On the evening of the 30th, orders had been sent from the royal headquarters that the Army of the Meuse, occupying the right wing, should prevent the French left from escaping to the eastward, between the Meuse and the Belgian frontier; while the Third Army should continue its march northwards, and attack the enemy wherever he was fallen in with. These orders had been complied with, and the 11th Corps had been pushed across the Meuse at Donchery during the night of the 31st, so that on the morning of the 1st of September seven German Corps and a half, together with cavalry and artillery, forming a force of upwards of 200,000 men, with from 600 to 700[565] guns, were already posted in such positions as to leave no way of escape for the French. Two independent armies being on the field, the commander of neither of which could properly take orders from the other, the King of Prussia came upon the scene, as he had done before the day of Königgrätz, and assumed supreme command. The battle began very early on the morning of the 1st of September, while the summer haze still covered the low grounds, with the attack of the Bavarians on Bazeilles, which they carried after a desperate resistance. MacMahon, who had been severely wounded, handed over the command to General Wimpffen. Meanwhile the left wing of the Germans had been making alarming progress. The 11th Corps, having reached Vrigne aux Bois at 7 A.M., was ordered by the Crown Prince of Prussia to wheel round to its right and attack St. Menges. This village lies a little to the east of the extremity of the great horse-shoe bend of the Meuse, nearly due north of Sedan. Following the 11th, the 5th Corps also passed round the head of the bend, and took ground to the eastward of Bose. Then turning southwards and deploying into line, both corps advanced against the 7th French Corps, which occupied the hilly ground between Floing and Illy. Before one o'clock the ring of encircling fire had been so closed in that an interval of not more than 4,000 paces separated the left of the 5th Corps from the right of the Guards. Balan, the village between Bazeilles and Sedan, was taken and held by the Bavarians and the 4th Corps about two o'clock. About 4 P.M. the French troops about Balan were ordered to fall back upon Sedan.

MARSHAL MACMAHON. (From a Photograph by E. Appert, Paris.)

At 5 P.M. the heads of all the German columns[566] pushed forwards, and commenced to bombard Sedan with field pieces. It is a small town of 15,000 inhabitants, without detached forts, and powerless to resist artillery. The whole French army being now pent up within its walls, a scene of indescribable confusion arose. Shells fell and exploded upon houses and in the streets; and the shrieks and groans of the wounded, the execrations of the infuriated soldiers, the cries of the miserable inhabitants, the helpless clamour and hubbub that reigned everywhere, combined to form a picture such as only a Virgil or a Dante could paint.

Wimpffen desired to resign his command into the Emperor's hands; but to this Napoleon naturally would not consent. However, the Emperor himself caused a flag of truce to be hoisted over the gates of Sedan. To this it had come; and the sun of France, as the first military Power in Europe, set on that fatal day.

The Emperor desired to surrender his own person into the hands of the King of Prussia, and sent to the latter, by General Reille, who accompanied the German envoy on his return, a letter thus expressed:—

"Sire, my Brother,—Not having been able to die in the midst of my troops, nothing remains for me but to place my sword in the hands of your Majesty."

The King sent a courteous reply, in which he prayed the Emperor to nominate an officer of rank to negotiate with the officer whom he had named on his side, General Moltke, for the capitulation of the French army. Wimpffen undertook the sad and humiliating duty, and met Moltke at the Prussian headquarters, in the village of Donchery. The Frenchman tried hard to obtain terms that fell short of unconditional surrender. But the logic of facts was against him and Moltke, calm as fate and cold as the grave, unfolded to him with pitiless accuracy the full horror of his situation. The terms of surrender were settled at six o'clock on the morning of the 2nd of September and, being ratified by the King, soon afterwards, came into force. The French army became prisoners of war; and all arms and material of war, whether belonging to the army or to the fortress, were to be handed over by a French to a German commission; the officers were to retain their freedom, their arms, and their personal property on giving their word of honour not to serve against Germany during the continuance of the war. There were many officers, however, who preferred the nobler part of sharing captivity with the men rather than renounce the right of bearing arms against Germany so long as the war lasted. The wild excitement, rage, and grief that seized upon the soldiers, when they knew that they were to surrender their arms and go into captivity, surpass the power of description. By batches of about 10,000 at a time, they were transported, during several days, by rail, to Saarbrück and thence to various parts of Germany.

Seeing the struggle it had cost Wimpffen to agree to the terms proposed, Napoleon thought that could he see Bismarck, he might perhaps obtain from him some alleviation of their rigour. About six in the morning, therefore, of the 2nd of September, he set out in a carriage towards Donchery, having sent forward a messenger to inform Count Bismarck of his desire for an interview. Bismarck was still in bed, but immediately rose and rode out to meet the Emperor. He met the carriage a little distance on the Sedan side of the Donchery bridge and, dismounting, respectfully approached it and asked his Majesty's commands. Napoleon said that he wished to speak with the King, whom he imagined to be at Donchery; but Bismarck replied that the King of Prussia was then at Vendresse, some fourteen miles away. Indeed the Count, knowing his master's kindly nature, had removed him to a distance until the terms were signed. Later in the day a meeting was arranged between the Emperor and the King at a country house near Donchery, called the Château de Bellevue. The interview was brief, but Napoleon's eyes filled with tears when he learned that Prince Frederick Charles was still before Metz, and consequently that there was no hope for Bazaine. The Emperor quitted the Château on the morning of the 3rd of September, and proceeded in a close carriage (it was raining heavily) to the Belgian town of Bouillon. Thence escorted by rail to Liége, and entering Prussian territory at Verviers, the illustrious prisoner reached Wilhelmshöhe, near Cassel, on the evening of the 5th of September, where suitable preparations had been made for his reception.

M. Jules Favre says that late in the evening of the 2nd of September a trustworthy person came to him, and informed him that Marshal MacMahon had been wounded, that the army had been defeated, and that it, along with the Emperor, was shut up in Sedan. All the next day a feverish anxiety reigned in every part of Paris. What was known was terrible, but a just foreboding whispered that there was still worse[567] behind. A meeting of the Chamber was summoned by the Government for three o'clock on the afternoon of the 3rd of September. Count Palikao announced the failure of Bazaine's sorties out of Metz on the 31st of August and 1st of September, and admitted that, after a partial success, the French army, overwhelmed by numbers, had been driven back, partly upon Mézières, partly upon Sedan, and a small portion across the Belgian frontier. In presence of these grave events the Minister declared that the Government appealed to the strength, vigour, and patriotism of the nation; he added that 200,000 Gardes Mobiles were about to enter Paris, who, united to the forces already there, would ensure the safety of the capital. Jules Favre then rose. Availing himself of an admission made by Palikao that the Emperor was not in communication with his Ministers and gave them no orders, he came to the conclusion that "the Government had ceased to exist," and enlarged upon the means that were at hand for supplying its place. Before separating the Chamber voted urgency for a proposition of M. Argence, calling to arms all men between twenty and thirty-five years, whether married or single. Filled with gloom and anxious apprehension, the members separated till the following day (Sunday, September 4th) at five o'clock.

But soon after the meeting certain intelligence of the capitulation reached Palikao and the Ministers and the news, coming by various channels, soon flew over Paris. Immense crowds filled the boulevards; cries were frequently heard demanding the fall of the Government. M. Favre and some of his friends went to M. Schneider, the President of the Corps Législatif, and prevailed upon him to convene it for a midnight sitting that same night. Jules Favre did not conceal from M. Schneider that he meant to propose the deposition of the Emperor; but to this the latter would by no means give his consent. He and many other honourable members of the Chamber believed themselves, even were there no other argument against a revolution, to be restrained by their oath of fidelity to the Emperor from joining in any project that contemplated either his dethronement or the repudiation of the dynasty.

The plan of Jules Favre and his friends of the Extreme Left was this: that the deposition of the Emperor and his dynasty should be proclaimed, and that the Chambers should assume all the powers of government, exercising them through an executive commission consisting of a few members, in which not only Palikao but also M. Schneider would be retained. The plan was embodied in three articles, which ran as follows:—

Article 1. Louis Napoleon Bonaparte and his dynasty are declared to be deposed from the power given them by the constitution.

Article 2. A parliamentary committee, consisting of ——, is entrusted with the powers of government and with the mission to expel the enemy from France.

Article 3. General Trochu remains in his post as Governor of Paris.

The articles prepared by Jules Favre were signed by twenty-seven members of the Corps Législatif, but the name of M. Thiers was not among them. That experienced and wary politician had much confidence in the military knowledge and skill of Count Palikao, and on this account, as well as on account of the general considerations that may be urged against a revolutionary procedure, he would bear no part in a plan for overthrowing the Government. At the midnight sitting of the Chamber, no disguise being any longer possible, Count Palikao announced that the army, having been thrown back after heroic efforts on Sedan, and finding resistance no longer possible, had capitulated, and that the Emperor had been made prisoner. He then demanded an adjournment till noon of the same day (September 4th), that the Government might have time to mature its proposals in this alarming crisis. The adjournment was not opposed; but M. Jules Favre gave notice that he should, at the mid-day sitting, bring forward the motion the terms of which have been already stated. The motion, if the Count Palikao is to be believed, was ill received by the majority of the members.

Between 8 and 9 A.M. a council of Ministers was held at the Tuileries, presided over by the Empress, who displayed exemplary firmness and courage. It was resolved at this council to propose to the Chambers the nomination of a Council of Regency of five members (each member to be nominated by the absolute majority of the Legislative Body), with Count Palikao as its Lieutenant-General. But when he arrived at the Corps Législatif, shortly before noon, and communicated to a number of deputies the plan of the Government, he found that the use of the term "Regency" was generally disapproved. Thiers and his friends desired that the new council should be simply described as a "Council of Government." To this Palikao was unwilling to accede because the words seemed to betoken a breach of continuity between the new Government and the old—to be[568] equivalent therefore to sanctioning revolution. An ingenious expedient occurred to him: it was to alter the words "Council of Regency" into "a Council of the Government and of National Defence;" thus avoiding the unpopular word, and yet implying that the Government had not come to an end, but was prolonged in and transformed into the new Council. The majority of the deputies appeared to approve of the clause so worded; and the Empress, whose consent Palikao was careful to obtain, sent him word that she relied entirely on him and approved of whatever he might do.

The hour for the meeting was now come. The approaches to the hall of the Legislative Body were occupied by troops of the line, and 600 mounted gendarmes were stationed in reserve in the Palais de l'Exposition in the Champs Elysées.

Three propositions were brought before the Chamber: first, that of the Government; secondly, that of Jules Favre; and thirdly, that of M. Thiers. The last was signed by forty-six deputies, and was expressed in the following terms:—

"In view of the existing state of affairs the Chamber names a Commission of Government and of National Defence.

"A constituent Assembly will be convoked as soon as circumstances will permit."

The three propositions were referred to the bureaux in the usual way that a committee might be appointed to report upon them. But while deliberation was going on in the bureaux (which met in committee-rooms distinct from the Legislative Chamber itself) events occurred that soon brought their labours to an untimely end. The Chambers were invaded by an unruly mob and the President was compelled to suspend the sitting. Gambetta with most of the Paris deputies proceeded to the Hôtel de Ville and there proclaimed the Republic. The Government of National Defence was constituted with General Trochu as its President. Already the Empress had fled and the Senate quietly dispersed without the slightest attempt to assert its authority. The other Ministerial posts were thus distributed:—Foreign Affairs, Jules Favre; Interior, Gambetta; War, General Le Flô; Marine, Admiral Fourichon; Justice, Crémieux; Finance, Picard; Public Instruction and Religion, Jules Simon; Prefect of Police, Count Kératry. M. Etienne Arago was appointed Mayor of Paris.

The Corps Législatif did not resign itself without an effort to the violent suppression that had been effected. A deputation of its members, headed by M. Grévy, presently waited on the Provisional Government. M. Grévy stated that a considerable number of members of the Corps Législatif, holding the same principles as those that animated the Provisional Government, and prepared to accept the fall of the Napoleonic system as an accomplished fact, were desirous of continuing the sessions of that body in a spirit of co-operation with the Government at the Hôtel de Ville. It was arranged that a meeting should be held at the Presidency at eight o'clock the same evening, when Jules Favre and Jules Simon, as a deputation from the Provisional Government, would inform their former colleagues of the decision arrived at in reference to M. Grévy's proposal. The subject was then anxiously debated. M. Glais Bizoin informed the Ministers that he had taken upon himself to close the doors of the hall of the Corps Législatif and seal them. This energetic proceeding it was deemed upon the whole advisable to sustain. The continuance of the Corps Législatif would lead, it was feared, to political intrigues and complications of various kinds that would be unfavourable to that concentration of every one's faculties on the task of national defence which it was so desirable to promote. At the meeting in the evening, M. Thiers being in the chair, Jules Favre explained to the members present the reasons that actuated the Provisional Government in declining the co-operation of the Corps Législatif. Thiers replied with exquisite finesse, spoke of Jules Favre as his "cher ci-devant collégue;" said that he could not approve of what had happened, but that he desired none the less earnestly that the courage of those of his colleagues who had not withdrawn before a formidable task might be profitable to the country and gain for it that success which was the ardent desire of every good citizen.

In England the news of the fall of the Empire and the Revolution of the 4th of September was received with mixed feelings. A very general opinion prevailed that the Emperor had been overtaken by a just retribution, though this feeling was qualified by the recollection of the real friendliness that Napoleon had generally manifested towards the country, and in which his sincerity cannot be doubted. With regard to any change the revolution just consummated might make in the position of France, and in the duties of the neutral Powers in her regard, the Government of Mr. Gladstone gave no indication of a belief that, either now or hereafter, interference (unless Belgium were attacked) could become the duty or the[569] interest of England. But, as far as words went, the Provisional Government could not complain of any lack of cordiality. The British ambassador, Lord Lyons, was the first of all the foreign representatives to call on M. Jules Favre at the Foreign Office on the morning of the 5th of September. Lord Lyons was full of good will. He reminded the Minister that his Government had offered its mediation to France, which had refused it. He could not conceal that public opinion in England was still hostile to France and that the mind of the Queen was strongly acted upon by the influence of relationship in favour of Germany. Yet it was possible that, in the course of events, the feeling in England might change; and that a sense of common interest might, if Germany pushed her successes too far and too unscrupulously, make the majority of Englishmen think that of two evils intervention was the less. In reply, M. Jules Favre, after laving great stress on the circumstance that the Imperial Government which rashly began the war had been overthrown, and that the party now in power had from the first been opposed to war, enlarged on those considerations which seemed to him to prove that England had a manifest interest in interfering to prevent France from being seriously weakened. England, he thought, would sink in reputation, and lose the respect that her magnanimous conduct at the beginning of the century had won for her among the nations of Europe, if she tamely suffered a people to which she was bound by so many ties to be destroyed piecemeal. England was now in a position, relatively to France, which might be likened to that in which France stood, relatively to Austria, after the battle of Sadowa. France then extended a generous and protecting hand and saved Austria from ruin; so let England now act towards France. Lord Lyons promised to bring M. Jules Favre's observations under the notice of his Government and, after expressing the strong feeling of sympathy with France in her misfortunes by which he was personally animated, took his departure.

CAMDEN PLACE, CHISLEHURST (NAPOLEON III.'S HOME IN ENGLAND).

At the time of the formation of the new Government Jules Favre was honestly of opinion that the[570] change in her representation would powerfully recommend the cause of France to the neutral Powers. The Emperor, he argued, made war upon personal or dynastic grounds; the Emperor is overthrown; the true France now makes her voice heard; declares that she would not have gone to war if she could have helped it; that her ideas all lie in the sphere of peace and solidarity of peoples; and that the other Powers of Europe may safely make a collective representation to Prussia in order to bring about peace, because the Republic in France is a guarantee that no wanton aggression will ever be practised towards Germany hereafter. That this view should commend itself to an ardent Republican was natural, but that it should be shared in by other nations, and above all by Germany, was most improbable. Count Bismarck, though Jules Favre did not as yet know it, had already caused it to be understood that Germany held France, not the French Government for the time being, responsible for the declaration of war; and would not now grant peace till she had obtained the most solid guarantees for the future.

Still, though England held back, might not France hope to be aided in her hour of need by one of the other Powers, or by a combination of them? M. Favre was firmly persuaded that both gratitude and interest ought to bring about a collective intervention on the part of the neutral Powers, which should force Prussia to negotiate for peace. Yet the grounds that he himself alleges for this persuasion are vague and inconclusive. The greatest among the neutral Powers "could not," he says, "open its annals without finding glorious instances of the devotedness of our chivalrous nation. All had enjoyed her hospitality, had found her generous, kindly, ready for any sacrifice, and seeking no recompense." Every word of this might be admitted, though not without qualifications; but what then? Admiration for the geniality and fertility of the French mind, recollection of cheering and stimulating hours passed within her borders, ought not to have blinded the neighbours of France to considerations of justice, nor to have induced them to shelter her altogether from the effects of the just resentment of Germany. That intervention was not resorted to later may be a legitimate subject of regret; but no neutral will be convinced by M. Favre's reasoning that it was the duty of his country to intervene immediately after the fall of the Empire. Unless, indeed, there were some special pre-existing obligation, by which a particular nation might be bound, in gratitude and honour, to come to the assistance of France. Jules Favre thought there were two nations thus situated—Austria and Italy. With regard to Austria, the blunt explanations of Prince Metternich, who called at the Foreign Office soon after Lord Lyons, dispelled all expectation of aid in that quarter. Austria had been saved by French intervention after the battle of Königgrätz; Prince Metternich did not think of denying this, nor of extenuating the claim to which such a service rendered his country amenable. He attempted to explain away the belief of the Duc de Gramont respecting words that had fallen from Count Beust. "It is not impossible," he said, "that M. Beust may have spoken of preparing 300,000 men if we were free to do so; but it is just this freedom that has always been denied us. The Emperor and his Ministers will never brave the will of the Czar. Now the latter has threatened that if we were to declare ourselves for France, he would join Prussia. Our hands are therefore bound; but we will do nothing against you; we will even aid you in everything that is reconcilable with our neutrality." These words clearly define the position of Austria at that time. She would willingly have aided France, but the Court of St. Petersburg, impelled by strong family and dynastic ties to sympathy with Prussia, had intimated that if Austria interfered for France, the sword of Russia would be thrown into the opposite scale.

Italy remained: could the nation that owed its very existence to France refuse to lend its aid to its benefactor in this time of peril? To the Italian Ambassador, who called after Prince Metternich, M. Favre used decided, almost peremptory, language. M. Nigra was embarrassed and sad; perhaps he was thinking of the return that the Italian Government were at that moment preparing to make for the generous aid of France in the shape of the annexation of the Papal territory. He did not contradict one of Jules Favre's assertions, but only took his stand on the impossibility of isolated action on the part of Italy. She was ready to unite with other Powers, and even to lead them if they would follow. But nothing was to be done without the support of England or Russia.

These interviews opened the eyes of Jules Favre, and convinced him that France could hope for no armed intervention. She must trust to herself, and put forth her utmost energies to defend her capital, to kindle the flame of patriotism in the population, and to raise new armies in the place of those that had been lost.

[571]

## CHAPTER XXXV.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

> The Vatican Council—Unusualness of the Occasion—Dr. Newman's Letter—Jesuit Influence—Dr. Cumming—Symptoms of Opposition—Opening of the Council—Inequalities of Representation—Order of Business—Production of the Schemata—The Doctrine of Papal Infallibility—Opposition of France and Austria—Withdrawal of the French Troops—The Ecclesiastical Opposition—Withdrawal of the Anti-Protestant Preamble—Adoption of the Constitution De Fide—Discussion on the Constitution De Ecclesiâ—Application of the Closure—The Dogma defined—Secession of the Minority—Confirmation of the Constitution—Victor Emmanuel determines on the Occupation of Rome—The Popular Vote—The Papal Guarantees—The Spanish Throne—The Savoy Candidature—Death of Prim—Paris after the Revolution of September—Jules Favre's Circular—Bismarck's Reply—The Negotiations at Ferrières—The Fortifications of Paris—The Investment completed—Thiers and Gambetta—Fall of Strasburg—Bazaine in Metz—An abortive Sortie—Emperor or Country?—Regnier's Intrigue—The Empress declines to be a Party—A Council of War—Boyer's Mission—Its Failure—The Army of Metz capitulates—A Riot in Paris—Thiers negotiates in vain—Abortive Sorties—The Army of the Loire—D'Aurelle de Paladines reoccupies Orleans—Reasons for his Inaction—He is ordered to advance—Chanzy's Defeat and Recapture of Orleans—The Second Army of the Loire—Garibaldi in the East—The New Year in Paris—Dispositions of the German Armies—Battle of Amiens—Faídherbe's Campaign—Bapaume—St. Quentin—An Unpleasant Incident—Le Mans—The Bombardment of Paris—The Armistice—Termination of the Siege—Bourbaki's Attempt—Action at Villersexel—The Eastern Army crosses the Swiss Frontier—The National Assembly at Bordeaux—Prolongation of the Armistice—Resignation of Gambetta—Preliminaries of Peace—Occupation of Paris—Acceptance of the Preliminaries—The Definitive Treaty—German Unity.

THE earlier portion of the year, of which the later months ushered in so much bloodshed and such dire calamities, was rendered memorable by the sessions of the Vatican Council at Rome, the first General Council of the Latin Church that Europe had witnessed since the Council of Trent. To England, indeed, as a Protestant country, the proceedings of a purely Roman Catholic council could not be of immediate and vital interest. Yet, besides the necessity and duty of watching keenly transactions tending to affect the faith and conduct of a large portion of that Christendom to which England also belonged, the closeness of her connection with Ireland, whose people zealously participated in the preparatory movements, brought the subject home to her in various ways; the questions themselves which it was understood were likely to come before the Council were of a remarkable nature; and a well-founded apprehension existed that the settlement of these questions in a particular way was likely to have large and wide-spreading political results. It will not therefore be out of place in this History, while keeping clear of anything like theological discussion, to insert a brief notice of the Vatican Council, showing in what circumstances and with what intentions it was called together, and describing how, after great and weighty opposition, a dogma issued from its deliberations that afterwards acted like a firebrand cast into the society of all Roman Catholic countries.

The (according to the Roman computation) twenty-second General Council was convened, by the Bull Æterni Patris dated the 29th of June, 1868, to meet at the Vatican on the 8th of December, 1869. The principal subjects for its deliberations were stated to be—the magisterium or supremacy of the Roman Pontiff, the relations between the State and the Church, and the deep-seated evils and corruptions of modern society, owing to the prevalence of revolutionary principles in religion, morals, and philosophy. Why the Council was summoned at this particular time, it was not easy to understand. Dissensions on questions of faith, threatening to terminate in schism, or which already had terminated in schism, appear to have been, in former ages of the Church, the invariable antecedents of the convocation of an Œcumenical Council. But in the present case there never had been a time in which greater unanimity in faith, or a more ardent spirit of loyal obedience to the Pope, had pervaded the Roman Catholic world. It had been indeed alleged that the rash speculations of some German professors at the universities of Munich and Vienna, the drift of which was to extend the authority of National Churches, and to set limits to the Papal sovereignty, supplied a natural occasion and a sufficient justification for the fuller and more exact definition of the Pontifical and Petrine privileges which the promoters of the Council desired to see recorded. Yet, at the time, little was heard of these speculations: they did not aim at popularity; they were not taken up as the watchwords of any important party in the Church. The non-necessity for, the inopportunity of, the Council—at any rate with reference to questions of dogma—was an opinion strongly entertained by many earnest and able Roman Catholics.[572] "What have we done?" wrote Dr. Newman to Bishop Ullathorne, "to be treated as the faithful never were treated before? When has a definition de fide been a luxury of devotion, and not a stern, painful necessity? Why should an aggressive and insolent faction be allowed to 'make the heart of the just sad, whom the Lord hath not made sorrowful'? Why cannot we be let alone when we have pursued peace and thought no evil?... If it is God's will that the Pope's infallibility is defined, then is it God's will to throw back 'the times and the moments' of that triumph which He has destined for His kingdom, and I shall feel I have but to bow my head to His adorable, inscrutable Providence." Many were of opinion that the Society of Jesus—the members of which were numerous at Rome, were supposed to have great influence over the Pope, and were certainly very active in paving the way for the Council—saw in the extension and more precise definition of the Papal prerogatives, which the adoption of the dogma of infallibility would involve, an opportunity for strengthening that system of centralised and unquestioned power which they have done so much to establish in the Roman Church. "The dogma," it was said, "is intended to make the Pope the ruler of the world; but the Jesuits rule the Pope, therefore the master-influence for the future in that large section of mankind which is included in the Latin Church will be wielded by the Jesuits." Nor was this opinion as to the preponderating share assigned to the Order in the arrangements for the Council confined to Protestants. Soon after the commencement of the sessions, Bishop Strossmayer, a Croatian prelate, denounced the Jesuits before the assembled fathers as manipulating and directing the business of the Council in a manner liable to be disastrous to the interests of the Church.

Soon after the publication of the Bull convening the Council a Papal Brief appeared, addressed to all Protestants and non-Roman Catholics, informing them that a General Council was about to be held, entreating them not to rest contented with a position in which they could not be sure of their salvation, and urging them to reconciliation and submission. Dr. Cumming, of the Scottish Church, London, understood this appeal as tantamount to an invitation to the Council, and manifested an intention of attending at the Council at the time appointed and taking part in the discussion. The Pope, however, writing to Archbishop Manning, desired that "Dr. Cumming, of Scotland," should be informed that no opinions and practices that had been condemned by any previous Council could be again brought under discussion, and that the object of reminding Protestants of the Council was to induce them to reflect upon the instability of their religious position. In order that confusion might not characterise the proceedings of so numerous an assembly, composed of men of every nation, a large proportion of whom had never set eyes upon each other before, six commissions were appointed by the Pope, with orders to prepare and rough-hew the materials for deliberation in council on the several topics of Religious Dogma, Ecclesiastical Politics, Church Discipline, Monastic Orders, the East, and Rites and Ceremonies.

In Roman Catholic countries it was believed that the object for which the Council was convened was to declare the infallibility of the Pope; and for months before the Council opened great agitation prevailed. In France, Bishop Maret and Père Gratry, the Oratorian, published pamphlets impugning, not the opportuneness only, but the truth, of the doctrine in question. In Germany the celebrated Dr. Döllinger contributed to the Allgemeine Zeitung a short but weighty essay, "Against the Infallibility of the Pope." But of all writings of this class none attracted so much attention as an able work named "The Pope and the Council" that appeared under the pseudonym of "Janus." The object of the writer was to establish by reference to history the untenable nature of the claims now made on behalf of the Roman Pontiffs. The Governments of the Roman Catholic Powers became uneasy and sought information from Cardinal Antonelli as to the probable course that the deliberations would take; some of them also spoke of asserting a claim to send ambassadors to the Council, as in former times, for the protection of lay interests. But Cardinal Antonelli replied in smooth and conciliatory terms; he would not admit that the definition of the dogma of infallibility was probable; and with regard to the non-admission into the Council of ambassadors from Roman Catholic Powers, he justified it by the changed circumstances of modern times.

The Council assembled for the first time on the appointed day, the 8th of December, 1869. Out of 1,044 bishops, mitred abbots, or generals of orders, who were qualified to sit in the Council, 767 actually attended. The bishops of Poland alone, among European countries, were absent, having been forbidden to attend by the Czar. England and Scotland were represented by twelve or thirteen bishops, the most prominent of whom were Archbishop Manning and Dr.[573] Ullathorne. Ireland sent twenty-three representatives, including Cardinal Cullen, Archbishop MacHale, and the learned and enlightened Bishop of Kerry, Dr. Moriarty. The French bishops were about eighty in number; those of North Germany only fourteen. The total number of bishops from all European countries—except Italy—amounted to 265. The Italian bishops, together with the hundred and nineteen bishops whose sees were in partibus infidelium, formed a total of 276. The missionary bishops—congregating to Rome from all parts of the known world, the expenses of their journey and residence in Rome being borne by the Papal treasury—formed nearly three hundred. It was objected that the representative character of the Council was impaired by the inequality of the relations existing between the bishops and the faithful who composed their flocks. The North German bishops, it was said, were only as one to 810,000 lay Catholics in North Germany; while the bishops from the Pontifical State numbered one for every 12,000 of the laity. Again, it was urged that, whereas in the primitive times one of the most distinctive characteristics of a bishop sitting in a council was that he bore testimony concerning the faith of his flock, this could not be the case with the numerous bishops in partibus now assembled at the Vatican, whose few and ignorant converts, for the most part just reclaimed from barbarism, had no traditional Christianity to put in plea. To all such objections it was replied, on the other side, that a bishop sat in council in virtue of his consecration only and that the doctrine of equal numerical representation had never been received in the Church.

THE VATICAN, ROME.

For the regulation of the order of business the Bull Multiplices inter was prepared, and communicated to the Council at the commencement of its proceedings. It was said that under this Bull the liberty of the Council was abridged to an extent never known in former councils. It lodged in the hands of the Pope the nomination of the presidents of all congregations and commissions and enjoined that any proposition that a bishop desired to bring before the Council should first be laid before a special commission, which should decide on its[574] admissibility and report accordingly to the Pope; without whose permission in the last resort it could not be brought forward. It need hardly be said that Latin was prescribed as the only language to be used in the public declarations.

The first public session (December 8th, 1869) was devoted to the formalities of opening. The proceedings of the Council being suddenly suspended in October, there were but four public sessions altogether. The second was held on the feast of the Epiphany, January 6th, 1870; when, no decree being at that time ready for discussion, every bishop attending the Council, with the Pope at their head, made the formal profession of his faith by publicly declaring his adhesion to the creed of Pope Pius IV., in which were summed up the principal dogmatic definitions and decrees of the Council of Trent. In the course of January several Schemata, or rough drafts of decrees, were introduced into the Council and referred to the several examining commissions. The first was the Schema De Fide: it was headed, in its original form, by a preamble containing language of a very disparaging nature respecting Protestantism, to the influence of which it ascribed Rationalism, Pantheism, Atheism, Socialism, etc., which it proceeded to condemn and anathematise. The second Schema related to Church discipline, and was brought in on the 14th of January; it dealt chiefly with the duties of bishops. The third Schema, De Ecclesiâ, on the Church and the Papal primacy, was brought in on the 21st of January; it originally contained three chapters, but a fourth was added in the circumstances presently to be related.

The repugnance to the doctrine of Papal Infallibility—or, at any rate, to the opportuneness of its definition at the present juncture—had been now so loudly expressed by a number of bishops (chiefly French and German, but with a sprinkling of English and Americans) that the majority in the Council began to fear that the advisers of the Pope would recommend the postponement of the subject to a future occasion. Wherefore a petition, or postulatum, was prepared, soon after the session of the 6th January, praying the Pope that the doctrine of the infallibility of the Chair of Peter might be defined; this was signed by five hundred bishops. The Governments of France and Austria, alarmed at this intelligence, thought that the time was come for exercising a pressure in a contrary direction on the Papal Court. Count Daru, then Minister for Foreign Affairs, instructed the Marquis de Banneville, the French Ambassador at Rome, to inform Cardinal Antonelli of the desire of the French Cabinet to be informed beforehand of all proceedings of a political nature that were taken by the Council, and of the decidedly adverse opinion of the said Cabinet against any definition of Papal infallibility. The Austrian Minister held similar language. Cardinal Antonelli replied to Count Daru in a long despatch written in March, when the prospect of the adoption of the dogma was increasingly favourable, denying that the Concordat existing between France and Rome gave the French Government any right to demand the special information required and claiming it as the privilege and the duty of the Council to proceed to the doctrinal definition deprecated by the French Cabinet, which he hoped would be greeted by the faithful everywhere as "the rainbow of peace and the dawn of a brighter future." It has been stated that the French Government replied to this letter from Cardinal Antonelli, stating that, as he determined to pursue a course that could only end in its ruin, France would for the future abstain from interference; but that on the day of the declaration of Papal Infallibility the Concordat would cease to be valid, the State would separate itself from the Church, and the French troops would be withdrawn from the Papal territory. It is certain that the resolution to withdraw the French troops, which was officially communicated by the Marquis de Banneville to the Holy See on the 27th July, was arrived at before France had sustained any military reverses, and may therefore have been prompted, or at least accelerated, by the proclamation of the dogma; but it does not appear that the menace of treating the Concordat as invalid was ever acted upon in the smallest degree; it seems probable therefore that the terms of the despatch were not in reality quite so stringent.

In reply to the petition of the five hundred bishops, a counter-petition was prepared by the opposition, and received a hundred and thirty-seven signatures, chiefly those of French, German, and Hungarian bishops. But the signers of this document—which was drawn up by Cardinal Rauscher—were careful not to commit themselves to an unconditional hostility to the dogma. They were content with pointing out the stumbling-blocks and dangers by which the question was surrounded—the thorny controversies, supposed to be long since buried, which it would disinter and quicken into a disastrous activity—and the as yet unresolved difficulties that passages in the history of the Papacy opposed to the belief in its infallibility.

[575]

The controversy, both in and out of the Council, waxed hotter and hotter, especially when the Infallibilists, emboldened it would seem by the hesitating and qualified character of the opposition, as expressed in the counter-petition—brought in in March, and annexed to the three chapters of the Schema De Ecclesiâ already submitted, the celebrated fourth chapter, containing the dogma itself fully formulated. But for the moment discussion ran upon the Constitution De Fide, which was rapidly approaching maturity. The opposition required, and finally with success, material alterations in that portion of the preamble which said so many hard things of Protestantism. In the end, the offensive preamble was withdrawn and a new one drawn up which the minority could agree to. The Constitution De Fide was adopted unanimously in the public session of the 24th of April, all the bishops present voting placet, but eighty-three adding the words "juxta modum," by which was meant that the signer adhered to the constitution in a particular sense attached by himself to its terms and not in any other sense. Strossmayer alone absented himself from the voting.

The Constitution De Fide being now out of the way, that of De Ecclesiâ, with its new fourth chapter, was pushed forward with the greatest ardour. The opposition resorted to the press and several remarkable pamphlets by men of note appeared. One of these was by the learned Hefele, lately appointed Bishop of Rottenburg. It was a discussion of the well-known case of Pope Honorius, condemned for heresy by Pope Agatho and a council in the year 680. Other brochures on the same side were written by Dupanloup, Bishop of Orleans, the Cardinals Rauscher and Schwarzenberg and Archbishop Kenrick of St. Louis. The first meeting for the discussion of the Constitution De Ecclesiâ was held on the 14th of May and the debate was continued during three weeks. The principal speakers in support of the dogma were Cardinal Patrizi, Cardinal Cullen, the Archbishop of Malines, and Moreno, the Cardinal Archbishop of Valladolid. One of the most able and effective speeches was that of Dr. Cullen, who endeavoured to convict Hefele of self-contradiction, by contrasting the conclusions of his late pamphlet with the account given of Pope Honorius in his Church History. Darboy, the Archbishop of Paris, made an earnest and powerful speech against the decree; and Simor, the Primate of Hungary, Jussuf, the Patriarch of Antioch, and Dr. MacHale, of Tuam, spoke on the same side. The discussion dragged on wearily. June arrived, and with it the burning heat and unwholesome air of a Roman summer; and still the names of forty-nine bishops were inscribed as desiring to take part in the discussion. At this point the majority exercised their right of closing the debate and the general discussion was brought abruptly to an end on the 3rd of June. Several weeks were then consumed in the consideration of the chapters, paragraph by paragraph. The voting on the fourth chapter, that enunciating the dogma, came on on the 13th of July. As finally settled, the definition was expressed in the following terms:—

"We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedrâ, that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised to him in St. Peter, is strong [pollere] with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to be furnished in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves and not from the consent of the Church."

On this definition the Council voted in the general congregation of the 13th July, and with the following result: 400 placet, 88 non placet, and 61 placet juxta modum. About seventy others, though in Rome, abstained from voting. It was now a question with the minority what course they should take. Cardinal Rauscher proposed that they should all wait for the public session, which had been fixed for the 25th of July, and then vote non placet in the presence of the Pope. But more pacific counsels prevailed. A letter was prepared on the 17th inst., and signed by 110 bishops, in which, after adverting to the particulars of the voting on the 13th, they declared to the Pope that their hostility to the definition of the dogma remained unchanged, and that by the present writing they confirmed their previous suffrages, but that nevertheless, out of respect and affection for his Holiness, they had determined not to stay and vote openly, "in facie patris," on a question so nearly concerning the person of the Pope. The bishops of the minority accordingly took their departure from Rome.

The turmoil caused by the approach of war led to the anticipation of the date that had been fixed for the public session. On the 18th of July,[576] the Pope himself presiding, the Constitution De Ecclesiâ, which included the definition of infallibility, was put to the vote and received 533 placets, and 2 non placets. The negative votes were given by Riccio, Bishop of Cajazzo, and Fitzgerald, Bishop of Little Rock, in the State of Arkansas in the United States. The Pope then read out the constitution to the assembled fathers, and confirmed it. During the reading a violent storm of thunder and lightning burst over St. Peter's, and the darkness became so great that the Pope was obliged to send for a candle. Little or no excitement was visible among the Romans; the Ambassadors of France, Prussia, and Austria pointedly stayed away. An analysis of the eighty-eight negative votes in the general congregation of the 13th of July, showed that thirty-two were given by German, Austrian, or Hungarian prelates, twenty-four by French, and seven by Oriental bishops. Two were Irish (Drs. MacHale and Moriarty, Bishop of Kerry); two English (Vaughan, Bishop of Plymouth, and Clifford, Bishop of Clifton); one Colonial (Conolly, Archbishop of Halifax), and five North Americans. Six Italian bishops, six bishops in partibus, and three whose names could not be ascertained, complete the list.

DR. DÖLLINGER. (From a Photograph by F. Müller, Munich.)

The importance of the definition of infallibility was considered by politicians and lay society in general to consist, not so much in the assertion and claim that the mere words of the decree contain, as in the retrospective force that it might be used to impart to Papal decisions dating from the Middle Ages, at a time when the power and pretensions of the Holy See were almost unbounded. If such a dogmatic utterance, for instance, as the Bull Unam sanctam of Boniface[577] VIII., by which it was declared that, "if the temporal power errs, it is judged by the spiritual," and that "there are two swords—the spiritual and the temporal; ... both are in the power of the Church; ... the former that of priests, the latter that of kings and soldiers, to be wielded at the good pleasure and by the allowance of the priest,"—if such a Papal declaration, and others of a similar kind to be found in the Roman Bullarium, were held to be ex cathedrâ, and therefore infallibly true, what a prospect was opened for the non-Roman Catholic Sovereigns of Roman Catholic subjects, should the new definition come to be generally accepted by the human conscience throughout the Roman Catholic world. These fears proved, however, of an alarmist character, and the Roman Catholic populations were on the whole no less law-abiding than the Protestant.

PALACE OF THE QUIRINAL, ROME.

(From a Photograph by Alinari, Rome.)

So far as it was connected with temporal power, the supremacy asserted for the Pope by the Constitution De Ecclesiâ was about to receive a notable check and diminution. The declaration of war between France and Prussia had been speedily followed by an announcement (July 27th), on the part of the Ollivier Government, that France would withdraw all her troops from Rome, and this was soon afterwards effected. The Opposition in the Italian Parliament immediately began to attack the September Convention, and to urge the occupation of Rome; but Signor Lanzi replied that the Convention was still binding, and must be adhered to. But in September, after the fall of the Empire and the Regency, the Italian Government could not afford to overlook the opportunity which the prostration of France afforded of extending a kingdom which was itself in so large a measure the child of revolution. Already, on the 6th of September, the Chevalier Nigra sounded Jules Favre on the possibility of obtaining the approval and sanction of[578] the new French Government to the King of Italy taking possession of Rome. M. Favre, though not personally opposed to the measure, was too well acquainted with the feeling that prevailed in France on the subject to give official countenance to the act. On the 8th of September the King addressed a letter to Pius IX., in which, grounding his determination on the critical condition of Italy, and also on the presence of foreigners among the troops composing the Papal army, he announced his intention to send Italian troops into the Roman territory, who should occupy those positions which should be "indispensable for the security of your Holiness," and for the maintenance of order. The Pope flatly declined to treat, and on the 20th of September the national army, after overcoming a brief show of resistance on the part of the Papal Zouaves, entered Rome. The Italian Government, desirous of covering the seizure of Rome under a show of legality, ordered an appeal to be made to the people of the Papal territory, who were invited to vote on the question whether or not they approved of the annexation of Rome to the kingdom of Italy, the spiritual rights of the Pope being preserved. The voting took place on the 2nd of October with the following result: Ayes, 133,681; Noes, 1,507. The Italian Parliament met in December and sanctioned the transfer of the capital from Florence to Rome. Victor Emmanuel made his public entry into Rome on the 31st of December.

The Pope having refused the terms offered through the Count Ponza di San Martino, the following arrangements were made by the Italian Government, with the sanction of the Parliament, without consulting him. He was confirmed in the possession of his sovereign rights, allowed to retain his guards, and provided with an income of 3,255,000 francs (which, however, Pius IX. never consented to accept). He was to keep the Vatican Palace (the Quirinal Palace being appropriated for the use of the King of Italy), the Church of Santa Maria Maggiore, his residence at Castel Gandolfo, and their dependencies. Various provisions were added for the purpose of securing the freedom and inviolability of the Papal correspondence. The seminaries and other Roman Catholic institutions were to derive their authority from the Holy See alone, without any interference from the Italian educational authorities, and the Pope was left an entire fulness of authority in the appointment of bishops and the general government of the Church. In fact, the Guarantees, had Pius IX. chosen to accept them, would have given him a power such as he possessed in no other European country.

Spain, the unlucky cause of the deadly war that had broken out between France and Germany, though striving after repose and a settled government, failed to obtain it. In May the names of Espartero and Montpensier were formally before the Cortes as candidates for the Throne. But Espartero soon afterwards retired on the ground of his advanced age; and Prim, whose influence was predominant in the Government, would not hear of the election of the Duke of Montpensier. In June Queen Isabella abdicated in favour of her son Alfonso, the Prince of Asturias. The next month witnessed Prim's unsuccessful attempt to secure the elevation to the Throne of Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern. Not daunted by so many failures, Prim now turned his eyes again to the House of Savoy, and prevailed on the King of Italy to consent to the acceptance of the Spanish Crown by his second son, the Duke of Aosta. In October this arrangement was given out as completed, subject to the approval of the Cortes. On the 16th of November a formal vote was taken in the Cortes, and there appeared—for the Duke of Aosta, 191 votes; for the Federal Republic, 60; for Montpensier, 27; for a Unitarian Republic, 3. Supported by this decisive majority, Prim proceeded to make the necessary preparations for the fitting reception of the new Sovereign. The Duke and Duchess of Aosta embarked at Leghorn and landed at Cartagena on the 30th of December. They were received by Admiral Topete, and informed by him of a terrible crime that had just occurred in Madrid. On the 28th of December, Marshal Prim, while going in his carriage from the Cortes to the Ministry of War, was fired at by some assassins (supposed to be Republican fanatics, to whom Prim was odious as the supporter of monarchy) and severely wounded in the arm and hand. The assassins made their escape. The wounds were at first not believed to be dangerous, but inflammation set in and Prim expired on the night of the 30th of December. If he had erred through ambition, the brave Prim was yet a true lover of his country and a wise, courageous, and sagacious ruler; at this critical juncture of her affairs, his death was to Spain an unspeakable and irreparable loss.

It will be remembered that the narrative of the Franco-German War has been brought down to the capitulation of Sedan and the Revolution of the 4th of September. Of the gallant struggle made by[579] the French nation after the fall of the Empire, when the men who had installed themselves in the seats of power vainly tried to bring back to the standards of the raw Mobiles that victory which had deserted the eagles of the veterans of the Crimea, it does not fall within the scope of this work to speak at length.

M. Jules Favre, Gambetta, Crémieux, and the rest (always excepting Trochu), believing in democracy with an implicit and absolute faith, seem to have been honestly convinced that what the French, or rather the Parisian, populace were determined should be or should not be, would in some way or other be arranged to suit their wishes. How else could the foolish and presumptuous language—falsified so miserably by the event—of M. Favre's circular of the 6th of September have escaped from the pen of any man of common sense or common prudence? The Empire, he said, sought to divide the nation from the army, but misfortune and duty have brought them together again; "this alliance renders us invincible." He then proceeded to misrepresent what the King of Prussia had said in his proclamation upon entering French territory, as if he had declared that he made war, "not against France, but against the Imperial dynasty;" whereas the King merely announced that he was making war against the armies of France, not against the civil population—a very different thing. But if Prussia was so ill advised as to continue the war, the new Government would accept the challenge. "We will not cede either an inch of our territory or a stone of our fortresses."

Bismarck, upon receiving a copy of Jules Favre's circular, despatched a counter-manifesto to the Prussian diplomatic agents. "The demand," he remarked, "that we should conclude an armistice without any guarantee for our conditions of peace, could be founded only on the erroneous supposition that we lack military and political judgment, or are indifferent to the interests of Germany." Germany cared nothing about the dynasty; but whatever permanent Government might be established in France must be prepared to give to Germany solid guarantees for the maintenance of peace. "We are far from any inclination to mix in the internal affairs of France. It is immaterial to us what kind of government the French people shall formally establish for themselves. The Government of the Emperor Napoleon has hitherto been the only one recognised by us; but our conditions of peace with whatever Government, legitimate for the purpose, we may have to negotiate are wholly independent of the question how or by whom France is governed. They are prescribed to us by the nature of things, and by the law of self-defence against a violent and hostile neighbour. The unanimous voice of the German Governments and German people demands that Germany shall be protected by better boundaries than we have had hitherto against the dangers and violence that we have experienced from all French Governments for centuries. As long as France remains in possession of Strasburg and Metz, so long is its offensive strategically stronger than our defensive power, so far as all South Germany, and North Germany on the left bank of the Rhine, are concerned. Strasburg, in the possession of France, is a gate always wide open for attack on South Germany. In the hands of Germany, Strasburg and Metz obtain a defensive character." It is now known that Bismarck would have been content with the acquisition of Strasburg, but the military authorities insisted upon Metz as well.

With views so divergent, the inutility of a conference between the French Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Prussian Chancellor would seem to be obvious. Nevertheless, the pressure of circumstances brought about such a conference, and for this reason—the Government of the 4th of September, though it probably continued to regard itself as a "heaven-born Ministry," had become alive to the fact that its earthly title to legitimacy was but slender; it therefore desired to bring about the convocation of a National Constituent Assembly, which might, as it saw fit, either confirm them in their offices or choose another Government. On the other hand, it was to the Germans also a matter of prime importance that a regular Government should be established in France, in order that negotiations might be opened with it for peace. But in order that the elections from which such an Assembly was to result might be held, there must be a temporary cessation of hostilities; and this was a matter that could only be arranged by means of an interview. Through the exertions of Lord Lyons, the consent of the King of Prussia to a meeting between Bismarck and Jules Favre, to settle the terms of an armistice, was obtained. Several interviews between the two took place at Ferrières, near Meaux (September 19th and 20th), but no accommodation could be arrived at. As a military equivalent for the consent to a cessation of hostilities, Bismarck demanded the surrender of Toul, Phalsburg, and Strasburg; but to this Jules Favre would not listen, and became violently[580] agitated at the suggestion that the garrison of Strasburg should give themselves up as prisoners of war. Again, the subject of an armistice was discussed in connection with the re-provisioning of Paris. During the three weeks that would be required for the election and first meeting of a National Assembly, if an armistice were to prevail, Paris would naturally seek to augment the stock of provisions within the walls; but, in that case, Bismarck said, Germany must have a military equivalent to compensate her for the long delay, and, as such an equivalent, he demanded the surrender of the fortress of Mont Valérien. Favre was again much excited; he said, and certainly with reason, that Bismarck might as well ask for Paris at once. The conferences were broken off without result and Jules Favre returned to Paris.

SIEGE OF PARIS: MAP OF THE FORTIFICATIONS.

The remainder of the events of the war to the end of 1870 we propose to sketch briefly in the following order:—(1) The siege of Paris (noticing in connection therewith the sieges of Strasburg and Metz); (2) Other sieges and stormings of fortresses; (3) The operations on the Loire; (4) The operations in the east of France. Our object will be to keep the chief current of action before the reader in avoidance of details.

The main defence of Paris consisted in the outer ring of forts, heavily armed, by which the lines of investment of a besieging army were kept at such a distance that the bombardment and destruction of the city were rendered impossible until the forts themselves had been reduced. On the south side the forts were not sufficiently distant from the city to make it unattainable by shells, with the modern range of artillery, to an enemy who had seized the heights of Meudon and Clamart, and the plateau of Villejuif; secondly, the interval left between the fort of Issy and Mont Valérien was far too great; and, again, the interval between Mont Valérien and the forts of St. Denis was dangerously large. To remedy these defects a system of earthworks was planned and partly executed, after Trochu had charge of the defence. The disastrous issue of the sortie of the 19th of September, made by General Ducrot in the direction of Chatîllon, when the redoubt at that[581] place fell into the hands of the Prussians, and the 14th Corps, yielding to a disgraceful panic, fled in disorder to the city gates, not only, in General Vinoy's opinion, exercised a baneful influence over all the subsequent defence, but led to the evacuation by the French of the whole of the redoubts above described. Two of them, however, one to the west, the other to the east of Villejuif, were re-taken by General Vinoy, with little loss, on the 23rd of September; and being immediately repaired and put in the best condition of defence, were held by the French during the remainder of the siege, throwing back the Prussian line of investment at this point considerably and making the bombardment of the city, on all the eastern half of the southern face, impossible. Had equal energy been shown in holding, or recovering, the redoubts of Meudon and Chatîllon, Paris could not have been bombarded to any purpose on this side. Of this there can be no question.

L. A. THIERS. (From a Photograph by E. Appert, Paris.)

After the repulse of Ducrot on the 19th of September, the investment of Paris, which could not be considered final till the quality of the troops composing the active army had been ascertained, was regularly completed. Its salient points were Stains on the north, Chelles on the east, Sceaux on the south, and Garches on the west. On the 30th of September General Vinoy headed a grand sortie against the 6th Corps (Tümpling), which guarded that portion of the Prussian lines which lay south of Villejuif, with the intention of driving the Germans out of Choisy-le-Roi, and destroying the bridge over the Seine at that point, so as to make a break in the German communications. It was hoped that the enemy would have been surprised; but a delay of twenty-four hours[582] required by Trochu, in order that a larger force might be got ready to share in the operation, and the vigilance of the German Intelligence Department, caused that expectation to fail; and the German troops at Choisy, being reinforced and prepared for the attack, could not be dislodged. The French loss was considerable, amounting to nearly 2,000 men; but the troops fought well and the retreat was effected in good order.

About this time, M. Thiers, at the request of the Government of the National Defence, visited all the principal Courts of Europe, everywhere eloquently pleading the cause of his country. Nowhere, not even in Russia, did his words fail to awaken interest and sympathy; but when M. Thiers hinted at active intervention, he was met by a general indisposition to interfere at the present stage of the struggle.

On the 7th of October Gambetta made his escape from Paris in a balloon, and landed safely in the neighbourhood of Rouen. He at once repaired to Tours, where a delegation from the Government of Paris had been for some time established, though it was entirely unequal to its task. He lost no time in issuing a proclamation, to be circulated through France, describing in highly coloured language the patriotic exertions which the Parisians were making, and urging the inhabitants of the unoccupied provinces to rise and hasten to their succour. He then superseded Crémieux in the Ministry of War, and appointed himself to the office, in addition to that of Minister of the Interior. Gambetta evidently thought himself another Carnot, about to "organise victory." The real nature and scope of his abilities, which were undoubtedly great, appear to have been seized by a keen-eyed newspaper correspondent, who said that Gambetta reminded him of an "energetic traffic-manager" on an English railway. But his activity and hopefulness were inexhaustible, and he certainly did contrive to conjure up, as it were out of the earth, armies of some sort or other, and to find arms and accoutrements for them; though the first were not uniform and the second miserably insufficient. Nevertheless he did the best he could with the materials at his hand. Of his military arrangements it is enough to say that he put an end to the disorders in the great cities that attempted to rival the central power.

Meanwhile the days crept on and the time came when famine forced the defenders of Metz to drop their arms. Already Strasburg had fallen (September 28th) after a gallant defence by General Uhrich, and the Germans had established a civil government in Alsace. When last we spoke of Bazaine, it was to mention that after the battle of Gravelotte he withdrew the Army of the Rhine under cover of the fortifications of Metz. Nothing of moment occurred for some days; Prince Frederick Charles was engaged in hutting the German army round Metz and entrenching his position; while Bazaine was busily preparing for another attempt. A messenger from MacMahon, passing safely through the German lines, brought word to Bazaine that the Army of Châlons had commenced its march to his relief on the 21st of August. In order to co-operate with it, Bazaine planned a great sortie for the 31st, about which day he calculated that MacMahon would have arrived in the neighbourhood of the fortress. But he delayed the attack till the afternoon, for reasons which, even upon his own showing, appear insufficient; and through the indecision of subordinate commanders, another delay supervened, so that the advance was not made till four o'clock. The Germans had time to concentrate a sufficient mass of troops in the rear of Noisseville and Servigny to repel the French attack, which was made with no great vigour. Bivouacking on the ground, the French resumed the action on the next day; but their efforts were ill planned and ill united; the Germans brought up an overpowering artillery to crush the French right; and between two and three o'clock, Bazaine, who had heard nothing of the approach of MacMahon's army, gave the order for retreat. For the next weeks he confined himself to foraging for provisions, and even in a sortie on the 7th of October only 40,000 of his troops were employed.

The Revolution of the 4th of September occurred and the news was received by Bazaine with unmitigated disgust. The master whom he had served long, and who had rewarded him well, was the Emperor; if the Emperor was a prisoner and could give him no orders, then his obedience was due to the Empress as Regent. He determined not to recognise and to hold no communications with the men who had supplanted a regular Government under favour of a street riot and the Republican cry. So far, if Bazaine's antecedents are considered, it is impossible to blame him; he did not become culpable till he made the interest of France—which had a more sacred claim on his allegiance than any form of government—subordinate to political aims and personal ambition. Count von Moltke, however, in his "History of the Franco-German War," maintained that he was not a traitor.

[583]

In the course of September a strange incident occurred. There was an individual of the name of Regnier, much attached to the Empire, who was said to have held some appointment in the household of the Empress. M. Regnier appears to have been a fanciful and vain personage; and the notion came into his head that he might become the humble but serviceable instrument of liberating the Emperor, re-establishing the Imperial system, and terminating the misfortunes of France. For this, it seemed to him, three things were necessary: the consent of the Imperial family; the negotiation of a treaty of peace between them and the Germans; and the liberation of Bazaine and his army in consequence of that treaty, who should act as an "Army of Order," put down the Republic and the men of the 4th of September, and replace the Emperor on the throne. Regnier first went to Chislehurst and propounded his views to the Empress, begging that she would furnish him with some kind of credentials. The Empress, it is plain, put little faith either in the man or in his project; however, after much importunity, she gave him the credentials he desired. Having obtained these, Regnier repaired to Ferrières, where the King and Bismarck were then quartered. He obtained an interview with the Chancellor and unfolded his plan. Bismarck was at first inclined to treat him as a dreamer and a meddler, but eventually thought the scheme of Regnier might be worth a trial. He accordingly gave him a general pass, which would allow of his passing through the lines of any German army that he might meet with, in order that he might go to Metz and sound Bazaine with reference to the project. Passing in this way through the lines of Prince Frederick Charles, Regnier entered Metz and sought an interview with Bazaine (September 23rd). The marshal, though he expressed himself cautiously, did not disguise the feelings of aversion and contempt with which he regarded the Government of the National Defence; and in consequence of Regnier's visit he sent Bourbaki, the commander of the Imperial Guard, that same evening out of Metz on a mission to Chislehurst. The emissary—Prince Frederick Charles being doubtless cognisant of the whole intrigue—found no difficulty in passing through the investing lines. Up to this point Regnier's little plan had apparently prospered, but now the bubble burst. The Empress was not a woman of that strength and sternness of character which, in the pursuit of an object of ambition, would lead her to brave obloquy and play high for a mighty stake. If she signed a treaty of peace as Regent, providing for the cession of Strasburg and Metz to Germany, the name of the Napoleonic dynasty, she thought, would be eternally execrated in France; and, after all, it was not certain that Bazaine could restore the Empire, or that his army, as a body, would support him in the attempt. She therefore absolutely declined to be a party to the scheme and it fell through. Bourbaki returned to France; but, instead of re-entering Metz, placed his sword at the disposal of the Government of Tours.

In October, the only description of food that remained abundant in Metz was horse-flesh and this was obtained at the cost of the efficiency of the cavalry and artillery. On the day after the sortie of the 7th Bazaine caused a meeting of divisional generals to be held, to consider the situation. However distasteful the thought of a capitulation might be, yet the fast diminishing supplies of food compelled the officers to face it; they were of opinion that a capitulation should be arranged on terms that would allow of the army retiring, without laying down its arms, to the south of France, under a pledge not to serve against Germany during the continuance of war. If, however, these conditions were not acceded to by the German leaders, it was the understanding of most of the divisional generals and of the mass of the officers under them, that a desperate effort must and would be made to cut a way, sword in hand, through the investing forces.

At a meeting of the corps commanders, called by Bazaine on the 10th of October, it was resolved that no new sorties should be attempted, but that efforts should be made to obtain a military convention by negotiation with the enemy. The use of the term "military convention" shows that something different from an ordinary capitulation—something political—was in view. At all events, General Boyer arrived at Versailles on the 13th of October to talk over the situation. The course of the negotiation that ensued was curiously similar to that which the Regnier incident had occasioned. "You ask," said Bismarck, "that the army in Metz may be allowed to retire to the south of France, pledged not to bear arms against Germany during the continuance of the war. But who is to guarantee the convention under which such an arrangement would be executed? Whom does Bazaine obey? What is the Government that he serves? If the Government of the National Defence,—that is an authority that we Germans do not recognise, at any rate until a Constituent Assembly shall have met and validated[584] their powers. If the Emperor,—he is a helpless prisoner in Germany. If the Empress and the Regency,—that may perhaps be satisfactory, but her sanction must be obtained; she must sign a treaty that will give us what we want; and the Army of the Rhine, besides the pledge not to bear arms against Germany, must proclaim the Regency as the legitimate Government of France, and Bazaine must undertake to play the part of Monk in an Imperial restoration." Boyer returned to Metz with this answer on the 18th of October, and thence was sent to Chislehurst. The result was the same as before; the Empress, after much wavering, refused to sign any treaty of peace by which French territory would be ceded to the invader. General Boyer communicated to the King on the 23rd the ill-success of his mission, and Prince Frederick Charles was immediately instructed to inform Bazaine that all hope of arriving at any result by political negotiation was abandoned at the royal headquarters. On the 27th the capitulation was signed and the fortress with an army of 170,000 men passed into the hands of the Germans.

The confirmation of the news of the capitulation of Bazaine, and the rumour that an armistice was under consideration, caused a great ferment in the anarchical or communist element of the Parisian population. Bands of armed men marched (October 31st) from Belleville to the Hôtel de Ville, placed Trochu and other members of the Government under arrest, declared the independence of the Commune of Paris and undertook its government. The leaders were Flourens, Félix Pyat, Blanqui, etc. Fortunately, Ernest Picard, the Minister of Finance, contrived to escape, and before the day closed he brought a Breton battalion of the Gardes Mobiles to the Hôtel de Ville, who soon rescued their countryman Trochu and dispersed the revolutionists. The utmost forbearance was shown to the rioters by the partisans of order. Trochu and his colleagues, after this émeute, thought it desirable to submit the question of their remaining in power to the suffrages of the people of Paris. The votes were taken accordingly; nearly 558,000 were favourable to the Government, while 62,638 were dissentient.

M. Thiers, on his return from his unsuccessful journey to the foreign Courts, was requested by the Government to re-open negotiations with Count Bismarck, with a view to a cessation of hostilities and the election of a Constituent Assembly. But the project again foundered on the question of re-victualling Paris, to which the military authorities at the Prussian headquarters would not allow Bismarck to consent, unless on condition of the surrender of one, if not two, of the forts round Paris—a concession that Thiers could not make.

Sad and dull was life in Paris during the month of November, cheered only by one gleam of better fortune, when news came that the Army of the Loire had gained a victory at Coulmiers. At the end of the month a grand sortie was resolved upon, in order to facilitate the flanking operations of General d'Aurelle de Paladines' army, which Gambetta hoped to impel upon Paris at the same time. Great preparations were made and several demonstrations against various points of the German lines concerted, in order to deceive the enemy as to the object of the main attack, which was the peninsula of Champigny, beyond Charenton. Breaking through the Prussian lines at this point, Trochu hoped to push forward into the district of Brie, and march onwards till he fell in with the advancing army of De Paladines. Ducrot was appointed to the command of the troops destined for the operation, which numbered about 60,000 men. Bridges were thrown across the Marne, and on the morning of the 30th the Saxons and Würtembergers who guarded this part of the line were vigorously attacked and the villages of Brie and Champigny wrested from them. Still no great progress was made, and on the night of the 30th it became suddenly cold, and the French soldiers unused to the hardships of campaigning suffered terribly from exposure. The 1st of December was employed by Trochu and Ducrot in strengthening the line, Brie-Champigny, which they had seized. On the 2nd the Germans brought up fresh forces, and severe fighting took place, at the end of which the French retained all their positions, except the eastern end of the village of Champigny. On the 3rd Trochu resolved to retreat, moved to do so by the absence of any news of De Paladines and the increasing severity of the weather. The retreat was covered by the guns of the forts and was effected with little loss. Another great sortie was made on the 21st of December, with some vague hope of co-operating with a northern army, supposed to be at that time advancing towards Paris. The attack was directed against the Prussian Guard at Stains and the Saxons more to the east. It was repelled with little difficulty, the French losing considerably and showing in this sortie a lack of spirit and endurance, naturally to be accounted for by want of food, severe cold, and the depressing circumstances of the siege.

[585]

Besides Metz and Strasburg, eight other fortified places were compelled to surrender before the close of the year. In the case of Laon, the surrender on the 9th of September of a citadel and a position remarkably strong by nature, was rendered necessary by the weakness of the garrison. Toul, after a savage bombardment for several days, by which the town was set on fire in several places, surrendered to the Duke of Mecklenburg on the 23rd of September. Soissons, Verdun, La Fère, and Thionville were reduced in the course of October and November. Phalsburg (the fortress at which is laid the scene of Erckmann-Chatrian's famous novel, "Le Blocus"), after its brave commandant, General Talhouet, and its no less brave inhabitants, had endured a bombardment and blockade—the first intermittent, the second continuous—during four months, was compelled to surrender, by failure of provisions, on the 12th of December.

EVACUATION OF METZ. (See p. 584.)

The narrative of the formation of the Army of the Loire, of its successes and its reverses, is one of the most striking and instructive chapters in the history of the war. All that will be here attempted is to give an outline of the course of events, as it may be clearly traced in the works of the two French generals who had most share in them, General d'Aurelle de Paladines and General Chanzy. Soon after the Revolution of the 4th of September, it being apparent that France must either raise fresh armies or submit to whatever terms the victors of Sedan might impose, the formation of a new army corps, the 15th, was commenced at Bourges, under the command of General Motterouge. By the beginning of October its organisation was nearly complete. Then came the advance of Von der Tann towards Orleans, the defeat of Motterouge at Artenay and the first German occupation of Orleans; the 15th Corps being driven over the Loire, and falling back as far as Ferte St. Aubin. On the 11th of October General d'Aurelle de Paladines, an officer on the retired list, who had offered his services and his experience to the new Government, was appointed to supersede General Motterouge. By the end of October came the disastrous news of the fall of[586] Metz. Prince Frederick Charles was now free to march southward with 100,000 victorious troops and break up the nascent organisation of the Army of the Loire. Several weeks, however, must elapse before he could reach the Loire, and in that time the force which d'Aurelle's energy had rendered formidable might still be able to strike a blow. On the 25th of October the general concerted with the Minister of War, Gambetta, and his delegate, M. de Freycinet, the plan of an advance of the 15th and 16th Corps on Orleans. Crossing the Loire at Blois and other places, the 15th and 16th Corps, preceded by numerous bodies of Franc-tireurs, forming altogether an army of between 60,000 and 70,000 men, were ranged, at the end of October, on a line facing the north-east, and extending from the forest of Marchenoir to the Loire, near Beaugency. Von der Tann, who commanded in Orleans and whose force was considerably weaker in point of numbers, was alarmed at the movement and prepared to march out and attack the enemy, intending, should he be unsuccessful, to evacuate Orleans. D'Aurelle continued to press forward, handling his troops warily and deliberately, as well knowing how disastrous, with such inexperienced soldiers, the consequences of any mistake might easily be. The two armies met on the 9th of November, on the plain around the village of Coulmiers, ten miles west of Orleans, and for the first time in the war the Germans were defeated.

On the following day (November 10th) General d'Aurelle entered Orleans and was welcomed enthusiastically by the inhabitants. He fixed his headquarters at Villeneuve d'Ingre, about three miles outside the city. He has been repeatedly censured for not leading his army, after the victory of Coulmiers, directly upon Paris, so as to raise the siege. Had Prince Frederick Charles been still detained at Metz, this is what d'Aurelle undoubtedly ought to have done. But the Prince, in his southward march, was already almost as near Paris as the Army of the Loire; his headquarters on the 10th of November were at Troyes. D'Aurelle with good reason shrank from the enterprise of attacking the Duke of Mecklenburg (whose army, swelled by the remains of Von der Tann's corps, amounted to about 50,000 men and was posted near Chartres), with the certainty that Prince Frederick Charles, a man not likely to miss an opportunity, was, with 100,000 victorious Prussians, within striking distance of his right flank. D'Aurelle's plan, therefore, was this—to form a large entrenched camp in front of Orleans and fortify it with great care, mounting on the works a number of heavy marine guns of long range; behind these entrenchments to continue the organisation of the army and the instruction of the soldiers, in both of which respects much improvement was still to be desired; and to receive here, with his forces united and well in hand, the attack which Prince Frederick Charles was marching to deliver. Had that attack been successfully resisted, had the Prussian legions been beaten back from before the walls of Orleans, then, General D'Aurelle thought, there might be a chance of marching effectually to the relief of Paris. But Gambetta interfered with his plans, and the result was that a French advance was defeated on the 28th of November at Beaune la Rolande.

A council of war was held on the 30th of November, at St. Jean de la Ruelle, near Orleans, at which d'Aurelle, Chanzy, and Freycinet were present. Against the wishes and ideas of d'Aurelle, Freycinet communicated the formal order of Gambetta to advance with the whole army on Pithiviers, with a view to the relief of Paris. There was no choice but to obey. Next day, Chanzy, with the 16th and 17th Corps, forming the left of the army, advanced by Patay against the army of the Duke of Mecklenburg, and drove it back a considerable distance. But Prince Frederick Charles, observing the fatal error into which the French had fallen, through the interference of Gambetta and Freycinet, of dispersing their troops too widely, executed on the 2nd of December a masterly manœuvre, which in its results changed the whole aspect of the campaign. Concentrating the heavy masses of the German infantry on a narrow front, on each side of the great road which joins Artenay and Chevilly, he advanced, engaging Chanzy with his right, but directing the heaviest attack against the 15th Corps, which lay between him and Orleans. The strongest division of that corps (Paillères) had been sent away some days before, towards Pithiviers, by Gambetta's orders, and had not yet rejoined the main body. Pressing steadily forward, the Germans overpowered the resistance of the two remaining divisions of the 15th Corps, and drove them back beyond Chevilly. Chanzy's troops in this day's battle held their ground on most points, but the division Barry, of the 16th Corps, gave way, and Chanzy lost his hold of the road to Châteaudun. On the 3rd the fighting continued, the Germans slowly pressing onward, step by step. D'Aurelle, fearful of a block at Orleans, if the retreat of the whole French army should be directed thither, sent orders to Chanzy[587] to retire on Beaugency. He was not prepared for the immense force which the enemy had developed in his front, and he seems to have abandoned the hope that his beaten troops, even behind the entrenchments he had prepared, could make an effectual stand. On the 4th, the arrival of Paillères with his division at headquarters inspired d'Aurelle with a momentary hope that the entrenchments might yet be held, and he telegraphed to Chanzy, directing him to march on Orleans. But it was now too late; the enemy held the Châteaudun road, and was interposed between Chanzy's army and Orleans. Moreover, the troops of Paillères' division, and of the 15th Corps generally, weary and dispirited, exhausted by want of sleep and food, could not be induced to man the entrenchments. They pressed on into Orleans, many even of the officers forgetting their duty, and repairing, without permission, to inns and private houses in the town. D'Aurelle entreated, expostulated, and threatened, but all in vain. Then he saw that Orleans must be evacuated and made arrangements accordingly. The immense supplies that had been accumulated there were removed, and on the night of the 4th of December the 15th Corps defiled over the Loire bridge, leaving about a thousand prisoners in the hands of the enemy. Thus was Orleans re-occupied by the Germans, and d'Aurelle de Paladines was promptly superseded by Chanzy.

The new Second Army of the Loire, under Chanzy, had an eventful history, which must here be summed up in a few words. Chanzy struggled gallantly; but so far from advancing nearer to Paris, he was ever driven farther away from it; he was continually fighting and falling back. He fought a battle at Villorceau, on the 8th of December, against the Duke of Mecklenburg, and maintained all his positions, except on the right, at Beaugency, which the Prussians obtained possession of in the night. This disaster was owing to another interference by Gambetta with the movements of the troops. Admiral Jauréguiberry had given positive orders to General Camo, who commanded the movable column of Tours, to hold firmly a strong position which he assigned to him in front of Beaugency. But during the day a direct order was received by Camo, from the Minister of War, to retire behind Beaugency; this order he obeyed and the result was tantamount to a defeat. After two more days' fighting, Chanzy fell back to the line of the Loire, hoping to protect Vendôme. Prince Frederick Charles followed, and a general engagement took place near Vendôme on the 15th of December, in which, as before, the French fought well; but at its conclusion, his line being forced back at one point, Chanzy resolved to evacuate Vendôme and fall back on Le Mans. He arrived at Le Mans on the 21st of December, and here for the present we will leave him.

In the east the military operations were not at first of such importance as to have much effect on the issue of the war. Since France had declared herself a Republic, the sympathies of Garibaldi were enlisted on her behalf; he came to Tours on the 9th of October. Garibaldi was warmly received by Gambetta and appointed to a special command in the east of France; a brigade of Franc-tireurs, of miscellaneous composition, being placed under his orders. Garibaldi's health was too infirm to allow of his exhibiting any great activity in the field. His headquarters were fixed at Autun, where he turned the fine old cathedral into a barrack for his Franc-tireurs. General Werder, who commanded the German troops employed in this part of France, was little hampered in his movements, either by the efforts of Garibaldi, or by those of his more regular opponent General Cambriels. On the 29th of October the important town of Dijon, the ancient capital of Burgundy, had fallen into the hands of Werder. The strong fortress of Besançon defied the German arms. It was of the highest importance for them to take Belfort, a fortress of the first class, situated in the southern corner of Alsace, in the gap between the Vosges mountains and the Jura. General Treskow appeared before the place on the 3rd of November, and commenced to invest it; but the investment was for a long time very incomplete, and communication with the country outside was scarcely interrupted. Garibaldi marched towards Dijon, on the 27th of November, at the head of a column of Mobiles and Franc-tireurs 10,000 strong. At a place called Pasques he fell in with Werder's outposts, who held his force in check till the arrival of a brigade from Dijon, by which the Garibaldians were easily routed, with the loss of many prisoners. On the whole, the employment of Garibaldi did more harm by causing disunion among the French, than it did good by any loss that it inflicted on the Germans.

The opening of 1871 found the besieged population of Paris enduring with exemplary patience the manifold hardships and gathering perils by which they were beset. An additional source of danger and distress was about to be disclosed, in the bombardment of the forts and city; but this also they sustained with the greatest fortitude[588] and resignation. From the beginning of the year the bread distributed by the Government consisted of a detestable compound of flour mixed with all kinds of foreign ingredients. On the 3rd of January some Franc-tireurs brought some newspapers through the investing lines, which gave no cheering account of the state of affairs in the provinces. On that very day a battle was fought at Bapaume, the issue of which ought to have contributed to amend the state of things, but through some strange mismanagement it produced no good effect.

We will take this opportunity to give a brief sketch of the military operations in the northern district since the fall of Metz. When that event happened, the First and the Second German Armies, which had been united before Metz while the siege lasted, were again separated. The bulk of the Second Army marched with Prince Frederick Charles upon the Loire; the First Army, placed now under the command of General Manteuffel, was detached towards Amiens and Rouen, in order to disperse or press back any new French armies which might threaten to attain to such a consistence as to interfere with the secure prosecution of the siege of Paris. Manteuffel had the whole of the 8th Corps, one brigade of the 1st Corps, and a division of cavalry, under his immediate command, when he received intelligence that a considerable French force under General Farre had been concentrated in front of Amiens. The Prussians attacked on the morning of the 27th of November. On their left they were in overpowering strength, and quickly pushed back the French right for a considerable distance; on the right, however, they could make no progress, and even, on the appearance of a column advancing towards their right flank from Corbie, gave ground decidedly. But in the evening the cavalry division came into action on this wing and enabled the infantry again to advance. As the final result of the engagement, the French were defeated at all points and fell back to and behind Amiens. That important manufacturing city was immediately occupied by General Manteuffel. A far richer prize fell into his hands a few days later. The army defeated before Amiens retired towards Arras and Lille, and Rouen thus found itself open to attack while the military preparations for its defence were still very incomplete. General von Göben, at the head of the 8th Corps, encountering only trifling opposition, occupied Rouen on the 6th December, and immediately made a heavy requisition on the city for stores and clothing.

General Faidherbe, formerly the governor of the French colony of the Senegal, an officer of great talents and experience, reached Lille on the 4th of December, and took over the command of the Army of the North. After reorganising the troops as well as he could, he advanced in the direction of Amiens, and took up a strong position on the left bank of the little river Hallue, somewhat to the north-east of the site of the late battle on the south side of the city. Manteuffel resolved to attack Faidherbe, and falling upon him on the morning of the 23rd of December, he drove in the French outposts, and, in the course of the day, carried all the villages along the Hallue, as far as the foot of the hills rising from its left bank. This was the main French position, and it was held firmly against all attacks. It was clearly a drawn battle. On the next day the armies remained facing each other; it was a question which would browbeat the other into retiring first. Unfortunately for France, Faidherbe, on account of defects in his commissariat, found himself compelled to retreat on the night of the 24th of December, and fell back, first to Albert and ultimately beyond Bapaume.

On the 27th of December Manteuffel sent Von Göben to lay siege to Péronne. This little fortress on the Somme, the name of which is familiar to the readers of "Quentin Durward," it was a main object of German strategy to reduce, because the whole line of the Somme would then be in their power, and the passage of the river by a hostile force, especially considering the season of the year, would be attended with great difficulty. Of course, for the same reasons, it was important for the French to raise the siege. General von Göben posted a covering force of ten or twelve thousand men at Bapaume, while the siege, or rather bombardment, was being carried on with the greatest vigour. The covering force was attacked by Faidherbe on the 3rd of January, 1871, and driven, with heavy loss, into the town of Bapaume. The battle was over; already Von Göben had given orders for a retreat during the night, and his baggage trains had begun to move off, when the welcome news reached him that the French had fallen back. With a little more firmness General Faidherbe would have forced the Germans to retire, and Péronne would have been saved. Defective commissariat arrangements were again alleged by him, in a letter written shortly afterwards, and also a reluctance to destroy the town of Bapaume. Unrelieved, Péronne was obliged to surrender on the 10th of January, after many of its inhabitants had been killed by the[589] bombardment, its ancient and beautiful church irreparably damaged, and great part of the town laid in ruins.

LÉON GAMBETTA. (From a Photograph by Carjat, Paris.)

On the 19th of January, hearing that a strong French force was approaching, the Prussians occupying St. Quentin evacuated the town. Faidherbe then took possession of it, and concentrated its army outside the walls, on the west and south sides. Von Göben, who was now in command of the First Army, Manteuffel having been sent to assist Werder to defeat Bourbaki, at the head of what was called the Army of the South, resolved to strike a decisive blow. Calling in his detachments from all parts and skilfully combining their movements so as to result in a concentric attack on the French position, having also obtained the promise of Moltke to send him a reinforcement by rail from Paris, so as to arrive at what was likely to be the critical part of the battle, he advanced against Faidherbe at St. Quentin on the 19th of January. The result could not be doubtful; after a resistance bravely kept up by the 22nd, less tenaciously by the 23rd Corps, the French army was broken, and driven into and beyond St. Quentin. This was the last regular battle of the war. Von Göben advanced northwards and summoned Cambray to surrender, but the Governor refused. Nothing else of moment happened in this part of the country till the surrender of Paris brought about the cessation of hostilities.

An incident occurred on the Seine, towards the end of 1870, between Rouen and Havre, which caused some irritation in Britain until proper explanation and satisfaction had been made. The Prussians at Rouen, fearing that steam gunboats would be sent up the river to attack them, seized[590] without ceremony six British colliers that were lying in the Seine off Duclair, and scuttled them in order that they might form an obstruction in the stream. Much stress was laid on this affair at the time, the tension of men's spirits on account of the continued misery of France being considerable, and the high-handed ways of Prussian officials not having been pleasant to put up with on the part of neutrals peaceably plying their vocations. But when Lord Granville wrote to Count Bismarck, nothing could be more frank, explicit, or satisfactory than the Chancellor's reply. He authorised Count Bernstorff to say to Lord Granville that the Prussian Government sincerely regretted that its troops, in order to avert immediate danger, had been obliged to seize ships that belonged to British subjects; that their claim to indemnification was admitted, and that the owners should receive the value of their ships, according to equitable estimation, without being kept waiting for the decision of the legal question, who was finally to indemnify them.

No gleam of hope came from the west after the beginning of the year. Chanzy, as we have seen, reached Le Mans with the Second Army of the Loire on the 21st of December, and being left in peace there for two or three weeks was able to do much towards the better organisation of his forces. A succession of small combats, between the line of the Sarthe and that of the Loire, took place between the 27th of December and the 10th of January, in some of which the French obtained the advantage; while others, particularly the later ones, marked a continual pressing back of the French outposts and small detachments by the army of Prince Frederick Charles, who had now made the necessary preparations to attack Chanzy, and drive him, if possible, still farther west. The decisive battle took place on the 11th of January. In numbers the French were probably much superior to the army that was about to attack them. But their moral was fearfully shaken by the continued ill success that had attended their arms. The battle raged all day along the whole line and at six o'clock in the evening the French still held their ground. But an hour or two after dark, a strange incident occurred. Shrewdly counting, it would seem, on the nervousness and unsteadiness of young troops at night, Prince Frederick Charles ordered a strong force of all arms to attack, about 8 P.M., the division of mobilised Bretons who were holding the strong position of La Tuilerie. The Bretons, hearing rather than seeing the enemy coming upon them, when the first shots fell in their ranks, broke and fled. Quickly the contagion ran through the rest of the army; by the morning it seemed hardly to have more cohesion than a rope of sand; thousands of prisoners fell into the hands of the Germans; and a retreat beyond the Sarthe became indispensable. Chanzy fell back to Laval on the Mayenne, fifty miles west of Le Mans, and began again his Sisyphean task.

Thus Chanzy, with a beaten and demoralised army, was driven back to a greater distance from Paris than ever; nor could any reasonable man now entertain the hope that whatever exertions he, or Gambetta on his behalf, might make, his army could again become formidable before the lapse of many weeks. But with the Parisians starvation was become an affair of a few days.

The bombardment began on the morning of the 5th of January. There were three attacks—that directed against St. Denis and its forts; that against Fort Rosny and other eastern forts; and, lastly, that against the three southern forts, Issy, Vanves, and Montrouge. Two hundred guns concentrated their fire against these southern forts. The unimportant attack on the east was maintained by sixty guns, while a hundred and fifty thundered on St. Denis from the north. Issy, on account of the too great distance between it and Mont Valérien, was the fort against which, more than any other, the Germans could bring to bear a concentric fire, and it was accordingly more knocked about than any of the rest. The most formidable of the German batteries, containing twenty-four pieces, was on the terrace of Meudon. From the whole of them an average shower of ten thousand projectiles per diem was rained during the continuance of the bombardment on the forts and on Paris. In the daytime the fire was chiefly directed at the forts, in the night it was turned against the city. The promise of Count Bismarck, expressed with brutal cynicism, that the Parisians should "stew in their own juice," was now fulfilled. Thanks to the distance, and to the number and extent of the open spaces within the enceinte, the mortality caused by the bombardment was far less than might have been expected; absolutely, however, its victims were not few. Ninety-seven persons (including thirty-one children and twenty-three women) not employed in the defence were killed by the bombardment and two hundred and seventy-eight (including thirty-six children and ninety women) were wounded. Among the public buildings and institutions injured by it were, the Jardin des Plantes, the Panthéon, the Val de Grâce, the Observatory, the Church of St. Sulpice,[591] and the Hôtel des Invalides. Nothing, says General Vinoy, could be more admirable than the behaviour of the people while the bombardment was going on. The effect of it was to harden rather than to weaken the spirit of resistance; and Trochu, forced as it were by the enthusiasm of those by whom he was surrounded, declared (January 6th) that he would never capitulate. The effect of the fire upon the forts was far less than the Germans had expected. Even of Fort Issy the defences were far from being ruined; it could still have held out a long time after the capitulation was settled. On the other hand the last sortie from Paris on the 19th of January was a disastrous failure and it was followed by grave signs of disaffection among the National Guard.

Paris was at the end of her resources. She could not wait to know the result of the great combination—Gambetta's masterpiece—by which Bourbaki, at the head of 130,000 unhappy conscripts, had been impelled against Werder and the German communications. Of that expedition we shall speak presently; but whether it succeeded or not, not a day was to be lost in coming to any terms whereby a fresh supply of food might be obtained for the 1,800,000 persons cooped up in Paris. Jules Favre visited the German headquarters on the 24th of January, and on several days afterwards, to arrange for a capitulation and an armistice. At seven o'clock in the evening of the 26th General Vinoy received the order to cause all the forts and field works to cease firing by midnight on the same day. The order was obeyed, and the siege of Paris was at an end. The convention establishing both a capitulation and an armistice for the masses of the belligerent armies was signed by Bismarck and Favre, at Versailles, on the 28th of January. The armistice was to last twenty-one days, and was to be established wherever military operations were being actually carried on, except in the departments of Doubs, Jura, and Côte d'Or; the siege of Belfort also was to continue. Bismarck would have readily consented to extend the armistice to these departments also; but unfortunately Jules Favre fancied that Bourbaki had achieved, or was about to achieve, great things, of which the relief of Belfort was the least; he would not therefore include his army in the armistice. The object of the cessation of hostilities was declared to be the convocation by the Government of a freely elected National Assembly, which was to meet at Bordeaux to decide whether the war should be continued or not. The forts of Paris, with all guns and war material contained in them, were at once to be surrendered to the German army, which during the continuance of the armistice was not to enter the city. The guns forming the armament of the enceinte were also to be surrendered. The entire garrison of Paris were to become prisoners of war and to lay down their arms, except a division of 12,000 men, which the military authorities would retain for the maintenance of internal order. After the surrender of the forts, the reprovisioning of Paris would proceed without let or hindrance by all the ordinary channels of traffic, except that no supplies were to be drawn from the territory occupied by the German troops. A war contribution amounting to £8,000,000 sterling was imposed on the city. The terms of the armistice were punctually carried out, and on the 29th of January the German troops were put in possession of the forts.

All along the line, except in the three departments and before Belfort, the combatants dropped their arms. In that region a crowning disaster had already overtaken the last convulsive efforts of France. The three corps that had been placed under the command of Bourbaki, together with the 24th Corps (Bressolle), which was to be moved up from Lyons to co-operate in the movement, formed an army of about 130,000 men. With this force Bourbaki was expected to fall upon Werder and overpower him, raise the siege of Belfort, and, crossing the Rhine, carry the war into Germany; while Garibaldi and Cremer, after the defeat of Werder, were to fall on the German line of communications by the Strasburg-Paris railway. Entering Dijon on the 2nd of January, 1871, Bourbaki directed the main body of his army to concentrate round the fortress of Besançon, whence in two or three days he led it to the relief of Belfort. Werder, who had fallen back from Dijon on Vesoul, attacked Bourbaki's left flank on the 9th of January, at Villersexel, on the Oignon, his object being to gain time for the main body of his troops to fall back on the line of the Lisaine, in front of Belfort, and fortify a position there. The action at Villersexel was indecisive, but the march of the French was delayed by it, and Werder gained the time he so greatly needed. On the 15th, 16th, and 17th of January Bourbaki made successive attempts to force Werder's position behind the Lisaine, but always without success. With his immense preponderance in numbers, the boldest flank movements would have been permissible, and could hardly have failed to dislodge the[592] Germans; but Bourbaki simply attacked them in front, and as they were strongly posted, and had a solidity which his own troops had not, his efforts failed. On the 18th Bourbaki resolved to retreat; and by the 22nd instant he had again concentrated his army in the neighbourhood of Besançon.

By the failure of the French to force Werder's position the fall of Belfort was made a certainty; but a greater disaster was behind. An Army of the South had been formed by Moltke, and placed under the command of Manteuffel, who took charge of it, on the 13th of January, at Châtillon-sur-Seine. Marching southwards to the assistance of Werder, Manteuffel seized Dôle, to the south-west of Besançon, and sent detachments to occupy various points near the Swiss frontier, so as to intercept the retreat of Bourbaki's army in that direction. After reaching Besançon, Bourbaki remained for some days irresolute what to do; the desperate situation of his army and the consciousness, perhaps, of his own incapacity to command, overset his reason; and on the 24th he attempted to commit suicide by shooting himself through the head. The want of supplies sufficient both for the fortress and for the support of so large an army was probably the cause why Clinchamp, upon whom the command devolved, instead of keeping the army under the shelter of the mountain forts and lofty citadel of Besançon, resolved on continuing the march southward, in order either to elude the Germans by escaping along roads close to the Swiss frontier, or, if the worst came to the worst, to cross the border and surrender to the Swiss authorities. Eventually the 24th Corps, under General Bressolle, succeeded in making its escape and reaching Lyons. The rest of the army, overtaken and attacked by Manteuffel in and around Pontarlier, after losing thousands of prisoners, was driven into Switzerland and there interned.

In pursuance of the terms of the armistice elections were held throughout France in order to the convocation of a National Assembly. By the 12th of February about three hundred members only, out of the seven hundred and fifty who were to compose the new Legislature, had arrived at Bordeaux; but so urgent was the case that the Assembly proceeded to constitute itself on that day. On the 16th of February M. Grévy was chosen President of the Assembly, and on the following day M. Thiers was appointed, by a large majority, Chief of the Executive Power. Some days before this, it being evident that the armistice which was only to last till the 19th of February, would expire before the Assembly could come to a decision upon the momentous question before it, Jules Favre hurried up to Versailles in order to obtain a prolongation of the time. It was granted, but at the same time the fate of Belfort, the governor of which had hitherto repelled all attacks, was sealed; the fortress was to be surrendered to the Germans, but the garrison, with their arms and stores, and the military archives, was to march out with the honours of war and be allowed to retire to the south of France. Accordingly the garrison, still 12,000 strong, marched out and proceeded to Grenoble; and the fortress was occupied by the Germans on the 18th of February. This may be regarded as the closing scene of the Franco-German War.

Gambetta fell from power as suddenly as he had risen to it. He appealed to the nation to use the interval for the collection of new forces, and caused the Delegation of the Government at Bordeaux to publish an electoral decree on the 31st of January, excluding from the possibility of being elected to the Assembly all persons who had stood in any official relation to the Second Empire. Against this outrageous decree Count Bismarck could not refrain from protesting, and fortunately he could appeal to the phrase in the article of the capitulation bearing on the question, which spoke of a "freely elected" National Assembly. It was a critical moment, for had M. Gambetta found a large body of Frenchmen unwise enough to back him in this course, great delays must inevitably have arisen, the legality and plenary authority of the Assembly might have been disputed, and perhaps the Germans might have been called in, or might themselves have stepped in, to arbitrate in a question of French internal politics. This consummation was happily avoided. The Government at Paris undertook to cancel the decree of the Delegation, and sent one of their number, Jules Simon, to Bordeaux, with instructions to publish and enforce their decision. Gambetta, finding his proceedings disavowed, resigned office on the 6th of February. In his stead Thiers was chosen to be Chief of the Executive. He appointed a Ministry, persuaded the Assembly to postpone all discussion as to the future Government of France, and proceeded to Versailles to agree with Count Bismarck upon the terms of peace.

[593]

GERMAN TROOPS PASSING UNDER THE ARC DE TRIOMPHE, PARIS. (See p. 594.)

[594]

On the 19th of February the National Assembly elected a diplomatic commission of fifteen members, who were to accompany MM. Thiers and Jules Favre to Paris, and assist them in negotiating a peace. No serious intention of continuing the war was entertained by any considerable party or faction in the Assembly. On the 21st of February the French negotiators met Count Bismarck at Versailles. Thiers knew that the Germans meant to have, substantially, the terms which they demanded, and he did not waste time by idle reclamations or counter-proposals. On two points, however, his efforts achieved a certain success. Count Bismarck desired to retain Belfort, a fortress which in German hands would make France as vulnerable to attack on the upper Rhine, as the loss of Metz left her weak and vulnerable on the lower. Thiers, however, succeeded in retaining Belfort for France, purchasing the concession by consenting to the march of the German army through Paris. Again, whereas Bismarck had originally demanded six milliards (£240,000,000) as the war indemnity, Thiers with infinite exertion succeeded in reducing it to five milliards. On this second point the assistance of British diplomacy was specially invoked by the French Government. Lord Granville, at the urgent request of the Duc de Broglie, the new French Ambassador, wrote to Berlin (February 24th) the mildest, faintest, weakest representation—remonstrance it was not—that could have been made, if any was made at all, on the subject of the excessive indemnity. Before, however, the duplicate of this despatch reached Mr. Odo Russell at Versailles, Count Bismarck had already given way. The preliminaries of peace were signed on the 26th of February. By them France agreed to cede Alsace and German Lorraine, including Metz, to Germany, and to pay a war indemnity of five milliards within three years, the German army to evacuate France as the instalments were paid.

In the preliminaries of peace a convention was inserted, authorising the occupation of a definite portion of Paris by a body of German troops not exceeding 30,000 men. Accordingly, on the morning of the 1st of March, portions of the 11th, 2nd Bavarian, and 6th Army Corps, crossing the Seine by the bridge of Neuilly, defiled along the avenue of the same name, passed under the Arc de Triomphe, and marched through the Champs Elysées into the Rue de Rivoli and other parts of the district assigned to them. But this occupation, deeply painful and humiliating as it must have been to the Parisians, was not of long duration. News came on the 2nd of March that the preliminaries of peace had been ratified at Bordeaux, and then Paris, in accordance with an express stipulation to that effect, was immediately evacuated. The preliminaries were submitted by M. Thiers to the National Assembly on the 28th of February. The terms of peace were oppressive and exorbitant; they were terms which Germany, having found France ill prepared for war, had been enabled by her admirable preparation, her profound study of the art and thorough elaboration of the means of war, to impose on the vanquished; nor is it to be supposed for an instant that the Assembly assented to them except under compulsion, and from the conviction that their refusal would bring still more terrible misfortunes upon France. In the course of the discussion that ensued, the Assembly solemnly voted the deposition of Louis Napoleon and his dynasty, by a resolution that declared him responsible for the invasion, dismemberment, and ruin of France. On the 1st of March the preliminaries of peace were accepted by a majority of 546 votes against 107, and after bitter controversies, chiefly connected with the payment of the indemnity, the definitive treaty was signed at Frankfort on the 10th of May.

Thus while France emerged from the war with a reduction of territory, the struggle brought to Germany a unification of the Empire. Various minds had been occupied with this project since the earliest German victories, among others that of the Crown Prince. He received, however, but cold encouragement from Count Bismarck, who was jealous of the Prince's interference in matters of State, chiefly on account of his English connections. Nevertheless, Bismarck was also occupied in shaping a plan and it gradually assumed the form of a German Empire with its chief at Berlin. After the battle of Sedan, negotiations were opened with each of the Southern States for its entry into the Northern Confederation, when it appeared that particularism was strong in Bavaria, which kingdom was not disposed to come into the agreement without favourable terms. Count Bismarck accordingly invited the various Governments to send representatives to Versailles for the arrangement of a settlement. At first the King of Würtemberg showed a disposition to act with Bavaria, but his Ministers resigned rather than refuse to sign the treaty, and the accession of Baden and Hesse-Darmstadt to the unionist side showed the two kings the peril of their situation. Accordingly, when Bavaria had been granted larger separate rights than any other State—for instance, an independent postal system, and an independent army—King Louis gave way and the treaties were signed. It was some time before Bavaria would consent to the assumption of the Imperial title by the King of Prussia. Under pressure from Bismarck, however, the king wrote[595] a letter to his fellow-Sovereigns, proposing that William I. as President of the newly formed Federation should assume the title of German Emperor, and this request he renewed to William himself in a letter composed by Bismarck. A deputation from the North German Reichstag expressed the concurrence of the nation, but so strong was local patriotism in Bavaria that the ceremony was delayed from the end of one year to the beginning of the next and even then the approval of Munich had not been secured. Nevertheless on the 18th of January, surrounded by German princes and German warriors, King William assumed at Versailles the title of German Emperor. Thereby a fresh chapter in the history of Europe was begun, though it was some time before the effects of the new order were manifest.

## CHAPTER XXXVI.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

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

AT the opening of the year 1871 the German armies were still surrounding Paris, and the raw levies and beaten veterans of France were attempting a hopeless resistance in the Departments of the North, the East, and the West. In England every one saw that the end of the struggle was approaching; and the public mind began uneasily to ask the question, what next? It has often been said that the feeling of England with regard to her own condition alternates between irrational self-confidence and irrational fear. It was now the turn of the latter feeling. The deadly certainty of the German successes and the exhaustion of France drove the minds of Englishmen to consider what would be their state of preparation in the face of Moltke's tactics, supposing they had to face them on English soil. By some the supposition of war with Germany was not held to be unlikely; for, during the later months of 1870 there had been growing in certain quarters a sense of sympathy with France so intense as to give rise to a cry for war in her behalf. But this feeling, although those who entertained it were people who could make themselves heard, never spread widely enough to make the question of an armed alliance a serious one. Still, it was natural and inevitable that a demand for army reform should be loudly made on all sides, and it became apparent that army reform was to be the question of the Session. Moreover, the direction which the reform would take was unmistakable. The speeches that were made throughout the country before the meeting of Parliament and in the early months of the year—notably the speeches of Mr. George Otto Trevelyan, a young Cambridge man who had lately entered public life as member for the Border Boroughs—all struck one note, the note of the abolition of purchase. Up till the year 1871, as is well known, the British Army was officered by men who, with few exceptions, paid for their commissions. The effect of this was that the officers were mostly sons of rich men—for the pay of an officer was never remunerative enough to make poor men pay the price of the commission as an investment—and that the style of living was artificially raised so as to make it eminently undesirable for a poor man to enter the army as an officer, even if he were able to raise money enough to buy his commission. A second effect of the purchase system was that men were admitted to be officers without any special evidence of fitness for the service; if they could pay the[596] price and pass an almost nominal examination, they were admitted without further question. This, then, was the state of things which many Liberals, such as Mr. Trevelyan, wished to alter. They wished to throw open all commissions in the army to competition; let the best-trained man, they said, be made an officer, without any consideration of the length of his purse. As will be seen, this demand prevailed in the end, but not without great difficulty. It was not the only point on which the army reformers touched; for it was not only the officering of the British Army, but its organisation, that began to be severely criticised. Many speakers and writers thought that in face of the enormous armies of the Continent, the principle of voluntary enlistment must be at length given up in favour of that of compulsory service. Many—less thorough-going than these—began to cry out for a more capable militia, and for more Government encouragement to the volunteers. And all agreed that the want of union between the different branches of the service was a fatal hindrance to the efficiency of any of them.

The promised Bill was introduced by Mr. Cardwell, the Secretary at War, very early in the Session; and it was seen that the increased outlay to which the Queen's Speech had referred was to be a reality. The total amount asked for in the estimates was £15,851,700, an increase of £2,886,700 over the vote of 1870; although Mr. Cardwell explained that a million of this would not be wanted in ordinary times. The gross addition to the numerical strength of the regular army was to be 19,980 men, of whom 5,000 were artillery, with a proportionate increase in the number of guns. Mr. Disraeli had on the opening night of the Session made mockery of the "attenuated armaments" to which, he said, the Liberal Government had reduced the forces of the country. But Mr. Cardwell pointed to his proposed figures, which showed a total of 497,000 men under arms: 135,000 regular troops, 139,000 Militia, 14,000 Yeomanry, 9,000 First Army Reserve, 30,000 Second Army Reserve, and 170,000 Volunteers; and guns appropriate to a force of 150,000 men. These forces, Mr. Cardwell said, it was his object to combine into one whole; and the question was, how to achieve that object. As far as men went, were they to be raised by compulsion or voluntarily? As far as officers went, were they to remain under a system of purchase or not? As far as the reserve forces went, were they to be still under the control of the Lords-Lieutenant of counties or not? To the first question, Mr. Cardwell answered that he was not prepared, as yet, to resort to "anything so distasteful as compulsory service." To the second and third he said that the Government had made up its mind that purchase must be abolished, and that the control of the militia and other auxiliary forces must be taken away from the Lords-Lieutenant and given to the Queen. In fact, the abolition of purchase and the increase of the efficiency of the reserve—together with certain provisions for giving a "local connection" to every regiment—were at once seen to be the principal features of the Bill. It is to the way in which these subjects were dealt with by Parliament and the Prime Minister that we may now turn.

The history of purchase in the army is the history of a practice of various degrees of illegality, and of innumerable Royal Commissions designed to solve the contradiction between practice and law. The beginning of it dates from the reign of James II., who in 1683 issued a warrant "ordering the payment of one shilling in the pound on the surrender of a commission to the person surrendering, and by him to whom the surrender is made." William III. made strenuous efforts to stop any traffic in commissions, and his successor forbade it, except with the royal approbation. But as early as 1702 the law courts had begun to declare the lawfulness of purchase, and the Court of Chancery enforced the payment of £600 from a lieutenant to his predecessor in a company. Twenty years later we find the distinction, so familiar in the nineteenth century, between "regulation prices" and "over-regulation prices" clearly marked; and in the middle of the eighteenth century we come to a commission definitely fixing the rate of payment to which officers should be subject—deciding that an ensigncy should cost £400, and a colonelcy £3,500. Royal Commissions continued to be issued at intervals, right up to 1856, and one and all seem to have reported in favour of purchase: partly and ostensibly on the ground that the system helped to quicken promotion and retirement, and partly, of course, that it secured that officers of the army should be persons of "social position." It is hardly too much to say that from the time of the Peace to the time of his death, the purchase system in the British Army was kept up by the influence of the Duke of Wellington, and notably by his celebrated memorandum of the year 1833. In 1856, at the end of the Russian War, when the Duke had been four years dead, and the overpowering weight of his[597] name had a little decreased, the first note of a new policy was heard in the report of that year's commission, which had examined as a witness Sir Charles Trevelyan, the father of the young army reformer of the present year. This report advised that no commissions should be sold above the rank of lieutenant-colonel. About six more Royal Commissions were issued between 1856 and 1871 on army subjects; until finally the war in France brought matters to a point, and taught statesmen that the reform of the army was no longer to be trifled with.

MR. (AFTERWARDS VISCOUNT) CARDWELL. (From a Photograph by Elliott & Fry, London, W.)

When a Government once seriously took up the purchase system and pronounced for its abolition, it was felt that purchase must go. Yet no Government measure within the memory of man received such treatment as this did from the hands of a varied and irritated opposition. Every argument that self-interest could suggest or class feeling prompt was urged with incredible pertinacity by the military members of the House of Commons. It was insisted in vain that these military members did not fairly represent the army, but that by the very fact of their being in the House they showed themselves to be rich men, able to afford to resign active service and to contest elections; "the colonels" still carried on their opposition to every point of the Bill during four weary months. So temperate a Liberal as Sir Roundell Palmer said of the conduct of the military members, that a "course had been taken the like of which he never remembered. Other great measures affecting great interests had been opposed without the minority attempting to baffle the majority by mere consumption of time. The minority who resisted the Irish Church Bill and the Irish Land Bill had[598] recognised the duty of respecting the principle of Parliamentary government, that the decision of the majority shall be binding. Conduct like that was neither in the interest of the country, of the army, nor of Conservative principle." Yet the colonels did their work. They drove Mr. Cardwell to cut down the Bill to the two divisions of the abolition of purchase and the transfer of the powers of Lords-Lieutenant over the militia and volunteer forces to the Crown. In this form the Bill passed the third reading, and went up to the Lords.

In the Lords it met with opposition at once more dignified and more effective. Nearly every eminent Conservative peer who had ever had anything to do with the army said something in favour of purchase: one supported it because it provided a cheap way of retirement, one because the officers liked it, one because abolition would cost so much by way of compensation, one because the old system had prevented the British officer from becoming a "professional man with professional politics." Lord Salisbury, whose tongue on this occasion was as rasping as usual, suggested a new name for the new method: "If purchase had been described as a system of seniority tempered by selection, the more correct formula for the new system was stagnation tempered by jobbery." Lord Derby, alone of the Tory peers, joined with the advocates of the Government in supporting the Bill. As to expense, he said, "the expense of abolishing purchase would be as oppressive years hence as now, and might be even increased. As to delay, is it dignified to delay an inevitable reform—inevitable because no institution is tenable in England unless it admits of defence by arguments intelligible to the partially-educated constituencies?" In the end the Duke of Richmond's motion, "that the House of Lords declined to read the Bill a second time, until it had before it a comprehensive plan," was carried by 150 to 125—a result not quite the same as the rejection of the Bill, but still a grave blow to the Ministry. The way in which Mr. Gladstone met it was original, and caused a throb of excitement unusual in the calm realm of English politics. With that suddenness for which his proceedings were at times famous, he abolished purchase by a coup d'état. It was known beforehand that purchase was only legal so far as the Queen's Regulations allowed it; and clearly therefore all that was technically required for its abolition was that the regulations should be altered so as to forbid it. But no one supposed that, after months of debate and after a hostile vote in the House of Lords, any Minister would have ventured to advise such a stretch of Prerogative. Mr. Gladstone, however, was equal to the situation. Two days after the division in the Lords, he announced to the astonished House of Commons that purchase was already abolished; her Majesty having been advised to cancel the old warrant that allowed it, and to issue a new warrant that forbade it. "Therefore," he said, "after the first of next November, purchase will cease to exist." His defence of this step was that it was necessary to put an end to a state of uncertainty which endangered the discipline of the army; and that, having secured the expression of the opinion of the Commons against purchase, he held himself justified in advising the Queen to exert her statutory right.

The anger of the Opposition at such a high-handed measure as this may be easily conceived. Mr. Disraeli talked of "a shameful conspiracy against the privileges of the other House": the Duke of Richmond moved and carried a vote of censure in the House of Lords, for, as Lord Salisbury said, if the Government Bill was a proper Bill, the abolition of purchase was a question for Parliament to decide and Parliament only; and if the act of the Queen's Ministers was constitutional, then their bringing forward the Bill at all was disrespectful to the House. Therefore Mr. Gladstone was in the dilemma of having either acted unconstitutionally or disrespectfully to the House of Lords. Lord Cairns charged the Government with having "strained and discredited the constitution of the country." And a majority of eighty assented to the Duke of Richmond's proposition, "that the interposition of the executive ... is calculated to depreciate and neutralise the independent action of the Legislature." And in the House of Commons, though no vote of censure was attempted, many Liberals, such as Mr. M'Cullagh Torrens and Mr. Fawcett, sided with Mr. Disraeli in protesting against this resort to prerogative; an act which, said Mr. Fawcett, "if it had been done by a Tory Minister, would have been denounced by Mr. Gladstone with the applause of the whole Liberal party." The cost of the reform was very considerable indeed. Government proposed to compensate the officers fully and liberally, paying them not just the legal "regulation prices" for their commissions, but the "over-regulation prices," which custom had legalised in the teeth of law. This compensation it was estimated would amount to, at the very least, six millions sterling—some said ten millions,—to be[599] spread of course over a number of years: a large sum to take from the shoulders of the benefited class, and lay upon those of the general taxpayer.

The increased estimates for the year which the reform of the army made necessary were a sore perplexity to Mr. Lowe, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is true he did not lament the high expenditure of the fighting departments; for, he said, he regarded an efficient army and navy as the best commercial investment in the world; but he had to face a large estimated deficit—no less than £2,713,000. This he proposed to cover, first, by charging the duties on wills and successions so as to make them three times as productive as before; a slightly increased income tax; and, above all, by a tax on matches. It was this last tax which attracted the most attention; and its ultimate fate is a good illustration of the danger of over-cleverness in matters of finance. Mr. Lowe had been afflicted by the thought of the waste going on in the use of matches, and of the perils attending such waste; and he thought that he might by one brilliant stroke lead people to economical habits and add a million to the revenue. For the number of matches annually made is almost inconceivably great; he announced that it was five hundred and sixty millions of boxes, without counting the forty or fifty millions of boxes of wax matches and fusees. He proposed therefore to put a halfpenny tax on every box of matches—a tax which, even if it had the effect of bringing down the manufacture by a third, would contribute nearly a million to the receipts of the year. But Mr. Lowe was either too much preoccupied to remember or too cynical to care that the match-making trade is in the hands of the very poorest of the London poor, and to tamper with it would be to turn many thousands of human beings, most of them children, either into paupers or into criminals. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had invented a motto for the labels that he proposed to affix to every match-box; and to withdraw the tax would be to nullify a good joke—an unanswerable argument against withdrawal. "Ex luce lucellum"—"Out of light a tiny gain"—such was the inscription that every box was to bear; a motto which was a keen delight to the quondam Oxford tutor who proposed the tax, but a sore puzzle to the respectable House of Commons who listened to him, and which would have probably been neither illuminating nor profitable to the housemaids that were to use the matches. As it was, neither tax nor motto ever came to anything. When the amusement at Mr. Lowe's pun had died away, people began to see the serious nature of the proposal and the strong objections to it. A procession of match-makers, squalid and miserable, and some thousands strong, marched from Bethnal Green to Westminster to protest against the tax, and it was withdrawn. The same fate befell Mr. Lowe's proposal to increase the succession duties—a proposal that struck a blow at one of the most cherished interests of the propertied class; nor was there any better destiny awaiting the plan of altering the mode of calculating the income-tax by a percentage, instead of so much in the pound.

Nor were many of the other events of the Session such as to raise the spirits of the Ministry. Mr. Childers, who, after a distinguished career in Australia, had been returned as member for Pontefract and been made First Lord of the Admiralty by Mr. Gladstone, was forced by ill-health to resign. About his work, which at all events had been very thoroughgoing in its way, the most different and extreme opinions prevailed; his friends maintaining that his reforms had been the making of the navy, his enemies that they had almost been its destruction. Mr. Goschen succeeded him; an appointment that was severely criticised by those who thought it—the Admiralty—the wrong place for a member for the City of London, but amply justified by the speed with which the new First Lord mastered the details of his new office, by the vigour of his administration, and by the breadth of his views of public duty.

Only a very few of the remaining measures of this Session of Parliament require notice. The Ballot Bill did not become law until the next year; for Purchase kept it back until towards the end of June; the Opposition carried on a furious warfare against it for five or six weeks; and when at last it was sent up to the Lords, it was rejected by them, by ninety-seven to forty-eight. The conduct of the Opposition was vexatious and could not fail to be damaging to the Government; for no man's endurance can face the loss of so many precious weeks without blaming his own side a little, as well as his opponents. As the Bill was sent to the House of Lords, it was a very different Bill from that which Mr. Forster had introduced; and some considerable alteration was due to the Liberal side. Mr. Henry James, for instance, helped by Mr. William Vernon-Harcourt—two gentlemen who afterwards were, strangely enough, colleagues in Mr. Gladstone's Government as Attorney- and Solicitor-General—threw out the very useful provision, that election expenses should be charged on the rates.

[600]

A second, but a fortunate, Ministerial failure was the Epping Forest Bill, in which Government proposed to appoint a commission for settling the respective rights of the Crown, the commoners, and the lords of the manor in Epping Forest. "The Forest" was the favourite holiday-ground of the dwellers in the eastern half of London. For many years a stealthy process of encroachment had been carried on by a few persons who possessed manorial rights over the great common land. Such was the state of the English law, that this kind of appropriation was quite possible and very frequent. The lord of the manor, regarding a common as so much waste land and grieved that so much land should be allowed to go to waste, set to work to "improve" it; and to improve it, he had to enclose it, until by the help of a few posts and rails, and a few years of undisturbed possession, he established a prescriptive right to the land and converted his shadowy manorial rights into absolute ownership. This is exactly what was happening in Epping Forest, where the beauty of the positions and their nearness to London promised immense rents to enterprising lords of the manor who should venture to cut the land up into building lots. Fortunately, however, the Crown has rights over the "Royal Forest of Waltham," as Epping Forest is properly called, and the encroaching lords of the manor had to deal with another body as well as the commoners—namely, the Commissioners of Works. These commissioners, however, had begun the bad practice of selling the rights of the Crown to the lords of the manor. It was against this unpatriotic tampering with encroachment that Mr. Fawcett protested; in the end, the personnel of the Government commission was strengthened by the addition of Mr. Locke, and, on the motion of Mr. Cowper-Temple, the House decided that the Forest ought to be preserved untouched as a recreation ground for the people. The land recovered from the river by means of the Thames Embankment was also preserved for the Londoners against the will of the Government.

The Bill for legalising marriage with a deceased wife's sister made no progress this year; carried by the House of Commons, it was thrown out as usual in the Lords. The Bill for extending the franchise to single women rated to the relief of the poor, though rejected, was rejected by a narrower majority than before; 151 voted for it, and 220 against it. The motion of Mr. Miall for disestablishing the Church of England was thought important enough to call out a strong debate. The Irish Church Act had made the motion not only a possible one, but a motion to be expected; and no fitter man could be found to bring it forward than the editor of the Nonconformist. But the Dissenters were not strong enough in the House to make their success at all probable; not even though, as Mr. Disraeli charged them with being, they were "allied for the moment with revolutionary philosophers." The debate was interesting, as bringing not only a declaration of strong confidence in the Establishment from the leader of the Conservative party, but also as calling out a similar declaration from Mr. Gladstone, whose churchmanship had been thought by friends and foes to be rapidly shifting from the point of view of State-churchmanship he had held so vigorously in his youth. That opinion had been rather encouraged this year by the success of the Government Bill for the Abolition of Religious Tests in the Universities. This subject had been agitated for many years, and it had become a recognised aim of the Liberal party to carry the Bill. The universities—that is, the resident teachers in Oxford and Cambridge—were singularly unanimous in favour of it; and many a meeting had declared how unwilling they were any longer to restrain the freedom of competition and study by retaining any tests whatever. Before the abolition, although any one might be admitted to a Bachelor's degree in Arts without subscribing to any declaration of belief, he could not hold a fellowship, nor qualify himself, by taking a Master's degree, for becoming a member of the governing body of the university, unless he subscribed his assent to the Thirty-nine Articles. It followed that a Dissenter could neither gain the great pecuniary prizes of a student's career, nor could he vote in the Parliamentary elections for the university, nor take any part in the government of the place. At last, mainly perhaps through the efforts of the Solicitor-General, Sir John Duke Coleridge (afterwards Lord Coleridge), the Bill became law, although some restrictions were still kept up. The test at the M.A. degree was abolished entirely, and no test was allowed to be applied in elections to fellowships. But the distinction between lay and clerical fellowships was still retained, in spite of Mr. Fawcett's proposal to merge them. Heads of houses, except in one or two cases, were still to be clergymen of the Establishment; and the test was to be kept up in Divinity degrees. The other Bill of importance that became law this Session was a Trades' Union Bill, designed as a compromise between the extreme views of masters and men. It may also be mentioned that this year saw also the final repeal of the[601] Ecclesiastical Titles Act, passed at the initiative of Lord John Russell at the time of the "Papal Aggressions."

The marriage of her Majesty's fourth daughter, the Princess Louise, to the Marquis of Lorne, the eldest son of the Duke of Argyll, was celebrated with great state at Windsor Castle on the 21st of March, 1871. For the first time since the passing of the Royal Marriage Act in 1772, a descendant of George II. married a commoner with the full consent and approval of the reigning Sovereign. The Queen stood by her daughter's side during the ceremony, which was performed by the Bishop of London, assisted by the Bishop of Winchester, and gave the Princess away.

PROCESSION OF MATCH-MAKERS TO WESTMINSTER. (See p. 599.)

A lecture given at Newcastle in August by Sir Charles Dilke, one of the members for Chelsea, on the subject of "Representation and Royalty," excited much comment. Desiring to recommend to his hearers republican simplicity and cheapness, and forgetting that there are institutions, as there are public characters, which are dear at any price, Sir Charles Dilke enlarged on the terrible expensiveness of royalty to the nation. The positive and direct cost of the institution he estimated at about a million a year; he complained of the large sums spent on royal yachts, and of the "scandalous exemption" by which, as he said, her Majesty's income was not subject to the payment of income-tax. On all these points full and satisfactory answers were made to the allegations of the honourable baronet. The bulk of the expenditure incurred in the support of British royalty—namely, the Civil List—was really not one bit more an expense to the country than the rental of Woburn Abbey or Trentham Park, or the dividends received by Sir Charles Dilke himself on any India or railway stock he might have inherited from his father. The Queen received nearly £400,000 a year in respect of the Civil List from the general revenue; but she gave up to the general revenue rents that amounted pretty nearly to the same annual total. These were the rents of the Crown lands, which belonged to her Majesty by exactly the same title that Trentham belonged to the Duke of Sutherland; but which, by a fair and equitable bargain, she[602] abandoned to the nation in exchange for the Civil List. With regard to the exemption from income-tax, it appeared on inquiry that there was nothing "scandalous" in the matter, except the assertion of Sir Charles Dilke, which turned out to be absolutely unfounded, the Queen having paid income-tax from the day of its first imposition. Strange to say, the lecture excited in the lower classes rather a disgust of Republicanism than the opposite feeling, as the riotous conduct of the mob at several subsequent gatherings of Sir Charles Dilke's disciples and adherents plainly evinced.

Before the close of the year testimony of the most direct and unimpeachable character was furnished to the popularity of the Queen and the royal family. Early in November the Prince of Wales paid a visit for a few days to Lord Londesborough's seat near Scarborough. It was supposed that there was some defect in the drainage of the house, which stands close to the sea, and that the seeds of typhoid fever were thus implanted in the Prince's frame. After his return to Sandringham he was taken ill, the fever being of a low and lingering type, and he continued in much the same condition for several weeks, during which her Majesty, accompanied by Prince Leopold and Princess Beatrice, visited Sandringham. On the 1st of December, the Prince appearing to be no worse, the Queen returned to Windsor. That some dangerous miasma lurked in the precincts of Londesborough Lodge seemed to be proved by the death, on this same day, of the Earl of Chesterfield, who had been one of the party invited to the house to meet the Prince, and was attacked by a fever of the same kind in so severe a form that he sank from collapse. A groom who had been in attendance on the Prince during the same visit was also attacked.

During November, and till the end of the first week of the following month, no serious symptoms appeared, and the attack was supposed to be passing away; but, on the 8th of December, a decided relapse declared itself, and for several days the life of the Prince of Wales was in the most imminent danger. The Queen, accompanied by some and followed by others of her children, hurried again to Sandringham.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, by the desire of the Queen, composed appropriate forms of prayer, which were used on and after the 10th of December, for several days, in every church and chapel of the Church of England throughout the realm. Archbishop Manning ordered prayers with the like intention to be offered up in all Roman Catholic places of worship; nor was the strain of supplication less fervent in the chapels of the Dissenters or the synagogues of the Jews. With wonderful "petitionary vehemence" was the safety of that life implored from heaven; and that life was spared. On the night of Wednesday, the 14th of December, a slight turn for the better took place in the worse symptoms, and the invalid enjoyed the long-desired boon of refreshing sleep. From that time he gradually, though slowly, rose to convalescence and ultimately to perfect health. The groom who had been attacked by the fever, after progressing favourably for some time, had a relapse, and died on the 18th of December.

After the health of the Prince was completely re-established, on the 27th of February in the following year a solemn service of Thanksgiving, attended both by the Queen and by the Prince himself, was held in St. Paul's Cathedral. The weather was all that could be desired; and although the line of the procession from Buckingham Palace to the Cathedral was thronged by immense multitudes of people, no accident and no mistake occurred. Her Majesty was received by the Lord Mayor at Temple Bar, and by the Bishop of London and the Dean and Chapter at the western gate of the Cathedral. The arrangements for the service were made with great precision of etiquette and pomp of ceremonial. A "Te Deum," composed for the occasion by Mr. (afterwards Sir John) Goss, was first sung by a choir of 250 voices, selected from the best cathedral and chapel choirs in England. Then the special form of Thanksgiving was read, and after a sermon from the Archbishop of Canterbury, the congregation was dismissed, care having been taken to reduce the whole service within such reasonable limits that the Prince's strength might be equal to it. In the evening, St Paul's and the principal streets were magnificently illuminated.

THE THANKSGIVING SERVICE, 27th OF FEBRUARY, 1872: THE PROCESSION AT LUDGATE HILL.

FROM THE PAINTING IN THE ROYAL COLLECTION BY N. CHEVALIER.

[See larger version]

All through the year a growing dissatisfaction with the conduct of the Government exhibited itself in various ways. A portion of the electors of Greenwich, irritated, it would seem, at the continued slackness of the shipbuilding trade at Deptford (though it is difficult to see how the Premier could be made answerable for that), sent a requisition to Mr. Gladstone, their member, couched in most uncomplimentary terms, demanding of him the resignation of his seat. Several public meetings were held and largely attended, while the fate of Paris still hung in the balance, to protest against the Government's apathy and inaction, which had the effect of effacing[603] Great Britain from European politics. In March and April several demonstrations of "Red Republicans" in London aimed at awakening sympathy for their friends who were fighting for the Commune in Paris. But neither their numbers nor the ability of their speakers were in the least formidable. On the other hand, the impartial lover of his country could not but acknowledge that much was due to a Government which had framed and carried a measure that now, for the first time since England was a nation, carried the healthful influences of primary instruction into every corner of the land. During the last half of 1870, and the first months of 1871, the Education Department was actively employed in gaining, through its inspectors and agents, the necessary statistical information required for the effectual working of the Act. Great progress had been made in this respect by the summer of 1871, and nearly three hundred school boards, elected under the provisions of the Education Act, were established in the course of the year. Unfortunately, a little rift of dissidence made its appearance about this time. This divergence of opinion related to the 25th Clause. By this clause it was provided that in districts where there was a school board, if there were any children whose parents pleaded poverty as an excuse for not sending them to school, and the board admitted the plea as a good one, such children should be placed at any Government school within the school-board district which the parent or guardian might prefer, their fees at such schools being paid by the board. On the face of it, there seemed nothing unequal or unfair in such a provision, since it applied equally to all sects and denominations. But the Dissenters considered that the clause would act to the exclusive benefit of the Church of England, to which destitute parents who have no connection with any other religious body naturally gravitate. The children of educational paupers, or nine out of ten of them, would thus be indubitably sent, they thought, to Church schools, where they would be taught the Church Catechism and whatever else is distinctive of Anglicanism at the expense of the rates, which would thus be indirectly drawn upon on behalf of a Church that was too rich and too independent of the laity already. As a matter of fact, the number of these educational paupers, the whole land over, was very small. Circumstances, however, might easily be imagined in which their numbers would greatly increase, and then the grievance resented by the Dissenters would immediately arise.

About the time that the newly-chosen German Emperor was making his triumphal entry into Berlin, another Emperor, exchanging his palace-prison for the land where he was to live as an exile, set foot, not for the first time, on the hospitable shores of England. The war being at an end, and the treaty of peace signed, the Emperor Napoleon was free to leave Wilhelmshöhe. He arrived at Dover by steamer from Ostend on the afternoon of the 20th of March. The day was fine and the Empress and her son, the Prince Imperial had come down from Chislehurst to welcome the exile. The Prince, following the kindly Continental custom, kissed his father on both cheeks. The crowd, though animated by the best and most generous feelings, was a trifle boisterous in its overflowing cordiality; the imperial party were sometimes nearly carried off their feet, so great was the pressure in the street, as they walked up to the Lord Warden Hotel, and the services of the police were called into active exercise. Napoleon was said to be much altered in appearance, his hair and moustache having become quite grey, but to look in good health. The ex-Emperor fixed his permanent residence with the Empress at Chislehurst.

Towards the end of the year, the Speaker of the House of Commons, Mr. Evelyn Denison, feeling the advance of age and the pressure of the arduous and trying duties inseparable from his office, resigned the Speakership, and was soon afterwards elevated to the peerage, taking the title of Lord Ossington. He was succeeded by Mr. Brand, the member for Cambridgeshire, long known as one of the most efficient of Liberal "Whips."

A visit paid this year by Prince Arthur to Ireland, though it elicited much friendly and loyal feeling, was not unattended by painful incidents. The Prince was accompanied by his sister, the Princess Louise, and the Marquis of Lorne. The royal party were received in all public places with the same respect and loyalty as usual, and the visit was nearly coming quietly to an end; but, on the day before the Prince departed, a riot of a serious character took place in the Phœnix Park. The "Irreconcilable" party in Ireland announced their intention of holding a public meeting in the Phœnix Park on the 6th of August, in order to adopt a petition for the liberation of the Irish military prisoners confined for Fenianism. The authorities forbade the meeting to be held; the promoters persisted in holding it; and when the police, in pursuance of their orders, endeavoured to disperse the crowd, and prohibit anything like concerted[604] action or public speaking, a serious affray was the consequence. The police appear to have acted with great and hardly excusable violence; and when it is considered that at this very time the Government did not interfere with the meetings of Red Republicans in Hyde Park and Trafalgar Square, that is, in the heart of London, while the Phœnix Park, a piece of open ground of immense extent, lies at a distance from the busy part of Dublin, the indignation expressed by the Nationalists at the forcible suppression of the meeting cannot be wondered at.

THE PRINCE OF WALES (AFTERWARDS EDWARD VII.) IN HIS ROBES AS A BENCHER OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE.

(From a Photograph by W. & D. Downey.)

Mr. Gladstone and the Liberal party in general having entered upon the policy of conciliation to Ireland, both in regard to the Irish Church and to the tenure of the land, from a conviction that these important measures were demanded by justice, did not repent of what they did; yet it must be confessed that the sanguine anticipations of seeing peace, union, contentment, and gratitude diffused over the sister island in consequence of this legislation were wofully disappointed. The marked warmth and heartiness with which a French deputation, headed by Count Flavigny, that came over to Ireland in the summer of 1871 to make a public acknowledgment of the services rendered during the war by the Irish ambulance, was received by the masses of the Irish population was understood to cover and indicate at least as much dislike of England as affection for France. Nor was this feeling now confined to the Celtic portion of the population. A section of Protestants, among whom the most prominent figure was a distinguished Fellow of Trinity College, resented so keenly the conduct of England in having sacrificed their Church to, as they deemed, a miserablepolitical expediency, and the clap-trap plea of numbers, that they eagerly joined that large disaffected mass of the native and Roman Catholic population which, about this time (direct agitation for a repeal of the Union being discouraged by the experience of 1844), began to seek the same end under the newly invented name of "Home Rule." The leader of this movement, Mr. Isaac Butt, the member for Limerick, was one, and not the least gifted, of the brilliant band of counsel who rallied round O'Connell on the occasion of his trial for exciting to sedition in January, 1844. The movement for Home Rule which he now took up had this advantage, that while the very name implied a certain degree of separation from England, and therefore insured for it popularity, its vagueness made it more difficult for opponents to grapple with it. All that those who gave in their adhesion to the agitation need necessarily contemplate was the transfer to some legislative body established in Ireland of the management of the purely local concerns of the kingdom. It meant the practical self-government of Ireland, and the exclusion of English influence from the conduct of its affairs, with the exception of a few specified departments, such as the Army and Navy, foreign relations, and the Post Office. While Mr. Butt was leader, however, Home Rule never emerged from a purely academic stage.

[605]

THE THANKSGIVING SERVICE IN ST. PAUL'S CATHEDRAL. (See p. 602.)

[606]

Mr. Gladstone delivered an important speech on this question at Aberdeen towards the close of the year, in which he based his opposition to Home Rule, not on prospective or hypothetical dangers, but on consideration of the argument that the Irish, if they would combine together, and become as keenly alive to their own interests as the Scots or the Welsh are, could obtain whatever they might reasonably demand. "You would expect," he said, "when it is said that the Imperial Parliament is to be broken up, that at the very least a case should be made out showing there were great objects of policy, and great demands necessary for the welfare of Ireland, which representatives of Ireland had united to ask, and which the representatives of England, Scotland, and Wales had united to refuse. There is no such grievance. There is nothing which Ireland has asked, and which this country and this Parliament have refused." He proceeded to admit that Ireland had something like a grievance in regard to university education, but urged that a united demand from Ireland would lead immediately to its rectification; and continued: "What are the inequalities of England and Ireland? I declare that I know none, except that there are certain taxes still remaining which are levied over Englishmen and are not levied over Irishmen, and likewise that there are certain purposes for which public money is freely and largely given in Ireland, and for which it is not given in England or Scotland.... But if the doctrines of Home Rule are to be established in Ireland, I protest on your behalf that you will be just as well entitled to it in Scotland; and, moreover, I protest on behalf of Wales, in which I have lived a good deal, and where there are 800,000 people who this day, such is their sentiment of nationality, speak hardly anything but their own Celtic tongue—a larger number than speak the Celtic tongue, I apprehend, in Scotland, and a larger number than speak it, I apprehend, in Ireland—I protest on behalf of Wales that they are entitled to Home Rule there. Can any sensible man, can any rational man, suppose that at this time of day, in this condition of the world, we are going to disintegrate the great capital institutions of this country for the purpose of making ourselves ridiculous in the sight of all mankind, and crippling any power we possess for bestowing benefits through legislation on the country to which we belong?"

A tragic event, the prelude, as it proved, to one still more tragic, was announced in the autumn from Calcutta. Mr. Justice Norman, acting Lord Chief Justice, was assassinated by a fanatical Mussulman while ascending the steps leading to his own court. He had reached the summit of the flight of steps, when a man, who had been concealed in a doorway, sprang out and stabbed him in the back. Mr. Norman turned quickly round, and was stabbed again in front: either wound, being inflicted by one who was an adept in the art of murder, would have been fatal. The assassin was immediately seized. The evidence given on the trial left it doubtful whether pure fanatical hate towards a judge who had lately been enforcing the law against some Mohammedan conspirators at Patna was the cause of the murder, or whether some private grudge supplied a subsidiary motive.

What looked like an important step towards the co-ordination in one confederacy of the Australian colonies was taken in the autumn of this year. A new treaty between Great Britain and the Zollverein was being negotiated; and it would appear that Lord Kimberley, the Colonial Secretary, in a circular despatch to the Australian Governments, used certain expressions in relation[607] thereto which seemed to the colonists to imply the recognition of a right on the part of the mother country to concede, and on the part of a foreign country to claim, certain tariff arrangements as between the different colonies which would be favourable to the interests of the treaty-making Power. Delegates from the Governments of New South Wales, Tasmania, South Australia, and Victoria met at Melbourne, in September, 1871, to consider the question; and having carefully examined Lord Kimberley's despatch, agreed unanimously to the following resolutions:—

1. "That the Australian colonies claim to enter into arrangements with each other, through their respective Legislatures, so as to provide for the reciprocal admission of their respective products and manufactures, either duty free or on such terms as may be mutually agreed upon.

2. "That no treaty entered into by the Imperial Government with any foreign Power should in any way limit or impede the exercise of such right.

3. "That Imperial interference with inter-colonial fiscal legislation should finally and absolutely cease.

4. "That so much of an Act or Acts of the Imperial Parliament as may be considered to prohibit the full exercise of such right should be repealed.

5. "That these resolutions, together with a memorandum from each Government, or a joint memorandum from such Governments as prefer to adopt that method, shall be transmitted to the Secretary of State through the Governors of our colonies respectively." The movement, however, proved premature, so far at least as it concerned inter-colonial (that is, Australian) Federation. Nor had the larger project of Imperial Federation come within the view of the statesmen of the day.

In September, 1870, a circumstance had occurred that gave us the disagreeable certainty that, although secured from the direct risks of war by what Mr. Gladstone called "the silver streak," we too might be injuriously affected by the disturbance of the European equilibrium caused by the prostration of France. A circular note, addressed by Prince Gortschakoff to the representatives of Russia at foreign Courts, and made public at the end of October, declared that it was the intention of his Majesty the Czar no longer to be bound by that clause of the Treaty of 1856, concluded after the Crimean War, which prohibited Russia from keeping up a naval force above a certain strength in the Black Sea. Lord Granville, in a despatch to Sir A. Buchanan dated the 10th of November, 1870, stated that the British Government could give no sanction to the course announced by Prince Gortschakoff.

The concilatory tone adopted by Prince Gortschakoff in his reply to Lord Granville went some way to neutralise the disagreeable impression which the circular had produced. He would not admit that Russia encouraged a laxity of principle in regard to the obligation of treaties; and in the case of this particular treaty he declared that in its main stipulations Russia considered it as binding as ever, although she declined to be bound any longer by the special convention with Turkey which it contained, regulating the number and size of the men-of-war which the two Powers might maintain in the Black Sea. With regard to the objection that Russia had not sought for a modification of the treaty through the medium of a conference, Prince Gortschakoff remarked that Lord Granville well knew that "all the efforts repeatedly made to unite the Powers in a common deliberation, in order to do away with the causes of complication which trouble the general peace, have constantly failed."

There was something deceptive in this way of stating the matter, because it did not follow, if difficulties had arisen in the way of the meeting of congresses to settle all the perplexing questions of Europe, that therefore a proposal by Russia for a conference of the signatory Powers to discuss the comparatively unimportant matter now on the tapis would have encountered any serious opposition. Lord Granville pointed out this distinction, admitting at the same time with satisfaction the moderation and courtesy of tone by which the Russian despatches were distinguished. Here, as between England and Russia, the matter rested. But a doubt remained whether the conduct of Russia had not been previously sanctioned, possibly even instigated, by the Court of Berlin. Mr. Odo Russell was sent to clear up this delicate point, and brought back the tranquillising assurance from Count Bismarck that the German Government had given no sanction to the step. At the same time a proposal was made by Prussia that a conference of the Powers should be summoned, and meet in London, in order to settle the question.

This conference accordingly met in London on the 17th of January. The presence of a French Plenipotentiary at the Conference had been earnestly desired, and M. Jules Favre had been requested to attend it by the Paris Government. But difficulties arose in connection with his[608] obtaining permission to pass out of Paris through the Prussian lines; and when the permission was obtained—or, rather, when through the close of the siege the difficulty no longer existed—M. Favre had his hands so full of the work of negotiating the armistice with Bismarck that it was impossible for him to leave Paris. The plenipotentiaries of the other Powers—Britain, Germany, Austria, Italy, Russia, and Turkey—proceeded, though with reluctance, to the deliberation of the question.

At the first sitting the Conference adopted, unanimously, on the invitation of Lord Granville, the principle that no one of the two or more Powers that may be parties to a treaty can nullify the same, or any part of it, without the consent of the co-signatory Powers. At subsequent meetings, the reasons alleged by Russia for her desire to be liberated from the prohibitory stipulation respecting war-ships contained in the Black Sea Treaty were listened to and considered, as well as the reply of the Turkish Ambassador, who, while repudiating on behalf of Turkey all intention of separating her action from that approved by the majority of the friendly Powers, regretted that the question had ever been raised, and declared that the restrictive clause which Russia now felt to be unendurable still appeared to the Sublime Porte in the light of a prudent and desirable precaution. Upon minute inquiry, it was found that ten cases of infraction of the Convention of 1856, forbidding the navigation of the Black Sea by ships-of-war, had occurred in the intervening period. Most of these were unimportant; but there was one on which Russia laid much stress, having, indeed, protested against it at the time when it occurred. This was the admission into the Black Sea of H.M.S. Gannet, in which Sir Henry Bulwer was conveyed (1864) on a mission to Kustendji. General Ignatieff, the Russian Ambassador at Constantinople, told the British representative there, about the year 1870, that Russia considered the clauses neutralising the Black Sea to have been annulled in practice from the time when H.M.S. Gannet passed through the Bosphorus into the prohibited waters six years before.

The sense of the Conference was, on the whole, in favour of remitting the restriction which Russia complained of; and a new treaty was drawn up, and signed by all the Powers, by virtue of which the articles of the Treaty of 1856 limiting the number and size of the ships-of-war which Russia and Turkey might keep up in the Black Sea were abrogated, and a new provision was introduced, authorising the Sultan to open the straits of the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus in time of peace to the fleets of the friendly and allied Powers, in the event of the execution of the stipulations of the Treaty of 1856 requiring it. The meaning of this stipulation, of course, was, that if Russia took advantage of the liberty which she now had of preparing a large fleet for the ultimate purpose of attacking Turkey, the latter would be entitled, without the breach of any treaty stipulation, to summon the Mediterranean fleet of France or England to her aid.

After the draft of the treaty had been settled, at the sitting of the 13th of March, Earl Granville introduced the Duc de Broglie to the Conference as the representative of France. In a few dignified sentences, the duke, after touching lightly but feelingly on the unhappy condition of France, which had prevented her from being represented at the earlier sittings, stated that, with regard to the principal object of the Conference, the French Government, sharing the feelings expressed by the Turkish Plenipotentiary, would have preferred that the original convention for neutralising the Black Sea should be maintained; but that at the stage at which the affair had now arrived, the new arrangement having been assented to by the Porte, France willingly entered into the feeling of conciliation that had dictated it, and gave its assent to all the decisions of the Conference.

The obituary of the year contains the names of many persons of eminence. Although the death of no statesman of the first rank has to be recorded, the army lost its patriarch, Sir John Burgoyne; the Church of England lost Dean Alford of Canterbury, Dean Mansel of St. Paul's, the once famous preacher, Canon Melvill, and the much-loved missionary bishop, John Coleridge Patteson; science lost Sir John Herschel, Sir Roderick Murchison, Mr. Charles Babbage, and Mr. De Morgan; literature and politics lost the veteran George Grote; and about the same time as the "Philosophical Radical" and historian of Greece there died the famous old Devonshire Tory, Sir Thomas Dyke Acland. Lord Ellenborough, once the much-admired and much-criticised Governor-General of India, Sir W. Denison, once Governor of Tasmania and Madras, Mr. Charles Buxton, an influential Member of Parliament and philanthropist, died in the same year. The death of George Hudson, the "Railway King," gave people an opportunity for moralising on the vicissitudes of life.

[609]

## INDEX.

- Aberdeen, Lord, Prime Minister, 11, 15;
- influence on Crimean war, 76;
- on position of Russia in Asia, 135.
- Abyssinian war: the unanswered letter, 463, 479;
- crescent and cross, 476;
- Consul Plowden, 476, 477;
- Theodore, 477;
- Consul Cameron, 478, 479;
- German missionaries imprisoned, 479;
- Mr. Rassam, 480–483;
- war determined on, 483, 484;
- march to Magdala, 486–488;
- Theodore's army destroyed, 488;
- negotiations, 490;
- storming of Magdala, suicide of Theodore, 491;
- end of the war, 492.
- Adullamites, The, 392.
- Agra and Masterman's Bank fails, 410.
- Agra, Surprise and fight at, 241.
- Agricultural labourers' strike, 459.
- Alabama, Building and escape of, 331–333;
- fight with Kearsarge, 361.
- Albert, Prince, and the Great Exhibition of 1851, 4;
- illness and death, 328.
- Alexander becomes Czar of Russia, 86;
- visits the Crimea, 145, 146.
- Alexandra, Princess of Wales, 338.
- Alford, Dean, Death of, 608.
- Alfred, Prince, Attempt to assassinate, 474.
- Allahabad, Outbreak of mutiny at, 211.
- Alma, Battle of, 44–50.
- Alsace and Lorraine ceded to Germany, 594.
- Alumbagh, Battle at, 247.
- America, United States of: causes that led to the Civil War, 319;
- States secede, 320, 322;
- capture of Fort Sumter, 321;
- Bull Run, 322;
- the Alabama, 330–333;
- progress of the war, 333, 334, 341, 361;
- fight between Alabama and Kearsarge, 361;
- Lincoln re-elected President, 362;
- Canada and the war, 362;
- the end approaching, 380;
- the Southern armies surrender, 382;
- losses during the war, 382;
- President Lincoln assassinated, 382;
- Atlantic Cable completed, 407;
- General Grant President, 517.
- Aong, Battle of, 220.
- Aosta, Duke of, accepts Spanish Crown, 578.
- Anson, General, 187, 195;
- death, 196.
- Arbitration, International, 157.
- Armenia, Campaign in, 136.
- Army, British, State of, before Crimean war, 75, 76;
- after Inkermann, 80;
- mortality, 82, 83;
- in winter quarters, 146.
- Army, Indian native, State of, 182;
- disbanding regiments in, 187, 188, 193, 194, 197, 206, 228, 230;
- caste abolished in, 276;
- reorganised, 284–286, 314.
- Army and navy estimates, etc., 364, 544.
- Army reforms, 545;
- history of Purchase, and Bill to abolish, 595, 596;
- Purchase abolished by Royal warrant, 598.
- Arrow, Affair of the, 169–174.
- Arthur, Prince, visit to Ireland, 603.
- Ashanti war, 350.
- Atlantic cable, Laying the, 406–408.
- Aurelles de Paladines, 585, 586.
- Australian colonies and federation, 606, 607.
- Austria, attitude on Eastern question, 15, 26, 27, 35;
- and the Crimean war, 91, 147, 148, 150;
- occupation of Italy, 166;
- and the Italian question, 295;
- prepares for war, 296, 298;
- defeated, 299;
- peace of Villafranca, 302;
- Schleswig-Holstein dispute, 354–361;
- dispute with Prussia, 418;
- convention of Gastein, 419;
- prepares for war, 420;
- offers Venetia to Italy, 422;
- war with Prussia, 424–428;
- conditions of peace, 429;
- settles affairs with Hungary, 462, 463;
- attitude in the Franco-German war, 558, 570.
- Azoff, Sea of, Admiral Lyons in, 101.
- Badlee Serai, Battle at, 204.
- Baidar valley, French posts in, 119.
- Baines, Mr., abortive Reform Bill, 365.
- Balaclava, Battle of, 59–64;
- results of, 64;
- demonstrations and defences at, 120.
- Ballot Bill rejected, 559.
- Baltic, Departure of fleet for the, 34;
- Russian fleet in, 72;
- allied fleet in, 132–134.
- Banda and Kirwee prize money settled, 411.
- Bank failures, etc., 409–411.
- Bareilly, Mutiny at, 200;
- battle of, 268.
- Barnard, Sir Henry, 203;
- death of, 226.
- Barrackpore, Outbreak of mutiny at, 187.
- Bazaine, Marshal, 559, 561;
- sortie from Metz, 582;
- and Bismarck, 583.
- Beales, Edmund, Hyde Park riots, 402–404.
- Belfast, Riots in, 349, 350.
- Belfort, Capitulation of, 592.
- Belgium, French and Prussian designs on, 555;
- independence guaranteed, 556.
- Benares, Outbreak of mutiny at, 211.
- Benedetti and Franco-German war, 552.
- Berhampore, Outbreak of mutiny at, 186.
- Birmingham "No Popery" riots, 475.
- Bismarck, Austro-Prussian war, 418–424;
- Franco-German war, 552, 555, 566, 579.
- Bithoor, Battle of, 224.
- Black Friday, 409–411.
- Black Sea, Allied Fleet in the, 37;
- storms in, 74, 75;
- neutralisation of, 155;
- conference, 607;
- a new treaty, 608.
- Blockades, Declaration of Paris, 156.
- Bolgrad, Dispute concerning, 159.
- Bomarsund, Expedition against, 73, 74.
- Bombardment of Paris, 590, 591.
- Borny, Battle of, 561.
- Boroughs, Bill regulating boundaries of, 467.
- Bothnia, Capt. Storey in Gulf of, 132.
- Bourbaki, General, 583, 591, 592.
- Bowring, Sir John, and Chinese war, 169.
- Brazil, Outrage on British subjects in, 340.
- Brigands, Greek, murder English tourists, 540–544.
- Bright, John, agitates for Parliamentary reform, 289;
- speech on Disraeli's Bill, 291;
- on the death of Cobden, 378;
- defends the Queen, 408;
- on Disraeli's Reform Bill, 440, 447, 448;
- on the right of meeting in the parks, 454.
- Broadhead, and Sheffield outrages, 458.
- Brooke, Sir James (Rajah), Death of, 475.
- Brougham, Lord, Death of, 475.
- Brown, Sir George, Kertch expedition, 100.
- Bruat, Admiral, Kertch expedition, 100.
- Bruce, Mr., National Education Bill, 452.
- Bull Run, Battle of, 322.
- Burgoyne, Sir John, 84;
- death of, 608.
- Burmese war, 160.
- Busserutgunge, Battle of, 223, 224.
- Butt, Mr. Isaac, and Home Rule, 606.
- Cable, the Atlantic, Laying of, 406–408.
- Cairns, Sir Hugh, on Parliamentary Reform, 291, 448, 450;
- Lord Chancellor, 466.
- Calcutta, Opinions at, respecting the mutiny, 210;
- cyclone in, 352.
- Calpee, Battle of, 274.
- Cambridge, Duke of, at Inkermann, 68, 70.
- Cameron, Consul, in Abyssinia, 479, 481.
- Campbell, Sir Colin, in the Crimea, 58, 59;
- commands Indian army, 246;
- prepares to relieve Lucknow, 251;
- at Cawnpore, 256;
- Shumshabad, 262;
- Bareilly, 268.
- Canada and the American Civil War, 362, 383;
- defences of Quebec and Montreal, 383;
- Fenian invasion, 416, 417.
- Canning, Lord, Governor-General of India, 210;
- mutiny at Dinapore, 225;
- his proclamation, 267;
- viceroy, 279;
- reorganises the Government, 284;
- rewards loyal Rajahs, 286.
- Canrobert, General, in Crimea, 52, 90, 113.
- Canton, Bombardment of, 170.
- Cardigan, Lord, at Balaclava, 62.
- Cardwell, Mr., army estimates, 545, 596.
- Cashmere gate blown up, 235.
- Caste in the Indian army, 183;
- abolished, 276.
- Cathcart, Sir George, death, 70.
- Cattle Plague outbreak, 371, 372.
- Cawnpore, Outbreak of mutiny at, 211;
- Nana Sahib's treachery, 213;
- sufferings of the garrison, 214;
- heroic defence, 215;
- massacre at the Ghaut, escape of survivors, 216;
- battle at, 220–222;
- the massacre at, 222, 223.
- Central India, State of affairs in, 216, 259;
- Rose's campaign, 270–276;
- Sir R. Napier commands in, 276.
- Chandaree, Storming of, 272.
- Chanzy, General, 585, 586, 587, 590.
- Charge of the Heavy Brigade at Balaclava, 60;
- of the Light Brigade, 62–64.
- Charities, Proposal to tax, 369.
- Chester Castle, Fenians threaten, 454, 455.
- Childers, Mr., navy estimates, etc., 544, 599.
- Children employed in agriculture, 452.
- China, Troops for, intercepted for Indian mutiny, 251;
- expedition to enforce treaty of Tientsin, 316–319;
- war, 351.
- Chinese war, affair of the Arrow, 169;
- discussion in Parliament, 169–174;
- Canton bombarded, 174.
- Chinhut, British repulsed at, 218.
- Cholera in England in 1866, 406.
- Chronological order of Indian mutiny, 199.
- Chupatties, Mystery of the, 186.
- Church, Irish. (See Irish Church.)
- Church Rates Abolition Bill, 466.
- Christians, Abyssinian, 476.
- Civil list of recent British monarchs, 176;
- of the Queen, 601.
- Civil war in America. (See America.)
- Clarendon, Lord, despatches to Russia, 19, 20;
- on Chinese war, 170;
- death, 547.
- Clergymen Disabilities Bill, 546.
- Clerkenwell Fenian outrage, 456–458.
- Clyde, Lord, in Oude, 280–282.
- Coalition Ministry, 11.
- Cobden on Chinese war, 171;
- rejected for Huddersfield, 175;
- negotiates commercial treaty with France, 310;
- death, 376;
- Bright's eulogy, 378.
- Codrington, Sir William, in Crimea, 131.
- Coercion Act for Ireland, 523.
- Colenso case, The, 348.
- Columbia, Colony of British, 287.
- Commercial disasters (Black Friday), 409.
- Commercial treaty with France, 310.
- Company's rule abolished in India, 278.
- Compound householder, 438, 443.
- Congress of European Powers, 151–157.
- Conservatives and Education Bill, 539.
- Conspiracy to Murder Bill, 180.
- Convocation and "Essays and Reviews," 346.
- Cooper quells rising at Meean Meer, 231.
- Cost of Crimean war, 158.
- Cotton famine in Lancashire, 322, 336.
- Coup d'État, Louis Napoleon's, 6–8.
- Cranborne, Lord, on Indian finance, 402;
- on Disraeli's Reform Bill, 447.
- Cretan insurrection, 492.
- Crimean war, the quarrel, 12–18;
- fleets ordered to Besika Bay, 19;
- Russia occupies the Principalities, 22;
- Vienna note, 22, 24, 27;
- allied fleets in the Dardanelles, 27;
- destruction of Turkish ships at Sinope, 28;
- allied fleets in the Black Sea, 30;
- ultimatum of the allies, 32;
- departure of Baltic fleet, war declared, 34;
- attitude of German Powers, 35;
- siege of Silistria, 36;
- Odessa bombarded, 38;
- the allies at Varna, 38;
- the Crimea to be invaded, 39;
- want of transport, 40;
- the allied forces, the march on Sebastopol, 41;
- the first skirmish, 42;
- battle of the Alma, 44–50;
- defences of Sebastopol, 51, 53, 55;
- march to Balaclava, 52;
- the siege of Sebastopol, 54;
- first day's bombardment, operations of the fleet, 56;
- camp at Balaclava, 58;
- battle of Balaclava, 59–64;
- of Inkermann, 66–72;
- British and Russian fleets in the Baltic, 72;
- destruction of Bomarsund, winter in the Crimea, 74;
- storms in the Black Sea, 74, 75;
- foreign legion for the Crimea, 77, 84;
- sufferings of the army, 80–83;
- Miss Nightingale, 83;
- arrival of stores, 84;
- Turkish success at Eupatoria, 86;
- death of the Czar Nicholas, 86;
- second bombardment of Sebastopol, 86, 87;
- expedition to Kertch, 88, 99–101;
- arrival of Sardinian troops, 90;
- peace proposals, 91, 92;
- Vienna conference, 92–96;
- reinforcements for the Crimea, 98;
- in the trenches, 99;
- Tchernaya occupied, 99;
- prosecution of the siege, 102;
- capture of the Mamelon, 103;
- of the Quarries, 104;[610]
- preparing to attack the Malakoff, 105–108, 114;
- and the Redan, 106, 107, 110;
- losses of the allies, 111;
- death of Lord Raglan, 112;
- sapping towards the Malakoff and the Redan, 114, 119;
- Gortschakoff attempts to raise the siege, 114;
- allied camp in Tchernaya, 115;
- battle of Tchernaya, 116–118;
- assault and capture of the Malakoff, 121–125;
- failure of attack on the Redan, 126;
- fall of Sebastopol, 127;
- expedition to Eupatoria, 128–130;
- naval operations, 131;
- allied fleets in the Baltic, 132–134;
- Russian atrocities, 132;
- allied fleets in the Pacific, 134;
- campaign in Asia Minor, 136;
- Russian successes, 137;
- defence of Kars, 138–143;
- army in winter quarters, destruction of defences of Sebastopol, 146;
- armistice, 147;
- peace negotiations, 147–151;
- congress at Paris, 151–157;
- results of the war, 155;
- cost of the war, 158;
- the Victoria Cross distribution, 159.
- Cronstadt, The fortress of, 72.
- Crown Prince of Germany betrothed to Princess Royal, 175;
- in the Franco-German war, 558, 559, 563.
- Crystal Palace in Hyde Park, 4–6;
- at Sydenham, 162.
- Cumming, Dr., and Vatican council, 572.
- Customs duties, reductions, 12.
- Cyclone at Calcutta, 352.
- Czar Nicholas, Death of, 86.
- Dalhousie's Indian policy abandoned, 286.
- Danube, Turkish campaign on, 36;
- freedom of the, 55.
- Danubian Principalities, Re-organisation of, 155, 158.
- Deceased Wife's Sister Bill, 546, 600.
- Declaration of Paris on Maritime law, 156.
- Delhi, Outbreak of mutiny at, 190–192;
- mutineers converge on, 199;
- British march on, 203;
- the siege, 205–209;
- sorties from, 226, 227;
- the assault, 235–239;
- capture of the king, execution of the princes, 239;
- effect on the natives, 240;
- the king banished, 276.
- Democracy, Mr. Lowe's philippic, 365.
- Denison, Evelyn, elected Speaker, 175;
- becomes Lord Ossington, 603.
- Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein dispute, 353–361;
- Death of Frederick VII., 357;
- war with Prussia, 358–361.
- Derby, Lord, Prime Minister, 10;
- Chinese war, 170;
- forms a cabinet, 181;
- dissolves on Reform Question, 292–294;
- forms a cabinet on Earl Russell's defeat, 400;
- retires, 466;
- opposes Irish Church Bill, 503;
- death, 514;
- character, 515.
- Dhar, Annexation of, 266.
- Dilke, Sir Charles, on royalty, 601.
- Disraeli, Mr., 2;
- Chancellor of the Exchequer, 10, 11, 181, 400;
- eulogy on Wellington, 11;
- Roebuck's motion, 98;
- Italian affairs, 168;
- Conspiracy to Murder Bill, 181;
- Reform Bill, 290;
- debate, 291–294;
- on second reading of Gladstone's Reform Bill, 395;
- speech to his constituents, 401;
- passes a Reform Bill, 433–451;
- Prime Minister, 466;
- opposes Irish Church resolutions, 467–471;
- and Irish Church Bill, 500;
- on Irish Land Bill, 523–525;
- on Education Bill, 539;
- on abolition of Purchase, 598.
- Dinapore, Outbreak of mutiny at, 225.
- Divorce Bill debate, 176–179;
- new divorce court established, 178.
- Dixon, Mr., and Education Bill, 538.
- Doab, Seaton's campaign in, 257, 259.
- Dockyard, Woolwich, closed, 544.
- Dowry of Princess Royal, 176.
- Druses and Syrian massacre, 315, 316.
- Ducrot's sorties from Paris, 580, 584.
- Eastern Question. (See Crimean war.)
- Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, 2, 3;
- repealed, 601.
- Edmunds scandal, 368.
- Education. (See Elementary Education, Endowed Schools.)
- Educational grants, 328.
- Egypt, Viceroy of, visits London, 460.
- Elementary Education Bill, Mr. Forster's, 529;
- state of education, 529, 530;
- provisions of the Bill, 531–536;
- religious teaching, 535;
- hostile criticism, 536;
- Dixon's amendment, debate, 537–539;
- passed, 540;
- the 25th clause, 603.
- Elgin, Lord, embassy to China, 316–319.
- Ellenborough, Lord, 268;
- death, 608.
- Elphinstone, Lord, 210.
- Endowed schools, State of, 508, 509;
- Mr. Forster's Bill for dealing with, 509, 510.
- Epping Forest, Preservation of, 600.
- "Essays and Reviews," 346, 348.
- Eugenie, Empress of the French, 154, 163, 560;
- regent, 567;
- flight from Paris, 568;
- Regnier negotiations, 583, 584.
- Eupatoria, Expedition to, 128–130.
- Evans, Sir De Lacy, 64;
- in the Crimea, 72;
- death, 547.
- Exhibition of 1851, 4–6;
- of 1862, 334–336.
- Eyre, Governor, Jamaica riots, 387, 390, 391.
- Factory Acts, Bill to extend, 452.
- Faidherbe, General, 588, 589.
- Fancy franchises, 438, 439.
- Favre, Jules, 566, 567, 569, 570, 579, 580.
- Fawcett, Mr., 600, 601.
- Fenian conspiracy, Rise of, 372;
- constitution of, 373, 374;
- arrests in Cork and Dublin, 374;
- escape of Stephens, 375;
- trials of prisoners, 375, 376;
- outbreak in Ireland, 412–416;
- in Canada, 416;
- Chester Castle threatened, 454, 455;
- outrage at Manchester, 455;
- at Clerkenwell, 456–458;
- release of convicts, 514.
- Ferozepore, Outbreak of mutiny at, 194.
- Feroze Shah, defeat and disappearance, 283.
- Fire insurance duty, debates, 363.
- Forbach, Battle of, 560.
- Foreign legion for the Crimea, 77.
- Forster, Mr., Endowed Schools Bill, 509, 510;
- Elementary Education Bill, 529–540.
- (See Elementary Education.)
- France acquires Nice and Savoy, 334;
- commercial Treaty with Britain, 310;
- joins in Chinese expedition, 316–319;
- visit of her fleet to Portsmouth, 380;
- quits Mexico, 431;
- experiment in constitutional government, 515, 516;
- France in 1870, 548–550;
- what led to war with Germany, 548–552.
- (See Crimean War, Franco-German War.)
- Franchise, County, Locke-King's motion, 3.
- Franchise, Mr. Gladstone's Bill, 391–399.
- Francis Joseph crowned King of Hungary, 463.
- Franco-German war, a Hohenzollern candidate for the Spanish throne, 549, 551–554;
- Bismarck's action, 552, 555;
- the alarmist telegram, 554;
- the secret treaty, 555;
- war declared, 556;
- attitude of the German states, 557;
- and Austria, 558;
- Napoleon's plan of campaign, Saarbrück, Weissenberg, 558;
- Wörth, 559;
- Forbach, Palikao's ministry, 560;
- Bazaine at Metz, 561, 562;
- aid for wounded from England, 562, 563;
- MacMahon at Châlons, marches to relieve Bazaine, 563;
- the disaster at Sedan, 564–566;
- Gambetta proclaims a republic, flight of the Empress, 568;
- Jules Favre and the neutral powers, 569, 570, 579;
- Jules Favre and Bismarck, 579, 580;
- defences of Paris, 580;
- beginning of the siege, 581;
- M. Thiers' mission, fall of Strasburg, 582;
- the Regnier plot, 583;
- capitulation of Metz, 584;
- the armies of the Loire, 585, 587, 590;
- Garibaldi's services, 578;
- Faidherbe defeated, 588, 589;
- bombardment of Paris, 590;
- Paris surrenders, 591;
- peace negotiations, 592;
- Alsace and Lorraine ceded to Germany, war indemnity, terms of peace, 594.
- Franks, General, marching to Lucknow, 263.
- Frederick Charles, Prince, 586, 587.
- Frederick VII. of Denmark, death, 357.
- Frossard, General, 558.
- Futtehpore, Battle of, 219.
- Fyzabad, Outbreak of mutiny at, 202.
- Gambetta, 568, 582, 586.
- Gamekeepers, Police as assistants to, 330.
- Gang system (children's labour), 452.
- Garibaldi, 299;
- popularity, 304;
- Sicilian expedition, 305–307;
- meets Victor Emmanuel, 309;
- visits London, 346, 347;
- in Franco-German war, 587.
- Garotte robberies, 331.
- Gastein, Convention of, 419.
- George of Denmark King of Greece, 334.
- German Powers, attitude on Eastern Question, 23, 26, 27, 35;
- Diet on peace proposals (Crimean war), 153;
- confederation, proposed reform, 422;
- States and Franco-German war, 557;
- Empire, unification of, 594, 595.
- Gladstone, Mr., 2;
- Chancellor of the Exchequer, 12, 295;
- budgets, 12, 310, 338, 344, 364;
- on Chinese war, 172;
- opposes Divorce Bill, 178;
- on Conspiracy to Murder Bill, 180;
- on Disraeli's Reform Bill, 292;
- on American Civil War, 322;
- on Parliamentary Reform, 346;
- rejected for Oxford University, 370;
- returned for South Lancashire, 371;
- Reform Bill of 1866, 391–399;
- speech at Liverpool, 393, 394;
- introduces Redistribution of Seats Bill, 396;
- Cabinet resigns, 400;
- debate on Disraeli's Reform Bill, 438–440, 442, 443;
- Irish Church Resolutions, 467;
- elected for Greenwich, 472;
- Prime Minister, 474;
- disestablishment of Irish Church, 495–500;
- Irish Land Act, 518–528;
- Education, 539;
- Home Rule, 606.
- Gordon, Mr., Jamaica riots, 385, 388–390.
- Gortschakoff, Prince, commands Russian forces, 20, 28;
- at Inkermann, 66;
- Sebastopol, 114;
- Black Sea Treaty, 607.
- Goschen, Mr., University Tests Bill, 367;
- First Lord of Admiralty, 599.
- Gough, Lord, death and character, 515.
- Graham, Sir James, 2;
- death, 324.
- Grant, Sir Hope, at Delhi, 238;
- Oude, 278.
- Grant, General, President, 517.
- Granville, Earl, 10;
- on Chinese war, 171.
- Gravelotte, Battle of, 562.
- Greased cartridges, The, 185.
- Great Eastern lays Atlantic Cable, 407.
- Great Exhibition of 1851, 4–6;
- of 1862, 334–336.
- Greathed's column, Exploits of, 240–242.
- Greece, Revolution in, 334.
- Greek brigands murder English tourists, 540–544.
- Gungaree, Battle at, 258.
- Gurrakoti, Capture of, 271.
- Gwalior Contingent, The, 246, 255, 256;
- Tantia Topee at Gwalior, 275.
- Habeas Corpus Act suspended in Ireland, 414–416, 451, 464.
- Hango, Massacre at, 132.
- Harcourt, Vernon, on Education Bill, 539.
- Hardy, Gathorne, on Irish Church Bill, 500.
- Havelock, General, 210;
- at Futtehpore, 219;
- Cawnpore, 220, 224;
- Busserutgunge, 223, 224;
- and Outram, 246;
- death, 254.
- Helena, Princess, marriage, 411.
- Herbert of Lea, Lord, death, 324.
- Hindon, Battle on the, 203, 204.
- Hodson and the Guide Corps, 205;
- captures King of Delhi, executes princes, 239;
- death, 266.
- Hohenzollern prince proposed for Spanish throne, 549, 551, 554.
- Home, Lieutenant, death, 241.
- Home Rule, Mr. Gladstone on, 606.
- Hudson, George, railway king, death, 608.
- Hudson's Bay Company, 287.
- Hungary, Francis Joseph king of, 463.
- Hyde Park riots, 402–404;
- Reform meeting, 452–454.
- Ice catastrophe in Regent's Park, 459.
- Imperial, Prince, 154;
- at Saarbrück, 551.
- India, state of native army, 182, 183;
- the mutiny, 182–284;
- Company's rule abolished, 278;
- government and finances reorganised, 284;
- changes in the army, 284–286, 314;
- Dalhousie's policy abandoned, 286;
- finances, James Wilson's scheme, 314;
- prosperity, 382, 383;
- over-speculation, 383;
- Lord Cranborne on finances of, 402;
- Russian advance towards, 492.
- (See Mutiny, Indian.)
- Inkermann, 66–71;
- after the battle, 72.
- Ionian Islands ceded to Greece, 334.
- Ireland, Queen visits, 326;
- Belfast riots, 349, 350;
- Fenians, 372–376, 412;
- Habeas Corpus Act suspended, 413, 451, 464;
- arrests in Dublin, 414;
- disturbances, 451;
- Reform Bill, 467;
- Protestant Church disestablished, 493–506;
- Land Act, 518–528;
- Coercion Act, 528.
- Irish Church, motion for disestablishment, 451, 466;
- Gladstone's resolutions, 467;
- the Bill, 493;
- Gladstone's speech, 495–500;
- debate, 500;
- in the Lords, 500, 502;
- Lord Derby's opposition, 503;
- the Lords' amendments, 504;
- Archbishop Tait's mediation, 505;
- negotiations, the Bill becomes law, 506.
- Irish Land Act, 518;
- Bill introduced, 519, 520;
- in committee, 522–527;
- in the Lords, 527;
- becomes law, 528.
- Irish Reform Bill, 397, 467.[611]
- Isabella, Queen of Spain, dethroned, 492;
- abdicates, 578.
- Italy, Affairs of, at Congress of Paris, 156;
- debate on, 166;
- affairs in, 295;
- Austria prepares for war, 296, 297;
- Garibaldi's volunteers, 299;
- Magenta and Solferino, 300;
- peace of Villafranca, 302;
- Nice and Savoy ceded to France, 304;
- Papal States occupied, battle of Volturno, 308;
- alliance with Prussia, 420;
- obtains Venetia, 427;
- unification of, 577.
- (See Garibaldi, Sicily, Victor Emmanuel.)
- Jallandhar stormed, 274;
- mutiny at, 206.
- Jamaica, Negro insurrection in, 384–391;
- distress in the island, 385;
- Gordon, 385;
- the outbreak, 386;
- Governor Eyre's measures, Paul Bogle, 387;
- martial law, 388;
- Gordon's execution, 388–390;
- prosecution of Governor Eyre, 390–391.
- Japan, Outrage on British subjects in, 340;
- war in, 352.
- Jesuits suppressed in Spain, 492.
- Jhansi, Mutiny and massacre at, 200–202;
- bombardment, 272;
- stormed, 274.
- Jhelum, Battle at, 228.
- Jung Bahadoor, 224;
- at Lucknow, 265.
- Kaffir war, 160.
- Kaiserbagh, Plundering the, 266, 267.
- Kars, State of affairs in, 136;
- Williams fortifies it, 138, 139;
- proposals for relief of, 140;
- battle of, 141, 142;
- fall of, 143;
- debate in Parliament on, 153.
- Keble, John, Death of, 418.
- Kent, Duchess of, Death of, 326.
- Kertch, Expedition to, 88, 89, 99, 101.
- Kinburn, Fort, Attack on, 130.
- Koonch, Battle of, 274.
- Korniloff, Russian admiral, 51, 54;
- death, 56.
- Kuruk-Dereh, Battle of, 137.
- Lancashire cotton famine, 322;
- distress, 336.
- Laon, Surrender of, 585.
- Law Courts, New, Bill passed for, 366.
- Lawrence, Sir Henry, in Indian Mutiny, 188;
- at Lucknow, 192, 199, 200, 217;
- saves the Punjab, 197;
- at Chinhut, death, 218.
- Lawrence, Sir John, in Indian Mutiny, 196;
- and Lord Canning, 210;
- in the North-West, 228;
- in the Punjab, 276;
- chairman of London School Board, 540.
- Lebœuf, Marshal, 548, 557.
- Lee, General, surrenders to Grant, 382.
- Le Mans, Battle of, 590.
- Life peerages, Attempt to create, 513.
- Limited Liability companies, 411.
- Lincoln, Abraham, 320, 362;
- death, 382.
- Loans to Turkey and Sardinia, 97.
- Locke-King, Mr., 3, 287.
- Loire, Armies of the, 585, 587, 590.
- London, Loss of the, 412.
- Louis Napoleon, President of French Republic, coup d'état, 6;
- street fighting, plébiscite, 8.
- (See Napoleon III.)
- Louise, Princess, marriage, 601.
- Lowe, Mr., and educational reports, 346;
- philippic against democracy, 365;
- on Gladstone's Reform Bill, 392, 393;
- on Disraeli's Reform Bill, 439, 440;
- budgets, 507, 545, 546, 599;
- on the Irish Land Bill, 525–527;
- Education Bill, 538;
- match tax, 599.
- Lucan, Lord, at Balaclava, 59, 60, 62.
- Lucknow, outbreak of mutiny, 188;
- Henry Lawrence at, 192, 199, 200, 217;
- Residency besieged, 218;
- Havelock's first attempt to relieve, 219–224;
- defending the Residency, 242–244;
- sufferings of the garrison, 245;
- the relieving forces, 246–250;
- Campbell's force, 251;
- fighting in the city, 252–254;
- Residency evacuated, 254;
- recapture, 265–267.
- Luxembourg question, 460–462.
- Lyons, Admiral, and Kertch expedition, 100.
- Lyons, Captain, Death of, 107.
- Lytton, Bulwer, on Chinese war, 171.
- Mackonochie ritual case, 475.
- MacMahon, Marshal, 556, 559, 563–566.
- Magee, Dr., opposes Irish Church Bill, 502.
- Magenta, Battle of, 300.
- Malakoff, Preparations to attack, 105–107;
- Todleben's defences, 106;
- the attack, 108;
- description of, 124;
- capture, 125.
- Malmesbury, Lord, 514.
- Malt tax debates, 363.
- Malwa, Campaign in, 259, 260.
- Mamelon, Capture of, 103.
- Manteuffel, General, 588, 589.
- Maori war, 351, 383.
- Maritime law, Paris Declaration on, 156.
- Maronite Christians, Massacre of, 315, 316.
- Marriage of Prince of Wales, 358.
- Married Women's Property Act, 543.
- Martial law legally defined, 390.
- Mary of Cambridge, Princess, marriage, 411.
- Match tax, 599.
- Maximilian in Mexico, 342, 361, 460.
- Maynooth Grant, Regium Donum, 470, 499.
- Mazzini and his plots, 344, 345.
- Meean Meer, Mutiny quelled at, 231.
- Meerut, Outbreak of mutiny at, 189, 190.
- Menschikoff, Prince, at Constantinople, 16;
- General, 58;
- at Inkermann, 66.
- Merewether, Colonel, in Abyssinia, 483.
- Metropolitan Parks, Right of meeting in, 452–454.
- Metz, Battles at, 561, 562;
- capitulates, 584.
- Mexico, French expedition to, 341;
- Maximilian emperor, 342, 361;
- France quits, 431;
- end of empire, 460.
- Miall, Mr., and Disestablishment, 600.
- Milan, Victor Emmanuel and Napoleon III. enter, 300.
- Militia Bill, The, 10.
- Milk trade, Development of, 372.
- Mill, John Stuart, elected for Westminster, 370;
- on Gladstone's Reform Bill, 394.
- Ministers' money abolished, 176.
- Moldavia and Wallachia united to form Roumania, 158, 159.
- Moltke, Field-Marshal, 566.
- Montebello, Battle of, 299.
- Mouravieff, General, at Kars, 139–143.
- Murphy "no popery" riots, 475.
- Mutiny, Indian, the Native army, 182–184;
- greased cartridges, 185;
- chupatties, 186;
- outbreaks, 186, 187;
- General Anson, 187, 196;
- disbanding regiments, 187, 188, 193, 194, 197, 228–230;
- Sir Henry Lawrence, outbreak at Lucknow, 188;
- at Meerut, 189;
- at Delhi, 190–192;
- Sir H. Lawrence at Lucknow, 192, 199, 200;
- he saves the Punjab, 197;
- loyalty of the Sikhs, 194, 198;
- Ferozepore, 194;
- the movable column, 195;
- aid from native rajahs, 194, 195, 196, 198;
- Nicholson, 195–198;
- Sir John Lawrence, 196;
- mutiny increases, 198;
- chronological order of mutiny, 199;
- outbreak in Oude, 200;
- massacre at Jhansi, 200–202;
- rebels in Oude, 202;
- battle on the Hindon, 203, 204;
- Badlee Serai, 204;
- siege of Delhi, 205–209;
- Hodson and Guide Corps, 205;
- outbreak at Jallandhar, 206;
- plan for taking Delhi, 207;
- Subzee Mundi, 209;
- Canning Governor-general, Havelock and Outram, 210;
- Neill at Benares and Allahabad, outbreak at Cawnpore, 211;
- Nana Sahib, 212, 213;
- sufferings of the garrison, 214–216;
- affairs in Central India, 216;
- Sir H. Lawrence at Lucknow, 217;
- death, 218;
- Residency besieged, Havelock fighting his way to Lucknow, 218–224;
- massacre at Cawnpore, 222, 223;
- battle of Bithoor, 224;
- loyalty of Jung Bahadoor, 224;
- outbreak at Dinapore and other places, 225, 226;
- operations before Delhi, 226, 227;
- Sir J. Lawrence in the North-West, 228;
- battle at Jhelum, 228;
- Nicholson at Amritsir, 230;
- wholesale executions, 231;
- Nicholson at Delhi, 232;
- capture of Delhi, 233–239;
- the king captured, the princes executed, 239;
- Greathed's column, 240–242;
- fight at Agra, 241;
- defending the Residency at Lucknow, 242–245;
- the relieving forces, 246–250;
- Lucknow relieved, 250;
- force for second relief, 251–254;
- Lucknow relieved, death of Havelock, 254;
- Windham at Cawnpore, 255;
- Sir Colin Campbell captures Cawnpore, 256, 257;
- Seaton's campaign in the Doab, 257–259;
- state of Central India, 259;
- annexation of Dhar, 260;
- campaign in Malwa, 259, 260;
- battle at Shumshabad, 262;
- plans for capture of Lucknow, 262, 263;
- the attack and capture, 265–267;
- Canning's proclamation, 267;
- conquest of Rohilcund, 268;
- battle of Bareilly, 268;
- Rose's campaign in Central India, 270;
- capture of Rutghur, etc., 270, 271;
- Rajah of Shahghur's territory annexed, 271;
- defeat of Tantia Topee, 273;
- storming of Jhansi, battles of Koonch and Calpee, 274;
- Tantia Topee, 275;
- caste abolished in the army, 276;
- loyal rajahs rewarded, Oude subjugated, 278;
- East India Company's rule abolished, 278;
- Queen's proclamation, 279;
- submission of rebels, 282;
- end of mutiny, 284.
- Nana Sahib, 212, 213, 218;
- massacre at Cawnpore, 222;
- disappears, 282.
- Napier, Sir Charles, in the Baltic, 72.
- Napier, Sir Robert, in Central India, 276;
- in Abyssinia, 483, 484.
- Naples, Affairs of, debate, 167.
- Napoleon III., Emperor of the French, the Eastern Question, 12;
- letter to the Czar, 31;
- at Windsor, 90, 163, 164;
- his plan of Crimean campaign, 90;
- congress at Paris, 151–157;
- his views on the peace, 153;
- recognised by the Powers, marriage, 163;
- entertains the Queen, etc., 164–166;
- Orsini plot, 179;
- Italian Question, 296, 279;
- proposes congress on Italian affairs, 303;
- obtains Nice and Savoy, 304;
- Mexican expedition, 341;
- quits Mexico, Luxembourg Question, 460–462;
- opens Paris Exhibition, 460;
- Hohenzollern candidature, 549;
- plebicite, 550, 551;
- prisoner at Wilhelmshöhe, 566, 603;
- in England, 603.
- (See Louis Napoleon, France, Franco-German War.)
- National Assembly elected, 592.
- Naval officers, retirement scheme, 544, 545.
- Naval operations, Crimean war, 131.
- Negro insurrection in Jamaica, 384–391.
- Neill, Colonel, 210, 211.
- Nesselrode, Count, 15, 19;
- despatch to Clarendon, 20, 27;
- peace proposals, 150.
- Newcastle, Duke of, 76, 78.
- Newdegate, Mr., and Pope's encyclical, 379.
- New Zealand native war, 351;
- Maoris and colonists, 383.
- Nice and Savoy ceded to France, 304.
- Nicholson, Col., 195–198, 230, 232;
- death, 266.
- Nightingale, Miss, in the Crimea, 83.
- Ninety-Third, The, at Balaclava, 59.
- Nolan, Captain, Death of, 62.
- Nonconformists and Education Bill, 538, 603.
- Norman, Mr. Justice, assassinated, 606.
- Nujuffghur, Battle at, 232.
- Oaths and Offices Bill, 452.
- Obituary, 339, 417, 547, 608.
- Odessa, Bombardment of, 37, 38.
- Olenitza, Turkish victory at, 28.
- Ollivier, M., 549, 560.
- Olmütz, Conference of emperors at, 26.
- Omar Pasha commands Turkish forces, 20;
- begins the war, 27;
- at Eupatoria, 85.
- Onao, Battle of, 223.
- Oneida, Sinking of the, 546.
- Orleans evacuated, 587.
- Orsini's plot against Napoleon III., 179.
- O'Sullivan Disability Bill, 512.
- Oude, mutiny, 199, 202;
- annexed, 267, 278.
- Outram, General, 210;
- advance on Lucknow, 246, 247;
- and Havelock, 246;
- at Alumbagh, 247;
- Lucknow, 248–250, 264.
- Overend, Gurney, and Co. fail, 409, 410.
- Pacific, Allied fleets in the, 134.
- Paladines. (See Aurelles.)
- Palikao, Count, 560, 567.
- Palmerston, Lord, 2;
- his indiscretions, 8, 9;
- Queen's memorandum to, 9;
- forms a Ministry, 79;
- on the peace proposals, 152;
- on Italian affairs, 168;
- opposes Suez Canal, 169;
- on Chinese war, 172;
- his Government defeated, 173;
- success at the polls, 175;
- on Disraeli's Reform Bill, 292;
- Prime Minister, 295;
- Schleswig-Holstein dispute, 360;
- death, 376.
- Papal aggression, 1–3;
- States occupied, 308;
- infallibility decreed, 574–577.
- Paper duty abolished, 311, 312, 324.
- Paris, Defences of, 580;
- siege begins, 581;
- bombardment, 590;
- fall of, 591.
- Parkes, Consul, and Arrow dispute, 170.
- Parks, Right of meeting in, 452, 454.
- Parliamentary Reform. (See Reform.)
- Paxton, Mr., and Great Exhibition, 4.
- Peel, Sir William, Death of, 268.
- Peelites and Crimean war, 96, 97.
- Pegu, Annexation of, 160.
- Pekin, French troops enter, 318.
- Pélissier in the Crimea, 90;
- character, 98.
- Péronne, Capture of, 588.
- Persian war, 182.
- Peshawur, Mutiny quelled at, 231.
- Peto, Betts, and Co., Failure of, 410.
- Phayre, Colonel, Abyssinian war, 488.
- Phœnix Park, Riot in, 603, 604.
- Pius IX., establishes Roman Catholic sees in Britain, 2;
- summons General Council, 571;
- refuses Victor Emmanuel's terms, 578.[612]
- (See Papal Aggression.)
- Plébiscites, Napoleon's two, 550, 551.
- Plowden, Consul, 476;
- death, 478.
- Plumridge, Admiral, in the Baltic, 72.
- Poland, Revolution in, 339;
- debate on, 378.
- Pollock, Sir Frederick, death, 547.
- Pope's encyclical, The, 379.
- Portsmouth, French fleet at, 380.
- Prague, Treaty of, 429, 430.
- Preston strike, 161, 162.
- Prim, Marshal, 492, 552;
- assassinated, 578.
- Princes of Delhi executed, 239.
- Princess Royal, betrothal, 175;
- dowry, 176.
- Probate, New Court of, 176.
- Property Qualification Bill, 287.
- Prussia summoned to Paris Congress, 154;
- Schleswig-Holstein dispute, 353–361;
- and Austria, 418;
- alliance with Italy, 419, 420;
- preparing for war, 420;
- Congress proposed, 423;
- war declared, 424;
- the campaign, 425–428;
- peace, 429;
- secret treaties, 431.
- (See Franco-German War.)
- Prussia, King of, and Hohenzollern candidature, 549;
- interview with Napoleon, 566;
- becomes German Emperor, 594.
- Punjab, Suppressing mutiny in, 196, 206.
- Purchase, Army, Bill to abolish, 595, 596;
- abolished by Royal warrant, 598.
- Puttiala, Battle at, 258.
- Raglan, Lord, in the Crimean war, 34;
- Alma, 46;
- Inkermann, 68, 7.
- Rajahs, Indian, loyalty during mutiny, 194–196, 198, 224;
- rewards, 278.
- Rassam, Mr., in Abyssinia, 480, 482.
- Ratghur, Capture of, 270, 271.
- Rationalists in the Church, 346, 348, 349.
- Redan, The, 106, 107;
- bombardment, 106;
- attack on, 110, 126;
- description of, 124.
- Redistribution Bill, 396, 446, 447.
- Reform, Parliamentary, Mr. Disraeli's motion, 290;
- debate, 291–294;
- Gladstone on, 346;
- Baines' abortive bill, 365;
- Gladstone's bill, 391–399;
- Redistribution of Seats Bill, 396;
- Scottish and Irish bills, 397;
- in committee, 398, 399;
- Lord Derby forms a cabinet, 400;
- Hyde Park riots, 402–404;
- popular meetings, 408;
- Disraeli's reform resolutions, 433;
- Lowe's criticism, 435;
- Ten Minutes Bill, 435;
- the bill introduced, 437;
- debate, 438–441;
- in committee, 442–447;
- Redistribution Bill, 446;
- passes the Commons, in the Lords, 448;
- Scottish Reform Bill, 464;
- Irish Reform Bill, 467.
- Regent's Park, Ice catastrophe in, 459.
- Registration of Voters Act, 472.
- Regnier plot, The, 583.
- Religious difficulty. (See Education.)
- Religious Tests abolition, 367, 452, 510–512.
- Residency at Lucknow, defence, 242–254.
- Retirement scheme for navy, 544, 545.
- Revised code (Education), 328.
- Richards, Mr., and Education Bill, 539.
- Richmond, Duke of, and Irish Land Bill, 527.
- Rifle volunteers formed, 325.
- Rinderpest, 371;
- Royal Commission on, 372.
- Roebuck, Crimean inquiry, 78, 98;
- on Princess Royal's dowry, 176.
- Rohilcund, Conquest of, 268, 269.
- Roman Catholic Oaths Bill, 367.
- Rome annexed to kingdom of Italy, 578.
- Rose, Sir Hugh, in Central India, 270–276.
- Rossa, O'Donovan, 514.
- Roumania, Formation of, 158, 159.
- Russell, Lord John, 2–4;
- fall of his administration, 8;
- resigns on Militia Bill, 10;
- Colonial secretary, 12, 92;
- at Vienna conference, 92;
- on Italian affairs, 167, 305, 307;
- on Disraeli's Reform Bill, 291;
- Foreign Secretary, 295;
- on peace of Villafranca, 302;
- his Reform Bill, 312–314;
- on Polish revolution, 339, 340;
- Schleswig-Holstein, 356–360;
- resigns on Reform Bill, 400;
- Life Peerages Bill, 514.
- Russell, Mr. W. H., Times correspondent in Crimea, 77.
- Russia and the Eastern Question, 12;
- the Czar's intentions, 16;
- ultimatum to Turkey, 18;
- position of, in Asia, 135, 137;
- reasons for desiring peace, 147;
- in Central Asia, 492;
- a check on Austria,
- 570;
- repudiates Black Sea Treaty, 607, 608.
- (See Crimean war.)
- Russian atrocities, 132.
- Saarbrück, Battle at, 558.
- Salisbury, Lord, opposes Irish Church Bill, 504;
- on abolition of Purchase, 598.
- Samarcand captured by Russia, 492.
- Sardinian troops for Crimea, 84, 90.
- Saugor, Relief of, 271.
- Sawgrinders' union, outrages, 458.
- Scarlett, General, at Balaclava, 60.
- Schleswig-Holstein, 353–361, 418, 419.
- School Boards, 534, 603.
- Scottish Reform Bill, 397, 464–466.
- Scutari, State of hospitals at, 83.
- Sealkote, Outbreak of mutiny at, 230.
- Seaton's campaign in the Doab, 257–259.
- Sebastopol, 51, 53, 55;
- fall of, 127.
- Seetapore, Outbreak of mutiny at, 200.
- Sedan, Battle of, 564–566.
- Serpents, Isle of, Russia's claim to, 159.
- Serrano, Marshal, Spanish president 492.
- Seymour, Sir Hamilton, 16, 18, 19.
- Shahjehanpore, Outbreak of mutiny at, 200.
- Shakespeare centenary celebration, 347, 348.
- Shaw-Lefevre becomes Viscount Eversley, 174.
- Shipping disaster in China sea, 546.
- Short service in the army, 545.
- Sicily, in, 305–309.
- Sick and wounded, Aid for, 562, 563.
- Sikhs, Loyalty of, during mutiny, 194, 198.
- Simpson, General, in Crimea, 113, 131.
- Sinope, Destruction of Turkish ships at, 28.
- Solferino, Battle of, 300.
- Spain, Revolution in, 492, 516;
- search for a king, 517;
- a Hohenzollern Prince, 551;
- Isabella abdicates, Duke of Aosta accepts the crown, Prim assassinated, 578.
- Speke, Captain, Death of, 342.
- Spicheren, Battle of, 560.
- Stanley, Lord, 394, 396, 471.
- Stansfeld and Mazzini, 344, 345.
- St. Arnaud, Marshal, death, character, 52.
- Star of India, Order of the, 327.
- Staveley, Sir Charles, Abyssinian war, 485.
- Steinmetz, German General, 561, 562.
- Storm in Black Sea, Terrible, 74.
- Strasburg, Siege of, 560;
- fall, 582.
- Stratford de Redcliffe, 14, 16, 18, 20, 27.
- Strikes, Preston, 161, 162;
- tailors', etc., 459.
- Subzee Mundi, Capture of, 209.
- Succession duty, The, 12.
- Suez Canal, Palmerston opposes, 169.
- Sultan of Turkey visits England, 460.
- Summer palace at Pekin destroyed, 318.
- Sumner, Archbishop, death, 475.
- Sumter, Fort, Capture of, 321.
- Sveaborg, fortress, 72;
- bombarded, 133, 134.
- Syria, Massacres in, 315, 316.
- Taganrog, Destruction of stores at, 202.
- Tailors, Strike of, 459.
- Tait, Archbishop, Irish Church Bill, 505.
- Taku forts captured, 317.
- Tantia Topee, at Jhansi, 272;
- defeated, 273;
- captured, 282–284.
- Taxation, Remissions of, 507, 503.
- Tchernaya, 99, 115, 116;
- battle of, 116–118.
- Tea, Reduction of duty on, 338.
- Tea Room Cabal, 442.
- Telegraph Cable, Atlantic, 408.
- Telegraphs purchased by the State, 471.
- Ten Minutes Bill, The, 434.
- Thames Embankment, 600.
- Thanksgiving, The National, 602.
- Theodore, King of Abyssinia, 463, 477–483, 486–491;
- death, 491.
- Thiers, M., opposes Franco-German war, 554;
- his plan of government, 568;
- mission to Continental Powers, 582;
- chief of Executive, 592.
- Todleben defends Sebastopol, 51, 54.
- Tombs, Major, wins Victoria Cross, 227.
- Toul, Surrender of, 585.
- Trades Union (saw-grinders) outrages, 458.
- Treaty of Paris, Stipulations of, 154–156.
- Trent, Affair of the, 323–324.
- Trevelyan, Mr., army reform agitation, 595.
- Trochu, General, 556, 560, 567, 568, 584.
- Turkey and Eastern Question, 12–19;
- rejects Vienna note, 26;
- campaign in Asia Minor, 136;
- peculation of the Pashas, 138;
- Sultan's firman on the peace, 153.
- (See Crimean War.)
- Ulster glebes, 497.
- Unification of Italy, 577;
- of Germany, 591.
- Union Chargeability Bill, 366.
- United States of America. (See America.)
- University Tests Bill, 367, 510–512, 600.
- Vancouver's Island added to British Columbia, 287.
- Vatican Council, The, 571–578.
- Venetia ceded to Italy, 427.
- Vermont, Confederate raid into, 362.
- Viceroy of Egypt visits England, 460.
- Viceroy of India, Lord Canning first, 279.
- Victor Emmanuel, King of Italy, 308, 578.
- Victoria Cross, first distribution, 159.
- Victoria, Queen, opens Great Exhibition, 6;
- memorandum to Palmerston, 9;
- receives patriotic address from Parliament on outbreak of Crimean war, 34;
- Napoleon III. at Windsor, 90, 163, 164;
- Victoria Cross instituted, first distribution, 159;
- opens Crystal Palace, 162;
- visits the French Emperor at Paris, 164–166;
- Palmerston's defeat and return to power, 173–175;
- betrothal of Princess Royal, 175;
- debate on her dowry, civil lists of recent monarchs, 176;
- the Indian mutiny, 182–284;
- proclaimed ruler of India, 279;
- outbreak of American Civil War, 319;
- Great Britain's neutrality proclaimed, 322;
- death of Duchess of Kent, visit to Ireland, the Queen's domestic life, 326;
- illness and death of the Prince Consort, 328;
- marriage of Prince of Wales, 338;
- Ashanti war, 350;
- Maori war, 357;
- Schleswig-Holstein question, 356–360;
- the Reform Bill of 1866, 391–399;
- Resignation of Earl Russell's Ministry, 400;
- message to United States President over Atlantic Cable, 407;
- John Bright defends the Queen, 408;
- visit of Viceroy of Egypt, and of the Sultan of Turkey, 460;
- Gladstone's Irish Church Resolutions, 467;
- dissolves Parliament, 472;
- disestablishment of the Irish Church, 493–506;
- civil list, 601.
- Vienna conference, 92–96;
- treaty of, 360.
- Villafranca, Peace of, 302.
- Villiers, Mr., Union Chargeability Bill, 366.
- Vinoy's sorties from Paris, 581.
- Vinzaglio, Capture of, 299.
- Volturno, Battle of, 308.
- Volunteers, Rifle, formed, 325.
- Wages movement, The, 160–162.
- Wales, Prince of, marriage, 338;
- birth of a son, 343;
- illness, 602.
- Walewski's despatch on Orsini plot, 179.
- Wallachia and Moldavia united to form Roumania, 158, 159.
- Walpole, General, in Rohilcund, 268.
- Walpole, Home Secretary, Hyde Park riots, 402–404.
- War department, Creation of a, 76.
- Wars, Some little, 350, 351.
- Weissenberg, Battle of, 558.
- Wellington, Duke of, death, funeral, 11, 12.
- Werder, General, 587, 591.
- Westbury, Lord, 346;
- Edmunds and Wilde scandals, 368, 369;
- resigns, 370.
- Wheeler, General, at Cawnpore, 211.
- Whewell, William, Death of, 418.
- Wilde scandal, The, 369.
- Wilhelmshöhe, Napoleon III. at, 516.
- Williams, Lieut.-Colonel, at Kars, 138.
- Wilson, Colonel Archdale, 203, 226.
- Wilson, Mr. James, Indian finance, 314.
- Wimpffen, General, 565, 566.
- Windham, General, at Cawnpore, 255.
- Winterbotham, Mr., on Education Bill, 538.
- Woolwich Dockyard closed, 544.
- Wörth, Battle of, 559.
- Yelverton, Captain, in the Baltic, 132.
- Yeni-Keui, Expedition to, 140.

PRINTED BY CASSELL & COMPANY, LIMITED, LA BELLE SAUVAGE, LONDON, E.C.

### Transcriber Notes:

P. 70. 'the Okhutsk" changed to 'the Okhotsk'.

P. 80. Fixed missing letters in word 'continuously'.

P. 85. 'while yet dark, General Bosquet', placed comma instead of full-stop (period).

P. 386. 'heat o the struggle', changed 'o' to 'of'.

P. 574. 'Cardinel' changed to 'Cardinal'.

Fixed various punctuation.

Index:

P. 612. Sicily, in, 305-309, added "Sicily".

P. 612. 'Prussia, King of, added page #594.

P. 612. Between "Short' and 'Sicily', taken out missing information in Index.

P. 612. Ragland, Lord in the Crimean war, added page '34'.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CASSELL'S HISTORY OF ENGLAND, VOL. 6 (OF 8) ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

## THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

> This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

- • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
- • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
- • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
- • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.