medium of the neighbouring state; and it was frequently and strongly urged upon the English government that such a course should not be permitted to a country which, like Prussia, maintained so suspicious a neutrality between the belligerent powers. Large caravans of goods crossed the frontier between the two states, conveying raw produce in one direction and manufactured goods in another; and as the Prussian ports were free from blockade, they were doubtless the ports of arrival and departure. Although British subjects were prohibited from trading with Russia, yet it was found, at the end of the year, that the United Kingdom had received supplies of Russian timber, hemp, flax, tallow, and other commodities, in large quantities, although not equal in amount to those of peaceful years. It is evident that, the Russian ports being closed, other channels had been found. Strong representations being occasionally made by England, the Prussian government was thrown into uneasiness. An opinion had grown up, however, among those statesmen and economists who had watched the effects of free-trade, that commerce, though it may bend, cannot in these days be broken by blockade laws. England, it is well known, smiled proudly at the attempts of the elder Napoleon, by the Milan and Berlin decrees, to crush her commerce during the time of war; and it remains an open question whether, to a country circumstanced as was Russia in 1854, the effects of a blockade are so disastrous as the theory intends: whether, in short, the chief effect is not that of transferring to neutral merchants and shipowners those profits which previously flowed to those of the blockading power. Whether 'free ships make free goods,' or 'free goods make free ships?' whether the narrow views of publicists and international writers in times of limited commerce, or those of later and more commercial days, should be preferred? whether Grotius, Vattel, and Bynkershoek, or Hübner, Martens, and Hautefeuille, should be taken as the best group of authorities?-were questions largely discussed in parliament and elsewhere; but the events of the year tended, for the most part, to shew that the old theory of blockade could scarcely be maintained in modern days.

In relation to this question of neutrals and blockades, little difficulty could arise in connection with those European states which, from the beginning of the war, declared a distinct neutrality, and undertook no duties as mediators between the belligerent states. Thus, whatever may have been the internal complications of Denmark, that kingdom sided with Sweden in a definite line of policy even before the rupture between Russia and the Western Powers occurred. On the 2d of January 1854, a few weeks after the declaration of war by Turkey, and when it became evident that England and France would speedily declare war likewise, Denmark and Sweden entered into a convention respecting the

line of policy to be pursued by them, and communicated the result to the Western Powers. The principal portion of this convention, as applying to Sweden, declared that the king would remain strictly neutral during the war; that war-ships and trading-ships belonging to the belligerent powers might enter any Swedish ports except a small number expressly named; that such ships must observe the sanitary and maritime police regulations of the ports; that no privateering vessels would be admitted; that the ships of the belligerents might purchase supplies, in Swedish ports, of any provisions and stores not contraband of war; and that all prizes taken by either belligerent power would be excluded from Swedish ports. The king of Denmark's declaration was identical with this in all particulars, except in relation to the names of the ports placed within the bar of exclusion. These conventions were made, as just remarked, before the Western Powers became involved in the war, and were scrupulously adhered to throughout the remainder of the year.

In the case of Prussia, however, matters presented a different aspect. This state was under certain obligations by treaty, as one of the great powers, to aid in the defence of Turkey under certain contingencies; and England and France never ceased to urge upon her the adoption of a course befitting her position. All was in vain, however; the year came to its end, marked by the same evidences of Prussian irresolution as its beginning. Austria was much embarrassed by this line of proceeding: bound to Prussia by the convention of April, she could not easily break from that power; desirous of remaining if possible on good terms with Russia, she avoided immediate participation in the war; strongly urged by England and France, she could not remain quite inactive. A definite advance was, however, made on the 2d of December, when the Earl of Westmoreland, Baron de Bourqueney, and Count Buol-Schauenstein, signed a treaty at Vienna as representatives of England, France, and Austria. It is desirable to give the chief clauses of this treaty in full, as they played an important part in the subsequent negotiations:

'ART. I.-The High Contracting Parties refer to the declarations contained in the Protocols of the 9th of April and 23d of May of the present year, and in the Notes exchanged on the 8th of August last; and as they reserved to themselves the right of proposing, according to circumstances, such conditions as they might judge necessary for the general interests of Europe, they engage mutually and reciprocally not to enter into any arrangement with the Imperial Court of Russia without having first deliberated thereupon in

common.

ART. II-His Majesty the Emperor of Austria having, in virtue of the Treaty concluded on the 14th of June last with the Sublime Porte, caused the Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia to be occupied by his troops, he engages to defend the frontier of the said Principalities against any return of the Russian forces; the Austrian troops shall for this purpose

occupy the positions necessary for guaranteeing those Principalities against any attack. Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and His Majesty the Emperor of the French, having likewise concluded with the Sublime Porte on the 12th of March a Treaty which authorises them to direct their forces upon every part of the Ottoman Empire, the above-mentioned occupation shall not interfere with the free movement of the Anglo-French or Ottoman troops upon these same territories against the military forces or the territory of Russia. There shall be formed at Vienna between the Plenipotentiaries of Austria, France, and Great Britain, a Commission to which Turkey shall be invited to send a Plenipotentiary, and which shall be charged with examining and regulating every question relating either to the exceptional and provisional state in which the said Principalities are now placed, or to the free passage of the different armies across their territory.

ART. III.-In case hostilities should break out between Austria and Russia, Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, and His Majesty the Emperor of the French, mutually promise to each other their offensive and defensive alliance in the present war, and will for that purpose employ, according to the requirements of the war, military and naval forces, the number, description, and destination whereof shall, if occasion should arise, be determined by subsequent arrangements.

ART. IV.-In the case contemplated by the preceding Article, the High Contracting Parties reciprocally engage not to entertain any overture or proposition on the part of the Imperial Court of Russia, having for its object the cessation of hostilities, without having come to an understanding thereupon between themselves.

ART. V.-In case the re-establishment of general peace, upon the bases indicated in Article I., should not be assured in the course of the present year, Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, and His Majesty the Emperor of the French, will deliberate without delay upon effectual means for obtaining the object of their alliance.

ART. VI.-Great Britain, Austria, and France will jointly communicate the present Treaty to the Court of Prussia, and will with satisfaction receive its accession thereto, in case it should promise its co-operation for the accomplishment of the common object.'

How far the Western Powers succeeded in the object of the 5th Article, that of obtaining the warlike aid of Austria if the czar did not come to terms before the 31st of December 1854; or in that of the 6th, relating to the active co-operation of Prussia-will appear in a future section.

THE SARDINIAN ALLIANCE.

At the period now under notice, there was one small state-small relatively to its neighbours -which honourably distinguished itself by a decided anti-Russian policy, at a time when the whole of the German states were painfully vibrating between conflicting tendencies. This was Sardinia.

No European kingdom can be less perfectly judged by its name than this. Sardinia is a rude, little-known island in the Mediterranean,

the possession of which would by no means qualify a monarch to enter into European alliances with the great powers on equal terms. If this monarch were designated king of Piedmont, or of Genoa, or of Savoy, his position would more readily identify itself in the public mind. Be this as it may, however, the Sardinian states have become deeply interesting to Europe, as possessing the only elements of constitutional freedom throughout the whole of Italy, and as drawing upon them, in virtue of this fact, the suspicions of the despotic rulers of Lombardy, Tuscany, Rome, Naples, and the minor states. The House of Savoy, one of the most ancient regal houses in Europe, reigned during many centuries over the dukedom of Savoy; the dukes gradually acquired possession of the rich Italian plains of Piedmont, by conquest or by treaty ; they obtained Sardinia about the year 1720, and exchanged the title of Duke for that of King, or rather appropriated the three titles of King of Sardinia, Prince of Piedmont, and Duke of Savoy. After the disruptions and expulsions consequent on the French Revolution, the kings of Sardinia were reinstated in all their possessions by the Congress of Vienna in 1815, and received in addition the territories of the extinct republic of Genoa. The 'Stati Sardi,' or Sardinian States, thus gradually became, although not very extensive in area, one of the most fertile, flourishing, and well-founded kingdoms in Europe: occupying an important position between France, the Austrian dominions, Switzerland, and Tuscany.

There were circumstances of a personal character, too, which rendered Sardinia a deeply interesting state to England. Charles Albert, who reigned from 1831 to 1849, entered so ardently into the revolutionary turmoils of 1848, that-not content with establishing a constitution, a legislature of two chambers, and a free press, in his own dominions-he joined the Milanese and Venetians in a war of freedom against Austria: a war which would have met with much approval in England, had it not presented so many aspects of a wild adventure, ill fitted to arrive at a satisfactory result. Defeated by the Austrians in a battle at Novara, Charles Albert resigned in favour of his son in March 1849, and died four months afterwards. Victor Emmanuel, thus placed upon the throne in a time of difficulty, had a perilous task before him. He found it necessary at once to agree to a treaty of peace with Austria, resigning all the objects which his father had so impetuously pursued, and accepting the best terms obtainable. At the same time, he steadily maintained the constitutional freedom of his country, despite the suggestions thrown out by the arbitrary princes around him. Moreover, he was called upon to defend the principles of religious liberty on the soil of Piedmont: attacked as those principles were by an audacious and aggressive movement on the part of the higher priesthood and the papal court. Nobly supported by his parliament, Victor

Emmanuel successfully resisted the machinations of despots, both political and ecclesiastical, and brought his country into a state of peace and prosperity. He won the admiration of England by his conduct, and her sympathy by his bereavements; for he was a man of sorrows-having lost father, mother, wife, and brother within a limited period, and being left with a young family of motherless children as his only solace amid the cares of royalty.

This was the sovereign who frankly entered into alliance with England and France against Russia at a time when Austria hesitated to draw the sword, and Prussia shrank even from the bare possibility of having so to do. It exhibited, in a favourable light, the establishment and maintenance of constitutional usages in Sardinia, that the war policy was openly discussed in the parliament at Turin, and the speeches reported in the Turin newspapers. On the 27th of January 1855, the chambers met to receive and consider the government proposals concerning the alliance. Count Cavour, minister for foreign affairs, opened the proceedings by remarking that 'the Eastern war, having called forth new interests to combat on the field of politics, has rendered new alliances necessary. The course of old diplomatic traditions was all at once interrupted; and both from a careful consideration of the present serious moment and of a future, from which the greatest prudence alone can avert the dangers, it was clear to every government that, in the face of complications so unexpected on the world's stage, it was necessary to seek a new system that should procure strength, supports, and remedial acts, to provide against the altered circumstances.' After commenting on the unselfish spirit in which the English and French governments had entered upon the war, the count proceeded to consider the two alternatives-neutrality, or alliance with the Western Powers-open to Sardinia: 'Neutrality, sometimes possible to powers of the first rank, is seldom so to those of the second, unless placed in special political and geographical circumstances. History, however, rarely shews happy instances of neutrality, the least sad results of which terminate in making those who adopt it either objects of suspicion or disdain to both contending parties. To Piedmont, moreover, the high heart of whose kings inspired at all times a resolute policy, alliances have always been more pleasing. Piedmont has succeeded in making herself accounted more by Europe than her limited territory would appear to warrant, because in the day of common peril she has always known how to face the common fate; as also because in times of tranquillity it was part of the rare wisdom of the princes of Savoy to reform by slow degrees, adapting the political and civil laws to the new wants, the natural consequences of the incessant conquests of civilisation.' He adverted to the proposition of an alliance to the government of His Majesty on the part of those of Her Majesty the Queen of England,

and of His Majesty the Emperor of the French ;' and finally said: 'The examples of history, the anticipations of the future, the noble traditions of the House of Savoy, all unite to drive the ministry from a timid, idle policy, and to lead it instead by the old road followed by our fathers, who knew true prudence to exist in sharing the sacrifices and perils encountered for justice, whence arose increased reputation or benefits after victory.'

The legislative chambers cordially responded to the views of the king and his ministers, and gave formal sanction to a military convention between Sardinia, England, and France; a treaty between Sardinia and Turkey; a separate convention with England; and a loan to carry out the objects of the alliance. The military convention, signed at Turin by the representatives of the three powers on the 26th of January, bound the king of Sardinia to provide, in prosecution of the war against Russia, an army of 15,000 men, consisting of infantry, cavalry, and artillery in due proportions; to be organised into two divisions and six brigades ; and to be paid and rationed by the king. The Western Powers, on the other hand, agreed to facilitate the transport of this army to the East; and, moreover, agreed to defend the Sardinian dominions from any Russian attack during the war. By virtue of this convention, arrangements were made with England, as possessing a numerous fleet of transports, to convey the Sardinian troops to the Crimea. When the king had thus established his relations with the Western Powers on a satisfactory footing, he entered into a treaty with Turkey, on the 15th of March; in which he declared his adhesion to the treaty of the 12th of March 1854, whereby England and France undertook to defend Turkey against Russia; and announced the approaching departure of a Sardinian army to aid in this good work. The Sultan, on his part, undertook that the Sardinian troops on Turkish soil should be treated in all respects like those of England and France.

This heroic determination on the part of one of the secondary states of Europe was remarkable, and at once raised that state, both in the estimation of Englishmen and in the diplomatic formalities of negotiations and conferences, to a level with the first-class powers. When Count Cavour, in his speech to the chambers, said: ‘As the fruit of a prudence which tends to courage and generosity, we confidently believe that this treaty will obtain your consent more readily than it would have done had it been suggested by a timid prudence and short-sighted calculation'he paid a well-founded compliment to the good sense and high feeling of the Piedmontese nation; and afforded England and France a justification for pointing out how unfavourably the conduct of the king of Prussia contrasted with that of this new ally. What part the Sardinian army took in the Crimean war, a future Chapter will shew.

It now becomes necessary to interrupt the thread of narrative concerning the general politics of Europe connected with the war, in order to trace the progress of a remarkable disruption of the English ministry, occasioned principally by the war itself. Although this disruption led to departure neither from the alliance with France nor from the war against Russia, it nevertheless, during a period of several weeks, threw a painful doubt over the characters and capabilities of public men in England, and occasioned some distrust among foreign powers.

The Aberdeen ministry, as has already been stated, contained an unusually large number of ministers possessing a reputation for ability and experience.* It combined, indeed, the chief members of the Peel party (as it was popularly termed) with the Whig party; and was regarded by a fair majority in both Houses of Parliament as the resultant of a laudable attempt to break through the trammels of party conflict, in order that the best men of two parties might work together for the common good. What duration the ministry would have had if peace had continued unbroken, it is useless now to inquire; but when war began, the ministry was placed at a disadvantage by a popular belief that the Earl of Aberdeen was friendly to Russia, and would put up with a large amount of Muscovite aggression before making resistance. This impression, whether well or ill founded, unquestionably encouraged the friends of the czar, and to that extent placed at a disadvantage those who wished to present a bold front to Russian machinations. Even at a later date, when the carl's concurrence in the war could no longer be doubted, there yet lingered in the public mind a belief that he was supine in its management, and too ready to accept the first possible proposals of peace.

During the greater part of the year 1854, from the declaration of war until Christmas, there were many censures passed on the government, in some instances arising from mere party tactics, but in others unquestionably due to a suspicion that the war was not being pursued with due energy and good faith. Still, these censures were passed upon the government as a whole: the public had no authentic means of knowing whether harmony existed or not within the cabinet; and therefore

*The chief offices of the government were thus filled:

First Lord of the Treasury..

Lord Chancellor

Chancellor of the Exchequer........

Lord President....

Lord Privy Seal........

Home Secretary'.

Foreign Secretary.

Colonial Secretary.

War Secretary..
Secretary at War.

First Lord of the Admiralty.
President of India Board....

Chief Commissioner of Works...
President of Board of Trade
Post-master General.........

....Earl of Aberdeen. ....Lord Cranworth. ...Mr Gladstone. ...Lord John Russell. .Duke of Argyll. Lord Palmerston. ....Earl of Clarendon. .Sir George Grey. ...Duke of Newcastle. .Mr Sidney Herbert. .Sir J. Graham. ....Sir C. Wood. .Sir W. Molesworth. .............Earl Granville.

....Viscount Canning.

all the ministers were made responsible for a laxity believed to be chiefly due to the premier himself.

Discord first arose concerning the management of the War-office: the first dissentient being Lord John Russell; and the period of the beginning of this dissension being after the rising of parliament. It has already been stated that the secretaryship of State for War and the Colonies was, in the summer of 1854, found too onerous for any one statesman; and that the Duke of Newcastle, who held that office, assumed the new office of Secretary of State for War: Sir George Grey being appointed to the other half of the divided secretariat-the Colonial Office. Mr Sidney Herbert remained Secretary at War. During the autumn, Lord John Russell, having no laborious duties connected with his office of President of the Council, studied attentively the reconstructed state of the War-office, and opened a correspondence with the Earl of Aberdeen in relation thereto. He adduced reasons why, in his judgment, the war-minister should sit in the House of Commons rather than in the Upper House; he discussed the delicate question whether the Duke of Newcastle were equal to the duties of his office, suggested that Lord Palmerston was a fitter man, and endeavoured to smooth away the difficulty of abolishing the office filled by Mr Sidney Herbert. It is evident, from the tenor of the published correspondence on this subject, that the premier was taken by surprise by Lord John, who had not urged at the cabinet councils any of the objections thus put forward by letter in the middle of November. The earl placed the letter, at the writer's own request, in the hands of the Duke of Newcastle and Mr Sidney Herbert, that nothing secret or unhandsome might be expected. The duke, however, in his place in the House of Lords at a later date, shewed plainly that he felt little flattered by the letter of Lord John; he denied that he had ever expressed a 'strong wish,' as had been asserted, to be war-minister; he was ignorant of the writer's preference for Lord Palmerston ; he gave no thanks for the compliments with which he said the writer attempted to lessen the asperity of a proposal for his removal; he was as little pleased with the character for 'commendable ambition' attributed to him; and he expressed his willingness to retire, if such retirement would lead to a strengthening of the ministry. In the course of several letters exchanged between Lord John Russell and the Earl of Aberdeen, the latter discussed calmly the suggestions of the former, and stated his grounds of dissent from them-expressing a belief that there would be something ungenerous in making such changes in the midst of the war, unless it could be proved that the Duke of Newcastle was personally amenable to charges of incapacity from which the other members of the cabinet were free. After many letters had thus passed, the

premier wished to know whether and when Lord John Russell would bring the question before the cabinet, there to be discussed in the usual way; but it appeared that the proposer of these changes, having ascertained that the opinions of some of his personal friends were unfavourable to the movement, had been thrown into a state of doubt and hesitation; he declined to make it a cabinet question, he dropped the subject, and the Earl of Aberdeen was left in possession of an opinion that his colleague acquiesced cheerfully in the views and plans of the government generally.

Meanwhile the public mind had become greatly agitated by the mournful accounts from the Crimea. Every newspaper throughout the kingdom, in every impression published in November and December, had told the tale of suffering; how that noble soldiers had been ignobly treated, and that supplies paid for by the nation had never reached those for whom they were intended. The readers of those narratives had not at that time the means of determining whether the fault lay with the home authorities or with those in the Crimea; but they knew that the government

departments must somewhere be in the wrong; and they felt angered at the frequent denials by the ministers of the existence of miseries so vividly depicted by the newspaper correspondents. Parliament assembled on the 12th of December, many weeks earlier than usual-the chief purport of such an early meeting being to pass two or three measures necessary for the due prosecution of the war. But the two Houses did not silently vote these measures; they commented severely on the manner in which the war had been conducted. When the former session was closed on the 12th of August, the Allied armies had not yet left Varna; but in the interval between the two sessions had occurred the landing at Old Fort, the skirmish at Bulganak, the battle of the Alma, the flank-march, the first bombardment

of Sebastopol, the battle of Balaklava, and the two battles of Inkermann-concerning which the Peers and the Commons passed warm and merited eulogiums on the conduct of the soldiery, coupled with animadversions on the short-comings of the government officials. The Earls of Derby, Malmesbury, and Ellenborough censured the government for being too peaceful; Earl Grey took just the opposite view; but, in the midst of much censure, the House of Lords passed two bills-one for the enrolment of the militia, and one for the enlistment of foreigners

urged by the government as being necessary for the maintenance of the army up to the proper standard. In the Commons the discussions were more fierce; but even here the ministers had the advantage of pitting their antagonists one