against another; for if Mr Layard and Mr Disraeli argued that the war was not conducted with sufficient vigour, Mr Cobden and Mr Bright were equally distinct in asserting that the warlike tendency was too prominent. Lord John Russell assisted his colleagues in defending the general course of government policy; and nothing appeared, outwardly at least, to indicate any discord in the cabinet.

Another period passed over; parliament rose for the holidays on the 22d of December, and during about a month the government pursued its measures without the control of the legislature. During this month, however, the accounts from the Crimea had been more terrible than ever; the families of officers as well as of common soldiers had heard through private letters how great were the sufferings of the army; and thus all ranks were impatient to know how such things could be, and who was to blame; while even those who had no relations in the army, reading day by day the tragic details given by newspaper correspondents, deemed it imperative that the House of Commons, as the more immediate representative of the nation, should institute an inquiry into the whole case. When the Houses reassembled on the 23d of January, various matters touching the war were discussed; but the proceeding attended with the most important result was a notice, given by Mr Roebuck, that on a certain day he would move for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the 'Condition of the Army and the Conduct of the War.' This notice was the proximate cause of the downfall of the Aberdeen ministry.

From letters and explanations afterwards published, it appears that when Lord John Russell heard this notice given, an end was put to a period of doubt and indecision; he had expected some such notice from one member or other; but when he found that it came from a supporter of the government in its liberal measures, its decisive importance rendered necessary an immediate determination of his own course of action. He wrote at once to the Earl of Aberdeen a letter, in which he said: 'Mr Roebuck has given notice of a motion to inquire into the conduct of the war. I do not see how this motion is to be resisted; but, as it involves a censure upon the Wardepartments, with which some of my colleagues are connected, my only course is to tender my resignation.' In a speech delivered three days afterwards, he justified the step thus taken: 'A motion for inquiry may be resisted on two grounds the one, that there are no evils existing of sufficient magnitude to call for inquiry; the other, that sufficient means have been taken to remedy those evils, and that they will be best cured by other means than by a resort to the inquisitorial powers of this House. Now, with respect to the first of these grounds which I have stated, it is obvious that it is impossible to be resorted to. No one can deny the melancholy

condition of our army before Sebastopol. The accounts which arrive from that quarter every week, are not only painful, but horrible and heart-rending; and I am sure no one would oppose for a moment any measure that would be likely not only to cure, but to do anything to mitigate those evils. I must say that there is something, with all the official knowledge to which I have had access, that to me is inexplicable in the state of our army.'* The second ground for resisting the inquiry, by asserting that sufficient means had been taken to remedy the evils, Lord John declared his inability to adopt: he could not point to remedial measures as having been adopted by his colleagues. Thus embarrassed, not knowing either how to support or to oppose Mr Roebuck's motion, and not seeing how the ministers could escape from their difficulties, his lordship cut the knot by escaping from the ministry himself.

This proceeding, as was soon made evident, greatly surprised the other members of the cabinet. The Earl of Aberdeen did not make any attempt to shake the determination expressed, but proceeded to Windsor, and communicated with the Queen, who at once accepted Lord John Russell's resignation. On the 26th of January, in the House of Lords, the earl, in announcing this event, expressed both surprise and regret ; and on the same evening, in the House of Commons, after Lord John Russell had announced his resignation and the reasons for it, Lord Palmerston, in the midst of kind expressions, temperately censured him for the time and the mode of taking this step. He said: "Though my noble friend might properly and naturally have continued to entertain an opinion that a change was necessary with regard to the person who held the office of Secretary of State for War, yet I must venture humbly to submit to him that that opinion ought to have been repeated to the noble lord at the head of the government before the reassembling of parliament after the late recess. He ought to have given the government the opportunity of stating to him whether or not that proposal would be accepted on his renewal of it. . . . . The course taken by my noble friend, I must venture humbly to submit to him, was not in correspondence with the usual practice of public men. It was one calculated inevitably to place the government to which he belonged in a position of embarrassment in which, at the hands of a colleague at least, they ought not to have been placed.'

The important motion which thus occasioned the retirement of one of the most influential members of the government, was brought before the House of Commons on the same evening marked by the explanations just adverted to— namely, the 26th of January. It was couched in these words: That a select committee be

*Speech in the House of Commons, January 26, 1855.

appointed to inquire into the condition of our army before Sebastopol, and into the conduct of those departments of the government whose duty it has been to minister to the wants of that army. The motion was warmly debated on the 26th and the 29th: several members of the government opposing it on the threefold ground --that the misconduct and miseries were not so great as was publicly supposed; that the government itself was instituting inquiries; and that a parliamentary inquiry on military matters would imperil the cordiality of the alliance between England and France. After a protracted debate on the night of the 29th, the Commons came to a decision at an early hour on the 30th; when, to the amazement of all parties, Mr Roebuck's motion was carried by a majority of 305 to 148-no one having deemed so large a majority probable.

This vote decided the fate of the Aberdeen ministry, and set aside numerous other motions. Lord Lyndhurst, on the 25th, had given notice, in the House of Lords, of a resolution for the 2d of February, to the effect, 'That in the opinion of this House the expedition to the Crimea was undertaken by Her Majesty's government with very inadequate means, and without due caution or sufficient inquiry into the nature and extent of the resistance to be expected from the enemy; and that the neglect and mismanagement of the government in the conduct of the enterprise have led to the most disastrous results;' but this intention underwent modification, consequent on the vote in the Commons. On the 30th, the ministers proposed an adjournment for two days, in the peculiar exigency of public affairs; and on the 1st of February, the Earl of Aberdeen announced in the Lords, and Lord Palmerston in the Commons, that the ministry had resigned, retaining the seals of office only until their successors were appointed. In the Commons, little more than the simple announcement was made; but in the Lords, the Duke of Newcastle dwelt with some severity on the manner in which his name had been used by Lord John Russell. During several days, parliament and the country were kept in uncertainty relating to the ministry, and minor subjects only were discussed. One of these, however, was interesting; inasmuch as General Sir de Lacy Evans appeared in full military uniform in the House of Commons, to receive the thanks of the House for his zealous and intrepid services at the seat of war. The general, while thanking the Speaker for the honour, frankly stated that he believed he had been quite as good a general thirty years earlier, when frowned upon by the Horse Guards and the aristocratic officers in the army. It was not until several days had elapsed, that, by the issuing of new writs for elections in certain boroughs and counties, the House of Commons learned that the seals of office had been transferred to new hands.

The trying difficulties of the position were fully shewn by the negotiations between statesmen at

this juncture. It remained during many days so doubtful whether any ministry could be formed, that deep anxiety was felt throughout the country. The Queen commissioned the Earl of Derby to form a government; and his lordship made many overtures with this view. He first thought of establishing a Conservative ministry, including the Earl of Ellenborough and Sir E. B. Lytton, who had advocated a bold policy in the prosecution of the war; but when he came to measure his strength in the House of Commons as shewn by votes, and in the country as indicated by the press, he felt that he had insufficient support to enable him to carry on the government. Thus baffled, the earl essayed a singular course-the formation of a coalition ministry. The Aberdeen government, comprising Peelites, Whigs, and Liberals, had been mercilessly criticised by the Earl of Derby and his supporters, as an embodiment of that which England abhorred-a coalition of men professing opposite views, a compromise of honest principle when, therefore, the earl proposed an adoption of this very system, he placed himself on the horns of a dilemma from which escape seemed difficult. He made overtures to Lord Palmerston, and through him to Mr Gladstone and Mr Sidney Herbert, three of the most active members of the late government: postponing the consideration of other names until this application had been responded to. The three statesmen, after conferring with each other and with their supporters, declined to join the Earl of Derby in the formation of a ministry: feeling, in all probability, that there was little chance of such a combination working harmoniously for any long continuance, in the peculiar state of public affairs. The earl, making no further attempt, resigned into the Queen's hands the commission he was unable to fulfil. Lord John Russell was then sent for; but the peculiar manner in which he had recently isolated himself from all parties rendered it impossible for his lordship to bring together a working ministry; and thus this attempt also failed. The Queen next consulted the Marquis of Lansdowne, not as a minister but as an adviser, on account of his great experience, knowledge of parties, and high standing; the result of this consultation was, that Lord Palmerston undertook the formation of a ministry a fact announced in both Houses of parliament on the 5th of February.

:

The task undertaken by Lord Palmerston was one of enormous difficulty. Turn to what quarter he might, embarrassments would beset him. As he had boldly stood by the Aberdeen ministry in all its troubles, he could not dissociate himself from sympathy with his late colleagues; and yet, if he identified himself with their policy, he would neither please the Conservatives nor the Liberals, who had for once joined in defeating the Aberdeen government on Mr Roebuck's motion. Many days elapsed before he could surmount the difficulties of his position; but

at length a ministry was announced,* containing so many names compromised by the late vote, and so small an infusion of new blood, that distrust of its permanence became general. The Liberals were disappointed, for they expected a ministry willing to pledge itself to bold reforms in the administration of the state and the army. Whether Lord Palmerston made this selection because it suited his own views and opinions, or because he deemed it best fitted to possess working efficiency in parliament, or because he had no other resource, he boldly undertook the task of government with these as his coadjutors.

On the 16th of February, the new ministry fairly began its labours. The premier made an announcement, shewing that the elements of the old ministry were incorporated in the new to an extent even greater than had been supposed; for Lord John Russell, although not made a cabinet minister, was appointed to the delicate and responsible office of negotiator at a conference about to be held at Vienna concerning the war. Lord Panmure in the House of Peers, and Lord Palmerston in the Lower House, on that same evening, sketched an outline of the army reforms proposed, as shewn to be necessary by the deplorable calamities in the Crimea. Under the influence of these reforms, if carried, the enlistment for soldiers would include recruits of a more varied range in age than under the old system; the recruit would have the privilege of determining the duration of his service, between the limits of one year and ten years; the office of Secretary at War would be abolished, and the duties transferred to the Secretary for War, aided by a sufficient number of competent officials; the Board of Ordnance would be abolished, by transferring the military duties to the Commander-in-chief, and the civil duties to the Secretary for War (conveniently called the War-minister); a transport-board would be appointed by the Admiralty, to prevent the recurrence of such gross blunders as had disgraced the proceedings of the winter; a commission would be sent out, not simply to inquire into the state of matters at the camp and Scutari, but to remedy defects in the sanitary condition of camp, ships, and hospitals; another commission would be sent out-that of Sir John M'Neill and Colonel Tulloch -to inquire into the causes of the wants and sufferings of the army; there would be a 'chief of the staff' appointed, to lessen the enormous duties pressing on the commander of the army in the daily and hourly communications with his

staff; there would be an entire remodelling of the medical department of the army, as soon as it could be effected without interference with the active operations of the war; and, finally, as a means of relieving the commissariat-officers from a part of their too onerous duties, a land-transport corps would be established, analogous in some degree to the wagon-train of an earlier period, and responsible for the due ordering of all necessary means for carrying provisions and other stores to the army.

Thus Lord Palmerston inaugurated his accession to the premiership by a catalogue of improvements, some completed, some in progress, and some about to begin. The time was critical; and the nation, ready to support any minister who would honestly endeavour to remedy admitted abuses, received this catalogue cheerfully, and resolved to overlook the defects in the ministry for the sake of its good elements. But there were rocks ahead. Mr Roebuck's motion still retained its threatening influence: that motion had resulted in a determination by the House of Commons that a committee of the House, uncontrolled by the government, should inquire into the nature and causes of government misdeeds; and as Lord Palmerston was one of those who had abandoned office rather than assent to such a measure, men of all parties looked eagerly for any indications of his forthcoming line of policy. On the 16th, the premier had stated that he retained his objection to the measure on constitutional grounds; and he expressed a hope that the House would at least suspend the appointment of the committee: pledging himself, if this were done, that the government itself would institute a searching inquiry. On the 19th, Mr Layard called attention, in a long speech, to the condition of the country, animadverting on the conduct of the war by the late government, and expressing distrust in the new ministry on account of its containing so many of the old elements; while Lord Palmerston, in reply, urging the country to look forward with hope, frankly engaged to do his best to remedy abuses. Other subjects came on for discussion, and the ministerial progress seemed to be favourable, when suddenly, on the 22d, the House of Commons was startled by an announcement from Lord Palmerston, that Sir James Graham, Mr Gladstone, and Mr Sidney Herbert had resigned their places in his government: thus throwing public affairs once more into confusion. On the 23d, the three ex-ministers assigned their reasons for this step. They stated that a hope had been entertained by the ministry, that the advances already made in administrative reform would be accepted by the House as an earnest of the future; and that the appointment of the committee, under these circumstances, would not be persisted in. It further appeared that no definite understanding had been arrived at between the premier and these three ministers at the time when the ministry was formed; they had believed that the appointment

of the committee would still be resisted by the government, while Lord Palmerston had foreseen the necessity for yielding to it. The subject necessarily came on for discussion in the cabinet; and when the three ministers learned the decision of Lord Palmerston, they resigned. These resignations led to others among the Peel party, and great embarrassment was again felt in the formation of a government. The committee, the motion for which had produced all these dislocations, was appointed on the same evening the explanations were given: it comprised the names of Mr Roebuck, Mr Drummond, Sir J. Pakington, Mr Layard, Colonel Lindsay, Mr Ellice, Lord Seymour, Sir G. C. Lewis, Mr Ball, and Mr Bramston.

The substitutes obtained by Lord Palmerston for the retiring ministers were inferior in parliamentary reputation and administrative experience. Lord John Russell, it is true, became Colonial Secretary; but as he was at the same time diplomatist at Vienna, an incongruity presented itself in his position and functions. Sir G. C. Lewis became Chancellor of the Exchequer; Sir Charles Wood, First Lord of the Admiralty; Mr Vernon Smith, President of the India Board; while numerous changes were made in the subordinate offices. On the 5th of March the committee of the Commons began its inquiry into the 'State of the Army before Sebastopol '-with what result has been stated in the last Chapter. Lord Palmerston made a direct appeal to the members of the committee, leaving to their honour and patriotism the avoidance of any inquiries which might imperil the amicable relations between England and France-an appeal generously responded to by the committee, who checked the questionings when the answers appeared likely to involve any allusions to the French army fighting side by side with the English in the Crimea.

The Palmerston administration, weakened as it was, nevertheless struggled against the difficulties of its position: gradually working out such reforms as the cabinet could agree upon, and as parliament would be likely to sanction; and steering a middle course between the ultra war-party and the peace-party. Three circumstances led to a more ready public acquiescence in the proceedings of the government than would otherwise have been exhibited. In the first place, public affairs had arrived at such a dead-lock, that if the ministry had been defeated, no other seemed possible: it was not apparent to whom else the Queen could apply, to accept and hold the reins of government. In the second place, Lord Palmerston himself held a high place in public estimation, as one well conversant with European politics, and possessing great administrative ability: it was hoped that his talents would atone for some of the deficiencies of the ministry in other particulars. And, lastly, the seals of the Foreign Office continued to be held by the Earl of Clarendon, who had conducted the diplomacy relating to the war from the commencement, and who bore a reputation for

skill, temper, and honesty, in the management of the duties of that very onerous position.

DEATH OF THE CZAR

NICHOLAS.

A startling event occurred while these ministerial changes were yet in progress. The powerful if not great Czar Nicholas died. The autocrat who had inherited an aggressive policy from his predecessors; who had concealed that policy with wonderful sagacity from all but a few far-seeing statesmen; who had gradually and silently constructed fortresses and arsenals of unprecedented magnitude; who had entangled Turkey in a net-work of embarrassments, tending to render that state more and more powerless before him; who had watched closely for the hour when the Ottoman Porte, the 'sick man,' might be brought under his perilous protection;' who had determined rather to wage war with England and France than abandon pretensions which, if conceded, would have made him virtually master over twelve million Christian subjects of the sultan; who had striven, by stern menace and crafty intrigue, to retain Austria and Prussia in his favour; who had placed in jeopardy the commercial prosperity of his kingdom, by enormous levies of men for his army and navy, and vast demands in the shape of taxes and contributions; who had roused up all the intolerance of religious zeal, by converting the war into a holy war of God's favoured people, the Russians, against heretics of all creeds-this man was taken from the scene of strife when that strife was at its hottest leaving to his successor a bitter inheritance.

During the early weeks of 1855, it was rumoured that the czar was in ill health; and those who knew how little prone he was to listen to advice, whether from physicians or from others, augured a possibly unfavourable result, at a time when severity of weather and intensity of mental anxiety combined to affect him. Although suffering from influenza, the czar refused to keep his room, but transacted business in his usual way. On the 22d of February, however, his resolution no longer availed him: he consented to remain within his private apartments, which he never again left alive. On the 23d, he transferred all authority in imperial matters to his eldest son Alexander. Day by day he became worse; until, on the 1st of March, his physician ventured to announce to him that the end was approaching. The dying czar heard this announcement with a firmness befitting his character; he took the sacrament, bade a last farewell to the wife who had shared his throne during so many years, kissed all his children and grandchildren, personally thanked the principal servants of the household for their faithful services, and then lost the faculty of speech for a few hours. On the morning of the 2d, he regained the power of expressing a few sounds; and among the last

words he was heard to utter were: Tell Fritz to remain constant to Russia, and not to forget the words of his father.' The Fritz' here mentioned was Frederick William of Prussia; but the exact meaning of the latter part of the message was left in obscurity to all but those immediately concerned. At about noon, the Emperor Nicholas ceased to live.

As if to add to the noteworthy event of this day, a proof was afforded of the power possessed by one of the most brilliant mechanical inventions of any age the electric-telegraph. The death of Nicholas was known in half the capitals of Europe on the very day on which it occurred! When the House of Lords met at five o'clock on that evening, for the despatch of public business in the usual way, the Earl of Clarendon said: 'My lords, I feel it my duty to communicate to your lordships the contents of a telegraphic dispatch I received half an hour ago from Her Majesty's minister at the Hague; it is as follows: "The Emperor Nicholas died this day, at one o'clock, of pulmonic apoplexy, after an attack of influenza." I have also received a dispatch from Her Majesty's minister at Berlin, stating that the Emperor of Russia died at twelve o'clock, about an hour before these dispatches arrived.' The same announcement was made by Lord Palmerston in the Commons; and the news spread the same evening over the country, from Aberdeen in the north-east to Plymouth in the south-west-not merely figuratively, but actually with the speed of lightning; for the electric current was the messenger. Another remarkable circumstance connected with the death of the czar was, that Lord John Russell was at that moment in Berlin, on his way to Vienna to attend a conference of diplomatists: having made a short sojourn at the first-named city, to endeavour, by an interview with the Prussian king and ministers, to facilitate the discussion of peace proposals at the conference. Lord Lyndhurst, a short time previously, had given notice of a motion for this very 2d of March, concerning the negotiations for peace; and consequently the Earl of Clarendon, after announcing the czar's death, added: 'As this unexpected event must exercise so important and immediate an influence on the war, on the negotiations for peace that are now going on, and possibly on the policy of Russia, I think my noble friend will agree with me that it might be attended with much inconvenience if he brought forward his motion this evening. I therefore trust that he will not, on public grounds, object to the request I take the liberty of making.' Lord Lyndhurst consented, not to withdraw, but to postpone his motion.

The great czar being dead, the busy tongues of nations quickly asked-did he die a natural death? The past history of Russia has presented so many examples of emperors and princes arriving at an untimely end, that a suspicion arose of something analogous in this case: these suspicions, however, received no support from any facts made

public; and the death is fairly attributable to a bodily illness attacking one whose mind had suffered much irritation and anxiety. On the day after the death, Dr A. B. Granville communicated to the Times a remarkable document relating to the mental habitudes of Nicholas, and of the czars generally. This physician resided at St Petersburg during many weeks in 1849, in medical attendance on a high personage at the imperial court; and while so employed, he made observations leading him to certain opinions on the characteristics of the czars and their relations. These opinions were embodied in a letter addressed to Lord Palmerston four years afterwards, at a time when the Russo-Turkish troubles were becoming serious. One paragraph of the letter ran thus: The Western cabinets find the conduct of the Emperor Nicholas strange, preposterous, inconsistent, unexpected. They wonder at his demands; they are startled at his state-papers; they cannot comprehend their context; they recognise not in them the clear and close reasoning of the Nestor of Russian diplomacy, but rather the dictates of an iron will to which he has been made to affix his name; they view the emperor's new international principles as extravagant; they doubt if he be under the guidance of wise counsels. Yet they proceed to treat, negotiate, and speak as if none of these perplexing novelties in diplomacy existed on the part of a power hitherto considered as the model of political loyalty.' Dr Granville proceeded to argue that the czar should be treated rather as a man suffering under monomania, not fully master of himself; that Nicholas, in the later years of his life, had become irritable, passionate, superstitious, capricious, precipitate, obstinate; that ill health, unskilfully treated, had brought on a cerebral excitement, impelling him to extravagant measures- such as had been exhibited by the Emperor Paul in 1800, the Emperor Alexander in 1820, the Grand-duke Constantine in 1830, and the Grand-duke Michael in 1848-9; that the father and the four brothers had all exhibited traits of connate insanity; that Paul, Alexander, Constantine, and Michael had all died with apoplectic symptoms; that ten weeks' observation of Nicholas, in 1849, had brought into view many strange freaks in his mental deportment; and, finally, that Dr Granville had made all this known to the English government, at some hazard of professional delicacy, as a means of shewing the necessity for treating the czar in a different manner in all political discussions. It further appeared that, at an interview with Lord Palmerston in February 1854, Dr Granville, in reply to a question concerning an opinion before expressed, ventured to predict that the czar would barely reach his 59th birthday; 'let but a few reverses overtake the emperor, and his death, like that of all his brothers, will be sudden.' In making this remarkable communication to the Times, Dr Granville added: 'It has proved so. Alma, Inkermann, Balaklava, shook the mighty