On the 22nd January, when the parliament assembled after the Christmas

recess, Mr. Roebuck gave notice of a motion for inquiry into the number

and condition of the army before Sebastopol, and into the conduct

of those departments of government which were responsible for the

efficiency of that army. This notice produced the gravest consequences:

the house was thrown, into a high state of excitement, and the treasury

benches especially partook of it. It is marvellous that the government

did not prepare itself for some such occurrence; but, as in the

management of the war, so in the management of the house, they were

always “too late”—so that the nickname of “the late ministry” was

bestowed upon them while yet they held, with whatever firmness they at

any time possessed, the reins of power.

Rumours on Thursday evening, the 21st of January, prevailed extensively

that Lord John Russell had resigned his connection with the ministry,

and on grounds of the most startling and alarming nature. The evening

papers came out earlier than usual, acknowledging the fact, and

commenting upon it according to the spirit of their respective party

bias. On Monday evening, the 25th, it was announced in both houses that

Lord J. Russell had resigned his connection with the ministry. Both

houses adjourned to the next evening, in order to learn the grounds upon

which Lord John had come to that determination. Having the _entrée_

of the houses, the author of this History hurried to the palace at

Westminster. Vast crowds surrounded it, and public excitement and

expectation were at a very high pitch. In the lords, the chancellor

took his seat, and the house of lords, with a dull gravity, began its

business. The proceedings were important, from the announcement made and

the explanation given by the Duke of Newcastle, the minister of war. His

bearing was gentlemanly, and there was an air of conciliation about it

which bespoke the thoroughbred gentleman. His voice was low, and his

manner in speaking ungainly; an awkward and finicking gesture with the

right hand below the table, to which he advanced when speaking, gave an

idea of pettiness of thought, which his manner in other respects aided.

The Earls of Winchelsea and Fitzwilliam seemed very desirous to have

something to say; no one seemed willing to listen, and at last, by

Lord Derby’s interposition, they were “quieted down.” Lord Ellenborough

manifested most activity on the opposition side of the house, and what

he said was spoken with energy, self-confidence, and commanding manner.

Lord Lansdowne was the most active person on the ministerial benches,

he moved about with a grace and affability which account for his great

popularity in the house. His mode of putting down the pertinacity of

Lord Fitzwilliam and Lord Winchelsea was authoritative, yet courteous,

and in a few epigrammatic sentences he disposed of them. The most

interesting sight was, however, old Lord Lyndhurst, who rose to give

notice of his already famous motion concerning the conduct of the war.

The house was very full of spectators. When his lordship rose, the

silence was profound, and his venerable years, the magnitude of the

question which his notice involved, his vast reputation, and his

dignified and judicial manner, inspired a respect which manifestly

pervaded every part of the house. The crowd around the throne seemed

especially solicitous to observe his lordship when he rose. We could

not avoid contrasting the intellectual features of the old ex-chancellor

with the contracted expression of the occupant of the woolsack, and

wondering what the latter would be like at the age of eighty-four,

to which Lord Lyndhurst had arrived. The important event of Lord John

Russell’s resignation, announced by the Duke of Newcastle, prevented the

discussion of Lord Lyndhurst’s motion, and caused the house to break up

early.

On the next evening, Lord Aberdeen’s statement in the peers was almost

as eagerly looked for as Lord John Russell’s statement in the commons.

The earl declared that he hardly knew why the noble president of

the council retired from his colleagues, on the eve of a discussion

concerning events in connection with which he fully shared their

responsibility. The premier admitted that he had been aware that the

noble president of the council had been dissatisfied with the general

management of the war; that he had expressed that dissatisfaction, and

had made certain proposals concerning the occupation of the war office,

with which he (Lord Aberdeen) did not think it his duty to comply;

that he, and the government of which he was the head, would resist

Mr. Roebuck’s motion, which he considered a vote of censure upon the

ministry. The premier’s address was cold, stiff, haughty, and quietly

defiant, but did not appear to make the least impression upon the peers,

who were, like the rest of the public, burning with impatience to know

the terms and result of Lord John’s explanation in the commons. We

did not remain in the house of peers, being more anxious, like their

lordships, about what was announced to occur in the other house. Lord

John Russell made his famous statement. Perhaps no statement was ever

made in parliament which excited so profound an interest. Every nook in

the house was full, except a small portion of the ministerial gallery.

The most conspicuous persons were two Parsee merchants, dressed in a

showy oriental costume, who occupied the first bench in the Speaker’s

gallery, and who, the previous evening, were admitted behind the throne

in the lords. Lord John was nearly inaudible at first, his elocution

throughout the speech was inferior, and utterly unworthy of his great

name as a speaker. He was listened to with evident partiality, and every

period which told at all against the conduct of the war elicited cheers

from the opposition, and the ministerial benches were far from silent on

these occasions. After his lordship sat down, Lord Palmerston arose on

behalf of the government, amidst breathless expectations. His adroitness

was extraordinary, and his intellectual superiority to his notable

compeer obvious; but it was equally obvious that Lord John’s moral

influence was in the ascendant, and the latter part of Lord Palmerston’s

statement was heard with impatience, which extended to the galleries,

although the order of the house was more than once invaded by

expressions of approbation to the anti-ministerial remarks of Lord John.

It became evident from Lord Palmerston’s address, that his lordship

would be installed in the war-office, if the motion of Mr. Roebuck

failed. Mr. Roebuck did not speak with his usual energy, but although

illness incapacitated him, his voice rang out as clear as a bell, and

every tone told upon the whole house. His speech was devoid of that

acrimony which pervades so generally the matter and the manner of the

honourable member for Sheffield. The government seemed indisposed to

reply; but loud calls from all sides for Sidney Herbert, provoked the

right hon. secretary to one of his best elocutionary efforts. We were

certainly most unfavourably impressed with his deportment all through

the evening. There was a bitterness of expression in his countenance

while Lord John was speaking, and a sneer and a whisper to his

colleagues whenever Lord John made a good hit, which argued a

consciousness of error, and a bad spirit with it. But Mr. Layard utterly

demolished the case of Mr. Herbert, and with a gravity of purpose,

fulness of information, discreet distribution of subject, and logical

cogency, which mark that gentleman as one of the most rising men in the

commons, and in the country. The government were literally overwhelmed

with his speech. The impressions of the oldest observers of

parliamentary proceedings whom we met, declared they had never witnessed

such a moral defeat.

It may be readily believed that Lord John Russell’s speech prepared the

way for Mr. Roebuck’s motion. The “honourable and learned member” was

in bad health, but although unable to express all he had intended to lay

before the commons, he produced a decided impression upon the house. The

fact of being unable to continue his speech from weakness rather added

to the effect; so that Mr. Disraeli truly said that, were not the house

aware of the learned member’s illness, the abrupt termination of his

address on such a plea, and at such a moment, might appear an ingenious

and rhetorical artifice. In his argument, Mr. Roebuck charged the

government, the officials at home, and those in command abroad, with

incapacity, conceit, and indifference to the welfare of the soldiery.

When at last the house divided, the motion was supported by 305 members,

and opposed by only 148, leaving a majority of 157—one of the largest,

on a great public question involving the fate of a government, ever

known in the house of commons. The announcement was received with

exultant cheers from both sides of the house. The extinction of the

ministry was decided; the house and the country accepted the vote, not

merely as an expression of want of confidence politically, but as a

vote of censure morally and politically. Yet in this grave emergency the

house adjourned, in order to observe the anniversary of “King Charles

the Martyr!” Incredible as this may appear, while the country was in the

most imminent peril, such was the fact.

A cabinet council was called, and the ministry, of course, resolved to

resign. The queen and court were in great suspense and excitement, being

very unwilling to accept the resignation of the cabinet. They were

the prince’s friends and favourites, and her majesty therefore was

disinclined to their forfeiture of office, and was prepared for any

constitutional measure which would give back to them the possession

of place and power. When the noble earl at the head of the government

resigned the seals of office, he recommended her majesty to seek advice

from the Earl of Derby. This noble earl had made some of the best

speeches he had ever delivered during the war debates, and his views on

the subject showed superior information and superior judgment to what

the ministry, in their aggregate capacity, possessed in connection with

foreign politics and war. It was, however, eventually, Lord Palmerston,

to whom, after many intrigues and much public agitation, the task was

confided.

Lord Palmerston, after some difficulty, succeeded in forming a

government, which was in fact but a reconstruction of the old one. Lord

Aberdeen, the Duke of Newcastle, and Lord John Russell, were left out;

and the only accession was Lord Panmure, who was nominated secretary of

war. This nobleman was better known to the country, and perhaps to other

countries, as the Honourable Fox Maule. He had considerable experience

in ministerial matters, and was regarded both by statesmen and by the

public as an upright and amiable man. From 1846 to 1852 he served in

the Bussell administration as secretary at war: he afterwards served

as president of the board of control, until the breaking up of the

ministry. On Tuesday, the 8th of February, the new ministry was

completed, and was thus arranged:—

First Lord of the Treasury........ Viscount Palmerston.

Lord Chancellor .................. Lord Cranworth.

President of the Council.......... Earl Granville.

Privy Seal........................ Duke of Argyle.

Foreign Secretary ............... Earl of Clarendon.

Home Secretary .................. Right Hon. S. Herbert.

Colonial Secretary .............. Sir George Grey.

Minister of War ................. Lord Panmure.

Chancellor or the Exchequer....... Right Hon.W.E. Gladstone.

First Lord of the Admiralty....... Sir James Graham.

Public Works ..................... Sir W. Molesworth.

In the Cabinet, but without office The Marquis of Lansdowne.

President of the Board of Control Sir Charles Wood.

On the 16th of February the house met for the transaction of business,

and very eager was the public ear for the words that should fall from

the lips of the new premier. He informed the house, with brevity and

clearness, of the circumstances which placed him in the situation he

then held; and bespoke in energetic, self-reliant, and courteous terms,

the confidence of the commons of England.

It was generally known that negotiations were about to be opened in

Vienna, with a view to a treaty of peace. Lord Palmerston took the

country, if not the house, by surprise in announcing that he had chosen

Lord John Russell as the representative of England at the conference

about to ensue. This gave public satisfaction, as Lord John Russell’s

recent conduct, and the general disclosure upon the breaking up of the

cabinet, showed that his lordship had been a very warlike member of it.*

* Nolan’s “History of the War against Russia.” London: J.

S. Virtue

The cabinet of Lord Palmerston was not destined to remain long unbroken.

When the period arrived for appointing a committee of inquiry, in

virtue of Mr. Roebuck’s motion, it became evident that the ministry

was divided. The Peelites were in favour of an attempt to defeat

the appointment of a committee. Lord Palmerston was opposed to its

appointment also, but would not risk the overthrow of his power by any

attempt to thwart the wishes of the house. The Peelites resigned,

and the cabinet had to be reconstructed. On the 22nd of February the

secession was publicly announced.

Lord Palmerston obtained Sir Charles Wood—a man of inferior talents,

but superior moral weight—in place of Sir G. Graham. Sir G. Cornewall

Lewis became chancellor of the exchequer, who was much inferior to Mr.

Gladstone in that post, but a man of more direct and reliable opinions.

Mr. Vernon Smith was made president of the board of control. Lord John

Russell, who was (as before noticed) nominated to the Vienna conference,

accepted the colonial-office, which Sir George Grey occupied _ad

interim_, as well as the home-office, which he accepted _en permanence_.

The secession of those men from the cabinet, to whom our military

disasters were mainly attributable, was a gain to its moral influence,

and saved the premiership of Lord Palmerston from an extinction,

probably, as signal as that of his predecessor. In the month of March

the ministry was modified in its inferior offices in a way calculated

to improve its strength. Generally, throughout the united kingdom, it

inspired confidence and received support.

One of the last acts of the Aberdeen ministry was to establish an order

of military merit for bravery—the Victoria Cross.

Upon the resignation of the Aberdeen ministry, the court paid signal

attention to its members; and the fallen premier received the highest

badge of honour the queen could bestow—the Order of the Garter.

This excited loud murmurs throughout the country, and impaired public

confidence in the vigour of will possessed by the premier, when the will

of the court was expressed apart from the great and leading principles

of his policy.

The estimates for the service of 1855 were much discussed in the house,

and were generally considered far below the exigencies of the country.

The estimates for the army were £13,721,158; for the navy, £10,716,388;

for the transport service, £5,181,465; for the ordnance, £7,808,042. The

whole nearly equalling thirty-seven millions and a half sterling.

With the discussions of March, and the consolidations of the cabinet,

ended the parliamentary events, of the year most worthy of note;

although various discussions, full of interest and importance, arose

from time to time throughout the whole of the session. Those which were

most vital to the government arose out of the negotiations of Vienna,

where Lord John Russell appeared as the chief representative of England.

The sittings of this conference were held in March and April. Both Lord

John Russell and the French plenipotentiary agreed to terms which, as

they were ultimately rejected by the allied governments, need not be

referred to here.

The unsuccessful termination of the Vienna conferences produced a great

sensation in England and France, murmurs were heard in both countries

that their negotiators had laboured without results; and both the

English and French plenipotentiaries were compelled by public opinion to

retire from their offices in the cabinets of their respective countries.

Count Nesselrode addressed an artful note to the ministers and agents

of Russia in various states, the object of which was to represent the

allies as resisting all conciliatory offers on the part of Russia. The

tone and representations of the note were identical with the arguments

of Gortschakoff and Titoff at the conference. The French plenipotentiary

and foreign minister resigned his place in the imperial cabinet; the

English plenipotentiary and colonial minister retained office until the

cause of the French minister’s retirement became known; and his conduct

contrasted very favourably in English opinion to that of the English

minister. Earl Clarendon and Lord Palmerston held back from the British

parliament and public a correct knowledge of the facts, until it

transpired, through Parisian gossip, that the French, English, and

Austrian ministers were willing to accept peace on the condition of

Russia and the allies keeping an equal naval armament in the Black Sea.

The way in which Austria had hoodwinked the Western negotiators, and

played into the hands of Russia, became at last evident; and Lord John

Russell was forced to leave the English ministry. There were other

results of the conference, and these rapidly developed themselves. It

was no doubt a conviction on the part of the Russian government that its

duplicity throughout these negotiations, and its falsehood in accepting

as a basis the four points, had deprived it of all moral influence

in Europe, that led to the crafty and deceptive circular of Count

Nesselrode, already referred to, in which he sought to persuade the

world that Russia was—as some of the English peace lecturers frequently

represented—a most ill-used nation. If no other result than that of

unmasking Russia—even to the Peelites and their supporters—were

attendant upon those conferences, it was so much gained for the prospect

of a more united public opinion in England. But these negotiations tore

the mask from Austria; she was evidently not an ally of the Western

powers, but an accomplice of the foe; she dreaded Russia, but she was

still more afraid of France.

When the people of the united kingdom and their representatives in the

commons had time to review all these things, the outcry against Lord

John Russell was as great as it had been before against Lord Aberdeen.

The popular voice stopped the pens and silenced the tongues of the

diplomatists, and negotiations gave place to fierce and sanguinary war.

England, however, became disgusted with professional and ministerial

diplomatists, and denounced all negotiations with Russia until, by sword

and lance, rifle and cannon, the foe was humiliated.

There can be no question that the energy and force of the popular

sentiment—often right, though sometimes erroneous, and sometimes

obstinately and wilfully wrong—have occasionally interfered with the

success of negotiations. But this is one of the evils inseparable from

a free government. The French court, from the death of Louis XIV., was

anxious to pursue a pacific policy, to improve their marine, and to

pursue Colbert’s maxim, that a long war was not for the benefit of

France. But the democratic party, which had been formed before the death

of Louis XV., employed diplomatic agents at every court to upset and

overturn the pacific policy of that king’s ambassadors.*

* Vide “la Politique de tous les Cabinets de L’Europe.”

This is one of the few disadvantages attendant upon constitutional

states in negotiation; but, _per contra_., such states also enjoy some

pre-eminent advantages. In such states foreign powers do not co-operate

with domestic factions, as they sometimes do in more absolute

monarchies.

Presence of mind, coolness, and firmness, tell oftener in negotiations

than mere talent and learning. The presence of mind of Augustus, who

was of doubtful valour, obtained an ascendancy over Marc Antony, a brave

soldier, but wanting in proper firmness.

Richelieu preferred firmness and patience in a negotiator to any other

qualities. Suppleness, no doubt, often supplies the place of patience,

and the man who can tack and veer was formerly not without his value;

but the time for using these small wares has now passed for ever. They

have been worn threadbare by a politician of our day, and are foul

in the nostrils of every civilized nation. In the middle ages, and

in Italian courts, such tricks may have been necessary, but they are

unsuitable to constitutional states. A pope of Rome is recorded to have

said of the Abbé Polignac:—“This young man always appears to be of my

opinion at first, but at the end of the conversation, I find I am of

his.” Such an “artful dodge” and dissembler would be disrelished now

by all pure and honest men. An attempt has been made by some French

writers to attribute the science of negotiation to Mazarin. But the

science existed before the time of the wily cardinal, or even of that

good King Dagobert who, according to the old rhyme, “_Mit sa culotte

à l’envers_;” and France, and other modern countries, as well as Egypt,

Greece, and Rome, had produced great negotiators.

On the 14th of August parliament was prorogued, and soon after the

ministry showed renewed activity in the work of diplomacy, without

any advantage to the nation. The policy of the prorogation was much

arraigned by the public; but the evening on which it took place tidings

arrived of the bombardment of Sweaborg, which drew away the public

attention to a real and brilliant, although partial, triumph.

[Illustration: 848.jpg BOMBARDMENT OF SWEABORG]

THE CONDUCT OF THE WAR—OPERATIONS IN THE CRIMEA AND BLACK SEA.

January opened upon the starving British army still more terribly

than the December of 1854 closed. The French also suffered, but their

superior military organization, commissariat, and care of the sick,

spared them many miseries which afflicted the whole of the British

lines. It was remarkable in the British army that very few officers

perished of cold, none of hunger, while their men fell in such numbers.

Very few officers died from sickness, unless such as fell victims to

cholera, which smote with impartial hand the poor private and his titled

chief. Various sick and wounded officers died in consequence of not

having been removed in sufficient time to the Bosphorus, or to such

other quarters as were not only possible, but convenient, had it

not been for the heartless and stupid routine by which the heads of

departments, at home and abroad, civil and military, were guided. It was

the more remarkable that so few officers died in the camp in proportion

to the men who perished, as the proportions were reversed in combat.

The facts were, that the officers in battle exposed themselves more

gallantly than the men, nobly, although, the latter fought and fell; but

in the lines, and at Balaklava, out upon the plain below the plateau,

and in the trenches, the officers had such comforts as were procurable

for money, and which were unattainable to the men. Stores sent to the

soldiers were plundered at Balaklava, and sold in the trenches by Turks,

Greeks, Tartars, and rogues of all nations who had followed the army.

Those who had money purchased, and fared comparatively well; the poorer

soldiers hungered and died. The medical regimental officers behaved

nobly; but, generally, they were unwilling to complain of any want of

stores and medicines, as they, by doing so, incurred the resentment

of the medical chiefs, and their promotion was suspended, or prevented

altogether. It became necessary at last to introduce the civil element

into the medical care of the army. Among the efforts put forth to this

end was the establishment of a civil hospital at Smyrna. The government

encouraged various medical men of eminence to abandon their professional

prospects in London and go to the East. These men were regarded

with jealousy by their brethren in the military service, and with

indifference and want of courtesy very frequently by military men in

high official positions, The government which, like preceding ministers,

had in its contracts for the public service obtained such unenviable

notoriety for breach of faith, signalized itself in an especial manner

in violating honour and duty with the medical civil officers. This was

especially seen in the requital of the officers attached to the hospital

at Smyrna. In “Nolan’s History of the War against Russia” there is

incorporated an account of the Smyrna hospital, by a very gifted and

learned man,* which is too long for quotation here, but which will

exemplify all that is here stated of an evil so great, and injustice so

flagitious.

* Dr. Arthur Leared, Finsbury Place, South, and 12, Old

Burlington Street, London. Chap, xlviii., pp. 810, 811.

According to the imperial commissioner with the French army, the month

of January “was fertile in partial combats, and sudden but sanguinary

and obstinate struggles.” Mr. Woods, the correspondent of the London

_Morning Herald_, affirmed that the combats were useless skirmishes.

February in the Crimea was chiefly signalized by the battle of

Eupatoria, which, as shown in a previous section of this chapter,

issued in the signal defeat of the Russian army by Omar’ Pasha, and was

probably the cause of the czar’s death. The accession of Alexander II.

to the throne of the Russian empire, while it encouraged diplomatic

efforts for peace, led to renewed efforts for war, the young emperor

being anxious to show his people zeal for “the orthodox church,” and

reverence for the policy of his predecessor, whom Russia regarded as

a saint and a martyr. The Emperor Alexander resolved upon a desperate

effort to bring the war to an issue favourable to his empire by force

of arms, unless, through the instrumentality of Austria at the Vienna

conference, he could more cheaply conquer peace.

During the month of March, the allies became more active in the siege of

Sebastopol. Efforts were put forth of a sanitary nature, which improved

the health of the troops, and means of storage and transport were

greatly facilitated and enlarged. The soldiers rallied with better food

and more favourable weather.

The English generals displayed more activity, but did not inspire more

confidence in the troops. Sorties and combats continued. The Russian

forces in the Crimea were also refreshed and recruited, although the

efforts to accomplish these things drained the resources of the empire.

On the 20th of the month it was known that Prince Gortschakoff succeeded

Prince Menschikoff in command of the Russian Crimean forces. The latter

prince—the cause of so many troubles, a blind zealot, whose influence

over the Emperor Nicholas was most unhappy—was wounded and disabled.

The Russian admiral, Istomine, a very brave man, was killed in the

Mamelon Fort. Burial truces, combats, and sorties closed the month. In

one of these the pious and heroic Captain Vicars fell.

During April the allies made powerful efforts again to bombard the

place, The troops continued to suffer through March and the first week

of April, although their situation was meliorated from day to day;

the spirits of the men were recruited, and an ambition to signalize

themselves by some decisive feat of arms was evident among them.

During this period, the Black Sea fleet operated in watching the enemy’s

coasts in that sea, and in harassing him in his harbours in the Sea of

Azoff.

On the 8th of April Sebastopol was once more bombarded. The English

shells were, in a vast proportion, harmless from their bad manufacture.

The bombardment eventually failed; the industry, energy, and

perseverance of the Russians enabling them to repair the earthworks and

batteries as fast as their demolition by the allies seemed to advance.

April was signalized by such marked differences of opinion between the

French and English generals, that co-operation before Sebastopol was

difficult, and impossible elsewhere, although plans for operations at

other places were discussed.

May opened brightly and beautifully, as it generally does in the Crimea,

and all around the trampled plateau was decked with flowers, which

sprung up with wonderful rapidity in the most unlikely places,

displaying their grace even among the tents of the warriors. May

was attended by as unhappy differences of opinion between the allied

generals as was April, although the presence of General Pelissier in the

French army tended to promote good feeling and generous forbearance.

Much sickness was experienced in May by the troops of the English army,

and the extravagance, dirt, and confusion of the transport service

caused a heavier sick list than would otherwise have been reported.

The King of Sardinia having joined the alliance against Russia, several

thousand fine troops from that nation landed at Balaklava. They

were eventually quartered upon the Tchernaya, and, with some Turkish

detachments, and French divisions, held at bay the Russian army in

the field, and rendered all further operations of the enemy against

Balaklava impossible.

An expedition was sent against Kertch.

When May closed, the allies and the Russians confronted one another, in

formidable force, upon the opposite heights of the Tchernaya.

June was an eventful month before Sebastopol. It began with a third

bombardment of the gallant city, which, like previous ones, was a

failure—the means of the allies, vast as they were, being inadequate

to the undertaking. The French made a successful attack upon the White

Works and the Mamelon; and the British were equally successful in

attacks upon the Quarries, by which the part of the Russian lines which

they opposed were protected. The Russians made desperate, but eventually

abortive, attempts to retake all these positions.

The third bombardment having failed, the allies lost no time in bringing

fresh resources of attack and storm against the defences. A fourth

bombardment produced signal havoc and extensive dilapidation. On the

18th of the month, the allies attempted to take the place. A combined

assault of a most sanguinary nature was made and defeated. This defeat

was accompanied and followed by the loss of many distinguished officers

in the British army. On the 28th the English commander-in-chief died.

Illness and anxiety, with chagrin at his failure in conducting the siege

to the satisfaction of his country, brought on his death. Cholera was

the immediate agent in his removal. General Simpson succeeded to the

command of the British army, through the instrumentality of his patron

and countryman, Lord Panmure. He was still less competent than Lord

Raglan for so great a responsibility, and the people of the United

Kingdom were indignant at the jobbing and patronage to which the

interests of the country were sacrificed. General Simpson while he

remained in command was in every respect feeble, and a mere cipher in

the hands of the French general. Lord Raglan, by his reserve, dignity of

manner, and high rank, preserved influence and respect notwithstanding

his inactivity and dulness; but General Simpson possessed no qualities

that could set off or redeem his utter incompetency, unless, perhaps,

his modesty, and the absence of all self-seeking about him. He urged

upon his government that he was unequal to so great an appointment, but

Lord Panmure insisted in thrusting the honour upon him.

General Simpson, on his assumption of command, ordered the siege to

be prosecuted without intermission, in the hope of giving a fresh and

successful assault. The month of July and part of August witnessed the

progress of events for the grand and final struggle, but before it could

take place, incidents apart from the siege excited general attention in

Europe. Lord Raglan had been very anxious for operations against Kertch,

and ordered a second expedition against it, which was successful, and

was a means of greatly annoying, distracting, and injuring the Russians.

After the failure of the assault on the 18th of June, the opposing hosts

on the Tchernaya assumed gradually a more menacing attitude, so that

from the middle of July a battle was daily and even hourly expected.

It was the interest of the Russians to strike the first blow, and the

allies prepared to ward it off, and, if possible, deal in return a

more deadly stroke. The great trial of strength on the banks and steep

acclivities of “the Black River” was destined to occur in August. On the

16th, the Russians attacked the whole line of the French and Sardinian

posts, and, after a long and sanguinary battle, were defeated. This

decisive repulse of the Russian army in the field, left the allies more

at liberty to prosecute to perfection the works necessary to secure a

successful assault. Before that event occurred the British experienced

many serious losses; a surprising number of regimental officers fell in

conflict or died. The disgraceful state of the English transports caused

many deaths. The same inaptness and incompetency for general management

characterized the English chiefs as at the very beginning of the siege.

The British army experienced a serious injury in the retirement of

Lieutenant-general Sir Richard England. He had probably endured more

fatigue, and worked on with more patience, perseverance, and continuity

of action than any officer in the British army. One by one the English

chiefs had fallen away by death, or wounds, or sickness, General

England, with frame of iron and indomitable will, still bearing up,

although sharing cold, watchings, labours, and privations with his

soldiers in a way characteristic of his generous nature and military

temper. He was perhaps the least ostentatious soldier in either army. He

never put himself forward prominently, but was always ready to perform

the most arduous task committed to him with scrupulous precision, and

quiet and indomitable resolution. Had he not offended the agents of

the press by his resolution of not allowing any reporters within his

division—under the conviction, probably erroneous, that the reports

which found their way into the English papers, gave information to the

enemy injurious to the service—he would have had many a gallant deed,

and his stern uncompromising sense of duty, emblazoned to the world. His

health at last suffered so severely, that he was obliged to return home,

shortly before the grand conquest was achieved.

September opened with the immediate preliminaries of the grand struggle.

The final bombardment of the strong city began. The number of guns

with which the allies opened the bombardment was 803. On the old French

attack there were 332 pieces; on the French Inkerman attack, 267 pieces:

making a total in the two separate French attacks of 599 pieces of

ordnance.

The English had 204 pieces, consisting of 91 mortars, and 113 guns.

The bombardment began upon the 5th,—the heaviest ever known in the

history of sieges. Terrible mischief was effected by the constant

discharge of so many engines of destruction; and the alarm and distress

of the inhabitants and garrison could be witnessed from the lines of the

besiegers. The following extract from the author’s “History of the

War against Russia,” describes with brevity and accuracy the final

bombardment.

When the sun set, the shells, rockets, and other fiery missives from the

besieging lines, sped like flights of meteors over the enemy’s works,

and searched the recesses of the city. Throughout the night of the 5th a

fire of musketry had been directed against the faces of the works to

be assailed; but on that of the 6th, this was more sustained and heavy.

During the 6th, the enemy made a comparatively feeble resistance. On

the early morning of the 7th, the bombardment gave place to a cannonade,

which was as terrible as if opening for the first time., The enemy

opened a galling fire from their Inkerman batteries across the harbour

upon the French right, sweeping the batteries of the latter, slaying

many, and damaging the works. A strong wind blew the smoke from the

town, accompanied by clouds of dust, into the faces of the besiegers,

impeding their aim, and rendering it difficult for them to observe the

effect of their shot.

At half-past three a fine two-decker in the harbour was set on fire, and

continued to burn through the remainder of the day and all night, with

a flame exceeding in intensity and volume that of previous ships. A fire

also broke suddenly forth in the rear of the Great Redan. Late in the

evening another broke out in the town over the Woronzoff Road, and

another at the head of the dock-yard. The combined effect of all these

conflagrations was terrible beyond description, associated as they were

with the deafening roar of at least 1000 pieces of cannon, for as many

were constantly engaged, notwithstanding that the number of the enemy’s

guns silenced was very great. When daylight died the cannonade was, as

before, succeeded by a bombardment, with all its fierce concomitants.

The Russians showed throughout the night a constant apprehension

of assault, for they threw showers of vertical grape-shot; and

notwithstanding the glare of the flames from the burning ships, and

the fires in the city, they lighted up their works with fire-ball and

carcasses. They repeatedly threw bouquets into the trenches of the

French. Thus, until the morning of the 8th, shells and rockets fell in

fiery deluge upon Sebastopol, and the roll of the musketry against the

faces of the chief defences never ceased. On the morning of the 8th

the cannonade began with the day, and was delivered more rapidly and

fiercely than before. Meanwhile preparations were made for the assault.

The assault on the English side was unsuccessful; the same bad

generalship which marred the actions of the English so frequently

throughout the war, threw its fatal influence over their efforts on the

terrible day of the 8th of September. The French would also have failed,

in all probability, had they not effected a surprise, by suddenly

seizing the Malakoff, the key of the defence, at a moment when the

Russians felt secure that no attack would be made. The French with great

courage and adroitness secured the advantage gained, and that advantage

was decisive of the contest. The Russians, after a vain struggle,

retreated from Southern Sebastopol, having lost a multitude of slain,

and leaving vast spoil in the hands of the captors.

The tidings of this result was spread by the electric wire and by

the press until all Europe caught the exultation and rejoiced

everywhere—except in the courts of Naples and Athens, and among the

members of the Greek church, who, wherever they were scattered, showed

the utmost sympathy for Russian tyranny and bigotry.

During September, the allies gathered the spoils of war from the

conquered city. October and November afforded fine weather for military

operations, but nothing of importance was done by the allied commanders

from the basis of operations before Sebastopol; while the Russians still

lay in strength beyond the Tchernaya, and held Northern Sebastopol in

greater strength than ever.

General Simpson resigned his command, in obedience to the popular

opinion at home; and General Codrington, a general of less than two

years standing, assumed the important post. Discord among the allied

commanders, and intrigues in the French foreign-office and the imperial

court of France, paralyzed the vigorous purposes of the English cabinet.

The French emperor wished to conciliate his brother autocrat of Russia,

and was unwilling to strike a blow which in proportion as it humbled

Russia exalted England. A fear lest any glory or influence in the East

should accrue to England swayed the French ministry. Napoleon had other

designs which England was less likely to favour than was Alexander II.,

and the policy adopted was to gain an ally in the enemy which England

aided him to subdue.

A second winter encampment before Sebastopol was necessary. The dreary

plateau was once more the abode of the weary and suffering soldiers

during the inclement period which terminated the year in the Crimea.

The British soldiers were, however, cheered by increased numbers and

efficiency, and by the care and comfort which the indignant patriotism

of the British people compelled the government to bestow upon its noble

army.

During the inactive of the allied armies before Sebastopol, and in the

neighbourhood of the Tchernaya, certain expeditions were undertaken,

which were important. An expedition was ordered against certain strong

places on the European shores of the Black Sea. The reduction of

Kinburn, a strong naval arsenal and place for ship-building, was

effected; and Ockzakoff, an important place from which the approaches to

Kinburn could be well defended, was totally destroyed.

At Eupatoria the Russians, notwithstanding the continual drain upon

their resources at Sebastopol, harassed the garrison. Cavalry skirmishes

were frequent, and rather sanguinary. The allies maintained their

position, and constantly threatened the enemy’s communications.

OPERATIONS IN THE SEA OF AZOFF.

During the autumn and winter the allies conducted extensive and

effective operations in the Sea of Azoff. All around its coasts strong

places were bombarded and stormed. The granaries from which the Russian

armies were fed were consumed. The fishing establishments which were on

a great scale, and by which also the Russian armies received support,

were wasted; and the craft which traversed that sea, as well as the

armed vessels by which they had been protected, were all captured or

swept away.

OPERATIONS IN ASIA MINOR.

On a previous page the arrival of Colonel Williams as her majesty’s

commissioner, and his efforts to restore order in the Turkish armies,

and to correct the rapacity and disorder of its chiefs, were noticed.

That skilful and gallant officer, now so well known as Major-general

Sir Fenwick Williams, Bart, of Kars, late M.P. for Calne, and Governor

of Woolwich, and while these pages are going to press,

commander-in-chief of the forces in Canada, put forth almost superhuman

efforts to save Asia Minor from the Russians during the summer and

autumn of 1855. In consequence of the wretched conduct of the Turkish

pashas, and the quarrels of the European officers in the Turkish

service, especially the Poles, Germans, and Hungarians, Colonel, or as

we shall now call him General, Williams shut himself up in Kars. The

Turkish pashas immediately conspired together to neglect him, to refuse

succours military or material, and by leaving Kars to fall into the

hands of the Russians, bring discredit upon the foreign general, and

deter the sultan from committing commands or positions of authority

over the faithful to infidel generals. The limits of this history do

not allow of the detail of the defence of Kars. It is one of the most

remarkable and romantic in history. So extraordinary was the capacity

of General Williams that he inspired confidence in the minds of the

abject Turks, and ensured order among the wild and predatory

auxiliaries who came to the assistance of his garrison. His exceeding

sweetness of temper, urbanity of manner, and ease and persuasiveness of

address, enabled General Williams to secure the support of the people

of Kars, the wild Lazi, and his own little band of noble British

officers. He defended Kars without any European troops whatever against

the best general in the Russian service, and one of the most noble and

generous as well as her officers, Mouravieff. The Russians were

repulsed again and again by the townspeople and their rude and

undisciplined assistants from the country. The army of Mouravieff was

punished with appalling slaughter, and had food been sent to the

garrison, which the Turkish pashas could have effected, General

Williams would not only have saved Kars, but have driven the Russians

back upon the line of the Caucasus. Famine, however, conquered the

heroic chief and his devoted followers. The surrender of Kars became

necessary, and the famished garrison and its adored chief went forth

prisoners to the Russian camp. Severely as the besiegers had suffered,

they used language of unbounded admiration for the skill and gallantly

of General Williams and his officers, and for the devotion, endurance,

and courage of their followers.

While yet the struggle was going on in Kars, Omar Pasha, at the head

of a Turkish army, was dispatched to the northern shores of the Asiatic

coast of the Black Sea to create a diversion, and cause the siege of

Kars to be raised. In this undertaking Omar was not sincere. He, like

the other pashas, was jealous of Williams, and wished Kars to fall. Omar

landed, lost time wherever he could on any pretence make a stay, beat

his enemy to prove his own generalship, and took care to reap none of

the fruits of victory lest Kars should be saved. The skilful renegade

shared with the old Turkish muchirs, feriks, and pashas, all the

corruption of those classes, and all their hatred to foreigners, even

although indispensable allies. Omar had been offended by the insulting

contempt of Lord Raglan, and the stupid apathy of General Simpson; the

French commanders had, from motives of separate policy, alienated him,

so that he led an army into Asia rather to accomplish purposes of his

own than to relieve Kars. The conquests of Omar in the direction of the

Ingour were rapid, signal, and brilliant. He, however, was obliged

to retreat, from the severity of the season exposing his army to the

bitterest sufferings and great loss of life.

The foregoing pages give as complete a view of the actions of the allies

in the waters and on the shores of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azoff,

as the space allotted to the account in this History can possibly allow.

OPERATIONS OF THE ALLIES IN THE BALTIC.

While war was raging on the eastern side of the Russian and Turkish

empires, the western waters and shores of Russia were also the scenes of

sanguinary contests. The vast fleet which, under the command of

Admiral Dundas, proceeded rather too late in the spring to the Baltic,

accomplished some important enterprises. The troops and stations of the

Russians on the shores of Finland were shelled. Landing-parties ascended

the creeks and rivers, and burned great quantities of naval stores, and

destroyed or captured numerous small vessels, military or commercial.

Sweaborg was bombarded, and a large portion of the fortifications

destroyed, and many of their defenders slain. Cronstadt was approached

as in the previous year; but was pronounced to be impregnable to the

means at the disposal of the allies, vast as they were. The want of

gun-boats and vessels of light draught was the chief ingredient in the

elements of discomfiture which affected the allies. Throughout the year

the allies hemmed in the Russian ships in their unassailable harbours

of refuge, or as at Sweaborg, destroyed them by the fire of their

gun-boats.

OPERATIONS IN THE WHITE SEA.

These were similar to what took place in the Baltic. Inaccessible

harbours defied the allied fleets. Want of vessels of small draught

rendered pursuit impossible when Russian ships made the sinuosities of

the coast, and shallow rivers, available for retreat. Still great havoc

was effected, and the loss of property sustained by the Russians was

very severe. Both in the Baltic and White Seas the allies arrived too

late in the season, and left too early.

OPERATIONS IN THE PACIFIC, AND AGAINST THE RUSSIAN SETTLEMENTS IN

KAMTSCHATKA.

As in the previous year, the Russians showed superior foresight,

activity, and intelligence to the allied naval forces in the Pacific.

In vain the powerful squadrons of France and England pursued their enemy

hither and thither; little was accomplished—incapacity and tardiness

marred all enterprise. The allies, however, inflicted a heavy

chastisement upon the settlement of Petropaulovski, but more by causing

the Russians themselves to accomplish the work of destruction than

by inflicting it through the agency of the allied arms. The Russians,

unable to cope with the allies, sought safety in flight, both by land

and sea; but always effected their retreat with so much courage,

deliberation, and yet promptitude, as to leave no great renown to their

foes. Everywhere, on every sea and shore, England and France, on

the whole, triumphed; and the close of 1855 saw Russia beaten and

humiliated, but still great in strength and wanton in defiance.

COLONIAL AFFAIRS.

Little occurred in the colonial history of 1855 suitable to a general

work such as the present. There was, however, one sphere of English

influence where opinions and feelings were working, and events were

preparing the way for great results—that sphere was India.

INDIA.

During the whole of the year 1855, General Outram, as the British

political agent at Lucknow, was engaged in disputes with the King

of Oude. According to instructions from Lord Dalhousie, the

governor-general, demands were made which the king and his people

resisted. General Outram acted with all the humanity and courtesy which

his stern instructions allowed. Lord Dalhousie was determined to annex

the rich and fertile kingdom. The British cabinet, acting through the

board of control, encouraged him. The author of these pages knows that

the directors of the East India Company generally disapproved of the

annexation, and some of them foresaw the consequences. The act of

parliament of 1853, which came into operation in 1854, left the company

so little power, that there was no use in its intelligent members

opposing the caprice and aggrandizement of the board of control. At all

events, the directors offered no open opposition, and Lord Dalhousie

was left to his own unfettered judgment to carry out his scheme. At the

close of 1855, General Outram was ordered to assemble a large military

force at Cawnpore, and to enter into negotiations with the Oude

government, “for the purposes mentioned in the despatch of the

honourable court.” On the 30th of January, 1856, General Outram summoned

the prime-minister of Oude to the residency at Lucknow, to inform him

of the decision of the governor-general. On the 1st of February the king

addressed “the Resident,” protesting in mild but dignified language

against the subversion of his rightful authority. The resident declined

all discussion, informing his majesty that the determination of his

government was inflexible. He gave the king three days to decide. The

army and people of Oude were as one man in the desire to raise the

standard of resistance; and the sepoys of the Bengal army, being soon

made acquainted with the danger to the independence of Oude, their

native territory, heartily, but secretly, sympathized with its king and

people. His majesty did not dare, however, to encounter the superior

power of the British; he disarmed his troops, and dismounted his guns.

On the 4th of February, General Outram demanded that the king should

sign a declaration that his “infraction of the essential engagements of

the previous treaties had been continued and notorious.” His majesty,

giving way to vehement grief and indignation, refused to sign this

condemnation of himself, and expressed his determination to lay a

memorial of his wrongs at the feet of the Queen of Great Britain. In

1858, he, by his agents, endeavoured to obtain from her majesty redress

of the grievances of which he complained. The king also refused to

sign a new treaty, abrogating that of 1801, submitted to him by General

Outram. On the 7th of February, the general issued a proclamation,

declaring that “the British government had assumed to itself the

exclusive and permanent administration of the territories of Oude.” From

that moment the soldiery and people of the kingdom were resolved to take

the first opportunity of reasserting the independence of their country,

and taking vengeance upon those whom they considered its oppressors.

General Outram compelled many nobles _to give bail_ for their good

behaviour, and many were placed under surveillance. General Outram has

been much blamed for the part he took, but he merely performed his duty

as the governor-general’s agent. He was taken into his excellency’s

counsels no farther than to evoke his opinion on the _modus operandi_ by

which the orders of Government-house might best be carried out. General

Outram had no responsibility as to the policy of the transaction.

In the above relation of the transactions in India, events are

anticipated for unity of subject, as in 1855 the orders went forth which

annexed Oude, and nearly lost India in 1857.

CHAPTER LXVIII.

{VICTORIA. 1856}

Conclusion of the Russian War..... General Foreign

Relations..... Correspondence of the English Foreign

Minister with the Sardinian Plenipotentiaries to the Paris

Conference..... Relations with Naples..... British Policy

in the East..... Treaty of Commerce and Friendship with

Siam..... War with Persia..... War with China..... Disputes

with the United States of America..... India.....

Ireland..... Financial and Commercial Condition of the

Country..... Parliamentary Proceedings.

CONCLUSION OF THE RUSSIAN WAR.

{A.D. 1856}

It will aid the consecutive narrative of events to relate the conclusion

of the Russian war, and the home events connected with it, in the

opening sections of this chapter.

The early winter months of 1856 were spent inactively by the opposing

armies, and negotiations for peace were opened, chiefly through the

instrumentality of Austria, backed by Prussia. France, however, it was

suspected in England, had made overtures to Russia privately, the

French emperor having maintained all through the struggle a separate and

selfish policy while uniting with England to destroy the power of Russia

in the Black Sea. It was to the interest of France to destroy Muscovite

influence in the neighbourhood of the Mediterranean, and to limit the

preponderating influence of the Russo-Greek church in Turkey. It was the

especial interest of the emperor to compel the czar to recognise him as

a great European sovereign, the _de facto_ and _de jure_ sovereign of

the French, although not of the line of its legitimate kings. These

objects were partly attained, and were obviously attainable as far as

France or the emperor had any interest in prosecuting them. Once assured

of this, his imperial majesty and his political coadjutors changed

their tone (they could scarcely be said to change their policy) towards

England. It was declared in France that England had sinister designs in

keeping up hostilities; that she was desirous to use the power of France

to lessen Russian power in Asia in the interest of the Anglo-Indian

dominions. The question, too, was raised in France, how far it was for

the advantage of that country to extirpate the naval power of Russia,

which might be employed, possibly, in resisting the dominant navy of

England. During the war, the French navy performed an inglorious

part. It fought well when brought into action, but its operations were

entirely subsidiary to those of England. France was jealous of this

evident superiority, and from the fall of Sebastopol toiled incessantly

to counteract and rival the naval power of England. Everything

Russian was popular in France after the capture of southern

Sebastopol—everything English was decried. The most mendacious

statements, under official authority, were put forth, exaggerating the

losses of the English navy and army, and lessening the computation of

the losses of Russia and France. The French official journals described

the loss of the Russian army at a quarter of a million of men. Lord

Panmure, in his place in the British parliament, estimated it at half a

million. His lordship, as war minister, was acquainted with the facts

as regarded all the armies in the field, and no one ever impeached his

truthfulness and moderation. During the two years and a quarter that the

Crimean campaign lasted, out of an army, of which the average strength

was 34,500, 20,800 died from all causes; but of these deaths only 5,000

occurred in action, or from wounds inflicted by the enemy. Two-thirds of

the whole mortality arose from other causes more destructive than shot,

bullet, or bayonet. An equal number of men of the same ages would,

according to the average death-rate of the more healthy districts of

England, have suffered a loss of only 610, in lieu of 20,000. While

every credit is given to the war secretary for moderation and truth, his

statistics are open to some strictures. They were thus commented upon by

the author of this History, in his “History of the War against Russia.”*

* Vol. ii. p. 745.

“Lord Panmure’s statement referred to the army, but it did not include

soldiers on board ship, nor the naval brigade, nor the marines. His

lordship’s account does not agree with a corrected calculation from the

various reports made from time to time. These bring up the computation

to a figure higher by several thousands. This may be accounted for by

several circumstances. His lordship’s lists excluded the commissary

and hospital departments, also the army works and land-transport corps.

Besides, his computations only begin with the encounter of the Bulganak,

previous to which the sufferings of the soldiers in landing at Old Fort

were so great, that on the short march to the bivouac of the Bulganak

many men dropped out from cholera, dysentery, thirst, or weakness, who

never rejoined their corps; and some of whom, it is to be feared, from

the want of transport and ambulances, perished unaided where they fell.

Forty thousand would be nearer the total loss than 23,000.”

Small as was the part taken by the navy of France in the war, her losses

were great. The _Moniteur de la Flotte_ published the returns of

the casualties experienced by the French imperial navy during the

expeditions to the Crimea, the Baltic, and Petropaulovski, in 1854,

1855, and 1856. The ships’ crews lost 11 officers and 144 seamen killed

by the enemy’s fire, and 39 officers and 3,237 men who died of their

wounds or from sickness—in all 50 officers and 3,381 men; the naval

artillery corps had 2 officers and 31 non-commissioned officers and

soldiers killed, and 3 officers and 231 non-commissioned officers who

died of their wounds or from sickness—in all 5 officers and 262 men,

and the marine infantry, 9 officers and 73 non-commissioned officers and

men killed, and 12 officers and 1,057 non-commissioned officers and men

who died of their wounds or from sickness—in all 21 officers and 1,130

men. Total—270 killed and 4,579 dead; in all 4,819. According to

Marshal Vaillant, the French minister of war, France sent to the east

309,628 men, 41,974 horses, and 597,686 tons of stores; and brought back

227,125 men, 9.000 horses, and 126,880 tons of stores.

The result of the negotiations brought about by the chief German powers,

and ardently desired by France, was a treaty of peace on the 30th of

March, 1856. It was ratified on the 27th of April. Six months was fixed

for the evacuation of Russian territories by the allies. The French army

commenced its embarkation more than a fortnight before the ratification,

as a sort of overt proof of the good will of the French emperor to his

new ally and recent enemy. In less than three months, on the 5th of

July, the whole of the French army had abandoned the soil of Russia,

On the 8th of August the last French soldier left Constantinople on

the homeward voyage. The British army was more easily removed from its

smaller number and its greater transport power.

On the 23rd of April one of the grandest sights ever witnessed from the

shores of England was presented at Portsmouth. Never were the waters

of the Solent so crowded with “craft of all dimensions” as on that

day. Notwithstanding the shameful failures of the English navy in the

Pacific, and the dilatory proceedings of the Admiralty, which rendered

the blockades in the White Sea so much less effective than they ought

to have been—although the massacre of Sinope did take place, and “Old

Charley” nursed his gout or drank his grog, when he ought to have

been reconnoitering Sweaborg—still the Russian navy of the Euxine had

perished rather than meet Dundas; the stores, granaries, and fisheries,

were swept from the coasts of the Sea of Azoff; and not a ship of the

enemy dare put to sea for two years in the Baltic. After all, Britannia

did “rule the waves,” and was more able to rule them than ever. The

fleet was assembled for her majesty’s personal review, and consisted

of 240 steam vessels, including gun-boats, mortar-boats, and floating

batteries. There were three vessels of 100 guns each, six of 91, an

equal number of 80 guns, and vessels of every order; frigates, brigs,

sloops, &c, had their proportionate numbers. The steam-power equalled

that of 31,000 horses, and 3,000 guns were carried. The fleet, covering

a space of twelve miles, was manned by 30,000 sailors and marines.

On the 29th of April peace was proclaimed. The author of this work

witnessed the proclamation in several parts of the metropolis, but the

crowds were not such as the great city usually sent forth on occasions

of magnitude. The fact was, England did not consider that the war had

been prosecuted to its legitimate consequences, and felt that the French

emperor had not pursued a direct and fair policy.

The return of the British troops was hailed with enthusiasm, and a

review of a portion of them—especially the guards—by her majesty in

Hyde Park, elicited unbounded enthusiasm from all classes of the people.

Among the most exciting home incidents connected with the war was the

distribution by her majesty, in Hyde Park, of the Victoria Cross—the

badge of a new order of merit, bestowed for valour upon a number of

gallant recipients.

Peace had scarcely been proclaimed when the country was irritated by

tidings that Russia was endeavouring to evade its stipulations, and that

France and Austria were playing into her hands. One of the terms of the

treaty was that the Russian frontier should recede from the Danube. That

crafty power had taken advantage of an erroneous French map, introduced

by the French diplomatists at the conference, to deceive the allies

as to the boundary agreed upon. After much negotiation and dispute,

conducted as to England and Turkey on the one side and Russia on the

other with intense acrimony, Russia was obliged to conform to the

demands of the allies. Another stipulation of the treaty was the free

navigation of the Danube. Russia endeavoured to seize upon the Isle of

Serpents, off the Sulina mouth of the delta of that river. The island

was a portion of the dominions of the sultan; an English naval officer

secured the possession of it to the Turkish sovereign. France rendered

little assistance to England in these disputes, and displayed sympathy

with Russia and jealousy of British influence. The neutrality of the

Black Sea, and the destruction of all naval arsenals on its Russian

shores, or rivers communicating with its shores, was also a stipulation

of the treaty which Russia evaded. Here also England by her firm

diplomacy, almost unaided by France, constrained Russia to conform to

the terms of the peace. Another article of the treaty referred to the

emancipation of the sultan’s Christian subjects from all disabilities

on account of their religion. This the sultan and the orthodox Turks

evaded, and have continued to evade to the present time, although

ostentatious proclamations in the spirit of the treaty were put forth

by the sultan’s government, and engagements the most determinate were

subscribed. The general conduct of the Christians of the empire was

disloyal and dishonest; they sought, like the Russians and Turks,

to obtain all the advantages of the treaty, and fulfil none of its

obligations. The remaining among the articles of the treaty of chief

importance regulated the liberties, and relations to the sultan, of

the provinces of Moldavia and Wallachia. Here also difficulties arose,

fomented by the united policy of the French and Russian governments, who

intrigued—with the Wallachs especially—to insist on acting in a manner

hostile to the constitution assigned by the treaty for their government.

These disputes continued for years after the termination of the war.

England resisted the intrigues which France and Russia set on foot

inimical to the interests of the sultan, but her diplomacy and influence

were not so successful as in reference to the other terms of the treaty.

The great powers played a part that was not great, after the peace.

GENERAL CONDITION OF THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.

_Sardinia_.—The gallant little kingdom of Sardinia had rendered

important aid in the war, and at its conclusion urged upon the

representatives of the great powers assembled in conference in Paris the

importance of preventing an outbreak in Italy, by compelling Austria and

the other despots of Italy to govern with justice and observe treaties.

On March the 27th, 1856, the plenipotentiaries of Sardinia addressed a

_note verbale_ to the Earl of Clarendon, her majesty’s foreign minister,

urging upon England the consideration of the dangerous state of Italy,

and the complications to which it would give rise. Sardinia especially

protested against the occupation of the Roman states by foreign

troops—those of Austria and France—thus suppressing all free

expression of action and opinion by the people of these states.

On April the 16th the plenipotentiaries of the Sardinian king, then

resident at Paris, addressed a voluminous memorandum to Lord Clarendon,

entering at large into the affairs of Italy, portraying the danger to

Sardinia from Austrian aggression, and showing that it was the duty

and interest of England to insist upon the termination of the state of

things which existed.

On the 26th of May the Earl of Clarendon addressed a despatch to Sir

James Hudson, the English minister at the court of Turin. This despatch

was brief, and contained nevertheless a very full exposition of the

righteous and sympathising policy of England towards the people of

Italy. This despatch obtained much significance from the events which

followed. Lord Clarendon’s prediction was but too truly verified,—a

few years witnessed the complications foretold,—the peace of Europe was

disturbed, and the foreign occupation of Italy was at once the cause of

the war and the theatre of its devastations.

The brevity of Lord Clarendon’s despatch to Sir James Hudson allows of

its insertion:—

“_Foreign Office, May 26_, 1856.

“Sir,—I herewith inclose the copy of a note which was addressed to me

when at Paris by the plenipotentiaries of Sardinia.

“The verbal communications which I frequently had the pleasure of

holding with Count Cavour, both before and subsequently to the receipt

of this note, can have left no doubt upon the mind of his excellency

that her majesty’s government take a deep and sincere interest in

the affairs of Italy, and are desirous of doing everything which can

properly be done by them with a view to ameliorate the condition of the

Italian people.

“No fresh assurances could add weight to those already given to Count

Cavour, and I did not, therefore, think it necessary to send an answer

in writing to the note of the Sardinian plenipotentiaries; but as it

has come to the knowledge of her majesty’s government that it would

be agreeable to the Sardinian government to receive one, they cannot

hesitate to declare their opinion that the occupation of the Papal

territory by foreign troops constitutes an irregular state of things,

which disturbs the equilibrium, and may endanger the peace of Europe;

and that, by indirectly affording sanction to misgovernment, it promotes

discontent and a tendency to revolution among the people.

“Her majesty’s government are aware that as this state of things has

now, unfortunately, for some years been established, it may be possible

that it could not suddenly be brought to a close without some danger to

public order, and the risk of producing events that all would deplore;

but her majesty’s government are convinced that the evacuation of the

Papal territory may be rendered safe at an early period by a policy of

wisdom and justice, and they entertain a hope that the measures agreed

upon by the governments of France and Austria will lead to a gradual

withdrawal of their respective forces, and to bettering the condition of

the subjects of the Pope.

“You will read and give a copy of this despatch to Count Cavour.

“I am, &c,

“[Signed] Clarendon.”

_Naples_.—The state of Naples was at this time appalling, the king was

the most unruly man in his kingdom. Oppressions the most barbarous were

wrought by his sanguinary and faithless hand. The governments of France

and England advised, remonstrated, protested in vain. His majesty

adopted the principle of doing what he pleased with his own, to the ruin

of his kingdom, the sufferings of his people, and the disgrace of his

reign. Various English subjects were injured, but no effectual measures

were taken by either England or France to put a stop to the insult

and defiance they received. Austria professed to offer the Neapolitan

monarch advice in the interests of moderation and good government—it

was even alleged that Russia did the same; but his majesty was deaf to

all counsel, and expressed his determination to rule absolutely,

and deal with his people as he pleased, in spite of the threatened

interposition of foreign powers.

BRITISH POLICY IN ASIA.

_Siam_.—The British government used all its influence to cultivate

friendly relations with all the Asiatic governments, in the hope that

a more extended and peaceful intercourse might spring up between these

nations and the British empire. The most decisive results of such

negotiations were seen at Siam and Persia. In the former country

peace and friendship were confirmed; in the latter, war closed a vexed

correspondence, which England conducted with the sincerest desire to

secure justice and amity. A treaty of friendship and commerce was signed

at Bangkok, May 13, 1856, between her Britannic majesty and the King of

Siam. A supplementary agreement was afterwards signed. Dr. Bowring was

the British plenipotentiary. His excellency’s account of the embassy

and the accomplishment of its purpose has been published, and opens up

interesting and instructive views of the people of that region.

THE PERSIAN WAR.

The foundation of this quarrel was laid during the war with Russia.

That crafty and active government sought to create a diversion against

England by causing Persia to make the occasion available for advancing

upon Herat, and pushing her designs upon Affghanistan. The intrigues of

Russia developed themselves too slowly for her purpose, and 1856 arrived

before the war broke out. During the year the temper and spirit of the

Persian court became intensely irritable towards, the English ambassador

and his suite. A circumstance arose which brought this out painfully. On

the 15th of June, 1854, Mr. Thomson, the English minister, wrote to Lord

Clarendon, then minister for foreign affairs, informing him that he had

chosen one Meerza Hashem Khan as the Persian secretary to the British

mission. This person was courtly, learned, and in every way suitable to

the office assigned to him. Lord Clarendon confirmed the appointment.

The Persian court immediately persecuted the favourite of the English

mission. The Hon. C. A. Murray succeeded Mr. Thomson, and he also

favoured Meerza Hashem. The Persian court continued its persecution,

and finally seized and imprisoned the khan’s wife. Mr. Murray demanded

satisfaction for this outrage upon the staff of the British mission, and

the release of the lady. His demands were treated with disdain, and

Mr. Murray felt bound to maintain the dignity of the government he

represented by striking his flag on the 20th of November, 1855. The

Persian prime-minister put a report into circulation that both Mr.

Murray and his predecessor had intrigues with the khan’s wife, and

therefore employed him in the embassy. The Persian premier at last

made the allegation to Mr. Murray himself, in a despatch. On the 5th of

December, after having endured many insults, he left Teheran.

In July, 1856, Lord Clarendon caused the ultimatum of his government to

be delivered to the Persian _charge d’affaires_ at Constantinople. It

was to the following effect:—The sadr azim (prime-minister) to write

in the shah’s name a letter to Mr. Murray, expressing his regret at

having uttered and given currency to the offensive imputation upon the

honour of her majesty’s minister, requesting to withdraw his own letter

of the 19th of November, and the two letters of the minister for

foreign affairs of the 26th of November. A copy of this apology to be

communicated officially to each of the foreign missions at Teheran,

and the substance of it to be made public in that capital. The original

letter to be conveyed to Mr. Murray, at Bagdad, by the hands of some

high Persian officer, and to be accompanied by an invitation to Mr.

Murray, in the shah’s name, to return with the mission to Teheran, on

his majesty’s assurance that he shall be received with all the honours

and consideration due to the representative of the British government.

Mr. Murray, on approaching the capital, to be received by persons of

high rank deputed to escort him to his residence. Immediately on his

arrival, the sadr azim to go in state to the British mission and renew

friendly relations with Mr. Murray. At noon on the following day, the

British flag to be hoisted under a salute of 21 guns, and the sadr azim

to visit the mission immediately afterwards, which visit Mr. Murray will

return. Should Herat be occupied by the shah’s troops, his majesty to

engage to withdraw them without delay. The British mission to defer

to his majesty’s wish, if renewed, respecting Meerza Hashem, by not

insisting on his appointment at Shiraz; the Meerza’s wife, however, to

be restored to him.

The ultimatum failed to secure redress. A series of fresh outrages was

offered at the embassy upon such servants of the British government as

remained there. Orders were sent to Consul Stevens to quit Persia, and

take the means usual in such cases to secure the liberty and property of

British subjects.

On the 1st of November, the governor-general of India declared war

against Persia. Three proclamations were issued by his excellency,

which, when they arrived at Constantinople, caused the Persian

plenipotentiary to withdraw from all further negotiations, and to treat

his former agreements as null and void. Major-general Outram, K.C.B.,

had returned to England from Oude, and while at home was in consultation

with the British government concerning the Persian expedition. He was

appointed to command it, and arrived in Bombay for that purpose.

On the arrival of General Outram, active operations commenced. The

British landed in Bushire, and defeated the Persians. The place was

garrisoned by a portion of the troops, while the main army marched into

the interior, driving the Persians with ease before them; and afterwards

an expedition was made to Mohammerah, a considerable distance up the

Persian Gulf. This was attended with complete success. By the end

of March all these conquests were effected. They were followed by an

expedition to Akwaz, upon which place the defeated Persians had retired

from Mohammerah. The squadron proceeded up the Gulf with great judgment

and rapidity, and the enterprise was crowned by the accomplishment of

the object proposed, the Persians being obliged to retreat far inland.

The English remained masters of the Persian Gulf and its shores

throughout the year. Meanwhile, negotiations went on at Paris between

the British minister there and the Persian ambassador. The shah

ultimately consented to receive the English ambassador at Teheran with

all the honours insisted upon in the English ultimatum, to redress the

grievances, and satisfy the complaints of the embassy, and to engage

to renounce all claims upon Herat. The treaty involved a clause that

Bushire was to be occupied by the British until all the concessions made

to the English government were practically carried out. In virtue of

this arrangement General Havelock remained at Bushire, with a garrison,

until May, 1857, when he proceeded thence to perform in India the

glorious exploits which terminated his illustrious career. General

Outram and the main body of the expeditionary army sailed for India in

May, 1856.

WAR WITH CHINA.

The year 1856 was fruitful in events in Asia interesting and important

to Great Britain. Among these was the breaking out of another war with

China. The origin of the war may be thus briefly stated. A small vessel,

called a lorcha, was the property of a British subject, resident at

Hong-Kong. It was boarded, while carrying the British flag, by the

Chinese authorities, who alleged they were in search of a pirate among

the crew. The whole crew were arrested, chained, and carried away

prisoners. This was in contravention of the existing treaty with China.

The English consul demanded that the captured persons should be returned

to the lorcha, and that their investigation should be made according

to the treaty. Governor Yeh not only refused to do this, but did so in

terms insolent, and almost menacing. The consul at Canton reported the

case to the governor of Hong-Kong, Sir John Bowring. The reclamations

of that functionary were treated as disdainfully as those of the consul,

and it became necessary, as a last resort, to appeal to arms. The

outrage upon the lorcha was committed on the 8th of October, 1856. On

the 22nd of October, Rear-admiral Sir Michael Seymour, on board the

_Coromandel_, accompanied by a squadron of gun-boats, captured a number

of forts by which the entrance to Canton was defended. On the 28th he

took possession of a fort known by the name of the Dutch Folly, situated

on an island opposite Canton. Commissioner Yeh seemed now to be alarmed

for the safety of the city, and offered to surrender ten out of twelve

of the men taken out of the lorcha. This the British authorities

declined. He then sent the twelve, but demanded that two of them, whom

he alleged were guilty of piracy, should be returned, to be dealt with

according to the laws of China. Consul Parks had, however, demanded at

first that the men should be as publicly sent back to the lorcha as they

had been taken away. The twelve men were accordingly brought back by the

Chinese authorities again to Governor Yeh. That strange person refused

to receive them any more, probably considering that they had brought

sufficient trouble and danger on him already. Sir John Bowring then

demanded, that as Canton was included in the five ports opened by the

treaty of 29th of August, 1842, such facilities for commerce as existed

at the other four ports should be opened to British residents at Canton.

The English had waived this privilege so far as Canton was concerned

(although reserving their right), in order to conciliate the prejudices

of a province supposed to be more hostile than any other in China to

foreigners. To the demand of Sir J. Bowring, Yeh returned no answer. Sir

M. Seymour accordingly opened fire upon some large government buildings

on the 27th. Yeh’s own residence was amongst the buildings thus

attacked. A body of troops, drawn up on a rising ground, was shelled by

the British, and driven from the position. Yeh, as high commissioner

of his imperial majesty, offered, by proclamation, a reward of thirty

dollars for the head of every Englishman. On the 29th, a breach being

made in the walls, seamen and marines landed, blew in the city gate,

penetrated the interior of the city, and captured the governor’s house.

Admiral Seymour, more gallant than wise, proposed a conference with

the commissioner, who declined it. On the 3rd of November, Canton was

therefore again attacked. On the 5th a fleet of war-junks was destroyed,

and the French Folly fort captured. Sir Michael Seymour was infected

by the old British absurdity in dealing with the Chinese, that of

negotiating, when prompt and sustained action to compel them to

seek negotiation was the only sound policy. Sir Michael carried on a

correspondence with the chief mandarin concerning the surrender of

the Bogue forts, and their restoration, unimpaired, under certain

contingencies. The mandarin regarded the correspondence useful so as to

gain time, but he would make no concessions. On the 12th of November

the forts were attacked, and on the 13th captured with ease, although

defended by 400 guns. On the same day the Ammughoy forts on the side

opposite to the Bogue entrance were attacked and captured, with very

little resistance, although mounted by 210 guns. On the 14th of December

the foreign factories at Canton were fired by the Chinese, and nearly

all destroyed. Admiral Seymour could effect nothing during the month of

December, his force being inadequate. While he awaited reinforcements

the year terminated.

DISPUTES WITH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

During the year 1855 disputes existed with the North American republic,

which were happily brought to a termination in 1856. The differences

between that power and Great Britain referred to two subjects—the

enlistment of recruits by British officers, and “the Clayton-Bulwer

treaty” concerning Central America. England withdrew her recruiting

agents, and made reparation for her conduct. The Clayton-Bulwer treaty

was not so easily adjusted. It was a dispute between the two great

American powers—England and the United States—for influence in Central

America. It was supposed that the convention completed between the two

ministers (Bulwer and Clayton) had put an end to the hostile feeling

which had arisen. The Americans were not, however, satisfied with the

arrangement, and put an interpretation upon the treaty opposed to that

which England acknowledged. The British government, by going to the

verge of pusillanimity, averted war, but the adjustment made was only

temporary; the Americans virtually ignored the treaty, and England,

while virtually submitting, still preserved an ostensible recognition

of her rights. These events gave rise to fierce debates in the American

congress and the British parliament, but an open rupture between the two

countries, which appeared imminent, did not take place. The subject of

Central America became a generic question, including various specific

grounds of quarrel. A question arose as to the British protectorate of

Mosquito. The English government issued a proclamation, declaring the

Bay Islands a British colony. This offended the United States, and an

angry, though courteous, correspondence ensued between Mr. Buchanan and

the Earl of Clarendon. The English were anxious to refer the question to

the decision of a third power, to which the Americans would not consent.

A convention was formed with the republic of Honduras on the 27th of

August, which vested in the latter power certain disputed territory

which had given rise to much heat and dispute between England and the

United States.

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW.

At the congress of Paris, where peace with Russia was negotiated, a new

principle was recognised in international maritime law, that “A neutral

flag covers an enemy’s goods.” This was not a popular measure in

England. It was believed to be a blow struck by France at the maritime

power of Britain. The English navy regarded the principle with much

hostility, and it was hotly debated in parliament, a large party

opposing the government for consenting to such a principle.

INDIA.

The general condition of the British colonies continued prosperous;

but in India certain potent elements of disturbance were at work.

The annexation of Oude began to produce its fruits, the people of all

ranks—high and low, military and civil—were preparing for revolt;

and a scheme was set on foot for corrupting the native army of Bengal,

chiefly recruited from Oude, which, within a year, produced the most

appalling results. Various symptoms of sedition, in different parts of

India remote from one another, were indicated, but were not taken notice

of by the authorities, either wisely or vigilantly. Among the most

remarkable signs of a movement of some kind being on foot, was the

transmission of little cakes, called _chupatees_, from hand to

hand, throughout all the cities and villages of India. Many officers

predicted, from this circumstance, that a conspiracy to a revolt was in

progress, but the government discountenanced all warnings, and treated

contemptuously all information communicated to it which was calculated

to call for its watchfulness. The authorities believed that the chupatee

movement was harmless. Even now, this is the opinion of many familiar

with India, although the majority I conversant with that country were of

a contrary opinion.

One intelligent writer* presents the subject in the following light:

“The transmission of such little cakes from one district to another is

supposed by the Hindoos to effect the removal of epidemic disease.

When cholera broke out in this division, the villagers frequently

attached the disease, as they fancied, by some ceremonies, to a buffalo,

and drove it across the Ganges, or into some other village. This latter

course frequently caused fighting between the villagers. It was also

found that a similar transmission of cakes had taken place on a former

occasion, when a murrain attacked the cattle of the districts bordering

Oude, and the disease was supposed to be stayed as soon as the said

cakes reached the holy fanes of Hurdwar. The agitation was fostered, and

false rumours founded thereon, prejudicial to government, were almost

invariably propagated by Mussulmans, while the transmission of a cake

is a purely Hindoo practice. The shape and size of the cakes was that

of the common Brahmin ‘Pooree.’ The excitement at the time among the

sepoys, and the occurrence afterwards of the mutiny, has led many to

connect this cake distribution with our disturbances, but without any

sufficient grounds for so doing. It is probable that if any connection

existed it was accidental, and the relationship acknowledged by either

designing or ignorant persons, was consequent upon the distribution,

and did not cause or precede it. Those, indeed, who have attempted to

explain the ‘chupatee movement,’ as it is called, to be a sort of ‘fiery

cross’ signal for a united rising, appear to have succeeded in proving

little by their own ingenuity. Its real origin was, doubtless, a

superstitious attempt to prevent any return of the fearful visitation

of epidemic cholera which devastated the north-west provinces the year

before, and still lingered in scattered spots.”

* Robert Henry Wallace Dunlop, B.C.S.

The symptoms of disaffection, which were evident before Lord Dalhousie

retired from the government, became still more marked after the arrival

of Lord Canning. Lord Dalhousie left India in March, Lord Canning

arriving before the departure of his predecessor in office. The two

proud noblemen met at Government-house, and appeared publicly together

at a grand ball at that celebrated palace of English governors. An

American gentleman, a correspondent of the _New York Herald_,** was

struck with the haughty bearing of both these noblemen, their coldness

to men of rank and great talent, and their general indifference of

manner towards those whom it was their duty, as it ought to have been

their privilege, to conciliate.

** Mr. Train, author of “Young America Abroad.”

The American observer, who looked on with an intelligent and impartial

eye, was especially disgusted with the insolent bearing of the European

officials, as well as of the noble governors-general, to the native

princes, especially those who were conquered in the great Sikh war. They

were obliged to put off their shoes in token of submission, after the

manner of the East, when a conqueror or superior is approached. The

American gentleman noticed the look of dejection and distaste expressed

in the countenances of these once powerful native chieftains, and

foreboded that a government which pursued a policy so arrogant, and

where officers were characterized by so offensive an hauteur, must hold

the sword tightly in its hand, or public indignation and resentment

would arise, dangerous, if not fatal, to its power.

Lord Canning signalized his dawning power by a proclamation on the

affairs at Oude, which exasperated to the last degree the vengeance

nursed in the hearts of the whole people of that region.

Towards the end of the year the troops of the Bengal army were sullen

and almost mutinous. Intelligent, officers noticed the dark scowl which

the soldiery in vain endeavoured to conceal. In the public bazaars of

the great cities a sort of secret intelligence between the sepoys and

the people was observed, and all men, except the high officials, seemed

to hear the murmuring of the distant thunder, and the first struggles

of the storm, so soon to burst in blood and destruction over so large

a portion of India. Thus closed the year 1856 in the British Indian

empire: 1857 had scarcely dawned, when the thundercloud burst over its

fairest provinces, and the deluge fell by which so many human beings, so

many interests, and so vast an army, were swept away.

IRELAND.

The progress of Ireland in material prosperity was obvious, and a source

of gratulation to the empire. The moral progress of the country did not

keep pace with its temporal advancement; in this respect the predictions

of its best friends in parliament and in Great Britain were not

fulfilled. Agrarian outrage was as common as in previous years, and the

murderous riband conspiracy still dealt out slaughter, and held the

good and peaceable in terror without any proper attempts on the part of

government to put it down. The following remarks of the editor of the

_Annual Register_ were as true and just as they were pertinent and

expressive of the facts:—“Many of the homicidal crimes in Ireland arise

from motives which must be found in every society, and which therefore

are not to be accounted as a peculiar reproach upon the natural

character. Many of these foul deeds would not deserve any especial

record, were it not needful that they should be noticed simultaneously

with those more horrible assassinations perpetrated under the influence

of a secret tribunal which has for generations been the curse of that

unhappy land. Although the national prosperity of Ireland for some

years back has been such as to alter the aspect of the country, it will

probably take many years of content and good government—perhaps the

passing away of more than one generation—to purge the land of the

monstrous organization which keeps all men in dread.”

HOME—GENERAL CONDITION OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The year 1856 opened mildly as to the season, compared with 1855. The

winter and spring months passed away without witnessing the severity of

weather, or its fatal influence upon health and life which characterized

the corresponding months of the previous year. The attention of the

people was much occupied by foreign politics and events. The unwelcome

peace with Russia, the wars with Persia and China, the threatening

aspect of affairs in India, especially in Oude, engaged the minds of

men most seriously, and checked in some measure the general prosperous

condition of affairs.

There were few incidents connected with the court interesting to the

public. The King of the Belgians paid a visit to his august niece early

in the year, and rumour attributed a motive in connection with it which

referred to the projected peace with Russia. His majesty, indeed, never

visited England but some rumour did not prevail as to the influence he

sought to exercise over the mind of her majesty, in sympathy with some

foreign nation not altogether in harmony with British interests and

views. It was believed that he came on this occasion to make as

easy terms as possible for Russia. The movements of the royal family

throughout the year were as had been customary. The return of the troops

from the seat of war gave her majesty opportunity to show her interest

in her brave soldiers, and to put forth her benevolence wisely and

freely on their behalf.

The prosperity of the country may best be contemplated from trade

returns of the year: these were reported by command of her majesty to

both houses of parliament. On March 19, 1857, returns were made to the

legislature, containing abstracts of reports of the trade of various

countries and places for the years 1855—1856, received by the board

of trade, through the foreign office, from her majesty’s ministers and

consuls. Those abstracts are too voluminous for these pages: a perusal

of them in their original form would repay the reader, and show that

the great commercial country of the world was Great Britain—that so

extensive and ramified were her trade transactions, that she might be

considered the centre of universal commerce. The great manufacturing

towns in the north of England increased prodigiously in wealth and

influence, and the chief provincial ports became hives of industry,

while their waters were crowded with forests of ships. The Liverpool

Year-book for 1856* disclosed an extraordinary state of power and

prosperity in that great commercial thoroughfare and _entrepot_ of the

world.

* Edited and compiled by Lee and Nightingale, published by

Benson and Mallett, Liverpool.

During the official year, which ended August 31, 1856, the nett ordinary

income of the borough amounted to £223,319 18s. The docks of Liverpool

were amongst the wonders of England; and since 1856 they have been

improved and enlarged, so as to surpass in magnitude and adaptation all

previous speculation.

NATIONAL FINANCE.

The expensive war with Russia entailed its costs long after the first

outlay and havoc passed away. The financial returns for the year ending

with March, 1856, were, however, most encouraging, and proved how great

were the pecuniary resources of England for war or peace. The following

is a brief abstract of income and expenditure:—“The public income for

the year ending the 31st March, 1856, amounted to £70,552,145 against

£64,091,571 in 1855, and the expenditure to £93,149,310 against

£70,236,817 in 1855. Thus there was an excess of expenditure over income

in 1855–56 of £22,597,165, and an excess of £6,145,246 in the year

1854–55. The customs (in 1855–56) yielded £35,635,552; the excise,

£5,210,384; stamps, £7,063,610; the assessed and land-taxes, £3,136,077;

the income-tax, £15,159,458 against £10,922,267 in the year ending

the 31st of March, 1855; the post-office, £2,767,201; and crown lands,

£421,715. The duties on spirits and wines remained very stationary;

those on malt, coffee, tobacco, snuff, and sugar increased. The

house-tax yielded £728,689, and land-taxes £1,157,525. The expenditure

in 1855–56 included £2,863,353 for collecting the revenue; £28,112,825

for the public debt; £1,695,052 for the civil government; £3,192,420 for

law and justice; £366,443 for diplomatic salaries; £47,461,188 for the

army, navy, and ordnance (against £28,321,707 in the preceding year);

and £4,200,000 for the vote of credit (war with Russia). The army

cost the country £17,395,059; the navy, £19,654,585, and the ordnance,

£10,411,544. The civil list, privy purse, the salaries of the royal

household, and the payments of the queen’s tradespeople included the sum

total of £371.808.”

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.

There was little in the session of 1856 to demand attention from the

historian, except the debates upon the three great wars in which the

nation was engaged. The wars with Russia and Persia excited party

debates of long duration and fierce conflict. The war with China

occurred too late in the year for parliamentary disputation, until the

session of 1857. The terms of the peace agreed on at Paris with Russia

caused very prolonged discussions, but in these, and in the opposition

sustained in connection with the Persian war, the ministry was

successful.

The differences with the United States afforded another opportunity

for the parliamentary opposition to attack the government. A debate

was opened by a motion, introduced by Mr. G. H. Moore, “a member of the

Irish independent opposition,” which was badly managed by the introducer

and the parties who supported him; the government was victorious.

Education, especially in Ireland; life peerages; civil service

appointments; the use of torture in India; law reform; difficulties in

the execution of the treaty of Paris; the questions connected with the

Isle of Serpents and Bulgrad, on the new Russo-Bessarabian frontier; the

disposal of the Aland Islands conquered by the allies during the war in

the Baltic; the Turkish firman in favour of the Christians in fulfilment

of the treaty of Paris; annexation of Oude; and maritime international

law,—were the subjects which engaged the attention of the members of

both houses. The men who were most prominent in these debates were Lords

Lyndhurst, Brougham, Campbell, Derby, and the Duke of Argyle in the

lords; Lords Palmerston and Russell, Sir James Graham, Sir Charles

Napier, and Benjamin Disraeli, in the commons.

The eventful year of 1856 commenced and closed in war. War with Russia

and Persia existed at its commencement: war with China was waging at its

close.

England, always victorious in the East, won there fresh laurels; always

embroiled in India, she had made for herself fresh complications; always

bold and enterprising in her industry, she had, in spite of war and

warlike expenses, increased marvellously her prosperity, material

resources, the comfort of her people, and the real conditions of her

power.

CHAPTER LXIX.

{VICTORIA. 1857–1858}

Foreign Affairs..... European Treaties in alliance with

France..... Difference with the United States of

America..... War with China, to the conclusion of Peace in

1858..... Treaty with Japan effected by Lord Elgin in

1858..... Colonial..... Chinese Insurrection at Sarawak.....

India: the Mutiny..... Home: General State of the Country;

Monetary Panic..... Debate on the Chinese War..... Defeat

of the Ministry..... General Election..... Marriage of the

Princess Royal..... Parliamentary Proceeding’s..... The

Court..... Art-Treasures Exhibition, Manchester.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS: RELATIONS WITH FRANCE, AND WITH OTHER EUROPEAN POWERS

THROUGH THE FRENCH ALLIANCE.

{A.D. 1857–1858}

The importance of the French alliance was acknowledged by all classes in

England, but the maintenance of it was extremely difficult. The policy

of the French emperor was considered capricious and dynastic, and not

regulated by good faith and justice. His eagerness to create an

alliance with Russia, at the expense of England, was obvious in every

circumstance which brought the three powers into diplomatic

connection. This was more especially the case as regarded the Danubian

Principalities. On every question which arose in connection with those

provinces of the Turkish empire, Russia fomented dispute between herself

and Turkey, between the Porte and the Provinces, and between France and

England. France fell in with the views of Russia, thwarted the Turkish

government, bore herself affrontfully and dictatorially to the sultan,

and peevishly and even menacingly towards England, by which nation the

rights of Turkey were from the first consistently espoused. The boundary

question was conducted so that it was difficult to believe that France

and Russia had not conspired against the rights of Turkey and the policy

of England, ostensibly to enforce which France made war upon the czar.

Austria generally sympathized more with England than with France and

Russia in these disputes, but no power could place confidence in the

perfidious government of the kasir, any more than in that of the czar.

Prussia showed neither justice nor magnanimity. Her policy was selfish

and cowardly. Although the grandson of the King of Prussia was affianced

to the Princess Royal of England, that circumstance made no difference

in the pro-Russian sympathies of the king. He abetted Russia in all her

designs. The Prussian people generally expressed disapprobation of the

policy of the court, but did not show spirit or purpose to counteract

it. On June the 19th, a treaty was signed at Paris, and ratified on the

last day of the year, between Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia,

Russia, and Sardinia, relative to the frontier of Bessarabia, to the

Isle of Serpents, and to the delta of the Danube. The policy of England,

on the whole, triumphed in this treaty. The Swiss Canton of Neufchâtel,

which appertained to the government of Prussia, revolted against that

government. In consequence of that event, much diplomatic difficulty and

discussion arose in Europe. The moderate plan of arrangement recommended

by England influenced the decision of the contest in a manner

satisfactory to the Swiss Confederation and the people of Neufchâtel.

The King of Prussia submitted to the arrangement ungraciously, and did

much in sustaining a selfish policy, which was calculated to create a

European war. At Paris, June 16, 1857, a treaty was signed, which settled

these turbulent affairs. The parties to the treaty were Great Britain,

France, Prussia, the Swiss Confederation, Austria, and Russia.

DIFFERENCE WITH THE UNITED STATES.

The “Clayton-Bulwer treaty” of 1850 was still the fruitful source of

contention. It was hoped that the “Dallas Clarendon treaty” of 1856

would settle all disputes, but this hope was unsustained by events.

The President of the United States recommended the abrogation of these

treaties altogether, and the commencement _de novo_ by the diplomatists

of the two nations of negotiations for a new settlement. The gist of

the dispute lay within a small compass. Both governments had agreed to

acquire no territory in Central America. England affirmed that such

a stipulation fairly assumed that she was to retain possession of the

territory and protectorate she already held and exercised. America

denied the correctness of this interpretation; alleging that the idea

entertained by the statesmen of the republic was, that neither power

should hold any territory in Central America. The Americans declared

that if England acquired or retained territory in Central America they

also would acquire territory there, and the result must be a struggle

between the two nations for dominion in Central America. Whereas if

England renounced all territorial possession, the United States would

concur in a mutual arrangement for the neutrality of the great transit

way across the American continent between the Atlantic and Pacific. The

proposal of the United States appeared to be the only practicable one to

secure peace. The discussion, however, was maintained with much courtesy

and resolution on both sides, and the dispute remained open.

CHINA—PROSECUTION OF THE WAR.

In the last chapter the British admiral was left awaiting reinforcements

at the close of the year 1856.

On the 12th of January the British fired the western suburbs of Canton,

which continued to burn for two days. So weak was the British force

that it was obliged to drop down the river, and the squadron took up a

position near Macao.

During the month of May, the English having been somewhat reinforced,

Commodore Elliott conducted operations against Chinese war-junks up

certain creeks of the Canton river with great success. In June Commodore

Keppel directed similar operations with still greater success. The

Chinese supposed the positions where their war-junks were sheltered were

impregnable, and were astonished and terrified to find that the English

stormed and silenced their batteries, and captured, sunk, or burned

their war-junks with the utmost celerity. So difficult were the positions

chosen by the enemy that the British, although securing a brilliant

series of victories with extraordinary rapidity, suffered heavy loss.

While these events were proceeding, Lord Elgin was on his way as

plenipotentiary to the Chinese emperor; he arrived at Hong-kong in July.

On his way thither he touched at Singapore, where he received news of

the Indian mutiny, and a request from the governor-general of India to

detach a portion of his force to assist in suppressing the mutiny then

raging there. From Hong-kong Lord Elgin proceeded to India with the

remainder of the troops, as the peril there admitted of no delay, while

the Chinese dispute would allow of postponement. In the latter part

of the autumn Lord Elgin returned to Hong-kong. In October a French

squadron arrived to co-operate with the English, accompanied by Baron

Gros, as the plenipotentiary of the French emperor. Count Puteatin

arrived in the same capacity for the Emperor of Russia; and Mr. Reed

represented the North-American republic. Both Russia and the American

States were jealous of the combined influence of England and France, and

showed rather a disposition to coalesce, in order to thwart the allied

powers of Western Europe, while yet the representative of each of the

two jealous nations was solicitous to make a treaty in the separate and

even selfish interests of his country. England and France were desirous

for the co-operation of all civilized powers to obtain a treaty in the

interests of all, but this did not suit the policy of America, still

less of Russia. France moreover displayed an eagerness to force some

exclusive convention in favour of the Roman Catholic religion, in which

the other powers had no interest, and which they felt to be invidious

and improper. The French also, in their co-operation with the British,

were avaricious of glory, and by their self-assertion, vanity, ambition,

and ostentatious depreciation of everything not performed by themselves,

offended the self-respect of the English, who were in far superior

force.

It was December before active hostilities were renewed, Lord Elgin and

Baron Gros having in vain pressed upon Governor Yeh their demands. On

the 28th and 29th of December Canton was bombarded. The great city was

on two sides enveloped in flame. The allies landed amidst the roar of

the bombardment and the engirdling flames, escaladed certain defences,

drove the Chinese into the city, and occupied with promptitude the

strong positions from which the enemy was driven.

The appearance of matters in Canton was now very strange. The populace

pursued their ordinary occupations; the Tartar army had abandoned the

city and taken post in the country; while the authorities took no notice

of the enemy, made no submission, sought no negotiation, and seemed

to rely only on passive resistance. Thus the year 1857 ended, and the

events of the Chinese war which transpired within it. It is however

desirable, for the sake of consecutive narrative, to continue here the

relation of this war to its close in 1858, notwithstanding the plan of

the History gives a separate chapter to the incidents of each year.

On the 5th of January, 1858, detachments of troops penetrated into the

city. The three most important persons in authority were captured—Yeh,

the viceroy, or chief governor; Pehkwei, governor of the city; and

Tseang Keun, the Tartar general. Yeh was sent a prisoner to Calcutta.

The Tartar general was set at liberty, on condition of disbanding his

troops; and the civic governor was ordered to continue his functions,

subject to a military commission. This last arrangement did not work

well, the Chinese governor continuing to elude the vigilance of

the commission, and perform many hostile and even cruel acts. It is

astonishing that with all their experience of the Chinese, the English

should have expected any other result.

The Emperor of ‘China degraded Yeh, and appointed another governor of

the province of Canton in his stead.

The allied plenipotentiaries opened communications with the emperor,

and foolishly awaited a reply, which of course never came. The Russian

ambassador encouraged the plan, and affected to participate,—he knew

well that no answer would arrive, and probably used whatever influence

he had to prevent its arrival. The wearied plenipotentiaries at last

set sail for the Peiho, hoping, by the display of their power nearer the

capital, to compel negotiations. The ambassadors arrived at the Peiho

on the 14th April. They were received in a very flattering manner by the

mandarins, who at the same time began to strengthen the defences of the

river, so as to oppose the further progress of the fleet. According to

the despatch of Admiral Seymour these defences “presented a formidable

appearance.” The forts were ultimately attacked, silenced, and

captured. The fleet proceeded up the river, and found junks, filled

with combustibles, moored across with chains, but the enemy fled.

The impediments were removed, and the fleet advanced to the city of

Tien-sin, at the end of the grand canal. The city contained 300,000

inhabitants. The ambassadors landed under a flag of truce, and were

courteously received, on the 29th May.

When the emperor learned the resistless progress of the forces of his

enemies, he sent two commissioners, who alleged that they had full

powers to treat for peace. They arrived on the 4th of June. They

insisted on negotiating with the European plenipotentiaries separately,

and first with the representative of England. On producing their

credentials, and their commission, an insolent and haughty document was

read delegating power to make peace with the barbarians, if the latter

did not ask for anything contrary to Chinese custom, and Lord Elgin

immediately retired from the conference. After various efforts to create

delay, which were resisted by the plenipotentiaries, a treaty was signed

to the following effect:—