EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COMMISSION. 159 restricted to any fixed number either by treaty | dency of the evidence was to show that the commissariat and the land transport service at the seat of war were grossly mismanaged. Even at Scutari there was a great deficiency of forage and only one place at which to obtain or in any other manner. He suggested a counterpoise of forces in the Black Sea by opening the Straits of the Dardanelles to the flags of war of all nations-a proposition really involving a general competition in the main-it, so that a man would have to wait all day tenance of enormous naval armaments, which would have meant a constant state of war instead of a permanent or practical peace. After this little weight was given to the profession with which Prince Gortschakoff accompanied this refusal, that Russia was prepared to examine any measures which might be proposed to her not inconsistent with her honour. Only one result was anticipated after the express declaration which her plenipotentiaries had made, that "any restriction upon her naval force in the Black Sea was derogatory to the sovereign rights of the emperor their master, and dangerous to the independence of the Ottoman Empire." All this time the Russian representative was playing the old game of endeavouring to weaken the alliance between England and France by flattering the French emperor. It was against this country that the anger of Russia seemed to be directed. In a letter dated 26th of March, 1855, by Count Nesselrode to his son-in-law Baron Seebach, the Saxon minister at the court of the Tuileries, which was written really à l'adresse of the Emperor of the French, and of which a copy was at once forwarded by him to the English government, Count Nesselrode says, speaking of his master, "L'empereur, quelles que soient ses dispositions pacifiques, n'acceptera jamais des conditions semblables, et la nation se soumettra à tous les sacrifices plutôt que de les subir." "Entre la France et la Russie il y a guerre sans hostilité," he says in another communication. "La paix se fera quand il (the Emperor of the French) la voudra. A mes yeux la situation se résume dans cette vérité." The commission of inquiry obtained by Mr. Roebuck had soon examined a great number of witnesses, many of them (including the Duke of Cambridge) officers of high rank and considerable importance. The general ten before he could procure the supplies he wanted, and the same blundering policy was carried out before Sebastopol, where the irregular feeding of the horses wrought incalculable mischief. The Duke of Cambridge laid much emphasis on the fact that the guards were unable to obtain the London "porter" which had been sent out to them as a prime necessity. "We got porter at Scutari and at Varna, but not afterwards. . . . I attribute the sickness to the climate; but I think the great mortality in the guards arose from the men not being able to get porter." The special correspondent of the Illustrated London News and the almoner of the Times' benevolent fund were also examined. Though the evidence taken was quoted in some quarters as a reason for assailing Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Sidney Herbert for resigning office, it would not appear that any particularly useful end was answered by it, especially as it had little or no application against the existing government, from which these gentlemen had retired. Some of the testimony elicited not only before the commission but by admissions of officials in answer to questions in parliament, revealed a condition of things which would have been ludicrous had the consequences not been so sad. The greatcoats of some of the soldiers, for instance, were said to have been made of the worst possible material, and utterly useless to the wearers. This was scarcely denied; but the answer was that they were "quite up to the pattern," the "object being to give the soldiers as little as possible to carry." There was no actual slackening of hostilities during the Vienna conference, and extensive preparations for a more vigorous prosecution of the siege continued to be made. Wednesday, the 21st of March, was appointed to be observed as a day for fasting and special prayer for a blessing on "the just and necessary war in which we are engaged." The House of Lords attended divine worship in Westminster Abbey, and the Commons in the parish church of St. Margaret's, while services were held at almost all the principal churches and chapels throughout the country. By this time it was generally understood that the negotiations at Vienna had proved abortive, and that the prospects of peace were, in fact, more remote than ever. The Russian government having on the 21st of April definitely rejected the proposals for neutralizing the Black Sea, or for limiting their own naval force there, the plenipotentiaries of England and France declared their powers exhausted, and announced their intention to return home. Lord John Russell left Vienna on the 23d of April, and was immediately followed by M. Drouyn de Lhuys. The salient features of the Austrian proposal were that the allies might each have two frigates in the Black Sea; that, if the Russians increased their fleet there beyond its existing number, the allies might each maintain there one half the number of the Russian ships of war; that Russia should be asked by Austria not to increase her naval forces in the Black Sea beyond the number actually there in 1853, and that whether she accepted this engagement or not Austria would sign a treaty making any increase beyond that number a casus belli. This was an extraordinary proposal, and as Prince Albert at once pointed out, "the proposal of Austria to engage to make war when the Russian armaments should appear to have become excessive is of no kind of value to the belligerents, who do not wish to establish a case for which to make war hereafter, but to obtain a security upon which they can conclude peace now." The same view had already been taken by our government and by the Emperor of the French. The Austrian proposals were not likely to deceive so astute a minister as Lord Palmerston, and they bore more of the appearance of Russian diplomatic suggestion than of the advice of a friendly ally. But there was a new complication. The French and English plenipotentiaries had both expressed their personal approval of the Austrian recommendation, but having no instructions to accept it had left the conference. Lord John Russell had in his despatches indicated his concurrence, and we soon heard from the Emperor of the French that Drouyn de Lhuys had pressed the proffered terms upon him, urging the necessity for prompt decision. Various speculations have been made on the reasons for the French minister's acceptance of the Austrian proposals. It was hinted that he disliked the alliance of England with France, and was not unwilling to see a check placed on the power of England by compelling her to conclude an unsatisfactory peace. More probable was the notion, that he hoped the preparations of Austria to take the field against Russia, in case of a refusal of the offered terms by the former, or, eventually, in case of an undue increase of naval armaments in the Black Sea, would break up the continental league which had for so long kept France in check. It seldom occurs to English critics to suspect foreign diplomatists of weakness, or folly, or incapacity. The conduct of the French plenipotentiary could only be accounted for by supposing it to proceed from some more or less subtle policy. No such excuse was made for Lord John Russell, nor did he seem to give ground for it. At all events the Austrian proposal was utterly rejected by both governments, and the arguments of their representatives, who had returned from the conference, failed to convince them. There was one essential difference in the subsequent proceedings of the French and the English "plenipos." M. Drouyn de Lhuys resigned his office and was succeeded by M. Walewski as minister of foreign affairs, M. Persigny being sent as ambassador to London. Lord John Russell, who had so recently resigned, to the embarrassment and ultimate defeat of a ministry, remained in office to embarrass even if he could not defeat another government. On the 4th of May, a week having elapsed without the papers relating to the Vienna conference being presented to the House of Commons, Mr. Disraeli sharply attacked the government, contrasting its dilatory conduct with that of 1796, when Lord Malmesbury was attempting to negotiate peace with France. Lord Palmerston in reply said the ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM ASSOCIATION. 161 peace. An attempt had been made to show that this movement was a mere trading affair; but they would show that it was something more serious. They wished to see the public business of the country conducted in an efficient manner. They had been accused of a wish to attack the aristocracy; but there need be no alarm on that head in a country like England, where the great mass of the people are so much attached to the aristocracy. The meeting had not been called to discuss the war, upon the wisdom or justice of which he would not pronounce. Their sole object was to obtain a reform of the present system of government. cases were different, as we were endeavouring | peace," when he felt that there ought to be no to negotiate through the intervention of Austria. He was not prepared to say that there might not be other means open, by which, through the friendly intervention of Austria, a proposition might be made which would have the effect of bringing hostilities to a close. He wished to leave the door open for negotiations. While on the one hand the government were determined to continue the contest in a manner consistent with the honour, the dignity, and the interests of the country, on the other hand they would not be parties to shutting the door against any possibility of concluding an honourable and satisfactory peace. This was not satisfactory to the opposition, who were determined to impugn the conduct of the ministry. Meanwhile an Administrative Reform Association had been organized, which on the day following held a meeting at the London Tavern to carry resolutions that "the true remedy for the system of maladministration which had caused so lamentable a sacrifice of labour, money, and human life, is to be sought for in the introduction of large experience and practical ability into the service of the state; that the exclusion from office of those who possess in a high degree the practical qualities necessary for the direction of affairs in a great commercial country, is a reflection upon its intelligence and a betrayal of its interests; that, while we disclaim every desire of excluding the aristocratic classes from participation in the councils of the crown, we feel it our duty to protest against the pretensions of any section of the community to monopolize the functions of administration." The chair at this meeting was taken by Mr. Samuel Morley, and the meeting itself chiefly consisted of merchants and traders in the metropolis, whose object it was to organize an association for administrative reform. Mr. Morley at the outset said he had come there because he honestly feared that we were drifting into that state which, if unchecked, must land us in revolution, and because, in all seriousness, he had no faith in order or peace which was not founded on contentment; and he for one was not disposed to say "Peace, VOL. IIL The speakers at this meeting emphatically protested that their representations were not a mere flash in the pan, but were founded on convictions which they were determined to follow to some practical issue. It soon appeared that they were likely to be supported by resolutions in both houses of Parliament. Immediately after the meeting we find the Earl of Ellenborough proposing an address to her majesty to declare the persuasion of the House of Lords "that, amidst all their disappointments, the people of this country still retain the generous feelings which led them at the commencement of the war willingly to place all the means required from them at her majesty's disposal; that they will still protect the weak against the aggression of the strong; and that they are not prepared to consent that Russia shall, by her increasing preponderance, so control the Turkish government as practically to hold Constantinople within her grasp. "To acquaint her majesty, that while we admit and lament the privations to which war necessarily subjects all classes of the people, we yet venture to assure her majesty that they would, in so just a cause, bear those privations without complaint, if they could feel that the war had been well conducted, that the troops had not been exposed to any hardships which could have been avoided by forethought, and that everything had been done to enable them to achieve decisive success; and humbly to represent to her majesty that 53 her people, suffering privations on account of this war, have, as yet, had no such consolation; that, on the contrary, we cannot withhold from her majesty the avowal of our conviction, that the conduct of the war has occasioned general dissatisfaction, and given rise to just complaints, and that we must humbly lay before her majesty our deliberate opinion that it is only through the selection of men for public employment, without regard to anything but the public service, that the country can hope to prosecute the war successfully, and to attain in its only legitimate object--a secure and honourable peace." In speaking of Lord Palmerston's "pretended" knowledge of military affairs, the noble earl narrated a reminiscence of the Duke of Wellington. "I recollect sitting by the side of the Duke of Wellington in the House of Lords during the unfortunate difficulty between him and Mr. Huskisson which led to the resignation of a portion of the gentlemen forming the government. The Duke of Wellington was suddenly called out of the house, and when he returned he said to me, 'That was Palmerston who wanted to see me, to tell me if Huskisson went he must go too.' The duke continued, 'I said nothing; it was not for me to fire great guns at small birds.' That was the opinion of the Duke of Wellington." This was not a very remarkable story, and was not very appropriate as applied to the Palmerston of 1855. On the whole it may have been considered to have been at the expense of the memory of the Duke of Wellington rather than that of the existing prime minister. Lord Granville, who before he came to the title was George Leveson Gower, took up the defence of the government chiefly on the ground that able, practical men engaged in commercial or other pursuits could not be induced to give up their business to accept political office. In the course of his remarks he referred with some humour to the charge made by the noble earl that the cabinet was composed of Gowers, Howards, and Cavendishes. "My lords," he said, "I had better make a clean breast of it at once; and I am obliged to admit that some of those who went before me had such quivers full of daughters who did not die old maids, that I have relations upon this side of the house, relations upon the cross-benches, relations upon the opposite side of the house, and I actually had the unparalleled misfortune to have no fewer than three daughters in the Protectionist administration of my noble friend opposite." The resolutions of the Earl of Ellenborough were rejected, and in the House of Commons a motion made by Major Reid, calling attention to the critical state of public affairs and to the necessity of at once introducing reforms in every branch of the state, was answered by Lord Palmerston, who said, in forming his government he was not influenced by family connections, but rather by the distinguished abilities which individuals had displayed in public affairs; and he only regretted that commercial men of the greatest ability and talent were generally so absorbed in their commercial pursuits that it was difficult-indeed, impossible-to obtain their assistance. The government as it stood was, he thought, such as should command the confidence of the public. He was aware that great improvements might be made in various branches of the public service, and the utmost attention was paid to the subject, with a view to their introduction. "It was intended to abolish the office of master-general of the ordnance, and also the ordnance board itself. The artillery and engineers would be placed under the same authority as the rest of the army. The civil department of the ordnance would be placed under the control of the secretary for war, as would also the medical department of the commissariat. The object which the government had most at heart was to render all the branches of the public service as effective and vigorous as possible; for he felt the war was with a colossal power, who would become dominant in Europe-France and England sinking into secondary states— if we should be worsted in the struggle." There was something about this answer which brought up Mr. Disraeli, who insinuated that Palmerston was himself the author of the motion. These tentative resolutions, if they produced no other effect, kept alive public criticism, and |