the members of the government, who declared that they were no parties to Aberdeen's answer to me, and that they considered all the details of the intended reform measure as still open to discussion." Had the members of the cabinet already foreseen that Lord John Russell's scheme would not pass-that it was not only defective in itself, but that the temper of the country would not brook so inopportune a moment for introducing a measure which would interfere with the one absorbing topic, the prosecution of a war that would defer political if not social progress? One can partly understand the attitude of men like Bright and Cobden if they looked at the relative situation of the government and the country by this light. But Lord Palmerston had yet a few lines to write. "Their (the members of the government) earnest representations, and the knowledge that the cabinet had on Thursday taken a decision on Turkish affairs in entire accordance with opinions which I had long unsuccessfully pressed upon them, decided me to withdraw my resignation, which I did yesterday. Of course what I say to you about the cabinet decision on Turkish affairs is entirely for yourself and not to be mentioned to anybody. But it is very important, and will give the allied squadrons the command of the Black Sea." These are suggestive lines. They were written on Christmas-day, 1853. Almost immediately afterwards the French ambassador, on hearing that Palmerston's resignation was withdrawn, wrote to him: "Au début de la campagne que nous allons faire ensemble, c'est un grand comfort pour moi et une grande garantie pour l'Empereur que de vous savoir l'âme des conseils de notre allié. Votre concours d'ailleurs pèse d'un poids trèsréel dans la balance, et on sait à Paris en apprécier toute le valeur.” The period of which we are writing was one of so much excitement that it is not surprising to find the reputations, or rather the popularity, of public men undergoing a considerable change. The position of the ministry was precarious, and its character for inde But cision was not improved by the threatened defection of Lord Palmerston, and the suspicion that he had resigned in consequence of what were called "timid counsels." more damaging still was the indecision of Lord John Russell, who seemed to have a chronic tendency towards resignation, and who, while exhibiting before the country as an uncertain figure with undefined outline, came forward with a new proposition for parliamentary reform. During the whole session he only succeeded in obtaining distinction as an example of how a high reputation may be obscured by vacillation followed by untimely action. The country was perhaps not absolutely indifferent to a new measure of parliamentary reform, but it could not entertain two great and absorbing topics at the same time. Even people who had been waiting and clamouring for another reform bill did not want it then, nor did they want a measure which, though it was elaborate, was evidently, and perhaps in consequence, imperfect. The proposed bill, though not complete, was too wide to be hastily accepted, and the pressure and excitement of the coming war forbade due consideration being given to a scheme which involved changes in the system of representation, several of which resembled those subsequently adopted, when the country was in a temper to entertain a still larger project. Briefly stated, this bill proposed that both in counties and boroughs votes should be given to persons in receipt of salaries of not less than £100 a year, payable quarterly or half-yearly; persons in receipt of £10 a year from government, bank, or India stock; persons paying forty shillings per annum of income or assessed taxes; graduates of any university in the United Kingdom; and persons who had for three years possessed a deposit of £50 in a savings-bank. In the counties votes were to be given also to all occupiers rated at £10 per annum residing elsewhere than in represented towns, and in the boroughs to all occupiers rated at £6 who had been resident within the borough for two years and a half. Boroughs having fewer than 300 electors or GLADSTONE'S FINANCIAL PREPARATIONS. than 5000 inhabitants were to be disfranchised, and of these there were 19 boroughs returning 29 members. Boroughs having fewer than 500 electors or than 10,000 inhabitants, and returning two members, were in future to return one member only, and these amounted to thirty-three; but on the other hand, counties and divisions of counties containing a population of more than 100,000 each, and returning two members, were in future to return three members. Of these there were thirty-eight; while two divisions of counties (South Lancashire and the West Riding of York) were to be subdivided and each subdivision was to return three members. Cities and boroughs were also to return additional members. Those containing more than 100,000 inhabitants, and returning only two members, were in future to return three; and boroughs returning only one member were to return two. Thus ten additional members would be returned, and six additional members were to be secured by giving representation by one member to Birkenhead, Burnley, Staley bridge, by two members to the Inns of Court, and one to the London University. One clause deserves particular attention. The city of London was to continue to return four members, but each elector was to have only three votes-the effect being to give an opportunity for that representation of minorities which has been more fully recognized in recent changes in the system of parliamentary representation. It will be seen that this scheme admitted the £10 householder to the county franchise, and at the first glance it would have seemed to make the manufacture or purchase of the right to vote both cheap and easy; but to prevent this, the building was to be rated at £5 a year unless the voter was actually resident. Lord John expressly stated that the borough franchise was made to follow a £6 municipal rating for the purpose of admitting a larger number of the working-classes of the country, for whom the Reform Act had not made sufficient provision. There would have been sixtysix vacancies under his scheme; sixty-three of these were to be apportioned as we have 51 seen, and the other three were to be given to populous towns, and to one university in Scotland. It soon became evident that the temper neither of the house nor of the country was in favour of passing the bill. On the 13th of February, in bringing it forward, amidst strong expressions of dissent, Lord John Russell had said: "I cannot think that there is any danger in discussing the question of reform during the excitement of a foreign war. The time that is really dangerous for such a discussion is the time of great popular excitement and dissension at home. It is said that there is no feeling on the subject; that there is a complete apathy about reform. If that really is the case, is it not the proper time to discuss questions of reform, lest in the course of the war there should be times of distress when the people should become excited, and large meetings should be assembled in every town, partly crying out for more wages and cheaper food, and partly crying out for an increase of political power? Supposing we should have the calamity of war, and with it the necessity for increasing the public burdens, is it not a fitting time to enlarge the privileges of the people when parliament is imposing fresh taxes, that in imposing them we may as far as possible impose them on those who have elected us?" There was much serious truth in this, and the fact that the bill was rejected by the house and by the country because of the war fever, no other measure being brought forward in its place, doubtless afforded a new argument for those very few persons who, at the time, were utterly opposed to fighting; but rejected it was, and what was more, the people immediately submitted to an enormous additional imposition of taxes for the purpose of carrying on the conflict which was now imminent. On the 10th of April the proposed measure was withdrawn. The government to whom it belonged gave it but a half-hearted support, and it was evident that there was little chance of its being carried. It had been carefully prepared, and Lord John Russell had apparently intended to stake his reputation upon it, but neither the time of its presentation nor the temper of the house was favour able to its reception. Probably Lord John alone felt deeply the necessity for withdrawing it, but he was much overcome, and towards the close of his remarks, in referring to the existence of some suspicion of his motives, his voice was stifled and he spoke through tears; but a simultaneous burst of cheering broke forth from all parts of the house, and was again and again repeated. "If I have done anything in the cause of reform," continued his lordship with emotion, "I trust that I have deserved some degree of confidence; but at all events, I feel if I do not possess that confidence I shall be of no use to the crown or to the country, and I can no longer hold the position I now occupy. These are times of no ordinary importance, and questions arise of the utmost difficulty. I shall endeavour to arrive at those conclusions which will be for the best interests of the crown and the country, and I trust that I may meet with support." The whole attitude of Lord John Russell at this time, conveys an impression of feebleness and uncertainty; and he may be said to have commenced the series of resignations by which this coalition ministry became distinguished; but he had done too good work for the country and was too able and gifted a statesman to be treated otherwise than with sympathy and respect. When he sat down, expressions of admiration for his character and esteem for his consistency, were numerous and genuine, and among the more prominent speakers, Mr. Disraeli, while utterly opposing many of the details of the measure which had been withdrawn, professed his cordial respect for Lord John, and declared "his character and career" to be "precious possessions of the House of Commons." While scarcely anybody could be found in a humour for considering questions of parliamentary reform, or any other measures demanding long and careful debate, everybody was anxiously waiting for the more immediately essential statement of the chancellor of the exchequer. The question was being asked everywhere, "What will Gladstone do?" and the answer mostly was, "Oh, depend upon it, he has some original plan for raising the revenue to carry on the war." There could scarcely have been a more anxious trial for a financial reformer than that which demanded, if not a reversal, a complete change of a budget intended to relieve the country from pressing burdens, and made it necessary to impose new taxes for the purpose of meeting sudden and almost alarming expenditure; but Mr. Gladstone was already equal to the occasion, and the country had sufficient confidence in his ability and his honesty to accept his statements and to submit without much flinching to the burdens which he reluctantly but decisively laid upon it. Indeed, his former budget, even for the short time that it had been in operation, was well calculated to inspire that confidence. He had estimated the revenue of the country for the year 1853-54, after all the reductions which had been effected, at £52,990,000, and it had reached £54,025,000, while the expenditure had been a million less than the sum at which it had been computed, so that he had two millions in hand; an amount which, small as it was, in view of the enormous estimates to be provided for, would have encouraged many ministers to devise a scheme for bringing forward a contingent budget postponing the means of payment, for what might or might not be a long-continued war, to some future period, when it would be met only by an increment of taxation, or by a permanent burden on succeeding generations. Mr. Gladstone at once emphatically repudiated any such intention, and practically announced his determination as far as possible to raise during the year the funds that would be required to meet, not only the ordinary, but the extraordinary expenses. Thoughtful and sagacious politicians truly characterized this determination as honest and courageous, and the opinion was endorsed by the nation even when, as a necessary provision for carrying that policy into effect, it was proposed to double the income-tax, to increase the duty on Scotch and Irish spirits, and to raise the malt-tax. The expenses of the war were to be paid out of current revenue, provided they did not amount to more than ten millions sterling beyond the ordinary expenditure, and £1,250,000 was to be at once voted for the expenses of THE KING OF PRUSSIA'S WHINING LETTER. the army of the East, a sum which was calculated to represent £50 a head for 25,000 men. It may be very well understood that to make these large demands on the country at a time when, but for the growing demands of army and navy, he would have been looking forward to further important reductions of taxation was a deep disappointment to a statesman who shared the reluctance of Lord Aberdeen and others to enter into hostilities at all. There was, however, as he believed, no other course to adopt, as war was inevitable, than so to provide for it as to make it effectual towards the speedy settlement of a lasting peace. Probably Mr. Gladstone differed from Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright only inasmuch as he could not admit that the utmost moral interposition might be used and yet that material interference as a resort to physical force could seldom or never be justified. With regard to the approaching war with Russia for the defence of the Ottoman Porte he may reasonably have considered that whatever might have been the circumstances in the past which had led to the existing situation, the demands of Russia were such as menaced not only Turkey but the integrity of European States, and that the cause of justice as well as the observance of international obligations, made it the duty of England to oppose by strong diplomatic representations, if such might be successful, but in the last resort by determined material opposition to a gigantic physical power, the unwarrantable attempts of the czar practically to add the Turkish possessions to his empire. This perhaps would be the outline of the argument held by the large moderate section of people who deplored and would have made great sacrifices to prevent rather than to maintain the conflict. This was the position taken during negotiations which had failed one after another, and the continuance of which even after the repeated evasions and attempted overbearing of the Emperor of Russia, was now recommended by the King of Prussia in a letter to the queen, in terms which may have been intended to be pious but were singularly inappropriate. In England the character ascribed to the King of Prussia was that of a weak and self 53 indulgent sovereign, with just enough culture. to be dilettante, and with a decided liking for the pleasures of the table. He was nicknamed "Clicquot" because he was supposed to be fond of champagne, and the common caricatures represented him dividing his attention between that exhilarating beverage and Strasbourg pie or German sausage. There was no sufficient reason for this estimate of his habits, and it is pretty certain that he really possessed considerable culture and liked intellectual pursuits; but he was weak in more than one respect, and his subsequent mental disorder in 1858 was perhaps not very surprising. Had his brother William been on the throne in 1853 instead of becoming his regent in 1858 and afterwards succeeding him, there is no telling what might have happened. Probably there would have been no Crimean war, but as it was, Prussia occupied the unenviable position of alternately crouching before Russia, and endeavouring to justify the attitude by asserting a right to sustain a moral and political neutrality. After having, by his anxiety not to offend his brother-in-law, reduced Prussian influence to a mere feeble coincidence with our remonstrance against the misinterpretation of the Vienna note, Frederick William appeared to be alarmed lest the czar should suspect him of being too decidedly opposed to him. The feeling against him in England was unmistakable. "The irritation here against the Prussian court," said Prince Albert, " is very great, and not undeserved. After it had caused intimation to be made of its dread of France, and we had procured a declaration for them that no territorial aggrandizement of any kind would be accepted by that nation, they now affect a fear of Russia, as though Prussia must be swallowed up in a moment." But it was at this juncture that the King of Prussia thought he might interpose by sending two letters, one of a private and one of an official character, to the Queen of England. These were specially despatched by a cavalry officer almost immediately after the czar's proposals had been negatived at Vienna, and their avowed intention was to induce the queen to reconsider those proposals, as though she could in any sense act independently of the decisions of her ministers. It seemed that the King of | Prussia was prepared to act outside the conference of ambassadors and of ministers of state, and he pretended to think, or was ignorant. enough to think, that the English sovereign might do the same, "in a spirit of conciliation and a love of peace." He was-he saidanxious to co-operate with her majesty in every effort for the preservation of peace, and though he could not hope that war would be averted, its sphere might be restricted, and the duration of the calamity averted, by the four powers continuing to be firmly united in their policy and course of action. This was the language of the sovereign whose policy had been feeble and pusillanimous, and whose untrustworthiness had encouraged Russia and embarrassed Austria. The more official letter was long, elaborate, and tainted with obvious duplicity. "I am informed that the Russian emperor has sent proposals for preliminaries of peace to Vienna, and that these have been pronounced by the conference of ambassadors not to be in accordance with their programme. Just there where the vocation of diplomacy ceases does the special province of the sovereign begin." Was it not most strange, he asked, that England seemed for some time past to have been ashamed of what had been the special motive for the conflagration? The war would now be one for a distant and ulterior purpose. "The preponderance of Russia is to be broken down! Well! I, her neighbour, have never yet felt this preponderance and have never yielded to it. And England in effect has felt it less than I. The equilibrium of Europe will be menaced by this war, for the world's greatest powers will be weakened by it. But above all suffer me to ask, 'Does God's law justify a war for an idea?"" The letter goes on to implore her majesty for the sake of the Prince of Peace not to reject the Russian proposals. "Order them to be probed to the bottom, and see that this is done in a desire for peace. Cause what may be accepted to be winnowed from what appears objectionable, and set negotiations on foot upon this basis! I know that the Russian emperor is ardently desirous of peace. Let your majesty build a bridge for the prin ciple of his life-the imperial honour! He will walk over it extolling God and praising him. For this I pledge myself. "In conclusion, will your majesty allow me to say one word for Prussia and for myself? I am resolved to maintain a position of complete neutrality; and to this I add, with proud elation, my people and myself are of one mind. They require absolute neutrality from me. They say (and I say), What have we to do with the Turk? Whether he stand or fall in no way concerns the industrious Rhinelanders and the husbandmen of the Riesengebirg and Bernstein. Grant that the Russian taxgatherers are an odious race, and that of late monstrous falsehoods have been told and outrages perpetrated in the imperial name. It was the Turk and not we who suffered, and the Turk has plenty of good friends, but the emperor is a noble gentleman, and has done us no harm. Your majesty will allow that this North German sound practical sense is difficult to gainsay. Should Count Gröben come too late, should war have been declared, still I do not abandon hope. Many a war has been declared, and yet not come to actual blows. God the Lord's will decides." There is no need to analyse or to characterize this letter, but it is little to be wondered at if it was read with impatience and even with indignation. Even now, that large numbers of people are more and more convinced that the Russian war, if it were just, might have been prevented, the terms in which the letter is couched will be regarded as offensive to English notions when the words are accompanied with some knowledge of the position occupied by Prussia at that time. The very spirit of time-serving, and of a selfishness the more stupendous because it is half-unconscious, seems to pervade the language employed. There could be only one kind of reply to it. The queen wrote without delay. "The recent Russian proposals came as an answer to the very last attempt at a compromise which the powers considered they could make with honour, and they have been rejected by the Vienna Conference, not because they were merely at variance with the language of the programme, but because they |