LORD'S LECTURES

BEACON LIGHTS OF HISTORY, VOLUME X

EUROPEAN LEADERS. 

BY JOHN LORD, LL. D. , AUTHOR OF "THE OLD ROMAN WORLD, " "MODERN EUROPE, "ETC. , ETC. 

CONTENTS

WILLIAM IV. 

ENGLISH REFORMS. 

Social evils in England on the accession of William IV. Political agitations. Premiership of Lord Grey. Aristocratic character of the reformers. Lord John Russell. The Reform Bill. Its final passage. Henry Brougham. Lord Melbourne, Prime Minister. Troubles in Ireland. O'Connell. Sir Robert Peel, Prime Minister. His short administration. Succeeded by Lord Melbourne. Abolition of West India slavery. Thomas Babington Macaulay. Popular reforms. Trades unions. Reform of municipal corporations. Death of William IV. Penny postage. Second ministry of Sir Robert Peel. The Duke of Wellington. Agitations for repeal of the Corn Laws. 

SIR ROBERT PEEL. 

POLITICAL ECONOMY. 

Birth and education of Sir Robert Peel. His conservative views. His High Church principle. Enters the Cabinet of Lord Liverpool. Catholic Emancipation. Resigns the representation of Oxford. Member of Tamworth. Opposes the Reform Bill. Prime Minister in 1841. Financial genius. His sliding scale. O'Connell's death. The Factory Question. Renewed charter of the Bank of England. Financial measure. Maynooth Grant. Agitation for Free Trade. Anti-Corn Association. Cobden and Bright. Free Trade leagues. Free Trade Hall in Manchester. Peel converted to Free Trade. Disraeli leader of the Protectionists. His virulent assaults on Peel. Abolition of the Corn Laws. Irish Coercion Bill. Fall of the Peel Ministry. Peel's great speech. Chartist movement. Its collapse. Death of Sir Robert Peel. Character of Sir Robert Peel. 

CAVOUR. 

UNITED ITALY. 

The Roman Catholic Church. The temporal power. General desire of Italians for liberty. Popular leaders. The Carbonari. Charles Albert. Joseph Mazzini. Young Italy. Varied fortunes of Mazzini. Marquis d'Azeglio. His aspirations and labors. Battle of Novara. King Victor Emmanuel II. Count Cavour. His early days. Prime Minister. His prodigious labors. His policy and aims. His diplomacy. Alliance with Louis Napoleon. Garibaldi. His wanderings and adventures. Daniele Manin. Takes part in the freedom of Italy. Garibaldi in Caprera. Peace of Villa-Franca. Liberation of Naples and Sicily. Flight of Francis II. Of Naples. Battle of Volturno. Annexation of Naples to Sardinia. Victor Emmanuel, King of Italy. Venetian provinces annexed to Italy. Withdrawal of French troops from Italy. All Italy united under Victor Emmanuel. 

CZAR NICHOLAS. 

THE CRIMEAN WAR. 

Origin of the Russians. Extension of Russian conquests. Conquests of Catherine I. Conquests of Alexander I. Conquests of Nicholas. Treaty of Adrianople. Ambition and aims of Nicholas. His character. Prince Mentchikof. Lord Stratford. Causes of the Crimean War. England and France in alliance with Turkey. Occupation by Russia of the Danubian provinces. War declared. Lord Palmerston. Lord Aberdeen. Lord Raglan. Marshal Saint-Arnaud. English and French at Varna. Invasion of the Crimea. Battle of Alma. Colonel Todleben. Siege of Sebastopol. Battle of Balaklava. "The Light Brigade". "The Heavy Brigade". Battle of Inkerman. Horrors of the siege. General disasters. Florence Nightingale. Sardinia joins the allies. Assault of Sebastopol. Death of Lord Raglan. Treaty of Paris. Indecisive results of the war. The Eastern Question. 

LOUIS NAPOLEON. 

THE SECOND EMPIRE. 

Fortunes and adventures of Louis Napoleon. The political agitations of 1848. Louis Napoleon, President of the French Republic. His Ministers. The Coup d'État. Usurpation of Louis Napoleon. His tools. His enemies. Hostility of the leading statesmen of France. Character of Louis Napoleon. The Crimean War. Alliance of France and England. Lord Palmerston. Stability of the Empire. Prosperity of France. Public Works. Splendid successes of Napoleon III. War with Austria. Peace of Villa-Franca. Improvements of Paris. Haussmann. Mexican War. Archduke Maxmilian. Humiliations and shifts of Louis Napoleon. War with Germany. Indecision and incapacity of Louis Napoleon. Battle of Worth. Marshal Bazaine. Gravelotte. Battle of Sedan. Fall of Napoleon III. Calamities of France. 

PRINCE BISMARCK. 

THE GERMAN EMPIRE. 

Humiliation of Prussia. Her great deliverers. Baron von Stein. His financial genius. His intense hatred of Napoleon. His great reforms. Disgrace of Stein. Prince Hardenberg. Baron von Humboldt. Scharnhorst. New military organization. Frederick William III. German Confederation, Diet of Frankfort. Reaction of liberal sentiments. Influence of Metternich. Frederick William IV. Rise of Bismarck. Early days. Politician. His unpopularity. Diplomatist at the Diet of Frankfort. Ambassador at St. Petersburg. Death of Frederick William IV. Bismarck, Prime Minister. Increase of the army. The Schleswig-Holstein Question. Treaty of Vienna, 1864. War between Austria and Prussia. Count von Moltke. Battle of Sadowa. Great increase of Prussian territory and population. New German Constitution. War clouds--France and Luxembourg. Conference at London. King William at Paris. Preparations and pretext for war with France. Mobilization of German troops. King William at Mayence. Battle of Gravelotte. Fall of Louis Napoleon at Sedan. Siege and surrender of Paris. King William crowned Emperor of Germany. Labors of Bismarck. His character. Quarrel with the Catholics. Socialism in Germany. Bismarck's domestic policy. Bismarck's famous speech, 1888. Death of Emperor William. Retirement of Bismarck. 

WILLIAM EWART GLADSTONE. 

THE ENFRANCHISEMENT OF THE PEOPLE. 

Precocity of Gladstone. Life at Oxford. Enters Parliament. Negro Emancipation. Under-Secretary for the Colonies. Ultra-Conservative principles. His eloquence as member of Parliament. His marriage. Essay on Church and State. Parliamentary leader. Represents Oxford. Letter on the Government of Naples. Benjamin Disraeli. Gladstone Chancellor of the Exchequer. Opposes the Crimean War. Great abilities as finance minister. Conversion to Free Trade. "Studies on Homer". His mistake about the American War. Defeat at Oxford. Irish Questions. Rivalry between Gladstone and Disraeli. Gladstone, Prime Minister. His great popularity. Disestablishment of Irish Church. Irish Land Bill. Radical army changes. Settlement of the Alabama claims. Irish University Bill. Fall of Gladstone's Ministry. Influence of Gladstone in retirement. Disraeli as Prime Minister. Return of Gladstone to power. His second administration. Parliamentary defeat of Gladstone. The Irish Question. Death. 

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

VOLUME X. 

Bismarck at Versailles_After the painting by Carl Wagner_. 

William IV. , King of England_After the painting by Sir Thomas Lawrence_. 

Sir Robert Peel_From the engraving by Sartain_. 

Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield_From a photograph_. 

Camillo Benso di Cavour_From a photograph_. 

Assassination of the Emperor Paul I. Of Russia_After the painting by H. Merté_. 

Czar Nicholas I. _After the painting by Horace Vernet_. 

Capture of Napoleon III. At Boulogne_After the painting by R. Gutschmidt_. 

Louis Napoleon III. _From a photograph_. 

Bismarck_After the painting by Franz von Lenbach_. 

Count Von Moltke_From a photograph from life_. 

Proclamation of King William of Prussia as Emperor ofGermany, at Versailles_After the painting by Anton von Werner_. 

William Ewart Gladstone_After a photograph from life_. 

BEACON LIGHTS OF HISTORY. 

WILLIAM IV. 

1765-1837. 

ENGLISH REFORMS. 

On the death of George IV. In 1830, a new political era dawned onEngland. His brother, William IV. , who succeeded him, was not his equalin natural ability, but was more respectable in his character and moreliberal in his views. With William IV. Began the undisputed ascendencyof the House of Commons in national affairs. Before his day, no primeminister could govern against the will of the sovereign. After GeorgeIV. , as in France under Louis Philippe, "the king reigned, but did notgovern. " The chief of the ascendent political party was the real ruler. 

When William IV. Ascended the throne the Tories were still in power, andwere hostile to reform. But the agitations and discontents of the latterdays of George IV. Had made the ministry unpopular. Great politicalreformers had arisen, like Lords Grey, Althorp, and Russell, and greatorators like Henry Brougham and Macaulay, who demanded a change in thenational policy. The social evils which stared everybody in the facewere a national disgrace; they made the boasted liberty of the English amockery. There was an unparalleled distress among the laboring classes, especially in the mining and manufacturing districts. The price of laborhad diminished, while the price of bread had increased. So wretched wasthe condition of the poor that there were constant riots andinsurrections, especially in large towns. In war times unskilledlaborers earned from twelve to fifteen shillings a week, and mechanicstwenty-five shillings; but in the stagnation of business which followedpeace, wages suffered a great reduction, and thousands could find nowork at all. The disbanding of the immense armies that had beennecessary to combat Napoleon threw out of employ perhaps half a millionof men, who became vagabonds, beggars, and paupers. The agriculturalclasses did not suffer as much as operatives in mills, since they got ahigh price for their grain; but the more remunerative agriculture becameto landlords, the more miserable were those laborers who paid all theycould earn to save themselves from absolute starvation. No foreign graincould be imported until wheat had arisen to eighty shillings a"quarter, " [1]--which unjust law tended to the enrichment ofland-owners, and to a corresponding poverty among the laboring classes. In addition to the high price which the people paid for bread, they weretaxed heavily upon everything imported, upon everything consumed, uponthe necessities and conveniences of life as well as its luxuries, --ontea, on coffee, on sugar, on paper, on glass, on horses, on carriages, on medicines, --since money had to be raised to pay the interest on thenational debt and to provide for the support of the government, including pensions, sinecures, and general extravagance. 

[Footnote 1: A quarter of a gross ton. ]

In the poverty which enormous taxes and low wages together produced, there were not only degradation and squalid misery in England at thistime, but violence and crime. And there was also great injustice in thelaws which punished crime. There were two hundred and twenty-threeoffences punishable with death. If a starving peasant killed a hare, hewas summarily hanged. Catholics were persecuted for their opinions; Jewswere disqualified from holding office. Only men of comfortable meanswere allowed to vote. The universities were closed against Dissenters. No man stood any chance of political preferment unless he was rich orwas allied with the aristocracy, who controlled the House of Commons. The nobles and squires not merely owned most of the landed property ofthe realm, but by their "rotten boroughs" could send whom they pleasedto Parliament. In consequence the House of Commons did not represent thenation, but only the privileged classes. It was as aristocratic as theHouse of Lords. 

In the period of repose which succeeded the excitements of war thepeople began to see their own political insignificance, and to agitatefor reforms. A few noble-minded and able statesmen of the more liberalparty, if any political party could be called liberal, lifted up theirvoices in Parliament for a redress of scandalous evils; but theeloquence which distinguished them was a mere protest. They were in ahopeless minority; nothing could be done to remove or ameliorate publicevils so long as the majority of the House of Commons were opposed toreform. It is obvious that the only thing the reformers could do, whether in or out of Parliament, was to agitate, to discuss, to holdpublic meetings, to write political tracts, to change public opinion, tobring such a pressure to bear on political aspirants as to insure anelection of members to the House of Commons who were favorable toreform. For seven years this agitation had been going on during thelater years of the reign of George IV. It was seen and felt by everybodythat glaring public evils could not be removed until there should be areform in Parliament itself, --which meant an extension of the electoralsuffrage, by which more liberal and popular members might be elected. 

On the accession of the new king, there was of course a new election ofmembers to the House of Commons. In consequence of the agitations ofreformers, public opinion had been changed, and a set of men werereturned to Parliament pledged to reform. The old Tory chieftains nolonger controlled the House of Commons, but Whig leaders like Brougham, Macaulay, Althorp, and Lord John Russell, --men elected on the issue ofreform, and identified with the agitations in its favor. 

The old Tory ministers who had ruled the country for fifty years wentout of office, and the Whigs came into power under the premiership ofLord Grey. Although he was pledged to parliamentary reform, his cabinetwas composed entirely of noblemen, with only one exception. There was nogreater aristocrat in all England than this leader of reform, --a cold, reticent, proud man. Lord Russell was also an aristocrat, being abrother of the Duke of Bedford; so was Althorp, the son and heir of EarlSpencer. The only man in the new cabinet of fearless liberality ofviews, the idol of the people, a man of real genius and power, wasBrougham; but after he was made Lord Chancellor, the presiding officerof the Chamber of Peers, he could no longer be relied upon as themouthpiece of the people, as he had been for years in the House ofCommons. It would almost seem that the new ministry thought more andcared more for the dominion of the Whigs than they did for a redress ofthe evils under which the nation groaned. But the Whigs were pledged toparliamentary reform, and therefore were returned to Parliament. More atleast was expected of them by the middle classes, who formed theelectoral body, than of the Tories, who were hostile to allreforms, --men like Wellington and Eldon, both political bigots, great as were their talents and services. In politics the Toriesresembled the extreme Right in the French Chamber of Deputies, --theultra-conservatives, who sustained the throne of Charles X. The Whigsbore more resemblance to the Centre of the Chamber of Deputies, led bysuch men as Guizot, Broglie, and Thiers, favorable to a constitutionalmonarchy, but by no means radicals and democrats like Louis Blanc, LedruRollin, and Lamartine. The Whigs, at the best, were as yet inclined onlyto such measures as would appease popular tumults, create an intelligentsupport to the throne, and favor _necessary_ reform. It was, with them, a choice between revolution and a fairer representation of the nation inParliament. It may be reasonably doubted whether there were a dozen menin the House of Commons that assembled at the beginning of the reign ofWilliam IV. Who were democrats, or even men of popular sympathies. Whatthe majority conceded was from fear, rather than from a sense ofjustice. The great Whig leaders of the reform movement probably did notfully foresee the logical consequences of the Reform Bill which wasintroduced, and the change which on its enactment would take place inthe English Constitution. 

Even as it was, the struggle was tremendous. It was an epoch in Englishhistory. The question absorbed all other interests and filled all men'sminds. It was whether the House of Commons should represent theprivileged and well-to-do middle classes or the nation, --at least alarger part of the nation; not the people generally, but those who oughtto be represented, --those who paid considerable taxes to support thegovernment; large towns, as well as obscure hamlets owned by thearistocracy. The popular agitation was so violent that experiencedstatesmen feared a revolution which would endanger the throne itself. Hence Lord Grey and his associates determined to carry the Reform Billat any cost, whatever might be the opposition, as the only thing to bedone if the nation would escape the perils of revolution. 

Lord John Russell was selected by the government to introduce the billinto the House of Commons. He was not regarded as the ablest of the Whigstatesmen who had promised reform. His person was not commanding, andhis voice was thin and feeble; but he was influential among thearistocracy as being a brother of the Duke of Bedford, head of a mostillustrious house, and he had no enemies among the popular elements. Russell had not the eloquence and power and learning of Brougham; but hehad great weight of character, tact, moderation, and parliamentaryexperience. The great hero of reform, Henry Brougham, was, as we havesaid, no longer in the House of Commons; but even had he been there hewas too impetuous, uncertain, and eccentric to be trusted with themanagement of the bill. Knowing this, his party had elevated him to thewoolsack. He would have preferred the office of the Master of the Rolls, a permanent judicial dignity, with a seat in the House of Commons; butto this the king would not consent. Indeed, it was the king himself whosuggested the lord chancellorship for Brougham. 

Lord Russell was, then, the most prominent advocate of the bill whichmarked the administration of Lord Grey. It was a great occasion, March1, 1831, when he unfolded his plan of reform to a full and anxiousassembly of aristocratic legislators. There was scarcely an unoccupiedseat in the House. At six o'clock he arose, and in a low and humblemanner invoked reason and justice in behalf of an enlargedrepresentation. He proposed to give the right of franchise to allhouseholders who paid £10 a year in rates, and who qualified to serve onjuries. He also proposed to disfranchise the numerous "rottenboroughs" which were in the gift of noblemen and great landedproprietors, --boroughs which had an insignificant number of voters; bywhich measure one hundred and sixty-eight parliamentary vacancies wouldoccur. These vacancies were to be partially filled by sending twomembers each from seven large towns, and one member each from twentysmaller towns which were not represented in Parliament. Lord Russellfurther proposed to send two members each from four districts of themetropolis, which had a large population, and two additional memberseach from twenty-six counties; these together would add ninety-fourmembers from towns and counties which had a large population. To obviatethe great expenses to which candidates were exposed in bringing votersto the polls (amounting to £150, 000 in Yorkshire alone), the billprovided that the poll should be taken in different districts, andshould be closed in two days in the towns, and in three days in thecounties. The general result of the bill would be to increase the numberof electors five hundred thousand, --making nine hundred thousand in all. We see how far this was from universal suffrage, giving less than amillion of voters in a population of twenty-five millions. Yet even somoderate and reasonable an enlargement of the franchise createdastonishment, and was regarded by the opponents as subversive of theBritish Constitution; and not without reason, since it threw politicalpower into the hands of the middle classes instead of into those of thearistocracy. 

Lord Russell's motion was, of course, bitterly opposed by the Tories. The first man who arose to speak against it was Sir H. Inglis, member ofthe university of Oxford, --a fine classical scholar, an accomplishedgentleman, and an honest man. He maintained that the proposed alterationin the representation of the country was nothing less than revolution. He eulogized the system of rotten boroughs, since it favored the returnto Parliament of young men of great abilities, who without the patronageof nobles would fail in popular elections; and he cited the cases ofPitt, Fox, Burke, Canning, Perceval, and others who represented Appleby, Old Sarum, Wendover, and other places almost without inhabitants. SirCharles Wetherell, Mr. Croker, and Sir Robert Peel, substantially tookthe same view; Lord Althorp, Mr. Hume, O'Connell, and others supportedthe government. Amid intense excitement, for everybody saw the momentousissues at stake, leave was at length granted to Lord John Russell tobring in his bill. No less than seventy-one persons in the course ofseven nights spoke for or against the measure. The Press, headed by the"Times, " rendered great assistance to the reform cause, while publicmeetings were everywhere held and petitions sent to Parliament in favorof the measure. The voice of the nation spoke in earnest anddecided tones. 

On the 21st of March, 1831, Lord John Russell moved the second readingof the bill; but the majority for it was so small that ministers werecompelled to make modifications. After a stormy debate there was amajority of seventy-eight against the government. The ministers, undaunted, at once induced the king to dissolve Parliament, and anappeal was made to the nation. A general election followed, which sentup an overwhelming majority of Liberal members, while many of theleading members of the last Parliament lost their places. On the 21st ofJune the new Parliament was opened by the king in person. He wasreceived with the wildest enthusiasm by the populace, as he proceeded instate to the House of Lords in his gilded carriage, drawn by eightcream-colored horses. On the 24th of June Lord John Russell againintroduced his bill, this time in a bold, manly, and decisive manner, instriking contrast with the almost suppliant tone which he assumedbefore. On the 4th of July the question of the second reading wasbrought forward. The discussion was carried on for three nights, and ondivision the great majority of one hundred and thirty-six was with thegovernment. The only hope of the opposition was now in delay; andfactious divisions were made on every point possible as the bill wentthrough the committee. The opposition was most vexatious. Praed madetwenty-two speeches against the bill, Sugden eighteen, Pelhamtwenty-eight, Peel forty-eight, Croker fifty-seven, and Wetherellfifty-eight. Of course the greater part of these speeches wereinexpressibly wearisome, and ministers were condemned to sit and listento the stale arguments, which were all that the opposition could make. Never before in a legislative body was there such an amount of quibblingand higgling, and "speaking against time;" and it was not till September19 that the third reading came on, the obstructions in committee havingbeen so formidable and annoying. On the 22d of September the billfinally passed in the House of Commons by a majority of one hundred andsix, after three months of stormy debate. 

But the parliamentary battles were only partially fought; victory in theend was certain, but was not yet obtained. It was necessary that thebill should pass the House of Lords, where the opposition wasoverwhelming. 

On the very evening of September 22 the bill was carried to the Lords, and Lords Althorp and Russell, with one hundred other members of theCommons, entered the Upper House with their message. The Lord ChancellorBrougham advanced to the bar with the usual formalities, and receivedthe bill from the hands of Lord John Russell. He then resumed his seaton the woolsack, and communicated to the assembled peers the nature ofthe message. Earl Grey moved that the bill be read a first time, and thetime was agreed to. On the 3d of October the premier addressed the Housein support of the bill, --a measure which he had taken up in his youth, not so much from sympathy with the people as from conviction of itsimperative necessity. There was great majesty in the manner of thepatrician minister as he addressed his peers; his eye sparkled withintelligence, and his noble brow betokened resolution and firmness, while his voice quivered with emotion. Less rhetorical than his greatcolleague the Lord Chancellor, his speech riveted attention. Forforty-five years the aged peer had advocated parliamentary reform, andhis voice had been heard in unison with that of Fox before the FrenchRevolution had broken out. Lord Wharncliffe, one of the most moderateand candid of his opponents, followed. Lord Melbourne, courteous andinoffensive, supported the bill, because, as he said, he dreaded theconsequences of a refusal of concession to the demands of the people, rather than because he loved reform, which he had previously opposed. The Duke of Wellington of course uttered his warning protest, and waslistened to more from his fame as a warrior than from his merits as aspeaker. Lord Brougham delivered one of the most masterly of his greatefforts in favor of reform, and was answered by Lord Lyndhurst in aspeech scarcely inferior in mental force. The latter maintained that ifthe bill became a law the Constitution would be swept away, and even arepublic be established on its ruins. Lord Tenterden, another greatlawyer, took the side of Lord Lyndhurst, followed in the same strain byDr. Howley, Archbishop of Canterbury. On a division, there was amajority of forty-one peers against the bill. 

The news spread with rapidity to every corner of the land that the Lordshad defeated the reform for which the nation clamored. Never in Englandwas there greater excitement. The abolition of the House of Lords waseverywhere discussed, and in many places angrily demanded. People coulddo nothing but talk about the bill, and politics threw all business intothe shade. An imprudent speech from an influential popular leader mighthave precipitated the revolution which the anti-reformers so greatlydreaded. The disappointed people for the most part, however, restrainedtheir wrath, and contented themselves with closing their shops andmuffling their church bells. The bishops especially became objects ofpopular detestation. The Duke of Newcastle and the Marquis ofLondonderry, being peculiarly obnoxious, were personally assailed by amob of incensed agitators. The Duke of Cumberland, brother of the king, was dragged from his horse, while the mob demolished the windows of thepalace which the nation had given to the Duke of Wellington. Throughoutthe country in all the large towns there were mobs and angry meetingsand serious disturbances. At Birmingham a rude and indignant meeting ofone hundred and fifty thousand people vented their wrath against thosewho opposed their enfranchisement. The most alarming of the riots tookplace in Bristol, of which Sir Charles Wetherell was the recorder, andhe barely escaped being murdered by the mob, who burned most of theprincipal public buildings. The example of Bristol was followed in othertowns, and the whole country was in a state of alarm. 

In the midst of these commotions Parliament was prorogued. But thepassage of the bill became more than ever an obvious necessity in orderto save the country from violence; and on December 12 Lord John Russellbrought forward his third Reform Bill, which, substantially like thefirst, passed its second reading January 17, 1832, by the increasedmajority of one hundred and sixty-two. When considered in committee theold game of obstruction and procrastination was played by theopposition; but in spite of it, the bill finally passed the House on the23d of March. 

The question which everybody now asked was, What will the Lords do? Itwas certain that they would throw out the bill, as they did before, unless extraordinary measures were taken by the government. The creationof new peers, enough to carry the bill, was determined upon ifnecessary, although regretted by Lord Grey. To this radical measurethere was great opposition on the part of the king, although he had thusfar given the bill his support; but the reformers insisted upon it, ifreform could not be accomplished in any other way. To use a vulgarexpression, Lord Brougham fairly "bulldozed" his sovereign, and the kingnever forgave him. His assent was at last most reluctantly given; butthe peers, dreading the great accession to their ranks of sixty orseverity Liberal noblemen, concluded to give way, led by the Duke ofWellington, and the bill passed the House of Lords on the 4th of June. 

The Reform Bill of 1832 was the protest of the middle classes againstevils which had been endured for centuries, --a protest to which thearistocracy was compelled to listen. Amid terrible animosities andfearful agitations, reaching to the extremities of the kingdom, the billwas finally passed by the Liberal members, who set aside all othermatters, and acted with great unanimity and resolution. 

As noted above, during this exciting parliamentary contest the greatfigure of Henry Brougham had disappeared from the House of Commons; butmore than any other man, he had prepared the way for those reforms whichthe nation had so clamorously demanded, and which in part they had nowachieved. From 1820 to 1831 he had incessantly labored in the lowerHouse, and but little was done without his aid. It would have beenbetter for his fame had he remained a commoner. He was great not only asa parliamentary orator, but as a lawyer. His labors were prodigious. Altogether, at this period he was the most prominent man in England, themost popular among the friends of reform, and the most hated by hispolitical enemies, --a fierce, overbearing man, with great talent forinvective and sarcasm, eccentric, versatile, with varied rather thanprofound learning. When Lord Melbourne succeeded Lord Grey as premier, Brougham was left out of the cabinet, being found to be irascible, mischievous, and unpractical; he retired, an embittered man, to privatelife, but not to idleness, He continued to write popular and scientificessays, articles for reviews, and biographical sketches, taking aninterest in educational movements, and in all questions of the day. Hewas always a lion in society, and, next to Sir Walter Scott, was theobject of greatest curiosity to American travellers. Although great asstatesman, orator, lawyer, and judge, his posthumous influence is smallcompared with that which he wielded in his lifetime, --which, indeed, maybe said of most statesmen, the most noted exception to the rule beingLord Bacon. 

With Brougham in the upper House, Lord John Russell had become the mostprominent man in the lower; but being comparatively a poor man, he wascontented to be only paymaster of the forces, --the most lucrative officein the government. His successful conduct of the great Reform Bill gavehim considerable prestige. In the second ministry of Lord Melbourne, 1834-1841, Lord Russell was at first colonial and afterward homesecretary. Whatever the post he filled, he filled it with credit, andhad the confidence of the country; for he was honest, liberal, andsensible. He was not, however, an orator, although he subsequentlybecame a great debater. I have often heard him speak, both in and out ofParliament; but I was never much impressed, or even interested. He hadthat hesitating utterance so common with aristocratic speakers, bothclerical and lay, and which I believe is often assumed. In short, hehad no magnetism, without which no public speaker can interest anordinary audience; but he had intelligence, understood the temper of theHouse, and belonged to a great historical family, which gave himparliamentary influence. He represented the interests of the wealthymiddle classes, --liberal as a nobleman, but without any strikingsympathy with the people. After the passage of the Reform Bill, he wasunwilling to go to any great lengths in further reforms, and thereforewas unpopular with the radicals, although his spirit was progressive. Itwas his persistent advocacy of parliamentary reform which had made himprominent and famous, and it was his ability as a debater which kept himat the head of his party. Historians speak of him without enthusiasm, but with great respect. The notable orators of that day were O'Connelland Brougham. As a platform speaker, probably no one ever surpassed theIrish leader. 

After the passage of the Reform Bill, the first thing of importance towhich the reform Parliament turned its attention was the condition ofIreland. The crimes committed in that unfortunate country called loudlyfor coercive measures on the part of the government. The murders, theincendiary fires, the burglaries and felonious assaults, wereunprecedented in number and atrocity. The laws which had been passed forthe protection of life and property had become a dead letter in some ofthe most populous districts. Jurors were afraid to attend the assizes, and the nearest relatives of the victims dared not instituteproceedings; even magistrates were deterred from doing their duty. Infact, crime went unpunished, and the country was rapidly sinking intosemi-barbarism. In the single year of 1832 there were two hundred andforty-two homicides, eleven hundred and seventy-nine robberies, fourhundred and one burglaries, five hundred and sixty-eight house-burnings, one hundred and sixty-one serious assaults, two hundred and three riots, besides other crimes, --altogether to the number of over nine thousand. Abill was accordingly brought into the Upper House by Lord Grey to giveto the lord-lieutenant power to substitute courts-martial for theordinary courts of justice, to enter houses for the purpose of searchingfor arms, and to suspend the act of _habeas corpus_ in certaindistricts. The bill passed the Lords without difficulty, but encounteredsevere opposition in the House of Commons from the radical members andfrom O'Connell and his followers. Nevertheless it passed, with somealterations, and was at once put in force in the county of Kilkenny, with satisfactory results. The diminution of crime was most marked; andas the excuse for disturbances arose chiefly from the compulsory titheswhich the Catholic population were obliged to pay in support of theProtestant Church, the ministry wisely attempted to alleviate thegrievance. It was doubtless a great injustice for Catholics to becompelled to support the Established Church of England; but the ministrywere not prepared to go to the length which the radicals and the Irishmembers demanded, --the complete suppression of the tithe system; inother words, "the disestablishment of the Irish Church. " They werewilling to sacrifice a portion of the tithes, to reduce the number ofbishops, and to apply some of the ecclesiastical property to secularpurposes. But even this concession called out a fierce outcry from theconservatives, in and out of Parliament. A most formidable oppositioncame from the House of Lords, headed by Lord Eldon; but the ministerswere at last permitted to carry out their measure. 

Nothing satisfactory, however, was accomplished in reference to thecollection of tithes, in spite of the concession of the ministers. Theold difficulty remained. Tithes could not be collected except at thepoint of the bayonet, which of course was followed by crimes anddisturbances that government could not prevent. In 1833 the arrears oftithes amounted to over a million of pounds, and the Protestant clergywere seriously distressed. The cost of collecting tithes was enormous, from the large coercive force which the government was obliged tomaintain. When the pay of soldiers and policemen is considered, it took£25, 000 to collect £12, 000. The collection of tithes became animpossibility without a war of extermination. Every expedient failed. Even the cabinet was divided on all the schemes proposed; for everymember of it was determined to uphold the Established Church, in someform or other. 

At last Mr. Ward, member for St. Albans, in 1834 brought forward in theCommons a measure which had both reason and justice to commend it. Aftershowing that the collection of tithes was the real cause of Irishdiscontents, that only a fourteenth of the population of Ireland were incommunion with the English Church, that nearly half of the clergy werenon-residents, and that there was a glaring inequality in the salariesof clergymen, --so that some rectors received from £500 to £1, 000 inparishes where there were only ten or twelve Protestants, while some ofthe resident clergy did duty for less than £20 per annum, --he moved thefollowing: "Resolved, that as the Protestant Episcopal Establishment ofIreland exceeds the spiritual wants of the Protestant population, it isthe opinion of the House that the temporal possessions of the Church ofIreland ought to be reduced. " The motion was seconded by Mr. Grote, thecelebrated historian; but Lord Althorp rose and requested the House toadjourn, in consequence of circumstances he was not prepared to mention. All understood that there was trouble in the cabinet itself; and whenthe House reassembled, it was found that the Duke of Richmond, EarlRipon, Lord Stanley (colonial secretary), and Sir James Graham, beingopposed to the appropriation of the funds of the Irish Church to otherthan ecclesiastical purposes, had resigned. The king himself wasstrongly opposed to the motion, to say nothing of the peers; and theconservative part of the nation, from the long-inherited jealousy of theCatholic Church, stood upon the same ground. 

While ministers were tinkering on the affairs of Ireland, without loftypurpose or sense of justice or enlightened reason even, the giganticfigure of O'Connell appeared in striking contrast with the statesmen whoopposed him and tried in vain to intimidate him. The great agitator hadmade his power felt long before the stormy debates in favor of reformtook place, which called out the energies of Brougham, --the only man inEngland to be compared with O'Connell in genius, in eloquence, inintellect, and in wrath, but inferior to him in the power of moving thepassions of an audience, yet again vastly superior to him in learning. While Brougham was thundering in the senate in behalf of reform, --themost influential and the most feared of all its members, without whoseaid nothing could be done, --O'Connell was haranguing the whole Catholicpopulation of Ireland in favor of a repeal of the Union, looking uponthe evils which ground down his countrymen as beyond a remedy under theEnglish government. He also made his voice ring with startling vehemencein the English Parliament, as soon as the Catholic Emancipation billenabled him to enter it as the member from Clare, always advocatingjustice and humanity, whatever the subject under consideration might be. So long as O'Connell was "king of Ireland, " as William IV declared himto be, nothing could be done by English ministers on Irish matters. Hisagitations were tremendous, and yet he kept within the laws. His missionwas to point out evils rather than to remove them. No man living wascapable of pointing out the remedy. On all Irish questions the wisdomand experience of English statesmen were in vain. Yet amid the stormswhich beat over the unhappy island, the voice of the great pilot waslouder than the tempests, which he seems to control as if by magic. Mr. Gladstone, in one of his later contributions to literature, has donejustice to the motives and the genius of a man whom he regards as thegreatest that Ireland has ever produced, if Burke may be excepted, yet aman whom he bitterly opposed in his parliamentary career. Faithful aliketo the interests of his church and his country, O'Connell will ever beranked among the most imposing names of history, although he failed inthe cause to which he consecrated his talents, his fortune, hisenergies, and his fame. Long and illustrious is the list of reformerswho have been unsuccessful; and Mr. O'Connell must be classed withthese. Yet was he one who did not live in vain. 

Incapable of effectively dealing with the problem, the governmenttemporized and resolved to stave off the difficulty. A commission wasappointed to visit every parish in Ireland and report the state ofaffairs to Parliament, when everybody already knew what this statewas, --one of glaring inequality and injustice, exceedingly galling tothe Catholic population. Nor was this the only Irish Church questionthat endangered the stability of the ministry. Tithe bill after tithebill had been passed, and all alike had failed. Mr. Ward had argued forthe entire abolition of the tithe system, from the expense anddifficulty of collecting tithes, leaving the clergy to be supported bythe crown. A new tithe bill was, however, introduced, by which theclergy should accept something short of what they were entitled to bylaw. Not only was the tithing system an apparently inextricable tangle, but there was trouble about the renewal of the Coercion Act. Lord Grey, wearied with political life, resigned the premiership, and LordMelbourne succeeded him, --a statesman who cared next to nothing forreform; not an incapable man, but lazy, genial, and easy, whosewatchword was, "Can't you let it alone?" But he did not long retainoffice, the king being dissatisfied with his ministers; and Sir RobertPeel, being then at Rome, was sent for to head the new administration inJuly, 1834. It may be here remarked that Mr. Gladstone first took officeunder this government. Parliament, of course, was dissolved, and a newelection took place. The Whigs lost thereby much of their power, butstill were a majority in the House, and the new Tory government foundthat the Irish difficulties were a very hard nut to crack. 

The new Parliament met Feb. 15, 1835; and as the new government cameinto power by defeating the Whigs on the subject of the Irish Church, itwas bound to offer some remedy for the trouble which existed. Accordingly, Lord Morpeth, the eldest son of the Earl of Carlisle, andclosely allied with the Duke of Sutherland and other greatfamilies, --agreeable, kindly, and winning in his manners, and of veryrespectable abilities, --on June 26 introduced his Tithe Bill, by whichhe proposed to convert the tithe itself into a rent-charge, reducing itto a lower amount than the late Whig government had done. His bill, however, came to nothing, since any appropriation clearly dealing withsurplus revenues failed to satisfy the Lords. 

Before anything could be done with Ireland, the Peel ministry wasdissolved, and the Whigs returned to power, April 18, 1835, with LordMelbourne again as prime minister. But the Irish difficulties remainedthe same, the conservatives refusing to agree to any bill which dealtwith any part of the revenues of the State church; and the question wasnot finally settled for Ireland till after it was settled in England. 

Thus the reformed Parliament failed in its attempt to remove thedifficulties which attended Irish legislation. It failed from theobstinacy of the conservatives, among Whigs as well as Tories, to renderjustice in the matter of rates and tithes, --the great cause of Irishdiscontent and violence at that time. It will be seen that newcomplications arose with every successive Parliament from that time tothis, landlords finding it as difficult to collect their rents as theclergy did their tithes. And these difficulties appear to be as greatto-day as they were fifty years ago. It still remains to be seen howIreland can be satisfactorily governed by any English ministry likely tobe formed. On that rock government after government, both liberal andconservative, has been wrecked, and probably will continue to be wreckedlong after the present generation has passed away, until the Englishnation itself learns to take a larger view, and seeks justice ratherthan the conservation of vested interests. 

But if the reformed Parliament failed to restore order in Ireland, andto render that justice which should have followed the liberal principlesit invoked, yet in matters strictly English great progress was made inthe removal of crying evils. 

Among these was the abolition of slavery in the British West IndiaIslands, which as early as 1833 occupied the attention of the House, even before the discussion on Irish affairs. The slave-trade had beensuppressed long before this, through the untiring labors and zeal ofWilberforce, Zachary Macaulay (father of the historian), and otherphilanthropists. But the evils of slavery still existed, --cruelty andoppression on the part of slave-owners, and hardships and suffering onthe part of slaves. Half-caste women were bought and sold, and floggedand branded. As early as 1823 Fowell Buxton, then in Parliament, furnished with facts by Zachary Macaulay, who had been manager of a WestIndia estate, brought in a motion for the abolition of slavery. Canningwas then the leading member of the House of Commons; although he did notgo so far as Buxton, still he did something to remedy the evils of thesystem, and was supported by Brougham, Mackintosh, and Lushington, --sothat the flogging of women was abolished, and married slaves were notseparated from their children. In 1830, Henry Brougham introduced amotion for the total abolition of slavery in the British colonies, andthrilled the House by his eloquence and passion; but his motion wasdefeated. When the new reform Parliament met in 1831, more pressingquestions occupied its attention; but at length, in 1833, Buxton made aforcible appeal to ministers to sweep away the greatest scandal of theage. He was supported by Lord Stanley, then colonial secretary, whoeloquently defended the cause of liberty and humanity; and he moved thateffectual measures be at once taken to abolish slavery altogether, withsome modifications. Thomas Babington Macaulay, who had enteredParliament in 1830, also brought all his eloquence to bear in behalf ofthe cause; and the upshot of the discussion was that Parliament set freethe slaves, and their masters received twenty millions of pounds as acompensation. Thus the long agitation of fifty years pertaining to negroemancipation in the British dominions was closed forever. The heart ofEngland was profoundly moved by this act of blended justice, humanity, and generosity, which has been quoted with pride by every Englishmanfrom that time to this. Possibly a similar national assumption of thevast expense of recompensing English owners of Irish lands may at sometime relieve Ireland of alien landlordism and England of hergreatest reproach. 

The condition of Hindostan next received the attention of Parliament;and on the renewal of the charter of the East India Company, in 1833, its commercial monopoly was abolished, and trade with the East wasthrown open to the merchants of all the world. The politicaljurisdiction of the Company was, however, retained. 

The new Parliament then turned its attention to a reduction of taxes. The duty on tiles was repealed; also the two-shilling stamp duty onadvertisements, together with the vexatious duty on soap. Dramaticcopyrights also received protection, and an improvement in the judicialadministration was effected. Sinecure offices were abolished in theCourt of Chancery, and the laws of dower and inheritance were amended. 

The members most active in these reforms were Lord Althorp, DanielO'Connell, Joseph Hume, and William Cobbett. Lord Althorp, afterwardEarl Spencer, made not less than one thousand speeches, and O'Connellsix hundred, in support of these reforms, --all tending to a decreasein taxation, made feasible by the great increase of wealth and theabolition of useless offices. 

The Trade Unions (a combination of operatives to secure improvement intheir condition) marked the year 1834, besides legislative enactments toreduce taxation. Before 1824 it was illegal for workmen to combine, evenin the most peaceable manner, for the purpose of obtaining an increaseof wages. This injustice was removed the following year, and strikesbecame numerous among the different working-classes, but were generallyeasily suppressed by the capitalists, who were becoming a great powerwith the return to national prosperity. For fifty years the vexed socialproblem of "strikes" has been discussed, but is not yet solved, givingintense solicitude to capitalists and corporations, and equal hope tooperatives. The year 1834, then, showed the commencement of the greatwar between capital and labor which is so damaging to all businessoperations, and the ultimate issue of which cannot be predicted withcertainty, --but which will probably lead to a great amelioration of thecondition of the working-classes and the curtailment of the incomes ofrich men, especially those engaged in trade and manufactures. There willalways be, without doubt, disproportionate fortunes, and capitalists cancombine as well as laborers; but if the strikes which are multiplyingyear by year in all the countries of Europe and the United States shouldend in a great increase of wages, so as to make workmen comfortable (forthey will never be contented), the movement will prove beneficent. Already far more has been accomplished for the relief of the poor by acombination of laborers against hard-hearted employers than by anylegislative enactments; but when will the contest between capital andlabor cease? Is it pessimism to say that it is likely to become moreand more desperate?

The "Poor Law Amendment" was passed July, 1834, during theadministration of Lord Melbourne, --Lord Grey having resigned, from theinfirmities of age and the difficulties of carrying on the government. He had held office nearly four years, which exceeded the term of hispredecessor the Duke of Wellington; and only four premiers have heldoffice for a longer period since 1754. The Poor Law Amendment, supportedby all political parties, was passed in view of the burdensome amount ofpoor rates and the superior condition of the pauper to that of many anindependent laborer. 

The ill management of the beer-houses led to another act in 1834, requiring a license to sell beer, which was granted only to persons whocould produce a certificate of good character from six respectableinhabitants of a parish. 

The session of Parliament in 1834 was further marked by a repeal of thehouse tax, by grants for building schoolhouses, by the abolition ofsinecure offices in the House of Commons, and by giving new facilitiesfor the circulation of foreign newspapers through the mails. There waslittle or no opposition to reforms which did not interfere with landedinterests and the affairs of Ireland. Even Sir Robert Peel, in hisshort administration, was not unfriendly to extending privileges toDissenters, nor to judicial, municipal, and economical reform generally. 

The most important of the measures brought forward by Whig ministersunder Lord Melbourne was the reform of municipal corporations. For twohundred years the abuses connected with these corporations had beensubjects of complaint, but could not easily be remedied, in consequenceof the perversion of municipal institutions to political ends. The venalboroughs, which both Whig and Tory magnates controlled, were the chiefseats of abuses and scandals. When these boroughs were disfranchised bythe Reform Bill, a way was opened for the local government of a town byits permanent residents, instead of the appointment of magistrates by aboard which perpetuated itself, and which was controlled by the ownersof boroughs in the interests of the aristocracy. In consequence of thepassing of the municipal reform act, through the powerful advocacy ofLord John Russell, the government of the town passed to its owncitizens, and became more or less democratic, not materially differingfrom the government of cities in the United States. Under able popularleaders, the towns not only became a new political power in Parliament, but enjoyed the privilege of electing their own magistrates andregulating their domestic affairs, --such as the police, schools, thelighting of streets, and public improvements generally. 

Besides this important act, some other salutary measures for the generalgood were carried by parliamentary leaders, --such as enlarging thecopyrights of authors, lecturers, and dramatists; abolishingimprisonment for debt for small sums; amending the highway and themarriage laws; enforcing uniformity in weights and measures, regulatingprison discipline, and commuting death punishment for many crimes. Thesereforms, having but little reference to partisan politics, received theapprobation of both Whigs and Tories. Most of the important bills whichpassed the Parliament from the accession of William IV. , however, weredirectly or indirectly the result of the Reform Bill of 1832, which hadenlarged the representation of the people. 

William IV. Died in January, 1837, after a short but prosperous reign ofseven years, much lamented by the nation. He was a frank, patriotic, andunconventional king, who accepted the reforms which made his reign anepoch. At his death there were more distinguished men in all departmentsof politics, literature, science, and art in Great Britain than at anyprevious period, and the condition of the people was more amelioratedthan had been known since the Reformation. A great series of reforms hadbeen peaceably effected without revolution; the kingdom was unusuallyprosperous; so that Queen Victoria, William's niece, the daughter of hisbrother the Duke of Kent (whose previous death had made Victoriaheir-apparent to the throne), entered upon her illustrious reign underhopeful auspices, June 21, 1837. The reform spirit had passed through noreactions, and all measures which were beneficent in their tendency werefavorably considered. 

In 1837 Mr. Rowland Hill proposed the startling suggestion that allexisting rates of postage should be abolished, and the penny postagesubstituted for all parts of the kingdom, irrespective of distance. Thiswas not at first accepted by the government or post-office officials;but its desirableness was so apparent that Parliament yielded to thepopular voice and it became a law, with increased gain ultimately to thenational finances, to say nothing of its immense influence in increasingknowledge. The old postage law had proved oppressive to all classesexcept members of Parliament, who had the franking privilege, which thenew law abolished. Under the old system, the average of letters mailedwas annually only four to each person. In 1875 it was thirty-three, andthe net revenue to the nation was nearly two million pounds sterling. 

Another great reform was effected in the early part of the reign ofVictoria, --that of the criminal code, effected chiefly through thepersevering eloquence of Sir James Mackintosh; although Sir SamuelRomilly, an eminent and benevolent barrister, as early as 1808, hadlabored for the same end. But thirty years had made a great change ofopinion in reference to the punishment of crime, which was cruellysevere. Capital offences numbered at the beginning of the century nearlytwo hundred and fifty, some of which were almost venial; but in 1837only seven crimes were punishable with death, and the accused wereallowed benefit of counsel. Before this, the culprit could be condemnedwithout a hearing, --a gross violation of justice, which did not existeven under the imperial despotism of the Caesars. 

Such were the most important measures passed by the reformed Parliamentduring the ten years' administration of the Whigs, most of which werethe logical results of the Reform Bill of 1832, which made the reign ofWilliam IV. The most memorable in the domestic history of England sincethe great Revolution which hurled the Stuarts from their throne. But thecountry was not satisfied with these beneficent reforms. A greatagitation had already begun, under the leadership of Cobden and Bright, for a repeal of the Corn Laws. The half measures of the Liberalgovernment displeased all parties, and the annual deficit had made itunpopular. After vainly struggling against the tide of discontent, theMelbourne ministry was compelled to resign, and in 1841 began the secondministry of Sir Robert Peel, which gave power to the Tories for five orsix years. Lord Lyndhurst returned to his seat on the woolsack, Mr. Goulburn was appointed chancellor of the exchequer, Sir James Grahambecame home secretary, Lord Aberdeen took the foreign department, andLord Stanley the colonial office. Into this cabinet Mr. Gladstoneentered as president of the board of trade, on the retirement ofEarl Ripon. 

The Duke of Wellington also had a seat in the cabinet, but held nooffice, his age and infirmities preventing him from active duties. Hewas "the grand old man" of his generation, and had received unparalleledhonors, chiefly for his military services, --the greatest general whomEngland has produced, if we except Marlborough. Although his fame restson his victories in a great national crisis, he was also an ablestatesman, --sensible, practical, patriotic; a man of prejudices, yet notwithout tact; of inflexible will, yet yielding to overpoweringnecessities, and accepting political defeat as he did the loss of abattle, gracefully and magnanimously. If he had not, however, been apopular idol for his military exploits, he would have been detested bythe people; for no one in England was more aristocratic in hissympathies than he, no one was fonder of honors and fashionabledistinctions, no one had a more genuine contempt for whatever wasplebeian and democratic. 

In coming lectures, --on Sir Robert Peel, Gladstone, etc. , --we shall findoccasion to trace the course of Victoria's beneficent reign over GreatBritain, beginning (as it did) after the abuses and distressesculminating under George IV. Had been largely relieved during thememorable reform epoch under William IV. 

AUTHORITIES. 

Miss Martineau's History of England; Molesworth's History of England;Mackenzie's History of the Nineteenth Century, Alison's History ofEurope; Annual Register; Lives of Lord Brougham, Wellington, LordMelbourne, Lord John Russell, Lord Liverpool, and Sir Robert Peel. Theseare the most accessible authorities, but the list is very large. 

SIR ROBERT PEEL. 

1788-1850. 

POLITICAL ECONOMY. 

Among the great prime ministers of England Sir Robert Peel is to beclassed. He ranks with Pitt, Canning, and Gladstone for his intellectualforce, his services, and his patriotism. He was to England what Guizotand Thiers were to France, --a pre-eminent statesman, identified withgreat movements, learned, eloquent, and wise. He was a man of unsulliedcharacter, commanding the respect and veneration of superiorminds, --reserved and cold, perhaps; not a popular idol like Fox andO'Connell, but a leader of men. 

There was no man in his cabinet more gifted or influential than he. LordLiverpool, Lord Melbourne, and Lord Aberdeen were placed in theirexalted posts, not for remarkable abilities, but by the force ofcircumstances, for the purpose of uniting greater men than they in acoalition in order to form a strong government. Thus, Canning really wasthe master spirit in the cabinet of Lord Liverpool, as Lord Palmerstonwas in that of Lord Aberdeen. Peel, however, was himself the controllingintellect of the government of which he was the head, and was doubtlesssuperior in attainments and political genius to Wellington, to EarlGrey, and Lord John Russell, --premiers like him, and prominent asstatesmen. Lord Goderich, Lord Stanley, Lord Althorp, Sir James Graham, Mr. Goulburn, Lord Wharncliffe, Lord Howick, Earl Ripon, Mr. C. Wood, Mr. Macaulay, Mr. Croker, were all very able ministers, but not to becompared with Sir Robert Peel in shaping the destinies of the country. His administration was an epoch in English political history, to be longremembered as singularly successful and important. 

Sir Robert Peel came from the people, although his father was a baronetand a very wealthy man, proud and aristocratic as he was rich. Hisriches were acquired by manufacturing cotton goods, like those of hisfather before him, whose business he inherited; but thegreat-grandfather of Sir Robert was a plain and unimportant cottonspinner in Lancashire, of no social rank whatever. No noble blood flowedin the veins of the great premier, nor was he ever ambitious ofaristocratic distinction. He declined an earldom, though rich enough tomaintain its rank. He accepted no higher social rank than what heinherited, and which came from successful business. 

But Peel was educated with great care by an ambitious father. He wassent to Harrow and Christ Church, and was distinguished as a boy for hisclassical attainments, as was Canning before him. At an early age hereached all the honors that Oxford could bestow; and when he was onlytwenty-one was brought into Parliament for the close borough of Cashel, in Ireland, in the gift of some noble lord. He entered the House ofCommons in 1809, at the same time with Palmerston, and a few yearsearlier than Lord John Russell, during that memorable period whenNapoleon was in the midst of his victories, and when a nobleconstellation of English statesmen combined their energies for the goodof their country, --Wilberforce, Wyndham, Tierney, Perceval, Grattan, Castlereagh, Canning, Romilly, Brougham, Mackintosh, Huskisson, andothers, --all trained in the school of Pitt, Fox, or Burke, who hadpassed away. Among these great men Peel made his way, not so much byforce of original genius--blazing and kindling like the eloquence ofCanning and Brougham--as by assiduity in business, untiring industry, and in speech lucidity of statement, close reasoning, and perfectmastery of his subject in all its details. He was pre-eminently a man offacts rather than theories. Like Canning and Gladstone, he wasultra-conservative in his early political life, --probably in a greatmeasure from his father's example as well as from the force of hisuniversity surroundings, --and, of course, joined the Tory party, thenall-powerful. So precocious were his attainments, and so promising washe from the force of his character, that at the age of twenty-four hewas made, by Mr. Perceval, under-secretary for the Colonies; the yearafter (in 1812) he was promoted, by Lord Liverpool, to the moreimportant post of secretary for Ireland. In the latter post he had tocombat Canning himself in the matter of Catholic emancipation, but didhis best to promote secular education in that priest-ridden and unhappycountry. For his High Church views and advocacy of Tory principles, which he had been taught at Oxford, he was a favorite with theuniversity; and in 1817 he had the distinguished honor of representingit in Parliament. In 1819 he made his financial reputation by advocatinga return to specie payments, --suspended in consequence of the Napoleonicwars. In 1820 he was married to a daughter of General Sir John Floyd, and his beautiful domestic life was enhanced by his love of art, ofscience, of agriculture, and the society of eminent men. In 1822 heentered Lord Liverpool's cabinet as home secretary; and when theministry was broken up in 1827, he refused to serve in the newgovernment under Canning, on account of the liberal views which thepremier entertained in reference to Catholic emancipation. 

The necessity of this just measure Sir Robert Peel was made to feelafter Canning's death, during the administration of the Duke ofWellington. Conservative as he was, and opposed to all agitations forreligious or political change even under the name of "reform, " the fieryeloquence of O'Connell and the menacing power of the CatholicAssociation forced upon him the conviction of the necessity of Catholicemancipation, as the cold reasoning of Richard Cobden afterward turnedhim from a protectionist to a free-trader. He was essentially an honestman, always open to reason and truth, learning wisdom from experience, and growing more liberal as he advanced in years. He brought the Duke ofWellington to his views in spite of that minister's inveterateprejudices, and the Catholics of Ireland were emancipated as an act ofexpediency and state necessity. Peel, although only home secretary underWellington, was the prominent member of the administration, and waspractically the leader of the House of Commons, in which character hehimself introduced the bill for Catholic relief. This great service was, however, regarded by the ultra Tories as an act of apostasy, and Peelincurred so much reproach from his former friends that he resigned hisseat as member for Oxford University, and accepted the constituency ofWestbury. During this administration, too, Sir Robert, as homesecretary, reorganized the police force of London (whence their popularnicknames of "Peelers" and "Bobbies"), and performed otherimportant services. 

In 1830 the Whigs came into power under Lord Grey, and for ten years, with the brief interval of his first administration, Sir Robert Peel wasthe most able leader of the opposition. In 1833 he accepted theparliamentary membership for Tamworth, which he retained to the end ofhis great career. He persistently opposed the Reform Bill in all itsstages; but when it was finally passed, he accepted it as unmistakablythe will of the nation, and even advocated many of the reforms whichgrew out of it. In 1841 he again became prime minister, in an alarmingfinancial crisis; and it was his ability in extricating the nation fromfinancial difficulties that won for him general admiration. 

Thus for thirty years he served in Parliament before he reached thesummit of political ambition, --half of which period he was a member ofthe ministry, learning experience from successive administrations, andforging the weapons by which he controlled the conservative party, untilhis conversion to the doctrines of Cobden again exposed him to thebitter wrath of the protectionists; but not until he had triumphantlycarried the repeal of the corn laws, --the most important and beneficentact of legislation since the passage of the Reform Bill itself. 

It was this great public service on which the fame of Sir Robert Peelchiefly rests; but before we can present it according to its Historicalimportance, we must briefly glance at the financial measures by which heextricated his country from great embarrassments, and won publicconfidence and esteem. He did for England what Alexander Hamilton didfor the United States in matters of finance, although as inferior toHamilton in original genius as he was superior to him in generalknowledge and purity of moral character. No one man can be everything, even if the object of unbounded admiration. To every great man apeculiar mission is given, --to one as lawgiver, to another as conqueror, to a third as teacher, to a fourth as organizer and administrator; andthese missions, in their immense variety, constitute the life and soulof history. Sir Robert Peel's mission was that of a financier andpolitical economist, which, next to that of warrior, brings the greatestinfluence and fame in a commercial and manufacturing country likeEngland. Not for lofty sentiments, such as Burke uttered on the eve ofthe French Revolution, are the highest rewards given in a materialcountry like that of our ancestors, but for the skill a man shows inexpounding the way in which a nation may become prosperous and rich. Itwas Sir Robert Peel's mission to make England commercially prosperous, even as it was that of Brougham and Russell to give it liberty andpolitical privileges, that of Pitt and Castlereagh to save it fromforeign conquest, and that of Wilberforce to rescue it from the disgraceand infamy of negro slavery. 

Sir Robert Peel came into power in 1841, the Russell Whig ministryhaving failed to satisfy the country in regard to financial questions. There had been an annual deficit, and the distress of both theagricultural and manufacturing classes was alarming. The new premierproceeded with caution in the adoption of measures to relieve theburdens of the people and straighten out the finances, which were ingreat disorder. His first measure had reference to the corn laws, forthe price of food in England was greater than in other Europeancountries. He finally proposed to the assembled Parliament, in 1842, tomake an essential alteration in the duties; and instead of a fixed dutyhe introduced a sliding scale, by which the duty on corn should bethirteen shillings a quarter[2] when the price was under sixtyshillings, increasing the duty in proportion as the price should fall, and decreasing it as the price should rise, --so that when the price ofcorn was under fifty shillings the duty should be fixed at twentyshillings, and when the price was above seventy-three the duty should beonly a shilling a quarter. This plan, after animated discussion, wasapproved; for although protection still was continued, the tendency ofthe measure was towards free-trade, for which the reformers wereclamoring. Notwithstanding this measure, which was triumphantly carriedthrough both Houses, the prevailing distress continued, and the revenuewas steadily diminishing. To provide revenue, Peel introduced an incometax of seven pence in the pound, to stand for three years; and to offsetthat again lowered the import duties on domestic animals, dairyproducts, other articles of food, and some drugs. 

[Footnote 2: "The fourth of a ton in weight, or eight bushels ofgrain. "]

When Parliament assembled in 1843 the discussions centred on free-trade. Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Gladstone and Sir James Graham admitted thegeneral soundness of the principles of free-trade, but felt that thetime had not yet come for their adoption, fearing an increased distressamong the agricultural population. At that time, and for a long periodbefore, the interests of agriculture were regarded as paramount, andthose of manufacturing secondary; but, as time passed, it was generallyfelt that reduced taxes on all the necessities of life were imperative. Fifty years earlier, England produced corn enough for all the wants ofthe country; but with a population increasing at the rate of two hundredthousand a year, it was obvious that the farmers could not supply thedemand. In consequence of which, at then existing tariffs, bread becameyearly still dearer, which bore hard on the manufacturing operatives. 

The year 1844 opened under happier auspices. The financial measures ofthe government had answered public expectations, and changed the growingdeficiency into an increasing surplus. Improvements in machinery hadincreased the gains of the manufacturers; a war in India had beenterminated successfully, and England was at peace with all the world. The only formidable troubles were in Ireland, --the standing difficultywith all administrations, Conservative or Liberal, and which noadministration has ever been able to surmount. Sir Robert Peel had hopedthat the Catholic Emancipation Act would lead to the tranquillity ofIreland. But that act did not content the Irish reformers. The fiercestagitation was conducted by O'Connell for the repeal of the Union itselfand the restoration of the Irish parliament. At bottom, the demands ofthe great agitator were not unreasonable, since he demanded equalpolitical privileges for both Ireland and England if the Union shouldcontinue, --that, in short, there should be one law for both countries. But since the ministry insisted on governing Ireland as a foreign andconquered country, denying equality of rights, the agitation grew tofearful proportions, chiefly in the shape of monster meetings. At lastthe government determined on the prosecution of O'Connell and someothers for seditious conspiracy, and went so far as to strike off thename of every Catholic on the jury which was to try him. The triallasted twenty-four days, and the prisoners were convicted. The hard andunjust sentence on O'Connell himself was imprisonment for twelve monthsand a fine of two thousand pounds. Against this decision an appeal wasmade to the House of Lords, and the judgment of the court was reversed. But the old man had already been imprisoned several weeks; hiscondemnation and imprisonment had told on his rugged constitution. Hewas nearly seventy years of age, and was worn out by excitement andunparalleled labors; and although he tried to continue his patrioticwork, he soon after sickened, and in 1847 died on his way to Rome insearch of rest. 

O'Connell's death did not end the agitations, which have continued fromthat time to this with more or less asperity, and probably will continueuntil justice shall be done to Ireland. It is plain that either Irelandshould be left free to legislate for herself, which would virtually bethe dismemberment of the empire; or should receive equal privileges withthe English; or should be coerced with an iron hand, which woulddepopulate the country. It would seem that Ireland, if it is to formpart of the empire, --not as a colony, but an integral part, like thedifferent States of the American Union, --should be governed by the samelaws that England has, and enjoy the same representation of itspopulation. Probably there never will be order or tranquillity in theisland until it shall receive that justice which the prejudices of theEnglish will not permit them at present to grant, --so slow are allreforms which have to contend with bigotry, ignorance, and selfishness. The chain which binds nations and communities together must be a chainof love, without reference to differences in color, religion, or race. 

In the session of 1844 the factory question occupied a large share ofpublic attention. Lord Ashley, whose philanthropic aims commanded greatrespect, contended for a limitation of the hours of labor. The ministryinsisted upon twelve hours; but Lord Ashley carried his measure, withsome amendments, the government being brought over to the side ofhumanity. The result was that the working-hours of children underthirteen was limited to six and a half hours, and the amount of finesimposed for a violation of the laws was lowered; while a provision wasmade for the instruction of children employed in the mills of threehours in summer, and two and a half in the winter. 

The confidence in the government showed itself in the rise of publicsecurities, so that it became practicable to reduce the interest onconsols (the consolidated government debt) from three and a half tothree percent, by which a saving accrued to the country of £1, 250, 000, indicating general prosperity. The income increased with the revival oftrade and commerce, and the customs alone increased to nearly£2, 500, 000, chiefly from duties on tea and sugar, which increasingprosperity enabled the poorer classes to use more freely. The surplus ofthe revenue amounted to over £4, 000, 000 sterling, owing largely to theincome tax, which now the ministers proposed to reduce. The charter ofthe Bank of England was renewed in a form which modified the wholebanking system in England. The banking business of the Bank was placedon the same footing with other institutions as to its power of issuingnotes, which beyond a certain amount should depend on the amount ofbullion in the Bank. Substantially, this was the same principle whichDaniel Webster advocated in the United States Senate, --that allbank-notes should be redeemable in gold and silver; in other words, thata specie basis is the only sound principle, whether in bankingoperations or in government securities, for the amount of notes issued. This tended to great stability in the financial world, as the Bank ofEngland, although a private joint-stock association, has from itsfoundation in 1694 been practically the fiscal agent of thegovernment, --having the management of the public debt, paying dividendsupon it, holding the government moneys, making advances when necessary, helping the collection of the public revenue, and being the central bankof the other banks. 

In addition to the financial measures by which Sir Robert Peel increasedthe revenues of the country, and gave to it a greater degree of materialprosperity than it had enjoyed during the century, he attempted tosoothe the Catholics of Ireland by increasing the grant to the RomanCatholic College of Maynooth, in Ireland; indeed, he changed the annualgrant to a permanent endowment, but only through a fierce opposition. Hetrebled the grant for national education, and exhibited increasingliberality of mind as he gained experience. But his great exploit wasthe repeal of the corn laws, in a Parliament where more than threequarters of the members represented agricultural districts, and werenaturally on the side of a protection of their own interests. In orderto appreciate more clearly the magnitude of this movement, we must traceit from the beginning. 

The centre of agitation for free-trade, especially in breadstuff's, wasManchester, --the second city of the kingdom for wealth, population, andinfluence, taking in the surrounding towns, --a very uninteresting placeto the tourist and traveller; dingy, smoky, and rainy, without imposingarchitecture or beautiful streets; but a town of great intellectualactivity in all matters pertaining to industrial enterprise andeconomical science, --the head centre of unpoetical materialism, wheremost of the well-to-do people dined at one o'clock. 

As soon as this town was permitted to send members to Parliament itselected eminent free-traders, --Poulett Thomson and Mark Phillips, --whodistinguished themselves for the fearlessness of their speeches on anunpopular subject. The agitation in Parliament had begun in 1836, at aperiod of great depression in all kinds of business and consequentsuffering among the poor; but neither London nor the House of Commonswas so favorable to the agitation of the principles of free-trade asManchester was, and the subject began to be discussed throughout thecountry. An unknown man by the name of Poulton was the first to gainattention by his popular harangues; and he was soon followed by RichardCobden, --a successful calico printer. 

An Anti-Corn-Law Association was started by these pioneers, and £1, 800were raised by small subscriptions to enlighten the people on theprinciples of free-trade, when protection was the settled policy of thegovernment. The Association was soon after reinforced by John Bright, anexceedingly brilliant popular orator, who was rich enough to devote alarge part of his time to the spread of his opinions. Between him andCobden a friendship and cordial co-operation sprang up, which lasted tothe death of the latter. They were convinced that the cause which theyhad so much at heart could be effectually advanced only by the widestdissemination of its principles by public meetings, by tracts and bylectures. It was their aim to change public opinion, for all effortswould be in vain unless the people--and especially their leaders--wereenlightened on the principles they advocated. They had faith in theultimate triumph of these principles because they believed them to betrue. From simple faith in the power of truth they headed the mosttremendous agitation known in England since the passage of the ReformBill. It was their mission to show conclusively to all intelligentpeople that it was for the interest of the country to abolish the cornlaws, and that the manufacturing classes would be the most signallybenefited. To effect this purpose it was necessary to raise a large sumof money; and the friends and advocates of the movement most liberallysubscribed to circulate the millions of tracts and newspapers which theAssociation scattered into every hamlet and private family in England, besides the members personally giving their time and effort in publicspeeches and lectures in all parts of the country. "It was felt that thebattle of free-trade must be fought first by the conversion ofindividuals, then at the hustings, and lastly in the House of Commons. "

The principle of protecting the country against the importation offoreign breadstuffs was upheld as fostering the agricultural interests, as inciting the larger cultivation of poor lands, as providing againstdangerous dependence on foreign countries, and as helping the largelandowners and their tenants to patronize manufactures and trade; sothat, although the high prices of breadstuffs were keeping vast numbersof people in misery and the country on the edge of revolution, theprotectionist doctrine was believed in religiously by the laboringclasses, the small shopkeepers, nearly all the educated classes, and alarge majority of the members of Parliament. 

To combat this unshaken traditional belief was a gigantic undertaking. It was the battle of reason and truth against prejudice andbigotry, --the battle of a new enlightenment of general interests againstthe selfishness of unenlightened classes. While Villiers and Thomsonappealed to members in the House of Commons, Cobden and Bright withstill greater eloquence directly addressed the people in the largesthalls that could be found. In 1838 Cobden persuaded the Chamber ofCommerce in Manchester to petition Parliament for a repeal of the dutieson corn. In 1839, the agitation spreading, petitions went up fromvarious parts of the country bearing two million signatures. The motionto repeal, however, was lost by a large majority in the Commons. Thenbegan the organization of Free-Trade Leagues. In 1841 a meeting inManchester was held, at which were present seven hundred nonconformistministers, so effectually had conversions been made among intelligentmen. Nor did the accession of the conservative Sir Robert Peel to powerdiscourage the agitators, for in the same year (1841) Cobden was sent toParliament. Meetings were still more frequently held in all the towns ofthe kingdom, A bazaar held in favor of the cause in the Theatre Royal, Manchester, in 1842, produced a clear profit of £10, 000. In 1843 thegreat Free-Trade Hall was opened in Manchester, built expressly forpublic meetings for the anti corn-law agitation, and the sum of £150, 000was raised by private subscription to disseminate knowledge. At last, recognizing with keen instinct the inevitable turn in public opinion, the "Times" came out with a leading article of great power, showing achange of views on the subject of protection. Great noblemen, one afteranother, joined the League, and the Marquis of Westminster contributed£500 to the cause. 

The free-trade movement was now recognized as a great fact which it wasfolly to ignore. Encouraged by the constant accession to the ranks ofreform, the leaders of the League turned their attention to theregistration of voters, by which many spurious claims for seats wereannulled, and new members of Parliament were chosen to advocatefree-trade. At last, in 1846, Sir Robert Peel himself, after having beenfor nearly his whole career a protectionist, gave in his adhesion to thenew principles. Cobden, among others, had convinced him that theprosperity of the country depended on free-trade, and he nobly made hisrecantation, to the intense disgust of many of his formerfollowers, --especially of Disraeli, who now appears in Parliament as aleader of the protectionists. 

This brilliant man, who in 1837, at the age of thirty-two, took his seatin Parliament, had made no impression in that body for several years;but having learned from early failures his weak points, and by carefulstudy of the successes of others trained himself to an effective styleof parliamentary speech, he became, at the critical time of Peel'schange of front, the representative of Shrewsbury, and graduallyorganized about himself the dissatisfaction and indignation of thelanded proprietors with Sir Robert Peel's concessions to the free-trademovement. His strictures on Peel were severe, caustic, and bitter. "What, " said this eloquent speaker, "shall we think of the eminentstatesman, who, having served under four sovereigns, who, having beencalled to steer the ship on so many occasions and under such perilouscircumstances, has only during the last three or four years found itnecessary entirely to change his convictions on that most importanttopic, which must have presented itself for more than a quarter of acentury to his consideration? I must, sir, say that such a minister maybe conscientious, but he is unfortunate. .. . It is all very well for theright honorable gentleman to come forward and say, 'I am thinking ofposterity; my aim is heroic; and, appealing to posterity, I care neitherfor your cheers nor for your taunts, ' It is very well for the righthonorable gentleman to take this high-flying course, but I can but saythat my conception of a great statesman is one who represents a greatidea, --I do not care whether he is a manufacturer or a manufacturer'sson. I care not what may be the position of a man who never originatesan idea, --a watcher of the atmosphere, --a man who, as he says, 'takeshis observations, ' and when he finds the wind in a certain quarter trimshis sails to suit it. Such a man may be a powerful minister, but he isno more a great statesman than a man who gets up behind a carriage is agreat whip. "

All this tirade was very unjust, --though it pleased theprotectionists, --for Sir Robert Peel was great enough to listen toarguments and reason, and give up his old sentiments when he found themuntenable, even if he broke up his party. His country was greater inhis eyes than any party. 

As prime minister, Peel then unfolded his plans. He announced hisintention to abandon the sliding scale entirely, and gradually reducethe duty on corn and other articles of necessity so that at the end ofthree or four years the duty would be taken off altogether. This plandid not fully satisfy the League, who argued for immediate repeal. Indeed, there was a necessity. The poor harvests in England and thepotato-rot in Ireland were producing the most fearful and painfulresults. A large part of the laboring population was starving. Neverbefore had there been greater distress. On the 2d of March, 1846, theministerial plan had to go through the ordeal of a free-trade attack. Mr. Villiers proposed an amendment that would result in the immediateand total repeal of the corn laws. Nevertheless, the original billpassed the Commons by a majority of ninety-eight. 

It was at once carried to the House of Lords, where it encountered, aswas expected, the fiercest opposition, no less than fifty-three lordstaking part in the discussion. The Duke of Wellington, seeing that thecorn laws were doomed, and that further opposition would only aggravatethe public distress, supported the bill, as did Lord Aberdeen and otherstrong conservatives, and it was finally carried by a majority offorty-seven. 

Before the bill for the virtual repeal of the corn laws was passed bythe House of Lords, the administration of Sir Robert Peel abruptlyclosed. An Irish coercion bill had been introduced by the government, not very wisely, even while the corn bill was under discussion by theCommons. The bill was of course opposed by the Irish followers ofO'Connell, and by many of the Liberal party. The radical members, led byCobden and Bright, were sure to oppose it. The protectionists, full ofwrath, and seeing their opportunity to overthrow the government, joinedthe Liberals and the Irish members, and this coalition threw out thebill by a majority of seventy-three. The government of course resigned. 

Nor was the premier loath to throw off his burdens amid calumny andreproach. He cheerfully retired to private life. He concluded theaddress on his resignation, after having paid a magnificent tribute toCobden--by whose perseverance, energy, honesty of conviction, andunadorned eloquence the great corn-law reform had been thus faradvanced--in these words: "In quitting power, I shall leave a nameseverely blamed, I fear, by many men, who, without personal interest butonly with a view of the public good, will bitterly deplore the ruptureof party ties, from a belief that fidelity to party engagements and themaintenance of great parties are powerful and essential means ofgovernment. [I fear also] that I shall be blamed by others who, withoutpersonal interest, adhere to the principles of protection, which theyregard as necessary to the prospects of the country; that I shall leavea name detested by all monopolists, who, from less honorable motives, claim a protection by which they largely profit. But I shall perhapsleave a name which will sometimes be pronounced by expressions ofgood-will by those whose lot in this world is to labor, who in the sweatof their brow eat their daily bread; and who may remember me when theyrenew their strength by food at once abundant and untaxed, and whichwill be the better relished because no longer embittered by any feelingof injustice. " He then resumed his seat amidst the loudest applause fromall sides of the House; and when he left Westminster Hall, leaning onthe arm of Sir George Clark, a vast multitude filled the street, andwith uncovered heads accompanied him in respectful silence to the doorof his house. 

Sir Robert Peel continued to attend the meetings of Parliament as anindependent member, making no factious opposition, and giving hissupport to every measure he approved, --more as a sage than a partisan, having in view mainly the good of the country whose government he nolonger led. 

It was soon after Peel's retirement from office that O'Connell, too, made his last speech in the House of Commons, not as formerly intrumpet tones, but with enfeebled voice. "I am afraid, " said thefainting athlete, "that the House is not sufficiently aware of theextent of the misery in Ireland. I do not think that members understandthe accumulated miseries under which the people are at presentsuffering. It has been estimated that five thousand adults and tenthousand children have already perished with famine, and thattwenty-five per cent of the whole population will perish, unless theHouse will afford effective relief. I assure the House most solemnlythat I am not exaggerating; I can establish all that I have said by manyand painful proofs. And the necessary result must be typhus fever, whichin fact has already broken out, and is desolating whole districts; itleaves alive only one in ten of those whom it attacks. " This appealdoubtless had its effect in demonstrating the absolute need of a repealof the corn laws. But it is as the "liberator" of the Roman Catholicpopulation of Ireland in the great emancipation struggle, --triumphantlyconcluded as early as 1829, --and the incessant labors after that for theenlargement of Irish conditions, that O'Connell will be remembered. "Honor, glory, and eternal gratitude, " exclaimed Lacordaire, "to the manwho collected in his powerful hand the scattered elements of justice anddeliverance, and who, pushing them to their logical conclusions with avigorous patience which thirty years could not exhaust, at last pouredon his country the unhoped-for delight of liberty of conscience, andthus deserved not only the title of Liberator of his Country but theoecumenical title of Liberator of his Church. "

O'Connell, Cobden, and Sir Robert Peel, --what great names in the historyof England in the agitating period between the passage of the ReformBill and that of the repeal of the corn laws! I could add otherillustrious names, --especially those of Brougham and Lord John Russell;but the sun of glory around the name of the first was dimmed after hislord chancellorship, while that of the latter was yet to blaze morebrightly when he assumed the premiership on the retirement of his greatpredecessor, with such able assistants as Lord Palmerston, Earl Grey, Macaulay, and others. These men, as Whigs, carried out more fully theliberal and economic measures which Sir Robert Peel had inaugurated amida storm of wrath from his former supporters, reminding one of the furyand disappointment of the higher and wealthy classes when Mr. Gladstone--a still bolder reformer, although nursed and cradled in thetenets of monopolists--introduced his measures for the reliefof Ireland. 

During the administration of Sir Robert Peel there was another agitationwhich at one time threatened serious consequences, but as it came tonothing it has not the historical importance of the Anti-Corn-LawLeague. It was a fanatical uprising of the lower classes to obtain stillgreater political privileges, led by extreme radicals, of whom Mr. Feargus O'Connor was the most prominent leader, and Mr. Henry Vincentwas the most popular speaker. The centre of this movement was notManchester, but Birmingham. The operatives of Manchester wanted cheaperbread; those of Birmingham wanted an extension of the franchise: and asLord John Russell had opposed the re-opening of the reform question, theradicals were both disappointed and infuriated. The original leaders ofparliamentary reform had no sympathy with such a rabble as now clamoredfor extended reform. They demanded universal suffrage, annualParliaments, vote by ballot, abolition of property qualifications, payment of members of Parliament, and the division of the country intoequal electoral districts. These were the six points of the people'scharter, --not absurd to the eyes of Americans, but utterly out of thequestion in such an aristocratic country as England, and advocated onlyby the working-classes and their incendiary leaders. Discontent andmisery were the chief causes of the movement, which was managed withoutability. The agitation began in 1836 and continued to 1848. At first thegovernment allowed it, so far as it was confined to meetings, speeches, and the circulation of tracts, --knowing full well that, as it made noappeal to the influential and intelligent classes, it would soon expenditself. I was lecturing at the time in Birmingham, and the movementexcited contempt rather than alarm among the people I met. I heardVincent two or three times in his chapel, --for I believe he was educatedas a dissenting minister of some sort, --but his eloquence made noimpression upon me; it was clever and fluent enough, but shallow andfrothy. At last he was foolishly arrested by the government, who hadreally nothing to fear from him, and imprisoned at Newport in Wales. 

In England reforms have been effected only by appeals to reason andintelligence, and not by violence. Infuriated mobs, successful in Francein overturning governments and thrones, have been easily repressed inEngland with comparatively little bloodshed; for power has ever beenlodged in the hands of the upper and middle classes, intolerant ofthreatened violence. In England, since the time of Cromwell, revolutionshave been bloodless; and reforms have been gradual, --to meet pressingnecessities, or to remove glaring injustice and wrongs, never tointroduce an impractical equality or to realize visionary theories. Andthey have ever been effected through Parliament. All popular agitationshave failed unless they have appealed to reason and right. 

Thus the People's Charter movement, beginning about 1838, was a signalfailure, because from the practical side it involved no great principlesof political economy, nothing that enriches a nation; and from the sideof popular rights it was premature, crude, and represented nointelligent desire on the part of the people. It was a movement nursedin discontent, and carried on with bitterness and illegal violence. Itwas wild, visionary, and bitter from the start, and arose at a periodwhen the English people were in economic distress, and when all Europewas convulsed with insurrectionary uprisings, and revolutionaryprinciples were mixed up with socialism and anarchy. The Chartistagitation continued with meetings and riots and national conventionsuntil 1848, when the Revolution in France gave a great impulse to it. 

At last some danger was apprehended from the monster meetings andinflammatory speeches of the Chartists, and government resolved tosuppress the whole movement by the strong arm. The police forcethroughout the kingdom was strengthened, and one hundred and seventythousand special constables were sworn in, while extensive militarypreparations were intrusted to the Duke of Wellington. The Chartists, overrating their strength, held a great meeting on Kensington Common, and sent a petition of more than five millions of names to the House ofCommons; but instead of half a million who were expected to assemble onthe Common with guns and pikes, only a few thousand dared to meet, andthe petition itself was discovered to be forged, chiefly with fictitiousnames. It was a battle on the part of the agitators without ballcartridges, in which nothing was to be seen but smoke. Ridicule andcontempt overwhelmed the leaders, and the movement collapsed. 

Although the charter failed to become law, the enfranchisement of thepeople has been gradually enlarged by Parliament in true deliberateEnglish fashion, as we shall see in future lectures. Perhaps theChartist movement may have ripped up the old sod and prepared the soilfor the later peaceful growth; but in itself it accomplished nothing forwhich it was undertaken. 

The repeal of the corn laws in 1846 was followed, as was the Reform Billof 1832, by a series of other reforms of a similar kind, --all in thedirection of free-trade, which from that time has continued to be theestablished principle of English legislation on all the greatnecessities of life. Scarcely had Lord John Russell in 1846 taken thehelm of state, when the duties on sugar were abolished, nodiscrimination being shown between sugar raised in the British colony ofJamaica and that which was raised in Cuba and other parts of the world. The navigation laws, which prohibited the importation of goods exceptin British ships, or ships which belonged to the country where the goodswere produced, were repealed or greatly modified. The whole colonialsystem was also revised, especially in Canada; and sanitary measureswere taken to prevent disease in all the large towns of the country. 

In the midst of these various reforms, which the government under LordJohn Russell prosecuted with great zeal and ability, and by which amarked improvement took place in the condition of the people, Sir RobertPeel was thrown from his horse in London, June 29, 1850, and survivedbut a few days. His accidental death created universal lamentation, foreverybody felt that a great national loss had occurred. In spite of thebitterness of the monopolists, disappointed in their gains, no death wasever more seriously and universally lamented in England. Other statesmenblazed upon their contemporaries with more brilliant original geniusthan Peel, but no one ever had more force of character than he, or wasmore respected for his candor, truthfulness, and patriotism. If he hadnot the divination to originate, he showed transcendent ability inappropriating and making his own the worthy conceptions of others. Hewas among those few statesmen who are willing to renounce the dearestopinions of youth and the prejudices of manhood when convinced of theirunsoundness. 

Peel was a great administrator and a great debater. His character wasaustere, his temperament was cold, his manners were awkward and shy; hewas chary in the bestowal of pensions and rewards; and by reason of hisrather unsympathetic nature he never was a favorite with artists andliterary men. It was his conviction that literary men were notsufficiently practical to be intrusted with political office. Hence herefused to make Monckton Milnes an under-secretary of state. WhenGladstone published his book on Church and State, being then a youngman, it is said that Peel threw it contemptuously on the floor, exclaiming, "What a pity it is that so able a man should injure hispolitical prospects by writing such trash!" Nor was Peel sufficientlypassionate to become a great orator like O'Connell or Mirabeau; and yethe was a great man, and the nation was ultimately grateful for theservices he rendered to his country and to civilization. Had his usefuland practical life been prolonged, he probably would again have takenthe helm of state. He was always equal to the occasion; but no occasionwas sufficiently great to give him the _éclat_ which Pitt enjoyed in thewars of Napoleon. Under the administration of Peel the country was atpeace, and no such internal dangers threatened it as those which markedthe passage of the Reform Bill. 

Sir Robert Peel was one of the most successful ministers that Englandever had. Certainly no minister was ever more venerated than he; andeven the Duke of Wellington did nothing without his advice andco-operation. In fact, he led the ministry of the duke as Canning didthat of the Earl of Liverpool; and had he been less shy and reserved, hewould not have passed as so proud a man, and would have been morepopular. There is no trait of character in a great man less understoodthan what we call pride, which often is not pride at all, but excessiveshyness and reserve, based on sensitiveness and caution rather thanself-exaggeration and egotism. 

Few statesmen have done more than Peel to advance the material interestsof the people; yet he never was a popular idol, and his history fails tokindle the enthusiasm with which we study the political career of Pittor Canning or Disraeli or Gladstone. He was regarded as a greatpotentate rather than as a great genius; and he loved to make his powerfelt irrespective of praise or censure from literary men, to whom he wascivil enough, but whose society he did not court. Politics were theelement in which he lived, and politicians were his chief associatesoutside the family circle, which he adorned. And yet when distinguishedmerit in the Church or in the field of literature was brought to hisnotice, he was ready to reward it. 

As a proof of the growing fame of Sir Robert Peel, no less than threebiographies of him have lately been issued from the Press. Such, after alapse of forty years, indicates the lasting reputation he has won as astatesman; but as a statesman only. He filled no other sphere. He wasnot a lawyer like Brougham; not a novelist like Beaconsfield; not ahistorian like Macaulay; not an essayist and reviewer like Gladstone. Hewas contented to be a great parliamentary leader alone. 

AUTHORITIES. 

Molesworth's History of England; Miss Martineau's History of England;Justin McCarthy's Life of Sir Robert Peel; Alison's History ofEurope, --all of which should be read in connection with the Lives ofcontemporary statesmen, especially of Cobden, Bright, and Lord JohnRussell. The Lives of foreign statesmen shed but little light, since thepublic acts of Sir Robert Peel were chiefly confined to the domestichistory of England. 

CAVOUR. 

1810-1861. 

UNITED ITALY. 

The most interesting and perhaps important event in the history ofEurope in the interval between the fall of Napoleon I. And that ofNapoleon III. , a period of fifty-six years, --from 1815 to 1871, --wasthat which united the Italians under the government of Victor Emmanuelas a constitutional monarchy, free of all interference byforeign Powers. 

The freedom and unity of Italy are to be considered, however, only froma political point of view. The spiritual power still remains in thehands of the Pope, who reigns as an ecclesiastical monarch over not onlyItaly but all Roman Catholic countries, as the popes have reigned for athousand years. That venerable and august despotism was not assailed, oreven modified, in the separation of the temporal from the spiritualpowers. It was rather, probably, increased in influence. At no timesince the Reformation has the spiritual authority of the Roman Pontiffbeen greater than it is at the present day. Nor can any one, howevergifted and wise, foretell when that authority will be diminished. "TheHoly Father" still reigns and is likely long to reign as the vicegerentof the Almighty in all matters of church government in Catholiccountries, and as the recognized interpreter of their religious faith. So long as people remain Roman Catholics, they must remain in allegianceto the head of their church. They may cease to be Catholics, and notemporal harm will happen to them; but the awful power remains overthose who continue to abide within the pale of the Church. Of hisspiritual subjects the Pope exacts, as he has exacted for centuries, absolute and unconditional obedience through his ministers, --one greathierarchy of priests; the most complete and powerful mechanism our worldhas seen for good or evil, built up on the experience of ten centuries, and generally directed by consummate sagacity and inflexibilityof purpose. 

I have nothing here to say against this majestic sovereignty, which isan institution rather than a religion. Most of the purely religiousdogmas which it defends and enforces are equally the dogmas of amajority of the Protestant churches, founded on the teachings of Christand his apostles. The doctrines of Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, the great authorities of the Catholic Church, were substantiallyembraced by Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, and the Westminster divines. TheProtestants rebelled mainly against the usurpations and corruptions ofthe Catholic Church as an institution, not against the creed of theFathers and schoolmen and theological doctors in all Catholic countries. The Nicene and Apostles' creeds bind together all orthodox Christians, whether of the Roman or Greek or Protestant churches. 

Thus, in speaking of the liberation and unity of Italy as effected by anillustrious band of patriots, aided by friendly powers and fortunatecircumstances, I mean freedom in a political sense. The papal yoke, sofar as it was a yoke, was broken only in a temporal point of view. ThePope lost only his dominions as a temporal sovereign, --nothing of hisdignity as an ecclesiastical monarch; and we are to consider hisopposition to Victor Emmanuel and other liberators chiefly as that of atemporal prince, like Ferdinand of Naples. The great Italian revolutionwhich established the sovereignty of the King of Sardinia over the wholepeninsula was purely a political movement. Religious ideas had little ornothing to do with it. Communists and infidels may have fought under thestandards of Mazzini and Garibaldi, but only to gain politicalprivileges and rights. Italy remained after the revolution, as before, aCatholic country. 

In considering this revolution, which destroyed the power of pettytyrants and the authority of foreign despots, which gave a freeconstitution and national unity to the whole country, --the rule of oneman by the will of the people, and the checks which a freely electedlegislature imposes, --it will be my aim to present chiefly the laborsand sacrifices of a very remarkable band of patriots, working indifferent ways and channels for the common good, and assisted in theirwork by the aid of friendly States and potentates. But underneath andapart from the matchless patriotism and ability of a few great men likeD'Azeglio, Mazzini, Garibaldi, Manin, Cavour, and, not least, the Kingof Sardinia himself, --who reigned at Turin as a constitutional monarchbefore the revolution, --should be mentioned the almost universal passionof the Italian people to throw off the yokes which oppressed them, whether imposed by the King of Naples, or by the Pope as a temporalprince, or by Austria, or by the various princes who had divided betweenthem the territories of the peninsula, --diverse, yet banded together toestablish their respective tyrannies, and to suppress liberal ideas ofgovernment and all reforms whatsoever. All who could read and write, andeven many who could not, except those who were dependent on thegovernment or hopelessly wedded to the ideas and institutions of theMiddle Ages, --that conservative class to be found in every country, whocling to the past and dread the future, --had caught the contagionspread by the apostles of liberty in France, in Spain, in Greece, inEngland. The professors and students in the universities, professionalmen, and the well-to-do of the middle classes were foremost in theirdiscontent and in their zeal for reform. They did not agree in theirtheories of government, nor did they unite on any definite planfor relief. Many were utterly impractical and visionary; somewere at war with any settled government, and hated all wholesomerestraints, --communists and infidels, who would destroy, withoutsubstituting anything better instead; some were in favor of a puredemocracy, and others of representative governments; some wanted arepublic, and others a constitutional monarchy: but all wanted a change. 

There was one cry, one watchword common to all, --_Personalliberty_!--freedom to act and speak without the fear of inquisitions, spies, informers, prisons, and exile. In Naples, in Rome, in Bologna, inVenice, in Florence, in Milan, in Turin, there was this universal desirefor personal liberty, and the resolution to get it at any cost. It wasthe soul of Italy going out in sympathy with all liberators and patriotsthroughout the world, intensified by the utterances of poets andmartyrs, and kept burning by all the traditions of the past, --by theglories of classic Rome; and by the aspirations of the _renaissance_, when art, literature, and commerce revived. The common people unitedwith their intellectual leaders in seeking something which would breaktheir chains. They alike responded to the cries of patriotism, in someform or other. "Emancipate us from our tyrants, and we will follow youwherever you choose to lead, " was the feeling of all classes. "We don'tcare who rules us, or what form government may take, provided we arepersonally free. "

In addition to this passion for personal liberty was also the desire fora united Italy, --a patriotic sentiment confined however to men of greatintelligence, who scarcely expected such a boon, so great were thedifficulties and obstacles which stared them in the face. It wasimpossible for the liberators of Italy to have effected so marvellous amovement if the material on which they worked had not been so impulsiveand inflammable. 

It required an uncommon degree of patriotic ardor on the part of themass of the people to follow leaders like Garibaldi and Mazzini, --one ofwhom was rash to audacity, and the other visionary; and neither of whomhad the confidence of the government at Turin, which, however, was notdisposed to throw cold water on their enterprises or seriously tointerfere with them. One thing is clear, --that had not the Italians, onthe whole, been ripe for revolution it could not have succeeded; as inFrance the _coup d'état_ of 1851, which enabled Louis Napoleon to mountthe throne, could not have succeeded twenty years earlier when he madehis rash attempt at Strasburg. All successful revolutions require theready assent--nay, even the enthusiasm--of the people. The Italianrevolution was based on popular discontent in all parts of the countrywhere the people were oppressed, and on their enthusiastic aspirationsfor a change of rulers. What could any man of genius, however great hisabilities, have done without this support of the people? What could theleaders of the American Revolution have done unless the thirteencolonies had rallied around them? Certainly no liberated people eversupported their leaders with greater enthusiasm and more self-sacrificesthan the Italians. Had they been as degraded as has sometimes beenrepresented, they would not have fought so bravely. 

The Italian revolution in its origin dates back as early as 1820, whenthe secret societies were formed--especially that of the Carbonari--witha view to shake the existing despotisms. The Carbonari ("charcoalburners"), as they called themselves, were organized first at Naples. This uprising (at first successful) in Naples and Piedmont was put downby Austrian bayonets, and the old order of things was restored. Aconstitutional government had been promised to various Italian States bythe first Napoleon in 1796. When he invited the Italians to rally tohis standard and overthrow the Bourbon and Austrian despotisms; but hispromises had not been kept. "Never, " said that great liar to PrinceMetternich, "will I give the Italians a liberal system: I have grantedto them only the semblance of it. " Equally false were the promises madeby Austrian generals in 1813, when the Italians were urged to join inthe dethronement of the great conqueror who had drafted them into hisarmies without compensation. 

Though Italian liberty was suppressed by the strong arm of despotism, its spirit was kept alive by the secret societies, among whom wereenrolled men of all classes; but these societies had no definite ends toaccomplish. Among them were men of every shade of political belief. Ingeneral, they aimed at the overthrow of existing governments rather thanat any plan as to what would take their place. When, through theircabals, they had dethroned Ferdinand I. At Naples, he too, likeNapoleon, promised a constitution, and swore to observe it; but he alsobroke both his promises and oaths, and when reinstated by irresistibleforces, he reigned more tyrannically than before. 

When the revolution in the Sardinian province of Piedmont was suppressed(1821), King Victor Emmanuel I. Refused to grant further liberty to hissubjects, or to make promises which he could not fulfil. In this stateof mind the honest old king abdicated in favor of his brother CharlesFelix, who ruled despotically as Austria dictated, but did not belong tothat class of despicable monarchs who promise everything andgrant nothing. 

In 1831, on the death of Charles Felix, the throne of Piedmont--or, rather, Sardinia, as it was called when in 1720 the large island of thatname was combined with the principality of Piedmont and otherterritories to form a kingdom--was ascended by Charles Albert, of theyounger branch of the House of Savoy. Charles Albert was an honestsovereign, but perpetually vacillating between the liberal and clericalparties. He hated Austria, but was averse to revolutionary measures. Heruled wisely, however, effecting many useful reforms, and adding to theprosperity of the country, which was the best governed of all theItalian States. It was to him that Mazzini appealed to put himself atthe head of the national movement for liberty. 

Joseph Mazzini, one of the earliest of the prominent men who aided inthe deliverance of Italy, was a native of Genoa, belonging to a good butnot illustrious family. He was a boy of twelve years of age when therevolution of 1821 broke out in Piedmont, which was so summarily crushedby Austria. At that early age he had indefinite ideas, but thought thatItalians should boldly struggle for the liberty of their country. In1826, while a student at the university, he published an article onDante, whose lofty sentiments and independent spirit made a deepimpression on his soul. His love for his native land became like a "firein his bones;" it was a passion which nothing could repress. He was anenthusiast of immense physical and moral courage, pure-minded, lofty inhis aspirations, imbued with the spirit of sacrifice. As his minddeveloped, he became an intense republican. He had no faith inmonarchies, even if liberal. Heart and soul he devoted himself to thespread of republican ideas. He early joined the Carbonari, who numberednearly a million in Italy, and edited a literary paper in Genoa, inwhich he dared to rebuke the historian Botta for his aristocratictendencies. He became so bold in the advocacy of extreme liberalopinions that his journal was suppressed by government. When the Frenchinsurrection broke out in 1830, he and other young men betook themselvesto the casting of bullets. He was arrested, and confined in the fortressof Savona, on the western Riviera. It was while in prison that heconceived the plan of establishing a society, which he called "YoungItaly, " for the propagation of republican ideas. When liberated heproceeded to Geneva, where he made the acquaintance of Sismondi, theSwiss historian, who treated him with great kindness and urbanity, andintroduced him to Pellegrino Rossi, the exiled publicist, at that timeprofessor of law at Geneva. From Geneva Mazzini went to Lyons, and therecollected a band of Italian exiles, mostly military men, whocontemplated the invasion of Savoy. Hunted as a refugee, he secretlyescaped to Marseilles, and thence to Corsica, where the Carbonari hadgreat influence. Returning to Marseilles, he resumed his design offounding the Association of Young Italy, and became acquainted with thebest of the exiles who had flocked to that city. It was then he wrote toCharles Albert, who had lately ascended the Sardinian throne, invitinghim to place himself at the head of the liberal movement; but the kingat once gave orders to arrest the visionary enthusiast if found in hisdominions. 

The Association of Young Italy which Mazzini founded, and which soonnumbered thousands of enthusiastic young men, proclaimed as the basis ofits political belief Liberty, Equality, Humanity, Independence, Unity. It was republican, as favoring the only form of government which it wassupposed would insure the triumph of these principles. It was unitary, because without unity there was no true nationality or real strength. The means to reach these ends, Mazzini maintained, were notassassination, as represented by the dagger of the Carbonari, buteducation and insurrection, --and insurrection by guerrilla bands, asthe only way for the people to emancipate themselves from a foreignyoke. It was a foreign yoke under which Italy groaned, since all thedifferent states and governments were equally supported byforeign armies. 

So far as these principles harmonized with those proclaimed by theFrench revolutionists, they met very little opposition from the Italianliberals; but national unity, however desirable, was pronouncedchimerical. How could Naples, Rome, Venice, Florence, Sardinia, and thenumerous other States, be joined together under one government? Andthen, under what form of government should this union be effected? Tothe patriots of 1831 this seemed an insoluble problem. Mazzini, fromfirst to last, maintained that the new government should be republican. Yet what more visionary than a united Italy as a republic? The sword, orfortunate circumstances, might effect unity, but under the rule only ofone man, whether he were bound by a constitution or not. Such a unionMazzini would not entertain for a moment, and persistently disseminatedhis principles. 

In consequence, a decree of banishment from France was proclaimedagainst him. He hid himself in Marseilles, and the police could not findhim. From his secret retreat his writings continued to be issued, andwere scattered over France, Switzerland, and Italy, and found readersand advocates. 

At length, in 1833, Mazzini ventured to put his principles intopractice, and meditated the invasion of Savoy, to produce aninsurrection at Genoa and Alessandra. With amazing perseverance underdifficulties, he succeeded in collecting money and men, and, withoutmilitary education or genius, made his attempt. Defeated by the royaltroops, the expedition failed, as might have been expected. Such a manshould have fought with the pen and not the sword. The enterprise was afailure from the start. Mazzini was sentenced to death; but again heescaped, and fled to Berne, whence he continued to issue hispublications. Thus two or three years were passed, when, through theefforts of sundry Italian governments, the authorities of Berne resolvedto disperse the Association of Young Italy. 

Mazzini again became a fugitive, and in 1837 found his way to England, without money, without friends, without influence, --a forlorn exilefraternizing with doubt, sorrow, and privation; struggling for more thana year in silence; so poor at one time as to be compelled to pawn hiscoat and boots to keep himself from absolute starvation, for he was tooproud to beg. Thus did he preserve his dignity, and uncomplaininglyendure his trials. At last he found means to support himself modestlyby literature, and gradually made friends, --among them Thomas Carlyle. He gained social position as a man of genius, of unsullied moralcharacter and of elevated patriotism, although his political opinionsfound but few admirers. Around his humble quarters the Italian exilesgathered, and received kind words of encouragement and hope; some ofthem he was able to assist in their struggles with bitter poverty. 

Finally, in 1848, Mazzini returned to Italy, no longer molested, to takepart in the revolution which was to free his country. He found power inthe hands of the moderate progressive party. 

The leader of this party was the Marquis Massimo d'Azeglio, belonging toan ancient and aristocratic Piedmontese family. He was a man of greatweight of character and intellectual expansion. In 1846 he was orderedto leave Tuscany, for having printed a book of liberal views, which gaveoffence to the government. He was opposed to the republican opinions ofMazzini, and was a firm advocate of a constitutional monarchy. Hedesired reforms to be carried on moderately and wisely. Probably he wasthe most enlightened man in Italy at this time, and of incorruptibleintegrity. He was well acquainted with the condition of the cities ofItaly, having visited most of them, and had great influence with CharlesAlbert, who was doubtless patriotic in his intentions, but disposed tomove cautiously. 

It was the aim of D'Azeglio to bring to bear an enlightened publicopinion on the evils which were generally admitted, without provokingrevolutionary risings, in which he had no faith. Like other Italianpatriots, he desired to see his country freed from foreign domination, and was as much disliked by Metternich as by Mazzini. The Austrianstatesman ridiculed the idea of Italian unity, and called Italy a"geographical expression. " What he considered an impossibility is nowrealized as a fact. His judgment of the papacy however was wiser. A"liberal Pope, " he declared, "is not a possible being. " To all thereforms advocated by Italian statesmen the Pope, whatever his name, hasremained consistently inflexible. The words ascribed to the Jesuitswould apply to all the Popes, --"Let us remain as we are, or let us existno longer. " To every proposition for reform the cry has been, _Nonpossumus_. The minutest concession has been obstinately refused, --a factso well known that even in Rome itself no other course has been possibleamong its discontented people than absolute rebellion. Something washoped from Pius IX. ; but all hopes of reforms at his hand vanished soonafter his elevation in 1846. He did, indeed, soon after his accession, publish an amnesty for political offences; but this was a matter ofgrace, to show his kindness of heart, not to indicate any essentialchange in the papal policy. 

Benevolence and charity are two different things from sympathy withreform and liberality of mind. The first marked Metternich and AlexanderI. Of Russia, as well as Pius IX. The most urbane and graceful ofprinces may be inflexible tyrants so far as government is concerned, like Augustus and Louis XIV. You may be charmed with the manners andgenial disposition and unaffected piety of a dignitary of the Church, but there can be no cordial agreement with him respecting the rights ofthe people any more than as to Church dogmas, even if you yield upninety-nine points out of a hundred. The intensest bigotry andnarrowness are compatible with the most charming manners and the noblestacts of personal kindness. This truth is illustrated by the charactersdrawn by Sir Walter Scott in his novels, and by Hume in his histories. It explains the inconsistencies of hospitable English Tories, ofold-fashioned Southern planters, of the haughty nobles of Austria whogathered around the table of the most accomplished gentleman inEurope, --equally famous for his graceful urbanities and infamous for hisuncompromising hostility to the leaders of liberal movements. On theother hand, those who have given the greatest boons to humanity haveoften been rough in manners, intolerant of infirmities, bitter in theirsocial prejudices, hard in their dealings, and acrid in their tempers;and if they were occasionally jocular, their jokes were too practical tobe in high favor with what is called good society. 

Now D'Azeglio was a high-born gentleman, aristocratic in all his ideas, and, what was unusual with Italian nobles, a man of enlarged and liberalviews, who favored reforms if they could be carried out in aconstitutional way, --like Lord John Russell and the great English Whignoblemen who passed the Reform Bill, or like the French statesmen of thetype of Thiers and Guizot. 

In the general outbreak of revolutionary ideas which convulsed allEurope in 1848, when even Metternich was driven from power, CharlesAlbert was forced to promise a constitution to his North Italiansubjects, --and kept his word, which other Italian potentates did not, when they were restored by Austrian bayonets. He had always beenvacillating, but at last he saw the necessities of Italy and recognizedthe spirit of the times. He was thus naturally drawn into a war withAustria, whose army in Italy was commanded by the celebrated MarshalRadetzky. Though an old man of eighty, the Austrian general defeated theKing of Piedmont in several engagements. At Novara, on the 23d of March, 1849, he gained a decisive victory, which led to the abdication of theking; and amidst gloom, disaster, and difficulty, the deposed monarchwas succeeded by his son, the Duke of Savoy, under the name of VictorEmmanuel II. 

The young king rallied around him the ablest and most patriotic men hecould find, including D'Azeglio, who soon became his prime minister; andit was from this nobleman's high character, varied abilities, unshakenloyalty to his sovereign, and ardent devotion to the Italian cause, thatVictor Emmanuel was enabled to preserve order and law on the one handand Italian liberties on the other. All Italy, as well as Piedmont, hadconfidence in the integrity and patriotism of the king, and in thewisdom of his prime minister, who upheld the liberties they had sworn todefend. D'Azeglio succeeded in making peace with Austria, while, at thesame time, he clung to constitutional liberty. Under his administrationthe finances were improved and national resources were developed. Sardinia became the most flourishing of all the States of Italy, inwhich both freedom and religious toleration were enjoyed, --for Naplesand Rome had relapsed into despotisms, and the iron hand of Austria wasstill felt throughout the peninsula. Among other reforms, ecclesiasticswere placed on the same footing with other citizens in respect to thelaws, --a great movement in a Catholic State. This measure was of coursebitterly opposed by the clerical and conservative party, but was ablysupported in the legislature by the member from Turin, --Count CamilloCavour; and this great man now became one of the most prominent figuresin the drama played by Italian patriots, since it was to his sagaciousstatesmanship and devoted labors that their efforts were crowned withfinal success. 

Cavour was a man of business, of practical intellect, and ofinexhaustible energies. His labors, when he had once entered upon publiclife, were prodigious. His wisdom and tact were equal to his industryand administrative abilities. Above all, his patriotism blazed with asteady light, like a beacon in a storm, as intense as that of Mazzini, but more wisely directed. 

Cavour was a younger son of a noble Piedmontese family, and entered thearmy in 1826, serving in the engineers. His liberal sentiments made himdistrusted by the government of Charles Felix as a dangerous man, and hewas doomed to an inactive life in an unimportant post. He soon quittedthe army, and embarked in business operations as manager of one of theestates of his family. For twelve years he confined himself toagricultural labors, making himself acquainted with all the details ofbusiness and with the science of agriculture, introducing suchimprovements as the use of guano, and promoting agriculturalassociations; but he was not indifferent at the same time to publicaffairs, being one of the most zealous advocates of constitutionalliberty. A residence in England gave him much valuable knowledge as tothe working of representative institutions. He established in 1847 apolitical newspaper, and went into parliament as a member of the Chamberof Deputies. In 1848 he used all his influence to induce the governmentto make war with Austria; and when Charles Albert abdicated, and VictorEmmanuel became king, Cavour's great talents were rewarded. In 1850 hebecame minister of commerce; in 1852, prime minister. After that, hishistory is the history of Italy itself. 

The Sardinian government took the lead of all the States of Italy forits vigor and its wisdom. To drive the Austrians out of the country nowbecame the first principle of Cavour's administration. For this end heraised the military and naval forces of Sardinia to the utmostpracticable point of efficiency; and the people from patrioticenthusiasm, cheerfully submitted to the increase of taxation. He builtrailways, made commercial treaties with foreign nations, suppressedmonasteries, protected fugitives from Austrian and Papal tyranny, gaveliberty to the Press, and even meditated the construction of a tunnelunder Mont Cenis. His most difficult task was the reform ofecclesiastical abuses, since this was bitterly opposed by the clergy andthe conservatives; but he succeeded in establishing civil marriages, insuppressing the Mendicant order of friars, and in making priestsamenable to the civil courts. He also repressed all premature and unwisemovements on the part of patriotic leaders to secure nationaldeliverance, and hence incurred the hostility of Mazzini. 

The master-stroke in the policy of Cavour as a statesman was to make afirm alliance with France and England, to be used as a lever againstAustria. He saw the improbability of securing liberty to Italy unlessthe Austrians were expelled by force of arms. The Sardinian kingdom, with only five millions of people, was inadequate to cope singly withone of the most powerful military monarchies of Europe. Cavour lookedfor deliverance only by the aid of friendly Powers, and he secured thefriendship of both France and England by offering five thousand troopsfor the Crimean war. On the 10th of January, 1855, a treaty was signedwhich admitted Sardinia on equal terms as the ally of the WesternPowers; and the Sardinian army, under the command of General La Marmora, rendered very substantial aid, and fought with great gallantry in theCrimea. When, in 1856, an armistice took place between the contendingPowers, followed by the Congress of Paris, Cavour took his place withthe envoys of the great Powers. Furthermore, he availed himself of hisopportunities to have private conferences with the Emperor NapoleonIII. In reference to Italian matters; and his influence with the foreignstatesmen he met in Paris was equally beneficial to the great end towhich his life was devoted. His diplomacy was unrivalled for tact, andthe ministers of France and England saw and acknowledged it. By hisdiplomatic abilities he enlisted the Emperor of the French in behalf ofItalian independence, and, perhaps more than any other man, induced himto make war on Austria. 

Cavour's lucid exposition of the internal affairs of Italy brought outthe condemnation of the Russian and Prussian envoys as well as that ofthe English ministry, and led to their expostulation with the Austriangovernment. But all in vain. Austria would listen to no advice, andblindly pursued her oppressive policy, to the exasperation of thedifferent leaders whatever may have been their peculiar views ofgovernment. All this prepared the way for the acknowledgment of Sardiniaas the leader in the matter of Italian emancipation, whom the otherItalian States were willing to follow. The hopes of the Italians werenow turned to the House of Savoy, to its patriotic chief, and to itsable minister, whose counsels Victor Emmanuel in most cases followed. From this time the republican societies which Mazzini had establishedlost ground before the ascendency which Cavour had acquired in Italianpolitics. Of the Western Powers, he would have preferred an alliancewith Great Britain; but when he found he could expect from the Englishgovernment no assistance by arms against Austria, he drew closer to theFrench emperor as the one power alone from whom efficient aid was to beobtained, and set his sharp wits at work to make such a course both easyand profitable to France. 

There is reason to believe that Louis Napoleon was sincere in his desireto assist the Italians in shaking off the yoke of Austria, to the extentthat circumstances should warrant. Whatever were his political crimes, his personal sympathies were with Italy. His youthful alliance with theCarbonari, his early political theories, the antecedents of his family, and his natural wish for the close union of the Latin races seem toconfirm this view. Moreover, he was now tempted by Cavour with thecession of Savoy and Nice to France to strengthen his southernboundaries; and for the possession of these provinces he was willing toput Victor Emmanuel in the way to obtain as a compensation Venetia andLombardy, then held by the iron hand of Austria. This would double thenumber of Victor Emmanuel's subjects, and give him the supremacy overthe north of Italy. Cavour easily convinced his master that thesacrifice of Savoy, the home of his ancestors, though hard to accept, would make him more powerful than all the other sovereigns of Italycombined, and would pave the way for the sovereignty of Italyitself, --the one object which Cavour had most at heart, and to which allhis diplomatic talents were directed. 

In the summer of 1858 Napoleon III. Invited Cavour to a conference atPlombières, and thither the Italian statesman repaired; but the resultsof the conference were not revealed to the public, or even to theministers of Louis Napoleon. Although there were no written engagements, it was arranged that Sardinia should make war on Austria and that Franceshould come to her assistance, as the only practicable way for Italy toshake off the Austrian domination and secure her independence. Ultimately, not only independence but unity was the supreme aim ofCavour. For this great end the Italian statesman labored night and day, under great difficulties, and constant apprehension that something mighthappen which would compel the French emperor to break his promises, forhis situation was also critical. But in reality Louis Napoleon desiredwar with Austria as much as Cavour, in order to find employment for hisarmies, to gain the coveted increase of territory, and to increase hismilitary prestige. 

Cavour, having completed arrangements with Napoleon III. , at once soughtthe aid of all the Italian patriots. He secretly sent for Garibaldi, and unfolded to him his designs on Austria; and also he privatelyencouraged those societies which had for their end the deliverance ofItaly. All this he did without the knowledge of the French emperor, whoequally disliked Garibaldi and Mazzini. 

At this time Garibaldi was one of the foremost figures in the field ofItalian politics, and, to introduce him, we must go back to an earlierday. Giuseppe Garibaldi was born in 1807, at Nice, of humble parents, who were seafaring people. Although he was a wild youth, full of deedsof adventure and daring, he was destined by his priest-ridden father forthe Church; but the boy's desire for a sailor's life could not beresisted. At the age of twenty-one he was second in command of a brigbound for the Black Sea, which was plundered three times during thevoyage by Greek pirates. This misfortune left the young Garibaldiutterly destitute; but his wants being relieved by a generousEnglishman, he was enabled to continue his voyage to Constantinople, where he was taken sick. 

In 1834 he was induced to take part in the revolutionary movement whichwas going on under Mazzini, who had instituted his Society of YoungItaly. On the failure of Mazzini in the rash affair of St. Julien, --anill-timed insurrection in which Garibaldi took part, --the young sailorfled in disguise to Nice, and thence to Marseilles. Charles Albert wasthen on the throne of Sardinia, and though the most liberal sovereign inItaly, was tyrannical in his measures. Ferdinand II. Ruled at Napleswith a rod of iron; the Pontifical States and the Duchies of Modena andParma were equally under despotic governments, while Venice and Lombardywere ground down by Austria. 

In those days of discouragement, when all Italy was enslaved, Garibaldileft his country with a heavy heart, and sailing for South America, entered the service of the Republic of Rio Grande, which had set itselfup against the authority of the Emperor of Brazil. In this struggle of alittle State against a larger one, Garibaldi distinguished himself notonly for his bravery but for his military talent of leadership. He tookseveral prizes as a privateer, but was wounded in some engagement, andfled to Gualeguay, where he was thrown into prison, from which he madehis escape, and soon after renewed his seafaring adventures, some ofwhich were marvellous. After six years of faithful service to theRepublic of Rio Grande, he bought a drove of nine hundred cattle, andset out for Montevideo with his Brazilian wife and child, to try amercantile career. This was unsuccessful. He then became a schoolmasterat Montevideo, but soon tired of so monotonous a calling. Craving warand adventure, he buckled on his sword once more in the strugglebetween Montevideo and Buenos Ayres; and for his gallantry and successeshe was made a general, but refused all compensation for his services, and remained in poverty, which he seemed to love as much as some loveriches. The reputation which he gained drew a number of Italians to hisstandard, resolved to follow his fortunes. 

In the meantime great things were doing in Piedmont towards reform bythe Marquis D'Azeglio, --prime minister of Charles Albert, --who was thenirretrievably devoted to the liberal cause. Every mail brought toMontevideo news which made Garibaldi's blood boil, and he resolved toreturn to Italy and take part in the movements of the patriots. This wasin 1848, when not only Italy but all Europe was shaken by revolutionaryideas. He landed in Nice on the 24th of June, and at once went to thecamp of Charles Albert, sought an interview, and offered his services, which, however, were not accepted, --the king having not forgotten thatGaribaldi was once a rebel against him, and was still an outlaw. 

Nothing remained for the adventurous patriot but to continue an inactivespectator or throw in his lot with the republican party. He did not waitlong to settle that question, but flew to Milan and organized a force ofthirty thousand volunteers for the defence of that city from theAustrians. On the conclusion of an armistice, which filled him withdetestation of Charles Albert, he and Mazzini, who had joined the corps, undertook to harass the Austrians among the mountains above LakeMaggiore. Finding it impossible to make head against the Austrians inthe midst of their successes, Garibaldi retired to Switzerland, where helay ill for some time with a dangerous fever. On his recovery he startedfor Venice with two hundred and fifty volunteers, to join Daniele Maninin his memorable resistance to the Austrians; but hearing at Ravennathat a rebellion had broken out in Rome, he bent his course to the"Eternal City, " to swell with fifteen hundred men the ranks of therebellious subjects of the Pope, --for Pius IX. Had repudiated theliberal principles which he had professed at the beginning of his reign. 

When the rebellion broke out in Rome the Pope fled to Gaeta, and puthimself under the protection of the King of Naples. A ConstituentAssembly was called, in which both Mazzini and Garibaldi sat as members. Garibaldi was intrusted with the defence of the city; a triumvirate wasformed--of which Mazzini was the inspiring leader--to administeraffairs, and the temporal government of the Pope was decreed by theAssembly to be at an end. 

Meanwhile, Louis Napoleon, then President of the French Republic, against all his antecedents, sided against the Liberals, and sentGeneral Oudinot with a large army to restore the papal power at Rome. This general was at first defeated, but, on the arrival ofreinforcements, he gradually gained possession of the city. Theresistance was valiant but useless. In vain Mazzini promised assistance;in vain Garibaldi, in his red shirt and cap, defended the ramparts. Onthe 21st of June the French effected a breach in the city wall andplanted their batteries, and on the 30th of June they made their finalassault. Further resistance became hopeless; and Garibaldi, at the headof four thousand fugitives, leaving the city as the French entered it, again became a wanderer. 

He first made his way to Tuscany, but at Arezzo found the gates closedagainst him. Hotly pursued by Austrian troops he crossed the Apennines, and sought the shelter of the little republic of San Marino, theauthorities of which, in fear of the Austrians, refused him the refugehe sought, but in full sympathy with his cause connived at his escape. As Venice still held out under Manin, Garibaldi made his way to theAdriatic, --accompanied by his wife, the faithful Anita, about to becomea mother, --where he and some of his followers embarked in somefishing-boats and reached the mouth of the Po, still hounded by theAustrians. He and his sick wife and a few followers were obliged tohide in cornfields, among rocks, and in caverns. On the shores of theAdriatic Anita expired in the arms of her husband, who, still hunted, contrived to reach Ravenna, where for a while he was hidden by friends. 

It was now useless to proceed to Venice, at this time in the last gaspof her struggle; so Garibaldi made his way to Spezzia, on the Gulf ofGenoa, with a single companion-in-arms, but learned that Florence wasnot prepared for rebellion. The government of Turin, fearing to allow sotroublesome a guest to remain at Genoa, held him for a while inhonorable captivity, but permitted him to visit his aged mother and histhree children at Nice. On his return to Genoa, the government politelyrequested him to leave Italy. He passed over to the island of Sardinia, still hunted and half a bandit, wandering over the mountains, and, whenhard pressed, retiring to the small island-rock of Caprera. 

Eventually, finding no hopes of further rising in Italy, Garibaldi foundhis way to Liverpool, and embarked for New York. Arriving in that cityhe refused to be lionized, and also declined all contributions of moneyfrom admirers, but supported himself for eighteen months by makingtallow candles on Staten Island. At the same time French exiles wereseeking to gain a living in New York, --Ledru Rollin as a store porter, Louis Blanc as a dancing-master, and Felix Pyat as a scene-shifter. Notsucceeding very well in making candles, Garibaldi went again to SouthAmerica, and became captain of a trading-vessel plying between China andPeru, and then again of a vessel between New York and England. In 1854he was once more in Genoa, and after cruising about the Mediterranean, he had amassed money enough to buy a portion of the island of Caprera, where he found a resting-place. 

Sardinia was then under the guidance of Cavour, who was meditating thegaining of friendship from France by furnishing troops for the Crimeanwar. The moderate Liberal party had the ascendency in Italy, convincedthat all hopes for the regeneration of their country rested onconstitutional measures. Venice and Lombardy had settled down once morein subjection to Austria; the Pope reigned as a temporal prince with theassistance of French troops; and at Naples a Bourbon despot hadre-established his tyrannical rule. 

For ten years Garibaldi led a quiet life at Caprera, the whole island, fifteen miles in circumference, near the coast of Sardinia, havingfallen into his possession. Here he cultivated a small garden redeemedfrom the rocks, and milked a few cows. He had also some fine horsesgiven to him by friends, and his house was furnished in the most simplemanner. On this island, monarch of all he surveyed, he diffused anunostentatious but generous hospitality; for many distinguished personscame to visit him, and he amused himself by writing letters andattempting some literary work. 

In 1859, under the manipulation of Cavour, French and Italian politicsbecame more and more intertwined, --the war with Austria, the formationof an Italian kingdom from the Alps to the Adriatic, the cession of Niceand Savoy and the marriage of Princess Clotilde to Prince Napoleon beingthe main objects which occupied the mind of Cavour. Early in the yearVictor Emmanuel made public his intention of aiding Venice and Lombardyto throw off the Austrian yoke. It was then that the all-powerfulItalian statesman sent for Garibaldi, who at once obeyed the summons, appearing in his red blouse and with his big stick, and was commissionedto fight against the Austrians. Volunteers from all parts of Italyflocked to his standard, --some four thousand disorderly troops, butdevoted to him and to the cause of Italian independence. He held aregular commission in the allied armies of France and Sardinia, but wasso hampered by jealous generals that Victor Emmanuel--dictator as wellas king--gave him permission to quit the regular army, go where heliked, and fight as he pleased. With his volunteers Garibaldi performedmany acts of bravery which won for him great _éclat_; but he made manymilitary mistakes. Once he came near being captured with all his men;but fortune favored, and he almost miraculously escaped from the handsof the Austrians. The scene of his exploits was in the mountainouscountry around Lake Como. 

Meanwhile the allied armies had defeated the Austrians at Magenta andSolferino, and Louis Napoleon had effected the celebrated treaty withAustria at Villa-Franca, arranging for a confederation of all theItalian States under the Papal Protectorate, and the cession of Lombardyto Sardinia. This inconclusive result greatly disgusted all the Italianpatriots. Cavour resigned at once, but soon after was induced to resumehis post at the head of affairs. Venice and Verona were still inAustrian hands. As the Prussians showed signs of uneasiness, it isprobable that Louis Napoleon did not feel justified in continuing thewar, in which he had nothing further to gain; at all events, he nowwithdrew. Garibaldi was exceedingly indignant at the desertion ofFrance, and opposed bitterly the cession of Nice and Savoy, --by which hewas brought in conflict with Cavour, who felt that Italy could wellafford to part with a single town and a barren strip of mountainterritory for the substantial advantages it had already gained by thedefeat of the Austrian armies. 

The people of the Italian States, however, repudiated the Frenchemperor's arrangements for them, and one by one Modena, Tuscany, Parma, and the Romagna, --the upper tier of the Papal States, --formally votedfor annexation to the Kingdom of Sardinia; and the king, nothing loath, received them into his fold in March, 1860. This result was in greatmeasure due to the Baron Ricasoli of Tuscany, an independentcountry-gentleman and wine-grower, who had taken active interest inpolitics, and had been made Dictator of Tuscany when her grand duke fledat the outbreak of the war. Ricasoli obstinately refused either torecall the grand duke or to submit to the Napoleonic programme, butinsisted on annexation to Sardinia; and the other duchies followed. 

Garibaldi now turned his attention to the liberation of Naples andSicily from the yoke of Ferdinand, which had become intolerable. Asearly as 1851, Mr. Gladstone, on a visit to Naples, wrote to LordAberdeen that the government of Ferdinand was "an outrage on religion, civilization, humanity, and decency. " He had found the prisons full ofstate prisoners in the vilest condition, and other iniquities which werea disgrace to any government. The people had attempted by revolutionagain and again to shake off the accursed yoke, and had failed. Theironly hope was from without. 

It was the combined efforts of three men that freed Southern Italy fromthe yoke, --Mazzini, who opened the drama by recognizing in Sicily afitting field of action; Cavour, by his diplomatic intrigues; andGaribaldi, by his bold and even rash enterprises. The patriotism ofthese three men is universally conceded; but they held one another indistrust and dislike, although in different ways they worked for thesame end. Mazzini wanted to see a republican form of governmentestablished throughout Italy, which Cavour regarded as chimerical. Garibaldi did not care what government was established, provided Italywas free and united. Cavour, though he disapproved the rashness ofGaribaldi, was willing to make use of him provided he was not intrustedwith too high a command. Moreover, there were mutual jealousies, eachparty wishing to get the supreme direction of affairs. 

The first step was taken in 1860 by Garibaldi, in his usual fashion. Having gathered about a thousand men, he set sail from Genoa to takepart in the Sicilian revolution. Cavour, when he heard of theexpedition, or rather raid, led by Garibaldi upon Sicily in aid of theinsurrectionists, ostensibly opposed it, and sent an admiral to capturehim and bring him back to Turin; but secretly he favored it. Thegovernment of Turin held aloof from the expedition out of regard toforeign Powers, who were indignant that the peace of Europe should bedisturbed by a military adventurer, --in their eyes, half-bandit andhalf-sailor. Lord John Russell, however, in England, gave hisencouragement and assistance by the directions given to Admiral Mundy, who interposed his ships between the Neapolitan cruisers and thesoldiers of Garibaldi, then marching on the coast. France remainedneutral; Austria had been crippled; and Prussia and Russia were toodistant to care much about a matter which did not affect them. 

So, with his troop of well-selected men, Garibaldi succeeded in landingon the Sicilian shores. He at once issued his manifesto to the people, and soon had the satisfaction to see his forces increased. He first camein contact with the Neapolitan troops among the mountains at Calatafimi, and defeated them, so that they retired to Palermo. The capital ofSicily could have been easily defended; but, aided by a popularuprising, Garibaldi was soon master of the city, and took up hisquarters in the royal palace as Dictator of Sicily, where he lived veryquietly, astonishing the viceroy's servants by his plain dinners of soupand vegetables without wine. His wardrobe was then composed "of twopairs of gray trousers, an old felt hat, two red shirts, and a fewpocket-handkerchiefs. "

On the 17th of July, 1860, Garibaldi left Palermo, and embarked forMilazzo, on the northwest coast of Sicily, where he gained anothervictory, which opened to him the city of Messina. The Neapolitangovernment deemed all further resistance on the island of Sicilyuseless, and recalled its troops for the defence of Naples. At Messina, Garibaldi was joined by Father Gavazzi, the finest orator of Italy, whohad seceded from the Romish Church, and who threw his whole soul intothe cause of Italian independence. Garibaldi now had a force oftwenty-five thousand men under his orders, and prepared to invade thepeninsula. 

On the 17th of August he landed at Taormina with a part of his army, andmarched on Reggio, a strong castle, which he took by assault. Thissuccess gave him a basis of operations on the main land. The residue ofhis troops were brought over from Messina, and his triumphal march toNaples immediately followed, not a hand being raised against him. Theyoung king Francis II. Fled as the conqueror approached, --or rather Ishould say, deliverer; for Garibaldi had no hard battles to fight whenonce he had landed on the shores of Italy. His popularity was so great, and the enthusiasm of the people was so unbounded, that armies meltedaway or retired as he approached with his Calabrian sugar-loaf hat; and, instead of fighting, he was obliged to go through the ordeal of kissingall the children and being hugged by all the women. 

Naples was now without a government, and Garibaldi had no talent fororganization. The consequence was that the city was torn by factions, and yet Garibaldi refused to adopt vigorous measures. "I am grieved, " hesaid, "at the waywardness of my children, " yet he took no means torepress disorders. He even reaped nothing but ingratitude from those hecame to deliver. Not a single Garibaldian was received into a privatehouse, while three thousand of his men were lying sick and wounded onthe stones of the Jesuit College. How was it to be expected thatanything else could happen among a people so degraded as theNeapolitans, one hundred years behind the people of North Italy incivilization, in intelligence, in wealth, and in morals, --in everythingthat qualifies a people for liberty or self-government?

In the midst of the embarrassments which perplexed and surrounded thedictator, Mazzini made his appearance at Naples. Garibaldi, however, would have nothing to do with the zealous republican, and held his lotwith the royalists, as he was now the acknowledged representative of theSardinian government. Mazzini was even requested to leave Italy, whichhe refused to do. Whether it was from jealousy that Garibaldi held alooffrom Mazzini, --vastly his intellectual superior, --or from the convictionthat his republican ideas were utterly impracticable, cannot be known. We only know that he sought to unite the north and the south of Italyunder one government, as a preparation for the conquest of centralItaly, which he was impatient to undertake at all hazards. 

At last the King of Naples prepared to make one decisive struggle forhis throne. From his retreat at Gaeta he rallied his forces, which wereequal to those of Garibaldi, --about forty thousand men. On the 1st ofOctober was fought the battle of Volturno, as to which Garibaldi, afterfierce fighting, was enabled to send his exultant dispatch, "Completevictory along the whole line!" Francis II. Retired to his strongfortress of Gaeta to await events. 

Meanwhile, on the news of Garibaldi's successes, King Victor Emmanuelset out from Turin with a large army to take possession of the throne ofNaples, which Garibaldi was ready to surrender. But the king must needspass through the States of the Church, --a hazardous undertaking, sinceRome was under the protection of the French troops. Louis Napoleon hadgiven an ambiguous assent to this movement, which, however, he declinedto assist; and, defeating the papal troops under General Lamoricière, Victor Emmanuel pushed on to Naples. As the King of Piedmont advancedfrom the north, he had pretty much the same experience that Garibaldihad in his march from the south. He met with no serious resistance. Onpassing the Neapolitan frontier he was met by Garibaldi with his staff, who laid down his dictatorship at his sovereign's feet, --the most heroicand magnanimous act of his life. This was also his proudest hour, sincehe had accomplished his purpose. He had freed Naples, and had united theSouth with the North. On the 10th of October the people of the TwoSicilies voted to accept the government of Victor Emmanuel; and the kingentered Naples, November 7, in all the pomp of sovereignty. 

Garibaldi's task was ended on surrendering his dictatorship; but he hadone request to make of Victor Emmanuel, to whom he had given a throne. He besought him to dismiss Cavour, and to be himself allowed to march onRome, --for he hated the Pope with terrible hatred, and called himAntichrist, both because he oppressed his subjects and was hostile tothe independence of Italy. But Victor Emmanuel could not grant such anabsurd request, --he was even angry; and the Liberator of Naples retiredto his island-home with only fifteen shillings in his pocket!

This conduct on the part of the king may seem like ingratitude; but whatelse could he do? He doubtless desired that Rome should be the capitalof his dominions as much as Garibaldi himself, but the time had notcome. Victor Emmanuel could not advance on Rome and Venice with an "armyof red shirts;" he could not overcome the armed veterans of Austria andFrance as Garibaldi had prevailed over the discontented troops ofFrancis II. , --he must await his opportunity. Besides, he had his handsfull to manage the affairs of Naples, where every element of anarchy hadaccumulated. 

To add to the embarrassments of Victor Emmanuel, he was compelled towitness the failing strength and fatal illness of his prime minister. The great statesman was dying from overwork. Although no man in Europewas capable of such gigantic tasks as Cavour assumed, yet even he had tosuccumb to the laws of nature. He took no rest and indulged in nopleasures, but devoted himself body and soul to the details of hisoffice and the calls of patriotism. He had to solve the most difficultproblems, both political and commercial. He was busy with the financesof the kingdom, then in great disorder; and especially had he to dealwith the blended ignorance, tyranny, and corruption that the Bourbonkings of Naples had bequeathed to the miserable country which for morethan a century they had so disgracefully misgoverned. All this was toomuch for the overworked statesman, who was always at his post in thelegislative chamber, in his office with his secretaries, and in thecouncil chamber of the cabinet. He died in June, 1861, and was buried, not in a magnificent mausoleum, but among his family relationsat Santena. 

Cavour did not, however, pass away until he saw the union of allItaly--except Venice and Rome--under the sceptre of Victor Emmanuel. Lombardy had united with Piedmont soon after the victory at Solferino, by the suffrages of its inhabitants. At Turin, deputies from the Statesof Italy, --except Venice and Rome, --chosen by the people, assembled, andformally proclaimed Italy to be free. The population of four millions, which comprised the subjects of Victor Emmanuel on his accession to thethrone, had in about thirteen years increased to twenty-two millions;and in February, 1861, Victor Emmanuel was by his Senate and Chamber ofDeputies proclaimed King of Italy, although he wisely forbore anyattempt actually to annex the Venetian and Papal States. 

Rome and Venice were still outside. The Pope remained inflexible to anyreforms, any changes, any improvements. _Non possumus_ was all that hedeigned to say to the ambassadors who advised concessions. On the 7th ofSeptember, 1860, Victor Emmanuel sent an envoy to Rome to demand fromhis Holiness the dismissal of his foreign troops; which demand wasrefused. Upon this, the king ordered an army to enter the papalprovinces of Umbria and the Marches. In less than three weeks thecampaign was over, and General Lamoricière, who commanded the papaltroops, was compelled to surrender. Austria, Prussia, and Russiaprotested; but Victor Emmanuel paid little heed to the protest, or tothe excommunications which were hurled against him. The Emperor of theFrench found it politic to withdraw his ambassador from Turin, butadhered to his policy of non-intervention, and remained a quietspectator. The English government, on the other hand, justified thegovernment of Turin in thus freeing Italian territory fromforeign troops. 

Garibaldi was not long contented with his retirement at Caprera. InJuly, 1862, he rallied around him a number of followers, determined toforce the king's hand, and to complete the work of unity by advancing onRome as he had on Naples. His rashness was opposed by the Italiangovernment, --wisely awaiting riper opportunity, --who sent against himthe greatest general of Italy (La Marmora), and Garibaldi was takenprisoner at Aspromonte. The king determined to do nothing furtherwithout the support of the representatives of the nation, but found itnecessary to maintain a large army, which involved increasedtaxation, --to which, however, the Italians generously submitted. 

In 1866, while Austria was embroiled with Prussia, Victor Emmanuel, having formed an alliance with the Northern Powers, invaded Venetia; andin the settlement between the two German Powers the Venetian provincefell to the King of Italy. 

In 1867 Garibaldi made another attempt on Rome, but was arrested nearLake Thrasimene and sent back to Caprera. Again he left his island, landed on the Tuscan coast, and advanced to Rome with his body ofvolunteers, and was again defeated and sent back to Caprera. Thegovernment dealt mildly with this prince of filibusters, in view of hispast services and his unquestioned patriotism. His errors were those ofthe head and not of the heart. He was too impulsive, too impatient, andtoo rash in his schemes for Italian liberty. 

It was not until Louis Napoleon was defeated at Sedan that the Frenchtroops were withdrawn from Rome, and the way was finally opened for theoccupation of the city by the troops of Victor Emmanuel in 1870. A Romanplebiscite had voted for the union of all Italy under the constitutionalrule of the House of Savoy. From 1859 to 1865 the capital of the kingdomhad been Turin, the principal city of Piedmont; with the enlargement ofthe realm the latter year saw the court removed to Florence, in Tuscany;but now that all the States were united under one rule, Rome once again, after long centuries had passed, became the capital of Italy, and thetemporal power of the Pope passed away forever. 

On the fall of Napoleon III. In 1870 Italian nationality wasconsummated, and Victor Emmanuel reigned as a constitutional monarchover united Italy. To his prudence, honesty, and good sense, theliberation of Italy was in no small degree indebted. He was the mainfigure in the drama of Italian independence, if we except Cavour, whosetranscendent abilities were devoted to the same cause for which Mazziniand Garibaldi less discreetly labored. It is remarkable that such greatpolitical changes were made with so little bloodshed. Italian unity waseffected by constitutional measures, by the voice of the people, and byfortunate circumstances more than by the sword. The revolutions whichseated the King of Piedmont on the throne of United Italy werecomparatively bloodless. Battles indeed were fought during the wholecareer of Victor Emmanuel, and in every part of Italy; but those of muchimportance were against the Austrians, --against foreign domination. Thecivil wars were slight and unimportant compared with those which endedin the expulsion of Austrian soldiers from the soil of Italy. The civilwars were mainly popular insurrections, being marked by neither crueltynor fanaticism; indeed, they were the uprising of the people againstoppression and misrule. The iron heel which had for so many yearscrushed the aspirations of the citizens of Venice, of Milan, and Rome, was finally removed only by the successive defeats of Austrian armiesby Prussia and France. 

Although the political unity and independence of Italy have beeneffected, it is not yet a country to be envied. The weight of taxationto support the government is an almost intolerable burden. No country inthe world is so heavily taxed in proportion to its resources andpopulation. Great ignorance is still the misfortune of Italy, especiallyin the central and southern provinces. Education is at a low ebb, andonly a small part of the population can even read and write, except inPiedmont. The spiritual despotism of the Pope still enslaves the bulk ofthe people, who are either Roman Catholics with mediaeval superstitions, or infidels with hostility to all religion based on the Holy Scriptures. Nothing there as yet flourishes like the civilization of France, Germany, and England. 

And yet it is to be hoped that a better day has dawned on a countryendeared to Christendom for its glorious past and its classicassociations. It is a great thing that a liberal and enlightenedgovernment now unites all sections of the country, and that aconstitutional monarch, with noble impulses, reigns in the "EternalCity, " rather than a bigoted ecclesiastical pontiff averse to allchanges and improvements, having nothing in common with Europeansovereigns but patronage of art, which may be Pagan in spirit ratherthan Christian. The great drawback to Italian civilization at present isthe foolish race of the nation with great military monarchies in armiesand navies, which occupies the energies of the country, rather than adevelopment of national resources in commerce, agriculture, and theuseful arts. 

AUTHORITIES. 

Alison's History of Europe; Lives of Cavour, Mazzini, Garibaldi; Fyffe'sModern Europe; Mackenzie's History of the Nineteenth Century; Biographyof Marshal Radetsky; Annual Register; Biography of Charles Albert;Ellesmere, as quoted by Alison; Memoirs of Prince Metternich; CarloBotta's History of Italy. 

CZAR NICHOLAS. 

1796-1855. 

THE CRIMEAN WAR. 

For centuries before the Russian empire was consolidated by the wisdom, the enterprise, and the conquests of Peter the Great, the Russians castlonging eyes on Constantinople as the prize most precious and mostcoveted in their sight. 

From Constantinople, the capital of the Greek empire when the Turks werea wandering and unknown Tartar tribe in the northern part of Asia, hadcome the religion that was embraced by the ancient czars and theSlavonic races which they ruled. To this Greek form of Christianity theRussians were devotedly attached. They were semi-barbarians, and yetbigoted Christians. In the course of centuries their priests came topossess immense power, --social and political, as well as ecclesiastical. The Patriarch of Moscow was the second personage of the empire, and thethird dignitary in the Greek Church. Religious forms and dogmas boundthe Russians with the Greek population of the Turkish empire in thestrongest ties of sympathy and interest, even when that empire was inthe height of its power. To get possession of those principalities underTurkish dominion in which the Greek faith was the prevailing religionhad been the ambition of all the czars who reigned either at Moscow orat St. Petersburg. They aimed at a protectorate over the Christiansubjects of the Porte in Eastern Europe; and the city where reigned thefirst Christian emperor of the old Roman world was not only sacred intheir eyes, and had a religious prestige next to that of Jerusalem, butwas looked upon as their future and certain possession, --to be obtained, however, only by bitter and sanguinary wars. 

Turkey, in a religious point of view, was the certain and inflexibleenemy of Russia, --so handed down in all the traditions and teachings ofcenturies. To erect again on the lofty dome of St. Sophia the cross, which had been torn down by Mohammedan infidels, was probably one of thestrongest desires of the Russian nation; and this desire was shared in astill stronger degree by all the Russian monarchs from the time of Peterthe Great, most of whom were zealous defenders of what they called theOrthodox faith. They remind us of the kings of the Middle Ages in theinterest they took in ecclesiastical affairs, in their gorgeousreligious ceremonials, and in their magnificent churches, which it wastheir pride to build. Alexander I. Was, in his way, one of the mostreligious monarchs who ever swayed a sceptre, --more like an ancientJewish king than a modern political sovereign. 

But there was another powerful reason why the Russian czars cast theirwistful glance on the old capital of the Greek emperors, and resolvedsooner or later to add it to their dominions, already stretching farinto the east, --and this was to get possession of the countries whichbordered on the Black Sea, in order to have access to the Mediterranean. They wanted a port for the southern provinces of their empire, --St. Petersburg was not sufficient, since the Neva was frozen in thewinter, --but Poland (a powerful kingdom in the seventeenth century)stood in their way; and beyond Poland were the Ukraine Cossacks and theTartars of the Crimea. These nations it was necessary to conquer beforethe Muscovite banners could float on the strongholds which controlledthe Euxine. It was not until after a long succession of wars that Peterthe Great succeeded, by the capture of Azof, in gaining a temporaryfooting on the Euxine, --lost by the battle of Pruth, when the Russianswere surrounded by the Turks. The reconquest of Azof was left to Peter'ssuccessors; but the Cossacks and Tartars barred the way to the Euxineand to Constantinople. It was not until the time of Catherine II. Thatthe Russian armies succeeded in gaining a firm footing on the Euxine bythe conquest of the Crimea, which then belonged to Turkey, and wascalled Crim Tartary. The treaties of 1774 and 1792 gave to the Russiansthe privilege of navigating the Black Sea, and indirectly placed underthe protectorate of Russia the territories of Moldavia andWallachia, --provinces of Turkey, called the Danubian principalities, whose inhabitants were chiefly of the Greek faith. 

Thus was Russia aggrandized during the reign of Catherine II. , who notonly added the Crimea to her dominions, --an achievement to which Peterthe Great aspired in vain, --but dismembered Poland, and invaded Persiawith her armies. "Greece, Roumelia, Thessaly, Macedonia, Montenegro, andthe islands of the Archipelago swarmed with her emissaries, who preachedrebellion against the hateful Crescent, and promised Russian support, Russian money, and Russian arms. " These promises however were notrealized, being opposed by Austria, --then virtually ruled by PrinceKaunitz, who would not consent to the partition of Poland without theabandonment of the ambitious projects of Catherine, incited by PrincePotemkin, the most influential of her advisers and favorites. She had torenounce all idea of driving the Turks out of Turkey and founding aGreek empire ruled over by a Russian grand duke. She was forced also toabandon her Greek and Slavonic allies, and pledge herself to maintainthe independence of Wallachia and Moldavia. Eight years later, in 1783, the Tartars lost their last foothold in the Crimea by means of afriendly alliance between Catherine and the Austrian emperor Joseph II. , the effect of which was to make the Russians the masters of theBlack Sea. 

Catherine II. , of German extraction, is generally regarded as the ablestfemale sovereign who has reigned since Semiramis, with the exceptionperhaps of Maria Theresa of Germany and Elizabeth of England; but shewas infinitely below these princesses in moral worth, --indeed, she wasstained by the grossest immoralities that can degrade a woman. She diedin 1796, and her son Paul succeeded her, --a prince whom his imperialmother had excluded from all active participation in the government ofthe empire because of his mental imbecility, or partial insanity. Aconspiracy naturally was formed against him in such unsettled times, --itwas at the height of Napoleon's victorious career, --resulting in hisassassination, and his son Alexander I. Reigned in his stead. 

Alexander was twenty-four when, in 1801, he became the autocrat of allthe Russias. His reign is familiar to all the readers of the wars ofNapoleon, during which Russia settled down as one of the great Powers. At the Congress of Vienna in 1814 the duchy of Warsaw, comprisingfour-fifths of the ancient kingdom of Poland, was assigned to Russia. During fifty years Russia had been gaining possession of newterritory, --of the Crimea in 1783, of Georgia in 1785, of Bessarabia anda part of Moldavia in 1812. Alexander added to the empire several of thetribes of the Caucasus, Finland, and large territories ceded by Persia. After the fall of Napoleon, Alexander did little to increase theboundaries of his empire, confining himself, with Austria and Prussia, to the suppression of revolutionary principles in Europe, the weakeningof Turkey, and the extension of Russian influence in Persia. In theinternal government of his empire he introduced many salutary changes, especially in the early part of his reign; but after Napoleon's finaldefeat, his views gradually changed. The burdens of absolute government, disappointments, the alienation of friends, and the bitter experienceswhich all sovereigns must learn soured his temper, which was naturallyamiable, and made him a prey to terror and despondency. No longer was hethe frank, generous, chivalrous, and magnanimous prince who had calledout general admiration, but a disappointed, suspicious, terrified, andprematurely old man, flying from one part of his dominions to another, as if to avoid the assassin's dagger. He died in 1825, and wassucceeded by his brother, --the Grand Duke Nicholas. 

The throne, on the principles of legitimacy, properly belonged to hiselder brother, --the Grand Duke Constantine. Whether this prince shrankfrom the burdens of governing a vast empire, or felt an incapacity forits duties, or preferred the post he occupied as Viceroy of Poland orthe pleasures of domestic life with a wife to whom he was devoted, it isnot clear; it is only certain that he had in the lifetime of the lateemperor voluntarily renounced his claim to the throne, and Alexander hadleft a will appointing Nicholas as his successor. 

Nicholas had scarcely been crowned (1826) when war broke out betweenRussia and Persia; and this was followed by war with Turkey, consequentupon the Greek revolution. Silistria, a great fortress in Bulgaria, fellinto the hands of the Russians, who pushed their way across the Balkanmountains and occupied Adrianople. In the meantime General Paskievitchfollowed up his brilliant successes in the Asiatic provinces of theSultan's dominions by the capture of Erzeroum, and advanced toTrebizond. The peace of Adrianople, in September, 1829, checked hisfarther advances. This famous treaty secured to the Russians extensiveterritories on the Black Sea, together with its navigation by Russianvessels, and the free passage of Russian ships through the Dardanellesand Bosphorus to the Mediterranean. In addition, a large war indemnitywas granted by Turkey, and the occupancy of Moldavia, Wallachia, andSilistria until the indemnity should be paid. Moreover, it was agreedthat the hospodars of the principalities should be elected for life, torule without molestation from the Porte upon paying a trilling tribute. A still greater advantage was gained by Russia in the surrender byTurkey of everything on the left bank of the Danube, --cities, fortresses, and lands, all with the view to their future annexationto Russia. 

The territory ceded to Russia by the peace of Adrianople included theCaucasus, --a mountainous region inhabited by several independent races, among which were the Circassians, who acknowledged allegiance neither toTurkey nor Russia. Nicholas at first attempted to gain over thechieftains of these different nations or tribes by bribes, pensions, decorations, and military appointments. He finally was obliged to resortto arms, but without complete success. 

Such, in brief, were the acquisitions of Russia during the reign ofNicholas down to the time of the Crimean war, which made him perhaps themost powerful sovereign in the world. As Czar of all the Russias therewere no restraints on his will in his own dominions, and it was only ashe was held in check by the different governments of Europe, jealous ofhis encroachments, that he was reminded that he was not omnipotent. 

For fifteen years after his accession to the throne Nicholas had therespect of Europe. He was moral in his domestic relations, fond of hisfamily, religious in his turn of mind, bordering on superstition, azealot in his defence of the Greek Church, scrupulous in the performanceof his duties, and a man of his word. The Duke of Wellington was hisadmiration, --a model for a sovereign to imitate. Nicholas was not sogenerous and impulsive as his brother Alexander, but more reliable. Inhis personal appearance he made a fine impression, --over six feet inheight, with a frank and open countenance, but not expressive ofintellectual acumen. His will, however, was inflexible, and his angerwas terrible. His passionate temper, which gave way to bursts of wrath, was not improved by his experiences. As time advanced he withdrew moreand more within himself, and grew fitful and jealous, disinclined toseek advice, and distrustful of his counsellors; and we can scarcelywonder at this result when we consider his absolute power andunfettered will. 

Few have been the kings and emperors who resembled Marcus Aurelius, whowas not only master of the world, but master of himself. Few indeed havebeen the despots who have refrained from acts of cruelty, or who haveuniformly been governed by reason. Even in private life, very successfulmen have an imperious air, as if they were accustomed to submission anddeference; but a monarch of Russia, how can he be otherwise thandespotic and self-conscious? Everybody he sees, every influence to whichhe is subjected, tends to swell his egotism. What changes of charactermarked Saul, David, and Solomon! So of Nicholas, as of the ancientCaesars. With the advance of years and experience, his impatience grewunder opposition and his rage under defeat. No man yet has lived, however favored, that could always have his way. He has to yield tocircumstances, --not only to those great ones which he may own to havebeen determined by Divine Providence, but also to those unforeseenimpediments which come from his humblest instruments. He cannot preventdeceit, hypocrisy, and treachery on the part of officials, any easierthan one can keep servants from lying and cheating. Who is not in thepower, more or less, of those who are compelled to serve; and when anabsolute monarch discovers that he has been led into mistakes bytreacherous or weak advisers, how natural that his temper shouldbe spoiled!

Thus was Nicholas in the latter years of his reign. He was thwarted byforeign Powers, and deceived by his own instruments of despotic rule. He found himself only a man, and like other men. He became suspicious, bitter, and cruel. His pride was wounded by defeat and opposition fromleast expected quarters. He found his burdens intolerable to bear. Hiscares interfered with what were once his pleasures. The dreadful load ofpublic affairs, which he could not shake off, weighed down his soul withanxiety and sorrow. He realized, more than most monarchs, the truth ofone of Shakespeare's incomparable utterances, --

 "Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown. "

The mistakes and disappointments of the Crimean war finally broke hisheart; and he, armed with more power than any one man in the world, diedwith the consciousness of a great defeat. 

It would be interesting to show how seldom the great rulers of thisworld have had an unchecked career to the close of their lives. Most ofthem have had to ruminate on unexpected falls, --like Napoleon, LouisPhilippe, Metternich, Gladstone, Bismarck, --or on unattained objects ofambition, like the great statesmen who have aspired to be presidents ofthe United States. Nicholas thought that the capital of the "sick man"was, like ripe fruit, ready to fall into his hands. After one hundredyears of war, Russia discovered that this prize was no nearer hergrasp. Nicholas, at the head of a million of disciplined troops, wasdefeated; while his antagonist, the "sick man, " could scarcely muster afifth part of the number, and yet survived to plague his thwarted will. 

The obstacles to the conquest of Constantinople by Russia are, afterall, very great. There are only three ways by which a Russian generalcan gain this coveted object of desire. The one which seems the easiestis to advance by sea from Sebastopol, through the Black Sea, to theBosphorus, with a powerful fleet. But Turkey has or had a fleet of equalsize, while her allies, England and France, can sweep with ease from theBlack Sea any fleet which Russia can possibly collect. 

The ordinary course of Russian troops has been to cross the Pruth, whichseparates Russia from Moldavia, and advance through the Danubianprovinces to the Balkans, dividing Bulgaria from Turkey in Europe. Oncethe Russian armies succeeded, amid innumerable difficulties, inconquering all the fortresses in the way, like Silistria, Varna, andShumla; in penetrating the mountain passes of the Balkans, and makingtheir way to Adrianople. But they were so demoralized, or weakened andbroken, by disasters and privations, that they could get no farther thanAdrianople with safety, and their retreat was a necessity. And had theBalkan passes been properly defended, as they easily could have been, even a Napoleon could not have penetrated them with two hundred thousandmen, or any army which the Russians could possibly have brought there. 

The third way open to the Russians in their advance to Constantinople isto march the whole extent of the northern shores of the Black Sea, andthen cross the Caucasian range to the south, and advance around throughTurkey in Asia, its entire width from east to west, amidst a hostile andfanatical population ready to die for their faith and country, --a way sobeset with difficulties and attended with such vast expense that successwould be almost impossible, even with no other foes than Turks. 

The Emperor Nicholas was by nature stern and unrelenting. He had beenmerciless in his treatment of the Poles. When he was friendly, hisfrankness had an irresistible charm. During his twenty-seven years onthe throne he had both "reigned and governed. " However, he was military, without being warlike. With no talents for generalship, he bestowedalmost incredible attention upon the discipline of his armies. Heoppressively drilled his soldiers, without knowledge of tactics andstill less of strategy. Half his time was spent in inspecting hisarmies. When, in 1828, he invaded Turkey, his organizations broke downunder an extended line of operations. For a long time thereafter hesuffered the Porte to live in repose, not being ready to destroy it, waiting for his opportunity. 

When the Pasha of Egypt revolted from the Sultan, and his son Ibrahimseriously threatened the dismemberment of Turkey, England and Franceinterfered in behalf of Turkey; and in 1840 a convention in Londonplaced Turkey under the common safeguard of the five greatPowers, --England, France, Prussia, Austria, and Russia, --instead of theprotectorate exercised by Russia alone. After the fall of Hungary, anumber of civil and military leaders took refuge in Turkey, and Russiaand Austria demanded the expulsion of the refugees, which wasperemptorily refused by the Sultan. In consequence, Russia suspended alldiplomatic intercourse with Turkey, and sought a pretext for war. In1844 the Czar visited England, doubtless with the purpose of winningover Lord Aberdeen, then foreign secretary, and the Duke of Wellington, on the ground that Turkey was in a state of hopeless decrepitude, andmust ultimately fall into his hands. In this event he was willing thatEngland, as a reward for her neutrality, should take possessionof Egypt. 

It is thus probable that the Emperor Nicholas, after the failure of hisarmies to reach Constantinople through the Danubian provinces and acrossthe Balkans, meditated, after twenty years of rest and recuperation, the invasion of Constantinople by his fleet, which then controlled theBlack Sea. 

But he reckoned without his host. He was deceived by the pacificattitude of England, then ruled by the cabinet of Lord Aberdeen, whoabsolutely detested war. The premier was almost a fanatic in his peaceprinciples, and was on the most friendly terms with Nicholas and hisministers. The Czar could not be made to believe that England, under theadministration of Lord Aberdeen, would interfere with his favorite anddeeply meditated schemes of conquest. He saw no obstacles except fromthe Turks themselves, timid and stricken with fears; so he stronglyfortified Sebastopol and made it impregnable by the sea, and quietlygathered in its harbor an immense fleet, with which the Turkisharmaments could not compare. The Turkish naval power had never recoveredfrom the disaster which followed the battle of Navarino, when theirfleet was annihilated. With a crippled naval power and decline inmilitary strength, with defeated armies and an empty purse, it seemed tothe Czar that Turkey was crushed in spirit and Constantinopledefenceless; and that impression was strengthened by the representationof his ambassador at the Porte, --Prince Mentchikof, who almost openlyinsulted the Sultan by his arrogance, assumptions, and threats. 

But a very remarkable man happened at that time to reside atConstantinople as the ambassador of England, one in whom the Turkishgovernment had great confidence, and who exercised great influence overit. This man was Sir Stratford Canning (a cousin of the great Canning), who in 1852 was made viscount, with the title Lord Stratford deRedcliffe. He was one of the ablest diplomatists then living, or thatEngland had ever produced, and all his sympathies were on the side ofTurkey. Mentchikof was no match for the astute Englishman, who for sometime controlled the Turkish government, and who baffled all the schemesof Nicholas. 

England--much as she desired the peace of Europe, and much as LordAberdeen detested war--had no intention of allowing the "sick man" tofall into the hands of Russia, and through her ambassador atConstantinople gave encouragement to Turkey to resist the all-powerfulRussia with the secret promise of English protection; and as LordStratford distrusted and disliked Russia, having since 1824 beenpersonally engaged in Eastern diplomacy and familiar with Russiandesigns, he very zealously and with great ability fought the diplomaticbattles of Turkey, and inspired the Porte with confidence in the eventof war. It was by his dexterous negotiations that England was graduallydrawn into a warlike attitude against Russia, in spite of theresolutions of the English premier to maintain peace at any cost. 

In the meantime the English people, after their long peace of nearlyforty years, were becoming restless in view of the encroachments ofRussia, and were in favor of vigorous measures, even if they should leadto war. The generation had passed away that remembered Waterloo, so thatpublic opinion was decidedly warlike, and goaded on the ministry tomeasures which materially conflicted with Lord Aberdeen's peaceprinciples. The idea of war with Russia became popular, --partly fromjealousy of a warlike empire that aspired to the possession ofConstantinople, and partly from the English love of war itself, with itsexcitements, after the dulness and inaction of a long period of peaceand prosperity. In 1853 England found herself drifting into war, to thealarm and disgust of Aberdeen and Gladstone, to the joy of the peopleand the satisfaction of Palmerston and a majority of the cabinet. 

The third party to this Crimean contest was France, then ruled by LouisNapoleon, who had lately become head of the State by a series ofpolitical usurpations and crimes that must ever be a stain on his fame. Yet he did not feel secure on his throne; the ancient nobles, theintellect of the country, and the parliamentary leaders were againsthim. They stood aloof from his government, regarding him as a traitorand a robber, who by cunning and slaughter had stolen the crown. He wassupposed to be a man of inferior intellect, whose chief merit was theability to conceal his thoughts and hold his tongue, and whose powerrested on the army, the allegiance of which he had seduced by bribes andpromises. Feeling the precariousness of his situation, and theinstability of the people he had deceived with the usual Napoleoniclies, which he called "ideas, " he looked about for something to diverttheir minds, --some scheme by which he could gain _éclat_; and thedifficulties between Russia and Turkey furnished him the occasion hedesired. He determined to employ his army in aid of Turkey. It would bedifficult to show what gain would result to France, for France did notwant additional territory in the East. But a war would be popular, andNapoleon wanted popularity. Moreover, an alliance with England, offensive and defensive, to check Russian encroachments, wouldstrengthen his own position, social as well as political. He neededfriends. It was his aim to enter the family of European monarchs, to beon a good footing with them, to be one of them, as a legitimatesovereign. The English alliance might bring Victoria herself to Paris ashis guest. The former prisoner of Ham, whom everybody laughed at as avisionary or despised as an adventurer, would, by an alliance withEngland, become the equal of Queen Victoria, and with infinitely greaterpower. She was a mere figure-head in her government, to act as herministers directed; he, on the other hand, had France at his feet, anddictated to his ministers what they should do. 

The parties, then, in the Crimean war were Russia, seeking to crushTurkey, with France and England coming to the rescue, --ostensibly topreserve the "balance of power" in Europe. 

But before considering the war itself, we must glance at thepreliminaries, --the movements which took place making war inevitable, and which furnished the pretext for disturbing the peace of Europe. 

First must be mentioned the contest for the possession of the sacredshrines in the Holy Land. Pilgrimages to these shrines took place longbefore Palestine fell into the hands of the Mohammedans. It was one ofthe passions of the Middle Ages, and it was respected even by the Turks, who willingly entered into the feelings of the Christians coming tokneel at Jerusalem. Many sacred objects of reverence, if not idolatry, were guarded by Christian monks, who were permitted by the government tocherish them in their convents. But the Greek and the Latin convents, allowed at Jerusalem by the Turkish government, equally aspired to theguardianship of the Holy Sepulchre and other sacred shrines inJerusalem. It rested with the Turkish government to determine which ofthe rival churches, Greek or Latin, should have the control of theshrines, and it was a subject of perpetual controversy, --Russia, ofcourse, defending the claims of the Greek convents, who at this time hadlong been the appointed guardians, and France now taking up those of theLatin; although Russia was the more earnest in the matter, as holding aright already allowed. 

The new President of the French republic, in 1851, on the lookout forsubjects of controversy with Russia, had directed his ambassador atConstantinople to demand from the Porte some almost forgotten grantsmade to the Latin Church two or three hundred years before. This demand, which the Sultan dared not refuse, was followed by the Turks' annullingcertain privileges which had long been enjoyed by the Greek convents;and thus the ancient dispute was reopened. The Greek Church throughoutRussia was driven almost to frenzy by this act of the Turkishgovernment. The Czar Nicholas, himself a zealot in religion, wasindignant and furious; but the situation gave him a pretext for insultsand threats that would necessarily lead to war, which he desired aseagerly as Louis Napoleon. The Porte, embarrassed and wishing for peace, leaned for advice on the English ambassador, who, as has been said, promised the mediation of England. 

Then followed a series of angry negotiations and pressure made by Russiaand France alternately on the Sultan in reference to the guardianship ofthe shrines, --as to who should possess the key of the chief door of theHoly Sepulchre at Jerusalem and of the church at Bethlehem, Greek orLatin monks. 

As the pressure made by France was the most potent, the Czar in his rageordered one of his _corps d'armée_ to advance to the frontiers of theDanubian provinces, and another corps to hold itself inreadiness, --altogether a force of one hundred and forty-four thousandmen. The world saw two great nations quarrelling about a key to the doorof a church in Palestine; statesmen saw, on the one hand, the haughtyambition of Nicholas seeking pretence for a war which might open to himthe gates of Constantinople, and, on the other hand, the schemes of theFrench emperor--for the ten-year president elected in 1851 had in justone year got himself "elected" emperor--to disturb the peace of Europe, which might end in establishing more securely his own usurpation. 

The warlike attitude of Russia in 1853 alarmed England, who was notprepared to go to war. As has been said, Mentchikof was no match in thearts of diplomacy for Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, and an angry andlively war of diplomatic notes passed between them. The Czar discoveredthat the English ambassador had more influence with the Porte thanMentchikof, and became intensely angry. Lord Stratford ferreted out theschemes of the Czar in regard to the Russian protectorate of the GreekChurch, which was one of his most cherished plans, and bent every energyto defeat it. He did not care about the quarrels of the Greek and Latinmonks for the guardianship of the sacred shrines; but he did object tothe meditated protectorate of the Czar over the Greek subjects ofTurkey, which, if successful, would endanger the independence of theSultan, so necessary for the peace of Europe. All the despatches from. St. Petersburg breathed impatience and wrath, and Mentchikof foundhimself in great difficulties. The Russian ambassador even found meansto have the advantage of a private audience with the Sultan, without theknowledge of the grand vizier; but the Sultan, though courteous, remained firm. This ended the mission of the Russian ambassador, foiledand baffled at every turn; while his imperial master, towering intopassion, lost all the reputation he had gained during his reign forjustice and moderation. 

Within three days of the departure of Prince Mentchikof fromConstantinople, England and France began to concert measures togetherfor armed resistance to Russia, should war actually break out, whichseemed inevitable, for the Czar was filled with rage; and this in spiteof the fact that within two weeks the Sultan yielded the point as to theprivileges of Greek subjects in his empire, --but beyond that he stoodfirm, and appealed to England and France. 

The Czar now meditated the occupation of the Danubian principalities, inorder to enable his armies to march to Constantinople. But Austria andPrussia would not consent to this, and the Czar found himself opposedvirtually by all Europe. He still labored under the delusion thatEngland would hold aloof, knowing the peace policy of the Englishgovernment under the leadership of Lord Aberdeen. Under this delusion, and boiling over with anger, he suddenly, without taking counsel of hisministers or of any living soul, touched a bell in his palace. Theofficer in attendance received an order for the army to cross the Pruth. On the 2d of July, 1853, Russia invaded the principalities. On thefollowing day a manifesto was read in her churches that the Czar madewar on Turkey in defence of the Greek religion; and all the fanaticalzeal of the Russians was at once excited to go where the Czar might sendthem in behalf of their faith. Nothing could be more popular than sucha war. 

But the hostile attitude taken by all Europe on the invasion of theprincipalities, and by Austria in particular, was too great an obstaclefor even the Czar of all the Russias to disregard, especially when helearned that the fleets of France and England were ordered to theDardanelles, and that his fleet would be pent up in an inland basin ofthe Black Sea. It became necessary for Russia to renew negotiations. AtVienna a note had been framed between four of the great Powers, by whichit was clear that they would all unite in resisting the Czar, if he didnot withdraw his armies from the principalities. The Porte promptlydetermined on war, supported by the advice of a great Council, attendedby one hundred and seventy-two of the foremost men of the empire, andfifteen days were given to Russia to withdraw her troops from theprincipalities. At the expiration of that term, the troops not beingwithdrawn, on October 5 war was declared by Turkey. 

The war on the part of Turkey was defensive, necessary, and popular. Thereligious sentiment of the whole nation was appealed to, and not invain. It is difficult for any nation to carry on a great war unless itis supported by the people. In Turkey and throughout the scattereddominions of the Sultan, religion and patriotism and warlike ardorcombined to make men arise by their own free-will, and endure fatigue, danger, hunger, and privation for their country and their faith. Thepublic dangers were great; for Russia was at the height of her power andprestige, and the Czar was known to have a determined will, not to bebent by difficulties which were not insurmountable. 

Meanwhile the preachers of the Orthodox Greek faith were not behind theMohammedans in rousing the martial and religious spirit of nearly onehundred millions of the subjects of the Russian autocrat. In hisproclamation the Czar urged inviolable guaranties in favor of the sacredrights of the Orthodox Church, and pretended (as is usual with allparties in going to war) that he was challenged to the fight, and thathis cause was just. He then invoked the aid of Almighty Power. It wasrather a queer thing for a warlike sovereign, entering upon anaggressive war to gratify ambition, to quote the words of David: "Inthee, O Lord, have I trusted: let me not be confounded forever. "

Urged on and goaded by the French emperor, impatient of delay, andobtuse to all further negotiations for peace, which Lord Aberdeen stillhoped to secure, the British government at last gave orders for itsfleet to proceed to Constantinople. The Czar, so long the ally ofEngland, was grieved and indignant at what appeared to him to be abreach of treaties and an affront to him personally, and determined onvengeance. He ordered his fleet at Sebastopol to attack a Turkish fleetanchored near Sinope, which was done Nov. 30, 1853. Except a singlesteamer, every one of the Turkish vessels was destroyed, and fourthousand Turks were killed. 

The anger of both the French and English people was now fairly roused bythis disaster, and Lord Aberdeen found himself powerless to resist thepublic clamor for war. Lord Palmerston, the most popular and powerfulminister that England had, resigned his seat in the cabinet, and openlysided with the favorite cause. Lord Aberdeen was compelled now to letmatters take their course, and the English fleet was ordered to theBlack Sea; but war was not yet declared by the Western Powers, sincethere still remained some hopes of a peaceful settlement. 

Meanwhile Prussia and Austria united in a league, offensive anddefensive, to expel the Russians from the Danubian provinces, whichfilled the mind of Nicholas with more grief than anger; for he hadcounted on the neutrality of Austria and Prussia, as he had on theneutrality of England. It was his misfortune to believe what he wished, rather than face facts. 

On the 27th of March, 1854, however, after a winter of diplomacy andmilitary threatenings and movements, which effected nothing like asettlement, France and England declared war against Russia; on the 11thof April the Czar issued his warlike manifesto, and Europe blazed withpreparations for one of the most needless and wicked contests in moderntimes. All parties were to blame; but on Russia the greatest odium restsfor disturbing the peace of Europe, although the Czar at the outset hadno idea of fighting the Western Powers. In a technical point of view theblame of beginning the dispute which led to the Crimean war rests withFrance, for she opened and renewed the question of the guardianship ofthe sacred shrines, which had long been under the protection of theGreek Church; and it was the intrigues of Louis Napoleon which entangledEngland. The latter country was also to blame for her jealousy ofRussian encroachments, fearing that they would gradually extend toEnglish possessions in the East. Had Nicholas known the true state ofEnglish public opinion he might have refrained from actual hostilities;but he was misled by the fact that Lord Aberdeen had given assurances ofa peace policy. 

Although France and England entered upon the war only with the intentionat first of protecting Turkey, and were mere allies for that purpose, yet these two Powers soon bore the brunt of the contest, which reallybecame a strife between Russia on the one side and England and France onthe other. Moreover, instead of merely defending Turkey against Russia, the allied Powers assumed the offensive, and thus took theresponsibility for all the disastrous consequences of the war. 

The command of the English army had been intrusted to Lord Raglan, onceknown as Lord Fitzroy Somerset, who lost an arm at the battle ofWaterloo while on the staff of Wellington; a wise and experiencedcommander, but too old for such service as was now expected of him in anuntried field of warfare. Besides, it was a long time since he had seenactive service. When appointed to the command he was sixty-six yearsold. From 1827 to 1852 he was military secretary at the HorseGuards, --the English War Office, --where he was made master-general ofthe Ordnance, and soon after became a full general. He was taciturn butaccessible, and had the power of attracting everybody to him; averse toall show and parade; with an uncommon power for writing both goodEnglish and French, --an accomplished man, from whom much was expected. 

The command of the French forces was given to Marshal Saint-Arnaud, abold, gay, reckless, enterprising man, who had distinguished himself inAlgeria as much for his indifference to human life as for hisadministrative talents, --ruthless, but not bloodthirsty. He was onlycolonel when Fleury, the arch-conspirator and friend of Louis Napoleon, was sent to Algeria to find some officer of ability who could be bribedto join in the meditated _coup d'état_. Saint-Arnaud listened to hisproposals, and was promised the post of minister of war, which wouldplace the army under his control, for all commanders would receiveorders from him. He was brought to Paris and made minister of war, witha view to the great plot of the 2d of December, and later was created aMarshal of France. His poor health (the result of his excesses) made himunfit to be intrusted with the forces for the invasion of the Crimea;but his military reputation was better than his moral, and in spite ofhis unfitness the emperor--desirous still further to reward his partisanservices--put him in command of the French Crimean forces. 

The first military operations took place on the Danube. The Russiansthen occupied the Danubian principalities, and had undertaken the siegeof Silistria, which was gallantly defended by the Turks, before theallied French and English armies could advance to its relief; but it wasnot till the middle of May that the allied armies were in full force, and took up their position at Varna. 

Nicholas was now obliged to yield. He could not afford to go to war withPrussia, Austria, France, England, and Turkey together. It had becomeimpossible for him to invade European Turkey by the accustomed route. So, under pressure of their assembling forces, he withdrew his troopsfrom the Danubian provinces, which removed all cause of hostilities fromPrussia and Austria. These two great Powers now left France and Englandto support all the burdens of the war. If Prussia and Austria had notwithdrawn from the alliance, the Crimean war would not have taken place, for Russia would have made peace with Turkey. It was on the 2d ofAugust, 1854, that the Russians recrossed the Pruth, and the Austrianstook possession of the principalities. 

England might now have withdrawn from the contest but for her alliancewith France, --an entangling alliance, indeed; but Lord Palmerston, seeing that war was inevitable, withdrew his resignation, and theBritish cabinet became a unit, supported by the nation. Lord Aberdeenstill continued to be premier; but Palmerston was now the leadingspirit, and all eyes turned to him. The English people, who hadforgotten what war was, upheld the government, and indeed goaded it onto war. The one man who did not drift was the secretary for foreignaffairs, Lord Palmerston, who went steadily ahead, and gained hisobject, --a check upon Russia's power in the East. 

This statesman was a man of great abilities, with a strong desire forpower under the guise of levity and good-nature. He was far-reaching, bold, and of concentrated energy; but his real character was not fullycomprehended until the Crimean war, although he was conspicuous inpolitics for forty years. His frank utterances, his off-hand manner, hisready banter, and his joyous eyes captivated everybody, and veiled hisstern purposes. He was distrusted at St. Petersburg because of hisalliance with Louis Napoleon, his hatred of the Bourbons, and hismasking the warlike tendency of the government which he was soon tolead, for Lord Aberdeen was not the man to conduct a war with Russia. 

At this point, as stated above, the war might have terminated, for theRussians had abandoned the principalities; but at home the English hadbeen roused by Louis Napoleon's friends and by the course of events to afighting temper, and the French emperor's interests would not let himwithdraw; while in the field neither the Turkish nor French nor Englishtroops were to be contented with less than the invasion of the Russianterritories. Turkey was now in no danger of invasion by the Russians, for they had been recalled from the principalities, and the fleets ofEngland and France controlled the Black Sea. From defensive measuresthey turned to offensive. 

The months of July and August were calamitous to the allied armies atVarna; not from battles, but from pestilence, which was fearful. On the26th of August it was determined to re-embark the decimated troops, sail for the Crimea, and land at some place near Sebastopol. The captureof this fortress was now the objective point of the war. On the 13th ofSeptember the fleets anchored in Eupatoria Bay, on the west coast of theCrimean peninsula, and the disembarkation of the troops took placewithout hindrance from the Russians, who had taken up a strong positionon the banks of the Alma, which was apparently impregnable. There theRussians, on their own soil and in their intrenched camp, wisely awaitedthe advance of their foes on the way to Sebastopol, the splendidseaport, fortress, and arsenal at the extreme southwestern point ofthe Crimea. 

There were now upon the coasts of the Crimea some thirty-seven thousandFrench and Turks with sixty-eight pieces of artillery (all under theorders of Marshal Saint-Arnaud), and some twenty-seven thousand Englishwith sixty guns, --altogether about sixty-four thousand men and onehundred and twenty-eight guns. It was intended that the fleets shouldfollow the march of the armies, in order to furnish the necessarysupplies. The march was perilous, without a base of supplies on thecoast itself, and without a definite knowledge of the number orresources of the enemy. It required a high order of military genius tosurmount the difficulties and keep up the spirits of the troops. TheFrench advanced in a line on the coast nearest the sea; the Englishtook up their line of march towards the south, on the left, farther inthe interior. The French were protected by the fleets on the one handand by the English on the other. The English therefore were exposed tothe greater danger, having their entire left flank open to the enemy'sfire. The ground over which the Western armies marched was an undulatingsteppe. They marched in closely massed columns, and they marched inweariness and silence, for they had not recovered from the fatalpestilence at Varna. The men were weak, and suffered greatly fromthirst. At length they came to the Alma River, where the Russians wereintrenched on the left bank. The allies were of course compelled tocross the river under the fire of the enemies' batteries, and thenattack their fortified positions, and drive the Russians fromtheir post. 

All this was done successfully. The battle of the Alma was gained by theinvaders, but only with great losses. Prince Mentchikof, who commandedthe Russians, beheld with astonishment the defeat of the troops he hadposted in positions believed to be secure from capture by assault. Thegenius of Lord Raglan, of Saint-Arnaud, of General Bosquet, of Sir ColinCampbell, of Canrobert, of Sir de Lacy Evans, of Sir George Brown, hadcarried the day. Both sides fought with equal bravery, but science wason the side of the allies. In the battle, Sir Colin Campbell greatlydistinguished himself leading a Highland brigade; also GeneralCodrington, who stormed the great redoubt, which was supposed to beimpregnable. This probably decided the battle, the details of which itis not my object to present. Its great peculiarity was that the Russiansfought in solid column, and the allies in extended lines. 

After the day was won, Lord Raglan pressed Saint-Arnaud to the pursuitof the enemy; but the French general was weakened by illness, and hisenergies failed. Had Lord Raglan's counsels been followed, the futuredisasters of the allied armies might have been averted. The battle wasfought on the 20th of September; but the allied armies halted on theAlma until the 23d, instead of pushing on directly to Sebastopol, twenty-five miles to the south. This long halt was owing toSaint-Arnaud, who felt it was necessary to embark the wounded on theships before encountering new dangers. This refusal of the Frenchcommander to advance directly to the attack of the forts on the north ofSebastopol was unfortunate, for there would have been but slightresistance, the main body of the Russians having withdrawn to the southof the city. All this necessitated a flank movement of the allies, whichwas long and tedious, eastward, across the north side of Sebastopol tothe south of it, where the Russians were intrenched. They crossed theBelbec (a small river) without serious obstruction, and arrived in sightof Sebastopol, which they were not to enter that autumn as they hadconfidently expected. The Russian to whom the stubborn defence ofSebastopol was indebted more than to any other man, --Lieut. -ColonelTodleben, --had thoroughly and rapidly fortified the city on the northafter the battle of the Alma. 

It was the opinion of Todleben himself, afterward expressed, --which wasthat of Lord Raglan, and also of Sir Edmund Lyons, commanding thefleet, --that the Star Fort which defended Sebastopol on the north, however strong, was indefensible before the forces that the allies couldhave brought to bear against it. Had the Star Fort been taken, the wholeharbor of Sebastopol would have been open to the fire of the allies, andthe city--needed for refuge as well as for glory--would have fallen intotheir hands. 

The condition of the allied armies was now critical, since they had noaccurate knowledge of the country over which they were to march on theeast of Sebastopol, nor of the strength of the enemy, who controlled thesea-shore. On the morning of the 25th of September the flank marchbegan, through tangled forests, by the aid of the compass. It was alaborious task for the troops, especially since they had not regainedtheir health from the ravages of the cholera in Bulgaria. Two days'march, however, brought the English army to the little port ofBalaklava, on the south of Sebastopol, where the land and seaforces met. 

Soon after the allied armies had arrived at Balaklava, Saint-Arnaud wasobliged by his fatal illness to yield up his command to MarshalCanrobert, and a few days later he died, --an unprincipled, but a braveand able man. 

The Russian forces meanwhile, after the battle of the Alma, hadretreated to Sebastopol in order to defend the city, which the allieswere preparing to attack. Prince Mentchikof then resolved upon a boldmeasure for the defence of the city, and this was to sink his ships atthe mouth of the harbor, by which he prevented the English and Frenchfleets from entering it, and gained an additional force of eighteenthousand seamen to his army. Loath was the Russian admiral to make thissacrifice, and he expostulated with the general-in-chief, but wasobliged to obey. This sinking of their fleet by the Russians reminds oneof the conflagration of Moscow, --both desperate and sacrificial acts. 

The French and English forces were now on the south side of Sebastopol, in communication with their fleet at Balaklava, and were flushed withvictory, while the forces opposed to them were probably inferior innumber. Why did not the allies at once begin the assault of the city?It was thought to be prudent to wait for the arrival of their siegeguns. While these heavy guns were being brought from the ships, Todleben--the ablest engineer then living--was strengthening thedefences on the south side. Every day's delay added to the difficultiesof attack. Three weeks of precious time were thus lost, and when on the17th of October the allies began the bombardment of Sebastopol, whichwas to precede the attack, their artillery was overpowered by that ofthe defenders. The fleets in vain thundered against the solid sea-frontof the fortress. After a terrible bombardment of eight days the defencesof the city were unbroken. 

Mentchikof, meanwhile, had received large reinforcements, and preparedto attack the allies from the east. His point of attack was Balaklava, the defence of which had been intrusted to Sir Colin Campbell. Thebattle was undecisive, but made memorable by the sacrifice of the "LightBrigade, "--about six hundred cavalry troops under the command of theEarl of Cardigan. This arose from a misunderstanding on the part of theEarl of Lucan, commander of the cavalry division, of an order from LordRaglan to attack the enemy. Lord Cardigan was then directed by Lucan torescue certain guns which the enemy had captured. He obeyed, in the faceof batteries in front and on both flanks. The slaughter wasterrible, --in fact, the brigade was nearly annihilated. The news of thisdisaster made a deep impression on the English nation, and caused graveapprehensions as to the capacity of the cavalry commanders, neither ofwhom had seen much military service, although both were over fifty yearsof age and men of ability and bravery. The "Heavy Brigade" of cavalry, commanded by General Scarlett, who also was more than fifty years oldand had never seen service in the field, almost redeemed the error bywhich that commanded by Lord Cardigan was so nearly destroyed. With sixhundred men he charged up a long slope, and plunged fearlessly into abody of three thousand Russian cavalry, separated it into segments, disorganized it, and drove it back, --one of the most brilliant cavalryoperations in modern times. 

The battle of Balaklava, on the 25th of October, was followed, November5, by the battle of Inkerman, when the English were unexpectedlyassaulted, under cover of a deep mist, by an overwhelming body ofRussians. The Britons bravely stood their ground against the massivecolumns which Mentchikof had sent to crush them, and repelled the enemywith immense slaughter; but this battle made the capture of Sebastopol, as planned by the allies, impossible. The forces of the Russians weredouble in number to those of the allies, and held possession of afortress against which a tremendous cannonade had been in vain. Theprompt sagacity and tremendous energy of Todleben repaired every breachas fast as it was made; and by his concentration of great numbers oflaborers at the needed points, huge earthworks arose like magic beforethe astonished allies. They made no headway; their efforts were in vain;the enterprise had failed. It became necessary to evacuate the Crimea, or undertake a slow winter siege in the presence of superior forces, amid difficulties which had not been anticipated, and for which noadequate provision had been made. 

The allies chose the latter alternative; and then began a series ofcalamities and sufferings unparalleled in the history of war since theretreat of Napoleon from Moscow. First came a terrible storm on the 14thof November, which swept away the tents of the soldiers encamped on aplateau near Balaklava, and destroyed twenty-one vessels bringingammunition and stores to the hungry and discouraged army. There was awant of everything to meet the hardships of a winter campaign on thestormy shores of the Black Sea, --suitable clothing, fuel, provisions, medicines, and camp equipage. It never occurred to the minds of thosewho ordered and directed this disastrous expedition that Sebastopolwould make so stubborn a defence; but the whole force of the Russianempire which could be spared was put forth by the Emperor Nicholas, thusrendering necessary continual reinforcements from France and England tomeet armies superior in numbers, and to supply the losses occasioned bydisease and hardship greater than those on the battlefield. The horrorsof that dreadful winter on the Crimean peninsula, which stared in theface not only the French and English armies but also the Russiansthemselves, a thousand miles from their homes, have never been fullytold. They form one of the most sickening chapters in the annals of war. 

Not the least of the misfortunes which the allies suffered was the lossof the causeway, or main road, from Balaklava to the high grounds wherethey were encamped. It had been taken by the Russians three weeksbefore, and never regained. The only communication from the camp toBalaklava, from which the stores and ammunition had to be brought, was ahillside track, soon rendered almost impassable by the rains. The wagonscould not be dragged through the mud, which reached to their axles, andthe supplies had to be carried on the backs of mules and horses, ofwhich there was an insufficient number. Even the horses rapidly perishedfrom fatigue and hunger. 

Thus were the French and English troops pent up on a bleak promontory, sick and disheartened, with uncooked provisions, in the middle ofwinter. Of course they melted away even in the hospitals to which theywere sent on the Levant. In those hospitals there was a terriblemortality. At Scutari alone nine thousand perished before the end ofFebruary, 1855. 

The reports of these disasters, so unexpected and humiliating, soonreached England through the war correspondents and private letters, andproduced great exasperation. The Press was unsparing in itsdenunciations of the generals, and of the ministry itself, in notproviding against the contingencies of the war, which had pent up twolarge armies on a narrow peninsula, from which retreat was almostimpossible in view of the superior forces of the enemy and the dreadfulstate of the roads. The armies of the allies had nothing to do but fightthe elements of Nature, endure their unparalleled hardships the best waythey could, and patiently await results. 

The troops of both the allied nations fought bravely and behavedgallantly; but they fought against Nature, against disease, againstforces vastly superior to themselves in number. One is reminded, inreading the history of the Crimean war, of the ancient crusaders ratherthan of modern armies with their vast scientific machinery, so numerouswere the mistakes, and so unexpected were the difficulties of theattacking armies. One is amazed that such powerful and enlightenednations as the English and French could have made so many blunders. Thewarning voices of Aberdeen, of Gladstone, of Cobden, of Bright, againstthe war had been in vain amid the tumult of military preparations; butit was seen at last that they had been thy true prophets of their day. 

Nothing excited more commiseration than the dreadful state of thehospitals in the Levant, to which the sick and wounded were sent; andthis terrible exigency brought women to the rescue. Their volunteeredservices were accepted by Mr. Sidney Herbert, the secretary-at-war, andthrough him by the State. On the 4th of November Florence Nightingale, called the "Lady-in-Chief, " disembarked at Scutari and began her usefuland benevolent mission, --organizing the nurses, and doing work for whichmen were incapable, --in those hospitals infected with deadly poisons. 

The calamities of a questionable war, made known by the Press, at lastroused public indignation, and so great was the popular clamor that LordAberdeen was compelled to resign a post for which he was plainlyincapable, --at least in war times. He was succeeded by LordPalmerston, --the only man who had the confidence of the nation. In thenew ministry Lord Panmure (Fox Maule) succeeded the Duke of Newcastleas minister of war. 

After midwinter the allied armies began to recover their health andstrength, through careful nursing, better sanitary measures, andconstant reinforcements, especially from France. At last a railway wasmade between Balaklava and the camps, and a land-transport corps wasorganized. By March, 1855, cattle in large quantities were brought fromSpain on the west and Armenia on the east, from Wallachia on the northand the Persian Gulf on the south. Seventeen thousand men now providedthe allied armies with provisions and other supplies, with the aid ofthirty thousand beasts of burden. 

It was then that Sardinia joined the Western Alliance with fifteenthousand men, --an act of supreme wisdom on the part of Cavour, since itsecured the friendship of France in his scheme for the unity of Italy. Anew plan of operations was now adopted by the allies, which was for theFrench to attack Sebastopol at the Malakoff, protecting the city on theeast, while the English concentrated their efforts on the Redan, anothersalient point of the fortifications. In the meantime Canrobert wassucceeded in the command of the French army by Pélissier, --a resolutesoldier who did not owe his promotion to complicity in the_coup d'état_. 

On the 18th of June a general assault was made by the combinedarmies--now largely reinforced--on the Redan and the Malakoff, but theywere driven back by the Russians with great loss; and three months morewere added to the siege. Fatigue, anxiety, and chagrin now carried offLord Raglan, who died on the 28th of June, leaving the command toGeneral Simpson. By incessant labors the lines of the besiegers weregradually brought nearer the Russian fortifications. On the 16th ofAugust the French and Sardinians gained a decisive victory over theRussians, which prevented Sebastopol from receiving further assistancefrom without. On September 9 the French succeeded in storming theMalakoff, which remained in their hands, although the English wereunsuccessful in their attack upon the Redan. On the fall of the Malakoffthe Russian commander blew up his magazines, while the French andEnglish demolished the great docks of solid masonry, the forts, anddefences of the place. Thus Sebastopol, after a siege of three hundredand fifty days, became the prize of the invaders, at a loss, on theirpart, of a hundred thousand men, and a still greater loss on the part ofthe defenders, since provisions, stores, and guns had to be transportedat immense expense from the interior of Russia. In Russia there was nofree Press to tell the people of the fearful sacrifices to which theyhad been doomed; but the Czar knew the greatness of his losses, both inmen and military stores; and these calamities broke his heart, for hedied before the fall of the fortress which he had resolved to defendwith all the forces of his empire. Probably three hundred thousandRussians had perished in the conflict, and the resources of Russia wereexhausted. 

France had now become weary of a war which brought so little glory andentailed such vast expense. England, however, would have continued thewar at any expense and sacrifice if Louis Napoleon had not secretlynegotiated with the new Czar, Alexander II. ; for England was bent onsuch a crippling of Russia as would henceforth prevent that colossalpower from interfering with the English possessions in the East, whichthe fall of Kars seemed to threaten. The Czar, too, would have held outlonger but for the expostulation of Austria and the advice of hisministers, who pointed out his inability to continue the contest withthe hostility of all Europe. 

On the 25th of February, 1856, the plenipotentiaries of the great Powersassembled in Paris, and on the 30th of March the Treaty of Paris wassigned, by which the Black Sea was thrown open to the mercantile marineof all nations, but interdicted to ships of war. Russia ceded a portionof Bessarabia, which excluded her from the Danube; and all the Powersguaranteed the independence of the Ottoman Empire. At the end offourteen years, the downfall of Louis Napoleon enabled Russia to declarethat it would no longer recognize the provisions of a treaty whichexcluded its war-ships from the Black Sea. England alone was not able toresist the demands of Russia, and in consequence Sebastopol arose fromits ruins as powerful as ever. 

The object, therefore, for which England and France went to war--thedestruction of Russian power on the Black Sea--was only temporarilygained. From three to four hundred thousand men had been sacrificedamong the different combatants, and probably not less than a thousandmillion dollars in treasure had been wasted, --perhaps double that sum. France gained nothing of value, while England lost military prestige. Russia undoubtedly was weakened, and her encroachments toward the Eastwere delayed; but to-day that warlike empire is in the same relativeposition that it was when the Czar sent forth his mandate for theinvasion of the Danubian principalities. In fact, all parties were thelosers, and none were the gainers, by this needless and wickedwar, --except perhaps the wily Napoleon III. , who was now firmly seatedon his throne. 

The Eastern question still remains unsettled, and will remain unsettleduntil new complications, which no genius can predict, shall re-enkindlethe martial passions of Europe. These are not and never will beextinguished until Christian civilization shall beat swords intoploughshares. When shall be this consummation of the victories of peace?

AUTHORITIES. 

A. W. Kinglake's Invasion of the Crimea; C. De Bazancourt's CrimeanExpedition; G. B. McClellan's Reports on the Art of War in Europe in1855-1856; R. C. McCormick's Visit to the Camp before Sebastopol; J. D. Morell's Neighbors of Russia, and History of the War to the Siege ofSebastopol; Pictorial History of the Russian War; Russell's BritishExpedition to the Crimea; General Todleben's History of the Defence ofSebastopol; H. Tyrrell's History of the War with Russia; Fyffe's Historyof Modern Europe; Life of Lord Palmerston; Life of Louis Napoleon. 

LOUIS NAPOLEON. 

1808-1873. 

THE SECOND EMPIRE. 

Prince Louis Napoleon, or, as he afterward became, Emperor NapoleonIII. , is too important a personage to be omitted in the sketch ofEuropean history during the nineteenth century. It is not yet time toform a true estimate of his character and deeds, since no impartialbiographies of him have yet appeared, and since he died less than thirtyyears ago. The discrepancy of opinion respecting him is even greaterthan that concerning his illustrious uncle. 

No one doubts that the first Napoleon was the greatest figure of hisage, and the greatest general that the world has produced, with theexception alone of Alexander and Caesar. No one questions histranscendent abilities, his unrivalled fame, and his potent influence onthe affairs of Europe for a quarter of a century, leaving a name soaugust that its mighty prestige enabled his nephew to steal his sceptre;and his character has been so searchingly and critically sifted thatthere is unanimity among most historians as to his leading traits, --aboundless ambition and unscruplous adaptation of means to an end: thatend his self-exaltation at any cost. His enlarged and enlightenedintellect was sullied by hypocrisy, dissimulation, and treachery, accompanied by minor faults with which every one is familiar, but whichare often overlooked in the immense services he rendered to his countryand to civilization. 

Napoleon III. , aspiring to imitate his uncle, also contributed importantservices, but was not equal to the task he assumed, and made so manymistakes that he can hardly be called a great man, although he performeda great _rôle_ in the drama of European politics, and at one timeoccupied a superb position. With him are associated the three greatinternational wars which took place in the interval between thebanishment of Napoleon I. To St. Helena and the establishment of theFrench Republic on its present basis, --a period of more than fiftyyears, --namely, the Crimean war; the war between Austria, France, andItaly; and the Franco-Prussian war, which resulted in the humiliation ofFrance and the exaltation of Prussia. 

When Louis Napoleon came into power in 1848, on the fall of LouisPhilippe, it was generally supposed that European nations had sheathedthe sword against one another, and that all future contests would beconfined to enslaved peoples seeking independence, with which contestsother nations would have nothing to do; but Louis Napoleon, as soon ashe had established his throne on the ruins of French liberties, knew noother way to perpetuate his dominion than by embroiling the nations ofEurope in contests with one another, in order to divert the minds of theFrench people from the humiliation which the loss of their liberties hadcaused, and to direct their energies in new channels, --in other words, to inflate them with visions of military glory as his uncle had done, bytaking advantage of the besetting and hereditary weakness of thenational character. In the meantime the usurper bestowed so manybenefits on the middle and lower classes, gave such a stimulus to trade, adorned his capital with such magnificent works of art, and increased somanifestly the material prosperity of France, that his reign wasregarded as benignant and fortunate by most people, until the wholeedifice which he had built to dazzle the world tumbled down in a singleday after his disastrous defeat at Sedan, --the most humiliating fallwhich any French dynasty ever experienced. 

Louis Napoleon offers in his own person an example of those extremes offortune which constitute the essence of romantic conditions and appealto the imagination. The third son of Louis Bonaparte, King of Holland(brother of Napoleon), and Hortense Beauharnais, daughter of the EmpressJosephine by her first marriage, he was born in Paris, in the palace ofthe Tuileries, April 20, 1808. Living in Switzerland, with his motherand brother (Napoleon Louis), he was well-educated, expert in allathletic sports, --especially in riding and fencing, --and trained to thestudy and practice of artillery and military engineering. The twobrothers engaged in an Italian revolt in 1830; both fell ill, and whileone died the other was saved by the mother's devotion. In 1831 the Polesmade an insurrection, and offered Louis Napoleon their chief command andthe crown of Poland; but the death, in 1832, of the only son of hisuncle aroused Louis's ambition for a larger place, and the sovereigntyof France became his "fixed idea. " He studied hard, wrote and publishedseveral political and military works, and in 1836 made a foolish attemptat a Napoleonic revolt against Louis Philippe. It ended in humiliatingfailure, and he was exiled to America, where he lived in obscurity forabout a year; but he returned to Switzerland to see his dying mother, and then was obliged to flee to England. In 1838 he published his"Napoleonic Ideas;" in 1840 he made, at Boulogne, another weakdemonstration upon the French throne, and was imprisoned in thefortress of Ham. Here he did much literary work, but escaped in 1848 toBelgium, whence he hurried back to Paris when the revolution broke out. Getting himself elected a deputy in the National Assembly, he tookhis seat. 

The year 1848, when Louis Napoleon appeared on the stage of history, wasmarked by extraordinary political and social agitations, not merely inFrance but throughout Europe. It saw the unexpected fall of theconstitutional monarchy in France, which had been during eighteen yearsfirmly upheld by Louis Philippe, with the assistance of the ablest andwisest ministers the country had known for a century, --the policy ofwhich was pacific, and the leading political idea of which was analliance with Great Britain. The king fled before the storm ofrevolutionary ideas, --as Metternich was obliged to do in Vienna, andFerdinand in Naples, --and a provisional government succeeded, of whichLamartine was the central figure. A new legislative assembly was chosento support a republic, in which the most distinguished men of France, ofall opinions, were represented. Among the deputies was Louis Napoleon, who had hastened from England to take part in the revolution. He sat onthe back benches of the Chamber neglected, silent, and despised by theleading men in France, but not yet hated nor feared. 

When a President of the Republic had to be chosen by the suffrages ofthe people, Louis Napoleon unexpectedly received a great majority of thevotes. He had been quietly carrying on his "presidential campaign"through his agents, who appealed to the popular love for the nameof Napoleon. 

The old political leaders, amazed and confounded, submitted to thenational choice, yet stood aloof from a man without politicalexperience, who had always been an exile when he had not been aprisoner. Most of them had supposed that Bonapartism was dead; but thepeasantry in the provinces still were enthralled by the majesty andmighty prestige of that conqueror who had been too exalted for envy andtoo powerful to be resisted. To the provincial votes chiefly LouisNapoleon owed his election as President, --and the election was fair. Hecame into power by the will of the nation if any man ever did, --by thespontaneous enthusiasm of the people for the name he bore, not for hisown abilities and services; and as he proclaimed, on his accession, apolicy of peace (which the people believed) and loyalty to theConstitution, --Liberty, Fraternity, and Equality, the watchwords of theRevolution, --even more, as he seemed to represent the party of order, hewas regarded by such statesmen as Thiers and Montalembert as the leastdangerous of the candidates; and they gave their moral support to hisgovernment, while they declined to take office under him. 

The new President appointed the famous De Tocqueville as his first primeminister, who after serving a few months resigned, because he would notbe the pliant tool of his master. Louis Napoleon then had to selectinferior men for his ministers, who also soon discovered that they wereexpected to be his clerks, not his advisers. At first he was regarded bythe leading classes with derision rather than fear, --so mean was hispersonal appearance, so spiritless his address, so cold and dull was hiseye, and so ridiculous were his antecedents. "The French, " said Thiers, long afterward, "made two mistakes about Louis Napoleon, --the first, when they took him for a fool; the second, when they took him for a manof genius. " It was not until he began to show a will of his own, adetermination to be his own prime minister, that those around him sawhis dangerous ambition, his concealed abilities, and his unscrupulouscharacter. 

Nothing of importance marked the administration of the President, excepthostility to the Assembly, and their endless debates on theconstitution. Both the President and the Assembly feared the influenceof the ultra-democrats and Red Republicans, --socialists and anarchists, who fomented their wild schemes among the common people of the largecities. By curtailing the right of suffrage the Assembly becameunpopular, and Louis Napoleon gained credit as the friend of orderand law. 

As the time approached when, by the Constitution, he would be obliged tolay down his office and return to private life, the President becamerestless, and began to plot for the continuance of his power. He hadtasted its sweets, and had no intention to surrender it. If he couldhave been constitutionally re-elected, he probably would not havemeditated a _coup d'état_, for it was in accordance with his indolentcharacter to procrastinate. With all his ambition, he was patient, waiting for opportunities to arise; and yet he never relinquished anidea or an intention, --it was ever in his mind: he would simply wait, and quietly pursue the means of success. He had been trained tomeditation in his prison at Ham; and he had learned to disguise histhoughts and his wishes. The power which had been developed in him inthe days of his obscurity and adversity was cunning. As a master ofcunning he saw the necessity of reserve, mistrust, and silence. 

The first move of the President to gain his end was to secure a revisionof the Constitution. The Assembly, by a vote of three-fourths, could bythe statutes of 1848 order a revision; a revision could remove theclause which prohibited his re-election, and a re-election was all hethen pretended to want. But the Assembly, jealous of its liberties, already suspicious and even hostile, showed no disposition to smooth hisway. He clearly saw that some other means must be adopted. He naturallyturned to the army; but the leading generals distrusted him, and were inthe ranks of his enemies. They were all Orléanists or Republicans. 

The ablest general in France was probably Changarnier, who had greatlydistinguished himself in Algeria. He had been called, on the change ofgovernment, to the high post of commander of the National Guards andgeneral of the first military division, which was stationed at Paris. Hehad been heard to say that if Louis Napoleon should undertake a _coupd'état_, he would conduct him as a prisoner to Vincennes. This wasreported to the President, who at once resolved to remove him, both fromhostility and fear. On Changarnier's removal the ministry resigned. Their places were taken by tools still more subservient. 

Nothing now remained but to prepare for the meditated usurpation. Thefirst thing to be done was to secure an able and unscrupulous ministerof war, who could be depended upon. As all the generals received theirorders from the minister of war, he was the most powerful man in France, next to the President. Such was military discipline that no subordinatedared to disobey him. 

There were then no generals of ability in France whom Louis Napoleoncould trust, and he turned his eyes to Algeria, where some one might befound. He accordingly sent his most intimate friend and confidant, MajorFleury, able but unscrupulous, to Algeria to discover the right kind ofman, who could be bribed. He found a commander of a brigade, by nameSaint-Arnaud, extravagant, greatly in debt, who had done some brave andwicked things. It was not difficult to seduce a reckless man who wantedmoney and preferment. Fleury promised him the high office of minister ofwar, when he should have done something to distinguish himself in theeyes of the Parisians. Saint-Arnaud, who proved that he could keep asecret, was at once promoted, and a campaign was arranged for him in thesummer of 1851, in which he won some distinction by wanton waste oflife. His exploits were exaggerated, the venal Press sounded hispraises, and he was recalled to Paris and made minister of war; for thePresident by the Constitution could nominate his ministers and appointthe high officers of State. Other officers were brought from Algeria andmade his subordinates. The command of the army of Paris was given toGeneral Magnan, who was in the secret. The command of the NationalGuards was given to a general who promised not to act, for this body wasdevoted to the Assembly. M. Maupas, another conspirator, of greatadministrative ability, was made prefect of police. 

Thus in September, 1851, everything was arranged; but Saint-Arnaudpersuaded the President to defer the _coup d'état_ until winter, whenall the deputies would be in Paris, and therefore could be easilyseized. If scattered over France, they might rally and create a civilwar; for, as we have already said, the Assembly contained the leadingmen of the country, --statesmen, generals, editors, and great lawyers, all hostile to the ruler of the Republic. 

So the President waited patiently till winter. Suddenly, withoutwarning, in the night of the 2d of December, all the most distinguishedmembers of the Assembly were arrested by the police controlled byMaupas, and sent to the various prisons, --including Changarnier, Cavaignac, Thiers, Bedeau, Lamoricière, Barrot, Berryer, De Tocqueville, De Broglie, and Saint-Hilaire. On the following morning strong bodies ofthe military were posted at the Palais Bourbon (where the Assembly heldits sessions), around all the printing-presses, around the publicbuildings, and in the principal streets. In the meantime, Morny was mademinister of the interior. Manifestoes were issued which announced thedissolution of the Assembly and the Council of State, the restoration ofuniversal suffrage, and a convocation of the electoral college to electthe Executive. A proclamation was also made to the army, containingthose high-sounding watchwords which no one was more capable of usingthan the literary President, --eloquent, since they appealed toeverything dear to the soldiers' hearts, and therefore effective. LouisNapoleon's short speeches convinced those for whom they were intended. He was not so fortunate with his books. 

The military and the police had now the supreme control of Paris, whilethe minister of the interior controlled the municipalities of thevarious departments. All resistance was absurd; and yet so tremendous anoutrage on the liberties of the nation provoked an indignation, especially among the Republicans, which it was hard to suppress. Thepeople rallied and erected barricades, which of course were swept awayby the cannon of General Magnan, accompanied by needless cruelties andwaste of blood, probably with the view to inspire fear and show thatresistance was hopeless. 

Paris and its vicinity were now in the hands of the usurper, supportedby the army and police, and his enemies were in prison. The Assembly wasclosed, as well as the higher Courts of Justice, and the Press wasmuzzled. Constitutional liberty was at an end; a despot reignedunopposed. Yet Louis Napoleon did not feel entirely at his ease. Wouldthe nation at the elections sustain the usurpation? It was necessary tocontrol the elections; and it is maintained by some historians thatevery effort to that end was made through the officials and the police. Whether the elections were free or not, one thing astonished thecivilized world, --seven millions of votes were cast in favor of LouisNapoleon; and the cunning and patient usurper took possession of theTuileries, re-elected President to serve for ten years. Before the yearclosed, in December, 1852, he was proclaimed Emperor of the French bythe vote and the will of the people. The silent, dull, and heavy man hadoutwitted everybody; and he showed that he understood the French peoplebetter than all the collected statesmen and generals who had servedunder Louis Philippe with so much ability and distinction. 

What shall we say of a nation that so ignominiously surrendered itsliberties? All we can say in extenuation is that it was powerless. Suchmen as Guizot, Thiers, Cousin, Changarnier, Cavaignac, Molé, Broglie, Hugo, Villemain, Lamartine, Montalembert, would have prevented the fallof constitutional government if their hands had not been tied. They werein prison or exiled. Some twenty-five thousand people had been killed ortransported within a few weeks after the _coup d'état_, and fear seizedthe minds of those who were active in opposition, or suspected even ofbeing hostile to the new government. France, surprised, perplexed, affrighted, must needs carry on a war of despair, or succumb to theusurpation. The army and the people alike were governed by terror. 

But although France had lost her freedom, it was only for a time; andalthough Louis Napoleon ruled as an absolute monarch, his despotism, sadly humiliating to people of intelligence and patriotism, was not likethat of Russia, or even like that of Prussia and Austria. The great menof all parties were too numerous and powerful to be degraded or exiled. They did not resist his government, and they held their tongues in thecafés and other assemblies where they were watched by spies; but theytalked freely with one another in their homes, and simply kept alooffrom him, refusing to hold office under him or to attend his court, waiting for their time. They knew that his government was not permanent, and that the principles of the Revolution had not been disseminated andplanted in vain, but would burst out in some place or other like avolcano, and blaze to heaven. Men pass away, but principles areindestructible. 

Louis Napoleon was too thoughtful and observant a man not to know allthis. His residence in England and intercourse with so manydistinguished politicians and philosophers had taught him something. Hefeared that with all his successes his throne would be overturnedunless he could amuse the people and find work for turbulent spirits. Consequently he concluded on the one hand to make a change in theforeign policy of France, and on the other to embellish his capital andundertake great public works, at any expense, both to find work forartisans and to develop the resources of the country. 

When Louis Napoleon made his first attack on the strong government ofLouis Philippe, at Strasburg, he was regarded as a madman; when heescaped from Ham, after his failure at Boulogne, he was looked upon byall Europe as a mere adventurer; and when he finally left England, whichhad sheltered him, to claim his seat in the National Assembly ofrepublican France, and even when made President of the republic by thesuffrages of the nation, he was regarded as an enigma. Some thought himdull though bold, and others looked upon him as astute and long-headed. His heavy look, his leaden eye, his reserved and taciturn ways, with nomarked power but that of silence and secrecy, disarmed fear. Neitherfrom his conversations nor his writings had anybody drawn the inferencethat he was anything remarkable in genius or character. His executiveabilities were entirely unknown. He was generally regarded as simplyfortunate from the name he bore and the power he usurped, but with nostriking intellectual gifts, --nothing that would warrant his supremeaudacity. He had never distinguished himself in anything; but wasadmitted to be a thoughtful man, who had written treatises ofrespectable literary merit. His social position as the heir and nephewof the great Napoleon of course secured him many friends and followers, who were attracted to him by the prestige of his name, and who saw inhim the means of making their own fortune; but he was always, except ina select and chosen circle, silent, non-committal, heavy, reserved, anduninteresting. 

But the President--the Emperor--had been a profound student of thehistory of the first Napoleon and his government. He understood theFrench people, too, and had learned to make short speeches with greateffect, in which adroitness in selecting watchwords--especially such ascaptivated the common people--was quite remarkable. He professed liberalsentiments, sympathy with the people in their privations and labors, andaffected beyond everything a love of peace. In his manifestoes of apolicy of universal peace, few saw that love of war by which he intendedto rivet the chains of despotism. He was courteous and urbane in hismanners, probably kind in disposition, not bloodthirsty nor cruel, supremely politic and conciliating in his intercourse with statesmen anddiplomatists, and generally simple and unstilted in his manners. He wasalso capable of friendship, and never forgot those who had rendered himservices or kindness in his wanderings. Nor was he greedy of money likeLouis Philippe, but freely lavished it on his generals. Like his uncle, he had an antipathy to literary men when they would not condescend toflatter him, which was repaid by uncompromising hostility on their part. How savage and unrelenting was the hatred of Victor Hugo! How unsparinghis ridicule and abuse! He called the usurper "Napoleon the Little, "notwithstanding he had outwitted the leading men of the nation andsucceeded in establishing himself on an absolute throne. A small mancould not have shown so much patience, wisdom, and prudence as LouisNapoleon showed when President, or fought so successfully thelegislative body when it was arrayed against him. If the poet had calledhim "Napoleon the Wicked" it would have been more to the point, for onlya supremely unscrupulous and dishonest man could have meditated andexecuted the _coup d'état_. His usurpation and treachery were giganticcrimes, accompanied with violence and murder. Even his crimes, however, were condoned in view of the good government which he enforced and theservices he rendered; showing that, if he was dishonest and treacherous, he was also able and enlightened. 

But it is not his usurpation of supreme power for which Louis Napoleonwill be most severely judged by his country and by posterity. Cromwellwas a usurper, and yet he is regarded as a great benefactor. It was thepolicy which Napoleon III. Pursued as a supreme ruler for which he willbe condemned, and which was totally unlike that of Cromwell or Augustus. It was his policy to embroil nations in war and play the _rôle_ of aconqueror. The policy of the restored Bourbons and of Louis Philippe wasundeniably that of peace with other nations, and the relinquishmentof that aggrandizement which is gained by successful war. Itwas this policy, --upheld by such great statesmen as Guizot andThiers, --conflicting with the warlike instincts of the French people, which made those monarchs unpopular more than their attempts to suppressthe liberty of the Press and the license of popular leaders; and it wasthe appeal to the military vanity of the people which made Napoleon III. Popular, and secured his political ascendency. 

The quarrel which was then going on between the Greek and Latin monksfor the possession of the sacred shrines at Jerusalem furnished both theoccasion and the pretence for interrupting the peace of Europe, as hasbeen already stated in the Lecture on the Crimean war. The Frenchusurper determined to take the side of the Latin monks, which wouldnecessarily embroil him with the great protector of the Greek faith, even the Emperor Nicholas, who was a bigot in all matters pertaining tohis religion. He would rally the French nation in a crusade, not merelyto get possession of a sacred key and a silver star, but to come to theassistance of a power no longer dangerous, --the "sick man, " whomNicholas had resolved to crush. Louis Napoleon cared but little forTurkey; but he did not want Constantinople to fall into the hands of theRussians, and thus make them the masters of the Black Sea. France, it istrue, had but little to gain whoever possessed Constantinople; she hadno possessions or colonies in the East to protect. But in the eye of heremperor it was necessary to amuse her by a war; and what war would bemore popular than this, --to head off Russia and avenge the marchto Moscow?

Russia, moreover, was the one power which all western Europe had causeto dread. Ever since the Empress Catherine II. , the encroachments andterritorial aggrandizement of this great military empire had been goingon. The Emperor Nicholas was the most powerful sovereign of the world, having a million of men under arms, ready to obey his nod, with no checkwhatever on his imperial will. He had many fine qualities, whichcommanded esteem; but he was fitful, uncertain, ambitious, and warlike. If an aggressive war to secure the "balance of power" could ever bejustified, it would seem to have been necessary in this case. It was anaggressive war on the part of France, since the four greatPowers--Austria, Prussia, France, and England--were already united tokeep the Czar in check, and demanded his evacuation of the Danubianprovinces which he had invaded. Nicholas, seeing this powerfulcombination against him, was ready to yield, and peace might have beeneasily secured, and thus the Crimean war been avoided; but LouisNapoleon did not want peace, and intrigued against it. 

Resolved then on war, the real disturber of the peace of Europe, andgoaded on by his councillors, --the conspirators of the 2d of December, Morny, Fleury, Maupas, etc. , --Louis Napoleon turned around to seek anally; for France alone was not strong enough to cope with Russia. Austria having so much to lose, did not want war, and was afraid ofNicholas. So was Prussia. It was the policy of both these Powers to keepon good terms with Nicholas. It always will be the policy of Germany toavoid a war with Russia, unless supported by England and France. Thegreat military organization which Bismarck and Moltke effected, theimmense standing army which Germany groans under, arises not fromanticipated dangers on the part of France so much as from fear ofRussia, although it is not the policy of German statesmen to confess itopenly. If France should unite with Russia in a relentless war, Germanywould probably be crushed, unless England came to the rescue. Germany, placed between two powerful military monarchies, is obliged to keep upits immense standing army, against its will, as a dire necessity. It isRussia she is most anxious to conciliate. All the speeches of Bismarckshow this. 

In view of this policy, Louis Napoleon turned his eyes to England as hisally in the meditated war with Russia, notwithstanding the secrethostilities and jealousies between these nations for five hundred years. Moreover, the countries were entirely dissimilar: England was governedby Parliament, based on free institutions; France was a militarydespotism, and all who sought to establish parliamentary liberties andgovernment were banished when their efforts became dangerous orrevolutionary. Louis Napoleon showed great ability for intrigue inforcing the English cabinet to adopt his warlike policy, when its ownpolicy was pacific. It was a great triumph to the usurper to see Englanddrifting into war against the combined influence of the premier, ofGladstone, of the Quakers, and of the whole Manchester school ofpolitical economists; and, as stated in the Lecture on the Crimean war, it was an astounding surprise to Nicholas. 

But this misfortune would not have happened had it not been for thegenius and intrigues of a statesman who exercised a commanding influenceover English politics; and this was Lord Palmerston, who had spent hislife in the foreign office, although at that time home secretary. But hewas the ruling spirit of the cabinet, --a man versatile, practical, amiable, witty, and intensely English in all his prejudices. Whateveroffice he held, he was always in harmony with public opinion. He was nota man of great ideas or original genius, but was a ready debater, understood the temper of the English people, and led them by adoptingtheir cause, whatever it was. Hence he was the most popular statesman ofthe day, but according to Cobden the worst prime minister that Englandever had, since he was always keeping England in hot water and stirringup strife on the Continent. His supreme policy, with an eye to Englishinterests on the Mediterranean and in Asia, was to cripple Russia. 

Such a man, warlike, restless, and interfering in his foreign policy, having in view the military aggrandizement of his country, eagerlyadopted the schemes of the French emperor; and little by little thesetwo men brought the English cabinet into a warlike attitude with Russia, in spite of all that Lord Aberdeen could do. Slight concessions wouldhave led to peace; but neither Louis Napoleon nor Palmerston would allowconcessions, since both were resolved on war. Never was a war morepopular in England than that which Louis Napoleon and Palmerstonresolved to have. This explains the leniency of public opinion inEngland toward a man who had stolen a sceptre. He was united with GreatBritain in a popular war. 

The French emperor, however, had other reasons for seeking the allianceof England in his war with Russia. It would give him a social prestige;he would enter more easily into the family of European sovereigns; hewould be called _mon frère_ by the Queen of England, which royal nameNicholas in his disdain refused to give him. If the Queen of England washis friend and ally, all other sovereigns must welcome him into theirroyal fraternity in spite of his political crimes, which wereuniversally detested. It is singular that England, after exhausting herresources by a war of twenty years to dethrone Napoleon I. , shouldbecome the firmest ally and friend of Napoleon III. , who trampled on allconstitutional liberty. But mutual interests brought them together; forwhen has England turned her back on her interests, or what she supposedto be her interests?

So war became inevitable. Napoleon III. Triumphed. His co-operation withEngland was sincere and hearty. Yea, so gratified and elated was he atthis stroke of good fortune, that he was ready to promise anything tohis ally, even to the taking a subordinate part in the war. He wouldfollow the dictation of the English ministers and the English generals. 

It was the general opinion that the war would be short and glorious. Atfirst it was contemplated only to fight the Russians in Bulgaria, andprevent their march across the Balkans, and thence to Constantinople. The war was undertaken to assist the Turks in the defence of theircapital and territories. For this a large army was not indispensable;hence the forces which were sent to Bulgaria were comparatively small. 

When Nicholas discovered that he could not force his way toConstantinople over the Balkans, and had withdrawn his forces from theDanubian principalities, peace then might have been honorably declaredby all parties. France perhaps might have withdrawn from the contest, which had effected the end at first proposed. But England not only hadbeen entangled in the war by the French alliance, but now was resolvedon taking Sebastopol, to destroy the power of Russia on the Euxine; andFrance was compelled to complete what she had undertaken, although shehad nothing to gain beyond what she had already secured. To the creditof Louis Napoleon, he proved a chivalrous and faithful ally, incontinuing a disastrous and expensive war for the glory of France andthe interests of England alone, although he made a separate peace assoon as he could do so with honor. 

It is not my purpose to repeat what I have already written on theCrimean war, although the more I read and think about it the stronger ismy disapproval, on both moral and political grounds, of that needlessand unfortunate conflict, --unfortunate alike to all parties concerned. It is a marvel that it did not in the end weaken the power and prestigeof both Palmerston and Napoleon III. It strengthened the hands of both, as was foreseen by these astute statesmen. Napoleon III. After the warwas regarded as a far-seeing statesman, as well as an ableadministrator. People no longer regarded him as a fool, or even a knave. Success had shut the mouths of his enemies, except of a few obdurateones like Thiers and Victor Hugo, --the latter of whom in his voluntaryexile in Guernsey and Jersey still persisted in calling him "Napoleonthe Little. " Thiers generally called him _Celui-ci, _--"That fellow. "This illustrious statesman, in his restless ambition and desire ofpower, probably would have taken office under the man whom he bothdespised and hated; but he dared not go against his antecedents, and wasunwilling to be a mere clerk, as all Louis Napoleon's ministers were, whatever their abilities. He was supported by the army and the people, and therefore was master of the situation. This was a fact whicheverybody was compelled to acknowledge. It was easy to call him usurper, tyrant, and fool, --anything; but he both "reigned and governed. "

"When peace was finally restored, the empire presented the aspect of astable government, resting solidly upon the approval of a contented andthriving people. " This was the general opinion of those who were wellacquainted with French affairs, and of those who visited Paris, whichwas then exceedingly prosperous. The city was filled with travellers, who came to see the glory of success. Great architectural improvementswere then in progress, which gave employment to a vast number of mentheretofore leading a precarious life. The chief of these were the newboulevards, constructed with immense expense, --those magnificent butgloomy streets, which, lined with palaces and hotels, excited universaladmiration, --a wise expenditure on the whole, which promoted both beautyand convenience, although to construct them a quarter of the city wasdemolished. The Grand Opera-House arose over the _débris_ of thedemolished houses, --the most magnificent theatre erected in moderntimes. Paris presented a spectacle of perpetual fêtes, reviews oftroops, and illuminations, which both amused and distracted the people. The Louvre was joined to the Tuileries by a grand gallery devotedchiefly to works of art. The Champs Elysées and the Bois de Boulognewere ornamented with new avenues, fountains, gardens, flowers, andtrees, where the people could pursue their pleasure unobstructed. Thenumber of beautiful equipages was vastly increased, and everythingindicated wealth and prosperity. The military was wisely kept out ofsight, except on great occasions, so that the people should not bereminded of their loss of liberties; the police were courteous andobliging, and interfered with no pleasures and no ordinary pursuits; theshops blazed with every conceivable attraction; the fashionable churcheswere crowded with worshippers and strangers to hear music which rivalledthat of the opera; the priests, in their ecclesiastical uniform, wereseen in every street with cheerful and beaming faces, for the governmentsought their support and influence; the papers were filled with themovements of the imperial court at races, in hunting-parties, and visitsto the _châteaux_ of the great. The whole city seemed to be absorbed inpleasure or gain, and crowds swarmed at all places of amusement withcontented faces: there was no outward sign of despotism or unhappiness, since everybody found employment. Even the idlers who frequented thecrowded cafés of the boulevards seemed to take unusual pleasure at theirgames of dominoes and at their tables of beer and wine. Visitorswondered at the apparent absence of all restraint from government and atthe personal liberty which everybody seemed practically to enjoy. Forten years after the _coup d'état_ it was the general impression that thegovernment of Louis Napoleon was a success. In spite of the predictionsand hostile criticisms of famous statesmen, it was, to all appearance atleast, stable, and the nation was prosperous. 

The enemies that the emperor had the most cause to dread were thesefamous statesmen themselves. Thiers, Guizot, Broglie, Odillon Barrot, had all been prime ministers, and most of the rest had won their laurelsunder Louis Philippe. They either declined to serve under Napoleon III. Or had been neglected by him; their political power had passed away. They gave vent, whenever they could with personal safety, to theirspleen, to their disappointment, to their secret hostility; they allalike prophesied evil; they all professed to believe that the emperorcould not maintain his position two years, --that he would be carried offby assassination or revolution. And joined with them in bitter hatredwas the whole literary class, --like Victor Hugo, Lamartine, andCousin, --who hurled curses and defiance from their retreats, or from thefashionable _salons_ and clubs which they frequented. The old noblessestood aloof. St. Germain was like a foreign city rather than a part ofParis. All the traders among the Legitimists and Orléanists continued ina state of secret hostility, and threw all the impediments they couldagainst the government. 

The situation of Louis Napoleon was indeed extremely difficult andcritical. He had to fight against the combined influences of rank, fashion, and intellect, --against an enlightened public opinion; for itcould not be forgotten that his power was usurped, and sustained bybrute force and the ignorant masses. He would have been nothing withoutthe army. In some important respects he showed marvellous astuteness andpolitical sagacity, --such, for instance, as in converting England froman enemy to a friend. But he won England by playing the card of commoninterests against Russia. 

The emperor was afraid to banish the most eminent men in his empire; sohe tolerated them and hated them, --suspending over their heads the swordof Damocles. This they understood, and kept quiet except amongthemselves. But France was a hotbed of sedition and discontent duringthe whole reign of Louis Napoleon, at least among the old governmentleaders, --Orléanists, Legitimists, and Republicans alike. 

Considering the difficulties and hatreds with which Napoleon III. Had tocontend, I am surprised that his reign lasted as long as it did, --longerthan those of Louis XVIII. And Charles X. Combined; longer than that ofLouis Philippe, with the aid of the middle classes and the ableststatesmen of France, --an impressive fact, which indicates great abilityof some kind on the part of the despot. But he paid dearly for hispassion for power in the enormous debts entailed by his first war ofprestige, and in the death of more than a hundred thousand men in thecamps, on the field of battle, and in the hospitals. If he had had anyconscience he would have been appalled; but he had no conscience, anymore than his uncle, when anything stood in his way. The gratificationof his selfish ambition overmastered patriotism and real fame, andprepared the way for his fall and the ignominy which accompanied it. 

Had either of the monarchs who ruled France since the Revolution of 1791been animated with a sincere desire for the public good, and beencontented to rule as a constitutional sovereign, as they all alike sworeto rule, I do not see why they might not have transmitted their thronesto their heirs. Napoleon I. Certainly could have perpetuated his empirein his family had he not made such awful blunders as the invasion ofSpain and Russia, which made him unable to contend with externalenemies. Charles X. Might have continued to reign had he not destroyedall constitutional liberty. Louis Philippe might have transmitted hispower to the House of Orléans had he not sacrificed public interests tohis greediness for money and to his dynastic ambition. And Napoleon III. Might have reigned until he died had he fulfilled his promises to theparties who elevated him; but he could have continued to reign in theviolation of his oaths only so long as his army was faithful andsuccessful. When at last hopelessly defeated and captured, his throneinstantly crumbled away; he utterly collapsed, and was nothing but afugitive. What a lesson this is to all ambitious monarchs who sacrificethe interest of their country to personal aggrandizement! So long as anation sees the monarch laboring for the aggrandizement and welfare ofthe country rather than of himself, it will rally around him andvenerate him, even if he leads his subjects to war and enrolls them inhis gigantic armies, --as in the case of the monarchs of Prussia sinceFrederic II. , and even those of Austria. 

Napoleon III. Was unlike all these, for with transcendent cunning andduplicity he stole his throne, and then sacrificed the interests ofFrance to support his usurpation. That he was an adventurer--as hisenemies called him--is scarcely true; for he was born in the Tuileries, was the son of a king, and nephew of the greatest sovereign of moderntimes. So far as his usurpation can be palliated, --for it never can beexcused, --it must be by his deep-seated conviction that he was the heirof his uncle, that the government of the empire belonged to him as aright, and that he would ultimately acquire it by the will of thepeople. Had Thiers or Guizot or Changarnier seized the reins, they wouldhave been adventurers. All men are apt to be called adventurers by theirdetractors when they reach a transcendent position. Even such men asNapoleon I. , Cromwell, and Canning were stigmatized as adventurers bytheir enemies. A poor artist who succeeds in winning a rich heiress isoften regarded as an adventurer, even though his ancestors have beenrespectable and influential for four generations. Most successful menowe their elevation to genius or patience or persistent industry ratherthan to accidents or tricks. Louis Napoleon plodded and studied andwrote for years with the ultimate aim of ruling France, even though he"waded through slaughter to a throne;" and he would have deserved histhrone had he continued true to the principles he professed. What a namehe might have left had he been contented only to be President of a greatrepublic; for his elevation to the Presidency was legitimate, and evenafter he became a despot he continued to be a high-bred gentleman in theEnglish sense, which is more than can be said of his uncle. No one hasever denied that from first to last Louis Napoleon was courteous, affable, gentle, patient, and kind, with a control over his feelings andthoughts absolutely marvellous and unprecedented in a public man, --if weexcept Disraeli. Nothing disturbed his serenity; very rarely was he seenin a rage; he stooped and coaxed and flattered, even when he sent hisenemies to Cayenne. 

The share taken by Napoleon III. In the affairs of Italy has alreadybeen treated of, yet a look from that point of view may find place here. The interference of Austria with the Italian States--not only her ownsubjects there, but the independent States as well--has been called "astanding menace to Europe. " It was finally brought to a crisis ofconflict by the King of Sardinia, who had already provided himself witha friend and ally in the French emperor; and when, on the 29th of April, 1859, Austria crossed the river Ticino in hostile array, the combinedFrench and Sardinian troops were ready to do battle. The campaign wasshort, and everywhere disastrous to the Austrians; so that on July 6 anarmistice was concluded, and on July 12 the peace of Villa Franca endedthe war, with Lombardy ceded to Sardinia, while Nice and Savoy were thereward of the French, --justifying by this addition to the territory andglory of France the emperor's second war of prestige. 

Louis Napoleon reached the culmination of his fame and of real orsupposed greatness--I mean his external power and grandeur, for I see noevidence of real greatness except such as may be won by astuteness, tact, cunning, and dissimulation--when he returned to Paris as theconqueror of the Austrian armies. He was then generally supposed to begreat both as a general and as an administrator, when he was neither ageneral nor an administrator, as subsequent events proved. But his courtwas splendid; distinguished foreigners came to do him homage; evenmonarchs sought his friendship, and a nod of his head was ominous. Hehad delivered Italy as he had humiliated Russia; he had made France agreat political power; he had made Paris the most magnificent city ofthe world (though at boundless expense), and everybody extolled thegenius of Hausmann, his engineer, who had created such material glories;his fêtes were beyond all precedent; his wife gave the law to fashionsand dresses, and was universally extolled for her beauty and graces; thegreat industrial exhibition in 1855, which surpassed in attractivenessthat of London in 1851, drew strangers to his capital, and gave astimulus to art and industry. Certainly he seemed to be a most fortunateman, --for the murmurs and intrigues of that constellation of statesmenwhich grew up with the restoration of the Bourbons, and the antipathiesof editors and literary men, were not generally known. The armyespecially gloried in the deeds of a man whose successes reminded themof his immortal uncle; while the lavish expenditures of government inevery direction concealed from the eyes of the people the boundlesscorruption by which the services of his officials were secured. 

But this splendid exterior was deceptive, and a turn came to thefortunes of Napoleon III. , --long predicted, yet unexpected. Constantlyon the watch for opportunities to aggrandize his name and influence, theemperor allowed the disorders of civil war in Mexico--resulting in manyacts of injustice to foreigners there--to lead him into a combinationwith England and Spain to interfere. This was in 1861, when the UnitedStates were entering upon the terrific struggles of their own civil war, and were not able to prevent this European interference, althoughregarding it as most unfriendly to republican institutions. Within ayear England and Spain withdrew. France remained; sent more troops;declared war on the government of President Juarez; fought some battles;entered the City of Mexico; convened the "Assembly of Notables;" and, ontheir declaring for a limited hereditary monarchy, the French emperorproposed for their monarch the Archduke Maximilian, --younger brother ofFrancis Joseph the Austrian emperor. Maximilian accepted, and in June, 1864, arrived, --upheld, however, most feebly by the "Notables, " andrelying chiefly on French bayonets, which had driven Juarez to thenorthern part of the country. 

But against the expectation of Napoleon III, the great rebellion in theUnited States collapsed, and this country became a military power whichEurope was compelled to respect: a nation that could keep in the fieldover a million of soldiers was not to be despised. While the civil warwas in progress the United States government was compelled to ignore theattempt to establish a French monarchy on its southern borders; but nosooner was the war ended than it refused to acknowledge any governmentin Mexico except that of President Juarez, which Louis Napoleon hadoverthrown; so that although the French emperor had bound himself withsolemn treaties to maintain twenty-five thousand French troops inMexico, he was compelled to withdraw these forces and leave Maximilianto his fate. He advised the young Austrian to save himself byabdication, and to leave Mexico with the troops; but Maximilian feltconstrained by his sense of honor to remain, and refused. In March, 1867, this unfortunate prince was made prisoner by the republicans, andwas unscrupulously shot. His calamities and death excited the compassionof Europe; and with it was added a profound indignation for the man whohad unwittingly lured him on to his ruin. Louis Napoleon's militaryprestige received a serious blow, and his reputation as a statesmanlikewise; and although the splendor of his government and throne was asgreat as ever, his fall, in the eyes of the discerning, was nearat hand. 

By this time Louis Napoleon had become prematurely old; he sufferedfrom acute diseases; his constitution was undermined; he was no longercapable of carrying the burdens he had assumed; his spirits began tofail; he lost interest in the pleasures which had at first amused him;he found delight in nothing, not even in his reviews and fêtes; he wascompletely ennuied; his failing health seemed to affect his mind; hebecame vacillating and irresolute; he lost his former energies. He sawthe gulf opening which was to swallow him up; he knew that his situationwas desperate, and that something must be done to retrieve his fortunes. His temporary popularity with his own people was breaking, too;--theMexican _fiasco_ humiliated them. The internal affairs of the empirewere more and more interfered with and controlled by the CatholicChurch, through the intrigues and influence of the empress, a bigotedSpanish Catholic, --and this was another source of unpopularity, forFrance was not a priest-ridden country, and the emperor was blamed forthe growing ecclesiastical power in civil affairs. He had invoked war tointerest the people, and war had saved him for a time; but theconsequences of war pursued him. As he was still an overrated man, andknown to be restless and unscrupulous, Germany feared him, and quietlyarmed, making preparations for an attack which seemed only too probable. His negotiation with the King of Holland for the cession of the Duchy ofLuxemburg, by which acquisition he hoped to offset the disgrace whichhis Mexican enterprise had caused, excited the jealousy of Prussia; forby the treaties of 1815 Prussia obtained the right to garrison thefortress, --the strongest in Europe next to Gibraltar, --and had no ideaof permitting it to fall into the hands of France. 

The irresistible current which was then setting in for the union of theGerman States under the rule of Prussia, and for which Bismarck had longbeen laboring, as had Cavour for the unity of Italy, caused a greatoutcry among the noisy but shallow politicians of Paris, who deludedthemselves with the idea that France was again invincible; and not onlythey, but the French people generally, fancied that France was strongenough to conquer half of Europe, The politicians saw in a war withPrussia the aggrandizement of French interests, and did all they couldto hasten it on. It was popular with the nation at large, who saw onlyone side; and especially so with the generals of the army, who aspiredto new laurels. Napoleon III. Blustered and bullied and threatened, which pleased his people; but in his heart he had his doubts, and had nodesire to attack Prussia so long as the independence of the southernStates of Germany was maintained. But when the designs of Bismarckbecame more and more apparent to cement a united Germany, and thus toraise up a most formidable military power, Louis Napoleon soughtalliances in anticipation of a conflict which could not be muchlonger delayed. 

First, the French emperor turned to Austria, whom he had humiliated atSolferino and incensed by the aid which he had given to Victor Emmanuelto break the Austrian domination in Italy, as well as outraged itssympathies by his desertion of Maximilian in Mexico. No cordial alliancecould be expected from this Power, unless he calculated on its hostilityto Prussia for the victories she had lately won. Count Beust, theAustrian chancellor, was a bitter enemy to Prussia, and hoped to regainthe ascendency which Austria had once enjoyed under Metternich. Sopromises were made to the French emperor; but they were never kept, andAustria really remained neutral in the approaching contest, to the greatdisappointment of Napoleon III. He also sought the aid of Italy, whichhe had reason to expect from the service he had rendered to Piedmont;but the Garibaldians had embroiled France with the Italian people intheir attempt to overthrow the Papal government, which was protected byFrench troops; and Louis Napoleon by the reoccupation of Rome seemed tobar the union of the Italian people, passionately striving for nationalunity. Thus the Italians also stood aloof from France, although VictorEmmanuel personally was disposed to aid her. 

In 1870 France found herself isolated, and compelled, in case of warwith Prussia, to fight single-handed. If Napoleon III. Had exercised theabilities he had shown at the beginning of his career, he would havefound means to delay a conflict for which he was not prepared, or avoidit altogether; but in 1870 his intellect was shattered, and he felthimself powerless to resist the current which was bearing him away tohis destruction. He showed the most singular incapacity as anadministrator. He did not really know the condition of his army; hesupposed he had four hundred and fifty thousand effective troops, butreally possessed a little over three hundred thousand, while Prussia hadover one-third more than this, completely equipped and disciplined, andwith improved weapons. He was deceived by the reports of his owngenerals, to whom he had delegated everything, instead of looking intothe actual state of affairs himself, as his uncle would have done, andas Thiers did under Louis Philippe. More than a third of his regimentswere on paper alone, or dwindled in size; the monstrous corruptions ofhis reign had permeated every part of the country; the necessary arms, ammunition, and material of war in general were deplorably deficient; noofficial reports could be relied upon, and few of his generals could beimplicitly trusted. If ever infatuation blinded a nation to its fate, itmost signally marked France in 1870. 

Nothing was now wanting but the spark to kindle the conflagration; andthis was supplied by the interference of the French government with thenomination of a German prince to the vacant throne of Spain. ThePrussian king gave way in the matter of Prince Leopold, but refusedfurther concessions. Leopold was sufficiently magnanimous to withdrawhis claims, and here French interference should have ended. But Francedemanded guarantees that no future candidate should be proposed withouther consent. Of course the Prussian king, --seeing with the keen eyes ofBismarck, and armed to the teeth under the supervision of Moltke, thegreatest general of the age, who could direct, with the precision of asteam-engine on a track, the movements of the Prussian army, itself amechanism, --treated with disdain this imperious demand from a powerwhich he knew to be inferior to his own. Count Bismarck craftily luredon his prey, who was already goaded forward by his home war-party, withthe empress at their head; negotiations ceased, and Napoleon III. Madehis fatal declaration of hostilities, to the grief of the few statesmenwho foresaw the end. 

Even then the condition of France was not desperate if the governmenthad shown capacity; but conceit, vanity, and ignorance blinded thenation. Louis Napoleon should have known, and probably did know, thatthe contending forces were uneven; that he had no generals equal toMoltke; that his enemies could crush him in the open field; that hisonly hope was in a well-organized defence. But his generals rushed madlyon to destruction against irresistible forces, incapable of forming acombination, while the armies they led were smaller than anybodysupposed. Napoleon III. Hoped that by rapidity of movement he couldenter southern Germany before the Prussian armies could be massedagainst him; but here he dreamed, for his forces were not ready at thetime appointed, and the Prussians crossed the Rhine without obstruction. Then followed the battle of Worth, on the 6th of August, when MarshalMcMahon, with only forty-five thousand men, ventured to resist thePrussian crown-prince with a hundred thousand, and lost consequently alarge part of his army, and opened a passage through the northern Vosgesto the German troops. On the same day Frossard's corps was defeated byPrince Frederic Charles near Saarbrücken, while the French emperorremained at Metz irresolute, infatuated, and helpless. On the 12th ofAugust he threw up the direction of his armies altogether, and appointedMarshal Bazaine commander-in-chief, --thus proclaiming his own incapacityas a general. Bazaine still had more than two hundred thousand men underhis command, and might have taken up a strong position on the Moselle, or retreated in safety to Chalons; but he fell back on Gravelotte, when, being defeated on the 18th, he withdrew within the defences of Metz. Hewas now surrounded by two hundred and fifty thousand men, and he made noeffort to escape. McMahon attempted to relieve him, but was ordered bythe government at Paris to march to the defence of that city. On thisline, however, he got no farther than Sedan, where all was lost onSeptember 1, --the entire army and the emperor himself surrendering asprisoners of war. The French had fought gallantly, but were outnumberedat every point. 

Nothing now remained to the conquerors but to advance to the siege ofParis. The throne of Napoleon III. Was overturned, and few felt sympathyfor his misfortunes, since he was responsible for the overwhelmingcalamities which overtook his country, and which his country neverforgave. In less than a month he fell from what seemed to be theproudest position in Europe, and stood out to the eye of the world inall the hateful deformity of a defeated despot who deserved to fall. Thesuddenness and completeness of his destruction has been paralleled onlyby the defeat of the armies of Darius by Alexander the Great. Alldelusions as to Louis Napoleon's abilities vanished forever. All hisformer grandeur, even his services, were at once forgotten. He paid evena sadder penalty than his uncle, who never lost the affections of hissubjects, while the nephew destroyed all rational hopes of the futurerestoration of his family, and became accursed. 

It is possible that the popular verdict in reference to Louis Napoleon, on his fall, may be too severe. This world sees only success or failureas the test of greatness. With the support of the army and thepolice--the heads of which were simply his creatures, whom he hadbought, or who from selfish purposes had pushed him on in his hours ofirresolution and guided him--the _coup d'état_ was not a difficultthing, any more than any bold robbery; and with the control of the vastmachinery of government, --that machinery which is one of the triumphs ofcivilization, --an irresistible power, it is not marvellous that heretained his position in spite of the sneers or hostilities of statesmenout of place, or of editors whose journals were muzzled or suppressed;especially when the people saw great public improvements going on, hadboth bread and occupation, read false accounts of military successes, and were bewildered by fêtes and outward grandeur. But when the army wasa sham, and corruption had pervaded every office under government; whenthe expenses of living had nearly doubled from taxation, extravagance, bad example, and wrong ideas of life; when trusted servants were turnedinto secret enemies, incapable and false; when such absurd mistakes weremade as the expedition to Mexico, and the crowning folly of the warwith Prussia, proving the incapacity and folly of the master-hand, --themachinery which directed the armies and the bureaus and all affairs ofState itself, broke down, and the catastrophe was inevitable. 

Louis Napoleon certainly was not the same man in 1870 that he was in1850. His burdens had proved too great for his intellect. He fell, anddisappeared from history in a storm of wrath and shame, which also hidfrom the eyes of the people the undoubted services he had rendered tothe cause of order and law, and to that of a material prosperity whichwas at one time the pride of his country and the admiration of thewhole world. 

But a nation is greater than any individual, even if he be a miracle ofgenius. When the imperial cause was lost, and the armies of France weredispersed or shut up in citadels, and the hosts of Germany wereconverging upon the capital, Paris resolved on sustaining asiege--apparently hopeless--rather than yield to a conqueror before thelast necessity should open its gates. The self-sacrifices which itswhole population, supposed to be frivolous and enervated, made topreserve their homes and their works of art; their unparalleledsufferings; their patience and self-reliance under the most humiliatingcircumstances; their fertility of resources; their cheerfulness underhunger and privation; and, above everything else, their submission tolaw with every temptation to break it, --proved that the spirit of thenation was unbroken; that their passive virtues rivalled their mostglorious deeds of heroism; that, if light-headed in prosperity, theyknew how to meet adversity; and that they had not lost faith in thegreatness of their future. 

Perhaps they would not have made so stubborn a resistance to destiny ifthey had realized their true situation, but would have opened theirgates at once to overwhelming foes, as they did on the fall of the firstNapoleon. They probably calculated that Bazaine would make his escapefrom Metz with his two hundred thousand men, find his way to the banksof the Loire, rally all the military forces of the south of France, andthen march with his additional soldiers to relieve Paris, and drive backthe Germans to the Rhine. 

But this was not to be, and it is idle to speculate on what might havebeen done either to raise the siege of Paris--one of the most memorablein the whole history of the world--or to prevent the advance of theGermans upon the capital itself. It is remarkable that the Parisianswere able to hold out so long, --thanks to the genius and precaution ofThiers, who had erected the formidable forts outside the walls of Parisin the reign of Louis Philippe; and still more remarkable was the rapidrecovery of the French nation after such immense losses of men andtreasure, after one of the most signal and humiliating overthrows whichhistory records. Probably France was never stronger than she is to-dayin her national resources, in her readiness for war, and in the apparentstability of her republican government, --which ensued after the collapseof the Second Empire. She has been steady, persevering, and even patientfor a hundred years in her struggles for political freedom, whatevermistakes she has made and crimes she has committed to secure thishighest boon which modern civilization confers. A great hero may fall, agreat nation may be enslaved; but the cause of human freedom will intime triumph over all despots, over all national inertness, and allnational mistakes. 

AUTHORITIES. 

Abbott, M. Baxter, S. P. Day, Victor Hugo, Macrae, S. M. Smucker, F. M. Whitehurst, have written more or less on Louis Napoleon. See JustinMcCarthy's Modern Leaders; Kinglake's Crimean War; History of theFranco-German War; Lives of Bismarck, Moltke, Cavour; Life of LordPalmerston; Life of Nicholas; Life of Thiers; Harriet Martineau'sBiographical Sketches; W. R. Greg's Life of Todleben. 

PRINCE BISMARCK. 

1815-1898. 

THE GERMAN EMPIRE. 

Before presenting Bismarck, it will be necessary to glance at the workof those great men who prepared the way not only for him, but also forthe soldier Moltke, --men who raised Prussia from the humiliationresulting from her conquest by Napoleon. 

That humiliation was as complete as it was unexpected. It was evengreater than that of France after the later Franco-Prussian war. Prussiawas dismembered; its provinces were seized by the conqueror; itspopulation was reduced to less than four millions; its territory wasoccupied by one hundred and fifty thousand French soldiers; the kinghimself was an exile and a fugitive from his own capital; every sort ofindignity was heaped on his prostrate subjects, who were compelled topay a war indemnity beyond their power; trade and commerce were cut offby Napoleon's Continental system; and universal poverty overspread thecountry, always poor, and now poorer than ever. Prussia had no alliesto rally to her sinking fortunes; she was completely isolated. Most ofher fortresses were in the hands of her enemies, and the magnificentarmy of which she had been so proud since the days of Frederic the Greatwas dispersed. At the peace of Tilsit, in 1807, it looked as if thewhole kingdom was about to be absorbed in the empire of Napoleon, likeBavaria and the Rhine provinces, and wiped out of the map of Europe likeunfortunate Poland. 

But even this did not complete the humiliation. Napoleon compelled theKing of Prussia--Frederic William III. --to furnish him soldiers to fightagainst Russia, as if Prussia were already incorporated with his ownempire and had lost her nationality. At that time France and Russia werein alliance, and Prussia had no course to adopt but submission orcomplete destruction; and yet Prussia refused in these evil days to jointhe Confederation of the Rhine, which embraced all the German States atthe south and west of Austria and Prussia. Napoleon, however, was toomuch engrossed in his scheme of conquering Spain, to swallow up Prussiaentirely, as he intended, after he should have subdued Spain. So, afterall, Prussia had before her only the fortune of Ulysses in the cave ofPolyphemus, --to be devoured the last. 

The escape of Prussia was owing, on the one hand, to the necessity forNapoleon to withdraw his main army from Prussia in order to fight inSpain; and secondly, to the transcendent talents of a few patriots towhom the king in his distress was forced to listen. The chief of thesewere Stein, Hardenberg, and Scharnhorst. It was the work of Stein toreorganize the internal administration of Prussia, including thefinancial department; that of Hardenberg to conduct the ministry offoreign affairs; and that of Scharnhorst to reorganize the militarypower. The two former were nobles; the latter sprung from the people, --apeasant's son; but they worked together in tolerable harmony, considering the rival jealousies that at one time existed among all thehigh officials, with their innumerable prejudices. 

Baron von Stein, born in 1757, of an old imperial knightly family fromthe country near Nassau, was as a youth well-educated, and at the age oftwenty-three entered the Prussian service under Frederic the Great, inthe mining department, where he gained rapid promotion. In 1786 hevisited England and made a careful study of her institutions, which heprofoundly admired. In 1787 he became a sort of provincial governor, being director of the war and Domaine Chambers at Cleves and Hamm. 

In 1804 Stein became Minister of Trade, having charge of excise, customs, manufactures, and trade. The whole financial administration atthis time under King Frederick William III was in a state of greatconfusion, from an unnecessary number of officials who did not workharmoniously. There was too much "red tape. " Stein brought order out ofconfusion, simplified the administration, punished corruption, increasedthe national credit, then at a very low ebb, and re-established the bankof Prussia on a basis that enabled it to assist the government. 

But a larger field than that of finance was opened to Stein in the warof 1806. The king intrusted to him the portfolio of foreignaffairs, --not willingly, but because he regarded him as the ablest manin the kingdom. Stein declined to be foreign minister unless he wasentirely unshackled, and the king was obliged to yield, for themisfortunes of the country had now culminated in the disastrous defeatat Friedland. The king, however, soon quarrelled with his minister, being jealous of his commanding abilities, and unused to dictation fromany source. After a brief exile at Nassau, the peace of Tilsit havingproved the sagacity of his views, Stein returned to power as virtualdictator of the kingdom, with the approbation of Napoleon; but hisdictatorship lasted only about a year, when he was again discharged. 

During that year, 1807, Stein made his mark in Prussian history. Withoutdwelling on details, he effected the abolition of serfdom in Prussia, the trade in land, and municipal reforms, giving citizensself-government in place of the despotism of military bureaus. He madeit his business to pay off the French war indemnity, --one hundred andfifty million francs, a great sum for Prussia to raise when dismemberedand trodden in the dust under one hundred and fifty thousand Frenchsoldiers, --and to establish a new and improved administrative system. But, more than all, he attempted to rouse a moral, religious, andpatriotic spirit in the nation, and to inspire it anew with courage, self-confidence, and self-sacrifice. In 1808 the ministry became warlikein spite of its despair, the first glimpse of hope being the popularrising in Spain. It was during the ministry of Stein, and through hisefforts, that the anti-Napoleonic revolution began. 

The intense hostility of Stein to Napoleon, and his commandingabilities, led Napoleon in 1808 imperatively to demand from the King ofPrussia the dismissal of his minister; and Frederick William dared notresist. Stein did not retire, however, until after the royal edict hademancipated the serfs of Prussia, and until that other great reform wasmade by which the nobles lost the monopoly of office and exemption fromtaxation, while the citizen class gained admission to all posts, trades, and occupations. These great reforms were chiefly to be traced to Stein, although Hardenberg and others, like Schön and Niebuhr, had a handin them. 

Stein also opened the military profession to the citizen class, whichbefore was closed, only nobles being intrusted with command in the army. It is true that nobles still continued to form a large majority ofofficers, even as peasants formed the bulk of the army. But the removalof restrictions and the abolition of serfdom tended to create patrioticsentiments among all classes, on which the strength of armies in nosmall degree rests. In the time of Frederic the Great the army was amere machine. It was something more when the nation in 1811 rallied toachieve its independence. Then was born the idea of nationality, --that, whatever obligations a Prussian owed to the state, Germany was greaterthan Prussia itself. This idea was the central principle of Stein'spolitical system, leading ultimately to the unity of Germany as finallyeffected by Bismarck and Moltke. It became almost synonymous with thatpatriotism which sustains governments and thrones, the absence of whichwas the great defect of the German States before the times of Napoleon, when both princes and people lost sight of the unity of the nation inthe interests of petty sovereignties. 

Stein was a man of prodigious energy, practical good sense, and loftycharacter, but irascible, haughty, and contemptuous, and was far frombeing a favorite with the king and court. His great idea was the unityand independence of Germany. He thought more of German nationality thanof Prussian aggrandizement. It was his aim to make his countrymen feelthat they were Germans rather than Prussians, and that it was only by aunion of the various German States that they could hope to shake off theFrench yoke, galling and humiliating beyond description. 

When Stein was driven into exile at the dictation of Napoleon, with theloss of his private fortune, he was invited by the Emperor of Russia toaid him with his counsels, --and it can be scarcely doubted that in theemploy of Russia he rendered immense services to Germany, and had nolittle influence in shaping the movements of the allies in effecting theruin of the common despot. On this point, however, I cannot dwell. 

Count, afterward Prince, Hardenberg, held to substantially the sameviews, and was more acceptable to the king as minister than was theaustere and haughty Stein, although his morals were loose, and hisabilities far inferior to those of the former. But his diplomatictalents were considerable, and his manners were agreeable, like those ofMetternich, while Stein treated kings and princes as ordinary men, anddictated to them the course which was necessary to pursue. It was thework of Hardenberg to create the peasant-proprietorship of modernPrussia; but it was the previous work of Stein to establish free tradein land, --which means the removal of hindrances to the sale and purchaseof land, which still remains one of the abuses of England, --the ultimateeffect of which was to remove caste in land as well as caste in persons. 

The great educational movement, in the deepest depression of Prussianaffairs, was headed by William, Baron von Humboldt. When Prussia laydisarmed, dismembered, and impoverished, the University of Berlin wasfounded, the government contributing one hundred and fifty thousandthalers a year; and Humboldt--the first minister of publicinstruction--succeeded in inducing the most eminent and learned men inGermany to become professors in this new university. I look upon thiseducational movement in the most gloomy period of German history as oneof the noblest achievements which any nation ever made in the cause ofscience and literature. It took away the sting of military ascendency, and raised men of genius to an equality with nobles; and as theuniversities were the centres of liberal sentiments and all liberalizingideas, they must have exerted no small influence on the war ofliberation itself, as well as on the cause of patriotism, which was thefoundation of the future greatness of Prussia. Students flocked from allparts of Germany to hear lectures from accomplished and patrioticprofessors, who inculcated the love of fatherland. Germany, thoughfallen into the hands of a military hero from defects in theadministration of governments and armies, was not disgraced when herprofessors in the university were the greatest scholars of the world. They created a new empire, not of the air, as some one sneeringlyremarked, but of mind, which has gone on from conquering to conquer. Formore than fifty years German universities have been the centre ofEuropean thought and scholastic culture, --pedantic, perhaps, butoriginal and profound. 

Before proceeding to the main subject, I have to speak of one more greatreform, which was the work of Scharnhorst. This was that series ofmeasures which determined the result of the greatest military strugglesof the nineteenth century, and raised Prussia to the front rank ofmilitary monarchies. It was the _levee en masse_, composed of the youthof the nation, without distinction of rank, instead of an army made upof peasants and serfs and commanded by their feudal masters. Scharnhorstintroduced a compulsory system, indeed, but it was not unequal. Everyman was made to feel that he had a personal interest in defending hiscountry, and there were no exemptions made. True, the old system ofFrederic the Great was that of conscription; but from this conscriptionlarge classes and whole districts were exempted, while the soldiers whofought in the war of liberation were drawn from all classes alike:hence, there was no unjust compulsion, which weakens patriotism, andentails innumerable miseries. It was impossible in the utter exhaustionof the national finances to raise a sufficient number of volunteers tomeet the emergencies of the times; therefore, if Napoleon was to beoverthrown, it was absolutely necessary to compel everybody to serve inthe army for a limited period, The nation saw the necessity, and made noresistance. Thus patriotism lent her aid, and became an overwhelmingpower. The citizen soldier was no great burden on the government, sinceit was bound to his support only for a limited period, --long or short asthe exigency of the country demanded. Hence, large armies weremaintained at comparatively trifling expense. 

I need not go into the details of a system which made Prussia a nationof patriots as well as of soldiers, and which made Scharnhorst a greatnational benefactor, sharing with Stein the glory of a greatdeliverance. He did not live to see the complete triumph of his system, matured by genius and patient study; but his work remained to futuregenerations, and made Prussia invincible except to a coalition ofpowerful enemies. All this was done under the eye of Napoleon, and adreamy middle class became an effective soldiery. So, too, did thepeasants, no longer subjected to corporal punishment and otherhumiliations. What a great thing it was to restore dignity to a wholenation, and kindle the fires of patriotic ardor among poor and richalike! To the credit of the king, he saw the excellence of the newsystem, at once adopted it, and generously rewarded its authors. Scharnhorst, the peasant's son, was made a noble, and was retained inoffice until he died. Stein, however, whose overshadowing greatnesscreated jealousy, remained simply a baron, and spent his last days inretirement, --though not unhonored, or without influence, even when notoccupying the great offices of state, to which no man ever had a higherclaim. The king did not like him, and the king was still anabsolute monarch. 

Frederick William III. Was by no means a great man, being jealous, timid, and vacillating; but it was in his reign that Prussia laid thefoundation of her greatness as a military monarchy. It was not the kingwho laid this foundation, but the great men whom Providence raised up inthe darkest hours of Prussia's humiliation. He did one prudent thing, however, out of timidity, when his ministers waged vigorous andoffensive measures. He refused to arm against Napoleon when Prussia layat his mercy. This turned out to be the salvation of Prussia, A weakman's instincts proved to be wiser than the wisdom of the wise. WhenNapoleon's doom was sealed by his disasters in Russia, then, and nottill then, did the Prussian king unite with Russia and Austria to crushthe unscrupulous despot. 

The condition of Prussia, then, briefly stated, when Napoleon was sentto St. Helena to meditate and die, was this: a conquering army, of whichBlücher was one of its greatest generals, had been raised by the _leveeen masse_, --a conscription, indeed, not of peasants alone, obliged toserve for twenty years, but of the whole nation, for three years ofactive service; and a series of administrative reforms had beenintroduced and extended to every department of the State, by whichgreater economy and a more complete system were inaugurated, favoritismabolished, and the finances improved so as to support the government andfurnish the sinews of war; while alliances were made with great Powerswho hitherto had been enemies or doubtful friends. 

These alliances resulted in what is called the German Confederation, orBund, --a strict union of all the various States for defensive purposes, and also to maintain a general system to suppress revolutionary andinternal dissensions. Most of the German States entered into thisConfederacy, at the head of which was Austria. It was determined inJune, 1815, at Vienna, that the Confederacy should be managed by ageneral assembly, called a Diet, the seat of which was located atFrankfort. In this Diet the various independent States, thirty-nine innumber, had votes in proportion to their population, and were bound tocontribute troops of one soldier to every hundred inhabitants, amountingto three hundred thousand in all, of which Austria and Prussia andBavaria furnished more than half. This arrangement virtually gave toAustria and Prussia a preponderance in the Diet; and as the States wereimpoverished by the late war, and the people generally detested war, along peace of forty years (with a short interval of a year) was securedto Germany, during which prosperity returned and the population nearlydoubled. The Germans turned their swords into pruning-hooks, and allkinds of industry were developed, especially manufactures. The citieswere adorned with magnificent works of art, and libraries, schools, anduniversities covered the land. No nation ever made a more signalprogress in material prosperity than did the German States during thisperiod of forty years, --especially Prussia, which became in additionintellectually the most cultivated country in Europe, with twenty-onethousand primary schools, and one thousand academies, or gymnasia, inwhich mathematics and the learned languages were taught by accomplishedscholars; to say nothing of the universities, which drew students fromall Christian and civilized countries in both hemispheres. 

The rapid advance in learning, however, especially in the universitiesand the gymnasia, led to the discussion of innumerable subjects, including endless theories of government and the rights of man, by whichdiscontent was engendered and virtue was not advanced. Strange to say, even crime increased. The universities became hot-beds of politicalexcitement, duels, beer-drinking, private quarrels, and infideldiscussion, causing great alarm to conservative governments and topeaceful citizens generally. At last the Diet began to interfere, for itclaimed the general oversight of all internal affairs in the variousStates. An army of three hundred thousand men which obeyed the dictationof the Diet was not to be resisted; and as this Diet was controlled byAustria and Prussia, it became every year more despotic andanti-democratic. In consequence, the Press was gradually fettered, theuniversities were closely watched, and all revolutionary movements incities were suppressed. Discontent and popular agitations, as usual, went hand in hand. 

As early as 1818 the great reaction against all liberal sentiments inpolitical matters had fairly set in. The king of Prussia neglected, andfinally refused, to grant the constitutional government which he hadpromised in the day of his adversity before the battle of Waterloo;while Austria, guided by Metternich, stamped her iron heel on everythingwhich looked like intellectual or national independence. 

This memorable reaction against all progress in government, not confinedto the German States but extending to Europe generally, has already beenconsidered in previous chapters. It was the great political feature inthe history of Europe for ten years after the fall of Napoleon, particularly in Austria, where hatred of all popular movements ragedwith exceeding bitterness, intensified by the revolutions in Spain, Italy, and Greece. The assassination of Kotzebue, the dramatic author, by a political fanatic, for his supposed complicity with the despoticschemes of the Czar, kindled popular excitement into a blazing flame, but still more fiercely incited the sovereigns of Germany to make everyeffort to suppress even liberty of thought. 

During the period, then, when ultra-conservative principles animated theunited despots of the various German States, and the Diet controlled byMetternich repressed all liberal movements, little advance was made inPrussia in the way of reforms. But a great advance was made in allquestions of political economy and industrial matters. Free-trade wasestablished in the most unlimited sense between all the states andprovinces of the Confederation. All restraints were removed from thenavigation of rivers; new markets were opened in every direction for theproductions of industry. In 1839 the Zollverein, or Customs-Union, wasestablished, by which a uniform scale of duties was imposed in NorthernGermany on all imports and exports. But no political reforms which theking had promised were effected during the life of Frederick WilliamIII. Hardenberg, who with Stein had inaugurated liberal movements, hadlost his influence, although he was retained in power until he died. 

For the twenty years succeeding the confederation of the German Statesin 1820, constitutional freedom made little or no progress in Germany. The only advance made in Prussia was in 1823, when the ProvincialEstates, or Diets, were established. These, however, were the mereshadow of representative government, since the Estates were convoked atirregular intervals, and had neither the power to initiate laws norgrant supplies. They could only express their opinions concerningchanges in the laws pertaining to persons and property. 

On the 7th of June, 1840, Frederick William III. Of Prussia died, andwas succeeded by his son Frederick William IV. , a religious andpatriotic king, who was compelled to make promises for some sort ofconstitutional liberty, and to grant certain concessions, which althoughthey did not mean much gave general satisfaction. Among other things thefreedom of the Press was partially guaranteed, with certainrestrictions, and the Zollverein was extended to Brunswick andHesse-Homburg. Meantime the government entered with zeal upon theconstruction of railways and the completion of the Cathedral of Cologne, which tended to a more permanent union of the North German States. "Weare not engaged here, " said the new monarch, on the inauguration of thecompletion of that proudest work of mediaeval art, "with theconstruction of an ordinary edifice; it is a work bespeaking the spiritof union and concord which animates the whole of Germany and all itspersuasions, that we are now constructing. " This inauguration, amidimmense popular enthusiasm, was soon followed by the meeting of theEstates of the whole kingdom at Berlin, which for the first time unitedthe various Provincial Estates in a general Diet; but its functions werelimited to questions involving a diminution of taxation. No member wasallowed to speak more than once on any question, and the representativesof the commons were only a third part of the whole assembly. Thisnaturally did not satisfy the nation, and petitions flowed in for theabolition of the censorship of the Press and for the publicity ofdebate. The king was not prepared to make these concessions in full, but he abolished the censorship of the Press as to works extending toabove twenty pages, and enjoined the censors of lesser pamphlets andjournals to exercise gentleness and discretion, and not erase anythingwhich did not strike at the monarchy. At length, in 1847, the desire wasso universal for some form of representative government that a royaledict convoked a General Assembly of the Estates of Prussia, arranged infour classes, --the nobles, the equestrian order, the towns, and therural districts. The Diet consisted of six hundred and seventy members, of which only eighty were nobles, and was empowered to discuss allquestions pertaining to legislation; but the initiative of all measureswas reserved to the crown. This National Diet assembled on the 24th ofJuly, and was opened by the king in person, with a noble speech, remarkable for its elevation of tone. He convoked the Diet, the kingsaid, to make himself acquainted with the wishes and wants of hispeople, but not to change the constitution, which guaranteed an absolutemonarchy. The province of the Diet was consultative rather thanlegislative. Political and military power, as before, remained with theking. Still, an important step had been taken toward representativeinstitutions. 

It was about this time, as a member of the National Diet, that OttoEdward Leopold von Bismarck appeared upon the political stage. It was aperiod of great political excitement, not only in Prussia, butthroughout Europe, and also of great material prosperity. Railways hadbeen built, the Zollverein had extended through North Germany, theuniversities were in their glory, and into everything fearless thinkerswere casting their thoughtful eyes. Thirty-four years of peace hadenriched and united the German States. The great idea of the day waspolitical franchise. Everybody aspired to solve political problems, andwished to have a voice in deliberative assemblies. There was also anunusual agitation of religious ideas. Rouge had attempted the completeemancipation of Germany from Papal influences, and university professorsthrew their influence on the side of rationalism and popular liberty. Onthe whole, there was a general tendency towards democratic ideas, whichwas opposed with great bitterness by the conservative parties, made upof nobles and government officials. 

Bismarck arose, slowly but steadily, with the whole force of his genius, among the defenders of the conservative interests of his order and ofthe throne. He was then simply Herr von Bismarck, belonging to anancient and noble but not wealthy family, whose seat was Schönhausen, where the future prince was born, April 1, 1815. The youth was sent to agymnasium in Berlin in 1830, and in 1832 to the university of Göttingenin Hanover, where he was more distinguished for duels, drinking-parties, and general lawlessness than for scholarship. Here he formed a memorablefriendship with a brother student, a young American, --John LothropMotley, later the historian of the Dutch Republic. Much has been writtenof Bismarck's reckless and dissipated life at the university, whichdiffered not essentially from that of other nobles. He had a grandfigure, superb health, extraordinary animal spirits, and could ride likea centaur. He spent but three semestres at Göttingen, and then repairedto Berlin in order to study jurisprudence under the celebrated Savigny;but he was rarely seen in the lecture-room. He gave no promise of thegreat abilities which afterward distinguished him. Yet he honorablypassed his State examination; and as he had chosen the law for hisprofession, he first served on leaving the university as a sort of clerkin the city police, and in 1834 was transferred to Aix-la-Chapelle, inthe administrative department of the district. In 1837 he served in thecrown office at Potsdam. He then entered for a year as a sharpshooter ofthe Guards, to absolve his obligation to military service. 

The next eight years, from the age of twenty-four, he devoted tofarming, hunting, carousing, and reading, on one of his father's estatesin Pomerania. He was a sort of country squire, attending fairs, sellingwool, inspecting timber, handling grain, gathering rents, and sitting asa deputy in the local Diet, --the talk and scandal of the neighborhoodfor his demon-like rides and drinking-bouts, yet now studying all thewhile, especially history and even philosophy, managing the impoverishedpaternal estates with prudence and success, and making short visits toFrance and England, the languages of which countries he could speak withfluency and accuracy. In 1847 he married Johanna von Putkammer, nineyears younger than himself, who proved a model wife, domestic and wise, of whom he was both proud and fond. The same year, his father havingdied and left him Schönhausen, he was elected a member of the Landtag, aquasi-parliament of the eight united Diets of the monarchy; and hisgreat career began. 

Up to this period Bismarck was not a publicly marked man, except in anavidity for country sports and skill in horsemanship. He ever retainedhis love of the country and of country life. If proud and overbearing, he was not ostentatious. He had but few friends, but to these he wasfaithful. He never was popular until he had made Prussia the mostpowerful military State in Europe. He never sought to be loved so muchas to be feared; he never allowed himself to be approached withoutpoliteness and deference. He seemed to care more for dogs than men. Norwas he endowed with those graces of manner which marked Metternich. Heremained harsh, severe, grave, proud through his whole career, fromfirst to last, except in congenial company. What is called society hedespised, with all his aristocratic tendencies and high social rank. Hewas born for untrammelled freedom, and was always impatient undercontradiction or opposition. When he reached the summit of his power heresembled Wallenstein, the hero of the Thirty Years War, --superstitious, self-sustained, unapproachable, inspiring awe, rarely kindling love, overshadowing by his vast abilities the monarch whom he servedand ruled. 

No account of the man, however, would be complete which did notrecognize the corner-stone of his character, --an immovable belief in thefeudalistic right of royalty to rule its subjects. Descended from anancient family of knights and statesmen, of the most intenselyaristocratic and reactionary class even in Germany, his inheritedinstincts and his own tremendous will, backed by a physique of colossalsize and power, made effective his loyalty to the king and the monarchy, which from the first dominated and inspired him. In the National Diet of1847, Herr von Bismarck sat for more than a month before he opened hislips; but when he did speak it became evident that he was determined tosupport to the utmost the power of the crown. He was _plus royalisteque le roi. _ In the ordinary sense he was no orator. He hesitated, hecoughed, he sought for words; his voice, in spite of his herculeanframe, was feeble. But sturdy in his loyalty, although inexperienced inparliamentary usage, he offered a bold front to the liberalism which hesaw to be dangerous to his sovereign's throne. Like Oliver Cromwell inParliament, he gained daily in power, while, unlike the Englishstatesman, he was opposed to the popular side, and held up the monarchyafter the fashion of Strafford. From that time, and in fact until 1866, when he conquered Austria, Bismarck was very unpopular; and as he rosein power he became the most bitterly hated man in Prussia, --which hatredhe returned with arrogant contempt. He consistently opposed all reforms, even the emancipation of the Jews, which won him the favor ofthe monarch. 

When the revolution of 1848 broke out, which hurled Louis Philippe fromthe French throne its flames reached every continental State exceptRussia. Metternich, who had been all powerful in Austria for fortyyears, was obliged to flee, as well as the imperial family itself. Allthe Germanic States were now promised liberal constitutions by thefallen or dismayed princes. In Prussia, affairs were critical, and thereformers were sanguine of triumph. Berlin was agitated by mobs to theverge of anarchy. The king, seriously alarmed, now promised the boonwhich he had thus far withheld, and summoned the Second United Diet topave the way for a constituent assembly. In this constituent assemblyBismarck scorned to sit. For six months it sat squabbling and fighting, but accomplishing nothing. At last, Bismarck found it expedient to enterthe new parliament as a deputy, and again vigorously upheld the absolutepower of the crown. He did, indeed, accept the principle ofconstitutional government, but, as he frankly said, against his will, and only as a new power in the hands of the monarch to restrain popularagitation and maintain order. Through his influence the king refused theimperial crown offered by the Frankfort parliament, because he conceivedthat the parliament had no right to give it, that its acceptance wouldbe a recognition of national instead of royal sovereignty, and that itwould be followed probably by civil war. As time went on he became moreand more the leader of the conservatives. I need not enumerate thesubjects which came up for discussion in the new Prussian parliament, inwhich Bismarck exhibited with more force than eloquence his loyalty tothe crown, and a conservatism which was branded by the liberals asmediaeval. But his originality, his boldness, his fearlessness, hisrugged earnestness, his wit and humor, his biting sarcasm, hisfertility of resources, his knowledge of men and affairs, and hisdevoted patriotism, marked him out for promotion. 

In 1851 Bismarck was sent as first secretary of the Prussian embassy tothe Diet of the various German States, convened at Frankfort, in whichAustria held a predominating influence. It was not a parliament, but anadministrative council of the Germanic Confederation founded by theCongress of Vienna in 1815. It made no laws, and its sittings weresecret. It was a body which represented the League of Sovereigns, andwas composed of only seventeen delegates, --its main function being tosuppress all liberal movements in the various German States; like theCongress of Vienna itself. The Diet of Frankfort was pretentious, butpractically impotent, and was the laughingstock of Europe. It was fullof jealousies and intrigues. It was a mere diplomatic conference. AsAustria and Prussia controlled it, things went well enough when thesetwo Powers were agreed; but they did not often agree. There was aperpetual rivalry between them, and an unextinguishable jealousy. 

There were many sneers at the appointment of a man to this diplomaticpost whose manners were brusque and overbearing, and who had spent themost of his time, after leaving the university, among horses, cattle, and dogs; who was only a lieutenant of militia, with a singledecoration, and who was unacquainted with what is called diplomacy. Butthe king knew his man, and the man was conscious of his powers. 

Bismarck found life at Frankfort intolerably dull. He had a contempt forhis diplomatic associates generally, and made fun of them to his fewintimate friends. He took them in almost at a glance, for he had anintuitive knowledge of character; he weighed them in his balance, andfound them wanting. In a letter to his wife, he writes: "Nothing butmiserable trifles do these people trouble themselves about. They strikeme as infinitely more ridiculous with their important ponderosityconcerning the gathered rags of gossip, than even a member of the SecondChamber of Berlin in the full consciousness of his dignity. .. . The menof the minor States are mostly mere caricatures of periwig diplomatists, who at once put on their official visage if I merely beg of them a lightto my cigar. "

His extraordinary merits were however soon apparent to the king, andeven to his chief, old General Rochow, who was soon transferred to St. Petersburg to make way for the secretary. The king's brother William, Prince of Prussia, when at Frankfort, was much impressed by the youngPrussian envoy to the Bund, and there was laid the foundation of thefriendship between the future soldier-king and the future chancellor, between whom there always existed a warm confidence and esteem. Soonafter, Bismarck made the acquaintance of Metternich, who had ruled forso long a time both the Diet and the Empire. The old statesman, nowretired, invited the young diplomatist to his castle at Johannisberg. They had different aims, but similar sympathies. The Austrian statesmansought to preserve the existing state of things; the Prussian, to makehis country dominant over Germany. Both were aristocrats, and both wereconservative; but Metternich was as bland and polished as Bismarck wasrough and brusque. 

Nothing escaped the watchful eye of Bismarck at Frankfort as theambassador of Prussia. He took note of everything, both great and small, and communicated it to Berlin as if he were a newspaper correspondent. In everything he showed his sympathy with absolutism, and hencerecommended renewed shackles on the Press and on the universities, --atthat time the hotbed of revolutionary ideas. His central aim andconstant thought was the ascendency of Prussia, --first in royal strengthat home, then throughout Germany as the rival of Austria. Bismarck wasnot only a keen observer, but he soon learned to disguise his thoughts. Nobody could read him. He was frank when his opponents were full oflies, knowing that he would not be believed. He became a perfect masterof the art of deception. No one was a match for him in statecraft. EvenPrince Gortschakoff became his dupe. By his tact he kept Prussia frombeing entangled by the usurpation of Napoleon III. , and by the Crimeanwar. He saw into the character of the French emperor, and discoveredthat he was shallow, and not to be feared. At Frankfort, Bismarck hadmany opportunities of seeing distinguished men of all nations; he tooktheir gauge, and penetrated the designs of cabinets. He counselled hismaster to conciliate Napoleon, though regarding him as an upstart; andhe sought the friendship of France in order to eclipse the star ofAustria, whom it was necessary to humble before Prussia could rise. Inhis whole diplomatic career at Frankfort it was Bismarck's aim tocontravene the designs of Austria, having in view the aggrandizement ofPrussia as the true head and centre of German nationality. He thereforedid all he could to prevent Austria from being assisted in her war withItaly, and rejoiced in her misfortunes. In the meantime he made frequentshort visits to Holland, Denmark, Italy, and Hungary, acquired thelanguages of these countries, and made himself familiar with theirpeople and institutions, besides shrewdly studying the characters, manners, and diplomatic modes of the governing classes of Europeannations at large. Cool, untiring, self-possessed, he was storing upinformation and experience. 

At the end of eight years, in 1859, Bismarck was transferred to St. Petersburg as the Prussian ambassador to Alexander II. He was thenforty-three years of age, and was known as the sworn foe of Austria. Hisfree-and-easy but haughty manners were a great contrast to those of hisstiff, buttoned-up, and pretentious predecessors; and he became a greatfavorite in Russian court circles. The comparatively small salary hereceived, --less than twenty thousand dollars, with a house, --would notallow him to give expensive entertainments, or to run races inprodigality with the representatives of England, France, or evenAustria, who received nearly fifty thousand dollars. But no parties weremore sought or more highly appreciated than those which his sensible andunpretending wife gave in the high society in which they moved. With theempress-dowager he was an especial favorite, and was just the sort ofman whom the autocrat of all the Russias would naturally like, especially for his love of hunting, and his success in shooting deer andbears. He did not go to grand parties any more than he could help, despising their ostentation and frivolity, and always feeling theworse for them. 

On the 2d of January, 1861, Frederick William IV. , who had for some timebeen insane, died, and was succeeded by the Prince Regent, William I. , already in his sixty-fifth year, every inch a soldier and nothing else. Bismarck was soon summoned to the councils of his sovereign at Berlin, who was perplexed and annoyed by the Liberal party, which had theascendency in the lower Chamber of the general Diet. Office was pressedupon Bismarck, but before he accepted it he wished to study Napoleon andFrench affairs more closely, and was therefore sent as ambassador toParis in 1862. He made that year a brief visit to London, Disraeli beingthen the premier, who smiled at his schemes for the regeneration ofGermany. It was while journeying amid the Pyrenees that Bismarck wasagain summoned to Berlin, the lower Chamber having ridden rough-shodover his Majesty's plans for army reform. The king invested him with thegreat office of President of the Ministry, his abilities beinguniversally recognized. 

It was now Bismarck's mission to break the will of the Prussianparliament, and to thrust Austria out of the Germanic body. Heconsidered only the end in view, caring nothing for the means: he had noscruples. It was his religion to raise Prussia to the same ascendencythat Austria had held under Metternich. He had a master whose will andambition were equal to his own, yet whose support he was sure of incarrying out his grand designs. He was now a second Richelieu, to whomthe aggrandizement of the monarchy which he served and the welfare ofFatherland were but convertible terms. He soon came into bitterconflict, not with nobles, but with progressive liberals in the Chamber, who detested him and feared him, but to whom he did not condescend toreveal his plans, --bearing obloquy with placidity in the greatness ofthe end he had in view. He was a self-sustained, haughty, unapproachableman of power, except among the few friends whom he honored as booncompanions, without ever losing his discretion, --wearing a mask withapparent frankness, and showing real frankness in matters which did notconcern secrets of state, especially on the subjects of education andreligion. Like his master, he was more a Calvinist than a Lutheran. Heopenly avowed his dependence on Almighty God, and on him alone, as thehope of nations. In this respect we trace a resemblance to OliverCromwell rather than to Frederic the Great. Bismarck was a compound ofboth, in his patriotism and his unscrupulousness. 

The first thing that King William and his minister did was to double thearmy. But this vast increase of military strength seemed unnecessary tothe Liberal party, and the requisite increase of taxes to support it wasunpopular. Hence, Bismarck was brought in conflict with the lowerChamber, which represented the middle classes. He dared not tell hissecret schemes without imperilling their success, which led to gravemisunderstandings. For four years the conflict raged between the crownand the parliament, both the king and Bismarck being inflexible; and thelower House was equally obstinate in refusing to grant the largemilitary supplies demanded. At last, Bismarck dissolved the Chambers, and the king declared that as the Three Estates could not agree, heshould continue to do his duty by Prussia without regard to "thesepieces of paper called constitutions. " The next four sessions of theChamber were closed in the same manner. Bismarck admitted that he wasacting unconstitutionally, but claimed the urgency of public necessity. In the public debates he was cool, sarcastic, and contemptuous. ThePress took up the fight, and the Press was promptly muzzled. Bismarckwas denounced as a Catiline, a Strafford, a Polignac; but he retained aprovoking serenity, and quietly prepared for war, --since war, heforesaw, was sooner or later inevitable. "Nothing can solve thequestion, " said he, "but blood and iron. "

At last an event occurred which showed his hand. In November, 1863, Frederick VII. , the king of Denmark, died. By his death theSchleswig-Holstein question again burst upon distracted Europe, --Who wasto reign over the two Danish provinces? The king of Denmark, as Duke ofSchleswig and Holstein, had been represented in the Germanic Diet. Bythe treaty of London, in 1852, he had undertaken not to incorporate theduchies with the rest of his monarchy, allowing them to retain theirtraditional autonomy. In 1863, shortly before his death, Frederick VII. By a decree dissolved this autonomy, and virtually incorporatedSchleswig, which was only partly German, with the Danish monarchy, leaving the wholly German Holstein as before. Bismarck protested againstthis violation of treaty obligations. The Danish parliament neverthelesspassed a law which incorporated the province with Denmark; and ChristianIX. , the new monarch, confirmed the law. 

But a new claimant to the duchies now appeared in the person ofFrederick of Augustenburg, a German prince; and the Prussian Chamberadvocated his claims, as did the Diet itself; but the throne held itsopinion in reserve. Bismarck contrived (by what diplomatic tricks andpromises it is difficult to say) to induce Austria to join with Prussiain seizing the provinces in question and in dividing the spoil betweenthem. As these two Powers controlled the Diet at Frankfort, it was easyto carry out the programme. An Austro-Prussian army accordingly invadedSchleswig-Holstein, and to the scandal of all Europe drove the Danishdefenders to the wall. It was regarded in the same light as the seizureof Silesia by Frederic the Great, --a high-handed and unscrupulousviolation of justice and right. England was particularly indignant, anduttered loud protests. So did the lesser States of Germany, jealous ofthe aggrandizement of Prussia. Even the Prussian Chamber refused togrant the money for such an enterprise. 

But Bismarck laughed in his sleeve. This arch-diplomatist had hisreasons, which he did not care to explain. He had in view the weakeningof the power of the Diet, and a quarrel with Austria. True, he hadembraced Austria, but after the fashion of a bear. He knew that Austriaand Prussia would wrangle about the division of the spoil, which wouldlead to misunderstandings, and thus furnish the pretext for a war, whichhe felt to be necessary before Prussia could be aggrandized and Germanunity be effected, with Prussia at its head, --the two great objects ofhis life. His policy was marvellously astute; but he kept his owncounsels, and continued to hug his secret enemy. 

On the 30th of October, 1864, the Treaty of Vienna was signed, by whichit was settled that the king of Denmark should surrenderSchleswig-Holstein and Lauenburg to Austria and Prussia, and he boundhimself to submit to what their majesties might think fit as to thedisposition of these three duchies. Probably both parties sought anoccasion to quarrel, since their commissioners had received oppositeinstructions, --the Austrians defending the claims of Frederick ofAugustenburg, as generally desired in Germany, and the Prussians nowopposing them. Prussia demanded the expulsion of the pretender; to whichAustria said no. Prussia further sounded Austria as to the annexation ofthe duchies to herself, to which Austria consented, on condition ofreceiving an equivalent of some province in Silesia. "What!" thoughtBismarck, angrily, "give you back part of what was won for Prussia byFrederic the Great? Never!" Affairs had a gloomy look; but war wasaverted for a while by the Convention of Gastein, by which thepossession of Schleswig was assigned to Prussia, and Holstein toAustria; and further, in consideration of two and a half millions ofdollars, the Emperor Francis Joseph ceded to King William all his rightsof co-proprietorship in the Duchy of Lauenburg. 

But the Chamber of Berlin boldly declared this transaction to be nulland void, since the country had not been asked to ratify the treaty. Itmust be borne in mind that the conflict was still going on betweenBismarck, as the defender of the absolute sovereignty of the king, andthe liberal and progressive members of the Chamber, who wanted a freerand more democratic constitution. Opposed, then, by the Chamber, Bismarck dissolved it, and coolly reminded his enemies that the Chamberhad nothing to do with politics, --only with commercial affairs andmatters connected with taxation. This was the period of his greatestunpopularity, since his policy and ultimate designs were notcomprehended. So great was the popular detestation in which he was heldthat a fanatic tried to kill him in the street, but only succeeded inwounding him slightly. 

In the meantime Austria fomented disaffection in the provinces whichPrussia had acquired, and Bismarck resolved to cut the knot by thesword. Prussian troops marched to the frontier, and Austria on her partalso prepared for war. It is difficult to see that a real _casus belli_existed. We only know that both parties wanted to fight, whatever weretheir excuses and pretensions; and both parties sought the friendship ofRussia and France, especially by holding out delusive hopes to Napoleonof accession of territory. They succeeded in inducing both Russia andFrance to remain neutral, --mere spectators of the approaching contest, which was purely a German affair. It was the first care of Prussia toprevent the military union of her foes in North Germany with her foes inthe south, --which was effected in part by the diplomatic genius ofBismarck, and in part by occupying the capitals of Hanover, Saxony, andHesse-Cassel with Prussian troops, in a very summary way. 

The encounter now began in earnest between Prussia and Austria for theprize of ascendency. Both parties were confident of success, --Austria asthe larger State, with proud traditions, triumphant over rebelliousItaly; and Prussia, with its enlarged military organization and the newbreech-loading needle-gun. 

Count von Moltke at this time came prominently on the European stage asthe greatest strategist since Napoleon. He was chief of staff to theking, who was commander-in-chief. He set his wonderful machinery inharmonious action, and from his office in Berlin moved his militarypawns by touch of electric wire. Three great armies were sooncentralized in Bohemia, --one of three corps, comprising one hundredthousand men, led by Prince Charles, the king's nephew; the second, offour corps, of one hundred and sixteen thousand men, commanded by thecrown prince, the king's son; and the third, of forty thousand, led byGeneral von Bittenfield. "March separately; strike together, " were theorders of Moltke. Vainly did the Austrians attempt to crush these armiesin detail before they should combine at the appointed place. On theycame, with mathematical accuracy, until two of the armies reachedGitschin, the objective point, where they were joined by the king, byMoltke, by Bismarck, and by General von Roon, the war minister. On the2d of June, 1866, they were opposite Königgrätz (or Sadowa, as theAustrians called it), where the Austrians were marshalled. On the 3d ofJuly the battle began; and the scales hung pretty evenly until, at theexpected hour, the crown prince--"our Fritz, " as the peopleaffectionately called him after this, later the Emperor FrederickWilliam--made his appearance on the field with his army. Assailed onboth flanks and pressed in the centre, the Austrians first began toslacken fire, then to waver, then to give way under the terrificconcentrated fire of the needle-guns, then to retreat into ignominiousflight. The contending forces were about equal; but science and theneedle-gun won the day, and changed the whole aspect of modern warfare. The battle of Königgrätz settled this point, --that success in wardepends more on good powder and improved weapons than on personalbravery or even masterly evolutions. Other things being equal, victoryis almost certain to be on the side of the combatants who have the bestweapons. The Prussians won the day of Königgrätz by their breech-loadingguns, although much was due to their superior organization andsuperior strategy. 

That famous battle virtually ended the Austro-Prussian campaign, whichlasted only about seven weeks. It was one of those "decisive battles"that made Prussia the ascendent power in Germany, and destroyed theprestige of Austria. It added territory to Prussia equal to one quarterof the whole kingdom, and increased her population by four and a halfmillions of people. At a single bound, Prussia became a first-classmilitary State. 

The Prussian people were almost frantic with joy; and Bismarck, frombeing the most unpopular man in the nation, became instantly a nationalidol. His marvellous diplomacy, by which Austria was driven to thebattlefield, was now seen and universally acknowledged. He obtainedfame, decorations, and increased power. A grateful nation granted to himfour hundred thousand thalers, with which he bought the estate ofVarzin. General von Moltke received three hundred thousand thalers andimmense military prestige. The war minister, Von Roon, also receivedthree hundred thousand thalers. These three stood out as the three mostprominent men of the nation, next to the royal family. 

Never was so short a war so pregnant with important consequences. Itconsolidated the German Confederation under Prussian dominance. Byweakening Austria it led to the national unity of Italy, and securedfree government to the whole Austrian empire, since that governmentcould no longer refuse the demands of Hungary. Above all, "it shatteredthe fabric of Ultramontanism which had been built up by the concordatof 1853. "

It was the expectation of Napoleon III that Austria would win in thiswar; but the loss of the Austrians was four to one, besides herhumiliation, condemned as she was to pay a war indemnity, with the lossalso of the provinces of Schleswig-Holstein, Hanover, Hesse-Cassel, Nassau, and Frankfort. But Bismarck did not push Austria to the wall, since he did not wish to make her an irreconcilable enemy. He left opena door for future and permanent peace. He did not desire to ruin hisfoe, but simply to acquire the lead in German politics and excludeAustria from the Germanic Confederation. Napoleon, disappointed andfurious, blustered, and threatened war, unless he too could come in fora share of the plunder, to which he had no real claim. Bismarck calmlyreplied, "Well, then, let there be war, " knowing full well that Francewas not prepared, Napoleon consulted his marshals, "Are we prepared, "asked he, "to fight all Germany?" "Certainly not, " replied the marshals, "until our whole army, like that of Prussia, is supplied with abreech-loader; until our drill is modified to suit the new weapon; untilour fortresses are in a perfect state of preparedness, and until wecreate a mobile and efficient national reserve. "

When Carlyle heard the news of the great victories of Prussia, he wroteto a friend, "Germany is to stand on her feet henceforth, and face allmanner of Napoleons and hungry, sponging dogs, with clear steel in herhand and an honest purpose in her heart. This seems to me the best newswe or Europe have heard for the last forty years or more. "

The triumphal return of the Prussian troops to Berlin was followed onthe 24th of February, 1867, by the opening of the first North Germanparliament, --three hundred deputies chosen from the various alliedStates by universal suffrage. Twenty-two States north of the Main formedthemselves into a perpetual league for the protection of the Union andits institutions. Legislative power was to be invested in twobodies, --the Reichstag, representing the people; and the Bundesrath, composed of delegates from the allied governments, the perpetualpresidency of which was invested in the king of Prussia. He was alsoacknowledged as the commander-in-chief of the united armies; and thestanding army, on a peace footing, was fixed at one per cent of all theinhabitants. This constitution was drawn by Bismarck himself, notunwilling, under the unquestioned supremacy of his monarch, to utilizethe spirit of the times, and admit the people to a recognized support ofthe crown. 

Thus Germany at last acquired a liberal constitution, though not so freeand broad as that of England. The absolute control of the army and navy, the power to make treaties and declare peace and war, the appointmentof all the great officers of state, and the control of education andother great interests still remained with the king. The functions of thelower House seemed to be mostly confined to furnishing the sinews of warand government, --the granting of money and the regulation of taxes. Meanwhile, secret treaties of alliance were concluded with the southernStates of Germany, offensive and defensive, in case of war, --anotherstroke of diplomatic ability on the part of Bismarck; for the intriguesof Napoleon had been incessant to separate the southern from thenorthern States, --in other words, to divide Germany, which the Frenchemperor was sanguine he could do. With a divided Germany, he believedthat he was more than a match for the king of Prussia, as soon as hismilitary preparations should be made. Could he convert these States intoallies, he was ready for war. He was intent upon securing for Franceterritorial enlargements equal to those of Prussia. He could no longerexpect any thing on the Rhine, and he turned his eyes to Belgium. 

The war-cloud arose on the political horizon in 1867, when Napoleonsought to purchase from the king of Holland the Duchy of Luxemburg, which was a personal fief of his kingdom, though it was inhabited byGermans, and which made him a member of the Germanic Confederation if hechose to join it. In the time of Napoleon I. Luxemburg was defended byone of the strongest fortresses in Europe, garrisoned by Prussiantroops; it was therefore a menace to France on her northeasternfrontier. As Napoleon III, promised a very big sum of money for thisduchy, with a general protectorate of Holland in case of Prussianaggressions, the king of Holland was disposed to listen to the proposalof the French emperor; but when it was discovered that an alliance ofthe southern States had been made with the northern States of Germany, which made Prussia the mistress of Germany, the king of Holland becamealarmed, and declined the French proposals. The chagrin of the emperorand the wrath of the French nation became unbounded. Again they had beenfoiled by the arch-diplomatist of Prussia. 

All this was precisely what Bismarck wanted. Confident of the power ofPrussia, he did all he could to drive the French nation to frenzy. Heworked on a vainglorious, excitable, and proud people, at the height oftheir imperial power. Napoleon was irresolute, although it appeared tohim that war with Prussia was the only way to recover his prestige afterthe mistakes of the Mexican expedition. But Mexico had absorbed themarrow of the French army, and the emperor was not quite ready for war. He must find some pretence for abandoning his designs on Luxemburg, anyattempt to seize which would be a plain _casus belli_. Both parties wereanxious to avoid the initiative of a war which might shake Europe to itscentre. Both parties pretended peace; but both desired war. 

Napoleon, a man fertile in resources, in order to avoid immediatehostilities looked about for some way to avoid what he knew waspremature; so he proposed submitting the case to arbitration, and thePowers applied themselves to extinguish the gathering flames. Theconference--composed of representatives of England, France, Russia, Austria, Prussia, Holland, and Belgium--met in London; and the result ofit was that Prussia agreed to withdraw her garrison from Luxemburg andto dismantle the fortress, while the duchy was to continue to be amember of the German Zollverein, or Customs Union. King William waswilling to make this concession to the cause of humanity; and hisminister, rather than go against the common sentiment of Europe, reluctantly conceded this point, which, after all, was not of paramountimportance. Thus was war prevented for a time, although everybody knewthat it was inevitable, sooner or later. 

The next three years Bismarck devoted himself to diplomatic intrigues inorder to cement the union of the German States, --for the Luxemburgtreaty was well known to be a mere truce, --and Napoleon did the same toweaken the union. In the meantime King William accepted an invitation ofNapoleon to visit Paris at the time of the Great Exposition; and thitherhe went, accompanied by Counts Bismarck and Moltke. The party was soonafter joined by the Czar, accompanied by Prince Gortschakoff, who hadthe reputation of being the ablest diplomatist in Europe, next toBismarck. The meeting was a sort of carnival of peace, hollow andpretentious, with fêtes and banquets and military displays innumerable. The Prussian minister amused himself by feeling the national pulse, while Moltke took long walks to observe the fortifications of Paris. When his royal guests had left, Napoleon travelled to Salzburg to meetthe Austrian emperor, ostensibly to condole with him for the unfortunatefate of Maximilian in Mexico, but really to interchange political ideas. Bismarck was not deceived, and openly maintained that the military andcommercial interests of north and south Germany were identical. 

In April, 1868, the Customs Parliament assembled in Berlin, as the firstrepresentative body of the entire nation that had as yet met. Thoughconvoked to discuss tobacco and cotton, the real object was to pave theway for "the consummation of the national destinies. "

Bismarck meanwhile conciliated Hanover, whose sovereign, King George, had been dethroned, by giving him a large personal indemnity, and bygranting home rule to what was now a mere province of Prussia. InBerlin, he resisted in the Reichstag the constitutional encroachmentswhich the Liberal party aimed at, --ever an autocrat rather thanminister, having no faith in governmental responsibility to parliament. Only one master he served, and that was the king, as Richelieu servedLouis XIII. Nor would he hear of a divided ministry; affairs were toocomplicated to permit him to be encumbered by colleagues. He maintainedthat public affairs demanded quickness, energy, and unity of action; andit was certainly fortunate for Germany in the present crisis that theforeign policy was in the hands of a single man, and that man so able, decided, and astute as Bismarck. 

All the while secret preparations for war went on in both Prussia andFrance. French spies overran the Rhineland, and German draughtsmen werebusy in the cities and plains of Alsace-Lorraine. France had at lastarmed her soldiers with the breech-loading chassepot gun, by manythought to be superior to the needle-gun; and she had in additionsecretly constructed a terrible and mysterious engine of war called_mitrailleuse_, --a combination of gun-barrels fired by mechanism. Thesewere to effect great results. On paper, four hundred and fifty thousandmen were ready to rush as an irresistible avalanche on the Rhineprovinces. To the distant observer it seemed that France would gain aneasy victory, and once again occupy Berlin. Besides her supposedmilitary forces, she still had a great military prestige. Prussia haddone nothing of signal importance for forty years except to fight theduel with Austria; but France had done the same, and had signallyconquered at Solferino. Yet during forty years Prussia had beenorganizing her armies on the plan which Scharnhorst had furnished, andhad four hundred and fifty thousand men under arms, --not on paper, butreally ready for the field, including a superb cavalry force. The combatwas to be one of material forces, guided by science. 

I have said that only a pretext was needed to begin hostilities. Thispretext on the part of the French was that their ambassador to Berlin, Benedetti, was reported to have been insulted by the king. He was notinsulted. The king simply refused to have further parley with anarrogant ambassador, and referred him to his government, --which was theproper thing to do. On this bit of scandal the French politicians--thepeople who led the masses--lashed themselves into fury, and demandedimmediate war. Napoleon could not resist the popular pressure, and warwas proclaimed. The arrogant demand of Napoleon, through his ambassadorBenedetti, that the king of Prussia should agree never to permit hisrelative, Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern, to accept the vacant throne ofSpain, to which he had been elected by the provisional government ofthat country, was the occasion of King William's curt reception of theFrench envoy; for this was an insulting demand, not to be endured. Itwas no affair of Napoleon, especially since the prince had alreadydeclined the throne at the request of the king of Prussia, as the headof the Hohenzollern family. But the French nation generally, theCatholic Church party working through the Empress Eugenie, and, aboveall, the excitable Parisians, goaded by the orators and the Press, sawthe possibility of an extension of the Roman empire of Charles V. , underthe control of Prussia; and Napoleon was driven to the fatal course, first, of making the absurd demand, and then--in spite of a wholesomeirresolution, born of his ignorance concerning his own militaryforces--of resenting its declinature with war. 

In two weeks the German forces were mobilized, and the colossalorganization, in three great armies, all directed by Moltke as chief ofstaff to the commander-in-chief, the still vigorous old man who ruledand governed at Berlin, were on their way to the seat of war. AtMayence, the king in person, on the 2d of August, 1870, assumed commandof the united German armies; and in one month from that date Prance wasprostrate at his feet. 

It would be interesting to detail the familiar story; but my limits willnot permit. I can only say that the three armies of the German forces, each embracing several corps, were, one under the command of GeneralSteinmetz, another under Prince Frederic Charles, and the third underthe crown prince, --and all under the orders of Moltke, who representedthe king. The crown prince, on the extreme left, struck the first blowat Weissenburg, on the 4th of August; and on the 6th he assaultedMcMahon at Worth, and drove back his scattered forces, --partly onChalons, and partly on Strasburg; while Steinmetz, commanding the rightwing, nearly annihilated Frossard's corps at Spicheren. It was now theaim of the French under Bazaine, who commanded two hundred and fiftythousand men near Metz, to join McMahon's defeated forces. This wasfrustrated by Moltke in the bloody battle of Gravelotte, compellingBazaine to retire within the lines of Metz, the strongest fortress inFrance, which was at once surrounded by Prince Charles. Meanwhile, thecrown prince continued the pursuit of McMahon, who had found itimpossible to effect a junction with Bazaine. At Sedan the armies met;but as the Germans were more than twice the number of the French, andhad completely surrounded them, the struggle was useless, --and theFrench, with the emperor himself, were compelled to surrender asprisoners of war. Thus fell Napoleon's empire. 

After the battle of Sedan, one of the decisive battles of history, theGermans advanced rapidly to Paris, and King William took up his quartersat Versailles, with his staff and his councillor Bismarck, who hadattended him day by day through the whole campaign, and conducted thenegotiations of the surrender. Paris, defended by strong fortifications, resolved to sustain a siege rather than yield, hoping that somethingmight yet turn up by which the besieged garrison should be relieved, --aforlorn hope, as Paris was surrounded, especially on the fall of Metz, by nearly half a million of the best soldiers in the world. Yet thatmemorable siege lasted five months, and Paris did not yield untilreduced by extreme, famine; and perhaps it might have held out muchlonger if it could have been provisioned. But this was not to be. TheGermans took the city as Alaric had taken Rome, without much wasteof blood. 

The conquerors were now inexorable, and demanded a war indemnity of fivemilliards of francs, and the cession of Metz and the two province ofAlsace-Lorraine (which Louis XIV had formerly wrested away), includingStrasburg. Eloquently but vainly did old Thiers plead for better terms;but he pleaded with men as hard as iron, who exacted, however, no morethan Napoleon III would have done had the fortune of war enabled him toreach Berlin as the conqueror. War is hard under any circumstances, butnever was national humiliation more complete than when the Prussian flagfloated over the Arc de Triomphe, and Prussian soldiers defiledbeneath it. 

Nothing was now left for the aged Prussian king but to put upon his headthe imperial crown of Germany, for all the German States were finallyunited under him. The scene took place at Versailles in the Hall ofMirrors, in probably the proudest palace ever erected since the days ofNebuchadnezzar. Surrounded by princes and generals, Chancellor Bismarckread aloud the Proclamation of the Empire, and the new German emperorgave thanks to God. It was a fitting sequence to the greatest militarysuccess since Napoleon crushed the German armies at Jena and Austerlitz. The tables at last were turned, and the heavy, phlegmatic, intelligentTeutons triumphed over the warlike and passionate Celts. So much for thegenius of the greatest general and the greatest diplomatist that Europehad known for half-a-century. 

Bismarck's rewards for his great services were magnificent, quite equalto those of Wellington or Marlborough. He received another valuableestate, this time from his sovereign, which gift made him one of thegreatest landed proprietors of Prussia; he was created a Prince; he wasdecorated with the principal orders of Europe; he had augmented power aschancellor of confederated Germany; he was virtual dictator of hiscountry, which he absolutely ruled in the name of a wearied old manpassed seventy years of age. But the minister's labors and vexations donot end with the Franco-German war During the years that immediatelyfollow, he is still one of the hardest-worked men in Europe. He receivesone thousand letters and telegrams a day. He has to manage anunpractical legislative assembly, clamorous for new privileges, andattend to the complicated affairs of a great empire, and direct hisdiplomatic agents in every country of Europe. He finds that the sanctumof a one-man power is not a bed of roses. Sometimes he seeks rest andrecreation on one of his estates, but labors and public duties followhim wherever he goes. He is too busy and preoccupied even for pleasure, unless he is hunting boars and stags. He seems to care but little forart of any kind, except music; but once in his life has he ever visitedthe Museum of Berlin; he never goes to the theatre. He appears as littleas possible in the streets, but when recognized he is stared at as awonder. He lives hospitably but plainly, and in a palace with fewornaments or luxuries. He enshrouds himself in mystery, but not ingloom. Few dare approach him, for his manners are brusque and rough, andhe is feared more even than he is honored. His aspect is stern andhaughty, except when he occasionally unbends. In his family he issimple, frank, and domestic; but in public he is the cold and imperativedictator. Even the royal family are uncomfortable in his commanding andmajestic presence; everybody stands in awe of him but his wife andchildren. He caresses only his dogs. He eats but once a day, but hismeal is enough for five men; he drinks a quart of beer or wine withouttaking the cup from his mouth; he smokes incessantly, generally a longTurkish pipe. He sleeps irregularly, disturbed by thoughts which fillhis troubled brain. Honored is the man who is invited to his table, evenif he be the ambassador of a king; for at table the host is frank andcourteous, and not overbearing like a literary dictator. He is well readin history, but not in art or science or poetry. His stories areadmirable when he is in convivial mood; all sit around him in silentadmiration, for no one dares more than suggest the topic, --he does allthe talking himself. Bayard Taylor, when United States minister atBerlin, was amazed and confounded by his freedom of speech and apparentcandor. He is frank in matters he does not care to conceal, and simpleas a child when not disputed or withstood; but when opposed fierce as alion, --a spoiled man of success, yet not intoxicated with power. Haughtyand irritable, perhaps, but never vain like a French statesman inoffice, --a Webster rather than a Thiers. 

Such was the man who ruled the German empire with an iron hand fortwenty years or more, --the most remarkable man of power known to historyfor seventy-five years; immortal like Cavour, and for his services evenmore than his abilities. He had raised Prussia to the front rank amongnations, and created German unity. He had quietly effected more thanRichelieu ever aspired to perform; for Richelieu sought only to build upa great throne, while Bismarck had united a great nation in patrioticdevotion to Fatherland, which, so far as we can see, is as invincible asit is enlightened, --enlightened in everything except indemocratic ideas. 

I will not dwell on the career and character of Prince Bismarck sincethe Franco-Prussian war. After that he was not identified with any greatnational movements which command universal interest. His labors wereprincipally confined to German affairs, --quarrels with the Reichstag, settlement of difficulties with the various States of the GermanicConfederation, the consolidation of the internal affairs of the empirewhile he carried on diplomatic relations with other great Powers, efforts to gain the good-will of Russia and secure the general peace ofEurope. These, and a multitude of other questions too recent to becalled historical, he dealt with, in all of which his autocraticsympathies called out the censures of the advocates of greater liberty, and diminished his popularity. For twenty years his will was the law ofthe German Confederation; though bitterly opposed at times by theLiberals, he was always sustained by his imperial master, who threw theburdens of State on his herculean shoulders, sometimes too great to bearwith placidity. His foreign policy was then less severely criticisedthan his domestic, which was alternate success and failure. 

The war which he waged with the spiritual power was perhaps the mostimportant event of his administration, and in which he had notaltogether his own way, underrating, as is natural to such a man, spiritual forces as compared with material. In his memorable quarrelwith Rome he appeared to the least advantage, --at first rigid, severe, and arbitrary with the Catholic clergy, even to persecution, drivingaway the Jesuits (1872), shutting up schools and churches, imprisoningand fining ecclesiastical dignitaries, intolerant in some cases as theInquisition itself. One-fourth of the people of the empire areCatholics, yet he sternly sought to suppress their religious rights andliberties as they regarded them, thinking he could control them bymaterial penalties, --such as taking away their support, and shuttingthem up in prison, --forgetting that conscientious Christians, whetherCatholics or Protestants, will in matters of religion defy the mightiestrulers. No doubt the policy of the Catholics of Germany was extremelyirritating to a despotic ruler who would exalt the temporal over thespiritual power; and equally true was it that the Pope himself wasunyielding in regard to the liberties of his church, demandingeverything and giving back nothing, in accordance with the uniformtraditions of Papal domination. The Catholics, the world over, look uponthe education of their children as a thing to be superintended by theirown religious teachers, --as their inalienable right and imperative duty;and any State interference with this right and this duty they regard asreligious persecution, to which they will never submit without hostilityand relentless defiance. Bismarck felt that to concede to the demandswhich the Catholic clergy ever have made in respect to religiousprivileges was to "go to Canossa, "--where Henry IV. Emperor of Germany, in 1077, humiliated himself before Pope Gregory VII. In order to gainabsolution. The long-sighted and experienced Thiers remarked that hereBismarck was on the wrong track, and would be compelled to retreat, with all his power. Bismarck was too wise a man to persist in attemptingimpossibilities, and after a bitter fight he became conciliatory. He didnot "go to Canossa, " but he yielded to the dictates of patriotism andenlightened policy, and the quarrel was patched up. 

His long struggles with the Catholics told upon his health and spirits, and he was obliged to seek long periods of rest and recreation on hisestates, --sometimes, under great embarrassments and irritations, threatening to resign, to which his imperial master, grateful anddependent, would never under any circumstances consent. But theprince-president of the ministers and chancellor of the empire wasloaded down with duties--in his cabinet, in his office, and in theparliament--most onerous to bear, and which no other man in Germany wasequal to. His burdens at times were intolerable: his labors wereprodigious, and the opposition he met with was extremely irritating to aman accustomed to have his own way in everything. 

Another thing gave him great solicitude, taxed to the utmost his fertilebrain; and that was the rising and wide-spreading doctrines ofSocialism, --which was to Germany what Nihilism is to Russia andFenianism was to Ireland; based on discontent, unbelief, and desperateschemes of unpractical reform, leading to the assassination even ofemperors themselves. How to deal with this terrible foe to allgovernments, all laws, and all institutions was a most perplexingquestion. At first he was inclined to the most rigorous measures, to awar of utter extermination; but how could he deal with enemies he couldneither see nor find, omnipresent and invisible, and unscrupulous assatanic furies, --fanatics whom no reasoning could touch and no lawscontrol, whether human or divine? As experience and thought enlarged hismental vision, he came to the conclusion that the real source and springof that secret and organized hostility which he deplored, but was unableto reach and to punish, were evils in government and evils in thestructure of society, --aggravating inequality, grinding poverty, ignorance, and the hard struggle for life. Accordingly, he devoted hisenergies to improve the general condition of the people, and make thestruggle for life easier. In his desire to equalize burdens he resortedto indirect rather than direct taxation, --to high tariffs and protectiveduties to develop German industry; throwing to the winds his earlierbeliefs in the theories of the Manchester school of political economy, and all speculative ideas as to the blessings of free-trade for theuniverse in general. He bought for the government the various Prussianrailroads, in order to have uniformity of rates and remove vexatiousdiscriminations, which only a central power could effect. In short, heaimed to develop the material resources of the country, both to insurefinancial prosperity and to remove those burdens which press heavilyon the poor. 

On one point, however, his policy was inexorable; and that was to sufferno reduction of the army, but rather to increase it to the utmost extentthat the nation could bear, --not with the view of future conquests ormilitary aggrandizement, as some thought, but as an imperative necessityto guard the empire from all hostile attacks, whether from France orRussia, or both combined. A country surrounded with enemies as Germanyis, in the centre of Europe, without the natural defences of the seawhich England enjoys, or great chains of mountains on her bordersdifficult to penetrate and easy to defend, as is the case withSwitzerland, must have a superior military force to defend her, in caseof future contingencies which no human wisdom can foresee. Nor is itsuch a dreadful burden to support a peace establishment of four hundredand fifty thousand men as some think, --one soldier for every one hundredinhabitants, trained and disciplined to be intelligent and industriouswhen his short term of three years of active service shall have expired:much easier to bear, I fancy, than the burden of supporting five paupersor more to every hundred inhabitants, as in England and Scotland. 

In 1888, Bismarck made a famous speech in the Reichstag to show thenecessity of Prussia's being armed. He had no immediate fears of Russia, he said; he professed to believe that she would keep peace with Germany. But he spoke of numerous distinct crises within forty years, whenPrussia was on the verge of being drawn into a general European war, which diplomacy fortunately averted, and such as now must be warded offby being too strong for attack. He mentioned the Crimean war in 1853, the Italian war in 1858, the Polish rebellion in 1863, theSchleswig-Holstein embroilment, which so nearly set all Europe by theears, the Austro-Prussian war of 1866, the Luxemburg dispute in 1867, the Franco-German war of 1870, the Balkan war of 1877, the variousaspects of the Eastern Question, changes of government in France, etc. , --each of which in its time threatened the great "coalition war, "which Germany had thus far been kept out of, but which Bismarck wishedto provide against for the future. 

"The long and the short of it is, " said he, "that we must be as strongas we possibly can be in these days. We have the capability of beingstronger than any other nation of equal population in the world, and itwould be a crime if we did not use this capability. We must make stillgreater exertions than other Powers for the same ends, on account of ourgeographical position. We lie in the midst of Europe. We have at leastthree sides open to attack. God has placed on one side of us theFrench, --a most warlike and restless nation, --and he has allowed thefighting tendencies of Russia to become great; so we are forced intomeasures which perhaps we would not otherwise make. And the verystrength for which we strive shows that we are inclined to peace; forwith such a powerful machine as we wish to make the German army, no onewould undertake to attack us. We Germans fear God, but nothing else inthe world; and it is the fear of God which causes us to love andcherish peace. "

Such was the avowed policy of Bismarck, --and I believe in hissincerity, --to foster friendly relations with other nations, and tomaintain peace for the interests of humanity as well as for Germany, which can be secured only by preparing for war, and with such an arrayof forces as to secure victory. It was not with foreign Powers that hehad the greatest difficulty, but to manage the turbulent elements ofinternal hostilities and jealousies, and oppose the anarchic forces ofdoctrinaires, visionary dreamers, clerical aggressors, and socialisticincendiaries, --foes alike of a stable government and ofultimate progress. 

In the management of the internal affairs of the empire he cannot besaid to have been as successful as was Cavour in Italy. He was not inharmony with the spirit of the age, nor was he wise. His persistentopposition to the freedom of the Press was as great an error as hispersecution of the Catholics; and his insatiable love of power, graspingall the great offices of State, was a serious offence in the eyes of ajealous master, the present emperor, whom he did not take sufficientpains to conciliate. The greatness of Bismarck was not as administratorof an empire, but rather as the creator of an empire, and which heraised to greatness by diplomatic skill. His distinguishable excellencewas in the management of foreign affairs; and in this power he has neverbeen surpassed by any foreign minister. 

Contrary to all calculations, this great proud man who has ruled Germanywith so firm a hand for thirty years, and whose services have beenunparalleled in the history of statesmen, was not too high to fall. Buthe fell because a young, inexperienced, and ambitious sovereign, --aptpupil of his own in the divine right of monarchs to govern, and yetseemingly inspired by a keen sensitiveness to his people's wants and thespirit of the age, --could not endure his commanding ascendency andhaughty dictation, and accepted his resignation offered in a moment ofpique. He fell even as Wolsey fell before Henry VIII. , --too great a manfor a subject, yet always loyal to the principles of legitimacy and thewill of his sovereign. But he retired at the age of seventy-five, withprincely estates, unexampled honors, and the admiration and gratitudeof his countrymen; with the consciousness of having elevated them to theproudest position in continental Europe. The aged Emperor William I. Died in 1888, full of years and of honors. His son the Emperor Frederickdied a few months later, leaving a deep respect and a genuine sorrow. The grandson, the present Emperor William II. , has been called "a modernman, notwithstanding certain proclivities which still adhere to him, like pieces of the shell of an egg from which the bird has issued. " Heis yet an unsolved problem, but may be regarded not without hope for awise, strong, and useful reign. 

The builder of his country's greatness, however, was too deeplyenshrined in the hearts of his countrymen to remain in shadow. Aftermore than three years of retirement, Bismarck received from the youngemperor on January 26, 1894, an invitation to visit the imperial palacein Berlin. His journey and reception in the capital were the occasion oftumultuous public rejoicings, and when the emperor met him, thereconciliation was complete. The time-worn veteran did not again assumeoffice, but he was the frequent recipient of appreciative mention by thekaiser in public rescripts and speeches, and on his seventy-ninthbirthday, April 1, 1894, he received from the emperor a greeting byletter and a steel cuirass, "as a symbol of the German gratitude. " Onthe same day the castle at Friederichsruh was filled with rare andcostly presents from all over Germany, and "Bismarck banquets" were heldin all the principal cities. It was well that before this grand figurepassed away forever "the German gratitude" to him should have foundexpression again, especially from the sovereign who owed to the greatchancellor his own peculiar eminence in the earth. 

As for Prince Bismarck, with all his faults, --and no man is perfect, --Ilove and honor this courageous giant, who has, under such vexatiousopposition, secured the glory of the Prussian monarchy and the unity ofGermany; who has been conscientious in the discharge of his duties as hehas understood them, in the fear of God, --a modern Cromwell in anothercause, whose fame will increase with the advancing ages. [3]

[Footnote 3: Bismarck died July 30, 1898, mourned by his nation, hisobsequies honored by the Emperor. ]

AUTHORITIES. 

Professor Seeley's Life of Stein, Hezekiel's Biography of Bismarck, andthe Life of Prince Bismarck by Charles Lowe, are the books to which I ammost indebted for the compilation of this chapter. But one mayprofitably read the various histories of the Franco-Prussian war, theLife of Prince Hardenberg, the Life of Moltke, the Life of Scharnhorst, and the Life of William von Humboldt. An excellent abridgment of GermanHistory, during this century, is furnished by Professor Müller. TheSpeech of Prince Bismarck in the German Reichstag, February, 1888, Ihave found very instructive and interesting, --a sort of resume of hisown political life. 

WILLIAM EWART GLADSTONE. 

1809-1898. 

THE ENFRANCHISEMENT OF THE PEOPLE. 

It may seem presumptuous for me at the present time to write onGladstone, whose public life presents so many sides, concerning whichthere is anything but unanimity of opinion, --a man still in full life, and likely to remain so for years to come;[4] a giant, so strongintellectually and physically as to exercise, without office, aprodigious influence in national affairs by the sole force of genius andcharacter combined. But how can I present the statesmen of thenineteenth century without including him, --the Nestor among politicalpersonages, who for forty years has taken an important part in thegovernment of England?

[Footnote 4: This was written by Dr. Lord in 1891. Gladstone died in1898. ]

This remarkable man, like Canning, Peel, and Macaulay, was precocious inhis attainments at school and college, --especially at Oxford, which hasproduced more than her share of the great men who have controlledthought and action in England during the period since 1820. Butprecocity is not always the presage of future greatness. There are moreremarkable boys than remarkable men. In England, college honors may havemore influence in advancing the fortunes of a young man than in thiscountry; but I seldom have known valedictorians who have come up topopular expectations; and most of them, though always respectable, haveremained in comparative obscurity. 

Like the statesmen to whom I have alluded, Gladstone sprang from themiddle ranks, although his father, a princely Liverpool merchant, ofScotch descent, became a baronet by force of his wealth, character, andinfluence. Seeing the extraordinary talents of his third son, --WilliamEwart, --Sir John Gladstone spared neither pains nor money on hiseducation, sending him to Eton in 1821, at the age of twelve, where heremained till 1827, learning chiefly Latin and Greek. Here he was thecompanion and friend of many men who afterward became powerful forces inEnglish life, --political, literary, and ecclesiastical. At the age ofseventeen we find him writing letters to Arthur Hallam on politics andliterature: and his old schoolfellows testify to his great influenceamong them for purity, humanity, and nobility of character, while he wasnoted for his aptness in letters and skill in debate. In 1827 the boywas intrusted to the care of Dr. Turner, --afterward bishop ofCalcutta, --under whom he learned something besides Latin and Greek, perhaps indirectly, in the way of ethics and theology, and other thingswhich go to the formation of character. At the age of twenty he enteredChrist Church at Oxford--the most aristocratic of colleges--with moreattainments than most scholars reach at thirty, and was graduated in1831 "double-first class, " distinguished not only for his scholarshipbut for his power of debate in the Union Society; throwing in his lotwith Tories and High Churchmen, who, as he afterward confesses, "did notset a due value on the imperishable and inestimable principles of humanliberty. " With strong religious tendencies and convictions, hecontemplated taking orders in the Church; but his father saw thingsdifferently, --and thus, with academic prejudices which most graduateshave to unlearn, he went abroad in 1832 to complete the education of anEnglish gentleman, spending most of his time in Italy and Sicily, thoseeternally interesting countries to the scholar and the artist, whosewonders can scarcely be exaggerated, --affording a perpetual charm andstudy if one can ignore popular degradation, superstition, unthrift, andindifference to material and moral progress. He who enjoys Italy mustlive in the past, or in the realm of art, or in the sanctuaries wherepriests hide themselves from the light of what is most valuable incivilization and most ennobling in human consciousness. 

Mr. Gladstone returned to England in the most interesting and excitingperiod of her political history since the days of Cromwell, --soon afterthe great Reform Bill had been passed, which changed the principle ofrepresentation in Parliament, and opened the way for other necessaryreforms. His personal _éclat_ and his powerful friends gave him analmost immediate entrance into the House of Commons as member forNewark. The electors knew but little about him; they only knew that hewas supported by the Duke of Newcastle and preponderating Toryinterests, and were carried away by his youthful eloquence--thosesilvery tones which nature gave--and that strange fascination whichcomes from magnetic powers. The ancients said that the poet is born andthe orator is made. It appears to me that a man stands but little chanceof oratorical triumphs who is not gifted by nature with a musical voiceand a sympathetic electrical force which no effort can acquire. 

On the 29th of January, 1833, at the age of twenty-four, Gladstoneentered upon his memorable parliamentary career, during the ministry ofLord Grey; and his maiden speech--fluent, modest, and earnest--was inthe course of the debate on the proposed abolition of slavery in theBritish colonies. It was in reply to an attack made upon the managementof his father's estates in the treatment of slaves in Demerara. Hedeprecated cruelty and slavery alike, but maintained that emancipationshould be gradual and after due preparation; and, insisting also thatslaves were private property, he demanded that the interests of plantersshould be duly regarded if emancipation should take place. This was inaccordance with justice as viewed by enlightened Englishmen generally. Negro emancipation was soon after decreed. All negroes born after August1, 1834, as well as those then six years of age were to be free; and theremainder were, after a kind of apprenticeship of six years, to be setat liberty. The sum of £20, 000, 000 was provided by law as a compensationto the slave-owners, --one of the noblest acts which Parliament everpassed, and one of which the English nation has never ceased to boast. 

Among other measures to which the reform Parliament gave its attentionin 1833 was that relating to the temporalities of the Irish Church, bywhich the number of bishops was reduced from twenty-two to twelve, witha corresponding reduction of their salaries. An annual tax was alsoimposed on all livings above £300, to be appropriated to theaugmentation of small benefices. Mr. Gladstone was too conservative toapprove of this measure, and he made a speech against it. 

In 1834 the reform ministry went out of power, having failed to carryeverything before them as they had anticipated, and not having producedthat general prosperity which they had promised. The people were stilldiscontented, trade still languished, and pauperism increased ratherthan diminished. 

Under the new Tory ministry, headed by Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Gladstonebecame a junior lord of the Treasury. His great abilities were alreadyrecognized, and the premier wanted his services, as Pitt wanted those ofCanning before he was known to fame. Shortly after Parliament assembled, in February, 1835, Mr. Gladstone was made under-secretary for theColonies, --a very young man for such an office. But the Tory ministrywas short-lived, and the Whigs soon returned to power under LordMelbourne. During this administration, until the death of William IV. In1837, there was no display of power or eloquence in Parliament by themember for Newark of sufficient importance to be here noted, exceptperhaps his opposition to a bill for the re-arrangement of church-rates. As a Conservative and a High Churchman, Gladstone stood aloof from thosewho would lay unhallowed hands on the sacred ark of ecclesiasticism. Andhere, at least, he has always been consistent with himself. From firstto last he has been the zealous defender and admirer of the EnglishChurch and one of its devoutest members, taking the deepest interest ineverything which concerns its doctrines, its ritual, and its connectionwith the State, --at times apparently forgetting politics to come to itssupport, in essays which show a marvellous knowledge of both theologyand ecclesiastical history. We cannot help thinking that he would havereached the highest dignities as a clergyman, and perhaps have been evenmore famous as a bishop than as a statesman. 

In the Parliament which assembled after Queen Victoria's accession tothe throne, in 1837, the voice of Gladstone was heard in nearly everyimportant discussion; but the speech which most prominently brought himinto public notice and gave him high rank as a parliamentary orator wasthat in 1838, in reference to West India emancipation. The evils of thenegro apprenticeship system, which was to expire in 1840, had been laidbefore the House of Lords by the ex-chancellor, Brougham, with his usualfierceness and probable exaggeration; and when the subject came up fordiscussion in the House of Commons Gladstone opposed immediateabolition, which Lord Brougham had advocated, showing by a great arrayof facts that the relation between masters and negroes was generallymuch better than it had been represented. But he was on the unpopularside of the question, and his speech excited admiration withoutproducing conviction, --successful only as a vigorous argument and abrilliant oratorical display. The apprenticeship was cut short, andimmediate abolition of slavery decreed. 

At that time, Gladstone's "appearance and manners were much in hisfavor. His countenance was mild and pleasant; his eyes were clear andquick; his eyebrows were dark and prominent; his gestures varied but notviolent; his jet black hair was parted from his crown to his brow;" hisvoice was peculiarly musical, and his diction was elegant and easy, without giving the appearance of previous elaboration. How far hislanguage and thoughts were premeditated I will not undertake to say. Daniel Webster once declared that there was no such thing as _extempore_ speaking, --a saying not altogether correct, but in the mainconfirmed by many great orators who confess to laborious preparation fortheir speech-making, and by the fact that many of our famousafter-dinner speakers have been known to send their speeches to thePress before they were delivered. The case of Demosthenes would seem toindicate the necessity of the most careful study and preparation inorder to make a truly great speech, however gifted an orator may be; andthose who, like the late Henry Ward Beecher, have astonished theirhearers by their ready utterances have generally mastered certain linesof fact and principles of knowledge which they have at command, andwhich, with native power and art of expression, they present in freshforms and new combinations. They do not so much add new stores of factto the kaleidoscope of oratory, --they place the familiar ones in newpositions, and produce new pictures _ad infinitum_. Sometimes a genius, urged by a great impulse, may dash out in an untried course of thought;but this is not always a safe venture, --the next effort of the kind mayprove a failure. No man can be sure of himself or his ground withoutprevious and patient labor, except in reply to an antagonist and whenfamiliar with his subject. That was the power of Fox and Pitt. What gavecharm to the speeches of Peel and Gladstone in their prime was the newmatter they introduced before debate began; and this was the result oflaborious study. To attack such matter with wit and sarcasm is onething; to originate it is quite another. Anybody can criticise the mostbeautiful picture or the grandest structure, but to paint the one orerect the other, --_hic labor, hoc opus est_. One of the grandestspeeches ever made, for freshness and force, was Daniel Webster's replyto Hayne; but the peroration was written and committed to memory, whilethe substance of it had been in his thoughts for half a winter, and hismind was familiar with the general subject. The great orator isnecessarily an artist as much as Pascal was in his _Pensées_; and hisfame will rest perhaps more on his art than on his matter, --since theart is inimitable and peculiar, while the matter is subject to theconditions of future, unknown, progressive knowledge. Probably the mosteffective speech of modern times was the short address of AbrahamLincoln at Gettysburg; but this was simply the expression of thegathered forces of his whole political life. 

In the month of July, 1837, Mr. Gladstone was married to Miss CatherineGlyn, daughter of Sir Stephen Richard Glyn, of Hawarden Castle, inFlintshire, Wales, --a marriage which proved eminently happy. Eightchildren have been the result of this union, of whom but one has died;all the others have "turned out well, " as the saying is, though no onehas reached distinguished eminence. It would seem that Mr. Gladstone, occupying for forty years so superb a social and public station, has notbeen ambitious for the worldly advancement of his children, nor has hebeen stained by nepotism in pushing on their fortunes. The eldest sonwas a member of Parliament; the second became a clergyman; and theeldest daughter married a clergyman in a prominent position asheadmaster of Wellington College. 

It would be difficult to say when the welfare of the Church and thetriumph of theological truth have not received a great share of Mr. Gladstone's thoughts and labors. At an early period of his parliamentarycareer he wrote an elaborate treatise on the "State in its relation tothe Church. " It is said that Sir Robert. Peel threw the book down on thefloor, exclaiming that it was a pity so able a man should jeopardize hispolitical future by writing such trash; but it was of sufficientimportance to furnish Macaulay a subject for one of his most carefulessays, in which however, though respectful in tone, --patronizing ratherthan eulogistic, --he showed but little sympathy with the author. Hepointed out many defects which the critical and religious world hassustained. In the admirable article which Mr. Gladstone wrote on LordMacaulay himself for one of the principal Reviews not many years ago, hepaid back in courteous language, and even under the conventional form ofpanegyric, in which one great man naturally speaks of another, a stillmore searching and trenchant criticism on the writings of the eminenthistorian. Gladstone shows, and shows clearly and conclusively, theutter inability of Macaulay to grasp subjects of a spiritual andsubjective character, especially exhibited in his notice of thephilosophy of Bacon. He shows that this historian excels only inpainting external events and the outward acts and peculiarities of thegreat characters of history, --and even then only with strong prejudicesand considerable exaggerations, however careful he is in sustaining hisposition by recorded facts, in which he never makes an error. To thesubjective mind of Gladstone, with his interest in theological subjects, Macaulay was neither profound nor accurate in his treatment ofphilosophical and psychological questions, for which indeed he had butlittle taste. Such men as Pascal, Leibnitz, Calvin, Locke, he lets aloneto discuss the great actors in political history, like Warren Hastings, Pitt, Harley; but in his painting of such characters he standspre-eminent over all modern writers. Gladstone does justice toMacaulay's vast learning, his transcendent memory, and his matchlessrhetoric, --making the heaviest subjects glow with life and power, effecting compositions which will live for style alone, for which insome respects he is unapproachable. 

Indeed, I cannot conceive of two great contemporary statesmen moreunlike in their mental structure and more antagonistic in their generalviews than Gladstone and Macaulay, and unlike also in their style. Thetreatise on State and Church, on which Gladstone exhibits so muchlearning, to me is heavy, vague, hazy, and hard to read. The subject, however, has but little interest to an American, and is doubtless muchmore highly appreciated by English students, especially those of thegreat universities, whom it more directly concerns. It is the argumentof a young Oxford scholar for the maintenance of a Church establishment;is full of ecclesiastical lore, assuming that one of the chief ends ofgovernment is the propagation of religious truth, --a ground utterlyuntenable according to the universal opinion of people in this country, whether churchmen or laymen, Catholic or Protestant, Conservativeor liberal. 

On the fall of the Whig government in 1841, succeeded by that of SirRobert Peel, Mr. Gladstone was appointed vice-president of the Board ofTrade and master of the Mint, and naturally became more prominent as aparliamentary debater, --not yet a parliamentary leader. But he was oneof the most efficient of the premier's lieutenants, a tried and faithfulfollower, a disciple, indeed, --as was Peel himself of Canning, andCanning of Pitt. He addressed the House in all the importantdebates, --on railways, on agricultural interests, on the abolition ofthe corn laws, on the Dissenters' Chapel Bills, on sugar duties, --aconservative of conservatives, yet showing his devotion to the cause ofjustice in everything except justice to the Catholics in Ireland. He wasopposed to the grant to Maynooth College, and in consequence resignedhis office when the decision of the government was made known, --a rareact of that conscientiousness for which from first to last he has beenpre-eminently distinguished in all political as well as religiousmatters. His resignation of office left him free to express his views;and he disclaimed, in the name of law, the constitution, and thehistory of the country, the voting of money to restore and strengthenthe Roman Catholic Church of Ireland. In deference to Sir Robert Peeland the general cause of education his opposition was not bitter orpersistent; and the progressive views which have always marked hiscareer led him to support the premier in his repeal of the corn laws, hehaving been, like his chief, converted to the free-trade doctrines ofCobden. But the retirement of such prominent men as the Duke ofBuccleuch and Lord Stanley (of Alderley) from his ministry, asprotectionists, led to its breaking up in 1846 and an attempt to form anew one under Lord John Russell, which failed; and Sir Robert Peelresumed direction of a government pledged to repeal the corn laws of1815. As the Duke of Newcastle was a zealous protectionist, under whoseinfluence Mr. Gladstone had been elected member of Parliament, thelatter now resigned his seat as member for Newark, and consequentlyremained without a seat in that memorable session of 1846 which repealedthe corn laws. 

The ministry of Sir Robert Peel, though successful in passing the mostimportant bill since that of Parliamentary reform in 1832, was doomed;as we have already noted in the Lecture on that great leader, it fell onthe Irish question, and Lord John Russell became the head of thegovernment. In the meantime, Mr. Gladstone was chosen to represent theUniversity of Oxford in Parliament, --one of the most distinguishedhonors which he ever received, and which he duly prized. As the championof the English Church represented by the University, and as one of itsgreatest scholars, he richly deserved the coveted prize. 

On the accidental death of Sir Robert Peel in 1850 the conservativeparty became disintegrated, and Mr. Gladstone held himself aloof bothfrom Whigs and Tories, learning wisdom from Sir James Graham (one of thebest educated and most accomplished statesman of the day), and devotinghimself to the study of parliamentary tactics, and of all greatpolitical questions. It was then that in the interval of public businesshe again visited Italy, in the winter of 1850-51; this time not for mereamusement and recreation, but for the health of a beloved daughter. While in Naples he was led to examine its prisons (with philanthropicaim), and to study the general policy and condition of the Neapolitangovernment. The result was his famous letters to Lord Aberdeen on theawful despotism under which the kingdom of the Two Sicilies groaned, where over twenty thousand political prisoners were incarcerated, andone-half of the Deputies were driven into exile in defiance of all law;where the prisons were dens of filth and horror, and all sorts of unjustcharges were fabricated in order to get rid of inconvenient persons. Ihave read nothing from the pen of Mr. Gladstone superior in the way ofstyle to these letters, --earnest and straightforward, almost fierce intheir invective, reminding one in many respects of Brougham's defence ofQueen Caroline, but with a greater array of facts, so clearly andforcibly put as not only to produce conviction but to kindle wrath. Thegovernment of Naples had sworn to maintain a free constitution, but haddisgracefully and without compunction violated every one of itsconditions, and perpetrated cruelties and injustices which would haveappalled the judges of imperial Rome, and defended them by a casuistrywhich surpassed in its insult to the human understanding that of thepriests of the Spanish Inquisition. 

The indignation created by Gladstone's letters extended beyond Englandto France and Germany, and probably had no slight influence in the finaloverthrow of the King of Naples, whose government was the most unjust, tyrannical, and cruel in Europe, and perhaps on the face of the globe. Its chief evil was not in chaining suspected politicians of characterand rank to the vilest felons, and immuring them in underground cellstoo filthy and horrible to be approached even by physicians, for monthsand years before their mock-trials began, but in the utter perversion ofjustice in the courts by judges who dared not go counter to thedictation or even wishes of the executive government with its deadly andunconquerable hatred of everything which looked like political liberty. All these things and others Mr. Gladstone exposed with an eloquenceglowing and burning with righteous and fearless indignation. 

The Neapolitan government attempted to make a denial of the terriblecharges; but the defence was feeble and inconclusive, and the statesmanwho made the accusation was not convicted even of exaggeration, althoughthe heartless tyrant may have felt that he was no more guilty than othermonarchs bent on sustaining absolutism at any cost and under any plea inthe midst of atheists, assassins, and anarchists. It is said that WarrenHastings, under the terrible invectives of Burke, felt himself to be thegreatest criminal in the world, even when he was conscious of havingrendered invaluable services to Great Britain, which the country in themain acknowledged. In one sense, therefore, a statement may berhetorically exaggerated, even when the facts which support it areincontrovertible, as the remorseless logic of Calvin leads to deductionswhich no one fully believes, --the _decretum quidem horribile_, as Calvinhimself confessed. But is it easy to convict Mr. Gladstone of otherexaggeration than that naturally produced by uncommon ability to arrayfacts so as to produce conviction, which indeed is the talent of theadvocate rather than that of the judge?

The year 1848 was a period of agitation and revolution in every countryin Europe; and most governments, being unpopular, were compelled tosuppress riots and insurrections, and to maintain order under exceedingdifficulties. England was no exception; and public discontents had somejustification in the great deficiency in the national treasury, thedistress of Ireland, and the friction which new laws, howeverbeneficent, have to pass through. 

About this time Mr. Disraeli was making himself prominent as an orator, and as a foe to the administration. He was clever in nicknames and wittyexpressions, --as when he dubbed the Blue Book of the Import DutiesCommittee "the greatest work of imagination that the nineteenth centuryhad produced. " Mr. Gladstone was no match for this great parliamentaryfencer in irony, in wit, in sarcasm, and in bold attacks; but even in aHouse so fond of jokes as that of the Commons he commanded equal if notgreater attention by his luminous statements of fact and the earnestsolemnity of his manner. Benjamin Disraeli entered Parliament in 1837, as a sort of democratic Tory, when the death of King William IV. Necessitated a general election. His maiden speech as member forMaidstone was a failure; not because he could not speak well, butbecause a certain set determined to crush him, and made such a noisethat he was obliged to sit down, declaring in a loud voice that the timewould come when they should hear him. He was already famous for hisnovels, and for a remarkable command of language; the pet ofaristocratic women, and admired generally for his wit and brilliantconversation, although he provoked criticism for the vulgar finery ofhis dress and the affectation of his manners. Already he was intimatewith Lord Lyndhurst, a lion in the highest aristocratic circles, anduniversally conceded to be a man of genius. Why should not such a man, at the age of thirty-three, aspire to a seat in Parliament? His futurerival, Gladstone, though five years his junior, had already been inParliament three years, and was distinguished as an orator beforeDisraeli had a chance to enter the House of Commons as a supporter ofSir Robert Peel; but his extraordinary power was not felt until heattacked his master on the repeal of the corn laws, nor was he the rivalof Mr. Gladstone until the Tory party was disintegrated and broken intosections. In 1847, however, he became the acknowledged leader of themost conservative section, --the party of protection, --while Gladstoneheaded the followers of Peel. 

On the disruption of the Whig administration in 1851 under Lord JohnRussell, who was not strong enough for such unsettled times, Lord Derbybecame premier, and Disraeli took office under him as chancellor of theexchequer, --a post which he held for only a short time, the "coalitioncabinet" under Lord Aberdeen having succeeded that of Lord Derby, keeping office during the Crimean war, and leaving the Tories out in thecold until 1858. 

Of this famous coalition ministry Mr. Gladstone naturally becamechancellor of the exchequer, having exhibited remarkable financialability in demolishing the arguments of Disraeli when he introduced hisbudget as chancellor in 1851; but although the rivalry between the twogreat men began about this time, neither of them had reached the loftyposition which they were destined to attain. They both held subordinateposts. The prime minister was the Earl of Aberdeen; but Lord Palmerstonwas the commanding genius of the cabinet, controlling as foreignminister the diplomacy of the country in stormy times. He wasexperienced, versatile, liberal, popular, and ready in debate. Hisforeign policy was vigorous and aggressive, raising England in theestimation of foreigners, and making her the most formidable Power inEurope. His diplomatic and administrative talents were equallyremarkable, so that he held office of some kind in every successiveadministration but one for fifty years. He was secretary-at-war as farback as the contest with Napoleon, and foreign secretary in 1830 duringthe administration of Lord Grey. His official life may almost be said tohave been passed in the Foreign Office; he was acquainted with all itsdetails, and as indefatigable in business as he was witty in society, tothe pleasures of which he was unusually devoted. He checked the ambitionof France in 1840 on the Eastern question, and brought about the cordialalliance between France and England in the Crimean war. 

Mr. Gladstone did not agree with Lord Palmerston in reference to theCrimean war. Like Lord Aberdeen, his policy was pacific, avoiding warexcept in cases of urgent necessity; but in this matter he was not onlyin the minority in the cabinet but not on the popular side, --the Pressand the people and the Commons being clamorous for war. As alreadyshown, it was one of the most unsatisfactory wars in Englishhistory, --conducted to a successful close, indeed, but with an immenseexpenditure of blood and money, and with such an amount of blundering inmanagement as to bring disgrace rather than glory on the government andthe country. But it was not for Mr. Gladstone to take a conspicuous partin the management of that unfortunate war. His business was with thefinances, --to raise money for the public exigencies; and in thisbusiness he never had a superior. He not only selected with admirablewisdom the articles to be taxed, but in his budgets he made theminutest details interesting. He infused eloquence into figures; hisaudiences would listen to his financial statements for five continuoushours without wearying. But his greatest triumph as finance minister wasin making the country accept without grumbling an enormous income taxbecause he made plain its necessity. 

The mistakes of the coalition ministry in the management of the war ledto its dissolution, and Lord Palmerston became prime minister, LordClarendon foreign minister, while Mr. Gladstone retained his post aschancellor of the exchequer, yet only for a short time. On theappointment of a committee to examine into the conduct of the war heresigned his post, and was succeeded by Sir G. C. Lewis. At this crisisthe Emperor Nicholas of Russia died, and the cabinet, with a largepreponderance of Whigs, having everything their own way, determined toprosecute the war to the bitter end. 

Yet the great services and abilities of Gladstone as finance ministerwere everywhere conceded, not only for his skill in figures but for hiswisdom in selecting and imposing duties that were acceptable to thecountry and did not press heavily upon the poor, thus following out thepolicy which Sir Robert Peel bequeathed. Ever since, this has been theaim as well as the duty of a chancellor of the exchequer whatever partyhas been in the ascendent. 

From this time onward Mr. Gladstone was a pronounced free-trader of theManchester school. His conscientious studies into the mutual relationsof taxation, production, and commerce had convinced him that nationalprosperity lay along the line of freedom of endeavor. He had taken agreat departure from the principles he had originally advocated, whichof course provoked a bitter opposition from his former friends andallies. He was no longer the standard-bearer of the conservative party, but swung more and more by degrees from his old policy as light dawnedupon his mind and experience taught him wisdom. Perhaps the mostremarkable characteristics of this man, --opinionated and strong-headedas he undoubtedly is, --are to be found in the receptive quality of hismind, by which he is open to new ideas, and in the steady courage withwhich he affirms and stands by his convictions when once he has byreasoning arrived at them. It took thirteen years of parliamentarystrife before the Peelites, whom he led, were finally incorporated withthe Liberal party. 

Mr. Gladstone, now without office, became what is called an independentmember of the House, yet active in watching public interests, giving hisvote and influence to measures which he considered would be mostbeneficial to the country irrespective of party. Meantime, the continuedmistakes of the war and the financial burdens incident to a conflict ofsuch magnitude had gradually produced disaffection with the governmentof which Lord Palmerston was the head. The ministry, defeated on anunimportant matter, but one which showed the animus of the country, wascompelled to resign, and the Conservatives--no longer known by theopprobrious nickname of Tories--came into power (1858) under thepremiership of Lord Derby, Disraeli becoming chancellor of the exchequerand leader of his own party in the House of Commons. But thisadministration also was short-lived, lasting only about a year; and inJune, 1859, a new coalition ministry was again formed under LordPalmerston, which continued seven years, Mr. Gladstone returning to hisold post as chancellor of the exchequer. 

Mr. Gladstone was at this time fifty years of age. His political careerthus far, however useful and honorable, had not been extraordinary. Mr. Pitt was prime minister at the age of twenty-eight. Fox, Canning, andCastlereagh at forty were more famous than Gladstone. His politicalpromotion had not been as rapid as that of Lord John Russell or LordPalmerston or Sir Robert Peel. He was chiefly distinguished for theeloquence of his speeches, the lucidity of his financial statements, andthe moral purity of his character; but he was not then pre-eminentlygreat, either for initiative genius or commanding influence. Aside frompolitics, he was conceded to be an accomplished scholar and a learnedtheologian, --distinguished for ecclesiastical lore rather than as anoriginal thinker. He had written no great book likely to be a standardauthority. As a writer he was inferior to Macaulay and Newman, nor hadhe the judicial powers of Hallam. He could not be said to have occupiedmore than one sphere, that of politics, --here unlike Thiers, Guizot, andeven Lyndhurst and Brougham. 

In 1858, however, Gladstone appeared in a new light, and commandedimmediate attention by the publication of his "Studies on Homer and theHomeric Age, "--a remarkable work in three large octavo volumes, whichcalled into the controversial field of Greek history a host of critics, like Mr. Freeman, who yet conceded to Mr. Gladstone wonderful classicallearning, and the more wonderful as he was preoccupied with affairs ofState, and without the supposed leisure for erudite studies. Thislearned work entitled him to a high position in another sphere than thatof politics. Guizot wrote learned histories of modern politicalmovements, but he could not have written so able a treatise asGladstone's on the Homeric age. Some advanced German critics tookexceptions to the author's statements about early Greek history; yet itcannot be questioned that he has thrown a bright if not a new light onthe actors of the siege of Troy and the age when they were supposed tolive. The illustrious author is no agnostic. It is not for want ofknowledge that in some things he is not up to the times, but for aconservative bent of mind which leads him to distrust destructivecriticism. Gladstone has been content to present the ancient world asrevealed in the Homeric poems, whether Homer lived less than a hundredyears from the heroic deeds described with such inimitable charm, orwhether he did not live at all. He wrote the book not merely to amusehis leisure hours, but to incite students to a closer study of the worksattributed to him who alone is enrolled with the two other men nowregarded as the greatest of immortal poets. Gladstone's admiration forHomer is as unbounded as that of German scholars for Dante andShakspeare. It is hardly to be supposed that this work on the heroic agewas written during the author's retirement from office; it was probablythe result of his life-studies on Grecian literature, which he pursuedwith unusual and genuine enthusiasm. Who among American statesmen oreven scholars are competent to such an undertaking?

Two years after this, in 1860, Mr. Gladstone was elected Lord Rector ofthe University of Edinburgh in recognition of his scholarlyattainments, and delivered a notable inaugural address on the work ofuniversities. 

The chief duty of Mr. Gladstone during his seven years connection withthe new coalition party, headed by Lord Palmerston, was to prepare hisannual budget, or financial statement, with a proposed scheme oftaxation, as chancellor of the exchequer. During these years his fame asa finance minister was confirmed. As such no minister ever equalled him, except perhaps Sir Robert Peel. My limits will not permit me to go intoa minute detail of the taxes he increased and those he reduced. The endhe proposed in general was to remove such as were oppressive on themiddle and lower classes, and to develop the industrial resources of thenation, --to make it richer and more prosperous, while it felt the burdenof supplying needful moneys for the government less onerous. Nor wouldit be interesting to Americans to go into those statistics. I wondereven why they were so interesting to the English people. One wouldnaturally think that it was of little consequence whether duties on someone commodity were reduced, or those on another were increased, so longas the deficit in the national income had to be raised somehow, whetherby direct or indirect taxation; but the interest generally felt in thesematters was intense, both inside and outside Parliament. I canunderstand why the paper-makers should object when it was proposed toremove the last protective duty, and why the publicans should waxindignant if an additional tax were imposed on hops; but I cannotunderstand why every member of the House of Commons should be presentwhen the opening speech on the budget was to be made by the chancellor, why the intensest excitement should prevail, why members should sit forfive hours enraptured to hear financial details presented, why everyseat in the galleries should be taken by distinguished visitors, and allthe journals the next day should be filled with panegyrics ordetractions as to the minister's ability or wisdom. 

It would seem that no questions concerning war or peace, or theextension of the suffrage, or the removal of great moral evils, orpromised boons in education, or Church disestablishment, or threateneddangers to the State, --questions touching the very life of thenation, --received so much attention or excited so great interest asthose which affected the small burdens which the people had to bear; notthe burden of taxation itself, but how that should be distributed. Iwill not say that the English are "a nation of shopkeepers;" but I dosay that comparatively small matters occupy the thoughts of men in everycountry outside the routine of ordinary duties, and form the staple ofordinary conversation, --among pedants, the difference between _ac_ and_et_; among aristocrats, the investigation of pedigrees; in society, the comparative merits of horses, the movements of well-known persons, the speed of ocean steamers, boat-races, the dresses of ladies offashion, football contests, the last novel, weddings, receptions, thetrials of housekeepers, the claims of rival singers, the gestures anddeclamation of favorite play-actors, the platitudes of popularpreachers, the rise and fall of stocks, murders in bar-rooms, robberiesin stores, accidental fires in distant localities, --these and otherinnumerable forms of gossip, collected by newspapers and retailed indrawing-rooms, which have no important bearing on human life or nationalwelfare or immortal destiny. It is not that the elaborate presentationsof financial details for which Mr. Gladstone was so justly famous werewithout importance. I only wonder why they should have had suchoverwhelming interest to English legislators and the English public; andwhy his statistics should have given him claims to transcendent oratoryand the profoundest statesmanship, --for it is undeniable that hisfinancial speeches brought him more fame and importance in the House ofCommons than all the others he made during those seven years ofparliamentary gladiatorship. One of these triumphantly carried throughParliament a commercial reciprocity treaty with France, arranged by Mr. Cobden; and another, scarcely less notable, repealed the duty onpaper, --a measure of great importance for the facilitation of makingbooks and cheapening newspapers, but both of which were desperatelyopposed by the monopolists and manufacturers. 

Some of Mr. Gladstone's other speeches stand on higher ground and are ofpermanent value; they will live for the lofty sentiments and thecomprehensive knowledge which marked them, --appealing to the highestintellect as well as to the hearts of those common people of whom allnations are chiefly composed. Among these might be mentioned those whichrelated to Italian affairs, sympathizing with the struggle which theItalians were making to secure constitutional liberty and the unity oftheir nation, --severe on the despotism of that miserable king of Naples, Francis II. , whom Garibaldi had overthrown with a handful of men. Mr. Gladstone, ever since his last visit to Naples, had abominated theoutrages which its government had perpetrated on a gallant and aspiringpeople, and warmly supported them by his eloquence. In the same friendlyspirit, in 1858, he advocated in Parliament a free constitution for theIonian islands, then under British rule; and when sent thither asBritish commissioner he addressed the Senate of those islands, at Corfu, in the Italian language. The islands were by their own desire finallyceded to Greece, whose prosperity as an independent and united nationMr. Gladstone ever had at heart. The land of Homer to him washallowed ground. 

On one subject Mr. Gladstone made a great mistake, which he afterwardsquarely acknowledged, --and this was in reference to the American civilwar. In 1862, while chancellor of the exchequer, he made a speech atNewcastle in which he expressed his conviction that Jefferson Davis had"already succeeded in making the Southern States of America [which werein revolt] an independent nation. " This opinion caused a great sensationin both England and the United States, and alienated manyfriends, --especially as Earl Russell, the minister of foreign affairs, had refused to recognize the Confederate States. It was the indiscretionof the chancellor of the exchequer which disturbed some of his warmestsupporters in England; but in America the pain arose from the fact thatso great a man had expressed such an opinion, --a man, moreover, for whomAmerica had then and still has the greatest admiration and reverence. Itwas feared that his sympathies, like those of a great majority of theupper classes in England at the time, were with the South rather thanthe North, and chiefly because the English manufacturers had to paytwenty shillings instead of eight-pence a pound for cotton. It wasnatural for a manufacturing country to feel this injury to itsinterests; but it was not magnanimous in view of the tremendous issueswhich were at stake, and it was inconsistent with the sacrifices whichEngland had nobly made in the emancipation of her own slaves in the WestIndies. For England to give her moral support to the revolted SouthernStates, founding their Confederacy upon the baneful principle of humanslavery, was a matter of grave lamentation with patriots at the North, to say nothing of the apparent English indifference to the superiorcivilization of the free States and the great cause to which they weredevoted in a struggle of life and death. It even seemed to some that theEnglish aristocracy were hypocritical in their professions, and at heartwere hostile to the progress of liberty; that the nation as a wholecared more for money than justice, --as seemingly illustrated by the warwith China to enforce the opium trade against the protest of the Chinesegovernment, pagan as it was. 

Mr. Gladstone had now swung away from the Conservative party. In 1864 hehad vigorously supported a bill for enlarging the parliamentaryfranchise by reducing the limit of required rental from £10 to £6, declaring that the burden of proof rested on those who would excludeforty-nine-fiftieths of the working-classes from the franchise. He also, as chancellor of the exchequer, caused great excitement by admittingthe unsatisfactory condition of the Irish Church, --that is, the Churchof England among the Irish people; sustained by their taxes, butministering to only one-eighth or one-ninth of the population. These andother similar evidences of his liberal tendencies alienated his Oxfordconstituency, the last people in the realm to adopt liberal measures;and on the proroguement of Parliament in 1865, and the new electionwhich followed, he was defeated as member for the University, althoughhe was a High Churchman and the pride of the University, devoted to itsinterests heart and soul. It is a proof of the exceeding bitterness ofpolitical parties that such ingratitude should have been shown to one ofthe greatest scholars that Oxford has produced for a century. It was inthis year also that on completing his term as Rector of the Universityof Edinburgh he retired with a notable address on the "Place of AncientGreece in the Providential Order;" thus anew emphasizing his scholarlyequipment as a son of Oxford. 

The Liberal party, however, were generally glad of Gladstone's defeat, since it would detach him from the University. He now belonged moreemphatically to the country, and was more free and unshackled to pursuehis great career, as Sir Robert Peel had been before him in similarcircumstances. Instead of representing a narrow-minded and bigoted setof clergymen and scholars, he was chosen at once to represent quite adifferent body, --even the liberal voters of South Lancashire, amanufacturing district. 

The death of Lord Palmerston at the age of eighty, October 17, 1865, made Earl Russell prime minister, while Gladstone resumed under the newgovernment his post as chancellor of the exchequer, and now becameformally the leader of the Liberals in the House of Commons. 

Irish questions in 1866 came prominently to the front, for the conditionof Ireland at that time was as alarming as it was deplorable, withcombined Fenianism and poverty and disaffection in every quarter. Sograve was the state of this unhappy country that the government feltobliged to bring in a bill suspending the habeas corpus act, which thechancellor of the exchequer eloquently supported. His conversion toLiberal views was during this session seen in bringing in a measure forthe abolition of compulsory church-rates, in aid of Dissenters; butbefore it could be carried through its various stages a change ofministry had taken place on another issue, and the Conservatives againcame into power, with Lord Derby for prime minister and Disraeli forchancellor of the exchequer and leader of his party in the Houseof Commons. 

This fall of the Liberal ministry was brought about by the Reform Bill, which Lord Russell had prepared, and which was introduced by thechancellor of the exchequer amid unparalleled excitement. Financemeasures lost their interest in the fierceness of the political combat. It was not so important a measure as that of the reform of 1832 in itspolitical consequences, but it was of importance enough to enlistabsorbing interest throughout the kingdom; it would have added fourhundred thousand new voters. While it satisfied the Liberals, it wasregarded by the Conservatives as a dangerous concession, opening thedoors too widely to the people. Its most brilliant and effectiveopponent was Mr. Lowe, whose oratory raised him at once to fame andinfluence. Seldom has such eloquence been heard in the House of Commons, and from all the leading debaters on both sides. Mr. Gladstone outdidhimself, but perhaps was a little too profuse with his Latin quotations. The debate was continued for eight successive nights. The final divisionwas the largest ever known: the government found itself in a minority ofeleven, and consequently resigned. Lord Derby, as has been said, wasagain prime minister. 

The memorable rivalry between Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Disraeli was nowcontinued in deeper earnest, and never ceased so long as the latterstatesman was a member of the House of Commons, They were recognized tobe the heads of their respective parties, --two giants in debate; twogreat parliamentary gladiators, on whom the eyes of the nation rested. Mr. Gladstone was the more earnest, the more learned, and the more solidin his blows. Mr. Disraeli was the more adroit, the more witty, and themore brilliant in his thrusts. Both were equally experienced. The oneappealed to justice and truth; the other to the prejudices of the Houseand the pride of a nation of classes. One was armed with a heavy dragoonsword; the other with a light rapier, which he used with extraordinaryskill. Mr. G. W. E. Russell, in his recent "Life of Gladstone, " quotes thefollowing passage from a letter of Lord Houghton, May, 1867:--

"I met Gladstone at breakfast. He seems quite awed with the diabolicalcleverness of Dizzy, 'who, ' he says, 'is gradually driving all ideas ofpolitical honor out of the House, and accustoming it to the mostrevolting cynicism, ' There is no doubt that a sense of humor has alwaysbeen conspicuously absent from Mr. Gladstone's character. "

Sometimes one of these rival leaders was on the verge of victory andsometimes the other, and both equally gained the applause of thespectators. Two such combatants had not been seen since the days of Pittand Fox, --one, the champion of the people; the other, of thearistocracy. What each said was read the next day by every family in theland. Both were probably greatest in opposition, since moreunconstrained. Of the two, Disraeli was superior in the control of histemper and in geniality of disposition, making members roar withlaughter by his off-hand vituperation and ingenuity in inventingnicknames. Gladstone was superior in sustained reasoning, in loftysentiments, and in the music of his voice, accompanied by that solemnityof manner which usually passes for profundity and the index of deepconvictions. As for rhetorical power, it would be difficult to say whichwas the superior, --though the sentences of both were too long. It wouldalso be difficult to tell which of the two was the more ambitious andmore tenacious of office. Both, it is said, bade for popularity in themeasures they proposed. Both were politicians. There is, indeed, a greatdifference between politicians and statesmen; but a man may be politicwithout ceasing to be a lover of his country, like Lord Palmerstonhimself; and a man may advocate large and comprehensive views ofstatesmanship which are neither popular nor appreciated. 

The new Conservative ministry was a short one. Coming into power on thedefeat of the Liberal reform bill introduced by Mr. Gladstone, the Torygovernment recognized the popular demand on which that bill had beenbased; and though Mr. Disraeli coolly introduced a reform bill of theirown which was really more radical than the Liberal bill had been, andalthough at the hands of the opposition it was so modified that the Dukeof Buccleuch declared that the only word unaltered was the initial"whereas, " its passage was claimed as a great Conservative victory. Shortly after this, the Earl of Derby retired on account of ill-health, and was succeeded by Mr. Disraeli as premier; but the current ofLiberalism set in so strongly in the ensuing elections that he wasforced to resign in 1868, and Mr. Gladstone now for the first timebecame prime minister. 

This was the golden period of Gladstone's public services. DuringDisraeli's short lease of power, Gladstone had carried the abolition ofcompulsory church-rates, and had moved, with great eloquence, thedisestablishment of the English Church in Ireland. On the latterquestion Parliament was dissolved, and an appeal made to the country;and the triumphant success of the Liberals brought Mr. Gladstone intopower with the brightest prospects for the cause to which he was nowcommitted. He was fifty-nine years old before he reached the supremeobject of his ambition, --to rule England; but in accordance with law, and in the interest of truth and justice. In England the strongest mancan usually, by persevering energy, reach the highest position to whicha subject may aspire. In the United States, political ambition isdefeated by rivalries and animosities. Practically the President reigns, like absolute kings, "by the grace of God, "--as it would seem when somany ordinary men, and even obscure, are elevated to the highest place, and when these comparatively unknown men often develop when elected thevirtues and abilities of a Saul or a David, as in the cases of Lincolnand Garfield. 

So great was the popularity of Mr. Gladstone at this time, so profoundwas the respect he inspired for his lofty character, his abilities, hisvast and varied learning, his unimpeachable integrity and conscientiousdischarge of his duties, that for five years he was virtually dictator, wielding more power than any premier since Pitt, if we except Sir RobertPeel in his glory. He was not a dictator in the sense that Metternich orBismarck was, --not a grand vizier, the vicegerent of an absolutemonarch, controlling the foreign policy, the army, the police, and thenational expenditures. He could not send men to prison without a trial, or interfere with the peaceful pursuits of obnoxious citizens; but hecould carry out any public measure he proposed affecting the generalinterests, for Parliament was supreme, and his influence ruled theParliament. He was liable to disagreeable attacks from members of theopposition, and could not silence them; he might fall before theirattacks; but while he had a great majority of members to back him, ready to do his bidding, he stood on a proud pedestal and undoubtedlyenjoyed the sweets of power. He would not have been human if he had not. 

Yet Mr. Gladstone carried his honors with dignity and discretion. He wasaccessible to all who had claims upon his time; he was never rude orinsolent; he was gracious and polite to delegations; he was tookind-hearted to snub anybody. No cares of office could keep him fromattending public worship; no popular amusements diverted him from hisduties; he was feared only as a father is feared. I can conceive that hewas sometimes intolerant of human infirmities; that no one dared toobtrude familiarities or make unseemly jokes in his presence; that fewfelt quite at ease in his company, --oppressed by his bearing, and awedby his prodigious respectability and grave solemnity. Not that he wasarrogant and haughty, like a Roman cardinal or an Oxford Don; he wassimply dignified and undemonstrative, like a man absorbed with weightyresponsibilities. I doubt if he could unbend at the dinner-table likeDisraeli and Palmerston, or tell stories like Sydney Smith, or drink toomuch wine with jolly companions, or forget for a moment the proper andthe conventional. I can see him sporting with children, or taking longwalks, or cutting down trees for exercise, or given to deep draughts ofold October when thirsty; but to see him with a long pipe, or dallyingwith ladies, or giving vent to unseemly expletives, or retailingscandals, --these and other disreputable follies are utterlyinconceivable of Mr. Gladstone. A very serious man may be an object ofveneration; but he is a constant rebuke to the weaknesses of our commonhumanity, --a wet blanket upon frivolous festivities. 

Let us now briefly glance at the work done by Gladstone during the fiveyears when in his first premiership he directed the public affairs ofEngland, --impatient of opposition, and sensitive to unjust aspersions, yet too powerful to be resisted in the supreme confidence of his party. 

The first thing of note he did was to complete the disestablishment ofthe Irish Church, --an arduous task to any one lacking Mr. Gladstone'sextraordinary influence. Here he was at war with his former friends, andwith a large section of the Conservative party, --especially withecclesiastical dignitaries, who saw in this measure hostility to theChurch as well as a national sin. It was a dissolution of the unionbetween the Churches of England and Ireland; a divestment of thetemporalities which the Irish clergy had enjoyed; the abolition of allecclesiastical corporations and laws and courts in Ireland, --in short, the sweeping away of the annuities which the beneficed clergy hadhitherto received out of the property of the Established Church, whichannuities were of the nature of freeholds. It was not proposed todeprive the clergy of their income, so long as they discharged theirclerical duties; but that the title to their tithes should be vested incommissioners, so that these church freeholds could not be bought andsold by non-residents, and churches in decadence should be taken fromincumbents. The peerage rights of Irish bishops were also taken away. Itwas not proposed to touch private endowments; and glebe-houses which hadbecome generally dilapidated were handed over to incumbents by theirpaying a fair valuation. Not only did the measure sweep away the abusesof the Establishment which had existed for centuries, --such asendowments held by those who performed no duties, which they coulddispose of like other property, --but the _regium donum_ given toPresbyterian ministers and the Maynooth Catholic College grant, whichtogether amounted to £70, 000, were also withdrawn, although compensatedon the same principles as those which granted a settled stipend to theactual incumbents of the disestablished churches. 

By this measure, the withdrawal of tithes and land rents and otherproperties amounted to sixteen millions; and after paying ministers andactual incumbents their stipends of between seven or eight millions, there would remain a surplus of seven or eight millions, with which Mr. Gladstone proposed to endow lunatic and idiot asylums, schools for thedeaf, dumb, and blind, institutions for the training of nurses, forinfirmaries, and hospitals for the needy people of Ireland. 

There can be no rational doubt that this reform was beneficent, and itmet the approval of the Liberal party, being supported with a grandeloquence by John Bright, who had under this ministry for the first timetaken office, --as President of the Board of Trade; but it gave umbrageto the Irish clergy as a matter of course, to the Presbyterians ofUlster, to the Catholics as affecting Maynooth, and to the conservativesof Oxford and Cambridge on general principles. It was a reform notunlike that of Thomas Cromwell in the time of Henry VIII. , when hedissolved the monasteries, though not quite so violent as thesecularization of church property in France in the time of theRevolution. It was a spoliation, in one sense, as well as a neededreform, --a daring and bold measure, which such statesmen as LordsLiverpool, Aberdeen, and Palmerston would have been slow to make, andthe weak points of which Disraeli was not slow to assail. To the radicalDissenters, as led by Mr. Miall, it was a grateful measure, which wouldopen the door for future discussions on the disestablishment of theEnglish Church itself, --a logical contingency which the premier did notseem to appreciate; for if the State had a right to take away thetemporalities of the Irish Church when they were abused, the State wouldhave an equal right to take away those of the English Church should theyhereafter turn out to be unnecessary, or become a scandal in the eyes ofthe nation. 

One would think that this disestablishment of the Irish Church wouldhave been the last reform which a strict churchman like Gladstone wouldhave made; certainly it was the last for a politic statesman to make, for it brought forth fruit in the next general election. It is true thatthe Irish Establishment had failed in every way, as Mr. Bright showed inone of his eloquent speeches, and to remove it was patriotic. If Mr. Gladstone had his eyes open, however, to its natural results asaffecting his own popularity, he deserves the credit of being the mostunselfish and lofty statesman that ever adorned British annals. 

Having thus in 1869 removed one important grievance in the affairs ofIreland, Mr. Gladstone soon proceeded to another, and in February, 1870, brought forward, in a crowded House, his Irish Land Bill. The evil whichhe had in view to cure was the insecurity of tenure, which resulted indiscouraging and paralyzing the industry of tenants, especially in thematter of evictions for non-payment of rent, and the raising of rents onland which had been improved by them. As they were liable at any timeto be turned out of their miserable huts, the rents had only doubled invalue in ninety years; whereas in England and Scotland, where there wasmore security of tenure, rents had quadrupled. This insecurity anduncertainty had resulted in a great increase of pauperism in Ireland, and prevented any rise in wages, although there was increased expense ofliving. The remedy proposed to alleviate in some respect the conditionof the Irish tenants was the extension of their leases to thirty-threeyears, and the granting national assistance to such as desired topurchase the lands they had previously cultivated, according to a scaleof prices to be determined by commissioners, --thus making improvementsthe property of the tenants who had made them rather than of thelandlord, and encouraging the tenants by longer leases to make suchimprovements. Mr. Gladstone's bill also extended to twelve months thetime for notices to quit, bearing a stamp duty of half-a-crown. Thismeasure on the part of the government was certainly a relief, as far asit went, to the poor people of Ireland. It became law on August 1, 1870. 

The next important measure of Mr. Gladstone was to abolish the custom ofbuying and selling commissions in the army, which provoked bitteropposition from the aristocracy. It was maintained by the governmentthat the whole system of purchase was unjust, and tended to destroy theefficiency of the army by preventing the advancement of officersaccording to merit. In no other country was such a mistake committed. Itis true that the Prussian and Austrian armies were commanded by officersfrom the nobility; but these officers had not the unfair privilege ofjumping over one another's heads by buying promotion. The bill, thoughit passed the Commons, was thrown out by the Lords, who wished to keepup the aristocratic quality of army officers, among whom their youngersons were enrolled. Mr. Gladstone cut the knot by advising her Majestyto take the decisive step of cancelling the royal warrant underwhich--and not by law--purchase had existed. This calling on the Queento do by virtue of her royal prerogative what could not be done byordinary legislation, though not unconstitutional, was unusual. True, aprivilege which royalty had granted, royalty could revoke; but inremoving this evil Mr. Gladstone still further alienated the army andthe aristocracy. 

Among other measures which the premier carried for the public good, butagainst bitter opposition, were the secret ballot, and the removal ofUniversity Tests, by which all lay students of whatever religious creedwere admitted to the universities on equal terms. The establishment ofnational and compulsory elementary education, although not emanatingfrom Mr. Gladstone, was also accomplished during his government. 

It now began to be apparent that the policy of the prime minister wasreform wherever reform was needed. There was no telling what he would donext. Had he been the prime minister of an absolute monarch he wouldhave been unfettered, and could have carried out any reform which hisroyal master approved. But the English are conservative and slow tochange, no matter what party they belong to. It seemed to many that thepremier was iconoclastic, and was bent on demolishing anything andeverything which he disliked. Consequently a reaction set in, and Mr. Gladstone's popularity, by which he had ruled almost as dictator, began to wane. 

The settlement of the Alabama Claims did not add to his popularity. Everybody knows what these were, and I shall merely allude to them. During our Civil War, injuries had been inflicted on the commerce of theUnited States by cruisers built, armed, and manned in Great Britain, notonly destroying seventy of our vessels, but by reason of the fear ofshippers, resulting in a transfer of trade from American to Britishships. It having been admitted by commissioners sent by Mr. Gladstone toWashington, that Great Britain was to blame for these and other injuriesof like character, the amount of damages for which she was justlyliable was submitted to arbitration; and the International Court atGeneva decided that England was bound to pay to the United States morethan fifteen million dollars in gold. The English government promptlypaid the money, although regarding the award as excessive; but while thejudicious rejoiced to see an arbitrament of reason instead of a resortto war, the pugnacious British populace was discontented, and againGladstone lost popularity. 

And here it may be said that the foreign policy of Mr. Gladstone waspacific from first to last. He opposed the Crimean war; he kept clear ofentangling alliances; he maintained a strict neutrality in Easterncomplications, and in the Franco-German embroilment; he never stimulatedthe passion of military glory; he ever maintained that--

 "There is a higher than the warrior's excellence. "

He was devoted to the development of national resources and the removalof evils which militated against justice as well as domestic prosperity. His administration, fortunately, was marked by no foreign war. Under hisguidance the nation had steadily advanced in wealth, and was notoppressed by taxation; he had promoted education as wall as materialthrift; he had attempted to heal disorders in Ireland by benefiting thetenant class. But he at last proposed a comprehensive scheme forenlarging higher education in Ireland, which ended his administration. 

The Irish University Bill, which as an attempted compromise betweenCatholic and Protestant demands satisfied neither party, met with suchunexpected opposition that a majority of three was obtained against thegovernment. Mr. Gladstone was, in accordance with custom, compelled toresign or summon a new Parliament. He accepted the latter alternative;but he did not seem aware of the great change in public sentiment whichhad taken place in regard to his reforms. Not one of them had touchedthe heart of the great mass, or was of such transcendent importance tothe English people as the repeal of the corn laws had been. They weremeasures of great utility, --indeed, based on justice, --but were of akind to alienate powerful classes without affecting universal interests. They were patriotic rather than politic. Moreover, he was not supportedby lieutenants of first-class ability or reputation. His immediatecoadjutors were most respectable men, great scholars, and men of moreexperience than genius or eloquence. Of his cabinet, eight of them it issaid were "double-firsts" at Oxford. There was not one of themsufficiently trained or eminent to take his place. They were hissubordinates rather than his colleagues; and some of them becameimpatient under his dictation, and witnessed his decline in popularitywith secret satisfaction. No government was ever started on an ambitiouscourse with louder pretensions or brighter promises than Mr. Gladstone'scabinet in 1868. In less than three years their glory was gone. It wasclaimed that the bubble of oratory had burst when in contact with fact, and the poor English people had awoke to the dreary conviction that itwas but vapor after all; that Mr. Disraeli had pricked that bubble whenhe said, "Under his influence [Gladstone's] we have legalizedconfiscation, we have consecrated sacrilege, we have condoned treason, we have destroyed churches, we have shaken property to its foundation, and we have emptied jails. "

Everything went against the government. Russia had torn up the Black Seatreaty, the fruit of the Crimean war; the settlement of the "Alabama"claims was humiliating; "the generous policy which was to have won theIrish heart had exasperated one party without satisfying another. He hadirritated powerful interests on all sides, from the army to the licensedvictuallers. "

On the appeal to the nation, contrary to Mr. Gladstone's calculations, there was a great majority against him. He had lost friends and madeenemies. The people seemingly forgot his services, --his efforts to givedignity to honest labor, to stimulate self-denial, to reduce unwiseexpenditures, to remove crying evils. They forgot that he had reducedtaxation to the extent of twelve millions sterling annually; and all thewhile the nation had been growing richer, so that the burdens which hadonce been oppressive were now easy to bear. It would almost appear thateven Gladstone's transcendent eloquence had lost in a measure its charmwhen Disraeli, in one of his popular addresses, was applauded for sayingthat he was "a sophistical rhetorician inebriated with the exuberance ofhis own verbosity, and gifted with an egotistical imagination that canat all times command an interminable and inconsistent series ofarguments to malign his opponents and to glorify himself, "--one of themost exaggerated and ridiculous charges that was ever made against apublic man of eminence, yet witty and plausible. 

On the retirement of the great statesman from office in 1875, in sadnessand chagrin, he declined to continue to be the leader of his party inopposition. His disappointment and disgust must have been immense toprompt a course which seemed to be anything but magnanimous, since hewell knew that there was no one capable of taking his place; but heprobably had his reasons. For some time he rarely went to the House ofCommons. He left the leaders of his party to combat an opponent whom hehimself had been unable to disarm. Fortunately no questions came up ofsufficient importance to arouse a nation or divert it from its gains orits pleasures. It was thinking of other things than budgets and thesmall extension of the suffrage, or even of the Eastern question. It wasthinking more of steamships and stock speculations and great financialoperations, of theatres, of operas, of new novels, even of ritualisticobservances in the churches, than of the details of government inpeaceful times, or the fireworks of the great magician who had by artsand management dethroned a greater and wiser man than himself. 

Although Mr. Gladstone was only occasionally seen, after his retirement, in the House of Commons, it must not be supposed that his politicalinfluence was dead. When anything of special interest was to bediscussed, he was ready as before with his voice and vote. Such ameasure as the bill to regulate public worship--aimed at suppressingritualism--aroused his ecclesiastical interest, and he was voluminousupon it, both in and out of Parliament. Even when he was absent from hisseat, his influence remained, and in all probability the new leader ofthe Liberals, Lord Hartington, took counsel from him. He was simplytaking a rest before he should gird on anew his armor, and resume thegovernment of the country. 

Meantime, his great rival Disraeli led his party with consummate skill. He was a perfect master of tactics, wary, vigilant, courteous, good-natured, seizing every opportunity to gain a party triumph. He wasalso judicious in his selection of ministers, nor did he attempt to lordit over them. He showed extraordinary tact in everything, and in nothingmore than in giving a new title to the Queen as Empress of India. But nomeasures of engrossing interest were adopted during his administration. He was content to be a ruler rather than a reformer. He was careful tonurse his popularity, and make no parliamentary mistakes. At the end oftwo years, however, his labors and cares told seriously on his health. He had been in Parliament since 1837; he was seventy-one years of age, and he found it expedient to accept the gracious favor of his sovereign, and to retire to the House of Lords, with the title of Earl ofBeaconsfield, yet retaining the office of prime minister. 

During the five years that Mr. Gladstone remained in retirement, he wasby no means idle, or a silent spectator of political events. He wasindefatigable with his pen, and ever ready with speeches for theplatform and with addresses to public bodies. During this period threenew Reviews were successfuly started, --the "Fortnightly, " the"Contemporary, " and the "Nineteenth Century, "--to all of which he was afrequent contributor, on a great variety of subjects. His articles weremarked by characteristic learning and ability, and vastly increased hisliterary reputation. I doubt, however, if they will be much noticed byposterity. Nothing is more ephemeral than periodical essays, unlessmarked by extraordinary power both in style and matter, like the essaysof Macaulay and Carlyle. Gladstone's articles would make the fortune ofordinary writers, but they do not stand out, as we should naturallyexpect, as brilliant masterpieces, which everybody reads and glows whilereading them. Indeed, most persons find them rather dry, whether fromthe subject or the style I will not undertake to say. But a great mancannot be uniformly great or even always interesting. How few men atseventy will give themselves the trouble to write at all, when there isno necessity, just to relieve their own minds, or to instruct withoutadequate reward! Michael Angelo labored till eighty-seven, and Titiantill over ninety; but they were artists who worked from the love of art, restless without new creations. Perhaps it might also be said ofGladstone that he wrote because he could not help writing, since he knewalmost everything worth knowing, and was fond of telling what he knew. 

At length Mr. Gladstone emerged again from retirement, to assume thehelm of State. When he left office in 1875, he had bequeathed a surplusto the treasury of nearly six millions; but this, besides theaccumulation of over five millions more, had been spent in profitlessand unnecessary wars. In 1876 a revolt against Turkish rule broke out inBulgaria, and was suppressed with truly Turkish bloodthirstiness andoutrage. "The Bulgarian atrocities" became a theme of discussionthroughout Europe; and in England, while Disraeli and his governmentmade light of them, Gladstone was aroused to all his old-time vigor byhis humanitarian indignation. Says Russell: "He made the mostimpassioned speeches, often in the open air; he published pamphlets, which rushed into incredible circulations; he poured letter after letterinto the newspapers; he darkened the sky with controversial post-cards;and, as soon as Parliament met, he was ready with all his unequalledresources of eloquence, argumentation, and inconvenient inquiry, todrive home his great indictment against the Turkish government and itsfriends and champions in the House of Commons. "

Four years of this vigorous bombardment, which included in its objectsthe whole range of Disraeli's "brilliant foreign policy" of threat andbluster, produced its effect, A popular song of the day gave a nicknameto this policy:--

 "We don't want to fight, but, by Jingo, if we do, We've got the ships, we've got the men, we've got the money, too. "

And _Jingoism_ became in the mouths of the Liberals a keen weapon ofsatire. The government gained the applause of aristocrats and populace, but lost that of the plain people. 

The ninth Victorian Parliament was dying out, and a new election was athand. Mr. Gladstone, now at the age of seventy, went to Edinburgh, thecentre of Scottish conservatism, and in several masterly and memorablespeeches, showing that his natural vigor of mind and body had notabated, he exposed the mistakes and shortcomings of the existinggovernment and presented the boons which a new Liberal ministry wereprepared to give. And when in 1880 the dissolution of Parliament tookplace, he again went to Scotland and offered himself for the county ofEdinburgh, or Midlothian, making a series of astonishing speeches, andwas returned as its representative. The general elections throughout thekingdom showed that the tide had again turned. There was an immenseLiberal gain. The Earl of Beaconsfield placed his resignation in thehands of the Queen, and Gladstone was sent for, --once more to be primeminister of England. 

And here I bring to a close this imperfect notice of one of the greatestmen of modern times, --hardly for lack of sufficient material, butbecause it is hard to find a proper perspective in viewing matters whichare still the subject of heated contest and turmoil. Once againGladstone was seated on the summit of power, and with every prospect ofa long-continued reign. Although an old man, his vigor of mind and bodyhad not abated. He was never stronger, apparently, than when he was pastseventy years of age. At no previous period of his life was his fame soextended or his moral influence so great. Certainly no man in Englandwas more revered than he or more richly deserved his honors. He enteredupon his second premiership with the veneration of the intelligent andliberal-minded patriots of the realm, and great things were expectedfrom so progressive and lofty a minister. The welfare of the country itwas undoubtedly his desire and ambition to promote. 

But his second administration was not successful. Had the aged premierbeen content to steer his ship of State in placid waters, nothing wouldhave been wanting to gratify moderate desires. It was not, however, inglorious repose he sought, but to confer a boon for which all futureages would honor his memory. 

That boon was seemingly beyond his power. The nation was not prepared tofollow him in his plans for Irish betterment. Indeed, he aroused Englishopposition by his proposed changes of land-tenure in Ireland, and Irishanger by attempted coercion in suppressing crime and disorder. This, andthe unfortunate policy of his government in Egypt, brought him toparliamentary defeat; and he retired in June, 1885, declining at thesame time the honor of an earldom proffered by the Queen. The ministrywas wrecked on the rock which has proved so dangerous to all Britishpolitical navigators for a hundred years. No human genius seems capableof solving the Irish question. It is apparently no nearer solution thanit was in the days of William Pitt. In attempts to solve the problem, Mr. Gladstone found himself opposed by the aristocracy, by the Church, by the army, by men of letters, by men of wealth throughout the country. Lord Salisbury succeeded him; but only for a few months, and in January, 1886, Mr. Gladstone was for the third time called to the premiership. Henow advanced a step, and proposed the startling policy of Home Rule forIreland in matters distinctly Irish; but his following would not holdtogether on the issue, and in June he retired again. 

From then until 1891 he was not in office, but he was indefatigablyworking with voice and pen for the Irish cause. He made in hisretirement many converts to his opinions, and was again elevated topower on the Irish question as an issue in 1891. Yet the English on thewhole seem to be against him in his Irish policy, which is denounced asunpractical, and which his opponents even declare to be on his part aninsincere policy, entered upon and pursued solely as a bid for power. It is generally felt among the upper classes that no concession and noboons would satisfy the Irish short of virtual independence of Britishrule. If political rights could be separated from political power theremight be more hope of settling the difficulty, which looks like aconflict between justice and wisdom. The sympathy of Americans is mostlyon the side of the "grand old man" in his Herculean task, even whilethey admit that self-government in our own large cities is a dismalfailure from the balance of power which is held by foreigners, --by theIrish in the East, and by the Germans in the West. And those who see therapid growth of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States, especially in those sections of the country where Puritanism once hadcomplete sway, and the immense political power wielded by Roman Catholicpriests, can understand why the conservative classes of England areopposed to the recognition of the political rights of a people who mightunite with socialists and radicals in overturning the institutions onwhich the glory and prospects of a great nation are believed to bebased. The Catholics in Ireland constitute about seven-eighths of thepopulation, and English Protestants fear to deliver the thriftyProtestant minority into the hands of the great majority armed with thetyrannical possibilities of Home Rule. It is indeed a many-sided anddifficult problem. There are instincts in nations, as among individuals, which reason fails to overcome, even as there are some subjects inreference to which experience is a safer guide than genius or logic. 

Little by little, however, at each succeeding election the Liberal partygained strength, not only in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, but even inEngland also, and their power in Parliament increased; until, in 1893, after a long and memorable contest, the Commons passed Mr. Gladstone'sHome Rule bill by a pronounced majority. Then it was thrown out by theLords, with very brief consideration. This, and other overrulings of theLower House by the Peers, aroused deep feeling throughout the nation. InMarch, 1894, the venerable Gladstone, whose impaired hearing and sightwarned him that a man of eighty-five--even though a giant--should nolonger bear the burdens of empire, retired from the premiership, hislast speech being a solemn intimation of the issues that must soon ariseif the House of Lords persisted in obstructing the will of the people, as expressed in the acts of their immediate representatives in the Houseof Commons. 

But, whatever the outcome of the Irish question, the claim of WilliamEwart Gladstone to a high rank among the ruling statesmen of ModernEurope cannot be gainsaid. Moreover, as his influence has been soforceful a part of the great onward-moving modern current of democraticenlargement, --and in Great Britain one of its most discreet and potentdirectors, --his fame is secure; it is unalterably a part of the noblesthistory of the English people. [5]

[Footnote 5: Mr. Gladstone died May 19, 1898. Perhaps at once the mostintimate and comprehensive account of him is "The Story of Gladstone'sLife, " by Justin McCarthy. ]

AUTHORITIES. 

There is no exhaustive or satisfactory work on Gladstone which has yetbeen written. The reader must confine himself at present to the popularsketches, which are called biographies, of Gladstone, of Disraeli, ofPalmerston, of Peel, and other English statesmen. He may consult withprofit the Reviews of the last twenty-five years in reference to Englishpolitical affairs. For technical facts one must consult the AnnualRegister. The time has not yet come for an impartial review of the greatactors in this generation on the political stage of either Europeor America.