appreciate its gravity; but the outside world was not allowed to suspect the fact, and his public utterances on the eve of its declaration were couched in a tone of flippancy and jocularity which, though possibly intended, as Mr. Ashley suggests, to keep up the heart and spirit of the nation, can hardly be read now without a feeling of irritation and regret. On March 7th, Lord Palmerston presided over a banquet given at the Reform Club to Sir Charles Napier, previous to his departure to take command of the Baltic fleet. Of his essentially after-dinner remarks, and the rather small jokes with which they were interspersed, it is unnecessary to reproduce any specimens here; but it is fair to mention that they were discretion itself when compared with the utterances of Sir James Graham, who was also present in the capacity of First Lord of the Admiralty. When taken to task a few days later by Mr. Bright, in the House of Commons, Lord Palmerston made a still sorrier exhibition of him. self, and for once in his life gave vent to some illnatured remarks. Mr. Bright, according to Lord Shaftesbury, was one of the few men whom he really regarded as an enemy; and a desire to pay off old scores was probably his motive for beginning his answer with "The honourable and reverend gentleman," and con tinuing, “I am further convinced that the opinion of the country with regard to me and my conduct will in no way whatever be influenced by anything which the hon. gentleman may say. I therefore treat the censure of the hon. gentleman with the most perfect indifference and contempt." Mr. Disraeli did well to complain during this period of the "patrician bullying of the Treasury bench." Fortunately for himself and the Ministry, Lord Palmerston's outbursts against the Peace Party were limited in number, and that Party had become so thoroughly out of favour with the nation on account of the vehemence with which it published its views, that people were inclined to condone expressions of asperity against its members. His popularity does not seem to have been shaken by the Napier banquet and its consequences. And public opinion marked him out so distinctly as the man in whose hands should be placed the conduct of military operations, that his old opponent Lord John Russell, when he proposed to Lord Aberdeen in November that the unwieldy arrangement then in existence should be abolished, and the offices of Secretary at War and Secretary for War united in the same person, designated Lord Palmerston as the most fitting man in the Cabinet to fill the onerous position. However, the Premier refused to entertain the idea out of consideration for the feelings of the Duke of Newcastle, who was at the head of the War Department, and finally Palmerston himself vetoed the plan. Whether a change of men would have permanently checked the prevalent mismanagement, may be doubted; for, as Lord Palmerston pointed out at the beginning of the next session, it was the system more than the Duke of Newcastle that was at fault; still it would certainly have been one for the better, and would have been decidedly popular. progress Even though he did not direct operations in person, Palmerston's word had weighty influence on the of the war. He urged all along that it was not enough. to drive the Russians back from the Danube, as the Turks were doing without allied assistance; but that there must be "security for the future "-it was Pitt's phrase against the repetition of the Russian attack, and that the only way of obtaining that security was to strike the Empire of the Czar in a vital part. The scheme for the invasion of the Crimea did not originate with Palmerston, for it seems to have been hatched by the muchcontriving mind of the Emperor of the French; but he was its most powerful advocate, and reduced it from a vague sketch to a proposition of practical value. "The capture of Sebastopol and the Russian Black Sea fleet," he wrote, "would be a lasting and important advantage to us. Such a success would act with great weight upon the fortunes of the war and would tell essentially upon the negotiations for peace.' These were considerations which would weigh chiefly with statesmen; military men naturally considered the question from a military point of view, and it is one of the commonplaces of history that both Lord Raglan and Marshal St. Arnaud were opposed to the campaign. At the same time the prosaic but inexorable logic of facts points to the conclusion that Lord Palmerston was right and Lord Raglan wrong. Granting the necessity of striking at. a vital part of the Russian Empire, it was impossible to strike elsewhere, the operations in the Baltic having failed, than in the Crimea. Had Lord Raglan not been overruled, and had an attack in force been made on Sebastopol immediately after the Alma, there can be no doubt that the campaign would have been one of weeks instead of months. Lastly, it was the fall of Sebastopol alone that broke the spirit of Russia and made a durable peace possible. The adventure miscarried at first, however, and the Aberdeen Ministry fell long before the Malakoff. When Lord John Russell's factious resignation, in the teeth of Mr. Roebuck's motion of inquiry, rendered a speedy termination of the existence of the Coalition Administration inevitable, Palmerston, its most popular member, made its funeral speech. His most significant re mark was that he trusted that at least the dissensions which prevailed might be confined to the overthrowing of the Government; and that whatever Government might succeed, we should not exhibit to Europe the melancholy spectacle of a country interrupting by party and political struggles the conduct of great national interests. To the discredit of our party system this dignified appeal was speedily forgotten. Few Oppositions have been more given over to faction, and less awake to the true interests of the nation, than that against which Lord Palmerston had to contend when he undertook to restore the fallen fortunes of his country, and to raise her once more to her true place among the States of Europe. 161 CHAPTER X. THE CONCLUSION OF THE RUSSIAN WAR. 1855-1856. Attempts to form a Ministry-Lord Palmerston accepts the taskHis difficulties-Darkness of the prospect-Harmony of the Cabinet-Lord Palmerston's tactics-The second Vienna ConferenceThe Austrian compromise-Conclusion of the war-The Congress of Paris-The Treaty-Lord Palmerston receives the Garter. WHEN the Coalition Cabinet fell, amidst a chorus of derisive laughter at the completeness of its defeat, the popular voice loudly called for Lord Palmerston to take command of the ship of State and bring her through the storm. The mandate which summoned Pitt to supplant Addington in 1804 was hardly more imperious than that which in 1855 designated Palmerston as the successor of Aberdeen. Several weeks earlier that well-informed observer, Mr. Greville, had seen in the Home Secretary's improved position at Court the removal of the most serious obstacle between him and the Premiership. Lord Palmerston was, in fact, as he himself wrote to his brother, l'inévitable; and he added the happy quotation, Quod nemo promittere Divum |