Death of Lord Raglan-Fall of Sebastopol-Austrian Intrigues-Re-opening of THE beginning of the end of the war gradually became visible. Now that the era of Vienna conferences and abortive negotiations had come to a conclusion, Russia was beginning to Sebastopol was in the hands of the allies, and England's difficulties in that quarter were practically at an end. A few weeks before, the news had reached England of the death of her faithful servant Lord Raglan-one of the best soldiers and truest gentlemen this country has ever boasted. His last days were without doubt grievously embittered by the attacks which the newspapers and certain not too well informed M.P.'s, had made upon him, and by the feeling that many people in England cast upon him the blame of all the disasters which befell the English army in the Crimea. The failure of the attack upon the Redan was the finishing stroke, and a five days' illness terminated in death. Lord Beaconsfield found an opportunity for redeeming his pledge that English generals should not find the Opposition as insensible to their merits as the Whigs had been to those of Wellington; and when the Queen's message, asking the House to make provision for Lord Raglan's family, came before the House (3rd July), he not merely seconded the resolutions of the Government, but delivered himself of a brief eulogy of the departed general, as exquisite in its literary finish as honourable to the heart of the orator. The fall of Sebastopol stimulated the energies of those who fancied that a peace was immediately practicable, and Austria at once opened fresh negotiations with France and England. 'The former state she found much more pliable than the latter. As is their wont, the French people had gone into the conflict with a light heart, but when they found it was not to be a mere military promenade, they grew tired, and sought how best they might escape from it. They had too an uneasy suspicion that some of the highest personages in the Empire-possibly even Russia accepts the Situation. 3 the Emperor himself—were using the information which they possessed for the purpose of speculating on the Bourse, and that suspicion undoubtedly created enormous dissatisfaction. In England the feeling was different. So much blood had been spilled and so vast a treasure had been expended, that the nation was almost unanimous in its determination to insist on continuing the war until a satisfactory conclusion should be attained. This determination was not very acceptable to France, which power, in conjunction with Austria, actually made proposals for peace which England was expected to accept without modification. Nothing of the kind could, of course, be tolerated, and Count Walewski had to be told through Count de Persigny, that although the English nation would be enchanted with an honourable peace "rather than be constrained to sign one with unsatisfactory conditions, it would prefer to continue the war with no other allies than Turkey."* A month later Austria returned to the charge; still in the interests of Russia, and proposing that the question of the Black Sea should be settled by a separate treaty between Russia and Turkey-a suggestion which the Queen aptly described as "too naif." The negotiations consequently went on, England always insisting upon the point for which she had stood out in the first instance the neutralization of the Black Sea. The Emperor Napoleon, though anxious to bring the war to a close, and though tampered with by Russian influences, adhered loyally to the English alliance, and on the 17th of January, 1856, the Times was able to announce in its second edition that "Russia had unconditionally accepted the proposition of the Allies." On the 1st of February the Protocol was signed *"Life of Palmerston," vol. 2, p. 104. "Prince Consort," vol. 3, p. 395. at Vienna by the representatives of the five powers; the armistice was extended to the 1st of March, and the arrangements for the Congress at Paris decided upon. Parliament had been opened by the Queen in person on the 31st of January, the greater part of the speech from the Throne being of course devoted to the approaching peace. The debate on the Address was very short, and Mr. Disraeli's contribution to it was a brief speech, in which he explained why he refrained from criticising the action of the Government, and expressed a hope that the negotiation now commenced would result in a durable peace. He closed with a patriotic assurance that "if Her Majesty fails in the negotiations which are now about to be carried on-if the conditions of peace of which the noble Lord is cognizant but with which we are unacquainted may not effect that great result which is now generally expected and generally desired—we have the satisfaction of knowing that Her Majesty may appeal with confidence to her Parliament to support her in a renewed struggle, and that there is no sum which Parliament will not cheerfully vote, or her people cheerfully raise, to vindicate her honour and maintain the independence and interests of her Kingdom,"- language and a temper which drew from Lord Palmerston an emphatic and cordial recognition. Although, however, he abstained from factiously harassing the Government during the negotiations for peace, Mr. Disraeli did not fail to exercise his right of criticism when other matters called for it, and an opportunity was speedily afforded by a blunder of the Ministry. Amongst the measures promised in the Queen's Speech was one for redressing the grievances of shipowners in the matter of local dues. The Bill was The Lot of the Government. 5 accordingly brought in, but when the time came for the second reading, Lord Palmerston withdrew it with the ingenuous admission that "in regard to the cases of the towns which would be affected by the measure, there were a far greater variety of different circumstances and complicated interests than Her Majesty's Government had been led to suppose." In other words, a most important and far-reaching measure had been brought in without any proper inquiry. Mr. Disraeli expressed his satisfaction at the result, but delivered himself of a pungent criticism of the way in which Ministers brought forward and withdrew their hasty and imperfect measures. "I have been most anxious," said he," that we should not give foreign nations the idea that the Government of Great Britain was a weak Government, a Government that had no resources upon which it could permanently rely. I had hoped that whatever there might be to reprehend in the general tone of our Parliamentary proceedings, that whatever may be the rumours of political strife in the Parliamentary world, we should at least show Europe that an English Minister having to fulfil a great duty to his country, might rely with confidence upon the sympathy and forbearance of a patriotic House of Commons. Such, Sir, was the hope I fondly cherished. But what has happened? Ever since Parliament commenced its sittings for the present Session-a period of about a month-feebleness, blunders, misfortunes, defeat and discomfiture have been the lot of Her Majesty's Government. And who has defeated them? Who has discomfited them? Who has reduced them to this state of perplexity and humiliation? Not the Opposition; not their own supporters. Themselves alone are the authors of their misfortunes, themselves alone have brought about a state of affairs which at the present |