suggested in January, 1867, the release of Russia from the obnoxious restrictions in the Black Sea, Count Beust not only referred to the cool reception which was given at St. Petersburg to this conciliatory offer, but pointed out that Austria desired to act then conjointly with the other Powers as well as with Russia, and to proceed precisely in accordance with Article XIV. of the Treaty.

On the Austrian answer to the Circular, Lord Granville wrote to Lord Bloomfield that it appeared truthful and satisfactory, but he noticed two points of difference-Count Beust's reference in detail to the Russian claims, on which the English reply had not entered, and the less distinctly expressed refusal of Austria to sanction the Russian proceeding.

The action of Prussia, France, and Turkey now became matters of interest. A somewhat discouraging telegram from Mr. Odo Russell produced the impression that Count Bismarck was in favour of a revision of the Treaty in the sense of the Russian demands, and suggested a Conference at St. Petersburg. Count Bernstorff, in conversation with Lord Granville, laboured to remove the disappointment, and said that a St. Petersburg Conference was a Russian, not a Prussian suggestion. Lord Granville replied that he could not promise adhesion to a Conference; but if, on consideration, such a method of settlement seemed desirable, it could only be effected with the assent of all the Powers; it could not be held in the Russian capital, and it could not be agreed to subject to any foregone conclusion.

The way to this agreement was not smoothed by the receipt of Prince Gortschakoff's rejoinder to the English reply. The Prince declined to discuss the "strict law" of treaties urged by Lord Granville, or to cite any precedent. The form, he said, of the Russian declaration was not chosen by the Czar ; we should have asked for nothing better than to obtain our purpose by an understanding with the signatories of the Treaty of 1856." But proposed Conferences for the settlement of European disputes had repeatedly failed, and the state of France increased the difficulty. The Prince repeated his assurance that in abrogating one part of the Treaty Russia never intended to annul the whole, and pointed out that there was nothing to prevent England from entering into explanations on the subject with the other Powers.

This tone did not seem to favour a Conference on the basis which alone Lord Granville instructed Mr. Odo Russell to assure Count Bismarck would be accepted by England-viz., "an express understanding that it should be in no way prejudiced by any previous assumption as to the result of its deliberations." The objection to St. Petersburg as the place of meeting applied equally to Constantinople, and during the war Berlin could not be thought of. Lord Granville suggested London, Vienna, Florence, the Hague, Brussels, or Berne, as suitable places for the assembly.. Count Bismarck, without much hesitation, agreed to the English basis of action, and

agreed upon London as the best place of meeting. It remained now to obtain the assent of the other Powers, but some little difficulties here became apparent. Communications were sent from Versailles to St. Petersburg and Florence, and from London to the Porte, Vienna, and Tours.

Lord Granville was able to give an easy reply to Prince Gortschakoff's allegation that the Czar's action was inevitable because suggested Conferences had constantly failed. He obtained from Baron Brunnow an admission that for twelve years past no demand had ever been presented on the part of Russia for a revision of the Treaty of 1856. In writing to Sir A. Buchanan he cited this point, with the keen deduction, "I cannot therefore admit that the imperial Government can justify this proceeding by the failure of efforts which have never been made." He dwelt hopefully in the same paper on Prince Gortschakoff's definition of the Russian declaration as "the abrogation of a theoretical principle without immediate application." If this meant that Russia has only expressed her own opinion, and will not act upon it without the assent of the other Powers, "it goes far to close the controversy." Finally he alluded to the Conference proposed by Prussia, and reiterated the resolution of England not to enter it should there be any foregone conclusion.

The Porte, however, desired "a foregone conclusion," and pressed on Sir H. Elliot that it was important the work of the assembled Plenipotentiaries should be restricted to the Black Sea question. Lord Granville was compelled to refuse this restriction as inconsistent with the more important reservation which he had insisted upon with Count Bismarck and the Russian Chancellor. The position of Italy, which was for a moment doubtful, was defined satisfactorily by M. Visconti Venosta's despatch of the 24th of November which, though studiously moderate in tone, firmly declined to assent to the Russian declaration.

On the 27th of November Count Bernstorff made a formal proposal for a Conference in London to Lord Granville. The Porte still resisted the plan unless confined to the Black Sea question, but Lord Granville endeavoured to reassure Musurus Pasha by the declaration that the Government thought it decidedly expedient to maintain the suggested restriction, but could not adopt it as "a foregone conclusion." At Constantinople, General Ignatieff was doing his best to restore confidence to the Turks, protesting, as Sir H. Elliot wrote, that the Czar had no instant intention of acting upon the rights he claimed, of constructing a Black Sea Fleet, or of impeaching any other article of the Treaty of 1856. Sir H. Elliot also commented upon the Russian statement that it was not Russian arms but the anger of the Christian populations that was feared, and affirmed that the threatened "withdrawal of Russian influence" so far from injuring the Porte would increase tranquillity, the subject races being not dangerous except when excited by foreign propagandism. With regard to the union of the Roumanian provinces,

he pointed out that it was effected contrary to the strong remonstrances of the Turkish Government, and that Count Kisseleff, Russian Plenipotentiary in the Paris Conference of 1858, strongly supported the "rational and legitimate desire" of the Principalities to be united under a foreign prince. In substitution for the neutralization of the Black Sea, Sir H. Elliot did not believe that the entire opening of the Straits to all nations would be acceptable to the Porte. A means of defence for Turkey against a Russian Black Sea fleet might be provided by giving the Sultan power, "in case of emergency," to call up the foreign fleets into the Straits.

The acceptance, on the 1st of December, of the Prussian proposal for a Conference was again accompanied with the protest against a foregone conclusion. The Government at Tours, considering the Prussian origin of the plan, could not assent without communicating with Paris, and the Porte still insisting on the restriction of debate held off. The indisposition of the French caused considerable delay. The Russian Government expressed a desire to consider the entire Treaty; Austria wished to settle limits and objects; Italy accepted the English basis. Count Beust contributed to complicate matters further by suggesting a preliminary meeting at Constantinople between the representatives of England, Austria, Italy, and Turkey, but from this Lord Granville dissented.

The Turkish Government, seeing that the modification or repeal of the neutralization clauses was recognized as inevitable, rapidly cooled in their idea of resisting Russia in the Black Sea by force; they resolved to limit their resistance to a solemn protest. Sir H. Elliot reported that General Ignatieff had shown him papers which proved that within three years from the date of the Treaty, the whole of the "parties to it," with the single exception of England, had shown Russia a readiness to sacrifice the principal element in it. General Ignatieff furthermore observed that he had heard Lord Palmerston say that the Treaty was so hard on Russia that it could hardly last ten years, and that some similar but "more cautious" observations had fallen from Lord Russell. Taking into account this evidence of general hostility to the clause in question, the Turkish Government had felt that further resistance to the change was hopeless.

The Russian Chancellor, on the 3rd of December, having not only withdrawn his claim to the maintenance of "a foregone conclusion" as the basis of a Conference, but having admitted that the Conference might record any opinion on the question of principle raised in Lord Granville's first despatch, the main difficulty was removed. General Ignatieff, however, seemed to have been illinformed as to the views of his Government, for he insisted to Sir H. Elliot that the annulment of the neutralization clause was the basis of the negotiation, and that Russia considered those clauses annulled in practice from the time that her Majesty's ship "Gannet" had entered the Black Sea six years ago.

The other Powers now quickly gave in their formal adhesion, and

the Conference led to the results which from the first were generally anticipated. The neutralization of the Black Sea was abrogated, and the Porte permitted to open the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus to the vessels of war of friendly and allied Powers, in case the Government of the Sultan should think it necessary to do so in order to ensure the execution of the Treaty of 1856. At the same time the European Commission of the Danube was prolonged for twelve years, and the works already made or to be made on that river neutralized, with, however, the reservation to the Porte of its right to send ships of war into the river.

The first event of the year in Ireland was of a significant and not an encouraging nature. Meath, the premier county of Ireland, elected for its representative-in preference to Mr. Plunkett, a Catholic aristocrat of unblemished character, backed by Cardinal Cullen and the priests, and supported, too, by the Castle one Martin, an Ulster Presbyterian, sometime editor of the Irish Felon, and transported for ten years for treason-felony in 1848. As a Nationalist, he was in every way estimable, well read, well educated, well travelled, and of good though not great abilities. But his success against a Liberal Catholic of rank was a formidable sign of the times. Martin had large majorities in Trim, Navan, and Kells, a small majority in Duleek, and a minority in Oldcastle and Dunshaughlin. There was no disturbance, but early on the polling-day a large number of Martinites entered Navan, carrying green flags and evergreens. Large forces of police and military were busily employed all day in keeping order, an additional troop of Dragoons having been telegraphed for and obtained from Dundalk. By noon the voting went on slowly until half-past twelve, when hundreds of voters began to come in from the country on cars to vote for Martin, for whom there was great enthusiasm. When the declaration of the poll was made, the number of votes for Martin were declared to be 1140; for Mr. Plunkett, 684.

Wanton murders were still unhappily rife in Ireland, and the barbarous and lawless spirit of the country showed little sign of being laid. Even the influence of the Peace Preservation Act was insufficient for its purpose, and the proposal for a secret committee to inquire into the condition of Westmeath, the "head-centre" of Irish savagery, made soon after the meeting of Parliament, was a painful acknowledgment how utterly conciliation had failed. It was but a small set-off to find the new Irish Land Act seeming to work on the whole satisfactorily, except perhaps as to costs.

Whatever our dangers and difficulties, however, at the commencement of the year the ministerial majority seemed as firm and unbroken as ever; though no small degree of personal unpopularity attached to some members of the Cabinet, destined to be indefinitely increased by the events of the Session. Mr. Ayrton's administration of the Board of Works had secured him so undisputed a pre-eminence in this respect, that his constituents went so far as to pass a resolution at a large meeting, to the effect that "his rude, coarse

C

demeanour, both in and out of Parliament, had made the borough of the Tower Hamlets a byword throughout the United Kingdom." Mr. Lowe and Mr. Bruce were not in very high favour, and Mr. Gladstone himself was "invited to retire" by a considerable body of the electors of Greenwich. But the liberal majority in the House stood fast and firm. Some small ministerial changes inaugurated the year, Mr. Chichester Fortescue accepting the office of President of the Board of Trade, vacant by the enforced and regretted retirement of Mr. Bright; while the Marquis of Hartington, Postmaster-General, succeeded Mr. Fortescue as secretary for Ireland. Mr. Monsell, M.P. for Limerick, accepted Lord Hartington's former office without a seat in the Cabinet. A mysterious shuffle ensued in the smaller appointments. the smaller appointments. Mr. Knatchbull Hugessen replaced Mr. Monsell at the Colonial Office, Mr. Shaw Lefevre succeeded Mr. Hugessen at the Home Office, Mr. Arthur Peel replaced Mr. Lefevre at the Board of Trade, and Mr. Hibbert replaced Mr. Peel at the Poor Law Board. A more important change was the retirement of Mr. Childers from the Admiralty, which, though it did not actually take place till a later period, had been by this time, unfortunately, practically completed by the state of his health.

Among the numerous speeches on the reorganization of our army which marked the season before the opening of Parliament, prominence must be given to one delivered by Sir William Mansfield (raised during the Session to the Peerage, under the title of Lord Sandhurst) at Westminster Hall. "It is some years now," he said, "since I ventured to call the attention of persons in authority to our military system. At that time there was not much to cause anxiety, either in our relation with foreign Powers, or in our domestic condition; still what I then observed as to what is called the military organization of the country filled me with a sentiment not very far removed from alarm. I saw, and called the attention of others to the fact, that there were in this country numerous bodies of a military character, but that they all seemed pulling different ways, instead of co-operating in one grand harmonious whole for the good of the nation. The militia had one set of interests and the Volunteers another set of interests, while what is called the line, or the regular army, had also interests of its own, differing in degree, or in kind, from those of the other forces. All these bodies, I observed, sprang from what is called the Voluntary principle; that is to say, there was no fixed point of departure excepting the personal option of the individual man forming a constituent member of one or other of these bodies; and accordingly, when any thing had to be done, these various bodies were dragged aside by conflicting interests, just as you will always see that half a dozen men in a room will have each his own way of looking at the same subject. But that which is true of individual men, applies with ten times greater force when you are dealing with large bodies. When the option which is exercised by individual members of a body comes to be