capitals are not reckless, and the most reckless statesman would have shrunk from a death-grapple with England-which would probably have meant French conquest on the Rhine, the bombardment of Prussian ports, and insurrection aided by foreign force in Hungary and Venetia. Did they mean, as they have since asserted, to stand by Denmark only if they could obtain the consent and co-operation' of France and Russia? A question

addressed to these two Powers before the differences had risen to the height of war, would have enabled the English Government to declare plainly to the Danes whether they were or were not to count on English aid. Warned in time that they were really 'alone,' they would either have made terms with their enemy while it was in their power, or they would have gone into the contest with a perfect knowledge of the resources on which they were justified in relying. Again, if the Government had made up their minds to a pacific policy, happen what might to the Danes, an intimation of their intention ought to have been given at the very first appearance of actual war. In any of these cases, the course of events would have been very different from that series of calamities of which we are now the sorrowful and impotent spectators. We should not have abandoned Denmark to her fate at the very moment when her assailants were most confident of their own strength, and most exasperated against their victim. The Danes would have saved themselves, by yielding, if that was to be their hard fate, while concession could do good; or, if not-if Denmark was to be ruined-England would at least not have been dishonoured.

But a consistent policy was precisely what the Government, by the law of their being, were incapable of pursuing. Infirmity of purpose is the besetting weakness of coalitions. Recruited from different and antagonistic political schools, bound together by no party associations and by no community of creed, the policy they adopt must of necessity be a compromise. It is well if the compromise consist of a distinct plan, intermediate between the views of conflicting sections, and deliberately agreed on from the first. More commonly the result is a policy oscillating violently from one extreme of the coalition to the other, in proportion as each side alternately gains the mastery. Each successive step in it is not the result of a settled compromise, still less of principles that have been adopted in common. It is rather the daily tertium quid suggested at the close of an exhaustive Cabinet sitting, in order to terminate the daily bickering. As a whole, it is the result of the vicissitudes of a Cabinet campaign, in which each successive battle has had a different issue. It is a motley,

parti-coloured product; a coat of many colours, to which each member of the coalition contributes his own peculiar hue. In the humiliating story of these Dano-German negotiations you may successively trace the hands of the various members of the Cabinet, as each of them contrives to put in a word. On one page you may see Lord Palmerston's anxiety to maintain the treaty for which he has a parent's fondness-on another Mr. Gladstone's nervous apprehension, expressed in all his own magnificent ambiguity of style, lest war, that deranger of Budgets, should arise; on another, Mr. Milner Gibson's uncompromising love of peace and perfect ignorance of the question shine out resplendent. Every now and then an indiscreet Parliamentary utterance betrays the Duke of Somerset's eagerness to try his iron ships upon somebody; and right through the whole despatches, combining them as with a silver thread, may be traced that irrepressible passion for bluster which is the one unchangeable part of Lord Russell's mind, which failures cannot tire and old age cannot soften. It is idle to expect unity of purpose or a definite plan from a Ministry thus composed; and therefore a Vote of Censure was the only way of meeting the case that could present itself to those who saw what the evil was and desired to meet it. Before the Ministry can produce a consistent policy it must be itself a consistent whole. The blunders of which it has been guilty are not accidental errors, but vices inherent in its structure; and so long as that structure remains what it is now those vices are liable to reappear. No human skill could extract any coherent system of foreign politics out of a mixture composed of Mr. Gibson's peace-at-any-price, Mr. Gladstone's parsimony, Lord Russell's bluster, and Lord Palmerston's remnant of English feeling.

Lord Palmerston, however, saved the Ministry-as he has done before on more than one occasion-by his personal popularity with members of the House of Commons. The division was most illogically contradictory of the debate. If all the Liberals who had censured Lord Palmerston in the debate had voted against him in the lobby, there could have been no doubt as to the result. But the Liberals voted together with unusual coherence, while a number of votes sufficient to turn the scale strayed over from the Conservative camp. The balance was supposed to have been held by the Irish Roman Catholics; and those, whose object it was to make mischief, adroitly circulated a rumour to that effect. But this turned out to be a mistake. They would undoubtedly, if they had been united, have inclined the victory to whichever side they pleased.

But

But they split into two sections-a considerable portion following the Ministry-while another, and slightly larger body, adhered to the Opposition. The balance was really held by about a dozen loosely-attached Conservatives, who were reluctant to unseat Lord Palmerston, and who, on that ground, either voted with him or stayed away. When the decisive number is reduced to so small a body of men, it is difficult to speak confidently of motives. Personal affection or dislike, social preferences upon which it is impossible to dwell publicly, the desire to avert a dissolution as long as possible, a belief in the ingenious fable that the support of a section of the Roman Catholics had been purchased by promises unworthy of the Conservative party-all these feelings may have had their influence; but the preponderating consideration was probably one which could have had effect nowhere but in England, and which was as ridiculous in point of logic as it was morally respectable. There was a strong feeling against turning a man of eighty out of office. Of course this is a position of which the strength increases with years; and as Lord Palmerston grows still older, his majority will increase in proportion. The tone of thought which considers the feelings of the occupant of an office, more than the exigencies of the public service, is very amiable in itself, and by no means confined to the House of Commons. But those who indulge in such luxuries of feeling must not complain if they pay for them by the ruin of their allies and the humiliation of their country.

But the justification of the Ministry is the smallest and least important part of the vote which has been given. So far as it goes, it promises impunity to future blunderers, and makes the supervision of the House of Commons in practice illusory. But this is not the worst that has taken place. What the House of Commons has done is far more serious than that which it has left undone. It is no light event in our history that at a moment when those whom we have threatened are laughing at our threats, those to whom we have promised are cursing us for our perfidy, and all Europe is exulting over the fall of the proud England that was once so dreaded, the House of Commons should have seized the opportunity baldly and bluntly to express its satisfaction that the Crown should have preserved peace. Other nations may talk of honour, or promises, or threats; we do not trouble ourselves with such things. We do not even put ourselves out of the way to notice the very suspicious case that has been made out against us, or to refute the sarcasms that are on the lips of every foreigner. All we care for is that we are at peace. We will express our satisfaction at that result, no matter what the

process

process may be through which they have reached it. Peace will save us from the wrath of Germany and the United States, and the possible unfriendliness of France and Russia. Peace will preserve intact the budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Peace will save our rich merchantmen from the attacks of American privateers. Therefore peace is the paramount object; and we will not be so foolish as to inquire how it has been obtained.

No doubt there are men in the House of Commons who would adopt these sentiments in all their nudity. But it is a new thing that this reproach should be recorded against England by the united voice of the representatives of the people themselves. We have now given to foreign nations a right which we cannot contest, to reproach us with valuing peace above honour. Former Parliaments in less enlightened days would have inquired first whether the honour of England had been preserved, and would not have registered their felicitations over peace without some reference to that by the side of which peace is trivial. But if times are changed, and these sentiments are out of date, perhaps it was well that the fact should be proclaimed by an authority that could not be doubted. As we have uttered our views concerning the relative values of the material and immaterial blessings which are known by the terms 'peace' and 'honour,' it is as well that the world should know it. Tout est sauvé fors l'honneur,' is the modern version of heroic consolation. The House of Commons has proclaimed to the world what is England's single care; and the world will guide itself accordingly. Insult us if you will; tear the treaties we negotiated into shreds; trample into the dust the ally to whose integrity and independence' we have avowed that we attach the highest importance; but so long as you leave us in peace we will hug ourselves with joy over the result. Such is the language which in a moment of frantic party loyalty the House of Commons has in effect addressed to Europe. It marks a new era in our foreign policy—an era which our present Premier has been fitly selected to inaugurate. Whether it is of a kind to be the equal of the era it supersedes in glory, or even in the safety which is our only care, is a question which it will remain for posterity to decide.

6

Vol. 116.-No. 231.

τ

ART.