the new Ministry was intrusted to Lord Aberdeen. The amalgamation of parties, implying the exclusion from important office of a certain number of those who had distinct claims to it, was not easily effected. The chief obstacle to be overcome was the rivalry of the Whig leaders; but at length, with Palmerston at the Home Office and Russell as Foreign Secretary, the Cabinet, in which the Peelites were perhaps too strongly represented, was formed. Like other coalition ministries, it suffered from an excess of individual ability. The discrepant views and rival pretensions of its members, though at first veiled under a discreet silence, gave no promise of enduring stability to the Ministry.

legislation.

Pending the development of the Eastern question, which had as First efforts at yet reached only an early stage, the new Ministry, a Ministry of progress, without principles and without party," as Mr. Disraeli described it, proceeded at once to vindicate its title by the introduction of various reforming Bills. A Bill for removing the disabilities of the Jews met its usual fate; carried in the Lower House, it was rejected by the Lords. The relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland, of much importance in the presence of a Tenant Right Association existing in that country, and with which the late Ministry had attempted to deal, were referred to a Select Committee with a view to subsequent legislation. The legislature of Canada, in spite of the warm opposition of the Tory and Church party, was allowed to deal freely with the "Clergy reserves," or in other words to settle its own ecclesiastical affairs irrespective of any monopoly enjoyed by the English Church in Canada. And, though no Bill was introduced, an elaborate survey of the intentions of the Government with regard to education was given by Lord John Russell, who, while declaring himself the advocate of great freedom of education, stated that neither he nor the present Government could ever be a party to a plan proposing merely secular teaching. But naturally, having been called to office by the failure of their predecessors' Budget, it was to the financial policy of the new administration to which public attention was chiefly directed. It afforded opportunity when produced after the Easter recess for one of those great Budget speeches for which Mr. Gladstone became so remarkable. Before bringing in his Budget he introduced propositions for the simplification and reduction of the National Debt. By conversion of certain minor stocks, by the issue of exchequer bonds at long date, and by the establishment of a new 3 per cent. stock, he hoped to make a considerable saving to the country. His resolutions were accepted, and he then proceeded

Gladstone's
Budget.
April 1853.

1853]

GLADSTONE'S BUDGET

227

to explain his financial projects. In conspicuous contrast with the clever but complicated scheme of his predecessor, he kept in view as his chief object simplicity of arrangement. The revenue of the country was in a good condition. Even with considerably enlarged estimates for the present year, it seemed pretty certain that there would be a surplus of £700,000. But this was but a small margin on which to act. Before proceeding to remit taxes it would, he said, be necessary to see whether the reconsideration of the existing taxes would not enable the surplus to be increased. At the head of these stood the income-tax. He pointed out in some brilliant sentences the important part this tax had played in times of difficulty, and exhorted the House for the present at all events to continue it; and while confessing that there were certain inequalities in the tax which rendered its permanent maintenance as a part of our financial system questionable, he yet declared that any attempt to readjust it, or as he expressed it, "to nibble at it," would produce failure. The undue pressure of the tax upon certain classes of income was not, he said, so great as was often supposed, for although the rate paid was the same on all, practically the land paid a larger proportion than trade, and both land and trade largely more than professions. He proposed that incomes between £100 and £150, hitherto untaxed, should in future be charged, though at a lower rate, and that the tax should be extended to Ireland. In this way there would be a not inconsiderable addition to the public revenue; but still greater would be the effect of a readjustment, upon fair principles, of the legacy duties, "a tax which left wholly untouched the intelligence and skill of the country, giving more than the relief aimed at by the reconstruction of the income-tax without the danger attending that reconstruction." He proposed also an addition to the duty on spirits and on brewers' licences. By these means he hoped to acquire a sufficient surplus for his purposes. He desired the abolition of the duty on soap at a net loss of £1,110,000, the establishment of a uniform duty of one penny upon all receipt stamps, a large diminution in the duties levied on life assurance, on apprenticeships, and on the certificates of attorneys, and the reduction of the advertisement duty from 1s. 6d. to 6d. He rearranged the assessed taxes, making them as few, as simple, and as uniform as possible. Then proceeding to the tariff and pursuing the free-trade principles now established, he proposed a very large lessening of the duty upon tea (which in less than two years should descend from 2s. 2d. to 1s.), and upon thirteen articles of food, while upon some 256 articles the duty was either to be wholly removed or largely reduced. The

loss of taxes for the year he estimated at £1,656,000, the new taxes at £1,344,000, the surplus in hand at £805,000, leaving for the coming year a surplus of £493,000. He then concluded by explaining that he had good ground for believing that the income-tax might, if Parliament thought fit, be dispensed with in 1860. He went in detail through the probable increase of permanent sources of income, and showed that they would amount in that period to a sum equal within a very little to the product of the income-tax. So large and comprehensive a scheme necessitated much discussion. Nearly every part of it afforded opportunity for party opposition. But with the exception of a few slight amendments it was carried (May 2) triumphantly through both Houses, and the position of the Ministry appeared unusually strong.

Success of the

Burmese and

Kaffir wars. 1853.

The victorious close of two little wars was also a subject for satisfaction. The lawless violence of the native Governor of Rangoon had produced in 1851 the outbreak of the second Burmese war, which had been conducted, though not without aifficulty, with such success that the Governor-General of India had declared the annexation of the province of Pegu and had established the English Government there (Dec. 20, 1852). From that time a series of disorderly contests, sometimes with the troops of the King of Ava, sometimes with organised robbers known as Dacoits, had been carried on. But at length, in February and March 1853, defeats had been inflicted both on the regular troops and upon the Dacoit bands, and in June the termination of the war was officially proclaimed. No formal peace was made; but as the King of Ava made the concession demanded and declared the navigation of the Irawaddy free, the Governor-General considered this substantial proof of his acquiescence sufficient. During the same period a frontier war had been carried on in South Africa against the Kaffirs. Sir Harry Smith, to whom it had been intrusted, had met with no great success. had been superseded by General Cathcart. Acting with more energy, he had succeeded in obliging the most formidable of his opponents, Sandilli, to sue for peace. Pardon was offered to the vanquished chief and to his people upon condition of their resigning entirely their old country called the Amatolas, and living in peace in another portion of British Kaffraria. These terms they felt themselves compelled to accept, although they complained that the allotment was too small for them. The rivers Kye and Orange thus became the fixed boundaries of British Kaffraria to the north and east. Immediately upon the conclusion of the war the constitution which had been granted to Cape Town was fromally proclaimed.

He

1851]

ORIGIN OF THE CRIMEAN WAR

229

Behind the seeming prosperity there lay a grave cause for anxiety in the quarrel which had arisen between the Czar of Origin of the Russia and the Porte. The ostensible origin of this Crimean war. quarrel was a dispute between the Latin and Greek Churches for the custody of the sacred places in the Holy Land. From the days of Francis I. France had from time to time been in close friendship with the Turkish Empire, and had not unnaturally undertaken the duty of watching the interests of the Latin Church. In the sixteenth century the holy places had by treaty been placed in the hands of the Latins. But a considerable majority of the subjects of the Sultan belonged to the Greek Church, and as the habit of pilgrimage played a far more important part in their religious life than in that of the Latins, they were in fact more interested in the right of free access to the holy places. The possession of them was also a matter of deep interest to the whole vast population of Russia. The Czar undertook therefore the same duties with regard to the Greek Church as the French Government had undertaken with regard to the Latins, with this difference, that while to the one it was a matter rather of nominal and diplomatic honour, to the other it was a matter of real and vital importance. Almost necessarily, as Russia obtained influence in Turkey, the Greek Church had obtained privileges and immunities which were scarcely in accordance with the old treaty rights of the Latins. Disputes had constantly arisen between the rival churches in Jerusalem. But the Turks had contrived to keep the question in their own hands, and to churches in produce some sort of concord, when in 1851 a French agent, Monsieur de Lavalette, was instructed to make good in their full extension the rights of the Latins. The instructions given him were in accordance with the position of Louis Napoleon, who was seeking to appear as the champion of order and eager for the support of the ecclesiastical party in France. Opposition from the Russians necessarily followed, and the Porte found itself in a difficult position between the claims of two powerful nations. Eager to please both parties, it was at once led into a course of contradictory actions. While a formal note in January 1852 acknowledged the validity of the Latin claims, a firman in the following month revoked this note and confirmed the Greek privileges. But having granted the firman the Ministry of the Sultan did not publish it, and the matter having now become one in which the national representatives of France and Russia were deeply interested, great pressure was brought to bear by the Czar to compel the reading of the firman, and by the French to

Quarrels between the Greek and Latin

Jerusalem.

secure that the key of the great door of the Holy Sepulchre should be given into the hands of the Latins, and that they should be allowed to replace a silver star on the shrine of the Nativity. But the instances of Lavalette had been urged with a violence of language and with threats of immediate warlike action which proved stronger than the more measured arguments of the Russian minister. An attempt to bring the question to some sort of settlement was made, and Alif Bey was despatched to Jerusalem ostensibly to read the firman. Instead of doing so, he gave to the Greeks a certain triumph over the Latins by declaring the permanence of the furniture of the altar, which was arranged to suit their ritual, and to the Latins a certain triumph by permitting them to perform mass there once a year. But the Greeks saw that the firman had not been read; the Latins were horrified at the idea of performing their service on a schismatical altar. This attempt having thus entirely failed, in December the Latins triumphed, the key was placed in their hands, and the star brought to its resting-place with great solemnity. Insignificant and even trumpery though the quarrel appeared-the

Important because supported by Russia and by France.

squabblings of two rival sets of monks-it had involved a diplomatic dispute, and the triumph was won by such ostentatious violence that the loser in the strife could not quietly put up with his defeat. In January 1853 the Russian Chancellor, Nesselrode, wrote a circular stating that the insult having been completed could not be recalled, but that reparation might be required; and that as France had acted by threats of violence, Russia would indeed take a less summary course, but would feel itself obliged to adopt precautionary measures to support its negotiations. Those measures were at once taken; a considerable army was collected on the frontiers of the Danubian Principalities, which were under the suzerainty of Turkey. But it is difficult to believe that so slight a cause could alone have produced the formidable action of Russia. To the Czar, as head of the Greek Church, and an enthusiastic, indeed bigoted, supporter of his religion, the question was no doubt of more importance than it seemed to be in the eyes of Western statesmen. But it appeared certain that something of far more consequence lay behind the question of the Holy Places. Some very remarkable con

The Czar's views with regard to Turkey.

versations between the Czar and the English ambassador, Sir Hamilton Seymour, which took place at this time came to light in the course of the year, and disclosed what was working in the Czar's mind. The course of events in the preceding part of his reign had led him to believe that his true policy