Chapter IV: Part 4

We come now to the third volume, which commences the operations of summer--a season which brings with it new cares, especially to the dairy farmer, and where the turnip husbandry prevails. It is true that, in summer, when all his seeds are in the ground, the farmer has a little leisure during which he may leave his farm, but even then any excursion he makes ought not to be for mere pleasure. A true farmer will have his eyes about him wherever he travels, and will carefully study the merits of the rural customs of every district he goes to. There is much truth in the following remarks:--

"Summer is the only season in which the farmer has liberty to leave
home without incurring the blame of neglecting his business, and even
then the time which he has to spare is very limited. There is only
about a fortnight between finishing the fallow, the turnip and potato
culture, and hay-making, and the commencement of harvest, in which
the farmer has leisure to travel. This limitation of time is to be
regretted, because it is proper that he should take a journey every
year, and see how farm operations are conducted in other parts of the
kingdom. An excursion of this nature is seldom undertaken by a
farmer, who is generally a man capable of observation, without
acquiring some hints which may induce the adoption of a practice that
seems good, or the rejection of one which is bad. Such a journey
exhibits mankind in various aspects, and elevates the mind above
local prejudices; and as husbandry is a progressive art, a ramble of
a week or two through different parts of the country, cannot fail to
enlighten the mind of the most experienced farmer much beyond any
thing he can observe by always remaining at home."--(Vol. iii. p.
742.)

In his excellent chapter on the sowing of turnips, he quotes several instances of the successful preparation of land in the autumn--breaking up, harrowing, cross-ploughing, drilling, and dunging--for the turnip crop, and he adds the following opinion:--

"Were such modes of culture adopted in the south of England, I have
no doubt certain and abundant crops of turnips would be raised, in
spite of droughts and insects; and the slovenly practice of
broad-cast culture would then give way to the more scientific mode of
the drill system."--(Vol. iii. p. 747.)

In the following passage he notices a curious but generally received fact regarding the effect of different quantities of bones; but we quote chiefly on account of another observation at its close, which may be interesting to our southern readers:--

"I have tried to raise turnips with different quantities of
bone-dust, varying from twelve, sixteen, twenty, and twenty-four
bushels to the imperial acre, and have found the crop improved up to
sixteen bushels; but any quantity beyond that, even to twenty-four
bushels, produced no greater effect on the turnips in the same field,
and on the same sort of soil, than sixteen bushels. Nay, more than
this, my late agricultural preceptor, Mr George Brown, when he farmed
Hetton Steads in Northumberland, raised as good crops of turnips as
sixteen bushels of bone-dust, with only eight bushels of bone-dust,
combined with an indefinite quantity of sifted dry coal-ashes; and
yet eight bushels of bone-dust, or an indefinite quantity of
coal-ashes applied separately, produced a very poor crop of turnips.
It is therefore unnecessary, in so far as the crop of turnips is
concerned, to sow more than sixteen bushels of bone-dust alone, or
eight bushels with coal-ashes, or perhaps street-manure. Both
coal-ashes and street-manure, when proposed to be used with
bone-dust, should be kept dry under cover, and sifted free of large
lumps. * * *

"The very best mode of using bone-dust in small quantity, both for
increasing the fertility of the soil and rearing a good crop, is to
sow the seed along with it in drills already manured with farm-yard
dung. The bone-dust secures a good and quick braird of the plant, and
the dung supports it powerfully afterwards. This plan I would
recommend to be pursued, particularly in England, on the land
prepared for turnips in autumn; and were it practised, we need not
despair of raising heavy crops of turnips, especially Swedes, on the
strongest soils, and most certainly they would be obtained after
thorough-draining."--(Vol. iii. pp. 748, 751.)

To the _drop_-drill as a means of husbanding manure, too little attention has hitherto been paid in Scotland. We strongly recommend, therefore, to the attention of the Scottish farmer, the following brief quotation:--

"The saving of manure, in the first instance, by the use of the
drop-drill, appears to be considerable, since it has been frequently
asserted that ten or twelve bushels of bone-dust per acre, will
produce a braird equal, if not superior, to sixteen or eighteen
bushels put in by the continuous mode. The subject is, therefore, of
great importance, and calls for close observation; for if the drop
system is really so important, it cannot be too widely
adopted."--Vol. iii. p. 806.

We regret the necessity of passing over the remainder of this chapter on turnips. We merely extract the following mode of preventing the destructive attack of the turnip-fly, because, though the method has been heard of by many, it has been tried by comparatively few. Mr Stephens recommends

"To put the seeds for some time before they are sown amongst flour of
sulphur, and sow the sulphur amongst them. The late Mr Airth informed
me, that when he farmed the Mains of Dun, Forfarshire, his young
turnip crops were often very much affected, and even destroyed, by
these insects; but that, after he used the sulphur, he never suffered
loss, though his neighbours did who would not use the same
precaution, and that for as long as he possessed the farm afterwards,
namely, fifteen years."--(Vol. iii. p. 772.)

It is also with regret that we pass over the making of butter and cheese, the chapter upon which we commend to the attention of our dairy farmers. The subjects of hay-making, liming and forming water meadows, we also pass; but we stop a moment at his chapter upon flax and hemp.

The culture of flax is now very much advocated both in Great Britain and Ireland; and we fear very erroneous notions are entertained and propagated regarding both the profit it is likely to yield to the farmer, and the effect it is fitted to produce upon the land. The following passage is not entirely free from objection, but it contains a great deal of truth and much common sense:--

"It has been proposed of late, with a considerable degree of
earnestness, to encourage the growth of flax in Britain. The attempt
was made some years ago and failed; but in the present instance it is
recommended with the view of raising flax-seed for feeding cattle in
sufficient quantity to render us independent of foreign oil-cake, of
which, no doubt, large quantities are annually imported, but to what
extent I have not been able to ascertain. The _object_ of the
suggestion is laudable, but the _end_, I fear, unattainable; for if
good _seed_ is raised to make good oil-cake, or compounds with oil,
the _flax_ will be coarse, and flax of inferior quality will never
pay so well as corn: and it should never be lost sight of, in
considering this question, that to raise flax must bring it into
competition with white crops, and not green crops, because to raise
it as a green crop would be to deteriorate its quality by bringing it
into immediate contact with manure; and, on the other hand, if it is
raised without manure as a fallow-crop, it must deteriorate the soil
materially--no species of crop being _more_ scourging to the soil
than flax, not even a crop of turnip-seed. There is, therefore, this
dilemma in the matter--the quality of the flax or of the seed must be
sacrificed. The seed separately will not pay the expense of culture.
Seed is produced from six to twelve bushels per acre. Taking the
highest at twelve bushels, that is, one and a half quarter, and
taking it also for granted that it all will be fit for _sowing_, and
worth the highest current price of 60s. per quarter, the gross return
would only be L.4, 10s. per acre. The flax-crop varies in weight of
rough dried fibre, according to season and soil, from three to ten
cwt. per acre; and taking the high produce, five cwt. per acre of
dressed flax, at the highest price of L.6 per ton, the yield will be
L.31, from which have to be deducted the expenses of beetling,
scutching, and heckling, and waste and loss of straw for manure, and
the profit will not exceed L.8 per acre; but though _such_ a profit
would certainly repay the expenses of cultivation, yet it presents
the _most_ favourable view that can be taken, even with the sacrifice
of the entire loss of seed--the loss, in fact, of the greatest
inducement for renewing the culture of the plant. In Ireland the
case, I believe, will be the same, though much of the soil of that
country, being mossy, is more favourable to the growth of flax than
that of England or Scotland; yet even there it will be found
impracticable to raise good flax and good seed from the same piece of
ground at the same time; and if the seed is not good, the oil-cake
will be bad."--(Vol. iii. p. 1046.)

Among the arguments in favour of the extensive culture of flax, now urged by so many, we are sorry to see a scientific one lately put forth by our friend Dr Kane of Dublin, and which has been much vaunted and relied upon by himself, and by those for whose benefit the opinion was propounded. The proposal is, it will be recollected, to carry off the stalk of the flax crop, and to convert the seed into manure. This is the same thing as carrying off the straw of a corn crop, and eating or otherwise converting the grain into manure upon the farm. Every one knows that carrying off the straw will exhaust the land, as will also carrying off the stalk of the lint. But, says Dr Kane, I have analysed the _steeped_ and _dressed_ flax, and find that it contains very little of what the plant peculiarly draws from the soil. This is left for the most part in the pond in which the flax is steeped, or at the mill where the flax is dressed. Therefore, to carry off the flax is not _necessarily_ to exhaust the soil. You have only to collect the _shows_ of the flax mill, and pump out the water from the steeping hole, and apply both to the land, and you restore to it all that the crop has taken off.

Now there is a fallacy in supposing that all that is taken from the land would in this way be restored--one which the advocates of this non-exhausting view are of course not anxious to discover; but, supposing the result and conclusions correct, what are they worth in practice? It is only a little bit of fireside farming. What practical good has come out of it? Put all the steeping water upon the land! Have any of the members of the flax societies tried this? Then let them tell us how it is to be done--what it cost--what was the result and the profit of the application. They use this prescription as an argument to induce men to introduce an exhausting culture, and they take no means to introduce _first_ a general employment of those means by which it is said that the naturally exhausting effect of the culture may be prevented. What our friend Dr Kane has said and done is in perfect good faith; the form which his opinions have assumed upon paper, has arisen solely from the want of a sufficient knowledge of the usages and capabilities of sound and profitable practical husbandry. If we cannot persuade our farmers to collect and apply to the land the liquid manure of their farm-yards, when can we hope to persuade them to empty their flax-ponds for the purpose of watering their fields? Can we ever hope soon to persuade them to preserve and use up the thousands of tons of _shows_ that are now yearly sent down the streams by which our flax mills are set in motion?

We are far from saying that flax or any other crop may not be grown without necessarily exhausting the soil--chemistry, we know, will by-and-by put all this within our power; but we are very much of Mr Stephens' opinion, that our English and Irish flax societies do not as yet clearly see their way to that end, and that unintentionally they will lead many to inflict a permanent injury upon their land, without any adequate compensation to themselves, their landlords, or the country.

We had marked the early cutting of corn in harvest as a subject of general importance to practical men, and that of the smearing of sheep, so interesting especially to our northern agriculturists; and we wished to confirm Mr Stephens' recommendations upon those points by some observations of our own; but we are compelled to leave the chapter which treats upon them to the private consideration of our readers.

We quote the following passage from the chapter on _fertilizing the soil by means of manure_, as containing much good common sense:--

"Dung is applied at the commencement of every rotation of crops with
the fallow green-crops, and with bare fallow; and when applied at any
other time, it is near the termination of a long rotation. A rule for
the quantity of farm-yard dung to be applied according to the length
of the rotation, as given by Dr Coventry, is, that five tons per acre
are required every year to sustain the fertility of soil; and,
therefore, land which is dunged every four years in a rotation of
four courses, should receive with the fallow-crop twenty tons per
acre; in a five-course shift, twenty-five tons; in a six-course
shift, thirty tons, and so on. These quantities constitute, no doubt,
a sufficient manuring to ordinary crops; but it appears to me to be
reversing the order of propriety, to give land under the severest
shift--a four-course one--the smallest modicum of manure, when it
should receive the largest; for there is surely truth in the
observation, that land grazed with stock becomes ameliorated in
condition--actually increased in fertility. A six-course shift,
therefore, having three years of grazing, should require less instead
of more manure even at a time than a four-course one on land of
similar quality."--(Vol. iii. pp. 1230, 1231.)

The chapter on the points of stock--cattle, sheep, pigs, and horses--would of itself have afforded us materials for an interesting article. Breeding and crossing of stock, both so necessary to be well understood by those who would breed for _profit_, are also ably discussed by our author; and it is only want of space which prevents us from quoting from this chapter.

But there are some kinds of live _cattle_ which of themselves breed too fast even for Mr Stephens; and these he as anxiously instructs his readers how to exterminate. Among these are rats, in regard to the destruction of which the following passage will interest our readers:--

"Of all the modes I ever witnessed rats being killed, none equalled
that of a Yorkshireman, of the name of John Featherston, by means of
steel-traps. He had twenty-one small steel-traps, which he kept clean
and bright. He soon traced the tracks of rats along the floor to a
corner, or on the tops of walls, leading commonly by the corners of
apartments to the partition wall, which they surmounted between it
and the slates; the very place which I have recommended the filling
up, to break off such communications. After he had discovered the
different runs of the animals, he made a number of small firm bundles
of straw, which he placed against the bottom of a wall where the run
was on a floor, and upon its top where the run was to the roof. He
used seven traps at one place at a time, and a sufficient number of
bundles of straw was used to conceal that number of traps at each
place, employing the entire number of traps in three places, at a
little distance from each other, and in different apartments. The
traps were set, but not allowed to spring at first, and baited with
oatmeal, scented with oil of rhodium, and placed in a row, with a
little chaff over them, in the run behind the bundles of straw. The
traps were baited for two days, the baits being replenished as soon
as it was discovered, by inspection, that a bait disappeared. On the
third day the traps were baited as before, but the restriction was
removed from the spring, and then began the capture. In all the three
days, people were prevented as much as possible from frequenting the
apartments in which the traps were placed, and dogs were entirely
excluded. Removing the check from the spring, from one set of traps
after another, armed with short stout stick, and furnished with a bag
slung from his shoulder, Featherston put himself on the alert, and
the moment he heard the click of a trap he ran to it, removed the
bundle of straw, knocked the rat on the head if alive, threw it out
of the trap, set it again, replaced the bundle again, put the rat
into the bag, and was again on the watch from one place to another.
In the course of the third day, from morning to the afternoon, he had
collected 385 rats in the bag, and allowing all the traps to have
done equal execution, each had caught more than eighteen rats in the
course of a single day. He bargained for 1d. a rat and his food, and
in three days he earned his food and L.1, 12s. 1d.--such was his
expertness. It was not supposed that all the rats were cleared off by
this capture; but they received such a thinning, as to be
comparatively harmless for years after. Featherston's first business,
on the day following the capture, was to clean each trap bright
before setting out on his journey; for he seemed to place greater
reliance on the clean state of his traps than on any other
circumstance--that the suspicion of the rats, I suppose, of the
danger of the traps might thereby be allayed. The brown rat burrows
in fields, and commits ravages on growing crops, whether of corn or
turnips. I have seen many burrows of them in Ireland, and assisted at
routing them with spade and terrier, but have never heard of their
having taken to the fields in Scotland."

_Farm book-keeping_ is a subject too little attended to by our practical men. In our own neighbourhood we know that keeping books is the exception--keeping none is the rule. The smaller farmers know the state of their affairs only by the money they have in their hands at certain seasons of the year. But, as better systems of husbandry spread, this lax method of carrying on business must be discarded. Husbandry is becoming more and more an experimental art. New trials must now be made, year after year, by those who would hope to live and thrive; and it is only those who keep regular accounts of the outlay upon each trial, and the income from it, who can know what methods and manures they ought to adopt, and what to reject from a system of profitable husbandry.

Upon this subject Mr Stephens is entirely of our opinion, and he gives very copious examples of the way in which books ought to be kept.

* * * * *

Such is a hasty sketch of the contents of the book, in so far as the farming part of it is concerned. The way in which the work is illustrated by 608 woodcuts and 33 plates, by eminent artists, is as creditable to the publishers as the matter of the book is to the author.

To the full and accurate descriptions of agricultural implements--to the illustration of which many of these woodcuts and plates are devoted--we feel ourselves wholly unable to do justice. That they are all from the pen and pencil of Mr Slight, will, to those who know him, be a better recommendation than any words of ours.

There is only one other test to which, in criticising the work before us, we are entitled to put it. It contains much useful matter, but is it likely, is it fitted, to answer the end which the author had in view? His object, he says, was to put into the hands of young men desirous of learning practical farming, a manual from which, _being upon a farm_, they would be able to learn all that was necessary to fit them for the several successive stations to which the industrious son even of a farm-labourer may fairly hope to rise. This we think he has accomplished, and in that graphic and living way which has all along led us into the persuasion that Mr Stephens must himself have "played many parts," and entered into the feeling and spirit of them all.

When he speaks of the shepherd and his dog, and of driving stock to market, he seems to look back with much satisfaction, almost with regret, to the time when he himself served as a drover, and took his cattle to the South over the cold Northumbrian moors. He delights to linger by the way, and tells you where you will still get the best _gill_ on your road, and how it will be safest for you to make the last glass you take into toddy, before you go to bed. We think he must often have taken up his night's quarters at Tommy Robson's on the Reed Water, on his travels by Watling Street to the Stagshaw Bank Fair.

Then he changes the scene for us. He is a ploughman for the time. He tells how he managed his horses, guided his plough, turned over his furrows, mended his harness, and how three times a-day he fed heartily and well upon his oatmeal brose, and was healthy and strong in limb, happy in mind, and free from care. We question if he is heartier or happier now.

Next we find him writing like one who has been promoted to the rank of grieve or farm-steward. He has assumed the tone and look of a man who has responsibility upon his shoulders--who has graver duties to perform, and from whom more is expected. He tells us how he manages his men, apportions their hours of labour, and distributes to each his appropriate quantity and time of work. The scene shifts, and we see him in the market selling his corn. He wants threepence a bushel more, and he will hold out till he gets it. His sample is good, for his land has been well managed, and his grain well cleaned; he knows what his article is worth, as things are going in the market, and he will be an old corn-merchant who takes him in.

Or he has stock to sell, and there he goes into the whisky shop to finish his bargain. You heard him ask ten shillings more than he meant to take? That was because he knew the buyer was a higgler, and would have left him at once had he refused to come down in his price. Now they are gravely discussing the point over the gill-stoup. They are within half-a-crown now. Another gill will close the bargain. It is finished; the buyer is pleased; and our grieve is five shillings richer than if the bargain had been closed briefly and in the open air.

He is not a bad writer for a practical man who enables you, in a book upon farming, to call up successive transactions in a manner so vivid as this.

Next, he wishes to become a farmer on his own account, and he looks about for a farm that will suit him. On this subject he has an excellent chapter in his third volume. He has been faithful to his master, and now he acts honourably towards his equals:--

"Here," he says, "let me mention at the outset, that it is considered
amongst farmers a dishonourable act to look at a farm, until you are,
in the first place, assured that it is in the market. To do so, until
you certainly know that the tenant in possession is to leave it, or
at any rate, until it is advertised in the public prints, or
otherwise declared to be in the market, whether the possessing tenant
wishes to take it again or not, is an unfeeling act, and regarded as
equivalent to telling him that you wish to take the farm over his
head. Such an act would be as unbecoming as to intrude yourself into
a house in town, which you think would suit you, to look at its
internal arrangement, before you are aware the possessing tenant is
leaving it, by the usual announcement of the ticket."--(Vol. iii. p.
1304).

But having obtained possession of a farm, he enquires, can I now make money for myself--quickly but honourably--in a way that will be at once creditable to myself, beneficial to my landlord, and of advantage to my country?

Two points Mr Stephens insists upon as indispensable to the making of money in this creditable way. The tenant must keep his land clean, and he must farm it high. Those who make most money in each district--their natural prudence being alike--are those who are kindest to the land. Use me well, says the soil every where, and I will use you well in return.

In other parts of his work he rises to the station of a land-steward. He discusses, in a clear and judicious manner, large agricultural questions--he writes with the gravity and thoughtfulness of one whose business it is to superintend and regulate extensive improvements, and to look after the proceedings and modes of farming of a large body of tenantry. This, indeed, we hope and trust will be the case with many of those who carefully read, learn, and inwardly digest the lessons and precepts of his book; for in whatever capacity it may be their lot to minister to the welfare and progress of agriculture, they will find aid and assistance and counsel from the _Book of the Farm_.

It is, indeed, in very many cases of much importance that a better instructed race of men should be entrusted with the immediate management of the larger estates of the country. We have met with many skilful and intelligent members of this class, many able to understand, and advise, and superintend the most enlightened improvements, and to conduct them to a prosperous and economical issue. But the mass of these men in our island is not up to the knowledge of the time; too many of them are almost entirely ignorant of the most elementary principles of agriculture. How, indeed, can it be otherwise, when a landholder is contented to place this delicate management in the hands of his retired butler, or his failing groom, or even of his solicitor or attorney, who has been bred up to a totally different profession? If law and medicine require separate schools and training, so do farming and the management of estates, if they are to be farmed to a profit, or managed with economy and skill.

But the purpose of our _book_ does not end with the mere practical man. It professes, and is fitted, to instruct the proprietor too. How much have the landlords yet to learn? Which of them has ever, at school or college, had an opportunity of obtaining any instruction in regard to what was to be the occupation and support of his after life! Some do indeed, when they settle on their estates, apply themselves, by reading and otherwise, to make up their deficiencies, and to fit themselves for the new and useful sphere in which they are called to move. But in broad England, how few are the landlords who know the principles on which their land ought to be cultivated--who feel an enlightened interest in the prosperity and real advancement of agriculture--who understand how to set a useful, and prudent, and enlightened example to their tenantry! If knowledge such as that contained in the book before us require to be diffused among the humble walks of agricultural life, it is no less necessary, we are assured, among those who frequent its highest places.

But a spirit not only of improvement, but of eager searching after knowledge, has sprung up among the entire agricultural body. From our own experience we say this; for we have seen with delight the eager eyes of listening audiences, for whole hours, fixed upon a single speaker, who was attempting zealously and simply, to instruct them. And it is those of the agricultural body who already know most, among whom this eagerness is observed to be most intense. They have tasted of the value of the new lights which recent science especially has thrown upon agricultural practice, and they are eager for the acquisition of more.

We are proud to say, that the first decided proof of this desire for higher knowledge has been manifested among the farmers and proprietors of Scotland. The _Agricultural Chemistry Association of Scotland_ is their work. Through this association they have professedly attached chemistry and geology and physiology to the car of practical agriculture; and under the guidance of these sciences, the art of culture will not long lag behind her sister arts, for which these sciences have already done so much. We have before us a list of the members of this patriotic association. In this list we find the names of nearly every man in Scotland who is at all known to agricultural fame. If there be a few whose names we miss, the reason probably is, that they hardly yet know much of its existence; for it has only just finished its first year of active life. The new list of another year will contain the names of all who are really alive to the wants and capabilities of our national agriculture.

We are sincerely desirous for the credit and advancement of Scottish agriculture. We are, therefore, anxious that no means should be left untried to keep up the perhaps artificially high character which the natural intelligence and shrewdness of the Scottish nation has gained for the practical farmers of the country. Granting, what we have ourselves seen, that there is much good farming and well-farmed land to the north of the Tweed, we cannot deny there is also much neglected land and much unskilful tillage. Though much has been improved in this end of the island, there is far more still almost in a state of nature. Hitherto the high-roads of the country have gone through such pleasant places as lie between the Pease bridge and Edinburgh; but the railroads now projected will lay open the waste and neglected tracts of country to southern eyes, and the agricultural reputation of Scotland may suffer a rude shock in English estimation. We are not the less good patriots while we agree with Mr Stephens, that there is a greater breadth of skilfully farmed land in England than in Scotland, and that the germ of all, or nearly all, our improvements, has been drawn from the South. Give England her due, and Scotland has still much to be proud of in picking up a germ here and a germ there, and unfolding and developing these germs under her own colder sky, and, almost against nature, conquering for herself fruitful fields and a high agricultural reputation.

But England and Ireland having awoke to new exertions in improving their soil, we in the North must open our eyes too. We must, if possible, keep the name we have acquired. If our practice is faulty, let us amend it--if our science is defective, let us enlarge it. "Science with practice," is the well-conceived motto of the Royal Agricultural Society of England; such a motto, we hope, all Scottish farmers will adopt. Let them conjoin the science of the books of Johnston with the practice of that of Stephens, and they may still hope, as a body, to occupy the foremost rank among the agriculturists of Europe.

STANZAS.

With every joy we haste to meet,
In hopefulness or pride,
There comes, with step as sure and fleet,
A shadow by its side;
And ever thus that spectre chill
With each fair bliss has sped,
And when the gladden'd pulse should thrill,
The stricken heart lies dead!

The poet's brow the wreath entwines--
What weight falls on the breast!
Upon the sword where glory shines,
The stains of life-blood rest.
Lo, where the rosiest sunbeam glows,
There lies eternal snow!
And Fame its brightest halo throws,
Where death lies cold below.

J. D.

LORD MALMESBURY'S DIARIES AND CORRESPONDENCE.[30]

In a late number of this Magazine we took occasion, under a different title, to notice the two first volumes of this highly interesting work. We have seen how Lord Malmesbury conducted himself, in his diplomatic capacity, at the different courts of Europe under the _ancien regime_. It is difficult for the men of this generation--whose historic era, traditionary or remembered, commences with the outbreak of the French Revolution--to realize in imagination the exhausted, broken, and unhealthy state of Europe during the middle, and towards the end, of the last century. Balance of power there was none. The leading continental states, when not in actual arms, looked upon each other with eyes of the most bitter jealousy. When they did combine, it was for some unholy purpose, such as the partition of Poland; and no sooner had they brought down their quarry, than, like the _Lanzknechts_ of old--to use no more brutal simile--they began to bandy words and blows for their relative proportions of the spoil. Good faith was a thing unknown either to prince or to minister. To trick an ally was considered almost as meritorious a deed as to undermine or defeat an enemy. In short it would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to point out any period when public morality was at so low and pitiable an ebb.

In some respects the older continental states--leaving France, for the present, out of the question--were less to blame than the newer powers, who were then struggling forward with the keenness of fresh competitors, and claiming a recognition of importance which had never been accorded them before. In the first class we would rank Austria, Holland, and Sweden; in the second, Russia and Prussia. The Muscovite, unequalled in extent of territorial possession--exhibiting much of barbaric splendour with but little of real civilization--sought to extend his unwieldy power still further, and to gain a position within the heart of Europe by extending his conquests towards the west. Prussia, circumscribed in territory, organized herself as a military state. To this one end all other considerations were, in the first instance, sacrificed; but when it was attained, she withdrew the mask, and exhibited herself in her real character--the most unscrupulous of neighbours, the most fickle and perfidious of allies. Environed with small and defenceless states, she never lost an opportunity of aggrandizing herself at their expense, no matter what amount of mutual treaties had intervened. Even defeat she could turn to her account, by purchasing peace with an enemy upon such terms as surrendered half of a neighbouring territory to the invader, and secured the remainder to herself. Even when her interest called upon her to unite with other European powers against a common foe, she refused to act upon her own resources, and, unless subsidized, remained sullen and inactive at home. In this situation was the Continent at the outbreak of the French Revolution.

The success of the Republican arms in France during the year 1793, of which the capture of Toulon was the crowning point, naturally created in the minds of the British ministry the liveliest apprehension and alarm. England alone, of all the European states, was in a sound and healthy condition. Her finances were unimpaired, her resources large, her credit almost unbounded. William Pitt, the greatest minister whom this country has ever known, was then at the helm of public affairs. The nation--though some individuals had not escaped the taint--was opposed to the principles of the French Republic, and disgusted with its attendant atrocities. Our insular position, and our acknowledged supremacy of the seas, were sufficient safeguards against a direct attack; but the immediate danger lay with the Continent. Amidst all the strife of faction and democracy, France was progressing towards conquest. Rumour told of armies--undisciplined, perhaps, and ill-appointed, but officered by men of undoubted talent, and inspired by an enthusiasm which carried all before them--crowding towards the eastern frontier of France, and hanging there like a thundercloud, portentous of coming devastation. What was there to meet this tide of threatened invasion? Nothing save a heptarchy of tottering states, weak in themselves, without concert, and without coalition--discontent amongst the lower orders, dissatisfaction with the things that _had been_, and an evident leaning towards the things that _might be_--the new doctrines and the new revelation. For it is well to remark, that whatever any state might have gained by treachery or violence, did demoralize, but certainly did not better the social condition of the people. The wind had set in from the west, and was carrying across Europe, even to the boundary of the Borysthenes, sparks and flakes of fire from the great conflagration of France. There was no lack of fuel to maintain an extended combustion, and those whose duty it was to quench it, were unprepared or unwilling for the task.

The result of the operations of the allied forces upon and within the frontier of France, is well known. After some success, the sole consequence of which was to increase the jealousy which already subsisted between the Austrian and the Prussian, the Republican army succeeded in driving back the enemy, and establishing themselves upon the Rhine. It was at this moment, when the danger was at its height, and all Germany, besides Holland and the Netherlands, was exposed to the terrors of invasion, that Frederick William of Prussia, actuated by a policy at once base and suicidal, announced his intention of withdrawing his troops from the ranks of the confederacy, in total violation of the defensive treaty of 1787. It is somewhat difficult now, notwithstanding all that has been written on the subject, to get at the real grounds of this disgraceful proceeding. The principal alleged cause was the exhausted state of the Prussian treasury, which, it was said, rendered it absolutely impracticable for the king to maintain in the field, _without subsidy_, the contingent of troops which he had solemnly bound himself to furnish for the general defence of the Continent. It nowhere appears that any exertion was made to recruit the Prussian finances. By the partition of Poland, that State had acquired the accession of a large and most valuable territory, worth something surely by way of mortgage, or if not, at least a ready magazine of supplies. But all this availed nothing. Prussia professed herself ready to take whatever subsidy England, or any other power, might furnish towards the maintenance of her troops--otherwise they were not to reckon longer upon her co-operation and support. This proposition was made broadly, shamelessly, and without any diplomatic circumlocution. "Jacobi, Prussian minister, (at London,) gave in a kind of memorial, expressive of his Prussian Majesty's intention not to grant the succours we had asked for, and declining all general interference in the war, _without being largely paid_." So much for defensive treaties!

At this crisis, the British ministry--fully impressed with the paramount importance of isolating, in so far as might be, the republican contagion within the confines of France, and preventing it from spreading further--requested Lord Malmesbury, as the fittest and most experienced diplomatist whose services they could command, to proceed on a special mission to the court of Berlin, and attempt by every means in his power to recall the king from his false and unnatural position. So great seemed the necessity of accommodation, that England was inclined to accede, perhaps too much, to the demands of her ally, rather than allow the war upon which so much depended to be so meanly and pitifully abandoned. The following extract from Lord Grenville's instructions will show the spirit which actuated our ministry. "If the _alleged distress_ of the king of Prussia's _treasury_ is wholly _feigned_, it will in that case be evident, that the determination of the king of Prussia is taken rather to break his alliance with the maritime powers, and to risk the dangers which may result from the final establishment of the Jacobin principles in France, than to contribute to the indemnification which Austria has in view. In that case, all attempts at other arrangements must be useless, and nothing will remain to be done, except to insist on the succours being furnished; and, in case of non-compliance with that demand, to prepare the declaration necessary to be given in for the purpose of annulling the defensive treaty. If, on the other hand, the pecuniary difficulties which are stated _have a real existence_, the disposition to co-operate further in the war may still exist; and, in that case, some advantage might be derived from the adoption of such arrangements as might enable his majesty to contribute towards removing those difficulties, and securing the king of Prussia's co-operation in the war, but without departing from the just claims resulting from the existing treaty." The reciprocal feelings of Austria and Prussia are thus significantly noticed in another part of the same document. "With respect to Austria, I must observe to your lordship, that the utmost jealousy prevails between the two courts of Vienna and Berlin; that the former has certainly been deceived by the extent given to the late acquisitions of Prussia in Poland; and that the latter is unquestionably desirous of checking, at least by indirect means, the plans of indemnity which the emperor is now pursuing towards France." With Holland and Austria, Lord Malmesbury was ordered, in all his negotiations with the Prussian court, to keep himself in intimate concert; in fact, it seems to have been expected, that if these powers went cordially along with England, Prussia durst not adopt a step which would have exposed her to summary chastisement. It might have been well if such a threat had been intimated directly; but England had not yet learned to appreciate her own unbounded resources, and to rely with confidence upon herself. Afterwards, as at Copenhagen and elsewhere, she adopted the true method of dealing with a false ally, or a suspected neutral. At the beginning of the war, she transacted with other states on the belief that they were actuated by the same honourable feelings as herself--that they regarded treaties as inviolable--that they were ready, for the general good, to sacrifice something of private interest. It is needless to say how often and how cruelly she was deceived!

Before setting out on his mission, Lord Malmesbury had a personal interview with George III., and received from him, verbally, some private instructions, which are most worthy of preservation. Far too little justice has been done to the manly intellect of that king. Stubborn he may have been, and wedded to opinions which, in this age at least, may not be favourably regarded by the million; but this, at least, we can fearlessly say--that every thought, every sentiment, every action of his life, bore the impress of a high and noble mind--that he was an Englishman in the best sense of the word, bold, and resolute, and sincere; and those who value the free and just constitution of this country and its greatness, have cause to bless Providence that so faithful a sovereign occupied the throne during a period of anarchy which threatened to revolutionize the world, to uproot the Christian faith, and to engulf Europe, perhaps irrevocably, in the horrors of a Reign of Terror. How clear and king-like is the following language! "A few clear words are better, perhaps, than long instructions. I believe that the king of Prussia is an honest man at the bottom, although a weak one. You must first represent to him, that if he allows his moral character the same latitude in his explanation of the force of treaties, as he has allowed it in other still more sacred ties," (referring to his marriage,) "all good faith is at an end, and no engagement can be binding. You must then state to him how much his honour is engaged in joining in this business, in not giving up a cause in which he had begun so nobly. Then you should apply to his interest, that the event of the war must either fail or succeed; that if he withdrew himself from the number of coalesced powers, in either case he would suffer from leaving them. In the first case, (the fate of the war,) he perhaps would be the first to feel the consequences of suffering this _Tartarian horde_ to overrun Europe. In the second, if we succeed, he certainly might be sure, that not having contributed his share to the success would put him, in respect to the other powers, in a situation of consideration and want of consequence, and that he would not be consulted or referred to in the general system of Europe, when that became a matter of discussion. That if you fail in referring him to these three great points, his _integrity_, his _honour_, and his _interest_, it will be certain nothing can be done; and although I have the greatest confidence in your skill and abilities, yet I shall rest assured in that case that _no_ skill nor any ability would be equal to success."

Thus instructed and accredited, Lord Malmesbury set off for Berlin by way of Holland. He found the Dutch in considerable anxiety at the state of the campaign, and ready to co-operate with England in any measure for maintaining the alliance intact. At Frankfort, the monetary market of Germany, he ascertained that the amount of treasure still left in the Prussian treasury was estimated at forty-one or forty-two millions of dollars; so that the plea of poverty advanced upon the part of the king was evidently false. Immediately on his arrival at Berlin, he obtained an interview with Frederick William; and the replies of that king to the remonstrance of the British minister are abundantly curious. He disclaimed all idea of lukewarmness or indifference to the results of the war, was loud in his profession of amity to Great Britain, but wound up with the anticipated excuse--"You will, I am sure, believe me when I tell you, _on the faith of an honest man_, (and for being one, I hope the king your master will give me credit,) I have not in my treasury enough to pay the expenses of a third campaign. Those I have incurred since my accession are not unknown to you. You also know that the late king strained the resources to their highest pitch; that I cannot raise a new tax on my subjects; that to attempt it would drive them to the worst consequences; and that the nature of the Prussian monarchy is such that it cannot bear a loan. In short, that _without my allies come to my assistance, and afford me pecuniary support_, I shall be compelled to stop short in the war.

"I have not exhausted my treasure in idle and useless expenses; it has been employed in forwarding measures which related to the general interests of Europe, as well as to the particular ones of Prussia. It cannot be those of England to see me degraded and sunk; and this certainly, _joined to my high notion of your national character_, leaves me without apprehension as to the consequences of the declaration I make, which I repeat to be the sole and real cause of my apparent backwardness in continuing the war."

It is now clear, far beyond cavil or doubt, that this sovereign's estimate of the national character of the English, was much akin to Major Dalgetty's appreciation of the Dutch--"They are the best paymasters in Europe." Dalgetty, however, had one merit which we fear that history must deny to the King of Prussia. He gave his service for his employer's money, and was scrupulously true to his articles. Frederick William, on the contrary, was bent upon receiving a subsidy, whilst, at the same time, he or his ministers were attempting to negotiate a private treaty with France. These facts come out most glaringly in the Malmesbury papers. The envoy seems to have felt all along that he was treading on the most slippery ground, that no reliance could be placed upon the faith or integrity of the court with which he now had to deal; and yet circumstances were of so pressing a nature, that he dared not, while the smallest chance of success remained, abandon the progress of the negotiation. The sentiments of the King of Prussia with regard to his nearest neighbour, may be understood from the following entry in Lord Malmesbury's diary:--"_Dec. 28, 1793._ Supper at Prince-Royal's. King told me of bad news from Wurmser's army--that he had lost two battalions and twenty-one pieces of cannon. _He seemed rather pleased with this bad news_; but admitted that it would do harm by raising the spirits of the Jacobins." In a note appended to this passage, it is added, that "this feeling of hatred towards Austria was shared by every minister at Berlin, and every officer in the Prussian army, and rendered all our efforts to combine effectually the two nations against the French unavailing."

The prospects of the Allies became daily more gloomy. Wurmser, the Austrian general, was driven back, the blockade of Landau raised, and this moment was selected by the Prussian king and his ministers to force a subsidy under the significant threat of an entire withdrawal of his army, which for the present remained in a state of suspicious inactivity. Russia at this juncture came forward to interfere. The Prince de Nassau, a spurious dignitary and favourite of Catharine, arrived at Berlin with a communication for Frederick William, urging him in the strongest manner to act in concert with his allies, and representing very forcibly that the partition of Poland, and the engagements he contracted for his share, obliged him to continue the war, and that his own declarations and manifestoes from the first, by his own confession, made him a principal in it. Notwithstanding this good advice, the Empress cautiously abstained on hinting at pecuniary succours, being probably aware that a Russian subsidy would answer his majesty's purpose as well as one from England. Early in the year 1794, the Duke of Brunswick resigned the command of the Prussian forces. He was succeeded by Marshal Moellendorff--a soldier of some reputation, but old, testy, and pragmatical.

After much time wasted in preliminaries, and continued threats on the part of Prussia to withdraw immediately from the alliance unless subsidies were forthcoming, Lord Malmesbury was empowered to make the following proposals: Two millions sterling were to be given to the King of Prussia to bring 100,000 men into the field. Of this sum England was to furnish two-fifths, or L800,000; Austria and Holland, each one-fifth; and the remainder was to be considered as an advance from Prussia, to be reimbursed by France at the restoration of peace. Munificent as this proposal may appear--and it really was so when the relative situation of the parties is considered--it did not at first sight appear large enough to satisfy the craving appetite of Frederick William, who, in a private interview with Lord Malmesbury, had the assurance to demand for the proposed succours no less a sum than _twenty millions_ of dollars, without reckoning the "bread and forage!" The firm conduct and resolute tone of Lord Malmesbury, seem at last to have convinced the rapacious monarch that in grasping at too much he might lose all; and, after a great deal of shabby negotiation and bargaining, a settlement was nearly effected on the original terms. Austria, however, positively declined to become bound for any part of the subsidy--we doubt not for sufficient reasons. Holland, in more alarm, was willing to contribute her share; but so many impediments were thrown in the way of a settlement by the machinations of the French party at Berlin, that Lord Malmesbury found it indispensable to quit that court and conclude the negotiation at the Hague. He was accompanied thither by the Prussian minister, Haugwiz--a man whose character for honesty must be left to the verdict of posterity--and on the nineteenth April 1794, a treaty was concluded between Prussia, Holland, and England, by which the former power was bound to furnish an army of 62,000 men, under a Prussian commander-in-chief, to be subsidized by the other states, and to serve against their common enemies. The maritime powers agreed to pay his Prussian majesty L50,000 per month to the end of the year, L300,000 to put the army in motion, and L100,000 on its return home. All conquests made were to be at the disposal of the maritime powers.