constitution of Great Britain. The British Cabinet cannot, like that of Prussia or Austria, commit the country to a course which is inconsistent with or derogatory to its honour. In consequence of this irresolution on the part of our rulers, we are now precipitated into war, and are already beginning to feel some of its inconveniences. Let us now endeavour to ascertain the causes which have led to so very serious a denouement as the disruption of the peace of Europe. It is important that we should do so now, and not leave the question entirely to the future speculation of historians. During Lord Derby’s short tenure of office, relations of peculiar amity had been established between Britain and France. Lord Malmesbury, than whom no more able or judicious minister ever held the seals of the Foreign Office, saw that the interests of civilisation not only in the west, but throughout the whole of Europe, could only be maintained by a close and permanent co-operation, and mutual good understanding between these two countries; and he addressed himself to the task with equal discretion and success. It is not too much to say that Britain and France never were more cordially united and confidentially allied than during the period we refer to. This, of course, was anything but agreeable to the Czar, whose opportunity lay in a separation of the interests of the two great powers of the West. The dissolution of Lord Derby’s Government and the accession of the Aberdeen Ministry effected a material alteration. The new Premier, Lord Aberdeen, had been for a great many years on the most intimate footing with the despotic Courts and Cabinets. He had not, it was true, the ability of the Nesselrodes or Metternichs; but he was considered in the highest diplomatic circles as a person who might easily be led, and upon whom a certain show of deference would not be thrown away. It was supposed, also, that he regarded with particular dislike the recent changes in France, and was not favourable to the re-establishment of the Empire under the rule of Napoleon III. This veteran ally of the despotic powers was now associated with men whose former political opinions had differed greatly from his, but who were openmouthed and unscrupulous in their attacks upon the Emperor of the French. We need hardly remind our readers of the highly reprehensible language which was employed by Sir James Graham, and Sir Charles Wood—both of them Cabinet Ministers—in respect to the Emperor Napoleon, or of the foul and scurrilous attacks upon him with which, about the beginning of last year, the columns of the Liberal press abounded. All that is changed now. There is, indeed, plenty of invective and abuse, but it is directed towards another quarter. The French Emperor, formerly pilloried by the Coalitionists, has become the object of their laudation. The Russian Emperor, whom they formerly lauded, is now put into the pillory.