ter the death of Pitt, was that of a
king who understood his kingly office; and his strict devotion to
business, regardless of his own pleasure, could not have been exceeded
by a merchant engrossed in lucrative trade. The many pithy and racy
sayings recorded of him show an insight into men's characters and the
realities of life not unworthy of Dr. Johnson. His simplicity,
kindliness, and charity endeared him to his subjects. His undaunted
courage and readiness to undertake sole responsibility, not only during
the panics of the Gordon riots and of the impending French invasion, but
in many a political crisis, compelled the respect of all his ministers,
and his disappearance from the scenes, to make way for the regency of
his eldest son, was almost as disastrous for English society as the
exchange, in France, of Louis XIV.'s decorous rule for that of the
Regent Orleans.

The European concert which had been called into existence by the war
against Napoleon, and had effected a continental settlement at Vienna,
continued to act for the maintenance of peace. The treaty of alliance of
1815 only bound the four powers to common action in the event of a fresh
revolution in France which might endanger the tranquillity of other
states. The holy alliance was more comprehensive and wider in its aims,
but was too vague to form the practical basis of a federation. The
settlement of Europe by the treaty of Vienna was, however, the work of
all the powers, and they had therefore an interest in everything that
might be likely to affect that settlement. The habit of concerted
action, once formed, was not lightly abandoned, and the succeeding age
was an age of congresses. But though there was a general sentiment in
favour of concerted action it manifested itself in different ways. The
causes of the recent struggle with France had been political in their
origin, and it was agreed that a recurrence of disorder from France
could be best prevented by the establishment of a government in that
country which should be at once constitutional and legitimist. England
favoured, and Russia, the most autocratic of states, favoured still more
vehemently, the development of constitutions wherever it might be
practicable, while Austria, being composed of territories with no
national cohesion, endeavoured rather to thwart the growth of
constitutions. But Russia was also the most active advocate of joint
interference where a constitutional reform was effected