CHAPTER XXII
RETIREMENT
Christmas and the early days of the New Year were passed at Foxholes. On January 15th the Reeves returned to Rutland Gate. Parliament met on the 21st, and, as had been foreseen, the Government was defeated on an amendment to the Address. Lord Salisbury's resignation was announced on February 1st, and, on the 3rd, Mr. Gladstone's Cabinet was formed, Sir William Harcourt being Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Rosebery Foreign Secretary, and Mr. John Morley Secretary for Ireland. Sir Henry James, now Lord James of Hereford, declined the office of Lord Chancellor; Lord Hartington, the present Duke of Devonshire, declined office of any sort in a Ministry whose policy, as yet but dimly shown, was generally understood to be on the lines of advanced Radicalism. For his part, Reeve abhorred Radicalism. He had never approved of Gladstone as a politician, and now less than ever. He looked on him as a danger to the Empire, to be fought against, to be resisted, to be crushed. Nor was he singular in this. It is customary to speak of the extraordinary influence which Gladstone exercised. It was this influence, directed by sentiment or by vanity, which constituted the danger. There were many who believed the country to be on the eve of a violent, perhaps a sanguinary, revolution, fomented and abetted by Mr. Gladstone; and this belief was strengthened when, on February 8th, an East-end mob, meeting in Trafalgar Square, was allowed, without opposition, to march by Pall Mall, St. James' Street and Piccadilly, to Hyde Park, breaking the windows and plundering the shops on the way. When to this supposed revolutionary tendency of the new Ministry was added their avowed intention to bring in a measure for the pacification of Ireland, which—in the absence of details—was believed to mean the disintegration of the kingdom, the feeling of alarm, which must be very well remembered by many who read these pages, can be easily understood.
From Lord Ebury [Footnote: Lord Ebury died at the age of 92, in 1893.]
Moor Park, January 4th, 1886.
Dear Reeve,—Allow me to wish you and Mrs. Reeve a happy New Year, and to say how much I have been interested in the second part of our common friend's Memoirs, which—if you care to know it—pleased me more than the first; but the most characteristic passage of the writer, and which made me laugh aloud, is the three pages in which he vents all his wrath against the public for their approbation of Lady Blessington as an authoress, and the pedestal upon which they placed her. I was glad to read the editor's note, which completed the page. When once he got into that sort of mood, and perhaps was influenced by a touch of gout, and let himself go, it was very funny to listen to him; and really he was a good-natured man. I wonder what he would have said of Parnell and his ragged regiment, and the G. O. M.[Footnote: As even in twelve years the name has become quite obsolete, it may be as well to note that Mr. Gladstone was generally designated by these letters, said by his friends and admirers to stand for Grand Old Man.] as he now appears. What in the world are we to do? The 'Times' is working most patriotically; but why, in the world, did it or he not find out earlier what the G. O. M. really was and is?…
With my best regards to Mrs. Reeve,
I remain, yours very truly,
EBURY.
From the Comte de Paris
8 janvier.—Je vous remercie bien sincèrement des bons voeux que vous m'adressez pour la nouvelle aimée. Comme vous le dites fort bien, il y a des bonheurs que la politique ne peut pas empoisonner, et ce sont les plus solides.
L'année 1886, je le crois comme vous, nous réserve des surprises plus dramatiques que celle don't nous venons de voir la fin. En France, ce renouvellement de l'année nous donne un Président renommé mais non rajeuni, un Ministère reconstitué mais non raffermi … En Angleterre, Gladstone et les Irlandais vous auront pour une fois rendu service s'ils forcent à s'unir les conservateurs, aujourd'hui séparés par d'anciennes divisions en whigs et en tories. Ce jour-la vous pourrez de nonveau avoir un gouvcrnement fort et national.
From Lord Ebury
February 13th—I cannot recollect anything about Charles Greville's pamphlet on Ireland, though I imagine I must have read it at the time. Can one get it now to look at it? or are things so much changed by the march of events since that its interest has passed away? I re-read Gustave de Beaumont's marvellous work, with which no doubt you are acquainted. I confess it rather staggered me when it first came out; and how the prophecies it contained are accomplished, almost to the letter! I remember calling the old Duke's attention to it; especially to that strange phrase-speaking of the then Irish landowners—'C'est une mauvaise aristocratic; il faut la détruire.' Was it ever reviewed in the 'Edinburgh'?
When will this horrible Government be overthrown?
To Mr. T. Norton Longman
Rutland Gate, March 29th—From what I learned yesterday as to the probable course of proceeding in the House of Commons, I am strongly of opinion that it will be necessary to accelerate the publication of the 'Review' by two days, instead of postponing it, as we had proposed to do. The 'Review' would be of use in the debate which will then be going on, and will probably be noticed; whereas, after the division on leave to bring in the Bill, it would be less opportune. The article on Ireland is complete, and it would be premature to speculate on the details of an unknown measure.
The 'Review' was published on April 13th, and, as Reeve had expected, the article on 'England's Duty to Ireland' was in everyone's mouth. It was a powerful appeal to the Liberals, as distinct from the Gladstonians, which may even now be read with advantage as a lucid exposition of the principles of the Union.
From Lord Ebury
April 14th.—Thank you for so speedily answering my question: also for pointing my attention to the concluding article of the 'Edinburgh'—just published—written by yourself. I have just finished its perusal, and am very much pleased with it. No doubt you have had a certain advantage in seeing what has been already said upon this insane proposition of Gladstone's; but I have hitherto seen nothing which so completely exposes the dangers that threaten us, and gives so much historical information to guide opinion upon the subject; and you have put forward a subject which to my astonishment has not (or scarcely) been noticed at all. I mean the danger to the throne of England. I see you dismiss with scarcely a remark—which, indeed, in your province, would have been injudicious—the responsibility of those, our grandees—I won't mention names—who have assisted in giving the G. O. M. power to do the almost irreparable mischief he has perpetrated.
The Journal here has:—
April 17th.—To Foxholes. On the 29th, Unionist meeting at Christchurch; Lord Malmesbury in the chair. I read an address [which was printed and circulated as a leaflet]. This was one of the first Unionist meetings in England.
May 3rd.—To Portsmouth, on a visit to Captain Bridge, on board the 'Colossus.'
On May 10th Gladstone, in moving the second reading of his 'Home Rule' Bill, seemed to accept the truth of the maxim that 'Speech is given to man to conceal his thoughts,' and led someone—commonly believed to be Mr. Labouchere, who made no attempt to hide his own opinions—to say, 'How is it possible to play with an old sinner who has got an ace up each sleeve, and says God Almighty put them there?' What Gladstone wanted to do was, in fact, never exactly known; all that could be made out was that he was prepared to grant whatever the Irish Nationalist party demanded. It was for Mr. Parnell to speak; for him to obey. Such an attitude was revolting to a very great many of the Liberal party. They maintained—they rightly maintained—that the name 'Liberal' belonged to principles, not to men; and that those who sacrificed their principles to follow the lead of one man, even of Gladstone's eminence, ceased to be Liberals, and could only be called Gladstonians. The Bill was discussed for many days, and on June 7th it was negatived by the House of Commons in the fullest division ever known; the numbers being:
Against the Bill. For the Bill.
Conservatives. . . . 250 Gladstonians. . . . 230
Liberals. . . . . . 93 Nationalists. . . . 83
___ ___
343 313
Majority against the Bill, 30.
Reeve was triumphant, and wrote to Mr. T. Norton Longman the next day, 'What a triumphant division! What a defeat for the G. O. M.! Even he must believe this. I think his colleagues will hardly agree to dissolve. If they do, they will be annihilated.'
They did, and they were. The General Election held in July fully ratified the vote of the House on June 7th, and left the Gladstonians and Parnellites combined in a minority of 115.
To Mr. T. Norton Longman
C. O., June 23rd.—Sir Francis Doyle's Epilogue [Footnote: The last chapter of Doyle's Reminiscences and Opinions (8vo. 1886). It is more than 'invective;' it contains much sound argument and admirable illustration.] is a powerful piece of invective; but it is essentially addressed to Gladstone's public career and conduct, and if he likes to publish it, I see no objection. Doyle was at Eton with Gladstone, and is one of his oldest and most intimate friends—or rather, was so. What he has written is not stronger than what George Anthony Denison has published on Gladstone, he too being a friend of forty years. I do not remember another instance in which a man's best and earliest friends have turned upon him, to unmask him, and that without any motive of personal resentment. It is the noble motive which led Brutus to strike Caesar.
If this is to appear, it should be published immediately, as it relates to the affairs of the day.
C. O., July 21st.—I think Gladstone has fulfilled all my predictions and completed the ruin of the Liberal party and his own. The net result is that he has brought in the Tories for several years.
Whilst this tremendous storm was raging in the political world in England, France also had been much excited. The letters of the Comte de Paris have shown that he was, in point of fact, conducting an intrigue for the subversion of the republic, the re-establishment of the monarchy; and it is not surprising that the Government, more or less cognisant of what was going on, struck in defence of the constitution under which they ruled. Their action was said to be illegal; but in time of war the laws depend on, are upheld by, and interpreted by the greater force; and on June 23rd the Comte de Paris, with his family, was ordered to quit France, and the Orleanist princes, including the Duc d'Aumale, were deprived of their rank in the army, their names being erased from the army list. On June 29th Reeve noted in his Journal, 'To Tunbridge Wells, to see the Comte de Paris, exiled the week before;' but that is all; the home interest was too absorbing, though even of that the only trace in the Journal is on July 5th, 'Unionist meeting at Tuckton. I took the chair. Election.'
To Lord Derby
C. O., July 10th.—I am much obliged to you for the copy of your excellent speech. In this remarkable debate coram populo, it seems to me that the defeat of the Home Rulers in argument has been even more complete than their rout at the polling booths. The people have shown more serious intelligence than I had given them credit for. I saw this even in our Hampshire bumpkins.
On July 20th the Gladstonian Ministry resigned, and before the end of the month the new ministry was formed under Lord Salisbury as premier and first lord of the treasury. The Journal is occupied with personal and family affairs of special interest.
July 25th.—To Antwerp by the 'Baron Osy.' Forty-seven Americans on board. Aix very dull. Back to London on August 11th.
August 18th.—Letter from Hopie announcing her intended marriage.
September 6th.—Hopie married at Kirklands to Thomas Ogilvie of Chesters.
Chesters is in the immediate neighbourhood of Kirklands, and the friendship between Miss Reeve and Mr. Ogilvie was of many years' standing, though the determination to marry was rather sudden, and the engagement very short. Mr. Ogilvie was a man of good family and property, and though several years older than his bride, Reeve appears to have been very well satisfied; his relations with his son-in-law were always cordial, though the distance at which they lived restricted the intercourse, and the formed habits of both prevented anything like intimacy.
Amidst the political excitement and the family interest of the summer, the following comes in almost like the Fool in 'King Lear' or Caleb Balderstone in the 'Bride of Lammermoor.' It refers to a proposition—surely one of the strangest ever submitted to a publisher—which, in ordinary course, had been sent to Reeve for an opinion. And this is what Reeve wrote:—
To Mr. T. Norton Longman
Foxholes, August 24th.—Your correspondent is the coolest fellow I ever heard of. He not only proposes to complete Macaulay's 'Lays' by some new ones, but to re-edit and correct the original Lays, which, he says, 'are very irregular.' His own verses have not a spark of poetry or fire in them; they are mere trash, and he is an impertinent fellow.
Here the Journal has:—
September 7th.—Went to Exeter with Christine; 8th, to Chagford and Dartmoor; 10th, back to Foxholes.
29th.—To Holyhead and Penrhos with Christine. Bad weather at Penrhos; gout in hand came on.
October 2nd.—To Knowsley; Lord Lyons there.
6th.—To London and Foxholes. Christine went on to Chesters. On the 20th, Mrs. Ogilvie came from Scotland. November 2nd, James Watney died.
From Count Vitzthum
Paris, November 7th.
Dear Mr. Reeve,—I beg you to accept kindly a copy of my memoirs 'St. Petersburg and London,' 1852-1864, which Cotta will send you from the author. Please to remember, if you find time to read these two little volumes, that it is a German book, written for Germans, by one who is neither Whig, nor Tory, nor Red; who is very fond of Old England,, but has nothing to do with your party feelings and prejudices. I see men and things, not from the English, but from the European standpoint, and leave it, as far as possible, to the leading men of the day to tell their own tale. If you find time, read the book and tell me what you think of it.
Yours very truly,
VITZTHUM.
To Mr. T. Norton Longman
C.O., November 12th.—My old friend, Count Vitzthum, formerly Saxon Minister in London, has sent me his 'Reminiscences of St. Petersburg and London from 1852 to 1864' in German, 2 vols. This is a book of extraordinary interest to the English public, full of conversations and confidential details of Prince Albert, Lord Palmerston, Lord Clarendon, Disraeli, &c.—quite a contemporary political history, as amusing and interesting as Greville himself. Vitzthum knew this country well, and all its society.
I shall write on Monday [15th] to thank him for the book, and I propose to ask him whether he has made any arrangements for the translation of it. I am not much in favour of translations; but this book is of such peculiar and exciting interest that I should strongly recommend you to secure it if possible. I think the Taylors, who did Luther, would undertake the translation.
I think this an important affair.
November 15th.—I am afraid you are out of town, but it is of great importance to come to an immediate decision about Count Vitzthum's book. It is a work of the greatest possible interest and importance, and contains many entirely new facts and anecdotes as to contemporary history. You will perceive this from the enclosed notice of the book which appeared last week in the 'Daily News.' [Footnote: November 6th, 'From our Berlin Correspondent,' a notice mostly made up of extracts from the book, then described as 'just about' to be published by Cotta of Stuttgart.]
The Queen has seen the sheets and approved them.
The result of this notice was that three English publishers at once applied to Cotta for the right of translation; but the Count has retained that in his own hands, and he says that, if you will publish the translation on suitable terms, and if I will edit the translation with my name, and write a preface to it, he will make an arrangement with us. This I am ready to do, and I shall tell him so to-day. There is not a moment to lose; and as you appear not to be in town, I must act myself in the matter. I want to know as soon as possible what terms you would offer. I think the Count would accept either a sum down or a share of the profits; you might propose either alternative. The Taylors would execute the translation promptly and the book would appear in May. I do not suppose that you will hesitate to agree to so important a proposal; but if it does not please you, I am certain that Murray or Macmillan would jump at it.
C.O., November 17th.—Max Müller has written to Count Vitzthum, to make exactly the same suggestion I have done. He highly applauds the book and recommends the Count to make arrangements with you for the translation. I have seen Fairfax Taylor. He will undertake to complete the translation by the 15th or 20th of February. The printing can go on when he has got some copy in hand, and the book can be brought out early in April, which is a very good time. I have given him my copy of the first volume to begin upon. Pray get another copy of the book.
November 18th.—Count Vitzthum accepts your proposal. He asks me whether he should write to you; but that is unnecessary. Four other English publishers have applied to him for the right of translation.
November 23rd.—It will be necessary that the translation of Vitzthum's book should be set up in slips, in order that he and I may have an opportunity of adding notes or making omissions.
At this time the question of having him elected as a foreign member of the Institute was mooted by Reeve's friends in Paris. It is to this that the following letters refer. Though not successful on this occasion, because—as Reeve was afterwards told—two out of the six foreign members were already English, they carried their point some eighteen months later, on an English vacancy.
From M. Jules Simon
Paris, 18 décembre.
Cher Monsieur,—J'ai en effet exprimé à notre ami commun, M. Gavard, le désir que j'éprouve de vous attacher plus complètement à notre Académie. C'est line opération assez difficile, car les associés étrangers pouvant être choisis indistinctement dans tous les peuples du monde, il y a rarement disette de candidats. A chaque vacance, une commission est nominée au scrutin. Elle présente trois noms à l'Académie, qui consacre une séance à les discuter, et vote dans la séance suivante. Nous devons élire tout à l'heure le successeur de Ranke. Parmi les deux noms qui ne sortiront pas de l'urne, il y en a un qui pourra bien réussir quand on élira le successeur de Minghetti. En général on est porté deux ou trois fois avant de passer. Vos amis s'occuperont d'abord de vous faire figurer sur la liste. Il faut pour cela qu'un d'entre eux ait la liste exacte de vos écrits, et de tous les titres que l'on peut invoquer en votre faveur. Les débats ne sont pas publics; les candidats n'écrivent pas de demande; celui qui les propose parle en son propre noni, ct est même censé les proposer à leur insu. Enfin, le public ne connaît que le nom de l'élu. Je crois que vous avez envoyé a M. Barthélemy St.-Hilaire les renseignements nécessaires. Si cela n'est pas fait, faites-le, je vous prie, sans délai. Vous pouvez, si vous le préférez, les envoyer à M. Gavard, qui me les remettra, ou m'écrire directement. Je vous prie, cher monsieur, de croire à mes sentiments cordialement dévoués.
JULES SIMON.
From M. Leon Say
Paris, 25 décembre.
Mon bien Cher M. Reeve,—Je ferai naturellement tous mes efforts pour vous rapprocher encore plus de l'Institut, et vous y donner un rang digne de vous; mais je ne dois pas vous laisser ignorer qu'il y aura lutte. Je ne sais s'il vous conviendra que votre nom soit discuté. Pour vous éclairer sur ce point, je vous envoie à titre confidentiel un billet que me fait parvenir M. Aucoc pour faire suite à un entretien que j'ai eu avec lui.
Je vous prie de croire à mes sentiments les plus distingués et les plus affectueux.
LÉON SAY.
Jules Simon m'a promis une note qui me servirait à soutenir vos titres, et me permettrait de dire aux Français de ma section, passablement ignorants de l'étranger, avec exactitude ce que vous avez fait.
Meantime the Journal notes:—
December 7th.—Meeting of the Liberal-Unionist party. On the 11th, dinner at home. Duc d'Aumale, Froude, Carnarvon, Lady Stanley, Colonel Knollys, F. Villiers, Lady Metcalfe, Newton.
19th—Dined at the Duc d'Aumale's, who had bought Moncorvo House in Ennismore Gardens. Comte and Comtesse de Paris, Haussonville, Ségur, Target, Audiffret, Leighton.
December 21st.—To Timsbury. 24th, to Foxholes. The Ogilvies there.
1887. January 3rd.—Came to London. 10th, dinner at Pender's to meet Stanley, the African traveller, before he went to find Emin Bey.
19th.—The third part of Greville published, 3,007 copies subscribed.
Among the many letters which the publication of these last volumes of the 'Greville Memoirs' brought him, the following from Sir Arthur Gordon [Footnote: Fourth son of the Earl of Aberdeen.]—now Lord Stanmore, and then Governor of Ceylon—have a peculiar interest from their exact criticism of a point of detail with which the writer was personally acquainted at first hand:—
Queen's House, Colombo, June 18th.
My dear Mr. Reeve,—I have very long delayed answering your last letter, in the hope that, when I did so, I might at the same time be able to send you my notes on the two last volumes of 'Greville.' But these notes will be numerous, and my time is scant for such work. On one point, the 'graspingness' alleged to have been shown by the Peclites after the formation of the Government in December 1852, and its modification to satisfy their exigencies, I have felt constrained to address the 'Times.' [Footnote: June 13th. The letter is reprinted in the Appenduxm post, p. 411.] The truth happens to have been exactly the other way, and Greville's notes are only the echo of the grumblings of the disappointed Whig placemen who talked to him. It is decidedly unjust not only to my father, Graham, and Gladstone, who are indirectly charged with this trafficking, but to the Duke of Newcastle and Herbert also, who more directly are so.
I have, of course, read the volumes with great interest, but have had my suspicions greatly heightened that whatever may have been the case before—say 1841, the confidences Mr. Greville received in the later years of his life were not unfrequently only half-confidences, for the sake of obtaining his opinion on some collateral point, or of flattering or pleasing him by the show of confidence. There are, of course, many matters treated of in these volumes as to which I have no personal or private information, and I have no reason to question what he says about them; but I have some inclination to doubt, even as to these; for I find that as regards almost every transaction of which I do happen to know the whole history, he knows a good deal about it, but not all about it. He was kept specially in the dark about the real history of Lord Palmerston's resignation in 1853 which is all the odder because he very nearly found it out. Hardly anybody does know what lay behind, though the difference about Reform was a very real one, so far as it went, and quite sufficient to justify—at all events, ostensibly—Lord P.'s virtual dismissal. Again, on another occasion, I see Mr. G.'s special friend, Lord Clarendon—I will not say, deliberately deceived him, but, certainly with full knowledge —allowed him to deceive himself on the strength of a half-confidence. [Footnote: A politic reticence, that has been called 'an economy of truth.']
I am more disappointed than I can say to find that M. de Sainte-Aulaire's elaborate Memoirs have been 'used up' for that stupid book of Victor de Nouvion's, [Footnote: Histoire du Règne de Louis Philippe (4 tom 8vo. 1857-61)], if—as I suppose-that is the book you refer to. I thought it had never got beyond the first two volumes, and have never seen any more of it. I am vexed that M. de Sainte-Aulaire's elaborate Memoirs should have been utilised for such a book; generally, because I know M. de Sainte-Aulaire contemplated their publication, and because they deserved to appear in a separate form; and, personally and specially, because, of course, his accounts of his intercourse with my father, and the elaborate study of his character which he had written, are thus lost….
Yours ever faithfully,
A. GORDON.
To Sir Arthur Gordon
C.O., June 13th.—I have just read in the 'Times' of this morning your interesting letter on the formation of Lord Aberdeen's ministry. I have no doubt you are quite right. It was John Russell and the Whigs who were rapacious for office—much more than the Peelites. John Russell, I know, kept Cardwell out of the Cabinet. You observe that Greville only notes what Lord Clarendon told him; and I have no doubt that Clarendon was rather out of humour with arrangements which were personally disagreeable to himself. But that again was John Russell's fault, because he insisted on taking the Foreign Office pro tem. I shall probably publish another complete edition of Greville next year, and I think it would be well to insert in a note the whole of your letter, or at least the greater part of it. [Footnote: See Appendix, post, p. 411.] If you have any other criticisms to make, they would be valuable to me. I have availed myself of those you were so good as to send me on the second series.
You are aware that Mme. de Jarnac is dead. I do not know who has her husband's papers; but the Comte de Paris is here, and as I frequently see him, I will take an early opportunity of asking him whether he can give me any information about Lord Aberdeen's letters. M. Thureau's 'Histoire de la Monarchic de Juillet' is a remarkable book, because he has access to original sources and quotes largely from them, especially from the Memoirs of M. de Sainte-Aulaire which are still in MS. [Footnote: And still so in 1898.] They appear to be extremely interesting.
We are getting on here pretty well. If the Whigs had joined the Government, there might have been a scramble for office, as there was in 1853; for the Whigs are now in the same position as the Peelites were at that time—officers without an army. It is much more to the credit of my friends to give a disinterested support to Lord Salisbury; and this alliance gives a sufficiently Liberal colour to the measures of the administration. There is every appearance that the Unionists will hold together. Mr. Gladstone continues to be in a state of hallucination and excitement which exceeds belief. It is a case of moral and political suicide. The crisis will probably end by the death of Mr. Parnell, the falling [off] of the American subscriptions, and the extinction of Mr. Gladstone; but in the meantime they have totally ruined Ireland.
From Sir Arthur Gordon
August 30th.—Your letter of June 13th must have crossed one from me, in which I explained to you why I had written to the 'Times' about the formation of the Government of 1853 instead of merely sending my observations to you as a note for future use. I need not say that I am much flattered by your proposal to insert the letter—or part of it—in a note to a future edition of Mr. Greville's Memoirs… I am struck very much by what I think I mentioned once before—the frequency with which Mr. Greville's friends gave him what may be called 'a three-quarters knowledge' of pending affairs. They told him a great deal, but frequently not all. In the affairs with which I am really acquainted, there is almost always something—and that an important something—which does not appear in his notes… I have specially noticed this with regard to Lord Palmerston's 'resignation' in 1853, It is the more remarkable, because it is apparent from various passages that he 'burnt'—as they say in a game of hide and seek—but never actually quite caught the true facts. I have never known a secret better guarded than the fact—which, after a lapse of four and thirty years, one may, I think, mention—that Lord P.'s resignation on that occasion was not voluntary, and that he was, in fact, extruded. [Footnote: In a later letter, June 5th, 1888, Sir Arthur Gordon wrote:—'He had given great offence to the Queen; and his colleagues—at least, his most important colleagues—distrusted his action in reference to pending negotiations, Lord Clarendon especially resenting the intrigues he believed he was carrying on. Things being in this state, he announced his hostility to Reform, and it was determined to take advantage of this announcement to remove him; and removed he would have been, but for the two causes I have noted.'] But, to be sure, half the Cabinet did not know this; and it was their ignorance, coupled with Newcastle's and Gladstone's dislike of Lord John, that brought him back again.
I must get M. Thureau's 'Histoire de la Monarchic de Juillet,' of which I never even heard. It is dreadful to reflect how utterly behindhand one gets in all things, literary, artistic, and political, through long sojourns out of Europe. But I do hope there is some prospect of M. de Sainte-Aulaire's Memoirs themselves being published at full length. I know it was M. de Sainte-Aulaire's wish and deliberate intention that they should be given to the world, and he took much trouble with them.
From the Duke of Argyll
Inveraray, January 22nd.
My dear Mr. Reeve,—I have been longer in getting the book off my hands than I had hoped. It is now in the press, and Douglas talks of getting it out about February 10th or a little later…. There is a good deal in the book which, in one sense, may be called 'padding,' because I have endeavoured to relieve the very dry subject of Tenures and Agricultural Improvement with historical episodes, with pictures of manners, and even with personal anecdote. But I think there is a considerable bulk of new matter, or at least of old matter put in new points of view, and every part is written with an aim to establish the principles which we think 'sound' on Law, on Property, and on Union. Your new Greville seems to be very interesting.
Yours very sincerely,
ARGYLL.
From M. B. St.-Hilaire
Paris, 29 janvier.—Je vous remercie de la peine que vous voulez bien prendre, et j'ai profité des corrections que vous avez bien voulu m'indiquer. J'avais déjá profité des deux articles de la 'Revue d'Edimbourg' sur les chemins de fer russes en Asie et sur l'armée indienne.
I have no wish to appear more royalist than the king himself; but I cannot feel so sure as you do about the security of India. The Russians are already threatening it, and I do not think they are near stopping. The base of their operations will be in the Caucasus, where they already have very considerable forces. It is true that their finances are in bad order; but this may perhaps be an additional motive to them to undertake a war of conquest. I agree with you, however, that before the attack on India will come the attack on Constantinople, the consequences of which will be very great. On the other hand, the railway connecting Candahar with the Indus will certainly be a great obstacle to the advance of the Russians on Cabul. In all this I see many of the elements of catastrophes which the next generation will witness. I hope I may be out of this world before they come.
To Mr. T. Norton Longman
Foxholes, April 17th.—I see the 'Athenaeum' complains that I did not correct all Vitzthum's mistakes and rearrange his book; but that is more than I undertook to do. We did correct a good many mistakes, natural enough in a foreigner; but I do not hold myself responsible for his facts or his opinions.
April 22nd.—I know more about M. Barthélemy St.-Hilaire's book on India than any other Englishman, for I revised and corrected the proof-sheets for him. A French writer on the subject was sure to make blunders. The book is most valuable to foreigners, for it is a perfectly fair account of the British administration of India; but it would be entirely useless in this country, inasmuch as it is a mere compilation from well-known English documents. I think, therefore, that a translation into English would be a work of supererogation and a failure.
Journal
April 30th.—Dined at the Royal Academy dinner.
May 9th.—Great Unionist meeting at Winchester.
28th.—Barthélemy St.-Hilaire came to Foxholes on a visit.
June 10th.—Dined with the Duc d'Aumale, Moncorvo House. Electric light.
15th.—Dined at the Middle Temple. Grand day; Prince of Wales in the chair.
18th.—Dined with the Lord Mayor. Literature, Science, and Art.
21st.—Celebration of the Jubilee. Splendid day.
July 3rd.—Went to Eastbourne.
7th.—Dined at East Sheen with the Comte de Paris. Duc and Duchesse of Braganza there. Duke of St. Albans, Arran and daughter, Duc de la Tremoille—twenty.
18th.—Duc d'Aumale's evening party; very brilliant.
25th.—To Ostend and Brussels. 26th, to Cologne. Great heat.
27th.—To Wiesbaden. Lady Dartrey died while I was at Wiesbaden. I took leave of her on her death-bed just before I started. It was the loss of a most kind, faithful, and affectionate friend.
August 5th.—Ill in the night; incipient fever. 6th, to Cologne. 7th, to Aix, very unwell. 9th, got back to London by Ostend-Dover.
From Captain Bridge, R.N.
H.M.S. 'Colossus,' Gibraltar, August 3rd.
Dear Mr. Reeve,—The Naval Review and the ensuing operations have not, I hope, given you such a surfeit of naval affairs as to indispose you to hear a little of the recent cruise of the Mediterranean squadron. We left Malta, under the command of the Duke of Edinburgh, in May, and visited several ports on the coast of Italy. During H.R.H.'s absence in England, when attending the Jubilee, we stayed at the convenient harbour of Aranci Bay in the island of Sardinia. There we carried out a series of instructive torpedo and under-water mining exercises. After leaving Sardinia, we called at several Spanish ports—Barcelona, Valencia, Cartagena and Malaga—eventually reaching this place last Friday evening.
The effect of our visits to both Italy and Spain has been—especially in the case of the latter country—remarkably gratifying. The presence of a son of the Queen was evidently taken as a compliment by Italians and Spaniards of all classes. Barcelona, Cartagena, and Malaga are notoriously anti-monarchical in sentiment. Yet in every one H.R.H. had a most flattering reception. The enthusiasm of the populace at Cartagena was fully equal to any shown by an English crowd for any popular royal personage. People may say what they like, but the advantages to the country of having a prince in the position held by the Duke are considerable. The friendliness of the Italians is striking; and I am confident the feelings of Spaniards of all classes are more favourable to England than they have been for half a century. We hear now that we are to go on to Cadiz, where a maritime exhibition is to be opened this month; and it is understood that this extension of our cruise is at the request of the Spaniards themselves. I have visited Spanish ports often before now, and never noticed any friendliness towards us. Should the necessity of looking for allies arise, it is nearly certain that both Italy and Spain would be disposed to range themselves on our side. It will be a pity if diplomatic bungling occurs to alter this satisfactory condition of things….
Pray give my kind remembrances to Mrs. Reeve.
Yours sincerely,
CYPRIAN A. G. BRIDGE.
It has been seen that for some years back Reeve had been occasionally thinking of retiring from his post of Registrar. The near completion of fifty years' service revived the notion, and his illness at Wiesbaden, following an earlier attack in April, confirmed it. When his mind was once made up, the rest was a matter of detail. The Journal notes:—
August 10th.—Taxed costs and wound up business at the Council Office for the last time again; but went there again on October 11th.
12th.—To Foxholes, where fever and bad fit of gout came on; I was very unwell till September 3rd.
21st.—My dog Sylvia [Footnote: A collie, so called after her donor, M. Sylvain van de Weyer. A brother of hers belonged to the Queen.] died. A fond and faithful companion of sixteen years.
September 5th.—Mr. G. H. Dorrell came as my secretary, and I dictated an article on foreign affairs.
From Mr. C. L. Peel [Footnote: Clerk of the Council in succession to Sir Arthur Helps. Now Sir Charles Peel.]
56 Eccleston Square, October 5th.
My Dear Reeve,—I was so taken aback by your announcement to-day, that I really could not find words in which to express the sincere regret with which I heard it. You are so thoroughly identified in my mind with the Council Office, and I am so much indebted to you for advice and assistance during the last twelve years, that I shall feel quite lost when I can no longer rely upon the experience, judgement, and kindness which have hitherto been available to me in any difficulty.
I only trust that by relieving yourself in good time from the ties of office, you may enjoy a long spell of happy and active retirement, which you have so well earned, and into which you will be followed by the best wishes of all you leave behind. Believe me always,
Yours most sincerely,
C. L. PEEL.
It appears from the Journal that the resignation was not officially made till some days later.
October 24th.—I resigned the Registrarship of the Privy Council, which I had held, as Clerk of Appeals and Registrar, since November 17th, 1837. The rest of the year at Foxholes.
At the sitting of the Judicial Committee on November 2nd, Sir Barnes Peacock formally announced to the Bar the resignation of the Registrar, and after briefly mentioning the dates of his service as Clerk of Appeals since 1837 and Registrar since the creation of the office in 1853, he went on:—
'It is unnecessary to state to the Bar the manner in which the duties of that office have been performed by Mr. Reeve. He is not present to-day. He has been prevented, I believe, by the state of his health, from travelling to London. Their Lordships are sorry that he is not present, that they might personally bid him farewell. They have given me, as the oldest member of the Judicial Committee now present, the privilege of expressing and recording their deep sense of the loss which must be sustained, both by the Judicial Committee and the public, by being deprived of the valuable services of Mr. Henry Reeve. His long and varied experience, extending over a period of nearly half a century, his extensive knowledge, his great tact and the sound judgement which he brought to bear in the discharge of the duties of his office, render his retirement a serious loss both to the Judicial Committee and to the public. Their Lordships could not allow Mr. Reeve to depart from his office in silence. They trust that he may long enjoy in health and happiness that rest, relaxation, and repose which he has so fully and meritoriously earned, and to which he is so justly entitled. Many men retire from an arduous profession or office, and when they are relieved from the duties which they have for many years been called upon to discharge, sink into a state of ennui and listlessness which are not conducive either to a long life or to health or happiness. But their Lordships feel sure that that will not be the case with Mr. Henry Reeve. His literary and other congenial tastes and pursuits, and his industrious habits, will no doubt supply him with full employment for his still active and vigorous mind. In taking their leave of Mr. Henry Reeve on his departure from office their Lordships will only add, 'Let honour be where honour is justly deserved.'
To this Mr. Aston, Q.C., replied, as the oldest member of the Bar present:—
'I refrain from attempting to add anything to what your Lordship has said, for fear that the feebleness of my addition might detract from the force of that which your Lordship has expressed. But I cannot help saying that, after having appeared at your Lordships' Bar in this place for upwards of a quarter of a century, I have myself personally received, and I have seen the members of the Bar who have practised with me always receive, from Mr. Reeve the utmost courtesy, attention, and assistance. We often have, my Lords, in practising before you, a difficult task to discharge. Our clients are not familiar with the practice of your Lordships' Court, if I may use the term. But on all occasions Mr. Registrar Reeve has given the utmost assistance, and therefore I beg to say, on behalf of the Bar whom I venture to represent, that we cordially endorse all that your Lordship has said, and express our unfeigned regret that we shall no longer have the services of Mr. Reeve in your Lordships' chamber.'
To Mr. T. Norton Longman
Foxholes, November 4th.—I hope you saw the funeral oration Sir Barnes Peacock pronounced on me in the Privy Council. It is in the outer sheet of the 'Times' of Tuesday [Nov. 1st], and perhaps in some other papers; a very kind and handsome tribute; and it is pleasanter to have these things said when one is alive than when one is dead.
The notice in the 'Times' brought Reeve many letters from his friends; amongst others, the following:—
From Lord Ebury
November 9th.—I see you are going to desert the Council altogether. I hope you will long enjoy the otium which you have so worthily merited, and will have time to assist in extinguishing Gladstone.
From the Duc d'Aumale
Woodnorton, 15 novembre.—Je regrette d'apprendre que votre santé a été si eprouvée…. Je suis toujours affligée de voir mes amis se retirer de la vie active; mais je comprends les motifs qui vous ont dicté votre demission….
Je suis si honteux de ce qui se passe en France que je n'ose pas vous en parler, et je me borne a vous serrer bien cordialement la main.
The Journal then notes:—
1888.—The year began at Foxholes. The Ogilvies there for three weeks. Came to London on January 3rd.
February 4th.—Sir Henry Maine died at Cannes. A great loss.
March 5th.—The railroad from Brockenhurst to Christchurch opened. Went down to the ceremony. Came back at 7 and dined with Millais to meet the Lord Chancellor. Mrs. Procter died.
9th—Emperor William of Germany died. Various dinners.
April 10th.—Gladstone dined at The Club. Froude, Smith, Hewett, and Hooker there.
27th—Left London for Basle with Christine at 11 A.M. and arrived there, and thence, at Lucerne, on the 28th at 9 A.M. Capital journey.
From Lucerne they went on to Milan and Bologna and to Florence, which they reached on May 3rd, which they made their headquarters for the next three weeks, seeing all that was interesting in the city and the neighbourhood, and visiting Siena, Chiusi, Perugia, and Assisi. Then to Spezia, Turin, Geneva, and to Paris on the 24th.
Meantime Reeve, having been proposed by St.-Hilaire, supported by the Duc d'Aumale, Jules Simon, and Duruy, as a foreign member of the Institut de France, in succession to Sir Henry Maine, had been elected by a large majority on May 8th. He seems to have received the first news of this from the Duc d'Aumale, who wrote from Palermo on May 10th:—
Mon ancien maître, confrère et ami, Duruy, m'ecrit que vous venez d'etre nommé associé étranger de son Académie par vingt-sept voix. C'est un beau succès dont je veux tout de suite me réjouir avec vous, en attendant que je puisse le faire de vive voix. Je compte être le 20 de ce mois à Bruxelles, et dîner avec le Club quelque jour du mois de juin.
The election had to be approved by the President of the Republic, and the
result was not officially communicated till the 19th. It would seem that
Reeve did not receive it till his arrival in Paris, and on the next day,
May 25th, St.-Hilaire wrote:—
Demain je vous accompagnerai pour votre entrée à l'Académie. Vous verrez que le cérémonial est des plus simples. Je vous présenterai spécialement à M. Franck, qui, sur ma demande, a été votre rapporteur, et qui a parlé de vous en termes excellents.
From the Duc d'Aumale he received, a few days later:—
Bruxelles, 31 mai.—Je ne doutais pas du bon accueil qui vous serait fait à l'Institut, et je suis ravi d'en recevoir le témoignage par votre lettre. Je voudrais bien pouvoir assister au dîner du Club du 12 juin; mais j'en ai quelque doute, tandis que je crois être certain, Deo adjuvante, de pouvoir m'asseoir à notre table fraternelle le mardi 26. Je vous serre affectueusement la main.
On May 28th Reeve returned to London. The entries in the Journal are of little interest, but he noted:—
June 12th.—At Lady Knutsford's, evening, met Lord and Lady Lansdowne, just back from Canada.
15th.—To Foxholes. The Emperor Fritz of Germany died. During the whole of his short reign, which lasted ninety-nine days, the most bitter quarrels went on about his medical treatment. It was a great tragedy.
25th.—To London again. 26th, breakfasted with the Duc d'Aumale, who dined at The Club.
July 2nd.—To Winchester Quarter Sessions to qualify as J.P. for Hampshire, having been recently appointed by Lord Carnarvon.
9th.—Attended Petty Sessions at Christchurch.
30th.—Winchester Assizes. On the Grand Jury.
The next letter, from Sir Arthur Gordon, refers to an incident alluded to in the 'Greville Memoirs,' [Footnote: Third Part, i. 54-5.] which Reeve had commented on at some length, with a reference to the Memoirs of Lord Malmesbury, published some four years before.
What Lord Malmesbury had said amounted to this—that in 1844, when the Russian Emperor Nicholas was in London, 'he, Sir Robert Peel (then prime minister) and Lord Aberdeen (then foreign secretary) drew up and signed a memorandum' to the effect that England 'would support Russia in her legitimate protectorship of the Greek religion and the Holy Shrines, without consulting France. Lord Malmesbury added that the fact of Lord Aberdeen, one of the signers of this paper, being prime minister in 1853, was taken by Nicholas as a ground for believing that England would not join France to restrain the pretensions of Russia, and therefore, by implication, that Lord Aberdeen's being prime minister was a—if not the—principal cause of the war. [Footnote: Lord Malmesbury's Memoirs of an Ex-Minister (1st edit.), i. 402-3.]
The memorandum itself, as printed in the Blue Book, differs essentially, both in matter and form, from Lord Malmesbury's description of it. It is entitled 'Memorandum by Count Nesselrode delivered to Her Majesty's Government and founded on communications received from the Emperor of Russia subsequently to His Imperial Majesty's visit to England in June 1844.' [Footnote: Parliamentary Papers, 1854, lxxi. 863.] It is unsigned, and from the nature of it must be so; it is in no sense an agreement, but a proposal that England should agree to act in concert with Russia and Austria; and nothing whatever is said about the Greek religion, the Holy Places, or the Russian protectorate. It is of course possible that conversations between Nicholas and Lord Aberdeen, which preceded the drawing up of this memorandum, may have encouraged the one and hampered the other; but of this there is no evidence, and Lord Malmesbury could not possibly know anything about it, though he did know something—very inaccurately it appears—about the memorandum. The discrepancies had, in fact, led Reeve to suppose that Malmesbury's statement must refer to another memorandum; and thus Lord Stanmore's letter has a singular historical interest, bearing, as it does, on a point that has been much discussed.
From Sir Arthur Gordon
Queen's House, Colombo, July 30th—I am very sorry that I did not contrive to meet you while in England…. I am almost equally sorry—in fact, am equally sorry—that my laziness and procrastination in sending you my notes prevented their being of any use in the revision of the seventh volume [of the Greville Memoirs]. I am the more sorry because I confess I greatly regret that the mare's-nest of the Russian Memorandum of 1844 should remain unpulled to pieces. You seem half-incredulous as to my explanation, and ask very naturally, If that is all, why should there have been any secrecy about it? The secrecy was due to the form, not the matter. The memorandum was the Emperor's own account of his conversations with the Duke, Sir R. Peel, and Lord Aberdeen, and a copy of it was sent in a private letter from Count Nesselrode to Lord Aberdeen. It was never in the hands of the ordinary diplomatic agents for official communication to the English Government, nor was it ever treated as an official document. But its importance was too great to allow its being treated as an ordinary private letter, and my father personally handed it to Lord Palmerston when replaced at the F. O. by him. Lord Palmerston delivered it in the same way to Lord Granville, Lord Granville to Lord Malmesbury, Lord Malmesbury to Lord John Russell, and Lord John to Lord Clarendon. In 1853 the Emperor made some reference to this paper which was supposed to make it a public document, and it was then printed and laid before Parliament soon after the beginning of the war. This I assure you is the whole history and mystery of the Russian Memorandum, Lord M. notwithstanding. This is not the only instance in which Lord M. has mixed up, in singular fashion, what he himself knew and what was the club gossip at the time.
The Journal here notes:—
August 20th.—Drove over to Lytchet Heath, to stay with the Eustace Cecils.
September 10th.—Joined Mrs. Watney in the 'Palatine' yacht at Bournemouth. Crossed to Trouville in the night. Lay in 'the ditch' for twenty hours. 12th, Cherbourg. Met the French fleet and saw the arsenal. 13th, back to Southampton and to Foxholes. Pleasant trip; good weather.
20th—The Eustace Cecils came: took them to Heron Court. This was the last time Lord Malmesbury saw people there.
From the Duc d'Aumale
Woodnorton, 26 septembre.
Très cher ami,—Vous êtes bien heureux de pouvoir aller vous promener à
Cherbourg et à Paris. Enfin!
Oui, j'ai reçu un peu de plomb, et même assez près de l'oeil gauche; mais le proverbe dit que ce métal est ami de l'homme. J'en serai quitte pour quelques petites bosses sous la peau, et je vous souhaite de vous porter aussi bien que je le fais en ce moment.
J'irai à Knowsley dans la seconde quinzaine d'octobre; à Sandringham, dans les premiers jours de novembre; puis mes neveux viendront tirer mes faisans. J'espère bien prendre part aux agapes du Club le 27 novembre et 11 décembre, et serai bien heureux de vous revoir un peu. En attendant je vous serre la main, mon cher confrère.
H. D'ORLÉANS.
To Lord Derby
Foxholes, October 2nd.—I am amused by the Court quarrel in Germany, though I am afraid the broken heads will not be royal heads. Bismarck will wreak his vengeance on numberless victims. Geffcken is a very old friend of mine, and an occasional contributor to the 'Edinburgh Review;' but I am afraid it will go hard with him, for Bismarck regards him as a personal enemy. If the Prince had lived Bismarck could not have remained in office, and the course of affairs might have been materially changed.
* * * * *
On October 25th Reeve, with his wife, crossed over to Paris. He attended the Institut on the 26th, and heard mass at Notre Dame on the 27th; but his principal object seems to have been to consult Dr. Perrin about his eyes, which for some time back had caused him some uneasiness. A literary man of seventy-five is naturally quick to take alarm, and an English oculist had recommended an operation. This Reeve was unwilling to undergo, at any rate without another and entirely independent opinion; and as Dr. Perrin pronounced strongly against it, no operation was performed; and with care and good glasses his eyes continued serviceable to the last. On November 8th the Reeves returned to London, where, as Parliament was sitting, they remained till Christmas; and, according to the Journal:—
November 27th.—The Club was brilliant with the Duc d'Aumale, Wolseley, Lord Derby, and Coleridge. Boehm and Maunde Thompson were elected.
December 1st.—To All Souls, Oxford. Prothero, Dicey, Oman, George Curzon, &c. Stayed over Sunday.
27th.—To Timsbury: thence to Foxholes on the 29th.
January 15th, 1889.—Returned to London.
From M. B. St.-Hilaire
Paris, January 20th.—It was very good of you to think of my book on 'L'Inde Anglaise,' and I thank you for the 'Edinburgh Review' which you have sent me. I read the article with great interest. It is very well done, and I beg you to thank the author in my name for having taken the trouble to read me with so much attention and good will. I do not think I have exaggerated the danger which threatens your great enterprise in India. The Transcaspian Railway, which will very soon run from Samarkand to Tashkend, seems to me one source of it. Yours will, indeed, soon reach to Candahar; but Russia is at home in the country, whilst England is very far off. The magnanimous confidence you have in your own strength is most praiseworthy—provided that your watchfulness is not allowed to slumber…. Meanwhile I remain constant in my admiration of what the English are doing in India; and the administration of Lord Dufferin may well confirm me in my opinion. There is nothing like it, or so great as it, in the history of the past.
From Lord Dufferin
British Embassy, Rome, January 27th.
My dear Reeve,—Many thanks for your letter of the 16th. As you may well suppose, I am delighted with Lyall's article; for he is acknowledged, both by Indian and by so much of English public opinion as knows anything of the matter, to have been the best Indian public servant that the present generation has produced. In addition, or, as perhaps some would say, in spite of possessing real literary genius, he proved himself a most wise, shrewd, and capable administrator. I do not believe he made a single mistake during his whole career. At all events, I never heard of his having done so; and a slip is scarcely made in India without the fact being duly recorded. What pleases me most is that the kind words he uses about myself should be embedded in the exposition of his own opinions upon Indian questions—opinions full of acuteness, justice, and knowledge. It is these that will really make the article interesting to your readers, and consequently give a greater importance to what he has said about me than otherwise would have been the case. I have obeyed your orders in regard to sending a copy of my speech to M. Barthelemy St.-Hilaire.
The social history of the season is adequately chronicled in the Journal:—
February 5th.—The Ogilvies in London.
22nd.—Mr. Gollop [Mrs. Reeve's father] died; born October 11th, 1791. Christine had been down just before.
March 12th.—The Club. Good party: Lord Salisbury, Walpole, Tyndall, Hooker, Hewett, Lecky, Lyall, A. Russell, Layard, and self.
March 20th.—Meeting at Lord Carnarvon's about the bust of Sir C. Newton.
25th.—Breakfast at Sheen House with Comte and Comtesse de Paris, to meet Lefèvre-Pontalis and Bocher.
28th.—Lunched with Major Dawson at Woolwich and went over the Arsenal. Very interesting.
April 12th.—Meeting for Matthew Arnold's Memorial. 7,000 l. raised.
May 4th.—Dined at the Royal Academy dinner. Sat by Horsley, Tyndall, and Chitty.
From Sir Arthur Gordon
May 5th.—You may rely upon it that I am absolutely right as to the Russian Memorandum—Lord Malmesbury does not himself assert that he ever saw it, which, had it existed, he must have done when Foreign Secretary. I cannot, of course, expect you to attach the same weight that I do to what I may call the personal reasons which make me utterly incredulous of Lord Malmesbury's story; but there are other reasons for doubting it, some of which may have already occurred to you. One is the alleged form of the document, which is said to be signed by the Emperor, the Duke, my father, and Sir R. Peel. Lord Malmesbury prides himself on the knowledge of diplomatic forms and etiquettes derived from his grandfather's papers. He might have known that the signature of an engagement by a Sovereign (and such a Sovereign!) on the one side and three ministers of another Sovereign on the other (thereby putting them on species of equality) was an impossibility. Such a paper, if it existed, would be signed either by both Sovereigns or by the ministers of both. I think I may say with confidence that the Emperor Nicholas was a most unlikely man to perform such an act of condescension. And why should he? He had his confidential minister with him. Another, and I think fatal, objection is that neither my father nor Lord Clarendon were altogether absolute fools, and when, in answer to the Emperor's challenge, they published the secret memorandum which had till then been handed on privately from minister to minister, they knew what they were about, and would never have put it into the power of the Emperor to retort that that was not what he referred to, but to a paper which would not improve the cordiality of the Anglo-French alliance. Again, is it likely that, if the Emperor had entered into such an agreement, he would take the trouble to write another long memorandum, containing the 'substance' of his discussions with the English ministers? This is the memorandum which was sent in a private letter, which I possess, from Count Nesselrode to my father; which was handed from minister to minister, and which was published in 1854. The original draft, Count Nesselrode said, was in the Emperor's own hand. I have another little bit of evidence which I think also goes to prove that no such agreement was entered into in 1844, as Lord Malmesbury supposes. In 1845 Count Nesselrode visited England. My father, writing to the Queen, gives an account of his conversations with Nesselrode, and says: 'His language very much resembled that held by the Emperor; and although he made no specific proposals, his declarations of support, in case of necessity, were more unequivocal.' (The italics are mine.) Could he have written this if he had already, some months before, signed an agreement with the Emperor, which was both unequivocal and specific?
From the Comte de Paris
Sheen House, 7 mai.
Mon cher Monsieur Reeve ,—Nous aussi, nous n'avons pas oublié votre présence à notre mariage le 30 mai 1864. La Comtesse de Paris et moi nous sommes bien touchés de la manière dont vous nous le rappelez, et je vous remercie de tout coeur de ce que vous me dites et des voeux que vous m'adressez en cette occasion. Au milieu de toutes les vicissitudes de notre vie pendant ces vingt-cinq ans nous avons été constamment soutenus par le bonheur domestique que cette union nous a donné et par toutes les satisfactions que nous ont causées nos enfants.
Lorsque j'ai reçu votre lettre j'allais vous écrire, ainsi qu'à Madame Reeve, de vouloir bien venir ici le 30 mai dans l'après-midi: nous recevons entre 2 et 5 tous les amis qui viendront fêter cet anniversaire avec nous. Je me souviens bien que Madame Reeve était avec vous à la chapelle de Kingston, mais ma mémoire n'est pas sûre en ce qui concerne Madame votre fille. Je vous serais bien reconnaissant de me faire savoir si elle était avec vous ce jour-là. En attendant je vous prie de me croire Votre bien affectionné,
PHILIPPE COMTE DE PARIS.
The Journal notes:—
May 7th.—The Club: Due d'Aumale, Lord Salisbury, Wolseley, Carlisle, A. Russell, Hewett, Stephen—very brilliant.
8th.—Returned to Foxholes.
16th.—Drove to Heron Court. Lord Malmesbury dying.
17th.—Lord Malmesbury died. 22nd, attended his funeral in Priory Church. 29th, to London.
30th.—The silver wedding of the Comte and Comtesse de Paris at Sheen. All the French Royalties, Prince of Wales, &c. About five hundred people; 169 persons still alive who were at the wedding in 1864. A silver medal was sent to all the survivors.
From M. B. St.-Hilaire
Paris, June 6th.—If I am free in the autumn, it will give me great pleasure to pay you another visit at Foxholes; the first has left a pleasant memory, and I ask no better than to repeat it. But, without having to complain of old age, I find more difficulty in going about. I am not exactly ill, but my strength gradually fails—a sign that the end is not far off.
I foresaw that General Boulanger would have no success in England; you are much too serious for such a nature as his. His popularity diminishes daily; and if the Cabinet act with judgement from now to the October elections, I have no doubt they may regain public favour. The triumph of Boulangism would be the signal for horrible anarchy at home and war abroad, provoked by the madmen who had climbed into power.
Monarchy, in the person of the Comte de Paris, is losing rather than gaining ground here. If France should ever return to a dynasty, it would be more likely to be the Bonapartes. The terrible name of Napoleon has still an immense prestige, however unworthy his successors.
M. St.-Hilaire's visit did not come off. The Journal mentions many dinners, receptions, and garden parties in town during June and July, and eleven days in August on board Mrs. Watney's yacht 'Palatine,' to see the naval review on the 5th. 'Very rough weather all the time.' In September a journey to Edinburgh and on the 14th to Chesters, chronicled as 'my first visit to my daughter.' A week later Reeve returned south; and, paying a few short visits on the way, including a day at Knowsley, was back at Foxholes by the 26th.
From Count Vitzthum
Villa Vitzthum, Baden Baden, August 30th.
My dear Mr. Reeve,—I beg to send you the proofs of the preface and contents, in order to show you the plan of my book.
I am very sorry that you do not approve of the account I have given of our interview in September 1866. It was unfortunately too late to cancel the letter, but nothing would prevent leaving it out if those memoirs should ever be translated. On further consideration, and after reading the foregoing pages, you will find, I am sure, that your comment on the situation in September 1866 was not only correct, but very valuable. The peace of Europe then was threatened by two eventualities, of which one happened: by an ostensible alliance between Prussia and France, or by an immediate war between both. Rouher and Lavalette worked very hard for the alliance, and your sound judgement indicated the consequences which such an alliance would have had. I quite agree with you about these relations. But the opinion of a man like you is a fact, and an important fact; because you have been in those days what they call a representative man; because you represented a great portion of the Liberal party. It does not take one iota off the value of your opinion—which, you may depend upon it, was correctly recorded—if the course of events took another turn, and if this monster alliance remained a dream of adventurous French politicians. The thing was on the cards.
As for Napoleon's malady, all I can say [is] that Nelaton, who then was consulted for the first time, wrote a letter to King Leopold of Belgium, stating that it was very probable the Emperor of the French would be found any morning dead in his bed, and that he would most likely die before the end of November. Very truly yours,
VITZTHUM.
In consequence of this letter Mr. Reeve wrote to Mr. T. Norton Longman:—
Foxholes, September 3rd.—Count Vitzthum is about to publish two more volumes of his political reminiscences during his mission in London. I send you the index of the work, from which you will see that it contains a good deal of matter, anecdotes, &c., of interest to English readers. You will judge from the result of the former work whether you think it worth while to engage in the publication of a translation of these later volumes. But, as I am going away till the end of the month, I cannot negotiate with Count Vitzthum or with the translator, and I must beg you to take that upon yourself.
A month later, however, on October 2nd, he wrote that, after seeing the book, he was of opinion that it would not stand translation. It was reviewed in the 'Edinburgh' of January 1890, but was not translated.
From Lord Derby
November 11th.—I have only begun the Life of Lord John. It would be a very difficult one to write in a spirit at once of fairness and friendship. My impression of the man was and is that he was more thoroughly and essentially a partisan than anyone I have known; and sometimes open to the comment, that he seemed to consider the Universe as existing for the sake of the Whig party. Perhaps this would not strike anyone who was trained up in the same school, as strongly as it did me. On the other hand, I think he was more generally consistent, and had fewer of his own words to eat, than any politician of his time or of ours. His religious politics were his weak part; they were rather narrow and sectarian. I suppose he was forced by the Court into his quarrel with Palmerston; which was the trouble of his later official life, and caused these uneasy struggles to recover a lost position which did him harm. But with all drawbacks he has left an honoured and distinguished name. Do you think there is any ground for the idea which Lady Russell puts about that, if he had lived till now, he would have gone for Home Rule?