CHAPTER XXVIII
1859
Queen Victoria to Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton.
Windsor Castle, 7th January 1859.
The Queen returns Mr Gladstone's letters, and gladly accepts his patriotic offer.1 He will have difficulty in solving a delicate question, affecting national feeling, against time, but his offer comes most opportunely.
Footnote 1: See ante, [p. 301]. Mr Gladstone had been sent to enquire into the causes of the dissatisfaction of the inhabitants of the Ionian Islands with their High Commissioner, Sir John Young. He now offered to act himself for a limited time as High Commissioner, should it be decided to recall Sir John. He was succeeded in February by Sir Henry Storks.
Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby.
NATIONAL DEFENCES
Windsor Castle, 13th January 1859.
As the Cabinet are now meeting, and will probably come to a decision about the estimates for the year, the Queen thinks it her duty to urge upon them in the strongest manner her conviction that, under the present aspect of political affairs in Europe, there will be no safety to the honour, power, and peace of this country except in Naval and Military strength. The extraordinary exertions which France is making in her Naval Department oblige us to exercise the utmost vigour to keep up a superiority at sea, upon which our very existence may be said to depend, and which would be already lost at any moment that France were to be joined by any other country possessing a Navy.2 The war in India has drained us of every available Battalion. We possess at this moment only fourteen old Battalions of the Line within the three kingdoms, and twelve Second Battalions newly raised, whilst our Mediterranean possessions are under-garrisoned, and Alderney has not as yet any garrison at all. Under these circumstances the Queen has heard it rumoured that the Government intend to propose a reduction on the estimates of 9,000 men for this year. She trusts that such an idea, if ever entertained, will upon reflection be given up as inconsistent with the duty which the Government owe to the country. Even if it were said that these 9,000 men have only existed on paper, and have not yet been raised, such an act at this moment would be indefensible; for it would require a proof that circumstances have arisen which make it desirable to ask for fewer troops than were considered requisite when the last estimates were passed, which really cannot be said to be the case! To be able to raise at any time an additional 9,000 men (in political danger) without having to go to Parliament for a supplementary vote and spreading alarm thereby, must be of the utmost value to the Government, and if not wanted, the vote will entail no additional expense.
England will not be listened to in Europe, and be powerless for the preservation of the general peace, which must be her first object under the present circumstances, if she is known to be despicably weak in her military resources, and no statesman will, the Queen apprehends, maintain that if a European war were to break out she could hope to remain long out of it. For peace and for war, therefore, an available Army is a necessity to her.
The Queen wishes Lord Derby to communicate this letter to the Cabinet.
Footnote 2: The French Emperor had signalised the opening of a new year by an ominous speech. To M. Hübner, the Austrian Ambassador at Paris, who had attended, with the other foreign representatives, to offer the usual congratulations on the 1st of January, he observed: "I regret that the relations between our two Governments are not more satisfactory; but I beg you to assure the Emperor that they in no respect alter my feelings of friendship to himself."
Mr Odo Russell[3] to Mr Corbett.[4]
THE POPE
(Submitted to Queen Victoria.)
Rome, 14th January 1859.
Sir,—I had the honour of being received by the Pope at a private audience this morning at the Vatican. No one else was present.
His Holiness, whose manner towards me was most kind and benevolent, said: "You are appointed to succeed a very good man,[5] for whom I felt great affection, and I regret that he has left Rome. You may be as good as he was, and we shall become friends, but I do not know you yet, and Mr Lyons I had known for many years; he is going to America, I hear, and he will find the Americans far more difficult to deal with than with us.
"I am much gratified to hear that the Prince of Wales is likely to visit Rome, and Her Majesty, I feel sure, has done well to allow him to prosecute his studies here. It will be an honour to me to receive him at the Vatican, and I beg that you will confer with Cardinal Antonelli[6] as to the best means of making the Prince's visit here useful and pleasant. We are anxious that all his wishes should be attended to, that he may preserve a pleasant recollection of Rome in the future. Alas! so many erroneous impressions exist about this country that I hope you will not judge of us too rashly. We are advised to make reforms, and it is not understood that those very reforms, which would consist in giving this country a Government of laymen, would make it cease to exist. It is called 'States of the Church' (États de l' Église), and that is what it must remain. It is true I have lately appointed a layman to a post formerly held by an ecclesiastic, and I may do so again occasionally; but, however small we may be, we cannot yield to outer pressure, and this country must be administered by men of the Church. For my part, I shall fulfil my duties according to my conscience, and should Governments and events turn against me they cannot make me yield. I shall go with the faithful to the Catacombs, as did the Christians of the early centuries, and there await the will of the Supreme Being, for I dread no human Power upon earth and fear nothing but God."
"But, Holy Father," I said, "you speak as if some great danger threatened Rome—is there any [real?] cause for apprehension?"
"Have you not heard," His Holiness answered, "that great excitement prevails throughout Italy?—the state of Lombardy is deplorable; evil spirits are at work even in my dominions, and the late speech of the King of Sardinia is calculated to inflame the minds of all the revolutionary men of Italy. It is true he says he will observe existing Treaties, but that will scarcely counter-balance the effect produced by other portions of his speech. News has also reached me of an extensive amnesty granted by the King of Naples—he did not yield to outer pressure, and he was right—but now, on the occasion of the marriage of his son, an act of clemency on his part is well advised."
"Is it true," I said, "that political prisoners are included in that Amnesty?"
"Yes," His Holiness answered; "I saw the name of Settembrini, and I think also of that other man in whom your Government took so much interest—his name begins with a 'P' if I remember rightly——"
"Poerio," I suggested.
"That is the name," the Pope continued; "and I fancy that all the other political prisoners will be released; they are to be sent to Cadiz at the expense of the King, they are to be clothed and receive some money, I believe, and after that arrangements have been made with the Minister of the United States to have them conveyed to that country; they are to be exiled for life. I hope this event may have the effect of making your Government and that of France renew diplomatic relations with Naples; I always regretted that rupture, but the King was right not to yield to outer pressure.
THE POPE AND LORD PALMERSTON
"It is lucky," the Pope ended with a smile, "that Lord Palmerston is not in office; he was too fond of interfering in the concerns of foreign countries, and the present crisis would just have suited him. Addio, caro," the Pope then said, and dismissed me with his blessing.
I then, according to usage, called on Cardinal Antonelli, and recounted to him what had passed. He confirmed all the Pope had said, but denied that there was any very serious cause for immediate apprehension of any general disturbance of the peace of Italy. I have, etc.,
Odo Russell.
[Footnote 3:] Secretary of Legation at Florence, resident in Rome, afterwards Lord Ampthill.
[Footnote 4:] Secretary of Legation at Florence, afterwards successively Minister at Rio Janeiro and Stockholm.
[Footnote 5:] Richard Bickerton Pemell Lyons, who had just been transferred from Rome to Washington. He had recently succeeded his father, the Admiral, in the Barony of Lyons, and was himself subsequently promoted to an Earldom.
[Footnote 6:] Secretary of Foreign Affairs for the Papal States.
The Earl of Malmesbury to Queen Victoria.
London, 18th January 1859.
The Earl of Malmesbury presents his humble duty to the Queen, and has the honour to inform your Majesty that he has seen the French Ambassador to-day, who came of his own accord to say that we need be in no apprehension, of a war at present, as the public opinion in France, especially in the large towns, had been so strongly pronounced against a war that it was impossible. Lord Malmesbury is also glad to inform your Majesty that the Cabinet has agreed to-day to make a great addition to the effective force of your Majesty's Navy.
Your Majesty's commands are obeyed respecting the telegram to Berlin.
The Earl of Malmesbury to Queen Victoria.
London, 25th January 1859.
The Earl of Malmesbury presents his humble duty to the Queen, and regrets to say that he shares your Majesty's apprehensions. The Emperor is extremely irritated at our not concurring in his views on Italy, and Lord Malmesbury believes that nothing will restrain him but the public opinion expressed against them, in France.7 Austria has, against all our advice and common prudence, made a false move by sending troops into the Papal States against the wish of the Pope, and is now obliged to recall them. The speech of your Majesty is to be discussed in Cabinet to-day. Lord Derby intended to introduce a paragraph stating that your Majesty's Alliance with France remained "unimpaired," but it now appears to us that such a statement might provoke a question "why" it should be made a special one. Lord Malmesbury entirely agrees with your Majesty as to an allusion to Treaties.
Footnote 7: Yet the Emperor had just written to Queen Victoria on 20th January: "Le corps législatif va bientôt s'ouvrir, presque en même temps que le parlement; je tâcherai d'exprimer dans mon discours tout le désir que j'ai de vivre toujours en bonne et sincère intelligence avec votre Majesté et son gouvernement." Early in February the pamphlet Napoléon et l'Italie, nominally written by M. de la Guéronnière, but inspired by the Emperor, foreshadowed the war in Italy, and attempted to justify it.
Queen Victoria to Lord Stanley.
LORD CANNING
Windsor Castle, 25th January 1859.
The Queen thinks that the time is come when the bestowal of some honour or reward on Lord Canning ought no longer to be delayed. He has now nearly arrived at the end of his tremendous task of quelling the Rebellion, and has triumphed over all his many difficulties. If any man deserves an acknowledgment of his services at the hands of the Crown, it is surely he, and the Queen would be sorry that the grace of it should be taken away from her by questions being asked in Parliament when it is assembled again, which will now be the case very soon.
A step in the Peerage and the G.C.B. appear to the Queen an appropriate reward. Perhaps a pension should be awarded to him? Lord Elphinstone also ought not to be left unrewarded, and a step in the Peerage with the G.C.B. does not appear too high an honour for him, for he also has greatly contributed to the saving to the Indian Empire.8
Footnote 8: Lord Canning was made an Earl and Lord Elphinstone (who had been Governor of Bombay during the Mutiny) a Peer of the United Kingdom, and both received the G.C.B.
Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.
THE QUEEN'S FIRST GRANDCHILD
Buckingham Palace, 2nd February 1859.
My dearest, kindest Uncle,—Accept my warmest thanks for your most kind letter of the 28th. I know how pleased you would be at the safety of our dear Vicky, and at the birth of our first grandson!9 Everything goes on so beautifully, Vicky recovering as fast and well as I did, and the dear little boy improving so much and thriving in every way.... The joy and interest taken here is as great almost as in Prussia, which is very gratifying.
I think that the Speech will do good, but it has not been easy to frame it, as the feeling against the Emperor here is very strong. I think yet that if Austria is strong and well prepared, and Germany strong and well inclined towards us (as Prussia certainly is), France will not be so eager to attempt what I firmly believe would end in the Emperor's downfall! Old Malakhoff himself said to the Duchess of Wellington that if the French had the slightest defeat ce serait fini avec la Dynastie! A pretty speech for an Ambassador, but a very true one!
Pray say everything most kind to your dear children and believe me ever, your devoted Niece,
Victoria R.
We are just arrived here, and go back to Windsor to-morrow afternoon.
Footnote 9: Frederick William Victor Albert, now German Emperor, born on the 27th of January.
Queen Victoria to the Earl of Malmesbury.
Buckingham Palace, 3rd February 1859.
The Queen has this moment received Lord Malmesbury's letter. As she has not yet written (only telegraphed) to announce to the Emperor the birth of our grandson (we being in the habit since we know the Emperor and Empress personally to communicate to one another reciprocally family events), the Queen has an opportunity or a pretext for writing to the Emperor, and is therefore prepared to do so to-morrow. But as the terms to be used are of the most vital importance, she would wish Lord Malmesbury to consult forthwith with Lord Derby, and to let her have "the matter" to be put into the letter before the Queen leaves town, which we do at half-past four this afternoon.
The Earl of Derby to Queen Victoria.
LETTER TO THE EMPEROR NAPOLEON
St James's Square, 3rd February 1859.
(Thursday,1 p.m.)
Lord Derby, with his humble duty, and in obedience to your Majesty's commands, received within this half hour through Lord Malmesbury, submits the accompanying very hastily drawn sketch of the language which, in his humble opinion, your Majesty might hold in a private and confidential letter to the Emperor of the French. Lord Derby is not sure that it is what your Majesty desired that he should submit; but he trusts that your Majesty will be pleased to receive it as an attempt to obey your Majesty's commands, and will excuse its many imperfections on account of the extreme haste in which it has unavoidably been written.
"I cannot refrain from taking this opportunity of expressing confidentially to your Imperial Majesty my deep anxiety for the preservation of the peace of Europe, nor can I conceal from myself how essentially that great object must depend upon the course which your Imperial Majesty may be advised to take. Your Majesty has now the opportunity, either by listening to the dictates of humanity and justice, and by demonstrating unmistakably your intention to adhere strictly to the faithful observance of Treaties, of calming the apprehensions of Europe, and restoring her confidence in your Majesty's pacific policy; or, by permitting yourself to be influenced by the ambitious or interested designs of others, of involving Europe in a war, the extent and termination of which can hardly be foreseen, and which, whatever glory it may add to the arms of France, cannot but interfere materially with her internal prosperity and financial credit. I am sure that your Majesty will not doubt the sincerity of the friendship which alone induces me to write thus unreservedly to your Majesty, and if anything could add to the sorrow with which I should view the renewal of war in Europe, it would be to see your Majesty entering upon a course with which it would be impossible for England to associate herself."10
Footnote 10: The Queen accordingly wrote a letter, which is printed in the Life of the Prince Consort, assuring the Emperor that rarely had any man had such an opportunity as was now his for exercising a personal influence for the peace of Europe, and that, by faithful observance of Treaty obligations, he might calm international anxieties.
The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.
Laeken, 4th February 1859.
My dearest Victoria,— ... Heaven knows what dance our Emperor Napoléon Troisième de nom will lead us. In a few days he will have to make his speech. I fear he is determined on that Italian War. The discussions in Parliament may influence him; I fear party spirit in lieu of a good and right sense of what is the interest of Europe. It was praiseworthy that you said in your Speech that treaties must be respected, else indeed we return to the old Faustrecht we have been striving to get rid of. It is curious that your speech has made the funds fall again: I presume they hoped at Paris that you would have been able to say that you congratulated Parliament on the prospect of peace being preserved. For us poor people who find ourselves aux premières loges, these uncertainties are most unsatisfactory. Your devoted Uncle,
Leopold R.
Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby.
THE INDIAN ARMY
Windsor Castle. 5th February 1859.
With regard to a decision which will have to be taken when the report of the Indian Army Commission shall have been received, the Queen thinks it incumbent upon her not to leave Lord Derby in ignorance of her firm determination not to sanction, under any form, the creation of a British Army, distinct from that known at present as the Army of the Crown.
She would consider it dangerous to the maintenance of India, to the dependence of the Indian Empire on the mother country, and to her Throne in these realms.
Such an Army would be freed from the proper control of the constitutional monarchy. It would be removed from the direct command of the Crown, and entirely independent of Parliament. It would throw an unconstitutional amount of power and patronage into the hands of the Indian Council and Government; it would be raised and maintained in antagonism to the Regular Army of the Crown; and professional jealousy, and personal and private interests, would needs drive it into a position of permanent hostility towards that Army.
This hostility has been already strongly marked in the proceedings of the Commission itself.
Its detrimental effects would not be confined to India alone, but would form a most dangerous obstacle to the maintenance of the government of the Regular Army by the Queen. Already, during the Crimean War, most of the blows levelled at the Army and the prerogative of the Crown were directed by Indian officers, of whom, in future, a vast number would be at home, without employment or recognised position, in compact organisation, and moved by a unity of feeling.
There may be points of detail, admitting differences of opinion as to the relative advantages of a purely local or general Military Force for India; but these are mere trifles, which sink into insignificance in the Queen's estimation, when she has to consider the duty which she owes to her Crown and her Country.
THE QUEEN AND LORD STANLEY
The Queen hopes Lord Derby will not consider that she intends, by this letter, unduly to influence his free consideration and decision as to the advice he may think it his duty to offer, but merely to guard against his being taken by surprise, and to prevent, if possible, an unseemly public difference between herself and Lord Stanley. She is impelled to the apprehension that such may arise from the manner in which, since the first transfer of the Indian Government to the Crown, every act of Lord Stanley has uniformly tended to place the Queen in a position which would render her helpless and powerless in resisting a scheme which certain persons, imbued with the old Indian traditions, would appear to wish to force upon the Crown.
The Queen does not expect an answer to this letter from Lord Derby, and asks him to treat it as strictly confidential.
The Queen sees that Lord Stanley means to make a statement on Monday on the Indian Finances. She trusts that there will be nothing said in that statement to prejudge the Army Question.
Decipher from Lord Cowley.
Paris, 6th February 1859.
(1 a.m. Received 4 a.m.)
A great change for the better. The Queen's letter has produced an excellent effect, as also the Debates in Parliament.11 The Emperor has expressed himself ready to subscribe to every word of Lord Derby's speech.
Footnote 11: Parliament was opened by the Queen in person on the 3rd; the ensuing debates, and especially the speeches of the Liberal leaders, showed that, however much the English nation, as a whole, might sympathise with Italian aspirations for the expulsion of the Austrians from Lombardy, they would regard unfavourably a war commenced in defiance of Treaty obligations.
The Earl of Derby to Queen Victoria.
THE INDIAN ARMY
St James's Square, 6th February 1859.
Lord Derby, with his humble duty, submits to your Majesty his respectful acknowledgment of the explicitness with which the letter he had the honour of receiving last night conveys to him the intimation of your Majesty's views upon the important subject of the Indian Army. He cannot, however, disguise from your Majesty the deep pain which that communication has occasioned him; first, that your Majesty should think that Lord Stanley has so far mistaken his duty as systematically to place your Majesty in a false position; and next because unless Lord Derby misconceives the purport of your Majesty's letter, he fears that it may leave him no alternative but that of humbly entreating to be relieved from a responsibility which nothing should have induced him to undertake but a sense of duty to your Majesty, and the conviction that he might rely with confidence upon your Majesty's continued support. It would ill become Lord Derby to attempt to argue a question on which your Majesty has expressed so strong a determination; he has studiously avoided taking any step which might prejudge a question so important as the organisation of your Majesty's Forces in India. He has awaited the report of the Commission appointed to enquire into the subject, and though aware of the wide difference of opinion which prevailed, has desired impartially to weigh and examine the arguments adduced on both sides, and he has in the meantime refused to give his sanction to a proposition, earnestly pressed upon the Government by Lord Canning, for immediately raising additional regiments for Indian Service. But the announcement of your Majesty's determination (if he rightly understands it), under no circumstances to continue an European Army in India, under terms of service different from those of the Line, paid out of Indian Revenues, and officered by men educated for that especial service, and looking to India for their whole career, places Lord Derby in a position of no little embarrassment; for notwithstanding the gracious intimation that your Majesty does not desire unduly to influence his judgment as to the advice which he may tender, it amounts to a distinct warning that if tendered in a particular direction it has no chance of being accepted by your Majesty. Nor, with that knowledge on his part not shared by his colleagues, can he freely discuss with them the course which they may consider it their duty to pursue.
Lord Derby humbly trusts, therefore, that your Majesty will be graciously pleased, so far as the members of the Government are concerned, to absolve him from the obligation of secrecy, and to allow him to place before them a state of things which may lead to the most serious results, so far as their power of serving your Majesty is concerned.
Lord Derby will give Lord Stanley a caution not to say anything in his statement of Indian Finance which may prejudge the question of a single or separate armies; but he hardly thinks the caution necessary, as European troops, whether in one Service or in two, will equally be chargeable to the revenues of India, which will only be affected by the proportion which the whole of the European may bear to the whole of the native forces.
Lord Derby hopes that he may be permitted to offer his humble congratulations to your Majesty on the very favourable reports received from Paris by telegraph, and upon the highly satisfactory effects produced by your Majesty's private letter to the Emperor.
The above is humbly submitted by your Majesty's most dutiful Servant and Subject,
Derby.
Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby.
INDIVISIBILITY OF ARMY
Windsor Castle, 7th February 1859.
The Queen is very sorry to learn from Lord Derby's letter, received last evening, that her communication to him on the Indian Army question had caused him deep pain. She had long hesitated whether she should write it, from a fear that its purport and motive might possibly be misunderstood; but feeling that there ought to exist nothing but the most unreserved and entire confidence between herself and her Prime Minister, she thought it incumbent upon her to let Lord Derby see exactly what was passing in her mind.
If, notwithstanding the Queen's expressed hope that Lord Derby might not consider the communication as intended unduly to influence his free consideration of the important subject, he should feel that its possession, without being at liberty to communicate it to his colleagues, does so in effect, she would ask him to return it to her, and to consider it as not having been written. If he should think, however, that a communication of the Queen's views to the Cabinet is due to them, she is quite prepared to make one. In that case it would naturally have to be differently worded, would omit every reference to Lord Stanley, and might go more into detail.
The Queen cannot close this letter without correcting some misapprehensions into which Lord Derby seems to have fallen. It was not the Queen's intention to impute any motives of systematic action to Lord Stanley; she referred simply to facts and steps, known as well to Lord Derby as to herself, which "uniformly tended" to place her in a powerless position with regard to the Army question.
The Queen protested against "the creation of a British Army distinct (in its existence and constitutional position) from that of the Crown," and not against the "continuance of an European Army, under terms of service different from the Line, paid out of Indian Revenues, and officered by men educated for that special service, and looking to India for their whole career." In fact, she does not understand what meaning Lord Derby attaches to the words "terms of service." Every force kept in India, however constituted, would be paid out of Indian Revenues. This would therefore not form the distinction, and Lord Derby cannot intend to convey that on these revenues one set of Englishmen can have a greater claim than another; nor does she see why English officers, commanding English soldiers and charged with the maintenance of their discipline and efficiency, should for that object require to be specially and differently educated, and be restricted to look to India for their whole career. Officers attached to native troops are in a different position.
H.R.H. The Prince of Wales.
From a drawing by F. Winterhalter, 1859
To face p. 320, Vol. III.
The Earl of Derby to Queen Victoria.
MISAPPREHENSION REMOVED
St James's Square, 7th February 1859.
Lord Derby, with his humble duty, submits to your Majesty his grateful acknowledgments for your Majesty's most gracious note received this evening, the contents, and still more the tenor of which have relieved him from the painful apprehension that he might be called upon to choose between a strong sense of public duty, and, on the other side, his deep devotion to your Majesty's service, and his gratitude for the favourable consideration which his imperfect attempts to discharge his public duty had always received at your Majesty's hand. The explanation, with which he has now been honoured, of your Majesty's views has entirely dispelled those apprehensions, and he feels that he has only to thank your Majesty for the gracious explanation, with which he has been honoured, of your Majesty's motives in addressing to him the letter which certainly caused him "deep pain."...12
Footnote 12: Lord Derby then proceeded to deal at some length with the status of the troops in India, concluding with the opinion that the local forces in India should never exceed those sent from home as part of the Regular Army, subject to the ordinary routine of service.
Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby.
Windsor Castle, 8th February 1859.
The Queen has received Lord Derby's letter of yesterday, and is pleased to find that he now appreciates the motives which dictated her first letter. It needs no assurance on her side that she never doubted those which actuate Lord Derby. The Queen will, in compliance with his request, defer any further notice of the subject until the Commissioners shall have made their report; it would not be fair, however, to Lord Derby, not to add that she fears from his explanation that he has not now correctly estimated the nature of the Queen's objection, which is not to a variety of forces, terms of service, local or general employment, etc., etc., etc., established in one Army, but to the principle of two British Armies.
Queen Victoria to General Peel.13
13th February 1859.
The Queen relies with confidence that when the question of the Indian Army comes before the Cabinet, General Peel will stoutly defend the interests of the Crown and the British Army. On the opinion which he will give and maintain much of their decision must depend, and unless he speaks out boldly the Indian Secretary will have it all his own way.
Footnote 13: General Jonathan Peel, brother of Sir Robert Peel (the Premier), and Secretary of State for War.
Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.
THE EMPEROR'S SPEECH
Buckingham Palace, 15th February 1859.
My dearest Uncle,—We came here to settle yesterday—and also here Spring seems wonderfully forward! It can't last—and frost is sure to follow and cut off everything. At Windsor and Frogmore everything is budding—willow I see is green—rose-leaves out, and birds singing like in May!
Accept my warmest thanks for your kind letter of the 11th. I still hope that matters will cool down—the Emperor personally expressed regret to Hübner for his words, disclaiming the construction put upon them, and saying that no one could dispute the right of Austria to her Italian possessions.14 He has not written to me lately, but I wrote him ten days ago a long friendly letter, speaking out plainly our fears for the future, and urging him to aid us in averting the calamity of War....
Our Parliament is as quiet as possible as yet, but it will soon have more cause for action and excitement....
Bertie's interview with the Pope went off extremely well. He was extremely kind and gracious, and Colonel Bruce was present; it would never have done to have let Bertie go alone, as they might hereafter have pretended, God knows! what Bertie had said.... With Albert's love, ever your devoted Niece,
Victoria R.
Footnote 14: See ante, [p. 310], note 2.
The Earl of Derby to Queen Victoria.
THE EMPEROR OF AUSTRIA
Downing Street, 21st February 1859.
Lord Derby, with his humble duty, and in obedience to the commands which he had the honour of receiving from your Majesty last night, submits the following suggestions, as embodying the substance of what, in his humble judgment your Majesty might address with advantage in a private letter to the Emperor of Austria.
Your Majesty might say, that deeply penetrated with the conviction of the duty imposed upon your Majesty of acting on the principles enunciated in the speech from the Throne, of exercising whatever influence your Majesty could employ for the preservation of the general peace, your Majesty had looked with anxiety to the circumstances which threatened its continued existence. That your Majesty was unable to see in those circumstances, any which were beyond the reach of diplomatic skill, if there were only a mutual desire, on the part of the Chief Powers concerned, to give fair play to its exercise. That the only source of substantial danger was the present state of Italy; and that even in that there would be little danger of interruption to the general tranquillity, were it not for the antagonism excited by interests and engagements, real or supposed, of France and Austria.
That your Majesty believed that the supposed divergence of these interests and engagements might be capable of reconciliation if entered into with mutual frankness, and with a mutual disposition to avoid the calamities of war; but that, as it appeared to your Majesty, neither party would be willing to invite the other to a friendly discussion of the points of difference between them.
That in this state of affairs your Majesty, as a mutual friend of both Sovereigns, and having no individual interests to serve, entertained the hope that by the spontaneous offer of good offices, your Majesty might be the means of establishing certain bases, on which the Powers mainly interested might subsequently enter into amicable negotiations with regard to the questions chiefly in dispute, or threatening serious results.
Of these, the most pressing are those which relate to the Italian Peninsula.
That your Majesty, anxiously revolving in your mind the question how your Majesty's influence could best be brought to bear, had come to the conclusion that your Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, having the fullest knowledge of the views entertained by that Court, and possessing your Majesty's entire confidence, might usefully be intrusted with a highly confidential, but wholly unofficial mission, for the purpose of ascertaining whether there were any possibility consistently with the views of the two Courts of offering such suggestions as might be mutually acceptable as the basis of future arrangements; and, if such should happily be found to be the case, of offering them simultaneously to the two parties, as the suggestions of a mutual friend.
That your Majesty trusted His R.I.A.15 Majesty would look upon this communication in the truly friendly light in which it was intended, and that Lord Cowley, in his unofficial and confidential character, might be permitted fully to develop the views which your Majesty entertained, and to meet with the most favourable consideration of his suggestions from His R.I.A. Majesty.
Lord Derby, before submitting the above to your Majesty, has thought it right to communicate it to Lord Malmesbury and Lord Cowley, and he is enabled to say that it meets with their entire concurrence.16 He will be highly gratified if he is permitted to know that it is honoured by your Majesty's gracious approval. All which is humbly submitted by your Majesty's most dutiful Servant and Subject,
Derby.
Footnote 15: Royal and Imperial Apostolic.
Footnote 16: The Queen acted on this advice, and wrote a letter on the 22nd to the Emperor of Austria, on the lines of Lord Derby's suggestions. The material parts of it are printed in the Life of the Prince Consort, vol. iv. chap. 92.
Mr Disraeli to Queen Victoria.
CHURCH RATES
House of Commons, 21st February 1859.
(Monday.)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his humble duty to your Majesty, informs your Majesty that the Government measure on Church Rates was introduced to-night, in a very full House, and was received with so much favour that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has every belief that it will pass. This is very unexpected, and the satisfactory settlement of this long agitated and agitating question will be a great relief to public life, and tend to restore and augment the good-humour of the country.17
It is generally rumoured that, on Friday next, Lord Palmerston is to move a vote of censure upon your Majesty's Government with respect to their Foreign Policy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer scarcely credits this, and would rather suppose that the formal censure will take the shape of a rattling critique, preceding some Motion for papers.
Footnote 17: Since the Braintree case in 1853, no rate could legally be levied except by the majority of the rate-payers. The present Bill was designed to exempt Dissenters from payment, excluding them at the same time from voting on the subject in the vestry meeting. Sir John Trelawney, the leader of the Abolitionist party in the House, however, procured the rejection of the proposed measure, and a solution was not arrived at till 1868.
Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.
LORD COWLEY'S MISSION
Buckingham Palace, 1st March 1859.
My Dearest Uncle,—Many thanks for your kind letter of the 25th. Matters remain much in the same state. Lord Cowley arrived on Sunday at Vienna, but we know nothing positive yet. I much fear the obstinacy of Austria.
It will indeed be a blessing if we could do something not only to avert the war for the present, but to prevent the causes of it, for the future. Nothing but improvement in the Italian Governments can bring about a better state of things. What is really the matter with the King of Naples18?
We found the poor Queen really very tolerably well at Claremont on Saturday. She is decidedly better than when we saw her at the end of November. Poor Joinville is suffering from an accident to his bad knee.
Here our Reform Bill has been brought in yesterday.19 It is moderate, and ... [Lord John] has therefore allied himself with Mr Bright and Mr Roebuck against it! He has no other followers. The Debate on Foreign Affairs on Friday was extremely moderate, and can only have done good.20
It is rumoured that you are going to Berlin to the Christening, but I doubt it! Oh! dearest Uncle, it almost breaks my heart not to witness our first grandchild christened! I don't think I ever felt so bitterly disappointed about anything as about this! And then it is an occasion so gratifying to both Nations, which brings them so much together, that it is most peculiarly mortifying! It is a stupid law in Prussia, I must say, to be so particular about having the child christened so soon. However, it is now no use lamenting; please God! we shall be more fortunate another time! With Albert's affectionate love, ever your devoted Niece,
Victoria R.
Affectionate love to your children. When does Philip go to Italy?
Footnote 18: Ferdinand II., known as Bomba, died on the 22nd of May in the same year.
Footnote 19: See Introductory Note, ante, [p. 307].
Footnote 20: In this debate Lord Palmerston urged the Ministry to mediate between Austria and France, in order to obtain their simultaneous withdrawal from Rome, and Mr Disraeli announced the confidential mission of Lord Cowley as "one of peace and conciliation."
The Emperor of Austria to Queen Victoria.
THE EMPEROR'S REPLY
Vienne, le 8 Mars 1859.
Madame et Chère Sœur,—J'ai reçu des mains de Lord Cowley la lettre que votre Majesté a bien voulu lui confier et dont le contenu m'a offert un nouvel et précieux témoignage de l'amitié et de la confiance qu'elle m'a vouées, ainsi que des vues élevées qui dirigent sa politique. Lord Cowley a été auprès de moi le digne interprète des sentimens de votre Majesté, et je me plais à lui rendre la justice, qu'il s'est acquitté avec le zèle éclairé, dont il a déjà fourni tant de preuves, de la mission confidentielle dont il était chargé.
J'ai hautement apprécié les motifs qui vous ont inspiré la pensée de m'envoyer un organe de confiance pour échanger nos idées sur les dangers de la situation. Je m'associe à tous les désirs, que forme votre Majesté pour le maintien de la paix, et ce n'est pas sur moi que pèsera la responsabilité de ceux, qui évoquent des dangers de guerre sans pouvoir articuler une seule cause de guerre.
Lord Cowley connaît les points de vue auxquels j'envisage les questions qui forment l'objet ou le prétexte des divergences d'opinion qui subsistent entre nous et la France; il sait aussi que nous sommes disposés à contribuer à leur solution dans l'esprit le plus conciliant, en tant qu'on n'exige pas de nous des sacrifices que ne saurait porter aucune Puissance qui se respecte. Je forme des vœux pour que votre Majesté puisse tirer parti des élémens que Lui apportera son Ambassadeur, dans l'intérêt du maintien de la paix que nous avons également à cœur.
Mais quelles que soient les chances et les épreuves que l'avenir nous réserve, j'aime à me livrer à l'espoir que rien ne portera atteinte aux rapports d'amitié et d'union que je suis heureux de cultiver avec votre Majesté, et que Ses sympathies seront acquises à la cause que je soutiens et qui est celle de tous les États indépendans.
C'est dans ces sentimens que je renouvelle à votre Majesté l'assurance de l'amitié sincère et de l'inaltérable attachement avec lesquels je suis, Madame et chère Sœur, de votre Majesté, le bon et dévoué frère et ami,
François Joseph.
Queen Victoria to the Earl of Malmesbury.
A PROPOSED CONFERENCE
20th March 1859.
The Queen has received Lord Malmesbury's letter21 written before the Cabinet yesterday. The Memorandum of Lord Cowley and the telegrams from Vienna give better hopes of the idea of Congress or Conference leading to a good result. Everything will now depend upon the Emperor Napoleon's acceptance of the conditions on which Austria is willing to agree to a Conference. The Queen would like to have a copy of Lord Cowley's memorandum.22
Footnote 21: Lord Cowley had returned from his mission to Vienna, and was now again at Paris. The complexion of affairs had been changed by a suggestion on the part of Russia (which may or may not have been ultimately prompted from Paris) for a Conference between England, France, Austria, Prussia and Russia, to settle the Italian Question. Cavour pressed for the admission of Piedmont to the Conference.
Footnote 22: Lord Malmesbury's letter to Lord Cowley, written immediately after the Cabinet, enjoined him to impress upon the Emperor that England would only address herself to the four points—evacuation of the Roman States by foreign troops, reform, security for Sardinia, and a substitute for the treaties of 1847 between Austria and the Duchies.
Queen Victoria to the Earl of Malmesbury.
Osborne, 22nd March 1859.
The Queen thanks Lord Malmesbury for his communication of yesterday, which she received this morning. She quite approves the steps taken by the Government,23 and concurs in Lord Malmesbury's views. If the understanding about a Conference first of the five Powers, and then of the Italian States with them, could be so far come to that France and Austria agree with us upon the conditions on which it is to take place, we need not wait for Russia's proposing it. She is evidently playing, as she always does, a double game, and from Sir John Crampton's24 letter it appears that she never meant to propose a Congress, but merely to accept one, for ulterior objects.
Footnote 23: An attempt to obtain the disarmament of Austria and Sardinia, and a proposal to obtain the co-operation of France, in guaranteeing to defend Sardinia against invasion by Austria for five years, unless Sardinia left her own territory. On the 23rd, Lord Malmesbury wrote that all the great Powers, except Austria, had agreed to a Congress upon the conditions laid down by the British Government.
Footnote 24: English Ambassador at St Petersburg, formerly Minister at Washington; see ante, [p. 219]. He had succeeded to the baronetcy in 1858.
Queen Victoria to the Earl of Malmesbury.
Osborne, 27th March 1859.
The Queen trusts that Lord Malmesbury will act with the utmost circumspection in answering the many telegrams crossing each other from all directions respecting the proposed Congress. An understanding with Austria on every point ought, if possible, to precede our giving our opinion to France or Russia. If they can once get the Powers to agree upon a point upon which Austria disagrees, they have won the game, and the Emperor can proceed to his war, having a declaration of Europe against Austria as his basis.
Queen Victoria to the Earl of Malmesbury.
Buckingham Palace, 12th April 1859.
The Queen has marked a passage in this draft, which she thinks it would be advisable to modify—so as not to put upon record (should the Austrians refuse to give way on this point) that we consider their conduct as "reckless." Should they persist, they would certainly not meet with as much sympathy as they would do if they yielded, and such a course on their part would be very much to be regretted, as we consider every sacrifice small, in comparison to the blessings of preserving peace; but still Austria would have a perfect right to stand out—and we originally supported her in this demand.
If something which expressed the above sentiments and opinions could therefore be substituted for the present passage, the Queen thinks it would be very desirable for the future, both as regards Austria and England.
The Earl of Derby to Queen Victoria.
ENGLAND AND AUSTRIA
Downing Street, 21st April 1859.
Lord Derby, with his humble duty, submits to your Majesty that it has appeared to him, in consultation with his colleagues, with the exception of Lord Hardwicke and Sir John Pakington, who are out of Town, that the only step which can properly be taken at present is to protest strongly against the course which Austria is now taking, and to warn her that whatever may be the results to herself, she deprives herself of all claim to the support or countenance of England.25 Your Majesty will see by another telegram, received a few minutes ago from Lord Cowley, that Hübner!! advises that England should threaten to come to the aid of Sardinia, if the contemplated invasion should take place! Your Majesty's servants are not, however, prepared to take so strong a step, which would commit them to measures to which they might be unable at the moment to give due effect; and which, if Austria were to disregard the measure, would involve them in War as the Allies of France. They have therefore limited themselves to a protest, the terms of which will require to be very carefully considered before it is embodied in a despatch. Lord Malmesbury will submit to your Majesty by this messenger the terms of his telegram.... To appeal at once to arms, when no question, except this of form, remained unsettled as to the meeting of Congress, and the subjects to be then discussed, had been unanimously agreed to, appears to Lord Derby to indicate a reckless determination to go to war which it will be very difficult to justify in the eyes of Europe.
For the moment these events rather diminish than increase the probability of a rupture with France, while they will task her means to the uttermost, and not improbably overthrow her personal dynasty!
Footnote 25: On the 19th, Count Buol despatched an emissary, Baron Kellersberg, to Turin, with a summons to Sardinia to disarm, under the threat of immediate hostilities if she declined. Sardinia indignantly refused, whereupon the Austrian troops crossed the Ticino.
Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.
WAR IMMINENT
Windsor Castle, 26th April 1859.
My Dearest Uncle,—I hardly know what to say, so confused and bewildered are we by the reports which come in three or four times a day! I have no hope of peace left. Though it is originally the wicked folly of Russia and France that have brought about this fearful crisis, it is the madness and blindness of Austria which have brought on the war now!26 It has put them in the wrong, and entirely changed the feeling here, which was all that one could desire, into the most vehement sympathy for Sardinia, though we hope now again to be able to throw the blame of the war on France, who now won't hear of mediation, while Austria is again inclined to do so!
It is a melancholy, sad Easter; but what grieves me the most (indeed, distracts me)—for I have had nothing but disappointments in that quarter since November—is that in all probability Vicky will be unable to come in May! It quite distracts me. You also must be very anxious about dear Charlotte; I hope she will not remain at Trieste, but go to Vienna. Her being in Italy is really not safe.... Now with kind loves to your children, ever your affectionate and devoted Niece,
Victoria R.
Footnote 26: Referring to an understanding reported to have been arrived at between France and Russia, the suspicion of which created great indignation in England. Prince Gortschakoff and the French Emperor, in answer to enquiries, gave conflicting explanations.
The Earl of Derby to Queen Victoria.
Roehampton, 27th April 1859.
... Lord Derby has thought it necessary, in consequence of the attitude assumed by Russia, notwithstanding her assurances that there is nothing hostile to England in her secret treaty with France, to call upon Sir J. Pakington to say what addition could be made to the Channel Fleet within a period of two or three months, without weakening that in the Mediterranean. He has the honour of enclosing the answer, which he has just received by messenger. Lord Derby proposes to go up to Town to confer with Sir J. Pakington on this important subject to-morrow, and Lord Malmesbury has summoned a Cabinet for Friday to consider the general state of affairs.
France having absolutely refused the proffered mediation of England, and Austria having only accepted it under the condition of the disarmament of Sardinia, every effort to preserve the peace has been exhausted; and it only remains for this country to watch the course of events, to protect her own interests, and to look out for any opportunity which may offer to mediate between the contending parties. This policy, announced by Lord Derby in the City on Monday,27 was received with unanimous approval. It will require a great deal to induce the country to be drawn into a war under any circumstances, and Lord Derby's anxious efforts will not be wanting to avoid it as long as possible.
Footnote 27: He had there described Austria's action as hasty, precipitate, and (because involving warfare) criminal, but the Government would still (he added) strive to avert war, by urging Austria, under the Treaty of Paris, to invoke the mediation of the Powers. The Derby Government, however, were supposed to be giving encouragement to Austria. See Lord Derby's letter of the 2nd of June, post, [p. 336].
Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby.
LORD DERBY'S POLICY
Windsor Castle, 29th April 1859.
The Queen has read the last telegrams with much pain, as they show that there is no chance left of stopping war. Indeed she thinks, considering the progress of revolution in the Duchies, and the daily increase of military strength of France and financial exhaustion of Austria, that it would not be morally defensible to try to restrain Austria from defending herself while she still can.
Count Buol's proposal to continue negotiations during the fight sounds strange, but ought not to be altogether put aside. The King of Sardinia's assumption of the Government of Tuscany28 and military occupation of Massa-Carrara form gross infractions of the Treaties of 1815 and international law, and can hardly be left without a protest from us.
Has Lord Derby heard that a Russian Fleet is expected soon to appear in the Black Sea? The Queen has just heard it from Berlin, where it is supposed to be certain, and it would explain Lord Cowley's report of (the Queen believes) Prince Napoleon's29 account of the Russian engagements, which are admitted to contemplate a junction of the French and Russian Fleets to defend the Treaty closing the Dardanelles.
Footnote 28: See Introductory Note, ante, [p. 308]. The Duchy of Modena and the Grand Duchy of Tuscany were in revolution, and the Duchy of Parma soon followed their example.
Footnote 29: See post, [p. 331], note 30.
The Earl of Derby to Queen Victoria.
FRANCE AND RUSSIA
Roehampton, 1st May 1859.
(Sunday night, 12 P.M.)
... Lord Derby entirely concurs in your Majesty's opinion that no credit is to be attached to the denials of the French or Russian Governments in regard to the engagements subsisting between them.30 It is very easy to convey denials in terms which are literally true, but practically and in spirit false; and Lord Derby has no doubt but that France is well assured that in any case she may rely upon the tacit assistance, if not the active co-operation, of Russia; and that both Powers are using their utmost endeavours to excite troubles in the East, as well as in Italy, as the result of which France may gratify her cherished designs of ambition in the latter, while Russia carries on her projects of aggrandisement in the former. This is a lamentable state of affairs; but it is Lord Derby's duty to assure your Majesty that no Government which could be formed in this country could hope to carry public opinion with it in taking an active part, as matters now stand, in opposition to France and Russia, if in truth they are acting in concert, as Lord Derby believes that they are. All that can be done is to maintain the principle of strict neutrality in regard to the affairs of Italy, and probably of Montenegro also, though there is not sufficient evidence of facts in that case to justify a positive conclusion. But in the meantime everything shows more conclusively the absolute necessity for the increase of your Majesty's Naval Force,31 which was determined at the Council yesterday, and respecting which it will be necessary, on the very first day of the meeting of the new Parliament, to call for an explicit expression of opinion.
Your Majesty enquires as to a supposed pledge given by the Emperor of the French as to a denial of any Treaty with Sardinia. So far as Lord Derby can recollect at this moment, there never was more than an assurance that so long as Austria remained within her own limits, he would not interfere; and that he would not support Sardinia, unless she were herself invaded in any unjustifiable attack on Austria; and there was also a denial in the Moniteur, to which your Majesty probably refers, of there having been any engagement entered into as a condition of the marriage.32 These are just the denials to which Lord Derby has already adverted, which appear at first sight satisfactory, but which may be afterwards explained away, so as to escape the charge of absolute falsehood.
Lord Derby trusts that your Majesty will have understood, and excused, his absence from the Council on Saturday, in consequence of the misunderstanding as to the time appointed.
Footnote 30: Lord Cowley, in a letter of the 29th of April to Lord Malmesbury, described an interview with the Emperor of the French, when the latter denied in terms the existence of a signed Treaty between France and Russia. But, as Lord Cowley added, there might be moral engagements which might easily lead to a more specific alliance.
Footnote 31: The Emperor had interrogated Lord Cowley as to this.
Footnote 32: In July 1858, the joint action of France and Sardinia had been concerted at the confidential interview at Plombières, between the Emperor and Cavour, the former undertaking to assist Sardinia, under certain contingencies, against Austria. On the same occasion the marriage was suggested of the Princess Clothilde of Sardinia to the Prince Napoleon Joseph Paul, son of Prince Jerome Napoleon Bonaparte. An interesting account of the events of this time, and of the character and aims of Cavour, will be found in De la Gorce's Histoire du Second Empire; see especially vol. ii. book 14.
Queen Victoria to the Earl of Malmesbury.
THE POSITION OF FRANCE
Windsor Castle, 3rd May 1859.
The Queen has carefully read the enclosed draft. She thinks that, without saying anything offensive to France,33 this important document would not place matters before that Power in the world in accordance with the facts, and would lead to erroneous inferences if it left out altogether, as it does, any reference to the responsibility which France has had in bringing about the present state of affairs.... Austria and Sardinia are spoken of as the offenders, and blamed, not without sufficient ground, for the parts which they have respectively acted, and France is treated as if standing on a line with us in fostering civilisation, liberty, and peace. The inference would be that we forsake her in her noble course, and deserve again the name of "perfide Albion."
The Queen would ask Lord Malmesbury to consider this. For the sake of showing how she thinks the omissions dangerous to our position might be supplied, she has added some pencil remarks.
Footnote 33: I.e., if the despatch were to abstain from reprobating the French policy.
Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.
THE GENERAL ELECTION
Windsor Castle, 3rd May 1859.
Dearest Uncle,—Many thanks for you dear, kind letter of the 30th. God knows we are in a sad mess. The rashness of the Austrians is indeed a great misfortune, for it has placed them in the wrong. Still there is one universal feeling of anger at the conduct of France, and of great suspicion. The Treaty with Russia is denied, but I am perfectly certain that there are engagements....
Here the Elections are not as satisfactory as could be wished, but the Government still think they will have a clear gain of 25 to 30 seats, which will make a difference of 50 or 60 votes on a Division. It gives unfortunately no majority; still, it must be remembered that the Opposition are very much divided, and not at all a compact body, which the supporters of the Government are.34
Lord John has been holding moderate and prudent language on Foreign Affairs, whereas Lord Palmerston has made bad and mischievous speeches, but not at all in accordance with the feelings of the country. The country wishes for strict neutrality, but strong defences, and we are making our Navy as strong as we can.
You ask me if Louis Oporto35 is grown? He is, and his figure much improved. He is a good, kind, amiable boy whom one must like. He has sailed this morning with the Bridegroom, and on the 16th or 17th we may expect them back with the dear young Bride.
I venture to send you a letter I received some days ago from dear Vicky, and the religious tone of which I think will please you. May I beg you to return it me, as her letters are very valuable to me?...
We are well fagged and worked and worried; we return to Town to-morrow afternoon.
With kindest love to your children, ever your devoted Niece,
Victoria R.
Footnote 34: After their defeat on the 1st of April on the proposed Reform Bill, the Ministry had dissolved Parliament, and had gained in the elections twenty-five seats—not enough to counterbalance the Palmerstonian triumph of 1857. If, therefore, the various sections of the Liberal Party could unite, the displacement of the Derby Government was inevitable. Such a combination was, in fact, arranged at a meeting at Willis's Rooms organised by Lord Palmerston, Lord John Russell, Mr Bright and Mr Sidney Herbert.
Footnote 35: Brother and successor of King Pedro V. of Portugal, and father of King Carlos. The King had married in May 1858 the Duchess Stéphanie (born 1837), daughter of Prince Antoine of Hohenzollern.
Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.
Buckingham Palace, 9th May 1859.
My Dearest Uncle,—I write to-day instead of to-morrow to profit by the return of your messenger. Many, many thanks for your dear letter of the 6th. What are the Austrians about? They would not wait when they ought to have done so, and now that they should have long ago made a rush and an attack with their overwhelming force, they do nothing! nothing since the 30th! leaving the French to become stronger and more fit for the struggle every day!! It is indeed distracting, and most difficult to understand them or do anything for them. The Emperor leaves Paris for Genoa to-morrow. It is not true that the Empress was so warlike; Lord Cowley says, on the contrary, she is very unhappy about it, and that the Emperor himself is low and altered. Old Vaillant goes with him as General-Major.... Ever your devoted Niece,
Victoria R.
The Earl of Malmesbury to Queen Victoria.
POLICY OF THE EMPEROR NAPOLEON
15th May 1859.
The Earl of Malmesbury presents his humble duty to the Queen, and has the honour to inform your Majesty that Count de Persigny36 called on him yesterday. He passed an hour in attempting to prove what it seems he really believes himself—that the Emperor had no plan or even intention to make war in Italy; that His Imperial Majesty was drawn into it step by step by M. de Cavour, who finally menaced to publish his most confidential correspondence, etc.; that his army was totally unprepared, and is now in a very imperfect state, and that he himself was overcome with surprise and fear when he learnt in the middle of last month that the Austrians had 120,000 men on the Ticino.37 The Emperor, however, now believes that he will easily gain a couple of victories, and that when he has rejeté les Autrichiens dans leur tanière (by which he means their great fortresses), he will return to govern at Paris, and leave a Marshal to carry on the sieges and the war. M. de Persigny's letters of appointment are not yet signed, and must go to Italy to be so. He stated that a week ago he was named Minister of Foreign Affairs, and that Fould,38 Walewski, and others were to be dismissed, but that two days before the Emperor's departure Madame Walewska39 and the Empress had on their knees obtained a reprieve, and that M. de Persigny was ordered to come here sans raisonner...
Footnote 36: Who had been re-appointed to London, where Marshal Pélissier, Duc de Malakhoff, had replaced him in 1858. See ante, [p. 276]. Both Malakhoff and Walewski were out of sympathy with the Emperor's present policy.
Footnote 37: Sir James Hudson, in a letter written at Turin on the 28th of February, and shown to Queen Victoria, described an interview with Cavour, who, in answer to the direct question, "Do you mean to attack Austria?" replied that the Italian question was becoming so complex that it was impossible to say what might happen. Sir J. Hudson added that he had learned confidentially that the understanding on the same subject between Cavour and the Emperor Napoleon was complete, and that it had been expressed thus: "Non seulement nous prendrons la première occasion de faire la guerre à l'Autriche, mais nous chercherons un prétexte."
Footnote 38: Achille Fould, a Jewish banker, was a colleague of Walewski, though not a loyal one, in the French Government.
Footnote 39: Madame Walewska was a Florentine by birth, descended on her mother's side from the princely family of Poniatowski.
Queen Victoria to the Earl of Malmesbury.
ATTITUDE OF RUSSIA
Buckingham Palace, 20th May 1859.
The Queen was much surprised to receive the enclosed telegram. An alliance with Russia to localise and arrest the war by joint interference, which is here proposed to Russia, is a policy to which the Queen has not given her sanction, and which would require very mature deliberation before it could ever be entertained. The Queen is much afraid of these telegraphic short messages on principles of policy, and would beg Lord Malmesbury to be most cautious as they may lead us into difficulties without the possibility of previous consideration. How can we propose to join Russia, whom we know to be pledged to France? The Queen hopes Lord Malmesbury will stop the communication of this message, to Prince Gortschakoff.40
Footnote 40: A telegram had been received from St Petersburg, saying that Prince Gortschakoff entirely coincided with Lord Malmesbury's views as to localising the war; and Lord Malmesbury had proposed to send a telegraphic reply containing the words: "We are anxious to unite with Russia, not only in localising the war, but in arresting it."
Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby.
Osborne, 22nd May 1859.
In answer to Lord Derby's letter of yesterday referring to the importance of concerting with Russia the best modes of preventing the extension of the war, the Queen wishes merely to observe: That Russia has acknowledged her desire to see the Austrians defeated, and her indifference to the maintenance of the Treaties of 1815; France wages war to drive the Austrians out of Italy, wresting from them the Italian provinces secured to them by those treaties; and that the Queen has declared from the Throne her adhesion to these treaties to which Parliament unanimously responded. France and Russia may therefore have an interest, and indeed must have one, in not being disturbed in any way in the prosecution of their Italian scheme. England can have no such interest. If France prove successful, the territorial arrangements of Europe, in which England has found safety, and which she helped to establish in order to obtain safety against France after a war of twenty years' duration, will be subverted, and she herself may some day (perhaps soon) have her own safety imperilled. The Saxon provinces of Prussia will be in much greater danger when France shall have destroyed Austria in Italy and ruined her at home, than while the latter remains a powerful member of the German Confederation. What the Queen is naturally anxious to guard against is our being drawn by degrees into playing the game of those who have produced the present disturbance, and whose ulterior views are very naturally and very wisely by them concealed from us. The Queen is glad to hear that the telegram in question was not sent, having been alarmed by its being marked as having been despatched "at noon" on the 20th. The Queen wishes Lord Derby to show this letter to Lord Malmesbury.
Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.
ILLNESS OF DUCHESS OF KENT
Osborne, 25th May 1859.
Dearest Uncle,—Thousand thanks for your dear kind letter and good wishes for my old birthday, and for your other dear letter of the 21st. Albert, who writes to you, will tell you how dreadfully our great, great happiness to have dearest Vicky, flourishing and so well and gay with us, was on Monday and a good deal too yesterday, clouded over and spoilt by the dreadful anxiety we were in about dearest Mamma. Thank God! to-day I feel another being—for we know she is "in a satisfactory state," and improving in every respect, but I am thoroughly shaken and upset by this awful shock; for it came on so suddenly—that it came like a thunderbolt upon us, and I think I never suffered as I did those four dreadful hours till we heard she was better! I hardly myself knew how I loved her, or how my whole existence seems bound up with her—till I saw looming in the distance the fearful possibility of what I will not mention. She was actually packing up to start for here! How I missed her yesterday I cannot say, or how gloomy my poor birthday on first getting up appeared I cannot say. However, that is passed—and please God we shall see her, with care, restored to her usual health ere long. I trust, dearest Uncle, you are quite well now—and that affairs will not prevent you from coming to see us next month?
Dear Vicky is now a most dear, charming companion—and so embellie!
I must end, having so much to write. Ever your devoted Niece,
Victoria R.
I shall write again to-morrow or next day how dear Mamma is.
Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby.
THE QUEEN'S SPEECH
Buckingham Palace, 1st June 1859.
The Queen takes objection to the wording of the two paragraphs41 about the war and our armaments. As it stands, it conveys the impression of a determination on the Queen's part of maintaining a neutrality—à tout prix—whatever circumstances may arise, which would do harm abroad, and be inconvenient at home.42 What the Queen may express is her wish to remain neutral, and her hope that circumstances will allow her to do so. The paragraph about the Navy43 as it stands makes our position still more humble, as it contains a public apology for arming, and yet betrays fear of our being attacked by France.
The Queen suggests two amended forms for these passages, in which she has taken pains to preserve Lord Derby's words as far as is possible, with an avoidance of the objections before stated.
"Those endeavours have unhappily failed, and war has been declared between France and Sardinia on one side, and Austria on the other. I continue to receive at the same time assurances of friendship from both contending parties. It being my anxious desire to preserve to my people the blessing of uninterrupted peace, I trust in God's assistance to enable me to maintain a strict and impartial neutrality."
"Considering, however, the present state of Europe, and the complications which a war, carried on by some of its great Powers, may produce, I have deemed it necessary, for the security of my dominions and the honour of my Crown, to increase my Naval Forces to an amount exceeding that which has been sanctioned by Parliament."
Footnote 41: In the Speech to be delivered by the Queen at the opening of Parliament on the 7th of June.
Footnote 42: The passage originally ran: "Receiving assurances of friendship from both the contending parties, I intend to maintain a strict and impartial neutrality, and I hope, with God's assistance, to preserve to my people the blessing of continued peace."
Footnote 43: The passage originally ran: "I have, however, deemed it necessary, in the present state of Europe, with no object of aggression, but for the security of my dominions, and for the honour of my Crown, to increase my Naval Forces to an amount exceeding that which has been sanctioned by Parliament."
The Earl of Derby to Queen Victoria.
THE QUESTION OF NEUTRALITY
Downing Street, 2nd June 1859.
Lord Derby, with his humble duty, submits to your Majesty that he has most anxiously, and with every desire to meet your Majesty's wishes, reflected upon the effect of the alterations suggested by your Majesty in the proposed Speech from the Throne. He has considered the consequences involved so serious that he has thought it right to confer upon the subject with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as Leader of the House of Commons; and it is a duty which he owes to your Majesty not to withhold the expression of their clear and unhesitating conviction. Lord Derby trusts that your Majesty will forgive the frankness with which, in the accompanying observations, he feels it necessary to submit to your Majesty the grounds for the view which they are compelled to take.
The first paragraph to which your Majesty takes exception is that which intimates your Majesty's "intention" to maintain a strict and impartial neutrality, and "hope" to be enabled to preserve peace. Your Majesty apprehends that this may be interpreted into a determination to preserve neutrality à tout prix; but Lord Derby would venture to observe that such an inference is negatived by the subsequent words, which only imply a "hope" of preserving peace. With the cessation of that hope, neutrality would necessarily terminate. But as matters stand at present, Lord Derby is warranted in assuring your Majesty that if there is one subject on which more than another the mind of the country is unanimous, it is that of an entire abstinence from participation in the struggle now going on in Italy. He collects this from the language of politicians of almost every class, from all the public papers, from Addresses and Memorials which he receives every day—some urging, and some congratulating him upon the adoption of a perfectly neutral policy. The sympathies of the country are neither with France nor with Austria, but were it not for the intervention of France, they would be general in favour of Italy. The charge now made against your Majesty's servants, by the opposition Press, as the Morning Post and Daily News, is that their neutrality covers such wishes and designs in favour of Austria; and any word in your Majesty's Speech which should imply a doubt of the continuance of strict impartiality, would, undoubtedly, provoke a hostile Amendment, which might very possibly be carried in the Sardinian sense, and which, if so carried, would place your Majesty in the painful position of having to select an Administration, pledged against the interests of Austria and of Germany. Lord Derby says nothing of the personal results to your Majesty's present servants, because, in such cases, personal considerations ought not to be allowed to prevail; and it is in the interest of the country only, and even of the very cause which your Majesty desires to uphold, that he earnestly trusts that your Majesty will not require any alteration in this part of the Speech. There is, at this moment, in the country, a great jealousy and suspicion of France, and of her ulterior designs—as indicated by the demand of means of defence, the formation of Volunteer Corps, etc.—but it is neutralised, partly by sympathy for Italy, partly by suspicions, industriously circulated, of the pro-Austrian tendencies of the present Government. It is very important that the language of the Speech should be so decided as to negative this impression, and Lord Derby cannot but feel that if neutrality be spoken of not as a thing decided upon, but which, it is hoped, may be maintained, such language will be taken to intimate the expectation of the Government that it may, at no distant time, be departed from. In Lord Derby's humble opinion Peace should be spoken of as subject to doubt, because, out of the present struggle, complications may arise which may necessarily involve us in war; but neutrality, as between the present belligerents, should be a matter open to no doubt or question. If there be no attempt made to run counter to public opinion, and Austria should sustain serious reverses, the jealousy of France will increase, and the feeling of the country will support your Majesty in a war, should such arise, against her aggression; but if the slightest pretext be afforded for doubting the bonâ fide character of British neutrality, or the firm determination to maintain it, an anti-German feeling will be excited, which will be fatal to the Administration, and seriously embarrassing to your Majesty.
THE NAVY
The same observations apply, with hardly less force, to part of the Amendment suggested by your Majesty to the paragraph regarding the Navy. With submission to your Majesty, Lord Derby can hardly look upon it as humiliating to a great country, in announcing a large increase of its Naval Force, to disclaim any object of aggression. These words, however, might, if your Majesty were so pleased, be omitted, though Lord Derby cannot go so far as to say that in his humble judgment the omission would be an improvement; but he trusts that your Majesty will be satisfied with a general reference to the "state of Europe" without speaking of the "complications which a war carried on by some of the GreatLORD DERBY'S CRITICISMS Powers may produce." These words would infallibly lead to a demand for explanation, and for a statement of the nature of the "complications" which the Government foresaw as likely to lead to war. In humbly tendering to your Majesty his most earnest advice that your Majesty will not insist on the proposed Amendments in his Draft Speech, he believes that he may assure your Majesty that he is expressing the unanimous opinion of his Colleagues. Of their sentiments your Majesty may judge by the fact that in the original draft he had spoken of your Majesty's "intention" to preserve peace "as long as it might be possible"; but by universal concurrence these latter words were struck out, and the "hope" was, instead of them, substituted for the "intention." Should your Majesty, however, be pleased so to order, Lord Derby will immediately submit the question to the consideration of his Colleagues, in order that your Majesty may be put, in the most authentic form, in possession of their views. He assures your Majesty that nothing can be more repugnant to his feelings than to appear to offer objections to any suggestions emanating from your Majesty; and he has only been induced to do so upon the present occasion by the deep conviction which he entertains of the danger attending the course proposed, and the serious embarrassments which it would cause your Majesty. He regrets more especially having been compelled to take this step at a moment when your Majesty's thoughts are very differently engaged, and when it may be doubly irksome to have matters of public business pressed upon your Majesty's consideration.
The above is humbly submitted by your Majesty's most dutiful Servant and Subject,
Derby.
Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby.
Buckingham Palace, 3rd June 1859.
The Queen has received Lord Derby's answer to her observations on the proposed Speech. There is in fact no difference of opinion between her and Lord Derby; the latter only keeps in view the effect which certain words will have in Parliament and upon the country, whilst she looks to the effect they will produce upon the European conflict. If the Queen were not obliged to speak, both positions might be well reconciled; but if what she is going to declare from the Throne is to allay suspicions purposely raised by the Opposition against the Government that they intended to take part at some moment or other in the war, and is to give absolute security to the country against this contingency, this will be the very thing France would wish to bring about in order to ensure to her the fullest liberty in prosecuting her schemes for disturbing and altering the territorial state of Europe. How is this impression to be avoided? Lord Derby thinks that the expression of "hope" to be able to preserve peace to this country is a sufficient indication that this country reserves to herself still a certain liberty of action; but the Queen would have interpreted it rather as the expression of a hope, that we may not be attacked, particularly when followed by the sentence in which all intention of aggression is disclaimed, and that our armaments are merely meant for defence. The sense would then appear as this: "As the belligerents separately assure me of their friendship, I am determined to maintain a strict neutrality between them, and hope they may not change their minds, and attack me; I arm, but merely to defend myself if attacked." This would abdicate on the part of this country her position as one of the arbiters of Europe, declare her indifference to treaties or the balance of power (which are, in fact, of the greatest value to her), and would preclude her from any action to preserve them. The Queen fully enters into the Parliamentary difficulty, and would deprecate nothing more than to expose the Government to a defeat on an Amendment which would lead to the formation of a new Government on the principle of neutrality à tout prix imposed by Parliament on the Crown.
It will be for Lord Derby and his colleagues to consider how far they may be able to avoid this danger without exposing themselves to that pointed out by the Queen. She puts herself entirely in his hands, and had suggested the verbal amendments merely with a view to indicate the nature of the difficulty which had struck her. Whatever decision Lord Derby may on further reflection come to, the Queen is prepared to accept.44
Footnote 44: Ultimately the Cabinet recommended the modification of the declaration of neutrality by the insertion of the words "between them"; so as to run: "I intend to maintain between them a strict and impartial neutrality," etc.; and in the second paragraph proposed to omit the words "with no object of aggression, but"—and adopting the form of the Queen's paragraph, but omitting the words referring to possible complications, to leave it thus: "Considering, however, the present state of Europe, I have deemed it necessary for the security of my Dominions," etc.
Queen Victoria to the Earl of Malmesbury.
NEGOTIATIONS WITH RUSSIA
Buckingham Palace, 5th June 1859.
The Queen has read Lord Cowley's letter with regret. Nothing could be more dangerous and unwise than at this moment to enter into negotiations with Russia on the best manner of disposing of the Emperor of Austria's dominions. The Queen cannot understand how Lord Cowley can propose anything so indefensible in a moral point of view.
Mr Disraeli to Queen Victoria.
DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS
House of Commons [? 7th June 1859.]
(Tuesday, quarter-past eight o'clock.)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer with his humble duty to your Majesty.
Lord Hartington45 spoke like a gentleman; was badly seconded.
Chancellor of Exchequer rose immediately at six o'clock, and is just down. The House very full, and very enthusiastic.
The Chancellor of Exchequer presumes to say he thinks he satisfied his friends.46
Footnote 45: Lord Hartington, afterwards eighth Duke of Devonshire, moved an Amendment to the Address, expressing a want of confidence in the Ministry.
Footnote 46: He flung his taunts right and left at the now united Opposition, and was especially bitter against Sir James Graham. Referring to the Liberal meeting on the 6th, Mr Disraeli reminded the House that Willis's Rooms had, as Almack's, formerly been maintained by fashionable patronesses. "The distinguished assemblies that met within those walls were controlled by a due admixture of dowagers and youthful beauties—young reputations and worn celebrities—and it was the object of all social ambition to enter there. Now Willis's Rooms are under the direction of patrons, and there are two of these patrons below the gangway" (indicating Lord John Russell and Mr Sidney Herbert). In regard to its Foreign Policy, he said the Government should not be condemned without direct documentary evidence. Lord Malmesbury has since deplored Mr Disraeli's neglect to produce the Blue Book with the correspondence relating to the affairs of Italy and Austria, and stated that, had he laid it on the table, the debate would have ended differently (Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, vol. ii. p. 188).
The Earl of Derby to Queen Victoria.
St James's Square, 10th June 1859.
Lord Derby, with his humble duty, submits to your Majesty that the tone of the Government Agents in the House of Commons is less sanguine to-day than it was yesterday with regard to the issue of the Debate to-night. There are no actual changes announced of votes, but the tone of the Opposition is more confident; and when an opinion begins to prevail that the Government are likely to be in a minority, it often realises itself by the effect which it produces on waverers and lukewarm supporters. The Division will certainly take place to-night; and, without absolutely anticipating failure, Lord Derby cannot conceal from your Majesty that he considers the situation very critical. Mr Gladstone expressed privately his opinion last night that, even if successful on the present occasion, the Government could not possibly go on, which does not look like an intention, on the part of the Liberal Party, of considering the present division as decisive.47...
Footnote 47: The rest of the letter relates to the distribution of honours to the outgoing Ministers.
Mr Disraeli to Queen Victoria.
House of Commons, 11th June 1859.
(Saturday morning, half-past two o'clock.)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer with his humble duty to your Majesty:
| For the Amendment . . . . | 323 |
| For the Address . . . . . | 310 |
| —– | |
| Majority against your Majesty's servants | 13 |
| —– |
Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby.
THE MINISTRY DEFEATED
Buckingham Palace, 11th June 1859.
The Queen was very much grieved to receive Mr Disraeli's report of the division of yesterday, although she was fully prepared for this event.
She did not answer Lord Derby's letter of yesterday in order not to anticipate it. Now that the fate of the Government is decided, she is prepared to grant those favours and acknowledgments of service for which Lord Derby asked in his letter. The Queen could not reconcile it with her own feelings, however, were she to omit this opportunity, when Lord Derby for the second time resigns the post of her Prime Minister, of giving to him personally a public mark of her approbation of his services. The Queen therefore asks him to accept the Garter from her hands.
As the Queen holds a Drawing-room to-day, and receives the City Address after it, Lord Derby will be aware how little time she has this morning (being naturally anxious to have some conversation with him with as little delay as possible); she would ask him to come here either at half-past eleven or half-past twelve o'clock.
The Earl of Derby to Queen Victoria.
St James's Square, 11th June 1859.
Lord Derby, with his humble duty, submits to your Majesty the expression of his deep gratitude for your Majesty's most gracious note this moment received, and for the terms in which your Majesty has been pleased to speak of his very imperfect services. He gratefully accepts the honour which your Majesty has been pleased to confer upon him as a mark of your Majesty's personal favour. As a Minister, he could never have advised your Majesty to bestow it upon him, and he could not have accepted it on the recommendation of any Government to which he was politically opposed; but as a spontaneous act of your Majesty, it acquires in his eyes a value which nothing else could have given to it. Lord Derby is this moment going down to the Cabinet, as a matter of form, and will obey your Majesty's commands as soon as possible after half-past eleven, when he will have an opportunity of expressing in person his deep sense of your Majesty's goodness, and his entire devotedness, in whatever situation he may be placed, to your Majesty's service.
Memorandum by Earl Granville.
LORD GRANVILLE SUMMONED
[Undated. 11th June 1859.]
I waited at four o'clock this afternoon[48] upon the Queen by Her Majesty's gracious commands. The Queen was pleased to remark upon the importance of the present crisis. Her Majesty informed me that Lord Derby had resigned, and that she had sent for me to desire that I should attempt to form another Administration, which Her Majesty wished should be strong and comprehensive. I respectfully assured the Queen that Her Majesty's commands came upon me by surprise; that at any time I felt my own insufficiency for such a post, and that at this time there were special difficulties; that I believed the only two persons who could form a strong Liberal Government were either Lord Palmerston or Lord John Russell; and that, although it had sometimes happened that two statesmen of equal pretensions preferred having a nominal chief to serving under one another, I did not believe that this was the case now. I said that I had reason to believe that Lords Palmerston and John Russell were ready to co-operate with one another, while I doubted whether either would consent to serve under a younger man of such small pretensions as myself.
The Queen in reply informed me that her first thoughts had been turned to Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell, that they had both served her long and faithfully, and that Her Majesty felt it to be an invidious task to select one of the two. Her Majesty was also of opinion that as different sections of the Liberal Party were more or less represented by each, it might be more easy for the Party to act together under a third person. Her Majesty added that she had selected me as the Leader of the Liberal Party in the House of Lords, and a person in whom both Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell had been in the habit of placing confidence, and she expressed her confident hope that their attachment to herself would induce them to yield that assistance without which it would be difficult to form a strong and comprehensive Government.
I proceeded to state some of the most salient difficulties of the task, and asked Her Majesty's permission to ascertain by negotiation what it would be possible to do.
Her Majesty informed me that Her Majesty's experience of former changes of administration had taught her that the construction of an administration had failed when the person entrusted with the task had acted merely as a negotiator, and that the success of other attempts had been owing to the acceptance of the charge by the person for whom she had sent. Her Majesty laid Her Majesty's commands upon me to make the attempt, and I had the honour of conveying two letters from Her Majesty to Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell, stating that Her Majesty relied upon their assistance.
[Footnote 48:] The 11th of June.
Queen Victoria to | { | Viscount Palmerston. |
THE RIVAL LEADERS
Buckingham Palace, 11th June 1859.
The Queen gives these lines to Lord Granville, whom she has entrusted with the task of forming an administration on the resignation of Lord Derby. She has selected him as the Leader of the Liberal Party in the House of Lords. She feels that it is of the greatest importance that both Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell should lend their services to the Crown and country in the present anxious circumstances, and thought at the same time that they might do so most agreeably to their own feelings by acting under a third person. They having both served the Queen long and faithfully as her First Minister, she must not conceal from Lord Palmerston (John Russell) that it is a great relief to her feelings not to have to make the choice of one of them, and she trusts that they will feel no difficulty to co-operate with one in whom they have both been in the habit of placing confidence. From the long experience the Queen has had of Lord Palmerston's (John Russell's) loyal attachment to her and the service of the Crown, she feels confident she may rely on Lord Palmerston's (John Russell's) hearty assistance.49
Footnote 49: In reply, Lord Palmerston (in a letter printed in Ashley's Life of Lord Palmerston, vol. ii. p. 155) accepted his responsibility for uniting with others to overthrow the Derby Ministry, and undertook to serve under either Lord John Russell or Lord Granville, but stipulated that any Government he joined must be an efficient and representative one.
Earl Granville to Queen Victoria.
LORD GRANVILLE UNSUCCESSFUL
Bruton Street, 12th June 1859.
(2 a.m.)
Lord Granville presents his humble duty to your Majesty, and begs to submit that he saw Lord Palmerston immediately after he had left Buckingham Palace. Lord Granville stated what had passed there, omitting any reference to your Majesty's objection to the effect likely to be produced on the Continent by Lord Palmerston's name, if he had the direction of the Foreign Affairs. Nothing could be more frank and cordial than Lord Palmerston's manner. He agreed to lead the House of Commons; he said that he had certainly anticipated that your Majesty would have sent for either Lord John or himself, but having taken a part in the defeat of the present Government, he felt bound to put aside any personal objects, and co-operate with me; and that there was no person whom he should prefer or even like as much as myself. He added that his co-operation must depend upon my being able to form a strong Government. Lord Granville then saw Lord John Russell, and had a very long conversation with him. Lord John had no objection to serving under Lord Granville, but thought that he could not give effect to his political views unless he was either Prime Minister or Leader of the House of Commons, and he doubted whether he had confidence in any one but Lord Palmerston for the Foreign Office. Lord Granville again saw Lord Palmerston, who informed him that if he had been sent for, he should have objected to go to the House of Lords, and that he could not now give up the lead of the House of Commons (which Lord Granville had already proposed to him to retain) to Lord John. This answer rendered it unnecessary for Lord Granville to allude to the objections to his holding the Foreign Office. Lord Granville has seen Lord Clarendon, who acted up to the full spirit of your Majesty's letter, but deprecates strongly the attempt to form a Government without Lord John Russell. Sir George Grey is of the same opinion. Sir George Lewis, Mr Herbert, and Mr Gladstone think every effort should be made to secure Lord John, but that it would not be impossible to form a Government without him. Mr Milner Gibson, with whom Lord Granville had a more reserved conversation, considered it a sine quâ non condition of support from the Liberal Party below the gangway, that Lord John should be a member of the Government. Lord Granville thinks that in his third interview with Lord Palmerston he observed more dissatisfaction at not being sent for by your Majesty. Lord Palmerston suggested that Lord John's absence from the Government would make it more difficult for a Leader of the House, who was not Prime Minister, to hold his position.
Lord Granville has written to Lord John asking for a final answer before he informs your Majesty, whether he is able to attempt the task which your Majesty has with so much kindness and indulgence laid upon him.50
Footnote 50: This letter, and Lord John's reply declining to occupy only the third office in the State, and expressing his anxiety for adequate security in the handling of Foreign Affairs and Reform, are printed in Walpole's Life of Lord John Russell, vol. ii. chap. xxvii.
Lord Granville then wrote to Lord John: "I am glad that I wrote to you yesterday evening, as your answer gave me information which I had not gathered from your conversation in the morning. I came away from Chesham Place with the impression that union between you and Palmerston with or without me was impossible. Your letter afforded a good opportunity of arrangement. As soon as I found by it that I was an obstacle instead of a facility towards the formation of a strong Government. I went to the Queen to ask her to excuse me from the task which she had so unexpectedly and so graciously imposed upon me. In answer to a question, I stated to Her Majesty that it was disagreeable to me to advise as to which of you and Palmerston she should send for, but that I was ready to do so if it was her wish.
"The Queen did not press me. It is a great relief to have finished this business. I have asked Palmerston to do whatever would strengthen the Government, and assist him the most as regards myself."
Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby.
LORD PALMERSTON PREMIER
Buckingham Palace, 12th June 1859.
The Queen writes to inform Lord Derby that after a fruitless attempt on the part of Lord Granville to form a Government comprising Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell, she has now charged Lord Palmerston with the task, which she trusts may prove more successful....
Viscount Palmerston to Queen Victoria.
94 Piccadilly, 12th June 1859.
Viscount Palmerston presents his humble duty to your Majesty, and begs to report that he has been to Pembroke Lodge, and has had a satisfactory conversation with Lord John Russell, who has agreed to be a Member of the Government without any suggestion that Viscount Palmerston should leave the House of Commons; but Viscount Palmerston is sorry to say that Lord John Russell laid claim to the Foreign Office in a manner which rendered it impossible for Viscount Palmerston to decline to submit his name to your Majesty for that post when the List of the new Government shall be made out for your Majesty's consideration and approval....
Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.
13th June 1859.
Lord Clarendon has just left the Queen. She had a long and full conversation with him. Nothing could be more friendly than his language, and he expressed himself ready to do anything for the Queen's service. But he positively declines entering the Cabinet or taking any other office. He says, as Foreign Secretary, he should be ready to join the Government should there be a vacancy; but that he has never directed his attention much to general politics, and his taking any other office, after having held the Foreign Seals during a long and important time, would be of no use to the Government, and would only injure himself. The Queen told him that he might have any office almost (naming several of those which Lord Palmerston discussed with her), but she could not urge nor press him to do what he felt would injure him, and indeed she found him quite determined in his purpose.
His absence from the Cabinet the Queen sincerely deplores, and she knows that Lord Palmerston will feel it a serious loss.
Queen Victoria to Earl Granville.
AN INDISCREET DISCLOSURE
Buckingham Palace, 13th June 1859.
The Queen is much shocked to find her whole conversation with Lord Granville yesterday and the day before detailed in this morning's leading article of the Times.51 What passes between her and a Minister in her own room in confidential intercourse ought to be sacred, and it will be evident to Lord Granville that if it were not so, the Queen would be precluded from treating her Ministers with that unreserved confidence which can alone render a thorough understanding possible; moreover, any Minister could state what he pleased, against which the Queen would have no protection, as she could not well insert contradictions or explanations in the newspapers herself.
Footnote 51: A circumstantial account of the Queen's conversation with Lord Granville had appeared in the Times, and Lord Derby drew attention to the matter in the House of Lords. Lord Granville in reply expressed his regret in not having used more complete reserve, and frankly attributed the disclosures to his non-observance of adequate discretion.
Earl Granville to Queen Victoria.
London, 13th June 1859.
Lord Granville presents his humble duty to your Majesty, and feels deeply your Majesty's reproof.
Lord Granville was extremely annoyed this morning at seeing the article in the Times of to-day, repeating with some accuracy, but in a vulgar, inflated manner, the account which Lord Granville gave yesterday afternoon to many of his political friends, and which he believed your Majesty had authorised him to do. Lord Granville in that account laid much stress on the reasons which your Majesty gave for sending for Lord Granville, as he found that attempts had been made to attribute every sort of motive which might render the Court unpopular.
Besides the gross impropriety of the appearance of reporting your Majesty's conversation, Lord Granville regrets the indirect attack upon Lord John Russell.
Lord Granville begs respectfully to express to your Majesty his vexation at the annoyance, which he has thus been the cause of inflicting on your Majesty, particularly at a moment when your Majesty had just given him an additional proof of the indulgent kindness and confidence which your Majesty has been pleased to place in him.
Viscount Palmerston to Queen Victoria.
MR COBDEN
94 Piccadilly, 1st July 1859.
Viscount Palmerston presents his humble duty to your Majesty, and has been unable till within the last few minutes to make any Report about Mr Cobden, from whom he had received no communication till about an hour ago, when Mr Cobden came to him.52 The result of a long conversation between them has been that Mr Cobden, against the advice of all his friends and of his constituents, has decided to decline taking office. He grounds his decision upon feelings personal to himself. He thinks that after having so often and so strongly disapproved of the Foreign Policy of Viscount Palmerston as tending too much to involve this country in war, it would be inconsistent for him to join the present Cabinet, and he also said that, at his time of life and with his general habits, he does not consider himself fit for administrative office.
Viscount Palmerston used every [means] in his power to induce him to change his decision, and showed that, with respect to present and future action, there is no apparent difference between his views and those of Mr Cobden, since both would desire that this country should remain neutral in the war now raging in Italy. All his arguments, however, were useless, and though Mr Cobden discussed the matter in the most friendly and good-humoured manner, and promised to give out of office all support to the Government, and said that he thought he could do so more effectually out of office than in office, he could not be persuaded to make any change in the answer which he came to give.
Viscount Palmerston will consider what arrangement he may have to propose to your Majesty in consequence of Mr Cobden's answer.
Footnote 52: Mr Cobden had been visiting the United States. On landing at Liverpool he learned that he had been elected at Rochdale, and at the same time he received an offer of the Board of Trade.
The Ministry as Formed by Viscount Palmerston.
in the month of June 1859.
Footnote 53: Lord Aberdeen wrote, in a letter printed in Parker's Sir James Graham, vol. ii. p. 388, that the wish of Lord Palmerston, expressed in a speech at Tiverton, "to see the Germans turned out of Italy by the war, has secured Gladstone ... notwithstanding the three articles of the Quarterly and the thousand imprecations of late years."
Viscount Palmerston to Queen Victoria.
MR BRIGHT
94 Piccadilly, 2nd July 1859.
Viscount Palmerston presents his humble duty to your Majesty....
Viscount Palmerston has heard from several persons that Mr Bright would be highly flattered by being made a Privy Councillor; would your Majesty object to his being so made if it should turn out that he wishes it? There have been instances of persons made Privy Councillors without office, and if Mr Bright could be led by such an honour to turn his thoughts and feelings into better channels such a change could not fail to be advantageous to your Majesty's service....
Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.
Buckingham Palace, 2nd July 1859.
The Queen has received Lord Palmerston's letter of to-day. She is sorry not to be able to give her assent to his proposal with regard to Mr Bright.54 Privy Councillors have sometimes exceptionally been made without office, yet this has been as rewards, even in such cases, for services rendered to the State. It would be impossible to allege any service Mr Bright has rendered, and if the honour were looked upon as a reward for his systematic attacks upon the institutions of the country, a very erroneous impression might be produced as to the feeling which the Queen or her Government entertain towards these institutions. It is moreover very problematical whether such an honour conferred upon Mr Bright would, as suggested, wean him from his present line of policy, whilst, if he continued in it, he would only have obtained additional weight in the country by his propounding his views as one of the Queen's Privy Councillors.
Footnote 54: In 1859, Lord Palmerston, in offering Mr Cobden a seat in the Cabinet, rejected the idea of accepting Mr Bright as a colleague, on the ground that his public speeches made it impossible. Mr Bright, later in life, was a welcome guest at Windsor, and the Queen became warmly attached to him as one of her Ministers.
Earl Canning to Queen Victoria.
PACIFICATION OF INDIA
Calcutta, 4th July 1859.
Lord Canning presents his humble duty to your Majesty, and begs permission to offer to your Majesty his respectful thanks for your Majesty's most gracious letter of the 18th of May.
Lord Canning ventures to believe that he is well able to figure to himself the feelings with which your Majesty will have welcomed the termination of the Mutiny and Rebellion in India, and of the chief miseries which these have brought in their train. He hopes that your Majesty will not have thought that there has been remissness in not marking this happy event by an earlier public acknowledgment and thanksgiving in India, as has already been done in England.55 The truth is, that although this termination has long been steadily and surely approaching, it is but just now that it can be said to be complete in the eyes of those who are near to the scene of action. It is only within the last three weeks that the exertions of our Troops on the Oudh and Nepaulese frontier, and in some other parts, have been remitted, and almost every Gazette has recounted engagements with the rebels, which, although they have invariably had the same issue, would scarcely have consisted with a declaration that peace and tranquillity were restored. Now, however, military operations have fairly ceased, and the rains and the climate, which would make a continuance of those operations much to be regretted, will do their work amongst the rebels who are still in arms in the Nepaul jungles more terribly than any human avengers.
Lord Canning has used every exertion and device to bring these wretched men to submission; but many—it is difficult to say how many, but certainly some few thousands—still hold out. With some of them the reason no doubt is that they belong to the most guilty Regiments, and to those which murdered their officers; but this cannot apply to all; and it is to be feared that the prevailing cause is the bad influence of their leaders—the Nana, Bala Rao, and the Begum;56 or rather the Begum's infamous advisers. It is certain that all of these, believing their own position to be desperate, have spared no pains to persuade their followers that the Government is seeking to entrap them, and that, if they submit, their lives will be taken....
Footnote 55: There had been a Public Thanksgiving in England on the 1st of May.
Footnote 56: Bala Rao was a brother of Nana Sahib, chief instigator of the Sepoy Mutiny. See ante, [p. 238], note 24.
Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.
A MILITARY ENQUIRY
Buckingham Palace, 5th July 1859.
The Queen is much shocked to see that the Government last night moved for a Committee of the House of Commons to enquire into the Military Departments, without having previously communicated with the Queen on the subject. She is the more surprised at this, as Lord Palmerston told her, when she saw him on the formation of the present Government, and she expressed her anxiety on the subject, that there would be no more trouble about it, and he thought it would drop. The Queen expects that the names of those who it is proposed should compose the Committee, and the wording of it, will be submitted to her.
Viscount Palmerston to Queen Victoria.
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
Piccadilly, 5th July 1859.
Viscount Palmerston presents his humble duty to your Majesty, and begs to state that the re-appointment of the Committee on the Organisation of the Military Departments was unavoidable. That Committee had been affirmed by the House of Commons and consented to by the late Government, and had begun its sittings; but when a Dissolution of Parliament was announced, it suspended its further sittings, with the understanding that it should be revived in the new Parliament; and to have departed from that understanding would have been impossible. That which Viscount Palmerston intended to convey in what he said to your Majesty on the subject was, that the evidence given by Lord Panmure might be deemed as having fully set aside the objection urged against the present organisation by persons unacquainted with the bearing upon it of the fundamental principles of the Constitution, namely, that the Crown acts in regard to Military matters without having any official adviser responsible for its acts. Such a condition of things, if it could exist, would be at variance with the fundamental principles of the British Constitution, and would be fraught with danger to the Crown, because then the Sovereign would be held personally answerable for administrative acts, and would be brought personally in conflict in possible cases with public opinion, a most dangerous condition for a Sovereign to be placed in.
The maxim of the British Constitution is that the Sovereign can do no wrong, but that does not mean that no wrong can be done by Royal authority; it means that if wrong be done, the public servant who advised the act, and not the Sovereign, must be held answerable for the wrongdoing.
But the Ministers of the Crown for the time being are the persons who are constitutionally held answerable for all administrative acts in the last resort, and that was the pith and substance of the evidence given by Lord Panmure. Those persons who want to make great changes in the existing arrangements were much vexed and disappointed by that evidence, and the attempt made yesterday to put off the Committee till next year on the ground that the evidence now to be taken would be one-sided only, and would tend to create erroneous impressions, was founded upon those feelings of disappointment.
Viscount Palmerston submits names of the persons whom Mr Sidney Herbert proposes to appoint on the Committee, and they seem to be well chosen.
Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.
Pembroke Lodge, 10th July 1859.
(7 p.m.)
Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty. He has just received from Lord Palmerston, who is here, the paper, a copy of which is enclosed.57
Lord John Russell has to add that Lord Palmerston and he are humbly of opinion that your Majesty should give to the Emperor of the French the moral support which is asked. It is clearly understood that if the Emperor of Austria declines to accept the propositions, Great Britain will still maintain her neutral position.
But it is probable that her moral support will put an end to the war, and your Majesty's advisers cannot venture to make themselves responsible for its continuance by refusing to counsel your Majesty to accept the proposal of France.
Footnote 57: At the seat of war, a series of decisive French victories had culminated in the battle of Solferino, on Midsummer Day (see Introductory Note, ante, [p. 308]). But the French Emperor was beginning to think these successes too dearly purchased, at the expense of so many French lives, and, actuated either by this, or some similar motive, he attempted, on the 6th of July, to negotiate through the British Government with Austria. The attempt was a failure, but an armistice was signed on the 8th, and again the Emperor sought the moral support of England. The paper which Lord John Russell submitted was a rough memorandum of M. de Persigny's, proposing as a basis of negotiation the cession of Lombardy to Piedmont, the independence of Venetia, and the erection of an Italian Confederation.
Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.
FRANCE AND AUSTRIA
Pavilion, Aldershot, 10th July 1859.
The Queen has just received Lord John Russell's letter with the enclosure which she returns, and hastens to say in reply, that she does not consider the Emperor of the French or his Ambassador justified in asking the support of England to proposals he means to make to his antagonist to-morrow. He made war on Austria in order to wrest her two Italian kingdoms from her, which were assured to her by the treaties of 1815, to which England is a party; England declared her neutrality in the war. The Emperor succeeded in driving the Austrians out of one of these kingdoms after several bloody battles. He means to drive her out of the second by diplomacy, and neutral England is to join him with her moral support in this endeavour.
The Queen having declared her neutrality, to which her Parliament and people have given their unanimous assent, feels bound to adhere to it. She conceives Lord John Russell and Lord Palmerston ought not to ask her to give her "moral support" to one of the belligerents. As for herself, she sees no distinction between moral and general support; the moral support of England is her support, and she ought to be prepared to follow it up.
The Queen wishes this letter to be communicated to the Cabinet.58
Footnote 58: The Queen not having been informed whether this instruction had been complied with, a correspondence took place on the subject between the Prince and Lord Granville. See the Life of Lord Granville, vol. i. chap. xiii.
Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.
END OF THE WAR
Osborne, 12th July 1859.
The Queen has to acknowledge the receipt of Lord John Russell's letter reporting to her the result of the deliberations of the Cabinet, which has very much relieved her mind. Lord John does not say whether her letter was read to the Cabinet, but from his former letter she concludes it was. She is most anxious that there should exist no misapprehension on their part as to the Queen's views. Our position must be consistent and precisely defined. A negotiation to stop the effusion of blood, and to attain "a peace which would be for the interests of all belligerents," is a very vague term. Who is to judge of those interests? Is M. de Persigny or the Emperor Napoleon's opinion to be the guide, as they just now proposed to us? Austria must be considered the exponent of her own interests. Prussia has explained to us the interests of Germany in the maintenance of the line of the fortresses on the Mincio, and was answered; her views were entirely erroneous, and her apprehensions exaggerated. It will require the greatest caution on our part not to lose our neutral position, nor to be made the advocate of one side. Are the wishes of the Lombards, Tuscans, etc., really ascertainable, while their countries are occupied by French and Sardinian armies? The Queen encloses an extract of a letter from the first Napoleon to his son, Prince Eugène,59 showing how the expression of a wish for annexation has already of old been used as a means for conquest.
Footnote 59: Eugène de Beauharnais, Duke of Leuchtenberg, son of the Empress Josephine by her first marriage, and adopted son of Napoleon I.
Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.
ASCENDANCY OF FRANCE
Osborne, 13th July 1859.
The Queen has received the news of a concluded peace,60 which Lord John Russell has sent to her yesterday, with as much surprise as it must have caused Lord John. It was a joyous intelligence, as far as the stopping of the further effusion of innocent blood and the security against further diplomatic complications is concerned, but it gives cause for serious reflection. The Emperor Napoleon, by his military successes, and great apparent moderation or prudence immediately after them, has created for himself a most formidable position of strength in Europe. It is remarkable that he has acted towards Austria now just as he did towards Russia after the fall of Sebastopol; and if it was our lot then to be left alone to act the part of the extortioner whilst he acted that of the generous victor, the Queen is doubly glad that we should not now have fallen into the trap, to ask Austria (as friends and neutrals) concessions which he was ready to waive. He will now probably omit no occasion to cajole Austria as he has done to Russia, and turn her spirit of revenge upon Prussia and Germany—the Emperor's probable next victims. Should he thus have rendered himself the master of the entire Continent, the time may come for us either to obey or to fight him with terrible odds against us. This has been the Queen's view from the beginning of this complication, and events have hitherto wonderfully supported them. How Italy is to prosper under the Pope's presidency, whose misgovernment of his own small portion of it was the ostensible cause of the war, the Queen is at a loss to conceive. But the Emperor will be able to do just as he pleases, being in military command of the country, and having Sardinia, the Pope, and Austria as his debtors.
The Queen would like this letter to be communicated to the Cabinet.
Footnote 60: The armistice had arranged that the Emperors should meet at Villafranca, where peace was concluded. See Introductory Note, ante, [p. 308]. The Italian Confederation was to be under the presidency of the Pope.
Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.
Foreign Office, 13th July 1859.
Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty; he will read your Majesty's letter to the Cabinet to-morrow.
The Emperor Napoleon is left no doubt in a position of great power. That position has been made for him by allowing him to be the only champion of the cause of the people of Italy.
But that is no reason why we should seek a quarrel with France, and there is some reason to doubt whether the speeches made in the House of Lords, while they display our weakness and our alarm, are really patriotic in their purpose and tendency.
To be well armed, and to be just to all our neighbours, appears to Lord John Russell to be the most simple, the most safe, and the most honest policy.
Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.
Osborne, 14th July 1859.
The Queen acknowledges the receipt of Lord John Russell's communications of yesterday. She entirely agrees with him "that we have no reason to seek a quarrel with France," and that "the most simple and most safe and most honest" line of conduct for us will be "to be well armed, and to be just to all our neighbours."
She trusts that as the poor Duchess of Parma61 appears to be overlooked in the Italian Peace merely because nobody thinks it his business to befriend her, we shall in the above spirit ask for justice and consideration for her.
The Queen concurs with Lord John that it will now be useless to communicate to France the advice given to the Porte.
Footnote 61: Louise Marie de Bourbon, daughter of the Duc de Berri, and widow of Charles III., Duke of Parma. She was at this time Regent for her son Robert, a minor (born 1848), the present Duke.
Mr Odo Russell to Lord John Russell.
(Submitted to the Queen.)
THE VIEWS OF THE POPE
Rome, 17th July 1859.
My Lord,—Some days since a letter from the "Pontifical Antechamber," directed to "Signor Odoni Russell, Agente Officioso di Sua Maestà Britannica," informed me that His Holiness the Pope desired to see me.
In consequence I proceeded to the Vatican, and was ushered into the presence of His Holiness by Monsignore Talbot, the "Cameriere" in waiting, who immediately withdrew, and I remained alone with the Pope.
His Holiness welcomed me with his usual benevolence and good humour. He seemed very gay, and spoke with more than customary frankness, so much so indeed that I have felt some hesitation as to the propriety of submitting what passed between us to your Lordship. But after mature reflection, I think it best you should be in possession of an accurate and conscientious account of the sentiments of His Holiness in the present important juncture of affairs.
"Caro mio Russell," the Pope said, "you have been so long at Naples that I was already thinking of sending after you to bring you back; we do not like you to leave us, and the more so as I have heard you were attached to the Mission of Mr Elliot,[62] who is a son of Lord Minto; and if he entertains the same political views as his father, he is a dangerous man to the peace of Italy. Now I knew Lord Minto here, and although he may be a very good man, I do not think him a man of any capacity, and his doctrines were calculated to bring on the ruin of Italy."
I replied, "I cannot agree with your Holiness, for I consider Lord Minto to be a very clever man, whose honest, sound, and liberal views, had they been listened to, might have prevented the crisis which is now convulsing Italy."
The Pope said, "Well, of course you belong to his party, but, Poveri noi! what is to become of us with your uncle and Lord Palmerston at the head of affairs in England? They have always sympathised with the turbulent spirits of Italy, and their accession to power will greatly increase the hopes of the Piedmontese Party. Indeed, I well know what the English Government want: they want to see the Pope deprived of his temporal power."
I replied, "Again I regret to find your Holiness so entirely mistaken with respect to the policy of England. We derive great happiness from our free institutions, and we would be glad to see our neighbours in Europe as happy and as prosperous as we are, but we have no wish to interfere with the internal concerns of other nations, or to give advice without being asked for it; least of all as a Protestant Power would we think of interfering one way or the other with the Government of your Holiness."
THE POPE ON ENGLISH LIBERALISM
The Pope said, "I do not doubt the good intentions of England, but unfortunately you do not understand this country, and your example is dangerous to the Italian minds, your speeches in Parliament excite them, and you fancy because constitutional liberties and institutions suit you, that they must suit all the world. Now the Italians are a dissatisfied, interfering, turbulent and intriguing race; they can never learn to govern themselves, it is impossible; only see how they follow Sardinia in all she tells them to do, simply because they love intrigue and revolution, whilst in reality they do not know what they want; a hot-headed people like the Italians require a firm and just government to guide and take care of them, and Italy might have continued tranquil and contented, had not the ambition of Sardinia led her to revolutionise the whole country. The Grand Duke of Tuscany, for instance, is an excellent and just man, and nevertheless, at the instigation of Piedmont, he was turned out of the country, and for no earthly purpose. I suppose you have read Monsieur About's book about Rome[63]? well, all he says is untrue, pure calumny, and it would be easy for me to have it all refuted; but he is really not worthy of such an honour. His book, I see, has been translated into English, and I have no doubt it will be much read and believed in England. Such books and our refugees mislead your countrymen, and I often wonder at the language your statesmen hold about us in the Houses of Parliament. I always read their speeches. Lord Palmerston, Lord John Russell, and Mr Gladstone do not know us; but when I think how kindly and hospitably Lord Granville was received at Rome last winter, and then read the extraordinary speech he made last February about us, I think the gout he suffered from here must have gone to his head when he reached England, and I wonder how Her Majesty the Queen could send for him to form a Government! Then again, Mr Gladstone, who allowed himself to be deceived about the Neapolitan prisoners—he does not know us and Italy—and Mr Cobden,—I knew him in 1847—he is always in favour of peace, and he must be very fond of animals, for when he came here from Spain he wanted me to write to that country and put a stop to bull-fights—a very good man, but I do not know his views about Italy. And Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, do you think he will be employed again? he seemed so anxious to get a place. Mr Disraeli was my friend; I regret him. But tell me, caro mio Russell, if you are a prophet, how all this war and fuss is to end?"
THE TEMPORAL POWER
I replied, "Your Holiness has better claims to being a prophet than I have, and I sincerely hope all this may end well for Italy; but as regards the present and the past, I must again say that I deeply regret to see your Holiness misconceive the honest views and sincere sympathies of the statesmen you have named, for the welfare of Italy; they would like to see Italy independent, prosperous, progressing and contented, and able to take care of herself without foreign troops. Your Holiness has done me the honour to speak freely and openly with me; permit me to do the same, and ask your Holiness what England must think when she sees the temporal power of your Holiness imposed upon three millions of people by the constant presence of French and Austrian bayonets, and when, after ten years of occupation, the Austrians withdraw suddenly, there is at once an insurrection throughout the country; and if the French were to leave Rome it is generally acknowledged that a revolution would compel your Holiness to seek refuge in some foreign country. At the same time, when the troops of your Holiness are employed as at Perugia,64 the Government is too weak to control them; they pillage and murder, and, instead of investigating their conduct, the excesses committed by them are publicly rewarded."
The Pope smiled, paused, took a pinch of snuff, and then said good-humouredly: "Although I am not a prophet, I know one thing; this war will be followed by an European Congress, and a Congress about Italian Affairs is even worse for us than war. There will be changes in Italy, but mark my words, whatever these changes are, the Pope will ever be the Pope, whether he dwells in the Vatican or lives concealed in the Catacombs.
"Lastly, I will give you some advice. Prepare and take care of yourselves in England, for I am quite certain the French Emperor intends sooner or later to attack you."
The Pope then beckoned to me to approach, and making the sign of the Cross, he gave me his blessing in Latin, then with both his hands, he took one of mine, pressed it, and said with great warmth, "Be our friend in the hour of need." I have the honour to be, etc., etc.,
Odo Russell.
[Footnote 62:] Mr (afterwards Sir) Henry Elliot, P.C., G.C.B., was Plenipotentiary to Naples. He was subsequently Ambassador at Vienna, and died in 1907.
[Footnote 63:] Edmond About, a French journalist (1828-1885), had published La Question Romaine, an attack on the Papacy. See De la Gorce, Histoire du Second Empire, vol. ii. p. 365.
Footnote 64: An insurrection against the Pope at Perugia bad been put down with great cruelty on the 20th of June.
Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.
DISAPPOINTMENT OF CAVOUR
Osborne, 18th July 1859.
The Queen returns these interesting letters to Lord John.65
The whole aspect of affairs gives cause for serious reflection and great anxiety for the future.
The conduct of France as regards Italy shows how little the Emperor Napoleon cared for, or thought of, its independence when he undertook this war, which (though in the last instance begun by Austria) he brought on, for purposes of his own.
The manifesto of the Emperor of Austria shows how unfortunate for her own interests the policy of Prussia has been.66 She had made herself answerable for the issue of the war by restraining the minor states, and stands now humiliated and isolated. Her position in Germany is at present very painful, and may be for the future very dangerous.
The Queen feels strongly that we are not without considerable responsibility in having from the first urged her to take no part in the war, which certainly had great influence on her actions—and she will very naturally look to us not to desert her when the evil hour for her may come.67
Footnote 65: These were letters from Lord Cowley and Sir James Hudson in reference to the Peace of Villafranca. The former announced, as a result of his conversation with the Empress and other persons, that among the causes which induced the French Emperor to consent to peace were his horror at any further sacrifice of life and time, disgust at what he considered Italian apathy for the cause which the French were upholding, and distrust of the intentions of the King of Sardinia and Count Cavour. Sir James Hudson described the unanimous feeling at Turin that the Nationalist cause had been betrayed. Cavour, he wrote, could obtain no further response to his remonstrances with Napoleon than "Il fait bien chaud: il fait bien chaud." Moreover, Napoleon knew (continued Sir James) "that Mazzini had dogged his footsteps to Milan, for, the day before yesterday, sixty-six Orsini bombshells were discovered there by the chief of the Sardinian police, who arrested the man (a known follower of Mazzini) who had them. The story is that he brought them from England for the purpose of using them against the Austrians!!" Count Cavour, who resigned in disgust and was succeeded by Rattazzi, remained out of office till the following January.
Footnote 66: He stated that he believed he could obtain better terms direct from the French Emperor than those to which England, Russia, and Prussia were likely to give their moral support as a basis of mediation.
Footnote 67: Lord Cowley wrote to Lord John Russell on the 20th of July:—
"... The two Emperors met in the most cordial manner, shaking hands as if no difference had existed between them. As soon as they were alone, the Emperor of Austria took the initiative, and stated at once that he was ready to cede to the Emperor of the French, for the sake of the restoration of peace, the territory which the latter had conquered, but that he could not do more, giving the reasons which I have mentioned to your Lordship in former despatches. The Emperor of the French replied that his own position in France, and the public declarations which he had made, rendered something in addition necessary: that the war had been undertaken for the freedom of Italy, and that he could not justify to France a peace which did not ensure this object. The Emperor Francis Joseph rejoined that he had no objection to offer to the Confederation which formed part of the Emperor Napoleon's programme, and that he was ready to enter it with Venetia, and when the Emperor Napoleon remarked that such a result would be a derision, if the whole power and influence of Austria were to be brought to bear upon the Confederation, the Emperor Francis Joseph exclaimed against any such interpretation being given to his words, his idea being that Venetia should be placed on the same footing, in the Italian Confederation, as Luxemburg holds in the Germanic Confederation....
"In the course of conversation between the two Imperial Sovereigns, the Emperor of Austria remarked to the Emperor of the French with many expressions of goodwill, and of a desire to see the dynasty of the latter firmly established on the throne of France, that His Majesty took an odd way to accomplish his end. 'Believe me,' said the Emperor Francis Joseph, 'dynasties are not established by having recourse to such bad company as you have chosen; revolutionists overturn, but do not construct.' The Emperor Napoleon appears to have taken the remark in very good part, and even to have excused himself to a certain degree, observing that it was a further reason that the Emperor Francis Joseph should aid him in putting an end to the war, and to the revolutionary spirit to which the war had given rise.
"The Emperors having separated in the same cordial manner in which they had met, the Emperor of the French himself drew up the preliminaries and sent them in the evening to Verona by his cousin, the Prince Napoleon. Being introduced to the Emperor of Austria, who received His Imperial Highness very courteously, His Majesty said, after reading the preliminaries, that he must beg the Prince to excuse him for a short time, as he had others to consult before signing them. He then went into an adjoining room where, according to Prince Napoleon's account, a loud and angry discussion ensued, in which the Prince distinguished the Emperor's voice broken by tears, as if His Majesty had been obliged to have recourse to persuasion, to silence the opposition made to the conditions, and it was not until some time had elapsed that His Majesty returned and signed the paper containing them, or rather I infer that he retained the paper signed by the Emperor Napoleon, and returned one of similar purport signed by himself; for among all the curious circumstances connected with this transaction, not the least curious is the fact that there does not exist any document recording the preliminaries with the double signature of both Emperors."
Queen Victoria to Sir Charles Wood.
INDIAN AFFAIRS
Osborne, 23rd July 1859.
The Queen's attention has been attracted by No. 86 (Foreign Department) of the printed abstracts of letters received from India, relating to the affairs of Bussahir.68 She would ask Sir C. Wood to consider, with his Council, whether means could not be found for making acts of confiscation, sequestration, spoliation, transfer of Government, or whatever they may be called, dependent upon some formal and judicial proceeding which should secure the Queen from acts being done in her name—which might not be entirely justifiable morally, as well as legally—which should relieve the Government agents from the fearful responsibility of being sole advisers on steps implying judicial condemnation without trial on their mere personal opinion, and from which they derive themselves additional personal advancement in power, position, possibly emolument, etc., etc., and lastly, which would give the people of India security that the Government only acts after impartial judicial investigation and the sifting of evidence.
The Queen would wish a report to be made to her upon this important subject.
Footnote 68: Bussahir was a State in the upper course of the Sutlej. In January, the Punjab, including the Sutlej States, had been made a distinct presidency, but Bussahir was not finally included until 1862.
Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.69
NON-INTERVENTION
Osborne, 21st August 1859.
The Queen sends the enclosed draft to Lord John Russell; she is very sorry that she cannot give her approval to it. There are many points in it to which she cannot but feel the gravest objections. It is unnecessary, however, for her to go into these details, as it is against the principle of England volunteering at this moment the intrusion of a scheme of her own for the redistribution of the territories and Governments of Northern Italy, that she must above all protest. Moreover, a step of such importance, reversing the principle of non-intervention, which the Queen's Government has hitherto publicly declared and upheld, should, in the Queen's opinion, not be brought before her without having received the fullest deliberation and concurrence of the assembled Cabinet.
Footnote 69: A month earlier, on his return from the war, the Emperor had tried to enlist British support in his scheme for a European congress. But the Cabinet decided (24th July), with the Queen's full concurrence, that no answer should be returned to this proposal, till a Treaty, embodying the preliminaries of Villafranca, should have been signed.
Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.
Pembroke Lodge, 23rd August 1859.
Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty; he begs to explain that with respect to reversing the principle of non-intervention, he has never proposed any such course. If intervention were to mean giving friendly advice, or even offering mediation, your Majesty's Government from January to May would have pursued a course of intervention, for they were all that time advising Austria, France, Sardinia, and Germany.
If by friendly and judicious advice we can prevent a bloody and causeless war in Italy we are bound to give such advice.
If we refrain from doing so, we may ultimately be obliged to have recourse to intervention; that is to say, we may have to interfere against the ruthless tyranny of Austria, or the unchained ambition of France. It is with a view to prevent the necessity of intervention that Lord John Russell advises friendly representations.
Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.
NON-INTERVENTION
Aldershot, 23rd August 1859.
... With regard to Lord John's letter of to-day, the Queen wishes merely to say that from the outbreak of the war our negotiations have ceased, and that the war is not over till the peace is concluded. Our interference before that period may be prompted by a desire to prevent a future war; but our first duty is not to interfere with the closing of the present. The desire to guard Italy against "the ruthless tyranny of Austria, and the unchained ambition of France" may produce a state of things in Italy, forcing both to make common cause against her, and backed by the rest of Europe to isolate England, and making her responsible for the issue. It will be little satisfaction then to reflect upon the fact that our interference has been merely advice.
Viscount Palmerston to Queen Victoria.
FOREIGN POLICY
94 Piccadilly, 23rd August 1859.
Viscount Palmerston presents his humble duty to your Majesty, and begs to state that Lord John Russell has shown him your Majesty's communication, in which your Majesty objects to a proposed despatch to Lord Cowley, on the ground that it would be a departure from the principle of non-intervention which has been publicly proclaimed as the rule for Great Britain in the late events between France and Austria. But Viscount Palmerston would beg humbly to submit to your Majesty that the intervention which all parties agreed that this country ought to abstain from, was active interference by force of arms in the war then going on, but that neither of the great political parties meant or asserted that this country should not interfere by its advice and opinions in regard to the matters to which the war related. Viscount Palmerston can assert that neither he nor any of those who were acting with him out of office ever contemplated giving such a meaning to the doctrine of non-intervention; and that such a meaning never was attached to it by the Conservative Leaders while they were in office, is proved from one end of their Blue Book to the other.70 The whole course of the Derby Government, in regard to the matters on which the war turned, was one uninterrupted series of interventions by advice, by opinions, and by censure now addressed to one party and now to another. Whatever may be thought of the judgment which was shown by them, or of the bias by which they were guided, the principle on which they acted was undoubtedly right and proper.
England is one of the greatest powers of the world, no event or series of events bearing on the balance of power, or on probabilities of peace or war can be matters of indifference to her, and her right to have and to express opinions on matters thus bearing on her interests is unquestionable; and she is equally entitled to give upon such matters any advice which she may think useful, or to suggest any arrangements which she may deem conducive to the general good.
It is no doubt true that the Conservative Party, since they have ceased to be responsible for the conduct of affairs, have held a different doctrine, and in their anxiety lest the influence of England should be exerted for the benefit of Italy, and to the disadvantage of Austria, have contended that any participation by Great Britain in the negotiations for the settlement of Italy would be a departure from the principle of non-intervention; but their own practice while in office refutes their newly adopted doctrine in opposition; and if that doctrine were to be admitted, Great Britain would, by her own act, reduce herself to the rank of a third-class European State.
Footnote 70: This was the Blue Book, the production of which would, according to Lord Malmesbury, have saved the Derby Ministry.
Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.
ITALIAN POLICY
Osborne, 24th August 1859.
The Queen is really placed in a position of much difficulty, giving her deep pain. She has been obliged to object to so many drafts sent to her from the Foreign Office on the Italian Question, and yet, no sooner is one withdrawn or altered, than others are submitted exactly of the same purport or tendency, if even couched in new words. The Queen has so often expressed her views that she is almost reluctant to reiterate them. She wishes, however, Lord John to re-peruseTHE QUEEN AND LORD JOHN RUSSELL the two drafts enclosed, which just came to her. If they have any meaning or object, it must be to show to France that it would be to her interest to break in the Treaty of Zurich the leading conditions to which she pledged herself to Austria at Villafranca. Those preliminaries contained but three provisions affecting Austria: (1) That Austria was to cede Lombardy; (2) That an Italian Confederation should be encouraged, of which Venetia was to form part; (3) That the Dukes of Tuscany and Modena were to return to their Duchies. The two latter clauses must be considered as compensations for the losses inflicted in the first. Both the latter are now to be recommended by England, a neutral in the war, to be broken.
Now, either it is expected that our advice will not be listened to, in which case it would not be useful and hardly dignified to give it, or it is expected that France will follow it. If, on finding herself cheated, Austria were to feel herself obliged to take up arms again, we should be directly answerable for this fresh war. What would then be our alternative? Either to leave France in the lurch, to re-fight her own battle, which would entail lasting danger and disgrace on this country, or to join her in the fresh war against Austria—a misfortune from which the Queen feels herself equally bound to protect her country.
As this is a question of principle on which she clearly understood her Cabinet to have been unanimous, she must ask her correspondence to be circulated amongst its members, with a view to ascertain whether they also would be parties to its reversal, and in order to prevent the necessity of these frequent discussions, which, as the Queen has already said, are very painful to her.
Earl Granville to the Prince Albert.
MEDIATION OF LORD GRANVILLE
London, 29th August 1859.
Sir,—In the middle of last week I received at Aldenham a letter from Mr Sidney Herbert,[71] in which he told me that he had just received a visit from Lord Palmerston, much perturbed and annoyed, saying that the Queen had objected to all Lord John's despatches, and appeared to think that it was objectionable for England to give any advice on the subject of Italian affairs. Mr Herbert gave some good advice to Lord Palmerston, but, from the tone of his letter, I gather that he thought the objections made at Osborne unreasonable. I answered that I entirely concurred with him in the interest of everybody, that no feelings of irritation should exist between the Sovereign and her leading Ministers; that it was possible that the Queen, forgetting how very sensitive Lord John was to criticism, had pulled him up more sharply than he liked, but that I was convinced the objections made were not exactly those mentioned by Lord Palmerston. I heard nothing more till I received on Saturday evening a telegram, summoning me to a Cabinet this day. I came to Town immediately, and saw Lord Palmerston yesterday. I enquired the reason of the sudden summons for a Cabinet. He told me that there had been a discussion between the Queen and Lord John; that the Queen had objected to his (Lord John's) proposal that the despatch of 25th July should be now communicated to the French Government. Lord John had informed him of the fact, and had requested him to communicate with the Queen on the subject. Lord Palmerston then read to me a well-written memorandum on the abstract question of giving advice, which he had sent to Her Majesty. He told me that he had been to Osborne; that the Queen had expressed a wish through Sir Charles Wood that he should not discuss the whole matter with her; that he had had a satisfactory conversation with your Royal Highness, of which he gave me an abstract, which, however, contained his own arguments at greater length than your Royal Highness's. He said that Lord John had made a mistake with respect to the end of the despatch, in which Lord Cowley is desired to withhold it till after the Peace of Zurich was concluded. Lord John gave a different interpretation to it from what appeared to be the case, as described by a previous letter of Lord John, in which he had said that the sentence was added at the suggestion of the Cabinet, and with his entire approval. Lord Palmerston states that the Queen did not feel herself authorised to sanction a departure from what had been decided by the Cabinet, without the concurrence of the Cabinet, and that she thought it desirable, if the Cabinet met, that they should agree on the future policy as regards Italy. Lord John also wished for a Cabinet.
I replied that there seemed to be a double question: first, a difference between the Queen and Lord John Russell and himself; and second, the whole question of our Italian Policy. On the first point I could not but remember the apprehension generally felt at the formation of his first Government; that the feeling between the Sovereign and himself might not be such as to give strength to the Government; that the result, however, was most satisfactory. I was not aware of either the Queen or himself having given way on any one point of principle, but the best understanding was kept up in the most honourable way to both, and that, at the end of his Ministry, I knew that the Queen had expressed to several persons how much she regretted to lose his services. That I most sincerely hoped that there was no chance of misunderstanding now arising; that would be most disadvantageous to the Sovereign, to the public service, to the Government, and, above all, to himself. He interrupted me by assuring me that there was not the slightest chance of this. He repeated to me flattering things said by the Queen at the close of his last Administration, and told me that it was impossible for the Queen to have been more kind and civil than at his visit last week at Osborne. I continued that in Italian matters I believed the Cabinet was agreed. Our language to Italian Governments ought to show sympathy with Italy, and let them know that we were anxious that they should be left free to act and decide for themselves; that it should inform them in the clearest manner that in no case were they to obtain active assistance from us, and it ought to avoid giving any advice as to their conduct, which might make us responsible for the evil or danger which might accrue from following such advice. That our language to France and Austria ought to press upon them in every judicious manner the expediency of doing that which was likely to secure the permanent happiness of Italy, and to persuade them to abstain from forcing upon the Italians, persons and forms of Government to which they objected; nothing like a menace or a promise to be used....
I then saw Sidney Herbert, who told me that Charles Wood's report had entirely changed the aspect of things; that it was clear that the Queen had come to the assistance of the Cabinet, instead of opposing them; that reason had been entirely on her side, and that Johnny had reduced the question now to the single point, which was not of much importance, whether the 25th July despatch should now be communicated or not. He told me that Lord John was in a state of great irritation, and ready to kick over the traces. I dined at Lord Palmerston's, and met Sir Charles Wood and Mr Gladstone. I had some guarded conversation with the latter, who seemed very reasonable. Sir Charles Wood gave me all the information which I required. It appears to me that the really important point is that the whole Cabinet should know the real question between the Queen and her Ministers, and that, if Lord John can find plausible reasons for changing the date of the communication of the despatch, it may be better for the Queen to consent to this. Some of us will take care to have a decided opinion about the future course of our policy.
I presume Sir George Grey will be at the Cabinet, and will be able to report to your Royal Highness what has passed. If he is not there, I will write again. I have the honour to be, Sir, with great respect, your Royal Highness's obedient, humble, and faithful Servant,
Granville.
[Footnote 71:] See Lord Fitzmaurice's Life of Lord Granville, vol. i. chap. xiii.
Earl Granville to the Prince Albert.
THE QUEEN'S POSITION
Privy Council Office, 29th August 1859.
Sir,—The Cabinet was very satisfactory. Lord John looked ill, and evidently ashamed of much of his case. Many of the Cabinet thought that the despatch of 25th July had not only been sent but communicated. Others attached a different meaning to the closing paragraph than what it appears to bear. Lord John produced a most objectionable draft of despatch in lieu of that of the 25th. It was universally condemned, and Lord Palmerston was empowered to tell the Queen that the Cabinet now thought that the despatch of the 25th might be communicated.
Lords Palmerston and John Russell asked for further powers during the Recess, and recommended that we should give an opinion in favour of annexation of duchies to Sardinia. This was decidedly objected to, and we all professed our readiness to meet again if necessary.72
The Cabinet thoroughly understood what had passed between the Queen and her two Ministers, although we could not get Lord John to show us all we required.
Gladstone took me aside after it was over to say that I must have thought him stupid yesterday evening, that now he knew the facts he thought Her Majesty had been put to most unnecessary annoyance. The Chancellor said something of the same sort. I never saw the Cabinet more united.
The Duke of Argyll, Lord Elgin, and Mr Cardwell were absent. I am, Sir, with great respect, your obedient, humble, and faithful Servant,
Granville.
Footnote 72: "Pam. asked for fuller powers to act during the recess, which was met by a general assurance of readiness to come up by night trains." Lord Granville to the Duke of Argyll. See the Life of Lord Granville, vol. i. p. 358.
Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.
SARDINIA AND CENTRAL ITALY
Balmoral, 5th September 1859.
Lord John Russell will not be surprised if the despatches of Lord Cowley and drafts by Lord John in answer to them, which the Queen returns to him, have given her much pain. Here we have the very interference with advice to which the Queen had objected when officially brought before her for her sanction, to which the Cabinet objected, and which Lord John Russell agreed to withdraw, carried on by direct communication of the Prime Minister through the French Ambassador with the Emperor; and we have the very effect produced which the Queen dreaded, viz. the French Minister insinuating that we called upon his master to do that which he would consider so dishonourable that he would rather resign than be a party to it! What is the use of the Queen's open and, she fears, sometimes wearisome correspondence, with her Ministers, what the use of long deliberations of the Cabinet, if the very policy can be carried out by indirect means which is set aside officially, and what protection has the Queen against this practice? Lord John Russell's distinction also between his own official and private opinion or advice given to a Foreign Minister is a most dangerous, and, the Queen thinks, untenable theory, open to the same objections, for what he states will have the weight of the official character of the Foreign Secretary, whether stated as his private or his public opinion. His advice to the Marquis d'Azeglio73 is moreover quite open to the inference drawn by Count Walewski, that it is an encouragement to Sardinia, to Military intervention in and occupation of the Duchies, and Lord John Russell's answer hardly meets this point if left as it stands at present; for "the name of the King of Sardinia,... the chief of a well-disciplined army," will have little influence unless he is prepared to use that army.
The Queen must ask Lord John to instruct Lord Cowley to state to Count Walewski that no opinions expressed on Foreign Policy are those of "Her Majesty's Government" but those which are given in the official and regular way, and that Her Majesty's Government never thought of advising the French Government to break the solemn engagements into which the Emperor Napoleon entered towards the Emperor of Austria at Villafranca.
The Queen asks Lord John to communicate this letter to Lord Palmerston.
Footnote 73: Massimo d'Azeglio, Sardinian Commissioner in the Romagna. He had been Prime Minister of Sardinia from 1849 till 1852, when Cavour, who had been in his ministry, succeeded him.
Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.
ENGLAND INVOLVED
Balmoral, 6th September 1859.
The Queen returns Lord Palmerston's letter, together with the other papers sent to her, to Lord John. She is glad to find that he thinks that no answer ought to be given to Count Persigny, but she thinks it important that it should be stated to him that no answer can be given. Unfortunately, here has been again the Prime Minister declaring that he quite agrees with the French Ambassador, but that the proposal should come officially from France to be placed before the Cabinet. The inference must be that the Cabinet and the Queen will, as a matter of course, agree also, when it is so submitted. Now what is it that Lord Palmerston has approved? A plan for an alliance of England with France for the purpose of overruling Austria, if the Duchies in which she is the heir, and to which the Archdukes were to return in accordance with the stipulations of Villafranca, were given to Sardinia and Austria should object. It is hoped indeed that this will not immediately lead to war with her, but France is to expect that she will not be left to fight single-handed for an object declared to be more English than French! Thus we are dragged step by step into the position of a party in the Italian strife. The Queen thinks it incumbent upon her not to leave Lord John Russell in ignorance of the fact that she could not approve such a policy reversing our whole position since the commencement of the War.
The Queen must leave it to Lord John to consider how far it would be fair to his colleagues in the Cabinet to leave them unacquainted with the various private steps lately taken, which must seriously affect their free consideration of the important question upon which they have hitherto pledged themselves to a distinct principle.
Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.
Balmoral, 6th September 1859.
The Queen returns to Lord Palmerston his correspondence with M. de Persigny. Lord John Russell will have sent him her letter to him on this subject. She has nothing to add, but to repeat her conviction of the great danger and inconvenience arising out of such private communications, and the apprehension she must naturally feel that the attempt to convince the Emperor Napoleon that it would be for his interest to break his word to the Emperor of Austria should reflect upon the honour of the Queen's Government. She must insist upon this being distinctly guarded against.
Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL'S CRITICISMS
Abergeldie, 7th September 1859.
Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty; he cannot refrain from making some remarks on your Majesty's letter of yesterday.
Lord Palmerston appears to have answered M. de Persigny by saying that he personally agreed with him, but that the proposition he had sketched must come from the French Government; that it must come from them officially, and it would then have to be maturely considered by the Cabinet.
Lord John Russell sees nothing to object to in this language. It might be embarrassing to Lord Palmerston if such a proposition were to come from France, and were to be rejected by the Cabinet. But Lord Palmerston could easily explain the matter to M. de Persigny. Lord Palmerston does not appear to have committed your Majesty, or Lord John Russell, or the Cabinet in any way.
On the other hand, your Majesty cannot mean that the Cabinet is to be precluded from maturely considering any proposition which may come officially from France.
Lord John Russell feels, on his own part, that he must offer to your Majesty such advice as he thinks best adapted to secure the interests and dignity of your Majesty and the country. He will be held by Parliament responsible for that advice. It will be always in your Majesty's power to reject it altogether.
Lord John Russell is of opinion that there never was a time when it was less expedient to fetter this country by prospective engagements. But it does not follow that the policy pursued last autumn and winter, and which ended in a war in Italy, would be the best course in any future contingency. Should another war arise it will be very difficult for Great Britain to remain neutral. For this reason it is desirable to prevent such a war, if possible. It was difficult last winter, and may be still more difficult this winter. For the present there is no better course than to keep this country free from engagements. After the peace of Zurich is made, or not made, we shall see our way better.
Lord John Russell has never concealed his opinions from his colleagues. He even warned them that France might make such a proposition as M. de Persigny now contemplates.
The enclosed letter from Lord Palmerston and Mr Fane's74 despatch will show the feelings which exist between Austria and Prussia. The Emperor Napoleon does not appear to have satisfied Prince Metternich. His object evidently is to gain time.
Footnote 74: Julian Henry Fane, son of the eleventh Earl of Westmorland, and Secretary of Embassy at Vienna.
Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.
Balmoral, 7th September 1859.
The Queen has received Lord John Russell's letter. She can ask for nothing better than "that we should be kept from any engagements," and she never could have intended to convey the impression that she wished to "see the Cabinet precluded from taking into consideration any proposal France might make." What she objects to is binding beforehand the Government by expressions of opinion of its leading members to the French Government, and thus bringing about those French proposals which it will be most embarrassing to the Cabinet either to reject or adopt. It is absolutely necessary, therefore, that the French Government should be told that the opinions given were private opinions not binding the Government. Lord John has not yet sent to the Queen drafts in conformity with her wishes expressed in her letter of the day before yesterday.
Viscount Palmerston to Queen Victoria.
LETTERS TO FOREIGN SOVEREIGNS
Broadlands, 9th September 1859.
Viscount Palmerston presents his humble duty to your Majesty, and has had the honour to receive your Majesty's communication of the 6th of this month; and although he had the honour of addressing your Majesty yesterday afternoon, he deems it his duty to submit some observations upon this communication.
Your Majesty states that Viscount Palmerston in his letter to Count Persigny endeavoured to persuade the Emperor of the French to break his word to the Emperor of Austria, but Viscount Palmerston must beg very respectfully but entirely to deny that accusation....75
Your Majesty is pleased to observe upon the danger and inconvenience of private communications with Foreign Ministers, and to add that your Majesty must insist upon this being distinctly guarded against. Viscount [Palmerston] would be very desirous of knowing the precise meaning of those last words. If your Majesty means that what is to be guarded against is any attempt to induce a Foreign Sovereign to break his word, Viscount Palmerston cordially subscribes to that opinion, and maintains that he has not done so in the past, and declares that he has no intention of doing so in the future. But if your Majesty's meaning is that Viscount Palmerston is to be debarred from communicating with Foreign Ministers except for the purpose of informing them officially of formal decisions of the British Government, Viscount Palmerston would beg humbly and respectfully to represent to your Majesty that such a curtailment of the proper and constitutional functions of the office which he holds would render it impossible for him to serve your Majesty consistently with his own honour or with advantage to the public interest.
Footnote 75: Lord Palmerston then gives a very long and detailed account of his position.
Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.
THE QUEEN'S OPINION
Balmoral, 11th September 1859.
Lord Palmerston has written (on the 8th) a long letter to the Queen, which, besides giving his private opinion on the politics of Italy, which were not disputed, purports to show that when a principle of policy had been adopted by the Cabinet and sanctioned by the Sovereign, the Foreign Secretary ought not to be impeded in carrying out the details, either by objections raised to them by the Sovereign, or by making them dependent on the meetings of Cabinets, difficult to obtain at this time of year. Now the question raised by the Queen was just the reverse. The principle adopted by the Cabinet and sanctioned by the Queen was: not to interfere by active advice with the peace to be made at Zurich; the Foreign Secretary had submitted a draft which had appeared to the Queen to be in contradiction to this principle, which, upon the Sovereign's objection, he withdrew; the Cabinet was summoned and rejected a similar draft submitted to them, and the Queen then complained that the very same advice should have been given by the Prime Minister in an indirect way to which the Sovereign and Cabinet could not agree openly. Lord Palmerston's letter was not communicated to the Queen until it had been alluded to in a public despatch, and Count Walewski had insinuated to our Ambassador that, rather than be a party to a line of conduct, which he would look upon as dishonourable for his master, he would resign office. What the Queen has asked for is: an intimation to the French Government that private communications like that of Lord Palmerston to M. de Persigny must not be looked upon as the official expression of the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, and that we disclaim ever having intended to induce the Emperor to break his engagements made at Villafranca, whatever they may have been. The Queen does not conceive that Lord Palmerston can object to this course, nor does he attempt to do so in his letter.
P.S.—Since writing the above the Queen has received Lord Palmerston's letter of the 9th. As she has just written at length, she does not conceive that it would be necessary to make any further observations in reply, except to a distinct question put by him in the latter part of his letter, viz. what the Queen wishes to have "distinctly guarded against."
It is the danger and inconvenience of private communications with Foreign Ministers, without a distinct understanding that they are strictly private, and not to be treated as conveying the opinions of Her Majesty's Government, where the sanction of the Crown and adhesion of the Cabinet have not been obtained. Lord John Russell has now expressed this in a paragraph in one of his drafts to Lord Cowley, which he will send to Lord Palmerston.
As a proof of the necessity of such caution, the Queen, has only to refer to the public use made of Lord Palmerston's private letter to Count Persigny, and the use made to our prejudice by the Emperor Napoleon at the time of the armistice at Villafranca of a private communication with Count Persigny, which was represented to imply assent to certain conditions of peace by England, with a desire of pressing them on Austria, when no opinion had been expressed by the Government to justify such an inference.
The Duke of Newcastle to Queen Victoria.
ST JUAN
Downing Street, 26th September 1859.
The Duke of Newcastle presents his humble duty to your Majesty.
Your Majesty will receive from Sir George Lewis full information of the serious intelligence which has been received to-day from Washington and Vancouver Island respecting the Military occupation by United States troops of the island of St Juan,76 and of the view taken of it by your Majesty's Government.
The Duke of Newcastle begs leave to receive your Majesty's instructions upon the acceptance of an offer made by Lord Clarendon whilst on a visit at Clumber last week. Lord Clarendon received not long ago a private letter from the President of the United States. He proposes that in answering this letter he should express his concern at these untoward events, and particularly at their occurrence at a time when, if not speedily settled, they would prevent the fulfilment of a project which he had reason to think had been in contemplation—a visit to Washington by the Prince of Wales on his return from Canada.
Lord Clarendon expresses his belief that nothing would so much gratify Mr Buchanan as a visit from His Royal Highness to the United States during his Presidency....
Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell see no objection to such a letter from Lord Clarendon, which, whilst it would carry weight as coming from one occupying so high a position in this country, would bear no official character; but as the name of the Prince of Wales would be used, however hypothetically, such a letter would not be written by Lord Clarendon or accepted by the Government without your Majesty's sanction.
The Duke of Newcastle therefore requests to be favoured with your Majesty's commands that he may communicate them to Lord Clarendon.
Footnote 76: A dispute had arisen out of the Oregon affair (see ante, vol. ii. pp. [30] and [72]), concerning the rival claims of this country and the United States to the small island of St Juan, situated between Vancouver Island and the State of Washington, which is adjacent to the Canadian frontier.
Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.77
Windsor Castle, 1st December 1859.
The Queen returns Lord Cowley's interesting letter. She trusts that it will be made quite clear to the Emperor that he has no chance of getting us to join him in the war with Austria, which he may be tempted or driven to renew. This alternative constantly recurs to his mind....
Footnote 77: On the 10th of November the Treaty of Zurich, embodying the terms arranged at Villafranca, had been signed, and a Congress was determined upon, to settle Italian affairs.
Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.
ENGLAND AND FRANCE
Foreign Office, 1st December 1859.
Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty; he has written to Lord Cowley, according to your Majesty's gracious permission. The question of supporting the Emperor of the French, if Austria should attempt force to impose a government in Italy against the popular will, must be judged of according to the circumstances, should they arise. Lord John Russell is certainly not prepared to say that a case may not arise when the interests of Great Britain might require that she should give material support to the Emperor of the French. But he considers such a case as very improbable, and that the fear of such an alliance will prevent Austria from disturbing the peace of Europe.
Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.
Windsor Castle, 2nd December 1859.
The Queen was extremely sorry to find from Lord John Russell's letter of yesterday that he contemplates the possibility of our joining France in a fresh Italian war or demonstration of war against Austria, which the Queen had put entirely out of the question. If the Emperor of the French were allowed to believe in such a possibility, he would have it in his power to bring it about, or obtain a just cause of complaint against us, if we abandoned him. It would be just as dangerous and unfair towards the Emperor to mislead him in this respect as it would be for the Queen to conceal from Lord John that under no pretence will she depart from her position of neutrality in the Italian quarrel, and inflict upon her country and Europe the calamity of war on that account.
Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.
SIR JAMES HUDSON
Windsor Castle, 6th December 1859.
The Queen has received Lord John Russell's letter recommending Sir James Hudson78 as the Second Representative at the Congress of Paris. The Queen must decline sanctioning this selection. Lord John Russell has in his last letters avowed his conviction that England cannot again remain neutral in an Italian war, and his opinion that she ought to support France and Sardinia by arms if Austria were to attempt to recover her supremacy by force. Lord Cowley wrote on the 29th ult. that Prince Metternich declared that Austria kept her Army ready because she could not permit either the military occupation of the Duchies by Sardinia or their annexation to that kingdom. Lord Palmerston sent to the Queen yesterday evening the copy of a letter he wrote to Count Persigny urging the Emperor Napoleon by every argument he can find to consent to this annexation, even to the length of assuring him that such a state would always be obliged to lean on France.
The Queen cannot help drawing her conclusions from these facts, and feels more than ever the great responsibility resting on her, to preserve to her people the blessings of peace. She wishes this letter to be communicated to Lord Palmerston and to the Cabinet.
The Queen approves of Lord Cowley as her First Representative at the Congress.
Footnote 78: Sir James Hudson, Minister at Turin, had been a sympathiser in the policy of Cavour, to an extent almost incompatible with his position as a British representative.
Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.
CENTRAL ITALY
Osborne, 7th December 1859.
The Queen has received Lord John Russell's letter of yesterday. Although to avoid a long written discussion, she has not in her last letter stated any reason for her objecting to Sir James Hudson as Plenipotentiary at the Congress, she has no objection to state to Lord John that it is simply her want of confidence in him, being the result of her having watched his conduct at his post at Turin during these last years. The Queen's representative at Paris ought to be a person in whom she can have entire confidence, that English interests alone will sway his conduct. From Lord John Russell's letter it appears that many of his colleagues in Cabinet saw equal objections to the appointment.
The Queen repeats her wish that her letter of yesterday may be communicated to the Cabinet.
Lord Cowley's letter, which she returns, is not calculated to diminish the Queen's alarm as to the direction in which we are being systematically driven, viz. War to support the Emperor Napoleon, who almost claims such support already as his right! He has already shifted his ground further, and asks for it in case Austria should oppose "the armed interference of Sardinia in the affairs of Central Italy." Now Sardinia can have no more right to such interference than Austria; yet the Emperor says "he is quite determined to renew the war in case Austria resists." It is under these circumstances that the advice of the Prime Minister of England to the Emperor, to withdraw the only impediment which restrains the action of Sardinia, becomes a matter of such grave moment.
The Queen is determined to hold to her neutrality in the Italian intrigues, revolutions, and wars. It is true, Lord John says, "it becomes a great power like Great Britain to preserve the peace of Europe, by throwing her great weight into the scale which has justice on its side." But where justice lies, admits of every variety of opinion.
The Party placed in absolute power by a revolution and a foreign invasion is not necessarily the exponent of the real wishes of a people, and Lord Cowley reports Mr Layard "hot from Italy to confirm him in the opinion he has always held, that the annexation of Tuscany to Sardinia is not practicable." This, however, Lord Palmerston urges, and if it be agreed to by the Emperor and attempted by Sardinia, Lord John would probably wish England to fight for it as the cause of justice.
Has Lord John ever contemplated the probability of Austria not being abandoned a second time by Germany, when attacked by France? The Emperor is sure to have calculated upon this, and has not played his game badly, if he can get the Alliance of England to sanction and foster his attack upon the Rhine, which would inevitably follow. The Queen believes this to be a cherished object of France, and the success certain if we become her dupes. The Queen can hardly for a moment bring herself to think of the consequences.
She would wish this letter also to be shown to the Cabinet.
Earl Granville to the Prince Albert.
MEETING OF THE CABINET
London, 8th December 1859.
Sir,—Lord John stated in what appeared to me a very fair way what had taken place between himself and Lord Palmerston in their communications with Her Majesty, and read Her Majesty's letters. At the end of his statement the Chancellor asked what was the question to be decided by the Cabinet. Lord John answered that he wished to know whether he was to inform Her Majesty that the Cabinet were of opinion that they were still respectfully of opinion that Sir James Hudson was the fittest person to be named Second Plenipotentiary, or whether he should acquiesce in Her Majesty's commands, reserving his own opinion as to the fitness of Sir James. The Chancellor answered: "Undoubtedly the second course will be the best." I then stated my reasons, or rather repeated them, for objecting to Sir James Hudson. Mr Gladstone made a hesitating remark. Sir G. Lewis and the Duke of Argyll, Sir Charles Wood, and Sir George Grey—the latter very strongly—supported the second course proposed by Lord John. Lord Palmerston spoke with some temper and dogmatically as to who were right and who were wrong, but advised Lord John to take the second course. The appointment of Lord Wodehouse79 was proposed. Some of us do not think it a very good one, but there are no sufficient grounds for our opposing it. I am not sure that Gladstone would not go any lengths in supporting Lords Palmerston and John Russell on the Italian Question, although he is more cautious than they are. The feeling of the rest of the Cabinet, as far as I can judge, is perfectly sound about war, and on our taking an English and not a purely Sardinian attitude; but they are all inclined to sympathise with the national feeling in Italy, and averse to the restoration of the Dukes by force or by intrigue.
Lord John was sore and nervous, but talked of his letter to the Queen, and Lord Palmerston's to Persigny, as "unlucky." Lord Palmerston seems convinced that he is perfectly in the right, and everybody else in the wrong, and would, I am sure, take advantage of any step, taken without sufficient consideration by the Queen, to make a stand for his own policy....
I have the honour to be, Sir, with great respect, your Royal Highness's obedient and faithful Servant,
Granville.
Footnote 79: Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and afterwards, as Earl of Kimberley, a member of successive Liberal Cabinets.
Queen Victoria to the Lord Chancellor (Lord Campbell).
DIVORCE CASES
Windsor Castle, 26th December 1859.
The Queen wishes to ask the Lord Chancellor whether no steps can be taken to prevent the present publicity of the proceedings before the new Divorce Court. These cases, which must necessarily increase when the new law becomes more and more known, fill now almost daily a large portion of the newspapers, and are of so scandalous a character that it makes it almost impossible for a paper to be trusted in the hands of a young lady or boy. None of the worst French novels from which careful parents would try to protect their children can be as bad as what is daily brought and laid upon the breakfast-table of every educated family in England, and its effect must be most pernicious to the public morals of the country.80
Footnote 80: Lord Campbell replied that having attempted in the last session to introduce a measure to give effect to the Queen's wish, and having been defeated, he was helpless to prevent the evil.
Queen Victoria to the Emperor of the French.
Windsor Castle, le 31 Décembre 1859.
Sire et mon cher Frère,—Je viens comme de coutume offrir à votre Majesté nos félicitations bien sincères à l'occasion de la nouvelle année. Puisse-t-elle ne vous apporter que du bonheur et du contentement! L'année qui vient de s'écouler a été orageuse et pénible et a fait souffrir bien des cœrs. Je prie Dieu que celle dans laquelle nous entrons nous permette de voir s'accomplir l'œuvre de la pacification, avec tous ses bienfaits pour le repos et le progrès du monde. Il y aura encore à réconcilier bien des opinions divergentes et des intérêts apparemment opposés; mais avec l'aide du Ciel et une ferme résolution de ne vouloir que le bien de ceux dont nous avons à régler le sort, il ne faut pas en désespérer.
Nous avons eu le plaisir de posséder pendant quelques semaines notre chère fille et son mari, qu'il nous a été bien doux de revoir au sein de notre famille. Notre fils aîné passe ses vacances avec nous, mais retournera prochainement à Oxford pour reprendre ses études.
Lady Ely vient de nous dire qu'elle a trouvé votre Majesté ainsi que l'Impératrice et le petit Prince dans la meilleure santé ce qui nous a fait bien du plaisir d'entendre.
Le Prince me charge d'offrir ses hommages les plus affectueux à votre Majesté, et, en vous renouvelant les expressions de ma sincère amitié, je me dis, Sire et cher Frère, de V.M.I, la bonne et affectionnée Sœur et Amie,
Victoria R.
INTRODUCTORY NOTE
TO CHAPTER XXIX
At the end of 1859, Mr Cobden had offered his services to the Government to negotiate a commercial treaty with France, and had been warmly encouraged in the scheme by Mr Gladstone. In January 1860, he was officially appointed a Plenipotentiary, with Lord Cowley, for this purpose, and on the 23rd of that month the treaty was signed. It included mutual remissions and reductions of import duties, and was contingent on obtaining the assent of the British Parliament, but neither party was fettered by any engagement not to extend similar concessions to other countries. In February, on the introduction of the Budget, the treaty was brought before the House of Commons, and ratified by a great majority; at the same time Mr Gladstone abolished a large number of import duties, but increased the income-tax for incomes over £150, from ninepence to tenpence in the pound. His proposal to repeal the paper duties was rejected by the Peers, the majority in its favour in the Commons having sunk to nine. A Commons Committee was appointed to deal with this conflict between the Houses, and resolutions defining the powers of the Peers in money bills were passed by the Lower House, Lord Palmerston clearly showing himself in sympathy with the Lords. Mr Gladstone expressed a desire to resign, in consequence of his difference with his colleagues, while Lord Derby and Lord Malmesbury intimated privately that they would support Lord Palmerston in office against any Radical secession. A Reform Bill of Lord John Russell, reducing the Borough Franchise to £6, and making a moderate redistribution of seats, was received with indifference, and eventually dropped.
Italian affairs mainly absorbed the attention of the country. The intended international congress was abandoned, owing to the attitude adopted by the French Emperor towards the Pope, but the former now obtained the annexation of Savoy and Nice, not, as had been arranged in 1858 as a reward for assisting to set Italy free "from the Alps to the Adriatic"—an ideal which had not been realised—but as a price for assisting Piedmont to incorporate the Central Italian Provinces. The annexation was strongly resented, and suspicions of French designs were aroused to such an extent as to give a substantial impetus to the Volunteer movement in this country. By the summer, 130,000 Volunteers had been enrolled, and, at a review in Hyde Park, 21,000 men marched past the Queen, while in August, in consequence of the same apprehensions, it was decided by a large vote to carry out the recommendations of the National Defence Commission.
The Swiss made an ineffectual protest against the annexation of that part of Savoy which had been neutralised by the treaty of Vienna, while, on the other hand, the Emperor Napoleon maintained that the people of Savoy and Nice had the same right to transfer their country to France, as Tuscany and the Æmilia (under which name the Duchies of Parma and Modena and the Romagna were now united) had to place themselves under the King of Sardinia. This they decided in March, by universal suffrage, to do; a few days later the treaty for the annexation of Savoy and Nice was signed, and in April it was ratified in the Piedmontese Parliament, Garibaldi, the deputy for Nice, his native town, voting against it. In the same month, a plébiscite, taken in the provinces affected, showed an immense majority in favour of annexation. Garibaldi himself was soon afterwards engaged in rendering assistance to the Sicilians in their insurrection against the despotic King Francis II. Assuming the title of "Dictator of Sicily, in the name of Victor Emmanuel," Garibaldi attacked and occupied Palermo, and having established his ascendency in the island, invaded the Neapolitan territory on the mainland. The Sardinian Government, for diplomatic reasons, disavowed the expedition, but gave a retrospective assent to it later in the year.
The French Emperor's policy in Syria added to the distrust with which he was regarded. The Maronites, a Christian tribe, had been attacked and massacred by the Druses, and the Emperor had proposed to send troops to restore order. This step was eventually taken, after a European conference had been held; but the Emperor's proposal was so severely criticised that he wrote a long letter to the French Ambassador in London, reviewing and justifying his policy in Italy and elsewhere, since the Peace of Villafranca.
Garibaldi had ignored the instructions of Victor Emmanuel to abstain from further operations against Naples, until the two Sicilies had voted for absorption into United Italy; King Francis fled to Gaëta, and Garibaldi entered the capital. At the same time, Cavour, in spite of a French protest, determined upon the invasion of the Papal States, and acted so promptly that in three weeks all effective opposition to the Italian cause in that territory was put down, and Umbria and the Marches were conquered. In October, the Piedmontese Parliament voted for the annexation of such of the southern Italian provinces as should declare themselves in favour of it; the Two Sicilies having accepted the offer by overwhelming majorities, the King and Garibaldi joined hands at Teano, and finally defeated the Bourbon army, afterwards entering Naples. The Marches and Umbria also declared for incorporation in the new Kingdom.
In July, the Prince of Wales, accompanied by the Duke of Newcastle, left England for a tour in Canada, where he was welcomed with unbounded enthusiasm; he afterwards proceeded to the United States, visiting New York, Chicago, and other great cities, being received by President Buchanan at Washington. The Prince returned home in the course of November.
The Abolitionist troubles, which for some time had been acute in the States, came to a crisis in the last days of the year, South Carolina adopting autonomous ordinances, declaring her own independence and sovereignty as a State, and her secession from the Union.
The refusal of the Chinese Government to ratify the Treaty of Tien-tsin, and an unwarranted attack on certain British ships, led to a revival of hostilities. A desire being expressed by the Chinese to resume negotiations, some of the British representatives despatched for that purpose were treacherously captured, and treated with great cruelty. The allied troops of England and France thereupon, marched to Pekin, when reparation was made, and retribution, exacted for the outrages. A Convention was eventually signed on the 24th of October.