CHAPTER X.
Successes in India, China, and Syria — The Hereditary Pashalik of Egypt — Lord Palmerston’s Hostility to France — Lord Palmerston and the Tories — His extraordinary Position — A Communication from M. Guizot — Death of the Duchess of Cannizzaro — Her History — Dinner with Lady Holland — Macaulay’s Conversation — Opening of the Session — A Sheriffs’ Dinner — Hullah’s Music Lecture — Tory Successes — Duke of Wellington ill — Irish Registration Bill — Opposed by the Conservatives — Conservative Government of Ireland — Petulance of Lord Palmerston — Double Dealing of Lord Palmerston — Ill Temper of the French — M. Dedel’s account of the State of Affairs — M. Dedel’s account corrected — Termination of the Disputes with France — Bad News from China — Hostility of the United States — The Sultan’s Hatti-sherif — The Hatti-sherif disapproved by some Ministers — Peel’s Liberality — The Hatti-sherif disavowed — The Bishop of Exeter left in the lurch — Poor Law Amendment Bill — Lord Granville’s Illness — Death of Mrs. Algernon Greville — Loss of ‘The President’ — Government defeated — China Troubles — Danger of the Government.
January 7th, 1841
Yesterday arrived (through the French telegraph) the news of the death of the King of Lahore, the surrender of Dost Mahomed, and the settlement of the Chinese quarrel, all coming just in time to swell out the catalogue of successes to be announced in the Queen’s Speech. In France the aspect of affairs is improving, the King has given answers on New Year’s Day which he would not have ventured to make a short time ago, and His Majesty assures Lord Granville that the war fever is rapidly diminishing. The French hardly trouble themselves now (except in an occasional undergrowl in some Liberal paper) about Syria, and the Government considering Mehemet Ali’s destiny decided, only desire to be re-admitted into the great European Council, for the purpose of participating in the measures to be adopted for determining the condition of the Christian population of Syria, and for securing Constantinople from any exclusive protection or influence.
LORD PONSONBY’S VIOLENCE. At this moment, however, everything is unsettled with regard to Egypt, and Lord Ponsonby has been acting in his usual furious style with such effect that it is not at all certain the question will be settled without a good deal of trouble. Upon the receipt, at Constantinople, of Napier’s unauthorised Convention with the Pasha, Ponsonby instantly assembled the ambassadors, moved that it should be rejected and disavowed, and signified the same to the Ministers of the Porte, who, of course, desired no better than to acquiesce. At Ponsonby’s instigation, Redschid Pasha wrote to say that the Sultan utterly disavowed this Convention; that he might be disposed, out of deference to his allies, and at their request, to grant some temporary favour and indulgence to the family of the Pasha, but as to the hereditary possession of Egypt, he had never heard of, or contemplated, any such thing, nor would ever listen to it; and he reminded the Allied Powers that such a grant would be in direct contravention of the principle of the Treaty itself, which had for its object the maintenance of the integrity of the Ottoman Empire. It remains to be seen what will be done at Constantinople when the intelligence of Stopford’s Convention (so to call it) arrives there, which, in fact, differs in no respect from that of Napier; but it is very extraordinary that Ponsonby should write word that the Sultan had never heard any question of the hereditary grant of Egypt, when, in the middle of October, a despatch was written to him (which was at the same time communicated to the French Government) ordering him to propose to the Sultan this restitution. Unless, therefore, this despatch was not sent, or he took upon himself to disobey his instruction, it must be false that the Turkish Government never heard of such a question. Lord John Russell, who went to Broadlands the other day, wrote to Melbourne that he found Bülow, Neumann, and Esterhazy there, and there seemed to be a great deal of discussion going on between them all, and much doubt as to the question of hérédité, but that he was of opinion that this question admitted of no doubt, and that we were bound to insist upon it after the assurances we had given to France. Of Palmerston’s opinions he did not say a word. However, whether Palmerston wishes to push matters to further extremities against the Viceroy or not, he will hardly attempt it, for, easy as he has hitherto found it, with the opportune aid of events, to baffle all opposition in the Cabinet, he would certainly meet with a resistance to any such design that he would not be able to overcome. His successes have not made him more moderate and conciliatory towards France, and I have no doubt that if he had the drawing up of the Queen’s Speech, he would take an insulting and triumphant tone in it, which would fan the expiring flame of passion and hostility, and widen the breach between the two countries.
The other day Lord Clarendon wrote to him, sending a sort of message from the French Court (through Madame de Montjoie) expressive of a hope that a conciliatory disposition would prevail; to which he responded in a strain of insolent invective against France and her designs, saying that her object was to extort concessions from us which we should never make, and that now we were strong in our alliance with the other Powers we might defy her to injure us. This letter Clarendon showed to Melbourne, who had asked him if he knew what Palmerston’s feelings were (he himself knowing nothing), and he was, of course, struck with the bitterness and asperity of his tone. Melbourne told Clarendon that Palmerston was still very sore at the articles which had appeared in the ‘Times,’ and at the communications that had taken place between parties here and their French correspondents, and he particularly mentioned Reeve’s with Tocqueville—Lord Lansdowne having probably shown Palmerston the letter which Tocqueville wrote to Reeve[1] just LORD PALMERSTON AND THE TORIES. before the great debate in the Chamber. Clarendon said he could not imagine what Palmerston had to complain of in the ‘Times,’ as, though there had been some articles attacking him, the far greater number had been in his favour. Melbourne said there had been a great deal the other way, and that Palmerston and his Tory friends with whom he had communicated had been constantly surprised to find that there was an influence stronger than their own in that quarter.
[1] [This was a very remarkable letter M. de Tocqueville wrote to me in November, showing the danger of driving France to extremities, which might involve the overthrow of the Government in that country. Tocqueville was always penetrated with the conviction that the throne of Louis Philippe rested on no solid foundation; and undoubtedly the Treaty of July 1840 was a severe blow to its stability, and led to further disputes, and more fatal consequences. The letter in question was shown by me to Lord Lansdowne, and I was told it was read to the Cabinet. At any rate, it was read by Lord Melbourne, who attached great importance to it.—H.R.]