Lord John Russell has taken leave of the Foreign Office, and has had an interview with the Queen and Prince, satisfactory to both. She has been all along considerably annoyed at the arrangement made about his taking the Foreign Office only to quit it, and his leading the House of Commons without any office, which she fancies is unconstitutional, and the arrangement was announced in the newspapers without any proper communication to her. The consequence has been some little soreness on both sides, but this has now been all removed by explanations and amicable communication. The Queen attacked him on the constitutional ground, but here elle l'a pris par son fort, and he easily bowled over this objection.[1] Then she expressed her fear lest it should be drawn into a precedent, which might be inconvenient in other cases, to which he replied that he thought there was little fear of anybody wishing to follow the precedent of a man taking upon himself a vast amount of labour without any pay at all. Then she said that a man independent of office might consider himself independent of the Crown also, and postpone its interests to popular requirements; which he answered by saying that he did not think any Minister, as it was, thought very much of the Crown as contradistinguished from the people, and that he was not less likely to take such a part as she apprehended by holding an office of 5,000l. a year, from which a vote of the House of Commons could at any moment expel him. He appears to have satisfied them both, and to be satisfiedhimself, which is still more important.
[1] [The objection taken by Her Majesty was to Lord John Russell's proposal that he should retain his seat in the Cabinet and the leadership of the House of Commons without holding any special office in the Government. But in fact, as a Privy Councillor of the Crown, a Minister, with or without office, is under precisely the same obligations to the Sovereign and to Parliament.]
February 25th.—The Jew question and the Maynooth question have been got over in the House of Commons without much debate, but by small majorities. The most remarkable incident was young Stanley[1] voting with the majority in both questions, and speaking on Maynooth, and well. As he is pretty sure to act a conspicuous part, it is good to see him taking a wise and liberal line. Disraeli voted for the Jews, but did not speak, which was very base of him. Last night I met Tomline at dinner, who is a friend of his, and told me a great deal about him. He has a good opinion of him, that is, that he has a good disposition, but his personal position perverts him in great measure. He says he dislikes and despises Derby, thinks him a good 'Saxon' speaker and nothing more, has a great contempt for his party, particularly for Pakington, whom they seem to think of setting up as leader in his place. The man in the House of Commons whom he most fears as an opponent is Gladstone. He has the highest opinion of his ability, and he respects Graham as a statesman. Tomline told me that his system of attacking the late Sir Robert Peel was settled after this manner. When the great schism took place, three of the seceders went to Disraeli (Miles, Tyrrel, and a third whom I have forgotten), and proposed to him to attack and vilify Peel regularly, but with discretion; not to fatigue and disgust the House, to make a speech against him about once a fortnight or so, and promised if he would that a constant and regular attendance of a certain number of men should be there to cheer and support him, remarking that nobody was ever efficient in the House of Commons without this support certain.[2] He desired twenty minutes to consider of this offer, and finally accepted it. We have seen the result, a curious beginning of an important political career. Now they dread and hate him, for they know in his heart he has no sympathy with them, and that he has no truth or sincerity in his conduct or speeches, and would throw them over if he thought it his interest.
[1] [The present Earl of Derby, who succeeded his father as fifteenth Earl in 1869. He entered public life as Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in 1852.]
[2] [This anecdote is related on the authority of Mr. Tomline as stated in the text. It was mentioned in the lifetime of Lord Beaconsfield, and in justice to him it must be said that he altogether denied the truth of the story.]
WHIG MALCONTENTS.
March 1st.—The Government seem upon the whole to be going on prosperously. They have at present no difficulty in the House of Commons, where there is no disposition to oppose their measures, and an appearance of moderation generally, which promises an easy Session. John Russell has spoken well, and seems to have recovered a great share of the popularity he had lost. Aberdeen has done very well in the House of Lords, his answers to various 'questions' having been discreet, temperate, and judicious; in short, up to this time the horizon is tolerably clear. On the other hand the divisions have presented meagre majorities, and the Government have no power in the House of Commons, and live on the goodwill or forbearance of the several fractions of which it is composed. John Russell is in his heart not satisfied with his present position, and not animated with any spirit of zeal or cordiality, though he is sure to act honestly and fairly the part he has undertaken. There is still a good deal of lurking discontent and resentment on the part of those who were left out, and of the Whig party generally, who are only half reconciled to following the banner of a Peelite premier; of the malcontents the principal are Carlisle and Clanricarde, who are both in different ways very sore; Normanby is dissatisfied, Labouchere, Seymour, and George Grey not pleased, but except Clanricarde none have shown any disposition to withhold their support from the Government, or even to carp at them. Aberdeen seems to have no notion of being anything but a real Prime Minister. He means to exercise a large influence in the management of foreign affairs, which he considers to be the peculiar, if not exclusive, province of himself and Clarendon. Palmerston does not interfere with them at all, but he must do so, if any important questions arise for the Cabinet to decide, and then it is very likely some dissension will be the consequence. There are four ex-Secretaries for foreign affairs in this Cabinet, all of whom will naturally take part in any discussion of moment. Argyll began rather unluckily, running his head indiscreetly against Ellenborough on an Indian petition. He is burning with impatience to distinguish himself, and broke out too soon, and out of season; but he was not unconscious of his error, and it will probably be of use to him to have met with a little check at his outset, and teach him to be more discreet. He spoke again last night, and very well, on the Clergy reserves, when there was a brilliant passage of arms in the Lords, in which Lord Derby and the Bishops of Exeter and Oxford distinguished themselves.
News came by telegraph last night that the dispute between Turkey and Austria is settled, which will relieve us from a great difficulty. If it had gone on, we should have had a difficult part to play, and unluckily the good understanding that was reviving between us and Vienna has all been upset by the late attempt on the Emperor's life,[1] which has thrown the Austrians into a ferment, and renewed all their bitter resentment against us for harbouring Kossuth and Mazzini, to whom they attribute both the ?meute at Milan and the assassination at Vienna severally. They are no doubt right about Mazzini and wrong about Kossuth, but fortunately for us the first is not in England and has been abroad for some time, and it will probably be impossible to bring any evidence against Kossuth to connect him with the Hungarian assassin. But these troubles and attempts, the origin of which is attributed to men residing here, and, though neglected by the Government, more or less objects of popular favour and sympathy, render all relations of amity impossible between our Government and theirs, and the disunion is aggravated by our absurd meddling with such cases as the Madiai and Murray at Florence and at Rome, which are no concern of ours, and which our Government does in compliance with Protestant bigotry. What makes our conduct the more absurd is that we do more harm than good to the objects of our interest, for no Government can, with any regard to its own dignity and independence, yield to our dictation and impertinent interference. The Grand Duke of Tuscany said that the Madiai would have been let out of prison long ago but for our interference. John Russell's published letter on this subject, which was very palateable to the public, was as objectionable as possible, and quite as insolent and presumptuous as any Palmerston used to write.
AUSTRIAN OPPRESSION IN ITALY.