PUBLICATION OF OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE.
February 9th.—Nobody now thinks of anything but of the coming war and its vigorous prosecution. The national blood is up, and those who most earnestly deprecated war are all for hitting as hard as we can now that it is forced upon us. The publication of the Blue Books has relieved the Government from a vast amount of prejudice and suspicion. The public judgement of their management of the Eastern Question is generally very favourable, and impartial people applaud their persevering efforts to avert war, and are satisfied that everything was done that the national honour or dignity required. I have read through the thick volumes, and am satisfied that there is on the whole no case to be made against the Government, though there are some things that might perhaps have been better done; but what is there of any sort, or at any time, of which as much may not be said when we have been made wiser by experience and events? These Books are very creditable in the great ability they display. As Lord Ellenborough said in the House of Lords, the case had been most ably conducted, both by Government and its agents. Clarendon's despatches are exceedingly good, and in one respect greatly superior to Palmerston's when he was at the Foreign Office: they are very measured and dignified, and he never descends to the scolding, and the taunts, and sarcasms in which the other delighted. Palmerston always wrote as if his object was to gain a victory in a war of words, and have the best of an argument; Clarendon, on the contrary, keeps steadily in view a great political object, and never says a word but with a view to attain it. Stratford's despatches are very able, and very well written, but they leave the impression (which we know to be the truth), that he has said and done a great deal more than we are informed of; that he is the real cause of this war, and that he might have prevented it, if he had chosen to do so, I have no doubt whatever. His letters have evidently been studiously composed with reference to the Blue Book, and that he may appear in a popular light. I find he has been all the time in correspondence with Palmerston, who, we may be sure, has incited him to fan the flame, and encourage the Turks to push matters to extremities. I should like to know what Palmerston would have said, when he was at the Foreign Office, if one of his colleagues had corresponded with any one of his Ministers abroad, in a sense differing from that in which he himself instructed him. The wonderful thing is the impunity which he continues to enjoy, and how, daring and unscrupulous as he is, and determined to have his own way, he constantly escapes detection and exposure. The good case which the Government has put forward, and the approach of war, have apparently extinguished or suspended all opposition, and the Session, which everybody expected to be so stormy and dangerous, bids fair to be as easy as possible. Great difference of opinion exists as to the wisdom of committing our Baltic fleet to Charles Napier. It was, however, decided at the Cabinet yesterday that he should have it,[1] and we have got a very powerful squadron ready. The war is certainly very popular, but I don't think its popularity will last long when we begin to pay for it, unless we are encouraged and compensated for our sacrifices by some very flattering successes.
[1] [There was a question of appointing Lord Dundonald, a far abler man; but he was seventy-nine, and besides he made it a condition that he should be allowed to destroy Cronstadt by some chemical process of his own invention.]
February 15th.—Several days ago there was a short discussion in the House of Lords, in which the Government did not cut a good figure. Aberdeen made a declaration in favour of peace, saying 'war was not inevitable,' which produced an explosion against him, and it was so imprudent in him, and so calculated to mislead, that Clarendon insisted on his rising again and saying that no negotiations were going on, threatening to do so himself if Aberdeen did not. He complied, but the whole thing produced a bad effect, although there are no negotiations to which we are a party. Austria is making a new attempt with the Emperor, to which she was encouraged by Orloff before he went. We are satisfied with the conduct of Austria, but though she has rejected the Russian overtures, she will not engage to join us against Russia in certain contingencies. If she would do this, it would most probably settle the affair, and make the Emperor agree to reasonable terms.
LETTER OF NAPOLEON TO NICHOLAS.
This morning appears in all the newspapers the autograph letter of the Emperor Napoleon to the Emperor Nicholas, which has been so much talked of. If the Emperor of Russia at once closes with it, he will place us in a great dilemma, but it may produce peace. On Sunday Clarendon told me all about this letter. The Emperor took it into his head to write it, and sent a copy here for the approval of our Government. Clarendon made many objections, particularly to the suggestion of a simultaneous withdrawal of the Russian troops and the Allied fleets, and to the separate negotiation of Turkey, two points we had all along laid great stress upon. Walewski returned the letter with the objections raised by us, and soon after informed Clarendon that the letter had been altered according to our suggestions, and the objectionable parts omitted; but he did not bring him the amended letter. Clarendon wrote to Cowley, and said what had passed, and that he was glad the alterations had been made, but was surprised the letter, as altered, had not been shown to him. Cowley told Drouyn de Lhuys, who said they had sent the letter to Walewski, and he could not think why Clarendon had not seen it, and he wrote to Walewski desiring him to take it to Clarendon. He did so, when, much to his annoyance as well as surprise, he found that they had only made a few verbal alterations, and left the really objectionable parts nearly the same as before. This may put us in a very awkward position. If the Emperor Nicholas agrees, we must either agree also to what we entirely disapprove, or disavow the French, and perhaps separate from them; and it will be very embarrassing if the Government are asked in Parliament whether they were a party to this letter and its proposals. Clarendon told me this was only one of many instances in which the conduct of the French had been very louche and insincere. He thinks this more attributable to Drouyn than to his master, and Walewski has behaved with great loyalty and straightforwardness; but hardly a week has passed that he has not had to complain of something done by the French Government in a separate or clandestine manner, or of some proposal which they ought not to make, and this makes one of the difficulties of the position of which nobody is aware—a fine prospect to be married to such a people on a great question; but what can be expected from the Government of such a Sovereign and such Ministers? It confirms my long settled opinion, that we are always in extreme danger of being thrown over by them. With regard to the whole question (and omitting these details) the Emperor Napoleon has behaved well enough to us; for he has adhered steadily to the joint policy, though it is his interest to maintain peace, and public opinion in France runs as strongly that way as here it runs in the opposite direction.
The day before yesterday John Russell introduced his Reform Bill, having resisted the most urgent representations and entreaties to postpone it. His speech was very tame, and nothing could be more cold than its reception. The few remarks that were made were almost all against it, or particular parts of it, and it has excited no enthusiasm in any quarter. The prevailing impression is that it will not pass if it is persisted in. If any Reform Bill were to be proposed at all, this does not seem to be a very bad measure, and some points in it are good; but nobody wanted any measure, and the few Radicals who do, do not care for the particular measures Lord John proposes, and ask for other things which he will not hear of, so that he offends and alarms the Conservatives without conciliating the Liberals, and he disgusts and provokes his own adherents by his refusal to defer his Bill. Palmerston and his clique are sure to abuse it, and to employ all the underhand means they can to stir up opposition to it.
INSURRECTION OF THE GREEKS.
February 20th.—John Russell answered the questions put in the House of Commons about the Emperor Napoleon's letter very dexterously, telling the truth, but in a way not offensive to the Emperor. He also made an excellent speech on the debate on the Blue Books, brought on by Layard in a bitter speech very personal against Clarendon. The House of Commons as well as the country are so excessively warlike that they are ready to give any number of men and any amount of money, and seem only afraid the Government may not ask enough. I expect we shall have had quite enough of it before we have done with this question, and that our successes and the effect produced on Russia will not be commensurate with the prevailing ardour and expectation here. The most serious of all difficulties seems to be rapidly coming, the insurrection of the Greek population; and this is a matter which has already caused a good deal of difference of opinion and debate in the Cabinet, one half wanting to assist in putting down the Greeks, the other half opposing this scheme. The danger of attacking the Greeks is, that we should thereby throw them at once into the arms of Russia, whereas the true policy is to persuade them if possible to be quiet, and induce them to look up to us for protection and future support. It is an element in the question of great importance, and very difficult to deal with. It is disgusting to hear everybody and to see all writers vying with each other in laudation of Stratford Canning, who has been the principal cause of the war. They all think that, if he had been sincere in his desire for peace, and for an accommodation with Russia, he might have accomplished it, but on the contrary he was bent on bringing on war. He said as much to Lord Bath, who was at Constantinople. Lord Bath told him he had witnessed the fleets sailing into the Black Sea, when he replied, 'You have brought some good news, for that is war. The Emperor of Russia chose to make it a personal quarrel with me, and now I am revenged.' This Lord Bath wrote to Lady Ashburton, who told Clarendon. I asked John Russell yesterday why he sent Stratford back to Constantinople. He said when he sent him the quarrel was between France and Russia, and only about the Holy Places; they knew nothing there of Menschikoff's demands, and nobody was so qualified as Stratford to assist in settling the original affairs.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL'S REFORM BILL.