MACAULAY'S HISTORY OF ENGLAND.
December 17th.—This morning the two new volumes of Macaulay's History came forth. The circumstances of this publication are, I believe, unprecedented in literary history; 25,000 copies are given out, and the weight of the books is fifty-six tons. The interest and curiosity which it excites are prodigious, and they afford the most complete testimony to his immense popularity and the opinion entertained by the world of his works already published. His profits will be very great, and he will receive them in various shapes. But there is too much reason to apprehend that these may be the last volumes of his history that the world will see, still more that they are the last that will be read by me and people of my standing. Six years have elapsed since the appearance of the first volumes, and these two only advance about ten years. He announced at the outset that he meant to bring down the history of England to a period within the memory of persons still living, but his work has already so much expanded, and of course will do so still more from the accumulation of materials as he advances, that at his present rate of progress he must live much beyond the ordinary duration of human life, and retain all his faculties as long, to have any chance of accomplishing his original design; and he is now in such a precarious state of health that in all human probability he will not live many years. It is melancholy to think that so gifted an intellect should be arrested by premature decay, and such a magnificent undertaking should be overthrown by physical infirmities, and be limited to the proportions of a splendid fragment. He is going to quit Parliament and to reside in the neighbourhood of London.
This morning the 'Morning Post' has published the terms which are offered by the Allies and are now on their way from Vienna to St. Petersburg. They were already pretty well known, but it is the first time that Palmerston (for the article is evidently his own) has announced them so openly and distinctly, and they state totidem verbis that it is an Ultimatum which is sent to St. Petersburg. I believe this course to be unprecedented, and it is certainly unfair. If Russia had applied to the Allies and expressed a desire for peace, if she had asked them on what terms they would consent to terminate the war, it would have been quite fair and reasonable that they should have stated the precise conditions, adding if they pleased that they would consent to no others and to no change whatever in them, though it may be doubted if it would be wise to be thus peremptory. But to send to Russia and propose to her to make peace, and accompany the proposal with an Ultimatum and an announcement that they would listen to no remonstrances or suggestions, much less any alterations, and that she must say Yes or No at once, is a stretch of arrogance and dictation not justified by the events of the war and the relative conditions of the belligerents, or by any usage or precedent that I ever heard of.
Reports are very rife of the distressed state of Russia and of her inability to make head any longer against the Allies, but very little is really known of the condition of the country, of its remaining resources, and of the disposition of the people. Nobody can doubt that the terms are deeply humiliating to the pride of such a Power, which has been long accustomed to stand in so high a position and hold such lofty language; and if she consents to accept the offered terms, it must be that her enormous losses have really incapacitated her for going on with the war, and that her Government is conscious that the next campaign will be still more disastrous to her than the two preceding ones have been. I have very little doubt that Palmerston has hastened to publish these terms in hopes that they may find acceptance with a considerable part of the public here, and that they may the more tightly bind the Emperor Napoleon, and, in the event of Russia sending any conditional acceptance and proposing to treat, that he may be unable to enter into any negotiation whatever. It has surprised me that he should have so completely given way to Palmerston as he has done.
DEATH OF MR. ROGERS.
December 21st.—The poet Rogers died two days ago at the age of 93. I have known him all my life, and at times lived in a good deal of intimacy with him, but for some years past he had so great an aversion to me that I kept away from him and never saw anything of him.[1] He was an old man when I first made his acquaintance between thirty and forty years ago, or probably more. He was then very agreeable, though peculiar and eccentric; he was devoured by a morbid vanity, and could not endure any appearance of indifference or slight in society. He was extremely touchy, and always wanted to be flattered, but above all to be listened to, very angry and mortified when he was not the principal object in society, and provoked to death when the uproarious merriment of Sydney Smith or the voluminous talk of Macaulay overwhelmed him and engrossed the company; he had a great friendship nevertheless for Sydney Smith, but he never liked Macaulay. I never pretended, or could pretend, to be a rival to him, but I was not a patient and attentive listener to him, and that was what affronted him and caused his dislike to me as well as to anyone else of whom he had the same reason to complain. His voice was feeble, and it has been said that his bitterness and caustic remarks arose from the necessity of his attracting attention by the pungency of his conversation. He was undoubtedly a very clever and accomplished man, with a great deal of taste and knowledge of the world, in the best of which he had passed his life. He was hospitable, generous, and charitable, with some weaknesses, many merits, and large abilities, and he was the last survivor of the generation to which he belonged.
[1] [Samuel Rogers, the author of the Pleasures of Memory (which was published in 1792), was born at Stoke Newington in 1762. His father was a banker, and he remained a partner in the bank all his life. He died on December 18, 1855.]
The Grove, December 23rd.—Came here for Christmas. No other guests but the family. We have had some talk about the peace propositions and other odds and ends. Clarendon told me that Walewski and Persigny are bitter enemies, and their estrangement the greater because Walewski is a corrupt jobber and speculator, and Persigny an honest man. When Drouyn de Lhuys resigned the Foreign Office, much to the Emperor's annoyance and regret, he did not know where to find a man, and he determined to appoint Walewski because he knew not whom else to take. Not choosing to send the offer to him through Drouyn, he employed Cowley, and requested him to telegraph in cypher to Clarendon a request that Cowley would send for Walewski and communicate to him the Emperor's intentions. A curious shift to be reduced to, but throughout the Eastern Question Cowley has acted the part of Foreign Minister to the Emperor almost as much as that of Ambassador.
Lewis this morning recapitulated to me the exact circumstances of the overtures from France about peace. It arrived here on a Saturday; was submitted to the Queen on Sunday, who approved of it; on Monday (or Tuesday) it was read to the Cabinet, when no discussion took place, but Palmerston shortly said, without giving any reasons, that he thought we must agree to the proposal, which was generally concurred in. The next day there was another Cabinet, when they examined in detail all the articles and discussed them. A few alterations were made, none of which were of any importance except the Bomarsund question. The cession of Bessarabia and the neutralisation of the Black Sea both formed part of the original proposal, and the latter was particularly insisted upon, and reasoned out at considerable length by France, for it turns out that the Emperor has never had so much in view the object of making peace (not expecting, nor ever having expected, that these proposals would be accepted) as the object of securing the active cooperation of Austria, which he expects to do. Austria engages, if Russia refuses the conditions, to put an end to diplomatic relations between the two Empires, and Napoleon thinks this cannot fail to end in hostilities, and to this extension of the alliance he looks for bringing the war to a conclusion. He thinks, moreover, that, when Austria has declared war, Russia will attack her defenceless frontier, and that as any attack upon Austria will compel the whole of Germany to assist her and to take part in the war against Russia, this offer will lead to Prussia and the whole of the German States being engaged on the side of the Allies, and that such a confederacy cannot fail to bring the war to a successful issue, because Russia would be absolutely incapable of offering any resistance to it. This is a new view of the policy and motives of France, but I very much doubt if the whole of the Emperor's scheme will be realised. Even though Austria may take up arms, it is probable that Russia will act strictly on the defensive, and will avoid giving any cause to the German States to depart from their neutrality. We both agreed that the conduct of Austria is quite inexplicable, and that Russia will never forgive her for the part she has acted and is acting now.
CRITICISMS ON THE WAR.