[2] [This refers to the case of the 'Newport,' a vessel which had been condemned by the Vice-Admiralty Court at St. Helena for alleged trading in slaves, together with penalties to the amount of 13,000l. on the shippers and owners of the cargo. The Lords of the Judicial Committee reversed this sentence with costs and damages, and declared that the owners of the ship must look to the Government for their indemnity. They added that 'merchants who, having engaged only in a lawful adventure, have been subjected to an unjust and illegal sentence, are entitled to be indemnified against its consequences, and against the costs which they have incurred in obtaining its reversal, in relieving themselves from the heavy pecuniary loss which it inflicted, and from the deep stain which it cast upon their characters, and that the national honour must be vindicated at the national expense.']
Hatchford, December 26th.—Christmas Day, usually coming in frost and snow, was yesterday like a fine day in May, the glorious weather being in unison with the general gladness at the good news from India and the tidings that Lucknow, with its wounded and its long suffering band of women and children, had been relieved at last, and for good and all. This news arrived on Christmas Eve, to make the day itself as merry as it is proverbially said to be.
LORD NORMANBY'S 'YEAR OF REVOLUTION.'
Brougham has taken Normanby's book, 'A Year of Revolution,' under his protection, for what reason nobody can divine. He wrote to Mrs. Austin begging she would exert her influence with her nephew Reeve to get it noticed favourably in the 'Edinburgh Review,' that it was a good book, had the merit of being true, and that it was much approved by Louis Napoleon, who had encouraged its being translated. I had imagined Brougham was improved, but it is evident from his conduct on this occasion that he is the same man he ever was. The book contains page after page of matter the most offensive to Guizot and to Louis Philippe and his family, with which everybody is revolted, and its malice is not redeemed by literary merit or attractiveness in any shape. That Brougham should take up such a production is as unaccountable as it is indecent, for he affected to be exceedingly attached to the Orleans royalties, to be on very intimate terms with the King, and he treated Guizot with a familiarity quite at variance with good taste and propriety, and which had excited the astonishment, with no small disgust, of Guizot himself. It might have been expected that he would have resented such a production as Normanby's, instead of patronising it. He told Mrs. Austin he could not himself speak to Reeve about it, since he had made the 'Edinburgh Review' the vehicle of a personal attack upon himself. What he alluded to was, that when Lord Cockburn's life was published an article (anonymous of course) appeared in the 'Law Magazine' in which Lord Cockburn was very ill-used, and another in reply to this, and in vindication of Lord Cockburn, but without a word against Brougham, appeared in the 'Edinburgh.' This was what he called a personal attack upon himself. He was the author of the paper in the 'Law Magazine,' but the writer in the 'Edinburgh' had no right to assume this, or to know anything about it, though as a matter of fact he did know, or at least had good reason to suspect, that it was penned by Brougham. It had already been settled that the 'Edinburgh Review' should take no notice whatever of 'The Year of Revolution,' and Mrs. Austin having sent Brougham's letter to Reeve, Reeve answered it himself, utterly denying that he had made or intended to make any attack upon him, and telling him in plain terms what the general opinion is of Normanby's book.
Meanwhile Guizot writes to Reeve that the book is full of lies, and not worth notice; that he will take none of what concerns himself alone, but cannot leave uncontradicted such parts of it as relate to the King, and give utterly false statements of the relations between the King and himself. He then refers to various passages which he says are all false, and desires Reeve to show his letter to Lord Lansdowne, Granville, and me, and to anybody else he thinks fit. All this will contribute to bring Normanby into a very unpleasant dilemma about this ill-advised book, and it must be said that it is all Clarendon's fault for his weakness and good nature in abstaining from renewing his prohibition, and when Normanby was here giving a sort of tacit consent to its appearance, although that was accompanied with a strong expression of opinion that it ought to be suppressed. And now a report has got about that before the book came out Clarendon read and approved of it, which I requested Mrs. Austin to deny in the most peremptory manner, for it was to her that this assertion had been made.[1]
[1] [Lord Normanby had written this narrative of the events of 1847 to 1848 whilst he was Ambassador in Paris, and he proposed to publish it at an earlier period when he was still in office. But upon this coming to the knowledge of the Foreign Office, Lord Clarendon (without having read the work) intimated to Lord Normanby that he could not allow a diplomatic servant of the Crown of the first rank to publish a polemical narrative of transactions in which he had been engaged, at any rate whilst he held office. The book therefore was suppressed for some years. But when Lord Normanby had quitted office, he felt at liberty to disregard Lord Clarendon's injunction, and the book was published, to the great detriment of his own reputation.]
THE CROWN JEWELS OF HANOVER.
December 29th.—The long-pending dispute about the Crown jewels claimed by the King of Hanover was settled the other day. The history of it is this. The late King of Hanover on the death of William IV. claimed these jewels upon the ground that they were partly belonging to the Crown of Hanover and partly had been bequeathed to him by Queen Charlotte. Our Government, on behalf of the Queen, naturally resisted the claim. After a good deal of wrangling they were at last prevailed on to name a commission to investigate the question, and Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Langdale, and Chief Justice Tindal were appointed accordingly. After a considerable delay and a troublesome enquiry, they arrived at a conclusion, but when they were just about to give their award Chief Justice Tindal died. Lyndhurst and Langdale were divided in opinion, so no award could be given. The Chancellor, Lord Cottenham, refused to renew the Commission, and the matter has stood over ever since. In the present year, however, the Government thought the matter ought to be decided one way or another, and they issued a fresh Commission, consisting of Lord Wensleydale, Vice-Chancellor Page Wood, and Sir Lawrence Peel (ex-Indian judge), and they have given judgement unanimously in favour of the King of Hanover, i.e., with regard to the bulk of the jewels, some few seem to have been allotted to the Queen. Lord Wensleydale came into my room at the Council Office just after they had finished their award, and told me about it. I asked him if they had decided it on evidence or only by a sort of rough estimate, but he said they had ample evidence, and they were all quite satisfied upon the point. Last night I asked Lord Lyndhurst about his share in the question, when he told me their difficulty had been to make out whether the jewels which Queen Charlotte had disposed of by her will had really been hers to leave, or whether she had only had the use of them, but that this had been decided by the discovery of George III.'s will, in which he expressly left them to her. Tindal entirely agreed with Lyndhurst, and if he had lived a little longer, judgement would have been given then in favour of Hanover. Lyndhurst said the Court was very anxious about it, for Prince Albert had told him the pearls were the finest in Europe. The value of them has been enormously exaggerated, but is still considerable. Lord Lyndhurst said they were worth about 150,000l., and Kielmansegge told me the same thing.
By the Indian papers just arrived it appears that the relief of the Residency of Lucknow and the deliverance of all who were confined in it was complete, but there was no great battle (which everybody expected), though much severe fighting, and Lucknow itself was still untaken. The mutineers, though always worsted, seem to fight better than they were thought capable of doing, and everything tends to show that the suppression of the Mutiny is still far from being accomplished.