The impression made upon me by the E. of Austria was very agreeable. He had none of the proud manner of which at one time we heard so much, but, on the contrary, he was frank and gentlemanlike, and told me the difficulties in which Germany was placed by such an effete institution as the Diet, and the advances making by Democracy, which, for the first time, were dangerous, because the people had reason and justice on their side. He told me, also, all the steps he had taken to secure the co-operation of the K. of Prussia, which were straightforward and deferential; and he complained, though without bitterness, of the manner in which they had been misrepresented…. It may be that some good will come, perhaps before the close of the present century, from a public avowal by congregated sovereigns that their subjects had grievances of magnitude, and that delay in redressing them was full of dynastic danger.
One can conceive no more complete diplomatic fiasco than the three great Powers of Europe giving a triumph to Gortschakoff. The mistake originally made was thinking that Russia was weak and in trouble, and would therefore yield to menace. Several months ago I took the liberty of suggesting that, although Russia was powerless for an aggressive war, she would be found as strong and formidable as ever in resisting any attack from without, and that foreign dictation would probably have the effect of uniting all the parties into which Russia was divided. I don't mean to deny, however, that intervention of some kind was inevitable; but the difficulties attending it were either overlooked or not foreseen, and the mode of dealing with them has consequently been unskilful.
Continuing the Journal:—
October 5th.—To Aiupthill. On the 17th to the Grove; Odo Russell there. 24th, to Torry Hill, with Christine and Hopie. Met the Roger Leighs there; also the Heads and Sir Lawrence Peel. High jinks on Hopie's twenty-first birthday.
November 19th.—To Shoeburyness, to see the trial of Sir William Armstrong's 600-pounder gun.
My mother was exceedingly ill during the autumn, and it became apparent that her illness was mortal. She was attended with great assiduity by Dr. Fyfe. For this reason we remained within reach of London.
From Lord Westbury [Footnote: At this time Lord Chancellor.]
Basingstoke, November 28th.—I shall be much obliged to you if, by the application of the whip to the printer, you can get him to strike off a few copies of the notes of my opinion on the appeals in the matter of the 'Essays and Reviews' by Tuesday afternoon, so that a copy may, on the evening of Tuesday, be sent to Lords Cranworth, Chelmsford, and Kingsdown. The notes are not long, but I am anxious that they should be, as soon as possible, in the hands of the three noble lords I have named. I hope we shall be able to give judgement about December 15th.
Lord Brougham's next letter refers to one of the few unpleasant passages in Reeve's life. In October 1863 the 'Edinburgh Review' had an article on J. G. Phillimore's 'Reign of George III.,' in which the book was somewhat roughly handled. That the comment was honest is quite certain; that it was just would probably be the opinion of most historical students; but Mr. Phillimore thought that it was neither one nor the other, and being—as the 'Saturday Review' described him—one whose 'normal position was that of a belligerent,' he replied to the review by a studiously offensive and personal pamphlet, [Footnote: This sensitiveness to literary criticism was, perhaps, a family failing. Some forty years before, Phillimore's uncle, Sir John Phillimore, was fined 100£. for bludgeoning James, the author of the Naval History, for some unflattering remarks on the discipline of the 'Eurotas' whilst under his command.] bearing the title 'Reply to the Misrepresentations of the "Edinburgh Review."' According to this, the article was a spiteful attack made by 'Mr. Reeve' himself; it was mainly noticeable for its ignorance, its malice, its time-serving toadyism of Lord Stanhope, and should be contrasted with another article in the same number of the 'Review' on 'Austin on Jurisprudence,' which was outrageously belauded because Austin was 'Mr. Reeve's' uncle. In point of fact, the article on Phillimore was written by the present Judge O'Connor Morris, and that on Austin by John Stuart Mill, neither of whom was an intimate friend of the editor's. Phillimore did not notice, or was not sufficiently acquainted with Reeve's family history to appraise yet another article on 'Tara: a Mahratta Tale,' by Captain Meadows Taylor—Reeve's cousin. If he had, he would certainly have made it the subject of some more scurrilities.
Cannes, January 7th.—I have only a moment before the post goes to write, and it may be too late another day. Pray allude to Phillimore's pamphlet, and give some explanation on certain parts of it. I have not read the whole of it, but friends here who borrowed it of me have, and they tell me that some explanation is required. They are a good deal prejudiced, however, owing to your having praised Stanhope's book, of which they have a very bad opinion. I myself rather agree with them, though not going to the same length. Of Phillimore, I only know that he did good service in the Commons for a public prosecutor, and was very shabbily supported by the friends of Law Amendment. But I had a very poor opinion of the book, though he is a very clever man, and the Yankees considered him the first man in the House of Commons.