I have, however, deemed it necessary, in the present state of Europe, with no object of aggression, but for the security of my dominions, and for the honour of my Crown, to increase my Naval Forces to an amount exceeding that which has been sanctioned by Parliament.
The Queen sent to the Premier, Lord Derby, the following criticism:
Buckingham Palace,
June 1, 1859.
The Queen takes objection to the wording of the two paragraphs about the war and our armaments. As it stands, it conveys the impression of a determination on the Queen’s part of maintaining a neutrality—à tout prix—whatever circumstances may arise which would do harm abroad, and be inconvenient at home. What the Queen may express is her wish to remain neutral, and her hope that circumstances may allow her to do so. The paragraph about the Navy, as it stands, makes our position still more humble, as it contains a public apology for arming, and yet betrays fear of our being attacked by France.
The Queen then suggested two amended forms for these passages, in which she said she had taken pains to preserve Lord Derby’s words, as far as was possible, with an avoidance of the objections before stated:
I continue to receive, at the same time, assurances of friendship from both contending parties. It being my anxious desire to preserve to my people the blessing of uninterrupted peace, I trust in God’s assistance to enable me to maintain a strict and impartial neutrality.
Considering, however, the present state of Europe, and the complications which a war, carried on by some of the Great Powers, may produce, I have deemed it necessary, for the security of my dominions and the honour of my Crown, to increase my Naval Forces to an amount exceeding that which has been sanctioned by Parliament.
Lord Derby, in his reply, contended that the country was unanimous in favour of a strictly neutral policy. Its sympathies were neither with France nor with Austria, but, were it not for the intervention of France, it would generally be in favour of Italy. He went on to say that the Opposition Press were insinuating that the neutrality of the Government covered wishes and designs in favour of Austria; and any words in the Speech from the Throne which should imply a doubt of strict impartiality would certainly provoke a hostile amendment in the interest of Sardinia, which might possibly be carried, and in such circumstances her Majesty would be placed in the painful position of having to select an Administration pledged against the interests of Austria and of Germany. He thought the Queen’s suggested words in regard to the Navy—“complications which a war carried on by some of the Great Powers may produce”—would inevitably lead to a demand for an explanation of the “complications” which the Government foresaw as likely to lead to war. The Prime Minister went on to say:
In humbly tendering to your Majesty his most earnest advice that your Majesty will not insist on the proposed Amendments in his draft Speech he believes that he may assure your Majesty that he is expressing the unanimous opinion of his colleagues. Of their sentiments your Majesty may judge by the fact that in the original draft he had spoken of your Majesty’s “intention” to preserve peace “so long as it might be possible”; but by universal concurrence these latter words were struck out; and the “hope” was, instead of them, substituted for the “intention.”