M. de Persigny seems to have performed an act of painful duty and rather of true devotion, by giving the Empress some advice about her own conduct and the fate she was preparing for herself if she was not more properly mindful of her position and the obligations it entails. Lord Clarendon has seldom heard anything more eloquent or more touching than the language of M. de Persigny in describing what he said to the Empress, who appears to have taken it in the best part, and to have begun acting upon the advice the next day. M. de Persigny has no doubt that Count Walewski will soon be removed from his present office, and will be promoted to St. Petersburg, but Lord Clarendon will wait to believe this until it is a fait accompli, as it is more likely than not that when M. de Persigny is no longer on the spot to urge the Emperor, Count Walewski will resume his influence.
Count Walewski's despatch made a very unfavourable impression upon the Cabinet, who were of opinion that upon such an invitation and such slender assurances respecting the course that Sardinia might take, we ought not to give up our solid and often repeated objections to reassembling the Congress—at all events it was considered that we ought to have a positive answer from Turin before we gave a final answer....
Viscount Palmerston to Queen Victoria.
SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN
Piccadilly, 13th November 1856.
Viscount Palmerston presents his humble duty to your Majesty, and begs to state that Sir Alexander Cockburn56 accepts the office of Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, but expresses a strong wish not altogether to be shut out from Parliamentary functions. His health, which has frequently interfered with his attendance in the House of Commons, makes him feel uncertain as to the future, and he is not desirous of being immediately placed in the House of Lords, but he would be glad to be allowed to look forward to such a favour from your Majesty at some future time if he should find his health stand sufficiently good to give him a fair prospect of being useful in the House of Lords. He says that with the Baronetcy of an uncle he will succeed to an estate of £5,000 a year, independent of what he has realised by his own professional exertions; and that consequently there would be a provision for a Peerage. Viscount Palmerston begs to submit for your Majesty's gracious approval that such a prospect might be held out to Sir Alexander Cockburn. The Chancellor and Lord Lansdowne and Lord Granville concur with Viscount Palmerston in thinking that much public advantage would arise from the presence of both Sir Alexander Cockburn, and of the Master of the Rolls,57 in the House of Lords, and there are numerous precedents for the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and for the Master of the Rolls being Peers of Parliament.58 Their judicial duties would no doubt prevent them from sitting in the morning on appeal cases, but their presence in the evening in debates in which the opinions and learning of men holding high positions in the legal profession would be required, could not fail to be of great public advantage. Of course any expectation to be held out to Sir Alexander Cockburn would for the present be a confidential and private communication to himself....
Footnote 56: Sir Alexander Cockburn's parliamentary success dated from his speech in the Don Pacifico debate; see ante, vol. ii, p. [252], note 23. He was made Solicitor-General shortly after, and then Attorney-General, being reappointed to the latter office in the end of 1852. He had defended both McNaghten and Pate for attacks on the Queen's person. The uncle whom he soon afterwards succeeded as baronet was now Dean of York.
Footnote 57: Sir John Romilly, created a peer in 1866.
Footnote 58: E.g., Lord Eldon in the former office; Lord Langdale in the latter.