ANNEXATION OF SAVOY
Windsor Castle, 21st January 1860.
The Queen returns the enclosed important letter from Lord Cowley, and Lord John Russell's answers—documents which she trusts will be communicated to the Cabinet. The Emperor shows unwillingness to evacuate Rome and Lombardy, disinclination to admit of the annexation of the Duchies to Sardinia, a feeling that he could not do so without appearing dishonourable in the eyes of Austria, and a determination to rob Sardinia of Savoy in order to repay the French Nation for the rupture with the Pope, and the abandonment of a protective tariff by the reconquest of at least a portion of the "frontières naturelles de la France."4 Lord Cowley's letter proves clearly that it is (as the Queen all along felt and often said) most dangerous for us to offer to bind ourselves to a common action with the Emperor with regard to Italy, whilst he has entered into a variety of engagements with the different parties engaged in the dispute, of which we know nothing, and has objects in view which we can only guess at, and which have not the good of Italy in view, but his own aggrandisement to the serious detriment of Europe.
With regard to Lord John Russell's answer, the Queen will only say that our proposal having been made by us after serious reflection and the anxious discussion of the Cabinet and the Queen, no deviation from it ought to take place without affording them ample opportunity to consider the bearings and probable results of such alteration.
VICTOR EMMANUEL
Footnote 4: The cession by King Victor Emmanuel of Savoy (the cradle of his race) and of Nice to France was the consideration offered at Plombières for obtaining French support to the movement for freeing Italy "from the Alps to the Adriatic"; that result not having been achieved, a like price was now offered for French assistance in effecting the annexation of the Central Italian provinces.
Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.
Windsor Castle, 22nd January 1860.
The Queen has received Lord Palmerston's note and enclosures. She rather expects to be advised by her Ministers as to the course to be adopted in matters which may lead to angry debate in the House of Lords, than to give personal directions on a case so incompletely placed before her; Lord Willoughby's letter does not even name the persons in question nor the grounds upon which he assumes "they would not be received at Court."5 The Queen does not know how far admission or non-admission trenches upon the privileges of the House; from the submitted printed regulation, however, she would gather that the Lord High Chamberlain has full power to admit or exclude. If Lord Palmerston were to see Lord Granville as Leader, and the Lord Chancellor as Speaker, of the House of Lords together with Lord Willoughby, they might so far discuss the question as to enable Lord Palmerston to submit a decision for the Queen's consideration to-morrow.
Footnote 5: Lord Willoughby's question had reference to a Peeress, who, he thought, would not be received at Court. The difference between a State Opening of Parliament and a Drawing-room was pointed out in Lord Palmerston's reply. Though it would be "unpleasant to the Peeresses to find themselves sitting next to a person with whom they do not associate," the Premier advised no interference with the lady in question, if she persisted in attending.