Memorandum by the Prince Albert.
LORD DERBY'S REFUSAL
1st February 1855.
Lord Derby came down here at eleven o'clock, and brought with him two letters he had received from Mr Gladstone and Mr Sidney Herbert, who both declared their willingness to give Lord Derby's Government an independent support, but on mature consideration their impossibility to take office in his Administration. Lord Derby said, as to the independent support, it reminded him of the definition of an independent Member of Parliament, viz. one that could not be depended upon. Under the circumstances, he would not be able to form such an Administration as could effectively carry on the Government.
He thought that Lord Palmerston had at first been willing to join, but it was now evident that the three letters had been written in concert.21
Footnote 21: Lord Palmerston wrote that, upon reflection, he had come to the conclusion that he would not, by joining the Government, give to it that stability which Lord Derby anticipated. He, however, gave the promise of his support to any Government which would carry on the war with energy and vigour, and maintain the alliances which had been formed.
He was anxious to carry any message to any other statesman with which the Queen might wish to entrust him. This the Queen declined, with her best thanks. He then wanted to know what statement Lord Aberdeen would make to-night in the House, stating it to be very important that it should not appear that the Administration had gone from Lord Aberdeen through any other hands than the ones which should finally accept it.
It would be well known that he had been consulted by the Queen, but there was no necessity for making it appear that he had undertaken to form an Administration. The fact was, that he had consulted none of his Party except Mr Disraeli, and that his followers would have reason to complain if they thought that he had put them altogether out of the question. We told him that we did not know what Lord Aberdeen meant to say, but the best thing would be on all accounts to state exactly the truth as it passed.
After he had taken leave of the Queen with reiterated assurances of gratitude and loyalty, I had a further long conversation with him, pointing out to him facts with which he could not be familiar, concerning our Army in the Crimea, our relations with our Ally, negotiations with the German Courts, the state of public men and the Press in this country, which convinced me that this country was in a crisis of the greatest magnitude, and the Crown in the greatest difficulties, which could not be successfully overcome unless political parties would show a little more patriotism than hitherto. They behaved a good deal like his independent Member of Parliament, and tried to aggravate every little mishap in order to get Party advantages out of it. I attacked him personally upon his ... opposition to the Foreign Enlistment Bill, and pointed to the fact that the French were now obtaining the services of that very Swiss Legion we stood so much in need of. His defence was a mere Parliamentary dialectic, accusing the clumsy way in which Ministers had introduced their Bill, but he promised to do what he could to relieve the difficulties of the country. In conclusion I showed him, under injunctions of secrecy, the letter I had received from Count Walewski, which showed to what a state of degradation the British Crown had been reduced by the efforts on all sides for Party objects to exalt the Emperor Napoleon, and make his will and use the sole standard for the English Government.22
Footnote 22: This curious letter of the Count stated in effect that the alliance of England and France, and the critical circumstances of the day, made Lords Palmerston and Clarendon indispensable members of any Ministry that might be formed.