Chapter XXVIII

. The Duchy of Modena and the Grand Duchy of Tuscany were in revolution, and the Duchy of Parma soon followed their example.]

[Footnote 29: See _post_, 1st May, 1859, note 30.]

[Pageheading: FRANCE AND RUSSIA]

_The Earl of Derby to Queen Victoria._

ROEHAMPTON, _1st May 1859_. (_Sunday night_, 12 P.M.)

... Lord Derby entirely concurs in your Majesty's opinion that no credit is to be attached to the denials of the French or Russian Governments in regard to the engagements subsisting between them.[30] It is very easy to convey denials in terms which are literally true, but practically and in spirit false; and Lord Derby has no doubt but that France is well assured that in any case she may rely upon the tacit assistance, if not the active co-operation, of Russia; and that both Powers are using their utmost endeavours to excite troubles in the East, as well as in Italy, as the result of which France may gratify her cherished designs of ambition in the latter, while Russia carries on her projects of aggrandisement in the former. This is a lamentable state of affairs; but it is Lord Derby's duty to assure your Majesty that no Government which could be formed in this country could hope to carry public opinion with it in taking an active part, as matters now stand, in opposition to France and Russia, if in truth they are acting in concert, as Lord Derby believes that they are. All that can be done is to maintain the principle of strict neutrality in regard to the affairs of Italy, and probably of Montenegro also, though there is not sufficient evidence of facts in that case to justify a positive conclusion. But in the meantime everything shows more conclusively the absolute necessity for the increase of your Majesty's Naval Force,[31] which was determined at the Council yesterday, and respecting which it will be necessary, on the very first day of the meeting of the new Parliament, to call for an explicit expression of opinion.

Your Majesty enquires as to a supposed pledge given by the Emperor of the French as to a denial of any Treaty with Sardinia. So far as Lord Derby can recollect at this moment, there never was more than an assurance that so long as Austria remained within her own limits, he would not interfere; and that he would not support Sardinia, unless she were herself invaded in any _unjustifiable_ attack on Austria; and there was also a denial in the _Moniteur_, to which your Majesty probably refers, of there having been any engagement entered into _as a condition of the marriage_.[32] These are just the denials to which Lord Derby has already adverted, which appear at first sight satisfactory, but which may be afterwards explained away, so as to escape the charge of absolute falsehood.

Lord Derby trusts that your Majesty will have understood, and excused, his absence from the Council on Saturday, in consequence of the misunderstanding as to the time appointed.

[Footnote 30: Lord Cowley, in a letter of the 29th of April to Lord Malmesbury, described an interview with the Emperor of the French, when the latter denied in terms the existence of a signed Treaty between France and Russia. But, as Lord Cowley added, there might be moral engagements which might easily lead to a more specific alliance.]

[Footnote 31: The Emperor had interrogated Lord Cowley as to this.]

[Footnote 32: In July 1858, the joint action of France and Sardinia had been concerted at the confidential interview at Plombieres, between the Emperor and Cavour, the former undertaking to assist Sardinia, under certain contingencies, against Austria. On the same occasion the marriage was suggested of the Princess Clothilde of Sardinia to the Prince Napoleon Joseph Paul, son of Prince Jerome Napoleon Bonaparte. An interesting account of the events of this time, and of the character and aims of Cavour, will be found in De la Gorce's _Histoire du Second Empire_; see especially vol. ii. book 14.]

[Pageheading: THE POSITION OF FRANCE]

_Queen Victoria to the Earl of Malmesbury._

WINDSOR CASTLE, _3rd May 1859_.

The Queen has carefully read the enclosed draft. She thinks that, without saying anything offensive to France,[33] this important document would not place matters before that Power in the world in accordance with the facts, and would lead to erroneous inferences if it left out altogether, as it does, any reference to the responsibility which France has had in bringing about the present state of affairs.... Austria and Sardinia are spoken of as the offenders, and blamed, not without sufficient ground, for the parts which they have respectively acted, and France is treated as if standing on a line with us in fostering civilisation, liberty, and peace. The inference would be that _we_ forsake her in her noble course, and deserve again the name of "_perfide Albion_."

The Queen would ask Lord Malmesbury to consider this. For the sake of showing how she thinks the omissions dangerous to our position might be supplied, she has added some pencil remarks.

[Footnote 33: _I.e._, if the despatch were to abstain from reprobating the French policy.]

[Pageheading: THE GENERAL ELECTION]

_Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians._

WINDSOR CASTLE, _3rd May 1859_.

DEAREST UNCLE,--Many thanks for you dear, kind letter of the 30th. God knows we _are_ in a sad mess. The rashness of the Austrians is indeed a _great_ misfortune, for it has placed them in the wrong. Still there is _one_ universal feeling of _anger_ at the conduct of France, and of _great suspicion_. The Treaty with Russia is _denied_, but I am perfectly certain that there _are engagements_....

Here the Elections are not as satisfactory as could be wished, but the Government still think they will have a clear gain of 25 to 30 seats, which will make a difference of 50 or 60 votes on a Division. It gives unfortunately no majority; still, it must be remembered that the Opposition are very much divided, and not at all a compact body, which the supporters of the Government are.[34]

Lord John has been holding moderate and prudent language on Foreign Affairs, whereas Lord Palmerston has made bad and mischievous speeches, but _not_ at all in accordance with the feelings of the country. The country wishes for strict neutrality, but strong defences, and we are making our Navy as strong as we can.

You ask me if Louis Oporto[35] is grown? He is, and his figure much improved. He is a good, kind, amiable boy whom one must like. He has sailed this morning with the Bridegroom, and on the 16th or 17th we may expect them back with the dear young Bride.

I venture to send you a letter I received some days ago from dear Vicky, and the religious tone of which I think will please you. May I beg you to return it me, as her letters are very valuable to me?...

We are well fagged and worked and worried; we return to Town to-morrow afternoon.

With kindest love to your children, ever your devoted Niece,

VICTORIA R.

[Footnote 34: After their defeat on the 1st of April on the proposed Reform Bill, the Ministry had dissolved Parliament, and had gained in the elections twenty-five seats--not enough to counterbalance the Palmerstonian triumph of 1857. If, therefore, the various sections of the Liberal Party could unite, the displacement of the Derby Government was inevitable. Such a combination was, in fact, arranged at a meeting at Willis's Rooms organised by Lord Palmerston, Lord John Russell, Mr Bright and Mr Sidney Herbert.]

[Footnote 35: Brother and successor of King Pedro V. of Portugal, and father of King Carlos. The King had married in May 1858 the Duchess Stephanie (born 1837), daughter of Prince Antoine of Hohenzollern.]

_Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians._

BUCKINGHAM PALACE, _9th May 1859_.

MY DEAREST UNCLE,--I write to-day instead of to-morrow to profit by the return of your messenger. Many, many thanks for your dear letter of the 6th. What _are_ the Austrians about? They would _not_ wait when they ought to have done so, and _now_ that they should have long ago made a rush and an attack with their overwhelming force, they do _nothing!_ nothing since the 30th! leaving the French to become stronger and more _fit_ for the struggle every day!! It is indeed distracting, and most difficult to understand them or do anything for them. The Emperor leaves Paris for Genoa to-morrow. It is _not_ true that the Empress was so warlike; Lord Cowley says, on the contrary, she is very unhappy about it, and that the Emperor himself is low and altered. Old Vaillant goes with him as General-Major.... Ever your devoted Niece,

VICTORIA R.

[Pageheading: POLICY OF THE EMPEROR NAPOLEON]

_The Earl of Malmesbury to Queen Victoria._

_15th May 1859._

The Earl of Malmesbury presents his humble duty to the Queen, and has the honour to inform your Majesty that Count de Persigny[36] called on him yesterday. He passed an hour in attempting to prove what it seems he really believes himself--that the Emperor had no plan or even intention to make war in Italy; that His Imperial Majesty was drawn into it step by step by M. de Cavour, who finally menaced to publish his most confidential correspondence, etc.; that his army was totally unprepared, and is now in a very imperfect state, and that he himself was overcome with surprise and fear when he learnt in the middle of last month that the Austrians had 120,000 men on the Ticino.[37] The Emperor, however, now believes that he will easily gain a _couple_ of victories, and that when he has _rejete les Autrichiens dans leur taniere_ (by which he means their great fortresses), he will return to govern at Paris, and leave a Marshal to carry on the sieges and the war. M. de Persigny's letters of appointment are not yet signed, and must go to Italy to be so. He stated that a week ago he was named Minister of Foreign Affairs, and that Fould,[38] Walewski, and others were to be dismissed, but that two days before the Emperor's departure Madame Walewska[39] and the Empress had on their knees obtained a reprieve, and that M. de Persigny was ordered to come here _sans raisonner_...

[Footnote 36: Who had been re-appointed to London, where Marshal Pelissier, Duc de Malakhoff, had replaced him in 1858. See _ante_, 23rd March, 1858. Both Malakhoff and Walewski were out of sympathy with the Emperor's present policy.]

[Footnote 37: Sir James Hudson, in a letter written at Turin on the 28th of February, and shown to Queen Victoria, described an interview with Cavour, who, in answer to the direct question, "Do you mean to attack Austria?" replied that the Italian question was becoming so complex that it was impossible to say what might happen. Sir J. Hudson added that he had learned confidentially that the understanding on the same subject between Cavour and the Emperor Napoleon was complete, and that it had been expressed thus: "Non seulement nous prendrons la premiere occasion de faire la guerre a l'Autriche, mais nous chercherons un pretexte."]

[Footnote 38: Achille Fould, a Jewish banker, was a colleague of Walewski, though not a loyal one, in the French Government.]

[Footnote 39: Madame Walewska was a Florentine by birth, descended on her mother's side from the princely family of Poniatowski.]

[Pageheader: ATTITUDE OF RUSSIA]

_Queen Victoria to the Earl of Malmesbury._

BUCKINGHAM PALACE, _20th May 1859_.

The Queen was much surprised to receive the enclosed telegram. An alliance with Russia to _localise_ and _arrest_ the war by joint interference, which is here proposed to Russia, is a policy to which the Queen has not given her sanction, and which would require very mature deliberation before it could ever be entertained. The Queen is much afraid of these telegraphic short messages on principles of policy, and would beg Lord Malmesbury to be most cautious as they may lead us into difficulties without the possibility of previous consideration. How can we propose to join Russia, whom we know to be pledged to France? The Queen hopes Lord Malmesbury will stop the communication of this message, to Prince Gortschakoff.[40]

[Footnote 40: A telegram had been received from St Petersburg, saying that Prince Gortschakoff entirely coincided with Lord Malmesbury's views as to localising the war; and Lord Malmesbury had proposed to send a telegraphic reply containing the words: "We are anxious to unite with Russia, not only in localising the war, but in arresting it."]

_Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby._

OSBORNE, _22nd May 1859_.

In answer to Lord Derby's letter of yesterday referring to the importance of concerting with Russia the best modes of preventing the extension of the war, the Queen wishes merely to observe: That Russia has acknowledged her desire to see the Austrians defeated, and her indifference to the maintenance of the Treaties of 1815; France wages war to drive the Austrians out of Italy, wresting from them the Italian provinces secured to them by those treaties; and that the Queen has declared from the Throne her adhesion to these treaties to which Parliament unanimously responded. France and Russia may therefore have an interest, and indeed _must_ have one, in not being disturbed in any way in the prosecution of their Italian scheme. England can have no such interest. If France prove successful, the territorial arrangements of Europe, in which England has found safety, and which she helped to establish in order to obtain safety against France after a war of twenty years' duration, will be subverted, and she herself may some day (perhaps _soon_) have her own safety imperilled. The Saxon provinces of Prussia will be in much greater danger when France shall have destroyed Austria in Italy and ruined her at home, than while the latter remains a powerful member of the German Confederation. What the Queen is naturally anxious to guard against is our being drawn by degrees into playing the game of those who have produced the present disturbance, and whose ulterior views are very naturally and very wisely by them concealed from us. The Queen is glad to hear that the telegram in question was not sent, having been alarmed by its being marked as having been despatched "at noon" on the 20th. The Queen wishes Lord Derby to show this letter to Lord Malmesbury.

[Pageheader: ILLNESS OF DUCHESS OF KENT]

_Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians._

OSBORNE, _25th May 1859_.

DEAREST UNCLE,--Thousand thanks for your dear kind letter and good wishes for my old birthday, and for your other dear letter of the 21st. Albert, who writes to you, will tell you how dreadfully our _great, great_ happiness to have dearest Vicky, flourishing and so well and gay with us, was on Monday and a good deal too yesterday, clouded over and spoilt by the _dreadful_ anxiety we were in about dearest Mamma. Thank God! to-day I feel another being--for we know she is "in a satisfactory state," and improving in every respect, but I am thoroughly shaken and upset by this _awful_ shock; for it came on _so suddenly_--that it came like a thunderbolt upon us, and I think I _never_ suffered as I did those four dreadful hours till we heard she was better! I hardly myself _knew how_ I loved her, or how _my whole_ existence seems bound up with her--till I saw looming in the distance the fearful possibility of _what_ I will _not_ mention. She was actually packing up to start for here! _How_ I missed her yesterday I cannot say, or how gloomy my poor birthday on first getting up appeared I _cannot_ say. However, that is passed--and please God we shall see her, with care, restored to her usual health ere long. I trust, dearest Uncle, you are quite well now--and that affairs will not prevent you from coming to see us next month?

Dear Vicky is now a most dear, charming companion--and so _embellie!_

I must end, having so much to write. Ever your devoted Niece,

VICTORIA R.

I shall write again to-morrow or next day how dear Mamma is.

[Pageheader: THE QUEEN'S SPEECH]

_Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby._

BUCKINGHAM PALACE, _1st June 1859_.

The Queen takes objection to the wording of the two paragraphs[41] 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--_a tout prix_--whatever circumstances may arise, which would do harm abroad, and be inconvenient at home.[42] What the Queen may express is her wish to remain neutral, and her hope that circumstances will allow her to do so. The paragraph about the Navy[43] 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 suggests two amended forms for these passages, in which she has taken pains to preserve Lord Derby's words as far as is possible, with an avoidance of the objections before stated.

"Those endeavours have unhappily failed, and war has been declared between France and Sardinia on one side, and Austria on the other. 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 its 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."

[Footnote 41: In the Speech to be delivered by the Queen at the opening of Parliament on the 7th of June.]

[Footnote 42: The passage originally ran: "Receiving assurances of friendship from both the contending parties, I intend to maintain a strict and impartial neutrality, and I hope, with God's assistance, to preserve to my people the blessing of continued peace."]

[Footnote 43: The passage originally ran: "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."]

[Pageheader: THE QUESTION OF NEUTRALITY]

[Pageheader: THE NAVY]

[Pageheading: LORD DERBY'S CRITICISMS]

_The Earl of Derby to Queen Victoria._

DOWNING STREET, _2nd June 1859_.

Lord Derby, with his humble duty, submits to your Majesty that he has most anxiously, and with every desire to meet your Majesty's wishes, reflected upon the effect of the alterations suggested by your Majesty in the proposed Speech from the Throne. He has considered the consequences involved so serious that he has thought it right to confer upon the subject with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as Leader of the House of Commons; and it is a duty which he owes to your Majesty not to withhold the expression of their clear and unhesitating conviction. Lord Derby trusts that your Majesty will forgive the frankness with which, in the accompanying observations, he feels it necessary to submit to your Majesty the grounds for the view which they are compelled to take.

The first paragraph to which your Majesty takes exception is that which intimates your Majesty's "intention" to maintain a strict and impartial neutrality, and "hope" to be enabled to preserve peace. Your Majesty apprehends that this may be interpreted into a determination to preserve neutrality _a tout prix_; but Lord Derby would venture to observe that such an inference is negatived by the subsequent words, which only imply a "hope" of preserving peace. With the cessation of that hope, neutrality would necessarily terminate. But as matters stand at present, Lord Derby is warranted in assuring your Majesty that if there is one subject on which more than another the mind of the country is unanimous, it is that of an entire abstinence from

## participation in the struggle now going on in Italy. He collects this

from the language of politicians of almost every class, from all the public papers, from Addresses and Memorials which he receives every day--some urging, and some congratulating him upon the adoption of a perfectly neutral policy. The sympathies of the country are neither with France nor with Austria, but were it not for the intervention of France, they would be general in favour of Italy. The charge now made against your Majesty's servants, by the opposition Press, as the _Morning Post_ and _Daily News_, is that their neutrality covers such wishes and designs in favour of Austria; and any word in your Majesty's Speech which should imply a doubt of the continuance of strict impartiality, would, undoubtedly, provoke a hostile Amendment, which might very possibly be carried in the Sardinian sense, and which, if so carried, would place your Majesty in the painful position of having to select an Administration, pledged against the interests of Austria and of Germany. Lord Derby says nothing of the personal results to your Majesty's present servants, because, in such cases, personal considerations ought not to be allowed to prevail; and it is in the interest of the country only, and even of the very cause which your Majesty desires to uphold, that he earnestly trusts that your Majesty will not require any alteration in this part of the Speech. There is, at this moment, in the country, a great jealousy and suspicion of France, and of her ulterior designs--as indicated by the demand of means of defence, the formation of Volunteer Corps, etc.--but it is neutralised, partly by sympathy for Italy, partly by suspicions, industriously circulated, of the pro-Austrian tendencies of the present Government. It is very important that the language of the Speech should be so decided as to negative this impression, and Lord Derby cannot but feel that if neutrality be spoken of not as a thing decided upon, but which, it is hoped, may be maintained, such language will be taken to intimate the expectation of the Government that it may, at no distant time, be departed from. In Lord Derby's humble opinion Peace should be spoken of as subject to doubt, because, out of the present struggle, complications may arise which may necessarily involve us in war; but neutrality, as between the present belligerents, should be a matter open to no doubt or question. If there be no attempt made to run counter to public opinion, and Austria should sustain serious reverses, the jealousy of France will increase, and the feeling of the country will support your Majesty in a war, should such arise, against her aggression; but if the slightest pretext be afforded for doubting the _bona fide_ character of British neutrality, or the firm determination to maintain it, an anti-German feeling will be excited, which will be fatal to the Administration, and seriously embarrassing to your Majesty.

The same observations apply, with hardly less force, to part of the Amendment suggested by your Majesty to the paragraph regarding the Navy. With submission to your Majesty, Lord Derby can hardly look upon it as humiliating to a great country, in announcing a large increase of its Naval Force, to disclaim any object of aggression. These words, however, might, if your Majesty were so pleased, be omitted, though Lord Derby cannot go so far as to say that in his humble judgment the omission would be an improvement; but he trusts that your Majesty will be satisfied with a general reference to the "state of Europe" without speaking of the "complications which a war carried on by some of the Great Powers may produce." These words would infallibly lead to a demand for explanation, and for a statement of the nature of the "complications" which the Government foresaw as likely to lead to war. 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 "as 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." Should your Majesty, however, be pleased so to order, Lord Derby will immediately submit the question to the consideration of his Colleagues, in order that your Majesty may be put, in the most authentic form, in possession of their views. He assures your Majesty that nothing can be more repugnant to his feelings than to appear to offer objections to any suggestions emanating from your Majesty; and he has only been induced to do so upon the present occasion by the deep conviction which he entertains of the danger attending the course proposed, and the serious embarrassments which it would cause your Majesty. He regrets more especially having been compelled to take this step at a moment when your Majesty's thoughts are very differently engaged, and when it may be doubly irksome to have matters of public business pressed upon your Majesty's consideration.

The above is humbly submitted by your Majesty's most dutiful Servant and Subject,

DERBY.

_Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby._

BUCKINGHAM PALACE, _3rd June 1859_.

The Queen has received Lord Derby's answer to her observations on the proposed Speech. There is in fact no difference of opinion between her and Lord Derby; the latter only keeps in view the effect which certain words will have in Parliament and upon the country, whilst she looks to the effect they will produce upon the European conflict. If the Queen were not obliged to speak, both positions might be well reconciled; but if what she is going to declare from the Throne is to allay suspicions purposely raised by the Opposition against the Government that they intended to take part at some moment or other in the war, and is to give absolute security to the country against this contingency, this will be the very thing France would wish to bring about in order to ensure to her the fullest liberty in prosecuting her schemes for disturbing and altering the territorial state of Europe. How is this impression to be avoided? Lord Derby thinks that the expression of "hope" to be able to preserve peace to this country is a sufficient indication that this country reserves to herself still a certain liberty of action; but the Queen would have interpreted it rather as the expression of a hope, that we may not be attacked,

## particularly when followed by the sentence in which all intention of

aggression is disclaimed, and that our armaments are merely meant for defence. The sense would then appear as this: "As the belligerents separately assure me of their friendship, I am determined to maintain a strict neutrality between them, and hope they may not change their minds, and attack me; I arm, but merely to defend myself if attacked." This would abdicate on the part of this country her position as one of the arbiters of Europe, declare her indifference to treaties or the balance of power (which are, in fact, of the greatest value to her), and would preclude her from any action to preserve them. The Queen fully enters into the Parliamentary difficulty, and would deprecate nothing more than to expose the Government to a defeat on an Amendment which would lead to the formation of a new Government on the principle of neutrality _a tout prix_ imposed by Parliament on the Crown.

It will be for Lord Derby and his colleagues to consider how far they may be able to avoid this danger without exposing themselves to that pointed out by the Queen. She puts herself entirely in his hands, and had suggested the verbal amendments merely with a view to indicate the nature of the difficulty which had struck her. Whatever decision Lord Derby may on further reflection come to, the Queen is prepared to accept.[44]

[Footnote 44: Ultimately the Cabinet recommended the modification of the declaration of neutrality by the insertion of the words "between them"; so as to run: "I intend to maintain _between them_ a strict and impartial neutrality," etc.; and in the second paragraph proposed to omit the words "with no object of aggression, but"--and adopting the form of the Queen's paragraph, but omitting the words referring to possible complications, to leave it thus: "Considering, however, the present state of Europe, I have deemed it necessary for the security of my Dominions," etc.]

[Pageheading: NEGOTIATIONS WITH RUSSIA]

_Queen Victoria to the Earl of Malmesbury._

BUCKINGHAM PALACE, _5th June 1859_.

The Queen has read Lord Cowley's letter with regret. Nothing could be more dangerous and unwise than at this moment to enter into negotiations with Russia on the best manner of disposing of the Emperor of Austria's dominions. The Queen cannot understand how Lord Cowley can propose anything so indefensible in a moral point of view.

[Pageheading: DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS]

_Mr Disraeli to Queen Victoria._

HOUSE OF COMMONS [? _7th June 1859_.] (_Tuesday, quarter-past eight o'clock._)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer with his humble duty to your Majesty.

Lord Hartington[45] spoke like a gentleman; was badly seconded.

Chancellor of Exchequer rose immediately at six o'clock, and is just down. The House very full, and very enthusiastic.

The Chancellor of Exchequer presumes to say he thinks he satisfied his friends.[46]

[Footnote 45: Lord Hartington, afterwards eighth Duke of Devonshire, moved an Amendment to the Address, expressing a want of confidence in the Ministry.]

[Footnote 46: He flung his taunts right and left at the now united Opposition, and was especially bitter against Sir James Graham. Referring to the Liberal meeting on the 6th, Mr Disraeli reminded the House that Willis's Rooms had, as Almack's, formerly been maintained by fashionable patronesses. "The distinguished assemblies that met within those walls were controlled by a due admixture of dowagers and youthful beauties--young reputations and worn celebrities--and it was the object of all social ambition to enter there. Now Willis's Rooms are under the direction of patrons, and there are two of these patrons below the gangway" (indicating Lord John Russell and Mr Sidney Herbert). In regard to its Foreign Policy, he said the Government should not be condemned without direct documentary evidence. Lord Malmesbury has since deplored Mr Disraeli's neglect to produce the Blue Book with the correspondence relating to the affairs of Italy and Austria, and stated that, had he laid it on the table, the debate would have ended differently (_Memoirs of an Ex-Minister_, vol. ii. p. 188).]

_The Earl of Derby to Queen Victoria._

ST JAMES'S SQUARE, _10th June 1859_.

Lord Derby, with his humble duty, submits to your Majesty that the tone of the Government Agents in the House of Commons is less sanguine to-day than it was yesterday with regard to the issue of the Debate to-night. There are no actual changes announced of votes, but the tone of the Opposition is more confident; and when an opinion begins to prevail that the Government are likely to be in a minority, it often realises itself by the effect which it produces on waverers and lukewarm supporters. The Division will certainly take place to-night; and, without absolutely anticipating failure, Lord Derby cannot conceal from your Majesty that he considers the situation very critical. Mr Gladstone expressed privately his opinion last night that, even if successful on the present occasion, the Government could not possibly go on, which does not look like an intention, on the part of the Liberal Party, of considering the present division as decisive.[47]...

[Footnote 47: The rest of the letter relates to the distribution of honours to the outgoing Ministers.]

_Mr Disraeli to Queen Victoria._

HOUSE OF COMMONS, _11th June 1859_. (_Saturday morning, half-past two o'clock._)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer with his humble duty to your Majesty:

For the Amendment 323 For the Address 310 --- Majority against your Majesty's servants 13 ---

[Pageheading: THE MINISTRY DEFEATED]

_Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby._

BUCKINGHAM PALACE, _11th June 1859_.

The Queen was very much grieved to receive Mr Disraeli's report of the division of yesterday, although she was fully prepared for this event.

She did not answer Lord Derby's letter of yesterday in order not to anticipate it. Now that the fate of the Government is decided, she is prepared to grant those favours and acknowledgments of service for which Lord Derby asked in his letter. The Queen _could_ not reconcile it with her own feelings, however, were she to omit this opportunity, when Lord Derby for the second time resigns the post of her Prime Minister, of giving to him personally a public mark of her approbation of his services. The Queen therefore asks him to accept the Garter from her hands.

As the Queen holds a Drawing-room to-day, and receives the City Address after it, Lord Derby will be aware how little time she has this morning (being naturally anxious to have some conversation with him with as little delay as possible); she would ask him to come here either at half-past eleven or half-past twelve o'clock.

_The Earl of Derby to Queen Victoria._

ST JAMES'S SQUARE, _11th June 1859_.

Lord Derby, with his humble duty, submits to your Majesty the expression of his deep gratitude for your Majesty's most gracious note this moment received, and for the terms in which your Majesty has been pleased to speak of his very imperfect services. He gratefully accepts the honour which your Majesty has been pleased to confer upon him as a mark of your Majesty's personal favour. As a Minister, he could never have advised your Majesty to bestow it upon him, and he could not have accepted it on the recommendation of any Government to which he was politically opposed; but as a spontaneous act of your Majesty, it acquires in his eyes a value which nothing else could have given to it. Lord Derby is this moment going down to the Cabinet, as a matter of form, and will obey your Majesty's commands as soon as possible after half-past eleven, when he will have an opportunity of expressing in person his deep sense of your Majesty's goodness, and his entire devotedness, in whatever situation he may be placed, to your Majesty's service.

[Pageheading: LORD GRANVILLE SUMMONED]

_Memorandum by Earl Granville._

[_Undated. 11th June 1859._]

I waited at four o'clock this afternoon[48] upon the Queen by Her Majesty's gracious commands. The Queen was pleased to remark upon the importance of the present crisis. Her Majesty informed me that Lord Derby had resigned, and that she had sent for me to desire that I should attempt to form another Administration, which Her Majesty wished should be strong and comprehensive. I respectfully assured the Queen that Her Majesty's commands came upon me by surprise; that at any time I felt my own insufficiency for such a post, and that at this time there were special difficulties; that I believed the only two persons who could form a strong Liberal Government were either Lord Palmerston or Lord John Russell; and that, although it had sometimes happened that two statesmen of equal pretensions preferred having a nominal chief to serving under one another, I did not believe that this was the case now. I said that I had reason to believe that Lords Palmerston and John Russell were ready to co-operate with one another, while I doubted whether either would consent to serve under a younger man of such small pretensions as myself.

The Queen in reply informed me that her first thoughts had been turned to Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell, that they had both served her long and faithfully, and that Her Majesty felt it to be an invidious task to select one of the two. Her Majesty was also of opinion that as different sections of the Liberal Party were more or less represented by each, it might be more easy for the Party to act together under a third person. Her Majesty added that she had selected me as the Leader of the Liberal Party in the House of Lords, and a person in whom both Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell had been in the habit of placing confidence, and she expressed her confident hope that their attachment to herself would induce them to yield that assistance without which it would be difficult to form a strong and comprehensive Government.

I proceeded to state some of the most salient difficulties of the task, and asked Her Majesty's permission to ascertain by negotiation what it would be possible to do.

Her Majesty informed me that Her Majesty's experience of former changes of administration had taught her that the construction of an administration had failed when the person entrusted with the task had acted merely as a negotiator, and that the success of other attempts had been owing to the acceptance of the charge by the person for whom she had sent. Her Majesty laid Her Majesty's commands upon me to make the attempt, and I had the honour of conveying two letters from Her Majesty to Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell, stating that Her Majesty relied upon their assistance.

[Footnote 48: The 11th of June.]

[Pageheading: THE RIVAL LEADERS]

_Queen Victoria to_ {_Viscount Palmerston._ {_Lord John Russell._

BUCKINGHAM PALACE, _11th June 1859_.

The Queen gives these lines to Lord Granville, whom she has entrusted with the task of forming an administration on the resignation of Lord Derby. She has selected him as the Leader of the Liberal Party in the House of Lords. She feels that it is of the greatest importance that both Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell should lend their services to the Crown and country in the present anxious circumstances, and thought at the same time that they might do so most agreeably to their own feelings by acting under a third person. They having both served the Queen long and faithfully as her First Minister, she must not conceal from Lord Palmerston (John Russell) that it is a great relief to her feelings not to have to make the choice of one of them, and she trusts that they will feel no difficulty to co-operate with one in whom they have both been in the habit of placing confidence. From the long experience the Queen has had of Lord Palmerston's (John Russell's) loyal attachment to her and the service of the Crown, she feels confident she may rely on Lord Palmerston's (John Russell's) hearty assistance.[49]

[Footnote 49: In reply, Lord Palmerston (in a letter printed in Ashley's _Life of Lord Palmerston_, vol. ii. p. 155) accepted his responsibility for uniting with others to overthrow the Derby Ministry, and undertook to serve under either Lord John Russell or Lord Granville, but stipulated that any Government he joined must be an efficient and representative one.]

[Pageheading: LORD GRANVILLE UNSUCCESSFUL]

_Earl Granville to Queen Victoria._

BRUTON STREET, _12th June 1859_. (2 A.M.)

Lord Granville presents his humble duty to your Majesty, and begs to submit that he saw Lord Palmerston immediately after he had left Buckingham Palace. Lord Granville stated what had passed there, omitting any reference to your Majesty's objection to the effect likely to be produced on the Continent by Lord Palmerston's name, if he had the direction of the Foreign Affairs. Nothing could be more frank and cordial than Lord Palmerston's manner. He agreed to lead the House of Commons; he said that he had certainly anticipated that your Majesty would have sent for either Lord John or himself, but having taken a part in the defeat of the present Government, he felt bound to put aside any personal objects, and co-operate with me; and that there was no person whom he should prefer or even like as much as myself. He added that his co-operation must depend upon my being able to form a strong Government. Lord Granville then saw Lord John Russell, and had a very long conversation with him. Lord John had no objection to serving under Lord Granville, but thought that he could not give effect to his political views unless he was either Prime Minister or Leader of the House of Commons, and he doubted whether he had confidence in any one but Lord Palmerston for the Foreign Office. Lord Granville again saw Lord Palmerston, who informed him that if he had been sent for, he should have objected to go to the House of Lords, and that he could not now give up the lead of the House of Commons (which Lord Granville had already proposed to him to retain) to Lord John. This answer rendered it unnecessary for Lord Granville to allude to the objections to his holding the Foreign Office. Lord Granville has seen Lord Clarendon, who acted up to the full spirit of your Majesty's letter, but deprecates strongly the attempt to form a Government without Lord John Russell. Sir George Grey is of the same opinion. Sir George Lewis, Mr Herbert, and Mr Gladstone think every effort should be made to secure Lord John, but that it would not be impossible to form a Government without him. Mr Milner Gibson, with whom Lord Granville had a more reserved conversation, considered it a _sine qua non_ condition of support from the Liberal Party below the gangway, that Lord John should be a member of the Government. Lord Granville thinks that in his third interview with Lord Palmerston he observed more dissatisfaction at not being sent for by your Majesty. Lord Palmerston suggested that Lord John's absence from the Government would make it more difficult for a Leader of the House, who was not Prime Minister, to hold his position.

Lord Granville has written to Lord John asking for a final answer before he informs your Majesty, whether he is able to attempt the task which your Majesty has with so much kindness and indulgence laid upon him.[50]

[Footnote 50: This letter, and Lord John's reply declining to occupy only the third office in the State, and expressing his anxiety for adequate security in the handling of Foreign Affairs and Reform, are printed in Walpole's _Life of Lord John Russell_, vol. ii. chap. xxvii.

Lord Granville then wrote to Lord John: "I am glad that I wrote to you yesterday evening, as your answer gave me information which I had not gathered from your conversation in the morning. I came away from Chesham Place with the impression that union between you and Palmerston with or without me was impossible. Your letter afforded a good opportunity of arrangement. As soon as I found by it that I was an obstacle instead of a facility towards the formation of a strong Government. I went to the Queen to ask her to excuse me from the task which she had so unexpectedly and so graciously imposed upon me. In answer to a question, I stated to Her Majesty that it was disagreeable to me to advise as to which of you and Palmerston she should send for, but that I was ready to do so if it was her wish.

"The Queen did not press me. It is a great relief to have finished this business. I have asked Palmerston to do whatever would strengthen the Government, and assist him the most as regards myself."]

[Pageheading: LORD PALMERSTON PREMIER]

_Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby._

BUCKINGHAM PALACE, _12th June 1859_.

The Queen writes to inform Lord Derby that after a fruitless attempt on the part of Lord Granville to form a Government comprising Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell, she has now charged Lord Palmerston with the task, which she trusts may prove more successful....

_Viscount Palmerston to Queen Victoria._

94 PICCADILLY, _12th June 1859_.

Viscount Palmerston presents his humble duty to your Majesty, and begs to report that he has been to Pembroke Lodge, and has had a satisfactory conversation with Lord John Russell, who has agreed to be a Member of the Government without any suggestion that Viscount Palmerston should leave the House of Commons; but Viscount Palmerston is sorry to say that Lord John Russell laid claim to the Foreign Office in a manner which rendered it impossible for Viscount Palmerston to decline to submit his name to your Majesty for that post when the List of the new Government shall be made out for your Majesty's consideration and approval....

_Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston._

_13th June 1859._

Lord Clarendon has just left the Queen. She had a long and full conversation with him. Nothing could be more friendly than his language, and he expressed himself ready to do anything for the Queen's service. But he positively declines entering the Cabinet or taking any _other office_. He says, as _Foreign_ Secretary, he should be ready to join the Government should there be a vacancy; but that he has never directed his attention much to general politics, and his taking any other office, after having held the Foreign Seals during a long and important time, would be of no use to the Government, and would only injure himself. The Queen told him that he might have any office almost (naming several of those which Lord Palmerston discussed with her), but she could not urge nor press him to do what _he felt_ would injure him, and indeed she found him quite determined in his purpose.

His absence from the Cabinet the Queen sincerely deplores, and she knows that Lord Palmerston will feel it a serious loss.

[Pageheading: AN INDISCREET DISCLOSURE]

_Queen Victoria to Earl Granville._

BUCKINGHAM PALACE, _13th June 1859_.

The Queen is much shocked to find her whole conversation with Lord Granville yesterday and the day before detailed in this morning's leading article of the _Times_.[51] What passes between her and a Minister in her own room in confidential intercourse ought to be sacred, and it will be evident to Lord Granville that if it were not so, the Queen would be precluded from treating her Ministers with that unreserved confidence which can alone render a thorough understanding possible; moreover, any Minister could state what he pleased, against which the Queen would have no protection, as she could not well insert contradictions or explanations in the newspapers herself.

[Footnote 51: A circumstantial account of the Queen's conversation with Lord Granville had appeared in the _Times_, and Lord Derby drew attention to the matter in the House of Lords. Lord Granville in reply expressed his regret in not having used more complete reserve, and frankly attributed the disclosures to his non-observance of adequate discretion.]

_Earl Granville to Queen Victoria._

LONDON, _13th June 1859_.

Lord Granville presents his humble duty to your Majesty, and feels deeply your Majesty's reproof.

Lord Granville was extremely annoyed this morning at seeing the article in the _Times_ of to-day, repeating with some accuracy, but in a vulgar, inflated manner, the account which Lord Granville gave yesterday afternoon to many of his political friends, and which he believed your Majesty had authorised him to do. Lord Granville in that account laid much stress on the reasons which your Majesty gave for sending for Lord Granville, as he found that attempts had been made to attribute every sort of motive which might render the Court unpopular.

Besides the gross impropriety of the appearance of reporting your Majesty's conversation, Lord Granville regrets the indirect attack upon Lord John Russell.

Lord Granville begs respectfully to express to your Majesty his vexation at the annoyance, which he has thus been the cause of inflicting on your Majesty, particularly at a moment when your Majesty had just given him an additional proof of the indulgent kindness and confidence which your Majesty has been pleased to place in him.

[Pageheading: MR COBDEN]

_Viscount Palmerston to Queen Victoria._

94 PICCADILLY, _1st July 1859_.

Viscount Palmerston presents his humble duty to your Majesty, and has been unable till within the last few minutes to make any Report about Mr Cobden, from whom he had received no communication till about an hour ago, when Mr Cobden came to him.[52] The result of a long conversation between them has been that Mr Cobden, against the advice of all his friends and of his constituents, has decided to decline taking office. He grounds his decision upon feelings personal to himself. He thinks that after having so often and so strongly disapproved of the Foreign Policy of Viscount Palmerston as tending too much to involve this country in war, it would be inconsistent for him to join the present Cabinet, and he also said that, at his time of life and with his general habits, he does not consider himself fit for administrative office.

Viscount Palmerston used every [means] in his power to induce him to change his decision, and showed that, with respect to present and future action, there is no apparent difference between his views and those of Mr Cobden, since both would desire that this country should remain neutral in the war now raging in Italy. All his arguments, however, were useless, and though Mr Cobden discussed the matter in the most friendly and good-humoured manner, and promised to give out of office all support to the Government, and said that he thought he could do so more effectually out of office than in office, he could not be persuaded to make any change in the answer which he came to give.

Viscount Palmerston will consider what arrangement he may have to propose to your Majesty in consequence of Mr Cobden's answer.

[Footnote 52: Mr Cobden had been visiting the United States. On landing at Liverpool he learned that he had been elected at Rochdale, and at the same time he received an offer of the Board of Trade.]

THE MINISTRY AS FORMED BY VISCOUNT PALMERSTON. _in the month of June_ 1859.

_First Lord of the Treasury_ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON. _Lord Chancellor_ LORD CAMPBELL. _President of the Council_ EARL GRANVILLE. _Lord Privy Seal_ DUKE OF ARGYLL. _Home Secretary_ SIR G. C. LEWIS. _Foreign Secretary_ LORD JOHN (afterwards EARL) RUSSELL. _Colonial Secretary_ DUKE OF NEWCASTLE. _Secretary for War_ Mr SIDNEY HERBERT (afterwards LORD HERBERT OF LEA). _Secretary for India_ Sir CHARLES WOOD (afterwards VISCOUNT HALIFAX). _Chancellor of the Exchequer_ Mr GLADSTONE.[53] _First Lord of the Admiralty_ DUKE OF SOMERSET. _President of the Board of Trade_ Mr MILNER GIBSON (appointed in July). _Postmaster-General_ EARL OF ELGIN. _Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster_ Sir GEORGE GREY. _Chief Secretary for Ireland_ Mr (afterwards VISCOUNT) CARDWELL.

[Footnote 53: Lord Aberdeen wrote, in a letter printed in Parker's _Sir James Graham_, vol. ii. p. 388, that the wish of Lord Palmerston, expressed in a speech at Tiverton, "to see the Germans turned out of Italy by the war, has secured Gladstone ... notwithstanding the three articles of the _Quarterly_ and the thousand imprecations of late years."]

[Pageheading: MR BRIGHT]

_Viscount Palmerston to Queen Victoria._

94 PICCADILLY, _2nd July 1859_.

Viscount Palmerston presents his humble duty to your Majesty....

Viscount Palmerston has heard from several persons that Mr Bright would be highly flattered by being made a Privy Councillor; would your Majesty object to his being so made if it should turn out that he wishes it? There have been instances of persons made Privy Councillors without office, and if Mr Bright could be led by such an honour to turn his thoughts and feelings into better channels such a change could not fail to be advantageous to your Majesty's service....

_Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston._

BUCKINGHAM PALACE, _2nd July 1859_.

The Queen has received Lord Palmerston's letter of to-day. She is sorry not to be able to give her assent to his proposal with regard to Mr Bright.[54] Privy Councillors have sometimes exceptionally been made without office, yet this has been as rewards, even in such cases, for services rendered to the State. It would be impossible to allege any service Mr Bright has rendered, and if the honour were looked upon as a reward for his systematic attacks upon the institutions of the country, a very erroneous impression might be produced as to the feeling which the Queen or her Government entertain towards these institutions. It is moreover very problematical whether such an honour conferred upon Mr Bright would, as suggested, wean him from his present line of policy, whilst, if he continued in it, he would only have obtained additional weight in the country by his propounding his views as one of the Queen's Privy Councillors.

[Footnote 54: In 1859, Lord Palmerston, in offering Mr Cobden a seat in the Cabinet, rejected the idea of accepting Mr Bright as a colleague, on the ground that his public speeches made it impossible. Mr Bright, later in life, was a welcome guest at Windsor, and the Queen became warmly attached to him as one of her Ministers.]

[Pageheading: PACIFICATION OF INDIA]

_Earl Canning to Queen Victoria._

CALCUTTA, _4th July 1859_.

Lord Canning presents his humble duty to your Majesty, and begs permission to offer to your Majesty his respectful thanks for your Majesty's most gracious letter of the 18th of May.

Lord Canning ventures to believe that he is well able to figure to himself the feelings with which your Majesty will have welcomed the termination of the Mutiny and Rebellion in India, and of the chief miseries which these have brought in their train. He hopes that your Majesty will not have thought that there has been remissness in not marking this happy event by an earlier public acknowledgment and thanksgiving in India, as has already been done in England.[55] The truth is, that although this termination has long been steadily and surely approaching, it is but just now that it can be said to be complete in the eyes of those who are near to the scene of action. It is only within the last three weeks that the exertions of our Troops on the Oudh and Nepaulese frontier, and in some other parts, have been remitted, and almost every Gazette has recounted engagements with the rebels, which, although they have invariably had the same issue, would scarcely have consisted with a declaration that peace and tranquillity were restored. Now, however, military operations have fairly ceased, and the rains and the climate, which would make a continuance of those operations much to be regretted, will do their work amongst the rebels who are still in arms in the Nepaul jungles more terribly than any human avengers.

Lord Canning has used every exertion and device to bring these wretched men to submission; but many--it is difficult to say how many, but certainly some few thousands--still hold out. With some of them the reason no doubt is that they belong to the most guilty Regiments, and to those which murdered their officers; but this cannot apply to all; and it is to be feared that the prevailing cause is the bad influence of their leaders--the Nana, Bala Rao, and the Begum;[56] or rather the Begum's infamous advisers. It is certain that all of these, believing their own position to be desperate, have spared no pains to persuade their followers that the Government is seeking to entrap them, and that, if they submit, their lives will be taken....

[Footnote 55: There had been a Public Thanksgiving in England on the 1st of May.]

[Footnote 56: Bala Rao was a brother of Nana Sahib, chief instigator of the Sepoy Mutiny. See _ante_, 4th July, 1857, note 24.]

[Pageheading: A MILITARY ENQUIRY]

_Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston._

BUCKINGHAM PALACE, _5th July 1859_.

The Queen is much shocked to see that the Government last night moved for a Committee of the House of Commons to enquire into the Military Departments, without having previously communicated with the Queen on the subject. She is the more surprised at this, as Lord Palmerston told her, when she saw him on the formation of the present Government, and she expressed her anxiety on the subject, that there would be no more trouble about it, and he thought it would drop. The Queen expects that the names of those who it is proposed should compose the Committee, and the wording of it, will be submitted to her.

[Pageheading: CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION]

_Viscount Palmerston to Queen Victoria._

PICCADILLY, _5th July 1859_.

Viscount Palmerston presents his humble duty to your Majesty, and begs to state that the re-appointment of the Committee on the Organisation of the Military Departments was unavoidable. That Committee had been affirmed by the House of Commons and consented to by the late Government, and had begun its sittings; but when a Dissolution of Parliament was announced, it suspended its further sittings, with the understanding that it should be revived in the new Parliament; and to have departed from that understanding would have been impossible. That which Viscount Palmerston intended to convey in what he said to your Majesty on the subject was, that the evidence given by Lord Panmure might be deemed as having fully set aside the objection urged against the present organisation by persons unacquainted with the bearing upon it of the fundamental principles of the Constitution, namely, that the Crown acts in regard to Military matters without having any official adviser responsible for its acts. Such a condition of things, if it could exist, would be at variance with the fundamental principles of the British Constitution, and would be fraught with danger to the Crown, because then the Sovereign would be held personally answerable for administrative acts, and would be brought personally in conflict in possible cases with public opinion, a most dangerous condition for a Sovereign to be placed in.

The maxim of the British Constitution is that the Sovereign can do no wrong, but that does not mean that no wrong can be done by Royal authority; it means that if wrong be done, the public servant who advised the act, and not the Sovereign, must be held answerable for the wrongdoing.

But the Ministers of the Crown for the time being are the persons who are constitutionally held answerable for all administrative acts in the last resort, and that was the pith and substance of the evidence given by Lord Panmure. Those persons who want to make great changes in the existing arrangements were much vexed and disappointed by that evidence, and the attempt made yesterday to put off the Committee till next year on the ground that the evidence now to be taken would be one-sided only, and would tend to create erroneous impressions, was founded upon those feelings of disappointment.

Viscount Palmerston submits names of the persons whom Mr Sidney Herbert proposes to appoint on the Committee, and they seem to be well chosen.

_Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria._

PEMBROKE LODGE, _10th July 1859_. (7 P.M.)

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty. He has just received from Lord Palmerston, who is here, the paper, a copy of which is enclosed.[57]

Lord John Russell has to add that Lord Palmerston and he are humbly of opinion that your Majesty should give to the Emperor of the French the moral support which is asked. It is clearly understood that if the Emperor of Austria declines to accept the propositions, Great Britain will still maintain her neutral position.

But it is probable that her moral support will put an end to the war, and your Majesty's advisers cannot venture to make themselves responsible for its continuance by refusing to counsel your Majesty to accept the proposal of France.

[Footnote 57: At the seat of war, a series of decisive French victories had culminated in the battle of Solferino, on Midsummer Day (see _ante_, Introductory Note to