[Pageheading: COLLAPSE OF THE ATTACK]

_Mr Disraeli to Queen Victoria._[34]

HOUSE OF COMMONS, _21st May 1858_.

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

The fullest House; it is said 620 Members present; it was supposed we
should have divided at three o'clock in the morning; Mr Gladstone
was to have spoken for the Government at half-past ten--very great
excitement--when there occurred a scene perhaps unprecedented in
Parliament.

One after another, perhaps twenty Members, on the Opposition benches,
rising and entreating Mr Cardwell to withdraw his Resolution. After
some time, silence on the Government benches, Mr Cardwell went to
Lord John Russell, then to Lord Palmerston, then to Lord John Russell
again, then returned to Lord Palmerston, and retired with him.

What are called the interpellations continued, when suddenly Lord
Palmerston reappeared; embarrassed, with a faint smile; addressed the
House; and after various preluding, announced the withdrawal of the
Motion of Censure.

A various Debate followed; the Chancellor of the Exchequer
endeavouring, as far as regards Lord Canning, to fulfil your Majesty's
wishes. It is impossible to estimate the importance of this unforeseen
event to your Majesty's servants. It has strengthened them more
than the most decided division in their favour, for it has revealed
complete anarchy in the ranks of their opponents. With prudence and
vigilance all must now go right.

The speech of Sir James Graham last night produced a very great
effect. No report gives a fair idea of it. The great country
gentleman, the broad views, the fine classical allusions, the happiest
all omitted, the massy style, contrasted remarkably with Sir Richard
Bethell.

    [Footnote 34: Lord Shaftesbury's Motion in the Lords had been
    lost by a majority of nine. In the Commons, Mr Cardwell was
    replied to in a brilliant speech by Sir Hugh Cairns, the
    Solicitor-General. The speeches of Sir James Graham, Mr
    Bright, and others, showed that the Opposition was disunited,
    and when it was understood that Mr Gladstone would support the
    Ministry, the Liberal attack collapsed. Mr Disraeli, deprived
    of the satisfaction of making an effective reply, subsequently
    compared the discomfiture of his opponents to an earthquake
    in Calabria or Peru. "There was," he said, in the course of
    a speech at Slough, "a rumbling murmur, a groan, a shriek, a
    sound of distant thunder. No one knew whether it came from the
    top or bottom of the House. There was a rent, a fissure in
    the ground, and then a village disappeared, then a tall tower
    toppled down, and the whole of the Opposition benches became
    one great dissolving view of anarchy."]

[Pageheading: CAUSES OF THE COLLAPSE]

[Pageheading: OFFER TO MR GLADSTONE]

_The Earl of Derby to Queen Victoria._

ST JAMES'S SQUARE, _23rd May 1858_.
(_Sunday night._)

Lord Derby, with his humble duty, gratefully acknowledges your
Majesty's gracious letter just received, and the telegraphic message
with which he was honoured in answer to his on Friday night. Your
Majesty can hardly be expected to estimate, at a distance from the
immediate scene of action, the effect of the event of that evening.
It was the utter explosion of a well-constructed mine, under the feet,
not of the assailed, but of the assailants; and the effect has been
the greater from the immense attendance in London of Members of the
House of Commons. No effort had been spared. Lord Castlerosse, only
just married, had been sent for from Italy--but Lord Derby hopes that
he had not been induced to come--for nothing. It is said that of
the 654 Members of whom the House is composed, 626 were actually
in London. The Government could rely on 304 to 308, and the whole
question turned on the absence, or the conversion, of a small number
of "Liberal" Members. The result is to be attributed to two causes;
first, and principally, to the fear of a Dissolution, and to the
growing conviction that in case of necessity your Majesty would
sanction such a course, which had been strenuously denied by Lord
Palmerston--and in which Lord Derby hopes that your Majesty will have
seen that your Majesty's name has never, for a moment, been brought in
question; and secondly, to the effect produced by the correspondence
between the Governor-General and Sir James Outram.[35] And here
Lord Derby may perhaps be allowed the opportunity of removing a
misconception from your Majesty's mind, as to any secret intelligence
or underhand intrigue between Lord Ellenborough and Sir James Outram,
to the detriment of Lord Canning. Lord Derby is in the position
to know that if there is one person in the world to whom Lord
Ellenborough has an utter aversion, and with whom he has no personal
or private correspondence, it is Sir James Outram. Anything therefore
in common in their opinions must be the result of circumstances wholly
irrespective of private concert. Lord Derby has written fully to Lord
Canning, privately, by the mail which will go out on Tuesday; and
while he has not concealed from him the opinion of your Majesty's
servants that the Proclamation, of which so much has been said,
conveyed too sweeping an Edict of Confiscation against the landowners,
great and small, of Oudh, he has not hesitated to express also his
conviction that Lord Canning's real intentions, in execution, would
not be found widely to differ from the views of your Majesty's
servants. He has expressed to Lord Canning his regret at the premature
_publication_ of the Draft Proclamation, at the same time that he has
pointed out the injustice done both to your Majesty's Government
and to the Governor-General by the (Lord Derby will hardly call
it fraudulent) suppression of the private letters addressed to the
President of the Board of Control, and deprecating judgment on the
text of the Proclamation, until explanation should be received. Lord
Derby cannot but be of opinion that this suppression, of which Lord
Palmerston was fully cognisant, was an act which no political or party
interests were sufficient to justify.

The state of the Government, during the late crisis, was such as
to render it impossible to make any arrangement for filling up Lord
Ellenborough's place at the Board of Control. Application has since
been made to Mr Gladstone,[36] with the offer of that post, or of that
of the Colonial Department, which Lord Stanley would give up for the
convenience of your Majesty's Government, though unwillingly, for
India. Mr Gladstone demurred, on the ground of not wishing to leave
his friends; but when pressed to name whom he would wish to bring with
him, he could name none. Finally, he has written to ask advice as to
his course of Sir James Graham, who has returned to Netherby, and
of Lord Aberdeen; and by them he will probably be guided. Should he
finally refuse, Lord Stanley _must_ take India; and the Colonies must
be offered in the first instance to Sir E. B. Lytton, who probably
will refuse, as he wants a Peerage, and is doubtful of his
re-election; and failing him, to Sir William Heathcote, the Member for
the University of Oxford, who, without official experience, has great
Parliamentary knowledge and influence, and, if he will accept, is
quite equal to the duties of the office. Lord Derby trusts that your
Majesty will forgive this long intrusion on your Majesty's patience.
He has preferred the risk of it, to leaving your Majesty uninformed as
to anything which was going on, or contemplated....

If Lord Dalhousie should be in a state to converse upon public
affairs, there is no one with whom Lord Derby could confer more
confidentially than with him; nor of whose judgment, though he regrets
to differ with him as to the annexation of Oudh, he has a higher
opinion. He will endeavour to ascertain what is his present state
of health, which he fears is very unsatisfactory, and will see and
converse with him, if possible.

    [Footnote 35: Especially Outram's remonstrance against what he
    considered the excessive severity of the Proclamation.]

    [Footnote 36: See Mr Disraeli's curious letter printed in
    Morley's _Gladstone_, vol. i. p. 587, asking Mr Gladstone
    whether the time had not come when he might deign to be
    magnanimous. Sir E. B. Lytton accepted the office.]

_Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby._

BUCKINGHAM PALACE, _4th June 1858_.

The Queen has to thank Lord Derby for his satisfactory letter received
yesterday. She has heard from Mr Disraeli to-day relative to the
answer given by him to the question asked yesterday in the House of
Commons as to what the Government meant to do.[37] He says that he
hears there are rumours of other Motions on the subject. These the
Queen hopes there will be no difficulty in defeating.

The Duke of Cambridge seems rather uneasy altogether, but the Queen,
though equally anxious about it, owns she cannot contemplate
the possibility of any _real_ attempt to divest the Crown of its
prerogative in this instance. The Army will not, she feels sure, stand
it for a moment, and the Queen feels sure, that if properly defined
and explained, the House of Commons will not acquiesce in any such
disloyal proceeding.

The Queen does not understand Lord John Russell's voting with the
majority, for she never understood him to express any such opinion.

    [Footnote 37: A question was asked whether it was the
    intention of the Government to take any step in consequence
    of a resolution of the House in favour of placing the
    whole administration and control of the Army under the sole
    authority of a single Minister. Mr. Disraeli replied that
    "considering the great importance of the subject,... the
    comparatively small number of Members in the House when
    the division took pace, and the bare majority by which the
    decision was arrived at, Her Majesty's Government do not feel
    that it is their duty to recommend any measure in consequence
    of that resolution."]

[Pageheading: GOVERNMENT OF INDIA]

_Mr Disraeli to Queen Victoria._

HOUSE OF COMMONS, _24th June 1858_.

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

The India Bill was read a second time without a division.[38] Lord
Stanley made a clear and vigorous exposition of its spirit and
provisions; Mr Bright delivered a powerful oration on the condition
of India--its past government and future prospects; the rest of the
discussion weak and desultory.

No serious opposition apprehended in Committee, which the Chancellor
of the Exchequer has fixed for this day (Friday)[39] and almost hopes
that he may conclude the Committee on Monday. He proposes to proceed
with no other business until it is concluded.

When the Bill has passed, the temper of the House, and its sanitary
state,[40] will assist him in passing the remaining estimates with
rapidity; and he contemplates an early conclusion of the Session.

It will be a great thing to have carried the India Bill, which Mr
Thomas Baring, to-night, spoke of in terms of eulogy, and as a
great improvement on the project of the late Government. It is, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer really thinks, a wise and well-digested
measure, ripe with the experience of the last five months of
discussion; but it is only the antechamber of an imperial palace; and
your Majesty would do well to deign to consider the steps which are
now necessary to influence the opinions and affect the imagination of
the Indian populations. The name of your Majesty ought to be impressed
upon their native life. Royal Proclamations, Courts of Appeal, in
their own land, and other institutions, forms, and ceremonies, will
tend to this great result.

    [Footnote 38: This was the third Bill of the Session, and was
    founded on the Resolutions, _ante_, 12th April, 1858, note 26.
    The Government of India was transferred from the dual
    jurisdiction of the Company and the Board of Control, to the
    Secretary of State for India in Council, the members of the
    Council (after the provisions for representing vested interests
    should have lapsed) to be appointed by the Secretary of State.
    A certain term of residence in India was to be a necessary
    qualification, and the members were to be rendered incapable
    of sitting in Parliament, and with a tenure of office as
    assured as that of judges under the Act of Settlement.]

    [Footnote 39: The letter is ante-dated. The 24th of June was a
    Thursday.]

    [Footnote 40: In consequence of the polluted condition of
    the Thames, the Government carried a measure enabling the
    Metropolitan Board of Works, at a cost of £3,000,000, to
    purify "that noble river, the present state of which is little
    creditable to a great country, and seriously prejudicial
    to the health and comfort of the inhabitants of the
    Metropolis."--Extract from the Queen's Speech, at the close of
    the Session.]

[Pageheading: INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE]

[Pageheading: THE SOVEREIGN'S PREROGATIVES]

_Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby._

OSBORNE, _8th July 1858_.

The Queen in reading in the papers yesterday, on her way here from the
camp, the Debate in the House of Commons of the previous night, was
shocked to find that in several important points her Government have
surrendered the prerogatives of the Crown. She will only refer to the
clauses concerning the Indian Civil Service and the right of peace and
war.

With respect to the first, the regulations under which servants of
the Crown are to be admitted or examined have always been an undoubted
right and duty of the Executive; by the clause introduced by Lord
Stanley the system of "Competitive Examination" has been confirmed by
Act of Parliament. That system may be right or wrong; it has since
its introduction been carried on under the Orders in Council; now
the Crown and Government are to be deprived of any authority in the
matter, and the whole examinations, selection, and appointments,
etc., etc., are to be vested in the Civil Commissioners under a
Parliamentary title.

As to the right of the Crown to declare war and make peace, it
requires not a word of remark; yet Lord Stanley agrees to Mr
Gladstone's proposal to make over this prerogative with regard to
Indian questions to Parliament under the auspices of the Queen's
Government; she is thus placed in a position of less authority than
the President of the American Republic.[41]

When a Bill has been introduced into Parliament, after having received
the Sovereign's approval, she has the right to expect that her
Ministers will not subsequently introduce important alterations
without previously obtaining her sanction. In the first of the two
instances referred to by the Queen, Lord Stanley introduced the
alteration himself; in the second he agreed to it even without asking
for a moment's delay; and the Opposition party, which attempted to
guard the Queen's prerogative, was overborne by the Government Leader
of the House.

The Queen must remind Lord Derby that it is to him as the head of the
Government that she looks for the protection of those prerogatives
which form an integral part of the Constitution.

    [Footnote 41: An important amendment made at the instance
    of Mr Gladstone provided that, except for repelling actual
    invasion or upon urgent necessity, the Queen's Indian forces
    should not be employed in operations outside India, without
    Parliamentary sanction.]

_The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria._

LAEKEN, _16th July 1858_.

MY TRULY BELOVED VICTORIA,--Nothing can be _kinder_ or more
_affectionate_ than your dear letter of the 13th, and it would
have done _your warm heart_ good to have _seen how much I have been
delighted and moved by it_. I can only say that I love you both more
tenderly than I could love my own children. When your plans will be
nearer maturity, you will have the great kindness to let me know
what will be your Royal pleasure, to enable me _de m'y conformer bien
exactement_.

The feeling which occasions some grumbling at the Cherbourg visit[42]
is in fact a good feeling, but it is not over-wise. Two things are to
be done--(1) To make every reasonable exertion to remain on personal
good terms with the Emperor--which can be done. One party in England
says it is with the French nation that you are to be on loving terms;
this _cannot_ be, as the French dislike the English as a nation,
though they may be kind to you also personally. (2) The next is,
instead of a good deal of unnecessary abuse, to have the Navy so
organised that it can and must be superior to the French. All beyond
these two points is sheer nonsense.

After talking of Chambord,[43] to my utter horror he is here, and
asked yesterday to see me to-day. It is not fair to do so, as the
legitimists affect to this hour to consider [us] here as rebels.
I could not refuse to see him, as, though distantly, still he is a
relation; but I mean to do as they did in Holland, to receive him, but
to limit to his visit and my visit our whole intercourse. If he should
speak to me of going to England, I certainly mean to tell him _que
je considérais une visite comme tout à fait intempestive_.... Your
devoted Uncle,

LEOPOLD R.

    [Footnote 42: On the 4th of August, the Queen and Prince,
    accompanied by the Prince of Wales, visited the Emperor and
    Empress at Cherbourg.]

    [Footnote 43: See _ante_, 16th January, 1854, and note 5.]

[Pageheading: BRITISH COLUMBIA]

_Queen Victoria to Sir E. Bulwer Lytton._

OSBORNE, _24th July 1858_.

The Queen has received Sir E. Bulwer Lytton's letter.[44] If the name
of New Caledonia is objected to as being already borne by another
colony or island claimed by the French, it may be better to give the
new colony west of the Rocky Mountains another name. New Hanover,
New Cornwall, and New Georgia appear from the maps to be the names of
sub-divisions of that country, but do not appear on all maps. The only
name which is given to the whole territory in every map the Queen has
consulted is "Columbia," but as there exists also a Columbia in South
America, and the citizens of the United States call their country
also Columbia, at least in poetry, "British Columbia" might be, in the
Queen's opinion, the best name.

    [Footnote 44: Stating that objections were being made in
    France to the name of New Caledonia being given to the
    proposed colony between the Pacific and the Rocky Mountains.]

[Pageheading: ARMY COMMISSIONS]

_Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby._

OSBORNE, _29th July 1858_.

The Queen has been placed in a most unpleasant dilemma by the last
vote in the House of Commons;[45] she feels all the force of Lord
Derby's objections to risking another defeat on the same question and
converting the struggle into one against the Royal Prerogative; yet,
on the other hand, she can hardly sit still, and from mere want of
courage become a party to the most serious inroad which has yet
been made upon it. It is the introduction of the principle into
our legislation that the Sovereign is no longer the source of all
appointments under the Crown, but that these appointments are the
property of individuals under a Parliamentary title, which the Queen
feels bound to resist. Lord John Russell's Motion and Sir James
Graham's speech only went to the Civil appointments; but after their
Motion had been carried on a division, Lord Stanley gave way to Sir
De Lacy Evans also with regard to a _portion of the Army!_ If this
principle is recognised and sanctioned by the entire legislature, its
future extension can no longer be resisted on constitutional grounds,
and Lord John in fact reminded Lord Stanley that the latter had
stated that he only refrained from making the application general from
thinking it _premature_, himself being of opinion that it ought to
be carried further, and yet its extension to the Army reduces the
Sovereign to a mere signing machine, as, to carry the case to its
extreme consequence, _Law_ would _compel_ her to sign the Commission
for the officers, and they might have the right to sue at law for the
recovery of their property vested in them by Act of Parliament (viz.,
their Commissions) if the Crown doubted for any reason the fitness of
an appointment!! Have these consequences been considered and brought
distinctly before Parliament? It strikes the Queen that all the
Commons want is a Parliamentary security against the abolition of the
Competitive System of Examinations by the Executive. Can this not
be obtained by means less subversive of the whole character of our
Constitution? The Queen cannot believe that Lord Derby could not find
means to come to some agreement with the Opposition, and she trusts he
will leave nothing undone to effect this.

    [Footnote 45: The Lords Amendments on the subject of
    competitive examination were rejected by a majority of
    thirteen in the Commons, and, in the circumstances, Lord Derby
    had advised abiding by the decision and not risking another
    defeat.]

[Pageheading: NAVAL ESTIMATES]

_Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby._

OSBORNE, _2nd August 1858_.

The Queen feels it her duty to address a few lines to Lord Derby on
the subject of the reports made to Sir John Pakington on the subject
of the French Naval preparations, to which she has already verbally
adverted when she saw Lord Derby last. These reports reveal a state
of things of the greatest moment to this country. It will be the first
time in her history that she will find herself in an absolute minority
of ships on the sea! and this inferiority will be much greater
in reality than even apparent, as our fleet will have to defend
possessions and commerce all over the world, and has even in Europe
a strategical line to hold extending from Malta to Heligoland, whilst
France keeps her fleet together and occupies the centre of that line
in Europe.

The Queen thinks it irreconcilable with the duty which the Government
owes to the country to be aware of this state of things without
straining every nerve to remedy it. With regard to men in whom we
are also totally deficient in case of an emergency, a Commission of
Enquiry is sitting to devise a remedy; but with regard to our ships
and dockyards we require action, and immediate action. The plan
proposed by the Surveyor of the Navy appears to the Queen excessively
moderate and judicious, and she trusts that the Cabinet will not
hesitate to empower its execution, bearing in mind that £200,000
spent now will probably do more work during the six or nine months
for working before us, than £2,000,000 would if voted in next year's
estimate, letting our arrears in the dockyards, already admitted to
be very great, accumulate in the interval. Time is most precious under
these circumstances!

It is true that this sum of money would be in excess of the estimates
of last Session, but the Queen feels sure that on the faith of the
reports made by the Admiralty, the Government would find no difficulty
in convincing Parliament that they have been good stewards of
the public money, in taking courageously the responsibility upon
themselves to spend judiciously what is necessary, and that the
country will be deeply grateful for the honesty with which they will
have served her.

The Queen wishes Lord Derby to communicate this letter to the Cabinet.

_Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby._

BABELSBERG, _15th August 1858_.

The Queen has asked Lord Malmesbury to explain in detail to Lord Derby
her objections to the draft of Proclamation for India. The Queen
would be glad if Lord Derby would write it himself in his excellent
language, bearing in mind that it is a female Sovereign who speaks
to more than 100,000,000 of Eastern people on assuming the direct
Government over them after a bloody civil war, giving them pledges
which her future reign is to redeem, and explaining the principles of
her Government. Such a document should breathe feelings of generosity,
benevolence, and religious feeling, pointing out the privileges which
the Indians will receive in being placed on an equality with the
subjects of the British Crown, and the prosperity following in the
train of civilisation.[46]

    [Footnote 46: The draft Proclamation was accordingly altered
    so as to be in strict harmony with the Queen's wishes. See
    _post_, 2nd December, 1858, and note 52.]

[Pageheading: PROCLAMATION FOR INDIA]

_Queen Victoria to Lord Stanley._

OSBORNE, _4th September 1858_.

The Queen sends to Lord Stanley a Memorandum embodying her wishes with
respect to the transaction of business between herself and the new
Secretary of State. He will find that she has omitted any reference
to Military appointments, as Lord Stanley seemed anxious to defer a
settlement on this point; she expects, however, that in all cases in
which her pleasure was taken by the Commander-in-Chief, even during
the administration of the East India Company and Board of Control, the
same practice will be continued unaltered.

The Queen has received Lord Stanley's letter of yesterday. He has
given her no answer with respect to Sir James Melvill.[47]

Whenever the Proclamation is finally printed, the Queen would wish
to have a copy sent her. A letter she has received from Lady Canning
speaks of Lord Canning's supposed Amnesty in Oudh as a fabrication;
she has sent the letter to Lord Derby.

    [Footnote 47: The Queen had asked how it was that Sir J.
    Melvill's name was not included among those submitted to
    her for appointments in connection with the new military
    organisation in India. Sir James had been Financial Secretary,
    and afterwards Chief Secretary, for the East India Company. He
    now became the Government Director of Indian railways, and a
    Member of the Council of India.]

_Memorandum by Queen Victoria._

OSBORNE, _4th September 1858_.

The Queen wishes the practice of the Office[48] with reference to
submissions to her to be as nearly as possible assimilated to that of
the Foreign Office.

All despatches, when received and perused by the Secretary of State,
to be sent to the Queen. They may be merely forwarded in boxes from
the Office without being accompanied by any letter from the Secretary
of State, unless he should think an explanation necessary. No draft of
instructions or orders to be sent out without having been previously
submitted to the Queen. The label on the boxes of the Office
containing such drafts to be marked "For Approval."

In cases of Civil appointments the Secretary of State will himself
take the Queen's pleasure before communicating with the gentlemen to
be appointed.

Copies or a _précis_ of the Minutes of the Council to be regularly
transmitted to the Queen.

The Secretary of State to obtain the Queen's sanction to important
measures previously to his bringing them before the Council for
discussion.

    [Footnote 48: The India Office.]

[Pageheading: LORD PALMERSTON]

_Memorandum by the Prince Albert._

OSBORNE, _4th September 1858_.

The most remarkable feature of the last Session of Parliament has been
the extraordinary unpopularity of Lord Palmerston, for which nothing
can account; the only direct reproach which is made to him, is to have
appointed Lord Clanricarde Privy Seal, and to have been overbearing in
his manner. Yet a House of Commons, having been elected solely for the
object, and on the ground of supporting Lord Palmerston personally
(an instance in our Parliamentary history without parallel), holds him
suddenly in such abhorrence, that not satisfied with having upset his
Government, which had been successful in all its policy, and thrown
him out, it will hardly listen to him when he speaks. He is frequently
received with hooting, and throughout the last Session it sufficed
that [he] took up any cause for the whole House voting against
it, even if contrary to the principles which they had themselves
advocated, merely to have the satisfaction of putting him into a
minority. How can this be accounted for? The man who was without
rhyme or reason stamped the only _English_ statesman, the champion of
liberty, the man of the people, etc., etc., now, without his having
changed in any one respect, having still the same virtues and the same
faults that he always had, young and vigorous in his seventy-fifth
year, and having succeeded in his policy, is now considered the head
of a clique, the man of intrigue, past his work, etc., etc.--in fact
hated! and this throughout the country. I cannot explain the enigma
except by supposing that people had before joined in a cry which they
thought was popular without themselves believing what they said and
wrote, and that they now do the same; that the Radicals used his name
to destroy other statesmen and politicians, and are destroying him now
in his turn; that they hoped to govern through him, and that they
see a better chance now of doing it through a weak and incapable Tory
Government which has entered into a secret bargain for their support.
Still the phenomenon remains most curious.[49]

[Footnote 49: Charles Greville, in his Journal (16th June 1858), noted
the same circumstance, and drew the inference that Palmerston's public
career was drawing to a close.]

Lord Palmerston himself remains, outwardly at least, quite cheerful,
and seems to care very little about his reverses; he speaks on all
subjects, bids for the Liberal support as before, even at the expense
of his better conviction (as he used to do), and keeps as much as
possible before the public; he made an official tour in Ireland, and
is gone to visit the Emperor Napoleon at Paris; his Chinese policy
upon which the general Dissolution had taken place in 1857 has just
been crowned by the most complete success by the advantageous treaty
signed at Pekin by Lord Elgin; and yet even for this the public will
not allow him any credit. Lady Palmerston, on the contrary, is said to
be very unhappy and very much hurt.

ALBERT.

[Pageheading: THE IONIAN ISLANDS]

_Sir E. Bulwer Lytton to Queen Victoria._

COLONIAL OFFICE, _1st November 1858_.

Sir E. B. Lytton, with his humble duty to the Queen, submits to your
Majesty's pleasure the appointment of the Right Honourable W. E.
Gladstone, as special High Commissioner to the Ionian Islands.

Differences of long standing between the Executive and Legislative
branches of the Ionian Constitution, aggravated by recent dissensions
between the Senate and Municipal Magistrature, render it very
expedient to obtain the opinion of a statesman of eminence, formed
upon the spot, as to any improvements in the workings and results
of the Constitution which it might be in the power of the protecting
Sovereign to effect. And Sir Edward thinks it fortunate for the public
service that a person so distinguished and able as Mr Gladstone should
be induced to undertake this mission.

Sir Edward ventures to add that, should Her Majesty be graciously
pleased to approve this appointment, it is extremely desirable that
Mr Gladstone should depart at the earliest possible day, and that Sir
Edward may be enabled to make the requisite announcement to the Lord
High Commissioner by the first mail.

[Pageheading: LORD STANLEY AND MR DISRAELI]

[Pageheading: SUGGESTED RESIGNATION]

_Mr Disraeli to the Prince Albert._

GROSVENOR GATE, _18th November 1858_.
(_Wednesday night._)

SIR,--After the Committee of the Cabinet on the Reform Bill, which
sat this morning for five hours, Lord Stanley expressed a wish to have
some private conversation with me.

Although I would willingly have deferred the interview till a moment
when I was less exhausted, I did not think it wise, with a person of
his temperament, to baulk an occasion, and therefore assented at once.

I give your Royal Highness faithfully, but feebly, and not completely,
the results of our conversation.

1. With respect to the relations between his office and Her Majesty,
he said he was conscious that they had been conducted with great
deficiency of form, and, in many respects, in an unsatisfactory
manner; but he attributed all this to the inexperience and "sheer
ignorance" of a Department which had not been accustomed to direct
communication with the Crown. Some portion of this, he said, he had
already remedied, and he wished to remedy all, though he experienced
difficulties, on some of which he consulted me.

He accepted, without reserve, and cordially, my position, that he must
act always as the Minister of the Queen, and not of the Council, but
he said I took an exaggerated view of his relations with that body;
that he thoroughly knew their respective places, and should be
vigilant that they did [? not] overstep their limits; that he had
never been, of which he reminded me, an admirer of the East India
Company, and had no intention of reviving their system; that the
incident of submitting the legal case to the Council, etc., had
originated in a demand on the part of the Commander-in-Chief, which
involved, if complied with, a grant of money, and that, under these
circumstances, an appeal to the Council was inevitable.

2. He agreed with me, that, on all military matters, he would
habitually communicate with the Commander-in-Chief, and take His Royal
Highness's advice on all such points; and that copies of all military
papers, as I understood Lord Stanley, should be furnished to His Royal
Highness.

3. Having arrived at this point, I laid before him the views
respecting _military unity_, which formed the subject matter of
recent conversations. Lord Stanley assented to the principles which
I attempted to enforce; and in reply to my reminding him that the
old military system of India had entirely broken down, he said
he contemplated terminating the independent authority of the
Commander-in-Chief at the inferior Presidencies, and of
establishing the absolute and complete authority of Her Majesty's
Commander-in-Chief in India. He did not seem to see his way to any
further step at present, and I did not think it judicious on this
occasion to press the subject further.

Throughout this interview, Lord Stanley's manner was candid, very
conciliatory, and, for him, even soft. He was pleased to say that it
was a source of great satisfaction to him that your Royal Highness had
deigned to confer confidentially with me on the subject, and make me,
as it were, a "Mediator" on matters which, he assured me with great
emphasis, had occasioned him an amount of anxiety almost intolerable.

He had recurred, in the course of this interview, to a suggestion
which he had thrown out on Tuesday, viz. that the difficulties of the
position might be removed, or greatly mitigated, by his retirement
from the office, and accepting, if his continuance in the Government
was desirable, another post. I therefore thought it best at once to
point out to him that such a course of proceeding would only aggravate
all the inconveniences and annoyances at present existing; that his
retirement would be the signal for exaggerated rumours and factious
machinations, and would have the most baneful effect on the discussion
in Parliament generally of all those military topics with which we
were threatened; that, far from being satisfactory to Her Majesty and
your Royal Highness, I was convinced that the Queen and yourself would
hear of such an intention with regret.

Lord Stanley ultimately adopted entirely this view of his position,
and he parted from me with an earnest expression of his hope that the
painful misconceptions which had prevailed might at once, or at least
in due course, entirely disappear.

This, Sir, is a very imperfect report of an important interview, but,
as I collected from Lord Stanley, that nothing was really settled in
his conference on Tuesday with Lord Derby and the Lord Chancellor, I
have thought it my duty, without loss of time, to forward it to your
Royal Highness, and have the honour to remain, ever, Sir, your most
obedient and sincerely obliged Servant,

B. DISRAELI.

_The Prince Albert to Mr Disraeli._

WINDSOR CASTLE, _18th November 1858_.

MY DEAR MR DISRAELI,--I am very much obliged to you for your long
letter after a Cabinet meeting of five hours, and subsequent interview
with Lord Stanley, whom I am much pleased to hear you found so anxious
to remedy the present state of things. I am glad that you made it
clear to him that the Queen had never connected in her mind the
objections which she felt bound to take with anything personal,
which could be removed by Lord Stanley's relinquishing the Indian
Secretaryship. The difficulty would still remain to be solved, only
under additional complication and disadvantage. Lord Derby told me
to-day that he was drawing up a Memorandum which, when seen by the
Chancellor and Lord Stanley, was to be submitted to the Queen. Ever
yours truly,

ALBERT.[50]

    [Footnote 50: On the same day Lord Stanley wrote a lengthy
    letter to the Queen justifying the course he had taken.]

[Pageheading: THE INDIA OFFICE]

_Queen Victoria to Lord Stanley_.

WINDSOR CASTLE, _20th November 1858._

The Queen has received Lord Stanley's letter entering into the subject
of the difficulties which have arisen in the conduct of the new Indian
Department. She had from the first foreseen that it would not be
an easy matter to bring the establishments of the old Company's
Government to fall into the practice and usages of the Constitutional
Monarchy, and was therefore most anxious that distinct rules should
be laid down before the installation of the new Government, which
unfortunately was not done, but she trusts will now be devised and
adopted.

The Queen most readily gives Lord Stanley credit for every intention
to remove the obstacles in the way of the solution of these
difficulties as far as he was able, but she cannot but fear that the
particular form in which the opinion of the Law Officers has been
asked, and the fact [that] the eighteen members of the Council (all
naturally wedded to a system under which they were trained) were made
parties to the discussion between herself and her Secretary of State
on these difficulties--must increase instead of diminishing them.

The account given by Mr Temple, together with the last printed letters
and Memoranda from the Punjab, give us serious cause of apprehension
for the future, and show that the _British_ Army is the only safeguard
at present.

[Pageheading: LORD CANNING'S PROCLAMATION]

_Queen Victoria to Viscount Canning._[51]

WINDSOR CASTLE, _2nd December 1858_.

The Queen acknowledges the receipt of Lord Canning's letter of the
19th October, which she received on the 29th November, which has given
her great pleasure.

It is a source of great satisfaction and pride to her to feel herself
in direct communication with that enormous Empire which is so bright a
jewel of her Crown, and which she would wish to see happy, contented,
and peaceful. May the publication of her Proclamation be the beginning
of a new era, and may it draw a veil over the sad and bloody past!

The Queen rejoices to hear that her Viceroy approves this passage
about Religion.[52] She strongly insisted on it. She trusts also that
the certainty of the Amnesty remaining open till the 1st January may
not be productive of serious evil.

The Queen must express our admiration of Lord Canning's own
Proclamation, the wording of which is beautiful. The telegram received
to-day brings continued good news, and announces her proclamation
having been read, and having produced a good effect.

The Queen hopes to hear from Lord Canning, whenever he can spare time
to write. She misses hearing from Lady Canning, not having heard from
her since the 30th August; but the Queen fears that she is herself
to blame, as she has not written to Lady Canning for a long time; she
intends doing so by the next mail....

Both the Prince and herself hope that Lord Canning's health is now
perfectly good, as well as dear Lady Canning's. We ask him to remember
us to her, and also to Lord Clyde.

The Queen concludes with every wish for Lord Canning's success and
prosperity, and with the assurance of her undiminished and entire
confidence.

    [Footnote 51: The Queen's Proclamation to her Indian subjects
    had been received by Lord Canning on the 17th of October, when
    he also learned that the title of Viceroy was in future to
    dignify the Governor-General's office.]

    [Footnote 52: "Firmly relying ourselves on the truth of
    Christianity, and acknowledging with gratitude the solace of
    religion, we disclaim alike the right and desire to impose
    our convictions on any of our subjects." The Proclamation
    proceeded to state that all the Queen's Indian subjects should
    be impartially protected by the law, and live unmolested in
    the observance of their several religions.]

[Pageheading: FRANCE AND ITALY]

_The Earl of Malmesbury to Queen Victoria._

LONDON, _10th December 1858_.

The Earl of Malmesbury presents his humble duty to the Queen, and
has already anticipated your Majesty's wishes respecting the Emperor
Napoleon.[53] Lord Malmesbury has written to Lord Cowley a private
letter, desiring him to show it to His Majesty. It is in the same
sense as your Majesty's, and states that if he is anxious to improve
the lot of the worst governed country, namely the Papal States, he
should, instead of sulking with Austria, make an attempt with his
Catholic brother to ameliorate the Papal Government. It is not for
Protestant England to take the initiative, as her object would be
misunderstood and attributed to sectarian motives; but England could
give her moral support, and even her material aid _eventually_, if
it were required to establish an improved Administration of the
Roman States. Austria would gain by having a quiet frontier. The
correspondence which took place in 1856 and 1857 between Lord
Clarendon and Mr Lyons shows that this is the only effective way of
ameliorating the condition of Italy without a war.

Lord Malmesbury thinks he can assure your Majesty that none is
at present contemplated by the Emperor Napoleon (who has just
contradicted the report officially), and Count Buol is of the same
opinion. The latter is constantly hurting the vanity of the French
Government by his irritable despatches, and neither party makes the
slightest effort to command their temper; but it appears impossible
that Napoleon can make a _casus belli_ against Austria. Besides this,
your Majesty may be assured that no warlike preparations are making in
France, such as must precede such a plan as an Italian war.

Lord Malmesbury entirely agrees with your Majesty that it is desirable
that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales should visit and remain
at Rome incognito. It is also indispensable that when there His Royal
Highness should receive no foreigner or stranger _alone_, so that
no reports of pretended conversations with such persons could be
circulated without immediate refutation by Colonel Bruce. Lord
Malmesbury will instruct Mr Odo Russell to inform His Holiness of your
Majesty's intentions in respect of the Prince.

    [Footnote 53: Viz. that the Emperor's mind should be diverted
    from his project of originating a war in Italy. On the
    previous day Lord Malmesbury had written to the Queen: "Lord
    Clarendon may have told your Majesty that the Emperor Napoleon
    was so ignorant of the locality of Villafranca that he looked
    for it on the map in the Adriatic, and was confounded when
    Lord Clarendon showed His Majesty that it was the Port of Nice
    and ten miles from his frontier!"]

_Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians._

OSBORNE, _17th December 1858_.

MY DEAREST UNCLE,--I wrote in such a hurry on Wednesday that I wish to
make amends by writing again to-day, and entering more properly into
what _you_ wrote about in your kind letter....

I really _hope_ that there is no _real_ desire for war in the
Emperor's mind; we have also explained to him strongly how _entirely_
he would _alienate_ us from him if there was any _attempt_ to _disturb
standing and binding treaties_. The Empress-Dowager of Russia[54] is
very ill, they say, with bronchitis and fever.

I did not tell you, that when we went on the 2nd to Claremont I was
_not_ pleased with the Queen's appearance. She had had a slight cold,
and I thought her very _feeble_. They keep her rooms so fearfully
[hot] that it must really be _very_ weakening for her and predispose
her to cold. I am ever, your devoted Niece,

VICTORIA R.

    [Footnote 54: The Empress Alexandra Feodorovna (formerly the
    Princess Louise Charlotte of Prussia, sister to King Frederick
    William IV.), widow of the Emperor Nicholas.]

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

TO CHAPTER XXVIII

Parliamentary Reform was the question of the hour at the outset of the
year 1859, and the Derby Government, though with difficulty able to
maintain itself in power, took the courageous step of introducing
a Reform Bill, the chief feature of which was the introduction of
a franchise based on personal property. Mr Walpole and Mr Henley
thereupon withdrew from the Ministry, and Lord John Russell,
from below the gangway, proposed an Amendment, protesting against
interference with the established freehold franchise, and calling for
a larger extension of the suffrage in towns. Lord Palmerston and the
Liberal Opposition supported the Amendment, while Mr Gladstone, who
was opposed to most of the provisions of the Bill, supported it in
preference to the Amendment, pleading, at the same time, for the
retention of the small boroughs. The Ministry were defeated, and
Parliament thereupon dissolved, but not until the civil functionaries
and all ranks of the native and European army had received its thanks
for the final suppression of the Indian Mutiny. The Ministry gained
twenty-five seats at the polls, but were still in a minority, and as
soon as it was known that Lord John Russell and Lord Palmerston were
reconciled, the end was in sight. A hostile Amendment to the
Address was carried by a majority of thirteen, but on Lord Derby's
resignation, the Queen was placed in a dilemma by the competing claims
of Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell, who had each been Prime
Minister and leader of the Liberal Party. Unwilling to be compelled to
decide between them, she called upon Lord Granville to form a
Ministry representative of all sections of the Liberal Party; but the
difficulties proved insuperable, and Lord Palmerston eventually formed
a Ministry in which the Whigs, the Peelites, and the Manchester
School were all represented, though Mr Cobden declined to join the
Government. Mr Gladstone, who had returned from the mission he had
undertaken for the Derby Cabinet, and voted with them in the critical
division, became Chancellor of the Exchequer, and kept his seat for
Oxford University by a majority of nearly two hundred.

The continent of Europe was the scene of a contest between Austria on
the one hand, who was struggling to maintain her position in Italy,
and France with Sardinia on the other. Sardinia, under the guidance of
Cavour, had joined the alliance of England and France against Russia;
and in July 1858 an interview at Plombières, under rather mysterious
circumstances, between Cavour and Louis Napoleon, led to effective
confederacy; a marriage, arranged or suggested at the same time,
between Princess Clothilde of Sardinia and a cousin of the Emperor,
brought the two illustrious houses still closer together. In the
spring of 1859, Sardinia prepared to take up arms to resist Austrian
predominance, and the assistance of the guerilla leader, Garibaldi,
was obtained. Count Cavour, in reply to interrogatories from the
British Government, stated officially his grievances against Austria,
while Lord Malmesbury despatched Lord Cowley on a special mission to
Vienna to mediate between Austria and France. In April, however,
after a curt summons to the Sardinians to disarm had been disregarded,
Austria invaded Piedmont, and Victor Emmanuel placed himself at the
head of his army. The first engagement took place, with unfavourable
results to the Austrians, at Montebello, followed by French victories
at Palestro and Magenta. A revolution had meanwhile taken place in
Florence. The Grand Duke had fled, and a Commissioner to administer
the affairs of the Grand Duchy had been appointed by the King
of Sardinia with the assent of the Tuscans, who now joined the
Franco-Sardinian alliance, while risings also took place in Parma and
Modena. The Austrians were again defeated at Malegnano, and, on the
8th of June, the French Emperor and King Victor Emmanuel entered Milan
amid great enthusiasm. The bloody action of Solferino was fought
on the 24th of June, but on the 11th of July a treaty of peace was,
somewhat unexpectedly, concluded between the French and Austrian
Emperors at Villafranca, under which an Italian Confederation was to
be erected, Lombardy substantially ceded to Sardinia, the Grand Duke
of Tuscany and the Duke of Modena reinstated, and Venetia, though
included in the Confederation, to remain subject to the Imperial Crown
of Austria; these preliminaries were subsequently converted into
a definite treaty at Zurich. Meanwhile, the newly constituted
representative Assemblies in Tuscany, Romagna, and the Duchies,
unanimously pronounced for incorporation in the kingdom of Victor
Emmanuel.

At home, on the 14th of October, the Queen opened the Glasgow
waterworks at the outflow of Loch Katrine, the construction of which
had necessitated engineering operations at that time considered
stupendous; a few days later an appalling shipping calamity occurred,
in the wreck of the _Royal Charter_ near Anglesey, and the loss of 459
lives.

CHAPTER XXVIII

1859

_Queen Victoria to Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton._

WINDSOR CASTLE, _7th January 1859_.

The Queen returns Mr Gladstone's letters, and gladly accepts his
patriotic offer.[1] He will have difficulty in solving a delicate
question, affecting national feeling, against time, but his offer
comes most opportunely.

    [Footnote 1: See _ante_, 1st November, 1858. Mr Gladstone
    had been sent to enquire into the causes of the
    dissatisfaction of the inhabitants of the Ionian Islands
    with their High Commissioner, Sir John Young. He now
    offered to act himself for a limited time as High
    Commissioner, should it be decided to recall Sir John.
    He was succeeded in February by Sir Henry Storks.]

[Pageheading: NATIONAL DEFENCES]

_Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby._

WINDSOR CASTLE, _13th January 1859_.

As the Cabinet are now meeting, and will probably come to a decision
about the estimates for the year, the Queen thinks it her duty to
urge upon them in the strongest manner her conviction that, under the
present aspect of political affairs in Europe, there will be no safety
to the honour, power, and peace of this country except in Naval and
Military strength. The extraordinary exertions which France is making
in her Naval Department oblige us to exercise the utmost vigour to
keep up a superiority at sea, upon which our very existence may be
said to depend, and which would be already lost at any moment that
France were to be joined by any other country possessing a Navy.[2]
The war in India has drained us of every available Battalion. We
possess at this moment only fourteen old Battalions of the Line within
the three kingdoms, and twelve Second Battalions newly raised, whilst
our Mediterranean possessions are under-garrisoned, and Alderney has
not as yet any garrison at all. Under these circumstances the
Queen has heard it rumoured that the Government intend to propose a
reduction on the estimates of 9,000 men for this year. She trusts that
such an idea, if ever entertained, will upon reflection be given up
as inconsistent with the duty which the Government owe to the country.
Even if it were said that these 9,000 men have only existed on paper,
and have not yet been raised, such an act at this moment would be
indefensible; for it would require a proof that circumstances have
arisen which make it desirable to ask for fewer troops than were
considered requisite when the last estimates were passed, which really
cannot be said to be the case! To be able to raise at any time an
additional 9,000 men (in political danger) without having to go to
Parliament for a supplementary vote and spreading alarm thereby, must
be of the utmost value to the Government, and if not wanted, the vote
will entail no additional expense.

England will not be listened to in Europe, and be powerless for the
preservation of the general peace, which must be her first object
under the present circumstances, if she is known to be despicably
weak in her military resources, and no statesman will, the Queen
apprehends, maintain that if a European war were to break out she
could hope to remain long out of it. For peace and for war, therefore,
an available Army is a necessity to her.

The Queen wishes Lord Derby to communicate this letter to the Cabinet.

    [Footnote 2: The French Emperor had signalised the opening of
    a new year by an ominous speech. To M. Hübner, the Austrian
    Ambassador at Paris, who had attended, with the other foreign
    representatives, to offer the usual congratulations on the 1st
    of January, he observed: "I regret that the relations between
    our two Governments are not more satisfactory; but I beg
    you to assure the Emperor that they in no respect alter my
    feelings of friendship to himself."]

[Pageheading: THE POPE]

[Pageheading: THE POPE AND LORD PALMERSTON]

_Mr Odo Russell[3] to Mr Corbett._[4]

(_Submitted to Queen Victoria_.)

ROME, _14th January 1859_.

SIR,--I had the honour of being received by the Pope at a private
audience this morning at the Vatican. No one else was present.

His Holiness, whose manner towards me was most kind and benevolent,
said: "You are appointed to succeed a very good man,[5] for whom I
felt great affection, and I regret that he has left Rome. You may be
as good as he was, and we shall become friends, but I do not know you
yet, and Mr Lyons I had known for many years; he is going to America,
I hear, and he will find the Americans far more difficult to deal with
than with us.

"I am much gratified to hear that the Prince of Wales is likely to
visit Rome, and Her Majesty, I feel sure, has done well to allow him
to prosecute his studies here. It will be an honour to me to receive
him at the Vatican, and I beg that you will confer with Cardinal
Antonelli[6] as to the best means of making the Prince's visit here
useful and pleasant. We are anxious that all his wishes should be
attended to, that he may preserve a pleasant recollection of Rome
in the future. Alas! so many erroneous impressions exist about this
country that I hope you will not judge of us too rashly. We are
advised to make reforms, and it is not understood that those very
reforms, which would consist in giving this country a Government of
laymen, would make it cease to exist. It is called 'States of the
Church' (_États de l' Église_), and that is what it must remain. It
is true I have lately appointed a layman to a post formerly held by an
ecclesiastic, and I may do so again occasionally; but, however small
we may be, we cannot yield to outer pressure, and this country must
be administered by men of the Church. For my part, I shall fulfil my
duties according to my conscience, and should Governments and events
turn against me they cannot make me yield. I shall go with the
faithful to the Catacombs, as did the Christians of the early
centuries, and there await the will of the Supreme Being, for I dread
no human Power upon earth and fear nothing but God."

"But, Holy Father," I said, "you speak as if some great danger
threatened Rome--is there any [real?] cause for apprehension?"

"Have you not heard," His Holiness answered, "that great excitement
prevails throughout Italy?--the state of Lombardy is deplorable; evil
spirits are at work even in my dominions, and the late speech of
the King of Sardinia is calculated to inflame the minds of all
the revolutionary men of Italy. It is true he says he will observe
existing Treaties, but that will scarcely counter-balance the effect
produced by other portions of his speech. News has also reached me of
an extensive amnesty granted by the King of Naples--he did not yield
to outer pressure, and he was right--but now, on the occasion of the
marriage of his son, an act of clemency on his part is well advised."

"Is it true," I said, "that political prisoners are included in that
Amnesty?"

"Yes," His Holiness answered; "I saw the name of Settembrini, and
I think also of that other man in whom your Government took so much
interest--his name begins with a 'P' if I remember rightly----"

"Poerio," I suggested.

"That is the name," the Pope continued; "and I fancy that all the
other political prisoners will be released; they are to be sent to
Cadiz at the expense of the King, they are to be clothed and receive
some money, I believe, and after that arrangements have been made
with the Minister of the United States to have them conveyed to that
country; they are to be exiled for life. I hope this event may
have the effect of making your Government and that of France renew
diplomatic relations with Naples; I always regretted that rupture, but
the King was right not to yield to outer pressure.

"It is lucky," the Pope ended with a smile, "that Lord Palmerston
is not in office; he was too fond of interfering in the concerns of
foreign countries, and the present crisis would just have suited
him. _Addio, caro_," the Pope then said, and dismissed me with his
blessing.

I then, according to usage, called on Cardinal Antonelli, and
recounted to him what had passed. He confirmed all the Pope had
said, but denied that there was any very serious cause for immediate
apprehension of any general disturbance of the peace of Italy. I have,
etc.,

ODO RUSSELL.

    [Footnote 3: Secretary of Legation at Florence, resident in
    Rome, afterwards Lord Ampthill.]

    [Footnote 4: Secretary of Legation at Florence, afterwards
    successively Minister at Rio Janeiro and Stockholm.]

    [Footnote 5: Richard Bickerton Pemell Lyons, who had just been
    transferred from Rome to Washington. He had recently succeeded
    his father, the Admiral, in the Barony of Lyons, and was
    himself subsequently promoted to an Earldom.]

    [Footnote 6: Secretary of Foreign Affairs for the Papal
    States.]

_The Earl of Malmesbury to Queen Victoria._

LONDON, _18th January 1859_.

The Earl of Malmesbury presents his humble duty to the Queen, and
has the honour to inform your Majesty that he has seen the French
Ambassador to-day, who came of his own accord to say that we need be
in no apprehension, of a war _at present_, as the public opinion in
France, especially in the large towns, had been so strongly pronounced
against a war that it was impossible. Lord Malmesbury is also glad to
inform your Majesty that the Cabinet has agreed to-day to make a great
addition to the effective force of your Majesty's Navy.

Your Majesty's commands are obeyed respecting the telegram to Berlin.

_The Earl of Malmesbury to Queen Victoria._

LONDON, 25th _January 1859_.

The Earl of Malmesbury presents his humble duty to the Queen, and
regrets to say that he shares your Majesty's apprehensions. The
Emperor is extremely irritated at our not concurring in his views on
Italy, and Lord Malmesbury believes that nothing will restrain him but
the public opinion expressed against them, in France.[7] Austria
has, against all our advice and common prudence, made a false move by
sending troops into the Papal States _against_ the wish of _the Pope_,
and is now obliged to recall them. The speech of your Majesty is to
be discussed in Cabinet to-day. Lord Derby intended to introduce a
paragraph stating that your Majesty's Alliance with France remained
"unimpaired," but it now appears to us that such a statement might
provoke a question "_why_" it should be made a special one. Lord
Malmesbury entirely agrees with your Majesty as to an allusion to
Treaties.

    [Footnote 7: Yet the Emperor had just written to Queen
    Victoria on 20th January: "Le corps législatif va bientôt
    s'ouvrir, presque en même temps que le parlement; je tâcherai
    d'exprimer dans mon discours tout le désir que j'ai de vivre
    toujours en bonne et sincère intelligence avec votre Majesté
    et son gouvernement." Early in February the pamphlet _Napoléon
    et l'Italie_, nominally written by M. de la Guéronnière, but
    inspired by the Emperor, foreshadowed the war in Italy, and
    attempted to justify it.]

[Pageheading: LORD CANNING]

_Queen Victoria to Lord Stanley._

WINDSOR CASTLE, _25th January 1859_.

The Queen thinks that the time is come when the bestowal of some
honour or reward on Lord Canning ought no longer to be delayed. He has
now nearly arrived at the end of his tremendous task of quelling the
Rebellion, and has triumphed over all his many difficulties. If any
man deserves an acknowledgment of his services at the hands of the
Crown, it is surely he, and the Queen would be sorry that the grace
of it should be taken away from her by questions being asked in
Parliament when it is assembled again, which will now be the case very
soon.

A step in the Peerage and the G.C.B. appear to the Queen an
appropriate reward. Perhaps a pension should be awarded to him? Lord
Elphinstone also ought not to be left unrewarded, and a step in the
Peerage with the G.C.B. does not appear too high an honour for him,
for he also has greatly contributed to the saving to the Indian
Empire.[8]

    [Footnote 8: Lord Canning was made an Earl and Lord
    Elphinstone (who had been Governor of Bombay during the
    Mutiny) a Peer of the United Kingdom, and both received the
    G.C.B.]

[Pageheading: THE QUEEN'S FIRST GRANDCHILD]

_Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians._

BUCKINGHAM PALACE, _2nd February 1859_.

MY DEAREST, KINDEST UNCLE,--Accept my warmest thanks for your most
kind letter of the 28th. I know how pleased you would be at the
safety of our dear Vicky, and at the birth of our first grandson![9]
Everything goes on so beautifully, Vicky recovering as fast and well
as I did, and the dear little boy improving so much and thriving in
every way.... The joy and interest taken _here_ is as great almost as
in Prussia, which is _very_ gratifying.

I _think_ that _the Speech_ will do good, but it has not been easy
to frame it, as the feeling _against_ the _Emperor here_ is _very
strong_. I think _yet_ that if _Austria_ is _strong_ and _well
prepared,_ and _Germany strong_ and _well inclined_ towards _us_ (as
_Prussia certainly_ is), France will _not_ be so eager to attempt
what I _firmly_ believe would _end_ in the _Emperor's_ downfall! Old
Malakhoff _himself_ said to the Duchess of Wellington that if the
French had the _slightest defeat ce serait fini avec la Dynastie!_ A
pretty speech for an Ambassador, but a _very true one!_

Pray say everything most kind to your dear children and believe me
ever, your devoted Niece,

VICTORIA R.

We are just arrived here, and go back to Windsor to-morrow
_afternoon_.

    [Footnote 9: Frederick William Victor Albert, now German
    Emperor, born on the 27th of January.]

_Queen Victoria to the Earl of Malmesbury._

BUCKINGHAM PALACE, _3rd February 1859_.

The Queen has this moment received Lord Malmesbury's letter. As she
has not yet written (only telegraphed) to announce to the Emperor the
birth of our grandson (we being in the habit since we know the Emperor
and Empress personally to communicate to one another _reciprocally
family events_), the Queen has an opportunity or a pretext for writing
to the Emperor, and is therefore prepared to do so _to-morrow_. But
as the terms to be used are of the most _vital_ importance, she would
wish Lord Malmesbury to consult forthwith with Lord Derby, and to let
her have "the matter" to be put into the letter _before_ the Queen
_leaves town_, which we do at half-past four this afternoon.

[Pageheading: LETTER TO THE EMPEROR NAPOLEON]

_The Earl of Derby to Queen Victoria._

ST JAMES'S SQUARE, _3rd February 1859_.
(_Thursday_,1 P.M.)

Lord Derby, with his humble duty, and in obedience to your Majesty's
commands, received within this half hour through Lord Malmesbury,
submits the accompanying very hastily drawn sketch of the language
which, in his humble opinion, your Majesty might hold in a private and
confidential letter to the Emperor of the French. Lord Derby is not
sure that it is what your Majesty desired that he should submit;
but he trusts that your Majesty will be pleased to receive it as an
attempt to obey your Majesty's commands, and will excuse its many
imperfections on account of the extreme haste in which it has
unavoidably been written.

"I cannot refrain from taking this opportunity of expressing
confidentially to your Imperial Majesty my deep anxiety for the
preservation of the peace of Europe, nor can I conceal from myself how
essentially that great object must depend upon the course which your
Imperial Majesty may be advised to take. Your Majesty has now the
opportunity, either by listening to the dictates of humanity and
justice, and by demonstrating unmistakably your intention to adhere
strictly to the faithful observance of Treaties, of calming the
apprehensions of Europe, and restoring her confidence in your
Majesty's pacific policy; or, by permitting yourself to be influenced
by the ambitious or interested designs of others, of involving Europe
in a war, the extent and termination of which can hardly be foreseen,
and which, whatever glory it may add to the arms of France, cannot
but interfere materially with her internal prosperity and financial
credit. I am sure that your Majesty will not doubt the sincerity of
the friendship which alone induces me to write thus unreservedly to
your Majesty, and if anything could add to the sorrow with which I
should view the renewal of war in Europe, it would be to see your
Majesty entering upon a course with which it would be impossible for
England to associate herself."[10]

    [Footnote 10: The Queen accordingly wrote a letter, which
    is printed in the _Life of the Prince Consort_, assuring the
    Emperor that rarely had any man had such an opportunity as was
    now his for exercising a personal influence for the peace
    of Europe, and that, by faithful observance of Treaty
    obligations, he might calm international anxieties.]

_The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria._

LAEKEN, _4th February 1859_.

MY DEAREST VICTORIA,--... Heaven knows what dance our Emperor
_Napoléon Troisième de nom_ will lead us. In a few days he will have
to make his speech. I fear he is determined on that Italian War. The
discussions in Parliament may influence him; I fear party spirit in
lieu of a good and right sense of what is the interest of Europe. It
was praiseworthy that you said in your Speech that _treaties_ must be
respected, else indeed we return to the old _Faustrecht_ we have been
striving to get rid of. It is curious that your speech has made the
funds fall again: I presume they hoped at Paris that you would have
been able to say that you congratulated Parliament on the prospect
of peace being preserved. For us poor people who find ourselves _aux
premières loges_, these uncertainties are most unsatisfactory. Your
devoted Uncle,

LEOPOLD R.

[Pageheading: THE INDIAN ARMY]

[Pageheading: THE QUEEN AND LORD STANLEY]

_Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby._

WINDSOR CASTLE. _5th February 1859_.

With regard to a decision which will have to be taken when the report
of the Indian Army Commission shall have been received, the Queen
thinks it incumbent upon her not to leave Lord Derby in ignorance of
her firm determination not to sanction, under any form, the creation
of a British Army, distinct from that known at present as the Army of
the Crown.

She would consider it dangerous to the maintenance of India, to the
dependence of the Indian Empire on the mother country, and to her
Throne in these realms.

Such an Army would be freed from the proper control of the
constitutional monarchy. It would be removed from the direct command
of the Crown, and entirely independent of Parliament. It would throw
an unconstitutional amount of power and patronage into the hands of
the Indian Council and Government; it would be raised and maintained
in antagonism to the Regular Army of the Crown; and professional
jealousy, and personal and private interests, would needs drive it
into a position of permanent hostility towards that Army.

This hostility has been already strongly marked in the proceedings of
the Commission itself.

Its detrimental effects would not be confined to India alone, but
would form a most dangerous obstacle to the maintenance of the
government of the Regular Army by the Queen. Already, during
the Crimean War, most of the blows levelled at the Army and the
prerogative of the Crown were directed by Indian officers, of whom,
in future, a vast number would be at home, without employment or
recognised position, in compact organisation, and moved by a unity of
feeling.

There may be points of detail, admitting differences of opinion as to
the relative advantages of a purely local or general Military Force
for India; but these are mere trifles, which sink into insignificance
in the Queen's estimation, when she has to consider the duty which she
owes to her Crown and her Country.

The Queen hopes Lord Derby will not consider that she intends, by this
letter, unduly to influence his free consideration and decision as
to the advice he may think it his duty to offer, but merely to guard
against his being taken by surprise, and to prevent, if possible, an
unseemly public difference between herself and Lord Stanley. She is
impelled to the apprehension that such may arise from the manner in
which, since the first transfer of the Indian Government to the Crown,
every act of Lord Stanley has uniformly tended to place the Queen in a
position which would render her helpless and powerless in resisting a
scheme which certain persons, imbued with the old Indian traditions,
would appear to wish to force upon the Crown.

The Queen does not expect an answer to this letter from Lord Derby,
and asks him to treat it as strictly confidential.

The Queen sees that Lord Stanley means to make a statement on Monday
on the Indian Finances. She trusts that there will be nothing said in
that statement to prejudge the Army Question.

_Decipher from Lord Cowley._

PARIS, _6th February 1859_.
(1 A.M. _Received_ 4 A.M.)

A great change for the better. The Queen's letter has produced an
excellent effect, as also the Debates in Parliament.[11] The Emperor
has expressed himself ready to subscribe to every word of Lord Derby's
speech.

    [Footnote 11: Parliament was opened by the Queen in person on
    the 3rd; the ensuing debates, and especially the speeches of
    the Liberal leaders, showed that, however much the English
    nation, as a whole, might sympathise with Italian aspirations
    for the expulsion of the Austrians from Lombardy, they would
    regard unfavourably a war commenced in defiance of Treaty
    obligations.]

[Pageheading: THE INDIAN ARMY]

_The Earl of Derby to Queen Victoria._

ST JAMES'S SQUARE, _6th February 1859_.

Lord Derby, with his humble duty, submits to your Majesty his
respectful acknowledgment of the explicitness with which the letter he
had the honour of receiving last night conveys to him the intimation
of your Majesty's views upon the important subject of the Indian Army.
He cannot, however, disguise from your Majesty the deep pain which
that communication has occasioned him; first, that your Majesty should
think that Lord Stanley has so far mistaken his duty as systematically
to place your Majesty in a false position; and next because unless
Lord Derby misconceives the purport of your Majesty's letter, he fears
that it may leave him no alternative but that of humbly entreating to
be relieved from a responsibility which nothing should have induced
him to undertake but a sense of duty to your Majesty, and the
conviction that he might rely with confidence upon your Majesty's
continued support. It would ill become Lord Derby to attempt to
argue a question on which your Majesty has expressed so strong a
determination; he has studiously avoided taking any step which might
prejudge a question so important as the organisation of your Majesty's
Forces in India. He has awaited the report of the Commission appointed
to enquire into the subject, and though aware of the wide difference
of opinion which prevailed, has desired impartially to weigh and
examine the arguments adduced on both sides, and he has in the
meantime refused to give his sanction to a proposition, earnestly
pressed upon the Government by Lord Canning, for immediately raising
additional regiments for Indian Service. But the announcement of
your Majesty's determination (if he rightly understands it), under no
circumstances to continue an European Army in India, under terms of
service different from those of the Line, paid out of Indian Revenues,
and officered by men educated for that especial service, and looking
to India for their whole career, places Lord Derby in a position of no
little embarrassment; for notwithstanding the gracious intimation that
your Majesty does not desire unduly to influence his judgment as to
the advice which he may tender, it amounts to a distinct warning
that if tendered in a particular direction it has no chance of being
accepted by your Majesty. Nor, with that knowledge on his part not
shared by his colleagues, can he freely discuss with them the course
which they may consider it their duty to pursue.

Lord Derby humbly trusts, therefore, that your Majesty will be
graciously pleased, so far as the members of the Government are
concerned, to absolve him from the obligation of secrecy, and to allow
him to place before them a state of things which may lead to the most
serious results, so far as their power of serving your Majesty is
concerned.

Lord Derby will give Lord Stanley a caution not to say anything in
his statement of Indian Finance which may prejudge the question of a
single or separate armies; but he hardly thinks the caution necessary,
as European troops, whether in one Service or in two, will equally be
chargeable to the revenues of India, which will only be affected by
the proportion which the whole of the European may bear to the whole
of the native forces.

Lord Derby hopes that he may be permitted to offer his humble
congratulations to your Majesty on the very favourable reports
received from Paris by telegraph, and upon the highly satisfactory
effects produced by your Majesty's private letter to the Emperor.

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

DERBY.

[Pageheading: INDIVISIBILITY OF ARMY]

_Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby._

WINDSOR CASTLE, _7th February 1859_.

The Queen is very sorry to learn from Lord Derby's letter, received
last evening, that her communication to him on the Indian Army
question had caused him deep pain. She had long hesitated whether
she should write it, from a fear that its purport and motive might
possibly be misunderstood; but feeling that there ought to exist
nothing but the most unreserved and entire confidence between herself
and her Prime Minister, she thought it incumbent upon her to let Lord
Derby see exactly what was passing in her mind.

If, notwithstanding the Queen's expressed hope that Lord Derby might
not consider the communication as intended unduly to influence his
free consideration of the important subject, he should feel that
its possession, without being at liberty to communicate it to his
colleagues, does so in effect, she would ask him to return it to her,
and to consider it as not having been written. If he should think,
however, that a communication of the Queen's views to the Cabinet is
due to them, she is quite prepared to make one. In that case it would
naturally have to be differently worded, would omit every reference to
Lord Stanley, and might go more into detail.

The Queen cannot close this letter without correcting some
misapprehensions into which Lord Derby seems to have fallen. It was
not the Queen's intention to impute any motives of systematic action
to Lord Stanley; she referred simply to facts and steps, known as well
to Lord Derby as to herself, which "uniformly tended" to place her in
a powerless position with regard to the Army question.

The Queen protested against "the _creation_ of a British Army distinct
(in its existence and constitutional position) from that of the
Crown," and not against the "_continuance_ of an European Army, under
terms of service different from the Line, paid out of Indian Revenues,
and officered by men educated for that special service, and looking to
India for their whole career." In fact, she does not understand what
meaning Lord Derby attaches to the words "terms of service." Every
force kept in India, however constituted, would be paid out of Indian
Revenues. _This_ would therefore not form the distinction, and Lord
Derby cannot intend to convey that on these revenues one set of
Englishmen can have a greater claim than another; nor does she see
why English officers, commanding English soldiers and charged with
the maintenance of _their_ discipline and efficiency, should for
that object require to be specially and differently educated, and be
restricted to look to India for their whole career. Officers attached
to native troops are in a different position.

[Pageheading: MISAPPREHENSION REMOVED]

_The Earl of Derby to Queen Victoria._

ST JAMES'S SQUARE, _7th February 1859_.

Lord Derby, with his humble duty, submits to your Majesty his grateful
acknowledgments for your Majesty's most gracious note received this
evening, the contents, and still more the tenor of which have relieved
him from the painful apprehension that he might be called upon to
choose between a strong sense of public duty, and, on the other side,
his deep devotion to your Majesty's service, and his gratitude for the
favourable consideration which his imperfect attempts to discharge
his public duty had always received at your Majesty's hand. The
explanation, with which he has now been honoured, of your Majesty's
views has entirely dispelled those apprehensions, and he feels that
he has only to thank your Majesty for the gracious explanation, with
which he has been honoured, of your Majesty's motives in addressing to
him the letter which certainly caused him "deep pain."...[12]

    [Footnote 12: Lord Derby then proceeded to deal at some length
    with the status of the troops in India, concluding with the
    opinion that the local forces in India should never exceed
    those sent from home as part of the Regular Army, subject to
    the ordinary routine of service.]

_Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby._

WINDSOR CASTLE, _8th February 1859_.

The Queen has received Lord Derby's letter of yesterday, and is
pleased to find that he now appreciates the motives which dictated her
first letter. It needs no assurance on her side that she never doubted
those which actuate Lord Derby. The Queen will, in compliance with
his request, defer any further notice of the subject until the
Commissioners shall have made their report; it would not be fair,
however, to Lord Derby, not to add that she fears from his explanation
that he has not now correctly estimated the nature of the Queen's
objection, which is not to a variety of forces, terms of service,
local or general employment, etc., etc., etc., established in one
Army, but to the principle of _two_ British Armies.

[Pageheading: THE EMPEROR'S SPEECH]

_Queen Victoria to General Peel._[13]

_13th February 1859_.

The Queen relies with confidence that when the question of the Indian
Army comes before the Cabinet, General Peel will stoutly defend the
interests of the Crown and the British Army. On the opinion which he
will give and maintain much of their decision must depend, and unless
he speaks out boldly the Indian Secretary will have it all his own
way.

    [Footnote 13: General Jonathan Peel, brother of Sir Robert
    Peel (the Premier), and Secretary of State for War.]

_Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians._

BUCKINGHAM PALACE, _15th February 1859_.

MY DEAREST UNCLE,--We came here to _settle_ yesterday--and also here
Spring seems _wonderfully forward!_ It can't last--and frost is _sure_
to _follow_ and cut off everything. At Windsor and Frogmore everything
is budding--willow I see is green--rose-leaves _out_, and birds
singing like in May!

Accept my warmest thanks for your kind letter of the 11th. I _still_
hope that matters _will cool_ down--the Emperor _personally_ expressed
regret to Hübner for his words, disclaiming the construction put upon
them, and saying that _no one could dispute_ the right of Austria to
her Italian possessions.[14] He has not written to me lately, but I
wrote him ten days ago a long friendly letter, speaking out _plainly_
our fears for the future, and urging him to aid us in averting the
calamity of _War_....

Our Parliament is as quiet as possible as _yet_, but it will soon have
more cause for _action_ and excitement....

Bertie's interview with the Pope went off extremely well. He was
extremely kind and gracious, and Colonel Bruce was present; it would
never have done to have let Bertie go alone, as they might hereafter
have pretended, God knows! what Bertie had said.... With Albert's
love, ever your devoted Niece,

VICTORIA R.

    [Footnote 14: See _ante_, 13th January, 1859, note 2.]

[Pageheading: THE EMPEROR OF AUSTRIA]

_The Earl of Derby to Queen Victoria._

DOWNING STREET, _21st February 1859_.

Lord Derby, with his humble duty, and in obedience to the commands
which he had the honour of receiving from your Majesty last night,
submits the following suggestions, as embodying the substance of what,
in his humble judgment your Majesty might address with advantage in a
private letter to the Emperor of Austria.

Your Majesty might say, that deeply penetrated with the conviction
of the duty imposed upon your Majesty of acting on the principles
enunciated in the speech from the Throne, of exercising whatever
influence your Majesty could employ for the preservation of
the general peace, your Majesty had looked with anxiety to the
circumstances which threatened its continued existence. That your
Majesty was unable to see in those circumstances, any which were
beyond the reach of diplomatic skill, if there were only a mutual
desire, on the part of the Chief Powers concerned, to give fair play
to its exercise. That the only source of substantial danger was the
present state of Italy; and that even in that there would be little
danger of interruption to the general tranquillity, were it not for
the antagonism excited by interests and engagements, real or supposed,
of France and Austria.

That your Majesty believed that the supposed divergence of these
interests and engagements might be capable of reconciliation if
entered into with mutual frankness, and with a mutual disposition to
avoid the calamities of war; but that, as it appeared to your Majesty,
neither party would be willing to invite the other to a friendly
discussion of the points of difference between them.

That in this state of affairs your Majesty, as a mutual friend of both
Sovereigns, and having no individual interests to serve, entertained
the hope that by the spontaneous offer of good offices, your Majesty
might be the means of establishing certain bases, on which the Powers
mainly interested might subsequently enter into amicable negotiations
with regard to the questions chiefly in dispute, or threatening
serious results.

Of these, the most pressing are those which relate to the Italian
Peninsula.

That your Majesty, anxiously revolving in your mind the question how
your Majesty's influence could best be brought to bear, had come to
the conclusion that your Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, having
the fullest knowledge of the views entertained by that Court, and
possessing your Majesty's entire confidence, might usefully be
intrusted with a highly confidential, but wholly unofficial mission,
for the purpose of ascertaining whether there were any possibility
consistently with the views of the two Courts of offering such
suggestions as might be mutually acceptable as the basis of future
arrangements; and, if such should happily be found to be the case, of
offering them simultaneously to the two parties, as the suggestions of
a mutual friend.

That your Majesty trusted His R.I.A.[15] Majesty would look upon this
communication in the truly friendly light in which it was intended,
and that Lord Cowley, in his unofficial and confidential character,
might be permitted fully to develop the views which your Majesty
entertained, and to meet with the most favourable consideration of his
suggestions from His R.I.A. Majesty.

Lord Derby, before submitting the above to your Majesty, has thought
it right to communicate it to Lord Malmesbury and Lord Cowley, and he
is enabled to say that it meets with their entire concurrence.[16]
He will be highly gratified if he is permitted to know that it is
honoured by your Majesty's gracious approval. All which is humbly
submitted by your Majesty's most dutiful Servant and Subject,

DERBY.

    [Footnote 15: Royal and Imperial Apostolic.]

    [Footnote 16: The Queen acted on this advice, and wrote a
    letter on the 22nd to the Emperor of Austria, on the lines of
    Lord Derby's suggestions. The material parts of it are printed
    in the _Life of the Prince Consort_, vol. iv. chap. 92.]

[Pageheading: CHURCH RATES]

_Mr Disraeli to Queen Victoria._

HOUSE OF COMMONS, _21st February 1859_.
(_Monday._)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his humble duty to your Majesty,
informs your Majesty that the Government measure on Church Rates was
introduced to-night, in a very full House, and was received with so
much favour that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has every belief that
it will pass. This is very unexpected, and the satisfactory settlement
of this long agitated and agitating question will be a great relief
to public life, and tend to restore and augment the good-humour of the
country.[17]

It is generally rumoured that, on Friday next, Lord Palmerston is to
move a vote of censure upon your Majesty's Government with respect to
their Foreign Policy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer scarcely credits
this, and would rather suppose that the formal censure will take the
shape of a rattling critique, preceding some Motion for papers.

    [Footnote 17: Since the Braintree case in 1853, no rate could
    legally be levied except by the majority of the rate-payers.
    The present Bill was designed to exempt Dissenters from
    payment, excluding them at the same time from voting on the
    subject in the vestry meeting. Sir John Trelawney, the leader
    of the Abolitionist party in the House, however, procured
    the rejection of the proposed measure, and a solution was not
    arrived at till 1868.]

[Pageheading: LORD COWLEY'S MISSION]

_Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians._

BUCKINGHAM PALACE, _1st March 1859_.

MY DEAREST UNCLE,--Many thanks for your kind letter of the 25th.
Matters remain much in the same state. Lord Cowley arrived on Sunday
at Vienna, but we know nothing positive yet. I much fear the obstinacy
of Austria.

It will indeed be a blessing if _we_ could do something not only to
avert the war for the present, but to prevent the _causes_ of it, for
the future. Nothing but improvement in the Italian Governments _can_
bring about a _better state_ of things. What is _really_ the matter
with the King of Naples[18]?

We found the poor Queen really very tolerably well at Claremont on
Saturday. She is decidedly better than when we saw her at the end
of November. Poor Joinville is suffering from an accident to his bad
knee.

Here our Reform Bill has been brought in yesterday.[19] It is
moderate, and ... [Lord John] has therefore allied himself with Mr
Bright and Mr Roebuck against it! He has _no_ other followers. The
Debate on Foreign Affairs on Friday was extremely moderate, and can
only have done good.[20]

It is rumoured that you are going to Berlin to the Christening, but
I doubt it! Oh! dearest Uncle, it _almost breaks_ my heart _not_ to
witness our _first grandchild_ christened! I don't think I _ever_ felt
so bitterly disappointed _about anything_ as about this! And then it
is an _occasion_ so gratifying to both _Nations_, which brings them
_so much_ together, that it is _most_ peculiarly mortifying! It is a
_stupid law_ in Prussia, I must say, to be so particular about having
the child christened so soon. However, it is now no use lamenting;
please God! we shall be more fortunate another time! With Albert's
affectionate love, ever your devoted Niece,

VICTORIA R.

Affectionate love to your children. When does Philip go to Italy?

    [Footnote 18: Ferdinand II., known as Bomba, died on the 22nd
    of May in the same year.]

    [Footnote 19: See _ante_, Introductory Note to Chapter XXVIII.]

    [Footnote 20: In this debate Lord Palmerston urged the
    Ministry to mediate between Austria and France, in order
    to obtain their simultaneous withdrawal from Rome, and Mr
    Disraeli announced the confidential mission of Lord Cowley as
    "one of peace and conciliation."]

[Pageheading: THE EMPEROR'S REPLY]

_The Emperor of Austria to Queen Victoria._

VIENNE, _le 8 Mars 1859_.

MADAME ET CHÈRE S[OE]UR,--J'ai reçu des mains de Lord Cowley la lettre
que votre Majesté a bien voulu lui confier et dont le contenu m'a
offert un nouvel et précieux témoignage de l'amitié et de la confiance
qu'elle m'a vouées, ainsi que des vues élevées qui dirigent sa
politique. Lord Cowley a été auprès de moi le digne interprète des
sentimens de votre Majesté, et je me plais à lui rendre la justice,
qu'il s'est acquitté avec le zèle éclairé, dont il a déjà fourni tant
de preuves, de la mission confidentielle dont il était chargé.

J'ai hautement apprécié les motifs qui vous ont inspiré la pensée
de m'envoyer un organe de confiance pour échanger nos idées sur les
dangers de la situation. Je m'associe à tous les désirs, que forme
votre Majesté pour le maintien de la paix, et ce n'est pas sur moi que
pèsera la responsabilité de ceux, qui évoquent des dangers de guerre
sans pouvoir articuler une seule cause de guerre.

Lord Cowley connaît les points de vue auxquels j'envisage les
questions qui forment l'objet ou le prétexte des divergences d'opinion
qui subsistent entre nous et la France; il sait aussi que nous
sommes disposés à contribuer à leur solution dans l'esprit le plus
conciliant, en tant qu'on n'exige pas de nous des sacrifices que ne
saurait porter aucune Puissance qui se respecte. Je forme des
v[oe]ux pour que votre Majesté puisse tirer parti des élémens que Lui
apportera son Ambassadeur, dans l'intérêt du maintien de la paix que
nous avons également à c[oe]ur.

Mais quelles que soient les chances et les épreuves que l'avenir nous
réserve, j'aime à me livrer à l'espoir que rien ne portera atteinte
aux rapports d'amitié et d'union que je suis heureux de cultiver avec
votre Majesté, et que Ses sympathies seront acquises à la cause que je
soutiens et qui est celle de tous les États indépendans.

C'est dans ces sentimens que je renouvelle à votre Majesté l'assurance
de l'amitié sincère et de l'inaltérable attachement avec lesquels
je suis, Madame et chère S[oe]ur, de votre Majesté, le bon et dévoué
frère et ami,

FRANÇOIS JOSEPH.

[Pageheading: A PROPOSED CONFERENCE]

_Queen Victoria to the Earl of Malmesbury._

_20th March 1859._

The Queen has received Lord Malmesbury's letter[21] written before
the Cabinet yesterday. The Memorandum of Lord Cowley and the telegrams
from Vienna give better hopes of the idea of Congress or Conference
leading to a good result. Everything will now depend upon the Emperor
Napoleon's acceptance of the conditions on which Austria is willing
to agree to a Conference. The Queen would like to have a copy of Lord
Cowley's memorandum.[22]

    [Footnote 21: Lord Cowley had returned from his mission to
    Vienna, and was now again at Paris. The complexion of affairs
    had been changed by a suggestion on the part of Russia (which
    may or may not have been ultimately prompted from Paris) for
    a Conference between England, France, Austria, Prussia and
    Russia, to settle the Italian Question. Cavour pressed for the
    admission of Piedmont to the Conference.]

    [Footnote 22: Lord Malmesbury's letter to Lord Cowley, written
    immediately after the Cabinet, enjoined him to impress upon
    the Emperor that England would only address herself to the
    four points--evacuation of the Roman States by foreign troops,
    reform, security for Sardinia, and a substitute for the
    treaties of 1847 between Austria and the Duchies.]

_Queen Victoria to the Earl of Malmesbury._

OSBORNE, _22nd March 1859_.

The Queen thanks Lord Malmesbury for his communication of yesterday,
which she received this morning. She quite approves the steps taken
by the Government,[23] and concurs in Lord Malmesbury's views. If the
understanding about a Conference first of the five Powers, and then
of the Italian States with them, _could be_ so far come to that France
and Austria agree with us upon the conditions on which it is to take
place, we need not wait for Russia's proposing it. She is evidently
playing, as she always does, a double game, and from Sir John
Crampton's[24] letter it appears that she never meant to propose a
Congress, but merely to _accept_ one, for ulterior objects.

    [Footnote 23: An attempt to obtain the disarmament of Austria
    and Sardinia, and a proposal to obtain the co-operation of
    France, in guaranteeing to defend Sardinia against invasion
    by Austria for five years, unless Sardinia left her own
    territory. On the 23rd, Lord Malmesbury wrote that all the
    great Powers, except Austria, had agreed to a Congress upon
    the conditions laid down by the British Government.]

    [Footnote 24: English Ambassador at St Petersburg, formerly
    Minister at Washington; see _ante_, 12th December, 1856,
    note 61. He had succeeded to the baronetcy in 1858.]

_Queen Victoria to the Earl of Malmesbury._

OSBORNE, _27th March 1859_.

The Queen trusts that Lord Malmesbury will act with the utmost
circumspection in answering the many telegrams crossing each other
from all directions respecting the proposed Congress. An understanding
with Austria on every point ought, if possible, to precede our giving
our opinion to France or Russia. If they can _once_ get the Powers
to agree upon a point upon which Austria disagrees, they have won the
game, and the Emperor can proceed to his war, having a declaration of
Europe against Austria as his basis.

_Queen Victoria to the Earl of Malmesbury._

BUCKINGHAM PALACE, _12th April 1859_.

The Queen has marked a passage in this draft, which she thinks it
would be advisable to modify--so as not to _put_ upon _record_ (should
the Austrians refuse to give way on this point) that we consider their
conduct as "_reckless_." Should they persist, they would certainly not
meet with as much sympathy as they would do if they yielded, and
such a course on their part would be very much to be regretted, as
we consider every sacrifice small, in comparison to the blessings
of preserving peace; but still Austria would have a perfect right to
stand out--and we originally supported her in this demand.

If something which _expressed_ the _above_ sentiments and opinions
could therefore be substituted for the present passage, the Queen
thinks it would be very desirable _for the future_, both as regards
Austria and England.

[Pageheading: ENGLAND AND AUSTRIA]

_The Earl of Derby to Queen Victoria._

DOWNING STREET, _21st April 1859_.

Lord Derby, with his humble duty, submits to your Majesty that it
has appeared to him, in consultation with his colleagues, with the
exception of Lord Hardwicke and Sir John Pakington, who are out of
Town, that the only step which can properly be taken at present is to
protest strongly against the course which Austria is now taking, and
to warn her that whatever may be the results to herself, she deprives
herself of all claim to the support or countenance of England.[25]
Your Majesty will see by another telegram, received a few minutes ago
from Lord Cowley, that Hübner!! advises that England should threaten
to come to the aid of Sardinia, if the contemplated invasion should
take place! Your Majesty's servants are not, however, prepared to take
so strong a step, which would commit them to measures to which they
might be unable at the moment to give due effect; and which, if
Austria were to disregard the measure, would involve them in War as
the Allies of France. They have therefore limited themselves to
a protest, the terms of which will require to be very carefully
considered before it is embodied in a despatch. Lord Malmesbury will
submit to your Majesty by this messenger the terms of his telegram....
To appeal at once to arms, when no question, except this of form,
remained unsettled as to the meeting of Congress, and the subjects
to be then discussed, had been unanimously agreed to, appears to Lord
Derby to indicate a reckless determination to go to war which it will
be very difficult to justify in the eyes of Europe.

_For the moment_ these events rather diminish than increase the
probability of a rupture with France, while they will task her means
to the uttermost, and not improbably overthrow her personal dynasty!

    [Footnote 25: On the 19th, Count Buol despatched an emissary,
    Baron Kellersberg, to Turin, with a summons to Sardinia to
    disarm, under the threat of immediate hostilities if she
    declined. Sardinia indignantly refused, whereupon the Austrian
    troops crossed the Ticino.]

[Pageheading: WAR IMMINENT]

_Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians._

WINDSOR CASTLE, _26th April 1859_.

MY DEAREST UNCLE,--I hardly know _what_ to say, so confused and
bewildered are we by the reports which come in three or four times a
day! I have _no hope_ of peace _left_. Though it is _originally_ the
wicked folly of Russia and France that have brought about this fearful
crisis, it is the madness and blindness of Austria which have brought
on the war _now!_[26] It has put _them_ in the wrong, and entirely
changed the feeling here, which was all that one could desire, into
the most _vehement_ sympathy for _Sardinia_, though we hope now again
to be able to _throw_ the blame of the war on France, who _now_ won't
hear of mediation, while Austria is again inclined to do so!

It is a melancholy, sad Easter; but what grieves me the most (indeed,
distracts me)--for I have had nothing but disappointments in that
quarter since November--is that in all probability Vicky will be
unable to come in May! It quite _distracts me_. You also must be very
anxious about dear Charlotte; I hope she will not remain at Trieste,
but go to Vienna. Her being in Italy is really _not_ safe.... Now with
kind loves to your children, ever your affectionate and devoted Niece,

VICTORIA R.

    [Footnote 26: Referring to an understanding reported to have
    been arrived at between France and Russia, the suspicion
    of which created great indignation in England. Prince
    Gortschakoff and the French Emperor, in answer to enquiries,
    gave conflicting explanations.]

_The Earl of Derby to Queen Victoria._

ROEHAMPTON, _27th April 1859_.

... Lord Derby has thought it necessary, in consequence of the
attitude assumed by Russia, notwithstanding her assurances that there
is nothing hostile to England in her secret treaty with France, to
call upon Sir J. Pakington to say what addition could be made to
the Channel Fleet within a period of two or three months, without
weakening that in the Mediterranean. He has the honour of enclosing
the answer, which he has just received by messenger. Lord Derby
proposes to go up to Town to confer with Sir J. Pakington on this
important subject to-morrow, and Lord Malmesbury has summoned a
Cabinet for Friday to consider the general state of affairs.

France having absolutely refused the proffered mediation of England,
and Austria having only accepted it under the condition of the
disarmament of Sardinia, every effort to preserve the peace has been
exhausted; and it only remains for this country to watch the course
of events, to protect her own interests, and to look out for any
opportunity which may offer to mediate between the contending parties.
This policy, announced by Lord Derby in the City on Monday,[27] was
received with unanimous approval. It will require a great deal to
induce the country to be drawn into a war under any circumstances, and
Lord Derby's anxious efforts will not be wanting to avoid it as long
as possible.

    [Footnote 27: He had there described Austria's action as
    hasty, precipitate, and (because involving warfare) criminal,
    but the Government would still (he added) strive to avert war,
    by urging Austria, under the Treaty of Paris, to invoke the
    mediation of the Powers. The Derby Government, however, were
    supposed to be giving encouragement to Austria. See Lord
    Derby's letter of the 2nd of June, _post_.]

[Pageheading: LORD DERBY'S POLICY]

_Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby._

WINDSOR CASTLE, _29th April 1859_.

The Queen has read the last telegrams with much pain, as they show
that there is no chance left of stopping war. Indeed she thinks,
considering the progress of revolution in the Duchies, and the daily
increase of military strength of France and financial exhaustion of
Austria, that it would not be morally defensible to try to restrain
Austria from defending herself while she still can.

Count Buol's proposal to continue negotiations during the fight
sounds strange, but ought not to be altogether put aside. The King of
Sardinia's assumption of the Government of Tuscany[28] and military
occupation of Massa-Carrara form gross infractions of the Treaties of
1815 and international law, and can hardly be left without a protest
from us.

Has Lord Derby heard that a Russian Fleet is expected soon to appear
in the Black Sea? The Queen has just heard it from Berlin, where it is
supposed to be certain, and it would explain Lord Cowley's report
of (the Queen believes) Prince Napoleon's[29] account of the Russian
engagements, which are admitted to contemplate a junction of
the French and Russian Fleets to defend the Treaty closing the
Dardanelles.

    [Footnote 28: See _ante_, Introductory Note to 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 Plombières, 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 Stéphanie (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 _rejeté les Autrichiens dans leur
tanière_ (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 Pélissier, 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 première occasion de faire la guerre à
    l'Autriche, mais nous chercherons un prétexte."]

    [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--_à 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 _à 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 _bonâ 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