the policy which he had asserted, but took upon himself the whole
and sole responsibility of having authorised the publication of the
despatch--which he vindicated--and announced his own resignation
rather than embarrass his colleagues. Lord Grey shortly entered
his protest against bringing into discussion the policy of the
Proclamation and of the consequent despatch, into which Lord
Ellenborough had certainly entered too largely, opposing, very
broadly, the principle of confiscation against that of clemency. Lord
Derby followed Lord Grey, and after an interruption on a point of
form, vindicated the policy advocated in Lord Ellenborough's despatch,
at the same time that he expressed not only his hope, but his belief,
that in practice the Governor-General would be found (and more
especially judging from the alterations inserted in the last
Proclamation of which an unofficial copy has been received) acting
on the principles laid down in Lord Ellenborough's despatch. In the
tribute which he felt it his duty to pay to the personal, as well as
political, character of Lord Ellenborough, the House concurred with
entire unanimity and all did honour to the spirit which induced him
to sacrifice his own position to the public service; and to atone, and
more than atone, for an act of indiscretion by the frank avowal that
he alone was responsible for it. Lord Derby thinks that the step which
has been taken may, even probably, prevent the Motions intended to
be made on Friday; and if made, will, almost certainly, result in a
majority for the Government.
Lord Derby believes that he may possibly be in time to telegraph
to Malta early to-morrow, to Lord Canning. In that case he will
do himself the honour of submitting to your Majesty a copy of the
message[31] sent, though he fears it will be impossible to do
so before its despatch. He proposes in substance to say that the
publication has been disapproved--that Lord Ellenborough has resigned
in consequence--but that your Majesty's Government adhere in principle
to the policy laid down in the despatch of 19th April, and entertain
an earnest hope that the Governor-General, judging from the
modifications introduced into the amended Proclamation, has, in fact,
the intention of acting in the same spirit; but that your Majesty's
Government are still of opinion that confiscation of private property
ought to be made the exception, and not the rule, and to be enforced
only against those who may stand out after a certain day, or who may
be proved to have been guilty of more than ordinary crimes.
Lord Derby hopes that your Majesty will excuse a very hasty sketch of
a very large subject.
[Footnote 31: _The Earl of Derby to Lord Lyons._
_12th May 1858._
Send on the following message to Lord Canning by the Indian
mail.
The publication of the Secret Despatch of 19th April has
been disapproved. Lord Ellenborough has resigned office. His
successor has not been appointed. Nevertheless the policy
indicated in the above despatch is approved by Her Majesty's
Government. Confiscation of property of private individuals
(Talookdars and others) ought to be the exception and not the
rule. It ought to be held out as a penalty on those who do not
come in by a given day. From your amended Proclamation it
is hoped that such is your intention. Let it be clearly
understood that it is so. You were quite right in issuing no
Proclamation till after a signal success. That once obtained,
the more generous the terms, the better. A broad distinction
must be drawn between the Talookdars of Oudh and the Sepoys
who have been in our service. Confidence is felt in your
judgment. You will not err if you lean to the side of
humanity, especially as to nations of Oudh.
No private letters have been received from you since the
change of Government.]
_Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby._
_14th May 1858._
The Queen returns the extracts Lord Derby has sent to her. Lord
Ellenborough's despatch,[32] now before her for the first time, is
very good and just in principle. But the Queen would be much surprised
if it did not entirely coincide with the views of Lord Canning, at
least as far as he has hitherto expressed any in his letters. So are
also the sentiments written by Sir J. Lawrence; they contain almost
the very expressions frequently used by Lord Canning.
Sir J. Login,[33] who holds the same opinion, and has great Indian
experience, does not find any fault with the Proclamation, however
seemingly it may sound at variance with these opinions, and this on
account of the peculiar position of affairs in Oudh. It is a great
pity that Lord Ellenborough, with his knowledge, experience, activity,
and cleverness, should be so entirely unable to submit to general
rules of conduct. The Queen has been for some time much alarmed at his
writing letters of his own to all the most important Indian Chiefs
and Kings explaining his policy. All this renders the position of a
Governor-General almost untenable, and that of the Government at home
very hazardous.
[Footnote 32: This was a later despatch of Lord
Ellenborough's, also in reference to the pacification of Oudh,
and not shown to the Cabinet before it was sent.]
[Footnote 33: See _ante_, 23rd September, 1857, note 41.]
[Pageheading: LORD ABERDEEN CONSULTED]
[Pageheading: PREROGATIVE OF DISSOLUTION]
[Pageheading: STATE OF PARTIES]
_Memorandum by Sir Charles Phipps._
[_Undated._ ? _15th May 1858._]
Upon being admitted to Lord Aberdeen, I informed him that the Queen
and Prince were anxious to hear his opinion upon the present most
unfortunate state of affairs, but that, knowing how easily every event
was perverted in such times as the present, Her Majesty and His
Royal Highness had thought that it might have been subject to
misapprehension had he been known to have been at Buckingham Palace,
and that I had been therefore directed to call upon him, with a view
of obtaining his opinion and advice upon certain important points.
The first was the question of a Dissolution of Parliament in the
event of the Government being defeated upon the question which was at
present pending. I told him that I was permitted to communicate to him
in the strictest confidence, that in a late Audience which Lord Derby
had with the Queen, he had asked her permission to be allowed to
announce that, in the event of an adverse majority, he had Her
Majesty's sanction to a Dissolution of Parliament.
That the Queen had declined to give such sanction, or even such a
pledge, and equally guarded herself against being supposed to have
made up her mind to refuse her sanction to a Dissolution, had told
Lord Derby that she could not then make any prospective decision
upon the subject. I told him that in point of fact Her Majesty was
disinclined to grant to Lord Derby her authority for a Dissolution,
but that the Queen had at once refused to grant to Lord Derby her
sanction for making the announcement he wished, as she considered that
it would be a very unconstitutional threat for him to hold over the
head of the Parliament, with her authority, by way of biassing their
decision.
Lord Aberdeen interrupted me by saying that the Queen had done quite
right--that he never heard of such a request being made, or authority
for such an announcement being sought--and he could not at all
understand Lord Derby making such an application. He knew that the
Government had threatened a Dissolution, that he thought that they had
a perfect right to do so, but that they would have been quite wrong in
joining the Queen's name with it.
He said that he had never entertained the slightest doubt that if
the Minister advised the Queen to dissolve, she would, as a matter
of course, do so. The Minister who advised the Dissolution took upon
himself the heavy responsibility of doing so, but that the Sovereign
was bound to suppose that the person whom she had appointed as a
Minister was a gentleman and an honest man, and that he would not
advise Her Majesty to take such a step unless he thought that it
was for the good of the country. There was no doubt of the power and
prerogative of the Sovereign to refuse a Dissolution--it was one
of the very few acts which the Queen of England could do without
responsible advice at the moment; but even in this case whoever
was sent for to succeed, must, with his appointment, assume
the responsibility of this act, and be prepared to defend it in
Parliament.
He could not remember a single instance in which the undoubted power
of the Sovereign had been exercised upon this point, and the advice of
the Minister to dissolve Parliament had been rejected--for it was
to be remembered that Lord Derby would be still at this time her
Minister--and that the result of such refusal would be that the Queen
would take upon herself the act of dismissing Lord Derby from office,
instead of his resigning from being unable longer to carry on the
Government.
The Queen had during her reign, and throughout the numerous changes
of Government, maintained an unassailable position of constitutional
impartiality, and he had no hesitation in saying that he thought it
would be more right, and certainly more safe, for her to follow the
usual course, than to take this dangerous time for exercising an
unusual and, he believed he might say, an unprecedented, course,
though the power to exercise the authority was undoubted.
He said that he did not conceive that any reasons of expediency as
to public business, or the possible effects of frequent general
elections, would be sufficient grounds for refusing a Dissolution (and
reasons would have to be given by the new Minister in Parliament),
and, as he conceived, the only possible ground that could be
maintained as foundation for such an exercise of authority would be
the fearful danger to the existence of our power in India, which
might arise from the intemperate discussion upon every hustings of
the proceedings of the Government with respect to that country--as the
question proposed to the country would certainly be considered to be
severity or mercy to the people of India.
Upon the second point, as to a successor to Lord Derby in the event
of his resignation, he said that the Queen would, he thought, have no
alternative but to send for Lord Palmerston. The only other person who
could be suggested would be Lord John Russell, and he was neither
the mover of the Resolutions which displaced the Government, nor the
ostensible head of the Opposition, which the late meeting at Cambridge
House pointed out Lord Palmerston to be. That he was not very fond of
Lord Palmerston, though he had forgiven him all, and he had had _much_
to forgive; and that in the last few days it had appeared that he had
less following than Lord John; but the Queen could not act upon such
daily changing circumstances, and it was evident that Lord Palmerston
was the ostensible man for the Queen to send for.
Lord Aberdeen seemed very low upon the state of public affairs. He
said that the extreme Liberals were the only Party that appeared to
gain strength. Not only was the Whig Party divided within itself,
hated by the Radicals, and having a very doubtful support from the
independent Liberals, but even the little band called the Peelites had
entirely crumbled to pieces. In the House of Lords, whilst the Duke of
Newcastle voted with the Opposition, he (Lord Aberdeen) had purposely
abstained from voting, whilst, in the House of Commons, Cardwell moved
the Resolution, and Mr Sidney Herbert would, he believed, vote for it;
Gladstone would speak on the other side, and Sir J. Graham would also
vote with the Government.
He concluded by saying that if the majority against the Government
was a very large one, he thought that Lord Derby ought not to ask to
dissolve; but that he knew that the members of the Government had said
that the present Parliament was elected upon a momentary Palmerstonian
cry, and was quite an exceptional case, and that they would not
consent to be driven from office upon its verdict.
[Pageheading: THE QUEEN AND DISSOLUTION]
_Memorandum by the Prince Albert._
BUCKINGHAM PALACE, _16th May 1858_.
We saw Lord Derby after church. He brought interesting letters from
Lord Canning to Lord Ellenborough, of which copies follow here. It
is evident that Lord Canning thinks that he is taking a most merciful
course, and expects pacification from his "Proclamation," attributing
the slow coming in of the chiefs to the Proclamation not being yet
sufficiently known.
Lord Ellenborough's, and indeed the Government's, hearts, must have
had curious sensations in reading Lord Canning's frank declaration,
that he did not mean to resign on hearing of the formation of the Tory
Government unless told to do so, and he had no fears that he would
be treated in a way implying want of confidence to make him resign,
feeling safe as to that in Lord Ellenborough's hands!
Lord Derby spoke much of the Debate, which he expects to go on for
another week. He expects to be beaten by from 15 to 35 votes under
present circumstances, but thinks still that he could be saved if it
were known that the Queen had not refused a Dissolution, which was
stoutly maintained by Lord Palmerston's friends. He begged again to
be empowered to contradict the assertion. The Queen maintained that it
would be quite unconstitutional to threaten Parliament, and to use
her name for that purpose. Lord Derby quite agreed, and disclaimed any
such intention, but said there were modes of letting the fact be known
without any risk. We agreed that we could not enter into such details.
The Queen allowed him (Lord Derby) to know that a Dissolution would
not be refused to him, and trusted that her honour would be safe in
his hands as to the use he made of that knowledge. He seemed greatly
relieved, and stated that had he had to resign, he would have
withdrawn from public business, and the Conservative Party would have
been entirely, and he feared for ever, broken up. On a Dissolution he
felt certain of a large gain, as the country was in fact tired of the
"Whig Family Clique"; the Radicals, like Mr Milner Gibson, Bright,
etc., would willingly support a Conservative Government.
ALBERT.
[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 L3,000,000, 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 considerais une visite comme tout a 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 L200,000
spent now will probably do more work during the six or nine months
for working before us, than L2,000,000 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 _precis_ 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 Plombieres, 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.