A Royal Commission on Reform--M. de Flahault on the Emperor
Napoleon--Lord John's Blunder--Disraeli's Negotiation with the
Irish Members--Lord Beauvale's Death--Lady Beauvale's
Grief--Napoleon III. and Mdlle. de Montijo--Parliament meets--The
Emperor's Marriage--Disraeli's Attack on Sir C. Wood--Dislike of
Mr. Disraeli--Lord John Russell leaves the Foreign Office--Lord
Stanley's Liberal Votes--Disraeli's Opinion of his Colleagues--The
Government in Smooth Water--England unpopular abroad--Massimo
d'Azeglio--The Austrians in Italy--The Bishop of Lincoln--The Duke
of Bedford's Papers--Lord Palmerston leads the House--Social
Amenities--Rancour of Northern Powers against England--Friendly
Resolution of the Emperor Napoleon III.--Difficulties at Home--The
India Bill--The Eastern Question--The Czar's Proposals--Russian
Assurances--The Royal Family.
_Bowood, January 12th,_ 1853.--I came here on Monday to meet the
Cannings, Harcourt,[1] and Lady Waldegrave, the Bessboroughs,
Elphinstone, Senior, and the family. Senior talked to me about the
Government and Reform, and the danger of their splitting on the latter
question and propounded a scheme he has for obviating this danger. He
wants to have a Royal Commission to enquire into the practice of bribery
at elections and the means of preventing it, or, if possible, to have an
enquiry of a more extensive and comprehensive character into the state
of the representation and the working of the Reform Bill. We talked it
over, and I told him I thought this would not be a bad expedient. He had
already spoken to Lord Lansdowne about it, who seemed not averse to the
idea, and promised to talk to Lord John Russell on the subject. Senior,
when he went away, begged me to talk to Lord Lansdowne also, which I
attempted to do, but without success, for he seemed quite indisposed to
enter upon it.
[Footnote 1: George Granville Harcourt, Esq., M.P., eldest son of the
Archbishop of York, and third husband of Frances, Countess of
Waldegrave.]
LORD JOHN'S ARRANGEMENT DISAPPROVED.
_Beaudesert, January 19th._--To town on Saturday and here on Monday,
with the Flahaults, Bessboroughs, Ansons, my brothers and the family.
Lord Anglesey and M. de Flahault talk over their campaigns, and compare
notes on the events of Sir John Moore's retreat and other military
operations, in which they have served in opposing armies. Flahault was
aide-de-camp to Marshal Berthier till the middle of the Russian
campaign, when he became aide-de-camp to Napoleon, whom he never quitted
again till the end of his career. His accounts of what he has seen and
known are curious and interesting. He says that one of the Emperor's
greatest mistakes and the causes of his misfortunes was his habit of
ordering everything, down to the minutest arrangement, himself, and
leaving so little to the discretion and responsibility of his generals
and others that they became mere machines, and were incapable of acting,
or afraid to act, on their own judgements. On several occasions great
calamities were the consequence of this unfortunate habit of Napoleon's.
_London, January 24th._--The Duke of Bedford called here this morning. I
had not seen him for an age; he was just come from Windsor with a budget
of matter, which as usual he was in such a hurry that he had not time to
tell me. I got a part of it, however. I began by asking him how he had
left them all at Windsor, to which he replied that the state of things
was not very satisfactory. The Queen disapproved Lord John's arrangement
for giving up the seals of the Foreign Office on a given day (the 15th
February) which had not been previously explained to her Majesty, as it
ought to have been. She said that she should make no objection if any
good reason could be assigned for what was proposed, either of a public
or a private nature, any reason connected with his health or with the
transaction of business, but she thought, and she is right, that fixing
beforehand a particular day, without any special necessity occurring, is
very unreasonable and absurd. Then they are all very angry with Lord
John for an exceeding piece of folly of his, in announcing to the
Foreign Ministers, the day he received them, that he was only to be at
the Foreign Office for a few weeks. This, as the Duke said, was a most
unwise and improper communication, particularly as it was made without
any concert with Aberdeen, and without his knowledge, and, in fact,
blurted out with the same sort of levity that was apparent in the Durham
letter and the Reform announcement, with both of which he has been so
bitterly reproached, and which have proved so inconvenient that it might
have been thought he would not fall again into similar scrapes. The
Foreign Ministers themselves were exceedingly astonished, and not a
little annoyed. Brunnow said it was a complete mockery, and they all
felt that it was unsatisfactory to be put in relation with a Foreign
Secretary who was only to be there for a few weeks.
The Queen is delighted to have got rid of the late Ministers. She felt,
as everybody else does, that their Government was disgraced by its
shuffling and prevarication, and she said that Harcourt's pamphlet
(which was all true) was sufficient to show what they were.[1] As she is
very honourable and true herself, it was natural she should disapprove
their conduct.
DISRAELI AND THE IRISH BRIGADE.
Yesterday Delane called on me, and gave me an account of a curious
conversation he had had with Disraeli. Disraeli asked him to call on
him, which he did, when they talked over recent events and the fall of
the late Government, very frankly, it would seem, on Disraeli's part. He
acknowledged that he had been bitterly mortified. When Delane asked him,
'now it was all over,' what made him produce such a Budget, he said, if
he had not been thwarted and disappointed, he should have carried it by
the aid of the Irish Brigade whom he had _engaged_ for that purpose.
Just before the debate, one of them came to him and said, if he would
agree to refer Sharman Crawford's Tenant Right Bill to the Select
Committee with the Government Bill, they would all vote with him. He
thought this too good a bargain to miss, and he closed with his friend
on those terms, told Walpole what he had arranged, desired him to carry
out the bargain, and the thing was done. No sooner was the announcement
made than Lord Naas and Sir Joseph Napier[2] (who had never been
informed) came in a great fury to Disraeli and Walpole, complained of
the way they had been treated, and threatened to resign. With great
difficulty he pacified or rather silenced them, and he was in hopes the
storm had blown over, but the next day he found Naas and Napier had gone
to Lord Derby with their complaints, and he now found the latter full of
wrath and indignation likewise; for Lord Roden, who had heard something
of this compromise (i.e. of the Tenant Right Bill being referred to
Committee), announced his intention of asking Lord Derby a question in
the House of Lords. Added to this, as soon as the news reached Dublin,
Lord Eglinton and Blackburne testified the same resentment as Naas and
Napier had done, and threatened to resign likewise. All this produced a
prodigious flare up. Disraeli represented that it was his business to
make the Budget succeed by such means as he could, that the votes of the
Brigade would decide it either way, and that he had made a very good
bargain, as he had pledged himself to nothing more, and never had any
intention of giving any _suite_ to what had been done, so that it could
not signify. He did not succeed in appeasing Lord Derby, who, a night or
two after in the Lords, repudiated all participation in what had been
done, and attacked the Irishmen very bitterly. Disraeli heard this
speech, and saw at once that it would be fatal to the Budget and to
them, as it proved, for the whole Brigade voted in a body against the
Government, and gave a majority to the other side. He seemed in pretty
good spirits as to the future, though without for the present any
definite purpose. He thinks the bulk of the party will keep together.
Delane asked him what he would have done with such a Budget if he had
carried it.
He said they should have remodelled their Government, Palmerston and
Gladstone would have joined them (_Gladstone_ after the debate and their
duel!); during the intervening two or three months the Budget would have
been discussed in the country, what was liked retained, what was
unpopular altered, and in the end they should have produced a very good
Budget which the country would have taken gladly. He never seems to have
given a thought to any consideration of political morality, honesty, or
truth, in all that he said. The moral of the whole is, that let what
will happen it will be very difficult to bring Lord Derby and Disraeli
together again. They must regard each other with real, if not avowed,
distrust and dislike. Disraeli said that Derby's position in life and
his fortune were so different from his, that their several courses must
be influenced accordingly. It is easy to conceive how Lord Derby,
embarked (no matter how or why) in such a contest, should strain every
nerve to succeed and fight it out; but the thing once broken up, he
would not be very likely to place himself again in such a situation, and
to encounter the endless difficulties, dangers, and mortifications
attendant upon the lead of such a party, and above all the necessity of
trusting entirely to such a colleague as Disraeli in the House of
Commons without one other man of a grain of capacity besides. As it is,
he will probably betake himself to the enjoyment of his pleasures and
pursuits, till he is recalled to political life by some fresh excitement
and interest that time and circumstances may throw in his way; but let
what will happen, I doubt his encountering again the troubles and
trammels of office.[3]
[Footnote 1: Mr. William Harcourt published a pamphlet at this time on
'The Morality of Public Men,' in which he censured with great severity
the conduct of the late Ministers.]
[Footnote 2: Lord Naas was Chief Secretary for Ireland, and Sir Joseph
Napier Attorney-General for Ireland, in Lord Derby's Administration of
1852. Lord Eglinton was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and the Right Hon.
Francis Blackburne Irish Lord Chancellor.]
[Footnote 3: A singularly unfortunate prediction! The alliance of Lord
Derby and Mr. Disraeli remained unbroken, and continued long enough to
enable them (after a second failure) to bring the Conservative party
back to power.]
DEATH OF LORD BEAUVALE.
_January 30th._--Yesterday morning Frederic Lamb, Lord Beauvale and
Melbourne, with whom both titles cease, died at Brocket after a short
but severe attack of influenza, fever, and gout. He was in his
seventy-first year. Lady Palmerston thus becomes a rich heiress. He was
not so remarkable a man in character as his brother William, less
peculiar and eccentric, more like other people, with much less of
literary acquirement, less caustic humour and pungent wit, but he had a
vigorous understanding, great quickness, a good deal of general
information, he was likewise well versed in business and public affairs,
and a very sensible and intelligent converser and correspondent. He took
a deep and lively interest in politics to the last moment of his life,
was insatiably curious about all that was going on, and was much
confided in and consulted by many people of very different parties and
opinions. He never was in Parliament, but engaged all his life in a
diplomatic career, for which he was very well fitted, having been
extremely handsome in his youth, and always very clever, agreeable, and
adroit. He consequently ran it with great success, and was in high
estimation at Vienna, where his brother-in-law, Palmerston, sent him as
Ambassador. He was always much addicted to gallantry, and had endless
liaisons with women, most of whom continued to be his friends long after
they had ceased to be his mistresses, much to the credit of all parties.
After having led a very free and dissolute life, he had the good fortune
at sixty years old, and with a broken and enfeebled constitution, to
settle (as it is called), by marrying a charming girl of twenty, the
daughter of the Prussian Minister at Vienna, Count Maltzahn. This Adine,
who was content to unite her May to his December, was to him a perfect
angel, devoting her youthful energies to sustain and cheer his
valetudinarian existence with a cheerful unselfishness, which he repaid
by a grateful and tender affection, having an air at once marital and
paternal. She never cared to go anywhere, gave up all commerce with the
world and all its amusements and pleasures, contenting herself with such
society as it suited him to gather about them, his old friends and some
new ones, to whom she did the honours with infinite grace and
cordiality, and who all regarded her with great admiration and respect.
In such social intercourse, in political gossip, and in her untiring
attentions, his last years glided away, not without enjoyment. He and
his brother William had always been on very intimate terms, and William
highly prized his advice and opinions; but as Frederic was at heart a
Tory, and had a horror of Radicalism in every shape, he was not seldom
disgusted with the conduct of the Whig Government, and used sorely to
perplex and mortify William by his free and severe strictures on him and
his colleagues. He nominally belonged to the Liberal party, but in
reality he was strongly Conservative, and he always dreaded the progress
of democracy, though less disturbed than he would otherwise have been by
reflecting that no material alteration could possibly overtake him. His
most intimate friends abroad were the Metternichs and Madame de Lieven,
and his notions of foreign policy were extremely congenial to theirs.
Here, his connexions all lying with people of the Liberal side, he had
nothing to do with the Tories, for most of whom he entertained great
contempt. Brougham, Ellice, and myself were the men he was most intimate
with. He was very fond of his sister, but never much liked Palmerston,
and was bitterly opposed to his policy when he was at the Foreign
Office, which was a very sore subject between himself and them, and for
a long time, and on many occasions, embittered or interrupted their
intercourse; but as he was naturally affectionate, had a very good
temper, and loved an easy life, such clouds were always soon dispersed,
and no permanent estrangement ever took place. He was largely endowed
with social merits and virtues, without having or affecting any claim to
those of a higher or moral character. I have no doubt he was much more
amiable as an old man than he ever had been when he was a young one; and
though the death of one so retired from the world can make little or no
sensation in it, except as being the last of a remarkable family, he
will be sincerely regretted, and his loss will be sensibly felt by the
few who enjoyed the intimacy of his declining years.
LADY BEAUVALE.
_February 8th._--Yesterday I went to see the unhappy Lady Beauvale, and,
apart from the sorrow of witnessing so much bodily and mental suffering,
it is really a singular and extraordinary case. Here is a woman
thirty-two years old, and therefore in the prime of life, who has lost a
husband of seventy-one deprived of the use of his limbs, and whom she
had nursed for ten years, the period of their union, with the probable
or possible fatal termination of his frequent attacks of gout constantly
before her eyes, and she is not merely plunged in great grief at the
loss she has sustained, but in a blank and hopeless despair, which in
its moral and physical effects seriously menaces her own existence. She
is calm, reasonable and docile, talks of him and his illness without any
excitement, and is ready to do everything that her friends advise; but
she is earnestly desirous to die, considers her sole business on earth
as finished, and talks as if the prolongation of her own life could only
be an unmitigated evil and intolerable burden, and that no ray of hope
was left for her of any possibility of happiness or even peace and ease
for the future. She is in fact brokenhearted, and that for a man old
enough to be her grandfather and a martyr to disease and infirmity; but
to her he was everything; she had consecrated her life to the
preservation of his, and she kept his vital flame alive with the
unwearied watching of a Vestal priestess. She had made him an object and
an idol round which all the feelings and even passion of an affectionate
heart had entwined themselves, till at last she had merged her very
existence in his, and only lived in, with, and for him. She saw and felt
that he enjoyed life, and she made it her object to promote and prolong
this enjoyment. 'Why,' she says, 'could I not save him now, as I saved
him heretofore?' and not having been able to do so, she regards her own
life as utterly useless and unnecessary, and only hopes to be relieved
of it that she may (as she believes and expects) be enabled to join him
in some other world.[1]
[Footnote 1: She lived, however, and married Lord Forester, _en
secondes noces_, in 1856.]
_February 9th._--Yesterday Clarendon told me a curious thing about the
Emperor Napoleon and his marriage, which came in a roundabout way, but
which no doubt is true. Madame de Montijo's most intimate friend is the
Marchioness of Santa Cruz, and to her she wrote an account of what had
passed about her daughter's marriage and the Emperor's proposal to her.
When he offered her marriage, she expressed her sense of the greatness
of the position to which he proposed to raise her. He replied, 'It is
only fair that I should set before you the whole truth, and let you know
that if the position is very high, it is also perhaps very dangerous and
insecure.' He then represented to her in detail all the dangers with
which he was environed, his unpopularity with the higher classes, the
_malveillance_ of the Great Powers, the possibility of his being any day
assassinated at her side, his popularity indeed with the masses, but the
fleeting character of their favour, but above all the existence of a
good deal of disaffection and hostility in the army, the most serious
thing of all. If this latter danger, he said, were to become more
formidable, he knew very well how to avert it by a war; and though his
earnest desire was to maintain peace, if no other means of
self-preservation should remain, he should not shrink from that, which
would at once rally the whole army to one common feeling. All this he
told her with entire frankness, and without concealing the perils of his
position, or his sense of them, and it is one of the most creditable
traits I have ever heard of him. It was, of course, calculated to engage
and attach any woman of high spirit and generosity, and it seems to have
had that effect upon her. It is, however, curious in many ways; it
reveals a sense of danger that is not apparently suspected, and his
consciousness of it; and it shows how, in spite of a sincere wish to
maintain peace, he may be driven to make war as a means of
self-preservation, and therefore how entirely necessary it is that we
should be on our guard, and not relax our defensive preparations. I was
sure from the conversations I had with M. de Flahault at Beaudesert,
that he feels the Emperor's situation to be one of insecurity and
hazard. He said that it remained to be seen whether it was possible that
a Government could be maintained permanently in France on the principle
of the total suppression of civil and political liberty, which had the
support of the masses, but which was abhorred and opposed by all the
elevated and educated classes. The limbs of the body politic are with
the Emperor, and the head against him.
_February 11th._--Parliament met again last night. Lord Derby threw off
in the Lords by asking Lord Aberdeen what the Government meant to do,
which Aberdeen awkwardly and foolishly enough declined to give any
answer to. The scene was rather ridiculous, and not creditable, I think,
to Aberdeen. He is unfortunately a very bad speaker at all times, and,
what is worse in a Prime Minister, has no readiness whatever. Lord
Lansdowne would have made a very pretty and dexterous flourish, and
answered the question. Lord John did announce in the House of Commons
what the Government mean to do and not to do, but they say he did it
ill, and it was very flat, not a _brilliant_ throw-off at all.
MARRIAGE OF THE EMPEROR NAPOLEON III.
_February 16th._--Yesterday Cowley arrived from Paris. He called on me,
and gave me an account of the state of things there and some curious
details about the Emperor's marriage and his abortive matrimonial
projects. He confirms the account of Louis Napoleon's position set forth
in Madame de Montijo's letter. The effect of his marriage has been very
damaging everywhere, and the French people were not at all pleased at
his calling himself a 'parvenu,' which mortified their vanity, inasmuch
as they did not like to appear as having thrown themselves at the feet
of a parvenu. For some time before the marriage was declared, Cowley,
from what he saw and the information he received, began to suspect it
would take place, and reported it to John Russell. Just about this time
Walewski went to Paris, and when Cowley saw him he told him so. Walewski
expressed the greatest surprise as well as mortification, and imparted
to Cowley that a negotiation had been and still was going on for the
Emperor's marriage with the Princess Adelaide of Hohenlohe, the Queen's
niece, at that time and still with the Queen in England. This was begun
by Lord Malmesbury, and the Emperor had regularly proposed to her
through her father. A very civil answer had been sent by the Prince, in
which he said that he would not dispose of his daughter's hand without
her consent, and that he had referred the proposal to her, and she
should decide for herself. The Queen had behaved very well, and had
abstained from giving any advice or expressing any opinion on the
subject. They were then expecting the young Princess's decision. This
being the case, Cowley advised Walewski to exert his influence to stop
the demonstrations that were going on between the Emperor and Mlle. di
Montijo, which might seriously interfere with this plan. The next day
Walewski told Cowley that he had seen the Emperor, who took him by both
hands, and said, 'Mon cher, je suis pris,' and then told him he had
resolved to marry Mlle. de Montijo. However, on Walewski representing
the state of the other affair, he agreed to wait for the Princess
Adelaide's answer, but said, if it was unfavourable, he would conclude
the other affair, but if the Princess accepted him he would marry her.
The day following the answer came: very civil, but declining on the
ground of her youth and inexperience, and not feeling equal to such a
position. The same day the Emperor proposed to the Empress. Cowley says
he is evidently much changed since his marriage, and that he is
conscious of his unpopularity and the additional insecurity in which it
has involved his position.
_February 19th._--Lord Cowley told me something more about the marriage.
He saw the Queen on Thursday (17th), who told him all about it. The
first step was taken by Morny, who wrote to Malmesbury, and requested
him to propose it, stating that the Emperor's principal object in it was
to 'resserrer les liens entre les deux pays.' Malmesbury accordingly
wrote to the Queen on the subject. She was annoyed, justly considering
that the proposal, with the reason given, placed her in a very awkward
situation, and that it ought not to have been mentioned to her at all.
The result was what has been already stated, but with this difference,
that the Queen set her face against the match, although the girl, if
left to herself, would have accepted the offer. However, nobody knows
this, and they are very anxious these details should not transpire. The
two accounts I have given of this transaction seem to me to afford a
good illustration of the uncertainty of the best authenticated
historical statements. Nothing could appear more to be relied on than
the accuracy of Cowley's first account to me, and if I had not seen him
again, or if he had not imparted to me his conversation with the Queen,
that account would have stood uncorrected, and an inaccurate version of
the story would have been preserved, and might hereafter have been made
public, and, unless corrected by some other contemporaneous narrative,
would probably have been taken as true. The matter in itself is not very
important, but such errors unquestionably are liable to occur in matters
of greater moment, and actually do occur, fully justifying the
apocryphal character which has been ascribed to almost every historical
work.[1]
The Queen seems to be intensely curious about the Court of France and
all details connected with it, and on the other hand Louis Napoleon has
been equally curious about the etiquette observed in the English Court,
and desirous of assimilating his to ours, which in great measure he
appears to have done.
DISRAELI'S ATTACK ON SIR CHARLES WOOD.
Last night there was the first field day in the House of Commons,
Disraeli having made an elaborate and bitter attack on the Government,
but especially on Charles Wood and Graham, under the pretence of asking
questions respecting our foreign relations, and more particularly with
France.[2] His speech was very long, in most parts very tiresome, but
with a good deal of ability, and a liberal infusion of that sarcastic
vituperation which is his great forte, and which always amuses the House
of Commons more or less. It was, however, a speech of devilish
malignity, quite reckless and shamelessly profligate; for the whole
scope of it was, if possible, to envenom any bad feeling that may
possibly exist between France and England, and, by the most exaggerated
representations of the offence given by two of the Ministers to the
French Government and nation, to exasperate the latter, and to make it a
point of honour with them to resent it, even to the extent of a quarrel
with us. Happily its factious violence was so great as to disgust even
the people on his own side, and the French Government is too really
desirous of peace and harmony to pay any attention to the rant of a
disappointed adventurer, whose motives and object are quite transparent.
[Footnote 1: Further details with reference to the marriage of the
Emperor will be found in Lord Malmesbury's _Memoirs_, vol. i. pp. 374
and 378, which confirm Mr. Greville's narrative.]
[Footnote 2: Sir Charles Wood, President of the Board of Control, made
a speech to his constituents at Halifax on February 3, in which he
commented in severe language on the despotic character of the Imperial
Government of France. The speech was thought to be unbecoming in the
mouth of a Cabinet minister, and Sir Charles apologised for it. But Mr.
Disraeli made it the subject of a fierce attack in the House of
Commons.]
_February 20th._--Disraeli's speech on Friday night was evidently a
political blunder, which has injured him in the general opinion, and
disgusted his own party. It is asserted that he communicated his
intention to his followers, who disapproved of it, but he nevertheless
persisted. The speech itself was too long; it was dull and full of
useless truisms in the first part, but clever and brilliant in the last;
and his personalities were very smart and well aimed; but there was not
a particle of truth and sincerity in it; it was a mere vituperation and
factious display, calculated to do mischief if it produced any effect at
all, and quite unbecoming a man who had just been a Minister of the
Crown and leader of the House of Commons, and who ought to have been
animated by higher motives and more patriotic views. This was what the
more sensible men of the party felt, and Tom Baring, the most sensible
and respectable of the Derbyites, and the man of the greatest weight
amongst them, told me himself that he was so much disgusted that he was
on the point of getting up to disavow him, and it is much to be
regretted, as I told him, that such a rebuke was not administered from
such a quarter. It does not look as if the connexion between Disraeli
and the party could go on long. Their dread and distrust of him and his
contempt of them render it difficult if not impossible. Pakington is
already talked of as their leader, and some think Disraeli wants to
shake them off and trade on his own bottom, trusting to his great
abilities to make his way to political power with somebody and on some
principles, about neither of which he would be very nice. Tom Baring
said to me last night, 'Can't you make room for him in this Coalition
Government?' I said, 'Why, will you give him to us?' 'Oh, yes,' he said,
'you shall have him with pleasure.'
LORD JOHN RUSSELL LEAVES THE FOREIGN OFFICE.
Lord John Russell has taken leave of the Foreign Office, and has had an
interview with the Queen and Prince, satisfactory to both. She has been
all along considerably annoyed at the arrangement made about his taking
the Foreign Office only to quit it, and his leading the House of Commons
without any office, which she fancies is unconstitutional, and the
arrangement was announced in the newspapers without any proper
communication to her. The consequence has been some little soreness on
both sides, but this has now been all removed by explanations and
amicable communication. The Queen attacked him on the constitutional
ground, but here _elle l'a pris par son fort_, and he easily bowled over
this objection.[1] Then she expressed her fear lest it should be drawn
into a precedent, which might be inconvenient in other cases, to which
he replied that he thought there was little fear of anybody wishing to
follow the precedent of a man taking upon himself a vast amount of
labour without any pay at all. Then she said that a man independent of
office might consider himself independent of the Crown also, and
postpone its interests to popular requirements; which he answered by
saying that he did not think any Minister, as it was, thought very much
of the Crown as contradistinguished from the people, and that he was not
less likely to take such a part as she apprehended by holding an office
of 5,000_l._ a year, from which a vote of the House of Commons could at
any moment expel him.
[Footnote 1: The objection taken by Her Majesty was to Lord John
Russell's proposal that he should retain his seat in the Cabinet and the
leadership of the House of Commons without holding any special office in
the Government. But in fact, as a Privy Councillor of the Crown, a
Minister, with or without office, is under precisely the same
obligations to the Sovereign and to Parliament. He appears to have
satisfied them both, and to be satisfied himself, which is still more
important.]
_February 25th._--The Jew question and the Maynooth question have been
got over in the House of Commons without much debate, but by small
majorities. The most remarkable incident was young Stanley[1] voting
with the majority in both questions, and speaking on Maynooth, and well.
As he is pretty sure to act a conspicuous part, it is good to see him
taking a wise and liberal line. Disraeli voted for the Jews, but did not
speak, which was very base of him. Last night I met Tomline at dinner,
who is a friend of his, and told me a great deal about him. He has a
good opinion of him, that is, that he has a good disposition, but his
personal position perverts him in great measure. He says he dislikes and
despises Derby, thinks him a good 'Saxon' speaker and nothing more, has
a great contempt for his party, particularly for Pakington, whom they
seem to think of setting up as leader in his place. The man in the House
of Commons whom he most fears as an opponent is Gladstone. He has the
highest opinion of his ability, and he respects Graham as a statesman.
Tomline told me that his system of attacking the late Sir Robert Peel
was settled after this manner. When the great schism took place, three
of the seceders went to Disraeli (Miles, Tyrrel, and a third whom I have
forgotten), and proposed to him to attack and vilify Peel regularly, but
with discretion; not to fatigue and disgust the House, to make a speech
against him about once a fortnight or so, and promised if he would that
a constant and regular attendance of a certain number of men should be
there to cheer and support him, remarking that nobody was ever efficient
in the House of Commons without this support certain.[2] He desired
twenty minutes to consider of this offer, and finally accepted it. We
have seen the result, a curious beginning of an important political
career. Now they dread and hate him, for they know in his heart he has
no sympathy with them, and that he has no truth or sincerity in his
conduct or speeches, and would throw them over if he thought it his
interest.
[Footnote 1: The present Earl of Derby, who succeeded his father as
fifteenth Earl in 1869. He entered public life as Under Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs in 1852.]
[Footnote 2: This anecdote is related on the authority of Mr. Tomline
as stated in the text. It was mentioned in the lifetime of Lord
Beaconsfield, and in justice to him it must be said that he altogether
denied the truth of the story.]
WHIG MALCONTENTS.
_March 1st._--The Government seem upon the whole to be going on
prosperously. They have at present no difficulty in the House of
Commons, where there is no disposition to oppose their measures, and an
appearance of moderation generally, which promises an easy Session. John
Russell has spoken well, and seems to have recovered a great share of
the popularity he had lost. Aberdeen has done very well in the House of
Lords, his answers to various 'questions' having been discreet,
temperate, and judicious; in short, up to this time the horizon is
tolerably clear. On the other hand the divisions have presented meagre
majorities, and the Government have no _power_ in the House of Commons,
and live on the goodwill or forbearance of the several fractions of
which it is composed. John Russell is in his heart not satisfied with
his present position, and not animated with any spirit of zeal or
cordiality, though he is sure to act honestly and fairly the part he has
undertaken. There is still a good deal of lurking discontent and
resentment on the part of those who were left out, and of the Whig party
generally, who are only half reconciled to following the banner of a
Peelite premier; of the malcontents the principal are Carlisle and
Clanricarde, who are both in different ways very sore; Normanby is
dissatisfied, Labouchere, Seymour, and George Grey not pleased, but
except Clanricarde none have shown any disposition to withhold their
support from the Government, or even to carp at them. Aberdeen seems to
have no notion of being anything but a _real_ Prime Minister. He means
to exercise a large influence in the management of foreign affairs,
which he considers to be the peculiar, if not exclusive, province of
himself and Clarendon. Palmerston does not interfere with them at all,
but he must do so, if any important questions arise for the Cabinet to
decide, and then it is very likely some dissension will be the
consequence. There are four ex-Secretaries for foreign affairs in this
Cabinet, all of whom will naturally take part in any discussion of
moment. Argyll began rather unluckily, running his head indiscreetly
against Ellenborough on an Indian petition. He is burning with
impatience to distinguish himself, and broke out too soon, and out of
season; but he was not unconscious of his error, and it will probably be
of use to him to have met with a little check at his outset, and teach
him to be more discreet. He spoke again last night, and very well, on
the Clergy reserves, when there was a brilliant passage of arms in the
Lords, in which Lord Derby and the Bishops of Exeter and Oxford
distinguished themselves.
News came by telegraph last night that the dispute between Turkey and
Austria is settled, which will relieve us from a great difficulty. If it
had gone on, we should have had a difficult part to play, and unluckily
the good understanding that was reviving between us and Vienna has all
been upset by the late attempt on the Emperor's life,[1] which has
thrown the Austrians into a ferment, and renewed all their bitter
resentment against us for harbouring Kossuth and Mazzini, to whom they
attribute both the _émeute_ at Milan and the assassination at Vienna
severally. They are no doubt right about Mazzini and wrong about
Kossuth, but fortunately for us the first is not in England and has been
abroad for some time, and it will probably be impossible to bring any
evidence against Kossuth to connect him with the Hungarian assassin. But
these troubles and attempts, the origin of which is attributed to men
residing here, and, though neglected by the Government, more or less
objects of popular favour and sympathy, render all relations of amity
impossible between our Government and theirs, and the disunion is
aggravated by our absurd meddling with such cases as the Madiai and
Murray at Florence and at Rome, which are no concern of ours, and which
our Government does in compliance with Protestant bigotry. What makes
our conduct the more absurd is that we do more harm than good to the
objects of our interest, for no Government can, with any regard to its
own dignity and independence, yield to our dictation and impertinent
interference. The Grand Duke of Tuscany said that the Madiai would have
been let out of prison long ago but for our interference. John Russell's
published letter on this subject, which was very palateable to the
public, was as objectionable as possible, and quite as insolent and
presumptuous as any Palmerston used to write.
AUSTRIAN OPPRESSION IN ITALY.
Last night the Marquis Massimo d'Azeglio came here. He was Prime
Minister in Piedmont till replaced by Count Cavour, and is come to join
his nephew, who is Minister here. He is a tall, thin, dignified looking
man, with very pleasing manners. He gave us a shocking account of the
conduct of the Austrians at Milan in consequence of the recent outbreak.
Their tyranny and cruelty have been more like the deeds in the middle
ages than those in our own time; wantonly putting people to death
without trial or even the slightest semblance of guilt, plundering and
confiscating, and in every respect acting in a manner equally barbarous
and impolitic. They have thrown away a good opportunity of improving
their own moral status in Italy, and completely played the game of their
enemies by increasing the national hatred against them tenfold. If ever
France finds it her interest to go to war,[2] Italy will be her mark,
for she will now find the whole population in her favour, and would be
joined by Sardinia, who would be too happy to revenge her former
reverses with French aid; nor would it be possible for this country to
support Austria in a war to secure that Italian dominion which she has
so monstrously abused.
[Footnote 1: The Emperor of Austria was stabbed in the neck on February
18, by Joseph Libeny, on the ramparts of Vienna, fortunately without
serious consequences. The assassin had not the remotest connexion with
anyone in this country.]
[Footnote 2: Remarkable prediction, verified in 1859.]
_March 3rd._--Lord Aberdeen has gained great credit by making Mr.
Jackson, Rector of St. James's, Bishop of Lincoln. He is a man without
political patronage or connexion, and with no recommendation but his
extraordinary merit both as a parish priest and a preacher. Such an
appointment is creditable, wise, and popular, and will strengthen the
Government by conciliating the moderate and sincere friends of the
Church.
The Duke of Bedford writes to me about his papers and voluminous
correspondence, which he has been thinking of overhauling and arranging,
but he shrinks from such a laborious task. He says: 'With respect to my
political correspondence, it has been unusually interesting and
remarkable. I came so early into public life, have been so mixed up with
everything, have known the political chief of my own party so
intimately, and of the Tory party also to a limited extent, that there
is no great affair of my own time I have not been well acquainted with.'
This is very true, and his correspondence, whenever it sees the light,
will be more interesting, and contribute more historical information,
than that of any other man who has been engaged in public life. The
papers of Peel and of the Duke of Wellington may be more important, but
I doubt their's being more interesting, because the Duke of Bedford's
will be of a more miscellaneous and comprehensive character; and though
his abilities are not of a very high order, his judgement is sound, his
mind is unprejudiced and candid, and he is a sincere worshipper of
truth.
For the last few days John Russell has been kept away from the House of
Commons by the death of the Dowager Duchess of Bedford, when Palmerston
has been acting as leader, taking that post as naturally and undoubtedly
belonging to him, and his right to it being entirely acquiesced in by
his colleagues of both camps. They say that he has given great
satisfaction to the House, where he is regarded with the same favour and
inclination as heretofore, and _personally_ much more acceptable than
Lord John. Cobden dined with John Russell the other day, and, what is
more remarkable, Bessborough told me he met Roden at dinner the other
day at the Castle at Dublin, St. Germans and he on very goodhumoured
terms. These are striking examples of the compatibility of the strongest
political difference with social amenities. Cobden, however, is not in
regular opposition to the Government, but in great measure a supporter.
ALLIANCE OF FRANCE AND ENGLAND.
_March 10th._--I met M. de Flahault last night, just returned from
Paris. He said that he found there a rancour and violence against us
amongst the Austrians, and Russians and Prussians no less, quite
inconceivable. He talked to them all and represented to them the
absurdity of their suppositions and exigencies, but without the
slightest effect; he found the Emperor, however, in a very different
frame of mind, understanding perfectly the position of the English
Government, and completely determined to maintain his alliance with us,
and not to yield to the tempting cajolery of the Continental Powers, who
want him to make common cause with them against us. Such is their
madness and their passion, and such the necessity, real or fancied, in
which they are placed by the revolutionary fire which is still
smouldering everywhere, and their own detestable misgovernment (at least
that of Austria, which the others abet), that they are ready to
cooperate with France in coercing and weakening us, and to sacrifice all
the great and traditional policy of Europe, in order to wage war against
the stronghold and only asylum of constitutional principles and
government.
Flahault said that the Emperor has had an opportunity of placing himself
in the first year of his reign in a situation which was the great object
of his uncle's life, and which he never could attain. He might have been
at the head of a European league against us, for these powers have
signified to him their willingness to follow him in such a crusade, the
Emperor of Russia and he being on the best terms, and a cordial
interchange of letters having taken place between them. But Napoleon has
had the wisdom and the magnanimity to resist the bait, to decline these
overtures, and to resolve on adherence to England. Flahault said that he
had had an audience, at which he frankly and freely told the Emperor his
own opinion, not being without apprehension that it would be
unpalateable to him, and not coincident with his own views. While he was
talking to him, he saw him smile, which he interpreted into a sentiment
that he (Flahault) was too _English_ for him in his language and
opinions, and he said so. The Emperor said, 'I smiled because you so
exactly expressed my own opinions,' and then he told him that he took
exactly the same view of what his true policy was that Flahault himself
did. Flahault suggested to him that, in spite of the civilities shown
him by the Northern Powers, they did not, and never would, consider him
as one of themselves, and they only wanted to make him the instrument of
their policy or their vengeance; and he reminded him that while England
had at once recognised him, they were not only in no hurry to do so, but
if England had not recognised him as she did, he would not have been
recognised by any one of those Powers to this day, all which he
acknowledged to be true.
HOSTILITY OF AUSTRIA.
The prevailing feeling against England which Flahault found at Paris has
been proved on innumerable occasions. Clarendon is well aware of it, and
does his best, but with very little success, to bring the foreign
Ministers and others to reason. Madame de Lieven writes to me in this
strain, and even liberal and intelligent foreigners like Alfred Potocki,
who has been accused of being a rebel in Austria, writes that we ought
to expel the refugees. At Vienna the people are persuaded that there is
some indirect and undefinable participation on the part of the British
Government in the insurrectionary and homicidal acts of Milan and
Vienna, and they have got a story that the assassin Libeny had a letter
of Palmerston's in his shoe. Unreasonable as all this is, we ought to
make great allowance for their excited feelings, for they have a case
against us of a cumulative character. It goes back a long way, and
embraces many objects and details, and is principally attributable to
Palmerston, partly to his doings, and perhaps more to his sayings. They
cannot forget that he has long been the implacable enemy of Austria,
that he advised her renunciation of her Italian dominions, and that he
and his agents have always sympathised with, and sometimes aided and
abetted most of the revolutionary movements that have taken place. Then
there was the Haynau affair, and the lukewarmness and indifference
which the Government of that day, and Palmerston particularly, exhibited
about it; then the reception of Kossuth, the public meetings and his
speeches, together with the speeches at them of Cobden and others of
which no notice was ever taken, and finally the transaction about
Palmerston's receiving Kossuth and his famous answer to the addresses
presented to him from Finsbury and Islington. All these things satisfy
the foreign Governments that we are not only politically but nationally
their enemies, and that we harbour their rebellious subjects out of
hatred to them, and that we regard with sympathy and a secret
satisfaction the plots which they concoct in safety here and go forth to
execute abroad. And when they are told that our laws afford these people
an asylum, which no Government has the power to deny them, and that
Parliament and public opinion will not consent to arm the Government
with the powers of restraint or coercion they do not possess, they only
explode the more loudly in denunciations against that free and
constitutional system which is not only a perpetual reproach, but, as
they think, a source of continual danger to their own. So much for
foreign affairs.
At home, while the political sky is still serene enough, there are some
rocks ahead, and I think the Government in peril from more than one
cause. First and foremost there is the Indian question. There is
something ominous in the conjunction between a Coalition Government and
an India Bill, and if they don't take care, they will get into a
scrape.[1] The Opposition is broken and disorganised, and at present
there is no disposition on the part of the extreme Liberals to join in
any strong measures against the Government; but this is a question on
which all the scattered fractions might be made easily to combine, and
there are already symptoms of a possible combination _ad hoc_ in the
Indian Committee of the House of Commons. Lowe is very much
dissatisfied with Charles Wood, and with the intentions of Government,
and even talks of resigning; and the 'Times' is going into furious
opposition on the Indian question, and is already attacking the
Government for their supposed intentions. This, therefore, is assuming a
serious aspect. There is besides the Budget and the difficulty of the
Income Tax, and these two questions are enough to put them in great
perplexity.
[Footnote 1: The Charter of the East India Company being about to
expire, Sir Charles Wood, the President of the Board of Control,
introduced in an elaborate speech a Bill for the future government of
India by the Company, which changed the constitution and limited the
patronage of the Court of Directors. The Bill was finally passed on July
28.]
_March 19th._--The question of Indian government and the renewal of the
Charter is every day increasing in importance and attracting more and
more of public attention. It is a matter of great difficulty for the
Government to deal with. They are threatened by enemies, and pressed by
friends and half friends, who want them to postpone any measure for
another year or two years. They, on the contrary, stand pledged, and
think they ought to propose something this year. It presents a field on
which the various fractions of hostility and semi-hostility to the
Government may meet and combine, and perhaps place them in great
difficulty. The Committees are going on taking evidence with the
knowledge that the Government will probably not wait for their several
reports before proceeding to legislation. Granville has got the
management of the Government measures in the House of Lords, and is
working very hard at Indian affairs. Yesterday I met at dinner at
Ellice's two able men just arrived from India for the purpose of giving
evidence, a Mr. Halliday and a Mr. Marchmont. They are for maintaining
the present system, but with many reforms and alterations; they spoke
highly of Lord Dalhousie as a man of business.
CONVERSATION OF THE EMPEROR NICHOLAS.
_March 24th._--As I never see Clarendon now, who is entirely absorbed in
the duties of his office, he engaged me to go and dine with him alone
yesterday, that we might have a talk about all that is going on, and he
told me a great deal of one sort or another. I learnt the state of our
relations with France and Russia in reference to the Turkish business,
and he gave me to read a very curious and interesting despatch
(addressed to John Russell) from Seymour, giving an account of a long
conversation he had had with the Emperor Nicholas about Turkey and her
prospects and condition, and his own intentions and opinions, which were
amicable towards us, and very wise and moderate in themselves,
contemplating the dissolution of the Turkish Empire, disclaiming in the
strongest terms any design of occupying Constantinople--more than that,
declaring that he would not do it--but supposing the event to happen,
not thinking the solution of the problem so difficult as it is generally
regarded. He threw out that he should have no objection, if a partition
was ever to take place, that we should appropriate Egypt and Candia to
ourselves. He seems to have talked very frankly, and he said one curious
thing, which was that Russia was not without a revolutionary substratum,
which was only less apparent and less menacing than in other parts
because he possessed greater means of repression, but nevertheless that
the seeds were there. It is lucky Dundas is a prudent man, and refused
to carry his fleet up to the vicinity of the Dardanelles at Rose's
invitation, or mischief might have ensued. As it is, we disapprove of
Rose's proceedings and have approved Dundas's, at the same time ordering
him not to move without express orders from home, and moreover Clarendon
refused to give Stratford Canning any discretionary authority to send
for the fleet (though it was afterwards given), which he had asked to be
entrusted with. Clarendon is much dissatisfied with the conduct of the
French Government, who were in a great hurry to send off their fleet,
and they sent orders to sail on the mere report of what Rose had done,
and without waiting to learn the result of his application to the
Admiral; and they did this, although they knew the despatches were on
the road, and that a very few hours would put them in possession of the
actual state of the case. Moreover, Cowley moved heaven and earth to
induce Drouyn de Lhuys to withdraw the order to sail, but without
effect. They persisted in it, after they knew we were not going to stir,
and Cowley could not see the Emperor, who he says was evidently avoiding
any communication with him. Still very friendly language continues to
pass between us, and our Government are inclined to attribute this
unwise proceeding to the vanity of the French, their passion for doing
something, and above all the inexperience and want of _savoir faire_ in
high matters of diplomacy of the Emperor and his ministers. There is not
one amongst them who is fit to handle such delicate and important
questions, the Emperor, who governs everything by his own will, less
than any; and Drouyn de Lhuys, who has been for many years engaged more
or less in the Foreign Office, is a very poor and inefficient minister.
THE EASTERN QUESTION.
Clarendon told me he had seen Brunnow, and after recapitulating to him
all the various causes for alarm, resting on facts or on rumours,
especially with regard to Russia and her intentions, he said that our
Government had received the word of honour of the Emperor that he had no
sinister or hostile intentions, and disclaimed those that had been
imputed to him, and that on his word they relied with such implicit
confidence that he had not the slightest fear of disquietude. Brunnow
was exceedingly pleased, and said that was the way to treat the Emperor,
who would be excessively gratified, nothing being dearer to him than the
confidence and good opinion of this country, and he said he would send
off a courier the next day, and Clarendon should dictate his despatch.
The instructions given to Menschikoff have been enormously exaggerated,
the most serious and offensive parts that have been stated (the
nomination of the Greek Patriarch, &c.) being totally false.[1] I asked
what they were, and he said nothing but a string of conditions about
shrines and other ecclesiastical trifles. Walewski seems to have done
well here, condemning the conduct of his own Government, and not
concealing from them his own opinion, and entirely going along with us.
It was on Saturday night that the courier arrived with Rose's and
Dundas's despatches, and a few of the Cabinet met on Sunday at the
Admiralty to talk the matter over. Clarendon sent for John Russell from
Richmond, and he thought it advisable to summon Palmerston to this
conciliabule, to keep him in good humour, which it had the effect of
doing. There were himself, Palmerston, John Russell, Aberdeen, and
Graham. He had written to Lord John on Saturday night, and sent him the
despatches; he got an answer from him, full of very wild talk of strong
measures to be taken, and a fleet sent to the Baltic to make peremptory
demands on the Emperor of Russia. This, however, he took no notice of,
and did not say one word to Aberdeen about it, quietly letting it drop,
and accordingly he heard no more about it, nobody, he said, but me,
knowing what Lord John had proposed. I asked him what were Palmerston's
views. He replied that he did not say much, and acquiesced in his and
Aberdeen's prudent and reserved intentions, but he could see, from a few
words that casually escaped him, that he would have been ready to join
in more stringent and violent measures if they had been proposed. His
hatred of Russia is not extinguished, but as it was, there was no
expressed difference of opinion, and a general agreement. He said he had
had a prejudice against Gladstone, but he now liked him very much, and
Granville had already told me the same thing.
Aberdeen likes his post and enjoys the consciousness of having done very
well in it. He is extremely liberal, but of a wise and well-reasoned
liberality. As it has turned out, he is far fitter for the post he
occupies than Lansdowne would have been, both morally and physically.
The Queen is devoted to this Government, and expressed to Aberdeen the
liveliest apprehension lest they should get themselves into some scrape
with the India Bill, and entreated he would run no risks in it.
Aberdeen, in announcing this one day to the Cabinet, said that the best
thing for them to do was to bring forward a measure of so liberal and
popular a character as to make any serious opposition impossible.
Clarendon agreed in this, and I told him that this had long been my own
idea, and that what they ought to do was to throw open the civil and
military appointments to competition, and to grant appointments after
examination to qualified candidates, just as degrees are given at the
universities. We passed the whole evening together, talking over all
matters of interest, and he told me everything he knew himself.
[Footnote 1: Whilst these pacific assurances were given in London,
Prince Menschikoff arrived in Constantinople on March 2, and commenced
that arrogant and aggressive policy which led in the course of the year
to hostilities between Russia and the Porte. It has, however, only
recently transpired, by the publication of Lord Malmesbury's _Memoirs_
(vol. i. p. 402), that when the Emperor Nicholas came to England in
1844, he, Sir Robert Peel, then Prime Minister, the Duke of Wellington,
and Lord Aberdeen, then Foreign Secretary, drew up and signed a
Memorandum, the spirit and scope of which was to support Russia in her
legitimate protection of the Greek religion and the holy shrines, and to
do so without consulting France. To obtain this agreement was doubtless
the object of the Emperor's journey. It bore his own personal signature.
The existence of this Memorandum was a profound secret known only to the
Queen and to those Ministers who held in succession the seals of the
Foreign Department, each of whom transmitted it privately to his
successor. Lord Malmesbury received the document from Lord Granville,
and on leaving office in 1853 handed it to Lord John Russell. This fact,
hitherto unknown, throws an entirely new light on the causes of the
Crimean War. The Emperor of Russia naturally relied on the support of
the very ministers who had signed the agreement and were again in power,
whilst Lord Aberdeen was conscious of having entered into an engagement
wholly at variance with the course of policy into which he was
reluctantly driven.--H. R.]
_April 4th._--I went to Althorp last week, and returned for a Council on
Friday. After it Graham and I stayed behind, when he talked about the
Government and their prospects, which he thought pretty good; they were
going on in great harmony, and the greater, he thought, because they had
originally had such diversities of opinion. This led to a disposition to
mutual concession, and feelings of delicacy towards each other. The
Queen is extremely attached to Aberdeen, more than to any minister she
had ever had. Lord John's position anomalous and unsatisfactory, and
always a question whether he would not become disgusted and back out.
Graham said that Clarendon was doing admirably--better than he had
anticipated.
THE ROYAL CHILDREN.
Lady Lyttelton, whom I met at Althorp, told me a great deal about the
Queen and her children; nothing particularly interesting. She said the
Queen was very fond of them, but severe in her manner, and a strict
disciplinarian in her family. She described the Prince of Wales to be
extremely shy and timid, with very good principles, and particularly an
exact observer of truth; the Princess Royal is remarkably intelligent. I
wrote this because it will hereafter be curious to see how the boy grows
up, and what sort of performance follows this promise, though I shall
not live to see it. She spoke in very high terms of the Queen herself,
of the Prince, and of the simplicity and happiness of her private and
domestic life.