THE LAST YEAR'S WORK
(1886-1887)
The sudden and unexpected declaration in September of the Union of
Bulgaria and Eastern Roumelia which caused so much perturbation in
Europe, and resulted in a war between Servia and Bulgaria, left the
French quite indifferent; but the imminence of hostilities between
England and Burmah provoked French ill-humour, which was all the
more inexcusable because no protest had ever been made against
French proceedings in Tonquin and Madagascar. The truth was that the
Burmese resistance to the Indian Government was largely due to French
encouragement. As far back as 1883 a Burmese Mission had arrived in
Paris, and kept studiously aloof from the British Embassy; and although
every opportunity had been taken to impress upon the French Government
the peculiar relations between Burmah and British India, there was not
the least doubt that the object of the Burmese had been to obtain from
the French Government such a Treaty as would enable them to appeal
to France in the event of their being involved in difficulties with
England. How much encouragement they actually received is not known, but
it was probably sufficient to effect their undoing.
The papers are abusing us about Burmah, and being quite
innocent of any aggression themselves in that part of the world,
are horrified at our holding our own there. Nevertheless, I hope
the Indian Government will finish the thing out of hand, for an
ugly state of feeling about it is growing up here.
The rapidity with which the operations against Burmah were conducted
left nothing to be desired. The campaign was over within a few weeks;
on January 1, 1886, the annexation of Burmah was proclaimed, and the
affairs of that country ceased to be of any further interest to the
French Government.
Lord Salisbury's tenure of the Foreign Office, which had been marked
by so successful a policy that even Mr. Gladstone had expressed
satisfaction, came to an end early in 1886, and he was succeeded by Lord
Rosebery. 'The irony of events,' wrote the latter to Lord Lyons, 'has
sent me to the Foreign Office, and one of the incidents of this which
is most agreeable to me, is that it brings me into close relations with
yourself.'
Although the Paris press had circulated a ridiculous fiction that Lord
Rosebery (presumably because he was personally acquainted with Bismarck)
was anti-French by inclination, the change of Government in England was
received in France with perfect equanimity, as had been the case in the
previous autumn.
The new Foreign Secretary, however, could not fail to be painfully
impressed by the unsatisfactory feeling which obviously existed in
France towards England, and found it difficult of explanation.
* * * * *
_Lord Rosebery to Lord Lyons._
March 3, 1886.
I am rather anxious about the attitude of the French. In
my short tenure of office they have brought up three or four
questions, all in the highest degree distasteful to us.
1. The Consul at Suakim: as to which they say, with accuracy
which is disputed, that they had gone too far and could not
withdraw the appointment.
2. Arbitration on the Somali coast troubles: as to which they
declare that Salisbury promised it, which Salisbury, I understand,
denies.
3. The revival of the Suez Canal Commission.
4. The announcement made to me by Waddington yesterday that
they should be obliged shortly to send a cargo of recidivists to
the Isle of Pines. I remonstrated strongly with him, and indeed
I cannot foresee all the consequences, should they carry their
intention into effect. One, however, I do clearly perceive, which
is that we should have to denounce the Postal Convention of 1856,
which gives the Messageries privileges in Australian ports, which
could not be sustained, and which the colonists would not for a
moment, under such circumstances, respect.
But these are details. What I want to point out is the
apparent animus displayed in these different proceedings. I shall
not mention them to my colleagues until I hear your view of them,
and anything you may be able to collect on the subject.
What does it all mean? These things did not occur during the
late Government? Are they directed against the new Administration?
I cannot view them as a chapter of accidents.
As for myself, I have entered upon this office with the most
sincere wish to be friendly with France. There can be no earthly
reason why we should not be so. It is a pity, therefore, that our
cordiality should be poisoned at its source.
I wish you would let me know what you think of all this. You
can pick up much directly, and perhaps even more indirectly, on
these points. Pray forgive the length of this letter.
* * * * *
_Lord Lyons to Lord Rosebery._
Paris, March 5, 1886.
I have naturally been on the watch since you came into office
for indications of the feelings of the French Government respecting
the change. In answer to your letter of the day before yesterday,
asking my opinion, I can only say that I think the French are quite
as well disposed towards the new Government as they were to the
late one--indeed, of the two, I should say better. We come so much
into contact with the French all over the globe that questions
more or less unpleasant are always arising in smaller or greater
numbers, according to circumstances; and French feeling is in a
chronic state of irritability about Egypt.
The four subjects you mention are certainly annoying, but I do
not believe that the French proceedings respecting them have been
actuated by any animus against the present English Ministry.
I shall be somewhat staggered in this opinion, however, if the
French Government proposes to substitute arbitration by any third
Power for the understanding that the Somali coast questions shall
be treated by friendly negotiations between the two Governments,
and that meanwhile the _status quo_ shall not be disturbed. With a
view to proceeding with the negotiation, M. Waddington proposed to
Lord Salisbury on Jan. 20th, and by a written note the next day,
that an inquiry should be made on the spot by two Commissioners,
one English and one French. Lord Salisbury received the verbal
proposal favourably, but did not at the moment give a definitive
answer.
The proposal to reassemble the Suez Canal Commission is simply
the renewal of a proposal made by M. Waddington to Lord Salisbury
at the beginning of January.
The most serious of the affairs you mention appears to me to
be the imminent despatch of a cargo of _récidivistes_ to the Isle
of Pines. I have seen from the beginning the importance of this
_récidiviste_ question as regards public feeling in Australia,
and there is hardly any question about which I have taken so much
trouble. I have attacked successive French Ministers upon it in
season and out of season, but I have never succeeded in obtaining
any promise that _récidivistes_ should not be sent to the Pacific.
As I reported to you, I remonstrated with Freycinet about the
intention actually to send off a batch, as soon as I became aware
of it. I did not perceive any difference in his manner or language
from what they had been when some other Ministers had been in
office in England, but my remonstrances were equally ineffectual. I
am glad you had an opportunity of speaking strongly to Waddington.
I see troubles ahead, for the Australians have before now
threatened to pass Dominion laws against French ships found to have
escaped convicts on board, which seem to go a good deal beyond
international usage, not to say law.
It is time, however, for me to wind up this long story. My
answer to your question is that I am far from thinking that there
is any _malus animus_ against Her Majesty's present Government on
the part of Freycinet and his Cabinet. Nor do I know that there is
more than the usual irritability towards England among the French
public; but still I feel strongly that it behoves us to tread
cautiously as well as firmly, when we are coming upon French ground.
The spring of 1886 was noticeable for another Government onslaught
upon such members of ex-reigning families as were then residing in
France. Of these the most conspicuous were the Orleans Princes. There
was nothing in their conduct to cause alarm to the Republic, as they
confined themselves to taking part in social functions, at which they
maintained a kind of semi-state, being always attended by ladies and
gentlemen-in-waiting after the manner of recognized Royal personages.
This innocent procedure was sufficient excuse to work up an agitation
against them, and to introduce an Expulsion Bill.
* * * * *
_Lord Lyons to Lord Rosebery._
Paris, May 25, 1886.
The question of the day is the expulsion of the Princes. The
measure, if taken, will be quite unjustifiable, discreditable to
the Government, and, I should say, not at all injurious to the
cause of the victims. Considering the people and the institutions
with which they had to deal, the partisans of the Orleans Princes
have not been so prudent and correct as the Princes themselves.
They have gone about twitting the Republicans with weakness for
permitting the very mild demonstration made by the Royalists, and
declaring that such want of vigour was simply a sign of the decay
of the Republic.
* * * * *
The general opinion is that the Expulsion Bill will pass in
its present, or even in an aggravated form, and that if it does,
the Government will proceed to expel the Comte de Paris at least,
if not the Duc de Chartres, and some others. On the other hand, it
is not expected that the Bill confiscating the property, real and
personal, of the Orleans and Bonapartes will be adopted.
Much anxiety is felt respecting Boulanger's goings on with
respect to the army. He seems to think of nothing but currying
favour with the lowest ranks in the service, and with the mob
outside. It is believed by many people that he would not act
vigorously, as Minister of War, against any disturbances, but would
try to turn them to account and set up for himself as dictator or
what not.
The financial situation is very bad, and if common scandal is
to be listened to, the very short duration of French Ministries is
having the effect of making most of the individual Ministers very
unscrupulous and very impatient to make hay during the very short
time that the sun shines.
The above letter contains one of the first allusions to the enterprising
impostor Boulanger, who very nearly succeeded in making history, and
of whom much was to be heard for some considerable space of time. His
popularity was due in great measure to the vague discontent which
was then prevalent in France. People thought that they saw the same
inefficiency in the Government, the same relaxation of authority, the
same financial difficulties, and the same venality which marked the last
days of the Second Empire. There seemed to be no individual, in or out
of the Royal or Imperial Dynasties, capable of exciting any enthusiasm
or of inspiring any confidence, and public feeling was in that state of
lassitude and dissatisfaction which might give a reasonable chance for a
bold stroke for power.
The scandalous Expulsion Bill passed both Chambers, and the Princes took
their departure.
* * * * *
_Lord Lyons to Lord Rosebery._
Paris, June 25, 1886.
The departure of the Comte de Paris from Eu has been
accompanied by many very sad circumstances, but I cannot help
thinking that his political position is improved by his expulsion.
His own partisans are much pleased at its having elicited from
him a distinct assertion of a claim to the throne, and of a
determination to work for the restoration of monarchy.
It is less easy to give an opinion on the position of the
Princes who have remained in France. It seems to be hardly
compatible with dignity and comfort, considering the unabated
hostility to them of the Reds, who seem generally to end in
overpowering all generous and conservative feelings in the Chambers
and in the Government.
Prince Napoleon and his son Prince Victor went off in opposite
directions, one to Geneva, the other to Brussels. The departure of
neither seems to have made much apparent sensation in Paris when
it took place, but I am far from certain that Prince Victor is not
really a more formidable opponent to the Republic than is the Comte
de Paris.
* * * * *
_Lord Lyons to Lord Rosebery._
Paris, July 2, 1886.
* * * * *
The topic of the day here is the conduct of the Minister of
War, General Boulanger. He was supposed to be an Orleanist. Then
he went round to Clémençeau, and was put into Freycinet's Cabinet
as a representative of the Clémençeau party, which though not the
most Red in the Chamber, is more Red than the Freycinet section.
Since he has been in office Boulanger has lost no opportunity of
ingratiating himself with the Radicals, and he has been travelling
about the country making speeches, the object of which has
evidently been to gain personal popularity for himself without
regard to his colleagues.
He has also by degrees put creatures of his own into the
great military commands. A crisis was produced, during the last
few days, by his quarrelling with General Saussier, the military
Governor of Paris, and provoking him into resigning. He is also
said to have used strange language in the Council of Ministers. At
any rate, President Grévy and the Ministers seem to have thought
they would be more comfortable at Paris without having a satellite
of Boulanger as Governor, and they have insisted upon declining
Saussier's resignation. From the way people talk, one would think
that the questions were whether Boulanger is aiming at being a
Cromwell or a Monk, and if a Monk, which dynasty he will take up.
There is a good deal of alarm here about foreign affairs. The
reports of a large concentration of Russian troops in Bessarabia
are supposed to confirm other indications that Russia is meditating
a revenge for the check she has sustained with regard to Bulgaria.
This, it is supposed, must bring Austria into the field. Moreover,
Bismarck does not seem to be in an amiable mood towards France;
and with or without instigation from him, Germans talk as if war
was inevitable.
Then the Republic here has lasted sixteen years, and that is
about the time which it takes to make the French tired of a form of
Government. The Republic has not been successful financially, and
trade and agriculture are not prosperous, nor is the reputation of
the Republican administration high for purity or efficiency.
So there is plenty to croak about for those who are inclined
to croak.
* * * * *
_Lord Lyons to Lord Rosebery._
Paris, July 13, 1886.
The regular session of the French Chambers is to be closed the
day after to-morrow, and the Chambers are to spend to-morrow at
the Review at Longchamps, and I suppose to take part in the other
nuisances which makes Paris insupportable on a National Fête day.
I conclude the Chambers will come back in October for an extra
session as usual. In fact, they have not yet voted the Budget; or,
I had almost said, any useful measure. In Commercial matters and
indeed in everything relating to intercourse with other countries,
they have shown the narrowest and most exclusive spirit. Their
great feat has been the law for the persecution of the Princes,
which seems to be carried out as harshly as possible. I should
not have said that the literal wording of the law necessitated
or even justified the dismissal from the army of Princes who
already belonged to it, but I suppose that was the intention of
the legislators. The Duc d'Aumale's letter to the President is a
powerful document, but was sure to lead to his expulsion, and was
perhaps intended to have that effect.
Among people who ought to have good information from abroad,
the alarm as to a war this autumn seems stronger than among
the French politicians who confine themselves more closely to
considering French feeling at home. Certainly it comes round to
one in various ways from Germany that war is very generally
expected, or at all events talked of there. The accounts current
in Germany of supposed French provocations look as if there was
a party there trying to work up hostile feeling against France.
An alliance between France and Russia seems to be the bugbear. I
don't see symptoms at present of any war spirit in this country;
but of course a quarrel between Russia and Germany would be a great
temptation to French Chauvinism.
The abhorred annual fête of July 14, 1886, possessed an interest which
had been wanting previously, and has never since been renewed. This
was due to the presence of a number of troops at the Longchamps Review
who had just returned from Tonquin, and to the excitement caused by
the first appearance of Boulanger at a big military display in Paris.
Notwithstanding the inflated rubbish which was published the next day in
the French press, there could not be the least doubt that the Tonquin
troops were received without the slightest enthusiasm. In Paris the
very word 'Tonquin' was hated; the country was associated with loss of
life, and with heavy taxation, and nothing could have expressed more
eloquently the disenchantment produced by a Spirited Colonial Policy,
than the chilling reception accorded to these returned soldiers. The
enthusiasm which should have been bestowed upon these humble instruments
was lavished upon the charlatan who at that moment was the most
prominent and popular figure in the eye of the French public.
The military mountebank (aptly christened by Jules Ferry, 'a music
hall St. Arnaud') had, with some foresight, provided himself with a
high-actioned black circus horse, and those who were present on the
occasion will never forget the moment when he advanced to salute the
President, and other notabilities established in the official Tribune.
Only a few days before, it was currently believed, he had terrified his
ministerial colleagues by appearing at a Cabinet Council in uniform,
and now as he pranced backwards or forwards on the circus horse and the
public yelled their acclamations, President Grévy and the uninteresting
crowd of bourgeois ministers and deputies who surrounded him, seemed
visibly to quiver and flinch as shuddering memories of December 2 and
other _coups d'état_ obtruded themselves upon their recollections.
From that day Boulanger became a dangerous man; the circus horse
had done the trick; the general embodied in the public fancy the
_clinquant_, for which the French had so long been sighing in secret;
_l'homme qui monte à cheval_ in place of _l'homme qui monte à la
tribune_, and for a long time he survived even that ridicule which in
France is supposed to kill more effectively than elsewhere. Even when
he engaged in a duel with an elderly and short-sighted civilian, M.
Floquet, and was decisively worsted, he continued to remain a popular
hero.
Lord Rosebery, upon whom the unreasonable ill-feeling then constantly
shown by the French towards England had made a painful impression,
had realized in May that the Gladstone Government was doomed, and
had wisely decided in consequence that a process of marking time
was preferable to embarking upon anything in the nature of a heroic
policy. Upon his retirement and the formation of a new administration,
Lord Lyons experienced what was probably the greatest surprise of his
life in the shape of the following letter from Lord Salisbury. In
order to reinforce its arguments the late Lord Currie, then Permanent
Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office, was sent over with it to
Paris.
[Illustration: _General Boulanger._
LONDON: EDWARD ARNOLD.]
* * * * *
Confidential. July 26, 1886.
I accepted yesterday the Queen's commission to form a
Government. It is a task full of difficulties; and I would have
gladly seen Lord Hartington undertake it. This, however, he could
not be induced to do; and the duty falls upon me. One of my first
thoughts is to provide a Foreign Secretary for the new Government:
for I could not, with any hope of carrying it through successfully,
repeat the experiment of last summer by uniting the Foreign
Secretaryship with the Premiership.
There is no one possessing the experience and knowledge of
Foreign Affairs which you have, and no one whose appointment would
exercise so great a moral authority in Europe. And we certainly
have not in our political ranks any one who could claim a tithe of
the fitness for the office which every one would acknowledge in
your case. I earnestly hope the proposal may be not unacceptable to
you. If that should happily be the case, a great difficulty in our
way will have been most successfully removed.
As there is much to be said on the matter which it would be
too long to write, Currie has very kindly undertaken to take this
letter over and discuss the matter with you. We have talked it over
very fully.
If you should be in need of any interval of repose, I could
easily take the seals for a few weeks.
* * * * *
_Lord Lyons to Lord Salisbury._
Paris. July 27, 1886.
Currie brought me your letter early this morning. In answer to
it I sent you at 11.30 a.m. the following telegram:--
'I am very much gratified, and I am very grateful for the kind
consideration with which your proposal is accompanied, but my
age and the state of my health make it quite impossible for me to
undertake the office.'
I hope I need not assure you that I am fully sensible of the
kindness of your letter, and that if I cannot feel that I merit all
you say of me, I am at least grateful for your good opinion.
The truth is, that I could not now undertake new and laborious
duties with any confidence that I could discharge them efficiently.
I feel the need of rest, and I am not equal to beginning a new
life of hard work. I could not conscientiously assume the great
responsibility which would be thrown upon me.
If the post of Foreign Secretary has ever been offered during the
last hundred years to any other person outside the ranks of orthodox
party politicians the secret has been well kept, and it might perhaps
be suggested that few people would be found with sufficient strength
of mind to decline so glittering a prize. Lord Lyons, however, as is
sufficiently evident, found no difficulty in at once deciding upon the
refusal of an offer which the ordinary mediocrity would have accepted
with avidity. In the above letter he founded his refusal upon grounds
of age and ill-health, and in private he used to express the opinion
that after the age of forty a man's faculties began and continued to
deteriorate. But it is not in the least likely that he would have
accepted the honour which it was proposed to bestow upon him, at any
period of his life. His extreme modesty and diffidence have already
been dwelt upon, but a more valuable quality than these is a man's
realization of his own limitations, and it is probable that Lord Lyons,
by the exercise of his exceptionally impartial judgment, was able to
form a more correct opinion as to his own potentialities than Lord
Salisbury. A thorough and profound knowledge of foreign politics is
not the sole necessary qualification of an English Foreign Secretary;
had such been the case, Lord Lyons would have been an ideal occupant
of the post; but in England, where the value of Ministers is gauged
chiefly by the fallacious test of oratorical capacity, the Foreign
Secretary is constantly obliged to make speeches in defence of or in
explanation of his policy, and although the House of Lords is the
most long-suffering and good-natured assembly in the world, it would
have been no easy task for a man of sixty-nine, who had never put two
sentences together in public, to suddenly appear in Parliament as the
representative of one of the most important departments, to say nothing
of public meetings, deputations, banquets, etc. It may also be doubted
whether, in spite of his many admirable qualities, he was really adapted
for the post. All his life, he had been merely an instrument--a highly
efficient instrument--of the existing Government, and had received
instructions, which had invariably been carried out with singular skill
and intelligence. But the responsibility had not been his, and as
Foreign Secretary the initiative as well as the responsibility which
would have rested upon him might have imposed too formidable a strain
upon one of so cautious a temperament. Taking into consideration these
doubts, his advanced age, failing health, and the effect of depression
caused by the recent death of his much loved sister, the Dowager Duchess
of Norfolk, the refusal of the Foreign Office by Lord Lyons was only an
additional instance of that robust common sense which was one of his
most pronounced characteristics. Lord Rosebery, at all events, thought
that he had decided wisely.
* * * * *
_Lord Rosebery to Lord Lyons._
Dalmeny, Aug. 10, 1886.
As my Foreign Office episode is at an end, I write a line of
good-bye, not as a Minister, but on the footing of what I hope I
may call friendship.
My six months' experience has led me to the conviction that
our relations with France are really more troublesome than with
any other Power. She is always wanting something of us which it is
impossible to give her, and she then says plaintively, 'You never
do anything for me.' She is quite oblivious of the fact that she
never loses the opportunity of playing us a trick. Witness the
secret expedition to the New Hebrides. Nothing would have induced
me to go on with any one of the negotiations with Waddington until
they had removed their troops from those islands. Whenever he asked
for an answer about anything, I always turned the conversation
round to that interesting spot.
With this conviction, therefore, it has been a great comfort
to feel that you were at Paris.
I am not surprised that you did not care about my succession!
It is a weary post.
* * * * *
_Lord Lyons to Lord Rosebery._
Heron's Ghyll, Uckfield, Aug. 17, 1886.
Your friendly letter has followed me here and has much
gratified me.
I think you must look back with great satisfaction to your
time at the Foreign Office. You have certainly won golden opinions
from your subordinates and from the world at large, which is
perhaps a less competent judge. My own official intercourse with
you was certainly both very pleasant to me and very satisfactory.
I attribute the difficulties with France more to the
inevitable consequences of our coming into contact with the French
in all parts of the world, than to any ill-will on either side,
although I do not pretend to say that the state of feeling is what
I could wish it to be.
Independently of any other considerations, I felt altogether
too old to undertake the Foreign Office. I was so convinced of
this, that I regarded it as what the French call an objection
_préjudicielle_ to entertaining the question at all.
The post which Lord Lyons had declined was accepted by Lord Iddesleigh,
who had just been removed from the House of Commons, and, as was only
natural, it is evident that he was in the habit of consulting Lord
Salisbury before taking any step of importance. In October, 1886, with
the concurrence of Lord Salisbury, Lord Lyons was instructed to approach
the French Government on the question of Egypt, and to explain the
conditions under which it would be possible to terminate the British
military occupation. There seems to be absolutely no doubt that Her
Majesty's Government were perfectly sincere and honestly desirous of
carrying out the promises that had been made at various times, and as
subsequent history showed, it was the misguided opposition of France and
Russia which was as much responsible as anything else for the permanent
British occupation of Egypt.
* * * * *
_Lord Lyons to Lord Iddesleigh._
Paris, Oct. 22, 1886.
In my previous letter of to-day I have told you what M. de
Freycinet said to me about the Suez Canal Convention. I had a long
interview with him, but though I gave him plenty of opportunities,
he did not say one other word about Egypt. This being the case,
I thought it prudent to abstain, at all events at this first
interview, from saying anything on my side. So far then I have not
made known to him any part of the contents of your letter to Lord
Salisbury of the 18th or of his telegraphic answer.
The fact is, that from what I have made out since I came back
here, I am led to think that the French Government have now good
reason to doubt whether they would get Bismarck's support if they
raised the Egyptian question with a view to embarrass us. This
being the case, they are very much hesitating to do so, and are
on the look-out for signs of our impressions on the subject, and
would interpret any appearance of unusual anxiety on our part, or
any fresh offers of concessions from us, simply as indications
that we still thought Germany might join against us. If the French
Government are not pretty sure of help and sympathy from abroad,
they will probably not stir in the matter.
In the meantime, however, the press has been strongly excited,
probably by d'Aunay and Charmes. There is a very nasty article,
principally about the financial part of the Egyptian question, in
the _Débuts_ this morning.
I shall perhaps be able to see my way more clearly in a day or
two. In the meantime I am disposed to think the most prudent plan
will be to be reserved and firm about Egypt, but not to display
anxiety on the subject.
The idea of Lord Salisbury, speaking generally, was that a somewhat
distant date of evacuation should be foreshadowed; that if evacuation,
as was fully intended, should be carried out, some return should be
expected for the expenditure of British blood and treasure, and that
the Suez Canal difficulty should be settled without further delay. He
considered that the negotiations should be carried on with the Porte
(Sir Henry Drummond Wolff had already been despatched on this mission),
and that confidential communications should be made to France and
Germany.
* * * * *
_Lord Lyons to Lord Iddesleigh._
Paris, Oct. 26, 1886.
I shall be very anxious to know what line Waddington took on
his return to his post, and particularly what, if anything, he said
about Egypt.
Freycinet is the man chiefly responsible for the refusal of
France to join in our expedition to Egypt, and this no doubt makes
him very anxious to gain for himself the credit of some striking
success in getting England out of that country. So far as I can
make out here, the attempts that have been made to get the Powers
to unite in calling for a general Conference upon Egyptian affairs
have not met with much success. If Bismarck decidedly opposes
attempts of this kind, they will no doubt be abandoned. The Press
continue to urge strong measures against our continuing in Egypt,
and is not measured in its language.
The autumn session is often fatal to French Ministers. I
recollect Gambetta's saying to me not long before his own fall:
'_En automne les feuilles tombent et les porte-feuilles aussi._'
It is more than likely that the instructions which M. Waddington
received about this period were of a disagreeable nature. A well-known
French Ambassador once remarked to me some years later, that the London
Embassy was no very desirable post from the French diplomatist's point
of view. 'We are sent there with the mission of getting the English out
of Egypt, and the thing cannot be done!'
* * * * *
_Lord Lyons to Lord Iddesleigh._
Paris, Nov. 23, 1886.
Freycinet's aim seems to be to improve his own position in
the Chambers and in the country by obtaining our withdrawal from
Egypt, and of course the object cannot be attained unless he can
make it appear that the withdrawal is his doing. Hence his strong
desire that we should negotiate with him and his dislike to our
negotiating with Turkey or any other Power.
The crushing defeat of the Right in the elections in the
Department of the Nord is another proof of their blindness in
misusing the chance they had after the general election. They might
possibly have led gradually up to a restoration by giving strength
to Conservative principles and measures. They could only discredit
themselves by joining the extreme Radicals and attempting to
produce mischief and confusion.
The Germans are either very dilatory, or they have some
_arrière pensée_ about the Zanzibar affair. Yesterday afternoon
Münster was still without any instructions to make the joint
invitation to the French.
* * * * *
_Lord Lyons to Lord Iddesleigh._
Paris, Dec. 3, 1886.
You will see by my despatch that Freycinet has again attacked
me about Egypt. He wants the negotiation to go through him, and
if possible to be made with him, independently of the Turks, or
at least virtually in conjunction with us. I have not yet seen
any symptoms of his being anxious really to help us in Egyptian
matters; and I am not generally favourable to carrying on parallel
negotiations, or the same negotiation in different places. The
danger of informal conversations between Freycinet and me is that,
however cautious I may be, he may somehow or other find occasion
to quote me, as being more _coulant_ than you. At any rate, if I
had to talk to him it would be very necessary for you to tell me
very exactly how far I could go: and above all, that I should be
guarded from holding any language which might by any possibility be
embarrassing to the line circumstances might make it advisable for
Her Majesty's Government to take in Parliament afterwards.
I was long enough at Constantinople to see that no dependence
whatever was to be placed upon what the Porte told an Ambassador
about his colleagues. Still I cannot say that the Turkish
revelation about the communications the Porte affects to receive
from the French and Russian Ambassadors about Egypt and about us,
are, in the face of them, improbable. At any rate, our views must
be much nearer than those we now have to the French ideas, before
we shall get any real help from France at the Porte.
I write, as you know, in ignorance of Wolff's opinion, as he
did not stop here on his way home.
Freycinet's defeat in the Chamber this afternoon is serious
because it followed a strong speech from himself against the
_Sous-Préfet_ abolition, but he has wonderful skill in patching
things up.
Freycinet in December was defeated by one of those combinations of
Royalist and Radicals which were not uncommon in French politics, and
although the absurdity of the situation was obvious to every one,
insisted on placing his resignation and that of the Cabinet in President
Grévy's hands. A change of Government was so useless that even those
who had combined to overthrow Freycinet endeavoured to persuade him
to reconsider his determination. He remained obdurate, however, and
the President, casting about for a successor, pitched at first upon M.
Floquet, a strong Radical who was particularly obnoxious to the Russian
Government.
* * * * *
_Lord Lyons to Lord Iddesleigh._
Paris, Dec. 7, 1886.
The chances seem to be in favour of Floquet being Prime
Minister. He is of the section of the Chamber called 'Gauche
radical,' that is to say, he falls just short of the most extreme
Left. Who would be his Minister for Foreign Affairs and what would
be his foreign policy I do not pretend to say. The incident in
his life most talked about is his having cried out, '_Vive la
Pologne!_' and used some expressions taken as disrespectful to
the late Emperor of Russia, when His Majesty was at the Palais de
Justice, on his visit to Paris during the Exhibition of 1867. The
Russian Ambassadors have, I believe, declined or avoided exchanging
courtesies with him when he has since been in situations, such
as that of _Préfet de la Seine_, and President of the Chamber of
Deputies, which have brought him into communication with the rest
of the diplomatic body. Russia at this moment is paying so much
court to France that she might perhaps get over this.
The Left of the Chamber have hitherto been opposed to the
Tonquin and Madagascar Expeditions and to an adventurous and
Chauvin policy altogether; but if in power they would probably go
in for pleasing the Chamber and the bulk of the people out of doors
even more unreservedly than Freycinet did.
I should have regretted Freycinet's fall more, if he had
not taken up the Egyptian question in the way he did. Our
communications with him on that subject were becoming very
uncomfortable. I am not very sanguine, however, about their being
more satisfactory with his successor.
The notion, however, of having M. Floquet as Prime Minister frightened
every one except the extreme Radicals so much that that gentleman was
unable to form an administration, and the choice of the President
ultimately fell upon a M. Goblet, who was Radical enough for most people
and not much hampered by pledges and declarations. The office of Foreign
Minister remained vacant, but, much to the relief of Lord Lyons, it was
definitely refused by M. Duclerc. Lord Lyons had, by this time, had no
less than twenty-one different French Foreign Ministers to deal with,
and of these Duclerc was the one he liked least. No suitable person
seemed to be available, and it was in vain that, one after the other
French diplomatists were solicited to accept the office. At length a
Foreign Minister was found in M. Flourens, a brother of the well-known
Communist who was killed in 1871. M. Flourens was completely ignorant of
everything concerning foreign affairs, and his appointment was perhaps
an unconscious tribute to the English practice of putting civilians at
the head of our naval and military administrations.
* * * * *
_Lord Lyons to Lord Iddesleigh._
Paris, Dec. 21, 1886.
I have not yet had the means of improving my acquaintance
with Flourens, but I expect to have some conversation with him
to-morrow. He had not a word to say about Bulgaria when I saw him
on Friday. He did not seem to have known anything about foreign
affairs before he took office, nor to expect to stay long enough in
office to become acquainted with them. Some people suppose that he
is to make way for the return of Freycinet as soon as the Budget is
passed. Anyway, the Goblet Ministry is only the Freycinet Ministry
over again without the strongest man, who was undoubtedly Freycinet
himself. When Parliament meets, things will be just as they were.
There will still be in the Chamber 180 Deputies on the Right,
ready to vote any way in order to make mischief and discredit the
Republic; about 100 Deputies on the extreme Left, intimidating the
Government and forcing it into extreme Radical measures, they being
able to count in all emergencies upon getting the vote of the Right
to turn out a Ministry; and lastly there will be 300 remaining
deputies, who cannot agree enough amongst themselves to form a
majority that can be relied upon, who do not at all like violent
radical measures, but who are too nervously afraid of unpopularity
to show resolution in opposing the extreme Left.
So far the Comte de Paris's declaration seems simply to have
made the ultra-Monarchists furiously angry, and not to have induced
any great part of the Right to think of taking the wise course it
recommends.
I do not see any outward signs here of the strained relations
between France and Germany and the imminent war between the two
countries which the _Standard_ announces. But it is true that among
the French themselves some suspicion and distrust of Boulanger's
aims are becoming more apparent.
The hackneyed saying: _Plus cela change, plus c'est la même chose_, was
never more appropriate than in the case of the change from a Freycinet
to a Goblet Government; one section of uninspiring ministers had merely
given place to another, and no one in France seemed in any way the
better for it.
On New Year's Dav, 1887, President Grévy broke out into Latin in
congratulating the Diplomatic Corps on the already long continuance
of peace, but a more accurate view of the situation was expressed by
a French newspaper in the sentence: 'Jamais année nouvelle ne s'est
ouverte au milieu d'autant de promesses de paix et de préparatifs de
guerre que l'année 1887.' 'I do not know,' wrote Lord Lyons, 'which is
the nation which wishes for war. France certainly does not, she is, on
the contrary, very much afraid of it. But one would feel more confidence
in peace if there appeared less necessity in all countries to be
perpetually giving pacific assurances. There are rumours of a defensive
alliance between Russia and France. The bond of union between the two
countries, if it exists, must be simply a common hatred of Germany.'
At the beginning of the year 1887, the Germans professed to be in
dread of an attack from France, while the French complained that they
were threatened by Germany. In France it was believed that in August,
1886, preparations had been actually made to mobilize the German army,
and the language held by Boulanger was to the effect that the military
power of France would be found to be very different to what it was in
1870. Meanwhile an unsuccessful attempt had been made by those two old
Parliamentary hands, Freycinet and Ferry, to get rid of Boulanger, who
was now becoming to be considered as equally dangerous both in France
and Germany.
It was probably the apprehension caused by the presence of this
adventurer, whose incapacity was as yet imperfectly realized, that was
responsible for the state of tension and alarm which prevailed in France
during January and February, 1887.
* * * * *
_Lord Lyons to Lord Salisbury._[44]
Paris, Jan. 18, 1887.
I saw M. Grévy this morning, and found him, as it seemed to
me, really alarmed at the possibility of France being attacked
by Germany. The only overt act he spoke of, on the part of
Germany, was the increase of the strength of the German garrisons
in the neighbourhood of the French frontier. Grévy himself is
most peaceful, and quite sincerely so. His natural character and
temperament, and his interest too, tend that way. He would hardly
be able to hold his own as President in case of war, and there is
very little chance of France going to war as long as he is the head
of the State. Flourens also spoke to me of danger to France and
Germany when I saw him this afternoon.
I think the alarm of Grévy and Flourens was sincere, though I
do not share it myself at this moment.
In France there is no desire to go to war, and I doubt whether
she is able, or at all events fancies herself able, to cope with
Germany.
It is perhaps more difficult to keep her on good terms
with us. Egypt is a sore which will not heal. There was a nasty
discussion about Newfoundland Fisheries in the Senate yesterday. I
send you a full report officially. Happily, so far, it has not had
much echo in the public.
Alarm with respect to Germany continued to grow, and was fed by private
communications from Bismarck, who sent by unofficial agents messages
to the effect that 'he was all for peace, but that it was impossible
for him to stand the way that France was going on.' These messages came
through Bleichröder and members of the _haute finance_ in Paris, who
expressed the opinion that if Boulanger remained in office, war with
Germany was certain. The _haute finance_ is by no means invariably
correct in its political judgment, but it seems highly probable that the
war scares prevalent in 1887 were promulgated with the object of getting
rid of the troublesome firebrand upon whom so much public attention was
concentrated. The position of Boulanger, however, was a strong one, and
to dislodge him was a work of no slight difficulty. Ever since the day
when he had been taken into Freycinet's Cabinet he had contrived by
adroit advertising to keep himself before the public, and to distinguish
himself from his colleagues as exercising a separate and commanding
influence in the Chambers and with the public. In the army he had
managed to make himself feared by the higher officers and assiduously
courted popularity with the rank and file. In the political world he
had at first been regarded as being ultra democratic, but now excited
suspicion by paying court to the Conservatives, and by endeavouring, not
entirely without success, to obtain their good will.
On the whole, there was a very general impression that he was ambitious,
self-seeking, and thoroughly unscrupulous; but there were few means of
forming an opinion as to what his special plans really were, if indeed
he had formed any. Still he successfully flattered the belief of the
French that they were fast emerging from the eclipse in which their
military power and reputation were involved in 1870, and there were
not wanting those who asserted that he was inclined to seek a war, in
the hope of conducting it with success, and so establishing himself as
a military dictator. Others, influenced by their wishes, indulged in
the hope that he might be meditating a Monarchist restoration under an
Orleanist or Bonapartist Dynasty. Unsubstantial and improbable as these
suppositions may have been, it was plain that in the army and among the
public at large there prevailed a vague notion that he might be the man
of the future, a notion fostered by the absence of any one recognized in
France as possessing conspicuous and commanding abilities, and by the
craving for a real personality after a long succession of second-class
politicians.
The embarrassment with regard to Germany created by the presence of
so disturbing an element in the Government as Boulanger did not,
contrary to what might have been expected, tend to improve Anglo-French
relations, and a letter from Lord Salisbury expresses in forcible
terms his dissatisfaction at difficulties which seemed to have been
gratuitously created.
* * * * *
_Lord Salisbury to Lord Lyons._
Feb. 5, 1887.
The French are inexplicable. One would have thought that under
existing circumstances it was not necessary to _make_ enemies--that
there were enough provided for France by nature just now. But
she seems bent upon aggravating the patient beast of burden that
lives here by every insult and worry her ingenuity can devise. In
Newfoundland she has issued orders which, if faithfully executed,
must bring the French and English fleets into collision. At the
New Hebrides, in spite of repeated promises, she will not stir. In
Egypt she baulks a philanthropic change out of pure 'cussedness.'
In Morocco she is engaged in appropriating the territory by
instalments, threatening to reach Tangier at no distant date. And
now, just as we are entering on pacific negotiations, the French
Government sent orders to do precisely that which, a month ago,
Waddington promised they should not do, namely run up the French
flag at Dongorita.[45] It is very difficult to prevent oneself
from wishing for another Franco-German war to put a stop to this
incessant vexation.
We have protested earnestly about Dongorita, which has more
the air of a studied insult than any of the others. As to the
Newfoundland Fisheries, if they execute their threats, they render
the passage of a Bait Bill next year a matter of certainty. We
have strained the good will of the colonists very far in refusing
to allow it this year. The other matters will, I suppose, be the
subject of slow negotiations.
D'Herbette has made at Berlin more practical suggestions as to
naming a date for the annexation of Egypt than we have yet had from
the French Government. I hope the large majorities will persuade
the French that the national feeling is in this instance not in
favour of scuttle.
All that Lord Lyons, who was always most anxious to make the best case
he could for the French, was able to say in their defence, was that he
hoped that it was an exceptionally dark moment, and that there must be a
change shortly for the better.
* * * * *
_Lord Lyons to Lord Salisbury._
Paris, Feb. 18, 1887.
The French seem to be more confident of peace and altogether
in better spirits than they were a few days ago, but I do not know
that they have any positive facts or distinct information to go
upon. The hopes of a certain number of them rest upon the belief
that the Goblet Ministry is likely to be upset as soon as the
Budget is finally disposed of, and that thus Boulanger will be got
rid of.
The newspaper accounts of Wolff's mission to Constantinople
have brought Egypt on the tapis again, and as anxiety about
Germany falls into the background, irritation against England
comes prominently forward. There are, however, some symptoms of
a return among wiser men to more prudent and reasonable views
respecting the relations of France towards England. These men are
alarmed especially respecting the hostility towards France which is
apparent in Italy, and they see the folly of making enemies on all
sides. If there should be a new Ministry it might possibly pursue
a policy more friendly towards England with regard to Egypt and
other matters. The Egyptian question would no doubt become less
difficult if a change should remove M. Charmes from the Foreign
Office and put into his place, as Political Director there, a man
less prejudiced about Egypt.
In the meantime much amusement has been caused by an escapade
of Madame Flourens. On Saturday last she called upon Countess Marie
Münster, and found with her Count Hoyos, the Austrian Ambassador.
Madame Flourens announced loudly that her husband had resigned
the Foreign Office, because Boulanger had attempted, without his
knowledge, to send a letter direct to the Emperor of Russia by the
French Military Attaché, who was to start for St. Petersburg.
Hoyos fetched Münster himself out of an adjoining room, to hear the
story. Madame Flourens, it appeared, supposed that Flourens was on
the point of announcing his resignation to the Chamber of Deputies.
It turned out, however, that Flourens had made a scene with
Boulanger at the Council of Ministers, had gone away in a huff,
but had been subsequently calmed by M. Grévy and M. Goblet; no
letter to the Emperor had been sent, and the resignation had been
withdrawn. The story had of course spread all over the town. In
defiance of truth, a _communiqué_ contradicting it was inserted in
the _Agence Havas_, with no other effect than that of discrediting
the _communiqués_ which the Government is apt to put into the Havas.
There is so little mention of women in Lord Lyons's correspondence that
Madame Flourens's indiscretion comes as a welcome relief, although in
all probability it got the unfortunate Count Münster into trouble with
Bismarck, and afforded an excuse for fresh bullying. Count Münster,
who had been for many years Ambassador in London, where he had been
extremely popular, found the transfer to Paris singularly unpleasant,
more especially as in order to make things thoroughly uncomfortable for
him, Bismarck had provided an entirely new Embassy Staff.
* * * * *
_Lord Salisbury to Lord Lyons._
Feb. 19, 1887.
* * * * *
We are thinking of renewing our negotiations with respect to
the Suez Canal in a serious spirit. But before we sign anything we
shall want some satisfaction about Dongorita and the New Hebrides,
and possibly about the Corvée.
I think it was very shabby of the French to open the Dongorita
affair upon us, just after we had made so material a concession
upon the subject of the bait in Newfoundland.
Waddington is gloomy and rather ill-tempered--either from the
fogs or the crisis. I have not had any further talk with him about
Egypt lately. I think he avoids the subject. Wolff tells me that
the French Chargé d'Affaires at Constantinople is a mere creature
of Nelidoff's. Our negotiations are dragging on with little
prospect of success. We are willing to fix a distant date for our
leaving, if we receive a treaty power to go back whenever internal
or external security are threatened. The tone in which both France
and Turkey have received this proposal may be best expressed by the
colloquial phrase 'Damn their impudence!' I do not expect to carry
what I want at present, but before modifying these terms, I should
like to know what is going to happen in Europe.
Sir Henry Drummond Wolff was at this time at Constantinople endeavouring
to negotiate the Convention with regard to the evacuation of Egypt,
and the French and Russian Embassies were actively engaged in the
senseless opposition which eventually prevented the ratification of the
Convention. The above letter from Lord Salisbury is an additional proof
of the honest desire of the British Government to carry out the rash
undertakings which had been given in the past.
* * * * *
_Lord Lyons to Lord Salisbury._
Paris, Feb. 25, 1887.
The general feeling here seems to be that war has been
escaped, but still there is a good deal of discontent against the
foreign policy of the Goblet Cabinet. It seems to be considered
that the understanding between Italy, Austria, and Germany is as
good as made, and that the result of it will be to put an end to
any fear of war between Russia and Austria. On the other hand, it
is thought that Russia will feel it too necessary to watch Germany
for it to be prudent of her to make an alliance with France, while
without the alliance of Russia, France of course cannot face
Germany, particularly as she has almost hostility to expect from
Italy and no great sympathy to look for from England. The policy
which has thus isolated France from the other Powers is seen to
have been a mistake, and there seems to be a disposition to throw
the blame on the Goblet Ministry. If the Goblet Ministry should
fall, it is not improbable that the new Government might take
the line of being conciliatory to the neighbouring countries and
to Italy and England in particular. I am not very sanguine about
this, but if in the meantime no irritating questions come to excite
public opinion against us, there may possibly be a chance that
a change of Ministry here would make our relations with France
smoother.
My hopes that a change towards England may be in contemplation
have perhaps been strengthened by a visit which I have just had
from a person wholly unconnected with the French Ministry who
evidently came to ascertain what were the particular points with
regard to which the relations between France and England might be
improved. I said that instead of thwarting us in our endeavours
to improve the condition of Egypt and put it in a state to stand
alone, the French might help us; and they could not expect
comfortable relations with us if they endeavoured to stir up other
Powers to make difficulties with us about Egypt. I mentioned also
the New Hebrides question, which most certainly ought and might
be settled at once. I alluded also to those various matters all
over the world which might be treated in a cordial and not in an
antagonistic spirit.
P.S.--I have strong reasons for thinking it very important
that Waddington should not have the least inkling of my having had
the above interview, or any communication of the kind.
* * * * *
_Lord Salisbury to Lord Lyons._
Feb. 26, 1887.
I will not mention to Waddington the interview which you have
had as to English grounds of complaint. I have not seen him for ten
days: he must have taken huff at something.
I think, as the French are coming to their senses, it might be
well to mention unofficially to Flourens that I am quite ready to
resume the negotiations about the Suez Canal; and that I have good
hope of bringing it to a successful issue, but that I am hindered
by the flag that is floating at Dongorita, and by the delay of the
French in performing their promises as regards the New Hebrides. We
are being a good deal reproached here, on account of our apparent
submission to this breach of faith. If these two matters are
corrected, I shall find it possible, and shall be very glad to
renew the Suez Canal discussion either at Paris or here.
I have seen Karolyi to-day--an unusual occurrence--and for the
first time have had the admission from him that a war with Russia
was not an impossible contingency.
The Russians are very quiet; and the negotiations about
Bulgaria do not really advance a bit.
M. Flourens, in spite of his complete inexperience, seems to have
realized the simple fact that it was not advisable to quarrel with
England just at the moment when relations with Germany were in a
critical condition; but unhappily the public did not appear to be in
an accommodating mood. The statements published in the English press
respecting the Drummond Wolff mission had caused great irritation,
and what was perhaps more serious, had alarmed the French again
about the security of the coupons. As long as they felt sure that
the coupons would be paid regularly, and that there was no fear of
future reduction, they were reasonably patient, unless some specially
severe blow, such as a reduction of the numbers and salaries of French
officials, as compared with English, was struck at their _amour propre_.
Now, however, they were beset with the fear that, under what they
considered to be English mismanagement, they were about to lose their
money as well as their influence.
In March the Goblet Ministry was already in difficulties, and it was
believed that Freycinet was likely to return to power, although what the
precise advantages were of these continual changes, no one was capable
of explaining.
* * * * *
_Lord Lyons to Lord Salisbury._
March 8, 1887.
By taking credit to himself at the expense of his
predecessors, in the interpellation yesterday, Goblet has stirred
up the bile of a large party in the Chamber, and the determination
to turn his Cabinet out, if possible, has revived with fresh
vigour. It is supposed that the attempts will be made as soon as
the Corn Duties Bill is disposed of. It seems to be thought that,
if it succeeds, Freycinet must be Prime Minister; but there appears
to be a strong feeling against his having the Foreign Office again.
He is thought to have got France into uncomfortable relations with
many of his neighbours. In the treatment of the Egyptian question
he is believed to have sacrificed cordiality with England to a
desire to regain the popularity he had lost by the policy which
led to England's occupying her present position in Egypt; while
his attempt to get up an opposition to England on the part of the
European Powers and his worrying way of dealing himself with the
British Government about Egypt, are thought simply to have excited
public opinion on both sides of the Channel and to have provoked
ill will, without in the least improving the position of France.
There can be no doubt that Freycinet looked upon a success with
regard to Egypt as a personal necessity for himself, and was much
influenced in his policy towards England by this feeling.
It is apprehended that unless the _prestige_ of Boulanger is
put on high again by strong language from Germany, there will be no
difficulty in obtaining, as a matter of course, his fall, with the
rest of the Cabinet of which he is a part. M. Grévy is believed to
be very anxious to be rid of him.
I hear on good authority that the Russians have been trying
again, though without success, to come to a special understanding
with the French Government.
To say that M. Grévy was very anxious to be rid of Boulanger was
probably an understatement, for he could not conceivably have desired
anything so ardently. But the 'Music Hall St. Arnaud' was by no means
at the end of his tether, and had contrived to advertise himself by
egregious conduct with regard to the Army Committee of the Chamber
of Deputies. That Committee had drawn up a military Bill, based upon
three years' service, and Boulanger, on the pretext that it was 'not
sufficiently faithful to democratic principles,' had, without consulting
any of his colleagues, written a letter condemning the provisions of
the bill and proposing something quite different. This letter was
thoughtfully communicated to the press before it reached the Committee,
and the outraged members of the Committee as well as his colleagues
were at last goaded into resistance. The Chamber condemned the attitude
of the General towards the sacrosanct representatives of the nation;
the General himself beat a hasty and prudent retreat under cover of an
apology; the Moderate Republicans denounced him as a would-be dictator,
and the Ultra-Radicals accused him of cowardice in consequence of his
apology. Most men under the circumstances would have felt disposed to
resign office, but in the case of Boulanger it was probably immaterial
to him whether he was blamed or praised, so long as he could keep his
name before the public.
It was, and probably is still, a regulation in the British Diplomatic
Service, that its members should retire at the age of seventy, and, as
a rule, an Ambassador who had attained that age, usually considered
himself fit to discharge his duties for a further period. Lord Lyons,
however, was an exception. His seventieth birthday fell due in April,
and a month beforehand he wrote to announce that he wished to resign.
* * * * *
_Lord Lyons to Lord Salisbury._
Paris, March 22, 1887.
Towards the end of the next month, the time will come when
I shall be superannuated, and I feel very strongly that it will
not come too soon. It will not be without a pang that I shall
find myself no longer a diplomatic servant of the Queen, who has
ever received my endeavours to obtain her approval with the most
generous indulgence. But the labour and responsibility of this post
are becoming too much for me, and I shall be anxious to be relieved
from them when the time fixed by the regulations arrives.
I need not assure you that I shall much regret the termination
of the official connexion with you from which I have derived so
much satisfaction.
It may not unfairly be presumed that resignations of important official
posts are habitually welcomed by Governments, as they not only remedy
stagnation in the public service, but frequently provide opportunities
for political patronage. It is plain, however, that the prospect of
losing Lord Lyons was looked upon by Lord Salisbury as a genuine
misfortune, and he did his best to induce him to reconsider his decision.
* * * * *
_Lord Salisbury to Lord Lyons._
March 26, 1887.
I have considered your letter of the 22nd, stating that you
felt very strongly that the time of your superannuation would not
come too soon; and though it was a matter of very deep regret to me
to receive such an announcement from you, it was not altogether a
matter of surprise; for I remembered the language you had used to
me when I tried to induce you to join us as Foreign Secretary last
July.
The loss which the Diplomatic Service will suffer by your
retirement will be profound, and, for the time, hardly possible to
repair. Your presence at Paris gave to the public mind a sense of
security which was the result of a long experience of your powers,
and which no one else is in a position to inspire.
In face of the expressions in your letter I feel as if I were
almost presuming in suggesting any alternative course of action.
But it struck me that possibly you might be willing to make your
official career terminate with the end of your current appointment,
rather than with the precise date of superannuation. The effect of
this would be to prolong your stay at Paris till next December.
My reasons from a public point of view will, I hope, strike
you at once. We are passing through a very anxious European crisis.
If any fateful decisions are taken this year, it will be within the
next three or four months. It will add very much to our anxiety to
know that the reins at Paris are in new hands, which have never
held them before. This mere fact may even be an element of danger.
The avalanche hangs so loosely, that any additional sensation or
uneasiness may displace it. If we could avoid a change till the
winter it would be a great public advantage, even if the change
should be inevitable.
I hope you will forgive me for having pressed this on you in
the interests of the public service. Whatever your decision may be,
I give you the warmest thanks for the kind and loyal support which
you have always given to the policy which it has been my duty to
carry out.
An appeal of this kind from an official chief could not well be
disregarded, setting aside the fact that but few officials can have
experienced the compliment of being assured that their continued service
was essential to the peace of Europe. With well justified misgivings,
Lord Lyons therefore consented to remain on until the end of the year,
knowing perfectly well that his physical energies were on the point of
exhaustion.
* * * * *
_Lord Lyons to Lord Salisbury._
Paris, March 29, 1887.
I am deeply touched by your letter of the 26th, and I feel
that, after what you say in it, I should be extremely ungrateful if
I were not ready to sacrifice a great deal to meet your views.
For my own part I feel that the work and responsibility here
are an increasing strain both upon my mind and upon my bodily
health, and I am beset with misgivings lest, even in ordinary
times, I may be unable to discharge my duties with energy and
efficiency, and lest, in an emergency calling for much labour,
I may break down altogether. This being the case, it would
undoubtedly be a great relief and comfort to me to retire on
becoming superannuated towards the end of next month.
Begging you to take the misgivings into full consideration,
and to be sure that they have not been conceived without good
reason, and that they are strongly and very seriously felt by
me, I place myself in your hands. If after giving full weight to
them, you still think that it would be a satisfaction to you that
I should continue to hold this post till the winter, and that it
would be a great public advantage to avoid a change till that time,
I am ready to stay on, and trusting to your indulgence to do my
best.
I should, of course, look upon it as quite settled that in any
case I should retire at latest when my current appointment comes to
an end at the close of the present year.
If you wish me to hold on, I must ask you what, if any,
announcement respecting my retirement should be made. Up to this
time I have simply stated to people who have questioned me,
that nothing was definitely settled. I did not mention to any
one my intention to write my letter of the 22nd expressing to
you my wish to retire, nor have I made any one acquainted with
my having written it, except of course Sheffield, who, as my
private secretary, made a copy of it for me to keep. The question,
therefore, as to announcing my retirement remains intact.
I cannot conclude without once more saying how much I am
gratified by the appreciation of my services expressed in your
letter, and how truly I feel the kindness shown by it.
The offer was accepted by Lord Salisbury in singularly flattering terms,
Queen Victoria also expressing much satisfaction at the consent of the
Ambassador to remain at his post. From Lord Salisbury's language, it
might be inferred that he was in some doubt as to whether his own tenure
of office was likely to be prolonged.
I have had no hesitation in availing myself of your kind
consent--though you seemed to doubt whether on reflection I should
do so. Of course I fully understand that you do not feel equal to
the amount of exertion which you would take in a more favourable
condition of health. But this circumstance will not detract
from the great value of your counsel and judgment, nor from the
authority which by so many years of experience you have acquired.
I quite understand that towards the close of the session of
Parliament you will require the holiday you have been accustomed
to take in recent years. I hope also to get to a bath at that
time--whether I am in office or not.
Why Lord Salisbury should have spoken so doubtfully is not clear, unless
instinct warned him of Miss Cass, who was the first to strike a blow
at the Unionist administration. At the end of March there reappeared
the mysterious emissary who has been already mentioned. There are no
means of actually establishing his identity, but there can be little
doubt that it was M. de Chaudordy, who represented the French Foreign
Office at Tours and Bordeaux during the war. M. de Chaudordy had made
friends with Lord Salisbury at the time of the Constantinople Conference
in 1876, and he was, therefore, a suitable person to utilize for the
purpose of making advances towards a better understanding between the
two Governments.
* * * * *
_Lord Lyons to Lord Salisbury._
Paris, March 29, 1887.
In a private letter which I wrote to you on the 25th of last
month, I mentioned that I had received a visit from a person wholly
unconnected officially with the French Government, who appeared to
have come to ascertain what were the particular points with regard
to which the relations between the English and French Governments
might be improved. The same person has been to me again to-day,
and has only just left me. This time he did not conceal that it
was after being in communication with Flourens that he came. He
enlarged on the embarrassing and indeed dangerous position in which
France was placed by the adherence of Italy to the Austro-German
Alliance, and said that M. Flourens was ready to make almost any
sacrifice to secure the good will of England. I said that there
could be no great difficulty in this, if only France would abstain
from irritating opposition to us, and would settle promptly and
satisfactorily outstanding questions. My visitor answered that
Flourens conceived that he had sent conciliatory instructions
to Waddington which would settle these questions, and that both
Waddington and Florian[46] (who had come on leave) reported that
there was decidedly a _détente_ in the strain which had existed in
the Anglo-French relations. I said that I was delighted to hear it,
and that it showed how ready you were to welcome all conciliatory
overtures. My friend seemed on this occasion, as on the last, to
wish me to tell him some special thing which Flourens might do
to please you. I said that I should at any rate mention a thing
which he might do to avoid displeasing you. He might prevent the
French setting up an opposition to financial proposals in Egypt in
cases in which all the other Powers were ready to agree. My friend
spoke of Flourens's readiness to give to Russia on the Bulgarian
question advice which you might suggest, and he mentioned various
things which he thought M. Flourens might be ready to do to please
England. These things appeared to me to be rather too grand and
too vague in character to be very practical. I said, however, that
I would always bear in mind what he had told me of M. Flourens's
good dispositions, and would speak frankly and unreservedly to the
Minister whenever I could make a suggestion as to the means of
acting upon those dispositions in a manner to be satisfactory to
England.
The conclusions I drew from the conversation of Flourens's
friend were that the French are horribly afraid of our being led
to join the Italo-Austro-German Alliance, and that they have been
urged by Russia to exert themselves to prevent this. I do not
conceive that the French expect to induce us to join them against
the Germans and the German Alliance. What they want is to feel sure
that we shall not join the others against France and Russia.
It is somewhat curious that M. Flourens, who was evidently desirous
of establishing better relations with England, should have selected
an unofficial person for communication, rather than approach the
Ambassador himself; but perhaps, being quite ignorant of diplomatic
usage, he considered it necessary to shroud his action in mystery.
The Triple Alliance dated in reality from 1882, Italy having joined
the Austro-German Alliance in that year; but a new Treaty had been
signed in the month of February, 1887, and caused the French to feel a
well-justified alarm. In fact, their position was anything but a happy
one, for it was generally believed that the Emperor Alexander III. had
resolved, since the abortive attempt on his life, that he would never
ally himself with Revolutionists, and that he considered the French to
be arch-Revolutionists. Perhaps this belief may have accounted in some
measure for Flourens's amiable professions towards England.
In the month of April there occurred one of those incidents which
are the despair of peaceably minded politicians and the delight of
sensational journalism and of adventurers of the Boulanger type. A
certain M. Schnaebelé, a French Commissaire de Police, was induced to
cross the German frontier, and thereupon was arrested and imprisoned.
The act had the appearance of provocation and naturally caused a
prodigious uproar in France; Flourens endeavouring to settle the
matter diplomatically and Boulanger seizing the opportunity to display
patriotic truculence.
* * * * *
_Lord Lyons to Lord Salisbury._
Paris, April 26, 1887.
So far as one can judge at present the French are irritated
beyond measure by the arrest at Pagny, but generally they still
shrink from war. It will not, I conceive, be difficult for
Bismarck to keep at peace with them, if he really wishes to do so.
The danger is that they are persuaded that he is only looking out
for a pretext, and that however much they may now give way, he will
be bent upon humiliating them till they _must_ resent and resist.
I don't see that so far the German Government have treated the
Pagny affair as if they wished to make a quarrel of it. The German
_Chargé d'Affaires_ has taken many messages from Berlin to Flourens
in the sense that if Schnaebelé shall prove to have been arrested
on German soil, all satisfaction shall be given. But, then, in the
Press of the two countries a controversy is raging as to which side
of the frontier he was arrested on, and as to whether or no he was
inveigled over the frontier.
The French undoubtedly shrink from war, but they do not
shrink from it as much as they did ten years ago; and if the press
should get up a loud popular cry, there is no Government strength
to resist it. I conceive that at this moment the Government is
pacific, and that it does not believe the army to be yet ready.
But if, as is no doubt the case, the Germans also believe that the
French army is not as ready now as it will be two or three years
hence, they may be impatient to begin. In the mean time, so far
as I can make out, the Pagny affair is being treated by the two
Governments with each other, in correct form diplomatically, and
without any apparent willingness to embitter matters. I cannot say
as much for the press on either side, though there are symptoms of
prudence and caution in the moderate French papers.
The Schnaebelé incident was disposed of by his release from prison and
transfer to another post at Lyons; but the agitation did not subside
readily, and a bill brought in by Boulanger to mobilize an army corps
caused much disquietude at the German Embassy. It was now generally
known that Bismarck considered Boulanger a danger and desired his
removal from the War Office; but the very knowledge of this feeling and
the support accorded to him by the League of Patriots and other noisy
organizations rendered this step all the more difficult.
* * * * *
_Lord Lyons to Lord Salisbury._
Paris, May 13, 1887.
I have not heard of any new incident between France and
Germany, but the suspicion and susceptibility with which the two
nations, and indeed the two Governments, regard each other, are
certainly not diminishing.
In France home politics are in so peculiar a state as to be
positively disquieting. The Budget Committee and the Ministry have
come to an open breach, and the Committee intend to propose to
the Chamber a resolution which apparently must, if carried, turn
out the Goblet Cabinet. This the Chamber would be willing enough
to do, if it could see its way to forming another Government. The
plan would be to form a Ministry with Freycinet as Prime Minister,
but not as Minister for Foreign Affairs, and without Boulanger.
But then they are afraid to try and upset Boulanger, while they
feel that to form a new Government and put Boulanger in it would
be, or might be, taken in Germany as a plain indication that they
are warlike at heart. It is an emergency in which the Chief of
the State should exert himself; but Grévy's caution has become
something very like lethargy. In the mean time they are letting
Boulanger grow up into a personage whose position may be a danger
to the Republic at home, even if it does not embroil the country
in a foreign war. The redeeming point in all this is that the
Government does seem to feel that it would not do to be upon bad
terms with England, and that it would be wise to be conciliatory
toward us.
The Goblet Ministry soon found itself in hopeless difficulty over
the Budget, and it was plain that another aimless change of men was
inevitable. Goblet's Government had lasted for five months (inclusive
of a prolonged recess), and the real question of interest was whether
Boulanger was to be a member of the new Government or not. If he was
included in it, it was apprehended that the suspicions of Germany would
be aggravated; and on the other hand, it was doubtful whether any
Government could be formed without him. An ultra-patriotic demonstration
in Paris against German music, in the shape of Wagner's operas, was
eloquent of the state of feeling between the two nations at the time,
and the Government found that the only course open to them was to close
the theatre where the obnoxious productions were to have appeared.
* * * * *
_Lord Lyons to Lord Salisbury._
Paris, May 20, 1887.
Freycinet appears to have agreed with Grévy to try and form a
Cabinet and to be hard at work at the task. Of course the question
is whether Boulanger is or is not to be in the new Cabinet? It was
believed this morning that Grévy and Freycinet had decided upon
offering to keep him as Minister of War. As the day has gone on,
however, the belief has gained ground that Freycinet has not found
colleagues willing to run the risk of war which the maintenance
of Boulanger would produce, and that he is to propose to Grévy a
Cabinet from which Boulanger is to be excluded. He is, however,
to make it an essential condition with Grévy that he is to have
the power to dissolve the Chamber of Deputies in his hands, as
without this power he does not feel able to form a Cabinet without
Boulanger, or indeed any Cabinet at all. In the mean time the
Reds are getting up in all directions addresses and petitions in
favour of Boulanger, with a view to forcing Grévy's and Freycinet's
hands and working on their fears. If Boulanger is got rid of, the
immediate danger of war will probably be escaped for the moment.
Boulanger's own character, and the position in which he has placed
himself, make him threatening to peace; and the opinion held of him
in Germany and the irritation felt against him there make him still
more dangerous.
* * * * *
_Lord Lyons to Lord Salisbury._
Paris, May 24, 1887.
The last news is supposed to be that Floquet, the President
of the Chamber, has undertaken the task of forming a Ministry,
and that he will keep many of the outgoing Ministers, Boulanger
included. The goings and comings at the Elysée; the singular
selections of men to be Prime Ministers, or quasi Prime Ministers,
and the apparent want of firmness and inability to exercise any
influence on the part of the President of the Republic, have
certainly not increased the reputation of M. Grévy. Floquet will,
I suppose, be unacceptable to Russia, for the Russians have always
ostentatiously kept up the show of resentment against him for the
cry, offensive to the Emperor Alexander II., which he raised when
that monarch visited the Palais de Justice during the Exhibition
of 1867. Boulanger has lately declared that he does not want to
continue to be Minister, but that if he is Minister, he will,
whatever Germany may say, continue his mobilization scheme, and not
relax in his preparations to resist an attack from Germany, and to
avert the necessity of submitting to humiliation.
I think, in fact, that things look very bad for France both
at home and abroad. I can only hope that as the phases of the
Ministerial crisis change from hour to hour, you may receive by
telegraph some more satisfactory news before you get this letter.
In course of time a new Ministry was formed under M. Rouvier, and the
important fact attaching to it was that Boulanger had been got rid of.
Otherwise there was nothing much to distinguish the new Ministers from
the old, and they seemed disposed to angle for popularity in the country
much in the same way as Freycinet and Goblet.
The object of removing Boulanger had been to reassure and placate
Germany, but no sooner had this been done, than the Government appeared
to feel alarmed at the danger of incurring unpopularity in the country,
and hastily announced that the new Minister of War would continue to
follow in the footsteps of his predecessor.
Again, it had been understood that one of the objects of the new
Government would be to put an end to the isolation of France by
placing itself on more cordial terms with the neighbouring nations
and especially with England; but what it appeared anxious to profess,
was the intention of stoutly refusing to accept or even acquiesce
in the Anglo-Turkish Convention respecting Egypt. All this, as Lord
Lyons observed, might proceed in great measure from ignorance and
inexperience, and might be mitigated by the knowledge of affairs and
sense of responsibility which accompany office, but still it was
disquieting: all the more disquieting, because the French Foreign
Minister never failed to intimate that France would never be a party to
an arrangement which would confer upon England an international right
to re-occupy Egypt under certain circumstances after evacuation, whilst
France was to be formally excluded from enjoying an equal right.
* * * * *
_Lord Lyons to Lord Salisbury._
Paris, July 12, 1887.
Baron Alphonse de Rothschild came to see me this afternoon,
and told me that the last accounts he had received from Berlin
caused him to feel more than usual alarm as to the feelings of
Prince Bismarck and of the Germans in general towards France. They
did not indeed imply that Germany was actually contemplating any
immediate declaration of war, but they did show that in Germany
war with France was regarded as a contingency that could not be
long postponed, and of which the postponement was not desirable
for German interests. The Germans did not seem to be prepared to
incur the opprobrium of Europe by attacking France without having
the appearance of a good reason for doing so, but they did seem to
be looking out impatiently for a plausible pretext for a rupture;
far from being sorry, they would be very glad if France would
furnish them with such a pretext. Prince Bismarck was evidently
not disposed to facilitate the task of M. Rouvier's Government,
notwithstanding the pledges it had given of its desire for peace
abroad, and the efforts it was making to promote moderation at home.
Baron de Rothschild had, he told me, seen M. Rouvier to-day
and made all this known to him. He had pointed out to him the
danger which arose from the sort of coalition against France of
the Powers of Europe, had dwelt on the importance of making almost
any sacrifice to break up this coalition, and had especially urged
the imprudence of allowing coldness, if not ill-will, to subsist
between France and England.
M. Rouvier had expressed an anxious desire to establish
cordial relations with England.
Baron de Rothschild had answered that the time had come
to show this by acts, and had strongly pressed M. Rouvier to
settle without any delay the outstanding questions which produced
irritation between the two countries. M. Rouvier had expressed his
intention to do so, and Baron de Rothschild had reason to believe
that this was also the desire and intention of M. Flourens.
I said that I heard this with great pleasure, and that
I had received with much satisfaction assurances to the same
effect respecting M. Flourens's sentiments, which had come to me
indirectly through various channels. I must, however, confess that
I had not found in M. Flourens himself any disposition to push
assurance to this effect beyond generalities. I had not seen any
strong practical instances of a desire on his part to give a speedy
and satisfactory solution to outstanding questions.
Baron de Rothschild observed that what he had said on this
point to M. Rouvier had appeared to make a considerable impression
on him.
I said that it so happened that I should in all probability
have the means of testing this almost immediately. I had in fact
only yesterday strongly urged M. Flourens to close a question, that
of the New Hebrides, which was creating suspicion and annoyance to
England and causing great inconvenience in consequence of the very
strong feeling about it which prevailed in the colonies. The two
Governments were entirely in accord in principle upon it, and in
fact it was only kept open by the pertinacity with which the French
Government delayed to take the formal step necessary for closing it.
Baron de Rothschild went on to tell me that in speaking of
the relations with England, M. Rouvier alluded to the convention
negotiated by Sir Drummond Wolff at Constantinople, and said that
he did not see why it should produce any lasting disagreement
between France and England. Whether it was ratified or not, France
might be as conciliatory as possible towards England in dealing
with the matter in future. In answer I suppose to a remark from
Baron de Rothschild, M. Rouvier would seem to have said that the
Comte de Montebello[47] appeared to have gone far beyond his
instructions in the language he had used to the Porte.
I asked Baron de Rothschild whether M. Rouvier had also
said that the Comte de Montebello had received any check or
discouragement from the Government at Paris.
Passing on from this, Baron de Rothschild told me that before
concluding the conversation, he had pointed out to M. Rouvier that
the great addition of strength which the Ministry had received
from the vote of the Chamber yesterday, would enable them to act
with more independence and vigour, and that they might now settle
questions with England, and establish good relations with her
without being under the constant fear of a check in the Chamber of
Deputies.
There can be no doubt that, in fact, the position of the
Rouvier Ministry has been immensely strengthened by the large vote
they obtained yesterday on the interpellation put forward against
them on the subject of Monarchical and Clerical intrigues. It is
earnestly to be hoped, for their own sakes, and for the sake of
France, that they will turn it to account in order to pursue a more
reasonable and conciliatory policy towards England, and to take
stronger and more effectual means of preserving order in Paris. The
riot at the Lyons railway station seems to have done Boulangism
harm even among the ultra-Radicals, and to have been the main cause
of Boulanger's having been thrown over by Radical speakers in the
Chamber yesterday. But it is a very dangerous thing to give the
Paris mob its head.
M. Rouvier's friendly assurances with regard to England had, of course,
been imparted to the Baron in order that they might be communicated
to the British Embassy, but the action of the French Government
appeared to have very little in common with them; nor was there any
reason to assume that Montebello was exceeding his instructions in
opposing at Constantinople the ratification of the Anglo-Turkish
Convention with regard to Egypt. The egregious action which forced
the Sultan to withhold his consent to the Convention, and thereby
perpetuated the British occupation of Egypt, was not the result of the
unauthorized proceedings of the French Ambassador, but the consequence
of the deliberately considered joint policy of the French and Russian
Governments. Incidentally, it may be pointed out that the fruitless
attempt to negotiate the Convention was yet another convincing proof
of the absolute honesty of British policy with regard to Egypt, and
the following letter from Lord Salisbury shows no satisfaction at the
frustration of Sir H. Drummond Wolff's mission.
* * * * *
_Lord Salisbury to Lord Lyons._
July 20, 1887.
I am afraid the temper of the French will not make the
settlement of the Egyptian question more easy. I do not now see how
we are to devise any middle terms that will satisfy them. We cannot
leave the Khedive to take his chance of foreign attack, or native
riot. The French refuse to let us exercise the necessary powers
of defence unless we do it by continuing our military occupation.
I see nothing for it but to sit still and drift awhile: a little
further on in the history of Europe the conditions may be changed,
and we may be able to get some agreement arrived at which will
justify evacuation. Till then we must simply refuse to evacuate.
Our relations with France are not pleasant at present. There are
five or six different places where we are at odds:--
1. She has destroyed the Convention at Constantinople.
2. She will allow no Press Law to pass.
3. She is trying to back out of the arrangement on the Somali
coast.
4. She still occupies the New Hebrides.
5. She destroys our fishing tackle, etc.
6. She is trying to elbow us out of at least two
unpronounceable places on the West Coast of Africa.
Can you wonder that there is, to my eyes, a silver lining even
to the great black cloud of a Franco-German War?
On account of the tension existing between France and Germany, and
of the agitation produced by the transfer of Boulanger to a command
at Clermont-Ferrand, it was feared that the National Fête of July 14
would be marked by serious disturbances; these fears were happily not
realized, although Boulanger's departure from Paris a few days earlier
had formed the pretext for a display of embarrassing Jingoism. The
French Government were so apprehensive of an anti-German demonstration,
that, although Count Münster received the usual invitation to attend
the Longchamps Review, M. Flourens privately begged him to absent
himself, and the two German military attachés, instead of joining the
War Minister's Staff in uniform, went to the Diplomatic Tribune in plain
clothes.
* * * * *
_Lord Lyons to Lord Salisbury._
Paris, July 15, 1887.
The National Fête of yesterday passed off quietly enough.
There are said to have been cries in various places of 'Vive
Boulanger,' and 'À bas Grévy,' but nowhere was there anything which
assumed anything like the proportions of a demonstration. There do
not appear to have been any cries at all in the army.
The low French papers keep up a constant fire of scurrilous
language against the Germans and even against the Germany Embassy.
This sort of thing seems to be taken more seriously and to cause
more irritation in Germany than it would in most countries. Count
Münster naturally enough did not come to the President's stand, to
which he and the other Ambassadors were as usual invited to see
the Review. The German military attachés did not go in uniform
with the staff of the Minister of War, but saw the Review from the
Diplomatic Tribune in plain clothes. In fact, ill will between
France and Germany seems to be on the increase. It looks as if the
Germans would really be glad to find a fair pretext for going to
war with France. On the other hand, Boulangism, which is now the
French term for Jingoism, spreads, especially amongst the reckless
Radicals and enemies of the present Ministry. And even among the
better classes, warlike language and, to some degree, a warlike
spirit grows up with a new generation, which has had no practical
acquaintance with war. Abject fear of the German armies is being
succeeded by overweening confidence in themselves.
The present Ministry seem to have been afraid of unpopularity
if they abandoned altogether Boulanger's absurd mobilization
scheme. The Germans seem to be taking this quietly. Perhaps they
look on with satisfaction at the French incurring an immense
expenditure for an experiment apparently without any practical use
from a military point of view. Perhaps they believe, as many people
do here, that the Chambers will never really vote the money.
It is supposed that the session will be over next week, and I
trust that then you will be disposed to receive an application from
me for leave. I am getting quite knocked up by the Paris summer,
and am in urgent need of rest and country air.
The foregoing letter was one of the last communications received from
Lord Lyons at Paris, and his official career practically terminated a
few days later, when he left on leave, destined never to return to the
post which he had so long occupied, for the unfavourable view which
he held with regard to his physical condition was only too completely
justified.
He appears to have passed the months of August and September quietly
with his near relatives in Sussex. Towards the end of October he
must have learnt with some surprise that, whereas in March he had
been most urgently begged by Lord Salisbury to remain at his post
until the end of the year, a successor to him, in the person of Lord
Lytton, had been appointed, and that there was no necessity for him to
return to Paris. If he, as would have been the case with most people,
really felt aggrieved at this change of circumstances, there is no
trace of resentment shown in his correspondence. On the contrary, he
warmly welcomed the new appointment, and at once set about making
arrangements for his successor's convenience. On November 1, he made
a formal application to be permitted to resign his appointment, was
created an Earl, and the few remaining letters (the latest bearing the
date of November 20) deal with business details, and unostentatious
acts of kindness to various persons who had been in his service or
otherwise connected with him. The very last of all was a characteristic
communication to Sir Edwin Egerton, the Chargé d'Affaires at Paris,
respecting the payment of the fire insurance premium on the Embassy.
The close of his life was destined to coincide dramatically with the
close of his official career. Intellectually there were no signs of
decay; but physically he was even more worn out than he realized
himself. On November 28, whilst staying at Norfolk House, he was
stricken with paralysis, and a week later he was dead, without having
in the meanwhile recovered consciousness. Thus the end came at a moment
singularly appropriate to his well ordered existence, and to no one
could the time-honoured Latin epitaph have been applied with greater
accuracy.
In an earlier portion of this work some attempt has been made to
portray Lord Lyons's personality and to explain the causes of his
success as a diplomatist, but the best criterion of the man is to be
found in his letters, which have been reproduced verbatim, and may be
said to constitute a condensed record of the most interesting episodes
in English diplomatic history during a space of nearly thirty years.
Throughout this long series there is hardly to be found an unnecessary
sentence or even a redundant epithet; there is a total absence of any
straining after effect, of exaggeration, of personal animosity or
predilection, or of any desire to gain his ends by intrigue or trickery.
On the other hand, they are marked by profound mastery of detail, sound
judgment, inexhaustible patience, an almost inhuman impartiality, and
an obviously single-minded desire to do his best for his country as one
of its most responsible representatives. Such, then, was the character
of the man, and the general public is probably quite unconscious of the
inestimable value to the country of officials of this particular type.
It was Lord Lyons's fate twice to represent this country at most
critical periods during wars, in the course of which, England, while
desiring to observe the strictest neutrality, aroused the bitterest
hostility on the part of the belligerents. In spite of untiring efforts
he had the mortification of seeing the relations of England, first with
the United States and then with France, gradually deteriorate, and never
experienced the satisfaction, which no one would have appreciated more
highly than himself, of seeing those unfriendly relations converted into
the condition which now happily prevails; but it may be fairly said
of him that no one ever laboured more assiduously and efficiently to
promote peace and good will between England and her neighbours; that he
never made either an enemy or apparently a mistake, and that no other
diplomatist of his day enjoyed to an equal degree the confidence of
his chiefs, and the regard of his subordinates. Overshadowed by more
brilliant and interesting personalities, the unobtrusive services of
Lord Lyons are unknown to the rising generation, and probably forgotten
by many of those who have reached middle age; but in the opinion of
the statesman who amongst living Englishmen is the most competent to
judge, he was the greatest Ambassador who has represented this country
in modern times, and by those whose privilege it was to serve under him,
his memory will ever be held in affectionate remembrance.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 44: Lord Salisbury had taken over the Foreign Office upon the
death of Lord Iddesleigh on January 12, 1887.]
[Footnote 45: Dongorita. A town on the Somali coast.]
[Footnote 46: Secretary of French Embassy at London.]
[Footnote 47: French Ambassador at Constantinople.]
APPENDIX
LORD LYONS IN PRIVATE LIFE.
BY MRS. WILFRID WARD.
It is not uncommon to find a seeming contradiction between the official
and the private characters of the same individual. Extreme reserve, for
instance, even an astonishing power of silence in conducting official
work, may not indicate the same power of silence in private life, or the
same reserve in the life of the affections. In Lord Lyons there was no
such contrast, and no attempt to depict him could pretend to penetrate
his extreme reserve as to his deeper feelings. This reticence on his
part must severely limit any account of his _vie intime_. Moreover,
curiously enough there is another difficulty in describing him which
lies in quite an opposite direction. Lord Lyons had a keen sense of
the ridiculous, and he loved the absolute relaxation of talking pure
nonsense which, however amusing at the moment, would hardly bear the
strain of repetition. Indeed, very little can be added to the history
of the public life of a man so absolutely reticent as to his feelings,
his thoughts, and his opinions, which he further concealed rather than
revealed by an almost burlesque habit of talking nonsense among his
intimates.
It would be easy to give many instances of his gift for silence when he
did not wish to be 'drawn' by his interlocutor. A little story told to
me by the late Sir Edward Blount is a case in point.
Sir Edward, waiting to see Lord Lyons at the Embassy, heard talking in
the next room which lasted some time, and soon distinguished the voice
of M. Blowitz. As soon as he was alone with Lord Lyons he said that he
felt obliged to warn him that, if he had liked, he could have overheard
his conversation with the journalist.
'You might,' was the answer, 'have overheard what was said by M.
Blowitz, but you could not have heard anything said by me for the good
reason that I said nothing at all!'
It was never known to anybody, as far as it is possible to ascertain,
whether Lord Lyons had ever even contemplated marriage, though he
certainly did not recommend celibacy. 'Matrimony,' he constantly used to
repeat--slightly varying the phrase in his favourite _Rasselas_--'may
have thorns, but celibacy has no roses.'
There was at one moment, while he was attached to the Embassy at Rome,
a rumour that he was engaged to be married. Hearing something of it he
inquired of a lady friend whether she could tell him to whom he was
supposed to be attached, and later on he discovered that she was herself
the person in question!
His nature was certainly lonely, and I believe from quite early in life
he was conscious of suffering from loneliness. I have been told of a
letter of his written from school in which this was quite clearly set
forth. In later life he would never have expressed so much. What he felt
and thought on any intimate question can, I think, only be inferred by
his comments on life in general, or on the sorrows and joys of others.
Once only I believe did he take any part in directly influencing the
lives of young people in the critical question of marriage. The daughter
of an old friend, with a courage in her confidence which seems to me
almost phenomenal, told him the story of a mutual affection existing
between her and a young man who did not seem to her parents to be a
sufficiently good match. Lord Lyons listened with the utmost attention,
and eventually interceded with his old friend, speaking of the terrible
danger of causing irremediable pain to two young hearts, and was the
means of making these young people happy. Was there, perhaps, in this
action some reminiscence of a possible past happiness lost by himself?
No one can even make the faintest surmise as to whether this was the
case. He made no allusion to his own past when telling the story.
Of his childhood I know little, but there is a toy preserved in the
family that gives a curious and characteristic foretaste of what he
was to become. It is a miniature escritoire fitted with pen and paper
and seals, and also soap and towels, etc. All this was supposed to
belong to the children's dog, who was promoted in their games to the
position of an Ambassador, and described as 'His Excellency.' There are
still existing despatches written to and by 'His Excellency' in the
handwriting of the four children.
I think he must have been too old to have joined in his sister Minna's
bit of naughtiness when at Malta she put snuff in the guitar of a young
exquisite who had provoked their mirth, and whose name was Benjamin
Disraeli.
He used to say that among his most vivid recollections of his boyhood
while at Malta, was the unexpected return of his father and the fleet.
The children had been deeply engaged in preparing theatricals which were
postponed on account of their father's arrival. He remembered his guilty
feeling that he ought to be glad, and that he was not glad at all!
It was not at first intended that Bickerton Lyons should enter the
diplomatic service; he began life in the navy. But Bickerton, unlike
his brother Edmund, had no vocation for the sea. The sorrow of Edmund's
loss, who died at Therapia, from a wound received when commanding his
ship in the Sea of Azoph during the Crimean war, was a shadow that never
passed from the lives of the other three. Bickerton was deeply attached
to both his sisters and their families. Annie married Baron Wurtzburg,
and Minna married Lord Fitzalan, afterwards Duke of Norfolk. Other
relations with whom he was in close intimacy all his life were his aunt,
Mrs. Pearson and her children, especially her daughters, Mrs. Lister
Venables and Mrs. Little, who both survived him.
All his life Lord Lyons was devoted to children, and especially so to
the large family of the Duchess of Norfolk, with whom he was able to
indulge his domestic tastes and his love of fun. He spent with them the
greater part of every holiday, and in the last twenty-five years of his
life they were frequently with him in Paris. My mother, Lady Victoria,
the eldest of the family, married very young, and my aunt Minna, the
second daughter, became a Carmelite nun. Mary, the eldest of the sisters
who remained at home, was Lord Lyons's constant companion and secretary.
I think she was the only person who did not experience the strong sense
of his reserve which so impressed those who had to do with him even in
everyday intercourse. In a very serious state of health which followed
his work at Washington he depended greatly on the companionship of his
nieces. I have been told that for months he could not raise his head,
and the only thing he could do by himself was to play with glass balls
on a solitaire board. During this interval in his career, before he
accepted the Embassy at Constantinople, he had more leisure than usual
for the society of his sister's family, but he had always been devoted
to them when they were quite little children, and was once described as
'an excellent nursery governess.' He said to his sister: 'I could never
have married; it would not have been right, as I could never have loved
my own children as much as I love yours.'
Into this near association with him my sisters and I were more
closely drawn after the death of our parents. We had lost our mother
in the winter of 1870, and my father, James Hope-Scott, died in the
spring of 1873. It was then that my grandmother took us to live with
her at Arundel, and we were added to the large family party who had
often stayed with him in Paris. My own earliest recollections of my
great-uncle are tinged with an awe which no amount of time spent with
him ever quite overcame; but it did not prevent great enjoyment of all
the fun we had with him. He was certainly very indulgent to the younger
members of the family circle, particularly my brother, who was some
years younger than the rest of us, and this was especially the case when
we were his guests.
I think that what inspired awe was the immense strength of character,
the reserved force, the severely controlled natural irritability. He
had, too, a humorous vehemence of expression which seemed at times to be
a safety valve to the forces he had under control, and was a reminder of
their existence.
I suppose that nothing could be imagined more stately and more regular
than life at the Embassy in those days. The Ambassador himself lived
in a routine of absolute regularity and extremely hard work. He got up
at seven, had breakfast at eight, and was, I think, at work by nine
o'clock. His very small leisure, when he was alone, was mostly spent
in reading. And this was carefully classified in three divisions. In
the morning he read history or science, in the evening, between tea and
dinner, biography; while, for an hour before he went to bed he read
novels. While in France he never left the Embassy. Once a year he did
leave it for his annual holiday--generally spent in England. He used to
boast how many nights in succession--I think in one year it amounted
to over 300--he had slept in the same bed. Every afternoon when we
were with him, he drove with my grandmother, generally in the Bois de
Boulogne, and in the warm weather we always stopped at some _café_ for
us children to have ices. He also took us to the circus once during each
visit until, in later life, he became afraid of catching cold. He still
occasionally went to the theatre, to which he had been much devoted as
a younger man. We all dined downstairs, and he used to like my youngest
sister and my brother to sit at a little table near the big one and have
dessert. He insisted on this, and was rather pleased than otherwise at
the scolding he received from an English friend for keeping them up
so late. In later life he used to speak of the pretty picture the two
children had made.
I recollect the extraordinary general sense of importance as to
his movements in those days, partly on account of their phenomenal
regularity. I could not imagine him ever acting on impulse, even in the
matter of going up or downstairs. I cannot picture him strolling into
his own garden except at the fixed hour. This without intention added to
the dignity of his life which seemed to move like a rather dreary state
procession.
I wonder if the servants who never saw him break through his routine,
or lose one jot of his dignity, ever guessed at how shy he was of them,
or suspected the rather wistful curiosity he felt about their lives.
I think it was Pierre, the butler, who lived with his family in the
_entresol_ between the two floors of reception rooms in the Embassy.
Lord Lyons was much interested in their family life, and liked to
speculate as to what went on there. One inconvenient result of his
extreme shyness was that when he really wished to alter any detail as
to the daily routine, he could not bring himself to impart his wishes
to any of the servants. I have often heard him say how tired he was of
the same breakfast which never varied in the least, and he would add
that his Italian valet Giuseppe was so convinced that it was the only
breakfast he liked that when he travelled, the man took incredible
pains that the coffee, the eggs, the rolls, the marmalade, the two
tangerine oranges in winter and the tiny basket of strawberries in
summer, should not differ an iota from those served up every morning
at the Embassy. But Lord Lyons could never summon up courage to speak
to him on the subject. On certain days Pierre undertook Giuseppe's
duties, and for many years Lord Lyons wished that Pierre would arrange
his things as they were arranged by Giuseppe, but he never told him
so. While he grumbled, he was amused at the situation and at himself.
Indeed, his keen sense of the ridiculous and his endless enjoyment of
nonsense explain a good deal of his life. He used to say that as he was
too shy to look at the servants' faces, he had learnt to know them by
their silk stockinged calves. When he dined alone he made an amusement
of identifying the six or seven pairs of calves, and was proud of his
success in this odd game of skill.
I recall one ludicrous instance of his shyness with servants. It was
his custom annually when he came to stay with us to shake hands with
the old family nurse, and on one occasion, meeting her on the stairs,
he leant across the banisters to perform the ceremony with such
_empressement_ and effort that he broke one of the supports. He always
afterwards alluded to the extraordinary emotion he had shown in this
greeting. Nothing is so unaccountable as shyness, but it was curious
that a man who had seen so much of public life and of society should
have so much of it as he had. I remember once helping him to escape
with, for him, astonishing speed across the garden of a country house,
when a very agreeable woman, whom I believe he really liked, had come
to call; he was as full of glee as if he were a boy running away from a
school-master.
[Illustration: THE BRITISH EMBASSY, PARIS.
_F. Contet, Paris. Phot._]
I don't think that in Paris he ever gave way to such impulses; they were
the relaxation of a shy nature in the holidays.
To return for one moment to Paris. He occasionally gave a big official
dinner which I don't think he at all enjoyed, and of which we knew
nothing. But he certainly enjoyed small gatherings, especially if they
included old friends who were passing through Paris, although not one
word of ordinary sentiment would probably pass his lips, nor would one
of the day's arrangements be changed. He certainly enjoyed the society
of his women friends, and I liked to watch him talking to Mrs. Augustus
Craven, the author of the _Récit d'une Soeur_. Two characteristic
sayings of his about the Cravens I remember. He was always pleased at
showing his knowledge of the most orthodox and strict views of Roman
affairs. He used to say that Mrs. Craven could never make amends for
her conduct at the time of the Vatican Council--when her _salon_ was a
centre for 'inopportunist' Bishops--unless she went back to Rome and
gave 'Infallibilist tea-parties.'
Mr. Augustus Craven, her husband, was intensely mysterious in manner,
and Lord Lyons used to call him 'the General of the Jesuits.' Once, on
meeting him in London, he asked him if his wife were with him. Mrs.
Craven was staying with Lady Cowper, and Mr. Craven answered with
solemn, slow and mysterious tones: 'She is at Wrest,' and my uncle said
'Requiescat in Pace,' with equal solemnity.
I think that with all his natural British prejudices he liked French
people and their ways. He used to maintain that Frenchwomen were more
domestic and kept earlier hours than Englishwomen. He certainly liked
French cooking. He spoke once in tones of horror of an Englishman who
had committed the monstrosity of putting pepper on young green peas--a
crime of which a Frenchman was incapable.
Many of his opinions, however, like Dr. Johnson's, were evoked by the
spirit of contradiction, and it was chiefly with English people that I
heard him talk about the French.
In the holidays in England reading aloud was one of his chief pleasures.
He read much poetry to us at one time, but later I think he had to
give this up as it tired him. At Arundel he wrote his letters in the
dressing-room opening out of his bedroom. We used to sit there waiting
for him before the appointed time, making drawings in red ink, of which
there was always a large supply, when he would make a mock solemn
entrance, as of a stiff professor. We were allowed to scribble during
the reading, but, woe betide us! if we showed any inattention. He read
'Marmion,' Southey's 'Thalaba,' and, I think, 'The Curse of Kehama,'
also much of Byron, the 'Siege of Corinth,' with especial enjoyment. He
knew many pages of Byron by heart, and we used to get him to repeat any
amount while out walking. 'Rejected Addresses,' 'Bombastes Furioso,'
'The Rape of the Lock' were also among the many things he liked to
recite. I wish I could remember half the things he read or repeated
to us. I am sure there was no Tennyson, and certainly no Browning. He
used to jeer at the obscurity of both the Brownings, and to mutter such
phrases as the 'thundering white silence' of Mrs. Browning with intense
scorn. I think he may have met the Brownings when he was in Rome. He saw
a good deal of Fanny and Adelaide Kemble at that time. He liked Adelaide
much the best of the two, and used to quote with delight a saying of
hers as to the Brownings. When she was told of the birth of their son
she exclaimed: 'There are now then not one incomprehensible, or two
incomprehensibles, but three incomprehensibles!'
He was always amused at the Kemble grand manner. He used to imitate the
dramatic utterance with which Fanny Kemble frightened a young waiter
who had brought her some beer. 'I asked for _water_, boy; you bring me
_beer_!'
At that same time he knew Sir Frederick Leighton, and they once had a
pillow fight! Who could imagine that pillow fight who only knew him as
Ambassador in Paris? He always spoke as if he had enjoyed life in Rome;
he was devoted to the theatre, and he had much congenial society. He
used to say, too, that Pius IX. was the most agreeable sovereign with
whom he ever had diplomatic relations.
Lord Lyons's literary tastes were not those of the present generation.
He declared that he only liked verse that rhymed and music with a tune.
He loved the sonorous sound of Byron as he loved the solemn cadence of
Latin verse. All the time the love of absurdity was never far off. He
would suddenly imitate the action of a schoolboy repeating Latin verse,
first with his arms and then with his feet! A stout, very dignified
elderly man, in some path in the garden, punctuating the verse with the
action of his feet, is sufficiently surprising. Occasionally he would
have the oddest freaks of this kind, and I remember an afternoon when he
took a whim of pretending to be imbecile; he made the most extraordinary
faces, and not a word of sense could be got from him.
Once in a steamer on the lake of Lucerne he insisted on his nieces
joining him in impersonating a typical family of English tourists
out for their holiday. He was the _paterfamilias_, one niece was his
wife, another the German governess, a third his child. In the middle
of the performance he found that he was being regarded with surprise
and curiosity by some English society friends whose acquaintance with
him had hitherto been exclusively in the character of a very dignified
ambassador.
My aunt, Mary Howard, used to read aloud to him by the hour, and we all
enjoyed these times immensely. It would be difficult to say how often we
had 'Pickwick,' 'Cranford,' 'Rasselas,' 'The Rose and the Ring,' and
'Mrs. Boss's Niece.' I have never met anybody outside that circle who
ever even heard of 'Mrs. Boss's Niece;' it is a serious loss. To quote
at all appropriately from any of his favourites was to be exceedingly
in his good books for the rest of the day. Like the late Lord Salisbury
he delighted in Miss Yonge; he could not have too many pairs of twins,
or too large a family circle to read about. He loved the analysis of
domestic life, and would have been ready to canonise any really and
genuinely unselfish character. Detective stories were a great joy. 'The
House on the Marsh,' and 'Called Back,' were among the most successful.
He used to prolong discussion as to the solution of the mystery, and
would even knock at our doors very late at night if he thought he had
identified the murderer, and mutter in dramatic undertones, 'So-an-so
was the man who did it.' But the detective story was never read before
dinner, and to look into the book meanwhile was a crime. Anybody who
peeped to see the end of a novel 'deserved to be dragged to death by
wild horses.' And there must be no skipping. Only descriptions of
scenery--to which he had the strongest objection--might be left out.
The annual holiday was, for the most part, spent with the Duchess of
Norfolk at Arundel, and later at Heron's Ghyll. Sometimes he went to
Germany to take the waters, in company with his eldest sister, Baroness
Wurtzburg. When in England he always paid a certain number of country
house visits. These generally included Knowsley and Woburn. The visits
that were paid every year, I think without exception, were those to
Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, and to an old schoolfellow--Major Trower,
who had been with him at Winchester. Major Trower was one of four old
Wykehamists who remained close friends. The other two had died some time
before. I think the visit to Raby was annual. He specially enjoyed the
society of the Duchess of Cleveland and of Lady Mary Hope. He was at
Raby in the September before he died, and I believe that was the last
visit he ever paid. The famous visitors' book there always amused him,
and he was fond of quoting from it. One of his own contributions I
remember was written with mock modesty. He took from Lockhart's Spanish
ballads the lines:--
''Twere better to be silent before such a crowd of folk,
Than utter words as meaningless as he did when he spoke.'
His recollections of the society of his youth in these houses had some
amusing details. I think it was at the Duchess of Bedford's that there
was a Christmas tree, off which each young man visitor was given a piece
of flowered silk for a waistcoat. Early next morning, at Mr. Lyons's
suggestion, one of the young men, provided with a list of the names and
addresses of the tailors employed by the others, went up to London and
brought back all the waistcoats made up in time to be worn at dinner
that evening. He used to speak with some amusement of the ungraciousness
of Rogers, the poet, whom he met at the Derbys'. On one occasion Rogers
had lost his spectacles, and Mr. Lyons went a long way in the big house
to find them. Rogers who was drinking tea took the spectacles, but did
not thank him, and, a moment later, when he heard Mr. Lyons refusing
sugar, he observed to the company: 'That young man, having nothing else
to be proud of, is proud of not having sugar with his tea!'
I don't suppose that he talked much as a young man, and probably he
followed the rule he always preached, that young men should speak
'little but often.'
Among the few serious sayings to be quoted from him was that the great
axiom in diplomacy was 'Never do anything to-day that can be put off
till to-morrow.'
In speaking of Leo XIII. and his successful policy with Bismarck, he
said: 'Those very clever men succeed by doing what no one expects. My
success has been made by always doing what was expected of me. I always
did the safe thing.'
In conversation he enjoyed a Johnsonian style of repartee. One retort of
his had an excellent practical result. He acted as a special constable
in London during the Chartist Riots. Hearing a woman in the dense crowd
cry out, 'Let me faint, let me faint,' he turned to her at once, and
said: 'Pray do, madam,' whereupon she recovered immediately.
Soon after the Berlin Conference when the Disraeli party were making the
most of the accession of Crete, a visitor at the Embassy, gushing over
its charms concluded with the assertion that Crete was the loveliest
island in the world. Whereupon Mr. William Barrington (now Sir William
Barrington) said drily: 'Have you seen all the others?' This amused
Lord Lyons immensely, and some years afterwards when a young lady who
was and is still famous for her powers of conversation had talked at
him for some time, he adopted the same method. After a good many other
sweeping assertions she said of some work that had just come out: 'It is
the best written book that has appeared this century.' 'Ah,' he said,
'have you read all the others?' Being alone with her soon afterwards I
was not surprised at her inquiring of me dubiously whether I liked my
great-uncle.
* * * * *
It need hardly be said that, in the matter of his personal religion,
Lord Lyons was very reticent. He was absolutely regular in his
attendance at the Sunday service in Paris and in England. He was very
fond of the singing of English hymns.
He never had any sympathy with the ritualist party in the Church of
England, and was inclined to be sarcastic as to those whom he designated
'Puseyites,' as was then the custom.
One who knew him very well told me that for a time he was somewhat
unsettled in the matter of definite religious belief. There is also
evidence that in middle life the idea of joining the Catholic Church
had been present to him as a possibility. As far as can be known it
was during the last summer of his life that he began to consider the
question practically. It is not surprising that Lord Lyons, when he
took the matter up, showed the same characteristics in its regard that
he had shown in any serious question throughout his life, namely, the
greatest thoroughness and care in studying the Catholic religion and
in carrying out its practical side, reserve as to deep sentiment, not
without humorous touches which were intensely characteristic. Newman's
works formed the chief part of his study during those summer months.
A letter written in that August says of him, 'He is always reading
Newman.' It was not until shortly before his death that he spoke on the
matter to any of the family. A note in the writing of his secretary and
intimate friend--Mr. George Sheffield--says that he spoke of it six
weeks before his death. Lord Lyons had known Bishop Butt for many years
when he was parish priest at Arundel, and it was to him that he applied
for advice. He studied the Penny Catechism most carefully, learning the
answers by heart, like a child. He began to fulfil the practices of a
Catholic with great regularity. He went to Mass daily at ten o'clock,
and adopted little habits of self-denial and showed greater liberality
in almsgiving. The last honour he ever received was the offer of an
earldom on his retiring from the Paris Embassy. He suggested to Dr. Butt
that it would be a good act of mortification to refuse this honour, but
the Bishop would not advise him to do so. He began, against his usual
custom, to give money to crossing-sweepers or beggars in the streets,
and I am told by my aunt, Lady Phillippa Stewart, that, after returning
from my wedding, he said to her: 'Is it not customary after an event
of this kind to give money in alms?' He then suggested that he should
make some offering to the hospitals and asked her to write out the
names of those she thought would be the most suitable. It was about
ten days before my marriage in November, 1887, that I first heard of
his intentions. I learnt it in a fashion very characteristic of him. I
was not staying in the house, but I had been dining with him when he
remarked casually: 'Really, my austerities are becoming alarming. I have
given up soup for dinner and jam for breakfast.' This struck me as a
novel proceeding, as I knew his fondness for jam and that the ordinary
routine of dinner beginning with a clear soup was a fixed ceremonial
with him. That night I questioned my aunt, who told me that he had been
for some weeks preparing to join the Church. It was at this time that
he said to one of the family: 'I am now ready to be received as soon
as the Bishop likes.' He also characteristically consulted his nephew,
the Duke of Norfolk, as to whether he ought to inform Lord Salisbury of
his intention of becoming a Catholic. He did not, during these weeks,
know that he was in any danger. The last time I saw my great uncle was
at my wedding. He had a stroke about ten days afterwards, and to all
appearance became unconscious. Dr. Butt, knowing what his intentions had
been, had no hesitation in giving him conditional Baptism and Extreme
Unction. I was at the funeral at Arundel, and saw the coffin lowered
into the vault in the Fitzalan Chapel, where his sister Minna had been
placed two and a half years earlier.
* * * * *
I feel most strongly as I conclude these very imperfect notes, how
entirely Lord Lyons belonged to a generation of Englishmen now long
passed away. The force of will, the power of self-devotion, the dignity,
the reticence, the minute regularity, the sense of order, the degree
of submission to authority and the undoubting assertion of his own
authority towards others--all were elements in a strong personality.
There are, no doubt, strong men now, but their strength is of a
different kind. Englishmen to-day are obliged to be more expansive
and unreserved. No fixed routine can be followed now as then; no man
can so guard his own life and his own personality from the public
eye. Lord Lyons was not of the type that makes the successful servant
of the democracy. Fidelity, reticence, self-effacement, are not the
characteristics that are prominent in the popular idea of the strong man
to-day. But no one who knew Lord Lyons can doubt that those qualities
were in him a great part of his strength. He was and must always be to
those who knew him very much of an enigma, and it certainly would not
have been his own wish that any great effort should be made to interpret
his inner life to the world at large.
INDEX
Aali Pasha, i. 146, 150, 151, 155, 161, 166, 167, 172;
and the Paris Conference, i. 153.
Abdul Aziz, Sultan of Turkey, i. 151, ii. 175;
effort for Navy, i. 152;
dismisses Fuad Pasha, i. 155;
unpopularity of, i. 161, 163;
visit to France, i. 169, 170;
to England, i. 171, 173.
Abdul Hamid, ii. 108, 208;
policy of, ii. 137;
reported conspiracy against, ii. 167;
suzerainty in Tunis, ii. 246;
overthrow of, i. 168.
Aberdeen, Lord, ii. 11.
Abolition proclamation, i. 93.
Abou Klea, battle of, ii. 343.
Adams, Mr., U.S. Minister in London, i. 38, 43, 59, 63, 71, 72, 98, 99.
Adams, Sir Francis, chargé d'affaires at Paris, ii. 72;
telegram on Anglo-French sympathies, ii. 136;
Minister at Berne, ii. 220.
Adrianople, railway to Constantinople, i. 176.
Aehrenthal, Count, i. 342.
Afghanistan, Lytton's policy in, ii. 209;
attacked by Russia, ii. 348, 352.
Africa, west coast, ii. 409.
_Alabama_ incident, i. 97, 98, 99, 105, 300;
question revived, i. 162, 189.
Alaska, bought by America, i. 168.
Albanian league, ii. 228.
Alderson, Capt., sent to report on army of the Potomac, i. 128, 129.
Alexander, Emperor of Russia, i. 187, 255, 273, 333, 354, ii. 52,
54, 404;
visit to Berlin, ii. 76;
friendliness to England, ii. 80;
attempt on life of, ii. 207.
Alexandretta, ii. 150, 151.
Alexandria, ii. 172, 188, 273;
Anglo-French Naval Demonstration at, ii. 283;
massacre at, ii. 285;
bombardment of, ii. 288.
Algeria, position of French in, i. 199, 268, 271, 382, ii. 159, 249.
Alsace and Lorraine, question of cession, i. 321, 332, 334, 358,
361, 369;
French hopes of recovery of, ii. 103, 135, 195, 197, 247, 346;
trade of, ii. 14.
America, army, i. 45, 47, 48, 79, 109;
methods of recruiting, i. 110, 116;
finance, i. 57;
slave trade, i. 20;
affairs in central, i. 13;
relations between North and South, i. 20, 29, 31;
relations with England, i. 12, 15, 16, 45, 46, 79, 129, 189.
American Civil War, i. 34, 343;
Blockade question, i. 33, 36, 37;
privateering, i. 42;
Confederate Government, i. 53;
Southern Confederacy, i. 31, 33, 34, 36;
position of Consuls, i. 83, 121;
Southern activity, i. 82, 83;
Revolutionary Party, i. 80;
proposed foreign intervention, i. 90, 91, 92, 96;
rising prices, i. 94;
vessel building in England, i. 101, 102;
position of foreigners during, i. 106-109;
seizure of British vessels, i. 100, 104, 105;
Irish in, i. 109, 114, 115;
Germans in, i. 115;
British officers sent to follow operations, i. 128;
M. Mercier on, i. 85.
Anarchical plots, i. 187.
Ancona district, Austrian troops in, i. 3.
Anderson, at Fort Sumter, i. 35.
Anderson, Mr., attaché at Washington, i. 87.
Andrassy, Count, ii. 85;
and the Eastern Question, ii. 127, 134, 138;
and the Austro-German Alliance, ii. 194.
Andrassy Note, ii. 95.
Anglo-Russian Agreement, ii. 143, 160.
Anglo-Turkish Convention, ii. 140-142;
disclosed to Waddington, ii. 148;
made public, ii. 151;
irritation in France, ii. 152, 159, 163.
Annam, French in, ii. 103, 307, 327.
Anti-Slavery party in England, i. 118.
Antonelli, Cardinal, i. 3, 4, 184.
Anzin, ii. 323.
Arabi Bey, rebellion of, ii. 258, 273, 278;
Minister of War, ii. 279, 283;
campaign against, ii. 295, 296.
Arago, Emmanuel, succeeds Gambetta as Minister of War, i. 361.
Archibald, Consul, on the kidnapping of recruits, i. 112.
Arcolay pamphlet, i. 220.
Argyll, Duke and Duchess of, i. 41.
Armenia, ii. 131, 137;
patriarch question, ii. 55.
Army Purchase Bill, ii. 9, 12.
Arnim, Count, Minister at Rome, i. 347;
Ambassador at Paris, ii. 14, 16, 27, 30, 60, 68, 140;
and Thiers, ii. 31;
on French policy, ii. 45;
Bismarck's dislike of, ii. 46.
Arundel, Lyons at, i. 139, ii. 222, 418, 422, 428.
Ashman, Mr., i. 50.
Asia Minor, Russian policy in, i. 268, ii. 133, 137.
Athens, i. 149; Lyons attaché at, i. 1.
Atlantic, coast defence, i. 40.
Augusta, Empress, Bismarck's dislike of, ii. 80, 354.
Aumale Duc d', ii. 2, 7, 16, 44, 48, 51, 56, 64, 311, 368.
d'Aunay, M., ii. 300, 376.
Austria, relations with Prussia, i. 186, 193, 202;
relations with France, ii. 35;
military power of, i. 268;
and the Eastern Question, ii. 85, 127;
in the Moldo-Wallachian Principalities, i. 153;
in the Ancona district, i. 3.
Austro-German Alliance, ii. 194, 199, 205, 398.
Austro-Prussian War, failure of French policy in, i. 177.
Azoph, Sea of, ii. 417.
Bac-ninh, ii. 324.
Baden, Grand Duchy of, and Confederation, i. 208, 266, 276, 285, 293;
French policy in, i. 190, ii. 36;
proposed neutrality, i. 302.
Bagdad railway, ii. 151.
Bahamas, the, i. 130.
Baker Pasha, defeat of, ii. 323.
Balkan Peninsula, ii. 223.
Bapaume, i. 355.
Bardo, Treaty of the, ii. 243.
Baring, Major (Earl of Cromer) in Egypt, ii. 189, 322, 352;
letter to Lyons, ii. 203;
and "Modern Egypt," ii. 295.
_Barracouta_, H.M.S., i. 100.
Barrère, M., ii. 322.
Barrington, Mr. (Sir William), ii. 128, 426.
Bateman, Sir Alfred, ii. 253.
Batoum, ii. 137, 138, 143.
Baucel, M., i. 228.
Bavaria, i. 193;
and Confederation, i. 266;
proposed neutrality, i. 302.
Bayazid, ii. 142.
Baynes, Admiral, i. 23.
Bazaine, General, i. 317, 320;
capitulation, i. 329.
Beaconsfield, Lord, ii. 144.
Beatrice, Princess, ii. 162.
Beauregard, General, i. 35.
Beaury, plot against Napoleon III., i. 285.
Bedford, Duchess of, ii. 425.
Belfort, i. 370, 374.
Belgium, Prince Napoleon on, i. 193;
French in, i. 211;
trade relations with France, ii. 25;
neutrality of, i. 298, 302;
foreign policy towards, i. 303, 355, ii. 113, 124, 206;
secret Treaty, i. 320, 340;
in Constantinople Conference, ii. 109;
Bismarck's policy in, i. 254, ii. 74, 83, 345.
Belgium, King of, i. 212, 216.
Belgrade, Fortress of, i. 161;
evacuated by the Turks, i. 163.
Belligerent Rights, Exposition of French Jurists on, i. 44, 46, 50.
Benedetti, French Ambassador at Berlin, i. 293;
on Franco-Prussian situation, i. 299;
affront to, i. 300, ii. 206;
despatch from, i. 304;
meeting with King of Prussia at Ems, i. 305.
Benjamin, Mr., i. 122.
Berlin, Congress at, ii. 147.
_Berlin Post_, "Is War in Sight" article, ii. 72.
Berlin, Treaty of, i. 342, ii. 227;
Layard on, ii. 160.
Bermuda, i. 130.
Berne, ii. 256.
Bernstorff, Count, Prussian Ambassador in London, i. 196, 256, 259,
260, 268, 293, 304, 309, 317, 323, 337;
on Belgian affairs, i. 218;
letter from Bismarck, i. 261.
Bert, M. Paul, ii. 323.
Berthaut, General, Minister of War, ii. 115.
Bessarabia, ii. 142, 367.
Bessborough, Lord, ii. 11.
Beust, Count, Austrian Minister, i. 162, 272, 314, 320; ii. 202, 231;
and the Belgian question, i. 229;
letter to Metternich, ii. 35.
Beyens, Baron, Belgian Minister, i. 213.
Biarritz, i. 197.
Biggar, Mr., ii. 234.
Billing, Baron de, plan to relieve Gordon, ii. 326.
Billot, General, ii. 311.
Bisaccia, Duc de, French Ambassador in London, ii. 57.
Bismarck, Prince, i. 162, 192, 387;
and Luxemburg railway affair, i. 168, 213;
and German Confederation, i. 247, 251, 276;
at Ems, i. 293;
and the Vatican, ii. 30, 68;
relations with Emperor, ii. 62, 120;
and disarmament negotiations, i. 254, 260-5, 270-3, 275, 278, 301;
foreign policy of, i. 179, 211, 214, 218, 314, 355, ii. 14, 29, 49,
54, 70, 72, 74, 77, 82, 124, 205, 345, 358;
with regard to Austria, ii. 42;
and the Austro-German Alliance, ii. 194;
and Belgium, i. 303;
and the Eastern Question, ii. 90, 97, 231;
and Egypt, ii. 150, 297, 325, 338, 339, 352;
and France, ii. 16, 60, 136, 283, 286, 384;
during war, i. 314;
peace negotiations, i. 345, 348, 357, 361, 365, 370, 374, 380,
ii. 20, 30, 82;
and payment of indemnity, ii. 3;
colonial policy, ii. 60;
and French colonial schemes, ii. 244-5, 251, 259, 264, 268, 342;
and Russia, i. 338;
and Russo-Turkish War, ii. 109;
Suez Canal transaction, ii. 94;
and claims of Prussia in Tunis, i. 200;
and Favre, i. 316, 318, 321, 323, 324, 352;
interviews with Malet, i. 319;
with Thiers, i. 329, 331, 342, 353, 358;
French views of policy, ii. 107;
and Arnim, ii. 46;
and Boulanger, ii. 401;
and Clarendon, i. 250, 279;
and Gramont, i. 307;
and Count Münster, ii. 388;
and Napoleon III., i. 221, 254, 333;
and Odo Russell, i. 338;
and Waddington, ii. 168;
on himself, ii. 61;
on French Press, i. 271-2;
and the German Press, i. 305;
power of, ii. 53, 73;
illness of, ii. 290.
"Bismarck, his Reflections and Reminiscences," quoted, i. 338.
Bizerta, ii. 243.
Black Sea Conference, i. 341, 350, 366;
clauses in Treaty of Paris, concerning, i. 337;
French policy in, i. 337, 339;
Russia policy in, ii. 127.
Blairgowrie, Lord Russell at, i. 119.
Blanqui, revolutionary leader, i. 385.
Bleichröder, ii. 384.
Blignières, M. de, ii. 171, 204;
in Egypt, ii. 189, 238, 261, 278;
resignation of, ii. 279;
on Egyptian finances, ii. 330.
Blockade, international law concerning, i. 97.
Blount, Sir Edward, ii. 415.
Blowitz, M., _Times_ correspondent, ii. 70, 241, 308, 416.
Blue Books, publication of, i. 101, 102, 300.
Boer War, i. 49;
pay of men in, i. 110.
Bonaparte, Prince Pierre, i. 244.
Bonapartist Party, policy of, i. 349, 356, 364, ii. 15, 17, 66, 106,
191.
Bordeaux, i. 345, 349.
Bosnia, ii. 127, 134, 141, 143;
annexation of, i. 342;
insurrection in, ii. 84.
_Bosphore Egyptien_, suspended, ii. 352.
Boston, i. 73, 75;
harbour, i. 64.
Boulanger, General, ii. 121;
policy, ii. 367, 384, 385, 393, 403;
and the army, ii. 365, 383;
popularity of, ii. 366;
at Longchamps, ii. 369;
mobilization scheme, ii. 401, 411;
transferred to Clermont-Ferrand, ii. 409.
Bourbaki, General, i. 327, 354;
on the military situation, i. 327;
at Bourges, i. 348;
defeated, i. 359;
army not included in armistice, i. 360.
Bourges, Bourbaki at, i. 348.
Brassey, Mr., application for railway concession, i. 176.
Bray, Bavarian Minister, i. 302.
Brodie, attaché at Washington, i. 87.
Broglie, Duc de, at Black Sea Conference, i. 341;
French Ambassador in London, ii. 22, 23, 24;
in French politics, ii. 64, 67, 100;
becomes Prime Minister, ii. 111;
unpopularity of, ii. 113.
Browning, Mr. and Mrs., ii. 422.
Bruce, Sir Frederick, i. 140, 141.
Brünnow, Baron, i. 186, ii. 38.
Buchanan, President (U.S.A.), i. 12, 19, 23, 29;
invitation to Prince of Wales, i. 25;
letter from Queen Victoria, i. 26.
Bucharest, i. 149.
Buffet, M., i. 282.
Bulgaria, i. 166-8, ii. 142, 143;
proposed limits of, ii. 130;
Union with Eastern Roumelia, ii. 360;
Russia in, ii. 367, 391, 399.
Bull's Run, Fight of, i. 47-50, 110.
Bülow, Count von, ii. 53, 74, 87.
Bulwer, Sir Henry, at the Constantinople Embassy, i. 145, 146;
opinion on a Turkish Navy, i. 152.
Bulwer, Lady, i. 146.
Bunch, Mr., British Consul at Charleston, i. 42, 51-53, 72, 94.
Burmah, ii. 358;
English in, ii. 360;
annexation of, ii. 361.
Burnley, Mr., Chargé d'Affaires in Washington, i. 134, 136.
Burns, Mr., ii. 343.
Busch, M., ii. 130;
quoted, ii. 82, 344, 352.
Butt, Bishop, ii. 427.
Buyak Dere, ii. 138.
_Cagliari_ case, i. 8-11.
Cairo, intrigues at, ii. 87, 258;
British troops enter, ii. 285;
Northbrook mission to, ii. 332.
Calais, ii. 22.
Calcutta, i. 223.
Calice, Baron, ii. 130.
Cambridge, Duke of, i. 379.
Canada, i. 15, 119;
defences of, i. 40, 43, 49, 60, 72, 74, 80, 132, 134, 291;
despatch of troops to, i. 54;
Reciprocity Treaties, i. 17, 123.
_Caradoc_, the, i. 146.
Carafa, Signor, Neapolitan Foreign Minister, i. 9, 11.
Carey, Capt., ii. 194.
Carnarvon, Lord, resigns office, ii. 123.
Cass, Miss, ii. 398.
Cass, General, i. 12.
Cayenne, i. 243.
Ceylon, i. 223.
Chalons, i. 204;
French army at i. 307.
Chambord, Comte de, i. 364; ii. 2, 9, 18, 21, 25, 56, 57, 64, 66;
proclamation of, ii. 7;
White Flag manifesto, ii. 47.
Chanzy, General, at Le Mans, i. 348, 354, 359;
suggested President, ii. 118, 197;
death of, ii. 305.
Charles X. of France, i. 254.
Charleston, fighting at, i. 34, 51;
prices in, during war, i. 94.
Charmes, M., ii. 376, 387.
Chartres, Duc de, ii. 3, 365.
Chase, Mr., Secretary of Treasury, U.S., i. 43, 119.
Chasseurs d'Afrique, ii. 118.