THE ITALIAN REVOLUTION.
Napoleon’s New Year’s Reception--The Secret _pacte de
famille_--Victor Emmanuel and the _Grido di Dolore_--The Queen’s
Views on the Italian Movement--The Queen’s Letter to
Napoleon--Meeting of Parliament--Cavour Threatens Napoleon--Appeal
of Prussia to the Queen for Advice--Mr. Disraeli’s Reform
Bill--Lord John Russell’s Amendment--Defeat of the Government--An
Appeal to the Country--The Queen Criticises Austria’s Blunders--War
at Last--The General Election--Reconciliation of Lord Palmerston
and Lord John Russell--Fall of the Derby-Disraeli
Administration--The Palmerston-Russell Ministry--Austrian Defeats
and French Victories--The Peace of Villafranca--Palmerston
Duped--Illness of the Duchess of Kent--The Budget--The Queen and
Palmerston--Triumph of the Queen’s Policy--The Holiday at
Balmoral--Dancing in the New Year.
Not easily will the world forget the New Year’s Day of 1859. “I regret,”
said the French Emperor to Baron Hubner, the Austrian Ambassador, at the
reception at the Tuileries, “that the relations between our two
countries are not more satisfactory; but I beg you to assure the Emperor
(of Austria) that they in no respect alter my feelings of friendship to
himself.” Taken in connection with the rumoured results of Continental
intrigues, but one interpretation could be put on these words. The
restlessness of France was to be appeased by a war for the deliverance
of Italy from the Hapsburgs, and the bombs of Orsini had forced the
Emperor to be faithful to his forgotten engagements to his old comrades
among the Carbonari. The Emperor’s own story was that he felt convinced
there could be no peace in Europe unless the Territorial Settlement of
1815 was revised. He professed to have aimed at effecting that object by
the regeneration of Poland. The Crimean War having, however, proved this
scheme to be futile, his policy was thenceforth directed to the
deliverance of Italy from Austrian servitude. In either case the waters
of diplomacy would be troubled, and it would be easy to fish out of them
something that might partially compensate France for what she lost in
1815. But the truth was that, at his secret interview with Count Cavour,
at Plombières, in the autumn of 1858, the Emperor had entered into an
engagement to defend Piedmont, if attacked by Austria, and to establish
under the Sardinian Crown a Kingdom of Northern Italy, the price for
this aid being the cession of Savoy and Nice to France. At this meeting
the marriage of Prince Napoleon to the Princess Clothilde, daughter of
the King of Italy, was discussed, but not definitely arranged. The
announcement of the coming marriage was, however, made to the Queen by
the French Emperor on the 31st of December, 1858. On the 23rd of
January, 1859, the formal request for the Princess Clothilde’s hand was
made. On the 30th the wedding was celebrated, and on the 3rd of February
the Prince and Princess Napoleon returned to Paris. On the evening
before the marriage, Napoleon III. was said to have signed a _pacte de
famille_, promising aid offensive and defensive to Sardinia, Victor
Emmanuel pledging himself to cede to France Savoy and Nice, in return
for territorial acquisitions in Lombardy.[36] Thus the French Emperor
was bound to Sardinia as with “hoops of steel,” when the European crisis
in 1859 became acute, and Lord Malmesbury imagined that he could compose
it by diplomacy.
[Illustration: VICTOR EMMANUEL.]
After the Imperial declarations to Baron Hubner, Victor Emmanuel, on the
10th of January, in his Address to his Parliament, had said, “While we
respect treaties, we are not insensible to the cry of suffering (_Grido
di dolore_) which comes to us from so many parts of Italy.” Austrian
troops forthwith began to swarm into the passes of the Tyrol, and to
form on the line of the Ticino. Russia encouraged France to the utmost,
and from conversations with Lord Palmerston and Lord Clarendon during
their visit in autumn to Compiègne, the French Emperor felt convinced
that the powerful party in England, led by Palmerston, would give him
that moral support which the Queen and her Ministers denied him.[37] The
Courts of St. James’s and Berlin were cold friends to the cause of
Italian freedom. To them any war which upset the Settlement of 1815 was
like the letting out of waters. The victory of either party could bode
no good for Prussia, under whose leadership the Queen was even then
hopeful that Germany would yet form a united Empire. The triumph of the
Hapsburgs would strengthen their position in Germany, and as Herr von
Bismarck said, this must mean that “our Kings will again become Electors
and vassals of Austria.”[38] The victory of France, on the other hand,
would tempt Napoleon III. to seize Belgium and the Rhine Provinces.
In Germany public opinion was, on the whole, pro-Austrian. In England,
popular feeling, stimulated by the Liberal Party, was decidedly
Anti-Austrian. The view of the Tory Ministry was that of Lord
Malmesbury, who thought that it was as wicked to dispute the right of
Austria to her Italian provinces, as to question that of England to
Ireland. Frenchmen, again, were as little inclined to go to war for “an
idea” in Lombardy as in the Crimea.
It would be tedious to follow the tangled skein of intrigue that finally
ended in war. At the outset the advantage lay with Austria, because if
she had struck quickly and sharply she might have crushed Sardinia, ere
France could have come to her rescue. Protracted negotiation deprived
Austria of this advantage, so Napoleon III. welcomed the proposal of
England to find a diplomatic solution of the Italian Question--all the
more readily that his failure to obtain pledges of absolute neutrality
from England and Prussia, caused him to waver from his purpose. It was
in the hope that he might be induced, when in this state of mind, to
insert a pacific clause in his address to the Chambers, that the Queen,
on the 4th of February, wrote to him suggesting this course,[39] in a
letter thanking him for his congratulations on the birth of the Princess
Royal’s son. Napoleon’s reply was friendly but evasive. He professed
great friendship for England, and respect for treaties, but virtually
reserved to himself the right to interpret them in his own interests. So
matters stood at the beginning of the Session of 1859.
Parliament had been called together on the 5th of February. Ministers
were undoubtedly discredited by a popular suspicion that they were using
the influence of England to buttress up Austrian tyranny in Italy. The
impartial impotence of Lord Malmesbury’s policy, as subsequently
revealed in his despatches, however, showed that these suspicions were
unfounded. The question of Reform had been stirred during the autumnal
recess by Mr. Bright. But his violent attacks on the propertied classes
had roused the fiercest antagonism, and probably did more to retard than
advance the cause he had at heart. Yet the Government could not afford
to dispense with the support of the Party of Parliamentary Reform, and
so Mr. Disraeli’s determination to deal with the question was intimated
in the Queen’s Speech. Lord Granville, Lord Palmerston, and Lord John
Russell, though speaking less hopefully than Mr. Disraeli of the efforts
of the Government to preserve peace, alike deprecated a war for the
expulsion of Austria from North Italy, where her position was secured to
her by the Treaty of 1815. But they argued that she had no right to go
beyond that Treaty, and that the presence of Austrian and French armies
in Central Italy, on which they imposed a government that was hateful to
the people, was most dangerous to the peace of the world. The Emperor’s
speech to the French Chambers, as the Prince Consort said, was “meant to
look peaceful”--but that was all. “Not a word,” wrote Lord Malmesbury
“is said about Treaties, but a good deal about the interests and honour
of France.”[40] Indeed, Victor Emmanuel and Cavour fancied they detected
in it signs of wavering. The former threatened to abdicate, and the
latter to resign, after disclosing to the world the secret compact of
Plombières and the _pacte de famille_, signed on the eve of the Princess
Clothilde’s marriage. This threat, together with Cavour’s
Mephistophelean allusions to the vengeance of the Carbonari, invariably
brought the Emperor back to his original resolve, and defeated the
efforts of British diplomacy to avert war. Meanwhile, the Prince Regent
William had been pressed by the French Emperor to hold aloof from
Austria. Rival parties in Prussia were trying to drag him in contrary
directions, and at last he appealed confidentially to his friends, the
Queen and the Prince Consort, for advice, saying, “I anxiously await
your answer, for it will be decisive for us.”[41] It is important to
study this correspondence, because at the time the Queen and Prince
Consort were denounced in many quarters, where French influence was at
work, for intriguing through the Courts of Berlin and Brussels to get up
a great German League against the liberties of Italy. England, replied
the Prince Consort, would not now go with France, no matter how far
Austria put herself in the wrong. Prussia would be well advised, thought
the Prince, to take the same line. In the meantime, let German public
opinion, of which Napoleon stood much in awe, on the question, be
elicited by encouraging the freest discussion in Germany, and when the
crisis came, let that opinion guide Prussia. Prussia and the German
States, the Prince Consort thought, should adopt an attitude of armed
neutrality--ready to strike a blow for the protection of the Rhine
provinces before a victorious France could quite clear her hands of a
defeated Austria. Prussia and Germany, argues the Prince in another
letter, owe no duty to Austria in respect of Italy. But Austria owes
them a duty as a German State bound to assist in the defence of Germany
from French aggression. Ere Prussia sided with Austria, an Austrian army
must be ready to advance on the Rhine, and Germany must be permitted to
exercise a distinct influence on Austrian policy in Italy. The Prince
Regent of Prussia treated the Prince Consort’s views as “decisive,” and,
as will be subsequently seen, by acting on them he not only increased
the influence of Prussia in Germany, but virtually brought the war
between France and Austria to a sudden close. In the meantime,
Parliament, with great generosity and patriotic spirit, refused to
embarrass Ministers by debating the Italian Question, and at the request
of the French Emperor, Lord Cowley was sent to Vienna to mediate between
France and Austria.
On the 28th of February Mr. Disraeli expounded his Reform Bill, the
adoption of which compelled Mr. Walpole and Mr. Henley to retire from
the Cabinet. The great blunder of the Whig Reform Bill of 1832 was that
it excluded the working classes--without whose support the Bill could
never have been forced on the Crown--from political power. The object of
a practical Reform Bill was therefore simple. It was to lower the
franchise, so as to give votes to the working classes, and then readjust
the distribution of power in the constituencies in terms of this reduced
franchise. Mr. Disraeli, however, produced a fantastic scheme, in which
every concession given with the right hand was taken back with the left.
The county franchise was reduced to £10, but then as a set-off the
freeholders in towns were no longer to vote for the counties. The
franchise in towns was not reduced, but a series of what Mr. Bright
called “fancy franchises’ was created, with a view to render the
representation of “interests” predominant.[42] Certain constituencies
were to have additional members, and some small boroughs with two
members were to lose one. Nobody was satisfied with the measure, so Lord
John Russell on the 10th of March gave notice that he would move an
amendment to the motion for the Second Reading, condemning the
disturbance of the freehold franchise, and demanding a greater extension
of the suffrage than Mr. Disraeli contemplated. All sections of the
Opposition were able to vote for the resolution. Lord John Russell, who
imagined he enjoyed a monopoly of the question of Reform, and that
nobody should deal with it but himself, wanted to carry the Resolution
and reject the Bill. Lord Palmerston was willing to vote for the
Resolution and go on with the Bill. “I do not,” he said, “want them [the
Ministry] to resign. I say to them, as I think Voltaire said of a
Minister who had incurred his displeasure, ‘I won’t punish him; I won’t
send him to prison; I condemn him to keep his place.’” Mr. Gladstone
refused
[Illustration: THE GUARD-ROOM, ST. JAMES’S PALACE. (_From a Photograph
by H. N. King._)]
to support the Resolution, because he said he wanted the question of
Reform settled, and it would be quite possible to re-model the Bill in
Committee, and Mr. Roebuck took the same view. Mr. Bright, however,
thinking that any settlement arrived at in 1859 would be too favourable
to the territorial interest, supported the Resolution in order to quash
the Bill. Sir James Graham, who had drafted the Resolution, made by far
the most statesmanlike speech 111 the debate. He argued that it was of
no use to lower the borough franchise unless it were reduced so that no
further reduction could be demanded, and suggested that the municipal
rating franchise would be the best to adopt. On the 1st of April the
Government by this coalition of factions was defeated by a vote of 330
to 291, and, undeterred by Lord Palmerston’s threat to stop supplies,
Mr. Disraeli on the 4th of the month intimated that the Ministry would
appeal to the country.
Partisans of the Government had attempted to make capital out of the
disturbed state of the Continent, and had spoken as if it were wicked to
oppose a bad Reform Bill at a time when Lord Malmesbury was mediating
between armed nations. As a matter of fact, Lord Malmesbury was only
permitted to amuse himself with futile mediation, which was to be
protracted till France was ready to attack Austria, and Austria was
lured into an attack on Piedmont, that would give France an excuse for
fulfilling the secret compact with Cavour at Plombières. When Lord
Cowley returned from Vienna he brought the assent of Austria (1), to
withdraw her troops from the Roman States; (2), to support a reforming
policy in Italy; and (3), to promise not to assail Sardinia. His mission
would have been successful had not Napoleon in the meantime manufactured
failure for it. He gave a hint to Russia which caused her to propose a
Congress for the settlement of all questions at issue between France and
Austria, and Lord Cowley’s plans were put out of the field. A Congress,
by protracting negotiations, exposed Austria to the exhausting drain of
her armaments, whilst France was perfecting her arrangements for falling
upon her. Time, too, might bring about a change of Ministry in England,
where the substitution of a warm ally like Lord Palmerston for a Tory
Cabinet whose sympathies were, if anything, in favour of Austria, would
be an advantage to France.
It was in these circumstances that the Queen reluctantly consented to a
dissolution, when Mr. Disraeli and Lord Derby convinced her that they
could not, after Lord Palmerston’s insolent speech, honourably go on
with their Reform Bill. In fact, they pointed out that, even if they
resigned, the Whigs would have to dissolve Parliament themselves in a
few months to carry, against the opposition of the House of Lords, their
own alternative measure of Reform, to which they were pledged. “The
Congress truly does not dance,” observes the Prince Consort, in one of
his shrewd letters to Stockmar. The fact is, that whenever Cavour heard
of it, he warned the Emperor that if he played false, he (Cavour) would
return to Turin, place his resignation in Victor Emmanuel’s hands,
proceed to the United States, and not only charge the Emperor with
luring the Sardinian Government into a ruinous warlike policy by
promises of assistance, but that he would publish documentary proofs of
his charges to the whole world. As Prince Albert said, Napoleon had
“sold himself to the devil,” and “Cavour can do with his honour what he
pleases.”[43] Hence, France would no longer support a proposal that
Sardinia should disarm, and when Austria proposed simultaneous
disarmament all round, the Emperor’s reply was, that the forces of
France were not yet on a war footing. At last, Napoleon assented to this
project, on condition that Sardinia and the other Italian States were
heard in the Congress, which left the issue in the hands of Austria.
The tension of the situation was now extreme, and telegrams came pouring
in every hour to the Queen, whose nerves were sorely strained by the
excitement of the crisis. Just before the dissolution, explanations of a
somewhat unsatisfactory nature were given in both Houses of Parliament
on the 18th of April, and next day (the 19th), Austria took the fatal
and aggressive step which, as the Queen predicted, would turn public
opinion against her. Instead of accepting the Congress, as France and
Sardinia had accepted it, she called on Sardinia to disarm within three
days, otherwise an Austrian army would march on Turin. Had Austria
attacked at once she might have crushed her enemy before France could
come to her aid. She hesitated and was lost. The effect of Count Buol’s
ultimatum on England was electric. The Ministry, despite its
pro-Austrian sympathies, hastened to protest against the invasion of
Sardinia, and the Queen, in a letter to King Leopold, reflected the
opinion of the people, when she said “though it was originally the
wicked folly of Russia and France that brought about this fearful
crisis, it is the madness and blindness of Austria that has brought on
the war now.”[44] But this “madness and blindness” would not have
deterred Austria from allowing the small Italian States to have a
consultative representation at the Congress, had she been sure that a
friendly Ministry would be in power in England. She, however, was afraid
to weaken her position on the eve of Lord Palmerston’s possible return
to office.[45] On the 29th Austrian troops crossed the Ticino. “All
Italy is up,” writes Lord Malmesbury in his Diary: a feeble effort on
his part to patch up negotiations for a Congress was rejected by France,
though accepted by Austria, and the game of war began in earnest. In
England, Ministers were blamed for having encouraged by their sympathy
the obstinacy of Austria, which led her to break the peace. As a matter
of fact, Lord Malmesbury’s efforts had been directed to pacify the
combatants, to localise the war, and to prevent the German States, whose
people were clamouring to be led to the conquest of Alsace, from joining
in the fray.[46]
The General Election resulted in a gain of twenty-nine seats to the Tory
Party, but this still left them in a minority whenever all sections of
the Opposition chose to combine against them. The Liberal Party, tired
of dissension, put pressure upon the two leaders by whose long rivalry
it had been
[Illustration: TURIN.]
caused, for the purpose of reconciling them, and accordingly Lord
Palmerston and Lord John Russell--after being urged by his brother, the
Duke of Bedford--agreed that either would serve under the other. At a
meeting in Willis’s Rooms, on the 5th of June, the union of all sections
of the Party was consummated, and an Amendment to the Address, declaring
their want of confidence in the Ministry, was drafted and agreed to.
Parliament met on the 6th of June. Next night Lord Hartington in the
House of Commons moved this Amendment, which, after a debate lasting
over three nights, was carried on the 10th of June by a majority of
thirteen in a house of 643. The Government resigned, and the Queen, who
was not particularly anxious to entrust either Lord John Russell or Lord
Palmerston with the Premiership, invited Lord Granville to form a
Ministry. Lord Palmerston very generously consented to serve under Lord
Granville, but Lord John Russell refused. He had agreed to serve under
Palmerston if he were appointed to the Foreign Office, but under Lord
Granville he must at least be Leader of the House of Commons. As Lord
Palmerston would not accept a peerage, and as it was impossible to ask
him to abandon the Leadership of the Liberal Party in the
[Illustration: LORD GRANVILLE.]
Lower House which he had held so long, Lord Granville retired from the
field. The Queen then sent for Lord Palmerston, who formed a Ministry
consisting of Lord John Russell, Lord Campbell, Sir G. C. Lewis, Sir
George Grey, Sir Charles Wood, the Duke of Newcastle, the Duke of
Argyll, Lord Elgin, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Sidney Herbert, Mr. Cardwell, the
Duke of Somerset, and Mr. Milner Gibson. A place--the Presidency of the
Board of Trade--was offered to Mr. Cobden, which he declined. The first
five represented the Whigs; the next six represented the Peelites;
Messrs. Gibson and Cobden were selected to conciliate the Radicals; and
there could be no doubt that, tested by individual capacity, the
combination was one of the strongest ever formed. The Queen deeply
regretted the exclusion of Lord Clarendon from the Cabinet, and Mr.
Greville says that Lord John Russell’s selfish determination to take the
Foreign Office kept Clarendon out. This is hardly just. Lord
Clarendon’s pro-Austrian sympathies, and his opposition to Palmerston’s
foreign policy, rendered him ineligible for office at the time. The
change was attended by one unpleasant incident. The substance of the
Queen’s conversations with Lord Granville found their way into the
press, and her Majesty’s indignation at this betrayal of her confidence
was not concealed. It was clear that some of those with whom Lord
Granville had been in negotiation had not kept faith with him, and in
the House of Lords (17th of June) he expressed his regret, without,
however, divulging the name of the culprit who had betrayed him.
The war in the North of Italy had in the meantime been raging furiously.
An uninterrupted series of defeats led Austria to the crowning disaster
of Solferino (June 24th), and forced her to take refuge in the
Quadrilateral. The losses of the French army had been heavy, and a weary
struggle before the famous Four Fortresses was not inviting. The victory
of Magenta had forced Prussia to mobilise her forces, and Solferino
decided her to adopt a policy of “armed mediation”--the object of which
was to concert with England and Russia terms of peace reconciling
Austrian rights with Italian liberties, and forcing these terms on the
combatants. In the end of May the Queen, depressed by the reverses of
Austria, had been anxious that England should take her side, but had
fortunately been dissuaded from pressing her views on the Government by
Lord Malmesbury, who told her plainly that “the country would not go to
war even in support of Italian independence, and there would not be ten
men in the House of Commons who would do so on behalf of Austria.”[47]
For the German States intervention was, however, hardly avoidable, and
so the French Emperor prudently began to negotiate for peace.
On the 6th of July Persigny submitted to Lord John Russell a proposal
that England should ask for an armistice on terms which the Emperor was
willing to grant, but which the Austrian Ambassador, Count Apponyi,
rejected. England also declined to sanction them because, in Lord
Palmerston’s opinion, they ignored the wishes of Italy.[48] The Emperor
then signed an armistice with the Austrians for seven days on the 8th of
July, and arranged for a meeting with the Austrian Emperor on the 11th.
On the 10th Persigny insidiously renewed his negotiations for the “moral
support” of England in the new turn of affairs. Lord Malmesbury, who had
the story from Persigny, says he “went to Lord Palmerston and said that
the time was come for mediation, and suggested conditions, namely,
Venice and its territories to be taken from Austria, not annexed to
Sardinia, but made into a separate and independent State. There were
other conditions, but this was the principal one.[49] That Lord
Palmerston agreed to this, and rode down to Richmond to tell Lord John
Russell, who was equally delighted; and that the proposal was adopted
by them and sent to the Queen, who was at Aldershot, which occasioned
some delay. That her Majesty refused her consent, saying the time was
not yet come to make these proposals, as the fortresses were not yet
taken. That, however, in the meantime, Persigny had telegraphed the
consent of the English Government to his master, who immediately asked
for an interview with the Emperor of Austria, showed him Persigny’s
despatch, saying, ‘Here are the conditions proposed by England, and
agreed to also by Prussia. Now listen to mine, which, though those of an
enemy, are much more favourable. So let us settle everything together
without reference to the neutral Powers, whose conditions are not nearly
so advantageous to you as those I am ready to grant.’ The Emperor of
Austria, not suspecting any reservation, and not knowing that the Queen
had refused her consent to these proposals, which, though agreed to by
her Government, were suggested by Persigny, evidently to give his master
the opportunity of outbidding us, and making Francis Joseph think that
he was thrown over by England and Prussia, accepted the offer, and peace
was instantly concluded.”[50] There cannot be any doubt that the Queen,
though unaware that Persigny was merely intending to use Palmerston as a
dupe, was right in refusing her consent to these sham proposals. The
Emperor of Austria, it is known, would not have accepted them. But in
that case “moral support” of them, recklessly promised by Palmerston,
might have laid us open to the charge of having abandoned our strict and
scrupulous neutrality. By the Peace of Villafranca, which was arranged
at the meeting of the Emperors, Venice was left as an Austrian State,
but was to enter an Italian Confederation, presided over by the Pope;
Lombardy was ceded to France, who might cede it to Sardinia, and the
Dukes of Tuscany and Modena were to be restored. The verdict of the
Parisian _flaneurs_ was that “France had made a superb war, and Austria
a superb peace.” Victor Emmanuel ground his teeth with rage when he
found he had to accept this arrangement, adding, after his signature,
the significant words, “I ratify this convention in all that concerns
myself.” Cavour placed his resignation in the King’s hands, and left the
camp for Turin, after a stormy interview with the French Emperor.
“Arrêtez-moi, et vous serez forcé de retourner en France par le Tyrol,”
he said, when Napoleon threatened to put him under arrest for his
insolent language. Palmerston, in a letter to Persigny, protested
against the arrangement with impotent rage.[51] The Prince Consort,
however, cynically observed that the Italian Question was not quite
settled yet, and that a Confederation with the Pope at the head of it
was only “a bad joke.” The Queen soothed Lord Palmerston, in his bitter
disappointment, by pointing out to him that his ally had now legalised
in Italy that very Austrian influence which it was the object of the
Palmerstonian policy to expel, but, she added, as Lord Palmerston had
not protested against the war, he could not protest against the peace,
unless it were considered wise to “make it appear as if to persecute
Austria were a personal object with the First Minister of the Crown.”
To Lord John Russell she wrote in terms that must have been as gall and
bitterness to Palmerston, who had, in defiance of her objections,
consented to give “moral support” to Persigny’s sham proposals for
peace. The Emperor Napoleon, she observed, by his prudence and
victories, had created for himself a formidable position. “It is
remarkable,” she adds, “that he has acted towards Austria now just as he
did towards Russia, after the fall of Sebastopol. But if it was our lot
then to be left alone to act the part of the extortioner, while he acted
that of the generous victor, the Queen is doubly glad that we should not
now have fallen into the trap to ask from Austria, as friends and
neutrals, concessions which he was ready to waive.”[52]
Still, her Majesty did not regard the anxious events of the year with
unmixed regret. It was a gratifying fact that the Indian Mutiny had been
suppressed, and on the 14th of April the thanks of Parliament were voted
to those who had saved our Indian Empire. The Queen, in conveying her
personal thanks to Lord Canning, laid before him her project for
founding the Order of the Star of India. A visit from her eldest
daughter had brightened her birthday festivities--saddened though these
were by the illness of the Duchess of Kent, who had been attacked by
erysipelas. The Government had begun to strengthen the defences of the
country, and the spontaneous uprising of the people, which originated
the Volunteer Movement, placed at her disposal the nucleus of a superb
defensive army, to the organisation of which the Prince Consort now
began to direct his attention. Mr. Gladstone’s Budget, too, though it
necessitated a ninepenny income-tax[53] to meet exceptional naval and
military expenditure, was passed ungrudgingly by Parliament, though, of
course, it increased the popular antipathy to the French Emperor which
the Peace of Villafranca had excited.
In vain did Napoleon III. endeavour to induce England to propose a
Congress or a Conference for the purpose of settling the Italian
Question in a manner that would allay Italian discontent. Lord
Palmerston and Lord John Russell would have fallen into this trap also,
but for the tenacity with which the Queen urged her objections to their
policy. Walewski fortunately admitted to Lord Cowley that the French and
Austrian Emperors had agreed not to submit the Peace they had made to a
Congress. “Two emperors,” wrote the Queen to Lord John Russell (20th
July), “who were at war with each other have suddenly concluded
personally a peace, and we have before us merely the account of one of
them through his Minister. This Minister’s account admits that his
master pledged his word on certain points, but thinks it not binding if
England will propose its being broken. This is a duty which honour
forbids us to undertake.” The Cabinet then so far yielded to the Queen’s
reasoning that they agreed to hold aloof from the whole business, till
the arrangement between the two Emperors was embodied in the Treaty of
Zurich. A debate in the House of Commons (8th August) showed that
Parliament, on the whole, approved of this course. On the 13th came the
prorogation of the Legislature, which enabled the Queen and her husband
to make a short excursion to the Channel Islands.
[Illustration: ST. GEORGE’S HALL, WINDSOR CASTLE.]
A grave conflict of opinion now arose between the Queen and Lord John
Russell. Lord John, like Lord Palmerston, was desirous of re-arranging
the affairs of Italy in terms of an understanding with France. In other
words, he was desirous of neutralising the Treaty of Zurich by getting
one of its signatories to join him in breaking those of its conditions
which were favourable to the other signatory. No doubt it was difficult
to persuade the Central Italian States to abide by a treaty that handed
them back to the oppressors whom they had got rid of. But the problem of
reconciling the people to their petty despots was one which the Queen
argued should be solved, not by England, who did not create it, but by
France and Austria, who did. Again, after some controversy, she
succeeded in overruling fresh plans for intervention which Lord
Palmerston and Lord John Russell had mooted,[54] and thus matters were
left when the Court reached Balmoral on the 31st of August. Hardly had
the first week of her holiday passed by when the Queen discovered that
Palmerston had broached his project for annexing the Italian Duchies to
Sardinia in a private letter to Walewski, who, however, frankly said
such a proposal would prevent Austria from signing any treaty, and thus
lead to a renewal of the war. She wrote to Lord John Russell condemning
Palmerston’s indiscretion, and pointing out that Walewski himself
suggested that annexation of Savoy to France would be the natural
compensation for annexing the Duchies to Sardinia--a compensation which
would be odious to England, but which would be justified on the ground,
that Palmerston’s policy rendered it necessary. But Tuscany and Romagna
desired annexation to Sardinia, and Napoleon accordingly suggested that
a Congress should be summoned to consider the matter. Lord Palmerston
agreed to this project, and though the Queen did not oppose Palmerston,
she did not conceal her opinion that the object of the Congress was to
induce England to do for the Italians what Napoleon had promised but had
failed to do. She, however, induced the Cabinet to warn Napoleon that
England would not take on herself his self-imposed duty to his clients
in the revolted States. They, in the meanwhile, calmly carried on their
government in the name of the Sardinian king, and in open defiance of
the compact of Villafranca.
Save for these anxious diplomatic perplexities, the Balmoral holiday was
a highly enjoyable one, notable for long mountain excursions, of which
the Queen’s ascent of Ben Macdhui was one of the most striking. The
Prince Consort’s address to the British Association at Aberdeen was well
received, and it was followed by a Highland gathering of philosophers at
Balmoral, whose _fête_ was, however, marred by tempestuous weather. On
the journey south the Queen opened, on the 14th of October, the great
waterworks at Loch Katrine for the supply of Glasgow--works on a scale
of magnificence not unworthy of the Roman Empire. After a pleasant, but
brief sojourn in Wales, the Queen and her husband reached Windsor on the
17th, pleased to find that the Prince and Princess Frederick William
proposed soon to visit them. They came on the 9th of November--when the
birthday of the Prince of Wales was celebrated--and stayed till the 3rd
of December. The last month of the year was spent at Osborne, till
Christmastide came round, when the Royal Family removed to Windsor,
where, writes the Prince Consort in his Diary, “we danced in the New
Year.”