The index of this three-volume work is in Volume III, with links to
all three volumes; and some footnotes are linked between volumes.
These links are designed to work when the book is read on line. For
information on the downloading of all three interlinked volumes so
that the links work on your own computer, see the
Transcriber’s Note
at the end of this book.

Links to

Volume I

Volume III

H.M. QUEEN VICTORIA, 1843

From the picture by F. Winterhalter at Windsor Castle

Frontispiece, Vol. II.

THE LETTERS OF
QUEEN VICTORIA

A SELECTION FROM HER MAJESTY’S
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE YEARS
1837 and 1861

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

EDITED BY ARTHUR CHRISTOPHER BENSON, M.A.
AND VISCOUNT ESHER, G.C.V.O., K.C.B.

IN THREE VOLUMES

VOL. II.—1844-1853

LONDON

JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, W.

1908

Copyright in Great Britain and Dependencies, 1907, by
H.M. The King.

In the United States by Messrs Longmans, Green & Co.

All rights reserved.

[page iii]

CHAPTER XIII

1844

PAGES

Duc de Bordeaux—Hanoverian Orders—Domestic happiness—Death
of the Duke of Coburg—Lord Melbourne
on old age—Recall of Lord Ellenborough—Uncle and
niece—Lord Ellenborough’s honours—Prince de Joinville’s
brochure—The Emperor Nicholas—A great review—At
the Opera—The Emperor’s character—The
Emperor and Belgium—Crisis in Parliament—The
King of Saxony—Lord Ellenborough and India—England,
France, and Russia—France and Tahiti—King
Louis Philippe expected—Arrangements for the
visit—Queen Louise’s solicitude—Arrival of King
Louis Philippe—A successful visit—The King’s departure—Opening
of the Royal Exchange—Gift to the
Prince of Wales—Education in India

1-29

CHAPTER XIV

1845

The Spanish marriages—Position of the Prince—Title of
King Consort—Purchase of Osborne—Maynooth
grant—Religious bigotry—Public executions—Birthday
letter—Princess Charlotte—Vacant Deanery—Wine
from Australia—King of Holland—Projected
visit to Germany—Question of Lords Justices—Visit
to the Château d’Eu—Spanish marriages—The Prince
criticised—Governor-Generalship of Canada—Corn
Laws—Cabinet dissensions—Interview with Sir
Robert Peel—Lord John Russell suggested—Attitude
of Lord Melbourne—The Queen’s embarrassment—Attitude
of Sir Robert Peel—Lord Stanley resigns—The
Commandership-in-Chief—Duke of Wellington—[page iv]King Louis
Philippe—Anxiety for the future—Insuperable
difficulties—Lord Grey and Lord Palmerston—Lord
John Russell fails—Chivalry of Sir Robert Peel—He
resumes office—Cordial support—The Queen’s
estimate of Sir Robert Peel—Lord Stanley—The
Prince’s Memorandum—Comprehensive scheme—The
unemployed—Lord Palmerston’s justification—France
and the Syrian War—Letter to King Louis Philippe—Ministry
reinstated

30-70

CHAPTER XV

1846

Sir Robert Peel’s speech—Extension of Indian Empire—Bravery
of English troops—Death of Sir Robert Sale—Memorandum
by the Prince—Celebration of victory—Letter
from King Louis Philippe—Irish Crimes Bill—Attack
on Sir Robert Peel—His resignation—Intrigues—End
of Oregon dispute—Sir Robert Peel’s
tribute to Cobden—New Government—Cobden and the
Whigs—Parting with the Ministers—Whig jealousies—A
weak Ministry—Anxieties—French Royal Family—Spanish
marriages—Portugal—Prerogative of dissolution—Views
of Lord Melbourne—The Prince and
Sir Robert Peel—Proposed visit to Ireland—Government
of Canada—Wellington statue—Lord Palmerston
and Spain—Instructions to Mr Bulwer—Don Enrique—Sudden
decision—Double engagement—The Queen’s
indignation—Letter to the Queen of the French—View
of English Government—Letter to King Leopold—Baron
Stockmar’s opinion—Letter to Queen Louise—Lord
Palmerston and the French—Princess of
Prussia—England and the Three Powers—Interruption
of entente cordiale—Spanish marriages—Peninsular
medal—Duke of Wellington’s view—England and
Portugal—The Queen’s decision on Peninsular medal—Cracow

71-114

CHAPTER XVI

1847

England and Portugal—Peaceable policy advised—Spain
and Portugal—Sir Hamilton Seymour—Septennial Act
[page v]
—Church preferments—Jenny Lind—Wellington
statue—Prosperity in India—General election—Earldom
of Strafford—Mission to the Vatican—Portugal—Crisis
in the City—Lord-Lieutenancy of Ireland—Mr
Cobden—Foreign policy—Queen of Spain—Queen of
Portugal—Hampden controversy—Lord Palmerston’s
despatches—Civil war in Switzerland—Letter from
King of Prussia—The Queen’s reply—The Bishops and
Dr Hampden

115-140

CHAPTER XVII

1848

Death of Madame Adélaïde—Grief of Queen Louise—The
Queen’s sympathy—England and the Porte—Improvements
at Claremont—Revolution in France—Flight
of the Royal Family—Letter from King of
Prussia—Anarchy in Paris—Queen Louise’s anxiety—Revolution
foreseen—England’s hospitality—New
French Government—British Consul’s plan—Escape
of the King and Queen—Graphic narrative—Plan successful—Arrival
in England—Reception at Claremont—Letter
of gratitude—Flight of Guizot—Royal
fugitives—Orleanist blunders—Letter to Lord Melbourne—The
Czar on the situation—State of Germany—Chartist
demonstration—Prince Albert and the unemployed—Chartist
fiasco—Alarming state of Ireland—Conduct
of the Belgians—Events in France—Anxiety
in Germany—Italy—Spain—The French
Royal Family—Affairs in Lombardy—Sir Henry
Bulwer—Lord Palmerston’s justification—Instructions
to Sir H. Seymour—Lord Palmerston’s drafts—England
and Italy—Lord Minto’s mission—Duchesse
de Nemours—Commissions in the Army—Northern
Italy—Irish rebellion—Minor German states—An
ambassador to France—The Queen’s displeasure—Opening
the Queen’s letters—Lord Palmerston and
Italy—Austria declines mediation—Austria and Italy—In
the Highlands—The Queen and Lord Palmerston—Affairs
in the Punjab—Hostility of the Sikhs—Greece—State
of Germany—Letter of the Prince of
Leiningen—Sir Harry Smith at the Cape—Governorship
of Gibraltar—Mediation in Italy—Death of Lord
Melbourne—The Orleans family—Letter from the
Pope—The French President—Relations with France—England
slighted

141-207

[page vi]

CHAPTER XVIII

1849

Letter to the Pope—Letter from President of French Republic—Lord
Palmerston and Naples—The army in
India—State of the Continent—France and the President—Gaelic
and Welsh—Lord Gough superseded—End
of the Sikh War—Courage of Mrs G. Lawrence—Letter
from King of Sardinia—Novara—The Queen
fired at by Hamilton—Annexation of the Punjab—Drafts
and despatches—Schleswig-Holstein Question—Proposed
visit to Ireland—Irish title for the young
Prince—Cork and Waterford—The Irish visit—Enthusiasm
in Ireland—Brevet promotions—New Coal
Exchange—Critical position of Germany—Death of
Queen Adelaide

208-230

CHAPTER XIX

1850

Grand Duchess Stéphanie—The Draft to Greece—Lord
Palmerston’s explanation—Lord John Russell’s plan—Suggested
rearrangement—Status quo maintained—Baron
Stockmar’s Memorandum—State of France—The
Prince’s speech—Lord Palmerston and Spain—Lord
Howden—The Koh-i-noor diamond—A change
imminent—Lord John Russell’s report—Sunday
delivery of letters—Prince George of Cambridge—The
Earldom of Tipperary—Mr Roebuck’s motion—Lord
Stanley’s motion—Holstein and Germany—Lord
Palmerston’s explanation—The Protocol—Christening
of Prince Arthur—Don Pacifico Debate—Sir Robert
Peel’s accident—Letter from King of Denmark—Death
of Sir Robert Peel—The Queen assaulted by
Pate—Death of Duke of Cambridge—Prince of Prussia—The
Foreign Office—Denmark and Schleswig—Sir
Charles Napier’s resignation—Lord Palmerston—Lord
Clarendon’s opinion—Duke of Bedford’s opinion—Lord
John Russell’s report—Press attacks on Lord
Palmerston—Duties of Foreign Secretary—Death of
King Louis Philippe—Visit to Scotland—Illness of
Queen Louise—Attack on General Haynau—Note to
Baron Koller—The Draft gone—Lord Palmerston rebuked—Holstein—A
great grief—Mr Tennyson
made Poet Laureate—Ritualists and Roman Catholics—Unrest
in Europe—England and Germany—Constitutionalism
in Germany—Austria and Prussia—Religious
strife—England and Rome—Lady Peel—The
Papal aggression—Ecclesiastical Titles Bill

231-282

[page vii]

CHAPTER XX

1851

Life Peerages—Diplomatic arrangements—Peril of the
Ministry—Negotiations with Sir J. Graham—Defeat
of the Government—Ministerial crisis—The Premier’s
statement—Lord Lansdowne consulted—Lord Stanley
sent for—Complications—Fiscal policy—Sir James
Graham—Duke of Wellington—Difficulties—Lord
Aberdeen consulted—Lord Stanley to be sent for—His
letter—Lord Stanley’s difficulties—Mr Disraeli—Question
of dissolution—Explanations—Lord Stanley
resigns—His reasons—The Papal Bill—Duke of
Wellington—Appeal to Lord Lansdowne—Still without
a Government—Lord Lansdowne’s views—Further
difficulties—Coalition impossible—Income Tax—Free
Trade—Ecclesiastical Titles Bill—Confusion of
Parties—New National Gallery—The great Exhibition—Imposing
ceremony—The Prince’s triumph—Enthusiasm
in the City—Danish succession—The Orleans
Princes—Regret at leaving Scotland—Extension of the
Franchise—Louis Kossuth—Lord Palmerston’s intentions—A
dispute—Lord Palmerston defiant—He
gives way—The Queen’s anxiety—Lord Palmerston’s
conduct—The Queen’s comment—Death of King of
Hanover—The Suffrage—The Coup d’État—Louis
Bonaparte—Excitement in France—Lord Palmerston
and Lord Normanby—State of Paris—Lord Palmerston’s
approval—Birthday wishes—The crisis—Dismissal
of Lord Palmerston—Inconsistency of Lord
Palmerston—The Prince’s Memorandum—Lord Clarendon—Discussion
on new arrangements—Count
Walewski informed—Lord Granville’s appointment—The
Queen’s view of foreign affairs—Our policy reviewed—Difficulty
of fixed principles—Prince Nicholas
of Nassau—Te Deum at Paris

283-355

CHAPTER XXI

1852

Denmark—Possible fusion of parties—Orleans family—Draft
of the Speech—Women and politics—New
Houses of Parliament—Lord Palmerston’s discomfiture—M.
Thiers—The Prince and the Army—Pressure of
business—Defeat on Militia Bill—Interview with Lord
John Russell—Resignation of the Ministry—The
Queen sends for Lord Derby—Lord Derby and Lord
[page viii]
Palmerston—New appointments—New Foreign Secretary—Interview
with Lord Derby—Louis Napoleon—Audiences—Ladies
of the Household—Lord Derby
and the Church—Adherence to treaties—The Sovereign
“People”—New Militia Bill—England and Austria—Letter
from Mr Disraeli—”Necessary” measures—Question
of dissolution—Lord Derby hopeful—Progress
of democracy—England and Italy—Militia Bill
carried—France and the Bourbons—Louis Napoleon’s
position—Excitement at Stockport—The Queen inherits
a fortune—Death of Duke of Wellington—Military
appointments—Nation in mourning—Funeral
arrangements—Anecdote of Napoleon III.—England
and the Emperor—National defences—Financial
arrangements—Lord Dalhousie’s tribute—Funeral
ceremony—Confusion of parties—Lord Palmerston’s
position—Mr Disraeli and Mr Gladstone—Recognition
of the Empire—Budget speech—Letter to the French
Emperor—Secret protocol—Difficult situation—The
Queen’s unwillingness to decide—Injunctions to Lord
Derby—Defeat of the Government—Lord Derby’s
resignation—Lord Aberdeen sent for—His interview
with the Queen—Lord Aberdeen in office—Lord John
Russell’s hesitation—Letter from Mr. Disraeli—The
Queen’s anxiety—Christmas presents—Lord Derby’s
intentions—New Government—Mr Gladstone at the
Exchequer—The Emperor’s annoyance—Appointments—Protracted
crisis—The Cabinet—Lord Derby
takes leave—Letter from Lady Derby—Change of
seals—Peace restored—A strong Cabinet

356-430

CHAPTER XXII

1853

The Emperor’s annoyance—Headmastership of Eton—Marriage
of Emperor of the French—Mademoiselle Eugénie
de Montijo—Baron Beyens on the situation—Emperor
of Russia and the Turkish Empire—Lord John Russell
and leadership of House of Commons—Count Buol and
refugees—Kossuth and Mazzini proclamations—Want
of arms for the Militia—Russian fleet at Constantinople—French
irritation—Russia’s demands—Russia and
England—Liberation of the Madiai—Letter from
Emperor of Russia—Birth of Prince Leopold—Mr
Gladstone’s budget speech—Congratulations from the
Prince—India Bill—Emperor of Austria—Church of
England in the Colonies—Oriental Question—Death of
Lady Dalhousie—Lord Palmerston and Lord Aberdeen[page ix]—Russia,
Austria, and Turkey—England’s policy—The
Queen’s views on the Eastern despatches—Proposed
terms of settlement—Lord John Russell’s retirement—Letter
from the Emperor of Russia—Lord
Stratford’s desire for war—Letter to the Emperor of
Russia—France and the Eastern Question—Letter
from the Emperor of Russia—Reform Bill—Lord
Palmerston’s position—Lord Lansdowne’s influence—Resignation
of Lord Palmerston—Lord Stratford’s
despatch—Draft to Vienna—Return of Lord Palmerston
to office

431-472

[page xi]

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

H.M. Queen Victoria, 1843. From the picture by F. Winterhalter at Windsor Castle	Frontispiece
H.M. Marie Amélie, Queen of the French, 1828. From the miniature by Millet at Windsor Castle	Facing p. 104
“The Cousins.” H.M. Queen Victoria and the Duchess of Nemours, who was a Princess of Saxe-Coburg and first cousin to the Queen and the Prince Consort. From the picture by F. Winterhalter at Buckingham Palace	Facing p. 168
Baron Stockmar. From the portrait by John Partridge at Buckingham Palace	Facing p. 240
Field-Marshal The Duke of Wellington, K.G. Believed to be by Count d’Orsay. From a miniature at Apsley House	Facing p. 392

[page 1]

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

TO CHAPTER XIII

The new year (1844) opened with signs of improved trade, and a
feeling of confidence, partly due to the friendly entente with France.
In Ireland, soon after the collapse of the Clontarf meeting, O’Connell
and some of his associates were indicted for seditious conspiracy, and
convicted. The conviction was subsequently quashed on technical
grounds, but O’Connell’s political influence was at an end. In
Parliament, owing chiefly to the exertions of Lord Ashley (afterwards
Earl of Shaftesbury), an important Bill was passed restricting
factory labour, and limiting its hours. The Bank Charter Act,
separating the issue and banking departments, as well as regulating
the note issue of the Bank of England in proportion to its stock of
gold, also became law. Meanwhile the dissensions in the Conservative
party were increasing, and the Ministry were defeated on a
motion made by their own supporters to extend the preferential
treatment of colonial produce. With great difficulty the vote was
rescinded and a crisis averted; but the Young England section of
the Tory party were becoming more and more an embarrassment to
the Premier. Towards the end of the year the new Royal Exchange
was opened amid much ceremony by the Queen.

The services rendered by Sir Charles Napier in India were the subject
of votes of thanks in both Houses, but shortly afterwards Lord
Ellenborough, the Governor-General, was recalled by the Directors
of the East India Company: their action was no doubt due to his
overbearing methods and love of display, but it was disapproved by
the Ministry, and Lord Ellenborough was accorded an Earldom.

During the year there was a recrudescence of the friction between
this country and France, due partly to questions as to the right of
search of foreign ships, partly to a brochure issued by the Prince de
Joinville, a son of Louis Philippe, partly to the assumption of French
sovereignty over Tahiti and the seizure of the English consul there
by the French authorities. Reparation however was made, and the
ill-feeling subsided sufficiently to enable the King of the French to
visit Queen Victoria,—the first friendly visit ever paid by a French
king to the Sovereign of England. Louis Philippe was cordially
received in this country.

Another historic royal visit also took place in 1844, that of the
Emperor Nicholas, who no doubt was so much impressed with his
friendly reception, both by the Court and by Aberdeen, the Foreign
[page 2]
Secretary, that nine years later he thought he could calculate on the
support of England under Aberdeen (then Premier) in a scheme for
the partition of Turkey. Lord Malmesbury, who a few years later
became Foreign Secretary, states in his memoirs that during this
visit, the Czar, Sir Robert Peel, the Duke of Wellington, and Lord
Aberdeen “drew up and signed a Memorandum, the spirit and scope
of which was to support Russia in her legitimate protectorship of the
Greek religion and the Holy Shrines, and to do so without consulting
France,” but the Memorandum was in reality only one made by
Nicholas of his recollection of the interview, and communicated
subsequently to Lord Aberdeen.

No events of special interest took place in other parts of Europe;
the condition of affairs in the Peninsula improved, though the
announcement of the unfortunate marriage of the Queen Mother
with the Duke of Rianzares was not of hopeful augury for the young
Queen Isabella’s future; as a matter of fact, the marriage had taken
place some time previously.

[page 3]

CHAPTER XIII

1844

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Windsor Castle, 9th January 1844.

My dearest Uncle,—I had the pleasure of receiving your
kind letter of the 4th, which is written from Ardenne, where
I grieve to see you are again gone without my beloved Louise.

Charlotte is the admiration of every one, and I wish much
I could have seen the three dear children en représentation.

Our fat Vic or Pussette learns a verse of Lamartine by heart,
which ends with “le tableau se déroule à mes pieds”; to
show how well she had understood this difficult line which
Mdlle. Charier had explained to her, I must tell you the following
bon mot. When she was riding on her pony, and looking
at the cows and sheep, she turned to Mdlle. Charier and said:
“Voilà le tableau qui se déroule à mes pieds.” Is not this
extraordinary for a little child of three years old? It is more
like what a person of twenty would say. You have no notion
what a knowing, and I am sorry to say sly, little rogue she is,
and so obstinate. She and le petit Frère accompany us to dear
old Claremont to-day; Alice remains here under Lady Lyttelton’s
care. How sorry I am that you should have hurt your
leg, and in such a provoking way; Albert says he remembers
well your playing often with a pen-knife when you talked,
and I remember it also, but it is really dangerous.

I am happy that the news from Paris are good; the really
good understanding between our two Governments provokes
the Carlists and Anarchists. Bordeaux¹ is not yet gone;
I saw in a letter that it was debated in his presence whether he
was on any favourable occasion de se présenter en France!
[page 4]
Do you think that possible? Then again the papers say that
there are fortifications being made on the coast of Normandy
for fear of an invasion; is this so? These are many questions,
but I hope you will kindly answer them, as they interest
me. With Albert’s love. Believe me, ever, your devoted
Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 1: The Duc de Bordeaux, only son of the Duc de Berri, had by the death of Charles X.
and the renunciation of all claims to the French Throne on the part of the Duc d’Angoulême,
become the representative of the elder branch of the Bourbons. He had
intended his visit to England to have a private character only.

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Aberdeen.

THE SPANISH MARRIAGE

Claremont, 10th January 1844.

The Queen understands that there is a negotiation with
Sweden and Denmark pending about the cessation of their
tribute to Morocco, likewise that Prince Metternich has sent
a despatch condemning as unfair the understanding come to
between us and France about the Spanish marriage;² that
there is a notion of exchanging Hong Kong for a more healthy
colony.

The Queen, taking a deep interest in all these matters, and
feeling it her duty to do so, begs Lord Aberdeen to keep her
always well informed of what is on the tapis in his Department.

Footnote 2: See ante, vol. i. p. 487.

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Aberdeen.

Claremont, 13th January 1844.

The Queen has received Lord Aberdeen’s letter of the
10th, and returns him the papers which he sent her, with
her best thanks. She does not remember to have seen them
before.

The Queen takes this opportunity to beg Lord Aberdeen
to cause the despatches to be sent a little sooner from the
Foreign Office, as drafts in particular have often come to the
Queen a week or a fortnight after they had actually been sent
across the sea.

With respect to the Hanoverian Orders, Lord Aberdeen has
not quite understood what the Queen meant. It was Sir C.
Thornton and others to whom the Queen had refused permission
to accept the favour, on a former occasion, by which the King
of Hanover was much affronted. The Queen would not like
to have herself additionally fettered by any new regulation,
but Lord Aberdeen will certainly concur with the Queen that
[page 5]
it would not be expedient to give to the King of Hanover a
power which the Queen herself does not possess, viz. that of
granting orders as favours, or for personal services; as the
number of the different classes of the Guelphic Order bestowed
on Englishmen is innumerable, it would actually
invest the King with such a power, which, considering how
much such things are sought after, might be extremely
inconvenient.

The Queen will not give a final decision upon this case until
she returns to Windsor, where she has papers explanatory of
the reasons which caused her to decline the King of Hanover’s
application in 1838.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

A CARRIAGE ACCIDENT

Claremont, 16th January 1844.

My dearest Uncle,—Many thanks for your kind letter of
the 11th. Louise can give you the details of the little upset
I and Lady Douro had, and which I did not think worth while
to mention.³ It was the strangest thing possible to happen,
and the most unlikely, for we were going quite quietly, not at
all in a narrow lane, with very quiet ponies and my usual
postillion; the fact was that the boy looked the wrong way,
and therefore did not perceive the ditch which he so cleverly
got us into.

We leave dear Claremont, as usual, with the greatest regret;
we are so peaceable here; Windsor is beautiful and comfortable,
but it is a palace, and God knows how willingly I would
always live with my beloved Albert and our children in the
quiet and retirement of private life, and not be the constant
object of observation, and of newspaper articles. The children
(Pussette and Bertie) have been most remarkably well, and so
have we, in spite of the very bad weather we had most days.
I am truly and really grieved that good excellent Nemours is
again not to get his dotation.⁴ Really we constitutional
countries are too shabby.

Now, dearest Uncle, I must bid you adieu, begging you to
believe me, ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 3: On the 5th of January the Queen’s phaeton was overturned at Horton, near Dachet,
while driving to the meet of Prince Albert’s Harriers.

Footnote 4: On the occasion of the marriage of the Duc and Duchesse de Nemours (1840), the
proposal made by the Soult Government for a Parliamentary grant of 500,000 francs had
been rejected.

[page 6]

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

FRANCE AND ENGLAND

Windsor Castle, 30th January 1844.

My dearest Uncle,—I must begin by thanking you for
your kind letter of the 26th, and by wishing you joy that the
fête went off so well. I am glad Leo will appear at the next
ball; he is nearly nine years old, and it is good to accustom
children of his rank early to these things.

Guizot’s speech is exceedingly admired, with the exception
of his having said more than he was justified to do about the
right of search.⁵ Our speech has been very difficult to frame;
we should like to have mentioned our visits to France and
Belgium, but it has been found impossible to do so; France is
mentioned, and it is the first time since 1834!

To-morrow we go up to Town “pour ce bore,” as the good
King always said to me; whenever there were tiresome people
to present he always said: “Je vous demande pardon de ce
bore.”

I have had a tiresome though not at all violent cold which
I was alarmed might spoil the sonorousness of my voice for the
speech on Thursday, but it promises well now.

I own I always look with horror to the beginning of a
Parliamentary campaign.

With Albert’s love. Ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 5: He insisted that French trade must be kept under the exclusive surveillance of the
French flag.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

DEATH OF THE DUKE OF COBURG

Windsor Castle, 6th February 1844.

My dearly beloved Uncle,—You must now be the father
to us poor bereaved, heartbroken children.⁶ To describe to
you all that we have suffered, all that we do suffer, would
be
difficult; God has heavily afflicted us; we feel crushed, overwhelmed,
bowed down by the loss of one who was so deservedly
loved, I may say adored, by his children and family; I loved
him and looked on him as my own father; his like we shall not
see again; that youth, that amiability, and kindness in his own
house which was the centre and rendezvous for the whole
family, will never be seen again, and my poor Angel’s fondest
thought of beholding that dearly beloved Vaterhaus—where his
[page 7]
thoughts continually were—again is for ever gone and his poor
heart bleeds to feel this is for ever gone. Our promised visit,
our dearest Papa’s, and our fondest wish, all is put an end to.
The violence of our grief may be over, but the desolate feeling
which succeeds it is worse, and tears are a relief. I have never
known real grief till now, and it has made a lasting impression
on me. A father is such a near relation, you are a piece of
him
in fact,—and all (as my poor deeply afflicted Angel says) the
earliest pleasures of your life were given you by a dear father;
that can never he replaced though time may soften the pang.
And indeed one loves to cling to one’s grief; I can understand
Louise’s feeling in her overwhelming sorrows.

Let me now join my humble entreaties to Albert’s, relative
to the request about dearest Louise, which he has made. It
is a sacrifice I ask, but if you knew the sacrifice I make in letting
and urging Albert to go, I am sure, if you can you will
grant it.
I have never been separated from him even for one night, and
the thought of such a separation is quite dreadful; still, I feel
I could bear it,—I have made up my mind to it, as the very
thought of going has been a comfort to my poor Angel, and will
be of such use at Coburg. Still, if I were to remain quite alone
I do not think I could bear it quietly. Therefore pray do send
me my dearly beloved Louise; she would be such a comfort
to me; if you could come too—or afterwards (as you promised
us a longer visit), that would be still more delightful. I may
be indiscreet, but you must think of what the separation from
my all and all, even only for a fortnight, will be to me!

We feel some years older since these days of mourning.
Mamma is calm, but poor Aunt Julia⁷ is indeed much to be
pitied. Ever, dearest Uncle, your devoted and unhappy
Niece and Child,

Victoria R.

Footnote 6: The Duke of Saxe-Coburg Gotha died on 29th January.

Footnote 7: The Grand Duchess Constantine of Russia, sister of the Duchess of Kent and of the
deceased Duke of Saxe-Coburg.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

BEREAVEMENT

Windsor Castle, 13th February 1844.

My dearest Uncle,—I received your dear, kind but sad
letter of the 8th on Sunday, and thank you much for it. God
knows, poor dear Uncle, you have suffered enough in your life,
but you should think, dearest Uncle, of that blessed assurance
of eternity where we shall all meet again never to part; you
should think (as we constantly do now) that those whom we
[page 8]
have lost are far happier than we are, and love us still, and in
a far more perfect way than we can do in this world! When
the first moments and days of overwhelming grief are over
these reflections are the greatest balm, the greatest consolation
to the bleeding heart.

I hope you will kindly let me have a few lines of hope by the
Tuesday’s messenger. Ever your truly devoted Niece and
Child,

Victoria R.

P.S.—O’Connell’s being pronounced guilty is a great
triumph.⁸

Footnote 8: He had been indicted with Charles Gavan Duffy and others for seditious conspiracy.

Viscount Melbourne to Queen Victoria.

South Street, 3rd April 1844.

Lord Melbourne presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
with many thanks for your Majesty’s note of the 28th ult.
Lord Melbourne believes that your Majesty is quite right in
saying that Lord Melbourne has still some health left, if he will
but take care of it. Lord Melbourne told Dr Holland, without
mentioning your Majesty’s name, that this had been said
to him by a friend, and Dr Holland immediately said that it
was very just and true, and very well expressed, and quite what
he should have said himself. At the same time, the change
from strength to weakness and the evident progress of decadence
is a very hard and disagreeable trial. Lord Melbourne
has been reading Cicero on old age, a very pretty treatise, but
he does not find much consolation after it; the principal
practical resources and alleviations which he recommends are
agriculture and gardening, to both of which, but more particularly
to the latter, Lord Melbourne has already had recourse.
It is certainly, as your Majesty says, wrong to be impatient
and to repine at everything, but still it is difficult not to be so.
Lady Uxbridge’s death⁹ is a shocking event, a dreadful loss to
him and to all. Lord Melbourne always liked her. Lord
Melbourne is going down to Brocket Hall to-morrow, and will
try to get Uxbridge and the girls to come over and dine.

Lord Melbourne has felt very much for the grief which your
Majesty must feel at a separation, even short and temporary,
from the Prince, and it is extremely amiable to feel comforted
by the recollection of the extreme pleasure which his visit will
give to his and your Majesty’s relations. It is, of course,
[page 9]
impossible that your Majesty should in travelling divest yourself
of your character and dignity.

Lord Melbourne has just driven round the Regent’s Park,
where there are many almond trees in bloom, and looking
beautiful.

Footnote 9: Henrietta Maria, daughter of Sir Charles Bagot, G.C.B.

Sir Robert Peel to Queen Victoria.

RECALL OF LORD ELLENBOROUGH

Whitehall, 23rd April 1844.

Sir Robert Peel, with his humble duty to your Majesty, begs
leave to acquaint your Majesty that he has every reason to
believe that the Court of Directors will to-morrow, by an
unanimous vote, resolve on the actual recall of Lord Ellenborough.¹⁰

Footnote 10: This anomalous privilege was exercised by the Directors in consequence chiefly of
what they considered Lord Ellenborough’s overbearing demeanour in communication
with them, his too aggressive policy, and his theatrical love of display.

Queen Victoria to Sir Robert Peel.

Buckingham Palace, 23rd April 1844.

The Queen has heard with the greatest regret from Sir R.
Peel that the Court of Directors, after all, mean to recall Lord
Ellenborough. She cannot but consider this very unwise at
this critical moment, and a very ungrateful return for the
eminent services Lord Ellenborough has rendered to the Company
in India. They ought not to forget so soon in what state
Lord Ellenborough found affairs in 1842. The Queen would
not be sorry if these gentlemen knew that this is her opinion.

The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

Laeken, 3rd May 1844.

My Dearest Victoria,—Whenever you wish to make me
truly happy, you will have the power of doing so by repeating
expressions as kind and affectionate as those contained in
your dear little letter of the 30th. I have ever had the care
and affection of a real father for you, and it has perhaps even
been freer from many drawbacks which occasionally will exist
betwixt parents and children, be they ever so well and affectionately
together. With me, even from the moment in
[page 10]
January 1820, when I was called by a messenger to Sidmouth,
my care for you has been unremitting, and never has there
been a cloud between us…. A thing which often strikes me,
in a very satisfactory manner, is that we never had any bitter
words, a thing which happens even with people who are very
lovingly together; and the little row which we had in 1838
you remember well, and do not now think that I was wrong.¹¹
De pareilles relations sont rares; may they ever continue!

I cannot leave this more serious topic without adding that
though you were always warm-hearted and right-minded, it
must strike yourself how matured every kind and good feeling
is in your generous heart. The heart, and not the head, is the
safest guide in positions like yours, and this not only for this
earthly and very short life, but for that which we must hope
for hereafter. When a life draws nearer its close, how many
earthly concerns are there that appear still in the same light?
and how clearly the mind is struck that nothing has been and is
still of real value, than the nobler and better feelings of the
heart; the only good we can hope to keep as a precious store
for the future. What do we keep of youth, beauty, richness,
power, and even the greatest extent of earthly possessions?
Nothing!… Your truly devoted Uncle,

Leopold R.

Footnote 11: See Letters of Queen Victoria and the King of the Belgians, ante, vol. i. pp. 116-120.

Sir Robert Peel to Queen Victoria.

HONOURS FOR LORD ELLENBOROUGH

Whitehall, 5th May 1844.

Sir Robert Peel, with his humble duty to your Majesty, and
believing that he is acting in accordance with your Majesty’s
own opinion, begs leave to submit to your Majesty that it may
be advisable that he should by the present mail inform Lord
Ellenborough that it is your Majesty’s intention to confer on
him, at a very early period, as a mark of your Majesty’s
approval of Lord Ellenborough’s conduct and services
in India, the rank of an Earl and the Grand Cross of the
Bath.

Lord Ellenborough may be at liberty (should your Majesty
approve) to notify this publicly in India—and thus make it
known that the general line of policy recently pursued has had
the full sanction of your Majesty, and will not be departed
from.

These were the honours conferred upon Lord Auckland.

If they were conferred on the instant, it might rather seem a
[page 11]
rebuke to the East India Company than a deliberate approval
of the conduct of Lord Ellenborough, but these honours might
shortly follow the conclusion of the affair respecting the
selection of Lord Ellenborough’s successor, and any discussion
that may arise in Parliament.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

THE PRINCE DE JOINVILLE’S BROCHURE

Claremont, 24th May 1844.

Dearest Uncle,—Though not my day I must write you a
line to say how vexed we are at this most unfortunate and most
imprudent brochure of Joinville’s;¹² it has made a very bad
effect here, and will rouse all the envy and hatred between the
two Navies again, which it was our great effort to subdue—and
this all for nothing! I can’t tell you how angry people are,
and how poor Hadjy will get abused. And this all after our
having been on such intimate terms with him and having
sailed with him! If he comes here, what shall we do? Receive
with open arms one who has talked of ravaging our coasts
and burning our towns? Indeed it is most lamentable; you
know how we like him, and that therefore it must be very
annoying to us to see him get himself into such a scrape. We
shall overlook it, but the people here won’t! It will blow over,
but it will do immense harm. We who wish to become more
and more closely united with the French family are, of course,
much put out by this return. We shall forgive and forget, and
feel it was not intended to be published—but the public here
will not so easily, and will put the worst construction on
it all.

Pray, dearest Uncle, tell me what could possess Joinville to
write it, and still more to have it printed? Won’t it annoy
the King and Nemours very much? Enfin c’est malheureux,
c’est indiscret au plus haut degré—and it provokes and vexes
us sadly. Tell me all you know and think about it; for you
can do so with perfect safety by our courier.

I have written dearest Louise an account of my old birthday,
which will please you, I think. The weather is very fine.
Ever your truly devoted Niece and Child,

Victoria R.

Footnote 12: The brochure was entitled, Notes sur les forces navales
de la France. The Prince de
Joinville wrote as follows to the Queen: “Le malheureux éclat de ma brochure, le tracas
que cela donne au Père et à la Reine, me font regretter vivement de l’avoir faite. Comme
je l’écris à ton Roi, je ne renvoie que mépris à toutes les interprétations qu’on y donne;
ce que peuvent dire ministre et journaux ne me touche en rien, mais il n’y a pas de sacrifices
que je ne suis disposé à faire pour l’intérieur de la Famille.”

[page 12]

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Aberdeen.

29th May 1844.

If Lord Aberdeen should not have read the Prince de
Joinville’s pamphlet, the Queen recommends him to do so, as
one cannot judge fairly by the extracts in the newspapers.
Though it does not lessen the extreme imprudence of the
Prince’s publishing what must do harm to the various French
Governments, it certainly is not intentionally written to offend
England, and on the contrary frankly proves us to be immensely
superior to the French Navy in every way.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

THE CZAR NICHOLAS

Windsor Castle, 4th June 1844.

My beloved Uncle,—I gave Louise a long and detailed
description of the Emperor,¹³ etc. The papers are full of the
details. A great event and a great compliment his visit certainly
is, and the people here are extremely flattered at it.
He is certainly a very striking man; still very handsome; his
profile is beautiful, and his manners most dignified and graceful;
extremely civil—quite alarmingly so, as he is so full of
attentions and politesses. But the expression of the eyes is
formidable, and unlike anything I ever saw before. He gives
me and Albert the impression of a man who is not happy, and
on whom the weight of his immense power and position weighs
heavily and painfully; he seldom smiles, and when he does the
expression is not a happy one. He is very easy to get on with.
Really, it seems like a dream when I think that we breakfast
and walk out with this greatest of all earthly Potentates as
quietly as if we walked, etc., with Charles or any one. We
took him, with the dear good King of Saxony,¹⁴ who is a great
contrast to the Czar (and with whom I am quite at my ease),
to Adelaide Cottage after breakfast. The grass here is just as
if it had been burned with fire. How many different Princes
have we not gone the same round with!! The children are
much admired by the Sovereigns—(how grand this sounds!)
—and Alice allowed the Emperor to take her in his arms, and
kissed him de son propre accord. We are always so thankful
that they are not shy. Both the Emperor and the King are
quite enchanted with Windsor. The Emperor said very
[page 13]
poliment: “C’est digne de vous, Madame.” I must say the
Waterloo Room lit up with that entire service of gold looks
splendid; and the Reception Room, beautiful to sit in afterwards.
The Emperor praised my Angel very much, saying:
“C’est impossible de voir un plus joli garçon; il a l’air si noble
et si bon”; which I must say is very true. The Emperor
amused the King and me by saying he was so embarrassé when
people were presented to him, and that he felt so “gauche”
en frac, which certainly he is quite unaccustomed to wear. If
we can do anything to get him to do what is right by you, we
shall be most happy, and Peel and Aberdeen are very anxious
for it. I believe he leaves on Sunday again. To-morrow
there is to be a great review, and on Thursday I shall probably
go with them to the races; they are gone there with Albert
to-day, but I have remained at home.

I think it is time to conclude my long letter.

If the French are angry at this visit, let their dear King
and their Princes come; they will be sure of a truly affectionate
reception on our part. The one which Emperor
Nicholas has received is cordial and civil, mais ne vient pas
du cœur.

I humbly beg that any remarks which may not be favourable
to our great visitor may not go beyond you and Louise, and
not
to Paris. Ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 13: The Emperor Nicholas of Russia had just arrived on a visit to England.

Footnote 14: Frederick Augustus II.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Buckingham Palace, 11th June 1844.

My Dearest Uncle,—I received your very kind and long
letter of the 7th on Sunday, and thank you very much for it.
I am delighted that my accounts interested you, and I shall try
and give you some more to-day, which you will see come from
an unbiassed and impartial mind, and which I trust therefore
will be relied upon. The excitement has ceased as suddenly
as it had begun, and I am still confused about it. I will go
back to where I last left you. THE REVIEWThe Revue¹⁵ on the 5th was
really very interesting, and our reception as well as that of the
Emperor most enthusiastic. Louise tells me you had a review
the same day, and that it also was so hot. Our children were
there, and charmed. On the 6th we went with the Emperor
and King to the races,¹⁶ and I never saw such a crowd; again
[page 14]
here the reception was most brilliant. Every evening a large
dinner in the Waterloo Room, and the two last evenings in
uniforms, as the Emperor disliked so being en frac, and was
quite embarrassed in it. On the 7th we took him and the
King back here, and in the evening had a party of 260 about.
On Saturday (8th) my Angel took the Emperor and King to
a very elegant breakfast ¹⁷ at Chiswick, which I for prudence’
sake did not go to, but was very sorry for it. In the evening
we went to the Opera (not in State), but they recognised us,
and we were most brilliantly received. I had to force the
Emperor forward, as he never would come forward when I was
there, and I was obliged to take him by the hand and make
him appear; it was impossible to be better bred or more
respectful than he was towards me. Well, on Sunday afternoon
at five, he left us (my Angel accompanied him to Woolwich),
and he was much affected at going, and really unaffectedly
touched at his reception and stay, the simplicity and
quietness of which told upon his love of domestic life, which is
very great. THE QUEEN’S IMPRESSIONSI will now (having told all that has passed) give
you my opinion and feelings on the subject, which I may say
are Albert’s also. I was extremely against the visit, fearing
the gêne, and bustle, and even at first, I did not feel at all to
like it, but by living in the same house together quietly and
unrestrainedly (and this Albert, and with great truth, says is
the great advantage of these visits, that I not only see these
great people but know them), I got to know the Emperor and
he to know me. THE CZAR NICHOLASThere is much about him which I cannot help
liking, and I think his character is one which should be understood,
and looked upon for once as it is. He is stern and severe—with
fixed principles of duty which nothing on earth will
make him change; very clever I do not think him, and his
mind is an uncivilised one; his education has been neglected;
politics and military concerns are the only things he takes
great interest in; the arts and all softer occupations he is insensible
to, but he is sincere, I am certain, sincere even in his
most despotic acts, from a sense that that is the only way to
govern; he is not, I am sure, aware of the dreadful cases of
individual misery which he so often causes, for I can see by
various instances that he is kept in utter ignorance of many
things, which his people carry out in most corrupt ways, while
he thinks that he is extremely just. He thinks of general
measures, but does not look into detail. And I am sure much
never reaches his ears, and (as you observed), how can it?
He asked for nothing whatever, has merely expressed his great
[page 15]
anxiety to be upon the best terms with us, but not to the
exclusion of others, only let things remain as they are…. He
is I should say, too frank, for he talks so openly before people,
which he should not do, and with difficulty restrains himself.
His anxiety to be believed is very great, and I must say his
personal
promises I am inclined to believe; then his feelings are
very strong; he feels kindness deeply—and his love for his
wife and children, and for all children, is very great. He has
a strong feeling for domestic life, saying to me, when our
children were in the room: “Voilà les doux moments de notre
vie.” He was not only civil, but extremely kind to us both,
and spoke in the highest praise of dearest Albert to Sir Robert
Peel, saying he wished any Prince in Germany had that ability
and sense; he showed Albert great confidence, and I think it
will do great good, as if he praises him abroad it will have great
weight. He is not happy, and that melancholy which is visible
in the countenance made me sad at times; the sternness of the
eyes goes very much off when you know him, and changes
according to his being put out (and he can be much embarrassed)
or not, and also from his being heated, as he suffers
with congestions to the head. My Angel thinks that he is a
man inclined too much to give way to impulse and feeling,
which makes him act wrongly often. His admiration for
beauty is very great, and put me much in mind of you, when he
drove out with us, looking out for pretty people. But he remains
very faithful to those he admired twenty-eight years ago;
for instance, Lady Peel, who has hardly any remains left.
Respecting Belgium he did not speak to me, but to Albert and
the Ministers. As for unkindly feeling towards you, he disclaims
positively any, saying he knew you well, and that you
had served in the Russian Army, etc., but he says those unfortunate
Poles are the only obstacle, and that he positively
cannot enter into direct communication with Belgium as long
as they are employed. If you could only somehow or other get
rid of them, I am sure the thing would be done at once. We
all think he need not mind this, but I fear he has pledged himself.
He admired Charlotte’s picture. Pour finir, I must say
one more word or two about his personal appearance. He
puts us much in mind of his and our cousins the Würtembergs,
and has altogether much of the Würtemberg family about
him. He is bald now, but in his Chevalier Garde Uniform he
is magnificent still, and very striking. I cannot deny that we
were in great anxiety when we took him out lest some Pole
might make an attempt, and I always felt thankful when we
got him safe home again. His poor daughter is very ill, I
fear.
[page 16]
The good King of Saxony¹⁸ remains another week with us,
and we like him much. He is so unassuming. He is out
sight-seeing all day, and enchanted with everything. I hope
that you will persuade the King to come all the same in
September. Our motives and politics are not to be exclusive,
but to be on good terms with all, and why should we not?
We make no secret of it.

Now I must end this very long letter. Ever your devoted
Niece,

Victoria R.

You will kindly not speak of these details, but only in
allgemein say the visit went off very satisfactorily on both
sides,
and that it was highly pacific.

Footnote 15: In honour of the Emperor a Review was held in Windsor Great Park.

Footnote 16: At Ascot.

Footnote 17: Given by the Duke of Devonshire.

Footnote 18: See ante, p. 12.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

A PARLIAMENTARY CRISIS

Buckingham Palace, 18th June 1844.

My Dearest Uncle,—I had the happiness of receiving your
dear and kind letter of the 13th on Sunday; your parties at
Ardenne must have been truly delightful; perhaps some day
we may enjoy them too: that would be delightful! I can
write to you with a light heart, thank goodness, to-day, for the
Government obtained a majority, which up to the last moment
last night we feared they would not have, and we have been in
sad trouble for the last four or five days about it.¹⁹ It is the
more marvellous, as, if the Government asked for a Vote of
Confidence, they would have a Majority of 100; but this very
strength makes the supporters of the Government act in a
most unjustifiable manner by continually acting and voting
against them, not listening to the debates, but coming down
and voting against the Government. So that we were really
in the greatest possible danger of having a resignation of the
Government without knowing to whom to turn, and this from
the recklessness of a handful of foolish half “Puseyite” half
“Young England”²⁰ people! I am sure you will agree with
me that Peel’s resignation would not only be for us (for we
cannot have a better and a safer Minister), but for the whole
country, and for the peace of Europe—a great calamity. Our
present people are all safe, and not led away by impulses and
[page 17]
reckless passions. We must, however, take care and not get
into another crisis; for I assure you we have been quite
miserable and quite alarmed ever since Saturday.

Since I last wrote to you, I spoke to Aberdeen (whom I
should be equally sorry to lose, as he is so very fair, and has
served us personally, so kindly and truly), and he told me that
the Emperor has positively pledged himself to send a Minister
to Brussels the moment those Poles are no longer employed;²¹
that he is quite aware of the importance of the measure, and
would be disposed to make the arrangement easy, and that he
spoke very kindly of you personally. Aberdeen says it is not
necessary to disgrace them in any way, but only for the present
de les éloigner. The Emperor has evidently some time ago
made some strong declaration on the subject which he feels
he cannot get over, and, as I said before, he will not give up
what he has once pledged his word to. Then, no one on earth
can move him. Au fond, it is a fine trait, but he carries
it too
far. He wrote me a very kind and affectionate letter from the
Hague. The Emperor has given Bertie the Grand Cross of
St Andrew, which the boy was quite proud of.

THE KING OF SAXONY

Our kind and good King of Saxony leaves us to-morrow,
after having seen more than anybody has done almost, and
having enjoyed it of all things. He is quite at home with us
and the children, whom he plays with much. Alice walks
quite alone, and looks too funny, as she is so very fat. Now,
ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 19: The Ministry had been defeated on Mr P. Miles’s motion in favour of giving an increased
preference to colonial sugar, but on the 17th this vote was rescinded by a majority of
twenty-two, Mr Disraeli taunting the Premier with expecting that “upon every division
and at every crisis, his gang should appear, and the whip should sound.”

Footnote 20: The name given to the group comprising Disraeli, George Smythe, Lord John Manners,
etc. See Coningsby, which was published about this time.

Footnote 21: See ante, p. 15.

Viscount Melbourne to Queen Victoria.

South Street, 19th June 1844.

Lord Melbourne presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and thanks your Majesty much for the letter of the 14th inst.
Lord Melbourne was very glad to have the opportunity of
seeing the Emperor of Russia at Chiswick. Lord Melbourne
humbly believes that the opinion, which your Majesty has
formed and expresses of the Emperor’s character is just, and
he considers it extremely fortunate that a sovereign of such
weight and influence in Europe, and with whom it is probable
that Great Britain will have such near and intimate relations,
should also be a man upon whose honour and veracity strong
reliance may be safely and securely placed.

Lord Melbourne is very glad to believe that the late political
[page 18]
movements, with which the public mind has been agitated,
have subsided, and are entirely terminated by the last vote of
the House of Commons, and by the determination evinced to
support the Administration.²²

This finishes for the present a business which at one moment
seemed likely to be troublesome, and out of which there did
not appear to present itself any hope or practicable escape.

Lord Melbourne will not make any observation upon what is
known and understood to have passed, further than to say
that, as far as he is acquainted with the history of public affairs
in this country, it is an entire novelty, quite new and unprecedented.²³
Many a Minister has said to the Crown, “My
advice must be taken, and my measures must be adopted,”
but no Minister has ever yet held this language or advanced
this pretension to either House of Parliament. However, it
seems to be successful at present, and success will justify much.
Whether it will tend to permanent strength or a steady conduct
of public affairs, remains to be seen.

Lord Melbourne begs to be respectfully remembered to His
Royal Highness.

Footnote 22: See ante, p. 16.

Footnote 23: Lord Melbourne refers to the House rescinding its own vote.

The Earl of Ellenborough to Queen Victoria.

LORD ELLENBOROUGH

22nd June 1844.

Lord Ellenborough, with his most humble duty to your
Majesty, humbly acquaints your Majesty that on the 15th of
June he received the announcement of his having been removed
from the office of Governor-General of India by the
Court of Directors. By Lord Ellenborough’s advice, letters
were immediately despatched by express to every important
native Court to assure the native Princes that this change in
the person at the head of the Government would effect no
change in its policy, and Lord Ellenborough himself wrote in
similar terms to the British Representatives at the several
Courts…. Lord Ellenborough has written a letter to the
Earl of Ripon with reference to the reasons alleged by the
Court of Directors for his removal from office, to which letter
he most humbly solicits your Majesty’s favourable and attentive
consideration. It treats of matters deeply affecting the
good government of India.

Amidst all the difficulties with which he has had to contend
in India, aggravated as they have been by the constant
[page 19]
hostility of the Court of Directors, Lord Ellenborough has ever
been sustained by the knowledge that he was serving a most
gracious Mistress, who would place the most favourable construction
upon his conduct, and he now humbly tenders to
your Majesty the expression of his gratitude, not only for those
marks of Royal favour with which it has been intimated to
him that it is your Majesty’s intention to reward his services,
but yet more for that constant support which has animated
all his exertions, and has mainly enabled him to place India
in the hands of his successor in a state of universal peace, the
result of two years of victories, and in a condition of prosperity
heretofore unknown.

The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND RUSSIA

Laeken, 28th June 1844.

My beloved Victoria,—I have again to offer my warmest
and best thanks for a very long and kind letter. I am truly
and sincerely happy that a Ministerial crisis has been spared
you; it is in all constitutional concerns an awful business;
but in such a colossal machinery as the British Empire, it
shakes the whole globe. For your sake, for the good of England,
and for the quiet of the whole earth, we must most devoutly
pray that Sir Robert may remain for many, many years
your trusty and faithful Minister. Parliaments and Chambers
are extremely fond of governing, particularly as long as it does
not bore themselves. We have had an instance of it recently.
I was anxious to keep the Chamber longer, as there are still
many important things which it ought to have finished; but
they were hot, they got tired, voted twelve projets de loi in one
day, and disappeared afterwards, leaving one the trouble of
managing the affairs of the State as best one may….

As a general political event, the Emperor’s visit in England
can only be useful; it is probable that he would not have made
the visit if another had not been talked of. His policy is naturally
to separate as much as possible the two great Western
Powers; he is too weak to resist single-handed their dictates
in the Oriental question; but if they act not in concert, it is
evident that he is the master; in all this he acts wisely and in
conformity with the great interests of his Empire. England
has greater interests at stake at the mercy of Russia than at
that of France. With France the questions are sometimes
questions of jealousy, but, on the other hand, a tolerable understanding
keeps France quiet and secures the peace of Europe,
[page 20]
much more in the sense of the European policy of England
than of that of France. The only consolation the French can
find in it is that they are aware that together with England they
have a great position, but they always lament that they can
get nothing by it. A bad understanding with France opens
not only the door to a European war, but also to revolution;
and that is perhaps the most serious and most awfully dangerous
part of the business. England wants nothing from the
Emperor than that he should leave the status quo of Europe
and great part of Asia alone. At Paris they are not so much
moved at the Emperor’s visit as perhaps they ought to be, but
they have put the flattering notion into their heads that he had
made fiasco, which is not true; as, in fact, he has so far been
rather successful, and has convinced people in England that he
is a mild and good-natured man, himself and his Empire,
without any ambition. Now it is high time I should finish
my immense scrawl, for which I claim your forgiveness, remaining
ever your devoted Uncle,

Leopold R.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

TAHITI

Windsor Castle, 27th August 1844.

My dearest Uncle,—Many thanks for your kind long
letter, which I received yesterday, dated 23rd. I can report
very well of ourselves. We are all well. The dear day of
yesterday²⁴ we spent very quietly and happily and full of
gratitude to Providence for so many blessings. I can only
pray for the continuance of our present happiness.

The impending political cloud, I hope and trust, looks less
black and lowering. But I think it very unwise in Guizot not
to have at once disavowed D’Aubigny for what you yourself
call an “outrage,”²⁵ instead of letting it drag on for four weeks
and letting our people get excited. The Tangiers Affair²⁶ is
unfortunate, and I hope that in future poor Joinville will not
be exposed to such disagreeable affairs. What can be done
will be, to get him justified in the eyes of the public here, but
I fear that at first they will not be very charitable. Those
letters in the Times are outrageous, and all that abuse very
bad taste.²⁷ There is to be an investigation about the three
[page 21]
officers, whose conduct is unworthy of Englishmen. Now,
dearest Uncle, believe me always, your most affectionate
Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 24: The Prince Albert’s birthday. Prince Alfred was born on 6th August of this year.

Footnote 25: The assumption of French sovereignty over Tahiti.

Footnote 26: Hostilities had commenced between France and Morocco, and Tangiers was bombarded.

Footnote 27: A series of letters had appeared in the Times, written by British naval officers who
had witnessed the bombardment of Tangiers, and accused the French Admiral and Navy
of being deficient in courage. The Times was much criticised for its publication of these
letters.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

ENGLAND AND FRANCE

Blair Athol, 15th September 1844.

My Dearest Uncle,—I received your kind letter of the 6th
the day we arrived here, and thank you very much for it. As
I have written an account of our journey to Louise, I will not
repeat it here.

The good ending of our difficulties with France is an immense
blessing, but it is really and truly necessary that you
and those at Paris should know that the danger was imminent,
and that poor Aberdeen stood almost alone in trying to keep
matters peaceable. We must try and prevent these difficulties
for the future. I must, however, clear Jarnac²⁸ of all blame,
for Aberdeen does nothing but praise him….

In Greece affairs look very black, and God knows how it
all will end.

Footnote 28: Chargé d’Affaires in the absence of the French Ambassador.

The Queen of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

VISIT OF KING LOUIS PHILIPPE

Laeken, 5th October 1844.

My Dearly Beloved Victoria,—… I have not much to
say about my father’s lodging habits and likings.²⁹ My father
is one of the beings most easy to please, satisfy, and to
accommodate.
His eventful life has used him to everything, and
makes any kind of arrangements acceptable to him; there is
only one thing which he cannot easily do, it is to be ready
very
early. He means notwithstanding to try to come to your
breakfast, but you must insist upon his not doing it. It would
disturb him in all his habits, and be bad for him, as he would
certainly eat, a thing he is not used to do in the morning. He
generally takes hardly what may be called a breakfast, and eats
only twice in the day. It would be also much better for him if
he only appeared to luncheon and dinner, and if you kindly
[page 22]
dispensed him altogether of the breakfast. You must not tell
him that I wrote you this, but you must manage it with Montpensier,
and kindly order for him a bowl of chicken broth. It
is the only thing he takes generally in the morning, and between
his meals. I have also no observation to make, but I have
told Montpensier to speak openly to Albert whenever he
thought something ought to be done for my father, or might
hurt and inconvenience him, and you may consult him when
you are in doubt. He is entrusted with all the recommendations
of my mother, for my father is naturally so imprudent and
so little accustomed to caution and care, that he must in some
measure be watched to prevent his catching cold or doing what
may be injurious to him. About his rooms, a hard bed and a
large table for his papers are the only things he requires. He
generally sleeps on a horse-hair mattress with a plank of wood
under it: but any kind of bed will do, if it is not too soft. His
liking will be to be entirely at your commands and to do all you
like. You know he can take a great deal of exercise, and
everything will interest and delight him, to see, as to do:
this
is not a compliment, but a mere fact. His only wish is, that you
should not go out of your way for him, and change your habits
on his account. Lord Aberdeen will be, of course, at Windsor,
and I suppose you will ask, as you told me, the Royal Family.
My father hopes to see also Sir Robert Peel, Lord Stanley, and
your other Ministers. You will probably ask most of them
during his stay. He wishes very much to see again those he
already knows, and to make the acquaintance of those he does
not know yet. In writing all this I think I dream, I cannot
believe yet that in a few days my dear father will have, God
willing, the unspeakable happiness to see you again and at
Windsor, a thing he had so much wished for and which for a
long time seemed so improbable. You have no notion of the
satisfaction it gives him, and how delighted he will be to see you
again, and to be once more in England. God grant he may
have a good passage, and arrive to you safely and well.
Unberufen,
as you will soon, I trust, be able to see, he is, notwithstanding
the usual talk of the papers, perfectly well….
Yours most devotedly,

Louise.

Footnote 29: The difficulty with France as to Tahiti having been satisfactorily disposed of, King
Louis Philippe was enabled to visit England, the first French King to come on a visit to
the Sovereign of England. The King was enthusiastically received in England, visited
Claremont (which he was destined to occupy in exile), was installed as a Knight of the
Garter at Windsor with great magnificence, and visited Eton College and Woolwich
Arsenal.

The Queen of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

SOLICITUDE OF QUEEN LOUISE

Laeken, 7th October 1844.

My Dearly beloved Victoria,—… I wrote to my
mother, to quiet her, all you kindly tell me about my dear
[page 23]
father. We are quite sure, I assure you, that you and Albert
will take care of him, and that he is with you in safe hand. And
what makes my mother uneasy is the fear that, being at liberty
without control, he will make too much, as she says, le
jeune homme, ride, go about, and do everything as if he was
still twenty years old. If I must tell you all the truth, she is
afraid also he will eat too much. I am sure he will tell it to you
himself, as he was so much amused with this fear; but to do
her pleasure, being well assured by me that you would allow it,
and that it was even customary, he has given up, of himself,
all thought of attending your early breakfast: but I perceive
I write as if he was not already under your roof. I will also only
say, that though he has sent over his horses in case they should
be wanted, my mother begs you to prevent, if possible, his
riding at all. I wrote to her already that I supposed there
would be no occasion for riding, and that your promenades
would be either on foot or in carriage. I entrusted Montpensier
with all my messages for you, my beloved Victoria and
your dear children. He hopes you will permit him, during his
stay at Windsor, to make two excursions—one to London, and
one to Woolwich—he is very curious to see, as an artillery
officer. I mention it as he would be, perhaps, too shy or too
discreet to mention it himself. He might very well do those
two trips by the railroad and be back for dinner-time, and I
am sure you will have no objection to them…. Yours most
devotedly,

Louise.

I am very glad that Lord Charles Wellesley is one of those
who will attend my father. Montpensier and him will have
surely capital fun together, and he was, you know, a great
favourite with every one at Eu. If by chance Lord Hardwicke
was in waiting during my father’s stay, you must kindly
put my father in mind to thank him for the famous cheese,
which arrived safely, and was found very good….

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

THE KING’S ARRIVAL

Windsor Castle, 8th October 1844.

Dearest Uncle,—You will, I am sure, forgive my writing
but a few lines as I am all alone in the agitation of the dear
King’s arrival, and I will leave my letter open to announce it
to you. My dearest master is gone to Portsmouth to receive
him. The excitement and curiosity to see the dear King, and
the desire to give him a most hearty reception, is very great
indeed.

[page 24]

Many thanks for your kind letters of the 28th and 4th. I
can’t think who could have said that Peel, etc., would not have
been here; for he, Aberdeen, and the old Duke are to be here
the whole time, and all the other Ministers will come during
his stay.

I am very glad Joinville is arrived, and avoided his entrées
triomphales. I hope he will take great care of himself.

You will have heard from dear Louise of our voyage, etc.
I cannot reconcile myself to be here again, and pine for my dear
Highlands, the hills, the pure air, the quiet, the retirement,
the liberty—all—more than is right. The children are well.
I am sorry to hear that you are not quite so yet.

3.30.—The King and Montpensier arrived quite safely at
two, and are both looking extremely well. We have just
lunched with them. It seems like a dream to me, and a very
pleasant one.

Albert sends his affectionate love. Ever your devoted
Niece,

Victoria R.

Bertie has immediately taken a passion for Montpensier.

Viscount Melbourne to Queen Victoria.

Brocket Hall, 9th October 1844.

Lord Melbourne presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and thanks your Majesty much for the letter of the 7th inst.,
which he has just received, and with very great satisfaction,
as he had begun to think your Majesty’s silence rather long.
But he perfectly understands the reasons which prevented
your Majesty from writing during your stay in the Highlands.
Lord Melbourne is very glad to find that your Majesty enjoyed
that country so much, and is so enthusiastically fond of it.
Lord Melbourne believes that he was at the places which your
Majesty mentions. In the year 1802 he stayed some months
in Perthshire with the late Lord Kinnaird, and enjoyed it
much. It annoys him sometimes to think how altered he is
in strength since that time. Lord Melbourne has never yet
thanked your Majesty for the pretty etchings of poor Islay
and Eos, which your Majesty sent to Lord Melbourne when
he was last at Windsor. Lord Melbourne has ordered them
both to be framed, and will hang them up in his room here.
They will afford Lord Melbourne most agreeable and pleasing
souvenirs of the happiest period of his life, for he cannot say
otherwise than that he continually misses and regrets the
time when he had daily confidential communication with your
[page 25]
Majesty. Lord Glenlyon³⁰ has one merit in Lord Melbourne’s
eyes, which is that he was a steady and firm supporter to
the last of Lord Melbourne’s Government. Lord Melbourne
hopes and trusts that he feels no animosity against those
who opposed him. But he does and always shall entertain a
kindly and grateful recollection of those who supported him.

Lord Melbourne begs to be remembered to His Royal
Highness.

Footnote 30: See vol. i. p. 429.

The Queen of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

Laeken, 12th October 1844.

My dearly beloved Victoria,—… I thank you very
much for attending to all my recommendations about my
father: I only fear that they will lead you to believe that we
consider him as a great child and treat him like one: but he
is so precious and dear to us all that I am sure you will
understand
and excuse our being over anxious…. Yours most
devotedly,

Louise.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

A SUCCESSFUL VISIT

Osborne House, 17th October 1844.

My Dearest Uncle,—I had intended to have written to you
on Monday, but you will since have heard of the great confusion
of that day which prevented me from doing so. The
dear King’s visit went off to perfection, and I much and deeply
regret its being passed. He was delighted, and was most
enthusiastically and affectionately received wherever he
showed himself. Our proceedings I wrote to good, dear Louise
(whom you should not leave so long alone), who will no doubt
have given you the details. What an extraordinary man the
King is! What a wonderful memory, and how lively, how
sagacious! He spoke very openly to us all, and is determined
that our affairs should go on well. He wishes Tahiti au fond
de la mer. He spoke also very openly about poor Hadjy’s
brochure which seems to have distressed him more than anything.
The King praised my dearest Albert most highly, and
fully appreciates his great qualities and talents—and what
gratifies me so much, treats him completely as his equal, calling
him “Mon Frère,” and saying to me that my husband was the
[page 26]
same as me, which it is—and “Le Prince Albert, c’est pour
moi le Roi.” The King is very sad to go, but he is determined,
he says, to see me every year. Another very great thing is, that
the officers of the two Navies staying at Portsmouth were on
the best terms together and paying one another every sort of
compliment. As Admiral La Susse (a very gentlemanlike
man) and his squadron were sadly disappointed on Monday,³¹
we thought it would please them if we went on board the
Gomer, which we did, on Tuesday morning, and breakfasted
there, and I drank the King’s health. I am certain that the
visit and everything connected with it can but do the greatest
good.

We stay here till Monday. It is a very comfortable little
house, and the grounds and place are delightful, so private—and
the view so fine.

I must now conclude, begging you to believe me, ever your
devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

I forgot to say how much we liked good Montpensier, who
got on extremely well.

Footnote 31: It had been intended that the King should return to France, as he had come, by way
of Portsmouth, crossing in the frigate Gomer, but, in consequence of the wet and stormy
weather, he returned by Dover and Calais.

Queen Victoria to the King of the French.

DEPARTURE OF THE KING

Osborne House, le 17 Octobre 1844.

Sire, et mon très cher Frère,—Votre Majesté m’a écrit
deux bien bonnes lettres de Douvres pour lesquelles je vous
remercie de tout mon cœur. Les expressions de bonté et
d’amitié que vous me vouez ainsi qu’à mon cher Albert nous
touchent sensiblement; je n’ai pas besoin de vous dire encore,
combien nous vous sommes attachés et combien nous désirons
voir se raffermir de plus en plus cette entente cordiale entre
nos deux pays qui existe si heureusement entre nous personnellement.
C’était avec un vif regret que nous nous sommes
séparés de votre Majesté, et de Montpensier, et ce sera une
grande fête que de voir renouveler une visite dont le souvenir
nous est si cher.

Albert se met à vos pieds, Sire, bien sensible ainsi que moi-même
de l’amitié et la confiance que vous lui avez témoignées.

J’ose prier votre Majesté d’offrir mes plus tendres hommages
à la Reine et à Madame votre Sœur et de me rappeler au
souvenir de Montpensier. Je suis pour la vie, Sire et mon
cher Frère, de votre Majesté la bien affectionnée Sœur et
fidèle Amie,

Victoria R.

[page 27]

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

OPENING OF ROYAL EXCHANGE

Windsor Castle, 29th October 1844.

My dearest Uncle,—I had the happiness of receiving your
kind letter of the 26th while I was dressing to go to the City
for the opening of the Royal Exchange.³² Nothing ever went
off better, and the procession there, as well as all the proceedings
at the Royal Exchange, were splendid and royal in
the extreme. It was a fine and gratifying sight to see the
myriads of people assembled—more than at the Coronation
even, and all in such good humour, and so loyal; the articles
in the papers, too, are most kind and gratifying; they say no
Sovereign was more loved than I am (I am bold enough to say),
and that, from our happy domestic home—which gives such a
good example. The Times you have, and I venture to add a
Chronicle, as I think it very pretty; you should read the
accounts. I seldom remember being so gratified and pleased
with any public show, and my beloved Albert was so enthusiastically
received by the people. He is so beloved by all the
really influential people, and by all right-thinking ones. We
came back here yesterday evening. The accounts from Paris
are excellent too. How long are the good Joinvilles to remain
in the south, and where? By-the-by, dearest Uncle, have you
read the continuation of Consuelo,³³ called the “Comtesse de
Rudolstadt”? It is dreadfully interesting.

The Knights of the Garter did not wear the whole costume,
but only the mantle. Being on this topic, shall tell you that
I intend giving the Garter to Ernest, but pray do not mention
it to E. or any one.

With Albert’s affectionate love. Ever your devoted Niece
and Child,

Victoria R.

Footnote 32: On the preceding day.

Footnote 33: The novel by George Sand (1804-1876), published in 1842.

The King of the French to Queen Victoria.

Saint Cloud, le 15 Novembre 1844.

Madame ma bien chère Sœur,—Mes souvenirs de Windsor
sont de ceux dont aucun ne s’efface. Je n’oublie donc pas
une petite question qui m’a été si joliment adressée, Where
is my gun? et à présent j’en ai trouvé un qui serait indigne de
la destinée que je prie votre Majesté de me permettre de lui
donner, si le regret que la disparition du premier fusil avait
[page 28]
causé, ne m’avait pas appris que le second devait être d’un
genre à supporter tous les accidents que l’enfance aime à infliger
à ses joujoux. C’est donc tout simplement un très modeste
fusil de munition adapté a sa taille que j’adresse à votre
Majesté pour son auguste et charmant enfant le Prince de
Galles, comme ma réponse à sa question.

J’ai encore une autre dette dont je vous prie de me permettre
de m’acquitter. Quelque vif que soit mon désir de
revoir Windsor, ce serait un trop long retard que d’attendre
cet heureux moment, pour offrir à la Princesse Royale cette
petite boîte à ouvrage, de Paris, qu’elle m’a fait espérer lui
serait agréable, et tout ce que je désire c’est que vos enfants se
ressouviennent un jour d’avoir vu celui qui a été le fidèle ami
de leur grand-père, comme il l’est et le sera toujours de leurs
bien aimés parents.

Que votre Majesté me permette encore d’offrir ici au Prince
Albert l’expression de la vive et sincère amitié que je lui porte
et que je lui garderai toujours, et d’accepter celle de l’inaltérable
attachement avec lequel je suis pour la vie, Madame ma bien
chère Sœur, de votre Majesté, le bon Frère bien affectionné et
fidèle Ami,

Louis Philippe R.

Sir Henry Hardinge to Queen Victoria.

EDUCATION IN INDIA

23rd November 1844.

Sir Henry Hardinge³⁴ with his most humble duty to your
Majesty, humbly submits for your Majesty’s consideration
the following observations on the state of affairs in this large
portion of your Majesty’s dominions.

The return of peace has also increased the desire of the
native population to receive the advantages of English education.
The literature of the West is the most favourite
study amongst the Hindoos in their schools and colleges.
They will discuss with accuracy the most important events
in British History. Boys of fifteen years of age, black in
colour, will recite the most favourite passages from Shakespeare,
ably quoting the notes of the English and German commentators.
They excel in mathematics, and in legal subtleties
their acuteness is most extraordinary.

In order to reward native talent and render it practically
useful to the State, Sir Henry Hardinge, after due deliberation,
has issued a resolution, by which the most meritorious students
[page 29]
will be appointed to fill the public offices which fall vacant
throughout Bengal.

This encouragement has been received by the Hindoo population
with the greatest gratitude. The studies in the Mohammedan
schools and colleges have hitherto been confined to
Arabic, the Koran, and abstruse studies relating to their
religion, having always shown a marked aversion to English
literature. Since the publication of the Resolution they have
at once determined to change their system in order to participate
in the benefits held out to native merit of every sect.

It is impossible throughout your Majesty’s immense Empire
to employ the number of highly paid European civil servants
which the public service requires. This deficiency is the great
evil of British Administration. By dispersing annually a proportion
of well-educated natives throughout the provinces,
under British superintendence, well-founded hopes are entertained
that prejudices may gradually disappear, the public
service be improved, and attachment to British institutions
increased….

SIR HENRY HARDINGE

Sir Henry Hardinge, in closing these observations, most
humbly ventures to assure your Majesty that he anticipates
no occurrence as probable, by which the tranquillity of this
portion of your Majesty’s dominions is likely to be disturbed.

H. Hardinge.

Footnote 34: Governor-General of India, in succession to Lord Ellenborough.

[page 30]

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

TO CHAPTER XIV

The new year (1845) opened auspiciously, trade improving owing
to the great impetus given to it by the many lines of railway then in
course of promotion. Over two hundred schemes were prepared at
the commencement of the session to seek legislative sanction, and
speculation outran all reasonable limits. The Income Tax (which in
the ordinary course would have expired) was renewed, and the Anti-Corn
Law Leaguers were more persistent than ever in their assaults
on Protection, while the attacks on the Ministry from a section of
their own party were redoubled. The most remarkable measure of the
year was the Government Bill for increasing the grant to the Roman
Catholic College of Maynooth, which was strongly opposed from
the Conservative and the Protestant points of view; Mr Gladstone,
though he approved of the measure, retired from the Ministry, as he
had a few years before written in the opposite sense. Towards the
close of the year the condition of Ireland, owing to the failure of the
potato crop, became very alarming, and the Ministry greatly embarrassed.
Lord John Russell wrote from Edinburgh to the electors
of the City of London, announcing his conversion to the Repeal of
the Corn Laws, and the Times announced that such a Bill would be
brought in by the Ministry. Peel, reluctant to accept the task,
resigned office in December, and a Whig Ministry was attempted.
Owing to dissensions, the attempt had to be abandoned, and Peel
returned to office, without Lord Stanley, but with Mr Gladstone,
who however did not seek re-election for the seat vacated by his
acceptance of office.

A dispute of great importance arose during the year with the United
States, relating to the boundary line between English and American
territory west of the Rocky Mountains. Twenty-five years earlier
the same question had arisen, and had been settled on the footing of
joint occupancy. The increased importance of the Pacific slope
made the matter more vital, involving as it did the ownership of
Vancouver Island and the mouth of the Columbia River; President
Polk unequivocally claimed the whole, and said he would not shrink
from upholding America’s interests; the British Government was
equally firm, and the matter was not adjusted till 1846.

In India, which during nearly the whole year enjoyed peace, the
Sikhs in December assumed the aggressive, and crossed the Sutlej,
invading British India. They were signally defeated by Sir Hugh
[page 31]
Gough at Moodkee and Ferozeshah. In Scinde Sir Charles Napier
prosecuted operations against the mountain desert tribes.

In New Zealand some disastrous collisions took place between the
natives and the settlers; the former on two occasions either defeating
or repulsing the British arms.

In France the most important events were the Bill for fortifying
Paris, the campaign waged against Abd-el-Kader in Algeria, and a
horrible act of cruelty perpetrated there. In Spain Don Carlos
abdicated his claims to the throne in favour of his son; the
Queen’s engagement to Count Trapani was rumoured. In other parts
of Europe little that was eventful occurred.

[page 32]

CHAPTER XIV

1845

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Windsor Castle, 14th January 1845.

My dearest Uncle,—What you say about Aquila¹ and
Montpensier interests me. What madness is it then to force
Trapani on Spain! Pray explain to me the cause of the
King’s obstinacy about that Spanish marriage, for no country
has a right to dictate in that way to another. If Tatane² was
to think of the Infanta, England would be extremely indignant,
and would (and with right) consider it tantamount to a marriage
with the Queen herself. Ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 1: Louis Charles, Comte d’Aquila, a son of Francis I., King of the Two Sicilies, and brother
of the Comte de Trapani and of Queen Christina; he and his brother were therefore
uncles of Queen Isabella.

Footnote 2: The Duc de Montpensier.

The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

Laeken, 18th January 1845.

My dearest Victoria,—… The Spanish marriage
question is really very curious; in fact, all the other Bourbon
branches are hostile to the Orleans family, but the idea that
makes the King so constant in his views about it, is that he
imagines it would create in France a bad impression if now any
other than a Bourbon was to marry the Queen of Spain. That
feeling they have themselves created, as in France they did not
at all care about it; having, however, declared quasi officially
in the French Chambers that they will not have any but a
Bourbon, if circumstances should after all decide it otherwise
it would now be a defeat, but certainly one of their own making…. Your devoted Uncle,

Leopold R.

[page 33]

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Windsor Castle, 28th January 1845.

…The feeling of loyalty in this country is happily very
strong, and wherever we show ourselves we are most heartily
and warmly received, and the civilities and respect shown to
us by those we visit is most satisfactory. I mention merely a
trifling instance to show how respectful they are—the Duke of
Buckingham, who is immensely proud, bringing the cup of
coffee after dinner on a waiter to Albert himself. And everywhere
my dearest Angel receives the respect and honours I
receive.

Many thanks for returning the list;³ it was not Albert but
Tatane who made the black crosses. Are not “Les 3 Mousquetaires,”
by Dumas, and “Arthur,” by Eugène Sue, readable
for me?

Now adieu, dearest, best Uncle. Ever your truly devoted
Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 3: A list of French books which the Queen was proposing to read.

Queen Victoria to Sir Robert Peel.

STATE OF BUCKINGHAM PALACE

Pavilion, 10th February 1845.

Though the Queen knows that Sir Robert Peel has already
turned his attention to the urgent necessity of doing something
to Buckingham Palace, the Queen thinks it right to recommend
this subject herself to his serious consideration. Sir Robert is
acquainted with the state of the Palace and the total want of
accommodation for our little family, which is fast growing up.
Any building must necessarily take some years before it can
be safely inhabited. If it were to be begun this autumn, it
could hardly be occupied before the spring of 1848, when the
Prince of Wales would be nearly seven, and the Princess Royal
nearly eight years old, and they cannot possibly be kept in
the nursery any longer. A provision for this purpose ought,
therefore, to be made this year. Independent of this, most
parts of the Palace are in a sad state, and will ere long require
a further outlay to render them decent for the occupation of
the Royal Family or any visitors the Queen may have to
receive. A room, capable of containing a larger number of
those persons whom the Queen has to invite in the course of
the season to balls, concerts, etc., than any of the present
[page 34]
apartments can at once hold, is much wanted. Equally so,
improved offices and servants’ rooms, the want of which puts
the departments of the household to great expense yearly.
It will be for Sir Robert to consider whether it would not be
best to remedy all these deficiencies at once, and to make use
of this opportunity to render the exterior of the Palace such
as no longer to be a disgrace to the country, which it certainly
now is. The Queen thinks the country would be better pleased
to have the question of the Sovereign’s residence in London so
finally disposed of, than to have it so repeatedly brought
before it.⁴

Footnote 4: Peel replied that, as a renewal of the Income Tax was about to be proposed, it would
be better to postpone the application to Parliament till the public feeling as to the tax
had been ascertained.

Queen Victoria to Sir Robert Peel.

TITLE OF KING CONSORT

Pavilion, 18th February 1845.

The Queen has received Sir Robert Peel’s letter, and is glad
that the progress in the House of Commons was so satisfactory.

The Queen was much hurt at Mr Borthwick’s most impertinent
manner of putting the question with respect to the
title of King Consort, and much satisfied with Sir Robert’s
answer.⁵ The title of King is open assuredly to many difficulties,
and would perhaps be no real advantage to the Prince,
but the Queen is positive that something must at once be
done to place the Prince’s position on a constitutionally
recognised footing, and to give him a title adequate to that
position.⁶ How and when, are difficult questions….

Footnote 5: A paragraph had appeared in the Morning Chronicle, giving credence to a rumour that
this title was about to be conferred on the Prince, but, in answer to Mr Peter Borthwick,
Sir Robert Peel positively contradicted it.

Footnote 6:

Sir Robert Peel to the Prince Albert.

Whitehall, 15th February 1845.

Sir,–I received yesterday the accompanying note from Mr Borthwick, and in conformity
with the notice therein given, he put the question to me in the House of Commons
last evening respecting the paragraph which appeared in the Morning Chronicle respecting
the intention of proposing to Parliament that your Royal Highness should assume
the title of King Consort.

I very much regret that the Morning Chronicle inserted that paragraph.

The prominent place assigned to it in the newspaper, and a vague intimation that there
was some authority for it, have caused a certain degree of credit to be attached to it. It
has been copied into all the country newspapers and has given rise to a good deal of conjecture
and speculation, which it is far from desirable to excite without necessity.

It appears to me that the editor of the Morning Chronicle acted most unwarrantably
in inserting such a paragraph with a pretence of some sort of authority for it.

It has produced an impression which strongly confirms the observations which I took
the liberty of making to your Royal Highness on Sunday evening.

I trust, however, that my decided contradiction of the paragraph will put a stop to
further surmise and discussion on the subject.

To Mr Borthwick’s note I add one of several letters addressed to me, which shows the
proneness to speculate upon constitutional novelties.

I have the honour to be, Sir, with sincere respect, your Royal Highness’s most faithful
and obedient Servant,

Robert Peel.

[page 35]

Queen Victoria to Sir Robert Peel.

Windsor Castle, 24th March 1845.

The Queen has received Sir Robert Peel’s box containing his
recommendation relative to the filling up of the vacant Bishopric
of Ely. The Queen quite approves of the present Dean of
Westminster⁷ as the new Bishop. As Sir Robert has asked
the Queen whether she would like to see Archdeacon Wilberforce
succeed to the Deanery of Westminster in case the Dean
should accept the Bishopric, she must say that such an
arrangement would be very satisfactory to us, and the Queen
believes would highly please the Archdeacon. This would
again vacate, the Queen believes, a stall at Winchester, which
she would like to see filled by a person decidedly adverse to
Puseyism.

The Queen approves of the Bishop of Lichfield⁸ being
transferred to the See of Ely in case Doctor Turton should
decline it.

It would give the Queen much pleasure to stand sponsor
to Sir Robert Peel’s little grandson, and perhaps Sir Robert
would communicate this to Lady Villiers.

Footnote 7: Dr Thomas Turton (1780-1864), formerly Dean of Peterborough.

Footnote 8: John Lonsdale (1788-1867) was Bishop of Lichfield from 1843 till his death.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

PURCHASE OF OSBORNE

Windsor Castle, 25th March 1845.

… I copied what you wrote me about Peel⁹ in a letter
I wrote him, which I am sure will please him much, and a
Minister in these days does require a little encouragement,
for the abuse and difficulties they have to contend with are
dreadful. Peel works so hard and has so much to do, that
sometimes he says he does not know how he is to get through
it all!

You will, I am sure, be pleased to hear that we have succeeded
in purchasing Osborne in the Isle of Wight,¹⁰ and if
we can manage it, we shall probably run down there before
we return to Town, for three nights. It sounds so snug and
nice to have a place of one’s own, quiet and retired, and free
from all Woods and Forests, and other charming Departments
who really are the plague of one’s life.

Now, dearest Uncle, adieu. Ever your truly devoted
Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 9: See Peel’s reply, Life of the Prince Consort, chap. xiii.

Footnote 10: The purchase was suggested by Sir Robert Peel.

[page 36]

Queen Victoria to Viscount Melbourne.

Buckingham Palace, 3rd April 1845.

The Queen had intended to have written to Lord Melbourne
from Osborne to thank him for his last note of the 19th, but
we were so occupied, and so delighted with our new and really
delightful home, that she hardly had time for anything;
besides which the weather was so beautiful, that we were
out almost all day. The Queen refers Lord Melbourne to
Mr Anson for particulars of the new property, which is very
extensive, as she is not at all competent to explain about
acres, etc. But she thinks it is impossible to imagine a prettier
spot—valleys and woods which would be beautiful anywhere;
but all this near the sea (the woods grow into the sea) is quite
perfection; we have a charming beach quite to ourselves.
The sea was so blue and calm that the Prince said it was like
Naples. And then we can walk about anywhere by ourselves
without being followed and mobbed, which Lord Melbourne
will easily understand is delightful. And last, not least, we
have Portsmouth and Spithead so close at hand, that we shall
be able to watch what is going on, which will please the Navy,
and be hereafter very useful for our boys.

The Children are all well. The Queen has just had a lithograph
made after a little drawing which she did herself of the
three eldest, and which she will send Lord Melbourne with
some Eau de Cologne.

Fanny and Lord Jocelyn dined here last night; she is
looking very well, and he seems much pleased at being in
office, and being employed.

The Queen hopes Lord Melbourne is enjoying this fine
weather, and here concludes with the Prince’s kind remembrance.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

THE MAYNOOTH GRANT

Buckingham Palace, 15th April 1845.

My beloved Uncle,—Here we are in a great state of
agitation about one of the greatest measures ever proposed;¹¹
I am sure poor Peel ought to be blessed by all Catholics for the
manly and noble way in which he stands forth to protect and
do good to poor Ireland. RELIGIOUS BIGOTRYBut the bigotry, the wicked and
[page 37]
blind passions it brings forth is quite dreadful, and I blush
for Protestantism!¹² A Presbyterian clergyman said very
truly, “Bigotry is more common than shame….”

Footnote 11: The Bill to increase the grant to the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth was carried
by Peel in the teeth of opposition from half his party: another measure was passed to
establish colleges for purely secular teaching (“godless colleges” they were nicknamed)
in Cork, Belfast, and Galway, and affiliate them to a new Irish university.

Footnote 12: As Macaulay had said during the previous night’s debate: “The Orangeman raises
his war whoop, Exeter Hall sets up its bray, Mr Macneile shudders to see more costly
cheer than ever provided for the priests of Baal at the table of the Queen, and the Protestant
operatives of Dublin call for impeachments in exceedingly bad English.”

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Buckingham Palace, 23rd April 1845.

My dearest Uncle,—Our Maynooth Bill is through the
second reading. I think, if you read Sir Robert’s admirable
speeches, you will see how good his plan is. The Catholics are
quite delighted at it—full of gratitude, and behave extremely
well; but the Protestants behave shockingly, and display a
narrow-mindedness and want of sense on the subject of religion
which is quite a disgrace to the nation. The case of Austria,
France, etc., cannot be compared to this, as this is a Protestant
country, while the others are Catholic; and I think it would
never do to support a Roman Catholic Church with money
belonging to the Protestant Church. The Protestant Establishment
in Ireland must remain untouched, but let the Roman
Catholic Clergy be well and handsomely educated.

The Duc de Broglie¹³ dined with us last night; his travaux
are going on satisfactorily; he asked when you were coming,
and said you were “beaucoup Anglais et un peu Français,”
which is true, I think.

With Albert’s affectionate respects, believe me always, your
devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 13: Achille Charles, Duc de Broglie, ex-Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Mr Goulburn¹⁴ to Queen Victoria.

Downing Street, 30th April 1845.

Mr Goulburn submits with his humble duty to your Majesty
that several representations have been made to the Treasury
as to the convenience which the public would derive from the
circulation of silver threepenny-pieces. Such pieces are lawfully
current under your Majesty’s Proclamation of the 5th
July 1838. But as such pieces have been hitherto reserved
as your Majesty’s Maundy money, and as such especially
[page 38]
belong to your Majesty’s service, Mr Goulburn considers that
a coinage of them for general use could not take place without
a particular signification of your Majesty’s pleasure.

Mr Goulburn therefore humbly submits for your Majesty’s
gracious consideration the signification of your Majesty’s
pleasure as to the issue of such a coinage.

Footnote 14: Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sir James Graham to Queen Victoria.

PUBLIC EXECUTIONS

Whitehall, 13th May 1845.

Sir James Graham, with humble duty, begs to lay before
your Majesty the enclosed Memorial.

The proceedings in Newgate on the occasion of the last
condemned sermon and on the morning of the execution have
been fully investigated;¹⁵ and the report established the
necessity of legislative interference to prevent the recurrence
of scenes so disgraceful and demoralising. The policy of
depriving capital executions of their present publicity is well
worthy of careful revision; and Sir James Graham, in obedience
to your Majesty’s desire, will bring the subject under
the notice of his colleagues. He is disposed to think that the
sentence might be carried into execution in the presence of a
Jury to be summoned by the Sheriff with good effect; and
that the great body of idle spectators might be excluded, without
diminishing the salutary terror and awful warning which
this extreme punishment is intended to produce on the public
mind. In dealing, however, with a matter in which the community
has so deep an interest, it is prudent not to violate
public opinion, and caution is necessary before a change of
the long-established usage is proposed.¹⁶

Sir James Graham deeply regrets the part taken by the
newspapers in seeking to indulge the general curiosity with
respect to all details of the conduct, habits, and demeanour
of these wretched criminals in their last moments; but he
fears that the license of the Press cannot be checked by any
act of authority; if the public be excluded from witnessing
the executions, they will probably become still more anxious
to obtain a printed report of all that has taken place; and
Sir James Graham is so thoroughly convinced that the punishment
of death in certain cases must be maintained, that he
would consider any course inexpedient which was likely to
[page 39]
lead the public to desire the remission of capital executions in
all cases without exception….

J. R. G. Graham.

Footnote 15: The attraction these executions had for the general public was at this time a great
scandal.

Footnote 16: Public executions were abolished in 1868.

The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

A BIRTHDAY LETTER

Laeken, 21st May 1845.

My dearest and most beloved Victoria,—Receive my
sincerest and most heartfelt good wishes on the happy reappearance
of your birthday. I need not dwell on my sentiments
of devotion to you; they began with your life, and
will only end with mine. The only claim I make is to be
remembered with some little affection. Thank heaven, I have
little to wish you, than that your present happiness may not
be disturbed, and that those who are dear to you may be
preserved for your happiness.

My gift is Charlotte’s portrait. THE PRINCESS CHARLOTTEThe face is extremely like,
and the likest that exists; the hair is a little too fair, it had
become also darker. I take this opportunity to repeat that
Charlotte was a noble-minded and highly gifted creature.
She was nervous, as all the family have been; she could be
violent, but then she was full of repentance for it, and her
disposition highly generous and susceptible of great
devotion.

I am the more bound to say this, as I understood that you
had some notion that she had been very imperious, and not
mistress of her temper. Before her marriage some people by
dint of flattery had tried to give her masculine tastes; and in
short had pushed her to become one day a sort of Queen
Elizabeth. These sentiments were already a little modified
before her marriage. But she was particularly determined to
be a good and obedient wife; some of her friends were anxious
she should not; amongst these Madame de Flahaut must be
mentioned en première ligne.

This became even a subject which severed the intimacy between
them. Madame de Flahaut, much older than Charlotte,
and of a sour and determined character, had gained an influence
which partook on Charlotte’s part a little of fear. She was
afraid of her, but when once supported took courage.

People were much struck on the 2nd of May 1816 at Carlton
House with the clearness and firmness with which she pronounced
“and obey,” etc., as there had been a general belief
that it would be for the husband to give these promises. The
Regent put me particularly on my guard, and said, “If you
don’t resist she will govern you with a high hand.” Your
own experience has convinced you that real affection changes
[page 40]
many sentiments that may have been implanted into the
mind of a young girl. With Charlotte it was the more meritorious,
as from a very early period of her life she was considered
as the heiress of the Crown; the Whigs flattered her
extremely, and later, when she got by my intervention reconciled
to the Tories, they also made great efforts to please her.

Her understanding was extremely good; she knew everybody,
and I even afterwards found her judgment generally
extremely correct. She had read a great deal and knew well
what she had read. Generous she was almost too much, and her
devotion was quite affecting, from a character so much pushed
to be selfish and imperious.

I will here end my souvenir of poor dear Charlotte, but I
thought that the subject could not but be interesting to you.
Her constancy in wishing to marry me, which she maintained
under difficulties of every description, has been the foundation
of all that touched the family afterwards. You know, I
believe, that your poor father was the chief promoter, though
also the Yorks were; but our correspondence from 1814 till
1816 was entirely carried on through his kind intervention;
it would otherwise have been impossible, as she was really
treated as a sort of prisoner. Grant always to that good and
generous Charlotte, who sleeps already with her beautiful
little boy so long, where all will go to, an affectionate remembrance,
and believe me she deserves it.

Forgive my long letter, and see in it, what it really is, a
token of the great affection I have for you. Ever, my dearest
Victoria, your devoted Uncle.

Leopold R.

Queen Victoria to Sir Robert Peel.

Windsor Castle, 12th June 1845.

The Queen understands that the Deanery of Worcester has
become vacant by some new arrangement. Believing that
Sir Robert’s brother, Mr John Peel, has a fair claim to such
preferment, but being afraid that Sir Robert would perhaps
hesitate to recommend him on account of his near relationship
to him, the Queen wishes to offer herself this Deanery through
Sir Robert to his brother.

Sir Robert Peel to Queen Victoria.

Windsor Castle, 12th June 1845.

Sir Robert Peel, with his humble duty to your Majesty,
hastens to acknowledge your Majesty’s most kind and considerate
[page 41]
communication, and to express his grateful acknowledgments
for it.

He must, in justice to his brother, assure your Majesty that
he never has expressed, and probably never would express, a
wish to Sir Robert Peel on the subject of preferment in the
Church.

Sir Robert Peel might have hesitated to bring the name of
one so nearly connected with him under the notice of your
Majesty, but as his brother was highly distinguished in his
academical career at Oxford, and is greatly respected for the
discharge of every professional duty, Sir Robert Peel could not
feel himself justified in offering an impediment to the fulfilment
of your Majesty’s gracious intentions in his favour, if,
when the vacancy shall have actually occurred in the Deanery
of Worcester, no superior claim should be preferred.¹⁷

Footnote 17: Dean Peel lived till 1875.

Lord Stanley to Queen Victoria.

AUSTRALIAN WINE

Downing Street, 10th July 1845.

Lord Stanley, with his humble duty, submits to your
Majesty a despatch just received from the Governor of South
Australia, enclosing the letter of a settler in the province,
Mr Walter Duffield, who is anxious to be allowed the honour of
offering for your Majesty’s acceptance a case of the first wine
which has been made in the colony.

Lord Stanley will not venture to answer for the quality of
the vintage; but as the wine has been sent over with a loyal
and dutiful feeling, and the importer, as well as the colonists
in general, might feel hurt by a refusal of his humble offering,
he ventures to hope that he may be permitted to signify,
through the Governor, your Majesty’s gracious acceptance of
the first sample of a manufacture which, if successful, may add
greatly to the resources of this young but now thriving colony.

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

Stanley.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

THE KING OF HOLLAND

Osborne, 29th July 1845.

My dearest Uncle,—Accept my best thanks for your very
kind little note of the 26th. As Albert writes to you about the
[page 42]
King of Holland’s visit¹⁸ I will say but little, except that it
really went off wonderfully well in our little house. We took
him a sail in the Victoria and Albert on Saturday, which he
admired amazingly, and after luncheon he went away, Albert
taking him over to Gosport. He intends, I believe, to come
here one morning for luncheon to take leave. He is grown old,
and has lost all his front teeth, but he is as talkative and lively
as he used to be, and seems very happy to be in England again.
He was very anxious that we should pay him a visit this year,
but was quite satisfied when we told him that this year it was
impossible, but that we hoped some other time to do so. He
was much struck at seeing me now independent and unembarrassed,
and talking; as when he was here in 1836¹⁹ I
was extremely crushed and kept under and hardly dared say
a word, so that he was quite astonished. He thought me
grown. Believe me, always, dearest Uncle, your devoted
Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 18: This visit lasted ten days, and included a visit to Goodwood races and a review of the
Household troops in Hyde Park. His Majesty was also appointed a Field-Marshal.

Footnote 19: Ante, vol. i. p. 47. He was then Prince of Orange, and succeeded his father, who
abdicated in his favour in 1840.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Melbourne.

Osborne, 31st July 1845.

The Queen thanks Lord Melbourne very much for his last
kind letter of the 11th, by which she was truly rejoiced to see
he was better. We are comfortably and peacefully established
here since the 19th, and derive the greatest benefit, pleasure,
and satisfaction from our little possession here. The dear
Prince is constantly occupied in directing the many necessary
improvements which are to be made, and in watching our new
house, which is a constant interest and amusement. We are
most anxiously waiting for the conclusion of the Session that
we may set off on our much-wished-for journey to Germany.
The Queen is extremely sorry to leave England without seeing
Lord Melbourne, and without having seen him all this season;
but something or other always prevented us from seeing Lord
Melbourne each time we hoped to do so. We only return the
night before the Prorogation and embark that same day. We
have the children here. We went to the Undercliff—Ventnor,
Bonchurch, etc.—on Monday, and were much delighted with
all we saw. We had a visit from the King of Holland last
week, who is grown old, but otherwise just the same as he used
to be.

[page 43]

The Queen joins with Lord Melbourne in unfeigned satisfaction
at the success of the Irish measures, after so much
factious opposition. Lord Grey’s death²⁰ will have shocked
Lord Melbourne, as it has us. Poor Lord Dunmore’s death is
a very shocking event. The Prince wishes to be most kindly
remembered to Lord Melbourne.

Footnote 20: Charles, second Earl Grey, had been Prime Minister, 1830-1834.

Sir Robert Peel to Queen Victoria.

THE SOVEREIGN’S ABSENCE

Whitehall, 6th August 1845.

Sir Robert Peel presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and begs leave to acquaint your Majesty that in the course of
a long speech made by Lord John Russell last night, reviewing
the policy of the Government and the proceedings of the
Session, Lord John expressed himself strongly on the subject
of your Majesty’s absence from the country, without provision
made for the exercise of the Royal authority by the appointment
of Lords Justices.

Sir Robert Peel thinks it very probable that a motion will be
made upon the subject in the course of the next Session—particularly
in the event of any occurrence during your
Majesty’s absence, which might cause public inconvenience
from the want of immediate access to the Royal authority, or
compel any assumption of power on the part of your Majesty’s
servants of a questionable character.

The present Law Officers of the Crown were rather startled
at the intention of departing from the precedent of George IV.’s
reign, on seeing the legal opinions of their predecessors; they
did not differ from the legal doctrines laid down by them, but
were not very well satisfied on the point of discretion and
policy.

Sir Robert Peel feels it to be his duty to state to your
Majesty what has passed on this subject, and to apprize your
Majesty of the possibility of a question being hereafter raised
in Parliament upon it.

Sir Robert Peel thinks that in the case of a short absence,
and a distance not precluding easy and rapid communication
with your Majesty, the appointment of Lords Justices may be
dispensed with; but he is humbly of opinion that were the
distance greater or the period of absence longer than that
contemplated by your Majesty, the reasons for the nomination
of Lords Justices would preponderate.

[page 44]

Should the subject be again mentioned in Parliament and
a direct question be put upon it, Sir Robert Peel will, of
course, assume the entire responsibility for the non-appointment
of Lords Justices; vindicating the departure from the
precedent of George IV. on the ground of the shorter period
of absence and the more easy means of communication.²¹…

Footnote 21: The Queen was accompanied by a Secretary of State (Lord Aberdeen), so that an act
of State could be performed as well abroad as at home; see Life of the Prince Consort,
vol. i. p. 272.

The Earl of Aberdeen to Sir Robert Peel.

VISIT TO THE CHÂTEAU D’EU

Château d’Eu, 8th September 1845.

My dear Peel,—We left Antwerp very early yesterday
morning, and anchored for a few hours off Flushing.²² We
passing down the Channel during the night, and as the weather
was perfectly bright and fine, found ourselves off Tréport
before nine o’clock this morning. The King came off to the
yacht, and took the Queen in his barge to land. I need not say
how joyfully she was received by all the Royal Family.

Although I shall have opportunities, both this evening and
to-morrow morning, of speaking again with the King and
Guizot, I have already discussed several subjects with each of
them; and as the Queen particularly desires to send a messenger
this evening, I will give you some notion of what has
passed between us.

THE SPANISH MARRIAGESI think the marriage of the Queen of Spain is the subject on
which the greatest interest is felt at this moment. It was the
first introduced, both by the King and Guizot, and treated by
both in the same manner. They said, that having promised
to support the King of Naples, they were bound not to abandon
the Count de Trapani, so long as there was a chance of his being
successful in his suit. I said in answer to their desire, that we
would assist this arrangement, that we had no objection to
Count Trapani, and that we would take no part against him;
but unless it should be the decided wish of the Spanish Government
and people, we could give no support to the marriage,
as we were honestly of opinion that it was not desired in Spain,
and that we saw nothing in the proposal to call for our support
under these circumstances. Both the King and Guizot said
[page 45]
they had no objection to the Duke of Saville²³ (Don Enrique),
and that if it should be found that Count Trapani was impossible,
they would willingly support him.

With respect to the Infanta, they both declared in the most
positive and explicit manner, that until the Queen was married
and had children, they should consider the Infanta precisely
as her sister, and that any marriage with a French Prince
would be entirely out of the question. The King said he did
not wish that his son should have the prospect of being on the
throne of Spain; but that if the Queen had children, by whom
the succession would be secured, he did not engage to preclude
himself from the possibility of profiting by the great inheritance
which the Infanta would bring his son. All this,
however, was uncertain, and would require time at all events
to accomplish; for I distinctly understood, that it was not only
a marriage and a child, but children, that were necessary to
secure the succession.

I thought this was as much as we could desire at present, and
that the policy of a marriage with a French Prince might safely
be left to be considered whenever the contingency contemplated
should arrive. Many things may happen, both in
France and Spain, in the course of a few years to affect this
question in a manner not now apparent.

Aberdeen.

Footnote 22: Parliament was prorogued on the 9th of August, and the Queen and Prince sailed
in the evening for Antwerp in the Royal yacht. Sir Theodore Martin gives a very full
description of the visit to Coburg. The Queen was especially delighted with the Rosenau
and Reinhardtsbrunn. On the morning of the 8th of September the yacht, which had left
the Scheldt on the previous evening, arrived at Tréport, and a second visit was paid to
the King and Queen of the French at the Château d’Eu.

Footnote 23: Younger son of Don Francisco de Paula, and first cousin to Queen Isabella, both
through his father and his mother.

Sir Robert Peel to Queen Victoria.

CHURCH APPOINTMENTS

Osborne, 15th September 1845.

Sir Robert Peel, with his humble duty to your Majesty, begs
leave to acquaint your Majesty that there remains the sum of
£700 to be applied in the current year to the grant of Civil
List Pensions.

Sir Robert Peel humbly recommends to your Majesty that
another sum of £200 should be offered to Mr Tennyson, a poet
of whose powers of imagination and expression many competent
judges think most highly.

He was brought under the notice of Sir Robert Peel by
Mr Hallam. His pecuniary circumstances are far from being
prosperous.

There is a vacancy in the Deanery of Lincoln, but the preferment
is less eligible from there being no residence, and the
necessity for building one at the immediate expense of the new
Dean.

[page 46]

Sir Robert Peel is inclined to recommend to your Majesty
that an offer of this preferment should be made to Mr Ward,
the Rector of St James’s.

Should Mr Ward decline, there is a clergyman of the name
of Maurice,²⁴ of whom the Archbishop says: “Of unbeneficed
London clergy there is no one, I believe, who is so much distinguished
by his learning and literary talent as the Rev.
Frederick Maurice, Chaplain of St Guy’s Hospital. His
private character is equally estimable.”

Should Mr Ward decline²⁵ the Deanery it might, should your
Majesty approve of it, be offered to Mr Maurice. The Archbishop
says that the appointment of Mr Maurice would be
very gratifying to the King of Prussia.

Footnote 24: Frederick Denison Maurice (1805-1872), the friend of Kingsley, afterwards Chaplain
of St. Peter’s, Vere Street.

Footnote 25: Mr Ward accepted the Deanery.

The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

St Cloud, 10th October 1845.

My dearest Victoria,—… All you say about our dear
Albert, whom I love like my own child, is perfectly true. The
attacks, however unjust, have but one advantage, that of
showing the points the enemy thinks weakest and best calculated
to hurt. This, being the case, Anson, without boring A.
with daily accounts which in the end become very irksome,
should pay attention to these very points, and contribute to
avoid what may be turned to account by the enemy. To hope
to escape censure and calumny is next to impossible, but whatever
is considered by the enemy as a fit subject for attack is
better modified or avoided. The dealings with artists, for instance,
require great prudence; they are acquainted with all
classes of society, and for that very reason dangerous; they are
hardly ever satisfied, and when you have too much to do with
them, you are sure to have des ennuis…. Your devoted
Uncle,

Leopold R.

Queen Victoria to Lord Stanley.

LORD METCALFE

Windsor Castle, 2nd November 1845.

The Queen has read with great concern Lord Stanley’s letter
of the 1st November. From private information she had been
led to expect that Lord Metcalfe would not be able to continue
[page 47]
at his irksome post.²⁶ He will be an immense loss, and the
selection of a successor will be most difficult. The Queen hopes
that there will not be too great a delay in making the new
appointment, as experience has shown that nothing was more
detrimental to the good government of Canada than the last
interregnum after Sir Charles Bagot’s death; it would certainly
likewise be desirable that Lord Metcalfe should be able
personally to make over his Government to his successor,
whom he could verbally better put in possession of the peculiarities
of his position than any instructions could do. It
strikes the Queen to be of the greatest importance, that the
judicious system pursued by Lord Metcalfe (and which, after
a long continuation of toil and adversities, only now just
begins to show its effect) should be followed up by his successor.

The Queen knows nobody who would be as fit for the
appointment as Lord Elgin, who seems to have given great
satisfaction in Jamaica, where he has already succeeded Lord
Metcalfe, whose original appointment there had likewise taken
place under circumstances of great difficulty, which his prudence
and firmness finally overcame.²⁷

Footnote 26: He retired from the Governor-Generalship of Canada through ill-health.

Footnote 27: Lord Stanley, in reply, submitted a private letter from Lord Elgin, expressing a wish
to return home; Earl Cathcart was provisionally appointed Governor-General.

Queen Victoria to Sir Robert Peel.

Osborne, 28th November 1845.

The Queen is very sorry to hear that Sir Robert Peel apprehends
further differences of opinion in the Cabinet, at a
moment of impending calamity; it is more than ever necessary
that the Government should be strong and united.

The Queen thinks the time is come when a removal of the
restrictions upon the importation of food cannot be successfully
resisted. Should this be Sir Robert’s own opinion, the
Queen very much hopes that none of his colleagues will prevent
him from doing what it is right to do.

Sir Robert Peel to Queen Victoria.

THE CORN LAWS

Whitehall, 4th December 1845.

Sir Robert Peel, with his humble duty to your Majesty, begs
leave to acquaint your Majesty that a leading paragraph in the
[page 48]
Times of to-day, asserting that your Majesty’s servants had
unanimously agreed to an immediate and total repeal of the
Corn Laws, is quite without foundation.²⁸

Footnote 28: See Memoirs of the Life of Henry Reeve, vol. i. p. 175, for Lord Dufferin’s refutation
of the story that Sidney Herbert confided the secret to Mrs Norton, and that she sold it to
the Times. The story has obtained a wide currency through Mr Meredith’s Diana of the
Crossways. Lord Stanmore, in his Life of Sidney Herbert, substantially attributes the
communication to Lord Aberdeen, but does not give the details.

Sir Robert Peel to Queen Victoria.²⁹

Whitehall, 5th December 1845.

(Friday evening.)

Sir Robert Peel presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and will wait upon your Majesty to-morrow evening, leaving
London by the half-past twelve train.

Sir Robert Peel will avail himself of your Majesty’s kind
proposal to remain at Osborne until Monday morning.

He will come to Osborne with a heart full of gratitude and
devotion to your Majesty, but with a strong conviction (all
the grounds for which he will, with your Majesty’s permission,
explain to your Majesty) that in the present state of affairs, he
can render more service to your Majesty and to the country in
a private than in a public station.

Footnote 29: Peel reported to the Queen the Cabinet discussions on the Corn Law question. The
Queen wrote that the news caused her much uneasiness, and that she felt certain that
her Minister would not leave her at a moment of such difficulty, and when a crisis was
impending.

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

CABINET DISSENSIONS

Osborne, 7th December 1845.

On receiving the preceding letter³⁰ … we were, of course,
in great consternation. Yesterday Sir Robert Peel arrived
here and explained the condition of affairs.

Footnote 30: From Sir Robert Peel, 5th December, ante.

INTERVIEW WITH PEEL On 1st November he had called his Cabinet, and placed
before its members the reports of the Irish Commissioners, Dr
Buckland, Dr Playfair and Dr Lindley, on the condition of the
potato crop, which was to the effect that the half of the potatoes
were ruined by the rot, and that no one could guarantee
the remainder. Belgium, Holland, Sweden, and Denmark, in
which states the potato disease had likewise deprived the
poorer class of its usual food, have immediately taken energetic
means, and have opened the harbours, bought corn, and provided
[page 49]
for the case of a rise of prices. Sir Robert proposed the
same thing for England, and, by opening the ports, a preparation
for the abolition of the Corn Laws. His colleagues
refused, and of the whole Cabinet only Lord Aberdeen, Sir
James Graham, and Mr Sidney Herbert voted with him. Sir
Robert hoped that in time the opinions of the others would
change, and therefore postponed a final decision. In the
meanwhile the agitation of the Anti-Corn Law League began;
in every town addresses were voted, meetings were held,
the Times—barometer of public feeling—became suddenly
violently Anti-Corn Law, the meetings of the Cabinet roused
attention, a general panic seized on the mass of the public.
Sir Robert called anew his Cabinet. In the midst of their
deliberation Lord John Russell issues from Edinburgh an
address to the City of London.³¹

Footnote 31: Declaring for the Repeal of the Corn Laws.

The whole country cries out: the Corn Laws are doomed.

Thereon Sir Robert declared to his Cabinet that nothing but
unanimity could save the cause, and pressed for a decision.

The Duke of Buccleuch and Lord Stanley declared they
could not take a part in a measure abolishing the Corn Laws,
and would therefore have to resign. The other members, including
the Duke of Wellington, showed themselves ready to
support Sir Robert, yet, as the latter says, “apparently not
willingly and against their feelings.” Thereupon Sir Robert
resolved to lay down his office as Minister.

When he arrived here he was visibly much moved, and said
to me, that it was one of the most painful moments of his life
to separate himself from us, “but it is necessary, and if I have
erred it was from loyalty and too great an anxiety not to leave
Her Majesty in a moment of such great difficulty. I ought to
have gone when I was first left by my colleagues in a minority
in my own Cabinet. I was anxious, however, to try my
utmost, but it is impossible to retrieve lost time. As soon as I
saw Lord John’s letter I felt that the ground was slipping away
from under me, and that whatever I might now propose would
appear as dictated by the Opposition, as taking Lord John’s
measure. On the 1st of November the whole country was
prepared for the thing; there had been no agitation, everybody
looking to the Government, as soon as they saw this
wavering and hesitating, the country decided for itself, and
Lord John has the merit, owing to his most dexterous move
and our want of unanimity.”

On my observing that Sir Robert has a majority of one
hundred in the House of Commons, and asking whether it
[page 50]
was not possible for him to continue the Government, he
said:—

“The Duke of Buccleuch will carry half Scotland with him,
and Lord Stanley, leading the Protectionists in the House of
Lords, would lead to great and immediate defections even in
Her Majesty’s household. The Duchess of Buccleuch, Lord
Hardwicke, Lord Exeter, Lord Rivers, Lord Beverley, etc.,
would resign, and we should not be able to find successors;
in the House of Commons I am sure I should be beat, the
Tories, agriculturists, etc., in rage would turn round upon me
and be joined by the Whigs and Radicals, who would say,
‘This is our measure and we will not allow you to carry it.’
It is better that I should go now, when nobody has committed
himself in the heat of party contest, when no factions have been
formed, no imprudent declarations been made; it is better for
Her Majesty and for the country that it should be so.”

After we had examined what possibilities were open for the
Crown, the conclusion was come to that Lord John was the
only man who could be charged with forming a Cabinet. Lord
Stanley, with the aristocracy as his base, would bring about an
insurrection [or riots], and the ground on which one would
have to fight would be this: to want to force the mass of
the people, amidst their great poverty, to pay for their bread
a high price, in favour of the landlords.

It is a matter of the utmost importance not to place the
House of Lords into direct antagonism with the Commons
and with the masses of the people. Sir Robert says very
correctly:—

“I am afraid of other interests getting damaged in the
struggle about the Corn Laws; already the system of promotion
in the Army, the Game Laws, the Church, are getting
attacked with the aid of the league.”

After Victoria had in consequence [of the foregoing] decided
in favour of Lord John, and asked Sir Robert: “But
how is it possible for him to govern with so exceedingly small a
minority?” Sir Robert said: “He will have difficulties and
perhaps did not consider what he was doing when he wrote that
letter; but I will support him. I feel it my duty to your
Majesty not to leave you without a Government. Even if
Lord John goes to the full extent of his declaration in that
letter (which I think goes too far), I will support him in Parliament
and use all my influence with the House of Lords to prevent
their impeding his progress. I will do more, if he likes
it. I will say that the increase of the estimates which will
become necessary are my work, and I alone am responsible
for it.”

[page 51]

Sir Robert intends to give me a memorandum in which he
is to make this promise in writing.

He was greatly moved, and said it was not “the loss of
power (for I hate power) nor of office,” which was nothing but
a plague for him, but “the breaking up of those relations in
which he stood to the Queen and me, and the loss of our
society,” which was for him a loss, for which there was no
equivalent; we might, however, rely on his being always ready
to serve us, in what manner and in what place it might be.
Lord Aberdeen is said to feel the same, and very deeply so;
and on our side the loss of two so estimable men, who possess
our whole and perfect confidence in public as well as in private
affairs, and have always proved themselves true friends, leaves
a great gap.

Albert.

Victoria to Viscount Melbourne.

LORD MELBOURNE INFORMED

Osborne, 7th December 1845.

Sir Robert Peel has informed the Queen that in consequence
of differences prevailing in the Cabinet, he is very reluctantly
compelled to solicit from the Queen the acceptance of his
resignation, which she has as reluctantly accepted.

From the Queen’s unabated confidence in Lord Melbourne,
her first impulse was to request his immediate attendance here
that she might have the benefit of his assistance and advice,
but on reflection the Queen does not think herself justified, in
the present state of Lord Melbourne’s health, to ask him to
make the sacrifice which the return to his former position of
Prime Minister would, she fears, impose upon him.

It is this consideration, and this alone, that has induced the
Queen to address to Lord John Russell the letter of which
she sends a copy. The Queen hopes, however, that Lord
Melbourne will not withhold from her new Government his
advice, which would be so valuable to her.

It is of the utmost importance that the whole of this communication
should be kept a most profound secret until the
Queen has seen Lord John Russell.

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

LORD MELBOURNE’S ATTITUDE

8th December 1845.

Sir Robert helped us in the composition of the letters to
Lord John and to Lord Melbourne. We considered it necessary
[page 52]
to write to the latter, in consideration of the confidential
position which he formerly enjoyed.

Sir Robert Peel has not resigned, thinking it a matter of
great strength for the Sovereign to keep his ministry until a
new one can be got.

Albert.

Viscount Melbourne to Queen Victoria.

Brocket Hall, 9th December 1845.

Lord Melbourne presents his humble duty to your Majesty;
he has just received your Majesty’s letter of the 7th inst.,
which, of course, has astonished him by the magnitude of the
event which it announces, although something of this sort has
been long pending and to be expected. Lord Melbourne returns
your Majesty many thanks for this communication, and
more for your Majesty’s great kindness and consideration for
him personally at the present moment. He is better, but so
long a journey would still not have been convenient to him,
and he has such a horror of the sea, that a voyage from Southampton
to Cowes or from Portsmouth to Ryde seems to him in
prospect as formidable as a voyage across the Atlantic.

Lord Melbourne will strictly observe your Majesty’s injunction
of secrecy.

With respect to the kind wishes about office which your
Majesty is pleased to express, Lord Melbourne will of course
give to your Majesty’s new Government, if formed under Lord
John Russell, all the support in his power, but as to taking
office, he fears that he would find some difficulty. He would
be very unwilling to come in pledged to a total and immediate
reform of the Corn Law, and he also strongly feels the difficulty
which has in fact compelled Sir Robert Peel to retire, viz.
the difficulty of carrying on the Government upon the principle
of upholding and maintaining the present law with respect
to corn.

Lord Melbourne again thanks your Majesty for your great
and considerate kindness.

Sir Robert Peel to Queen Victoria.

PEEL’S ATTITUDE

Whitehall, 10th December 1845.

Sir Robert Peel presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and influenced by no other motive than the desire to contribute
if possible to the relief of your Majesty from embarrassment,
[page 53]
and the protection of the public interests from injury, is induced
to make this confidential communication to your Majesty
explanatory of his position and intentions with regard to the
great question which is now agitating the public mind.

Your Majesty can, if you think fit, make this communication
known to the Minister who, as successor to Sir Robert Peel,
may be honoured by your Majesty’s confidence.

On the first day of November last Sir Robert Peel advised
his colleagues, on account of the alarming accounts from Ireland
and many districts of Great Britain as to the failure of the
potato crop from disease, and for the purpose of guarding
against contingencies which in his opinion were not improbable,
humbly to recommend to your Majesty that the duties on the
import of foreign grain should be suspended for a limited period
either by Order in Council, or by Legislative Enactment,
Parliament in either case being summoned without delay.

Sir Robert Peel foresaw that this suspension, fully justified
by the tenor of the reports to which he has referred, would
compel, during the interval of suspension, the reconsideration
of the Corn Laws.

If the opinions of his colleagues had been in concurrence
with his own, he was fully prepared to take the responsibility
of suspension, and of the necessary consequence of suspension,
a comprehensive review of the laws imposing restrictions on
the import of foreign grain and other articles of food, with a
view to their gradual diminution and ultimate removal. He
was disposed to recommend that any new laws to be enacted
should contain within themselves the principle of gradual
and ultimate removal.

Sir Robert Peel is prepared to support in a private capacity
measures which may be in general conformity with those which
he advised as a Minister.

It would be unbecoming in Sir Robert Peel to make any
reference to the details of such measures.

Your Majesty has been good enough to inform him that it
is your intention to propose to Lord John Russell to undertake
the formation of a Government.

The principle on which Sir Robert Peel was prepared to recommend
the reconsideration of the laws affecting the import
of the main articles of food, was in general accordance with that
referred to in the concluding paragraph of Lord John Russell’s
letter to the electors of the City of London.³²

[page 54]

Sir Robert Peel wished to accompany the removal of restrictions
on the admission of such articles, with relief to the
land from such charges as are unduly onerous, and with such
other provisions as in the terms of Lord John Russell’s letter
“caution and even scrupulous forbearance may suggest.”

Sir Robert Peel will support measures founded on that
general principle, and will exercise any influence he may possess
to promote their success.

Sir Robert Peel feels it to be his duty to add, that should
your Majesty’s servants, after consideration of the heavy demands
upon the Army of this country for colonial service, of
our relations with the United States, and of the bearing which
steam navigation may have upon maritime warfare, and the
defence of the country, deem it advisable to propose an addition
to the Army, and increased naval and military estimates,
Sir Robert Peel will support the proposal, will do all that he
can to prevent it from being considered as indicative of hostile
or altered feeling towards France, and will assume for the
increase in question any degree of responsibility present or
retrospective which can fairly attach to him.

Robert Peel.

Footnote 32: That paragraph urged that, with a revision of taxation to make the arrangement more
equitable, and the safeguards suggested by caution and scrupulous forbearance, restrictions
on the admission of the main articles of food and clothing used by the mass of the
people should be removed.

Lord Stanley to Queen Victoria.

LORD STANLEY RESIGNS

St James’s Square, 11th December 1845.

… Lord Stanley humbly hopes that he may be permitted
to avail himself of this opportunity to express to your Majesty
the deep regret and pain with which he has felt himself compelled
to dissent from the advice intended to have been
tendered to your Majesty on the subject of the Corn Laws. He
begs to assure your Majesty that he would have shrunk from
making no personal sacrifice, short of that of principle, for the
purpose of avoiding the inconvenience to your Majesty and to
the country inseparable from any change of Administration;
but being unconvinced of the necessity of a change of policy
involving an abandonment of opinions formerly maintained,
and expectations held out to political supporters, he felt that
the real interests of your Majesty’s service could not be promoted
by the loss of personal character which the sacrifice of
his own convictions would necessarily have involved; and
that he might far more usefully serve your Majesty and the
country out of office, than as the official advocate of a policy
which he could not sincerely approve. Lord Stanley begs to
assure your Majesty that it will be his earnest endeavour to
allay, as far as may lie in his power, the excitement which he
cannot but foresee as the consequence of the contemplated
[page 55]
change of policy; and he ventures to indulge the hope that
this long trespass upon your Majesty’s much occupied time may
find a sufficient apology in the deep anxiety which he feels
that his regret at being compelled not only to retire from your
Majesty’s service, but also to take a step which he is aware
may have had some influence on the course finally adopted by
Sir Robert Peel, may not be still farther increased by the
apprehension of having, in the performance of a most painful
duty, incurred your Majesty’s displeasure. All which is
humbly submitted by your Majesty’s most dutiful Servant
and Subject,

Stanley.

Queen Victoria to Lord Stanley.

Osborne, 12th December 1845.

The Queen, of course, much regrets that Lord Stanley could
not agree in the opinions of Sir Robert Peel upon a subject of
such importance to the country. However, Lord Stanley may
rest assured that the Queen gives full credit to the disinterested
motives which guided Lord Stanley’s conduct.

Queen Victoria to the Duke of Wellington.

THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF

Osborne, 12th December 1845.

The Queen has to inform the Duke of Wellington that, in
consequence of Sir Robert Peel’s having declared to her his
inability to carry on any longer the Government, she has sent
for Lord John Russell, who is not able at present to state
whether he can form an Administration, and is gone to Town in
order to consult his friends. Whatever the result of his enquiries
may be, the Queen has a strong desire to see the Duke
of Wellington remain at the head of her Army. The Queen
appeals to the Duke’s so often proved loyalty and attachment
to her person, in asking him to give her this assurance. The
Duke will thereby render the greatest service to the country
and to her own person.

The Duke of Wellington to Queen Victoria.

THE DUKE’S ADVICE

Strathfieldsaye, 12th December 1845.

(11 at night.)

Field-Marshal the Duke of Wellington presents his humble
duty to your Majesty; he has just now received your Majesty’s
commands from Osborne of this day’s date.

[page 56]

He humbly submits to your Majesty that the duties of the
Commander-in-Chief of your Majesty’s Land Forces places
him in constant confidential relations with all your Majesty’s
Ministers, and particularly with the one filling the office of
First Lord of the Treasury.

Under these circumstances he submits to your Majesty the
counsel, that your Majesty would be graciously pleased to
consult the nobleman or gentleman who should be your
Majesty’s first Minister, before any other step should be taken
upon the subject. He might think that he had reason to
complain if he should find that it was arranged that the Duke
of Wellington should continue to fill the office of Commander-in-Chief,
and such impression might have an influence upon
his future relations with that office.

Field-Marshal the Duke of Wellington believes that Lord
John Russell and all your Majesty’s former Ministers were
aware, that during the whole period of the time during which
Lord Hill was the General Commanding-in-Chief your Majesty’s
Forces, the professional opinion and services of Field-Marshal
the Duke of Wellington were at all times at the command and
disposition of your Majesty’s servants, and were given whenever
required.

He happened to be at that time in political opposition to the
Government in the House of Parliament, of which he was a
member; but that circumstance made no difference.

It is impossible for the Duke of Wellington to form a political
connection with Lord John Russell, or to have any relation
with the political course of the Government over which he
should preside.

Such arrangement would not conciliate public confidence, be
considered creditable to either party, or be useful to the service
of your Majesty.

Nor, indeed, would the performance of the duties of the
Commander-in-Chief of the Army require that such should
exist; on the other hand, the performance of these duties
would require that the person filling the office should avoid
to belong to, or to act in concert with, a political party opposed
to the Government.

Field-Marshal the Duke of Wellington has considered it his
duty to submit these considerations, in order that your Majesty
may be perfectly aware of the position in which he is about
to place himself, in case Lord John Russell should counsel your
Majesty to command Field-Marshal the Duke of Wellington to
continue to hold the office of Commander-in-Chief of your
Majesty’s Land Forces.

He at once submits to your Majesty the assurance that he
[page 57]
will cheerfully devote his service to your Majesty’s command
upon receiving the official intimation thereof, and that he will
as usual make every effort in his power to promote your
Majesty’s service.

All of which is humbly submitted to your Majesty by your
Majesty’s most dutiful Subject and devoted Servant,

Wellington.

The King of the French to Queen Victoria.

KING LOUIS PHILIPPE

St Cloud, le 16 Décembre 1845.

Madame ma très Chère Sœur,—J’ai à remercier votre
Majesté de l’excellente lettre que ma bonne Clém m’a remise
de sa part. Elle m’a été droit au cœur, et je ne saurais exprimer
à quel point j’ai été touché de vos bons voeux pour
ma famille, et de tout ce que vous me témoignez sur l’accroissement
qu’il a plû à la Providence de lui donner dans mes
onze petits fils.

Je me disposais à dire à votre Majesté que, quoiqu’avec un
bien vif regret, je comprenais parfaitement les motifs qui vous
portaient à remettre à une autre année, cette visite si vivement
désirée, et que j’espérais toujours trouver une compensation à
cette privation, en allant de nouveau Lui offrir en Angleterre,
l’hommage de tous les sentiments que je Lui porte, et qui
m’attachent si profondément à Elle, ainsi qu’au Prince son
Epoux, lorsque j’ai reçu la nouvelle de la démission de Sir
Robert Peel, de Lord Aberdeen et de tous leurs Collégues.
Je me flattais que ces Ministres qui s’étaient toujours si bien
entendus avec les miens pour établir entre nos deux Gouvernements,
cette heureuse entente cordiale qui est la base du repos
du monde et de la prospérité de nos pays, continueraient encore
longtemps à l’entretenir, et à la consolider de plus en plus.
Cet espoir est déçu!!³³ Il faut s’y résigner; mais je suis
empressé d’assurer votre Majesté, que quelque soit son nouveau
Ministère, celui qui m’entoure aujourd’hui, et que je désire,
et que j’espère conserver longtemps, n’omettra aucun effort
pour cultiver et maintenir cet heureux accord qu’il est si
évidemment dans notre intérêt commun de conserver intact.

Dans de telles circonstances, il me devient doublement
précieux d’être uni à votre Majesté et au Prince Albert par
tant de liens, et qu’il se soit formé entre nous cet attachement
mutuel, cette affection et cette confiance, qui sont au dessus
[page 58]
et indépendants de toute considération politique; mais qui
pourront toujours plus ou moins exercer une influence salutaire
sur l’action et la marche de nos deux Gouvernements. Aussi,
je le dis à votre Majesté et à son Epoux avec un entier abandon,
j’ai besoin de compter sur cette assistance occasionnelle, et j’y
compte entièrement en vous demandant d’avoir la même
confiance de mon côté, et en vous répétant que cette confiance
ne sera pas plus déçue dans l’avenir, qu’elle ne l’a été dans le
passé.

Votre Majesté me permettra d’offrir ici au Prince Albert
l’expression de ma vive et sincère amitié. Je la prie aussi de
recevoir celle de l’inviolable attachement avec lequel je suis,
Madame ma très chère Sœur, de votre Majesté, le bon Frère
et bien fidèle Ami,

Louis Philippe R.

Footnote 33: The return of Palmerston to the Foreign Office was of course dreaded by the King and
Guizot.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL’S ACCEPTANCE

Windsor Castle, 16th December 1845.

The Queen has just received Lord John Russell’s letter of
this day’s date,³⁴ and considering that it is of great importance
that no time should be lost, has immediately forwarded it to
Sir Robert Peel.

The Queen fully understands the motives which guide Lord
John in using every effort to ensure the success of the great
measure which is impending before he undertakes to form a
Government.

The Queen sees from Lord John’s second letter that he has
taken a copy of Sir R. Peel’s letter of the 15th to her. As she
does not feel to have been authorised to allow this, the Queen
hopes that in case Sir Robert should have an objection to it
Lord John will not retain the copy.

Footnote 34: It is printed in the Annual Register, 1846, p. 17. Lord John considered the temporary
suspension or repeal of duties, with the prospect of their re-imposition, open to grave
objections.

Queen Victoria to Sir Robert Peel.

INSUPERABLE DIFFICULTIES

Windsor Castle, 18th December 1845.

Lord John Russell returned at five this evening, and informed
the Queen that after considerable discussion, and after
a full consideration of his position, he will undertake to form a
Government.

[page 59]

As at present arranged, the Council is to be on Monday;
the Queen much wishing to have a parting interview with
Sir R. Peel, however painful it will be to her, wishes Sir Robert
Peel to inform her when he thinks it best to come down here.³⁵

Footnote 35: Lord John Russell, however, found insuperable difficulties in forming the Cabinet;
and, to quote Disraeli, “handed back with courtesy the poisoned chalice to Sir Robert.”

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

GREY AND PALMERSTON

Windsor Castle, 20th December 1845.

(12 o’clock.)

We just saw Lord John Russell, who came in order to explain
why he had to give up the task of forming a Government.
He had written to all his former colleagues to join him in his
attempt, amongst others to Lord Grey, who answered, “that
he could only belong to a Government which pledged itself to
the principle of absolute free trade and abolition of all protection;
that he had his own views upon the sugar question
(as to which he advocated the admission of slave labour) and
upon the Irish question (as to which his principle was to establish
entire religious equality); that he hoped that in the
formation of a new Government no personal considerations
should stand in the way of a full attention to public Duty.”

Lord John replied that he advocated free trade, but as the
immediate question before them was the Corn Laws, he thought
it wiser not to complicate this by other declarations which
would produce a good deal of animosity; that the sugar
question and Ireland might be discussed in Cabinet when
circumstances required it; that he agreed entirely in the last
sentence.

After this Lord Grey declared himself quite satisfied. Lord
John considered now with his colleagues the peculiar measure
to be proposed, and Mr Baring thought he could arrange a
financial scheme which would satisfy Lord Lansdowne’s demands
for relief to the landed interest. They all felt it their
duty to answer the Queen’s call upon them, though they very
much disliked taking office under such peculiar difficulties.
Now Lord John undertook to apportion the different offices.
He saw Lord Palmerston, and told him that the Queen had
some apprehension that his return to the Foreign Office might
cause great alarm in other countries, and particularly in France,
and that this feeling was still more strongly manifested in the
city; whether under these circumstances he would prefer
some other office—for instance, the Colonies? Lord Palmerston
[page 60]
declared that he was not at all anxious for office, and
should much regret that his accession should in any way
embarrass Lord John; that he was quite prepared to support
him out of office, but that his taking another department than
his former one would be a public recognition of the most unjust
accusations that had been brought against him; that he
had evinced throughout a long official life his disposition for
peace, and only in one instance broke with France;³⁶ that
that matter was gone by, and that nobody had stronger conviction
of the necessity to keep in amity with that Power than
himself. Upon this Lord John said that he could not form a
Government without him, and showed himself quite satisfied
with Lord Palmerston’s declaration.

Footnote 36: In reference to affairs in Syria in 1840.

Suddenly Lord Grey, who had heard of this, cried out:
“This was an infringement of their compact”; that no personal
consideration should interfere with the discharge of
public duty, and that he must decline entering the Government,
as he considered Lord Palmerston’s return to the Foreign Office
as fraught with danger to the peace of Europe. Lord John
could not, under these circumstances, form a Government.
He read to us a long letter from Lord Grey, written with the
intention that it should be seen by the Queen, in which Lord
Grey enters more fully into his motives, and finishes by saying
that therefore he was not answerable for the failure to form an
Administration.³⁷

Footnote 37: Lord Grey’s attitude was condemned by Macaulay in a letter to a Mr Macfarlan, who
unwisely communicated it to the Press.

Lord John gave the Queen a written statement³⁸ of the
causes which induced him to relinquish the Government, and
of the position he means to assume in Parliament. (He is most
anxious that Sir R. Peel should re-enter and successfully carry
his measures.)

Footnote 38: Printed in Annual Register, 1846, p. 20.

The arrangements Lord John had contemplated have been—

Lord Palmerston,	Foreign Secretary.
Lord Grey,	Colonial Secretary.
Sir George Grey,	Home Secretary.

(Sir George was anxious later to retire from Parliament, and
willing to go as Governor-General to Canada.)

Mr Baring,	Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Lord Clarendon,	President of the Board of Trade.

(The Vice-Presidency was to have been offered to his brother,
Mr Villiers, but finally, by his advice, to Mr Cobden!! (Lord
[page 61]
Grey wanted Mr Cobden to be in the Cabinet!!!) This Lord
John thought quite out of the question.)

Lord Lansdowne,

President of the Council.

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

CHIVALROUS ATTITUDE OF PEEL

Windsor Castle, 20th December 1845.

(4 o’clock p.m.)

We saw Sir Robert Peel, who had been apprised by Sir
James Graham (to whom Lord John Russell had written) of
what had passed. He was much affected, and expressed his
concern at the failure of Lord John to form a Government,
seemed hurt at Lord John’s not having shown more confidence
in the integrity of his (Sir Robert Peel’s) motives. He would
have supported Lord John in any measure which he should
have thought fit to introduce, and many would have followed
his example. He blamed the want of deference shown to the
Queen, by not answering her call with more readiness; he said
it was quite new and unconstitutional for a man to take a week
before he undertook to form a Government, and to pass that
time in discussion with other people, to whom the Sovereign
had not yet committed the task; and he had been certain it
would end so, when so many people were consulted. He in
1834 had been called from Italy, had travelled with all haste
and had gone straight to the King, had told him that he had
seen nobody, consulted nobody, but immediately kissed the
King’s hand as his Minister.

PEEL RESUMES OFFICEHe was now prepared to stand by the Queen, all other considerations
he had thrown aside, he would undertake to deal
with the difficulties, and should have to go down alone to the
House of Commons. He had written to his colleagues that he
would serve the Queen if she called upon him to do so, that he
expected them to meet him at nine o’clock that evening, and
that he would tell them what he meant to do. Those who
would not go with him, he would dismiss at once. He did not
wish to avail himself of any undue advantage, and therefore
would not advise an Order in Council, but go at once to Parliament,
laying his measure before it: “Reject it, if you please;
there it is!”

He called the crisis an alarming one, which determination
alone could overcome.

We showed him Lord John Russell’s statement, with which
he declared himself very much satisfied. He advised the
Queen to write a letter to Lord John, announcing to him Sir
Robert’s consent to go on with the Government, and wrote a
draft of it, which follows here.

[page 62]

He had heard strange instances of disagreement amongst
the men whom Lord John had assembled in town.

Sir Robert seemed throughout much moved, and said with
much warmth: “There is no sacrifice that I will not make for
your Majesty, except that of my honour.”

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

Windsor Castle, 20th December 1845.

Sir Robert Peel has just been here. He expressed great
regret that Lord John Russell had felt it necessary to decline
the formation of a Government.

He said he should have acted towards Lord John Russell
with the most scrupulous good faith, and that he should have
done everything in his power to give Lord John support.

He thinks many would have been induced to follow his
example.

Sir Robert Peel did not hesitate a moment in withdrawing
his offer of resignation. He said he felt it his duty at once to
resume his office, though he is deeply sensible of the difficulties
with which he has to contend.

Sir Robert Peel to Queen Victoria.

PEEL CORDIALLY SUPPORTED

Whitehall, 21st December 1845.

Sir Robert Peel presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and proceeds to give your Majesty an account of what has
passed since he left your Majesty at four o’clock yesterday.

The Cabinet met at Sir Robert Peel’s house in Downing
Street at half-past nine.

Sir Robert Peel informed them that he had not summoned
them for the purpose of deliberating on what was to be done,
but for the purpose of announcing to them that he was your
Majesty’s Minister, and whether supported or not, was firmly
resolved to meet Parliament as your Majesty’s Minister, and to
propose such measures as the public exigencies required.

Failure or success must depend upon their decision, but
nothing could shake Sir Robert Peel’s determination to meet
Parliament and to advise the Speech from the Throne.

There was a dead silence, at length interrupted by Lord
Stanley’s declaring that he must persevere in resigning, that
he thought the Corn Law ought to be adhered to, and might
have been maintained.

[page 63]

The Duke of Wellington said he thought the Corn Law was
a subordinate consideration. He was delighted when he
received Sir Robert Peel’s letter that day, announcing to the
Duke that his mind was made up to place his services at your
Majesty’s disposal.

The Duke of Buccleuch behaved admirably—was much
agitated—thought new circumstances had arisen—would not
then decide on resigning.

Sir Robert Peel has received this morning the enclosed note
from the Duke.³⁹

He has written a reply very strongly to the Duke, stating
that the present question is not one of Corn Law, but whether
your Majesty’s former servants or Lord Grey and Mr Cobden
shall constitute your Majesty’s Government. Sir Robert Peel
defied the wit of man to suggest now another alternative to
your Majesty.

Lord Aberdeen will see the Duke to-day.

All the other members of the Government cordially approved
of Sir Robert Peel’s determination not to abandon your
Majesty’s service.

There was no question about details, but if there is any, it
shall not alter Sir Robert Peel’s course.

Footnote 39: See next letter.

The Duke of Buccleuch to Sir Robert Peel.

Montagu House, 20th December 1845.

My dear Sir Robert,—That which has occurred this evening,
and that which you have communicated to us, the very
critical state in which the country now is, and above all the
duty which I owe to her Majesty under the present circumstances,
has made a most strong impression upon my mind.
At the risk, therefore, of imputation of vacillation or of any
other motive by others, may I ask of you to give me a few
hours’ time for further reflection, before finally deciding upon
the course which I may feel it to be my duty to pursue?
Believe me, my dear Sir Robert, yours most sincerely,

Buccleuch.

Sir Robert Peel to Queen Victoria.

Whitehall, 22nd December 1845.

Sir Robert Peel presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and has the utmost satisfaction in informing your Majesty that
[page 64]
Mr Gladstone is willing to accept the Seals of the Colonial
Office should your Majesty be pleased to confide them to him.⁴⁰

Sir Robert Peel thinks this of great importance, and that
immediate decision in filling up so eminent a post will have a
good effect.

Footnote 40: Mr Gladstone, by accepting office, vacated the seat at Newark which he had held
through the influence of the Protectionist Duke of Newcastle. He did not seek re-election,
and though a Secretary of State, remained without a seat in Parliament.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

THE QUEEN’S ESTIMATE OF PEEL

Windsor Castle, 23rd December 1845.

My dearest Uncle,—Many thanks for your two kind letters
of the 17th and 19th, which gave me much pleasure. I have
little to add to Albert’s letter of yesterday, except my extreme
admiration of our worthy Peel, who shows himself a man of
unbounded loyalty, courage, patriotism, and
high-mindedness,
and his conduct towards me has been chivalrous almost, I
might say. I never have seen him so excited or so determined,
and such a good cause must succeed. We have indeed
had an escape, for though Lord John’s own notions were very
good and moderate, he let himself be entirely twisted and
twirled about by his violent friends, and all the moderate ones
were crushed….

Victoria R.

Sir Robert Peel to the Prince Albert.

Whitehall, 23rd December 1845.

Sir,—I think Her Majesty and your Royal Highness will
have been pleased with the progress I have made in execution
of the great trust again committed to me by Her Majesty.

It will be of great importance to conciliate Lord Stanley’s
support out of office, to induce him to discourage hostile
combinations.

I would humbly recommend Her Majesty, when Her Majesty
sees Lord Stanley to-day, to receive him with her usual kindness,
to say that I had done full justice in my reports to Her
Majesty to the motives by which he had been actuated, and
to the openness and frankness of his conduct, to regret greatly
the loss of his services, but to hope that he might be still
enabled not to oppose and even to promote the accomplishment
of what cannot now be safely resisted. I have the honour
to be, etc., etc., etc.,

Robert Peel.

[page 65]

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

THE NEW ARRANGEMENTS

Windsor Castle, 25th December 1845.

We had a Council yesterday, at which Parliament was prorogued
to the 22nd of January, then to meet for the despatch
of business. Lord Stanley had an audience of the Queen
before, and delivered up the Seals of his office. He was much
agitated, and had told Sir Robert that he dreaded this interview
very much. The Queen thanked him for his services,
and begged he would do his best out of office to smooth down
the difficulties her Government would have to contend with.
At the Council Lord Dalhousie took his seat, and Mr Gladstone
received the Colonial Seals. The Queen saw the Duke of
Buccleuch and thanked him for the devotion he had shown her
during these trying circumstances; the same to the Duke of
Wellington, who is in excellent spirits. On my saying, “You
have such an influence over the House of Lords, that you will
be able to keep them straight,” he answered: “I’ll do anything;
I am now beginning to write to them and to convince
them singly of what their duty is.”

We saw afterwards Sir Robert Peel, who stayed more than
three hours. He is in the highest spirits at having got Mr
Gladstone and kept the Duke of Buccleuch; he proposed that
the Duke should be made President, and Lord Haddington
Privy Seal in his stead. (Lord Haddington had behaved very
well, had given up his place to Sir Robert, and told him he
should do with him just as he liked—leave him out of the
Cabinet, shift him to another place, or leave him at the
Admiralty, as would suit him best.)

Sir Robert hinted to Lord Ripon that Lord Haddington had
behaved so well, but got no more out of him, but “that he
would almost have done the same.” Sir Robert proposes to
see Lord Ellenborough in order to offer him the Admiralty,
received the Queen’s sanction likewise to Lord St Germans
(the Postmaster-General) being put into the Cabinet. I said:
“With your Government that has no inconvenience, and even
if you had a hundred members in the Cabinet, as you don’t
tell them but what is absolutely necessary, and follow your
own course.” He said in reply, that he should be very sorry if
he had to have told his Cabinet that he meant to send for Lord
Ellenborough. We could not help contrasting this conduct
with the subjection Lord John has shown to his people. It is
to his own talent and firmness that Sir Robert will owe his
success, which cannot fail. He said he had been determined
not to go to a general election with the fetters the last election
[page 66]
had imposed upon him, and he had meant at the end of the
next Session to call the whole Conservative Party together
and to declare this to them, that he would not meet another
Parliament pledged to the maintenance of the Corn Laws,THE CORN LAWS
which could be maintained no longer, and that he would make
a public declaration to this effect before another general
election came on. This had been defeated by events coming
too suddenly upon him, and he had no alternative but to deal
with the Corn Laws before a national calamity would force it
on. The league had made immense progress, and had enormous
means at their disposal. If he had resigned in November,
Lord Stanley and the Protectionists would have been prepared
to form a Government, and a Revolution might have been the
consequence of it. Now they felt that it was too late.

Sir Robert has an immense scheme in view; he thinks he
shall be able to remove the contest entirely from the dangerous
ground upon which it has got—that of a war between the manufacturers,
the hungry and the poor against the landed proprietors,
the aristocracy, which can only end in the ruin of the
latter; he will not bring forward a measure upon the Corn
Laws, but a much more comprehensive one. He will deal with
the whole commercial system of the country. He will adopt
the principle of the League, that of removing all protection and
abolishing all monopoly, but not in favour of one class and as
a triumph over another, but to the benefit of the nation,
farmers as well as manufacturers. He would begin with
cotton, and take in all the necessaries of life and corn amongst
them. The experiments he had made in 1842 and 1845 with
boldness but with caution had borne out the correctness of
the principle: the wool duty was taken off, and wool sold
higher than ever before; foreign cattle were let in, and the
cattle of England stood better in the market than ever. He
would not ask for compensation to the land, but wherever he
could give it, and at the same time promote the social development,
there he would do it, but on that ground. For
instance, one of the greatest benefits to the country would be
the establishment of a rural police on the same principle as the
metropolitan police. By taking this on the Consolidated
Fund, the landowners would be immensely relieved in all those
counties which kept a police. One of the heaviest charges on
the land was the present administration of law and the carrying
on of prosecutions. Sir Robert could fancy this to be very
much improved by the appointment of a public prosecutor by
the State, which would give the State a power to prevent
vexatious, illegal, and immoral prosecutions, and reduce the
expenses in an extraordinary degree. Part of the maintenance
[page 67]
of the poor, according to the Poor Law, might be undertaken
by the State. A great calamity must be foreseen, when the
innumerable railroads now in progress shall have been terminated,
which will be the case in a few years. This will
throw an enormous labouring population suddenly out of
employment. THE UNEMPLOYEDThere might be a law passed which would
provide employment for them, and improve the agriculture
and production of the country, by enabling the State to advance
money to the great proprietors for the improvements of
their estates, which they could not obtain otherwise without
charging their estates beyond what they already have to bear.

Sir Robert means to go with Mr Gladstone into all these
details.

Albert.

Viscount Palmerston to Viscount Melbourne.⁴¹

LORD PALMERSTON’S JUSTIFICATION

Bowood, 26th December 1845.

My dear Melbourne,—I return you with many thanks
George Anson’s letter, which was enclosed in yours of the 23rd,
which I received just as we were setting off for this place.
Pray, when next you write to George Anson, say how gratefully
I appreciate the kind consideration on the part of H.R.H.
Prince Albert, which suggested George Anson’s communication.
But I can assure you that although John Russell, in his
Audience of the Queen, may inadvertently have overstated
the terms in which he had mentioned to me what Her Majesty
had said to him about my return to the Foreign Office, yet in
his conversations with me upon that subject he never said anything
more than is contained in George Anson’s letter to you;
and I am sure you will think that under all the circumstances
of the case he could hardly have avoided telling me thus much,
and making me aware of the impression which seemed to exist
upon the Queen’s mind as to the way in which other persons
might view my return to the Foreign Office.

With regard to Her Majesty’s own sentiments, I have always
been convinced that Her Majesty knows me too well to believe
for an instant that I do not attach the greatest importance to
the maintenance, not merely of peace with all foreign countries,
but of the most friendly relations with those leading Powers
and States of the world with which serious differences would
be attended with the most inconvenience. LORD PALMERSTON’S POLICYAs to Peace, I
succeeded, as the organ of Lord Grey’s Government and of
[page 68]
yours, in preserving it unbroken during ten years⁴² of great
and extraordinary difficulty; and, if now and then it unavoidably
happened during that period of time, that in pursuing
the course of policy which seemed the best for British
interests, we thwarted the views of this or that Foreign Power,
and rendered them for the moment less friendly, I think I
could prove that in every case the object which we were pursuing
was of sufficient importance to make it worth our while
to submit to such temporary inconvenience. There never was
indeed, during those ten years, any real danger of war except
on three occasions; and on each of those occasions the course
pursued by the British Government prevented war. The first
occasion was just after the accession of the King of the French,
when Austria, Russia, and Prussia were disposed and preparing
to attack France, and when the attitude assumed by the
British Government prevented a rupture. The second was
when England and France united by a Convention to wrest the
Citadel of Antwerp from the Dutch, and to deliver it over to
the King of the Belgians.⁴³ If England had not then joined
with France, Antwerp would have remained with the Dutch,
or the attempt to take it would have led to a war in Europe.
The third occasion was when Mehemet Ali’s army occupied
Syria, and when he was constantly threatening to declare himself
independent and to march on Constantinople; while
Russia, on the one hand, asserted that if he did so she would
occupy Constantinople, and on the other hand, France announced
that if Russia did so, she, France, would force the
Dardanelles. The Treaty of July 1840, proposed and brought
about by the British Government, and the operations in execution
of that Treaty, put an end to that danger; and, notwithstanding
what has often been said to the contrary, the real
danger of war arising out of the affairs of Syria was put an end
to, and not created by the Treaty of 1840.

I am well aware, however, that some persons both at home
and abroad have imbibed the notion that I am more indifferent
than I ought to be as to running the risk of war. That impression
abroad is founded upon an entire mistake, but is by
some sincerely felt, and being sincere, would soon yield to the
evidence of contradictory facts. At home that impression has
been industriously propagated to a limited extent, partly by
the legitimate attacks of political opponents, and partly by a
little cabal within our own ranks. These parties wanted to
attack me, and were obliged to accuse me of something. They
[page 69]
could not charge me with failure, because we had succeeded in
all our undertakings, whether in Portugal, Spain, Belgium,
Syria, China, or elsewhere; they could not charge me with
having involved the country in war, because, in fact, we had
maintained peace; and the only thing that was left for them
to say was that my policy had a tendency to produce war, and
I suppose they would argue that it was quite wrong and against
all rule that it did not do so.

But notwithstanding what may have been said on this
matter, the transaction which has by some been the most
criticised in this respect, namely, the Treaty of 1840, and the
operations connected with it, were entirely approved by the
leaders of the then Opposition, who, so far from feeling any
disposition to favour me, had always made a determined run
at the Foreign Policy of the Whig Government. The Duke of
Wellington, at the opening of the Session of 1841, said in the
House of Lords that he entirely approved our policy in that
transaction, and could not find that any fault had been committed
by us in working it out; and I happen to know that Sir
Robert Peel expressed to the representative of one of the German
Powers, parties to the Alliance, his entire approval of our
course, while Lord Aberdeen said to one of them, that the course
I had taken in that affair made him forgive me many things of
former years, which he had thought he never should have
forgiven.

I am quite ashamed of the length to which this letter has
grown, and shall only add, with reference to our relations with
France, that I had some very friendly interviews with Thiers,
who was my chief antagonist in 1840, and that although we did
not enter into any conspiracy against Guizot and Peel, as the
newspapers pretended, we parted on very good terms, and
he promised to introduce me to all his friends whenever I
should go to Paris, saying that of course Guizot would do me
the same good office with his supporters. My dear Melbourne,
yours affectionately,

Palmerston.

Footnote 41: Submitted to the Queen by Lord Melbourne.

Footnote 42: 1830-1834, and 1835-1841.

Footnote 43: The English and French came in 1832 to the assistance of the Belgians, who some
time before had entered Antwerp, but failed to take the Citadel.

Queen Victoria to the King of the French.

THE MINISTRY REINSTATED

Ch. de W., le 30 Décembre 1845.

Sire et mon très cher Frère,—Votre Majesté me pardonnera
si je viens seulement maintenant vous remercier de
tout mon cœur de votre lettre si bonne et si aimable du 16,
mais vous savez combien j’étais occupée pendant ces dernières
3 semaines. La Crise est passée et j’ai tout lieu de croire que
[page 70]
le Gouvernement de Sir R. Peel va s’affermir de plus en plus,
ce que je ne puis que désirer pour le bien-être du pays. Je
dois cependant dire à votre Majesté que si le Ministère eût
changé, j’ai la certitude que le nouveau se serait empressé de
maintenir, comme nous le désirons si vivement, cette entente
cordiale si heureusement établie entre nos deux Gouvernements.

Permettez-moi, Sire, de vous offrir au nom d’Albert et au
mien nos félicitations les plus sincères à l’occasion de la nouvelle
Année, dans lequel vous nous donnez le doux espoir de vous
revoir. Nous avons lu avec beaucoup d’intérêt le Speech de
V.M., dans lequel vous parlez si aimablement du “friendly
call” à Eu et des coopérations des 2 pays dans différentes
parties du monde, et particulièrement pour l’Abolition de la
Traite des noirs.

Ayez la grâce, Sire, de déposer nos hommages et nos félicitations
aux pieds de la Reine et de votre Sœur. Agréez
encore une fois, les expressions d’amitié et d’attachement
sincère avec lesquelles je suis, Sire et mon bien cher Frère, de
votre Majesté, la bien bonne Sœur et fidèle Amie,

Victoria R.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Windsor Castle, 30th December 1845.

My dearest Uncle,—Many thanks for your kind letter
of the 27th, by which I see how glad you are at our good Peel
being again—and I sincerely and confidently hope for many
years—my Minister. I have heard many instances of the
confidence the country and all parties have in Peel; for
instance, he was immensely cheered at Birmingham—a most
Radical place; and Joseph Hume expressed great distress
when Peel resigned, and the greatest contempt for Lord John
Russell. The Members of the Government have behaved extremely
well and with much disinterestedness. The Government
has secured the services of Mr Gladstone and Lord
Ellenborough,⁴⁴ who will be of great use. Lord E. is become
very quiet, and is a very good speaker.

We had a very happy Christmas. This weather is extremely
unwholesome. Now, ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 44: Lord Ellenborough was one of the few Conservative statesmen of the day who, after
remaining faithful to Sir Robert Peel till the middle of 1846, subsequently threw in his
fortunes with Lord Derby and Mr Disraeli. He was President of the Board of Control
with those Ministers in 1858 for the fourth time.

[page 71]

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

TO CHAPTER XV

The closing days of the year 1845 had been marked by startling
political events, and Lord John Russell’s failure to form a Government,
and Sir Robert Peel’s resumption of office, with Mr Gladstone
substituted for Lord Stanley, were now followed by the Ministerial
measure for the Repeal of the Corn Laws. Embarrassed as he now
was by the attacks of his old supporters, led by Bentinck and Disraeli,
Peel was supported whole-heartedly but in a strictly constitutional
manner by the Queen and the Prince. Amid bitter taunts, the
Premier piloted the measure through Parliament, but on the night
that it finally passed the Lords he was defeated on an Irish Coercion
Bill by a factious combination in the Commons between the Whigs
and Protectionists, and resigned. Lord John Russell on this occasion
was able to form an administration, though he failed in his
attempt to include in it some important members of the outgoing
Government.

Thus, owing to the Irish famine, the Tory party which had come
into power in 1841 with a majority of ninety to support the Corn
Laws, was shattered; after Peel’s defeat it became clear that no
common action could take place between his supporters in the
struggle of 1846 and men like Bentinck and Disraeli, who now
became leaders of the Protectionist party. For the remainder of the
year Peel was on the whole friendly to the Russell Government, his
chief care being to maintain them in office as against the Protectionists.

In India the British army was successful in its operations against
the Sikhs, Sir Harry Smith defeating them at Aliwal, and Sir Hugh
Gough at Sobraon. Our troops crossed the Sutlej, and terms of
peace were agreed on between Sir Henry Hardinge (who became a
Viscount) and the Sirdars from Lahore, peace being signed on
8th March.

On the continent of Europe the most important events took place
in the Peninsula. The selection of husbands for the Queen of Spain
and her sister, which had so long been considered an international
question, came at last to a crisis; the policy of Great Britain had
been to leave the matter to the Spanish people, except in so far as
might be necessary to check the undue ambition of Louis Philippe;
and neither the Queen, Prince Albert, Peel, nor Aberdeen had in any
way supported the candidature of Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg.

[page 72]

It was common ground that no son of Louis Philippe should marry
the Queen, but both that monarch and Guizot had further solemnly
engaged at the Château d’Eu that no son should marry even the
Infanta until the Queen was married and had children. The return
of Palmerston to the Foreign Office, and his mention of Prince Leopold
in a Foreign Office despatch as one of the candidates, gave the King
and his Minister the pretext they required for repudiating their
solemn undertaking. In defiance of good faith the engagements
were simultaneously announced of the Queen to her cousin, Don
Francisco de Asis, and of the Infanta to the Duc de Montpensier,
Don Francisco being a man of unattractive, even disagreeable
qualities, and feeble in physique. By this unscrupulous proceeding
Queen Victoria and the English nation were profoundly shocked.

At the same time Queen Maria found some difficulty in maintaining
her position in Portugal. She dismissed in a somewhat high-handed
manner her Minister the Duc de Palmella, and had to bear
the brunt of an insurrection for several months: at the close of the
year her arms were victorious at the lines of Torres Vedras, but the
Civil War was not entirely brought to an end.

In February a Polish insurrection broke out in Silesia, and the
Austrian troops were driven from Cracow; the rising was suppressed
by Austria, Russia, and Prussia, who had been constituted the
“Protecting Powers” of Cracow by the Treaty of Vienna. This
unsuccessful attempt was seized upon as a pretext for destroying the
separate nationality of Cracow, which was forthwith annexed to
Austria. This unjustifiable act only became possible in consequence
of the entente between England and France (equally parties to the
Treaty of Vienna) having been terminated by the affair of the
Spanish marriages; their formal but separate protests were disregarded.

There remains to be mentioned the dispute between Great Britain
and the United States as to the Oregon boundary, which had assumed
so ominous a phase in 1845. Lord Aberdeen’s last official act
was to announce in the Lords that a Convention, proposed by himself
for adjusting the question, had been accepted by the American
President.

[page 73]

CHAPTER XV

1846

Queen Victoria to Sir Robert Peel.

Buckingham Palace, 23rd January 1846.

The Queen must compliment Sir Robert Peel on his beautiful
and indeed unanswerable speech of last night, which we have
been reading with the greatest attention.¹ The concluding
part we also greatly admire. Sir R. Peel has made a very
strong case. Surely the impression which it has made must
have been a good one. Lord John’s explanation is a fair one;²
the Queen has not a doubt that he will support Sir Robert Peel.

He has indeed pledged himself to it. He does not give a
very satisfactory explanation of the causes of his failure, but
perhaps he could not do so without exposing Lord Palmerston.

What does Sir Robert think of the temper of the House of
Commons, and of the debate in the House of Lords? The
debates not being adjourned is a good thing. The crowd was
immense out-of-doors yesterday, and we were never better
received.

Footnote 1: The Queen had opened Parliament in person; the Prime Minister took the unusual
course of speaking immediately after the seconder of the Address, and in his peroration,
after laying stress on the responsibilities he was incurring, proceeded: “I do not desire
to be Minister of England; but while I am Minister of England I will hold office by no
servile tenure; I will hold office unshackled by any other obligation than that of consulting
the public interests and providing for the public safety.”

Footnote 2: He explained that the attitude of Lord Grey made the difficulties attending the formation
of a Whig Ministry insuperable.

Sir Henry Hardinge to Queen Victoria.³

EXTENSION OF INDIAN FRONTIER

Camp, Lullianee, 24 miles from Lahore,

18th February 1846.

The territory which it is proposed should be ceded in perpetuity
to your Majesty is a fine district between the Rivers
[page 74]
Sutlej and Beas, throwing our frontier forward, within 30
miles of Amritsar, so as to have 50 miles of British territory
in front of Loodiana, which, relatively with Ferozepore, is so
weak, that it appeared desirable to the Governor-General to
improve our frontier on its weakest side, to curb the Sikhs by an
easy approach towards Amritsar across the Beas River instead
of the Sutlej—to round off our hill possessions near Simla—to
weaken the Sikh State which has proved itself to be too
strong—and to show to all Asia that although the British
Government has not deemed it expedient to annex this
immense country of the Punjab, making the Indus the British
boundary, it has punished the treachery and violence of the
Sikh nation, and exhibited its powers in a manner which
cannot be misunderstood. For the same political and military
reason, the Governor-General hopes to be able before the
negotiations are closed to make arrangements by which Cashmere
may be added to the possessions of Gholab Singh, declaring
the Rajpoot Hill States with Cashmere independent
of the Sikhs of the Plains. The Sikhs declare their inability
to pay the indemnity of one million and a half, and will
probably offer Cashmere as an equivalent. In this case, if
Gholab Singh pays the money demanded for the expenses
of the war, the district of Cashmere will be ceded by the
British to him, and the Rajah become one of the Princes of
Hindostan.

There are difficulties in the way of this arrangement, but
considering the military power which the Sikh nation has
exhibited of bringing into the field 80,000 men and 300 pieces
of field artillery, it appears to the Governor-General most
politic to diminish the means of this warlike people to repeat
a similar aggression. The nation is in fact a dangerous military
Republic on our weakest frontier. If the British Army had
been defeated, the Sikhs, through the Protected States, which
would have risen in their favour in case of a reverse, would
have captured Delhi, and a people having 50,000 regular troops
and 300 pieces of field artillery in a standing permanent camp
within 50 miles of Ferozepore, is a state of things that cannot
be tolerated for the future….

The energy and intrepidity displayed by your Majesty’s
Commander-in-Chief, Sir Hugh Gough, his readiness to carry
on the service in cordial co-operation with the Governor-General,
and the marked bravery and invincibility of your
Majesty’s English troops, have overcome many serious
obstacles, and the precautions taken have been such that no
disaster or failure, however trifling, has attended the arduous
efforts of your Majesty’s Arms.

Footnote 3: The Sikhs were defeated at Sobraon on 10th February by the British troops under
Sir Hugh Gough, reinforced by Sir Harry Smith, fresh from his victory at Aliwal. See p. 71.

[page 75]

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Osborne, 3rd March 1846.

My dearest Uncle,—I hasten to thank you for a most dear
and kind letter of the 28th, which I received this morning.
You know how I love and esteem my dearest Louise; she is
the dearest friend, after my beloved Albert, I have.

I wish you could be here, and hope you will come here for
a few days during your stay, to see the innumerable alterations
and improvements which have taken place. My dearest
Albert is so happy here, out all day planting, directing, etc.,
and it is so good for him. It is a relief to be away from all
the bitterness which people create for themselves in London.
PEEL’S ANXIETIES
Peel has a very anxious and a very peculiar position, and it
is the force of circumstances and the great energy he alone
possesses which will carry him through the Session. He certainly
acts a most disinterested part, for did he not feel (as
every one who is fully acquainted with the real state of the
country must feel) that the line he pursues is the only right and
sound one for the welfare of this country, he never would have
exposed himself to all the annoyance and pain of being attacked
by his friends. He was, however, determined to have done
this before the next general election, but the alarming state of
distress in Ireland forced him to do it now. I must, however,
leave him to explain to you fully himself the peculiar circumstances
of the present very irregular state of affairs. His
majority was not a certain one last year, for on Maynooth,
upwards of a hundred of his followers voted against him.

The state of affairs in India is very serious. I am glad you
do justice to the bravery of our good people.

Queen Victoria to Sir Henry Hardinge.

Osborne, 4th March 1846.

The Queen is anxious to seize the first opportunity of expressing
to Sir Henry Hardinge, her admiration of his conduct
on the last most trying occasion, and of the courage and
gallantry of the officers and men who had so severe a contest
to endure.⁴ Their conduct has been in every way worthy of
the British name, and both the Prince and Queen are deeply
impressed with it. The severe loss we have sustained in so
many brave officers and men is very painful, and must alloy
[page 76]
the satisfaction every one feels at the brilliant successes of our
Arms. Most deeply do we lament the death of Sir Robert Sale,DEATH OF SIR ROBERT SALE
Sir John M’Caskill,⁵ and Major Broadfoot,⁶ and most
deeply do we sympathise with that high-minded woman, Lady
Sale, who has had the misfortune to lose her husband less than
three years after she was released from captivity and restored
to him.

We are truly rejoiced to hear that Sir H. Hardinge’s health
has not suffered, and that he and his brave son have been so
mercifully preserved. The Queen will look forward with great
anxiety to the next news from India.

Footnote 4: At Moodkee on 18th December, and Ferozeshah on 21st and 22nd December.

Footnote 5: Who had commanded a brigade under Pollock in the second Afghan campaign.

Footnote 6: Major George Broadfoot, C.B., Political Agent on the north-western frontier.

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

THE PRINCE’S MEMORANDUM

Buckingham Palace, 1st April 1846.

I saw this day Sir R. Peel, and showed him a memorandum,
which I had drawn up respecting our conversation of the 30th.

It filled six sheets, and contained, as minutely as I could
render it, the whole of the arguments we had gone through.
Sir Robert read it through and over again, and, after a long
pause, said: “I was not aware when I spoke to your Royal
Highness that my words would be taken down, and don’t
acknowledge that this is a fair representation of my opinion.”
He was visibly uneasy, and added, if he knew that what he
said should be committed to paper, he would speak differently,
and give his opinion with all the circumspection and reserve
which a Minister ought to employ when he gave responsible
advice; but he had in this instance spoken quite unreservedly,
like an advocate defending a point in debate, and then he had
taken another and tried to carry this as far as it would go, in
order to give me an opportunity of judging of the different
bearings of the question. He did so often in the Cabinet, when
they discussed important questions, and was often asked:
“Well, then, you are quite against this measure?” “Not at all,
but I want that the counter argument should be gone into to the
fullest extent, in order that the Cabinet should not take a one-sided
view.”

He viewed the existence of such a paper with much uneasiness,
as it might appear as if he had left this before going
out of office in order to prepossess the Queen against the
measures, which her future Minister might propose to her, and
so lay secretly the foundation of his fall. The existence of
[page 77]
such a paper might cause great embarrassment to the Queen;
if she followed the advice of a Minister who proposed measures
hostile to the Irish Church, it might be said, she knew what she
undertook, for Sir R. Peel had warned her and left on record
the serious objections that attached to the measure.

I said that I felt it to be of the greatest importance to possess
his views on the question, but that I thought I would not have
been justified in keeping a record of our conversation without
showing it to him, and asking him whether I had rightly understood
him; but if he felt a moment’s uneasiness about this
memorandum, I would at once destroy it, as I was anxious that
nothing should prevent his speaking without the slightest
reserve to me in future as he had done heretofore. I felt that
these open discussions were of the greatest use to me in my
endeavour to investigate the different political questions of
the day and to form a conclusive opinion upon them. As Sir
Robert did not say a word to dissuade me, I took it as an
affirmative, and threw the memorandum into the fire, which,
I could see, relieved Sir Robert.

Albert.

Mr Gladstone to Queen Victoria.

13 Carlton House Terrace, 1st April 1846.

Mr William Gladstone presents his humble duty to your
Majesty, and prays that he may be honoured with your
Majesty’s permission to direct that the Park and Tower Guns
may be fired forthwith in celebration of the victory which was
achieved by your Majesty’s forces over the Sikh army in
Sobraon on the 10th of February.⁷

Footnote 7: In September 1882 Mr Gladstone quoted this as a precedent for firing the Park Guns
after the victory of Tel-el-Kebir. See Life of Right Hon. Hugh C. E. Childers, by Colonel
Childers, C.B., R.E., vol. ii p. 127.

Queen Victoria to Sir Henry Hardinge.

Buckingham Palace, 6th April 1846.

The Queen must write a line to Sir Henry Hardinge in order
to express her extreme satisfaction at the brilliant and happy
termination of our severe contest with the Sikhs, which he
communicated to her in his long and interesting letter of the
18th and 19th February. The Queen much admires the skill
and valour with which their difficult operations have been
conducted, and knows how much she owes to Sir Henry
[page 78]
Hardinge’s exertions. The Queen hopes that he will see
an acknowledgment of this in the communication she has
ordered to be made to him relative to his elevation to the
Peerage.

The Prince, who fully knows all the Queen’s feelings on this
glorious occasion, wishes to be named to Sir Henry Hardinge.

The King of the French to Queen Victoria.

KING LOUIS PHILIPPE

Paris, 5 Mai 1846.

Madame ma très chère Sœur,—Quand le 1^er de Mai, au
moment où j’allais commencer les nombreuses et longues
réceptions de mon jour de fête, on m’a remis la lettre si gracieuse
que votre Majesté a eu l’aimable attention de m’écrire de
manière à ce que je la reçoive ce jour là, j’en ai été pénétré, et
j’ai pensé tout de suite aux paroles du Menuet d’Iphigénie
comme exprimant le remercîment qu’à mon grand regret, je
ne pouvais que sentir, et non exprimer par écrit dans un pareil
moment. J’ai donc fait chercher tout de suite la partition de
ce menuet, et celles du Chœur du même Opéra de Glück
“Chantons, célébrons notre Reine!” mais on n’a pu, ou pas su
se les procurer, et j’ai dû me contenter de les avoir arrangés
pour le piano dans un livre (pas même relié) qui a au moins
pour excuse de contenir toute la musique de cet Opéra. Je
l’ai mis dans une grande enveloppe adressée à votre Majesté
et j’ai fait prier Lord Cowley de l’expédier par le premier
Courier qui pourrait s’en charger, comme Dépêche, afin
d’éviter ces postages dont Lord Liverpool m’a révélé l’étonnant
usage.

Que vous dirai-je, Madame, sur tous les sentiments dont m’a
pénétré cette nouvelle marque d’amitié de votre part? Vous
connaissez celle que je vous porte, et combien elle est vive et
sincère. J’espère bien que l’année ne s’écoulera pas sans que
j’aie été présenter mes hommages à votre Majesté….

Tout ce que j’entends, tout ce que je recueille, me donne de
plus en plus l’espérance que la crise Parlementaire dans laquelle
le Ministère de votre Majesté se trouve engagé, se terminera,
comme Elle sait que je le désire vivement, c’est-à-dire que Sir
Robert Peel, Lord Aberdeen, etc., will hold fast, et qu’ils seront
encore ses Ministres quand j’aurai le bonheur de Lui faire ma
Cour. Je vois avec plaisir que ce vœu est à peu près général en
France, et qu’il se manifeste de plus en plus….

Que votre Majesté me permette d’offrir ici au Prince Albert
l’expression de ma plus tendre amitié, et qu’elle veuille bien
[page 79]
me croire pour la vie, Madame ma très chère Sœur, de votre
Majesté, le bon Frère et bien fidèle Ami,

Louis Philippe, R.

J’ai volé ces feuilles de papier à ma bonne Reine pour
échapper aux reproches trop bien fondés que Lord Aberdeen a
faits à la dernière fourniture dont je me suis servi.

Sir Robert Peel to Queen Victoria.

IRISH CRIMES BILL

House of Commons, 12th June 1846.

(Friday Night.)

Sir Robert Peel, with his humble duty to your Majesty, begs
leave to acquaint your Majesty that no progress has been made
to-night with the Irish Bill.⁸

On reading the order of the day Sir Robert Peel took that
opportunity of defending himself from the accusations⁹
brought forward by Lord George Bentinck and Mr Disraeli
against Sir Robert Peel for transactions that took place twenty
years since. The debate on this preliminary question lasted
until nearly half-past eleven.

Like every unjust and malignant attack, this, according to
Sir Robert Peel’s impressions, recoiled upon its authors.

He thinks the House was completely satisfied. Lord John
Russell and Lord Morpeth behaved very well.

The vindictive motive of the attack was apparent to all
but a few Protectionists.

Footnote 8: In consequence of a serious increase of crime in Ireland, a Coercion Bill had been
introduced.

Footnote 9: This refers to the Catholic Emancipation discussions of 1827, when Bentinck and
Disraeli accused Peel of having hounded Canning to death.

Sir Robert Peel to Queen Victoria.

Whitehall, 22nd June 1846.

Sir Robert Peel presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and assures your Majesty that he is penetrated with a deep
sense of your Majesty’s great kindness and your Majesty’s
generous sympathy with himself and Lady Peel.

ATTACK ON PEEL

Sir Robert Peel firmly believes that the recent attack made
upon him was the result of a foul conspiracy concocted by
Mr Disraeli and Lord George Bentinck, in the hope and belief
that from the lapse of time or want of leisure in Sir Robert
Peel to collect materials for his defence, or the destruction of
documents and papers, the means of complete refutation
might be wanting….

[page 80]

He hopes, however, he had sufficient proof to demonstrate
the falseness of the accusation, and the malignant motives of
the accusers.

He is deeply grateful to your Majesty and to the Prince for
the kind interest you have manifested during the progress of
this arduous struggle, which now he trusts is approaching to a
successful termination.

Sir Robert Peel to Queen Victoria.

Downing Street, 26th June 1846.

(Two o’clock.)

Sir Robert Peel, with his humble duty to your Majesty, begs
leave to acquaint your Majesty that the members of the
Government met in Cabinet to-day at one.

Sir Robert Peel is just returned from this meeting.

He stated to the Cabinet that after the event of yesterday
(the rejection of the Irish Bill by so large a majority as 73) he
felt it to be his duty as head of the Government humbly to
tender his resignation of office to your Majesty. He added
that, feeling no assurance that the result of a Dissolution would
be to give a majority agreeing with the Government in general
principles of policy, and sufficient in amount to enable the
Government to conduct the business of the country with
credit to themselves and satisfaction to your Majesty and the
public at large, he could not advise your Majesty to dissolve
the Parliament.

Sir Robert Peel said that, in his opinion, the Government
generally ought to resign, but his mind was made up as to
his own course.

There was not a dissenting voice that it was the duty of the
Government to tender their resignation to your Majesty, and
for the reasons stated by Sir Robert Peel, not to advise dissolution.
If Sir Robert Peel does not receive your Majesty’s
commands to wait upon your Majesty in the course of to-day,
Sir Robert Peel will be at Osborne about half-past three
to-morrow.

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

PEEL’S RESIGNATION

Osborne House, 28th June 1846.

Sir Robert Peel arrived yesterday evening and tendered his
resignation. He is evidently much relieved in quitting a post,
[page 81]
the labours and anxieties of which seem almost too much for
anybody to bear, and which in these last six months were
particularly onerous. In fact, he said that he would not have
been able to stand it much longer. Nothing, however, would
have induced him to give way before he had passed the Corn
Bill and the Tariff.¹⁰ The majority upon the Irish Bill was
much larger than any one had expected; Sir Robert was glad
of this, however, as it convinced his colleagues of the necessity
of resigning. He told them at the Cabinet that, as for himself
personally, he had made up his mind to resign, and on being
asked what he advised his Cabinet to do, he recommended
them to do the same, which received general concurrence.
The last weeks had not been without some intrigue. There
was a party headed by Lord Ellenborough and Lord Brougham,
who wished Sir Robert and Sir James Graham to retire, and for
the rest of the Cabinet to reunite with the Protection section of
the Conservatives, and to carry on the Government. Lord
Ellenborough and Lord Brougham had in December last
settled to head the Protectionists, but this combination had
been broken up by Lord Ellenborough’s acceptance of the
post of First Lord of the Admiralty; Lord Brougham then
declared for free trade, perhaps in order to follow Lord Ellenborough
into office. The Duke of Wellington had been for
dissolution till he saw the complete disorganisation of his
party in the House of Lords. The Whigs, having been beat
twice the evening before by large majorities on the Roman
Catholic Bill, had made every exertion on the Coercion Bill,
and the majority was still increased by Sir Robert’s advising
the Free Traders and Radicals, who had intended to stay away
in order not to endanger Sir Robert’s Government, not to do so
as they would not be able to save him. Seventy Protectionists
voted with the majority.

Footnote 10: By a remarkable coincidence the Corn Bill passed through the Lords on the same night
that the Ministry were defeated in the Commons.

Before leaving Town Sir R. Peel addressed a letter to Lord
John Russell, informing him that he was going to the Isle of
Wight in order to tender his and his colleagues’ resignation to
the Queen, that he did not the least know what Her Majesty’s
intentions were, but that in case she should send for Lord John,
he (Sir Robert) was ready to see Lord John (should he wish it),
and give him any explanation as to the state of public affairs
and Parliamentary business which he could desire. Sir Robert
thought thereby, without in the least committing the Queen,
to indicate to Lord John that he had nothing to fear on his
part, and that, on the contrary, he could reckon upon his
assistance in starting the Queen’s new Government. He hoped
[page 82]
likewise that this would tend to dispel a clamour for dissolution
which the Whigs have raised, alarmed by their defeats upon
the Catholic Bill.

Albert.

Sir Robert Peel to Queen Victoria.

END OF THE OREGON DISPUTE

House of Commons, 29th June 1846.

Sir Robert Peel, with his humble duty to your Majesty, begs
leave to acquaint your Majesty that he has just concluded his
speech notifying to the House the resignation of the Government.

He thinks it was very well received.¹¹ Lord Palmerston
spoke after Sir Robert Peel, but not very effectively, but no
other person spoke. Sir Robert Peel is to see Lord John
Russell at ten to-morrow morning.

Sir Robert Peel humbly congratulates your Majesty on the
intelligence received this day from America. The defeat of the
Government on the day on which they carried the Corn Bill,
and the receipt of the intelligence from America¹² on the day
on which they resign, are singular coincidences.

Footnote 11: He expressed his hope to be remembered with goodwill “in the abodes of those whose
lot it is to labour, and to earn their daily bread by the sweat of their brows, when they shall
recruit their exhausted strength with abundant and untaxed food, the sweeter because
no longer leavened with a sense of injustice.”

Footnote 12: The Convention for adjusting the dispute as to the Oregon boundary had been
accepted by the United States Government.

The Bishop of Oxford¹³ to Mr Anson.

61 Eaton Place, 29th June 1846.

(Midnight.)

My dear Anson,—Your kind letter reached me half an
hour ago whilst Sir T. Acland was sitting with me; and I must
say a few words in reply by the early post. I went down to
hear Peel in the House of Commons, and very fine it was. The
House crowded, Peers and Ambassadors filling every seat and
overflowing into the House. Soon after six all private business
was over; Peel not come in, all waiting, no one rose for anything;
for ten minutes this lasted: then Peel came in, walked
up the House: colder, dryer, more introverted than ever,
yet to a close gaze showing the fullest working of a smothered
volcano of emotions. He was out of breath with walking and
[page 83]
sat down on the Treasury Bench (placing a small despatch box
with the Oregon despatches on the table) as he would be fully
himself before he rose. By-and-by he rose, amidst a breathless
silence, and made the speech you will have read long ere
this. It was very fine: very effective: really almost solemn:
to fall at such a moment. He spoke as if it was his last
political scene: as if he felt that between alienated friends and
unwon foes he could have no party again; and could only as a
shrewd bystander observe and advise others. There was but
one point in the Speech which I thought doubtful: the apostrophePEEL’S TRIBUTE TO COBDEN
to “Richard Cobden.”¹⁴ I think it was wrong, though
there is very much to be said for it. The opening of the
American peace was noble; but for the future, what have we
to look to? Already there are whispers of Palmerston and
War; the Whig budget and deficiency. The first great question
all men ask is: does Lord John come in, leaning on
Radical or Conservative aid? Is Hawes to be in the Cabinet?
the first Dissenter? the first tradesman? the Irish Church?
I wish you were near enough to talk to, though even then you
would know too much that must not be known for a comfortable
talk. But I shall hope soon to see you; and am always,
my dear Anson, very sincerely and affectionately yours,

S. Oxon.

Footnote 13: Dr S. Wilberforce.

Footnote 14: “Sir, the name which ought to be, and which will be, associated with the success
of these measures, is the name of a man who, acting, I believe, from pure and disinterested
motives, has advocated their cause with untiring energy, and by appeals to reason, enforced
by an eloquence the more to be admired because it was unaffected and unadorned—the
name which ought to be and which will be associated with the success of these measures
is the name of Richard Cobden.”

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

THE NEW GOVERNMENT

Osborne House, 30th June 1846.

Lord John Russell arrived here this afternoon; he has seen
Sir Robert Peel this morning, and is prepared to undertake the
formation of a Government which he thinks will stand; at
least, for the present session he anticipates no difficulty, as
Sir R. Peel has professed himself ready not to obstruct its
progress, and as the Protectionists have held a meeting on
Saturday at which Lord Stanley has declared that he would
let this Government go on smoothly unless the word “Irish
Church” was pronounced. About men and offices, Lord John
has consulted with Lord Lansdowne, Palmerston, Clarendon,
and Cottenham, who were of opinion that the Liberal members
of Sir Robert’s Cabinet ought to be induced to retain office
[page 84]
under Lord John, viz. Lord Dalhousie, Lord Lincoln, and Mr
Sidney Herbert. Sir Robert Peel at the interview of this
morning had stated to Lord John that he would not consider
it as an attempt to draw his supporters away from him (it not
being his intention to form a party), and that he would not
dissuade them from accepting the offer, but that he feared
that they would not accept. We concurred in this opinion,
but Lord John was authorised by Victoria to make the offer.
Mr F. Baring, the Chancellor of the Exchequer under the late
Whig Government, has intimated to Lord John that he would
prefer if no offer of office was made to him; Lord John would
therefore recommend Mr Charles Wood for this office. Lord
Grey was still a difficulty; in or out of office he seemed to be
made a difficulty. It would be desirable to have him in the
Cabinet if he could waive his opinions upon the Irish Church.
His speech in the House of Lords¹⁵ at the beginning of the
session had done much harm, had been very extreme, and Lord
John was decidedly against him in that. Lord Grey knew
that everybody blamed it, but said everybody would be of
those (his) opinions ten years hence, and therefore he might
just as well hold them now. Mr Wood having great influence
with him might keep him quiet, and so would the
Colonial seals, as he would get work enough. About Lord
Palmerston, he is satisfied, and would no more make any
difficulty.

Footnote 15: On the 23rd of March, in the course of a long speech on the state of Ireland, Earl Grey
had contrasted the poverty of the Roman Catholic Church in that country with the
affluence of the Establishment, diverted, as he said, by the superior power of England from
its original objects; adding that the Protestant Church was regarded by the great mass
of the Irish people as an active cause of oppression and misery.

Lord John Russell told me in the evening that he had forgotten
to mention one subject to the Queen: it was that Sir
Robert Peel by his speech and his special mention of Mr
Cobden as the person who had carried the great measure, had
made it very difficult for Lord John not to offer office to Mr
Cobden. The Whigs were already accused of being exclusive,
and reaping the harvest of other people’s work. The only
thing he could offer would be a Cabinet office. Now this would
affront a great many people whom he (Lord J.) had to conciliate,
and create even possibly dissension in his Cabinet.
As Mr Cobden was going on the Continent for a year, Lord John
was advised by Lord Clarendon to write to Mr C., and tell him
that he had heard he was going abroad, that he would not
make any offer to him therefore, but that he considered him as
entitled once to be recommended for office to the Queen.
This he would do, with the Queen’s permission….

[page 85]

Queen Victoria to Sir Robert Peel.

THE NEW MINISTRY

Osborne, 1st July 1846.

The Queen returns these letters, with her best thanks.
The settlement of the Oregon question has given us the greatest
satisfaction. It does seem strange that at the moment of
triumph the Government should have to resign. The Queen
read Sir Robert Peel’s speech with great admiration. The
Queen seizes this opportunity (though she will see Sir Robert
again) of expressing her deep concern at losing his services,
which she regrets as much for the Country as for herself and
the Prince. In whatever position Sir Robert Peel may be, we
shall ever look on him as a kind and true friend, and ever have
the greatest esteem and regard for him as a Minister and as a
private individual.

The Queen will not say anything about what passed at Lord
John Russell’s interview, as the Prince has already written to
Sir Robert. She does not think, however, that he mentioned
the wish Lord John expressed that Lord Liverpool should
retain his office, which however (much as we should personally
like it) we think he would not do.

What does Sir Robert hear of the Protectionists, and what
do his own followers say to the state of affairs?

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

WHIG JEALOUSIES

Buckingham Palace, 6th July 1846.

Yesterday the new Ministry were installed at a Privy Council,
and the Seals of Office transferred to them. We had a long
conversation with Sir Robert Peel, who took leave. I mentioned
to him that his word of “Richard Cobden” had
created an immense sensation, but he was not inclined to enter
upon the subject. When we begged him to do nothing which
could widen the breach between him and his party, he said,
“I don’t think that we can ever get together again.” He
repeated that he was anxious not to undertake a Government
again, that his health would not stand it, that it was better
likewise for the Queen’s service that other, younger men should
be brought forward. Sir Robert, Lord Aberdeen, and Sir
James Graham parted with great emotion, and had tears in
their eyes when they thanked the Queen for her confidence and
support. Lord Aberdeen means to have an interview with
Lord Palmerston, and says that when he (Lord A.) came into
office, Lord Palmerston and the Chronicle assailed him most
[page 86]
bitterly as an imbecile Minister, a traitor to his country, etc.,
etc. He means now to show Lord P. the contrast by declaring
his readiness to assist him in every way he can by his advice,
that he would at all times speak to him as if he was his colleague
if he wished it.

The new Court is nearly completed, and we have succeeded
in obtaining a very respectable and proper one, notwithstanding
the run which the Party made upon it which had been
formerly used to settle these matters, to their liking only.
The Government is not a united one, however, by any means.
Mr Wood and Lord Clarendon take the greatest credit in having
induced Lord Grey to join the Government,¹⁶ and are responsible
to Lord John to keep him quiet, which they think they will
be able to do, as he had been convinced of the folly of his
former line of conduct. Still, they say Lord Lansdowne will
have the lead only nominally, that Lord Grey is to take it
really in the House of Lords. There is the Grey Party, consisting
of Lord Grey, Lord Clarendon, Sir George Grey, and
Mr Wood; they are against Lord Lansdowne, Lord Minto,
Lord Auckland, and Sir John Hobhouse, stigmatising them as
old women. Lord John leans entirely to the last-named
gentlemen. There is no cordiality between Lord John and
Lord Palmerston, who, if he had to make a choice, would even
forget what passed in December last, and join the Grey Party
in preference to Lord John personally. The curious part of
all this is that they cannot keep a secret, and speak of all their
differences. They got the Times over by giving it exclusive
information, and the leading articles are sent in and praise
the new Cabinet, but the wicked paper added immediately a
furious attack upon Sir John Hobhouse, which alarmed them
so much that they sent to Sir John, sounding him, whether he
would be hereafter prepared to relinquish the Board of Control.
(This, however, is a mere personal matter of Mr Walter, who
stood against Sir John at Nottingham in 1841 and was unseated.)
Sir John Easthope, the proprietor of the Morning
Chronicle, complains bitterly of the subserviency to the Times
and treason to him. He says he knows that the information
was sent from Lord John’s house, and threatens revenge.
“If you will be ruled by the Times,” he said to one of the
Cabinet, “the Times has shown you already by a specimen
that you will be ruled by a rod of iron.”

Footnote 16: In spite of the opposition of the latter to Palmerston’s re-appointment to the Foreign
Office. See ante, p. 60.

A Brevet for the Army and Navy is proposed, in order to
satisfy Lord Anglesey with the dignity of Field-Marshal.

Albert.

[page 87]

The Protectionists, 150 strong, including Peers and M.P.’s,
are to give a dinner to Lord Stanley at Greenwich, at which he
is to announce his opinions upon the line they are to take.
Lord George Bentinck is there to lay down the lead which the
Party insisted upon. Who is to follow him as their leader in
the Commons nobody knows.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Buckingham Palace, 7th July 1846.

My dearest Uncle,—I have to thank you for your kind
letter of the 3rd. It arrived yesterday, which was a very hard
day for me. I had to part with Sir R. Peel and Lord Aberdeen,
who are irreparable losses to us and the Country; they were
both so much overcome that it quite overset me, and we have
in them two devoted friends. We felt so safe with them.
Never, during the five years that they were with me, did they
ever recommend a person or a thing which was not for my or
the Country’s best, and never for the Party’s advantage only;
and the contrast now is very striking; there is much less respect
and much less high and pure feeling. Then the discretion of
Peel, I believe, is unexampled.

A WEAK GOVERNMENT

Stockmar has, I know, explained to you the state of affairs,
which is unexampled, and I think the present Government
very weak and extremely disunited. What may appear to you
as a mistake in November was an inevitable evil. Aberdeen
very truly explained it yesterday. “We had ill luck,” he said;
“if it had not been for this famine in Ireland, which rendered
immediate measures necessary, Sir Robert would have prepared
them gradually for the change.” Then, besides, the
Corn Law Agitation was such that if Peel had not wisely made
this change (for which the whole Country blesses him), a convulsion
would shortly have taken place, and we should have
been forced to yield what has been granted as a boon. No
doubt the breaking up of the Party (which will come together
again, whether under Peel or some one else) is a very distressing
thing. The only thing to be regretted, and I do not know
exactly why he did it (though we can guess), was his praise of
Cobden, which has shocked people a good deal.

But I can’t tell you how sad I am to lose Aberdeen; you
can’t think what a delightful companion he was; the breaking
up of all this intercourse during our journeys, etc., is deplorable.

We have contrived to get a very respectable Court.

Albert’s use to me, and I may say to the Country, by his
[page 88]
firmness and sagacity, is beyond all belief in these moments
of trial.

We are all well, but I am, of course, a good deal overset by
all these tribulations.

Ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

I was much touched to see Graham so very much overcome
at taking leave of us.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Hardinge.

THE QUEEN’S ANXIETY

Buckingham Palace, 8th July 1846.

The Queen thanks Lord Hardinge for his interesting communications.
Lord Hardinge will have learnt all that has
taken place in the Country; one of the most brilliant Governments
this Country ever had has fallen at the moment of
victory! The Queen has now, besides mourning over this
event, the anxiety of having to see the Government carried on
as efficiently as possible, for the welfare of the Country. The
Queen would find a guarantee for the accomplishment of this
object in Lord Hardinge’s consenting to continue at the head
of the Government of India, where great experiments have
been made which require unity of purpose and system to be
carried out successfully.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

Osborne, 10th July 1846.

… The Queen approves of the pensions proposed by Lord
J. Russell, though she cannot conceal from him that she
thinks the one to Father Mathew a doubtful proceeding. It is
quite true that he has done much good by preaching temperance,
but by the aid of superstition, which can hardly be
patronised by the Crown.¹⁷

The Queen is sure that Lord John will like her at all times
to speak out her mind, and has, therefore, done so without
reserve.

Footnote 17: The pension was, however, granted.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

THE FRENCH ROYAL FAMILY

Osborne, 14th July 1846.

My dearest Uncle,—We are very happily established here
since Thursday, and have beautiful weather for this truly
[page 89]
enjoyable place; we drive, walk, and sit out—and the nights
are so fine. I long for you to be here. It has quite restored
my spirits, which were much shaken by the sad leave-takings
in London—of Sir R. Peel, Lord Aberdeen, Lord Liverpool, etc.
Lord L. could not well have stayed. Lord Aberdeen was very
much overset.

The present Government is weak, and I think Lord J. does
not possess the talent of keeping his people together. Most
people think, however, that they will get through this Session;
the only question of difficulty is the sugar question.

I think that the King of the French’s visit is more than ever
desirable—now; for if he were to be shy of coming, it would
prove to the world that this new Government was hostile, and
the entente cordiale no longer sure. Pray impress this on the
King—and I hope and beg he will let the dear Nemours pay
us a little visit in November. It would have the best effect, and
be so pleasant, as we are so dull in the winter all by ourselves.
I hope that in future, when the King and the Family are at Eu,
some of them will frequently come over to see us here. It
would be so nice and so near.

Now adieu, dearest Uncle. I hope I shall not have to write
to you again, but have the happiness of saying de vive voix,
that I am ever, your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Viscount Palmerston to Queen Victoria.

THE SPANISH MARRIAGES

Foreign Office, 16th July 1846.

… With regard to the marriage of the Queen of Spain,
Viscount Palmerston has received a good deal of general information
from persons who have conversed with him on the
subject, but he has learnt nothing thereupon which was not
already known to your Majesty. The state of that matter
seems, in a few words, to be that the Count of Trapani is now
quite out of the question, that the Count of Montemolin,
though wished for by Austria, and in some degree supported
by the Court of the Tuileries, would be an impossible choice,
and that the alternative now lies between Don Enrique
and the Prince Leopold of Coburg, the two Queens being
equally set against the Duke of Cadiz, Don Enrique’s elder
brother. In favour of Prince Leopold seem to be the two
Queens, and a party (of what extent and influence does not
appear) in Spain. Against that Prince are arrayed, ostensibly
at least, the Court of the Tuileries and the Liberal Party in
Spain; and probably to a certain degree the Government of
Austria.

[page 90]

In favour of Don Enrique are a very large portion of the
Spanish nation, who would prefer a Spanish prince for their
Sovereign’s husband; and the preference, expressed only as
an opinion and without any acts in furtherance of it, by your
Majesty’s late Administration. Against Don Enrique are the
aversion of the Queen Mother, founded on her family differences
with her late sister, and the apprehensions of the present
Ministers in Spain, who would think their power endangered
by the political connection between Don Enrique and the more
Liberal Party. The sentiments of the King of the French in
regard to Don Enrique seem not very decided; but it appears
likely that the King of the French would prefer Count Montemolin
or the Duke of Cadiz to Don Enrique; but that he
would prefer Don Enrique to the Prince Leopold of Coburg,
because the former would fall within the category of Bourbon
princes, descended from Philip the Fifth of Spain, proposed
by the King of the French as the limited circle within which
the Queen of Spain should find a husband.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

16th July 1846.

The Queen has received Lord Palmerston’s interesting letter,
and is very much satisfied with his parting conversation with
Ibrahim Pasha, which she conceives will not be lost upon him.
The view Lord Palmerston takes about the present position of
the Spanish marriage question appears to the Queen quite
correct. She finds only one omission, which is Queen Isabella’s
personal objection to Don Enrique, and the danger which
attaches to marriage with a Prince taken up by a Political
Party in Spain, which makes him the political enemy of the
opposite Party.¹⁸

The Queen thanks Lord Palmerston for his zeal about
Portugal, which is really in an alarming state.¹⁹ She sends
herewith the last letter which she received from the King of
Portugal. The Queen is sorry to have lost the opportunity of
seeing Marshal Saldanha.

Footnote 18: On the 18th of July Lord Palmerston wrote his celebrated despatch to Mr Bulwer, and
unfortunately showed a copy of it to Jarnac, the French Ambassador in London. The
mention of Prince Leopold in it, as a possible candidate for the Queen of Spain’s hand,
gave the French King and Minister the opportunity they wanted, and brought matters
to a crisis. See Life of the Prince Consort, vol. i. chap. xvii.; Dalling’s Life of Lord Palmerston,
vol. iii. chaps. vii. and viii.

Footnote 19: Owing to the insurrection, a run took place on the Bank of Lisbon. The Ministry
(in which Saldanha was War Minister) had some difficulty in raising a loan.

[page 91]

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

THE PREROGATIVE OF DISSOLUTION

Osborne House, 16th July 1846.

The Queen has received Lord John Russell’s communication
of yesterday, and sincerely hopes that Lord John’s sugar
measure²⁰ may be such that the Committee of the Cabinet, as
well as the whole Cabinet and Parliament, may concur in it,
which would save the country another struggle this year. The
Queen trusts, moreover, that late experience and good sense
may induce the West Indians to be moderate and accommodating.
As Lord John touches in his letter on the possibility
of a Dissolution, the Queen thinks it right to put Lord John
in possession of her views upon this subject generally. She
considers the power of dissolving Parliament a most valuable
and powerful instrument in the hands of the Crown, but which
ought not to be used except in extreme cases and with a
certainty of success. To use this instrument and be defeated
is a thing most lowering to the Crown and hurtful to the
country. The Queen strongly feels that she made a mistake
in allowing the Dissolution in 1841; the result has been a
majority returned against her of nearly one hundred votes;
but suppose the result to have been nearly an equality of
votes between the two contending parties, the Queen would
have thrown away her last remedy, and it would have been
impossible for her to get any Government which could have
carried on public business with a chance of success.

The Queen was glad therefore to see that Sir Robert Peel did
not ask for a Dissolution, and she entirely concurs in the opinion
expressed by him in his last speech in the House of Commons,
when he said:

“I feel strongly this, that no Administration is justified in
advising the exercise of that prerogative, unless there be a fair,
reasonable presumption, even a strong moral conviction, that
after a Dissolution they will be enabled to administer the
affairs of this country through the support of a party sufficiently
powerful to carry their measures. I do not think a
Dissolution justifiable to strengthen a party. I think the
power of Dissolution is a great instrument in the hands of the
Crown, and that there is a tendency to blunt that instrument
if it be resorted to without necessity.

“The only ground for Dissolution would have been a strong
presumption that after a Dissolution we should have had a
party powerful enough in this House to give effect practically
[page 92]
to the measures which we might propose. I do not mean a
support founded on a concurrence on one great question of
domestic policy, however important that may be, not of those
who differ from us on almost all questions of public policy,
agreeing with us in one; but that we should have the support
of a powerful party united by a general concurrence of political
opinions.”

The Queen is confident that these views will be in accordance
with Lord John Russell’s own sentiments and opinions upon
this subject.

Footnote 20: In pursuance of the policy of free trade, the Ministry introduced and passed a Bill
reducing the duties on foreign slave-grown sugar, with the ultimate intention of equalising
them with those on Colonial produce.

Viscount Melbourne to Queen Victoria.

LORD MELBOURNE’S VIEWS

South Street, 21st July 1846.

Lord Melbourne presents his humble duty to your Majesty.
He has just received your Majesty’s letter of yesterday, and is
much delighted at again hearing from your Majesty.

What your Majesty says of the state of public affairs and
of parties in Parliament is true. But in November last Sir
Robert Peel had a party which might have enabled him to
have long carried on the Government if he had not most
unaccountably chosen himself to scatter it to the winds.

Lord Melbourne is much gratified by the intimation that
your Majesty would not have been displeased or unwilling to
see him again amongst your confidential servants, but your
Majesty acted most kindly and most judiciously in not calling
upon him in November last, and John Russell has done the
same in forbearing to make to Lord Melbourne any offer at
present. When Lord Melbourne was at Brocket Hall during
the Whitsuntide holidays he clearly foresaw that Sir Robert
Peel’s Government must be very speedily dissolved; and
upon considering the state of his own health and feelings, he
came to the determination, which he communicated to Mr
Ellice, who was with him, that he could take no active part in
the then speedily approaching crisis. He felt himself quite
unequal to the work, and also to that of either of the Secretaries
of State, or even of the more subordinate and less heavy
and responsible offices. He is very subject to have accesses
of weakness, which render him incapable for exertion, and
deprive his life of much of its enjoyment. They do not appear
at present to hasten its termination, but how soon they may
do so it is impossible to foretell or foresee.

Lord Melbourne hopes that he shall be able to wait upon
your Majesty on Saturday next, but he fears the weight of
[page 93]
the full dress uniform. He begs to be remembered to His
Royal Highness.

Sir Robert Peel to the Prince Albert.

THE PRINCE AND PEEL

Drayton Manor, Fazeley, August 1846.

Sir,—I shall be very happy to avail myself of your Royal
Highness’s kind permission occasionally to write to your
Royal Highness. However much I am enjoying the contrast
between repose and official life, I may say—I hope without
presumption, I am sure with perfect sincerity—that the total
interruption of every sort of communication with your Royal
Highness would be a very severe penalty.

It was only yesterday that I was separating from the rest of
my correspondence all the letters which I had received from
the Queen and your Royal Highness during the long period of
five years, in order that I might ensure their exemption from
the fate to which in these days all letters seem to be destined,
and I could not review them without a mixed feeling of gratitude
for the considerate indulgence and kindness of which
they contained such decisive proofs, and of regret that such
a source of constantly recurring interest and pleasure was
dried up.

I can act in conformity with your Royal Highness’s gracious
wishes, and occasionally write to you, without saying a word
of which the most jealous or sensitive successor in the confidence
of the Queen could complain…. Your faithful and
humble Servant,

Robert Peel.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

Buckingham Palace, 3rd August 1846.

The Queen has just seen Lord Bessborough, who presses
very much for her going to Ireland; she thinks it right to put
Lord John Russell in possession of her views on this subject.

It is a journey which must one day or other be undertaken,
and which the Queen would be glad to have accomplished,
because it must be disagreeable to her that people should
speculate whether she dare visit one part of her dominions.
Much will depend on the proper moment, for, after those speculations,
it ought to succeed if undertaken.

The Queen is anxious that when undertaken it should be a
National thing, and the good which it is to do must be a permanent
[page 94]
and not a transitory advantage to a particular Government,
having the appearance of a party move.

As this is not a journey of pleasure like the Queen’s former
ones, but a State act, it will have to be done with a certain
degree of State, and ought to be done handsomely. It cannot
be expected that the main expense of it should fall upon the
Civil List, nor would this be able to bear it.

The Prince Albert to Earl Grey.

CANADIAN AFFAIRS

Buckingham Palace, 3rd August 1846.

My dear Lord Grey,—The Queen wishes me to return you
the enclosed letter. The subject of the Government of Canada
is one which the Queen has much at heart. Canada has been
for a long time, and may probably still be for the future, a
source of great weakness to this Empire, and a number of experiments
have been tried. It was in a very bad state before
the Union, continually embarrassing the Home Government,
and the Union has by no means acted as a remedy, but it may
be said almost to have increased the difficulties. The only
thing that has hitherto proved beneficial was the prudent,
consistent, and impartial administration of Lord Metcalfe.
Upon the continuance and consistent application of the
system which he has laid down and acted upon, will depend, in
the Queen’s estimation, the future welfare of that province,
and the maintenance of proper relations with the mother
country. The Queen therefore is most anxious that in the
appointment of a new Governor-General (for which post she
thinks Lord Elgin very well qualified), regard should be had
to securing an uninterrupted development of Lord Metcalfe’s
views. The Queen thought it the more her duty to make you
acquainted with her sentiments upon this subject, because she
thinks that additional danger arises from the impressions
which the different agents of the different political parties in
Canada try to produce upon the Home Government and the
imperial Parliament, and from their desire to mix up Canadian
party politics with general English party politics.²¹ Ever
yours,
etc.

Albert.

Footnote 21: In the event, Lord Elgin was appointed.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

Chesham Place, 4th August 1846.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and is greatly obliged to your Majesty for your Majesty’s communication
[page 95]
respecting a Royal visit to Ireland. He concurs
in your Majesty’s observations on that subject. He is of
opinion that if the visit partook in any way of a party character,
its effects would be mischievous, and not beneficial.

He is also doubtful of the propriety of either incurring very
large expense on the part of the public, or of encouraging Irish
proprietors to lay out money in show and ceremony at a time
when the accounts of the potato crop exhibit the misery and
distress of the people in an aggravated shape.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

THE WELLINGTON STATUE

7th August [1846].

With regard to the Statue²² on the arch on Constitution
Hill, the Queen is of opinion that if she is considered individually
she is bound by her word, and must allow the Statue to go
up, however bad the appearance of it will be. If the constitutional
fiction is applied to the case, the Queen acts by the
advice of her responsible advisers. One Government advised
her to give her assent, another advises the withdrawal of that
assent. This latter position has been taken in Lord Morpeth’s
former letter to the Committee, and in the debate in the House
of Commons; it must therefore now be adhered to, and whatever
is decided must be the act of the Government. It would
accordingly be better to keep the word “Government” at the
conclusion of Lord Morpeth’s proposed letter, and that the
Prince should not go to Town to give an opinion upon the
appearance of the figure, when up.

Footnote 22: The equestrian statue of the Duke of Wellington at Hyde Park Corner was much
criticised at the time of its erection: it is now at Aldershot.

The Prince Albert to Viscount Palmerston.

[9th August 1846.]

My dear Lord Palmerston,—The Queen is much obliged
for Lord Howard de Walden’s private letter to you, and begs
you will never hesitate to send her such private communications,
however unreserved they may be in their language, as
our chief wish and aim is, by hearing all parties, to arrive at a
just, dispassionate, and correct opinion upon the various
political questions. This, however, entails a strict scrutiny of
what is brought before us….

[page 96]

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

ENGLAND AND SPAIN

Osborne, 17th August 1846.

The Queen has received a draft to Mr Bulwer from Lord
Palmerston. The perusal of it has raised some apprehensions
in the Queen’s mind, which she stated to Lord Palmerston she
would communicate to Lord John Russell.

The draft lays down a general policy, which the Queen is
afraid may ultimately turn out very dangerous. It is this:

England undertakes to interfere in the internal affairs of
Spain, and to promote the development of the present constitutional
Government of Spain in a more democratic direction,
and this for the avowed purpose of counteracting the influence
of France. England becomes therefore responsible for a particular
direction given to the internal Government of Spain,
which to control she has no sufficient means. All England can
do, and will have to do, is: to keep up a particular party in
Spain to support her views.

France, knowing that this is directed against her, must take
up the opposite party and follow the opposite policy in Spanish
affairs.

This must bring England and France to quarrels, of which
we can hardly foresee the consequences, and it dooms Spain
to eternal convulsions and reactions.

This has been the state of things before; theory and experience
therefore warn against the renewal of a similar policy.

The natural consequence of this is that Don Enrique would
appear as the desirable candidate for the Queen of Spain’s
hand, and Lord Palmerston accordingly for the first time
deviates from the line hitherto followed by us, and urges Don
Enrique, which in the eyes of the world must stamp him as
“an English Candidate.” Lord Palmerston, from his wish to
see him succeed, does, in the Queen’s opinion, not sufficiently
acknowledge the obstacles which stand in the way of this combination,
and which all those who are on the spot and in the
confidence of the Court represent as almost insurmountable.

The Queen desires Lord John Russell to weigh all this most
maturely, and to let her know the result.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

Chesham Place, 19th August 1846.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and has the honour to state that he has maturely considered,
[page 97]
together with Lord Palmerston, Lord Lansdowne, and Lord
Clarendon, your Majesty’s observations on the draft sent by
Lord Palmerston for your Majesty’s approbation.

Lord John Russell entirely concurs in your Majesty’s wish
that England and France should not appear at Madrid as
countenancing conflicting parties. Lord John Russell did not
attach this meaning to Lord Palmerston’s proposed despatch,
but he has now re-written the draft in such a manner as he
trusts will obtain your Majesty’s approval.

Lord John Russell will pay the utmost attention to this
difficult and delicate subject.

Viscount Palmerston to Queen Victoria.

THE SPANISH MARRIAGES

Foreign Office, 19th August 1846.

Viscount Palmerston presents his humble duty to your
Majesty, and has endeavoured to modify and rearrange his
proposed instruction to Mr Bulwer in deference to your
Majesty’s wishes and feelings as expressed to Lord John
Russell; and with this view also Viscount Palmerston has
divided the instruction into two separate despatches—the one
treating of the proposed marriage of the Queen, the other of
the possible marriage of the Infanta. But with regard to these
new drafts, as well as with regard to the former one, Viscount
Palmerston would beg to submit that they are not notes to be
presented to any Foreign Government, nor despatches to be in
any way made public; but that they are confidential instructions
given to one of your Majesty’s Ministers abroad, upon
matters upon which your Majesty’s Government have been
urgently pressed, to enable that Minister to give advice; and
Viscount Palmerston would beg also to submit that in a case
of this kind it would not be enough to communicate drily the
opinion of the British Government, without stating and explaining
some of the reasons upon which those opinions are
founded.

It is quite evident from Mr Bulwer’s communication, and
especially from the postscript to his despatch of the 4th of this
month, that Queen Christina, the Duke of Rianzares, and
Señor Isturitz, are earnestly and intently bent upon marrying
the Queen Isabella to Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, and it
is very difficult to find conclusive grounds for saying that such
a match would not perhaps, on the whole, be the best for
Queen Isabella and the Spanish nation. But still, all things
considered, your Majesty’s Government incline to the opinion
[page 98]
that a Spanish Prince would be a preferable choice, and they
are prepared to give that opinion to the Spanish Court.

DON ENRIQUE

There is however but one Spanish Prince whom it would be
creditable to the British Government to recommend as husband
to the Queen, and to that Prince Queen Christina is known to
feel objections, principally founded upon apprehensions bearing
upon her own personal interests. Viscount Palmerston has
endeavoured to furnish Mr Bulwer with such arguments in
favour of Don Enrique as appeared likely to meet Queen
Christina’s fears, and he has occasion to believe, from a conversation
which he had a few days ago with Count Jarnac, that
the French Government, impelled by the apprehension that
your Majesty’s Government intend to support Prince Leopold
of Coburg, would be willing, in order to draw the British
Government off from such a course, to give at least an ostensible
though perhaps not a very earnest support to Don Henry.
But your Majesty will no doubt at once perceive that although
the British Government may come to an understanding with
that of France as to which of the candidates shall be the one
in whose favour an opinion is to be expressed, it would be impossible
for the British Government to associate itself with that
of France in any joint step to be taken upon this matter, and
that each Government must act separately through its own
agent at Madrid. For the two Governments have not only
different objects in view in these matters, England wishing
Spain to be independent, and France desiring to establish a
predominant influence in Spain; but moreover, in regard to
this marriage question, Great Britain has disclaimed any right
to interfere except by opinion and advice, while France has
assumed an authority of dictation, and it is essential that your
Majesty’s Government should so shape the mode of co-operating
with France as not to appear to sanction pretensions
which are founded in no right and are inconsistent with
justice.

Viscount Palmerston is by no means confident that the
joint advice of the British and French Governments in favour
of Don Enrique will be successful, and especially because he
fears that M. Bresson has taken so active a part in favour of
other arrangements, that he will not be very eager in support
of Don Enrique, and will perhaps think that if this arrangement
can be rendered impossible the chances may become
greater in favour of some other arrangement which he and his
Government may prefer. But such future embarrassments
must be dealt with when they arise, and Viscount Palmerston
submits that for the moment, unless the British Government
[page 99]
had been prepared to close with the offers of the Duke of
Rianzares, and to follow at once the course recommended by
Mr Bulwer, the steps suggested in the accompanying drafts
are the safest and the best.

Viscount Palmerston has great pleasure in submitting the
accompanying private letter from Mr Bulwer announcing the
withdrawal of the Spanish troops from the frontier of Portugal.

Mr Bulwer to Viscount Palmerston.

THE DOUBLE BETROTHAL

Madrid, 29th August 1846.

My Lord,—I have troubled your Lordship of late with
many communications….

I have now to announce to your Lordship that the Queen
declared last night at twelve o’clock that she had made up her
mind in favour of His Royal Highness Don Francisco de Asis….
Your Lordship is aware under what circumstances Don
Francisco was summoned here, the Court having been, when
I wrote on the 4th, most anxious to conclude a marriage with
Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, and only induced to abandon
this idea from the repeated intimations it received that it could
not be carried out….

The same night a Council was held of the Queen Mother’s
friends, who determined to bring matters forthwith to a conclusion.
Queen Christina, I understand, spoke to her daughter
and told her she must choose one of two things, either marrying
now, or deferring the marriage for three or four years. That
the Prince of Saxe-Coburg was evidently impossible; that
Count Trapani would be dangerous; that Don Henry had
placed himself in a position which rendered the alliance with
him out of the question, and that Her Majesty must either
make up her mind to marry her cousin Don Francisco de Asis,
or to abandon for some time the idea of marrying.

The Queen, I am told, took some little time to consider, and
then decided in favour of her cousin. The Ministers were
called in, and the drama was concluded….

H. L. Bulwer.

P.S.—I learn that directly the Queen had signified her intention
of marrying her cousin, Count Bresson formally asked
the hand of the Infanta for the Duke of Montpensier, stating
that he had powers to enter upon and conclude that affair,
and the terms of the marriage were then definitively settled
between M. Isturitz and him.

H.L.B.

[page 100]

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

THE QUEEN’S INDIGNATION

On Board the Victoria and Albert,
Falmouth Harbour, 7th September 1846.

My dearest Uncle,—Though I have not heard from you
for ages, you will perhaps be glad to hear from us, and to hear
that our trip has been most successful. We left Osborne on
the 2nd, at eight in the morning, and reached Jersey at seven
that evening. We landed at St Heliers the next morning, and
met with a most brilliant and enthusiastic reception from the
good people. The island is beautiful, and like an orchard.

The settlement of the Queen of Spain’s marriage, coupled
with Montpensier’s, is infamous, and we must remonstrate.
Guizot has had the barefacedness to say to Lord Normanby
that though originally they said that Montpensier should only
marry the Infanta when the Queen was married and had
children,
that Leopold’s being named one of the candidates had
changed all, and that they must settle it now! This is too
bad, for we were so honest as almost to prevent Leo’s marriage
(which might have been, and which Lord Palmerston, as matters
now stand, regrets much did not take place), and the return
is this unfair coupling of the two marriages which have nothing,
and ought to have nothing, to do with one another. The King
should know that we are extremely indignant, and that this
conduct is not the way to keep up the entente which he
wishes.
It is done, moreover, in such a dishonest way. I must do
Palmerston the credit to say that he takes it very quietly, and
will act very temperately about it.

I must now conclude. Ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Vicky and Bertie enjoy their tour very much, and the people
here are delighted to see “the Duke of Cornwall.”

The Queen of the French to Queen Victoria.

THE QUEEN OF THE FRENCH

Neuilly, 8 Septembre 1846.

Madame,—Confiante dans cette précieuse amitié dont votre
Majesté nous a donné tant de preuves et dans l’aimable intérêt
que vous avez toujours témoigné à tous nos Enfants,
je m’empresse de vous annoncer la conclusion du mariage de
notre fils Montpensier avec l’Infante Louise Fernanda. Cet
événement de famille nous comble de joie, parce que nous
espérons qu’il assurera le bonheur de notre fils chéri, et que
nous retrouverons dans l’Infante une fille de plus, aussi bonne
[page 101]
et aussi aimable que ses Aînées, et qui ajoutera à notre bonheur
intérieur, le seul vrai dans ce monde, et que vous, Madame,
savez si bien apprécier. Je vous demande d’avance votre
amitié pour notre nouvel Enfant, sûre qu’elle partagera tous
les sentiments de dévouement et d’affection de nous tous pour
vous, pour le Prince Albert, et pour toute votre chère Famille.
Madame, de votre Majesté, la toute dévouée Sœur et Amie,

Marie Amélie.

Queen Victoria to the Queen of the French.

Osborne, 10 Septembre 1846.

Madame,—Je viens de recevoir la lettre de votre Majesté
du 8 de ce mois, et je m’empresse de vous en remercier. Vous
vous souviendrez peut-être de ce qui s’est passé à Eu entre le
Roi et moi, vous connaissez, Madame, l’importance que j’ai
toujours attachée au maintien de Notre Entente Cordiale et le
zèle avec lequel j’y ai travaillé, vous avez appris sans doute
que nous nous sommes refusés d’arranger le mariage entre la
Reine d’Espagne et notre Cousin Léopold (que les deux Reines
avaient vivement désiré) dans le seul but de ne pas nous
éloigner d’une marche qui serait plus agréable à votre Roi,
quoique nous ne pouvions considérer cette marche comme la
meilleure. Vous pourrez donc aisément comprendre que
l’annonce soudaine de ce double mariage ne pouvait nous causer
que de la surprise et un bien vif regret.

Je vous demande bien pardon de vous parler de politique
dans ce moment, mais j’aime pouvoir me dire que j’ai toujours
été sincère envers vous.

En vous priant de présenter mes hommages au Roi, je suis,
Madame, de votre Majesté, la toute dévouée Sœur et Amie,

Victoria R.

Viscount Palmerston to Queen Victoria.

VIEWS OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT

Carlton Terrace, 12th September 1846.

Viscount Palmerston presents his humble duty to your
Majesty, and returns with many acknowledgments the accompanying
letters which your Majesty has been pleased to send
him, and which he has thought your Majesty would wish him
also to communicate to Lord John Russell.

The letter of the Queen of the French seems to Viscount
Palmerston to look like a contrivance to draw your Majesty on
[page 102]
to express, in regard to the Montpensier marriage in its character
as a domestic arrangement, some sentiments or wishes
which might be at variance with the opinions which your
Majesty might entertain regarding that marriage in its political
character and bearing. But your Majesty’s most judicious
answer has defeated that intention, if any such existed, and
has stated in a firm, but at the same time in the friendliest
manner, the grounds of complaint against the conduct of the
French Government in this affair.

Viscount Palmerston had yesterday afternoon a very long
conversation with the Count de Jarnac upon these matters.

Viscount Palmerston said that with regard to the marriage
of the Queen of Spain, that was a matter as to which the British
Government have no political objection to make. They
deeply regret that a young Queen should have been compelled
by moral force, and to serve the personal and political interests
of other persons, to accept for husband a person whom she can
neither like nor respect, and with whom her future life will
certainly be unhappy at home, even if it should not be characterised
by circumstances which would tend to lower her in the
estimation of her people. But these are matters which concern
the Queen and people of Spain more than the Government
and people of England. But that the projected marriage of the
Duke of Montpensier is a very different matter, and must
have a political bearing that must exercise a most unfortunate
effect upon the relations between England and France.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

THE SPANISH MARRIAGES

Osborne, 14th September 1846.

My dearest Uncle,—I have to thank you for a most kind
letter of the 31st from Basle, by which I was sorry to see that
your journey had been delayed, and that you were still not
well.

We are, alas! sadly engrossed with this Spanish marriage,
which, though it does not threaten war (for the English care
very little about the Spanish marriages) threatens complications.
Albert has told you all that passed between the dear
Queen and me, and the very absurd ground on which the
French make their stand. The details of the story are very
bad—and I grieve to say that the good King, etc., have behaved
very dishonestly.

We have protested, and mean to protest very strongly,
against Montpensier’s marriage with the Infanta, as long as
[page 103]
she is presumptive heiress to the Throne of Spain. The King
departs from his principle, for he insisted on a Bourbon, because
he declared he would not marry one of his sons to the Queen;
and now he effects the Queen’s marriage with the worst Bourbon
she could have, and marries his son to the Infanta, who in all
probability will become Queen! It is very bad. Certainly
at Madrid [Palmerston] mismanaged it—as Stockmar says—by
forcing Don Enrique, in spite of all Bulwer could say. If
our dear Aberdeen was still at his post, the whole thing would
not have happened; for he would not have forced Enriquito
(which enraged Christine), and secondly, Guizot would not
have escamoté Aberdeen with the wish of triumphing over him
as he has done over Palmerston, who has behaved most openly
and fairly towards France, I must say, in this affair. But
say what one will, it is he again who indirectly gets us into a
squabble with France! And it is such a personal sort of a
quarrel, which pains and grieves me so; and I pity the poor
good Piat,²³ whom we are very fond of. One thing, however,
I feel, that in opposing this marriage, we are not really affecting
his happiness, for he has never seen the Infanta—and she is a
child of fourteen, and not pretty. The little Queen I pity so
much, for the poor child dislikes her cousin, and she is said to
have consented against her will. We shall see if she really
does marry him. Altogether, it is most annoying, and must
ruffle our happy intercourse with the French family for a time
at least.

I was obliged to write very strongly and openly to poor dear
Louise too. You may rely upon nothing being done rashly
or intemperately on our part. Lord Palmerston is quite ready
to be guided by us. In haste, ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

We go into our new house to-day.

Footnote 23: A name by which the Duc de Montpensier was sometimes called in the family circle.

H.M. Marie Amelie, Queen of the French, 1828.

H.M. MARIE AMÉLIE, QUEEN OF THE FRENCH, 1828.

From the miniature by Millet at Windsor Castle

To face p. 104, Vol. II.

Baron Stockmar to Queen Victoria.

18th September 1846.

Baron Stockmar has been honoured with your Majesty’s
kind note of the 17th instant. The very day the Baron heard
of the Spanish news, he wrote to a man at Paris, whom the
King sees as often as he presents himself at the palace. In this
letter the Baron stated fairly and moderately but without palliation
in what light M. Bresson’s conduct must necessarily appear
[page 104]
in London, and what very naturally and most probably must be
the political consequences of such conduct.

The Baron’s statement was read to the King, word for word,
the very evening it reached Paris.

His Majesty listened to it most attentively, and said after
some pause: “Notwithstanding all this, the marriage will
take place. I don’t consider Montpensier’s marriage an affair
between nations, and the English people, in particular, care
very little about it; it is much more a private affair between
myself and the English Secretary, Lord Palmerston, and as
such it will not bring on important political consequences.”

Queen Victoria to the Queen of the Belgians.

LETTER TO QUEEN LOUISE

Osborne, 18 Septembre 1846.

Ma bien chère Louise,—Je te remercie pour ton retour de
franchise; je ne désire pas que cette controverse entre de plus
dans notre correspondance privée, comme elle est le sujet et
le sera je crains encore davantage de discussion politique.
Je veux seulement dire qu’il est impossible de donner à cette
affaire le cachet d’une simple affaire de famille; l’attitude
prise à Paris sur cette affaire de mariage dès le commencement
était une fort étrange; il fallait toute la discrétion de Lord
Aberdeen pour qu’elle n’amenât un éclat plutôt; mais ce
dénouement, si contraire à la parole du Roi, qu’il m’a donnée
lors de cette dernière visite à Eu spontanément, en ajoutant à
la complication, pour la première fois, celle du projet de mariage
de Montpensier, aura mauvaise mine devant toute l’Europe.

Rien de plus pénible n’aurait pu arriver que toute cette
dispute qui prend un caractère si personnel….

Victoria R.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

THE QUEEN’S INDIGNATION

Osborne, 21st September 1846.

My Dearest Uncle,—I have to thank you very much for
your very kind letter of the 5th from Zurich. It is very unfortunate
that you should be so far off at this moment. Since
I wrote to you we have decided to remonstrate both at Madrid
(this went a week ago), and at Paris, but this last not in a
formal note but in a despatch to Lord Normanby, against this
very unjustifiable breach of faith on the part of France. We
[page 105]
have seen these despatches, which are very firm, but written
in a very proper and kind tone, exposing at the same time the
fallacy of what has been done; for the King himself declared
that he would never let one of his sons marry the Queen, he
insisted on her marrying a descendant of Philip V. This has
been done, and at the same moment he says his son is to marry
the Infanta, who may become Queen to-morrow! And to all
this he says, “C’est seulement une affaire de famille”! The
King is very fond of England, and still more of peace, and he
never can sacrifice this (for though it would not be immediate
war it would cause coolness with us and with other Powers,
and would probably lead to war in a short time), for a breach
of faith and for one of his sons’ marriages. No quarrel or
misunderstanding
in the world could be more disagreeable and to me
more cruelly painful, for it is so personal, and has come into the
midst of all our communications and correspondence, and is
too annoying. It is so sad, too, for dear Louise, to whom one
cannot say that her father has behaved dishonestly. I hope,
however, another ten days will show us some daylight. I will
not mention anything about Leopold’s²⁴ answer, as Albert will,
I doubt not, write to you all about it. It is very satisfactory,
however.

We are since this day week in our charming new house,
which is delightful, and to-morrow we go, alas! to Windsor,
where we expect the Queen-Dowager and the Princess of Prussia,
who will remain a week with us. Ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

I received this afternoon your kind letter from Gais of the
12th. One word more I must just add. No doubt if Lord
Aberdeen had been at his post what has happened would not
have taken place, and suspicion of Lord Palmerston has been
the cause of the unjustifiable conduct of the French Government.
But just as they did suspect him, they should have
been more cautious to do anything which could bring on a
quarrel, which is surely not what the King can wish.

Footnote 24: Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

THE PRINCESS OF PRUSSIA

Windsor Castle, 29th September 1846.

My dearest Uncle,—I received last week your very kind
and satisfactory letter of the 16th. Your opinion on this
truly unfortunate and, on the part of the French, disgraceful
[page 106]
affair is a great support to us. Stockmar has, I know, communicated
to you what has passed, and he will send you copies
of the King’s letter and my answer. Our conduct has been
throughout honest, and the King’s and Guizot’s the contrary.
How the King can wantonly throw away the friendship of one
who has stood by him with such sincere affection, for a doubtful
object of personal and family aggrandizement, is to me and to
the whole country inexplicable. Have confidence in him I fear
I never can again, and Peel, who is here on a visit, says a war
may arise any moment, once that the good understanding is
disturbed; think, then, that the King has done this in his 74th
year, and leaves this inheritance to his successor; and to whom—to
a Grandchild, and a Minor! And for Nemours and Paris,
our friendship is of the greatest importance, and yet he prefers
the troubles of governing Spain, which will be a source of constant
worry and anxiety, to the happy understanding so happily
existing between our two countries! I cannot comprehend
him. Guizot behaves shamefully, and so totally without good
faith. Our protests have been presented. I feel more than
ever the loss of our valuable Peel.

I wish, dearest Uncle, you would not go to Paris at all at
present.

The Queen-Dowager and the Princess of Prussia²⁵ have left
us this morning after a week’s stay, and I have been delighted
with the Princess. I find her so clever, so amiable, so well
informed, and so good; she seems to have some enemies, for
there are whispers of her being false; but from all that I have
seen of her—from her discretion, her friendship through thick
and thin, and to her own detriment, for Hélène, and for the
Queen-Dowager who has known her from her birth, I cannot
and will not believe it. Her position is a very difficult one;
she is too enlightened and liberal for the Prussian Court not to
have enemies; but I believe that she is a friend to us and our
family, and I do believe that I have a friend in her, who may
be most useful to us. I must conclude, envying your being
in Tyrol. Ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 25: Marie Louise Augusta, daughter of the Grand Duke Charles of Saxe-Weimar, subsequently
Empress of Germany, mother of Prince Frederick William, afterwards the
Emperor Frederick, who in 1858 married the Princess Royal.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

ENGLAND AND THE THREE POWERS

Windsor Castle, 1st October 1846.

The Queen wishes to express her approval of the step taken
by Lord Palmerston in urging the Three Northern Powers to
[page 107]
join in the protest against the Montpensier marriage on the
ground of the Treaty of Utrecht and the Declaration of Philip V.
She thinks, however, that it is necessary to do more, and
wishes Lord Palmerston should send a note to the Cabinets
of the three Powers, explanatory of the whole of the proceedings
relative to the Spanish marriages, showing the attitude
taken by us from the first, and disclosing the facts which led
to this unfortunate termination. The three Powers ought to
be enabled to see the whole of the transaction if we wish them
to sympathise with us.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

1st October 1846.

Lord John Russell saw Count Jarnac to-day, and told him
that your Majesty’s displeasure had not been removed. He
had in his hands a memorandum, which is apparently word
for word the letter of the King of the French to the Queen of
the Belgians.²⁶

Lord John Russell observed that it was admitted that the
Duke of Montpensier was not to marry the Infanta till the
Queen of Spain had children, and that voluntary engagement
had been departed from. We might expect the same departure
from the professions now made not to interfere in the affairs
of Spain.

Count Jarnac protested against this inference, and repeated
that the promise with regard to the Infanta was only conditional.

Lord John Russell expects that in consequence of the remonstrances
of England, and the attention of Europe to the
question, France will be cautious in her interference with the
internal government of Spain, and may probably not be able
to direct her external policy.

M. Bresson has written a long letter to Lord Minto, defending
his own conduct.

Footnote 26: See Louis Philippe’s long letter of the 14th of September, printed in the Life of the
Prince Consort, vol. i. Appendix B. Queen Victoria’s complete and unanswerable reply
will be found there also.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

THE SPANISH MARRIAGES

Windsor Castle, 6th October 1846.

My dearest Uncle,—I thank you very much for your last
kind letter from Gais of the 23rd. This unfortunate Spanish
[page 108]
affair has gone on, heedlessly—and our entente wantonly thrown
away! I mourn over it, and feel deeply the ingratitude
shown; for—without boasting—I must say they never had a
truer friend than we; and one who always stood by them.
When Hadjy wrote that foolish brochure, who stood by him
through thick and thin, but we? and our friendship for the
children will ever continue, but how can we ever feel at our
ease with L. P. again? Guizot’s conduct is beyond all belief
shameful, and so shabbily dishonest. Molé and Thiers both
say he cannot stand. It is the King’s birthday to-day, but I
thought it better not to write to him, for to say fine words at
this
moment would be mockery. For my beloved Louise my
heart bleeds; it is so sad….

I must now conclude. Begging you to believe me, ever
your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Windsor Castle, 17th November 1846.

My Dearest Uncle,—I yesterday received your long and
interesting letter of the 14th. I would much rather not say
anything more about this truly unfortunate and painful
Spanish business; but in justice to myself I must make a few
observations. You say that the King thinks me resentful;
this is extraordinary, for I have no such feeling; my feelings
were and are deeply wounded at the unhandsome and secret
manner (so totally, in letter and in meaning, contrary to an
entente cordiale) in which this affair was settled, and in which
the two marriages were incorporated.

What can I do?

The King and French Government never expressed regret at
the sudden and unhandsome manner, to say the least, in which
they behaved to their best ally and friend, and we really
cannot
admit that they have to forgive us for duping us! Why have they
not tried to make some sort of apology? What do I do, but
remain silent for the present?

It is a sad affair, but resentment I have none whatever, and
this accusation is a new version of the affair.

With respect to Portugal, I refute most positively the unfounded
accusations against us; we cannot interfere in internal
dissensions beyond ensuring the personal safety of the King,
Queen, and Royal Family. The Constitution may be,
and I believe is, an unfortunate thing in those Southern countries;
but once it is established, the Queen must abide by it;
[page 109]
but, unfortunately, the coup de main in sending away Palmella’s
Government (which would inevitably have crumbled to pieces
of itself), was both unconstitutional and unsafe, and I fear
they are in a much worse position vis-à-vis of the country than
they ever were.²⁷

We are all going to-morrow to Osborne for four weeks.
Ever your truly devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 27: The Duke de Palmella’s Ministry was abruptly dismissed by the Queen of Portugal
on the 10th of October, in consequence of their inability to raise money on loan. Civil
war broke out, Das Antas, Loulé, Fornos, and Sà da Bandeira being the chief rebel leaders.
The British Fleet was ordered to the Tagus to support the Queen against her subjects,
with the ulterior object of restoring Constitutional Government.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

ETON MONTEM

Downing Street, 19th November 1846.

… Lord John Russell breakfasted with Dr Hawtrey yesterday,
and had much conversation with him. He finds Dr Hawtrey
strongly impressed with the evils of Montem, and he declared
himself as decidedly against its continuance. He thinks your
Majesty would please the Etonians equally by going to the
boats once a year, which he said the late King was in the habit
of doing. The Chancellor of the Exchequer,²⁸ who was at Eton,
wishes to see Montem abolished. Lord Morpeth would prefer
seeing it regulated. Upon the whole, Lord John Russell
thinks it would not be advisable for your Majesty to interpose
your authority against the decided opinion of Dr Hawtrey,
the Provost, and the assistants.²⁹

Footnote 28: Mr (who a few weeks later became Sir) Charles Wood.

Footnote 29: Montem, the triennial Eton ceremony, the chief part of which took place at Salt Hill
(ad montem), near Slough, was abolished in 1847.

Queen Victoria to the Duke of Wellington.

A PENINSULAR MEDAL

Osborne, 25th November 1846.

The Queen has learned from various quarters that there still
exists a great anxiety amongst the officers and men who served
under the Duke of Wellington’s orders in the Peninsula to
receive and wear a medal as a testimony that they assisted the
Duke in his great undertaking. The Queen not only thinks
this wish very reasonable, considering that for recent exploits
of infinitely inferior importance such distinctions have been
granted by her, but she would feel personally a great satisfaction
[page 110]
in being enabled publicly to mark in this way her sense of
the great services the Duke of Wellington has rendered to his
country and to empower many a brave soldier to wear this
token in remembrance of the Duke.

The Duke of Wellington to Queen Victoria.

THE DUKE’S VIEW

Strathfieldsaye, 27th November 1846.

Field-Marshal the Duke of Wellington presents his humble
duty to your Majesty.

He has just now received your Majesty’s most gracious
commands from Osborne, dated the 26th instant.

He does not doubt that many of the brave officers and
soldiers who served in the armies in the Peninsula under the
command of the Duke are anxious to receive and wear a
medal, struck by command of the Sovereign, to commemorate
the services performed in that seat of the late war.

Many of them have, upon more than one occasion, expressed
such desire, in their letters addressed to the Duke, in their
petitions to Parliament, and, as the Duke has reason to
believe, in petitions presented to your Majesty.

Although the Duke has never omitted to avail himself of
every occasion which offered to express his deep sense of the
meritorious services of the officers and soldiers of the Army
which served in the Peninsula, he did not consider it his duty
to suggest to the Sovereign, under whose auspices, or the
Minister under whose direction the services in question were
performed, any particular mode in which those services of the
Army should be recognised by the State.

Neither has he considered it his duty to submit such suggestion
since the period at which the services were performed,
bearing in mind the various important considerations which
must have an influence upon the decision on such a question,
which it was and is the duty of your Majesty’s confidential
servants alone to take into consideration, and to decide.

Neither can the Duke of Wellington now venture to submit
to your Majesty his sense of a comparison of the services of
the Army which served in the Peninsula, with those of other
armies in other parts of the world, whose recent services your
Majesty has been most graciously pleased to recognise by ordering
that medals should be struck, to commemorate each of
such services, one of which to be delivered to each officer and
soldier present, which your Majesty was graciously pleased to
permit him to wear.

[page 111]

Field-Marshal the Duke of Wellington humbly solicits your
Majesty, in grateful submission to your Majesty upon the
subject of the last paragraph of your Majesty’s most gracious
letter, that, considering the favour with which his services
were received and rewarded by the gracious Sovereign, under
whose auspices they were performed; the professional rank
and the dignity in the State to which he was raised, and the
favour with which his services were then and have been ever
since received, that your Majesty would be graciously pleased
to consider upon this occasion only the well-founded claims
upon your Majesty’s attention of the officers and soldiers who
served in the Army in the Peninsula; and to consider him, as
he considers himself, amply rewarded for any service which
he might have been instrumental in rendering; and desirous
only of opportunities of manifesting his gratitude for the
favour and honour with which he has been treated by his
Sovereign.

All of which is humbly submitted to your Majesty by your
Majesty’s most dutiful and devoted Servant and Subject,

Wellington.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

Osborne, 28th November 1846.

The Queen has just received Lord Palmerston’s draft to
Mr Southern,³⁰ and must observe that she does not quite approve
the tone of it, as it will be likely only to irritate without
producing any effect. If our advice is to be taken, it must
be given in a spirit of impartiality and fairness. Lord Palmerston’s
despatch must give the impression that we entirely
espouse the cause of the rebels, whose conduct is, to say the
least, illegal and very reprehensible. Lord Palmerston likewise
takes the nation and the Opposition to be one and the
same thing. What we must insist upon is a return to Constitutional
Government. And what we may advise is a compromise
with the Opposition. What Ministry is to be formed
ought to be left to the Portuguese themselves. It being the
28th to-day, the Queen is afraid the despatch went already
yesterday. The Queen hopes in future that Lord Palmerston
will not put it out of her power to state her opinion in good
time.

Footnote 30: Secretary of Legation at Lisbon, and Chargé d’Affaires in the
absence of Lord Howard
de Walden.

[page 112]

Queen Victoria to the Duke of Wellington.

THE PENINSULAR MEDAL

Arundel Castle, 1st December 1846.

The Queen has not yet acknowledged the Duke of Wellington’s
last letter.

She fully appreciates the delicacy of the Duke in not wishing
to propose himself a step having reference to his own achievements,
but the Queen will not on that account forgo the satisfaction
of granting this medal as an acknowledgment on her
part of those brilliant achievements.

The Queen has been assured by Lord John Russell that her
confidential servants will be ready to assume the responsibility
of advising such a measure.

The Duke of Wellington to Queen Victoria.

Arundel castle, 2nd December 1846.
(Morning.)

Field-Marshal the Duke of Wellington presents his humble
duty to your Majesty. He did not receive your Majesty’s
commands, dated the 1st instant, in this Castle, till seven
o’clock in the afternoon; and being under the necessity of
attending at [? Dover] in the evening, he has not had it in his
power till this time to express his acknowledgment of the
receipt of them.

He submits to your Majesty that he has always been aware
that it would be impolitic to confer upon the officers and
soldiers who served in the Peninsula the wished-for distinction
without the concurrence of your Majesty’s confidential
servants.

They alone can give the orders to carry into execution the
measure, and can adopt means to remedy any inconvenience
which may result from it; and it is satisfactory to him to
learn, from the perusal of your Majesty’s note, that Lord
John Russell is disposed to adopt it, notwithstanding that the
Duke has no personal wish or feeling in the adoption of the
measure, excepting to see gratified the wishes of so many gallant
officers and brave soldiers, who have so well served.

The few words which he addressed to your Majesty in his
last letter of the 27th of November in relation to himself, referred
to the expressions in that of your Majesty of the 26th
November, to the Duke; from which it appeared to be your
Majesty’s intention “to empower many a brave soldier to wear
this token, in remembrance of the Duke.”

[page 113]

Having stated to your Majesty that he would serve your
Majesty, and would promote the objects of your Majesty’s
Government, to the utmost of his power, he has faithfully performed
his engagement, as he believes, to the satisfaction of
your Majesty’s servants.

His whole life being devoted to your Majesty’s service, he is
most anxious to deserve and receive your Majesty’s approbation.

But he wishes that it should be conveyed only when it may
be convenient to your Majesty’s Government. Your Majesty
and your Majesty’s servants must be the best judges upon this
point, as well as whether the medal in question shall be struck
and granted at all or not.

If granted, or whatever may be the mode in which granted,
or whether the Duke’s name is recalled to recollection or not,
the Duke will be equally satisfied, and grateful for your
Majesty’s gracious favour, and desirous to merit a continuance
of it, by his devotion to your Majesty’s service.

All of which is humbly submitted by your Majesty’s most
dutiful Subject and most devoted Servant,

Wellington.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

THE QUEEN’S DECISION

Osborne, 14th December 1846.

The Queen has still to acknowledge Lord John Russell’s
letter of the 11th. She has carefully read the Duke of Wellington’s
letter to Lord John, which evinces all the Duke’s honourable
feelings. He should certainly be relieved from the appearance
of having refused honours to others, but agreed to
the granting of them the moment it was intended to couple
the measure with an honour conferred upon himself. On the
other hand, the Queen still wishes the step to be taken as a
means of doing honour to the Duke. His name should, therefore,
certainly be connected with it. The introduction of the
names of other commanders, even of that of Sir John Moore,
the Queen does not think advisable. She does not quite understand
from Lord John’s letter whether he proposes to adopt
the Duke’s recommendation to re-issue all the medals formerly
granted, or to adhere to the original idea of striking a new one.
In the latter case, which appears the most natural, the word
“Peninsula” would cover all the campaigns, and in these the
Duke of Wellington had by far so much the greatest share that
his name being introduced on all the medals cannot be considered
as anomalous.

[page 114]

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

CRACOW

Osborne, 14th December 1846.

The Queen returns the enclosed private letters.³¹ The view
Lord Palmerston takes of the affair of Cracow appears to the
Queen a very sound one, and she would much wish to see the
plan of a conference realised against which Lord Ponsonby
does not bring any very relevant reasons. Prince Metternich’s
plan of a declaration “that the case is to be considered
an exceptional one and not to afford a precedent to other
powers” is too absurd. The Prince very justly compared
it to the case of a person giving another a box on the ear and
declaring at the same time that he is to consider it as exceptional,
and that it is in no way to afford him a precedent
for returning it. The Queen hopes the Cabinet will well consider
the question, and contrive to find means to prevent the
evil consequences of the unjustifiable step against Cracow by
speaking out in time, before Russia or France may have decided
on acts of further infraction of the Treaty of Vienna.
It seems quite clear that Russia was at the bottom of the
measure relative to Cracow, and it is therefore but reasonable
to expect that she has an ulterior object in view.

Footnote 31: The first ill fruits of the disruption of the entente between England and France were
seen in the active co-operation of Russia, Prussia, and Austria to destroy Polish independence.
See ante, p. 72.

[page 115]

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

TO CHAPTER XVI

During the year 1847 the Parliament which had been elected in
1841 with a great Tory majority was dissolved, and, as a result, the
position of the Whig Ministry was slightly improved; but they were
still dependent on the support of Sir Robert Peel. A Factory Act
limiting the labour of women and children to ten hours a day
was passed. An autumn session was rendered necessary by an acute
financial crisis, the Ministry having authorised the Bank of England
to infringe the provisions of the recent Bank Charter Act, and as a
consequence being compelled to ask Parliament for an indemnity.
The knowledge of the Bank’s authority to issue notes beyond the
prescribed limits was of itself sufficient to allay the panic. The
Church of England was convulsed by the promotion of Dr Hampden,
whom Lord Melbourne had made Regius Professor of Divinity at
Oxford, to the See of Hereford; his orthodoxy was impugned in a
memorial presented by thirteen bishops to the Prime Minister, and
an unsuccessful application was made to the Queen’s Bench (the
Court being divided in opinion) to compel the Primate to hear
objections to Dr Hampden’s consecration. The new House of
Lords was used for the first time this year.

Perhaps the most important event in France was the cold-blooded
murder of the Duchesse de Praslin (daughter of Count Sebastiani,
formerly French Ambassador in England) by her husband, an incident
which, like the Spanish intrigue of 1846, contributed subsequently
to the downfall of the Orleanist dynasty.

Switzerland was torn by internecine strife, partly owing to the
existence, side by side, of Catholic and Protestant cantons; the proposed
expulsion of Jesuits and the formation of the “Sonderbund”
were the questions of the day. The latter was an offensive and defensive
confederation of seven cantons, and civil war raged round
the question of its legality.

In Italy the death of Pope Gregory XVI. and the election of a more
liberal successor induced Lord John Russell to send his father-in-law,
Lord Minto, the Lord Privy Seal, on a special mission to the new
Pope Pius IX., to encourage him in the path of Reform. But more
violent measures were in progress, and it was soon clear that Lombardy
and Venetia were rising against Austria, and the way being
paved for the Unity of Italy.

[page 116]

Spain was in a ferment, frequent changes of Ministry taking place,
and the miserable marriage of the Queen having all the evil results
anticipated in England. Portugal continued in a state of civil war,
the British attempting to mediate, but the revolutionary Junta
refused to abide by their terms, and ultimately armed intervention
became necessary.

[page 117]

CHAPTER XVI

1847

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

Windsor Castle, 7th January 1847.

The turn which the Portuguese affairs are now likely to take
is really very satisfactory. The Queen is sure that the Court
will not allow violent measures of revenge to be taken against
the vanquished party nor the overthrow of a Constitutional
Government; but the Queen of Portugal will have to punish
those who have broken their oath of allegiance, and will have
to remove from the country those who would infallibly ere long
plunge the country afresh into those horrors from which it is
just emerging. The further infusion of democracy into the
Charter would at this moment be quite misplaced, but this
opportunity should be taken by the Queen of Portugal to
establish a state of legality and security, by
compelling any new
Ministry to lay the accounts every year before the Cortes
(which has not been done for the last ten years, either by
Progressistas, Septembristas, or others), by establishing irremovable
judges, and appointing thereto incorruptible persons,
by honestly and fairly distributing the patronage in the
Army—apart from the party—which will now be possible as
the King has the command himself, and by adopting such
measures of internal improvement as will promote the material
welfare of the people.

These are the principles which the Queen would wish to
see her representative urge upon the Portuguese Court and
Government, and she has no doubt that they are in perfect
conformity with Lord John Russell’s own views. The Queen
cannot help repeating that the tone and bearing of Mr Southern
are more those of a Portuguese Demagogue than of an English
Representative.

The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

A CONCILIATORY POLICY

Tuileries, 15th January 1847.

My Dearest Victoria,—I am truly happy to learn what
you say about your feelings on those troublesome politics;
[page 118]
I can assure you that many people who are, in fact, quite indifferent
to politics, renchérissent in expressions of dislike and
contempt seulement, because they believe that you have those
opinions. Many wise people repeat sayings which they assume
to come from your own mouth, such, for instance, “that Louis
Philippe could never be trusted, being, after all, an old fox,”
etc.

The King’s Speech was as unobjectionable as possible. I
trust that there will be no bitterness in yours. It is as much, if
not more, in the interest of Great Britain to keep France quiet
and continuing a peaceable policy than in that of France.
France, as the old Duke once said with great truth, has been
already under water several times, what could be spoiled has been
spoiled, what remains is pretty solid. To attack France in
France would lead to the most dangerous consequences. In
general, if we get once a great war again you will be sure to
have everywhere revolutions, and to imagine that you will
escape in England all reactions would be a grievous mistake.
When one looks to the changes, brought about in England in
consequence of the Revolution of July, one is quite astounded.
Here they changed nothing but the dynasty, in England the
very spirit of the old Monarchy has been abolished, and what
will be, in the course of time, the consequences, it is not easy
to tell. A bad Constitution acts strongly on the people.
Look to America, even to Belgium. Ever, my dearest Victoria,
your devoted Uncle,

Leopold R.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

ENGLAND AND PORTUGAL

Buckingham Palace, 14th February 1847.

Lord John Russell’s memorandum contains two different
questions. The one is this: how far the interests of England
require an interference in the affairs of Portugal for the restoration
of peace in that country and the preservation of its Throne,
and how far England is bound by existing treaties to interfere.

As to this question, it appears from Lord John’s memorandum
that the ancient treaties having reference to foreign
invasion only are inapplicable to the present case, that the
Quadruple Treaty would revive on the appearance of Dom
Miguel in Portugal, that an understanding with Spain ought to
be come to for its execution, but Lord John does not make any
specific proposal.

The other question is, what wrongs the Queen, the Ministers,
and the rebels may have done to bring about the present state
[page 119]
of affairs. This the Queen conceives can only be decided by
a most minute, impartial, and anxious scrutiny. She indignantly
rejects the notion to leave this decision to Mr Southern….
Lord John’s statement contains, however, nothing but
the echo of his reports.

Lord John will upon reflection admit that to say “that
recent events exhibit a spirit of tyranny and cruelty in the
Portuguese Government without a parallel in any part of
Europe,” there, where not one execution has taken place, is
rather a strong expression.

That the cruelties and miseries inseparable from a Civil War
are to be deplored, there can be no doubt of, and it is in order
to stop a further continuance and perhaps aggravation of these
horrors, that the Queen is so anxious to see the struggle
brought to an early termination.

The Queen hopes to see Lord John to-morrow at three
o’clock, when she hopes that he will be able to submit a definitive
step.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

ENGLAND AND PORTUGAL

14th March 1847.

The Queen wishes again to call Lord John Russell’s serious
attention to the state of Spain and Portugal, and to the policy
which has been pursued with regard to them, and the result of
this policy. In Spain we have taken up the cause of the
Progressistas, and what has been the consequence? They
desert us.

We have no longer the slightest influence in that country;
France has it all her own way, and we shall see the Cortes
confirm the succession of the Infanta and her children without
being able to prevent it. Of the Progressistas, on whom Lord
Palmerston, Lord Clarendon, and others always placed their
hopes, Mr Bulwer says now: “The fact is, that though they
are the party least servile to France, they are the most impracticable
party, and belonging to a lower class of society,
who have not the same feelings of honourable and gentlemanlike
conduct which sometimes guide a portion, though a very
small one, of their opponents.”

In Spain therefore it is, the Queen fears, too late; but let us
not throw away this lesson, and, if it is still possible, not also
lose Portugal. Our influence there is fast going, and Sir H.
Seymour¹ confirms what every one but Mr Southern has stated
[page 120]
for the last two months, viz. that we are believed to be favourable
to the rebels; consequently, that no advice of ours will be
listened to. Sir H. Seymour further says: “I should have
been glad to have gained a little time, and not at the outset of
my mission to be obliged to call the Government to account
upon various scores. Your orders, however, leave me no
option, and I shall be obliged to administer a series of reproofs
which will, I fear, confirm the notion as to our unfriendly
feelings.” This is the course the Queen thinks so very unfortunate;
trifles about two horses, the beating of a gardener
of Lord Howard’s by some soldiers on a march in times of Civil
War, etc., are made topics of serious complaint. Most peremptory
notes are written, threatening the Government with our
men-of-war, whilst it is held to be unwise to threaten the
insurgents.

Then, the Court is told to believe our feelings of attachment
for them!

Sir H. Seymour says that his position is rendered very
difficult in consequence. We have now the results before us.
Let us, therefore, before Portugal, our ancient ally, turns also
away from us, and leans to France or Spain in preference, as
she must, if we give her such doubtful support, try to pursue
a more conciliatory course; these peremptory and dictatory
notes, these constant complaints, produce the worst and most
unfortunate effect.

These very Septembristas have been always the greatest
enemies of England, and would be the first to turn against us
should they succeed.

There should more latitude be given to the resident Minister
not to press things at moments when they produce embarrassment
to a Government already tottering, but to give him the
option of waiting for a fit opportunity, and for the manner in
which it is to be done, which a person on the spot can be a
better judge of than we can in England.

Once more the Queen earnestly warns Lord John of the
imminent danger of England losing all legitimate influence in
Portugal, which ought now, more than ever, to be of the
greatest importance to us.

The Queen has in all this spoken solely of English influence,
but this influence becomes of still greater importance to her
when the Sovereigns of that country are her near and dear
relations.²

Footnote 1: Envoy Extraordinary at Lisbon.

Footnote 2: This letter at once bore fruit, a conference being held in London between the representatives
of Great Britain, Spain, France, and Portugal, and armed co-operation to
enforce the acceptance of certain terms by the Revolutionary Junta being decided
upon.

[page 121]

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

THE SEPTENNIAL ACT

Chesham Place, 19th March 1847.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your
Majesty. Lord John Russell thinks it right to state to your
Majesty that the prevailing opinion in the Cabinet is that when
the necessary business in the House of Commons has been
finished, a Dissolution of Parliament should take place.

This course would be conformable to the usage from the
passing of the Septennial Act till 1830. From 1830 to the present
year no House of Commons has been allowed to continue
six years. The Dissolutions of Lord Grey in 1831 and 1832,
of Sir Robert Peel in 1834, the death of William the Fourth in
1837, Lord Melbourne’s Dissolution in 1841, have all interrupted
the natural life of Parliaments. But all Governments
since the accession of the House of Hanover have been of
opinion (with one or two exceptions) that it is hazardous to
allow a Parliament to continue seven years, as circumstances
may arise making a Dissolution very detrimental to the public
welfare.

These being general considerations, Lord John Russell would
reserve any decision on the subject till the moment shall arrive
when a Dissolution may appear to your Majesty’s advisers to
be the course most likely to secure moderate and fair elections.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

25th March 1847.

The Queen with pleasure approves the appointment of Lord
Clarendon’s brother to the vacant stall at St Paul’s. The
Queen would, however, draw Lord John’s attention generally
to the mode of filling up those Church sinecures. She is quite
aware how necessary it is for a Minister to be able to recommend
to such places persons of political connections, but she
thinks that where it can be done, it would be of great use both
to the Church and the country to give these places of emolument
to Churchmen distinguished for their scientific attainments,
who have neither the means nor the time to prosecute
their researches, whilst their labours might be of the greatest
importance to the country. Such person of this kind, for
instance, the Prince thinks, is a Mr Cureton, who has just
published the real epistles of St Ignatius, which he translated
from the Syriac, and is about to produce a Gospel of St Matthew
which is considered the undoubted original in the Coptic
[page 122]
dialect, and other most important documents lately acquired
for the British Museum.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

FOREIGN OFFICE DRAFTS

Buckingham Palace, 17th April 1847.

The Queen has several times asked Lord Palmerston, through
Lord John Russell and personally, to see that the drafts to our
Foreign Ministers are not despatched previous to their being
submitted to the Queen. Notwithstanding, this is still done,
as for instance to-day with regard to the drafts for Lisbon.
The Queen, therefore, once more repeats her desire that Lord
Palmerston should prevent the recurrence of this practice.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

Chesham Place, 18th May 1847.

Lord John Russell has the painful duty of announcing to
your Majesty the death of the Earl of Bessborough.³ The
firmness and kindness of his temper, together with his intimate
knowledge of Ireland and his sound judgment, make this event
a public misfortune.

It appears to Lord John Russell very desirable that his
successor should be named without loss of time, and as the
Cabinet agreed yesterday that the Earl of Clarendon was the
fittest person for the office, Lord John Russell would suggest
that a Council should be held on Thursday next, at the hour
your Majesty may appoint, for a Council for the purpose of the
declaration of your Majesty’s pleasure.

It was the opinion of the Cabinet that although it is advisable
finally to abolish the office of Lord-Lieutenant, it is not advisable
to propose any measure, or make any announcement
for the present.

Footnote 3: John William, formerly Lord Duncannon, 4th Earl, born 1781; Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

JENNY LIND

Buckingham Palace, 12th June 1847.

My dearest Uncle,—We are here in terrible hot water,
though I think we shall get out of it.⁴ But only think that the
[page 123]
Radicals and Protectionists join to attack Government for our
interference in Portugal! A change of Government on such
a subject would be full of mischief for the future, independent
of the great momentary inconvenience; but it would cripple
all future Governments in their future conduct respecting
Foreign Affairs, would create distrust abroad in our promises,
and is totally contrary to England’s ancient policy of upholding
Portugal.

In short, it would be very bad. The old Duke will do every
thing to set matters right.

To-night we are going to the Opera in state, and will hear and
see Jenny Lind⁵ (who is perfection) in Norma, which is considered
one of her best parts. Poor Grisi is quite going off, and
after the pure angelic voice and extremely quiet, perfect acting
of J. Lind, she seems quite passée. Poor thing! she is quite
furious about it, and was excessively impertinent to J. Lind.

To-morrow we go to a ball at Stafford House, and on Thursday
to one at Gloucester House. Ever your truly devoted
Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 4: The Government were severely attacked by a coalition of Radicals and Protectionists
for their intervention in Portugal. A hostile motion of Lord Stanley’s in the House of
Lords was opposed by the Duke of Wellington and defeated, while one of Mr Hume’s
in the House of Commons was talked out, Sir Robert Peel supporting the Ministry.

Footnote 5: She made her début in London on the 4th of May in Roberto il Diavolo. The Queen
had heard her sing previously at Stolzenfels. In May 1849, after singing for two years
to enthusiastic audiences, she retired from the stage, and made extended concert tours in
Europe and America.

The Duke of Wellington to Queen Victoria.

THE WELLINGTON STATUE

London, 12th July 1847.
(Five in the afternoon.)

Field-Marshal the Duke of Wellington presents his humble
duty to your Majesty. He submits to your Majesty the expression
of his sorrow and shame that your Majesty should be
troubled for a moment by anything so insignificant as a statue
of himself.

When he first heard of the intention to remove the statue
from the pedestal on which it had been placed, he was apprehensive
that the measure might be misconstrued and misrepresented
in this country as well as abroad.

That feeling was increased when the probable existence of
such misconstruction was adverted to in one of the printed
papers circulated by the Committee for the erection of the
statue; and still farther when the removal became the subject
of repeated discussions in Parliament. His daily experience
of your Majesty’s gracious reception of his endeavours to serve
your Majesty; and the events of every day, and the repeated
marks which he received of your Majesty’s consideration and
favour proved clearly, as the Duke stated in his letter to Lord
[page 124]
John Russell, that there was no foundation for the misconstruction
of the intended act—which undoubtedly existed.
The apprehension of such misconstruction had from the first
moment created an anxious wish in the mind of the Duke that
the removal should be so regulated and should be attended by
such circumstances as would tend to relieve the transaction
from the erroneous but inconvenient impression which had
been created.

The Duke apprehended that he might find it impossible to
perform the duties with which he had been entrusted, and
therefore, when Lord John Russell wrote to him, he deprecated
the measure in contemplation; and he rejoices sincerely that
your Majesty has been most graciously pleased to countermand
the order for the removal of the statue.

All of which is most humbly submitted to your Majesty by
your Majesty’s most dutiful Subject and most devoted Servant,

Wellington.⁶

Footnote 6: The Duke of Wellington wrote to Croker, 19th of December 1846:—”I should desire
never to move from my principles of indifference and non-interference on the subject of
a statue of myself to commemorate my own actions.”

And again, on the 14th of June 1847, the Duke wrote to Croker:—”It has always been
my practice, and is my invariable habit, to say nothing about myself and my own actions.

“More than forty years ago Mr Pitt observed that I talked as little of myself or my own
acts as if I had been an assistant-surgeon of the army….

“I follow the habit of avoiding to talk of myself and of what I have done; with the
exception only of occasions when I am urging upon modern contemporaries measures
which they don’t like, and when I tell them I have some experience, and have had some
success in these affairs, and feel they would experience the benefit of attending to my
advice, I never talk of myself.

“These are the reasons for which they think that I don’t care what they do with the
statue.

“But they must be idiots to suppose it possible that a man who is working day and
night, without any object in view excepting the public benefit, will not be sensible of a
disgrace inflicted upon him by the Sovereign and Government whom he is serving. The
ridicule will be felt, if nothing else is!”…

Queen Victoria to Lord Palmerston.

Buckingham Palace, 12th July 1847.

The Queen has been informed by Lord John Russell that the
Duke of Wellington is apprehensive that the removal of his
statue from the Arch to another pedestal might be construed
as a mark of displeasure on her part. Although the Queen had
hoped that her esteem and friendship for the Duke was so well
known to the public in general as not to render such a construction
possible, and although she had thought that another
pedestal would have been more suitable for this statue, and
that the Arch might have been more becomingly ornamented
in honour of the Duke than by the statue now upon it, she has
given immediate direction that the Statue should remain in
[page 125]
its present situation, and only regrets that this monument
should be so unworthy of the great personage to whose honour
it has been erected.

Viscount Hardinge to Queen Victoria.

INDIAN AFFAIRS

27th July 1847.

Lord Hardinge, with his most humble duty to your Majesty,
humbly acknowledges the letter in which your Majesty has
been graciously pleased to approve of his conduct in the
Government of your Majesty’s Eastern Empire, and to sanction
his return to Europe the end of this year.

It will always be a source of happiness to Lord Hardinge to
have contributed his efforts towards maintaining the stability
of your Majesty’s Indian possessions committed to his charge,
and he feels, in the performance of these duties, that the
approbation of his Sovereign is the most grateful distinction
to which honourable ambition can aspire.

The Governor-General entertains the most sanguine expectations
that peace has been securely established beyond the
north-west frontiers, as well as throughout India, and in this
confidence he has ordered nearly 50,000 men of the native
force to be reduced, which reductions have caused no discontent,
being for the most part voluntary on the part of the men and
accompanied by gratuities in proportion to the service performed.

As regards internal dangers, there is no native power remaining
able to face a British army in the field. The people
are very generally engaged in trade and agriculture, and to a
great extent in the British Provinces no longer carry arms.
Confidence in the protection of the Government has superseded
the necessity. Formerly trade and wealth were concentrated
in a few large cities—and Indian manufactures have
been ruined by cheaper goods sent from England; but wealth
and comfort have, under British rule, been more extensively
diffused through the agricultural districts, and all classes,
including the warlike tribes, are becoming more devoted to
the happier and safer pursuits of peace.

In this state of things Lord Hardinge entertains a very confident
expectation that the Government of India, by judicious
attention to the native army in time of peace—which may
have its peculiar dangers—will maintain due subordination in
its ranks; and by abstaining from all interference in the religious
prejudices of the people, will secure their loyal attachment
[page 126]
to your Majesty, and their willing obedience to the
Governor acting in your Majesty’s behalf.

Lord Hardinge has the honour to subscribe himself your
Majesty’s most humble and dutiful Subject and Servant,

Hardinge.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

A GENERAL ELECTION

Pembroke Lodge, 5th August 1847.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and has the honour to state that he considers the elections
which have taken place since he last addressed your Majesty
as satisfactory.

The Liberal gains, upon the whole, have been upwards of
thirty, and when the elections are concluded will probably be
upwards of forty.

The rejection of so distinguished a man as Mr Macaulay⁷
is the most disgraceful act in the whole election. It has only
a parallel in the rejection of Mr Burke by the city of Bristol.

The result of the whole elections will be, even if Sir George
Grey is defeated in Northumberland, that neither Lord John
Russell or any other Minister will have the command of a
regular party majority.

But it is probable that Government will be sufficiently strong
to resist both a reaction against free trade, and any democratic
movement against the Church or the aristocracy.

Footnote 7: In consequence of his vote on Maynooth. The poem he wrote on the present occasion
will be remembered.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

THE IRISH ELECTIONS

Pembroke Lodge, 21st August 1847.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and has the honour to state that Lord Fitzwilliam writes that
he shall feel hurt if the Earldom of Strafford should be given to
Lord Strafford.

To save his feelings on this subject (Lord Fitzwilliam having
the first Wentworth Earl of Strafford’s property), Lord John
Russell would humbly propose that Lord Strafford should be
created Earl of Middlesex.

But as the relations of the late Duke of Dorset might also
object, Lord John Russell will adhere to his original proposal
if your Majesty should deem it best.

[page 127]

In fact, many titles have been given in succession to different
families. Leinster, Orford, Westmorland, are familiar instances.

Lord John Russell has drawn up a paper respecting the Irish
elections, on which the Prince wished to have his remarks.
The subject is a dark and a dreary one….

Changes of Ministry may occur, but it is to be hoped that
your Majesty may be enabled to keep the present Parliament
for five or six years. For nothing tends so much to favour
such reformations, to impede sober improvements, and to
make members stand in servile awe of their constituents, as
frequent General Elections.

Lord John Russell is happy to see in the newspapers the
successful progress of your Majesty’s journey. It has occurred
to Lord John Russell that as the harvest is very promising,
and the election heats will have subsided, it may be desirable
that your Majesty should go for three days to Ireland on your
Majesty’s return. The want of notice might in some respects
be favourable, and would be an excuse to many Irish peers,
who might otherwise complete their ruin in preparations.

Queen Victoria to Earl Fitzwilliam.

3rd September 1847.

The Queen has received Lord Fitzwilliam’s letter of the 31st.⁸
As she sees Lord Strafford’s elevation to an Earldom already
announced in the Gazette of the same day, it will be impossible
for the Queen to have the question of Lord Fitzwilliam’s adverse
claim reconsidered. She thinks it right, however, to say,
that, knowing that the Wentworth property came to Lord
Fitzwilliam, it was only after the Heralds College had proved
that Lord Strafford was the representative of the Earl of
Strafford of the Second Creation, whilst Lord Fitzwilliam was
not properly considered the representative of the first, that the
Queen approved the selection of the title of Earl of Strafford
[page 128]
for the present Lord. The Queen is very sorry to find that
this step should have been annoying to Lord Fitzwilliam, for
whom she has ever entertained a sincere regard. She has sent
his letter on to Lord John Russell.

Footnote 8: On John, Baron Strafford, who as Sir John Byng had been distinguished in the
Peninsula and at Waterloo, receiving the Earldom of Strafford, Lord Fitzwilliam had
written: “Your Majesty has, undoubtedly, the power of conferring this, or any other
titular dignity, according to your good pleasure, but I venture to hope that, if it be your
Majesty’s pleasure to revive the Earldom of Strafford, it will not be bestowed upon any
other person than the individual who has now the honour of addressing your Majesty.

“The name and history of the first Earl of Strafford is, of course, familiar to your
Majesty, and I venture to conclude that your Majesty is not unaware of my being his
descendant, his heir, and his successor. I own his lands, I dwell in his house, I possess
his papers, and, if neither my father nor myself have ever applied to the Crown for a
renewal of his titles, it has not been because either of us was indifferent to those honours
or to the favour of the Sovereign, but because we were well aware of the embarrassment
which such applications frequently occasion to the Crown and its advisers.”

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

MISSION TO THE VATICAN

Ardverikie, 3rd September 1847.

The Queen has received Lord John Russell’s two letters of
the 31st and 1st inst., and is glad to find that the views
expressed in the Prince’s Memorandum coincide with those
entertained by Lord John and Lord Palmerston, and also by
Lord Minto, as she infers. As it seems difficult to find a person
of inferior rank and position than Lord Minto, and of equal
weight, the Queen sanctions his undertaking the mission on
the understanding that the object of it will be communicated
beforehand to the Courts of Vienna and Paris, and that both
these Governments will be made fully acquainted with the
position England thinks herself bound to take with regard to
the Italian controversy.⁹ After this shall have been done, the
sending of Sir William Parker with his fleet to the West Coast
of Italy strikes the Queen as a very proper measure to give
countenance to the Sovereigns engaged in Liberal Reform,
and exposed alike to the inroads of their absolutist neighbour,
and to the outbreaks of popular movements directed by a
republican party, and perhaps fostered by the Austrian
Government.

Footnote 9: Lord John Russell proposed that Lord Minto should be sent on a special mission to
the Vatican. See Introductory Note for the Year, ante, p. 115.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Ardverikie, 7th September 1847.

My dearest Uncle,—I thank you much for your kind letter
of the 28th. Mamma writes me such a good report of you
both, which gives us the greatest pleasure. I hope you like
young Ernest? This horrid Praslin tragedy ¹⁰ is a subject one
cannot get out of one’s head. The Government can in no way
be accused of these murders, but there is no doubt that the
standard of morality is very low indeed, in France, and that the
[page 129]
higher classes are extremely unprincipled. This must shake
the security and prosperity of a nation. In my opinion,
nothing has gone on so well since the unfortunate false move
of the Spanish marriages, and I think you will admit que cela
n’a pas porté bonheur au Roi. I am very anxious to explain
that I was out of spirits, and, I fear, humour, when I wrote to
you last, for I love this place dearly, and the quiet, simple and
wild life we lead here, particularly, in spite of the abominable
weather we have had; and I am not the enemy of La Chasse,
as I expressed myself—on the contrary, I am very keen about
it, and am only annoyed at being unable to see it all. Really,
when one thinks of the very dull life, and particularly the life
of constant self-denial, which my poor, dear Albert leads, he
deserves every amusement in the world, and even about his
amusements he is so accommodating that I am deeply touched
by it. He is very fond of shooting, but it is all with the
greatest moderation. Do you know that you never wished
Albert joy of his birthday?

The state of politics in Europe is very critical, and one feels
very anxious for the future.

With my dearest Albert’s love, and mine, to my beloved
Louise. Believe me, ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 10: The sensational murder in Paris of the Duchesse de Praslin, daughter of the diplomatist,
Sebastiani, by her husband, who committed suicide. This event, as well as the affair
of the Spanish marriages, largely contributed to the Orleanist catastrophe of 1848, for it
was suspected that the Court and the police had not merely connived at, but had actually
furnished the means for, the Duke’s suicide, in order to prevent certain exposures which
would have resulted from his trial.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

PORTUGAL

Windsor Castle, 9th October 1847.

The Queen has just received these drafts, which she has read
attentively, and thinks very proper; she only perceives one
omission which should be rectified, viz. the one in which Lord
Palmerston directs Sir H. Seymour and the Admiral to remain
perfectly neutral in case of a conflict, and that is that our Fleet
should naturally give protection to the persons of the King and
Queen and Royal Family in case of danger, for we cannot
allow them to be murdered, even if we should not be able to
prevent their losing their Crown (which God forbid).

The Queen must again observe that the drafts have since
some weeks past been sent to her after they were gone, so that
she can make no remark upon them. The Queen wishes to
have copies of these drafts.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

CRISIS IN THE CITY

Chesham Place, 14th October 1847.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty.
He has seen the Governor (Mr Morris) and Deputy-Governor
[page 130]
(Mr Prescott) of the Bank, Mr Jones Loyd ¹¹ and Mr Newman.
Sir Charles Wood has seen many others connected with the
City, and they have both made statements to the Cabinet.

The general result is: That an unsound state of trade has
prevailed for some time.

More failures may be expected.¹²

The funds may fall still lower.

Any interference by Government in the way of issuing more
notes might postpone but would aggravate the distress.

The railway calls add much to the present difficulty.

No forcible interference with railways would be justifiable,
but a voluntary postponement of the execution of their Acts
might be proposed to Parliament.

It will be seen by this short summary that the persons who
by official position, practical experience, and much reflection
are most capable of giving an opinion think that little or
nothing can be done by Parliament or by Government.

It is one of those revulsions in trade which take place
periodically, increased in extent by the expansion of commerce,
but controlled in its operation by the sound principles
of currency which have lately prevailed.

The Act of 1844 is generally blamed, but without the least
reason. The accommodation afforded by the Bank has been
large, liberal, and continuous. The circulation of notes approaches
nineteen millions.

MR COBDEN

Upon fully considering the difficulty of finding a person of
ability and experience to place at the head of the Poor Law
Commission, Lord John Russell has come to the conclusion
that the best course he can take is to propose to Mr Cobden
to accept the Presidency with a seat in the Cabinet, and to
propose to the Duke of Bedford at the same time a seat in the
Cabinet without office.

Various reasons for making this offer to Mr Cobden will
occur to your Majesty. His ability, his popularity with the
working classes, and his knowledge of sound principles of
political economy are undoubted. Sir Robert Peel’s tribute to
him has raised him both on the Continent and in this country,
so that his presence in the Cabinet would give satisfaction to
many.

On the other hand, the landed nobility and gentry would
be glad to see the Duke of Bedford take part in the deliberations
of the Government.

With your Majesty’s permission Lord John Russell will
propose these arrangements to the Cabinet to-morrow.

[page 131]

He has sent for Mr Lee¹³ to offer him the Bishopric of
Manchester. It is with great regret he states that Mr Stephen¹⁴
is obliged from ill health to retire from the Colonial Office.
He has asked Lord Grey to be made a Privy Councillor, having
received an assurance from Lord Stanley that Sir Robert Peel
would propose it to your Majesty on his retirement. Lord
John Russell submits the proposal to your Majesty as an honour
due to Mr Stephen’s long, able, and calumniated¹⁵ public
services.

Lord John Russell has the honour to submit a letter of Lord
Clarendon’s in reference to a Memorandum of His Royal
Highness Prince Albert.

Lord John Russell thinks that in the present state of affairs,
the abolition of the Lord-Lieutenancy must not be thought of,
and that with the exception noticed by Lord Clarendon, the
suggestions made by the Prince would be the best measures
for adoption, when that event takes place.

It is possible the Prince may not have a copy of the
Memorandum.

Footnote 11: Afterwards Lord Overstone.

Footnote 12: There had been many failures in London, Liverpool, and elsewhere.

Footnote 13: James Prince Lee, then Headmaster of King Edward’s School, Birmingham,
Bishop of Manchester, 1847-1869.

Footnote 14: James Stephen, Under-Secretary for the Colonies, 1836-1847, afterwards Professor
of Modern History at Cambridge.

Footnote 15: He had made enemies by supporting the abolition of slavery.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

Windsor Castle, 14th October 1847.

The Queen has received Lord John Russell’s letter, bringing
several very important subjects before her. She regrets that
the state of the Money Market should still be so uncomfortable,
but is sure that the Government cannot by any interference
do much to mend matters, though it might easily render them
still more complicated, and make itself responsible for a crisis,
which it has in no way either brought on or been able to
avert.¹⁶

As to Mr Cobden’s appointment to the Poor Law Board, the
Queen thinks that he will be well qualified for the place in
many respects, and that it will be advantageous to the Government
and the Country that his talents should be secured to the
service of the State, but the elevation to the Cabinet directly
from Covent Garden¹⁷ strikes her as a very sudden step, calculated
to cause much dissatisfaction in many quarters, and
[page 132]
setting a dangerous example to agitators in general (for his
main reputation Mr Cobden gained as a successful agitator).
The Queen therefore thinks it best that Mr Cobden should
first enter the service of the Crown, serve as a public functionary
in Parliament, and be promoted subsequently to
the Cabinet, which step will then become a very natural
one.

The Duke of Bedford’s entrance into the Cabinet the Queen
would see with great pleasure.

The Queen returns the Prince’s Memorandum to Lord John,
whilst she has retained Lord Clarendon’s letter upon it, which
the Prince is anxious to keep if Lord John will allow him.
The Queen must agree with Lord John and Lord Clarendon
that the present moment is not a favourable one for the experiment
of abolishing the Lord-Lieutenancy.

Mr Stephen’s elevation to the Privy Council will be a very
proper reward for his long and faithful services. Would he not
be a proper person for one of the new Civil degrees of the
Bath?¹⁸

Footnote 16: Matters, however, became worse, and Lord John Russell and Sir Charles Wood wrote
recommending that the Bank should enlarge their discounts and advances, for which they
would propose a bill of indemnity. By degrees the panic subsided.

Footnote 17: Free Trade meetings had taken place in Covent Garden Theatre.

Footnote 18: He was made a K.C.B.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

ENGLAND’S FOREIGN POLICY

Windsor Castle, 18th October 1847.

The Queen cannot resist drawing Lord John Russell’s attention
to the enclosed paragraph taken from the Revue des Deux
Mondes, which gives an account of the late events in Spain.
How little honourable our line of policy appears according to
this version, which the Queen is afraid is so very plausible that
it will be received as the truth by the whole French public and
a great part of the European public at large! It is, no doubt,
perverted, but still the Queen must admit that our policy, and
especially Mr Bulwer’s conduct at Madrid, lays itself open to
similar construction. After the gross duplicity and immorality
which characterised the conduct of France with respect to the
Spanish marriages, though she had all the profit and we all the
loss, still we had a very strong position on the side of integrity,
morality, and honour. The Queen is afraid that the diplomatic
intrigues and counter intrigues at Madrid have made us
lose daily more of that advantageous position without any
compensation on the other side. The Queen entreats Lord
John Russell not to underrate the importance of keeping our
foreign policy beyond reproach. Public opinion is recognised
as a ruling power in our domestic affairs; it is not of less
importance in the society of Europe with reference to the
[page 133]
conduct of an individual state. To possess the confidence of
Europe is of the utmost importance to this country. That is
the reason why the Queen is uneasy about our dealings in
Greece, and anxious that we should not be misunderstood with
respect to Italy. The Queen is sorry to perceive that the
French complain of unfair dealing on our part with reference
to the negotiations in the River Plate.¹⁹ Have they any right
to do so? Have Lord Howden’s private instructions been at
variance in any way with the public instructions which had
been agreed upon with the French Government? The Queen
would consider any advantage gained at the expense of an ally
as a loss.

Footnote 19: Sir John Hobart Caradoc, second Lord Howden, British Minister at Rio Janeiro, was,
together with Count Walewski, the French Minister there, engaged in a special mission to
the River Plate and Uruguay; Buenos Ayres was blockaded by the British Fleet.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

THE QUEEN OF SPAIN

Windsor Castle, 24th October 1847.

The Queen has perused with eagerness Mr Bulwer’s accounts
of the late extraordinary events in Spain, but must confess
that she has in vain looked for an explanation of the real
motives and causes of the crisis. Has Lord Palmerston received
any private letters throwing more light upon the
matter? There seems to prevail the greatest mystery about
the affair. Is the Queen reconciled with her husband? Has
she sent for him? Have all the accounts of her hatred for Don
Francisco and the Queen-Mother been false? All these
questions are unanswered.

Viscount Palmerston to Queen Victoria.

THE QUEEN OF PORTUGAL

Foreign Office, 30th October 1847.

Viscount Palmerston presents his humble duty to your
Majesty, and has many apologies to make for not having
attended your Majesty’s Council to-day, and the more so as
his absence arose from an inadvertence which he is almost
ashamed to mention. But having got on horseback to ride to
the station, with his thoughts occupied with some matters
which he was thinking of, he rode mechanically and in a fit of
absence to the Nine Elms Station,²⁰ and did not recollect his
mistake till he had got there; and although he made the best
of his way afterwards to the Paddington Station, he could not
[page 134]
get there in time for any train that would have taken him
early enough to Windsor.

Viscount Palmerston received this morning your Majesty’s
remarks upon his proposed drafts to Sir Hamilton Seymour,
and has modified some of the expressions in those drafts; but
those drafts are only private and confidential answers in his
own name to private and confidential communications from
Sir Hamilton Seymour, and they express only his own personal
opinions, and not those of the Government.

Viscount Palmerston is sorry to say that the circumstances
lately mentioned by Sir Hamilton Seymour, coupled with the
course pursued at Lisbon almost ever since the successful interference
of the Allied Powers, have brought Viscount Palmerston
to the painful convictions expressed in the above-mentioned
drafts, and he feels desirous, for his own sake, to place
those convictions at least upon record in this Office. He will
be most happy to find that he is mistaken, and will most truly
and heartily rejoice if events should prove that the confidence
which your Majesty reposes in the sincerity and good faith of
the Queen of Portugal is well founded; but in a matter of
this importance Viscount Palmerston feels that it is his bounden
duty to your Majesty not to conceal his opinions, even though
they should, as in the present case, unfortunately differ from
those which your Majesty entertains.

Footnote 20: The former terminus of the London and South-Western Railway.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

Windsor Castle, 21st October 1847.

The Queen acknowledges Lord Palmerston’s letter of yesterday.
She can have no objections to Lord Palmerston’s putting
on record his opinion that the Queen of Portugal is leaning
to the Chartist Party, and exposing herself, her Throne and
country, to great danger by so doing; but she would much
deprecate the putting on record the grave accusation “that
the Queen of Portugal is in a secret and perfect understanding
with the Cabrals,”²¹ which is really not warranted by the facts
of the case, and is likely to mislead both our Government and
the Minister at Lisbon. Since the Queen wrote yesterday the
Prince received a letter from the King of Portugal (which he
sent to Lord Palmerston), and which quite explains the position
and views of the Court: we must not forget either that Sir
Hamilton Seymour acknowledges that a change of Ministry at
[page 135]
this moment would provoke a fresh Revolution at Lisbon.
Although this would come from the Cabralists, the Queen of
Portugal very naturally may not feel inclined to run that risk
to avoid a danger the existence of which she does not see or
comprehend.

Footnote 21: The Ministry in which Castro Cabral had been Premier, and his brother, José, Minister
of Justice, had resigned in May 1846.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

THE HAMPDEN CONTROVERSY

Chesham Place, 10th November 1847.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and after reflecting on the various reasons in favour of, and
objections against, different Bishops for promotion to the
Archbishopric of York, he humbly submits to your Majesty
the name of Dr Musgrave, Bishop of Hereford, to be appointed
Archbishop of York. The Bishop of Hereford is a man of
sound information, good judgment, and business habits. It
is of such consequence to have an Archbishop of York, who
will, like the late Archbishop, avoid quarrels and crotchets,
and live peaceably with all men.

Should your Majesty approve, he would then submit the
name of Dr Hampden to be the new Bishop, and that of the
Bishop of Oxford²² as Queen’s Almoner.

Footnote 22: Samuel Wilberforce.

The Bishop of Oxford to Mr Anson.

16th November 1847.

My dear Anson,—I enclose you a letter from Lord John
Russell, offering me the Lord Almonership. I have ventured
to write direct to Her Majesty, to express to her my grateful
feelings at this notice of me. But I have been so afraid of
offending by anything like freedom of expression that I much
fear I have instead said coldly and formally what, if I had
said it naturally, would have expressed the deepest and most
exuberant feelings of what I trust I may venture to say is not
an ungrateful heart. Ungrateful it would be most certainly
if it did not feel to its deepest core the uniform and great kindness
I have received now for so many years from Her Majesty
and from the Prince. I wish I could better show them my
feelings….

You have read no doubt the Times article on Dr Hampden.
I am afraid it is too true. I cannot conceive what was Dr
Hampden’s recommendation. He was not a persecuted man,
[page 136]
for he had got a station far higher than he ever dreamed of
already; he is not an able, or an active man, or one popular
with any party, and unless Lord John Russell wished for an
opportunity of shocking the young confidence of the Church
in him, I cannot conceive why he should have made it. I
deeply lament it. Pray let me hear of your health, if it be
only a single line (to Cuddesdon), and believe me to be, ever
your truly affectionate,

S. Oxon.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

LORD PALMERSTON’S DESPATCHES

17th November 1847.

The Queen has been struck by the concluding passage of the
accompanying draft to Mr Bulwer. It gives an official declaration
of the views of England with respect to a point of the
greatest gravity and importance, and upon which the Queen
apprehends that the mind of the Cabinet is not yet made up.
The Queen herself has come to no determination upon it, and
it may involve the question of peace or war. Surely our line
of policy under future and uncertain contingencies ought not
to be pledged beforehand and in such an indirect way. The
Queen wishes Lord Palmerston to speak to Lord John Russell
upon the subject, and to show him the draft and these remarks
of the Queen upon it.

Viscount Palmerston to Queen Victoria.

Foreign Office, 17th November 1847.

Viscount Palmerston presents his humble duty to your
Majesty, and in compliance with your Majesty’s wishes he has
omitted the whole of the latter part of the proposed despatch
to Mr Bulwer.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

(Undated.)

The Queen has seen with surprise in the Gazette the appointment
of Mr Corigan,²³ about which she must complain to Lord
John Russell. Not only had her pleasure not been taken upon
it, but she had actually mentioned to Lord Spencer that she
[page 137]
had her doubts about the true propriety of the appointment.
Lord John will always have found the Queen desirous to meet
his views with regard to all appointments and ready to listen
to any reasons which he might adduce in favour of his recommendations,
but she must insist upon appointments in her
Household not being made without her previous sanction, and
least of all such as that of a Physician to her person.

Footnote 23: Dominic John Corigan, M.D., Physician-in-Ordinary to Her Majesty in Ireland.

The King of Prussia to Queen Victoria.

SWITZERLAND

[Translation.]

25th November 1847.

LETTER FROM THE KING OF PRUSSIA

… I hear with delight and thankfulness that it has pleased
your Majesty to agree to a Conference for regulating the dreadful
Swiss quarrels.²⁴ I took the liberty to propose my beloved
and truly amiable town of Neuchâtel as the place for the
Conference, not only because its position in neutral territory
and in Switzerland herself qualifies it above every other place
for that purpose, but particularly because this meeting of the
representatives of the great Powers there would protect it and
the courageous and faithful country of Neuchâtel from indignities,
spoliation, and all the horrors which oppress at this
moment the unfortunate and far from courageous Fribourg.
I am afraid that your Majesty has not a full appreciation of the
people and the partisans who fill Switzerland with murders
and the miseries of the most abominable Civil War. Your
Majesty’s happy realms have centuries ago passed through the
“phase” of such horrors, and with you the state of parties has
been (as one says here) grown in bottles,²⁵ under the glorious
Constitution given by God and History, but not “made”;
but there, in Switzerland, a party is becoming victorious!!!
which, notwithstanding the exercise of Christian charity, can
only be called “Gottlos und Rechtlos” (without God and
without right). For Germany, the saving of Switzerland from
the hands of the Radicals is simply a vital question. If they
are victorious there, in Germany likewise torrents of blood will
flow; I will answer for that. The murder of Kings, Priests,
and Aristocrats is no empty sound with them, and Civil War
in song, writing, word, and deed, is their watchword. “Toute
charité bien entendue commence par soi-même.” So they
begin with their own country, true to this “Christian” (!)
motto. If they are allowed to proceed, surely they won’t
[page 138]
stop there. Thousands of emigrated malefactors wait only for
a sign (which their comrades and allies in Germany will not be
backward in giving) to pour forth beyond the German frontier.
In Germany the PEOPLE are just as little fond of them as they
were in Switzerland, but the experience of Switzerland teaches
us that that alone cannot stem their victorious march, if
circumstances are favourable to them. The German people
rely upon their Governments, and do nothing, but Governments
are weakened by the modern Liberalism (the precursor
of Radicalism, as the dying of chickens precedes the Cholera)
and will have to take the consequences of their own negligence.
Notwithstanding people and princes, that godless band will
march through Germany, because, though small, it is strong
through being united and determined. All this I have pondered
in my head and heart (led, so to say, by the hand of
History), and that has prompted me now to propose that the
German Confederation (which en parenthèse includes a population
of more than forty millions) should appear as one of the
great Powers of Europe at the settlement of the Swiss dispute,
and should be admitted as such by the other great Powers.
Would your Majesty do justice, and give PROTECTION to this
idea?…

F. W.

Footnote 24: See Introductory Note for the year, ante, p. 115.

Footnote 25: As old wine improves by being kept in bottles.

Queen Victoria to the King of Prussia.

THE QUEEN’S REPLY

Osborne, 5th December 1847.

Since your letter was written events have followed each
other so rapidly that at this moment the war in Switzerland
may be considered as terminated; by the capitulations of the
Cantons formerly constituting the Sonderbund, two parties,
between which a mediation of the great Powers could have
taken place, have ceased to exist, and consequently mediation
and the Conference resulting from it are in fact no longer
necessary or possible. I had proposed London as the place of
conference, but should with pleasure have waived this proposition
to adopt the place which you have expressed a wish
of seeing fixed for that purpose, viz. Neuchâtel, and I should
have felt truly happy if by so doing I could have met your
wishes, and given further protection to the principality against
possible aggressions on the part of the Federal Government of
Switzerland. As matters now stand, the only complication
which might arise is that between Neuchâtel and the Diet.
I have, in anticipation of any such event, instructed Sir Stratford
Canning to exert himself to his utmost to dissuade the
Diet from any plan of aggression on your territory, and he has
[page 139]
been furnished with an able and elaborate state paper for his
guidance, which Chevalier Bunsen had drawn up, discussing
the legal merits of the case. Should events prove that Sir S.
Canning did not arrive in time, or had not the power of averting
a hostile step against Neuchâtel, you may rely upon my
readiness at all times to put my good offices at your disposal.
Should a conference upon Swiss affairs still become necessary,
I conceive that the only plea upon which the great Powers
could meet in conference would be their having guaranteed
the independence and neutrality of Switzerland, and by
implication the Federal Compact amongst the Cantons. This
has not been the case with regard to the German Confederation,
and I do not readily see in consequence how the Confederation
could be admitted into this Conference, however much I confess
I would like to see Germany take her place amongst the
Powers of Europe, to which her strength and population fairly
entitle her. I may say that my Government are equally impressed
with me with the importance of German unity and
strength and of this strength weighing in the balance of power
of Europe; I am sure that the English public generally share
this feeling, but I must not conceal from your Majesty that
much would depend upon the manner in which this power was
represented. Much as the English would like to see this power
represented by the enlightened councils of your Majesty, they
would be animated with very different feelings in seeing it in
the hands of Prince Metternich….

Victoria R.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

Osborne, 19th December 1847.

The Queen has to acknowledge the receipt of several letters
from Lord John Russell. She was pleased to see that the
Debates have been brought to such a satisfactory conclusion,
all the propositions of the Government having passed with
such good majorities. The Queen must mention to Lord John
that she was a little shocked at Sir Charles Wood in his speech
upon the Commission of Inquiry, designating the future
Government, and selecting Lord George Bentinck, Mr Disraeli(!),
and Mr Herries as the persons destined to hold high offices in
the next Government.

The Bishops behave extremely ill about Dr Hampden, and
the Bishop of Exeter²⁶ is gone so far, in the Queen’s opinion,
that he might be prosecuted for it, in calling the Act settling
[page 140]
the supremacy on the Crown a foul act and the Magna Charta
of Tyranny.

The Queen is glad to hear that Lord John is quite recovered.
We are going to Windsor the day after to-morrow.

Footnote 26: Henry Phillpotts, Bishop of Exeter, 1830-1869.

Viscount Melbourne to Queen Victoria.

LORD MELBOURNE

Brocket Hall, 30th December 1847.

Lord Melbourne presents his humble duty to your Majesty.
He has received with great pleasure your Majesty’s letter of
this morning, and reciprocates with the most cordial heartiness
your Majesty’s good wishes of the season, both for your Majesty
and His Royal Highness. Lord Melbourne is pretty well in
health, perhaps rather better than he has been, but low and
depressed in spirits for a cause which has long pressed upon
his mind, but which he has never before communicated to your
Majesty. Lord Melbourne has for a long time found himself
much straitened in his pecuniary circumstances, and these
embarrassments are growing now every day more and more
urgent, so that he dreads before long that he shall be obliged
to add another to the list of failures and bankruptcies of which
there have lately been so many. This is the true reason why Lord
Melbourne has always avoided the honour of the Garter, when
pressed upon him by his late Majesty and also by your Majesty.
Lord Melbourne knows that the expense of accepting the blue
ribbon amounts to £1000, and there has been of late years no
period at which it would not have been seriously inconvenient
to Lord Melbourne to lay down such a sum.²⁷

Footnote 27: The Queen, through the agency of Mr Anson, advanced Lord Melbourne a considerable
sum of money, which seems to have been repaid at his death. Apparently Lord Melbourne’s
declining health caused him to magnify his difficulties. The report which Mr
Anson made shows that he was in no sense seriously embarrassed.

[page 141]

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

TO CHAPTER XVII

At the outset of the year 1848 great alarm was felt throughout
England at the supposed inadequacy of her defences, a panic being
caused by the indiscreet publication of a confidential letter from the
Duke of Wellington to Sir John Burgoyne, to the effect that in his
judgment the whole South Coast was open to invasion, and that
there were no means of opposing a hostile force. The Government
turned its attention to reconstructing the Militia, and raising the
Income Tax for the purpose. But the outlook was completely
changed by the French Revolution; Louis Philippe, who had just
lost his sister and counsellor, Madame Adélaïde, impulsively abdicated,
on a rising taking place, and escaped with his family to this
country. England and Belgium were unaffected by the outburst of
revolution which convulsed Europe: the Emperor of Austria was
forced to abdicate, and Metternich, like Guizot, became a fugitive;
Prussia was shaken to her foundation, and throughout Germany the
movement in favour of representative institutions made rapid headway;
a National Assembly for Germany was constituted, and
Schleswig was claimed as an integral part of the German dominions.
In Italy also the Revolution, though premature, was serious. The
Pope, not yet reactionary, declared war against Austria; the
Milanese rose against Radetzky, the Austrian Governor, and King
Charles Albert of Sardinia marched to their assistance. A republic
was proclaimed in Venice, but these successes were afterwards
nullified, and a Sicilian rising against Ferdinand II. of Naples was
suppressed. In France the revolutionary movement held steadily on
its course, a National Assembly was elected, and national workshops
established; Louis Bonaparte, who had been a fugitive in England,
was allowed to return, and was elected President of the Republic by
an immense majority of the popular vote.

The friends of Revolution had no success in England; a very
serious riot at Glasgow was dispersed, and the meeting convened by
Feargus O’Connor for the 10th of April on Kennington Common,
which was to carry a huge petition in favour of the People’s Charter
to the House of Commons, proved a ridiculous fiasco. Ireland was
much disturbed during the year by what was known as the Young
Ireland agitation, a movement organised by youthful, and for the
most part cultivated, leaders, and utterly different from the sturdy
Repeal movement of O’Connell. Smith O’Brien, brother of Lord
[page 142]
Inchiquin, was the ringleader, and was backed by Mitchel, Duffy,
Meagher, and others, as well as by the Nation and United Irishman
newspapers. Like Chartism, the movement ignominiously collapsed
and its leaders were convicted of treason. An Act was at the same
time passed reducing some offences (till then legally defined as
treason) to felonies, and improving the law as to offences against the
person of the Sovereign.

The treacherous murder of two Englishmen in the Punjab led to
operations against the Sikhs, Lord Dalhousie—who had recently
become Viceroy—after some hesitation, reinforcing Lord Gough,
the Commander-in-Chief, and proceeding in person to the frontier;
a British force sustained a reverse at Ramnuggur on 22nd November,
and a decisive result was not arrived at till 1849.

In South Africa, a proclamation by Sir Harry Smith, the Governor
of the Cape of Good Hope, extending British sovereignty over the
country between the Orange and Vaal rivers, led to a collision with
the Boers, and ultimately to the founding of the Transvaal State.
Sir Harry Smith defeated the Boers on the 29th of August at Boom
Platz.

[page 143]

CHAPTER XVII

1848

The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

Laeken, 1st January 1848.

My dearest Victoria,—This is a most melancholy beginning
of the year. Our poor Aunt Adélaïde,¹ so kind to us, has
departed this life yesterday morning. Poor Louise feels it
dreadfully, as nothing could be more affectionate and more
motherly than she was for Louise. She was always very kind
and friendly to me, and I must confess I feel the blow much.
I am very much alarmed about the poor King; he must feel
the loss of a sister and friend so entirely devoted to him
deeply; it is the thing most likely to hurt and shake his health.
You will forgive if I cut short here, as I am much disturbed by
this melancholy event. I think you would act kindly in
writing to the King. We are too nearly connected not to do
it, and it will soothe him, who has been enough persecuted
since last year. I trust you begin better than we do this most
melancholy January. My best love to Albert, and believe me
ever, my dearest Victoria, your truly and devoted Uncle,

Leopold R.

Footnote 1: Sister of King Louis Philippe.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.²

DEATH OF MADAME ADÉLAÏDE

Windsor Castle, 3rd January 1848.

The Queen sends Lord John Russell a letter from her Uncle,
the King of the Belgians, which will show how dreadful a blow
Mme. Adélaïde’s death will be to the King of the French and
Royal Family. The Queen’s first thought was to write to the
King, which she would not have done without first mentioning
it to Lord John; but upon reflection she thought it quickest
[page 144]
and best to write at once to her cousin Clémentine (Princess
Augustus of Saxe-Coburg), to convey in her name to the King
her sincere sympathy at this melancholy event. The King of
the Belgians’ letter has, however, brought back to the Queen
her first thought of writing to the King, and she wishes to know
what Lord John thinks of it. The Queen thinks it as undignified
as unfeeling to carry on political coolness at moments
like these, when her own feelings of sympathy are so strong
and so sincere. The Queen would certainly under other
circumstances have instantly written to the King. On the
other hand, her first letter to her cousin (the King’s daughter)
may be sufficient, as it conveys a direct message; and there
may be people who will construe this into a political act, but
the Queen thinks that this risk should rather be run than that
she should appear unfeeling and forgetful of former kindness
and intimacy.

The Queen would be glad to have Lord John’s opinion on
this subject as soon as possible.

Footnote 2: This letter is headed “Reproduction—Substance of a letter to Lord John Russell,
written from recollection.”

The Queen of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

Laeken, 3rd January 1848.

My dearly beloved Victoria,—I thank you most sincerely
for your kind last letter, and all your good wishes for the New
Year. Alas! the year ended and began in a most painful and
heartrending way for us. The loss of my good, excellent, beloved
Aunt is an immense misfortune for us all, and the most
dreadful blow for my poor Father. We are all broken-hearted
by this, at last unexpected event. Some years we were uneasy
about my poor Aunt’s health, and of late I had been particularly
alarmed by what I heard of her increasing weakness; but
I was very far from believing that her end was so near. I was
only anxious for the winter. At least her end was peaceful.
She went to sleep and did not wake more. She died without
a struggle; the horror of death, and the still greater pang of
the last farewell, of the last leave-taking of her beloved brother,
was spared her. I thank God for this proof of His mercy, and
hope He will keep up my Father under such a heavy affliction.
To him the loss is irretrievable. My Aunt lived but for him;
one may almost say that her affection alone had kept her alive
these last years, and a devotion like hers—that devotion of
all instants—so complete, so full of self-denial—cannot, will
never, be replaced. A heart like hers, so true, so noble, so
warm, so loving, so devoted, is rarely seen. To us also, independently
of my Father, the loss is a dreadful one. My Aunt
[page 145]
was a second mother for us; we loved her and looked up to
her in this way, and certainly few mothers do for their children
what she did for us, or loved them better. We are overwhelmed
with grief by the sudden disappearance of a being so dear and so
necessary to us all, and we go to-morrow to Paris, to mourn
with the remainder of the family, and offer my poor Father
the only consolation he can feel at this cruel moment, that of
being surrounded by all those he loves. I have still so much
to do previous to our melancholy journey that I cannot say
more to-day. I am sure you will excuse me. I shall, God willing,
write in a more proper way the next time. In the meanwhile
I thank God that you are unberufen all well, and, in sorrow
or in joy, I am equally, my beloved Victoria, from the bottom
of my heart, yours most devotedly,

Louise.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

LETTER TO KING LOUIS PHILIPPE

Woburn Abbey, 4th January 1848.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and has no hesitation in saying that he thinks your Majesty
will do well to follow your own kind impulse to write a letter
to the King of the French. There will be some persons, and
M. Guizot perhaps among the number, who will construe this
into a political act; but it is better to be subject to such misconstructions
than to leave undone any act of sympathy to
the King of the French in his sore affliction.

Should the King attempt to found upon your Majesty’s
letter any political intercourse, Lord John Russell has no
doubt that your Majesty will explain to him that your present
proceeding is entirely founded upon private regard, and past
recollections of intimacy, and is not intended as an opening
for political correspondence.

Queen Victoria to the King of the French.

Ch. de Windsor, 5 Janvier 1848.

Sire et mon bon Frère,—Je ne voulais pas suivre l’impulse
de mon cœur, dans les premiers instants de la vive douleur
de votre Majesté, en vous écrivant—mais maintenant où la
violence de cette rude secousse peut-être sera un peu adoucie,
je viens moi-même exprimer à votre Majesté la part sincère que
nous prenons, le Prince et moi, à la cruelle perte que vous venez
d’éprouver, et qui doit vous laisser un vide irréparable.
[page 146]
Ayez la bonté, Sire, d’offrir nos expressions de condoléance
à la Reine, et faisant des vœux pour le bonheur de V.M., je me
dis, Sire et mon bon Frère, de V.M., la bonne Sœur,

V. R.

A S.M. le Roi des Français.

The King of the French to Queen Victoria.

Paris, 8 Janvier 1848.

Madame ma bonne Sœur,—Dans la profonde douleur où
m’a plongé le coup cruel qui vient de me frapper, une des plus
douces consolations que je pusse recevoir, est la lettre que votre
Majesté a eu la bonté de m’adresser, tant en son nom qu’en
celui du Prince son Epoux. L’expression de la part que vous
prenez tous deux à mon malheur, et de l’intérêt que vous
continuez à me porter, m’a vivement ému, et quelque douloureuse
qu’en soit l’occasion, qu’il me soit permis, Madame, de
vous en remercier, et de dire à votre Majesté que mon cœur
et mes sentimens pour elle, sont et seront toujours les mêmes
que ceux que j’étais si heureux de Lui manifester à Windsor
et au Château d’Eu.

Je prie votre Majesté de vouloir bien être, auprès du Prince
son Epoux, l’interprète de toute ma sensibilité. La Reine est
bien touchée de ce que votre Majesté m’a chargé de Lui témoigner,
et je la prie de croire que je suis toujours, Madame,
ma bonne Sœur, de votre Majesté, le bon Frère,

Louis Philippe R.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

ENGLAND AND THE PORTE

Claremont, 11th January 1848.

The Queen has this morning seen a draft addressed to Lord
Cowley, in which he is desired to advise the Sultan to give
Abd-el-Kader a command in his Army—a step which the
Queen cannot approve, not because it is not good advice to the
Porte, but because it is uncalled for on our part, and might be
considered by France as a hostile step towards her. What
would we say if the French were to advise M. Ali to give Akbar
Khan the command of his army? ³

Footnote 3: See ante, vol. i. p. 254.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

CLAREMONT

Claremont, 11th January 1848.

My dearest Uncle,—I always write with pleasure to you
from this so very dear old place, where we are safely and
[page 147]
happily housed with our whole little family since yesterday.
The weather is very cold, and it is the third night of a black
frost which is likely to continue for some days. Many thanks
for your kind letter of the 7th, which, according to the new
arrangement, I received already on the 8th. Your visit will, I
fear, have been a very melancholy one. Poor Mme. Adélaïde’s
death was so extremely sudden, it must be a dreadful blow to
the poor King. I have written to him. Louise will have told
you that poor Aunt Sophia⁴ is decidedly sinking.

I wish, dearest Uncle, if even Louise feels unequal to coming
to us now (which would be a sad disappointment), you would
come to see us. Why not come while she is at Paris? It
would be such a pleasure to us. You will of course have no
balls, and you might come even sooner than you originally
intended. Pray do see if you could manage this. I am sure
you could. If Louise could come, of course that would be
still better.

Albert desires me to ask you the following favour, viz. if
you would give us the picture that is here of Grand Uncle
Frederic (the Field-Marshal), that we might hang it up in
London, where we have made a fine collection of his contemporaries,
and we would replace it by a faithful copy, which
could be hung up in the frame here. Will you grant this?

We are very desirous of getting the Woods and Forests
to build a small glass dome to the greenhouse here where the
palm-trees are, and (if you approved) there could be no
difficulty in getting this done; the palm-trees are beautiful,
and will be quite stunted and spoilt if not allowed to grow.
We shall stay here till Monday next. With Albert’s love, ever
your truly devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 4: Fifth daughter of George III., born 1777. She died in May 1848.

The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

THE FRENCH ROYAL FAMILY

Laeken, 12th January 1848.

My dearest Victoria,—A messenger of my own going to
England, I take advantage of it to write you a few words.
Your kind letter to the poor King was an act for which I thank
you from the bottom of my soul, because it made him so
happy. I was still in his rooms—where the family has been
breakfasting and dining till now—when your letter arrived;
he was so delighted with it that he kissed it most tenderly. I
left him tolerably well on Monday, but with rather a severe
cold. He had certainly at the end of December the Grippe,
[page 148]
which perhaps was the immediate cause of poor Aunt’s death,
as from over-anxiety for her beloved brother, she got up in the
night to find out how he was. His cold had been better when
he went to Dreux, then he met the procession, and walked with
it bareheaded to the church; this seems to have given him
a new cold. His nerves are also a good deal shaken, and this
renders him very irritable. He is much occupied about some
of the arrangements connected with poor Aunt’s fortune; she
left her landed property to Nemours, Joinville, and Montpensier,
charged with the various sums she left to nearly all
the branches of her family. The King is to have, however, the
enjoyment of the whole of this fortune for his life. His great
wish would be to employ the revenues, from the whole of the
succession legacies as well as landed property, to free the
landed property of the mortgage of the various legacies. This
will require a good many years, and I told him that it would
force him to live till it would be arranged, which will easily
require ten years. In France a good feeling has been shown on
this occasion. I heard from trustworthy quarters that even
people who were known to be personally not very kind to the
King, expressed themselves most anxious for his preservation.
Whenever that sad event will take place, the reaction in
Europe will be great, as all the bad passions which are kept
down by him will then of course try to get the over hand. The
Queen is much affected by all this, and thinks much of her own
end. The children, including good Hélène, have all behaved
with the utmost affection to their parents, and nothing can
equal particularly good Nemours’ devotion and attention.
My beloved Child, your truly devoted Uncle,

Leopold R.

The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

REVOLUTION IN FRANCE

Laeken, 12th February 1848.

My dearest Victoria,—… From Paris the news are alarming;⁵
the struggle of the Liberal Party leaning towards
radicalism, or in fact merely their own promotion; principles
are out of the question. This state of affairs reacts in a very
lamentable way upon the well-being of the great European
community. Great complaints are made that the working
[page 149]
classes are deprived of work and at the same time political
agitation is kept up, which must have the effect of stopping
transactions of every description. The human race is a sad
creation, and I trust the other planets are better organised and
that we may get there hereafter…. Your devoted Uncle,

Leopold R.

Footnote 5: The Republican movement had been making rapid headway in Paris, and the leader
of the Opposition, M. Odilon Barrot, proposed Guizot’s impeachment on the 22nd of
February. Louis Philippe, when it was unfortunately too late, consented to a change of
Ministry, but the formation of a new Government proved impossible. The Revolution
could have been quelled, had it not been for the King’s reluctance to shed blood in defence
of the Throne to which he had been elected; even to the agitators themselves the completeness
of the Revolution was a surprise.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

Downing Street, 23rd February 1848.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and will have the honour of waiting upon your Majesty at three
o’clock to-morrow.

Lord Normanby’s letters from Paris give a little information.⁶

There has been some fighting in the streets, and some apprehension
for the night. But it does not appear probable that
any serious danger will be incurred, with the troops in such
force in Paris.

Hereafter there may be a serious struggle between the
Government of the King, and the Republicans. But in that
case such men as M. Odilon Barrot will shrink from the contest.

Footnote 6: A letter from Lord Normanby on the 13th of March to Lord Palmerston (published
in Ashley’s Life of Palmerston, vol. i. chap. iii.) gives an account of the situation on the
eve of the 22nd of February. On the 25th of February he wrote:—

“The National Guards, mixed with the people, were in full march upon the Tuileries,
and the latter threatening the life of the King, when Emile Girardin, the editor of the
Presse newspaper, who was in advance as an officer of the National Guard, hastily drew
up an Act of Abdication, and placed it before the King as the only means of safety. The
King at first refused, saying that he would rather die; but the Duc de Montpensier urged
him, not only for his own sake, but to save his country from confusion. The King at last
signed it, and threw it impatiently at the Duc de Montpensier, who, I believe, has been in
favour of conciliatory counsel throughout. The Royal Family then retired through the
garden, the King saying to every one as he passed, ‘J’abdique, j’abdique.'”

The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

Laeken, 26th February 1848.

My dearest Victoria,—I am very unwell in consequence
of the awful events at Paris. How will this end? Poor Louise
is in a state of despair which is pitiful to behold. What will
soon become of us God alone knows; great efforts will be made
to revolutionise this country; as there are poor and wicked
people in all countries it may succeed.

Against France we, of course, have a right to claim protection
from England and the other Powers. I can write no more.
God bless you. Ever your devoted Uncle,

Leopold R.

[page 150]

The Queen of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

FLIGHT OF FRENCH ROYAL FAMILY

Brussels, 27th February 1848.

My dearly beloved Victoria,—I understand by an account
arrived this morning, and which seems to be correct, that
my unfortunate parents arrived in England before yesterday
evening: but I don’t know where they are. (I don’t know
anything of them since the 23rd, evening!!!) But you will
surely know, and kindly forward the letter to my poor mother.
I have just received your kind letter of the 25th, but I am
unable to say more to-day. You will easily conceive my agony
and anguish. What an unbelievable clap of thunder! I know
still nothing of what Nemours and Montpensier are become. I
rely on your interest and sympathy, and remain as ever, yours
most devotedly,

Louise.

I hear this moment with an extreme relief that my parents
were to arrive yesterday at London, and thank God from the
bottom of my heart for their safety! In my agony I did not
wish for anything else.

The King of Prussia to Queen Victoria.

[Translation.]

THE KING OF PRUSSIA

27th February 1848.

Most gracious Queen and Sister,—Even at this midnight
hour of the day, on the evening of which the awful news from
Paris has arrived, I venture to address these lines to your
Majesty. God has permitted events which decisively threaten
the peace of Europe.

It is an attempt to “spread the principles of the Revolution
by every means throughout the whole of Europe.” This
programme binds together both these individuals and their
parties. The consequences for the peace of the world are clear
and certain. If the revolutionary party carries out its programme,
“The sovereignty of the people,” my minor crown
will be broken, no less certainly than the mighty crowns of
your Majesty, and a fearful scourge will be laid upon the nations;
a century [will follow] of rebellion, of lawlessness, and
of godlessness. The late King did not dare to write “by the
Grace of God.” We, however, call ourselves King “by the
Grace of God,” because it is true. Well, then, most gracious
Queen, let us now show to men, to the peoples threatened with
disruption and nameless misery, both that we understand our
[page 151]
sacred office and how we understand it. God has placed in
your Majesty’s hands, in the hands of the two Emperors, in
those of the German Federation, and in mine, a power, which,
if it now acts in union and harmony, with reliance on Heaven,
is able humanly speaking, to enforce, with certainty, the
maintenance of the peace of the world. This power is not that
of arms, for these, more than ever, must only afford the ultima
ratio.

The power I mean is “the power of united speech.” In the year
1830 the use of this immeasurable power was criminally
neglected. But now I think the danger is much more pressing
than it was then. This power is divided among us in equal
portions. I possess the smallest portion of it, and your Majesty
has by far the greatest share. That share is so great that your
Majesty, by your powerful word, might alone carry out the
task. But the certainty of victory lies, subject to the Divine
blessing, solely in our utterance being united. This must be
our message to France; “that all of us are cordial well-wishers
to France; we do not grudge her all possible welfare and glory;
we mean never to encroach on it, and we will stand by the
new Government as by the old, foi de gentils-hommes. But
the first breach of the peace, be it with reference to Italy,
Belgium, or Germany would be, undoubtedly and at the
same time, a breach with ‘all of us,’ and we should, with
all the power that God has given us, let France feel by sea
and by land, as in the years ’13, ’14, and ’15, what our union
may mean.”

Now I bless Providence for having placed Lord Palmerston
at the head of your Foreign Office, and keeping him there at this
very moment. During the last quarter of the past year I could
not always cordially agree with him. His genuine British
disposition will honour this open confession. All the more
frankly may I now express the hopes which rise in me, from the
very fact of his holding that office at the present moment; for
a more active, more vivid, more energetic Minister of foreign
affairs, a man that would more indefatigably pursue great aims,
your Majesty could probably never have. If at this grave hour
he sets himself to proclaim that our forces are united; if he
himself utters his message as befits St George, he will earn the
blessing of millions, and the blessing of God and of the world
will rest on your Majesty’s sacred head. That I am your
Majesty’s and Old England’s most faithful and most devoted
brother and companion, you are aware, and I mean to prove
it. On both, knees I adjure you, use, for the welfare of Europe,
“Engellands England.”

With these words I fall at your Majesty’s feet, most gracious
[page 152]
Queen, and remain your Majesty’s most faithfully devoted, most
attached Servant and good Brother,

Frederic William.

P. S.—The Prince I embrace. He surely feels with me, and
justly appraises my endeavours.

ANARCHY IN PARIS

Post scriptum, 28th, in the evening.

I venture to open my letter again, for this day has brought
us news from France, which one can only call horrible. According
to what we hear, there is no longer left a King in
France. A regency, a government, and the most complete
anarchy has ensued, under the name of the Republic—a condition
of things in which, at first, there will be no possibility of
communicating with the people, infuriated with crime. In case
a Government should evolve itself out of this chaos, I conscientiously
hold that the “united word” of the great Powers, such
as I have indicated in the preceding pages, should be made
known, without any modification, to the new holders of power.
Your Majesty’s gracious friendship will certainly not take amiss
this addition to my letter, though it be not conformable to strict
etiquette.

The fate of the poor old King, of the Duchess of Orleans, of
the whole honourable and amiable family, cuts me to the heart,
for up to this time we do not know what has become of any of
them. We owe Louis Philippe eighteen happy years of peace.
No noble heart must forget that. And yet—who would not
recognise the avenging hand of the King of kings in all this?

I kiss your Majesty’s hands.

The Queen of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

LETTER FROM QUEEN LOUISE

Brussels, 28th February 1848.

My dearly beloved Victoria,—What a misfortune! What
an awful, overwhelming, unexpected and inexplicable catastrophe.
Is it possible that we should witness such events, and that
this
should be the end of nearly eighteen years of courageous and
successful efforts to maintain order, peace, and make France
happy, what she was? I have heard, I read hourly, what has
happened: I cannot believe it yet; but if my beloved parents and
the remainder of the family are at least safe I won’t mind the
rest. In the hours of agony we have gone through I asked God
only to spare the lives, and I ask still nothing else: but
we don’t
know them yet all saved, and till I have heard of my unfortunate
parents, of my unhappy brothers far away, of all those for
whom I would lay my life at any moment and whose danger I
could not even share or alleviate, I cannot exist.

[page 153]

I was sure, my beloved Victoria, of all you would feel for
us
when you would hear of these awful events. I received yesterday
your two kind, warm, sympathising letters of the 25th and
26th, and thank you with all my heart for them, and for yours
and Albert’s share and sympathy.

ANXIETY OF QUEEN LOUISE

Our anguish has been undescribable. We have been thirty-six
hours without any news, not knowing even if my parents and the
family were still alive or not, and what had been their fate.
Death is not worse than what we endured during these horrible
hours. We don’t know yet what to think, what to believe, I
would almost say, what to wish; we are stunned and crushed
by the awful blow. What has happened is unaccountable,
incomprehensible; it appears to us like a fearful dream. Alas!
I fear my dear beloved father was led away by his extreme
courage; by that same courage which had made his success and
a part of his strength; for it is strange to say that even those
that deplored most his resolution never to yield on certain
things gave him credit for it. The exaggeration of the system
of peace and resistance, or rather immobility, lost him, as that
of war lost Napoleon. Had he shunned less war on all occasions,
and granted in time some trifling reforms, he would have
satisfied public opinion, and would probably be still where he
was only eight days ago, strong, beloved, and respected!
Guizot’s accession has been as fatal as his fall, and is perhaps the
first cause of our ruin, though my father cannot be blamed
for having kept him in office, as he had the majority in the
Chamber, and an overwhelming one. Constitutionally, he
could not have been turned out, and it was impossible to foresee
that when all was quiet, the country prosperous and happy, the
laws and liberty respected, the Government strong, a Revolution—and
such a Revolution—would be brought on by a few imprudent
words, and the resistance (lamentable as it was) to a
manifestation which, in fact, the Government had a right to
prevent. It was the Almighty’s will: we must submit. He had
decreed our loss the day He removed my beloved brother⁷ from
this world. Had he lived still, all this would have turned
otherwise. It has been also an immense misfortune that
Joinville and Aumale were both away. They were both
popular (which poor dear never-to-be-sufficiently-respected
Nemours was not), energetic, courageous, and capable of turning
chance in our favour. Oh! how I long to know what is
become of them! I cannot live till then, and the thought of
my unfortunate parents annihilates me! Poor dear Joinville
had foreseen and foretold almost all that has happened, and it
[page 154]
was the idea of the crisis he apprehended which made him so
unhappy to go. He repeated it to me several times six weeks
ago. Alas! nobody would believe him, and who could believe
that in a day, almost without struggle, all would be over, and the
past, the present, the future carried away on an unaccountable
storm! God’s will be done! He was at least merciful to my
dear Aunt, and I hope He will preserve all those dear to me!

Here everything is quiet: the horror general, and the best
feeling and spirit prevailing. There is still now nothing to
fear: but if a republic really established itself in France, it is
impossible to tell what may happen. For this reason your
Uncle thinks it right that we should remove to some place of
safety what we have of precious. If you permit I will avail
myself of the various messengers that are going now to send
under your care several boxes, which you will kindly send to
Claremont to Moor, to keep with those your Uncle already sent.
They contain your Uncle’s letters and those of my parents—the
treasure I most value in the world.

29th.—My dearly beloved Victoria,—This was written
yesterday, in a moment of comparative quiet, when I thought
my parents at least safe and in security in England. Albert’s
letter to your Uncle of the 27th, which arrived yesterday evening,
says they were not arrived yet, and I am again in the most
horrible agony. I had also yesterday evening details of their
flight (my father flying!!!) by Madame de Murat, Victoire’s
lady, who has gone to England, which quite distracted me.
Thank God that Nemours and Clém at least are safe! I am
quite unable to say more, and I hope the Duchess and Alexandrine
will excuse me if I don’t write to them. Truly, I can’t.
I thank you only once more, my beloved Victoria, for all your
kindness and interest for my unfortunate family, and trust all
the anxiety you feel for us won’t hurt you. God bless you ever,
with all those dear to you. Believe me always, my beloved
Victoria, yours most devotedly,

Louise.

I send you no letter for my mother in the present uncertainty.

Footnote 7: The Duc d’Orléans, who was killed on 13th July 1842.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

Chesham Place, 29th February 1848.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and has the honour to transmit a short note from Lord
Normanby, which is very satisfactory.

Lord John Russell declared last night that your Majesty
would not interfere in the internal affairs of France. But in
[page 155]
repeating this declaration, in answer to Mr Cobden, he added
that the sacred duties of hospitality would be, as in all times,
performed towards persons of all opinions. Both declarations
were generally cheered. In extending this hospitality to
members of the Royal Family of France, it is only to be observed
that no encouragement should be given by your Majesty
to any notion that your Majesty would assist them to recover
the Crown. In this light it is desirable that no Prince of the
House of Orleans should inhabit one of your Majesty’s palaces
in or near London.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

THE NEW FRENCH GOVERNMENT

(Undated.)⁸

The Queen has perused the enclosed despatches and the
proposed Minutes of a draft to Lord Normanby with Lord John
Russell’s remarks. She approves generally of the Minutes, but
would like that amongst the laudable intentions of the new
French Government, that of keeping inviolate the European
Treaties should be brought in in some way. In the paper No.
2, the expression “most cordial friendship” strikes the Queen
as rather too strong. We have just had sad experience of
cordial understandings. “Friendly relations” might do better
or the whole sentence might run thus: “that not peace only
but cordial friendship with France had been at all times [instead
of “is one of the,” etc.] one of the first wishes of the British
Government, and that this will remain,” etc., etc., etc.

Footnote 8: Apparently written at the end of February.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

ESCAPE OF KING LOUIS PHILIPPE

Buckingham Palace, 1st March 1848.

My dearest Uncle,—Every hour seems to bring fresh news
and events. Victoire and her children and Montpensier are at
Jersey, and are expected to arrive to-morrow. About the King
and Queen, we still know nothing, but we have some clue, and
think he may be somewhere on the coast, or even in England.
We do everything we can for the poor dear Family, who are
indeed most dreadfully to be pitied; but you will naturally
understand that we cannot make cause commune with them and
cannot take a hostile position opposite to the new state of things
in France; we leave them alone, but if a Government which
has the approbation of the country be formed, we shall feel it
necessary to recognise it, in order to pin them down to maintain
[page 156]
peace and the existing Treaties, which is of great importance.
It will not be pleasant for us to do this, but the public good and
the peace of Europe go before one’s feelings. God knows what
one feels towards the French. I trust, dear Uncle, that you will
maintain the fine and independent position you are now in,
which is so gratifying to us, and I am sure you will feel that
much as we all must sympathise with our poor French relations,
you should not for that quarrel with the existing state
of things, which however is very uncertain. There were fresh
reports of great confusion at Paris, which is sure to happen.
All our poor relations have gone through is worthy only of a
dreadful romance, and poor Clém behaves beautifully, courageously,
and calmly, and is full of resignation; but she can get no
sleep, poor thing—and hears the horrid cries and sees those
fiend-like faces before her! The children are very happy with
ours, but very unmanageable. I saw the Duchesse de Montpensier
to-day.

Now, with every wish for all going on well, believe me ever,
your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Mr Featherstonhaugh ⁹ to Viscount Palmerston.

MR FEATHERSTONHAUGH

Havre, 3rd March 1848.

My dear Lord Palmerston,—It was a hair-trigger affair
altogether, but thanks be to God everything has gone off
admirably. I was obliged to abandon the plan of trusting the
King in a fishing-boat from Trouville. The weather was very
stormy; had he attempted to find the steamer, he might have
failed, for the sea was in a furious state and the wind ahead.
There was also the danger of the fishing-boat being lost, a
contingency the very idea of which made me miserable.

I therefore abandoned the plan altogether, and after much
and careful reflection determined to execute one more within
my control, and the boldness of which, though trying to the
nerves, was its very essence for success. It was to bring the
King and Queen into Havre itself before anybody could suspect
such a dangerous intention, and have everything ready for
their embarkation to a minute. To carry out the plan, I
wanted vigilant, intelligent, and firm agents, and I found them
as it turned out. It was known to me that the lower classes
suspected it was M. Guizot concealed at Trouville, and as some
sinister occurrence might reasonably be expected there, I sent
a faithful person into Calvados. It was high time. The mob
[page 157]
had assembled at the place where the King was, who had to
slip out at the back door and walk two leagues on foot. At
length he reached a small cottage belonging to a gardener at
Honfleur, where the Queen was. This was half-past six o’clock
A.M. yesterday. My agent saw the King and Queen, who, after
some conversation, sent him back with this message, that they
“would wait where they were until they again heard from me,
and would carry out my final arrangements with exactitude,
as far as it depended upon them.” I now instructed Captain
Paul to be ready at half-past seven P.M., when it would be dark,
to have his water hot, ready to get up steam; to have only a
rope moored to the quay with an anchor astern; to expect
me with a party a little before eight P.M., and as soon as I had
got on board with my party and told him to push off, he was
to let me go on shore, cut his rope and cable, get into the middle
of the Basin, up with his steam and jib and push for England.
Not a word was to be spoken on board.

A GRAPHIC NARRATIVE

To get the King here from Honfleur the following method
was adopted: M. Bresson, a loyal and intelligent officer in the
French Navy and well known to the King, and Mr Jones, my
Vice-Consul and principal Clerk, went in the steam ferry-boat
a quarter before five P.M. to Honfleur. From the landing-place
it is three-quarters of a mile to the place where the King and
Queen were concealed. The ferry-boat was to leave Honfleur
for Havre a quarter before seven o’clock. I had given M.
Bresson a passport for Mr and Mrs Smith, and with this passport
the King was to walk to the landing-place, where he was
to be met by my Vice-Consul and be governed by him.

If the gens d’armes disputed his passport Mr Jones was to
vouch for its regularity, and say that he was sent by me to
conduct Mr Smith to Havre, who was my Uncle. M. Bresson
was to follow with the Queen, and the rest of the suite were to
come to the ferry-boat one after another, but none of the party
were to know each other. The ferry-boat was to arrive in
Havre about half-past seven, and I was to do the rest. A white
pocket-handkerchief was to be twice exhibited as a signal that
all was right so far. The difficulty of the gens d’armes being
infinitely more to be provided against and apprehended here,
I first confidentially communicated to the greatest gossips in
the town that I had seen a written statement from an official
person that the King had reached England in a fishing-boat
from the neighbourhood of Tréport, and then got some persons
whom I could rely upon, sons of my tradesmen here who are in
the National Guard, to be near the steamer that was to receive
the King, to give me their assistance if it should be necessary,
on account of the turbulence of the crowd, to embark some
[page 158]
friends of mine who were going to England. And if an extraordinary
number of gens d’armes were stationed at the steamer,
and they hesitated about letting my Uncle go on board, then
about one hundred yards off I had two persons who were to
pretend a quarrel and a fight, to which I knew the gens d’armes
would all go as well as the crowd. In the meantime I hoped
that as Captain Paul made no noise with his steam that the
crowd would not assemble, and that we might find no gens
d’armes. The anxiously expected moment at length arrived.
The ferry-boat steamer came to the quay; it was almost dark,
but I saw the white pocket-handkerchief. There was a great
number of passengers, which favoured the debarkation. When
half of them were out, the trembling Queen came up the ladder.
I took her hand, told her it was me, and M. Bresson walked
with her towards our steamer. At last came the King, disguised,
his whiskers shaved off, a sort of casquette on his head,
and a coarse overcoat, and immense goggles over his eyes. Not
being able to see well, he stumbled, when I advanced, took his
hand and said, “Ah, dear Uncle, I am delighted to see you.”
Upon which he answered, “My dear George, I am glad you are
here.” The English about me now opened the crowd for their
Consul, and I moved off to a quiet and shaded part of the quay.
But my dear Uncle talked so loud and so much that I had the
greatest difficulty to make him keep silence. At length we
reached the steamer; it was like a clock-work movement. The
crowd was again opened for me. I conducted the King to a
state-room below, gave him some information, and having
personally ascertained that the Queen was in her cabin, and
being very much touched with her tears and her grateful acknowledgments,
I respectfully took my leave, gave the Captain
the word to cut loose, and scrambled ashore. In twenty
minutes the steamer was outside, steaming away for England.
I drove down to the jetty, and had that last satisfaction of seeing
her beyond all possibility of recall, and then drove home.
Much has been said this morning about the mysterious departure
of Captain Paul, and I have been obliged to confess that
the gentleman I was seen conducting on board was a brother
of the King of Naples, who was immensely frightened without
cause, and that I had engaged the steamer for him and his
family. Many think, however, that it was the King, but then
again that could not be if he crossed over from Tréport in a
fishing-boat. We have got everybody completely mystified,
and there are only four persons in the secret, who will all remain
in the same story.

I have scribbled, amidst the most hurried engagements, this
little narrative, believing that it would interest your Lordship.
[page 159]
It has the interest of romance and the support of truth. I
have the honour to be, etc.

G. W. Featherstonhaugh.

Information has just reached me that one hour after the
King and Queen left their hiding-place last night, and just
when I was embarking them, an officer and three gens d’armes
came to the place to arrest him. They were sent by the new
Republican Préfet. It appears that the man who gave him
refuge had confessed who he was as soon as the King had left
Trouville, and had betrayed the King’s hiding-place at Honfleur.
What an escape! Your Lordship will see a paragraph
in the enclosed newspaper not altogether false. We in the
secret know nothing about Louis Philippe; we know something
about the Count of Syracuse and something about Mr William
Smith. If it leaks out, it must come from England. Here no
one has any proof. In the meantime almost everybody here
is delighted to think that he may have escaped.

Footnote 9: British Consul at Havre. This letter was submitted to the Queen by Lord Palmerston.

Viscount Palmerston to Queen Victoria.

ARRIVAL IN ENGLAND

Carlton Gardens, 3rd March 1848.

(3 P.M.)

Viscount Palmerston presents his humble duty to your
Majesty, and begs to state that General Dumas has just been
with him to announce that the King and Queen of the French
landed this morning at Newhaven, having been brought over
in the Steam Packet Express, in which they embarked at Havre
yesterday evening about eight o’clock.

General Dumas says that till the morning of their arrival at
Dreux the King and the Queen imagined that the Comte de
Paris had succeeded to the Throne, and that the Duchess of
Orleans had been declared Regent; that when they heard that
a Republic and a Provisional Government had been declared
they thought it unsafe to remain at Dreux; and that they then
separated in order to go by different roads to Honfleur, where
they were to meet at a small house belonging to a friend of
General Dumas. At that house they remained for some days,
until Mr Featherstonhaugh opened a communication with
them. The King then removed to Trouville in order to embark
from thence in a manner which Mr Featherstonhaugh had
arranged, and he remained there two or three days for that
purpose; but the weather was too stormy, and prevented his
departure. In the meanwhile the people of Trouville found out
who he was, and their demonstrations of attachment became
inconvenient. He therefore returned to Honfleur, and the
arrangements were altered. Yesterday evening at seven
[page 160]
o’clock the King, the Queen, and General Dumas came to the
ferry-boat which plies between Honfleur and Havre, and were
met by the Vice-Consul, who treated the King as uncle of the
Consul. On landing at Havre the King walked straight down
to the Express Packet, which was lying ready; the Queen went
separately, and after making a slight round through the streets
of Havre embarked also; the Packet then immediately started,
and went into Newhaven in preference to any other port,
because no Packets start from thence for the French coast.
General Dumas says that the whole party were unprovided with
anything but the clothes they wore, and he was going to the
King’s banker to provide funds to enable him to come to town,
and said that the King begged him to apologise for his not having
at once written to your Majesty to thank your Majesty for the
great interest which your Majesty has taken in his safety, and
for the assistance, which he has received for his escape, but that
he would do so this evening.

General Dumas said that the King’s present intention is to
remain in England in the strictest incognito, and that he and the
Queen will assume the title of Count and Countess of Neuilly.

RECEPTION AT CLAREMONT

Viscount Palmerston explained to General Dumas that your
Majesty has made arrangements for the King’s reception at
Claremont, and that your Majesty intended to send down an
officer of your Majesty’s Household to communicate with the
King.

General Dumas said that the King would most gratefully
avail himself of the arrangement as to Claremont, but that
under all circumstances, and as the King wished to remain in
entire privacy, he thought it would be better that no person
from your Majesty’s Household should go down to the King at
Newhaven, and that he was sure the King would rather find his
own way from the railway station at London Bridge to Claremont
than attract attention by being met at the station by
any of your Majesty’s carriages.

The King would remain to-night at Newhaven, and would
come up to-morrow morning. General Dumas said that the
King and the Queen had gone through much personal fatigue
and mental anxiety, but are both well in health. The General
was going to Count Jarnac before he returned to Newhaven.

The King of the French to Queen Victoria.

THE KING’S GRATITUDE

Newhaven, Sussex, 3ème Mars 1848.

Madame,—Après avoir rendu grâces à Dieu, mon premier
devoir est d’offrir à votre Majesté l’hommage de ma reconnaissance
pour la généreuse assistance qu’elle nous a donnée, à moi
[page 161]
et à tous les miens et que la Providence vient de couvrir d’un
succès complet, puisque j’apprends qu’ils sont tous à présent
sur la terre hospitalière de l’Angleterre.

Ce n’est plus, Madame, que le Comte de Neuilly qui, se rappelant
vos anciennes bontés, vient chercher sous ses auspices, un
asyle et une retraite paisible et aussi éloignée de tout rapport
politique que celle dont il y a joui dans d’autres temps, et dont
il a toujours précieusement conservé le souvenir.

On me presse tellement pour ne pas manquer le train qui
emportera ma lettre que j’ai à peine le temps de prier votre
Majesté d’être mon interprète auprès du Prince votre auguste
Époux.

Ma femme, accablée de fatigue par la vie que nous venons de
mener depuis dix jours! écrira un peu plus tard à votre Majesté.
Tout ce qu’elle a pu faire, est de tracer quelques mots pour
notre bien aimée Louise que je recommande à votre bonté.
On me presse encore, Madame, je ne puis que me souscrire avec
mon vieil attachement pour vous, de votre Majesté, très
affectionné,

Louis Philippe.

The Queen of the French to Queen Victoria.

Newhaven, 3ème Mars 1848.

Madame,—A peine arrivée dans cette contrée hospitalière
après 9 jours d’une cruelle agonie, mon premier sentiment,
après avoir béni la Divine Providence, c’est de remercier, du
fond de mon cœur, votre Majesté, pour les facilités qu’elle a
bien voulu nous donner pour venir dans ce pays terminer nos
vieux jours dans la tranquillité et l’oubli. Une vive inquiétude
me tourmente, c’est d’apprendre le sort de mes enfants chéris
desquels nous avons dû nous séparer; j’ai la confiance qu’ils
auront trouvé aussi un appui dans le cœur généreux de votre
Majesté, et qu’ils auront été également sauvés comme leur
admirable Père, mon premier trésor. Que Dieu vous bénisse,
Madame, ainsi que le Prince Albert et vos enfants, et vous
préserve de malheurs pareils aux nôtres, c’est le vœu le plus
sincère de celle qui se dit, Madame, de votre Majesté, la toute
dévouée,

Marie Amélie.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

ARRIVAL OF GUIZOT

House of Commons, 3rd March 1848.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty:
he has read with deep interest the affecting letter of the fallen
King.

[page 162]

After the vicissitudes of a long life, it may be no irremediable
calamity if a Prince of great powers of mind and warm domestic
affections is permitted by Providence to end his days in peace
and tranquillity.

Of course all enmity to his projects as a King ceases with his
deposition.

M. Guizot came to London from Dover at half-past six.

Queen Victoria to the King of the French.

Palais de Buckingham, 3ème Mars 1848.

Sire et mon cher Frère,—C’était une consolation bien
vive pour moi de recevoir la bonne lettre de votre Majesté qui
m’a bien touchée. Nous avons tous été dans de vives inquiétudes
pour vous, pour la Reine et toute la famille, et nous remercions
la Providence pour que vous soyez arrivés en sûreté
sur le sol d’Angleterre, et nous sommes bien heureux de savoir
que vous êtes ici loin de tous ces dangers qui vous ont récemment
menacés. Votre Majesté croira combien ces derniers
affreux événements si inattendus nous ont péniblement agités.
Il nous tarde de savoir que vos santés n’ont pas été altérées
par ces derniers jours d’inquiétude et de fatigue. Albert me
charge d’offrir les hommages à votre Majesté, et je vous prie
de déposer les nôtres aux pieds de la Reine, à qui je compte
répondre demain. Je me dis, Sire et mon bon Frère, de votre
Majesté, la bien affectionnée Sœur,

Victoria R.

Queen Victoria to the Queen of the French.

Palais de Buckingham, 4ème Mars 1848.

Madame,—Votre Majesté aura excusé que je ne vous ai pas
de suite remercié de votre bonne et aimable lettre de hier. C’est
des fonds de mon cœur que je me réjouis de vous savoir en
sûreté à Claremont avec le Roi. Mes pensées étaient auprès
de votre Majesté pendant tous ces affreux jours, et je frémis
en pensant à tout ce que vous avez souffert de corps et
d’âme.

Albert sera le Porteur de ces lignes; j’aurais été si heureuse
de l’accompagner pour vous voir, mais je n’ose plus quitter
Londres.

Avec l’expression de l’affection et de l’estime, je me dis
toujours, Madame, de votre Majesté, la bien affectionnée
Sœur,

Victoria R.

[page 163]

Viscount Palmerston to Queen Victoria.

THE ROYAL FUGITIVES

Carlton Gardens, 5th March 1848.

Viscount Palmerston presents his humble duty to your
Majesty, and cannot see that there could be any objection to the
King and Queen of the French coming to town to visit your
Majesty, and indeed, on the contrary, it would seem under
all the circumstances of the case natural that they should be
anxious to see your Majesty, and that your Majesty should
be desirous of receiving them.

Viscount Palmerston was sure that your Majesty would read
with interest Mr Featherstonhaugh’s account of the manner in
which he managed the escape of the King and Queen of the
French. It is like one of Walter Scott’s best tales, and the
arrangements and the execution of them do great credit to
Mr Featherstonhaugh, who will be highly gratified to learn,
as Viscount Palmerston proposes to inform him, that your
Majesty has approved his conduct. Mr Featherstonhaugh
has also probably rendered a good service to the Provisional
Government, who would have been much embarrassed if their
Commissioner had arrested the King and Queen.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Buckingham Palace, 7th March 1848.

My dearest Uncle,—Albert has written to you so constantly
that I have little to add; he just tells me this is not
quite true. However, there is nothing very new except that
we have seen the King and Queen; Albert went down to
Claremont to see them on Saturday, and yesterday they came
here with Montpensier. They both look very abattus, and the
poor Queen cried much in thinking of what she had gone
through—and what dangers the King had incurred; in short,
humbled poor people they looked. Dearest Vic I saw on
Sunday; she has also gone through much, and is so dear and
good and gentle. She looked wonderfully well considering.
They are still very much in want of means, and live on a very
reduced scale.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

THE QUEEN’S VIEW OF THE CRISIS

Buckingham Palace, 11th March 1848.

My dearest Uncle,—I profit by the departure of Andrews
to write to you a few lines, and to wish you joy of the continued
[page 164]
satisfactory behaviour of my friends, the good Belgians;
fervently do I hope and really trust all will go on well; but
what an extraordinary state of things everywhere! “Je ne
sais plus où je suis,” and I fancy really that we have gone back
into the old century. But I also feel one must not be nervous
or alarmed at these moments, but be of good cheer, and muster
up courage to meet all the difficulties.

Our little riots are mere nothing, and the feeling here is
good…. What is your opinion as to the late events at Paris?
Do you not think the King ought to have retired to Vincenness
or somewhere else a day or two before, and put himself at the
head of the army? Ought not Montpensier at least to have
gone to Vincennes? I know Clém even thinks this—as also
that one ought to have foreseen, and ought to have managed
things better. Certainly at the very last, if they had not gone,
they would all have been massacred; and I think they were
quite right, and in short could not avoid going as quickly as
they could; but there is an impression they fled too quickly.
Still the recollection of Louis XVI…. is enough to justify
all, and everybody will admit that; but the Princes, they
think, ought to have remained. What do you think of all
this? I think the blunders were all on the last three or four days—and
on the last day, but were no longer to be avoided
at last; there seemed a fatality, and all was lost. Poor
Nemours did his best till he could no longer get to the troops.
People here also abuse him for letting Victoire go alone—but
he remained to do his duty; a little more empressement on
her
arrival here I would have wished. Albert told you all about
the Montpensiers’ journey. It would do the King irreparable
mischief if they went now to Spain; the feeling of anger would
all return. Poor people! they are all in a sad state of want
at present.

I must conclude. Hoping to hear from you, and to have
your opinion.

Ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Melbourne.

THE QUEEN’S SYMPATHY

Buckingham Palace, 15th March 1848.

The Queen cannot let this day pass without offering Lord
Melbourne hers and the Prince’s best wishes for many happy
returns of it in health and strength.

Lord Melbourne will agree with the Queen that the last three
weeks have brought back the times of the last century, and we
are in the midst of troubles abroad. The Revolution in France
[page 165]
is a sad and alarming thing…. The poor King and his
Government made many mistakes within the last two years,
and were obstinate and totally blind at the last till flight was
inevitable. But for sixteen years he did a great deal to maintain
peace, and made France prosperous, which should not be
forgotten…. Lord Melbourne’s kind heart will grieve to
think of the real want the poor King and Queen are in, their
dinner-table containing barely enough to eat. And the poor
Nemours hardly know which way to turn. If the private
property be not restored God only knows what is to become
of these distinguished young Princes and their little children.
What will be their avenir? It breaks one’s heart to think of
it, and the Queen, being so nearly related to them and knowing
them all, feels it very much. Surely the poor old King is
sufficiently punished for his faults. Lord Beauvale will surely
be shocked at the complete ruin of the family. Has he seen
or heard from his old friend Madame de Montjoye, who is here
with the Queen of the French? The poor dear Queen of the
Belgians is quite broken-hearted, but, thank God, Belgium
goes on admirably. In Germany also there are everywhere
disturbances, but the good Germans are at bottom very
loyal….

The state of Paris is very gloomy; the rabble armed—keeping
the Government in awe—failures in all directions, and
nothing but ruin and misery. This is too gloomy a letter for
a birthday, and the Queen must apologise for it. The Prince
wishes to be kindly remembered to Lord Melbourne.

The Emperor of Russia to Queen Victoria.

THE CZAR’S VIEW

St. Petersburg, le

22 Mars
———–
3 Avril

1848.

Madame ma Sœur,—Veuillez me permettre, Madame,
d’offrir à votre Majesté mes sincères félicitations de son
heureuse délivrance.¹⁰ Puisse le bon Dieu conserver votre
Majesté et toute son auguste famille, c’est mon vœu de tous
les jours. Plus que jamais, Madame, au milieu des désastres
qui renversent l’ordre social, l’on éprouve le besoin de relier les
liens d’amitié que l’on a été heureux de former dans de meilleurs
temps; ceux-là au moins nous restent, car ils sont hors de la
portée des hommes, et je suis fier et heureux de ce que votre
noble cœur me comprendra. En jettant les yeux sur ce qui se
[page 166]
passe, peut-être votre Majesté accordera-t-elle un souvenir à
ce que j’eus l’honneur de lui prédire, assis à table près d’elle:
depuis, 4 années à peine se sont écoulées, et que reste-t-il
encore debout en Europe? La Grande-Bretagne et la Russie!

Ne serait-il pas naturel d’en conclure que notre union intime
est appelée peut-être à sauver le monde? Excusez, Madame,
cet épanchement d’un cœur qui vous est dévoué et qui a pris
l’habitude de souvenir à vous.

J’ose avec une entière confiance compter sur l’amitié de
votre Majesté, et la prie de recevoir l’assurance de l’inviolable
attachement avec lequel je suis, Madame, de votre Majesté, le
tout dévoué et fidèle bon Frère et Ami,

Nicolas.

Veuillez, Madame, me rappeler au souvenir de son Altesse
Royale Monsieur le Prince Albert.

Footnote 10: The Princess Louise was born on 18th March.

The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

Brussels, 25th March 1848.

My dearest Victoria,—… England seems quiet, and
even the attempt in Ireland seems to have passed over. But
Germany is in an awful state, beyond what I ever should have
thought possible in that country, and with such a good nation.
For years, however, all sorts of people had been stirring them
up, and half measures, seeming dishonest, of the Sovereigns
have done harm. Curious enough that I, who in fact was
desirous of retiring from politics, should be on the Continent
the only Sovereign who stood the storm, though I am at ten
hours’ distance from Paris. I trust we shall be able to go on
with our money matters to enable us to keep up; our working
classes are at this moment what occupies us most, and much
has been done, and our Banks, which were much threatened,
are now safe.

We work hard, and with these few days I suffered a little,
but I am better to-day. Louise is tolerably well; the poor
children are attentive and amiable. Poor things! their
existence is a good deal on the cards, and fortunes, private
and public, are in equal danger.

Now I will leave you that you should not be tired. Ever,
my beloved child, your devoted Uncle,

Leopold R.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

THE CHARTIST DEMONSTRATION

Buckingham Palace, 4th April 1848.

My dearest Uncle,—I have to thank you for three most
kind letters, of the 18th and 25th March, and of the 1st. Thank
[page 167]
God, I am particularly strong and well in every possible
respect,
which is a blessing in these awful, sad, heart-breaking times.
From the first I heard all that passed, and my only thoughts
and talk were—Politics; but I never was calmer and
quieter or less nervous. Great events make me quiet and
calm, and little trifles fidget me and irritate my nerves.
But I feel grown old and serious, and the future is very
dark. God, however, will come to help and protect us,
and we must keep up our spirits. Germany makes me
so sad; on the other hand, Belgium is a real pride and
happiness.

We saw your poor father and mother-in-law with the
Nemours, Joinville, and Aumale yesterday. Still a dream
to see them thus, here! They are well in health, and
the young people’s conduct most praiseworthy; really the
three Princesses are astonishing, and a beautiful lesson
to every one. They are so much admired and respected
for it. My beloved Vic, with her lovely face, is perfection,
and so cheerful. She often comes to see me, and this is
a great pleasure to me, if only it was not caused by such
misfortunes!

Now good-bye. With fervent prayers for the continuation
of your present most flourishing position, ever your devoted
Niece,

Victoria R.

Lord John Russell to the Prince Albert.

Chesham Place, 9th April 1848.

Sir,—The Cabinet have had the assistance of the Duke of
Wellington in framing their plans for to-morrow.

Colonel Rowan¹¹ advised that the procession should be
formed, and allowed to come as far as the bridge they may
choose to pass, and should there be stopped. He thinks this
is the only way to avoid a fight. If, however, the Chartists
fire and draw their swords and use their daggers, the Military
are to be called out.

I have no doubt of their easy triumph over a London
mob.

But any loss of life will cause a deep and rankling resentment.
I trust, for this and every reason, that all may pass off quietly.
I have the honour to be, your Royal Highness’s most obedient
Servant,

J. Russell.

Footnote 11: Chief Commissioner of Police, afterwards Sir C. Rowan, K.C.B. The Chartist
meeting had been fixed for the 10th.

[page 168]

“THE COUSINS.”

H.M. QUEEN VICTORIA AND THE DUCHESS OF NEMOURS

From the picture by F.
Winterhalter at Buckingham Palace

To face p. 168, Vol II.

The Prince Albert to Lord John Russell.

THE UNEMPLOYED

Osborne, 10th April 1848.

My dear Lord John,—To-day the strength of the Chartists
and all evil-disposed people in the country will be brought to
the test against the force of the law, the Government, and the
good sense of the country. I don’t feel doubtful for a moment
who will be found the stronger, but should be exceedingly
mortified if anything like a commotion was to take place, as it
would shake that confidence which the whole of Europe reposes
in our stability at this moment, and upon which will depend
the prosperity of the country. I have enquired a good deal
into the state of employment about London, and I find, to my
great regret, that the number of workmen of all trades out of
employment is very large, and that it has been increased by the
reduction of all the works under Government, owing to the
clamour for economy in the House of Commons. Several
hundred workmen have been discharged at Westminster
Palace; at Buckingham Palace much fewer hands are employed
than are really wanted; the formation of Battersea
Park has been suspended, etc., etc. Surely this is not the
moment for the tax-payers to economise upon the working
classes! And though I don’t wish our Government to follow
Louis Blanc in his system of organisation du travail,¹² I think
the Government is bound to do what it can to help the working
classes over the present moment of distress. It may do this
consistently with real economy in its own works, whilst the
reductions on the part of the Government are followed by all
private individuals as a sign of the times. I have before this
spoken to Lord Morpeth¹³ upon this subject, but I wish to bring
it specially under your consideration at the present moment.
Ever yours truly,

Albert.

Footnote 12: Alluding to the Ateliers Nationaux, to be established under the guidance of a Council
of Administration.

Footnote 13: Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

FEARGUS O’CONNOR

Downing Street, 10th April 1848.

(2 p.m.)

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and has the honour to state that the Kennington Common
Meeting has proved a complete failure.

About 12,000 or 15,000 persons met in good order. Feargus
[page 169]
O’Connor, upon arriving upon the ground in a car, was ordered
by Mr Mayne¹⁴ to come and speak to him. He immediately
left the car and came, looking pale and frightened, to Mr
Mayne. Upon being told that the meeting would not be
prevented, but that no procession would be allowed to pass the
bridges, he expressed the utmost thanks, and begged to shake
Mr Mayne by the hand. He then addressed the crowd, advising
them to disperse, and after rebuking them for their folly
he went off in a cab to the Home Office, where he repeated to
Sir George Grey his thanks, his fears, and his assurances that
the crowd should disperse quietly. Sir George Grey said he
had done very rightly, but that the force at the bridges should
not be diminished.

Mr F. O’Connor—”Not a man should be taken away. The
Government have been quite right. I told the Convention
that if they had been the Government they never would have
allowed such a meeting.”

The last account gave the numbers as about 5,000 rapidly
dispersing.

The mob was in good humour, and any mischief that now
takes place will be the act of individuals; but it is to be hoped
the preparations made will daunt those wicked but not brave
men.

The accounts from the country are good. Scotland is quiet.
At Manchester, however, the Chartists are armed, and have
bad designs.

A quiet termination of the present ferment will greatly raise
us in foreign countries.

Lord John Russell trusts your Majesty has profited by the
sea air.

Footnote 14: Mr Richard Mayne, Commissioner of Police, created a K.C.B. in 1851.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

Chesham Place, 15th April 1848.

Lord John Russell has a letter from Lord Clarendon to-day
in better spirits, but somewhat fearing an outbreak in Dublin
to-night. He speaks confidently of the disposition of the
troops.

Lord John Russell cannot wonder that your Majesty has felt
deeply the events of the last six weeks. The King of the
French has brought upon his own family, upon France, and
upon Europe a great calamity. A moderate and constitutional
Government at home, coupled with an abstinence from ambitious
[page 170]
projects for his family abroad, might have laid the
foundation of permanent peace, order, and freedom in Europe.
Selfishness and cunning have destroyed that which honesty
and wisdom might have maintained. It is impossible not to
pity the innocent victims of the misconduct of Louis Philippe.
Still less can one refrain from regarding with dread the fearful
state of Germany, of her princes, her nobles, and her tempest-tossed
people.

The example of Great Britain, may, however, secure an
interval of reflection for Europe. The next six months will be
very trying, but they may end with better prospects than we
can now behold. It was impossible that the exclusion of free
speaking and writing which formed the essence of Prince
Metternich’s system could continue. It might have been
reformed quietly; it has fallen with a crash which spreads ruin
and death around.

Lady John is deeply grateful for the congratulations of your
Majesty and the Prince.¹⁵ She is going on well to-day.

Footnote 15: On the birth of a second son.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

ALARMING STATE OF IRELAND

Osborne, 16th April 1848.

The Queen has received Lord John Russell’s letter. The
state of Ireland is most alarming and most anxious; altogether,
there is so much inflammable matter all around us that it
makes one tremble. Still, the events of Monday must have a
calming and salutary effect. Lord John Russell’s remarks
about Europe, and the unfortunate and calamitous policy
of the Government of the poor King of the French are most
true. But is he not even most to be pitied for being the cause
of such misery? (Though perhaps he does not attribute it to
himself), for, to see all his hopes thus destroyed, his pride
humbled, his children—whom he loves dearly—ruined—is not
this enough to make a man wretched? and indeed much to be
pitied; for he cannot feel he could not have prevented all
this.
Still Guizot is more to blame; he was the responsible adviser
of all this policy: he is no Bourbon, and he ought to have
behaved differently. Had the poor King died in 1844 after
he came here, and before that most unfortunate Spanish
marriages question was started, he would have deservedly
gone down to posterity as a great monarch. Now, what will
be his name in history? His fate is a great moral!

With regard to Germany, Prince Metternich is the cause of
[page 171]
half the misfortune. His advice was taken by almost all the
sovereigns of that country, and it has kept them from doing
in time what has now been torn from them with the loss of
many rights which they need not have sacrificed. We heard
yesterday that the Archduke John¹⁶ had arrived at Frankfort.
This is a wise measure, and may do much good and prevent
much evil, as he is a popular and most distinguished
prince….

Footnote 16: Uncle of the Emperor (Ferdinand I.) of Austria, born 1782.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

LORD PALMERSTON AND THE QUEEN

Osborne, 17th April 1848.

The Queen not having heard anything from Lord Palmerston
respecting foreign affairs for so long a time, and as he must be
in constant communication with the Foreign Ministers in these
most eventful and anxious times, writes to urge Lord Palmerston
to keep her informed of what he hears, and of the views of
the Government on the important questions before us.

She now only gets the Drafts when they are gone.

The acceptance of the mediation between Denmark and
Holstein is too important an event not to have been first
submitted to the Queen.

Viscount Palmerston to Queen Victoria.

Carlton Gardens, 18th April 1848.

Viscount Palmerston presents his humble duty to your
Majesty, and regrets much that he has not lately had an
opportunity of giving your Majesty verbally such explanations
as your Majesty might wish to receive with respect to the
progress of foreign affairs, but Viscount Palmerston hopes to
be able to get down to Broadlands for a few days on Saturday
next, and he could easily from thence wait upon your Majesty
on any morning and at any hour your Majesty might be
pleased to appoint.

Although events of the greatest importance have been
passing in rapid succession in almost every part of Europe, the
position of your Majesty’s Government has been one rather of
observation than of action, it being desirable that England
should keep herself as free as possible from unnecessary
engagements and entanglements, in order that your Majesty
may be at liberty to take such decisions as the state of things
may from time to time appear to render most advisable.

[page 172]

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

LOYALTY OF BELGIUM

Barton, 18th April 1848.

Dearest Uncle,—Detained here by a heavy shower of
rain, I begin my letter to you and thank you warmly for
your dear and kind letter of the 15th, which I received
yesterday.

Truly proud and delighted are we at the conduct of the
Belgians,¹⁷ and at their loyalty and affection for you and yours,
which I am sure must be a reward for all that you have done
these seventeen years. I must beg to say that you are wrong
in supposing that no mention is made of what took place on
the 9th in our papers; on the contrary, it has been most
gratifyingly mentioned in the Times, Chronicle, John
Bull, etc.
You are held up as a pattern to the German Sovereigns, and the
Belgians as a pattern to the German people.

In France, really things go on dreadfully…. One does not
like to attack those who are fallen, but the poor King, Louis
Philippe, has brought much of this on by that ill-fated return
to a Bourbon Policy. I always think he ought not to have
abdicated; every one seems to think he might have stemmed
the torrent then still. On the other hand, Joinville says it was
sure to happen, for that the French want constant change,
and were quite tired of the present Government. Qu’en dites-vous?
How is poor, dear Louise? I hope her spirits are
better.

Our weather is terribly rainy, though very fine between.
We have got nightingales in the pleasure ground, and in the
wood down near the sea. We are all extremely well, and
expect the Prince of Prussia here to-day for two nights. Ever
your devoted and attached Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 17: A party of French Republicans entered Belgium with the intention of exciting an
insurrection; the attempt signally failed.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

Osborne, 1st May 1848.

The Queen has this morning received Lord Palmerston’s
letter.¹⁸ She cannot see any reason for deviating from the
established rules, and inviting to Court Frenchmen who are
not recognised in their official capacity, and have no natural
[page 173]
representatives to present them as private individuals. As an
invitation cannot be claimed by them, the omission of it ought
not to lead to any misrepresentation; whilst the contrary,
under the fiction of their being private individuals, might lead
to misconstruction and to most inconvenient precedents.

Footnote 18: M. de Tallenay had arrived in London with a letter from M. Lamartine, accrediting
him as provisional chargé d’affaires of the French Government, and Lord Palmerston had
suggested to the Queen that etiquette would not be violated by inviting him to a Court
Ball.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

AFFAIRS IN FRANCE

Buckingham Palace, 9th May 1848.

My dearest Uncle,—Many thanks for your very kind letter
of the 6th. How delightful it is to hear such good accounts of
Belgium! If only dear Germany gets right and if all our
interests (those of the smaller Sovereigns) are not sacrificed! I
cannot say how it distresses and vexes me, and comme je l’ai à
cœur. My good and dear Albert is much worried and works
very hard….

I had a curious account of the opening of the Assemblée from
Lady Normanby.¹⁹ No real enthusiasm, dreadful confusion,
and the Blouses taking part in everything, and stopping the
Speakers if they did not please them. The opinion is that it
cannot last.

I enclose another letter from Lady Normanby, with an
account of the poor Tuileries, which is very curious and sad;
but the respect shown for poor Chartres is very touching, and
might interest poor dear Louise, if you think fit to show it her.
But why show such hatred to poor Nemours and to the Queen?
Montpensier’s marriage may cause his unpopularity, possibly.
I shall beg to have the letter back.

I must conclude, as we are going to pay a visit at Claremont
this afternoon. Ever your truly devoted Child and Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 19: The National Assembly commenced its sittings on 4th May, when the Oath of Allegiance
was abolished, and the Republic proclaimed in the presence of 200,000 citizens.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Buckingham Palace, 16th May 1848.

My dearest Uncle,—I have just heard the news of the
extraordinary confusion at Paris, which must end in a Blutbad.
Lamartine has quite lost all influence by yielding to and supporting
Ledru Rollin!²⁰ It seems inexplicable! In Germany,
[page 174]
too, everything looks most anxious, and I tremble for the result
of the Parliament at Frankfort.²¹ I am so anxious for the fate
of the poor smaller Sovereigns, which it would be infamous to
sacrifice. I feel it much more than Albert, as it would break
my heart to see Coburg reduced.

Many thanks for your kind and dear letter of the 13th.
Thank God! that with you everything goes on so well. I will
take care and let Lord Normanby know your kind expressions.
The visit to old Claremont was a touching one, and it seemed
an incomprehensible dream to see them all there. They bear
up wonderfully. Nothing can be kinder than the Queen-Dowager’s
behaviour towards them all. The poor Duchess of
Gloster is again in one of her nervous states, and gave us a
dreadful fright at the Christening by quite forgetting where
she was, and coming and kneeling at my feet in the midst of
the service. Imagine our horror!

I must now conclude. The weather is beautiful, but too hot
for me. Ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 20: Lamartine and Ledru Rollin were members of the Provisional Government, and subsequently
of the Executive Committee. The mob, holding that the promises of general
employment had been broken, invaded the Assembly en masse, and attempted a counter-revolution.

Footnote 21: Out of the revolutionary movement in Germany had grown their National Assembly,
which after a preliminary session as a Vor-Parlament, was to reassemble on 18th May.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

AUSTRIA AND ITALY

(No date.)

The Queen has carefully perused the enclosed papers, and
wishes to have a copy of Baron Hummelauer’s²² note sent to
her to keep.

The basis laid down in it is quite inadmissible, and the Queen
was struck by the light way in which the claims of the Dukes
of Parma and Modena are spoken of (as disposed of by the
events), whilst their position and that of Austria are in every
respect identical.²³ The Queen thinks Lord Palmerston’s
proposition the one which is the most equitable, still likely
to be attained, but it does not go far enough; the position
which Austria means to take in Italy with her Italian province
ought to be explained, and a declaration be made that Austria
will, with this province, join any Italian league which the other
states of Italy may wish to establish. This will be useful to
Italy, and much facilitate the acceptance of the Austrian
proposal, as the Queen feels convinced that as soon as the
war shall be terminated, the question of the political constitution
[page 175]
of Italy (as a whole) will have to be decided.
Why Charles Albert ought to get any additional territory
the Queen cannot in the least see. She thinks it will
be better to proceed at once upon the revised Austrian
proposal, than to wait for Italian propositions, which are
sure to be ridiculously extravagant.

Footnote 22: The Austrian Government, in its efforts to maintain its ascendency in Lombardy, had
sent Baron Hummelauer to negotiate with Lord Palmerston.

Footnote 23: The Dukes had both been driven from their dominions, while the King (Charles
Albert) of Sardinia threw in his lot with the cause of United Italy as against Austria,
which then ruled Lombardy.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

ENGLAND AND SPAIN

Osborne, 23rd May 1848.

The Queen has received Lord Palmerston’s letter respecting
Spain and Italy this morning. The sending away of Sir H.
Bulwer²⁴ is a serious affair, which will add to our many embarrassments;
the Queen is, however, not surprised at it,
from the tenor of the last accounts from Madrid, and from the
fact that Sir H. Bulwer has for the last three years almost been
sporting with political intrigues. He invariably boasted of at
least being in the confidence of every conspiracy, “though he
was taking care not to be personally mixed up in them,” and,
after their various failures, generally harboured the chief actors
in his house under the plea of humanity. At every crisis he
gave us to understand that he had to choose between a “revolution
and a palace intrigue,” and not long ago only he wrote
to Lord Palmerston, that if the Monarchy with the Montpensier
succession was inconvenient to us, he could get up a Republic.
Such principles are sure to be known in Spain, the more so
when one considers the extreme vanity of Sir H. Bulwer, and
his probable imprudence in the not very creditable company
which he is said to keep. Lord Palmerston will remember
that the Queen has often addressed herself to him and Lord
John, in fear of Sir H. getting us into some scrape; and if our
diplomatists are not kept in better order, the Queen may
at any moment be exposed to similar insults as she has
received now in the person of Sir H. Bulwer; for in whatever
way one may wish to look at it, Sir Henry still is her
Minister.

The Queen wishes Lord Palmerston to show this letter
to Lord John Russell, and to let her know what the Government
mean to propose with respect to this unfortunate
affair.

Footnote 24: Lord Palmerston had written a letter to Bulwer (which the latter showed to the
Spanish Premier), lecturing the Spanish Queen on her choice of Minister. This “assumption
of superiority,” as Sir R. Peel called it, led to a peremptory order to Bulwer to leave
Spain in twenty-four hours. His own account of the affair appears in his Life of Palmerston,
vol. iii. chap. vii.

[page 176]

The Prince of Prussia to Queen Victoria.

THE PRINCE OF PRUSSIA

[Translation.]

Brussels 30th May 1848.

Most gracious Cousin,—I obey the impulse of my heart
in seizing my pen, without any delay, in order to express to
you my warmest and most heartfelt thanks for the infinitely
gracious and affectionate way with which you and the Prince
have treated me during my stay in London.²⁵ It was a melancholy
time, that of my arrival. By the sympathetic view
which you took of my situation, most gracious Cousin, it
became not only bearable, but even transformed into one
that became proportionately honourable and dignified. This
graciousness of yours has undoubtedly contributed towards
the change of opinion which has resulted in my favour, and so
I owe to you, to the Prince, and to your Government, a fortunate
issue out of my calamities. So it is with a heavy heart
that I have now left England, not knowing what future lies
before me to meet—and only knowing that I shall need the
strengthening rest and tranquillity which my stay in England
and an insight into her institutions have afforded me in full
measure.

Offering my most cordial remembrances to the Prince, to
whom I shall write as soon as possible, I remain, most gracious
Cousin, your faithful and most gratefully devoted Cousin,

Prince of Prussia.

Footnote 25: The Prince of Prussia, afterwards the Emperor William I., having become intensely
unpopular at Berlin, had been obliged in March to fly for his life, in disguise, viâ Hamburg,
to England.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

THE ROYAL EXILES

Buckingham Palace, 1st June 1848.

The Queen had not time the other day to talk to Lord John
Russell on the subject of the French Royal Family, and therefore
writes to him now. As it seems now most probable that
they, or at least some of them, will take up their residence for
a lengthened period in this country, and as their position is
now a defined one, viz. that of exiles, their treatment should
be defined and established.

At first everything seemed temporary, and the public were
much occupied with them, inclined to criticise all that was done
or was omitted by the Court; all their movements were recorded
in the papers, etc. The lapse of three months has a
[page 177]
good deal altered this. They have lived in complete retirement,
and are comparatively forgotten; and their poverty and
their resignation to their misfortunes have met with much
sympathy! The Queen is consequently anxious to take the
right line; particularly desirous to do nothing which could
hurt the interests of the country, and equally so to do everything
kind towards a distinguished Royal Family in severe
affliction, with whom she has long been on terms of intimacy,
and to whom she is very nearly related. She accordingly
wishes to know if Lord John sees any objection to the following:
She has asked her Cousin, the Duchess of Nemours, to
come for two or three nights to see her at Osborne when she
goes there, quite privately; the Duchess of Kent would bring
her with her. The Duke will not come with the Duchess, as he
says he feels (very properly) it would be unbecoming in him
till their fate (as to fortune, for banished they already are) is
decided, to be even for a day at Osborne. The Duchess herself
wishes not to appear in the evening, but to remain alone with
the Queen and the Prince.

The Queen considers that when she is staying in the country
during the summer and autumn, and any of the branches of
the French Royal Family should wish to visit her and the
Prince, as they occasionally do here, she might lodge them for
one or two nights, as the distance might be too great for their
returning the same day. They are exiles, and not Pretenders,
as the Duc de Bordeaux and Count de Montemolin are (and
who are for that reason only not received at Court). In all
countries where illustrious exiles related to the Sovereign have
been they have always been received at Court, as the Duc de
Bordeaux, the Duchesse d’Angoulême, etc., etc., invariably
have been at Vienna (even on public occasions), there being a
French Ambassador there, and the best understanding existing
between France and Austria. The Duke of Orleans (King
Louis Philippe) in former times was constantly received by the
Royal Family, and was the intimate friend of the Duke of
Kent. Probably, if their fortunes are restored to them, the
French Royal Family will go out into society in the course of
time, and if the state of France becomes consolidated there
may no longer exist that wish and that necessity for extreme
privacy, which is so obvious now. What the Queen has just
mentioned, Lord John must well understand, is not what is
likely to take place (except in the case of her cousin, the
Duchess of Nemours) immediately, but only what might
occasionally occur when we are permanently settled in the
country. Of course events might arise which would change
this, and which would render it inadvisable, and then the Queen
[page 178]
would communicate with Lord John, and ask his advice again
upon the subject. All she has suggested refers to the present
state of affairs, and, of course, merely to strictly private visits,
and on no state occasion. This is a long letter about such a
subject, but the Queen wishes to be quite safe in what she does,
and therefore could not have stated the case and her opinion
in a smaller space.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

AFFAIRS IN LOMBARDY

Buckingham Palace, 4th June 1848.

The Queen returns the enclosed draft. She has written
upon it, in pencil, a passage which she thinks ought to be added,
if the draft—though civil—is not to be a mere refusal to do
anything for Austria, and a recommendation that whatever
the Italians ask for ought to be given, for which a mediation
is hardly necessary.²⁶ The Queen thinks it most important
that we should try to mediate and put a stop to the war, and
equally important that the boundary which is to be settled
should be such a one as to make a recurrence of hostilities
unlikely. The Queen has only further to remark that Lord
Palmerston speaks in the beginning of the letter only of the
Cabinet, and adverts nowhere to the proposition having been
submitted to her.

Footnote 26: War was now raging in Lombardy between the Austrians under Marshal Radetzky
and the Piedmontese under the King of Sardinia.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

Chesham Place, 14th June 1848.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty, and thanks
your Majesty for the perusal of this interesting letter.

An Emperor with a rational Constitution might be a fair
termination of the French follies; but Louis Napoleon, with
the Communists, will probably destroy the last chance of
order and tranquillity. A despotism must be the end.

May Heaven preserve us in peace!

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

SIR HENRY BULWER

Buckingham Palace, 15th June 1848.

The Queen has received Lord Palmerston’s letter explaining
his views as to the reparation we may be entitled to receive
[page 179]
from the Spanish Government. She considers them as quite
fair, but does not wish to have Sir H. Bulwer again as her
Minister at Madrid, even if it should be necessary that he
should repair there in order to be received by the Queen of Spain.
It would not be consulting the permanent interests of this
country to entrust that mission again to Sir H. Bulwer, after
all that has passed. When the Queen considers the position
we had in Spain, and what it ought to have been after the
constitution of the French Republic when we had no rival to
fight and ought to have enjoyed the entire confidence and
friendship of Spain, and compares this to the state into which
our relations with that country have been brought, she cannot
help being struck how much matters must have been mismanaged.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

Buckingham Palace, 16th June 1848.

The Queen sends the enclosed draft,²⁷ and asks whether this
note is what Lord John directed Lord Palmerston to send to
Lisbon as a caution to Sir H. Seymour not to mix himself up
with party intrigues to upset a particular Ministry?²⁸ …

Footnote 27: The draft ran:—”As it is evident that the Queen and the Government of Portugal
will listen to no advice except such that agrees with their own wishes, I have to instruct
you to abstain in future from giving any longer any advice to them on political matters,
taking care to explain both to the Queen and the Government your reasons for doing so.
You will, however, at the same time positively declare to the Portuguese Government
that if by the course of policy they are pursuing they should run into any difficulty, they
must clearly understand that they will not have to expect any assistance from England.”

Footnote 28: Lord John Russell replied that he would write immediately to Lord Palmerston respecting
Portuguese affairs. He added that he did not approve of the proposed draft.

Viscount Palmerston to Lord John Russell.

Carlton Gardens, 17th June 1848.

My dear John Russell,—The draft to Seymour was written
in consequence of what you said to me, and what the Queen
wrote to you; but my own opinion certainly is that it would
be best to leave the things with him as they are. It must,
however, be remembered that the Portuguese Government
have not in reality fulfilled the engagements taken by the
Queen in the Protocol of last year….

Palmerston.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

PALMERSTON’S FOREIGN POLICY

Buckingham Palace, 17th June 1848.

The Queen returns Lord Palmerston’s letter. The country
is at this moment suffering, particularly with regard to Spain,
[page 180]
under the evil consequence of that system of diplomacy, which
makes the taking up of party politics in foreign countries its
principal object. This system is condemned alike by the
Queen, Lord John, the Cabinet, and, the Queen fully believes,
public opinion in and out of Parliament. Lord Palmerston’s
objection to caution our Minister in Portugal against falling
into this fault brings it to an issue, whether that erroneous
policy is to be maintained to the detriment of the real interests
of the country, or a wiser course to be followed in future.
Does Lord John consider this so light a matter as to be surrendered
merely because Lord Palmerston is not to add to such
a caution a gratuitous attack upon the Queen and Government
of Portugal? The Queen thinks it of the utmost importance
that in these perilous times this question with regard to the
basis of our foreign policy should be settled, and has no objection
to Lord John showing this letter to Lord Palmerston.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

Pembroke Lodge, 18th June 1848.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty;
he begs to assure your Majesty that if he was disposed to rest
on the known discretion and temper of Sir Hamilton Seymour
without specific instruction, it was not from regarding the
matter lightly, but from a sense of the inconvenience which
might arise to your Majesty’s service from raising a question
with Lord Palmerston in the present critical state of Europe
which might induce a belief that he had not conducted foreign
affairs to the satisfaction of his colleagues or of his Sovereign.

Lord John Russell feeling, however, that on the particular
point at issue your Majesty has just reason to expect that
precautions should be taken against the chance of intrigue
with foreign parties against a foreign government, with which
this country is on terms of friendship, is ready to insist on an
instruction to Sir Hamilton Seymour similar to that which
was given to Sir Henry Bulwer to take no part in the struggle
of parties, and to refrain from any interference with respect
to which he has not specific directions from your Majesty’s
Government.

But in this case he must take upon himself the whole
responsibility of requiring such a note from Lord Palmerston.
It would not be conducive to your Majesty’s service, nor
agreeable to the wholesome maxims of the Constitution to
mix your Majesty’s name with a proceeding which may lead
to the most serious consequences.

[page 181]

It is just to Lord Palmerston to say that his general course
of policy has met with the warm approval of the Cabinet, and
that the cases of difference of judgment have been rare exceptions.

Lord John Russell submits to your Majesty the letter he
proposes to write before sending it to Lord Palmerston. He
would wish to have it returned as soon as your Majesty can
do so.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

THE QUEEN AND PALMERSTON

Buckingham Palace, 18th June 1848.

The Queen returns to Lord John Russell his letter to Lord
Palmerston,²⁹ which is excellent, and shows that the Queen’s
and Lord John’s views upon the important question of our
foreign policy entirely coincide. The Queen is sorry that the
trouble of such an altercation should be added to the many
anxieties which already press upon Lord John, but she feels
sure that his insisting upon a sound line of policy will save him
and the country from far greater troubles….

Footnote 29: The letter was to the effect that Sir H. Seymour was to take no part in the struggle
of parties in Portugal, and to refrain from confidential communications with members of
the Opposition.

Viscount Palmerston to Queen Victoria.

Carlton Gardens, 26th June 1848.

Viscount Palmerston presents his humble duty to your
Majesty, and is sorry he is not able to submit to your Majesty
the proposed draft to Sir Hamilton Seymour to go by to-night’s
mail, as he has not succeeded in settling the wording
of it with Lord John Russell, and is therefore obliged to defer
it till the next mail.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

Buckingham Palace, 26th June 1848.

The Queen sends this letter, which she has just received
from Lord Palmerston. No remonstrance has any effect with
Lord Palmerston. Lord John Russell should ask the Duke of
Bedford to tell him of the conversation the Queen had with
the Duke the other night about Lord Palmerston.

[page 182]

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

ENGLAND AND ITALY

Buckingham Palace, 1st July 1848.

The Queen has not yet answered Lord Palmerston’s letter
of the 29th. She cannot conceal from him that she is ashamed
of the policy which we are pursuing in this Italian controversy
in abetting wrong, and this for the object of gaining influence
in Italy.³⁰ The Queen does not consider influence so gained as
an advantage, and though this influence is to be acquired in
order to do good, she is afraid that the fear of losing it again
will always stand in the way of this. At least in the countries
where the greatest stress has been laid on that influence, and
the greatest exertions made for it, the least good has been done—the
Queen means in Spain, Portugal, and Greece. Neither
is there any kind of consistency in the line we take about Italy
and that we follow with regard to Schleswig; both cases are
perfectly alike (with the difference perhaps that there is a
question of right mixed up in that of Schleswig); whilst we
upbraid Prussia, caution her, etc., etc., we say nothing to
Charles Albert except that if he did not wish to take all the
Emperor of Austria’s Italian Dominions, we would not lay
any obstacles in the way of his moderation. The Queen finds
in Lord Palmerston’s last despatch to Chevalier Bunsen the
following passage: “And it is manifest and indisputable that
no territory or state, which is not now according to the Treaty
of 1815 included in the German Confederation, can be added
to that territory without the consent of the Sovereign of that
territory or state.” How does this agree with our position
relative to the incorporation of Lombardy into the states of
the King of Sardinia?

Footnote 30: Lord Palmerston’s sympathy had been with the anti-Austrian movement in Northern
Italy. For some time after Radetzky’s evacuation of Milan, the operations of the King
of Sardinia in support of the Lombards were successful, and he had assistance from
Tuscany, Naples, and Rome. The Austrians suffered reverses at Peschiera and Goito,
and the independence of Northern Italy seemed to be accomplished. But the tide had
begun to turn.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

LORD MINTO’S MISSION

Buckingham Palace, 6th July 1848.

The Queen has to acknowledge Lord Palmerston’s long
Memorandum respecting our relations with Italy, the length
of which, however, was fully justified by the importance of
the subject.

The mission of Lord Minto has had the Queen’s approval at
the time, and the policy pursued by him has never been called
[page 183]
in question; but it certainly was prejudicial to the Austrians,
and imposes upon us additional care not to appear now as the
abettors of the anti-Austrian movement, and nothing in Lord
Minto’s mission can prevent our endeavouring to facilitate and
forward a speedy settlement of the present Italian difference.³¹
If, therefore, the Italians should be inclined to be moderate,
there can be no dereliction of principle in encouraging them to
be so. The danger of French interference increases with the
delay and is equally great, whether the Austrians maintain
themselves in the Venetian Territory or whether Charles Albert
unite it to his proposed kingdom of Northern Italy; indeed, the
French seem to be anxious for a cause of interference from the
line they pursue even with regard to Naples.

Lord Palmerston seeks to establish a difference between the
case of Schleswig and of Lombardy, on the fact that Schleswig
is to be incorporated into a confederation of States; but this
makes the case of Lombardy only the stronger, as this is to be
incorporated into the dominions of another Sovereign. With
regard to the “Revue Retrospective,” the perusal of it has
left a different impression upon the Queen from that which
it seems to have made upon Lord Palmerston. It proved to
her, that while the retiring attitude which the late Government
took with regard to the Spanish marriages, left the
French Government to try their different schemes and intrigues
and to fail with every one of them, the attempt of Lord
Palmerston to re-organise the Progressista Party and regain
the so-called English influence, brought Queen Christina and
King Louis Philippe (who had before seriously quarrelled)
immediately together, and induced them to rush into this
unfortunate combination, which cannot but be considered as
the origin of all the present convulsions in Europe.

Footnote 31: Lord Minto, the Lord Privy Seal, and father-in-law of the Prime Minister, had been
sent to encourage in the path of reform Pope Pius IX., who was halting between progress
and reaction: on the sanguinary risings taking place in Lombardy and Venetia, his mission
naturally appeared hostile to Austria.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

AN ANXIOUS PERIOD

Buckingham Palace, 11th July 1848.

My dearest Uncle,—For another kind and dear letter of
the 8th, I have much to thank you. The prosperity of dear
little Belgium is a bright star in the stormy night all around.
May God bless and prosper you all, for ever and ever!

Since the 24th February I feel an uncertainty in everything
existing, which (uncertain as all human affairs must be) one
[page 184]
never felt before. When one thinks of one’s children, their
education, their future—and prays for them—I always think
and say to myself, “Let them grow up fit for whatever station
they may be placed in—high or low.” This one never thought
of before, but I do always now. Altogether one’s whole disposition
is so changed—bores and trifles which one would have
complained of bitterly a few months ago, one looks upon as
good things and quite a blessing—provided one can keep one’s
position in quiet!

I own I have not much confidence in Cavaignac,³² as they fear
his mother’s and brother’s influence, the former being a widow
of a regicide, and as stern and severe as can be imagined.

I saw the King and Queen on Saturday; he is wonderfully
merry still and quite himself, but she feels it deeply—and for
her there is here the greatest sympathy and admiration.

Albert is going to York to-morrow till Friday; how I wish
you and Louise could be with me, as in ’44 and ’46! I have,
however, got dear Victoire to come and spend a night with
me; it does her always good, and we are just like sisters, and
feel as we did in 1839, when you know how very fond we
were of each other. She is a dear, noble, and still beautiful
child.

I venture to send you a snuff-box with poor Aunt Charlotte’s
picture as a child, which also belonged to poor Aunt Sophia.
Ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 32: General Cavaignac, Minister for War, had been given quasi-dictatorial powers during
the insurrection. These powers, on the suppression of the revolt, he resigned, and was
thereupon almost unanimously made President of the Council.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

Buckingham Palace, 13th July 1848.

The Queen was glad to hear of the majorities the other night.
She concludes Lord John Russell cannot at all say when the
Session is likely to end? Is it not much to be regretted that
the measure relative to the Navigation Laws is given up, and
was it unavoidable? The Queen sends Lord John Col. Phipps’s
report of the Prince’s reception at York, which she thinks will
interest him. Does Lord J. Russell think, if we should not
go to Ireland, that we could go to Balmoral for ten days or a
fortnight, without shocking the Irish very much? It strikes
the Queen that to go to see our own place makes a difference,
and is in fact a natural thing; it is, however, impossible to
say if we can get away even for so short a time.

The Queen concludes that there can be no possible objection
[page 185]
to the Duc de Nemours bringing or fetching the Duchess to and
from Osborne? He is the Queen’s Cousin, and consequently
in a different position to any of the others; moreover, he does
not wish at present to spend one night there even, but
merely to
pay a morning visit.

Lastly, the Queen wishes to know if the King and Queen and
the other Princes and Princesses should themselves ask to come
and pay the Queen a morning visit at Osborne, and return
again the same day (as they do here), there would be any
objection to it? The Queen merely wishes to know, in case
they should ask leave to do so, what she can answer.

Queen Victoria to Sir George Grey.

COMMISSIONS IN THE ARMY

Buckingham Palace, 14th July 1848.

The Queen has received Sir George Grey’s letter of yesterday,
and has considered the proposed alteration in the mode of
preparing Commissions for Officers in the Army. The Queen
does not at all object to the amount of trouble which the
signature of so many Commissions has hitherto entailed upon
her, as she feels amply compensated by the advantage of keeping
up a personal connection between the Sovereign and the
Army, and she very much doubts whether the Officers generally
would not feel it as a slight if, instead of their Commissions
bearing the Queen’s sign-manual, they were in future only to
receive a certificate from the Secretary at War that they have
been commissioned.

She therefore prefers matters to remain on their old footing.

The Secretary at War speaks in his Memorandum of his
responsibility to Parliament with respect to allowing Appointments
to go on; the Queen apprehends that his responsibility
does not extend beyond the appropriation of the money voted
by Parliament for the use of her Army.

The Princess Charlotte of Belgium to Queen Victoria.

Laeken, 18th July 1848.

My dearest Cousin,—I have received the beautiful dolls’
house you have been so kind as to send me, and I thank you
very much for it. I am delighted with it; every morning I
dress my doll and give her a good breakfast; and the day
after her arrival she gave a great rout at which all my dolls
were invited. Sometimes she plays at drafts on her pretty
[page 186]
little draft-board, and every evening I undress her and put
her to bed.

Be so good, my dearest Cousin, as to give my love to my
dear little Cousins, and believe me always, your most affectionate
Cousin,

Charlotte.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

ITALY AND FRANCE

Osborne, 24th July 1848.

The Queen has received Lord Palmerston’s letter³³ reporting
his conversation with M. de Tallenay. She can only repeat her
opinion that a negotiation with France in order to agree with
her upon a common line of policy to be followed with regard
to the Italian question can lead to no good; it will make us
the ally of a Government which is not even legally constituted,
and which can accordingly not guarantee the fulfilment of any
engagement it may enter into, and it will call upon the very
power to judge the Italian dispute which it is the interest of
Europe to keep out of it. M. de Tallenay seems to have admitted
that the French Republic, if called upon to act, will
neither allow Austria to keep the Venetian territory nor
Sardinia to acquire it, but that she will strive to set up a
Venetian Republic. It can really not be an object for us to
assist in such a scheme, or even to treat upon it.

Lord Cowley the Queen means to invite to dinner to-day,
and she wishes Lord Palmerston to let her know the day on
which he is to leave for Frankfort in order that she may prepare
her letter for the Archduke accordingly.

Footnote 33: Lord Palmerston had reported an interview with de Tallenay, who sought the co-operation
of England with France in Northern Italy; the Austrian force in Italy to be
withdrawn or reduced, the union of Lombardy and Piedmont to be accepted as a fait
accompli, and Venetian territory erected into a separate republic.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

NORTHERN ITALY

Osborne, 25th July 1848.

The Queen sends Lord John Russell the enclosed Despatch
from Lord Normanby, with a draft in answer to it which was
sent for her approval, but which she really cannot approve.
The Queen must tell Lord John what she has repeatedly told
Lord Palmerston, but without apparent effect, that the establishment
of an entente cordiale with the French Republic, for the
purpose of driving the Austrians out of their dominions in Italy,
would be a disgrace to this country. That the French would
attach the greatest importance to it and gain the greatest
[page 187]
advantage by it there can be no doubt of; but how will
England appear before the world at the moment when she is
struggling to maintain her supremacy in Ireland, and boasts
to stand by treaties with regard to her European relations,
having declined all this time to interfere in Italy or to address
one word of caution to the Sardinian Government on account
of its attack on Austria, and having refused to mediate when
called upon to do so by Austria, because the terms were not
good enough for Sardinia, if she should now ally herself with
the arch-enemy of Austria to interfere against her at the
moment when she has recovered in some degree her position in
the Venetian territory?

The notion of establishing a Venetian State under French
guarantee is too absurd. Lord Palmerston in his draft says
that we believe that the French plan would be agreed to by
Austria. Now this is completely at variance with every
account, report, or despatch we have received from Verona,
Innspruck, or Vienna; however, Lord Palmerston hints that
the King of Sardinia might expect still better terms. The
French Republic seems not to be anxious for war, not able to
conduct it, and the country appears to be decidedly against it;
all M. Bastide says is: “There were two extremes which it
would be very difficult for them to admit without opposition,
viz. the restoration of Lombardy to the Dominion of Austria
on the one side, and the union under one powerful state under
Charles Albert of all the principalities into which the north of
Italy has hitherto been divided.” With this explicit declaration,
it would surely be best for the interests of Europe that
we should name this to Charles Albert, and call upon him to
rest satisfied with his conquest, and to conclude a peace with
Austria, leaving her what he cannot take from her, and thus
avoid calling in France as an arbiter. Why this has not been
done long ago, or should not be done now, the Queen cannot
comprehend.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

Osborne, 27th July 1848.

The Queen has to acknowledge Lord John Russell’s two
letters with respect to Italy. The alterations in the draft meet
many of the Queen’s objections, giving to the whole step
another appearance. The Queen … must acknowledge the
advantage of our trying to bind [the French] to good conduct;
only this must be done in a way not to appear as a league with
them against a friendly Power, struggling to preserve to herself
[page 188]
a territory granted to her by a Treaty to which we were a
party.

As the amended draft secures us against these appearances,
and leaves us free for the future, the Queen approves it.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

MINOR GERMAN STATES

Osborne, 1st August 1848.

My dearest Uncle,—I had yesterday the happiness of receiving
your kind letter of the 29th, for which I return my best
thanks.

There are ample means of crushing the Rebellion in Ireland,³⁴
and I think it now is very likely to go off without any contest.
…Lord Hardinge is going over there to serve on the Staff,
which is very praiseworthy of him.

I do not think the fate of the Minor Princes in Germany is so
completely decided as Charles³⁵ … is so anxious to make one
believe. There is only a question of taking certain powers and
rights away, and not at all of getting rid of them; and I think
you will see that the Ausführung of the Unity will be an impossibility,
at least in the sense they propose at Frankfort. The
Archduke John has spoken very reassuringly both to Ernest
and the Duke of Meiningen, and the attachment in many of
those smaller principalities is still extremely great, and I am
sure they will never consent to being ausgewischt. Coburg, for
instance, on the occasion of the suppression of a very small riot,
showed the greatest attachment and devotion to Ernest; at
Gotha the feeling of independence is very great, and at Strelitz,
on the occasion of Augusta’s confinement with a son, the enthusiasm
and rejoicing was universal. All this cannot be
entirely despised.

We are as happy as possible here, and would be perfectly so,
if it was not for the sorrow and misfortunes of so many dear
to us, and for the state of the world in general.

I have always forgotten to tell you that we bought a fine
marble bust of you quite by accident in London the other day.
It is in armour and with moustaches, but quite different to the
one the Gardners have at Melbourne; Albert saw it at the
window of a shop, and heard it had been bought in a sale of a
General Somebody. Now, with Albert’s best love, ever your
devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

We have just heard that there has been an action in Ireland
in which some of the insurgents have been killed; fifty Police
dispersed four thousand people. Smith O’Brien is, however,
not yet taken.

Footnote 34: See Introductory Note for the year, ante, p. 141.

Footnote 35: The Frankfort Assembly, in pursuance of the policy of German consolidation, had
placed the central executive power in the hands of a Reichsverweser, or Vicar of the
Empire. The Archduke John, uncle of the Emperor of Austria, was elected to this position,
and the Queen’s half-brother Charles, Prince of Leiningen, was entrusted with the
Department of Foreign Affairs.

[page 189]

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

AN AMBASSADOR TO FRANCE

Osborne, 8th August 1848.

… The Queen has attentively perused the statement of
Lord Palmerston in favour of accrediting an Ambassador at
Paris. As the proposed arrangement for the present is to be
only a provisional one, the Queen thinks that the appointment
of a Minister now will leave it quite open to have an Ambassador
hereafter, if it should be found necessary or advantageous,
whilst it would set that matter at rest for the moment.
Withdrawing an Ambassador and substituting a Minister hereafter,
would be much more difficult. The French Republic
would no doubt like to have an Ambassador here, and perhaps
take immediate steps to secure that object if Lord Normanby
were accredited Ambassador at Paris, against which we would
be secured in having only a Minister there…. Lord Normanby’s
acquaintance with the public men at Paris is as much
an inconvenience as it may be a convenience in some respects;
his having been the great admirer and friend of M. Lamartine,
for instance, etc., etc. The possibility of mixing freely with
persons of various kinds, which Lord Palmerston adduces as an
important consideration will, in the Queen’s opinion, be more
easy for a Minister than for a person of the high rank of Ambassador.
All things considered therefore, the Queen will
prefer to have temporarily a Minister accredited at Paris.

M. de Tallenay the Queen would receive in London on
Tuesday next at six o’clock, when the Queen will be in Town.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

Osborne, 11th August 1848.

The Queen has to acknowledge Lord Palmerston’s letter of
yesterday. The Queen was quite surprised to hear from Lord
Palmerston in his last communication that he had written to
Lord Normanby to offer him to stay as Minister at Paris, after
his having before stated to the Queen that this would never do
and could not be expected from Lord Normanby; Lord Normanby’s
answer declining this offer therefore does in no way
alter the matter, and must have been foreseen by Lord Palmerston.
[page 190]
By the delay and Lord Normanby’s various conversations
with M. Bastide³⁶ and General Cavaignac it has now
become difficult to depart from the precedent of the Belgian
and Sardinian Missions without giving offence at Paris. The
Queen must, however, insist upon this precedent being fully
adhered to. She accordingly sanctions Lord Normanby’s
appointment as Ambassador Extraordinary, on the distinct
understanding that there is to be no Ambassador sent in return
to London now, and that a Minister is to be appointed to Paris
when the diplomatic intercourse is permanently to be settled.
The Queen wishes Lord Palmerston to bear this in mind, and
to submit to her the arrangement which he thinks will be best
calculated to carry this into effect.

Footnote 36: Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

LORD NORMANBY’S APPOINTMENT

Osborne, 11th August 1848.

The Queen has to acknowledge Lord John Russell’s letter of
to-day. The Queen is highly indignant at Lord Palmerston’s
behaviour now again with respect to Lord Normanby’s appointment;
he knew perfectly well that Lord Normanby could
not accept the post of Minister, and had written to the Queen
before that such an offer could not be made, and has now made
it after all, knowing that, by wasting time and getting the
matter entangled at Paris, he would carry his point. If the
French are so anxious to keep Lord Normanby as to make any
sacrifice for that object, it ought to make us cautious, as it can
only be on account of the ease with which they can make him
serve their purposes. They, of course, like an entente cordiale
with us at the expense of Austria;… but this can be no
consideration for us….

Threatening the Austrians with war, or making war upon
them in case they should not be inclined to surrender their
provinces at his bidding [Lord Palmerston] knows to be impossible;
therefore the entente with the Republic is of the
greatest value to him, enabling him to threaten the Austrians
at any time with the French intervention which he can have
at command if he agrees to it.³⁷ The Queen has read the leading
articles of the Times of yesterday and to-day on this subject
with the greatest satisfaction as they express almost entirely
[page 191]
the same views and feelings which she entertains. The Queen
hopes that Lord John Russell will read them; indeed, the
whole of the Press seem to be unanimous on this subject, and
she can hardly understand how there can be two opinions
upon it….

Footnote 37: The success of the Piedmontese in Northern Italy had not continued through the
summer, and the States whose assistance they had hitherto received began to fall away
from them. The King of Naples, successful within his own dominions, had withdrawn
his troops; the Pope hesitated to attack Austria; even undivided support from Venetia
could no longer be counted upon. After several reverses, Charles Albert, now left virtually
alone in the contest, was decisively defeated by Radetzky, at Custozza, and retreated
across the Mincio. With what was left of his troops he entered Milan, which he was
eventually forced to surrender, being unable to maintain himself there. Italy now turned
to France for assistance, but Cavaignac, virtually Dictator in Paris, would not go further
than combining with England to effect a peaceful mediation. Austria was not in a frame
of mind to relinquish any part of the provinces she had had so severe a struggle to retain.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

THE QUEEN AND PALMERSTON

Osborne, 20th August 1848.

The Queen has received an autograph letter from the Archduke
John (in answer to the private letter she had written to
him through Lord Cowley), which has been cut open at the
Foreign Office. The Queen wishes Lord Palmerston to take
care that this does not happen again. The opening of official
letters even, addressed to the Queen, which she has of late
observed, is really not becoming, and ought to be discontinued,
as it used never to be the case formerly.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

Osborne, 21st August 1848.

The Queen has received Lord John Russell’s letter of yesterday,
but cannot say that she has been satisfied by the reasons
given by Lord Palmerston. The union of Lombardy and
Piedmont cannot be considered as a concession to France for
the maintenance of peace, because we know that it is the very
thing the French object to. The Queen quite agrees that the
principal consideration always to be kept in sight is the preservation
of the peace of Europe; but it is precisely on that
account that she regrets that the terms proposed by Lord
Palmerston (whilst they are not in accordance with the views
of France) are almost the only ones which must be most
offensive to Austria. Lord Palmerston will have his kingdom
of Upper Italy under Charles Albert, to which every other consideration
is to be sacrificed, and Lord Normanby’s alteration
of the terms certainly serve that purpose well; but it is quite
independent of the question of mediation, and the only thing in
the whole proceeding which is indefensible in principle.

[page 192]

It will be a calamity for ages to come if this principle is to
become part of the international law, viz. “that a people can
at any time transfer their allegiance from the Sovereign of one
State to that of another by universal suffrage (under momentary
excitement),” and this is what Lord Normanby—no doubt
according to Lord Palmerston’s wishes—has taken as the basis
of the mediation. For even the faits accomplis, which are a
convenient basis to justify any act of injustice, are here against
Charles Albert.

Lord Palmerston’s argument respecting Schleswig,³⁸ which
the Queen quoted in her last letter, had no reference to the
Treaty of 1720.

Footnote 38: The first act of the Vor-Parlament, a body which had existed temporarily at Frankfort,
to pave the way for the National Assembly of a Consolidated Germany, had been to treat
Schleswig, theretofore part of the Danish dominions, as absorbed in the German Confederation,
and Lord Palmerston’s objections to this proceeding had been treated by the
Queen in a letter of 19th August as inconsistent with his attitude towards Austria.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

PRUSSIA AND GERMANY

Osborne, 29th August 1848.

My dearest Uncle,—Most warmly do I thank you for your
very kind and dear letter of the 26th, with so many good wishes
for that dearest of days. It is indeed to me one of eternal
thankfulness, for a purer, more perfect being than my beloved
Albert the Creator could not have sent into this troubled
world. I feel that I could not exist without him, and that I
should sink under the troubles and annoyances and dégoûts of
my very difficult position, were it not for his assistance,
protection,
guidance, and comfort. Truly do I thank you for
your great share in bringing about our marriage.

Stockmar I do not quite understand, and I cannot believe
that he really wishes to ruin all the smaller States, though
his principal object is that unity which I fear he will not
obtain.

I do not either at all agree in his wish that Prussia should
take the lead; his love for Prussia is to me incomprehensible,
for it is the country of all others which the rest of Germany
dislikes. Stockmar cannot be my good old friend if he has
such notions of injustice as I hear attributed to him. But
whatever they may be, I do not believe the Ausführung to be
possible.

I have great hopes of soon hearing of something decided
about the fortunes of the poor French family. You will have
seen how nobly and courageously good Joinville and Aumale
behaved on the occasion of the burning of that emigrant ship
[page 193]
off Liverpool.³⁹ It will do them great good. I must now conclude.
Ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 39: One hundred and seventy-eight persons perished in the burning of the Ocean Monarch;
the French Princes were on board a Brazilian steam frigate, which saved one hundred
and fifty-six lives.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

AUSTRIA DECLINES MEDIATION

Osborne, 2nd September 1848.

The Queen has read in the papers the news that Austria and
Sardinia have nearly settled their differences, and also “that
it was confidently stated that a French and British squadron,
with troops on board, are to make a demonstration in the
Adriatic.”

Though the Queen cannot believe this, she thinks it right to
inform Lord Palmerston without delay that, should such a
thing be thought of, it is a step which the Queen could not give
her consent to.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

Buckingham Palace, 4th September 1848.

The Queen since her arrival in Town has heard that the
answer from Austria declining our mediation has some days ago
been communicated to Lord Palmerston. The Queen is surprised
that Lord Palmerston should have left her uninformed
of so important an event. The Queen has received Lord
Palmerston’s letter respecting the proposal to mediate on the
part of the central power of Germany,⁴⁰ and does not see why
that power, which has a responsible Government, is to be
precluded from taking part in a negotiation because the Archduke
John might be friendly towards Austria—whereas the
French republic, which had in public documents espoused the
Italian Cause, is to be a party to it.

Neither France nor England are neighbours to or directly
interested in Lombardy, whereas Germany is both.⁴¹

Footnote 40: See ante, p. 188, note 35.

Footnote 41: Lord Palmerston’s object, in which he ultimately succeeded, was, by obtaining the
French Government’s co-operation in mediating between Austria and Piedmont, to
prevent the aggressive party in France from maturing any designs on Italy.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

AUSTRIA AND ITALY

On board the Victoria and Albert,

Aberdeen, 7th September 1848.

The Queen must send the enclosed draft to Lord John
Russell, with a copy of her letter to Lord Palmerston upon it.
[page 194]
Lord Palmerston has as usual pretended not to have had time
to submit the draft to the Queen before he had sent it off.
What the Queen has long suspected and often warned against
is on the point of happening, viz. Lord Palmerston’s using the
new entente cordiale for the purpose of wresting from Austria
her Italian provinces by French arms. This would be a most
iniquitous proceeding. It is another question whether it is
good policy for Austria to try to retain Lombardy, but that is
for her and not for us to decide. Many people might think
that we would be happier without Ireland or Canada. Lord
John will not fail to observe how very intemperate the whole
tone of Lord Palmerston’s language is.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Balmoral Castle, 13th September 1848.

My dearest Uncle,—I yesterday received your dear and
kind letter of the 9th (it having arrived in London only the
day before), which is very quick, and I thank you much for it.
The Schleswig affair at Frankfort is very unfortunate, and
there seems a lamentable want of all practical sense, foresight,
or even common prudence.⁴²

The poor Austrians seem now to accept the (to me very
doubtful) mediation. It reminds me of the wolf in the lamb’s
skin. Nous verrons, how matters will be arranged….

My letter to Louise will have informed you of our voyage
and our arrival here. This house is small but pretty, and
though the hills seen from the windows are not so fine, the
scenery all around is the finest almost I have seen anywhere.
It is very wild and solitary, and yet cheerful and beautifully
wooded, with the river Dee running between the two sides of
the hills. Loch Nagar is the highest hill in the immediate
vicinity, and belongs to us.

Then the soil is the driest and best known almost anywhere,
and all the hills are as sound and hard as the road. The
climate is also dry, and in general not very cold, though we
had one or two very cold days. There is a deer forest—many
roe deer, and on the opposite hill (which does not belong to us)
grouse. There is also black cock and ptarmigan. Albert has,
however, no luck this year, and has in vain been after the deer,
though they are continually seen, and often quite close by the
[page 195]
house. The children are very well, and enjoying themselves
much. The boys always wear their Highland dress.

I must now wish you good-bye, and repeat how much delighted
we are that everything goes on so well in Belgium.
Ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 42: The incorporation of Schleswig had been forcibly resisted, and Sweden determined
on armed intervention; but a temporary armistice was arranged in August. This the
National Assembly attempted to disavow, but a few days after this letter was written it
was ratified.

Memorandum by Queen Victoria.

THE QUEEN AND PALMERSTON

Balmoral, 19th September 1848.

I said to Lord John Russell, that I must mention to him a
subject, which was a serious one, one which I had delayed
mentioning for some time, but which I felt I must speak quite
openly to him upon now, namely about Lord Palmerston;
that I felt really I could hardly go on with him, that I had no
confidence in him, and that it made me seriously anxious and
uneasy for the welfare of the country and for the peace of
Europe in general, and that I felt very uneasy from one day
to another as to what might happen. Lord John replied that
he was aware of it; that he had considered the matter already,
having heard from his brother (the Duke of Bedford) how
strongly I felt about it; that he felt the truth of all that I had
said, but that, on the other hand, Lord Palmerston was a very
able man, entirely master of his office and affairs, and a very
good colleague, never making any difficulties about other
questions, but (certainly unreasonably) complaining of other
people mixing with and interfering in the affairs of his office.
I said that … I fully believed that that Spanish marriage
question, which had been the original cause of so many present
misfortunes, would never have become so embrouillé had it not
been for Lord Palmerston. This led Lord John to say, that
though he disapproved the length of Lord Palmerston’s correspondence,
still that we could not have done otherwise than
object to the marriage. This is true enough. I repeated that
all that had been done in Italy last winter had also done harm,
as it was done by Lord Palmerston, who was distrusted everywhere
abroad, which Lord John regretted. I said that I
thought that he often endangered the honour of England by
taking a very prejudiced and one-sided view of a question;…
that his writings were always as bitter as gall and did great
harm, which Lord John entirely assented to, and that I often
felt quite ill from anxiety; that I wished Lord Clarendon
(who, I had heard, was tired of Ireland) could come over and
be Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and Lord Palmerston
go to Ireland as Lord-Lieutenant. Lord John said nothing
would be better, for that he was sure that Lord Palmerston
[page 196]
would make an admirable Lord-Lieutenant, but that another
thing to be considered was the danger of making Lord Palmerston
an enemy by displacing him, that Lord Minto (who was
formerly a great friend and admirer of Lord Palmerston’s) had
told Lady John when she spoke to him on the subject of
placing Lord Palmerston in another office, that he (Lord Palmerston)
would certainly turn against the Government if
displaced. I said that might be, but that sometimes there
were great interests at stake which exceeded the danger of
offending one man, and that this was here the case; Lord John
said it was very true, but that at moments like these one of
course was anxious not to do anything which could cause
internal trouble. I admitted this, but repeated my anxiety,
which Lord John quite understood, though he thought I a
little overrated it, and said I was afraid that some day I should
have to tell Lord John that I could not put up with Lord
Palmerston any longer, which might be very disagreeable and
awkward.

It ended by Lord John’s promising to bear the subject in
mind, and I must say that he took it all just as I could wish.

Victoria R.

Minute by the Governor-General of India.

AFFAIRS IN THE PUNJAB

30th September 1848.

… The course of events, as they have developed themselves,HOSTILITY OF THE SIKHS
and long and anxious considerations of this important
subject, have finally and immovably confirmed in my mind
the conviction which the earlier events of the insurrection at
Mooltan long since had founded, that there will be no peace
for India, nor any stability of Government in the Punjab, nor
any release from anxiety and costly defensive preparations on
our frontier, unless the British Government, justly indignant
at the unprovoked and treacherous aggression once again committed
against them by the Sikhs, shall now effectually provide
against future dangers by subverting for ever the Dynasty of
the Sings, by converting the Punjab into a British province,
and by adopting the only measure which will secure the observance
of peace by the Sikhs, namely, depriving them utterly
of all the means of making war. I continue as fully convinced
as ever that the establishment of a strong, friendly, Hindoo
Government in the Punjab would be the best settlement that
could be made for the interests of British India, if it could be
formed. But I am convinced that such a Government cannot
be formed.⁴³

[page 197]

The Chiefs of the Punjab are utterly powerless and worthless.
The great body of the nation is adverse to all control,
and in no degree submissive to the authority of those who are
professedly their rulers.

Even admitting, which I am by no means prepared to do,
that the Sirdars are not treacherously or hostilely disposed to
the British Government, of what advantage, what defence to
us is the fidelity of the Chiefs, if they are confessedly unable
to control the army which is as avowedly hostile to us? That
which we desire to secure is a peaceful and well-governed
neighbour, and a frontier free from alarms, nor demanding a
permanent garrison of 50,000 men. If their army are able to
disturb and eager to disturb on every occasion the peace we
seek to render permanent, of what profit to us is the assumed
fidelity of the Chiefs, who cannot repress their soldiers’ turbulence,
or command their obedience?

I discredit altogether the assurances of the fidelity of the
Chiefs on the evidence of the facts before us….

To all these recommendations my colleagues in the Council
have yielded their ready assent.

I have to the last sought to avert, or to avoid, the necessity,
if it could prudently or fitly be avoided.

The Sikh nation have forced the necessity upon us. Having
resolved at once, and fully, to meet it, I shall proceed with all
speed to the frontier, and shall endeavour by every exertion,
and by all the means in my power, to carry into effect vigorously
the measures on which the Government of India has
resolved, and which, in my conscience I believe, are imperatively
called for by regard to the peace of India, to the security
of our Empire there, and to the happiness of the people over
whom we rule.

Dalhousie.

Footnote 43: See Introductory Note for 1849, post, p. 208.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

PALMERSTON’S ITALIAN POLICY

Osborne, 7th October 1848.

The Queen sends Lord Palmerston’s answer to her last letter,
of which the Queen has sent a copy to Lord John Russell, and
encloses likewise a copy of her present answer. The partiality
of Lord Palmerston in this Italian question really surpasses all
conception, and makes the Queen very uneasy on account of
the character and honour of England, and on account of the
danger to which the peace of Europe will be exposed. It is
now clearly proved by Baron Wessenberg that upon the conclusion
of the Armistice with Sardinia, negotiations for peace
would have speedily been entered into, had our mediation not
been offered to the King, to whom the offer of Lombardy was
[page 198]
too tempting not to accept, and now that promise is by fair or
unfair means to be made good. The Queen cannot see any
principle in this, as the principle upon which Lord Palmerston
goes is Italian Nationality and Independence from a foreign
Yoke and Tyranny. How can the Venetian territory then be
secured to Austria? and if this is done, on what ground can
Lombardy be wrung from her? It is really not safe to settle
such important matters without principle and by personal
passion alone. When the French Government say they cannot
control public feeling, Lord Palmerston takes this as an unalterable
fact, and as a sufficient reason to make the Austrians
give up Lombardy; when, however, the Austrian Government
say they cannot give up Lombardy on account of the feeling of
the Army which had just reconquered it with their blood and
under severe privations and sufferings, Lord Palmerston flippantly
tells the Austrian Government, “if that were so, the
Emperor had better abdicate and make General Radetzky
Emperor.” When Charles Albert burned the whole of the
suburbs of Milan to keep up the delusion that he meant to
defend the town, Lord Palmerston said nothing; and now
that the Austrian Governor has prohibited revolutionary
placards on the walls, and prolonged the period at which arms
are to be surrendered, at the end of which persons concealing
arms are to be tried by court-martial, he writes to Vienna:
“that this savage proclamation, which savours more of the
barbarous usages of centuries long gone by than of the spirit
of the present times, must strike everybody as a proof of
the fear by which the Austrian Commander is inspired,” etc.,
etc., etc.

Venice was to have been made over to Austria by the Armistice,
and now that this has not been done, Austria is not even
to retake it, in order (as Lord Normanby says) to keep something
in hand against which Austria is to make further concessions.
Is all this fair? In the meantime, from the account
of our Consul at Venice, the French agents are actively employed
in intrigues against Austria in that town, and have
asked him to assist, which he refused. Lord Palmerston
merely approved his conduct, and did not write a line to Paris
about it. Now the question at issue is not even to be submitted
to a Conference of European powers, but to be settled
by the French Republic and Lord Palmerston alone, Lord
Normanby being the instrument who has pledged himself over
and over again for Italian independence (so called). If Austria
makes peace with Sardinia, and gives her Italian provinces
separate National Institutions with a liberal constitutional
Government, who can force upon her another arrangement?

[page 199]

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

GREECE

Osborne, 8th October 1848.

The Queen cannot refrain from telling Lord Palmerston
what a painful impression the perusal of a draft of his to Lord
Normanby referring to the affairs of Greece has made upon her,
being so little in accordance with the calm dignity which she
likes to see in all the proceedings of the British Government;
she was particularly struck by the language in which Lord
Palmerston speaks of King Otho, a Sovereign with whom she
stands in friendly relations, and the asperity against the
Government of the King of the French, who is really sufficiently
lowered and suffering for the mistakes he may have committed,
and that of all this a copy is to be placed in the hands of the
Foreign Minister of the French Republic, the Queen can only
see with much regret.⁴⁴

Footnote 44: Lord Palmerston replied that his observations on the two Kings lay at the very root
of his argument, and were necessary to conciliate the present Government of France.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Windsor Castle, 10th October 1848.

My dearest Uncle,—Our voyage yesterday was much
saddened by a terrible accident at Spithead, which delayed us
half an hour, and which still fills us with horror. The sea was
running very high, and we were just outside what is called The
Spit, when we saw a man in the water, sitting on the keel of a
boat, and we stopped, and at that moment Albert discerned
many heads above the sea, including a poor woman. The tide
was running so strong that we could only stop an instant and
let a boat down, but you may imagine our horror. We waited
at Gosport to hear if the people had been saved, and we learnt
that three had, two of whom by our Fairy’s boat, and that
four were drowned. Very horrid indeed.

The state of Germany is dreadful, and one does feel quite
ashamed about that once really so peaceful and happy people.
That there are still good people there I am sure, but they allow
themselves to be worked upon in a frightful and shameful
way…. In France a crisis seems at hand. What a very bad
figure we cut in this mediation! Really it is quite immoral,
with Ireland quivering in our grasp, and ready to throw off
her allegiance at any moment, for us to force Austria to give
up her lawful possessions. What shall we say if Canada, Malta,
etc., begin to trouble us? It hurts me terribly. This ought
to be the principle in all actions, private as well as public:
[page 200]
“Was du nicht willst, dass dir geschieht, das thu’ auch einem
andern nicht.” …

I must now conclude. With every good wish, ever your
devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Earl Grey to Queen Victoria.

THE BOERS

Colonial Office, 25th October 1848.

Earl Grey presents his humble duty to your Majesty, and
begs to inform your Majesty that no official accounts have been
received of the engagement on the Cape Frontier between your
Majesty’s forces under Sir H. Smith and the insurgent Dutch
farmers, of which an account is published in the newspapers.⁴⁵
Lord Grey has, however, seen a private letter, which mentions,
in addition to what is stated in the Government notice in the
Cape newspapers, that Sir Harry Smith exposed himself very
much, and was slightly wounded; most fortunately, he was
merely grazed in the leg; his horse was also struck by a bullet
in the nose. A very large proportion of those who were hit by
the fire of the rebels were officers, who appear to have been
particularly aimed at.

Footnote 45: In July, Pretorius, the Boer leader, had in consequence of the British annexation of
territory, expelled the British Resident from Bloemfontein. See Introductory Note,
ante, p. 142. Sir Harry Smith decisively defeated the Boers on the 29th of August.

Queen Victoria to Earl Grey.

Windsor Castle, 26th October 1848.

The Queen has received Lord Grey’s letter, and is glad to
hear that Sir H. Smith’s wound was not of a serious nature.
The loss of so many officers, the Queen is certain, proceeds from
their wearing a blue coat whilst the men are in scarlet; the
Austrians lost a great proportion of officers in Italy from a
similar difference of dress.

As to the Medal for Major Edwardes, the Queen did not
approve but disapprove the step, and wished the Bath to be
given instead, which has been done. The medals for troops
in general (given by the East India Company) are a new and
doubtful thing, and now it is proposed to reward even a special
case of personal distinction by the Company’s conferring a
mark of honour. Lord Grey will agree with the Queen that it
will be better not to establish two fountains of honour in the
Realm. If the East India Company wish to mark their
approbation, perhaps they might send Major Edwardes a fine
sword or something of that kind.

[page 201]

Earl Grey to Queen Victoria.

GOVERNORSHIP OF GIBRALTAR

Colonial Office, 26th October 1848.

Earl Grey presents his humble duty to your Majesty, and
has just had the honour of receiving your Majesty’s letter.
Lord Fitzroy Somerset happened to be here when it arrived,
and Lord Grey read to him that part of it which relates to the
danger occasioned to officers in action from wearing a dress of
a different colour from that of the men. Lord Fitzroy observed
that although there can be no doubt of the objection to the
blue coats worn by officers, in this instance their having
suffered so much cannot be attributed to that cause, as it
appears that all the officers who were wounded but one, belonged
to regiments (the Rifle Battalion or the Cape Mounted
Rifles) in which the officers are dressed in the same colour as
the men….

Lord Grey begs to submit to your Majesty that the usual
time for relieving the present Governor of Gibraltar is now
come, and that he thinks it very desirable to appoint a successor
to Sir Robert Wilson, who now fills that situation. It appears
to Lord Grey that, considering the nature of the appointment
and also the great advantage which would result from affording
greater encouragement to the officers serving under the
Ordnance, it would be very proper to confer this government
upon a General Officer belonging to the Royal Artillery or
Engineers. There is some difficulty in making a selection from
the officers of these Corps, because, from their retiring only by
seniority, they seldom attain the rank of General Officer while
they are still in possession of sufficient strength and activity
for employment. Lord Grey, however, believes from the information
he has been able to obtain, that Sir Robert Gardiner
might, with advantage, be appointed to this command, which
he therefore begs leave to recommend to your Majesty to confer
upon him. Lord Grey has had no communication with Sir R.
Gardiner, and is entirely ignorant whether he would accept
this employment.⁴⁶

Footnote 46: Sir Robert Gardiner, K.C.B.. was appointed Governor and Commander-in-Chief of
Gibraltar on the 21st of November, and held that post till 1855.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

ITALY AND AUSTRIA

Windsor Castle, 27th October 1848.

The Queen has not yet acknowledged the receipt of Lord
John Russell’s communication of the views of the Cabinet on
[page 202]
the Italian affairs.⁴⁷ She is very glad that the Cabinet should
have considered this important question, and that she should
have received an assurance “that she will not be advised to
have recourse to forcible intervention.” The Queen understands
this principle to apply to Lombardy as well as to Sicily,
and that, of course, “forcible intervention” will not only be
avoided as to British means, but likewise as to French means,
with British consent and concurrence. Though Lord John
Russell does not enter so much into particulars with regard to
the opinions of the Members of the Cabinet as the Queen might
have wished, she infers from the proposition that Lombardy
should be constituted separately under an Archduke, that
the idea of making it over to the King of Sardinia is finally
abandoned.

Footnote 47: Lord John had written to the effect that, while no definite decision had been arrived
at with regard to Italy, it was thought by the Cabinet that every means should be used
to induce Austria to give up Lombardy to an Austrian Prince, as most conformable to the
interests of Austria herself. The question of Sicily (he added) was more difficult, but if
no agreement could be arrived at by amicable negotiation, the Cabinet would not be
disposed to advise the Queen to have recourse to forcible intervention.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

Pembroke Lodge, 19th November 1848.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty.

It will probably be necessary to send troops to India, who
will then be no longer chargeable to this country. But Lord
John Russell thinks it his duty to state that however unwilling
he may be to diminish the Military and Naval force, it is still
more essential to keep our income within our expenditure.

The whole matter will be under the consideration of the
Cabinet next week.

The approaching election of a President in France must
decide the question of the future Government of France. Louis
Bonaparte may probably play the part of Richard Cromwell.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Windsor Castle, 21st November 1848.

My dearest Uncle,—I write to thank you for your kind
letter of the 18th on your god-daughter’s eighth birthday!
It does seem like an incredible dream that Vicky should already
be so old! She is very happy with all her gifts.

In Vienna things are much better. Louis Napoleon’s election
seems certain, and I own I wish for it as I think it will
lead to something else.

[page 203]

You will grieve to hear that our good, dear, old friend
Melbourne is dying; there is no hope, and I enclose a pretty
letter of Lady Beauvale’s,⁴⁸ which I think will interest you, and
which I beg you to return. One cannot forget how good and
kind and amiable he was, and it brings back so many recollections
to my mind, though, God knows! I never wish that
time back again.

We go to-morrow for four weeks to our dear, peaceful
Osborne.

I will now take my leave. Begging you to believe me ever
your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 48: See Greville’s appreciative description of Lady Beauvale in his Journal for the 30th
of January 1853.

Viscount Palmerston to Queen Victoria.

Brocket Hall, 23rd November 1848.

Viscount Palmerston is here engaged in the melancholy
occupation of watching the gradual extinction of the lamp of
life of one who was not more distinguished by his brilliant
talents, his warm affections, and his first-rate understanding,
than by those sentiments of attachment to your Majesty
which rendered him the most devoted subject who ever had
the honour to serve a Sovereign.

Viscount Palmerston to Queen Victoria.

DEATH OF LORD MELBOURNE

Brocket Hall, 25th November 1848.

Viscount Palmerston presents his humble duty to your
Majesty, and has to state that Viscount Melbourne was released
from further suffering at about six o’clock yesterday
afternoon. His bodily strength had been rapidly declining
during the last few days, and it was only at intervals that
he retained any degree of apparent consciousness. The last
transition took place quietly and with almost imperceptible
gradation.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

Pembroke Lodge, 26th November 1848.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty:
he sees no political objection to a visit to Osborne on the part
of the Duke and Duchess of Nemours. The election of a
[page 204]
President in France is so completely absorbing attention that
any mark of regard to the Duke of Nemours may well pass
unnoticed.

Lord John Russell had the honour of seeing Louis Philippe
in this house on Friday. He was in much better spirits,
owing to the convalescence of the Queen; but the illness has
been a very serious one.

Lord John Russell had understood that the affairs of property
belonging to the Orleans family were arranged, and that
Louis Philippe would ultimately be possessed of more than a
million sterling.

Louis Philippe expressed his opinion in favour of Louis
Bonaparte as a candidate for the Presidency. He feels confident
that France cannot go to war on account of the state of
her finances.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Osborne, 21th November 1848.

My dearest Uncle,—Thank God! that the news from
Berlin are better. It is to be hoped that this may have a good
effect elsewhere.

In France there ought really to be a Monarchy before long,
qui que ce soit.

Our poor old friend Melbourne died on the 24th. I sincerely
regret him, for he was truly attached to me, and though not a
firm Minister he was a noble, kind-hearted, generous being.
Poor Lord Beauvale and Lady Palmerston feel it very much.
I wish it might soften the caro sposo of the latter-named
person.

Victoria R.

Pope Pius IX. to Queen Victoria.⁴⁹

LETTER FROM THE POPE

To the Most Serene and Potent Sovereign Victoria, the Illustrious
Queen of England, Pius Papa Nonus.

Most Serene and Most Potent Queen, Greeting! Your
Royal Majesty has already learned what a subversion of
public affairs has taken place at Rome, and what utterly unheard-of
violence was, on the 16th of the late month of November,
offered to us in our very Palace of the Quirinal, in consequence
of a nefarious conspiracy of abandoned and most
turbulent men. Hence, in order to avoid more violent commotions
and more serious dangers, as likewise for the purpose
[page 205]
of freely performing the functions of our apostolic Ministry,
we, not without the deepest and most heartfelt sorrow, have
been constrained to depart for a time from our Holy City, and
from the whole state of our pontifical dominions; and in the
meanwhile we come as far as Gaëta, where, as soon as we had
arrived, our first care was to declare to our subjects the sentiments
of our mind and will, by a public edict, a copy of which
we transmit to your Royal Majesty, together with these our
letters. Without doubt, through your own wisdom, you will
perfectly understand, Most Serene and Potent Sovereign, that
amongst the other most cruel difficulties by which we are
pressed, we must be chiefly solicitous concerning those subject
to our temporal rule and the rights and possessions of the
Roman Church, which, moreover, your august Uncle and the
other Princes of Europe protected with so much zeal. But we
do not in the least doubt that, in conformity with your exalted
magnanimity, your justice, and your known desire to maintain
order in public affairs, you will by no means suffer this same to
be wanting to us at this most lamentable time. Trusting indeed
in this hope, we do not cease, in the humility and affliction
of our heart, from earnestly beseeching God, the All Good
and All Great, that He may heap upon your Royal Majesty
and your whole House all true and solid prosperity, and that
He may unite you with us in perfect charity.

Given at Gaëta, the 4th day of December 1848, in the third
year of our Pontificate.

Pius PP. IX.⁵⁰

Footnote 49: Official translation.

Footnote 50: This letter was suitably acknowledged in general terms. See p. 210.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

LOUIS NAPOLEON

Osborne, 13th December 1848.

My beloved Uncle,—Pray accept my warmest and best
wishes for many, many happy returns of your birthday—a day
so dear to so many, and which will be hailed with such joy in
Belgium. You have indeed reason to look with satisfaction
on all around you, though it is a painful thing to think how
many have been ruined and made miserable since this day
twelvemonths. Let us hope that another year may bring
many things round again.

The weather is beautiful, and I wish much we could fly over
to pay our respects to you on your dear birthday.

The papers are just come, and I see there is no doubt of
Louis Napoleon’s election, which I am very glad of, as it is a
[page 206]
sign of better times. But that one should have to wish for him
is really wonderful.

Now good-bye, dearest Uncle. Ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Osborne, 19th December 1848.

My dearest, kindest Uncle,—Your dear letter, full of
interesting topics, which I received yesterday, gave me great
pleasure, and I thank you much for it. The success of Louis
Napoleon⁵¹ is an extraordinary event, but valuable as a universal
condemnation of the Republic since February.

It will, however, perhaps be more difficult to get rid of him
again than one at first may imagine. Nemours thinks it better
that none of themselves should be called into action for some
time to come. I fear that he feels now that they ought to have
foreseen the dangers in February, and ought not to have yielded;
when I said to him that the Pope had declared that he would
never quit Rome, and did so do the very next day, he said:
“Ah! mon Dieu, on se laisse entraîner dans ces moments.”
Louise said to me that her Father had so often declared he would
never quit Paris alive, so that when she heard of his flight she
always believed it was untrue and he must be dead….

Footnote 51: He was elected President on the 10th of December, by an immense majority.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

THE QUEEN AND PALMERSTON

Windsor Castle, 22nd December 1848.

The Queen has been waiting to receive an answer from Lord
John Russell upon her last letter, and has therefore delayed
sending the enclosed letter from Lord Palmerston.⁵² But lest
any further delay might cause future inconvenience, she sends
it now without having received Lord John’s answer. The
Queen is sure Lord John will feel that neither Lord Palmerston
[page 207]
nor Lord Normanby have shown a proper regard for the
Queen’s wishes and opinion in this matter. Lord Normanby’s
Despatch shows that the step to be taken with reference to an
Ambassador to be sent here is avowedly for the purpose of
controlling the future action of the Queen’s Government, and
to oblige her to keep a permanent Ambassador at Paris in the
person of Lord Normanby. It is not very delicate in Lord
Normanby to convey such a message, nor in Lord Palmerston
to urge it so eagerly. M. de Beaumont’s departure from this
country without taking leave of the Queen was neither very
becoming.

The Queen has already, on Lord Palmerston’s account,
received two public affronts: the one by her Minister in Spain
having been sent out of that country,⁵³ the other now, by the
new Emperor of Austria not announcing to her by special
mission his accession to the Throne, which he did to all other
Sovereigns, avowedly, as it appears, to mark the indignation
of Austria at the inimical proceedings of the British Foreign
Secretary. The Queen does not think that, in the face of such
slurs, the dignity of England will be vindicated by a race between
her representative and that of Spain, who is to present
his credentials first to the new President of the French Republic,
which Lord Palmerston considers of such importance
as to render an immediate decision indispensable.

Should Lord John think that we cannot do less now for
Louis Napoleon than has been done in the case of General
Cavaignac, the Queen will not object to renewing Lord Normanby’s
credentials as Ambassador-Extraordinary on a special
mission.

Footnote 52: Lord Palmerston had written to say that Lord Normanby’s credentials were provisional,
and regular credentials would become necessary. The new French Government
were sending Ambassadors to Vienna, Rome, and other capitals, which in return would
send Ambassadors to Paris, so that it would be injurious for this country’s representative
to be of inferior diplomatic rank. “It would,” he wrote subsequently, “be derogatory
to the dignity of your Majesty, and to the character of your Majesty’s Government if,
in the present state of things between the British and Spanish Governments the Spanish
Ambassador should, by a dilatoriness on the part of your Majesty’s Government, be allowed
to raise a question about precedence with your Majesty’s representative at Paris; it
would be very inconvenient if that question were decided unfavourably to your Majesty’s
representative, and very undesirable that he should appear to be under obligation to the
French Government for a decision in his favour.”

Footnote 53: See ante, p. 175.

[page 208]

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

TO CHAPTER XVIII

The opening of Parliament (1849) was noteworthy for the
appearance of Mr Disraeli as leader of the Opposition in the House of
Commons, in place of Lord George Bentinck, who had died suddenly
in the recess; the Peelites, though influential, were numerically few,
and they continued by their support to maintain the Whigs in office,
the principal measure of the session being the Act for the repeal of
the Navigation Laws, a natural corollary to Peel’s free trade policy.
A Royal visit was paid to Ireland in August, and at Cork, Waterford,
Dublin, and Belfast, the Queen and Prince were received with great
enthusiasm.

Abroad, the cause of United Italy suffered a severe check. The
Sicilian revolt came to an end, and Austrian ascendency was re-established
in Northern Italy. King Charles Albert was defeated at
Novara, and abdicated in favour of his son, Victor Emmanuel.
The Pope, who had fled from Rome in disguise, in November 1848,
and was living at Gaëta, was now under the protection of Austria
and France, and General Oudinot occupied the Papal city on his
behalf in June. Austrian influence restored Tuscany, Parma, and
Modena to their rulers, and in Central Europe operated to prevent the
acceptance by the King of Prussia of the Imperial Crown of Germany.
Hungary, in consequence of the help rendered to the
Viennese insurrectionists in 1848, was reduced to submission, but
only with Russian co-operation. Heavy retribution was inflicted on
the Hungarians; Kossuth and other revolutionaries fled to Turkey,
the Russian and Austrian Governments unsuccessfully demanding
their extradition.

The British operations against the Sikhs were brought to a successful
termination; the Commander-in-Chief, Lord Gough, with
inferior numbers, had engaged the enemy at Chillianwalla, with
indecisive and virtually unfavourable results, and Sir Charles Napier
was sent out to supersede him. Mooltan, where the outrage of the
previous year had taken place, had been besieged, and fell on the
22nd of January. Dalhousie had established himself at Ferozepore.
A week or two later the Sikhs and Afghans were overwhelmingly
defeated at Gujerat, and on the 29th of March the Punjab was incorporated
in the British Empire; the “Koh-i-noor” was, in token
of submission, presented by the Maharajah to the Queen. Lord
Dalhousie received a Marquisate, and the thanks of both Houses of
Parliament were voted to all concerned.

[page 209]

CHAPTER XVIII

1849

Memorandum on Matters connected with the Form of addressing
the Pope in Answer to his Letter to Her Majesty of 4th
December 1848.

Foreign Office, 5th January 1849.

The accompanying draft of answer to the letter which the
Pope addressed to Her Majesty from Gaëta on the 4th of
December is in the same form as letters which were written to
Pope Pius VII. by George the Fourth while Prince Regent, and
after he came to the Throne. They address the Pope as
“Most Eminent Sir,” style him “Your Holiness,” and finish
with the mere signature after the date of the conclusion of the
letter. Copies of those letters are annexed.

Other forms of writing Royal letters are:—

1st. Commencing “Sir my Brother” (or “Sir my Cousin,”
etc., as the case may be), and ending thus:

“Sir my Brother,

Your Majesty’s

Good Sister.”

This is the form used between Sovereign and Sovereign.

2nd. Commencing with the Queen’s titles. In these letters
the plural “we” and “our” are employed instead of “I” and
“my,” and the letters terminate thus:—

“Your Good Friend,

. . . .“

This form is now used almost exclusively for Royal letters to
Republics.

In the State Paper Office there is, with only one exception,
no record of any letter from a Sovereign of England to the Pope
from the time of Henry VIII., when the State Paper Office
records commence. The single exception is an original letter
from Queen Mary in 1555 to Pope Paul IV. It seems that
when the time of her expected confinement drew nigh, she
caused letters to be prepared announcing the birth of a son,
[page 210]
and signed them in anticipation of the event. When no birth
took place, the letters were of course not sent off; but they
have been preserved to the present day, and among them is
the letter to the Pope. The accompanying paper contains a
copy of the beginning and conclusion of it.

There is no trace in the State Paper Office of any letter of
credence having been given by James II. to Lord Castlemaine
in 1685. The correspondence of the reign of James II. is,
however, very defective, and much of it must either have been
suppressed or have got into private hands.

Draft]Queen Victoria to Pope Pius IX.¹

REPLY TO THE POPE

Most Eminent Sir,—I have received the letter which your
Holiness addressed to me from Gaëta on the 4th of December
last, and in which you acquaint me that in consequence of the
violent proceedings of certain of your subjects, you had felt
yourself obliged to depart from Rome, and for a time to quit
your dominions. I assure your Holiness that I have been
deeply pained at the intelligence of the events to which your
letter refers, and that I do the fullest justice to the motives
which induced your Holiness to withdraw for a time from your
capital. Your Holiness has given so many proofs of being
animated by a sincere desire to improve the condition of the
people whom, under Divine Providence, you have been chosen
to govern, and the clemency of your heart and the rectitude of
your intentions are so well known and so truly appreciated, that
I cannot but hope that the trials which you have experienced
in consequence of popular commotion will speedily come to an
end, and will be succeeded by a cordial, good understanding
between your Holiness and the Roman people. I request your
Holiness to believe that it would afford me real pleasure to be
able in any degree to contribute to a result so much to be
desired; and I am happy in having this opportunity of assuring
you of my sincere friendship, and of the unfeigned respect
and esteem which I entertain for your person and character.

Given at Windsor Castle the [ ] day of January 1849.

Footnote 1: See p. 204.

The President of the French Republic to Queen Victoria.

LETTER FROM PRINCE LOUIS NAPOLEON

Elysée National, le 22 Janvier 1849.

Très chère et grande Amie,—Une de mes premières
pensées lorsque le vœu de la nation Française m’appela au
[page 211]
pouvoir fut de faire part à votre Majesté de mon avènement et
des sentiments que j’apportais dans ma nouvelle position.

Des circonstances particulières ont retardé le départ de
l’ambassadeur qui devait porter ma lettre; mais aujourd’hui
que l’Amiral Cécile se rend à Londres je désire exprimer à
votre Majesté la respectueuse sympathie que j’ai toujours
éprouvée pour sa personne; je désire surtout lui dire combien
je suis reconnaissant de la généreuse hospitalité qu’elle m’a
donnée dans ses états lorsque j’étais fugitif ou proscrit et
combien je serais heureux si ce souvenir pouvait servir à resserrer
les liens qui unissent les gouvernements et les peuples
de nos deux pays.

Je prie votre Majesté de croire à mes sentiments. Votre
ami,

Louis Napoléon Bonaparte.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

THE QUEEN AND PALMERSTON

Chesham Place, 22nd January 1849.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and would now wish to consult Lord Lansdowne on the propriety
of offering to Lord Palmerston to exchange the Foreign
Office for the Lord-Lieutenancy of Ireland.²

As Lord John Russell has always approved in the main of
the foreign policy of Lord Palmerston, he could only make this
offering in a mode honourable to Lord Palmerston—that is to
say, for instance, by offering him at the same time an English
Earldom, or an English Barony with the Garter. Nor could
he proceed in the matter without Lord Lansdowne’s concurrence.

Footnote 2: Hostilities were in progress between the Sicilian insurgents and their Sovereign. An
agent for the former came to England to purchase arms, but was informed by the contractor
to whom he applied that the whole of his stock had been pledged to the Ordnance
Office. Lord Palmerston, without consulting the Cabinet, allowed this stock to be transferred
to the insurgents. The matter became public property, and the Premier brought
it before the Cabinet on the 23rd of January, when, somewhat unexpectedly, the Foreign
Secretary consented to make an apology to the Neapolitan Government; so that the
crisis terminated for the time.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

Windsor Castle, 22nd January 1849.

The Queen has just received Lord John Russell’s letter and
enclosures, the contents of which have deeply grieved her, as
the honour of her Government has always been nearest to her
heart. She feels deeply the humiliation to have to make an
apology to the Government of Naples, which stands so very
[page 212]
low in public estimation, and she naturally dreads the effect
this disclosure about the guns will have in the world, when she
considers how many accusations have been brought against
the good faith of this country latterly by many different
Governments. Of course they will all consider their suspicions
and accusations, however absurd they may have been,
as justified and proved.

The Queen supposes that the proposition Lord John makes
to her about moving Lord Palmerston to Ireland is the result
of his conviction that after this disclosure it will be no longer
to the advantage of the public service to leave the direction
of the Foreign Affairs in these critical times in Lord Palmerston’s
hands. The Queen will be anxious to see Lord John
upon this subject. All she wishes for is, that matters may be
so managed as to reflect the least possible discredit upon the
Government and Lord Palmerston himself.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Windsor Castle, 6th February 1849.

My dearest Uncle,—We are well. All went off extremely
well on Thursday, but the Government must expect difficulties
upon their (very doubtful) Foreign Policy. I own I do not
feel reassured about peace. Italy and the Pope, etc., are very
ticklish subjects.

Everybody says Louis Napoleon has behaved extremely
well in the last crisis—full of courage and energy, and they
say that he is decidedly straightforward, which is not to be
despised. I will not admit that the Gemüthlichkeit ist für immer
begraben in Germany; it will surely return when this madness
is over, but how soon no one can tell. Ever your devoted
Niece,

Victoria R.

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Dalhousie.

Windsor Castle, 6th February 1849.

The Queen has not yet thanked Lord Dalhousie for his long
and interesting letter which she received in the summer.
Since that period many important events have taken place in
India, and the last news have naturally made the Queen feel
very anxious. She deeply laments the loss of General Cureton
and Colonel Havelock, officers who will not be easily replaced.
The Queen thinks that Lord Dalhousie has throughout acted
most judiciously and has thwarted more mischief being done.
[page 213]
She will abstain from remarking upon the conduct of the Commander-in-Chief,
as she knows that the Duke of Wellington has
written fully to Lord Dalhousie on this painful subject.³ The
Queen concludes with expressing her hopes that Lord and
Lady Dalhousie are in good health, and with the Prince’s
kindest remembrances to Lord Dalhousie.

Footnote 3: See Introductory Note for the year, ante, p. 208.

The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

STATE OF EUROPE

Laeken, 10th February 1849.

My dearest Victoria,—I have to offer my most affectionate
thanks for your dear letter of the 6th. The state of the
Queen seems better, though I fear not so solidly as to be beyond
mischief; but the improvement is real, and will act as a moral
support. They have been severely tried, those poor exiles,
and Heaven knows what is still in store for them. I don’t
think that in Italy there will be war. The French cannot
think of it for some months, probably not before June or
July, and the Italians cannot make it alone without being
licked; the better informed know that. The Pope ought to be
replaced on his seat for the sake of every one; and his ultra-Liberal
policy entitles him to be supported by all Governments
and by all right-minded people.

Louis Bonaparte has not ill-behaved, it seems; negatively
he might have done much harm. The position continues to be
abominable. There is for every one an absence d’avenir which
ruins everything and everybody—that is the real difficulty.

Die Gemüthlichkeit in Germany was the consequence of its
political existence these last thousand years; that is now all
going to ruin, and the Gemüthlichkeit will be as little found
again que l’urbanité Française so much talked of formerly and
now unknown.

This part of February puts me always in mind of my dear
little séjour with you in 1841. How far that period is now,
though but eight years from us; the very features of everything
changed, I fear for ever, and not for the better….
Now I must conclude, and remain ever, my dearest Victoria,
your truly devoted Uncle,

Leopold R.

Memorandum by Queen Victoria.

LOUIS NAPOLEON.

Buckingham Palace, 19th February 1849.

Admiral Cécile, who dined here for the first time after the
presentation of his credentials as Ambassador from the French
[page 214]
Republic, with whom I spoke for some time after dinner, said:
“Nous en avons fait de tristes expériences en France,” but
that he hoped “que les choses s’amélioraient”; that the
Government was very firm and decided, and determined not
to allow order to be disturbed; “Paris a maintenant fait
quatre Révolutions que la France a subies; votre Majesté
sait qui a proclamé la République au mois de Février? Une
centaine de coquins! Personne s’en doutait, et cependant la
France s’y est soumise!” That the Government was however
determined, and so were all the Departments, that this
should never happen again; no doubt the danger from the
Socialists was great, all over the world; that that was the real
danger, and that they would readily make another attempt
like the fearful one in June (the result of which for three days
was uncertain), but that they had not the power; that he was
continually impressing upon all his friends in France the
necessity of supporting whatever form of Government there was
whose object was the maintenance of order, and to unite “contre
cet ennemi commun.” The President, he continued, had risen
amazingly in the opinion of every one by his firmness, courage,
and determination—which he had shown in those critical days
a fortnight or three weeks ago—and that in these two months
he had acquired “une grande aptitude pour les affaires; tout
le monde est étonné, parce que personne ne s’y attendait.” He
spoke with great delight of Belgium—and how it had stood the
shock of the events in France—and also of England. Italy,
he considered, was by far the greatest object of danger.

Victoria R.

Queen Victoria to the Marquis of Lansdowne.

GAELIC AND WELSH

Osborne, 3rd March 1849.

The Queen sends Lord Lansdowne the book⁴ she mentioned
to him. It is an extraordinary production for people of the
working classes, and there are a great many sound and good
observations in it on education; the observations on the
deficiency in the religious instruction and in the preaching
the Queen thinks are particularly true. It likewise shows
a lofty and enlarged view of education which is often
overlooked.

The Queen takes this occasion of repeating her hope that
Gaelic will be taught in future in the Highland schools, as well
as English, as it is really a great mistake that the people should
[page 215]
be constantly talking a language which they often cannot read
and generally not write. Being very partial to her loyal and
good Highlanders, the Queen takes much interest in what
she thinks will tend more than anything to keep up their
simplicity of character, which she considers a great merit in
these days.

The Queen thinks equally that Welsh should be taught in
Wales as well as English.⁵

Footnote 4: This book was probably Popular Education, as regards Juvenile Delinquency, by Thos.
Bullock, 1849.

Footnote 5: Lord Lansdowne, in his reply, undertook “to combine instruction in the Gaelic with
the English language in the Highland as well as the Welsh schools, and to have a view
to it in the choice of Inspectors.”

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Osborne, 6th March 1849.

My dearest Uncle,—Your dear letter reached me yesterday,
and I thank you warmly for it. I wish you could be here,
for I never remember finer weather than we have had since we
came here; perfect summer, and so sweet, so enjoyable, and
then with all the pleasures and beauties of Spring you have
that beautiful sea—so blue and smooth as it has been these
three days. If we have no mountains to boast of, we have
the sea, which is ever enjoyable. We have camelias which
have stood out two winters covered with red flowers, and
scarlet rhododendrons in brilliant bloom. Does this not
sound tempting? It seems almost wrong to be at home, and
Albert really hardly is.

I wish you joy of your twenty-four foxes. If there was a
black one amongst them I should beg for one, as the skin you
sent me last year was not a black one.

The news from India are very distressing, and make one very
anxious, but Sir Charles Napier is instantly to be sent out to
supersede Lord Gough, and he is so well versed in Indian
tactics that we may look with safety to the future after his
arrival.

The Italian Question remains very complicated, and the
German one a very perplexing, sad one. Prussia must protect
the poor Princes and put herself at the head, else there is no
hope. Austria should behave better, and not oppose the consolidation
of a central Power, else I know not what is to become
of poor Germany.

Pray use your influence to prevent more fatal mischief.

Now adieu, dearest Uncle. Ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

[page 216]

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

Chesham Place, 16th March 1849.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and has the honour to state that the debate last night was
brought to a close.⁶

Mr Cobden and Mr Disraeli made very able speeches at the
end of the debate.

The debate has been a remarkable one, and the division
shows tolerably well the strength of parties. The Protectionists,
animated by the cry of agricultural distress, are disposed
to use their power to the utmost. Mr Disraeli shows himself
a much abler and less passionate leader than Lord George
Bentinck.

On the other hand, the friends of Sir Robert Peel and the
party of Mr Cobden unite with the Government in resisting
the Protectionist party. The House of Commons thus gives
a majority, which, though not compact, is decided at once
against the extreme Tory and the extreme Radical party.
With such a House of Commons the great interests of the
Throne and the Constitution are safe. An abrupt dissolution
would put everything to hazard.

Footnote 6: On Mr Disraeli’s motion for payment of the half of local rates by the Treasury, which
was defeated by 280 to 189.

The Earl of Dalhousie to Queen Victoria.

END OF THE SIKH WAR

Camp, Ferozepore, 24th March 1849.

The Governor-General presents his most humble duty to
your Majesty, and has the honour of acknowledging the receipt
of the letter which your Majesty most graciously addressed
to him on the 5th of February.

He is deeply sensible of your Majesty’s goodness, and most
grateful for the expression of approbation which it has conveyed.

The Governor-General is not without fear that he may have
intruded too often of late upon your Majesty’s time. But he
is so satisfied of the extreme pleasure which your Majesty
would experience on learning that the prisoners who were in
the hands of the Sikhs, and especially the ladies and children,
were once again safe in the British camp, that he would have
ventured to convey to your Majesty that intelligence, even
though he had not been able to add to it—as happily he can—the
announcement of the surrender of the whole Khalsa army,
and the end of the war with the Sikhs.

[page 217]

Major-General Gilbert pushed on rapidly in pursuit of the
Sikhs, who were a few marches in front of him, carrying off our
prisoners with them.

At Rawul Pindee, half-way between the Jhelum and Attock,
the Sikh troops, as we have since heard, would go no further.
They received no pay, they were starving, they had been beaten
and were disheartened; and so they surrendered.

All the prisoners were brought safe into our camp. Forty-one
pieces of artillery were given up. Chuttur Singh and
Shere Singh, with all the Sirdars, delivered their swords to
General Gilbert in the presence of his officers; and the remains
of the Sikh army, 16,000 strong, were marched into camp, by
1000 at a time, and laid down their arms as they passed
between the lines of the British troops.

Your Majesty may well imagine the pride with which British
Officers looked on such a scene, and witnessed this absolute
subjection and humiliation of so powerful an enemy.

How deeply the humiliation was felt by the Sikhs themselves
may be judged by the report which the officers who were
present have made, that many of them, and especially the grim
old Khalsas of Runjeet’s time, exclaimed as they threw their
arms down upon the heap: “This day Runjeet Singh has
died!”

Upwards of 20,000 stands of arms were taken in the hills.
Vast quantities were gathered after the flight of the Sikhs from
Gujerat. As a further precaution, the Governor-General has
ordered a disarming of the Sikhs throughout the Eastern
Doabs, while they are yet cast down and afraid of punishment.
He trusts that these measures may all tend to ensure the
continuance of peace.

MRS GEORGE LAWRENCE

The Sirdars will arrive at Lahore to-day, where they will
await the determination of their future places of residence.
The officers who were prisoners have also reached Lahore,
together with Mrs George Lawrence and her children.

It is impossible to speak too highly of the admirable spirit
which this lady has displayed during many months of very
arduous trial.

By the kindness of others, the Governor-General has had
the opportunity of seeing constantly the little notes which
were secretly despatched by her from her prison. The gallant
heart she kept up under it all, the cheerful face she put upon
it, and the unrepining patience with which she bore the privations
of captivity and the dangers which it threatened to her
children, her husband, and herself, must command the highest
respect and make one proud of one’s countrywomen.

General Gilbert, by the latest intelligence, had seized the
[page 218]
fort of Attock, had crossed the Indus, and was advancing on
Peshawur, whither the Afghans had retired.

By next mail the Governor-General trusts that he will be
able to announce that every enemy has been swept away by
your Majesty’s Armies, and that the Afghans have either been
crushed like the Sikhs or have fled to Cabul again.

He has the honour to subscribe himself, your Majesty’s most
obedient, most humble and very faithful Subject and Servant,

Dalhousie.

The King of Sardinia (Victor Emanuel) to Queen Victoria.

THE KING OF SARDINIA

Turin, le 30 Mars 1849.

Ma très chère Sœur,—La participation officielle que je
m’empresse de vous donner de mon avènement au trône m’offre
une occasion que je suis heureux de saisir pour vous exprimer
dans une lettre de ma main les sentiments de ma vive gratitude
pour l’affection dont ma maison a reçu des preuves marquantes
et réitérées de votre part, comme pour le bienveillant intérêt
que votre Gouvernement a témoigné à ce pays particulièrement
dans les graves événements qui ont eu lieu pendant cette
dernière année.

Je vous prie d’être persuadée que rien n’est plus sincère que
la reconnaissance que j’en conserve, et de me laisser nourrir
la confiance que je puis compter sur la continuation de ces
dispositions si aimables.

En vous renouvelant les sentiments d’amitié la plus parfaite,
je suis, votre très cher Frère,

Victor Emanuel.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Windsor Castle, 10th April 1849.

My dearest Uncle,—You will, I am sure, share our joy at
Ernest’s wonderful success at Eckerforde.⁷ It is a marvellous
piece of good fortune pour son baptême de feu, but it alarmed
and agitated us all to think that he might have been wounded,
to say the least, for he had his horse killed under him. At all
events, he has done honour to the poor race to which he
belongs, and it makes us both very happy. I think it will tend
decidedly to shorten the war. Poor dear Alexandrine! in
what anxiety she will have been.

The victory of Novara⁸ seems to have been one of the hardest
[page 219]
fought and most brilliant battles known for years and years,
and old Radetzky says that he must name every individual
if he was to do justice to officers and men. But the loss
was very severe. The regiment of Kinsky lost twenty-four
officers! The Archduke Albert distinguished himself exceedingly,
which is worthy of his noble father. I could work
myself up to a great excitement about these exploits, for
there is nothing I admire more than great military exploits
and daring.

Footnote 7: In this engagement with the Danes, arising out of the Schleswig-Holstein dispute,
Prince Ernest greatly distinguished himself.

Footnote 8: In which Marshal Radetzky defeated the Piedmontese.

Queen Victoria to the Duke of Wellington.

THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON

1st May 1849.

The Queen cannot let this day pass without offering to the
Duke of Wellington her warmest and sincerest wishes for
many happy returns of this day. She hopes the Duke will
place the accompanying trifle on his table, and that it will
recall to his mind one who ever reflects with gratitude on
the services he has rendered and always does render to his
Sovereign and his country.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Buckingham Palace, 8th May 1849.

My dearest Uncle,—Alas! poor Germany, I am wretched
about her; those news from Dresden are very distressing.⁹
Really with such an excellent man as the poor King, it is too
wicked to do what they have done. If only some sort of
arrangement could be made; then afterwards there might be
modifications, both in the Constitution, etc., for that Constitution
never will work well.

Our Navigation Laws debate in the House of Lords began
last night, and is to be concluded to-night. There seems to be
almost a certainty that there will be a majority, though a very
small one, and the danger of course exists that any accident
may turn it the other way.

Knowing your esteem for our worthy friend, Sir Robert Peel,
you will, I am sure, be glad to hear that his second son, Frederick,¹⁰
made such a beautiful speech—his maiden speech—in the
[page 220]
House of Commons last night; he was complimented by every
one, and Sir Robert was delighted. I am so glad for him, and
also rejoice to see that there is a young man who promises to
be of use hereafter to his country.

Albert is again gone to lay a first stone. It is a delight to
hear people speak of the good he does by always saying and
doing the right thing….

Footnote 9: The King of Prussia, finding Saxony, Bavaria, Würtemberg, and Hanover opposed
to the ascendency of Prussia in the Confederation, declined the Imperial Crown of Germany;
fresh disturbances thereupon ensued, and at Dresden, the King of Saxony had to
take refuge in a fortress.

Footnote 10: Afterwards the Right Hon. Sir Frederick Peel, who died in 1906.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Buckingham Palace, 22nd May 1849.

My dearest Uncle,—I could not write to you yesterday,
my time having been so entirely taken up by kind visitors, etc.,
and I trust you will forgive these hurried lines written just
before our departure for Osborne.¹¹ I hope that you will not
have been alarmed by the account of the occurrence which
took place on Saturday, and which I can assure you did not
alarm me at all. This time it is quite clear that it was a
wanton and wicked wish merely to frighten, which is very
wrong, and will be tried and punished as a misdemeanour. The
account in the Times is quite correct. The indignation,
loyalty, and affection this act has called forth is very gratifying
and touching.

Alice gives a very good account of it, and Lenchen¹² even
says, “Man shot, tried to shoot dear Mamma, must be punished.”
They, Affie, and Miss Macdonald were with me.
Albert was riding, and had just returned before me. Augustus
and Clém had left us just two hours before….

Many thanks for your kind letter of the 19th. What a state
Germany is in!—I mean Baden, but I hope that this violent
crisis may lead to good.

I must conclude. Ever your truly devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 11: The Queen, while driving down Constitution Hill, was fired at by one William Hamilton,
the pistol being charged only with powder. He was tried under the Act of 1842,
and sentenced to seven years’ transportation.

Footnote 12: Princess Helena (now Princess Christian), born 25th May 1846.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

ANNEXATION OF THE PUNJAB

Osborne, 26th May 1849.

The Queen has to say, in answer to Lord John Russell’s
communication respecting India, that she quite approves the
annexation of the Punjab, and is pleased to find that the
[page 221]
Government concur in this view. The elevation of Lord Dalhousie
to a Marquisate is well deserved, and almost the only
thing that can be offered him as a reward for his services; but
considering his want of fortune, the Queen thinks that it
should be ascertained in the first instance whether the increase
of rank will be convenient to him. Lord Gough’s elevation to
the dignity of Viscount has the Queen’s sanction.

Lord John Russell to the Prince Albert.

FOREIGN OFFICE BUSINESS

Chesham Place, 19th June 1849.

Sir,—I have spoken to Lord Palmerston respecting the draft
to Mr Buchanan.¹³

It appears that he converted it into a private letter, as I
suggested, but he thought fit to place it on record, as it contained
information derived from authentic sources, and of
importance.

It appears the drafts are still sent to the Queen at the same
time as to me, so that my remarks or corrections, or even the
cancelling of a despatch, as not infrequently happens, may
take effect after the Queen’s pleasure has been taken.

This appears to me an inconvenient course.

Lord Palmerston alleges that as 28,000 despatches were
received and sent last year, much expedition is required; but
he professes himself ready to send the despatches to me in the
first instance, if the Queen should desire it.

It appears to me that all our despatches ought to be thoroughly
considered, but that Her Majesty should give every
facility to the transaction of business by attending to the
drafts as soon as possible after their arrival.

I would suggest therefore that the drafts should have my
concurrence before they are submitted to the Queen, and in
case of any material change, that I should write to apprise
Her Majesty of my views, and, if necessary, submit my reasons,
I have the honour to be, your Royal Highness’s most obedient
Servant,

J. Russell.

Footnote 13: Mr (afterwards Sir) Andrew Buchanan (1807-1882), Secretary of Legation at St.
Petersburg.

The Prince Albert to Lord John Russell.

THE QUEEN AND PALMERSTON

20th June 1849.

My dear Lord John,—Your proposal with respect to the
mode of taking the Queen’s pleasure about the drafts is perfectly
[page 222]
agreeable to the Queen. She would only require that
she would not be pressed for an answer within a few minutes,
as is now done sometimes.

Lord Palmerston could always manage so that there are
twelve or twenty-four hours left for reference to you, and
consideration, and there are few instances in which business
would suffer from so short a delay. As Lord Palmerston
knows when the Mails go, he has only to write in time for
them, and he must recollect that the 28,000 despatches in the
year come to you and to the Queen as well as to himself.

Should the Queen in future have to make any remark, she
will make it to you, if that will suit you. Ever yours truly,

Albert.

Lord John Russell to Viscount Palmerston.

21st June 1849.

My dear Palmerston,—I wrote the substance of what you
wrote to me to the Prince, and proposed that the drafts should,
in the first instance, be sent to me. You will see by the enclosed
letter from the Prince that the Queen approves of this
proposal.

It may somewhat abridge the circuit if, when I have no
remark to make, I forward the drafts with the Foreign Office
direction to the Queen at once.

I cannot pretend to say that I paid the same attention to
the 28,000 despatches of 1848 that you are obliged to do.
Still I agree in the Prince’s remark that directions to Foreign
Ministers ought to be very maturely weighed, for the Queen
and the Government speak to foreign nations in this and no
other manner. Yours truly,

J. Russell.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN

Buckingham Palace, 21st June 1849.

The Queen returns the enclosed drafts, which she will not
further object to, but she feels it necessary to say a few words
in answer to Lord Palmerston’s letter. The union of Schleswig
and Holstein¹⁴ is not an ideal one, but complete as to Constitution,
Finance, Customs, Jurisdiction, Church, Universities,
Poor Law, Settlement, Debts, etc., etc., etc. It is not established
by the Kings-Dukes, but has existed for centuries. To
[page 223]
defend Holstein against the attack made by Denmark upon
this union, Germany joined the war. It is true that it is now
proposed in the new Constitution for Germany to consent to
the separation of Schleswig and Holstein, although last year
the Frankfort Parliament had desired the incorporation of
Schleswig into Germany with Holstein; but the question for
Germany is now not to begin a war, but to close one by a
lasting peace. In this she has, in the Queen’s opinion, a right
and a duty to see that the independence of Schleswig is secured
before she abandons that country. The comparison with
Saxony does not hold good for a moment, for the Schleswig
Revolution was not directed against the Duke, but against
the King of Denmark, who invaded the rights of the Duke of
Schleswig-Holstein; the assistance of Prussia could therefore
not be given to Denmark, but to Schleswig-Holstein. The
case of Hungary has neither any similitude. Hungary is not
to be torn from its connection with the German States by the
Austrian Government, but just the reverse.

Lord Palmerston cannot be more anxious for a speedy
termination of the Danish war than the Queen is, but she
thinks that the mediation will not effect this as long as the
mediating power merely watches which of the two parties is
in the greatest difficulties for the moment, and urges it to give
way; but by a careful and anxious discovery of the rights of
the question and a steady adherence to the recommendation
that what is right and fair ought to be done. The cause of the
war having been the unlawful attempt to incorporate Schleswig
into Denmark, the peace cannot be lasting unless it contains
sufficient guarantees against the resumption of that scheme.¹⁵

Footnote 14: Schleswig had been claimed by Germany as an integral part of her territory, and a war
between Germany and Denmark was in progress.

Footnote 15: In reply, Lord Palmerston expressed entire concurrence in the justice of the principles
which the Queen indicated as being those which ought to guide a mediating Power.

Lord John Russell to the Earl of Clarendon.

PROPOSED VISIT TO IRELAND

23rd June 1849.

I have the satisfaction to inform your Excellency that I
have received the Queen’s commands to acquaint you that Her
Majesty hopes to be able in the course of the present summer
to fulfil the intention, which you are aware she has long entertained,
of a visit to Ireland. The general distress unfortunately
still prevalent in Ireland precludes the Queen from visiting
Dublin in state, and thereby causing ill-timed expenditure and
inconvenience to her subjects; yet Her Majesty does not wish
to let another year pass without visiting a part of her dominions
which she has for so long a time been anxious personally
[page 224]
to become acquainted with. She accordingly will, at some
sacrifice of personal convenience, take a longer sea voyage,
for the purpose of visiting in the first instance the Cove of
Cork, and from thence proceed along the Irish coast to Dublin.
After remaining there a few days, during which time Her
Majesty will be the guest of your Excellency, she would
continue her cruise along the Irish coast northward and visit
Belfast, and from thence cross to Scotland. Although the
precise time of Her Majesty’s visit cannot yet be fixed, it will
probably take place as early in August as the termination of
the session of Parliament will permit, and I feel assured that
this early announcement of her intentions will be received
with great satisfaction by Her Majesty’s loyal and faithful
subjects in Ireland.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

Osborne, 19th July 1849.

The Queen has received Lord John Russell’s letters. She
returns Lord Clarendon’s, and the very kind one of the Primate.¹⁶

With respect to Lord Clarendon’s suggestion that the Prince
of Wales should be created Duke, or rather, as Lord John says,
Earl of Dublin—the Queen thinks it is a matter for consideration
whether such an act should follow the Queen’s visit as a
compliment to Ireland, but she is decidedly of opinion that it
should not precede it.

We are sorry that Lord John does not intend going to Ireland,
but fully comprehend his wishes to remain quiet for
three weeks. We shall be very glad to see him at Balmoral on
the 20th or 22nd of August.

We hope Lady John and the baby continue to go on well.

Footnote 16: Lord John George de la Poer Beresford (1773-1862) was Archbishop of Armagh from
1822 until his death.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

ARRIVAL IN DUBLIN

Lodge, Phœnix Park, 6th August 1849.

My dearest Uncle,—Though this letter will only go to-morrow,
I will begin it to-day and tell you that everything has
gone off beautifully since we arrived in Ireland, and that our
entrance into Dublin was really a magnificent thing. By my
letter to Louise you will have heard of our arrival in the Cove
of Cork. Our visit to Cork was very successful; the Mayor
[page 225]
was knighted on deck (on board the Fairy), like in times of old.
Cork is about seventeen miles up the River Lee, which is beautifully
wooded and reminds us of Devonshire scenery. We had
previously stepped on shore at Cove, a small place, to enable
them to call it Queen’s Town; the enthusiasm is immense,
and at Cork there was more firing than I remember since the
Rhine.

THE IRISH VISIT

We left Cork with fair weather, but a head sea and contrary
wind which made it rough and me very sick.

7th.—I was unable to continue till now, and have since received
your kind letter, for which I return my warmest thanks.
We went into Waterford Harbour on Saturday afternoon,
which is likewise a fine, large, safe harbour. Albert went up
to Waterford in the Fairy, but I did not. The next morning
we received much the same report of the weather which we had
done at Cork, viz. that the weather was fair but the wind contrary.
However we went out, as it could not be helped, and
we might have remained there some days for no use. The first
three hours were very nasty, but afterwards it cleared and the
evening was beautiful. The entrance at seven o’clock into
Kingston Harbour was splendid; we came in with ten steamers,
and the whole harbour, wharf, and every surrounding place
was covered with thousands and thousands of people, who
received us with the greatest enthusiasm. We disembarked
yesterday morning at ten o’clock, and took two hours to come
here. The most perfect order was maintained in spite of the
immense mass of people assembled, and a more good-humoured
crowd I never saw, but noisy and excitable beyond belief,
talking, jumping, and shrieking instead of cheering. There
were numbers of troops out, and it really was a wonderful
scene. This is a very pretty place, and the house reminds me
of dear Claremont. The view of the Wicklow Mountains from
the windows is very beautiful, and the whole park is very
extensive and full of very fine trees.

We drove out yesterday afternoon and were followed by
jaunting-cars and riders and people running and screaming,
which would have amused you. In the evening we had a
dinner party, and so we have to-night. This morning we
visited the Bank, the Model School (where the Protestant and
Catholic Archbishops received us), and the College, and this
afternoon we went to the Military Hospital. To-morrow we
have a Levée, where 1,700 are to be presented, and the next
day a Review, and in the evening the Drawing-Room, when
900 ladies are to be presented.

George¹⁷ is here, and has a command here. He rode on one
[page 226]
side of our carriage yesterday. You see more ragged and
wretched people here than I ever saw anywhere else. En
revanche, the women are really very handsome—quite in the
lowest class—as well at Cork as here; such beautiful black
eyes and hair and such fine colours and teeth.

I must now take my leave. Ever your most affectionate
Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 17: The late Duke of Cambridge.

The Earl of Clarendon to Sir George Grey.

Vice-Regal Lodge, 14th August 1849.

My dear Grey,—If I had known where to direct I should
have thanked you sooner for your two welcome letters from
Belfast, where everything seems to have gone off to our hearts’
desire, and the Queen’s presence, as the Stipendiary Magistrate
writes word, has united all classes and parties in a manner
incredible to those who know the distance at which they have
hitherto been kept asunder.

The enthusiasm here has not abated, and there is not an
individual in Dublin that does not take as a personal compliment
to himself the Queen’s having gone upon the paddle-box
and having ordered the Royal Standard to be lowered
three times.

Even the ex-Clubbists,¹⁸ who threatened broken heads and
windows before the Queen came, are now among the most
loyal of her subjects, and are ready, according to the police
reports, to fight any one who dare say a disrespectful word of
Her Majesty.

In short, the people are not only enchanted with the Queen
and the gracious kindness of her manner and the confidence
she has shown in them, but they are pleased with themselves
for their own good feelings and behaviour, which they consider
have removed the barrier that hitherto existed between
the Sovereign and themselves, and that they now occupy a
higher position in the eyes of the world. Friend Bright was
with me to-day, and said he would not for the world have
missed seeing the embarkation at Kingston, for he had felt
just the same enthusiasm as the rest of the crowd. “Indeed,”
he added, “I’ll defy any man to have felt otherwise when he
saw the Queen come upon the platform and bow to the people
in a manner that showed her heart was with them.” He
didn’t disguise either that the Monarchical principle had made
great way with him since Friday. Ever yours truly,

Clarendon.

Footnote 18: Seditious clubs had been an important factor in the Irish disturbances of 1848.

[page 227]

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

BREVET PROMOTIONS

Osborne, 3rd October 1849.

The Queen has received Lord John Russell’s explanation
respecting the brevet promotions on the occasion of her visit
to Ireland, but cannot say that his objections have convinced
her of the impropriety of such a promotion (to a limited extent).
To Lord John’s fears of the dangerous consequences of the
precedent, the Queen has only to answer, that there can be
only one first visit to Ireland, and that the first visit to
Scotland
in 1842 was followed by a few promotions, without this entailing
promotions on her subsequent visits to that part of the country;
that even the first visit to the Channel Islands was followed by
a few promotions, and this under Lord John’s Government.
All the precedents being in accordance with the proposition
made by the Duke, an opposition on the part of the Government
would imply a declaration against all brevets except in the
field, which would deprive the Crown of a most valuable prerogative.
If such a brevet as the one proposed were to lead to
great additional expense, the Queen could understand the objection
on the ground of economy; but the giving brevet rank
to a few subaltern officers is too trifling a matter to alarm the
Government. Perhaps the number might be reduced even,
but to deviate from the established precedents for the first time
altogether in this case, and that after the excellent behaviour
of the Army in Ireland under very trying circumstances, would
be felt as a great injustice.

The Queen therefore wishes Lord John to ask the Duke to
send him the former precedents and to consider with his
colleagues whether a modified recommendation cannot be laid
before her.¹⁹

Footnote 19: The Duke of Wellington had submitted a list of Officers for brevet promotion, which
received the Queen’s sanction; but the list was afterwards reduced.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

Woburn Abbey, 4th October 1849.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and will consider, in communication with the Duke of Wellington,
whether any modified list can be proposed by him to your
Majesty.

The economy, as your Majesty truly observes, is not a matter
of much consideration. But to reward Officers on the Staff,
who are already favoured by being placed on the Staff in Ireland,
[page 228]
is a practice which tends but too much to encourage the
opinion that promotions in the Army and Navy are given not
to merit, but to aristocratical connection and official favour.

In the midst of the degradation of Thrones which the last
two years have seen in Europe, it will be well if the English
Crown preserves all its just prerogatives, and has only to relinquish
some customary abuses, which are not useful to the
Sovereign, and are only an equivocal advantage to the Ministers
of the day.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

A PUBLIC THANKSGIVING

Windsor Castle, 31st October 1849.

The Queen has just received Lord John Russell’s letter, and
was much rejoiced at everything having gone off so well yesterday;²⁰
she was very much annoyed at being unable to go
herself, and that the untoward chicken-pox should have come
at this moment; she is, however, quite recovered, though still
much marked.

With respect to the proposition about the Thanksgiving, the
Queen quite approves of it, and (if it is generally preferred) that
it should be on a week-day. As to the Bishop of London’s
proposal,²¹ the Queen thinks that Lord John may have misunderstood
him; she supposes that he meant that she should
attend some place of public worship, and not in her domestic
chapel, in order to join in the public demonstration. The
Queen is quite ready to go with her Court to St George’s Chapel
here; but she would like it to take place on an earlier day than
the 27th of November, when she would probably be already in
the Isle of Wight, where we think of going as usual on the 22nd
or 23rd.

Footnote 20: The ceremony of opening the new Coal Exchange, at which, besides Prince Albert,
the Prince of Wales and Princess Royal were present.

Footnote 21: There had been a severe epidemic of cholera in the country. In twelve months 14,000
deaths, in London alone, were due to this malady. The 15th of November was appointed
for a general Day of Thanksgiving for its cessation, and the Bishop of London had suggested
that the Queen should attend a public service at St Paul’s. Lord John Russell
was in favour of Westminster Abbey.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

POSITION OF GERMANY

Eaton Square, 29th November 1849.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty.
In answer to your Majesty’s enquiry, he has to state that a very
short conversation took place in the Cabinet on the affairs of
[page 229]
Germany upon an enquiry of Lord John Russell whether the
Diet of Erfurt²² might not be considered a violation of the
Treaties of 1815. Lord Palmerston thought not, but had not
examined the question.

The affairs of Germany are in a critical position; Austria
will oppose anything which tends to aggrandise Prussia; Prussia
will oppose anything which tends to free Government; and
France will oppose anything which tends to strengthen Germany.
Still, all these powers might be disregarded were
Germany united, but it is obvious that Bavaria and Würtemberg
look to Austria and France for support, while Hanover and
Saxony will give a very faint assistance to a Prussian League.

The matter is very critical, but probably will not lead to war.

Footnote 22: In order to effect the consolidation of Germany, the King of Prussia had summoned
a Federal Parliament to meet at Erfurt.

Viscount Palmerston to Queen Victoria.

Foreign Office, 30th November 1849.

Viscount Palmerston presents his humble duty to your
Majesty, and in reply to your Majesty’s enquiry as to what the
measures would be which Sir William Parker²³ would have
to take in order to support Mr Wyse’s²⁴ demands for redress
for certain wrongs sustained by British and Ionian subjects,
begs to say that the ordinary and accustomed method of
enforcing such demands is by reprisals—that is to say, by
seizing some vessels and property of the party which refuses
redress,²⁵ and retaining possession thereof until redress is
granted.

Another method is the blockading of the ports of the party
by whom redress is refused, and by interrupting commercial
intercourse to cause inconvenience and loss. Viscount Palmerston,
however, does not apprehend that any active measures of
this kind will be required, but rather expects that when the
Greek Government finds that the demand is made in earnest,
and that means are at hand to enforce it, satisfaction will at
last be given. The refusal of the Greek Government to satisfy
these claims, and the offensive neglect with which they have
treated the applications of your Majesty’s representative at
Athens have, as Viscount Palmerston is convinced, been the
result of a belief that the British Government never would take
any real steps in order to press these matters to a settlement.

Footnote 23: Commanding the Mediterranean Fleet.

Footnote 24: British Envoy at Athens.

Footnote 25: See Introductory Note for 1850, post, p. 231.

[page 230]

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

DEATH OF QUEEN ADELAIDE

Osborne, 11th December 1849.

My dearest Uncle,—Thank you much for your kind letter
of the 6th; you will have received mine of the 4th shortly after
you wrote. I know how you would mourn with us over the
death of our beloved Queen Adelaide. We have lost the kindest
and dearest of friends, and the universal feeling of sorrow,
of regret, and of real appreciation of her character is very touching
and gratifying. All parties, all classes, join in doing her
justice. Much was done to set Mamma against her, but the
dear Queen ever forgave this, ever showed love and affection,
and for the last eight years their friendship was as great as
ever. Ever yours affectionately,

Victoria R.

[page 231]

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

TO CHAPTER XIX

The Ministry were still (1850) able, relying on the support of Sir
Robert Peel, to resist the attacks of the Protectionists in the House
of Commons, though their majority on a critical occasion fell to
twenty-one; but they were rehabilitated by the discussions on
foreign policy. One Don Pacifico, a Portuguese Jew, a native of
Gibraltar and a British subject, had had his house in Athens pillaged
by a mob; he, with Mr Finlay, the historian, who had a money claim
against the Greek Government, instead of establishing their claims
in the local courts, sought the intervention of the home Government;
Lord Palmerston, whose relations with the Court were even more
strained than usual, resolved to make a hostile demonstration against
Greece, and a fleet was sent to the Piræus with a peremptory demand
for settlement. The House of Lords condemned this high-handed
action, but a friendly motion of confidence was made in the Commons,
and Lord Palmerston had an extraordinary triumph, by a
majority of forty-six, notwithstanding that the ablest men outside
the Ministry spoke against him, and that his unsatisfactory relations
with the Queen were about to culminate in a severe reprimand.

Sir Robert Peel’s speech in this debate proved to be his last public
utterance, his premature death, resulting from a fall from his horse,
taking place a few days later; Louis Philippe, who had been living
in retirement at Claremont, passed away about the same time.
Another attack on the Queen, this time a blow with a cane, was made
by one Robert Pate, an ex-officer and well-connected; the plea of
insanity was not established, and Pate was transported.

Public attention was being drawn to the projected Exhibition in
Hyde Park, Prince Albert making a memorable speech at the Mansion
House in support of the scheme; the popular voice had not been
unanimous in approval, and subscriptions had hung fire, but henceforward
matters improved, and Mr Paxton’s design for a glass and
iron structure was accepted and proceeded with.

The friction with Lord Palmerston was again increased by his
action in respect to General Haynau, an Austrian whose cruelty had
been notorious, and who was assaulted by some of the employés at a
London brewery. The Foreign Office note to the Austrian Government
nearly brought about Palmerston’s resignation, which was
much desired by the Queen.

At the close of the year the whole country was in a ferment at the
[page 232]
issue of a Papal Brief, re-establishing the hierarchy of Bishops in
England with local titles derived from their sees; and Cardinal
Wiseman, thenceforward Archbishop of Westminster, by issuing a
pastoral letter on the subject, made matters worse. The Protestant
spirit was aroused, the two Universities presented petitions, and the
Prime Minister, in a letter to the Bishop of Durham, helped to fan the
“No Popery” flame. Just at a time when a coalition of Whigs and
Peelites was beginning to be possible, an Ecclesiastical Titles Bill,
almost fatal to mutual confidence, became necessary.

[page 233]

CHAPTER XIX

1850

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Windsor Castle, 5th February 1850.

My dear Uncle,—We had the house full for three days
last week on account of our theatrical performances on Friday,
which went off extremely well. The Grand Duchess Stephanie
was here, très aimable, and not altered. She spoke much of
Germany and of politics, and of you in the highest terms—”Comme
le Roi Léopold s’est bien tenu”—and that she had
mentioned this at Claremont, and then felt shocked at it, but
that the poor King had answered: “Il avait mon exemple
devant lui, et il en a profité!” She thought the whole family
très digne in their malheur, but was struck with the melancholy
effect of the whole thing.

Our affairs have gone off extremely well in Parliament, and
the Protectionists have received an effective check; the question
of the Corn Laws seems indeed settled. This is of great
importance, as it puts a stop to the excitement and expectations
of the farmers, which have been falsely kept up by the
aristocracy….

I must now conclude. Ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Viscount Palmerston to Lord John Russell.

Carlton Gardens, 15th February 1850.

My dear John Russell,—I have altered this draft so as I
think to meet the views of the Queen and of yourself in regard
to the continuance of the suspension.¹ I should not like to
put into a despatch an instruction to accept less than we have
demanded, because that would imply what I don’t think to be
the fact, viz. that we have demanded more than is due. If the
demands were for the British Government, we might forego
[page 234]
what portions we might like to give up, but we have no right
to be easy and generous with the rights and claims of other
people. Besides, if we get anything, we shall get all. The
whole amount is quite within the power of the Greek Government
to pay. Yours sincerely,

Palmerston.

Footnote 1: I.e. of hostilities against the Greek Government, designed to extract compensation
for the injuries inflicted on British subjects. See ante, p. 231.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

THE DRAFT TO GREECE

Buckingham Palace, 17th February 1850.

The Queen sent the day before yesterday the proposed draft
to Mr Wyse back to Lord Palmerston, enclosing a Memorandum
from Lord John Russell, and telling Lord Palmerston “that
she entirely concurred with Lord John, and wished the draft
to be altered accordingly.” She has not yet received an answer
from Lord Palmerston, but just hears from Lord John, in answer
to her enquiry about it, that Lord Palmerston has sent the
draft off unaltered.² The Queen must remark upon this sort of
proceeding, of which this is not the first instance, and plainly
tell Lord Palmerston that this must not happen again. Lord
Palmerston has a perfect right to state to the Queen his reasons
for disagreeing with her views, and will always have found her
ready to listen to his reasons; but she cannot allow a servant
of the Crown and her Minister to act contrary to her orders, and
this without her knowledge.

Footnote 2: See Ashley’s Palmerston, vol. i. chap. v.

Viscount Palmerston to Queen Victoria.

PALMERSTON’S EXPLANATION

Carlton Gardens. 17th February 1850.

Viscount Palmerston presents his humble duty to your
Majesty, and in reply to your Majesty’s communication of this
day, he begs to state that upon receiving, the day before yesterday,
your Majesty’s Memorandum on the proposed draft to
Mr Wyse, together with the accompanying Memorandum³
from Lord John Russell, he altered the draft, and sent it
to Lord John Russell, and received it back from Lord
John Russell with the accompanying note in answer to that
which he wrote to Lord John Russell. It was important
that the messenger should go off that evening, and the time
occupied in these communications rendered it just, but barely,
possible to despatch the messenger by the mail train of that
evening. The despatch thus altered coincided with the views
[page 235]
of your Majesty and Lord John Russell as to the question in
regard to the length of time during which reprisals should be
suspended to give scope for the French negotiation. The other
question as to giving Mr Wyse a latitude of discretion to entertain
any proposition which might be made to him by the Greek
Government was considered by the Cabinet at its meeting
yesterday afternoon, and Viscount Palmerston gave Mr Wyse
a latitude of that kind in regard to the claim of Mr Pacifico,
the only one to which that question could apply, in a despatch
which he sent by the overland Mediterranean mail which went
off yesterday afternoon. That despatch also contained some
instructions as to the manner in which Mr Wyse is to communicate
with Baron Gros,⁴ and those instructions were the
result of a conversation which Viscount Palmerston had with
the French Ambassador after the meeting of the Cabinet.
Viscount Palmerston was only waiting for a copy of the despatch
of yesterday evening, which, owing to this day being
Sunday, he has not yet received, in order to send to your
Majesty the altered draft of yesterday evening, with an
explanation of the circumstances which rendered it impossible
to submit them to your Majesty before they were sent off.⁵

Footnote 3: Lord John Russell’s opinion was that three weeks should be allowed to Mr Wyse and
Sir W. Parker to accept terms as satisfactory as they could obtain, and that Sir W. Parker
should not be obliged to resume coercive measures, if the concessions of the Greek Government
should appear to afford a prospect of a speedy settlement of the affair.

Footnote 4: Baron Gros was the Commissioner despatched by the French Government to Athens
to assist in arranging the dispute.

Footnote 5: See subsequent correspondence between Lord John and Lord Palmerston, Walpole’s
Russell, vol. ii. chap. xix.

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

RE-ARRANGEMENT SUGGESTED

Windsor Castle, 3rd March 1850.

Before leaving Town yesterday we saw Lord John Russell,
who came to state what had passed with reference to Lord
Palmerston. He premised that Lord Palmerston had at all
times been a most agreeable and accommodating colleague;
that he had acted with Lord John ever since 1831, and had not
only never made any difficulty, but acted most boldly and in
the most spirited manner on all political questions; besides,
he was very popular with the Radical part of the House of
Commons as well as with the Protectionist, so that both would
be ready to receive him as their Leader; he (Lord John) was
therefore most anxious to do nothing which could hurt Lord
Palmerston’s feelings, nor to bring about a disruption of the
Whig Party, which at this moment of Party confusion was the
only one which still held together. On the other hand, the
fact that the Queen distrusted Lord Palmerston was a serious
impediment to the carrying on of the Government. Lord John
was therefore anxious to adopt a plan by which Lord Palmerston’s
[page 236]
services could be retained with his own goodwill, and
the Foreign Affairs entrusted to other hands. The only plan
he could think of was to give Lord Palmerston the lead in the
House of Commons—the highest position a statesman could
aspire to—and to go himself to the House of Lords. He had
communicated his views to Lord Lansdowne, who agreed in
them, and thought he could do nothing better than speak
to Lord Palmerston at once. Lord Palmerston said that he
could not have helped to have become aware that he had
forfeited the Queen’s confidence, but he thought this had not
been on personal grounds, but merely on account of his line
of policy, with which the Queen disagreed. (The Queen
interrupted Lord John by remarking that she distrusted
him on personal grounds also, but I remarked that Lord
Palmerston had so far at least seen rightly; that he had
become disagreeable to the Queen, not on account of his person,
but of his political doings, to which the Queen assented.)
Lord Palmerston appeared to Lord John willing to enter into
this agreement.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL’S PLAN

On the question how the Foreign Office should be filled,
Lord John said that he thought his father-in-law, Lord Minto,
ought to take the Foreign Office…. As the Queen was somewhat
startled by this announcement, I said I thought that
would not go down with the public. After Lord Palmerston’s
removal (who was considered one of the ablest men in the
country) he ought not to be replaced but by an equally able
statesman; the Office was of enormous importance, and ought
not to be entrusted to any one but Lord John himself or Lord
Clarendon. On the Queen’s enquiry why Lord Clarendon had
not been proposed for it, Lord John said he was most anxious
that the change of the Minister should not produce a change
in the general line of policy which he considered to have been
quite right, and that Lord Clarendon did not approve of it;
somehow or other he never could agree with Lord Clarendon
on Foreign Affairs; he thought Lord Clarendon very anti-French
and for an alliance with Austria and Russia. The
Queen replied she knew Lord Clarendon’s bad opinion of the
mode in which the Foreign Affairs had been conducted, and
thought that a merit in him, but did not think him Austrian
or Russian, but merely disapproving of Lord Palmerston’s
behaviour. I urged Lord John to take the Foreign Affairs
himself, which he said would have to be done if the Queen did
not wish Lord Minto to take them; he himself would be able
to do the business when in the House of Lords, although he
would undertake it unwillingly; with the business in the
House of Commons it would have been impossible for him.

[page 237]

The Queen insisted on his trying it with a seat in the House of
Lords, adding that, if he found it too much for him, he could
at a later period perhaps make the Department over to Lord
Clarendon.

I could not help remarking that it was a serious risk to
entrust Lord Palmerston with the lead in the House of
Commons, that it might be that the Government were defeated
and, if once in opposition, Lord Palmerston might take
a different line as leader of the Opposition from that which
Lord John would like, and might so easily force himself back
into office as Prime Minister. Lord John, however, although
admitting that danger, thought Lord Palmerston too old to
do much in the future (having passed his sixty-fifth year); he
admitted that Sir George Grey was the natural leader of the
Commons, but expected that a little later the lead would still
fall into his hands.

The arrangements of the Offices as proposed would be that
Lord Palmerston would take the Home Office, and Sir George
Grey the Colonial Office, and Lord Grey vacate this office for
the Privy Seal. If Lord Minto, however, was not to have
the Foreign Office, the arrangement must be recast. Lord
Clarendon would become Secretary of State for Ireland, after
the abolition of the Lord-Lieutenancy. Possibly also Sir
George Grey might take the office, and Lord Clarendon take
the Colonies, which Lord Grey would be glad to be rid of. On
my observing that I had thought the Colonies would have done
best for Lord Palmerston, leaving Sir George Grey at the Home
Office, Lord John acknowledged that he would likewise prefer
this arrangement, but considered it rendered impossible from
its having been the very thing Lord Grey had proposed in
1845, and upon which the attempt to form a Whig Government
at that time had broken down, Lord Palmerston having refused
to enter the Cabinet on those terms. Lord John ended by
saying that Lord Palmerston having agreed to the change, it
was intended that nothing should be done about it till after
the close of the Session, in order to avoid debates and questions
on the subject; moreover, Lord Lansdowne had agreed to
continue still this Session his labours as Leader in the House
of Lords, and begged for the utmost secrecy at present.

Albert.

Lord John Russell already last year had spoken to me of
his wish to go to the House of Lords, finding the work in the
House of Commons, together with his other business, too much
for him, and Lord Lansdowne being desirous to be relieved
from the lead in the Upper House.

Albert.

[page 238]

Memorandum by Baron Stockmar.⁶

THE QUEEN’S ULTIMATUM

12th March 1850.

The least the Queen has a right to require of her Minister
is:—

1. That he will distinctly state what he proposes in a given
case, in order that the Queen may know as distinctly to what
she has to give her royal sanction.

2. Having given once her sanction to a measure, the Minister
who, in the execution of such measure alters or modifies it
arbitrarily, commits an act of dishonesty towards the Crown,
which the Queen has an undoubted constitutional right to
visit with the dismissal of that Minister.

Stockmar.

Footnote 6: Compare this with the Memorandum ultimately drawn up on the 12th of August.

Queen Victoria to the Marquis of Lansdowne.

Buckingham Palace, 16th March 1850.

The Queen wishes to remark to Lord Lansdowne, that his
answer to Lord Stanley in the House of Lords last night might
possibly lead to the misapprehension that Lord Palmerston’s
delay in sending the despatch to Mr Wyse had been caused by
the time it took to get the Queen’s approval of it. She must
protest against such an inference being drawn, as being
contrary to the fact, Lord Palmerston indeed having sent out
in the first instance a different despatch from that which she
had approved.

The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

THE QUEEN’S ULTIMATUM

Laeken, 25th March 1850.

My dearest Victoria,— … King Louis Philippe seems
better, but still he is evidently breaking; there is no wonder
when one considers all he has gone through, and is still to suffer!
No one can tell a day [ahead] what may happen in France, and
if all the family have, which is but⁷ in France, may not be
confiscated. The thirst for spoliation is great; the people
who lead have no other view, they are not fanatics, their aim
is to rise and to enrich themselves; the remainder is mere
humbug, exactly as you have it very near home. Never was
there a nation in a worse and a more helpless state, and the
numerous parties who will not unite render all solutions impossible,
and the republic will be maintained for that very
reason. It is but a name and no substance, but that name of
[page 239]
republic encourages every extravagant or desperate proceeding,
and turns people’s heads in the old monarchies; every doctor
or magistrate sees himself president of some republic, and the
ambitions of so many people who see all the impediments which
existed formerly removed, and who, according to their own
opinion, are wonderful people, will be insatiable and much
more dangerous than you imagine in England. On the Continent
every man thinks himself fit to be at the head of the
Government; there is no political measure or scale, and the
success of some bookseller or doctor or advocate, etc., turns
the heads of all those in similar positions—on ne doute de rien.
When you consider that a banqueroutier like Ledru Rollin⁸
ruled over France for six months almost with absolute power,
merely because he took it, you may imagine how many thousands,
even of workmen, cooks, stage people, etc., look to be
taken to rule over their fellow-citizens; toujours convaincu
de leur propre mérite. I am happy to see that you escaped a
ministerial crisis; the peril was great, and it would have been
dreadful for you at such a moment.

Albert made a fine long speech, I see.⁹ Did he read it? ex
tempore, it would have been very trying. I trust we may come
to that unity of mankind of which he speaks, and of universal
peace which our friend Richard Cobden considers as very near
at hand; if, however, the red benefactors of mankind at Paris
get the upper hand, universal war will be the order of the day.
We are so strongly convinced of this that we are very seriously
occupied with the means of defence which this country can
afford, and we imagine that if we are not abandoned by our
friends, it will be impossible to force our positions on the
Schelde.

I must now quickly conclude. Remaining ever, my beloved
Victoria, your devoted Uncle,

Leopold R.

Footnote 7: I.e. “only.”

Footnote 8: He was President in 1848.

Footnote 9: At the Mansion House banquet to the Commissioners for the Exhibition of 1851.
See quotation from it in Sir T. Martin’s Life, vol. ii, p. 247.

BARON STOCKMAR.

From the portrait by John Partridge at Buckingham Palace

To face p. 240, Vol. II.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

Buckingham Palace, 25th March 1850.

The Queen approves these drafts, but thinks that in the
part alluding to M. Pacifico, should be added a direction to
Mr Wyse to satisfy himself of the truth of M. Pacifico’s statements
of losses before he grounds his demands upon them.¹⁰
[page 240]
The draft merely allows a sub-division of the claims, but takes
their validity for granted.

Footnote 10: Don Pacifico claimed £31,500—£4,900 being for effects destroyed, and £26,600 in
respect of certain claims against the Portuguese Government, the vouchers for which he
stated had been destroyed by the mob which pillaged his house. His valuation of the
various items was of the most extravagant description.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

SPEECH BY PRINCE ALBERT

Windsor Castle, 26th March 1850.

My dearest Uncle,—Albert made a really beautiful speech
the other day, and it has given the greatest satisfaction and
done great good. He is indeed looked up to and beloved, as I
could wish he should be; and the more his rare qualities of
mind and heart are known, the more he will be understood and
appreciated. People are much struck at his great powers and
energy; his great self-denial, and constant wish to work for
others, is so striking in his character; but it is the happiest
life; pining for what one cannot have, and trying to run after
what is pleasantest, invariably ends in disappointment.

I must now conclude. Ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Windsor Castle, 29th March 1850.

My dearest Uncle,—I write only a few lines to-day,
begging you to give the accompanying drawing of her little
namesake to dearest Louise on her birthday.

I shall duly answer your dear letter of the 25th on Tuesday,
but am anxious to correct the impression that Albert read his
fine speech. He never has done so with any of his fine speeches,
but speaks them, having first prepared them and written them
down,—and does so so well, that no one believes that he is ever
nervous, which he is. This last he is said to have spoken in
so particularly English a way.

We have still sadly cold winds. Ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

Buckingham Palace, 14th April 1850.

The Queen has received Lord John Russell’s letter with the
drafts, which he mentioned last night to her, and she has sent
his letter with them to Lord Palmerston.

Lord Palmerston’s conduct in this Spanish question¹¹ in not
communicating her letter to Lord John, as she had directed,
[page 241]
is really too bad, and most disrespectful to the Queen; she
can really hardly communicate with him any more; indeed it
would be better she should not.

Footnote 11: The question was the selection of a Minister for Madrid.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

LORD HOWDEN

Buckingham Palace, 27th April 1850.

In order to save the Government embarrassments, the Queen
has sanctioned the appointment of Lord Howden¹² to Madrid,
although she does not consider him to be quite the stamp of
person in whom she could feel entire confidence that he will
be proof against all spirit of intrigue, which at all times and
now particularly is so much required in Spain. But she must
once more ask Lord John to watch that the Queen may be
quite openly and considerately dealt by. She knows that
Lord Howden has long been made acquainted with his appointment,
and has been corresponding upon it with General
Narvaez; the correspondent of the Times has announced his
appointment from Madrid already three weeks ago, and all
that time Lord Palmerston remained silent upon the matter
to the Queen, not even answering her upon her letter expressing
her wish to see Lord Westmorland¹³ appointed. Lord John
must see the impropriety of this course, and if it were not for
the Queen’s anxiety to smooth all difficulties, the Government
might be exposed to most awkward embarrassments. She
expects, however, and has the right to claim, equal consideration
on the part of her Ministers. She addresses herself in
this matter to Lord John as the head of the Government.

Footnote 12: Lord Howden had been recently Minister at Rio Janeiro.

Footnote 13: Minister at Berlin, 1841-51.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

Pembroke Lodge, 28th April 1850.

… Lord John Russell cannot but assent to your Majesty’s
right to claim every consideration on the part of your Majesty’s
Ministers. He will take care to attend to this subject, and is
much concerned to find that your Majesty has so frequently
occasion to complain of Lord Palmerston’s want of attention.

The Marquis of Dalhousie to Queen Victoria.

THE KOH-I-NOOR

Simla, 15th May 1850.

… When the Governor-General had the honour of addressing
your Majesty from Bombay, the arrangements for
[page 242]
the transmission of the Koh-i-noor were incomplete. He
therefore did not then report to your Majesty, as he now
humbly begs leave to do, that he conveyed the jewel himself
from Lahore in his own charge, and deposited it in the Treasury
at Bombay. One of your Majesty’s ships had been ordered
to Bombay to receive it, but had not then arrived, and did not
arrive till two months afterwards, thus causing delay. The
Medea, however, sailed on 6th April, and will, it is hoped, have
a safe and speedy passage to England.

By this mail the Governor-General transmits officially a
record of all that he has been able to trace of the vicissitudes
through which the Koh-i-noor has passed. The papers are
accurate and curious.

In one of them it is narrated, on the authority of Fugueer-ood-deen,
who is now at Lahore, and who was himself the
messenger, that Runjeet Singh sent a message to Wufa Begum,
the wife of Shah Sooja, from whom he had taken the gem, to
ask her its value. She replied, “If a strong man were to throw
four stones, one north, one south, one east, one west, and a
fifth stone up into the air, and if the space between them were
to be filled with gold, all would not equal the value of the
Koh-i-noor.” The Fugueer, thinking probably that this
appraisement was somewhat imaginative, subsequently asked
Shah Sooja the same question. The Shah replied that its
value was “good fortune; for whoever possessed it had
conquered their enemies.”

The Governor-General very respectfully and earnestly trusts
that your Majesty, in your possession of the Koh-i-noor, may
ever continue to realise its value as estimated by Shah Sooja.

He has the honour to subscribe himself, with deep respect,
your Majesty’s most obedient, most humble, and most faithful
Subject and Servant,

Dalhousie.

The Prince Albert to Lord John Russell.

PALMERSTON’S FOREIGN POLICY

Buckingham Palace, 18th May 1850.

My dear Lord John,—I return you the enclosed letters
which forbode a new storm, this time coming from Russia.¹⁴ I
confess I do not understand that part of the quarrel, but one
[page 243]
conviction grows stronger and stronger with the Queen and
myself (if it is possible), viz. that Lord Palmerston is bringing
the whole of the hatred which is borne to him—I don’t mean
here to investigate whether justly or unjustly—by all the
Governments of Europe upon England, and that the country
runs serious danger of having to pay for the consequences.
We cannot reproach ourselves with having neglected warning
and entreaties, but the Queen may feel that her duty demands
her not to be content with mere warning without any effect,
and that for the sake of one man the welfare of the country
must not be exposed….

Albert.

Footnote 14: Russia as well as France had been appealed to by Greece against the pressure brought
to bear upon her. On the 18th of April a Convention was signed in London disposing of
the whole dispute, and referring Don Pacifico’s claims against Portugal to arbitration.
Lord Palmerston was remiss in communicating the progress of those negotiations to
Mr Wyse, who persisted in his coercive measures, disregarding the intelligence on the
subject he received from Baron Gros, and Greece accordingly submitted to his terms.
France and Russia were incensed, the French Ambassador was recalled, and on the 18th
of May Baron Brunnow intimated the imminence of similar action by the Czar.

Lord John Russell to the Prince Albert.

Pembroke Lodge, 18th May 1850.

Sir,—I feel very strongly that the Queen ought not to be
exposed to the enmity of Austria, France, and Russia on account
of her Minister. I was therefore prepared to state on
Monday that it is for Her Majesty to consider what course it
will be best for her and for the country to pursue.

1. I am quite ready to resign my office, but I could not
make Lord Palmerston the scapegoat for the sins which will
be imputed to the Government in the late negotiations.

2. I am ready, if it is thought best, to remain in office till
questions pending in the two Houses are decided. If unfavourably,
a solution is obtained; if favourably, Lord John
Russell will no longer remain in office with Lord Palmerston
as Foreign Secretary.

These are hasty and crude thoughts, but may be matured
by Monday.

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

Buckingham Palace, 20th May 1850.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL’S REPORT

Lord John Russell came to-day to make his report to the
Queen on his final determination with respect to the Greek
question and Lord Palmerston. He said it was quite impossible
to abandon Lord Palmerston upon this question, that the
Cabinet was as much to blame (if there were cause for it) as
Lord Palmerston, and particularly he himself, who had given
his consent to the measures taken, and was justly held responsible
by the country for the Foreign Policy of the Government.
Admitting, however, that Lord Palmerston’s personal
quarrels with all Governments of foreign countries and the
hostility with which they were looking upon him was doing
[page 244]
serious injury to the country, and exposing the Crown to
blows aimed at the Minister, he had consulted Lord Lansdowne….
Lord Lansdowne fully felt the strength of what
I said respecting the power of the Leader of the House of
Commons, and the right on the part of the Queen to object to
its being conferred upon a person who had not her entire confidence.
I said I hoped Lord Lansdowne would consider the
communication of the letter as quite confidential, as, although
I had no objection to telling Lord Palmerston anything that
was said in it myself, I should not like that it should come
to his ears by third persons or be otherwise talked of. Lord
John assured me that Lord Lansdowne could be entirely
relied upon, and that he himself had locked up the letter
under key the moment he had received it, and would carefully
guard it.

The result of our conference was, that we agreed that Lord
Clarendon was the only member of the Government to whom
the Foreign Affairs could be entrusted unless Lord John were
to take them himself, which was much the best. Lord John
objected to Lord Clarendon’s intimate connection with the
Times, and the violent Austrian line of that paper; moreover,
Lord Clarendon would be wanted to organise the new department
of Secretary of State for Ireland. The Colonial Office
was much the best for Lord Palmerston, and should Lord John
go to the House of Lords, Sir George Grey was to lead in the
Commons. Lord John would take an opportunity of communicating
with Lord Palmerston, but wished nothing should
be said or done about the changes till after the close of the
Session.¹⁵

Albert.

Footnote 15: The question of the relations of Lord Palmerston with the Crown had to be postponed
owing to the debates in both Houses on Foreign Policy. In the Lords, Lord Stanley
moved a vote of censure on the Government for enforcing by coercive measures various
doubtful or exaggerated claims against the Greek Government.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

SUNDAY POSTS

Osborne, 9th June 1850.

The Queen has received Lord John Russell’s two letters.
If the Cabinet think it impossible to do otherwise, of course the
Queen consents—though most reluctantly—to a compliance
with the vote respecting the Post Office.¹⁶ The Queen thinks
it a very false notion of obeying God’s will, to do what will be
the cause of much annoyance and possibly of great distress to
[page 245]
private families. At any rate, she thinks decidedly that great
caution should be used with respect to any alteration in the
transmission of the mails, so that at least some means of communication
may still be possible.

Footnote 16: Lord Ashley carried a resolution forbidding the Sunday delivery of letters; a Committee
of Inquiry was appointed, and reported against the proposed change, which was
abandoned.

Queen Victoria to the Duke of Cambridge.

Osborne, 10th June 1850.

My dear Uncle,—I have enquired into the precedents, and
find that though there are none exactly similar to the case of
George, there will be no difficulty to call him up to the House
of Lords; and I should propose that he should be called up
by the name of Earl of Tipperary, which is one of your titles.
Culloden, which is your other title, would be from recollections
of former times obviously objectionable. There are several
precedents of Princes being made Peers without having an
establishment, consequently there can be no difficulty on this
point.

I feel confident that George will be very moderate in his
politics, and support the Government whenever he can.
Princes of the Royal Family should keep as much as possible
aloof from Party Politics, as I think they else invariably become
mixed up with Party violence, and frequently are made
the tools of people who are utterly regardless of the mischief
they cause to the Throne and Royal Family. Believe me,
always, your affectionate Niece,

Victoria R.

The Duke of Cambridge to Queen Victoria.

PRINCE GEORGE OF CAMBRIDGE

Cambridge House, 10th June 1850.

My dearest Victoria,—I seize the earliest opportunity of
thanking you for your very kind letter, which I have this
moment received, and to assure you at the same time that I do
most fully agree with you in your observations concerning the
line in politics which the members of the Royal Family ought
to take. This has always been my principle since I entered
the House of Lords, and I am fully convinced that George will
follow my example.

I must also add that I have felt the great advantage of supporting
the Government, and I have by that always been well
with all Parties, and have avoided many difficulties which
other members of my family have had to encounter.

I shall not fail to communicate your letter to George, who
will, I trust, never prove himself unworthy of the kindness you
have shown him.

[page 246]

With the request that you will remember me most kindly to
Albert, I remain, my dearest Victoria, your most affectionate
Uncle,

Adolphus.

Prince George of Cambridge to Queen Victoria.

St James’s Palace, 15th June 1850.

My dear Cousin,—I have not as yet ventured to address
you on a subject of much interest personally to myself, and
upon which I am aware that you have been in correspondence
with my father; but as I believe that the question which was
brought to your notice has been settled, I cannot any longer
deprive myself of the pleasure of expressing to you my most
sincere and grateful thanks for the kind manner in which you
have at once acceded to the anxious request of my father
and myself, by arranging with the Government that I should
be called up to the House of Lords. This has been a point
upon which I have long been most anxious, and I am truly and
sincerely grateful that you have so considerately entered into
my feelings and wishes. I understand that it is your intention
that I should be called up by my father’s second title
as Earl of Tipperary; at the same time I hope that though I
take a seat in the House as Earl of Tipperary, I may be permitted
to retain and be called by my present name on all
occasions not connected with the House of Lords. As regards
the wish expressed by yourself, that I should not allow myself
to be made a political partisan, I need not, I trust, assure you
that it will be ever my endeavour to obey your desires upon
this as on all other occasions; but I trust I may be permitted
to add, that even before this desire expressed by you, it had
been my intention to follow this line of conduct. I conceive
that whenever they conscientiously can do so, the members of
the Royal Family should support the Queen’s Government;
and if at times it should happen that they have a difficulty in
so doing, it is at all events not desirable that they should place
themselves prominently in opposition to it. This I believe to
be your feelings on the subject, and if you will permit me to
say so, they are also my own.

Hoping to have the pleasure soon of expressing to you my
gratitude in person, I remain, my dear Cousin, your most
dutiful Cousin,

George.

Queen Victoria to Prince George of Cambridge.

Osborne, 17th June 1850.

My dear George,—Many thanks for your kind letter received
yesterday. I am glad to hear that you are so entirely
[page 247]
of my opinion with respect to the political conduct of the
Princes of the Royal Family who are peers, and I feel sure that
your conduct will be quite in accordance with this view. With
respect to your wish to be called as you have hitherto been, I
do not think that this will be possible. It has never been
done, besides which I think the Irish (who will be much
flattered at your being called up by the title of Tipperary)
would feel it as a slight if you did not wish to be called by the
title you bear. All the Royal Peers have always been called
by their titles in this and in other countries, and I do not think
it would be possible to avoid it. Ever, etc.,

Victoria R.¹⁷

Footnote 17: The patent was made out, but not signed, a memorandum of Prince Albert
recording:—

Buckingham Palace. 8th July 1850.

I kept this warrant back from the Queen’s signature on account of the Duke of Cambridge’s
illness. The Duke died yesterday evening, without a struggle, after an attack of
fever which had lasted four weeks. So the summons of Prince George has never been
carried out.

Albert.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

MR ROEBUCK’S MOTION

Chesham Place, 21st June 1850.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and has the honour to report that Mr Roebuck asked him yesterday
what course the Government intends to pursue after the
late vote of the House of Lords.¹⁸

The newspapers contain the report of Lord John Russell’s
answer.

Mr Roebuck has proposed to move on Monday a general
approbation of the Foreign Policy of the Government.

What may be the result of such a Motion it is not easy to
say, but as Lord Stanley has prevailed on a majority in the
House of Lords to censure the Foreign Policy of the Government,
it is impossible to avoid a decision by the House of Commons
on this subject.

The misfortune is that on the one side every detail of negotiation
is confounded with the general principles of our Foreign
Policy, and on the other a censure upon a Foreign Policy, the
tendency of which has been to leave despotism and democracy
to fight out their own battles, will imply in the eyes of Europe
a preference for the cause of despotism, and a willingness to
interfere with Russia and Austria on behalf of absolute government.
The jealousy of the House of Commons would not long
bear such a policy.

Be that as it may, Lord Stanley has opened a beginning of
strife, which may last for many years to come.

Footnote 18: Lord Stanley’s Motion of Censure was carried by a majority of 37 in a House of 301.

[page 248]

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

LORD STANLEY’S MOTION

Buckingham Palace, 21st June 1850.

The Queen has received Lord John Russell’s letter and read
his speech in the House of Commons. She regrets exceedingly
the position in which the Government has been placed by the
Motion of Lord Stanley in the House of Lords. Whichever way
the Debate in the House of Commons may terminate, the Queen
foresees great troubles. A defeat of the Government would be
most inconvenient. The Queen has always approved the general
tendency of the policy of the Government to let despotism and
democracy fight out their battles abroad, but must remind Lord
John that in the execution of this policy Lord Palmerston has
gone a long way in taking up the side of democracy in the fight,
and this is the “detail of negotiations” which Lord John is
afraid may be confounded with the general principle of our
Foreign Policy. Indeed it is already confounded by the whole
of the foreign and the great majority of the British public, and
it is to be feared that the discussion will place despotic and
democratic principles in array against each other in this
country, whilst the original question turns only upon the
justice of Don Pacifico’s claims.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

Chesham Place, 22nd June 1850.

Lord John Russell deeply regrets that your Majesty should
be exposed to inconvenience in consequence of Lord Stanley’s
Motion. He has copied Mr Roebuck’s Motion as it now stands
on the votes. The word “principles” includes the general
policy, and excludes the particular measures which from time
to time have been adopted as the objects of approbation.

It is impossible to say at this moment what will be the result.
Lord Stanley, Lord Aberdeen, Mr Gladstone, and Mr Disraeli
appear to be in close concert.

Lord Stanley can hardly now abandon Protection. Mr
Gladstone, one should imagine, can hardly abandon Free Trade.
The anger of the honest Protectionists and the honest Free-Traders
will be very great at so unprincipled a coalition.

Mr Roebuck’s Motion: That the principles on which the
Foreign Policy of Her Majesty’s Government has been regulated
have been such as were calculated to maintain the honour
and dignity of this country, and in times of unexampled
difficulty to preserve peace between England and the various
nations of the world.

[page 249]

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

HOLSTEIN AND GERMANY

Buckingham Palace, 22nd June 1850.

The Queen has received Lord Palmerston’s letter of yesterday,
but cannot say that his arguments in support of his
former opinion, that the Germanic Confederation should be
omitted from amongst the Powers who are to be invited to
sign a protocol, the object of which is to decide upon the fate
of Holstein, have proved successful in convincing her of the
propriety of this course. As Holstein belongs to the Germanic
Confederation and is only accidentally connected with Denmark
through its Sovereign, a Protocol to ensure the integrity
of the Danish Monarchy is a direct attack upon Germany, if
carried out without her knowledge and consent; and it is an
act repugnant to all feelings of justice and morality for third
parties to dispose of other people’s property, which no diplomatic
etiquette about the difficulty of finding a proper representative
for Germany could justify. The mode of representation
might safely be left to the Confederation itself. It is not
surprising to the Queen that Austria and Prussia should complain
of Lord Palmerston’s agreeing with Sweden, Russia,
Denmark, and France upon the Protocol before giving Prussia
and Austria any notice of it.

Viscount Palmerston to Lord John Russell.

THE PROTOCOL

Carlton Gardens, 23rd June 1850.

My dear John Russell,—The Queen has entirely misconceived
the object and effect of the proposed Protocol. It
does not “decide upon the fate of Holstein,” nor is it “an
attack upon Germany.” In fact, the Protocol is to decide
nothing; it is to be merely a record of the wishes and opinions
of the Power whose representatives are to sign it….¹⁹

How does any part of this decide the fate of Holstein or
attack Germany?

Is not the Queen requiring that I should be Minister, not
indeed for Austria, Russia, or France, but for the Germanic Confederation?
Why should we take up the cudgels for Germany,
when we are inviting Austria and Prussia, the two leading powers
of Germany, and who would of course put in a claim for the
Confederation if they thought it necessary, which, however,
for the reasons above stated, they surely would not?…

[page 250]

As to my having agreed with Sweden, Russia, Denmark, and
France before communicating with Prussia and Austria, that
is not the course which things have taken. Brunnow proposed
the Protocol to me, and I have been in discussion with him
about it. It is he who has communicated it to the French
Ambassador, to Reventlow, and to Rehausen; I sent it
privately several weeks ago to Westmorland, that he might
show it confidentially to Schleinitz, but telling Westmorland
that it was not a thing settled, but only a proposal by Russia,
and that, at all events, some part of the wording would be
altered. I have no doubt that Brunnow has also shown it to
Koller; but I could not send it officially to Berlin or Vienna
till Brunnow had agreed to such a wording as I could recommend
the Government to adopt, nor until I received the Queen’s
sanction to do so.

The only thing that occurs to me as practicable would be to
say to Austria and Prussia that if, in signing the Protocol,
they could add that they signed also in the name of the Confederation,
we should be glad to have the additional weight of
that authority, but that could not be made a sine quâ non, any
more than the signature of Austria and Prussia themselves,
for I think that the Protocol ought to be signed by as many of
the proposed Powers as may choose to agree to it, bearing
always in mind that it is only a record of opinions and wishes,
and does not decide or pretend to decide anything practically.
Yours sincerely,

Palmerston.

Footnote 19: The Protocol was to record the desirability of the following points:—(1) that the
several states which constituted the Danish Monarchy should remain united, and that
the Danish Crown should be settled in such manner that it should go with the Duchy of
Holstein; (2) that the signatory Powers, when the peace should have been concluded,
should concert measures for the purpose of giving to the results an additional pledge of
stability, by a general European acknowledgment.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

THE QUEEN’S OPINION

Buckingham Palace, 25th June 1850.

The Queen has received Lord John Russell’s letter enclosing
those of Lord Palmerston and Lord Lansdowne. The misconception
on the Queen’s part, which Lord Palmerston alleges
to exist, consists in her taking the essence of the arrangement
for the mere words. Lord Palmerston pretends that the
Protocol “does not decide upon the fate of Holstein nor
attack Germany.” However, the only object of the Protocol
is the fate of Holstein, which is decided upon—

(1.) By a declaration of the importance to the interests
of Europe to uphold the integrity of the Danish
Monarchy (which has no meaning, if it does not
mean that Holstein is to remain with it).

(2.) By an approval of the efforts of the King of Denmark
to keep it with Denmark, by adapting the law of
succession to that of Holstein.

[page 251]

(3.) By an engagement on the part of the Powers to use
their “soins” to get the constitutional position of
Holstein settled in a peace according to the Malmoe
preliminaries, of which it was one of the conditions
that the question of the succession was to be left
untouched.

(4.) To seal the whole arrangement by an act of European
acknowledgment.

If the declarations of importance, the approval, the “soins”
and the acknowledgments of all the great Powers of Europe
are to decide nothing, then Lord Palmerston is quite right; if
they decide anything, it is the fate of Holstein.

Whether this will be an attack upon Germany or not will be
easily deduced from the fact that the attempt on the part of
Denmark to incorporate into her polity the Duchy of Schleswig
was declared by the Diet in 1846 to be a declaration of war
against Germany merely on account of its intimate connection
with the Duchy of Holstein.

The Queen does not wish her Minister to be Minister for
Germany, but merely to treat that country with the same consideration
which is due to every country on whose interests we
mean to decide.

The Queen would wish her correspondence upon this subject
to be brought before the Cabinet, and will abide by their
deliberate opinion.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Buckingham Palace, 25th June 1850.

My dearest Uncle,—Charles will have told you how kindly
and amiably the Prince of Prussia has come here, travelling
night and day from St Petersburg, in order to be in time for
the christening of our little Arthur.²⁰ I wish you could (and
you will, for he intends stopping at Brussels) hear him speak,
for he is so straightforward, conciliatory, and yet firm of purpose;
I have a great esteem and respect for him. The poor
King of Prussia is recovered,²¹ and has been received with great
enthusiasm on the first occasion of his first reappearance in
public.

We are in a crisis, no one knowing how this debate upon this
most unfortunate Greek business will end. It is most unfortunate,
for whatever way it ends, it must do great harm.

I must now conclude, for I am quite overpowered by the
heat. Ever your truly devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 20: The present Duke of Connaught, born on the 1st of May, the birthday of the Duke of
Wellington, who was one of the sponsors, and after whom he was named.

Footnote 21: From an attempt to assassinate him.

[page 252]

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

THE DON PACIFICO DEBATE

Chesham Place, 26th June 1850.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and has the honour to report that in the debate of last night
Viscount Palmerston defended the whole Foreign Policy of the
Government in a speech of four hours and three quarters.²²
This speech was one of the most masterly ever delivered, going
through the details of transactions in the various parts of the
world, and appealing from time to time to great principles of
justice and of freedom.

The cheering was frequent and enthusiastic. The debate
was adjourned till Thursday, when it will probably close.

The expectation is that Ministers will have a majority, but
on the amount of that majority must depend their future
course.

Footnote 22: It lasted from dusk till dawn, and the Minister asked for a verdict on the question
whether, “as the Roman in days of old held himself free from indignity when he could say,
Civis Romanus sum, so also a British subject, in whatever land he may be, shall feel
confident that the watchful eye and the strong arm of England will protect him against
injustice and wrong.” Peel, who made his last appearance in the House, voted against
Palmerston.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

Chesham Place, 27th June 1850.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and has the honour to state that the prospects of the division
are rather more favourable for Ministers than they were.

Ministers ought to have a majority of forty to justify their
remaining in office.²³

Mr Gladstone makes no secret of his wish to join Lord
Stanley in forming an Administration.

Lord John Russell would desire to have the honour of an
audience of your Majesty on Saturday at twelve or one o’clock.

The division will not take place till to-morrow night.

Footnote 23: In the result, Ministers succeeded by 310 to 264, although opposed to them in the
debate were Mr Gladstone, Mr Cobden, Sir Robert Peel, Mr Disraeli, Sir James Graham,
and Sir William Molesworth. Next to the speeches of Lord Palmerston and Lord John
Russell, the most effective speech on the Government side was that of Mr Alexander
Cockburn, afterwards Lord Chief Justice of England.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

PEEL’S ACCIDENT

Buckingham Palace, 2nd July 1850.

My dearest Uncle,—For two most kind and affectionate
letters I offer my warmest and best thanks. The good report
of my beloved Louise’s improvement is a great happiness.
[page 253]
By my letter to Louise you will have learnt all the details of
this certainly very disgraceful and very inconceivable attack.²⁴
I have not suffered except from my head, which is still very
tender, the blow having been extremely violent, and the brass
end of the stick fell on my head so as to make a considerable
noise. I own it makes me nervous out driving, and I start at
any person coming near the carriage, which I am afraid is
natural. We have, alas! now another cause of much greater
anxiety in the person of our excellent Sir Robert Peel,²⁵ who, as
you will see, has had a most serious fall, and though going on
well at first, was very ill last night; thank God! he is better
again this morning, but I fear still in great danger. I cannot
bear even to think of losing him; it would be the greatest loss
for the whole country, and irreparable for us, for he is so trustworthy,
and so entirely to be depended on. All parties are in
great anxiety about him. I will leave my letter open to give
you the latest news.

Our good and amiable guest²⁶ likes being with us, and will
remain with us till Saturday. We had a concert last night,
and go to the opera very regularly. The Prophète is quite
beautiful, and I am sure would delight you. The music in the
Scène du Couronnement is, I think, finer than anything in either
Robert or the Huguenots; it is highly dramatic, and really
very touching. Mario sings and acts in it quite in perfection.
His Raoul in the Huguenots is also most beautiful. He
improves every year, and I really think his voice is the finest
tenor I ever heard, and he sings and acts with such intense
feeling.

What do you say to the conclusion of our debate? It leaves
things just as they were. The House of Commons is becoming
very unmanageable and troublesome….

I must now conclude. With Albert’s love, ever your most
affectionate Niece,

Victoria R.

I am happy to say that Sir Robert, though still very ill, is
freer from pain, his pulse is less high, and he feels himself
better; the Doctors think there is no vital injury, and nothing
from which he cannot recover, but that he must be for some
days in a precarious state.

Footnote 24: The Queen, as she was leaving Cambridge House, where she had called to inquire after
the Duke of Cambridge’s health, was struck with a cane by one Robert Pate, an ex-officer,
and a severe bruise was inflicted on her forehead. The outrage was apparently committed
without motive, but an attempt to prove Pate insane failed, and he was sentenced to seven
years’ transportation.

Footnote 25: On the day following the Don Pacifico debate, Sir Robert Peel, after attending a
meeting of the Exhibition Commissioners, had gone out riding. On his return, while
passing up Constitution Hill, he was thrown from his horse, and, after lingering three days
in intense pain, died on the 5th of July.

Footnote 26: The Prince of Prussia.

[page 254]

The King of Denmark to Queen Victoria.

THE KING OF DENMARK

Copenhague, 4 Juillet 1850.

Madame ma Sœur,—Je remplis un devoir des plus agréables,
en m’empressant d’annoncer à votre Majesté que la paix vient
d’être signée le 2 de ce mois à Berlin entre moi et Sa Majesté le
Roi de Prusse, en Son nom et en celui de la Confédération
Germanique.²⁷

Je sais et je reconnais de grand cœur combien je suis redevable
à votre Majesté et à Son Gouvernement de ce résultat
important, qui justifie mon espérance de pouvoir bientôt
rendre à tous mes sujets les bienfaits d’une sincère réconciliation
et d’une véritable concorde.

Votre Majesté a par la sollicitude avec laquelle Elle a constamment
accompli le mandat de la médiation dans l’intérêt
du Danemark et de l’Europe, ajouté aux témoignages inappréciables
de sincère amitié qu’elle n’a cessé de m’accorder durant
la longue et pénible épreuve que le Danemark vient de nouveau
de traverser, mais qui paraît, à l’aide du Tout-Puissant, devoir
maintenant faire place à un meilleur avenir, offrant, sous les
auspices de votre Majesté, de nouvelles garanties pour l’indépendance
de mon antique Couronne et pour le maintien de
l’intégrité de ma Monarchie, à la défense desquelles je me suis
voué entièrement.

Je suis persuadé que votre Majesté me fera la justice de
croire que je suis on ne peut plus reconnaissant, et que mon
peuple fidèle et loyal s’associe à moi et aux miens, pénétré de
ces mêmes sentiments de gratitude envers votre Majesté.

Je m’estimerais infiniment heureux si Elle daignait ajouter
à toutes Ses bontés, celle que de me fournir l’occasion de Lui
donner des preuves de mon dévouement inaltérable et de la
haute considération avec lesquels je prie Dieu qu’il vous ait,
Madame ma Sœur, vous, votre auguste Époux et tous les vôtres,
dans sa sainte et digne garde, et avec lesquels je suis, Madame
ma Sœur, de votre Majesté, le bon Frère,

Frederick.

Footnote 27: Denmark and the Schleswig-Holstein Duchies were still at war. Germany was bent
on absorbing the Duchies, but Prussia now concluded a peace with Denmark: the enlistment
of individual Germans in the insurgent army continued.

The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

DEATH OF PEEL

Laeken, 5th July 1850.

My dearest Victoria,—It gave me the greatest pain to
learn of the death of our true and kind friend, Sir Robert Peel.
That he should have met with his end—he so valuable to the
whole earth—from an accident so easily to be avoided with
[page 255]
some care, is the more to be lamented. You and Albert lose
in him a friend whose moderation, correct judgment, great
knowledge of everything connected with the country, can never
be found again. Europe had in him a benevolent and a truly
wise statesman….

Give my best thanks to Albert for his kind letter. I mean
to send a messenger probably on Sunday or Monday to write
to him. I pity him about the great Exhibition. I fear he
will be much plagued, and I was glad to see that the matter
is to be treated in Parliament. Alas! in all human affairs one
is sure to meet with violent passions, and Peel knew that so
well; great care even for the most useful objects is necessary.

I will write to you a word to-morrow. God grant that it
may be satisfactory.²⁸ Ever, my beloved, dear Victoria, your
devoted Uncle,

Leopold R.

Footnote 28: The Princess Charlotte of Belgium was seriously ill.

Queen Victoria to the King of Prussia.

Buckingham Palace, 6th July 1850.

Sire, my most honoured Brother,—I have to express to
you my thanks for the pleasure which the visit of your dear
brother has given us, who, as I hope, will remit these lines to
you in perfect health. That things go so well with you, and
that the healing of your wound has made undisturbed progress,
has been to us a true removal of anxiety. You will no doubt
have learnt that I too have been again the object of an attempt,
if possible still more cowardly. The criminal is, as usual, this
time too, insane, or will pretend to be so; still the deed remains.

All our feelings are, in the meanwhile, preoccupied by the
sorrow, in which your Majesty and all Europe will share, at the
death of Sir Robert Peel. That is one of the hardest blows of
Fate which could have fallen on us and on the country. You
knew the great man, and understood how to appreciate his
merit. His value is now becoming clear even to his opponents;
all Parties are united in mourning.

The only satisfactory event of recent times is the news of
your conclusion of peace with Denmark. Accept my most
cordial congratulations on that account.

Requesting you to remember me cordially to the dear
Queen, and referring you for detailed news to the dear Prince,
also recommending to your gracious remembrance Albert, who
does not wish to trouble you, on his part, with a letter, I
remain, in unchangeable friendship, dear Brother, your
Majesty’s faithful Sister,

Victoria R.

[page 256]

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

DEATH OF THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE

Buckingham Palace, 9th July 1850.

My Dearest Uncle,—We live in the midst of sorrow and
death! My poor good Uncle Cambridge breathed his last,
without a struggle, at a few minutes before ten last night. I
still saw him yesterday morning at one, but he did not see me,
and to-day I saw him lifeless and cold. The poor Duchess and
the poor children are very touching in their grief, and poor
Augusta,²⁹ who arrived just five hours too late, is quite heartbroken.
The end was most peaceful; there was no disease;
only a gastric fever, which came on four weeks ago, from over-exertion,
and cold, and which he neglected for the first week,
carried him off.

The good Prince of Prussia you will have been pleased to talk
to and see. Having lived with him for a fortnight on a very
intimate footing, we have been able to appreciate his real worth
fully; he is so honest and frank, and so steady of purpose and
courageous.

Poor dear Peel is to be buried to-day. The sorrow and grief
at his death are most touching, and the country mourns over
him as over a father. Every one seems to have lost a personal
friend.

As I have much to write, you will forgive me ending here.
You will be glad to hear that poor Aunt Gloucester is wonderfully
calm and resigned. My poor dear Albert, who had been
so fresh and well when we came back, looks so pale and fagged
again. He has felt, and feels, Sir Robert’s loss dreadfully. He
feels he has lost a second father.

May God bless and protect you all, you dear ones! Ever
your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 29: See ante, vol. i. p. 437.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

Osborne, 19th July 1850.

Before this draft to Lord Bloomfield about Greece is sent, it
would be well to consider whether Lord Palmerston is justified
in calling the Minister of the Interior of Greece “a notorious
defaulter to the amount of 200,000 drachms,”³⁰ and should he
be so, whether it is a proper thing for the Queen’s Foreign
Secretary to say in a public despatch!

Footnote 30: The Convention of the 18th of April (see ante, p. 242, note 1) had decided that £8500
should be distributed among the claimants, and that Don Pacifico’s special claim against
Portugal should be referred to arbitration. Ultimately he was awarded only an insignificant
sum.

[page 257]

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

THE FOREIGN OFFICE

Osborne, 28th July 1850.

The Queen will have much pleasure in seeing the Duke and
Duchess of Bedford here next Saturday, and we have invited
them. She will be quite ready to hear the Duke’s opinions on
the Foreign Office. Lord John may be sure that she fully
admits the great difficulties in the way of the projected alteration,
but she, on the other hand, feels the duty she owes to the
country and to herself, not to allow a man in whom she can
have no confidence, who has conducted himself in anything but
a straightforward and proper manner to herself, to remain in
the Foreign Office, and thereby to expose herself to insults
from other nations, and the country to the constant risk of
serious and alarming complications. The Queen considers
these reasons as much graver than the other difficulties. Each
time that we were in a difficulty, the Government seemed to be
determined to move Lord Palmerston, and as soon as these
difficulties were got over, those which present themselves in
the carrying out of this removal appeared of so great a magnitude
as to cause its relinquishment. There is no chance of
Lord Palmerston reforming himself in his sixty-seventh year,
and after having considered his last escape as a triumph….
The Queen is personally convinced that Lord Palmerston at
this moment is secretly planning an armed Russian intervention
in Schleswig, which may produce a renewal of revolutions
in Germany, and possibly a general war.

The Queen only adduces this as an instance that there is no question
of delicacy and danger in which Lord Palmerston
will not arbitrarily and without reference to his colleagues or
Sovereign engage this country.

Queen Victoria to the King of Denmark.

Osborne, 29 Juillet 1850.

Sire et mon bon Frère,—La lettre dont votre Majesté a
bien voulu m’honorer m’a causé un bien vif plaisir comme
témoignage que votre Majesté a su apprécier les sentiments
d’amitié pour vous et le désir d’agir avec impartialité qui m’ont
animée ainsi que mon Gouvernement pendant tout le cours des
longues négociations qui out précédé la signature de la Paix
avec l’Allemagne. Votre Majesté peut aisément comprendre
aussi combien je dois regretter le renouvellement de la guerre
avec le Schleswig qui ne pourra avoir d’autre résultat que
l’accroissement de l’animosité et l’affaiblissement des deux
[page 258]
nobles peuples sur lesquels vous régnez. Dieu veuille que cette
dernière lutte se termine pourtant dans une réconciliation solide,
basée sur la reconnaissance des droits et des obligations des
deux côtés. Je me trouve poussée à vous soumettre ici, Sire,
une prière pour un Prince qui s’est malheureusement trouvé
en conflit avec votre Majesté, mais pour lequel les liens de
parenté me portent à plaider, le Duc de Holstein-Augustenburg.
Je suis persuadée que la magnanimité de votre Majesté
lui rendra ses biens particuliers, qu’elle a jugé nécessaire de lui
ôter pendant la guerre de 1848, ce que je reconnaîtrais bien
comme une preuve d’amitié de la part de votre Majesté envers
moi.

En faisant des vœux, pour son bonbeur et en exprimant le
désir du Prince, mon Epoux, d’être mis aux pieds de votre
Majesté, je suis, Sire et mon bon Frère, de votre Majesté la
bonne Sœur,

Victoria R.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

DENMARK AND SCHLESWIG

Osborne, 31st July 1850.

The Queen must draw Lord John Russell’s attention to the
accompanying draft³¹ with regard to Schleswig, which is evidently
intended to lay the ground for future foreign armed
intervention. This is to be justified by considering the assistance
which the Stadthalterschaft of Holstein may be tempted
to give to their Schleswig brethren “as an invasion of Schleswig
by a German force.”

Lord John seems himself to have placed a “?” against that
passage. This is, after two years’ negotiation and mediation,
begging the question at issue. The whole war—Revolution,
mediation, etc., etc.—rested upon the question whether
Schleswig was part of Holstein (though not of the German
Confederation), or part of Denmark and not of Holstein.

Footnote 31: In this draft, Lord Palmerston was remonstrating with the Prussian Government
against the orders given by the Holstein Statthalters to their army to invade Schleswig,
after the signature of the peace between Prussia and Denmark.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

Osborne, 31st July 1850.

The Queen has considered Lord Seymour’s memorandum
upon the Rangership of the Parks in London, but cannot say
that it has convinced her of the expediency of its abolition.
There is nothing in the management of these parks by the Woods
and Forests which does not equally apply to all the others, as
[page 259]
Greenwich, Hampton Court, Richmond, etc. There is certainly
a degree of inconvenience in the divided authority, but
this is amply compensated by the advantage to the Crown, in
appearance at least, to keep up an authority emanating personally
from the Sovereign, and unconnected with a Government
Department which is directly answerable to the House of
Commons. The last debate upon Hyde Park has, moreover,
shown that it will not be safe not to remind the public of the
fact that the parks are Royal property. As the Ranger has
no power over money, the management will always remain
with the Office of Woods.

The Duke of Wellington to Queen Victoria.

SIR CHARLES NAPIER RESIGNS

London, 3rd August 1850.

Field-Marshal the Duke of Wellington presents his humble
duty to your Majesty. He regrets to be under the necessity of
submitting to your Majesty the enclosed letter from General
Sir Charles Napier, G.C.B., in which he tenders his resignation
of the office of Commander-in-Chief of your Majesty’s Forces
in the East Indies.³²

Upon the receipt of this paper Field-Marshal the Duke of
Wellington considered it to be his duty to peruse all the papers
submitted by Sir Charles Napier; to survey the transaction
which had occasioned the censure of the Governor-General in
Council complained of by Sir Charles Napier; to require from
the India House all the information which could throw light
upon the conduct complained of, as well as upon the motives
alleged for it; the reasons given on account of which it was
stated to be necessary.

He has stated in a minute, a memorandum of which he submits
the copy to your Majesty, his views and opinions upon the
whole subject, and the result which he submits to your Majesty
is that he considers it his duty humbly to submit to your
Majesty that your Majesty should be graciously pleased to
accept the resignation of General Sir Charles Napier thus
tendered.

Before he should submit this recommendation to your Majesty
in relation to an office of such high reputation in so high
and important a station, Field-Marshal the Duke of Wellington
considered it his duty to submit his views to your Majesty’s
servants, who have expressed their concurrence in his opinion.

It is probable that the President of the Board of Control will
[page 260]
lay before your Majesty the papers transmitted to the Secret
Committee of the Court of Directors, by the Governor-General
in Council, which are adverted to in the paper drawn up by the
Duke, and of which the substance alone is stated.

All of which is humbly submitted to your Majesty by your
Majesty’s most dutiful Subject and most devoted Servant,

Wellington.

Footnote 32: This was in consequence of Sir Charles Napier’s action in exercising powers belonging
to the Supreme Council, on the occasion of a mutiny of a regiment of the Native Army.

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

PALMERSTON’S CONDUCT OF AFFAIRS

Osborne, 5th August 1850.

Lord John Russell having lately stated that Lord Clarendon,
who had always been most eager to see Lord Palmerston
moved, had lately expressed to him his opinion that it would
be most dangerous and impolitic to do so under present circumstances,
we thought it right to see Lord Clarendon here….
In conversation with me, Lord Clarendon spoke in his old
strain of Lord Palmerston, but very strongly also of the danger
of turning him out and making him the leader of the Radicals,
who were anxiously waiting for that, were much dissatisfied
with Lord John Russell, and free from control by the death of
Sir Robert Peel. I said that if everything was done with Lord
Palmerston’s consent there would be no danger, to which Lord
Clarendon assented, but doubted that he would consent to
giving up what was his hobby. He added, nobody but Lord
John could carry on the Foreign Affairs, but he ought not to
leave the House of Commons under present circumstances,
where he was now the only authority left.

A POSSIBLE RE-ARRANGEMENT

We saw the Duke of Bedford yesterday, whom Lord John
had wished us to invite. He is very unhappy about the present
state of affairs, frightened about things going on as at present,
when Lord John can exercise no control over Lord Palmerston,
and the Queen is exposed year after year to the same annoyances
and dangers arising from Lord Palmerston’s mode of conducting
the affairs; but on the other hand, equally frightened at turning
him loose. The Duke was aware of all that had passed
between us and Lord John, and ready to do anything he could
to bring matters to a satisfactory solution, but thought his
brother would not like to leave the House of Commons now.
He had very much changed his opinion on that head latterly,
and the more so as he thought something ought to be done next
year with the franchise, which he alone could carry through.
On my questioning whether it was impossible to persuade him
to take the Foreign Office and stay in the Lower House, with
a first-rate under-secretary, at least for a time, the Duke
[page 261]
thought he might perhaps temporarily, as he felt he owed to
the Queen the solution of the difficulty, but expressed again his
fears of Lord Palmerston’s opposition. I replied that if Lord
John would make up his mind to take the Foreign Office, and
to stay in the House of Commons, I saw no danger, as Lord
John would be able to maintain himself successfully, and Lord
Palmerston would not like to be in opposition to him, whilst
he would become most formidable to anybody who was to gain
only the leadership in the House; moreover, Lord John,
having done so much for Lord Palmerston, could expect and
demand a return of sacrifice, and a variety of posts might be
offered to him—the Presidency of the Council, the office of
Home Secretary, or Secretary for the Colonies, Chancellor of
the Exchequer, etc., etc., which places I was sure any member
of the Cabinet would vacate for him. The Duke of Bedford
added the Lieutenancy of Ireland, as Lord Clarendon had told
him he was ready to give it up for the purpose, but only under
one condition, viz. that of not having to succeed to Lord Palmerston
at the Foreign Office. Observing our surprise at this
declaration, the Duke added that Lord Clarendon acted most
considerately, that he was ready to have no office at all, and
would support the Government independently in the House of
Lords if this were to facilitate arrangements. The Queen
rejoined that a peerage was of course also at Lord John’s
disposal for Lord Palmerston. We then agreed that Lord
Granville would be the best person to become Lord John’s
Under-Secretary of State, a man highly popular, pleasing, conciliatory,
well versed in Foreign Affairs, and most industrious;
trained under Lord John, he could at any time leave him the
office altogether, if Lord John should find it too much for himself.
Lord Granville had a higher office now, that of Vice-President
of the Board of Trade and Paymaster-General, but
would be sure to feel the importance of taking a lower office
under such circumstances and with such contingencies likely
to depend upon it. I have seen a great deal of him latterly,
as he is the only working man on the Commission for the
Exhibition of 1851, and have found him most able, good-natured,
and laborious. The Duke liked the proposal very
much, and is going to communicate all that passed between us
to Lord John on Tuesday.

Albert.

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

PALMERSTON’S POSITION

Osborne, 8th August 1850.

Lord John Russell came down here yesterday in order to
report to the Queen what had passed between him and Lord
[page 262]
Palmerston the day before, on whom he had called in order to
have an explanation on the Foreign Affairs.

Lord John reminded him of former communications, but
admitted that circumstances were much changed by the recent
debates in both Houses of Parliament; still, it was necessary
to come to an understanding of the position. The policy
pursued with regard to the Foreign Affairs had been right and
such as had the approval of Lord John himself, the Cabinet
generally, and he believed the greater part of the country.
But the manner in which it had been executed had been unfortunate,
led to irritation and hostility; although peace had
actually been preserved, and England stood in a position
requiring no territorial aggrandisement or advantage of any
kind, yet all Governments and Powers, not only Russia and
Austria, but also France and the liberal states, had become
decidedly hostile to us, and our intercourse was not such as
was desirable. Lord John could instance many cases in which
they had been unnecessarily slighted and provoked by Lord
Palmerston, like M. Drouyn de Lhuys in the Greek affair.
Lord Palmerston’s conduct towards the Queen had been disrespectful
and wanting in due attention and deference to her,
and had been much complained of.

In consequence of all this Lord John had before proposed
to Her Majesty that the Foreign Affairs should be entrusted
to Lord Minto, he himself should go to the House of Lords,
and Lord Palmerston should have the lead in the House of
Commons. The Queen had, however, objected to this arrangement,
[thinking] the lead in the Lower House to be more properly
given to Sir George Grey, who had as Home Secretary
conducted all internal business in the House. Now had come
Sir R. Peel’s death, which made it impossible for Lord John to
leave the House of Commons without endangering the position
of Government and of the parties in the House.

PALMERSTON’S JUSTIFICATION

Lord Palmerston was much pleased to hear of Lord John’s
intention to stay in the House of Commons, said all was changed
now; there had been a great conspiracy against him, he had
been accused in Parliament, put on his trial and acquitted.
The acquittal had produced the greatest enthusiasm for him
in the country, and he was now supported by a strong party;
he owned, however, that his success had been chiefly owing to
the handsome manner in which Lord John and his colleagues
had supported him in the debate. That he should incur the
momentary enmity of those states whose interests and plans
he might have to cross was quite natural; he had never intended
any disrespect to the Queen, and if he had been guilty of
any he was quite unconscious of it and sorry for it.

[page 263]

Lord John reminded him that although the Government had
got a majority in the House of Commons in the Foreign debate,
it was not to be forgotten that the fate of the Government had
been staked upon it, and that many people voted on that
account who would not have supported the Foreign policy;
that it was remarkable that all those who had the strongest
reason to be anxious for the continuance of the Government,
but who could not avoid speaking, were obliged to speak and
vote against the Government. Sir R. Peel’s speech was a most
remarkable instance of this.

Lord Palmerston saw in Sir Robert’s speech nothing but a
reluctant effort to defend Lord Aberdeen, whom he was bound
to defend. If he (Lord Palmerston) were to leave the Foreign
Office, there must be a ground for it, such as his having to take
the lead in the House of Commons, which was evidently impossible
with the conduct of Foreign Department at the same
time. (It had killed Mr Canning, and after that failure nobody
ought to attempt it.) But without such a ground it would be
loss of character to him, which he could not be expected to
submit to. There was not even the excuse of wishing to avoid
a difficulty with a foreign country, as all was smooth now.
Those who had wished to injure him had been beat, and now
it would be giving them a triumph after all. If the Queen or
the Cabinet were dissatisfied with his management of the
Foreign Affairs, they had a right to demand his resignation, and
he would give it, but they could not ask him to lower himself
in public estimation. Lord John answered that his resignation
would lead to a further split of parties: there were parties
already enough in the House, and it was essential that at least
the Whig party should be kept together, to which Lord Palmerston
assented. He (Lord Palmerston) then repeated his complaints
against that plot which had been got up in this country
against him, and urged on by foreigners, complained particularly
of Lord Clarendon, Mr Greville of the Privy Council, Mr
Reeve, ditto, and their attacks upon him in the Times, and of
Mr Delane, the Editor of the Times, of Guizot, Princess Lieven,
etc., etc., etc. However, they had been convinced that they
could not upset him, and Mr Reeve had declared to him that
he had been making open and honourable (?!!) war upon
him; now he would make a lasting peace. With Russia
and France he (Lord Palmerston) had just been signing the
Danish Protocol, showing that they were on the best terms
together.

Lord John felt he could not press the matter further under
these circumstances, but he seemed much provoked at the result
of his conversation. We expressed our surprise that he had
[page 264]
not made Lord Palmerston any offer of any kind. Lord John
replied he had not been sure what he could have offered him….

Albert.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.³³

DUTIES OF THE FOREIGN SECRETARY

Osborne, 12th August 1850.

With reference to the conversation about Lord Palmerston
which the Queen had with Lord John Russell the other day,
and Lord Palmerston’s disavowal that he ever intended any
disrespect to her by the various neglects of which she has had
so long and so often to complain, she thinks it right, in order
to prevent any mistake for the future, shortly to explain what
it is she expects from her Foreign Secretary. She requires: (1)
That he will distinctly state what he proposes in a given case,
in order that the Queen may know as distinctly to what she
has given her Royal sanction; (2) Having once given her
sanction to a measure, that it be not arbitrarily altered or
modified by the Minister; such an act she must consider as
failing in sincerity towards the Crown, and justly to be visited
by the exercise of her Constitutional right of dismissing that
Minister. She expects to be kept informed of what passes
between him and the Foreign Ministers before important decisions
are taken, based upon that intercourse; to receive the
Foreign Despatches in good time, and to have the drafts for
her approval sent to her in sufficient time to make herself
acquainted with their contents before they must be sent off.
The Queen thinks it best that Lord John Russell should show
this letter to Lord Palmerston.

Footnote 33: Compare the memorandum suggested by Baron Stockmar, ante, p. 238. This letter
was, after much forbearance, written in the hope of bringing Lord Palmerston to a proper
understanding of his relation to the Sovereign. Even when the catastrophe came, and
its tenor had to be communicated by the Premier to Parliament, the Preamble was generously
omitted; but in consequence of its description by Lord Palmerston, in a letter
published by Mr Ashley, as an angry memorandum, it was printed in full in The Life of
the Prince Consort.

Viscount Palmerston to Lord John Russell.

Foreign Office, 13th August 1850.

My dear John Russell,—I have taken a copy of this
memorandum of the Queen and will not fail to attend to the
directions which it contains. With regard to the sending of
despatches to the Queen, they have sometimes been delayed
longer than should have been the case, in consequence of
my having been prevented by great pressure of business, and
by the many interruptions of interviews, etc., to which I am
[page 265]
liable, from reading and sending them back into the Office so
soon as I could have wished. But I will give orders that the
old practice shall be reverted to, of making copies of all important
despatches as soon as they reach the Office, so that
there may be no delay in sending the despatches to the Queen;
this practice was gradually left off as the business of the Office
increased, and if it shall require an additional clerk or two
you must be liberal and allow me that assistance.—Yours
sincerely,

Palmerston.

The Duc de Nemours to Queen Victoria.

DEATH OF LOUIS PHILIPPE

Claremont, 26 Août 1850.

Madame ma chère Cousine,—La main de Dieu vient de
s’appesantir sur nous. Le Roi notre Père n’est plus.³⁴ Après
avoir reçu hier avec calme et résignation les secours de la
religion, il s’est éteint ce matin à huit heures au milieu de nous
tous. Vous le connaissiez ma chère Cousine, vous savez tout
ce que nous perdons, vous comprendrez donc l’inexprimable
douleur dans laquelle nous sommes plongés; vous la partagerez
même je le sais!

La Reine brisée, malgré son courage, ne trouve de soulagement
que dans une retraite absolue où ne voyant personne
elle puisse laisser cours à sa douleur.

Veuillez faire part à Albert de notre malheur et recevoir ici,
ma chère Cousine, l’hommage des sentiments de respect et
d’attachement, de votre bien affectionné Cousin,

Louis d’Orléans.

Footnote 34: King Louis Philippe was in his seventy-seventh year when he died: his widow, Queen
Marie Amélie, lived till 1866, when she died at the age of eighty-four.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

Osborne, 26th August 1850.

The Queen wishes Lord Palmerston to give directions for a
Court mourning according to those which are usual for an
abdicated King. She likewise wishes that every assistance
should be given, and every attention shown to the afflicted
Royal Family, who have been so severely tried during the last
two years, on the melancholy occasion of the poor King of the
French’s death.

The Queen starts for Scotland to-morrow.

[page 266]

The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

Laeken, 30 August 1850.

… I have offered to the poor Queen of the French to
remain at Claremont and d’en disposer as long as Heaven does
not dispose of myself. She, of course, dislikes the place, but
will keep the family with her at least for some time.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

Taymouth Castle, 5th September 1850.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and was happy to receive your Majesty’s gracious letter, which
reached him the night before last.

The proofs of attachment to your Majesty, which are everywhere
exhibited, are the more gratifying as they are entirely
spontaneous.

It is fit and becoming that your Majesty should inhabit the
royal Palace of Holyrood, and this circumstance gives great
satisfaction throughout Scotland.

Lord John Russell is glad to learn that the family of the
late King of the French will continue to reside in England.

The reflection naturally occurs, if Napoleon and Louis
Philippe were unable to consolidate a dynasty in France, who
will ever be able to do it? The prospect is a succession of
fruitless attempts at civil Government till a General assumes
the command, and governs by military force.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

THE POET LAUREATE

Dunkeld, 7th September 1850.

… Lord John Russell has had the honour of receiving
at Taymouth a letter from the Prince. He agrees that the
office of Poet Laureate ought to be filled up. There are three
or four authors of nearly equal merit, such as Henry Taylor,
Sheridan Knowles, Professor Wilson, and Mr Tennyson, who
are qualified for the office.

The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

Ostend, 7th October 1850.

My dearest Victoria,—I write a few words only to tell you
how our dear patient is.³⁵ Yesterday was a most perilous,
[page 267]
truly dreadful day; our dear angelic Louise was so fainting
that Madame d’Hulst, who was with her, felt the greatest
alarm. She afterwards was better, and her mother, Clém,
Joinville, and Aumale having arrived, she saw them with
more composure than could have been expected. Still, she
would in fact wish to be left quiet and alone with me, and we
try to manage things as much as possible so that their visit
does not tire her too much.

Her courage and strength of mind are most heart-breaking
when one thinks of the danger in which she is, and her dear
and angelic soul seems even to shine more brightly at this
moment of such great and imminent danger. I am in a
dreadful state when I am with her. She is so contented, so
cheerful, that the possibilities of danger appear to me impossible;
but the physicians are very much alarmed, without
thinking the state absolutely hopeless. That one should write
such things about a life so precious, and one in fact still so
young, and whose angelic soul is so strong! You will feel
with me as you love her so dearly. God bless you and preserve
you from heart-breaking sufferings like mine. Ever,
my dearest Victoria, your devoted Uncle,

Leopold R.

Footnote 35: The Queen of the Belgians died on the 11th of October, at the age of thirty-eight.

Viscount Palmerston to Queen Victoria.

GENERAL HAYNAU

Broadlands, 8th October 1850.

Viscount Palmerston presents his humble duty to your
Majesty, and has had the honour to receive your Majesty’s
communication of the 4th instant, expressing your Majesty’s
wish that an alteration should be made in his answer to Baron
Koller’s ³⁶ note of the 5th of September, on the subject of the
attack made upon General Haynau;³⁷ but Viscount Palmerston
begs to state that when Baron Koller was at this place about ten
days ago, he expressed so much annoyance at the delay which
had already taken place in regard to the answer to his note of
the 5th September, and he requested so earnestly that he might
immediately have the reply, that Viscount Palmerston could
do no otherwise than send him the answer at once, and Baron
Koller despatched it the next day to Vienna.

Viscount Palmerston had put the last paragraph into the
answer, because he could scarcely have reconciled it to his own
[page 268]
feelings and to his sense of public responsibility to have put
his name to a note which might be liable to be called for by
Parliament, without expressing in it, at least as his own
personal opinion, a sense of the want of propriety evinced by
General Haynau in coming to England at the present moment.³⁸

The state of public feeling in this country about General
Haynau and his proceedings in Italy and Hungary was perfectly
well known; and his coming here so soon after those
events, without necessity or obligation to do so, was liable to be
looked upon as a bravado, and as a challenge to an expression
of public opinion.

Baron Koller indeed told Viscount Palmerston that Prince
Metternich and Baron Neumann had at Brussels strongly
dissuaded General Haynau from coming on to England; and
that he (Baron Koller) had after his arrival earnestly entreated
him to cut off those long moustachios which rendered him so
liable to be identified.

With regard to the transaction itself, there is no justifying
a breach of the law, nor an attack by a large number of people
upon one or two individuals who cannot resist such superior
force; and though in the present case, according to Baron
Koller’s account, the chief injury sustained by General Haynau
consisted in the tearing of his coat, the loss of a cane, and some
severe bruises on his left arm, and though four or five policemen
proved to be sufficient protection, yet a mob who begin
by insult lead each other on to outrage; and there is no saying
to what extremes they might have proceeded if they had not
been checked.

Such occurrences, however, have taken place before; and
to go no further back than the last summer, the attacks on
Lord Talbot at the Stafford meeting, and on Mr Bankes, Mr
Sturt, and others at the Dorchester meeting, when a man was
killed, were still more violent outrages, and originated simply
in differences of political opinion; whereas in this case the
brewers’ men were expressing their feeling at what they considered
inhuman conduct on the part of General Haynau.

The people of this country are remarkable for their hospitable
reception of foreigners, and for their forgetfulness of past
animosities. Napoleon Bonaparte, the greatest enemy that
England ever had, was treated while at Plymouth with respect,
and with commiseration while at St Helena. Marshal Soult,
who had fought in many battles against the English, was
received with generous acclamation when he came here as
Special Ambassador. The King of the French, Mons. Guizot,
[page 269]
and Prince Metternich, though all of them great antagonists of
English policy and English interests, were treated in this
country with courtesy and kindness. But General Haynau
was looked upon as a great moral criminal; and the feeling in
regard to him was of the same nature as that which was manifested
towards Tawell³⁹ and the Mannings,⁴⁰ with this only
difference, that General Haynau’s bad deeds were committed
upon a far larger scale, and upon a far larger number of victims.
But Viscount Palmerston can assure your Majesty that those
feelings of just and honourable indignation have not been
confined to England, for he had good reason to know that
General Haynau’s ferocious and unmanly treatment of the
unfortunate inhabitants of Brescia and of other towns and places
in Italy, his savage proclamations to the people of Pesth, and
his barbarous acts in Hungary excited almost as much disgust
in Austria as in England, and that the nickname of “General
Hyæna” was given to him at Vienna long before it was applied
to him in London.

Footnote 36: The Austrian Ambassador.

Footnote 37: General Haynau had earned in the Hungarian War an odious reputation as a flogger
of women. When visiting the brewery of Barclay & Perkins, the draymen mobbed and
assaulted him; he had to fly from them, and take refuge in a neighbouring house. Lord
Palmerston had to send an official letter of apology to the Austrian Government, which,
as originally despatched, without waiting for the Queen’s approval, contained a paragraph
offensive to Austria.

Footnote 38: See Lord Palmerston’s letter to Sir G. Grey, Ashley’s Life of Lord Palmerston, vol. i.
chap. vi.

Footnote 39: Executed for the Salt Hill murder.

Footnote 40: Marie Manning (an ex-lady’s maid, whose career is said to have suggested Hortense
in Bleak House to Dickens) was executed with her husband, in 1849, for the murder of
a guest. She wore black satin on the scaffold, a material which consequently became
unpopular for some time.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

THE DRAFT DESPATCHED

Buckingham Palace, 11th October 1850.

The Queen having written to Lord Palmerston in conformity
with Lord John Russell’s suggestion respecting the draft to
Baron Koller, now encloses Lord Palmerston’s answer, which
she received at Edinburgh yesterday evening. Lord John
will see that Lord Palmerston has not only sent the draft, but
passes over in silence her injunction to have a corrected copy
given to Baron Koller, and adds a vituperation against
General Haynau, which clearly shows that he is not sorry
for what has happened, and makes a merit of sympathising
with the draymen at the brewery and the Chartist Demonstrations….

The Queen encloses likewise a copy of her letter to Lord
Palmerston, and hopes Lord John will write to him.⁴¹

Footnote 41: Lord John insisted on the note being withdrawn, and another substituted with the
offensive passage omitted. After threatening resignation, Lord Palmerston somewhat
tamely consented.

Lord John Russell wrote to the Prince Albert that he would be “somewhat amused,
if not surprised, at the sudden and amicable termination of the dispute regarding the
letter to Baron Koller. The same course may be adopted with advantage if a despatch
is ever again sent which has been objected to, and to which the Queen’s sanction has not
been given.” See the Queen’s letter of the 19th of October.

[page 270]

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

LORD PALMERSTON CENSURED

Buckingham Palace, 12th October 1850.

The Queen has received Lord Palmerston’s letter respecting
the draft to Baron Koller. She cannot suppose that Baron
Koller addressed his note to Lord Palmerston in order to receive
in answer an expression of his own personal opinion; and
if Lord Palmerston could not reconcile it to his own feelings
to express the regret of the Queen’s Government at the brutal
attack and wanton outrage committed by a ferocious mob on
a distinguished foreigner of past seventy years of age, who was
quietly visiting a private establishment in this metropolis,
without adding his censure of the want of propriety evinced by
General Haynau in coming to England—he might have done
so in a private letter, where his personal feelings could not be
mistaken for the opinion of the Queen and her Government.
She must repeat her request that Lord Palmerston will rectify
this.

The Queen can as little approve of the introduction of Lynch
Law in this country as of the violent vituperations with which
Lord Palmerston accuses and condemns public men in other
countries, acting in most difficult circumstances and under
heavy responsibility, without having the means of obtaining
correct information or of sifting evidence.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

Osborne, 16th October 1850.

The Queen is glad to hear from Lord Palmerston that he
has given no countenance to the French and Russian proposal
at the suggestion of Denmark, that England, France, and
Russia should, after having signed the Protocol in favour of
Denmark, now go further and send their armies to aid her in
her contest with Holstein.⁴² The Queen does not expect any
good result from Lord Palmerston’s counter proposal to urge
Prussia and Austria to compel the Holsteiners to lay down
their arms. The mediating power ought rather to make
Denmark feel that it requires more than a cessation of hostilities,
a plan of reconciliation, and a solution of the questions in dispute,
before she can hope permanently to establish peace.
[page 271]
The mediating power itself, however, should strive to arrive
at some opinion on the matter in dispute, based, not on its
own supposed interests, as the Protocol is, but on an anxious,
careful, and impartial investigation of the rights and pretensions
of the disputing parties; and if it finds it impossible to
arrive at such an opinion, to fix upon some impartial tribunal
capable of doing so, to which the dispute could be submitted
for decision. Common principles of morality would point out
such a course, and what is morally right only can be politically
wise.

Footnote 42: A strenuous attempt was being made by the Danish Government to bring pressure
to bear on Austria and Prussia, to put down the nationalist movement in the Duchies,
either by active intervention, or by reassembling the Conference which had negotiated
the Treaty of Berlin. Lord Palmerston discountenanced both alternatives, but wrote
to the Queen that he and the representatives of France, Russia, and Denmark thought
that Austria and Prussia should be urged to take all feasible steps to put an end to the
hostilities.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

DEATH OF QUEEN LOUISE

Osborne, 18th October 1850.

My dearest Uncle,—This was the day I always and for
so many years wrote to her, to our adored Louise, and I
now
write to you, to thank you for that heart-breaking, touching
letter of the 16th, which you so very kindly wrote to me. It is
so kind of you to write to us. What a day Tuesday must have
been! Welch einen Gang! and yesterday! My grief was so
great again yesterday. To talk of her is my greatest
consolation!
Let us all try to imitate her! My poor dear Uncle, we wish so
to be with you, to be of any use to you. You will allow us, in
three or four weeks, to go to you for two or three days, quite
quietly and alone, to Laeken without any one, without any
reception anywhere, to cry with you and to talk with you of
Her. It will be a great comfort to us—a silent tribute of
respect
and love to her—to be able to mingle our tears with yours over
her tomb! And the affection of your two devoted children
will perhaps be some slight balm. My first impulse was to fly
at once to you, but perhaps a few weeks’ delay will be better.
It will be a great and melancholy satisfaction to us. Daily
will you feel more, my poor dear Uncle, the poignancy of
your dreadful loss; my heart breaks in thinking of you and
the poor dear children. How beautiful it must be to see
that your whole country weeps and mourns with you! For
this country and for your children you must try to bear
up, and feel that in so doing you are doing all she
wished.
If only we could be of use to you! if I could do anything
for dear little Charlotte, whom our blessed Louise talked of
so often to me.

May I write to you on Fridays when I used to write to her,
as
well as on Tuesdays? You need not answer me, and whenever
it bores you to write to me, or you have no time, let one of the
dear children write to me.

May God bless and protect you ever, my beloved Uncle, is
[page 272]
our anxious prayer. Embrace the dear children in the name
of one who has almost the feelings of a mother for them. Ever
your devoted Niece and loving Child,

Victoria R.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

THE QUEEN AND PALMERSTON

Osborne, 19th October 1850.

The Queen is very glad of the result of the conflict with Lord
Palmerston, of which Lord John Russell apprised her by his
letter of yesterday’s date. The correspondence, which the
Queen now returns, shows clearly that Lord Palmerston in
this transaction, as in every other, remained true to his principles
of action…. But it shows also that Lord John has
the power of exercising that control over Lord Palmerston, the
careful exercise of which he owes to the Queen, his colleagues,
and the country, if he will take the necessary pains to remain
firm. The Queen does not believe in resignation under almost
any circumstances.

The Queen is very anxious about the Holstein question, and
sends a copy of her last letter to Lord Palmerston on the
subject.

Lord John Russell to the Prince Albert.

Pembroke Lodge, 21st October 1850.

Sir,—I have just received this note from Lord Palmerston.⁴³

The French Ambassador, who has been here, confirms the
news. We must consider the whole affair on Wednesday, and
I shall be glad to learn what the Queen thinks can be done.

Mr Tennyson is a fit person to be Poet Laureate.

I have the honour to be, your Royal Highness’s most
obedient Servant,

J. Russell.

Footnote 43: The note was in reference to the affairs of Hesse-Cassel, and to the rumours of a Conference
to be held in Austria for the settlement of German affairs.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

THE TRACTARIAN MOVEMENT

Bishopthorpe, 25th October 1850.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty;
he has read with attention the letter of the Duchess of Norfolk.⁴⁴
He has also read the Pope’s Bull. It strikes him that
[page 273]
the division into twelve territorial dioceses of eight ecclesiastical
vicariats is not a matter to be alarmed at. The persons
to be affected by this change must be already Roman Catholics
before it can touch them.

The matter to create rational alarm is, as your Majesty says,
the growth of Roman Catholic doctrines and practices within
the bosom of the Church. Dr Arnold said very truly, “I look
upon a Roman Catholic as an enemy in his uniform; I look
upon a Tractarian as an enemy disguised as a spy.”

It would be very wrong to do as the Bishop of Oxford proposed,
and confer the patronage of the Crown on any of these
Tractarians. But, on the other hand, to treat them with
severity would give the whole party vigour and union.

The Dean of Bristol is of opinion that the Tractarians are
falling to pieces by dissension. It appears clear that Mr
Denison and Mr Palmer have broken off from Dr Pusey.

Sir George Grey will ask the Law Officers whether there is
anything illegal in Dr Wiseman’s assuming the title of Archbishop
of Westminster. An English Cardinal is not a novelty.⁴⁵

Footnote 44: Two important events in the history of the English Church had just occurred. The
Bishop of Exeter had refused to institute Mr Gorham to a Crown living in his diocese, on
the ground that his teaching on baptism was at variance with the formularies of the
Church. This decision, though upheld in the Court of Arches, was reversed (though
not unanimously) by the Privy Council. High Church feeling was much aroused by the
judgment.

In September, Pius IX. (now re-established in the Vatican) promulgated a papal brief,
restoring the Roman Catholic hierarchy in England, and dividing it territorially into
twelve sees, and in October Cardinal Wiseman, as Archbishop of Westminster, issued his
Pastoral, claiming that Catholic England had been restored to its orbit in the ecclesiastical
firmament. The Duchess of Norfolk, writing from Arundel, had criticised the proselytising
action of certain Roman Catholic clergy. See the Queen’s reply, post, p. 277.

Footnote 45: Lord John wrote on the 4th of November to Dr Maltby, Bishop of Durham, denouncing
the assumption of spiritual superiority over England, in the documents issued from
Rome. But what alarmed him more (he said) was the action of clergymen within the
Church leading their flocks dangerously near the brink, and recommending for adoption
the honour paid to saints, the claim of infallibility for the Church, the superstitious use of
the sign of the cross, the muttering of the liturgy so as to disguise the language in which it
was said, with the recommendation of auricular confession and the administration of
Penance and absolution.

Lord John was pictorially satirised in Punch as the boy who chalked up “No popery”
on the door and ran away.

The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

UNREST IN EUROPE

Ardenne, 10th November 1850.

My dearest Victoria,—I write already to-day that it may
not miss to-morrow’s messenger. I came here yesterday by
a mild sunshine, and the valley of the Meuse was very pretty.
I love my solitude here, and though the house is small and not
what it ought to have been, still I always liked it. There seems
in most countries danger of agitation and convulsions arising.
I don’t know how it will end in Germany. In France it is
difficult that things should not break up some way or other.
I trust you may be spared religious agitation. These sorts of
things begin with one pretext, and sometimes continue with
others. I don’t think Europe was ever in more danger, il y a
[page 274]
tant d’anarchie dans les esprits. I don’t think that can be cured à
l’eau de rose; the human race is not naturally good, very much
the contrary; it requires a strong hand, and is, in fact, even
pleased to be led in that way; the memory of all the sort of
Césars and Napoléons, from whom they chiefly got blows, is
much dearer to them than the benefactors of mankind, whom
they crucify when they can have their own way. Give my
best love to Albert; and I also am very anxious to be recalled
to the recollection of the children, who were so very friendly
at Ostende. How far we were then to guess what has since
happened…. My dearest Victoria, your devoted Uncle,

Leopold R.

Queen Victoria to the Countess of Gainsborough.⁴⁶

Thursday morning [November …] 1850.

Dearest Fanny,—This is a case of positive necessity, and
as none of the ladies are forthcoming I fear I must call upon
you to attend me to-night. You did so once in state before,
and as it is not a matter of pleasure, but of duty, I am sure you
will at once feel that you can have no scruple.

Whenever the Mistress of the Robes does not attend, I
always have three ladies, as they must take turns in standing
behind me. Ever yours affectionately,

Victoria R.

Footnote 46: Frances, Countess of Gainsborough, daughter of the third Earl of Roden, a Lady of
the Bedchamber, and known till 1841 as Lady Barham.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

ENGLAND AND GERMANY

Windsor Castle, 18th November 1850.

The Queen is exceedingly sorry to hear that Lord Westmorland⁴⁷
is gone, as she was particularly anxious to have seen
him before his return to Berlin, and to have talked to him on
the present critical events in Germany; but she quite forgot
the day of his departure. What is the object of his seeing
the President at Paris? and what are his instructions with
regard to Germany?⁴⁸

Having invariably encouraged Constitutional development in
other countries,… and having at the beginning of the great
movement in 1847, which led to all the catastrophes of the
following years, sent a Cabinet Minister to Italy to declare to
[page 275]
all Italian states that England would protect them from Austria
if she should attempt by threats and violence to debar them
from the attainment of their Constitutional development,
consistency
would require that we should now, when that great
struggle is at its end and despotism is to be re-imposed by
Austrian arms upon Germany, throw our weight into the scale
of Constitutional Prussia and Germany…. The Queen is
afraid, however, that all our Ministers abroad,—at Berlin,
Dresden, Munich, Stuttgart, Hanover, etc. (with the exception
of Lord Cowley at Frankfort)—are warm partisans of the
despotic league against Prussia and a German Constitution and
for the maintenance of the old Diet under Austrian and Russian
influence. Ought not Lord Palmerston to make his agents
understand that their sentiments are at variance with those
of the English Government? and that they are doing serious
mischief if they express them at Courts which have already
every inclination to follow their desperate course?

Lord Palmerston is of course aware that the old Diet once
reconstituted and recognised, one of the main laws of it is that
“no organic change can be made without unanimity of voices,”
which was the cause of the nullity of that body from 1820 to
1848, and will now enable Austria, should Prussia and her
confederates recognise the Diet, to condemn Germany to a
further life of stagnation or new revolution.

Footnote 47: Minister at Berlin.

Footnote 48: Lord Palmerston may have had this letter of the Queen’s in mind when he wrote on
the 22nd of November to Lord Cowley: “Her (i.e. Prussia’s) partisans try to make out
that the contest between her and Austria is a struggle between constitutional and
arbitrary Government, but it is no such thing.” Ashley’s Life of Lord Palmerston, vol. 1.
chap. vi.

Viscount Palmerston to Queen Victoria.

CONSTITUTIONALISM IN GERMANY

Foreign Office, 18th November 1850.

Viscount Palmerston presents his humble duty to your
Majesty. With respect to the maintenance of Constitutional
Government in Germany, Viscount Palmerston entirely subscribes
to your Majesty’s opinion, that a regard for consistency,
as well as a sense of right and justice, ought to lead your
Majesty’s Government to give to the Constitutional principle
in Germany the same moral support which they endeavoured
to afford it in Italy, Spain, Portugal, and elsewhere; but
though he is conscious that he may be deceived and may think
better of the Austrian Government in this respect than it deserves,
yet he cannot persuade himself that rational and sound
Constitutional Government is at present in danger in Germany,
or that the Austrian Government, whatever may be their inclination
and wishes, can think it possible in the present day
to re-establish despotic government in a nation so enlightened,
and so attached to free institutions as the German people now
is. The danger for Germany seems to lie rather in the opposite
[page 276]
direction, arising from the rash and weak precipitation with
which in 1848 and 1849 those Governments which before had
refused everything resolved in a moment of alarm to grant
everything, and, passing from one extreme to the other, threw
universal suffrage among people who had been, some wholly
and others very much, unaccustomed to the working of representative
Government. The French have found universal
suffrage incompatible with good order even in a Republic;
what must it be for a Monarchy?

Viscount Palmerston would, moreover, beg to submit that
the conflict between Austria and Prussia can scarcely be said
to have turned upon principles of Government so much as
upon a struggle for political ascendency in Germany. At
Berlin, at Dresden, and in Baden the Prussian Government
has very properly no doubt employed military force to reestablish
order; and in regard to the affairs of Hesse, the ground
taken by Prussia was not so much a constitutional as a military
one, and the objection which she made to the entrance of the
troops of the Diet was that those troops might become hostile,
and that they ought not, therefore, to occupy a central position
in the line of military defence of Prussia.

The remark which your Majesty makes as to unanimity
being required for certain purposes by the Diet regulations is
no doubt very just, and that circumstance certainly shows that
the free Conference which is about to be held is a better constructed
body for planning a new arrangement of a central
organ.⁴⁹

Footnote 49: War was staved off by the Conference; but the relative predominance of Prussia
and Austria in Germany was left undecided for some years to come.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

STATE OF THE CONTINENT

Windsor Castle, 22nd November 1850.

My dearest Uncle,—Accept my best thanks for your kind
letter of the 17th, and the dear little English one from dear
little Charlotte, which is so nicely written, and shows such an
amiable disposition. I send her to-day a little heart for the
hair of our blessed Angel, which I hope she will often wear.
Our girls have all got one. I have written to the dear child.
You should have the dear children as much with you as possible;
I am sure it would be so good and useful for you and
them.
Children ought to have great confidence in their parents, in
order for them to have any influence over them.

Yesterday Vicky was ten years old. It seems a dream. If
she lives, in eight years more she may be married! She is a
very clever child, and I must say very much improved.

[page 277]

The state of the Continent is deplorable; the folly of
Austria and the giving way of Prussia are lamentable. Our
influence on the Continent is null…. Add to this, we are
between two fires in this country: a furious Protestant feeling
and an enraged Catholic feeling in Ireland. I believe that
Austria fans the flame at Rome, and that the whole movement
on the Continent is anti-Constitutional, anti-Protestant, and
anti-English; and this is so complicated, and we have (thanks
to Lord Palmerston) contrived to quarrel so happily, separately
with each, that I do not know how we are to stand against
it all!

I must now conclude. Trusting soon to hear from you again.
Ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

My longing for dearest Louise seems only to increase as time
goes on.

Queen Victoria to the Duchess of Norfolk.

Windsor Castle, 22nd November 1850.

My dear Duchess,—It is very remiss in me not to have
sooner answered your letter with the enclosure, but I received
it at a moment of great grief, and since then I have been much
occupied.

I fully understand your anxiety relative to the proceedings
of the Roman Catholic Clergy, but I trust that there is no real
danger to be apprehended from that quarter, the more so as
I believe they see that they have been misled and misinformed
as to the feeling of this country by some of the new converts to
their religion. The real danger to be apprehended, and what
I am certain has led to these proceedings on the part of the
Pope, lies in our own divisions, and in the extraordinary conduct
of the Puseyites. I trust that the eyes of many may now
be opened. One would, however, much regret to see any acts
of intolerance towards the many innocent people who I
believe entirely disapprove the injudicious conduct of their
Clergy.

Hoping that you are all well, believe me, always, yours,
affectionately,

Victoria R.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Windsor Castle, 29th November 1850.

My dearest Uncle,—I have no dear letter to answer, but
write to keep to the dear day, rendered so peculiarly dear to
me by the recollection of our dearly beloved Louise.

[page 278]

We are well, but much troubled with numberless things.
Our religious troubles are great, and I must just say that
Cardinal Wiseman himself admits that Austria not only approves
the conduct of the Pope but is urging on the Propaganda.
I know this to be so. Our great difficulty must be,
and will be, to steer clear of both parties—the violent Protestants
and the Roman Catholics. We wish in no way to
infringe the rights of the Roman Catholics, while we must
protect and uphold our own religion.

We have seen General Radowitz,⁵⁰ with whom we have been
much interested; his accounts are very clear and very able,
and I must say, very fair and strictly constitutional. You
know him, I suppose? Might I again ask, dearest Uncle, if
you would like to have a copy of Ross’s picture of our angel
Louise or of Winterhalter’s?

Lady Lyttelton, who is returned, is very anxious in her
enquiries after you.

I must now conclude, my dearest Uncle. Ever your
devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 50: General Radowitz, who had been Minister for Foreign Affairs in Prussia, had just
arrived in England on a special mission from the King of Prussia.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

STATE OF GERMANY

Windsor Castle, 3rd December 1850.

My beloved Uncle,—Two of your dear letters are before
me, of the 29th November and of yesterday. In the former
you give me a promise, which I consider most valuable, and
which I shall remind you of if you get desponding, viz. “I will
to please you labour on, and do all the good I can.” It is so
pleasing to feel that one does good and does one’s duty. It
sweetens so many bitter trials.

The state of Germany is indeed a very anxious one. It is a
mistake to think the supremacy of Prussia is what is wished for.
General Radowitz himself says that what is necessary for Germany
[is] that she should take the lead, and should redeem the
pledges given in ’48. Unless this be done in a moderate and
determined way, a fearful reaction will take place, which will
overturn Thrones; to use Radowitz’s own words: “und nicht
vor dem Thron stehen bleiben.” Prussia is the only large and
powerful really German Power there is, and therefore she must
take the lead; but her constant vacillation—one day doing
one thing and another day another—has caused her to be
entirely distrusted. You are quite right in saying things
should be done d’un commun accord, and I think that the other
[page 279]
great Powers ought to be consulted. Unfortunately, Lord
Palmerston has contrived to make us so hated by all parties
abroad, that we have lost our position and our influence,
which, considering the flourishing and satisfactory state of this
country during all the European convulsions, ought to have
been immense. This it is which pains and grieves me so deeply,
and which I have so plainly been speaking to Lord John
Russell about. What a noble position we might have had, and
how wantonly has it been thrown away!

Good Stockmar is well, and always of the greatest comfort
and use to us. His judgment is so sound, so unbiassed, and so
dispassionate. Ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

ENGLAND AND ROME

Windsor Castle, 8th December 1850.

The Queen received Lord John Russell’s letter and the draft
yesterday. He must be a better judge of what the effect of
Mr Sheil’s⁵¹ presence in Rome may be than she can; but for
her own part, she thinks it entirely against her notions of what
is becoming to ask the Pope for a favour (for it is
tantamount
to that) at a moment when his name is being vilified and abused
in every possible manner in this country. It strikes the Queen
as an undignified course for this Government to pursue.

The Queen is glad to hear of what passed between the Archbishop
and Lord John.⁵² She trusts that something may be
done, as the desire for it seems to be so great. On the other
hand, the Queen deeply regrets the great abuse of the Roman
Catholic religion which takes place at all these meetings, etc.
She thinks it unchristian and unwise, and trusts that it will soon
cease….

Footnote 51: Minister at the Court of Tuscany.

Footnote 52: The Government were preparing for the introduction of their Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

LADY PEEL

Windsor Castle, 10th December 1850.

My beloved Uncle,—My letter must, I fear, be a somewhat
hurried and short one, for my morning has been taken up in
receiving in state Addresses from the City and Universities
about this unfortunate “Papal Aggression” business, which is
still keeping people in a feverish state of wild excitement.⁵³ One
good effect it has had, viz. that of directing people’s serious
[page 280]
attention to the very alarming tendency of the Tractarians,
which was doing immense harm….

Many, many thanks for your two dear and kind letters of the
6th and of yesterday. All you say about Louise, and about
the disappearance for ever of all that she loved and was
proud
of, is so true, so dreadful. One fancies (foolishly and wrongly,
but still one does) that the lost one has been hardly used in no
longer enjoying these earthly blessings, and one’s grief seems to
break out afresh in bitter agony upon small and comparatively
trifling occasions. Poor Lady Peel (whom I saw for the first
time yesterday at Buckingham Palace, whither I had gone for
an hour) expressed this strongly. Hers is indeed a broken
heart; she is so truly crushed by the agony of her
grief; it was
very touching to see and to hear her. Poor thing! she never
can be happy again!

What you say about me is far too kind. I am very often
sadly dissatisfied with myself and with the little self-control I
have.

Your long letter interested us much. I fear the German
affairs are very bad…. That everlasting “backwards and
forwards,” as you say, of my poor friend the King of Prussia is
calamitous; it causes all parties to distrust him, and gives
real
strength only to the Republicans. Since ’48 that has been his
conduct, and the misfortune for Germany. A steady course,
whatever it may be, is always the best.

What you say about poor Hélène⁵⁴ and France is true and sad.
I really wish you would caution Hélène as to her language;
she is much attached to you. I pity her very much; her
position is very trying, and her religion renders it more difficult
even.

I must now end my letter. I grieve to hear of your going
alone to Ardenne; it is BAD for you to be alone, and your poor
children also ought not to be alone. Ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 53: These Addresses were presented at Windsor, Prince Albert and the Duke of Wellington
representing the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford.

Footnote 54: The Duchess of Orleans.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

Downing Street, 11th December 1850.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and has the honour to state that the Cabinet to-day considered
at great length the question of the steps to be taken in respect
to the Papal Aggression.

The inclination of the majority was not to prosecute, but to
bring a Bill into Parliament to make the assumption of any
[page 281]
titles of archbishop, etc., of any place in the United Kingdom
illegal, and to make any gift of property conveyed under such
title null and void.

Queen Victoria to the Duchess of Gloucester.

RITUALISM

Windsor Castle, 12th December 1850.

My dear Aunt,—Many thanks for your kind letter; you
are quite right not to distress the Duchess of Cambridge by
mentioning to her what I wrote to you about the Bishop of
London.⁵⁵ I am glad that you are pleased with my answers to
the Addresses; I thought them very proper.⁵⁶

I would never have consented to say anything which breathed
a spirit of intolerance. Sincerely Protestant as I always have
been and always shall be, and indignant as I am at those who
call themselves Protestants, while they in fact are quite the
contrary, I much regret the unchristian and intolerant spirit
exhibited by many people at the public meetings. I cannot
bear to hear the violent abuse of the Catholic religion, which
is so painful and cruel towards the many good and innocent
Roman Catholics. However, we must hope and trust this
excitement will soon cease, and that the wholesome effect of
it on our own Church will be the lasting result of it. Ever
yours …

Victoria R.

Footnote 55: The Bishop of London had taken the same view as Lord John Russell of the Papal
action, though they had disagreed over the Gorham controversy.

Footnote 56: See ante, p. 279.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

Windsor Castle, 14th December 1850.

The Queen has received Lord John Russell’s letter of yesterday.
She sanctions the introduction into Parliament of a Bill
framed on the principles agreed upon at yesterday’s Cabinet,
presuming that it will extend to the whole United Kingdom.
What is to be done, however, with respect to the Colonies where
the Roman Catholic bishoprics are recognised by the Government
under territorial titles? and what is to be done with
Dr Cullen, who has assumed the title of Archbishop of Armagh,
Primate of all Ireland, which is punishable under the Emancipation
Act? If this is left unnoticed, the Government will
be left with the “lame” argument in Parliament of which we
conversed here. Could the Government not be helped out of
this difficulty by the Primate himself prosecuting the obtruder?
The Queen hopes that the meeting of the archdeacons with
[page 282]
Dr Lushington may do some good; she cannot say that she
is pleased with the Archbishop’s answer to the laity published
in to-day’s Times, which leaves them without a remedy if the
clergymen persist in Puseyite Rituals! The Queen will return
Lord Minto’s letter with the next messenger.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

Windsor Castle, 22nd December 1850.

The Queen now returns Lord Seymour’s letter respecting
the New Forest, and sanctions the proposed arrangement.
Considering, however, that she gives up the deer, and all
patronage and authority over the Forest, she wishes the shooting,
as the only remaining Royalty, not to be withdrawn from
her authority also. It will be quite right to give Deputations⁵⁷
to shoot over the various divisions and walks of the Forest to
gentlemen of the neighbourhood or others; but in order that
this may establish no right on their part, and may leave the
Sovereign a voice in the matter, she wishes that a list be prepared
every year of the persons recommended by the Office
of Woods to receive Deputations and submitted for her
approval.

Footnote 57: A deputation, i.e., a deputed right to take game.

[page 283]

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

TO CHAPTER XX

The Ministry were in difficulties at the very beginning of the
session (1851), being nearly defeated on a motion made in the interest
of the agricultural party; and though the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill
was allowed to be brought in, they were beaten in a thin House
chiefly by their own friends, on the question of the County Franchise.
A crisis ensued, and a coalition of Whigs and Peelites was attempted,
but proved impracticable. Lord Stanley having then failed to form
a Protectionist Ministry, the Whigs, much weakened, had to resume
office.

The Exhibition, which was opened in Hyde Park on the 1st of May,
was a complete success, a brilliant triumph indeed, for the Prince,
over six million people visiting it; it remained open till the Autumn,
and the building, some time after its removal, was re-erected at
Sydenham, at the Crystal Palace.

The Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, much modified, was proceeded with,
and, though opposed by the ablest Peelites and Radicals, became law,
though its effect, while in operation, was virtually nil. It was in
after-years repealed.

Kossuth, the champion of Hungarian independence, visited England
in October, and Lord Palmerston had to be peremptorily
restrained from receiving him publicly at the Foreign Office. A
little later, Kossuth’s ultra-liberal sympathisers in London addressed
the Foreign Secretary in language violently denunciatory of the
Emperors of Austria and Russia, for which Lord Palmerston failed
to rebuke them. The cup was filled to the brim by his recognition
of the President’s coup d’état in France. Louis Napoleon, after
arresting M. Thiers and many others, proclaimed the dissolution of
the Council of State and the National Assembly, decreed a state of
siege, and re-established universal suffrage, with a Chief Magistrate
elected for ten years, and a Ministry depending on the executive
alone. Palmerston thereupon, though professing an intention of
non-interference, conveyed to the French Ambassador in London
his full approbation of the proceeding, and his conviction that the
President could not have acted otherwise. Even after this indiscreet
action, the Premier found some difficulty in bringing him to
book; but before the end of the year he was dismissed from office,
with the offer, which he declined, of the Irish Lord-Lieutenancy and
a British Peerage. Greatly to the Queen’s satisfaction, Lord
Granville became Foreign Secretary.

At the Cape, Sir Harry Smith was engaged in operations against
the Kaffirs, which were not brought to a successful termination till
the following year, when General Cathcart had superseded him.

[page 284]

CHAPTER XX

1851

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

Windsor Castle, 25th January 1851.

The Queen approves of the elevation of Mr. Pemberton
Leigh¹ to the Peerage, which she considers a very useful
measure, and not likely to lead to any permanent increase of
the Peerage, as he is not likely to marry at his present age, and
considering that he has only a life interest in his large property.

With regard to the creation of Dr Lushington² as a Peer,
without remainder, the Queen has again thoroughly considered
the question, and is of opinion that the establishment of the
principle of creation for life—in cases where public advantage
may be derived from the grant of a Peerage, but where there
may be no fortune to support the dignity in the family—is
most desirable. The mode in which the public will take the
introduction of it will however chiefly depend upon the merits
of the first case brought forward. Dr Lushington appears to
the Queen so unobjectionable in this respect that she cannot but
approve of the experiment being tried with him.

It would be well, however, that it should be done quietly;
that it should not be talked about beforehand or get into the
papers, which so frequently happens on occasions of this kind,
and generally does harm.

Footnote 1: Member of Parliament for Rye 1881-1832, and Ripon 1835-1843, afterwards a member
of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council: he became a Peer (Lord Kingsdown)
in 1858, having declined a peerage on the present and other occasions.

Footnote 2: Dr Lushington was judge of the Admiralty Court: he had been counsel for, and an
executor of, Queen Caroline. He declined the offer now suggested, and the subsequent
debates on the Wensleydale Peerage show that the proposed grant would have been ineffectual
for its purpose.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

DIPLOMATIC ARRANGEMENTS

Windsor Castle, 31st January 1851.

The Queen has received Lord Palmerston’s letter of the 29th,
in which he proposes a change in those diplomatic arrangements
which she had already sanctioned on his recommendation, and
must remark that the reasons which Lord Palmerston adduces
[page 285]
in support of his present proposition are in direct contradiction
to those by which he supported his former recommendation.³

The principle which the Queen would wish to see acted upon
in her diplomatic appointments in general, is, that the good of
the service should precede every other consideration, and that
the selection of an agent should depend more on his personal
qualifications for the particular post for which he is to be selected
than on the mere pleasure and convenience of the person to be
employed, or of the Minister recommending him.

According to Lord Palmerston’s first proposal, Sir H. Seymour
was to have gone to St Petersburg, Lord Bloomfield to
Berlin, and Sir Richard Pakenham to Lisbon; now Lord
Palmerston wishes to send Lord Cowley to St Petersburg.

The Queen has the highest opinion of Lord Cowley’s abilities,
and agrees with Lord Palmerston in thinking that Russia will,
for some time at least, exercise a predominating influence over
all European affairs. She would accordingly not object to see
that Agent accredited there in whom she herself places the
greatest confidence. But according to the same principle, she
must insist that the posts of Berlin and Frankfort, which in her
opinion are of nearly equal importance, should be filled by men
capable of dealing with the complicated and dangerous political
questions now in agitation there, and the just appreciation and
judicious treatment of which are of the highest importance to
the peace of Europe, and therefore to the welfare of England.

Before the Queen therefore decides upon Lord Palmerston’s
new proposals, she wishes to know whom he could recommend
for the post of Frankfort in the event of Lord Cowley leaving it,
and thinks it but right to premise that in giving her sanction to
the proposals Lord Palmerston may have to submit, she will
be guided entirely by the principle set forth above.

Footnote 3: Lord Palmerston had altered his mind as to certain proposed diplomatic changes, and
suggested the appointment of Sir Hamilton Seymour to Berlin, Lord Bloomfield to Lisbon,
Lord Cowley to Petersburg, Mr Jerningham, Sir Henry Ellis, or Sir Richard Pakenham
to Frankfort.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

DIPLOMATIC ARRANGEMENTS

Chesham Place, 12th January 1851.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and has the honour to state that Mr Disraeli brought forward
his Motion yesterday.⁴ His speech was long and elaborate, but
not that of a man who was persuaded he was undertaking a
good cause.

He proposed nothing specific, but said nothing offensive.

The doubts about the division increase. Mr Hayter reckoned
[page 286]
yesterday on a majority of three! Sir James Graham is of
opinion Lord Stanley will not undertake anything desperate.
He will speak in favour of Government to-morrow, when the
division will probably take place.

Footnote 4: On agricultural distress; the Motion was lost by fourteen only in a large House.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

Buckingham Palace, 15th February 1851.

The Queen has received Lord Palmerston’s letter of yesterday,
and has to state in answer her decision in favour of the original
plan of appointments, viz. of Sir H. Seymour to Petersburg,
Lord Bloomfield to Berlin, and Sir R. Pakenham to Lisbon.
The Queen quite agrees with Lord Palmerston in the opinion
that the post at Petersburg is more important than that of
Frankfort, and had Lord Palmerston been able to propose a
good successor to Lord Cowley she would have approved his
going to Petersburg; Sir R. Pakenham, however, would not
take Frankfort if offered to him, as it appears, and the two other
persons proposed would not do for it, in the Queen’s opinion.
It must not be forgotten that at a place for action like Petersburg,
the Minister will chiefly have to look to his instructions
from home, while at a place of observation, as Lord Palmerston
justly calls Frankfort, everything depends upon the acuteness
and impartiality of the observer, and upon the confidence with
which he may be able to inspire those from whom alone accurate
information can be obtained. Lord Cowley possesses eminently
these qualities, and Sir H. Seymour has at all times shown himself
equal to acting under most difficult circumstances. The
desire of the Emperor to see Lord Cowley at Petersburg may
possibly resolve itself in the desire of Baron Brunnow to see him
removed from Germany…. The Queen had always understood
that Sir H. Seymour would be very acceptable to the Emperor,
and that Count Nesselrode called him a diplomatist “de la
bonne vieille roche.”

Memorandum by Queen Victoria.

SIR JAMES GRAHAM

Buckingham Palace. 17th February 1851.

Lord John Russell came at half-past three. He had had a
long conversation with Sir James Graham, had stated to him
that from the tone of his speech (which Lord John explained
to us yesterday was of so very friendly a character and pointed
directly to supporting the Government)—its friendliness, and
the manner in which he advocated the union of those who
opposed a return to Protection, that he proposed to him to
join the Government; that Sir G. Grey had offered to resign
[page 287]
his office in order that Sir J. Graham might have it. Before
I go farther I ought to say that Lord John yesterday explained
the importance of obtaining support like Sir J. Graham’s in the
Cabinet, and that he thought of proposing the Board of Control
to him, which Sir J. Hobhouse was ready to give up—receiving
a Peerage, and retaining a seat in the Cabinet or the Admiralty,
which Sir F. Baring was equally ready to give up.

Well, Sir J. Graham said that before he answered he wished
to show Lord John a correspondence which had passed between
him and Lord Londonderry. In the course of conversation in
the country, Sir James had said to Lord Londonderry that
parties never could go on as they were, and that they must
ultimately lapse into two; this, Lord Londonderry reported to
Mr Disraeli, who told it to Lord Stanley; and Mr Disraeli
wrote to Lord Londonderry, stating that if certain advantages
and reliefs were given to the landed interests, he should not
cling to Protection; in short, much what he said in his speech—and
that he was quite prepared to give up the lead in the
House of Commons to Sir J. Graham. Sir James answered
that he never meant anything by what he had said, and that
he had no wish whatever to join Lord Stanley; that if he had,
he was so intimate with Lord Stanley that he would have
communicated direct with him.

Sir James said that as soon as he heard from Lord John, he
thought what he wished to see him for, and that he had been
thinking over it, and had been talking to Lord Hardinge and
Mr Cardwell. That he did wish to support the Government,
but that he thought he could be of more use if he did not join
the Government, and was able to give them an independent
support; that he had not attempted to lead Sir Robert Peel’s
followers; that many who had followed Sir Robert would not
follow him; that he thought the Government in great danger;
that the Protectionists, Radicals, and Irish Members would try
to take an opportunity to overset them (the Government);
that should the Government be turned out, he would find no
difficulty in joining them; or should they go on, that by-and-by
it might be easier to do so; but that at this moment he
should be injuring himself without doing the Government any
real service; besides which, there were so many measures
decided on which he was ignorant of, and should have to
support. Lord John told him that were he in the Cabinet, he
would have the means of stating and enforcing his opinions,
and that at whatever time he joined them, there would always
be the same difficulty about measures which had already been
decided on. He (Sir James) is not quite satisfied with the
Papal Aggression Bill, which he thinks will exasperate the Irish;
[page 288]
he also adverted to the report of our having protested against
Austria bringing her Italian Provinces, etc., into the German
Confederation. Lord John told him that this had not been
done, but that we meant to ask for explanations.

In short, Lord John said it was evident that Sir James
thought the Government in great danger, and “did not wish
to embark in a boat which was going to sink.” Still, he was
friendly, and repeated that it would be very easy when in
opposition to unite, and then to come in together.

Victoria R.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

DEFEAT OF THE GOVERNMENT

Chesham Place, 21st February 1851.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and has the honour to report that on a motion of Mr Locke
King’s⁵ yesterday the Government was defeated by a hundred
to fifty-two.

This is another circumstance which makes it probable the
Ministry cannot endure long. The Tories purposely stayed
away.

Footnote 5: For equalising the County and the Borough franchise.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Buckingham Palace, 21st February 1851.

My dearest Uncle,—I have only time just to write a few
hasty lines to you from Stockmar’s room, where I came up to
speak to Albert and him, to tell you that we have got a
Ministerial crisis; the Ministers were in a great minority last
night, and though it was not a question vital to the Government,
Lord John feels the support he has received so meagre,
and the opposition of so many parties so great, that he must
resign! This is very bad, because there is no chance of any
other good Government, poor Peel being no longer alive, and
not one man of talent except Lord Stanley in the Party;…
but Lord John is right not to go on when he is so ill supported,
and it will raise him as a political man, and will strengthen his
position for the future.

Whether Lord Stanley (to whom I must send to-morrow
after the Government have resigned) will be able to form a
Government or not, I cannot tell. Altogether, it is very
vexatious, and will give us trouble. It is the more provoking,
as this country is so very prosperous.

On Tuesday I hope to be able to say more….

With Albert’s love, ever your truly devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

[page 289]

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

MINISTERIAL CRISIS

Buckingham Palace, 22nd February 1851.

Lord John Russell having been for a few minutes with the
Queen, in order to prepare her for the possibility of the
Government’s resignation (yesterday, at two o’clock), went to
Downing Street to meet the Cabinet, and promised to return
at four in order to communicate the decision the Cabinet might
have arrived at. On his return he explained that after the
vote at the beginning of the Session on the Orders of the Day,
which went directly against the Government, after the small
majority (only fourteen) which they had on the motion of
Mr Disraeli on the landed interest, and now the defeat on
the Franchise, it was clear that the Government did not
possess the confidence of the House of Commons. He complained
of the Protectionists staying away in a body on Mr
King’s motion, and he (Lord John) himself being left without
a supporter even amongst his colleagues in the debate, but
most of all of the conduct of the Radicals; for when Mr King,
hearing Lord John’s promise to bring in a measure next
Session, wanted to withdraw his Motion, as he ought to have
done on such a declaration by the head of the Government,
Mr Hume insisted upon his going on, “else Lord John would
withdraw his promise again in a fortnight”; and when the
result of the vote was made known the shouting and triumph
of the hundred was immense.

LORD LANSDOWNE CONSULTED

Lord John had declared to the Cabinet that he could not go
on, that the Income Tax would have to be voted the next day,
and a defeat was probable; it were much better therefore
not to hesitate, and to resign at once. The Cabinet agreed,
although some Members thought with Lord Palmerston that
the occasion was hardly sufficient. Lord John begged to be
allowed till to-day, in order to see Lord Lansdowne, whom he
had sent for from the country, and to be able to tender then
his resignation; he would go down to the House to adjourn it,
promising explanations on Monday.

We agreed with Lord John that he owed to his station personally,
and as the Queen’s Minister, not to put up with ignominious
treatment, praised his speech on the Suffrage, which is
admirable, and regretted that his colleagues had prevented him
from bringing in a measure this year. We talked of the difficulty
of forming any Government, but agreed that Lord
Stanley and the Protection Party ought to be appealed to;
they longed for office, and would not rest quiet till they had
had it if for ever so short a time only.

We further went over the ground of a possible demand for a
[page 290]
Dissolution, which might bring on a general commotion in the
country. Lord John agreed in this, but thought the responsibility
to be very great for the Crown to refuse an appeal to the
country to the new Government; he thought a decision on that
point ought to depend on the peculiar circumstances of the case.

Lord Lansdowne, who had come from Bowood by the express
train, arrived at twelve o’clock, and came at once to meet
Lord John Russell here at the Palace.

In the audience which the Queen gave him he expressed his
entire concurrence with the decision the Cabinet had come to,
as the resignation could at any rate only have been delayed.
It was clear that the Cabinet had lost the confidence of the
House of Commons; what had happened the other night was
only the last drop which made the cup flow over, and that it
was much more dignified not to let the Government die a
lingering and ignominious death; he [thought] that Lord
Stanley would have great difficulties, but would be able to
form a Government; at least the Protectionist Party gave
out that they had a Cabinet prepared.

We then saw Lord John Russell, who formally tendered his
resignation, and was very much moved on taking leave; he
said that, considering Lord Stanley’s principles, it would not
be possible for him to hold out any hope of support to that
Government, except on the estimates for which he felt responsible,
but he would at all times be ready vigorously to defend
the Crown, which was in need of every support in these days.

LORD STANLEY SUMMONED

At three o’clock came Lord Stanley, whom the Queen had
summoned.

The Queen informed him of the resignation of the Government,
in consequence of the late vote, which had been the
result of the Protectionists staying away, of the small majority
which the Government had had upon Mr Disraeli’s Motion,
and of the many symptoms of want of confidence exhibited
towards the Government in the House of Commons. The
Queen had accepted their resignation, and had sent for him as
the head of that Party, which was now the most numerous in
Opposition, in order to ask him whether he could undertake
to form a Government.

Lord Stanley expressed great surprise. The impression had
been that the Government had not been in earnest in their
opposition to Mr L. King’s Motion; in the minority had voted
only twenty-seven members of the Government side, the rest
had been of his Party. He asked if the whole Cabinet had
resigned, or whether there had been dissension in the Cabinet
upon it? The Queen replied that the resignation had been
unanimously agreed upon in the Cabinet, and that Lord Lansdowne,
[page 291]
who had only come up from Bowood this morning, had
given his entire approval to it. Lord Stanley then asked
whether anybody else had been consulted or applied to, to
which the Queen replied that she had written to him a few
minutes after Lord John’s resignation, and had communicated
with no one else. Lord Stanley then said that he hoped the
Queen’s acceptance had only been a conditional one; that he
felt very much honoured by the Queen’s confidence; that he
hoped he might be able to tender advice which might contribute
to the Queen’s comfort, and might relieve the present
embarrassment.

FISCAL POLICY OUTLINED

In order to be able to do so he must enter most freely and
openly into his own position and that of his Party. It was
quite true that they formed the most numerous in Parliament
after the supporters of what he hoped he might still call the
present Government, but that there were no men contained in
it who combined great ability with experience in public business.
There was one certainly of great ability and talent—Mr
Disraeli—but who had never held office before, and perhaps
Mr Herries, who possessed great experience, but who did not
command great authority in the House of Commons; that he
should have great difficulties in presenting to the Queen a
Government fit to be accepted, unless he could join with some
of the late Sir R. Peel’s followers; that he considered, for
instance, the appointment of a good person for Foreign Affairs
indispensable, and there was scarcely any one fit for it except
Lord Palmerston and Lord Aberdeen. Lord Aberdeen had
told him that he had no peculiar views upon Free Trade, and
that he did not pretend to understand the question, but that
he had felt it his duty to stand by Sir R. Peel; this might now
be different, but it ought first to be ascertained whether a
combination of those who agreed in principle, and had only
been kept asunder hitherto by personal considerations, could
not be formed; that Sir James Graham had in his last speech
declared it as his opinion that the ranks of those who agreed
ought to be closed; when such a combination had taken place,
those of Sir R. Peel’s followers who could not agree to it might
not be unwilling to join him (Lord Stanley). As to his principles,
he would frankly state that he thought that the landed
interest was much depressed by the low state of prices; that
an import duty on corn would be absolutely necessary, which,
however, would be low, and only a revenue duty; such a duty,
he thought, the country would be prepared for; and if they
were allowed to state their honest opinion, he felt sure the
greatest part of the present Government would be heartily
glad of. He would require Duties upon sugar for revenue,
[page 292]
but he could not conceal that if the revenue after a diminution
in the direct taxation, which he would propose, should considerably
fall off, he might be driven to raise the Import duties
on other articles. He thought the present House of Commons
could hardly be expected to reverse its decision upon the
financial and commercial policy of the country, and that
accordingly a Dissolution of Parliament would become necessary.
Such a Dissolution, however, could not be undertaken
at this moment for the sake of public business. The Mutiny
Bill had not been voted nor the Supplies, and it would require
more than eight weeks before the new Parliament could be
assembled, and consequently the Crown would be left without
Army or money. A Dissolution could accordingly not take
place before Easter. He felt, however, that if he were to take
office now, he would between this and Easter be exposed to
such harassing attacks that he should not be able to withstand
them; moreover, it would subject the members of his Government
to two elections in two months. He hoped therefore
that the Queen would try to obtain a Government by a coalition
of the Whigs and Peelites, but that this failing, if the Queen
should send again for him, and it was clear no other Government
could be formed, he would feel it his duty as a loyal
subject to risk everything, except his principles and his honour,
to carry on the Government; and he hoped that in such a case
the Queen would look leniently on the composition of the
Cabinet which he could offer, and that the country would,
from the consideration of the circumstances, give it a fair trial.
He begged, however, that he might not be called upon to take office
except as a dernier ressort, a necessity.

I interrupted him when he spoke of his financial measures,
and begged him further to explain, when it appeared that a
duty of about six shillings on corn was the least he could impose
to bring up the price to forty-five shillings, which Sir R.
Peel had stated to the House of Commons was in his opinion
the lowest price wheat would fall to after the abolition of the
Corn Laws.

We expressed our doubts as to the country agreeing to such
a measure, and our apprehension of the violent spirit which
would be roused in the working classes by a Dissolution for
that purpose, which Lord Stanley, however, did not seem to
apprehend; on the contrary, he thought the distress of the
farmers would lead to the destruction of the landed interest,
which was the only support to the Throne.

PROTECTION

I told him that the Queen and certainly myself had been
under a delusion, and that I was sure the country was equally
so, as to his intention to return to Protection. Sometimes it
[page 293]
was stated that Protection would be adhered to, sometimes
that it was given up, and that it was compensation to the landed
interest which the Protectionists looked to. His last speeches
and the Motion of Mr Disraeli led to that belief, but that it was
of the highest importance that the country should know exactly
what was intended; the Queen would then have an opportunity
of judging how the nation looked upon the proposal.
I hoped therefore that the declaration of his opinions which
Lord Stanley had now laid before the Queen would be clearly
enunciated by him in Parliament when the Ministerial explanations
should take place, which would naturally follow this crisis.

Lord Stanley merely answered that he hoped that no explanations
would take place before a Government was formed.
He said he should wish the word “Protection” to be merged,
to which I rejoined that though he might wish this, I doubted
whether the country would let him.

Before taking leave, he repeated over and over again his
advice that the Coalition Ministry should be tried.

Albert.

Queen Victoria to Lord Stanley.

22nd February 1851.

In order to be able to be perfectly accurate in stating Lord
Stanley’s opinions, which the Queen feels some delicacy in
doing, she would be very thankful if he would write down for
her what he just stated to her—as his advice in the present
difficulty. Of course she would not let such a paper go out
of her hands.

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

SIR JAMES GRAHAM

Buckingham Palace, 23rd February 1851.

Sir James Graham, who had been out of Town, came at six
o’clock, having received my letter on his return. Lord John
Russell had been here before that time.

After having stated to him (Lord John) what had passed with
Lord Stanley, we told him that Sir James Graham was here;
Lord John seemed much surprised at Lord Stanley’s refusal to
form an Administration, declared himself ready to do what
he could towards the formation of a new Government on an
extended basis, but thought that Sir James Graham and Lord
Aberdeen should have the first offer.

I went accordingly over to my room, where Sir James was
waiting. He was entirely taken by surprise by the announcement
of the resignation of the Government, and begged to be
able to state to me how he was situated before he saw the
Queen and Lord John.

[page 294]

I then communicated to him what had passed with Lord
Stanley, upon which we had a conversation of more than an
hour, of which the chief features were:

1. Apprehension on the part of Sir James Graham lest the
attempt on the part of Lord Stanley to re-impose Protective
duties should produce universal commotion in the country,
which would be increased by the Dissolution, without which
Lord Stanley would not be able to proceed.

2. His disbelief that Lord Aberdeen would be able to join
in any Government abandoning Sir R. Peel’s principles, as he
had been consulted before and after Sir James’s late speech
in which he expressed his entire concurrence.

3. His own utter weakness, calling himself the weakest man
in England, who had lost his only friend in Sir R. Peel, and
had for the last fifteen years not exercised an independent
judgment, but rested entirely on his friend.

4. His disagreement with some of his late colleagues—the
Duke of Newcastle, Mr Gladstone, and Mr Sidney Herbert—in
religious opinions.

5. His disagreement with Lord John’s Government upon
some most important points.

FOREIGN POLICY

He could not take office with Lord Palmerston as Foreign
Secretary, whose policy and mode of conducting business he
disapproved, who was now protesting against the admission of
Austria into the German Confederation; he disapproved the
Papal Aggression Bill, finding it militating against the line
which he had taken as Secretary of State with regard to the
Roman Catholic Bishops in Ireland, and particularly the
Bequest Act, and considering that after Lord John’s letter
the Bill would fall short of the high expectations formed in
the minds of the English public.

He disapproved of the abolition of the Irish Lord-Lieutenancy,
and the making a fourth Secretary of State had been
considered by Sir Robert Peel and himself as introducing into
England all the Irish malpractices, while Ireland was still kept
wholly separate from England.

Lord John had raised a new difficulty by his declaration
upon Reform. He had been thunderstruck when he read the
announcement on the part of the chief author of the Reform
Bill, who had stood with him (Sir J. Graham) hitherto upon
finality, condemning his own work, and promising at a year’s
distance important alterations, in which interval great agitation
would be got up, great expectations raised, and the
measure when brought forward would cause disappointment.
Sir Robert Peel had always been of opinion that it was most
dangerous to touch these questions, but if opened with the
[page 295]
consent of the Crown, a measure should at once be brought
forward and passed.

After my having replied to these different objections, that
the Queen felt herself the importance of Lord Palmerston’s
removal, and would make it herself a condition with Lord
John that he should not be again Foreign Secretary; that the
protest to Austria had not gone, and that upon studying
the question Sir James would find that the entrance of the
whole Austrian Monarchy, while giving France a pretext for
war and infringing the Treaties of 1815, would not tend to the
strength and unity of Germany, which held to be the true
English interest, but quite the reverse; that I did not think
the Papal Aggression Bill touched the Bequest Act or militated
against toleration; that the Lieutenancy would perhaps be
given up, and a measure on the Franchise be considered by the
new Government and brought forward at once. I thought
it would be better to discuss the matters with Lord John
Russell in the Queen’s presence, who accordingly joined us.

The discussion which now arose went pretty much over the
same ground, Lord John agreeing that Lord Palmerston ought
to form no difficulty, that the Papal Aggression Bill would
be further modified, that the Lieutenancy Bill might be given
up, that he agreed to Sir James’s objection to the declaration
about reform, but that he had intended to bring forward a
measure, if he had been able to get his colleagues to agree to it,
that he would be ready to propose a measure at once. This
Sir J. Graham thought important as a means of gaining at a
General Election, which he foresaw could not be long delayed,
whoever formed a Government.

In order to obtain some result from this long debate I summed
up what might be considered as agreed upon, viz. That there
was tabula rasa, and for the new Coalition a free choice of
men and measures, to which they assented, Lord John merely
stating that he could not take office without part of his friends,
and could not sacrifice his personal declarations. Dinnertime
having approached, and Lord Aberdeen having written
that he would be with us after nine o’clock, we adjourned the
further discussion till then, when they would return.

THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON

Whilst the Queen dressed I had an interview with the Duke
of Wellington, who had come to dine here, in which I informed
him of the nature of our crisis. He expressed his regret
and his dread of a Protectionist Government with a Dissolution,
which might lead to civil commotion. He could not
forgive, he said, the high Tory Party for their having stayed
away the other night on Mr Locke King’s Motion, and thus
[page 296]
abandoned their own principles; he had no feeling for Lord
John Russell’s Cabinet, measures, or principles, but he felt
that the Crown and the country were only safe in these days by
having the Liberals in office, else they would be driven to join
the Radical agitation against the institutions of the country.

After dinner we resumed our adjourned debate in my room,
at a quarter to ten, with Lord Aberdeen, and were soon joined
by Lord John and Sir James Graham. We went over the same
ground with him. Lord Stanley’s letter was read and discussed.
Lord Aberdeen declared his inability to join in a
Protectionist Ministry; he did not pretend to understand the
question of Free Trade, but it was a point of honour with him
not to abandon it, and now, since Sir R. Peel’s death, a matter
of piety. He thought the danger of a Dissolution on a question
of food by the Crown, for the purpose of imposing a tax upon
bread, of the utmost danger for the safety of the country. He
disapproved the Papal Bill, the abolition of the Lieutenancy,
he had no difficulty upon the Franchise, for though he was called
a despot, he felt a good deal of the Radical in him sometimes.

Lord John put it to Lord Aberdeen, whether he would not
undertake to form a Government, to which Lord Aberdeen
gave no distinct reply.

As Sir James Graham raised nothing but difficulties, though
professing the greatest readiness to be of use, and as it was
getting on towards midnight, we broke up, with the Queen’s
injunction that one of the three gentlemen must form a Government,
to which Lord Aberdeen laughingly replied: “I see
your Majesty has come into⁶ the Président de la République.”
Lord John was to see Lord Lansdowne to-day at three o’clock,
and would report progress to the Queen at five o’clock. On one
point we were agreed, viz. that the Government to be formed
must not be for the moment, but with a view to strength and
stability.

Albert.

Footnote 6: Sic.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

COMPLICATIONS

23d February 1851.

The Queen has seen Lord Aberdeen and Sir J. Graham,
but is sorry to say that her doing so was premature, as they
had no opportunity of seeing each other after they left Lord
John Russell, and therefore had not considered the Memorandum⁷
which Lord John had handed to them. Lord Aberdeen
[page 297]
has in the interval seen Lord Stanley, and declared to him
that he must undeceive him as to the possibility of his ever
joining a Protection Government. What further resulted
from the conversation the Queen would prefer to state to Lord
John verbally to-morrow. Perhaps Lord John would come
in the forenoon to-morrow, or before he goes to the House;
he will be so good as to let her know.

Footnote 7: With a view of uniting with the Peelites, Lord John drew up a Memorandum,
printed in Walpole’s Lord John Russell, vol. ii. chap, xxii., with the following points:

A Cabinet of not more than eleven Members.

The present commercial policy to be maintained.

The financial measures of the year to be open to revision.

The Ecclesiastical Titles Bill to be persevered in so far as the Preamble and the first
clause, but the remaining clauses to be abandoned.

A Reform Bill for the extension of the Franchise.

A Commission of Enquiry into corrupt practices at elections in cities and boroughs.

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

Buckingham Palace, 23rd February 1851.

(Sunday.)

Lord John Russell came at half-past five, much fatigued and
depressed. On the Queen’s asking whether he could report
any progress, he said he thought he could; he had met Lord
Aberdeen and Sir James Graham, together with Sir George
Grey (Lord Lansdowne being ill). That he had informed them
that he had received the Queen’s commands to form a Government
(?) and handed to them a Memorandum which follows
here and which they had promised to take into consideration.

We asked him whether he had chalked out a Government.
He said he had not thought of it yet; he added, however,
that he could not undertake the Foreign Affairs with the lead
in the House of Commons and Government (which the Queen
had pressed upon him); Lord Palmerston might be leader in
the House of Lords; he would not like Lord Aberdeen at the
Foreign Office; Lord Clarendon and Lord Granville were
equally acceptable to him.

I suggested that it might be well if the Queen were to see
Sir James and Lord Aberdeen again, which he approved, but
thought it better he should not be present himself, and that
the Queen might tell Sir James that he might have any Office
he liked; perhaps he would take the Foreign Affairs.

Lord John’s relations and private friends evidently are
distressed at his resuming office; the Radicals were very much
pleased with the idea of Sir James Graham being in office.

Albert.

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

LORD ABERDEEN SUMMONED

24th February 1851.
(Monday evening.)

Lord John came at three o’clock before making his statement
to the House of Commons. We communicated to him what
[page 298]
had passed with Sir James Graham and Lord Aberdeen yesterday
evening. He thought his Memorandum had been misunderstood:
the nature of the Reform Bill was left open to
discussion, and what he had said about filling the Offices only
meant that the Offices should not be divided according to
number, and each party left to fill up its share, as had been
done in former Coalition Ministries. He had seen Lord
Palmerston, who was not willing to give up the Foreign Office—spoke
of retiring from business at his age, of his success in
conducting Foreign Affairs, and of its being a self-condemnation
if he accepted another Office. Lord John told him that
he did not agree in this view, that the Lord-Lieutenancy of
Ireland was to be maintained, and thought it best to leave it
there. He thought Lord Palmerston had given up the idea of
leading the House of Commons. We ascertained from him
in conversation that he could not agree to Lord Aberdeen taking
the Foreign Office nor that he could serve under Lord Aberdeen
or Sir James Graham in case any one of these were to form a
Government.

At half-past six Lord John returned from the House of
Commons, and reported that two very important events had
taken place: the one that upon his making his statement to the
House that the Government had resigned, that Lord Stanley
had been sent for, had declared his inability then to form a
Government (words agreed upon between Lord Lansdowne,
Lord John, and Sir George Grey), and that he was now charged
with the formation of a Government, Mr. Disraeli got up, and
denied that Lord Stanley had declined forming a Government,
which was received with cheers from the Protectionists. Lord
John had merely answered that when Lord Stanley would
make his explanations, what he had stated would be found to
be correct, relying entirely, not upon what the Queen had communicated,
but on Lord Stanley’s own letter. The second
event was a letter from Lord Aberdeen and Sir James Graham,⁸
which put an end to all thoughts of a Coalition. It stated that
they could agree to no legislation whatever on the Papal
Aggressions, and ended with a hint that Sir James Graham was
prepared to go farther in reductions than Lord John was likely
to consent to.

Lord John had at once answered that although he did
not understand the latter objection, the difference on the
Papal Bill must put an end to their negotiation. We much
lamented the result, and after some discussion agreed that
the only thing to be done now was to send for Lord
[page 299]
Aberdeen. Lord Stanley could not pretend to be consulted
before every other means of forming a Government had been
exhausted.

Footnote 8: Published in Walpole’s Lord John Russell, vol. ii. chap. xxii.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

LORD ABERDEEN DECLINES

Buckingham Palace, 24th February 1851.

(Half-past ten p.m.)

The Queen returns these papers, as Lord John Russell
wished. She has just seen Lord Aberdeen and Sir James
Graham, who, though ready to do anything which could be of
any use to the Queen and the country, have stated it as their
decided opinion that Lord Stanley should be asked to form
a Government. Under these circumstances the Queen intends
to send to Lord Stanley to-morrow. The Queen did ask Lord
Aberdeen if he could undertake to form a Government, but he
said that he thought it would not be successful, and that the
Papal Aggression would be an insurmountable difficulty for
him and Sir James Graham.

The Queen rejoices to hear from them, and from Lord John
and Lord Lansdowne, the expression of cordiality of feeling,
which it is so essential for the Crown and the country that
there should be.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

ABERDEEN AND GRAHAM

Buckingham Palace, 25 February 1851.

My dearest Uncle,—Through Van der Weyer, you will
have heard what was the state of the long and anxious crisis
yesterday evening.

Alas! the hope of forming a strong Coalition Government
has failed—for the present. I say for the present, as they are
all so entirely agreed on the Commercial Policy that another
time they hope there will be no difficulty, when they have fought
together. The Papal Aggression has in fact been the only
insurmountable difficulty. We sent to Lord Aberdeen last
night (both he and Sir James Graham have been most kind
to us), and asked if he could not try to form a Government;
but with the greatest readiness to serve me, he said he could
not, on account of this self-same Papal Aggression. He equally
declares that he cannot join Lord Stanley. Accordingly this
morning I have seen Lord Stanley, and he means to try if he
can form any fit sort of Government, but he has no men of
talent, and his difficulties are gigantic. I shall only know to-morrow
definitely if he can form an Administration. I am calm
and courageous, having such support and advice as my dearest
[page 300]
Albert’s; but it is an anxious time, and the uncertainty and
suspense very trying. More details you will have later on.
Ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

LORD STANLEY TO BE SUMMONED

Buckingham Palace, 26th February 1851.

Lord Aberdeen and Sir James Graham came yesterday
evening at nine o’clock; the Queen put it to them whether
they could form a Government, to which they replied that they
had turned it in their heads a hundred times, that there was
nothing they would not do to show their readiness to serve the
Queen, but that they did not see a possibility of forming an
Administration which could stand a day. They were most
likely at that moment the two most unpopular men in England,
having declared that nothing should be done in Parliament
against the Papal Aggression, which the whole country
clamoured for; the Whigs would be very angry with them
for their having broken up the new combination; they might
find favour with the Radicals, but that was a support upon
which no reliance could be placed. There was a growing
opinion that Lord Stanley ought to have a chance of bringing
forward his measures; that it was perilous, but that it was
an evil which must be gone through; that this opinion had
been strongly expressed by Lord Lansdowne, whose moderation
nobody could doubt; that it was shared by the Duke of
Newcastle, Mr Sidney Herbert, and others of Sir James’s
friends whom he had had time to consult.

Upon the Queen’s expression of her great apprehension as to
the consequence of such a step on the country, they said there
would no doubt spring up a most violent opposition, that there
would be attempts to stop the supplies and dissolve the Army,
but that Lord John Russell and Sir James Graham together
would do their utmost to preach moderation, and would refer
the House of Commons to the Queen’s example, who had taken
strictly the Constitutional course throughout the crisis, whose
opinions on Free Trade were well known (as far as subjects
could allow themselves to pretend to know their Sovereign’s
private opinions) from the hearty support she had given to Sir
Robert Peel’s and Lord John’s Governments. That upon the
first proposition of a Stanley Government the junction of
Parties would be completed, and there would be only one strong
opposition. After having fought together, there would be no
longer any difficulty about forming a strong Government out of
their joint ranks, whilst now it was impossible not to see that
every Minister displaced would feel personally aggrieved, that
[page 301]
then they stood on a footing of perfect equality. Sir James
had seen Lord John since he had tendered his second resignation,
and found him quite altered; whilst he was embarrassed
and boutonné before, he was open and unreserved now, and they
could speak on terms of private friendship. Lord Aberdeen
would save his influence in the House of Lords, which he would
probably have lost if he had joined the Whigs in office; in
future all this would be different.

Lord John Russell’s letter with the Memoranda came and
interrupted us. From these papers, and what Sir James and
Lord Aberdeen said, it is clear that all parties are relieved by
the failure of their attempt to form a Coalition Government,
but determined to form a positive junction, which will be most
salutary to the country. The Queen will therefore send for
Lord Stanley.

We discussed further the means Lord Stanley would have
to form an Administration, for which the material was certainly
sad. Disraeli’s last scene in the House of Commons would
render the publication of Lord Stanley’s letter necessary. Mr
Gladstone might possibly join him; at least no pains would be
spared to bring him in. Lord Palmerston had often so much
secret understanding with Disraeli that he might be tempted
with the bait of keeping the Foreign Office, particularly if
personally offended.

Whether the Queen should allow or refuse a Dissolution was
debated; the latter declared a most heavy responsibility for
the Sovereign to undertake, but a subject upon which the
decision should only be taken at the time, and on a due consideration
of the circumstances.

Albert.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

Chesham Place, 25th February 1851.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and has the honour to state that having seen the letter which
Lord Stanley addressed to your Majesty, and feeling himself
precluded from entering into any details, he announced to the
House of Commons that Lord Stanley had in reply to your
Majesty’s offer declared “he was not then prepared to form
a Government.”

Mr Disraeli disputed the accuracy of this statement.

Your Majesty’s word cannot be called in question, but Lord
John Russell now feels it due to his own honour humbly to ask
your Majesty for a copy of Lord Stanley’s letter. He does not
propose to read the letter to the House of Commons, but to
refer to it in the statement he is compelled to make.

[page 302]

Lord John Russell humbly requests that this representation
may be shown to Lord Stanley. He will feel what is due to the
honour of a public man.

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

LORD STANLEY ARRIVES

25th February 1851.
(Tuesday.)

Lord Stanley obeyed the Queen’s summons at eleven o’clock,
and seemed very much concerned when she informed him that
Lord John Russell had given up his task, as differences of
opinion, particularly on the Papal Bill, had prevented a junction
between him, Lord Aberdeen, and Sir James Graham;
that an appeal to Lord Aberdeen had been equally unsuccessful
from the same cause, viz. their difficulty in dealing with the
Papal Question; that consequently the contingency had arisen
under which Lord Stanley had promised to undertake the
formation of a Government.

Lord Stanley said his difficulties were immense, and he could
not venture to approach them unless he was sure of every support
on the part of the Crown; that he would have arrayed against
him a formidable opposition of all the talent in the country.

The Queen assured him that he should have every Constitutional
support on her part, of which Lord Stanley repeated he
had felt sure, although the total change must be very trying to
the Queen.

On his question, whether there was any hope of Lord Aberdeen
joining him and taking the Foreign Office, we had to tell
him that he must quite discard that idea. He replied, with a
sigh, that he would still try and see him; he had thought of
the Duke of Wellington taking the Foreign Office ad interim,
but felt that he could hardly propose that, considering the
Duke’s age and infirmity; he would make an attempt to see
Lord Canning with the Queen’s permission, and that failing,
could only think of Sir Stratford Canning, now at Constantinople,
which the Queen approved.

He still hoped he might get Mr Gladstone to take the lead
in the House of Commons, without which assistance he must
not conceal that it was almost impossible for him to go on. Mr
Gladstone was on his way home from Paris, and he had written
to him to see him as soon as he arrived; till then he could not
promise that he would succeed to form an Administration, and
he only undertook it for the good of his country, but was afraid
of ruining his reputation.

To this I rejoined that who tried to do the best by his
country need never be afraid for his reputation.

MR DISRAELI

The Queen showed Lord Stanley Lord John Russell’s letter
[page 303]
respecting Mr Disraeli’s denial of the truth of Lord John’s
statement in the House of Commons yesterday.

Lord Stanley said it had been a very unfortunate misunderstanding,
that he had been sorry Lord John and Lord Lansdowne
should have felt it necessary to say that “he had not
then been prepared to form a Government,” as the knowledge
of this fact, as long as there was a chance of his being called
back, could not but act injuriously to him and dispirit those
with whom he acted. He would explain all this on Friday
in the House of Lords, and had no objection to sending Lord
John a copy of his letter.

We now came to Measures. Lord Stanley hopes to obviate
the Papal Question by a Parliamentary declaration and the
appointment in both Houses of a Committee to enquire into the
position of the Roman Catholic Church in this country; he
would diminish the Income Tax by a million, and exempt
temporary incomes; he would allow compounding for the
Window Tax and levy a moderate duty on corn, which he called
a Countervailing Duty, and tried to defend as good political
economy, on the authority of Mr M’Culloch’s last edition of
“Ricardo.” (I had some discussion with him, however, on
that point.)

Returning to the offices to be filled, Lord Stanley said he
should have to propose Mr Disraeli as one of the Secretaries of
State. The Queen interrupted him by saying that she had not
a very good opinion of Mr Disraeli on account of his conduct
to poor Sir R. Peel, and what had just happened did not tend
to diminish that feeling; but that she felt so much Lord
Stanley’s difficulties, that she would not aggravate them by
passing a sentence of exclusion on him. She must, however,
make Lord Stanley responsible for his conduct, and should she
have cause to be displeased with him when in office, she would
remind Lord Stanley of what now passed. Lord Stanley
promised to be responsible, and excused his friend for his former
bitterness by his desire to establish his reputation for cleverness
and sharpness; nobody had gained so much by Parliamentary
schooling, and he had of late quite changed his tone.

Mr Herries would make a good Chancellor of the Exchequer.

As to Ireland, he had thought of having a more ostensible
Lord-Lieutenant, whilst the business should be done by the
Secretary for Ireland. He asked the Queen whether the Duke
of Cambridge might be offered that post, which she took ad
referendum. The Duke of Northumberland, though not of his
Party, he should like to offer the Admiralty to.

DISSOLUTION

At the conclusion of the interview he broached the important
question of Dissolution, and said that a Dissolution would
[page 304]
anyhow become necessary; that, if it was thought that the
Queen would withhold from him the privilege of dissolving, he
would not have the slightest chance in the House of Commons;
he would be opposed and beat, and then his adversaries would
come in and dissolve. He avowed that it could not be said
that the Queen had refused him the power of dissolving, but
he required some assurance.

On the Queen’s objecting to giving him a contingent positive
promise, but declaring her readiness fairly to discuss the question
when the emergency arose, he contented himself with the
permission to deny, if necessary, that she would not consent
to it, putting entire confidence in the Queen’s intention to
deal fairly by him.

I tried to convince Lord Stanley, and I hope not without
effect, of the advantage, both to the Queen and Lord Stanley
himself, that they should not be hampered by a positive engagement
on that point, which might become very inconvenient
if circumstances arose which made a Dissolution dangerous to
the country.

Albert.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

Buckingham Palace, 25th February 1851.

The Queen has seen Lord Stanley, who will let Lord John
Russell have a copy of the letter. He wishes it not to be
known or considered that he has formally undertaken to form
a Government till to-morrow, on account of the House of Lords
meeting to-day. He feels the difficulty of his position, and is
not sure yet that he will be able to complete a Ministry. To-morrow
he will give the Queen a positive answer.

Queen Victoria to Lord Stanley.

Buckingham Palace, 25th February 1851.

The Queen has just received Lord Stanley’s letter. She had
forgotten the Levée, and was just going to write to him to
inform him that she wished to see him at eleven o’clock to-morrow.

The Queen cannot but regret that Lord Stanley should think
Lord John Russell’s explanation led to a wrong inference; for
Lord Stanley will himself recollect that he stated his objections
to her much more strongly in his first interview than he did in
writing, and as Lord Stanley so strongly advised the Queen
to try if no other arrangement could first be come to, she hardly
knows how this could otherwise have been expressed than by
the words used by Lord Lansdowne and Lord John Russell.

[page 305]

Memorandum by Queen Victoria.

26th February 1851.
(Wednesday.)

Lord Stanley came again at eleven. The first part of the
audience, which was not long, was occupied by Lord Stanley’s
trying to explain away Mr Disraeli’s contradiction of Lord
John Russell, though he termed it “very unfortunate,” by
saying that he wished Lord John had not mentioned that he
(Lord Stanley) “was not then prepared” to form a Government,
for that, though true in fact, he had not absolutely refused,
but had only advised me to try and make other arrangements
first. I said I thought the distinction “a very nice one,”
which he admitted. What passed between us on the subject
the correspondence between Albert and Lord John will best
explain.

Lord Stanley then told us that he had seen the Duke of
Northumberland, who wished for time to consider; that he was
to see Lord Canning again to-day, but had no hopes of his
accepting; and that he found so many people out of Town that
he must ask for forty-eight hours more before he could give me
a positive answer, viz. till Friday. He added he “must not
conceal” from me that he was “not very sanguine” of success;
almost all depended on Mr Gladstone, who was expected to
arrive to-day; but that it might now be said (in answer to a
question of Albert’s “whether in these days of nice distinctions
one might say that he had undertaken to form a Government”),
that he had attempted to undertake to form a Government.

Victoria R.

Lord Stanley to Queen Victoria.

LORD STANLEY RESIGNS

St James’s Square, 27th February 1851.

(Four o’clock p.m.)

Lord Stanley, with his humble duty, awaits your Majesty’s
commands at what hour he may be honoured with an audience,
to explain the grounds on which, with the deepest regret, he
feels himself under the necessity of resigning the important
trust with which your Majesty has honoured him.

Queen Victoria to Sir James Graham.

Buckingham Palace, 27th February 1851.

The Queen sanctions Sir James Graham’s making any statement
to the House of Commons which he thinks necessary, to
explain the part which he and Lord Aberdeen took in the late
[page 306]
Ministerial negotiations, and indeed hopes that these explanations
will be as full as possible on all parts, in order that the
country may fully appreciate the difficulties of the crisis.

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

LORD STANLEY’S REASONS

Buckingham Palace, 27th February 1851.

Lord Stanley arrived at half-past five o’clock. We were
struck by the change of his countenance, which had lost all the
expression of care and anxiety which had marked it at the
previous interviews.

He assured the Queen that he had been labouring incessantly
since he had seen her last, but that he was sorry to say without
any success.

THE PAPAL BILL

He had seen Mr Gladstone, who declined joining his Government
on account of his previous pledges in Parliament respecting
the Commercial Policy of Sir R. Peel, but evidently also on
account of his peculiar views with respect to the Papal Aggression,
which he did not seem disposed to look upon as in any way
objectionable.

Lord Canning had given him some hope at one time, but
finally declined in order not to risk his credit for political consistency.

Mr H. Corry, whose opinions on Free Trade were by no means
decided, and who had only filled a very subordinate situation
in Sir R. Peel’s Government, he had offered high office, but
was refused, Mr Corry expressing his fears that the Government
had no chance of standing against the opposition it would have
to meet in the House of Commons.

The Duke of Northumberland was the only person not properly
belonging to the Protection Party who had accepted
office (First Lord of the Admiralty). At one time Lord Ellenborough
had accepted, but having been sent on a mission to
Mr Goulburn in order to see whether he could convert him, he
came home himself converted, and withdrew his acceptance
again.

In this situation Lord Stanley called his friends together,
and after some discussion concurred in their opinion that it
was not possible for them to form such an Administration as
ought to be offered to the Queen. Lord Stanley then qualified
this expression again, and said that though he could have
offered a very respectable Government if he had had a majority
in the House of Commons, or the means of strengthening himself
by an immediate Dissolution, he could not form such a one
which could have withstood an adverse majority and such a
formidable array of talent in the Opposition. He therefore
[page 307]
returned the trust which had been committed to him into the
Queen’s hands, expressing at the same time his deep sense of
gratitude for the kindness with which she had treated him, the
support and confidence she had given him, sorry only that it
should have led to no result. He thought, however, that the
prolongation of the crisis had not inconvenienced the public
service, as Her Majesty’s present Government were constitutionally
enabled to carry on all necessary business.

The Queen rejoined that she was very sorry that this attempt
had also failed, that she had tried every possible combination,
and still was without a Government. Lord Stanley answered
as if he considered it natural that Lord John Russell’s Government
should now quietly proceed; but on the Queen’s observation,
that it was now necessary that all Parties should join in
the support of some measures at least, and particularly the
Papal Bill, he stated what he was prepared to support, and
would have been prepared to propose had he taken office, viz.
a fuller recital in the preamble of the Bill and no penal clause
in the body of it. (The present Bill looked pettish and undignified,
as if framed in anger as a return for the insult, and
not a correction of the state of the law.) He thought the Law
very complex and obscure, and never found it acted upon. He
would have proposed therefore that Committees of both Houses
should enquire into the whole subject; the state of the Convents;
whether subjects were detained against their will;
whether people were forced to bequeath their property to the
Church on the deathbed, etc., etc.; he knew that the Roman
Catholic laity felt severely the oppression which the Priests
exercised over them, and would be willing to give evidence.

Lord Stanley asked whether it could be of use if he were to
state all this in his explanation to-day, which the Queen
strongly affirmed. I added that I hoped he would explain
what he was prepared to do on all the subjects in dispute—the
Commercial and Financial Policy as well. He promised to do
so, and entered into his views on the Income Tax, which he
called a War Tax, which had been imposed for temporary
purposes only in 1842, and ought to be taken off again when
practicable in order to keep faith with the public; but if, as
often as there was a surplus, this was immediately absorbed
by remission of other burdens, this object could never be fulfilled.
He would propose that by degrees, as surpluses arose, the
Income Tax should be decreased, and so on to its final repeal.

I disputed with him for some time on the advantages of an
Income Tax, but without coming to any result.

On his enquiry whether there was anything else the Queen
might wish him to state—perhaps the rumour that he had
[page 308]
been refused the power of dissolving—we agreed that he should
say the question had never been seriously entertained, but that
the Queen had been ready to give him the same support and
advantages which any other Government might have enjoyed.⁹

Albert.

Footnote 9: The Prince thereupon, at the Queen’s request, communicated with Lord John Russell,
and after recounting to him the various successive failures to form a Government, wrote
that the Queen must “pause before she again entrusts the commission of forming an
Administration to anybody, till she has been able to see the result of to-morrow evening’s
Debate.” He added, “Do you see any Constitutional objection to this course?”

The Prince Albert to the Duke of Wellington.

THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON

Buckingham Palace, 28th February 1851.

My dear Duke,—Lord Stanley has likewise resigned his
task, not being able to gain over any of Sir R. Peel’s friends,
and being incapable of forming a Government out of his Party
alone.

So Lord John Russell has declared his inability to carry on
the Government. Lord Stanley has then declared his inability
to form one until every other combination should have
failed. We have tried all possible combinations between
Whigs and Peelites, and have not succeeded, and now Lord
Stanley throws up the game a second time! The Queen
would be happy to consult you and hear your advice in this
dilemma. Possibly to-night’s Debate may define the position
of Parties more clearly, and give a clue to what may be best to
be done under the circumstances. Ever yours, etc.

Albert.

Lord John Russell to the Prince Albert.

Chesham Place, 28th February 1851.

Sir,—The former Cabinet meet at eleven, at Lansdowne
House.

It appears to me that the Queen might with advantage see
Lord Lansdowne. He was in office with Mr Fox and Lord
Grenville in 1806; he has been distinguished and respected in
political life ever since; he is now desirous of retiring, and has
therefore no personal object to gain. If the Queen approves,
Lord Lansdowne might wait on Her Majesty soon after
twelve o’clock. I have the honour to be, Sir, your Royal
Highness’s very dutiful Servant,

J. Russell.

Queen Victoria to Lord Lansdowne.

LORD LANSDOWNE

Buckingham Palace, 28th February 1851.

It would be a great satisfaction to the Queen to hear Lord
Lansdowne’s advice in the present critical state of affairs,
[page 309]
and she would be glad if he could come to her at twelve this
morning. The Queen has sent to the Duke of Wellington in
order to hear his opinion also; but he cannot be here before
to-night, being at Strathfieldsaye.

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

Friday, 28th February 1851.

Lord Lansdowne, who arrived at twelve o’clock, was asked
by the Queen what advice he could offer her in the present complication.
His answer was: “I wish indeed I had any good
advice to offer to your Majesty.” He expressed his delight
at the Queen having sent for the Duke of Wellington. We
talked generally of the state of affairs; he agreed in a remark
of mine, that I thought the Queen should be entirely guided in
her choice of the person to construct a Government, by the
consideration which Party would now appear to be the strongest
in the House of Commons. On my asking, however,
whether he knew if, on the failure of Lord Stanley to form a
Government, part of his followers would now give up Protection
as past hope, and be prepared in future to support the
Peelite section of the Conservative Party, Lord Lansdowne
said he had heard nothing on the subject, nor could he give us
more information on the chance of the Radicals and Irish
members now being more willing to support Lord John Russell
in future. He liked Lord Stanley’s plan of dealing with the
Papal Question, of which the Queen communicated to him the
outlines, was afraid of Sir J. Graham’s excessive leaning towards
economy, shook his head at Lord John Russell’s letter
to the Bishop of Durham¹⁰ which had been instrumental in
bringing on the present crisis, and confessed that he had been
amongst those in the Cabinet who had prevented the bringing
forward of a measure of reform in the present Session. He
offered to do whatever might be most conducive to the Queen’s
comfort—stay out of office, or come into office—as might be
thought the most useful.

Albert.

Footnote 10: See ante, p. 273 note 45.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

FURTHER DIFFICULTIES

Buckingham Palace, 1st March 1851.

My dearest Uncle,—I did not write to you yesterday,
thinking I could perhaps give you some more positive news to-day,
but I cannot. I am still without a Government, and I am
still trying to hear and pause before I actually call to Lord
John to undertake to form, or rather more to continue, the
[page 310]
Government. We have passed an anxious, exciting week, and
the difficulties are very peculiar; there are so many conflicting
circumstances which render coalition between those
who agree in almost everything, and in particular on Free
Trade, impossible, but the “Papal Question” is the real and
almost insuperable difficulty.

Lord Lansdowne is waiting to see me, and I must go, and
with many thanks for your two kind letters, ever your devoted
Niece,

Victoria R.

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

Buckingham Palace, 2nd March 1851.

(Sunday.)

Lord Lansdowne, who arrived after church, had seen Lord
John Russell and discussed with him the Memorandum which
we left with him yesterday. He had since drawn up a Memorandum
himself which embodied his views, and which he had
not yet communicated to any one. He was very apprehensive
lest to begin a new Government with an open question would
produce the greatest prejudice against it in the public; he
was still inclined therefore to recommend the continuance of
the present Government avowedly for the purpose of passing
the Papal Bill, after which the Coalition might take place,
which, however, should be agreed upon and settled at this
time. As the Duke of Wellington has not yet sent his promised
Memorandum, and Lord Lansdowne was anxious to
hear his opinion, the Queen commissioned him to appoint Lord
John Russell to come at three o’clock, and to go himself to the
Duke of Wellington.

Lord John Russell, who arrived at the appointed time, and
had not seen Lord Lansdowne’s Memorandum yet, read it
over, and expressed great misgivings about the execution of
the proposal. He said he saw in fact, like Sir J. Graham,
nothing but difficulties. He had ascertained that his Party
by no means liked the idea of a fusion, and had been much
relieved when the attempt to form a Coalition Ministry had
failed. He was afraid that in the interval between their resuming
office and giving it up again every possible surmise
would be current who were the Ministers to be displaced, and
every possible intrigue would spring up for and against particular
members of the Cabinet. He would prefer not to make
any arrangements for the Coalition now, but merely to engage
to resign again after having carried the Papal Bill, when the
Queen could try the Coalition, and that failing, could entrust
Lord Aberdeen and Sir J. Graham with the carrying on of the
[page 311]
Government, whose chief difficulty would then be removed.
I objected to this—that his Party might feel justly aggrieved
if after their having carried him through the difficulty of the
Papal Measure, he were to throw them over and resign, and
asked him whether his Cabinet would not repent in the meantime
and wish to stay in.

He answered that it would be entirely in his and Lord
Lansdowne’s hands to carry out the proposed arrangements.

We asked him whether it would strengthen his hands if,
instead of his only accepting the task of continuing the Government
till the Papal Measure had been passed, the Queen were
to make it a condition in giving him the Commission, that it
should terminate then. He replied, “Certainly.” He begged,
however, to be understood not to have given a decided opinion
that the plan of “the open Question” proposed in our Memorandum
was not preferable, although he saw great objections
to that also, particularly as Sir J. Graham had reserved the
statement of his principal objections to the Papal Bill for the
second reading. He promised to draw up a Memorandum,
which he would bring to-morrow at twelve o’clock, after having
consulted some of his colleagues, and begged that it might not
be considered that he had accepted the Government till then.

One of the difficulties which we likewise discussed was the
position of the financial measures which required almost immediate
attention, and still ought to be left open for the
consideration of the future Government.

We agreed that the pressing on the Papal Measure was the
chief point, and that it ought to be altered to meet the objections
(as far as they are reasonable) of its opponents, strengthening
the declaratory part, however, to please Lord Stanley;
and the Queen promised to call upon Lord Stanley to give this
so modified Bill the support of himself and his Party, which
we thought she could in fairness claim after all that had
happened.

The Queen reiterated her objections to Lord Palmerston,
and received the renewed promise that her wishes should be
attended to.

Albert.

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

A COALITION IMPOSSIBLE

Buckingham Palace, 3rd March 1851.

Lord John Russell arrived at the hour appointed (twelve
o’clock), and was sorry to inform the Queen that all hope of a
Coalition must be given up. He had found that his Party was
very much averse to it. On proposing to his former colleagues
the plan of keeping Office now, and vacating it after the Aggression
[page 312]
Bill had passed, many of them, amongst which were Lord
Grey, Sir Charles Wood, Sir Francis Baring, declared they
would not be warming-pans (an expression used at the time of
the Grey-Grenville Coalition), and would resign at once. The
Duke of Wellington, whose opinion the Queen had asked, had
recommended the return of the old Cabinet to power. He
(Lord John) could therefore only advise that course, although
he was conscious that it would be a very weak Government,
and one not likely to last any length of time.

He then read the Memorandum which he had drawn up and
which follows here.¹¹

The Queen now asked whether Lord John proposed a
modification of his own Cabinet, to which Lord John replied,
None, except perhaps an exchange of Office between Sir C.
Wood and Sir F. Baring, if Sir Charles were to refuse bringing
in a different budget from the one he had already propounded;
he was for maintaining the Income Tax, whilst Sir Francis was
for repealing it by degrees. The Queen then reminded Lord
John of her objections to Lord Palmerston, and his promise
that Lord Palmerston should not again be thrust upon her as
Foreign Secretary. Lord John admitted to the promise, but
said he could not think for a moment of resuming office and
either expel Lord Palmerston or quarrel with him. He (Lord
John) was in fact the weakness and Lord Palmerston the
strength of the Government from his popularity with the
Radicals…. He said he was very anxious that he and Lord
Lansdowne should bear the responsibility of removing Lord
Palmerston from the Foreign Office and not the Queen; her
refusal now could only go to the country as a personal objection
on her part, and the country would be left without a Government
in consequence. On the Queen’s reiterating that she
wanted to keep Lord John and get rid of Lord Palmerston, and
that it was too painful to her to be put into the situation of
having actually to wish the fall of her own Government, Lord
John promised to move Lord Palmerston in the Easter recess,
or to resign then himself if he should meet with difficulties;
in the meantime he must apprise Lord Palmerston of this
intention, which he could explain to him as a wish to make a
general modification of his Government. He would offer him
the Lieutenancy of Ireland or the Presidency or lead in the
House of Lords, which Lord Lansdowne would be ready to
resign. He might at that period perhaps get some of the
Radicals into office or some Peelites. The Queen finally entrusted
Lord John with the Government on these conditions.

Albert.

Footnote 11: See next page.

[page 313]

Memorandum by Lord John Russell.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL’S ADVICE

3rd March 1851.

Her Majesty having tried in vain the formation of a Government—first,
by Lord Stanley; second, by Lord John Russell,
Lord Aberdeen, and Sir James Graham; third, by Lord
Aberdeen; fourth, by Lord Stanley a second time—had recourse
to the advice and opinion of the Duke of Wellington.
The Duke, admitting the great qualifications for office of the
adherents of the late Sir Robert Peel, yet advises the Queen to
restore her former Ministers to office.

But supposing Her Majesty to follow that advice, a further
question naturally arises: the late Government having fallen
from want of Parliamentary support, can they upon their
return be in any way strengthened, and be enabled to carry
on the public business with more power and efficiency?

This might be done in three ways: first, by a Coalition
sooner or later with the Peel Party; secondly, by admitting to
office some of their own Radical supporters; thirdly, by seeking
aid from the Party which has followed Lord Stanley.

The first of these courses appears the most natural. The
present Ministers are agreed with the adherents of Sir Robert
Peel on Free Trade, and on the policy which has regulated our
finances of late years. The difference between them is of a
temporary nature. But it may be doubted whether any strength
would be gained by an immediate junction with that Party.

ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL

If such junction took place now, the Ministers coming in
must oppose their colleagues on the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill—an
unseemly spectacle, a source of weakness, and probably the
beginning of strife, which would not end with the Bill in
question.

If, on the other hand, the junction were delayed till the
Ecclesiastical Titles Bill is disposed of, the existing Ministry
would be divided into two portions, one of which would have
only a temporary tenure of office. Rumours, cabals, and intrigues
would have ample room to spread their mischief in such
a state of things.

But finally the Whig Party in the House of Commons would
not be cordial supporters of the junction; jealousy and discontent
would soon break up the Ministry.

Secondly, by admitting to office some of their Radical supporters.
This course must lead to concessions on measures
as well as men, and those concessions would provoke hostility
in other quarters. The great question of the defence of the
country is besides one of too great importance to be made a
matter of compromise.

[page 314]

Third, by seeking aid from the Party which has followed
Lord Stanley. This cannot be done by means of official connection;
but something might be effected by adopting measures
calculated to convince the Landed Interest that their
sufferings were not disregarded.

Upon the whole, if the late Ministers are invited by your
Majesty to resume office, the easiest course would be to proceed
at once with the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. That question disposed
of, it would be seen whether the Ministry had sufficient
strength to go on; if they had, they might, as occasion arose,
seek assistance from other quarters, looking to those with
whom there is the greatest agreement of opinion.

Should the Ministry, on the other hand, not receive Parliamentary
support sufficient to enable them to carry on the
Government, the Queen would be in a position to form a new
Government free from the obstacles which have lately been
fatal.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

Buckingham Palace, 4th March 1851.

… The Queen was in hopes to have heard from Lord John
Russell this morning relative to what passed in the House of
Commons last night. She wishes likewise to hear what takes
place at the meeting of Lord John’s supporters to-day. The
Queen must ask Lord John to keep her constantly informed of
what is going on, and of the temper of parties in and out of
Parliament; for no one can deny that the present state of
affairs is most critical; and after all that has happened it is
absolutely necessary that the Queen should not be in a state of
uncertainty, not to say of ignorance, as to what is passing.
She can else not form a just opinion of the position of affairs.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Buckingham Palace, 4th March 1851.

My dearest Uncle,—Pray receive my warmest thanks for
two kind letters of the 28th, and my excuses for the terribly
incoherent scrawl of last Saturday. The dénouement of ten
days of the greatest anxiety and excitement I cannot call satisfactory,
for it holds out only the prospect of another crisis in
a very short time, and the so much wished-for union of Parties
has been again frustrated. I have been speaking very strongly
about Lord Palmerston to Lord John, and he has promised that
if the Government should still be in at Easter, then to make a
change…. Lord Stanley can never succeed until he gives
[page 315]
up Protection, which he would do, if the country decides
against him;¹² he has failed solely from the impossibility of
finding one single man capable to take the important Offices.
He said last night to Lord John Russell, “I am l’homme impossible;
they cannot come to me again.” Still it would be
very desirable that there should be a strong Conservative
Party; nothing but the abandonment of Protection can bring
this to pass, and Lord Stanley cannot abandon it with honour
till after the next Election. This is the state of Parties, which
is greatly erschwert by the Papal Question, which divides the
Liberals and Conservatives. In short, there never was such a
complicated and difficult state of affairs. Ever your devoted
Niece,

Victoria R.

Stockmar has been an immense comfort to us in our trials,
and I hope you will tell him so.

Footnote 12: The Queen’s judgment was amply confirmed by the events of 1852. See post, p. 404
note 50.

Memorandum by the Queen.

THE NATIONAL GALLERY

Buckingham Palace, 5th March 1851.

The Queen would give every facility to the selection of a
good site for a new National Gallery, and would therefore not
object to its being built on to Kensington Palace or anywhere
in Kensington Gardens; but does not see why it should exactly
be placed upon the site of the present Palace, if not for the
purpose of taking from the Crown the last available set of
apartments. She is not disposed to trust in the disposition of
Parliament or the public to give her an equivalent for these
apartments from time to time when emergencies arise. The
surrender of Kensington Palace will most likely not be thanked
for at the moment, and any new demand in consequence of
such surrender would be met with lavish abuse. As to economy
in the construction, it will most likely be best consulted
by building on a spot perfectly free and unencumbered.

Lord John Russell to the Prince Albert.

Chesham Place, 14th March 1851.

Sir,—I cannot undertake to make any change in the Foreign
Office. Our Party is hardly reunited, and any break into
sections, following one man or the other, would be fatal to us.
I need not say that the Queen would suffer if it were attributed
to her desire, and that as I have no difference of opinion on
Foreign Policy, that could not fail to be the case.

[page 316]

Upon the whole, the situation of affairs is most perplexing.
A Dissolution I fear would not improve it.

I can only say that my Office is at all times at the Queen’s
disposal.

I have the honour to be, Sir, your Royal Highness’s most
dutiful Servant,

J. Russell.

Queen Victoria to Sir George Grey.

Buckingham Palace, 30th March 1851.

The Queen approves of the draft of a letter to the Archbishop
of Canterbury. With respect to the Archbishop’s letter and
the address, the Queen will receive it in the Closet. It seems
strange to propose as a remedy for the present evils in the
Church, and for its evident great disunion, 600 more churches
to be built! There ought clearly to be some security given
to those who are to encourage such a scheme against the
extension of those evils.

Lord John Russell to the Prince Albert.

THE GREAT EXHIBITION

Pembroke Lodge, 19th April 1851.

Sir,—Lord Granville came here yesterday to speak to me
upon the order for opening the Exhibition at one o’clock on
the 1st of May. He is anxious to have the order changed, and
the season-ticket bearers admitted at eleven o’clock.

I did not give him any positive opinion on the subject. But
the account he gave me of the route which the Queen will
follow in going to the Exhibition takes away the main objection
which I felt to the admission of visitors before one o’clock.
It appears there cannot well be any interruption to Her
Majesty’s progress to and from the Crystal Palace on the 1st
of May.

I conclude that Her Majesty will not go in the State Coach,
but in the same manner that Her Majesty goes in state to
the theatres….

I feel assured there will be no undue and inconvenient
pressure of the crowd in the part of the building in which Her
Majesty may be. Colonel Wemyss and Colonel Bouverie
might easily be in attendance to request the visitors not to
crowd where the Queen is. At the same time, I am ready to
abide by the existing order, if Her Majesty wishes it to be
enforced.

I have the honour to submit two private letters sent by
Lord Palmerston. I have the honour to be, Sir, your Royal
Highness’s most dutiful Servant,

J. Russell.

[page 317]

The Duchess of Gloucester to Queen Victoria.

THE OPENING CEREMONY

Gloucester House, 2nd May 1851.

My dearest Victoria,—It is impossible to tell you how
warmly I do participate in all you must have felt yesterday,
as well as dear Albert, at everything having gone off so beautifully.
After so much anxiety and the trouble he has had,
the joy must be the greater.¹³

The sight from my window was the gayest and the most
gratifying to witness, and to me who loves you so dearly as I
do, made it the more delightful. The good humour of all
around, the fineness of the day, the manner you were received
in both going and coming from the Exhibition, was quite
perfect. Therefore what must it have been in the inside of
the building!

Mary and George came away in perfect enchantment, and
every soul I have seen describes it as the fairest sight that
ever was seen and the best-conducted fête! Why, G. Bathurst
told me it far surpassed the Coronation as to magnificence,
and we all agreed in rejoicing that the Foreigners should have
witnessed the affection of the People to you and your
Family,
and how the English people do love and respect the Crown.
As to Mary, she was in perfect enchantment, and full of how
pretty your dear little Victoria looked, and how nicely she was
dressed, and so grateful to your Mother for all her kindness
to her. I should have written to you last night, but I thought
I would not plague you with a letter until to-day, as I think
you must have been tired last night with the excitement of the
day. I shall ever lament the having missed such a sight, but
I comfort myself in feeling sure I could not have followed you
(as I ought) when you walked round. Therefore I was better
out of the way. We drank your health at dinner and congratulation
on the complete success of Albert’s plans and arrangements,
and also dear little Arthur’s health. Many thanks
for kind note received last night. Love to Albert. Yours,

Mary.

Footnote 13: The Great Exhibition in Hyde Park was opened with brilliant ceremony on the 1st
of May.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

THE GREAT EXHIBITION

Buckingham Palace, 3rd May 1851.

My dearest Uncle,—… I wish you could have witnessed
the 1st May 1851, the greatest day in our history, the most
beautiful and imposing and touching spectacle ever seen, and
the triumph of my beloved Albert. Truly it was astonishing,
[page 318]
a fairy scene. Many cried, and all felt touched and impressed
with devotional feelings. It was the happiest, proudest day
in my life, and I can think of nothing else. Albert’s dearest
name is immortalised with this great conception, his own, and
my own dear country showed she was worthy of it. The
triumph is immense, for up to the last hour the difficulties, the
opposition, and the ill-natured attempts to annoy and frighten,
of a certain set of fashionables and Protectionists, were immense;
but Albert’s temper, patience, firmness, and energy
surmounted all, and the feeling is universal. You will be
astounded at this great work when you see it!—the beauty
of the building and the vastness of it all. I can never thank
God enough. I feel so happy, so proud. Our dear guests
were much pleased and impressed. You are right to like the
dear Princess, for she is a noble-minded, warm-hearted, distinguished
person, much attached to you, and who revered
dearest Louise. Oh! how I thought of her on that great day,
how kindly she would have rejoiced in our success! Now
good-bye, dearest Uncle. Ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Queen Victoria to the Emperor of Austria.¹⁴

Palais de Buckingham, 5 Mai 1851.

Sire et mon bon Frère,—C’est avec un vif empressement
que je viens remercier votre Majesté Impériale des superbes
objets de l’industrie et des arts de votre Empire, que vous
avez eu l’extrême bonté de m’envoyer et qui me seront bien
précieux à plus d’un titre d’abord comme venant de votre
Majesté, et puis à cause de leur grande beauté et comme un
souvenir à une époque où il a plu au Tout-Puissant de permettre
une réunion pacifique de tous les peuples du monde et
de leurs produits.

La cérémonie de l’inauguration de l’Exposition a fait une
profonde impression sur mon cœur et je regrette d’avoir été
le seul Souverain qui ait pu jouir de cette scène à la fois imposante
et parlant au cœur. Nous avons déjà fait plusieurs
visites au département Autrichien et le Prince et moi avons
eu occasion d’admirer beaucoup les produits qui nous sont
venus de vos États. Puisse leur exposition contribuer à la
prospérité du commerce de l’Empire Autrichien.

Agréez l’expression de ma sincère amitié, qui j’espère pourra
un jour être cimentée par la connaissance personnelle de votre
Majesté, et croyez-moi toujours, Sire, de votre Majesté Impériale,
la bonne Sœur,

Victoria R.

Footnote 14: Francis Joseph, who became Emperor in December 1848.

[page 319]

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

DEATH OF MR SHEIL

Buckingham Palace, 2nd June 1851.

The Queen will see the Judge Advocate on Saturday at
three.

The place of the late Mr Mill is already filled up.

Mr Sheil’s death is very sudden, and must be a great shock
to his family….

We go to Windsor this afternoon to stay till Friday. We
hope that Lord John Russell’s little girl is going on quite well.

The Queen has had good accounts from the dear Princess
of Prussia from Coblentz. Her letter is full of England, her
great happiness here, and her great sorrow at having left it.
The Princes have expressed the same, so this dangerous
journey has gone off without one single unpleasant circumstance,
which is very gratifying.

The Prince and Prince Frederic are gone to Berlin, where
the statue of Frederic the Great was to be inaugurated yesterday.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

Buckingham Palace, 18th June 1851.

The Queen returns the papers signed. We are both much
pleased at what Lord John Russell says about the Prince’s
speech yesterday.¹⁵ It was on so ticklish a subject that one
could not feel sure beforehand how it might be taken; at the
same time the Queen felt sure that the Prince would say the
right thing, from her entire confidence in his great tact and
judgment.

The Queen, at the risk of not appearing sufficiently modest
(and yet, why should a wife ever be modest about her husband’s
merits?), must say that she thinks Lord John Russell
will admit now that the Prince is possessed of very extraordinary
powers of mind and heart. She feels so proud at
being his wife that she cannot refrain from herself paying a
tribute to his noble character.

Footnote 15: The Prince presided at the meeting commemorative of the one hundred and fifty
years’ existence of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. His speech was warmly
praised by the Premier.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

Buckingham Palace, 10th July 1851.

The Queen hastens to tell Lord John Russell how amiably
everything went off last [night], and how enthusiastically we
[page 320]
were received by an almost fearful mass of people in the
streets;¹⁶ the greatest order prevailed, and the greatest and
most gratifying enthusiasm.

Not being aware whether Sir George Grey is equal to any
business, the Queen writes to Lord John to direct that a
proper letter be written without delay to the Lord Mayor,
expressing not only the Queen’s and Prince’s thanks for the
splendid entertainment at the Guildhall, but also our high
gratification at the hearty, kind, and enthusiastic reception
we met with during our progress through the City, both
going and returning. Our only anxiety is lest any accident
should have occurred from the great pressure of the dense
crowds.

The Queen would likewise wish to know what distinction
should be conferred in honour of the occasion on the Lord
Mayor.

Footnote 16: A ball in commemoration of the Exhibition took place at the Guildhall on the 9th of
July.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

Buckingham Palace, 15th July 1851.

The Queen has received Lord John Russell’s letter. She
has no objection on this particular occasion to knight the two
Sheriffs, this year being so memorable a one.

But the Queen would wish it clearly to be understood that
they have no right or claim to be knighted whenever the
Queen goes into the City.

On the occasion of the opening of the Royal Exchange the
Sheriffs were not knighted….

We regret to hear of Lord John’s continued indisposition.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

THE DANISH SUCCESSION

Osborne, 25th August 1851.

The Queen wishes to draw Lord John Russell’s attention
to the enclosed draft, which she does not think can go in its
present shape. We argued in innumerable despatches that
the choice of the successor to the Danish Crown was entirely
an internal question for Denmark, in which foreign Powers
could not interfere. Here, however, it is laid down that the
German Diet has no right to treat the succession in Holstein
(a German State) as an internal question, as it ought to be
decided on—not according to the German law of succession,
but according to the interests of Europe. Nor is it true, as
[page 321]
stated in the despatch, that the Duke of Augustenburg has
no claim to the Danish Crown. His mother was the daughter
of Christian VII. and of Queen Matilda.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

THE QUEEN IN SCOTLAND

Balmoral Castle, 16th September 1851.

My dearest Uncle,—Accept my best thanks for your kind
and dear letter of the 8th. It is a good thing for Leo to begin
to follow in your footsteps, but (if I may speak out plainly), I
think that anything like fonctions and représentation is agreeable
and not difficult to Leo. It is the common contact with
his fellow-creatures, the being put on a par with him, the
being brought to feel that he is as much one of them as any
other, in spite of his birth, which I think of such great importance
for him, and I therefore hope you will send him to Bonn.

My letter is terribly décousu, for it has been twice interrupted.
I was out the whole day with Albert, in the forest in a perfectly
tropical heat. Since we went to Allt-na-Giuthasach, our little
bothy near Loch Muich on the 12th, the heat of the sun has
been daily increasing, and has reached a pitch which makes
it almost sickening to be out in it, though it is beautiful to
behold. The sky these last two evenings has been like an
Italian one, and for the last few days—at least the last four—without
the slightest particle of cloud, and the sun blazing.
With this, not a breath of air. The mountains look quite
crimson and lilac, and everything glows with the setting sun.
The evenings are quite a relief. Really one cannot undertake
expeditions, the heat is so great. We thought of you, and
wished you could be here; you would fancy yourself in Italy.

Albert got a splendid stag to-day. I must hastily conclude,
hoping to hear from you that you will come. Our moonlights
have been magnificent also. Ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Balmoral Castle, 22nd September 1851.

My dearest Uncle,—I write to you on purpose on this
large paper in order that you may see and admire it. Landseer
did it also on purpose, and I think it is even finer than the
other. It is so truly the character of the noble animal.

That abuse of the poor Orleans family in our papers is
abominable, and Lord John is equally shocked at it, but
won’t interfere. Don’t you think Joinville should not have
left it open for him to accept it, for it is impossible for him to
[page 322]
be President of the French Republic? Still, I feel convinced
that he and they all do what they think best for France.

I must conclude. Ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHS

Shiel of Allt-na-Giuthasach, 30th September 1851.

My dearest Uncle,—I write to you from our little bothy
in the hills, which is quite a wilderness—where we arrived
yesterday evening after a long hill expedition to the Lake of
Loch Nagar, which is one of the wildest spots imaginable. It
was very cold. To-day it pours so that I hardly know if we
shall be able to get out, or home even. We are not snowed,
but rained up. Our little Shiel is very snug and comfortable,
and we have got a little piano in it. Lady Douro is with us.

Many thanks for your kind letter of the 22nd. Our warm,
fine weather left us on the 25th, and we have had storm and
snow in the mountains ever since then.

The position of Princes is no doubt difficult in these times,
but it would be much less so if they would behave honourably
and straightforwardly, giving the people gradually those
privileges which would satisfy all the reasonable and well-intentioned,
and would weaken the power of the Red Republicans;
instead of that, reaction and a return to all the tyranny
and oppression is the cry and the principle—and all papers
and books are being seized and prohibited, as in the days of
Metternich!…

Vicky was kicked off her pony—a quiet beast—but not the
least hurt; this is more than three weeks ago. Alfred (whom
you will recollect I told you was so terribly heedless and
entirely indifferent to all punishment, etc.) tumbled downstairs
last week. He was not seriously hurt at all, and quite
well the next morning, only with a terribly black, green, and
yellow face and very much swelled. He might have been
killed; he is always bent upon self-destruction, and one hardly
knows what to do, for he don’t mind being hurt or scolded or
punished; and the very next morning he tried to go down the
stairs leaning over the banisters just as he had done when he
fell.

Alas! this will be my last letter but one from the dear
Highlands. We start on the 7th, visiting Liverpool and Manchester
on our way back, and expect to be at Windsor on the
11th.

I must now conclude. Ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

[page 323]

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

THE HIGHLANDS

Balmoral Castle, 6th October 1851.

My dearest Uncle,—Only two words can I write to you,
as we are to start to-morrow morning. My heart is bien gros
at going from here.

I love my peaceful, wild Highlands, the glorious scenery,
the dear good people who are much attached to us, and who
feel their Einsamkeit sadly, very much. One of our Gillies, a
young Highlander who generally went out with me, said,
in answer to my observation that they must be very dull here
when we left: “It’s just like death come all at once.” In
addition to my sorrow at leaving this dear place, I am in great
sorrow at the loss of a dear and faithful, excellent friend, whom
you will sincerely lament—our good Lord Liverpool. He was
well and in the highest spirits with us only six weeks ago, and
in three days he was carried away. I cannot tell you how it
has upset me; I have known him so long, and he was such an
intimate friend of ours. We received the news yesterday.

Many thanks for your kind letter of the 29th. I am glad all
went off so well, but it must have been dreadful to miss dearest
Louise. This time reminds me so much of all our sorrow last
year on her dear account.

Victoria R.

Queen Victoria to Lord Palmerston.

Windsor Castle, 13th October 1851.

The Queen returns Lord Howden’s letter, and thinks that
the best answer to the Queen of Spain’s request will be that
the Statutes do not allow the Garter to be bestowed upon a
lady; that the Queen herself possesses no order of knighthood
from any country.¹⁷

With reference to the claim for the King arising out of the
Prince having received the Fleece, it may be well to say that
the offer of the Fleece had in the first instance been declined
for fear of establishing a ground for the necessity of giving the
Garter in return, and was at its second offer accepted by the
Prince, together with the first orders of almost every country,
on the understanding that no return would be expected. It would
have been impossible to give the Garter to every
Sovereign, and very difficult to make a selection. The Queen
of Spain ought to be made aware of the fact that among the
reigning Sovereigns, the Emperors of Austria and Brazil, and
the Kings of Sweden, Denmark, Bavaria, Holland, Sardinia,
[page 324]
Naples, Greece, etc., etc., have not got the Garter, although
many of them have expressed a wish for it, and that amongst
the Kings Consort, the King of Portugal, the Queen’s first
cousin, has not received it yet, although the Queen has long
been anxious to give it to him.

Anything short of these explanations might offend, or leave
the claim open to be repeated from time to time.

Footnote 17: The Queen of Spain had expressed a desire through Lord Howden to receive the
Order of the Garter.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

EXTENSION OF THE FRANCHISE

Downing Street, 14th October 1851.

Lord Carlisle, Lord Minto, and Sir Charles Wood are appointed
a Committee to consider of the extension of the
Suffrage. They meet to-morrow. Lord John Russell expects
to see Mr Peel to-morrow. It is proposed that Parliament
should meet on the 3rd or 5th of February….

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

Windsor Castle, 14th October 1851.

The Queen does not consider the Committee appointed to
consider the extension of the Franchise a very strong one.
Will Lord Carlisle be up to the peculiar business?

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.¹⁸

KOSSUTH IN ENGLAND

Windsor Castle, 29th October 1851.

The Queen concludes Lord John Russell has read the accounts
of Kossuth’s arrival in to-day’s papers.

She wishes Lord John could still try to prevent Lord Palmerston
from receiving him. The effect it will have abroad will
do us immense harm. At all events, Lord John should take
care to have it understood that the Government have not
sanctioned it, and that it is a private act of Lord Palmerston’s.

The Queen will else have again to submit to insults and
affronts, which are the result of Lord Palmerston’s conduct.

Footnote 18: Substance of the note to Lord John Russell, written down from recollection.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

Windsor Castle, 24th October 1851.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and is sorry to say he can interfere no further with respect to
Lord Palmerston’s reception of Kossuth.

With respect to the manner of the reception, however, he
[page 325]
will write to Lord Palmerston to desire him to take care that
nothing is said which goes beyond the strict expression of
thanks for the efforts made by the British Government to
procure first the safety, and next the liberty, of Kossuth.

As for the reception, it is to be considered that Kossuth is
considered the representative of English institutions against
despotism.

If this were so the public feeling would be laudable.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

Pembroke Lodge, 31st October 1851.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty;
he has the honour to submit to your Majesty a correspondence¹⁹
which has taken place between Lord Palmerston and himself.

After Lord Palmerston’s answer, Lord John Russell can
have but little hope that Lord Palmerston will not see M.
Kossuth. Lord John Russell cannot separate the private from
the public man in this instance; the reception of Kossuth, if it
takes place, will be a reception by your Majesty’s Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs. Whether that reception is to take
place in Downing Street or Carlton Terrace does not appear
to him material.

Lord John Russell would, as a last resource, humbly advise
your Majesty to command Lord Palmerston not to receive
M. Kossuth.

It appears to him that your Majesty owes this mark of
respect to your Majesty’s ally, and generally to all States at
peace with this country.

Lord John Russell has no other copy of this letter to Lord
Palmerston.

Footnote 19: Lord Palmerston wished to receive Kossuth at the Foreign Office. In the correspondence
here referred to, which will be found in Russell’s Life, the Premier “positively
requested” Lord Palmerston to decline to receive Kossuth. The rejoinder, written while
the messenger waited, was: “There are limits to all things. I do not choose to be dictated
to as to who I may or may not receive in my own house…. I shall use my own discretion….
You will, of course, use yours as to the composition of your Government.”

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

KOSSUTH AND PALMERSTON

Windsor Castle, 31st October 1851.

The Queen has received Lord John Russell’s letter, and
returns the enclosures. She likewise sends him her letter
to Lord Palmerston, which she begs him to send on, merely
changing the label. She must tell Lord John, however, that
although he may go on with a colleague, even after having
received an answer like the one Lord Palmerston has returned
[page 326]
to the many entreaties not to compromise the Government
by his personal act, the Queen cannot expose herself to having
her positive commands disobeyed by one of her public servants,
and that should Lord Palmerston persist in his intention he
cannot continue as her Minister. She refrains from any expression
upon Lord Palmerston’s conduct in this matter, as
Lord John is well aware of her feelings.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.²⁰

Windsor Castle, 31st October 1851.

The Queen mentioned to Lord Palmerston when he was last
here at Windsor Castle that she thought it would not be
advisable that he should receive M. Kossuth upon his arrival
in England, as being wholly unnecessary, and likely to be
misconstrued abroad. Since M. Kossuth’s arrival in this
country, and his violent denunciations of two Sovereigns with
whom we are at peace, the Queen thinks that she owes it as a
mark of respect to her Allies, and generally to all States at
peace with this country, not to allow that a person endeavouring
to excite a political agitation in this country against her
Allies should be received by her Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs. Whether such a reception should take place at his
official or private residence can make no difference as to the
public nature of the act. The Queen must therefore demand
that the reception of M. Kossuth by Lord Palmerston should
not take place.

Footnote 20: Draft sent to Lord John Russell.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

Pembroke Lodge, 31st October 1851.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty.
Since writing to your Majesty this morning it has occurred to
him that it will be best that your Majesty should not give any
commands to Lord Palmerston on his sole advice.

With this view he has summoned the Cabinet for Monday,
and he humbly proposes that your Majesty should await their
advice.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

PALMERSTON AND THE QUEEN

Windsor Castle, 31st October 1851.

The Queen has just received Lord John Russell’s letter.
She thinks it natural that Lord John should wish to bring a
matter which may cause a rupture in the Government before
[page 327]
the Cabinet, but thinks his having summoned the Cabinet only
for Monday will leave Lord Palmerston at liberty in the intermediate
time to have his reception of Kossuth, and then rest
on his fait accompli. Unless, therefore, Lord John Russell can
bind him over to good conduct, all the mischief which is apprehended
from this step of his will result; and he will have,
moreover, the triumph of having carried his point, and having
set the Prime Minister at defiance….

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

Pembroke Lodge, 1st November 1851.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty;
he is deeply sensible of your Majesty’s kindness and indulgence.
He feels that he is at times overwhelmed by the importance
and variety of the questions of which the principal weight lies
upon him.

He now lays before your Majesty a copy of the letter he has
written to Lord Palmerston.²¹ With a grateful sense of your
Majesty’s confidence, he is now of opinion that the Cabinet
should decide, and that no part of the burden should be placed
upon your Majesty.

He therefore returns the letter to Lord Palmerston.

He summoned the Cabinet for Monday, as so many members
of it are at a distance. He does not think Lord Palmerston
will come to town before Monday.

Footnote 21: The letter is printed in Lord Palmerston’s Life. The Premier stated that the question,
being one of grave public importance, must be decided by argument, not passion, and would
be considered by the Cabinet on the following Monday. See Walpole’s Russell, chap. xxii.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

Windsor Castle, 1st November 1851.

The Queen has to acknowledge Lord John Russell’s letter
of this day, and returns the copy of his to Lord Palmerston.
She feels that she has the right and the duty to demand that
one of her Ministers should not by his private acts, compromise
her and the country, and therefore omitted in her letter to Lord
Palmerston all reference to Lord John Russell’s opinion; but
she of course much prefers that she should be protected from
the wilful indiscretions of Lord Palmerston by the attention
of the Cabinet being drawn to his proceedings without her
personal intervention.²²

Footnote 22: The Cabinet met, and having listened to the statement of the Premier, which is
printed in his Life, unanimously supported him. Lord Palmerston accordingly gave
way for the time being. Lord John informed the Queen of the result.

[page 328]

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

THE QUEEN AND PALMERSTON

Windsor Castle, 3rd November 1851.

The Queen has just received Lord John Russell’s letter.
She is very glad to hear that this matter has been amicably
arranged, and she trusts that Lord Palmerston will act according
to his promises.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

Windsor Castle, 11th November 1851.

The Queen sends this draft to Lord John Russell, as she
thinks the tone in which it is written so very ironical, and not
altogether becoming for a public despatch from the English
Secretary for Foreign Affairs, to be given to the Minister of
another State. The substance is quite right, and a dignified
explanation of the absurdity of the conduct of the Parma
officials would very likely produce its effect, but some expressions
in this draft could only tend to irritate, and therefore
prevent that readiness to comply with our demand, which is
to be produced.²³

Footnote 23: Before ten days had elapsed, Lord Palmerston had resumed his high-handed methods.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

THE QUEEN AND PALMERSTON

Windsor Castle, 20th November 1851.

The Queen must write to-day to Lord John Russell on a
subject which causes her much anxiety. Her feelings have
again been deeply wounded by the official conduct of her
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs since the arrival of M.
Kossuth in this country. The Queen feels the best interests
of her people, the honour and dignity of her Crown, her public
and personal obligations towards those Sovereigns with whom
she professes to be on terms of peace and amity, most unjustifiably
exposed. The Queen has unfortunately very often
had to call upon Lord John to check his colleague in the
dangerous and unbecoming course which at various times he
has so wilfully persevered in pursuing. But Lord John Russell,
although agreeing on most of these occasions with the view
taken by the Queen, has invariably met her remonstrances
with the plea that to push his interference with Lord Palmerston
beyond what he had done would lead to a rupture with
him, and thus necessarily to a breaking up of the Cabinet.
The Queen, considering a change of her Government under
present political circumstances dangerous to the true interests
of the nation, had only to choose between two evils, without
[page 329]
possessing sufficient confidence in her own judgment to decide
which in its political consequences would turn out the least.
But if in such a contingency the Queen chooses rather not to
insist upon what is due to her, she thinks it indispensable at the
same time to express to her Cabinet that she does so on their
account, leaving it to them to reconcile the injuries done to her
with that sound policy and conduct which the maintenance of
peace and the welfare of the country require. These remarks
seem to be especially called for after the report of the official
interview between Lord Palmerston and the deputation from
Finsbury,²⁴ and the Queen requests Lord John Russell to bring
them under the notice of the Cabinet.

Footnote 24: After Kossuth’s departure, addresses of thanks to Lord Palmerston, for his courteous
attentions to Kossuth, were voted by ultra-Radical meetings in Finsbury and Islington,
and he allowed a deputation to present the addresses to him at the Foreign Office, the
Emperors of Austria and Russia being stigmatised therein as “odious and detestable
assassins” and “merciless tyrants and despots.” Palmerston, who expressed himself as
“extremely flattered and highly gratified” by the references to himself, did not in terms
reprehend the language used of the two Sovereigns, and added, in a phrase immortalised
by Leech’s cartoon, that “a good deal of judicious bottle-holding was obliged to be brought
into play.”

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

PALMERSTON’S FOREIGN POLICY

Pembroke Lodge, 21st November 1851.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty.
He had the honour of receiving last night your Majesty’s communication
respecting Lord Palmerston.

Lord John Russell presumes that it is the substance of this
communication which your Majesty wishes to be laid before the
Cabinet.

But before doing so he cannot refrain from mentioning some
circumstances which appear to him to weigh materially in the
consideration of Lord Palmerston’s conduct.

In many instances Lord Palmerston has yielded to the
remonstrances of Lord John Russell, supported as they have
been by your Majesty.

He did so on the question of furnishing guns to the Sicilians.

He did so in respect to the letter to Baron Koller on the
affair of Count Haynau.

He gave way likewise in this last instance, when, after assuring
Lord Dudley Stuart that he would see Kossuth whenever
he chose to call upon him, he consented to intimate privately
to Lord Dudley that he requested him not to call.

This last concession must have been mortifying to Lord
Palmerston, and he has consoled himself in a manner not very
dignified by giving importance to the inflated addresses from
some meetings in the suburbs of London.

[page 330]

But it appears to Lord John Russell that every Minister
must have a certain latitude allowed him which he may use,
perhaps with indiscretion, perhaps with bad taste, but with no
consequence of sufficient importance to deserve notice.

Lord John Russell must, however, call your Majesty’s attention
to an article in the Morning Post, which denies the accuracy
of the report of Lord Palmerston’s answer to what is there
called “the froth and folly of an address to Downing Street.”

Lord John Russell, in admitting that he has more than once
represented to your Majesty that the expulsion of Lord Palmerston
would break up the Government, begs to explain that he
has always done so upon one of two grounds:

First, if Lord Palmerston should be called upon by your
Majesty to resign on account of a line of Foreign Policy of
which his colleagues had approved, and for which they were,
with him, responsible.

Second, in case no difference of opinion had arisen, and the
transaction should bear the character of an intrigue, to get rid
of an inconvenient colleague.

It must be remembered that Lord Palmerston was recommended
to the late King by Lord Grey as Foreign Secretary,
and remained in that Office from 1830 to 1834; that he was
afterwards replaced in the same Office by Lord Melbourne, and
remained from 1835 to 1841.

He has thus represented the Foreign Policy of the Whig
Party fifteen years, and has been approved not only by them
but by a large portion of the country. In the advice which
Lord John Russell has humbly tendered to your Majesty, he
has always had in view the importance of maintaining the
popular confidence which your Majesty’s name everywhere
inspires. Somewhat of the good opinion of the Emperor of
Russia and other foreign Sovereigns may be lost, but the good
will and affection of the people of England are retained, a great
security in these times.

Lord John Russell has made out a note of his address to the
Cabinet for your Majesty’s information. He prays to have it
returned.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

Windsor Castle, 21st November 1851.

The Queen has received Lord John Russell’s letter and
returns the note on his former communication to the Cabinet.
If Lord John felt on the 3rd of November that “above all, it
behoves us to be particularly cautious and not to afford just
ground of complaint to any Party, and that we cannot be too
[page 331]
vigilant or weigh our proceedings too scrupulously”—the
Queen cannot suppose that Lord John considers the official
reception by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of
addresses, in which allied Sovereigns are called Despots and
Assassins, as within that “latitude” which he claims for every
minister, “which he may use perhaps with indiscretion, perhaps
with bad taste, but with no consequence of sufficient
importance to deserve notice.”

The Queen leaves it to Lord John Russell whether he will
lay her letter, or only the substance of it, before the Cabinet;²⁵
but she hopes that they will make that careful enquiry into the
justice of her complaint which she was sorry to miss altogether
in Lord John Russell’s answer. It is no question with the
Queen whether she pleases the Emperor of Austria or not, but
whether she gives him a just ground of complaint or not. And
if she does so, she can never believe that this will add to her
popularity with her own people. Lord John’s letter must
accordingly have disappointed her as containing a mere attempt
at a defence of Lord Palmerston. Lord John sees one cause of
excuse in Lord Palmerston’s natural desire to console himself
for the mortification of having had to decline seeing M. Kossuth;
the Queen has every reason to believe that he has seen him
after all.

Footnote 25: On the 4th of December the matter came before the Cabinet. No formal resolution
was adopted, but regret was expressed at Palmerston’s want of caution in not ascertaining
in advance the tenor of the addresses, and in admitting unreliable reporters.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

DEATH OF KING OF HANOVER

Windsor Castle, 21st November 1851.

The Queen has just received Lord Palmerston’s letter with
the Memorandum relative to the mourning of her Uncle, the late
King of Hanover,²⁶ and she has to say in reply that she thinks
the mourning ought not to be for a Foreign Sovereign but for a
Prince of the Blood Royal, which was the nearest relation in
which he stood to the Throne.

Footnote 26: King Ernest died on the 18th of November, aged eighty, and was succeeded by his
son, King George V., who reigned till 1866, and died in 1878.

Queen Victoria to the King of Hanover.

Windsor Castle, 21st November 1851.

My dear George,—Your kind letter of the 18th, announcing
to me the melancholy news of the death of your Father,
was given to me yesterday by Mr Somerset, and I hasten to
express to you in both our names our sincere and heartfelt
[page 332]
condolence, and beg you to do so in our names to our dear
Cousin Mary.²⁷

It must be a consolation to you that the end of the King was
peaceful and so free from pain and suffering. Most truly do I
enter into your feelings as to the responsible position into
which you are now placed, and my best wishes for your welfare
and happiness as well as that of Hanover will ever accompany
you. I am happy to hear from Mr Somerset that you were
well, as well as your dear Mary and dear children.

Albert desires me to say everything kind from him to you as
well as to our cousins, and with every possible good wish for
your health and prosperity, believe me always, my dear George,
your very affectionate Cousin,

Victoria R.

Footnote 27: Princess Mary of Saxe-Altenburg (1818-1907), wife of King George V. of Hanover.

Viscount Palmerston to Queen Victoria.

Carlton Gardens, 22nd November 1851.

Viscount Palmerston presents his humble duty to your
Majesty and has taken the proper steps according to your
Majesty’s commands, about the mourning for the late King of
Hanover; and he would wish to know whether it is your
Majesty’s desire that he should have letters prepared for your
Majesty’s signature, announcing to Foreign Sovereigns the
decease of the late King.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

Osborne, 22nd November 1851.

The Queen has just received Lord Palmerston’s letter.

The Queen does not think it necessary for her to announce
the King of Hanover’s death to other Sovereigns, as there is a
head of that branch of her Family who would have to do so.
She declared the present King’s marriage in Council, but she
does not think that she announced it. This Lord Palmerston
would perhaps be able to ascertain at the Office.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

THE REFORM QUESTION

Osborne, 3rd December 1851.

The Queen has received Lord John Russell’s letter of the
30th ult., and has carefully considered his Memorandum on the
report of the Committee of the Cabinet; she now returns Sir
Charles Wood’s Memorandum.

Considering the question of Reform under its two bearings—on
[page 333]
the Franchise and on the Suffrage—the Queen thinks the
proposal of merely adding neighbouring towns to the small
boroughs an improvement on the original plan, which contemplated
the taking away of members from some boroughs, and
giving them to others. Thus the animosity may be hoped to be
avoided which an attack upon vested interests could not have
failed to have produced. Much will depend, however, upon the
completeness, fairness, and impartiality with which the selection
of the towns will be made which are to be admitted into
the electoral district of others. Sir Charles Wood’s Memorandum
being only a sketch, the Queen hopes to see a more complete
list, stating the principle also upon which the selection is
made.

With regard to the Suffrage, the proposals of the Committee
appear to the Queen to be framed with a due regard to the
importance of not giving an undue proportion of weight to
the Democracy. In the Queen’s opinion, the chief question
to consider will be whether the strengthening of the Democratic
principle will upset the balance of Constitution, and further
weaken the Executive, which is by no means too strong at
present. The Queen is well aware of the difficulty of forming a
correct estimate beforehand of the moral effect which such
extensive changes may produce, but thinks that they cannot
even be guessed at before the numerical results are accurately
ascertained; she hopes therefore that the statistics will be
soon in a state to be laid before her.

The Queen regrets that the idea of reviving the Guilds had
to be abandoned, but can quite understand the difficulty which
would have been added to the measure by its being clogged
with such an additional innovation.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Osborne, 2nd December 1851.

My dearest Uncle,—Accept my best thanks for your kind
letter of the 28th. I am truly grieved to hear that you have
got so bad a cold; nothing is more trying and annoying than
those heavy colds, which render all occupation irksome and
trying in the highest degree. I hope that it will soon be past.

It is a great pity that you do not venture to come to us, as I
am sure you might do it easily. I do not think that there will
be any outburst yet awhile in France….

I am rather unhappy about dear Uncle Mensdorff, who, I
hear, has arrived at Vienna with gout in his head. I hope,
however, soon to hear of his being much better….

[page 334]

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

THE COUP D’ÉTAT

Osborne, 4th December 1851.

Dearest Uncle,—I must write a line to ask what you say
to the wonderful proceedings at Paris, which really seem like
a story in a book or a play! What is to be the result of it all?²⁸

I feel ashamed to have written so positively a few hours before
that nothing would happen.

We are anxiously waiting for to-day’s news—though I should
hope that the Troops were to be depended upon, and order for
the present would prevail. I hope that none of the Orleans
Family will move a limb or say a word, but remain perfectly
passive.

I must now conclude. Ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 28: On the 2nd of December, Louis Napoleon seized the Government of France, arrested
his chief opponents, put an end to the National Assembly and Council of State, and
declared Paris in a state of siege.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

Osborne, 4th December 1851.

The Queen has learnt with surprise and concern the events
which have taken place at Paris.²⁹ She thinks it is of great
importance that Lord Normanby should be instructed to remain
entirely passive, and to take no part whatever in what is
passing. Any word from him might be misconstrued at such
a moment.

Footnote 29: On the 3rd the tidings of the coup d’état reached London. Count Walewski announced
it to Lord Palmerston, who expressed his approval of it, and wrote to Lord Normanby
the letter printed in his Life, disavowing surprise that the President had struck the blow
when he did, “for it is now well known here that the Duchess of Orleans was preparing
to be called to Paris this week with her younger son to commence a new period of Orleans
dynasty.”

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

Downing Street, 4th December 1851.

(6 p.m.)

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your
Majesty. Your Majesty’s directions respecting the state
of affairs in Paris shall be followed. Lord Normanby³⁰ has
asked whether he should suspend his diplomatic functions;
but the Cabinet were unanimously of opinion that he should
not do so.

[page 335]

The result is very uncertain; at present the power is likely
to rest in the Army, to whose memory of victories and defeats
the President has so strongly appealed.

Footnote 30: Lord Normanby, having applied for instructions as to his future conduct, was desired
to make no change in his relations with the French Government, and to abstain from even
the appearance of interference in her internal affairs. Having made a communication
to this effect to M. Turgot, the latter replied that M. Walewski had notified to him that
Lord Palmerston had already expressed to him his “entire approbation of the act
of the President,” and his “conviction that he could not have acted otherwise.”

The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

LOUIS NAPOLEON

Laeken, 5th December 1851.

My dearest Victoria,—Receive my best thanks for
your dear gracious letter of the 2nd, the date of the battle
of Austerlitz, and the coup d’état at Paris. What do you say
to it?

As yet one cannot form an opinion, but I am inclined to
think that Louis Bonaparte will succeed. The country is
tired and wish quiet, and if they get it by this coup d’état they
will have no objection, and let le Gouvernement Parlementaire
et Constitutionnel go to sleep for a while.

I suspect that the great Continental powers will see a military
Government at Paris with pleasure; they go rather far in their
hatred of everything Parliamentary. The President takes a
little of Napoleon already. I understand that he expressed
himself displeased, as if I had too much supported the
Orleans Family. I render perfect justice to the President,
that hitherto he has not plagued us; but we have also
abstained from all interference. I think that Hélène has
been imprudent; besides, it is difficult for the poor Family
to avoid to speak on these subjects or to express themselves
with mildness.

If something like an Empire establishes itself, perhaps we
shall for a time have much to suffer, as the gloire française invariably
looks to the old frontiers. My hope is that they will
necessarily have much to do at home, for a time, as parties will
run high…. Your devoted Uncle,

Leopold R.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

Osborne, 6th December 1851.

The Queen has to acknowledge Lord John Russell’s letter of
yesterday. She is glad to hear that the Cabinet occupy themselves
assiduously with the Reform Question, but hopes that
they will not come to a final decision without having first
ascertained how the proposed plan will operate when practically
applied to the present state of the Franchise and Suffrage. The
Queen is very anxious to arrive at a definite opinion on this
subject herself.

The Queen sees from the Manchester Speeches that the Ballot
is to be made the stalking-horse of the Radicals.

[page 336]

The Marchioness of Normanby to Colonel Phipps.

LORD PALMERSTON’S LETTERS

Paris, 7th December 1851.

My dear Charles,—I have an opportunity of writing to you
not through the Foreign Office, which I shall take advantage of,
as at present the Post is not to be trusted, and I am afraid I do
not think the Office is either.

Palmerston has taken lately to writing in the most extraordinary
manner to Normanby.³¹ I think he wants to fix
a quarrel with him, which you may be sure Normanby will
avoid at present, as it would have the worst possible effect;
but I do not understand it at all, and I wish you could in any
way explain what it means. Palmerston seems very angry
because Normanby does not unqualifyingly approve of this
step here, and the results; the whole thing is so completely
a coup d’état, and all the proceedings are so contrary to and
devoid of law and justice and security, that even the most
violent Tory would be staggered by them. (For instance,
to-day all the English papers, even Normanby’s, are stopped
and prohibited; they will of course allow Normanby’s to come,
but it is to be under an envelope), and yet Palmerston, who
quarrels with all Europe about a political adventurer like
Kossuth, because he was defending the liberties and constitution
of his country, now tries to quarrel with Normanby, and
really writes in the most impertinent manner, because Normanby’s
despatches are not sufficiently in praise of Louis
Napoleon and his coup d’état. There must be some dessous
des cartes that we are not aware of. Normanby has always
said, having been undertaken, the only thing now is to hope
and pray it may be successful; but that is another thing to
approving the way it was begun, or the way it has been carried
out. The bloodshed has been dreadful and indiscriminate, no
quarter was shown, and when an insurgent took refuge in a
house, the soldiers killed every one in the house, whether engaged
in the émeute or not…. It is very doubtful whether
Normanby will be able to go on with [Palmerston] if this sort
of thing continues, for he talks of “I hear this” and “I am
told that,” with reference to Normanby’s conduct here, which
no man in his position can stand, as, if Palmerston takes the
on-dits of others, and not Normanby’s own accounts, there is
an end of confidence; but I must say his last letter appears
to me a sort of exuberance of anger, which spends itself on
[page 337]
many subjects rather than the one which first caused it, and
therefore I suspect he has received some rap on the knuckles
at home, which he resents here, or on the first person who is
not of the same opinion as himself; but it is a curious anomaly
that he should quarrel with Normanby in support of arbitrary
and absolute Government. All is quiet here now, and will, I
hope, continue so till the Elections, when I suppose we may
have some more émeutes….

They have been told at the Clubs that they may meet, but
they are not to talk politics. In short, I do not suppose that
despotism ever reached such a pitch…. You may suppose
what the French feel; it serves them all quite right, but that
does not prevent one’s feeling indignant at it. And this is
what Palmerston is now supporting without restriction. We
are entirely without any other news from England from any
one. Would you not send me or Normanby a letter through
Rothschild? I am rather anxious to know whether this is a
general feeling in England; it could not be, if they know all
that had happened here. Mind, I can quite understand the
policy of keeping well with Louis Napoleon, and Normanby is
so, and has never expressed to any one a hostile opinion except
in his despatches and private letters to Palmerston…. I
shall send this by a private hand, not to run the risk of its
being read. Ever yours affectionately,

M. Normanby.

Footnote 31: On the 6th, Lord Palmerston wrote to Lord Normanby the strange letter printed by
Mr Evelyn Ashley in the Life, censuring Lord Normanby’s supposed hostility to the French
President; Lord Normanby in reply defended his attitude, and asked for an explicit
statement as to the Foreign Secretary’s approval or otherwise of the conduct and policy
of the President.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

AFFAIRS IN FRANCE

Osborne, 9th December 1851.

Dearest Uncle,—Your kind letter of the 5th reached me on
Sunday morning. Much blood has been shed since you wrote….

What you say about arbitrary and military Government in
France is very true, and I daresay will do for a time; but I do
not know how Louis Napoleon is to proceed, or how he will get
over the anger and enmity of those he imprisoned. Still, I see
that the Legitimists have all given in their adhesion. Every
one in France and elsewhere must wish order, and many therefore
rally round the President.

A most extraordinary report was mentioned to me yesterday,
which, however, I never could believe, and which is
besides physically impossible, from the illness of the one and
the absence of the other, viz. that Joinville and Aumale had
gone or were going to Lille to put themselves at the head of the
troops,³² which would be a terrible and a very unwise thing.
It would be very awkward for you too.

[page 338]

I must now conclude, hoping soon to hear from you. You
should urge the poor Orleans family to be very prudent in what
they say about passing events, as I believe Louis Napoleon is
very sore on the subject, and matters might get still worse.
Ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 32: Mr Borthwick, of the Morning Post, had so stated to Lord Palmerston on the authority
of General de Rumigny; seven years later Palmerston wrote the Memorandum on the
subject printed in his Life.

The Marchioness of Normanby to Colonel Phipps.³³

PALMERSTON AND NORMANBY

Paris, 9th December 1851.

My dearest Charles,—I had written a long letter to the
Queen, and upon second thoughts I have burnt it, because
events have now become so serious between Normanby and
Palmerston that I do not think that I should be the person to inform
Her Majesty of it, in case anything was to be said upon the
subject in Parliament. And yet as the affront has been given
in Palmerston’s private letters, I feel sure she does not know it.
You have all probably seen Normanby’s public despatches,
in which, though as an Englishman he deprecates and
deplores the means employed and the pledges broken—in
short, the unconstitutional illegality of the whole coup d’état—yet
he always says, seeing now no other refuge from Rouge
ascendency, he hopes it may succeed. One would have supposed,
from the whole tenor of his policy, from his Radical
tendencies, and all that he has been doing lately, that Palmerston
would have been the last person to approve of this coup
d’état. Not a bit! He turns upon Normanby in the most
flippant manner; almost accuses him of a concealed knowledge
of an Orleanist plot—never whispered here, nor I believe,
even imagined by the Government of Paris, who would
have been too glad to seize upon it as an excuse; says he compromises
the relations of the country by his evident disapproval
of Louis Napoleon—in short, it is a letter that Morny might
have written, and that it is quite impossible for Normanby to
bear. The curious thing is that it is a letter or rather letters
that would completely ruin Palmerston with his Party. He
treats all the acts of the wholesale cruelties of the troops as a
joke—in short, it is the letter of a man half mad, I think, for to
quarrel with Normanby on this subject is cutting his own
throat…. He has written also to Lord John. Louis
Napoleon knows perfectly well that Normanby cannot approve
the means he has taken; he talks to him confidentially, and
treats him as an honest, upright man, and he never showed him
more attention, or friendship even than last night when we
[page 339]
were at the Elysée, though Normanby said not one word in
approval….

LORD PALMERSTON’S INSTRUCTIONS

There is another question upon which Normanby has a right
to complain, which is, that two days before Palmerston sent
his instructions here, he expressed to Walewski his complete
approval of the step taken by Louis Napoleon, which was
transmitted by Walewski in a despatch to Turgot, and read by
him to many members of the Corps Diplomatique a day before
Normanby heard a word from Palmerston. You will perhaps
think that there is not enough in all this to authorise the grave
step Normanby has taken, but the whole tone of his letters
shows such a want of confidence, is so impertinent—talk of
“we hear this,” and “we are told that,”—bringing a sort of
anonymous gossip against a man of Normanby’s character and
standing, that respect for himself obliges Normanby to take it
up seriously…. In the meantime our Press in England is,
as usual, too violent against Louis Napoleon. We have no
friends or true allies left, thanks to the policy of Lord Palmerston;
as soon as the peace of the country is restored the Army
must be employed; it is the course of a Military Government;
as much as an absolute Government is destroyed by the
people, and the democracy again, when fallen into anarchy, is
followed by Military Government. Louis Napoleon must
maintain his position by acts: they will find out that Belgium
should belong to France, or Alsace, or Antwerp, or something
or other that England will not be able to allow, and then how
are we prepared for the consequences?…

LORD PALMERSTON’S APPROVAL

The more I think of Palmerston’s letters, the less I can understand
them; every sentence is in direct contradiction to
his acts and words. He ridicules the idea of the Constitution;
turns to scorn the idea of anything being due to the Members
of the Assembly; laughs and jokes at the Club being fired into,
though the English people in it were within an ace of being
murdered by the soldiers; says that Normanby is pathetic over
a broken looking-glass,³⁴ forgetting that the same bullet grazed
the hand of an Englishman, “a Roman citizen!” who was between
the window and the glass—in short, as I said before, he
is quite incomprehensible, except, as I cannot help thinking,
[page 340]
he read the private letter Normanby wrote to the Duke of
Bedford upon the Kossuth business, wishing to take his advice
a little upon a grave question, but which did not actually
interfere with his position here. This would account for his
extreme irritation….

All at present is quiet in Paris. There are Socialist risings
in many parts of the country, but all these will do the President
good, and strengthen his hands, for even the people who have
been treated with indignity will pardon him if their châteaux
are saved from an infuriated and brutal peasantry. The
President told Normanby last night that the accounts of the
cruelties and attacks in parts of the country were very serious,
but he hoped they would soon be put down….

M. Normanby.³⁵

Footnote 33: Submitted to the Queen by Colonel Phipps.

Footnote 34: The tone of Lord Palmerston’s private letters to Lord Normanby at this time is best
illustrated by the following extract:—

“Your despatches since the event of Tuesday have been all hostile to Louis Napoleon,
with very little information as to events. One of them consisted of a dissertation about
Kossuth, which would have made a good article in the Times a fortnight ago: and another
dwells chiefly on a looking-glass broken in a Club-house; and you are pathetic about a piece
of broken plaster brought down from a ceiling by musket-shots during the street fights.
Now we know that the Diplomatic Agents of Austria and Russia called on the President
immediately after his measure on Tuesday morning, and have been profuse in their
expressions of approval of his conduct.”

Footnote 35: Lady Normanby wrote later:—

“I told you yesterday the President had no faith in him (Palmerston). The Treaty
signed with Buenos Ayres, the Greek business, and the reception of Kossuth had long
destroyed his confidence in Palmerston, and I believe he hates him and sees through his
present adulations….”

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

Osborne, 13th December 1851.

The Queen sends the enclosed despatch from Lord Normanby
to Lord John Russell, from which it appears that the French
Government pretend to have received the entire approval of the
late coup d’état by the British Government, as conveyed by
Lord Palmerston to Count Walewski. The Queen cannot believe
in the truth of the assertion, as such an approval given by
Lord Palmerston would have been in complete contradiction to
the line of strict neutrality and passiveness which the Queen
had expressed her desire to see followed with regard to the late
convulsion at Paris, and which was approved by the Cabinet,
as stated in Lord John Russell’s letter of the 6th inst. Does
Lord John know anything about the alleged approval, which,
if true, would again expose the honesty and dignity of the
Queen’s Government in the eyes of the world?³⁶

Footnote 36: On the 15th, Lord Normanby wrote to Lord Palmerston that he must now assume
M. Walewski’s report to be correct, and observed that if the Foreign Secretary held one
language in Downing Street and prescribed another course to the British Ambassador,
the latter must be awkwardly circumstanced. Lord Palmerston (in a letter not shown
to the Queen or the Cabinet) replied that he had said nothing inconsistent with his instructions
to Lord Normanby, that the President’s action was for the French nation to judge
of, but that in his view that action made for the maintenance of social order in France.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Osborne, 13th December 1851.

My beloved Uncle,—These lines are to express my very
warmest wishes for many, many happy returns of your dear
[page 341]
birthday, and for every earthly blessing you can desire. How I
wish you could spend it here, or we with you! I venture to
send you some trifles which will recall the Exhibition in which
you took so much interest. The continuation of the work I
send you, I shall forward as it comes out.

As I wrote so lately, and shall do so on Tuesday, I will not
touch on politics—with one exception—that I think it of high
importance that the Orleans should clear themselves of all
suspicion of a plot, which some people, I am sure, wish to make
it appear they are involved in; and that public contradiction
should be given to the foolish report, much credited here, that
Joinville has gone to Lille, or to some part of France, to head
the Troops. Ever your devoted Niece and Child,

Victoria R.

How you will again miss your departed Angel!

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

LORD PALMERSTON’S EXPLANATION

Woburn Abbey, 18th December 1851.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty.
He received from Lord Palmerston yesterday an explanation
of his declaration of opinion to Mr Walewski, which Lord John
Russell regrets to state was quite unsatisfactory.

He thought himself compelled to write to Lord Palmerston
in the most decisive terms.

Lord Palmerston requested that his letter might be returned
to be copied.

The whole correspondence shall be submitted to your Majesty.

Your Majesty will find in the box a despatch of Lord Normanby
of the 15th, and an answer of Lord Palmerston of the
16th,³⁷ which has been sent without your Majesty’s sanction,
or the knowledge of Lord John Russell.

Footnote 37: The letters are given in full in Ashley’s Life of Lord Palmerston, vol. i. chap. vii.,
were Lord Palmerston’s explanation of the 16th, in answer to the Premier’s letter of the
14th, will also be found.

The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

Laeken, 19th December 1851.

My dearest Victoria,—Receive my warmest and best
thanks for your truly kind and gracious recollection of my old
birthday, and your amiable presents.

Our angelic Louise had quite un culte for that day, and two
[page 342]
have already passed since the best and noblest of hearts beats
no longer amongst us. When one sees the haste and ardour
of earthly pursuits, and how all this is often disposed of, and
when one sees that even the greatest success always ends with
the grave, one is tempted to wonder that the human race should
follow so restlessly bubbles often disappearing just when
reached, and always being a source of never-ending anxiety.
France gives, these sixty years, the proof of the truth of what
I say, always believing itself at the highest point of perfection
and changing it a few weeks afterwards.

A military Government in France, if it really gets established,
must become dangerous for Europe. I hope that at
least at its beginning it will have enough to do in France, and
that we may get time to prepare. England will do well not
to fall asleep, but to keep up its old energy and courage….
Your truly devoted Uncle,

Leopold R.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

DISMISSAL OF LORD PALMERSTON

Osborne, 19th December 1851.

The Queen has received several communications from Lord
John Russell, but has not answered them, as she expected daily
to hear of Lord Palmerston’s answer. As Lord John Russell
in his letter of yesterday’s date promises to send her his correspondence
with Lord Palmerston, she refrains from expressing
a decided opinion until she has had an opportunity of perusing
it; but Lord John will readily conceive what must be
her feelings in seeing matters go from bad to worse with respect
to Lord Palmerston’s conduct!

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

LORD GRANVILLE

Woburn Abbey, 19th December 1851.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and has the honour to submit to your Majesty a correspondence
with Viscount Palmerston, which terminates with a letter of
this day’s date.

Lord John Russell has now to advise your Majesty that
Lord Palmerston should be informed that your Majesty is ready
to accept the Seals of Office, and to place them in other hands.

Lord John Russell has summoned a Cabinet for Monday.

They may be of opinion that they cannot continue a Government.

But that is not Lord John Russell’s opinion; and should
[page 343]
they agree with him, he will proceed without delay to recommend
a successor to your Majesty.

The Earl Granville appears to him the person best calculated
for that post, but the Cabinet may be of opinion that
more experience is required.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

Windsor Castle, 20th December 1851.

The Queen found on her arrival here Lord John Russell’s
letter, enclosing his correspondence with Lord Palmerston,
which she has perused with that care and attention which the
importance and gravity of the subject of it demanded. The
Queen has now to express to Lord John Russell her readiness
to follow his advice, and her acceptance of the resignation of
Lord Palmerston. She will be prepared to see Lord John after
the Cabinet on Monday, as he proposes.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

Windsor Castle, 20th December 1851.

With respect to a successor to Lord Palmerston, the Queen
must state, that after the sad experience which she has just had
of the difficulties, annoyances, and dangers to which the
Sovereign may be exposed by the personal character and
qualities of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, she must reserve
to herself the unfettered right to approve or disapprove the
choice of a Minister for this Office.

Lord Granville, whom Lord John Russell designates as the
person best calculated for that post, would meet with her
entire approval. The possible opinion of the Cabinet that
more experience was required does not weigh much with the
Queen. From her knowledge of Lord Granville’s character, she
is inclined to see no such disadvantage in the circumstance that
he has not yet had practice in managing Foreign Affairs, as
he will be the more ready to lean upon the advice and judgment
of the Prime Minister where he may have diffidence in
his own, and thereby will add strength to the Cabinet by
maintaining unity in thought and action. The Queen hopes
Lord John Russell will not omit to let her have copies of his
correspondence with Lord Palmerston, as he has promised
her.³⁸

Footnote 38: On the same day the Prince wrote to the Premier that the Queen was much relieved.
She had contemplated dismissing Lord Palmerston herself, but naturally shrank from
using the power of the Crown, as her action would have been criticised without the possibility
of making a public defence; in his view the Cabinet was rather strengthened than
otherwise by Palmerston’s departure, and public sympathy would not be with him. The
rest of the letter is published in The Life of the Prince Consort.

[page 344]

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

Windsor Castle, 21st December 1851.

The Queen has received Lord John Russell’s letter of to-day.
She is not the least afraid of Lord Granville’s not possessing
sufficient public confidence for him to undertake the Foreign
Affairs. He is very popular with the House of Lords, with
the Free Traders, and the Peace party, and all that the Continent
knows of him is in his favour; he had great success at
Paris last summer, and his never having had an opportunity
of damaging his character by having been mixed up in diplomatic
intrigues is an immense advantage to him in obtaining
the confidence of those with whom he is to negotiate.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

THE QUEEN AND PALMERSTON

Windsor Castle, 23rd December 1851.

My dearest Uncle,—I have the greatest pleasure in announcing
to you a piece of news which I know will give you as
much satisfaction and relief as it does to us, and will do to the
whole of the world. Lord Palmerston is no longer Foreign
Secretary—and Lord Granville is already named his successor!!
He had become of late really quite reckless, and in spite of the
serious admonition and caution he received only on the 29th
of November, and again at the beginning of December, he tells
Walewski that he entirely approves Louis Napoleon’s coup
d’état, when he had written to Lord Normanby by my and the
Cabinet’s desire that he (Lord Normanby) was to continue his
diplomatic intercourse with the French Government, but to
remain perfectly passive and give no opinion. Walewski
wrote Palmerston’s opinion (entirely contrary to what the
Government had ordered) to M. Turgot, and when Normanby
came with his instructions, Turgot told him what Palmerston
had said. Upon this Lord John asked Palmerston to give an
explanation—which, after the delay of a week, he answered
in such an unsatisfactory way that Lord John wrote to him
that he could no longer remain Foreign Secretary, for that
perpetual misunderstanding and breaches of decorum were
taking place which endangered the country. Lord Palmerston
answered instantly that he would give up the Seals the moment
his successor was named! Certain as we all felt that he could
not have continued long in his place, we were quite taken by
surprise when we learnt of the dénouement…. Lord Granville
will, I think, do extremely well, and his extreme honesty
[page 345]
and trustworthiness will make him invaluable to us, and to the
Government and to Europe.

I send some prints, etc., for the children for Christmas.
Ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

MEETING OF THE CABINET

Windsor Castle, 23rd December 1851.

Lord John Russell arrived here at six o’clock yesterday
evening immediately from the Cabinet, and reported that the
Cabinet had, without a dissenting voice, condemned Lord
Palmerston’s conduct, and approved of the steps taken by
Lord John Russell, which was a great relief to him. Lord
Lansdowne, to whom he had first written on the subject, had
frightened him by answering that it was not possible to avoid
the rupture with Lord Palmerston, but that he thought the
Government would after this not be able to go on. When,
however, this question was discussed in Cabinet, and Lord John
had stated that he thought the Office could be well filled, they
all agreed in the propriety of going on. The Members of the
Cabinet were so unable to understand Lord Palmerston’s
motives for his conduct during these last months, that Mr.
Fox Maule started an idea which once occurred to Lord John
himself (as he said), viz. that he must have had the design
to bring on a rupture! Lord Minto, who was absent from the
Cabinet, expressed himself in a letter to Lord John very strongly
about Lord Palmerston’s reckless conduct, which would yet
undo the country.

LORD CLARENDON

Lord John, after having received the concurrence of the
Cabinet on the question of Lord Palmerston’s dismissal, stated
that Lord Granville was the person whom he would like best
to see fill his office, and he knew this to be the feeling of the
Queen also. The Cabinet quite agreed in Lord Granville’s
fitness, but Sir George Grey stated it as his opinion that it
ought first to be offered to Lord Clarendon, who has always
been pointed out by the public as the proper person to succeed
Lord Palmerston, and that, if he were passed over, the whole
matter would have the appearance of a Cabinet intrigue in
favour of one colleague against another. The whole of the
Cabinet sided with this opinion, and Lord John Russell now
proposed to the Queen that an offer should in the first instance
be made to Lord Clarendon.

The Queen protested against the Cabinet’s taking upon itself
the appointment of its own Members, which rested entirely
with the Prime Minister and the Sovereign, under whose
[page 346]
approval the former constructed his Government…. Lord
John replied that he thought Lord Clarendon would not accept
the offer, and therefore there would be little danger in satisfying
the desires of the Cabinet. He had written to Lord Clarendon
a cautioning letter from Woburn, apprising him of some serious
crisis, of which he would soon hear, and speaking of his former
wish to exchange the Lord-Lieutenancy for some other Office.
Lord Clarendon at once perceived the drift of the hint, and
wrote to the Duke of Bedford what he said he did not wish to
write to his brother John, that, if it was that Palmerston was
going, and he were thought of as a successor, nothing would be
so disagreeable to him, as the whole change would be put down
as an intrigue of his, whom Lord Palmerston had always
accused of wishing to supplant him; that if, however, the
service of the country required it, he had the courage to face all
personal obloquy….

Lord John owned that Sir George Grey’s chief desire was to
see Lord Clarendon removed from Ireland, having been there
so long; the Cabinet would wish to see the Duke of Newcastle
join the Government as Lord-Lieutenant, which he might be
induced to do. The Queen having mentioned Lord Clarendon
as most fit to succeed Lord Lansdowne one day as President
of the Council and leader in the House of Lords, Lord John
said that Lord Clarendon had particularly begged not to have
the position offered him, for which he did not feel fit. Lord
John would like him as Ambassador at Paris, and thought Lord
Clarendon would like this himself; but it was difficult to know
what to do with Lord Normanby.

In the course of the conversation, Lord John congratulated
the Queen upon the change having been accomplished without
her personal intervention, which might have exposed her to the
animosity of Lord Palmerston’s admirers, whilst she would
have been precluded from making any public defence. I
reminded Lord John that, as such was the disadvantage of the
regal position, it behoved the Queen doubly to watch, lest she
be put into the same dilemma with a new Minister, whose
conduct she could not approve of. Lord Clarendon’s appointment
would be doubly galling to Lord Palmerston, whom
Lord John might not wish to irritate further, a consideration
which Lord John said he had also pressed upon the Cabinet.
Upon a remark from Lord John as to Lord Granville’s
youth, the Queen replied: “Lord Canning, whom Lord
Stanley had intended to make his Foreign Secretary, was not
older….”

The conference ended by Lord John’s promise to write to
Lord Clarendon as the Queen had desired … but that he did
[page 347]
not wish to make the offer to Lord Granville till he had Lord
Clarendon’s answer. Lord Granville had been told not to
attend the last Cabinet; Lord Palmerston had naturally
stayed away.

I went up to Town at half-past seven to the Westminster
Play, and took Lord John in my train to Richmond. We had
some further conversation in the carriage, in which I asked
Lord John whether it was true that Lord Palmerston had got
us likewise into a quarrel with America by our ships firing at
Panama upon an American merchantman; he said neither he
nor Sir Francis Baring had received any news, but Sir Francis
had been quite relieved by Lord Palmerston’s quitting, as he
could not be sure a moment that his Fleets were not brought
into some scrape!

On my expressing my conviction that Lord Palmerston
could not be very formidable to the Government, Lord John
said: “I hope it will not come true what Lord Derby (then
Lord Stanley) said after the last Ministerial crisis, when Lord
John quizzed him at not having been able to get a Foreign
Secretary—’Next time I shall have Lord Palmerston.’!”

Albert.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

COUNT WALEWSKI

Downing Street, 23rd December 1851.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your
Majesty. He has just seen Count Walewski; he told him
that he had an important piece of intelligence to give him;
that your Majesty had been pleased to make a change in
the Foreign Office, and to direct Lord Palmerston to give
up the Seals.

He wished to give this intelligence that he might accompany
it with an intimation that the policy towards France would
continue to be of the most friendly character, and that there
was nothing the Government more desired than to see a stable
and settled Government in France; that they had every wish
for the stability of the present French Government. Count
Walewski said he had received various assurances of opinion
from Lord Palmerston, which he supposed were adopted by
Lord John Russell, and subsisted in force.

Lord John Russell said: “Not exactly; it is a principle
of the English Government not to interfere in any way with
the internal affairs of other countries; whether France chooses
to be a Republic or a Monarchy, provided it be not a Social
Republic, we wish to express no opinion; we are what we call
in England a sheet of white paper in this respect; all we desire
[page 348]
is the happiness and welfare of France.” Count Walewski
said it was of importance to the stability of the President that
he should have a large majority; he would then give a Constitution.

Lord John Russell said each nation must suit itself in this
respect; we have perhaps been in error in thinking our Constitution
could be generally adopted; some nations it may suit,
others may find it unfitted for them.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

LORD GRANVILLE APPOINTED

Windsor Castle, 23rd December 1851.

The Queen has just received Lord John Russell’s letters, and
is much rejoiced that this important affair has been finally so
satisfactorily settled.

The Queen returns Lord Clarendon’s letter, which she thinks
a very good one.³⁹ The Queen hopes Count Walewski will have
been satisfied, which she thinks he ought to be. The Queen
will receive Lord Palmerston to deliver up the Seals, and
Lord Granville to receive them, on Friday at half-past two.

Footnote 39: Lord Clarendon, in answer to Lord John Russell, expressed great reluctance to undertake
the charge of the Foreign Office, on the ground that Palmerston, always suspicions
of him, would insist that he had deliberately undermined his position: while Lord Granville
would be popular with the Court and country.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

Downing Street, 24th December 1851.

Lord John Russell submits a private note of Lord Palmerston,⁴⁰
which only shows how unconscious he was of all that
the rest of the world perceived.

Footnote 40: In this letter, Lord Palmerston denied the “charge of violations of prudence and
decorum,” adding, “I have to observe that that charge is refuted by the offer which you
made of the Lord-Lieutenancy of Ireland, because I apprehend that to be an office for
the due performance of the duties of which prudence and decorum cannot well be dispensed
with.”

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

Windsor Castle, 25th December 1861.

The Queen has received Lord John Russell’s letters, and she
returns the enclosures.

The articles in the Times are very good; the other papers
seem quite puzzled, and unable to comprehend what has
caused Lord Palmerston’s removal from office. Lord Palmerston’s
letter is very characteristic; he certainly has the best
of the argument, and great care ought to be taken in bestowing
[page 349]
any praise on him, as he always takes advantage of it to turn
against those who meant it merely to soothe him. The Queen
thought that there must be a Council for the swearing in of the
new Secretary of State.

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

LORD GRANVILLE

Windsor Castle, 27th December 1851.

Yesterday the Council was held, at which the change of
Seals was to take place. We waited for one hour and a half,
but Lord Palmerston did not appear; his Seals had been sent
from the Foreign Office to Lord John Russell!

Lord John told us he had written to Lord Palmerston,
announcing him the appointment of Lord Granville, and added
that in his long political life he had not passed a week which
had been so painful to him. Lord Palmerston’s answer was
couched in these terms: “Of course you will believe that I
feel that just indignation at the whole proceeding which it must
produce.”

Lord Lansdowne seemed anxious particularly on account
of the clear symptoms appearing from the papers that
both Radicals and Protectionists are bidding for Lord
Palmerston.

Lord Granville was very much overcome when he had his
audience to thank for his appointment, but seemed full of
courage and good-will. He said it would be as easy to him
to avoid Lord Palmerston’s faults as difficult to imitate his
good qualities, promised to endeavour to establish a more
decent usage between the Governments in their mutual communications,
by setting the good example himself, and insisting
upon the same on the part of the others; promised not to have
anything to do with the newspapers; to give evening parties,
just as Lord Palmerston had done, to which a good deal of his
influence was to be attributed. He said a Member of Parliament
just returned from the Continent had told him that an
Englishman could hardly show himself without becoming
aware of the hatred they were held in; the only chance one
had to avoid being insulted was to say Civis Romanus non
sum.

Lord Granville had been Under-Secretary for Foreign
Affairs under Lord Palmerston for three years from 1837-40,
but, as he expressed himself, rather the sandwich between his
principal and the clerks. Lord Palmerston had in these three
years hardly once spoken to him upon any of the subjects he
had to treat.

Albert.

[page 350]

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

PALMERSTON’S ABSENCE EXPLAINED

Windsor Castle, 27th December 1851.

The Queen forgot to remind Lord John Russell yesterday
of his correspondence with Lord Palmerston, which he promised
to let her have.

The Queen concludes from what Lord John said yesterday
that he intended sounding the Duke of Newcastle relative to
the Lord-Lieutenancy of Ireland.

Has Lord John ascertained the cause of Lord Palmerston’s
absence yesterday? If it was not accidental, she must say she
thinks it most disrespectful conduct towards his Sovereign.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

Pembroke Lodge, 27th December 1851.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and submits a letter of Lord Palmerston, which explains his
not going to Windsor. It appears to have arisen from a
mistake in the message sent through Lord Stanley, and not
from any want of respect to your Majesty.

Viscount Palmerston to Lord John Russell.

Carlton Gardens, 27th December 1851.

My dear John Russell,—I am distressed beyond measure
by the note from you which I have this moment received on
my arrival here from Hampshire. I understood from Stanley
that you had desired him to tell me that if it was inconvenient
for me to come up yesterday, I might send the Seals to you
at Windsor, and that my presence would be dispensed with.⁴¹
Thereupon I sent the Seals up by an early train yesterday
morning to Stanley, that he might send them down to you as
suggested by you, and I desired that they might be taken by a
messenger by the special train.

I shall be very much obliged to you if you will have the
goodness to explain this matter to the Queen, and I beg you
to assure Her Majesty how deeply grieved I am that what
appears to have been a mistake on my part should have led me
[page 351]
to be apparently wanting in due respect to Her Majesty, than
which nothing could possibly be further from my intention or
thoughts. Yours sincerely,

Palmerston.

Footnote 41: There is a fuller account given of Lord Palmerston’s version of the whole affair in a
letter to his brother, printed in Ashley’s Life of Lord Palmerston, vol. i. p. 315.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

THE QUEEN ON FOREIGN POLICY

Windsor Castle, 28th December 1851.

The Queen thinks the moment of the change in the person of
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to afford a fit opportunity
to have the principles upon which our Foreign Affairs have been
conducted since the beginning of 1848 reconsidered by Lord
John Russell and his Cabinet.

The Queen was fully aware that the storm raging at the
time on the Continent rendered it impossible for any statesman
to foresee with clearness and precision what development and
direction its elements would take, and she consequently quite
agreed that the line of policy to be followed, as the most conducive
to the interests of England, could then only be generally
conceived and vaguely expressed.

But although the Queen is still convinced that the general
principles laid down by Lord John at that time for the conduct
of our Foreign Policy were in themselves right, she has in the
progress of the last three years become painfully convinced that
the manner in which they have been practically applied has
worked out very different results from those which the correctness
of the principles themselves had led her to expect. For
when the revolutionary movements on the Continent had laid
prostrate almost all its Governments, and England alone displayed
that order, vigour, and prosperity which it owes to a
stable, free, and good Government, the Queen, instead of
earning the natural good results of such a glorious position,
viz. consideration, goodwill, confidence, and influence abroad,
obtained the very reverse, and had the grief to see her Government
and herself treated on many occasions with neglect,
aversion, distrust, and even contumely.

Frequently, when our Foreign Policy was called in question,
it has been said by Lord John and his colleagues that the
principles on which it was conducted were the right ones, and
having been approved of by them, received their support, and
that it was only the personal manner of Lord Palmerston in conducting
the affairs which could be blamed in tracing the causes
which led to the disastrous results the Queen complains of.

The Queen is certainly not disposed to defend the personal
manner in which Lord Palmerston has conducted Foreign
Affairs, but she cannot admit that the errors he committed were
[page 352]
merely faults in form and method, that they were no more than
acts of “inconsideration, indiscretion, or bad taste.” The
Queen considers that she has also to complain of what appeared
to her deviations from the principles laid down by the Cabinet
for his conduct, nay, she sees distinctly in their practical application
a personal and arbitrary perversion of the very nature and
essence of those principles. She has only to refer here to Italy,
Spain, Greece, Holstein, France, etc., etc., which afford ample
illustrations of this charge.

It was one thing for Lord Palmerston to have attempted
such substantial deviations; it will be another for the Cabinet
to consider whether they had not the power to check him in
these attempts.

The Queen, however, considering times to have now changed,
thinks that there is no reason why we should any longer confine
ourselves to the mere assertion of abstract principles, such as
“non-intervention in the internal affairs of other countries,”
“moral support to liberal institutions,” “protection to British
subjects,” etc., etc. The moving powers which were put in
operation by the French Revolution of 1848, and the events
consequent on it, are no longer so obscure; they have assumed
distinct and tangible forms in almost all the countries affected
by them (in France, in Italy, Germany, etc.), and upon the
state of things now existing, and the experience gained, the
Queen would hope that our Foreign Policy may be more specifically
defined, and that it may be considered how the general
principles are to be practically adapted to our peculiar relations
with each Continental State.

The Queen wishes therefore that a regular programme
embracing these different relations should be submitted
to her, and would suggest whether it would not be the
best mode if Lord John were to ask Lord Granville to
prepare such a paper and to lay it before her after having
revised it.

This would then serve as a safe guide for Lord Granville,
and enable the Queen as well as the Cabinet to see that the
Policy, as in future to be conducted, will be in conformity with
the principles laid down and approved.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

Pembroke Lodge, 29th December 1851.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty;
he has received your Majesty’s communication of yesterday,
and will transmit it to Lord Granville.

[page 353]

It is to be observed, however, that the traditionary policy of
this country is not to bind the Crown and country by engagements,
unless upon special cause shown, arising out of the
circumstances of the day.

For instance, the Treaty of Quadruple Alliance between
England, France, Spain, and Portugal was contrary to the
general principle of non-intervention; so was the interference
in Portugal in 1847, but were both justified by circumstances.

Thus it is very difficult to lay down any principles from
which deviations may not frequently be made.

The grand rule of doing to others as we wish that they should
do unto us is more applicable than any system of political
science. The honour of England does not consist in defending
every English officer or English subject, right or wrong, but in
taking care that she does not infringe the rules of justice, and
that they are not infringed against her.⁴²

Footnote 42: A summary of Lord Granville’s Memorandum in reply (which was couched in very
general terms) will be found in Lord Fitzmaurice’s Life of Earl Granville, vol. ii. p. 49.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

AFFAIRS IN FRANCE

Windsor Castle, 30th December 1851.

My dearest Uncle,—Most warmly do I thank you for your
kind and affectionate and interesting letter of the 26th, which
I received on Sunday. All that you say about Lord Palmerston
is but too true…. He brouilléd us and the country with every
one; and his very first act precipitated the unfortunate Spanish
marriages which was le commencement de la fin. It is too grievous
to think how much misery and mischief might have been
avoided. However, now he has done with the Foreign Office
for ever, and “the veteran statesman,” as the newspapers, to
our great amusement and I am sure to his infinite annoyance,
call him, must rest upon his laurels…. I fear much lest they
should be imprudent at Claremont; the poor Queen hinted to
Mamma that she hoped you would not become a friend to the
President; no doubt you can have no sympathies for him, but
just because you are related to the poor Orleanses, you feel that
you must be doubly cautious to do nothing which could provoke
the enmity of Louis Napoleon. I fear that poor Joinville had
some mad idea of going to France, which, fortunately, his illness
prevented. It would have been the height of folly. Their
only safe policy is to remain entirely passive et de se faire oublier,
which was Nemours’ expression to me two years ago; nothing
could be wiser or more prudent than he was then—but I don’t
[page 354]
think they were wise since. La Candidature of Joinville was in
every way unwise, and led Louis Napoleon to take so desperate
a course. Nemours told me also last year that they were not
at all against a fusion, but that they could not disposer de la
France, unless called upon to do so by the nation. I wish you
would caution them to be very circumspect and silent—for all
the mistakes made by others is in their favour; in fact, no good
for them could come till Paris is old enough to be his own
master—unless indeed they all returned under Henri V., but a
Regency for Paris would be an impossibility….

We spent a very happy Christmas, and now wish you a very
happy New Year—for many succeeding years. Also to the
children, who I hope were pleased with the prints, etc.

We have got young Prince Nicholas of Nassau here, a pretty,
clever boy of nineteen, with a good deal of knowledge, and a
great wish to learn and hear, which is a rare thing for the young
Princes, of our day in particular. I must stop now, as I fear
I have already let my pen run on for too long, and must beg
to be excused for this voluminous letter.

With Albert’s love ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE

Windsor Castle, 30th December 1851.

The Queen has received Lord John Russell’s letters of
yesterday. She quite agrees with him and his colleagues in
thinking it of importance to strengthen the Government, and
she is pleased with his proposal to communicate with the Duke
of Newcastle as to what assistance he and his friends can give
to the Government.

The Queen expects better results from such a negotiation,
with an ostensible head of a Party, than from attempts to
detach single individuals from it, which from a sense of honour
they always felt scruples in agreeing to.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

THE TE DEUM IN PARIS

Windsor Castle, 31st December 1851.

The Queen sees in the papers that there is to be a Te Deum
at Paris on the 2nd for the success of the coup d’état, and that
the Corps Diplomatique is to be present. She hopes that Lord
Normanby will be told not to attend. Besides the impropriety
[page 355]
of his taking part in such a ceremony, his doing so would entirely
destroy the position of Lord John Russell opposite Lord
Palmerston, who might with justice say that he merely expressed
his personal approval of the coup d’état before, but since,
the Queen’s Ambassador had been ordered publicly to thank
God for its success.

[page 356]

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

TO CHAPTER XXI

Early in 1852, the Whig Government, impaired in public credit
by the removal of Lord Palmerston, attempted once more a coalition
with the Peelites, office being offered to Sir James Graham; the
overtures failed, and soon, after the meeting of Parliament, the ex-Foreign
Secretary, whose version of the cause of his dismissal failed
to satisfy the House of Commons, succeeded in defeating the Government
on their Militia Bill, affairs in France having caused anxiety as
to the national defences. The Government Bill was for the creation
of a local Militia, Lord Palmerston preferring the consolidation of the
regular Militia. A Ministry was formed by Lord Derby (formerly
Lord Stanley) from the Protectionist Party, but no definite statement
could be elicited as to their intention, or the reverse, to re-impose a
duty on foreign corn. Mr Disraeli, who became Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and was the mainspring of the Government policy,
showed great dexterity in his management of the House of Commons
without a majority, and carried a Militia Bill in the teeth of Lord
John Russell; but a plan of partial redistribution failed. The
elections held in the summer did not materially improve the Ministerial
position, and, on the meeting of Parliament in the autumn, the
Fiscal Question had to be squarely faced. After much wrangling,
Protection was finally abandoned, and the Government saved for
the moment, but on their House-tax proposals they were defeated,
after an impassioned debate, by a coalition of Whigs, Peelites, and
Radicals, from whom Lord Lansdowne and Lord Aberdeen (and
finally the latter alone) were called upon to construct a strong representative
Government. The Duke of Wellington had died in
September, and his funeral was the signal for an outburst of national
feeling. During the year the Houses of Parliament designed by Sir
Charles Barry, though not absolutely completed, were formally
opened by the Queen; the new House of Lords had already been
in use.

In France, the first result of the coup d’état was Louis Bonaparte’s
election as President for ten years by an immense majority; late in
the year he assumed the Imperial title as Napoleon III., and the
Empire was formally recognised by the majority of the Powers;
the Emperor designed to add to his prestige by contracting a matrimonial
alliance with Princess Adelaide of Hohenlohe. In the East
of Europe a dispute had commenced between France and Russia
[page 357]
about the Holy Places in Palestine. Simultaneously with the death
of the Duke of Wellington, the era of European peace was destined
to come to an end, and Nicholas, encouraged by the advent to power
of Aberdeen (whom he had met in 1844, and with whom he had
frankly discussed European politics), was hoping for the consummation
of his scheme for the partition of Turkey.

To Great Britain the year was a memorable one, in consequence of
the granting of a Constitution to New Zealand.

[page 358]

CHAPTER XXI

1852

Queen Victoria to the King of Denmark.

ENGLAND AND DENMARK

Windsor Castle, 4th January 1852.

Sir, my Brother,—I received the letter which your Majesty
addressed to me on the 24th of August last, and in which, after
referring to the necessity for establishing some definite arrangement
with regard to the eventual succession to the Crown of
Denmark, your Majesty is pleased to acquaint me that, in your
opinion, such an arrangement might advantageously be made
in favour of your Majesty’s cousin, His Highness the Prince
Christian of Glücksburg,¹ and the issue of his marriage with the
Princess Louisa of Hesse, in favour of whom the nearer claimants
have renounced their rights and titles.

I trust I need not assure your Majesty of the sincere friendship
which I entertain for you, and of the deep interest which
I feel in the welfare of the Danish Monarchy. It was in accordance
with those sentiments that I accepted the office of mediator
between your Majesty and the States of the German Confederation,
and it afforded me the sincerest pleasure to have been thus
instrumental in re-establishing the relations of peace between
your Majesty and those States.

With regard to the question of the eventual succession to
both the Danish and Ducal Crowns, I have to state to your
Majesty that although I declined to take any part in the settlement
of that combination, it will be a source of great satisfaction
to me to learn that an arrangement has been definitely
determined upon equally satisfactory to your Majesty and to
the Germanic Confederation; and whenever it shall have been
[page 359]
notified to me that such an arrangement has been arrived at,
I shall then be ready, in accordance with what was stated in the
Protocol of the 2nd of August 1850, to consider, in concert with
my Allies, the expediency of giving the sanction of an European
acknowledgment to the arrangement which may thus have been
made.

I avail myself with great pleasure of this opportunity to
renew to your Majesty the expression of the invariable attachment
and high esteem with which I am, Sir, my Brother, your
Majesty’s good Sister,

Victoria R.

Footnote 1: Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg was named successor
to Frederick VII., King of Denmark by a Treaty signed in London on the 8th of May
1852; and by the Danish law of succession (of the 31st of July 1853), he ascended the
throne under the style of Christian IX., on the 15th of November, 1863. He was the
father of His Majesty Frederick VIII., the present King of Denmark, and of Her Majesty
Queen Alexandra of England; King Christian died in 1906, Queen Louise having predeceased
him in 1898.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

Windsor Castle, 15th January 1852.

The Queen has received Lord John Russell’s letter last night,
and wishes now shortly to repeat what she desired through the
Prince, Sir Charles Wood to explain to Lord John.²

The Queen hopes that the Cabinet will fully consider what
their object is before the proposed negotiation with Sir James
Graham be opened.

Is it to strengthen their case in Parliament by proving that
no means have been left untried to strengthen the Government?
or really to effect a junction with the Peelites?

If the first is aimed at, the Cabinet will hardly reap any of the
desired advantages from the negotiation, for, shrewd as Sir
James Graham is, he will immediately see that the negotiation
has been begun without a desire that it should succeed, and
this will soon become generally known.

If the latter, the Queen must observe that there are two
kinds of junctions—one, a fusion of Parties; the other, the
absorption of one Party by the other. For a fusion, the Queen
thinks the Peelites to be quite ready; then, however, they
must be treated as a political Party, and no exclusion should be
pronounced against particular members of it, nor should it be
insisted upon that the new Government and Party is still
emphatically the Whig party.

An absorption of the most liberal talents amongst the Peelites
into the Whig Government, the Queen considers unlikely to
succeed, and she can fully understand that reasons of honour
and public and private engagement must make it difficult to
members of a political Party to go over to another in order to
receive office.

[page 360]

Having stated thus much, the Queen gives Lord John full
permission to negotiate with Sir James Graham.

Footnote 2: Lord John Russell having vainly attempted to secure the co-operation of the Duke of
Newcastle, announced the wish of the Cabinet to make overtures to Sir J. Graham.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

LOUIS NAPOLEON

Windsor Castle, 20th January 1852.

My dearest Uncle,—Your kind letter of the 16th I received
on the 17th, with the newspaper, for which I return my best
thanks. The papers which Stockmar communicated to us are
most interesting, and do the writer the greatest credit. Watchful
we certainly shall and must be. We shall try and keep on
the best of terms with the President, who is extremely sensitive
and susceptible, but for whom, I must say, I have never had
any personal hostility; on the contrary, I thought that during
1849 and 1850 we owed him all a good deal, as he certainly raised
the French Government de la boue. But I grieve over the
tyranny and oppression practised since the coup d’état, and it
makes everything very uncertain, for though I believe it in
every way his wish and his policy not to go to war, still, il peut
y être entraîné.

Your position is a peculiarly delicate one, but still, as I again
repeat, I think there is no reason to be alarmed; particularly,
I would never show it.

The poor Nemours were here from Saturday till yesterday
evening with their dear nice boys, and I think it always does
them good. They feel again as if they were in their own
position, and they are diverted from the melancholy reality
and the great sameness of their existence at Claremont. I
found him very quiet and really not bitter, and disposed to be
very prudent,—but seriously alarmed at the possibility of
losing their property, which would be too dreadful and monstrous.
I fear that the candidature and poor Hélène’s imprudence
in talking are the cause of this cruel persecution.
The poor Orleans have really (and you should write them
that) no truer and more faithful friends than we are—and it
is for this reason that I urge and entreat them to be entirely
passive; for their day will come, I feel convinced!

Now good-bye, my dearest, kindest Uncle. Ever your
truly devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

Windsor Castle, 27th January 1852.

The Queen has received Lord John Russell’s letter of
yesterday with the draft of Bills, and likewise that of to-day
[page 361]
enclosing a Memorandum on the probable effects of the proposed
Measure.³ She has perused these papers with great
attention, but feels that any opinion upon the future results
of the Measure must rest on surmises; she has that confidence,
however, in Lord John’s experience and judgment in these
matters, and so strong a conviction that he will have spared
no pains in forming as correct an opinion as may be formed
on so problematical a matter, that she is prepared to come to
the decision of approving the Measure on the strength of
Lord John’s opinion. She only hopes that the future may
bear it out, and that the character of the House of Commons
may not be impaired. Should this prove the case, the extension
of the privilege of voting for Members will strengthen
our Institutions. The Queen is glad that the clause abolishing
the necessity for every Member of the Government to vacate
his seat upon his appointment⁴ should have been maintained.
She hopes that the schedules showing which towns are to be
added to existing boroughs will be drawn up with the greatest
care and impartiality, and will soon be submitted to her.
The Queen would be glad if the plan once proposed of giving
to the Queen’s University in Ireland the vacant seat for
Sudbury were still carried out, as she feels sure that not only
would it be a great thing for the University and the Colleges,
but a most useful and influential Irish Member would be
gained for the House.

The Queen takes it for granted that the Bill as approved
by her will be stood by in Parliament, and that Lord John will
not allow himself to be drawn on to further concessions to
Democracy in the course of the debate, and that the introduction
of the ballot will be vigorously opposed by the
Government.

Footnote 3: The Ministerial Reform Bill.

Footnote 4: The Act of Settlement excluded (as from the accession of the House of Hanover) the
Ministers of State from the House of Commons; but the 6 Anne, c. 7, modified this, and
made them re-eligible on appointment.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

DRAFT OF THE SPEECH

Windsor Castle, 1st February 1852.

The Queen has received the draft of the Speech. The
passage referring to the proposed Reform Measure varies so
materially from the one which was first submitted to her that
she feels that she ought not to sanction it without having
received some explanation of the grounds which have led the
Cabinet to recommend it in its altered shape. The Queen
[page 362]
will not object to the mode of filling the Offices still vacant
which Lord John Russell proposes.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

WOMEN AND POLITICS

Buckingham Palace, 3rd February 1852.

My dearest Uncle,—My warmest thanks for your kind
little letter of the 30th. Matters are very critical and all Van
de Weyer has told us n’est pas rassurant. With such an extraordinary
man as Louis Napoleon, one can never be for one
instant safe. It makes me very melancholy; I love peace
and quiet—in fact, I hate politics and turmoil, and I grieve to
think that a spark may plunge us into the midst of war. Still
I think that may be avoided. Any attempt on Belgium would
be casus belli for us; that you may rely upon. Invasion I am
not afraid of, but the spirit of the people here is very great—they
are full of defending themselves—and the spirit of the
olden times is in no way quenched.

In two hours’ time Parliament will be opened, and to-night
the explanations between Lord John and Lord Palmerston
will take place. I am very curious how they will go off. The
curiosity and anxiety to hear it is very great.

I never saw Stockmar better, or more active and more
sagacious, or more kind. To me he is really like a father—only
too partial, I always think.

Albert grows daily fonder and fonder of politics and business,
and is so wonderfully fit for both—such perspicacity and such
courage—and I grow daily to dislike them both more and more.
We women are not made for governing—and if we are good
women, we must dislike these masculine occupations; but
there are times which force one to take interest in them mal gré
bon gré, and I do, of course, intensely.

I must now conclude, to dress for the opening of Parliament…. Ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

Chesham Place, 4th February 1852.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and has the honour to report that the Address was agreed to
last night without a division.

The explanations between Lord Palmerston and himself
were made. Lord Palmerston made no case, and was not
supported by any considerable party in the House. His
[page 363]
approbation of the President’s conduct seemed to confound
the Liberal Party, and he did not attempt to excuse his delay
in answering Lord John Russell’s letter of the 14th.⁵

The rest of the debate was desultory and heavy. Mr
Disraeli made a long speech for the sake of making a speech.
Mr Roebuck was bitter without much effect.

Generally speaking, the appearance of the House was favourable.
Sir James Graham says the next fortnight will clear
up matters very much.

The tone of the House was decidedly pacific.

Footnote 5: See ante, p. 341.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

THE NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT

Windsor Castle, 4th February 1852.

We have learned with much satisfaction that everything went
off so well in the House of Commons last night. Lord John
Russell’s speech is a most useful one, and he has given a most
lucid definition of the constitutional position of the Prime
Minister and Foreign Secretary opposite to the Crown. Lord
Palmerston’s speech is a very weak one, and he in no way
makes out a case for himself. This seems to [be] the general
impression.

The Houses of Lords and Commons being now almost completed,
and the Queen having entered the House of Lords by
the Grand Entrance (which is magnificent), the Queen thinks
this will be the right moment for bestowing on Mr Barry the
knighthood, as a mark of the Queen’s approbation of his great
work.

The Marquis of Normanby to Colonel Phipps.⁶

PALMERSTON’S DISCOMFITURE

St George’s Hotel, 5th February 1852.

My dear Charles,—Yesterday morning I got a note from
John Russell, saying that all had gone off so well the night
before, and Palmerston had been so flat that he thought it
better I should not revive the subject in the other House, as
he had said nothing about me which in the least required that
I should do so. I yielded, of course, to such an appeal, though
there are several points in his speech on which I could have
exposed inaccuracies. The fact is, John has never shown any
consideration for me in the whole of these affairs; but I do
not mean in any way to complain, and am very grateful to
[page 364]
him for the very successful way in which he executed his task
on Tuesday. Nothing can be more universal than the feeling
of the utter discomfiture of Palmerston.⁷ I am convinced
that what floored him at starting was that letter of the
Queen’s,⁸ because every one felt that such a letter would never
have been written unless every point in it could have been
proved like a bill of indictment; and then came the question,
how could any man, even feeling he deserved it, go on under
such a marked want of confidence?…⁹

Aberdeen, whom I saw at Granville’s last night, told me
that Cardwell had said to him, that often as he had felt indignant
at the arrogance of “that man,” he really pitied him, so
complete was his overthrow. Disraeli said that he had watched
him during Johnny’s speech, and doubted whether the hanging
of the head, etc., was merely acting; but before he had
spoken two sentences he saw he was a beaten fox. Many said
that the extreme flippancy and insolence of his manner was
more remarkable than ever, from their being evidently assumed
with difficulty. I have always thought Palmerston
very much overrated as a speaker; his great power arose
from his not only knowing his subject better than any one
else, but being the only man who knew anything about it,
and using that exclusive knowledge unscrupulously for the
purposes of misrepresentation.

Thiers was at Lady Granville’s last night, and was enchanted
with the spectacle of the Opening. He said that he had been
endeavouring for thirty years to support the cause of Constitutional
Monarchy, as the best Government in the world,
and there he saw it in perfection, not only in its intrinsic
attributes, but in the universal respect and adhesion with
which it was received. He said, though he did not understand
a word of English, he could have cried at the Queen’s
voice in reading the Speech. He is very “impressionable,”
and I am convinced at the time he was quite sincere in his
appreciation.

I am vexed at not having been able to say anything publicly
about all this, as I believe I could have dispelled many misrepresentations;
[page 365]
but it cannot be helped. I have endeavoured
throughout not to be selfish, and I may as well keep up that
feeling to the last. Ever, etc.

Normanby.

I told John Russell last night I regretted that he had
vouched for the intentions of Louis Napoleon. He said he
had not done that, but owned that he had said more than he
ought. “The fact is, I did not know what to say next. I
stopped as one sometimes does, so I said that; I had better
have said something else!” Candid and characteristic!

Footnote 6: Submitted to the Queen by Colonel Phipps.

Footnote 7: It appears from a Memorandum made about this time by Prince Albert that when
Lord Palmerston’s retirement became known, the Radical constituency of Marylebone
wished to present him with an Address of sympathy, and to invite him to stand at the
next Election, promising him to bring him in. Sir Benjamin Hall (one of the Members)
told them that they had better wait till the explanation in Parliament had taken place,
for at present they knew nothing about the merits of the case. This the Committee which
had been organised consented to do. After the Debate on the 4th of February, Sir
Benjamin called upon the Chairman of the Committee to ask him whether they would
still carry out their intention. “No,” said the Chairman; “we have considered the
matter: a man who does not answer the Queen’s letters can receive no Address from us.”

Footnote 8: See ante, p. 264.

Footnote 9: Cf. Greville’s account in his Journal, 5th February 1852. See also p. 368.

Queen Victoria to Earl Granville.

Windsor Castle, 10th February 1852.

The Queen returns the enclosed papers. She will not
object to the proposed step¹⁰ should Lord Granville and Lord
John Russell have reason to expect that the Pope will receive
Sir H. Bulwer; should he refuse, it will be doubly awkward.
The Queen finds it difficult to give a decided opinion on the
subject, as, first, she does not know how far the reception of
Sir Henry at Rome will overcome the objections raised to his
reception as Resident at Florence. Secondly, as she has never
been able to understand what is to be obtained by a mission
to Rome, a step liable to much misrepresentation here….

Footnote 10: The Tuscan Government declined to receive Sir H. Bulwer, and it was then proposed
to send him to Rome instead.

Lord John Russell to the Prince Albert.

THE PRINCE AND THE ARMY

Chesham Place, 16th February 1852.

Sir,—I have seen the Duke of Wellington this morning,
and have given him the Depôt plan.

It may be useful if your Royal Highness will see him from
time to time in relation to the Army. On the one hand, your
Royal Highness’s authority may overcome the indisposition
to change which he naturally entertains; and on the other,
his vast experience may be of great use to your Royal Highness
in regard to the future. I have the honour to be, Sir, your
Royal Highness’s most dutiful Servant,

John Russell.

Sir Francis Baring to Queen Victoria.

THE SLAVE TRADE

Admiralty, 15th February 1852.

Sir Francis Baring presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and begs to state to your Majesty that despatches have this
[page 366]
evening arrived from Commander Bruce in command of the
African Squadron. Commander Bruce gives an account of
an attack on Lagos¹¹ which was completely successful. The
town of Lagos was captured and in great part burnt. The
resistance appears to have been obstinate and directed with
much skill. Your Majesty’s naval Service behaved with their
accustomed gallantry and coolness, but the loss amounted to
fourteen killed and sixty-four wounded. Sir Francis Baring
will forward to your Majesty copies of the despatches to-morrow,
with his humble duty.

F. Baring.

Footnote 11: Notorious as a centre of the Slave Trade. The native king was deposed.

Queen Victoria to Sir Francis Baring.

Buckingham Palace, 16th February 1852.

The Queen has received both Sir Francis Baring’s letters
of the 15th. The news of the capture and destruction of the
town of Lagos has given us the greatest satisfaction, as it will
give a most serious blow to the iniquitous traffic in slaves.
The Rev. Mr Crowther, whom the Queen saw about two months
ago (and whom she believes Sir Francis Baring has also seen),
told us that the slave trade on that part of the African coast
would be at an end if Lagos, the stronghold of its greatest
supporters, was destroyed. The Queen must express to Sir
Francis Baring her sense of the services rendered by Commodore
Bruce and the Officers under him.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Buckingham Palace, 17th February 1852.

My dearest Uncle,—Your dear letter of the 13th reached
me on Saturday here, where we are since Friday afternoon.
I am glad that you are satisfied with Lord Granville’s answer.
The question shall certainly be borne in mind, and you may
rely on our doing whatever can be effected to bring about
the desired end. I think Louis Napoleon will find his decrees
very difficult to carry out. I am very glad to hear that you
quietly are preparing to strengthen yourself against the possibility
of any attack from France. This will, I think, put
Louis Napoleon on his good behaviour….

The extension of the Suffrage¹² was almost unavoidable,
and it was better to do it quietly, and not to wait till there
was a cry for it—to which one would have to yield. The deal
[page 367]
there is to do, and the importance of everything going on at
home and abroad, is unexampled in my recollection and very
trying; Albert becomes really a terrible man of business; I
think it takes a little off from the gentleness of his character,
and makes him so preoccupied. I grieve over all this, as I
cannot enjoy these things, much as I interest myself in
general
European politics; but I am every day more convinced that
we women, if we are to be good women,
feminine and amiable
and domestic, are not fitted to reign; at least it is contre
gré
that they drive themselves to the work which it entails.

However, this cannot now be helped, and it is the duty of
every one to fulfil all that they are called upon to do, in whatever
situation they may be!

Mme. van de Weyer thinks your children so grown and
improved, and Charlotte as lovely as ever. With Albert’s
love, ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 12: See ante, pp. 294, 324.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

THE MILITIA BILL

Chesham Place, 20th February 1852.

(9.15 p.m.)

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and has the honour to report that Lord Palmerston has just
carried his Motion for leaving out the word “Local” in the
title of the Bill for the Militia.¹³

Lord John Russell then declared that he could no longer
take charge of the Bill. Lord Palmerston said he was astonished
at the Government for giving up the Bill for so slight
a cause.

Lord John Russell then said that he considered the vote
as tantamount to a resolution of want of confidence, which
remark was loudly cheered on the other side.

Sir Benjamin Hall said he wondered the Government did
not resign, on which Lord John again explained that when
confidence was withdrawn, the consequence was obvious.

Footnote 13: Events in France had revived anxiety as to the national defences, and the Government
brought in a Bill for raising a local Militia. To this scheme the Duke of Wellington had
been unfavourable, and Lord Palmerston, by a majority of eleven, carried an Amendment
in favour of re-organising the “regular” instead of raising a “local” Militia.

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

THE MINISTRY DEFEATED

Buckingham Palace, 21st February 1852.

Lord John Russell came this morning at twelve o’clock to
explain that after the vote of yesterday¹⁴ it was impossible for
[page 368]
him to go on any longer with the Government. He considered
it a vote of censure, and an entirely unprecedented case not to
allow a Minister of the Crown even to lay his measure on the
Table of the House; that he had expected to the last that the
respectable part of the House would see all this, but there
seemed to have been a pre-arranged determination between
Lord Palmerston and the Protectionists to defeat the Government;
that the Peelites also had agreed to vote against them.
Sir James Graham and Mr Cardwell had stayed away, but Mr
Gladstone and Mr S. Herbert had voted against them, the latter
even misrepresenting what Lord John had said. No Government
could stand against incessant motions of censure upon
every imaginable department of the Executive Government.
The Prime Minister would either have to take the management
of all the departments into his own hands, and to be prepared to
defend every item, for which he (Lord John) did not feel the
moral and physical power, or he must succumb on those different
points which the Opposition with divided labour could
single out. Lord Palmerston’s conduct was the more reprehensible
as he had asked him the day before about his objections
to the Bill, and had (he thought) satisfied him that the four
points upon which he had insisted were provided for in the
Bill.

Footnote 14: On the Militia Bill.

He thought he could not (in answer to the Queen’s enquiry)
dissolve Parliament, and that Lord Palmerston had no Party.
But he supposed Lord Derby was prepared to form a Protection
Government. This Government would pass the estimates and
the Mutiny Bill, and would then have to proceed to a Dissolution.
Lord John had merely seen Lord Lansdowne, who had
approved of the course he meant to pursue, though afraid of
the imputation that the Government had run away from the
Caffre debate. He had summoned the Cabinet, and would
report their resolution. Speaking of Lord Palmerston, Lord
John said he had heard that Lord Palmerston had said that
there was one thing between them which he could not forgive,
and that was his reading the Queen’s Minute to the House of
Commons.

RESIGNATION OF THE MINISTRY

At a quarter past four Lord John came back from the Cabinet,
and formally tendered the resignations of himself and
colleagues. The Cabinet had been unanimous that there was
no other course to pursue, and that it would not be advisable
to make use of the Queen’s permission to advise a Dissolution.
Lord Granville had ascertained through Dr Quin from Lord
Lyndhurst that Lord Derby was prepared with an Administration,
having obtained Mr Thomas Baring’s consent to act as
Leader of the House of Commons.

[page 369]

Sir Stratford Canning at Constantinople was supposed to be
intended for the Foreign Office. Lord Lyndhurst said, though
the materials were there, they were very bad ones, and it was
a question whether they would stand long. He himself would
keep out of place.

We advised Lord John to keep his Party well under discipline
in Opposition, so that whilst there it did not commit errors
which would become new difficulties for the future Government.
He seemed disinclined for great exertions after the
fatigues he had undergone these last years. He said he
thought he would not go on with the Reform Bill out of office,
as that was a measure which ought to be carried by a Government.
If he had again to propose it, he would very likely alter
it a little, reverting to his original plan of taking away one
Member of the two returned by small boroughs, and giving
their seats to some large towns, counties, and corporations like
the Universities, etc.

Lord John defers taking his formal leave till a new Administration
is formed.

Albert.

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby.

LORD DERBY SUMMONED

Buckingham Palace, 21st February 1852.

The Queen would wish to see Lord Derby at half-past two
to-morrow should he be in Town; if not, on Monday at twelve
o’clock.

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

Buckingham Palace, 22nd February 1852.

… Lord Derby said that he could not command a majority
in the House of Lords, that he was in a decided minority in the
House of Commons, and thought that in the critical circumstances
in which the country was placed both at home and
abroad, he ought not to ask for a Dissolution. He must then
try to strengthen himself particularly in the House of Commons
by any means he could. There was one person whom he could
not venture to propose for the Foreign Office on account of
what had lately passed, and what he might be allowed to call
the “well-known personal feelings of the Queen”; but Lord
Palmerston was one of the ablest debaters, and might well be
offered the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The Queen … would not, by refusing her consent, throw
additional difficulties in Lord Derby’s way; she warned him,
however, of the dangerous qualities of [Lord Palmerston].

[page 370]

Lord Derby rejoined that he knew them, and thought them
pernicious for the conduct of the Foreign Affairs, but at the
Exchequer they would have less play; he himself would undertake
to control him. His greatest indiscretion—that in the
Kossuth affair—must have been with a view to form a Party;
that if left excluded from office, he would become more dangerous,
and might in fact force himself back at the head of a Party
with a claim to the Foreign Office, whilst if he had ever accepted
another Office, his pretensions might be considered as waived;
he (Lord Derby) did not know in the least whether Lord Palmerston
would accept, but in case he did not, the offer would
propitiate him, and render the Government in the House of
Commons more possible, as it would have anyhow all the
talent of the late Government, Peelites and Radicals, to
withstand.

To my question whether Lord Derby fancied he would
remain Prime Minister any length of time, when once Lord
Palmerston had got the lead of the House of Commons, he
replied he was not afraid of him; he felt sure he could control
him, although he would not have been able to admit him to the
Foreign Office on account of the very strong strictures he had
passed upon his Foreign Policy at different times—even if the
Queen had allowed it.

The Earl of Derby to Queen Victoria.

St James’s Square, 22nd February 1852.

(Half-past eight.)

Lord Derby, with his humble duty, deems it incumbent upon
him to submit to your Majesty without delay that having had
an interview this evening with Lord Palmerston, the latter has,
although in the most friendly terms, declined accepting the
Office, upon the ground of difference of opinion, not on the
principle, but on the expediency of the imposition of any duty,
under any circumstances, upon foreign corn. This was a point
which Lord Derby was willing to have left undecided until the
result of a General Election should be known.

Although this refusal may add materially to Lord Derby’s
difficulties, he cannot regret that the offer has been made, as
the proposal must have tended to diminish any feelings of
hostility which might have been productive of future embarrassment
to your Majesty’s service, to whatever hands it
may be entrusted….

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

Derby.

[page 371]

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

LORD DERBY’S CABINET

Buckingham Palace, 23rd February 1852.

Lord Derby reported progress at half-past two, and submitted
a list of the principal Officers of the Government which
follows, and which the Queen approved.

The Queen allowed Lord Lyndhurst (who has declined office—has
been Lord Chancellor three times, and now entered upon
his eightieth year) to be offered an Earldom—which he very
much desired for the position of his daughters, having no son.

After he had kissed hands upon his entering upon his office,
Lord Derby had a further conversation with me on Household
appointments. I told him he must now, as Prime Minister,
consider himself to a certain degree in the position of the Confessor;
that formerly the Lord Chancellor was Keeper of the
King’s Conscience, the office might be considered to have
descended on the Prime Minister. The Queen must then be
able to confer with him on personal matters, or I, on her behalf,
with the most entire confidence, and that she must be sure that
nothing was divulged which passed between them on these
matters, and he might repose the same confidence in us. As
to the formation of the Household, the Queen made two conditions,
viz. that the persons to compose her Court should not
be on the verge of bankruptcy, and that their moral character
should bear investigation. On the Queen’s accession Lord
Melbourne had been very careless in his appointments, and
great harm had resulted to the Court therefrom. Since her
marriage I had insisted upon a closer line being drawn, and
though Lord Melbourne had declared “that that damned
morality would undo us all,” we had found great advantage in
it and were determined to adhere to it….

Albert.

Queen Victoria to the Duchess of Sutherland.

Buckingham Palace, 23rd February 1852.

My dearest Duchess,—I cannot say how deeply grieved I
am to think that the event which has just occurred, and which
Lord Derby’s acceptance of office has to-day confirmed, will
entail your leaving, for a time, my service. It has been ever
a real pleasure to me to have you with me; my affection and
esteem for you, my dearest Duchess, are great, and we both
know what a kind and true friend we have in you.

I think that I may rely on your returning to me on a future
occasion whenever that may be, and that I shall frequently
[page 372]
have the pleasure of seeing you, even when you are no longer
attached to my person.

I shall hope to see you soon. The Levée remains fixed for
Thursday, and the transfer of the Officers of the new Government
does not take place till Friday.

With the Prince’s kindest remembrance, and ours to the Duke
and Constance. Believe me always, yours affectionately,

Victoria R.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Buckingham Palace, 24th February 1852.

Dearest Uncle,—Great and not very pleasant events have
happened since I wrote last to you. I know that Van de Weyer
has informed you of everything, of the really (till the last day)
unexpected defeat, and of Lord Derby’s assumption of office,
with a very sorry Cabinet. I believe, however, that it is quite
necessary they should have a trial, and then have done with it.
Provided the country remains quiet, and they are prudent in
their Foreign Policy, I shall take the trial as patiently as I
can….

Alas! your confidence in our excellent Lord Granville is no
longer of any avail, though I hope ere long he will be at the
Foreign Office again,¹⁵ and I cannot say that his successor,¹⁶
who has never been in office (as indeed is the case with
almost all the new Ministers), inspires me with confidence.
I see that Louis Napoleon has again seized one of the
adherents, or rathermore one of the men of business, of the
poor Orleans….

There are some terrible stories from Madrid of people having
told the poor Queen that the King had arranged this attack on
her person, and that she was anxious to abdicate.¹⁷ If you
should hear anything of this kind, be kind enough to tell
me of it. With Albert’s love (he is well fagged with business),
ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 15: Lord Granville held the Foreign Secretaryship in 1870-1874, and again in 1880-1885.

Footnote 16: Lord Malmesbury.

Footnote 17: The Queen was stabbed by a priest when returning from church.

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby.

LORD MALMESBURY

Buckingham Palace, 24th February 1852.

The Queen thinks that it would be of the highest importance
that not only Lord Malmesbury (as is always usual) should
[page 373]
receive the necessary information from Lord Granville, but that
Lord Derby should see him and hear from him the state of all
the critical questions now pending on Foreign Affairs. Lord
Granville has made himself master in a very short time of all
the very intricate subjects with which his Office has to deal,
and she must here bear testimony to the extreme discretion,
good sense, and calmness with which he has conducted the very
responsible and difficult post of Foreign Secretary.

The Earl of Derby to the Prince Albert.

NEW APPOINTMENTS

St James’s Square, 25th February 1852.
(5 p.m.)

Sir,—I have delayed longer than I could have wished acknowledging
the letter which I had the honour to receive from
your Royal Highness last night, in hopes that by this time I
should have been enabled to solve the difficulties connected
with the Household Appointments; but I regret to say they
are rather increased than otherwise. I will not trouble your
Royal Highness now with any details; but if I might be
honoured with an audience at any hour after the Levée to-morrow,
I shall perhaps be able to make a more satisfactory
report, and at all events to explain the state of affairs more
fully.

In the meantime, it may save Her Majesty some trouble if
I request that your Royal Highness will have the goodness
to lay before Her Majesty the enclosed list of Appointments
which, subject to Her Majesty’s approval, I have arranged in
the course of this day. The Admiralty List found its way
most improperly into some of the morning papers before
I was even aware that the Duke of Northumberland had
finally obtained the assent of the Officers whom he had
selected.

As it is possible that the Queen may not be acquainted
with the name of Colonel Dunne, I have the honour of enclosing
a letter respecting him which I have received from Lord Fitzroy
Somerset, since I had intimated to him my intention of submitting
his name to Her Majesty, and which is highly satisfactory.

I must beg your Royal Highness to offer to the Queen my
most humble and grateful acknowledgment of the kindness
which Her Majesty has evinced in endeavouring to facilitate
the progress of the Household arrangements.

I have the honour to be, Sir, Your Royal Highness’s most
obedient Servant,

Derby.

[page 374]

Memorandum by Queen Victoria.¹⁸

LOUIS NAPOLEON

Thursday, 26th February 1852.

Lord Derby came to Albert at half-past three, and Albert
called me in at a little after four….

Lord Derby told us he meant to proceed as speedily as possible
with the defences of the country, and that his plan for the
Militia entirely coincided with Albert’s plan (viz. he (Albert)
wrote on the subject to the Duke of Wellington, who did not
like it),¹⁹ and meant to try and avoid all the objections. On his
observing that no one had entirely understood the Government
Bill, I said that the Government had not even been allowed
to bring it in, which was a most unfair proceeding; upon which
Lord Derby reiterated his professions of this being no preconcerted
plan of his Party’s, but that it was “symptomatic”;
he, however, was obliged to own that it was rather hard and
not quite fair on the late Government.

I then explained to him the arrangement respecting the
drafts from the Foreign Office going first to him before they
came to me, and wished this should be continued, which he
promised should be done, as well as that all important Colonial
despatches should be sent to me. Touched upon the various
critical questions on the Continent…. Lord Derby said that all
Louis Napoleon’s views were contained in his book Idées
Napoléoniennes written in ’39, for that he was more a man of
“Idées fixes” than any one; and in this book he spoke of
gaining territory by diplomacy and not by war. Lord Derby
gave us a note from Louis Napoleon to Lord Malmesbury,
congratulating him on his appointment, professing the most
friendly and pacific intentions, and hoping the Cowleys would
(as they do) remain at Paris.

Victoria R.

Footnote 18: Extract from Her Majesty’s Journal.

Footnote 19: This Memorandum is given in chap. xlv. of the Life of the Prince Consort.

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

FAREWELL AUDIENCES

Buckingham Palace, 27th February 1852.

To-day the formal change of Government took place. The
old Ministers who had Seals to give up assembled at half-past
eleven, and had their Audiences in the following order:

Sir George Grey was very much overcome; promised at our
request to do what he could to keep his friends moderate and
united. Spoke well of his successor, Mr Walpole, and assured
the Queen that he left the country in a most quiet and contented
state.

[page 375]

Lord Grey was sorry that the resignation had taken place
before the Caffre Debate, in which he had hoped to make a
triumphant defence; he was sure it must have come to this
from the way in which Lord John had managed matters. He
had never had his measures thoroughly considered when he
brought them forward. He (Lord Grey) had had to remonstrate
very strongly about this Militia Bill, which had not even
been laid, printed, before the Cabinet, and had not been discussed
at all; he himself had objected to the greater part of it,
and had always expected to have an opportunity of making
his opinion heard; instead of spending Christmas at Woburn
he ought to have digested his measures; this was not fair to
his colleagues, and he could never have the same confidence in
Lord John as before. We urged him to forget what had
passed and to do the best for the future; that it was important
the Party should be kept together and should unite if possible
with the Peelites, so that the Queen might hope to get a strong
Government. Lord Grey thought there was little chance of
this. The next Government could never be as moderate
again as this had been; this he had always dreaded, and was
the reason why he lamented that Lord John had failed in his
negotiation with the Peelites this winter, upon Lord Palmerston’s
dismissal; but the fact was Lord John had never wished
it to succeed, and it had been unfair that he had not stated to
them (the Peelites) that all his colleagues were ready to give
up their places.

Lord Granville had seen Lord Malmesbury several times,
who appeared to him to take pains about informing himself
on the state of Foreign Affairs, but seemed inclined to
be ambitious of acquiring the merit of being exclusively
English in his policy; this was quite right, but might be
carried too far; however, Lord Malmesbury was cautious and
moderate.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Charles Wood) was not
surprised at the fate of the Government, although they had not
expected to be defeated on the Militia Bill; in fact, a division
had hardly been looked for, as Lord John had talked the day
before with Lord Palmerston, and satisfied him that all his
objections should be provided against in the Bill. He thought
it was better, however, that the Caffre Debate had not been
waited for, which must have been a personal and very acrimonious
one. He thought Lord Grey had not been very discreet
in his language to the Queen on Lord John. Sir J.
Graham had been in a difficulty with his own Party, and therefore
had not wished to encourage Lord John’s negotiation with
the Peelites. He promised that, for his part, he would do all he
[page 376]
could to keep his Party from doing anything violent, but that
he was afraid many others would be so, and that he and
Lord Grey had in vain tried to persuade Mr Cobden to remain
quiet.

Lord Derby had then an Audience to explain what should be
done at the Council. He regretted the Duchess of Northumberland’s
declining to be Mistress of the Robes, on account of ill-health,
which had been communicated to the Queen by her
father, Lord Westminster. He proposed the Duchess of
Argyll, whom the Queen allowed to be sounded (though feeling
certain, that, considering the Liberal views of her husband, she
will not accept it), and sanctioned his sounding also the
Duchess of Athole, whom the Queen wished to make the offer
to, in case the Duchess of Argyll declined. Lord Derby
stated the difficulty he was in with Sir A. B., whose wife
had never been received at Court or in society, although
she had run away with him when he was still at school,
and was nearly seventy years old. The Queen said it would
not do to receive her now at Court, although society might
do in that respect what it pleased; it was a principle
at Court not to receive ladies whose characters are under a
stigma.

We now proceeded to the Council, which was attended only
by three Councillors, the other seventeen having all had to be
sworn in as Privy Councillors first.²⁰

Footnote 20: See Disraeli’s Endymion (chap. c.)
for a graphic description of this remarkable scene.

After the Council Lord Hardinge was called to the Queen,
and explained that he accepted the Ordnance only on the condition
that he was not to be expected to give a vote which
would reverse the policy of Sir R. Peel, to which he had hitherto
adhered. He had thought it his duty, however, not to
refuse his services to the Crown after the many marks of
favour he had received from the Queen.

LORD DERBY’S PROGRAMME

Lord Derby then had an Audience to explain what he intended
to state in Parliament this evening as the programme
of his Ministerial Policy. It was very fluent and very able,
but so completely the same as the Speech which he has since
delivered, that I must refer to its account in the reports.
When he came to the passage regarding the Church, the Queen
expressed to him her sense of the importance not to have
Puseyites or Romanisers recommended for appointments in the
Church as bishops or clergymen. Lord Derby declared himselfLORD DERBY AND THE CHURCH
as decidedly hostile to the Puseyite tendency, and ready to
watch over the Protestant character of the Church. He said he
did not pretend to give a decided opinion on so difficult and
[page 377]
delicate a point, but it had struck him that although nobody
could think in earnest of reviving the old Convocation, yet the
disputes in the Church perhaps could be most readily settled by
some Assembly representing the laity as well as the clergy. I
expressed it as my opinion that some such plan would succeed,
provided the Church Constitution was built up from the
bottom, giving the Vestries a legislative character in the
parishes leading up to Diocesan Assemblies, and finally to a
general one.

On Education he spoke very liberally, but seemed inclined
to support the views of the bishops against the so-called
“management clauses” of the Privy Council, viz. not to allow
grants to schools even if the parish should prefer the bishops’
inspection to the Privy Council inspection.

Albert.

The Earl of Derby to Queen Victoria.

St James’s Square, 27th February 1852.

(Half-past seven p.m.)

Lord Derby, with his humble duty, hastens to acquaint your
Majesty, having just returned from the House of Lords, that
his statement, going over the topics the substance of which he
had the honour of submitting to your Majesty was, as far as he
could judge, favourably received. Earl Grey attempted to
provoke a Corn Law discussion, but the feeling of the House
was against the premature introduction of so complicated and
exciting a topic. Lord Aberdeen, dissenting from any alteration
of commercial policy, entirely concurred in Lord Derby’s
views of Foreign Affairs, and of the course to be adopted in
dealing with Foreign Nations. Lord Derby did not omit to
lay stress upon “the strict adherence, in letter and in spirit,
to the obligations of Treaties,” which was well received.

The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

Laeken, 5th March 1852.

My dearest Victoria,—I have to offer my affectionate
thanks for a most gracious and long letter of the 2nd.

Within these days we have not had anything very important,
but, generally speaking, there has been, at least in appearance,
a quieter disposition in the ruling power at Paris. We are
here in the awkward position of persons in hot climates, who
find themselves in company, for instance in their beds, with a
[page 378]
snake; they must not move, because that irritates the creature,
but they can hardly remain as they are, without a fair chance
of being bitten…. Your devoted Uncle,

Leopold R.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Osborne, 9th March 1852.

My dearest Uncle,—Your dear letter of the 5th reached me
just after we arrived here, at our sweet, peaceful little abode.

It seems that Louis Napoleon’s mind is chiefly engrossed
with measures for the interior of France, and that the serious
question of Switzerland is becoming less menacing. On the
other hand, Austria behaves with a hostility, and I must say
folly, which prevents all attempts at reconciliation. All the
admirers of Austria consider Prince Schwartzenberg²¹ a madman,
and the Emperor Nicholas said that he was “Lord
Palmerston in a white uniform.” What a calamity this is at
the present moment!

We have a most talented, capable, and courageous Prime
Minister, but all his people have no experience—have never
been in any sort of office before!

On Friday the House of Commons meets again, and I doubt
not great violence will be displayed.

With every kind love to my dear Cousins, ever your very
devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 21: Prime Minister of Austria. He died in the April following.

Colonel Phipps to Queen Victoria.

Buckingham Palace, 10th March 1852.

Colonel Phipps’ humble duty to your Majesty.

He has this day visited the Marionette Theatre, and feels
quite certain not only that it would not be a suitable theatre
for your Majesty to visit, but that your Majesty would derive
no amusement from it.

The mechanism of the puppets is only passable, and the
matter of the entertainment stupid and tiresome, consisting
in a great part of worn-out old English songs, such as “The
death of Nelson”! Colonel Phipps considers “Punch” a
much more amusing performance. Lady Mount Edgecumbe,
who was in a box there, would probably give your Majesty an
account of it….

The report in London is, that Lord John Russell is to recommend
moderation at the meeting at his house to-morrow. He
[page 379]
has, very foolishly, subjected himself to another rebuff from
Lord Palmerston by inviting him to attend that meeting,
which Lord Palmerston has peremptorily refused. Since that,
however, Lady Palmerston has called upon Lady John with
a view to a personal—not political—reconciliation. Lady
Palmerston, as Colonel Phipps hears, still persists in the unfounded
accusation against Lord John of having quoted your
Majesty’s Minute in the House of Commons without giving
Lord Palmerston notice of his intention.²²

Footnote 22: Palmerston, however, admitted the contrary (Life of
the Prince Consort, vol. ii. chap. xliv.).

The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

DEMOCRACY

Laeken, 12th March 1852.

My dearest Victoria,—I have to thank you for a most
kind letter from peaceful Osborne, which must doubly appear
so to you now, after all the troubles of the recent Ministerial
arrangements. I am glad that you are struck with the good
qualities of your new Premier. I am sure his great wish will
be to make the best possible Minister of the Crown. His
task will be very difficult. “Bread, cheap bread,” “the poor
oppressed by the aristocratie,” etc.—a whole vocabulary of
exciting words of that kind will be put forward to inflame the
popular mind; and of all the Sovereigns, the Sovereign
“People” is certainly one of the most fanciful and fickle. Our
neighbour in France shows this more than any other on the
whole globe; the Nation there is still the Sovereign, and this
renders the President absolute, because he is the representative
of the supreme will of the supreme Nation, sending us constantly
some new exiles here, which is very unpleasant. We
are going on very gently, merely putting those means of defence
a little in order, which ought by rights always to be so, if it was
not for the ultra-unwise economy of Parliaments and Chambers.
Without, at least, comparative security by means of well-regulated
measures of defence, no country, be it great or small,
can be considered as possessing National Independence. I
must say that in Austria, at least Schwartzenberg, they are
very much intoxicated. I hope they will grow sober again
soon. It was very kind of you to have visited the poor Orleans
Family. Rarely one has seen a family so struck in their
affections, fortunes, happiness; and it is a sad case. Those
unfortunate Spanish marriages have much contributed to it;
even angelic Louise had been caught by l’honneur de la maison
de Bourbon…. Your devoted Uncle,

Leopold R.

[page 380]

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby.

THE NEW MILITIA BILL

Osborne, 12th March 1852.

The Queen must now answer Lord Derby on the questions
which form the subjects of his three last communications.

With regard to the Militia Bill, she must admit that her
suggestions are liable to the objections pointed out by Lord
Derby, although they would offer advantages in other respects.
The Queen will therefore sanction the measure as proposed,
and now further explained by Lord Derby.

The despatches transmitted from the Foreign Office referring
to the Swiss question²³ could not fail to give the Queen as much
satisfaction as they did to Lord Derby, as they show indications
of a more conciliatory intention, for the present at least.
As Switzerland has yielded, France and Austria ought to be
satisfied, and the Queen only hopes we may not see them
pushing their demands further after a short interval!

The probability of a war with the Burmese is a sad prospect.
The Queen thinks, however, that the view taken by Lord
Dalhousie of the proceedings at Rangoon, and of the steps now
to be taken to preserve peace, is very judicious, and fully concurs
with the letter sent out by the Secret Committee. She
now returns it, together with the despatch.

The despatches from Prince Schwartzenberg to Count Buol
are satisfactory in one sense, as showing a readiness to return
to the English Alliance, but unfortunately only under the
supposition that we would make war upon liberty together;
they exhibit a profound ignorance of this country.²⁴ The
Queen is quite sure that Lord Derby will know how to accept
all that is favourable in the Austrian overtures without letting
it be supposed that we could for a moment think of joining in
the policy pursued at this moment by the great Continental
Powers. As Lord Derby’s speech has been referred to by
Prince Schwartzenberg, it would furnish the best text for the
answer. The President seems really to have been seriously ill.

Footnote 23: The French had been pressing the Swiss Government to expel refugees, and Austria
supported the French President.

Footnote 24: Lord Derby had urged that a more conciliatory message should accompany Lord
Granville’s last despatch, which, because of its unfriendly tone, Count Buol had delayed
sending on to Vienna. The precise language (he said) must depend on what information
Count Buol could supply.

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby.

Osborne, 14th March 1852.

The Queen has received this morning Lord Derby’s letter
respecting the St Albans’ Disfranchisement Bill, and is glad to
[page 381]
hear that Lord Derby means to take up this Bill as dropped
by the late Government. Whether the mode of transferring
these seats proposed by Lord Derby will meet with as little
opposition in Parliament as he anticipates, the Queen is not
able to form a correct judgment of. It may be liable to the
imputation of being intended to add to the power of the landed
interest. This might not be at all objectionable in itself, but
it may be doubtful how far the House of Commons may be
disposed to concur in it at the present moment. This will be
for Lord Derby to consider, but the Queen will not withhold
her sanction from the measure.

She knows that Lord John Russell meant to give the vacant
seats to Birkenhead. Are not there two seats still vacant from
the Disfranchisement of Sudbury? and would it not be better
(if so) to dispose of all four at the same time? There is an impression
also gaining ground that, with a view to prevent the
Franchise being given exclusively to Numbers, to the detriment
of Interests, it might be desirable to give new seats to
certain corporate bodies, such as the Scotch Universities, the
Temple and Lincoln’s Inn, the East India Company, etc., etc.²⁵

Footnote 25: The Government eventually proposed that the four seats taken from St Albans and
Sudbury should be assigned to South Lancashire and the West Riding; but, on the
ground that a Ministry on sufferance should confine itself to necessary legislation, Mr
Gladstone induced the House by a great majority to shelve the proposal.

Mr Disraeli to Queen Victoria.

MR DISRAELI

House of Commons, 15th March 1852.

(Monday night.)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his humble duty to
your Majesty, informs your Majesty of what occurred in the
House of Commons this evening.

Mr Villiers opened the proceedings, terse and elaborate, but
not in his happiest style. He called upon the House to contrast
the state of the country at the beginning of the year and
at the present moment. But he could not induce the House
to believe that “all now was distrust and alarm.”

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply, declined to bring
forward in the present Parliament any proposition to change
our commercial system, and would not pledge himself to propose
in a future Parliament any duty on corn. He said a duty
on corn was a measure, not a principle, and that if preferable
measures for the redress of agricultural grievances than a
five-shilling duty on corn (mentioned by Mr Villiers) could be
devised, he should adopt them—a declaration received with
universal favour on the Government side.

[page 382]

Lord John Russell replied to the Chancellor of the Exchequer
in consequence of some notice by the former of the
strange construction of a new Opposition to force a Dissolution
of Parliament by a Minister who, three weeks ago, had declared
such Dissolution inexpedient. It was not a successful
speech.

THE OPPOSITION

The great speech on the Opposition side was that of Sir
James Graham: elaborate, malignant, mischievous. His
position was this: that Lord Derby, as a man of honour, was
bound to propose taxes on food, and that if he did so, revolution
was inevitable.

Mr Gladstone and Lord Palmerston both spoke in the same
vein, the necessity of immediate Dissolution after the passing
of the “necessary” measures; but the question soon arose,
What is “necessary”?

Lord Palmerston thought the Militia Bill “necessary,”
upon which the League²⁶ immediately rose and denied that
conclusion.

There seemed in the House a great reluctance to avoid a
violent course, but a very general wish, on the Opposition side,
for as speedy a Dissolution as public necessity would permit.

The evening, however, was not disadvantageous to the
Government. All which is most humbly submitted to your
Majesty, by your Majesty’s most dutiful Subject and Servant,

B. Disraeli.

Footnote 26: The members belonging to the Manchester School of Politics.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

THE QUESTION OF DISSOLUTION

Osborne, 17th March 1852.

My dearest Uncle,—I delayed writing till to-day as I
wished to see the papers first, and be able to give you an
account of the first Debate in the two Houses. They are not
satisfactory, because both Lord Derby and Mr Disraeli refuse
to give a straightforward answer as to their policy, the uncertainty
as to which will do serious harm.²⁷ The Opposition
are very determined, and with right, to insist on this being
given, and on as early a Dissolution as possible. The Government
will be forced to do this, but it is very unwise, after all
this agitation for the last five years and a half, not [to] come
forward manfully and to state what they intend to do. We
tried to impress Lord Derby with the necessity of this course,
and I hoped we had succeeded, but his speech has not been
what it ought to have been in this respect.

[page 383]

The President seems more occupied at home than abroad,
which I trust he may remain.

Stockmar is well…. One thing is pretty certain—that
out of the present state of confusion and discordance, a sound
state of Parties will be obtained, and two Parties, as of old,
will
again exist, without which it is impossible to have a strong
Government. How these Parties will be formed it is impossible
to say at present. Now, with Albert’s love, ever your
devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 27: This uncertainty led to the Anti-Corn-Law League, which had been
dissolved in 1846, being revived.

Mr Disraeli to Queen Victoria.

House of Commons, 19th March 1852.
(Friday night, twelve o’clock.)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his humble duty to
your Majesty, lays before your Majesty what has taken place
in the House of Commons to-night.

At the commencement of public business, Lord John
Russell, in a very full House, after some hostile comments,
enquired of Her Majesty’s Ministers whether they were prepared
to declare that Her Majesty will be advised to dissolve the
present Parliament, and call a new one, with the least possible
delay consistent with a due regard to the public interest, in
reference to measures of urgent and immediate necessity.

The question was recommended by Lord John Russell as
one similar to that put to him in 1841 by Sir Robert Peel.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer in reply observed that
there was a distinction between the position of the present
Ministry and that of Lord John Russell in 1841, as in that and
in the other precedents quoted in 1841 by Sir Robert Peel, the
Ministry had been condemned by a vote of the House of
Commons.

He said it was not constitutional and most impolitic for any
Ministers to pledge themselves to recommend their Sovereign
to dissolve Parliament at any stated and specific time, as
circumstances might occur which would render the fulfilment
of the pledge injurious or impracticable; that it was the
intention of the Ministers to recommend your Majesty to
dissolve the present Parliament the moment that such measures
were carried which were necessary for your Majesty’s service,
and for the security and good government of your Majesty’s
realm; and that it was their wish and intention that the new
Parliament should meet to decide upon the question of confidence
in the Administration, and on the measures, which they
could then bring forward in the course of the present year.

This announcement was very favourably received.

[page 384]

The discomfiture of the Opposition is complete, and no
further mention of stopping or limiting supplies will be
heard of.

All which is most humbly submitted to your Majesty by
your Majesty’s most dutiful Subject and Servant,

B. Disraeli.

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

INTERVIEW WITH LORD DERBY

Buckingham Palace, 22nd March 1852.

We came to Town from Osborne the day before yesterday,
and saw Lord Derby yesterday afternoon, who is in very good
spirits about the prospect of affairs. He told the Queen that
he thought he might state that the Government had gained a
good deal of ground during the last week, and that there was
now a general disposition to let the necessary measures pass
Parliament, and to have the dissolution the end of June or
beginning of July. He hoped the Queen did not think he had
gone too far in pledging the Crown to a Dissolution about that
time; but it was impossible to avoid saying as much as that
a new Parliament would meet in the autumn again, and have
settled the commercial policy before Christmas.

To the Queen’s questions, whether there would not be great
excitement in the country produced by the General Election,
and whether Parliament ought not to meet immediately after
it, he replied that he was not the least afraid of much excitement,
and that there was great advantage in not meeting
Parliament immediately again, as the Government would
require a few months to prepare its measures, and to take a
sound view of the new position of affairs. He anticipated that
there would be returned a large proportion of Conservatives,
some Free Traders, some Protectionists; but not a majority
for the re-imposition of a duty on corn, certainly not a majority
large enough to justify him in proposing such a Measure.
Now he was sure he could not with honour or credit abandon
that Measure unless the country had given its decision against
it; but then he would have most carefully to consider how
to revise the general state of taxation, so as to give that relief
to the agricultural interest which it had a right to demand.

PROTECTION

He had received the most encouraging and flattering letters
from the agriculturists of different parts of the country, all
reposing the most explicit confidence in him, and asking him
not to sacrifice the Government for the sake of an immediate
return to Protection. They felt what Lord Derby must say
he felt himself, that, after the fall of this Government, there
[page 385]
would necessarily come one of a more democratic tendency than
any the country had yet had to submit to. He thought most
politicians saw this, and would rally round a Conservative standard;
he knew that even many of the leading Whigs were very
much dissatisfied with the company they find themselves
thrown into and alarmed at the progress of Democracy.

Albert.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Buckingham Palace, 23rd March 1852.

… Here matters have improved rather for the Government,
and it seems now that they will be able to get through
the Session, to dissolve Parliament at the end of June or beginning
of July, and to meet again in November. And then
Protection will be done away with. If only they had not done
so much harm, and played with it for six long years! What
you say of the advantage of having had Governments from
all parties we have often felt and do feel; it renders changes
much less disagreeable. In the present case our acquaintance
is confined almost entirely to Lord Derby, but then he is the
Government. They do nothing without him. He has all the
Departments to look after, and on being asked by somebody
if he was not much tired, he said: “I am quite well with my
babies!…”

Victoria R.

Mr Disraeli to Queen Victoria.

House of Commons, 29th March 1852.

(Monday night.)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his humble duty to
your Majesty, informs your Majesty of what has occurred in
the House of Commons to-night.

Mr Secretary Walpole introduced the Militia Bill in a statement
equally perspicuous and persuasive.

Opposed by Mr Hume and Mr Gibson, the Government
Measure was cordially supported by Lord Palmerston.

Lord John Russell, while he expressed an opinion favourable
to increased defence, intimated a preference for regular troops.

Mr Cobden made one of his cleverest speeches, of the cosmopolitan
school, and was supported with vigour by Mr Bright.
A division is threatened by the ultra-Movement party, but the
Chancellor of the Exchequer hopes to ward it off, and is somewhat
sanguine of ultimate success in carrying the Measure.

[page 386]

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Buckingham Palace, 30th March 1852.

My dearest Uncle,—Many thanks for your dear letter of
the 26th, which I received on Saturday. Here we shall have
some trouble with our Militia Bill, which all of a sudden seems
to have caused dissatisfaction and alarm. Lord Derby is
quite prepared to drop Protection, as he knows that the Elections
will bring a Free Trade, though a Conservative majority.
Mr Disraeli (alias Dizzy) writes very curious reports to me of
the House of Commons proceedings—much in the style of his
books….

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby.

ENGLAND AND ITALY

Windsor Castle, 10th April 1852.

The Queen hopes that both Lord Derby and Lord Malmesbury
will give their earnest attention to the change in the
politics of Italy, which is evidently on the point of taking place,
according to the enclosed despatch from Mr Hudson.²⁸ What
Count Azeglio²⁹ says in his Memorandum with respect to
Austria is perfectly just. But France, as the champion of
Italian liberty and independence, would become most formidable
to the rest of Europe, and Louis Napoleon, in assuming
for her this position, would be only following the example
of his uncle, which we know to be his constant aim.³⁰

Footnote 28: British Envoy at Turin.

Footnote 29: Premier of Sardinia.

Footnote 30: Lord Derby in reply, after reviewing the whole matter, counselled non-interference,
the keeping of a vigilant watch on French and Austrian actions, encouragement of Sardinia
in her constitutional action, and the making use of any opportunity to secure both
the independence of Piedmont and the reform of the Papal Administration.

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby.

FRANCE AND ITALY

Windsor Castle, 13th April 1852.

The Queen has received Lord Derby’s letter of the 11th inst.,
in which he states very clearly the difficulties which stand in
the way of an active interference of this country in the affairs
of Italy. The Queen did not mean to recommend in her letter
of the 10th on this subject any active interference, as she is of
opinion that our present want of due influence in Italy is chiefly
owing to our former ill-judged over-activity. The Queen
agrees therefore entirely with Lord Derby in thinking that “all
that can be done now is carefully to watch the proceedings of
France and Austria in this matter, so as to profit by every
[page 387]
good opportunity to protect the independence of Piedmont,
and, if possible, produce some improvement in the internal
Government of Rome,” and she would accordingly like to
see her respective Foreign Ministers instructed in this sense.

The Queen continues, however, to look with apprehension
to the possible turn which the affairs of Italy may take, proceeding
from the political views of the President. It is not
improbable that he may act now that he is omnipotent upon
the views contained in his celebrated letter to Edgar Ney in
1849, which were at the time disapproved by the Assembly.³¹
He will feel the necessity of doing something to compensate the
French for what they have lost by him at home, to turn their
attention from home affairs to those abroad, and to the
acquisition of power and influence in Europe; and certainly,
were he to head Italian liberty and independence, his power of
doing mischief would be immense. After all, such an attempt
would not be more inconsistent for him than it was for General
Cavaignac, as President of the République Démocratique, to get
rid of the Roman Republic, and to reinstate the Pope by force
of arms.

The Queen wishes Lord Derby to communicate this letter
to Lord Malmesbury, from whom she has also just heard upon
this subject.

Footnote 31: In this letter the President of the Republic had expressed his admiration at the conduct
of the French troops in the Roman expedition under General Oudinot, and his warm
approval of the policy that led to the campaign.

Mr Disraeli to Queen Victoria.

House of Commons, 19th April 1852.
(Monday night, half-past twelve.)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his humble duty to
your Majesty, reports to your Majesty that, after a dull debate,
significant only by two of the subordinate Members of the late
Administration declaring their hostility to the Militia Bill,
Lord John Russell rose at eleven o’clock and announced his
determination to oppose the second reading of it.³² His speech
was one of his ablest—statesmanlike, argumentative, terse,
and playful; and the effect he produced was considerable.

Your Majesty’s Government, about to attempt to reply to it,
gave way to Lord Palmerston, who changed the feeling of the
House, and indeed entirely carried it away in a speech of
extraordinary vigour and high-spirited tone.

The Ministers were willing to have taken the division on his
Lordship sitting down, but as the late Government wished to
[page 388]
reply, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not oppose the
adjournment of the debate.

The elements of calculation as to the division are very complicated,
but the Chancellor of the Exchequer is still inclined
to believe that the second reading of the Bill will be carried.

Footnote 32: This tactical blunder, much condemned at the time, estranged many of the Whigs
from Lord John.

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby.

THE BUDGET

Buckingham Palace, 25th April 1852.

The Queen wishes to remind Lord Derby that the time for
the presentation of the Budget to the House of Commons being
very close at hand, none of the Measures referring to the
finances of the country which the Government may have to
propose have as yet been laid before her.

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby.

Buckingham Palace, 26th April 1852.

The Queen has received Lord Derby’s explanation of his
views with regard to the Budget,³³ and will be glad to see him on
Wednesday at three o’clock. She had been alarmed by vague
rumours that it was the intention of the Government to propose
great changes in the present financial system, which, with an
adverse majority in the House of Commons and at the eve of
a Dissolution, must have led to much confusion. She thinks
the course suggested by Lord Derby to consider the Budget
merely as a provisional one for the current year, by far the
wisest, the more so as it will leave us a surplus of £2,000,000,
which is of the utmost importance in case of unforeseen
difficulties with Foreign Powers.³⁴

Footnote 33: Its chief feature was a renewal of the expiring Income Tax.

Footnote 34: Accordingly, no financial changes were proposed until after the General Election.
See post, p. 406.

Mr Disraeli to Queen Victoria.

House of Commons, 26th April.
(Monday night, twelve o’clock.)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his humble duty to
your Majesty, reports to your Majesty that the Militia Bill has
been carried (second reading) by an immense majority.

For		315
Against		165

The concluding portion of the debate was distinguished by
the speeches of Mr Sidney Herbert and Mr Walpole, who made
[page 389]
their greatest efforts; the first singularly happy in his treatment
of a subject of which he was master, and the last
addressing the House with a spirit unusual with him.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

FRANCE AND THE BOURBONS

Buckingham Palace, 27th April 1852.

My dearest Uncle,—I thank you much for your kind and
affectionate letter of the 23rd. I have somehow or other contrived
to lose my day, for which reason I can only write a very
short letter. It seems to be generally believed that Louis
Napoleon’s assumption of the title of Emperor is very near at
hand, but they still think war is not likely, as it would be such
bad policy.

What you say about the ill-fated Spanish marriages, and
the result of the poor King’s wishing to have no one but a
Bourbon as Queen Isabel’s husband being that the French
won’t have any Bourbon, is indeed strange. It is a melancholy
result.

I shall certainly try and read Thiers’ Révolution, Consulat, et
Empire, but I can hardly read any books, my whole lecture
almost being taken up by the immense quantity of despatches
we have to read, and then I have a good deal to write, and
must then have a little leisure time to rest, and de me délasser
and to get out. It is a great deprivation, as I delight in
reading. Still, I will not forget your recommendation.

I am sorry to say nothing is definitely settled about our dear
Crystal Palace. With Albert’s love, ever your truly devoted
Niece,

Victoria R.

Queen Victoria to Mr Disraeli.

Buckingham Palace, 1st May 1852.

The Queen has read with great interest the clear and able
financial statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer
made in the House of Commons last night, and was glad to
hear from him that it was well received.

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Malmesbury.

Buckingham Palace, 13th May 1852.

With respect to this despatch from Lord Howden,³⁵ the
Queen wishes to observe that hitherto we have on all similar
[page 390]
occasions declined accepting any Foreign Order for the Prince
of Wales, on account of his being too young and not even
having any of the English Orders. Might this not therefore
be communicated to Lord Howden?

Footnote 35: British Minister at Madrid.

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby.

AFFAIRS IN FRANCE

Osborne, 27th May 1852.

The Queen returns the enclosed most interesting letters.
It is evident that the President is meeting with the first
symptoms of a reviving public feeling in France; whether
this will drive him to hurry on the Empire remains to be seen.
All the Foreign Powers have to be careful about is to receive
an assurance that the Empire does not mean a return to the
policy of the Empire, but that the existing Treaties will be
acknowledged and adhered to.

The session seems to advance very rapidly. The Queen
hails Lord Derby’s declaration of his conviction that a majority
for a duty on corn will not be returned to the new Parliament,
as the first step towards the abandonment of hostility to
the Free Trade on which our commercial policy is now established,
and which has produced so flourishing a condition of
the finances of the country.

Mr Disraeli’s speech about Spain was very good, though he
had certainly better not have alluded to Portugal.

We return to Town to-morrow.

Mr Disraeli to Queen Victoria.

House of Commons, 21st June 1852.

(Nine o’clock.)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his humble duty to
your Majesty, reports to your Majesty that Lord John Russell
introduced to the notice of the House of Commons to-night the
recent Minute of the Committee of Council on Education.

Lord John Russell made a languid statement to a rather
full House. His speech was not very effective as it proceeded,
and there was silence when he sat down.

Then Mr Walpole rose and vindicated the Minute. He
spoke with animation, and was cheered when he concluded.

Sir Harry Verney followed, and the House very much dispersed;
indeed the discussion would probably have terminated
when Sir Harry finished, had not Mr Gladstone then risen.
Mr Gladstone gave only a very guarded approval to the
Minute, which he treated as insignificant.

[page 391]

It was not a happy effort, and the debate, for a while
revived by his interposition, continued to languish until this
hour (nine o’clock), with successive relays of mediocrity, until
it yielded its last gasp in the arms of Mr Slaney.

The feeling of the House of Commons, probably in this
representing faithfully that of the country, is against both the
violent parties in the Church, and in favour of a firm, though
temperate, course on the part of the Crown, which may conciliate
a vast majority, and tend to terminate dissension.

Queen Victoria to Mr Walpole.

DISTURBANCES AT STOCKPORT

Buckingham Palace, 1st July 1852.

The Queen is much distressed at the account she has read
in the papers of the dreadful riot at Stockport,³⁶ alas! caused
by that most baneful of all Party feelings, religious hatred,³⁷
and she is very anxious to know what Mr Walpole has heard.

Footnote 36: The Church question was brought into the political arena in the General Election,
which was now in progress; much violence was manifested during the contest.

Footnote 37: “It is additional proof, if more were wanting,” wrote Mr Walpole in reply, “that all
Parties should forbear as much as possible from the ostentatious parade of anything that
can provoke either the one or the other.”

The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

Laeken, 23rd July 1852.

My dearest Victoria,—… We are very much plagued
by our Treaty with France. Victor Hugo has written a book
against Louis Napoleon, which will exasperate him much, and
which he publishes here; we can hardly keep Victor Hugo
here after that.³⁸ The great plague of all these affairs is their
constant return without the least advantage to any one from
the difficulties they created…. Your devoted Uncle,

Leopold R.

Footnote 38: Victor Hugo (1802-1885) had founded the journal, L’Evénement, in 1848: he was
exiled in 1851, and published Napoléon le Petit in Belgium. After the fall of the Empire
he returned to France, and in 1877 published his Histoire d’un Crime.

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby.

Osborne, 26th August 1852.

The Queen has been considering the subject of the vacant
Garter, and the names which Lord Derby proposed to her.
She is of opinion that it would not be advisable on the whole
to give the Garter to Lord Londonderry; that the Duke of
[page 392]
Northumberland has by far the strongest claim to this distinction.
At the same time, the Queen would have no objection
to bestow it on Lord Lonsdale, if this is desirable, in order
to facilitate any Ministerial arrangements which Lord Derby
may have in contemplation.

F.M. The Duke of Wellington, K.G.

From a miniature at Apsley House

To face p. 392, Vol. II.

The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

THE QUEEN INHERITS A FORTUNE

Laeken, 10th September 1852.

My dearest Victoria,—… That Mr Neild³⁹ should have
left that great fortune to you delighted me; it gives the
possibility of forming a private fortune for the Royal Family,
the necessity of which nobody can deny. Such things only
still happen in England, where there exists loyalty and strong
affection for Royalty, a feeling unfortunately much diminished
on the Continent of Europe, though it did exist there
also….

Footnote 39: John Camden Neild, an eccentric and miserly bachelor, nominally a barrister, died on
the 30th of August, bequeathing substantially the whole of his fortune (amounting to half
a million) to the Queen. As there were no known relatives, the Queen felt able to accept
this legacy; but she first increased the legacies to the executors from £100 to £1000 each,
made provision for Mr Neild’s servants and others who had claims on him, restored the
chancel of North Marston Church, Bucks, where he was buried, and inserted a window
there to his memory.

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

DEATH OF DUKE OF WELLINGTON

Balmoral, 17th September 1852.

The death of the Duke of Wellington⁴⁰ has deprived the
Country of her greatest man, the Crown of its most valuable
servant and adviser, the Army of its main strength and support.
We received the sad news on an expedition from
Allt-na-Giuthasach to the Dhu Loch (one of the wildest and
loneliest spots of the Highlands) at four o’clock yesterday
afternoon. We hurried home to Allt-na-Giuthasach, and to-day
here, where it became important to settle with Lord Derby
the mode of providing for the command of the Army, and the
filling up of the many posts and places which the Duke had
held.

Footnote 40: The Duke passed away at Walmer on the 14th of September, in his eighty-fourth year.

I had privately prepared a list of the mode in which this
should be done, and discussed it with Victoria, and found, to
both Lord Derby’s and our astonishment, that it tallied in
every point with the recommendations which he had thought
of making.

I explained to Lord Derby the grounds upon which I thought
[page 393]
it better not to assume the Command myself, and told him of
the old Duke’s proposal, two years ago, to prepare the way to
my assuming the Command by the appointment of a Chief of
the Staff, on Sir Willoughby Gordon’s death, and the reasons
on which I then declined the offer. Lord Derby entirely
concurred in my views, and seemed relieved by my explanation;
we then agreed that for the loss of authority which we
had lost with the Duke, we could only make up by increase in
efficiency in the appointments to the different offices. That
Lord Hardinge was the only man fit to command the Army.

He should then receive the Command-in-Chief. The
Ordnance which he would vacate should be given to Lord
Fitzroy Somerset, hitherto Military Secretary (with the offer
of a peerage).⁴¹ The Constableship of the Tower to Lord
Combermere; the Garter to Lord Londonderry; the Grenadier
Guards and the Rifle Brigade to me; the Fusiliers vacated
by me to the Duke of Cambridge (or the Coldstream, Lord
Strafford exchanging to the Fusiliers); the 60th Rifles vacated
by me to Lord Beresford; the Rangership of the Parks in
London to George (Duke of Cambridge); the Wardenship of
the Cinque Ports to Lord Dalhousie; the Lieutenancy of
Hampshire to Lord Winchester. I reserved to me the right of
considering whether I should not assume the command of
the Brigade of Guards which the Duke of York held in George
IV.’s time, to which William IV. appointed himself, and which
has been vacant ever since Victoria’s accession, although
inherent to the Constitution of the Guards.

Footnote 41: He became Lord Raglan.

Lord Derby had thought of George for the Command-in-Chief,
as an alternative for Lord Hardinge, but perceived that
his rank as a Major-General and youth would hardly entitle
him to such an advancement. He would have carried no
weight with the public, and we must not conceal from ourselves
that many attacks on the Army which have been sleeping on
account of the Duke will now be forthcoming.

Victoria wishes the Army to mourn for the Duke as long as
for a member of the Royal Family.

Lord Derby proposes a public funeral, which cannot take
place, however, before the meeting of Parliament in November.
He is to find out how this is to be accomplished on account of
the long interval.

The correspondence here following⁴² shows what doubts
exist as to the person in whom the Command of the Army is
[page 394]
vested in case of a vacancy. I consider Lord Palmerston’s
letter as a mere attempt to arrogate supreme power for his
Office,⁴³ which rests on no foundation. The Secretary at War
has no authority whatever except over money, whilst the
Commander-in-Chief has no authority to spend a penny
without the Secretary at War.

Albert.

Footnote 42: These letters, which are of no special importance, contained a statement from Lord
Palmerston to the effect that the appointment to the Commandership-in-Chief was vested
in the Secretary at War.

Footnote 43: Lord Palmerston had held the office of Secretary at War from 1809 to 1828.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON

Balmoral, 17th September 1852.

My dearest Uncle,—I am sure you will mourn with us
over the loss we and this whole nation have experienced in
the death of the dear and great old Duke of Wellington. The
sad news will have reached you, I doubt not, on Wednesday
or yesterday. We had gone on Wednesday, as I had mentioned,
to our little Shiel of Allt-na-Giuthasach to spend two
days there, and were enjoying ourselves very much on a beautiful
expedition yesterday, and were sitting by the side of the
Dhu Loch, one of the severest, wildest spots imaginable, when
one of our Highlanders arrived bringing a letter from Lord
Derby (who is here), confirming the report which we had
already heard of—but entirely disbelieved—and sending me a
letter from Lord Charles Wellesley, saying that his dear father
had only been ill a few hours, and had hardly suffered at all.
It was a stroke, which was succeeded rapidly by others, and
carried him off without any return of consciousness. For him
it is a blessing that he should have been taken away in the
possession of his great and powerful mind and without a lingering
illness. But for this country, and for us, his loss—though
it could not have been long delayed—is irreparable!
He was the pride and the bon génie, as it were, of this country!
He was the GREATEST man this country ever produced, and
the most devoted and loyal subject, and the staunchest supporter
the Crown ever had. He was to us a true, kind friend
and most valuable adviser. To think that all this is gone;
that this great and immortal man belongs now to History and
no longer to the present, is a truth which we cannot realise.
We shall soon stand sadly alone; Aberdeen is almost the only
personal friend of that kind we have left. Melbourne, Peel,
Liverpool—and now the Duke—all gone!

You will kindly feel for and with us, dearest Uncle.

Lord Hardinge is to be Commander-in-Chief, and he is
quite the only man fit for it.

Albert is much grieved. The dear Duke showed him great
[page 395]
confidence and kindness. He was so fond of his little godson
Arthur—who will now be a remaining link of the dear old
Duke’s, and a pleasant recollection of him. Ever your
devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

Laeken, 17th September 1852.

My dearest Victoria,—You will be much grieved at the
loss of the Duke. It must give you satisfaction to think that
you were always kind to him, and that he was very sincerely
devoted to you and appreciated Albert. Since 1814 I had
known much of the Duke; his kindness to me had been very
marked, and I early discovered that he was very favourable
to my marriage with Charlotte, then already in agitation.
Since, he was always kind and confidential, even in those days
of persecution against me, the result of the jealousy of George
IV.; he never was influenced by it, or had the meanness of
many who, in the days of misfortune, quickly leave one. The
only case in which we were at variance was about the boundaries
of Greece. He had some of the old absolute notions,
which in that case were not in conformity with the real interests
of England and of Europe. Even last year he spoke so very
kindly to me on the subject of our Continental affairs. Rarely
fickle Fortune permits a poor mortal to reach the conclusion
of a long career, however glorious, with such complete success,
so undisturbed by physical or moral causes. The Duke is the
noblest example of what an Englishman may be, and to what
greatness he may rise in following that honourable and straight
line.

When one looks at the Manchester school, compared to the
greatness to which men like the Duke raised their country,
one cannot help to be alarmed for the future. You are enjoying
the Highlands, but the weather seems also not very
favourable; here it is uncertain, and at times very cold….
Your truly devoted Uncle,

Leopold R.

The Prince Albert to the Earl of Derby.

FUNERAL ARRANGEMENTS

Balmoral, 22nd September 1852.

My dear Lord Derby,—The Queen wishes me to answer
your kind letter of yesterday.

Her letter to you and to Mr Walpole of this morning will
have apprised you that she sanctions the Guard of Honour
[page 396]
having been placed at Walmer, and the Duke’s body having
been taken possession of formally on the part of the Crown.

It would be a great pity if Lord Fitzroy were to be obliged
to decline the Peerage on account of poverty; at the same
time it may be difficult to relieve him from the payment of
fees by a public grant. Under these circumstances, rather
than leave Lord Fitzroy unrewarded, and a chance of his
feeling mortified at a moment when his cheerful co-operation
with Lord Hardinge is so important to the public service—the
Queen would herself bear the expense of the fees. If this were
to hurt Lord Fitzroy’s feelings, you could easily manage it so
that he need never know from what source the £500 came.
The Queen leaves this matter in your hands. Ever yours
truly,

Albert.

Queen Victoria to Mr Walpole.

Balmoral Castle, 22nd September 1852.

The Queen has just received Mr Walpole’s letter of the 20th,
informing her of the difficulty of having the Funeral Service,
according to the Liturgy, performed twice; she trusts,
however,
that means may be found to enable the Queen’s intentions to
be carried out, as communicated to Mr Walpole in Lord Derby’s
official letter. Whether this is to be done by leaving the body
for two months without the Funeral Service being read over
it, or by reading the Funeral Service now in the presence of
the family, and treating the Public Funeral more as a translation
of the remains to their final place of rest, the Queen must
leave to be decided by those who have the means of personally
sounding the feelings of the Duke’s family, the dignitaries of
the Church, and the public generally.

An impressive religious ceremony might certainly be made
of it at St. Paul’s, even if the actual Funeral Service should
not be read on the occasion….

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby.

Windsor Castle, 23rd October 1852.

Shortly after the formation of Lord Derby’s Government,
the Queen communicated to him a Memorandum respecting
the necessity of attending to our national defences on a systematic
plan. The Queen would now wish to hear how far
we have advanced in this important object since that time.
Lord Derby would perhaps call on the General Commanding-in-Chief,
the Master-General of the Ordnance, and the First
[page 397]
Lord of the Admiralty, as well as the Home Secretary, to make
a report upon this. It will soon be necessary to consider what
will have to be done for the future to complete the various plans.
The Queen is no alarmist, but thinks that the necessity of our
attending to our defences once having been proved and admitted
by Parliament and two successive Governments, we
should not relax in our efforts until the plans then devised are
thoroughly carried out.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

LOUIS NAPOLEON

Windsor Castle, 26th October 1852.

My dearest Uncle,—… I must tell you an anecdote relating
to Louis Napoleon’s entry into Paris, which Lord Cowley
wrote over, as going the round of Paris. It is: that under one
of the Triumphal Arches a Crown was suspended to a string
(which is very often the case) over which was written, “Il l’a
bien mérité.” Something damaged this crown, and they removed
it—leaving, however, the rope and superscription, the
effect of which must have been somewhat edifying!

It is not at all true that foreign Officers are not to attend at
the funeral of the dear old Duke; on the contrary, we expect
them from Prussia, Austria, and Russia, and the Duke of
Terceira (whom we shall see to-night) is already come from
Portugal to attend the ceremony.

I must now conclude. With Albert’s love, ever your devoted
Niece,

Victoria R.

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Malmesbury.

Windsor Castle, 8th November 1852.

As we seem to be so near the declaration of the Empire in
France, and as so many opinions are expressed on the subject
of the title to be assumed by Louis Napoleon, the Queen is
anxious to impress Lord Malmesbury with the importance of
our not committing ourselves on this point, and not giving our
allies to understand that we shall join them in not acknowledging
Napoleon III.⁴⁴ Objectionable as this appellation no doubt
is, it may hardly be worth offending France and her Ruler by
refusing to recognise it, when it is of such importance to prevent
their considering themselves the aggrieved party; any attempt
[page 398]
to dictate to France the style of her Ruler would strengthen
Louis Napoleon’s position; our object should be to leave
France alone, as long as she is not aggressive.

All of this should be well weighed.

Footnote 44: Louis Napoleon himself claimed no hereditary right to the Imperial dignity, but
only that conferred by election: he acknowledged as national all the acts which had
taken place since 1815, such as the reigns of the later Bourbons and of Louis Philippe.
(See Memoirs of an ex-Minister.)

The Prince Albert to Viscount Hardinge.

NATIONAL DEFENCES

Windsor Castle, 8th November 1852.

My dear Lord Hardinge,—In reference to our conversation
of yesterday, and the Queen’s request to Lord Derby that he
should call upon the different departments of the Admiralty,
Army, Ordnance, and Home Office to furnish a report as to
how far the measures begun last spring to put our defences in a
state of efficiency have been carried out, and what remains to
be done in that direction—I beg now to address you in writing.
The object the Queen wishes to obtain is, to receive an account
which will show what means we have really at our disposal for
purposes of defence, ready for action at the shortest possible
notice, and what remains to be done to put us into a state of
security, what the supply of the wants may cost (approximately),
and what time it would require.

As it will be not only convenient but necessary that the
Horse Guards and Ordnance should consult together and combine
their deliberations, I beg this letter to be understood to
apply as well to Lord Raglan as to yourself, and that you would
meet and give the answer to the Queen’s questions conjointly.

(A detailed list follows.)

These questions would all present themselves at the moment
when we received the intelligence of a threatened coup de main
on the part of Louis Napoleon, when it would be too late to
remedy any deficiency. The public would be quite ready to
give the necessary money for our armament, but they feel with
justice that it is unfair to ask them for large sums and then
always to hear, We are quite unprepared. They don’t understand
and cannot understand details, but it is upon matters of
detail that our security will have to depend, and we cannot be
sure of efficiency unless a comprehensive statement be made
showing the whole.

I beg this to be as short as possible, and if possible in a
tabular shape. Ever yours truly,

Albert.

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby.

Windsor Castle, 13th November 1852.

The Queen was very sorry to hear from Lord Derby and
[page 399]
Mr Disraeli that Mr Villiers’ Motion⁴⁵ will create Parliamentary
difficulties.

With respect to the financial statement, she must most
strongly impress Lord Derby with the necessity of referring to
our defenceless state, and the necessity of a large outlay, to
protect us from foreign attack, which would almost ensure us
against war. The country is fully alive to its danger, and
Parliament has perhaps never been in a more likely state to
grant what is necessary, provided a comprehensive and efficient
plan is laid before it. Such a plan ought, in the Queen’s
opinion, to be distinctly promised by the Government, although
it may be laid before Parliament at a later period.

Footnote 45: This Motion, intended to extort a declaration from the House in favour of Free Trade,
and describing the Corn Law Repeal as “a just, wise, and beneficial measure,” was naturally
distasteful to the Ministers. Their amour-propre was saved by Lord Palmerston’s
Amendment omitting the “odious epithets” and affirming the principle of unrestricted
competition.

Mr Disraeli to Queen Victoria.

FINANCIAL POLICY

London, 14th November 1852.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his humble duty to
your Majesty, begs permission to enclose an answer to the
Address for your Majesty’s approbation, and which should be
delivered, if your Majesty pleases, to the House of Commons
to-morrow.

Referring to a letter from your Majesty, shown to him yesterday
by Lord Derby, the Chancellor of the Exchequer also begs
permission to state that, in making the financial arrangements,
he has left a very large margin for the impending
year (April 1853-4), which will permit the fulfilment of all
your Majesty’s wishes with respect to the increased defence
of the country, as he gathered them from your Majesty’s
gracious expressions, and also from the suggestion which afterwards,
in greater detail, His Royal Highness the Prince
deigned to make to him.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer will deeply consider the
intimation graciously made in your Majesty’s letter to Lord
Derby as to the tone on this subject to be adopted in the House
of Commons, and he will endeavour in this, and in all respects,
to fulfil your Majesty’s pleasure.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer fears that he sent to your
Majesty a somewhat crude note from the House of Commons
on Thursday night, but he humbly begs your Majesty will deign
to remember that these bulletins are often written in tumult,
and sometimes in perplexity; and that he is under the impression
[page 400]
that your Majesty would prefer a genuine report of the
feeling of the moment, however miniature, to a more artificial
and prepared statement.

Queen Victoria to Mr Disraeli.

Windsor Castle, 14th November 1852.

The Queen has received with much satisfaction Mr Disraeli’s
letter of this day’s date, in which he informs her of his readiness
to provide efficiently for the defence of the country, the call
for which is very urgent. Lord Malmesbury, with whom the
Prince has talked very fully over this subject, will communicate
further with Mr Disraeli and Lord Derby on his return to
Town to-morrow.

The Marquis of Dalhousie to Queen Victoria.

LORD DALHOUSIE

Government House, 23rd November 1852.

The Governor-General still retains some hope of seeing
general peace restored in India before he quits it finally, as
your Majesty’s Ministers and the Court of Directors have some
time since requested him not to retire from its administration
in January next, as he had intended to do.

Many private considerations combined to draw him homewards,
even though the honour and the advantages of retaining
this Office were willingly recognised. But the gracious approbation
with which his services here have been viewed was a
sufficient motive for continuing them for some time longer, if
they were thought profitable to the State.

Your Majesty has very recently been pleased to bestow upon
him a still further distinction, which calls not merely for the
expression of his deep and humble gratitude to your Majesty,
but for a further devotion to your Majesty’s service of whatever
power he may possess for promoting its interests.

That your Majesty should prefer him at all to an Office of
such traditional distinction as the Wardenship was an honour
to which the Governor-General would never at any time have
dreamt of aspiring. But by conferring it upon him thus—during
his absence—and above all, by conferring it upon him
in immediate succession to one whom he must all his life regard
with reverence, affection, and gratitude—your Majesty has
surrounded this honour with so much of honourable circumstance
that the Governor-General is wholly unable to give full
expression to the feelings with which he has received your
Majesty’s goodness.

[page 401]

The Governor-General is very sensible that in him, as Lord
Warden, your Majesty will have but a sorry successor to the
Duke of Wellington in every respect, save one. But in that
one respect—namely in deep devotion to your Majesty’s Crown,
and to the true interests of your Empire—the Governor-General
does not yield even to the Master he was long so proud to
follow.

INDIA AND THE DUKE

In every part of India the highest honours have been paid
to the memory of the Duke of Wellington, which your Majesty’s
Empire in the East and its armies could bestow.

Even the Native Powers have joined in the homage to his
fame. In the mountains of Nepaul the same sad tribute was
rendered by the Maharajah as by ourselves, while in Mysore
the Rajah not only fired minute guns in his honour, but even
caused the Dusserah, the great Hindoo festival, to be stopped
throughout the city, in token of his grief.

Excepting the usual disturbance from time to time among
the still untamed mountain tribes upon our north-western
border, there is entire tranquillity in India. The season has
been good, and the revenue is improving.

Respectfully acknowledging the letter which he had lately
the honour of receiving from your Majesty, and the gracious
message it contained to Lady Dalhousie, who, though much
improved in health, will be compelled to return to England in
January, the Governor-General has the honour to subscribe
himself with the utmost respect and gratitude, your Majesty’s
most obedient, most humble, and devoted Subject and Servant,

Dalhousie.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

THE FUNERAL

Windsor Castle, 23rd November 1852.

My dearest Uncle,—What you say about Joinville has
interested us very much, and we have confidentially communicated
it to Lord Derby, who is never alarmed enough. There
is, however, a belief that the Orleans family have been very
imprudent, and that Louis Napoleon has heard things and
expressions used which did a great deal of harm, and Lord
Derby begged me to warn them very strongly and earnestly
on this point; I cannot do much, but I think you might, for
in fact they might unintentionally compromise us seriously. The
Government are rather shaky; Disraeli has been imprudent
and blundering, and has done himself harm by a Speech he
made about the Duke of Wellington, which was borrowed from
an éloge by Thiers on a French Marshal!!!⁴⁶

[page 402]

You will have heard from your children and from Charles
how very touching the ceremony both in and out of doors was
on the 18th. The behaviour of the millions assembled has been
the topic of general admiration, and the foreigners have all
assured me that they never could have believed such a number
of people could have shown such feeling, such respect, for not
a sound was heard! I cannot say what a deep and wehmtühige
impression it made on me! It was a beautiful sight. In the
Cathedral it was much more touching still! The dear old
Duke! he is an irreparable loss!

We had a great dinner yesterday to all the Officers. There
is but one feeling of indignation and surprise at the conduct of
Austria ⁴⁷ in taking this opportunity to slight England in return
for what happened to Haynau⁴⁸ for his own character. Ernest
Hohenlohe was extremely anxious you should know the reason
why he may possibly appear one evening at the Elysée (they
are gone for three or four days to Paris).

Louis Napoleon being excessively susceptible, and believing
us to be inimical towards him, we and the Government thought
it would not be wise or prudent for my brother-in-law, just
coming from here, purposely to avoid him and go out of his
way, which Louis Napoleon would immediately say was my
doing; and unnecessary offence we do not wish to give; the
more so as Stockmar was presented to him at Strasburg, and
received the Légion d’honneur. I promised to explain this to
you, as Ernest was distressed lest he should appear to be timeserving,
and I said I was sure you would understand it.

I must end in a hurry, hoping to write again on Thursday
or Friday. Dear Stockmar is very well and most kind. He is
much pleased at your children spending some time with him
every day. Ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 46: Marshal Gouvion de St Cyr.

Footnote 47: In sending no representative to the funeral of the Duke of Wellington.

Footnote 48: See ante, p. 267.

The Earl of Derby to Queen Victoria.

CONFUSION OF PARTIES

Downing Street, 25th November 1852.

(Thursday, four p.m.)

Lord Derby, with his humble duty, in obedience to your
Majesty’s gracious commands of this morning, proceeds to
report to your Majesty what he finds to have taken place and
to be in contemplation; but the accounts of the latter are
so conflicting and contradictory, that his report must be as
unsatisfactory to your Majesty as the state of the case is
unintelligible to himself.

[page 403]

On arriving in London, Lord Derby called on Mr Disraeli,
and found that late last night he had had, by his own desire,
a private interview with Lord Palmerston, who had come to his
house with that object; that Lord Palmerston’s language was
perfectly friendly towards the Government; that he assured
Mr Disraeli that his only object in offering his Amendment was
to defeat Mr Villiers; that if that could be done, it was a matter
of indifference to him which Amendment was adopted; and
he concluded by declaring that though he sat by Mr Sidney
Herbert in the House of Commons, and was an old personal
friend, he did not act in concert with him or with Mr Gladstone;
and that he did not see, on their part, any disposition
to approach the Government! After this declaration Mr
Disraeli felt that it would be useless and unwise to sound him
farther as to his own ulterior views, and the conversation led to
nothing.

As Lord Derby was walking home, he was overtaken by Lord
Jocelyn, who stated, in direct opposition to what had been said
by Lord Palmerston, that he, and the other two gentlemen
named, were consulted upon, and had concocted the proposed
Amendment; and that they were decidedly acting together.
He was present at a dinner of the Peelite Party yesterday at
Mr Wortley’s, when Speeches were made, and language held
about the reunion of the Conservative Party, resulting, however,
in a declaration that if your Majesty’s servants did not
accept Lord Palmerston’s Amendment, they, as a body, would
vote in favour of Mr Villiers. Lord Derby has been farther
informed that they are willing to join the Government, but
that one of their conditions would be that Lord Palmerston
should lead the House of Commons, Mr Gladstone refusing to
serve under Mr Disraeli. This, if true, does not look like an
absence of all concert.

To complete the general confusion of Parties, the Duke of
Bedford, who called on Lady Derby this morning, assures her
that Lord John Russell does not desire the fall of your Majesty’s
present Government, and that in no case will he enter into any
combination with the Radical Party, a declaration quite at
variance with the course he has pursued since Parliament met.

Of course Lord Derby, in these circumstances, has not taken
any step whatever towards exercising the discretion with
which your Majesty was graciously pleased to entrust him this
morning.⁴⁹ He much regrets having to send your Majesty so
unsatisfactory a statement, and has desired to have the latest
[page 404]
intelligence sent up to him of what may pass in the House of
Commons, and he will endeavour to keep your Majesty informed
of any new occurrence which any hour may produce.

Half-past six.

Lord Derby has just heard from the House of Commons
that Sir James Graham has given the history of the framing of
the Amendment, and has expressed his intention, if Lord
Palmerston’s Amendment be accepted, to advise Mr Villiers
to withdraw. Mr Gladstone has held the same language;
there appears to be much difference of opinion, but Lord
Derby would think that the probable result will be the adoption
of Lord Palmerston’s proposition. He fears this will lead
to a good deal of discontent among the supporters of the
Government; but a different course would run imminent risk
of defeat.

Footnote 49: The Queen had allowed him to enter into negotiations with the Peelites and Lord
Palmerston on the distinct understanding that the latter could not receive the lead of the
House of Commons.

Mr Disraeli to Queen Victoria.

LORD PALMERSTON

House of Commons, 26th November 1852.

(Half-past one o’clock a.m.)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his humble duty to
your Majesty, reports to your Majesty that the House of
Commons has this moment divided on Mr Villiers’ resolution,
and in a House of nearly 600 members they have been rejected
by a majority of 80.⁵⁰

The debate was very animated and amusing, from the rival
narratives of the principal projectors of the demonstration,
who, having quarrelled among themselves, entered into secret
and—in a Party sense—somewhat scandalous revelations, to
the diversion and sometimes astonishment of the House.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer deeply regrets that, having
been obliged to quit the House early yesterday, he was unable
to forward a bulletin to your Majesty.

He has fixed next Friday for the Budget.

Footnote 50: Lord Palmerston’s Amendment (See ante, p. 399.)
was carried instead, and Protection was thenceforward abandoned by
Mr Disraeli and his followers.

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

MR DISRAELI AND MR GLADSTONE

Windsor Castle, 28th November 1852.

Before the Council held yesterday we saw Lord Derby, who
seemed much pleased with the result of the Division, though
a good deal galled by the tone of the Debate.

Lord Derby had heard it said that Mr Sidney Herbert,
[page 405]
although very bitter in his language, had not meant to be
hostile to the Government, but felt that he owed the duty to
speak out to the memory of Sir Robert Peel; that he was glad
to have thrown the load off his mind. Lord Derby then read
us a letter from Lord Claud Hamilton, who had seen Mr Corry
(one of the Peelites), who had given him to understand that
they would not serve under the leadership of Mr Disraeli; that
they were ready, on the other hand, to serve under Lord
Palmerston. This put all further negotiation out of the
question, for, independently of the Queen objecting to such
an arrangement, he himself could not admit of it. On my
question why Mr Gladstone could not lead, he replied that
Mr Gladstone was, in his opinion, quite unfit for it; he had
none of that decision, boldness, readiness, and clearness which
was necessary to lead a Party, to inspire it with confidence,
and, still [more], to take at times a decision on the spur of the
moment, which a leader had often to do. Then he said that
he could not in honour sacrifice Mr Disraeli, who had acted
very straightforwardly to him as long as they had had anything
to do with each other, and who possessed the confidence of his
followers. Mr Disraeli had no idea of giving up the lead.

We could quite understand, on the other hand, that the
colleagues of Sir Robert Peel could not feel inclined to serve
under Mr Disraeli.

Under these circumstances we agreed that nothing should be
done at present, and that it must be left to time to operate
changes, that much must depend upon the success which Mr
Disraeli may have with his Budget, and that the knowledge
that Lord Palmerston could not obtain the lead would oblige
those who wished to join to think of a different combination.

Lord Derby owned (upon my blunt question) that he did not
think Mr Disraeli had ever had a strong feeling, one way or
the other, about Protection or Free Trade, and that he would
make a very good Free Trade Minister.

The Queen was anxious to know what Lord Derby thought
Lord George Bentinck (if now alive) would do in this conjunction.
Lord Derby’s expression was “he would have made
confusion worse confounded” from his excessive violence.

Albert.

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Malmesbury.

RECOGNITION OF THE EMPIRE

Osborne, 2nd December 1852.

The Queen has received Lord Malmesbury’s letter, and returns
the enclosure from Lord Cowley. Under these circumstances
[page 406]
the course recommended to be pursued by Lord
Malmesbury⁵¹ appears also to the Queen as the best. It is
evident that we have no means of making Louis Napoleon say
what he will not, nor would any diplomatic form of obtaining
an assurance from him give us any guarantee of his not doing
after all exactly what he pleases. Our honour appears therefore
to be best in our own keeping. Whatever he may say,
it is in our note of recognition that we must state what we
recognise
and what we do not recognise.

Footnote 51: Lord Malmesbury advised that a formal repetition of the interpretation and assurances
as to the use of the numeral “III” in the Imperial title, already verbally made by the
President and the French Ambassador, should be demanded. This was duly obtained.
On the 2nd of December, the anniversary of the coup d’état, the Imperial title was assumed;
on the 4th, the Empire was officially recognised.

The Earl of Derby to Queen Victoria.

St James’s Square, 3rd December 1852.
(Friday night, twelve o’clock p.m.)

Lord Derby, with his humble duty, ventures to hope that
your Majesty may feel some interest in hearing, so far as he
is able to give it, his impression of the effect of Mr Disraeli’s
announcement of the Budget⁵² this evening. Lord Derby was
not able to hear quite the commencement of the Speech, having
been obliged to attend the House of Lords, which, however,
was up at a quarter past five, Mr Disraeli having then been
speaking about half an hour. From that time till ten, when
he sat down, Lord Derby was in the House of Commons, and
anxiously watching the effect produced, which he ventures to
assure your Majesty was most favourable, according to his
own judgment after some considerable experience in Parliament,
and also from what he heard from others. Mr Disraeli
spoke for about five hours, with no apparent effort, with
perfect self-possession, and with hardly an exception to the
fixed attention with which the House listened to the exposition
of the views of your Majesty’s servants. It was altogether a
most masterly performance, and he kept alive the attention of
the House with the greatest ability, introducing the most
important statements, and the broadest principles of legislature,
just at the moments when he had excited the greatest
anxiety to learn the precise measures which the Government
intended to introduce. The Irish part of the question was
dealt with with remarkable dexterity, though probably a great
part of the point will be lost in the newspaper reports. It is
difficult to foresee the ultimate result, but Lord Derby has no
[page 407]
hesitation in saying that the general first impression was very
favourable, and that, as a whole, the Budget seemed to meet
with the approval of the House.

Footnote 52: Increase of the House Tax, reduction of the Malt and Tea duties, and relaxation of
Income Tax in the case of farmers, were the salient features of the Budget.

Queen Victoria to the Emperor of the French.

THE QUEEN TO THE EMPEROR

Osborne House, 4th December 1852.

Sir, my Brother,—Being desirous to maintain uninterrupted
the union and good understanding which happily
subsist between Great Britain and France, I have made choice
of Lord Cowley, a peer of my United Kingdom, a member of
my Privy Council, and Knight Commander of the Most Honourable
Order of the Bath, to reside at your Imperial Majesty’s
Court in the character of my Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary. The long experience which I have had of his
talents and zeal for my service assures me that the choice
which I have made of Lord Cowley will be perfectly agreeable
to your Imperial Majesty, and that he will prove himself worthy
of this new mark of my confidence. I request that your
Imperial Majesty will give entire credence to all that Lord
Cowley shall communicate to you on my part, more especially
when he shall assure your Imperial Majesty of my invariable
attachment and esteem, and shall express to you those sentiments
of sincere friendship and regard with which I am, Sir,
my Brother, your Imperial Majesty’s good Sister,

Victoria R.

To my good Brother,⁵³ the Emperor of the French.

Footnote 53: The Czar persisted in addressing him as Mon cher Ami.

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Malmesbury.

Osborne, 6th December 1852.

The Queen has this morning received Lord Malmesbury’s
letter of yesterday, relative to Count Walewski’s audience.
The manner in which Lord Malmesbury proposes this should
be done the Queen approves, and only wishes Lord Malmesbury
to communicate with the proper authorities in order that
the Fairy may be at Southampton at the right hour, and the
Frigate, as suggested, in attendance off Osborne or Cowes,
according to what the weather may be. The landing at
Osborne Pier, in wet or stormy weather, is very bad, particularly
for a lady.

The Queen wishes that the Count and Countess Walewski
[page 408]
should come down here with Lord Malmesbury on Thursday
next, and we should receive them at half-past one. We wish
then that they should all three dine and sleep here that day.

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Malmesbury.

A SECRET PROTOCOL

Osborne, 8th December 1852.

The Queen was very much surprised to receive this morning
in a box from Lord Malmesbury, without any further explanation,
a secret Protocol⁵⁴ signed by the representatives of the
four great Powers at the Foreign Office on the 3rd instant.

A step of such importance should not have been taken without
even the intention of it having been previously mentioned
to the Queen, and her leave having been obtained. She must
therefore ask for an explanation from Lord Malmesbury.
Though the purport of the Protocol appears to the Queen quite
right, she ought not to allow the honour of England to be
pledged by her Minister without her sanction.

The exact wording of a document of that nature is a matter
of such serious importance that it requires the greatest
consideration, and it is a question with the Queen whether
it be always quite safe to adopt entirely what is proposed
by Baron Brunnow, who is generally the rédacteur of such
documents.

Footnote 54: By this Protocol Louis Napoleon was to be recognised as Emperor by Great Britain,
Austria, Prussia, and Russia.

The Earl of Malmesbury to Queen Victoria.

Foreign Office, 13th December 1852.

Lord Malmesbury presents his humble duty to the Queen.
He thought it advisable to acquaint your Majesty as soon as
possible with a conversation which Count Walewski had held
of his own accord in reference to Her Serene Highness the
Princess Adelaide of Hohenlohe,⁵⁵ and he requested Lord Derby
to repeat it to your Majesty.

Lord Malmesbury was not mistaken in believing that the
Count had not alluded idly to the subject, as he this day called
on Lord Malmesbury, and stated to him that the Emperor of
the French had not decided to negotiate a marriage with the
Princess of Wasa;⁵⁶ but, on the contrary, was rather averse to
such an alliance; that he was anxious, on the contrary, to
[page 409]
make one which indirectly “resserrerait les liens d’amitié entre
l’Angleterre et la France,” and that with this view he wished
Lord Malmesbury to ascertain from your Majesty whether
any objections would be raised on the part of your Majesty, or of
the Princess Adelaide’s family, to his contracting a marriage
with Her Serene Highness. Your Majesty may suppose that
he received this intimation by a simple assurance that he would
submit the French Emperor’s sentiments to your Majesty,
and he added that he foresaw a serious difficulty to the
project in the fact that the Princess was a Protestant.
Count Walewski was evidently sincere in the earnestness with
which he spoke of the subject, and the impatience with which
he pressed Lord Malmesbury to inform your Majesty of his
proposal.

Footnote 55: The Queen’s niece, daughter of Princess Hohenlohe.

Footnote 56: The Princess Caroline Stéphanie, daughter of Prince Gustavus de Wasa, who was son
of the last King of Sweden of the earlier dynasty.

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby.

THE EMPEROR’S PROPOSED MARRIAGE

Osborne, 14th December 1852.

The Queen sends to Lord Derby a communication which
she has received from Lord Malmesbury.

The Queen is sorry to have been put in a situation which
requires on her part a direct answer, which to have been spared
would have been in every respect more prudent and safe. As
it is, however, the Queen is fully aware that the answer she
is forced to give may really have, or may hereafter be made
appear to have, political consequences disadvantageous to our
political relations with France, and injurious to the Queen’s
personal character.

The Queen therefore encloses for Lord Derby a draft of the
answer she intends to give to Lord Malmesbury,⁵⁷ asking that
Lord Derby will not only give these matters his fullest consideration,
but that he will return to the Queen the draft as
soon as possible, with such of his suggestions or alterations as
he may think advisable to propose to her.

The Queen must also express her decided wish that Lord
[page 410]
Derby will not allow Lord Malmesbury to move a single step
in this affair without it has been previously concerted with
Lord Derby.⁵⁸

Footnote 57:

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Malmesbury.

[Draft.]

Osborne, 14th December 1852.

The Queen has received Lord Malmesbury’s letter of yesterday, reporting his conversation
with Count Walewski, who had asked him to ascertain from the Queen “whether
any objections would be raised on her part or on that of the Princess Adelaide’s family to
his (the Emperor’s) contracting a marriage with Her Serene Highness.”

In a question which affects the entire prospects and happiness of a third person, and that
person being a near and dear relation of hers, the Queen feels herself conscientiously precluded
from forming an opinion of her own, and consequently from taking the slightest
part in it either directly or indirectly. The only proper persons to refer to for the consideration
of and decision on so serious a proposal are the parents of the Princess and the
Princess herself.

Footnote 58: In his reply Lord Derby observed that it did not appear to him that the matter
was at present in so critical a position. Lord Malmesbury would have little difficulty in
showing Count Walewski, without any interruption of a friendly entente, that the intended
overtures were not likely to be favourably received. He suggested that Lord Malmesbury
should be instructed to treat the proposition as emanating, not from the Emperor, but
unofficially, from Count Walewski; and that he should, also unofficially, dissuade him from
pressing the subject further; such course could have no injurious effect upon the political
aspect of Europe. Lord Derby could not understand how the affair, however it might
turn out, could affect the Queen’s “personal character.”

He suggested that the following words should be substituted for the last paragraph:
“And while she fully appreciates the desire expressed by Count Walewski on the part
of his Government, ‘de resserrer les liens de l’amitié entre l’Angleterre et la France,’ she feels
bound to leave the consideration and decision of so serious a proposal to the unbiassed
judgment of the parents of the Princess and the Princess herself, the only persons to whom
such a question can properly be referred. The Queen thinks it right to add that being
fully persuaded of the strong religious persuasion of the Princess, of the extreme improbability
of any change of opinion on her part, and of the evils inseparable from a difference
of opinion on such a subject between the Emperor and his intended Consort, she wishes
Lord Malmesbury to place this consideration prominently before Count Walewski, before
he takes any other step in the matter, which he appears to have brought unofficially under
the consideration of Lord Malmesbury.”

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby.

THE QUEEN AND LORD MALMESBURY

Osborne, 16th December 1852.

The Queen has received Lord Derby’s letter of the 14th inst.
She did not intend to complain personally of Lord Malmesbury,
who, the Queen is sure, was most anxious to do the best he
could under the circumstances; but she still thinks that a
question of such importance should not have been brought
immediately before her for her decision; and although Lord
Derby states his opinion that Lord Malmesbury had no alternative
but to promise to Count Walewski that he would bring
“the Emperor’s sentiments before the Queen,” the very suggestion
Lord Derby now makes, viz. “that Lord Malmesbury
should be instructed to treat the proposition as emanating, not
from the Emperor, but unofficially from Count Walewski,
and that he should also unofficially dissuade him from pressing
the matter further”—shows that there was an alternative.

Lord Derby and Lord Malmesbury alone can know, whether,
after what may have passed in conversation between Lord Malmesbury
and Count Walewski, this course still remains open.

THE QUEEN’S OPINION

There can be no doubt that the best thing would be to
terminate this affair without the Queen being called upon to
give any opinion at all.

Lord Derby seems to treat the matter as of much less importance
than the Queen, but he will admit that, if the alliance
is sought by the Emperor, “pour resserrer les liens d’amitié
entre la France et l’Angleterre,” the refusal of it on the part of
[page 411]
the Queen must also have the opposite effect. The responsibility
of having produced this effect would rest personally with
the Queen, who might be accused of having brought it about,
influenced by personal feelings of animosity against the Emperor,
or by mistaken friendship for the Orleans family, or misplaced
family pride, etc., etc., etc. The acceptance of the
proposal, on the other hand, or even the consummation of the
project without her direct intervention, cannot fail to expose the
Queen to a share in the just opprobrium attaching in the eyes
of all right-thinking men to the political acts perpetrated in
France ever since 2nd December 1851. And, while it would
appear as if her Family did not care for any such considerations,
so long as by an alliance they could secure momentary
advantages, it would give the other Powers of Europe, whom
the Emperor seems to be disposed to treat very unceremoniously
(as shown by Lord Cowley’s last reports) the impression that
England suddenly had separated herself from them, and bound
herself to France for a family interest pursued by the Queen.

These are the dangers to “the Queen’s personal character,”
which presented themselves to her mind when she wrote
her last letter, and which Lord Derby says remained unintelligible
to him.

The Queen wishes Lord Derby to show this letter to Lord
Malmesbury, whom, under the circumstances, she thinks it
best not to address separately. They will be now both in the
fullest possession of the Queen’s sentiments, and she hopes
will be able to terminate this matter without the expression
of an opinion on the part of the Queen becoming necessary.

The Earl of Derby to Queen Victoria.

DEFEAT OF THE MINISTRY

St James’s Square, 17th December 1852.

(4 a.m.)

Lord Derby, with his humble duty, regrets to have to submit
to your Majesty that the House of Commons, from which he
has this moment returned, has rejected the resolution for the
increase of the House Tax, by a majority of either nineteen or
twenty-one.⁵⁹ This majority is so decisive, especially having
been taken on a question which was understood to involve the
fate of the Government, as to leave Lord Derby no alternative
as to the course which it will be his duty to pursue; and
although, as a matter of form, it is necessary that he should
[page 412]
consult his Colleagues, for which purpose he has desired that
a Cabinet should be summoned for twelve o’clock, he can
entertain no doubt but that their opinion will unanimously
concur with his own; that he must humbly ask leave to resign
into your Majesty’s hands the high trust which your Majesty
has been pleased to repose in him. Lord Derby, with your
Majesty’s permission, will endeavour to do himself the honour
of attending your Majesty’s pleasure this evening; but it is
possible that he may not be able to find the means of crossing,⁶⁰
in which case he trusts that your Majesty will honour him
with an audience to-morrow (Saturday) morning. Lord Derby
trusts he need not assure your Majesty how deeply he feels the
inconvenience and annoyance which this event will occasion
to your Majesty, nor how anxious will be his desire that your
Majesty should be enabled with the least possible delay to
form an Administration possessing more of the public confidence.
He will never cease to retain the deepest and most
grateful sense of the gracious favour and support which he has
on all occasions received at your Majesty’s hands, and which
he deeply regrets that he has been unable to repay by longer
and more efficient service.

Footnote 59: This memorable debate and its sensational ending, with the notable speeches from
Disraeli and Gladstone, has been repeatedly described. See, e.g., Morley’s Gladstone
and McCarthy’s History of our own Times. The Times leader (quoted by Mr Morley)
was cut out and preserved by the Queen.

Footnote 60: To Osborne.

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

LORD DERBY’S RESIGNATION

Osborne, 18th December 1852.

Yesterday evening Lord Derby arrived from Town formally
to tender his resignation. We retired to the Queen’s room
after dinner with him to hear what he had to say on the crisis.
He complained of the factiousness of the Opposition, which he
and his Party hoped, however, not to imitate; was ready to
support, as far as he could, any Administration which was
sincerely anxious to check the growth of democracy. He said
his calculations at the close of the Elections had been found
almost to a man verified in the late vote: 286 members voting
with the Government, and these were their regular supporters;
the other half of the House was composed of 150 Radicals, 50
of the so-called Irish Brigade, 120 Whigs, and 30 Peelites. It
was clear that, if all these combined, he would be outvoted,
though none of these Parties alone numbered as much as half
of his. However, he had heard lately from good authority
that the Whigs and Peelites had come to an agreement, and
were ready to form an Administration on Conservative principles,
to the exclusion of the Radicals, under the lead of
Lord Aberdeen. Although only 150 strong, they thought,
[page 413]
that with all the talent they had at their command, they would
be able to obtain the confidence of the country, and hold the
balance between the two extreme Parties in the House. He
felt that after having failed to obtain the confidence of Parliament
himself, he could do nothing else than retire at once,
and he advised the Queen to send for Lord Lansdowne, who
knew better than anybody the state of Parties, and would give
the best advice. He did not advise the Queen to send for
Lord Aberdeen at once, because, if it were reported that he
had given this advice, many of his Party—who had already
been distressed at his declaration to them that if he was defeated
he would withdraw from public life—would think it
necessary to join Lord Aberdeen as their new appointed leader;
and then the other half, which felt the deepest indignation
at the treatment they had received from the Peelites, would
throw themselves into a reckless alliance with the Radicals,
to revenge themselves upon the new Government, so the great
Conservative Party would be broken up, which it was so
essential for the country to keep together and moderate.

I interrupted Lord Derby, saying that, constitutionally
speaking, it did not rest with him to give advice and become
responsible for it, and that nobody therefore could properly
throw the responsibility of the Queen’s choice of a new Minister
upon him; the Queen had thought of sending for Lord Lansdowne
and Lord Aberdeen together. This, Lord Derby said,
would do very well; he knew that, strictly speaking, the
Sovereign acted upon her own responsibility, but it was always
said on such occasions, for instance, “Lord John advised the
Queen to send for Lord Derby,” etc., etc.

He then gave it rather jokingly as his opinion that he thought
less than 32 could hardly be the number of the new Cabinet,
so many former Ministers would expect to be taken in; the
Whigs said 36. Lord John Russell was designated for the
Home Office, Lord Canning for the Foreign, Mr Gladstone for
the Colonial Department, Lord Clanricarde for the Post Office,
Lord Granville for Ireland. These were the reports.

Albert.

Queen Victoria to the Marquis of Lansdowne.

Osborne, 18th December 1852.

The Queen has received Lord Lansdowne’s letter, from
which she was very sorry to learn that he is suffering from
the gout. Although the Queen was very anxious to have
consulted with him before taking a definite step for the formation
of a new Government consequent on the resignation of
[page 414]
Lord Derby, she would have been very unhappy if Lord
Lansdowne had exposed his health to any risk in order to
gratify her wishes. Time pressing, she has now sent a telegraphic
message to Lord Aberdeen to come down here alone,
which, from the terms of the Queen’s first summons, he had
thought himself precluded from doing. Should Lord Lansdowne
not be able to move soon, Lord Aberdeen will confer
with him by the Queen’s desire immediately on his return to
Town.

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

LORD ABERDEEN SUMMONED

Osborne, 19th December 1852.

Lord Aberdeen arrived here at three o’clock and reported
that he had seen Lord Lansdowne, and had come to a perfect
understanding with him; he had also consulted with his
friends, and with Lord John Russell. It would now depend
upon the decision of the Queen whom she would charge with
the formation of a Government. The Queen answered that
she thought Lord Lansdowne was too old and infirm to undertake
such arduous duties, and that she commissioned Lord
Aberdeen. He replied he was fully aware of his own unworthiness
for the task, and had expressed his disinclination to Lord
Lansdowne, while Lord Lansdowne, on the other hand, had
pressed him to take the responsibility himself; but since the
Queen had commissioned him, he wished to say that it was
of the greatest importance that only one person should be
charged with the task and be responsible for it, and that the
new Government should not be a revival of the old Whig
Cabinet with an addition of some Peelites, but should be a
liberal Conservative Government in the sense of that of Sir
Robert Peel; he thought this would meet with the confidence
of the country, even if excluding the Radicals. Lord Aberdeen
said he meant to propose to the Queen Lord John Russell as
Leader of the House of Commons and Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs, which he thinks he would accept. (The Queen
sanctioned this.) He would then consult Lord John upon his
appointments, but he (Lord Aberdeen) would be responsible,
taking care that Lord John should be satisfied. There was
no doubt that Lord John had full claims to be Prime Minister
again, but that he could give him no greater proof of confidence,
having been his opponent all his life, than to give him the lead
of the House of Commons, which made him virtually as much
Prime Minister as he pleased, and the Foreign Office combined
with it would satisfy Lord John as following the precedent of
Mr Fox. The Peelites would not have served under Lord
[page 415]
Lansdowne, much less under Lord John; but a great many
Whigs even objected to Lord John. This was a temporary
and undeserved unpopularity, and still Lord John remained
the first man in the country, and might be Prime Minister
again. The Peelites would know and learn to respect him
when meeting him in office. Lord Aberdeen hoped even many
Conservatives now going with Lord Derby would support such
a Government, but to preserve to it a Conservative character,
two Secretaries of State at least must be Peelites.

We next talked of Lord Palmerston, whom we agreed it
would be imprudent to leave to combine in opposition with
Mr Disraeli. Lord Aberdeen had thought of Ireland for him;
we felt sure he would not accept that. I gave Lord Aberdeen
a list of the possible distribution of offices, which I had drawn
up, and which he took with him as containing “valuable
suggestions.” He hoped the Queen would allow him to
strengthen himself in the House of Lords, where there was
nobody to cope with Lord Derby, by the translation of Sir
James Graham or Mr S. Herbert, if he should find this necessary.
Sir James might gain in moving from the House of
Commons, as he lately fettered himself with inconvenient
Radical pledges. He felt he would have great difficulty in
the formation of his Government, for although everybody
promised to forget his personal wishes and interests, yet when
brought to the test such professions were often belied. The
difficulty of measures lies chiefly in the Budget, as the Income
Tax would have to be settled, and he was anxious to keep a
good surplus. As to Reform, he felt that, considering the
Queen to have recommended it by a Speech from the Throne,
and Lord John to have actually introduced a Measure as
Prime Minister, the door could not be closed against it; but
it might be postponed for the present, and there was no real
wish for it in the country.

He was very sorry that the Government had been upset,
and if the Budget had been such that it could have been
accepted he should much have preferred it. Lord Derby
seemed very much offended with him personally for his speech
in the House of Lords. Lord Aberdeen kissed hands, and
started again at four o’clock.

The Earl of Aberdeen to Queen Victoria.

LORD ABERDEEN

(Undated.)⁶¹

Lord Aberdeen, with his humble duty, begs to inform your
Majesty, that on his return from Osborne last night, he saw
[page 416]
Lord Lansdowne and Lord John Russell, and found them inLORD JOHN RUSSELL
the same disposition with respect to the formation of the new
Administration. This morning, however, Lord John Russell,
partly from an apprehension of the fatigue of the Foreign
Office, and partly from the effect likely to be produced on his
political friends by his acceptance of office, has expressed his
unwillingness to form part of the Administration, although
anxious to give it his best support. Lord Aberdeen has discussed
this matter very fully with Lord John, and has requested
him not to decide finally until to-morrow morning,
which he had promised accordingly. In the meantime, Lord
Aberdeen humbly submits to your Majesty that his position
is materially affected by this irresolution on the part of Lord
John. Had he not felt warranted in relying upon Lord John’s
co-operation, he would not have ventured to speak to your
Majesty with the confidence he yesterday evinced. With the
most earnest desire to devote himself to your Majesty’s service,
it becomes doubtful whether he could honestly venture to
attempt the execution of your Majesty’s commands should
Lord John persevere in his present intention. At all events,
nothing further can be done until this matter shall be decided;
and Lord Aberdeen will have the honour of reporting the result
to your Majesty.

Footnote 61: Apparently written on the 20th of December 1852.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

Chesham Place, 20th December 1852.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and is grateful for your Majesty’s condescension in informing
him that your Majesty has charged the Earl of Aberdeen with
the duty of constructing a Government.

Lord John Russell is desirous of seeing a durable Government,
and he will consider with the utmost care how far he
can, consistently with his own honour and his health and
strength, contribute to this end.⁶²

Footnote 62: He consulted Lord Lansdowne, and Macaulay, happening to call, threw his influence
into the scale in favour of his serving under Aberdeen (Walpole’s Russell, chap, xxiii.).

Mr Disraeli to the Prince Albert.

MR DISRAELI AND PRINCE ALBERT

Downing Street, 20th December 1852.

Sir,—I have the honour to return to your Royal Highness
the State paper⁶³ which your Royal Highness entrusted to me.
I have not presumed to keep a copy of it, but my memory is
[page 417]
familiar with its contents, and in case hereafter there may be
any opportunity formed to forward the views of your Royal
Highness in this respect, I may perhaps be permitted, if necessary,
again to refer to the document.

I hope I am not presumptuous if, on this occasion, I offer
to your Royal Highness my grateful acknowledgments of the
condescending kindness which I have received from your Royal
Highness.

I may, perhaps, be permitted to say that the views which
your Royal Highness had developed to me in confidential
conversation have not fallen on an ungrateful soil. I shall
ever remember with interest and admiration the princely mind
in the princely person, and shall at all times be prepared to
prove to your Royal Highness my devotion. I have the
honour to remain, Sir, your Royal Highness’s most obedient
Servant,

B. Disraeli.

Footnote 63: It is impossible to ascertain what this was; it was probably one of the Prince’s political
Memoranda.

The Earl of Aberdeen to Queen Victoria.

London, 20th December 1852.

Lord Aberdeen, with his humble duty, begs to inform your
Majesty that Lord John Russell has finally decided not to
undertake the Foreign Office, being influenced, Lord Aberdeen
fully believes, by domestic considerations, and contrary to the
advice of all the most important of his political friends. Lord
Lansdowne has done his utmost to shake the resolution, but
in vain. Lord John proposes to be in the Cabinet, without
office, but to lead the Government business in the House of
Commons. Lord Aberdeen thinks this arrangement objectionable,
and a novelty, although the Duke of Wellington
was Leader in the House of Lords for two years without office
when Lord Hill was Commander-in-Chief. If the arrangement
should be found untenable in a Parliamentary view, Lord John
would consent to accept a nominal office, such as Chancellor
of the Duchy. It is with great regret that Lord Aberdeen
makes this announcement to your Majesty, as his own position
is greatly weakened by this change; but he does not think it
a sufficient reason for abandoning the attempt to serve your
Majesty, which he feared might have been the case if Lord
John had persevered in his intention of not forming part of
the Administration.

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby.

THE QUEEN’S ANXIETY

Osborne, 21st December 1852.

The Queen has to acknowledge the receipt of Lord Derby’s
letter. She has since read his Speech in the House of Lords
[page 418]
announcing his resignation most attentively, and must express
her doubts, whether that Speech was calculated to render
easier the difficult task which has been thrown upon the Queen
by the resignation of her late Government.⁶⁴

Footnote 64: Lord Derby severely attacked Lord Aberdeen, in his absence, and declared himself
the victim of a factious combination.

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Aberdeen.

Osborne, 21st December 1852.

The Queen received Lord Aberdeen’s letter early this morning,
the contents of which have filled her with no little anxiety.

Still, she relies on the spirit of patriotism which she knows
animates all the parties concerned, and which she feels sure
will ultimately prevail over all difficulties, and enable a strong
Government to be formed, which the country so earnestly
demands and requires. The Queen is not surprised at Lord
John Russell’s fearing the fatigue of the Foreign Office, together
with the lead in the House of Commons, which Lord
Aberdeen’s wish to show him entire confidence had prompted
him to offer to Lord John; but this difficulty, she trusts
might easily be obviated. We intend leaving this place for
Windsor to-morrow morning, and being there by two o’clock.

The Queen would wish to see Lord Aberdeen there in the
course of the afternoon—either at three, four, or five—whichever
time is most convenient to him, and requests him to let
her find a line from him on her arrival, informing her of the
hour at which he will come. Any letter, however, sent by the
bag to-night or by a messenger will reach the Queen here to-morrow
morning, as we do not go before a quarter to ten, and
the Queen trusts therefore that Lord Aberdeen will let her
hear as soon as possible how matters stand.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Osborne, 21st December 1852.

My dearest Uncle,—Many thanks for your dear and kind
letter of the 17th, which was as ever full of love and affection;
but you know very well that your affectionate child will never
allow any mention of your “leaving the premises.” You
know—too well—how sacred duties of any kind are, and above
all, those of a King, and in these days; and how impossible it is
for us to shirk or abandon any of those duties which God has
imposed on us.

[page 419]

You will have heard of our crisis, and of the resignation of
the Government; its overthrow was inevitable; but we must
now get a strong and durable Government, one combined of
the best Conservatives and Liberals, which is what the country
expects, demands, and requires. Lord Aberdeen has undertaken
the task, but I cannot yet announce, as I wish I could,
the formation of the new Government. Ever your devoted
Niece,

Victoria R.

You will receive a small parcel for my dear Charlotte for
Christmas Eve, and I have directed some prize Christmas beef
to be forwarded to Leo, which I hope he will approve of.

The Earl of Derby to Queen Victoria.

LORD DERBY’S JUSTIFICATION

St James’s Square, 22nd December 1852.

Lord Derby, with his humble duty, learns with the deepest
regret, by the note which he has just had the honour of receiving,
that the statement which he felt it his duty to make in the
House of Lords has appeared to your Majesty not calculated
to render easier the difficult task which has been thrown upon
your Majesty by the resignation of himself and his colleagues.
Lord Derby begs humbly, but most sincerely, to assure your
Majesty that nothing could have been farther from his intention
than to let fall a single word which could increase the difficulties
of the present position. He feels the full extent of those difficulties,
and he may perhaps be forgiven if he entertains a strong
opinion that a due appreciation of their magnitude might have
been expected to have some weight with those Conservative
statesmen, whose opposition thrown into the adverse scale
turned the balance against your Majesty’s servants, and rendered
their retirement from office inevitable. Lord Derby
does not affect to deny that he thinks he has some reason,
personally and politically, to find fault with the course which
they have pursued: but to suffer any such consideration to
influence his public conduct, with regard to the Government
now in process of formation, would be entirely at variance with
his sense of public duty, and inconsistent with the deep gratitude
which he must ever feel for the confidence with which your
Majesty has honoured him. Lord Derby confesses himself at
a loss to understand in what manner Lord Aberdeen can be
enabled to reconcile the many and serious discrepancies, in
matters both of Church and State, which would appear to exist
among his presumed future colleagues; but it will give him
unfeigned satisfaction to see these difficulties surmounted in
[page 420]
such a sense as to enable him to give to the Government his
independent support; and in the meantime it is his determination
honestly to undertake the task, difficult as it must be, of
keeping together a powerful Party, without the excitement of
opposition to a Government by which their own leaders have
been superseded, and of some members of which they think
they have reason to complain; and even to induce that Party
to give it their support, whenever they can do so consistently,
with their own conscientious convictions.

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

THE NEW GOVERNMENT

Windsor Castle, 22nd December 1852.

We arrived here from Osborne at half-past one, and saw Lord
Aberdeen at half-past five, who reported the progress he had
made in the formation of his Government.

The Chancellorship.—He had hoped to be able to offer to Lord
St Leonards to remain, but Lord John Russell insisted, on the
part of his Party (which he personally regretted to have to do),
that the Chancellor should be a Liberal; Lord Aberdeen in
consequence recommended Lord Cranworth.

The Presidency of the Council.—The Duke of Newcastle, who
might have done for Ireland, but whose presence in the House
of Lords would be a great support to Lord Aberdeen.

The Privy Seal.—The Duke of Argyll, to whom he had,
however, not yet applied.

The Secretaries of State.—It appeared that Lord Palmerston
had repented of his decision, for he had addressed Lord Lansdowne,
and told him that he gave him his proxy—putting himself
entirely into his hands, feeling sure that he would take care
of his honour. Lord Lansdowne, who had been throughout
very kind in his exertions to bring about the junction of Parties,
was now engaged to prevail upon him to take the Home Office.
We congratulated Lord Aberdeen upon this symptom, which
augured confidence in his success. Lord Aberdeen said that
when he saw Lord Palmerston, who then declined office,
nothing could have exceeded the expressions of his cordiality;
he had even reminded him that in fact they were great friends
(!!!) of sixty years’ standing, having been at school together.
We could not help laughing heartily at the Harrow Boys and
their friendship. The Foreign Office Lord John had again
positively refused, contrary to the advice of all his friends, and
to please Lady John. This arrangement failing, Lord Clarendon
was to undertake it, but Lord Clarendon was now gone
himself to try to persuade Lord, or rather Lady, John to accept—at
[page 421]
least temporarily—declaring his readiness to take it off his
hands at any time if he should find the work too heavy. Lord
Aberdeen had no hope, however, of Lord Clarendon’s success.
Then there would come the grave Constitutional Question of
establishing the novelty of a Leader in the House of Commons
who held no office. Lord John had seen the danger of being
exposed to the reproach that he had slipped into office without
having gone through the popular ordeal of a re-election, and had
proposed to obviate this by accepting the Stewardship of the
Chiltern Hundreds, and then having himself re-elected for the
City of London. But this would not meet all the objections,
for it would still be considered unconstitutional that he should
lead the business of the Government in the House of Commons
without the responsibility of office. The Leader of the House
of Commons was an irresponsible person, and Lord John’s
saying: “I shall represent you (Lord Aberdeen) in the House
of Commons,” would be equally unconstitutional. Lord John
must therefore be prevailed upon to take the Chancellorship of
the Duchy of Lancaster, though he felt no inclination to become
the successor of Mr Christopher. Lord Aberdeen read a
Memorandum of Lord John’s, containing his political views on
the crisis and the principles of the new Government, of which
he is to send the Queen a copy.

For the Colonial Office.—Lord Aberdeen wavered between
Sir J. Graham and Mr Gladstone; either could be this, or
Chancellor of the Exchequer. Lord John wished Sir James as
Chancellor of the Exchequer. We argued the greater capabilities
of Sir James for the Administration of the Colonies,
and Mr Gladstone for the Finances.

Chancellor of the Exchequer—therefore, Mr Gladstone.

Admiralty—Mr Sidney Herbert.

Board of Control—Sir C. Wood.

Board of Trade—Lord Granville.

Board of Works—Sir F. Baring.

(Baring and Wood being the two men whom Lord John had
insisted on having on the Treasury Bench sitting by his side.)

Postmaster—Lord Canning.

Secretary-at-War—Mr Cardwell.

These would form the Cabinet. Upon Ireland no decision
had been come to, though Lord Granville was generally pointed
out as the best Lord-Lieutenant.

Lord Aberdeen was very much pleased with the entire confidence
existing between him and Lord John. The Budget
would be a formidable difficulty, as in fact the Government
would be an Income Tax Government.

Lord Derby’s intemperate and unconstitutional behaviour
[page 422]
would do no good to the Government; many of his friends were
disgusted. Lord Clanwilliam had called his speech in the
House of Lords “a great outrage.” The Radicals might be
conciliated in some of the lower Offices by the appointment of
Mr Charles Villiers, Sir William Molesworth, and others.

The Earl of Malmesbury to Queen Victoria.

THE EMPEROR OF THE FRENCH

Foreign Office, 23rd December 1852.

Lord Malmesbury presents his humble duty to the Queen,
and considers it right to inform your Majesty that Count
Walewski again asked him yesterday where the Prince of
Hohenlohe was now residing, adding that it was the intention
of the Emperor to send a person to see him, and ascertain his
feelings with respect to a marriage between him and the Princess
Adelaide. Lord Malmesbury confined himself to replying that
he did not know. Lord Malmesbury might perhaps in his
private capacity endeavour to discourage these advances, but
as long as he has the honour of being one of your Majesty’s
Ministers, it appears to him that your Majesty will be personally
the least committed by his interfering as little as possible in the
matter.

The Emperor is becoming extremely irritable at the delay of
the three great Powers in recognising the Empire, and he has
said to M. Hübner that, as they had plenty of time to agree
among themselves what course they should pursue when it
was proclaimed, he cannot understand how Austria and Prussia
can in the face of Europe humiliate themselves by waiting for
the orders of Russia—”les ordres de la Russie.”

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Malmesbury.

Windsor Castle, 23rd December 1852.

The Queen has received Lord Malmesbury’s letter. She
thinks he is acting very judiciously in giving Count Walewski
no advice whatever as long as he holds the Seals of Office.

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Aberdeen.

NEW APPOINTMENTS

Windsor Castle, 23rd December 1852.

The Queen has received Lord Aberdeen’s communication of
this morning, and was pleased to hear that Lord John has
finally accepted the Foreign Office. She has also received the
[page 423]
second communication, with the List of the distribution of
Offices. The Queen thinks it of such importance that the
Cabinet should be now announced to the world as complete,
that she is unwilling to throw any difficulties in the way. At
the same time, she must observe that in some instances the
changes are, in her opinion, not for the better. Sir J. Graham
will be very unpopular in the Navy; his achievements at the
Admiralty in former times⁶⁵ were all retrenchments, and have
since proved in many instances injurious to the Service. The
Secretary-at-War ought properly to be left out of the Cabinet
for the well working of the Army;⁶⁶ the President of the Board
of Trade has always been in the Cabinet, and in Lord Granville’s
case, even the Vice-President. Lord Granville will have a
difficulty as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, being one
of the chief lessees of the Duchy, and, the Queen believes, even
engaged in a law-suit against it. The Queen has no objection
to Sir William Molesworth⁶⁷ at the Office of Works. She hopes
that the Presidency of the Council will be filled at once, for
which Lord Clarendon would be best.

Amongst the Under-Secretaries of State, the Queen wishes
merely to express her objection at seeing Mr B. Osborne⁶⁸ at
the Foreign Office. The Queen sees Lord Chandos’s⁶⁹ name
as Secretary to the Treasury; she would be very much pleased
to see his services secured. All the other proposals she
approves.

The Queen must repeat in conclusion that she considers the
rapid completion of the Government of the first importance,
even if none of the points the Queen has alluded to should be
amended.

Footnote 65: From 1830 to 1834.

Footnote 66: The Secretary-at-War was not a Secretary of State.

Footnote 67: M.P. for Southwark; well known as a philosophical writer, the first member of the
Radical Party included in any Ministry.

Footnote 68: Mr Bernal Osborne, a well-known speaker at the time, became Secretary of the
Admiralty.

Footnote 69: Afterwards, as Duke of Buckingham, Secretary for the Colonies and Governor of
Madras.

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Aberdeen.

THE NEW CABINET

Windsor Castle, 24th December 1852.

The Queen has this moment received Lord Aberdeen’s letter,
reporting that new difficulties have arisen in the completion of
the Government by new proposals made by Lord John Russell,
since the Queen’s sanction had been given to the arrangements
submitted to her by Lord Aberdeen, which had then been agreed
to by Lord John Russell. The Queen begins to fear serious
[page 424]
mischief from the long duration of the crisis. It must weaken
the prestige of the new Government, and, instead of smoothing
difficulties, is, from the nature of things, rather calculated to
invite new ones. The Queen has, in her letter of yesterday,
stated some objections she felt, but added that she would waive
them all for the satisfaction of the immediate want of the
country (a strong Government), and she must express her hope
that political parties will not fall short in patriotic spirit of the
example she has thus herself set.

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Aberdeen.
[Draft—from recollection.]

Windsor Castle, 24th December 1852.

The Queen has received Lord Aberdeen’s letter of this afternoon,
and is very glad to hear that he has overcome the difficulties
which he mentioned this morning, and that he has
secured the services of Lord Lansdowne in the Cabinet. She
hopes, however, that Lord Aberdeen will remain firm on the
other points, as difficulties are never overcome by yielding
to more than can be fairly demanded.

Memorandum by Queen Victoria.

Windsor Castle, 25th December 1852.

Lord Aberdeen came this afternoon to announce the completion
of his Cabinet.

From many of them answers have not yet been received.

The day before it looked very bad. Lord John Russell had
sent in such a list of persons whom he required in the Cabinet
(Sir Francis Baring, Sir George Grey, etc., etc.), that, having
been very yielding hitherto, Lord Aberdeen was obliged to be
peremptory in his refusal. Now that the Cabinet was formed
on a due proportion, he was inclined to let Lord John have his
own way pretty much with regard to the minor Offices, considering
that he brought 250 followers, and he (Lord Aberdeen)
only 50.

It was to Lord Clarendon that the persuasion of Lady John
was finally due, but Lord Aberdeen had to add his own promise
to that of Lord Clarendon, that the latter would take the Foreign
Office whenever she thought Lord John ought to be relieved
from it.

Lady Palmerston had been most anxious to bring her
husband into office again; Lord Aberdeen had seen the first
[page 425]
symptom of their joint wish in the earnestness with which
Lord Palmerston’s friends declared in all places that, had he
been well enough, he would certainly have voted against the
Government.

Lord Lansdowne’s exertions and Lord Clarendon’s disinterestedness
were beyond all praise.

Of the Derbyites, he heard that most of them would be very
quiet, and many would be very friendly.

Lord Breadalbane is to be Lord Chamberlain. We recommend
a trial to get Lord Jersey to remain as Master of the
Horse.

Victoria R.

The Prince Albert to the Earl of Aberdeen.

Windsor Castle, 26th December 1852.

My dear Lord Aberdeen,—I have heard rumours of some
appointments in the Household, for which the writs are to be
moved to-morrow. As you have not yet placed before the Queen
your recommendations, I merely write this to you, fearing
that the “Whig Party” may deal out places before you have
had an opportunity of taking the Queen’s pleasure. Ever
yours truly,

Albert.

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

LORD DERBY’S FAREWELL AUDIENCE

Windsor Castle, 27th December 1852.

Lord Derby had his audience of leave yesterday afternoon.
He repeated his thanks to the Queen for the support and countenance
she had given him throughout the period he had been
allowed to serve her, adding his regrets that his services could
not have been more efficient or longer. One thing only distressed
him in taking leave, and that was the idea that the
Queen might think he had unnecessarily raised difficulties to
the formation of a new Government by his Speech in the House
of Lords. Now, it had been incumbent upon him to show to
his Party that he had not quitted office on light grounds, after
the sacrifices of opinion they had brought in order to support
him; he had to prove that the vote in the House of Commons
was not an accidental vote, but the preconcerted Union of all
Parties (in opposition) against him, which gave them a real
majority. We replied that it was not his opinion on the late
division, to the expression of which the Queen had objected, but
to that of an opinion on the character of the new Government
which the Queen had not yet formed. It was of the greatest
[page 426]
importance to keep that in suspense, and the declaration that
Lord Derby knew Lord Aberdeen to profess Conservative
opinions of his own (Lord Derby’s) shade, had at once given the
alarm to the Radicals, and made them insist upon a greater
proportion of Liberals in the Cabinet. Lord Derby rejoined
he had expressed his doubts as to how these differences could
be reconciled; and he did not see now how this was to be done.
How could Lord Aberdeen and Lord John Russell agree upon
the Foreign Policy, for instance? The Queen replied that
Lord John’s views were very sound and moderate, and that the
line of Foreign Policy he had formerly had to pursue had been
forced upon him by Lord Palmerston, who had never left a
question for the decision of the Cabinet to which he had not
already given a decided bias.

Did Lord Derby know that Lord Palmerston gave it out
everywhere that, had he been well enough, he should certainly
have voted against the Government? Lord Derby could only
say that he had allowed his son-in-law, Lord Jocelyn, to go to
Italy under the firm conviction that Lord Palmerston would
refuse to join Lord Aberdeen or Lord John Russell!

Lord Derby took leave after five o’clock.

Albert.

The Countess of Derby to the Marchioness of Ely.⁷⁰

LADY DERBY’S LETTER

St James’s Square, 27th December 1852.

My dearest Lady Ely,—Lord Derby told me that he saw
you yesterday, but only for a moment. I think he was nervous
about his audience of leave, but he returned deeply touched
by the kindness of manner of the Queen and the Prince. I
cannot resist saying to you that, during the last year, he has
been more and more impressed with the admirable qualities
of the Queen, and her noble straightforwardness on all occasions,
and her unvarying kindness have inspired him with the
strongest attachment (if I may venture so to express his feelings
for Her Majesty). During that week of terrible suspense he
continually said to me that his chief anxiety and regret were
caused by the fear of leaving the Queen, particularly before he
had had time and power to do more in her service. I am
writing in haste, having much to do this last day in Town, but
I have very often wished that the Queen knew how warmly
and sincerely Lord Derby is devoted to her service. He is also
very grateful to the Prince, for whose abilities he has the highest
admiration, often speaking of his wonderful cleverness. I am
[page 427]
delighted to hear that the Queen is so well; he said she was
looking remarkably well yesterday. He told me that Her
Majesty used some kind expression about myself. If you should
have an opportunity of saying to Her Majesty how grateful I
am for all her former kindness, I should be very much obliged
to you. Ever yours very affectionately,

Emma Derby.

Footnote 70: Submitted to the Queen by Lady Ely.

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

THE NEW MINISTRY

Windsor Castle, 28th December 1852.

The delivery of the Seals of Office of the outgoing Ministers
into the Queen’s hands, and her bestowal of them upon the
new Ministers, took place to-day.

Of the former, Mr Disraeli seemed to feel most the loss of
office.

We saw Lord Aberdeen for some time, who submitted the
names of all the persons he recommended for the subordinate
Offices, of whom he will send a list. We asked him what might
have passed between the last Session and this to chill his feelings
for Lord Derby, who maintained that up to the Dissolution he
had sent him messages to say that he perfectly agreed with
him, except on the Commercial Policy, and that he never would
join the Whigs. Lord Aberdeen disclaimed all knowledge of
such messages, though he acknowledged to have been very
friendly to Lord Derby. At the General Election, however, it
appeared to him that there was such a total want of principle
in him and his Party, pledging themselves for Protection in one
place and Free Trade in another, and appearing consistent only
on one point, viz. their hatred to Sir Robert Peel’s memory
and his friends, that he became determined to have nothing to
do with them.

The formation of the Government appeared to give satisfaction
to the country, though of course the number of the disappointed
must be even larger than usual on such occasions.
Lord Canning seemed very much hurt at not being taken into
the Cabinet, and felt inclined to refuse the Post Office. We
agreed upon the impolicy of such a step, and encouraged Lord
Aberdeen to press him. Lord Clanricarde, and particularly
Lord Carlisle, were very much grieved at being left out altogether,
but there was no help for it; for each man taken in
from one side, two would be proposed from the other, and the
Cabinet was just large enough to work.

We saw Lord Lansdowne after the Council, who seemed well
satisfied with the Government, a combination he had so much
and so long wished. Lord Carlisle’s annoyance was the only
[page 428]
thing which personally grieved him. He said that from the
moment he had read Mr Disraeli’s Budget he had felt sure that
the Government would fall immediately; the country would
never submit to a new tax with a surplus in the Exchequer.

MR DISRAELI

Lord John Russell, whom we saw afterwards, seemed in very
good health and spirits. He told us that the peaceful parting
scene in the House of Commons had been his doing; he had
told Mr Walpole that he thought Mr Disraeli ought to make an
apology to the House for the language he had used, and which
had given pain to a great many persons; and on Mr Walpole’s
saying that that was a very delicate thing to tell Mr Disraeli,
he had allowed it to be told him as a message from him (Lord
John). Mr Disraeli declared his readiness, provided others
would do the same, and declared they had meant no offence.⁷¹
We owned that we had been astonished to find them of a sudden
all so well bred. We asked what Lord Palmerston had been
about during the crisis? Lord John told us in reply that Lord
Palmerston had certainly been disposed to join Lord Derby’s
Government, but always said he could not do so alone; that
if eight of them were to join, then they would have the majority
in the Cabinet. He also said that he believed Lord Palmerston
would have voted for some parts of the Budget and against
others. Lord John does not think that that large Party of
Lord Derby’s will long keep together, that some would vote
for the Government, others might try to raise a Protestant cry.

Lord Palmerston looked excessively ill, and had to walk
with two sticks from the gout.

Footnote 71: “Mr Disraeli … with infinite polish and grace asked pardon for the flying words of
debate, and drew easy forgiveness from the member (Mr Goulburn), whom a few hours
before he had mocked as ‘a weird sibyl’; the other member (Sir James Graham), whom
he could not say he greatly respected, but whom he greatly regarded; and the third
member (Sir C. Wood), whom he bade learn that petulance is not sarcasm, and insolence
is not invective. Lord John Russell congratulated him on the ability and the gallantry
with which he had conducted the struggle, and so the curtain fell.” Morley’s Gladstone,
Book III. chap. viii.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Windsor Castle, 28th December 1852.

My dearest Uncle,—Your dear letter of the 24th reached
me on Monday, and I thank you warmly for it. The success
of our excellent Aberdeen’s arduous task and the formation of so
brilliant and strong a Cabinet would, I was sure, please you.
It is the realisation of the country’s and our most ardent wishes,
and it deserves success, and will, I think, command great
support…. It has been an anxious week, and just on our
happy Christmas Eve we were still very uneasy.

[page 429]

As I mean to write again before this year runs out, and I have
a long Council with outgoing and incoming Ministers this
afternoon, you will excuse my taking leave here. Ever your
truly devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

The Princess Hohenlohe to Queen Victoria.

THE SUGGESTED MARRIAGE

Langenburg, 30th December 1852.

My dearest Victoria,—According to your wish and our
promise, we send this servant with the most unwelcome news
that yesterday morning M. de Jaux arrived here and told
Ernest (as you will see by his letter to Albert) that the Count
Walewski wishes to have an interview with him to confer on
the subject we know of. A quarter of an hour before I received
this letter from Uncle Leopold, which I sent in Ernest’s letter
to Ada, and in which he speaks his opinion that we ought not
to say “No” at once, before telling Ada of it. This is very
much against my wish and Ernest’s, for we both would like to
make an end of the affair as soon as possible, but cannot, as
we see the truth of what Uncle Leopold says. I send a letter
to Mamma to you, and one for Ada. Mamma knows of it, as
she wrote to me the other day, and I leave it to you, dearest
Victoria, if you or Mamma will tell the poor child of the transaction.
She will be in great distress. I wish she may at once
say “No,” but am not sure of it; and in our letters we have
not said anything for the thing, but nothing against also but
what naturally is to be said against it. She will not know what
to do, and I am sure you and Mamma will not put it to her in
too favourable a light, as we are of the same opinion on the
subject; but yet there may be some things in its favour too.
I wish you would make Charles come to us—if you think it wise
to do so—and he not only will try to engage us to it. But there
may be so many reasons for or against which in a letter it is not
possible to explain all, and which we could not answer in time;
besides by him we might learn more accurately what Ada feels:
but I leave it quite to your and Albert’s judgment, if this would
be a good plan. I am in great distress, you well may think,
my dearest Victoria. Oh! if we could but say “No” at
once!…

Many thanks, my dearest Victoria, for your kind letter of
the 22nd. In the papers I have been following with the greatest
interest what has been said on the formation of the new
Ministry; there is one name though which frightens me—Lord
Palmerston. Let me wish you joy of the New Year; may it
bring peace not only to the nations, but also to us. Every
[page 430]
blessing and happiness to you, dear Albert, and your children,
and for me your love and affection, which is a blessing to your
devoted Sister,

Feodora.

Ernest also wishes you all possible happiness. If Ada has
the wish to see the Emperor before she decides, what is to be
done?

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

NEW YEAR WISHES

Windsor Castle, 31st December 1852.

My dearest Uncle,—On this, the last day of the old year,
allow me to offer my most ardent wishes for many and happy
returns of the New Year to you and yours. May it be one of
peace and prosperity to us all, and may we have the happiness
of seeing you again. May we still hope to see you this winter
or not?

Our Government is very satisfactorily settled. To have my
faithful friend Aberdeen as Prime Minister is a great happiness
and comfort for me personally. Lord Palmerston is terribly
altered, and all his friends think him breaking. He walks
with two sticks, and seemed in great suffering at the Council,
I thought. I must now conclude. Ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

[page 431]

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

TO CHAPTER XXII

The opening of the year 1853 saw a strong Coalition Ministry in
power; the necessity of a cordial understanding with France was
obvious, but bitter and indiscreet attacks on the Emperor of the
French were made by certain members of the Government, for which
Mr Disraeli took them severely to task. Lord John Russell, who
had been appointed Foreign Secretary, resigned that office in
February, in favour of Lord Clarendon, being unable to bear the twofold
burden of the Leadership of the House and the Foreign Office.
Though the arrangement was questioned, he continued during the
year to lead the House without office. A Canadian Clergy Reserves
Bill, an India Bill, introducing competitive examination into the
Civil Service, and various measures of Metropolitan improvement
were passed. A more important feature of the Session was Mr
Gladstone’s first Budget, dealing comprehensively with the Income
Tax, and imposing a duty on successions to real property.

The Eastern Question, however, overshadowed all other interests.
For some time a dispute had existed between the Latin and Greek
Churches as to the guardianship of the Holy Places (including the
Church of the Holy Sepulchre) in Palestine. After long negotiations
between the French and Russian Governments, as representing these
Churches, an indecisive judgment was pronounced by the Porte,
which, however, so incensed Russia that she began to make warlike
demonstrations, and sent Prince Menschikoff to Constantinople to
make peremptory requisitions as to the Holy Places.

In the meanwhile, the Czar had made confidential overtures to Sir
Hamilton Seymour, the British Ambassador at St Petersburg, representing
the Sultan as a very “sick man,” and suggesting that, on the
dissolution of his Empire, a concerted disposal of the Turkish
dominions should be made by England and Russia; these conversations
were reported at once to the British Government. Lord Stratford
de Redcliffe, who had been sent to represent British interests at
Constantinople, arrived there after Prince Menschikoff, and a settlement
of the disputes as to the Holy Places was then easily effected,
Lord Stratford insisting on this question being kept independent of
any other issue. But Prince Menschikoff had come to the conference
with instructions to keep an ulterior object in view, namely, to
advance a claim, by means of a strained interpretation of the Treaty
of Kainardji of 1774, of a Russian protectorate over the Christian
[page 432]
subjects of the Sultan. Influenced by Lord Stratford, the Porte rejected
the claim, and, in retaliation, the Czar occupied the Danubian
Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, characterising the step not
as an act of war, but a material guarantee of Russia’s just rights.
The French Emperor, anxious to divert the attention of his subjects
from domestic politics, was making preparations for war; and similar
preparations were also being made in England.

Negotiations took place between the Powers with a view of averting
war, and a document known as the Vienna Note, to which Great
Britain and France were parties, and which Russia accepted, was
proffered to the Sultan: again Lord Stratford interposed to prevent
its acceptance, and, when the Russian Government subsequently
announced its own interpretation of the Note, it was apparent that
the Western Powers had been mistaken as to its purport.

An Ultimatum, requiring the evacuation of the Principalities, was
sent by the Porte to Russia and rejected: war broke out, and the
first encounter at Oltenitza, on the 4th of November, resulted
in favour of Turkey. Meanwhile both the British and French fleets
had been sent to the East, and, on the declaration of war, the British
Admiral was instructed to take any action he thought fit to prevent
Russian aggression on Turkish territory. On the 30th of November
the Turkish Fleet in Sinope Harbour was destroyed by the Russian
squadron, this occurrence provoking profound indignation in England,
though it had been urged both within the Cabinet and outside
that the despatch of the combined Western Fleets through the
Dardanelles was more likely to appear as a defiance to Russia than
a support to Turkey.

Earlier in the year Lord Aberdeen had desired to retire, but
enquiry soon disclosed that Lord John Russell no longer had
the influence necessary to form a Ministry, and in the face of
danger Lord Aberdeen remained at his post. But there were sharp
dissensions in the Cabinet, especially between Lord Palmerston, representing
the anti-Russian party, on the one hand, and on the other
Lord Aberdeen, who distrusted the Turks, and Mr Gladstone, who
disavowed any obligation to uphold the integrity of the Ottoman
Empire. In December, Lord Palmerston resigned office, the
ostensible reason being his opposition to the contemplated Reform
Bill of the Government. The real cause was his opinion that apathy
was being shown by his colleagues in reference to the Eastern
Question; however, after arrangements had been made for replacing
him, he was, at his own desire, re-admitted to the Cabinet.

[page 433]

CHAPTER XXII

1853

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Windsor Castle, 4th January 1853.

My dearest Uncle,—… Our new Government will really,
I think, command a large support, and, I trust, be of duration,
which is a great object. Their only difficulty will be the
Budget.

The coldness and tardiness of the Northern Powers in recognising
our new bon Frère annoys him very much, and produces
a bad effect in France. I don’t think it is wise. Unnecessary
irritation may produce real mischief. To squabble about how
to call him, after having praised and supported him after
the Coup d’État, seems to me very kleinlich and inconsistent,
and I think our conduct throughout has been much more
dignified….

I have read with pleasure the loyal addresses of the Chambers,
and with peculiar satisfaction the allusion to Leopold’s
visit to England. Let him and Philippe come here often and
regularly, and let them study this country and her laws à fond—it
will do them more good than all the studying and reading in
the world. They all three express most warmly to us their
hopes of returning to us soon. Do let us have the hope of
seeing you in February. It would be delightful!… I must
now wish you good-bye. Ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

The Earl of Aberdeen to Queen Victoria.

HEADMASTERSHIP OF ETON

London, 9th January 1853.

… Lord Aberdeen also begs to mention to your Majesty
that he saw Dr Hawtrey yesterday and in signifying your
Majesty’s gracious intentions¹ towards him, took an opportunity
[page 434]
of expressing in very strong terms the great importance
of the choice of his successor as Headmaster of Eton, and
described the requisite qualifications for such a situation, as
well as the objections to which some appointments might be
liable. Lord Aberdeen was perfectly understood by Dr Hawtrey,
although no name was mentioned; and the subject was
regarded as being of the utmost importance, not only to the
school itself, but to the nation at large.

Footnote 1: Dr E. C. Hawtrey was advanced to the Provostship of Eton upon the death of the
Rev. Francis Hodgson. Dr C. O. Goodford succeeded to the Headmastership.

Lady Augusta Bruce to the Duchess of Kent.

MARRIAGE OF EMPEROR NAPOLEON

Rue de Varennes 65, 31st January 1853.

Dearest Madame,—I fear that I shall not be able to add
much to the newspaper account of yesterday’s ceremony,² for
it was one the impression of which is best conveyed by a simple
and accurate description of the scene, and of those arrangements
and details which combined to render its effect gorgeous
and dazzling. Apart, however, from the historical interest
attached to it as one of the very curious acts of the extraordinary
Drama now enacting in France, the impression produced
was one that would be called forth by a magnificent
theatrical representation, and little more. This seemed to
be the public feeling, for though multitudes thronged the streets,
the day being dry, they appeared to be animated by curiosity
chiefly, and that sober curiosity which now characterises the
people of Paris, wearied as they are of novelty and excitement.
As far as one can judge, it does not seem that the lower orders
take much interest in this marriage; the ambition and vanity
of his partisans have been wounded by it, and, of course, his
enemies do not scruple to calumniate and slander the unfortunate
object of his choice disgracefully.

It is very difficult to ascertain anything like truth as regards
her, but her beauty and engaging manners will, it is thought by
many, gain for her, for a time at least, a greater amount of
popularity than his friends who now blame the marriage
expect. That he is passionately in love with her no one doubts,
and his countenance on late occasions, as well as yesterday,
wore a radiant and joyous expression very unusual. She, on
the contrary, showed a considerable amount of nervousness
[page 435]
at the Civil Marriage, and was as pale as death yesterday—however,
even with the high and determined spirit she is supposed
to have, this might be expected. Lady Cowley had been
kind enough to send us an invitation, of which we were tempted
to avail ourselves.³ Nothing could be more splendid than
the decorations of the Cathedral—velvet and ermine—gold
and silver—flags and hangings of all colours were combined and
harmonised with the splendid costumes of the Clergy, the
uniforms, civil and military, and the magnificent dresses of
the ladies. The greatest mistake was the conflict of lights—the
windows not having been darkened, though countless
thousands of wax candles were lighted. The music was very
fine…. The object of our neighbours seemed to be to scan
and criticise the dress of the Bride, and the wonderful penetration
and accuracy of their eagle glances was to us something
incredible! Certainly, though unable ourselves at such a
distance to appreciate the details of her dress or the expression
of her countenance, we saw her distinctly enough to be able to
say that a more lovely coup d’œil could not be conceived. Her
beautifully chiselled features and marble complexion, her
nobly set-on head, her exquisitely proportioned figure and
graceful carriage were most striking, and the whole was like a
Poet’s Vision! I believe she is equally beautiful when seen
close, but at a distance at which we saw her the effect was
something more than that of a lovely picture, it was aerial,
ideal. On the classically shaped head she wore a diamond
crown or diadem, round her waist a row of magnificent diamonds
to correspond, and the same as trimming round the
“basques” of her gown. Then a sort of cloud or mist of
transparent lace enveloped her, which had the effect of that
for which, when speaking of the hills in Scotland, Princess
Hohenlohe could find no English word, “Duft.” I hope your
Royal Highness will not think me very much carried by what
pleases the eye. I felt all the while that one could view the
matter but as an outside show; as such, in as far as she was
concerned, it was exquisitely beautiful—and I suppose that a
sort of national prejudice made me attribute the grace and
dignity of the scene, for what there was of either came from
her, to the blood of Kirkpatrick!!!

The carriages were ugly and the Procession by no means
fine, and those in which the Bridal party afterwards travelled
to St Cloud, were driven by individuals in the famous theatrical
costume of the well-known “Postillon de Longjumeau!”⁴

Footnote 2: The Emperor of the French was married to Mademoiselle Eugénie de Montijo on the
29th of January. William Kirkpatrick, her maternal grandfather, had been a merchant
and American Consul at Malaga, and had there married Françoise de Grivegnéc. Their
third daughter, Maria Manuela, married, in 1817, the Count de Téba, a member of an
illustrious Spanish family, who in 1834 succeeded his brother as Count de Montijo, and
died in 1839. His widow held an influential social position at Madrid, and her elder
daughter married the Duke of Alba in 1844, while she herself, with Eugénie, her younger
daughter, settled in Paris in 1851.

Footnote 3: Lord Cowley had been specifically instructed by the Government to attend the
marriage and be presented to the Empress.

Footnote 4: A comic opera, written by Adolphe Adam, and performed at Paris in 1836.

[page 436]

The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

THE EMPRESS

Laeken, 4th February 1853.

My dearest Victoria,—Receive my best thanks for your
gracious letter of the 1st. Since I wrote to you le grand
événement a eu lieu! We truly live in times where at least
variety is not wanting; the only mischief is that like drunkards
people want more and more excitement, and it therefore will
probably end by what remains the most exciting of all—War.
Amusing and interesting war is, it must be confessed, more
than anything in the world, and that makes me think that it
must be the bouquet when people will be blasé of everything
else. I enclose a letter from our Secretary of Legation at
Madrid, Baron Beyens, who married a great friend of the Queen,
Mademoiselle de Santa Cruz, and is much au fait of all things
that interest the public just now. It seems by what I learned
from Paris that the Empress communicated to a friend a communication
of son cher époux when she expressed her sense of
her elevation to such eminence; as it may interest you and
Albert, I will make an extract of it here: “Vous ne me parlez,
ma chère enfant, que des avantages de la position que je vous
offre, mais mon devoir est de vous signaler aussi ses dangers;
ils sont grands, je serai sans doute à vos côtés l’objet de plus
d’une tentative d’assassinat; indépendamment de cela, je dois
vous confier que des complots sérieux se fomentent dans
l’armée. J’ai l’œil ouvert de ce côté et je compte bien d’une
manière ou d’autre prévenir toute explosion; le moyen sera
peut-être la guerre. Là encore il y a de grandes chances de
ruine pour moi. Vous voyez donc bien que vous ne devez pas
avoir de scrupules pour partager mon sort, les mauvaises
chances étant peut-être égales aux bonnes!”

I was sorry to hear of Lord Melbourne’s, i.e., Beauvale’s,
death. I knew him since 1814, and found him always very kind.
For poor Lady Melbourne, who devoted herself so much, it is
a sad blow. We are longing for a little cold, but it does not
come though we have some east wind. I am held back in
some of the most essential measures for the defence of the
country by the tricks of the Chamber. I see that the Manchester
party shines in unusual Bright-ness and Cobden-ness
by a degress of absurdity never as yet heard of. In the
American War the Quakers refused to fight; they did not
besides like the extremities the States had gone to against the
mother country; but not to defend its own country against
probable invasion is truly too much.

Pray have the goodness to give my best love to Albert, and
believe me, ever my dearest Victoria, your devoted Uncle,

Leopold R.

[page 437]

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Windsor Castle, 8th February 1853.

My dearest Uncle,—I have to thank you for two most
kind letters of the 4th and 7th (which I have just received)
with very interesting enclosures, which shall be duly returned.
The little report of what the Emperor said to the Empress is
very curious, and tallies with what I have also heard of his
thinking much more of the insecurity of his position than he
used to do. The description of the young Empress’s character
is an interesting one, and also agrees with what I had heard
from those who know her well. It may be in her power to do
much good—and I hope she may. Her character is made to
captivate a man, I should say—particularly one like the
Emperor.

I am sorry that you have had trouble with your Parliament.
Ours begins its work on Thursday. The accounts of the
support which our Government will receive are most satisfactory,
and the Cabinet is most harmonious…. Ever your
devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

The Earl of Aberdeen to Queen Victoria.

THE CZAR AND TURKEY

London, 8th February 1853.

… Lord John Russell read at the Cabinet a despatch
received from your Majesty’s Minister at St Petersburg, giving
an account of an interview with the Emperor, at which His
Majesty appeared to expect an early dissolution of the Turkish
Empire, and proposed in such a case to act in perfect concert
with the British Government. Lord John also read the
rough draft of a proposed answer to this despatch, which, with
slight alterations, was fully approved.⁵

Lord Aberdeen does not think there is anything very new
in this demonstration by the Emperor. It is essentially the
same language he has held for some years, although, perhaps,
the present difficulties of Turkey may have rendered him more
anxious on the subject….

Footnote 5: See Introductory Note, p. 431. The Emperor had, no doubt, misunderstood the
attitude of the British Ministry in 1844 on this subject, and regarded Lord Aberdeen as
in full sympathy with himself.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

THE LEADERSHIP

Chesham Place, 12th February 1853.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty;
he has waited till to-day in order to be able to give some
account of the appearance of the House of Commons.

[page 438]

Lord John Russell’s statement of measures to be proposed
was well received, but as it did not contain reform was a disappointment
to a part of the House. Mr Walpole spoke
privately to Lord John Russell as to his future position in
leading the Government in the House of Commons without
office. Mr Walpole said it was neither illegal nor unconstitutional,
but might prove inconvenient as a precedent.

The Speaker said in conversation there was clearly no constitutional
objection, but that the leadership of the House was
so laborious that an office without other duties ought to be
assigned to it….

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL’S DEFENCE

Windsor Castle, 13th February 1853.

The Queen has received Lord John Russell’s letter of
yesterday, and was very glad to hear that he considers the
aspect of the House of Commons as favourable to the Government.

Lord John alludes for the first time in his letter to a question
on which the Queen has not hitherto expressed her opinion to
him personally, viz., how far the proposed new arrangement of
Lord John’s holding the leadership of the House of Commons
without office was constitutional or not?⁶ Her opinion
perfectly agrees with that expressed by Mr Walpole to Lord
John. If the intended arrangement were undoubtedly illegal
it would clearly never have been contemplated at all; but it
may prove a dangerous precedent.

The Queen would have been quite prepared to give the proposition
of the Speaker “that the leadership of the House of
Commons was so laborious, that an Office without other duties
ought to be assigned to it,” her fullest and fairest consideration,
upon its merits and its constitutional bearings, which ought
to have been distinctly set forth before her by her constitutional
advisers for her final and unfettered decision.

What the Queen complains of, and, as she believes with
justice, is, that so important an innovation in the construction
of the executive Government should have been practically
decided upon by an arrangement intended to meet personal
wants under peculiar and accidental circumstances, leaving
the Queen the embarrassing alternative only, either to forego
the exercise of her own prerogative, or to damage by her own
act the formation or stability of the new Government, both of
paramount importance to the welfare of the Country.

Footnote 6: See ante, pp. 417, 421.

[page 439]

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

Chesham Place, 13th February 1853.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty.
He cannot forbear from vindicating himself from the charge
of forming or being party to an arrangement “intended to
meet personal wants under peculiar and accidental circumstances,
leaving the Queen the embarrassing alternative only,
either to forego the exercise of her own prerogative, or to
damage by her own act the formation or stability of the new
Government—both of paramount importance to the welfare of
the Country.”

Lord John Russell has done all in his power to contribute
to the formation of a Ministry in which he himself holds a
subordinate situation, from which nearly all his dearest political
friends are excluded, and which is held by some to extinguish
the party which for eighteen years he has led.

He has done all this in order that your Majesty and the
Country might not be exposed to the evil of a weak Ministry
liable to be overthrown at any moment, formed whether by
Lord Derby, or by himself at the head of one party only.

But in consenting to this arrangement he was desirous to
maintain his honour intact, and for this purpose he asked
before the Ministry was formed for the honour of an Audience of
your Majesty, that he might explain all the circumstances of
his position.

This Audience was not granted, and Lord John Russell
has never been in a situation to explain to your Majesty why
he believes that his leading the House of Commons without
office is not liable to any constitutional objection.

The Speaker and Mr Walpole both concur that no constitutional
objection to this arrangement exists, but should your
Majesty wish to see the arguments briefly stated by which
Lord John Russell has been convinced, he should be happy to
be allowed to lay them before your Majesty.

The Earl of Clarendon to Queen Victoria.

THE REFUGEE QUESTION

25th February 1853.

Lord Clarendon presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and humbly begs to state that Count Colloredo⁷ called upon
him this afternoon…. Count Colloredo then said that he
had another and more disagreeable subject to discuss with
Lord Clarendon. He commenced by reading a note from
Count Buol⁸ complaining bitterly of the refugees, and the
[page 440]
manner in which they abused the hospitality afforded them in
this country, and attributing in great measure to the proclamations
of Kossuth and Mazzini the late insurrection at
Milan, and the attempt on the Emperor’s life.⁹ This note
expressed a hope and belief that some measure would at once be
adopted by your Majesty’s Government to remove the just
complaints of Allied Governments, and intimated that should
this hope not be spontaneously realised some measures on the
part of those Governments would become necessary for their
own protection as well as to mark their sense of the wrong done
to them by England.

Lord Clarendon said that your Majesty’s Government were
as indignant as that of Austria could be at the disgraceful abuse
of the protection afforded to these refugees; but he could hold
out no hope of any legislation for the purpose of sending them
out of the country.

Count Colloredo did not disguise his annoyance and disappointment
at this, and seemed to attribute it to want of goodwill
on the part of your Majesty’s Government, which he felt
sure would have the support of public opinion in proposing such
a measure as his Government desired.

The discussion became rather warm, and Lord Clarendon
thought it right to remark that too much importance might
be given to these proclamations and too little to the causes
which at home might lead the subjects of Austria to manifest
their discontent by revolutionary outbreaks, nor could we
conceal from ourselves that the complaints about the refugees
were occasionally directed against the free institutions which
gave them protection, and that we were not always viewed with
favour as presenting the single but prosperous exception to that
system of government which otherwise would now almost be
uniform in Europe.¹⁰

Footnote 7: Austrian Ambassador.

Footnote 8: Austrian Prime Minister.

Footnote 9: Kossuth and Mazzini were in England, prosecuting their schemes against Austria; the
Austrian Government attributed to them the Milanese rising, and the recent attempt to
assassinate the Emperor Francis Joseph at Vienna.

Footnote 10: The Refugee Question was debated in the House of Lords on the 4th of March.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston.

Buckingham Palace, 9th March 1853.

The Queen has received Lord Palmerston’s letter, and the
reports on the Militia which she returns, having marked several
parts in them which show an absence of the most important
requisites. Already in October the Queen observed upon the
[page 441]
want of arms for the Militia, and was invariably answered that
they would be immediately provided. But by these reports
this seems still not to be the case.

The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

PRINCE MENSCHIKOFF

Laeken, 18th March 1853.

My Dearest Victoria,—Receive my best thanks for your
gracious letter of the 15th. I trust that the bitter cold weather
we have now again will not displease you. I fear Albert’s heavy
cold will not be the better by the east wind which makes
one shiver. I am thunderstruck by a telegraph despatch from
Marseilles of the 17th, which declares that Prince Menschikoff
has not succeeded, and has therefore given orders for the
Russian fleet to come to Constantinople.¹¹ Heaven grant that
these news may not be true, though bad news generally turn
out correct. I am so sorry to see the Emperor Nicholas, who
had been so wise and dignified since 1848, become so very
unreasonable. In Austria they are still a good deal excited.
One can hardly feel astonished considering circumstances; I
trust that reflection may induce them to modify their measures.
The Italian Nobles have shown themselves great fools by acting
as they have done, and thereby giving an opening to social
revolution. By some accident we have been within these
few days well informed of some of the movements of the good
people that enjoy an asylum in England. Kossuth is now
the great director and favourite, and Republics are everywhere
to spring up, till he (Kossuth) is to be again Dictator or
Emperor somewhere…. Europe will never recover that
shock of 1848.

My dearest Victoria, your truly devoted Uncle,

Leopold R.

Footnote 11: See Introductory Note, ante, pp. 431-2.

The Earl of Aberdeen to Queen Victoria.

THE “HOLY PLACES”

London, 22nd March 1853.

Lord Aberdeen presents his humble duty to your Majesty.
He encloses a letter from Lord Cowley, which shows a considerable
degree of irritation on the part of the French Government,
and of embarrassment in consequence of the rash step
they have taken in ordering the departure of their fleet from
Toulon to the Greek Waters.¹² If no catastrophe should take
[page 442]
place at Constantinople, as Lord Aberdeen hopes and believes,
this irritation will probably subside, and they may find us
useful in assisting them to escape from their difficulty with
respect to the “Holy Places.”

Lord Aberdeen has seen the Instructions of Prince Menschikoff,
which relate exclusively to the claims of the Greek Church
at Jerusalem; and although these conditions may humiliate
Turkey, and wound the vanity of France, there is nothing
whatever to justify the reproach of territorial aggression, or
hostile ambition. If the Turkish Government, relying upon
the assistance of England and France, should remain obstinate,
the affair might become serious; but even then, Lord Aberdeen
is convinced that no final step will be taken by the Emperor,
without previous communication to England.

Much depends upon the personal character of Prince
Menschikoff. If he can command himself sufficiently to
wait for the arrival of Lord Stratford, Lord Aberdeen does
not doubt that the matter will be settled, without coming
to extremities….

Footnote 12: Even before the Conference met, Menschikoff’s overbearing conduct and demeanour
had induced Napoleon to despatch the French Fleet from Toulon to Salamis, to watch
events.

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Aberdeen.

THE CZAR CONCILIATORY

Windsor Castle, 23rd March 1853.

The Queen has received Lord Aberdeen’s letter of yesterday,
and returns Lord Cowley’s. Everything appears to her to
depend upon the real nature of the demands made by Russia,
and the Queen was therefore glad to hear from Lord Aberdeen
that he found nothing in Prince Menschikoff’s instructions to
justify the reproach of territorial aggression or hostile ambition.
Still the mode of proceeding at Constantinople is not such as
would be resorted to towards a “sick friend for whose life
there exists much solicitude.” This ought clearly to be stated
to Baron Brunnow, in the Queen’s opinion.

The two Drafts to Sir H. Seymour and Lord Cowley struck
the Queen as very temperate, conciliatory, and dignified.

The Earl of Clarendon to Queen Victoria.

29th March 1853.

Lord Clarendon presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and humbly begs to state that he had this afternoon a satisfactory
interview with the French Ambassador, who told him
that the Emperor had to a certain extent been deceived upon
the Eastern Question, and that he had given his decision without
[page 443]
fully considering the matter in all its bearings. But that
he had since viewed it in a different light, and had so far recognised
the propriety of the course adopted by your Majesty’s
Government, that if the sailing order had not been improperly
published in the Moniteur the French Fleet should not have
quitted Toulon.

Count Walewski further stated that the Persons who had thus
advised the Emperor, finding that their views were not supported
by facts as they hoped, had endeavoured to throw the
blame upon England and to show that France had been
abandoned and Russia preferred by your Majesty’s Government,
and that hence had arisen the want of cordiality and
good feeling with respect to which Lord Clarendon some days
ago spoke to Count Walewski. He, however, assured Lord
Clarendon that all this had now passed away, and that the
Emperor was as anxious as ever for a good understanding with
England, and particularly upon all matters connected with
the East. Lord Clarendon expressed great satisfaction that
this momentary difference between the two Governments
should be at an end.

Count Walewski in confidence requested Lord Clarendon to
impress upon Lord Cowley the necessity of often seeing the
Emperor, and not trusting to the Minister, when any question
of difficulty arose.

Count Walewski said the Emperor was particularly anxious
that your Majesty should know that the liberation of the
Madiai¹³ was owing to the interference which the French
Legation had been instructed by the Emperor to use in their
behalf.

Footnote 13: Two persons, husband and wife, domiciled in Florence, who had embraced the English
reformed religion. In 1852 they were seized, imprisoned in separate dungeons, and subjected
to great hardships. Lords Shaftesbury and Roden went to Florence and appealed
to the Grand Duke on their behalf, but were unsuccessful. In March 1853, however, after
the British Government had interposed, the two were released, a pension being provided
for them by public subscription.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Windsor Castle, 29th March 1853.

My dearest Uncle,—I have to thank you very much for
your kind letter of the 25th….

I hope that the Oriental Question will be satisfactorily
settled. From all the confidential reports we have received
from the Emperor of Russia, I think I may safely say that
though he has treated the Sultan rather overbearingly and
roughly, there is no alteration in his views—and no wish whatever
[page 444]
on his part to appropriate Constantinople or any of those
parts to himself—though he does not wish us, or France or
Austria or Greece, to have it either. But he thinks the dissolution
of the Ottoman Empire very imminent, which I
really think is not the case. The Russians accuse us (as we
have preached moderation) of being too French—and the
French of being too Russian!….

Now with Albert’s love, ever your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Queen Victoria to Lord Clarendon.

Windsor Castle, 30th March 1853.

The Queen has received Lord Clarendon’s letter with great
satisfaction. We are now reaping the fruits of an honest and
straightforward conduct, and the Queen hopes Lord Clarendon
will likewise in all future cases of difficulty arrest the mischief,
sure to arise from a continuance of mutual suspicion between
this Country and any Power, by at once entering upon full
and unreserved explanations, on the first symptoms of distrust.

As the Emperor deserves great credit, if he really caused
the liberation of the Madiai, the Queen wishes Lord Clarendon
to express to Count Walewski her feelings on this subject.

The Emperor of Russia to the Prince Albert.

THE CZAR’S LETTER

St. Pétersbourg, le

8
—
20

Avril 1853.

Monseigneur,—J’allais Vous adresser mes félicitations
sincères pour l’heureuse délivrance de Sa Majesté la Reine,
quand Votre aimable lettre est venue me prévenir.¹⁴ Veuillez
donc, Monseigneur, être persuadé, que c’est avec grande joie,
que ma femme et moi, nous avons appris cet heureux événement,
et j’ose aussi vous prier de déposer aux pieds de Sa
Majesté mes humbles hommages et félicitations. Je me flatte
n’avoir pas besoin de Vous assurer tous deux, Monseigneur,
de toute la sincérité des sentiments d’affection que je Vous
porte. Cette fois j’ose y joindre mes remercîments bien sentis
à Sa Majesté la Reine, pour l’indulgence et l’attention qu’Elle
a daigné prêter aux communications dont j’avais chargé directement
Sir Hamilton Seymour, qui a le mérite seul d’avoir su
[page 445]
transmettre mes intentions avec une fidélité et une exactitude
parfaites.

Je crois que dans peu Sa Majesté la Reine sera dans le cas de
se persuader, que Son sincère et fidèle ami l’a prévenue à temps
de ce qu’il prévoyait devoir infailliblement arriver; non certes
dans l’intention d’être un prophète de mauvais augure, mais dans
la conviction intime, que ce n’est que la confiance la plus intime,
la plus complette et la plus parfaitte identité de vues
entre Sa Majesté et Son très humble serviteur, c. à. d. entre
l’Angleterre et la Russie, que peuvent commander aux événements
et conjurer de terribles catastrophes!

Maintenant nous nous entendons, et je m’en remets à Dieu
pour tout ce qui doit arriver.

C’est avec la plus haute considération et la plus sincère amitié
que je serais, toujours, Monseigneur, de Votre Altesse Royale
le tout dévoué Cousin,

Nicolas.

Footnote 14: The fourth son of the Queen and Prince, afterwards Duke of Albany, was born on the
7th of April at Buckingham Palace.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

BIRTH OF PRINCE LEOPOLD

Buckingham Palace, 18th April 1853.

My dearest Uncle,—My first letter is this time, as last
time, addressed to you; last time it was because dearest Louise,
to whom the first had heretofore always been addressed, was
with me—alas! now, she is no longer amongst us! I can
report very favourably of myself, for I have never been
better or stronger or altogether more comfortable.

Stockmar will have told you that Leopold is to be the name
of our fourth young gentleman. It is a mark of love and
affection which I hope you will not disapprove. It is a name
which is the dearest to me after Albert, and one which recalls
the almost only happy days of my sad childhood; to hear
“Prince Leopold” again, will make me think of all those
days! His other names will be George Duncan Albert, and
the Sponsors, the King of Hanover, Ernest Hohenlohe, the
Princess of Prussia and Mary Cambridge.

George is after the King of Hanover, and Duncan as a
compliment to dear Scotland…. Ever your devoted Niece
and Child,

Victoria R.

Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria.

MR GLADSTONE’S BUDGET

Chesham Place, 19th April 1853.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
and is happy to say that Mr Gladstone’s statement last night
[page 446]
was one of the most powerful financial speeches ever made in
the House of Commons.¹⁵

Mr Pitt in the days of his glory might have been more
imposing, but he could not have been more persuasive.

Lord John Russell is very sanguine as to the success of the
plan, both in the House of Commons and in the country.

Footnote 15: Mr Gladstone’s Budget imposed a duty for the first time on the succession to real
property; he retained the Income Tax for two years longer, at its then rate of sevenpence
in the pound on incomes above £150, and extended it, at the rate of fivepence in the pound,
to incomes between £100 and £150. Ireland was made subject to the tax, but received
relief in other directions. Remissions of indirect taxes were also made, and one of these,
the repeal of the Advertisement Duty, was carried against the Government.

The Prince Albert to Mr Gladstone.

Buckingham Palace, 19th April 1853.

My dear Mr Gladstone,—I must write to you a line in
order to congratulate you on your success of last night. I
have just completed a close and careful perusal of your speech,
which I admire extremely, and I have heard from all sides that
the effect it has produced is very good. Trusting that your
Christian humility will not allow you to become dangerously
elated, I cannot resist sending you the report which Lord John
Russell made to the Queen for your perusal; knowing that it
will give you pleasure, and that these are the best rewards
which a public man can look for. Ever yours truly,

Albert.

Mr Gladstone to the Prince Albert.

Downing Street, 19th April 1853.

Sir,—I have to offer my most humble and grateful thanks
to Her Majesty for graciously allowing me to know the terms
in which Lord John Russell’s kindness allowed him to describe
the statement made by me last night in the House of Commons;
and to your Royal Highness for the letter which your Royal
Highness had been pleased to address to me.

The reception which you, Sir, gave to my explanation on
the 9th instant of the propositions I had to submit to the
Cabinet, was one of the first and best omens of their favourable
fortune.

As a Servant of the Crown, deeply sharing in that attachment
which all servants of Her Majesty must feel both to her
Throne and Person, I venture to hope that the propositions
of the Government declared through me, are in accordance
with our faith and loyalty to Her Majesty.

[page 447]

For myself, Sir, I am most thankful, if it can be said that
I have not by my own defects injured a good and an honest
cause; my only title to reward lies in sincerity of purpose,
and by such testimony as that of your Royal Highness I am
already much more than duly rewarded….

I return the letter of Lord John Russell, and I pray your
Royal Highness to believe me, Sir, your most dutiful and most
obedient Servant,

W. E. Gladstone.

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Aberdeen.

THE INDIA BILL

Osborne, 27th May 1853.

The Queen has read Lord Aberdeen’s letter of yesterday
with great concern. She had been much surprised to hear
from Lord John Russell on the 24th that “in concert with
Sir Charles Wood and Sir James Graham, he had settled last
night to propose to the Cabinet on Wednesday to delay the
measure (on the Indian Government) till next Session, and
that Sir James Graham had stated that Lord Aberdeen would
be ready to assent to this course.”¹⁶ She did not answer Lord
John until she should have heard from Lord Aberdeen himself.
From the explanation he has now given to the Queen, she must
say that it would have a very bad effect if the measure were
withdrawn at the eleventh hour, and after all that has been
publicly and privately stated.¹⁷ Nothing damages a Government
more than the appearance of vacillation and uncertainty
of purpose, and no Government ought to shun this more than
the present. The fact of a dissension in the Cabinet on a vital
point, which it cannot be hoped will remain concealed, must
besides much impair its vigour and power….

The Queen earnestly hopes that it will not become necessary
to change the course announced by the Government.

Footnote 16: The India Bill, which passed during the Session, threw open the lucrative patronage
of the Company (whose existence was continued but with less absolute control) to competition.
The Mutiny, and the resulting legislation of 1858, tended subsequently to
overshadow Sir Charles Wood’s measure.

Footnote 17: The matter had been referred to a Cabinet Committee, reported upon, agreed to in full
Cabinet, proposed to and sanctioned by the Queen and announced to Parliament.

The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

THE EMPEROR FRANCIS JOSEPH

Laeken, 3 June 1853.

My dearest, best Victoria,—… The young Emperor¹⁸
I confess I like much, there is much sense and courage in his
[page 448]
warm blue eye, and it is not without a very amiable merriment
when there is occasion for it. He is slight and very graceful,
but even in the mêlée of dancers and Archdukes, and all in
uniform, he may always be distinguished as the Chef. This
struck me more than anything, as now at Vienna the dancing is
also that general mêlée which renders waltzing most difficult….
The manners are excellent and free from pompousness or
awkwardness of any kind, simple, and when he is graciously
disposed, as he was to me, sehr herzlich und natürlich. He keeps
every one in great order without requiring for this an outré
appearance of authority, merely because he is the master, and
there is that about him which gives authority, and which sometimes
those who have the authority cannot succeed in getting
accepted or in practising. I think he may be severe si l’occasion
se présente; he has something very muthig. We were several
times surrounded by people of all classes, and he certainly
quite at their mercy, but I never saw his little muthig expression
changed either by being pleased or alarmed. I trust that this
family connection may mitigate the only impression which in
Austria has created a hostile feeling, viz. the suspicions in
Palmerston’s time that it had become a plan of England to
destroy the Austrian Empire. After the attentat on the Emperor
the impression on those who are attached to their country was,
and still is, that in England a sort of menagerie of Kossuths,
Mazzinis, Lagranges, Ledru Rollins, etc., is kept to be let
occasionally loose on the Continent to render its quiet and
prosperity impossible. That impression, which Lord Aberdeen
stated in the House of Lords at the end of April, is strong everywhere
on the Continent, in Prussia as it is in Austria, and even
here our industriels are convinced of it. About what is to be
done by way of graciousness on your part we will consider…. Ever, my dearest Victoria, your devoted Uncle,

Leopold R.

Footnote 18: Francis Joseph, Emperor of Austria.

The Duke of Newcastle to Queen Victoria.

7th June 1853.

The Duke of Newcastle presents his humble duty to your
Majesty, and has the honour of bringing under your Majesty’s
notice a desire for some time past felt by the Archbishop of
Canterbury, and by others interested in the welfare of the
Church of England in the Colonies, that the extensive See of
Capetown should be divided, and that a new Bishopric of
Grahamstown should be erected.

An endowment of £10,000 for the proposed See has lately
[page 449]
been provided by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel
in Foreign Parts.

The Duke of Newcastle under these circumstances hopes that
your Majesty will approve of the erection of this new See, and
has the honour to recommend to your Majesty that, in that case
the Rev. J. W. Colenso should be appointed to it.

Mr Colenso at present holds a living in the Diocese of Norwich,
he was second wrangler at Cambridge, and was at one
time tutor to two of the sons of the late Sir Robert Peel at
Harrow.

The Duke of Newcastle has received a very high character of
Mr Colenso from his Diocesan, and the Archbishop of Canterbury
considers him a fit person to be recommended to your
Majesty.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

THE KING OF HANOVER

Buckingham Palace, 22nd June 1853.

My dearest Uncle,—Many thanks for your kind letter of
the 17th, which I could not answer on my usual day (yesterday),
as we were the whole day at the Camp, where there was a
Review, at which I rode. It was a very fine sight, but my
enjoyment was a good deal spoilt by the nervousness which I
was in at having my poor blind cousin¹⁹ on horseback next to
me—led. It is a sad sight, and one which keeps me in a constant
state of anxiety, as one is afraid of saying or doing anything
which may pain or distress him, or of his meeting with
any accident; but he manages it wonderfully well, hardly ever
makes a mistake, and manages so well at dinner. He is very
cheerful, kind, and civil, and would be very good looking if it
were not for his poor eyes. He likes to go everywhere and do
everything like anybody else, and speaks of things as if he saw
them….

The Oriental Question is at a standstill. It is the Emperor
of Russia who must enable us to help him out of the difficulty.
I feel convinced that War will be avoided, but I don’t see
how
exactly. Our Troops looked beautiful yesterday. I wish your
young people could see our Camp.²⁰

With Albert’s love, believe me, ever, your devoted Niece,

Victoria R.

Footnote 19: King George V. of Hanover.

Footnote 20: Lord Stratford de Redcliffe had insisted that the disputed points as to the guardianship
of the Holy Places, and the Russian demand for a Protectorate over the Christian
subjects of the Sultan, should be kept distinct. After the former had been arranged and
the latter had been rejected by the Porte acting under Lord Stratford’s advice, Menschikoff
abruptly quitted Constantinople, and the Russian troops, crossing the Pruth,
invaded the Danubian principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia (now united as Roumania).
In England, meanwhile, a military encampment had been established at Chobham.

[page 450]

The Earl of Dalhousie to Queen Victoria.

DEATH OF LADY DALHOUSIE

12th July 1853.

Lord Dalhousie presents his humble duty to your Majesty,
most gratefully acknowledging the gracious words which
your Majesty has addressed to him in the time of his great
affliction.²¹

Your Majesty has been pleased for many years to honour him
with frequent marks of personal distinction. He is indeed most
keenly sensible of the favour which bestowed them all. But
his deep gratitude must ever be given to the goodness which
dictated the touching assurance he has now received of your
Majesty’s interest in the piteous fate of one who for eighteen
years has been all the world to him, whose patient, gentle
spirit, and whose brave heart had turned aside so many perils,
and who yet has sunk at last under the very means on which all
had securely reckoned as her certain safety.

Lord Dalhousie ought not perhaps to have uttered even
this much of his sorrow, but your Majesty’s truly gracious
words have melted it from his heart; and still encourage
him to believe that your Majesty will not regard it as
obtrusive.

Lord Dalhousie will not mingle the other topics, on which
it is his duty to address your Majesty, with this respectful
expression of the enduring gratitude, with which he has the
honour to subscribe himself, your Majesty’s most obedient,
most humble, and most faithful Subject and Servant,

Dalhousie.

Footnote 21: Lady Dalhousie died on the 6th of May, on her passage home from India.

The Earl of Aberdeen to Queen Victoria.

PALMERSTON’S ATTITUDE

London, 11th September 1853.

Lord Aberdeen presents his most humble duty to your
Majesty….

Lord Aberdeen has by no means forgotten the conversation
to which your Majesty has referred; but after full consideration
he believes that the safest and best course has been adopted.²²
Trusting to your Majesty’s gracious condescension, and the
confidence with which Lord Aberdeen has been honoured, he
will humbly venture to lay before your Majesty, without any
reserve, the motives which have induced him to offer this advice
to your Majesty.

[page 451]

The situation of Lord Palmerston is peculiar.²³ Unless he
should continue to be a cordial member of your Majesty’s
Government, he may very easily become the leader of Opposition.
Lord Aberdeen is at this moment ignorant of his real
views and intentions. He has been recently more than once
thwarted in his endeavours to press a hostile policy upon the
Cabinet; and it has been reported to Lord Aberdeen that he
has expressed himself in terms of great hostility. This cannot
perhaps be avoided, and is only the result of taking different
views of the public interest; but it is very essential that Lord
Palmerston should have no personal or private cause of complaint
against Lord Aberdeen. From his office of Home Secretary
he might naturally expect to have the honour of attending
your Majesty; and should this not be the case he might probably
resent it and attribute it to the jealousy and ill-will of
Lord Aberdeen. But whether he did this, or not, himself, the
Public and the Press would not fail to do so, and would convert
this neglect into the ground of the most hostile and bitter
attacks.

Your Majesty may perhaps be aware that there is no amount
of flattery which is not offered to Lord Palmerston by the Tory
party, with the hope of separating him altogether from the
Government.

Lord Aberdeen fully admits that this step which he has
humbly proposed to your Majesty may fail to produce any good
effect, and that it may even be turned hereafter to the injury
of the Government; but, at all events, Lord Aberdeen’s conscience
will be clear; and if Lord Palmerston has any generous
feelings, it is not impossible that he may appreciate favourably
a proceeding which cannot but afford him personal satisfaction.

Footnote 22: Lord Aberdeen had suggested that it would be advisable for several reasons that
Lord Palmerston should be invited to Balmoral as Minister in attendance, and he accordingly
went there on the 15th of September.

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Clarendon.

Balmoral, 24th September 1853.

The Queen has this morning received Lord Clarendon’s letter
of the 22nd inst. She has not been surprised at the line taken
by Austria, who, Lord Clarendon will remember, the Queen
never thought could be depended upon, as she is not in that
independent position which renders a National Policy possible.
The accounts from Constantinople are very alarming, and make
the Queen most anxious for the future. She quite approves
of the steps taken by the Government. The presence of the
[page 452]
Fleets at Constantinople in case of general disturbance will
take from the Emperor of Russia what Lord Cowley calls his
coup de Théâtre à la Sadlers Wells, viz.: the part of the generous
protector of the Sultan and restorer of Order.²⁴

Footnote 23: Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell led the war party in the Cabinet; but the
latter was pledged to the introduction of a Reform Bill, while the former was opposed to
the scheme. Lord Aberdeen’s pacific views were making him increasingly unpopular in
the country.

Footnote 24: Even after the Russian occupation of the Principalities, which the Russian Minister,
Count Nesselrode, had described as not an act of war, but a material guarantee for the
concession by Turkey of the Russian demands, the resources of diplomacy were not
exhausted. The Four Powers—England, France, Austria, and Prussia—agreed, in conference
at Vienna, to present a note for acceptance by Russia and the Porte, to the effect
(inter alia) that the Government of the Sultan would remain faithful “to the letter and
to the spirit of the Treaties of Kainardji and Adrianople relative to the protection of the
Christian religion.” This was most unfortunately worded, but, however, the clause had
obtained the sanction of the English Government, and the Czar expressed his willingness
to accept it. Lord Stratford, however, saw the danger underlying the ambiguity of the
language, and, under his advice, the Porte proposed as an amendment the substitution
of the words “to the stipulations of the Treaty of Kainardji, confirmed by that of Adrianople,
relative to the protection by the Sublime Porte of the Christian religion.” The
Russian Government refused to accept this amendment, and from that moment war was
inevitable. The British Fleet under Admiral Dundas had been sent from Malta to the
East at the beginning of June.

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Aberdeen.

THE VIENNA NOTE

Balmoral, 25th September 1853.

The Queen has received Lord Aberdeen’s letter of the 23rd,
and is very thankful to him for this full and lucid statement of
the present very critical situation.

She transmits to him a memorandum containing our views,
drawn up by the Prince with the desire he might also communicate
it to Lord Clarendon.²⁵

The Queen must say she now rejoices the Fleets should be
on their way to Constantinople.

God grant that any outbreak at Constantinople may yet be
averted.

Footnote 25: The Memorandum stated that it would be fruitless further to attempt to settle the
dispute by the “Rédaction” of Notes to be exchanged between Turkey and Russia, or
the choice of particular words and expressions in public documents designed in order to
avoid naming the real objects in dispute.

“It is evident” (it was added) “that Russia has hitherto attempted to deceive us in
pretending that she did not aim at the acquisition of any new Right, but required only a
satisfaction of honour and a re-acknowledgment of the Rights she already possessed by
Treaty; that she does intend and for the first time lays bare that intention, to acquire
new Rights of interference which the Porte does not wish to concede and cannot concede,
and which the European Powers have repeatedly declared she ought not to concede….

“If the views of Russia, for instance, with regard to ‘Modification III. of the Note,’
were to prevail, the extension of the advantages and privileges enjoyed by Christian
communities, in their capacity as foreigners, to the Greeks generally, with the Right
granted to Russia to intercede for them to this effect, would simply make foreigners of
10,000,000 of the subjects of the Porte, or depose the Sultan as their sovereign, putting
the Emperor of Russia in his place.”

The Earl of Aberdeen to Queen Victoria.

London, 6th October 1853.

… The Cabinet will meet to-morrow; and Lord Aberdeen
will have the honour of humbly reporting to your Majesty the
[page 453]
result of their discussions. It will be Lord Aberdeen’s endeavour
to prevent any rash decision; and, above all, to keep open
the possibility of peaceful communications. No doubt, it may
be very agreeable to humiliate the Emperor of Russia; but
Lord Aberdeen thinks that it is paying a little too dear for this
pleasure, to check the progress and prosperity of this happy
country, and to cover Europe with confusion, misery, and
blood.

The Earl of Aberdeen to Queen Victoria.

MOVEMENTS OF THE FLEET

London, 7th October 1853.

Lord Aberdeen presents his humble duty to your Majesty.
As your Majesty will expect to hear from him to-day, he has
the honour of addressing your Majesty, although he could wish
that it had been in his power to give your Majesty a more full
and satisfactory account of the decisions of the Cabinet. The
meeting was very long, and considerable difference of opinion
prevailed in the course of the discussion. At length, however,
Lord Aberdeen is happy to say there was such an agreement
as ensured a certain degree of unanimity. With this view, it
was determined to adhere to a defensive principle of action in the
East. The Fleets may perhaps be already at Constantinople;
but, at all events, they are to be brought there forthwith, and
to be stationed either there or in the Bosphorus, unless the
Russians should cross the Danube, or make any attack upon the
Turkish possessions on the coast of the Black Sea. In this case,
the combined Fleets would enter the Black Sea, for the defence
of the Turkish territory.

Considering the position we have already assumed in this
unfortunate affair, perhaps it was impossible to do less than
this; and as there is very little chance of Russia undertaking
any active hostilities of the nature apprehended, it may reasonably
be hoped that no actual collision will take place. At
the same time it must be recollected that Russia will regard the
entrance of line of battle-ships into the Black Sea as a virtual
declaration of war against herself.

There is yet no confirmation of the actual declaration of war
by the Porte, and although there is no reason to suspect any
serious impediment to the decision of the Divan being fulfilled,
it is rather strange that intelligence to this effect has not been
received. If Lord Stratford should see great cause for apprehension
at the prospect of the Turks in the prosecution of
hostilities, it is just possible that by his influence he may have
arrested the progress of their warlike measures; but probably
this is too much to hope. At all events, Lord Aberdeen trusts
[page 454]
that the path of negotiation is not finally closed, and that,
notwithstanding the equivocal position of Great Britain in this
contest, it may still be possible to employ words of conciliation
and peace….

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

WAR IMMINENT

Balmoral, 10th October 1853.

I had a long interview with Sir James Graham this morning,
and told him that Lord Aberdeen’s last letter to the Queen and
him²⁶ made us very uneasy. It was evident that Lord Aberdeen
was, against his better judgment, consenting to a course of
policy which he inwardly condemned, that his desire to maintain
unanimity at the Cabinet led to concessions which by
degrees altered the whole character of the policy, while he held
out no hope of being able permanently to secure agreement. I
described the Queen’s position as a very painful one. Here
were decisions taken by the Cabinet, perhaps even acted upon,
involving the most momentous consequences, without her
previous concurrence or even the means for her to judge of the
propriety or impropriety of course to be adopted, with evidence
[page 455]
that the Minister, in whose judgment the Queen placed her
chief reliance, disapproved of it. The position was morally and
constitutionally a wrong one. The Queen ought to have the
whole policy in spirit and ultimate tendency developed before
her to give her deliberate sanction to it, knowing what it involved
her in abroad and at home. She might now be involved
in war, of which the consequences could not be calculated,
chiefly by the desire of Lord Aberdeen to keep his Cabinet
together; this might then break down, and the Queen would
be left without an efficient Government, and a war on her hands.LORD ABERDEEN OVERBORNE
Lord Aberdeen renounced one of his chief sources of strength
in the Cabinet, by not making it apparent that he requires the
sanction of the Crown to the course proposed by the Cabinet,
and has to justify his advice by argument before it can be
adopted, and that it does not suffice to come to a decision at
the table of the Cabinet. Sir James Graham perfectly coincided
with this view and offered to go up to Town immediately.
The Queen wrote the letter to Lord Aberdeen … which Sir
James takes up with him. He shall arrive at Windsor on
Friday (14th), and Lord Aberdeen is to have an Audience on
Saturday. Sir James will tell him that the Queen wants his
deliberate opinion on what course is best to be followed, and
that the course once adopted should be steadily and uninterruptedly
pursued.

Albert.

Footnote 26:

The Earl of Aberdeen to Sir James Graham.
Submitted to the Queen.

Argyll House, 8th October 1853.

My dear Graham,—… When we met, Clarendon made a sort of résumé of what
had taken place before we all separated, but ended with no specific proposal. After a
few interlocutory remarks from different quarters, Palmerston proposed his plan. Lord
John faintly supported it in general terms, but did not seem much in earnest about it.
I said that it appeared to involve the necessity of a declaration of war against Russia,
and the calling together Parliament forthwith. Gladstone strongly argued against the
proposal. Clarendon then read an outline of his proposed instructions, which were a
great abatement from Palmerston’s plan. We came at last to a sort of compromise; our
great difficulty being now to deal with the question of entering the Black Sea. I consented
to this being done, provided it was strictly in defence of some point of attack on Turkish
territory. I have no fear that this will take place; and as long as we abstain from entering
the Black Sea, Peace may be possible between us and Russia. We have thus assumed
a strictly defensive position, which for the moment may be sufficient, and will enable us to
carry on negotiations; but this cannot last long. Under the character of defensive war,
we should inevitably become extensively engaged. Should the Turks be at all worsted,
which is probable, of course we must increase our assistance. We should have a French
army, and perhaps English money—all for defence.

The aspect of the Cabinet was, on the whole, very good. Gladstone, active and energetic
for Peace; Argyll, Herbert, C. Wood, and Granville, all in the same sense. Newcastle,
not quite so much so, but good; Lansdowne, not so warlike as formerly; Lord John
warlike enough, but subdued in tone; Palmerston urged his views perseveringly, but not
disagreeably. The Chancellor said little, but was cordially peaceful. Molesworth was
not present, there having been some mistake in sending the notice.

On the whole, therefore, yesterday passed off well enough; but we shall see what to-day
will bring us. Not a syllable was said in the Cabinet on any other subject. Lord John
seemed in good humour; he came to see me a few minutes before the Cabinet. I told
you that I had spoken to Gladstone very fully; but I did not press any decision respecting
domestic matters, as it would at this moment be quite unseasonable. Nevertheless,
it must not be forgotten altogether. Yours, etc., etc.,

Aberdeen.

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Clarendon.

LORD STRATFORD’S INSTRUCTIONS

Balmoral, 11th October 1853.

The Queen has received Lord Clarendon’s letter. She had
written to Lord Aberdeen that she felt it her duty to pause
before giving her consent to the measures decided on in the
Cabinet, until she should have received an explanation on the
views which dictated that decision, and of the ulterior steps
involved in it; and Sir James Graham is gone up to Town,
verbally to explain more fully the Queen’s feelings. She has
now received and read the Despatches, which have in the
meantime been sent off to their points of destination without
having received her sanction!

The draft to Vienna the Queen thinks very ably argued, and
justly to define the present position of the question at issue.²⁷

[page 456]

The instructions to Lord Stratford,²⁸ on the other hand, appear
to her very vague, and entrusting him with enormous powers
and a latitude of discretion which is hardly to be called safe.
As matters have now been arranged, it appears to the Queen,
moreover, that we have taken on ourselves in conjunction with
France all the risks of a European war, without having bound
Turkey to any conditions with respect to provoking it. The
hundred and twenty fanatical Turks constituting the Divan at
Constantinople are left sole judges of the line of policy to be
pursued, and made cognisant at the same time of the fact that
England and France have bound themselves to defend the
Turkish Territory! This is entrusting them with a power
which Parliament has been jealous to confide even to the hands
of the British Crown. It may be a question whether England
ought to go to war for the defence of so-called Turkish Independence;
but there can be none that if she does so, she ought to
be the sole judge of what constitutes a breach of that independence,
and have the fullest power to prevent by negotiation
the breaking out of the war.

The Queen would wish copies of the enclosed papers to be
sent for her use as soon as convenient.

Footnote 27: In this despatch Lord Clarendon, after referring to the interpretation which Count
Nesselrode had put upon the Vienna Note, and the Russian rejection of it as amended
by the Porte, told Lord Westmorland that it would be useless and dishonourable to recommend
it in its unaltered form, that the Czar was contending for privileges for Christian
subjects of the Porte not hitherto enjoyed by them, and that a war embarked upon in
such a cause would be without parallel in history.

Footnote 28: Authority had been given to Lord Stratford to employ the British Fleet in the manner
he might deem most fit for defending Turkish territory from aggression, and he was
instructed that if the Russian Fleet left Sebastopol, the British Fleet was to pass through
the Bosphorus.

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

RESENTMENT OF THE CZAR

Windsor Castle, 16th October 1853.

We saw Lord Aberdeen yesterday. He went with us through
the whole of the proceedings of the last six weeks with respect
to the Eastern Question. Regretted Count Nesselrode’s Note,²⁹
which Baron Brunnow owned nobody would regret more than
the Count himself, acknowledged the weakness of Austria, felt
sure of Lord Stratford’s insincerity towards him and the Government,…
as he had to Lord Aberdeen’s certain knowledge
called “the conduct of the Government infamous” and declared
“he would let the world know that his name was Canning.”
He acknowledged the disadvantage of the course adopted by
the Cabinet, which left the Turks at liberty to do as they
pleased; he had to concede this to the Cabinet, which would
otherwise have been broken up by Lord John and Lord
Palmerston. Had he known what the Queen’s opinion was,
he might have been more firm, feeling himself supported by the
[page 457]
Crown, but he had imagined from her letters that there was
more animosity against Russia and leaning to war in her
mind.

Footnote 29: In this despatch to Baron Meyendorff, the Austrian Foreign Minister, the Count
had disclosed the fact that the Russian interpretation of the Vienna Note differed from
that of the other Powers.

Yet, under all the adverse circumstances Lord Aberdeen saw
still reason for hope that a peaceable settlement could be
obtained. The French were ready to do anything we pleased,
go to war, remain at peace, etc., etc.; in fact, Louis Napoleon
had experienced the great advantage for his position of the
Alliance with England…. Lord Stratford was thoroughly
frightened, and had made a proposal himself, which accordingly
he would support con amore. The Emperor of Russia had failed
in his attempt to form a Northern League against the Western
Powers…. The Emperor complained bitterly of the conduct of
the Powers, who had disgraced him before the world by making
him accept a Note, and sanctioning its alteration by Turkey;
“now they should do what they pleased and settle matters
with Turkey first, and bring him only what was settled and
fixed, he was wearied of the whole business, and anxious to get
rid of it for ever.”

What Lord Aberdeen now proposed was to follow the Emperor’s
advice and agree with Turkey upon a Note, leaving out
all that she had objected to in the Vienna Note as Lord Stratford
recommended, and taking as much as possible Redschid
Pasha’s own words to found the proposal of it upon the declaration
made by the Emperor at Olmütz to the Powers, that he
sought for no new right, privilege, or advantage, but solely for
the confirmation of the legal status quo, but accompanying this
with a declaration, that if Turkey created needless difficulties
and tried to evade a peaceful settlement the Powers would
withdraw their support and leave her to fight her own battle.
We went over the Documents which are not yet settled, even
between Lord Aberdeen and Lord Clarendon, and will require
the greatest caution in their wording. It is evident that the
Turks have every inducement not to let this opportunity slip
in going to war with Russia, as they will probably never find
so advantageous a one again, as the whole of Christendom
has declared them in the right, and they would fight with
England and France actively on their side!

LORD JOHN AND THE PREMIERSHIP

At home, Lord Aberdeen said matters do not stand much
better. Lord John has convinced himself that, under present
circumstances it would not do for him to ask Lord Aberdeen to
retire from the Prime Ministership and let him step in in his
place; perhaps he has found out also that the Peelites will not
serve under him; his own Whig colleagues would very much
regret if not object to such a change, and that Lord Palmerston
could not well submit to the arrangement. So he told Lord
[page 458]
Aberdeen that he had given up that idea; it was clear, however,
that he was now looking for an opportunity to break up the
Government on some popular ground, which it was impossible
to hope that he should not find. He now had asked for the
immediate summoning of Parliament, called for by the state
of the Oriental Question. This would create the greatest alarm
in the country, and embarrassment to the Government, and
was therefore resisted. Lord Aberdeen told Lord John quite
plainly he knew what the proposal meant—he meant to break
up the Government. “I hope not,” was Lord John’s laughing
reply.

The Queen taxed Lord Aberdeen with imprudence in talking
to Lord John of his own readiness to leave office, which he
acknowledged, but called very natural in a man of seventy.
Lord John was dissatisfied with his position;… upon Lord
Aberdeen telling him that he had the most powerful and
honourable position of any man in England as leader of the
House of Commons, he answered, “Oh, there I am quite
happy!”

I asked how under such circumstances that all-important
measure of Parliamentary Reform, upon which the future
stability and well-being of the Country so much depended, was
to be matured and brought forward? Lord Aberdeen replied
that Lord John had it all ready and prepared in his pocket, and
told Lord Aberdeen so, adding, however, that under present
circumstances there was no use in bringing it forward, to which
Lord Aberdeen added: “You mean unless you sit in the chair
which I now occupy?” Lord John laughed.

We discussed the probable consequences of Lord John’s
retirement. Lord Aberdeen thought that Lord Palmerston,
Lord Lansdowne, and even Lord Clarendon would secede with
him, but this by no means implied that the whole party would;
Lord Palmerston would not coalesce with Lord John, but try
for the lead himself; Lord Clarendon quite agreed with Lord
Aberdeen, and had been very angry with Lord John, but was
personally under great obligations to him, and Sir James
Graham had (as he said) been very much struck with the change
of tone in Lord Clarendon at the last meeting of the Cabinet.
Most of the Liberals seemed very much pleased with their
situation. Sir James Graham had, of his own accord, told
Lord Aberdeen that, in the event of Lord John’s secession, he
himself could not well sit in the House of Commons under so
much younger a man as Mr Gladstone as Leader. He knew
that there would be objections to his assuming the lead himself,
but he would be quite ready to go to the House of Lords to
support Lord Aberdeen.

Albert.

[page 459]

The Emperor of Russia to Queen Victoria.³⁰

THE CZAR’S LETTER

Tsarsko, ce

18
—
30

Octobre 1853.

Madame,—Votre Majesté connaît, je l’espère, les sentiments
d’affection sincère qui m’attachent à Sa personne, depuis que
j’ai eu l’honneur de L’approcher. Il m’a semblé qu’Elle
daignait aussi m’accorder quelque bienveillance. A la veille
d’événements, peut-être fort graves, qu’Elle daigne donc excuser
si je m’adresse droit à Elle, pour essayer de prévenir des
calamités, que nos deux pays ont un égal intérêt à éviter. J’ose
le faire avec d’autant plus de confiance, que longtemps encore
avant que les affaires d’Orient eussent pris la fâcheuse tournure
qu’elles ont acquise depuis, je m’étais adressé directement à
votre Majesté, par l’entremise de Sir Hamilton Seymour, pour
appeler votre attention, Madame, sur des éventualités, alors
encore incertaines, mais déjà fort probables à mes yeux, et que
je désirais éclaircir, avant tout, avec le Cabinet Anglais, pour
écarter autant qu’il m’était possible, toute divergence d’opinion
entre nous. La correspondance d’alors, qu’Elle daigne de la
faire relire atteignit son but, car elle mettait le Gouvernement
Anglais au fait de mes plus intimes pensées sur ces graves éventualités,
tandis que, je devais au moins le penser ainsi, j’obtiens
en réponse un égal exposé des vues du Gouvernement de votre
Majesté.

Sûrs ainsi de ce que nous désirions de part et d’autre, par
quelle fatalité devons-nous donc, Madame, en venir à une
mésintelligence aussi prononcée, sur des objets qui paraissaient
convenus d’avance, où ma parole est engagée vis-à-vis de votre
Majesté, comme je crois celle du Gouvernement Anglais engagée
de même vis-à-vis de moi.

C’est à la justice, au cœur de votre Majesté que j’en appelle,
c’est à Sa bonne foi et à Sa sagesse que je m’en mets qu’Elle
daigne de décider entre nous.

Devons nous rester, comme je le souhaite ardemment,
dans une bonne intelligence également profitable à nos
deux États, ou juge-t-Elle, que le pavillon Anglais doive
flotter près du croissant, pour combattre la croix de Saint
André!!!

Telle que soit la détermination de votre Majesté, qu’Elle
veuille être persuadée de l’inaltérable et sincère attachement
[page 460]
avec lesquels je ne cesserais d’être, de votre Majesté, le tout
dévoué frère et ami,

Nicolas.

Je prie votre Majesté de vouloir bien faire mes amitiés à
Monseigneur le Prince Albert.

Footnote 30: Greville calls the writing of this letter an unusual step; but in sending it to Lord
Aberdeen and Lord Clarendon, the Queen observed that its despatch was an important
and advantageous fact, as it both committed the Czar personally, and enabled her to
state certain truths to him, as well as to explain privately the views which guided her own
and her Ministers’ conduct.

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Aberdeen.

LORD STRATFORD’S PROPOSAL

Windsor Castle, 5th November 1853.

Although the Queen will have the pleasure of seeing Lord
Aberdeen this evening, she wishes to make some observations
on the subject of Lord Stratford’s last private letters communicated
to her yesterday by Lord Clarendon.³¹ They exhibit
clearly on his part a desire for war, and to drag us into it. When
he speaks of the sword which will not only have to be drawn,
but the scabbard thrown away, and says, the war to be successful
must be a “very comprehensive one” on the part of
England and France, the intention is unmistakable, and
it becomes a serious question whether we are justified in
allowing Lord Stratford any longer to remain in a situation
which gives him the means of frustrating all our efforts for
peace. The question becomes still graver when it is considered
that General Baraguay d’Hilliers seems from Lord Cowley’s
account of his conversation with him equally anxious for
extreme measures.

The Queen must express her surprise that Lord Stratford
should have coolly sent on so preposterous a proposal as
Redschid Pasha’s note asking for a Treaty of Alliance, the
amalgamation of our Fleets with the Turkish one, and the sending
of our surplus ships to the “White” Sea (!) without any
hesitation or remark on his part. As the note ends, however,
by saying that the Porte desires que les points ci-dessus émenés
(sic) soient appréciés par les Cours d’Angleterre et de France, et
que ces Cours veuillent bien déclarer leur intention d’agir en
conséquence, this appears to the Queen to afford an admirable
opportunity for stating plainly and strongly to the Turkish
Government that we have no intention of being used by them
for their own purposes. This time such a declaration might be
handed in to the Turkish Government, so that there can be no
mistake about the matter for the future.

The Queen encloses the letter and note, and wishes Lord
Aberdeen to show her letter to Lord Clarendon.

Footnote 31: Lord Stratford had written that Redschid Pasha was unable to make head against
his warlike colleagues, and that unless some proposal of a decidedly satisfactory kind
should come from Vienna very soon, there would be no chance of avoiding hostilities.
Lord Stratford added that he had obtained a promise that no act of hostility should
take place on the Turkish side before the expiration of fifteen days, and concluded with
the words: “I fear that war is the decree of Fate, and our wisest part will be to do what
we can to bring it to a thoroughly good conclusion.”

[page 461]

Queen Victoria to the Emperor of Russia.

THE QUEEN TO THE CZAR

Windsor Castle, ce 14 Novembre 1853.

Sire et très cher Frère,—C’est avec une profonde et
sincère satisfaction que je viens de recevoir la lettre que V.M.I.
a bien voulu m’écrire le 18/30
Octobre. Je suis vivement touchée
des sentiments affectueux que vous m’y témoignez. V.M. me
connaît assez pour savoir combien ils sont réciproques.

Je vous remercierai également, Sire, de la franchise avec
laquelle vous me parlez des complications actuelles; je ne
saurais mieux répondre aux loyales intentions de V.M. qu’en
lui exprimant à mon tour, et avec toute droiture, mes opinions à
ce sujet, car c’est là, j’en suis sûre, le meilleur moyen de conserver
utilement une amitié bien véritable.

J’ai, mon cher Frère, conformément à votre désir, relu les
communications confidentielles que vous avez bien voulu me
faire, ce printemps, par l’intermédiaire du bon Sir Hamilton
Seymour, et les réponses que mon Gouvernement a reçu l’ordre
d’adresser à V.M.

Bien qu’une différence d’opinion très notable devînt alors
évidente entre V.M. et moi relativement à la manière d’envisager
l’état de la Turquie et l’appréciation de sa vitalité, le
Mémorandum de V.M. en date du 3/15 Avril vint néanmoins dissiper
de la manière la plus heureuse ces fâcheuses appréhensions;
car il m’annonçait que, si nous n’étions pas d’accord sur l’état
de santé de l’Empire Ottoman, nous l’étions cependant sur la
nécessité, pour le laisser vivre, de ne point lui faire des demandes
humiliantes, pourvu que tout le monde en agît de même, et que
personne n’abusât de sa faiblesse pour obtenir des avantages
exclusifs. V.M. dans ce but, daigna même se déclarer prête
“à travailler de concert avec l’Angleterre à l’œuvre commune
de prolonger l’existence de l’Empire Turque, en évitant toute
cause d’alarme au sujet de sa dissolution.”

J’avais de plus la conviction qu’il n’existait et ne pouvait
exister au fond aucune divergence d’opinion entre nous au
sujet des réclamations relatives aux Lieux-Saints, réclamations
qui, j’avais droit de le croire, constituaient le seul grief de la
Russie contre la Porte.

Je mets, Sire, la confiance la plus entière dans la parole que
V.M. a bien voulu me donner alors, et, que les assurances subséquentes,
dues à votre amitié, sont venues confirmer, en me
donnant la connaissance de Vos intentions. Personne n’apprécie
plus que moi la haute loyauté de V.M., et je voudrais
que les convictions que j’ai à cet égard pussent seules résoudre
toutes les difficultés. Mais quelle que soit la pureté des motifs
qui dirigent les actions du Souverain même le plus élevé par
[page 462]
le caractère, V.M. sait que ses qualités personnelles ne sont
point suffisantes dans des transactions internationales par
lesquelles un État se lie envers un autre en de solennels engagements;
et les véritables intentions de V.M. ont été à coup sûr
méconnues et mal interprétées, à cause de la forme donnée au
réclamations adressées à la Porte.

Ayant à cœur, Sire, d’examiner ce qui avait pu produire ce
fâcheux malentendu, mon attention a été naturellement attirée
par l’article 7 du Traité de Kainardji; et je dois dire à V.M.
qu’après avoir consulté, sur le sens qui pouvait avoir été attaché
à cet article, les personnes les plus compétentes de ce pays-ci;
après l’avoir relu ensuite moi-même, avec le plus sincère désir
d’impartialité, je suis arrivée à la conviction que cet article
n’était point susceptible de l’extension qu’on y a voulu donner.
Tous les amis de V.M. ont, comme moi, la certitude que vous
n’auriez point abusé du pouvoir, que vous eût ainsi été accordé;
mais une demande de ce genre, pouvait à peine être acceptée par
un Souverain qui tient à son indépendance.

Je ne cacherai pas davantage à V.M. l’impression douloureuse
qu’a produit sur moi l’occupation des Principautés. Cette
occupation a causé, depuis les quatres derniers mois, une
perturbation générale en Europe, et pourrait amener des
événements ultérieurs que je déplorerais d’un commun accord
avec V.M. Mais, comme les intentions de V.M. envers la Porte
sont, je le sais, amicales et désintéressées, j’ai toute confiance
que vous trouverez le moyen de les exprimer et mettre à exécution
de manière à détourner de plus graves dangers, que tous
mes efforts, je vous assure, tendront sans cesse à empêcher.
L’attention impartiale avec laquelle j’ai suivi les causes qui ont
fait échouer jusqu’à présent toutes les tentatives de conciliation,
me donne la ferme conviction qu’il n’existe pas d’obstacle
réel qui ne puisse être écarté ou promptement surmonté avec
l’assistance de V.M.

Je n’abandonne point l’espoir de cet heureux résultat, même
après les tristes conflits qui ont fait couler le sang dans les
Principautés; car j’ai la foi en Dieu que lorsque de toute
part les intentions sont droites et lorsque les intérêts bien
entendus sont communs, le Tout-Puissant ne permettra pas
que l’Europe entière qui contient déjà tant d’éléments inflammables,
soit exposée à une conflagration générale.

Que Dieu veille sur les jours de V.M.; et croyez, Sire, à
l’attachement sincère avec lequel je suis, Sire et cher Frère, de
votre Majesté Impériale, la bien bonne Sœur et Amie,

Victoria R.

Albert est très sensible au souvenir de V.M. et me prie de le
mettre à vos pieds.

[page 463]

The Earl of Aberdeen to Queen Victoria.

LORD ABERDEEN’S SCRUPLES

London, 26th November 1853.

Lord Aberdeen presents his humble duty to your Majesty.
The Cabinet met to-day for the consideration of the overtures
made by the French Government for the settlement of the
Eastern Question.³² These proposals were in substance adopted;
although a considerable change was made in their form, and
in some of their details. The step now taken is evidently wise;
but Lord Aberdeen can scarcely venture to hope that it will
be attended with success. Pacific language is accompanied
with insulting and hostile acts; and it remains to be seen
what effect will be produced on the Emperor of Russia by the
entrance of English and French ships of war into the Black
Sea, under the pretext of bringing off Consuls from Varna, and
of looking after the grain-ships at the Sulina mouth of the
Danube. This information has hitherto been only communicated
by telegraph; but it is calculated to lead to serious consequences,
of which Lord Stratford must be perfectly well
aware.

Footnote 32: The Emperor had made certain suggestions to Lord Cowley, which the British
Government were willing to adopt; but the anti-Russian feeling was increasing daily in
the nation, and, as will be seen from the Queen’s letter of the 27th of November, Lord
Stratford seemed resolved on war.

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Aberdeen.

Osborne, 27th November 1853.

The Queen has received Lord Aberdeen’s letter of yesterday.
She is sorry to find that after all a considerable change was
made in the form of the French proposal. She is not aware at
present of what that change consists in and is therefore unable
to form an opinion as to the effects of its introduction, but she
quite concurs in Lord Aberdeen’s apprehensions with regard
to the effect of Lord Stratford’s orders to the Fleet. The
perusal of Lord Stratford’s Despatches of the 5th inst. has
given the Queen the strongest impression that, whilst guarding
himself against the possibility of being called to account for
acting in opposition to his instructions, he is pushing us deeper
and deeper into the War policy which we wish to escape.
Wherefore should three poor Turkish steamers go to the
Crimea, but to beard the Russian Fleet and tempt it to come out
of Sebastopol, which would thus constitute the much desired
contingency for our combined Fleets to attack it, and so engage
us irretrievably!

The Queen must seriously call upon Lord Aberdeen and the
Cabinet to consider whether they are justified in allowing such
a state of things to continue!

[page 464]

The Emperor of Russia to Queen Victoria.

THE CZAR TO THE QUEEN

S. Pétersbourg, le

2
—
14

Décembre 1853.

Madame,—Je remercie votre Majesté d’avoir eu la bonté
de répondre aussi amicalement que franchement à la lettre que
j’ai eu l’honneur de lui écrire. Je la remercie également de la
foi qu’elle accorde à ma parole,—je crois le mériter, je l’avoue,—28
années d’une vie politique, souvent fort pénible, ne
peuvent donner le droit à personne d’en douter.

Je me permets aussi, contrairement à l’avis de votre Majesté,
de penser, qu’en affaires publiques et en relations de pays à
pays, rien ne peut être plus sacré et ne l’est en effet à mes yeux
que la parole souveraine, car elle décide en dernière instance
de la paix ou de la guerre. Je ne fatiguerais certes pas l’attention
de votre Majesté par un examen détaillé du sens qu’elle
donne à l’article 7 du Traité de Kainardji; j’assurerais seulement,
Madame, que depuis 80 ans la Russie et la Porte l’ont
compris ainsi que nous le faisons encore. Ce sens-là n’a été
interrompu qu’en derniers temps, à la suite d’instigations que
votre Majesté connaît aussi bien que moi. Le rétablir dans
son réception primitive et la justifier par un engagement plus
solennel, tel est le but de mes efforts, tel il sera, Madame,
quand même le sang devrait couler encore contre mon vœu le
plus ardent; parce que c’est une question vitale pour la Russie,
et mes efforts ne lui sont impossibles pour y satisfaire.

Si j’ai dû occuper les Principautés, ce que je regrette autant
que votre Majesté, c’est encore Madame, parce que les libertés
dont ces provinces jouissent, leurs ont été acquises au prix du
sang Russe, et par moi-même Madame les années 1828 et 29. Il
ne s’agit donc pas de conquêtes, mais à la veille d’un conflit que
l’on rendait de plus en plus probable, il eût été indigne de moi
de les livrer sûrement à la main des ennemis du Christianisme,
dont les persécutions ne sont un secret que pour ceux qui
veulent l’ignorer. J’espérais avoir répondu ainsi aux doutes
et aux regrets de votre Majesté avec la plus entière franchise.
Elle veut bien me dire qu’Elle ne doute pas qu’avec mon aide
le rétablissement de la paix ne soit encore possible, malgré le
sang répandu; j’y réponds de grand cœur, Oui, Madame, si
les organes des volontés de votre Majesté exécutent fidèlement ses
ordres et ses intentions bienveillantes. Les miennes n’out pas
varié dès le début de cette triste épisode. Reculer devant le danger,
comme vouloir maintenant autre chose que je n’ai voulu en violant
ma parole, serait au-dessous de moi, et le noble cœur de votre
Majesté doit le comprendre.

J’ajouterais encore que son cœur saignera en apprenant les
[page 465]
horreurs qui se commettent déjà par les hordes sauvages, près
desquels flotte le pavillon Anglais!!!

Je la remercie cordialement des vœux qu’Elle veut bien faire
pour moi; tant que ma vie se prolongera ils seront réciproqués
de ma part. Je suis heureux de le Lui dire, en l’assurant
du sincère attachement avec lequel je suis, Madame, de votre
Majesté, le tout dévoué Frère and Ami,

Nicolas.

Je me rappelle encore une fois au bon souvenir de Son
Altesse Royale le Prince Albert et le remercie également de
ses paroles obligeantes.

The Earl of Aberdeen to Queen Victoria.

LORD PALMERSTON AND REFORM

London, 6th December 1853.

… As Lord John Russell will have the honour of seeing
your Majesty to-morrow, he will be able to explain to your
Majesty the present state of the discussions on Reform, and
the progress of the Measure.³³ Lord Aberdeen feels it to be his
duty to inform your Majesty that on Saturday evening he
received a visit from Lord Palmerston, who announced his
decided objection to the greater part of the proposed plan.³⁴
He did this in such positive terms that Lord Aberdeen should
[page 466]
imagine he had made up his mind not to give the Measure his
support; but Lord John entertains considerable doubt that
such is the case.

Lord Aberdeen thinks it by no means improbable that Lord
Palmerston may also desire to separate himself from the
Government, in consequence of their pacific policy, and in
order to take the lead of the War Party and the Anti-Reformers
in the House of Commons, who are essentially the same. Such
a combination would undoubtedly be formidable; but Lord
Aberdeen trusts that it would not prove dangerous. At all
events, it would tend greatly to the improvement of Lord
John’s Foreign Policy.

Footnote 33: On the 19th of November Lord John had written to the Queen outlining the Reform
proposals of the Committee of the Cabinet. The Queen subsequently wrote to make
additional suggestions, e.g., for finding a means of bringing into the House official persons
or men without local connections, and for dealing with Ministerial re-elections.

Footnote 34: Lord Palmerston wrote to Lord Lansdowne, giving an account of the affair:—

“Carlton Gardens, 8th December 1853.

“My dear Lansdowne,—I have had two conversations with Aberdeen on the subject
of John Russell’s proposed Reform Bill, and I have said that there are three points in it
to which I cannot agree.

“These points are—the extent of disfranchisement, the extent of enfranchisement,
and the addition of the Municipal Franchise in Boroughs to the pound;10 Householder Franchise….

“We should by such an arrangement increase the number of bribeable Electors, and
overpower intelligence and property by ignorance and poverty.

“I have told Aberdeen that I am persuaded that the Measure as proposed by John
Russell and Graham will not pass through the two Houses of Parliament without material
modifications, and that I do not choose to be a party to a contest between the two Houses
or to an Appeal to the Country for a Measure of which I decidedly disapprove; and that
I cannot enter into a career which would lead me to such a position, that, in short, I do
not choose to be dragged through the dirt by John Russell. I reminded Aberdeen that
on accepting his offer of Office, I had expressed apprehension both to him and to you,
that I might find myself differing from my Colleagues on the question of Parliamentary
Reform.

“I have thought a good deal on this matter. I should be very sorry to give up my
present Office at this moment: I have taken a great interest in it, and I have matters in
hand which I should much wish to bring to a conclusion. Moreover, I think that
the presence in the Cabinet of a person holding the opinions which I entertain as to the
principles on which our Foreign Affairs ought to be conducted, is useful in modifying the
contrary system of Policy, which, as I think, injuriously to the interests and dignity of
the Country, there is a disposition in other quarters to pursue; but notwithstanding all
this. I cannot consent to stand forward as one of the Authors and Supporters of John
Russell’s sweeping alterations. Yours sincerely,

Palmerston”.

The Prince Albert to the Earl of Aberdeen.

LORD PALMERSTON’S POSITION

Osborne, 9th December 1853.

My dear Lord Aberdeen,—The Queen has consulted with
Lord John Russell upon the Reform plan, and on the question
of Lord Palmerston’s position with regard to it; and he will
doubtless give you an account of what passed. She wishes me,
however, to tell you likewise what strikes her with respect to
Lord Palmerston. It appears to the Queen clear that the
Reform Bill will have no chance of success unless prepared and
introduced in Parliament by a united Cabinet; that, if Lord
Palmerston has made up his mind to oppose it and to leave the
Government, there will be no use in trying to keep him in it,
and that there will be danger in allowing him to attend the
discussions of the Cabinet, preparing all the time his line of
attack; that if a successor to him would after all have to be
found at the Home Office, it will be unfair not to give that
important member of the Government full opportunity to take
his share in the preparation and deliberation on the measure
to which his consent would be asked. Under these circumstances
it becomes of the highest importance to ascertain—

1. What the amount of objection is that Lord Palmerston
entertains to the Measure;

2. What the object of the declaration was, which he seems
to have made to you.

This should be obtained in writing, so as to make all future
misrepresentation impossible, and on this alone a decision can
well be taken, and, in the Queen’s opinion, even the Cabinet
could alone deliberate.

Should Lord Palmerston have stated his objections with the
view of having the Measure modified it will be right to consider
how far that can safely be done, and for the Queen, also, to
[page 467]
balance the probable value of the modification with the risk
of allowing Lord Palmerston to put himself at the head of the
Opposition Party, entailing as it does the possibility of his
forcing himself back upon her as leader of that Party.

Should he on the other hand consider his declaration as a
“notice to quit,” the ground upon which he does so should be
clearly put on record, and no attempt should be made to
damage the character of the Measure in the vain hope of propitiating
him. Ever yours truly,

Albert.

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

LORD PALMERSTON RESIGNS

Osborne, 16th December 1853.

Lord Aberdeen arrived yesterday and returned to-day to
meet the Cabinet to-morrow. Lord Palmerston has sent in
his resignation in a short note to Lord Aberdeen, a further correspondence
with Lord John and Lord Lansdowne, Lord Aberdeen
put into my hands, and I have copied the two most
important letters which follow here.

Lord John is reported as very angry, calling Lord Palmerston’s
conduct “treacherous,” a term Lord Aberdeen hardly
understands, as against him he has been perfectly consistent
with regard to the Reform Measure, from the beginning, and
had frequently denied the necessity of Reform…. Lord
Aberdeen had advised Lord John to show boldness and energy,
and to undertake the Home Office at once himself; this would
have a great effect under the difficulties of the circumstances,
would show that he was in earnest and determined to carry his
Reform Measure. Lord John seemed hit by the idea, but
asked for time to consider; after seeing Lady John, however,
he declined.

Lord Aberdeen’s fears are still mainly as to the Eastern
Question, Lord John pressing for war measures. Lord
Aberdeen had followed my advice, and had a long explanation
on the subject, in which they both agreed that their policy
should be one of Peace, and he thought matters settled when
Lord John now asks for contingent engagements to make war
on Russia if her forces cross the Danube (which Lord Aberdeen
thinks quite uncalled for), and to convoy the Turkish expeditions
in the Black Sea, even if directed against Russian territory,
etc., etc. The Cabinet is certain not to agree to either of these
propositions.

When Lord Aberdeen announced the intended rupture with
Lord Palmerston to Lord John, he drily said: “Well,
it would be very awkward for you if Palmerston quarrels
[page 468]
one day with you about Reform, and I the next about
Turkey!”

There can be no doubt that Lord Palmerston will at once
try to put himself at the head of the late Protectionist party,
and, with the present indifference of the Country upon Reform,
the fate of the Bill is by no means certain. On the
question of Peace or War, Lord Aberdeen is quite certain that
the House of Commons will adopt no war resolutions.

Much will depend, however, on the line taken by Lord
Lansdowne, who has great influence in the House of Lords,
and whose secession would spread great alarm over the Country
as to the real tendency of the Measure (which the Duke of
Newcastle describes as in fact a great increase of power to the
land³⁵). We agree that the Queen should write to him to
prevent any hasty step.

The Queen sanctioned the offer of the Home Office to Sir
George Grey, and of a seat in the Cabinet to Mr Cardwell (the
President of the Board of Trade).

Albert.

Footnote 35: I.e., the landed interest.

Queen Victoria to the Marquis of Lansdowne.

LORD LANSDOWNE AND REFORM

Osborne, 16th December 1853.

The Queen has been made very anxious by the Resignation
of Lord Palmerston, but still more so by hearing that Lord
Lansdowne has not been able to reconcile himself to the
Measure of Reform as now proposed in the Cabinet, which
has caused Lord Palmerston’s withdrawal. Lord Lansdowne
is aware of the paramount importance which the Queen attaches
to a safe settlement of that question, and to the maintenance
of her present Government; and she would press upon
Lord Lansdowne not to commit himself to a final determination
before she shall have an opportunity of seeing him. The
Queen will go to Windsor on Thursday, and hold a Council on
Friday, at which it may perhaps be convenient to Lord Lansdowne
to attend, and it will give the Queen the greatest pleasure
to find that Lord John Russell has succeeded in removing Lord
Lansdowne’s objections.

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Clarendon.

LORD STRATFORD’S DESPATCH

Osborne, 17th December 1853.

The Queen returns the enclosed Draft and Despatch to Lord
Clarendon.

[page 469]

She has never been so much perplexed respecting any
decision she has had to make, as in the present instance. She
has read Lord Stratford’s Despatch (358) over several times,
and she is struck, every time more, with the consummate
ability with which it is written and argued; but also with
the difficulty in which it places the person reading it to
extract distinctly what the Porte will be prepared to
concede.

The concluding passage of the Draft involves the most
important consequences. As the Queen understands it, it
promises war with Russia in a given contingency, but the
contingency is: Russia rejecting terms which are “in their
spirit and character such as Your Excellency sets forth in
your Despatch.” The Queen finds it impossible to make
such tremendous consequences dependent upon such
vague expressions. The more so, as “the spirit and
character” alluded to, appears to her to be, as if purposely,
obscure.

When Lord Stratford says, that the Turks would be satisfied
“with a renewal in clear and comprehensive terms of the
formal Declarations and Treaties already existing in favour of
the Porte”—the Queen cannot understand what is meant—as
all the former Treaties between Russia and Turkey have
certainly not been in favour of the Porte. Nor is it clear to
the Queen whether “the clear and unquestionable deliverance
from Russian interference applied to spiritual matters” is
compatible with the former treaties.

Whilst the Queen, therefore, perfectly agrees in the principle
that, should Russia “for its own unjustifiable objects, show
herself regardless of the best interests of Europe” by rejecting
every fair term, the time will have arrived “for adopting
measures of more active coercion against her”—she cannot
sanction such a Declaration except on terms which are so
clear in themselves as to exclude all misinterpretation.

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Clarendon.

SINOPE

(Undated.)

The Queen has received Lord Clarendon’s letter of the 19th,
and enclosures. She approves the Draft to Vienna, and asks
to have a copy of it, together with the Despatch from Lord
Westmorland to which it refers.

She also approves of the Draft to Lord Cowley, with certain
exceptions, viz., on the second page our accordance with the
[page 470]
views of the French Government “upon the utterly unjustifiable
course that Russia has pursued,” etc., is stated. If, as
the Queen must read it, this refers to the affair at Sinope,³⁶ it
is a dangerous assertion, as we have yet no authentic account
of the circumstances of the case, which would make it possible
to judge what degree of justification there might have been.
The sentence should, at any rate, be qualified by some expression
such as “as far as we know,” or “should present accounts
prove correct,” etc.

The word “utterly” might under any circumstances be
left out, as a state of War is in itself a justification of a
battle.

On page four the words “by sea” will have to be added to
make the statement precise and correct.

The concluding sentence, the Queen must consider as tantamount
to a declaration of war, which, under the guarded
conditions however attached to it, she feels she cannot refuse
to sanction. It would, in the Queen’s opinion, be necessary,
however, distinctly and fully to acquaint the Russian Government
with the step now agreed upon.

Lord Palmerston’s mode of proceeding always had that
advantage, that it threatened steps which it was hoped would
not become necessary, whilst those hitherto taken, started on
the principle of not needlessly offending Russia by threats,
obliging us at the same time to take the very steps which we
refused to threaten.

The Queen has to make one more and a most serious observation.
The Fleet has orders now to prevent a recurrence of
such disasters as that of Sinope. This cannot mean that it
should protect the Turkish Fleet in acts of aggression upon the
Russian territory, such as an attack on Sebastopol, of which
the papers speak. This point will have to be made quite clear,
both to Lord Stratford and the Turks.

The Queen would also wish to have copies of the Draft, when
corrected, of Lord Cowley’s Despatch.

Footnote 36: On the 30th of November the Russian Fleet from Sevastopol attacked the Turkish
squadron in the harbour of Sinope, a naval station in the Black Sea, and destroyed it.
The feeling in the country against Russia was greatly inflamed by the incident, which was
referred to as the “massacre of Sinope.”

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

PUBLIC FEELING

Windsor Castle, 25th December 1853.

Lord Aberdeen had an Audience of the Queen yesterday
afternoon. He reported that some of his colleagues, Sir C.
[page 471]
Wood, the Duke of Newcastle, and Mr Gladstone, had been very
anxious that Lord Palmerston should be readmitted into the
Cabinet; they had had interviews with him in which he had
expressed his hope to be allowed to reconsider his step. Lady
Palmerston had been most urgent upon this point with her
husband. All the people best conversant with the House of
Commons stated that the Government had no chance of going
on with Lord Palmerston in opposition, and with the present
temper of the public, which was quite mad about the Oriental
Question and the disaster at Sinope. Even Sir W. Molesworth
shared this opinion.

Lord Palmerston had written a letter to Lord Aberdeen, in
which he begs to have his resignation considered as not having
taken place, as it arose entirely from a misapprehension on his
part, his having believed that none of the details of the Reform
Measure were yet open for consideration, he had quite agreed
in the principle of the Measure! Lord Aberdeen saw Lord
John and Sir J. Graham, who convinced themselves that under
the circumstances nothing else remained to be done. Lord
Aberdeen having asked Lord John whether he should tell the
Queen that it was a political necessity, he answered: “Yes,
owing to the shabbiness of your colleagues,” to which Lord
Aberdeen rejoined: “Not shabbiness; cowardice is the
word.”

Lord Aberdeen owns that the step must damage the Government,
although it ought to damage Lord Palmerston still more.
Lord John’s expression was: “Yes, it would ruin anybody but
Palmerston.”

Lord Aberdeen thinks, however, that he can make no further
difficulties about Reform, and he, Lord John, and Graham were
determined to make no material alterations in the Bill. Graham
is suspicious lest the wish to get Palmerston in again, on
the part of a section of the Cabinet, was an intrigue to get
the Measure emasculated. Lord Aberdeen does not believe
this….

Lord Aberdeen describes Lord John’s feeling as very good
and cordial towards him. He, Lord John, had even made him
a long speech to show his gratitude for Lord Aberdeen’s
kindness to him.

Albert.

The Earl of Aberdeen to Queen Victoria.

PALMERSTON RESUMES OFFICE

London, 26th December 1853.

Lord Aberdeen, with his most humble duty to your Majesty,
has the honour of enclosing copies of Lord Palmerston’s letter
[page 472]
to him,³⁷ and of his answer. Lord Aberdeen was not without
some apprehension of receiving a rejoinder; but instead of
which, a note arrived this morning, merely asking if a Cabinet
was likely to be summoned in the course of the week, as he was
going into the country; in fact, a note just as if nothing whatever
has taken place!

Footnote 37: Lord Palmerston wrote: “I find … that I was mistaken in inferring from your
letter that the details of the intended Reform Bill had been finally settled by the Government,
and that no objection to any part of those details would be listened to.” He went
on to say that, under the circumstances, he could not decline to comply with the wish of
many members of the Government that he should withdraw his resignation.

Printed by Hazell, Watson & Viney, Ld. London and Aylesbury.
Paper supplied by John Dickinson & Co., Ld., London.

Transcriber’s Note:

This is the second volume of three.

The index is in Volume III, with links to all
three volumes; and some footnotes are linked between volumes.

These links are designed to work when
the book is read on line. However, if you want to download all
three volumes and have the links work on your own computer,
then follow these directions carefully.

1. Create a directory (folder) named whatever you like (e.g., Victoria).
(The name of this directory (folder) is not critical, but the inner
folders must be named as listed below, or the links between
volumes will not work).

2. In that directory (folder) create 3 directories (folders) named

20023
24780
28649

3. Create the following directories (folders):

In the 20023 directory create a directory named 20023-h
In the 24780 directory create a directory named 24780-h
In the 28649 directory create a directory named 28649-h

4. Download the zipped html version of each volume.

Download Vol. I from https://www.gutenberg.org/etext/20023
Download Vol. II from https://www.gutenberg.org/etext/24780
Download Vol. III from https://www.gutenberg.org/etext/28649

5. Unzip the downloaded files and move them into the appropriate directories:

Move the unzipped 20023-h.htm file and its “images” directory
into your 20023-h directory.
Move the unzipped 24780-h.htm file and its “images” directory
into your 24780-h directory.
Move the unzipped 28649-h.htm file and its “images” directory
into your 28649-h directory.

Use the BACK button to return
from a link.

The original pageheadings have been retained, and moved to appropriate
positions in the right-hand margin close to the text to which they refer,
so as not to interrupt the flow of the text.

Likewise, footnotes have been moved to the end of the appropriate letter, or the
appropriate paragraph, in the case of longer passages of text.

Only footnotes in longer letters or passages of text, or those that refer to earlier
or later letters etc., are linked.

Initial letters are spaced as in the original, i.e., personal initials: spaced;
academic initials: unspaced.

Mr or Mr.

Most instances of this form of address, in the book, are ‘Mr’, without
the period. There are a few spelt as ‘Mr.’, with the period. These
have been left as they appeared in the original book.

Russian Dates.

The difference between the Russian Calendar and the Calendar used in
Western Europe was 12 days…22nd March 1848, in Great Britain and
Western Europe, was 3rd April in Russia; 8th April 1853, in Great
Britain and Western Europe, was 20th April in Russia, etc.

General Note: consistency

There are some differences in personal spelling, and the use or non-use of hyphens and accents, from one year to another; the original has always been retained.

Errata – old typos:

Obvious punctuation errors have been repaired.

The remaining corrections made are indicated by dotted lines under the corrections.

Scroll the mouse over the word and the original text will appear.

Links to

THE LETTERS OF QUEEN VICTORIA

A SELECTION FROM HER MAJESTY’S CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE YEARS 1837 and 1861

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

EDITED BY ARTHUR CHRISTOPHER BENSON, M.A. AND VISCOUNT ESHER, G.C.V.O., K.C.B.

IN THREE VOLUMES

VOL. II.—1844-1853

LONDON

JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, W.

1908

Copyright in Great Britain and Dependencies, 1907, by H.M. The King.

In the United States by Messrs Longmans, Green & Co.

All rights reserved.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1844

1845

1846

1847

1848

1849

1850

1851

1852

1853

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

TO CHAPTER XIII

CHAPTER XIII

1844

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Aberdeen.

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Aberdeen.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Viscount Melbourne to Queen Victoria.

Sir Robert Peel to Queen Victoria.

Queen Victoria to Sir Robert Peel.

The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

Sir Robert Peel to Queen Victoria.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Aberdeen.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Viscount Melbourne to Queen Victoria.

The Earl of Ellenborough to Queen Victoria.

The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

The Queen of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

The Queen of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Viscount Melbourne to Queen Victoria.

The Queen of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Queen Victoria to the King of the French.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

The King of the French to Queen Victoria.

Sir Henry Hardinge to Queen Victoria.

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

TO CHAPTER XIV

CHAPTER XIV

1845

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Queen Victoria to Sir Robert Peel.

Queen Victoria to Sir Robert Peel.

Sir Robert Peel to the Prince Albert.

Queen Victoria to Sir Robert Peel.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Queen Victoria to Viscount Melbourne.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

Mr Goulburn14 to Queen Victoria.

Sir James Graham to Queen Victoria.

The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

THE LETTERS OF
QUEEN VICTORIA

A SELECTION FROM HER MAJESTY’S
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE YEARS
1837 and 1861

EDITED BY ARTHUR CHRISTOPHER BENSON, M.A.
AND VISCOUNT ESHER, G.C.V.O., K.C.B.

Copyright in Great Britain and Dependencies, 1907, by
H.M. The King.

Mr Goulburn¹⁴ to Queen Victoria.

Sir Robert Peel to Queen Victoria.²⁹

Viscount Palmerston to Viscount Melbourne.⁴¹

Sir Henry Hardinge to Queen Victoria.³

The Bishop of Oxford¹³ to Mr Anson.