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.



[Pageheading: LOUIS NAPOLEON]

Memorandum by Queen Victoria.[18]

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 Idees Napoleoniennes written in '39, for that he was more a man of "Idees 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.]



[Pageheading: FAREWELL AUDIENCES]

[Pageheading: LORD DERBY'S PROGRAMME]

[Pageheading: LORD DERBY AND THE CHURCH]

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

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.

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 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 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 himself 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 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 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.



[Pageheading: FOREIGN AFFAIRS]

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

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 Schwartzenberg[21] 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 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.).]



[Pageheading: DEMOCRACY]

The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

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.



[Pageheading: THE NEW MILITIA BILL]

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby.

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 question[23] 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 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.]



[Pageheading: MR DISRAELI]

[Pageheading: THE OPPOSITION]

Mr Disraeli to Queen Victoria.

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.

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 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 League[26] 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.]



[Pageheading: THE QUESTION OF DISSOLUTION]

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

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.

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.

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.



[Pageheading: INTERVIEW WITH LORD DERBY]

[Pageheading: PROTECTION]

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

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.

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 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.



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....



[Pageheading: ENGLAND AND ITALY]

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby.

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 Azeglio[29] 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.]



[FRANCE AND ITALY]

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby.

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 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 Republique Democratique, 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 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.]



[Pageheading: THE BUDGET]

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby.

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 L2,000,000, 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 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.



[Pageheading: FRANCE AND THE BOURBONS]

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

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' Revolution, 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 delasser 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 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.]



[Pageheading: AFFAIRS IN FRANCE]

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby.

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.

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.



[Pageheading: DISTURBANCES AT STOCKPORT]

Queen Victoria to Mr Walpole.

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'Evenement, in 1848: he was exiled in 1851, and published Napoleon 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 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.



[Pageheading: THE QUEEN INHERITS A FORTUNE]

The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria.

LAEKEN, 10th September 1852.

MY DEAREST VICTORIA,—... That Mr Neild[39] 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 L100 to L1000 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.]



[Pageheading: DEATH OF DUKE OF WELLINGTON]

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

BALMORAL, 17th September 1852.

The death of the Duke of Wellington[40] 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 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 following[42] shows what doubts exist as to the person in whom the Command of the Army is 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.]



[Pageheading: THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON]

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

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 genie, 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 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.



[Pageheading: FUNERAL ARRANGEMENTS]

The Prince Albert to the Earl of Derby.

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 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 L500 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 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.



[Pageheading: LOUIS NAPOLEON]

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

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 merite." 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 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.)]



[Pageheading: NATIONAL DEFENCES]

The Prince Albert to Viscount Hardinge.

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 Mr Disraeli that Mr Villiers' Motion[45] 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.]



[Pageheading: FINANCIAL POLICY]

Mr Disraeli to Queen Victoria.

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 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.



[Pageheading: LORD DALHOUSIE]

[Pageheading: INDIA AND THE DUKE]

The Marquis of Dalhousie to Queen Victoria.

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.

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.

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.



[Pageheading: THE FUNERAL]

Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians.

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 eloge by Thiers on a French Marshal!!![46]

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 wehmtuehige 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 Haynau[48] for his own character. Ernest Hohenlohe was extremely anxious you should know the reason why he may possibly appear one evening at the Elysee (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 Legion 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.]



[Pageheading: CONFUSION OF PARTIES]

The Earl of Derby to Queen Victoria.

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.

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 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.]



[Pageheading: LORD PALMERSTON]



Mr Disraeli to Queen Victoria.

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.]



[Pageheading: MR DISRAELI AND MR GLADSTONE]

Memorandum by the Prince Albert.

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, 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.



[Pageheading: RECOGNITION OF THE EMPIRE]

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Malmesbury.

OSBORNE, 2nd December 1852.

The Queen has received Lord Malmesbury's letter, and returns the enclosure from Lord Cowley. Under these circumstances the course recommended to be pursued by Lord Malmesbury[51] 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'etat, 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 Budget[52] 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 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.]



[Pageheading: THE QUEEN TO THE EMPEROR]

Queen Victoria to the Emperor of the French.

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 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.



[Pageheading: A SECRET PROTOCOL]

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Malmesbury.

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 Protocol[54] 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 redacteur 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 make one which indirectly "resserrerait les liens d'amitie 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 Stephanie, daughter of Prince Gustavus de Wasa, who was son of the last King of Sweden of the earlier dynasty.]



[Pageheading: THE EMPEROR'S PROPOSED MARRIAGE]

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby.

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 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.]