Chapter XIV: Literature and Politics (2)

Je ne vous parle pas aujourd'hui d'autre chose. Si vous etiez la, nous causerions. De loin, il n'y a rien qui vaille la peine d'etre ecrit. Tout a vous, my dear Sir,

GUIZOT.

The gout was still threatening; so, according to the Journal:--

To Aix in October; back by Paris. Went to stay with Lord and Lady Cowley at Chantilly; they had hired the _chasse_ and the _chateau_. Shooting there, November 11th. Home on the 16th.

At this time Lord Brougham was preparing the autobiography which was published shortly after his death. Early in November his brother, Mr. Brougham, wrote to Reeve, begging him to bring his influence to bear, and induce Lord Brougham to make this biography interesting and amusing. He wrote:--

_From Mr. W. Brougham_

_Paris, November 14th_.--Mind you dwell on books of biography which have failed for lack of personal matter and anecdotes, and use this argument, which (for reasons I need not trouble you with) will, I know, have more weight than anything you can urge--that, irrespective of any question of his own fame or reputation, if he wishes the book to be eminently successful in a commercial point of view, he must give as much as possible every detail, no matter how minute, and tell everything connected with his own history and doings. That circumstances he may consider trivial all have the greatest interest with the general public, who are the buyers he must look to; that people don't want to read history in such a book as his autobiography; what they want is his life, and not a history of his times--anecdotes or peculiarities of his Bar and Bench friends; how he worked as a boy to make himself mathematician and orator; how he worked for the English Bar; his early associates in Edinburgh, both at school and college, and all connected with the beginnings of the 'Edinburgh Review;' his early associates in London before he came into Parliament in 1809, and for years afterwards; all he did at Birmingham in '90, '91, and '92, when he lived there with his tutor; all he can recollect of his mother and grandmother-paternal, but more especially maternal. In short, every personal thing, no matter how trifling, will be the making, as the omission will be the marring, of the book.

I am persuaded that a good strong letter from you will have immense effect; and don't be afraid of making it too long; the more topics like those I have hastily put down above you can give him to think over, now he is quietly at Cannes, the more chance we have of his digging into his mind and early recollections, and producing what we want.

Don't forget to quote Guizot; also tell him that Lord Malmesbury's heavy book was saved solely by the gossip in the third and fourth volumes. The first two are heavy historical matter that would have sunk a 74.

The letter which Reeve wrote in consequence of this has unfortunately not been preserved, but it is evident from Lord Brougham's reply that it closely followed the lines suggested by his brother.

_From Lord Brougham_

_Cannes, November 17th_.--I have not words to express how grateful I feel for your most kind letter, which arrived this morning. I fear I must admit all you say on the necessity of much personal matter. However, I really feel certain that, with the political and general, there will be a number of personal anecdotes interspersed. Thus in the Queen's trial, numberless singular anecdotes, professional and other; and on the changes of government and the unity of our administration, strange things of individuals: e.g. Lord Grey having, six months before taking office in 1830, positively declared to Lansdowne that he had resolved never to take office; and in 1822, to me, that unless I would consent to take office, and be leader in the Commons, nothing should induce him to take part in any administration--there being then an expectation of an offer to us; in answer to which I positively refused leaving the progressives. I give these as examples of what the correspondence contains. I quite feel, however, that something personal and in early life will be desiderated. If you look at my 'Life of Robertson' you will see all you refer to about his being at Brougham, and about the translation of 'Florus,' and other anecdotes, and a good deal about my grandmother. Indeed, in that Life, and in my contributions to the 'Law Review,' there are numberless anecdotes of interest.

I cannot conclude on this subject without expressing how grieved I am to see what you say of my old and dear friend Richardson. He wrote in very good spirits last spring, and I fear he has had some severe illness since. Pray let me know how this is.

The mention of him reminds me of an instance that matters which derive their whole interest from connexion with myself are thus very hateful to set down. He had given me a sermon and a hymn, written by the Principal's father--my great-grandfather. When I attended the Glasgow congress last year, the hymn was by mere accident sung in the church where we were on the morning after our arrival:

Let not your hearts with anxious thoughts
Be troubled and dismayed, &c.

I believe I was the only person in Glasgow who knew that the old minister was the author, or who knew of his existence. [Footnote: Cf. _Life and Times of Lord Brougham_, i. 30.] Now such things would make the narrative a tissue of mere egotism. However, I feel the force of your remarks exceedingly. Certainly when Guizot's book came out, and I was asked my opinion of it, and some defects were pointed out, I could not avoid saying there was a worse defect than all they mentioned; there would be a defect of readers. And so it has proved; I have, with all my respect for him, and desire to read, been unable to get through a volume.

I must set about digging in my published works for anecdotes; and, as in the case of Robertson's Life, I may find a great number which, apart from personality, may be interesting in their connexion with events. Again repeating my gratitude, believe me, most sincerely yours,

H. BROUGHAM.

_To Madame de Tocqueville_

Paris, November 15th.

My dear Madame De Tocqueville,--Although on the point of leaving Paris, I must write two lines to express to you my gratitude for allowing M. de Beaumont to return to me some of my own letters, which derive some value in my eyes from their connexion with my ever-lamented and illustrious friend. I have had a melancholy satisfaction here in seeing the bust which M. Salaman has made. It surpasses my expectations, especially as regards the mouth and forehead, and I trust that even you will not be entirely disappointed in it.

_From Lord Clarendon_

_The Grove, November 19th_.--I have only a minute for writing, as we have had Princess Alice here all day, and I, of course, could do nothing but the very easy task of entertaining her.

I was very glad to get your letter, as I thought you were still abroad, and I only hope you are as glad to find yourself at home again as I am, though I am not sorry to have been to Berlin. I rather envy you being at Paris during the late crisis, and getting the first impressions upon it.... I have no doubt the deficit is about what Senex [Footnote: Reeve was at this time writing occasional letters in the _Times_ under the signature of 'Senex.' Lord Clarendon seems to have known this. Other correspondents did not; notably Lord Kingsdown, some of whose letters innocently comment on the opinions expressed by Senex.] puts it at. I read your admirable letter with great pleasure, and thought it must be yours, though I did not understand whence it was written.

I should very much like to have a talk with you. If you are not engaged, why shouldn't you and Mrs. and Miss Reeve come here on Saturday? We have asked Granville and C. C. G.; and I believe Lewis is coming. Miladi would write to propose this to Mrs. Reeve, but thinks she will consider two letters unnecessary.

_From Lord Brougham_

_Cannes, December 8th_. There is a new complication of the American case, and I fear, though I don't join in what I find the universal feeling in England, that the Government of Washington will hold out. But even if they give in, this hesitation, and their manifest fear of the mob, is the most complete confirmation of all I have been so long and so often preaching, of the extreme mischief of mob-government. They are in the hands of the mob--and one of the worst mobs in the world. You see they even are under this dominion as to their military operations; for their disaster at Bull's Run was owing to the clamour forcing their comrades to advance and do something; and now no one can have the least doubt that, if Lincoln and Seward were left to themselves, a war with England would be the thing they most dreaded; yet it is very possible they may feel unable to resist the mob-clamour, and may bring on that calamity. The mob of Paris threw France into all the horrors of the reign of terror (1793-4), which have left such indelible disgrace on the French, and which stopped all improvement both in France and in Europe for a quarter of a century, and which even now create such a force in favour of despotism--as they did in the first Napoleon's time. But I don't think the evils of mob-government--that is, of the supreme power being in persons not individually responsible--can be more clearly manifested, though they may not lead to such atrocious crimes, than in the States of America--and the southern as well as the northern--for the mob governs in both. My opinion will be the same, even if, contrary to probability, the Washington men are stout enough to resist the mob; for this hesitation and this struggle against the insanity of war could only be occasioned by the mob tyranny.

Prince Albert died on December 14th. It was impossible to allow an event so important in the political as well as in the social history of the reign to pass without a notice in the 'Edinburgh Review,' and that on the earliest occasion; though, in the middle of December, some special arrangement had to be made for it. It was, in fact, brought into the concluding pages of the article on 'May's Constitutional History of England.' But the subject was one which called for exceeding care and delicacy in the handling. The services of Prince Albert to the Crown had been many and great; but by the country at large they were still looked on with jealousy and suspicion. A profound sympathy was everywhere felt for the death of the Queen's husband; the death of a man regarded by an ignorant prejudice as the embodiment of German influence in the Cabinet might easily be considered as no great loss. Reeve seems to have consulted Lord Clarendon as to how much or how little it was prudent to say; in answer to which Lord Clarendon wrote:--

_The Grove, December 31st_.--I feel, as you do, that the events of the last month are too vast in themselves and in their consequences for discussion by letter, though I should much like to have a day's talk over them with you.

I am very glad that you mean to undertake the task--a labour of love--of doing honour to the Prince, as I am sure it will be admirably performed; but I would suggest to you not to be too precise as to the manner in which he exercised his political influence.... There is a vague belief that his influence was great and useful; but there is a very dim perception of the _modus operandi_.... Peel certainly took the Prince into council much more than Melbourne, who had his own established position with the Queen before the Prince came to this country; but I cannot tell you whether it was Peel who first gave him a cabinet key. My impression is that Lord Duncannon, during the short time he was Home Secretary, sent the Prince a key when the Queen was confined, and the contents of the boxes had to be read or signed by her.

The concluding sentence in the next letter from Lord Clarendon refers to the feeling which had been roused in Canada by the threat of war between England and the United States. The Canadians showed an exemplary loyalty; and great numbers of Irish--many of whom (like O'Reilly) had been known at home as turbulent characters--now not only pressed forward to be enrolled in the militia, but formed themselves into special regiments.

_The Grove, January 21st_.--I cannot help telling you how excellent I think your article on the Prince. You have said the right thing in the right way, and have so hit the happy medium between justice to him and no flattery or exaggeration, that I am sure the article will be read with pleasure by everybody, because it exactly reflects the public feeling.

The Belligerent and Neutral article is also very good, and I expect that the temperate and sensible way in which the author recommends the abandonment of rights we can never again exercise will have some useful results.

The loyalty of Canada is far greater than I expected; but that the French and Irish there should come out so strong for the Crown against Democracy is indeed a surprise. That Captain Eugene O'Reilly was a tremendous patriot in '48; and if I had not put him in prison for a little time to cool, he would have made a greater donkey of himself than he did.

The next letter from Lord Clarendon relates to a point on which widely different opinions have been and will be held, till it is decided in the only practical way. It would be foreign to our present purpose to argue it here; but it is interesting to see the opinion of the man who, more distinctly than any other, was responsible for the great change theoretically introduced into our maritime code by the Declaration of Paris.

_The Grove, January 28th_.--With respect to alterations in our maritime law and usages, I don't know what Russell's opinion may be, but I know that Palmerston does, or did, think the time come for relinquishing rights that we can no longer exercise. He readily assented to the doctrines laid down at Paris in '56, and was so entirely of my opinion about going further that he tried it on at Liverpool some time afterwards; but that part of his speech was so ill received, and he received so many remonstrances against giving up the _palladium_, &c. &c., that he told me when he returned to London that the pear was not ripe, and that we must give public opinion a little more time to become reasonable.

On January 9th Charles Sumner had spoken at great length in the United States Senate, proving, very much to his own satisfaction and that of his fellow-citizens, that the surrender of Mason and Slidell was a great moral victory, confirming the principles of maritime law for which they had always contended, and which the English now admitted. A short telegraphic summary of this had caught the mail at Halifax, and been published in the 'Times' of the 20th; but it was not till the 27th that the United States papers, with the full report, reached England. Of this the 'Times'--on its own part--took no further notice; but on February 1st it published a long and most scathing criticism of it by 'Historicus' (Mr., now Sir, William Harcourt).

_From Lord Clarendon_

_The Grove, January 30th_.--When you can spare it, I shall be very glad to see Sumner's speech....

Russell was, of course, guided in his despatches by the law officers, and it is no wonder, therefore, that they should resemble the papers that had previously appeared--many of which were written by lawyers--or that they should be a reproduction of them; as a government could not, without risk of failure in its peaceful object, express itself with the vigour of Senex or the 'Edinburgh Review.' The most important despatch of all, however, and the one upon which everything hung--viz. the demand for reparation--was well conceived and executed, and did its work effectually.

_From Lord Brougham_

_Cannes, February 16th_.--I yesterday met Miss Courtenay, who gave me the very pleasing information that Mrs. Austin had excellent accounts of Lady Duff Gordon, and was quite easy about her. I trust you will confirm this account, and also add to it a general good account of Mrs. Austin herself.

I hope there is a good article on the Amendment Cases in the 'E. R.' They have stupidly omitted to send it from Grafton Street. The 'Quarterly' came, and a better article than our friend your neighbour's never was written. I admired it so much that I wrote to him about it. Pray tell him my opinion of it, in case my letter should have miscarried, and that I admired it far more than I did the very spiteful article of someone inspired by a personal enmity against myself, and who has not the common sense and fairness, when relying on the wholly immaterial circumstance of my mis-stating the day of the Westminster election (the night of Princess Charlotte's running away), to see that Dundonald [Footnote: _Autobiography of a Seaman_, ii. 892. It has, however, been recently shown (Atlay's _Trial of Lord Cochrane_, pp. 330 _et seq._) that Lord Dundonald had very little to do with it.] makes the Duke of Sussex fall into the very same mistake.

_Cannes_ [_February_].--I am much obliged to you for your kind letter, and rejoice to hear of the good intelligence [Footnote: As to the health of Lady Duff Gordon.] from the Cape which will be such a relief to my valued friend, her mother.

The American news is a good deal more favourable, but still they are not out of the wood, or anything like it; and, even if they beat the Southerners in the field, the re-union is as far off as ever. Their only safe course is to regard the whole campaign as a kind of drawn battle, and both sides to negotiate as to terms of separation.

I have no doubt that a certain most intriguing ambassadress is at the bottom of the spiteful attack in the 'Quarterly,' and she will find her own letters rise up in judgement against her. She never will forgive my having been at the dancing school with her, because that makes her near eighty, and she pretends only to be seventy-four.

I am in constant expectation of a paper from a great mathematician, to which will be added, by B. Ker, artistic matter on monuments. It will be all sent to you, in the hope that it may assist whoever you have put on the monument question.

_Cannes, March 17th._--I am extremely sorry to find that, after all, I cannot finish you the Cambridge article on Newton, to be used at your discretion, or that of your contributor; for Mr. Routh has no less than five wranglers, including the senior, as his pupils, and this has entirely occupied him, to the exclusion of all other work. I trust it will not prevent the article. In truth, my discourse at Grantham contains all the learning on the subject, and it may be used without any acknowledgement whatever, and I shall never complain of the plagiarism.

The Journal records:--

_April 4th._--Breakfast to the Philobiblon at home. There came the Due d'Aumale, Van de Weyer, Milman, Lord Taunton.

_To Mr. Dempster_

_Exeter, April 25th_.--If that providence which shapes our ends will but finish those I rough-hew, I trust that the second week in October, or perhaps a few days earlier, will see us at Skibo. We hope to start straight for the far North as soon as ever my autumnal egg is laid....

We have hit on an Easter ramble, original and agreeable. I sent down my horses to my father's-in-law, in Dorset, and for the last week Christine and I have been riding gently along the coast of South Devon. Yesterday we went to see Sir John Coleridge's place at Ottery St. Mary, and he drove us also round the neighbourhood. To-day we have been at Lady Rolle's, at Bicton, on our way from Sidmouth, to see her gardens and arboretum, which are really marvels of beauty and growth. To-morrow we shall saunter on to Dawlish, and so at last reach Plymouth, I believe. I want to get out of the way of the Exhibition opening, which bores me. At Torquay we expect to find the Fergusons of Raith and the Scotts of Ancrum.

I hear that other literary entrepreneurs have been as much struck as I am by the power and judgement there is in all that is written by a certain young author of our acquaintance.[Footnote: See ante, vol. i. p. 374.] To write as well as that is a gift; but it is more for it cannot be done without infinite practice, labour, and good sense.

At Devonport they saw Mount Edgcumbe and the ironclad frigate 'Warrior' then still a novelty, and unquestionably the most powerful ship of war afloat. The Journal adds: 'Back to town on May 3rd.'

_From Lord Brougham_

_Cannes, April 22nd_.--I have just got the new number, and hasten to say how much I am pleased with the only article I have had time to read with care, the Alison.[Footnote: 'Alison's Lives of Lord Castlereagh and Sir C. Stewart,' April 1862.]Nothing can be more able or more triumphant, and it is quite fair and candid towards Castlereagh, and much more than fair towards Ch. Stewart, Indeed, if the letter to me deserves half what is said in its praise,[Footnote: _Sc_.' one of the most caustic and successful pamphlets that have appeared in defence of an unpopular cause.'] he never could have written it himself; and his gross stupidity in construing what I have said of his brother, and affixing a meaning which none but himself ever did, or could, was at the time admitted by his friends, whom he had consulted, and in spite of whom he had published--among others, Strangford, from whom I heard what had passed. I have a copy of my own, which I should like the author of the article to see, and shall send it through you when I return, for it is out of print. One of the blockhead's follies was the not perceiving how great a panegyric I had bestowed on his brother's speaking in the H. of Commons, after fully stating its defects. In fact, he had much greater weight as leader than Canning, who, by the way, is too much praised in the article. Such a book as Alison's is almost incredible for its badness of all kinds; but the author (on p. 521, line six from foot) gives him a pull or two as to style by 'ineligible for election'--though that is a trifle. The care with which the whole subject is treated, and the gross errors--partly from ignorance, partly from adulation--exposed is quite admirable.

I have naturally been attracted to the Monument article, but have not had time fully to profit by it; only I am greatly indebted to the learned author for what he says of my Grantham address.[Footnote: 'Public Monuments,' April 1862, p. 550.] However, I should have been far better pleased had he left me out altogether, and dwelt at more length on the disgrace of the country never having erected a monument to the greatest man she ever produced--indeed, the greatest [that has] ever been. He seems not to be aware of the one in Westminster Abbey having been raised by his niece's family, and not by the public.

_Cannes, April 27th_.--I have a complaint to make of the 'E. R.' last number. In the learned and able article on 'Jesse's Richard III.,' at p. 307, Lingard is referred to as having quoted the commission of the High Constable. I have scanned every line and every word of Lingard and find no such commission. But in a note to the third volume of Hume, note R, the commission is given verbatim from Rymer. Jock Campbell used to hold that a false reference was an offence that ought to be made penal. I don't go so far, but the evil is very great. I have lost three or four hours in consequence. Therefore, pray have inquiry made of your contributor whether or not I am right; and if not, where in Lingard the quotation is.

Reeve referred the 'complaint' to Hayward, the writer of the article, who replied:--

I believe B. is right, for when I corrected the proof I looked in vain in Lingard, although I was firmly convinced that he had quoted the document. But pray remind his lordship that, when Campbell spoke of a false reference, he meant one with volume and page.

Lord Brougham's answer to this defence is not given, but it is impossible to allow it to pass without protest; for, whatever Campbell may have meant, it is very certain that a false reference, with volume and page cited, by which the falsehood is at once made manifest, is a venial offence in comparison with a false reference given vaguely, which may keep the victim hunting for it for hours, as this one actually did keep Lord Brougham.

_From Lord Brougham_

_Cannes, May 7th_.--I wish to suggest to you the positive duty of taking care that justice is done upon the trumpery, and one-sided, and altogether insignificant Life of Pitt by Stanhope. Murray having published it, of course the 'Quarterly' has puffed it, and done so with an entire ignorance of the subject which is hardly conceivable. Therefore take great care before you commit the subject to any unsafe hands.

_To Lord Brougham_

_62 Rutland Gate, May 11th_.--As I have lived for many years on terms of personal friendship, and indeed intimacy, with Lord Stanhope, and am indebted to him for many acts of kindness, it would be quite impossible for me to attack his book, even if I thought as ill of it as you do. I shall, therefore, content myself with recording the very different view which I entertain of the success of Mr. Pitt's administration. I think it may be shown that both in peace and in war he was one of the most unsuccessful ministers who ever exercised great power.

On these lines Reeve himself wrote the article, which was published in the 'Review' of July, and brought him the following:--

_From Lord Stanhope_

Grosvenor Place, July 17th.

My dear Mr. Reeve,--Allow me to say how very much I have been gratified in reading the article on my 'Life of Pitt' in the new number of the 'Edinburgh.' Had the criticism been hostile I assure you that I should not have felt that I had the smallest reason to complain; nor should I have inquired or even wished to know the writer's name. But as the matter stands, I would ask to convey to him through you my acknowledgement for his very indulgent appreciation of myself, as well as for the perfect fairness and honourable candour with which the public questions at issue between us are discussed. It would be a pleasure to me if either now or at some time hereafter he would permit me to become acquainted with the name of a critic who is evidently so accomplished as to render the praise of no slight or mean account. Believe me,

Very faithfully yours,

STANHOPE.

It does not appear that Lord Stanhope ever knew who the writer was.

Meantime the Journal notes:--

This was the year of the second Great Exhibition.

_May 15th_.--The Binets came to see us. On the 21st the Duc d'Aumale's _fete_ to the Fine Arts Club; took Binet there. Went to the Derby with Binet and Stewart Hodgson. Xavier Raymond came.

_July 22nd_.--Dined at the Clarendon with the Comtes de Paris and Chartres, on their return from the American war. Prince Edward of Saxe Weimar and the Due d'Aumale were there.

_July 31st_.--Left London for Germany. By Ostend and Cologne to Wiesbaden, where the Boothbys and Hathertons were. Then to Nuremberg, Munich, Salzburg, and through the Tyrol to Venice. Stayed there till the 24th.

_August 25th_.--Went to Arqua to see Petrarch's house and tomb. Milan; Italian lakes. Back over the St. Gothard, Lucerne, Paris. Home, September 9th.

_To Lord Brougham_

_C. O., September 11th_.--Your very kind letter of last month would certainly not have remained so long unanswered if I had been in England. But we have been travelling for the last five weeks in the Tyrol and the north of Italy; my letters were not forwarded, and I only received that which you had been good enough to address to me on my return to London yesterday. There is probably no living opinion upon the character and administration of Mr. Pitt so enlightened and valuable as your own, and I am gratified in the highest degree to find that my attempt to place the leading acts of his administration in a somewhat new light meets with your approval. The chief defect in Lord Stanhope's book is, in my opinion, that it does not present any connected view of Mr. Pitt as a statesman at all; and this the reader of the article may infer from every page of it. I began to write with a disposition to place Mr. Pitt rather higher than he had been placed before in the 'Review;' but upon a careful survey of his conduct on each of these questions, I found the ground crumble away under me.

As to the state of the army from 1783 to 1803, it was deplorable. Did you ever see Sir Frederick Adam's notes on what the army was when, at the age of 14, he entered it.[Footnote: In 1795. These notes do not seem to have been published.] When the Duke of Wellington first went to the Peninsula, he gives a wretched account of the forces--ignorant officers and rascally men. One of the grandest services the Duke rendered to his country was that he raised the character of the army and made it a most admirable instrument. But that was long after the days of Pitt.

The present Duke of Wellington tells me he is very well pleased with the article on his father's supplementary despatches in the last number of the 'Review,' and I think it is fairly done. They are a mass of most interesting and instructive materials, but very few persons will master them, whilst the trash that Thiers calls history circulates broadcast in Europe. I heard in Paris on Sunday that 65,000 copies of his 20th volume are already sold.

_To Mr. Dempster_

_C. O., September 12th_.--We returned to England on Tuesday, after a pleasant tour, but the weather drove us from the mountains to the plains, and instead of preparing ourselves to graduate in the Alpine Club, we loitered in the galleries of Munich, Venice, and Milan, or amongst the remains of Padua and Verona. On the Lago Maggiore we met the Speaker [Footnote: Mr. Denison, afterwards Lord Ossington.] and Lady Charlotte, and with them crossed the St. Gothard to Lucerne.... We still hope, if it suits you, to come down to you when I have got quit of the 'Review.' I shall be engaged in London till October 7th, and then we are going for a few days to Raith... but I hope about the 12th or 13th we may reach the far North.

_From Lord Brougham_

_Brougham, September 14th_.--I can well believe that Wellington is satisfied with the review [Footnote: "Wellington's Supplementary Despatches," July 1862.] of his father's correspondence. It is very ably and very fairly done. But I wish it had reprimanded the Duke for making the publication nearly useless by giving no table of contents. When I complained of this, he said it had been considered, and that an index would have been hardly possible. My answer was that I did not want an index, but only a dozen of pages giving the dates and the titles of the letters in succession. As it is, one can find no letter without turning over the whole of a volume.

Well, what shall we now say of the Disunited States? My last letter from J. Parkes,[Footnote: Probably Joseph Parkes, the well-known agent of the Liberal party. He died August 11th, 1865, but none of the obituary notices mention his wife.] who is married to a Yankee, and in correspondence with many men of note in the North, represents the feeling to be growing for mediation, but mediation on the ground of a re-uniting of the South, which means no mediation at all. But he says that the real feeling of the Americans, both N. and S., is of great respect for England, and pride in their descent from and connexion with us. The tone of the press, however, shows that this feeling dares not be shown, and that the popular clamour--that is, the mob-cry--is t'other way.

The Journal has:--

_September 12th_.--To Torry Hill; shooting for ten days.

_22nd_.--Rode over to Leeds Castle with Lord Kingsdown. Farnborough, Stetchworth, Chorleywood (W. Longman's).

_October 8th_.--To Raith, with Christine and Hopie. Mrs. Norton there. Then by Elgin and Burgh Head to Skibo. Shooting there. To Novar; back to Edinburgh and Kirklands, October 26th. Then to Abington on the 29th, and to Brougham--amusing visit. I was asked to read Lord B.'s Memoirs, and dissuade him from publishing them. To Ambleside to see Harriet Martineau. Thence to Badger Hall [Cheney's], November 8th. Went over Old Park iron works. Home on November 11th.

_December 17th_.--We went to Chevening, and met there the Grotes, Milman, Lord Stanley, Scharf, and Hayward. Lewis came on the 19th. Most agreeable party.

_22nd_.--Shooting at Stetchworth.

_31st_.--To the Duke of Newcastle's at Clumber. Sir F. Rogers [afterwards Lord Blachford] there.

_1863_.--The year opened at Clumber. The Webbes of Newstead, the Manners-Suttons, Venables, and Herbert came there. Shooting good; caught three pike; rode with the Duke to Thoresby and Welbeck, through Sherwood Forest.

_January 6th_.--To the Speaker's at Ossington.

_12th_.--I was made treasurer of the Literary Club [Footnote: This must not be confused with The Club (see _post_, 133), which had long since dropped the 'Literary.'] (Walpole's) on Adolphus' death.

_February 25th_.--Prince of Wales' first levee.

_March 7th_.--The Princess of Wales entered London on her marriage. I saw it from the Board of Trade rooms on London Bridge. Took the Dempsters there.

_27th_.--The Duke of Newcastle, Baron Gros (French ambassador), Lord Stanley, Mr. Adam, Lady Molesworth, Lord Kingsdown, and the Heads dined with us.

It appears by the next letter, from Lord Clarendon, that Reeve had asked him to review the first two volumes of Kinglake's 'Invasion of the Crimea,' then on the point of publication.

_The Grove, January 11th_. Some time ago I desired my booksellers to send me the first copy they could procure of Kinglake's book, and I shall read it most carefully.... There are many reasons why I should not like to review the work; but I am equally obliged to you for the offer, and I shall, of course, communicate to you unreservedly my opinions upon it.

With this promise of help at first hand, Reeve undertook the review himself; but the letters which follow show that, though the hand was the hand of Reeve, the voice was the voice of Clarendon--a collaboration that gives the article a very singular interest.

_From Lord Clarendon_

_The Grove, January 23rd_.--Although I'm sure it is unnecessary, yet it occurs to me to ask you not to quote my opinion of Kinglake's book; as, for the present, and for a variety of reasons, I should prefer its not reaching him in an indirect manner. I long for a quiet talk with you, and am sorry that it must be postponed for a few days; but in the meanwhile I may perhaps be able to refresh my memory by referring to my private correspondence, which is in London. Let me have a line to say what impression the book makes in the world, as far as you have yet been able to observe. I shall look with curiosity and some anxiety for the effect it produces at Paris.

_January 25th_.--Hayward has written to ask my opinion of the book. He is at Broadlands, and says that Palmerston is, on the whole, well pleased with the portrait of himself, and that Lady P. is enchanted.

I think as you do of the second volume; there is nothing finer, that I know of, in the English language than those successive battle pictures. He beats Napier out of the field. The 'Times' does not seem to like the portrait of itself. I thought the article yesterday ingenious. I shall hear shortly what effect the book produces at Paris. Persigny will, of course, prohibit its entrance, but he will not be able to shut out all the papers that contain extracts.

_The Grove, February 8th_.--I fear that my notes would not be legible or intelligible to anyone but myself, and I should much like to have a little talk with you on the book. Could you come here on Saturday next and stay till Monday? or if you should chance to be engaged on Saturday, would you come down by the ten o'clock train on Sunday morning? I do not propose Saturday morning, as I must myself be in London at the Schools Commission on that day.

_G. C., February 25th_.--I shall be very glad to see the article in print. I am sure it will make a great sensation. Kinglake would induce people to believe that the Emperor was under an urgent necessity to turn away the attention of his subjects from his action at home, and that he therefore dragged us into the war fourteen or fifteen months after the _coup d'etat_. It would, I think, be worth while to get some facts respecting his status in France at that time. If I am not mistaken, he was in no trouble or danger at all; for the nation had accepted him as a sort of deliverer from the _rouges_, the fear of whom had been terrifying people out of their senses.

_G. C., March 4th_.--The article quite comes up to my expectations, and I like it very much. I cannot think it obnoxious to the charge of dulness; but on that point I may not be an impartial judge, as the diplomatic details are to me intensely interesting.

I have hardly any observations to make that would be worth your attending to, but I will mention one or two things that have occurred to me.

And this he did at considerable length, suggesting several confirmations, modifications, or additions.

So long as this article was to be considered as an ordinary contribution to the 'Edinburgh Review,' it bore merely the authority of the 'Review,' which, however great, was in no sense official; but now that the share of Lord Clarendon in its authorship is revealed, it assumes an extreme importance, as an original, though necessarily partial, account of what took place, and may be held as definitely settling the fate of some of the extraordinary misstatements which--foisted on the credulity of the public by the literary skill, the brilliant language, and the unblushing audacity of Mr. Kinglake--have been accepted as history, and have passed into current belief. Perhaps nothing concerning the Russian war is more commonly repeated than the statement that we were tricked into it by the Emperor of the French for his own selfish ends, and in his desire to be received into the brotherhood of sovereigns; that our ministers were blindly following the lead of Louis Napoleon, and were guilty of a very gross blunder. It is unnecessary and would be out of place to enter here on the examination and demolition of all this, as given in the pages of the 'Edinburgh Review;' and equally would it be out of place to discuss the question--as unknown to Kinglake or to Reeve in 1863 as it was to Palmerston or Clarendon ten years earlier--whether we were not then, whether we have not been ever since, 'putting our money on the wrong horse.' If we were, if we have been--a thing which many among us are still unwilling to believe--it is at least certain that in 1853, as in 1840, it was all but universally held in this country that it would be prejudicial and dangerous to our most important interests for either Russia or France to obtain sovereign control over the Ottoman dominions, and that all the resources of diplomacy or of war ought to be exerted to prevent it. In the joint article before us, the condition of affairs in 1853 is thus stated in a few words:--'Russia had formed the design to extort from Turkey, in one form or another, a right of protection over the Christians. She never abandoned that design. She thought she could enforce it. The Western Powers interposed and the strife began.... England has no call to throw off the responsibility of the measures taken on any other Power. Those measures were taken because they were demanded by her own conception of the duty she had to perform; and by far the largest share of that responsibility rests with this country. We see no reason to deny it; and if the case occurred again, we should see no reason to act with less determination.' And again as to the prosecution of the war after the raising of the siege of Silistria--which, according to Kinglake, was unnecessary; or the invasion of the Crimea--which was unjustifiable, to be accounted for, not by any large views of politics or of war, but by paltry personal passions and influences of the most contemptible kind:--England and France declared by their despatches of July 22nd, that the sacrifices already imposed on them were too great, and the cause they had taken in hand too important, for them to desist, unless they obtained from Russia adequate securities against the renewal of hostilities. They therefore demanded:--l. That the protectorate claimed by Russia over the Principalities by virtue of former treaties now abrogated, should cease. 2. That the navigation of the mouths of the Danube should be free. 3. That the treaty of July 13th, 1841, should be revised in the sense of a restriction of the naval power of Russia in the Black Sea. 4. That no Power should claim an official protectorate over the Christian subjects of the Porte. On August 8th, Austria entirely adopted these principles, and on the 10th she urged Russia to accede to these demands. On the 26th Russia positively rejected these terms. Had they been accepted, it is needless to add that the Crimean expedition would not have taken place. Here, then, is the clear and precise ground on which the war assumed an offensive character against Russia--viz. to compel her to submit to terms of peace, which England and France held to be necessary to the future safety of Turkey, and which Austria had fully adopted. This is the political explanation of the war, and it was fully justified, as each preceding step of the allies had been justified, by a fresh refusal on the part of Russia to agree to the terms proposed by the allies. It is unnecessary to carry this examination further. It has been introduced here merely as an illustration and a proof of the historical importance of the article now that Lord Clarendon's share in it is understood, and we are made acquainted with the peculiar opportunities which Reeve possessed--not only as Clarendon's friend, but as in actual, confidential conversation with Lord Stratford when he ordered up the fleets. [Footnote: See _ante_, vol. i. p. 312.]

The fine old motto of the 'Edinburgh Review,' _Judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur_, is, when reduced to practice, apt to strain the relations between the 'judex' and the 'nocens;' and in this case the very outspoken review, published under Reeve's sanction, caused a coolness between the two men, the editor and the author, who had previously been on friendly terms. It is, in fact, easily conceivable that, in earlier years or in other lands, powder would have burnt or small swords flashed. Being when and where they were, they dropped out of each other's circle. And this continued for upwards of three years, when a chance meeting opened the door to reconciliation.

_From Mr. Kinglake_

9 St. George's Terrace, Marble Arch,

November 14th, 1866.

Dear Reeve,--I think I perceived yesterday that my malice--malice founded, I believe, on a couple of words, and now of some three years' standing--had not engendered any corresponding anger in you; and if my impression was a right one, I trust we may meet for the future upon our old terms. Shall it be so?

Faithfully yours,

A. W. KINGLAKE.