Chapter XXIII (1)

1854

_The Earl of Aberdeen to Queen Victoria._

LONDON, _6th January 1854._

LORD ABERDEEN presents his humble duty to your Majesty. He cannot wonder at the indignation expressed by your Majesty at the base and infamous attacks made upon the Prince during the last two or three weeks in some of the daily papers.[1] They are chiefly to be found in those papers which represent ultra-Tory or extreme Radical opinions; but they are not sanctioned by the most respectable portion of the Press. Lord Aberdeen has received some information respecting the origin of these attacks; but it is vague and uncertain. At all events he believes that your Majesty may safely make yourself at ease upon the subject, as he is satisfied that these hostile feelings are shared by few. It is much to be desired that some notice of the subject may be taken in Parliament, when, by being treated in a proper manner, it may be effectually stopped. Lord Aberdeen has spoken to Lord John Russell, who will be quite prepared to moot it in the House of Commons.

It cannot be denied that the position of the Prince is somewhat anomalous, and has not been specially provided for by the Constitution; but the ties of Nature, and the dictates of common sense are more powerful than Constitutional fictions; and Lord Aberdeen can only say that he has always considered it an inestimable blessing that your Majesty should possess so able, so zealous, and so disinterested an adviser. It is true that your Ministers are alone responsible for the conduct of public affairs, and although there is no man in England whose opinion Lord Aberdeen would more highly respect and value, still if he had the misfortune of differing from His Royal Highness, he would not hesitate to act according to his own convictions, and a sense of what was due to your Majesty's service.

The Prince has now been so long before the eyes of the whole country, his conduct so invariably devoted to the public good, and his life so perfectly inattackable, that Lord Aberdeen has not the slightest apprehension of any serious consequences arising from these contemptible exhibitions of malevolence and faction.

Your Majesty will graciously pardon Lord Aberdeen for writing thus plainly; but there are occasions on which he almost forgets your Majesty's station, and only remembers those feelings which are common to all ranks of mankind.

[Footnote 1: A section of the Press, favourable to Lord
Palmerston, had insinuated that his resignation was due to
"an influence behind the throne." Similar attacks were made
by other journals, and not abandoned upon Lord Palmerston's
re-admission to the Cabinet: the most extravagant charges of
improper interference in State affairs were made against the
Prince, and it was even rumoured that he had been impeached
for high treason and committed to the Tower! The cartoons
in _Punch_ usually present a faithful reflection of current
popular opinion, and in one of them the Prince was depicted as
skating, in defiance of warning, over dangerous ice.]

[Pageheading: PERSIA]

_Queen Victoria to the Earl of Clarendon._

WINDSOR CASTLE, _9th January 1854._

The Queen thanks Lord Clarendon for his letter just received with the enclosures.

As the proposed answer to the Emperor contains perhaps necessarily only a repetition of what the Queen wrote in her former letter,[2] she inclines to the opinion that it will be best to defer any answer for the present--the more so, as a moment might possibly arrive when it would be of advantage to be able to write and to refer to the Emperor's last letter.

With respect to the Persian Expedition[3] the Queen will not object to it--as the Cabinet appears to have fully considered the matter, but she must say that she does not much like it in a moral point of view. We are just putting the Emperor of Russia under the ban for trying "to bring the Sultan to his senses" by the occupation of part of his territory after a diplomatic rupture, and are now going to do exactly the same thing to the Shah of Persia!

[Footnote 2: See _ante_, vol. ii, 18th October-26th November,
1853, notes 30, 31, 32.]

[Footnote 3: Under the belief that Persia had declared war
against Turkey, and that diplomatic relations between England
and Persia were suspended, the Cabinet had agreed upon the
occupation of the Island of Karak by a British force.]

_The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria._

LAEKEN, _9th January 1854._

MY DEAREST VICTORIA,--I wrote you a most abominable scrawl on Friday, and think myself justified in boring you with a few words to-day.

The plot is thickening in every direction, and we may expect a great confusion. The dear old Duke used to say "You cannot have a little war." The great politicians of the Press think differently. The Duke told me also once: "At the place where you are you will always have the power to force people to go to war." I have used that power to _avoid_ complications, and I still think, blessed are the peacemakers.

How the Emperor could get himself and everybody else into this infernal scrape is quite incomprehensible; the more so as I remain convinced that he did not aim at conquest. We have very mild weather, and though you liked the cold, still for every purpose we must prefer warmth. Many hundred boats with coal are frozen up, and I am told that near two hundred ships are wanting to arrive at Antwerp....

I am much plagued also by little parliamentary nonsense of our own here, a storm in a bottle; this is the way of human kind, and in such cases it always pleases me to think that I am not bound to be always their working slave, and I cast a sly look at my beautiful villa on the Lake of Como, _quite furnished_.... My beloved Victoria. Your devoted Uncle.

LEOPOLD R.

[Pageheading: THE PRESS]

[Pageheading: THE FRENCH ALLIANCE]

_The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria._

LAEKEN, _13th January 1854._

MY BELOVED VICTORIA,--I grieve to see how unjustly you are plagued, and how wonderfully untrue and passionate are the attacks of part of the Press. Abuse is somewhat the _staff of life in England_, everything, everybody is to be abused; it is a pity, as nothing more unproductive as this everlasting abuse can well be imagined. As nothing ever gave the slightest opening to this abuse, it is to be hoped that it will be soon got over--the meeting of Parliament will now do good in this respect. As far as your few continental relations are concerned, I don't think they will be able to fix anything upon your faithful servant. I have done England at all times good services, in the sense of her best interests. I hold a position of great geographical importance for England, just opposite the mouth of the Thames. Successes of vanity I am never fishing for in England, nor anywhere else. The only influence I may exercise is to prevent mischief where I can, which occasionally succeeds; if war can be avoided, and the same ends obtained, it is natural _that_ THAT _should be tried first_. Many English superficial newspaper politicians imagine that threatening is the thing--I believe it the worst of all systems. The Emperor Nicholas and Menschikoff wanted by threatening the Turks to get certain things, and they have by that means got a very troublesome and expensive affair on their hands. I wish England too well to like to see it, but one of these days they will get into some scrape in the same way. The foolish accusation that we are doing all we can to break up the French Alliance is certainly the _most absurd of all_; if anything can be for our local advantage, it is to see England and France closely allied, and for a long period--for ever I should say....

I have heard, and that from the Prussian Quarter, that great efforts are making on the part of Russia, to _gain over_ Louis Napoleon. I understand, however, that though Louis Napoleon is _not_ anxious for war, that his opinion is favourable to the continuation of a good understanding with England. That it should be so is, I must say, highly desirable. The poor Orleans will be grieved and hurt by all these things. The death of the child of the poor Queen of Spain will not be a favourable omen for Spain.[4]...

With my best love to Albert. Believe me ever, my beloved Victoria, your truly devoted Uncle,

LEOPOLD R.

[Footnote 4: A daughter had been born to the Queen of Spain on
the 5th of January, and lived only three days.]

[Pageheading: THE ORLEANS FAMILY]

_Queen Victoria to the Earl of Aberdeen._

WINDSOR CASTLE, _16th January 1854._

The Queen sends the answer she has this morning received from the Duc de Nemours, which she hopes is on the whole satisfactory as regards the reported visit of the Count de Chambord.[5] The Duke does not see in so strong a light as _we_ do, the danger of even the _report_ being believed--probably from living so much out of the world as he does. What would Lord Aberdeen wish her to do farther, and what does he think can be done in the way of contradiction? The Queen wishes likewise to have Lord Aberdeen's opinion and advice on the following subjects. He knows that we have invariably received the poor Orleans family (in particular our own near relations, the Nemours) from time to time _here_ and in London, and that the Queen has _always_ from the first year done this _openly_ but _unostentatiously_. It is by _no means_ her intention to change her conduct in this respect--but since the great noise caused by the "fusion" she thought it better _not_ to invite the Nemours either to Osborne or here, hoping that by _this time_ these tiresome rumours would have ceased. They have not, however, and we think that perhaps it would be wiser _not_ to see them here, _at any rate_ till after the meeting of Parliament, though it is very painful to the Queen to hurt their feelings by apparent neglect. Is Lord Aberdeen of this opinion, and does he think that it will _not_ be misconstrued into an _admission_ of having encouraged _intrigues_ or of _submission_ to the will and pleasure of Louis Napoleon?

For the Queen would never submit to such an accusation, nor would she continue (after the excitement is past) to exclude these poor exiles from occasional visits--which have been paid and received ever since _'48_, and which would be unworthy and ungenerous conduct.

Likewise does Lord Aberdeen think that a morning visit to the Duchess of Aumale to enquire after her health would be imprudent?

It goes much against the Queen's feelings of generosity and kindness to neglect the poor exiles as she has done this winter, but the present moment is one of _unparalleled_ excitement and of great political importance, which requires great prudence and circumspection. There is an admirable article in the _Morning Chronicle_ of to-day, taking quite the _right line_ upon the infamous and _now_ almost ridiculous attacks on the _Queen_ and Prince. Has Lord Aberdeen any idea who could have written it?

The Queen sends a letter she had received from her Uncle, which may amuse and interest him. To make the statement of the Queen's intercourse with the Orleans family quite clear, she should add, that when the family visit the Queen or she visits them, that it is put into the Court Circular, and this of course gets copied into country papers and foreign papers; but after consideration the Queen thought this the wiser course, for with all the spies who are no doubt about--if this were not done, and the Queen's visits and _vice versa_ were suppressed and _yet_ found out--it would give them an air of _mystery_ which is just what we wish to avoid.

[Footnote 5: Son of the Duc de Berri, and known formerly as
the Duc de Bordeaux. (See _ante_, vol. i., 9th October, 1843,
note 72). The Duc de Nemours denied all knowledge of the
rumoured visit, and thought its importance had been exaggerated.]

_The Earl of Aberdeen to Queen Victoria._

LONDON, _17th January 1854._

... With respect to your Majesty's custom of seeing the French Royal Family, Lord Aberdeen humbly thinks that there is no good reason for making any change. It has always taken place without parade or ostentation; and knowing, as Lord Aberdeen does, that no political object is in view, he would feel ashamed to advise your Majesty to do anything at variance with that sympathy which your Majesty has been careful to keep within the bounds of prudence and moderation....

Lord Aberdeen hopes that he may venture to congratulate your Majesty on the commencement of a change with respect to the newspaper attacks upon the Prince. He observed the article, to which your Majesty refers, in the _Morning Chronicle_ of yesterday; and he believes he may certainly say that it was written by Mr Gladstone, although he would not wish it to be known. There was also a very sensible letter in the _Standard_ of last night, signed D. C. L. This is the signature always assumed by Mr Alexander Hope,[6] in his contributions to the Press, and Lord Aberdeen does not doubt that it is written by him. It is only a wonder to find it in such a quarter; and it shows some disposition on the part of that scurrilous paper to alter its course. There is perhaps no great objection to the papers dealing with the subject as they think proper, before the meeting of Parliament, provided the _Times_ takes no part at present; for as this paper is supposed to be influenced by the Government, this belief would injure the effect of anything that might appear in its columns.[7]...

[Footnote 6: Mr. A. J. Hope (afterwards Beresford-Hope), at
this time out of Parliament, had written over the signature
"D.C.L." a series of letters to the Press on the Papal
claims.]

[Footnote 7: On the re-assembling of Parliament, the charges
against the Prince were at once refuted by the Prime Minister
and Lord John Russell; and his right to assist the Queen
completely established by those Ministers, with the
concurrence of Lord Derby and Mr Walpole, on behalf of the
Opposition, and Lord Campbell, the Chief Justice of the
Queen's Bench.]

[Pageheading: THE REFORM BILL]

_Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell._

WINDSOR CASTLE, _21st January 1854._

The Queen has received Lord John Russell's letter of the 19th, and the Bill as now agreed upon by the Cabinet, which she hopes may meet the wishes of the Country and pass into law.[8] From what she understands the chief argument used in opposition to the measure will be, that corruption and bribery is the evil which the Country really complains of, and not an unequal distribution of the representation, and that a new distribution or even extension of the franchise will not touch the evil, and may be said perhaps in some instances to tend towards increasing it. The success of the measure will therefore, she concludes, in some degree depend upon the Bribery Bills which will accompany it. How far are these advanced? and what expectation has Lord John Russell of succeeding in framing such a measure as would remove that ground of objection to the Reform Bill?

[Footnote 8: Notwithstanding the impending war, the Government
considered itself bound in honour to bring in a Reform Bill.
Lord Palmerston and his special supporters were opposed to the
project, but the measure was brought forward on the 13th of
February. After a chequered career it was withdrawn. The
Bill for the prevention of corrupt practices at elections
was introduced on the 10th of February, and after many
vicissitudes and several Ministerial defeats in the Commons as
well as in the Lords, it was, in a modified form, carried.]

_Queen Victoria to Mr Gladstone._

WINDSOR CASTLE, _7th February 1854._

The Queen must apologise for having kept the enclosed papers so long, and in now sending them back she does so without feeling sure in her mind that she could with safety sanction Mr Gladstone's new and important proposal.[9] The change it implies will be very great in principle and irretrievable, and the Queen must say that Lord John Russell's apprehensions as to the spirit it is likely to engender amongst the future civil servants of the Crown have excited a similar feeling in her mind. Where is moreover the application of the principle of public competition to stop, if once established? and must not those offices which are to be exempted from it necessarily degrade the persons appointed to them in public estimation?

[Footnote 9: Mr Gladstone had written on the 26th of January
on the subject of competitive examinations for the Civil
Service; in reply to the Queen's letter, he referred to
the discontent existing in the Service with the system of
appointment by favour, and of promotion by seniority alone.]

[Pageheading: THE BALTIC COMMAND]

[Pageheading: SIR CHARLES NAPIER]

_Sir James Graham to Queen Victoria._

ADMIRALTY, _9th February 1854._

Sir James Graham, with humble duty, begs to lay before your Majesty certain important considerations which were discussed at the Cabinet yesterday with respect to the selection of a Commander-in-Chief for the Fleet about to be appointed for Service in the Baltic.[10]...

[Footnote 10: War had not yet been declared, but the Russian
Ambassador left London on the 7th of February, and Sir
Hamilton Seymour was recalled from St Petersburg on the same
day.]

Lord Dundonald[11] is seventy-nine years of age; and though his energies and faculties are unbroken, and though, with his accustomed courage, he volunteers for the Service, yet, on the whole, there is reason to apprehend that he might deeply commit the Force under his command in some desperate enterprise, where the chances of success would not countervail the risk of failure and of the fatal consequences, which might ensue. Age has not abated the adventurous spirit of this gallant officer, which no authority could restrain; and being uncontrollable it might lead to most unfortunate results. The Cabinet, on the most careful review of the entire question, decided that the appointment of Lord Dundonald was not expedient....

[Footnote 11: This was the Lord Cochrane who had been unjustly
convicted in 1814, under the direction of Lord Ellenborough,
Chief Justice, of conspiracy to defraud. His naval honours
were restored to him in 1832. He is said to have stipulated,
on this occasion, that he should be allowed to destroy
Cronstadt by a chemical process invented by himself.]

Sir Charles Napier is an excellent seaman, and combines boldness with discretion.[12] He has served in large squadrons, and he has commanded them. As a Second, he may not have been submissive; as a Chief, he has been successful in command. His appointment will give confidence both to officers and men; and his name is not unknown both to enemies and allies. If he has the faults of his family, he is not without their virtues; courage, genius, love of country are not wanting; and the weighty responsibilities of high command, without oppressing him, would give steadiness to his demeanour.

He behaved ill to Lord John Russell and to Sir Francis Baring; and on shore he has given just cause of complaint; but at sea and in command he is a different person; and Lord John Russell in the Cabinet yesterday, regardless of all former displeasure, pronounced an opinion favourable to the appointment of Sir Charles Napier. Lord Aberdeen, also, together with the entire Cabinet, came to the same conclusion; and Sir James Graham on their behalf, and in concurrence with his own opinion, ventures to ask the permission of your Majesty to appoint Sir Charles Napier to this important Naval command.[13]

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

J. R. G. GRAHAM.

[Footnote 12: He had had a long naval career. In 1833 he
commanded the Portuguese Fleet for Donna Maria, and won a
small engagement against Dom Miguel. He was "not submissive"
at Beyrout, where, having command of the land forces, and
being told to retire and hand over the command, he advanced
and won a victory, resulting in the evacuation of the city. He
also disobeyed orders at Acre.]

[Footnote 13: The inadequate results of an appointment which
promised so well are described in Parker's _Sir James Graham_,
vol. ii. pp. 229 _et seq_.]

_Queen Victoria to Mr Gladstone._

BUCKINGHAM PALACE, _17th February 1854._

The Queen has received Mr Gladstone's letter and memorandum, and had heard from the Prince the further explanation of the grounds upon which he, Mr Gladstone, thinks the new regulations respecting the Civil Service necessary. The Queen, although not without considerable misgivings, sanctions the proposed plan, trusting that Mr Gladstone will do what he can, in the arrangements of the details of it, to guard against the dangers, which she has pointed out in her former letter and through the Prince when he saw Mr Gladstone. A check, for instance, would be necessary upon the admission of candidates to compete for employment, securing that they should be otherwise eligible, besides the display of knowledge which they may exhibit under examination. Without this a young man might be very ineligible, and still after having been proclaimed to the world as first in ability, it would require very strong evidence of misconduct to justify his exclusion by the Government.

[Pageheading: COMPETITIVE EXAMINATIONS]

_Mr Gladstone to Queen Victoria._

DOWNING STREET, _17th February 1854._

The Chancellor of the Exchequer presents his humble duty to your Majesty, and has the honour to acknowledge your Majesty's gracious letter.

He takes blame to himself for having caused your Majesty trouble by omitting to include in his short memorandum an explanation of the phrase "qualified persons."

Experience at the universities and public schools of this country has shown that in a large majority of cases the test of open examination is also an effectual test of character; as, except in very remarkable cases, the previous industry and self-denial, which proficiency evinces, are rarely separated from general habits of virtue.

But he humbly assures your Majesty that the utmost pains will be taken to provide not only for the majority but for all cases, by the strictest enquiries of which the case will admit; and he has the most confident belief that the securities for character under the system, although they cannot be unerring, will be stronger and more trustworthy than any of which the present method of appointment is susceptible.

_Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians._

BUCKINGHAM PALACE, _21st February 1854._

MY DEAREST UNCLE,--... War is, I fear, _quite_ inevitable. You will have seen that the Emperor Nicholas has not given a favourable answer to _our Brother_ Napoleon (which I hear has disappointed him extremely, as he expected very great results from it); and the last proposals or attempts made by Buol[14] it is to be hoped will not be accepted by Russia, for France and England could _not_ accept them; but if Austria and Prussia go with us--as we hope they will--the War will only be a local one. Our beautiful Guards sail to-morrow. Albert inspected them yesterday. George is quite delighted to have a division....

I must now conclude, with Albert's affectionate love. Believe me always, your devoted Niece,

VICTORIA R.

[Footnote 14: Austrian Premier and Minister of Foreign
Affairs.]

[Pageheading: THE BRITISH ARMY]

_Queen Victoria to the Earl of Aberdeen._

BUCKINGHAM PALACE, _24th February 1854._

The Queen must write to Lord Aberdeen on a subject which at this moment appears to her of paramount importance--viz., the augmentation of the Army. The ten thousand men by which it has been ordered to be augmented can hardly be considered to have brought it up to more than an improved PEACE _establishment_, such as we have often had during profound peace in Europe; but even these ten thousand men are not yet obtained. We have nearly pledged ourselves to sending twenty-five thousand men to the East, and this pledge will have to be redeemed. To keep even such a force up in the field will require a strong, available reserve at home, of which we shall be quite denuded. But we are going to make war upon Russia! encouraging Austria and Prussia to do so likewise, whereby we assume a moral obligation not to leave them without assistance. We engage in a War which may assume in its course a totally different character from that of its beginning. Who can say it is impossible that our own shores may be threatened by powers now in alliance with us? We are powerless for offence or defence without a _trained_ Army; to obtain this will require considerable time. The Queen must, therefore, urge Lord Aberdeen to consider with the Cabinet whether it will not be essential to augment the Army at once, and by at least thirty thousand men. Considerations of home policy make this also advisable; the country is eager for War at this moment, and ready to grant men and money. It will be a great facility hereafter to have obtained what is most needed at first. If the force should finally not be wanted, retrenchments may very easily be made. The Crown should at least have the power of raising the men without the necessity for further application to Parliament.

[Pageheading: THE BRITISH ULTIMATUM]

_The Earl of Aberdeen to Queen Victoria._

LONDON, _26th February 1854._

Lord Aberdeen, with his humble duty, begs to inform your Majesty that another Cabinet was held to-day, in order to consider the draft of a letter which it is proposed that Lord Clarendon should address to Count Nesselrode, and in which he should summon the Russian Government to evacuate the Principalities. The messenger will be directed to wait six days for an answer, and the British Government will consider the refusal or the silence of Count Nesselrode as equivalent to a declaration of War, and proceed to act accordingly.[15]

An assurance has been received, in general terms, of the intention of Austria to support this demand; and a telegraphic message has been sent to Vienna with a desire to know whether the Austrian Government will join in this summons, or in what manner support will be given.[16] No answer has yet been received, and Lord Aberdeen would think it right not to make the summons until Austria has declared her intention; but the Cabinet appears to desire that the letter should be sent to-morrow evening.

The period fixed for the complete evacuation of the Principalities is the 30th of April.

As it cannot be supposed that the Emperor of Russia will listen to such a demand as this, immediate hostilities must be expected, with all their consequences.

[Footnote 15: This summons to evacuate the Principalities, and
an ultimatum to a similar purport from Paris, were delivered
to the Czar on the 14th of March; on their receipt the Czar
intimated that he did not think it fitting (_convenable_) that
he should make any reply. His decision was known in London on
the 24th.]

[Footnote 16: The attitude of Austria caused great perplexity.
Count Orloff had gone to Vienna to obtain a pledge of
neutrality in the event of war, but refused to give the
Emperor Francis Joseph satisfactory assurances as to the
Czar's future policy, and, in particular, as to the evacuation
of the Principalities at the close of the war. The Austrian
Government accordingly announced its intention of acting as
circumstances might dictate, but subsequently limited the
assistance which it now expressed itself willing to give
to England and France in insisting upon the evacuation, to
diplomatic support.]

_Queen Victoria to the Earl of Aberdeen._

BUCKINGHAM PALACE, _26th February 1854._

The Queen has received Lord Aberdeen's letter of this day.

To be able to form a judgment on the important question to which it refers, the Queen would require to be furnished with the exact terms of "the general assurance" which Austria has given with respect to it. The Queen, however, does not doubt for a moment that the gain of a day or two in making the summons to Russia could not be compared to the advantage of being able to make the summons conjointly with Austria. She must therefore wish that the answer to the telegraphic message should be awaited before the messenger is sent off.

[Pageheading: DEPARTURE OF THE GUARDS]

_Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians._

BUCKINGHAM PALACE, _28th February 1854._

MY DEAREST UNCLE,--... The news from Austria are quite excellent, and much more than we had any reason to expect. It will make a great difference in the nature and duration of the War. Our summons to Russia went last night _via_ Paris, Berlin, and Vienna, and if they are received either with silence, or the Emperor refuses to evacuate the Principalities--_War_ will be considered as declared. The French send a similar summons. The messenger is to wait _six_ days for an answer, but no longer.

The last battalion of the Guards (Scots Fusiliers) embarked to-day. They passed through the courtyard here at seven o'clock this morning. We stood on the balcony to see them--the morning fine, the sun rising over the towers of old Westminster Abbey--and an immense crowd collected to see these fine men, and cheering them immensely as they with difficulty marched along. They formed line, presented arms, and then cheered us _very heartily_, and went off cheering. It was a _touching and beautiful_ sight; many sorrowing friends were there, and one saw the shake of many a hand. My best wishes and prayers will be with them all....

_Queen Victoria to the Earl of Aberdeen._

[_Undated._]

The Queen was rather annoyed at the manner in which Lord Clarendon pressed the Duke of Cambridge's going to the Tuileries last night.[17] She thought it an immense boon upon her part to allow the Duke of Cambridge _to go to Paris_--and instead of its being considered as such by Lord Clarendon and Count Walewski, the Queen was told it would offend the Emperor if the Duke did not go to the Tuileries also. The Queen observed that it was unnecessary and unusual for the Duke, or any Prince almost, to live at the _Palace_ of the Sovereign, unless he was a very particular friend or near relation. The Duke of Genoa had refused going there, though he had received other civilities here; in the same manner _no Prince_ comes to this _Palace_ unless he is a very _near relation_ or particular friend. To this Lord Clarendon replied that it was "because the _Emperor wished_ it," which rather shocked the Queen, and she spoke _strongly_ to him upon the subject. The result was that the Queen said she would speak to the Duke of Cambridge about it, and see, as the Emperor made _so great a point of it_, and Lord Clarendon considered that the _Alliance depended upon it_, what he would do....

The Queen must and _will_ protest, for she cannot mix up personal friendship with a political Alliance. The former is the _result_ of the _experience_ of years of mutual friendship, and cannot be _carried by storm_....

There would be nothing unusual in apartments being offered to the Duke of Cambridge, and declined by him. This was done by the King of the Belgians only last summer at Berlin and Vienna, without anybody's construing it into an affront. The Queen adds a list of the Royal personages who have been in England and never resided at the Palace. Lord Aberdeen may show this letter to Lord Clarendon.

[Footnote 17: The Duke was going to the Crimea, and it was
arranged that he should stop at Paris on the way.]

[Pageheading: STABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT]

_Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell._

BUCKINGHAM PALACE, _1st March 1854._

The Queen has to acknowledge Lord John Russell's letter of this morning. Much as she must regret the postponement of the second reading of the Reform Bill, she must admit its wisdom under the present peculiar circumstances;[18] but she doubts the advantage of naming a precise day after Easter on which it is to come on. Considering the _importance_ to the country of _preserving_ the present Government and of not allowing it to be beat on so vital a question, the opportunity should not be lost of ascertaining the state of feeling both in the House of Commons and in the country after the reassembling of Parliament, before the Government decide on entering upon the struggle which the carrying through of the measure might entail. It is quite impossible _now_ to conjecture with certainty what that state of feeling and the general political circumstances at home and abroad may be at that time. Possibly the country may be more eager _then for_ the measure--or the War may _disincline_ it _altogether_ towards it.

The Queen seizes this opportunity of expressing her sense of the _imperative importance_ of the Cabinet being _united_ and of one mind at this moment, and not to let it _appear_ that there are differences of opinion within it. The knowledge that there are such is a cause of GREAT _anxiety_ to the Queen, at a time when she is to enter upon a European War, of which nobody can confidently predict the extent.

[Footnote 18: See the Queen's letter of the 4th of March,
_post_.]

_Queen Victoria to the Earl of Aberdeen._

BUCKINGHAM PALACE, _2nd February (? March) 1854._

In returning these letters to Lord Aberdeen the Queen must express to him that there are _hints_ in them which give her great uneasiness. The stability of this Government is not only of _paramount importance_ at the _commencement_ of the War, but throughout it; the moment for negotiation may arrive much sooner than we now expect--and _then_, more than _now even_, the Government ought to be composed of the _ablest and most moderate_ men which this Country can produce.

_Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell._

BUCKINGHAM PALACE, _4th March 1854._

The Queen thanks Lord John Russell for his letter received this morning. She has read the proceedings in the House of Commons with much interest.[19] She was particularly pleased with Lord John's second speech, in which he affirmed the principle that public men ought not to oppose the regard for personal honour or reputation to the well-understood interests of the Country. Indeed, the Queen cannot conceive the possibility of their collision, as an exclusive regard for the well-understood interests of the Country must always redound to the honour and reputation of a Statesman.

[Footnote 19: Lord John Russell had announced the decision of
the Government to postpone till the 27th of April the second
reading of the Reform Bill, and, in reply to some sarcastic
comments from Mr Disraeli, stated that he would be ashamed
of himself if he preferred anything connected with his own
personal reputation to the interest of the country. He added
that the security of the country depended upon its confidence
in the character of public men.]

[Pageheading: THE BALTIC FLEET]

_Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians._

OSBORNE, _14th March 1854._

MY DEAREST UNCLE,--Your kind letter of the 9th arrived here on Saturday just when we returned from a splendid and never-to-be-forgotten sight-- the sailing of our noble Fleet for the Baltic;[20] the Navy and Nation were particularly pleased at _my leading them out_, as they call it, which in fact was the case, as, in our little _Fairy_ we went on and lay to, to see them all come out, which (the wind being fair) they did, with sails set, each passing us close by, and giving us three hearty cheers, as I think none but British tars _can_ give. Gloriously they bore along, followed by the prayers and good wishes of all. You should read the account in yesterday's _Times_. Another sailing squadron goes to-morrow. The Captains and Admirals all took leave on board, and seemed much impressed with the solemnity of the moment.... Ever your truly devoted Niece,

VICTORIA R.

[Footnote 20: The Fleet, under Sir Charles Napier, had been
assembled at Spithead.]

[Pageheading: THE KING OF PRUSSIA]

[Pageheading: PRUSSIAN NEUTRALITY]

[Pageheading: WAR DECLARED]

_Queen Victoria to the King of Prussia._

[_Translation._]

OSBORNE, _17th March 1854._

DEAR SIR AND BROTHER,--General Count von der Groeben has brought me the official letter of your Majesty, as well as the confidential one,[21] and I send your kind messenger back, with these two answers to you. He will be able to tell you, orally, what I can express only imperfectly in writing, how deep my pain is, after our going so far, faithfully, hand in hand, to see you, at this weighty moment, separating yourself from us. My pain is still further increased by the fact that I cannot even conceive the grounds which move your Majesty to take this step.

[Footnote 21: The Prussian Court considered itself under no
obligation to engage in the impending struggle, till its own
interests became directly involved; it would not (said Baron
Manteuffel, President of the Ministry, on the 18th of March)
take part, for the protection of the integrity of the Ottoman
Empire, "in a conflict, the full scope of which cannot yet be
apprehended, and the original subject matter of which does not
affect the interests of our fatherland."]

The most recent Russian proposals came as an answer to the _last_ attempt for an understanding which the Powers believed could be arrived at honourably, and they have been rejected by the Vienna Conference, not because they were not in accordance with the literal wording of the programme, but because they were contrary to the intention of it. Your Majesty's Ambassador has taken part in this Conference and its decision, and when your Majesty now says: "The task of Diplomacy ceases at the exact point where that of the Sovereigns emphatically begins"; I am unable to assent to such a definition. For what my Ambassador does, he does in my name, and I feel myself not only bound in honour thereby, but also placed under an obligation to take upon myself the _consequences_ which the step which he is directed to take may lead to.

The dreadful and incalculable consequences of a War weigh upon my heart not less than on your Majesty's. I also know that the Emperor of Russia does not wish for it. He, none the less, demands from the Porte things which all the Powers of Europe--among them, yourself--have solemnly declared to be incompatible with the independence of the Porte, and the European balance of power. In view of this declaration and of the presence of the Russian Army of invasion in the Principalities, the Powers could not but be ready to confirm their word by action. If "the Turk" now goes into the background, and if the approaching War appears to you as a "War of tendency" this is the case only because the very motives which may induce the Emperor to insist on his demands--in defiance of the opposition of the whole of Europe, and with the danger of a War that may devastate the world, do betray a _distinct tendency_, and because the grave consequences of the War must appear much more momentous than the original ostensible cause of it, which at first appeared only as the request for a key to the back door of a mosque.

Your Majesty asks me "to examine the question in a spirit of love for peace, and even now to build a bridge for the Imperial honour." Ah, my dear Sir and Brother, all the inventive gifts, all the architecture of diplomacy and of goodwill, have been uselessly wasted during these last nine months in this bridge-building! The _Projets de Notes, de Conventions, de Protocoles_, etc., etc., have proceeded, by the dozen, from the Chancelleries of the different Powers, and one might call the ink wasted on them another Black Sea. But everything has been shipwrecked against the self-will of your honourable brother-in-law.

If now your Majesty informs me "_that now you mean to persist in complete neutrality_," and if, on this occasion, you refer us to your Nation, who are said to exclaim with sound common sense: "Acts of violence have been done by the Turks, the Turk has good friends in large numbers, and the Emperor has done us no harm"--I do not understand you. Certainly I should understand this language if I heard it from the Kings of Hanover or of Saxony. But I have, hitherto, looked upon Prussia as one of the Great Powers which, since the peace of 1815, have been guarantors of treaties, guardians of civilisation, defenders of the right, the real arbiters of the Nations; and for my part I have felt the divine responsibility of this sacred office, without undervaluing at the same time the heavy obligation, not unconnected with danger, which it imposes on me. If you, dear Sir and Brother, abdicate these obligations, you have also abdicated that position for Prussia. And should such an example find imitators, then the civilisation of Europe would be delivered up to the play of winds; right will then no longer find a champion, the oppressed will find no longer an umpire.

Let not your Majesty believe that what has been said in this letter is aimed at persuading you to change your resolves; it flows from the affectionate heart of a sister, who could not pardon herself, were she not, at so weighty a moment, to let you see into her inmost soul. So little is it my intention to desire to win you over to our view, that nothing has grieved me more than the suspicion, expressed in your name by General von der Groeben, that England had desired to seduce you from your purpose by opening a prospect of advantages to be gained. The baselessness of such a supposition is evident from the Treaty itself which had been offered to you, and whose most important clause consisted in the promise of the contracting parties, _not to desire in any case to derive from the War any advantage for themselves_.

Your Majesty could not have given a more powerful proof of your unselfishness than by the very fact of attaching your signature to this Treaty.

To come to a close. You suppose that War may already have been declared; you express, however, at the same time, the hope that it may not already have actually broken out. I cannot unfortunately hold out any hope that the sentence will be followed by any stay of execution. Shakespeare's words:

"Beware
Of entrance to a quarrel; but, being in,
Bear it that the opposer may beware of thee,"

are deeply engraved on the hearts of all Englishmen. Sad that they are to find an application at this crisis, in a nation with whom previously nothing prevailed but friendship and affection! And how much more melancholy must be the present emotions of your Majesty's heart and mind to see such words applied to a beloved brother-in-law, whom yet--however much you love him--your conscience cannot absolve from the crime of having brought upon the world wilfully and frivolously such awful misery!

May the Almighty take you under His protection!

With Albert's most cordial compliments, and our united greetings to the dear Queen, I remain, my much honoured Sir and Brother, your Majesty's faithful Sister and Friend,

VICTORIA R.[22]

[Footnote 22: The King afterwards agreed to the proposed
protocol for the preservation of the integrity of Turkey,
which was signed at Vienna on the 7th of April.]

_Queen Victoria to the Earl of Aberdeen._

_1st April 1854._

The Queen rejoices to see the Debate was favourable in the House of Lords, and that it was concluded in the House of Commons.[23]

She is rather startled at seeing Lord Aberdeen's answer to Lord Roden upon the subject of a day of humiliation, as he has never mentioned the subject to her, and it is one upon which she feels strongly. The only thing the Queen ever heard about it was from the Duke of Newcastle, who suggested the _possibility_ of an _appropriate_ prayer being introduced into the Liturgy, in which the Queen quite agreed; but he was strongly against a day of humiliation, in which the Queen also entirely agreed, as she thinks we have recourse to them far too often, and they thereby lose their effect. The Queen therefore hopes that this will be reconsidered carefully, and a _prayer_ substituted for the _day of humiliation_. Were the services selected for these days of a different kind to what they are--the Queen would feel less strongly about it; but they always select chapters from the Old Testament and Psalms which are so totally inapplicable that it does away with all the effect it ought to have. Moreover, really to say (as we probably should) that the _great sinfulness of the nation_ has brought about this War, when it is the selfishness and ambition of _one_ man and his servants who have brought this about, while our conduct has been throughout actuated by unselfishness and honesty, would be too manifestly repulsive to the feelings of every one, and would be a mere act of hypocrisy. Let there be a prayer expressive of our great thankfulness for the benefits we have enjoyed, and for the immense prosperity of this country, and entreating God's help and protection in the coming struggle. In this the Queen would join heart and soul. If there is to be a day set apart, let it be for prayer in this sense.

[Footnote 23: On the 27th of March the Queen announced to
Parliament that the negotiations with the Czar had terminated,
and that she felt bound "to afford active assistance to her
ally, the Sultan." Next day the Declaration of War was issued,
containing a narrative of the events which finally led to the
rupture. The debates on the Address in answer to the message
took place on the 31st of March, Mr Bright, in the Commons,
censuring the declaration, and being replied to by Lord
Palmerston. The addresses were presented to the Queen on the
3rd of April.]

[Pageheading: THE REFORM QUESTION]

_Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell._

BUCKINGHAM PALACE, _9th April 1854._

The Queen is anxious to express to Lord John Russell the extreme satisfaction she experiences at the communication Lord Aberdeen yesterday evening made her of the settlement of the Reform Question, viz., of its postponement for the present Session, with the understanding that it is to be brought forward again whenever the state of affairs will admit of its being fairly and calmly considered by Parliament.[24] The sacrifice of personal feeling which no doubt this may cost Lord John will, she is certain, be amply compensated by the conviction that he has done so for the interest and tranquillity of his Sovereign and Country, to whom a dissolution of the present Government would have been a source of immense danger and evil.

[Footnote 24: From a memorandum, made by Prince Albert, of
interviews with Lord Aberdeen, it appears that before the
Cabinet of the 8th of April Lord Palmerston declared that
under neither present nor any future conditions could he vote
for the second reading of the Reform Bill. Lord John thereupon
tendered his resignation; this Lord Aberdeen asked him to
suspend until after the meeting of the Cabinet.]

[Pageheading: DISSENSION IN THE CABINET]

[Pageheading: LORD JOHN RUSSELL]

_Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria._

PEMBROKE LODGE, _9th April 1854._

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty; he cannot think it consistent with fairness to conceal from your Majesty the deep feelings of mortification which affect him on reviewing the proceedings of the Cabinet yesterday.[25]

Lord Aberdeen was the only person who behaved with due regard to the honour of the Administration. The rest appeared ready to sacrifice everything in order to keep the Ministry together; and Lord John Russell feels bound to warn your Majesty that, although he was quite willing to waive the consideration of the Reform Bill for the present Session, he is not ready to consent that it shall be entirely set aside in order to keep together a Ministry whose continuance would be dearly bought at the price of the welfare of the Country, and the consistency of public men. Lord John Russell must reflect further on this subject before he comes to a final determination.

[Footnote 25: Lord John Russell's actions at this period
of his career seem often incomprehensible; but his private
domestic anxieties seem to have weighed him down. Having made
the great sacrifice, for an ex-Premier, of taking office under
an old opponent, he was now engaged in trying to regain the
first place for himself. Lord Aberdeen had always contemplated
retiring in his favour, but would not give up the Premiership
in the face of the dangers threatening the country. Moreover,
he had believed his continuance in office to be a guarantee
for peace. Lord John Russell, after accepting the Foreign
Office, had then insisted on being a Minister without office;
later still, by displacing Mr Strutt and transferring Lord
Granville to the Duchy, he himself became Lord President of
the Council, an office which no commoner had held since the
reign of Henry VIII. By such action, coupled with perpetual
threats of resignation, he marred his prospects of succeeding
Lord Aberdeen, and, as will be seen, failed in his attempt to
construct an Administration when the opportunity was offered
him.]

_Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell._

BUCKINGHAM PALACE, _10th April 1854._

The Queen received Lord John Russell's letter last night. She is much grieved that he should be "affected by deep feelings of mortification on reviewing the proceedings of the Cabinet." From all the Queen had heard of the views of the different members of the Cabinet, she believes them to have been fully convinced that the present moment would be inopportune to press the Reform Bill, but _quite_ prepared to take it up again on the first fitting opportunity; she, of course, does _not_ speak of Lord Palmerston.

The Queen would, no more than Lord John, wish to see "the Reform Bill set aside in order to keep together a Ministry," but does not consider the decision of the Cabinet at all to imply this, whatever Lord Palmerston's personal wishes may be, and trusts that the Country will fully understand and appreciate the motives which have guided the Government. Lord Aberdeen and Lord John will always receive every support from the Queen when they shall think it right to propose the re-introduction of the measure.

[Pageheading: LORD JOHN RUSSELL]

_Memorandum by the Prince Albert._

BUCKINGHAM PALACE, _10th April 1854._

Lord Aberdeen has just left the Queen, after an interview which he had had with Sir James Graham and Lord John Russell at Lord John's request. He reported that at that interview Lord John renewed his complaint of the Cabinet, declared that he could not state to the House what was untrue, and must therefore resign. Lord Aberdeen called this "really too monstrous" after the pledge given by the Sovereign, himself as Prime Minister, and the whole Cabinet, with the exception of one man, and he would repeat his promise that whenever Lord John said, "The Reform Bill is to come on," and Lord Palmerston opposed it, he should go.

Lord John could not be appeased, but spoke with the greatest bitterness. He had written to Lord Palmerston in the same sense; and Lord Palmerston's answer arrived during the interview. It was to the effect that if one of them was to resign, it was not Lord John, who agreed with the rest of the Cabinet upon the Bill, but himself, who was the dissentient. Lord Aberdeen asked Lord John whether Lord Palmerston's resignation would satisfy him; to which he answered, he believed it would not mend matters. Lord Aberdeen's opinion, however, is that it is what Lord John, and still more what Lady John, wants. He thinks the Country will never understand how the Government could break up, and that Lord John is cutting his own throat, and told him so. If Lord John went, he could not go on with Lord Palmerston as Leader of the House of Commons, which he called "perfectly ludicrous." Lord Palmerston would probably insist upon this, however; Lord Palmerston's retirement would be a great blow to the Government, as the Country persisted in thinking him the only able War Minister, and would cry out at "the imbecile old Head of the Government having it now all his own way." He thought, should he not be able to go on, new combinations could be formed, perhaps under the Duke of Newcastle and Mr Gladstone, as the Country liked younger men. Lord John must give his answer in the House of Commons to-morrow at half-past four. Lord Aberdeen would wish to see the Duke of Newcastle, Sir James Graham, and Mr Gladstone, as his more particular friends, this evening, to discuss the whole question with them, and would see Lord Palmerston and Lord John to-morrow, before he could make any report to the Queen.

This is all really very bad!

ALBERT.

_Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria._

CHESHAM PLACE, _11th April 1854._