Buckingham Palace, 22nd February 1858.
The Queen acknowledges Lord Derby's letter of yesterday, and returns him these three letters. She much regrets that he cannot reckon on the support and assistance in the Government, which he is about to form, of such able men. The Queen authorises Lord Derby to offer the office of Lord Chancellor with a Peerage to Mr Pemberton Leigh; but she fears from what passed on previous occasions that he is not likely to accept it.11
Footnote 11: He declined the office, and the Great Seal was offered to and accepted by Sir Frederick Thesiger, who was created Lord Chelmsford.
Buckingham Palace, 22nd February 1858.
The Queen has had a long conversation with the Duke of Newcastle, which however ended, as Lord Derby will have expected from what the Duke must have told him, in his declaring his conviction that he could be of no use to the new Government by joining it, or in persuading his friends to change their minds as to joining. The Duke was evidently much pleased by the offer, but from all he said of his position, the Queen could gather that it was in vain to press him further.
St James's Square, 25th February 1858.
Lord Derby presents his humble duty to your Majesty, and fears that after your Majesty's most gracious acceptance of the propositions which he has made, he may appear to your Majesty very vacillating, in having at the last moment to submit to your Majesty another change.... But he finds that Lord John Manners, though he consented to take the Colonial Department, would infinitely prefer resuming his seat at the Board of Works; and on the urgent representation of his Colleagues that the Government would be strengthened by such a step, Lord Stanley has consented to accept office; and the arrangement which he would now venture humbly to submit to your Majesty would be the appointment of Lord Stanley to the Colonial Secretaryship, and Lord John Manners to the Board of Works....
| The Ministry as it stood on the 1st of January 1858. |
The Ministry as formed by the Earl of Derby in February 1858. |
|||
| Viscount Palmerston | First Lord of the Treasury |
Earl of Derby. | ||
| Marquis of Lansdowne | (Without Office). | |||
| Lord Cranworth | Lord Chancellor | Lord Chelmsford. | ||
| Earl Granville | President of the Council |
Marquis of Salisbury. | ||
| Marquis of Clanricarde | Lord Privy Seal | Earl of Hardwicke. | ||
| Sir George Grey | Home Secretary | Mr Walpole. | ||
| Earl of Clarendon | Foreign Secretary | Earl of Malmesbury. | ||
| Mr Labouchere (afterwards Lord Taunton) |
} | Colonial Secretary | { | Lord Stanley (afterwards Earl of Derby). |
| Lord Panmure (afterwards Earl of Dalhousie) |
} | War Secretary | General Peel. | |
| Sir G. C. Lewis | Chancellor of the Exchequer |
{ | Mr Disraeli (afterwards Earl of Beaconsfield) |
|
| Sir Charles Wood (afterwards Viscount Halifax) |
} | First Lord of the Admiralty |
{ | Sir John Pakington (afterwards Lord Hampton). |
| Mr Vernon Smith (afterwards Lord Lyveden) |
} | President of the Board of Control |
Earl of Ellenborough. | |
| Lord Stanley of Alderley | President of the Board of Trade |
Mr Henley. | ||
| Mr M. T. Baines | Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster |
(Not in the Cabinet.) | ||
| Duke of Argyll | Postmaster-General | (Not in the Cabinet.) | ||
| (Not in the Cabinet) | First Commissioner of Works and Public Buildings |
{ | Lord John Manners (afterwards Duke of Rutland). |
Whitehall, 7th March 1858.
The Earl of Malmesbury presents his humble duty to the Queen, and has the honour to thank your Majesty for the interesting letter12 sent to him by your Majesty, and which he returns to your Majesty by this messenger. Lord Malmesbury hopes and believes that much of the excitement that prevailed on the other side the water is subsiding. All his letters from private sources, and the account of Colonel Claremont, agree on this point. In this country, if our differences with France are settled, it is probable that the popular jealousy of foreign interference will be killed; but at least for some time it will show foreign Courts how dangerous it is even to criticise our domestic Institutions. Lord Malmesbury has carefully abstained from giving Lord Cowley or M. de Persigny the slightest hope that we could alter the law, but has confined himself to saying that the law was itself as much on its trial as the prisoners Bernard and Truelove.13 If, therefore, the law should prove to be a phantom of justice, or anomalous in its action, whatever measures your Majesty's Government may hereafter take to reform it, it will be received by France as an unexpected boon and a proof of good faith and amity.
In attending to the idea referred to by your Majesty that the Emperor took the oath of the Assassins' Society, Lord Malmesbury can almost assure your Majesty that such is not the case.14 Lord Malmesbury first made His Majesty's acquaintance in Italy when they were both very young men (twenty years of age). They were both under the influence of those romantic feelings which the former history and the present degradation of Italy may naturally inspire even at a more advanced time of life—and the Prince Louis Napoleon, to the knowledge of Lord Malmesbury, certainly engaged himself in the conspiracies of the time—but it was with the higher class of the Carbonari, men like General Sercognani and General Pépé. The Prince used to talk to Lord Malmesbury upon these men and their ideas and plans with all the openness that exists between two youths, and Lord Malmesbury has many times heard him condemn with disgust the societies of villains which hung on the flank of the conspirators, and which deterred many of the best families and ablest gentlemen in Romagna from joining them. Lord Malmesbury believes the report therefore to be a fable, and at some future period will, if it should interest your Majesty, relate to your Majesty some details respecting the Emperor's share in the conspiracies of 1828-1829....
Footnote 12: This was a letter from the Prince de Chimay to the King of the Belgians in reference to the Orsini plot.
Footnote 13: Before Lord Palmerston's Government had retired, Simon Bernard, a resident of Bayswater, was committed for trial for complicity in the Orsini attentat. He was committed for conspiracy only, but, at the instance of the new Government, the charge was altered to one of feloniously slaying one of the persons killed by the explosion. As this constructive murder was actually committed on French soil, Bernard's trial had, under the existing law, to be held before a Special Commission, over which Lord Campbell presided. The evidence overwhelmingly established the prisoner's guilt, but, carried away by the eloquent, if irrelevant, speech of Mr Edwin James for the defence, the jury acquitted him. Truelove was charged with criminal libel, for openly approving, in a published pamphlet, Orsini's attempt, and regretting its failure. The Government threw up the prosecution, pusillanimously in the judgment of Lord Campbell, who records that he carefuly studied, with a view to his own hearing of the case, the proceedings against Lord George Gordon for libelling Marie Antoinette, against Vint for libelling the Emperor Paul, and against Peltier for libelling Napoleon I.
Footnote 14: The Queen had written:—"There are people who pretend that the Emperor, who was once a member of the Carbonari Club of Italy, and who is supposed to be condemned to death by the rules of that Secret Society for having violated his oath to them, has offered them to pardon Orsini, if they would release him from his oath, but that the Society refused the offer. The fact that all the attempts have been made by Italians, Orsini's letter, and the almost mad state of fear in which the Emperor seems to be now, would give colour to that story." Orsini had written two letters to the Emperor, one read aloud at his trial by his counsel, Jules Favre, the other while lying under sentence of death. He entreated the Emperor to secure Italian independence.
House of Commons, 12th March 1858.
(Friday.)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer with his humble duty to your Majesty.
The Opposition benches very full; the temper not kind.
The French announcement,15 which was quite unexpected, elicited cheers, but only from the Ministerial side, which, he confesses, for a moment almost daunted him.
Then came a question about the Cagliari affair,16 on which the Government had agreed to take a temperate course, in deference to their predecessors—but it was not successful. The ill-humour of the House, diverted for a moment by the French news, vented itself on this head.
What struck the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the course of the evening most was the absence of all those symptoms of "fair trial," etc., which have abounded of late in journals and in Society.
Lord John said something; Mr Gladstone said something; but it was not encouraging.
Nevertheless, in 1852 "fair trial" observations abounded, and the result was not satisfactory; now it may be the reverse.
The House is wild and capricious at this moment.
Your Majesty once deigned to say that your Majesty wished in these remarks to have the temper of the House placed before your Majesty, and to find what your Majesty could not meet in newspapers. This is the Chancellor of the Exchequer's excuse for these rough notes, written on the field of battle, which he humbly offers to your Majesty.
Footnote 15: Parliament reassembled on the 12th of March, and Mr Disraeli then stated that the "painful misconceptions" which had for some time existed between England and France had been "terminated in a spirit entirely friendly and honourable."
Footnote 16: Two English engineers, Watt and Park, had been on the Sardinian steamer Cagliari when she was seized by the Neapolitan Government, and her crew, including the engineers, imprisoned at Naples. At the instance of the Conservative Government, who acted more vigorously than their predecessors had done, the engineers were released, and £3,000 paid to them as compensation.
Osborne, 15th March 1858.
The Queen sends to Lord Derby a Memorandum on the state of preparation of our Navy in case of a war, the importance of attending to which she has again strongly felt when the late vote of the House of Commons endangered the continuance of the good understanding with France. The whole tone of the Debate on the first night of the reassembly of Parliament has shown again that there exists a great disposition to boast and provoke foreign Powers without any sincere desire to investigate our means of making good our words, and providing for those means which are missing.
The Queen wishes Lord Derby to read this Memorandum to the Cabinet, and to take the subject of which it treats into their anxious consideration.
The two appendices, stating facts, the one with regard to the manning of the Navy by volunteers with the aid of bounties, the other with regard to impressment, have become unfortunately more lengthy than the Queen had wished, but the facts appeared to her so important that she did not like to have any left out.
House of Commons, 22nd March 1858.
(Monday, half-past eight o'clock.)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer with his humble duty to your Majesty.
This evening was a great contrast to Friday. House very full on both sides....
Mr B. Osborne commenced the general attack, of which he had given notice; but, after five years' silence, his weapons were not as bright as of yore. He was answered by the Government, and the House, which was very full, became much excited. The Ministerial benches were in high spirit.
The Debate that ensued, most interesting and sustained.
Mr Horsman, with considerable effect, expressed the opinions of that portion of the Liberal Party, which does not wish to disturb the Government.
Lord John Russell vindicated the Reform Bill of 1832 from the attacks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and with great dignity and earnestness.
He was followed by Mr Drummond on the same subject in a telling epigram. Then Lord Palmerston, in reply to the charges of Mr Horsman, mild and graceful, with a sarcastic touch. The general impression of the House was very favourable to the Ministry; all seemed changed; the Debate had cleared the political atmosphere, and, compared with our previous state, we felt as if the eclipse was over.
Buckingham Palace, 23rd March 1858.
My dearest Uncle,—You will, I trust, forgive my letter being short, but we have only just returned from Aldershot, where we went this morning, and really have been quite baked by a sun which was hardly hotter in August, and without a breath of wind....
Good Marie17 has not answered me, will you remind her? I did tell her I hoped for her child's18 sake she would give up the nursing, as we Princesses had other duties to perform. I hope she was not shocked, but I felt I only did what was right in telling her so.
I grieve to say we lose poor Persigny, which is a real loss—but he would resign. Walewski behaved ill to him. The Emperor has, however, named a successor which is really a compliment to the Army and the Alliance—and besides a distinguished and independent man, viz. the Duc de Malakhoff.19 This is very gratifying.
In all this business, Pélissier has, I hear, behaved extremely well. I must now conclude. Ever your devoted Niece,
Footnote 17: Marie Henriette, Duchess of Brabant, afterwards Queen of the Belgians; died 1902.
Footnote 18: Princess Louise of Belgium was born on the 4th of February.
Footnote 19: Formerly General Pélissier; see ante, p. 143, note 80.
House of Commons, 23rd March 1858.
(Tuesday.)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer with his humble duty to your Majesty.
The discussion on the Passport Question, this evening, was not without animation; the new Under-Secretary, Mr Fitzgerald,20 makes way with the House. He is very acute and quick in his points, but does not speak loud enough. His tone is conversational, which is the best for the House of Commons, and the most difficult; but then the conversation should be heard. The general effect of the discussion was favourable to the French Government.
In a thin House afterwards, the Wife's Sister Bill was brought in after a division. Your Majesty's Government had decided among themselves to permit the introduction, but a too zealous member of the Opposition forced an inopportune division.
Footnote 20: William Robert Seymour Vesey Fitzgerald, M.P. for Horsham 1852-1865. He was Governor of Bombay 1867-1872.
House of Commons, 25th March 1858.
(Thursday.)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer with his humble duty to your Majesty.
The Lease of the Lord-Lieutenancy was certainly renewed to-night—and for some years. The majority was very great against change at present, and the future, which would justify it, it was agreed, should be the very decided opinion of the Irish members. It was left in short to Ireland.
The Debate was not very animated, but had two features—a most admirable speech by Lord Naas,21 quite the model of an official statement, clear, calm, courteous, persuasive, and full of knowledge; it received the praises of both sides.
The other incident noticeable was Mr Roebuck's reply, which was one of the most apt, terse, and telling I well remember, and not bitter.
Footnote 21: Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant, afterwards (as Earl of Mayo) Viceroy of India, assassinated in the Andaman Islands, 1872.
House of Commons, 13th April.
(Tuesday night.)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer with his humble duty to your Majesty.
The night tranquil and interesting—Lord Bury, with much intelligence, introduced the subject of the Straits Settlements;22 the speech of Sir J. Elphinstone,23 master of the subject, and full of striking details, produced a great effect. His vindication of the convict population of Singapore, as the moral element of that strange society, might have been considered as the richest humour, had it not been for its unmistakable simplicity.
His inquiry of the Governor's lady, who never hired any servant but a convict, whether she employed in her nursery "Thieves or Murderers?"—and the answer, "Always murderers," was very effective....
The Secretary of State having sent down to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the telegram of the fall of Lucknow,24 the Chancellor of the Exchequer read it to the House, having previously in private shown it to Lord Palmerston and others of the late Government.
After this a spirited Debate on the conduct of Members of Parliament corruptly exercising their influence, in which the view recommended by the Government, through Mr Secretary Walpole, was adopted by the House.
Footnote 22: These detached provinces were at this time under the control of the Governor-General of India; but in 1867 they were formed into a Crown Colony.
Footnote 23: Sir J. D. H. Elphinstone, Conservative member for Portsmouth, afterwards a Lord of the Treasury.
Footnote 24: Sir Colin Campbell had at length obtained entire possession of the city, which had been in the hands of the rebels for nine months.
Windsor Castle, 2nd April 1858.
My dear Uncle,—I am sure you will kindly be interested in knowing that the Examination and Confirmation of Bertie have gone off extremely well.25 Everything was conducted as at Vicky's, and I thought much of you, and wished we could have had the happiness of having you there. I enclose a Programme. The examination before the Archbishop and ourselves by the Dean on Wednesday was long and difficult, but Bertie answered extremely well, and his whole manner and Gemüthsstimmung yesterday, and again to-day, at the Sacrament to which we took him, was gentle, good, and proper.... Now, good-bye, dear Uncle. Ever your devoted Niece,
Footnote 25: See the Prince Consort's letter to Stockmar, Life of the Prince Consort, vol. iv. p. 205.
Windsor Castle, 12th April 1858.
The Queen has received Sir John Pakington's letter of the 10th, and thanks him for the transmission of the printed copy of his confidential Memorandum.
The object of the paper which the Queen sent from Osborne to Lord Derby was to lead by a thorough investigation to an exact knowledge of the state of our Naval preparations in the event of a war, with the view to the discovery and suggestion of such remedies as our deficiencies imperatively demand. This investigation and thorough consideration the Queen expects from her Board of Admiralty, chosen with great care, and composed of the most competent Naval Authorities. She does not wish for the opinion of this or that person, given without any responsibility attaching to it, nor for mere returns prepared in the Office for the First Lord, but for the collective opinion of Sir John Pakington and his Board with the responsibility attaching to such an opinion given to the Sovereign upon a subject upon which the safety of the Empire depends. The Queen has full confidence in the honour of the gentlemen composing the Board, that they will respect the confidential character of the Queen's communication, and pay due regard to the importance of the subject referred to them.
House of Commons, 12th April 1858.
(Monday night.)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer with his humble duty to your Majesty.
House reassembled—full. Chancellor of Exchequer much embarrassed with impending statement, on the part of your Majesty's servants, that they intended to propose Resolutions on the Government of India, instead of at once proceeding with their Bill.26
Received, five minutes before he took his seat, confidential information, that Lord John Russell, wishing to defeat the prospects of Lord Palmerston, and himself to occupy a great mediatory position, intended, himself, to propose the mezzotermine of resolutions!
Chancellor of Exchequer felt it was impossible, after having himself introduced a Bill, to interfere with the Resolutions of an independent member, and one so weighty and distinguished: therefore, confined his announcement to the Budget on Monday week, and consequent postponement of India Bill.
Soon after, Lord John rose, and opened the case, in a spirit most calm and conciliatory to the House, and to your Majesty's Government.
The Chancellor of Exchequer responded, but with delicacy, not wishing rudely to deprive Lord John of his position in the matter; deeming it arrogant—but the real opposition, extremely annoyed at all that was occurring, wishing, at the same time, to deprive Lord John of the mediatory position, and to embarrass your Majesty's Government with the task and responsibility of preparing and introducing the resolutions, insisted upon Government undertaking the task. As the Chancellor of Exchequer read the sketch of the Resolutions in his box, this was amusing; he undertook the responsibility, thus urged, and almost menaced; Lord John, though greatly mortified at not bringing in the Resolutions himself, for it is since known they were prepared, entirely and justly acquits Chancellor of Exchequer of any arrogance and intrusion, and the affair concludes in a manner dignified and more than promising. It is now generally supposed that after the various Resolutions have been discussed, and passed, the Bill of your Majesty's servants, modified and reconstructed, will pass into a law.
The Chancellor of Exchequer will have a copy of the Resolutions, though at present in a crude form, made and forwarded to your Majesty, that they may be considered by your Majesty and His Royal Highness. Chancellor of Exchequer will mention this to Lord Derby, through whom they ought to reach your Majesty.
After this unexpected and interesting scene, because it showed, in its progress, a marked discordance between Lord John and Lord Palmerston, not concealed by the latter chief, and strongly evinced by some of his principal followers, for example, Sir C. Wood, Mr Hall, Mr Bouverie, the House went into Committee on the Navy Estimates which Sir J. Pakington introduced in a speech, lucid, spirited, and comprehensive. The feeling of the House as to the maintenance of the Navy was good.
Footnote 26: Lord Palmerston had obtained leave, by a large majority, to introduce an India Bill, vesting the Government of India in a Council nominated by the Crown. On his accession to office, Mr Disraeli proposed that the Council should be half nominative and half elective, and in particular that London, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, and Belfast should each be entitled to elect one member. These proposals were widely condemned, and especially by Mr Bright.
Buckingham Palace, 1st May 1858.
The Queen has received a draft to Lord Cowley on the Danish Question,27 which she cannot sanction as submitted to her. The question is a most important one, and a false step on our part may produce a war between France and Germany. The Queen would wish Lord Malmesbury to call here in the course of to-morrow, when the Prince could discuss the matter with him more fully.
Footnote 27: The dispute as to the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein. The German Diet had refused to ratify the Danish proposal that Commissioners should be appointed by Germany and Denmark to negotiate an arrangement of their differences. Lord Malmesbury had written that the Governments (including England) which had hitherto abstained from interference, should now take measures to guard against any interference with the integrity of the Danish Monarchy. The Queen and Prince considered that the attitude of the British Government was unnecessarily pro-Danish.
House of Commons, 7th May 1858.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer with his humble duty to your Majesty.
At half-past four o'clock, before the Chancellor of the Exchequer could reach the House, the Secretary of the Board of Control had already presented the Proclamation of Lord Canning, and the despatch thereon of Lord Ellenborough, without the omission of the Oudh passages.28
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has employed every means to recall the papers, and make the necessary omissions, and more than once thought he had succeeded, but unhappily the despatch had been read by Mr Bright, and a considerable number of members, and, had papers once in the possession of the House by the presentation of a Minister been surreptitiously recalled and garbled, the matter would have been brought before the House, and the production of the complete documents would have been ordered.
In this difficult and distressing position the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after consultation with his colleagues in the House of Commons, thought it best, and, indeed, inevitable, to submit to circumstances, the occurrence of which he deeply regrets, and humbly places before your Majesty.
Footnote 28: See Introductory Note, ante, p. 262. The draft proclamation (differing from the ultimate form in which it was issued), with a covering despatch, were sent home to the Board of Control by Lord Canning, who at the same time wrote an unofficial letter to Mr Vernon Smith, then President of the Board, stating that he had not been able to find time before the mail left to explain his reasons for adopting what appeared a somewhat merciless scheme of confiscation. Lord Ellenborough thereupon wrote a despatch, dated the 19th of April, reprobating the Governor-General for abandoning the accustomed policy of generous conquerors, and for inflicting on the mass of the population what they would feel as the severest of punishments. This despatch was made public in England, as will be seen from the dates, before it could possibly have reached Lord Canning.
Buckingham Palace, 9th May 1858.
The Queen has received Lord Derby's letter of last night, and was glad to see that he entirely concurs with her in the advantage and necessity of appointing a Commission to consider the question of the organisation of the future Army of India.29 She only hopes that no time will be lost by the reference to the different bodies whom Lord Derby wishes previously to consult, and she trusts that he will not let himself be overruled by Lord Ellenborough, who may very likely consider the opinion and result of the labours of a Committee as entirely valueless as compared with his own opinions.
The Queen has not the same confidence in them, and is, therefore, doubly anxious to be advised by a body of the most competent persons after most careful enquiry.
Footnote 29: The Queen had written that she thought the Commission should be composed of officers of the Home and the Indian Armies, some politicians, the Commander-in-Chief, the President of the Board of Control, with the Secretary-for-War as President.
Buckingham Palace, 9th May 1858.
The Queen has received Lord Derby's letter of yesterday. She is very sorry for the further complication likely to arise out of the communication to the House of Commons of the despatch in full, which is most unfortunate, not less so than the communication of it previously to Mr Bright and his friends. The Queen is anxious not to add to Lord Derby's difficulties, but she must not leave unnoticed the fact that the despatch in question ought never to have been written without having been submitted to the Queen. She hopes Lord Derby will take care that Lord Ellenborough will not repeat this, which must place her in a most embarrassing position.
Eaton Square, 10th May 1858.
Lord Ellenborough presents his most humble duty to your Majesty, and regarding the present difficult position of your Majesty's Government as mainly occasioned by the presentation to Parliament of the letter to the Governor-General with reference to the Proclamation in Oudh, for which step he considers himself to be solely responsible, he deems it to be his duty to lay his resignation at your Majesty's feet.
Lord Ellenborough had no other object than that of making it unmistakably evident to the Governor as well as to the governed in India that your Majesty was resolved to temper Justice with Clemency, and would not sanction any measure which did not seem to conduce to the establishment of permanent peace.30
Footnote 30: On the same day Lord Shaftesbury in the Lords and Mr Cardwell in the Commons gave notice of Motions censuring the Government for Lord Ellenborough's despatch. The debates commenced on the 14th.
Buckingham Palace, 11th May 1858.
Lord Derby had an Audience at twelve o'clock. He said he had received a copy of Lord Ellenborough's letter, and had told him that should the Queen consult him (Lord Derby) he should advise her to accept the resignation, Lord Ellenborough had behaved in the handsomest manner, and expressed his belief that he had brought bad luck to the Government, for this was now the second difficulty into which they had got by his instrumentality, the first having been the Election Clause in the India Bill. Lord Derby hoped that this resignation would stop the vote of censure in the House of Commons, as the House could not hold responsible and punish the Cabinet for that with which they had had no concern. If the House persisted, it was clear that the motives were factious, and he hoped the Queen would allow him to threaten a Dissolution of Parliament, which he was certain would stop it. The Queen refused to give that permission; she said he might leave it quite undecided whether the Queen would grant a Dissolution or not, and take the benefit of the doubt in talking to others on the subject; but she must be left quite free to act as she thought the good of the country might require at the time when the Government should have been beat; there had been a Dissolution within the year, and if a Reform Bill was passed there must be another immediately upon it; in the meantime most violent pledges would be taken as to Reform if a general election were to take place now. Lord Derby concurred in all this, and said he advised the threat particularly in order to render the reality unnecessary; when she persisted in her refusal, however, on the ground that she could not threaten what she was not prepared to do, he appeared very much disappointed and mortified.
We then discussed the state of the question itself, and urged the necessity of something being done to do away with the injurious impression which the publication of the despatch must produce in India, as the resignation of Lord Ellenborough left this quite untouched, and Parliament might with justice demand this. He agreed, after much difficulty, to send a telegraphic despatch, which might overtake and mitigate the other. On my remark that the public were under the impression that there had been collusion, and that Mr Bright had seen the despatch before he asked his question for its production, he denied this stoutly, but let us understand that Mr Bright had known of the existence of such a despatch, and had wished to put his question before, but had been asked to defer it until Lord Canning's Proclamation should have appeared in the newspapers! (This is nearly as bad!!) The Queen could not have pledged herself to dissolve Parliament in order to support such tricks!
It was arranged that Lord Derby should accept Lord Ellenborough's resignation in the Queen's name.
Buckingham Palace, 11th May 1858.
The Queen has to acknowledge Lord Ellenborough's letter, which she did not wish to do before she had seen Lord Derby.
The latter has just left the Queen, and will communicate to Lord Ellenborough the Queen's acceptance of his resignation, which he has thought it right to tender to her from a sense of public duty.