St James's Square [11th May].
(9 P.M., Tuesday.)
Lord Derby, with his humble duty, submits to your Majesty the expression of his hope that the discussion, or rather conversation, which has taken place in the House of Lords this evening, may have been not only advantageous to the Government, but beneficial in its results to the public service....
After the discussion, Lord Ellenborough made his statement; and it is only doing bare justice to him to say that he made it in a manner and spirit which was most highly honourable to himself, and was fully appreciated by the House.
Public sympathy was entirely with him, especially when he vindicated the policy which he had asserted, but took upon himself the whole and sole responsibility of having authorised the publication of the despatch—which he vindicated—and announced his own resignation rather than embarrass his colleagues. Lord Grey shortly entered his protest against bringing into discussion the policy of the Proclamation and of the consequent despatch, into which Lord Ellenborough had certainly entered too largely, opposing, very broadly, the principle of confiscation against that of clemency. Lord Derby followed Lord Grey, and after an interruption on a point of form, vindicated the policy advocated in Lord Ellenborough's despatch, at the same time that he expressed not only his hope, but his belief, that in practice the Governor-General would be found (and more especially judging from the alterations inserted in the last Proclamation of which an unofficial copy has been received) acting on the principles laid down in Lord Ellenborough's despatch. In the tribute which he felt it his duty to pay to the personal, as well as political, character of Lord Ellenborough, the House concurred with entire unanimity and all did honour to the spirit which induced him to sacrifice his own position to the public service; and to atone, and more than atone, for an act of indiscretion by the frank avowal that he alone was responsible for it. Lord Derby thinks that the step which has been taken may, even probably, prevent the Motions intended to be made on Friday; and if made, will, almost certainly, result in a majority for the Government.
Lord Derby believes that he may possibly be in time to telegraph to Malta early to-morrow, to Lord Canning. In that case he will do himself the honour of submitting to your Majesty a copy of the message31 sent, though he fears it will be impossible to do so before its despatch. He proposes in substance to say that the publication has been disapproved—that Lord Ellenborough has resigned in consequence—but that your Majesty's Government adhere in principle to the policy laid down in the despatch of 19th April, and entertain an earnest hope that the Governor-General, judging from the modifications introduced into the amended Proclamation, has, in fact, the intention of acting in the same spirit; but that your Majesty's Government are still of opinion that confiscation of private property ought to be made the exception, and not the rule, and to be enforced only against those who may stand out after a certain day, or who may be proved to have been guilty of more than ordinary crimes.
Lord Derby hopes that your Majesty will excuse a very hasty sketch of a very large subject.
Footnote 31: The Earl of Derby to Lord Lyons.
12th May 1858.
Send on the following message to Lord Canning by the Indian mail.
The publication of the Secret Despatch of 19th April has been disapproved. Lord Ellenborough has resigned office. His successor has not been appointed. Nevertheless the policy indicated in the above despatch is approved by Her Majesty's Government. Confiscation of property of private individuals (Talookdars and others) ought to be the exception and not the rule. It ought to be held out as a penalty on those who do not come in by a given day. From your amended Proclamation it is hoped that such is your intention. Let it be clearly understood that it is so. You were quite right in issuing no Proclamation till after a signal success. That once obtained, the more generous the terms, the better. A broad distinction must be drawn between the Talookdars of Oudh and the Sepoys who have been in our service. Confidence is felt in your judgment. You will not err if you lean to the side of humanity, especially as to nations of Oudh.
No private letters have been received from you since the change of Government.
14th May 1858.
The Queen returns the extracts Lord Derby has sent to her. Lord Ellenborough's despatch,32 now before her for the first time, is very good and just in principle. But the Queen would be much surprised if it did not entirely coincide with the views of Lord Canning, at least as far as he has hitherto expressed any in his letters. So are also the sentiments written by Sir J. Lawrence; they contain almost the very expressions frequently used by Lord Canning.
Sir J. Login,33 who holds the same opinion, and has great Indian experience, does not find any fault with the Proclamation, however seemingly it may sound at variance with these opinions, and this on account of the peculiar position of affairs in Oudh. It is a great pity that Lord Ellenborough, with his knowledge, experience, activity, and cleverness, should be so entirely unable to submit to general rules of conduct. The Queen has been for some time much alarmed at his writing letters of his own to all the most important Indian Chiefs and Kings explaining his policy. All this renders the position of a Governor-General almost untenable, and that of the Government at home very hazardous.
Footnote 32: This was a later despatch of Lord Ellenborough's, also in reference to the pacification of Oudh, and not shown to the Cabinet before it was sent.
Footnote 33: See ante, p. 248, note 41.
[Undated. ? 15th May 1858.]
Upon being admitted to Lord Aberdeen, I informed him that the Queen and Prince were anxious to hear his opinion upon the present most unfortunate state of affairs, but that, knowing how easily every event was perverted in such times as the present, Her Majesty and His Royal Highness had thought that it might have been subject to misapprehension had he been known to have been at Buckingham Palace, and that I had been therefore directed to call upon him, with a view of obtaining his opinion and advice upon certain important points.
The first was the question of a Dissolution of Parliament in the event of the Government being defeated upon the question which was at present pending. I told him that I was permitted to communicate to him in the strictest confidence, that in a late Audience which Lord Derby had with the Queen, he had asked her permission to be allowed to announce that, in the event of an adverse majority, he had Her Majesty's sanction to a Dissolution of Parliament.
That the Queen had declined to give such sanction, or even such a pledge, and equally guarded herself against being supposed to have made up her mind to refuse her sanction to a Dissolution, had told Lord Derby that she could not then make any prospective decision upon the subject. I told him that in point of fact Her Majesty was disinclined to grant to Lord Derby her authority for a Dissolution, but that the Queen had at once refused to grant to Lord Derby her sanction for making the announcement he wished, as she considered that it would be a very unconstitutional threat for him to hold over the head of the Parliament, with her authority, by way of biassing their decision.
Lord Aberdeen interrupted me by saying that the Queen had done quite right—that he never heard of such a request being made, or authority for such an announcement being sought—and he could not at all understand Lord Derby making such an application. He knew that the Government had threatened a Dissolution, that he thought that they had a perfect right to do so, but that they would have been quite wrong in joining the Queen's name with it.
He said that he had never entertained the slightest doubt that if the Minister advised the Queen to dissolve, she would, as a matter of course, do so. The Minister who advised the Dissolution took upon himself the heavy responsibility of doing so, but that the Sovereign was bound to suppose that the person whom she had appointed as a Minister was a gentleman and an honest man, and that he would not advise Her Majesty to take such a step unless he thought that it was for the good of the country. There was no doubt of the power and prerogative of the Sovereign to refuse a Dissolution—it was one of the very few acts which the Queen of England could do without responsible advice at the moment; but even in this case whoever was sent for to succeed, must, with his appointment, assume the responsibility of this act, and be prepared to defend it in Parliament.
He could not remember a single instance in which the undoubted power of the Sovereign had been exercised upon this point, and the advice of the Minister to dissolve Parliament had been rejected—for it was to be remembered that Lord Derby would be still at this time her Minister—and that the result of such refusal would be that the Queen would take upon herself the act of dismissing Lord Derby from office, instead of his resigning from being unable longer to carry on the Government.
The Queen had during her reign, and throughout the numerous changes of Government, maintained an unassailable position of constitutional impartiality, and he had no hesitation in saying that he thought it would be more right, and certainly more safe, for her to follow the usual course, than to take this dangerous time for exercising an unusual and, he believed he might say, an unprecedented, course, though the power to exercise the authority was undoubted.
He said that he did not conceive that any reasons of expediency as to public business, or the possible effects of frequent general elections, would be sufficient grounds for refusing a Dissolution (and reasons would have to be given by the new Minister in Parliament), and, as he conceived, the only possible ground that could be maintained as foundation for such an exercise of authority would be the fearful danger to the existence of our power in India, which might arise from the intemperate discussion upon every hustings of the proceedings of the Government with respect to that country—as the question proposed to the country would certainly be considered to be severity or mercy to the people of India.
Upon the second point, as to a successor to Lord Derby in the event of his resignation, he said that the Queen would, he thought, have no alternative but to send for Lord Palmerston. The only other person who could be suggested would be Lord John Russell, and he was neither the mover of the Resolutions which displaced the Government, nor the ostensible head of the Opposition, which the late meeting at Cambridge House pointed out Lord Palmerston to be. That he was not very fond of Lord Palmerston, though he had forgiven him all, and he had had much to forgive; and that in the last few days it had appeared that he had less following than Lord John; but the Queen could not act upon such daily changing circumstances, and it was evident that Lord Palmerston was the ostensible man for the Queen to send for.
Lord Aberdeen seemed very low upon the state of public affairs. He said that the extreme Liberals were the only Party that appeared to gain strength. Not only was the Whig Party divided within itself, hated by the Radicals, and having a very doubtful support from the independent Liberals, but even the little band called the Peelites had entirely crumbled to pieces. In the House of Lords, whilst the Duke of Newcastle voted with the Opposition, he (Lord Aberdeen) had purposely abstained from voting, whilst, in the House of Commons, Cardwell moved the Resolution, and Mr Sidney Herbert would, he believed, vote for it; Gladstone would speak on the other side, and Sir J. Graham would also vote with the Government.
He concluded by saying that if the majority against the Government was a very large one, he thought that Lord Derby ought not to ask to dissolve; but that he knew that the members of the Government had said that the present Parliament was elected upon a momentary Palmerstonian cry, and was quite an exceptional case, and that they would not consent to be driven from office upon its verdict.
Buckingham Palace, 16th May 1858.
We saw Lord Derby after church. He brought interesting letters from Lord Canning to Lord Ellenborough, of which copies follow here. It is evident that Lord Canning thinks that he is taking a most merciful course, and expects pacification from his "Proclamation," attributing the slow coming in of the chiefs to the Proclamation not being yet sufficiently known.
Lord Ellenborough's, and indeed the Government's, hearts, must have had curious sensations in reading Lord Canning's frank declaration, that he did not mean to resign on hearing of the formation of the Tory Government unless told to do so, and he had no fears that he would be treated in a way implying want of confidence to make him resign, feeling safe as to that in Lord Ellenborough's hands!
Lord Derby spoke much of the Debate, which he expects to go on for another week. He expects to be beaten by from 15 to 35 votes under present circumstances, but thinks still that he could be saved if it were known that the Queen had not refused a Dissolution, which was stoutly maintained by Lord Palmerston's friends. He begged again to be empowered to contradict the assertion. The Queen maintained that it would be quite unconstitutional to threaten Parliament, and to use her name for that purpose. Lord Derby quite agreed, and disclaimed any such intention, but said there were modes of letting the fact be known without any risk. We agreed that we could not enter into such details. The Queen allowed him (Lord Derby) to know that a Dissolution would not be refused to him, and trusted that her honour would be safe in his hands as to the use he made of that knowledge. He seemed greatly relieved, and stated that had he had to resign, he would have withdrawn from public business, and the Conservative Party would have been entirely, and he feared for ever, broken up. On a Dissolution he felt certain of a large gain, as the country was in fact tired of the "Whig Family Clique"; the Radicals, like Mr Milner Gibson, Bright, etc., would willingly support a Conservative Government.
House of Commons, 21st May 1858.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer with his humble duty to your Majesty.
The fullest House; it is said 620 Members present; it was supposed we should have divided at three o'clock in the morning; Mr Gladstone was to have spoken for the Government at half-past ten—very great excitement—when there occurred a scene perhaps unprecedented in Parliament.
One after another, perhaps twenty Members, on the Opposition benches, rising and entreating Mr Cardwell to withdraw his Resolution. After some time, silence on the Government benches, Mr Cardwell went to Lord John Russell, then to Lord Palmerston, then to Lord John Russell again, then returned to Lord Palmerston, and retired with him.
What are called the interpellations continued, when suddenly Lord Palmerston reappeared; embarrassed, with a faint smile; addressed the House; and after various preluding, announced the withdrawal of the Motion of Censure.
A various Debate followed; the Chancellor of the Exchequer endeavouring, as far as regards Lord Canning, to fulfil your Majesty's wishes. It is impossible to estimate the importance of this unforeseen event to your Majesty's servants. It has strengthened them more than the most decided division in their favour, for it has revealed complete anarchy in the ranks of their opponents. With prudence and vigilance all must now go right.
The speech of Sir James Graham last night produced a very great effect. No report gives a fair idea of it. The great country gentleman, the broad views, the fine classical allusions, the happiest all omitted, the massy style, contrasted remarkably with Sir Richard Bethell.
Footnote 34: Lord Shaftesbury's Motion in the Lords had been lost by a majority of nine. In the Commons, Mr Cardwell was replied to in a brilliant speech by Sir Hugh Cairns, the Solicitor-General. The speeches of Sir James Graham, Mr Bright, and others, showed that the Opposition was disunited, and when it was understood that Mr Gladstone would support the Ministry, the Liberal attack collapsed. Mr Disraeli, deprived of the satisfaction of making an effective reply, subsequently compared the discomfiture of his opponents to an earthquake in Calabria or Peru. "There was," he said, in the course of a speech at Slough, "a rumbling murmur, a groan, a shriek, a sound of distant thunder. No one knew whether it came from the top or bottom of the House. There was a rent, a fissure in the ground, and then a village disappeared, then a tall tower toppled down, and the whole of the Opposition benches became one great dissolving view of anarchy."
St James's Square, 23rd May 1858.
(Sunday night.)
Lord Derby, with his humble duty, gratefully acknowledges your Majesty's gracious letter just received, and the telegraphic message with which he was honoured in answer to his on Friday night. Your Majesty can hardly be expected to estimate, at a distance from the immediate scene of action, the effect of the event of that evening. It was the utter explosion of a well-constructed mine, under the feet, not of the assailed, but of the assailants; and the effect has been the greater from the immense attendance in London of Members of the House of Commons. No effort had been spared. Lord Castlerosse, only just married, had been sent for from Italy—but Lord Derby hopes that he had not been induced to come—for nothing. It is said that of the 654 Members of whom the House is composed, 626 were actually in London. The Government could rely on 304 to 308, and the whole question turned on the absence, or the conversion, of a small number of "Liberal" Members. The result is to be attributed to two causes; first, and principally, to the fear of a Dissolution, and to the growing conviction that in case of necessity your Majesty would sanction such a course, which had been strenuously denied by Lord Palmerston—and in which Lord Derby hopes that your Majesty will have seen that your Majesty's name has never, for a moment, been brought in question; and secondly, to the effect produced by the correspondence between the Governor-General and Sir James Outram.35 And here Lord Derby may perhaps be allowed the opportunity of removing a misconception from your Majesty's mind, as to any secret intelligence or underhand intrigue between Lord Ellenborough and Sir James Outram, to the detriment of Lord Canning. Lord Derby is in the position to know that if there is one person in the world to whom Lord Ellenborough has an utter aversion, and with whom he has no personal or private correspondence, it is Sir James Outram. Anything therefore in common in their opinions must be the result of circumstances wholly irrespective of private concert. Lord Derby has written fully to Lord Canning, privately, by the mail which will go out on Tuesday; and while he has not concealed from him the opinion of your Majesty's servants that the Proclamation, of which so much has been said, conveyed too sweeping an Edict of Confiscation against the landowners, great and small, of Oudh, he has not hesitated to express also his conviction that Lord Canning's real intentions, in execution, would not be found widely to differ from the views of your Majesty's servants. He has expressed to Lord Canning his regret at the premature publication of the Draft Proclamation, at the same time that he has pointed out the injustice done both to your Majesty's Government and to the Governor-General by the (Lord Derby will hardly call it fraudulent) suppression of the private letters addressed to the President of the Board of Control, and deprecating judgment on the text of the Proclamation, until explanation should be received. Lord Derby cannot but be of opinion that this suppression, of which Lord Palmerston was fully cognisant, was an act which no political or party interests were sufficient to justify.
The state of the Government, during the late crisis, was such as to render it impossible to make any arrangement for filling up Lord Ellenborough's place at the Board of Control. Application has since been made to Mr Gladstone,36 with the offer of that post, or of that of the Colonial Department, which Lord Stanley would give up for the convenience of your Majesty's Government, though unwillingly, for India. Mr Gladstone demurred, on the ground of not wishing to leave his friends; but when pressed to name whom he would wish to bring with him, he could name none. Finally, he has written to ask advice as to his course of Sir James Graham, who has returned to Netherby, and of Lord Aberdeen; and by them he will probably be guided. Should he finally refuse, Lord Stanley must take India; and the Colonies must be offered in the first instance to Sir E. B. Lytton, who probably will refuse, as he wants a Peerage, and is doubtful of his re-election; and failing him, to Sir William Heathcote, the Member for the University of Oxford, who, without official experience, has great Parliamentary knowledge and influence, and, if he will accept, is quite equal to the duties of the office. Lord Derby trusts that your Majesty will forgive this long intrusion on your Majesty's patience. He has preferred the risk of it, to leaving your Majesty uninformed as to anything which was going on, or contemplated....
If Lord Dalhousie should be in a state to converse upon public affairs, there is no one with whom Lord Derby could confer more confidentially than with him; nor of whose judgment, though he regrets to differ with him as to the annexation of Oudh, he has a higher opinion. He will endeavour to ascertain what is his present state of health, which he fears is very unsatisfactory, and will see and converse with him, if possible.
Footnote 35: Especially Outram's remonstrance against what he considered the excessive severity of the Proclamation.
Footnote 36: See Mr Disraeli's curious letter printed in Morley's Gladstone, vol. i. p. 587, asking Mr Gladstone whether the time had not come when he might deign to be magnanimous. Sir E. B. Lytton accepted the office.
Buckingham Palace, 4th June 1858.
The Queen has to thank Lord Derby for his satisfactory letter received yesterday. She has heard from Mr Disraeli to-day relative to the answer given by him to the question asked yesterday in the House of Commons as to what the Government meant to do.37 He says that he hears there are rumours of other Motions on the subject. These the Queen hopes there will be no difficulty in defeating.
The Duke of Cambridge seems rather uneasy altogether, but the Queen, though equally anxious about it, owns she cannot contemplate the possibility of any real attempt to divest the Crown of its prerogative in this instance. The Army will not, she feels sure, stand it for a moment, and the Queen feels sure, that if properly defined and explained, the House of Commons will not acquiesce in any such disloyal proceeding.
The Queen does not understand Lord John Russell's voting with the majority, for she never understood him to express any such opinion.
Footnote 37: A question was asked whether it was the intention of the Government to take any step in consequence of a resolution of the House in favour of placing the whole administration and control of the Army under the sole authority of a single Minister. Mr. Disraeli replied that "considering the great importance of the subject,... the comparatively small number of Members in the House when the division took pace, and the bare majority by which the decision was arrived at, Her Majesty's Government do not feel that it is their duty to recommend any measure in consequence of that resolution."
House of Commons, 24th June 1858.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer with his humble duty to your Majesty.
The India Bill was read a second time without a division.38 Lord Stanley made a clear and vigorous exposition of its spirit and provisions; Mr Bright delivered a powerful oration on the condition of India—its past government and future prospects; the rest of the discussion weak and desultory.
No serious opposition apprehended in Committee, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has fixed for this day (Friday)39 and almost hopes that he may conclude the Committee on Monday. He proposes to proceed with no other business until it is concluded.
When the Bill has passed, the temper of the House, and its sanitary state,40 will assist him in passing the remaining estimates with rapidity; and he contemplates an early conclusion of the Session.
It will be a great thing to have carried the India Bill, which Mr Thomas Baring, to-night, spoke of in terms of eulogy, and as a great improvement on the project of the late Government. It is, the Chancellor of the Exchequer really thinks, a wise and well-digested measure, ripe with the experience of the last five months of discussion; but it is only the antechamber of an imperial palace; and your Majesty would do well to deign to consider the steps which are now necessary to influence the opinions and affect the imagination of the Indian populations. The name of your Majesty ought to be impressed upon their native life. Royal Proclamations, Courts of Appeal, in their own land, and other institutions, forms, and ceremonies, will tend to this great result.
Footnote 38: This was the third Bill of the Session, and was founded on the Resolutions, ante, p. 279. The Government of India was transferred from the dual jurisdiction of the Company and the Board of Control, to the Secretary of State for India in Council, the members of the Council (after the provisions for representing vested interests should have lapsed) to be appointed by the Secretary of State. A certain term of residence in India was to be a necessary qualification, and the members were to be rendered incapable of sitting in Parliament, and with a tenure of office as assured as that of judges under the Act of Settlement.
Footnote 39: The letter is ante-dated. The 24th of June was a Thursday.
Footnote 40: In consequence of the polluted condition of the Thames, the Government carried a measure enabling the Metropolitan Board of Works, at a cost of £3,000,000, to purify "that noble river, the present state of which is little creditable to a great country, and seriously prejudicial to the health and comfort of the inhabitants of the Metropolis."—Extract from the Queen's Speech, at the close of the Session.
Osborne, 8th July 1858.
The Queen in reading in the papers yesterday, on her way here from the camp, the Debate in the House of Commons of the previous night, was shocked to find that in several important points her Government have surrendered the prerogativesTHE SOVEREIGN'S PREROGATIVES of the Crown. She will only refer to the clauses concerning the Indian Civil Service and the right of peace and war.
With respect to the first, the regulations under which servants of the Crown are to be admitted or examined have always been an undoubted right and duty of the Executive; by the clause introduced by Lord Stanley the system of "Competitive Examination" has been confirmed by Act of Parliament. That system may be right or wrong; it has since its introduction been carried on under the Orders in Council; now the Crown and Government are to be deprived of any authority in the matter, and the whole examinations, selection, and appointments, etc., etc., are to be vested in the Civil Commissioners under a Parliamentary title.
As to the right of the Crown to declare war and make peace, it requires not a word of remark; yet Lord Stanley agrees to Mr Gladstone's proposal to make over this prerogative with regard to Indian questions to Parliament under the auspices of the Queen's Government; she is thus placed in a position of less authority than the President of the American Republic.41
When a Bill has been introduced into Parliament, after having received the Sovereign's approval, she has the right to expect that her Ministers will not subsequently introduce important alterations without previously obtaining her sanction. In the first of the two instances referred to by the Queen, Lord Stanley introduced the alteration himself; in the second he agreed to it even without asking for a moment's delay; and the Opposition party, which attempted to guard the Queen's prerogative, was overborne by the Government Leader of the House.
The Queen must remind Lord Derby that it is to him as the head of the Government that she looks for the protection of those prerogatives which form an integral part of the Constitution.
Footnote 41: An important amendment made at the instance of Mr Gladstone provided that, except for repelling actual invasion or upon urgent necessity, the Queen's Indian forces should not be employed in operations outside India, without Parliamentary sanction.
Laeken, 16th July 1858.
My truly beloved Victoria,—Nothing can be kinder or more affectionate than your dear letter of the 13th, and it would have done your warm heart good to have seen how much I have been delighted and moved by it. I can only say that I love you both more tenderly than I could love my own children. When your plans will be nearer maturity, you will have the great kindness to let me know what will be your Royal pleasure, to enable me de m'y conformer bien exactement.
The feeling which occasions some grumbling at the Cherbourg visit42 is in fact a good feeling, but it is not over-wise. Two things are to be done—(1) To make every reasonable exertion to remain on personal good terms with the Emperor—which can be done. One party in England says it is with the French nation that you are to be on loving terms; this cannot be, as the French dislike the English as a nation, though they may be kind to you also personally. (2) The next is, instead of a good deal of unnecessary abuse, to have the Navy so organised that it can and must be superior to the French. All beyond these two points is sheer nonsense.
After talking of Chambord,43 to my utter horror he is here, and asked yesterday to see me to-day. It is not fair to do so, as the legitimists affect to this hour to consider [us] here as rebels. I could not refuse to see him, as, though distantly, still he is a relation; but I mean to do as they did in Holland, to receive him, but to limit to his visit and my visit our whole intercourse. If he should speak to me of going to England, I certainly mean to tell him que je considérais une visite comme tout à fait intempestive.... Your devoted Uncle,
Footnote 42: On the 4th of August, the Queen and Prince, accompanied by the Prince of Wales, visited the Emperor and Empress at Cherbourg.
Footnote 43: See ante, p. 6.
Osborne, 24th July 1858.
The Queen has received Sir E. Bulwer Lytton's letter.44 If the name of New Caledonia is objected to as being already borne by another colony or island claimed by the French, it may be better to give the new colony west of the Rocky Mountains another name. New Hanover, New Cornwall, and New Georgia appear from the maps to be the names of sub-divisions of that country, but do not appear on all maps. The only name which is given to the whole territory in every map the Queen has consulted is "Columbia," but as there exists also a Columbia in South America, and the citizens of the United States call their country also Columbia, at least in poetry, "British Columbia" might be, in the Queen's opinion, the best name.
Footnote 44: Stating that objections were being made in France to the name of New Caledonia being given to the proposed colony between the Pacific and the Rocky Mountains.
Osborne, 29th July 1858.
The Queen has been placed in a most unpleasant dilemma by the last vote in the House of Commons;45 she feels all the force of Lord Derby's objections to risking another defeat on the same question and converting the struggle into one against the Royal Prerogative; yet, on the other hand, she can hardly sit still, and from mere want of courage become a party to the most serious inroad which has yet been made upon it. It is the introduction of the principle into our legislation that the Sovereign is no longer the source of all appointments under the Crown, but that these appointments are the property of individuals under a Parliamentary title, which the Queen feels bound to resist. Lord John Russell's Motion and Sir James Graham's speech only went to the Civil appointments; but after their Motion had been carried on a division, Lord Stanley gave way to Sir De Lacy Evans also with regard to a portion of the Army! If this principle is recognised and sanctioned by the entire legislature, its future extension can no longer be resisted on constitutional grounds, and Lord John in fact reminded Lord Stanley that the latter had stated that he only refrained from making the application general from thinking it premature, himself being of opinion that it ought to be carried further, and yet its extension to the Army reduces the Sovereign to a mere signing machine, as, to carry the case to its extreme consequence, Law would compel her to sign the Commission for the officers, and they might have the right to sue at law for the recovery of their property vested in them by Act of Parliament (viz., their Commissions) if the Crown doubted for any reason the fitness of an appointment!! Have these consequences been considered and brought distinctly before Parliament? It strikes the Queen that all the Commons want is a Parliamentary security against the abolition of the Competitive System of Examinations by the Executive. Can this not be obtained by means less subversive of the whole character of our Constitution? The Queen cannot believe that Lord Derby could not find means to come to some agreement with the Opposition, and she trusts he will leave nothing undone to effect this.
Footnote 45: The Lords Amendments on the subject of competitive examination were rejected by a majority of thirteen in the Commons, and, in the circumstances, Lord Derby had advised abiding by the decision and not risking another defeat.
Osborne, 2nd August 1858.
The Queen feels it her duty to address a few lines to Lord Derby on the subject of the reports made to Sir John Pakington on the subject of the French Naval preparations, to which she has already verbally adverted when she saw Lord Derby last. These reports reveal a state of things of the greatest moment to this country. It will be the first time in her history that she will find herself in an absolute minority of ships on the sea! and this inferiority will be much greater in reality than even apparent, as our fleet will have to defend possessions and commerce all over the world, and has even in Europe a strategical line to hold extending from Malta to Heligoland, whilst France keeps her fleet together and occupies the centre of that line in Europe.
The Queen thinks it irreconcilable with the duty which the Government owes to the country to be aware of this state of things without straining every nerve to remedy it. With regard to men in whom we are also totally deficient in case of an emergency, a Commission of Enquiry is sitting to devise a remedy; but with regard to our ships and dockyards we require action, and immediate action. The plan proposed by the Surveyor of the Navy appears to the Queen excessively moderate and judicious, and she trusts that the Cabinet will not hesitate to empower its execution, bearing in mind that £200,000 spent now will probably do more work during the six or nine months for working before us, than £2,000,000 would if voted in next year's estimate, letting our arrears in the dockyards, already admitted to be very great, accumulate in the interval. Time is most precious under these circumstances!
It is true that this sum of money would be in excess of the estimates of last Session, but the Queen feels sure that on the faith of the reports made by the Admiralty, the Government would find no difficulty in convincing Parliament that they have been good stewards of the public money, in taking courageously the responsibility upon themselves to spend judiciously what is necessary, and that the country will be deeply grateful for the honesty with which they will have served her.
The Queen wishes Lord Derby to communicate this letter to the Cabinet.
Babelsberg, 15th August 1858.
The Queen has asked Lord Malmesbury to explain in detail to Lord Derby her objections to the draft of Proclamation for India. The Queen would be glad if Lord Derby would write it himself in his excellent language, bearing in mind that it is a female Sovereign who speaks to more than 100,000,000 of Eastern people on assuming the direct Government over them after a bloody civil war, giving them pledges which her future reign is to redeem, and explaining the principles of her Government. Such a document should breathe feelings of generosity, benevolence, and religious feeling, pointing out the privileges which the Indians will receive in being placed on an equality with the subjects of the British Crown, and the prosperity following in the train of civilisation.46
Footnote 46: The draft Proclamation was accordingly altered so as to be in strict harmony with the Queen's wishes. See post, p. 304.