Balmoral, 5th September 1859.
Lord John Russell will not be surprised if the despatches of Lord Cowley and drafts by Lord John in answer to them, which the Queen returns to him, have given her much pain. Here we have the very interference with advice to which the Queen had objected when officially brought before her for her sanction, to which the Cabinet objected, and which Lord John Russell agreed to withdraw, carried on by direct communication of the Prime Minister through the French Ambassador with the Emperor; and we have the very effect produced which the Queen dreaded, viz. the French Minister insinuating that we called upon his master to do that which he would consider so dishonourable that he would rather resign than be a party to it! What is the use of the Queen's open and, she fears, sometimes wearisome correspondence, with her Ministers, what the use of long deliberations of the Cabinet, if the very policy can be carried out by indirect means which is set aside officially, and what protection has the Queen against this practice? Lord John Russell's distinction also between his own official and private opinion or advice given to a Foreign Minister is a most dangerous, and, the Queen thinks, untenable theory, open to the same objections, for what he states will have the weight of the official character of the Foreign Secretary, whether stated as his private or his public opinion. His advice to the Marquis d'Azeglio73 is moreover quite open to the inference drawn by Count Walewski, that it is an encouragement to Sardinia, to Military intervention in and occupation of the Duchies, and Lord John Russell's answer hardly meets this point if left as it stands at present; for "the name of the King of Sardinia,... the chief of a well-disciplined army," will have little influence unless he is prepared to use that army.
The Queen must ask Lord John to instruct Lord Cowley to state to Count Walewski that no opinions expressed on Foreign Policy are those of "Her Majesty's Government" but those which are given in the official and regular way, and that Her Majesty's Government never thought of advising the French Government to break the solemn engagements into which the Emperor Napoleon entered towards the Emperor of Austria at Villafranca.
The Queen asks Lord John to communicate this letter to Lord Palmerston.
Footnote 73: Massimo d'Azeglio, Sardinian Commissioner in the Romagna. He had been Prime Minister of Sardinia from 1849 till 1852, when Cavour, who had been in his ministry, succeeded him.
Balmoral, 6th September 1859.
The Queen returns Lord Palmerston's letter, together with the other papers sent to her, to Lord John. She is glad to find that he thinks that no answer ought to be given to Count Persigny, but she thinks it important that it should be stated to him that no answer can be given. Unfortunately, here has been again the Prime Minister declaring that he quite agrees with the French Ambassador, but that the proposal should come officially from France to be placed before the Cabinet. The inference must be that the Cabinet and the Queen will, as a matter of course, agree also, when it is so submitted. Now what is it that Lord Palmerston has approved? A plan for an alliance of England with France for the purpose of overruling Austria, if the Duchies in which she is the heir, and to which the Archdukes were to return in accordance with the stipulations of Villafranca, were given to Sardinia and Austria should object. It is hoped indeed that this will not immediately lead to war with her, but France is to expect that she will not be left to fight single-handed for an object declared to be more English than French! Thus we are dragged step by step into the position of a party in the Italian strife. The Queen thinks it incumbent upon her not to leave Lord John Russell in ignorance of the fact that she could not approve such a policy reversing our whole position since the commencement of the War.
The Queen must leave it to Lord John to consider how far it would be fair to his colleagues in the Cabinet to leave them unacquainted with the various private steps lately taken, which must seriously affect their free consideration of the important question upon which they have hitherto pledged themselves to a distinct principle.
Balmoral, 6th September 1859.
The Queen returns to Lord Palmerston his correspondence with M. de Persigny. Lord John Russell will have sent him her letter to him on this subject. She has nothing to add, but to repeat her conviction of the great danger and inconvenience arising out of such private communications, and the apprehension she must naturally feel that the attempt to convince the Emperor Napoleon that it would be for his interest to break his word to the Emperor of Austria should reflect upon the honour of the Queen's Government. She must insist upon this being distinctly guarded against.
Abergeldie, 7th September 1859.
Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty; he cannot refrain from making some remarks on your Majesty's letter of yesterday.
Lord Palmerston appears to have answered M. de Persigny by saying that he personally agreed with him, but that the proposition he had sketched must come from the French Government; that it must come from them officially, and it would then have to be maturely considered by the Cabinet.
Lord John Russell sees nothing to object to in this language. It might be embarrassing to Lord Palmerston if such a proposition were to come from France, and were to be rejected by the Cabinet. But Lord Palmerston could easily explain the matter to M. de Persigny. Lord Palmerston does not appear to have committed your Majesty, or Lord John Russell, or the Cabinet in any way.
On the other hand, your Majesty cannot mean that the Cabinet is to be precluded from maturely considering any proposition which may come officially from France.
Lord John Russell feels, on his own part, that he must offer to your Majesty such advice as he thinks best adapted to secure the interests and dignity of your Majesty and the country. He will be held by Parliament responsible for that advice. It will be always in your Majesty's power to reject it altogether.
Lord John Russell is of opinion that there never was a time when it was less expedient to fetter this country by prospective engagements. But it does not follow that the policy pursued last autumn and winter, and which ended in a war in Italy, would be the best course in any future contingency. Should another war arise it will be very difficult for Great Britain to remain neutral. For this reason it is desirable to prevent such a war, if possible. It was difficult last winter, and may be still more difficult this winter. For the present there is no better course than to keep this country free from engagements. After the peace of Zurich is made, or not made, we shall see our way better.
Lord John Russell has never concealed his opinions from his colleagues. He even warned them that France might make such a proposition as M. de Persigny now contemplates.
The enclosed letter from Lord Palmerston and Mr Fane's74 despatch will show the feelings which exist between Austria and Prussia. The Emperor Napoleon does not appear to have satisfied Prince Metternich. His object evidently is to gain time.
Footnote 74: Julian Henry Fane, son of the eleventh Earl of Westmorland, and Secretary of Embassy at Vienna.
Balmoral, 7th September 1859.
The Queen has received Lord John Russell's letter. She can ask for nothing better than "that we should be kept from any engagements," and she never could have intended to convey the impression that she wished to "see the Cabinet precluded from taking into consideration any proposal France might make." What she objects to is binding beforehand the Government by expressions of opinion of its leading members to the French Government, and thus bringing about those French proposals which it will be most embarrassing to the Cabinet either to reject or adopt. It is absolutely necessary, therefore, that the French Government should be told that the opinions given were private opinions not binding the Government. Lord John has not yet sent to the Queen drafts in conformity with her wishes expressed in her letter of the day before yesterday.
Broadlands, 9th September 1859.
Viscount Palmerston presents his humble duty to your Majesty, and has had the honour to receive your Majesty's communication of the 6th of this month; and although he had the honour of addressing your Majesty yesterday afternoon, he deems it his duty to submit some observations upon this communication.
Your Majesty states that Viscount Palmerston in his letter to Count Persigny endeavoured to persuade the Emperor of the French to break his word to the Emperor of Austria, but Viscount Palmerston must beg very respectfully but entirely to deny that accusation....75
Your Majesty is pleased to observe upon the danger and inconvenience of private communications with Foreign Ministers, and to add that your Majesty must insist upon this being distinctly guarded against. Viscount [Palmerston] would be very desirous of knowing the precise meaning of those last words. If your Majesty means that what is to be guarded against is any attempt to induce a Foreign Sovereign to break his word, Viscount Palmerston cordially subscribes to that opinion, and maintains that he has not done so in the past, and declares that he has no intention of doing so in the future. But if your Majesty's meaning is that Viscount Palmerston is to be debarred from communicating with Foreign Ministers except for the purpose of informing them officially of formal decisions of the British Government, Viscount Palmerston would beg humbly and respectfully to represent to your Majesty that such a curtailment of the proper and constitutional functions of the office which he holds would render it impossible for him to serve your Majesty consistently with his own honour or with advantage to the public interest.
Footnote 75: Lord Palmerston then gives a very long and detailed account of his position.
Balmoral, 11th September 1859.
Lord Palmerston has written (on the 8th) a long letter to the Queen, which, besides giving his private opinion on the politics of Italy, which were not disputed, purports to show that when a principle of policy had been adopted by the Cabinet and sanctioned by the Sovereign, the Foreign Secretary ought not to be impeded in carrying out the details, either by objections raised to them by the Sovereign, or by making them dependent on the meetings of Cabinets, difficult to obtain at this time of year. Now the question raised by the Queen was just the reverse. The principle adopted by the Cabinet and sanctioned by the Queen was: not to interfere by active advice with the peace to be made at Zurich; the Foreign Secretary had submitted a draft which had appeared to the Queen to be in contradiction to this principle, which, upon the Sovereign's objection, he withdrew; the Cabinet was summoned and rejected a similar draft submitted to them, and the Queen then complained that the very same advice should have been given by the Prime Minister in an indirect way to which the Sovereign and Cabinet could not agree openly. Lord Palmerston's letter was not communicated to the Queen until it had been alluded to in a public despatch, and Count Walewski had insinuated to our Ambassador that, rather than be a party to a line of conduct, which he would look upon as dishonourable for his master, he would resign office. What the Queen has asked for is: an intimation to the French Government that private communications like that of Lord Palmerston to M. de Persigny must not be looked upon as the official expression of the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, and that we disclaim ever having intended to induce the Emperor to break his engagements made at Villafranca, whatever they may have been. The Queen does not conceive that Lord Palmerston can object to this course, nor does he attempt to do so in his letter.
P.S.—Since writing the above the Queen has received Lord Palmerston's letter of the 9th. As she has just written at length, she does not conceive that it would be necessary to make any further observations in reply, except to a distinct question put by him in the latter part of his letter, viz. what the Queen wishes to have "distinctly guarded against."
It is the danger and inconvenience of private communications with Foreign Ministers, without a distinct understanding that they are strictly private, and not to be treated as conveying the opinions of Her Majesty's Government, where the sanction of the Crown and adhesion of the Cabinet have not been obtained. Lord John Russell has now expressed this in a paragraph in one of his drafts to Lord Cowley, which he will send to Lord Palmerston.
As a proof of the necessity of such caution, the Queen, has only to refer to the public use made of Lord Palmerston's private letter to Count Persigny, and the use made to our prejudice by the Emperor Napoleon at the time of the armistice at Villafranca of a private communication with Count Persigny, which was represented to imply assent to certain conditions of peace by England, with a desire of pressing them on Austria, when no opinion had been expressed by the Government to justify such an inference.
Downing Street, 26th September 1859.
The Duke of Newcastle presents his humble duty to your Majesty.
Your Majesty will receive from Sir George Lewis full information of the serious intelligence which has been received to-day from Washington and Vancouver Island respecting the Military occupation by United States troops of the island of St Juan,76 and of the view taken of it by your Majesty's Government.
The Duke of Newcastle begs leave to receive your Majesty's instructions upon the acceptance of an offer made by Lord Clarendon whilst on a visit at Clumber last week. Lord Clarendon received not long ago a private letter from the President of the United States. He proposes that in answering this letter he should express his concern at these untoward events, and particularly at their occurrence at a time when, if not speedily settled, they would prevent the fulfilment of a project which he had reason to think had been in contemplation—a visit to Washington by the Prince of Wales on his return from Canada.
Lord Clarendon expresses his belief that nothing would so much gratify Mr Buchanan as a visit from His Royal Highness to the United States during his Presidency....
Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell see no objection to such a letter from Lord Clarendon, which, whilst it would carry weight as coming from one occupying so high a position in this country, would bear no official character; but as the name of the Prince of Wales would be used, however hypothetically, such a letter would not be written by Lord Clarendon or accepted by the Government without your Majesty's sanction.
The Duke of Newcastle therefore requests to be favoured with your Majesty's commands that he may communicate them to Lord Clarendon.
Footnote 76: A dispute had arisen out of the Oregon affair (see ante, vol. ii. pp. 30 and 72), concerning the rival claims of this country and the United States to the small island of St Juan, situated between Vancouver Island and the State of Washington, which is adjacent to the Canadian frontier.
Windsor Castle, 1st December 1859.
The Queen returns Lord Cowley's interesting letter. She trusts that it will be made quite clear to the Emperor that he has no chance of getting us to join him in the war with Austria, which he may be tempted or driven to renew. This alternative constantly recurs to his mind....
Footnote 77: On the 10th of November the Treaty of Zurich, embodying the terms arranged at Villafranca, had been signed, and a Congress was determined upon, to settle Italian affairs.
Foreign Office, 1st December 1859.
Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty; he has written to Lord Cowley, according to your Majesty's gracious permission. The question of supporting the Emperor of the French, if Austria should attempt force to impose a government in Italy against the popular will, must be judged of according to the circumstances, should they arise. Lord John Russell is certainly not prepared to say that a case may not arise when the interests of Great Britain might require that she should give material support to the Emperor of the French. But he considers such a case as very improbable, and that the fear of such an alliance will prevent Austria from disturbing the peace of Europe.
Windsor Castle, 2nd December 1859.
The Queen was extremely sorry to find from Lord John Russell's letter of yesterday that he contemplates the possibility of our joining France in a fresh Italian war or demonstration of war against Austria, which the Queen had put entirely out of the question. If the Emperor of the French were allowed to believe in such a possibility, he would have it in his power to bring it about, or obtain a just cause of complaint against us, if we abandoned him. It would be just as dangerous and unfair towards the Emperor to mislead him in this respect as it would be for the Queen to conceal from Lord John that under no pretence will she depart from her position of neutrality in the Italian quarrel, and inflict upon her country and Europe the calamity of war on that account.
Windsor Castle, 6th December 1859.
The Queen has received Lord John Russell's letter recommending Sir James Hudson78 as the Second Representative at the Congress of Paris. The Queen must decline sanctioning this selection. Lord John Russell has in his last letters avowed his conviction that England cannot again remain neutral in an Italian war, and his opinion that she ought to support France and Sardinia by arms if Austria were to attempt to recover her supremacy by force. Lord Cowley wrote on the 29th ult. that Prince Metternich declared that Austria kept her Army ready because she could not permit either the military occupation of the Duchies by Sardinia or their annexation to that kingdom. Lord Palmerston sent to the Queen yesterday evening the copy of a letter he wrote to Count Persigny urging the Emperor Napoleon by every argument he can find to consent to this annexation, even to the length of assuring him that such a state would always be obliged to lean on France.
The Queen cannot help drawing her conclusions from these facts, and feels more than ever the great responsibility resting on her, to preserve to her people the blessings of peace. She wishes this letter to be communicated to Lord Palmerston and to the Cabinet.
The Queen approves of Lord Cowley as her First Representative at the Congress.
Footnote 78: Sir James Hudson, Minister at Turin, had been a sympathiser in the policy of Cavour, to an extent almost incompatible with his position as a British representative.
Osborne, 7th December 1859.
The Queen has received Lord John Russell's letter of yesterday. Although to avoid a long written discussion, she has not in her last letter stated any reason for her objecting to Sir James Hudson as Plenipotentiary at the Congress, she has no objection to state to Lord John that it is simply her want of confidence in him, being the result of her having watched his conduct at his post at Turin during these last years. The Queen's representative at Paris ought to be a person in whom she can have entire confidence, that English interests alone will sway his conduct. From Lord John Russell's letter it appears that many of his colleagues in Cabinet saw equal objections to the appointment.
The Queen repeats her wish that her letter of yesterday may be communicated to the Cabinet.
Lord Cowley's letter, which she returns, is not calculated to diminish the Queen's alarm as to the direction in which we are being systematically driven, viz. War to support the Emperor Napoleon, who almost claims such support already as his right! He has already shifted his ground further, and asks for it in case Austria should oppose "the armed interference of Sardinia in the affairs of Central Italy." Now Sardinia can have no more right to such interference than Austria; yet the Emperor says "he is quite determined to renew the war in case Austria resists." It is under these circumstances that the advice of the Prime Minister of England to the Emperor, to withdraw the only impediment which restrains the action of Sardinia, becomes a matter of such grave moment.
The Queen is determined to hold to her neutrality in the Italian intrigues, revolutions, and wars. It is true, Lord John says, "it becomes a great power like Great Britain to preserve the peace of Europe, by throwing her great weight into the scale which has justice on its side." But where justice lies, admits of every variety of opinion.
The Party placed in absolute power by a revolution and a foreign invasion is not necessarily the exponent of the real wishes of a people, and Lord Cowley reports Mr Layard "hot from Italy to confirm him in the opinion he has always held, that the annexation of Tuscany to Sardinia is not practicable." This, however, Lord Palmerston urges, and if it be agreed to by the Emperor and attempted by Sardinia, Lord John would probably wish England to fight for it as the cause of justice.
Has Lord John ever contemplated the probability of Austria not being abandoned a second time by Germany, when attacked by France? The Emperor is sure to have calculated upon this, and has not played his game badly, if he can get the Alliance of England to sanction and foster his attack upon the Rhine, which would inevitably follow. The Queen believes this to be a cherished object of France, and the success certain if we become her dupes. The Queen can hardly for a moment bring herself to think of the consequences.
She would wish this letter also to be shown to the Cabinet.
London, 8th December 1859.
Sir,—Lord John stated in what appeared to me a very fair way what had taken place between himself and Lord Palmerston in their communications with Her Majesty, and read Her Majesty's letters. At the end of his statement the Chancellor asked what was the question to be decided by the Cabinet. Lord John answered that he wished to know whether he was to inform Her Majesty that the Cabinet were of opinion that they were still respectfully of opinion that Sir James Hudson was the fittest person to be named Second Plenipotentiary, or whether he should acquiesce in Her Majesty's commands, reserving his own opinion as to the fitness of Sir James. The Chancellor answered: "Undoubtedly the second course will be the best." I then stated my reasons, or rather repeated them, for objecting to Sir James Hudson. Mr Gladstone made a hesitating remark. Sir G. Lewis and the Duke of Argyll, Sir Charles Wood, and Sir George Grey—the latter very strongly—supported the second course proposed by Lord John. Lord Palmerston spoke with some temper and dogmatically as to who were right and who were wrong, but advised Lord John to take the second course. The appointment of Lord Wodehouse79 was proposed. Some of us do not think it a very good one, but there are no sufficient grounds for our opposing it. I am not sure that Gladstone would not go any lengths in supporting Lords Palmerston and John Russell on the Italian Question, although he is more cautious than they are. The feeling of the rest of the Cabinet, as far as I can judge, is perfectly sound about war, and on our taking an English and not a purely Sardinian attitude; but they are all inclined to sympathise with the national feeling in Italy, and averse to the restoration of the Dukes by force or by intrigue.
Lord John was sore and nervous, but talked of his letter to the Queen, and Lord Palmerston's to Persigny, as "unlucky." Lord Palmerston seems convinced that he is perfectly in the right, and everybody else in the wrong, and would, I am sure, take advantage of any step, taken without sufficient consideration by the Queen, to make a stand for his own policy....
I have the honour to be, Sir, with great respect, your Royal Highness's obedient and faithful Servant,
Footnote 79: Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and afterwards, as Earl of Kimberley, a member of successive Liberal Cabinets.
Windsor Castle, 26th December 1859.
The Queen wishes to ask the Lord Chancellor whether no steps can be taken to prevent the present publicity of the proceedings before the new Divorce Court. These cases, which must necessarily increase when the new law becomes more and more known, fill now almost daily a large portion of the newspapers, and are of so scandalous a character that it makes it almost impossible for a paper to be trusted in the hands of a young lady or boy. None of the worst French novels from which careful parents would try to protect their children can be as bad as what is daily brought and laid upon the breakfast-table of every educated family in England, and its effect must be most pernicious to the public morals of the country.80
Footnote 80: Lord Campbell replied that having attempted in the last session to introduce a measure to give effect to the Queen's wish, and having been defeated, he was helpless to prevent the evil.
Windsor Castle, le 31 Décembre 1859.
Sire et mon cher Frère,—Je viens comme de coutume offrir à votre Majesté nos félicitations bien sincères à l'occasion de la nouvelle année. Puisse-t-elle ne vous apporter que du bonheur et du contentement! L'année qui vient de s'écouler a été orageuse et pénible et a fait souffrir bien des cœrs. Je prie Dieu que celle dans laquelle nous entrons nous permette de voir s'accomplir l'œuvre de la pacification, avec tous ses bienfaits pour le repos et le progrès du monde. Il y aura encore à réconcilier bien des opinions divergentes et des intérêts apparemment opposés; mais avec l'aide du Ciel et une ferme résolution de ne vouloir que le bien de ceux dont nous avons à régler le sort, il ne faut pas en désespérer.
Nous avons eu le plaisir de posséder pendant quelques semaines notre chère fille et son mari, qu'il nous a été bien doux de revoir au sein de notre famille. Notre fils aîné passe ses vacances avec nous, mais retournera prochainement à Oxford pour reprendre ses études.
Lady Ely vient de nous dire qu'elle a trouvé votre Majesté ainsi que l'Impératrice et le petit Prince dans la meilleure santé ce qui nous a fait bien du plaisir d'entendre.
Le Prince me charge d'offrir ses hommages les plus affectueux à votre Majesté, et, en vous renouvelant les expressions de ma sincère amitié, je me dis, Sire et cher Frère, de V.M.I, la bonne et affectionnée Sœur et Amie,
At the end of 1859, Mr Cobden had offered his services to the Government to negotiate a commercial treaty with France, and had been warmly encouraged in the scheme by Mr Gladstone. In January 1860, he was officially appointed a Plenipotentiary, with Lord Cowley, for this purpose, and on the 23rd of that month the treaty was signed. It included mutual remissions and reductions of import duties, and was contingent on obtaining the assent of the British Parliament, but neither party was fettered by any engagement not to extend similar concessions to other countries. In February, on the introduction of the Budget, the treaty was brought before the House of Commons, and ratified by a great majority; at the same time Mr Gladstone abolished a large number of import duties, but increased the income-tax for incomes over £150, from ninepence to tenpence in the pound. His proposal to repeal the paper duties was rejected by the Peers, the majority in its favour in the Commons having sunk to nine. A Commons Committee was appointed to deal with this conflict between the Houses, and resolutions defining the powers of the Peers in money bills were passed by the Lower House, Lord Palmerston clearly showing himself in sympathy with the Lords. Mr Gladstone expressed a desire to resign, in consequence of his difference with his colleagues, while Lord Derby and Lord Malmesbury intimated privately that they would support Lord Palmerston in office against any Radical secession. A Reform Bill of Lord John Russell, reducing the Borough Franchise to £6, and making a moderate redistribution of seats, was received with indifference, and eventually dropped.
Italian affairs mainly absorbed the attention of the country. The intended international congress was abandoned, owing to the attitude adopted by the French Emperor towards the Pope, but the former now obtained the annexation of Savoy and Nice, not, as had been arranged in 1858 as a reward for assisting to set Italy free "from the Alps to the Adriatic"—an ideal which had not been realised—but as a price for assisting Piedmont to incorporate the Central Italian Provinces. The annexation was strongly resented, and suspicions of French designs were aroused to such an extent as to give a substantial impetus to the Volunteer movement in this country. By the summer, 130,000 Volunteers had been enrolled, and, at a review in Hyde Park, 21,000 men marched past the Queen, while in August, in consequence of the same apprehensions, it was decided by a large vote to carry out the recommendations of the National Defence Commission.
The Swiss made an ineffectual protest against the annexation of that part of Savoy which had been neutralised by the treaty of Vienna, while, on the other hand, the Emperor Napoleon maintained that the people of Savoy and Nice had the same right to transfer their country to France, as Tuscany and the Æmilia (under which name the Duchies of Parma and Modena and the Romagna were now united) had to place themselves under the King of Sardinia. This they decided in March, by universal suffrage, to do; a few days later the treaty for the annexation of Savoy and Nice was signed, and in April it was ratified in the Piedmontese Parliament, Garibaldi, the deputy for Nice, his native town, voting against it. In the same month, a plébiscite, taken in the provinces affected, showed an immense majority in favour of annexation. Garibaldi himself was soon afterwards engaged in rendering assistance to the Sicilians in their insurrection against the despotic King Francis II. Assuming the title of "Dictator of Sicily, in the name of Victor Emmanuel," Garibaldi attacked and occupied Palermo, and having established his ascendency in the island, invaded the Neapolitan territory on the mainland. The Sardinian Government, for diplomatic reasons, disavowed the expedition, but gave a retrospective assent to it later in the year.
The French Emperor's policy in Syria added to the distrust with which he was regarded. The Maronites, a Christian tribe, had been attacked and massacred by the Druses, and the Emperor had proposed to send troops to restore order. This step was eventually taken, after a European conference had been held; but the Emperor's proposal was so severely criticised that he wrote a long letter to the French Ambassador in London, reviewing and justifying his policy in Italy and elsewhere, since the Peace of Villafranca.
Garibaldi had ignored the instructions of Victor Emmanuel to abstain from further operations against Naples, until the two Sicilies had voted for absorption into United Italy; King Francis fled to Gaëta, and Garibaldi entered the capital. At the same time, Cavour, in spite of a French protest, determined upon the invasion of the Papal States, and acted so promptly that in three weeks all effective opposition to the Italian cause in that territory was put down, and Umbria and the Marches were conquered. In October, the Piedmontese Parliament voted for the annexation of such of the southern Italian provinces as should declare themselves in favour of it; the Two Sicilies having accepted the offer by overwhelming majorities, the King and Garibaldi joined hands at Teano, and finally defeated the Bourbon army, afterwards entering Naples. The Marches and Umbria also declared for incorporation in the new Kingdom.
In July, the Prince of Wales, accompanied by the Duke of Newcastle, left England for a tour in Canada, where he was welcomed with unbounded enthusiasm; he afterwards proceeded to the United States, visiting New York, Chicago, and other great cities, being received by President Buchanan at Washington. The Prince returned home in the course of November.
The Abolitionist troubles, which for some time had been acute in the States, came to a crisis in the last days of the year, South Carolina adopting autonomous ordinances, declaring her own independence and sovereignty as a State, and her secession from the Union.
The refusal of the Chinese Government to ratify the Treaty of Tien-tsin, and an unwarranted attack on certain British ships, led to a revival of hostilities. A desire being expressed by the Chinese to resume negotiations, some of the British representatives despatched for that purpose were treacherously captured, and treated with great cruelty. The allied troops of England and France thereupon, marched to Pekin, when reparation was made, and retribution, exacted for the outrages. A Convention was eventually signed on the 24th of October.
Laeken, 6th January 1860.
My dearest Victoria,—I have to thank you for a most affectionate and gracious letter of the 3rd....
I will speak to my pianist about Wagner's Lohengrin; he plays with great taste and feeling, and I purchased a fine Parisian piano to enable him to go on satisfactorily.
Now I must speak a little of passing events. Louis Napoleon wished for a Congress because it would have placed a new authority between himself and the Italians, whom he fears evidently concerning their fondness of assassinating people. The pamphlet, "The Pope and the Congress," remains incomprehensible1; it will do him much harm, and will deprive him of the confidence of the Catholics who have been in France his most devoted supporters. Now the Congress is then postponed, but what is to be done with Italy? One notion is, that there would be some arrangement by which Piedmont would receive more, Savoy would go to France, and England would receive Sardinia. I am sure that England would by no means wish to have Sardinia. It will give me great pleasure to hear what Lord Cowley has reported on these subjects. I understand that Louis Napoleon is now much occupied with Germany, and studies its resources. This is somewhat alarming, as he had followed, it seems, the same course about Italy. Gare la bombe, the Prussians may say. One cannot understand why Louis Napoleon is using so many odd subterfuges when plain acting would from the month of September have settled everything. I must say that I found Walewski at that time very sensible and conservative. His retiring will give the impression that things are now to be carried on in a less conservative way, and people will be much alarmed. I know Thouvenel, and liked him, but that was in the poor King's time. In England his nomination will not give much pleasure, I should imagine, as he was in the situation to oppose English notions in the Orient.... Your devoted Uncle,
Footnote 1: This famous pamphlet, issued (like that of February 1859, ante, p. 313, note 7) under the nominal authorship of M. de la Guéronnière, expounded the Emperor's view that the Pope should be deprived of his temporal dominions, Rome excepted. Its publication brought about the resignation of Count Walewski (who was succeeded by M. de Thouvenel) and the abandonment of the proposed Congress.
Windsor Castle, 11th January 1860.
The Queen has received Lord John Russell's letter, written after the Cabinet yesterday evening. She was much relieved by finding a proposal to call upon France and Austria not to interfere in Italy substituted for the former one implying war on our part for the defence of the Provisional Governments of Central Italy. The Queen must consider this new proposal, however, as partial and incomplete as long as Sardinia is not asked as well to abstain from interference. Austria has reversionary rights in Tuscany and Modena, Sardinia has no rights at all, if a desire for acquisition is not to be considered as one. Austria will probably say she has no intention of interfering as long as Sardinia does not, but she cannot allow Sardinia to possess herself of her inheritance under her very eyes. It is also incorrect to place France and Austria entirely in the same line; Austria being an Italian power in virtue of Venetia, and France having nothing whatever to do in Italy.