CHAPTER II.

A Royal Commission on Reform--M. de Flahault on the Emperor Napoleon--Lord John's Blunder--Disraeli's Negotiation with the Irish Members--Lord Beauvale's Death--Lady Beauvale's Grief--Napoleon III. and Mdlle. de Montijo--Parliament meets--The Emperor's Marriage--Disraeli's Attack on Sir C. Wood--Dislike of Mr. Disraeli--Lord John Russell leaves the Foreign Office--Lord Stanley's Liberal Votes--Disraeli's Opinion of his Colleagues--The Government in Smooth Water--England unpopular abroad--Massimo d'Azeglio--The Austrians in Italy--The Bishop of Lincoln--The Duke of Bedford's Papers--Lord Palmerston leads the House--Social Amenities--Rancour of Northern Powers against England--Friendly Resolution of the Emperor Napoleon III.--Difficulties at Home--The India Bill--The Eastern Question--The Czar's Proposals--Russian Assurances--The Royal Family.

_Bowood, January 12th,_ 1853.--I came here on Monday to meet the Cannings, Harcourt,[1] and Lady Waldegrave, the Bessboroughs, Elphinstone, Senior, and the family. Senior talked to me about the Government and Reform, and the danger of their splitting on the latter question and propounded a scheme he has for obviating this danger. He wants to have a Royal Commission to enquire into the practice of bribery at elections and the means of preventing it, or, if possible, to have an enquiry of a more extensive and comprehensive character into the state of the representation and the working of the Reform Bill. We talked it over, and I told him I thought this would not be a bad expedient. He had already spoken to Lord Lansdowne about it, who seemed not averse to the idea, and promised to talk to Lord John Russell on the subject. Senior, when he went away, begged me to talk to Lord Lansdowne also, which I attempted to do, but without success, for he seemed quite indisposed to enter upon it.

[Footnote 1: George Granville Harcourt, Esq., M.P., eldest son of the Archbishop of York, and third husband of Frances, Countess of Waldegrave.]

LORD JOHN'S ARRANGEMENT DISAPPROVED.

_Beaudesert, January 19th._--To town on Saturday and here on Monday, with the Flahaults, Bessboroughs, Ansons, my brothers and the family. Lord Anglesey and M. de Flahault talk over their campaigns, and compare notes on the events of Sir John Moore's retreat and other military operations, in which they have served in opposing armies. Flahault was aide-de-camp to Marshal Berthier till the middle of the Russian campaign, when he became aide-de-camp to Napoleon, whom he never quitted again till the end of his career. His accounts of what he has seen and known are curious and interesting. He says that one of the Emperor's greatest mistakes and the causes of his misfortunes was his habit of ordering everything, down to the minutest arrangement, himself, and leaving so little to the discretion and responsibility of his generals and others that they became mere machines, and were incapable of acting, or afraid to act, on their own judgements. On several occasions great calamities were the consequence of this unfortunate habit of Napoleon's.

_London, January 24th._--The Duke of Bedford called here this morning. I had not seen him for an age; he was just come from Windsor with a budget of matter, which as usual he was in such a hurry that he had not time to tell me. I got a part of it, however. I began by asking him how he had left them all at Windsor, to which he replied that the state of things was not very satisfactory. The Queen disapproved Lord John's arrangement for giving up the seals of the Foreign Office on a given day (the 15th February) which had not been previously explained to her Majesty, as it ought to have been. She said that she should make no objection if any good reason could be assigned for what was proposed, either of a public or a private nature, any reason connected with his health or with the transaction of business, but she thought, and she is right, that fixing beforehand a particular day, without any special necessity occurring, is very unreasonable and absurd. Then they are all very angry with Lord John for an exceeding piece of folly of his, in announcing to the Foreign Ministers, the day he received them, that he was only to be at the Foreign Office for a few weeks. This, as the Duke said, was a most unwise and improper communication, particularly as it was made without any concert with Aberdeen, and without his knowledge, and, in fact, blurted out with the same sort of levity that was apparent in the Durham letter and the Reform announcement, with both of which he has been so bitterly reproached, and which have proved so inconvenient that it might have been thought he would not fall again into similar scrapes. The Foreign Ministers themselves were exceedingly astonished, and not a little annoyed. Brunnow said it was a complete mockery, and they all felt that it was unsatisfactory to be put in relation with a Foreign Secretary who was only to be there for a few weeks.

The Queen is delighted to have got rid of the late Ministers. She felt, as everybody else does, that their Government was disgraced by its shuffling and prevarication, and she said that Harcourt's pamphlet (which was all true) was sufficient to show what they were.[1] As she is very honourable and true herself, it was natural she should disapprove their conduct.

DISRAELI AND THE IRISH BRIGADE.

Yesterday Delane called on me, and gave me an account of a curious conversation he had had with Disraeli. Disraeli asked him to call on him, which he did, when they talked over recent events and the fall of the late Government, very frankly, it would seem, on Disraeli's part. He acknowledged that he had been bitterly mortified. When Delane asked him, 'now it was all over,' what made him produce such a Budget, he said, if he had not been thwarted and disappointed, he should have carried it by the aid of the Irish Brigade whom he had _engaged_ for that purpose. Just before the debate, one of them came to him and said, if he would agree to refer Sharman Crawford's Tenant Right Bill to the Select Committee with the Government Bill, they would all vote with him. He thought this too good a bargain to miss, and he closed with his friend on those terms, told Walpole what he had arranged, desired him to carry out the bargain, and the thing was done. No sooner was the announcement made than Lord Naas and Sir Joseph Napier[2] (who had never been informed) came in a great fury to Disraeli and Walpole, complained of the way they had been treated, and threatened to resign. With great difficulty he pacified or rather silenced them, and he was in hopes the storm had blown over, but the next day he found Naas and Napier had gone to Lord Derby with their complaints, and he now found the latter full of wrath and indignation likewise; for Lord Roden, who had heard something of this compromise (i.e. of the Tenant Right Bill being referred to Committee), announced his intention of asking Lord Derby a question in the House of Lords. Added to this, as soon as the news reached Dublin, Lord Eglinton and Blackburne testified the same resentment as Naas and Napier had done, and threatened to resign likewise. All this produced a prodigious flare up. Disraeli represented that it was his business to make the Budget succeed by such means as he could, that the votes of the Brigade would decide it either way, and that he had made a very good bargain, as he had pledged himself to nothing more, and never had any intention of giving any _suite_ to what had been done, so that it could not signify. He did not succeed in appeasing Lord Derby, who, a night or two after in the Lords, repudiated all participation in what had been done, and attacked the Irishmen very bitterly. Disraeli heard this speech, and saw at once that it would be fatal to the Budget and to them, as it proved, for the whole Brigade voted in a body against the Government, and gave a majority to the other side. He seemed in pretty good spirits as to the future, though without for the present any definite purpose. He thinks the bulk of the party will keep together. Delane asked him what he would have done with such a Budget if he had carried it.

He said they should have remodelled their Government, Palmerston and Gladstone would have joined them (_Gladstone_ after the debate and their duel!); during the intervening two or three months the Budget would have been discussed in the country, what was liked retained, what was unpopular altered, and in the end they should have produced a very good Budget which the country would have taken gladly. He never seems to have given a thought to any consideration of political morality, honesty, or truth, in all that he said. The moral of the whole is, that let what will happen it will be very difficult to bring Lord Derby and Disraeli together again. They must regard each other with real, if not avowed, distrust and dislike. Disraeli said that Derby's position in life and his fortune were so different from his, that their several courses must be influenced accordingly. It is easy to conceive how Lord Derby, embarked (no matter how or why) in such a contest, should strain every nerve to succeed and fight it out; but the thing once broken up, he would not be very likely to place himself again in such a situation, and to encounter the endless difficulties, dangers, and mortifications attendant upon the lead of such a party, and above all the necessity of trusting entirely to such a colleague as Disraeli in the House of Commons without one other man of a grain of capacity besides. As it is, he will probably betake himself to the enjoyment of his pleasures and pursuits, till he is recalled to political life by some fresh excitement and interest that time and circumstances may throw in his way; but let what will happen, I doubt his encountering again the troubles and trammels of office.[3]

[Footnote 1: Mr. William Harcourt published a pamphlet at this time on 'The Morality of Public Men,' in which he censured with great severity the conduct of the late Ministers.]

[Footnote 2: Lord Naas was Chief Secretary for Ireland, and Sir Joseph Napier Attorney-General for Ireland, in Lord Derby's Administration of 1852. Lord Eglinton was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and the Right Hon. Francis Blackburne Irish Lord Chancellor.]

[Footnote 3: A singularly unfortunate prediction! The alliance of Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli remained unbroken, and continued long enough to enable them (after a second failure) to bring the Conservative party back to power.]

DEATH OF LORD BEAUVALE.

_January 30th._--Yesterday morning Frederic Lamb, Lord Beauvale and Melbourne, with whom both titles cease, died at Brocket after a short but severe attack of influenza, fever, and gout. He was in his seventy-first year. Lady Palmerston thus becomes a rich heiress. He was not so remarkable a man in character as his brother William, less peculiar and eccentric, more like other people, with much less of literary acquirement, less caustic humour and pungent wit, but he had a vigorous understanding, great quickness, a good deal of general information, he was likewise well versed in business and public affairs, and a very sensible and intelligent converser and correspondent. He took a deep and lively interest in politics to the last moment of his life, was insatiably curious about all that was going on, and was much confided in and consulted by many people of very different parties and opinions. He never was in Parliament, but engaged all his life in a diplomatic career, for which he was very well fitted, having been extremely handsome in his youth, and always very clever, agreeable, and adroit. He consequently ran it with great success, and was in high estimation at Vienna, where his brother-in-law, Palmerston, sent him as Ambassador. He was always much addicted to gallantry, and had endless liaisons with women, most of whom continued to be his friends long after they had ceased to be his mistresses, much to the credit of all parties. After having led a very free and dissolute life, he had the good fortune at sixty years old, and with a broken and enfeebled constitution, to settle (as it is called), by marrying a charming girl of twenty, the daughter of the Prussian Minister at Vienna, Count Maltzahn. This Adine, who was content to unite her May to his December, was to him a perfect angel, devoting her youthful energies to sustain and cheer his valetudinarian existence with a cheerful unselfishness, which he repaid by a grateful and tender affection, having an air at once marital and paternal. She never cared to go anywhere, gave up all commerce with the world and all its amusements and pleasures, contenting herself with such society as it suited him to gather about them, his old friends and some new ones, to whom she did the honours with infinite grace and cordiality, and who all regarded her with great admiration and respect. In such social intercourse, in political gossip, and in her untiring attentions, his last years glided away, not without enjoyment. He and his brother William had always been on very intimate terms, and William highly prized his advice and opinions; but as Frederic was at heart a Tory, and had a horror of Radicalism in every shape, he was not seldom disgusted with the conduct of the Whig Government, and used sorely to perplex and mortify William by his free and severe strictures on him and his colleagues. He nominally belonged to the Liberal party, but in reality he was strongly Conservative, and he always dreaded the progress of democracy, though less disturbed than he would otherwise have been by reflecting that no material alteration could possibly overtake him. His most intimate friends abroad were the Metternichs and Madame de Lieven, and his notions of foreign policy were extremely congenial to theirs. Here, his connexions all lying with people of the Liberal side, he had nothing to do with the Tories, for most of whom he entertained great contempt. Brougham, Ellice, and myself were the men he was most intimate with. He was very fond of his sister, but never much liked Palmerston, and was bitterly opposed to his policy when he was at the Foreign Office, which was a very sore subject between himself and them, and for a long time, and on many occasions, embittered or interrupted their intercourse; but as he was naturally affectionate, had a very good temper, and loved an easy life, such clouds were always soon dispersed, and no permanent estrangement ever took place. He was largely endowed with social merits and virtues, without having or affecting any claim to those of a higher or moral character. I have no doubt he was much more amiable as an old man than he ever had been when he was a young one; and though the death of one so retired from the world can make little or no sensation in it, except as being the last of a remarkable family, he will be sincerely regretted, and his loss will be sensibly felt by the few who enjoyed the intimacy of his declining years.

LADY BEAUVALE.

_February 8th._--Yesterday I went to see the unhappy Lady Beauvale, and, apart from the sorrow of witnessing so much bodily and mental suffering, it is really a singular and extraordinary case. Here is a woman thirty-two years old, and therefore in the prime of life, who has lost a husband of seventy-one deprived of the use of his limbs, and whom she had nursed for ten years, the period of their union, with the probable or possible fatal termination of his frequent attacks of gout constantly before her eyes, and she is not merely plunged in great grief at the loss she has sustained, but in a blank and hopeless despair, which in its moral and physical effects seriously menaces her own existence. She is calm, reasonable and docile, talks of him and his illness without any excitement, and is ready to do everything that her friends advise; but she is earnestly desirous to die, considers her sole business on earth as finished, and talks as if the prolongation of her own life could only be an unmitigated evil and intolerable burden, and that no ray of hope was left for her of any possibility of happiness or even peace and ease for the future. She is in fact brokenhearted, and that for a man old enough to be her grandfather and a martyr to disease and infirmity; but to her he was everything; she had consecrated her life to the preservation of his, and she kept his vital flame alive with the unwearied watching of a Vestal priestess. She had made him an object and an idol round which all the feelings and even passion of an affectionate heart had entwined themselves, till at last she had merged her very existence in his, and only lived in, with, and for him. She saw and felt that he enjoyed life, and she made it her object to promote and prolong this enjoyment. 'Why,' she says, 'could I not save him now, as I saved him heretofore?' and not having been able to do so, she regards her own life as utterly useless and unnecessary, and only hopes to be relieved of it that she may (as she believes and expects) be enabled to join him in some other world.[1]

[Footnote 1: She lived, however, and married Lord Forester, _en secondes noces_, in 1856.]

_February 9th._--Yesterday Clarendon told me a curious thing about the Emperor Napoleon and his marriage, which came in a roundabout way, but which no doubt is true. Madame de Montijo's most intimate friend is the Marchioness of Santa Cruz, and to her she wrote an account of what had passed about her daughter's marriage and the Emperor's proposal to her. When he offered her marriage, she expressed her sense of the greatness of the position to which he proposed to raise her. He replied, 'It is only fair that I should set before you the whole truth, and let you know that if the position is very high, it is also perhaps very dangerous and insecure.' He then represented to her in detail all the dangers with which he was environed, his unpopularity with the higher classes, the _malveillance_ of the Great Powers, the possibility of his being any day assassinated at her side, his popularity indeed with the masses, but the fleeting character of their favour, but above all the existence of a good deal of disaffection and hostility in the army, the most serious thing of all. If this latter danger, he said, were to become more formidable, he knew very well how to avert it by a war; and though his earnest desire was to maintain peace, if no other means of self-preservation should remain, he should not shrink from that, which would at once rally the whole army to one common feeling. All this he told her with entire frankness, and without concealing the perils of his position, or his sense of them, and it is one of the most creditable traits I have ever heard of him. It was, of course, calculated to engage and attach any woman of high spirit and generosity, and it seems to have had that effect upon her. It is, however, curious in many ways; it reveals a sense of danger that is not apparently suspected, and his consciousness of it; and it shows how, in spite of a sincere wish to maintain peace, he may be driven to make war as a means of self-preservation, and therefore how entirely necessary it is that we should be on our guard, and not relax our defensive preparations. I was sure from the conversations I had with M. de Flahault at Beaudesert, that he feels the Emperor's situation to be one of insecurity and hazard. He said that it remained to be seen whether it was possible that a Government could be maintained permanently in France on the principle of the total suppression of civil and political liberty, which had the support of the masses, but which was abhorred and opposed by all the elevated and educated classes. The limbs of the body politic are with the Emperor, and the head against him.

_February 11th._--Parliament met again last night. Lord Derby threw off in the Lords by asking Lord Aberdeen what the Government meant to do, which Aberdeen awkwardly and foolishly enough declined to give any answer to. The scene was rather ridiculous, and not creditable, I think, to Aberdeen. He is unfortunately a very bad speaker at all times, and, what is worse in a Prime Minister, has no readiness whatever. Lord Lansdowne would have made a very pretty and dexterous flourish, and answered the question. Lord John did announce in the House of Commons what the Government mean to do and not to do, but they say he did it ill, and it was very flat, not a _brilliant_ throw-off at all.

MARRIAGE OF THE EMPEROR NAPOLEON III.

_February 16th._--Yesterday Cowley arrived from Paris. He called on me, and gave me an account of the state of things there and some curious details about the Emperor's marriage and his abortive matrimonial projects. He confirms the account of Louis Napoleon's position set forth in Madame de Montijo's letter. The effect of his marriage has been very damaging everywhere, and the French people were not at all pleased at his calling himself a 'parvenu,' which mortified their vanity, inasmuch as they did not like to appear as having thrown themselves at the feet of a parvenu. For some time before the marriage was declared, Cowley, from what he saw and the information he received, began to suspect it would take place, and reported it to John Russell. Just about this time Walewski went to Paris, and when Cowley saw him he told him so. Walewski expressed the greatest surprise as well as mortification, and imparted to Cowley that a negotiation had been and still was going on for the Emperor's marriage with the Princess Adelaide of Hohenlohe, the Queen's niece, at that time and still with the Queen in England. This was begun by Lord Malmesbury, and the Emperor had regularly proposed to her through her father. A very civil answer had been sent by the Prince, in which he said that he would not dispose of his daughter's hand without her consent, and that he had referred the proposal to her, and she should decide for herself. The Queen had behaved very well, and had abstained from giving any advice or expressing any opinion on the subject. They were then expecting the young Princess's decision. This being the case, Cowley advised Walewski to exert his influence to stop the demonstrations that were going on between the Emperor and Mlle. di Montijo, which might seriously interfere with this plan. The next day Walewski told Cowley that he had seen the Emperor, who took him by both hands, and said, 'Mon cher, je suis pris,' and then told him he had resolved to marry Mlle. de Montijo. However, on Walewski representing the state of the other affair, he agreed to wait for the Princess Adelaide's answer, but said, if it was unfavourable, he would conclude the other affair, but if the Princess accepted him he would marry her. The day following the answer came: very civil, but declining on the ground of her youth and inexperience, and not feeling equal to such a position. The same day the Emperor proposed to the Empress. Cowley says he is evidently much changed since his marriage, and that he is conscious of his unpopularity and the additional insecurity in which it has involved his position.

_February 19th._--Lord Cowley told me something more about the marriage. He saw the Queen on Thursday (17th), who told him all about it. The first step was taken by Morny, who wrote to Malmesbury, and requested him to propose it, stating that the Emperor's principal object in it was to 'resserrer les liens entre les deux pays.' Malmesbury accordingly wrote to the Queen on the subject. She was annoyed, justly considering that the proposal, with the reason given, placed her in a very awkward situation, and that it ought not to have been mentioned to her at all. The result was what has been already stated, but with this difference, that the Queen set her face against the match, although the girl, if left to herself, would have accepted the offer. However, nobody knows this, and they are very anxious these details should not transpire. The two accounts I have given of this transaction seem to me to afford a good illustration of the uncertainty of the best authenticated historical statements. Nothing could appear more to be relied on than the accuracy of Cowley's first account to me, and if I had not seen him again, or if he had not imparted to me his conversation with the Queen, that account would have stood uncorrected, and an inaccurate version of the story would have been preserved, and might hereafter have been made public, and, unless corrected by some other contemporaneous narrative, would probably have been taken as true. The matter in itself is not very important, but such errors unquestionably are liable to occur in matters of greater moment, and actually do occur, fully justifying the apocryphal character which has been ascribed to almost every historical work.[1]

The Queen seems to be intensely curious about the Court of France and all details connected with it, and on the other hand Louis Napoleon has been equally curious about the etiquette observed in the English Court, and desirous of assimilating his to ours, which in great measure he appears to have done.

DISRAELI'S ATTACK ON SIR CHARLES WOOD.

Last night there was the first field day in the House of Commons, Disraeli having made an elaborate and bitter attack on the Government, but especially on Charles Wood and Graham, under the pretence of asking questions respecting our foreign relations, and more particularly with France.[2] His speech was very long, in most parts very tiresome, but with a good deal of ability, and a liberal infusion of that sarcastic vituperation which is his great forte, and which always amuses the House of Commons more or less. It was, however, a speech of devilish malignity, quite reckless and shamelessly profligate; for the whole scope of it was, if possible, to envenom any bad feeling that may possibly exist between France and England, and, by the most exaggerated representations of the offence given by two of the Ministers to the French Government and nation, to exasperate the latter, and to make it a point of honour with them to resent it, even to the extent of a quarrel with us. Happily its factious violence was so great as to disgust even the people on his own side, and the French Government is too really desirous of peace and harmony to pay any attention to the rant of a disappointed adventurer, whose motives and object are quite transparent.

[Footnote 1: Further details with reference to the marriage of the Emperor will be found in Lord Malmesbury's _Memoirs_, vol. i. pp. 374 and 378, which confirm Mr. Greville's narrative.]

[Footnote 2: Sir Charles Wood, President of the Board of Control, made a speech to his constituents at Halifax on February 3, in which he commented in severe language on the despotic character of the Imperial Government of France. The speech was thought to be unbecoming in the mouth of a Cabinet minister, and Sir Charles apologised for it. But Mr. Disraeli made it the subject of a fierce attack in the House of Commons.]

_February 20th._--Disraeli's speech on Friday night was evidently a political blunder, which has injured him in the general opinion, and disgusted his own party. It is asserted that he communicated his intention to his followers, who disapproved of it, but he nevertheless persisted. The speech itself was too long; it was dull and full of useless truisms in the first part, but clever and brilliant in the last; and his personalities were very smart and well aimed; but there was not a particle of truth and sincerity in it; it was a mere vituperation and factious display, calculated to do mischief if it produced any effect at all, and quite unbecoming a man who had just been a Minister of the Crown and leader of the House of Commons, and who ought to have been animated by higher motives and more patriotic views. This was what the more sensible men of the party felt, and Tom Baring, the most sensible and respectable of the Derbyites, and the man of the greatest weight amongst them, told me himself that he was so much disgusted that he was on the point of getting up to disavow him, and it is much to be regretted, as I told him, that such a rebuke was not administered from such a quarter. It does not look as if the connexion between Disraeli and the party could go on long. Their dread and distrust of him and his contempt of them render it difficult if not impossible. Pakington is already talked of as their leader, and some think Disraeli wants to shake them off and trade on his own bottom, trusting to his great abilities to make his way to political power with somebody and on some principles, about neither of which he would be very nice. Tom Baring said to me last night, 'Can't you make room for him in this Coalition Government?' I said, 'Why, will you give him to us?' 'Oh, yes,' he said, 'you shall have him with pleasure.'

LORD JOHN RUSSELL LEAVES THE FOREIGN OFFICE.

Lord John Russell has taken leave of the Foreign Office, and has had an interview with the Queen and Prince, satisfactory to both. She has been all along considerably annoyed at the arrangement made about his taking the Foreign Office only to quit it, and his leading the House of Commons without any office, which she fancies is unconstitutional, and the arrangement was announced in the newspapers without any proper communication to her. The consequence has been some little soreness on both sides, but this has now been all removed by explanations and amicable communication. The Queen attacked him on the constitutional ground, but here _elle l'a pris par son fort_, and he easily bowled over this objection.[1] Then she expressed her fear lest it should be drawn into a precedent, which might be inconvenient in other cases, to which he replied that he thought there was little fear of anybody wishing to follow the precedent of a man taking upon himself a vast amount of labour without any pay at all. Then she said that a man independent of office might consider himself independent of the Crown also, and postpone its interests to popular requirements; which he answered by saying that he did not think any Minister, as it was, thought very much of the Crown as contradistinguished from the people, and that he was not less likely to take such a part as she apprehended by holding an office of 5,000_l._ a year, from which a vote of the House of Commons could at any moment expel him.

[Footnote 1: The objection taken by Her Majesty was to Lord John Russell's proposal that he should retain his seat in the Cabinet and the leadership of the House of Commons without holding any special office in the Government. But in fact, as a Privy Councillor of the Crown, a Minister, with or without office, is under precisely the same obligations to the Sovereign and to Parliament. He appears to have satisfied them both, and to be satisfied himself, which is still more important.]

_February 25th._--The Jew question and the Maynooth question have been got over in the House of Commons without much debate, but by small majorities. The most remarkable incident was young Stanley[1] voting with the majority in both questions, and speaking on Maynooth, and well. As he is pretty sure to act a conspicuous part, it is good to see him taking a wise and liberal line. Disraeli voted for the Jews, but did not speak, which was very base of him. Last night I met Tomline at dinner, who is a friend of his, and told me a great deal about him. He has a good opinion of him, that is, that he has a good disposition, but his personal position perverts him in great measure. He says he dislikes and despises Derby, thinks him a good 'Saxon' speaker and nothing more, has a great contempt for his party, particularly for Pakington, whom they seem to think of setting up as leader in his place. The man in the House of Commons whom he most fears as an opponent is Gladstone. He has the highest opinion of his ability, and he respects Graham as a statesman. Tomline told me that his system of attacking the late Sir Robert Peel was settled after this manner. When the great schism took place, three of the seceders went to Disraeli (Miles, Tyrrel, and a third whom I have forgotten), and proposed to him to attack and vilify Peel regularly, but with discretion; not to fatigue and disgust the House, to make a speech against him about once a fortnight or so, and promised if he would that a constant and regular attendance of a certain number of men should be there to cheer and support him, remarking that nobody was ever efficient in the House of Commons without this support certain.[2] He desired twenty minutes to consider of this offer, and finally accepted it. We have seen the result, a curious beginning of an important political career. Now they dread and hate him, for they know in his heart he has no sympathy with them, and that he has no truth or sincerity in his conduct or speeches, and would throw them over if he thought it his interest.

[Footnote 1: The present Earl of Derby, who succeeded his father as fifteenth Earl in 1869. He entered public life as Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in 1852.]

[Footnote 2: This anecdote is related on the authority of Mr. Tomline as stated in the text. It was mentioned in the lifetime of Lord Beaconsfield, and in justice to him it must be said that he altogether denied the truth of the story.]

WHIG MALCONTENTS.

_March 1st._--The Government seem upon the whole to be going on prosperously. They have at present no difficulty in the House of Commons, where there is no disposition to oppose their measures, and an appearance of moderation generally, which promises an easy Session. John Russell has spoken well, and seems to have recovered a great share of the popularity he had lost. Aberdeen has done very well in the House of Lords, his answers to various 'questions' having been discreet, temperate, and judicious; in short, up to this time the horizon is tolerably clear. On the other hand the divisions have presented meagre majorities, and the Government have no _power_ in the House of Commons, and live on the goodwill or forbearance of the several fractions of which it is composed. John Russell is in his heart not satisfied with his present position, and not animated with any spirit of zeal or cordiality, though he is sure to act honestly and fairly the part he has undertaken. There is still a good deal of lurking discontent and resentment on the part of those who were left out, and of the Whig party generally, who are only half reconciled to following the banner of a Peelite premier; of the malcontents the principal are Carlisle and Clanricarde, who are both in different ways very sore; Normanby is dissatisfied, Labouchere, Seymour, and George Grey not pleased, but except Clanricarde none have shown any disposition to withhold their support from the Government, or even to carp at them. Aberdeen seems to have no notion of being anything but a _real_ Prime Minister. He means to exercise a large influence in the management of foreign affairs, which he considers to be the peculiar, if not exclusive, province of himself and Clarendon. Palmerston does not interfere with them at all, but he must do so, if any important questions arise for the Cabinet to decide, and then it is very likely some dissension will be the consequence. There are four ex-Secretaries for foreign affairs in this Cabinet, all of whom will naturally take part in any discussion of moment. Argyll began rather unluckily, running his head indiscreetly against Ellenborough on an Indian petition. He is burning with impatience to distinguish himself, and broke out too soon, and out of season; but he was not unconscious of his error, and it will probably be of use to him to have met with a little check at his outset, and teach him to be more discreet. He spoke again last night, and very well, on the Clergy reserves, when there was a brilliant passage of arms in the Lords, in which Lord Derby and the Bishops of Exeter and Oxford distinguished themselves.

News came by telegraph last night that the dispute between Turkey and Austria is settled, which will relieve us from a great difficulty. If it had gone on, we should have had a difficult part to play, and unluckily the good understanding that was reviving between us and Vienna has all been upset by the late attempt on the Emperor's life,[1] which has thrown the Austrians into a ferment, and renewed all their bitter resentment against us for harbouring Kossuth and Mazzini, to whom they attribute both the _émeute_ at Milan and the assassination at Vienna severally. They are no doubt right about Mazzini and wrong about Kossuth, but fortunately for us the first is not in England and has been abroad for some time, and it will probably be impossible to bring any evidence against Kossuth to connect him with the Hungarian assassin. But these troubles and attempts, the origin of which is attributed to men residing here, and, though neglected by the Government, more or less objects of popular favour and sympathy, render all relations of amity impossible between our Government and theirs, and the disunion is aggravated by our absurd meddling with such cases as the Madiai and Murray at Florence and at Rome, which are no concern of ours, and which our Government does in compliance with Protestant bigotry. What makes our conduct the more absurd is that we do more harm than good to the objects of our interest, for no Government can, with any regard to its own dignity and independence, yield to our dictation and impertinent interference. The Grand Duke of Tuscany said that the Madiai would have been let out of prison long ago but for our interference. John Russell's published letter on this subject, which was very palateable to the public, was as objectionable as possible, and quite as insolent and presumptuous as any Palmerston used to write.

AUSTRIAN OPPRESSION IN ITALY.

Last night the Marquis Massimo d'Azeglio came here. He was Prime Minister in Piedmont till replaced by Count Cavour, and is come to join his nephew, who is Minister here. He is a tall, thin, dignified looking man, with very pleasing manners. He gave us a shocking account of the conduct of the Austrians at Milan in consequence of the recent outbreak. Their tyranny and cruelty have been more like the deeds in the middle ages than those in our own time; wantonly putting people to death without trial or even the slightest semblance of guilt, plundering and confiscating, and in every respect acting in a manner equally barbarous and impolitic. They have thrown away a good opportunity of improving their own moral status in Italy, and completely played the game of their enemies by increasing the national hatred against them tenfold. If ever France finds it her interest to go to war,[2] Italy will be her mark, for she will now find the whole population in her favour, and would be joined by Sardinia, who would be too happy to revenge her former reverses with French aid; nor would it be possible for this country to support Austria in a war to secure that Italian dominion which she has so monstrously abused.

[Footnote 1: The Emperor of Austria was stabbed in the neck on February 18, by Joseph Libeny, on the ramparts of Vienna, fortunately without serious consequences. The assassin had not the remotest connexion with anyone in this country.]

[Footnote 2: Remarkable prediction, verified in 1859.]

_March 3rd._--Lord Aberdeen has gained great credit by making Mr. Jackson, Rector of St. James's, Bishop of Lincoln. He is a man without political patronage or connexion, and with no recommendation but his extraordinary merit both as a parish priest and a preacher. Such an appointment is creditable, wise, and popular, and will strengthen the Government by conciliating the moderate and sincere friends of the Church.

The Duke of Bedford writes to me about his papers and voluminous correspondence, which he has been thinking of overhauling and arranging, but he shrinks from such a laborious task. He says: 'With respect to my political correspondence, it has been unusually interesting and remarkable. I came so early into public life, have been so mixed up with everything, have known the political chief of my own party so intimately, and of the Tory party also to a limited extent, that there is no great affair of my own time I have not been well acquainted with.' This is very true, and his correspondence, whenever it sees the light, will be more interesting, and contribute more historical information, than that of any other man who has been engaged in public life. The papers of Peel and of the Duke of Wellington may be more important, but I doubt their's being more interesting, because the Duke of Bedford's will be of a more miscellaneous and comprehensive character; and though his abilities are not of a very high order, his judgement is sound, his mind is unprejudiced and candid, and he is a sincere worshipper of truth.

For the last few days John Russell has been kept away from the House of Commons by the death of the Dowager Duchess of Bedford, when Palmerston has been acting as leader, taking that post as naturally and undoubtedly belonging to him, and his right to it being entirely acquiesced in by his colleagues of both camps. They say that he has given great satisfaction to the House, where he is regarded with the same favour and inclination as heretofore, and _personally_ much more acceptable than Lord John. Cobden dined with John Russell the other day, and, what is more remarkable, Bessborough told me he met Roden at dinner the other day at the Castle at Dublin, St. Germans and he on very goodhumoured terms. These are striking examples of the compatibility of the strongest political difference with social amenities. Cobden, however, is not in regular opposition to the Government, but in great measure a supporter.

ALLIANCE OF FRANCE AND ENGLAND.

_March 10th._--I met M. de Flahault last night, just returned from Paris. He said that he found there a rancour and violence against us amongst the Austrians, and Russians and Prussians no less, quite inconceivable. He talked to them all and represented to them the absurdity of their suppositions and exigencies, but without the slightest effect; he found the Emperor, however, in a very different frame of mind, understanding perfectly the position of the English Government, and completely determined to maintain his alliance with us, and not to yield to the tempting cajolery of the Continental Powers, who want him to make common cause with them against us. Such is their madness and their passion, and such the necessity, real or fancied, in which they are placed by the revolutionary fire which is still smouldering everywhere, and their own detestable misgovernment (at least that of Austria, which the others abet), that they are ready to cooperate with France in coercing and weakening us, and to sacrifice all the great and traditional policy of Europe, in order to wage war against the stronghold and only asylum of constitutional principles and government.

Flahault said that the Emperor has had an opportunity of placing himself in the first year of his reign in a situation which was the great object of his uncle's life, and which he never could attain. He might have been at the head of a European league against us, for these powers have signified to him their willingness to follow him in such a crusade, the Emperor of Russia and he being on the best terms, and a cordial interchange of letters having taken place between them. But Napoleon has had the wisdom and the magnanimity to resist the bait, to decline these overtures, and to resolve on adherence to England. Flahault said that he had had an audience, at which he frankly and freely told the Emperor his own opinion, not being without apprehension that it would be unpalateable to him, and not coincident with his own views. While he was talking to him, he saw him smile, which he interpreted into a sentiment that he (Flahault) was too _English_ for him in his language and opinions, and he said so. The Emperor said, 'I smiled because you so exactly expressed my own opinions,' and then he told him that he took exactly the same view of what his true policy was that Flahault himself