D A 
 
 566 
 rV;!«r 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 
 
 Chap. ..HK.S-^feL.. 
 
 Shelf ^U-Sk'X- 
 
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. ! 
 
THE QUEEN 
 
 AND 
 
 THE PREMIER. 
 
 A STATEMENT OF 
 
 THEIR STRUGGLE AND ITS RESULTS. 
 
 SECOND EDITION, 
 
 BY DAVID URQUHART. 
 
 The Prime Minister of England, the leader of the House of Commons, is also at thw 
 moment the complete representative of the feeling and spirit of the English people,—- 
 Times, January 22nd, 1855. 
 
 LONDON: ^=^ 
 
 D. BRYCE, 48, PATERNOSTER ROW. 
 
 1857, 
 
NOTICE. 
 
 Whatever interest may belong to the following pages is concen- 
 trated in the description, contained in the Appendix, of the pains 
 and sorrows of a Prime Minister, sketched by Lord John Russell 
 once, but since forgotten ; and which seems not even to have been 
 seized at the time by the public in its romantic aspect. 
 
PEEFACE. 
 
 The following pages have been in type for many months, the im- 
 pression having been delayed from time to time, awaiting, like 
 another commodity, the demand. It was a solution that they 
 offered, but it was valueless until the question was asked. While 
 the nation was still unconscious of the greatness it had conferred 
 upon a single man, was dazzled with his supremacy, pleased with 
 its exercise, and content with their abjection, they could be told 
 nothing. The anticipated time seems now to have arrived ; the 
 word " enigma" has risen to the lips of men. 
 
 On the occasion of the Premier's visit to Liverpool, a local paper 
 expressed itself as follows. The words may stand as an expla- 
 nation of this pamphlet, the publication of which they have 
 prompted, and which now appears without the alteration of a word 
 from the hour it was written ; — that was, while the cannon of the 
 lines of Sebastopol were pouring forth their thunders, and the 
 sounds of peaceful commerce alone were heard on the quays of 
 Odessa. 
 
 Born, as it were, for party, formed for party, devoted to party, employed 
 by all parties for the last half century, because useful to all in the sense that 
 Talleyrand was indispensable to countless consecutive governments, and faith- 
 ful to' each for the time being, he has been the destroyer of party; has risen 
 to the utmost attainable altitude on the ruins of party; and now, alone, of all 
 men in our history, holds the first place in England, and the place of the first 
 subject in Europe, not in virtue of party strength, but in right of that party 
 feebleness winch he himself has mainly wrought. How he has wrought it is 
 the great enigma, insoluble to the present, and probably undeterminable by 
 posterity. It has not only not been through Court favour, but in spite of it. 
 It has not only not been through popular favour, but in spite of it. It has 
 not only not been through Parliamentary favour, but in spite of it also. Nor 
 can it be said that it has been in consequence of a prestige derivable from the 
 exhibition of commanding talents in that arena which challenges universal 
 notice ; for though never out of the Legislature a single session for fifty years, 
 he had nearly reached the age of fifty, that is, was as old as Mr. Gladstone 
 at the present moment, before being suspected, even in the House of Com- 
 mons, of intellectual equality with the Ryders, Robinsons, Wynns, Grants, 
 Herries, Goulburns, and other unremembered mediocrities, among whom he 
 had passed his youth and prime. Nor, yet again, have his been the advan- 
 tages of reflected power, springing from political associates. Quite the con- 
 trary. In the first fervour of the first Reform Bill, his Tory antecedents, as 
 the colleague of Perceval, Sidmouth, Castlereagh, and all the obscurantists 
 and obstructives of the then expiring generation of placemen, marked him 
 
4 PREFACE. 
 
 for the distrust of the Liberals and the obloquy of those whose creed he had 
 apostatized. So with the creation of the kingdom of Belgium, and the other 
 acts in reference to Poland and elsewhere, consequent upon the revolutions 
 of the time. The odium of his vassalage to Aberdeen and other Metternich 
 tools of the Holy Alliance, fainted all his professions with fears of sinister 
 bias; — a fear by no means extinct yet. This distracted, broke up, and pre- 
 vented the formation of several Liberal, or at least Whig Cabinets, including 
 that which should and would have anticipated Peel's in Free Trade. So 
 again in regard to that measure, Lord Palmerston alone, of all the Whigs, 
 not excepting his brother-in-law, Melbourne, was believed to be secretly 
 wedded to restriction, although he proposed the 8s. duty as a desperate ex- 
 pedient to retain office long after all respect due to office had fled. We find 
 the followers of Bentinck very lately calculating on the same sort of aid to 
 the " landed interest" at the hands of the noble member for Tiverton as was 
 given to some of the "adjustment" crotchets of Mr. Disraeli by the member 
 for Oxford University. One other and most striking instance of the excep- 
 tional position of Lord Palmerston was his conduct in reference to the coup 
 d'etat — his instantaneous and ostentatious approbation of an act that revolted 
 the whole sense of this country, scandalized his colleagues, shocked the Queen, 
 and led to his expulsion from office under circumstances that seemed to ren- 
 der his return utterly impossible. Finally, Lord Palmerston is the only man 
 in England who has always, till comparatively the other day, been the target 
 of the press of his own party ever since he has been conspicuous enough to 
 challenge its aim. Amidst all the official mutations of Whiggery, and of the 
 press in connexion with it, the noble lord has been the invariable bUe noir of 
 the printers. Greys, Elliots, Russells, Melbournes, Broughams, have all been 
 praised lavishly and for long together; but the praise has ever been qualified 
 by some reference deploring the fatuity or rebuking the criminality of asso- 
 ciation with the incorrigible Foreign Secretary. For some time back, "as all 
 the world knows, this strain lias been dropped, and the contrary adopted; but 
 the change in the tone of expression does not alter the facts, if facts they 
 were, and there has been no retractation if they were not. No public man, no 
 public journal, has said in '56 that Lord Palmerston was not what he was de- 
 clared to be in '51, or any year of the preceding twenty. On the contrary, 
 there are those, and not insignificant, who, since their adherence in the matter 
 of Pacifico, have modified their zeal in consequence of his proceedings in re- 
 gard to Italy and Hungary, and his treatment of the representatives of their 
 wrongs, leaving out of the question altogether his identification with the 
 Praetorian policy on which the reigning dynasty of France is based. 
 
 It would be difficult to imagine more numerous, or seemingly more insur- 
 mountable, obstacles to the acquisition of sujweme power than those enume- 
 rated. 
 
THE QUEEN AND THE PREMIER. 
 
 THE WAR AND THE MONARCHY. 
 
 Some time ago, the nation was informed by the Times, that 
 another winter like the last (1854), and the existence, not of the 
 Government, but of the Monarchy, would be in danger. 
 
 Such a proposition, uttered by an individual, would class him 
 amongst inoperative visionaries ; made by an enemy, it would in- 
 dicate a rancour that might be despised, or a depth that was 
 terrible. Made by the organ of the public opinion of the nation 
 itself — it is, at least, worth considering. 
 
 In its naked form, the proposition is this. The sceptre of Eng- 
 land is to be broken on the fortress of Sebastopol. Does the case 
 admit of such a result? Let us see. 
 
 The war is with a country possessing no direct means whatever 
 of injuring England; with a country over which England possesses 
 the most*absolute control through her trade ; with a country des- 
 titute of financial power ; how, then, can there be a question even 
 of defeat, much less of the downfall of the Monarchy 1 
 
 In this war England is not a principal; she is but the ally of 
 another state. Before her war commenced, Russia had been 
 beaten by that state : England had France for an ally ; how, then, 
 could there be consequences to place the existence of our institu- 
 tions in jeopardy? 
 
 But the proposition of the Times, enunciated after a year of 
 war, was only the repetition of what had been stated before the 
 war commenced by persons whose attention had been given to 
 the subject, and who had the opportunity of acquiring inform- 
 ation upon it, by having been the agents of the policy of England 
 in the East within the twenty years which preceded the event. 
 Two of these have announced conclusions similar to. those of the 
 Times, and on the grounds — First, that the war was not just ; 
 secondly, that it was not necessary. If these data be correct, 
 the conclusion is no way extravagant. A war unjust and unneces- 
 sary may lead to the extinction of an empire, however great its 
 resources and numerous its allies. 
 
 The injustice of the war is a proposition distasteful, but not 
 abstruse. It could be just only by Russia's violation of her 
 
6 THE QUEEN AND THE PREMIER. 
 
 engagements, and the adoption of legal measures on the part of 
 England on such violation. There is no one who is not aware 
 that England did not take grounds on the violation of the Turkish 
 territory, which act henceforward could not be counted on as the 
 grounds of a just war. 
 
 The second proposition is equally unpalatable and equally in- 
 controvertible. There could be no necessity for a war to protect 
 Turkey when the Turkish arms had triumphed. 
 
 The management of a war so commenced can be easily antici- 
 pated. Those who, knowing the case beforehand, were in a posi- 
 tion to mark the avoidance by the English Government of pro- 
 testing against Russia's act, also knew of the powerlessness of 
 Russia to injure Turkey, and understood why succour was delayed 
 first, and sent afterwards. It was, therefore, easy for them to 
 say, " your army will never return." 
 
 The management of the war consisted in leaving Turkey un- 
 aided, whilst there was a hope of her being broken by the arms 
 of Russia; then changing it from defensive for Turkey to aggres- 
 sive against Russia. The distinction has been accurately drawn 
 by Lord Palmerston between the weakness of Russia for attack, 
 and her power for defence. His picture was drawn before the 
 events which have verified it. After she had been beaten by the 
 Turks, nothing more remained to be done. Her armies were dis- 
 lodged, and could not return. Turkey did not require, even if she 
 aimed at the extinction of the Russian power, to move a single 
 regiment. She had but to maintain the state of war, as a conse - 
 quence to keep the Dardanelles closed, and thus to place Russia 
 between extinction and the acceptance of equitable conditions of 
 peace. From this predicament the Allies relieved Russia by de- 
 livering over the Danubian Principalities to Austria, by compro- 
 mising in her territories their own armies^ and by keeping the 
 Dardanelles open for her trade. 
 
 But it was not merely that the war was changed for her from 
 an aggressive one, which she could no longer make, to a defensive 
 one, where she recovered all her power : the Allies went further ; 
 they make their aggressive war against the points which she had 
 prepared for their reception, not against the points which were 
 vulnerable to their attack. They cast their forces against Se- 
 bastopol, and they spared Odessa. The effect, as regards Eng- 
 land, has been the exposed, or supposed, inability of her mari- 
 time power to coerce Russia, and the loss of nearly 70,000 men 
 out of 80,000, which, as the French official organ stated, " had 
 been collected from Britain's vast possessions ;" the shutting up of 
 one-half of her naval force in a close sea, the key of which is in 
 the hands of France ; an interminable and hopeless war upon our 
 
THE QUEEN AND THE PREMIER. 7 
 
 hands ; and bread, at the close of the harvest, at 80s. a quarter.* 
 The loss of an army or two, the sacrifice of a hundred millions 
 of money, the sacrifice of a fleet or two, the high price of bread, 
 and even the stoppage of the Bank, would not be in themselves 
 grounds for predicting the fall of the Monarchy. If these events 
 occurred at the close of a war, undertaken for the defence of the 
 realm, and conducted with political talent, military energy, and 
 public resolution, the energies of the people could only be devel- 
 oped thereby, and the internal social bond more strongly united. 
 But occurring in the course of a war in itself unjust and unneces- 
 sary, and the injustice and Heedlessness of which must at some 
 point come to be fully apprehended, the warning of the Times 
 ceases to have those vague and visionary characters under which 
 they were at first shrouded. 
 
 At first sight it might appear that the public indignation would 
 fail to attain to the highest persons of the realm, and this being a 
 constitutional country, would concentrate itself on the Minister. 
 But a little reflection will convince any man that the reverse must 
 happen. It is true that we are a constitutional country, but we 
 are also a people ruled by public opinion ; we are constitutional 
 against the Crown; we are public opinion for the Minister. Public 
 opinion the Minister can manufacture. 
 
 So soon as the nation is prepared to utter with indignation the 
 cry, " Why has Odessa been spared?" it will be intimated that, 
 after all, the position of the Minister was very difficult ; that he 
 had been obliged to submit to dvnastic influences, and that ten- 
 derness towards our foe was the result of Coburg and Prussian 
 alliances.f 
 
 * The hopelessness of the war is shown by the capitulations of Paris : its 
 intennin ability by the new Avar called " with Persia," but really with Russia. 
 —Note added December, 1856. 
 
 f Have her Majesty's Government, theu, not enough of g-uilt and responsi- 
 bility already resting* on their heads, that they must needs go out of their way 
 to deepen the indignation of the public, by gratuitously making a mockery of 
 the national feeling on the subject of sparing Odessa? 
 
 We do not imagine that the extraordinary conduct of Ministers is to be 
 accounted for in this way. There are reasons for that conduct — reasons why 
 Odessa has been spared, which have not yet been brought before the public, 
 and which have been guessed at only by a few. But those reasons must be 
 brought out. They must be dragged from the dark recesses of the council- 
 room, and exhibited in the broad light of day. Let the people only persist in 
 demanding to know the reasons why Odessa is spared, and know them we 
 will. When the demand is made by the whole nation, speaking simultaneously, 
 it must be attended to. No Minister dares refuse to comply with the request. 
 Public opinion may be disregarded for a time, but it will not be so long. No 
 one knows better than Lord Palmerston doe?, that public feeling cannot be 
 always defied with impunity. 
 
Tin: QUEEN AND THE PREMIER. 
 
 The ground thus laid, — disasters accumulated — suspicions awa- 
 kened — patience exhausted — new wars sprung up — revolution* 
 breaking out — the crowning disaster coming of rupture with 
 France — and the same process of interpretation being repeated 
 on each occasion, will not a ircnzied people be ready to cry, "a 
 torch for Buckingham Palace?" 
 
 THE PRINCE CONSORT AS PRIVY COUNCILLOR. 
 
 In itself, no doubt, the city of the bleak Sarmatian wastes was 
 sufficiently innocent of any design hostile to the Imperial dynasty 
 of these realms ; and yet the connection is indubitable between 
 the circumstances of the one and the fate of the other. The con- 
 nection did not reside in what Odessa could do, or in what Odessa 
 was ; but in what could be dor.e with it. Not what its own pro- 
 prietor the Czar could do with it, but what an English Minister 
 could do with it. Not even what he could do with it, but what he 
 did not do with it. Odessa was spared. 
 
 In like manner, the arsenal fortress of Crim Tartary was, in 
 itself, no less innocent than the city of Ovid, nor could it have 
 been rendered noxious to any one, far less to the Queen of 
 England and her crown, by anything that its master could make 
 of it ; it became dangerous only when made use of by the English 
 Minister. Sebastopol was attacked. 
 
 The Consort of our British Queen might be equally innocent 
 and equally nugatory with Odessa and Sebastopol, and yet be 
 used like the one and the other by the English Minister. Prince 
 Albert was made to speak. 
 
 At the Trinity House, Prince Albert uttered words conveying 
 an identification of the views of the Queen with the policy of Lord 
 
 We have our theory on the subject. That theory forces itself on our mind 
 with resistless conviction. We find a solution, perfectly satisfactory to our- 
 selves, in the pro-Russianism which exists in the Court and councils of Queen 
 Victoria. Germanism and pro-Russianism are convertible terms. The rea- 
 son why Odessa is spared is to be sought for in the vicinity of the Throne 
 itself. Alas for that Throne, as well as for England, that such an influence 
 should have acquired so close a proximity to the person of the Sovereign. 
 The country has cause to regret the circumstance now, because the want of 
 earnestness and honesty in carrying on the war, and which is attributable to 
 the same cause, has already brought deep disgrace and great disaster to the 
 ) .lion. The time is not distant when those in high places will have equal 
 cause with the people to rue the day that this pro-Russian influence ever was 
 introduced into this country in the person of one who, equally as a matter of 
 sound policy and of good feeling, ought never to have taKen any part what- 
 ever in political affairs. It is not long since we were told that constitutional 
 government was on its trial in this country. In return, we may apprise the 
 party who uttered that sentiment, that the conduct of certain persons has 
 put monarchical institutions on their trial also. — Morning Advertiser, Oct. 
 22, 1855. 
 
THE QUEEN AND THE PREMIER. 9 
 
 Palmerston, condemnatory of the existing form of Government, 
 and holding up as a model for our imitation the despotisms as at 
 present existing on the Continent, and urging as an argument for 
 the immediate adoption of such model the difficulty or impossibi- 
 lity of dragging the country through the perils of the present war 
 save by that reform. 
 
 These words uttered in the presence of the Prime Minister, 
 must have been the embodying of his sentiments, and in as far as 
 they produced contempt or indignation, ought to have concen- 
 trated these feelings on that Prime Minister. The effect was 
 different. The people of this country are not in the habit of 
 reasoning to a conclusion, or tracing sequences backwards ; the 
 contempt and indignation was for the Prince, and through him 
 for the Crown. 
 
 The nation did not know what were the abstract opinions of 
 the Queen in matters of form of Government, and with their un- 
 critical habits had herein grounds for assuming these opinions to 
 be those of the Queen. But the nation did know that the state- 
 ment in the first part of Prince Albert's speech was false, for 
 the Queen had once dismissed Lord Palmerston by the direct 
 interposition of her own prerogative, an act of energy too re- 
 markable to pass unobserved, even in these sluggish times, and 
 which has no parallel in our history for 200 years. It was 
 further known that the Queen had resisted to the last the ap- 
 pointment of Lord Palmerston as Premier, and a letter of hers 
 had been produced to Parliament in the beginning of 1852, 
 by the then Prime Minister, conveying by implication the charge 
 that Lord Palmerston had deceived her, had filched her ap- 
 probation to measures not understood, and had changed the 
 character of measures when approved. After reading the letter 
 to the House, the then Prime Minister stated that Lord Palmers- 
 ton had repeated the. offence under circumstances of deeper ag- 
 gravation, and that, in doing so, " he had stepped by the Crown, 
 and had. put himself in place of the Crown." 
 
 These facts being known, what was to be inferred from Prince 
 Albert's identification of himself with Lord Palmerston? Either 
 that Prince Albert had confederated with Lord Palmerston to 
 coerce the Queen, or that Lord Palmerston had coerced Prince 
 Albert. 
 
 The first alternative is inadmissible; the second may be difficult 
 to admit, but there is no other solution. The difficulty in admit- 
 ting it arises, however, solely from the ignorance that prevails 
 regarding the history of England at the present time. We 
 propose to narrate what Lord Palmerston has done with Prince 
 Albert, and the reader will then be able to apply to the process 
 
10 THE yUEEN AND THE PREMIER. 
 
 the term he likes, and so tit the antecedents to the speech at the 
 Trinity House, whether uttered by Prince Albert, or made for 
 him.* 
 
 From the time when the factions began alternately to rule, the 
 Royal power had to be put down, no less than the popular liber- 
 ties. Each successively cloaked itself, in the exercise of its sove- 
 reignty, with the name of the King, and one of the factions, the 
 very one which had made the position of faction, gathered round 
 itself the mantle of popular rights. The design of this usurpation 
 was Whig. The Tories were merely suffered, and allowed at in- 
 tervals to digest the fragments of laws and constitutions which 
 the "Whig huntsman had run down. At length, the philosophical 
 party propounded a maxim. " The power of the Crown has 
 increased, is increasing, and has to be abated," which, as Major 
 Cartwright remarked, " was the veriest insult to the understand- 
 ing of the people of England, who had nothing to fear from Regal 
 tyranny, but everything to fear from Oligarchic usurpation." 
 
 If to become a Minister be an object so attractive that men ex- 
 pend a whole lifetime in its pursuit, sacrifice ease, wealth, domes- 
 tic ties, principle, honour, and health itself, how much greater 
 must be that of converting the office of Minister into that of Mon- 
 arch ? It is not long since the Secretaries of State were in fact, 
 what still they arc in law, mere private clerks of the King. If 
 they have raised themselves to their present authority, starting 
 from that point, what may they not attain to, starting from this? 
 But that authority has been taken from the Monarch. In what 
 predicament then is he to resist further encroachment? 
 
 In the last reign, the King had resumed a great portion of his 
 power, internally and externally; in the first case by the balance 
 of the factions, in the second by the knowledge he possessed. The 
 Cabinet was, indeed, for a time superseded, and its members, or 
 at least, the only intellectual member, found himself in that posi- 
 tion of constraint and coercion in which hitherto the Crown had 
 been placed by himself and his predecessors. 
 
 This action of the Crown depended entirely upon the retention 
 of a functionary through w T hom it could communicate with its sub- 
 
 * The speech was delivered on Saturday. The report appeared only on the 
 subsequent Wednesday, in the Daily News, from whence it was copied into 
 the other papers. Persons present state that something in the sense reported 
 was said. An old reporter of the Times newspaper declared it to be his con- 
 viction that the speech, as printed, bears unmistakable evidence of the hand 
 of Lord Palmerston. His words are, "I am as sure it was Lord Palmers- 
 ton's as if I had taken it down from his own lips/ At the dinner Prince Al- 
 bert and Lord Palmerston were seated side by side, without a word being' 
 exchanged. Prince Albert remained mute dining the whole of the dinner, 
 and it was observed that from time to time he cast indignant glances at the 
 Premier. 
 
THE QUEEN AND THE PREMIER. 11 
 
 jects independently of the Minister for the time being — a Private 
 Secretary. 
 
 On the accession of Victoria, the occasion was afforded to the 
 Cabinet for regaining its lost supremacy. Lord Palmeeston com- 
 municated with the head of the opposite faction, the Duke of Wel- 
 linGtTon ; and, he being agreed, the abolition of the office was re- 
 solved on, and carried into effect. Not a syllable was uttered on 
 the subject of this revolution. 
 
 We had then for Sovereign a woman of an age that would dis- 
 qualify her in a private station from managing her own affairs. 
 It might be expected that a Minister now having her entirely in 
 his hands, would be able to fashion her completely to his will. 
 Providence had, however, endowed her with a strong mind, and 
 an industrious disposition. She was gifted with a ready wit, and 
 entertained a high sense of the prerogatives and duties of her 
 station, so as fortunately to combine the best and rare qualities of 
 manhood with the facilities which a chivalrous people will grant 
 to a woman, by lenient judgment, even of errors, and enthusiastic 
 support against even the appearance of oppression. 
 
 Her quality of woman cast, however, another danger in the 
 path of the Minister. In the Consort whom she selected, she 
 would obtain at least one individual not connected with the factions, 
 at once conversant with measures before they were carried into 
 execution, and possessing a larger scope for intercourse with her 
 subjects than she, under any circumstances, could possess. In 
 fact, the Prince Consort had to be admitted to the Privy Council, 
 and could not be excluded from the knowledge, at least, of what 
 was transacted in the Cabinet Council. 
 
 Prince Albert of Coburg was the choice of the Queen, and not 
 the choice of Lord Palmerston. There remain to be considered, 
 his talents, character, information, and interests. 
 
 In point of natural abilities, no one will contest to the Prince a 
 share above the ordinary average. These abilities have been se- 
 dulously cultivated, and the talents and culture of any man whose 
 birth and education connect him with two countries may be con- 
 sidered as doubled. The long and difficult experience he has gone 
 through has left him uncharged with the failings either of rashness 
 or docility. To say this is to establish a claim to a considerable 
 amount of judgment, and we complete the picture by adding in- 
 dustry and versatility. If there be but a meagre aptitude for man- 
 aging men, and if between him and them there lies the bar of a 
 frigid reserve, he is nevertheless prone to pursue trains of thought, 
 and alert to master facts. When we spoke of information, we meant, 
 of course, not general but special — information upon the subject, 
 
L2 Till: QtfEBN AND THE PREMIER. 
 
 not dreamt of at the time of his espousals, nor for many years 
 afterwards, in which is now understood to reside the qualities and 
 the fate of kingship in England — the dealings of the Russian 
 Cabinet. That Prince Albert possessed this" information is not 
 to be supposed; it was to be obtained only by a course of study, 
 or by initiation into crime ; the first he had not undergone,, the 
 second he could not have been subjected to. Had this information 
 been by him possessed, the stream of European history would at 
 this day be running in a smooth current, whilst that of Russia 
 would be dashing over rocks to be lost in sands. Rated, however, 
 by the standard of the statesmen of England, Prince Albert stood 
 high, and impositions which passed with them for policy and pru- 
 dence did not with him pass for sense. Long before the compli- 
 cations in the East arose, he had detected that, in the course pur- 
 sued by the leading man in England, there was more than the 
 reasons of state of a truly British Minister. 
 
 On the occasions when England has been governed by a Queen 
 whose consort belonged to a foreign princely house, or by a 
 Prince who held sway over another realm, w r e had to guard 
 against, as we suffered from, dynastic interests and influences 
 hostile to the state. In this case, no foreign sovereignty apper- 
 tained to the husband of the Queen, and we had neither to appre- 
 hend the ambition of Madrid, the interests of Amsterdam, nor the 
 influence of Hanover. Prince Albert, the younger branch of an 
 insignificant dukedom, husband of England's present sovereign, 
 father of her future kings, could have no interest save that of 
 England. Sovereignty in England does not exist on the condition 
 sovereignty on the Continent. The Crown is here the source of 
 no oppression. Against it are arrayed neither open discontent 
 nor hidden conspiracy. Standing apart, as this island docs, from 
 the counter-leagues of crowns and nations, Prince Albert was not 
 disqualified, as a Councillor of the Crown, by principles any more 
 than by interests. 
 
 As regards Russia, he stood peculiarly free, the House of Co- 
 burg not being one of the patronised of that power, but, on the 
 contrary, the object of its aversion and persecution. .After the 
 events of 1848 it placed itself, on the Eyder, in direct collision 
 with the Court of St. Petersburgh, whence that insight into the 
 sinister course pursued by England above referrd to. 
 
 On these grounds, Prince [Albert was singularly qualified 
 among the Princes of Europe to occupy his present station, and 
 be an aid, a counsel, and a protection to a Queen ruling a great 
 empire in time of danger ; and who, by means of forms to which 
 we are pleased to apply the term constitutional, was circumvented, 
 
THE QUEEN AND THE PREMIER. 13 
 
 secluded, and coerced by the faction in power for the time being, 
 to the extent of being deprived of the faculty possessed by the 
 meanest of her subjects, of asking advice in case of difficulty. 
 For the same reasons was he hateful to Ministers, because inter- 
 fering with their authority — to the particular Minister, because 
 thwarting his designs. 
 
 HISTORIC STRUGGLE BETWEEN MINISTER AND 
 CROWN. 
 
 To the complete mind it must be at once evident, that a nation 
 dissatisfied with its own conduct must be ignorant of its own his- 
 tory, for thought is history no less than fact. It is the story of 
 its "mind that is. told in its events. If the events are displeasing, 
 and yet do occur, it cannot know the reason of them ; not because 
 they are concealed, and in such case they are concealed, but be- 
 cause, being published, they could not be understood. The sup- 
 position of our possessing a history, is the evidence of our incapa- 
 bility of having one. The words written under that title become 
 a direct and active source in regard to the past, of misconception 
 of the present ; if, as De Maistre says, "during the last three 
 centuries history has become a conspiracy against truth," it is also 
 a conspiracy against men, they themselves being the conspirators. 
 We have not read in our history of ourselves that which has been, 
 and have read that which has not been. 
 
 As illustrations, let us select the most signal of those instances 
 which the last three centuries afford, wherein we find combined 
 administrative measures and warlike operations, leaving behind a 
 lesson in dismemberment and debt. We shall first state the case 
 as given by the false history, and then supply the true. 
 
 The American war consisted, according to the first, in an armed 
 resistance of the colonies to two bills enacted by Parliament; it was, 
 therefore, a rebellion against the law. The Government was sup- 
 ported by the majority of the English nation; its cause was the 
 supremacy of Parliament, the integrity of the empire, and the 
 authority of the Crown. The injustice of its acts was the plea 
 adopted by the minority that voted against the tea and stamp 
 acts. To this plea they added another: the design of arming 
 the Crown with a power which should render it independent of 
 the Parliament, and dangerous to the rights and liberties of the 
 people. It was in this sense that Chatham invoked from Heaven 
 success on the arms of the insurgents. This is history as we read 
 it ; in other words, the notions of men for the time. 
 
 The other history tells us that the war was made in furtherance 
 of Ministerial power. This is demonstrated to any one who can 
 reason to a conclusion on two facts which are known: first, that 
 
14 THE QUEEN AND THE PREMIER. 
 
 the united colonies did appeal to the Crown against the Parlia- 
 ment, and that the Minister for the time being was the nominee 
 of the Parliament, not of the Crown. Our loyal colonies have 
 been driven into revolt — the armies of England exposed to defeat 
 — the sweat of the artizan wrung from him in taxes — those splen- 
 did possessions severed from the British Crown — a debt of 100 
 millions imposed on generations unborn — a war provoked with 
 France, ending in the convulsion of that country, and thirty years 
 of general European strife, accumulating upon England near 500 
 millions more, and leaving upon us at this moment the penalty of 
 about twenty millions annual expenditure, only because the Min- 
 isterial feelings were unknown. All this happened because the 
 originating portion of history was suppressed, and its enacting 
 portion alone published. 
 
 This is patent to the complete mind. It is the inference, as 
 immediate as indubitable, from the step taken by the colonies, 
 and the source of the nomination of the Minister. To such a 
 mind, *not a ; word has to be added. But such minds are rare, 
 and when "men are deficient in penetration, they cry for facts ; 
 yet none can be afforded them. The acting powers of nature, — 
 and what is man, even in his most artificial state, but nature's 
 most perfect mechanism? — are always mysteries, and yield their 
 secret only to the powerful compulsion of pains-taking and orderly 
 genius. In such a case as this, concealment is superadded ; it is 
 the very condition by which ends are accomplished : the go- 
 verning system had been already through centuries adapted to 
 this very end, namely, that of concentrating the power of action, 
 and concealing the acting hand, — a process the reverse of which 
 must have been followed with honest dealing, and a system which, 
 being established, argues false dealing in every act. 
 
 But in transactions of such magnitude, calling for so many and 
 such contradictory processes, where difficulties diverse and objec- 
 tions discordant had to be overcome and answered, and where, 
 above all, the agents were secure in the sense of their own power, 
 and the unconsciousness of all around them, it is to be expected 
 that exposures should occur which scrutinising industry might 
 afterwards make its own. Such an instance did arise in the course 
 of these proceedings, and from the very lips of the Minister 
 comes the clearest revelation that words can convey. 
 
 On the 27th of November, 1781, Lord North replied to the 
 taunts of the Opposition, that the object of the Government had 
 been to add to the power and influence of the Crown: — 
 
 Had that been our object, we have thrown away and rejected the opportu- 
 nity. It is not the prerogative of the Crown, but the claims of Parliament, 
 that America has resisted. It was, to preserve the supremacy of Parliament, 
 
THE QUEEN AND THE PREMIER. 15 
 
 and to maintain its just rights and privileges, that we forbore the offer of ad- 
 vancing one branch of the Legislature to the dominion of America, indepen- 
 dent of the other two. 
 
 Take down the cajolery addressed to the assembly around him 
 of the supremacy of Parliament, and put in its place Ms domina- 
 tion of Parliament, because its nominee. Take down the contemp- 
 tuous hoax of a domination for the Crown in America ; and what 
 have you got in this sentence, save the avowal that the war was 
 made by means of a Parliamentary crime, to deprive the Crown 
 of the power of doing justice to its subjects in America, on their 
 appeal. Lord North places the question as between the Crown 
 and the two branches of the Legislature. Had the Lords any 
 thing to do with the Money Bill, which had produced the re- 
 bellion? Could Lord North be mistaken on such a point? 
 Here, then, is artifice, and in this alone the case is proved — 
 artifice in a Minister, successful with the nation — the nation is 
 in his hands. The majority of the House of Commons has 
 made him ; he uses that majority to unmake the Crown. He, 
 the Minister of the Crown, avows that his object is not to increase 
 its power and influence. Whose Minister, then, is he? Can it be 
 Ms object to increase the power of the House of Commons? No; 
 it is his own power and influence; a power and influence to be 
 converted into " dominion," not over America, but over England; 
 over the House of Commons, of which he is the nominee ; over 
 the Crown, of which he is the servant. 
 
 The next great event in our history is equally illustrative of 
 this truth. We refer to the Union of Ireland. 
 
 The false history refers that event to a principle, the principle 
 of centralization. There has passed into it dark suspicion of pro- 
 ceedings by no means to be squared with the maxims or morals 
 which we associate with the word " principle." These suspicions, 
 however, have not startled the vulgar historic muse into deeper 
 conceptions, or availed to prompt its search into hidden causes. 
 The real history shows us, Mr. Pitt, offended by the refusal of 
 the Parliament of Ireland to make him sovereign for the time 
 being, by voting the Eegency Bill, and thereupon vowing ven- 
 geance ; decreeing the extinction of an ancient kingdom, and find- 
 ing in the system of this land for the concealment of ministerial 
 purposes, and in the character of its people for the execution of 
 ministerial decrees, the fitting instruments. 
 
 These attempts were planned and executed directly against 
 bodies never again to interfere with administrative convenience — 
 the United Colonies in the West, and the Kingdom of Ireland, on 
 our shores. They were indirectly made against a Crown and a 
 country severally powerful, as compared with the present, and 
 
16 THE QUEEN AND THE PREMIER. 
 
 triumphed oyer the opposition of an array of Parliamentary gla- 
 diators, to rocal whom is to impersonate, by the contrast, our own 
 littleness. 
 
 During the course of these events, the Minister did, in fact, 
 put down the Parliament, but, then, he existed by the faction in 
 the Parliament: to stand himself, he had to conciliate his sup- 
 porters, and to be in office, to make them triumph over their an- 
 tagonists. But the bolloAv scheme was verging to dissolution; 
 the sinews of faction were relaxed during the ensuing half century, 
 and the body smitten with atrophy. It might be supposed that 
 power would be re-seized from the Minister by those whom he 
 had dispossessed, or slip away by extravasation into some new 
 channel. The Crown or the people might regain their own, or the 
 fourth estate assume the management. 
 
 Supposing, then, the appearance in our day of a man capable 
 of re-planning and re-achieving, under the altered circumstances, 
 the ambition of his predecessors, we shall find him without the ele- 
 ments of their strength, armed with new weapons, and combatting 
 on a new field. He will not be the leader of a faction; he will 
 not bo the arbiter of forensic debate; and yet, what other means by 
 which to achieve supremacy, than privilege or prerogative to em- 
 ploy, prerogative or privilege to assail? A new element had to be 
 created, a new fulcrum had to be found. That element was diplo- 
 macy; that fulcrum, foreign influence. By involving the nation 
 in the secret meshes of negociations abroad — by exposing it to 
 losses and disasters, to the hatreds aroused by perfidious acts, and 
 the dangers resulting from treacherous measures, the Minister 
 could mislead opinion, and then subjugate Parliament, people, and 
 Crown. The embarrassments which secured subserviency at home 
 gave him support abroad. If he could no longer aim at the com- 
 mand of an independent England, yet could he aspire to the ruling 
 of that England as a Russian Viceroy. 
 
 This is what has occurred: not that the plan sprung from the 
 originating genius of the Minister, but from the practised Cabinet, 
 which had therein a world, not an empire alone, to win ; who in 
 England betimes discovered her man, made him her own, succes- 
 sively advanced him in his career, shielded him from all danger, 
 armed him against all accidents, endowed him with all knowledge, 
 and qualified him for all enterprises by the three-fold energies of 
 occasion, ambition, and desperation. 
 
 The history of that man's progress is the history of the world 
 for the last quarter of a century. It is written in crimes, perpe- 
 trated throughout the globe, and may to-day be listened to in the 
 unconscious sighs of millions at home. It is in his triumphant 
 path that the consort of our Queen has been cast, 
 
THE QUEEN AND THE PREMIER. 17 
 
 LORD PALMERSTON AND THE QUEEN. 
 
 That the Parliamentary ladder of Ministerial ambition had been 
 displaced, and a recently constructed one of diplomacy substituted 
 for it; that this ladder was a longer one, and reached to the 
 crowning circle of the constitution ; that the man who had devised 
 and placed it was now making his last strides to its summit, has 
 been shown. 
 
 A Government organ, not long since, gave the people of Eng- 
 and warning: — 
 
 Although Lord Palmerston is no longer in the proud position he held in 
 the latter days of the Coalition, and the earlier ones of the present Ministry, 
 still his name and policy are so intinwtely associated with the dignity of the 
 nation, as involved in the struggle with Russia, that there can be but little 
 doubt as to the result of a general election. 
 
 We all remember the circumstances under which Sir Robert Peel took 
 office towards the close of 1841. Although it was not he who dissolved the 
 Parliament at that epoch, the result was an almost unprecedented majority 
 in his favour. He had carefully abstained from pledging himself to any 
 particular policy, but was generally supposed to favour the prevailing dogmas 
 of the Tories. Lord Palmerston is now, by the greater portion of the pub- 
 lic, believed to be a war Minister, and a sincere hater of Russia. In effect, 
 the Parliament of 1841 was favourable to a species of dictatorship, as the only 
 mode of solving the difficulties of the time, and Sir Robert Peel was the 
 dictator chosen, because he was believed to be the most powerful, sound, and 
 sagacious, as well as the best informed, among the statesmen of his age. 
 
 England requires at the present moment a Minister who shall be practically 
 in the position held by Sir Robert Peel at that epoch. Lord Palmerston 
 might not command a majority so large as that which placed such statesman 
 in the proud postion of dictator of the affairs of his country, but he would at 
 least have a Parliament purged of the factious elements which now impede 
 the wholesome action of legislation and government, and which would dis- 
 charge its functions under the moral control of public opinion. 
 
 This after the French 2nd December ! A coup-d'etat is a sur- 
 prise, it is a thing that can not be mentioned before it is done. 
 The organs of Loos Napoleon did not announce the coming 
 events. 
 
 There remains nothing visible to the eye that can limit the 
 authority, or frustrate the ambition, of the Premier. Yet, if we 
 carry ourselves back but a short space of time, during which the 
 observant eye, philosophical and political, will detect no change in 
 the constitution, we will find him in a position exactly the reverse. 
 Five years ago, Lord Palmerston was" expelled from the Ministry 
 by the direct interposition of the royal prerogative, exerting itself 
 for the first time since the family of Hanover came to the throne 
 to dismiss a Minister. The latent power of the Crown had thus 
 been revived to be exerted against Lord Palmerston, owing its 
 resumption to him, and thus bringing into evidence the fact of a 
 
18 nn; QtrSEN AND THR PREMIER. 
 
 struggle, ii"i between the Sovereign and the Minister, but between 
 the Grown and the man. 
 
 The man thus assailed combined in himself four groat elements 
 of strength; to use the language of the times, he represented four 
 principles, whilst no other man represented anything or possessed 
 anything. The House of Commons he commanded through the 
 first — the battling power; the liberal faction of the nation he had 
 the support of by words written in despatches to foreign countries 
 — the mis-stating power; the aggregate of foreign influences he 
 ruled by the Russian connection, — the acting power; and, lastly, 
 he controlled the whispers, and directed the jibes, of society,— 
 the entertaining power. 
 
 For Queen Victoria to measure herself against so formidable 
 an antagonist, she must have been herself of no ordinary mettle ; 
 she took up her grounds with a circumspection, and urged them 
 with a vivacity, which promised a right royal fight. 
 
 She had, sixteen months before, framed her case, and committed 
 Lord Palmerston to its acceptance, not merely as a fact, but as 
 an engagement, making the Premier of England, and its then 
 supposed most powerful man, a party to the transaction, and a 
 guarantee of the compact. This instrument was the counterpart 
 of the treaty which the Emperor Nicholas sought to extort 
 through Prince Menchikofp from the Sultan ; at once an acknow- 
 ledgement of past fraud, and a bond under penalty to abstain from 
 its repetition for the future. The Sultan rejected the one, Lord 
 Palmerston submitted to the other; out of the rejection and the 
 acceptance have come the actual convulsions and the future dan- 
 ger of Europe. The acceptance of the Sultan would, ipso facto, 
 have made Russia mistress of the East, precisely because the alle- 
 gation was false; the refusal by Lord Palmerston in August, 1850, 
 would, by the counter-process, have averted the present war, by 
 depriving Russia of her instrument in the British Cabinet. 
 
 From the period of the Pacifico affair, Lord Palmerston held 
 the seals of the Foreign Office on the tenure of the acknowledge- 
 ment of fraud practised. 
 
 But he now no longer stood alone. Lord John Russell, in 
 consenting to be a party to an arrangement involving dishonour, 
 became the slave of the man, the burden of whose dishonour he 
 accepted. He lias since then revealed the misgivings of his mind, 
 as any criminal does who makes his confession ; but at the very 
 time that he stood approving of the precautionary measures taken 
 by the Queen against the dishonour and disloyalty of Lord Pal- 
 merston, he was to Parliament and the nation vouching for that 
 honour and that loyalty, not present and prospective only, but 
 retrospective also: the slipshod epigram of "the truly British 
 
THE QUEEN AND THE PREMIER, 19 
 
 Minister" has fixed the incident w the somewhat treacherous 
 memory of the British public. 
 
 This state of things continued during five months of 1850, and 
 eleven months of 1851. The detected man had command of the 
 power of England during sixteen months, to prepare the means of 
 gratifying his vengeance, and working out his schemes against his 
 chief and his Queen, concerting at the same time for England those 
 embarrassments and dangers which would leave her helpless in 
 his hands. There were those who knew all this, and who told it 
 too, and who further said that, even when verified by the result, 
 the explanation would be held as preposterous as the announce- 
 ment. 
 
 On the 2nd of December came the coup-d'etat in France, a 
 measure of Russian reaction as the events of 1848 had been of 
 Russian revolution. jNapoleox had avowed, before he quitted the 
 shores of England to the revolutionists of Europe, that he had the 
 support of Russia to his plans. The fact was asserted in the Times 
 newspaper. The money distributed on the occasion was not even 
 exchanged at the Bank for French com, but bore the effigy and 
 superscription of the Russian Emperor. On the first day sponta- 
 neously burst from the breast of the people of Paris, " this is from 
 St. Petersburg," and a gloomy and menacing mob assembled round 
 the Russian embassy. The moment was critical. Instantly was 
 required from England the expression of her adherence and sup- 
 port, in order to crush the hopes of the liberal and constitutional 
 party, and to counteract the effect of the acknowledged patronage 
 of the usurpation by the despotic powers. The Queen, it was well 
 known, would lend her sanction to no such act, and she had taken 
 measures to prevent her royal name from being used without her 
 sanction by the Minister. What, then, remained for Lord Pal- 
 merstox to do ? He had either to disobey the Emperor of Russia, 
 or to disobey the Queen of England. The first was not in his 
 option, the second was. But to disobey the Queen of England, 
 when it was to obey the Emperor of Russia, could only be by pass- 
 ing by the Crown, acting in the name of the Crown, and so put- 
 ting himself in the place of the Crown. Thus, by one blow, was 
 the royal prerogative usurped in England by a Minister, and a 
 usurper placed on the throne of France. Yet these are but inci- 
 dents in the Emperor of Russia's proposed settlement of Europe. 
 
 It was on this, but after the deed ivas done, that the Queen ex- 
 pelled Lord Palmerstox, compelling Lord Johx Russell to read, 
 in the House of Commons, the compact : so was brought to light 
 a portion of the real history of England. From it we learn that 
 that history consists in a struggle, not between the Minister and 
 the Crown, but between Lord Palmerstox and the Queen, 
 
20 THE QUEEN AND THE PREMIER. 
 
 The Queen's aei was, however, more than a justification, it was 
 an appeal— and to her people; it revealed to that people their 
 sovereign in the hands of a base and desperate man; it revealed, 
 moreover, the character of his colleagues, and those the highest 
 names in the realm, coldly conscious of their Queen's peril, appro- 
 vingly conscious of their colleague's infamy. It revealed, in the 
 Queen, courage and capacity, joined to industry and honour — it 
 revealed her standing alone against the factions by which she was 
 oppressed at home, the perfidious designs to which her country 
 was exposed -abroad, and to the continental doctrines, whether 
 absolutist or revolutionary, severally the instruments of that per- 
 fidy. The revelation came too late for the Minister's triumph; 
 too soon for the people's sense. 
 
 In the ordinary course, we should have been left in the dark 
 as to the incidents of this expulsion ; but here again the Queen 
 interposed to enlighten us; at her command a detailed statement 
 was made by Lord John Russell, in the House of Commons, by 
 which it appears, not only that the approving w T ords and despatches 
 had been sent to Paris without the Queen's sanction or knowledge, 
 but that the Foreign Secretary had not condescended so much as 
 to notice the communications of the Prime Minister or the Queen. 
 The statement of Lord John Russell will be found subjoined. 
 Thus, in the beginning of 1852, Lord Palmerston, in the judg- 
 ment of every political man, was utterly broken, having been igno- 
 miniously expelled by the Crown, sacrificed without an instant's 
 hesitation by his colleagues, and dropped by his party. He was 
 the object of parallel detestation to legitimists and liberals, not in 
 England only, but throughout the world; to the former, by his 
 tamperings with revolution, and his coquettings with Kossuth; to 
 the latter, by his identification with Louis Napoleon. To the 
 public he was a detected impostor; to the Parliamentary courtier, 
 a fallen man; he departed from the public arena, amidst a shout 
 of derision from the rabble, and with a brand of falsehood affixed 
 by the hand of the Queen. 
 
 The catastrophe fell upon Lord Palmerston neither unexpect- 
 edly nor unsought, otherwise he would not have added the per- 
 sonal insult to the infraction of the compact. 
 
 Russia could not venture on the plan now unrolled in the East, 
 without having, in England and in France, men in power on whom 
 she could entirely and absolutely rely, and before whom every 
 faculty of independent thought or action had disappeared; so that 
 no change of administration at home might bring the fleets or 
 armies of either power upon any other point of her territory, save 
 those which she directed. In England we see what never was 
 dreamt of: one man being the Government, and that Government 
 
THE QUEEN AND TPIE PREMIER. 21 
 
 a dictatorship* because there is no one to replace them. Obser- 
 vant experience might have informed us of this connection of cause 
 and effect — that what we are each day, Russia had settled the day 
 before. The problem which Russia had to solve at the close of 
 1851 was, how an Administration without an opposition was to be 
 obtained in England. She did solve it by breaking up the Minis- 
 try of Lord John Russell, to be followed by one of Lord Derby, 
 which, not having a Parliamentary majority, came in by preroga- 
 tive, but was incapable of using prerogative. This opened the 
 way for a coalition, which means prostration of opposition. This 
 is no ex post facto statement: step by step, as the measures were 
 taken by Russia, were they announced in England. 
 
 Lord Palmerston insulted the Queen, to force her to expel him 
 from office. So much of her act was calculated upon and forced; 
 that which was not foreseen was the production of the memoran- 
 dum. His expulsion was with the view of breaking up the Govern- 
 ment ; it was immediately broken up, and by another step of Lord 
 Palmerston's. The first announcement whispered in London of 
 Lord Palmerston's retirement from the Cabinet came from the 
 Russian Ambassador, and through M. Bielee, the Danish Minis- 
 ter, whose name we have now no hesitation in mentioning. On 
 the night of the 14th of December, he learnt from M. Brunow 
 what Lord John Russell would do, but had not decided upon do- 
 ing till the 20th. 
 
 But the publication of the memorandum, and the accompanying 
 declaration of Lord John Russell, that the Foreign Secretary 
 " had passed by the Crown, and put himself in the place of the 
 Crown," had disconcerted the whole plan, by rendering Lord Pal- 
 merston an impossible man in any future Administration; some 
 new device had, therefore, to be adopted to parry the blow. 
 
 THE SUPPRESSED PAMPHLET. 
 
 The Queen was particularly sensitive on the subject of the 
 Prince Consort. The nation would be most easily touched by in- 
 uendoes concerning Coburg and German influences. Without a 
 moment's delay, Lord Palmerston commissioned from Mr. S. 
 Phillips, literary journeyman, a pamphlet for a cheque for £100 
 and a butt of sherry. It is written and printed within eight and 
 forty hours, and the proofs are inclosed to the Queen, with the 
 intimation that the late Foreign Secretary had obtained its sup- 
 pression.* The Queen, in consternation, invites her protector to 
 Windsor; he crosses the threshold of that royal residence master 
 of it and of England. 
 
 * As the story goes, Lord Palmebston paid =£200 to have it suppressed, 
 
22 Till". QUEEN AM) THE PREMIER 
 
 The Administration had fallen because Lord Palmerstor had 
 insulted the Queen, and had been expelled. Lord Derby under- 
 takes to form a new Administration, and the first thing he does is 
 to propose to Lord Palmerston to join it. As to the fact there 
 is no doubt whatever — the explanation is impossible without the 
 knowledge of the foregoing private passages. 
 
 The nail had been driven, but still it had to be clenched. The 
 bolt had to be riveted. This was to be clone by allowing the Queen 
 to remain under no misprision. Light had to be let into the gulf 
 into which she had fallen, that its horrors might be revealed — that 
 she might have no hope. She could be rendered hopeless, and so 
 inert, only by the knowledge of the man. The history of the sup- 
 pressed pamphlet transpired. Thus ceased the struggle between 
 the Queen and Lord Palmerston, the obstacle which stood in his 
 path to supremacy — the Prince Consort — becoming the chain by 
 which he held the Queen. 
 
 The foreknowledge by the Russian Ambassador of what was to 
 happen on the 20th December indicates Russia's part in this do- 
 mestic English arrangement. This knowledge was not confined 
 to diplomatic whispers in London, but published also at Vienna. 
 This fact was brought forward in the House of Commons, as evi- 
 dence of the collusion of the Queen and Lord John Russell with 
 the despotic powers to expel the " truly British Minister.*' Lord 
 John Russell did not dare to expose the perfidy, and has reaped 
 his reward, being broken, as Lord Palmerston has broken every 
 man who has served with him, confided in him, or " lied for him."* 
 The man who produced the Vienna announcement in Parliament 
 on the 3rd of February has also reaped his reward, not in the 
 shape of a cheque or a cask of wine, but in that of a Cabinet post 
 created for him; Sir Benjamin Hall watches over the health of 
 the bodies of the people of England. 
 
 After all, the pamphlet known as the " suppressed " alleges 
 absolutely nothing against Prince Albert, except the false con- 
 struction put on the pre-announcement of Lord Palmerston's dis- 
 missal. It does, however, give details of Cabinet resolves, which 
 must have been communicated to the writer by some Cabinet 
 Minister, in violation of his oath. Yet from it are assumed to be 
 derived the data for that wonderful popular excitation at the be- 
 ginning of the session of 1854, when the tapsters throughout Eng- 
 land were anxiously inquiring when Prince Albert would be sent 
 i" the Tower, and be executed for high treason. 
 
 One word, h on the case, as hereafter it will come before 
 
 judicial history, if such tribunal be ever created — -judicial history, 
 
 * Words of Lord Derby hi 1840. 
 
THE QUEEN AND THE PREMIER. 23 
 
 rating men. not by their compeers, but by their duties ; and events 
 by that which has been neglected, no less than by that which has 
 been achieved. Against that period of deliberation, the present 
 one of activity lays by this wonderful lesson, indited as maxim by 
 the man who has justified it in practice : in nature there is no 
 
 RULING POWER BUT MIND ; ALL ELSE IS PASSIVE AND INERT. It is 
 
 not the human faculties in their essence that are here implied, but 
 in their result, which is the consequence of their action — the ac- 
 curate judgment of surrounding things, or the knowledge of these. 
 
 Lord Palmerston is not a conqueror, is not a hereditary prince ; 
 he is the leader of no powerful class, the chief of no faction, and 
 he has no army ; he is simply possessed of that which his antago- 
 nist lacks, knowledge. That antagonist, by position, did not re- 
 quire even dexterity. No single step of Lord Palmerston could 
 have been so much as dared, had the Queen or her Consort have 
 understood its purpose. The dangers which menace, therefore, 
 the Crown, flow directly from the ignorance of its wearer ; these 
 dangers menace equally the State, and are to it equally the just 
 penalty of the like crime. The State has formed and disciplined 
 no men to whom it might confide in trying conclusions with a power 
 which had painfully performed for itself that duty, and yet would 
 try conclusions with that power — its master before the contest 
 even commenced— a contest which this state carries on by physi- 
 cal efforts, directed against the body of its foe, which is carried 
 on against it by a mental process directed against its understanding, 
 
 Some time ago it was asked, "What will the Emperor of Russia 
 do ?" as if the fate of the world depended on his power. Then it 
 was asked, "What will the Emperor of the French do?" as if every 
 thing depended on his will. But the question upon which all things 
 did depend was never asked— What does the Queen of England 
 know? 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 Opinion is stronger than armies.— Lord Palmerston. 
 
 Wisdom is better than weapons of war, but one sinner destroycth much good.— Solo- 
 mon. 
 
 LORD JOHN RUSSELL, FEB. 3, 1852. 
 
 Before I enter into those points, it is as well that I should state what I con- 
 ceive to be the position which a Secretary of State holds as regards the 
 Crown in the administration of foreign affairs, and as regards the Prime 
 Minister of this country. With respect to the hrst, I should state that when 
 the Crown, in consequence of a vote of the House of Commons, places its 
 constitutional confidence in a Minister, that Minister is, on the other hand, 
 bound to the Crown to the most frank and full detail of every measure that 
 is taken, and is bound either to give a special case (as we understood), or to 
 leave to the Crown its full liberty — a liberty which the Crown must possess — 
 of saying that the Minister no longer possesses its confidence. Such I hold 
 to be the general doctrine. But as regards the noble lord, it did so happen 
 that in August, 1850, the precise terms were laid down in a communication 
 on the part of her Majesty with respect to the transaction of business between 
 the Crown and the Secretary of State. I became the organ of making that 
 communication to my noble friend, and thus became responsible for the docu- 
 ment I am about to read from. I shall refer only to that part of the docu- 
 ment which has reference to the immediate subject: — 
 
 The Queen requires, first, that Lord Tat^ierston will distinctly state what he pro- 
 poses to do in a given case, in order that the Queen may know as distinctly to what she 
 is giving her royal sanction. Secondly, having once given her sanction to a measure, 
 that it be not arbitrarily altered or modified by the Minister. Such an act she must 
 consider as failing in sincerity towards the Crown, and justly to be visited by the exer- 
 cise of her constitutional right of dismissing that Minister. She expects to be kept in- 
 formed of what passes between him and the foreign Ministers before important decisions 
 are taken, based upon intercourse ; to receive the foreign despatches in good time ; and 
 to have the draft for her approval sent to her in sufficient time to make herself acquainted 
 with their contents before they must be sent off. The Queen thinks it best that Lord 
 Jojix Russell should show this letter to Lord Palmerston. 
 
 I sent that accordingly, and received a letter in which the noble lord said,— 
 " I have taken a copy of this memorandum of the Queen, and will not fail to 
 ;i t tend to the directions it contains. " * * * * When the noble lord was 
 first appointed Secretary for Foreign Affairs, lie was placed under Lord Grey, 
 a statesman of age and experience, to whom my noble friend, then young in 
 that office, would readily listen. When Lord Melbourne was at the head of 
 the government, Lord Melbourne's long intimacy and connexion with my noble 
 friend, would give him also influence with my noble friend. Without either 
 of those advantages I certainly have found from time to time that relations 
 like those were difficult to acquire. Sometimes I felt great responsibility. 
 I will now refer to events which occurred in the autumn of last year. There 
 WM a meeting of the cabinet on the 3rd of November, and I happened to 
 
THE QUEEN AND THE PREMIEK. 25 
 
 have my memory move impressed with what I stated on that occasion, having 
 in that instance only taken a note of what my own statements were. * * I 
 stated that, in my own opinion, in this critical situation of affairs, it was the 
 interest of England to observe a strict neutrality. I said that we ought to 
 guard most especially against any just cause of offence to France — that we 
 ought to exert the utmost vigilance in order to prevent any such cause of 
 offence. I think my colleagues generally, and my noble friend in particular, 
 entirely concurred in that opinion. No resolution was come to by the cabinet 
 on the subject, but there was a general understanding as to the desirableness 
 of adopting such a course. Now, it happened, as I think, very unfortunately, 
 a very short time after the events of the 21st of December had taken place, 
 that my noble friend had received at the Foreign-Office deputations from 
 certain districts of the metropolis presenting to him addresses containing 
 terns of a most offensive nature to the Sovereigns of Europe. I was fully 
 persuaded at the time, and I am still fully persuaded, in that respect — that 
 although he had not taken the precaution of seeing those addresses at the 
 time they were presented to him, and although he had not taken the further 
 precaution when the deputations came into his room at the Foreign-Office 
 of taking care that his words were duly and accurately reported, yet I was 
 entirely persuaded that my noble friend had fallen into an error that day, 
 wholly from oversight arising from the quantity of business with which he 
 had to deal. I was persuaded, likewise, that there were great misrepresen- 
 tations with respect to the words which my noble friend used in reply to those 
 addresses. I was ready, therefore, and I declared it at once to adopt with 
 my noble friend the whole responsibility of his conduct on that occasion, 
 although I could not forbear seeing that an error had been committed. I did 
 hope that after that my noble friend would have treated me with that fairness 
 to which I think I was entitled ; and that he would take no important step — 
 that he would make no important communication to foreign ministers, with- 
 out giving me information, — without enabling me to give an opinion upon any 
 step taken, — in short, without that full and complete communication to which 
 Sir Robert Peel alluded. The next transaction which occurred is that from 
 winch the whole of this unfortunate circumstance has arisen. It has relation 
 to the events which took place in France on the 2nd of December Last. On 
 the 3rd of December a despatch was received from the Marquis of Noemanbt, 
 containing a question as to the diplomatic relations which were to be maintained 
 by Mm with the government of the President of France. A meeting of the 
 Cabinet was held on the subject, and there existed a generally prevailing- 
 opinion among its members that the government of this country had nothing 
 more to do than to abstain from any interference whatever with the internal 
 affairs of France. My noble friend correctly represented the views of the 
 government in this respect in the following despatch: — 
 
 Foreign Office, Dec. 5, 1851; 
 My Lord, — I have received and laid before the Queen your Excellency's despatch, 
 Xo. 365, of the 3rd inst.; requesting to be furnished with instructions for your guidance 
 in the present state of affairs in France. I am commanded by her Majesty to instruct 
 your Excellency to make no change in your relations with the French Government. 
 It is her Majesty's desire that nothing should be done by her Ambassador at Paris which 
 would wear the appearance of an interference of any kind with the internal affairs of 
 France. I am, &c, Palmerstox. 
 
 There was this solemn and formal decision of her Majesty's Government, ap- 
 proved of by the Queen, communicated to her Ambassador at Paris, and, as I 
 conceive, pointing out to him the line of conduct which was to be pursued by 
 the English Government, whether here or at Paris. It was sent to her Ma- 
 iesty on the 4th, it came back on the 5th, and was then sent to Paris. A few 
 
26 THE QUBEH AM) Tlli; l'K BMLEft. 
 
 afterwards, among the despatches from the Foreign Office which came 
 to inv hands, there was one from the Marquis of Normanby to Viscount 
 Palmebstow, dated December 6th, 1861, and which was received December 
 
 8th. [The despatch follows.] 
 
 My Lord,— I this morning received your lordship's despatch, No. 600, of yesterday's 
 date, and 1 afterwards called on M. Tukgot, and informed him that I had received her 
 Majesty "- commands to say that I need make no change in my relations with the French 
 rnraent in consequence of what had passed. I added, tliat, if there had been some 
 little delay in making this communication, it arose from material circumstances not con- 
 nected with any doubt on the subject. M. Turgot said that delay had been of less 
 importance, as he had two days since heard from M. Walewski that your lordship had 
 expressed to him your entire approbation of the act of the President, and your conviction 
 that he could not have acted otherwise than he had done. I said I had no knowledge 
 of any such communication, and no instructions beyond our invariable rule, to do 
 nothing which should have the appearance of interfering in any way in the internal 
 affairs ol France; but that I had often had an opportunity of showing, under very varied 
 circumstances, that, whatever might be the Government here, 1 attached the utmost im- 
 portance to maintaining the most amicable relations between the two countries. I add- 
 ed that I was sure, had the Government known of the suppression of the insurrection of 
 the rogues at the time 1 had heard from them, 1 should have been commanded to add 
 their congratulations to mine. I have thought it necessary to mention what was stated 
 about M, Walewski's despatch, because two of my colleagues here have mentioned to 
 me that a despatch containing expressions precisely to that effect had been read to them 
 in order to show the decided opinion which England had pronounced. 
 
 I have, &c, " Noumanby. 
 
 Now, I own that it did not appear to me that any serious difficulty would 
 arise from that despatch. I wrote to my noble friend to ask an explana- 
 tion of it, which I felt convinced he would be able to give, and that, with- 
 out denying what had been stated with regard to the communication made 
 by a foreign ambassador to M. Turgot, my noble friend would have ex- 
 plained that he had done nothing more than stated to M. Walewski what 
 appeared to him to be, on the whole, the best for the interestsof France ; 
 and not that Lord Nobmanby was the less to be guided by the instruc- 
 tions which were forwarded to him by his Government, or that he was to 
 rest entirely upon information derived from other sources; but that in all 
 his communications w T ith the representatives of the various governments of 
 Europe at Paris he was to let it be understood that the government of Eng- 
 land expressed no opinion with regard to the internal affairs of France. I own 
 that appears to me the only wise and the only safe course that could have been 
 adopted. However, I heard nothing — I received no information from the 
 Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as to the meaning of this declaration 
 at Paris that England had pronounced in favour of the act of the President. 
 Let rtfe here say what is the view I take of this case. If England were to 
 allow her Foreign Secretary to pronounce an opinion of that kind, it could no 
 longer be said that she had no interference with the internal affairs of France, 
 for, in pronouncing such an opinion by her Secretary for Foreign Affairs, a 
 moral support, a moral sanction, and a moral influence would be given and 
 exercised in favour of the course which had been taken by the President. 
 Not having received any communication from my noble friend of any kind, 
 but being at Woburn Abbey on the 13th of December, a messenger arrived, 
 bringing to me a communication from her Majesty, making inquiries concern- 
 ing the said despatch of December 6th, and asking for an explanation. The 
 next morning (the 14th) I sent a messenger to the noble lord, and my com- 
 munication niiist have arrived in London at an early hour, but I received no 
 answer from the noble lord on that day; on the 15th I received no answer 
 >ver, On the 16th I wrote a note, by the early post, to the noble lord, 
 I.))' opinion that silence was not respectful to her Majesty, and 
 
THE QUEEN AND THE PREMIER. 27 
 
 asking for a reply. However, neither on the 15th nor yet on the 16th did any 
 communication reach me, but the same disdainful silence was observed. The 
 inquiry of the Queen as to the meaning of the alleged conversation between 
 her Foreign Secretary and the ambassador of a foreign country, was left en- 
 tirely unnoticed. But on the morning of the 17th I received copies of two 
 despatches, one from the Marquis of Normanby to Lord Palmerston, and 
 the other from Lord Palmerston to the Marquis of Normanby. The former 
 despatch was in the following terms : — 
 
 Paris, Dec 15th, 1851. 
 My Lord, — In my despatch, No. 372, of the 6th instant, notifying my communication 
 of my instructions to M. Turgot, I reported that his excellency had mentioned that M. 
 Walewski had written a despatch in which he stated that your lordship had expressed 
 your complete approbation of the course taken by the President, in the recent coup d'etat. 
 I also reported that I had conveyed to M. Turgot my belief that there must be some 
 mistake in this statement, and my reasons for that belief. But, as a week has now 
 elapsed without any explanation from your lordship on this point, I must conclude M. 
 Walewshs report to have been substantially correct. That being the case, I am per- 
 fectly aware that it is beyond the sphere of my present duties to make any remark up- 
 on the acts of your lordship, except inasmuch as they affect my own position. But 
 within these limits I must, with due deference, be permitted to observe that, if your 
 lordship, as Foreign Minister, holds one language on such a delicate point in Downing- 
 street, without giving me any intimation you had done so — prescribing afterwards a 
 different course to me, namely, the avoidance of any appearance of interference of any 
 kind in the internal affairs of France — I am placed in a very awkward position. If the 
 language held in Downing-street is more favourable to the existing order of things in 
 France than the instructions on which I am directed to guide myself on the spot, it 
 must be obvious that by that act of your lordship's I become subject to misrepresenta- 
 tion and suspicion in merely doing my duty according to the official orders received 
 through your lordship from her Majesty. All this is of more importance to me, because, 
 as I stated before, several of my diplomatic colleagues had had the dispatch read to them, 
 and had derived from it the conviction that, if accurately reported, your expressions had 
 been those of unqualified satisfaction. 
 
 I have, &c, NormAjSTBy. 
 
 Xow, although no answer had been given to me, and although I was unable 
 to satisfy the inquiries which were made by the Sovereign, it appears that 
 Lord Palmerston, on the 16th, the day on which this despatch was received, 
 wrote, on his own authority, a despatch ivhich ivas sent to our ambassador at 
 Paris, but which had not received the sanction of far Majesty, [The des- 
 patch follows.] 
 
 Foreign Office, Dec. 16th, 1851, 
 My Lord, — I have received your Excellency's despatch, No. 406, of the 15th, referring 
 to the statement made to you by the French Minister for Foreign Affairs on the occasion 
 of your communicating to his Excellency the instructions with which you have been 
 furnished by her Majesty's Government for your guidance in the present state of affairs 
 in France ; and I have to state to your Excellency that there has been nothing in the 
 language which I have held, nor in the opinions which I have at any time expressed, on 
 the recent events in France, which has been in any way inconsistent with the instruc- 
 tions addressed to your Excellency — to abstain from anything which cordd bear the ap- 
 pearance of any interference in the internal affairs of France. The instructions contained 
 in my despatch, No. 600, of the 5th, to which your Excellency refers, were sent to you, 
 not in reply to a question as to what opinion your Excellency should express, but in re- 
 ply to a question which I understood to be, whether your Excellency should continue 
 your usual diplomatic relations with the President during the interval which was to 
 elapse between the date of your Excellency's despatch, No. 365, of the 3rd, and the vo- 
 ting by the French nation on the question to be proposed to them by the President. As 
 to approving or condemning the step taken by the President in dissolving the Assembly, 
 I conceive it is for the French nation, and not for the British Secretary of State, or for 
 the British Ambassador, to pronounce judgment upon that event; but if your Excellency 
 wishes to know my own opinion on the change which has taken place in France, it is 
 that such a state cf antagonism had arisen between the President and the Assembly, that 
 it was becoming every day more clear that their co-existence cordd not be of long dura- 
 
28 the qi i:i;n am; thh premise. 
 
 tion, and U seemed to me better for the interests of France, and through them for the In- 
 terests oi the rest of Europe, that the power of the President should prevail, inasmuch 
 a-- the continuance of his authority might afford a prospect of the maintenance of social 
 order in France; -whereas the division of opinions and parties in the Assembly appeared 
 to betoken that their victory over the President would be the starting point for disastrous 
 civil strife. Whether my opinion "was right or wrong, it seems to be shared by persons 
 interested in property in France, as far at least as the great and sudden rise in the funds 
 and other investments may be assumed to be indications of increasing contidence in the 
 improved prospect of internal tranquillity in France. 
 
 I am, &c., Palmerston. 
 
 Now, it appeared to me that that despatch, in the first place, was not 
 written in the usual style of my noble friend; it was written in a style 
 very unlike his usual force and correctness. However, that despatch alto- 
 gether avoided the real question which was at issue. Lord Nokmanby 
 asked, and was entitled to ask, " Have you, Lord Palmerston, expressed 
 your entire approbation of the act of the President on the 2nd December, and, 
 if so, am I to guide myself by that opinion, or am I to act according- to the 
 letter of the 5th December?" To that question no answer whatever was 
 given ; neither is there in that despatch a, reference to the opinion which the 
 government had given, nor was the opinion expressed sanctioned by the 
 Crown. But the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs put himself in the 
 place of the Crown; he neglected and passed by the Crown, in order to give 
 his own opinion of the state of affairs in Paris. * * * The act of the 
 President was not merely that of dissolving the Assembly. It was an act 
 which, in the first place, dissolved the Assembly, and put an end to the exist- 
 ing constitution : it was an act which, in the next place, anticipated the elec- 
 tions of 1852, which were to take place according to that constitution, but 
 with respect to which great apprehensions had been entertained. In the third 
 place, it was an act putting an end to Parliamentary government in France — 
 an act which, together with Parliamentary government, suspended the right 
 of freedom of speech and the freedom of the press, which are considered the 
 usual accompaniments of Parliamentary government. I am not going to en- 
 ter into any dispute whether that was a fit thing to be done ; that was entirely 
 a question for the French people to decide. But with respect to our position, 
 it was to be remembered that, during the existence of the present administra- 
 tion, with my noble friend as its organ, we have given the moral support and 
 the moral sympathy of England to constitutional government. We have done 
 so in Spain, we have done so in Portugal, we have done so in Piedmont; and 
 none was more ready than my noble friend to impart that moral influence. 
 But if Ave were at once to side with a deviation from constitutional govern- 
 ment, and to give our sanction to the act of the President of France, how can 
 we tell any other country that we advise them to continue Parliamentary go- 
 vernment? It therefore appeared to me a departure, a signal and wide de- 
 parture, from the policy which my noble friend had specially advocated. 
 When this took place, — when, as I conceived, the authority of the Queen had 
 been set aside, — it appeared to me that I had no other course than to inform 
 my noble friend that he, while I held office, could no longer hold the seals as 
 Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Later in the day, and after I had formed that 
 resolution, I received a long letter from my noble friend, stating the reasons 
 why he approved of the act of the President of France. But it .appeared to 
 me that those reasons no longer touched the case; because the real question 
 now was, whether the Secretary of State was entitled, of his own authority, 
 to write a despatch, as the organ of the Queen's government, in which his 
 colleagues had never concurred, and to which the Queen had never given her 
 royal sanction. It appeared to me that, without degrading the Oroicn, I 
 would not advise her Majesty to retain that Minister in the Foreign Depart- 
 
THE QUEEN AND THE PREMIER, 29 
 
 ment of her government. I at the same time informed her Majesty of the 
 correspondence that had gone on between Lord Palmer ston and myself, 
 with respect to her Majesty. That was on Wednesday, I think, and I waited 
 till Saturday, in order to consider and re-consider the matter before I fairly 
 submitted the correspondence to the Crown. I think, on Thursday, I in- 
 formed my noble friend that I would be at home (as we understood), thinking 
 he might propose some course ivhereby a separation might be avoided, but 
 nothing of the kind took place, and I, being- as fully convinced then as I had 
 been of what I should do, wrote on Saturday, the 20th, to her Majesty, con- 
 veying the correspondence that had passed between my noble friend and my- 
 self, and shortly intimating my advice to her Majesty that Lord Palmerston 
 should be required to give up the seals of the Foreign Office. Sir, in coming 
 to a decision so painful — in coming* to the decision that I must separate from 
 a colleague with whom I had acted so long, whose abilities I had admired, 
 and in whose policy I had agreed — I felt, whether rightly or wrongly it is not 
 for me now to say, I was bound to take that decision alone — to consult none 
 of my colleagues, to avoid anything which might hereafter have the appearance 
 of a cabal, but to assume the sole and entire responsibility on myself. With 
 respect, therefore, to the stories which my honourable friend has quoted from 
 a Breslau paper, as regards a letter written in Vienna, I can assure him that, 
 however curious the coincidence of that letter may be, there is no truth what- 
 ever in the stories that there was an attempt to establish fairer terms and 
 more intimate relations with the court of Austria, and that the affair was en- 
 tirely founded on the correspondence I have stated, and on the motives I have 
 laid before the House. 
 
 LORD PALMERSTON'S REPLY. 
 
 " Such was the antagonism arising from time to time between the French 
 Assembly and the President, that their long co-existence became impossi- 
 ble ; and it was my opinion that, if one or the other were to prevail, it 
 would be better for France, and, through the interests of France, better 
 for the interests of Europe, that the President should prevail than the 
 Assembly ; and my reason was, that the Assembly had nothing to offer for 
 the substitution of the President, unless an alternative ending obviously 
 in civil war or anarchy; whereas the President, on the other hand, had 
 to offer unity of purpose and unity of authority, and, if he were inclined to 
 do so, might give to France internal tranquillity, with good and permanent 
 government.* " 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE SUPPRESSED PAMPHLET ENTITLED, 
 "PALMERSTON: WHAT HAS HE DONE?" 
 
 I venture, my lord, (Lord J. Russell) to dwell upon this point, because 
 when I first asked, " What has been done ?" the answer I immediately received 
 from an organ which took upon itself to speak in your name, was, without 
 any circumlocution, " He has offended the foreign courts." I grant that the 
 same authority gave, in a day or two, another and a very different account of 
 the matter : and to that T shall not fail to refer ; but I cannot forget that the 
 first authoritative and most striking explanation given to the people of England 
 of the sudden expulsion of Lord Palmerston was, that his persistence in a po- 
 licy which carried the hearty approval and fervent blessings of millions of his 
 
 * On the 7th of August, 1855, Lord Palmerston said, " Indeed, upon this great ques- 
 tion, the two Governments (France and England) may be said to form one cabinet, some 
 of the members of which are sitting in London and some in Paris." 
 
30 rnr (,hi:i:.\ and the premier. 
 
 fellow-countrymen had finally disrated certain foreign statesmen persisting 
 in a policy which their fellow-countrymen as cordially detested and abhorred. 
 Th:i; there was colour Tor the accusation, who can for a moment doubt? 
 ( Vi i.iinh no( you, my lord., who, scarcely a Iwclvcnionili since, in your trium- 
 ].hai:i vindication of the minister whom von have since ignobly given up, 
 daunted Lord Lberdeen with nAtering imputations and making attacks upon 
 yotrr Government, "being prompted/' as you believed, " by foreigners and 
 other persons with whom lie had been in communication."* Certainly not 
 you. my lord, who, on the same occasion, were vigilant enough to discern, 
 though your actttenesfl lias signally failed you since, "that there bad lately 
 exhibited itself in this country a tendency to deprecate English objects, and 
 to give credence to communications which come from one knows not where, 
 but from foreign powers— sometimes the most incredible stories; sometimes 
 diplomatic transactions, which ought to be kept secret — communications in- 
 sinuating' charges against the Government, and having a most unfortunate 
 effect. "f Instructed by your lordship in the month of June, 1850, and fur- 
 ther advised by your accredited organ in December, 1851, that foreign influ- 
 ence lias been struggling, beyond these realms and actively within "them, to 
 shake a British minister from his eminence, we have no choice, in the absence 
 of other evidence, but to conclude that the conspiracy has bad effect; and that. 
 to the great damage of freedom all over the world, the longed-for sacrifice 
 has been extorted, which, in my heart, I believe, my lord, you, hereafter in 
 your retirement, will be among the loudest to deplore. Exultant, we know, 
 has been the yell of triumph abroad upon the success of the long-sustained 
 machinations. But when tyrants meet to drink long life to oppression, is that 
 a time when a Russell should fill his glass to the brim? Remember, my lord, 
 had your whole ministry been dismissed, and Lord Palmerston remained, 
 there would have been no merry-making among- the despots. * * Did you, 
 I ask, when, of your own mere motion, you called upon Lord Palmer st on 
 summarily to resign, because he had disgraced his office by collusion with the 
 President of France, feel, as we must feel, that, by the perpetration of his 
 folly, Lord Palmerston had shown himself utterly unworthy the further con- 
 fidence of the people and of the Crown ? My lord, you felt no such thing*. 
 How could you feel it, when you knew that there was no ground whatever for 
 the whole ridiculous accusation, and that the sole object to be effected was not 
 the downfall of Lord Palmerston, but his removal simply from the Foreign 
 Office? What Mill the people of England, my lord, think of you and of the 
 whole transaction, of the means taken for ejecting a popular minister from an 
 important post, of the intrigues secretly at work in England and abroad for 
 depriving England of a foreign minister devoted to no family interests, but 
 eager solely for his country's welfare, and for the maintenance of freedom, 
 wheresoever his strong hand might be capable of upholding it? Did you dis- 
 miss Lord Palmerston for the grave and unpardonable offence which the 
 Times brings against him, and did you immediately afterwards offer the dis- 
 graced minister the Vice-royalty of Ireland, or any other appointment upon 
 which he might chance to fix his affection? If you say, " No!" there is an end 
 of my argument. But if, as you unquestionably will, you answer, "Yes!" I 
 tell you then, my lord, that the people of England will have arrived, by your 
 own confession, at a solution of the whole difficulty. It will require no great 
 acuteness to discover that Lord Palmerston has been removed, not because 
 he has dishonoured his office, but clearly because a more convenient tool is 
 
 * Lord John Russet. r/s Speech on Foreign Policv, June, 1850. 
 f Ibid. 
 
THE QUEEN AND THE PREMIER, 31 
 
 required to conduct the foreign affairs of England at this moment with the 
 crowned heads of Europe ; and it may he, my lord, you have found one. It 
 is with the deepest reluctance and pain that I call yonr lordship's recollection 
 to a remark ahle letter which was published in the public prints about a month 
 ago — to which letter the especial attention of yonr friends was, at the time of 
 its appearance, earnestly directed, but of which no notice whatever has been 
 taken, either by you or them, up to the moment at which I write. That let- 
 ter was written from Vienna, and was dated December 23rd — mark, my lord, 
 the 23rd — the very day after you announced the dismissal of the Foreign Se- 
 cretarv, and a week before the news of his downfall could have travelled to 
 Austria. It ran as follows: — " Eumours are current here of negotiations said 
 to have been engaged in by high personages in England with our Court, with- 
 out the knowledge of Lord Palmerston. Their object is said to be a rap- 
 prochement between the two Courts, and the retirement of the noble lord from 
 office is announced as certain to happen soon. The first index of this rap- 
 prochement has been the admission of Lord Westmoreland to an audience, 
 and his imitation to dinner by the Emperor." As the result plainly shows, 
 the rumours current in Vienna were only too well founded. The ink was 
 forming the words abroad [while you were humbly acting in their spirit at 
 home. Since contradiction of the astounding intelligence has been invited, 
 and has not been given, and since we are driven to look where we can for a 
 reason of your sudden desertion of the man whom no consideration could in- 
 duce you to to give up a year ago, what is the sickening conclusion at which 
 every Englishman must arrive as he reads the pregnant words which I have 
 quoted ? Who, my lord, are the " high personages in England," who have 
 corresponded with foreign courts, " without the knowledge of Lord Palmer- 
 ston ?" What personage, however high, dares to usurp the authority of a 
 Minister of State, and, behind his back, to traffic with foreigners, not only 
 against Ins political existence, but against the dignity, the honour, the inde- 
 pendence of this free country ? I assured you, my lord, at starting, that, in 
 asking you the cause of Lord Palmeeston's unexpected retirement, I had a 
 nobler object in view than the mere vindication of his personal honour. The 
 character of Lord Palmerston is as nothing in comparison with the good 
 name of the " high personages" here bespattered with calumny ; and even the 
 good name of the highest sinks into insignificance beside the grand and para- 
 mount interests of our hitherto unshackled nation. If, my lord, as it now too 
 plainly appears, that not Napoleon's coup d'etat, but your own anxiety to 
 adapt the foreign policy of England to the views of certain foreign princes, 
 has led directly to the calamitous dismissal of Lord Palmerston, you need 
 no additional pang to increase the remorse winch your inconsiderate act must 
 inevitably occasion you. But if, in working the downfall of your colleague, 
 you have not scrupled to employ the names of personages which have hitherto 
 been kept sacred from the turmoil of political agitation, and which can never 
 be appealed to or misused without shaking the whole fabric of the state to its 
 foundations, you have done more to injure the Crown of England, which you 
 have sworn to keep from tarnish, than the sternest demagogue that ever vowed, 
 in his madness, to cut the monarchy from its moorings ; — if, by renouncing 
 Lord Palmerston, and availing yourself, on the instant, of the services of 
 Lord Granville, you have given rise in the hearts of Englishmen to the 
 faintest suspicion that unauthorised hands are dealing with the public interests 
 — that undue influences have been brought to bear upon the nation's policy — 
 that family considerations have been suffered to assume the place of imperial 
 necessities, — you will have touched the national sensibilities in the very ten- 
 derest point, and awakened a jealousy that, once aroused, will be slow again 
 
32 THE QUEEN AND TIIR PREMIER. 
 
 to slumber. From personal interference with their public concerns the peo- 
 ple of this country shrink with fatal alarm. Slow to suspect, they will take 
 no evidence of culpability which is not unimpeachable. .But, conviction once 
 satisfied, you may hope, my lord, as readily to stop the tide that washes these 
 shores as to place barriers against their determination to punish the unwar- 
 rantable and unpardonable usurpation of their most cherished rights. I dare 
 not trust myself to pursue this theme. Loyal to my Queen, I would lose my 
 right arm rather than ruffle by a breath the chivalrie popularity she has won 
 from her people, or impair the strong- hold she boasts on their devoted affec- 
 tions. But popularity may be shaken by ministers unfaithful to their duty, 
 and love may be sullied if the just consequences of treachery are hastily trans- 
 ferred from the guilty to the innocent. In your place in Parliament, my lord, 
 I call upon you solemnly to deny that " high personages" have corresponded 
 with foreign potentates, with* view to the overthrow of Lord Palmerston ; 
 and, in the name of my country, I bid you also assert in open day that, neither 
 in your own name, nor in that of your superiors, correspondence with foreign 
 princes has taken place without the knowledge of Lord Palmerston, while 
 that nobleman still held the seals of office. If the denial be made, your fellow- 
 subjects will undoubtedly believe — but as certainly not till then — that Lord 
 Palmerston was not ejected to make room for Lord Granville, and that 
 Lord Granville did not receive his appointment mainly — to borrow once 
 more from the Vienna letter — " that England might return to the continental 
 policy, which does not mean the institution of a military government repug- 
 nant'to the habits and tastes of the English, but her adhesion to the counter- 
 rev olut ionary system . " 
 

 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 
 
 021 953 728 1