Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

sented him with addresses in which the Emperors of Austria and Russia were spoken of as 'odious and detestable assassins.'

The Queen at once expressed to Lord John her grave annoyance at Lord Palmerston's conduct, and Lord John, on receiving her letter, wrote to Lord Palmerston, who replied

CARLTON GARDENS, November 28, 1851.

MY DEAR JOHN RUSSELL,-I am exceedingly sorry that the Queen should have been annoyed at what took place the other day about the presentation of addresses of thanks to me from Finsbury and Islington. . . . But the fact simply was that, having received a letter asking me when those addresses could be presented to me, I told my private secretary to say in reply that I would see the deputation . . . and I do not well see how I could have refused to do so. . . . My interview with them could not have lasted ten minutes; and in the conversation which took place I said nothing which I have not said before in the House of Commons and elsewhere, except an observation upon the doctrine propounded at some of the late meetings by Kossuth and Cobden that there ought to be no secrecy in diplomatic negotiations. Those expressions in these addresses which were offensive to the Austrian Government I of course repudiated at once. If I had been as much in the habit of receiving deputations as you and Charles Wood are, I should probably have stipulated, when they entered my room, that our interview should not be manufactured into a commodity to be sold to the newspapers. But it seems that a trading penny-a-liner came in as a member of the deputation; and, as the price of his commodity would depend upon the number of lines which it would contain, he swelled it out into proportions incommensurate with the reality; and, as he wrote from memory, not content with making me repeat the same things many times over, he put words into my mouth about the nationality of countries which were nonsense. .-Yours sincerely, PALMERSTON.

Lord John forwarded this explanation to the Queen, and wrote to Lord Palmerston

PEMBROKE LODGE, November 29, 1851.

MY DEAR PALMERSTON,-I have sent your letter on the Islington deputation to the Queen, as the best account that could be given of the matter. ... My own opinion is that, if, as you say, you

had been as much used to deputations as C. Wood and I, you would have asked to see the addresses; and, if they were objectionable, not have received the deputation; and secondly, if you had received it, you would have had a shorthand writer in the room-a precaution I am frequently obliged to take, especially in the case of metropolitan parishes. Having said this, I must express my disgust at the false colour which has been put upon the whole affair in newspaper articles. Nothing seems too gross for these unscrupulous writers. Now for the moral. Seeing the persevering enmity which the foreign policy of the Government excites, and the displeasure with which it is viewed in high quarters, I think it behoves you to guard most carefully against misapprehensions as well as misrepresentations. I think you owe this to me and to your other colleagues, who have stood by you in defence of the course which has been pursued in regard to our foreign relations. I think you owe it to the country, which in these difficult times ought not to be exposed, in case of a rupture, to encounter unnecessary odium from the Governments that be. I trust, therefore, without swerving an inch from our policy, you will avoid as much as possible giving cause for irritation and hostility. I remain, yours very truly, J. RUSSELL.

The Ministers present, so

Five days later, by the Queen's desire, the correspondence was brought before the Cabinet. Lord John informed the Queen, regretted that

Lord Palmerston had not taken the precaution of ascertaining the tenour of the addresses to be presented before he consented to receive them, and that he had admitted unfaithful reporters to his room in a case where misrepresentation might be so mischievous. The Cabinet, however, declined to come to any formal resolution. Mr. Labouchere and Lord Grey might probably have been willing to do so; but Lord Lansdowne and all the rest of the Cabinet were decidedly opposed to such a step.

However much the Queen may have regretted the decision at which the Cabinet thus arrived, her knowledge of her duties as a constitutional sovereign was too accurate to suffer her to dispute it. She gave way. But, before she received Lord John's letter announcing the decision of the Cabinet, the circumstance had occurred which was to lead immediately to Lord Palmerston's fall.

On December 3, news reached London of the coup d'état in France. The Queen was at Osborne, and did not receive intelligence of the event till the morning of the 4th. She at once wrote to Lord John

OSBORNE, December 4, 1851.

The Queen has learned with concern and astonishment the extraordinary proceedings at Paris. She thinks it absolutely necessary that we should remain entirely passive and take no part, either for or against what is going on. The Queen hopes, therefore, that Lord Normanby will be very cautious, and keep entirely aloof for a word from him at such a moment would be misconstrued.

Lord John concurred with her Majesty's opinion; and, on the following day, instructions were sent to Lord Normanby by Lord Palmerston in accordance with it. Lord Normanby, however, calling on the French Minister to state his instructions, heard that Lord Palmerston had personally expressed his approval of the coup d'état to the French Ambassador in London. He communicated what he had learned in a despatch; on seeing which the Queen sent to Lord John the letter of December 13, which has already been printed in Sir T. Martin's 'Life of the Prince Consort.' Lord John at once forwarded the Queen's letter to Lord Palmerston, and asked for an explanation. Two days passed and no explanation

came.

W[OBURN] A[BBEY], December 16, 1851.

MY DEAR PALMERSTON,—I have no answer from you in reply to one I wrote you enclosing a communication from the Queen respecting your declarations to Walewski. I cannot but consider this as a mark of disrespect to the Queen. Neither did you answer my former letter on the same subject.—I remain, yours truly, J. RUSSELL.

Lord Palmerston thereupon sent to Lord John the long letter which has already been published by Mr. Ashley, justifying instead of explaining his conduct; and on the same date in an official despatch to Lord Normanby, which was not submitted to Queen, Prime Minister, or Cabinet,

repeated his approval of the coup d'état, thus formally committing himself to a policy on which both Queen and Cabinet had decided to maintain a strict neutrality. Lord John at

once wrote

WOBURN ABBEY, December 17, 1851.

MY DEAR PALMERSTON,-I have received your letter of the 16th, which has been brought to me by a messenger this morning.

I have also received Lord Normanby's despatch of the 15th and your reply of the 16th, which appears to have been sent to Paris without my concurrence or the sanction of the Queen.

It appears to me that in your letter to me you mistake the question at issue.

That question is not whether the President has been justified in dissolving the Assembly and annulling the constitution; but whether you were justified, as the Queen's Secretary of State, in expressing an opinion upon the subject.

Now upon this matter, I am sorry to say, I cannot entertain a doubt.

If the British Government wished to express an opinion upon the recent events in France, the Cabinet should have been consulted, and the opinion, when formed, openly avowed.

If, as I conceived was the course taken, the British Government refrains from expressing any opinion upon the internal affairs of France, the Queen's Secretary of State ought not to express an opinion which is naturally considered as that of the British Government.

I must now come to the painful conclusion-while I concur in the foreign policy of which you have been the adviser, and much as I admire the energy and ability with which it has been carried into effect, I cannot but observe that misunderstandings perpetually renewed, violations of practice and decorum too frequently repeated, have marred the effects which ought to have followed from a sound policy and able administration.

I am therefore most reluctantly compelled to come to the conclusion that the conduct of foreign affairs can no longer be left in your hands with advantage to the country.

If instead of retiring from office you will accept the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland, which I know that Lord Clarendon, without looking for any other office, will be happy to relinquish, I shall most willingly recommend you to the Queen to fill that high position, either with or without a British peerage.

Recent inquiries have convinced me that it would not be prudent at present to abolish the Viceroyalty of Ireland. I do not expect for some years that such a measure can be wise and expedient, though I retain my opinion as to the impolicy of permanently retaining two separate Governments in the British Islands.

Or if there is any other course by which I can meet your views, I shall be happy to do so. I have been too long your colleague not to appreciate highly your very eminent talents, and a capacity for business which has never been surpassed. Nor do I esteem less highly your very friendly conduct as a colleague, and the support I have received from you on important and critical occasions. I remain, yours faithfully, J. RUSSELL.

Here is Lord Palmerston's answer :

BROADLANDS, December 18, 1851. MY DEAR JOHN RUSSELL,-I have received your letter of yesterday from Woburn, and shall be prepared to give up the seals of the Foreign Office whenever you inform me that my successor is ready to receive them. I have the satisfaction of thinking that the interests, the honour, the character, and the dignity of the country have not suffered while those seals have been in my keeping. As to the arrangements which you suggest, there are obvious reasons why I must decline to avail myself of them.

With regard to the particular question, which you say in your letter is the point at issue between us, I have to say that there is a well-known and perfectly understood distinction in diplomatic intercourse between official conversations in which the opinions of Governments are expressed, and by which Governments are bound, and unofficial conversations which have not that character and effect: and nothing passed between me and Count Walewski on the occasion to which he referred in the despatch or the letter quoted by M. Turgot, which in any way fettered the action of her Majesty's Government. The opinion which, as explained in my former letter, I then expressed was my own; it was expressed as such; I am satisfied it was well founded; and I think the expression of it was conducive to the maintenance of a good understanding with the French Government and thereby to the interests of the country.

The doctrine which you lay down in your letter is new and not practical. For, if everything that passes between a Secretary of State and a foreign Minister were to be deemed as official and formal communications from their respective Governments, and if

« EdellinenJatka »