The Letters of Queen Victoria Volume Iii Part 92

[Footnote 4: The cession by King Victor Emmanuel of Savoy (the cradle of his race) and of Nice to France was the consideration offered at Plombieres for obtaining French support to the movement for freeing Italy "from the Alps to the Adriatic"; that result not having been achieved, a like price was now offered for French a.s.sistance in effecting the annexation of the Central Italian provinces.]

_Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston._

WINDSOR CASTLE, _22nd January 1860_.

The Queen has received Lord Palmerston's note and enclosures. She rather expects to be advised by her Ministers as to the course to be adopted in matters which may lead to angry debate in the House of Lords, than to give personal directions on a case so incompletely placed before her; Lord Willoughby's letter does not even name the persons in question nor the grounds upon which he a.s.sumes "they would not be received at Court."[5] The Queen does not know how far admission or non-admission trenches upon the privileges of the House; from the submitted printed regulation, however, she would gather that the Lord High Chamberlain has full power to admit or exclude. If Lord Palmerston were to see Lord Granville as Leader, and the Lord Chancellor as Speaker, of the House of Lords together with Lord Willoughby, they might so far discuss the question as to enable Lord Palmerston to submit a decision for the Queen's consideration to-morrow.

[Footnote 5: Lord Willoughby's question had reference to a Peeress, who, he thought, would not be received at Court.

The difference between a State Opening of Parliament and a Drawing-room was pointed out in Lord Palmerston's reply.

Though it would be "unpleasant to the Peeresses to find themselves sitting next to a person with whom they do not a.s.sociate," the Premier advised no interference with the lady in question, if she persisted in attending.]

_Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians._

WINDSOR CASTLE, _31st January 1860_.

MY DEAREST UNCLE,--Accept my warmest thanks for your kind letter of the 27th, received on Sat.u.r.day--by which I am delighted to see what sport you have had. I have _such_ an aversion for hunting that I am _quite_ pleased to hear of the destruction of the _fifty-one_ foxes. I suppose it was not cold enough for _wolves_.

I think Parliament has had a wholesome effect upon certain people; and that they are _altogether frightened_. There has been a strong despatch written relative to Savoy--and altogether I think matters are taking a better turn. The feeling of _all_ parties and this _whole_ country is--to _let Italy settle its own affairs_--and _England to keep quite out of it_....

We shall see the good Aumales to-night, who are staying with the Van de Weyers at _New Lodge_,[6] which is _un vrai bijou_: you _must_ see it when you come here again, for it is one of the nicest and most charming houses I know.

I must now end. With Albert's affectionate love, ever your devoted Niece,

VICTORIA R.

[Footnote 6: On the borders of Windsor Forest.]

_The King of the Belgians to Queen Victoria._

LAEKEN, _3rd February 1860_.

MY DEAREST VICTORIA,--... New Lodge must be exceedingly pretty, and, G.o.d willing, I ought once to get sight of it. By all one can hear, the Italians certainly will attack the Austrians, if they are not told to leave it alone; Victor Emmanuel speaks openly of it, just as he did last year, when one also thought it was a mere bravado. Things look in most directions very gloomy; my neighbour is creating dangers for himself by the const.i.tutional Government he gives to Italy. The French say, "Sommes-nous moins que les Italiens pour avoir un peu de liberte?" This may become more dangerous as things move on, not that I should regret it; we can never have any security as long as France remains without a const.i.tutional Government. We have had slight beginnings of cold, but not much of it, but the gla.s.s was fearfully low. My ball of the 1st was rather pretty, and people were in great dancing mood. Princess Orloff, a Troubetzko, is a very pleasing young woman. There is also a pretty Princess Metchersky. We had some new English families _inconceivably ugly_; it is quite a calamity, they look as if they had been selected on purpose. Having still the happiness of being one of your Privy Council, I mean to propose some measure to obviate such a sad state of affairs. We have all of a sudden snow.... Your truly devoted Uncle,

LEOPOLD R.

[Pageheading: INDIAN HONOURS]

_Queen Victoria to Sir Charles Wood._

WINDSOR CASTLE, _9th February 1860_.

The Queen has attentively read Lord Canning's letter and enclosure.

She quite agrees in his proposal as to the nature of the Order of Chivalry to be inst.i.tuted, and the details which he recommends with regard to it. She also thinks that t.i.tles should be confined to those now known and borne in India, and to be given sparingly; but would object to the illimited power of the Governor-General and Viceroy in this respect. The highest dignities and t.i.tles ought to proceed directly from the Crown at the Viceroy's recommendation. The Queen concurs in the view that honours cannot well be made hereditary amongst Hindoos and Mussulmans, but where Princes (as we may hope will be the case sometimes hereafter) have become Christians, the hereditary nature of honours should not be withheld.[7] ...

[Footnote 7: Lord Canning had written that he thought it would be best to adhere to the precise t.i.tles already in use in India, and that they should be at the direct disposal of the Queen's Representative, without reference to the Crown. He did not recommend that t.i.tles should be hereditary (except in very special cases), in a country where primogeniture was not established. As to the proposed Order of Knighthood, Lord Canning thought that the inst.i.tution of such an Order would be both expedient and opportune. He recommended that it should include both British-born and Native subjects.]

[Pageheading: THE QUEEN AND HER MINISTERS]

_Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston._

WINDSOR CASTLE, _10th February 1860_.

The Queen sends a letter to Lord Palmerston which she has received yesterday evening from Lord John Russell.[8] She is induced to do so from a feeling that it is to Lord Palmerston, as head of the Government, that she has to look, when she may have reason to take exception to the tone of communications she may receive from members of his Cabinet. Lord Palmerston will not fail to perceive that the enclosed is not the kind of communication which the Foreign Secretary ought to make, when asked by his Sovereign to explain the views of the Cabinet upon a question so important and momentous as the annexation of Savoy to France, and the steps which they propose to take with regard to it. She need not remind Lord Palmerston that in her letter communicated to the Cabinet she had given no opinion whatever upon Italian liberation from a foreign yoke, nor need she protest against a covert insinuation, such as is contained in Lord John's letter, that she is no well-wisher of mankind and indifferent to its freedom and happiness. But she must refer to the const.i.tutional position of her Ministers towards herself. They are responsible for the advice they gave her, but they are bound fully, respectfully, and openly to place before her the grounds and reasons upon which their advice may be founded, to enable her to judge whether she can give her a.s.sent to that advice or not. The Government must come to a standstill if the Minister meets a demand for explanation with an answer like the following: "I was asked by the Cabinet to give an answer, but as I do not agree with you, I think it useless to explain my views."

The Queen must demand that respect which is due from a Minister to his Sovereign. As the Queen must consider the enclosed letter as deficient in it, she thinks Lord John Russell might probably wish to reconsider it, and asks Lord Palmerston to return it to him with that view.

That Lord Palmerston may be acquainted with the course the correspondence has taken, the Queen encloses the two preceding letters.

[Footnote 8: The letter ran:--"Lord John Russell unfortunately does not partake your Majesty's opinions in regard to Italy, and he is unwilling to obtrude on your Majesty unnecessary statements of his views.... Whatever may be the consequence, the liberation of the Italian people from a foreign yoke is, in the eyes of Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell, an increase of freedom and happiness at which as well-wishers to mankind they cannot but rejoice."]

[Pageheading: MR GLADSTONE'S BUDGET]

_Viscount Palmerston to Queen Victoria._

94 PICCADILLY, _10th February 1860_.

Viscount Palmerston presents his humble duty to your Majesty, and begs to state that Mr Gladstone made this afternoon his financial statement.[9] His speech lasted three hours, from five to eight, and was admirable, detailed, clear, comprehensive and eloquent; and he did not appear to be fatigued by the effort.[10] The statement was well received by the House, and though parts of the arrangement may, and no doubt will, be disputed and attacked as the various measures of which the arrangement is composed, pa.s.s through the House, there seems to be a fair probability that the Government will not sustain any serious defeat upon any part of the arrangement. The scheme is too extensive and complicated to admit of an abstract of it being given to your Majesty in this Report; but no doubt a condensed summary of it will be given in the newspapers of to-morrow.

[Footnote 9: The Budget of 1860 was contemporaneous with the commercial treaty with France negotiated by Mr Cobden, reducing _inter alia_ the import duties on French wine and brandy, and English coal, flax, and pig-iron. Mr Gladstone abolished the duties on a large number of imports, and proposed to repeal that on paper (regarded not only as a means for the diffusion of knowledge, but a commodity in various industries).]

[Footnote 10: This was all the more remarkable, as the Budget had been postponed owing to his illness.]

_Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston._