The Letters of Queen Victoria Volume Iii Part 95

VICTORIA R.

Bertie was much pleased with little Louise.[21]

[Footnote 18: The Prince of Wales had been spending a week at Coburg and Gotha, which he had not previously seen.]

[Footnote 19: Prince Ernest died on the 12th of April, and was succeeded by his second son Hermann.]

[Footnote 20: A small town in Wurtemberg, and part of the estate of the Princes of Hohenlohe-Langenburg.]

[Footnote 21: Elder child of the Duke of Brabant (now King Leopold II.).]

[Pageheading: ENGLAND AND NAPLES]

_Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell._

[_Undated._ ? _26th April 1860._]

The Queen has just received Lord John Russell's letter. She must say that she would consider it the _deepest_ degradation to this country if she was compelled to appear at the Emperor's Congress summoned to Paris, in order to register and put her seal to the acts of spoliation of the Emperor!

Lord Cowley was very strong on the effect which our yielding that point would have on his position at the French Court.

_Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell._

BUCKINGHAM PALACE, _30th April 1860_.

The Queen thinks that the main argument is omitted in the draft, viz.

that the attempts, such as Sardinia is suspected to contemplate, are morally bad and reprehensible in themselves, besides being politically inexpedient. The Queen would be sorry to see a despatch go forth on this subject, arguing on the ground of expediency alone. She trusts Lord John Russell will find it easy to introduce a pa.s.sage which would place it on record, that we do attach importance to public justice and morality. When amended, the Queen would like to have a copy of the draft.

[Pageheading: THE DOCTRINES OF 1688]

_Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria._

HOUSE OF COMMONS, _30th April 1860_.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty. He is sorry he cannot agree that there would be any moral wrong in a.s.sisting to overthrow the Government of the King of the Two Sicilies. The best writers on International Law consider it a merit to overthrow a tyrannical government, and there have been few governments so tyrannical as that of Naples. Of course the King of Sardinia has no right to a.s.sist the people of the Two Sicilies unless he was asked by them to do so, as the Prince of Orange was asked by the best men in England to overthrow the tyranny of James II.--an attempt which has received the applause of all our great public writers, and is the origin of our present form of government.[22]

[Footnote 22: See _ante_, 11th January, 1860.]

_Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell._

BUCKINGHAM PALACE, _30th April 1860_.

The Queen has received Lord John Russell's letter, and trusts he will see, upon further reflection, that the case before us is not one in which the Revolution of 1688, and the advent of William III. called to the Throne, can be appealed to as a parallel. The draft warns the Government of Sardinia "_not to seek for new acquisitions_," as the new "_Provinces_ annexed have hardly as yet been thoroughly amalgamated." Now, no public writer nor the International Law will call it morally right, that one state should abet revolution in another, not with the disinterested object of defending a suffering people against tyranny, but in order to extinguish that State and make it "an acquisition" of its own. If William III. had made England a Province of Holland, he would not have received the applause Lord John quotes. The Queen trusts that in appreciation of this distinction, he will introduce some amendment in the sense indicated in her former letter.

_Lord John Russell to Queen Victoria._

HOUSE OF COMMONS, _30th April 1860_.

Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty; he confesses he cannot see anything morally wrong in giving aid to an insurrection in the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily. But he admits that to do so for the sake of making new acquisitions would be criminal, and that he is not justified in imputing this motive to the King of Sardinia. Count Cavour would probably at once disclaim it.

He therefore proposes to alter these words. The despatch went this evening by the usual messenger; but, if your Majesty approves of the alteration, it can be made to-morrow morning by telegraph to Turin.

[Pageheading: INDIAN HONOURS]

_Sir Charles Wood to Queen Victoria._

INDIA OFFICE, _3rd May 1860_.

Sir Charles Wood, with his humble duty, begs to submit for your Majesty's consideration, whether the letters of thanks to those Civil Servants who have not been thought deserving of the honour of C.B.

should run in your Majesty's name, or in that of the Government.

Your Majesty desired that thanks for service should be in your Majesty's name, but there will be nearly two hundred of these letters to different officers, and Sir Charles Wood doubted whether it would be right to use your Majesty's name so profusely. He is inclined to think that it would be better to use your Majesty's name only when addressing higher officers. Sir Charles Wood encloses drafts of letters in both ways.

Sir Charles Wood also encloses an address on the occasion of the Thanksgiving in India, delivered by a Hindoo.

_Queen Victoria to Sir Charles Wood._

BUCKINGHAM PALACE, _4th May 1860_.

The Queen returns these papers. She wishes the thanks to Civil Servants to be given in all cases, where to be given by the Home Government, in her own name. The Bath or Knighthood comes directly from the Sovereign, and so should the thanks; the Civil Servants are the Queen's servants, and not the servants of the Government. The Hindoo address is very striking and gratifying as a symptom.[23]

Presuming that Sir Charles does not want the copy back again, the Queen has kept it.

[Footnote 23: The copy of this address does not seem to have been preserved.]