Memoirs of the Life and Correspondence of Henry Reeve, C.B., D.C.L. by John Knox Laughton

Produced by Charles Franks, Keren Vergon, Charles Aldarondo and PG Distributed Proofreaders MEMOIRS OF THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF HENRY REEVE, C.B., D.C.L BY JOHN KNOX LAUGHTON, M.A. HONORARY FELLOW OF GONVILLE AND CAIUS COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE PROFESSOR OF MODERN HISTORY IN KING’S COLLEGE, LONDON IN TWO VOLUMES VOL. II. CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME PORTRAIT
This page contains affiliate links. As Amazon Associates we earn from qualifying purchases.
Language:
Form:
Genre:
Published:
Collection:
Tags:
Buy it on Amazon FREE Audible 30 days

Check out more Amazon deals on our Resources page.

Produced by Charles Franks, Keren Vergon, Charles Aldarondo and PG Distributed Proofreaders

MEMOIRS OF THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF HENRY REEVE, C.B., D.C.L

BY

JOHN KNOX LAUGHTON, M.A.

HONORARY FELLOW OF GONVILLE AND CAIUS COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE PROFESSOR OF MODERN HISTORY IN KING’S COLLEGE, LONDON

IN TWO VOLUMES

VOL. II.

CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME

PORTRAIT OF HENRY REEVE AET. 68.

_From a Photograph taken by_ RUPERT POTTER, Esq.

XIII. THE WAR IN ITALY (1859-60)

XIV. LITERATURE AND POLITICS (1860-3)

XV. LAW AND LITERATURE (1863-7)

XVI. CHURCH POLITICS (1868-9)

XVII. THE FRANCO-GERMAN WAR (1869-71)

XVIII. THE GREVILLE MEMOIRS (1871-4)

XIX. FOXHOLES (1874-9)

XX. OUTRAGE AND DISLOYALTY (1880-2)

XXI. THE FRENCH ROYALISTS (1883-5)

XXII. RETIREMENT (1886-9)

XXIII. THE ONE MORE CHANGE (1890-5)

LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF HENRY REEVE

CHAPTER XIII

THE WAR IN ITALY

How far the murderous attempt of Orsini, on January 14th, 1858, was connected with the political relations of France and Italy it is as yet impossible to say. It was, and still is, very commonly believed that in his youth Louis Napoleon had been affiliated to one or other of the secret societies of Italy, that he was still pledged to this, was bound to obey its orders, and that Orsini was an agent to remind him that the attainment of high rank, far from releasing him from the bond, rendered it more stringent, as giving him greater power and facility for carrying out the orders he received. The independence of Italy was aimed at; and it had been intimated to the Emperor that Orsini’s was only the first of similar messages which, if action was not taken, would be followed by a second, with greater care to ensure its delivery.

All this may or may not have been mere gossip. What is certain is that, during the latter months of 1858, secret negotiations had been going on between the Emperor and Victor Emanuel, the King of Sardinia, or rather his minister, Cavour; and that an agreement had been come to that Austria was to be attacked and driven out of Italy. Accordingly, on January 1st, 1859, at his New Year’s reception of the foreign ministers, Louis Napoleon took the opportunity of addressing some remarks to the Austrian Ambassador which, to France and to all Europe, appeared threatening.

Similarly, at Turin, it was allowed to appear that war was intended; and on both sides preparations were hurried on. In France, as in Austria, these were on a very extensive scale. A large fleet of transports was collected at Marseilles; troops were massed on the frontier of Savoy; and, on the part of the Austrians, 200,000 men were assembled in readiness for action. On April 23rd Francis Joseph, without–it was said–the knowledge of his responsible ministers, sent an ultimatum to Turin, requiring an answer within three days: at the expiration of that time the Austrians would cross the frontier. The allies utilised the delay to complete their preparations; and before the three days had ended the advance of the Franco-Sardinian army had begun.

The campaign proved disastrous to the Austrians, whose half-drilled and badly-fed troops and obsolete artillery were commanded by an utterly incompetent general. They were defeated at Palestro on May 31st; at Magenta on June 4th; and again at Solferino on June 24th. Nothing, it appeared to the Italians and the lookers-on, could prevent the successful and decisive issue; the Austrians would be compelled to quit Italy. Suddenly Louis Napoleon announced that he had come to an agreement with the Emperor of Austria and that peace was agreed on. The disappointment and rage of the Italians were very great; but, as Louis Napoleon was resolved, and as Victor Emanuel could not continue the war without his assistance, he was obliged to consent, and peace was concluded at Villafranca on July 11th.

For the next eighteen months much of the correspondence refers to the inception and result of this short war, mixed, of course, with more personal matters, and at the beginning, with news as to the state of Tocqueville’s health, which was giving his friends the liveliest anxiety. The Journal for the year opens with:–

_January 6th_.–We went to Bowood. It was the first time Christine went there. The party consisted of the Flahaults, Cheneys, Strzelecki, the Clarendons, Twisletons,[Footnote: The Hon. Edward Twisleton, chief commissioner of the poor laws in Ireland. He married, in 1852, Ellen, daughter of the Hon. Edward Dwight, of Massachusetts, U.S.A.; and died, at the age of sixty-five, in 1874.] and Leslies. What agreeable people! For a wonder we shot there on the 10th, and killed 140 head.

_January 12th_.–We had a dinner at home–Trevelyan, just appointed governor of Madras, Phinn, Baron Martin, Huddleston, W. Harcourt, Merivale, and Henry Brougham.

_From Lord Brougham_

_Cannes, January 3rd_.–I grieve to say Tocqueville has been worse. His doctor dined here t’other day and T.’s brother came for him at ten o’clock. I have as bad an opinion of the case as possible.

_Cannes, January 9th_. The Italian affair is very naturally cause of anxiety, but I feel assured this, for the present, will pass away. I find there is a strong feeling getting up of the Austrian army being as good as the finances are bad, but the French finances are not likely to be very much better. However, though the present alarm will pass away, what a sad thing for the peace of the world to depend, not on the general opinion and feeling, but on the caprice, or the jobbing, or the blunders of a few individuals! Who can be quite sure that Morny’s stockjobbing has had nothing to do with the late most silly conversation? [Footnote: Presumably, the sinister remark addressed to the Austrian Ambassador on New Year’s Day.] L. N. himself is quite clear of all such blame. He tries all he can to prevent M. and others from their pillaging, but he never can succeed. However, it is to the risk of more blunders that I look as placing peace in greatest jeopardy. I don’t believe L. N. or any one of them would, _if they knew it_, run the risk of a general war (and the least war means a general war); but they may any day get into a scrape without intending it, for they have not the security of free discussion to warn them.

_From Lord Hatherton_

_Teddesley, January 12th_.–Do me the kindness to write me one line to tell me what you know of the state of M. de Tocqueville. Is it dangerous? There is no man out of this kingdom who possesses so much of my admiration and regard.

This general lull after the late Reform agitation is very natural. There are four parties waiting each other’s moves; three, at least, exclusive of Bright’s, which is the least. There are the present Government, the late Government, and the country–which, as I read it, has little in common with any of them, but is at present without a leader. Any very powerful man, who had been living by, would now have had a great field before him.

I attended the day before yesterday a very remarkable meeting of the Birmingham and Midland Institute at Birmingham. Lord Ward [Footnote: Created Earl of Dudley in 1860.] in the chair. The report, and all the officials and speakers, especially those from the town, complained of the indifference of the artisans, mechanics, and labourers of that town to instruction and education generally. It seems, on the showing of Bright’s friends, that these fellows, the noisiest of their class about Reform, are the most ignorant and the least desirous of improving themselves. Such is the report of Bright’s own friends. Mr. Ryland, the vice-president and real manager of the institution, who is also Bright’s friend there, is the loudest in his complaints of this body. Ryland further told me that he believed there was not a workman in the town who, if consulted individually, would express his approval of all Bright’s principles. Mr. Ryland is a solicitor.

I am all anxiety to see your January number.

_To the Marquis of Lansdowne_

62 Rutland Gate, January 25th.

My dear Lord Lansdowne,–I have omitted, but not from forgetfulness, to express to you the very high gratification Mrs. Reeve and myself derived from your most kind reception of us at Bowood, and I am sure we shall always retain the liveliest recollection of this most agreeable visit. But, in truth, I waited till something should occur which might have the good fortune to interest you, and I think the accounts I continue to receive from France, on the present threatening aspect of affairs, may be of that nature. M. Guizot says to me, in a letter of the 23rd inst.:–

‘Jusqu’à ces jours derniers je n’y voulais pas croire. J’essaye encore d’en douter; mais c’est difficile. Ce sera un exemple de plus des guerres faites par embarras de ne pas les faire bien plus que par volonté de les faire. Je suis porté à croire que l’Empereur Napoléon serait charmé de ne plus entendre parler de l’Italie; mais pour cela il faudrait qu’il n’y eût plus d’assassins italiens, plus de Roi de Sardaigne, plus de cousins à marier, plus de brouillons révolutionnaires à contenter. Aujourd’hui, et malgré toutes les paroles contraires, il me paraît probable que ces causes de guerre prévaudront sur la modération naturelle, sur le goût du repos voluptueux, sur l’avis des conseillers officiels, et sur le sentiment évident du public. Que fera l’Allemagne? Le tiendra-t-elle unie? Là est la question. L’Angleterre y peut certainement beaucoup. Je ne vois plus que là une chance pour le maintien de la paix.’

These words are so remarkable, coming from a man whose disposition is ever so much more sanguine than desponding, that I have quoted them at length.

We have all been greatly touched by the close of Mr. Hallam’s most honourable, useful, and I may say illustrious life. [Footnote: He died on January 21st, 1859.] It so chanced that my sister-in-law, Helen Richardson, who has been to him a second daughter for the last few years, came up from Scotland on Thursday [January 20th]. On Friday she went down with Mrs. Cator to see him. He perfectly knew her, and seemed charmed to see her again; but before she left his bed-side the light flickered in the socket, and he expired a short time afterwards in their presence, conscious and without pain to the last. I thought the notice of him in the ‘Times’ of Monday very pleasing, and was inclined to attribute it to David Dundas, but I know not whether I am right….

I remain always

Your obliged and faithful

H. REEVE.

_From Lord Clarendon_

_The Grove, January 26th_.–I am much obliged to you for M. Guizot’s letter, [Footnote: Apparently that of January 23rd, quoted in the previous letter to Lord Lansdowne.] which Miladi and I have read with interest, as one always does everything he writes. I showed it to G. Lewis and C. C. G., feeling sure you would have no objection. It is impossible not to agree in his gloomy view of things. It must be owned that the position the Emperor has made for himself is one of extreme difficulty. His _idée dominante_ has been how to pacify Italian conspirators by bringing away his army from Rome, without having the Pope’s throat cut or letting in an Austrian garrison there; and he determined that driving the Austrians out of Italy was the indispensable preliminary step. He was urged to do this and to think it easy both by Russia and Sardinia; and we may be sure that the Sardinians would not have committed themselves as they have done, and incurred such inconvenient expense, if they had not received promises of active support. How would it be possible then for L. N. to recede? Cavour would show him up, and fresh daggers and grenades would be prepared for him. I look upon war, therefore, as certain. We have only to hope that Austria may continue to act prudently, and not furnish the cause of quarrel which her enemies are looking for, and which might turn against her those who, for decency’s sake, wish to remain neutral; and next, that Germany may be united by a sense of common danger. This may tend to limit the area of the war; but altogether it is a deplorable _gâchis_, out of which L. N. can no more see his way than anyone else.

_From Lord Brougham_

_Cannes, January 26th_.–I must throw myself and the cause of law amendment on your kindness, under a great evil which has befallen us. The ‘Quarterly Review,’ under Mr. Elwin, was so favourably disposed to law reform as to resolve upon inserting a full discussion of the subject on the occasion of Sir E. Wilmot’s volume on my ‘Acts and Bills;’ and Bellenden Ker had undertaken it, and was, as a law reformer and as, under Cranworth, in office as consolidation commissioner, certainly well qualified to do the article. But he made such a mess of it; in fact, treating Eldon, Ellenborough, &c., and other obstacles to law reform not introductory, but, as I understand, making a whole article upon that. The consequence has been that the whole has failed, and this most valuable opportunity been lost of having the Tory journal’s adhesion to law reform now. It is barely possible they may take it up hereafter. But surely the natural place for this statement is the ‘Edinburgh Review,’ and I should feel great comfort for the good cause if I thought you would thus help us. The matter in Sir E.’s book renders it very easy to show what has been done of late years.

Poor Tocqueville is one day a little better, another a little worse; but I have little or no hope of his getting through it.

Shortly after this Lord Brougham made a flying visit to London. A note in the Journal is:–

_February 26th_.–I dined at Lord Brougham’s, and met Dr. Lushington, Lord Glenelg, Lord Broughton; all–with our host–over 80.

But the state of Tocqueville’s health continued, for Reeve, the most engrossing personal consideration, and just at this time the deadly malady took a favourable though delusive turn. Tocqueville–says M. de Beaumont [Footnote: Gustave de Beaumont: _Oeuvres et Correspondance inédites d’Alexis de Tocqueville_ (1861), tome i. p. 116.]–hoped for the best. ‘How could he do otherwise when all around him was bursting into life? and so he kept on his regular habits, his schemes, his work. He read, and was read to; he wrote a great many letters, and devoured those which he received in great numbers. There was not one of his friends who did not receive at least one letter from him during the last month of his life.’ The following is his last letter to Reeve. The writing is painfully bad, the letters often half formed, or crowded one on top of another; even the orthography is imperfect; but the words and ideas flow in full volume.

Cannes. le 25 février.

Cher Reeve,–Il y a un siècle que je ne vous ai écrit. Je n’étais pas libre de le faire. Le mois de janvier tout entier s’est passé au milieu de la crise la plus douloureuse. Je ne crois pas qu’il y ait aucun mois de ma vie qui mérite mieux que celui-là d’être marqué d’une croix noire dans l’histoire de mon existence privée. Jetons dans l’oubli, s’il est possible, des jours et surtout des nuits si cruels, et bornons-nous à demander à Dieu de n’envoyer rien de semblable désormais, soit à moi, soit à mes amis. Depuis trois semaines j’occupe février à réparer les méfaits de janvier. Je vais aussi bien que possible: mes forces sont en grande partie revenues. Les bronches semblent en voie de guérison rapide. Ainsi n’en parlons plus.

I have just been reading an excellent article on the Catacombs, in the ‘Edinburgh Review.’ It is a subject which has always interested me, but very likely I should not have begun with this particular article if I had not known it was by you. Circourt wrote to me about it, and so deprived me of the pleasure of finding it out for myself, which I think I could have done. But, in any case, the article is exceedingly interesting … Though I have been enjoying myself in following you underground, what is now going on on the earth’s surface calls for close attention. I am here hard by one of the old military roads which have led into Italy from time immemorial, as at this day. I hear that great preparations are being made all along the valley of the Rhone and the neighbouring country. What I am sure of, because it is taking place under my very eyes, is, that the railway from Marseilles to Toulon is being pushed forward at an unheard of rate. It is the only link wanting to complete the chain of communication between Brest, Cherbourg, Paris, and Toulon. There was no expectation of this railway being finished before the middle of summer; but now it is understood that it will be ready within a few days–an instance of doing the impossible. Such efforts presuppose some great object which it is desired to accomplish at once.

I am told, perhaps incorrectly, that Prussia has decided to remain neutral–at first, at any rate; and, by the same authority, that Russia will be neutral, but in a spirit friendly to France. This would be very serious; for Russia gives nothing for nothing. If it is so, the Emperor’s project would appear less silly. It would explain how an ambitious prince, whose throne is tottering, who is bound to excite the admiration of France and to gratify the national vanity, [Footnote: Fleury, one of the most faithful and attached of the Emperor’s followers wrote in words almost identical (_Souvenirs_, tom. i. p. 330): ‘C’était par une série de faits grandioses par des spectacles flattant l’orgueil et les instincts du pays, que Napoleon III allait, pendant de longues années, non seulement occuper, réjouir la France, mais encore fixer l’attention, l’étonnement et bien souvent l’admiration du monde.’] who is stopped by no scruples, might find it an excellent opportunity for bringing on a personal war–if I may say so; for driving the Germans across the Alps and naming himself the Dictator of Italy. It is true that no great material advantage can result from it; but L. N. is sufficiently well acquainted with France to know that the glitter of such a course would probably content her. All this would be easy to understand if Maria Theresa reigned at Vienna, Frederic at Berlin, and Mme. de Pompadour at Versailles; in a word, if we were in the eighteenth instead of the nineteenth century. But being, as we are, in the nineteenth century, the designs which are ascribed to the Emperor are to be condemned as in the highest degree treasonable to humanity and to France. Kings can no longer claim to be guided only by their personal interests and passions; and now–when it is agreed that England cannot remain neutral in a war between France and a great Continental Power; when it is admitted that a Continental war, however short, would surely awaken the hatred of all princes and all neighbouring people, and would end in a coalition against France–now, I say, to plunge into such an adventure would be not only the most silly, but the most wicked thing which a Frenchman could do.

La longueur un peu désordonnée de cette lettre, mon cher ami, vous prouvera mieux que tout ce que je pourrais dire les progrès de ma santé. Je vais écrire à Mme Grote. Rappelez-nous, je vous prie, tout particulièrement au souvenir de Lady Theresa et de Sir C. Lewis. J’espère que Lord Hatherton ne m’a pas oublié. Mille et mille amitiés à tous les Senior. Je n’ai pas besoin d’en dire autant pour Mme et Mile Reeve. Tout à vous de coeur, A. T.

Reeve replied immediately:–

_62 Rutland Gate, 1 mars_.–Votre lettre me fait le plus sensible plaisir. Les nouvelles indirectes de votre santé qui me sont parvenues de temps en temps m’avaient excessivement préoccupé. J’ai su que le mois de janvier avait été mauvais, et quoique j’eusse bien des fois l’envie de prendre la plume, elle m’est tombée des mains lorsque j’ai réfléchi que j’ignorais malheureusement dans quel état de corps et d’esprit ma lettre pourrait vous trouver. Pendant tout l’hiver j’ai reçu par lettre et de bouche une infinité de demandes sur votre état. Vous ne sauriez croire à quel point tous vos amis d’Angleterre, qui sont encore plus nombreux que ceux dont vous avez une connaissance personnelle, m’ont témoigné pour vous d’intérêt, de considération et d’affection. Aussi votre convalescence est une bonne nouvelle pour nous tous–les Lewis, les Hatherton, les Grote, Knight-Bruce et tant d’autres. Je me permets cependant de dire que le sentiment que j’ai eu toutes les fois que je me suis transporté par la pensée à votre chambre de malade est bien autrement profond. Mon amitié pour vous est une des affections les plus vives qu’il m’ait été donné de conserver. Je n’ai rien de plus cher. Et l’idée que vous souffriez tant de mal, sans qu’il me fût possible de vous offrir le moindre soulagement, m’à été extremement pénible. Pour un malade la lecture de mes ‘Catacombes’ ne me paraît pas excessivement gai, mais je reconnais là votre aimable souvenir de l’auteur. Bref, vous êtes en convalescence. Le soleil printanier, même dans nos climats, luit d’un éclat extraordinaire. Déjà au mois de février les arbustes poussaient des feuilles. Dieu veuille que cette douce chaleur de l’année vous rende bientôt à la santé et à la Normandie.

There is no doubt that the state of public affairs is more serious than it has been since 1851. [Footnote: _Sc._ in France, before the _Coup d’état_.] The meaning of what has lately been going on in public, and of the secret plots which have been hatching for a long time, is very clear. As to France, I say nothing; for, after all, she has the chances of success, which will smooth away many apparent difficulties. But the peace of Europe depends on Germany and on England. Shall we succeed in maintaining it? The attitude of England is, I think, good. Without any hostile demonstration, she has shown very clearly that she will be no party to any breach of the treaties. Lord Cowley’s mission to Vienna has been arranged between him and the Emperor, but I have no faith in it. It is merely a device to make people think he is acting in agreement with the English Cabinet, and so conceal a scheme to which the English Cabinet is totally opposed. Opinion here is unanimous against French intervention in Italy. Unfortunately, we are in a very bad position at home. The Cabinet is deplorably weak, and it has just lost two of its principal members. The Reform Bill, brought in yesterday, raises more questions than it answers; but it will probably serve to give prominence to the dissensions in the Liberal party. ‘Tis a real misfortune; for a disunited party cannot assert any influence in Europe.

Lord Brougham is returning to Cannes, though with little inclination to stay among such grave causes of anxiety. So long as France is free to act by sea, the road to Italy does not lie through Var, but in the ports of Toulon and Marseilles. Shall you soon be hearing the guns of the second Marengo?

The action of England at this important crisis was curious, but characteristic. The destinies of Europe were shaking in the balance; the fortunes of France, of Italy, of Austria, probably also of Prussia, and very possibly of Russia, were at stake; so the English Government thought it a suitable opportunity to tinker the constitution and introduce a Reform Bill–which nobody seems to have wanted–mainly, it would seem, to ‘dish’ the Whigs. It was, however, they themselves who were dished. Mr. Henley, the President of the Board of Trade, resigned on January 27th. So also did Mr. S. H. Walpole, [Footnote: Mr. Walpole died, at the age of 92, on May 22nd, 1898.] the Home Secretary, who wrote to Lord Derby: ‘I cannot help saying that the measure which the Cabinet are prepared to recommend is one which we should all of us have stoutly opposed if either Lord Palmerston or Lord John Russell had ventured to bring it forward.’ None the less, the Bill was introduced on February 28th. On the second reading it was negatived; a dissolution and a general election followed; and on the meeting of Parliament, in June the Ministry were defeated on an amendment to the Address, and resigned.

But though the want of confidence appeared to be based on the question of the Reform Bill, there is no doubt that there was a widespread mistrust of the foreign policy of the Government. For some years past, perhaps ever since Mr. Gladstone’s celebrated Neapolitan letters in 1851, successive waves of sentiment in favour of Italian independence and unity had passed over the country; and Lord Derby, or Lord Malmesbury, had perhaps fancied that this sentiment might be invoked in their defence. They had not, indeed, taken any overt action, but there was a general idea that they were inclined to favour the designs of Italy and of France. Now, to favour the cause of Italian independence was one thing; to favour the ambitious and grasping schemes of France was another; and the leaders of the Liberal party were not slow to denounce the Government, which–as they alleged–was ready to plunge the country into war for the sake of currying favour with the master of the insolent colonels of 1858.

Reeve’s own view of the questions at issue may be gathered from the letters which he wrote to the ‘Times,’ [Footnote: January 19th, _The Policy of France in Italy_; April 28th, _The Policy of France_, both under the signature of ‘Senex.’] and more fully, more carefully expressed in the article ‘Austria, France, and Italy’ in the ‘Edinburgh Review’ of April. In this he distinctly combats ‘what is termed the principle of “nationalities”‘ as unhistorical. The theory is, he says, ‘of modern growth and uncertain application;’ and he goes on to show in detail that it is not applicable to any one of the Great Powers of Europe.

‘Of all the sovereigns now filling a throne, Queen Victoria is undoubtedly the ruler of the largest number of subject races, alien populations, and discordant tongues. In the vast circumference of her dominions every form of religion is professed, every code of law is administered, and her empire is tesselated with every variety of the human species…. But above and around them all stands that majestic edifice, raised by the valour and authority of England, which connects these scattered dependencies with one great Whole infinitely more powerful, more civilised, and more free than any separate fragment could be; and it is to the subordination of national or provincial independence that the true citizenship of these realms owes its existence…. It is the glory of England to have constituted such an empire, and to govern it, in the main, on just and tolerant principles, as long as her imperial rights are not assailed; when they are assailed, the people of England have never shown much forbearance in the defence of them. Such being the fact, it is utterly repugnant to the first principles of our own policy, and to every page in our history, to lend encouragement to that separation of nationalities from other empires which we fiercely resist when it threatens to dismember our own.’

He then goes on to speak of the administration of such nationalities, and continues:–‘The spirit of the Austrian Government in the Italian provinces we heartily deplore. All things considered, it would have been better for Austria herself if England and the other Powers had not insisted in 1815 on her resuming the government of Lombardy, or if the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom had been erected into a distinct State; but that consideration is utterly insufficient to justify a deliberate breach of the public law of Europe.’

And he adds a note:–‘We believe that we are strictly correct in stating that the Emperor Francis, foreseeing the difficulties his Government would have to encounter in Lombardy, and anxious to avoid causes of future dissension with France, expressed his strong disinclination to resume that province; but it was pressed upon him by the other Powers, and especially by the Prince Regent of England, as the only effectual mode of excluding the influence of France from Northern Italy.’

The argument, throughout, is that the attack on Austria about to be made by France and Sardinia was an unprovoked aggression, a violation of European treaties; on the part of Sardinia, for lust of territory, and on the part of France, for a desire to remodel the map of Europe, to annex Savoy– which was to be the price of her assistance–and to carry out the ideas ‘conceived at the time of his early connexion with the Italian patriots in the movement of 1831.’

_From Lord Hatherton_

_Teddesley, March 5th._–I have been from home two days….Pray excuse my not having thanked you before for your kind announcement of Tocqueville’s convalescence. But the same day brought me a letter from a friend of Tocqueville’s brother, … telling me the accounts were very unpromising. I hope and believe yours is the more reliable account.

I have not a doubt that L. Napoleon means war, and will not be baulked of it. It is a disagreeable thing for England to know that, if he succeed, he will have acquired some valuable experience in the embarkation and disembarkation of an armament of 45,000 men, with as many more to follow it; and that if they are not wanted in the Mediterranean, they may be used elsewhere, while we are totally unprepared; and I fear, through the weakness of our Government, from the nature of our institutions, for purposes of defence in times of peace, are likely to remain so.

_From Count Zamoyski_

Paris, March 29th.

My dear friend, I am not surprised at your regret; my own is very keen. Throughout his whole life Sigismond Krasinski was obliged to conceal his true self. Out of regard for his father, who was always a pitiful courtier of success, he denied himself the liberty of saying what he thought, acknowledging what he wrote, or showing to whom he was attached. I was one of those whom he supported by his zealous co-operation. You knew him as a poet; he had become a politician, and seemed destined to exercise a great influence. His loss is irreparable. To me he was a friend and a brother-in-arms.

His widow, his two sons–of twelve and thirteen, and his daughter, of seven, are here. She is occupied in collecting all her husband’s writings, with the intention of publishing all that is of value. She thinks, and rightly, that a judicious selection of his letters would be especially interesting as containing the secret of his life–a secret which he guarded so carefully. If, therefore, you will send me what you have, or bring them when you come here in a month’s time, you will oblige both his widow and friends. His sons had never been separated from him–which will assure you that their early education has been well cared for. Their mother proposes that they should continue their studies here, attending a college, and having lessons in Polish history and literature, which can be had here better than in Poland.

So it is settled that we are to have a congress! But what will it do? What can be done in such a matter in so short a time? The ‘Moniteur’ has rightly pointed out that it is necessary to ‘study the questions.’ For that, time is especially wanted. It would need something like a council sitting through years, reigns, wars, to bring about salutary and lasting results. I am told that nowadays everything must go by steam–this, as well as the rest. To which, I answer that the result will be nothing but water mixed with blood….

I am sorry to see the English Press more and more unjust to the Emperor Napoleon. It is really silly to keep on schooling France–not the Emperor–for preferring an imperial to a parliamentary government. If the English had the institutions which in France seem to be but the concomitants of despotism, they would educe from them a large amount of political liberty. But if the French–like the woman in Molière prefer being governed, it would be wise for the English peers to accept the fact; and instead of sneering at and irritating France whenever she wishes to do some good, to get out of the beaten track, to conquer hearts, not territories, it would be better honestly to co-operate with her, and thus attain valuable results–a profitable success, and the deliverance of France from the fatal support of Russia, which she accepts as a _pis-aller_, but which in the long run can only be to her hurt. More than all others, the English Press, which is so proud–which has good reason to be proud–should assist in the ‘study of the questions;’ should anticipate the negotiations; should elevate and elucidate them by judicious suggestions, basing everything on a firm alliance of the Western Powers.

But alas! where is the English statesman, where is even the great writer or the newspaper capable of inaugurating such a policy? For lack of these, we see England vying with France in courtesy to Russia–in anxiety to please her. But to this the Emperor Napoleon does at least add his theory of nationalities, which is sufficient to reassure us on the score of his flirtation with Russia; does the English Government or the English press do anything of a similar nature? Alas! Alas! England is certainly great, but it is selfishly for herself. Will she never be able to offer other nations–whatever the circumstances may be–anything but insults, or her own institutions as patterns.

Pardon de ce bavardage et mille amitiés–avec tous mes compliments pour Mesdames Reeve.

L. ZAMOYSKI.

Je joins un mot de la Ctsse. K. pour vous, reçu à l’instant.

_From the Countess Krasinska_

_Paris, 29 mars._–Le Comte Zamoyski a bien voulu me communiquer votre lettre, monsieur, et j’ai été bien sincèrement touchée du souvenir d’affection que vous conservez à un ami qui n’a cessé non plus, je puis vous le garantir, de vous porter un sentiment inaltérable et sincère. Bien souvent, en me parlant des jours de sa jeunesse, mon mari me parlait de cette amitié qui vous unissait et qui en a été un des meilleurs rayons. Il m’avait aussi parlé des manuscrits que vous aurez, et je vous avoue que vous allez au-devant de mes désirs et de ma prière en voulant bien les communiquer. Je tiens infiniment à recueillir tout ce qui a échappé à ce grand coeur et à cette vaillante plume, et je commence un travail qui ne sera sans doute complet que dans quelques années. Je vous serai donc on ne peut plus reconnaissante si vous vouliez bien confier entre mes mains ce que vous possédez, soit en copie, soit original, comme vous le voudrez, m’engageant à vous remettre ce précieux dépôt dès que nous en aurons fait usage, et dès que vous le réclamerez.

J’espère lorsque vous viendrez à Paris que je pourrai vous présenter, monsieur, les deux fils de Sigismond et sa petite fille, et vous demander pour les enfants un peu de ce coeur que vous aviez pour le père.

_From Lord Brougham_

_Cannes, April 9th_.–I fear I have but a bad account to give of poor Tocqueville; he has been worse again, and to-day he received the Communion. Dr. Maure has just told me he hardly thought he could live over the month, but he (Dr. M.) has always been much more desponding than the other physician. One great evil has befallen him. Beaumont, who had really been a nurse to him these three weeks, is suddenly called away to Paris by the telegraph, owing to some illness in his own family, and this is an irreparable loss to Tocqueville.

We are all here in great anxiety about peace and war. Cavour, whose conduct–and that of his master–is as bad as possible, has no doubt received strong assurances of support from L. N. and his vile cousin; and the war party at Turin are exulting, considering that the Congress can do nothing to prevent the outbreak with Austria, upon which they reckon for certain, and, I fear, with some reason. The utter want of good faith in L. N. becomes daily more manifest…. Yet, though even the military men are crying out against the war, and all other parties, without any exception, are against him, one sees nothing that can effectually shake him, unless he were to be defeated in the war he has been endeavouring to bring about. The whole prospects are as gloomy as possible for the friends of freedom and of peace.

_From Lord Brougham_

_Cannes, April 10th_.–Many thanks for your letter, which gives me information much beyond what my other letters give, but far from agreeable either as to home or foreign affairs. This destruction (I fear I must call it) of the Liberal party by the personal vanity, which they call by the higher name of ambition, of two persons is truly deplorable; and the conduct of the Government in dissolving is such as can hardly be exceeded in folly. We shall have an increased split, I fear, of the Liberals, and a weaker Government than ever. I grieve to say that matters look as ill for peace in this country and Italy as ever. The conduct of Cavour is abominable.

I grieve to give you a worse account than ever of Tocqueville. Dr. Maure had condemned him from the first, but Dr. Sève had sanguine hopes, at least, of a long time being given. But I have just seen him, and he now says it is an affair of days. So all is nearly over. Mme. T. is also very ill, and Beaumont being forced to leave them is most vexatious.

_From Lord Clarendon_

_G. C., April 10th_.–Do you chance to have a proof-sheet of that part of your article which treats of the rights of Austria to Lombardy and Venice and her reversionary rights to the other States, and, if so, will you lend it to me? You have made the whole case so clear that I should like to read it over again, as it may be necessary to say something on the subject in the House of Lords when Malmesbury makes his statement, and I see that the ‘Edinburgh Review’ will not be out till Friday, otherwise I would not trouble you.

_G. C., April 13th_.–Many thanks for the proof-sheets, and Schwarzenberg’s despatch and Duvergier’s letter, which I enclose. I was kept at home by a slight attack of gout yesterday, and did not see Malmesbury, but on Monday he told me that he had hopes of being able to announce a disarming of the three would-be belligerent Powers. Until he makes that statement I shall not believe in its probability. Palmerston and Lord John seem well aware that any encouragement to war would be most unpopular at home, and I don’t expect that there will be much discussion on Friday.

_From the Duc d’Aumale_

Orleans House, April 11th.

On my return from Claremont I find your letter. With my brothers I had just been deploring the great loss sustained by the Liberal party. [Footnote: The death of Tocqueville was prematurely announced a week before it actually took place.] Of all the men of mark in our deliberative assemblies, M. de Tocqueville was certainly the most stainless. He had the rare advantage of not being obnoxious to any of the parties existing in France, by which I mean all self-respecting parties, such as will be taken into account on the day when France shall become herself again. He would certainly have been one of the most important members of the first free government in our country. Even as things are, he was one of our public characters whose voice carried most weight, and who was best fitted to enlighten the minds of others. God has taken him from us before his time. Forgive me for retaining so much selfishness and party spirit before the coffin of so good and amiable a man; for regretting his public more than his private virtues.

_From M. Guizot_

_Paris, April 15th_.–… France does not understand, approve, or wish for an Italian war now any more than she did six months ago. I persist in thinking that in his inmost soul, and of his own judgement, the Emperor Napoleon would also be glad to be rid of it, provided it should be quite clear that it is not of his free will that he backs out of his promise, and that, in remaining at peace, he is yielding to imperious necessity, to the interest, will, and influence of Europe. On Europe, therefore, the matter depends; and, in this, Europe is England, for Prussia will follow England. It is, therefore, towards you that all of us who are friends of peace and good sense now turn our eyes. Do not fall a prey to the disease which has mastered all the politicians of the time. Do not be afraid to take the initiative, to incur the responsibility; decide and act according to your own opinion, instead of waiting for circumstances to decide and act for you. On this condition alone the peace of Europe will be saved; without it, it will not. And of this be sure: that if war does break out, we shall feel, no doubt, that you have been wanting in the foresight and resolution which would have prevented it….

_From Lord Brougham_

[_Cannes_] _April 17th_.–Poor Tocqueville died this morning, not at Hyères, as the papers which announced his death a week ago say, but at a house a mile from Cannes. His two brothers were with him; and his poor wife is so ill that she will not long survive him.

People in high quarters in England seem bent on believing that the Congress will do wonders. I don’t expect it. There is such bad faith in the man on whom it really all turns, and he is in such a state, by the universal opinion of France and of Europe being against him, that I should not be surprised at any desperate act to regain the place he has lost. You may naturally suppose the preparations which, chiefly naval, are going on must mean something, and he seems resolved that no restraint on them shall be imposed when others agree to disarm. Why should he not agree to stop, and not to add to his means–as everyone that comes from Marseilles tells us he is doing, though gradually? The reason he will suffer no restriction to be imposed is that the army would regard this as a concession, and he won’t risk any offence in that quarter. The worst of it is that they–the officers–though just as averse to an Austrian war as the country at large, would by no means dislike a dash at England, and I cannot get out of my mind the risk there is of his making that attempt when we are unprepared. The perfidy would be overlooked in the success, though temporary. And in the midst of all this we have Malmesbury at the F. O. and Derby premier!

_From Lord Clarendon_

_G.G., April 19th_. I am delighted you approved of what I said last night,[Footnote: In the House of Lords.] and much obliged to you for letting me know it. I thought Derby’s speech excellent, though perhaps a trifle too bellicose in the latter part for John Bull, who always wants a little preparation before he is taken over rough ground. He is under the strict neutrality delusion just now, and has not yet thought of realising his rôle in a European war.

Your article is attracting great attention, and seems to be working a great deal of good. Where did you get the information contained in the note to p. 566? [Footnote: See _ante_, p. 13.] I meant to have used it, and to have appealed to Aberdeen to confirm the statement, but thought it prudent to ask him beforehand whether he agreed.

The article on ‘Austria, France, and Italy,’ in the April number of the Review brought Reeve the following letter from Mr. Edward Cheney, till then a mere acquaintance, though between the two a friendship quickly sprang up which was broken only by death. Mr. Cheney had lived for several years in Italy, and his letters–always interesting, frequently amusing–commonly relate to Italian affairs; but he was a well-read, accomplished, and large-minded man, and in his judgement on literary questions Reeve had great confidence.

Audley Square, April 20th.

My dear sir,–At the risk of appearing intrusive, and perhaps impertinent, I cannot resist my strong inclination to express the great satisfaction with which I have read the article in the last number of the ‘Edinburgh Review’ on the Italian question. I do not presume to attribute the authorship to yourself, though the clearness of the style, the closeness of the reasoning, and the candour of the deductions would naturally lead me to that conclusion; but, in truth, its merits are far beyond its technical excellencies, and I rejoice peculiarly on its appearance at a moment when public attention is concentrated on the affairs of the Italian peninsula, and when the public, too, has so much need of enlightenment. A man who writes as the author of that article has done confers an incalculable benefit on his countrymen; and, as one not altogether incompetent to form a judgement on the subject, I beg to offer him my congratulations.

I have lived many years in Italy, am minutely acquainted with every part of it. I have many friends and intimates amongst its natives. I admire the country, and like its people; and, while doing justice to many of their excellent and amiable qualities, I cannot be blind to the fact that most of the misfortunes which have befallen them are attributable mainly to their want of constancy, their want of ambition, and–the word must be spoken–their want of courage. They are now on the eve of another and more serious revolution; they are rushing with reckless indifference upon a danger the extent of which they cannot realise to themselves, but which must inevitably overwhelm them. A European war must be the consequence, a war in which England must ultimately take a part; and the man who calmly and dispassionately endeavours to open the eyes of his countrymen to the truth, and who, regardless of passing obloquy, dares to assert it, is their real benefactor; and though, at the first moment, he may share the fate of those who tell unwelcome truths, justice will ultimately be done him, though not, perhaps, till the cry of regret is raised that his warning and advice were both neglected. I would conclude my letter with another apology for having thus far intruded on your valuable time; but you yourself will be able to suggest my best excuse in the deep interest which we both take in the subject.

Believe me, my dear Sir,

Very sincerely yours,

EDWARD CHENEY.

_From M. Guizot_

_Paris, April 21st_.–J’ai reçu et lu votre article il y a déjà plusieurs jours, et je l’ai trouvé excellent. Il est impossible de mieux résumer les faits, de mieux établir les droits et de faire mieux pressentir la bonne politique. Lord Derby et Lord Clarendon vous ont donné pleinement raison. Ils ont gardé, l’un et l’autre, chacun dans sa position, une juste mesure, tout en parlant avec une grande franchise. L’effet est grand ici.

The question is how to get clear of this imbroglio, the handiwork of a lot of mischief-makers, who are at once timid and rash, obstinate and unenterprising, conscious of their weakness, yet persisting in their folly. We are waiting impatiently for the decisive answers from Turin and Vienna; and then the congress; and then your elections; and then–what? I have passed the best part of my life in doing, and am not yet accustomed to waiting without knowing what for….

_From Lord Brougham_

[_Cannes_] _April 21st_.–I am extremely obliged to you for sending the article, which I have read with the greatest satisfaction. There are one or two things of minor importance on which I differ. The matter of Genoa as connected with Piedmont, I need not say, is not one of these. Indeed, it might have been put stronger, and without reference to Lord W. Bentinck; for, if I rightly recollect, when I, in 1817, attacked Castlereagh on the misdeeds of the congress in 1815, I put the surrender of Genoa to Piedmont in the very front of the charges against the congress–independent of Lord W. B.’s proclamation, and on the ground of the Genoese hatred of Piedmont. I again referred to this the first night of the session.

I broke through my rule of never attending funerals yesterday. The last time I broke it was my dear friend Follett; this time it was Tocqueville. I should have been the only member of the Institute, but Ampere had set out from Rome on receiving T.’s letter, and arrived the day after his death. He is carried to Tocqueville–near Cherbourg, as you know; one of his brothers and a nephew accompany it. Mme. T. is not nearly so ill as was believed. It is bronchitis, not lungs; so she expects to go by slow journeys in a few days.

_April 22nd_.–Since I wrote yesterday I have received an account which, whether true or not, shows the opinion they have in Italy of our great ally. A man who had stood his friend and prevented the King of Holland from disinheriting him, has lately been at Paris, and was kindly received by him. So far is certain, and his kindness to those who befriended him formerly is a good quality he really possesses. But it is added that he told him to tell his nation not to be disheartened by the congress, because care would be taken to make proposals which must be rejected, and that he was as ready as ever. I really believe there is nothing too base in the way of perfidy he would scruple to do, if his resolution was fixed and it appeared clearly to be his interest. There has, however, been a change in him of late, as to determination. He is more easily swayed by others than he was, and he falters more when left alone. Altogether, it is a cruel calamity for the world to have such a person to depend upon. I wish someone would show how much he appeals to the multitude–the mere _mob_. He is still a socialist in practice; and if anyone will read the Robespierre papers, he will see that there is a deliberate design to make the poor–the persons without property–rule. One man whom I afterwards knew (Julien de Paris), and who had been a philanthropist _exalté_, states, in one of his reports to the Committee of Public Safety, that those who have no property are the great majority, and therefore must govern. There could be no greater service to France than a full exposition of these principles–the ones which L. N. adopts; and at the same time a full account of the abominable character of the first Napoleon, of which the materials are abundant in the correspondence with Joseph, [Footnote: _Mémoires et Correspondance politique et militaire du roi Joseph_ (6 tom. 8vo. 1854).] and also in the printed, but unpublished, vols. of his whole correspondence.

[_Cannes_] _May 4th_–I suppose some folks will now have discovered what reliance there is to be placed on a capricious and absolute man. It was clear from the first that he had resolved upon this Italian speculation, and that as soon as he could mitigate the universal feeling and opinion against him, he would have his way. The congress, whether suggested by him through Russia or not, was only one means of delay till all was ready, and one way of putting Austria in the wrong, or making an outcry against her as if she was–for really, except in the clumsy way of doing it, I can see nothing to blame in her refusal. She is treated as the aggressor. Now all she has done, or could do, was in her own defence, and nothing in the world can be more absurd than pretending that she is the cause of the war. If she beat the allies ever so much, she does not gain one inch of territory, while their real object is to strip her. As for L. N. considering himself aggrieved by her breaking off the negotiation and beginning to defend herself, it can only be on the supposition that he has a right to interfere on behalf of the Italians. Indeed, the same thing may be said of Sardinia. It is considered that she is aggrieved if the other Italian States are aggrieved; and now comes this rising in Tuscany and the smaller duchies to embarrass one party and so far help the other. But there is no reason to believe that any rising in Lombardy will take place.

The unaccountable part of it is the Austrians delaying their attack. It seemed clear that their plan would be to march upon Turin before the French could get up, and yet they have suffered 40,000 men to be landed at Genoa, and a considerable force to cross by Mont Cenis, without doing anything. Can it be that the sudden notice to Piedmont was an act of the Emperor without his ministers being consulted, and that they are less prepared than was supposed? Bunsen’s son, who is in the Prussian mission at Turin, wrote ten days ago that the Government was ready to remove to Genoa, expecting the Austrians to come before the French arrived, and knowing Turin to be indefensible. It now seems that there must be a battle before Turin can be taken. All the road from Paris to Marseilles has been encumbered with troops, and all the steamers have been taken by the Government, and more men will be sent if wanted. The usual effect of a war has been perceived–namely, making the multitude rally round the Government–consequently there is less outcry against the war than there was, except amongst thinking people and those who are suffering from the suspension of all trade. The Emperor himself will probably join the army when they are prepared for an advantageous movement. He is playing a game that may be desperate. This Russian alliance is denied, but substantially it is true, and I have little doubt that some undertaking is effected to give leave to Russia in Turkey, on condition that she does something for Poland (one of L. N.’s hobbies) and helps some Italian arrangement for the cousin.

The next letter is endorsed by Reeve–‘An affectionate record of a long friendship. I have inserted it in the copy of his Journals.’

_From Mr. C. C. Greville_

_May 6th_.–I will not delay to thank you warmly for your kind note. Your accession to the P. C. office gave me a friendship which I need not say how much I have valued through so many years of happy intercourse, which I rejoice at knowing has never been for an instant clouded or interrupted, and which will, I hope, last the same as long as I last myself. It is always painful to do anything for the last time, and I cannot without emotion take leave of an office where I have experienced for so many years so much kindness, consideration, and goodwill. I have told Hamilton that I hope still to be considered as _amicus curiae_, and to be applied to on every occasion when I can be of use to the office, or my personal services can be employed to promote the interest of any member of it. Between you and me there has been, I think, as much as possible between any two people, the ‘idem velle, idem nolle et idem sentire de republicâ,’ and in consequence the ‘firma amicitia.’ God bless you, and believe me always,

Yours most sincerely and faithfully, C. C. G.

_From Lord Brougham_

[_Cannes_] _May 18th_.–I really begin to feel anxious about the peace of Europe, and not without some alarm as to our own position. There can be no doubt that for the present (if not more permanently) this man [the Emperor], working on the French feeling, has got the mob, military and civil, with him. The war has ceased to be unpopular, and all reckon upon victory. If they succeed, he will, for a while, be satisfied with the gratification of his vanity and the strengthening of his power; but soon after he will be pushed by his unruly supporters, and will try a deeper game. Of this they are as much convinced in Germany as of his existence, and even Prussia will not persist holding back. If she does, and if the Russian alliance continues, she will be destroyed as soon as Austria is weakened. I, therefore, expect to see Prussia take timely precautions. They are prepared at Frankfort to split with her if she does not.

I am now satisfied that the Austrians intended only a _razzia_ to Turin, and then to carry on only a defensive contest; and having been prevented–partly by the floods, and partly by our untimely intermeddling, and partly by their old error of having one head at Vienna, and another with the army–they have now given up the _razzia_, and will act on the defensive. This will not prevent them taking advantage of any opportunity of attacking, should they be able to do so with a certainty of success; but for any such dash I look rather to the French than to them. Certainly the Man is in a great difficulty if the Austrians steadily pursue this plan; for the expectations are wound up to a high pitch in France–especially in Paris and the great towns–of his doing something speedily, and the French nature is not to wait with calmness and patience. Even in this remote quarter, the thousands of fine troops passing raises a great feeling for the war.

_To Lord Brougham

C. O., May 21st_.–To the very best of my belief, the Queen’s Speech will not be delivered till June 7th, but I speak without authority…. I have the greatest doubt whether it will be possible to unite all those sections of the H. of C. which are not to be regarded as Lord Derby’s supporters, in a direct adverse vote–on the address or otherwise; and if the attempt is made–as it probably will be I think it will fail. [Footnote: The attempt was made, and did not fail. The Ministry was defeated on the amendment to the address by 323 to 310.] The Government say they have 307 men on whom they can rely, and a fair chance that fifteen or twenty more men will not consent to take part in an active, offensive campaign. Indeed the country gentlemen say pretty generally that they will not attempt to turn the Government out, until they are satisfied that a more stable Government can be formed. But how is this possible when the numbers are–on one side a compact body of more than 300, and–on the other side, a divided body of 350? What we hope, therefore, is this: that John Russell and the Radicals will take a course on the subject of Reform which will be resisted by the moderate Liberals; and that the result will be a fusion between the moderate Liberals and the large Conservative phalanx. For it is clear that without some degree of support from the Conservatives, no other government can be carried on. As for any lasting or sincere union between Lord Palmerston and Lord John, it is quite hopeless, [Footnote: The event falsified this forecast. In the Ministry which Palmerston now formed Lord John was Foreign Secretary, and continued so till Palmerston’s death in 1865.] and the desire to keep the latter out of office is so general and intense, that it is probable he would fail to make a Cabinet, even if the Queen sent for him–which she will certainly not do until the last extremity. On the other hand, there is the great objection to Palmerston that he holds language about the Italians and the French–to whom he is entirely devoted–which is quite at variance with the convictions of every man of sense in the country. There can be very little doubt that the war will spread. The whole of Germany is burning with ardour to support Austria; and if the French gain a battle on the Po, nothing will prevent the whole strength of Germany from coming to the rescue. [Footnote: Louis Napoleon’s fear of this is a sufficient explanation of his ambiguous policy after Solferino.] The position of France is, in reality, most critical, for all her best troops are in Italy, and she would have great difficulty in placing 100,000 men on the Rhine, where she may have to confront half a million of combatants.

Hortensius’ [Footnote: William Forsyth, Q.C., for many years standing counsel to the India Office. As the author, among other works, of _Hortensius_, and residing, as he still resides, at 61 Rutland Gate, Lord Brougham, in writing to Reeve, invariably refers to him as either ‘Hortensius’ or ‘your neighbour.’ In 1872 he published _Letters from Lord Brougham to William Forsyth_, with some facsimiles to show his ‘extraordinary hand.’ ‘I think,’ wrote Mr. Forsyth, ‘the hieroglyphics will puzzle most readers;’ but the samples he has given are as copper-plate compared with some of the letters to Reeve of about the same date.] appointment was, I believe, purely an act of Lord Stanley’s, and I dare say your kindness in mentioning his name had due effect. Hortensius applied, by letter, for the appointment, and about three weeks after came a letter to say he was appointed.

_From Lord Brougham_

[_Cannes_] _May 24th_. I have been reading over again your excellent article on the subject of the day, and I may say of the place; and the more I reflect on it, I come the nearer to your view in all respects. Really the more we consider this abominable man’s conduct (and his accomplice Cavour is quite as bad, though not so foolish), the greater indignation we feel at the unprovoked breach of the peace. The audacity of the pretence from a despot and usurper exceeds precedent. What can be said too of Russia, which keeps her hold of Poland only ten years longer than the settlement of 1815! It really would be important, now that the attempt has been made to represent [the first] Napoleon as the friend of oppressed nationalities, that we should direct men’s attention a little more to the enormities in that man’s whole history. Party motives arising out of our English divisions to a certain degree prevented the real truth from being generally felt respecting him. There was the usual exaggeration on both sides. One party painted the devil blacker than he was, crediting to him crimes which he never committed. The other, because their adversaries thus painted him, would allow nothing against him, and exaggerated his merits–though it were difficult to overrate his capacity, and his military genius especially. But the more his moral guilt is examined the blacker it will appear, and the late publication, which you call candid, I believe has been true and full owing to careless superintendence. When I say publication I mean printing, for it is not really published, though copies are freely given. The publication of Joseph’s memoirs is also full of important matter.

Now from these and the existing materials, a full and plain account of the man ought to be prepared, [Footnote: This is what M. Lanfrey began to do, and was going on with at the time of his lamented death, at the age of forty-nine, in 1877.] and you may rely on it that great effect against the present man would be produced; for he ostentatiously connects his policy with the former one’s, and there is the greatest care taken to suppress attacks on Napoleon I. in the periodical publications–at least in the newspapers. But if the English and German and Belgian press are full of the facts, and repeatedly lay them before the world, no policy of the French press can long keep the truth from reaching the public. However, I am drawn away from what I had intended to mention–the present state of the public mind on the war question in this country. The giddy and warlike nature of the people, and his going to the army, has produced an effect not only in removing the unpopularity of the war, but in raising a warlike spirit–at least for the present. If victory comes, this will be increased. It is probable he may for the present be satisfied with the strength which he will derive from it; but the army will probably join with the mob in wishing for further proceedings, and then we shall find that Germany will be attacked, and I must even say that we shall do well to be prepared in England. I believe, however, that the Austrians in Italy will make it a lingering affair by defensive operations, and this will exhaust the French patience. The lies of the Sardinian press, and indeed official accounts, make it impossible to tell how far they have at the beginning suffered a check. But I plainly perceive that, if something brilliant is not done, L. N. will be shaken.

* * * * *

_From Count Zamoyski_

_Paris, May 28th_. May is passing and your plans are not yet realised; we still await your arrival. Mme. Krasinska is leaving Paris for Warsaw, and has charged me to forward you the enclosed, in which she gives you the address of the person here who is ready to receive the papers you have promised her, which both she and the friends of the deceased await with lively interest.

Having written thus much on the matter in hand, Zamoyski turned again to politics and the discussion at some length of the situation in Italy, out of which many of the Poles fondly hoped their freedom was to come. The English mistrust of Napoleon, he argued, was as injudicious as unfounded, and could do nothing but harm by forcing France into the arms of Russia. One of the many wild suggestions afloat at the time amounted to little less than a complete remodelling of the map of Europe. Austria, deprived of her Italian provinces, was to be compensated on the lower Danube; as a balance to which, Russia was to occupy Constantinople, and, to mark her friendship to France–who was entering on the war for an _idée_–would restore freedom to Poland. And there were some who believed it. Zamoyski was clearer-headed; but his mind also was warped by sense of wrong, and his fancy was as wild as the other. If England, he urged, will not act in concert with France, let her at least emulate the noble example France is setting. She is preparing to free Italy; let England, as her part in the generous rivalry, free Poland. Russia is still England’s enemy. This is England’s opportunity. And he seems to have persuaded himself that, if she did not avail herself of it, she would be a recreant to the cause of liberty and humanity. It is very curious.

_From the Countess Krasinska_

_Paris, 26 mai_.–Je vous remercie infiniment, Monsieur, de votre bonne lettre et de tout ce que vous voulez bien me dire de celui que nous ne cesserons pas de regretter, et qui m’a bien et bien souvent parlé de vous et des années de jeunesse passées avec vous dans une étroite et sincère amitié. Ce souvenir a été constant dans son coeur! Je regrette infiniment aussi que les évènements politiques vous aient empêché de venir à Paris, comme vous vous le proposiez. Je suis obligée de partir pour Varsovie, et crains de vous manquer si vous venez bientôt ici. Dans tous les cas, si vous vouliez bien confier vos précieux manuscrits [Footnote: If sent to M. Okrynski, the letters were returned; for they were afterwards given to Sigismond’s grandson, the present Count Adam Krasinski (_see post_. p. 389).] à M. Victor Okrynski, Rue de la Pépinière 66, je vous en serai bien reconnaissante. C’est chez lui que je laisse en dépôt ce que nous avons rassemblé jusqu’ici.

It would seem from the following note that Lord Macaulay had spoken to Reeve of Dr. Thomas Campbell’s “Diary of a Visit to England in 1775; by an Irishman;” a small book–little more than a pamphlet–which had been published at Sydney in 1854. It had struck Reeve that such a “Diary” might be the text for an interesting article in the “Review;” and the correspondence respecting it derives a peculiar value from its near approach to the close of Macaulay’s labours.

_From Lord Macaulay_

Holly Lodge, Kensington, June 1st.

Dear Reeve,–Before you determine anything about Dr. T. Campbell’s Diary, you had better read it. I have lent my copy, which is probably the only copy in England, and do not expect to get it back till next week. When it comes, I will send it to you, and we will then talk further. Ever yours truly, MACAULAY.

_From M. Guizot_

_Val Richer, June 11th_.–… On the Continent, it seems to me, there is now only one question–Will Austria remain obstinate? If she does, if she is determined to fight on, although beaten; not to give up her Italian possessions, although she has lost them in Italy, and to impose on the conquerors of Milan the necessity of being also the conquerors of Vienna–in that case the actual beginning of the war is a trifle; we are advancing towards a general war and European chaos. The mere continuance of the struggle will be quite sufficient to make it impossible for anyone–for Lord Derby as much as for Lord Palmerston–to stop it or to foresee where it will lead. Has Austria the will and the strength to prolong the struggle? Or will she be alarmed and intimidated by her first defeats, and be persuaded to make such concessions as will give, if not Italy herself, at least her patrons for the time being, a decent pretext to declare themselves satisfied, and to retreat in triumph? I repeat this seems to me the only question. If I were to judge by the reports that reach me from Germany, no doubt is there felt. Austria, both emperor and country, are said to be perfectly determined to fight to the last extremity, being convinced that in their extreme peril, and when, in their persons, European order is endangered, they will find allies and a chance of safety. But I do not put much faith in rumours which promise a somewhat heroic firmness. Great things are apt to come to nothing nowadays, and it may well be that the Italian question will fall through, and all this noise end in some transaction which will be neither a true nor lasting solution. Italy has long been the scene of events that end thus….

_From Lord Clarendon_

_G.C., June 13th_.–You have always taken such a kind and friendly concern in my affairs that I think you will like to know how I stand. Palmerston, by the Queen’s desire, insisted on my returning to the F.O., and I felt that, though most unwilling to accept the offer, I had no sufficient plea for declining it. But when Palmerston very properly placed any office at the disposal of Lord John, he claimed the F.O. as his right. I gladly recognised that right and the superiority of his claims to my own.

I was most warmly pressed by Palmerston and my former colleagues to take any other office; but for that I saw no necessity, and I was sure I should best consult the public taste by making way for some one who had not been in Palmerston’s former Government. The Queen sent for me, and very kindly tried to shake my determination; but it had not been lightly taken, and she did not succeed. So I am still free, and great is my happiness thereat.

_From Lord Macaulay_

_June 27th_.–If I were to renew my connexion with the “Edinburgh Review” after an interval of fifteen years, I should wish my first article to be rather more striking than an article on Campbell’s Diary can easily be. You will, no doubt, do the thing as well as it can be done.

Some other hand, therefore, supplied the article on “A Visit to England in 1775” which appeared in the October number of the “Review.”

_To Madame de Tocqueville_ 62 Rutland Gate, June 30th.

Dear Madame de Tocqueville, [Footnote: Mme. de Tocqueville was an Englishwoman, and the correspondence was naturally in English.] I reproach myself exceedingly for having delayed so long to express to you, or, rather, to endeavour to express to you, how strongly Mrs. Reeve and myself participate in that sympathy and sorrow which your irreparable loss has inspired to the whole world, but most of all to those to whom the friendship of your husband was one of the blessings of life. I cannot accustom myself to the thought that the intercourse I had the happiness to maintain with him for twenty-five years is really at an end; and that the events of the world in which he took so constant and enlightened an interest are still rolling onwards, while his pure intelligence has passed to some higher and nobler sphere. We now look back, indeed, with a pleasure that heightens our regret, to those delightful days we spent at Tocqueville in 1856, and to his visit to England in 1857. Nothing, indeed, was wanting, either to his fame or to the love he inspired those who knew him; and to both these sacred recollections our thoughts will be directed as long as we survive. What, then, must be the loss and the void to you, who lived, as it were, _in_ that light? I dare not think of it, were it not that your thoughts will rise to that source which has consolation for all earthly sorrows. I have heard of you, and seen your admirable letters to Mrs. Grote and Mrs. Merivale, which assure me of the resignation and piety that still support you. Mrs. Reeve and Hopie desire to join in the cordial expression of their affectionate regard; and I remain Your most faithful servant,

H. REEVE.

The Journal here notes:–

In August I left town for Ambleside and Abington, to shoot. Thence I went to the George R. Smiths’, at Relugas; near Forres. Shot there, and then crossed the Moray Firth to Skibo and Uppat. Then I went on to Langwell, in Caithness, which the Duke of Portland had lent the Speaker (E. Denison), and spent some days with him. Returned to town by sea from Aberdeen. Shooting in September at Chorleywood and Stetchworth–the latter first-rate; then to Roxburghshire; afterwards to Raith.

_To Lord Brougham_

_Relugas, near Forres, August 26th._–Your very kind note of the 23rd has followed me here, where I am spending a few days on my way to Sutherland. Towards the latter end of October I shall be returning to England, with Mrs. Reeve and my daughter, and if you are still at Brougham at that time, and disposed to receive us for a day or two in this patriarchal fashion, it will give us the greatest pleasure to come.

Louis Napoleon’s amnesty appears to me to be the most judicious act of his reign, and, if he would only follow it up by giving a more legal character to his administration, I think he would soon rally many persons to himself. All that the French seem at this time to require is that the Government should observe the laws it enforces on other people–a very moderate request.

I will endeavour to find out about the Chancery Evidence Commission. It is a monstrous absurdity that your name should not appear in a commission destined, if anything, to give effect to the principles you have so long and constantly advocated.

_C.O., September 26th_.–I sincerely hope that, whatever day the Edinburgh banquet takes place, I may have the honour of attending it. I shall probably be at Raith at the time. Considering what you have been, for more than half a century, to the “Edinburgh Review,” and the connexion which was thus so long maintained between yourself and Edinburgh, I am most anxious, as the humble representative of that journal at the present time, to do anything in my power to contribute to a mark of respect paid you in Edinburgh; and I should have gladly attended the dinner, even if I had not been, as I probably shall be, within easy reach of it.

_From Lord Brougham_

_Brougham, September 27th_.–Many thanks for your great kindness about the Edinburgh dinner, which I look forward to with some dismay; for the requisition, which was signed by the heads of all parties, and in very kind terms, makes it impossible not to attend, and, beside the plagues incidental to all such proceedings, I have the excessive suffering from the blanks by which I shall be surrounded. To go no further than what you allude to, it may possibly be October 25th, and certainly not later than 26th; and that is the anniversary of the “Edinburgh Review” fifty-seven years ago. Then Jeffrey, Horner, Smith, Allen, Murray, Playfair, Thomson–all gone; and of later years, Cockburn, your father, Eyre. It is really a sad thing. And then, beside our set, there were A. Thomson, Moncreiff, T. Campbell, Cranstoun, Clerk, D. Stewart, W. Scott–all, except Horner, Playfair, and Scott, D. Stewart and A. Thomson, T. Campbell, alive in 1834, when I was last in Edinburgh. I must struggle the best I can, but this feeling nearly overpowers me.

I send you by this post a Paris paper I have just received, evidently sent on account of the article marked, which is so far gratifying that it is by a very eminent man, who signs it; but I chiefly value it on account of the attack upon England for not having raised a monument, [footnote: Lord Brougham was at this time greatly interested, and indeed excited, about a proposed monument to Sir Isaac Newton. His letters frequently allude to it.] and on account, also, of the statement that he was the greatest of all men–which will not be very agreeable to our friends of the Institute.

The Journal records:–

Lord Brougham was elected Chancellor of the University of Edinburgh. I attended a banquet given him there on October 26th. I then went from Raith to Brougham and Appleby, High Legh, and Teddesley, shooting at all these places, and at Crewe likewise, where I began to shoot with a new breech-loading gun. I must have shot thirty-five or forty days this year, and paid a great number of visits in country houses. We did not go abroad.

Lord Macaulay had meantime received some further particulars as to the MS. of the ‘Visit to England,’ and sent them to Reeve with the following:–

Holly Lodge, November 11th.

My dear sir,–I have just received the enclosed letter, which may, perhaps, interest you. It might be worth while to put a short note at the end of the next number of the ‘Edinburgh Review.’

Very truly yours,

MACAULAY.

_Endorsed_–Lord Macaulay. His last note to me. He died December 27th [really 28th].

The note referred to appeared in the number for January 1860, with the sympathetic remark: ‘This very note was, in fact, his last contribution to these pages, made within a short time of his death.’

_To Lord Brougham_

62 _Rutland Gate, December 29th._–I communicated to Mrs. Austin your very kind intention of writing some notice of Mr. Austin in the ‘Law Review,’ and she has sent me the enclosed paper–very striking, I think it, especially considering the state of physical exhaustion and mental grief in which she lies. Nothing can equal her devotion to his memory. She has, I think, omitted to state that one portion of the lectures delivered by Mr. Austin at the London University were published by Murray in 1832, under the title of ‘The Province of Jurisprudence Determined’ You are aware that this book retains a very high position, and, as John Austin never would republish it in his lifetime, copies of the volume fetch seven or eight guineas. I hope now it will appear again, with additions, as all the drafts of his lectures are in existence, most carefully elaborated by himself. Hortensius has written a very nice article for the ‘Edinburgh’ on the progress of legal reform and on your bills. I hope you will like it. The Review will be out on January 14th.

I forgot to say just now that, as Mrs. Austin and I have no copy of the enclosed paper about her husband, we should be much obliged to you to preserve and return it to us.

The pamphlet ‘Le Pape et le Congrès’ has certainly astonished the world. My Catholic friends call it the pamphlet of the Emperor Julian; and certainly, considering what the Pope has done for him, and he has done for the Pope, it is an act of apostasy. To engage in a contest with Rome is, however, still no small enterprise, and I question if the Emperor has strength of purpose to carry it through. The Popes protested, in their day, against the Treaty of Westphalia and the Treaty of Vienna; _multo magis_, will they protest against the decisions of the Congress of Paris? It must be acknowledged that matters look more favourably than they did for our own policy and influence in the Congress.

_From Lord Brougham

Cannes, January 1st_, 1860.–First of all accept for yourself and Mrs. R. all the good wishes of the season from all here. Next, let me say how gratified I am with the very interesting, and, in the circumstances, extraordinary communication of Mrs. A. It is of the utmost importance, and confirms me in the design I had newly formed, of making my account follow this. It could be made for the next number of the ‘Law Review;’ in the present number giving a short notice, lamenting the great loss, and announcing a full article for next number. I had intimated the probability of this to Francis–the editor–and what I have received this morning from you strongly confirms me. There will, therefore, be only a general statement this time. Really I feel the deepest interest in the subject, when I regard the strong and stern virtues of the man, beside his great talents and learning.

Poor Macaulay, I would give as a foil–of course, only to yourself, privately. He had great abilities; and though I widely differed with him in his views of history–which I, being of the science school, thought should be different from an anecdote book, yet I admit the great merits of his work, and especially of his essays. But I much objected to his running away from our death-struggle in 1834, though his defence was that his sisters would have to go out in the world as milliners if he stayed to fight with us. I had myself made such sacrifices that I felt entitled to complain. However, I pass over that on the ground he gave. But, then, what is to be said of two sessions in the House of Lords without one word of help to the Liberal cause, or indeed to any cause? What but that it was owing to the fear of making a speech which would be thought a failure–that is, would be injurious to his former speeches. Now, such a consideration as this J. Austin was wholly incapable of allowing even to cross his mind. He acted on what he conceived were just principles, and sacrificed to them all regard for himself. How differently did those men act of whose set Macaulay was!–his father, Stephen, H. Thornton, &c. However, his loss is a very melancholy one, because he goes out of the world in full possession of his faculties, and in more than just appreciation of his merits.

The Journal for 1860 begins:–

The new year opened at Chevening on a visit to Lord Stanhope. The party consisted of the Morleys, Hayward, Goldwin Smith, and afterwards the Grotes.

I went to Chevening again in 1862; and for a third time, with Christine, in 1885; the host changed, but the same hospitality.

We sent a round-robin to the Dean of Westminster, begging that Macaulay might be buried in the Abbey. He was buried there on January 9th. I was there. The same day we started for Paris by Southampton. Saw the Circourts, Rauzans, Guizots, &c.

Charles Greville had introduced me to Fould, then minister of finance. On Sunday, January 15th, Fould told me of the conclusion of the treaty of commerce with England, and the same evening we all dined at M. Chevalier’s, with Cobden, Lavergne, Passy, Parieu, and Wolowski–the promoters and authors of the treaty. The next day (16th) I dined with Fould at a state dinner; Metternichs, Bassanos, Auber, Ste.-Beuve, Bourqueney. I took down Mrs. Baring. Lord Brougham was also in Paris.

Albert Pourtalès, my old fellow-pupil at Geneva, was now Prussian ambassador; saw a good deal of him. This was a very interesting visit to Paris.

In some very rough notes, Reeve jotted down the particulars he learned at this time. They amount to this: That between January 16th and 21st, 1859, a treaty was signed between France and Sardinia, by the 5th, 6th, and 7th articles of which Savoy was to be ceded to France when Lombardy and Venetia were conquered and given to Piedmont. Nice was to be ceded when Piedmont got the rest–of what, is not stated–presumably, of Italy. This treaty was known only to the Emperor, Niel, and Pietri, in France, and in Sardinia to the King and Cavour. It was afterwards made known to Villa-Marina, on condition that he should seem to know nothing about it.

On July 8th, 1859, when the Emperor returned to Valeggio from Villafranca, he told the King of Sardinia that peace was made. The King said he would not accept it, and would continue the war on his own account. The Emperor shrugged his shoulders and said ‘Vous êtes fou.’ Afterwards, however, in telling the story to the Queen of Holland, he declared that he only said ‘Vous êtes absurde.’

It appears to have been in conversation with Pourtalès, on January 17th, that Reeve picked up this curious story. During the past few years many State papers at Berlin had been stolen: amongst others, a letter from the Tsar to the King of Prussia, written in the summer of 1855, to the effect that Sebastopol could not hold out another month. This was sent to Paris by Moustier just in time to revive the drooping spirits of the French Government, after the repulse of June 18th.

Supposing this to be true–as Reeve certainly believed it to be–it was only paying off Prussia in her own coin; for at least under Frederick II.–the Prussian agents had shown a remarkable skill in obtaining secret intelligence, either by purchase or by theft. In one case, in 1755, ten important papers and the key of the cipher were stolen from the Count de Broglie, the French ambassador, by his colleague and intimate friend, Count Maltzahn, the Prussian ambassador, who obtained access to his rooms in his absence. ‘There is no doubt,’ wrote De Broglie, ‘that we are indebted for this to the King of Prussia. I am quite sure that Maltzahn would not have done it without an express order.’ [Footnote: Le Secret du Roi, par le Duc de Broglie, tom. i., p. 131]

_From Mr. C. C. Greville

January 15._–I am very glad to hear that Fould has responded with such alacrity, and I shall be most anxious to hear from you again after your interview and dinner with him. I told him in my letter that you had been acquainted with the Emperor when he resided in England, and I hope he will report your arrival to H.M., and that you will be summoned to the imperial presence; it would be very interesting to have a conversation with the great man himself, and you might enlighten his mind, and correct some of the erroneous impressions he is likely to have formed from Cobden’s conversation.

So far as I understand the line taken by our Cabinet, they are acting properly enough. I suppose France will want our support for the annexation of Savoy, and Palmerston will be for giving that, or doing anything else to obtain the transference of the revolted states and provinces to Piedmont; the aggrandisement of Sardinia and the humiliation of Austria being his darling objects, for which he will sacrifice every other consideration, unless he is kept in check, and baffled by the majority of the Cabinet. In the beginning of this week there was very near being a split amongst them, which might have broken up the Government; but I conclude matters were adjusted, though I do not know exactly how. P., J. R., and Gladstone go together, and are for going much further in Italian affairs than the majority of the Cabinet will consent to; and, as the latter know very well that their views will be supported by public opinion, I trust they will get the better of this triple alliance. As Austria appears to have admitted her inability to draw the sword again, the Pope seems to be left without any resource; but it does not follow that Austria will consent to such an aggrandisement of the King of Sardinia as France may be willing to consent to, and, as we shall, I suppose, earnestly advocate. She would probably more easily consent to the promotion of a new North Italian kingdom; and I much doubt if Tuscany really wishes for annexation to Piedmont. She would probably much prefer the promotion of a fresh state, of which Florence would be the capital, and Tuscany the most influential member. How impossible it is to form any opinion as to the tortuous, ever-shifting policy of L. N.! The only thing we ought never to lose sight of is to keep quite clear of him, and to be always on our guard. If the natural limits of France are to be extended again to the Alps, how long will it be before they are extended to the Rhine also?

I went to see Mrs. Austin yesterday, and found her very well and in very fair spirits; very anxious to talk about him, and much gratified at the letters she has received from various friends, bearing testimony to his great merits and high qualities, particularly one from Sir William Erle. Brougham is writing a notice of him for the ‘Law Magazine.’ She seems very unsettled in her plans, and says she changes her mind continually. Lady Gordon is better, and Mrs. Austin is going to Ventnor, to her, in a short time. She means to be much occupied with the papers he has left, which appear to be all about law, and it is very doubtful whether they will, if published, be very interesting to the world in general.

The Journal notes:–

We returned to London on January 23rd. Parliament opened next day. London dinners began. Dined at Thackeray’s, Milman’s, Galton’s, Lansdowne House.

_From Lord Clarendon_

_The Grove, February 2nd._–I am much obliged to you for De la Rive’s _brochure_ [Footnote: Le Droit de la Suisse, by William de la Rive, son of the celebrated physicist, Auguste] which is written with great force and spirit; he makes out an excellent European case for the slice of Savoy he claims for Switzerland, and he manages to gives an agreeable impression of those unpleasant people, the Swiss. It is a valuable work at this moment; for the annexation of Savoy to France is a serious affair, not only because it makes Italy French, but because it is the first step towards the _remaniement de la carte_.

When we made our first convention with France, on going to war together with Russia, I thought it would be prudent to put in a clause that neither Power should get any benefit for itself from the war. The Emperor accepted the proposal cheerfully; said it was a grand precedent, &c. &c.; but when I read over the convention with Walewski, prior to signature, the clause was omitted, and I had it restored. In the case of Savoy, we must admit that our policy makes objection on our part not only difficult but absurd. We have been telling the Italians that they were justified in expelling their rulers and electing a new sovereign, and that treaties could not be pleaded against accomplished facts; and how can we remonstrate against the annexation of Savoy to France, if V. Emanuel releases the Savoyards from their allegiance, and they elect L. Nap. for their sovereign?

_To Lord Brougham_

62 _Rutland Gate, March 5th._ Since my visit to Paris I have never had a doubt that Louis Napoleon was pursuing, and pursuing actively, a scheme for the annexation of Savoy, and that nothing which this country can say–for doing is out of the question–will have any effect in preventing it. The King of Sardinia is the dog and the shadow. He drops his bone to clutch a phantom of Italian empire, which will dissolve as he approaches it. The most amusing part of it is that the policy of his imprudent friends here (J. R. and so on) has urged him on to pursue the shadow without remembering what it would cost in substance.

The Reform Bill is considered so very mild a production that I begin, for the first time, to think it will pass. Even the Tories could conceive nothing so moderate, and they had better close with the bargain. I have no doubt it will be rather favourable to the Conservatives than to the Radicals. For example, where there are to be three seats, in the large towns, the Conservative minority will probably carry one out of the three.

_March 14th._–Your volume of scientific tracts arrived just after I had sent off my last letter. I am very much indebted to you for it, and I shall probably have occasion to refer to your learned paper on the cells of bees in the review I am going to publish of Mr. Darwin’s book. As for Newton, I should be glad to give my vote in favour of a monument whenever a suitable opportunity occurs. It is very embarrassing to know where to place monuments to men illustrious in letters and science. Westminster Abbey is crowded, and can take no more statues. We are going to put up a mural monument to Hallam there; and, by the way, if you had been in England, you were invited to be on the committee; I still hope you will give your name.

Events have taken a prodigiously lucky turn for the Government, and I think it is long since we had any administration so strong as Lord Palmerston now is. Gladstone’s triumph is complete on all points, and people are so weary of J. R. and his Reform Bill that I think all parties are ready to swallow this last dose, _de guerre lasse_. Then will follow the dissolution in the autumn, and we may expect a strong Liberal majority.

The affair of Savoy will pass off quietly enough if he leaves the neutralised territories to Switzerland; but if not, it will become serious enough, for it is expressly provided by the final act of the Congress of Vienna that, if Sardinia evacuates those districts, no other Power but Switzerland shall move troops into them, and this arrangement was subsequently confirmed by a very formal declaration of all the Powers….

Mrs. Austin is making arrangements for a new edition of her husband’s lectures, with considerable additions.

The Journal has here:–

_March 15th._–Dinner at home. The Due d’Aumale, Lavradio, Lady Stanhope, Lady Molesworth, Lady William and Arthur Russell, Lord Kingsdown, the Lord Advocate, Professor Owen, Colonel Hamilton, and Colonel Greathed.

_From Lord Clarendon_

_[Sunday] March 18th._–If you happen to be passing Grosvenor Crescent way on Tuesday or Wednesday, about twelve o’clock, will you look in upon me, and we will have a talk about the awful fix in which Europe in general and England in particular are now placed?

By reason of his connexion with Geneva, Reeve had all along necessarily felt the keenest interest in the negotiations between France and Sardinia, which he had discussed in an article on ‘France, Savoy, and Switzerland’ for the April number of the ‘Edinburgh Review.’ He had possibly already intended to visit the ‘debateable land’ as soon as the Review was sent to press, or very possibly the advisability of doing so was suggested in this interview with Lord Clarendon. At any rate, on April 4th he started for Paris, and, after seeing his friend Pourtales, went on to Geneva in company with Sir Robert and Lady Emily Peel. By the 12th he was back in Paris, where, on the 15th, he had long interviews with Fould and Thouvenel, the minister of foreign affairs, the minutes of which he wrote out at considerable length, and two days afterwards read them to Lord Palmerston. He reported to Palmerston that Thouvenel was willing to make ‘a reasonable adjustment of the Swiss frontier,’ which he believed meant ‘an extension of the Swiss territory to the Fort de l’Ecluse and Saleve.’ Palmerston, however, refused the overture, saying, ‘We shall shame them out of it.’ ‘So,’ added Reeve, in relating the affair, ‘neither he nor the Swiss got anything at all.’

_From Lord Brougham_

_Cannes, April 20th._–I hope my account of J. Austin will appear in the ‘Law Magazine and Review.’ It is written _con amore_, though very far from such an article as I could have wished to make it. The letter of Mrs. Austin was invaluable, and I inserted her very words in more instances than one; but your mention of the effect produced by the publication now out of print was still more valuable. I only trust that it may all be printed correctly, for it must be too late for me to have proofs.

The roguery of L. N. and Cavour exceeds all belief; but they have cheated one another, and have probably overreached themselves. The _lies_ they tell about the Nice vote are unheard of even in the time of Napoleon I. We believe here that thousands of Piedmontese having no residence were sent to vote. However, there is a real majority, though nothing like the unanimity pretended. In Savoy there is entire unanimity. I suppose Normanby believes the Tuscans have not voted for their annexation; but he believes whatever anybody writes to him from Florence.

_To Lord Brougham_

_C. O., May 16th._–I cannot remember any passage in Macaulay’s writings which can be called an attack on Henry V. In the Introduction to the ‘History of England’ there is a passage in which he speaks of the French wars of the English kings, and speculates on the results which might have ensued if the conquests of Henry V. had not been lost by Henry VI. Perhaps this is what Lord Glenelg meant; but I am writing from the office, where I have not the books to refer to.

I don’t know what sort of monument the Lord Chief Baron proposes to erect. To put Macaulay on a level with Newton and Bacon would be absurd. His mind was essentially what the geologists would call ‘a tertiary formation;’ theirs were ‘protogenic.’ But I think some monument to Macaulay may very fitly be placed in Trinity Chapel. We meet on Tuesday to consider what is to be done for Hallam in Westminster Abbey; but there will certainly be no statue, probably a slab and bust only.

I hope you are coming up for the debate in the Lords on Monday,[Footnote: On the repeal of the paper duty, a Government measure, which was rejected by the Lords.] which will be one of great interest. I cannot think there is anything solid in the so-called constitutional objection–which is to be urged on behalf of the Government–to the interference of the House of Lords with a bill of this nature.

_From Lord Clarendon_

_Grosvenor Crescent, May 16th._–Many thanks for your letter and opinion of Aix-la-Chapelle waters, which seem exactly to fit my case, but I should be very reluctant to go there just now, as the inconvenience of it would be great. I shall try change of air next week, and, if that won’t do, why _alors, comme alors,_ as the life I am now leading is intolerable. The gout came again very sharply last night, but not, I am sure, owing to your most agreeable dinner, which could only do good. I have not passed three such pleasant hours for a long while.

I have seen one or two peers to-day sorely puzzled as to the vote they shall give on Monday. My only doubt is about the damage it may do the House of Lords; and I can’t quite go Lyndhurst’s [Footnote: In a closely reasoned speech, rightly considered remarkable from a man of eighty-eight, Lord Lyndhurst maintained that it was no unusual thing for the Lords to veto bills for repealing taxes as well as bills for inflicting them, and quoted numerous precedents. The bill was thrown out by 193 to 104.] length, who says that if there is no precedent it is high time, and the proper opportunity, to make one.

The Journal here records:–

Mr. Greville resigned the clerkship of the council in May; as Mr. Bathurst could not carry on the business, he had to resign too [Footnote: This is written on the blank page of the ‘Chronology,’ apparently from memory, and the dates are somewhat confused. Greville resigned in May 1859. It was then settled that there should be but one clerk; Bathurst acted by himself for a twelvemonth, and resigned in May 1860.]. It was settled that there should be but one clerk of the council. Lord Granville, I believe, wished to appoint me, but some obstacle stood in the way. I never exactly knew what; but if it was the Court, it is singular that I should have been so well received at Balmoral. What I desired was that the registrarship of the P. C. should become the second clerkship of the council, I offering to do my share of the general business; but this they declined. On June 9th Arthur Helps was appointed clerk of the council. I felt great irritation at the manner in which I had been treated; but it certainly turned out very well for me in the end, as I continued to hold an easier office, and eventually obtained the same income, without the annoyance of attending the Court at Balmoral, or Osborne, or elsewhere.

On May 15th we had to dinner Lord Clarendon, Prince Dolgoroukow (the one who wrote the book [Footnote: _La Verité sur la Russie_, 1860. Cf. _Edinburgh Review_, July 1860, p. 175.] on Russia), Lord Stanley, Sir R. and Lady E. Peel, Hodgson, and Cornewall Legh.

On August 4th we made an expedition from Farnborough, with the Longmans, to Selborne. Lunch with T. Bell. [Footnote: The editor of White’s _Selborne_] Walked to the Lithe and the Hanger. A charming day.

_From Lord Brougham_

_Brougham, August 5th._–I have been reading the last ‘E. R.,’ which is a most excellent number. The ballot article [Footnote: ‘Secret Voting and Parliamentary Reform.’] is admirable, and will prove useful. I may send you a few remarks on the G. Rose article. [Footnote: ‘Diaries and Correspondence of George Rose.’] But I am delighted with the showing up of Miss Assing, [Footnote: ‘Correspondence of Humboldt and Varnhagen von Ense.’ In editing this, Miss Assing had shown–according to the _Review_–a singular want of taste and discretion.] only I don’t think it is as much as she deserves.

_To Lord Brougham_

_C. O., August 7th._–I have been making short country visits at several places near London since the termination of my Judicial Committee labours, or I should certainly have called to see you before you left Grafton Street. Now I am starting on Saturday next for Aix-la-Chapelle, where I propose to take a few baths. I return on the 25th, and shall proceed to Aberdeenshire at the end of the month….

The victory of the Government last night was very decisive;[Footnote: On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the reduction of the duty on paper.] and I am heartily glad of it, for the protectionist cry of the paper-makers took one back before the Deluge.

I saw Mrs. Austin yesterday at Weybridge, and was glad to find her so well. She desired to be remembered to you. She is very busy with J. Austin’s MSS.; but, in fact, they are in perfect order, and might be sent at once to the press.

And then the Journal–

Later in August went to Aix. I went over to Bonn to see Bunsen, who was dying, but full of enthusiasm for Italy. Came home on August 27th.

CHAPTER XIV

LITERATURE AND POLITICS

Early in August Mrs. Henry Reeve had gone on a visit into Dorsetshire, and at the time of her husband’s return from Aix was in Cornwall–at Pencarrow, near Bodmin–on a visit to her old friend, Lady Molesworth. Reeve, thus left to himself, started almost immediately for Scotland on a visit to Sir James Clark, who, with Lady Clark and his son–the present baronet–was then living up Dee-side at Birk Hall, lent him by the Queen.

The Journal’s scanty notices of a very interesting visit can be happily replaced by extracts from the letters which he wrote almost daily to his wife at Pencarrow.

_To Mrs. Henry Reeve_

Birk Hall, Ballater, September 1st.

My dearest wife,–Matters have turned out here very pleasantly. I proceeded to Aboyne by rail, and then posted along the Dee-side to this place–the Strath most beautiful; a lovely mixture of wood, water, and heather, with mountains beyond. I got here just before six, and found the Clarks and Van de Weyers sitting down to an early dinner in order to go to the Gillies’ Ball at Balmoral, in honour of the Prince’s birthday, to which I found myself also invited. We drove up to the Castle, which is eight miles off, through a fine wooded glen, in the moonlight. The old house of Balmoral has quite disappeared, and the Castle is now a very fine edifice, decorated in excellent taste. On arriving, we waited in the library, where arrived Lady John Russell and her boys, the Farquharsons of Invercauld, young Peel [Footnote: Robert Kennedy Peel; son of Lady Alice and Colonel Peel, who had been Secretary of State for War in the Derby Ministry of 1858-9.] (Lady A.’s son), the William Russells, the Duke of Argyll–and then the Court. Nobody was in mourning, as it was a birthday; the Queen in white, with a floating sash of Royal Stuart tartan from her shoulders: about half the men in kilts. The Queen made a circle, and then we went into the ball-room, where about a hundred and fifty of the tenants, servants, &c., with their wives and daughters, were assembled. Reels then began, which were danced with great energy, and also jigs–very droll. Prince Arthur danced like mad; and Princess Alice was ‘weel ta’en out’ by the gamekeeper. I stood in a corner talking with the Duke of Argyll, &c. At last the Prince came round, and conversed very courteously for ten minutes. He had heard I had been in Germany lately, so we soon got into the heart of German and Austrian questions. All this lasted two hours, and then the Queen withdrew into the supper-room, where there were sandwiches and champagne. She went round again, and talked to Lord Melville, behind whom I was standing, and then made me a very gracious bow, but without saying anything to myself. Soon afterwards we drove home, and got back here at half-past one. To-day we are going up to Balmoral again to write our names and see the Castle; and to-morrow the Queen is coming here to call on Mme. Van de Weyer. I am rather amused, after divers recent occurrences, to find myself in so much royalty, and I had not anticipated any civility from them. But I see the Clarks are very kind about it, having had Helps here last week, and probably are desirous to remove any misconception which may have existed. So that, in fact, nothing can turn out better, and I have certainly no reason to be dissatisfied with my reception.

Ever yours most affectionately,

H. REEVE.

_Birk Hall, September 4th_.–At last we have got a beautiful day, quite warm and bright. Nothing can be more lovely than this Strath of the Dee, with its birch woods and pine-covered mountains. We went up a hill yesterday–the Coyle–and looked across the glen to the broad snow fields which still encircle the black cliffs of Lochnagar. To-day we are going up to Alt na Ghuissac, and shall lunch at the Queen’s hut. H. M. called here on Sunday, and was remarkably pleasant and jolly. P. Albert drove, with P. Leiningen on the box; the Queen, Princess Alice, and Princess Leiningen in the carriage, and one man on a seat behind. Nothing can be more simple, courteous, and even droll, than she is, seen in this way, eating Scotch cakes, and asking for the ‘prescription’ to make them, and making Leiningen taste the birch wine–which is not bad. To-day they are gone on a wild expedition over the hills, and are to sleep in some little inn on the brae-side, where the people are supposed not to know who they are. The Queen will be seven hours on her pony. She rides through all weathers and over all places, and chaffs everybody for not taking exercise enough.

I shall leave this on Friday for Braemar–else I should have to appear at another Balmoral ball–and on Saturday proceed to Keir, where I spend Sunday with Stirling, who is very sorry you are not of the party. On Monday I go on to the Moncreiffs, at Alva (near Stirling), and on Thursday to Kirklands, making some calls in Edinburgh as I go through.

_Birk Hall, September 5th_.–The day kept its promise, and was fair to the end. We drove up this glen, which is Glen Muich, to the loch which terminates it, about six miles off. There stands the Queen’s hut, with a few fir-trees about it. It deserves its name–a small Highland cottage, with a room on each side the door and two rooms behind; a little plain wooden furniture and a Kidderminster carpet. There are two or three other wooden cottages about for the attendants. Here we lunched–for everybody lunches in this royal region; and then mountain ponies to go up to the Dhu Loch, about 1,200 feet higher–very wild, grand scenery, and a very rough, boggy path, on which Van de Weyer’s contortions were very droll. Madame stayed under the royal honeysuckles below.

I suppose Hopie and I shall go to Raith on the 15th, if they can take us in. At any rate, we shall leave Kirklands on that day; but our movements cannot be quite fixed till we hear.

_Braemar, September 7th_.–Very fortunately I have had magnificent weather just when I wanted it. Clark gave me two good days of shooting on the hill on Wednesday and yesterday; we got about ten brace each day, and I had a famous hard walk. This morning I came on here by the Queen’s private road through Balmoral and Invercauld. The scenery is wonderfully beautiful; and, if it were not for my love of the sea, I should admit that Braemar is the finest thing in Scotland. I have been up the glen this afternoon, past Mar Lodge, to the Linn of Dee–a fine cascade through rocks; the water is so clear that you can see the rocks under it, and wild blasted pines growing all round. I was sorry to leave Birk Hall. The Clarks are admirable hosts, and made their house most agreeable…. You will have lamented, as I do, the untimely cutting off of our poor friend, the late Lord High–I mean Ward. [Footnote: See _ante_, vol. i. p. 314.] There seems to be a fatality about Madras. _Somme toute_, the more I see of the chances of life, the more I am persuaded that, as my lot has been cast on such small but easy cushions, I ought to be perfectly content.

The Queen came back on Wednesday night in high glee with her lark over the hills to Grantown. [Footnote: The Queen’s account of this ‘lark over the hills’ is in _Leaves from the Journal of Our Life in the Highlands_ (8vo. 1868), pp. 189-203.] They slept at a very little Highland inn, and were waited on by the maid only. The beds were awful, for they could not stand the feather bed, and, that being thrown aside, nothing soft remained beneath. General Grey found it so hard that he got up and put on his clothes to lie in. However, they were in high glee, and were not found out till they went away in the morning, when the man of the house said, ‘Gin I’d known it was the Queen, I’d hae put on my Sunday claiths and waited on her mysel’.’ They gave the Highland lassie a 5 £. note, at which she nearly fainted.

I hope by this time to-morrow I shall be at Keir. I am here at a little Highland inn for to-night, but not so ill off as H. M. I shall have to post to Blairgowrie to-morrow to get there in time for the train.

_Keir, near Dunblane, September 9th_.–I left Braemar yesterday morning at 6 A.M.; posted across the Grampians by a very wild pass; reached the railroad at Blairgowrie, and came on here in the afternoon. The first person I found in the hall was Motley. His wife and Lily arrived in the evening. Mrs. Norton, the Wyses, and Sir James Campbell also here. A most pleasant party to fall into, and your absence very much regretted. Keir is more beautiful than ever, and glorious in this fine weather which floods the Carse of Stirling with light. It really does seem as if the harvest would pick itself up after all.

I shall proceed to Alva to-morrow, and to Kirklands on Wednesday. I don’t yet know whether the Fergusons can receive us on the 15th. If they can, we shall go to Raith on that day, and return to London from Edinburgh by sea…. At any rate, I expect to be in London either on Friday, 21st, or Monday, 24th–I’m not quite sure which. I suppose, if you don’t go to Saltram, you will come up about the same time. There will be a good many things to look after and think of for the Spanish expedition. I am up to my neck here in Stirling’s Spanish books.

P.S.–I am a year older to-day than I was yesterday.

The Journal records that he returned to London on September 22nd.

_From Lord Clarendon_

_Wiesbaden, September 14th._–I have been idle and absent at Baden, or I should sooner have answered your letter and told you with what pleasure we will execute your commission. [Footnote: See _post_, p. 54.] I was very sorry to have missed you here, though it would have been but a glimpse, as you were going next morning. I shall hope to see you before you start on your enviable Spanish tour, as I mean to go home as soon as my cure is complete, for Lady C. feels Alice’s absence, [Footnote: Lady Alice Villiers, married on August 16th, 1860, to Lord Skelmersdale, created Earl of Lathom in 1880. She was accidentally killed by the overturning of her carriage on November 23rd, 1897.] and is lonely with only two children out of six.

I passed two very pleasant days at Baden with the Aug. Loftuses and the Princess of Prussia, who is domiciled there, and we returned last night.

_The Grove, September 30th_.–I returned here last night without touching at Grosvenor Crescent. If I had gone there, I should have been at home ten minutes within the twenty hours from Paris, which is a fair rate of speed when one remembers that in pre-railway days one travelled hard and got shaken much to arrive at Paris in three days; and in pre-steamer times I was once eighteen hours in getting from Calais to Dover. Yet people are not satisfied; and Rothschild told me he was bullied by everybody about the slowness of the Ligne du Nord.

I am afraid I shall not have the pleasure of seeing you, as I cannot go to London to-morrow, and from Tuesday till Friday we are engaged to the John Thynnes. In the improbable event of your charming expedition being postponed, we should be quite delighted if you and Mrs. and Miss Reeve would come here on Saturday.

As it is now nearly twenty-two years since I left Spain (how time flies!), new generations have sprung up of whom I know nothing. There are two persons–Mme. de Montijo and Olozaga [Footnote: Reeve had known him as the Spanish ambassador in Paris fifteen years.]–who I should have liked you to see as social and political _ciceroni_; but the former is at Paris, in the deepest affliction at the death of her daughter, and the latter is just gone to Italy, as I heard two days ago from Howden. Of course you know that clever, agreeable little fellow Comyn, who was _chargé d’affaires_ here, and is now under-secretary at the F.O. in Madrid? If not, I will send you a letter to him.

I wound up at Wiesbaden by a severe attack of gout, which seemed to please my Esculapius more than it did me; for when I showed him my misshapen scarlet claw of a foot, he rubbed his hands and said, ‘Oh dat is a beautiful manifest podagra.’ It came just at the same time as the Skelmersdales, and prevented my going about with them. Wasn’t that just like the gout?

I never doubted that as soon as the guerillero business was over and civil organisation began, Garibaldi would prove a mischievous, spoiled child…. The French Government and their friends want the Pope to remain at Rome, thinking that _la France Catholique_ would resent his evasion, as a proof of mistrust of the Emperor; but the Emperor wants him to go; as he would then withdraw his garrison and let Rome take its chance, which he thinks would close his accounts with the followers of Orsini; and he dislikes having to reinforce his garrison, which he must do if the Pope decides on remaining.

I have brought the amethyst beads you desired to have for Mme. Van de Weyer, and I dare say somebody will be going up to-morrow or next day by whom I can send them to you. The man wanted rather more than 5 £ for them, but on my walking away from his shop, he, of course, gave them for that sum.

_From Lord Brougham_

_Brougham, October 1st_.–We have all here been greatly disappointed at not having seen you and our kinswoman,[Footnote: Miss Reeve, Brougham’s second cousin twice removed. Through the Robertsons, Brougham and John Richardson were second cousins.] and I believe we have little chance now, as you talked of going abroad as soon as your quarterly labours were over. We shall be here the whole month; then take our southward flight….

If you can find an opportunity of noticing my volume on the Constitution

deck-river
deck-river