¹ Date in another hand.

² In the event, W.R.S. Vesey Fitzgerald was appointed.

³ Palmerston's government had fallen over its alleged subservience to France, in the wake of the attempted assassination of Napoleon by Felice Orsini on 14 January 1858. The attack had been planned by French refugees in Britain, where the bomb was also made. As a measure to control the refugees, Palmerston had introduced the Conspiracy to Murder Bill. The occasion for the Government's defeat had been a Radical motion in the House of Commons, tabled during the second reading of the Bill, criticizing the Government's failure to reply to a critical despatch of Walewski's. Anglo-French relations in the wake of Palmerston's defeat were the poorest they had been for some years.

⁴ See above, entry for 23 February. Walewski's despatch of 20 January was received by the Foreign Office on 21 January. The correspondence had been published on 6 February.

⁵ The Conspiracy to Murder Bill.

⁶ The Conspiracy to Murder Bill.

⁷ ‘secretly’; literally, ‘under the rose’.

⁸ The trial of Dr Simon Bernard, one of the conspirators in the Orsini plot, who lived in London and would be tried and acquitted by a British court in April 1858.

⁹ Lieutenant-Colonel Edward Stopford Claremont, military attaché at the British Embassy in Paris.

¹⁰ These concerns were overcome. See below, entry for 6 March.

¹¹ Malmesbury told Cowley the same day that Persigny ‘is now much more reasonable but I find that he considered he had some cause of offence with Disraeli whom, rightly or wrongly, he accuses of having promised him uninterrupted support of the Refugee Bill’. Cowley MSS, TNA, FO 519/196, fos 271–272.

¹² The despatch was sent off that day.

¹³ As this letter must have been written before 12 March, when Malmesbury received Walewski's despatch, and given Cowley's news of Walewski's intention to respond positively to Malmesbury's overture, it was clearly sent on Tuesday 9 March.

¹⁴ Its editorial declared that: ‘We quite agree with Mr Disraeli that there has been great mismanagement in the conduct of our late transactions with the Government of France [. . .] Lord Malmesbury will merit the designation of a dexterous statesman, indeed, if he manages to write such a despatch and extract such a reply as shall at once make matters smooth with France.’ Morning Post, 9 March 1858.

¹⁵ Malmesbury followed Derby's instructions. See his messages to Cowley of 9 March 1858, TNA, FO 146/757.

¹⁶ Given the meeting Derby describes and Malmesbury's diary entry for the same day, the date is clear.

¹⁷ On the news of Walewski's positive response to Malmesbury's despatch, thus ending the dispute with France.

¹⁸ ‘resignation’.

¹⁹ Hodge was a British citizen arrested in Sardinia for his alleged connection with the attack on Napoleon. France had attempted to extradite him, but the terms of the treaty meant that Sardinia required British permission, which was refused.

²⁰ In 1857, a Sardinian ship, the Cagliari, had been hijacked by Mazzinian revolutionaries, who took it to Ponza and freed inmates at the prison island. After the subsequent failure of the hijackers’ attempt to storm the town of Sapri, the crew regained control and sailed for Naples, claiming that they were intending to report the incidents. For its previous piratical activities, the ship was seized en route by the navy of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. The Neapolitans imprisoned the crew, including its British engineers, Henry Watt and Charles Park. Prior to Palmerston's resignation, Clarendon had begun exploring legal options to resolve the matter and free the men, but to no avail. See below, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 94, 95, 97, 98, 101, 102, 103, 104, 134.

²¹ Palmerston.

²² Bernstorff's previous experience in Naples made him the logical intermediary while Britain had no formal diplomatic relations with Naples (see, e.g., entry for 13 March, below).

²³ See Parl. Deb., CXLIX, cols 82–108.

²⁴ Disraeli's alarm was presumably because of the hostility that he had encountered in the House of Commons the previous night. See, e.g., Disraeli to Queen Victoria, 12 March 1858, BDL, VII, no. 3055.

²⁵ A number of reports were delivered to Clarendon by the law officers in late 1857 and early 1858. Further details, including the law officers’ reports, can be found in ‘Correspondence respecting the “Cagliari”’ and ‘Further correspondence respecting the “Cagliari”’, Parliamentary Papers, 1857–1858 session, LIX.

²⁶ Watt and Park were released shortly after, not because of Bernstorff's good offices but following the intervention of a special diplomatic mission to Naples. See below, 87.

²⁷ James Brownlow William Cecil, second Marquis of Salisbury (1791–1868), Lord Privy Seal, 1852; Lord President of the Council, 1858–1859. His second wife, Mary, would go on to marry the fifteenth Earl of Derby.

²⁸ Although Malmesbury crossed the ‘t’, there was no ‘Walter’ in the diplomatic service. It seems likely that he meant Sir Thomas Wathen Waller, Secretary of Legation in Brussels, who was persuaded to retire in September 1858.

²⁹ The Hon. George Edgcumbe, Secretary of Legation in Hanover; in the service since 1821. On 29 February, Malmesbury had described him as ‘poor Edgecombe’, who was ‘perfectly unfit for any European mission’. Malmesbury succeeded in pensioning him off in June 1859.

³⁰ See above, 21. While at Florence in 1852, Barron had particularly irritated Malmesbury over his handling of the Mather affair. Earlier in this letter, Malmesbury had described him as ‘a very vulgar & stupid fellow’ who ‘bears a long reputation at the F.O.’ He was moved to Lisbon.

³¹ Sir Fitzroy Edward Kelly (1796–1880), Solicitor-General, 1845–1846 and 1852; Attorney-General, 1858–1859.

³² Ferdinand II (1810–1859), King of Naples, 1830–May 1859.

³³ In dealing with the post-Mutiny reform of Indian government, it had become clear that the Conservatives’ India Bill did not command sufficient support and would have to be withdrawn. A parliamentary compromise was being negotiated with Lord John Russell.

³⁴ The legal opinions addressed two questions, as the Government had required. Derby's letter refers to the first set of answers, formally communicated on 12 and 13 April, which dealt with the imprisonment of Watt and Park. That of 17 April would deal with the right of capture.

³⁵ Malmesbury clearly used this letter as the template for the despatch he sent to Naples. See Malmesbury to Lyons, 15 April 1858, covering Malmesbury to Carafa, 15 April 1858, TNA, FO 70/297.

³⁶ See above, 84, entry for 9 March.

³⁷ Palmerston's government had broken off relations with the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies in 1856.

³⁸ See above, 87.

³⁹ The Neapolitan foreign minister.

⁴⁰ Sir James Robert George Graham (1792–1861), second baronet, prominent Peelite Conservative and former Whig; First Lord of the Admiralty in Earl Grey's Whig administration, 1830–1834, and in the Aberdeen coalition, 1852–1855; Conservative Home Secretary under Peel, 1841–1846.

⁴¹ The second set of legal opinions, dealing with the capture of the Cagliari, was formally communicated on 17 April, and declared the vessel's confiscation illegal. See also above, 87.

⁴² This is a difficult letter to date, but, given that it must have been written after the law officers’ reports of 17 April (see above, 90) and that it deals with the matters raised in letter 90, this date seems more likely than any other. It could conceivably have been written on any of the Mondays between 17 April and 19 May (it seems unlikely to have been written after letter 98), thus 19 or 26 April, or 3, 10, or 17 May.

⁴³ The question of compensation to Sardinia was not considered a matter for Britain to address.

⁴⁴ Date taken from Derby's out-book, DP 920 DER (14) 184/1.

⁴⁵ On 23 April, Malmesbury sent to Derby via Cowley a ‘most insolent letter’ from Walewski. Malmesbury's account of it to Derby has not been found. See Cowley MSS, TNA, FO 519/196, fo. 375.

⁴⁶ Henry Charles Cadogan, Viscount Chelsea, later fourth Earl of Cadogan (1812–1873), Secretary at the British Embassy in Paris.

⁴⁷ General Esprit Charles Marie Espinasse (1815–1859), French Minister of the Interior, 1858; killed at the battle of Magenta, 1859.

⁴⁸ John Alexander Thynne, fourth Marquess of Bath (1831–1896), a Conservative-supporting Anglo-Catholic.

⁴⁹ The special mission was in honour of the forthcoming wedding of King Pedro V and Princess Stephanie of Hohenzollern. Bath was due to take the Order of the Garter for the new queen.

⁵⁰ Derby got his way and Bath went to Lisbon.

⁵¹ Vice-Admiral Edmund Lyons, Baron Lyons of Christchurch (1790–1858), temporarily promoted to Admiral while Commander-in-Chief of the Mediterranean fleet, which post he had taken up in 1857.

⁵² British trade and strategic interests in north-west Africa were potentially affected by the deteriorating situation in Morocco, where resistance by the indigenous population was threatening Spanish fortresses. Britain feared that either Spain or France would intervene, and that British commerce would suffer in consequence. Spain finally went to war with Morocco in October 1859.

⁵³ The bargain finally agreed in the Entente of 1904.

⁵⁴ This letter is filed with letters from 1859, but the only relevant question of Airlie's was in 1858, and concerned the Cagliari.

⁵⁵ Not found.

⁵⁶ Notice of Airlie's question was given on 23 April, when – as Malmesbury mentioned – the Queen was indeed at Aldershot, but discussion was postponed until 29 April. See Parl. Deb., CXLIX, cols 1930–1935. Malmesbury referred to his rebuttal of Airlie's points in his diary. See below, 95.

⁵⁷ David Graham Drummond Ogilvy (1826–1881), fifth Earl of Airlie (tenth if earlier attainder disregarded); Scottish representative peer, 1850–1881.

⁵⁸ Cowley had written to Malmesbury on 29 April, recounting a conversation with Napoleon, in which he had seemed ‘very much out of spirits about the alliance’ and suggested that ‘something shd. be done’ to strengthen Anglo-French relations. MP 9M73/6/49. Malmesbury had replied to Cowley on 1 May: ‘It is for England & France to be seen arm in arm upon every public question, however small.’ He told Cowley to remind Napoleon how they had worked together in 1852. Cowley MSS, TNA, FO 519/196, fos 385–387.

⁵⁹ Malmesbury had just appointed Sir Henry Bulwer as Stratford's replacement at Constantinople.

⁶⁰ Stratford to Malmesbury, 12 May 1858, MP 9M73/15/34.

⁶¹ The difference between ‘arbitration’ and ‘mediation’ was material. On 11 May, Malmesbury had offered Britain's good offices to Sardinia in obtaining restitution of the Cagliari and her crew. If that attempt were to fail, he offered the Sardinian prime minister, Cavour, the choice of either mediation or arbitration by a neutral power. By telegram on 16 May (TNA, FO 70/298), Cavour had accepted the offer and indicated that, if the British attempt failed, he would favour mediation by the Swedes. Malmesbury would have preferred arbitration to resolve the matter, and his use of the term may not have been accidental. In letter 98, however, Derby refers to ‘mediation’. See below, 101.

⁶² The 23rd Protocol of the Treaty of Paris, 14 April 1856, stipulated that states in dispute with one another should resort to the mediation of another power.

⁶³ Malmesbury followed Derby's instructions exactly, and phrases from this letter may be seen in his despatch of 25 May 1858, sent via Lyons to Carafa. TNA, FO 70/298, no. 2.

⁶⁴ Not found.

⁶⁵ The Opposition had introduced motions of censure in both houses of Parliament after Lord Ellenborough, the President of the Board of Control, had criticized a declaration by Viscount Canning, the Governor-General of India. Opposition unity, however, had collapsed and, on 21 May, the Commons motion had been publicly withdrawn, at Palmerston's request.

⁶⁶ Montenegro had declared itself independent of the Ottoman Empire and sought to obtain Bosnian territory from the Turks. The territorial dispute had become increasingly violent by the summer of 1858, and Malmesbury had proposed that a European commission should settle the territorial limitations of Montenegro and Bosnia, but without dealing with the delicate question of Ottoman sovereignty. Any discussion about sovereignty would have presented France and Russia, which had threatened to proclaim Montenegrin independence, with opportunities to undermine Turkey.

⁶⁷ See above, 98.

⁶⁸ In fact, it was resolved somewhat earlier. See below, 104.

⁶⁹ The despatch to Naples was sent on 3 June, claiming a £3,000 indemnity for the treatment of Watt and Park, and proposing mediation. On 8 June, the Neapolitans backed down, surrendering the Cagliari and her crew, and paying the compensation.

⁷⁰ ‘the final reckoning’.

⁷¹ At the suggestion of the Queen, Lord Stratford was to be allowed to return to Constantinople on a complimentary mission, formally to take his leave of the Sultan. Derby and Malmesbury were careful to limit Stratford's remit to encouraging reform. Malmesbury wrote to Stratford on 15 June stressing the importance of not interfering with Bulwer's work. Stratford Canning MSS, TNA, FO 352/49(1), fos 25–26. Derby and Malmesbury remained unmoved by a series of letters from Stratford hinting that he would like to do more. See below, 115, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123.

⁷² Pencil note: ‘with 14–7-58’. The Court Circular in The Times on 31 July recorded a visit by Pakington to the Queen at Osborne on 30 July. He returned the following day.

⁷³ The ‘event’ was presumably the Queen's forthcoming visit to meet with Napoleon at Cherbourg.

⁷⁴ Sir Charles Napier (1786–1860), retired vice-admiral, commander of the Baltic fleet in the Crimean War and of the Spanish constitutionalist fleet, 1833–1834; MP for Southwark, with radical views, from November 1855 until his death; campaigned on naval issues. He was a popular hero.

⁷⁵ Sir Baldwin Wake Walker (1802–1876), rear-admiral; Surveyor of the Navy, 1848–1860.

⁷⁶ This letter encloses two others: a copy of one from Derby to Cowley of the same date (fo. 12), drawing the latter's attention to the large French imports of saltpetre and sulphur from Britain, details of which had been supplied in a memorandum by the Treasury (copy also included by Derby, fo. 14); and a copy of one from General Peel of 12 August (fo. 13), describing the memorandum.

⁷⁷ Prince Wilhelm, shortly to become Prince Regent of Prussia. In October 1857, he had taken over royal duties on a ‘temporary’ basis, because his brother's physical and mental state had deteriorated.

⁷⁸ Malmesbury was attempting to defuse the growing tension between Denmark and the German Diet over the Schleswig-Holstein question. See below, 127.

⁷⁹ Augusta, Princess of Sachsen-Weimar-Eisenbach (1811–1890); married the future Wilhelm I, 1829; Queen of Prussia, 1861–1871; Empress of Germany, 1871–1888.

⁸⁰ Malmesbury was right.

⁸¹ In fact, Manteuffel was dismissed rather earlier; Wilhelm formally became regent in October 1858, and on 5 November appointed a liberal conservative government under Prince Karl Anton von Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen.

⁸² The Temple of Janus in the Forum in Rome. According to Plutarch's Life of King Numa, XX.1, the doors were closed in times of peace and open when Rome was at war.

⁸³ Constantine Musurus.

⁸⁴ Arthur Richard Wellesley, second Duke of Wellington (1807–1884), son of the victor of Waterloo.

⁸⁵ George John Sackville-West, fifth Earl De La Warr (1791–1869), Lord Chamberlain, 1858–1859. He had first held the post under Peel, 1841–1846.

⁸⁶ An anti-Western riot at Jeddah on the night of 15–16 June had left the British and French consuls dead.

⁸⁷ See above, 100.

⁸⁸ Since May, a European conference at Paris had been considering the future status of the Ottoman Danubian Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, disputes over which had helped precipitate the Crimean War. The conference had concluded on 16 August. The Principalities, which would remain under Turkish suzerainty, would not be permitted political union (as Romania) sought by the French.

⁸⁹ John Arthur Roebuck (1802–1879), the outspoken independent MP for Sheffield, and William Schaw Lindsay (1816–1877), the shipowner and MP for Tynemouth and South Shields, had been among the British visitors to Cherbourg when the Queen was there. On 10 August at Tynemouth they had then delivered speeches lampooning the French navy.

⁹⁰ William John Samuel Pullen, Captain of the Cyclops, a steam frigate of the East Indies and China station. On 31 July 1858, in the wake of the riots (see above, 111), he was appointed by Malmesbury as Britain's Commissioner for the Settlement of the Affairs at Jeddah.

⁹¹ Pullen had bombarded Jeddah on 25–26 July as retaliation for the earlier riots (see above, 111), having been sent on Malmesbury's orders to ensure punishment. He had not received a second telegram, which had directed him to await the arrival of the Turkish general, Ismail Pasha, sent by the Sultan to restore order and punish the leaders of the riots. It emerged that the Admiralty had strengthened Malmesbury's original instructions, precipitating the bombardment.

⁹² The two men regularly used this term for Napoleon III.

⁹³ It is unclear to what this refers, but it may be to the news of Napoleon's meeting with Cavour at Plombières on 12 July, at which they had first hatched their secret scheme for provoking Austria into a war.

⁹⁴ See above, 105.

⁹⁵ The Prince Consort.

⁹⁶ Manteuffel's, not Derby's.

⁹⁷ August, Freiherr von Koller (1805–1883), Austrian minister in Berlin, 1857–1859.

⁹⁸ Sir Edward Alfred John Harris (1808–1888), one of Malmesbury's younger brothers, formerly a captain in the Royal Navy, later an admiral; MP for Christchurch, 1844–1852. From 1852 he held a series of diplomatic posts, ending up as British minister in the Netherlands, from where he retired in 1877.

⁹⁹ Count Alajos Károlyi von Nagy-Károly (1825–1889), Austrian Secretary of Legation in London; Austro-Hungarian ambassador in London, 1878–1888.

¹⁰⁰ Initially there had been confusion as to whether the Turks or the Montenegrins were the perpetrators of a massacre in the Bosnian town of Kolašin.

¹⁰¹ 20 August.

¹⁰² Malmesbury replied to Cowley from Potsdam on 25 August, admitting that, although he ‘never doubted’ Napoleon's ‘wish to keep well with us’, he felt ‘those presentiments w^h people are said to have before a storm’. He ‘was not satisfied’ with the conversation he and the emperor had had at Cherbourg. Cowley MSS, TNA, FO 519/196, fos 532–533.

¹⁰³ See above, 112.

¹⁰⁴ In October, an overture from Naples would come via Bernstorff. See below, 133.

¹⁰⁵ See above, 117.

¹⁰⁶ See above, 100.

¹⁰⁷ The Hatt-ι Hümayun of 18 February 1856 was a decree issued by Sultan Abdülmejid I that dealt with the organizational reform of the Ottoman Empire. It proclaimed the equality of all Christian subjects and promised freedom of religion.

¹⁰⁸ See above, 117. France was the only power with any influence over Montenegro. The Montenegrin Prince had a French adviser, and French was the language of his court.

¹⁰⁹ See above, 110.

¹¹⁰ Not found.

¹¹¹ Malmesbury was attempting to defuse the growing tension between Denmark and the German Diet over the ‘common constitution’ (affecting all Danish territories and Schleswig, Holstein, and Lauenburg in equal measure) that the Danish king had proclaimed in 1855, in breach of the 1852 Treaty of London. In May, the Diet had demanded a declaration of Danish intentions, claiming that the constitution could not legally be in effect in Holstein and Lauenburg. As a result of Malmesbury's pressure, Denmark had offered to suspend the constitution in Holstein and Lauenburg, but Elliot was concerned that the Danish tone was inflammatory. Eventually, the Diet did accept the Danish offer and in November Denmark actually abolished the constitution in so far as it applied to Holstein and Lauenburg. See also above, 2, 14, 16.

¹¹² Adolf, Graf von Platen-Hallermund (1814–1889), Hanoverian foreign minister, 1855–1866.

¹¹³ Under the Whigs, Britain had encouraged Portugal to crack down on slave-traders, and in November 1857 Portugal had seized a French ship, the Charles et Georges, off the coast of the Portuguese colony of Mozambique. The labourers found on board declared that they had been sold and were not ‘free’, as the French had claimed. On 13 August 1858 the ship had arrived at Lisbon. France was challenging the legality of the capture, demanding the return of the ship and an indemnity. Two French ships had arrived at the Tagus on 3 October, and on 5 October Malmesbury had received a formal request from Portugal for Britain's good offices in mediation. See also 129, 130, 131, 136, 137.

¹¹⁴ See above, 128. On 6 October, Malmesbury had protested to France about its hostility to Portugal, and agreed on 9 October to offer British mediation.

¹¹⁵ See above, 128. On 10 October, Cowley had conveyed the news of an unproductive meeting with Walewski on the subject.

¹¹⁶ ‘to spare Portugal’, or – more literally – to handle its sensitivities carefully.

¹¹⁷ See above, 128. Malmesbury had proposed a compromise on 15 October, but on legal grounds it proved impractical.

¹¹⁸ Britain and Portugal were longstanding allies.

¹¹⁹ The commissioners appointed to examine the boundary. See above, 100.

¹²⁰ The great powers’ representatives at Constantinople.

¹²¹ The Turkish Grand Vizier.

¹²² The naval frigate sent for Stratford's use.

¹²³ ‘postpone’ or ‘remove’.

¹²⁴ Probably a British agent.

¹²⁵ See Memoirs, II, p. 141, in which he included a letter to Cowley of the same date.

¹²⁶ See above, 84.

¹²⁷ See n. 124, above.

¹²⁸ See above, 128. The Charles et Georges had been surrendered to France on 25 October.

¹²⁹ See above, 98.

¹³⁰ Malmesbury duly sent such a despatch on 30 October. See below, 137.

¹³¹ See above, 128, 136.

¹³² Malmesbury clearly followed Derby's instructions in writing the despatch. See Malmesbury to Cowley, no. 60, 30 October 1858, TNA, FO 146/805.

¹³³ Wimpole Hall, the Cambridgeshire home of the Earl of Hardwicke, Malmesbury's Cabinet colleague.

¹³⁴ Disraeli was concerned about the way in which his colleagues were dispensing patronage. See, e.g., Disraeli to Pakington, 19 December 1858, BDL, VII, no. 3249, in which he noted ‘that there is a great error, on the part of some of my Colleagues, on the subject of Patronage. They are too apt to deem the preferment at their disposal to be merely a personal privilege. In my opinion, it partakes of a corporate character.’

¹³⁵ With regard to the elections in the Danubian Principalities, Moldavia and Wallachia, as Malmesbury went on to explain.

¹³⁶ Milosh Obrenović (1780–1860), Prince of Serbia, 1817–1839 and December 1858–1860.

¹³⁷ Alexander Karageorgević (1806–1885), Prince of Serbia, 1843–December 1858.

¹³⁸ The convention signed at Paris, 19 August 1858, by Walewski and the ambassadors of the other great powers, with those of Sardinia and Turkey, attempting to resolve the future status of the Danubian Principalities and their relationship with Turkey.

¹³⁹ The signatories of the convention of 19 August 1858.

¹⁴⁰ The great powers’ representatives in Constantinople.

¹⁴¹ Josef Alexander, Baron (from 1888, Count) Hübner (1811–1892), Austrian ambassador to France.

¹⁴² See above, 139.

¹⁴³ Napoleon Jerome Charles Paul Bonaparte (1822–1891), cousin of Napoleon III, second son of Jerome Bonaparte (the former King of Westphalia); known as ‘Plon-Plon’.

¹⁴⁴ Clotilde of Savoy (1843–1911).

¹⁴⁵ This was the first phase of the Franco-Piedmontese plan to provoke a war with Austria, by which Cavour sought the aggrandisement of Piedmont. Napoleon hoped to satisfy Italian nationalist demands, increase French territory and influence, and deliver the coup de grâce to what remained of the Vienna settlement. At Plombières in July 1858, Cavour and Napoleon had agreed that, if Piedmont could provoke a war in which they then defeated Austria, Piedmont would gain Lombardy and Venetia, while France would receive Savoy and Nice. As an earnest of their intent, the marital bargain was also agreed. The Russians played no direct part in this, but their benevolent neutrality was separately ensured in March. See below, 175.

¹⁴⁶ Buol had announced that Austria, if requested, would provide assistance to the Turkish pasha at the fortress of Belgrade in repelling a Serbian attack. Malmesbury conveyed British displeasure to Apponyi and wrote to Cowley on 1 January, supporting Walewski's protest to Austria. He also instructed Bulwer to urge the Porte not to permit an appeal for Austrian assistance. TNA, FO 146/815.

¹⁴⁷ This is clearly a response to Disraeli's letter of 2 January, in which he mentioned ‘bad’ accounts he had received from Paris, and asked to see Malmesbury ‘as soon as possible, particularly about Servia’. BDL, VII, no. 3269.

¹⁴⁸ The Danubian Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia.

¹⁴⁹ Given the description of Disraeli in Malmesbury's letter to Derby on 4 January (see below, 145), and Disraeli's reference to Malmesbury ‘whom I cd. only catch on his way to Heron Court’ in a letter to Derby, also on 4 January (BDL, VII, no. 3272), it seems that the two men did meet at some point on 3 January.

¹⁵⁰ See above, 142.

¹⁵¹ ‘confuse matters’.

¹⁵² In letter 141.

¹⁵³ Bloomfield's despatch, dated 20 December and received on 3 January, conveyed an enquiry from the Prussian Prince Regent as to Britain's course if war broke out between France and Austria.

¹⁵⁴ In an incident that had been widely reported, Napoleon had deliberately snubbed the Austrian ambassador at a New Year gathering in Paris.

¹⁵⁵ On 7 January, a secret despatch was drafted along the lines Malmesbury outlined. No copy has been found among Foreign Office papers, although a copy was sent to Cowley (see below, 146). The draft remains in the Royal Archive, and is helpfully reproduced in Bourne, Kenneth, The Foreign Policy of Victorian England, 1830–1902 (Oxford, 1970), pp. 336–339Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁶ See above, 143.

¹⁵⁷ Alexander, Freiherr (Count, 1879) von Schlienitz (1807–1885), Prussian foreign minister, 1858–1861; he had only been in the job two months.

¹⁵⁸ See above, 145.

¹⁵⁹ One of Aesop's fables, in which the horse (in this case, Sardinia) obtained the man's (French) help in ejecting the stag (Austria) from his meadow, only to find that he had enslaved himself to the man.

¹⁶⁰ George Payne Rainsford James, consul-general for the Austrian Coasts of the Adriatic Sea (i.e. Venice) since 24 July 1858.

¹⁶¹ Malmesbury wrote to Cowley on 7 January, promising to send on Bloomfield's despatch. He also sent Cowley a copy of his secret reply to the Prussians. Cowley MSS, TNA, FO 519/196, fo. 695.

¹⁶² Samuel Lucas (1818–1868), editor of The Press, 1853–1854. Appointed Derby stamp distributor, 1858.

¹⁶³ Adolphe Marie Joseph Louis Thiers (1797–1877), French foreign minister, 1836–1840; became first President of the Third Republic, 1871–1873, after long years in opposition during the Second Empire.

¹⁶⁴ General Jonathan Peel (1799–1879), a younger brother of the late Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel; Secretary of State for War, 1858–1859 and 1866–1867; Major-General 1854–December 1859; Lieutenant-General, 1859–1863; formerly Surveyor-General of the Ordnance under his brother, 1841–1846.

¹⁶⁵ Disraeli had written to Derby on 4 January, complaining that the leading British ministers were ‘all scattered’ despite the ‘critical’ state of affairs. He criticized Malmesbury's absence from the Foreign Office, and alleged that Cowley's letters were ‘deceptive’. Disraeli's proposed solution was that ‘a calm & decisive carriage would oblige Austria to consent to the evacuation of the Roman states, & that would conclude the business’. BDL, VII, no. 3272.

¹⁶⁶ Disraeli's informant was Ralph Earle, his private secretary, who had been sent by him on a secret mission to Napoleon. Malmesbury, like Derby, knew nothing of this. See M&B, IV, pp. 216–220; Hicks, Geoffrey, Peace, War and Party Politics: the Conservatives and Europe, 1846–59 (Manchester, 2007), pp. 217–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶⁷ Malmesbury wrote ‘1858’, but this was clearly an error made as the year turned.

¹⁶⁸ The letter, written on 7 January, criticized Malmesbury's ‘incipient reserve & jealousy’ on foreign policy, and alleged that the Foreign Secretary was ‘very imperfectly acquainted’ with the situation in France. Disraeli suggested that Napoleon had been ‘brooding over Italy’ ever since the Orsini affair, but thought that ‘the French army is not in a condition to move with effect’. He revealed that Napoleon was ‘meditating a great rhetorical coup’, by which he would make an overture to Britain in his speech to Chambers. This news had been obtained from Earle, though the ‘great rhetorical coup’ ultimately came to nothing. This time, Disraeli's proposal was to impress upon Austria that Britain would remain neutral in any war, because then Austria would be ‘conciliatory’ and agree to consider the condition of central and southern Italy in a European conference. It made no mention of his previous suggestion about evacuation of the Papal States. Derby proved to be a more accurate prophet of Austrian behaviour. BDL, VII, no. 3275. For Derby's reply to Disraeli, see M&B, IV, p. 224.

¹⁶⁹ The Court.

¹⁷⁰ Disraeli had said that there were ‘two things, at this conjuncture, most urgent’. He only outlined one (stressing that Britain would remain neutral in a war). BDL, VII, no. 3275.

¹⁷¹ Giuseppe Mazzini (1805–1872), Italian patriot and republican.

¹⁷² Albert.

¹⁷³ The Prince Consort had received a report detailing a meeting between Napoleon and the Belgian Prince de Chimay, in which the emperor had suggested that Albert, his brother (the Duke of Saxe-Coburg), and the Prince of Prussia were getting up a German league against France. He had also threatened the Belgians by saying that the very existence of Belgium was dependent upon the intimacy of their alliance with France. It appeared that the Belgians had been less than robust in defending their neutrality. Martin, Theodore, The Life of the Prince Consort, IV (London, 1879), pp. 354–355Google Scholar.

¹⁷⁴ On 12 January, Cowley had written a letter to Malmesbury describing the meeting between Chimay and Napoleon, about which Prince Albert had been informed separately. MP 9M73/8/11.

¹⁷⁵ King Leopold of Belgium, uncle to both the Queen and the Prince Consort.

¹⁷⁶ A senior Belgian prince, used as an emissary by King Leopold.

¹⁷⁷ Undated, but the date is recorded in Derby's out-book, DP 920 DER (14) 187/1.

¹⁷⁸ See above, 151.

¹⁷⁹ ‘high politics’; generally used in a diplomatic context.

¹⁸⁰ On 18 March, the Prince Consort wrote a letter to Leopold to that effect. Martin, Prince Consort, IV, pp. 356–358.

¹⁸¹ The Morning Post of 27 January 1859 had quoted Malmesbury's suggestion to Cowley, in a letter of 7 December 1858, that Austria's position in Italy might be compared to that of Britain in India and Ireland. The Post alleged that ‘Lord Malmesbury is for committing this country to an alliance with the German powers, for the maintenance of German rule in Italy.’ Malmesbury had for some time been convinced that the Post was in the pay of the French government. See Memoirs, I, p. 362 and II, pp. 151–152. When his Memoirs were published in 1884, his allegation to that effect caused a public row with the editor of the Post.

¹⁸² Sir Algernon Borthwick (1830–1908), created Baron Glenesk in 1895; editor of the Morning Post.

¹⁸³ ‘with indifference’; more literally, ‘with an indifferent opinion’.

¹⁸⁴ The Prince Regent of Prussia, reflecting wider nervousness in Berlin, had written to the Prince Consort, asking what Albert saw Prussia's situation being if ‘England and Russia should remain neutral, and Austria be victorious against the Franco-Italian alliance’. Martin, Prince Consort, IV, pp. 379–382.

¹⁸⁵ There had been a favourable reception in France for Derby's speech at the opening of Parliament.

¹⁸⁶ Disraeli's latest salvo in his campaign for a more vigorous foreign policy was a letter written on 20 February, in which he suggested that the real danger ‘to Germany’ was ‘not from France, but Russia’. He proposed a joint diplomatic initiative with Prussia, which would advocate reform in Italy, ensure a Franco-Austrian evacuation of the Papal States, nullify Austrian influence holding back Italian reform, and, in the event of ‘European complications’, pursue ‘a joint course of action, to guard the equilibrium of Europe against any dangers’. This could, he suggested, be ‘a significant demonstration’. BDL, VII, no. 3294. The first three points already constituted part of Britain's diplomatic position; Malmesbury clearly thought the last was provocative enough to be dangerous. He was right about Russian intentions.

¹⁸⁷ This letter is reproduced in M&B, IV, pp. 228–229.

¹⁸⁸ It is impossible to date this letter precisely, although it clearly comes from the early part of the Italian crisis, prior to the war itself, and on the occasion of a demand by Disraeli for more robust action. It could have been written at any point during the early part of 1859, but it is certainly plausible that it dates from late February, given the diplomatic configuration at that time. It is significant for its statement of Malmesbury's principles in foreign policy.

¹⁸⁹ The Danubian Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia.

¹⁹⁰ ‘honestly’ or ‘sincerely’.

¹⁹¹ Date appended; filed with letters from 1858, but, given the context, clearly written in 1859.

¹⁹² Cowley was about to leave on a peace mission to Vienna, which was upstaged by the Russian offer of a European conference on Italy.

¹⁹³ It is unclear precisely to what this refers; no enclosure remains.

¹⁹⁴ This and 163 were evidently Derby's suggestions for a resolution of the diplomatic crisis, which Malmesbury proposed the following day. See below, 164.

¹⁹⁵ According to Malmesbury's Memoirs, II, p. 162, Derby was ‘annoyed at my having to go to the Conference’.

¹⁹⁶ The four points were those Malmesbury had proposed that Cowley should use as the basis for a settlement when he had visited Vienna in February: withdrawal of Franco-Austrian forces from the Papal Sates; reform of the Papal States; a declaration of peaceful intentions; and the revision or annulment of Austria's treaties with Italian states.

¹⁹⁷ Malmesbury knew the emperor well; his friendship with Napoleon III dated back to their early adulthood in the 1820s. Malmesbury felt that Napoleon was scheming with Cavour because, ever since the Orsini affair, he had been haunted by fears of assassination by Italian terrorists. See, e.g., Memoirs, II, p. 148.

¹⁹⁸ Thomas Henry Sutton Sotheron Estcourt (1801–1876), President of the Poor Law Board, 1858–March 1859; Home Secretary, March–June 1859.

¹⁹⁹ Disappointingly, he gives no examples, but his Memoirs, II, p. 170, record that, on 12 April, Napoleon had refused to ask Sardinia to disarm, thus making the French offer to do so ‘perfectly useless’; on 15 April, Malmesbury noted that Napoleon made a ‘ridiculous counter-proposition’ that Austria disarm if Britain and France guaranteed that Sardinia would not attack.

²⁰⁰ Undated. Archivist's note: ‘?April 1859’. This advice, like that in 168, was clearly given to Disraeli in preparation for his Commons statement on 18 April, in which he explained precisely this situation, though it must have predated the advice in 168, by which time Sardinia's initial reply had been received. Parl. Deb., CLIII, cols 1869–1871. On 19 April, this was superseded by the news that Sardinia had agreed to preliminary and simultaneous disarmament: that is, before the proposed Congress. This was too late to stop the Austrian ultimatum demanding Sardinia's disarmament.

²⁰¹ Massimo Taparelli, marchese d'Azeglio (1798–1866), Cavour's predecessor as Prime Minister of Piedmont-Sardinia, 1849–1852. His nephew was Sardinian minister in London.

²⁰² Undated. Archivist's note: ‘?April 1859’. For dating see above, 167.

²⁰³ See above, 167.

²⁰⁴ Undated but, given Malmesbury's receipt on 20 April of the news of Buol's summons on the night of 19/20, and the fact that a Cabinet was later held on 20 April, it seems likeliest that this was written on the morning of 20 April.

²⁰⁵ The Austrian ultimatum to Piedmont. See above, 167.

²⁰⁶ Despite the date, Malmesbury has compressed the events of two days into this entry.

²⁰⁷ Undated, but Hudson was leaving on the evening of 22 April.

²⁰⁸ Vice-Admiral Sir Arthur Fanshawe, Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean.

²⁰⁹ ‘if need be’.

²¹⁰ About Russian treaty commitments. On 3 March, France and Russia had agreed a secret treaty by which Russia promised ‘benevolent neutrality’ in the event of a Franco-Austrian war.

²¹¹ In his Mansion House speech, Derby had described Austrian policy as ‘criminal’.

²¹² The word in question is almost completely illegible.

²¹³ Malmesbury's consolatory comment (‘c'est pire qu'un crime, c'est une faute’) is generally misattributed to the French statesman Talleyrand, and was either made by Antoine Boulay de la Meurthe or Joseph Fouché. Whatever its origin, it can have been of little comfort to Apponyi.

²¹⁴ Not found. The ‘suggestion’ is unclear, but may relate to another proposal for Russian mediation.

²¹⁵ Baron de Malaret, First Secretary at the French Embassy in London.

²¹⁶ Austria declared war against Piedmont on 29 April; France came to Piedmont's aid on 3 May. British neutrality was officially proclaimed on 13 May.

²¹⁷ James Bruce (1811–1863), eighth Earl of Elgin and twelfth Earl of Kincardine, Britain's High Commissioner and Plenipotentiary in China and the Far East, who had negotiated the Treaty of Tientsin in June 1858. He was due back in London later in May 1859. He went on to accept ministerial office from Palmerston.

²¹⁸ Earlier the same day, Disraeli had proposed obtaining ‘some additional weight & character’ to strengthen the Cabinet, and suggested that Lord Elgin would be a useful acquisition. Disraeli proposed that Elgin should be Foreign Secretary. BDL, VII, no. 3345.

²¹⁹ Pélissier had been recalled, to be replaced by Persigny, who had resigned in a huff the previous year. It was interpreted as a deliberate snub to Derby's government, whose cold relations with Persigny were well known.

²²⁰ Presumably Augustus Craven, who had been attached to the British Legation at Naples until diplomatic relations were suspended in October 1856. His letter has not been found.

²²¹ Francis II (1836–1894), King of Naples, 1859–1861.

²²² Napoleon I's marshal, Murat, had ruled as King of Naples, and his son remained a pretender to the Neapolitan throne.

²²³ Almost illegible: ‘men’ is plausible in terms of handwriting and context.

²²⁴ Palmerston's speech on re-election at Tiverton, 29 April 1859. See The Times, 2 May 1859.

²²⁵ St Petersburg had proposed a joint Anglo-Russian effort to localize and ‘arrest’ the war, but this was strenuously resisted by the Court. See, e.g., Hearder, H., ‘Queen Victoria and foreign policy: royal intervention in the Italian Question, 1859–60’, in Bourne, K. and Watt, D.C. (eds), Studies in International History (London, 1967), pp. 176–177Google Scholar.

²²⁶ Princess Victoria, the Queen's eldest daughter, by that stage married to Prince Frederick of Prussia, but still known as the Princess Royal in Britain.

²²⁷ The speech due to be given by the Queen to the new Parliament. The Queen, strongly pro-Austrian in her views, wanted a more ambiguous description of British neutrality than that proposed by the Government. Derby successfully resisted her. See LQV, first series, III, pp. 335–340; BDL, VII, no. 3359.

²²⁸ The parliamentary papers on Italian affairs.

²²⁹ ‘things to be erased or blotted out’.

²³⁰ MacMahon had led the Franco-Piedmontese forces to victory at Magenta on 4 June.

²³¹ This letter deals with the vexed issue of the Italian papers, and seems to follow the previous letters. Malmesbury had prepared the parliamentary papers on the Italian crisis for presentation to the House of Commons. This had been done partly in the hope that it would disprove Liberal allegations that the Conservatives were pro-Austrian, which might in turn help the Government win the imminent vote on the Address, on which its fate was hanging. The decision as to when and if these papers were presented was Disraeli's, as Leader of the House of Commons. Given that Malmesbury's previous letter on the subject, 183, was written on 7 June, and the division was expected to take place on 10 June, either 8 or 9 June seems plausible. Malmesbury remained convinced that Disraeli's decision not to lay the Italian papers before Parliament helped the Government lose the crucial division early on 11 June 1859. Memoirs, I, p. 41; II, pp. 188–189.

²³² The Government was defeated in the division on the Address in the early hours of 11 June, by 323 votes to 310. It resigned immediately.