The Letters of Queen Victoria Volume Ii Part 95

The Queen must now answer Lord Derby on the questions which form the subjects of his three last communications.

With regard to the Militia Bill, she must admit that her suggestions are liable to the objections pointed out by Lord Derby, although they would offer advantages in other respects. The Queen will therefore sanction the measure as proposed, and now further explained by Lord Derby.

The despatches transmitted from the Foreign Office referring to the Swiss question[23] could not fail to give the Queen as much satisfaction as they did to Lord Derby, as they show indications of a more conciliatory intention, _for the present_ at least. As Switzerland has yielded, France and Austria ought to be satisfied, and the Queen only hopes we may not see them pushing their demands further after a short interval!

The probability of a war with the Burmese is a sad prospect. The Queen thinks, however, that the view taken by Lord Dalhousie of the proceedings at Rangoon, and of the steps now to be taken to preserve peace, is very judicious, and fully concurs with the letter sent out by the Secret Committee. She now returns it, together with the despatch.

The despatches from Prince Schwartzenberg to Count Buol are satisfactory in one sense, as showing a readiness to return to the English Alliance, but unfortunately only under the supposition that we would make war upon liberty together; they exhibit a profound ignorance of this country.[24] The Queen is quite sure that Lord Derby will know how to accept all that is favourable in the Austrian overtures without letting it be supposed that we could for a moment think of joining in the policy pursued at this moment by the great Continental Powers. As Lord Derby's speech has been referred to by Prince Schwartzenberg, it would furnish the best text for the answer.

The President seems really to have been seriously ill.

[Footnote 23: The French had been pressing the Swiss Government to expel refugees, and Austria supported the French President.]

[Footnote 24: Lord Derby had urged that a more conciliatory message should accompany Lord Granville's last despatch, which, because of its unfriendly tone, Count Buol had delayed sending on to Vienna. The precise language (he said) must depend on what information Count Buol could supply.]

_Queen Victoria to the Earl of Derby._

OSBORNE, _14th March 1852._

The Queen has received this morning Lord Derby's letter respecting the St Albans' Disfranchis.e.m.e.nt Bill, and is glad to hear that Lord Derby means to take up this Bill as dropped by the late Government. Whether the mode of transferring these seats proposed by Lord Derby will meet with as little opposition in Parliament as he antic.i.p.ates, the Queen is not able to form a correct judgment of. It may be liable to the imputation of being intended to add to the power of the landed interest. This might not be at all objectionable in itself, but it may be doubtful how far the House of Commons may be disposed to concur in it at the present moment. This will be for Lord Derby to consider, but the Queen will not withhold her sanction from the measure.

She knows that Lord John Russell meant to give the vacant seats to Birkenhead. Are not there two seats still vacant from the Disfranchis.e.m.e.nt of Sudbury? and would it not be better (if so) to dispose of all four at the same time? There is an impression also gaining ground that, with a view to prevent the Franchise being given exclusively to _Numbers_, to the detriment of _Interests_, it might be desirable to give new seats to certain corporate bodies, such as the Scotch Universities, the Temple and Lincoln's Inn, the East India Company, etc., etc.[25]

[Footnote 25: The Government eventually proposed that the four seats taken from St Albans and Sudbury should be a.s.signed to South Lancashire and the West Riding; but, on the ground that a Ministry on sufferance should confine itself to necessary legislation, Mr Gladstone induced the House by a great majority to shelve the proposal.]

[Pageheading: MR DISRAELI]

[Pageheading: THE OPPOSITION]

_Mr Disraeli to Queen Victoria._

HOUSE OF COMMONS, _15th March 1852._ (_Monday night._)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his humble duty to your Majesty, informs your Majesty of what occurred in the House of Commons this evening.

Mr Villiers opened the proceedings, terse and elaborate, but not in his happiest style. He called upon the House to contrast the state of the country at the beginning of the year and at the present moment.

But he could not induce the House to believe that "all now was distrust and alarm."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply, declined to bring forward in the present Parliament any proposition to change our commercial system, and would not pledge himself to propose in a future Parliament any duty on corn. He said a duty on corn was a measure, not a principle, and that if preferable measures for the redress of agricultural grievances than a five-shilling duty on corn (mentioned by Mr Villiers) could be devised, he should adopt them--a declaration received with universal favour on the Government side.

Lord John Russell replied to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in consequence of some notice by the former of the strange construction of a new Opposition to force a Dissolution of Parliament by a Minister who, three weeks ago, had declared such Dissolution inexpedient. It was not a successful speech.

The great speech on the Opposition side was that of Sir James Graham: elaborate, malignant, mischievous. His position was this: that Lord Derby, as a man of honour, was bound to propose taxes on food, and that if he did so, revolution was inevitable.

Mr Gladstone and Lord Palmerston both spoke in the same vein, the necessity of immediate Dissolution after the pa.s.sing of the "necessary" measures; but the question soon arose, What is "necessary"?

Lord Palmerston thought the Militia Bill "necessary," upon which the League[26] immediately rose and denied that conclusion.

There seemed in the House a great reluctance to avoid a violent course, but a very general wish, on the Opposition side, for as speedy a Dissolution as public necessity would permit.

The evening, however, was not disadvantageous to the Government. All which is most humbly submitted to your Majesty, by your Majesty's most dutiful Subject and Servant,

B. DISRAELI.

[Footnote 26: The members belonging to the Manchester School of Politics.]

[Pageheading: THE QUESTION OF DISSOLUTION]

_Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians._

OSBORNE, _17th March 1852._

MY DEAREST UNCLE,--I delayed writing till to-day as I wished to see the papers first, and be able to give you an account of the first Debate in the two Houses. They are not satisfactory, because both Lord Derby and Mr Disraeli refuse to give a straightforward answer as to their policy, the uncertainty as to which will do serious harm.[27]

The Opposition are very determined, and _with_ right, to insist on this being given, and on as early a Dissolution as possible. The Government will be forced to do this, but it is very unwise, after all _this_ agitation for the last five years and a half, _not_ [to] come forward manfully and to state what they intend to do. We tried to impress Lord Derby with the necessity of this course, and I hoped we had succeeded, but his speech has not been what it ought to have been in this respect.

The President seems more occupied at home than abroad, which I trust he may remain.

Stockmar is well.... _One_ thing is pretty _certain_--that _out_ of the _present state_ of confusion and discordance, a _sound state_ of _Parties_ will be obtained, and _two Parties_, as of old, will again exist, without which it is _impossible_ to have a _strong_ Government.

_How_ these Parties will be formed it is impossible to say at present.

Now, with Albert's love, ever your devoted Niece,

VICTORIA R.

[Footnote 27: This uncertainty led to the Anti-Corn-Law League, which had been dissolved in 1846, being revived.]

_Mr Disraeli to Queen Victoria._

HOUSE OF COMMONS, _19th March 1852._ (_Friday night, twelve o'clock._)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his humble duty to your Majesty, lays before your Majesty what has taken place in the House of Commons to-night.

At the commencement of public business, Lord John Russell, in a very full House, after some hostile comments, enquired of Her Majesty's Ministers whether they were prepared to declare that Her Majesty will be advised to dissolve the present Parliament, and call a new one, with the least possible delay consistent with a due regard to the public interest, in reference to measures of _urgent_ and _immediate_ necessity.

The question was recommended by Lord John Russell as one similar to that put to him in 1841 by Sir Robert Peel.