coarsely, lost much of their offensiveness because of the peculiar humour which gave them a different effect; and even the reader of a letter like this would recall the familiar manner of the writer. Palmerston as the "judicious bottle-holder"--Palmerston as the keen-faced, wide-awake sporting man, biting a straw or a flower stem, as he appeared in the caricatures of Punch-was the popular favourite, and hundreds who were not among the populace believed implicitly in the ready wit and consummate tact, which, combined with the practical staightforward temper that is prompt to act and refuses to acknowledge the probability of failure, was regarded as peculiarly "English." But it was doubted by people of greater penetration whether the noble lord was quite so straightforward as he pretended to be. He had given his advice to the prime-minister, he was hankering after the power if not the place of minister of war or of foreign minister, and was urging that the allied fleets should be sent at once to the scene of conflict. The cabinet hesitated to accept his dicta, enforced though they were by letters and circulars, and it was suddenly announced that Lord Palmerston had resigned. It will be remembered that on a former occasion (in 1851), when he had relinquished office, his resignation had been preceded and accompanied by a number of rumours almost amounting to deliberate accusations against Prince Albert, charging him with using his influence to control the government and to turn its policy towards the advantage of foreign interests. The position of the prince consort was assailed, and it was insinuated that he used it for the purpose of sending despatches and tampering with foreign affairs to the detriment of British independence. It was an unfortunate circumstance that the same or similar insinuations reappeared at this juncture, and it is scarcely to be wondered at that Palmerston was suspected of having some hand in them either directly, or by recklessly giving expression to his opinion that the opposition with which his proposals were received by the cabinet was to be attributed to the influence of the prince, and through him of the queen. It is plain

45

enough from his letters and speeches that Palmerston had very little of the reticence supposed to be essential to a responsible minister, and that he was in the habit, to use a common expression, of "letting his tongue run" when it would have been more discreet if he had been silent. Whether he was responsible for it or not, no sooner had his resignation been rumoured than those newspapers which supported his foreign policy recommenced their scarcely veiled attacks upon the prince. He was represented to be the chief agent of "the Austro-Belgian-Coburg-Orleans clique, the avowed enemies of England and the subservient tools of Russia, he was present at the conferences between the queen and her ministers, the queen herself discussed with him the foreign as well as the domestic policy of the country, and her opinions were perpetually subject to his influence,-was that influence not exercised to defeat a foreign policy which would be national and patriotic, for the purpose of advancing that of foreign rulers with whom he was in constant correspondence, to whom he could reveal the secrets of her majesty's council? Of course these insinuations-and they sometimes grew to the proportions of direct allegations-need now only to be examined for their absurdity to be discovered. It would have been little to the advantage of the prince to diminish the prestige of the British government and to injure the interests of the queen for the sake of foreign rulers or distant family relations, with whose opinions he had over and over again emphatically shown that he was at variance. Amidst all the imputations that were made not a single fact was adduced that had the least weight; nor did any of the political leaders on either side pay any serious regard to such charges, though they must have known, and some of them would surely have resented any such actions as were made the subject of these scandalous suggestions. There is no need at the present day to enter into any vindication of the prince; his letters, speeches, conversations of that time have been published, and the refutation of the calumnies to which he was subject has long been completed in the story of his life and of the true rela

tions which he sustained to the country to which he was never weary of giving his best and worthiest efforts. But there was no real need of vindication even at the time. Singularly enough, directly it was known that Lord Palmerston had withdrawn his resignation, many of those papers which had been foremost in their imputations withdrew them with the utmost facility. Whether Palmerston had or had not anything to do with the storm of invective that had been raised, it abated directly it was discovered that he had no need of that mode of accounting for his supposed retirement from the councils of the state. But the accusations had the effect of raising a violent uproar in the country. As the Spectator said, a whisper which was first insinuated for party purposes had grown into a roar, and a constructive hint had swelled into a positive and monstrous fiction. The story, not only told in all parts of England, but by some believed, was, that Prince Albert was a traitor to his queen, that he had been impeached for high treason, and finally that on a charge of high treason he had been arrested and committed to the Tower. Nay, the public appetite having grown by what it fed on went beyond this, and there was a report that the queen herself had been arrested.

"You will scarcely credit," wrote the prince to Stockmar, "that my being committed to the Tower was believed all over the country -nay, even that the queen had been arrested! People surrounded the Tower in thousands to see us brought to it! On the other hand, hear from Manchester, where Bright, Cobden, Gibson, Wilson, &c., held their annual meeting, that they made very light of it, and laughed at all the accusations."

They were just the men who were likely to treat such rumours with a kind of humorous contempt, for they knew well enough what were the means likely to be taken by a certain class of political opponents to foment popular prejudice. It is only fair to admit, however, that the same sort of disdain may have prevented Palmerston from contradicting the declaration that he was responsible for the growth of the scandals with which Prince Albert was assailed. That he had on

the former occasion originated expressions of antagonism to the court there was no denying, and it, therefore, did not seem improbable that such expressions had been repeated, or that he had imputed to the prince influences which were opposed to him and to his policy, and were therefore, in his opinion, antagonistic to English interests, for Palmerston had a very sincere belief that the two things were inseparable if not identical.

one.

Once during the contention Palmerston did give a denial, but it was not a very conclusive A long time previously a pamphlet had, it appears, been prepared, setting forth the inimical and adverse position of the prince in relation to the state, and this was now referred to by the newspapers, with an insinuation, not only that Lord Palmerston had handed to the writer of the pamphlet, proofs of the prince's misdoings and copies of his alleged secret correspondence, but that the prince had bought up the copies of the work, suppressed its publication, and made friends with Palmerston in order to screen himself. At the same time it was intimated that there were still some copies in existence, and republication was threatened. Palmerston thereupon wrote to the Morning Post, declaring that he neither got the pamphlet written nor gave up any documents whatever, but that he had, on the contrary, entreated that the pamphlet might not appear. This was evidently saying too much or not enough, and it was followed by the publication of the pamphlet in the columns of another paper; not, probably, by any connivance of Palmerston, for, as Prince Albert afterwards remarked, it was a miserable performance, which could really hurt no one but Lord Palmerston himself, as it accused the court and Lord John Russell of having intrigued to subject Lord Palmerston falsely to the stigma of having cried up the coup d'état, with the conviction that a false belief on this head was calculated to do him serious injury! As, however, it had already been proved in parliament that Palmerston had supported the coup d'état, it seemed scarcely likely that he would have wished this representation to be revived or to be made public. There had been a very decided antagonism between the prince

and the ex-foreign secretary ever since the queen's remonstrances on the subject of the despatches, which led to Palmerston's dismissal from the Russell administration, but there was a tendency to make Palmerston responsible for more than really belonged to him, and it was one of his characteristics to let things alone when they only involved his personal claims. He would not take the trouble to defend himself apart from his official position, and, strange as it may seem, he claimed the right to abstain from personally defending himself against the complaints of the queen, on the ground that it would ill become him to have any altercation with the sovereign. The same feeling might have prevented what could only have been an indignant denial of having been responsible for the imputations made against the prince consort, and though there can be little doubt that he had given rather too free expression to the suspicion that the dislike of the court had influenced the attitude of the cabinet towards his policy, it appears to have been admitted by Prince Albert himself that the slanders which were levelled at the throne during the Aberdeen ministry were not wholly attributable to this source.

47

reason, however, it must be our interest to support Aberdeen, in order to keep the structure standing. Fresh reason for the animosity towards us. So the old game was renewed which was played against Melbourne after the queen's accession, of attacking the court, so as to make it clear, both to it and to the public, that a continuance of Aberdeen in office must endanger the popularity of the crown."

"One main element," he wrote to Stockmar, "is the hostility and settled bitterness of the old high Tory or Protectionist party against me on account of my friendship with the late Sir Robert Peel, and of my success with the Exhibition... Their fury knew no bounds, when by Palmerston's return to the ministry that party (which is now at variance with Disraeli) lost the chance of securing a leader in the Lower House, who would have overthrown the ministry with the cry for English honour and independence, and against parliamentary reform, which is by no means popular. Hatred of the Peelites is stronger in the old party than ever, and Aberdeen is regarded as his representative. To discredit him would have this further advantage, that, if he could be upset, the keystone of the arch of coalition would be smashed, and it must fall to pieces; then Palmerston and John Russell would have to separate, and the former would take the place he has long coveted of leader to the Conservatives and Radicals. For the same

Another element of opposition, the prince declared, was the appointment of Lord Hardinge as commander-in-chief instead of Fitzroy Somerset (Lord Raglan), who had for thirty years been military secretary under the Duke of Wellington. It was assumed that the appointment of Lord Hardinge was due to the prince, who had since the death of the Duke of Wellington been in constant confidential communication with him on military matters relating chiefly to arms and equipments. But the matter really at issue was the actual position which the prince was entitled to assume as one of the council, and as the husband and therefore the adviser of the queen, and on this subject he knew well public opinion must pronounce in spite of calumnies which, it could be shown, were without the slightest foundation, and of misrepresentations which could be refuted directly they were plainly met. He knew, and it was, he believed, time the nation knew, he had long outgrown his first neutral position, and that, after constant study and unremitting attention to public matters, he could not, and should not, remain unconcerned with political affairs-or rather with those affairs of state in which, as the natural counsellor as well as the private secretary of the queen, he had a legitimate interest deepened by observation and experience.

"A very considerable section of the nation," he wrote to his old friend and counsellor, “had never given itself the trouble to consider what really is the position of the husband of a queen regnant. When I first came over here I was met by this want of knowledge and unwillingness to give a thought to the position of this luckless personage. Peel cut down my income, Wellington refused me my rank, the royal

tions which he sustained to the country to which he was never weary of giving his best and worthiest efforts. But there was no real need of vindication even at the time. Singularly enough, directly it was known that Lord Palmerston had withdrawn his resignation, many of those papers which had been foremost in their imputations withdrew them with the utmost facility. Whether Palmerston had or had not anything to do with the storm of invective that had been raised, it abated directly it was discovered that he had no need of that mode of accounting for his supposed retirement from the councils of the state. But the accusations had the effect of raising a violent uproar in the country. As the Spectator said, a whisper which was first insinuated for party purposes had grown into a roar, and a constructive hint had swelled into a positive and monstrous fiction. The story, not only told in all parts of England, but by some believed, was, that Prince Albert was a traitor to his queen, that he had been impeached for high treason, and finally that on a charge of high treason he had been arrested and committed to the Tower. Nay, the public appetite having grown by what it fed on went beyond this, and there was a report that the queen herself had been arrested.

“You will scarcely credit," wrote the prince to Stockmar, "that my being committed to the Tower was believed all over the country -nay, even that the queen had been arrested! People surrounded the Tower in thousands to see us brought to it! On the other hand, I hear from Manchester, where Bright, Cobden, Gibson, Wilson, &c., held their annual meeting, that they made very light of it, and laughed at all the accusations." They were just the men who were likely to treat such rumours with a kind of humorous contempt, for they knew well enough what were the means likely to be taken by a certain class of political opponents to foment popular prejudice. It is only fair to admit, however, that the same sort of disdain may have prevented Palmerston from contradicting the declaration that he was responsible for the growth of the scandals with which Prince Albert was assailed. That he had on

the former occasion originated expressions of antagonism to the court there was no denying, and it, therefore, did not seem improbable that such expressions had been repeated, or that he had imputed to the prince influences which were opposed to him and to his policy, and were therefore, in his opinion, antagonistic to English interests, for Palmerston had a very sincere belief that the two things were inseparable if not identical.

one.

Once during the contention Palmerston did give a denial, but it was not a very conclusive A long time previously a pamphlet had, it appears, been prepared, setting forth the inimical and adverse position of the prince in relation to the state, and this was now referred to by the newspapers, with an insinuation, not only that Lord Palmerston had handed to the writer of the pamphlet, proofs of the prince's misdoings and copies of his alleged secret correspondence, but that the prince had bought up the copies of the work, suppressed its publication, and made friends with Palmerston in order to screen himself. At the same time it was intimated that there were still some copies in existence, and republication was threatened. Palmerston thereupon wrote to the Morning Post, declaring that he neither got the pamphlet written nor gave up any documents whatever, but that he had, on the contrary, entreated that the pamphlet might not appear. This was evidently saying too much or not enough, and it was followed by the publication of the pamphlet in the columns of another paper; not, probably, by any connivance of Palmerston, for, as Prince Albert afterwards remarked, it was a miserable performance, which could really hurt no one but Lord Palmerston himself, as it accused the court and Lord John Russell of having intrigued to subject Lord Palmerston falsely to the stigma of having cried up the coup d'état, with the conviction that a false belief on this head was calculated to do him serious injury! As, however, it had already been proved in parliament that Palmerston had supported the coup d'état, it seemed scarcely likely that he would have wished this representation to be revived or to be made public. There had been a very decided antagonism between the prince