_25th_.--To London again. 26th, breakfasted with the Duc d"Aumale, who dined at The Club.
_July 2nd._--To Winchester Quarter Sessions to qualify as J.P. for Hampshire, having been recently appointed by Lord Carnarvon.
_9th_.--Attended Petty Sessions at Christchurch.
_30th_.--Winchester a.s.sizes. On the Grand Jury.
The next letter, from Sir Arthur Gordon, refers to an incident alluded to in the "Greville Memoirs," [Footnote: Third Part, i. 54-5.] which Reeve had commented on at some length, with a reference to the Memoirs of Lord Malmesbury, published some four years before.
What Lord Malmesbury had said amounted to this--that in 1844, when the Russian Emperor Nicholas was in London, "he, Sir Robert Peel (then prime minister) and Lord Aberdeen (then foreign secretary) drew up and _signed_ a memorandum" to the effect that England "would support Russia in her legitimate protectorship of the Greek religion and the Holy Shrines, without consulting France. Lord Malmesbury added that the fact of Lord Aberdeen, one of the signers of this paper, being prime minister in 1853, was taken by Nicholas as a ground for believing that England would not join France to restrain the pretensions of Russia, and therefore, by implication, that Lord Aberdeen"s being prime minister was a--if not the--princ.i.p.al cause of the war. [Footnote: _Lord Malmesbury"s Memoirs of an Ex-Minister_ (1st edit.), i. 402-3.]
The memorandum itself, as printed in the Blue Book, differs essentially, both in matter and form, from Lord Malmesbury"s description of it. It is ent.i.tled "Memorandum by Count Nesselrode delivered to Her Majesty"s Government and founded on communications received from the Emperor of Russia subsequently to His Imperial Majesty"s visit to England in June 1844." [Footnote: _Parliamentary Papers_, 1854, lxxi. 863.] It is unsigned, and from the nature of it must be so; it is in no sense an agreement, but a proposal that England should agree to act in concert with Russia and Austria; and nothing whatever is said about the Greek religion, the Holy Places, or the Russian protectorate. It is of course possible that conversations between Nicholas and Lord Aberdeen, which preceded the drawing up of this memorandum, may have encouraged the one and hampered the other; but of this there is no evidence, and Lord Malmesbury could not possibly know anything about it, though he did know something--very inaccurately it appears--about the memorandum. The discrepancies had, in fact, led Reeve to suppose that Malmesbury"s statement must refer to another memorandum; and thus Lord Stanmore"s letter has a singular historical interest, bearing, as it does, on a point that has been much discussed.
_From Sir Arthur Gordon_
_Queen"s House, Colombo, July 30th_--I am very sorry that I did not contrive to meet you while in England.... I am almost equally sorry--in fact, am equally sorry--that my laziness and procrastination in sending you my notes prevented their being of any use in the revision of the seventh volume [of the Greville Memoirs]. I am the more sorry because I confess I greatly regret that the mare"s-nest of the Russian Memorandum of 1844 should remain unpulled to pieces. You seem half-incredulous as to my explanation, and ask very naturally, If that is all, why should there have been any secrecy about it? The secrecy was due to the form, not the matter.
The memorandum was the Emperor"s own account of his conversations with the Duke, Sir R. Peel, and Lord Aberdeen, and a copy of it was sent in a private letter from Count Nesselrode to Lord Aberdeen. It was never in the hands of the ordinary diplomatic agents for official communication to the English Government, nor was it ever treated as an official doc.u.ment. But its importance was too great to allow its being treated as an ordinary private letter, and my father personally handed it to Lord Palmerston when replaced at the F. O. by him. Lord Palmerston delivered it in the same way to Lord Granville, Lord Granville to Lord Malmesbury, Lord Malmesbury to Lord John Russell, and Lord John to Lord Clarendon. In 1853 the Emperor made some reference to this paper which was supposed to make it a public doc.u.ment, and it was then printed and laid before Parliament soon after the beginning of the war. This I a.s.sure you is the whole history and mystery of the Russian Memorandum, Lord M. notwithstanding. This is not the only instance in which Lord M. has mixed up, in singular fashion, what he himself knew and what was the club gossip at the time.
The Journal here notes:--
_August 20th._--Drove over to Lytchet Heath, to stay with the Eustace Cecils.
_September 10th._--Joined Mrs. Watney in the "Palatine" yacht at Bournemouth. Crossed to Trouville in the night. Lay in "the ditch" for twenty hours. 12th, Cherbourg. Met the French fleet and saw the a.r.s.enal.
13th, back to Southampton and to Foxholes. Pleasant trip; good weather.
_20th_--The Eustace Cecils came: took them to Heron Court. This was the last time Lord Malmesbury saw people there.
_From the Duc d"Aumale_
Woodnorton, 26 septembre.
Tres cher ami,--Vous etes bien heureux de pouvoir aller vous promener a Cherbourg et a Paris. Enfin!
Oui, j"ai recu un peu de plomb, et meme a.s.sez pres de l"oeil gauche; mais le proverbe dit que ce metal est ami de l"homme. J"en serai quitte pour quelques pet.i.tes bosses sous la peau, et je vous souhaite de vous porter aussi bien que je le fais en ce moment.
J"irai a Knowsley dans la seconde quinzaine d"octobre; a Sandringham, dans les premiers jours de novembre; puis mes neveux viendront tirer mes faisans. J"espere bien prendre part aux agapes du Club le 27 novembre et 11 decembre, et serai bien heureux de vous revoir un peu. En attendant je vous serre la main, mon cher confrere.
H. D"ORLeANS.
_To Lord Derby_
_Foxholes, October 2nd._--I am amused by the Court quarrel in Germany, though I am afraid the broken heads will not be royal heads. Bismarck will wreak his vengeance on numberless victims. Geffcken is a very old friend of mine, and an occasional contributor to the "Edinburgh Review;" but I am afraid it will go hard with him, for Bismarck regards him as a personal enemy. If the Prince had lived Bismarck could not have remained in office, and the course of affairs might have been materially changed.
On October 25th Reeve, with his wife, crossed over to Paris. He attended the Inst.i.tut on the 26th, and heard ma.s.s at Notre Dame on the 27th; but his princ.i.p.al object seems to have been to consult Dr. Perrin about his eyes, which for some time back had caused him some uneasiness. A literary man of seventy-five is naturally quick to take alarm, and an English oculist had recommended an operation. This Reeve was unwilling to undergo, at any rate without another and entirely independent opinion; and as Dr. Perrin p.r.o.nounced strongly against it, no operation was performed; and with care and good gla.s.ses his eyes continued serviceable to the last. On November 8th the Reeves returned to London, where, as Parliament was sitting, they remained till Christmas; and, according to the Journal:--
_November 27th._--The Club was brilliant with the Duc d"Aumale, Wolseley, Lord Derby, and Coleridge. Boehm and Maunde Thompson were elected.
_December 1st_.--To All Souls, Oxford. Prothero, Dicey, Oman, George Curzon, &c. Stayed over Sunday.
_27th_.--To Timsbury: thence to Foxholes on the 29th.
_January 15th_, 1889.--Returned to London.
_From M. B. St.-Hilaire_
_Paris, January 20th_.--It was very good of you to think of my book on "L"Inde Anglaise," and I thank you for the "Edinburgh Review" which you have sent me. I read the article with great interest. It is very well done, and I beg you to thank the author in my name for having taken the trouble to read me with so much attention and good will. I do not think I have exaggerated the danger which threatens your great enterprise in India. The Transcaspian Railway, which will very soon run from Samarkand to Tashkend, seems to me one source of it. Yours will, indeed, soon reach to Candahar; but Russia is at home in the country, whilst England is very far off.
The magnanimous confidence you have in your own strength is most praiseworthy--provided that your watchfulness is not allowed to slumber....
Meanwhile I remain constant in my admiration of what the English are doing in India; and the administration of Lord Dufferin may well confirm me in my opinion. There is nothing like it, or so great as it, in the history of the past.
_From Lord Dufferin_
British Emba.s.sy, Rome, January 27th.
My dear Reeve,--Many thanks for your letter of the 16th. As you may well suppose, I am delighted with Lyall"s article; for he is acknowledged, both by Indian and by so much of English public opinion as knows anything of the matter, to have been the best Indian public servant that the present generation has produced. In addition, or, as perhaps some would say, in spite of possessing real literary genius, he proved himself a most wise, shrewd, and capable administrator. I do not believe he made a single mistake during his whole career. At all events, I never heard of his having done so; and a slip is scarcely made in India without the fact being duly recorded. What pleases me most is that the kind words he uses about myself should be embedded in the exposition of his own opinions upon Indian questions--opinions full of acuteness, justice, and knowledge. It is these that will really make the article interesting to your readers, and consequently give a greater importance to what he has said about me than otherwise would have been the case. I have obeyed your orders in regard to sending a copy of my speech to M. Barthelemy St.-Hilaire.
The social history of the season is adequately chronicled in the Journal:--
_February 5th_.--The Ogilvies in London.
_22nd_.--Mr. Gollop [Mrs. Reeve"s father] died; born October 11th, 1791.
Christine had been down just before.
_March 12th_.--The Club. Good party: Lord Salisbury, Walpole, Tyndall, Hooker, Hewett, Lecky, Lyall, A. Russell, Layard, and self.
_March 20th_.--Meeting at Lord Carnarvon"s about the bust of Sir C. Newton.
_25th_.--Breakfast at Sheen House with Comte and Comtesse de Paris, to meet Lefevre-Pontalis and Bocher.
_28th_.--Lunched with Major Dawson at Woolwich and went over the a.r.s.enal.
Very interesting.
_April 12th_.--Meeting for Matthew Arnold"s Memorial. 7,000 _l_. raised.
_May 4th_.--Dined at the Royal Academy dinner. Sat by Horsley, Tyndall, and Chitty.
_From Sir Arthur Gordon_
_May 5th_.--You may rely upon it that I am absolutely right as to the Russian Memorandum--Lord Malmesbury does not himself a.s.sert that he ever saw it, which, had it existed, he must have done when Foreign Secretary. I cannot, of course, expect you to attach the same weight that I do to what I may call the personal reasons which make me utterly incredulous of Lord Malmesbury"s story; but there are other reasons for doubting it, some of which may have already occurred to you. One is the alleged form of the doc.u.ment, which is said to be signed by the Emperor, the Duke, my father, and Sir R. Peel. Lord Malmesbury prides himself on the knowledge of diplomatic forms and etiquettes derived from his grandfather"s papers. He might have known that the signature of an engagement by a Sovereign (and such a Sovereign!) on the one side and _three ministers_ of another Sovereign on the other (thereby putting them on species of equality) was an impossibility. Such a paper, if it existed, would be signed either by _both_ Sovereigns or by the ministers of both. I think I may say with confidence that the Emperor Nicholas was a most unlikely man to perform such an act of condescension. And why should he? He had his confidential minister with him. Another, and I think fatal, objection is that neither my father nor Lord Clarendon were altogether absolute fools, and when, in answer to the Emperor"s challenge, they published the secret memorandum which had till then been handed on privately from minister to minister, they knew what they were about, and would never have put it into the power of the Emperor to retort that _that_ was not what he referred to, but to a paper which would not improve the cordiality of the Anglo-French alliance.
Again, is it likely that, if the Emperor had entered into such an agreement, he would take the trouble to write another long memorandum, containing the "substance" of his discussions with the English ministers?
This is the memorandum which was sent in a private letter, which I possess, from Count Nesselrode to my father; which was handed from minister to minister, and which was published in 1854. The original draft, Count Nesselrode said, was in the Emperor"s own hand. I have another little bit of evidence which I think also goes to prove that no such agreement was entered into in 1844, as Lord Malmesbury supposes. In 1845 Count Nesselrode visited England. My father, writing to the Queen, gives an account of his conversations with Nesselrode, and says: "His language very much resembled that held by the Emperor; and _although he made no specific proposals_, his declarations of support, in case of necessity, were _more_ unequivocal."
(The italics are mine.) Could he have written this if he had already, some months before, signed an agreement with the Emperor, which was both unequivocal and specific?
_From the Comte de Paris_
Sheen House, 7 mai.
Mon cher Monsieur Reeve ,--Nous aussi, nous n"avons pas...o...b..ie votre presence a notre mariage le 30 mai 1864. La Comtesse de Paris et moi nous sommes bien touches de la maniere dont vous nous le rappelez, et je vous remercie de tout coeur de ce que vous me dites et des voeux que vous m"adressez en cette occasion. Au milieu de toutes les vicissitudes de notre vie pendant ces vingt-cinq ans nous avons ete constamment soutenus par le bonheur domestique que cette union nous a donne et par toutes les satisfactions que nous ont causees nos enfants.