¹ Louis Napoleon's government in France was irritated by Swiss protection of refugees from the Bonapartist regime and discrimination against French Jews at Basle. France had restricted visas for Swiss passport-holders and, in an ultimatum sent to the Swiss Federal Council on 24 January 1852, had demanded that the Swiss promise to expel French refugees as and when France demanded. Malmesbury was attempting to negotiate a compromise. See also 2 and 3.

² Arthur Charles Magenis (1801–1867), British minister in Switzerland, 1851–April 1852.

³ This note is laid out in this form, after the main body of text.

⁴ The great powers were attempting to resolve outstanding questions about the duchies of Schleswig, Holstein, and Lauenburg, and their relationship to the Danish king who ruled over them. In 1848 the duchies had revolted against Denmark. Augustenburg, head of the secondary branch of the Danish royal family, had helped lead the revolt. The childless King Frederick VII of Denmark intended to settle the succession on Christian of Glücksburg, whose branch of the family was junior to that of Augustenburg. All the other claimants renounced their claims and Augustenburg was offered significant compensation for the loss of his estates following the revolt, providing he renounced his claims to the throne. In a letter forwarded to Earl Granville on 18 February, Augustenburg had written to Prince Albert, informing him that he had refused compensation. Granville Papers, TNA, PRO 30/29/20/1, fos 55–57. Persuading Augustenburg to co-operate was one of the key preliminaries to the Treaty of London, which appeared to resolve the Schleswig-Holstein question and was signed by Malmesbury on 8 May 1852. See below, 16.

⁵ Prussia was acting as mediator between Augustenburg and the Danish government.

⁶ Date appended.

⁷ See above, 1.

⁸ Derby's note appended: ‘Seen & ans[were]^d. We must not concede so much to L.N. as to recognise his principle.’ Malmesbury's proposed solution was successfully adopted.

⁹ A young Englishman, Erskine Mather, had been injured by an Austrian soldier while on holiday in Florence, in the Habsburg puppet state of Tuscany. Granville had been demanding compensation from the Austrians. See also 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 29, 32, 33.

¹⁰ Date appended.

¹¹ Presumably the draft of a paper to be read to Buol on the subject of refugees from the Habsburg empire, as referred to in letter 5.

¹² Copy in Derby's letter book. Original not found.

¹³ On the question of refugees from the Austrian empire sheltering in Britain, about whose conduct Austria had been conducting an acrimonious correspondence with Lord John Russell's government.

¹⁴ That of 4 February 1852 to Buol (for his transmission to the Whig government), reprinted in Parliamentary Papers, ‘Further correspondence respecting the foreign refugees in London’ (presented to Parliament 29 March 1852), document 1, pp. 1–2.

¹⁵ This should be read in conjunction with Derby's letter to Malmesbury, reproduced in Malmesbury's autobiography, Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, 2 vols (London, 1884), I, p. 312, in which Derby also warned of the danger of appearing too close to Austria: ‘I have no idea of committing the Government to another Holy Alliance.’ That letter was dated ‘March 1852’ in the Memoirs, but was clearly written late in the evening of 10 March. It has not been found in Malmesbury's or Derby's papers.

¹⁶ The date appended is 15 March. This was a Monday, however, so was perhaps the date of receipt, not despatch.

¹⁷ At the top of this letter, Derby noted, ‘I have drafted the desp. D.’ The draft seems likely to have been that of TNA, FO 181/268, either no. 30 or no. 31 to Seymour, 29 March 1852. The drafts were both initialled by Derby, TNA, FO 65/404.

¹⁸ France had presented a list of demands to Belgium about curtailing anti-French agitation, which was widely interpreted as the precursor to an attack on the kingdom. This raised the prospect of joint action by the other four great powers to protect Belgium, in accordance with the guarantee of 19 April 1839.

¹⁹ Britain had for some time been attempting to clarify what Russia would do if it became necessary to act quickly. See, e.g., TNA, FO 65/404, no. 59, Granville to Seymour, draft, 18 February 1852.

²⁰ See above, 8.

²¹ Explanatory note appended: ‘Alluding to invasion of Belgium by France’.

²² About the Swiss canton of Neuchâtel. This was an integral part of Switzerland, but the arrangements in the Vienna settlement of 1815 provided for it simultaneously to remain as a Prussian principality, with the Prussian king as head of state. In 1848, the Neuchâtel republicans had overthrown the royalists and produced a new, republican constitution. Previous attempts to negotiate a settlement with Prussia about the canton's status had failed. Malmesbury was conscious of Britain's favourable relationship with Switzerland, and of Swiss vulnerability to criticism from other great powers. He was therefore exploring how a great-power protocol might be concluded that would be a sop to the Prussians (whose support was separately needed on the Schleswig-Holstein question) and theoretically provide the basis for a settlement, but which would avoid antagonizing the Swiss and in practice leave open the option of deferring any conference to conclude such a settlement. See also letters 12, 15, 44, 49, and 50.

²³ Elections in Neuchâtel at the end of March 1852 had produced a clear victory for the republicans.

²⁴ Friedrich Wilhelm IV.

²⁵ Schleswig-Holstein. See above, 2.

²⁶ ‘supposed’.

²⁷ See above, 11.

²⁸ Charles Augustus Murray (1806–1895), consul-general in Egypt from 1846 to 1853. There he secured Britain's first hippopotamus; he later wrote a memoir of Mehmet Ali.

²⁹ Murray had written to Stratford Canning on 27 March, concerned about French intrigues to gain influence in the Near East and about a potential ‘coup-de-main’ by the Porte, supported by France, to assert the Sultan's authority over the viceroy in Egypt. He requested ‘one or two English men-of-war in the Harbour of Alexandria’. TNA, FO 78/916, no. 6, fo. 7. See also Malmesbury to Murray, 8 April 1852, Memoirs, I, pp. 326–327.

³⁰ Sir Charles Hotham (1806–1855) was taking up a diplomatic mission to South America.

³¹ Explanatory note: ‘Alluding to efforts made by Northern Powers to force us to an alliance’. This initiative was later referred to by Disraeli in his notes for unpublished memoirs: ‘Shortly after the formation of this government, Baron Brunnow, the Russian Ambassador, proposed to Lord Derby an alliance between England and Russia, offensive & defensive. Lord Derby at once rejected the proposition.’ Swartz, Helen M. and Swartz, Marvin (eds), Disraeli's Reminiscences (London, 1975), p. 93Google Scholar.

³² If this letter is accurately placed in chronological order in the bundle, it ought to have been one of the Mondays between 13 April and 8 May. Malmesbury's explanatory note: ‘Alludes to Danish Treaty of Succession wh I carried through without offending the Court’. A conference on the Schleswig-Holstein question, chaired by Britain, began on 28 April. Its culmination would be the Treaty of London. See below, 16. If this letter was connected with the conference proceedings, it was probably written on either Monday 26 April or Monday 3 May.

³³ The Privy Council. The enclosed is enclosed no longer.

³⁴ i.e. Prince Albert.

³⁵ The great powers were negotiating a protocol that would be signed on 24 May. For the background to this comment, see above, 11.

³⁶ The Tanzimat-ι Hayriye or ‘auspicious reorderings’, the programme of reform pursued by successive Ottoman rulers between 1839 and 1876, supported by Britain. Turkey sought to impose the Tanzimat in Egypt, the politics of which had drawn in France and Britain.

³⁷ Explanatory note: ‘Danish Treaty of Succession signed this day.’

³⁸ The Augustenburg claim to the Danish throne having been renounced, the Treaty of London of 8 May 1852, signed by all the great powers, stipulated: (1) in default of male issue from the direct line of Frederick III, the Danish crown would pass to Christian of Glücksburg; (2) the rights of Denmark and the Germanic Confederation in Holstein and Lauenburg were unaffected. The treaty therefore reaffirmed the status quo and allowed for Christian to rule in the duchies when he succeeded Frederick.

³⁹ Explanatory note: ‘Relating to the Mather case’.

⁴⁰ Joseph Wenzel, Graf Radetzky von Radetz (1766–1858), Austrian marshal; commander of the Austrian army in the occupied territory of Lombardo-Venetia, 1831–1857.

⁴¹ Correspondence not found.

⁴² Edward Murray was a British citizen who had been inspector of police in Ancona, central Italy, which fell within the territories of the Papal States. He was condemned to death for having committed a murder during the revolutionary occupation of Rome in 1848–1849. Malmesbury and Stanley succeeded in having his sentence commuted to life imprisonment later in 1852. See Disraeli to Stanley, BDL, VI, no. 2422.

⁴³ Lord John Russell's Whig government (1846–1852) had been trying to make diplomatic contact with Rome, formally or informally, in order to attempt to obtain its support in calming the situation in Ireland. In November 1851, Bulwer had been nominated as minister in Tuscany, with the intention that he should go on a mission to Rome. For the same domestic reasons, Malmesbury and Derby intended to pursue this. See also 23, 24, 26, 27, 35, 53, 58, 61, 62.

⁴⁴ Pope Pius IX.

⁴⁵ ‘for the time being’.

⁴⁶ ‘indefinitely’.

⁴⁷ Given Derby's rejection of the idea of publishing the Mather papers, this letter was clearly written before he and Malmesbury realized the extent of the furore that the case would generate. This places it prior to the end of May. It must have been written after 17 May, when the initial details of the settlement were received and the matter appeared resolved. This leaves two possibilities – 19 or 26 May – and, given its place in the bundle and the French reference similar to 20, the latter seems most likely.

⁴⁸ It is unclear to what this refers, though it may be to the same matters discussed below, 20.

⁴⁹ In March 1852, Malmesbury had asked the father of Erskine Mather to name an amount as suitable compensation for his son's injuries. He had suggested £5,000, but Malmesbury advised Scarlett, the British representative in Florence, to seek £1,000 instead. On 5 May, an ailing Scarlett had accepted the rather lower sum of 1,000 francesconi from the Tuscans – about £222 – and the release of some other British prisoners, the Stratfords. See ‘Correspondence respecting the assault committed on Mr. Erskine Mather at Florence’, Parliamentary Papers, 1852 session, LV. Derby was wrong in his assessment; the case was about to cause a significant political row. See below, 21.

⁵⁰ The Court.

⁵¹ Malmesbury's scepticism related to concerns raised by the Queen with Derby on 27 May. She had suggested how to handle the anticipated declaration of a new French empire: ‘All the Foreign Powers have to be careful about is to receive an assurance that the Empire does not mean a return to the policy of the Empire, but that the existing Treaties will be acknowledged and adhered to.’ LQV, first series, II, p. 390. Derby had either forwarded this letter to Malmesbury or had communicated its contents to him. How Malmesbury was pursuing the reductions is unclear.

⁵² Date appended.

⁵³ Disraeli's letter to Malmesbury has not been found, but his letters of 29 May to Derby and Stanley survive (BDL, VI, nos 2296 and 2297). The Mather case (see above, letters 3 and 19) was producing a political storm. Questions about the settlement accepted by Scarlett had been asked in the House of Lords on 27 and 28 May. On 28 May, the father of the injured man had written an indignant letter to The Times, criticizing Malmesbury's handling of the affair, and the newspaper followed this up with an editorial on 29 May. That day, Malmesbury rescinded his acceptance of Scarlett's settlement with Tuscany.

⁵⁴ Barron had reported Scarlett's settlement with Tuscany when the latter fell ill. Malmesbury held him in part responsible for the problems the case generated.

⁵⁵ The Stratfords were British citizens imprisoned in Tuscany for possession of a private printing press and using it to produce material critical of the Tuscan government. In fact, their release had already been separately agreed before the Mather case had been resolved.

⁵⁶ On 24 May, Henry Addington had written (on Malmesbury's instructions) to Mather senior, accepting that the compensation was inadequate but urging him to accept it anyway.

⁵⁷ Bulwer had succeeded Scarlett as Britain's representative in Tuscany at the beginning of May.

⁵⁸ The duc de Casigliano, Tuscan foreign minister.

⁵⁹ Lord Dudley Coutts Stuart (1803–1854), Liberal MP for Marylebone.

⁶⁰ The Commons debate on the Mather case was on 14 June, the Lords debate on 21 June.

⁶¹ Edward, Lord Stanley.

⁶² That of 9 May.

⁶³ Despatches of 11 and 14 May 1852.

⁶⁴ Malmesbury told the Lords that he had read them on 24 May 1852. See Parl. Deb., 21 June 1852, CXXII, col. 1036. In fact, it is unclear whether he read them on either date. He told the Lords on 27 and 28 May that the matter was concluded; despatches repudiating the settlement were not sent until 29 May.

⁶⁵ See above, 18.

⁶⁶ Not least because of the agitation of the Tenant League and the Roman Catholic priesthood's active involvement in politics. Tension was high on both sides of the sectarian divide. K.T. Hoppen has described the 1852 general election as ‘one of the most violent of all nineteenth-century Irish elections.’: Hoppen, K.T., Elections, Politics, and Society in Ireland, 1832–1885 (Oxford, 1984), p. 397Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ Malmesbury's explanatory note: ‘Rec[eive]^d at dinner at Walewski's’. Malmesbury's Memoirs, I, p. 336, refer to a dinner at the Walewskis on 2 June. Given the letter's proximity in the bundle to letters from June, this seems the likeliest date.

⁶⁸ Malmesbury's explanatory note: ‘Proposal made was from the Emperor to marry the Princess Hohenlohe. M[almesbury].’

⁶⁹ See above, 23, 24.

⁷⁰ Ireland's Tenant League was agitating for ‘the three Fs’: fixity of tenure, free sale, and fair rent; Naas was attempting to calm that agitation with his Tenant Right (Ireland) Bill, which he had introduced in May.

⁷¹ Sir (Wellington) Patrick Manvers Chetwynd-Talbot (1817–1898), Derby's private secretary, 1852; House of Lords serjeant-at-arms, 1858–1859; married Lady Emma Stanley (Derby's daughter), 1860.

⁷² Leopold II (1797–1870), Grand Duke of Tuscany, 1824–1859.

⁷³ Explanatory note: ‘Alludes to Mather case & its settlement.’ This letter is clearly a response, on the same piece of paper, to another note (presumably from Malmesbury or Addington): ‘There is an opportunity for writing to Florence, this, Friday, evening. F.O. June 25/52’.

⁷⁴ Explanatory note: ‘Alludes to Murray the murderer at Ancona’. Derby's note was appended to the original query from Malmesbury: ‘What instructions shall I give Bulwer – My own opinion is that Mr Murray's character is not such as to justify us in a tone of “menace”?’ See above, 18.

⁷⁵ Malmesbury's explanatory note: ‘Outrage on British corporal of Firebrand at Leghorn.’ A corporal of marines from the Firebrand had gone ashore and ended up offending a Tuscan gendarme, who had beaten and imprisoned him. Parl. Deb., 18 March 1852, CXIX, cols 1224–1225.

⁷⁶ Date appended: ‘August 1852’. But clearly this letter was written before 9 August, a Monday, a date which was to follow both the envisaged trip ‘next week’ and the opportunity for a reception ‘the following week’. The only Friday in August prior to that was 6 August, which could not have allowed for those events by 9 August. The Court Circular confirms that Derby left London for Osborne on Thursday 15 July (see The Times, 16 July 1852). He was back in St Leonards by 19 July (see below, 33).

⁷⁷ No address is given, but Derby had arrived at Osborne on Thursday 15 July, and the rest of the letter describes a drive from Osborne that Derby had taken with the Queen and Prince Albert on the Friday.

⁷⁸ John Hobart Caradoc, second Baron Howden (1799–1873), minister in Spain, 1850–1858.

⁷⁹ The Queen was confusing Lord Stratford de Redcliffe with Lord Stuart de Rothesay (1779–1845).

⁸⁰ According to his Memoirs, I, p. 341, Malmesbury held a dinner for Stratford and Howden on 17 July.

⁸¹ From 19 to 23 July the royal family went on a Channel cruise around locations in the south-west. Malmesbury's Memoirs, I, p. 343, record that he visited Osborne on 27 July, having been ‘the other day’ with Stratford and Howden.

⁸² The Queen arrived in Belgium on 11 August, and returned to Osborne on 17 August.

⁸³ August.

⁸⁴ September. Malmesbury's Memoirs, I, p. 347, corroborate this, recording his return from Balmoral to Achnacarry on that date.

⁸⁵ ‘an empty threat’.

⁸⁶ Given 32, this clearly refers to the Mather case.

⁸⁷ Date appended: ‘July 1852’.

⁸⁸ Augustenburg was in London, and met the Queen (with Malmesbury) at the end of June.

⁸⁹ The editors were divided on the correct reading of this word, which might also be interpreted as ‘outside’.

⁹⁰ The question of the Greek succession was pressing by the summer of 1852. The treaty of 7 May 1832 between Britain, France, Russia, and Bavaria had established Otto of Bavaria as King of Greece. His heir was his brother, Luitpold. The Greek constitution of 1844 had specified that every successor to the Greek throne should be of the Orthodox religion, but Luitpold had made it clear that he would remain a Roman Catholic and raise his children in that faith. The Foreign Office was concerned that tension between the treaty and the constitution might result in instability in an area of strategic significance to Britain. See also 49, 51, 59, and 70.

⁹¹ Prince Adalbert of Bavaria (1828–1875), youngest son of King Ludwig I and brother of King Otto of Greece.

⁹² Prince Luitpold of Bavaria (1821–1912), later Prince Regent of Bavaria; third son of King Ludwig I and brother of King Otto of Greece.

⁹³ The Derbys were visiting the Duke of Richmond (and the races) at Goodwood, 25–29 July.

⁹⁴ In Malmesbury's Memoirs, I, pp. 351–352, a letter from Derby to Malmesbury, addressed ‘Goodwood’, is included with other material relating to Greek affairs, all of which dates from October 1852. The original has not been found in Malmesbury's papers. The published letter is undated (‘Thursday’), but, given the content, it is clearly a response to 36 and it is reasonable to suppose it was written on Thursday 29 July, despite its location in the Memoirs. Derby had indeed seen Brünnow, and had arranged with him that Malmesbury ‘should write to Petersburg and Paris, sending a résumé of the case, suggesting the necessity for a revision of the Greek treaty, so as to bring it into harmony with the Constitution, and proposing to call jointly on the King of Bavaria to state the intentions of his sons with regard to the acceptance of the Greek religion or the renunciation of the rights of succession’.

⁹⁵ On 29 July, The Times had published terms of a treaty it said had been signed on 20 May. Russia, Austria, and Prussia had allegedly agreed to refuse to recognize Louis Napoleon as hereditary emperor if he claimed to be such, and to consult ‘as to the ulterior measures which they may think it necessary to take’. If Louis Napoleon died or was overthrown, they would assist the restoration of the Bourbon heir.

⁹⁶ In June, Russia, Austria, and Prussia had sent almost identical notes to Britain, in which they offered to waive their objections to a Bonaparte on the French throne, on the grounds of his services to the cause of order, and proposed a ‘mutual system of defensive policy’. Malmesbury rejected this overture. See e.g., TNA, FO 181/272, no. 10, Malmesbury to Seymour, 29 June 1852.

⁹⁷ Word missing in original.

⁹⁸ Copy in Derby's letter book. Original not found.

⁹⁹ Presumably about the Greek succession.

¹⁰⁰ It seems likely that this was a dinner on 15 August, the festival of the Virgin Mary and the anniversary of the first Emperor Napoleon's birth, marked by feasts and parades in France.

¹⁰¹ Malmesbury's explanatory note: ‘Alludes to violence offered to M^r Newton at Verona & journey to Osborne.’ Henry Robert Newton, an architect, had been arrested, manhandled, and imprisoned overnight by the Austrian authorities in Verona in June 1852, while apparently making a sketch of the fortifications there. His father had written to Malmesbury on 16 July, asking him to seek redress. The Government subsequently obtained ‘a full and ample expression of regret’ from Austria, as Stanley outlined on 16 November 1852. Parl. Deb., CXXIII, cols 198–200. See also 41, 42, 43.

¹⁰² They would be on the way to Osborne for a Privy Council meeting on 18 August.

¹⁰³ See also below, 48.

¹⁰⁴ Explanatory note: ‘Alludes to Mr Newton's arrest at Verona’.

¹⁰⁵ Date appended.

¹⁰⁶ Sir Richard Mayne (1796–1868), joint commissioner of the Metropolitan police.

¹⁰⁷ See above, 40.

¹⁰⁸ According to the Court Circular in The Times, 24 August 1852, Derby left St Leonards for Osborne on Sunday 22 August.

¹⁰⁹ See above, 40.

¹¹⁰ The notorious manhandling of the Austrian general Julius Jacob von Haynau (1786–1853) by the London draymen in 1850.

¹¹¹ ‘the final reckoning’.

¹¹² ‘by force of arms’.

¹¹³ The Prussians were antagonized by anti-royalist policies in the canton, and earlier that month had requested that Britain call a conference for mediation on the question of its status, as stipulated in the 1852 protocol. The request was rebuffed. See below, 46, 49, and 50.

¹¹⁴ The French President, Louis Napoleon Bonaparte.

¹¹⁵ Clinton Dawkins, British consul-general in Venice since 26 June 1846.

¹¹⁶ Copy in Derby's letter book. Original not found.

¹¹⁷ Not received until 5 September. See below, 50.

¹¹⁸ See above, 41.

¹¹⁹ Date appended.

¹²⁰ ‘hobby’ or ‘craze’.

¹²¹ Friedrich Wilhelm IV of Prussia.

¹²² Prince Albert wrote to the king on 6 September 1852, advising him that ‘the only way’ to obtain a satisfactory solution to the Neuchâtel problem ‘will be by way of negotiation and by convincing the Swiss Confederation, and proving to them the usefulness, and in fact the necessity, of arriving at a legal agreement with Your Majesty; whereas menaces would only raise fresh obstacles, and forcible measures would produce greater evils than could possibly arise if you could find it in your power to refrain from using force’. Jagow, K. (ed.), Letters of the Prince Consort 1831–1861 (London, 1938), p. 183Google Scholar.

¹²³ A Scotland Yard detective.

¹²⁴ George Harris (1816–1857), Malmesbury's cousin and private secretary.

¹²⁵ Harris had seen Louis Napoleon on 31 August 1852, to let him know privately about the plots being hatched by refugees in the Channel Islands.

¹²⁶ Sir John Ralph Milbanke (1800–1868), British minister in Bavaria, 1843–1862.

¹²⁷ This can be seen in Memoirs, I, pp. 346–347.

¹²⁸ Henry George Howard at Vienna. See above, 41.

¹²⁹ Howard's eldest brother, George, the seventh Earl of Carlisle, had sat in the Melbourne and Russell Cabinets, and would later serve as Palmerston's Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Their father, the sixth Earl, had also been a Whig minister.

¹³⁰ A case involving a dispute between a British citizen and the Neapolitan authorities over the education of children. Despite Malmesbury's worries, it was handled effectively and kept away from parliamentary and press attention.

¹³¹ Prince de Carini, the London representative of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, had met with Malmesbury in early September. Carini had agreed that he would obtain an apology for Hamilton's treatment, but had requested that British subjects should ensure that they were complying with Neapolitan law.

¹³² Charles Augustus Ellis, sixth Baron Howard de Walden and second Baron Seaford (1799–1868), minister in Belgium, 1846–August 1868.

¹³³ Filed between letters of 2 October and 16 October.

¹³⁴ Roughly translated, ‘to stay within our rights’; presumably, avoiding provocation of France.

¹³⁵ Dean Walter Meyler, Roman Catholic priest of St Andrews, Dublin; regarded as a moderate.

¹³⁶ Malmesbury's Memoirs, I, p. 358, recount a conference of the three on 18 October, though he describes Brunnow being ‘startled’ at his plan, originally, under the entry for 17 October. Nevertheless, 18 October was also a Monday and this date seems likeliest.

¹³⁷ August, Freiherr von Cetto (1794–1879), Bavarian minister in London, 1822–1833 and 1835–June 1867.

¹³⁸ Malmesbury's plan was simply to declare that Otto's successor would profess the Orthodox faith, and this was what was agreed by the 1852 treaty. In the long term, however, it did not resolve the question.

¹³⁹ Word missing in original.

¹⁴⁰ Count Lavradio, Portuguese minister in London.

¹⁴¹ According to his Memoirs, I, p. 359, Malmesbury arrived at St Leonards on Sunday 24 October.

¹⁴² See above, 58.

¹⁴³ Another hand has appended ‘Oct 24’, but this seems to refer to the date of receipt, rather than its despatch (given that Saturday was 23 October and ‘tomorrow’ was thus Sunday 24 October). See above, 61.

¹⁴⁴ Father Joseph J. Mahé, a Roman Catholic priest attached to St Mary's, Cadogan Terrace, Sloane Street. He was a contact of Malmesbury's who was prepared to act as an intermediary with the Catholic hierarchy.

¹⁴⁵ Formerly Lord FitzRoy Somerset. See above, 50.

¹⁴⁶ ‘proximo’ – next month.

¹⁴⁷ Victor Emmanuel II.

¹⁴⁸ It is unclear precisely to whom this refers. There are two possibilities. Philip Stanhope (1805–1875), Lord Mahon (later fifth Earl of Stanhope), was a Conservative peer with a lively interest in diplomacy who had briefly served as parliamentary under-secretary at the Foreign Office under Wellington, 1834–1835, though there is no reason to suppose he had particular information relating to France. Charles James Patrick Mahon (1800–1891), ‘the O'Gorman Mahon’, was an Irish Whig who had just lost his seat, and reportedly travelled to Paris. A former Orleanist adherent, he had a range of continental contacts, so is an equally plausible correspondent.

¹⁴⁹ ‘glide’.

¹⁵⁰ Given the enclosure, it was clearly written on Tuesday 9 November.

¹⁵¹ Derby's long, detailed memorandum on the subject of the imperial declaration had been drafted on 8 November, and would be sent to Austria, Prussia, and Russia on 9 November. See TNA, FO 120/270, no. 30, Malmesbury to Howard, 9 November 1852. The draft is in Derby's papers, DP 920 DER (14) 37/2.

¹⁵² TNA, FO 27/939, no. 627A, Cowley to Malmesbury, 11 November 1852. Louis Napoleon assured Britain that his empire was not hereditary, because he did not call himself ‘Napoleon V’ as he might have done (given that both Joseph and Louis Bonaparte had outlived ‘Napoleon II’), he did not date his reign from the death of ‘Napoleon II’, and he had called an election.

¹⁵³ See above, 70.

¹⁵⁴ It seems reasonable to suppose that this letter was written on 17 November, given that it is evidently a response to 72, that Wednesday was the 17th, and that the Duke of Wellington's funeral was the following day, thus allowing ‘plenty of time’ for discussion as Derby suggested.

¹⁵⁵ The Tsar might ‘recognize the Emperor of the French, but of Napoleon III, he is unaware’. The editors are grateful to Angus Hawkins for his advice on Derby's handwriting in this letter.

¹⁵⁶ Sidney Herbert, first Baron Herbert of Lea (1810–1861), prominent Peelite Conservative; Secretary at War (a post junior to that of the Secretary for War and the Colonies), 1845–1846 and 1852–1855; Secretary for War, 1859–1861.

¹⁵⁷ Horace Hamond, Consul at Cherbourg from 1 April 1852.

¹⁵⁸ Malmesbury's Memoirs, I, p. 369, noted in his entry for 27 November that ‘Russian despatches arrive of 20^th’.

¹⁵⁹ Date appended. Explanatory note: ‘On Mr Guizot's letter to Lord Aberdeen’.

¹⁶⁰ (François Pierre) Guillaume Guizot (1787–1874), French foreign minister, 1840–1847; prime minister and foreign minister, 1847–1848. He had fled to Britain after the revolution in 1848.