¹ The crisis was over the Liberals’ reform bill, the opposition to which (on both sides of the House) was threatening the stability of Russell's government.

² The editorial ellipsis covers an illegible Latin quotation.

³ Malmesbury noted in his unpublished diary: ‘I had another reason for this determination[,] namely the hostile feeling of Disraeli who has always coveted & asked for that Dept’. He feared that, with his old deputy Seymour Fitzgerald out of Parliament, he would have been ‘left entirely at the mercy of [. . .] Disraeli who was always too lazy or too sulky to go into foreign affairs & then blamed me for not keeping him informed’. MP, 9M73/79.

⁴ This letter was reproduced in Memoirs, II, pp. 351–352. The text here is that of the copy retained in Derby's papers; the original has not been found among Malmesbury's papers.

⁵ Hugh Lupus Grosvenor (1825–1899), third Marquess and first Duke of Westminster; MP for Chester, 1847–1869 (known as Earl Grosvenor); one of the leading ‘Adullamite’ opponents of the Reform Bill. He had proposed a resolution opposing its second reading.

⁶ A typographical error in DDCP, p. 248, dates the entry describing this letter to 24 March, but the original diary confirms 24 April as the correct date. The point is material: the offer to Stanley was only made once Malmesbury's letter had been received and acknowledged.

⁷ Stanley's accompanying memorandum listed the foreign secretaries since 1841 (excluding the brief tenures of Granville and Russell in 1852 and 1853 respectively). It concluded: ‘The office has therefore been held. [sic] In the Lords, about 16 years. In the Commons, about 9 years. Out of these 25 years, Liberals have held office nearly 23.’

⁸ If Stanley's suspicions were correct about Disraeli's feelings, the latter were warmly reciprocated by Malmesbury. See above, 186.

⁹ The Government having been defeated on 18 June, Stanley noted on 21 June, in the interim before the announcement of Russell's resignation, that he had ‘reluctantly’ assented to take the Foreign Office. DDCP, p. 253. At the Queen's request, on 28 June, Derby went through the motions of offering the post to Clarendon, but – as Derby expected – he refused.

¹⁰ Year with question mark appended by archivist, but the date is not contentious.

¹¹ As parliamentary under-secretary at the Foreign Office. Sir William Stirling Maxwell (1818–1878), Conservative MP for Perthshire, 1852–1868 and 1874–1878; friend of Disraeli; succeeded as ninth Baronet Maxwell, 1865. He made a hostile speech on the theme of the will of Napoleon I, 12 February 1858. See Parl. Deb., CXLVIII, cols 1269–1273. Disraeli was clearly keen to get an ally in the job, and also suggested Ralph Earle. The appointment was one of the more difficult ones, and in the end the post went to E.C. Egerton. See Derby's diary entries for 2 and 3 July, DDCP, pp. 256, 257.

¹² Date in another hand.

¹³ Derby only wrote ‘M’, but the reference could be to no other.

¹⁴ The Austro-Prussian War had broken out in June. On 12 June Austria had broken off relations with Prussia, and carried a motion for federal mobilization against Prussia in the German Diet. The same day, Prussia had declared the German Confederation at an end. Italy had gone to war as Prussia's ally.

¹⁵ On 10 July, telegrams from the embassy in Paris had sent word that the French fleet was ordered to the Adriatic, that French generals had been sent to headquarters, and that Napoleon intended to enforce an armistice. On 11 July, however, the news was received that Napoleon had backed off, and the order to the generals had been countermanded. Prussia had made it clear that it would grant no armistice without preliminary peace terms. TNA, FO 27/1626.

¹⁶ The Austrians had been beaten at Sadowa/Könnigrätz on 3 July, and it seemed as if France might intervene militarily. On 4 July Napoleon declared unilaterally that Austria had ceded Venetia to France (in advance of its being united with Italy), and that France would mediate, but on 10 July he decided to pursue negotiations with Prussia. See above, 191.

¹⁷ In the wake of defeat and the French declaration that they would mediate, the Austrians had ceded Venetia to France (from whence it would pass to Italy), as a preliminary to a final settlement of the situation in northern Italy. See above, 192.

¹⁸ Date in another hand. Also a note: ‘Observations on Lord Cowley's letters.’

¹⁹ The reference is to the continental war and French machinations.

²⁰ As Stanley rightly suspected, discussion on this question would have been premature, as Prussia had no need or desire to call a European Congress, and a preliminary peace was concluded the same day.

²¹ Date in another hand.

²² Not found.

²³ The King of Hanover, Georg V (1819–1878), was the Queen's cousin. This was the beginning of a long series of exchanges about the financial settlement relating to the king's estates, in which Britain had a residual interest, given that the title Elector of Hanover had been held by the British monarch between 1714 and 1837, and that Georg was a British prince by birth. As a result of Prussia's victory over Austria, Hanover had been absorbed into the new North German Confederation. The matter dragged on for more than a year until, in September 1867, King Georg and the Prussians agreed on an amount of capital on which the king could live, if the North German Confederation received Hanoverian state funds that he had sent to Britain. Stanley noted in his diary on 1 October 1867 that ‘the arrangement as to the K. of Hanover's fortune is at last made, and the treaty signed: a good end of a matter which though not important has been troublesome’. DDCP, p. 319.

²⁴ This enclosure is a proposed despatch to the British ambassador at Berlin. A communication in exactly this form has not been found in either of the relevant series of drafts and despatches, TNA, FO 64 and FO 244.

²⁵ Apponyi had suggested British diplomatic intervention. Derby was of the same opinion as his son (see below, 199), and, on 9 August, Stanley met with Apponyi and ‘gave him an answer to his question of yesterday: in the negative’. DDCP, p. 264.

²⁶ Neither Stanley's diary nor his letters to Bloomfield in Vienna state precisely what the proposal was. However, given this letter and 199, below, it seems that Austria had suggested, following an idea floated by the French representative in Vienna, that Britain convey to Italy an Austrian offer for a preliminary peace.

²⁷ See above, 198.

²⁸ Edmond François Valentin About (1828–1885), French journalist and author of a pamphlet about the Roman question.

²⁹ The French had installed the Emperor Maximilian in Mexico, but in the face of Mexican republicanism and American opposition they had been forced to withdraw their occupying forces early in 1866. Maximilian himself would be executed by the victorious republicans in 1867.

³⁰ This letter is reproduced in full in M&B, IV, p. 468.

³¹ Robert Burnet David Morier (1826–1893) was not an ambassador, but chargé d'affaires at Frankfurt.

³² Much discussion followed, in this letter and in other correspondence, as to who should be the successor to Cowley, before the choice fell on Lyons, then at Constantinople.

³³ In Crete, still part of the Ottoman Empire, local leaders (encouraged by the Greeks) were demanding union with Greece. A revolt against Turkish rule had begun on 14 May, with a demand for lower taxes and legal reforms. On 3 August, the Cretans had informed Britain, France, and Russia that they would have to defend themselves by force. Small-scale fighting had begun by the end of August.

³⁴ Disraeli agreed. See below, 204.

³⁵ Cretan.

³⁶ Moustier, the new French foreign minister, who had been appointed on 1 September, though La Valette was acting foreign minister until Moustier's return. See below, 209.

³⁷ Lyons was one of the leading candidates to succeed Cowley. See above, 202.

³⁸ In early September, the Cretan rebels had declared union with Greece and the abolition of Turkish rule; the Russian consuls in Crete had been encouraging the revolt against Turkish rule.

³⁹ Turkey had made some advances, but not enough, and fierce fighting continued.

⁴⁰ Moustier had made it clear that the Cretan rebels could expect no support from France. Stanley noted on 1 November that he ‘professes warm sympathy with England, and desire to act in concert with us, especially on eastern affairs’. DDCP, p. 270.

⁴¹ The Queen had received a letter from an alarmed King of the Belgians, written on 10 September, in which he discussed Bismarck's machinations and the possible offer of Belgium to France. LQV, second series, I, pp. 367–368.

⁴² Derby's question mark.

⁴³ The fighting had spread, and by October there would be conflict across the island.

⁴⁴ See above, 209.

⁴⁵ The Turks had not been comprehensively beaten, though at Vrises the Cretans had defeated Egyptian forces.

⁴⁶ ‘hidden motive’.

⁴⁷ ‘not to take advantage of their victory’.

⁴⁸ Stanley noted on 1 November that he suspected the Prince to be encouraging the King of Greece in supporting the Cretan rebels. DDCP, p. 271.

⁴⁹ See below, 217 and 218.

⁵⁰ Stanley's note appended: ‘Ans[were]d. Am writing to the Queen.’ He duly wrote to her on 22 October. See LQV, second series, I, pp. 369–370.

⁵¹ On 23 October, Grey conveyed the Queen's refusal, on the dubious grounds that she never gave the Garter to foreign rulers unless they visited her, were near relatives, or ‘unless there was some special reason for deviating from the ordinary practice’. LQV, second series, I, p. 370. In his diary on 1 November 1866, Stanley suggested that the real reason was a reluctance to concede any authority to the Prince of Wales, who would have bestowed the honour while visiting Russia for the Tsarevitch's wedding. DDCP, p. 271. Eventually, Alexander was awarded the Garter on 14 August 1867, the same day as the Austrian emperor.

⁵² In his diary for the same date, Stanley recorded that Disraeli had come to see him, saying that ‘he had received from one of the Rothschild family alarming news as to the state of France. It was thought that people were getting tired of the empire.’ DDCP, p. 279.

⁵³ The Serbs were continuing to press, as they had been doing for some years, for the Turkish garrisons in Serbia to be removed.

⁵⁴ In fact, on 3 March 1867, Turkey agreed to evacuate the Serbian fortresses, and the principality was all but independent thereafter.

⁵⁵ On 27 December 1866, Stanley noted that ‘unluckily our minister, Erskine, allows his philhellene sympathies to be much too manifest, thereby stirring up unfounded hopes among the Greek population’. DDCP, p. 281.

⁵⁶ Date, with attendant question mark, in another hand.

⁵⁷ This letter is reproduced in M&B, IV, p. 469, though without the last two sentences. For Stanley's subsequent enquiries and private views, see below, 229.

⁵⁸ Loftus.

⁵⁹ Stanley noted in his diary on 31 December that he had asked Fane to investigate, ‘but I have told him at the same time I do not believe a word of it’. DDCP, p. 282. In fact, such an arrangement had been discussed earlier in 1866, but had come to nothing, and in 1870 the draft treaty to that effect was used by Bismarck to discredit Napoleon.

⁶⁰ Eventually, on 25 January 1867, Stanley recorded a volte-face by Moustier, ‘saying that nothing can now be done with Crete except to let it be annexed to Greece’. DDCP, p. 286.

⁶¹ See above, 228.

⁶² M&B, IV, p. 469, misrepresent this reply by suggesting that Stanley treated the suggestion of a ‘threat to Belgium’ as a canard, rather than the particular rumour to which he referred. Stanley was correct in his supposition that there was no specific agreement. His concern about the general threat to Belgium is clear from both this letter and others.

⁶³ Given the content, the month cannot be May.

⁶⁴ In 1866, propelled by domestic opinion, Napoleon sought compensation for the territorial expansion of Prussia. The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was held by the King of Holland, but its fortress was manned by a Prussian garrison as part of the defensive arrangements of the German Confederation. Given that the Confederation had been dissolved after the Austro-Prussian War, the situation was anomalous and Luxembourg was an obvious target for French ambitions. Franco-Prussian negotiations on the subject achieved nothing, and Bismarck confounded Napoleon's attempt to buy Luxembourg from Holland. See also letters 233–246, below.

⁶⁵ Stanley recorded in his diary that day that he had received an intercepted telegram suggesting that France would shortly reclaim ‘the occupation of the fort and country of Luxemburg’. DDCP, p. 296.

⁶⁶ William Charles Philip Otho, Baron Bentinck, seventh Count of Waldeck-Limburg, the Dutch minister in London.

⁶⁷ In the enclosure, fo. 160, it was reported that Napoleon had told the Prussians that the possession of Luxembourg ‘involved the question of his own existence’. Stanley noted this down in his diary that day. DDCP, p. 298.

⁶⁸ Date in another hand.

⁶⁹ Disraeli had close contacts with the Rothschild family, principally the banker Lionel de Rothschild, whose European links provided a useful flow of continental intelligence. See below, 254–257.

⁷⁰ In other words, that France would buy Luxembourg from the King of Holland. This failed when Bismarck objected. See below, 238, 240.

⁷¹ An archivist has appended in pencil ‘?1867’, but it is clearly a response to letter 234.

⁷² In his diary entry for 3 April, Stanley recorded Bernstorff's request, ‘which of course I declined in the plainest terms’. DDCP, p. 298.

⁷³ Date in another hand.

⁷⁴ Reproduced in M&B, IV, pp. 470–471.

⁷⁵ Disraeli had recorded ‘Easter Monday 1867’ at the top of the letter. Someone has noted ‘22 April 1867’, which it was.

⁷⁶ Presumably, inter alia, Palmerston and Russell.

⁷⁷ The vote at the beginning of the committee stage of clause 3 of the Reform Bill; not, strictly speaking, the previous Friday, but 12 April. The vote had been on Gladstone's amendment about compound householders, proposing to reject the personal payment principle. Disraeli's victory was a critical moment in the process, and put the Government and the bill on a surer foundation.

⁷⁸ ‘under consideration’ or ‘under discussion’.

⁷⁹ Paris. Flavius Claudius Julianus, Emperor Julian (c.332–363), fought a series of campaigns in Gaul and was first declared emperor by the soldiers at Lutetia (Parisii) in February 360.

⁸⁰ William Pitt, first Earl of Chatham (‘Pitt the Elder’) (1708–1778), secretary of state and leading minister in the Devonshire and Newcastle coalitions during the Seven Years’ War; Prime Minister, 1766–1768. Disraeli evidently liked the allusion, repeating it in letter 255.

⁸¹ The dating of this letter is straightforward. Italy made its request on 29 April, on which date in his diary Stanley noted receiving Azeglio, and used almost exactly the same words as in this letter (DDCP, p. 305). Given that Stanley also answered a parliamentary question about Luxembourg that day (see below), the date is clear.

⁸² Stanley reassured the Commons: ‘Although it is too early to speak with absolute confidence on the matter, yet I have every reason to hope, and even to believe, that this question of Luxembourg [. . .] is in a fair way to be speedily and amicably arranged.’ Parl. Deb., CLXXXVI, col. 1705.

⁸³ The conference to discuss the Luxembourg question, to which Stanley had formally agreed on 28 April, and which would be held in London, 7–11 May 1867.

⁸⁴ Date in another hand.

⁸⁵ Date in another hand.

⁸⁶ That day, the news had been received that Prussia insisted upon a European guarantee of the neutralization of Luxembourg. DDCP, p. 307.

⁸⁷ Stanley's note appended: ‘Lord Derby has sent me these papers to look at. I do not think, nor does he, that they are of much importance. S’

⁸⁸ Rudolph William Basil Feilding, eighth Earl of Denbigh (1823–1892).

⁸⁹ The enclosures have not been found; they presumably included proposals by Denbigh about the reform and/or security of the Ottoman Empire.

⁹⁰ Stanley duly called on Disraeli on 11 June. The news, from Rothschild, was ‘vague, but alarming intelligence of intrigues now going on at Paris’. Stanley ‘could not make much of what he said, but promised to watch and make all necessary enquiries’. DDCP, p. 311.

⁹¹ Date in another hand.

⁹² Stanley's speech of 14 June. See above, 250.

⁹³ Date in another hand.

⁹⁴ Archivist's note: ‘?Nov. 1867’. There is no internal or contextual evidence to suggest that this letter was written in November. There are other possibilities. On 1 June (though not a Wednesday), Stanley recorded in his diary a meeting with Azeglio, who urged joint Anglo-Italian intervention in the near east. It is possible that this letter dates from that period.

⁹⁵ There were signs of a French rapprochement with Austria. Franz Josef and Napoleon had met at Salzburg earlier that month, where they had, rather inconclusively, discussed a ‘policy of resistance’ to Prussia and Russia.

⁹⁶ See below, 255, 256, 257.

⁹⁷ This letter is reproduced in M&B, V, pp. 83–84, but without the first line or, in a telling omission, the last sentence.

⁹⁸ Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild (1808–1879), banker and formerly Liberal MP for the City of London.

⁹⁹ Disraeli enclosed a letter from Rothschild of 3 September 1867.

¹⁰⁰ See above, 254.

¹⁰¹ The Queen. Stanley had been at Balmoral from 31 August to 7 September. For a record of his visit, see DDCP, pp. 316–317.

¹⁰² On 7 September 1867, in the wake of Napoleon's meeting with Franz Josef of Austria at Salzburg in August, Bismarck had issued an open circular to Prussian diplomatic representatives, in which he had welcomed the ‘formal denial’ by the French and Austrians ‘of all projects of intervention in the internal affairs of Germany’, but had included a veiled threat that any ‘foreign combinations’ would ‘legitimately excite’ the sentiments of the German people. The Times, 20 September 1867.

¹⁰³ Garibaldi was set on a new military adventure, leading a revolutionary force in an attempt to depose the Pope and gain Rome. In the short term, Stanley was right: Garibaldi was arrested on 23 September, but he escaped on 17 October and the Italian government refused to re-arrest him.

¹⁰⁴ This letter is reproduced in M&B, V, p. 84, without the sentence beginning ‘I give no opinion’ or the last sentence.

¹⁰⁵ Baron Lionel de Rothschild.

¹⁰⁶ The Italian representative in Paris.

¹⁰⁷ Stanley could find nothing out about a treaty between Prussia and Italy. See his diary entry for 19 October 1867, DDCP, p. 320. Given the events of the previous year, rumours as to Prussian intentions were rife; this seems to have been another of them.

¹⁰⁸ An archivist has added a question mark, but the letter is clearly a response to 261.

¹⁰⁹ Dated by another hand, and a note appended: ‘France & Italy’.

¹¹⁰ In his diary that day, Stanley recorded a meeting with Disraeli about ‘the Roman trouble’, to which the telegrams clearly referred. To deal with Garibaldi's offensive and defend the Pope's temporalities, it was looking likely that Napoleon would order French troops back to Rome, from where they had withdrawn in December 1866. DDCP, p. 319.

¹¹¹ La Tour's deputy at the French Embassy, Baron Baude. On 1 November 1866, Stanley had recorded that Baude was ‘a great ultramontane in his ideas, and curiously unguarded in language. In fact he talks as if he were an English politician in opposition’. DDCP, p. 269.

¹¹² On 26 October, French troops had arrived to defend the Pope. Garibaldi's troops were defeated by them at Mentana on 3 November.

¹¹³ It is not clear what these ‘strange accounts’ were; Stanley made no note of them in his diary.

¹¹⁴ Funds were being sought by the European Commission of the Danube, established by Article 16 of the Treaty of Paris (30 March 1856) to oversee works to clear the mouth of the River Danube. Stanley helped secure British funding and successfully led efforts to secure a European guarantee for a loan. The resultant Danube Works Loan Act was passed in the summer of 1868.

¹¹⁵ The members of the European Commission of the Danube; representatives of all the signatories of the 1856 Treaty of Paris sat on the Commission. Britain's representative was Sir John Stokes (1825–1902).

¹¹⁶ This letter is reproduced in M&B, V, p. 85.

¹¹⁷ Note in another hand: ‘Reduction of Prussian Army’.

¹¹⁸ Stanley added ‘Rothschild’.

¹¹⁹ Stanley added: ‘They see one another daily’.

¹²⁰ Encloses a copy of a telegram from Berlin, dated 23 April, from Charles Rothschild to Baron Lionel de Rothschild, London: ‘Tell your friend that from the 1^st of May army reduction here has been decided upon, and will be continued on a larger scale if same system is adopted elsewhere. Details by post.’

¹²¹ When Disraeli called on Stanley that day, as the latter recorded in his diary, he had conceived a scheme by which Britain would suggest to France that Prussian disarmament was Britain's doing. Britain would, by this means, obtain a pledge of disarmament from France, too. Stanley was sceptical: ‘I doubt the feasibility of this combination, ingenious as it is.’ DDCP, p. 332.

¹²² This letter is reproduced in M&B, V, p. 85.

¹²³ ‘under consideration’ or ‘under discussion’.

¹²⁴ It was reported from Berlin, in news dated 23 April, that: ‘A rumour was current on the Bourse to-day that France, Prussia, and Austria had agreed to effect a reduction of their military forces by means of furloughs.’ The Times, 24 April 1868. Disraeli's letter was the latest attempt to persuade Stanley of the virtues of a British intervention to encourage disarmament. See above, 268.

¹²⁵ This letter is reproduced in M&B, V, p. 85.

¹²⁶ Date in another hand.

¹²⁷ This letter is reproduced in M&B, V, p. 86.

¹²⁸ Archivist's note, with question mark as to date. Given 271, Saturday 25 April seems likely. That was certainly Buckle's assumption.

¹²⁹ Note in another hand: ‘Letter from Col Feilding as to supposed warlike intentions of French Govt.’

¹³⁰ A letter from Feilding, dated 11 September, is enclosed.

¹³¹ Lieutenant-Colonel William Henry Adelbert Feilding (1836–1895), fifth son of the seventh Earl of Denbigh; created general, 1893; investigated Fenianism and headed up the short-lived Home Office intelligence bureau established in the wake of a Fenian bomb being exploded in Clerkenwell in December 1867.

¹³² (Paul) Julius de Reuter (1816–1899), founder of the news agency bearing his name.

¹³³ Forces in rebellion against Queen Isabella had mustered at Cadiz on 18 and 19 September, and over the subsequent days much of the country declared for the rebels.

¹³⁴ Edward Christopher Egerton, parliamentary under-secretary at the Foreign Office, 1866–1868.

¹³⁵ Not found. Presumably another manifestation of the epistolary campaign conducted by the Belgian monarchy.

¹³⁶ See above, 275, 277. On 28 September, the rebels had defeated the loyalists at Alcolea. Isabella fled on 29 September, and the leading rebel general, Serrano, entered Madrid on 3 October. He then formed a provisional government.

¹³⁷ The Sussex home of the Marquess of Abergavenny.

¹³⁸ Presumably, Disraeli meant ‘without expressing any view’ – favourable or unfavourable – as to the events in Spain.

¹³⁹ The Liberals had won the election and the Cabinet had agreed to resign immediately, rather than wait for Parliament to meet. They surrendered the seals of office on 9 December 1868.