Memoirs of the Life and Correspondence of Henry Reeve, C.B., D.C.L. Part 3

_From Lord Clarendon_

_G.C., June 13th_.--You have always taken such a kind and friendly concern in my affairs that I think you will like to know how I stand. Palmerston, by the Queen's desire, insisted on my returning to the F.O., and I felt that, though most unwilling to accept the offer, I had no sufficient plea for declining it. But when Palmerston very properly placed any office at the disposal of Lord John, he claimed the F.O. as his right. I gladly recognised that right and the superiority of his claims to my own.

I was most warmly pressed by Palmerston and my former colleagues to take any other office; but for that I saw no necessity, and I was sure I should best consult the public taste by making way for some one who had not been in Palmerston's former Government. The Queen sent for me, and very kindly tried to shake my determination; but it had not been lightly taken, and she did not succeed. So I am still free, and great is my happiness thereat.

_From Lord Macaulay_

_June 27th_.--If I were to renew my connexion with the "Edinburgh Review"

after an interval of fifteen years, I should wish my first article to be rather more striking than an article on Campbell's Diary can easily be. You will, no doubt, do the thing as well as it can be done.

Some other hand, therefore, supplied the article on "A Visit to England in 1775" which appeared in the October number of the "Review."

_To Madame de Tocqueville_ 62 Rutland Gate, June 30th.

Dear Madame de Tocqueville, [Footnote: Mme. de Tocqueville was an Englishwoman, and the correspondence was naturally in English.] I reproach myself exceedingly for having delayed so long to express to you, or, rather, to endeavour to express to you, how strongly Mrs. Reeve and myself partic.i.p.ate in that sympathy and sorrow which your irreparable loss has inspired to the whole world, but most of all to those to whom the friends.h.i.+p of your husband was one of the blessings of life. I cannot accustom myself to the thought that the intercourse I had the happiness to maintain with him for twenty-five years is really at an end; and that the events of the world in which he took so constant and enlightened an interest are still rolling onwards, while his pure intelligence has pa.s.sed to some higher and n.o.bler sphere. We now look back, indeed, with a pleasure that heightens our regret, to those delightful days we spent at Tocqueville in 1856, and to his visit to England in 1857. Nothing, indeed, was wanting, either to his fame or to the love he inspired those who knew him; and to both these sacred recollections our thoughts will be directed as long as we survive. What, then, must be the loss and the void to you, who lived, as it were, _in_ that light? I dare not think of it, were it not that your thoughts will rise to that source which has consolation for all earthly sorrows. I have heard of you, and seen your admirable letters to Mrs. Grote and Mrs. Merivale, which a.s.sure me of the resignation and piety that still support you. Mrs. Reeve and Hopie desire to join in the cordial expression of their affectionate regard; and I remain Your most faithful servant,

H. REEVE.

The Journal here notes:--

In August I left town for Ambleside and Abington, to shoot. Thence I went to the George R. Smiths', at Relugas; near Forres. Shot there, and then crossed the Moray Firth to Skibo and Uppat. Then I went on to Langwell, in Caithness, which the Duke of Portland had lent the Speaker (E. Denison), and spent some days with him. Returned to town by sea from Aberdeen.

Shooting in September at Chorleywood and Stetchworth--the latter first-rate; then to Roxburghs.h.i.+re; afterwards to Raith.

_To Lord Brougham_

_Relugas, near Forres, August 26th._--Your very kind note of the 23rd has followed me here, where I am spending a few days on my way to Sutherland.

Towards the latter end of October I shall be returning to England, with Mrs. Reeve and my daughter, and if you are still at Brougham at that time, and disposed to receive us for a day or two in this patriarchal fas.h.i.+on, it will give us the greatest pleasure to come.

Louis Napoleon's amnesty appears to me to be the most judicious act of his reign, and, if he would only follow it up by giving a more legal character to his administration, I think he would soon rally many persons to himself.

All that the French seem at this time to require is that the Government should observe the laws it enforces on other people--a very moderate request.

I will endeavour to find out about the Chancery Evidence Commission. It is a monstrous absurdity that your name should not appear in a commission destined, if anything, to give effect to the principles you have so long and constantly advocated.

_C.O., September 26th_.--I sincerely hope that, whatever day the Edinburgh banquet takes place, I may have the honour of attending it. I shall probably be at Raith at the time. Considering what you have been, for more than half a century, to the "Edinburgh Review," and the connexion which was thus so long maintained between yourself and Edinburgh, I am most anxious, as the humble representative of that journal at the present time, to do anything in my power to contribute to a mark of respect paid you in Edinburgh; and I should have gladly attended the dinner, even if I had not been, as I probably shall be, within easy reach of it.

_From Lord Brougham_

_Brougham, September 27th_.--Many thanks for your great kindness about the Edinburgh dinner, which I look forward to with some dismay; for the requisition, which was signed by the heads of all parties, and in very kind terms, makes it impossible not to attend, and, beside the plagues incidental to all such proceedings, I have the excessive suffering from the blanks by which I shall be surrounded. To go no further than what you allude to, it may possibly be October 25th, and certainly not later than 26th; and that is the anniversary of the "Edinburgh Review" fifty-seven years ago. Then Jeffrey, Horner, Smith, Allen, Murray, Playfair, Thomson--all gone; and of later years, c.o.c.kburn, your father, Eyre. It is really a sad thing. And then, beside our set, there were A. Thomson, Moncreiff, T. Campbell, Cranstoun, Clerk, D. Stewart, W. Scott--all, except Horner, Playfair, and Scott, D. Stewart and A. Thomson, T. Campbell, alive in 1834, when I was last in Edinburgh. I must struggle the best I can, but this feeling nearly overpowers me.

I send you by this post a Paris paper I have just received, evidently sent on account of the article marked, which is so far gratifying that it is by a very eminent man, who signs it; but I chiefly value it on account of the attack upon England for not having raised a monument, [footnote: Lord Brougham was at this time greatly interested, and indeed excited, about a proposed monument to Sir Isaac Newton. His letters frequently allude to it.] and on account, also, of the statement that he was the greatest of all men--which will not be very agreeable to our friends of the Inst.i.tute.

The Journal records:--

Lord Brougham was elected Chancellor of the University of Edinburgh. I attended a banquet given him there on October 26th. I then went from Raith to Brougham and Appleby, High Legh, and Teddesley, shooting at all these places, and at Crewe likewise, where I began to shoot with a new breech-loading gun. I must have shot thirty-five or forty days this year, and paid a great number of visits in country houses. We did not go abroad.

Lord Macaulay had meantime received some further particulars as to the MS.

of the 'Visit to England,' and sent them to Reeve with the following:--

Holly Lodge, November 11th.

My dear sir,--I have just received the enclosed letter, which may, perhaps, interest you. It might be worth while to put a short note at the end of the next number of the 'Edinburgh Review.'

Very truly yours,

MACAULAY.

_Endorsed_--Lord Macaulay. His last note to me. He died December 27th [really 28th].

The note referred to appeared in the number for January 1860, with the sympathetic remark: 'This very note was, in fact, his last contribution to these pages, made within a short time of his death.'

_To Lord Brougham_

62 _Rutland Gate, December 29th._--I communicated to Mrs. Austin your very kind intention of writing some notice of Mr. Austin in the 'Law Review,'

and she has sent me the enclosed paper--very striking, I think it, especially considering the state of physical exhaustion and mental grief in which she lies. Nothing can equal her devotion to his memory. She has, I think, omitted to state that one portion of the lectures delivered by Mr.

Austin at the London University were published by Murray in 1832, under the t.i.tle of 'The Province of Jurisprudence Determined' You are aware that this book retains a very high position, and, as John Austin never would republish it in his lifetime, copies of the volume fetch seven or eight guineas. I hope now it will appear again, with additions, as all the drafts of his lectures are in existence, most carefully elaborated by himself.

Hortensius has written a very nice article for the 'Edinburgh' on the progress of legal reform and on your bills. I hope you will like it. The Review will be out on January 14th.

I forgot to say just now that, as Mrs. Austin and I have no copy of the enclosed paper about her husband, we should be much obliged to you to preserve and return it to us.

The pamphlet 'Le Pape et le Congres' has certainly astonished the world. My Catholic friends call it the pamphlet of the Emperor Julian; and certainly, considering what the Pope has done for him, and he has done for the Pope, it is an act of apostasy. To engage in a contest with Rome is, however, still no small enterprise, and I question if the Emperor has strength of purpose to carry it through. The Popes protested, in their day, against the Treaty of Westphalia and the Treaty of Vienna; _multo magis_, will they protest against the decisions of the Congress of Paris? It must be acknowledged that matters look more favourably than they did for our own policy and influence in the Congress.

_From Lord Brougham

Cannes, January 1st_, 1860.--First of all accept for yourself and Mrs.

R. all the good wishes of the season from all here. Next, let me say how gratified I am with the very interesting, and, in the circ.u.mstances, extraordinary communication of Mrs. A. It is of the utmost importance, and confirms me in the design I had newly formed, of making my account follow this. It could be made for the next number of the 'Law Review;' in the present number giving a short notice, lamenting the great loss, and announcing a full article for next number. I had intimated the probability of this to Francis--the editor--and what I have received this morning from you strongly confirms me. There will, therefore, be only a general statement this time. Really I feel the deepest interest in the subject, when I regard the strong and stern virtues of the man, beside his great talents and learning.

Poor Macaulay, I would give as a foil--of course, only to yourself, privately. He had great abilities; and though I widely differed with him in his views of history--which I, being of the science school, thought should be different from an anecdote book, yet I admit the great merits of his work, and especially of his essays. But I much objected to his running away from our death-struggle in 1834, though his defence was that his sisters would have to go out in the world as milliners if he stayed to fight with us. I had myself made such sacrifices that I felt ent.i.tled to complain.

However, I pa.s.s over that on the ground he gave. But, then, what is to be said of two sessions in the House of Lords without one word of help to the Liberal cause, or indeed to any cause? What but that it was owing to the fear of making a speech which would be thought a failure--that is, would be injurious to his former speeches. Now, such a consideration as this J.

Austin was wholly incapable of allowing even to cross his mind. He acted on what he conceived were just principles, and sacrificed to them all regard for himself. How differently did those men act of whose set Macaulay was!--his father, Stephen, H. Thornton, &c. However, his loss is a very melancholy one, because he goes out of the world in full possession of his faculties, and in more than just appreciation of his merits.

The Journal for 1860 begins:--

The new year opened at Chevening on a visit to Lord Stanhope. The party consisted of the Morleys, Hayward, Goldwin Smith, and afterwards the Grotes.

I went to Chevening again in 1862; and for a third time, with Christine, in 1885; the host changed, but the same hospitality.

We sent a round-robin to the Dean of Westminster, begging that Macaulay might be buried in the Abbey. He was buried there on January 9th. I was there. The same day we started for Paris by Southampton. Saw the Circourts, Rauzans, Guizots, &c.

Charles Greville had introduced me to Fould, then minister of finance. On Sunday, January 15th, Fould told me of the conclusion of the treaty of commerce with England, and the same evening we all dined at M. Chevalier's, with Cobden, Lavergne, Pa.s.sy, Parieu, and Wolowski--the promoters and authors of the treaty. The next day (16th) I dined with Fould at a state dinner; Metternichs, Ba.s.sanos, Auber, Ste.-Beuve, Bourqueney. I took down Mrs. Baring. Lord Brougham was also in Paris.

Albert Pourtales, my old fellow-pupil at Geneva, was now Prussian amba.s.sador; saw a good deal of him. This was a very interesting visit to Paris.

In some very rough notes, Reeve jotted down the particulars he learned at this time. They amount to this: That between January 16th and 21st, 1859, a treaty was signed between France and Sardinia, by the 5th, 6th, and 7th articles of which Savoy was to be ceded to France when Lombardy and Venetia were conquered and given to Piedmont. Nice was to be ceded when Piedmont got the rest--of what, is not stated--presumably, of Italy. This treaty was known only to the Emperor, Niel, and Pietri, in France, and in Sardinia to the King and Cavour. It was afterwards made known to Villa-Marina, on condition that he should seem to know nothing about it.

On July 8th, 1859, when the Emperor returned to Valeggio from Villafranca, he told the King of Sardinia that peace was made. The King said he would not accept it, and would continue the war on his own account. The Emperor shrugged his shoulders and said 'Vous etes fou.' Afterwards, however, in telling the story to the Queen of Holland, he declared that he only said 'Vous etes absurde.'

It appears to have been in conversation with Pourtales, on January 17th, that Reeve picked up this curious story. During the past few years many State papers at Berlin had been stolen: amongst others, a letter from the Tsar to the King of Prussia, written in the summer of 1855, to the effect that Sebastopol could not hold out another month. This was sent to Paris by Moustier just in time to revive the drooping spirits of the French Government, after the repulse of June 18th.