Memoirs of the Life and Correspondence of Henry Reeve, C.B., D.C.L. Part 10

_December 17th_.--We went to Chevening, and met there the Grotes, Milman, Lord Stanley, Scharf, and Hayward. Lewis came on the 19th. Most agreeable party.

_22nd_.--Shooting at Stetchworth.

_31st_.--To the Duke of Newcastle's at Clumber. Sir F. Rogers [afterwards Lord Blachford] there.

_1863_.--The year opened at Clumber. The Webbes of Newstead, the Manners-Suttons, Venables, and Herbert came there. Shooting good; caught three pike; rode with the Duke to Th.o.r.esby and Welbeck, through Sherwood Forest.

_January 6th_.--To the Speaker's at Ossington.

_12th_.--I was made treasurer of the Literary Club [Footnote: This must not be confused with The Club (see _post_, 133), which had long since dropped the 'Literary.'] (Walpole's) on Adolphus' death.

_February 25th_.--Prince of Wales' first levee.

_March 7th_.--The Princess of Wales entered London on her marriage. I saw it from the Board of Trade rooms on London Bridge. Took the Dempsters there.

_27th_.--The Duke of Newcastle, Baron Gros (French amba.s.sador), Lord Stanley, Mr. Adam, Lady Molesworth, Lord Kingsdown, and the Heads dined with us.

It appears by the next letter, from Lord Clarendon, that Reeve had asked him to review the first two volumes of Kinglake's 'Invasion of the Crimea,'

then on the point of publication.

_The Grove, January 11th_. Some time ago I desired my booksellers to send me the first copy they could procure of Kinglake's book, and I shall read it most carefully.... There are many reasons why I should not like to review the work; but I am equally obliged to you for the offer, and I shall, of course, communicate to you unreservedly my opinions upon it.

With this promise of help at first hand, Reeve undertook the review himself; but the letters which follow show that, though the hand was the hand of Reeve, the voice was the voice of Clarendon--a collaboration that gives the article a very singular interest.

_From Lord Clarendon_

_The Grove, January 23rd_.--Although I'm sure it is unnecessary, yet it occurs to me to ask you not to quote my opinion of Kinglake's book; as, for the present, and for a variety of reasons, I should prefer its not reaching him in an indirect manner. I long for a quiet talk with you, and am sorry that it must be postponed for a few days; but in the meanwhile I may perhaps be able to refresh my memory by referring to my private correspondence, which is in London. Let me have a line to say what impression the book makes in the world, as far as you have yet been able to observe. I shall look with curiosity and some anxiety for the effect it produces at Paris.

_January 25th_.--Hayward has written to ask my opinion of the book. He is at Broadlands, and says that Palmerston is, on the whole, well pleased with the portrait of himself, and that Lady P. is enchanted.

I think as you do of the second volume; there is nothing finer, that I know of, in the English language than those successive battle pictures. He beats Napier out of the field. The 'Times' does not seem to like the portrait of itself. I thought the article yesterday ingenious. I shall hear shortly what effect the book produces at Paris. Persigny will, of course, prohibit its entrance, but he will not be able to shut out all the papers that contain extracts.

_The Grove, February 8th_.--I fear that my notes would not be legible or intelligible to anyone but myself, and I should much like to have a little talk with you on the book. Could you come here on Sat.u.r.day next and stay till Monday? or if you should chance to be engaged on Sat.u.r.day, would you come down by the ten o'clock train on Sunday morning? I do not propose Sat.u.r.day morning, as I must myself be in London at the Schools Commission on that day.

_G. C., February 25th_.--I shall be very glad to see the article in print.

I am sure it will make a great sensation. Kinglake would induce people to believe that the Emperor was under an urgent necessity to turn away the attention of his subjects from his action at home, and that he therefore dragged us into the war fourteen or fifteen months after the _coup d'etat_.

It would, I think, be worth while to get some facts respecting his status in France at that time. If I am not mistaken, he was in no trouble or danger at all; for the nation had accepted him as a sort of deliverer from the _rouges_, the fear of whom had been terrifying people out of their senses.

_G. C., March 4th_.--The article quite comes up to my expectations, and I like it very much. I cannot think it obnoxious to the charge of dulness; but on that point I may not be an impartial judge, as the diplomatic details are to me intensely interesting.

I have hardly any observations to make that would be worth your attending to, but I will mention one or two things that have occurred to me.

And this he did at considerable length, suggesting several confirmations, modifications, or additions.

So long as this article was to be considered as an ordinary contribution to the 'Edinburgh Review,' it bore merely the authority of the 'Review,'

which, however great, was in no sense official; but now that the share of Lord Clarendon in its authors.h.i.+p is revealed, it a.s.sumes an extreme importance, as an original, though necessarily partial, account of what took place, and may be held as definitely settling the fate of some of the extraordinary misstatements which--foisted on the credulity of the public by the literary skill, the brilliant language, and the unblus.h.i.+ng audacity of Mr. Kinglake--have been accepted as history, and have pa.s.sed into current belief. Perhaps nothing concerning the Russian war is more commonly repeated than the statement that we were tricked into it by the Emperor of the French for his own selfish ends, and in his desire to be received into the brotherhood of sovereigns; that our ministers were blindly following the lead of Louis Napoleon, and were guilty of a very gross blunder. It is unnecessary and would be out of place to enter here on the examination and demolition of all this, as given in the pages of the 'Edinburgh Review;'

and equally would it be out of place to discuss the question--as unknown to Kinglake or to Reeve in 1863 as it was to Palmerston or Clarendon ten years earlier--whether we were not then, whether we have not been ever since, 'putting our money on the wrong horse.' If we were, if we have been--a thing which many among us are still unwilling to believe--it is at least certain that in 1853, as in 1840, it was all but universally held in this country that it would be prejudicial and dangerous to our most important interests for either Russia or France to obtain sovereign control over the Ottoman dominions, and that all the resources of diplomacy or of war ought to be exerted to prevent it. In the joint article before us, the condition of affairs in 1853 is thus stated in a few words:--'Russia had formed the design to extort from Turkey, in one form or another, a right of protection over the Christians. She never abandoned that design. She thought she could enforce it. The Western Powers interposed and the strife began.... England has no call to throw off the responsibility of the measures taken on any other Power. Those measures were taken because they were demanded by her own conception of the duty she had to perform; and by far the largest share of that responsibility rests with this country. We see no reason to deny it; and if the case occurred again, we should see no reason to act with less determination.' And again as to the prosecution of the war after the raising of the siege of Silistria--which, according to Kinglake, was unnecessary; or the invasion of the Crimea--which was unjustifiable, to be accounted for, not by any large views of politics or of war, but by paltry personal pa.s.sions and influences of the most contemptible kind:--England and France declared by their despatches of July 22nd, that the sacrifices already imposed on them were too great, and the cause they had taken in hand too important, for them to desist, unless they obtained from Russia adequate securities against the renewal of hostilities. They therefore demanded:--l. That the protectorate claimed by Russia over the Princ.i.p.alities by virtue of former treaties now abrogated, should cease. 2.

That the navigation of the mouths of the Danube should be free. 3. That the treaty of July 13th, 1841, should be revised in the sense of a restriction of the naval power of Russia in the Black Sea. 4. That no Power should claim an official protectorate over the Christian subjects of the Porte. On August 8th, Austria entirely adopted these principles, and on the 10th she urged Russia to accede to these demands. On the 26th Russia positively rejected these terms. Had they been accepted, it is needless to add that the Crimean expedition would not have taken place. Here, then, is the clear and precise ground on which the war a.s.sumed an offensive character against Russia--viz. to compel her to submit to terms of peace, which England and France held to be necessary to the future safety of Turkey, and which Austria had fully adopted. This is the political explanation of the war, and it was fully justified, as each preceding step of the allies had been justified, by a fresh refusal on the part of Russia to agree to the terms proposed by the allies. It is unnecessary to carry this examination further. It has been introduced here merely as an ill.u.s.tration and a proof of the historical importance of the article now that Lord Clarendon's share in it is understood, and we are made acquainted with the peculiar opportunities which Reeve possessed--not only as Clarendon's friend, but as in actual, confidential conversation with Lord Stratford when he ordered up the fleets. [Footnote: See _ante_, vol. i. p. 312.]

The fine old motto of the 'Edinburgh Review,' _Judex d.a.m.natur c.u.m nocens absolvitur_, is, when reduced to practice, apt to strain the relations between the 'judex' and the 'nocens;' and in this case the very outspoken review, published under Reeve's sanction, caused a coolness between the two men, the editor and the author, who had previously been on friendly terms.

It is, in fact, easily conceivable that, in earlier years or in other lands, powder would have burnt or small swords flashed. Being when and where they were, they dropped out of each other's circle. And this continued for upwards of three years, when a chance meeting opened the door to reconciliation.

_From Mr. Kinglake_

9 St. George's Terrace, Marble Arch,

November 14th, 1866.

Dear Reeve,--I think I perceived yesterday that my malice--malice founded, I believe, on a couple of words, and now of some three years' standing--had not engendered any corresponding anger in you; and if my impression was a right one, I trust we may meet for the future upon our old terms. Shall it be so?

Faithfully yours,

A. W. KINGLAKE.

CHAPTER XV

LAW AND LITERATURE

By what must seem a curious coincidence, in 1863 and the two years immediately following, death carried off all who had been mainly instrumental in forming Reeve's career. Greville, who introduced him to the 'Times,' died in 1865; his mother died in 1864; in 1863, his early patron and a.s.sured friend, the Marquis of Lansdowne, died on January 31st, at the ripe age of 82; his uncle, John Taylor, the head of the Taylor family, a man of singular ability as a mining engineer, died on April 5th; and Sir George Lewis, whose retirement from the editors.h.i.+p of the 'Edinburgh Review' had paved the way for Reeve's succession, died on April 13th.

Much of Reeve's correspondence with Lord Clarendon--Lewis's brother-in-law--refers to the wish of the widow, the Lady Theresa Lewis, that a collected edition of her husband's contributions to the 'Review'

should be published. The wish was only partially carried into effect; seven of the articles were collected in a volume published in 1864 under the t.i.tle of 'Essays on the Administrations of Great Britain from 1783 to 1830;' and Lewis's brother, Sir Gilbert Lewis, who succeeded to the baronetcy, published his letters in 1870. The following letter from Lord Clarendon refers to the death (on January 31st) of Lewis's stepdaughter--Lady Theresa's daughter by a former marriage--and wife of Mr., now Sir, William Harcourt:--

_G. C., February 3rd_.--I came up early yesterday morning, and only received this evening your most kind letter directed to The Grove, or I should have thanked you for it sooner.

A great misfortune has befallen us, and we are all very sad, but derive some comfort from the calmness and resignation with which my sister is bearing up against her grief. To William Harcourt it is, indeed, as you say, a wreck of all happiness and hope; but no man under such trying circ.u.mstances could have displayed more fort.i.tude, or more tender concern for others. I meet him to-morrow at Nuneham for the last sad office.

I grieve for Lord Lansdowne, and yet it is impossible not to feel that, at his age, and with rapidly increasing infirmities, a prolongation of existence was not to be desired. He was a rare combination of high qualities, and we shall not look upon his like again.

The next letter, also from Lord Clarendon, refers to the 'Albert Memorial':--

_The Grove, March 29th_.--I knew you would approve of the Cross. I myself should prefer it to any other form of memorial, if it was in the centre of converging roads, or of a great place surrounded by buildings more or less harmonising with it; but placed in Hyde Park, with no local a.s.sistance beyond its imaginary connexion with the Exhibitions of '51 and '62, I have my fears that it will be thought unmeaning.

I forget at this moment the exact height of the design, but I do not think it is to be 300 feet; and Mr. Scott is to consider whether the proportions may not generally be reduced. He may wish to build the largest cross in the world, but neither the Queen nor her committee have any such desire....

I don't think that a grant by the representatives of the people, as a supplement to their voluntary contributions, and aided by the subscription of the Queen, would destroy the feeling of the monument. There might perhaps be less sentiment, but the whole would be more national.

From the Journal:--

_May 4th_.--Lord Hatherton died at Teddesley. His illness had been long.

When we parted at Wiesbaden in August last, I knew we should not meet again. Never was there a kinder and more active friend. The confidence he showed me was unbounded; insomuch that in November he placed in my hands the original correspondence of the ministers with himself in June and July, 1834, on the Irish Coercion Bill, which led to the breaking up of Earl Grey's Cabinet. These I have power to publish; but, if not published, I mean eventually to return them to the Littleton family.

This I did in July 1864. The volume was published in 1872.

_To Mr. Dempster_

_C. O., July 10th_.--I am rather like a boy to whom some benevolent genius offers a basket of peaches, and who feels rather shy of taking the biggest of them; but, on the other hand, it would be a shabby return for great kindness to keep you in suspense. I, therefore, answer that, _sauf cause majeure_, we hope to be with you on the evening of Tuesday, August 11th. We shall probably go down to Aberdeen by sea, starting on Sat.u.r.day, the 8th, if decent berths can be obtained, and I have sent to take them. If this fails we should start on Sunday evening by rail. I cannot express to you how delightful to me is the thought of the kind welcome of Skibo, and the fresh air of your hills, after a very long and laborious season. But I have still a month in the mill, and a huge list of causes to be disposed of.