between Sovereigns are not regular according to our constitutional notions; but all I can say is, that if Her Majesty were called upon to write upon the Eastern affair, she would not require her Ministers' assistance. The Queen understands these questions as well as they do."
The Cabinet were by no means united in their policy. Aberdeen believed in Nicholas, and was for peace; Palmerston believed in the Turks, and was for war.[1] Clarendon was the mediator between the two. At first the Queen and her husband were decidedly sympathetic with Aberdeen's policy. They fully acknowledged that the "ignorant, barbarian, and despotic yoke of the Mussulman" had been a curse to Europe, and agreed with Lord Aberdeen that the Turkish system was "radically vicious and inhuman." Against this view Palmerston exerted all his strength. Little by little the war fever, fanned by him and favored by events, grew fiercer and fiercer. It spared neither the palace nor the cottage, and presently there was hardly a voice raised in England for peace except those of Bright and Cobden; and their influence was weakened by the belief that they would be against all war under all circumstances. There was a very general impression in the country that if Palmerston had been at the Foreign Office no war would have been necessary. Certainly experience forces the conviction that the peace-at-any-price party, when in power, is almost certain to land the country in war; but in this particular instance it appears probably that Palmerston, having secured the French alliance, thought the moment for fighting favorable, and therefore forced on the war; and that he would have done so
- ↑ The only criticism ever made by Palmerston on the Turks was that it was impossible to expect much energy from a people who wore no heels to their shoes!
12
