We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 July 2014
In the past two decades Lord John Russell has suffered a decline in reputation which is undeserved. This has been especially true in regard to his role as foreign secretary in the second Palmerston government. The decline has not resulted from significant new evidence or from a new insight into existing evidence, so much as from a series of apparently accidental circumstances. The most important of these have been the fact that the only recent biography of Russell, by John Prest, placed little stress either on foreign affairs or on his post-1852 career, expressing the belief that he “should have retired” at the end of his first administration.
Prest's influence has been intensified by several major studies of foreign policy, which have given a negative interpretation of Russell's role under Palmerston. Since each of these is the most important work on the topic concerned, their view of Lord John carries considerable weight. Yet, even more than was the case with Prest's biography, their comments about Russell appear on a very few pages, and suggest that the authors viewed the issue of Lord John's relationship with Palmerston as tangential to their research or analysis. The evidence they cite often falls into two categories: 1) statements of biased observers, who had grudges against Russell, or 2) material that is open to other interpretation or is an inadequate and misleading sample of the evidence available.
1 Prest devotes only 68 pages to the 26 years following Russell's first administration, compared to 341 pages dealing with his earlier life. His six years at the Foreign Office are dealt with in one brief chapter. Only 33 pages out of a total of 430 pages are devoted to foreign policy (Prest, John, Lord John Russell [London, 1972]Google Scholar).
2 Jenkins, Brian, Britain & the War for Union, 2 vols. (Montreal, 1974)Google Scholar; Beales, Derek, England and Italy 1859–60 (London, 1961)Google Scholar.
3 See, for example, Russell to Minto, Dec. 12, 1958, Minto Papers, National Library of Scotland, 143/1. Russell was not alone in this estimate. For example, Persigny, the French ambassador, was delighted that Russell was to be foreign minister instead of Clarendon, who was “aristocratically inclined” and would have changed the whole tone of the Palmerston administration in foreign policy. Persigny to Walewski, June 17, 1859, Archives des Affaires Étrangères, Correspondance Politique, Angleterre [hereafter cited as AAE, CP, Ang.]. Clarendon was both anti-French and anti-Sardinian on this question, and feared that Russia would use the situation in Italy to gain a strong foothold in the Mediterranean. Clarendon to Russell, Dec. 24, 1858, PRO 30/22/13F.
4 Clarendon to the Duchess of Manchester, January 7, 1860, in Maxwell, Herbert, The Life and Letters of George William Frederick Fourth Earl of Clarendon, 2 vols. (London, 1913), 2:206Google Scholar. Clarendon acted as though he was contented to be out of office, but Granville testified that he was “annoyed.” Fitzmaurice, Edmund, The Life of Granville George Levison Gower Second Earl Granville K. G. 1815–1891, 2 vols. (London, 1905), 1:345Google Scholar. I have examined the Clarendon papers at Oxford and found nothing of importance relating to this topic that does not appear elsewhere.
5 Prince Albert's memo of Dec. 31, 1859, RA A27/120. I wish to thank Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II for her gracious permission to consult the Royal Archives; Fitzmaurice, , Granville, 1:348–351Google Scholar; Queen Victoria to Russell, July 6, 1859, RA C11/11. Bell's remark about this statement by the prince was apropo: “Prince Albert, for all his virtues, was not too well endowed with understanding of, or charity towards, the opponents of his policies.” Bell, Herbert, Lord Palmerston, 2 vols. (London, 1936), 2:230Google Scholar.
6 Greville, Charles, The Greville Memoirs, ed. Strachey, L. and Fulford, R., 8 vols. (London, 1938)Google Scholar.
7 I have checked numerous files of drafts in the Foreign Office from this period, and for the most part found only minor changes made by Palmerston. Many of these were not accepted by Russell. In the private correspondence there are continual exchanges of ideas; they do not originate predominantly with Palmerston. FO [Foreign Office papers on deposit at the Public Record Office] 96/12, 13; FO 7/564, 605; FO 7/588; PRO 30/22 [Russell Papers, at the Public Record Office]; PP GC/RU/ [Palmerston Papers, at the Historical Manuscripts Commission]. I was allowed to consult the Pal¬merston Papers by gracious permission of the Trustees of the Broadlands Archives.
8 See, for example, Moore, Thomas, Memoirs, Journal and Correspondence of Thomas Moore, ed. Russell, , 8 vols. (London, 1853–1856), 3:186Google Scholar.
9 See, for example, appropriate chapters in The Cambridge History of British Foreign Policy 1783–1919, eds. Ward, A. W. and Gooch, G. P., 3 vols. (London, 1923), 2:430–721Google Scholar [hereafter cited as CHBFP]; Seton-Watson, R. W., Britain in Europe 1789–1914 (Cambridge, 1937)Google Scholar; Trevelyan, George M., Garibaldi and the Making of Italy (London, 1911)Google Scholar; Woodward, Llewellyn, The Age of Reform 1815–1870 (Oxford, 1938)Google Scholar; Marriott, John A. R., Queen Victoria and Her Ministers (London, 1933)Google Scholar; Taylor, A. J. P., The Struggle for Mastery in Europe 1848–1918 (Oxford, 1954)Google Scholar; and Mosse, W. E., The European Powers and the German Question 1848–1871 (Cambridge, 1958)Google Scholar.
10 The leading example is Herbert Bell. Donald Southgate is the only notable biographer of Palmerston to take the anti-Russell view, and he admittedly did not work from the documents (Most English Minister [London, 1966]Google Scholar). Jasper Ridley concluded that Palmerston left both of his foreign secretaries, Clarendon and Russell, largely to their own devices, though he did read, make corrections on, and at times even draft dispatches (Lord Palmerston [London, 1970], p. 515Google ScholarPubMed). Philip Guedalla did not show Palmerston to be a directive force, merely remarking that “Russell leant on Palmerston's vast store of knowledge” (Palmerston [London, 1927], p. 461Google ScholarPubMed). Evelyn Ashley's pioneering effort described Russell and Palmerston as “thoroughly united” in their foreign policy (The Life and Correspondence of Henry John Temple Viscount Palmerston, 2 vols. [London, 1879], 2:239Google Scholar).
11 Cecil, Algernon, British Foreign Secretaries 1807–1916 (London, 1927), pp. 205–225Google Scholar. Aside from Queen Victoria's published correspondence, Cecil refers in his notes primarily to Maxwell (8 references) and Fitzmaurice (3 references). In his later book on Queen Victoria and Her Prime Ministers (London, 1953)Google Scholar, Cecil is more obvious, as his only source is an essay by Lord Salisbury (pp. 136–137).
12 Prest, , Lord John Russell, pp. 386, 398Google Scholar.
13 The Gladstone Diaries, ed. Foot, M. R. D. and Matthew, H. C. G., 9 vols. (Oxford, 1968–)Google Scholar. There is nothing to support this interpretation in the Gladstone Papers at the British Library. George C. Lewis did complain that Lord John was unable to give adequate explanations of his proposals, but Lewis may not have been objective about what was adequate, since he was one of the hostile five in the cabinet who collaborated with the Court. (Queen Victoria “received information concerning cabinet meetings outside the regular channels, and used it to bring influence to bear on individual ministers, with the object of inducing them to resist their chief.” Bell, , Palmerston 2:222Google Scholar.) For more information about royal intervention in the Italian question, see Hearder, H., “Queen Victoria and Foreign Policy. Royal Intervention in the Italian Question, 1859–1860,” in Bourne, Kenneth and Watt, D. C., eds., Studies in International History (Hamden, Conn., 1967), pp. 178–183Google Scholar. Lewis was also a strong rival of Gladstone for the succession to the leadership of the Liberal Party, and opposed the three pro-Italian leaders on policy towards Italy. Greville, 7:471–472.
14 Prest, , Lord John Russell, pp. 386, 398Google Scholar.
15 Walpole, Spencer, The Life of Lord John Russell, 2 vols. (London, 1889)Google Scholar. The other biographies are not footnoted and seem to draw on no significant sources not used by Tilby, Walpole. A. Wyatt, Lord John Russell, A Study in Civil and Religious Liberty (London, 1930)Google Scholar, and Reid, Stuart J., Lord John Russell (London, 1906)Google Scholar.
16 Krein, David F., The Last Palmerston Government: Foreign Policy, Domestic Politics, and the Genesis of “Splendid Isolation” (Ames, Iowa, 1978), p. 30Google Scholar.
17 See footnote 2.
18 Flick, Carlos, “The Early Political Career of Lord John Russell,” PhD. diss., Duke University, 1960, pp. 46–47Google Scholar.
19 Smith, Sydney, Second Letter to Archdeacon Singleton (4th ed.; London, 1939), p. 43Google Scholar.
20 Hansard, 3rd Ser., vol. 23 (1834), col. 430Google Scholar; Grey to Russell, copy, and Russell to Grey, May 7, 1834, Grey Papers, Durham University Library (hereafter cited as GP).
21 Melbourne to Russell, Feb. 5, 1835, Melbourne Papers (Broadlands Archives, on deposit at the Historical Manuscripts Commission), MEL/RU/141; Russell to Melbourne, conf., Feb. 13, 1835, ibid., MEL/RU/3.
22 Duke of Bedford to Lord Holland, Oct. 7, 1808, Holland Papers, British Library Add. MSS. 51,661 [hereafter cited as BL AM]; Russell to Holland, Sept. 25, 1810, BL AM 51,677; Russell, , Recollections and Suggestions 1813–1873 (Boston, 1875), pp. 8–13Google Scholar.
23 Russell to Tavistock, Dec. 29, 1814, PRO 30/22/1A (Russell Papers); Russell memo dictated 1869, PRO 30/22/17A; Walpole, , Russell, 1:73Google Scholar.
24 (A11 by Russell, ), Memoirs of the Affairs of Europe from the Peace of Utrecht, 2 vols. (London, 1824, 1829)Google Scholar; A Letter to the Right Honourable Lord Holland on Foreign Politics (2nd ed.; London, 1819)Google Scholar; The Establishment of the Turks in Europe (London, 1829)Google Scholar; The Causes of the French Revolution (London, 1832)Google Scholar; in addition, he wrote a number of works which dealt in part with foreign policy, such as his biographies of William Russell and Charles Fox, and he wrote several additional books on foreign policy after he retired.
25 Tavistock to Russell, Nov. 20, 1830, PRO 30/22/1B; Holland to Grey, Nov. 20, 1830, GP.
26 This policy was traditionally viewed as a failure, when in fact it was quite sensible. Paul Schroeder takes a more favorable view of Russell's policy at Vienna, though he is a bit hard on him for being “duped” for believing lies told to him by Cowley, Clarendon, and Palmerston (Austria, Great Britain, and the Crimean War: The Destruction of the European Concert [Ithaca, 1972], pp. 256–300)Google Scholar.
27 The dispatch also called for an end to Papal rule in central Italy. Russell to Cowley, June 22, July 7, 1859, Parliamentary Papers, vol. 32 (1859), pp. 559–560, 567–569Google Scholar.
28 Queen Victoria to Russell, July 6, 1859, RA C11/11.
29 Fitzmaurice, , Granville, 1:350–351Google Scholar.
30 For example, on Sept. 4, 1859, he asked Russell what he should say to Persigny. PP, GC/RU/1131/1. On rare occasions Palmerston assumed an unduly tutorial tone, but he suffered from terrible periods of gout, and may have been out of sorts. One example frequently referred to is in Russell, Lord John, The Later Correspondence of Lord John Russell 1840–1878, ed. Gooch, G. P., 2 vols. (London, 1925) 2:324–325Google Scholar, [hereafter cited as LC]. Russell's reply on this occasion was at least superficially good-natured, though there may be a touch of hostility between the lines. It is certainly not submissive. Russell to Palmerston, April 26, 1862, PP, GC/RU/710. On other occasions, Palmerston would praise Russell's work and ideas, as on Dec. 29, 1859, Palmerston to Russell, ibid., 1132/1.
31 Prest does not seem to have referred to Beales at all and does not cite Beales in his bibliography.
32 Beales, , England and Italy, pp. 95–96, 161Google Scholar. Beales does much to counteract the impression of futility and dependence on Lord John's part in his spirited critique of Prest's biography in “Peel, Russell and Reform,” Historical Journal 17 (1974): 873–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar. He indicates that Russell's importance has been unfairly downgraded and that Prest “seems quite out of sympathy with Russell …” (p. 881).
33 See footnote 4.
34 Beales, , England and Italy, pp. 110–127Google Scholar.
35 Ibid., p. 110.
36 Russell was ready for a “triple alliance” with France and Sardinia, if Austria were to attack central Italy. Russell to Cowley, Dec. 20, 1859, FO 519/197 (Cowley Papers). He was even willing to give material assistance to Italy (without French cooperation, apparently), if the Italians would fight for themselves. He balanced between the hope that Garibaldi could succeed in rallying Italy to Sardinia and the fear that he would overreach himself. Russell to Palmerston Nov. 6, 1859, PP, GC/RU/551, and Jan. 3, 1860 (571). Palmerston supported Russell's ideas. They were both discouraged by the dismissal of Walewski and by the Emperor-inspired pamphlet The Pope and the Congress, which was strongly anti-clerical. Wood to Palmerston, Jan. 7, 1860, PP, GC/WO/141; LC, 2:253; Palmerston to Wood, Jan. 7, 1860, BL AM 49,531 (Palmerston letter books); Granville to Palmerston, Jan. 7, 1860, PP, GC/GR/1871; Granville to Albert, conf., Jan. 3, 10, 13, 1860, RA J24/86, J25/10, 24; Fitzmaurice, , Granville, 1:369Google Scholar; Walpole, , Russell, 2:315–316Google Scholar; Loftus to Russell, Dec. 22, 1859, PRO 30/22/40; Russell to Queen Victoria, Jan. 10, 1860, RA J25/4; Russell to Queen Victoria, Dec. 3, 1859, RA J24/12.
37 Clarendon complained in 1856 that there were 56,000 dispatches in and out of the Foreign Office yearly, and the number had certainly not declined by the 1860s (Maxwell, , Clarendon, 2:135–136Google Scholar).
38 Beales, , England and Italy, pp. 135–136Google Scholar; Scherer, Paul, “British Reaction to French Annexation of Nice and Savoy,” International Review of History and Political Science 2 (1965): 31–40Google Scholar; Russell to Hudson, Jan. 31, Feb. 2, 1860, copies, PRO 30/11/109; Russell to Cowley, Nov. 8, 1859, Jan. 31, Feb. 6, 1860, FO 519/198 (Cowley Papers).
39 See, for example, Russell to Palmerston (copy), April 23, 1861, PRO 30/22/14B. This letter illustrates the fact that Russell could be a bit sharp himself: “What you propose appears to me to reproduce what I have already said. Besides this we have just given great offense to Austria. …” Another example is Russell to Palmerston, Sept. 11, 1860, PP, GC/RU/622.
40 Palmerston to Victoria, Dec. 15, 1860, RA A28/164; Victoria to Russell, Dec. 12, 1860, RA C12/82.
41 Russell to Hammond, Sept. 16, 1860, FO 391/7; Russell to Hudson, priv., May 22, 1860, PRO 30/22/109; Russell to Queen Victoria, Aug. 30, 1860, RA J30/54; Urban, Miriam B., British Opinion and Policy on the Unification of Italy, 1856–1861 (Scottdale, Pa., 1938), pp. 510–515Google Scholar.
42 Wood to Palmerston, Sept. 19, 1860, PP, GC/WO/143.
43 Russell to Cowley, Dec. 22, 29, 1860, FO 519/198; Russell to Hudson, Dec. 24, 1860, copy, PRO 30/22/109; Russell to Gladstone, Sept. 10, 1860, BL AM 44, 291; Russell to Hammond, Sept. 16, 1860, FO 391/7.
44 Queen Victoria's Journal, Dec. 21, 1860, RA; Russell told Cowley he was cancelling the proposal because of opposition in Vienna and Berlin. Russell to Cowley, Dec. 29, 1860, FO 519/198.
45 Russell to Queen Victoria, July 7, 1859, RA J20/114; Russell to Loftus, July 27, 1859, FO 27/564; Victoria, Queen, The Letters of Queen Victoria, Second Series, ed. Benson, Arthur and Esher, Viscount, 3 vols. (London, 1907), 3:350Google Scholar [hereafter cited as QVL]; Palmerston to Russell, July 6, 1859, quoted in Ashley, , Palmerston, 2:365–367Google Scholar; Russell to Palmerston, Aug. 5, 18, 1859, PP, GC/RU/512, 516; Russell to Hudson, July 28, 1859, copy, PRO 30/22/109; Russell to Cowley, July 26, 28, Aug. 6, 13, 1859, FO 519/197.
46 Russell to Hudson, Oct. 29, 1860, copy, PRO 30/22/109; on Russell's help with the commercial treaty, see, for example, Gladstone to his wife, Jan. 1, 1860, in Gladstone, W. E., Gladstone to his Wife, ed., Bassett, A. Tilney (London, 1936), p. 128Google Scholar.
47 Beales, , England and Italy, pp. 95, 161Google Scholar. All of the following examples are from these pages.
48 Nov. 11, 1858, PRO 30/22/13F.
49 LC, 2:230.
50 Russell to Palmerston, May 28, 1860, PP, GC/RU/603.
51 LC 2:238.
52 Ibid., pp. 228–229.
53 Jenkins, , War for Union, 1:85Google Scholar.
54 Ibid., 2:58–59.
55 Ibid., pp. 53–60.
56 The same could be said of Krein, who included two chapters on Civil War diplomacy.
57 See, for example, Jenkins, , Wir for Union, 1:212–214, 250–252Google Scholar.
58 Ibid., pp. 2:65, 68.
59 Ibid., pp. 1:124, 2:294. The second example is possibly merely a minor concession by Russell to Palmerston.
60 Ibid., 1:172.
61 Ibid., 2:300.
62 Ibid., p. 292; Russell to Palmerston, Sept. 3, 1863, PP, GC/RU/802 (printed in Walpole, , Russell, 2:239Google Scholar); Russell to Layard, Sept. 2, 3, 1863, BL AM 38,989 [Layard Papers]. Krein is much more complementary to Russell in his article “Russell's Decision to Detain the Laird Rams,” Civil War History 22 (1976): 158–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
63 Jenkins, , War for Union, 1:240–241Google Scholar.
64 Ibid., 2:51–60.
65 Ibid., 2:249.
66 Krein, , Last Palmerston Government, pp. 101–103, 114–115Google Scholar.
67 Ibid., pp. 84, 96.
68 Ibid., p. 95.
69 Ibid., p. 84; Russell to Palmerston, Nov. 24, Dec. 2, 4, 1862, PP, GC/RU/745, 747, 748; Palmerston to Russell, Nov. 27, Dec. 4, 1862, PRO 30/22/14D.
70 Ibid., p. 97.
71 Ibid., p. 80. Rumbold, to whose comment about no instructions Krein refers, arrived in Athens on November 8, about two weeks after Russell's first instructions arrived. He wrote about this almost 40 years after the event and his chronology, if not his entire recollection of events, may have been confused and inaccurate. SirRumbold, Horace, Recollections of a Diplomatist, 2 vols. (London, 1902), 2:105–106Google Scholar.
72 FO 421/14.
73 He was a Russian by adoption and also had links with Napoleon III. Russell to Queen Victoria, June 7, 1862, RA J97/10; Scarlett to Russell, Aug. 7, 1862, FO 32/303.
74 Russell to Scarlett, Oct. 28, Nov. 3, 6, 7, 1862, FO 421/14.
75 Krein, , Last Palmerston Government, p. 77Google Scholar.
76 Russell to Wyse, copy, Jan. 12, 1860, PRO 30/22/108.
77 Scarlett to Russell, tele., Dec. 6, 1862, FO 421/14.
78 Clarendon to Hammond, Nov. 28, 1862, FO 319/4.
79 Russell to Elliot, Dec. 12, 1862, two instructions dated the same, FO 421/14; Scarlett to Russell, private and conf., Oct. 31, 1862, FO 32/381. Elliot, as had Rumbold, wrote long after the event. SirElliot, Henry G., Some Revolutions and other Diplomatic Experiences, ed., Elliot, Gertrude (London, 1922), pp. 140–141Google Scholar.
80 Krein, , Last Palmerston Government, p. 97Google Scholar.
81 See, for example, Elliot to Russell, tele., Feb. 9, 10, 1863, Palmerston's main objection to William was his impending marriage to a Russian, but Elliot thought his fears to be much exaggerated, arguing that it would not “prove the least formidable or injurious.” Elliot to Cowley, Feb. 6, 1863, FO 519/195. Ironically, Palmerston's primary concern about William of Baden was his Russian wife, and Prince William of Denmark later married a Russian princess.
82 Krein, , Last Palmerston Government, pp. 30, 189Google Scholar.
83 In his first presentation of the idea Krein qualifies his statement with the phrase “It seems possible. …” Later, in his conclusion to the chapter, he drops all qualification. Krein, , Last Palmerston Government, pp. 32, 42Google Scholar. Bock, who made the only definitive study of this question, came to different conclusions. Bock, Carl H., Prelude to Tragedy: The Negotiation and Breakdown of the Tripartite Convention of London, October 31, 1861 (Philadelphia, 1966), pp. 164, 169, 196, 446CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
84 Ibid., pp. 453–474; Krein, , Last Palmerston Government, p. 31Google Scholar.
85 Bell, , Palmerston, 2:312Google Scholar.
86 Krein, , Last Palmerston Government, p. 32Google Scholar.
87 Palmerston to Layard, May 6, 1864, BL AM 38,950.
88 See, for example, Russell to Cowley, Sept. 30, 1861, FO 27/1380; Bock refers to a conversation between Wyke and Napoleon III in which the Maximilian candidacy was discussed. Palmerston sent Wyke on this mission, but there is no surviving record that Palmerston heard of this conversation, or that Russell knew about it. Bock, , Prelude to Tragedy, pp. 68–69, 617Google Scholar. Krein stresses a letter from Napoleon to Flahault of Oct. 9, 1861, which instructed him to inform Palmerston of the idea of Maximilian becoming monarch of Mexico (Krein, , Last Palmerston Government, p. 50Google Scholar; Bock, 495–497). However, Russell later complained that Flahault had subsequently insisted that this project had been dropped (ibid., p. 363).
89 Krein seems to imply that Napoleon III could not have intervened without British support, describing his project in Mexico to be the “chief result of British policy” (ibid., p. 40). However, his logic is not convincing. Clarendon thought the British had to intervene in China and could not avoid French participation. Why was the situation in Mexico different? Clarendon to the Duchess of Manchester, Oct. 21, 1859, Duchess of Manchester, My Dear Duchess, ed. Kennedy, A. L. (London, 1956), p. 74Google Scholar. Krein's own arguments would suggest that Palmerston was not as fully convinced as Russell about how impossible such a French mission would be (Last Palmerston Government, pp. 37–38). Lord John's remarks on this are very strong. Typical examples can be found in Russell to Bloomfield, March 5, copy, PRO 30/22/98; Russell to Crampton, Jan. 23, 1862, copy, PRO 30/22/115; Russell to Somerset, Jan. 15, 18, Ramsden Mss. (Buckinghampshire Record Office), AR 41/62; Russell to Palmerston, Jan. 18, 20, 1862, PP, GC/RU/697–698.
90 Krein, , Last Palmerston Government, p. 38Google Scholar; Bock, , Prelude to Tragedy, p. 515Google Scholar.
91 Other changes in the British draft did weaken it, but they were made at French suggestion, not at Palmerston's. The draft was still quite strong, though the changes were sufficient to appease Napo¬leon's conscience about his intention to violate the non-intervention agreement (ibid., pp. 205–208). «Russell to Bloomfield, Feb. 13, 1862, Parliamentary Papers, vol. 64 (1862)Google Scholar, [No. 2990], “Correspondence Relating to Affairs in Mexico, Part II,” p. 9.
92 Russell to Bloomfield, Feb. 13, 1862, Parliamentary Papers, vol. 64 (1862)Google Scholar, [No. 2990], “Correspondence Relating to Affairs in Mexico, Part II,” p. 9.
93 Ibid.; Russell to Cowley, May 29, June 17, 1862, FO 519/199; Russell to Wyke, June 29, 1862, copy, PRO 30/22/95.
94 Russell comments on a Palmerston memo of Feb. 19, 1863, FO 391/7; Russell to Cowley, May 29, June 17, 1862, FO 519/199.
95 Twelve citations are from Clarendon. Prest, , Lord John Russell, pp. 385–398Google Scholar.
96 LC, 2:324-325. Prest cites this from PRO 30/22/14C (p. 386).
97 LC, 2:277. Russell had privately warned Hudson on Veneria as early as May. Russell to Hudson, priv., May 22, 1860, PRO 30/22/109; Russell to Queen Victoria, Aug. 30, 1860, RA J30/54; Beales, , England and Italy, p. 155Google Scholar, Urban, , British Opinion, pp. 510–515Google Scholar; Russell to Hammond, Sept. 16, 1860, FO 391/7. Wood complained to Palmerston that Russell seemed “very obstinate about leaving it [Venetia] in Austrian hands.” Wood to Palmerston, Sept. 19, 1860, PP, GC/WO/143.
98 This letter is similar to LC, 2:301, but the wording differs. Bell, , Palmerston, 2:233–234Google Scholar.
99 This draft dispatch may even have been intended as a joke. Russell to Palmerston, Feb. 15, 1865, PP, GC/RU/891.
100 The Amberley Papers, ed., Bertrand, and Russell, Patricia, 2 vols. (London, 1937), 1:426Google Scholar; Prest, , Lord John Russell, p. 393Google Scholar.
101 Ibid., p. 391; Beales, , England and Italy, pp. 152, 154Google Scholar.
102 Russell to Palmerston, July 18, 1859, PP, GC/RU/508; Russell to Victoria, copy, Jan. 21, 1860, PRO 30/22/112.
103 Russell to Cowley, May 15, 29, 1860, FO 519/108; Russell to Loftus, Feb. 17, 1860, copy, PRO 30/22/98; Russell to Wyse, June 7, 1861, copy, ibid.; Russell to Crampton, May 16, 1860, PRO 30/22/114; Russell to Somerset, May 18, 1860, Ramsden Mss., AR 41/62.
104 The special relationship between France and the Maronites went back to the Crusades. They had been taken into the Roman Catholic church in the fifteenth century. Mange, Alice Edythe, The Near Eastern Policy of the Emperor Napoleon III (Urbana, 1940), pp. 8–10Google Scholar; S. al-Imad, Leila, “The Druzes and Maronites of Lebanon: Struggle for Security,” Middle East Insight 3 (November-December 1984): 34–35Google Scholar; Saab, Ann Pottinger, “English and Irish Reactions to the Massacres in Lebanon and Syria, 1860,” Muslim World 74 (January 1984): 13–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
105 Palmerston to Russell, April 15, May 17, July 10, 16, 19, 20, 22, 26, 1860, PRO 30/22/21; Bell, , Lord Palmerston, 2:250–252Google Scholar; Palmerston memorandum on foreign policy, June, 1860, PP (Broadlands Archives).
106 Beales, , England and Italy, p. 154Google Scholar; Russell to Cowley, July 23, 28, 1860, FO 519/198; Russell to Bulwer, July 19, 1860, PRO 30/22/116; Chateauvenard to Thouvenel, July 6, 1860, AAE, CP, Ang., 717; Palmerston to Russell, July 19, 1860, copy, BL AM 48,581; Russell to Palmerston, July 27, 1860, PP, GC/RU/614. Palmerston scolded Cowley for supporting Russell's view of the question. Palmerston to Cowley, July 31, 1860, copy, BL AM 48,581; Russell to Cowley, July 24, Aug. 6, 1860, FO 519/197, 198; Russell to Dufferin, Sept. 8, 1860, PRO 30/22/116.
107 Russell to Bulwer, Aug. 25, 1860, FO 27/2436.
108 Russell to Cowley, July 24, 1860, FO 519/197; Mange, , The Near Eastern Policy, p. 87Google Scholar.
109 Dufferin to Russell, Oct. 4, I860, PRO 30/22/94; Russell to Somerset, Aug. 5, 1860, Ramsden Mss., AR 41/62.
110 Russell To Bulwer, Oct. 8, 1860, PRO 30/22/116.
111 Dufferin to Russell, Nov. 4, 22, 1860, PRO 30/22/94; Russell to Dufferin, Nov. 10, 1860, copy, PRO 30/22/116; Russell to Cowley, Jan. 11, 12, 23, 1860, FO 519/199.
112 Russell to Cowley, Jan. 31, Feb. 18, March 6, 1861, ibid.
113 See, for example, Seton-Watson, R. W., Britain in Europe 1789–1914 (Cambridge, 1955), p. 420Google Scholar; W. F. Reddaway, “The Crimean War and the French Alliance 1853-1858,” in CHBFP, 2:451-456.
114 The Catholic press in France was scarcely interested in the Syrian events, which they saw as a distraction from the critical developments in Rome and Italy. Many Catholic leaders suspected the French government of using Syria as a distraction for public opinion, drawing its attention away from the lack of support for the church in Italy. The Austrian press tended to agree. Emerit, Marcel, “La Crise Syrienne et l'expansion Économique Française en 1860,” Revue Historique (1952): 221–223Google Scholar.
115 Ibid., pp. 217, 224–227.
116 Ibid., pp. 218, 221, 226–227.
