of Spain will not be a favourable omen for Spain.⁴...

With my best love to Albert. Believe me ever, my beloved Victoria, your truly devoted Uncle,

Leopold R.

Footnote 4: A daughter had been born to the Queen of Spain on the 5th of January, and lived only three days.

Queen Victoria to the Earl of Aberdeen.

THE ORLEANS FAMILY

Windsor Castle, 16th January 1854.

The Queen sends the answer she has this morning received from the Duc de Nemours, which she hopes is on the whole satisfactory as regards the reported visit of the Count de Chambord.⁵ The Duke does not see in so strong a light as we do, the danger of even the report being believed—probably from living so much out of the world as he does. What would Lord Aberdeen wish her to do farther, and what does he think can be done in the way of contradiction? The Queen wishes likewise to have Lord Aberdeen's opinion and advice on the following subjects. He knows that we have invariably received the poor Orleans family (in particular our own near relations, the Nemours) from time to time here and in London, and that the Queen has always from the first year done this openly but unostentatiously. It is by no means her intention to change her conduct in this respect—but since the great noise caused by the "fusion" she thought it better not to invite the Nemours either to Osborne or here, hoping that by this time these tiresome rumours would have ceased. They have not, however, and we think that perhaps it would be wiser not to see them here, at any rate till after the meeting of Parliament, though it is very painful to the Queen to hurt their feelings by apparent neglect. Is Lord Aberdeen of this opinion, and does he think that it will not be misconstrued into an admission of having encouraged intrigues or of submission to the will and pleasure of Louis Napoleon?

For the Queen would never submit to such an accusation, nor would she continue (after the excitement is past) to exclude these poor exiles from occasional visits—which have been paid and received ever since '48, and which would be unworthy and ungenerous conduct.

Likewise does Lord Aberdeen think that a morning visit to the Duchess of Aumale to enquire after her health would be imprudent?

It goes much against the Queen's feelings of generosity and kindness to neglect the poor exiles as she has done this winter, but the present moment is one of unparalleled excitement and of great political importance, which requires great prudence and circumspection. There is an admirable article in the Morning Chronicle of to-day, taking quite the right line upon the infamous and now almost ridiculous attacks on the Queen and Prince. Has Lord Aberdeen any idea who could have written it?

The Queen sends a letter she had received from her Uncle, which may amuse and interest him. To make the statement of the Queen's intercourse with the Orleans family quite clear, she should add, that when the family visit the Queen or she visits them, that it is put into the Court Circular, and this of course gets copied into country papers and foreign papers; but after consideration the Queen thought this the wiser course, for with all the spies who are no doubt about—if this were not done, and the Queen's visits and vice versâ were suppressed and yet found out—it would give them an air of mystery which is just what we wish to avoid.

Footnote 5: Son of the Duc de Berri, and known formerly as the Duc de Bordeaux. (See ante, vol. i. p. 495.) The Duc de Nemours denied all knowledge of the rumoured visit, and thought its importance had been exaggerated.

The Earl of Aberdeen to Queen Victoria.

London, 17th January 1854.

... With respect to your Majesty's custom of seeing the French Royal Family, Lord Aberdeen humbly thinks that there is no good reason for making any change. It has always taken place without parade or ostentation; and knowing, as Lord Aberdeen does, that no political object is in view, he would feel ashamed to advise your Majesty to do anything at variance with that sympathy which your Majesty has been careful to keep within the bounds of prudence and moderation....

Lord Aberdeen hopes that he may venture to congratulate your Majesty on the commencement of a change with respect to the newspaper attacks upon the Prince. He observed the article, to which your Majesty refers, in the Morning Chronicle of yesterday; and he believes he may certainly say that it was written by Mr Gladstone, although he would not wish it to be known. There was also a very sensible letter in the Standard of last night, signed D. C. L. This is the signature always assumed by Mr Alexander Hope,⁶ in his contributions to the Press, and Lord Aberdeen does not doubt that it is written by him. It is only a wonder to find it in such a quarter; and it shows some disposition on the part of that scurrilous paper to alter its course. There is perhaps no great objection to the papers dealing with the subject as they think proper, before the meeting of Parliament, provided the Times takes no part at present; for as this paper is supposed to be influenced by the Government, this belief would injure the effect of anything that might appear in its columns.⁷...

Footnote 6: Mr. A. J. Hope (afterwards Beresford-Hope), at this time out of Parliament, had written over the signature "D.C.L." a series of letters to the Press on the Papal claims.

Footnote 7: On the re-assembling of Parliament, the charges against the Prince were at once refuted by the Prime Minister and Lord John Russell; and his right to assist the Queen completely established by those Ministers, with the concurrence of Lord Derby and Mr Walpole, on behalf of the Opposition, and Lord Campbell, the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench.

Queen Victoria to Lord John Russell.

THE REFORM BILL

Windsor Castle, 21st January 1854.

The Queen has received Lord John Russell's letter of the 19th, and the Bill as now agreed upon by the Cabinet, which she hopes may meet the wishes of the Country and pass into law.⁸ From what she understands the chief argument used in opposition to the measure will be, that corruption and bribery is the evil which the Country really complains of, and not an unequal distribution of the representation, and that a new distribution or even extension of the franchise will not touch the evil, and may be said perhaps in some instances to tend towards increasing it. The success of the measure will therefore, she concludes, in some degree depend upon the Bribery Bills which will accompany it. How far are these advanced? and what expectation has Lord John Russell of succeeding in framing such a measure as would remove that ground of objection to the Reform Bill?

Footnote 8: Notwithstanding the impending war, the Government considered itself bound in honour to bring in a Reform Bill. Lord Palmerston and his special supporters were opposed to the project, but the measure was brought forward on the 13th of February. After a chequered career it was withdrawn. The Bill for the prevention of corrupt practices at elections was introduced on the 10th of February,