ed but three provisions affecting Austria: (1) That Austria
was to cede Lombardy; (2) That an Italian Confederation should be
encouraged, of which Venetia was to form part; (3) That the Dukes of
Tuscany and Modena were to return to their Duchies. The two latter
clauses must be considered as compensations for the losses inflicted
in the first. Both the latter are now to be recommended by England, a
neutral in the war, to be broken.

Now, either it is expected that our advice will not be listened to, in
which case it would not be useful and hardly dignified to give it,
or it is expected that France will follow it. If, on finding herself
cheated, Austria were to feel herself obliged to take up arms again,
we should be directly answerable for this fresh war. What would then
be our alternative? Either to leave France in the lurch, to re-fight
her own battle, which would entail lasting danger and disgrace on this
country, or to join her in the fresh war against Austria--a misfortune
from which the Queen feels herself equally bound to protect her
country.

As this is a question of principle on which she clearly understood her
Cabinet to have been unanimous, she must ask her correspondence to be
circulated amongst its members, with a view to ascertain whether they
also would be parties to its reversal, and in order to prevent the
necessity of these frequent discussions, which, as the Queen has
already said, are very painful to her.

[Pageheading: MEDIATION OF LORD GRANVILLE]

_Earl Granville to the Prince Albert._

LONDON, _29th August 1859_.

SIR,--In the middle of last week I received at Aldenham a letter from
Mr Sidney Herbert,[71] in which he told me that he had just received
a visit from Lord Palmerston, much perturbed and annoyed, saying that
the Queen had objected to all Lord John's despatches, and appeared to
think that it was objectionable for England to give any advice on the
subject of Italian affairs. Mr Herbert gave some good advice to Lord
Palmerston, but, from the tone of his letter, I gather that he
thought the objections made at Osborne unreasonable. I answered that
I entirely concurred with him in the interest of everybody, that no
feelings of irritation should exist between the Sovereign and her
leading Ministers; that it was possible that the Queen, forgetting
how very sensitive Lord John was to criticism, had pulled him up more
sharply than he liked, but that I was convinced the objections ma