And the condition implies more than is understood, more than the consenting parties dare to confess--can at present afford to confess--unless I am deceived by information, which has hitherto justified itself in the event.

Be patient with me one moment--for if I differ from you, I seem to have access to another class of facts than you see.

If Italy, for instance, expands itself to a nation of twenty-six millions, would you blame the Emperor who 'did it all' (Cavour's own phrase) for providing an answer to his own people in some small foresight about the frontier, when in the course of fifty or a hundred years they may reproach his memory with the existence of an oppressive rival or enemy next door?
Mr.Russell said to me last January 'Everything that comes out proves the Emperor to have acted towards Italy like an Italian rather than a Frenchman.' At which we applaud; that is, you, and Mr.R., and I, and the Italians generally applaud.

But--let us be just--_that_ would not be a satisfactory opinion in France of the Head of the State, would it, do you think?
It was obviously his duty not to be negligent of certain eventualities in the case of his own country, to be a 'Frenchman' _there_.
Oh, Savoy has given me pain: and I would rather for the world's sake that a great action had remained out of reach of the hypothetical whispers of depreciators.

I would rather not hear Robert say, for instance: 'It was a great action; but he has taken eighteenpence for it, which is a pity.' I don't think this judgment fair--and much worse judgments are passed than that, which is very painful.