THE COURT AND THE CABINET.
The Queen’s Distrust of French Policy--Her Conferences with Lord
Clarendon--The French Pamphlet on “The Pope and the
Congress”--Palmerston’s Proposal of an Alliance Offensive and
Defensive with France--Intriguing between Palmerston and
Persigny--Recall of Cavour--Affairs in China--Mr. Cobden’s
Commercial Treaty with France--Cession of Nice and Savoy to
France--The Anglo-French Alliance at an End--Lord John Russell’s
Reform Bill--Threatened Rupture with France--Russia Attempts to
Re-open the Eastern Question--Garibaldi’s Invasion of the Two
Sicilies--Collapse of the Neapolitan Monarchy--The Piedmontese
Invade the Papal States--Annexation of the Sicilies to
Sardinia--Meeting between Napoleon III. and the German Sovereigns
at Baden--A New Holy Alliance--The Mahometan Atrocities in
Syria--The Macdonald Scandal--Palmerston’s Fortification
Scheme--The Lords Reject the Bill Abolishing the Paper Duty--The
Volunteer Movement--Reviews in Hyde Park and Edinburgh--The Queen
at Wimbledon--The Prince of Wales’s Tour in Canada and the United
States--Betrothal of the Princess Alice--The Queen and her
Grandchild--Serious Accident to the Prince Consort--Illness of the
Queen.
Although the new year (1860) opened brightly for commercial England, the
political outlook was far from cheerful. The Cabinet and the Queen were
by no means in harmony on Foreign affairs, and Ministers were themselves
far from being agreed as to a Reform policy. Lord Palmerston, Lord John
Russell, Mr. Gladstone, and Mr. Milner Gibson were violently
anti-Austrian. They were so eager to win credit for establishing a free
kingdom in Northern Italy, that they were easy dupes in the hands of the
French Emperor, whose design it was to achieve this end, so that whilst
the credit should be his, the risk should be theirs. The Queen, on the
other hand, was profoundly distrustful of French policy. She persisted
in seeing in it nothing save a scheme for getting England to “pull the
chestnuts out of the fire” for France. Her view was that the Italian
people were now masters of the situation. Their old rulers could not be
restored save by force, which Napoleon did not dare to use, and which
Austria, weakened in her finances, and menaced by a Hungarian rising,
was also afraid to apply. The solution of the Italian question in the
opinion of the Queen might be safely left to the natural course of
events, and the duty of England was done when she frankly expressed her
sympathy with the Italian struggle for constitutional freedom. Napoleon,
however, after promising to make Italy “free from the Alps to the
Adriatic,” could hardly leave her to free herself as she was doing. His
engagements to Austria on the other hand rendered it difficult for him
to interfere actively. But it would have suited his convenience
admirably if he were able to interfere with an ally, and on the basis of
a proposal which originated with England, for then he might be able to
offer a plausible excuse for not abiding by the pact of Villafranca. The
game of diplomacy during this period was played, by France insinuating
projects of interference to Lord Palmerston, so that they might seem to
have originated with him, and by Lord Palmerston putting them into Lord
John Russell’s mind, so that Lord John, who was at
[Illustration: THE QUEEN OPENING GLASGOW WATERWORKS AT LOCH KATRINE.]
the Foreign Office, might seem to the Queen to be the originator of
them. There is reason to believe that the Queen quite understood her
Prime Minister’s tactics. Mr. Greville gives a graphic sketch of her
relations to her Ministers during this period of controversy, in his
record of a conversation which he had with Lord Clarendon about a
confidential visit he paid to Osborne in the previous summer. “The
Queen,” writes Mr. Greville, “was delighted to have him (Clarendon) with
her again, and to have a good long confidential talk with him, for it
seems she finds less satisfaction in her intercourse with either
Palmerston or Lord John. The relations of these two are now most
intimate and complete. Palmerston, taking advantage of Russell’s
ignorance of Foreign Affairs, used to suggest a project to him. Russell
would bring this before the Cabinet as his own, and Palmerston would
support it as if the case was quite new to him.” At Osborne Clarendon
“was unfortunately attacked by gout, and confined to his room. He was
sitting there with Lady Clarendon, when Lady Gainsborough came in and
told him that she was desired by the Queen to beg he would, if possible,
move into the next room [the lady-in-waiting’s room] and establish
himself there; that the Queen would come in, when all the ladies present
were to go away and leave
[Illustration: VIEW ON LOCH KATRINE: THE WALK BY THE SHORE.]
her _tête-à-tête_ with him. All this was done, and she remained there an
hour and a half talking over everything, pouring all her confidences
into his ears, and asking for his advice about everything. He said he
had endeavoured to do as much good as he could, by smoothing down her
irritation about things she did not like. As an example, he mentioned
that while the Prince was with him a box was brought in with a despatch
from Lord John which the Prince was to read. He did so with strong marks
of displeasure, and then read it to Clarendon, saying they could not
approve of it, and must return it to Lord John. Clarendon begged him not
to do this; that it was not the way to deal with him, and it would be
better to see what it contained that was really good and proper, and to
suggest emendations as to the rest. He persuaded the Prince to do this,
advised him what to say, and in the end Lord John adopted all the
suggestions they made to him. On another occasion the Queen had received
a very touching letter from the Duchess of Parma, imploring her
protection and good offices, which she had sent to Lord John, desiring
he would write an answer for her to make to it. He sent a very short,
cold answer, which the Queen would not send. She asked Clarendon to
write a suitable one for her, which he did, but insisted that she should
send it to Lord John as her own. She did so, Lord John approved, and so
this matter was settled.”[55]
An “inspired” pamphlet on the “Pope and the Congress” had appeared in
Paris, pointing to a re-arrangement of the Italian Provinces, that not
only alarmed Austria, but caused her to decline to enter the Congress
altogether, unless France would disavow her complicity with such
schemes. The moment, therefore, was opportune for a fresh combination,
and the Emperor’s new plan was one to settle the Italian Question by a
triple alliance between England, France, and Sardinia, which would
guarantee the latter Power against all foreign intervention in Italy. At
a meeting of the Liberal Cabinet this insidious project was broached by
Lord Palmerston[56] on the 3rd of January, who was willing to enter into
it even at the risk of war. The compact was long an affair of mystery,
but light is thrown on it by a letter from Lord Derby to Lord Malmesbury
(January 15th, 1860), in which Lord Derby says, “I return the well-known
handwriting enclosed in your letter of the 13th. The information there
given tallies with what I have received from other quarters, among
others from Madame de Flahault, whom I met at Bretby. The offer of a
_commercial treaty_ was, however, coupled, though she did not tell me
so, with the proposal of an alliance, _offensive and defensive_, with
France, and a joint guarantee of the independence of Central Italy!
Cowley came here specially to urge the adoption of these two measures;
but my latest intelligence is that they were debated in the Cabinet on
Tuesday last, strenuously urged by Palmerston and J. Russell, who had
confidently assured the Cabinet of their success, acquiesced in by
Gladstone, by the double inducement of his Italo-mania and his Free
Trade policy, but on discussion rejected by a majority of the
Cabinet.”[57]
The enlightened obstinacy with which the Queen pressed her objections to
this wild scheme caused it to be abandoned, and for the courage and
tenacity with which she maintained her position at that crisis England
can never be too grateful. She foresaw, what Palmerston ignored, the
inevitable conflict between Prussia and France, which she hoped and
believed would lead to the unification of Germany, and one almost
shudders to think of the position Great Britain would have occupied in
1870, had this offensive and defensive alliance with France been
consummated in 1860. Her Majesty had permitted herself to be dragged by
Palmerston into a war with Russia “for an idea,” with France as an ally.
She could not forget the harsh lesson which that blunder had impressed
on her. She could not forget, as easily as did Palmerston, how that
alliance left England with little control over her action in war, and
still less control over the settlement of the peace which was forced on
her by the sudden desertion of her ally. Thwarted at this point,
Napoleon and Palmerston renewed the attack at another. Persigny came to
Lord John Russell with a suggestion that Austria and France should both
pledge themselves not to interfere in Italy unless under a European
mandate in case of anarchy, and he proposed that this arrangement might
be made “the basis of an agreement between France and England.” The
Queen’s answer was crushing. “If,” she wrote, “France and Austria will
both abstain from interfering in the affairs of Italy, it will be much
the wisest course; but the Queen cannot see why this should require an
agreement to be entered into between France and us, who ought not to
interfere at all.”[58]
As a matter of fact, Austria formally intimated she had no intention of
interfering, and French troops in Rome and Lombardy were the only
foreign troops at the time on Italian territory. But the recklessness of
Palmerston’s intrigues with France cannot be justly appreciated, unless
it is kept in view that Napoleon was now entering into another
arrangement for settling the Italian Question. At Plombières he had
promised Cavour to free Italy from the Alps to the Adriatic on condition
that Sardinia would cede Savoy and Nice to France. This bargain Cavour
repudiated when the Emperor failed to make his word good at Villafranca.
On the 16th of January Victor Emmanuel recalled Cavour to the head of
affairs, and a new compact was made by which Sardinia would cede Nice
and Savoy, as the price of Napoleon’s consent to her annexation of the
revolted Duchies. It is hardly necessary to say that had Lord
Palmerston, who was in ignorance of this compact, contrived to entangle
England in alliance with France, the storm of indignation which swept
over England when the cession of Nice and Savoy was intimated would have
brought about the fall of his Ministry. But when Parliament opened on
the 24th of January, and when Mr. Disraeli, in speaking to the Address,
elicited very plainly the strong feeling of the House against
compromising engagements with France, Lord Palmerston was fortunate in
being able to say that his Government “was totally free from any
engagement whatever with any Foreign Power upon the affairs of Italy.”
He did not deem it necessary to add that for this stroke of luck the
Cabinet owed him no thanks.
The points in the Queen’s Speech which attracted attention after the
Italian Question were the hostilities with China and the Commercial
Treat with France, which Mr. Cobden had negotiated during the fall of
the preceding year. The Treaty with China was to have been ratified at
Pekin. But when our Ambassador attempted to proceed thither he found the
Peiho river blocked, and the Chinese forts not only opened fire, but
repulsed our squadron. A joint expedition was fitted out in conjunction
with France to avenge this defeat, and compel the Chinese Government to
ratify the Treaty at Pekin, and complaints were made that Parliament had
not been consulted before the joint expedition had been decided on. The
history of Mr. Cobden’s Commercial Treaty has been told at great length
elsewhere,[59] so that we need do no more than say it was signed on the
29th of January. Manchester immediately hailed Napoleon III. with the
same effusive admiration that it bestowed on Peel in 1846. The English
press, foreseeing an era of extended trade and permanent peace, ceased
its attacks on the French Emperor, and complimented him so violently,
that M. Baroche told Mr. Cobden its flattery would make the Treaty
unpopular in France. The Treaty was at this stage merely the skeleton of
a reciprocal fiscal arrangement. England gave France coal and iron duty
free. England further agreed to reduce import duties on French wines and
various articles of French manufacture. France, on the other hand,
engaged not only to limit her customs duty to thirty per cent. on the
value of English goods, but by the 13th Article she agreed to convert
_ad valorem_ duties into specific duties by a supplementary convention.
The extent to which, under this Article, duties were reduced would of
course measure the usefulness of the Treaty.
The Treaty, along with the changes in taxation which it would involve,
was explained by Mr. Gladstone in the House of Commons on the 10th of
February. His Budget estimates showed a deficit of over £9,000,000, to
meet which he not only continued the tea and sugar duties, but levied an
Income Tax of 10d. in the pound on incomes over £150 a year, and 7d. on
incomes under that amount. One part of his scheme was to abolish the
Paper duty, but in this he was thwarted by the House of Lords. The
French Treaty compelled him to lower the duty on French spirits and
wines, and to abolish duties on manufactures not subject to excise in
England. He struck 370 articles out of the Tariff list, and reduced and
readjusted those that he retained, which were forty-eight. “The whole of
our recent fiscal history,” according to a high authority on financial
questions, “is a complete vindication of the policy of remitting and
reducing duties, so that nothing should remain on the tariff which did
not contribute a substantial sum to the revenue, and in order that it
might do so, should bear no duty high enough to preclude its passing
into general consumption. By the remissions of 1860 that ideal was
nearly attained. As an example of how the remissions worked, I may
mention that the imports of French wines increased at once by 127 per
cent. on the reduction of the duty. On the whole of the articles on
which the customs duties were repealed in 1860 the immediate increase on
the import duty was 40½ per cent., although the year 1861 was in some
respects a highly unfavourable one in which to judge of the purchasing
capacity of the nation.”[60] This brilliant and successful policy,
however, was opposed bitterly by the Tories and a few Peelites, like Sir
James Graham; and some Whigs, like Lord Clarendon,
[Illustration: THE ROYAL EXCHANGE, MANCHESTER.]
even condemned the policy of the Treaty as unsound.[61] The Queen was
not sanguine about the matter, and the Prince Consort saw in the Treaty
only a device for giving France the supply of coal and iron which she
needed to compete with England in the markets of the world, whereas
England surrendered valuable sources of revenue, without any adequate
compensation. The strongest point against the Treaty was made by Lord
Derby. He complained in the House of Lords that though the arrangement
was based on the assumption that there would be peace between France and
England, the general policy of the Cabinet, as tested by Mr. Gladstone’s
estimates, assumed that war between the two nations was imminent. On a
motion in the House of Commons asserting that it was not expedient to
diminish sources of revenue or add a penny to the Income Tax, the whole
policy of the Treaty and the Budget was challenged, and the opposition
to both defeated by a majority of 116. The theoretical objections to
commercial treaties generally were overcome by Mr. Gladstone’s argument
that by making a small sacrifice of revenue England gained a vast
extension of her export trade. But the real difficulty, of course, lay
in fixing the limits of the duties under the 13th Article of the
Treaty. A Commission was sent to Paris, on which Mr. Cobden agreed to
serve, for the purpose of beating down the duties from the thirty per
cent. maximum to a minimum of as nearly as possible ten per cent., and
it was while this Commission was haggling with the French Commissioners
that Cobden found himself thwarted by the secret hostility of the
Foreign Office, and embarrassed by the bellicose policy of the Cabinet,
which naturally produced ill feeling in France. He resented this action
so bitterly, that he could not bring himself to accept from the
Government the slightest reward for his services as a negotiator after
he had carried out his mission with triumphant success.[62]
At the same time, it is only fair to say that the conduct of Napoleon at
the time was singularly indiscreet. He made it plain that he was about
to annex Nice and Savoy, although when he went to war in Italy he had
protested that he did not seek for extension of territory. The Central
Italian States, however, by voting through their assemblies in favour of
annexation to Sardinia, furnished the French Emperor with an excuse for
annexations, which were only necessary to recompense France for her
expenditure of blood and treasure in the war with Austria. It was
obvious that a great Italian kingdom would now be created in North
Italy, and the Emperor held that he could not leave in its hands the
passes by which France might be invaded. To secure his Alpine frontier,
then, the Emperor insisted on taking Savoy and Nice. The provoking
matter was this: the suggestion that the Central States should by a new
vote in their Assemblies declare their intentions as to their future
came from England. “We are asked,” wrote the Queen, in a sharp letter to
Lord John Russell, “to make proposals about Italy, ‘to lay the basis for
a mutual agreement with France, upon that question, and to enable the
Emperor to release himself from his engagements with Austria.’ In an
evil hour the proposal is made, and is now pleaded as the reason for
France seizing on Savoy.... Sardinia is being aggrandised at the expense
of Austria and the House of Lorraine, and France is to be compensated.
If the passes of the Alps are dangerous to a neighbour, the weaker
power must give them up to the stronger!”[63] The Queen, in fact, feared
that on the same pretext the French Emperor might be led to demand a
rectification of his Rhenish frontier, a demand which she knew must lead
straight to a disastrous European war. A discussion raised by Lord
Normanby in the House of Lords on the 7th of February stirred up the
forces of public opinion against France. As for Cavour, he was helpless.
The consent of France to the enlargement of Sardinia could not be bought
save by the cession of Nice and Savoy, and so they were ceded to France,
despite Cavour’s reluctance, on the 24th of March.
But the Commercial Treaty was not the only project of the Government
which English mistrust of France imperilled. The Ministry was pledged to
bring in a Reform Bill, and at a time when folk were brooding over the
growing restlessness of France, there was little chance of carrying it.
On the 1st of March Lord John Russell expounded his scheme to the House
of Commons for reducing the franchise from £10 to £6, and taking
twenty-five seats from small constituencies returning two members, and
giving them to large constituencies deserving increased representation.
The scheme fell flat in the House of Commons and in the country. It was
cautiously attacked by Mr. Disraeli, who, though he declined to oppose
the Second Reading, suggested that the Bill should be withdrawn. The
supporters of the Ministry had no love for the measure, because if
passed it involved a dissolution. The Second Reading was taken without a
division, but before the stage of Committee was reached Lord John
Russell withdrew the measure, and thus the question of Reform was
shelved for several years to come. Lord John at last admitted that he
had been mistaken in supposing that there was any widespread enthusiasm
for Reform in the country. He, however, failed to see that the
withdrawal of the Bill rendered Palmerston’s tenure of office a little
precarious, for the party of Reform, knowing it could expect no more
from him, had no strong motive for supporting him any further against
the Tories.
In the meantime France was beginning to hint that Prussia should play
the part of Sardinia in Germany. The consent of France, of course, could
be obtained on the same terms as those which Cavour paid for it--the
cession to France of territory on the Rhine. Clearly, it was argued,
Napoleon would give Europe no rest till he had rectified the frontier
assigned to France in 1815, after the fall of the First Empire. Very
soon it became necessary to proclaim that England had no part in these
schemes, and when, on the 26th of March, Lord John Russell declared in
the House of Commons that there was no longer an exclusive alliance with
France, the Queen congratulated him on what was really the triumph of
her own policy. According to her view, a belief that this alliance
existed made the European Powers at all times chary of cooperating with
England. Unfortunately, Lord John Russell’s speech irritated
[Illustration: GENERAL GARIBALDI.]
public opinion in France, and the recriminations of the Press in both
countries caused Persigny to warn Palmerston that war between them would
soon be inevitable. Count Flahault and Lord Palmerston held a
conversation on the subject, in which they discussed the chances of war
in the frankest manner--each vaunting the undeniable superiority of his
country in battle.[64] Count Flahault is supposed to have been impressed
with Palmerston’s demonstration that victory in such a struggle must
rest on English banners, and to have succeeded in soothing down the
angry feeling against England, which then raged at the French Court. The
real reason why all danger of a rupture passed away was that Persigny’s
favourite argument--namely, that war with England meant the
[Illustration: THE CURFEW TOWER, WINDSOR CASTLE.]
destruction of the dynasty--prevailed. Moreover, Napoleon saw plainly
that as every European Power was afraid of France, and as no European
Power had anything to dread from England, Europe in a war between
England and France would not be on the side of the latter Power. But no
sooner did France suggest that the Treaty arrangements of 1815 might be
rectified, than Russia hinted that the same process might be applied
with advantage to the Treaty of 1856. The old pretext for opening up the
Eastern Question--namely, the oppressiveness of the Turkish
Government--lay ready to Russia’s hands. The English Cabinet, in reply
to Russia’s communications on the subject, insisted that the plots of
foreign intriguers in Bosnia, Bulgaria, and Servia were really at the
root of the miseries of the people. Russia, in raising this question,
had assumed that France would help her. But Napoleon’s eyes were fixed
not on the Danube but on the Rhine; so Russian hopes of aid from France
were doomed to disappointment. The next move on the European chess-board
justified the anticipations which the Queen held out after Lord John
Russell’s speech of the 24th of March. Finding that England no longer
leaned solely on France, Austria and Prussia suggested that they should
come to an understanding with England, by which they bound each other to
oppose every future disturbance of frontiers in Europe--a step, however,
which her Majesty shrank from taking. At her suggestion, the Cabinet
agreed to a compact that each of the Powers should give the others
warning of any projected disturbances of territory as soon as they were
heard of, and frankly discuss their bearings; and of these disturbances
one was already imminent in Southern Italy.
“Naples,” Lord Malmesbury writes in his Diary on the 17th of March, “is
in a dreadful state. The tyranny of the present king far exceeds that of
his father, and the exasperation is so great that a revolution may take
place at any moment. But events in the north of Italy have much to say
to these feelings, and naturally encourage the Neapolitans to imitate
them.” In fact, Francis II. had obstinately refused to make the
slightest concession to the popular party in the Kingdom of the Two
Sicilies. Heedless of the revolution in North Italy he upheld in all its
baneful integrity the arbitrary system of his father, King “Bomba.”
Hence in April an insurrection broke out, as Lord Malmesbury predicted,
in Palermo and Messina with the avowed object of joining Sicily to the
new kingdom of Northern Italy. On the 5th of May General Garibaldi, who,
after the cession of his native province of Nice to France, had
renounced all connection with Cavour, sailed from Genoa with 2,000 men
to succour the Sicilian insurgents. “‘Italy and Victor Emmanuel!’” he
said in his proclamation, “that was our battle-cry when we crossed the
Ticino; it will resound to the very depths of Etna.” Landing at Marsala,
he proclaimed himself Dictator in the name of the King of Sardinia, and
Cæsar’s _Veni, vidi, vici_, might well be the record of his triumphal
march to the north. On the 27th he captured Palermo, and then the Island
of Sicily soon passed under his control. Every road was swarming with
patriotic volunteers eager to join Garibaldi’s army, and the Royal
troops, disgusted with the cowardice and incapacity of their leaders,
were wavering in their allegiance to the King. They made a final stand
at Melazzo, after which they took refuge in the citadel of Messina,
where they remained undisturbed at the end of the year. “If we succeed,”
wrote Garibaldi to Victor Emmanuel, “I shall be proud to adorn your
Majesty’s crown with a new and perhaps more brilliant jewel, but always
on the condition that your Majesty will resist your advisers should they
wish to cede this province to the stranger, as they have ceded my native
city, Nice.” The bitter allusion to Cavour’s policy, which had converted
Garibaldi into a Frenchman against his will, is a sufficient answer to
those who have alleged that Cavour was acting at this time in concert
with Garibaldi. The most that can be said is that he knew privately that
a revolutionary attack on the Sicilian monarchy was contemplated, and
finding it to his account to preoccupy Francis II., then threatening
interference in the revolted Roman States, he did not consider it
necessary to prevent Garibaldi’s departure from Genoa.[65] But all the
European Governments believed that Cavour was secretly in league with
Garibaldi, and they pretended to see in the revolution of the Sicilies
an attempt at piratical self-aggrandisement by Sardinia. Sardinian
ambition must be curbed, said the diplomatists; and so Cavour soon found
himself surrounded by embarrassments. Russia hinted at armed
intervention for the protection of the Neapolitan Bourbons. France, in a
paroxysm of virtue, deprecated any extension of Sardinian territory.
England implored Sardinia to take no hand in, and lend no countenance
to, the revolution in the Sicilies, lest France should demand more
compensations in Genoa and the Island of Sardinia itself. When Lord John
Russell pressed this view on the Cabinet of Turin he was probably
ignorant of the fact that Cavour, when he signed the compact ceding
Savoy to France, said, bitterly, “Et maintenant vous voilà nos
complices!” (“Now you are an accomplice”). France had, in fact, been
paid in full for her neutrality; and though Cavour issued a platonic
protest against the conquest of the Sicilies in May, it was obvious that
Victor Emmanuel would never risk his Crown by actively impeding in any
part of Italy the movement for national independence.
The Court of Naples at this crisis seemed paralysed with panic. In
August Garibaldi advanced virtually unopposed, and captured the capital,
the King, with 50,000 troops, retreating to Capua and Gaëta.[66]
Italy, said Mr. Disraeli, in one of the debates in Parliament, “was in a
state far beyond the management of, and settlement of Courts and
Cabinets,” and whilst diplomatists were debating how she could be kept
in bondage, she had freed half of her territory by one daring but
decisive stroke. Flushed with his easy victory, Garibaldi now declared
he would hold South Italy till the whole peninsula was free--till
Austria was expelled from the north-east, and the eagles of France were
chased from the pinnacles of the capital. This declaration forced the
hands of France and Sardinia. Cavour and Napoleon agreed that
intervention in the Papal States and in Naples could not be
postponed.[67] Victor Emmanuel, therefore, summoned the Pope to dismiss
the foreign levies he had organised for the purpose of forcing his
revolted subjects to return to their allegiance. His Holiness refused,
and then Cialdini and Fanti overran Umbria and the Marches, crushed the
Papal army, and forced Lamoriciere to surrender the fortress of Ancona.
Carefully avoiding a collision with Austria and with the French army of
occupation in Rome--a condition attached to the neutrality of Napoleon
III.--the Piedmontese troops marched on to complete the conquest of the
Sicilies, where the King still held out at Gaëta and Capua. When this
had been effected the kingdoms, by a popular vote, decided on annexation
to Sardinia, and Europe acquiesced in the interests of law, order, and
monarchical institutions. Garibaldi, on handing over the Sicilies to
Victor Emmanuel, retired to Caprera, refusing all reward or recompense
for his splendid services to his country, and appealing to Italy to be
ready to renew the struggle for freedom in Venetia next year. But the
prevailing feeling was that a final settlement of the Italian Question
had not yet been arrived at, and would never be arrived at whilst
Austria held Venetia and the French occupied Rome. Knowing well that the
hold of Austria on Venetia was weakened by disaffection in Hungary, the
Emperor of Austria promulgated a general constitution for the Empire,
with separate charters for the various provinces. The scheme, however,
broke down, because it failed to satisfy the popular demand for the
restoration of the rights of Hungary as they existed in 1848.
[Illustration: POPE PIUS IX.]
Early in the summer a remarkable incident in European politics happened
that profoundly agitated the Queen. The French press had suggested that,
provided France was compensated by an extension of frontier on the
Rhine, Prussia might, with her consent, play in Germany the _rôle_
assumed by Sardinia in Italy. When Lord John Russell publicly abandoned
the French alliance, the Queen suggested the substitution for it of an
arrangement between England, Prussia, and Austria, to the effect “that
each should make known to the other two any overture or proposition,
direct, or indirect, which either of the three may receive from France
tending to any change of the existing state of territorial possessions
in Europe, and that no answer should be given to such overture or
proposal until the Government to which it may have been made shall have
had an answer from the other two to the communication so made.”[68]
This arrangement subsisted when the French Emperor suggested to the
Prince Regent of Prussia that they should meet in friendly conference
together at Baden on the 16th of June. The Prince Regent of Prussia met
the French Emperor, not alone, but in company with the Kings of
Wurtemberg, Bavaria, Saxony, and Hanover; the Grand Dukes of Baden,
Saxe-Weimar, and Hesse Darmstadt; and the Dukes of Nassau and
Saxe-Coburg Gotha, and the Prince of Hohenzollern. This, says the
biographer of Prince Bismarck, was a “demonstration for the integrity of
German soil,”[69] and it compelled the French Emperor to suddenly change
his plan, which had been to suggest that Prussia should seize Savoy and
Hanover, and let France rectify her frontier on the Rhine. This design
could not be avowed at such a meeting, so Napoleon contented himself
with assuring the Prince Regent of Prussia that he had no intention of
dissevering any territory from Germany--and giving for the first time
his reasons for violating the pledges of Milan and annexing Nice and
Savoy. The Prince accepted Napoleon’s assurances, saying that he could
immediately restore confidence to Germany by communicating them to the
German sovereigns then in Baden. He also transmitted to the Prince
Consort a private account of the interview, which quite relieved the
anxiety which the conference had caused the Queen.[70]
Following closely on this conference came a letter from the French
Emperor to Persigny for Palmerston’s perusal, in which he strove hard to
reconstruct his English alliance, but to which no other reply was given
than that England gave France credit for good intentions, and would
remain her friend so long as she did not disturb the peace of
Europe.[71] Garibaldi’s invasion of the Sicilies had alarmed Austria.
French conspirators, it was said, were already busy in Hungary and
Russian Poland, and Venetia might be attacked at any moment. In these
circumstances the attitude of Prussia was a matter of supreme concern to
Austria. The unrest of Poland rendered it inconvenient for Russia to
help Austria. Could she hope to induce Prussia to assist her in coercing
her mutinous subjects? The meeting of the Emperor of Austria and the
Prince Regent of Prussia at Töplitz was watched with intense interest by
the Queen, who knew how fatal it would be for Germany if Prussia
suffered herself to be entangled in the non-German affairs of Austria.
The Austrian Emperor, however, did not ask for Prussian aid in the event
of Venetia being attacked by France or Italy, unless, as he hoped,
Prussia “after negotiations,” saw in such an attack a common danger. The
real danger to Prussia was that Austria, after getting a promise of
assistance, might provoke France to attack Italy; but as a matter of
fact, the Prince Regent kept clear of all engagements with Austria at
this interview, about which so much mystery was raised at the time.
According to the private account of it given by the Prince of Prussia to
the Prince Consort, it only led to an exchange of ideas, and to certain
vague promises on the part of the Emperor Francis Joseph, that he would
grant reforms to his provinces.[72] After the fall of the Neapolitan
dynasty had been brought about, the French Emperor let it be known that
whilst he approved of the creation of a strong Italian kingdom, he would
not defend Italy if she attacked Austria. It was, indeed, the knowledge
of this fact which enabled Cavour to hold the Italian Revolution in
hand, for even Garibaldi was not so reckless as to rush into war against
Austria without allies. Still, the Austrians put little faith in
Napoleon’s assurances, and on the 25th of October a meeting between the
rulers of Austria, Russia, and Prussia was held at Warsaw to discuss the
situation.
The rumour which immediately flew round was that the Holy Alliance was
to be revived, that the three Powers were to combine for the revision of
the Treaty of 1856, and, having isolated England, to coerce all
struggling nationalities, and defend Austria in Venetia and Hungary.
This rumour was quite unfounded. The Powers did agree, however, that if
Austria, attacked in Venetia, proved victorious and re-conquered
Lombardy, she could not be asked beforehand to give back Lombardy to
Italy, though the fate of that province might properly be determined by
a Peace Congress. The Prince Regent of Prussia insisted that England
must be kept informed of all their transactions in such a Congress. But
at this meeting there was a decided tendency to isolate England because
of Lord John Russell’s despatch of the 27th of October, and the Russian
Czar pressed forward Prince Gortschakoff’s idea, which was that by
conciliating France, a quadruple alliance might be formed against the
progress of revolution, which Lord John Russell was supposed to have
stimulated. The objection of the Prince Regent of Prussia--who, like the
Austrian Emperor, thought that France ought to give new guarantees
against raising revolutionary disturbances in Europe--to act save in
concert with England, was, however, fatal to Prince Gortschakoff’s
schemes. Prussia, in fact, held obstinately to the opinion that the
friendship of England was of vital importance to the defence of Germany
against French encroachments. These facts are worth noting, for they
explain the just indignation of the Queen against a series of attacks on
Prussia which at this inopportune moment began to appear in the _Times_.
They preyed on the mind of the Prince Consort to such an extent that the
Queen asserts his health gave way, which but served to add to her
sorrows and anxieties.
Yet it is but just to say that the _Times_ was not entirely to blame.
The conduct of the Prussian Government in a matter of painful dispute
between the administrations of the two countries was far from
satisfactory. In September a certain Captain Macdonald quarrelled with
the railway authorities at Bonn about a seat in a railway carriage. He
was violently dragged from his place and cast into prison with arbitrary
brutality. The Public Prosecutor, in dealing with his case, had publicly
accused English residents and travellers in Germany of being notorious
for “rudeness, impudence, and boorish arrogance;” and as the Queen and
her husband were, a few days after that speech was delivered, themselves
tourists in Germany, the Public Prosecutor’s insolence was felt to be
peculiarly obnoxious. The Queen herself, in an entry in her Journal made
during her German tour, says, “Saw Lord John on the subject of a
vexatious circumstance which took place about three weeks ago--namely, a
dispute on the railway at Bonn, and the ejection and imprisonment
(unfairly, it seems) of a Captain Macdonald, and the subsequent
offensive behaviour of the authorities. It has led to ill blood and much
correspondence; but Lord John is very reasonable about it, and not
inclined to do anything rash. These foreign Governments are very
arbitrary and violent, and people are apt to give offence and to pay no
regard to the laws of the country.”[73] Baron Schlenitz, says the Prince
Consort in a letter to Stockmar, “took it [the dispute] very lightly;”
whereas, on the other hand, Lord Palmerston demanded that the judge who
sentenced Captain Macdonald to imprisonment should be dismissed, and
reparation made to the Captain, otherwise diplomatic relations would be
broken off with Prussia. But the Prussian Government kept this
irritating business open for several
[Illustration: VOLUNTEER REVIEW IN THE QUEEN’S PARK, EDINBURGH.
(_From the Print published by Messrs. McFarlane and Erskine,
Edinburgh._)]
months; in fact, they did not settle the affair till May, 1861, and thus
the English Press could not be altogether blamed if its criticisms of
Prussian diplomacy were somewhat caustic.
Springing from the unrest of Europe we find in 1860 a great popular
movement in England in favour of national defence. This found expression
in two forms--in Palmerston’s Fortification Scheme and the rapid
increase of the Volunteer Force. Both schemes were watched by the Queen
with the closest attention, and both were furthered by her to the utmost
of her power, though one of them very nearly shattered the Ministry. In
an article on the History of 1852-60, Mr. Gladstone comments on the
silent conflict that went on during 1860 between the policy that found
expression in the Commercial Treaty with France, and that which was
typified by the Fortification Scheme of Lord Palmerston.[74] The
annexation of Nice and Savoy alarmed the country, and convinced even
Lord Palmerston that the French Emperor had a fixed idea that it was his
mission to rectify the frontier assigned to France in 1815. This might
lead him to cast a hungry eye on Belgium, where already French
intriguers were busy. As Mr. Tennyson sang, in the poem the publication
of which in the _Times_ of the previous year evoked the Volunteer Force,
the word went round:--
“Form! be ready to do or die!
Form! in Freedom’s name and the Queen’s!
True, that we have a faithful ally,
But only the Devil knows what he means.”
France was increasing her army and her navy. The Report of a Royal
Commission on National Defences had early in the year recommended the
construction of fortifications to protect our arsenals and places of
arms. The Cabinet resolved to spend £9,000,000 in carrying out these
works, the money to be raised by a loan to be repaid in twenty years.
The vast fiscal changes involved by the Treaty were based on the
supposition that France would be at peace with us. Yet the Fortification
Scheme clearly rested on the assumption that France would soon involve
us in war. In defence of this contradictory policy Mr. Gladstone writes,
“like the builders of the Second Temple, grasping their tool with one
hand and the sword with the other, we with one hand established
commercial relations with France of unexampled amity and closeness,
while with the other we built ships, constructed fortifications, and
founded volunteers with a silent but well-understood and exclusive view
to an apprehended invasion from France.”[75] He goes on to say that the
augmentation of our forces in 1860 had the advantage “of strengthening
the position of England in the councils of Europe with respect to the
reconstitution of Italy.” But, at the time, he was by no means
favourably disposed to this military expenditure. Lord Palmerston told
the Queen that Mr. Gladstone was threatening to resign if it were
sanctioned; adding that, however much that was to be regretted, “it
would be better to lose Mr. Gladstone than to run the risk of losing
Portsmouth or Plymouth.” He was not satisfied in fact that the danger
was so great as Palmerston and the Party of Panic imagined. He did not
like the mode of raising the money which was proposed. “The struggle in
the forum of his conscience,” writes Mr. Morley, “was long and
severe;”[76] but finally he decided he could do more for the taxpayers’
interest by remaining in the Cabinet and influencing it than by
resigning office; and trivial concessions were made to him which allayed
his scruples. The Prince Consort, writing on the 31st of July to Baron
Stockmar, says, “Gladstone continues in the Ministry, but on the
condition that he shall be free next year to attack and denounce the
fortifications, to the construction of which he this year gives his
assent and the money. Palmerston laughingly yielded this condition to
him.” Accordingly, on the 23rd of July, a resolution was carried in the
House of Commons authorising £2,000,000 to be raised on annuities
terminable in thirty years--this sum being enough to cover the
expenditure possible within the year. Lord Palmerston, in speaking to
the resolution, attacked France with great spirit, though it is unlikely
that if France had really evil designs at the time on England, she would
have given the Government even a year’s grace in which to begin their
costly coast-fortification. One reason why Mr. Gladstone was hostile to
a Fortification Scheme was that it upset all his financial arrangements.
It created a feeling against sacrificing revenue, of which so much had
already been surrendered to carry out the French Treaty.
It was soon evident that the proposal to abolish the Paper Duty was
unpopular in Parliament, and when it passed the third reading by a
majority of nine only, Lord Palmerston warned the Queen, who was on the
side of the minority on this occasion, that the House of Lords would
probably reject it. The Cabinet was not united on the subject, for Lord
Malmesbury states that he was deputed to tell Lady Palmerston that the
Opposition meant to reject it, “for which she thanked us.” Nay, he was
deputed to go further, and promise her their support in the event of Mr.
Gladstone and Mr. Milner Gibson and Lord John Russell resigning either
over the failure of the Paper Duty scheme, or over the withdrawal of the
Reform Bill. When both events became inevitable, the Cabinet was
severely shaken, and all through the early days of June it was expected
that it would be broken up. When the Lords rejected the Paper Duty Bill,
Mr. Gladstone threatened to resign unless the Government and the House
of Commons censured them for meddling with a Bill relating to taxation.
The Peers, however, though they have not the right to initiate Bills
dealing with taxation, have always claimed the right of rejecting them,
and the Commons’ Privilege Committee in their Report of the 29th of June
admitted this right. However, to pacify Mr. Gladstone and the Radicals,
Lord Palmerston introduced a series of Resolutions on the 6th of July in
a speech which Lord Derby said was “the best tight-rope dancing he ever
saw.”[77] These Resolutions affirmed once more the exclusive right of
the House of Commons to impose and remit taxes, and to frame Bills of
Supply, but did not challenge the claim of the Peers to reject them--and
they were carried by a vote of 177 to 138.
[Illustration: THE VOLUNTEER CAMP, WIMBLEDON.]
The feeling of mistrust against France had given a strong impetus to the
Volunteer movement in the country, and in 1860 this found vent in the
great review of the citizen army in Hyde Park, and the formation of the
National Rifle Association at Wimbledon. The review was held on the 23rd
of June, and 20,000 men from all parts of the country attended. The
Queen appeared on the ground at four o’clock in the afternoon with the
King of the Belgians, the Princess Alice, and Prince Arthur, the Prince
Consort riding beside her carriage. In two hours it was over--belying
the Duke of Wellington’s historic doubt whether we had a general who
could get so many men into Hyde Park and out again without “clubbing”
and confusion. Lord Malmesbury says, “I went to Mr. Disraeli’s house in
Grosvenor Gate to see the sight, which was very fine. The enthusiasm of
the men and spectators exceeded all description. There were 20,000
Volunteers, all young men between eighteen and thirty.
[Illustration: THE QUEEN AT WIMBLEDON.]
They went through their evolutions with the greatest steadiness and
precision, and at the final advance in line, when they halted within a
short distance of the Queen, and the bands had ceased playing ‘God Save
the Queen,’ they raised a cheer that might be heard for miles. This was
taken up by the spectators, and the scene was so exciting that the Queen
was quite overcome, and I saw many people the same.”[78] On the 7th of
July her Majesty opened the first meeting of the National Rifle
Association on Wimbledon Common, under the first sunny summer sky of a
peculiarly bleak season. Mr. Whitworth[79] had adjusted one of his
rifles so neatly that when her Majesty pulled the trigger and fired the
first shot at 400 yards she scored a bull’s-eye.[80] Her own prize,
conferring the Champion Marksmanship of England on the winner, was
carried off by Mr. Edward Boss, of the 7th North York Rifles, with a
score of twenty-four points--the greatest possible score being sixty.
The public interest in the meeting, which was, in a sense, a great
volunteer picnic, was indicated by the fact that the admission money
(1s. a head) taken in six days from visitors amounted to £2,000.
Later in the season (7th of August) a grand review of the Scottish
Volunteers was held in the Queen’s Park, Edinburgh, where the smooth
plain on which Holyrood stands picturesquely surrounded by hills and
crags, forms a natural amphitheatre admirably adapted for the popular
enjoyment of a military pageant. All Scotland, so to speak, swarmed into
Edinburgh, to be present at the scene, and contingents even from the
Orkneys and Shetlands and the “storm-tossed Hebrides” were represented
in the ranks of the great citizen army of the northern kingdom. It was
said at the time that Scotland--always a military nation--must have a
mania for volunteering, because she sent more troops to the review than
passed the Queen at Hyde Park. The Queen herself remarked this fact, and
her suite, who had seen the display in Hyde Park, were struck with the
superior _physique_ and drill of the men, though somewhat surprised that
the Highland costume was worn by so few even of the Highland Regiments.
The Queen was accompanied by her mother, the Duchess of Kent, then
living at Cramond, near Edinburgh, the Prince Consort, the Princess
Alice, and Prince Arthur. The Prince Consort rode on the right of her
carriage, and the Duke of Buccleuch, as Captain of the Royal Body-Guard
of Scottish Archers--a corps consisting entirely of nobles and
gentlemen, who have the exclusive right of watching over the Royal
person north of the Tweed--rode on the left hand. The programme was the
same as at Hyde Park, but the surroundings and the enthusiasm of the
troops and the myriads of spectators who covered the hillsides, made the
spectacle more impressive. “It was magnificent,” wrote the Queen to King
Leopold; “finer decidedly than in London.”
Many interesting family events rendered the year 1860 memorable to the
Queen. Of these, one of the most important was the tour of the Prince of
Wales in Canada--a visit which had been promised during the Crimean War,
in answer to a deputation which had invited the Queen to go to the
Colony,[81] and, without avail, begged her to appoint one of her sons
Governor-General.[82] In spring it was decided that the Prince should
proceed to the Far West under the care of the Duke of Newcastle,
Secretary of State for the Colonies, and when the news reached America,
Mr. Buchanan, President of the United States, invited the Prince to
visit the Republic, promising him such a warm welcome as would be most
pleasing to the Queen. The invitation was accepted, but it was intimated
that on his tour the Prince would drop all Royal state and travel under
one of his Scottish titles--Baron Renfrew. On the 2nd of August his
Royal Highness received a hearty greeting from the people of St. John’s,
Newfoundland, the rough fishermen and their wives being especially
enthusiastic in their loyalty. On the 7th, at Halifax, he was pelted
with flowers by cheering crowds till, the Duke of Newcastle said, their
carriage was rapidly filled up with bouquets; in fact, all through
Canada the welcome given to the Queen’s son for the Queen’s sake was
cordial in the extreme. One of the most picturesque incidents of the
tour was the visit to Niagara by night, the Falls being illuminated by
Bengal lights. These were first of all placed between the Falls and the
rock over which they tumble, and turned as if by magic the vast sheet of
water into a mass of incandescent silver, the boiling river itself
gleaming with phosphorescent tints, and the spray rising high in the air
as a thick luminous cloud. Then when the white lights were changed to
crimson, the Falls and rapids were transformed into a seething lurid
river of blood, and the spectators were awed into silence by the
terrific grandeur of the scene. When the Prince crossed to the United
States the people there strove to outdo the Canadian welcome. It was
laughingly said that he would be lucky if he got out of the country
without being asked to “run for President” next year, and the accounts
which the Queen received of the splendid reception at Chicago deeply
moved her. At Cincinnati and St. Louis the crowds were still greater and
more enthusiastic, though quieter and more staid in demeanour than those
in Canada. On the 3rd of October the Prince visited President Buchanan
at Washington, and in company with him stood uncovered before the tomb
of Washington--who had wrested the independence of the continent from
his great-grandfather. In New York no monarch of ancient or modern times
could have received a warmer ovation from his own people, and the
reception at Boston, if less effusive, was not less cordial. The Duke of
Newcastle, in reporting on the results of the tour, attributed its
success first, to the growing feeling of goodwill that was springing up
between Americans and Englishmen--a feeling, alas! to be soon rudely
disturbed by the ungenerous support which the aristocratic classes gave
to the secession of the Southern Slave States, and secondly, added the
Duke, to the “very remarkable love for your Majesty personally, which
pervaded all classes in this country, and which has acted like a spell
upon them when they found your Majesty’s son actually among them.” The
Prince of Wales, in fact, embodied for the American people the romance
of their ancestral past--and their hearts warmed to him from the moment
he set foot on their territory. The President also wrote to the Queen,
telling her how the Prince had passed through the ordeal of the
[Illustration: PRESIDENT BUCHANAN.]
visit--always dignified, always frank, always affable, so that he
“conciliated, wherever he has been, the kindness and respect of a
sensitive and discriminating people.”[83] The Queen in her reply said
that her son could not sufficiently extol the great cordiality with
which he had been received, and she went on to say, “Whilst as a mother
I am most grateful for the kindness shown him, I feel impelled to
express, at the same time, how deeply I have been touched by the many
demonstrations of affection towards myself personally which his presence
has called forth.”[84] The Duke of Newcastle had taken grave
responsibilities on him in connection with the visit, and, as Dr. Acland
told Mr. Charles Sumner, it was therefore for him a personal triumph.
The Queen was evidently of the same opinion, because, on his return,
she testified her appreciation of the tact with which the Duke had
managed the tour by conferring on him the Order of the Garter. A similar
visit paid by Prince Alfred to Cape Town evoked similar expressions of
goodwill from the colonists. Writing to Stockmar the Prince Consort
speaks of the curious coincidence which, in almost the same week, caused
one brother to open the great bridge across the St. Lawrence, and the
other to lay the foundation stone of the breakwater in Cape Town harbour
at the other end of the world. “What a cheering picture,” he writes, “is
here of the progress and expansion of the British race, and of the
useful co-operation of the Royal Family in the civilisation which
England has developed and advanced.”[85]
[Illustration: FROGMORE HOUSE.
(_From a Photograph by J. Valentine and Sons, Dundee._)]
Early in May the Royal Family were visited by Prince Louis of
Hesse-Darmstadt, between whom and the Princess Alice “a natural liking”
had grown up, which was destined to ripen into a warmer feeling. “The
Queen and myself,” observes the Prince Consort in a letter to Baron
Stockmar, “look on as passive spectators, which is undoubtedly our best
course as matters at present stand.” It was, however, an open secret
that they favoured the alliance. In the following November, Prince Louis
came to Windsor as a formal suitor for the hand of the Princess. In her
“Leaves from a Journal” the Queen herself tells the story of the wooing
on the 30th of November. “After dinner,” she says, “while talking to the
gentlemen, I perceived Alice and Louis talking before the fireplace more
earnestly than usual, and when I passed to go to the other room, both
came up to me, and Alice in much agitation said he had proposed to her,
and he begged for my blessing. I could only squeeze his hand and say
‘Certainly,’ and that we would see him in our room later.... Alice came
to our room--agitated but quiet.... Albert sent for Louis to his
room--went first to him, and then called Alice and me in.... Louis has a
warm, noble heart. After talking a little we parted, a most touching,
and, to me, sacred moment.”
The autumnal sojourn at Balmoral was shortened by the Queen’s decision
to visit Germany, where she had now a little grand-daughter added to the
Royal circle. On the 22nd of September the Queen, Prince Consort, and
Princess Alice left Buckingham Palace for Gravesend, Lord John Russell
being Minister in attendance. The flat scenery of the Scheldt, which was
speedily reached, struck her Majesty as being in ugly contrast to the
romantic grandeur of the Aberdeenshire mountains. At Verviers the tour
was saddened by the news of the death of the Dowager Duchess of Coburg,
the Prince Consort’s stepmother. At Aix-la-Chapelle the Prince’s valued
friend, the Prince Regent of Prussia, and his brother, Prince Frederick
Charles, met them; and at Frankfort they were joined by the Princess of
Prussia and Prince Frederick William. As they neared Coburg the Queen
says she felt quite agitated when her husband began to identify each
scene and spot with his life in his old home, now darkly shadowed by
mourning. The Princess Frederick William was here, however, and brought
“the darling little grandchild” for the Queen’s inspection--“such a
darling little love,” writes her Majesty--“a fine, fat child, with a
beautiful white, soft skin, very fine shoulders and limbs, and a very
dear face, like Vicky and Fritz, and also Louise of Baden. He has
Fritz’s eyes and Vicky’s mouth, and very fair, curly hair.” A meeting
with Stockmar, then old and feeble, but fresh in heart and spirits, also
enhanced the enjoyment of the visit. After a fortnight’s residence, the
Queen writes, “Our English people are enchanted with everything, with
the beauty of the country, and of the palaces, the quiet simplicity of
the people, &c.” On the 1st of October the Prince Consort narrowly
escaped being killed. The horses of his carriage ran away with him, and
to save his life he had to jump out when he saw that a collision with a
barrier across the road was inevitable. He was bruised badly, though not
seriously injured. The Queen however, was much alarmed. “Oh! God,” she
writes, “what did I not feel! I could only, and do only, allow the
feelings of gratitude, not those of horror, at what might have happened,
to fill my mind;” and in testimony of her
[Illustration: THE QUEEN AND HER LITTLE GRANDSON, PRINCE WILHELM OF
PRUSSIA.]
gratitude she established a foundation, called the “Victoria-Stift,” in
Coburg. The “Victoria-Stift” consisted of the investment of 12,000
florins (£1,000) in the names of the Burgomaster and chief clergyman of
Coburg. Every year, on the 1st of October--the anniversary of the
Prince’s escape--the interest from this sum is divided among certain
young men and women to help them in their occupations and assist them to
earn a livelihood. Old family friends and all picturesque places in the
neighbourhood were visited; and the Queen’s grandchild, the little
Prince Wilhelm of Prussia, seems to have been a source of never-failing
delight to her Majesty. But on the 9th of October the enjoyment of these
quiet days came to an end, and the Queen and her husband left a spot
endeared to them by many sweet remembrances. This fortnight, writes the
Queen, “with its joys and sorrows, and the fearful episode of my dearest
Albert’s accident, will be for ever deeply engraven on my heart.” On the
return journey they were joined by the Prince Regent of Prussia, who
travelled with them to Mayence. Rain spoiled the beauties of the Rhine;
but when Coblentz was reached the Princess of Prussia was waiting to
solace the Royal Party, who arrived, wet, chilled, and uncomfortable.
The Queen, in fact, had caught a cold, and illness and depression of
spirits due to the parting from her daughter and her beloved grandchild,
Prince Wilhelm, robbed the rest of her holiday of all enjoyment. When
she reached Brussels she could hardly walk, and had to keep to her room
and comfort herself with the “Mill on the Floss” for a day, whilst Dr.
Bayly was treating her for a feverish sore throat. After a dismally
rainy voyage the Royal travellers reached Windsor on the 17th of
October. “Already a week since we left Coburg,” writes the Queen, “and
the dear happy days there belong to the treasured recollections of the
past!”[86]
Politically, though the year had been eventful, it was not without its
compensations. The dying embers of the Indian Mutiny had been
extinguished. The war with China had ended with the capture of Pekin,
the destruction of the Summer Palace, and the ratification of the
Convention of Tchung-Kow and the Treaty of Tien-tsin[87] (24th of
October). “At home with ourselves and with our colonies,” Prince Albert
says in a letter to Stockmar (28th December), “we have every reason to
be satisfied.” One event, indeed, brought grief to the Queen and her
family. This was the death of the venerable Earl of Aberdeen, on the
14th of December. Lord Aberdeen was not only the trusted Minister, but
the valued personal friend of the Queen and her husband. His experience
of public affairs extended from the close of the war with Napoleon to
the beginning of the war with Russia, and no English Minister in modern
times enjoyed in a higher degree the respect and confidence of foreign
Governments and Sovereigns. His stainless integrity and scrupulous
honesty won the confidence of the Prince Consort. The high moral courage
which led him to speak the truth in public, however unpalatable and
unpopular it might be, so endeared him to the Queen that she expressed
her admiration for it on the only occasion when she rebuked him for an
impolitic indulgence in this virtue. Though a Peelite, he differed from
his leader in having greater foresight, and a firmer grip of principle.
Aberdeen did not, like Peel, work aimlessly from sheer expediency. He
had a theory, a guiding idea, which, rightly or wrongly, always pushed
him far in advance of his Party. This theory was that the less people
were meddled with by governments, the happier and more prosperous would
they become. He carried his principle of non-intervention from foreign
to home policy, and acted on the conviction that more good was to be
done by repealing old laws, than by enacting new ones. For the salvation
of the people, he trusted to independence rather than patronage--to
liberty rather than protection. He was blamed for buttressing the petty
despotisms of the Continent, but he was blamed unjustly. He shrank from
shedding English blood, and wasting English treasure in helping
revolutionary movements, and he did so for two reasons. Nations worthy
of freedom, he thought, must free themselves; the patronage of
revolutionary movements must sooner or later involve England in war with
all the Great Powers of Europe. His failure to avert the Crimean War
need not here be dwelt on. It was the great blot on his career. Yet it
is but due to his memory to say, as even Mr. Disraeli admitted, that if
Lord Aberdeen had been head of a Cabinet the members of which all shared
his views, and were all loyal in supporting his policy, the Crimean War
would probably never have broken out. If Aberdeen had been master in his
Cabinet, if he had been served at Constantinople by a loyal Ambassador,
and at St. Petersburg by an Envoy who could have opposed with his own
tact, patience, and cool common sense the monomaniacal ideas and
arguments of the Czar, the conflict between Russia and England could
have been averted.[88]
[Illustration: THE QUEEN’S PRIVATE SITTING-ROOM, OSBORNE.
(_From a Photograph by Hughes and Mullins, Ryde._)]