CHAPTER V.

WAR AND FAMINE.

Outbreak of Civil War in the United States--Origin of the

Dispute--The Missouri Compromise--Effect of the “Gold Rush” on the

Extension of Slavery--Colonising Nebraska--The Struggle in

“Bleeding Kansas”--Assault on Senator Sumner--The Wyandotte

Constitution--The Dred Scott Case--Election of Mr. Lincoln as

President--Secession of South Carolina--Organisation of the

Southern Confederacy--The Firing of the First Shot--Capture of Fort

Sumter--Lincoln’s Call to Arms--Opinion in England--The _Trent_

Affair--The Queen and the Prince Consort avert War--Opening of

Parliament--Bitter Controversy over the Education Code--Parliament

and the Civil War--The Cotton Famine--A Relief Bill--War

Expenditure--Mr. Disraeli denounces Lord Palmerston’s “Bloated

Armaments”--A Budget without a Surplus--The Fortifications at

Spithead--Floating _versus_ Fixed Forts--A Mexican

Adventure--Revolution in Greece--Bismarck’s Visit to

London--Anecdote of Bismarck and Mr. Disraeli--Progress of the

American War--Mr. Peabody’s Benefactions--The Exhibition of

1862--The Prince of Wales’s Tour in the East--The Hartley Colliery

Accident--Marriage of the Princess Alice--The Queen’s Visit to

Belgium--Her Meeting with the Princess Alexandra of Denmark--The

Queen’s Visit to Gotha--Removal of the Prince Consort’s Remains to

the Mausoleum at Frogmore.

The closing days of 1861 and the opening days of 1862 were days of

feverish excitement. The citizens of the United States were locked in

the deadly and fratricidal strife of Civil War. The passions and

prejudices which divided them into hostile armies, divided their kith

and kin in England into hostile factions. In America the fight between

North and South was waged on the field of battle. In England it was

carried on in the Press, on the Platform, on the floor of the Senate, in

Clubs, in drawing-rooms, by road and rail, in the market-places of the

great cities, and in the ale-houses of quiet rural villages. Roughly

speaking, the classes as opposed to the masses took the side of the

South. Those who view public affairs from the standpoint of privileged

as distinguished from national and popular interests, and who can always

command the facile advocacy of what may be termed the organs of

well-dressed opinion in the London Press, were nearly all arrayed

against the North. At the end of 1861 the nation watched the struggle

with breathless interest, for events had happened which rendered it

probable that England might be dragged into it.

When the United States formed themselves into a Federal Republic each

State dealt as it pleased with the question of slavery. But when new

Territories were annexed it was difficult to say whether slavery should

or should not be recognised in them. The people of the slave States

argued that under the Federal Constitution a citizen of any State had

the right to settle in and transfer his property to any of the partially

organised Territories which were owned in common by all the States.

Slaves were property. Therefore a citizen who had slaves had a right to

hold them in any of the Territories. Soon, however, Territories became

sufficiently populous to be admitted as States. In that case was

slavery to be recognised in them? During the Presidency of Mr. Monroe

(1816) this difficulty became acute. A Bill authorising the Territory of

Missouri to form itself into a State was introduced. Mr. Talmage, of New

York, proposed to insert a clause converting the Territory into a Free

State. The controversy raised on the point was settled in 1820 by the

adoption of what was called “The Missouri Compromise” by which slavery

was prohibited in new States north of latitude 36° 30´. The

slave-owners’ party endeavoured, by making war on Mexico, to increase

the territory available for slavery, and under the Presidency of General

Taylor, who was elected in 1849, they persuaded Congress to virtually

abandon the Missouri Compromise, and permit all Territories, in the

event of becoming States, to decide for themselves whether or not they

should recognise slavery. They based their hopes on the aggressive

activity of their squatters. It was supposed that they would pour more

rapidly into the new Territories than emigrants from the Free States,

and thus in every _plébiscite_ turn the scale in favour of slavery. And

but for an accident the policy of the Southern leaders would have

triumphed, and slavery would not only have been established in the new

Territories contiguous to the Southern States, but even in the

North-West itself. This accident was the discovery of gold in

California. The “gold rush” from the Free States to the Pacific Coast

was not a migration but an exodus, and long ere the Southern squatter

could settle in force in these regions, they were swarming with citizens

from New England. In the Pacific Territories, where slavery must have

been legalised had the Missouri Compromise not been upset by Southern

politicians, it was prohibited by popular vote, and in 1850 California

joined the Union as a Free State. Meanwhile the Fugitive Slave Law had

created much ill-feeling between the Free and other Slave States.[124]

Some of them, like Massachusetts, prohibited its enforcement. But the

two great parties were agreed in abiding by the Fugitive Law, and

maintaining slavery in _statu quo_. During the administration of

President Pierce (who was elected in 1852) the conflict over the

organisation of Kansas and Nebraska into Territories disturbed the

_status quo_. Their people had it in their power to determine the

question of slavery for themselves, and to control the popular vote in

favour of slavery. Missouri, which was a Slave State, therefore poured

pro-slavery emigrants into both Territories. It was alleged that most of

these were sham settlers, and that the pro-slavery vote was tainted by

terrorism and fraud. But be that as it may, a Territorial government in

favour of slavery was organised in Nebraska and Kansas, and President

Pierce appointed Governors pledged to secure the ultimate admission of

these Territories to the Union as Free States. To defeat this

policy settlers from the Free States migrated to Nebraska and

Kansas--“bleeding Kansas,” as it was called in the North--and they were

supplied with arms and money to defend themselves against the “border

ruffians” from Missouri, who naturally objected to their company.

Ultimately there came to be two rival governments in the Territories,

and when in 1856 the anti-slavery party elected their own State

officers, and repudiated all that had been done in the interests of

slavery, President Pierce ordered the Governor to call on Federal troops

to enforce the pro-slavery laws of the Territory.

[Illustration: MR. LINCOLN.]

During the debates in Congress on this subject, Senator Sumner happening

to make a strong speech in favour of the anti-slavery party in Kansas,

was brutally assaulted in his place in the Senate by a slave-owner

called Brooks, a senator from South Carolina. “To me,” said Sir George

Cornewall Lewis of this outrage, writing to Sir Edmund Head, “it seems

the first blow in a civil war,” and it was. In 1857 Mr. Buchanan was

elected President. The Supreme Court of the United States, in the famous

Dred Scott case, decided that negroes had no rights save those which the

Government gave them, and that Congress could no more prohibit a citizen

from taking his slave into any State, than it could prohibit him from

taking there any kind of property whose safe possession was guaranteed

to him by the Constitution.[125] This, of course, intensified the

struggle between North and South for the control of Nebraska and

“bleeding Kansas.” Southern slave-owners saw that they must have an

outlet for their surplus slave population. If they lost Kansas and

Nebraska they must seize Cuba or Mexico, or both, or secede from a Union

in which the Slave States would be in a minority, and at the mercy of

the Free States. The struggle went on till, in 1859, Kansas adopted, by

a majority of 4,000, the Wyandotte Constitution, prohibiting slavery.

President Buchanan seems to have prepared for the worst, because he now

began secretly to pour munitions of war and arms, which were the common

property of the North and the South, into Southern strongholds. The

Democratic party split into a Southern and a Northern wing over the Dred

Scott case, so that in November, 1859, the Republicans elected Mr.

Abraham Lincoln as President, pledged to maintain the principle that

freedom was the normal condition of the Territories, which Congress must

preserve and defend--though slavery in the old Slave States was not

assailed as a domestic institution.

The difference between North and South was thus sharp and clear. The

North desired to maintain the _status quo_ with regard to slavery, and

to prohibit the extension of its area. The South demanded the extension

of its area into the Territories, and all new States that might be

carved out of them. Lincoln’s election was followed, at the beginning of

1860, by the secession of South Carolina. By the end of February, 1861,

her example was imitated by Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas,

Georgia, and Alabama. Tennessee, North Carolina, Arkansas, Kentucky, and

Missouri were wavering. When Congress met, President Buchanan, in his

last Message, explained how events were drifting, denied the right of

the Southern States to secede, but doubted the power of Congress to levy

war on seceding States. The Crittenden compromise was now proposed, but

it came too late.[126] Another attempt was made to conciliate the South

by an amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting Congress from ever

meddling with slavery in the United States. By this time the seceding

States had met at Montgomery, and had organised the Government of the

Confederate States of America. The constitution adopted differed from

that of the United States in that it recognised slavery, extended the

term of the President’s office, and prohibited tariffs for other

purposes than raising revenue.[127] Being producers, not of manufactured

goods, but of raw material, the governing class in the South were

naturally Free Traders. Mr. Jefferson Davis was chosen President, and

Mr. Alexander H. Stephen Vice-President, and their Government prepared

to carry on war. In Congress, the withdrawal of the Southern

representatives enabled the Republicans by large majorities to admit

Kansas as a Free State, to organise Nevada, Colorado, and Dakota as

Territories, and to adopt a new protective tariff mainly in the

interests of the Eastern States and Pennsylvania.

With the exception of two or three small forts, the Government of the

seceding States took quiet possession of all fortresses and places of

arms in their territory. This was easily done, because in most instances

the officers in command, though holding Federal commissions, betrayed

their masters. Major Anderson, however, was an exception. He held Fort

Sumter, in Charleston Harbour, for the Federal Government. Mr. Lincoln

was inaugurated as President on 4th of March, 1861. In his Message to

Congress he said that the Government was determined to relieve Fort

Sumter, and whilst denying the right of the South to secede, he asserted

the right of the Federal Government to preserve the Union. On the 13th

of April, 1861, Fort Sumter was attacked by the rebel, or Confederate

forces, and on the 14th it surrendered. On the 15th Lincoln issued his

first call for troops, and by this time only an insignificant section of

the Democratic Party remained true to their principle that secession was

a constitutional right, and that the Federal Government had no legal

authority to coerce a State. Within a fortnight after the first shot was

fired, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas joined the

South. Small majorities, however, held Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and

Missouri for the North. The capture of Fort Sumter stirred up a war

feeling in the loyal States which astonished the Confederate leaders. So

eagerly did the Northern men respond to Lincoln’s call that the Federal

Government, ere the end of the year, had half a million of troops at its

disposal. As, however, most of the officers of the regular army had gone

over to the South, the Federal troops chiefly consisted of armed mobs of

volunteers.

In England up to this point the main current of public opinion set in

favour of the North. Lord Shaftesbury gave expression to the general

voice when he said, in a letter to the _Times_, “the triumph of the

South meant the consolidation of slavery, and his sympathies,

therefore, were wholly for the North.”[128] But the inflated language in

which Northern partisans discounted their easy conquest of the South,

and denounced the “unnatural rebellion” of the Confederate States,

tended to strengthen the aristocratic faction who were in favour of the

South. It was asked sarcastically if Secession could possibly be more

illegal than the revolt of the Thirteen Colonies from which the Federal

Union sprang? Had not Americans defended, with wearisome iteration, the

sacred right of insurrection in Monarchical countries? Was it consistent

with English Liberalism to scan too closely the legitimate origin of

States, either in the Old world or the New, which having struck out an

independent existence, were prepared to defend it? As for slavery, had

not President Lincoln overruled General Fremont’s order liberating

slaves in Missouri? In fact, the partisans of the South grew bolder

every day. The asperity of the Northern Press and Government, when they

found they could not command the unanimous support of England, favoured

the progress of the Southern cause in England. In concert with the

French Government, Lord Palmerston not only adopted a policy of

neutrality, but recognised each party to the struggle as belligerents.

He would indeed have been foolish to have treated the people of twelve

organised States as a small mob of rioters, and armed ships flying their

flags, as pirates. For this step England was as violently denounced in

the North, as France was fulsomely praised. The classes who have no

anchorage in principles for their plastic opinions were fast veering

round to the side of the South, and Mr. Lincoln’s strong measures, which

caused _Habeas Corpus_ to be suspended in Washington, suppressed

newspapers, and imprisoned persons suspected of disloyalty, helped to

obscure the real issue in the eyes of the English people.

In August the Federal troops attacked the Confederate position south of

the Potomac at Bull’s Run, and were defeated; but the Northern levies

effectually protected Washington, and held down wavering States like

Maryland. Then an incident happened which threatened to extinguish the

small party which among the wealthier classes in England still favoured

the North. On the 8th of November, 1861, Captain Wilkes, of the _San

Jacinto_, a Federal man-of-war, stopped and boarded the English mail

steamer, _Trent_, which had the day before sailed from Havannah with

passengers for Europe. Among these were Messrs. Mason and Slidell,

Envoys accredited by the Confederate Government to the English and

French Courts. Captain Wilkes arrested them and carried them away to the

_San Jacinto_, in spite of the protests of the Commander of the _Trent_.

On the 27th of November, when the news reached England, the partisans of

the Southern States strove hard to lash the country into fury. The

arrest was an outrage, but instead of inquiring whether Captain Wilkes

acted under orders, the sympathisers with the South, headed by the

[Illustration: THE “SAN JACINTO” STOPPING THE “TRENT.”]

Tory Press, clamoured for war against the United States. The popular

excitement increased every day, and the Prince Consort, then sickening

under his last illness, grew anxious as to the result. The Crimean War

had taught him that with popular passions roused, and a bellicose

Minister like Palmerston in power, there was no limit to the folly which

Englishmen might perpetrate. The Queen, who had steadfastly opposed

every suggestion which had been made in the direction of manifesting

sympathy with the Southern Confederacy, became nervous lest her policy

of scrupulous neutrality should be thwarted. She was informed on the

29th of November that the Cabinet were determined to demand reparation,

and Palmerston had indicated that he was ready to assume Captain Wilkes

had been positively instructed by Mr. Lincoln’s Government to insult the

British flag. To the Queen this seemed an absurd assumption. But she

knew that if the idea was in Palmerston’s mind it would most certainly

appear in some offensive form in Lord Russell’s despatches. Yet, if it

was offensively manifested there, it would tempt the United States

Government to refuse reparation--for Mr. Lincoln had also to contend

with a stupid, boastful party in the Northern States, who were as

eagerly clamouring for war with England as the same stupid party in

England were clamouring for war with America.

On the 30th of November, 1861, Lord Russell forwarded the despatches to

Windsor, and they confirmed the Queen’s suspicions. She disliked their

tone, and took them to the Prince Consort, who quite endorsed her

opinion. Though he was so ill that he could hardly hold his pen, he

drafted a Memorandum for the Queen, complaining of the dispatch to the

American Government, and suggesting a more courteous and friendly way of

stating the case against them. Even this draft the Queen herself revised

and slightly toned down. The point on which she and the Prince Consort

insisted was that all through Lord Russell should emphasise the

assumption that as the United States Government could not have intended

to wantonly insult England, they would naturally be desirous of offering

reparation for any breach of international law Captain Wilkes had

committed, either by disobeying or misunderstanding his instructions.

The words of the royal draft were adopted, and with the happiest result.

When the despatch arrived at Washington, Mr. Seward, the Secretary of

State, told Lord Lyons, the British Minister, that the wording of it

meant peace or war. He begged him, therefore, to let him see it

privately before it was presented officially. It was sent to him. After

reading it, Seward went immediately to Lord Lyons and told him that the

tone of the despatch was so courteous and friendly that it would enable

him to avert war, in spite of the recriminatory outcry of the press, the

vote of thanks which Congress had passed to Captain Wilkes, and the

ovations he had received in Northern cities. Seward was now able to

extricate his Government from a false position, by the loophole of

escape which the Prince Consort’s sagacity had opened for him. With some

difficulty he reconciled the Government and people of the North to

admit that Captain Wilkes acted without instructions, that a breach of

international law had been committed, but that the prisoners must be

“cheerfully liberated.” The difficulty of his task was unfortunately

aggravated by the menacing warlike preparations of the English

Government, and the departure of troops for Canada before he had an

opportunity of answering the despatch. On the 9th of January, 1862, the

news that the dispute was settled reached the Queen. She replied, in a

note to Lord Palmerston, that she was sure he would recognise that the

peaceful issue to which the quarrel had been brought was “greatly owing

to her beloved Prince,” whose Memorandum altering the despatch to the

American Government “was the last thing he ever wrote.”[129]

Palmerston’s warlike preparations, which nearly rendered a diplomatic

solution of the difficulty impossible, cost the country £5,000,000.

Although the houses of the _grandes dames_ of politics were opened

earlier than usual in 1862, and politicians flocked to town sooner than

was their custom, it was generally known that the Session would be dull

and uneventful. The death of the Prince Consort overshadowed Society,

and the leaders of both parties generously agreed that political strife

should be suspended till the Queen was better able to bear the anxieties

of party conflicts which lead to Ministerial crises. Lord Russell was

well pleased with the termination of the American quarrel, because it

left the Foreign Office free to assert the ascendency of England in the

councils of Europe. Lord Palmerston was not displeased that his

Government had won a diplomatic victory, for which the public, ignorant

of the true effect of his extravagant military preparations on American

opinion, gave him credit. Rumours had at this time gone abroad that his

health was seriously impaired by the death of the Prince Consort, but

these he was at pains to disperse by his conspicuous energy in the

hunting-field. Lord Derby did not complain of the settlement of the

_Trent_ affair, because he saw it would enable Lord Palmerston to hold

office for life. But the rank and file of the Tory Party, and a small

fringe of aristocratic Whigs, were disappointed, for a war in which

England would have fought on the side of the Southern Confederacy had

been averted. Mr. Disraeli, who has obtained great credit for never

manifesting his sympathies in favour of the slave-holding confederacy,

did not conceal them from his intimate friends. In conversation with

Count Vitzthum he said, “The effects on England (of the American War)

are incalculable. Considering the probable loss to English trade, we

(the Tory leaders) cannot, of course, proclaim openly the satisfaction

we naturally feel at the collapse of Republican institutions. But

speaking privately, we can only congratulate ourselves if the

monarchical principle comes into favour on the other side of the

Atlantic.”[130]

Parliament was opened on the 6th of February, 1862. The Speech from the

Throne touched on the death of the Prince Consort, the termination of

the dispute with the United States, and on the Convention with France

and Spain, the object of which was to obtain redress from Mexico for

wrongs committed by the Mexican Government on foreign residents. It

alluded to a Land Transfer Bill, and vaguely to “other measures of

public usefulness” which would be submitted to Parliament. The debate on

the Address mainly consisted of eloquent eulogies on the late Prince

Consort--Lord Palmerston declaring that it was no exaggeration to say

that so far as the word “perfect” could be applied to human

imperfection, it was applicable to the character of the Prince. Out of

respect to the Queen, politics were but lightly touched, Ministers

promising to give full information as to the blockade of the Confederate

ports, and the Mexican enterprise.

National education, curiously enough, was the first subject that

produced anything like an earnest discussion in Parliament. During the

Recess a Revised Code had been drawn up by Mr. Lowe, which had roused

the wrath of those interested in sectarian education. The objection to

the old system was that the State did not get value for the subsidies

which Parliament voted for Primary Education. Subventions to the

Training Colleges seemed to lessen rather than stimulate voluntary

efforts to maintain them; in fact, 68 per cent. of their cost was now

borne by the State. Of the 2,200,000 children who ought to be in

inspected schools, only 920,000 attended them, and of these only 230,000

received adequate instruction in reading, writing, and arithmetic. The

Revised Code proposed to pay by results. A penny a head was to be given

for each attendance over 100, provided the children (grouped according

to age) passed examinations in reading, writing, and arithmetic. Failure

in any one branch was to lead to the loss of one-third of the grant.

Failure in all was to cut off the whole grant. The sectarian party,

alarmed at the application of Mr. Lowe’s stern practical test to their

work, first of all raised the cry of “Religion in Danger.” But when

Parliament met, the Opposition attacked the Code on the ground that the

Government, by embodying it in an Order in Council, had tried to evade

Parliamentary criticism. This was a futile objection, for the scheme was

not only criticised but modified under the fire of sharp assaults in

both Houses of Parliament. These attacks were ultimately concentrated in

the Resolutions which Mr. Walpole laid before the House of Commons. He

condemned (1), the individual examination of the pupils; (2), the system

of paying exclusively by results; and (3), the plan of grouping by age.

It was, however, admitted on all sides that the existing system could

not be defended. The only point to be decided was as to what was the

right method of altering it. The existing system was neither cheap nor

efficient, but Mr. Lowe contended that his system, if not both, would be

either the one or the other. Ultimately a compromise was arranged. It

was agreed that 4s. a year was to be given on the average annual

attendance of each pupil; that 8s. would be given for reading, writing,

and arithmetic to every pupil who put in 200 attendances, 1s. 3d. being

deducted in case of failure in attendance; and managers were to be

permitted to group pupils for examination as they thought best. Neglect

of religious instruction in Anglican schools would forfeit the grant,

and any future revision of the Code was to be laid before Parliament for

a month before it became operative. In this struggle the Tories,

therefore, carried most of their points.

[Illustration: THE CLOCK TOWER, WESTMINSTER PALACE, 1870.]

The Civil War in America naturally caused many discussions. The Cabinet,

on the whole, were loyal to the policy of the Queen and the Prince

Consort, which was that of scrupulous neutrality. But they were not

quite loyal to her Majesty’s desire that neutrality should be tempered

by generous consideration for the great and unprecedented difficulties

with which President Lincoln’s Administration had to contend. The effect

of the virtual withdrawal of the Queen from public life was soon seen

in the supercilious tone of Lord Russell’s despatches, and in the

latitude of criticism in which Lord Palmerston too frequently indulged

in his references to American affairs in the House of Commons. The

partisans of the Southern States made strenuous efforts to induce the

Government to declare that the blockade of the Southern ports would not

be recognised. But Lord Palmerston and Lord Russell, greatly to their

credit, refused to yield to pressure on this point, although it was

known that the French Emperor would have supported them gladly if they

had yielded. The argument of the Opposition, beaten out over many long

wearisome speeches, simply came to this--that the blockade was

inefficient, and was, therefore, by international law invalid. It will

always be difficult to understand how responsible persons could gravely

maintain that position in face of the fact that Lancashire was starving

because she could not get cotton out of Southern harbours, and that

English trade was suffering because English goods could not get into

them. The affair of the _Trent_ gave rise to a brisk passage at arms

between Mr. Bright and Lord Palmerston. Mr. Bright complained that

whilst the Foreign Office was busy settling the dispute by firm but

conciliatory diplomacy, the War Office and Admiralty were spending

£1,000,000 on provocative preparations for war, which inflamed popular

excitement in America, and really rendered it difficult for the United

States Government to admit that they were in the wrong. “It is not

customary,” said Mr. Bright, “in ordinary life for a person to send a

messenger with a polite message to a friend, or neighbour, or

acquaintance, and at the same time to send a man of portentous strength,

wielding a gigantic club and making every kind of ferocious

gesticulation, and still to profess that all this is done in the most

friendly and courteous manner.” Lord Palmerston’s defence was that Mr.

Lincoln’s Cabinet was in danger of being overawed by mob dictation, and

that the preparations for war which Mr. Bright condemned, neutralised

the pressure of popular passion in the United States Government. A

curious illustration of the provocative tone adopted by the Ministry in

their dealings with the United States was given by their condemnation of

an order issued by General Butler, the military governor of New Orleans.

The ladies of that city, after its occupation by Federal troops, appear

to have been in the habit of publicly insulting their conquerors by

methods which most respectable persons would hesitate to adopt. General

Butler put a stop to these practices by ordering the military

authorities to treat the culprits as if they were loose women plying a

disreputable vocation. What the British Government had to do with the

police arrangements of a foreign army in a foreign city it is not

possible to conceive. Still, Lord Carnarvon, Sir John Walsh, and Mr.

Gregory insisted that the Government should protest against General

Butler’s order; and Lord Palmerston considered he was entitled to

denounce the order as “infamous,” to assert that “Englishmen must blush

to think that it came from a man of the Anglo-Saxon race,” and to

declare that the course which the Cabinet would take “was matter for

consideration.” As Lord Palmerston took no “course,” it is to be

presumed that he preferred to “blush” for General Butler, rather than

run the risk of being snubbed by Mr. Seward. On the 18th of July Mr.

Lindsay, in spite of protests from Mr. Ewart, Mr. Clay, and some others,

persisted in pressing a motion in the House of Commons which, if

carried, would have pledged the Government to mediate between the

belligerents in the interests of the Southern States. The debate was an

elaborate argument on the part of Tory speakers for the recognition of

the Confederate Government. But the responsible leaders of the

Opposition took no part in it, and Lord Palmerston refused to abandon

his policy of neutrality.

Towards the close of the Session it was seen that the operatives of

Lancashire must quickly sink into pauperism. The blockade of the

Southern ports cut off the exports of cotton. The cotton mills in

Lancashire, it was evident, must soon be stopped, and a teeming

industrial population must become a prey to famine. Mr. C. Villiers,

President of the Poor Law Board, accordingly introduced a Bill enabling

Boards of Guardians to meet extraordinary demands for poor law relief.

It provided that any parish which was overburdened by extraordinary

pauperism might claim a subvention from the common fund of the Union to

which it belonged, and that in certain cases one Union might call upon

others in the county for assistance. Mr. Cobden, Mr. Ayrton, and Mr.

Puller were strongly in favour of permitting distressed Unions to raise

money by loans as well as by a rate-in-aid, and Mr. Villiers ultimately

yielded to the pressure which they put on him.[131]

Mr. Gladstone’s Budget was hotly attacked. His estimated

expenditure--including supplementary estimates--for the year 1861-62 had

been £71,374,000. The actual expenditure had been less than that by

£536,000. But still the revenue had only amounted to £69,674,000, so

that there was a deficit of £1,164,000. Had there been no supplementary

estimates voted there would, however, have been a surplus of £335,000.

The harvest had been bad, and the American War had depressed trade.

Hence it was not natural to look for elasticity in the revenue. Yet Mr.

Gladstone estimated the revenue for 1862-63 at £70,190,000. As the

expenditure would be £70,040,000, he could not look for a surplus on the

existing basis of taxation of more than £150,000. He would not, he said,

impose new taxes. But on the other hand he could not remit any old ones.

He even proposed to abolish the duty on hops, and as a set-off readjust

brewers’ licenses, so as to sacrifice by this change only £45,000 of

revenue. His scheme, in fact, consisted of a Budget without a real

[Illustration: MR. SEWARD.]

surplus, and its only popular feature was the simplification of the wine

duties.[132] Why had Mr. Gladstone failed to provide a surplus? Had not

Peel said that one ought always to begin the year with a surplus? Why

was the Paper Duty surrendered, seeing it would have provided a surplus?

Why did Ministers persist in exceptional expenditure when they assured

the country that their relations with the only foreign Government that

could be distrusted were friendly and satisfactory? Our expenditure was

due to distrust of Napoleon III., whose objects were the same as ours.

And yet,

[Illustration: QUEEN ANNE’S ROOM, ST. JAMES’S PALACE.

(_From a Photograph by H. N. King._)]

said Mr. Disraeli, instead of acting cordially in alliance with France

for the purpose of maintaining English influence in the councils of

Europe, Lord Palmerston had tried to attain that end by exerting what

was called the “moral power” of the country, which really meant “bloated

armaments in time of peace.” If the conduct of France justified

distrust, why not go to war with her? If she was not giving us cause for

distrust, why waste money in preparing for war with her? Such were the

questions and arguments which Mr. Disraeli put forward. But Peel’s

doctrine of the surplus was of course never meant to apply to all

circumstances. As for the Paper Duty, to expect Mr. Gladstone to revert

to it was as absurd as to ask Nature to bring back the Mastodon. It was

more difficult to escape from Mr. Disraeli’s dilemma as to the relations

of England and France, but Lord Palmerston satisfied the House at this

time that by outstripping the armaments of France he really freed her

from any temptation she might have to become an enemy. The Radical

Party, however, induced Mr. Stansfeld to move a resolution asserting

that expenditure could be reduced with safety to the country, and the

Tories showed their sympathy with the attack, when Mr. Walpole gave

notice of another expressing a hope that expenditure might be cut down.

Lord Palmerston said such attacks involved the fate of the

Ministry--which settled the matter. Mr. Stansfeld’s resolution was

rejected. Mr. Walpole, loving Lord Palmerston better than retrenchment,

withdrew his motion, for which Mr. Disraeli, to the consternation of his

party, assailed him bitterly, and Lord Palmerston carried unanimously a

vote of confidence in himself.

The fight in March between the Confederate iron-clad _Merrimac_, and the

Federal _Monitor_, indicated that wooden war-ships were henceforth

useless. The Admiralty were therefore pressed to push forward the

construction of iron-clad ships. Nay, it was suggested that the new type

of iron-clads, working guns from revolving turrets, was better for coast

defence than the costly fortifications on which Lord Palmerston had

persisted in spending enormous sums of money. Why not, it was asked,

stop the building of forts at Spithead till the value of iron-cased

gunboats for coast defence had been fully considered? Strong supporters

of Lord Palmerston’s fortification scheme--like Sir J. Hay--declared

that their opinion as to the necessity for the Spithead forts had

changed, because a ship of the _Monitor_ type being a movable fort was

of course more useful than any fixed fortification. Then, if the country

spent, as it would probably have to spend, £20,000,000 on a great

fortification scheme, how were the forts to be manned? Was the House of

Commons prepared to vote for a corresponding increase in the Army? The

Government, however, insisted on getting the money for fortifications

voted, though events subsequently justified the criticism of their

opponents. The economists consoled themselves by making a fierce but

futile assault on the Ministry at the end of the Session, in the course

of which Mr. Cobden declared that Lord Palmerston’s policy was based on

a phantom of French aggression, and that it had cost the country

£100,000,000. Colonial defence was more practically dealt with, for

early in the year the House of Commons adopted a resolution to the

effect that self-governing colonies should in the main provide for their

own defence.

Foreign politics gave rise to no important debate in the House. Abortive

attempts were made to induce the Government to make representations to

Russia on behalf of the Poles, which would probably have led to Russia

imploring the Ministry to deal more generously with Ireland. Partisans

of the Pope and of the deposed Italian despots also indulged in impotent

demonstrations of hostility against the new Kingdom of Italy. A Session

which was from a party point of view almost colourless, ended on the 7th

of August, the only discernible result of its proceedings being an

aggravation of the feud between Lord Palmerston and the Radicals, who,

as Mr. Cobden said, would now be better pleased to see the Tories in

power. But the Tories had no desire to hold office till they were strong

enough to resist Radical dictation. The Queen, too, was more than

usually desirous that, in the circumstances, a Cabinet should remain in

power which could avert Ministerial crises. Thus Lord Palmerston’s

dictatorship was again confirmed.

The policy of intervention in Mexico in conjunction with France and

Spain was not one which found much favour in England, although King

Leopold of Belgium endeavoured to win the Queen over to support it in

the interests of his son-in-law, the Archduke Maximilian of Austria. It

was for this purpose that his Majesty carried on his intrigues at

Osborne early in February. The real object of his policy was to

establish a monarchy in Mexico, and to persuade the Queen that the

Mexicans desired to have Maximilian as their ruler. This, however, was

not divulged at the time, and thus, so far as England was concerned, she

stood committed--despite King Leopold’s secret negotiations at

Osborne--to nothing save to act with Spain and France in obtaining from

Mexico satisfaction for wrongs done to certain British subjects. The

French Emperor, however, was bent on creating a Latin Monarchy in the

New World, under French protection, as a counterpoise to the great

Anglo-Saxon Republic. After the allies landed, dissensions soon became

manifest when the French contingent was doubled. Spain objected to

convert Mexico into a French dependency, nominally under the rule of an

Austrian Archduke. Hence, when the Mexican Government of Juarez offered

to submit to the original demands of the allies, England and Spain

accepted their proposals, and withdrew their forces. The French had

permitted a Mexican conspirator called Almonte to accompany their

expedition, and as his object was to overthrow the Mexican Government,

President Juarez demanded that he should be sent back to Paris. The

French refused, and made the demand an excuse for declining to treat

with the Mexican Government. This, of course, broke up the alliance, and

General Lorencez was ordered to march on Mexico, and enable the natives

to choose a Government with which France could negotiate, which meant

that they were to vote for a French Protectorate under the Archduke

Maximilian. As a preliminary token of their appreciation of this

proposal, the Mexican troops stopped the march of Lorencez at Orizaba.

General Forey, with reinforcements, was accordingly sent out from France

to prosecute the war, which was already unpopular with all Frenchmen who

were not slaves of the Ultramontane Party.

During the last six months of the year, events in Italy and Greece

preoccupied the Cabinet. Indeed, affairs in Greece took a turn that for

the moment roused the Queen from the depths of her sorrow.

Baron Riccasoli, who succeeded Count Cavour, did not hold office long.

The object of his policy was to win Rome for Italy, which rendered him

obnoxious to Napoleon III. Moreover, he was too stiff and formal in his

manners for the loose-living King of Italy, and so his fall was

inevitable. To him succeeded Ratazzi--a Minister who was acceptable to

Napoleon because he thought more of winning back Venice, than of

expelling the French from the Holy City. How far Victor Emmanuel and

Ratazzi participated in an intrigue, the result of which was that

General Garibaldi began to raise the “Party of Action,” is not clear. At

any rate, Garibaldi, at a meeting of a rifle club in Palermo, at which

the Heir Apparent to the Crown was present, announced his intention of

opening a new campaign of liberation. From Sicily he led a band of “Red

Shirts” to the mainland, evidently under the impression that he was to

repeat his former exploits with the secret connivance of the Italian

Government. Before he advanced into the heart of Calabria, he found he

had been deceived. Victor Emmanuel’s troops attacked and dispersed his

irregular forces at Aspromonte, before they came into collision with the

French. Garibaldi himself was wounded, and though at first sent as a

prisoner to Spezia, he was soon afterwards set free, and his “rebellion”

forgiven. Napoleon III. then induced Russia and Prussia to recognise the

Kingdom of Italy. But in November Ratazzi resigned rather than face a

vote of censure, and Farini succeeded him.

Italian intriguers had been busy at Athens fomenting rebellion against

King Otho. Their object was to depose him, and seat Prince Thomas, the

Duke of Genoa, on the throne. Russian and French intrigues seem also to

have been going on. But every conspiracy, whether of native or foreign

origin, had for its object the expulsion of King Otho, whose authority

had been undermined by Palmerston’s treatment in 1850, and whose reign

had done nothing to gratify Greek aspirations for an extension of

territory. Otho’s opposition to progressive reform rendered him an

obstacle to those who thought that Greece in the Ottoman Empire, might

play the part of Piedmont in Italy. He was therefore driven from his

throne, and the Crown of Greece offered to Prince Alfred of England, on

whose behalf it was declined. England, however, showed her goodwill to

Greece by declaring herself ready to surrender the Ionian Islands, an

offer which gave Lord Palmerston an opportunity of emphasising his

belief in “the doctrine of nationalities,” which he had so strenuously

insisted on applying in Italy. In 1863, when the Greeks chose a Danish

Prince for their King, these islands were transferred to Greece.

In Germany the cause of Reform slept. Austria apparently had increased

her influence, because the King of Prussia was in conflict with the

representatives of the Prussian people as to the reorganisation and

strengthening of

[Illustration: VIEW IN BERLIN: THE PALACE BRIDGE AND PLEASURE GARDEN.]

the Army. But Hungary and Venetia had still to be held down by the

sword. The Queen, however much she might regret the contest between the

Crown and the nation in Prussia, did not view it with the scornful

levity that was fashionable at the time in England. She knew that the

carrying out of the military policy of Prussia was the condition

precedent to the incorporation of North Germany under Prussian

leadership. She was well aware that when the Bernstorff Ministry fell,

Count von Bismarck, Prussian Minister at Paris, would become President

of the Council, and she knew what purpose he had in view. Von Bismarck

had, in fact, visited London in July, 1862, and he had conversed freely

and frankly with the leaders of both parties. At a dinner party given by

Baron Brunnow in his honour, he revealed his plans to Mr. Disraeli, who

on the same evening repeated the conversation to Count Vitzthum. “‘I

shall soon,’ said in effect the Prussian statesman, ‘be compelled to

undertake the conduct of the Prussian Government. My first care will be

to reorganise the Army, with or without the help of the Landtag. The

King was right in undertaking this task, but he cannot accomplish it

with his present advisers. As soon as the Army shall have been brought

into such a condition as to inspire respect, I shall seize the first

best pretext to declare war against Austria, dissolve the German Diet,

subdue the minor States, and give national unity to Germany under

Prussian leadership. I have come here to say this to the Queen’s

Ministers.’”[133] Count Vitzthum adds that Mr. Disraeli’s commentary

was, “Take care of that man! he means what he says.” On the other hand,

the late Lord Ampthill--who was present at the dinner--told Mr. Lowe,

the biographer of Prince Bismarck,[134] that Mr. Disraeli described the

Bismarckian policy as the “mere moonshine of a German Baron.”[135] The

Landtag refused to sanction an increase in the Army, for which it saw no

obvious use. The King could not publicly avow why the increase was

wanted. The Cabinet confessed itself helpless in the dilemma, whereupon

the King telegraphed for Count von Bismarck, who was holiday-making in

the Pyrenees, to come to Berlin. He arrived there on the 19th of

September. On the 23rd, after seven days’ debate, the Chamber refused to

vote the Army Estimates and the Ministry resigned. The King’s retort was

the appointment as Prime Minister of the man, whose policy was that of

“blood and iron.” From that moment the history of Continental Europe

took a fresh departure, which was watched by the Queen with anxious

eyes. Like the Prince Consort, her sympathies were with the new Prussian

policy. Only, she would have endeavoured to attain Von Bismarck’s ends

without using his methods. That the Bismarckian methods were adopted in

less than a year after the Prince Consort’s death, only serves to

illustrate how quickly the policy of the Court of Berlin changed after

the King of Prussia was emancipated from Prince Albert’s moderating

influence.

As might be expected, the struggle in America was followed in England

with keen interest, and step by step. The Confederate States found no

difficulty in raising troops, and in supplying them with capable

leaders. They seemed to have raised money on the security of their

stocks of cotton. But they evidently were soon in financial straits, for

Mr. Mason told some of his intimate friends in London in February that

it would be hardly possible for the Confederates to find money for

their troops much longer. The war was then costing them £500,000 a day.

The Federal Government was more prosperous. In a few months it had

800,000 men under arms, and even its enemies bore testimony to the fact

that these troops were always well paid and well fed. General McClellan,

during the autumn and winter of 1861, organised a great army for the

defence of Washington, which was menaced by the Confederate forces.

Instead of dispersing these, McClellan contented himself with watching

them. Early in January the Federals at Mill Springs, Kentucky, foiled an

attempt of the Confederates to attack Ohio. Next month Burnside captured

the Confederate garrison of Roanoke, in North Carolina, and in March he

also took Newbern. Fort Henry, on the Tennessee, and Fort Donelson, on

the Cumberland River, yielded to General Grant, and Pope seized a

Confederate post on the Mississippi, called “Island No. 10.” On the 24th

of February Commodore Farragut, after a brilliant action, forced the

defences of New Orleans, from which the Confederates retreated, and the

city was then occupied by General Butler. So far victory had crowned the

Federal banners. But on the 6th of April the fortune of war favoured the

Confederates, when General Albert Sydney Johnston surprised Grant at

Pittsburg Landing, on the west side of the Tennessee River, opposite to

Savannah. The timely arrival of General Buell and the galling fire of

two Federal gunboats on the river saved Grant’s army from utter

destruction, and when night fell he still stood at bay on the river’s

bank. Next morning (the 7th) he renewed the struggle with characteristic

obstinacy, and drove the Confederates back to their lines at Corinth. In

this action General Johnston was killed. To him succeeded Beauregard,

who for many weeks held, by sheer audacity, the lines at Corinth against

Halleck and 150,000 Federal troops. At last Beauregard and his army

suddenly vanished, leaving Halleck and his lieutenant, Pope, in a state

of stupefaction at their disappearance.[136] The Western States echoed

with the tramp of armed men on both sides, but save for a Confederate

defeat at Corinth in October, and a Federal surrender at Hartville in

December, nothing worth recording happened. The lesson from the year’s

campaign in this region was that the Confederates blundered by trying to

do too much when they attempted to hold the line of the Ohio. Vicksburg

was the only strong post which they retained on the Mississippi. On sea

they were more successful. They nailed iron rails on to the hull of the

old United States warship _Virginia_, and sent her forth in March from

the Navy Yard at Norfolk as the _Merrimac_ to spread terror through the

Federal transport fleet. The United States ironclad, _Monitor_, however,

fought her on the 9th of March and drove her into port. At close

quarters the shot glanced off the protected sides of the ships, and it

was not till the _Monitor_ fired into the unprotected part of the

_Merrimac’s_ hull that she disabled her. This action--as we have

seen--aroused naval critics in England, and convinced them that the

“wooden walls” of the country were obsolete.

Meanwhile great expectations had centred in the Army of the Potomac. Its

leader, McClellan, was one of the most highly trained and scientific

soldiers in the service of the Federal Government. Its numbers were

overwhelming, and yet month after month passed by and it did nothing. It

permitted the Confederates to retreat unmolested from their lines at

Manassas in spring, when McClellan pursued them for two days. He then

suddenly returned to Washington, and made arrangements to convey his

army from the Potomac to the peninsula between York River and James

River. From that point he meant to deliver a crushing blow against

Richmond, the Confederate capital. At this moment President Lincoln

deprived McClellan of the Command-in-Chief, and gave Generals McDowell

and Fremont independent commands in Northern Virginia. It is not fair to

forget, therefore, in criticising McClellan’s movements, that he thus

lost the right to dispose of McDowell’s division as he pleased, for the

protection of his left flank. McClellan’s campaign was unfortunate.

General Joseph Johnston artfully seduced him into the swamps of the

Chickahominy River, where he settled down and entrenched himself behind

earthworks, while Stuart, with the Confederate cavalry, worked round the

Federal right, looted part of their camp, and returned in safety to

Richmond. General Jackson--“Stonewall” Jackson--dashing through the

Shenandoah Valley, had driven the Federals under Banks back to the

Potomac, and was menacing Washington. McDowell, who was hastening to

McClellan’s aid, was suddenly recalled to protect the Federal capital,

and McClellan, whose position was now hopeless, had to retreat, after

repeated attacks, to Harrison’s Landing, on the James River--a manœuvre

which was termed by the New York Press “a strategic movement to the

rear.” He then embarked his army at Aquia Creek, and took it to

Alexandria. To cover McClellan’s retreat, Pope advanced from the Rapidan

to the Rappahannock, but was met by the Confederate General, Robert Lee,

who fought a drawn battle with him at Cedar Mountain on the 9th of

August. Jackson, by a rapid movement westward, crossed the Blue

Mountains and thrust himself between Pope’s rear and Washington, and

again Stuart made a raid on the Federal camp. Pope was now completely

outmanœuvred, so he was fain to fall back on the Potomac and the strong

lines of Washington. Lee pushed on, intending to raise Maryland. He was

checked by McClellan at Antietam, and recrossed the Potomac, but without

being pursued. Jackson now captured the Federal garrison at Harper’s

Ferry.

A month elapsed before McClellan renewed his advance on Richmond, and in

November he was dismissed from his command. Halleck was now

Commander-in-Chief, and Burnside, McClellan’s successor, transferring

the struggle

[Illustration: MR. PEABODY.]

to the Rappahannock, undertook to advance on Richmond--a movement which

was partly forced on him by the Government at Washington, in order to

redeem the _prestige_ it had lost through McClellan’s failures. On the

13th of December he was defeated by Lee with great slaughter at

Fredericksburg, the news of this victory creating much excitement in

England. This ended the campaign for the year. New Orleans was all that

the Federals had to show for two years’ campaigns. Their invasion of

Virginia was rolled back, and the partisans of the Southern States in

England pointed to this fact as a proof that the Union could never be

restored by force. In the Northern States the Abolitionist faction had

now absorbed the Republican Party. Slavery was abolished in the district

of Columbia, and Lincoln was induced to say that he was now ready to

restore the Union with or without slavery. Finally he issued his

proclamation on the 22nd of September, declaring that he would recommend

Congress to pass a Bill to free all slaves in rebel States. In England

the proclamation was sneered at as an act of confiscation, and Lord

Russell sent a despatch to Lord Lyons, scoffing at it with ill-concealed

malice as “a measure of war, and a measure of war of a very questionable

character.” The naval operations of the belligerents also gave Lord

Russell several opportunities for controversy. He waxed very indignant

over the blockade of Charleston harbour, where the Federals had sunk

ships loaded with ballast. In January the Confederate cruiser

_Nashville_, after preying on American commerce, ran into Southampton

Water for repairs. Mr. Adams, the American Minister in London, warned

Lord Russell that her conduct had been almost piratical, to which Lord

Russell replied that as she bore the commission of a recognised

belligerent she would be allowed to make such necessary repairs as would

not increase her fighting power, and that care would be taken to prevent

the Foreign Enlistment Act from being infringed. The excitement created

by the _Trent_ affair was dying out, when the country was startled to

find a United States cruiser, _Tuscarora_, moored in Itchen Creek, and

watching the _Nashville_. Her officers and men were accused of prowling

suspiciously close to the _Nashville_, and people began to ask if the

Government was going to tolerate such an outrage as a naval engagement

in an English creek. Lord Russell warned Mr. Adams that Captain Craven

of the _Tuscarora_ must respect our neutrality, and that whichever ship

left first must have twenty-four hours’ “law” before the other was

allowed to follow. H.M.S. _Dauntless_ and _Shannon_ were sent to

Southampton to overawe Captain Craven, who ultimately put to sea. The

_Nashville_ followed, and thus escaped her antagonist.

A more romantic and perplexing case was that of a British ship, the

_Emilie St. Pierre_. She had sailed from Calcutta for St. John’s, New

Brunswick, and had gone to Charleston to see if the port was blockaded.

The Federal cruiser, _James Adger_, seized her, and put a prize crew on

board. The skipper of the _Emilie St. Pierre_--a Scotsman called

Wilson--aided by the cook and steward, one morning overpowered the prize

crew and their officers by a clever stratagem, and after escaping many

dangers brought the ship safely into Liverpool on the 31st of April.

Wilson for the moment was the idol of the seafaring population, and Mr.

Adams, somewhat nettled at the defeat of the prize crew, demanded the

surrender of the vessel. Lord Russell refused, alleging that the

Government had no legal power to seize her, or “interfere with her

owners in relation to their property in her.”

These controversies rather embittered the relations between Americans

and Englishmen in this country. It was therefore most gratifying to the

Queen to learn that a kind-hearted citizen of the United States, whose

princely charity has endeared his memory to the English-speaking race,

had bestowed on the poor of London a gift of surpassing munificence.

Mr. George Peabody had a high reputation as a merchant in the City,

where his generosity and courageous use of his credit had saved many

firms from ruin in the financial crisis of 1857. In the spring of 1862

he made over to Trustees the sum of £150,000, to be applied for the

benefit of the poor of London, his only stipulation being, that the

management and application of the fund should be free from all sectarian

bias. He did not limit the discretion of the Trustees, though he

suggested that they would best spend the money in providing improved

dwellings for the people. His ideas were not quite carried out, for the

blocks of buildings erected by the Peabody Trustees were soon occupied,

not by the poor of London, but by the lower middle class, who were not

meant by Mr. Peabody to participate in the benefits of his gift.

The 1st of May had been fixed for the opening of the Great Exhibition of

1862, and the ceremony was a somewhat mournful one. The sable liveries

of the lackeys who appeared in the grand procession served to remind the

people of the late Prince Consort, who had been the life and soul of the

project. His place was taken by the Duke of Cambridge and the Crown

Prince of Prussia, who was associated with him by the special request of

the Queen, as one of her representatives. South Kensington was crowded

with sightseers, and it was admitted that the ceremonial was one of the

most imposing pageants that had ever been witnessed. To the daïs, where

the formal business of inauguration was transacted, none but persons in

uniform were admitted, and the scene was therefore bright with rich

masses of colour, glittering with the flashing jewels of knightly Orders

and military decorations. When the Duke of Cambridge and the other

Special Commissioners had taken their seats, the National Anthem was

sung, and Earl Granville, as the representative of the Exhibition

Commissioners, placed an address to the Queen in the hands of his Royal

Highness. To this the Duke replied, alluding in touching terms to the

death of the Prince Consort, and to the affliction which had prostrated

the Queen with sorrow. The brilliant procession then slowly filed down

from the daïs to the eastern dome, where Meyerbeer’s _Overture en forme

de Marche_, written for the occasion, was performed, and Tennyson’s fine

ode, set to music by Professor Sterndale Bennett, was given. Its

allusions to Prince Albert went home to every heart:--

“O silent father of our Kings to be,

Mourn’d in this golden hour of jubilee,

For this, for all, we weep our thanks to thee!

The world-compelling plan was thine,

And lo! the long laborious miles

Of Palace: lo! the giant aisles,

Rich in model and design”--

were lines that gave expression to the feeling of the country with rare

felicity and power. It was admitted on all hands that the building of

the new Exhibition was far grander and far larger than that of 1851.

But on the other hand the witchery of the Palace, with its walls of

crystal and its strong flood of diffused light, had vanished. The roof

and walls of the new building were solid, and these and the windows

“factory-patterned,” as a singer in _Punch_ called them, destroyed the

sensation of unconfined space which one felt on entering the Crystal

Palace of 1851, and which gave to that structure its magical charm.

[Illustration: THE EXHIBITION BUILDING OF 1862.]

On the 14th of June the Prince of Wales, who had completed the Eastern

tour that had been planned for him by his father, returned to England.

He had left Osborne on the 6th of February with General Bruce and a

carefully selected suite, of whom Dr. A. P. Stanley (afterwards Dean of

Westminster), who joined him at Alexandria, was a member. On the 1st of

March he landed at Alexandria, where, despite his _incognito_ as Baron

Renfrew, he was saluted with Royal honours. At Cairo he enjoyed the

hospitality of the Viceroy of Egypt, and on the 4th of March left the

city for the Pyramids, which were reached just as the mysterious outline

of the Sphinx was vanishing in the fading light of sunset. At dawn the

Prince ascended the Great Pyramid without assistance, much to the

amazement of the Bedouins, who asked, sceptically, “Is that the

Governor? If so, why does he go alone?” The party then went up the Nile

as far as the First Cataract, viewing the Temple at Esneh by torchlight.

After Assouan and its antiquities were explored, the Prince returned

down the river, halting three days at Thebes, where he met the Duke and

Duchess of Saxe-Coburg. On the 21st of March a tournament between some

Arnauts and Arab chiefs was held; then Memphis was visited, and Cairo

again reached on the 23rd. After some other excursions the Prince

proceeded to Jerusalem, which he entered on the 31st of March. He was

received by the

[Illustration: THE PRINCE OF WALES AT THE PYRAMIDS.]

Pacha and a picturesque escort of wild horsemen, who kept circling round

the party, brandishing their spears and firing their guns in mimic

combat. His Royal Highness pitched his tent on the northern side of the

city, near the Damascus Gate, and visited all the sacred places--even

those from which Christians are excluded being opened to him.[137] He

left Jerusalem on the 10th of April, and next day arrived at Nablûs, on

the eve of the Samaritan Passover. He ascended Mount Gerizim, and saw

this last vestige of the old Jewish ritual performed, the sun sinking

behind the western hills as the Paschal sheep were sacrificed. On the

15th he encamped at the foot of Mount Carmel, and on Easter eve saw the

sun set on the Sea of Galilee. At Damascus he received but a churlish

welcome from the sullen, fanatical population, and on the 6th of May he

visited Beyrout. On the 10th he landed at Tripoli, and on the 12th

explored the cedar groves of Lebanon. On the 15th the Royal yacht

touched at Rhodes, on the 17th at Patmos, and--after visiting Smyrna,

Constantinople, Athens, Cephalonia, and Malta--the tour ended at

Marseilles. A brief visit was paid to the French Emperor at

Fontainebleau, and on the 14th of June the travellers reached Windsor.

Three days afterwards the Queen heard, to her deep regret, that General

Bruce--long a trusted friend of her family--had died from Syrian fever,

contracted during his journey. He had sacrificed his life to the

chivalrous discharge of his duties as the Prince’s Governor, and the

Queen felt only too keenly that his loss was an irreparable calamity at

a time when his wise guidance and exquisite tact rendered his services

to her eldest son of supreme importance.[138]

During the greater part of the year the Queen led a life of absolute

seclusion. The first public sign of her renewed interest in current

events was given when the tidings of the Hartley Colliery accident sent

a thrill of horror through every English heart. On the 16th of January

the beam of the steam-engine in the Hartley coal-pit snapped. The shaft

was blocked and shattered by the wreck of the machinery, and some two

hundred and four miners were consigned to a lingering death in the

workings, into which the water poured at the rate of 1,500 gallons a

minute. For nine days rescue parties toiled without stint or ceasing to

reach the prisoners. They even heard their efforts to cut their way out,

but were unable to reach them. When a gang was at last able to penetrate

to the workings they found men and boys lying dead in groups, surrounded

by mournful relics and painful records of their last hours of agony. The

male population of three hamlets was swept away; every cottage contained

a coffin, some, alas! more than one, over which widows and orphans

wailed out their hearts in unavailing sorrow. Among the first to express

sympathy with the bereaved ones was the Queen. _Haud ignara mali miseris

succurrere disco_ was probably the thought that flashed across her mind

when she sent her anxious telegraphic messages to the scene of the

disaster, whilst as yet there were hopes that some lives might be saved.

After the funeral, the scene at a great religious meeting held at the

pit was most touching, when the incumbent of Earsdon read to the

assembly of mourners a letter which her Majesty had dictated to Sir

Charles Phipps, and which had been addressed to the head viewer (or

overseer) of the mine. It ran as follows:--

“OSBORNE, _January 23rd, 1862_.

“SIR,--The Queen, in the midst of her own overwhelming grief, has

taken the deepest interest in the mournful accident at Hartley, and

up to the last had hoped that at least a considerable number of the

poor people might have been recovered alive. The appalling news

since received has afflicted the Queen very much.

“Her Majesty commands me to say that her tenderest sympathy is with

the poor widows and mothers, and that her own misery only makes her

feel the more for them.

“Her Majesty hopes that everything will be done, as far as

possible, to alleviate their distress, and her Majesty will have a

sad satisfaction in assisting in such a measure. Pray let us know

what is doing.

“I have the honour to be, your obedient servant,

“C. B. PHIPPS.”

It was estimated that £17,000 would be needed for the relief of the

widows and orphans. In London alone £20,000 was sent to the Lord Mayor,

and by the end of February it was necessary to close the fund, for

upwards of £81,000 had been generously subscribed by the public.[139]

A glimpse of the early days of the Queen’s widowhood is afforded in the

“Diaries” of one of her chaplains in Scotland--the late Dr. Norman

Macleod, Minister of the Barony Parish Kirk, Glasgow. Her Majesty was

advised to retire to Balmoral in the first week of May, and when she

reached her Highland home she commanded the attendance of Dr. Macleod.

He seems to have been somewhat nervous at being called upon to undertake

the delicate duty of offering spiritual consolation to his widowed

Sovereign. On the 12th of May, however, Dr. Macleod, writing to his

wife, says, with a sense of relief, “All has passed well--that is to

say, God enabled me to speak in private and in public to the Queen in

such a way as seemed to me to be truth, the truth in God’s sight; that

which I believe she needed, though I felt it would be very trying to her

spirit to receive it. And what fills me with deepest thanksgiving is

that she has received it, and written to me such a kind, tender letter

of thanks for it.”[140] Writing in his Journal on the 14th of May, Dr.

Macleod jotted down, whilst the facts were fresh in his mind, the chief

incidents of his visit to the Queen at this painful period of her life.

“After dinner,” he says, “I was summoned unexpectedly to the Queen’s

room. She was alone. She met me, and, with an unutterably sad

expression, which filled my eyes with tears, at once began to speak

about the Prince. It is impossible for me to recall distinctly the

sequence or substance of that long conversation. She spoke of his

excellences--his love, his cheerfulness, how he was everything to her.

She said she never shut her eyes to trials, but liked to look them in

the face; how she would never shrink from duty, but that all was at

present done mechanically: that her highest ideas of purity and love

were obtained from him, and that God could not be displeased with her

love. But there was nothing morbid in her grief. I spoke freely to her

about all I felt regarding him--the love of the nation and their

sympathy; and took every opportunity of bringing before her the reality

of God’s love and sympathy, her noble calling as a Queen, the value of

her life to the nation, the blessedness of prayer.”

[Illustration: MARRIAGE OF THE PRINCESS ALICE.]

“Sunday: the whole household, Queen and Royal Family, were assembled at

10.15. A temporary pulpit was erected. I began with a short prayer, then

read Job xxiii., Psalm xlii., beginning and end of John xiv., and end of

Revelation vii. After the Lord’s Prayer I expounded Hebrews xii. 1-12,

and concluded with prayer. The whole Service was less than an hour. I

then, at 12, preached at Crathie[141] on ‘All things are ours.’ In the

evening at Crathie on ‘Awake, thou that sleepest.’ The household

attended both Services.”

“On Monday I had another long interview with the Queen. She was much

more like her old self--cheerful--and full of talk about persons and

things. She, of course, spoke of the Prince. She said that he always

believed he was to die soon, and that he often told her that he had

never any fear of death. I also saw the Princesses Alice and Helen--each

by herself. No words of mine can express the deep sympathy I have for

all these mourners.... The more I hear about the Prince Consort, the

more I agree with what the Queen said to me about him on Monday, ‘that

he really did not seem to comprehend a selfish character or what

selfishness was.’”[142]

[Illustration: PRINCE LOUIS OF HESSE-DARMSTADT.]

After her father’s death, the Princess Alice was so deeply affected by

her mother’s grief and her own bereavement, that for a time Prince Louis

of Hesse thought she would not hold to her engagement with him. However,

this fear soon passed away, and it was duly announced that the Princess

would be married on the 1st of July. The ceremony took place in private

at Osborne, and was performed by the Archbishop of York, in the absence

of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was suffering from a severe

illness. The Queen attended in deep mourning, but her agitation was so

great that, when the service was ended, she had to be led away to her

room. The Crown Prince of Prussia, all the bride’s brothers and sisters,

the parents, brothers, and sisters of the bridegroom, and many other

near and dear relatives, were present. The Duke of Saxe-Coburg-and-Gotha

gave the Princess, his niece, away at the altar, and the married couple,

after the ceremony was over, drove off quietly to St. Clare, near Ryde,

which Colonel and Lady Catherine Harcourt had placed at their disposal.

There they remained three days. On the 9th of July they left for

Hesse-Darmstadt, accompanied by the kindliest wishes of all classes in

the country, who had watched with sympathy and interest the affectionate

solicitude with which the Princess had solaced the Queen under the first

shock of her bereavement.

“Dear to us all by those calm earnest eyes,

And early thought upon that fair young brow.

Dearer for that where grief was heaviest, thou

Wert sunshine, till he passed where suns shall rise

And set no more: thou, in affection wise

And strong, wert strength to her, who even but now

In the soft accents of thy bridal vow

Heard music of her own heart’s memories.

“Too full of love to own a thought of pride

Is now thy gentle bosom; so ’tis best;

Yet noble is thy choice, O English bride!

And England hails the bridegroom and the guest

A friend--a friend well-loved by him who died.

He blessed you both; your wedlock shall be blessed.”

In these simple and pathetic lines _Punch_, dropping the jester’s cap

and bells, gave graceful expression to the popular feeling with which

the nation bade the Princess good-bye. The parting between mother and

daughter was a mournful one, though both kept their feelings well under

control. Writing from the Royal yacht to bid adieu to the Queen, the

Princess said, “My heart was very full when I took leave of you and all

the dear ones at home; I had not the courage to say a word--but your

loving heart understands what I felt.”[143] And again after she reached

Darmstadt, she recurs to this sad theme. “Away from home,” is the

concluding sentence of one of her letters to the Queen, “I cannot

believe that beloved papa is not there; all is so associated with him.”

Indeed, it may be doubted whether the loss of her daughter’s society for

a time had not a salutary influence on the Queen. It stimulated her to

take a fresh interest in her family life, for a correspondence, intimate

and affectionate, was carried on between mother and daughter, in which

the Queen had to transmit budgets of home news, the mere collecting of

which diverted her thoughts from the heart wound that tortured her. From

this correspondence we gather that in those days the Queen’s life was

full of many gloomy hours. It is clear that the shadow of death at times

fell very darkly on her spirit, and that she poured out her heart to her

daughter without reserve. The Princess Louis of Hesse--as Englishmen had

to learn to call the Princess Alice--on her side sympathised with every

varying mood of her mother’s troubled mind, although her letters

indicate how each reference to her father, whom she had idolised from

her childhood, made her own wounds bleed afresh. She is sedulous in

cheering her mother with accounts of her new home. She enters into all

the Queen’s plans for perpetuating the Prince Consort’s memory. From her

we gather that, outside of public business and family duties, these

plans now filled the Queen’s life. Commissions were given to sculptors

like Mr. Theed to carve busts of the Prince. Marochetti’s equestrian

statue was projected, and the Princess Louis, soon after reaching

Darmstadt, presses the Queen to tell her how it is progressing. The

Queen also makes a collection of the Prince’s speeches, and this again

stimulates the interest of her daughter, who expresses her pleasure at

hearing that Mr. (afterwards Sir Arthur) Helps has been selected by her

mother to write an introduction to them for publication. “What can it

be,” she writes in one of her letters to the Queen, “but beautiful and

elevating if he has rightly entered into the spirit of that pure and

noble being?” But even these occupations failed entirely to divert the

mind of the Queen from brooding over her bereavement, and now and again

her letters, so full of despondency and hopelessness, alarmed her

daughter. To one of these the Princess replies from Auerbach, in the

month of August, as follows:--“Try and gather in the few bright things

you have remaining, and cherish them, for though faint, yet they are

types of that infinite joy still to come. I am sure, dear mamma, the

more you try to appreciate and to find the good in that which God in His

love has _left_ you, the more worthy you will daily become of that which

is in store. That earthly happiness you had is indeed gone for ever, but

you must not think that every ray of it has left you. You have the

privilege, which dear papa knew so well how to value, in your exalted

position, of doing good and living for others, of carrying on his plans,

his wishes, into fulfilment, and as you go on doing your duty, this

will, this must, I feel sure, bring you peace and comfort.”[144]

In the meantime preparations for an interesting and important event in

the Royal Family had to be made. It has been already mentioned that the

Prince of Wales had been much attracted by the fascinating society of

the Princess Alexandra of Sleswig-Holstein-Glücksburg, whom he met

shortly before his father’s death whilst visiting Germany. The feeling

had ripened into a warm attachment, and it soon came to be rumoured that

the lady had listened favourably to his suit as a lover. In autumn it

was decided that the Queen should proceed to the Continent and arrange

the preliminaries of this alliance with the parents of the Princess. It

was also her Majesty’s wish to visit Gotha--consecrated to her now by

many tender memories--as soon as she was able to endure the fatigue of

travel. Lord Russell was selected to accompany her Majesty as Minister

in attendance.

Writing in his Diary on the 1st of September, Count Vitzthum says, “The

Queen, who returned two days ago to Windsor, held a Privy Council there,

in order to make the necessary arrangements for the period of her

absence. Lord Palmerston did not attend this sitting, but has come down

to town to receive her Majesty’s last commands. The Queen embarks to-day

at Woolwich, and goes first to Brussels to meet for the first time the

Princess Alexandra, and her parents. A few days later the Prince of

Wales will also come to Brussels, when the betrothal will be officially

declared. The indiscretion of the newspapers, which speak of the

betrothal as a settled affair before it has actually been announced, has

given great annoyance at Windsor Castle.”[145] The impression which the

youth and beauty of the Danish Princess made on the Queen was most

favourable, and the preliminaries of the marriage were soon arranged.

Her Majesty then proceeded to Germany, where she retired to the little

shooting-box of Reinhardsbrunn, a residence so small that even Lord

Russell had to stay at Gotha for lack of accommodation. In a letter to

Count Vitzthum, he gives us a casual glimpse of the Queen’s retreat. “I

went to Reinhardsbrunn yesterday (17th September),” says Lord Russell,

“and took an opportunity of speaking to the Queen about the proposed

visit of Prince George of Saxony. Her Majesty appreciated the kindness

of the King of Saxony, whom she regarded, she said, in the light of a

relation. The Queen has no room in the house she inhabits to lodge any

one, but if the Prince George could come any day after to-morrow

(Friday), about three o’clock to pay her a visit, she would be happy to

see him. The Prince of Wales is in high spirits, and willingly accepts

congratulations on his marriage.”[146]

In the middle of October the Princess Louis of Hesse-Darmstadt and her

husband came to England, awaiting at Windsor the arrival of the Queen,

who was then at Osborne. The thoughtful affection of the Princess

herself prompted this visit. It was feared that the anniversary of the

Prince Consort’s death might bring on one of those attacks of nervous

prostration from which the Queen suffered, during the first year of her

bereavement, and at such a moment the presence of the Princess Alice

afforded comfort, consolation, and confidence to the Royal family.

On the 18th of December the Queen emerged from her seclusion to

superintend the removal of the Prince Consort’s remains from St.

George’s Chapel to the Mausoleum at Frogmore Park. This sepulchral

edifice had been built by her special directions as a monument of the

affection and reverence which she and her children bore to the dead

Prince. It is cruciform in plan, the arms of the cross radiating from a

central cell, lit by three semi-circular windows in the clerestory, to

the cardinal points of the compass. Polished shafts of cold grey granite

decorate the outside of the building, and on an octagonal roof of copper

a gilded cross gleams on a square-set tower. The transepts are also

square, and lit by a clerestory corresponding with that in the central

cell. Monoliths of Aberdeen and Guernsey granite flank the steps of the

entrance porch, and the whole exterior is faced with polished granites

and parti-coloured masonry. When the Prince’s remains were laid there,

the interior--remarkable for its almost Oriental richness of subdued

colour and for the splendour of its golden decorations--was unfinished,

nor was Marochetti’s recumbent statue of the Prince, which was to be

placed over his sarcophagus, completed.

[Illustration: REINHARDSBRUNN, NEAR GOTHA.]

Early on the morning of the 18th of December the remains of the Prince

were taken from St. George’s Chapel, Windsor, to Frogmore, the ceremony

being conducted in extreme privacy. The coffin was first placed in a

hearse, which was followed by the Prince of Wales and Prince Louis of

Hesse in a mourning coach. The Lord Chamberlain, the Dean of Windsor,

Sir Charles Phipps, Colonel Grey, and other officials and domestics of

the Royal Household formed the rest of the procession. The ceremony was

very brief, simple, and solemn, and when the coffin was placed within

the sarcophagus, the Princes laid upon it floral wreaths, which the

Princesses had woven with their own hands for their father’s grave.