LORD PALMERSTON’S LAST CONTEST WITH THE QUEEN.
The Sleswig-Holstein Question--The Danish Succession--Palmerston’s
Partisanship--The “Danification” of the Duchies--The Letters-Patent
of Christian VIII.--The Revolution of ’48--The Sleswig-Holstein
Treaty of Berlin--Salic Law in the Duchies--Palmerston’s Intrigue
with the Russian Ambassador--The Protocol of 1850--The Queen’s
Objections to it--Prince Albert’s Advice to the Prince of Noër--The
Treaty of London--Lord Malmesbury’s Fatal Blunder--His Mistake as
to the Mandate of the Diet--Letters-Patent of Frederick VII.--His
Death--Accession of Christian IX.--Revolt of the
Duchies--Proclamation of the Duke of Augustenburg as Sovereign--Mr.
Gladstone’s Popular Budget--Death of Sir George Cornewall
Lewis--The Queen’s Letter to Lady Theresa Lewis--The Dispute with
Brazil--The Prison Ministers Bill--A South Kensington
Job--Hoodwinking the Commons--A “Scene” in the House of Commons--A
Ministerial Defeat--Sir George Grey and the City Police--The Civil
War in America--Escape of the _Alabama_--Illegal Seizure of the
_Alexandra_--Blockade Running--Proclamation Abolishing
Slavery--Progress of the War--Net Results of the Campaigns.
Lord Palmerston is said to have declared that only one man in Europe
knew all the history and details of the Sleswig-Holstein Question, and
that his opinion about it seemed to be contrary to common sense. Since
1846 the problem had engaged the subtlest of European diplomatists and
Jurisconsults in chronic controversy. The Kings of Denmark were also
Sovereign Dukes of Sleswig-Holstein, and when they were absolute
monarchs, the Germans in the Duchies were on the same footing as the
Danes. They were equally in bondage. On the death of Frederick VI., in
1839, his great-nephew, Christian VIII., succeeded him as King of
Denmark, and all the subsequent trouble rose from the fact that his only
son, the Prince Frederick, was not likely to have an heir. The question
of the succession was further complicated because the Salic Law which
existed in the German Empire obtained in the Duchies of Sleswig and in
Holstein--the latter, indeed, being actually one of the States of the
Germanic Confederation. The Landgravine Louise of Hesse would, on the
death of Prince Frederick, be the nearest heir to the Danish throne. But
as the Salic Law excluded a woman from the Sovereignty of the Duchies,
her succession must destroy the integrity of Denmark. It was of the
utmost importance to Russia to preserve this integrity, because, in the
first place, the Romanoffs had themselves claims to part of the Duchies,
which, on the extinction of the Royal House of Denmark, might be
extended over the whole country; and, in the second place, if the
Duchies broke away from Denmark they would naturally be absorbed by
Germany, which would thus gain not only a valuable seaboard, but the
formidable naval station of Kiel, from which she might dispute Russian
supremacy in the Baltic. Two leading ideas, therefore, are from this
point seen to dominate diplomacy in treating the question of the
Duchies. The first is the Teutonic idea, which was, by every legitimate
means, to prevent the Duchies from being absorbed by Denmark, and to
draw closer and closer their connection with Germany. The
[Illustration: FREDERICK CHARLES, DUKE OF AUGUSTENBURG.]
second is the Slavonic idea, which was to maintain, at all costs, the
integrity of Denmark, and as far as possible encourage the policy that
promoted a closer union between her and the Duchies. In this conflict of
diplomatic forces the policy of England was vacillating and
inconsistent, and for an excellent reason. Palmerston committed the
fatal blunder of identifying British interests with the veiled designs
of Russia, and he became a violent partisan of Denmark, whose policy was
solely directed to what was called the “Danification” of the Duchies. On
the other hand, the Queen had what Palmerston lacked--patience to master
the complicated facts of the Danish question, and she became convinced
that law and justice were on the side of the German Party in
Sleswig-Holstein. The Prince Consort, again, was perhaps the only
eminent man of his time who detected the hand of Russia in the game of
intrigue at Copenhagen, from which sprang the policy of absorbing the
Duchies against their will. He had the sense to see that British
interests could hardly depend on maintaining the integrity of a small
State like Denmark against the will of its people, and against the
public law of Europe, and with no other practical result than that of
preventing Germany from establishing herself as a rival power to Russia
in the Baltic. Prince Albert’s death merely strengthened the Queen in
her loyalty to his ideas--which in this instance were in harmony with
her own conclusions. Hence, in 1863 and 1864, when the Danish Question
became acute, the Queen and Lord Palmerston were in irreconcilable
conflict, which explains why English policy seemed to the world at the
time, a tissue of unintelligible inconsistencies. Happily for the
English people, this conflict ended in the humiliating defeat of
Palmerston--who, however, fought for his hand to the bitter end, with a
courage and an obstinacy worthy of a better cause. No Tudor Sovereign
ever strove more unweariedly and with more complete success than did the
Queen at this time, to thwart the policy of her Minister, in the
interests of peace, progress, and civilisation.
The first sign of trouble in the Duchies was given in 1846, when
Christian VIII., as the Queen and Prince Consort knew, acting at the
instigation of Russia, issued letters-patent extending the Danish law of
female succession to all his dominions. These letters were a flagrant
outrage on the public law of Europe, which excluded female sovereignty
from his German provinces. Still Germany could only interfere on behalf
of Holstein, which, as one of the States of the Germanic Confederation,
was--as we have seen--under Salic Law. On the other hand, the German
Party in the Duchies agitated against the letters-patent as an
infringement of their autonomy; they demanded the union of the two
Duchies, and their full and final absorption by the German Bund or Diet.
The Diet, however, merely promised to defend their rights in Holstein,
and vindicate the claims of all legal agnates in the succession to the
Sovereignty of the Duchies. The death of Christian VIII. on the 20th of
January, 1848, gave the German Party an opportunity for revolt. A
Provisional Government was formed for the Duchies, and Prussia helped
the Germans in Sleswig-Holstein to expel their Danish masters. The
dispute dragged on till the 2nd of July, 1850, when a Treaty between
Denmark and Prussia was signed at Berlin, vesting the Danish succession
in Prince Christian of Sleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, and on
his issue in the male line by his marriage with Louise, Princess of
Hesse, heiress of the Crown of Denmark, who ceded to him all her rights.
But the rights of the German Federation as regards Holstein and
Lauenburg were not prejudiced by this Treaty. As for the heir to the
Sovereignty of the Duchies under Salic Law--the Duke of Augustenburg--he
sold his claims for 3,500,000 dollars. But obviously such a Treaty had
no validity till it was sanctioned by the German Diet, inasmuch as it
changed the legal succession in Holstein. An acknowledgment of the
principle of maintaining at all hazards the integrity of Denmark, to be
of use, must therefore have European sanction. To pave the way for a
Treaty embodying this sanction Russian diplomacy at once set to work,
and, unfortunately, Palmerston’s indiscretion at this juncture put him
at the mercy of Baron Brunnow, the Russian Minister in London. It will
be remembered that Palmerston’s policy of coercing Greece to recover Don
Pacifico’s bad debts, had caused France to withdraw her Minister from
London. But Russia took up the quarrel quite as fiercely as France, and
Baron Brunnow not only absented himself from the official dinner at the
Foreign Office on the Queen’s birthday, but finding that, through Lady
Palmerston’s agency, means were taken to persuade the Queen that he
meant to insult her personally, Brunnow called on Prince Albert
privately and told him why he could not be present. It need hardly be
said that this explanation did not soften her Majesty’s feeling towards
Palmerston. Then came the censure which the House of Lords passed on him
on the 17th of June. It was morally certain that if Russia followed
France in withdrawing her Minister, the House of Commons would have
confirmed the censure of the Lords, whereupon--condemned alike by the
Crown and by both Houses of Parliament, by the Tories, the Radicals, and
the Peace Party--Palmerston’s career must have ended. And every moment
Brunnow’s demand for his passports was expected. At this crisis
Palmerston, says Count Vitzthum, “turned to the Russian Minister with
the inquiry whether there were no means of reconciling the Cabinet of
St. Petersburg. After some consideration, Brunnow proposed a bargain:
‘Give us Denmark,’ he said, ‘and then we will give you Greece and forget
the past.’ Of course it was not a question of ceding the Danish Kingdom,
but of converting it into a Russian dependency, and giving the Emperor
Nicholas a prospect of obtaining the harbour of Kiel.”[163] But how was
this to be done? The first step was to get the integrity of Denmark
affirmed as a European interest. Playing on Palmerston’s ignorance,
Brunnow invented Russian claims to the Duchies based on those rights to
the Gottorp portion, which the Emperor Paul had surrendered. These
claims, Brunnow said, would be revived by the Czar Nicholas when the
Danish line of kings became extinct with the death of Frederick VII. At
such a suggestion Palmerston entered quite eagerly into the project of
settling the succession to the Danish Crown on the basis (1), of
recognising the integrity of Denmark as a European interest; (2), of
passing over all male heirs to the sovereignty of the whole Danish
Kingdom, in favour of Prince Christian of Glücksburg, the husband of the
female heir. The points in the game which Russian diplomacy scored were
three. The bargain kept Kiel out of German hands, which were alone
strong enough to hold it against Russia. By getting the integrity of
Denmark recognised, Russia rendered it easy for her to demand the whole
kingdom whenever the time came to revive the Czar’s so-called claims to
the Duchies as heir to the House of Gottorp. By getting the sovereignty
of Denmark vested in Christian of Glücksburg, Russia contrived to seat
on the Danish throne a Prince whose line of succession was not unlikely
to fail.
[Illustration: THE EXCHANGE, COPENHAGEN.]
When the bargain was struck France and Sweden recognised it. The Czar,
as usual, “answered” for Prussia and Austria, and it was embodied in the
Protocol of the 4th of July, 1850. The Queen, however, objected most
strenuously to the whole arrangement. She warned her Ministers that it
arbitrarily set aside the legal rights of nineteen agnates nearer in
succession to the childless Frederick VII. than Christian of
Sleswig-Holstein-Glücksburg. The Prince Consort declared in one of his
letters to Stockmar that it violated law, equity, and honour, and
predicted that trouble would spring from it. “But,” writes Count
Vitzthum, “though he alone saw through the Russian game, he shrank from
bringing the direct pressure of his influence to bear on the English
Ministry in a matter which might expose him to the charge of
sympathising too strongly with his Fatherland.” Yet he seems to have
taken very strong means privately to neutralise the policy of Palmerston
and Brunnow. He advised the Prince of Noër, one of the nineteen agnates
who were set aside, to protest formally against the settlement of the
Danish succession, so that the idea of challenging it was at all events
kept alive in
[Illustration: THE HARBOUR, COPENHAGEN.]
Germany. The Prince of Noër warned the Powers that he would only
acquiesce in the new order of succession on condition of its being
stipulated by an International Treaty, similar in principle to that of
Utrecht, that the Czar of Russia should in no case be permitted to wear
the Danish Crown. After the intrigue between Palmerston and the Russian
Minister, it was of course impossible to put this condition, which would
alone have protected British interests, into the Protocol, which was
subsequently expanded into the Treaty of 1852 and signed by Lord
Malmesbury. This Treaty was known as the Treaty of London (8th of May,
1852), and so completely did Palmerston in 1863-64 feel that his policy
and prestige were bound up with it, that he dragged the country to the
verge of war to uphold its provisions. When the Treaty of London was
signed, an inexplicable blunder was made by the Tory Government. The
document was legally worthless unless ratified by the German Diet. But
Lord Malmesbury permitted himself to believe that Austria and Prussia
signed it as mandatories of the Diet, whereas, as a matter of fact, they
took care merely to sign it in their individual capacities, as
independent States. Other German States afterwards gave their sanction
to it, but most of them with the reservation that the ratification of
the Diet--that is, of Germany in her corporate capacity--should be
obtained. Thus Palmerston’s settlement of the Danish succession was a
Treaty which settled nothing, because he and Lord Malmesbury had been
reckless enough to take it for granted that Austria and Prussia, in
signing it, acted on a mandate from Germany, which they had neither
sought nor obtained.
The arrangement of 1852 not only changed the Danish succession, but
before it was made Denmark pledged herself to fulfil all her obligations
to the Diet in regard to Holstein, to respect the old autonomy and
privileges of both Duchies, to maintain their union, and never to
incorporate them into Denmark proper. Frederick VII., under the
influence of the Democratic party and a meddlesome mistress, repeatedly
violated these engagements. He was perpetually attempting to undermine
the independence of the Duchies, and the Diet was perpetually protesting
against his policy.[164] At last, in March, 1863, he issued decrees
dissolving the union of Sleswig and Holstein, and practically
incorporating them in Denmark. Frederick VII. died on the 15th of
November, 1863, and the father of the Princess of Wales succeeded him as
Christian IX. His first act, done under Democratic menaces at
Copenhagen, was to decree that legislative power in respect to the
common affairs of Sleswig and Denmark, was to be vested in the King and
the Danish Rigsraad, and that no law passed by the Rigsraad was to be
dependent upon the passing of a similar law by the legislatures of
either Sleswig or Holstein. This completed the subjection of the Germans
in the Duchies to the Danes, and the very day after Christian IX.
ascended the throne they accordingly retaliated by disputing his right
to rule over them. The young Duke of Augustenburg thereupon claimed the
sovereignty of the Duchies. True, his father had surrendered his rights.
But, it was argued, a hereditary sovereign cannot surrender hereditary
rights without the consent of his heir-apparent--just as the owner of an
entailed estate cannot sell it, without the consent of his heirs in
tail. On the 21st of November the Holstein Legislature refused to swear
allegiance to Christian IX., after which Saxony, Bavaria, Hesse, and
other German States resolved to support the claim of the Duke of
Augustenburg to Holstein, and the Prussian Chambers passed a resolution
in favour of vindicating the rights of the Duchies and of the
Augustenburg family. On the 27th of December the Duke of Augustenburg
was proclaimed Sovereign of Sleswig-Holstein, and on the 30th he made
his entry into Kiel. On the 31st the Danish Cabinet resigned, and a new
Ministry was formed by Bishop Monrad. The question of the Succession, so
far as the German Diet was concerned, was simple enough. For the Diet
the Treaty of London had no existence. Therefore the Landgravine Louise
of Hesse was Queen of Denmark. As the Salic Law excluded her from the
sovereignty of the Duchies, it was for the Diet purely an open question
who had the best right to them.[165]
The domestic policy of the Government was not of much interest in 1863.
Very early in the Session Mr. Gladstone introduced his Budget. The
American War had sent the price of cotton up from 7d. to 2s. 1d. a
pound, and trade was prostrate and stagnant in Lancashire. The
agricultural wealth of Ireland from 1856 to 1860 had been, on the
average, about £39,437,000[166] a year. But in 1863 it had fallen to
£27,327,000--a decrease of £12,000,000, a sum not far short of the
established annual valuation of the country, which was but £13,000,000.
Ireland and Lancashire ought therefore to have made havoc with Mr.
Gladstone’s estimates for the past year. So far from that being the
case, the revenue, under the expansive influence of Free Trade, had
risen to £67,790,000, or £805,000 over the estimates.[167] The
expenditure had been £69,302,000, or £806,000 less than the estimates.
For the coming year Mr. Gladstone accordingly estimated a revenue of
£71,490,000 on the existing basis. Hence he had in view a surplus of
£3,741,000, so that he saw his way to lessen the pressure of taxation on
the people. He therefore reduced the Income Tax from 9d. to 7d. in the
pound, readjusting its incidence so as to give more relief to small
incomes. He reduced the tea duty to 1s. in the pound, and equalised the
duties on chicory and coffee, but his attempts to levy Income Tax on
public charities and trust corporations were defeated[168] after a
somewhat acrid controversy. Mr. Gladstone’s argument was that their
corrupt management really deprived most of the rich incorporated
charities of a right to an appeal _ad misericordium_. He, however,
pressed his point too far. His lurid picture of their administrative
abuses tempted people to doubt whether the penal imposition of a
sevenpenny Income Tax was the best means of dealing with such gigantic
evils.
The lamented death of Sir George Cornewall Lewis in April not only
brought confusion into the Cabinet, but it deprived the Queen of a
valued
[Illustration: GENERAL GRANT.]
friend, whose services she could ill afford to lose. “To me, dear Lady
Theresa,” the Queen says in a letter to Sir George’s widow (15th April),
“this is a heavy loss, a severe blow! My own darling had the very
highest esteem, regard, and respect for dear Sir Cornewall Lewis; we
delighted in his society; we admired his great honesty and fearless
straightforwardness. We had the greatest confidence in him, and since my
terrible misfortune, I clung particularly to characters like his, which
are so rare. I felt he was a friend, and I looked to him as a support,
and a wise and safe counsellor. He is snatched away, and his loss to me
and to the country is irreparable. How little did I think, when I talked
to him the last time here, and he spoke so kindly of my popularity, as
he so kindly expressed it, that I should never see his kind face
again.”[169] He was leader of “the Court Party” in the Cabinet, and was
succeeded at the War Office by Earl de Grey.
[Illustration: CHRISTIANSBORG CASTLE, COPENHAGEN.]
Only one question provoked anything resembling a party division during
the Session, and that was the Prison Ministers Bill. The object of the
measure was to allow prisoners to be attended by clergy of their own
denominations and persuasions. As the Roman Catholics would derive most
benefit from the Bill, it was opposed warmly by a powerful body of the
Tory Party. The Liberals naturally supported the measure, and on this
occasion they were joined by a few of the more enlightened
Conservatives, such as Lord Derby, Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Henley, and Sir
John Pakington. As Mr. Disraeli was at the time favouring an intrigue
for detaching the Roman Catholic Party from the Liberals, it was with
ill-concealed chagrin that he listened to the bigoted attacks of his
followers on the Bill, which was, however, passed. The suspension of
amicable relations with Brazil,[170] the vote for the purchase of the
Exhibition Buildings, the reorganisation of the London police, and the
attitude of the Government to the belligerents in the American Civil
War, were the only other topics that created serious or practical
Parliamentary discussion.
The vote for the purchase of the Exhibition Building of 1862 was
extremely unpopular, and but for the Queen’s influence it would probably
have been rejected by the House of Commons. The country even then viewed
with strong suspicion the tendency to centralise all National
collections in the distant Court suburb of Kensington. It was also
insinuated that the Royal Family had pecuniary interests in building
land, the value of which would be enhanced by creating a Science and Art
Department in this quarter. That insinuation is contradicted by Sir
Theodore Martin, who asserts that Prince Albert never was able to save
any money out of his private income to purchase such lands for his
heirs.[171] This perhaps accounts for what has long been a popular
mystery--the fact that his will was never submitted to Probate. As a
matter of course, if he had no money to leave to his heirs, the Prince
must have left no will that was worth proving. But in 1863 these
insinuations had sunk deep in the public mind, and the manner in which
Lord Palmerston managed the question gave colour to them. He knew that
the proposal to buy the Exhibition Building of 1862 was hateful to the
taxpayers. The edifice was architecturally unfit for the reception of a
permanent national collection of paintings, and its distance from London
rendered all schemes for transferring to it the pictures from the
National Gallery in Trafalgar Square objectionable in the extreme.
Palmerston, however, at the outset disarmed his critics by proposing
merely to buy from the Exhibition Commissioners, for £67,000, the site
of the Exhibition, and it was tolerably cheap for a metropolitan site,
in days when land in the City fetched £119,000 an acre. This site, he
said, was wanted for a building to house the new Patent Office, some
natural history collections from the British Museum, and for a National
Portrait Gallery. Then he asked the House of Commons to vote £120,000
for the purchase of another “lot” of seventeen acres belonging to the
Commissioners adjacent to the Exhibition site, and, finally, he desired
it to vote £80,000 for the building itself. Very artfully he had the
votes put separately, and Mr. Gladstone aided him by positively assuring
the House that the project of buying the building--which was universally
unpopular--was one quite apart from the other projects. By a vote of 267
to 135 the House agreed, but grudgingly, to the purchase of the ground,
intending to fight the taxpayers’ battle on the question of buying the
building. When, however, they came to the vote for the building, Mr.
Gladstone informed them they had no option but to purchase it, for the
contractors were under no obligation to remove it--a fact which Lord
Palmerston had carefully concealed from the House. Members were thus in
possession of a site burdened with a useless building which it was
nobody’s business to remove. If the Government pulled it down, and then
put up another structure in its place, the operation would cost much
more than the £105,000 which were needed to buy and adapt it to public
uses. The House was furious at finding itself trapped by Lord Palmerston
and Mr. Gladstone. Bitter complaints of Courtly jobbery were heard on
all sides, and a Ministerial defeat was the result. Lord Malmesbury,
writing on the 5th of July in his “Diary,” says:--“Several people
called, who told me that the scene in the House of Commons when the
division took place on the vote for the purchase of the Exhibition
Building was extraordinary. Sir Stafford Northcote’s speech[172] was the
signal for a storm, and he was forced to sit down. Disraeli had
canvassed his supporters, telling them that he had a letter in his
pocket from the Queen. This had a disastrous effect, and when he got up
the hooting was so terrific that he could not be heard. Gladstone’s
speech had already excited great indignation, for it showed how
completely the Government had deceived the House when Lord Palmerston
had induced them to vote for the purchase of the land, leaving them
under the delusion that the contractors for the Exhibition were bound to
remove the building if it was not sold within a certain time. Gladstone
had told them that there was no engagement of the sort, and that he
believed they were not obliged to remove it at all. This, whether true
or not, was taken as a menace to force them to buy the building, and
infuriated the House of Commons the more, as Lord Elcho proved that the
purchase would be a most disadvantageous one, entailing an enormous
expense. So the House rose _en masse_, and, after a scene of the utmost
confusion and excitement, defeated the Government by more than two to
one, Gladstone and Disraeli looking equally angry.”[173] It need hardly
be said that Mr. Disraeli’s indiscreet use of the Queen’s name in this
questionable transaction was unwarranted and unwarrantable.
The inefficiency displayed by the City Police at the entry of the
Princess Alexandra into London tempted Sir George Grey to propose that
the Metropolitan and City Forces should be amalgamated under the control
of the Home Office. This was hotly opposed. The Lord Mayor and Mr.
Alderman Sidney protested against a scheme for giving the Home Secretary
control of what might become a large standing army in the City of
London.[174] Other members raised the cry of “centralisation,” and
denounced the measure as an attack on the principle of local
self-government. It was now the turn of London to be assailed, but
Manchester and Birmingham and all other powerful cities would soon share
the fate of the Metropolis. All over England municipal bodies naturally
made common cause with the City of London, and it was soon apparent that
the Government must either bend or break. Luckily it was discovered
that the Bill was not a public but a private Bill, and, as such, subject
in respect of notices to certain Standing Orders which had not been
obeyed. This omission gave Sir George Grey a technical excuse for
withdrawing it.
Vigorous efforts were made during 1863 to induce the Government to
recognise the Southern Confederacy, but they were made in vain. Mr.
Roebuck, in the House of Commons, proposed a motion in favour of
recognition, alleging that in an interview with Napoleon III. he had
discovered that France would co-operate with England for that
purpose--nay, he warned Lord Palmerston that France might recognise the
South without waiting for our co-operation. The Tory Party, though
strongly sympathising with Mr. Roebuck’s views, were restrained by their
leaders from harassing the Cabinet, and it was the general feeling that
Ministers should be left quite free to act. As for the Government,
through Lord Palmerston and Lord Russell, it repeatedly declared that it
was bent on adhering to a policy of scrupulous neutrality. But this was
a matter of some difficulty. Many Englishmen had engaged in the
lucrative trade of blockade-running. When their vessels failed to pass
the Federal cordon round the Southern ports, and were seized, their
owners, as Lord Russell said, “put on an air of injured innocence, and
came to the Foreign Office demanding redress.” In Parliament, too, their
friends attacked Ministers for meekly submitting to violations of
International Law by officers of the Federal Navy, and the investigation
of these cases, especially when the seizures were of doubtful legality,
raised many irritating controversies between the two Governments.
Swift-armed cruisers were built in English ports for the Confederate
States, and then taken out to sea, and fitted with their guns and
armaments. The difficulty of preventing their escape--at all times
serious--was aggravated by the uncertain state of English law on the
subject. One of these cruisers, the _Alabama_, had been allowed to sail
from the Mersey, and had committed fearful depredations on Federal
commerce. The American Government alleged that her escape was due to
Lord Russell’s culpable negligence. The truth was that the Government
meant to arrest the _Alabama_, but owing to the temporary mental
derangement of the Judge Advocate-General there was delay in going
through certain legal formalities, and before this was overcome the ship
had put out to sea. On the other hand, when another vessel of the same
class--the _Alexandra_--was seized, her seizure was pronounced illegal
by the English Law Courts. Lord Russell’s action was either too slow or
too quick, and in each case it served to irritate both North and South.
But the country gave the Government a generous support, recognising
their sincerity in endeavouring to maintain a neutral policy, in spite
of the pressure which was put upon them by Southern partisans.
In America the war dragged slowly on. On the 1st of January Mr.
Lincoln’s Proclamation abolishing slavery in the rebel States took
effect, but without producing a servile insurrection, as was
anticipated. After
[Illustration: MEMORIAL OF THE GREAT EXHIBITION IN THE ROYAL
HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY’S GARDENS, SOUTH KENSINGTON.]
the drawn battle of Murfreesborough, with which the year 1862 closed,
and the Federal defeat at Fredericksburg, the efforts of the North were
chiefly directed against Charleston. In April Admiral Dupont was
repulsed in an attack on the harbour, and in summer Admiral Dahlgren
resumed siege operations, but without success. In May General Hooker led
the Army of the Potomac across the Rappahannock, and took up positions
above and below that held by the Confederates at Fredericksburg. Lee, by
a rapid movement westward, crushed Hooker’s force at Chancellorsville,
and then suddenly doubling back easily defeated Sedgwick’s division
which had occupied Fredericksburg. The Army of the Potomac retraced its
steps across the Rappahannock, and Richmond was no longer menaced. On
the 4th of July Grant captured Vicksburg after a series of brilliant
operations, and then Port Hudson surrendered to Banks. This was a great
gain for the Federals, for not only did they clear the Mississippi of
rebels, but the powerful garrisons, with their material of war, which
President Davis had, by an inconceivable blunder, shut up in the river
forts, fell into their hands. At the beginning of summer Lee outflanked
Hooker, defeated Milroy on the Shenandoah, and then, by a daring
movement, crossed the Potomac, and, to the terror of the Government at
Washington, carried the war into Maryland and Pennsylvania. Hooker was
dismissed, and Meade, summoning all available troops to his standard,
marched in haste to arrest Lee’s progress. They met at Gettysburg,
where, after terrible slaughter, Lee confessed his failure, and
retreated unmolested to Virginia.[175] Beauregard’s successful defence
of Charleston consoled the Confederates for the failure of Lee’s
invasion of Maryland and Pennsylvania, and in September they were
further cheered by Longstreet’s victory over Rosecrans at Chickamauga in
Tennessee. Though the obstinate valour of General Thomas’s division
enabled Rosecrans to rally his troops on Chattanooga heights, the
position of the Federals in Tennessee was perilous. Rosecrans at
Chattanooga, and Burnside at Knoxville, were separated in the midst of a
hostile population, and Lee was hurrying on reinforcements to strengthen
General Bragg, who was threatening the Federal Commanders. On the other
hand, Grant, who had the chief command in this region, was reinforced by
Sherman, and he determined to attack Bragg as the easiest way of
relieving Burnside. This he did on the 23rd of November at Missionary
Ridge, his plan being to overwhelm Bragg’s right by hurling masses of
Sherman’s troops against it till he broke it up. When Sherman was
repulsed, the Federals then attacked the left centre of the Confederate
position, compelling Bragg to retreat to the frontier of Georgia. Grant
then fell back on Chattanooga, Burnside holding his entrenchments at
Knoxville, from which Longstreet drew off his forces. Thus, though the
Northern campaign in Virginia was unsuccessful, the Federals were
masters of the Mississippi and of Tennessee when the year closed. The
Confederate Government, failing to induce Lord Russell to recognise the
Southern States, withdrew their envoy, Mr. Mason, from London.
In early summer (8th May) the Queen and the Princess Alice paid a visit
rather unexpectedly to Netley Hospital, the foundation-stone of which
had been laid seven years before by the late Prince Consort. She visited
ward after ward, conversed with the invalided soldiers in a soft, low
voice, questioning
[Illustration: VISIT OF THE QUEEN TO NETLEY HOSPITAL.]
the officials about their cases, and even penetrated to the married
men’s quarters, where she carefully inquired into the comfort of the
soldiers’ wives and their families. One of the men, in whose case she
had interested herself, was dying, and in broken accents exclaimed, as
she went away, “I thank God that He has allowed me to live long enough
to see your Majesty with my own eyes.” On the 9th of June the Queen and
the younger members of her family came to town from Windsor to inspect
privately the memorial of the Great Exhibition--which also took the
character of a memorial to the late Prince Consort--in the Royal
Horticultural Society’s Gardens at Kensington. It was inaugurated next
day by the Prince and Princess of Wales, attended by a company of ladies
and gentlemen from the Court.
On the 12th of June the Queen received an extraordinary address on the
birthday of the late Prince Consort from the ballast-heavers of the Port
of London, which touched her very deeply. In it they said, “Before he
(Prince Albert) came to our aid we could only get work through a body of
riverside publicans and middlemen, who made us drink before they would
give us a job, made us drink while we were at it, and kept us waiting
for our wages, and drinking after we had done our work, so that we could
only take half our wages home to our families, and that half too often
through a drunkard’s hands.” The Prince, it seems, on getting an appeal
from them, privately persuaded the Government to insert a clause in the
Merchant Shipping Act putting these men under the control of the
Corporation of Trinity House. Then he used his influence in the
Corporation to pass rules for the employment of ballast-heavers, which
met most of their grievances, and he even gave them a house where they
might wait for work, supplied it with papers and books, and helped them
to start a benefit society. The men said in their address that they were
in the habit of celebrating their deliverance from bondage by an annual
treat on the Queen’s birthday, and they added, “Your Majesty will not
wonder that we then think with equal gratitude of our deliverer. He year
by year asked after us, and rejoiced to hear of our improvement while he
lived on earth.” They were, however, desirous of having a portrait of
the Prince to hang in their room, and begged the Queen to give them one.
“We hope,” they said, “your Majesty will excuse our boldness in asking
this favour, but we feel we may speak to our Prince’s wife; and,
therefore, praying you to grant our humble request, we are your
Majesty’s most obedient and faithful servants.” The Queen’s answer came
from her heart. It was as follows:--
“WINDSOR CASTLE, _June 12_.
“MY DEAR SIR,--I have had the honour to lay before her Majesty the
Queen the address from the ballast-heavers of the Port of London,
which you have forwarded to me for presentation. Her Majesty has
been deeply touched by this spontaneous testimony to the active
benevolence of her beloved husband, and amongst all the tokens of
sympathy in her grief, which she has gratefully received from all
classes of her people, no one has been more gratifying to the
Queen, and no one more in harmony with her feelings, than the
simple and unpretending tribute from these honest, hard-working
men. I am commanded to request that you will assure the
ballast-heavers that the interest in their welfare, so especially
displayed by him whose life was employed in endeavouring to benefit
the people of this country, is fully shared by her Majesty, and
that her Majesty rejoices to hear of the happy change in their
moral and social condition. The Queen has the greatest pleasure in
complying with the request contained in the address, and has
ordered two prints of the Prince Consort, one in uniform and one in
ordinary dress, to be framed and presented, to be hung in the room
in which the ballast-heavers wait; to these her Majesty has added
one of herself, as the Queen would wish, in the remembrance of
these grateful men, to be associated with her great and good
husband, whose virtues they have so highly and justly appreciated.
“Believe me, sincerely yours,
“C. B. PHIPPS.”
“Fredk. J. Furnivall, Esq.”
Nor was this the only occasion during the year on which the Queen
manifested her vigilant interest in the lot of her poorer subjects. In
July a wretched woman named Geneive had been forced by her husband to
walk on a rotten tight rope, suspended thirty yards above the ground, at
a Foresters’ Fête in Aston Park, Birmingham. The rope broke, and the
poor creature, who was far advanced in pregnancy, was dashed to pieces
in the most shocking manner. Yet the fête was continued, the Committee
callously determining “to go on with the programme, omitting the
dangerous parts.” On the 25th of July the Mayor of Birmingham was
somewhat startled to receive from Sir C. B. Phipps a letter in the
following terms:--“The Queen has commanded me to express to you the pain
with which her Majesty has read the account of a fatal accident which
has occurred during a fête at Aston Park, Birmingham. Her Majesty cannot
refrain from making known through you her personal feelings of horror
that one of her subjects--a female--should have been sacrificed to the
gratification of the demoralising taste, unfortunately prevalent, for
exhibitions attended with the greatest danger to the performers. Were
any proof wanting that such exhibitions are demoralising, I am commanded
to remark that it would be at once found in the decision arrived at to
continue the festivities, the hilarity, and the sports of the occasion
after an event so melancholy. The Queen trusts that you, in common with
the rest of the townspeople of Birmingham, will use your influence to
prevent in future the degradation to such exhibitions of the Park which
was gladly opened by her Majesty and the beloved Prince Consort, in the
hope that it would be made serviceable for the healthy exercise and
rational recreation of the people.” The Mayor explained that when he
became a patron of the fête he did not know that a dangerous exhibition
was contemplated, and though Aston Park was outside his jurisdiction, he
promised to use his influence to prevent such exhibitions from being
held there in future.
On the 11th of August the Queen left London for Antwerp, from which she
proceeded to Laeken with the King of the Belgians. From Belgium she went
on to Gotha, where she stayed at the Castle of Rosenau till the 7th of
September. On the 8th of the month her Majesty journeyed to
Kranichstein, near Darmstadt, and spent the day with the Princess Louis
of
[Illustration: THE QUEEN UNVEILING THE STATUE OF PRINCE ALBERT AT
ABERDEEN.]
Hesse. Leaving at night, the Queen was in Antwerp early next morning
(9th), and on the 10th at Greenhithe, whence the _Fairy_, steam tender
to the royal yacht, conveyed her to Woolwich. Driving to Nine Elms, she
took train to Windsor, greatly pleased by the hearty greetings she
received from crowds of people at the chief stations on the way. The
autumnal holiday was, as usual, spent at Balmoral, where a kindly and
sympathetic family party gathered round the Queen. Prince Louis of Hesse
and the Princess (Alice) stayed with her at the Castle. The Crown Prince
and Princess of Prussia, with their family, were lodged hard by at
Abergeldie. The Princess Louis of Hesse devoted herself to her mother,
and with characteristic energy endeavoured to dispel the heaviness of
heart which was again settling on her. For this purpose she urged the
Queen to resume the old open-air life among the mountains, from which
she had derived incalculable benefit in times past. The Princess
therefore organised an expedition to Clova, which her mother was induced
to join. The party consisted of the Queen, the Princess Louis of Hesse,
the Princess Helena, the Queen’s coachman, Smith, and her gillie, John
Brown, and “Willem,” a little black page-boy in the service of the
Princess Louis. The excursion was marred by an alarming accident which
befell the party on the way home. The coachman lost his way in the dark,
and about two miles from Altnagiuthasach the carriage was upset--the
Queen being flung violently on her face to the ground. “Alice,” writes
the Queen in her “Journal,” was “soon helped up, by means of tearing all
her clothes to disentangle her; but Lenchen (Princess Helena), who had
also got caught in her dress, called out very piteously, which
frightened me a good deal, but she was also got out with Brown’s
assistance, and neither she nor Alice was at all hurt. I reassured them
that I was not hurt, and urged that we should make the best of it, as it
was an inevitable misfortune.... Meantime the horses were lying on the
ground as if dead, and it was absolutely necessary to get them up again.
Alice, whose coolness was admirable, held one of the lamps while Brown
cut the traces, to the horror of Smith, and the horses were speedily
released, and got up unhurt.” The Queen’s common-sense advice to “make
the best of it” was taken, and the Royal party encamped in this desolate
mountain solitude, while Smith was sent on to get another carriage. Then
the Princesses discovered that their mother had been bruised severely on
the face, and that her right thumb was sprained. “A little claret,” the
Queen says, “was all we could get either to drink or wash my face and
hands.” Luckily, the groom, who had gone on in front with the
“shelties,” or rough little mountain ponies, which the Queen and her
family use for hill climbing, got alarmed at their long absence, and he
very sensibly rode back to see if any accident had happened. When he
came up the Queen insisted on mounting at once and riding all the way
home, which she reached after ten o’clock at night, to find the Crown
Prince of Prussia and Prince Louis of Hesse at the door of the Castle
anxiously looking out for her. A week after this accident (13th of
October) the Queen was present at the inauguration of Marochetti’s
statue to the Prince Consort at Aberdeen. “I could not reconcile it to
myself,” she said, in replying to an address from the subscribers, “to
remain at Balmoral while such a tribute was being paid to his (Prince
Albert’s) memory, without making an exertion to assure you personally of
the deep and heartfelt sense I entertain of your kindness and affection,
and at the same time to proclaim in public the unbounded reverence and
admiration, the devoted love, that fills my heart for him whose loss
must throw a lasting gloom over my future life.” It was a mournful
ceremony for the Queen, whose emotion was so great that she had to
depute Sir George Grey, the Minister in attendance, to read her reply.
Dense crowds of people filled the streets, but forbore to cheer,
greeting the Royal widow merely with silent and respectful sympathy. In
a letter to the Lord Provost of the city, the Queen, on her return to
Balmoral, assured him how fully she appreciated the consideration which
was shown for her feelings, not only by those who took part in the
ceremony, but by the townspeople generally, “on an occasion which was
one of severe and painful trial” for her. During the months of September
and October the Princess Louis of Hesse was in attendance on the Queen,
who was much cheered and benefited by her affectionate companionship.
But her visit came to an end in October, when the Princess, in a letter
to her Majesty written from Buckingham Palace, on her way to Darmstadt,
says of her sojourn, “It was such a happiness to speak to you, and in
return to hear all you had to say, to try and soothe you, and try to
make your burthen lighter.... I can only say again, trust, hope, and be
courageous, and every day will bring something in the fulfilment of your
great duties which will bring you peace and make you feel that you are
not forsaken, that God has heard your prayer, felt for you as a loving
Father would, and that dear papa is not far from you.”[176] The 14th of
December--the anniversary of the Prince Consort’s death--was passed in
deep seclusion by the Queen at Windsor. As the year closed the country
was relieved of all anxiety as to the Cotton Famine in Lancashire. The
crisis had, indeed, passed early in summer, and the nation no longer
feared that the calamity would prove unmanageable. The history of the
Cotton Famine may be termed a history of agreeable disappointments. It
was predicted that the prostration of trade in Lancashire would deal a
mortal blow at English commerce--that the revenue would dwindle to a
vanishing point--that the problem of sustaining vast masses of
pauperised labour, whose pauperism must be but the harbinger of general
bankruptcy among their employers, would prove insoluble--that their
starvation would breed pestilence and lead to outbreaks of violence and
crime, ending with seditious attacks on the Government and all
institutions that upheld law and order. Already it has been shown that
commerce, so far from declining, flourished apace during 1862-63, and
that the revenue increased so rapidly that Mr. Gladstone actually
remitted taxes.
The problem of relieving the distress was solved with ease and
simplicity. There were no epidemics of pestilence, and, save in
Stalybridge, no riotous disturbances. The noble resignation, the heroic
patience of the sufferers, and their perfect confidence in the sympathy
and the helpfulness of their countrymen, in fact compelled the
admiration of the civilised world. In the month of December, 1862, there
were 500,000 cotton operatives receiving relief in Lancashire, and the
loss in wages from lack of employment was estimated at £168,000. Cotton
then came in, though in small quantities, and some mills were able to
run. Emigration and the transference of labour to other employments also
relieved the pressure, so that in June, 1863, only 256,000 persons were
receiving relief in the afflicted districts. At the end of the year this
number was reduced to 180,000. So far from the health of the people
suffering, it rather improved. There was less infant mortality than
usual in the cotton districts, possibly because female operatives, being
thrown out of work, were able to devote more attention to their
children.[177] Enforced
[Illustration: SIR CHARLES PHIPPS.]
sobriety gave the people more power to resist disease, and sanitary
precautions which, at the instance of the Executive Committee in
Manchester, were taken by local authorities also tended to keep the
villages wholesome. The funds by which distress was relieved came from
special local rates levied by consent of Parliament in the unions; from
loans raised by local authorities under Parliamentary sanction, and
spent on public works which gave employment to the operatives; and, last
of all, from voluntary subscriptions, which were sent from all quarters
of the world. At first it was thought that little could be expected from
the cotton districts themselves. “Lancashire,” said Mr. Cobden to Lady
Hatherton, “with its machinery stopped is like a man in a fainting fit.
It would be as natural to attempt to draw money from the one as blood
from the other.”[178] But in one form or another, in voluntary
contributions, rates, loss of wages, depreciation of fixed capital,
business losses, Lancashire spent an aggregate of £12,445,000 in coping
with the Cotton Famine. Lancashire, indeed, raised £1,400,000 of the
voluntary contributions received up to April, 1863, which came to
£2,735,000. The work of administration was chiefly centred in the
Executive Committee at Manchester, the President of which was the Earl
of Derby. The voluntary labour at their command must have been very
great, for the cost of administration came only to 15s. for every £100.
What was afterwards called “the Conservative reaction” in Lancashire set
in after this Fund was distributed, for in time, when the old generation
of Radicals died out, their successors in the districts which had been
saved from starvation by the almoners of the Fund, who were often
zealous Anglicans, nearly all went over to the Tory Party. The Queen did
her utmost to contribute to the success of the Fund, and her joy was
unalloyed when she saw that its administrators had, in the beginning of
1864, averted the disaster that menaced her Northern Duchy.
[Illustration: THE ALBERT BRIDGE, WINDSOR.]