THE HEIR-PRESUMPTIVE.
Disputes with American Belligerents--The Southern
Privateers--Uneasiness of the Queen--Federal Recruiting in
Ireland--Mr. Gladstone’s Budget--Revival of the Reform
Agitation--Mr. Gladstone Joins the Reformers--“Essays and
Reviews”--A Heresy-Hunt in Convocation--A Ribald Chancellor--The
Parliamentary Duel between Wilberforce and Westbury--The Vote of
Censure on Mr. Lowe--The Five Under-Secretaries and the House of
Commons--Prorogation of Parliament--The Strife in the United
States--Gambling in Cotton--A Commercial Panic in England--The
Battle of Chancellorsville--Sherman’s March through Georgia--The
Canadian Raiders--The Presidential Election--Birth of the
Heir-Presumptive--Baptism of the Heir-Presumptive--The Queen’s Gift
to her Little Grandson--The Queen and the Floods at Sheffield--The
Murder of Mr. Briggs--The Queen Refuses a Reprieve to the
Murderer--The Queen’s Letter to the Princess Louis--John Brown and
the Queen’s Pony--Dr. Norman McLeod’s Message from the Queen--An
Anniversary of Sorrow and Sympathy.
Next in importance to the Danish Question in 1864, were disputes which
rose out of the relations of England to the belligerents in the American
Civil War. The Southern States having no navy fit to cope with that of
the Federal Government, had equipped swift steam cruisers which swept
American commerce from the seas. They ran no risks in scuttling unarmed
merchantmen, and their speed protected them from capture by men-of-war.
The most formidable of these cruisers or privateers, such as the
_Alabama_ and the _Georgia_, had been built in English yards, usually
under the pretence of being destined for some Foreign Power which was at
peace. When they escaped to sea and got their armament on board, they
hoisted their true colours, and set forth to prey on American commerce.
It has been shown how the precautions which the authorities had taken to
prevent the Southern cruisers from escaping were evaded. The
authorities, however, were more successful in arresting certain
steam-rams--which were being built at the yard of Messrs. Laird in
Birkenhead--the sailing of which Mr. Adams warned Lord Russell would be
taken by the Federal Government as an act of war. Lord Monck, then
Viceroy of Canada, in a letter to the late Mr. A. Hayward, says that the
arrest of the rams had produced a good effect in favour of the English
Government on the _official_ mind in America. On the other hand, the
ship-building trade supported Messrs. Laird in denouncing the action of
the authorities; and the Tory Opposition, and the sympathisers with the
Slave States joined the shipbuilders in attacking the Government. These
attacks were futile, but to avoid the annoyance of litigation, the
Government virtually bribed Messrs. Laird into silence by buying the
rams for her Majesty’s service. On the other hand, the partisans of the
Northern States blamed the Government for being too generous in
extending hospitality to the Southern cruisers, or “pirates,” as they
were termed by the extreme Radicals of the period. When the _Georgia_,
a Confederate cruiser, which had been built on the Clyde, and secretly
equipped by a Liverpool firm, put into Liverpool, it was pointed out
that she ought not to be treated as a ship of war. She had been preying
on the commerce of a friendly Power. Like a pirate, she had never taken
her prizes to be condemned in a Prize Court, but had scuttled them on
the high seas. She had never once been in any of the ports of the
belligerent Power under whose flag she sailed, and altogether a very
unpleasant precedent for a great Maritime State was being created by her
reception at Liverpool. The Queen was understood to be somewhat uneasy
on the subject, and Mr. Thomas Baring, on the part of the commercial
community, expressed a similar feeling of discomfort. It was admitted
that the Government had the power to exclude these vessels from English
ports, but Ministers contended that it would be inexpedient to act so
conspicuously in favour of one of the belligerents, between whom they
desired to stand absolutely neutral. The Government could not be induced
to go further than promise to remonstrate with the Confederates on
account of the conduct of their agents in this country.[214] Complaints
were then made that the Federal Government were surreptitiously carrying
on a system of recruiting in Ireland. Of this no proof could be
obtained, because of the cloak which emigration gave to the proceedings
of the American agents. It was well known in Ireland that any
able-bodied labourer who emigrated to New York could get a bounty of
nearly £100 if he joined the colours. Hence, it is difficult to believe
that the American “crimps” had any inducements to effect the enlistment
of Irish recruits at Cork, rather than at New York. There is reason to
think that the “crimps” infested passenger ships and cajoled emigrants
during the voyage to enlist when they arrived at New York. But public
opinion was satisfied that the Government could not effectually stop
proceedings of this sort--especially on imperfect evidence.
In 1864 finance was again the mainstay of Lord Palmerston’s
Administration. Mr. Gladstone had come to be regarded as a kind of
fiscal magician. He rose superior to every reverse of fortune, and he
had an expedient ready to meet every emergency. In spite of monetary
panics, cotton famines, lavish military expenditure, and large
remissions of taxation, the elasticity of the revenue under his
fostering care supplied every deficit almost as soon as it was created.
The public credit of England had never been higher; her finances had
never been more stable or productive. On the 7th of April, when the
Budget was introduced, he spoke to an overflowing House, and
[Illustration: THE GUARD ROOM, WINDSOR CASTLE.]
princes, peers, foreign envoys, and men of distinction in all ranks
gathered together to listen to the orator. The year had been
uneventfully prosperous, and again the balances were on the right side
of the national ledger. The revenue had produced £70,208,000, or
£2,037,000 above the estimates; the expenditure had been £67,056,000, or
£1,227,000 below the estimates. On the existing basis of taxation, Mr.
Gladstone estimated for the coming year a revenue of £69,460,000; but
his estimated expenditure was only £66,890,000, so that there was a
large margin for financial readjustments. He got rid of £20,000 by
modifying the duty on corn and grain and the tax on small licences; he
devoted £1,330,000 to reduce the sugar duties, and by taking a penny off
the Income Tax he sacrificed at once £800,000, though ultimately
£1,200,000; he reduced the duty on fire insurances on stock-in-trade
from 3s. to 1s. 6d. per £, which involved a loss of £283,000. The net
result of his scheme was a loss of revenue of £2,332,000, while the
relief from taxation amounted to £3,000,000. This left him with an
estimated surplus for the coming year of £238,000. The Budget was
popular, not only on its own account, but on account of the masterly
exposition of the financial state of England which accompanied it.
Englishmen read with swelling pride the figures in which Mr. Gladstone
congratulated them on a steady increase of £1,000,000 every year to
their revenue--an increase due to its “inherent vigour.” As for the
movement of trade, it was marvellous, the value of exports and imports
having increased from £377,000,000 in 1871, to £444,000,000 in 1874. Nor
was the Queen capable of concealing her satisfaction at the results of
the great fiscal policy, the responsibility for initiating which, she
and her husband had anxiously shared with Peel. It was the
justification, not only of his foresight, but of their unswerving faith
in his insight and ideas, that since 1842 the trade of her people had
simply been trebled--that what men of business called their “turnover”
had now reached the enormous sum of £1,500,000 for every working day of
the year. It was not surprising that, with such mighty interests at
stake, her Majesty cast her personal influence into the scale against
Lord Palmerston and Lord Russell, who led the War Party in the Cabinet,
and shrank from putting such a vast fabric of industry in jeopardy,
merely to gratify the wounded vanity of a Minister who, having signed an
invalid Treaty, was enraged because it was torn up under his eyes. Mr.
Gladstone carried his Budget, though he failed to carry a useful measure
to substitute the Scottish for the English system of collecting Imperial
taxes.[215] He was successful, however, in spite of the clamour of the
private companies, in passing a beneficial measure removing the
restriction on Government life insurances.[216]
Lord Russell in his speech at Blairgowrie, in the recess of 1863, had
told Reformers that they should “rest and be thankful.” In 1864,
however, they not only refused to follow the advice, but were rewarded
for their enterprise by taking captive no less prominent a personage
than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There had been the usual debate on
the ballot, in which the old arguments for and against it were set forth
in the old way. Mr. Locke King had revived his scheme for extending the
£20 franchise to counties. But both projects had been rejected, and
everybody felt that the cause of reform was once more shelved, till
suddenly the whole question was quickened into life by Mr. Gladstone’s
unexpected declaration of policy. Mr. Baines, one of the members for
Leeds, had brought in a Bill substituting a £6 for a £10 rental in
boroughs, and it was met by Mr. Cave moving the previous question, on
the ground that the working classes did not need or want any better
representation of their interests than they enjoyed already. Mr.
Gladstone, however, to the consternation of the Whigs and Tories,
intervened in the debate, and declared that he thought there ought to be
“a sensible and considerable addition” to the infinitesimal portion of
the working classes then in possession of the franchise. This he defined
to be such as would have been made by the Government proposal of 1860.
The Whigs grew pale with fear when they heard him, amidst Radical
cheers, declare “that every man who is not presumably incapacitated by
some consideration of personal unfitness or political danger is morally
entitled to come within the pale of the constitution.” The upper stratum
of the working class which was deprived of votes was not inferior to the
lower stratum of the middle class, which had votes--indeed, the one
section of society was as worthy as the other. As Mr. Forster observed,
this speech from the leading member of the Government in the House--Lord
Palmerston was absent on the occasion--rendered it impossible for the
Ministry to set aside the question of Reform much longer. All men saw
that Parties would soon have to join issue and decide whether the
country was to be governed by a Tory Ministry on Tory principles, or by
a Liberal Ministry acting on Conservative ideas and in secret league
with the Conservative Leaders. Mr. Baines’s Bill was got rid of by
carrying the “previous question”--but from that day it was settled that
the reversion of the leadership of the Liberal Party in the Commons must
fall to Mr. Gladstone.
The Session would have been dull and leaden save for a debate with which
the Peers diverted the town in the dog days. On the 15th of July Lord
Houghton, in the House of Lords, protested against Convocation issuing a
synodical condemnation of a now forgotten book entitled “Essays and
Reviews,” in which seven clever clergymen discoursed with mild and
timorous heterodoxy on seven burning theological questions. Current
views were challenged in the light of modern German research and
criticism, and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had acquitted
two of the authors who had been prosecuted for heresy.[217] Convocation,
however, issued a synodical condemnation of the book which created a
considerable sensation at the time, as it was the first occasion during
a century and a half on which the Church of England asserted her claim
to pronounce authoritatively in controversies of faith. Lord Houghton
challenged the legality of the condemnation, and pressed the Government
to take action in the matter. Lord Chancellor Westbury disposed of the
subject in a provokingly contemptuous statement. There
[Illustration: OLIVER KING’S CHANTRY, ST. GEORGE’S CHAPEL, WINDSOR.]
were, he said, three modes of dealing with Convocation. The first was to
take no notice of its proceedings when they were harmless; the second
was, when it was likely to do mischief, to prorogue it and put an end to
its power; the third was to bring its members to the bar of justice. To
pass such a judgment as had been pronounced on “Essays and Reviews,”
Lord Westbury held was technically a usurpation of the prerogative of
the Crown as the head of the Anglican Church. Hence members of
Convocation had rendered themselves liable to the penalties of
_præmunire_, and to appear as penitents in sackcloth and ashes.
Something like £40,000 in fines, he declared, might be exacted from
them, but still the Government in the circumstances meant to take no
action. _Solvuntur risu tabulæ._ Westbury’s mincing sneering tones would
have sufficed to stir the old Adam in militant ecclesiastics, but it
happened that in describing a synodical judgment he directed a personal
attack with biting wit and bad taste against the Bishop of Oxford. Such
a sentence could not conveniently be dealt with, said Westbury, because
“it was a set of what he might call well-lubricated words, but it was a
sentence so oily, so absurd, and so saponaceous[218] that no one could
grasp it, but, like an eel, it slipped through the fingers. It must mean
something or nothing, and he was glad to be able to tell his noble
friend (Lord Houghton) that it had literally no signification whatever.”
Wilberforce
[Illustration: MR. LOWE (AFTERWARDS LORD SHERBROOKE).]
lifted the gage of battle with the spirit of a trained gladiator of
debate, and he certainly had not the worst of the duel. “If,” said he,
“a man has no respect for himself, he ought at all events to respect the
tribunal before which he speaks, and when the highest representative of
the law of England in your Lordships’ Court, upon a matter involving the
liberties of the subject and the religion of the Realm, and all those
high truths concerning which this discussion is, can think it fitting to
descend to a ribaldry in which he knows that he can safely indulge,
because those to whom he addresses it will have too much respect for
their character to answer it in like sort, I say that this House has
ground to complain of having its high character unnecessarily injured in
the sight of the people of this land by one occupying so high a position
within it.”[219] The edifying spectacle of a Bishop and the Keeper of
the Queen’s Conscience waking the funereal echoes of the House of Lords
with acrimonious personalities naturally enlivened the London season of
1864. Quite a year elapsed before the Bishop of Oxford and Lord Westbury
resumed anything approaching friendly relations.
Two other personal questions marked the history of Parliament during the
year. Lord Robert Cecil carried a resolution virtually censuring Mr.
Robert Lowe (afterwards Lord Sherbrooke), the Vice-President of the
Council, for cutting out of the Reports of Inspectors of Schools all
views which were not in accordance with his own. Mr. Lowe resigned, Mr.
H. A. Bruce being appointed in his place. But subsequently the report of
a Committee exculpated Mr. Lowe, and the Resolution which censured him,
was, on Lord Palmerston’s motion, rescinded. The other personal
discussion arose out of a curious oversight by which five
under-secretaries were placed in the House of Commons. Mr. Disraeli
showed very clearly that, according to law, only four Secretaries of
State and four under-secretaries could sit in the Representative
Chamber, and the Prime Minister had in consequence to redistribute the
Ministerial offices so as to meet the requirements of the Statute. A
Select Committee reported that this breach of the law did not vacate the
seats of any of these officials, but the House passed a Bill of
Indemnity releasing them from any penalty that might possibly attach to
the violation of the established practice.
Parliament was prorogued by Commission on the 29th of July, and it left
the country satisfied with its relations to Foreign Powers and in a
state of expectancy as to domestic reforms. The Eastern Question was
virtually in abeyance in 1864, the ruler of the Danubian principalities
having formed a government on the basis of a revolution organised on a
Napoleonic model. The Ionian Islands were formally ceded by England to
Greece. Russia was stamping out the last embers of the Polish
insurrection, and she had still further ingratiated herself with the
Polish peasants by the Imperial Ukase of the 6th of March, which
released them from the oppressive rights of their landlords. Circassia
was annexed, and the tide of Russian expansion was beginning to set in
the direction of Central Asia. France and Italy by a convention signed
at Paris, had come to an agreement, first, that French troops should
quit Rome, and that Italy should pledge herself to respect the territory
of the Holy See. At the same time Italy resolved to transfer her capital
from Turin to Florence, the reason being that Florence was less exposed
to an attack from France or Austria. The French Emperor had the good
fortune in the course of the year to see his _protégé_, the Archduke
Maximilian crowned in the Mexican capital, and the Latin Empire of the
West recognised by the chief European Powers. The Government of the
United States withheld its recognition, but the House of Representatives
at Washington on the 5th of April passed a resolution declaring that the
people of the United States would never recognise a Monarchy under the
protection of a European Power, which had been established in the
Western Hemisphere on the ruins of an American Republic.
But the truth is, that after the defeat of the War Party on the Danish
Question, the English people in 1864 felt little interest in any foreign
affairs save the Civil War in the United States, which is, however,
hardly a foreign nation to Englishmen. They followed every phase of that
struggle as closely as if it had been one of their own. The commercial
community had good reason for doing so. Cotton was the favourite article
for gambling with, and, when prices had risen to their highest point,
suddenly rumours flew round to the effect that the war was coming to an
end. Both sides were said to be tired of strife, and even Republican
organs and orators began to hint that the end of Mr. Lincoln’s term of
office in March, 1865, and the election of a new President in November,
1864, offered a good opportunity for a truce to hostilities. The
Democratic Party were in favour of assembling a Convention of all the
States to argue the points at issue between North and South, and
everybody began to talk as if the Southern ports would soon be open. The
price of cotton and the prices of other staples that had risen with it
fell at once, and speculators for the rise were ruined. In September the
pressure on the Money Market was enormously increased. The Leeds Bank
failed; general distrust prevailed as to all financial institutions; and
the Bank of England raised its rate of discount to 9 per cent. But when
the weak and unstable firms were eliminated, low prices began to rule
and attract buyers once again, and at the end of the year confidence
revived, and the Bank rate dropped to 6 per cent. The wavering and
tortuous policy of the Cabinet during the Danish Conference certainly
produced one panic in the City during the early part of the year. Till
spring let loose the dogs of war in America, the Northern and Southern
armies were inactive. In April the rank of Lieutenant-General was
conferred by Congress on General Grant, who took supreme command of all
the Federal forces. He resolved to conduct the campaign in Virginia,
while to General Sherman was entrusted the command of the Western army
on the southern frontier of Tennessee. In the beginning of May both
forces made their first move. On the 3rd of May Grant resolved to strike
at Richmond, and he sent Meade with his main body over the Rapidan, so
that he might gain the shelter of the wooded country south of
Chancellorsville before General Lee, who covered Richmond, could attack
him. Lee, however, foiled this movement by his prompt attack of the 5th
and 6th of May, during which days the battle of Chancellorsville raged
without ceasing. The Confederate Generals Longstreet and Jenkins fell in
this fight, the result of which was not quite decisive. On former
occasions, when Burnside and Hooker met with such an attack, they had
shrunk from proceeding farther on the road to Richmond. But Grant was
undaunted by the losses he had suffered, and persistently pressed Lee by
flanking movements, which drove him back step by step. In Grant’s
[Illustration: THE JAMES RIVER AND COUNTRY NEAR RICHMOND.]
own words, he kept “pegging away” till, on the 19th of May, Lee, by an
artful feigned attack on the Federal right, was able to effect a retreat
with his main army to a position twenty miles in front of Richmond.
Grant’s losses during these ten days were enormous. On the 16th of May
33,800 of his wounded were under treatment in the hospitals in various
parts of the country. Lee’s position on the right was covered by a
swamp, and on the left by a rivulet. His front was defended by a curved
line of works, the convexity of which projected forward. Grant’s object
was now to get between Lee and Richmond. Lee’s object was to compel
Grant to attack him before he could reach Richmond, and, as he could
always move on a smaller arc than that on which Grant had to manœuvre,
the strategic advantage was with Lee. He could always keep his face to
the foe, and have the lines of Richmond in his rear as a refuge. On the
line of the Chickahominy, attack followed counter-attack, but it was
observed that in every instance the attacking party failed, for the
configuration of the country enabled troops to entrench themselves
easily. In June Grant suddenly changed his plans, and
[Illustration: GENERAL SHERMAN.]
transferred his whole army to the south side of the James River.[220] He
failed to surprise Petersburg on the 16th of Jane, and he then formed an
entrenched camp on the angle between the James River and the Appomattox.
Lee had now forced him to describe more than half the circuit of
Richmond, and, in spite of all his sacrifices, he was no nearer his
objective point. Concerted movements by Butler on the James River and by
Hunter in the neighbourhood of Lynchburg were foiled by the
Confederates, and Grant’s next attack on Petersburg on the 26th of July
was repelled. In September, however, he pushed his left wing across the
Welden Valley, and menaced the remaining communications between
Richmond and the South. The Confederate General Early about the same
time effected a diversion by crossing the Potomac, and threatening
Washington and Baltimore, but he was driven back by Sheridan. Richmond,
however, was now invested by 100,000 enemies, and night and day the
thundering of cannon broke on the ears of its inhabitants.
In the west the Federals were more successful. Sherman, starting with a
splendid army from Chattanooga in May, drove Johnston before him towards
Atalanta, which was evacuated by the Confederates on the 27th of
September. The Confederate General, Hood, however, by a rapid movement
passed round Sherman’s right wing, and cut his communications with the
North. Whenever Sherman attacked him, Hood turned towards Alabama. Then
the daring and original idea occurred to Sherman to quit Atalanta--which
could not be conveniently held while Hood hovered over his rear--and
march straight onwards through Georgia to the sea. He left Thomas with
20,000 men to hold Hood in Tennessee, whilst he himself with 50,000 men
proceeded to devastate Georgia by fire and sword. His march was marked
by a track of desolation from forty to fifty miles broad. As the year
closed he received the capitulation of Savannah, and demonstrated to the
world by his marvellous strategy that the Southern Confederacy was like
a nut with a hard shell, but no kernel inside. It is the mark of genius
to convert defeat into victory, and this was the feat that Sherman
achieved when Hood, by cutting his communications with the North,
suggested to him the daring stroke by which he pierced the very vitals
of the Confederacy. It need hardly be said that Sherman’s march through
Georgia was represented to the English people by many aristocratic
organs as a retreat, and that his abandonment of Atalanta, when Hood
worked round his right, was hailed by Society as a supreme disaster for
“the bubble Republic.” At sea the Federals were also fortunate. In June
the United States ship of war _Kersarge_ sank the _Alabama_ near
Cherbourg, and the _Wachusett_ captured the _Florida_, though by a
violation of the laws of neutrality, in the harbour of Bahia.
Confederate partisans from Canada had made futile raids on the territory
of New York, thereby increasing the animosity of the Americans against
England. The Canadian authorities no doubt arrested the raiders, but
they also discharged them because of some technical flaw in their
jurisdiction. President Lincoln in July called out a fresh draft of
500,000 men for service, and this did not tend to make the war popular
at the beginning of the year. The enormous sacrifices of life which
Grant’s strategy involved, also strengthened the hands of the Peace
Party or Democrats. When arrangements had to be made for choosing
Presidential candidates there was a strange cleavage of Parties. The old
Abolitionists nominated General Fremont. The Republican Party, however,
at the Baltimore Convention, nominated Mr. Lincoln. The Democrats, on
the other hand, selected General McClellan. His manifesto practically
meant that he desired negotiations to be opened up for the purpose of
restoring the Union with slavery on the old footing--but the Union must
be restored. This alienated a strong faction of Democrats, who were for
peace at any price--even at the price of cutting the Slave States
adrift--and dissolving the Union. General Fremont withdrew, and it was
soon evident, especially when news of Sherman’s successes came in, that
Mr. Lincoln, as the representative of the national war policy, was the
popular favourite.
Very early in the year, on the 8th of January, the Queen had the
gratification of learning that a son and heir had been born to the
Prince and Princess of Wales. The event was not expected by her Majesty
till March, so that no preparations had been made by the Queen or her
Household, at Frogmore--where the Princess was staying at the time--for
the accouchement. “There was no nurse,” writes Lord Malmesbury in his
Diary, “no baby-linen, and no doctor, except Mr. Brown, the Windsor
physician, who attended [the Princess] and brought the child into the
world, for which it is said he will be made a knight and receive £500.
Lady Macclesfield was fortunately in waiting, and as she has had a great
many children, she was probably of use. Lord Granville was the only
Minister in attendance, having come to dine with the Prince, and there
was not time to summon the others, as the Princess was not ill more than
three hours. She had been to see the skating, and did not return to
Frogmore till four o’clock, soon after which she was taken ill.”[221] A
telegram was sent to the Queen at Osborne immediately after the birth of
the little Prince, and next day Frogmore was a scene of busy
excitement--Ministers of State and the chief members of the nobility
thronging in large numbers to offer their congratulations to the Prince
of Wales. All over the kingdom the birth of the Prince was hailed with
demonstrations of joy, and in London, when the news was announced, the
Tower guns fired a double Royal salute. On the 10th of March, the first
anniversary of the marriage of the Prince and Princess of Wales, their
child was christened in the private chapel of Buckingham Palace, the
Queen being present on the occasion. The King of the Belgians was also
there, and among the company were the Duke of Cambridge, Lord
Palmerston, many Ministers of State, and nearly all the representatives
of Foreign Courts. The King of the Belgians and Princess Helena
represented the Crown Prince and Princess of Prussia, who were
sponsors, the others being the Duchess of Cambridge; the Dowager
Duchess of Sleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg; Prince John of
Sleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg representing the King of Denmark;
the Grand Duchess of Mecklenberg-Strelitz representing the Duchess of
Saxe-Coburg and Gotha; Prince Alfred and the Duke of Cambridge. Crimson
velvet, panelled with gold lace, covered the altar of the chapel. The
splendid church plate was displayed, and seats covered with crimson and
gold were arranged within the rail for the Archbishop of Canterbury, the
Bishop of London, and the officiating clergy. Over the altar was hung a
rich piece of tapestry, representing the Baptism of our Saviour. A
fluted white plinth, picked out with gold, supported the font, which was
a tazza of silver-gilt, the rim representing the flowers and leaves of
the water-lily, whilst a group of cherubs were shown playing round the
base. The Queen, who was dressed in black silk and crape, formed a
sombre figure in this brilliant assembly. The Lord Chamberlain and the
Groom of the Stole conducted the infant Prince into the chapel, his
Royal Highness being carried in the arms of his nurse, Mrs. Clark, and
attended by the Countess of Macclesfield, one of the Ladies of the
Bedchamber to the Princess of Wales. The little Prince wore the same
robe of rich Honiton lace which had been used for his father at his
christening. When the Archbishop came to that part of the service for
naming the child, he asked how it should be named. The Queen answered
quite audibly, “Albert Victor Christian Edward,” and his Grace
accordingly baptised it in these names. After the ceremony was over the
company proceeded to the Green Drawing-room and the Picture-gallery, and
shortly afterwards partook of a cold luncheon with the Royal Family in
the supper-room. In the evening the Prince and Princess of Wales gave a
banquet at Marlborough House, where some embarrassment was said at the
time to have been caused by Count Bernstoff, the Prussian Minister,
refusing to drink the health of the King of Denmark. This incident was
for a few days eagerly canvassed by the gossips of clubland, but
Bernstoff himself always denied the tale. In fact, he was so much
annoyed by the persistency with which it was repeated in Society that he
sent an official contradiction to Earl Russell.[222] Among the baptismal
gifts one of the most striking was that which was presented by the Queen
to her little grandson. It was a beautiful little statuette of the
Prince Consort, made to the Queen’s design, and with inscriptions
written by herself. The Prince’s figure is clad in gilt armour, copied
from the effigy of the Earl of Warwick, in St. Mary’s Church, Warwick,
and he is represented as Christian in the “Pilgrim’s Progress.” Round
the plinth is the verse from Timothy--“I have fought the good fight, I
have finished my course, I have kept the faith.” On the stump of an old
oak behind the figure rests Christian’s helmet, while hard by are the
lilies of purity which one always associates with old pictures of the
Pilgrim. Beneath the plinth and in front of the entablature of the
pedestal is the inscription, “Given to Albert Victor Christian Edward on
the occasion of his baptism by Victoria R., his grandmother, and
godmother, in memory of Albert, his beloved grandfather.” Appropriate
verses written by Mrs. Protheroe, wife of the rector of Whippingham, the
Queen’s parish church at Osborne, are inscribed on three of the panels.
Beneath the front panel, over the figures 1864, are inscribed in large
letters the Prince’s name, and the dates of his birth and baptism.
Figures of Faith and Hope, in oxidised silver, stand at the right and
left side of the work, and in a third niche behind is the figure of
Charity. At the side of each figure are lilies in enamel, and on the
frieze over the figure of Faith are the words, “Walk as he walked
in--Faith,” the last word being inscribed beneath the figure. This
pretty conceit is carried all through. For in the same way one reads,
“Strive as he strove in--Hope,” and over the third group one reads,
“Think as he thought in--Charity.” To the right of the Prince of Wales’s
shield is an infant boy looking up at a full-blown rose on a perfect
stem, and beside it a white lily, whilst over the baby fingers droop a
cluster of snowdrops, emblematic of the dawning flower-life of the year.
The rose, shamrock, and thistle are worked into the background.
[Illustration: THE ROYAL NURSERY, OSBORNE.
(_From a Photograph by Hughes and Mullins, Ryde._)]
The day after the ceremony at Buckingham Palace was marked by a
catastrophe which seriously shocked the Queen. The Bradfield reservoir
of the Sheffield Waterworks burst, and the letting loose of its pent-up
waters spread desolation far and wide all along the river from Bradfield
to Sheffield. Whole villages were swept down the Valley of the Don, and
places once populous were suddenly converted into a swamp of mud, with
here and there a broken mill wheel left to mark the site of what had
once been a happy hive of industry. Some of the streets of Sheffield
itself were flooded, and low-lying, open spaces were turned into lakes
dotted with islands formed by rubbish heaps. Wreckage of all kinds and
the corpses of the drowned marked the track of the current. The disaster
was appalling in the suddenness of its occurrence. The first intimation
that hundreds of people had of it was the lifting up of their beds by
the water as they lay asleep in their homes. In Sheffield, during the
stillness of the night, those who were awake said they suddenly heard an
unearthly roar which increased in volume, that this was succeeded by a
hissing noise, as of angry waves dashing on sharp and beetling crags,
and then by weird shrieks, soon followed by the rush of a panic-stricken
crowd, flying with their families from the neighbourhood of the river
for safety, and crying, “Oh, God! the flood! the flood!” Some 270 lives
were lost, and property to the value of £1,000,000 was destroyed. A
relief fund was at once started both in Sheffield and in London, and on
the 16th of January Mr. Roebuck, M.P. for Sheffield, received the
following letter, which testified to the sympathetic interest with which
the Queen had read the accounts of what had happened:--
“SIR,--I have had the honour to submit to her Majesty the Queen
your letter received last night. Her Majesty had already directed
me to make inquiry whether any subscription had been commenced for
the relief of the sufferers by the fearful calamity which has
occurred near Sheffield. The Queen has commanded me to inform you
that it is her Majesty’s intention to contribute £200 towards the
objects advocated in your letter. Her Majesty has commanded me to
add the expression of her deep sympathy for the poor persons thus
suddenly overwhelmed with grief, and exposed to suffering of every
description in consequence of this unexpected and dire calamity. As
I am not aware of the name of the treasurer, I shall be very much
obliged to you if you will take the trouble to forward the enclosed
cheque to the proper quarter.
“I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient humble servant,
“C. B. PHIPPS.”
An official investigation was made into the cause of the disaster, in
the course of which Mr. Rawlinson, the eminent engineer, said, “Several
causes may have led to the catastrophe--a fractured pipe, a blown or
drawn joint, a creep along the pipes, a pressing down of the pipes in
the puddle-trench by the heavy material on both sides of it, or the
washing away of the outer slope by a landslip, caused by undiscovered
fissures and springs in communication with the interior of the
reservoir, which fissures and springs, if they existed, would become
active for mischief as the water rose in the reservoir.” The general
opinion was that a mistake had been made in laying pipes in the centre
of the embankment upon an artificially compressible material--that the
bursting of some of these pipes caused a great volume of water suddenly
to blow a chasm in the embankment. The celebrated Telford was always
opposed to laying pipes through the embankment of a dam, and there could
be little doubt that the coroner’s jury came to the right conclusion
when they declared in their verdict, that the works had not been
constructed with the engineering skill and attention which their
magnitude and importance demanded.
On the 30th of April the Queen appeared in public for the first time
since the death of the Prince Consort. She visited the gardens of the
Horticultural Society, where a flower-show was going on, but the weather
was bleak and cold and sleety, and the company assembled to see her were
fain to take shelter in the conservatory. She was dressed in deep
mourning, yet the visitors all agreed that her appearance was less
downcast than they had been led to expect, and she was observed to chat
cheerfully with the ladies and gentlemen who were around her. This year,
it may also be observed, the Queen’s birthday was kept in London, with
all the old ceremonies of high state, for the first time since Prince
Albert’s death. The Guards trooped their colours in presence of the
Prince and Princess of Wales, and the church bells of the “three Royal
Parishes” in London--Westminster, Kensington, and St.
Martin’s-in-the-Fields--rang out their most joyous chimes. There was a
floral _fête_ at the Horticultural Gardens, and the houses of Ministers
of State, of the Clubs, the Government Offices, together with the shops
of the Royal tradesmen at the West End, were illuminated as in old
times. From May to August the Queen had enjoyed the company of the
Princess Louis of Hesse, but when autumn set in and Parliament had been
prorogued, the Court migrated to Scotland, and on the 28th of August the
Queen broke her journey at Perth to inaugurate a statue to the Prince
Consort. The Lord Provost and magistrates of the “Fair City,” and all
the local magnates of the county gave her a cordial welcome, and in her
suite were the Princess Helena, the Princess Louise, the Duke and
Duchess of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Princess Beatrice, and Prince Leopold, the
Marchioness of Ely, Sir Charles Wood, and Sir Charles Phipps. After the
Queen uncovered the statue, which was greatly admired, she conferred the
honour of Knighthood on Lord Provost Ross.
The Prince and Princess of Wales left the Highlands in the beginning of
September for Denmark, and the Queen’s holiday was restful and quiet.
The only incident that troubled it seriously was due to the pressure
which was put upon her to save the life of Franz Müller, the murderer of
Mr. Briggs, chief clerk of Messrs. Robarts and Co., the great bankers in
the City. Müller had murdered Mr. Briggs in a railway carriage on the
night of the 9th July, between Fenchurch Street Station and Hackney
Wick, and after robbing his victim threw his body out on the line. He
exchanged Mr. Briggs’ watch-chain for another at the shop of a jeweller
called Death in Cheapside, who identified his photograph. He left a hat
in the carriage which was traced to him. He then fled to America. The
crime was perpetrated with ruthless brutality, and for a time railway
travelling was rendered an agony to nervous passengers. The detective
police had displayed great skill in following up every clue that led
them on the track of the criminal, and their exciting pursuit of him
across the Atlantic, his arrest in New York, his return, his trial, at
which counsel fought for his life with great courage and audacity, his
conviction, his stoical denial of guilt, till at the last moment as the
hangman drew the fatal bolt he uttered his confession, with the halter
tightening round his throat--all contributed to rivet public attention
on this most melodramatic of atrocities. A clever attempt at proving an
_alibi_ had been made by his counsel, and there were some who believed
in Müller’s innocence. The German colony in England took up his case
most warmly, and it was whispered that the Queen herself was among those
who feared that a judicial murder would be committed if Müller were
hanged. For many days nothing else but his chances of being reprieved
were discussed, and the King of Prussia, not to mention several other
German Princes, sent autograph letters to the Queen pressing her to
pardon the assassin. But her Majesty had watched the case carefully. She
refused to interfere with the course of justice, and her prudence was
justified by Müller’s strange confession, made just at the moment when
he leapt into eternity.[223]
The Queen’s correspondence with the Princess Louis of Hesse seems at
this time to have become again overcast by the gloom of her great
sorrow. Amidst the solemn silence of her mountain home, the Queen felt
the loss of the Prince Consort more acutely than while immersed in the
busy life of the political year at Windsor. Her younger children were
growing apace, and she now felt the need of her husband’s wise and
kindly counsel in educating them for their high station. To the Princess
Louis she confided her thoughts, and in one of her Royal Highness’s
letters to the Queen, bearing date 20th of September, the following
passage on the subject occurs:--“... What you say about the poor
sisters, and, indeed, of all the younger ones, is true. The little
brothers and Beatrice are those who have lost most, poor little things!
I can’t bear to think of it, for dear papa, more peculiarly than any
other father, was wanted for his children; and he was the dear friend
and even playfellow besides. Such a loss as ours is indeed unique. Time
only increases its magnitude, and the knowledge of the want is felt more
keenly.”[224] In November the birth of a little grand-daughter at Hesse
(the Princess Elizabeth) gave rise to an affectionate interchange of
letters between the Queen and the Princess Louis, and in one of these
she refers to the efforts made by those round her Majesty to free her
from the tyranny of her sad thoughts. “We are both much pleased,” writes
the Princess Louis to the Queen on the 20th of November, “at the
arrangement about Brown and your pony, and I think it is so sensible. I
am sure it will do you good, and relieve a little the monotony of your
out-of-door existence, besides doing your nerves good. I had long wished
you would do something of the kind, for indeed only driving is not
wholesome.” On the 18th of December Dr. Norman McLeod, writing in his
Diary at Darmstadt, says:--“I was invited
[Illustration: THE QUEEN AT OSBORNE.
(_After W. Holl’s Engraving of the Original Portrait by Graefle. By
Permission of Mr. Mitchell, Old Bond Street, W._)]
by Prince Alfred to spend the fourth anniversary of his father’s death
with him at Darmstadt. The Queen commanded me to see her before I went,
so on Monday I went to Windsor. I told her that the more I was confided
in, the more I felt my responsibility to speak the truth.”[225] Dr.
McLeod was charged with loving messages to the Princess Louis, who, on
December 15, writes to the Queen in reply as follows:--“I had not a
moment to myself to write to you yesterday, and to thank you for the
kind lines you sent me through dear Dr. McLeod. He gave us a most
beautiful service, a sermon giving an outline of dear papa’s noble,
great, and good character, and there were most beautiful allusions to
you in his prayer, in which we all prayed together most earnestly for
you, precious mamma! We talked long together afterwards about dear papa,
and about you, and, though absent, were very near you in thought and
prayer. Dear Vicky[226] talked so lovingly and tenderly of you, of how
home-sick she sometimes felt. She was not with us on that dreadful day
three years ago, and that is so painful to her. Dear Affie[227] was, as
we all were, so much overcome by all Dr. McLeod said. Vicky, Affie,
Louis, and myself sat in the little dining-room; he read to us there.
Fritz had left early in the morning. The day was passed quietly and
peaceably together, and I was most grateful to have dear Vicky and Affie
with me on that day.[228] My dear Louis wishes me to express to you how
tenderly he thought of you, and with what sympathy on this sad
anniversary. Never can we cease talking of home, of you, and of all your
trials.” If these trials were heavy, they were, even in the darkest
hours of the Queen’s life, lightened by the love with which her children
cherished her.