produced from images available at The Internet Archive)

   [Illustration: THE PRINCE AND PRINCESS OF WALES AND THEIR FAMILY.

       (_From a Photograph by Messrs. Russell & Sons, London._)]

                                  THE

                            LIFE AND TIMES

                                  OF

                            QUEEN VICTORIA.

                                  BY

                            ROBERT WILSON.

                             Illustrated.

                               VOL. IV.

                      CASSELL & COMPANY, LIMITED:
                     _LONDON, PARIS & MELBOURNE_.

                        [ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.]

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER XVI.

THE ILLNESS OF THE PRINCE OF WALES.                                 PAGE

Effect of Prussian Victories on English Opinion--Sudden Changes of
Popular Impulse--Demand for Army Reform--Opposition to the Princess
Louise’s Dowry--Opening of Parliament--The Army Bill--Abolition of
Purchase--Opposition of the Tory Party--Mr. Disraeli Throws Over his
Followers--Obstructing the Purchase Bill--Mr. Cardwell’s
Threat--Obstruction in the House of Lords--A Bold Use of the Queen’s
Prerogative--The Wrath of the Peers--They Pass a Vote of Censure on the
Government--The Ballot Bill--The Peers Reject the Ballot Bill--The
University Tests Bill--The Trades Union Bill--Its Defects--The Case of
Purchon _v._ Hartley--The Licensing Bill and its Effect on
Parties--Local Government Reform--Mr. Lowe’s Disastrous Budget--The
Match Tax--_Ex luce lucellum_--Withdrawal of the Budget--The Washington
Treaty and the Queen--Lord Granville’s Feeble Foreign Policy--His
Failure to Mediate between France and Germany--Bismarck’s Contemptuous
Treatment of English Despatches--_Væ Victis!_--The German Terms of
Peace--Asking too Much and Taking too Little--Mr. Gladstone’s
Embarrassments--Decaying Popularity of the Government--The Collier
Affair--Effect of the Commune on English Opinion--Court Life in
1871--Marriage of the Princess Louise--The Queen Opens the Albert
Hall--The Queen at St. Thomas’s Hospital--Prince Arthur’s Income--Public
Protests and Irritating Discussions--The Queen’s Illness--Sudden Illness
of the Prince of Wales--Growing Anxiety of the People--Alarming
Prospects of a Regency--Between Life and Death--Panic in the Money
Market--Hopeful Bulletins--Convalescence of the Prince--Public Sympathy
with the Queen--Her Majesty’s Letter to the People                   385

CHAPTER XVII.

THE “ALABAMA” CLAIMS.

Thanksgiving Day--The Procession--Behaviour of the Crowd--Scene in St.
Paul’s--Decorations and Illuminations--Letter from Her Majesty--Attack
on the Queen--John Brown--The Queen’s Speech--The _Alabama_ Claims--The
“Consequential Damages”--Living in a Blaze of Apology--Story of the
“Indirect Claims”--The Arbitrators’ Award--Sir Alexander Cockburn’s
Judgment--Passing of the Ballot Act--The Scottish Education Act--The
Licensing Bill--Public Health Bill--Coal Mines Regulation Bill--The Army
Bill--Admiralty Reforms--Ministerial Defeat on Local Taxation--Starting
of the Home Government Association in Dublin--Assassination of Lord
Mayo--Stanley’s Discovery of Livingstone--Dr. Livingstone’s Interview
with the Queen--Her Majesty’s Gift to Mr. Stanley--Death of Dr. Norman
Macleod--The Japanese Embassy--The Burmese Mission--Her Majesty at
Holyrood Palace--Death of Her Half-Sister                            414

CHAPTER XVIII.

GOVERNMENT UNDER DIFFICULTIES.

A Lull Before the Storm--Dissent in the Dumps--Disastrous
Bye-Elections--The Queen’s Speech--The Irish University Bill--Defeat of
the Government--Resignation of the Ministry--Mr. Disraeli’s Failure to
Form a Cabinet--The Queen and the Crisis--Lord Derby as a Possible
Premier--Mr. Gladstone Returns to Office--Power Passes to the House of
Lords--Grave Administration Scandals--The Zanzibar Mail
Contract--Misappropriation of the Post Office Savings Banks’
Balances--Mr. Gladstone Reconstructs his Ministry--The Financial
Achievements of his Administration--The Queen and the Prince of
Wales--Debts of the Heir Apparent--The Queen’s Scheme for Meeting the
Prince’s Expenditure on her Behalf--The Queen and Foreign
Decorations--Death of Napoleon III.--The Queen at the East End--The
Blue-Coat Boys at Buckingham Palace--The Coming of the Shah--Astounding
Rumours of his Progress through Europe--The Queen’s Reception of the
Persian Monarch--How the Shah was Entertained--His Departure from
England--Marriage of the Duke of Edinburgh--Public Entry of the Duchess
into London                                                          431

CHAPTER XIX.

THE CONSERVATIVE REACTION.

Questions of the Recess--The Dissenters and the Education Act--Mr.
Forster’s Compromise--The Nonconformist Revolt--Mr. Bright Essays
Conciliation--Sudden Popularity of Mr. Lowe--His “Anti-puritanic
Nature”--Mr. Chamberlain and the Dissidence of Dissent--Decline of the
Liberal Party--Signs of Bye-elections--A Colonial Scandal--The Canadian
Pacific Railway--Jobbing the Contract--Action of the Dominion
Parliament--Expulsion of the Macdonald Ministry--The Ashanti War--How it
Originated--A Short Campaign--The British in Coomassie--Treaty with King
Koffee--The Opposition and the War--Skilful Tactics--Discontent among
the Radical Ranks--Illness of Mr. Gladstone--A Sick-bed
Resolution--Appeal to the Country--Mr. Gladstone’s Address--Mr.
Disraeli’s Manifesto--Liberal Defeat--Incidents of the
Election--“Villadom” to the Front--Mr. Gladstone’s Resignation--Mr.
Disraeli’s Working Majority--The Conservative Cabinet--The Surplus of
£6,000,000--What will Sir Stafford do with it?--Dissensions among the
Liberal Chiefs--Mr. Gladstone and the Leadership--The Queen’s
Speech--Mr. Disraeli and the Fallen Minister--The Dangers of Hustings
Oratory--Mr. Ward Hunt’s “Paper Fleet”--The Last of the Historic
Surpluses--How Sir S. Northcote Disposed of it--The Hour but not the
Man--Mr. Cross’s Licensing Bill--The Public Worship Regulation Bill--A
Curiously Composed Opposition--Mr. Disraeli on Lord Salisbury--The
Scottish Patronage Bill--Academic Debates on Home Rule--The Endowed
Schools Bill--Mr. Stansfeld’s Rating Bill--Bill for Consolidating the
Factory Acts--End of the Session--The Successes and Failures of the
Ministry--Prince Bismarck’s Contest with the Roman Catholic
Church--Arrest of Count Harry Arnim--Mr. Disraeli’s
Apology to Prince Bismarck--Mr. Gladstone’s Desultory
Leadership--“Vaticanism”--Deterioration in Society--An Unopposed
Royal Grant--Visit of the Prince and Princess of Wales to
Birmingham--Withdrawal of the Duchess of Edinburgh from Court--A Dispute
over Precedence--Visit of the Czar to England--Review of the Ashanti War
Soldiers and Sailors--The Queen on Cruelty to Animals--Sir Theodore
Martin’s Biography of the Prince Consort--The Queen tells the Story of
its Authorship                                                       457

CHAPTER XX.

EMPRESS OF INDIA.

Mr. Disraeli recognises Intellect--Lord Hartington Liberal Leader--The
Queen’s Speech--Lord Hartington’s “Grotesque Reminiscences”--Mr. Cross’s
Labour Bills--The Artisans’ Dwellings Act--Mr. Plimsoll and the
“Ship-knackers”--Lord Hartington’s First “Hit”--The Plimsoll
Agitation--Surrender of the Cabinet--“Strangers” in the House--The
Budget--Rise of Mr. Biggar--First Appearance of Mr. Parnell--The
Fugitive Slave Circular--The Sinking of the Yacht _Mistletoe_--The Loss
of the _Vanguard_--Purchase of the Suez Canal Shares--The Prince of
Wales’s Visit to India--Resignation of Lord Northbrook--Appointment of
Lord Lytton as Viceroy of India--Outbreak of the Eastern Question--The
Andrassy Note--The Berlin Memorandum--Murder of French and German
Consuls at Salonica--Lord Derby Rejects the Berlin Memorandum--Servia
Declares War on Turkey--The Bulgarian Revolt Quenched in Blood--The
Sultan Dethroned--Opening of Parliament--“Sea-sick of the Silver
Streak”--Debates on the Eastern Question--Development of Obstruction by
Mr. Biggar and Mr. Parnell--The Royal Titles Bill--Lord Shaftesbury and
the Queen--The Queen at Whitechapel--A Doleful Budget--Mr. Disraeli
becomes Earl of Beaconsfield--The Prince Consort’s Memorial at
Edinburgh--Mr. Gladstone and the Eastern Question--The Servian War--The
Constantinople Conference--The Tories Manufacture Failure for Lord
Salisbury--Death of Lady Augusta Stanley--Proclamation of the Queen as
Empress at Delhi                                                     482

CHAPTER XXI.

THE REIGN OF JINGOISM.

Opening of Parliament--Sir Stafford Northcote’s Leadership--The Prisons
Bill--Mr. Parnell’s Policy of Scientific Obstruction--The South Africa
Confederation Bill--Mr. Parnell’s Bout with Sir Stafford Northcote--A
Twenty-six Hours’ Sitting--The Budget--The Russo-Turkish
Question--Prince Albert’s Eastern Policy--Opinion at Court--The
Sentiments of Society--The Feeling of the British People--Outbreak of
War--Collapse of Turkey--The Jingoes--The Third Volume of the “Life of
the Prince Consort”--The “Greatest War Song on Record”--The Queen’s
Visit to Hughenden--Early Meeting of Parliament--Mr. Layard’s Alarmist
Telegrams--The Fleet Ordered to Constantinople--Resignation of Lord
Carnarvon--The Russian Terms of Peace--Violence of the War Party--The
Debate on the War Vote--The Treaty of San Stefano--Resignation of Lord
Derby--Calling Out the Reserves--Lord Salisbury’s Circular--The Indian
Troops Summoned to Malta--The Salisbury-Schouvaloff Agreement--Lord
Salisbury’s Denials--The Berlin Congress--The _Globe_ Disclosures--The
Anglo-Turkish Convention--Occupation of Cyprus--“Peace with Honour”--The
Irish Intermediate Education Bill--Consolidation of the Factory
Acts--The Monarch and the Multitude--Outbreak of the Third Afghan
War--The “Scientific Frontier”--Naval Review at Spithead--Death of the
Ex-King of Hanover--Death of the Princess Alice                      513

CHAPTER XXII.

PEACE WHERE THERE IS NO PEACE.

Ominous Bye-Elections--The Spangles of Imperialism--Disturbed state of
Eastern Europe--Origin of the Quarrel with the Zulus--Cetewayo’s Feud
with the Boers--A “Prancing Pro-Consul”--Sir Bartle Frere’s Ultimatum to
the Zulu King--War Declared--The Crime and its Retribution--The Disaster
of Isandhlwana--The Defence of Rorke’s Drift--Demands for the Recall of
Sir Bartle Frere--Censured but not Dismissed--Sir Garnet Wolseley
Supersedes Sir Bartle Frere in Natal--The Victory of Ulundi--Capture of
Cetewayo--End of the War--The Invasion of Afghanistan--Death of Shere
Ali--Yakoob Khan Proclaimed Ameer--The Treaty of Gundamuk--The
“Scientific Frontier”--The Army Discipline Bill--Mr. Parnell attacks the
“Cat”--Mr. Chamberlain Plays to the Gallery--Surrender of the
Government--Lord Hartington’s Motion against Flogging--The Irish
University Bill--An Unpopular Budget--The Murder of Cavagnari and
Massacre of his Suite--The Army of Vengeance--The Recapture of
Cabul--The Settlement of Zululand--Death of Prince Louis Napoleon--The
Court-Martial on Lieutenant Carey--Its Judgment Quashed--Marriage of the
Duke of Connaught--The Queen at Baveno                               562

CHAPTER XXIII.

FALL OF LORD BEACONSFIELD.

General Gloom--Fall of the Tay Bridge--Liberal Onslaught on the
Government--The Mussulman Schoolmaster and the Anglican Missionary--The
Queen’s Speech--The Irish Relief Bill--A Dying Parliament--Mr. Cross’s
Water Bill--“Coming in on Beer and Going out on Water”--Sir Stafford
Northcote’s Budget--Lord Beaconsfield’s Manifesto--The General
Election--Defeat of the Tories--Incidents of the Struggle--Mr. Gladstone
Prime Minister--The Fourth Party--Mr. Bradlaugh and the Oath--Mr.
Gladstone and the Emperor of Austria--The Naval Demonstration--Grave
Error in the Indian Budget--Affairs in Afghanistan--Disaster at
Maiwand--Roberts’s March--The New Ameer--Revolt of the Boers--The
Ministerial Programme--The Burials Bill--The Hares and Rabbits Bill--The
Employers’ Liability Bill--Supplementary Budget--The Compensation for
Disturbance Bill--Boycotting--Trial of Mr. Parnell and Mr. Dillon--The
Queen’s Visit to Germany--The Queen Presents the Albert Medal to George
Oatley of the Coastguard--Reviews at Windsor--The Queen’s Speech to the
Ensigns--The Battle of the Standards--Royalty and Riflemen--Outrages in
Ireland--“Endymion”--Death of George Eliot                           581

CHAPTER XXIV.

COERCION.

Lord Beaconsfield Attacks the Government--The Irish Crisis--The Coercion
Bills--An All-night Sitting--The Arrest of Mr. Davitt--The Revolt of the
Irish Members--The Speaker’s _Coup d’État_--Urgency--New Rules of
Procedure--The Speaker’s _Clôture_--End of the Struggle against
Coercion--Mr. Dillon’s Irish Campaign--Mr. Forster’s First Batch of
“Suspects”--The Peers Censure the Ministry--Mr. Gladstone’s “Retort
Courteous”--Abolition of the “Cat”--The Budget--Paying off the National
Debt--The Irish Land Bill--The Three “F’s”--Resignation of the Duke of
Argyll--The Strategic Blunder of the Tories--The Fallacy of Dual
Ownership--Conflict between the Lords and Commons--Surrender of the
Peers--Passing the Land Bill--Revolt of the Transvaal--The
Rout of Majuba Hill--Death of Sir George Colley--The Boers
Triumphant--Concession of Autonomy to the Boers--Lord Beaconsfield’s
Death--His Career and Character--A “Walking Funeral” at Hughenden--The
Queen and Lord Beaconsfield’s Tomb--A Sorrowing Nation--Assassination of
the Czar--The Queen and the Duchess of Edinburgh--Character of the Czar
Emancipator--Precautions for the Safety of the Queen--Visit of the King
and Queen of Sweden to Windsor--Prince Leopold becomes Duke of
Albany--Deaths of Dean Stanley and Mr. Carlyle--Review of Scottish
Volunteers--Assassination of President Garfield--The Royal Family--The
Highlands--Holiday Pastimes--The Parnellites and the Irish Land
Act--Arrest of Mr. Parnell--No-Rent Manifesto                        610

CHAPTER XXV.

ENGLAND IN EGYPT.

The Duke of Albany’s Marriage Announced--Mr. Bradlaugh Again--Procedure
Reform--The Closure at Last--The Peers Co-operate with the
Parnellites--Their Attacks on the Land Act--Mr. Forster’s Policy of
“Thorough”--A Nation under Arrest--Increase in Outrages--Sir J. D. Hay
and Mr. W. H. Smith bid for the Parnellite Vote--A Political Dutch
Auction--The Radicals Outbid the Tories--Release of Mr. Parnell and the
Suspects--The Kilmainham Treaty--Victory of Mr. Chamberlain--Resignation
of Mr. Forster and Lord Cowper--The Tragedy in the Phœnix Park--Ireland
Under Lord Spencer--Firm and Resolute Government--Coercion Revived--The
Arrears Bill--The Budget--England in Egypt--How Ismail Pasha “Kissed the
Carpet”--Spoiling the Egyptians--Mr. Goschen’s Scheme for Collecting the
Debt--The Dual Control--The Ascendency of France--“Egypt for the
Egyptians”--The Rule of Arabi--Riots in Alexandria--The Egyptian
War--Murder of Professor Palmer--British Occupation of Egypt--The
Queen’s Monument to Lord Beaconsfield--Attempt to Assassinate Her
Majesty--The Queen’s Visit to Mentone--Marriage of the Duke of
Albany                                                               630

CHAPTER XXVI.

THE INVINCIBLES.

The Married Women’s Property Act--The Opening of Parliament--Changes in
the Cabinet--Arrest of Suspects in Dublin--Invincibles on their
Trial--Evidence of the Informer Carey--Carey’s Fate--The Forster-Parnell
Incident--National Gift to Mr. Parnell--The Affirmation Bill--The
Bankruptcy and other Bills--Mr. Childers’ Budget--The Corrupt Practices
Bill--The “Farmers’ Friends”--Sir Stafford Northcote’s Leadership--The
Bright Celebration--Dynamite Outrages in London--The Explosives Act--M.
de Lesseps and Mr. Gladstone--Blunders in South Africa--The Ilbert
Bill--The Attack on Lady Florence Dixie’s House--Death of John
Brown--His Career and Character--The Queen and the Consumption of
Lamb--A Dull Holiday at Balmoral--Capsizing of the _Daphne_--Prince
Albert Victor made K.G.--France and Madagascar--Arrest of Rev. Mr.
Shaw--Settlement of the Dispute--Progress of the National League--Orange
and Green Rivalry--The Leeds Conference--“Franchise First”--Lord
Salisbury and the Housing of the Poor--Mr. Besant and East
London--“Slumming”--Hicks Pasha’s Disastrous Expedition in the
Soudan--Mr. Gladstone on Jam                                         652

CHAPTER XXVII.

GENERAL GORDON’S MISSION.

Success of the Mahdi--Difficult Position of the Ministers--Their
Egyptian Policy--General Gordon sent out to the Soudan--Baker Pasha’s
Forces Defeated--Sir S. Northcote’s Vote of Censure--The Errors on Both
Sides--Why not a Protectorate?--Gordon in Khartoum--Zebehr, “King of the
Slave-traders”--Attacks on Gordon--Osman Digna Twice Defeated--Treason
in Khartoum--Gordon’s Vain Appeals--Financial Position of
Egypt--Abortive Conference of the Powers--Vote of Credit--The New
Speaker--Mr. Bradlaugh _Redivivus_--Mr. Childers’ Budget--The Coinage
Bill--The Reform Bill--Household Franchise for the Counties--Carried in
the Commons--Thrown Out in the Lords--Agitation in the Country--The
Autumn Session--“No Surrender”--Compromise--The Franchise Bill
Passed--The Nile Expedition--Murder of Colonel Stewart and Mr. Frank
Power--Lord Northbrook’s Mission--Ismail Pasha’s Claims--The “Scramble
for Africa”--Coolness with Germany--The Angra Pequena
Dispute--Bismarck’s Irritation--Queensland and New Guinea--Death of Lord
Hertford--The Queen’s New Book--Death of the Duke of Albany--Character
and Career of the Prince--The Claremont Estate--The Queen at
Darmstadt--Marriage of the Princess Victoria of Hesse--A Gloomy
Season--The Health Exhibition--The Queen and the Parliamentary
Deadlock--The Abyssinian Envoys at Osborne--Prince George of Wales made
K.G.--The Court at Balmoral--Mr. Gladstone’s Visit to the Queen      671

CHAPTER XXVIII.

THE NEW DEPARTURE.

An _Annus Mirabilis_--Breaking up of the Old Parties--The
Tory-Parnellite Alliance--Mr. Chamberlain’s Socialism--The Doctrine of
“Ransom”--Effect of the Reform Bill and Seats Bill--Enthroning the
“Sovereign People”--Three Reform Struggles: 1832, 1867, 1885--“One Man
One Vote”--Another Vote of Censure--A Barren Victory--Retreat from the
Soudan--The Dispute with Russia--Komaroff at Penjdeh--The Vote of
Credit--On the Verge of War--Mr. Gladstone’s Compromise with
Russia--Threatened Renewal of the Crimes Act--The Tory Intrigue with the
Parnellites--The Tory Chiefs Decide to Oppose Coercion--Wrangling in the
Cabinet--Mr. Childers’ Budget--A Yawning Deficit--Increasing the Spirit
Duties--Readjusting the Succession Duties--Combined Attack by Tories and
Parnellites on the Budget--Defeat of the Government and Fall of Mr.
Gladstone’s Ministry--The Scene in the Commons--The Tories in
Power--Lord Salisbury’s Government--Places for the Fourth Party--Mr.
Parnell Demands his Price--Abandoning Lord Spencer--Re-opening the
Question of the Maamtrasna Murders--Concessions to the Parnellites--The
New Budget--Sir H. D. Wolff sent to Cairo--The Criminal Law Amendment
Act--Court Life in 1885--Affairs at Home and Abroad--The Fall of
Khartoum--Death of General Gordon--Marriage of the Princess
Beatrice--The Battenbergs                                            697

CHAPTER XXIX.

THE BATTLE OF THE UNION.

Mr. Chamberlain’s Doctrine of “Ransom”--The Midlothian Programme--Lord
Randolph Churchill’s Appeal to the Whigs--Bidding for the Parnellite
Vote--Resignation of Lord Carnarvon--The General Election--“Three Acres
and a Cow”--Defeat of Lord Salisbury--The Liberal Cabinet--Mr.
Gladstone’s Home Rule Scheme--Ulster Threatens Civil War--Secession of
the Liberal “Unionists”--Defeat of Mr. Gladstone--Lord Salisbury again
in Office--Mr. Parnell’s Relief Bill Rejected--The “Plan of
Campaign”--Resignation of Lord Randolph Churchill--Mr. Goschen becomes
Chancellor of the Exchequer--Riots in the West End of London--The Indian
and Colonial Exhibition--The Imperial Institute--The Queen’s Visit to
Liverpool--The Holloway College for Women--A Busy Season for her
Majesty--The International Exhibition at Edinburgh--The Prince and
Princess Komatsu of Japan                                            724

CHAPTER XXX.

THE JUBILEE.

The Fiftieth Year of the Queen’s Reign--Mr. W. H. Smith Leader of the
Commons--Sudden Death of Lord Iddesleigh--Opening of Parliament--The
Queen’s Speech--The Debate on the Address--New Rules for
Procedure--Closure Proposed by the Tories--Irish Landlords and
Evictions--“Pressure Within the Law”--Prosecution of Mr. Dillon--The
Round Table Conference--“Parnellism and Crime”--Resignation of Sir M.
Hicks-Beach--Appointment of Mr. Balfour--The Coercion Bill--Resolute
Government for Twenty Years--Scenes in the House--Irish Land Bill--The
Bankruptcy Clauses--The National League Proclaimed--The Allotments
Act--The Margarine Act--Hamburg Spirit--Mr. Goschen’s Budget--The
Jubilee in India--The Modes of Celebration in England--Congratulatory
Addresses--The Queen’s Visit to Birmingham--The Laureate’s Jubilee
Ode--The Queen at Cannes and Aix--Her Visit to the Grande
Chartreuse--Colonial Addresses--Opening of the People’s Palace--Jubilee
Day--The Scene in the Streets--Preceding Jubilees--The Royal
Procession--The German Crown Prince--The Decorations and the
Onlookers--The Spectacle in Westminster Abbey--The Procession--The
Ceremony--The Illuminations--Royal Banquet in Buckingham Palace--The
Shower of Honours--Jubilee Observances in the British Empire and the
United States--The Children’s Celebration in Hyde Park--The Queen’s
Garden Party--Her Majesty’s Letter to her People--The Imperial
Institute--The Victorian Age                                         733

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

                                                                    PAGE
The Prince and Princess of Wales and their Family          _Frontispiece._

Osborne, from the Solent                                             385

The Princess Louise (_From a Photograph by
Elliott and Fry_)                                                    388

The Marquis of Lorne (_From a Photograph by
Elliott and Fry_)                                                    389

Inverary Castle (_From a Photograph by G. W.
Wilson and Co._)                                                     393

Mr. W. E. Forster (_From a Photograph by Russell
and Sons_)                                                           396

Balmoral Castle, from the North-west (_From a
Photograph by G. W. Wilson and Co., Aberdeen_)                       400

After Sedan: Discussing the Capitulation (_From
the Picture by Georg Bleibtreu_)                                     401

Metz                                                                 405

Marriage of the Princess Louise      _To face_                       408

Opening of the Royal Albert Hall                                     409

The Prince of Wales’s Illness: Crowd at the
Mansion House Reading the Bulletins                                  412

Thanksgiving Day: the Procession at Ludgate
Hill (_From the Picture by N. Chevalier_)                            413

Thanksgiving Day: St. Paul’s Illuminated                             416

The Thanksgiving Service in St. Paul’s Cathedral                     417

Geneva                                                               421

Dr. Norman Macleod (_From a Photograph by
Elliott and Fry_)                                                    425

The Queen receiving the Burmese Embassy                              428

Queen’s College, Cork (_From a Photograph by
W. Lawrence, Dublin_)                                                432

Professor Fawcett (_From a Photograph by the
London Stereoscopic Company_)                                        433

Queen’s College, Galway                                              436

Views in Windsor: Old Market Street, and the
Town Hall, from High Street                                          440

Sandringham House                                                    441

The Queen’s Visit to Victoria Park                                   445

Blue-coat Boys at Buckingham Palace                                  448

The Shah of Persia Presenting his Suite to the
Queen at Windsor      _To face_                                      449

The Duke of Edinburgh                                                452

The Duchess of Edinburgh (_From a Photograph
by W. and D. Downey_)                                                453

Marriage of the Duke of Edinburgh (_From the
Picture by N. Chevalier_)                                            456

Coomassie                                                            460

King Koffee’s Palace, Coomassie                                      461

Lord Salisbury (_From a Photograph by Bassano,
Old Bond Street, W._)                                                465

Review in Windsor Great Park of the Troops from
the Ashanti War: the March Past before the
Queen                                                                469

The Bishop of Peterborough (Dr. Magee) addressing
the House of Lords                                                   473

Alexander II., Czar of Russia                                        477

The Albert Memorial Chapel, Windsor (_From a
Photograph by G. W. Wilson and Co._)                                 480

Mr. Plimsoll Addressing the House of Commons                         484

The Marquis of Hartington (_From a Photograph
by Russell and Sons_)                                                485

Abergeldie Castle (_From a Photograph by G. W.
Wilson and Co._)                                                     488

View on the Suez Canal                                               492

Count Ferdinand De Lesseps                                           493

The Mosque at San Sophia, Constantinople                             496

Heralds at the Mansion House, Proclaiming the
Queen as “Empress of India”                                          497

The Queen Visiting the Wards of the London
Hospital                                                             500

The Albert Memorial, Charlotte Square, Edinburgh                     501

Holyrood Palace, from the South-east                                 504

Sir James Falshaw (_From a Photograph by
J. Moffat, Edinburgh_)                                               505

Lord Beaconsfield at the Banquet in the Guildhall                    508

General View of Constantinople                                       509

Trooping the Colours in St. James’s Park on the
Queen’s Birthday      _To face_                                      513

Lord Cairns (_From a Photograph by Russell and
Sons_)                                                               513

Horseshoe Cloisters, Windsor Castle                                  517

Lord Derby (_From a Photograph by Elliott and
Fry_)                                                                521

The Tower of Galata, Constantinople                                  525

Russian Wounded Leaving Plevna                                       528

Hughenden Manor (_From a Photograph by Taunt
and Co._)                                                            529

The Queen’s Visit to Hughenden: at High Wycombe
Railway Station                                                      533

Prince Gortschakoff                                                  537

Russo-Turkish War: Map showing Position of
Russian and Turkish Lines outside of Constantinople,
and of the British Fleet                                             540

The Marina, Larnaca, Cyprus                                          544

Salonica                                                             545

Prince Bismarck (_From the Photograph by
Loescher and Petsch, Berlin_)                                        548

Shere Ali, Ameer of Cabul                                            553

The Queen Reviewing the Fleet at Spithead                            557

The Albert Memorial, Kensington                                      561

Isandhlwana: the Dash with the Colours                               565

Baveno, on Lago Maggiore                                             568

The Villa Clara, Baveno                                              569

The Duchess of Connaught                                             572

The Duke of Connaught                                                573

Marriage of the Duke of Connaught (_From the
Picture by S. P. Hall_)                                              576

Queen Victoria (1887)      _To face_                                 577

The Mausoleum, Frogmore                                              577

Osborne House, from the Gardens (_From a Photograph
by J. Valentine and Sons_)                                           581

The First Tay Bridge, from the South                                 584

Windsor Castle: a Peep from the Dean’s Garden                        585

After the Midlothian Victory: Mr. Gladstone Addressing
the Crowd from the Balcony of Lord
Rosebery’s House, George Street, Edinburgh
(_From the Picture in “The Graphic”_)                                589

Mr. Chamberlain (_From a Photograph by Russell
and Sons_)                                                           593

Old Palace of the Prince of Montenegro, Cettigne                     597

Windsor Castle: Queen Elizabeth’s Library, from
the Quadrangle                                                       600

The Queen Presenting the Albert Medal to George
Oatley, of the Coastguard                                            604

Review in Windsor Park: Charge of the 5th and
7th Dragoon Guards                                                   605

Ballater                                                             609

Mr. Parnell (_From a Photograph by William
Lawrence, Dublin_)                                                   613

Grafton Street, Dublin                                               616

Lord Beaconsfield’s Last Appearance in the Peers’
Gallery of the House of Commons (_From a
Drawing by Harry Furniss_)                                           617

Lord Beaconsfield’s House, 19, Curzon Street, Mayfair                621

The Prince of Wales in his Robes as a Bencher of
the Middle Temple (_From a Photograph by
W. and D. Downey_)                                                   624

The Princess of Wales (_From a Photograph by
W. and D. Downey_)                                                   625

The Royal Family in the Highlands: Tug of War--Balmoral
_v._ Abergeldie                                                      629

Lord Frederick Cavendish (_From a Photograph
by the London Stereoscopic Company_)                                 633

The Karmous Suburb, Alexandria, and Pompey’s
Pillar                                                               637

Ahmed Arabi Pasha (_From the Portrait by
Frederick Villiers in A. M. Broadley’s “How
we Defended Arabi and his Friends”_)                                 640

Lord Wolseley (_From a Photograph by Fradelle
and Young_)                                                          641

The Duchess of Albany                                                644

The Duke of Albany                                                   645

Marriage of the Duke of Albany      _To face_                        648

Mentone (_From a Photograph by Frith and Co.,
Reigate_)                                                            649

Lambeth Palace                                                       652

Charles Darwin (_From a Photograph by Elliott
and Fry_)                                                            653

The Round Tower, Windsor Castle                                      657

The Royal Albert Hall, Kensington                                    661

John Brown (_From a Photograph by G. W. Wilson
and Co., Aberdeen_)                                                  665

The Parish Church, Crathie                                           669

Braemar Castle                                                       669

General Gordon (_From a Photograph by Adams
and Scanlan, Southampton_)                                           673

Khartoum                                                             677

Sir Stafford Northcote, afterwards Lord Iddesleigh
(_From a Photograph by Barraud, Oxford
Street_)                                                             680

The Citadel, Cairo                                                   681

Balmoral Castle, from Craig Nordie (_From a
Photograph by G. W. Wilson and Co._)                                 685

Funeral of the Duke of Albany: the Procession
Entering Windsor Castle                                              688

View in Claremont Park                                               689

The Linn of Dee (_From a Photograph by G. W.
Wilson and Co._)                                                     693

The Queen Receiving the Abyssinian Envoys at
Osborne                                                              696

Prince Henry of Battenberg (_From a Photograph
by Theodor Prümm, Berlin_)                                           700

Princess Beatrice (_From a Photograph by Hughes
and Mullins, Ryde_)                                                  701

The Queen in her State Robes      _To face_                          705

Mr. Gladstone (_From a Photograph by Elliott
and Fry_)                                                            705

Drawing-Room in Buckingham Palace                                    709

Map of the War in the Soudan                                         716

Marriage of the Princess Beatrice                                    721

Opening of Parliament in 1886: the Royal Procession
in Westminster Palace on the way to
the House of Peers                                                   725

Lord Tennyson (_From a Photograph by H. H. H.
Cameron, Mortimer Street, W._)                                       729

Opening of the Indian and Colonial Exhibition:
The Queen’s Tour                                                     733

The Queen’s Visit to Edinburgh (1886): Her
Majesty Leaving Holyrood Palace                                      737

The Crown Prince, afterwards the Emperor
Frederick III. of Germany (_From a Photograph
by Reichard and Lindner, Berlin_)                                    745

The Crown Princess, afterwards the Empress
Victoria of Germany (_From a Photograph by
Reichard and Lindner, Berlin_)                                       745

The Jubilee Garden Party at Buckingham Palace:
The Royal Tent                                                       749

[Illustration: OSBORNE, FROM THE SOLENT.]

CHAPTER XVI.

THE ILLNESS OF THE PRINCE OF WALES.

    Effect of Prussian Victories on English Opinion--Sudden Changes
    of Popular Impulse--Demand for Army Reform--Opposition to
    the Princess Louise’s Dowry--Opening of Parliament--The Army
    Bill--Abolition of Purchase--Opposition of the Tory Party--Mr.
    Disraeli Throws Over his Followers--Obstructing the Purchase
    Bill--Mr. Cardwell’s Threat--Obstruction in the House of Lords--A
    Bold Use of the Queen’s Prerogative--The Wrath of the Peers--They
    Pass a Vote of Censure on the Government--The Ballot Bill--The
    Peers Reject the Ballot Bill--The University Tests Bill--The Trades
    Union Bill--Its Defects--The Case of Purchon v. Hartley--The
    Licensing Bill and its Effect on Parties--Local Government
    Reform--Mr. Lowe’s Disastrous Budget--The Match Tax--_Ex luce
    lucellum_--Withdrawal of the Budget--The Washington Treaty and
    the Queen--Lord Granville’s Feeble Foreign Policy--His Failure
    to Mediate Between France and Germany--Bismarck’s Contemptuous
    Treatment of English Despatches--_Væ Victis!_--The German Terms
    of Peace--Asking too Much and Taking too Little--Mr. Gladstone’s
    Embarrassments--Decaying Popularity of the Government--The Collier
    Affair--Effect of the Commune on English Opinion--Court Life
    in 1871--Marriage of the Princess Louise--The Queen Opens the
    Albert Hall--The Queen at St. Thomas’s Hospital--Prince Arthur’s
    Income--Public Protests and Irritating Discussions--The Queen’s
    Illness--Sudden Illness of the Prince of Wales--Growing Anxiety
    of the People--Alarming Prospects of a Regency--Between Life and
    Death--Panic in the Money Market--Hopeful Bulletins--Convalescence
    of the Prince--Public Sympathy with the Queen--Her Majesty’s Letter
    to the People.

The closing weeks of 1870 and the early days of 1871 were full of
anxiety to the Queen. Despite its services to the country, the Cabinet
was obviously losing ground. The Franco-Prussian War had brought about
a great change in the minds of the people as to the kind of work they
wanted their Government to do, and it was certain that Mr. Gladstone
and his colleagues did not respond quickly to the new impulse which the
fall of Imperialism in France, and the rise of the new German Empire
had given to public opinion in England. When the Cabinet took office,
retrenchment and reform at home, and isolation abroad, were objects
which the nation desired the Government to pursue. The victories of
Prussia certainly strengthened the hands of the Ministry in carrying
out their education policy. But in every other department of public
life the people began to expect from the Cabinet what the Cabinet
was not, by its temperament, likely to give. Ministers, in their
handling of the Army and Navy, for example, made economy the leading
idea of their policy. The country, on the other hand, alarmed at the
collapse of France, put efficiency before economy. Non-intervention in
Foreign Affairs, which was the policy of the Ministry, and which had
been the policy of the Tory Opposition, was discredited when Russia
repudiated the Black Sea Clauses of the Treaty of Paris, and when it
was discovered that somehow Lord Granville’s management of Foreign
Affairs had left England with enemies, and not with allies, in the
councils of the world. Forgetful of the stormy sea of foreign troubles
through which Palmerston was perpetually steering the labouring vessel
of State, the nation began to long for a Minister who could make
England play a great part in the drama of Continental politics. Lord
Granville’s “surrender” in the Black Sea Conference was admittedly
dignified and adroit, but it did not on that account satisfy the
country. Why had he not pressed for an equivalent right on the part
of England and the Powers to pass the Dardanelles? That would, at all
events, have made the Black Sea an European instead of a Russian lake,
or rather a lake whose waters Russia shared with a weak and decaying
Power like Turkey. Why did he not recast the Foreign Policy of England,
and proceed to check Russia diplomatically by strengthening Austria
in the Danube? If the irritation of the United States was paralysing
England in Europe, why was no decided action taken to bring about an
equitable settlement of the _Alabama_ Claims? Why was the recognition
of the new French Republic delayed, when it was known that even Von
Bismarck deigned to treat with it for peace, and when its recognition
would raise up for England a friendly feeling in France? All these and
other questions were asked by men who were not partisans, and who were,
on the whole, well disposed to Mr. Gladstone’s administration.

The only reform movement, indeed, that excited any popular enthusiasm
at the beginning of 1871, was that which Mr. Trevelyan had started
after he resigned his Civil Lordship of the Admiralty, because Mr.
Forster’s Education Bill increased the grant to denominational schools.
It was significant, too, that this movement was one for making the
army more efficient by abolishing the system that permitted officers
to buy their commissions and their promotion. It had been said that
nothing could be done to render the army formidable, so long as the
Commander-in-Chief was its absolute ruler. The result was that the Duke
of Cambridge was made subordinate to the Secretary of State. Next it
was said that nothing could be done to improve the army so long as it
was pawned to its officers, who had acquired by purchase something like
a vested right in maintaining the existing military system. Abolition
of Purchase, therefore, in 1871, seemed to be the only point of contact
between the nation and the Cabinet, who were supposed to favour Mr.
Trevelyan’s agitation. The demand for increasing the army, when
sanctioned by a Parliamentary vote, Mr. Cardwell evaded. When merely
sanctioned by public opinion he either ignored it, or, as in the case
of issuing breech-loading rifles to the Volunteers, yielded to it after
resisting it for about eight months. The changes in the Cabinet due to
Mr. Bright’s resignation further lessened confidence in the Government.
Mr. Chichester Fortescue, in spite of his half-hearted Fenian amnesty,
was on the whole a popular and active Irish Secretary. He, however, was
appointed to succeed Mr. Bright at the Board of Trade, where he had
to guide a department charged with interests of which he was utterly
ignorant. Lord Hartington, on the other hand, whose transference to
the War Office would have been gratifying to the country, was sent
to the Irish Office, to the consternation of those Liberals who had
been dissatisfied with the reactionary tone of his speeches on Irish
affairs. The general desire for new War and Foreign Ministers was
ignored.[1]

But perhaps the most extraordinary change in public sentiment in 1871
was that which marked public opinion in relation to the marriage of the
Princess Louise. When it was announced, popular feeling was clearly in
favour of the alliance. But towards the end of January, 1871, there was
hardly a large borough in England, the member for which on addressing
his constituents, was not asked menacingly if he meant to vote for a
national dowry to the Princess. Too often, when the member said he
intended to give such a vote, he was hissed by the meeting. Mr. Forster
escaped a hostile demonstration by humorously parrying the question.
He said he could not consent to fine the Princess for marrying a
Scotsman. At Halifax Mr. Stansfeld was seriously embarrassed by the
question. At Chelsea both members nearly forfeited the usual vote of
confidence passed in them by their constituents. Mr. White at Brighton
had to promise to vote against the dowry; at Birmingham Messrs. Dixon
and Muntz could hardly get a hearing from their constituents when they
defended it. The annoyance which the Queen suffered when she saw her
daughter’s name rudely handled at angry mass

[Illustration: THE PRINCESS LOUISE.

(_From a Photograph by Elliott and Fry._)]

meetings was unspeakable. This unexpected ebullition of public feeling
was due to a belief among the electors that when Royalty formed
matrimonial alliances with subjects it ought to accept the rule which
prevails among persons of private station, and frankly recognise that
it is the duty of the husband to support the wife. To demand a dowry
of £40,000 and an income of £6,000 a year for the Princess Louise,
it was argued, was preposterous. The lady, it was said, could not
possibly need it, seeing that she was to marry a nobleman who was
able to maintain his wife, and who, had he not married a princess,
would have been expected to maintain her in the comfort befitting his
inherited rank and social position. But common sense soon reasserted
its sway over the nation. It was then speedily admitted that a great
country lowered its dignity when it chaffered with the Sovereign over
allowances which were necessary to sustain a becoming stateliness of
life in the Royal Family.[2]

[Illustration: THE MARQUIS OF LORNE.

(_From a Photograph by Elliott and Fry._)]

In the course of the discussions that were carried on as to the dowry
of the Princess Louise many ill-natured allusions had been made to the
Queen’s life of seclusion, and it had been broadly hinted that she
was neglecting her public duties. It was unfortunate that steps were
not taken by some person in authority to refute this calumny, for, if
her Majesty shunned the nervous excitement of public ceremonials, it
was for the purpose of husbanding her strength for the transaction of
official business. Still, the people were kept in ignorance of that
fact, and the result was that when the Queen proceeded in person to
open Parliament on the 9th of February, 1871, she was for the first
time in her life rather coldly received on the route from the Palace
to Westminster. The Speech from the Throne dealt chiefly with Foreign
Affairs, and it represented fairly the national feeling in favour of
a policy of neutrality, tempered, however, with a strong desire to
preserve the existence of France as “a principal and indispensable
member of the great Commonwealth of Europe.” Two points in it were
recognised as being in a special sense the expression of the Queen’s
own views. These were (1), the cordial congratulation of Germany
on having attained a position of “solidity and independence,” and
(2), the carefully-guarded suggestion that Germany should be content
with the cession of a mountain barrier beyond the Rhine on her new
frontier, and not endanger the permanence of the peace, which must
soon come by pressing for the cession of French fortresses, which, in
German hands, must be a standing menace to France. Perhaps the most
popular paragraph in the Speech was the one which indicated that the
Governments of England and the United States, after much futile and
bitter controversy, were at last agreed that the _Alabama_ dispute
should be settled by friendly arbitration before a mixed Commission.
The instinct of the masses taught them that the “latent war,” as Mr.
Hamilton Fish called it, between the two kindred peoples, explained
why England had suddenly lost her influence in the councils of Europe.
By its reference to Home Affairs, the Royal Speech, for the time,
strengthened the popularity of the Ministry. It promised a Ballot Bill,
a Bill for abolishing University Tests, for readjusting Local Taxation,
for restricting the grants of Licences to Publicans, for reorganising
Scottish Education, and for reforming the Army. When the Debate on
the Address was taken, the House of Commons was obviously in a state
of high nervous tension. It was half angry with Mr. Gladstone because
he had not pursued a more spirited Foreign Policy, and because, by
submitting to the abolition of the Black Sea Clauses of the Treaty of
Paris, and assuming an isolated attitude towards France and Germany,
he had made England the mere spectator of great events, the course of
which she yearned to influence, if not to control. On the other hand,
the House showed plainly that it was thankful that the country had been
kept out of the embarrassments and entanglements of war. Indeed it was
clear that, if Mr. Gladstone had pursued a more spirited policy at the
risk of enforcing it by arms, he would have been hurled from power by
the votes of the very men who now sneered at his policy because it was
spiritless.

Mr. Disraeli’s tone was less patriotic than usual. He was careful to
say nothing that would commit him and his party to any other policy
than that of neutrality; but he was equally careful to encourage a
belief that this policy had been adopted, not from prudence, but from
cowardice. To use one of his own phrases, he “threatened Russia with a
clouded cane;” though, as he knew well, the Black Sea dispute had by
that time ended. He endangered the prospects of peaceful arbitration
on the _Alabama_ Claims, by his bitter allusions to the United States.
He poured ridicule on the military feebleness of the country at a
crisis when a patriotic statesman would have naturally preferred
to remain silent on such a theme. But the effect of his attack was
somewhat diminished by his attempt to show that military impotence was
naturally associated with Liberal Governments. Everybody knew that all
governments, Liberal or Tory, were equally responsible for the bad
state of the army, and that they had all equally resisted the popular
demand for reform, till it grew so loud that Mr. Cardwell was forced to
yield to it.

The great measure of the Session was of course the Army Bill, which
was introduced by Mr. Cardwell, on the 16th of February. It abolished
the system by which rich men obtained by purchase commissions and
promotion in the army, and provided £8,000,000 to buy all commissions,
as they fell in, at their regulation and over-regulation value.[3] In
future, commissions were to be awarded either to those who won them
by open competition, or who had served as subalterns in the Militia,
or to deserving non-commissioned officers. Mr. Cardwell also proposed
to deprive Lords-Lieutenant of Counties of the power of granting
commissions in the militia. He laid down the lines of a great scheme
of army reorganisation which bound the auxiliary forces closer to the
regular army, gave the country 300,000 trained men, divided locally
into nine _corps d’armée_, for home defence, kept in hand a force
of 100,000 men always available for service abroad, and raised the
strength of the artillery from 180 to 336 guns. This, however, he did
at the cost of £15,000,000 a year--a somewhat extravagant sum, seeing
that 170,000 of the army of defence consisted of unpaid volunteers.
The debate that followed was a rambling one. The Tory Party defended
the Purchase system because good officers had come to the front by
its means. Even a Radical like Mr. Charles Buxton was not ashamed to
argue that promotion by selection on account of fitness, would sour
the officers who were passed over with discontent. Lord Elcho, though
he made a “palpable hit” in detecting the inadequacy of Mr. Cardwell’s
scheme of National Defence, sedulously avoided justifying the sale of
commissions in the army. He based his objection to the abolition of
Purchase on the ground that it would involve “the most wicked, the most
wanton, the most uncalled for waste of the public money.” Here we have
depicted a vivid contrast between the House of Commons of the Second,
and the House of the Third Reform Bill. In these latter days Lord
Wemyss--who in 1871 was Lord Elcho--would hardly venture to obstruct
any measure of reform because there was tacked on to it a scheme for
compensating “vested interests” too generously. The Representatives
of the People would now meet such an objection by simply cutting down
the compensation. And Mr. Cardwell had an excellent opportunity for
doing this ready to his hands. The money paid for commissions was
far above the regulation price, and yet it was a statutory offence
punishable by two years’ imprisonment to pay over-regulation prices.
In fact, Parliament may be said to have betrayed the country in
this transaction. Not only had it connived at the offence of paying
over-regulation money, but it made its connivance a pretext for
compensating the offenders for the loss of advantages they had gained
by breaking the law.

Only two arguments worthy of the least attention were brought forward
by the Opposition. The first was that abolition of Purchase would
weaken the regimental system. For it was contended that promotion
by selection for officers above the rank of captain--which was the
substitute proposed for promotion by Purchase--involving, as it did,
transfers from one regiment to another, must destroy the regimental
home-life.[4] The second was, that it would tend to create a
professional military caste, who might, as Mr. Bernal Osborne argued,
prove dangerous to the liberties of the people. It was, however, felt
that it was absurd to sacrifice the efficiency of the Army to its
regimental home life, and that one of the strongest objections to
the Purchase system was that it rendered the Army amateurish rather
than professional. But in the long controversy that raged through
the Session no argument told more effectively than Mr. Trevelyan’s
citation of Havelock’s bitter complaint that “he was sick for years
in waiting for promotion, that three sots and two fools had purchased
over him, and that if he had not had a family to support he would not
have served another hour.” Mr. Cardwell, too, left nothing to be said
when he told the House of Commons that Army reformers were paralysed
by Purchase. Every proposal for change was met by the argument that
it affected the position of officers who had paid for that position.
In fact, the British Army was literally held in pawn by its officers,
and the nation had virtually no control over it whilst it was in that
ignominious position. The debate, which seemed interminable, ended in
an anti-climax that astonished the Tory Opposition. Mr. Disraeli threw
over the advocates of Purchase, evidently dreading an appeal to the
country, which might have resulted in a refusal to compensate officers
for the over-regulation prices they had paid for their commissions
in defiance of the statute. The Army Regulation Bill thus passed the
Second Reading without a division. In Committee the Opposition resorted
to obstructive tactics, and attempted to talk out the Bill by moving
a series of dilatory and frivolous amendments. The clique of “the
Colonels,” as they were called, in fact anticipated the Parnellites of
a later date in inventing and developing

[Illustration: INVERARY CASTLE.

(_From a Photograph by G. W. Wilson and Co._)]

this form of factious and illegitimate opposition. Mr. Cardwell
so far succumbed that after weary weeks of strife he withdrew his
reorganisation scheme, merely insisting on the Purchase clauses,
and on the transference of control over the auxiliary forces from
Lords-Lieutenant of Counties to the Queen. But the Opposition still
threatened to obstruct the Bill, and it was not till Mr. Cardwell
warned them that he could stop the payment of over-regulation money
for commissions by enforcing the law, that the measure was allowed to
pass. In the House of Lords the Bill was again obstructed, in spite
of Lord Northbrook’s able argument that until Purchase was abolished
the Government could not develop their scheme of Army reorganisation,
which was to introduce into England the Prussian system without
compulsory service. The Tory Peers did not actually venture to vote in
favour of Purchase. But they passed a resolution declining to accept
the responsibility of assenting to its abolition without further
information. Mr. Gladstone met them with a bold stroke. By statute
it was enacted that only such terms of Purchase could exist as her
Majesty chose to permit by Royal Warrant. The Queen therefore, acting
on Mr. Gladstone’s advice, cancelled her warrant permitting Purchase,
and thus the opposition of the Peers was crushed by what Mr. Disraeli
indignantly termed “the high-handed though not illegal” exercise of
the Royal Prerogative.[5] The rage of the Tory Peers knew no bounds.
And yet what could Mr. Gladstone have done? The Ministry might have
resigned, but in that case the Tory Party, as mere advocates of
Purchase, could not have commanded a majority of the House of Commons.
New Peers might have been created, but to this obsolete and perilous
method of coercing the Lords the Queen had a natural and justifiable
antipathy. Parliament might have been dissolved, but then the appeal
to the country would probably have raised the question whether it was
desirable to continue the existence of an unreformed House of Lords
side by side with a reformed House of Commons.[6] The only other course
was to bow to the decision of the Peers, admitting that they must be
permitted to quash a reform, which was passionately desired by the
nation, and that they must be allowed to coerce the House of Commons,
as in the days when they nominated a majority of its members. To have
adopted either of these courses would have been fatal to the authority,
perhaps even to the existence, of the Upper House. Thus the excuse
of the Royal Prerogative, which removed the subject of contention
between the two Houses, was really the means of saving the Lords from a
disastrous conflict with the People. The Peers, however, carried a vote
of censure on the Government, who ignored it, and then their Lordships
passed the Army Regulation Bill without any alteration, nay even
without dividing against the clauses transferring the patronage of the
Militia from Lords-Lieutenant of Counties to the Crown.

The Session of 1871 was also made memorable by the struggle over
the Ballot Bill, in the course of which nearly all the devices of
factious obstruction were exhausted. The Ballot had become since 1832
the shibboleth of Radicalism.[7] Resistance to it had been accepted
as the first duty of a Conservative. The arguments for the Ballot
were (1), that by allowing men to vote in secret they were free from
intimidation, and (2), that when votes were given in secret men were
not likely to buy them, for they had no longer any means of knowing
whether value was ever given for their money. On the other hand, the
Tories argued (1), that to vote in secret was cowardly and unmanly;
(2), that it was unconstitutional; and (3), that it weakened the sense
of responsibility in the voter who had no longer the pressure of public
opinion on him.[8] But though these arguments were elaborated at
enormous length, they were felt by the average elector to be wiredrawn
and academic. To him the practical object of any system of election
was to get the voter to give effect to his own real opinion, and not
the opinion of somebody else, in choosing a member. There could be
nothing constitutional, or moral, or distinctively “English,” in a
man who desired to be represented by A voting for B, either because
his landlord or his employer or some of his neighbours intimidated or
bribed him into doing so. Nor could his sense of duty be strengthened
under a system which enabled him to cast the responsibility for a false
vote on those who had coerced or bribed him into giving it. No doubt
the prospect of getting rid of violent scenes and of the demonstrations
of turbulent mobs round the polling-booths where men voted in public,
induced many independent politicians, who were not insensible to the
weight of some of the Conservative arguments, to accept the Ballot.
Strictly speaking, when the question was lifted out of the mire of
mere party controversy it came to this--whether Englishmen, in giving
their votes, preferred the protection of secrecy, to the protection
of a strong law punishing those who attempted to interfere with their
independence. To set the law in motion against a rich man in England
is a costly, and sometimes a dangerous, process. Hence the majority of
Englishmen preferred the protection of secrecy.

Mr. Forster’s Ballot Bill was introduced on the 28th of February,
and when the Second Reading had been passed after three nights’ dull
debate in June, the Conservatives attempted to talk it out by reviving,
on various frivolous pretexts, a discussion on the principle of the
Bill in Committee.[9] After these tactics had been exhausted, the
Opposition endeavoured to smother the Bill with dilatory amendments.
The supporters of the Government, on the other hand, attempted to
defeat the factious obstruction of their opponents by remaining silent
during the debates. The obstructive party, after a long and tedious
fight, were beaten, and the Bill passed through Committee, but shorn
of the clauses which cast election expenses on the rates, and made
all election expenses not included in the public returns, corrupt
expenses.[10] When the Bill reached the House of Lords, the real
motive which dictated the apparently futile and stupid obstruction
of the Conservative Opposition in the House of Commons, was quickly
revealed. The Lords rejected the Bill on the 18th of August, not merely
because they disliked and dreaded it, but because it had come to them
too late for proper consideration.[11]

[Illustration: MR. W. E. FORSTER.

(_From a Photograph by Russell and Sons._)]

Ministers were more successful with some other measures. In spite of
much Conservative opposition they passed a Bill abolishing religious
tests in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and throwing open
all academic distinctions and privileges except Divinity Degrees and
Clerical Fellowships to students of all creeds and faiths. Mr. Bruce
passed a Trades Union Bill, which gave all registered Unions the legal
_status_ and legal protection of ordinary corporations.[12] The vague
language of the old Act touching intimidation was swept away, and
only such forms of coercion as were not only in themselves obviously
brutal, but could also be clearly defined, were made punishable. A
decision of the law courts, however, deprived the Unions of many of the
benefits they had expected to gain under the Act.[13] Mr. Bruce’s Bill,
regulating the licensing of public-houses, another large measure, was
abandoned, but not till it had converted all the Radical and Liberal
publicans and their _clientèle_ into stern and uncompromising Tories.
Mr. Goschen’s scheme for reforming Local Government and Taxation was
far-reaching and comprehensive, but it alarmed the landlords, for it
divided rates between owners and occupiers, and levied rates on game
rents.[14]

But by far the most damaging failure of the Session was Mr. Lowe’s
Budget. It was known that the large outlay on the Army, due to the
abolition of Purchase and other causes, would leave a deficit of
about £2,000,000 to be met by Mr. Lowe in the coming year’s accounts.
How was he going to meet it? An elastic revenue and rigid economy in
expenditure had left Mr. Lowe with a surplus of £396,681. But he had
on the next year’s account an estimated deficit of £2,713,000,[15]
which he proposed to meet by a tax on matches--“not on matrimonial
engagements,” as he remarked,--by a readjustment of the Probate and
Succession Duties, and by an increase of about one penny farthing in
the £ of income-tax.[16] The Radicals attacked the Budget furiously,
and Mr. Disraeli formed with them what Mr. Gladstone termed an
“unprincipled coalition.” But the Tories and the Radicals objected
to the Budget on entirely different grounds. Mr. White, member for
Brighton, quoting Mr. Bright’s declaration that a Government which
could not rule the country with £70,000,000 of revenue did not deserve
public confidence, complained of the increase in the Army Estimates,
and warned the House that if such enormous sums were spent on the
protection of property, the people would elect a Parliament pledged
to tax property to pay them. Mr. Disraeli, correctly gauging popular
feeling, objected to the match tax, the proposal of which enraged the
poor match-makers of the East End of London. He gave just expression
to the feeling not only of his own Party, but of almost all the rich
men on the Liberal benches, when he denounced any increase in the
Succession Duties. The Government only escaped defeat by hinting
that they would abandon the Match Tax. After some fencing, the whole
Budget was reconstructed, the Succession Duties being also given up,
and the additional supplies needed by the Government being met by a
twopenny income-tax.[17] There could be no better illustration of the
strength and weakness of the Gladstone Government than this Budget.
Theoretically and logically, it was quite defensible. Purchase in the
Army had existed for the convenience and advantage of the wealthy
classes. It was, therefore, fair to increase the Succession Duties
in order to pay the expense of abolishing it. The Match Tax again
satisfied the ideal of public financiers, who all yearned for the
discovery of an impost that should fall on an article which, though
used by the masses, was yet not food, or one of those “luxuries” like
tea, which can with difficulty be distinguished from necessaries.
Moreover, as Professor Stanley Jevons proved, the Match Tax would have
laid even on the very poor less than one-third of the burden which had
been imposed by the shilling duty on corn, that Mr. Lowe had repealed
in 1869.[18] Unfortunately, however, Mr. Lowe, in preparing his Budget,
ignored the prejudices and foibles of the people. He imagined that if
he could defend his proposals logically, they would be accepted with
gratitude and unanimity.

In Foreign Affairs, the Government did not improve their position in
1871, and yet they achieved one success, for which they failed to
obtain sufficient credit. In May, the Queen was gratified to learn that
a basis for settling the outstanding dispute between the United States
and Great Britain had been at last discovered. It had been her firm
conviction that this quarrel had caused England to lose her traditional
influence over the affairs of Europe. The first essential step towards
regaining that influence, in her opinion, was taken when it was agreed
to submit to a Joint Commission of eminent Englishmen and Americans
in Washington the points at issue between the two nations.[19] The
American Commissioners, when they met their English colleagues,
refused to consider claims for damages due to the Fenian raids in
Canada. Not ignoring the Confederate raids from Canada on Vermont,
the English Commissioners, on their side, did not press this point.
With great courage and frankness, the British Government, through
their Commissioners, expressed their sincere regret that Confederate
cruisers had escaped from British ports to prey on American commerce.
But they did not admit that they were to blame for such an untoward
occurrence, nor did they offer what Mr. Sumner had demanded, any
apology for recognising the Southern States as belligerents. American
claims against England, and English claims against America, “growing
out of” the Civil War, it was agreed should be alike referred to a
Commission of Arbitration,[20] and the English Commissioners admitting
that some just rule for determining international liability in such
cases should be laid down, accepted the principle that neutrals are to
be held responsible for negligence in allowing warships to be equipped
or built in their ports for use against a belligerent. The English
Commissioners next agreed to let this principle be applied to the
_Alabama_ Claims, and though they were blamed for allowing these claims
to be determined by an _ex post facto_ rule, it was difficult for them
to adopt any other course. The rule was one that was essential to the
protection of British commerce from American privateers in the event of
England being engaged in any Continental war. To adopt it as just and
right for claims that might accrue in the future, rendered it hardly
possible to reject it as unjust and wrong for outstanding claims that
had accrued in the past. As to the Fishery dispute, citizens of the
United States, it was agreed, were to have for ten years the right to
fish on the Canadian coast, and Canadians were to have a similar right
of fishing on the coasts of the United States down to the 39th parallel
of latitude. As the British Commissioners insisted that the balance of
advantage was here conceded to the United States, and that it therefore
ought to be paid for by them, that point was by mutual agreement
referred to another Commission for adjustment. The chronic controversy
as to the San Juan boundary was to be referred to the Emperor of
Germany. These arrangements as embodied in the Washington Treaty were
subjected to some carping criticism in England. Lord Russell moved,
in the House of Lords, that the Queen should be asked to refuse to
ratify the instrument, and Lord Salisbury taunted the Government with
sacrificing the position of England as a neutral power. But the tone of
the debate showed that in their hearts the Conservatives and the old
Whigs were thankful that the country had been so honourably extricated
from an embarrassing diplomatic conflict, and their attack on the
Treaty was like that made by Mr. Sumner and General Butler on the other
side of the Atlantic, merely a Party sortie.[21] In a few weeks it was
universally admitted that the object which the Government had in view
had been attained. As if by magic, the feeling of the United States
towards England changed from one of menacing exasperation, to one of
growing sympathy and friendliness. For the first time in the course of
eighty years the average American stump orator found he could not evoke
a round of applause, by hotly-spiced denunciations of England and
Englishmen.

[Illustration: BALMORAL CASTLE, FROM THE NORTH-WEST.

(_From a Photograph by G. W. Wilson and Co., Aberdeen._)]

But, speaking generally, the Foreign Policy of the Government
discredited it. In the struggle between France and Germany the Cabinet
preserved a cold

General Faure.      General Wimpffen.      Von Moltke.      Von Bismarck.

AFTER SEDAN: DISCUSSING THE CAPITULATION (_From the Picture by Georg
Bleibtreu._)]

neutrality, at a time when popular feeling would have supported it
in protesting against the cession of Alsace and Lorraine to the
conquering power. For this attitude, however, Lord Granville had a
plausible excuse. Though the nation was sulky because an effective
protest had not been made, it would not have tolerated any policy that
might have led the country into war. Moreover, the Army had yet to be
reorganised, and till that was done the voice of England was naturally
of little account in the affairs of Europe. At the same time the meek
and spiritless expression which Ministers habitually gave to their
neutrality, irritated a proud and sensitive democracy who were every
day taunted by Tory orators and writers with permitting themselves to
be governed by a cowardly Cabinet. It seems just to say, even when
one makes every allowance for the difficulties of their position,
that in their handling of the diplomacy of the Franco-German War, Mr.
Gladstone and Lord Granville missed a great opportunity. After the
collapse of France at Sedan had been followed by that long series of
German victories which ended in the capitulation of Paris, and the
Armistice Convention between M. Jules Favre and Count von Bismarck
(28th January, 1871), Englishmen were all agreed on one point. To
cede Alsace and Lorraine to Germany was, in their opinion, to create
a French Poland, or Venetia on the Rhine, whose chronic discontent
must permanently imperil the peace of the world. But when the English
Government in February attempted to dissuade Germany from exacting
terms that inevitably rendered revenge the first duty of every French
patriot, England found herself isolated. None of the Powers were
prepared to join her in reviewing the conditions of peace which Germany
might impose, and the German Chancellor never even deigned to answer
the English remonstrance. England, in fact, had moved in the matter too
late.

As far back as the 17th of October, 1870, Sir Andrew Buchanan told
Lord Granville that the Czar, in his private letters to King William
of Prussia, had expressed a hope that no French territory would be
annexed. On the 4th of November the Italian Minister informed Lord
Granville that whilst Italy admitted that French fortresses must
be surrendered to the Germans, yet she held that there should be
no cession of territory. Sir A. Paget, writing from Florence, also
conveyed to Lord Granville about the same time the views of Signor
Visconti to the effect that “the Italian Government had several times
expressed the opinion that a peace in which Germany would seek her
guarantees by the dismantling of fortresses, &c., would afford better
securities for its duration than one which would be likely to create
a new question of nationalities.” Here there was a basis for a joint
representation on the part of the European Powers--for Austria all
through had only been held back through fear of Russia--both to France
and Germany. France might have been warned that, in spite of M. Jules
Favre’s formula,[22] she, as the defeated aggressor, had no right to
object to her menacing strongholds being razed. Germany might have
been reminded that, in the interests not of France but of Europe, it
was her duty as a great and civilising Power not to demand a cession
of territory, the recovery of which must be to France an object of
ceaseless striving.

The Queen would gladly have used her personal influence with the German
Emperor in urging on the Court of Berlin the policy and justice of
this representation. Lord Granville’s subordinates had assured him
that France, despite M. Favre’s heroics, would agree to anything if
spared the surrender of territory. It is now known that even Bismarck
himself was not desirous of the annexation of Alsace and Lorraine
against the will of their inhabitants.[23] The German generals had,
however, claimed what they deemed a safe, military frontier, and though
Von Bismarck induced them not to insist on the cession of Belfort, he
could not repel their demand for Alsace, a third part of Lorraine, and
Metz and Strasburg. The German Crown Prince was, moreover, understood
to be opposed to any irritating and unnecessary annexation. Hence all
the chances were in favour of success, if Lord Granville, acting with
Russia and Italy, had approached Germany with a cordial and courteous
appeal, to reject the advice of her military party, and moderate their
demands in the interests of Europe.[24] But the golden opportunity of
strengthening Von Bismarck’s hands was lost. Lord Granville not only
refused to abandon his attitude of rigid neutrality, but he couched
his policy in phrases so ostentatiously deferential to Germany, that
they almost justified the half-contemptuous replies which Von Bismarck
at this time sent to all despatches from the English Foreign Office,
which he did not entirely ignore. In February, 1871, when Lord
Granville at last plucked up heart to remonstrate with Germany, her
victorious armies had made sacrifices that rendered his tardy protests
impertinent. Italy and Russia had sense enough to recognise this
fact. They therefore refused to join England when Lord Granville sent
his remonstrance to Von Bismarck, who tossed it into his diplomatic
waste-paper basket.[25]

It may be readily conceived, then, that, despite its public services,
its invincible majority, and the failure of the Tory leaders to put
before the country any policy of their own, signs of decay were already
visible in the Government. Mr. Bruce had converted every publican into
an enemy. The Dissenters had vowed vengeance against the Ministry,
because Mr. Forster had increased the grant to denominational schools.
The officers of the Army and the upper and upper-middle classes of
society had resolved to punish Mr. Gladstone because he had allowed
Mr. Cardwell to abolish Purchase. A few Radicals and many Whigs were
also alarmed, because it had been abolished by Royal Prerogative,
the use of which to coerce the Peers was resented by the aristocracy
as an insult. The abolition of Purchase was to have been followed
by an effective reorganisation of the Army. Hence the nation was
profoundly disappointed to find the question of Army organisation
made light of by Ministers during the recess. Mr. Cardwell’s project
for autumn manœuvres on a large scale on the Berkshire Downs had to
be abandoned, because his Control Department could not feed or supply
his troops. When he substituted for this scheme a sham campaign in the
neighbourhood of Aldershot, the Transport Service was found to be so
bad that the Artillery had to be drawn upon to supply it with horses,
carts, and drivers. The disaster to the _Agincourt_ and the wreck of
the _Megæra_, also gave colour to slanders against the Government which
had issued from the Admiralty from the day that Mr. Childers began to
reform its wasteful administration, and Mr. Goschen had continued his
work.[26]

The Duke of Somerset, after the failure of the Berkshire campaign, had
scoffed at the Government because they gave the nation “armies that
could not march and ships that could not swim,” and the epigram was
soon everywhere repeated. Mr. Gladstone’s appointment of Sir Robert
Collier, the Attorney-General, to a seat on the Judicial Committee of
the Privy Council was denounced far and wide as a job perpetrated by a
tricky evasion of the law.[27] The Prime Minister’s management of the
House of Commons had also cost him many friends. As Mr. Disraeli once
said, it was like that of a

[Illustration: METZ.]

schoolmaster who was a little too fond of exhibiting the rod. Mr.
Ayrton and Mr. Lowe during the Session even enhanced their reputation
for irritating those who transacted business with them. But at every
turn Mr. Gladstone was embarrassed by his Parliamentary majority. It
had been elected to carry reforms which most of them individually
dreaded. Their desire was therefore to discover, not pretexts for
pushing the Ministry onward, but excuses which they could plausibly
justify to their constituents for holding Ministers back. As for the
working classes, they had imagined when Mr. Gladstone came to office
“something would be done for them.” But nothing except the Trades Union
Bill had been conceded to their demands, and even that measure was
defaced by irritating provisions, inserted to please their masters.
Mr. Disraeli’s strategy in these circumstances was artful, if not
altogether admirable. He gently fomented every rising discontent.
Without committing his Party to redress the wrongs of the discontented,
he left on the country the impression that under his administration
there would be less social friction than then existed, whilst there
could not be much less social reform.

Other circumstances tended to strengthen Conservative feeling in
England. Just as the triumph of democracy in the United States at
the end of the Civil War gave a great impetus to English Liberalism,
so did the march of events in France after the conclusion of peace
produce a reaction in England against democracy. The French elections
resulted in the return of the Assembly which met at Bordeaux on the
12th of February. Its majority consisted of Legitimists and Orleanists,
and, since the Convocation of the Estates General in 1789, no French
Parliament had ever met which contained so many men of high rank and
good estate. It had no special mandate, but it very sensibly took in
hand the task of making peace with Germany, and, having superseded
the Government of National Defence, it elected M. Thiers as Chief of
the Executive. He formed a Ministry which represented the best men of
all parties. The new Government were confronted at the outset with an
unexpected difficulty. The National Guard of Paris had been allowed
to retain their arms, and they not only broke into revolt, but seized
the capital and established in Paris the revolutionary Government of
the Commune, General Cluseret, a revolutionary “soldier of fortune,”
being appointed Minister of War. The idea of the revolt seems to have
been to convert the ten great cities of France into autonomous States
in federal alliance with the rest of the country, and the insurgents
began by giving Paris a separate Government, Executive, Army, and
Legislature. The Red Republicans imagined that by this device they
could emancipate the artisans from the control of the peasants,
who, under universal suffrage, were masters of France. The Commune
was founded by honest fanatics, but it let loose the suppressed
blackguardism of Paris, and before it was stamped out by the Army and
the Government of Versailles, terrible atrocities not unworthy of the
worst days of the “Terror” had been committed by the rabble whom it had
armed, and was powerless to restrain. In England the excesses of the
Commune were pointed to by Conservative writers and speakers as an apt
illustration of the natural and logical tendencies of Radicalism.

The Queen’s domestic life during 1871 was not much disturbed by the
petty demonstrations of Republican feeling which were in vogue at the
beginning of the year. They did not influence either the Ministry or
Parliament; and when, on the 13th of February, Mr. Gladstone proposed
the vote for the Princess Louise’s dowry in the House of Commons,
only three Members voted against it.[28] Mr. Disraeli, though he
supported the proposal, gently tickled the sympathies of its opponents
by suggesting that the system of voting Royal grants should be
changed. His idea was to maintain the Crown by an estate of its own,
ample enough to cover all its personal and family expenses, and that
Parliament should not be called on to grant money to the Queen save for
expenditure on public pageantry.

When it was announced that the Queen had fixed the 21st of March for
the Princess Louise’s marriage, the High Church Party were indignant
that the ceremony was to be performed in Lent. They argued that when
Royalty set an example contrary to the teachings of the Church,
the influence of the clergy was weakened over, what the _Guardian_
newspaper called, “the large area of society which lies between
the inner circle of the devout and the multitude of the unattached
outside the consecrated ground.” No heed, however, was paid to these
remonstrances, and the Royal wedding, when it took place at Windsor,
completely diverted popular attention from the Communist Reign of
Terror in Paris. The enthusiasm of the capital, it is true, was rather
qualified. The West End tradesmen were sulky because of the withdrawal
of the Queen from the gaieties of the London season; and the populace
was annoyed because the marriage did not take place in Westminster
Abbey or St. Paul’s. But the provinces were unusually lavish in their
demonstrations of sympathy with the Sovereign, and with the wedded
pair who had broken down the barrier of caste which had been so long
maintained between the Royal Family and the nation.[29]

The town of Windsor was _en fête_ for the occasion, the people crowding
the Castle Green, and the Eton boys occupying the Castle Hill. The
police and soldiery kept a passage open for the guests who came from
London by special train, and who were conveyed in Royal carriages
to St. George’s Chapel amid general cheering and joyous ringing of
bells. The Ministers of State, Foreign Princes and Ambassadors, and
other prominent persons, were gay in rich and glittering uniforms. Of
the bridal party, the first to arrive was the Duke of Argyll, with
his family. He wore the dress of a Highland chieftain, with philabeg,
sporran, claymore, and jewelled dirk. A plaid of Campbell tartan was
thrown across his shoulders, over which was also hung the Order of
the Thistle. He was accompanied by the Duchess of Argyll, who shone
in silver and white satin. The Lord Chancellor, in wig and gown, and
Lord Halifax, in Ministerial uniform of blue and gold, walked up the
central aisle and took their seats, along with members of the Cabinet
and the Privy Council, in the stalls to the left of the altar. Then
came the Princess Christian, in pink satin, trimmed with white lace,
and some Indian potentates, radiant in auriferous scarlet. Lord Lorne,
the bridegroom, next entered, arrayed in the uniform of the Argyllshire
Regiment of Volunteer Artillery, of which he was Colonel, looking
pale and nervous. He was supported by his groomsmen, Lord Percy and
Lord Ronald Leveson-Gower. The Princess Beatrice arrived evidently in
high spirits, and wearing a pink satin dress, her sunny hair flowing
freely down her back. The Princess of Wales, who received an almost
affectionate greeting, was the last of the Royal party to come. All the
members of the Royal Family were then present, with the exception of
Prince Alfred. As the procession advanced up the nave, the bride was
supported on the right by the Queen, and on the left by the Prince of
Wales and the Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. The Princess, in her dress
of white satin and veil of Honiton lace, was voted one of the most
charming brides on whom the sun had shone. Eight bridesmaids followed,
all daughters of dukes and earls, clad in white satin, decorated with
red camellias. The Queen appeared in black satin, relieved by the
broad blue ribbon of the Garter, and by a fall of white lace, which
nearly reached to the ground. The service was read by the Bishop of
London, the Queen giving away her daughter.[30] After the ceremony, the
Queen took the bride in her arms, and kissed her heartily, while the
Marquis of Lorne knelt and kissed the Queen’s hand. The Royal wedding
breakfast was served in the magnificent oak-room of Windsor Castle,
the company including the Prince and Princess of Wales, Prince Arthur,
the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, Prince and Princess Teck, the
Duke of Saxe-Coburg, Prince and Princess Christian. Another breakfast
for the general company was served in the Waterloo Gallery. When the
newly-married pair left the Castle for Claremont, it was noticed that
the bride wore a charming travelling costume of Campbell tartan. As
they departed, their numerous relatives showered over them a quantity
of white satin slippers, and, following an ancient Highland usage, a
new broom was also thrown after them as they got into the carriage. The
Oriental custom of flinging rice after a wedded couple, introduced into
England by the family of Musurus Pasha, the Turkish Ambassador, had not
then become the _mode_ in the highest circles of Society.[31]

[Illustration: MARRIAGE OF THE PRINCESS LOUISE. (_See p. 408._)

(_After the Picture by Sydney P. Hall._)]

[Illustration: OPENING OF THE ROYAL ALBERT HALL.]

On the 29th of March, in the presence of a brilliant and fashionable
crowd of upwards of 10,000 persons, the Queen opened the Royal Albert
Hall at Kensington. The Members of the Provisional Committee met the
Prince of Wales, their President, and, on the arrival of the Queen at
half-past twelve o’clock, the Heir Apparent read the address to her
Majesty, which could hardly be heard, because a provoking echo mimicked
the tones of his voice whilst he described the completion of the Hall.
The Queen having handed to the Prince a written answer, said, “I wish
to express my great admiration of this beautiful Hall, and my earnest
wishes for its complete success.” After a prayer from the Bishop of
London, the Prince exclaimed, “The Queen declares this Hall to be now
opened!” an announcement which was followed by a burst of cheering, the
National Anthem, and the discharge of the Park guns. Then a concert was
given, which included the performance of a cantata written expressly
for the occasion by Sir Michael Costa.

On the 21st of June the Queen again appeared in London to open the new
buildings of St. Thomas’s Hospital on the Albert Embankment, and her
neatly-worded reply to the address which was presented to her on that
occasion attracted considerable attention, because it was rumoured that
it had been carefully written out by herself. It ran as follows:--

    “I thank you for your loyal Address. I congratulate you on the
    completion of a work of so much importance to the suffering poor of
    the Metropolis. The necessity for abandoning the ancient site of
    your Hospital has been wisely turned to account by the erection of
    more spacious and commodious buildings in this central situation,
    and I rejoice that a position of appropriate beauty and dignity
    has been found for them on the noble roadway which now follows the
    course of this part of the Thames, of which they will henceforth
    be among the most conspicuous ornaments. It gives me pleasure to
    recognise in the plan of your buildings, so carefully adapted
    to check the growth of disease, ample and satisfactory evidence
    of your resolution to take advantage of the best suggestions of
    Science for the alleviation of suffering, and the complete and
    speedy cure of the sick and disabled. These great purposes are not
    least effectually promoted by an adequate supply of careful and
    well-trained nurses, and I do not forget that in this respect your
    Hospital is especially fortunate through the connection with it of
    the staff trained under the direction of the lady whose name will
    always remain associated with the care of the wounded and the sick.
    I thank you for the kind expressions you have used in regard to the
    marriage of my dear daughter.”

Early in summer it was bruited about that an application would be made
to the House of Commons for a settlement on Prince Arthur. At first
it was whispered that he was to be created Duke of Ulster, and that
he was to live in Ireland, an eccentric tribute to the loyalty of the
Orangemen, who when the Irish Church was disestablished threatened
to “kick the Queen’s Crown into the Boyne.” The idea, however, was
abandoned, and the agitation against the Princess Louise’s dowry now
broke out anew, especially in Birmingham, in the form of a protest
against the usual portion being voted to the Prince on the attainment
of his majority. But Mr. Gladstone was not to be intimidated by the
Republicans. On the 27th of July he brought down to the House of
Commons a Royal Message requesting the customary allowance for a Prince
of the Blood to be voted.[32] A few days afterwards the Royal Message
was debated, Mr. Peter Taylor moving the rejection of the resolution
voting £15,000 a year to the Prince, and Mr. Dixon moving its reduction
from £15,000 to £10,000. Eleven members voted for Mr. Taylor, and Mr.
Dixon found fifty-one supporters. The grant was easily carried, Mr.
Gladstone basing his case on the implied contract made by Parliament to
support the Royal Family when the Crown Lands were taken over by the
State, and Mr. Disraeli arguing that the English workmen could easily
afford to pay for their Monarchy because they were the richest class
in the world. But Mr. Gladstone seemed a little nervous when Mr. Dixon
indicated that he was forced to demand a reduction of the vote by his
constituents, among whom Republicanism, he said, was spreading, because
they considered it cheap. The Prime Minister accordingly took occasion
to hint that it might be well to establish an arrangement which
would render similar applications to Parliament unnecessary, and Mr.
Disraeli, not to be outdone, made his bid for popularity by suggesting
that the Crown should be allowed to charge Crown Lands for the Queen’s
children, just as English nobles charged their estates with portions
for their younger sons. Perhaps some of the acerbity of the Radical or
Republican members was due to the meddlesomeness of the Home Secretary,
Mr. Bruce, who prohibited a public meeting in Trafalgar Square which
was fixed for the same evening on which the Royal Message was debated,
in order to protest against the grant.[33] The Prince took the title of
Duke of Connaught, and settled down to follow a useful career in the
Army.

In September the country was greatly grieved to learn that the Queen
had fallen seriously ill. Those who had been reproaching her for
retiring from active life now began to suspect what was the truth,
namely, that the Queen’s labours were not materially lessened by her
withdrawal from the exciting functions of each London season. Her
illness took the form of a sore throat, accompanied by glandular
swellings under the arm, and the sympathetic sentiment of London was
expressed by the _Times_, which mournfully regretted that the Sovereign
had ever been pressed to overwork herself.

Gradually the prostration which this illness had caused passed away;
but, unhappily, no sooner had her own health ceased to give the Queen
cause for anxiety, than that of her eldest son broke down. Nothing
could exceed the alarm of the country when it was announced on the
20th of November that the Heir to the Throne was smitten at Sandringham
with typhoid fever--the very malady which had cut off his father in
his prime. The disease, it was said, had probably been contracted
when the Prince was visiting Lord Londesborough at Scarborough, and
it was a significant coincidence, not only that Lord Chesterfield,
who was staying there at the same time, had been attacked by and had
quickly succumbed to the fever, but that six other guests of Lord
Londesborough’s had complained of being unwell. On the other hand,
it was pointed out that a groom at Sandringham, who had not quitted
the place, was smitten at the same time as the Prince, and that it
was therefore to bad sanitation at Sandringham that the mishap must
be traced. Day by day the nation read the reassuring bulletins with
growing anxiety,

[Illustration: THE PRINCE OF WALES’S ILLNESS: CROWD AT THE MANSION
HOUSE READING THE BULLETINS.]

relieved only by the knowledge, not only that the Queen herself
had taken her place at the sufferer’s sick bed, and that the ever
self-sacrificing Princess Louis of Hesse--a nurse of high technical
skill--had installed herself in charge of the sick room. The Princess
of Wales was herself suffering, doubtless from the same poison which
had attacked her husband. Day by day the bulletins were eagerly
scanned, not only in the newspapers, but by excited crowds at public
places like the Mansion House and Marlborough House, where they were
exhibited. After twenty-five days of suffering the Prince, who had
shown signs of recovery, had a relapse, and then the worst was feared.
The Prince it was thought must die, and the shock of the bereavement
might be fatal to the Queen, whose health was already sadly impaired.
Englishmen remembered for the first time that only two precarious
lives--one of which was flickering between life and death--stood
between the country and a Regency. But what might a Regency portend? It
had been fatal to the Monarchy in France; within the memory of living
men it had nearly proved fatal to the Monarchy in England. When it
was announced on the 9th of December that all the members of the Royal
Family had suddenly been summoned to Sandringham, securities in the
Money Market, with the exception of Consols, fell from one to

[Illustration: THANKSGIVING DAY: THE PROCESSION AT LUDGATE HILL. (_From
the Picture by N. Chevalier._)]

two per cent. Twice the physicians warned the Queen that the end was
at hand, but at last, on the 14th of December--strangely enough the
tenth anniversary of his father’s death--the Prince made a rally, and
the bulletins again became more hopeful. Prayers had been offered
up for his recovery in every church in the empire, and even the
Republican societies had sent addresses of sympathy to the Sovereign.
The heart of the people had gone forth to her and to the Princess of
Wales in sincere and unrestrained sympathy, and as the year closed
an official announcement was made which dispelled the gloom that had
settled on all classes. It stated that, though Sir James Paget had
not left Sandringham, the Prince was then (29th December) progressing
favourably. This was followed by a letter from the Queen to the Home
Secretary, in which she said:--“The Queen is very anxious to express
her deep sense of the touching sympathy of the whole nation on the
occasion of the alarming illness of her dear son the Prince of Wales.
The universal feeling shown by her people during these painful,
terrible days, and the sympathy evinced by them with herself and her
beloved daughter the Princess of Wales, as well as the general joy
at the improvement in the Prince of Wales’s state, have made a deep
and lasting impression on her heart which can never be effaced. It
was, indeed, nothing new to her, for the Queen had met with the same
sympathy when, just ten years ago, a similar illness removed from
her side the mainstay of her life--the best, wisest, and kindest of
husbands. The Queen wishes to express at the same time, on the part of
the Princess of Wales, her feelings of heartfelt gratitude, for she
has been as deeply touched as the Queen by the great and universal
manifestation of loyalty and sympathy. The Queen cannot conclude
without expressing her hope that her faithful subjects will continue
their prayers to God for the complete recovery of her dear son to
health and strength.”

CHAPTER XVII.

THE “ALABAMA” CLAIMS.

    Thanksgiving Day--The Procession--Behaviour of the Crowd--Scene
    in St. Paul’s--Decorations and Illuminations--Letter from Her
    Majesty--Attack on the Queen--John Brown--The Queen’s Speech--The
    _Alabama_ Claims--The “Consequential Damages”--Living in a Blaze
    of Apology--Story of the “Indirect Claims”--The Arbitrators’
    Award--Sir Alexander Cockburn’s Judgment--Passing of the Ballot
    Act--The Scottish Education Act--The Licensing Bill--Public Health
    Bill--Coal Mines Regulation Bill--The Army Bill--Admiralty
    Reforms--Ministerial Defeat on Local Taxation--Starting of the
    Home Government Association in Dublin--Assassination of Lord
    Mayo--Stanley’s Discovery of Livingstone--Dr. Livingstone’s
    Interview with the Queen--Her Majesty’s Gift to Mr. Stanley--Death
    of Dr. Norman Macleod--The Japanese Embassy--The Burmese
    Mission--Her Majesty at Holyrood Palace--Death of Her Half-Sister.

During the first weeks of 1872 the convalescence of the Heir Apparent
seemed to obscure all other topics of political interest. The
anti-monarchical agitation, which Sir Charles Dilke had fomented, not
only by his votes in Parliament, but by his speeches in the country,
suddenly subsided, showing that the sentiment of affectionate regard
which had linked the Crown and the nation together in the past, was not
to be destroyed by political factions who were trading on the temporary
and local estrangement of the Queen from her subjects in the capital.
Faction, indeed, was for the time silenced throughout the land, and the
Queen soon saw that it was the universal desire of the nation that the
recovery of the Prince, which had saved the country from much anxiety
as to its future under a Regency, should be celebrated by a solemn
public function. It was therefore announced in the middle of January
that the Queen would proceed in State to St. Paul’s Cathedral on as
early a day as could be fixed after the 20th of February, to return
thanks for the recovery of her son. Ultimately Tuesday, the 27th of
February, was fixed for the ceremony.

The day was clear and bright, though cold, and a wintry sun shone on
the splendid pageant, for which elaborate preparations had been made
many days before. The demand for tickets to view the spectacle was
unprecedented. Carriages were hired at fabulous prices, and writing on
the morning of the ceremony to his daughter-in-law, Lord Shaftesbury
tells her that when he had ordered a brougham on the previous day at
his job-master’s he was told “that every vehicle had been pre-engaged
for weeks. Thoroughfares like St. James’s Street were impassable,
because for two days before the event they were blocked by crowds who
had come to see the preparations.”[34] In fact, as Bishop Wilberforce
says in a passage in his Diary, London was “quite wild on Thanksgiving
Day.”[35] By general desire the day was celebrated as a national
holiday. As for the crowds in the streets along the line of _route_,
they were said to number from a million to a million and a quarter of
spectators, and the decorations far surpassed any similar display ever
seen in London. The procession started from Buckingham Palace at five
minutes past twelve o’clock, led by the carriages of the Speaker, the
Lord Chancellor, and the Duke of Cambridge, and was composed of nine
royal carriages, in the last of which the Queen was seen accompanied
by the Prince and Princess of Wales. Her Majesty seemed to be in good
health, and she looked supremely happy. The Prince was pale and rather
haggard, but his bright and happy nature shone through a countenance
radiant with gratitude, and he kept bowing all along the way to the
multitudes who cheered him. The hearty reciprocal feeling between the
Queen, the Prince, and the populace, which the shouts of such a vast
crowd expressed, rendered the scene a magnificent demonstration of
national loyalty to a popular Sovereign. At Temple Bar the Queen was
met by the Lord Mayor and municipal dignitaries of the City of London,
arrayed in their robes, and mounted on white horses. Having alighted,
the Lord Mayor delivered to and received back from the Queen the City
sword, according to the usual custom. But, contrary to precedent and to
general expectation, the gates of Temple Bar were not closed against
the Queen, so that it was unnecessary to present her with the

[Illustration: THANKSGIVING DAY: ST. PAUL’S ILLUMINATED.]

keys. The Lord Mayor and his colleagues having re-mounted their
steeds, preceded the Royal procession to St. Paul’s. Precisely at one
o’clock the Queen entered the Cathedral through the pavilion erected
upon the steps. Its approach was covered with crimson cloth, and it was
ornamented with the royal arms and with the escutcheon of the Prince of
Wales. On it there was the inscription “I was glad when they said unto
me, We will go into the house of the Lord.” Within the Cathedral the
scene was imposing and impressive, for all that was exalted in station,
high in official position, or eminent by reason of genius, talent, and
public services was represented in the congregation of 13,000 persons.
Representatives of the Court, the Princes of India, the Colonies, the
Houses of Parliament, the Episcopate, the Judges, the Lords-Lieutenant,
and the municipal authorities of the provincial towns, were especially
prominent. The Queen was received at the Cathedral by the Bishop of

[Illustration: THE THANKSGIVING SERVICE IN ST. PAUL’S CATHEDRAL.]

London and the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul’s, and by the officers of
her household, who were already waiting for her. With the Prince of
Wales on her right hand and the Princess of Wales on her left, the
Queen, leaning on the Prince’s arm, walked up the nave in a procession
which was marshalled by the Lancaster and Somerset Heralds. The special
service began at one o’clock with the _Te Deum_, which was arranged by
Mr. Goss for the occasion, and sung by a choir of two hundred and fifty
voices. The voice of the Archbishop of Canterbury was inaudible, but
the choral part of the ritual was listened to reverently. The words
of special thanksgiving were:--“O Father of Mercies and God of all
Comfort, we thank Thee that Thou hast heard the prayers of this nation
in the day of our trial. We praise and magnify Thy glorious name for
that Thou hast raised Thy servant, Albert Edward Prince of Wales, from
the bed of sickness. Thou castest down and Thou liftest up, and health
and strength are Thy gifts; we pray Thee to perfect the recovery of Thy
servant, and to crown him day by day with more abundant blessings, both
for body and soul, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.” Here there
was a long pause, during which the dead silence of that vast hushed
congregation was described by those present as being almost painful to
the ear. Archbishop Tait having pronounced the benediction delivered
a sermon which was striking for its brevity and its simple unadorned
eloquence. He took for his text the words “Every one members one of
another,” and illustrated in a few apt sentences the Divine origin of
family life and of the State and of the Church, which, he said, was but
the family and the State in relation to God. The illness of the Prince
had given a fresh meaning to this conception. Hence “such a day,”
observed the Archbishop in his concluding sentence, “makes us feel
truly that we are all members one of another.” The religious ceremony
ended at two o’clock, and the Royal procession returned to Buckingham
Palace amid thunders of artillery from the guns of the Tower and the
Park.

With one exception the decorations were successful. That
exception--which was noted as curious at the time by the Queen--was
at Ludgate Circus, where the triumphal arch, which ought to have been
one of the grandest in the metropolis was, by reason of backward
preparation, almost a failure. It was not till the procession was
nearly within sight that the scaffoldings were taken down, and the
scene of confusion as the distracted workmen removed the poles,
delighted the mob amazingly.[36] Unfortunately in the hurry, so much
damage was done to the gorgeous gold mouldings of the arch, that it
presented the appearance of an ancient but freshly gilded ruin. As for
the illuminations at night, they were not general--probably because
many people did not regard a religious thanksgiving day as a fit
occasion for illuminating. The centres of attraction were the dome and
west front of St. Paul’s, the dome being picked out by a treble row
of coloured ship’s lanterns. The cathedral itself stood out in lurid
splendour when transient shafts of lime-light, and the fitful glow
of the red light on the gilded ball fell on the building. Two days
after the ceremony the following letter was published in the _London
Gazette_:--

“Buckingham Palace, February 29, 1872.

“The Queen is anxious, as on a previous occasion, to express publicly
her _own_ personal _very deep_ sense of the reception she and her dear
children met with on Tuesday, February 27th, from millions of her
subjects, on her way to and from St. Paul’s.

“Words are too weak for the Queen to say how very deeply touched
and gratified she has been by the immense enthusiasm and affection
exhibited towards her dear son and herself, from the highest down to
the lowest, on the long progress through the Capital, and she would
earnestly wish to convey her warmest and most heartfelt thanks to the
whole nation for this great demonstration of loyalty.

“The Queen, as well as her son and her dear daughter-in-law, felt that
the whole nation joined with them in thanking God for sparing the
beloved Prince of Wales’s life.

“The remembrance of this day and of the remarkable order maintained
throughout, will for ever be affectionately remembered by the Queen and
her family.”

On the very day on which this letter was dated a strange attack was
made on the Queen. When she returned from her afternoon drive in the
Park, she passed along by Buckingham Palace wall, and drove to the gate
at which she usually alighted. The carriage had hardly halted when a
lad rushed to its left side, and bending forward presented a pistol
at the Queen, while he flourished a petition in his hand. He then
rushed round the carriage and threw himself into a similar attitude
on the other side. The Queen remained calm and unmoved, and the boy’s
pistol was taken from him, when it was discovered that it was unloaded.
The petition was a poor scrawl, demanding the release of the Fenian
prisoners, and the lad gave the name of Arthur O’Connor, and stated his
age to be seventeen.[37]

When Parliament assembled in 1872 Mr. Gladstone found himself
confronted by an Opposition which had been rendered almost insolently
aggressive by their triumphs at the bye-elections. He found himself
supported by a majority, each section of which had its special
grievance against him. And if he looked beyond Parliament for support
he might have seen that a subtle popular suspicion was growing up round
his name which was fast neutralising the magic of his personality.
It was said, alike by friends and foes, that an overweening love for
personal power, and a passion for exercising personal authority over
others, had become the guiding motives of his life, and the inspiring
ideas of his policy. Had this been true, it is hardly likely that the
Prime Minister would have identified himself with legislation which
had set the vested interests, and the fanatical sectaries up in arms
against him. But the important point was that, whether true or false,
the calumny was believed, and the Queen, like many other careful
observers, saw the Ministry growing weaker and weaker every day, whilst
Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues were themselves under the delusion
that every day increased their popularity. And yet, as if to justify
the maxim that in politics it is the unexpected that happens, the year
was not fruitful in crises or in sensational scenes. Mr. Disraeli
held his followers in check, and the Session was a business-like one,
which, when it ended, left the Government stronger than could have been
anticipated.

The Parliamentary year was opened on the 6th of February, the Queen’s
Speech being read by Commission. It promised a Ballot Bill, and Bills
for organising Education in Scotland, for regulating Mines, and for
improving the Licensing System. The passage in the Speech to which,
however, all eyes turned was the one dealing with the _Alabama_ Claims.
On this subject the country had suddenly become profoundly agitated,
and from an observation in Bishop Wilberforce’s Diary we gather that
the Queen, shared the popular feeling of the hour.[38] After the nation
had congratulated itself on discovering a diplomatic solution of its
difficulties with the American Republic, it was amazed to find that the
Americans were endeavouring to seize by chicane what they had failed
to gain by diplomacy. When they forwarded the case which they meant
to submit to Arbitration, it was discovered that they had included in
it not only a claim for the actual damage done to American commerce
by the Confederate cruisers, but also the claims for the indirect or
“consequential damages” which Mr. Sumner had put forward, and which
the British Commissioners understood were abandoned. The sum asked
under this head would have covered half the cost of the whole Civil
War. It was therefore the clear opinion of the Queen that England could
not consent to go into Arbitration till this preposterous demand was
withdrawn. Lord Granville, on the other hand, though he inclined to
this opinion, was slow to reply to a demand which he was in honour
bound to promptly repel. He was chiefly concerned about saving the
Washington Treaty, and he therefore sent to the American Government a
mild letter requesting the withdrawal of the “indirect claims” in terms
so deferentially conciliatory, that had he been dealing with a less
pacific Power his despatch would probably have been answered with the
cynical

[Illustration: GENEVA.]

_brusquerie_ that marked Von Bismarck’s dealings with him. But the
country was not as meek as the Minister. There was an outburst of
popular anger against the Americans for the “sharp practice” which
sullied their statement of claim, and Mr. Gladstone soon saw that to
go into Arbitration before the demand for “consequential damages” was
withdrawn would lead to his expulsion from office. His declarations in
Parliament on the subject thenceforth showed that he meant to repudiate
the American interpretation of the Treaty under which the “indirect
claims” had been dragged into the American case, and he spoke with the
high spirit of a statesman rejecting a humiliating demand for tribute
greater than conquest itself could extort. The Opposition in both
Houses, on the whole, gave the Government generous support in this
emergency, though Mr. Disraeli--referring to the torrent of Ministerial
oratory which had deluged the recess--could not refrain in his comment
on the Queen’s Speech from deriding the Cabinet for having lately lived
“in a blaze of apology.”

The story of the controversy on the “indirect claims” may here be told.
The United States, in extremely conciliatory despatches, insisted on
including these claims in their case. They argued that it was for the
arbitrators at Geneva to say whether they were or were not admissible
under the Treaty. They rested their contention on an ambiguous phrase
which Lord Ripon and Sir Stafford Northcote had unfortunately permitted
to pass unconnected into the Treaty. The first Article of that
instrument described its object to be that of removing and adjusting
“all complaints and claims,” &c., “_growing out_ of acts committed by
the said vessels, and _generically known as the ‘Alabama’ Claims_.”
This certainly gave the Americans a plausible excuse for demanding
“consequential” as well as direct damages. On the other side, the
English Government argued that all the concessions made by the British
Commissioners at Washington were made on the understanding that the
“indirect claims” were not included in the Treaty; that in all their
correspondence with the Washington Department of State no claims save
direct claims were ever “generically” known as the _Alabama Claims_;
and, lastly, that their interpretation was publicly expressed and well
known to the United States Government, people, and Minister at the
Court of St. James’s, and was never objected to by either of them. It
would, however, have been easy to put the point beyond dispute when
the Treaty was drawn up by specifically barring all indirect claims.
When Lord Ripon and Sir Stafford. Northcote failed to do that they were
guilty of negligence which, if brought home to the diplomatists of
either Russia or Germany, would have procured for them, not rewards and
honours, but punishment and degradation. Fortunately the dispute ended
happily. Lord Granville for once acted with the firmness becoming the
representative of a great nation. When the arbitrators met at Geneva,
the representatives of England persistently refused to take part in the
proceedings till the “indirect claims” were withdrawn. The arbitrators
then adroitly extricated the agents of the Washington Government from
a false position. They met and declared that, without reference to
the scope of the Treaty or to the merits of the dispute as to its
interpretation, which England refused to discuss before them, they
were agreed that “indirect claims” could never, on general principles
of international law, be a tenable ground for an award of damages in
international disputes.

The Americans then withdrew the obnoxious part of their “case,” and
the arbitrators awarded to the United States £3,229,000 damages
against England for the depredations committed by three out of the ten
Confederate cruisers which, it was alleged, the British Government had
negligently permitted to escape from British ports. The American claim
for naval expenses incurred in chasing these cruisers was, however,
rejected, because the arbitrators held that it could not be practically
distinguished from the general cost of the war. The Lord Chief Justice
of England--one of the members of the Tribunal--concurred in the
judgment as regards the _Alabama_. He differed from all his colleagues
in regard to the _Florida_, and he and the Brazilian arbitrator
differed from the majority as to the case of the _Shenandoah_.[39] The
failure of the English Government to seize the _Florida_ and _Alabama_,
when they put into British ports after they had made their escape, was
evidently the fact which bore most strongly against England in the
opinion of the Geneva Tribunal. The American claims for damages in
respect of the _Georgia_, _Chickamauga_, _Nashville_, _Retribution_,
_Sumter_, and _Tallahassee_, were rejected. On the whole, public
opinion on both sides of the Atlantic, though not quite satisfied with
the verdict, allowed that there had been a fair fight and a fair trial.
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn’s dissenting judgment, however, expressed
the feeling of the English people, which was this. “Let us admit,” they
said, “the _ex post facto_ rule making neutrals liable for damages
if they do not exercise ‘due diligence’--the ‘dueness of diligence’
to be always proportionate to the mischief the vessels might do--in
preventing the escape of cruisers, and in re-capturing them when they
get the chance. English officials were, however, not aware that, when
these cruisers escaped and when on re-entering British ports they were
not detained, international law demanded from them more ‘dueness’ of
diligence than they had exercised or been taught to exercise. Hence it
surely was wrong to give damages for their unconscious negligence, just
as if their negligence had been conscious.” This argument, indeed, Sir
Alexander Cockburn pressed to the point of cutting down to zero the
claim for damages in respect of the _Shenandoah_ and _Florida_.

One of the most important Government measures of the year was the
Ballot Act. But the opposition to it was marked by no novelty of
argument, and it need only be said about it here that it was passed,
the Lords not venturing to reject it a second time.[40] The Scottish
Education Bill, which also passed, established a School Board system
of public instruction all over Scotland far in advance of that
which England had been able to obtain. A Licensing Bill of a mildly
regulative character was carried, the publicans grudgingly accepting it
as a compromise, while the Temperance Party attacked it as miserably
ineffective.[41] Mr. Stansfeld’s Public Health Bill, defining the
authority which must in future be responsible for local sanitation, and
embodying the principle that rates should be divided between the State
and the locality was so adroitly managed by Mr. Stansfeld, that at last
Mr. Disraeli supported the Government in carrying it. Another useful
measure regulating the working of Coal Mines was carried in spite
of many protests against interfering with private contracts between
masters and servants, and many attempts on the part of the vested
interests who were supported by the bulk of the Tory Party, to render
the Bill inoperative. Among other things it prohibited the employment
of women underground, and it made mine-owners responsible for the
results of preventible mining accidents.

Mr. Cardwell’s Army Bill was received with unlocked for favour. It
attempted to adapt the territorial system of Prussia to the exigencies
of military service in England. The nine existing military divisions
were subdivided into sixty-six military districts. In each of these
a small army or brigade was formed, consisting of two battalions of
Regulars, to which were linked the local Militia and Volunteers. One
of the regular battalions was to be told off for foreign service, and
its “waste” supplied by drafts from the territorial _depôt_. The main
objection to the scheme urged by Conservative officers was that it
destroyed the family life of the old regiments--that it even destroyed
their identity by substituting local titles for the numbers which their
prowess in war had in many cases made historic. According to this
scheme the country would have an Army of 446,000 men, of whom 146,000
were available for service abroad. The evidence given before the
Commission which reported on the wreck of the _Megæra_, concentrated
attention on Admiralty Reform. On the whole, the country gave Mr.
Childers credit for having brought order into that chaotic department.
Before he came to power the various branches of the Admiralty had
little or no connection with each other, and when a blunder was made
by conflicting authority or contradictory orders, nobody could be
made responsible. Mr. Childers set responsible officers at the head
of each department, and made excellent arrangements for their mutual
co-operation. But the weak point of his scheme was that he as First
Lord was the real _nexus_ which bound the whole organisation together.
The system accordingly broke down when his health gave way, for Mr.
Lushington, who was in a sense the Grand Vizier of the First Lord,
was a civilian comparatively new to the department, and unable to act
as an efficient substitute for Mr. Childers.[42] Mr. Goschen met the
difficulty, not by appointing a naval expert as his second in command,
but by casting responsibility for all orders on three officials--a
Naval Secretary who was to be responsible for orders concerning the
_personnel_, a Controller who was to be responsible for those relating
to the _matériel_, and a Permanent Secretary who was to be responsible
for those affecting finance and civil business. To secure unity of work
the Board of Admiralty was to meet daily for consultation, and in the
First Lord’s absence the supreme authority was to pass to the First
Naval Lord of the Admiralty.

[Illustration: DR. NORMAN MACLEOD.

(_From a Photograph by Elliott and Fry._)]

In spite of a serious defeat on Sir Massey Lopes’ motion on the
question of Local Taxation,[43] a narrow escape from defeat on
the Collier scandal, and a clever mocking attack by Mr. Disraeli
at Manchester in the spring on their sensational policy and their
ambiguous utterances on the proposals of their extreme supporters,
the Ministers were stronger in Parliament when the Session ended
than when it began. Mr. Lowe’s Budget further helped the credit of
the Government, for such was the elasticity of the revenue that
it foreshadowed a surplus of £3,000,000, and enabled him to remit
the twopenny Income Tax which he had imposed in 1871.[44] Ireland,
however, was as usual a source of anxiety to the Cabinet. The Tories
and Orangemen, indignant at the Disestablishment of the Church, had
coalesced with the more moderate Repealers, and set on foot the Home
Government Association,[45] from which the Home Rule Party under the
leadership of Mr. Isaac Butt sprang. Whenever the Ballot Act was
passed, Home Rule candidates began to carry the Irish bye-elections
against the Ministerialists--in fact, it was apparent to shrewd
observers that the destruction of the Liberal Party in Ireland was
now only a matter of time. Earl Russell was probably of this opinion
when, in August, he startled the town by publishing a letter in the
_Times_ virtually conceding the principle of Home Rule in order to
lighten the burden of Imperial legislation with which Parliament was
overweighted.[46]

As for the Opposition, their councils were divided. Lord Salisbury
was averse from promising any programme. Mr. Disraeli seemed afraid
to suggest one that went beyond sanitary reform. Yet the Tories had
completely broken the absolute power of Mr. Gladstone in the country,
and were still, as the Municipal Elections in November showed, a
growing party. The causes which contributed to a reaction in their
favour in 1871 were still at work. Mr. Gladstone’s opposition to Sir
Massey Lopes’ motion on rating, and the sudden appearance of Trades
Unionism among the agricultural labourers gave Conservatism hosts of
fresh recruits, for the squires and the farmers naturally rallied to
the Party whose leaders stood forth as champions of the threatened
interests.

The attempt of O’Connor on the Queen’s life was not the only crime of
the kind that darkened the year. On the 8th of February Lord Mayo,
the Viceroy of India, was stabbed to death by a Mahommedan convict at
Port Blair, the port of the penal settlement on the Andaman Islands,
to which Lord Mayo was paying a visit of inspection. The assassin was
a sullen, brooding fanatic who had been transported for killing a
relative with whom he had a “blood feud.” The Queen was as much shocked
as the country by the event, for by this time it was universally
recognised that Lord Mayo was one of the most competent Viceroys who
had ever ruled India. His intuitive insight into difficulties, his
shrewd perception of character, his frank resoluteness of action,
his clearness and decision of purpose, and his dignified and stately
bearing rendered Lord Mayo an ideal viceroy. His great work consisted
in cementing an alliance with the Afghan Ameer, in imposing an
income-tax to rehabilitate the finances of India, and suppressing a
rebellious movement among the Wahabee fanatics.

Early in May telegrams were received in London announcing that Dr.
Livingstone, the African explorer, as to whose safety much anxiety had
been felt, had been discovered by Mr. Stanley, a special correspondent
on the staff of the _New York Herald_, who had been despatched by
Mr. J. Gordon Bennett, the proprietor of that journal, to look for
the missing traveller. The Queen received these tidings with the
deepest gratification, not unmingled with regret that the honour of
the discovery should pass to an American expedition. Her interest
in Livingstone, and in his last efforts to discover the sources of
the Nile, was well known--indeed, when in England the explorer had a
private interview with her Majesty, of which an account is given in Mr.
Blaikie’s “Personal Life of Dr. Livingstone.” “She [the Queen] sent
for Livingstone,” writes Mr. Blaikie, “who attended her Majesty at the
Palace without ceremony, in his black coat and blue trousers and his
cap surrounded with a stripe of gold lace. This was his usual attire,
and the cap had now become the appropriate distinction of one of her
Majesty’s Consuls--an official position to which the traveller attaches
great importance as giving him consequence in the eyes of natives and
authority over the members of the expedition. The Queen conversed
with him affably for half-an-hour on the subject of his travels. Dr.
Livingstone told her Majesty that he would now be able to say to the
natives that he had seen his chief, his not having done so before
having been a constant subject of surprise to the children of the
African wilderness. He mentioned to her Majesty also that the people
were in the habit of inquiring whether his chief were wealthy, and when
he answered them that she was very wealthy they would ask how many cows
she had got, a question at which the Queen laughed very heartily.” Mr.
Stanley had found Livingstone at Ujiji near Lake Tanganyika, and on
his way back to Zanzibar he met the English Expedition, which had been
despatched by the Royal Geographical Society, carrying succour to the
explorer. As Livingstone’s orders were to refuse this tardy aid, the
chiefs of the British Expedition had to return. Some people were at
first sceptical as to the story told by Mr. Stanley, but doubts were
set at rest on the 27th of August, when Lord Granville sent to Mr.
Stanley a gold snuff-box set with diamonds as a gift from the Queen.
Accompanying the present was the following letter:--

    “I have great satisfaction in conveying to you, by command of
    the Queen, her Majesty’s high appreciation of the prudence and
    zeal which you have displayed in opening a communication with Dr.
    Livingstone, and relieving her Majesty from the anxiety which, in
    common with her subjects, she had felt in regard to the fate of
    that distinguished traveller. The Queen desires me to express her
    thanks for the service you have thus rendered, together with her
    Majesty’s congratulations on your having so successfully carried
    out the mission which you so fearlessly undertook. Her Majesty
    also desires me to request your acceptance of the memorial which
    accompanies this letter.”

[Illustration: THE QUEEN RECEIVING THE BURMESE EMBASSY.]

In June the Queen had to mourn the loss of a highly trusted old family
friend, Dr. Norman Macleod of Glasgow. He had been long ailing, and
when at Balmoral, in May, the Queen at her last interview with him was
so struck with his physical weakness that she insisted on his being
seated whilst he was in her presence. Macleod’s influence as a courtier
was built up partly on his ability as an eloquent pulpit orator, and
his tact as a kindly, genial, shrewd, tolerant man of the world. He had
genuine goodness of heart, and he had not only the supple diplomatic
skill of the Celt, but the Celt’s inborn and honest love and reverence
for rank and dignities. It was quite a mistake to suppose that his
“flunkeyism” made him a _persona grata_ at Court. On the contrary,
he was in the unique position of being a Royal Chaplain on whom the
Queen could not confer any favour or dignity. She could not give him a
richer living in the Church than the one he had obtained without her
patronage, and as a Presbyterian clergyman he could never be suspected
of intriguing for hierarchical rank when he approached the Sovereign.
His disinterestedness, too, was well known, for it was to Macleod’s
credit that during his long connection with the Court, though he was
frequently entrusted with missions concerning matters of delicate