1850 BY LORD J. RUSSELL AND SIR R. PEEL, 263 'He said, all the Duke had urged upon the score of democracy, and the importance of keeping the army in the hands of the Sovereign, was quite true; but I had been right in not neglecting more important duties for this one consideration, and that very likely my control as husband of the Queen would be more effective, than it would be as Head of the Department. He did not wish to say, that I should bind myself never to take the command, for he could conceive complications and chances, in which it would become my duty to assume it, and in which the country would call for it; but my letter had not debarred me from such action. On the contrary, it had been put upon record, that it would be done contrary to personal inclination, and solely on public grounds.' Baron Stockmar's reply to the Prince has apparently not been preserved; but that the conclusion arrived at had his thorough approval cannot be doubted. So far back as in 1842 (see ante, vol. i. p. 150), the same proposal had been discussed between Lord Aberdeen and himself. He had then discouraged it in the strongest terms and for substantially the same reasons that governed the decision of the Prince. Time had since made these reasons more cogent than they were in those comparatively early days, and no one knew this better than the Baron. But, having never hinted to the person chiefly concerned what had been contemplated in 1842, he might well be pleased-knowing what he knew of the Prince, he could not be surprised-to find his own views expressed with a fulness and a force, which showed the sincerity of the conviction out of which they sprung. When the Prince next wrote to Baron Stockmar, it was to communicate the birth of another son. 6 You will have been growing as impatient as ourselves,' he writes on the 1st of May, that our protracted expectations should eventuate in a result; and now you will rejoice 264 BIRTH OF PRINCE ARTHUR. 1850 with us over the result-a little son, and mother and child well and healthy. God be thanked and praised for this happy issue, for there is always some anxiety about matters of this sort!' To the Dowager Duchess of Coburg he announces the event in more playful terms on the same day :— 'I congratulate you to-day on the birth of a seventh grandchild, and expect in return good wishes from you on the birth of a third son. This morning about a quarter-past eight, after a rather restless night (being Walpurgis night, that was quite appropriate), while the witches were careering on the Blocksberg (under Ernst Augustus's mild sceptre), a little boy glided into the light of day, and has been received by the sisters with jubilates. "Now we are just as many as the days in the week!" was the cry, and then a bit of a struggle arose as to who was to be Sunday. Out of well-bred courtesy the honour was conceded to the new comer. "Victoria is well, so is the child, and I am driven distracted with letters, inquiries, answers, &c. This compels me to break off my chat with you before it is well begun. 'I take up my hat and am making for the door, when you call to me--" But you have not said Adieu!' to Mama. Fa, so!" Now I must really be off. 'Buckingham Palace, 1st May, 1850.' The coincidence of the birthday of the young Prince with that of the Duke Wellington gave the Queen and Prince the opportunity of marking their friendship and esteem for one, of whose devotion to them they had had so many proofs, by naming the child after him. So strong, so immediate, was their feeling on this point, that they did not allow the day to pass without intimating their intention to the Duke. It is a singular thing,' the Queen wrote to 1850 LETTER BY THE PRINCE. 265 Baron Stockmar, 'that this so-much-wished-for boy should be born on the old Duke's 81st birthday. May that and his beloved father's name bring the poor little infant happiness and good fortune!' All went well, and the Prince was able a few days later to cheer the heart of Baron Stockmar, then gravely troubled with the unhopeful state of the Constitutional question in Germany, with the following letter: 'Dear Stockmar,-I write to-day to keep you au courant of the steady recovery of the Queen. Victoria and the baby are both quite well. . . . He is to be called Arthur William Patrick Albert. His first name is in compliment to the good old Duke, on whose eighty-first birthday he first saw the light. Patrick is in remembrance of our recent visit to Ireland; 2 William, of the Prince of Prussia [now Emperor of Germany], whom we shall ask to be godfather, and also in remembrance of poor Queen Adelaide, on whose account we have also selected the Duchess Ida of Saxe-Weimar [Queen Adelaide's sister] as godmother. My name the Queen insists on retaining by way of coda. I hope you will approve the arrangement. The Exhibition is making good progress.... 'Buckingham Palace, 6th May, 1850.' On the 22nd of June the young Prince, now the Duke of Connaught, was baptized at Buckingham Palace, the old Duke and the present Emperor of Germany being present in person as sponsors. 2 Had the incident been remembered, which is recorded p. 207 ante? CHAPTER XXXVIII. Up to this time the business of Parliament had moved on very quietly. Trade was brisk, manufacturers busy, labour in demand. The result was seen in reduced poor-rates, and an increase of ten millions upon the exports of 1849 as compared with those of 1848. The Revenue at the end of the same financial year showed a surplus of two millions and a quarter, notwithstanding the recent large reductions in the Customs duties; and the advocates of Free Trade were able to point with some satisfaction to these facts as the best proof of the soundness of their principles. The agricultural interest certainly did not share in the general improvement. Sufficient time had not yet elapsed to enable the farmers to adjust their operations to the new state of things induced by the unfettered import of corn, and a succession of indifferent harvests had added to their difficulties. Their voice was accordingly still heard in occasional tempestuous public meetings, demanding a return to the old system of Protection. But this their Parliamentary leaders knew to be impossible; and Mr. Disraeli had, early in the session, sought a remedy for their grievances in another direction, by moving for a Committee of the whole House to consider whether these might not be alleviated by some portion of the burden of local taxation being removed from the land and thrown upon the general revenue. The facts of the wide-spread agricultural distress, on which he grounded his motion, were controverted by Sir Robert Peel and others, at 1850 PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT, 267 least so far as the distress was to be attributed either to recent legislation, or to permanently operative causes. His motion, however, commanded no fewer than 252 votes in its support, including that of Mr. Gladstone, and was only defeated by the narrow majority of 21. The closeness of this division was one of many indications that the Ministerial majority might at any time fail them. It was largely composed of independent Members,-of very advanced Liberals, who had views of their own, which were constantly bringing them into conflict with the Government, of a contingent, not always tractable, of Irish Members, and of the adherents of Sir Robert Peel, who might be counted upon for loyal support of a domestic policy, which hitherto had received their cordial approval, but who, it was well known, had long regarded the spirit in which our Foreign policy had been conducted with apprehension and distrust. This was not a docile phalanx of supporters, such as Ministers love to lean upon, and which so often lulls them into a false security. The discussions on the relations between the mother country and the Colonies, which arose on the introduction. on the 8th of February by Lord John Russell of a measure for giving to our Australian Colonies a more popular form of government than they had hitherto enjoyed, very early brought further evidence, that although the Ministerial bark 'might not be lost' in the storms of the session, it would most certainly be sorely tempest-tossed.' The Government were compelled to accept large amendments on the measure in the House of Commons, and to see still further modifications forced upon them in the House of Lords. Their Budget, also, introduced by Sir Charles Wood on the 15th of March, was severely handled, and they were even driven to withdraw two successive proposals for dealing with one of its most material items. Projects of retrenchment were pressed |