CHAPTER XXXII.

THE time had now arrived, when the Prince of Wales was to pass into the hands of a private tutor, and the course and conduct of his studies engaged the anxious thought of both the Queen and Prince. So far back as May, 1848, negotiations had been opened with Mr. Henry Birch, now the Rector of Prestwich, near Manchester, the gentleman, who was ultimately entrusted with the office. This was only done, of course, after the most careful inquiry into his qualifications. Mr. Birch had been educated at Eton, where he became Captain of the School, and obtained the Newcastle Medal. He had taken high honours at Cambridge, and had been for four years Under-Master at Eton. • The impression he has left upon me,' says the Prince, in writing (6th August, 1848) to Lord Morpeth, after a preliminary interview, is a very favourable one, and I can imagine that children will easily attach themselves to him.' He was now to enter upon the duties, and the Prince announces the fact to the Dowager Duchess of Gotha in the following letter:

6

'The children grow more than well. Bertie will be given over in a few weeks into the hands of a tutor, whom we have found in a Mr. Birch, a young, good-looking, amiable man, who was a tutor at Eton, and who not only himself took the highest honours at Cambridge, but whose pupils have also won especial distinction.

It is an important step, and God's blessing be upon it,

1849

EDUCATION OF ROYAL CHILDREN.

175

for upon the good education of princes, and especially of those who are destined to govern, the welfare of the world in these days very greatly depends.

• Windsor Castle, 10th April, 1849.'

One of the earliest cares of the Queen and Prince had been to settle on what principles the education of their children should be conducted. In this, as in so much else, they had called the experience of Baron Stockmar to their aid, and he had gone into the subject with all a German's thoroughness, and with all an Englishman's practical good sense. The quaint saying of the Baron (quoted supra, vol. i. p. 95), that ‘a man's education begins the first day of his life,' will not have been forgotten. It spoke his own rooted conviction; and nowhere more than in a palace was it needful that this conviction should be carried into practice. 'Good education,' the Baron says, in a Memorandum on the Education of the Royal Children, so early as the 6th of March, 1842, cannot begin too soon.' 'To neglect beginnings,' says Locke, 'is the fundamental error into which most parents fall.' In the child the affections and feelings develop themselves at an earlier period than the reasoning or intellectual faculties. The beginning of education must, therefore, be directed to the regulation of the child's natural instincts, to give them the right direction, and, above all, to keep the mind pure. This,' he continues, 'is only to be effected by placing about children only those who are good and pure, who will teach not only by precept but by living example, for children are close observers, and prone to imitate whatever they see or hear, whether good or evil.'

After some further general remarks, the Memorandum proceeds: The first truth by which the Queen and the Prince ought to be thoroughly penetrated is, that their

176

MEMORANDUM ON EDUCATION

1849

position is a more difficult one than that of any other parents in the kingdom: because the Royal children ought not only to be brought up to be moral characters, but also fitted to discharge successfully the arduous duties which may eventually devolve upon them as future Sovereigns. Hence the magnitude of the parental responsibility of the Sovereigns to their children; for upon the conscientious discharge of this responsibility will depend hereafter the peace of mind and happiness of themselves and their family, and as far as the prosperity and happiness of a nation depend upon the personal character of its Sovereign, the welfare of England.

To this day England reveres the memory of George III. as the great upholder of the domestic virtues. History already takes the liberty of judging of his merits as a Sovereign, but it remains unanimous in its praise of his private virtues. But George III. either did not properly understand his duties as a parent or he neglected them. Three of his sons, George IV., the Duke of York, and William IV., were brought up and educated in England. The Dukes of Kent, of Cumberland, of Sussex, and of Cambridge, received great part of their education on the Continent. The errors committed by George IV., the Duke of York, and William IV., belong already to the domain of history. Unfortunately the errors of these Princes were of the most glaring kind, and we can find their explanation only in the supposition that their tutors were either incapable of engrafting on their minds during their youth the principles of truth or morality, or that they most culpably neglected their duties, or were not supported in them by the Royal parents.'

Stockmar's sagacity in seeing all round a question seems here to have failed him. Parents and tutors might both have done their duty, but other forces may have been too strong for them. Their precepts, like the seed in the

1849

BY BARON STOCKMAR.

177

Parable, might have fallen on stony ground, and the thorns sprung up and choked them.' Or Horace might have reminded him, that to know and approve what is right does not keep men from doing wrong. Video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor.' The Baron proceeds :

There can be no doubt that the conduct of these Princes contributed more than any other circumstance to weaken the respect and influence of Royalty in this country, and to impair the strong sentiments of loyalty among the English people, for which they have been for centuries distinguished. That George IV. by his iniquities did not accomplish his own exclusion from the throne was owing to the strength of the English Constitution, and the great political tolerance and reflection of this practical people. The moral part of the nation execrated this Prince during his whole life. . . . Nevertheless he expired quietly on the throne; his brother York, after all his blunders and errors, was able to regain some partial and temporary popularity. And William, who all his life had been anything but a moral and a wise man, went towards the close of his reign under the endearing appellation of "the good old Sailor King." "

6

2

To explain these phenomena the moralist apprehends something beyond the mere strength of the Constitution and the considerate toleration of the people, and he finds that an additional protection was afforded to those Princes

What, too, are the words that Shakspeare puts into the mouth of Portia ? (Merch. of Venice, i. 2) If to do were as easy as to know what were good to do, chapels had been churches, and poor men's cottages princes' palaces.'

2 And not without reason. Whatever his faults may have been, it was well known that he was not only zealous but most conscientious in the discharge of his duties as King. He had a truly kind heart, and was most anxious to do what was right. This was the character given of him to the Queen by Lord Melbourne, and by others who served him; and of his kindness to herself, and his wish that she should be duly prepared for the duties to which she was so early called, the Queen can only speak in terms of affectionate gratitude.’— NOTE BY THE QUEEN.

178

MEMORANDUM BY STOCKMAR.

1849

by the power of national prejudice. The truth is, that whatever the faults of these Princes were, they were considered by the public as true English faults. I have myself heard a hundred times the open avowal, "that though the Princes were very bad, their faults were at least truly English, and, such as they were, the nation must make the most of them."'

On the other hand, the Memorandum continues, the other Princes having chiefly been brought up abroad, whenever they incurred the censure of the public, were taxed with foreign notions, and the blame of their misconduct was laid upon their foreign education. 'The consequence was, that although these younger Princes were not a bit worse than their elder brothers, they were all their lives most unpopular with the majority of the nation."3

6

The lesson which the Baron draws from these facts, and presses most earnestly upon the Queen and Prince, is, that the education of the Royal infants ought to be from its earliest beginning a truly moral and a truly English one.' Coming to the practical question, how this is to be secured, he says, that the education of the Royal children ought from the beginning to be entrusted to persons only who are themselves morally good, intelligent, well-informed and experienced,' as such persons only can know what is requisite for moral and intellectual education, and can alone conduct it consistently. These persons once chosen, it will also be indispensable that the Royal parents afford them the requisite support, by which alone they can accomplish their arduous duties.' On this latter point Baron Stockmar justly lays the greatest stress. Without the full and implicit confidence of the parents, the tutor, he contends, can neither command the respect and obedience of those who

The Baron surely goes too far in this assertion. Two at least of the younger Princes were certainly popular.