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:

2

'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; 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

268

PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT.

1850

upon them from both sides of the House. Mr. Cobden on the 8th, and Mr. Henry Drummond on the 13th, brought forward separate resolutions in favour of the reduction of public expenditure. These were negatived in both cases by large majorities. But when Lord Duncan, at a later period, moved for the total and immediate repeal of the window duty, the Government could only command a majority of three in favour of a tax, which public opinion had long condemned, its mischievous operation having been everywhere felt in making our houses not merely ugly and uncouth, but comfortless and unhealthy.' The supineness or insubordination of their followers placed the Government in a more awkward position soon afterwards (30th May), when Lord Ashley (now Lord Shaftesbury) moved a resolution for an Address to Her Majesty, with the object of preventing the collection and delivery of letters for the future on Sunday through all parts of the kingdom. The motion was carried by 93 votes against 68. Well knowing what a tempest of remonstrance such a measure was certain to provoke, the Government resolved to put it into effect. They could not have taken any more effectual means of disposing of the question once and for ever. For some weeks Lord Ashley enjoyed the distinction of being the best abused man in the kingdom. The inconvenience was felt to be intolerable, and the House of Commons, by another resolution, which was carried by 195 to 112, on the 9th of July, enabled the Government to restore the arrangements of the Post Office to their former footing.

If, as these and other incidents of the session showed, the Government were not strong in themselves, they were strong in the disorganisation of parties, which made any other Government for the time impossible. The Opposition could not desire to force on a crisis, which they clearly were in no

It was repealed in the following year.

1850

BLOCKADE OF THE PIRÆUS.

269

position to turn to their own advantage. But a question of Foreign policy, which attracted attention early in the session, assumed, as it advanced, a character which, for a time, seemed to threaten the existence of the Ministry.

The country had gone heartily with them in the energetic measures which they had taken jointly with France to support Turkey against the dictatorial claims of Russia and Austria. Here they were helping the weak against the strong, and upholding a great principle of public law, in the maintenance of which every civilised State was interested. Whether a grave mistake had been committed or not, in allowing our fleet to enter within the prohibited boundaries of the Dardanelles, was a question, the merits of which the public were little able to appreciate, and about which they cared not at all. Our naval force had at least been employed for a worthy purpose, and the purpose had been effected. But a very different feeling was excited when the country learned that, on the 17th of January, 1850, the same fleet, stronger and more numerous than that which won the battle of the Nile, had appeared at the Piræus with a peremptory demand for a settlement by the Greek Government within twenty-four hours of certain alleged claims by British subjects; and, this demand not having been complied with, that the fleet had blockaded the port and laid an embargo on both the Government and merchant vessels which they found there. A proceeding of this character, directed against a weak State like Gree e, excited no small surprise; nor was this diminished when the nature of the claims came to be understood, to enforce which it had been adopted. These consisted chiefly of a demand by a Mr. Finlay for the value of a small piece of land, which had been taken from him for the purpose of including it in the garden of King Otho, and of another by Don Pacifico, a Portuguese Jew, for compensation in respect of losses through the pillage of his house by an