her of the encouragement that her ministers and subjects were giving the Danes. She deprecated the notion that she had it in her power to take any course to which her Government was adverse.

The war in Schleswig-Holstein was resumed in The June with triumphant results to the German allies, Queen's triumph who quickly routed the Danes and occupied the whole of the disputed duchies. Throughout these further operations England maintained the strictest neutrality, despite the occasional threats of public speakers. The credit of upholding in England a neutral policy was laid with justice, in diplomatic circles, at the Queen's door. Gladstone wrote privately from Balmoral early in 1864 that it was 'just' for her to take credit to herself for having influenced beneficially the course of policy and of affairs in the late controversy.' Her 'extraordinary integrity of mind' had, it seemed to him, overborne all prepossessions and longings, strong as they are, on the German side,' and had enabled her 'spontaneously to hold the balance tolerably even.' 1

6

Much of this agitation waged round the Princess

Morley, Life of Gladstone, ii. 104, 105, 192. Cf. Duke Ernest's Memoirs; Count von Beust's Memoirs; Count Vitzthum von Eckstädt's Memoirs. The Queen's ministry, although it abstained from active interference, never affected acquiescence in the result of the struggle. At the close of the war, when the Prussian Government formally announced to the English Government the joint occupation of SchleswigHolstein, and attempted to justify its action, Lord Russell informed Bismarck that the war was an act of unjust aggression and perfectly needless, and that the British Government lamented the advantages that Austria and Prussia had gained by their success in hostilities. He urged that the people of the disputed duchies should still be allowed to choose their own ruler and enjoy 'free constitutional institutions.' Cf. Politische Briefe von Bismarcks, 1849–89, iii. 144–9.

A A

Birth of Prince of Wales's son.

Gari

baldi's

visit.

of Wales, and while it was at its height a new interest was aroused in her. On January 8, 1864, she became, at Frogmore, the mother of a son (Albert Victor), who was in the direct line of succession to the throne. The happy event gave the Queen, in the heat of the political anxiety, immense gratification. It was soon followed by her first public appearance in London since her bereavement. On March 30 she attended a

flower show at the Horticultural Gardens in London. She also permitted her birthday on May 24 to be celebrated for the first time since her widowhood with state formalities.

Unhappily, from her point of view, public attention was absorbed during the same months by the visit to England of Garibaldi, the hero of the Italian war of emancipation, with which she was out of sympathy. The English people of all ranks welcomed the Italian general with a passionate enthusiasm which the Queen viewed with ill-concealed disdain. 'She felt half ashamed,' she said impatiently, ' of being the head of a nation capable of such follies.' In the autumn Duke Ernest and his wife were her guests at Balmoral, and German politics continued to Consort's be warmly debated. But she mainly devoted her time in the North to well-earned recreation. She made, as of old, many excursions in the neighbourhood of her highland home. But her thoughts still reverted to the past. For the second time in Scotland she unveiled a statue of the Prince Consort, on this occasion at Perth; and on her return to Windsor she paid a private visit to her late husband's foundation of Wellington College.

Unveiling of Prince

statue at

Perth.

355

XXXI

THE QUEEN'S SECLUSION

A HEAVY addition to her trials was now awaiting the ComQueen. A feeling was growing throughout the country Plants that her seclusion was unduly prolonged, and was Queen's contrary to the nation's interest. Expressions of discontent were growing ominous.

seclusion.

in her

It was not within the knowledge of the majority Her of her subjects that she was performing the routine interest business of her station with all her ancient perti- subjects' welfare. nacity, in spite of her withdrawal from public ceremonials. She had never failed to give public signs of interest in social and non-political questions affecting the people's welfare. On December 27, 1864, she, on her own responsibility, addressed a letter to the railway companies, calling their attention to the frequency of accidents, and to their responsibilities for the safety of their passengers.1 In London, in March

The letter contained the following passages:

'It is not for her own safety that the Queen has wished to provide in thus calling the attention of the Company to the late disasters. Her Majesty is aware that when she travels extraordinary precautions are taken, but it is on account of her family, of those travelling upon her service, and of her people generally, that she expresses the hope that the same security may be insured for all as is so carefully provided for herself. . . . The Queen hopes it is unnecessary for her to recall to the recollection of the railway directors the heavy

Her neglect of ceremonial duties.

1865, she visited the Consumption Hospital at Brompton. She watched with active interest all that passed, not merely on the continent of Europe, but in more distant parts of the globe. The assassination of President Lincoln on April 14 called forth all her sympathy, and she at once sent to the President's widow an autograph letter of condolence, which excited enthusiasm on both sides of the Atlantic, and did much to relieve the tension that English sympathy with the Southern Confederates had introduced into the relations of the Governments of London and Washington.

But at the same time her neglect of the ceremonial functions of her office was patent, and it was held to diminish the dignity of Government. On three occasions she had failed to open Parliament in person. That ceremony most effectually brought into prominence the place of the Sovereign in the constitution; it was greatly valued by ministers, and had in the past been rarely omitted. William IV., who had excused his attendance at the opening of Parliament in 1837 on the ground of the illness of his sister, the Duchess of Gloucester, had been warned that his absence contravened a principle of the constitution; and Lord Melbourne, the Prime Minister, wrote to Lord John Russell that that was the first occasion in the history of the country on which a Sovereign had failed to present himself at the opening of Parliament, except in cases of personal illness or infirmity.' responsibility which they have assumed since they succeeded in securing the monopoly of the means of travelling of almost the entire population of the country.'

Walpole's Russell, i. 275.

The Queen was known to be in the enjoyment of good health, and, despite her sorrow, had regained some of her native cheerfulness. Her absence from Parliament seemed to lack adequate justification. When, therefore, early in 1864 the rumour spread that she would resume her place on the throne at the opening of the new session, signs of popular satisfaction abounded. But she did not come, and the disappointment emphasised the popular discontent.

ment

Radicals, who had no enthusiasm for the monar- Vehechical principle, began to argue that the cost of the attacks. crown was out of all proportion to its practical uses. The press almost unanimously declared her attitude to the public to be a breach of public duty. The Queen, although pained from the first by the outcry, had no intention of yielding to popular clamour. She frankly defied the criticism of her conduct. On April 1, 1864, the Times' newspaper in a leading article, after referring to a revived rumour that the Sovereign is about to break her protracted seclusion,' declared it to be futile on her part to attempt to exert 'an abiding influence on public affairs without appearing as a factor of them.' They who would isolate themselves from the world and its duties must cease to know and to care, as well as to act, and be content to let things take their course. This in effect they cannot do; this they never do; and the only result is a struggle in which they neither live nor die-neither live, as they wish, in the past, nor do their duty in the "working world."'

On April 6, 1864, five days later, the Queen