who is loyal to the queen and would defend her to the last, lift up his right hand. (Every hand was held aloft.) There are hearts in those hands. I tell you that if necessity required, there would be swords in them!" This may seem to some readers to be rant and fustian, but at that time and amidst that assembly it had a tremendous effect; for we must try to imagine the towering form, the mobile features, the searching eye, and the voice which, round and full, and yet with clarion tone, could be made to reach to the very confines even of that vast crowd, and by its wonderful cadences and changeful notes of mirth, of pathos, and of denunciation, move every man and woman who heard it to a tempest of anger, of laughter, or of enthusiasm. Nor can it be forgotten that in all O'Connell's speeches there was an appearance of sincerity, arising from allusions to known. occurrences or to deeply-rooted prejudices. There was enough of fact, even though it might be altogether misapplied, to give a ring of truth to many of his most untrustworthy utterances. We have already seen the position in which the Duke of Cumberland stood in relation to an avowed attempt to change the succession to the throne; and in January, 1840, the calm and judicious Stockmar, coming to England to negotiate the marriage treaty with Lord Palmerston, records his opinion that the prejudices entertained by some of the ultra party against the prince could be clearly traced to the influence of Ernest Augustus of Hanover. They gave out that he was a Radical and an Infidel, and said that George of Cambridge or a Prince of Orange ought to have been the consort of the queen. "On the whole, however, the mere determination of the queen to marry, and the satisfaction thereby given to what was a very universal desire (for the idea that the King of Hanover and his line might succeed to the throne was very distasteful to the people), has raised the queen's popularity, and will for a while lend some little strength to the very weak ministry." The calumnies which were spread or which grew out of prejudice and ignorance perhaps helped to refute each other, for another set of detractors were equally ready to assert that the prince was a Roman Catholic-a suspicion which, if it had any real existence, probably originated in the remarkable carelessness of ministers, who had omitted from the declaration of marriage to the privy-council and to parliament the statement that he was a Protestant prince. King Leopold had noted the omission, and wrote to the queen on the subject in his usual shrewd way, saying, “On religious matters one cannot be too prudent, because one can never see what passionate use people will make of such a thing." He was right. Melbourne, in his laissez faire manner, regarded the words as superfluous. Other ministers agreed with him that people with any knowledge would be aware of the Protestantism of the prince's house, which had lost many of its possessions through its opposition to Rome at the time of the Reformation and afterwards. Besides, as Brougham afterwards pointed out in the House of Lords, for the sovereign to marry a Roman Catholic would be to forfeit the crown. There was no particular reason for including the words in the declaration, but there was certainly no good reason for leaving them out; and on the debate on the address the Duke of Wellington moved an amendment for inserting the word Protestant, on the ground that "it will give her majesty's subjects the satisfaction of knowing that Prince Albert is a Protestant-thus showing the public that this is still a Protestant state." The duke, in fact, attributed the omission to the desire of the ministry not to offend their Irish supporters—a charge which is significant enough when considered in reference to the condition of parties. The discussion on the subject of the prince's religion of course got abroad, and all kinds of vague rumours were in circulation, so that the queen herself asked for a regular statement which would show how unfounded were all these reports. Accordingly the following letter was received from the prince. "In accordance with your wish we have set about the preparation of an historical sketch of the progenitors of our house, so as to show at once their position towards the Reformation and Protestantism. It is not yet complete; but it SIBTHORP'S AMENDMENT TO THE PROPOSED GRANT. 301 shall be sent with my next letter, and demon- | question of the prince consort's annuity was strate, that to the house of Saxony, Protestantism in a measure owes its existence, for this house and that of the Landgrave of Hesse stood quite alone against Europe, and upheld Luther and his cause triumphantly. This shows the folly of constantly assailing our house as papistical. So little is this the case, that there has not been a single Catholic princess introduced into the Coburg family since the appearance of Luther in 1521. Moreover, the elector, Frederick the Wise of Saxony, was the very first Protestant that ever lived. That you may know and judge for yourself, dear Victoria, what my creed and religious principles are, I send you a confession of faith, which I worked out for myself in 1835, and which I then publicly avowed and swore to in our High Church. I enclose an English copy and the original as I then wrote it. You will see my hand has somewhat changed since then." This was decisive enough, but that vague mischief had been rather widely spread, was evident from the fact that Stockmar received a letter from Lord Palmerston asking,-"Can you tell me whether Prince Albert belongs to any Protestant sect, the tenets of which could prevent him from partaking of the Lord's supper according to the rites of the Church of England?" The reply to this was that the prince did not belong to any sect, and that no material difference existed between the celebration of the Lord's supper according to the rites of the German Protestant Church and those of the Anglican Church. But there was also to be disagreeable opposition over the discussion of the prince's annuity and of the rank which should be accorded him. The ministry here also showed a remarkable want of tact, and even of common prudence, when we consider the feeling which was probably raised by the groundless suspicions that had already been more than whispered both in and out of parliament. Some of the lower class of so-called satirical journals, and of caricatures, were not likely to lose the opportunity of making capital out of the money question. Nothing could have been more unconciliatory than the manner in which the brought before the house. It was proposed that the grant should be £50,000 a year; but it would seem that no attempt was made to consult the opposition, or to come to such an understanding as would have secured proper unanimity, instead of making the prince's income the subject of a haggling debate, in which the objections of the opposition were treated as expressions of disloyalty, and were so interpreted that it appeared as though there was some desire to provoke the antagonism which, it was assumed, had been directed against the queen and the prince. Mr. Hume at once as an economist proposed to reduce the amount asked for from £50,000 to £21,000, and a clumsy remark of Lord John Russell's, that the prince's household would cost £8000 a year, of course, gave the opportunity for asking what then would be done with the other £42,000? The proposed reduction was negatived; but the debate had been conducted in an aggravating temper-little likely to secure a ministry which had already lost many of its former supporters. On the motion of Colonel Sibthorp, who was even then almost fantastic in his professed Toryism, the sum voted was £30,000. This was supported by many prominent members of the opposition, including Peel, who in forcible language resented the imputations that they who voted for a reduction in the amount were unfriendly to the crown. "He who acquiesced in a vote which he felt could not be vindicated, was not a true friend to the crown. He was a much greater friend to the crown who saved it from the unpopularity of an extravagant vote." He thought that £30,000 during the life of her majesty would be a just and liberal grant, and that £30,000 to Prince Albert in case of his surviving her majesty, and in case of there being no issue, would also be a liberal provision; but he was prepared to vote for a suitable increase should there be a family, and if Prince Albert would give a guarantee of his permanent residence in and attachment to the country. After arguing the question by numerous references to precedents and to the special circumstances of the case, Sir Robert said, "I will not condescend to rebut the charge of want of respect or loyalty. I have no compunctions of conscience on that ground. I never made a concurrence of political senti- | ment on the part of the sovereign a condition of my loyalty. I never have been otherwise than loyal and respectful towards my sovereign. Not one breath of disloyalty, not one word of disrespect towards the crown, or any members of the royal family, however averse their political sentiments were to mine, has ever escaped my lips; and when performing what I believe to be my duty to this house, and my duty towards the crown, I should think myself unworthy of the position which I hold, of my station as a member of the House of Commons, if I thought that I could not take a straightforward course, without needless professions of loyalty, or without a defence against accusations which I believe to be utterly unfounded." This was good and honest speech, and the proposed reduction of the grant was carried, at which nearly everybody on the other side, including Stockmar-who of course desired to do as well as possible by his protégé?-was much more annoyed than either the queen or Prince Albert himself. Indeed the prince, guided by an admirable temper and a sound clear insight, had already begun to see the danger of being led into any political partisanship; and the first real opposition which he afterwards made to ministerial proposals, was that he should have for his private secretary Mr. George Anson, who had been confidential and private secretary to Lord Melbourne, but who was a man little likely to introduce any shadow of political intrigue, and who, because of his attainments, high breeding, and experience, was well qualified for a post in which he soon gained the real respect and esteem of the prince. In a letter to the queen Prince Albert had expressed a strong desire that his household should comprise men of both parties, and if possible should consist of persons who had done the state good service. The prince had in fact determined to hold a position unbiassed by party considerations, and his subsequent regard and admiration for Peel, and the manner in which he assisted in correcting any impressions which existed with regard to the overweening influence of the Whig ministry, showed at once that he had both studied and understood the position which he was to occupy in relation to English politics. The young queen, however, was seriously vexed by the question of precedence, or the rank which was to be conceded to her consort. Here again the ministry blundered. It was not unreasonably desired by the queen that her husband should rank next to herself, and there did not at first appear to be any particular difficulty on the subject, as the intention was to introduce into the bill naturalizing the prince a clause which would give him precedence immediately after the queen. A strong opposition was at once manifested to this course. Cumberland, the King of Hanover, began it by so working upon the prejudices of the Dukes of Sussex and Cambridge, that they withdrew what had been regarded as a consent, however reluctant. He also urged some of his partisans here to agitate against the measure. Many who were not well affected to him were yet opposed to the bill, and it was soon discovered that the title referred only to a bill of naturalization, and said nothing about the rank of the prince. This caused some delay, and the delay meant an opposition which was in itself justified by legal argument. By the advice and strong representation of Stockmar, as it appears from his memoirs, the government withdrew their bill, though the queen was greatly hurt and distressed by the repeated success of the opposition, which seemed to be directed against Prince Albert. For the bill an order of council was substituted, similar to that which had been used by the Prince Regent in 1826 to settle the rank of Prince Leopold; a simple act of naturalization was passed, and the precedence of the prince was afterwards determined by the royal prerogative; that is to say, the queen herself could give him precedence next to herself at home; but this right could not, of course, be exercised abroad, where, unless by the courtesy of other sovereigns, the same status might be refused. It was years afterwards, in 1857, that he received by letters-patent the title of Prince Consort, which, however, had been already PUBLIC WELCOME TO PRINCE ALBERT. bestowed upon him by the people, who had learned to estimate and admire his high character and his unassuming nobility of conduct; but in 1856 the queen herself recorded what was her annoyance on the subject. Neither the Duke of Sussex nor the King of Hanover would give way, especially as it was represented that, in the event of the queen's death, Prince Albert would still retain precedence over the heir apparent, if ever that heir should be a son of the Hanoverian sovereign. On the other hand, no mere title of nobility could give the prince consort the precedence which would entitle him as the husband of the queen to stand next her on public occasions, since the precedence of titles was already settled by law in favour of actual members of the royal family. Perhaps the only way after all was to leave it within the power of the queen herself. "When I first married," she says in the memorandum already referred to, "we had much difficulty on this subject, much bad feeling was shown, several members of the royal family showed bad grace in giving precedence to the prince, and the late King of Hanover positively resisted doing so. . . . When the queen was abroad the prince's position was always a subject of negotiation and vexation; the position accorded to him, the queen had always to acknowledge as a grace and favour bestowed on her by the sovereigns whom she visited. . . . On the Rhine in 1845 the King of Prussia would not give the place to the queen's husband, which common civility required, because of the presence of an archduke, the third son of an uncle of the reigning Emperor of Austria, who would not give the pas, and whom the king would not offend. The only legal position in Europe according to international law which the husband of the Queen of England enjoyed was that of a younger brother of the Duke of Saxe-Coburg, and this merely because the English law did not know of him. This is derogatory to the dignity of the crown of England." The queen doubtless felt it far more than the prince himself, and indeed, so far as the money matter was concerned, he told Stockmar that the reduction of the amount chiefly affected him because it gave him less means 303 of helping men of letters and of science. He had already understood that the opposition was not due to the Tories alone, nor was it so represented by Melbourne, who, on meeting Stockmar on the staircase of the palace, took him aside to say, "The prince will doubtless be very much irritated against the Tories. But it is not the Tories alone whom the prince has to thank for the curtailment of his appanage. It is the Tories, the Radicals, and a good many of our own people." So far from the prince being much irritated, even immediately after he heard of it he wrote to the queen from Brussels to reassure her. "You can easily imagine the very unpleasant effect produced upon me by the news of the truly most unseemly vote of the House of Commons about my annuity. We came upon it in a newspaper at Aix, where we dined. In the House of Lords the people have made themselves needlessly disagreeable. All I have time to say is, that while I possess your love they cannot make me unhappy." There is no need to dwell at greater length on the early characteristics of a prince who remained always true to these first expressions of affection, and who subordinated much of what others might have regarded as legitimate ambition to that which he recognized as his plain and simple duty. Near the end of the year 1839, only an hour before he was to take the sacrament at the church at Cologne, he was writing to his dear little bride, and said in reference to the solemn act in which he was about to participate: "God will not take it amiss if in that serious act, even at the altar, I think of you; for I will pray to him for you, and for your soul's health, and he will not refuse us his blessing." There was no bitterness in his mind, but love and doubtless much peace in his heart, when he arrived in England for the marriage; and if he had any doubts, they must have been dissipated by the hearty enthusiastic reception. accorded to him by the English people. From the time that he landed at Dover till he reached the palace, the avenues of which were crowded, he was greeted with shouts and cheers of welcome, and the pleasure of the journey doubtless shone in his calm but singularly handsome face. It was on the 8th of February (1840) that the prince arrived in London, and on the 10th the royal marriage was celebrated amidst general rejoicings, and a holiday, which attracted large numbers of people from the country, and from an early hour in the morning kept the streets crowded in the direction of Buckingham Palace and the chapel-royal, St. James', where the ceremony was to take place. The Duchess of Kent and twelve bridesmaids were already in attendance on her majesty. The prince and his party left the palace at about a quarter to twelve-rather before the queen's departure. Again he was received with acclamations, and even in the colonnade leading to the chapel the reception made him radiant. There has perhaps never been a more delightful, simple and happy, and unostentatious royal wedding -there has probably never been so truly happy, loving, and purely domestic a married life than that which followed; for it was a marriage not of political convenience, but of affection. "It is this," said Lord Melbourne afterwards to the queen, "which makes your majesty's marriage so popular." The approaching expectation of the birth of an heir to the throne made it necessary to consider the appointment of a regent in case of the death of the queen. In spite of the opposition of the Duke of Sussex, who urged that the regency should be vested in a council of which the consort of the queen should be a member, the nomination of Prince Albert to be sole regent to his own child or children was accepted with general satisfaction. Statesmen and people acknowledged the propriety of appointing the father of the royal infant as guardian, and had already recognized that the prince was eminently deserving of complete confidence. It cannot be said that the young consort of the queen (he was then scarcely twenty-one years of age) had become what is termed popular-and in the ordinary superficial sense Prince Albert never was a popular man; he had too great earnestness, and yet a wise reticence in relation to public matters, and his sentiments also were too deep to be in accord with the sort of "taking" temper that makes the temporary suc cess of popular favourites; nor, as we have seen, did he care to cultivate the shallower, and, as he considered them, the frivolous and useless habits of so-called society. He would not affect an interest in small talk; he would not flirt, or pretend to find delight in the ornamental commonplaces that sometimes pass current for conversation. His humour was that of a witty observant boy; but he mostly kept that for the domestic circle. His character was serious, his manner undemonstrative; but even at the time of which we are speaking sagacious and somewhat cynical observers gave him their confidence, and noted his remarkable ability no less than his evidently conscientious desire to act with a singleness of purpose which commanded respect and esteem. The people too, or that thinking section of the people who foresaw the great advantage to the country of a prince consort who was ready to promote art education, manufactures, and social improvement, and of a royal household which, from its simple domestic character, would be in direct sympathy with English family life, soon learned to trust the man who was able steadily to subordinate his ambition, his recreations, and even many of his favourite studies to the duties that he had undertaken as the person nearest the throne, and therefore as representing the wishes of the queen in relation to the country. For some time Prince Albert doubtless found the study of the English constitution a difficult task, or rather he found it difficult to recognize the practical working of the political constitution when he took to actual experience the result of his study of the science of government. Probably he had never quite realized the peculiar elasticity and unmechanical, natural adjustments of the English system, and was unprepared for the discovery that hard and fast scientific rules were frequently disregarded. It may be doubted whether in this respect he was much helped by Stockmar, who, completely as he was acquainted with England and the English, never abandoned, or more properly had never seen reason to change that scientific method of regarding political situations which, if not essentially German, was a part of his German character. As & |