Further annexations of Indian territory, claims Miles Taylor, established the Queen’s authority in India, an authority which was independent of the East India Company.45 Queen Victoria was indeed living up to her reputation of a ‘warrior queen’.46 Whenever a territory was annexed, a durbar – a ceremonial gathering – was held at which Indian rulers pledged their allegiance to the Crown. More importantly, the Queen enjoyed direct informal diplomatic contact with individual Indian rulers such as the Maharajah of Nepal, the Queen of Oudh and Duleep Singh. Any behind the scenes negotiation between the Queen and Indian rulers, of course, might well have undermined the authority of the British government.
Meanwhile, the Tory government was in crisis. On 26 June 1846 Peel tried to get an Irish Coercion Bill passed which would allow the English to rule Ireland by force during times of unrest. The Queen thought that disaffected Tories might make ‘the state of politics very uncomfortable. The Irish Bill is to be opposed by the Whigs (a most senseless move) and by many Protectionists. . . . This is very tiresome.’47 She was right: on the same day the Repeal of the Corn Act was passed by the Lords, Peel’s Coercion Bill was defeated by a coalition of Whigs seeking office and Tory protectionists seeking revenge. Peel duly resigned.
When Peel handed in his seals of office, the Queen wrote that
on waking up the reality of what is going to happen, or rather more what has already happened, broke upon me most painfully. . . . He is such a noble character, so thoroughly disinterested and with such a high sense of duty. With him I felt so safe. . . that he would never recommend any person or thing, unless it was for the good of the Country, or for our good. Then he never repeated what we said to him. . . . In short, I feel the loss (not of an agreeable friend, and companion in Society, as I did in Ld Melbourne’s case) of a Minister who was actuated by the highest sense of honour, of respect, and of loyalty to his Sovereign.48
Nonetheless, this time the Queen did not interfere: she was now a little more politically astute and a lot more self-aware. She looked back to ‘the year 39’ and remembered ‘how different my joy was then to what it is now. Then I had broken off with the Govt on my own responsibility, without trying to set matters right, only rejoicing at having my good Ld Melbourne back again; whereas now, I have behaved with the greatest fairness.’49 Victoria, undoubtedly guided by Albert, seemed to recognise that the role of the British sovereign was to remain politically neutral and to accept those ministers chosen by her government. The fall of Peel broke up the Conservative government and split the party: the Conservatives remained out of office for 20 years.50
Lord John Russell and domestic affairs: 1846–1852
Queen Victoria invited the leader of the opposition, Lord Russell, a Whig, to take the place of Peel. The Queen, still regarding herself as a Whig, was nevertheless unhappy. ‘Poor Ld John’ she commented ‘looks already so deplorable, so done up, and feeble, that one cannot think that he is the new Prime Minister. . . he speaks so slowly and hesitatingly that one has quite the impression of his being a tired out man.’51 ‘I used formerly always to fancy that Peel was so stiff and cold, but oh! Now, not when one got to know him well.’52 The Queen expressed concern that Russell would never be able to keep order in the House of Commons because ‘everyone seems to be his own master’53 and MPs would not accept party discipline. In the event, Russell’s ministry lasted five years.
Russell’s most pressing problem was the Great Famine in Ireland. He immediately allocated £10 million to be spent on public works in order to alleviate the problem of unemployment. It was too little and too late. In 1847 Russell changed tactic, abandoned public works and concentrated on providing direct relief through food distribution. By August over three million people were being fed in soup kitchens but when the harvest appeared good, food distribution was stopped. Large numbers – 200,000 more than normal – entered the dreaded workhouses. Charities sprung up to provide help. The Queen, now deeply troubled by the sufferings of the Irish, pledged £2,000 of her own money and became patron of the British Association for the Relief of Extreme Distress. Charity, of course, could ease but not completely alleviate the terrible calamity that befell Ireland: cholera, dysentery, fever weakened further an undernourished and starving population. Victoria patronised even more charities for the Irish poor and wrote a letter authorising collections in all churches for the destitute in Ireland and Scotland. But the population still starved, too many still entered the workhouse, relied on ‘outdoor relief’, or else emigrated to England, America or other countries.
The meagre attempts of the British government to deal with the famine led to a resurgence of Irish nationalism. A rebellion, led by William Smith, James O’Brien and James Dillon, had tried – and failed – to gain widespread support. Victoria received ‘excellent news from Ireland. . . . The great agitators went to Limerick for a great Meeting, and were so ill received and ill used by the mob, that they had to be protected, and are ready and anxious, to give up political life!’54 O’Brien was subsequently arrested, tried and transported. In addition, the government decided to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, an Act which forbade the imprisonment of people without trial. Victoria thought it ‘a very wise move. The account continues to be a very alarming and everything seems to be leading to a Rebellion. Every precaution that is possible will be taken to prevent any Irish disturbance in England.’55 On Saturday 22 July 1848, the Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill was passed. People in Ireland suspected of being rebels could now be imprisoned without trial; this, thought the Queen, was an excellent strategy because it stemmed potential revolution at source. The Queen feared that the revolutions which were sweeping across mainland Europe might spread to Britain and welcomed any plan to thwart rebellion.
In 1849, despite the fear of widespread unrest, Victoria and Albert decided that it was safe to visit Ireland. It had been specifically arranged by Lord Clarendon, the lord lieutenant of Ireland, to demonstrate the royal family’s compassion with the destitute and starving. The Queen had never been to Ireland and her advisors were worried that if she did not go, rumours might circulate that she was too afraid to visit. The visit was meticulously organised and choreographed. When the two royals arrived they were greeted with enthusiasm and loyalty by well-orchestrated crowds. ‘The waving of hats and handkerchiefs, the bursts of welcome that rent the air, all of which made it a never to be forgotten scene, particularly when one reflects on what state the country was in, quite lately: in open revolt and under martial law.’56 Victoria thought ‘the beauty of the women is very remarkable and struck us very much, such beautiful dark eyes, and hair and such fine teeth’.57 Even so, the Queen was shocked by the poverty she witnessed. ‘The raggedness of the people’ she wrote in her journal ‘is beyond belief, man and boy, having really hardly any covering.’58 The trip was seen as a public relations success but Queen Victoria did not really capitalise on it and it had no lasting impact. One royal visit alone could not be expected to undo the economic, social and emotional damage inflicted by the British on Ireland over the centuries.
Life was also tough in England. In 1848, encouraged by continental revolutions, Chartism revived. A mass rally was organised on Kennington Common, London, with the aim of processing to parliament to present a petition. The Queen and her government feared that the Chartist meeting might segue into revolution so
we should already go out of Town. . . all this and the uncertainty everywhere, as well as for the future of our children, unarmed me and I quite gave way to my grief. Yes, I feel grown 20 years older, and as if I could not any more think of any amusement. I tremble at the thought of what may possibly await us here, though I know how loyal the people at large are.59
Albert pacified his wife, encouraged her to be calm and insisted that ‘we must keep up and on no account despair. But it is difficult to think and talk of anything else, but what is going on.’60 Even so, Victoria feared the worst and confided to her prime minister, Lord Russell, that she thought ‘of these being very anxi
ous times, and Ld John says that the great danger lies in the ease with which all these Revolutions have been effected. This gives such an alarming example.'61 The royal family fled to Osborne.
Lord Russell, though theoretically in favour of freedom of speech and universal manhood suffrage, feared riots which, as in some continental countries, might lead to revolution. He placed 8,000 soldiers and 150,000 special constables on duty and banned the Chartists from taking their petition to parliament. In the end, there was no revolution, the Chartist meeting went ahead and its main leader, O’Connor, at the behest of the police, asked the crowds to leave peacefully. The Queen was relieved that the ‘meeting dispersed quite quietly, without any disturbances. How wonderful! What a blessing! . . . the determination to put a stop to the proceedings – by force if necessary – have no doubt been the cause of the failure of the Meetings. It is a proud thing for this country, and I trust fervently, will have a beneficial effect in other countries.’62 England appeared to be safe from revolution.
Palmerston and foreign policy: 1846–1851
In 1846, when the Whig government came to power, Lord Palmerston was appointed foreign secretary. The Queen regretted losing her mild and unassuming foreign minister, Lord Aberdeen, saying that ‘his loss is an immense one, to us, the Country, and to all Europe and I tremble for the future and for the consequences it may bring’.63 At the very beginning, Victoria was comforted by Palmerton’s assurance that ‘he was ready to do anything I wished’64 but their initial rapport quickly vanished. Victoria’s relationship with Palmerston was very different from that with Aberdeen: unlike Aberdeen, Palmerston was not emollient or deferential and Victoria grew to dislike him, his boastfulness and blustering independence. Over the next few years Victoria’s attitude towards her foreign secretary ‘hardened into outright hostility’.65
Indeed, the Queen and Palmerston struggled continuously over foreign policy, with the Queen testing her royal prerogatives against a foreign secretary who in turn asserted his parliamentary credentials. The Queen, seemingly in a weaker position, complained, threatened and pleaded with him. Infuriatingly, Palmerston always apologised, promised to change – but then continued to do as he and the government, and not the Queen, wished. According to constitutional convention, ministers worked independently of the Crown and the Queen should not have challenged ministerial decisions so vehemently. Theoretically Victoria had the right to be informed and to be heard – but only a modicum of freedom to have her views take precedence over her ministers. Ultimately, it seemed as if she had little real power over foreign affairs. But this did not stop Queen Victoria from interfering.
Palmerston exasperated Victoria: she thought him too impetuous, too rude and too undiplomatic. As foreign secretary, Palmerston failed to keep the Queen informed of current events, failed to show her sufficient courtesy and respect and failed to alter despatches when requested to do so. The Queen was
extremely annoyed. . . at a letter Ld Palmerston had written . . . before submitting it to us. . . . In this he conveys the substance of what we asked him to do, but in such an improper and disloyal manner as at once to cause a contrary impression. . . . Really the obstinacy of Ld Palmerston is beyond all belief and his behaviour so unkind and improper, as well as impolitic, making himself hated in all countries, and we losing thereby our influence.66
At the time, Britain was the most powerful country in the world, making Palmerston by association the most powerful foreign secretary, a reality that perhaps encouraged him to act in the peremptory way he did. Certainly, foreign policy was transformed when Palmerston became foreign secretary since he was more concerned to advance the cause of Britain and of reform than to please the Queen.
The Spanish marriages
One of the first clashes between the Queen and Lord Palmerston occurred over the question of who should marry the teenage Queen of Spain, Isabella. Victoria, who was all too aware that sovereigns wielded influence through marriage alliances as much as by diplomacy, hoped that one of her German cousins, Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, might marry Isabella and thus cement friendship between the three countries. Certainly the British did not want a Spanish queen to marry a French prince in case the King of France exerted his own power in Spain. In order to avoid conflict, the British and French agreed to keep the thrones of Spain, Germany and France separate. Unfortunately, the King of France disregarded the agreement and tried to marry one of his sons to Queen Isabella’s younger sister, the Infanta Louisa, in the hope that the Spanish Queen might die childless. The British were furious at France’s duplicity. A potential conflict between the two countries was averted when Queen Victoria visited France with the emollient Aberdeen and the two thrashed out an informal agreement with the King of France. The two sovereigns reached an understanding that the King’s youngest son, the Duke of Montpensier, could marry the Infanta Louisa, as long as the marriage was delayed until Queen Isabella married and had had a child. In return, Victoria promised that her cousin Leopold would abandon his hope of marrying Queen Isabella. As a young girl, Victoria had insisted that she herself marry for love, not diplomacy, rights which she denied to the young Spanish girls in favour of old-fashioned diplomatic marriages.
Unfortunately Palmerston, unbeknown to Victoria, undermined these delicate and private negotiations by continuing to press the suit of Leopold. This had dire results for Anglo-French relationships: the entente cordiale wobbled again. The French, annoyed with what they saw as British deceitfulness and without seeking further negotiation, arranged a double wedding between the Spanish Queen and the supposedly impotent Duke of Cadiz and between the Infanta and the Duke of Montpensier. Victoria was outraged: ‘the Queen of the French, announcing to me, – just as if it were nothing, – the marriage of Montpensier with the Infanta, . . . This is too bad, for either it is merely a family event, or it is a political step, in violation of all the promises made to us.’67 And somewhat disingenuously, given that she had formerly been involved in trying to decide the marital fate of the two young women, the Queen commented that ‘a feeling of disgust was beginning to be shown, for the shameful manner in which the 2 poor Children at Madrid had been treated, a thing quite unworthy of the times we live in!’68
Victoria wrote to the King of France expressing her annoyance
at this untoward event, which has brought in such a personal element, and forced us to oppose the marriage of a Prince, to whom, as well as to his whole family, I bore a sincere and great friendship. My only hope was, that the dangerous consequences, to which the execution of this marriage would lead, might make them pause.69
There were a few tense moments, but the government ‘decided not to go to war, – so there remains nothing else for us to do but to keep calm and cold’.70 In the end, Victoria blamed Palmerston’s interference for the breakdown in relations between Britain and France.
The 1848 revolutions
The year 1848 began ominously. A dark, dense revolutionary cloud overhung all Europe. From the Bay of Biscay to the Black Sea, and from the Bay of Naples to the Baltic, one newspaper later reported ‘the very soil appeared to throb convulsively with the suppressed passions of the people. Constitutional sentiments were growing; amongst the governments, reactionary measures were resolved upon. Each understood, hated and dreaded the other’.71
In 1848 a series of revolutions brought on by the combined urges of nationalism, longings for political freedom, hunger and the devastating social effects of industrialisation shattered the peace of Europe: nearly all the continental despots were overthrown or compelled to give democratic forms of government to their rebellious peoples. Victoria, now in the later stages of pregnancy with her sixth child, supported the threatened monarchies, particularly the ones to which she was related. In the Queen’s view, revolutions were always bad for the country and ‘the cause of untold misery to the people. Obedience to the laws and to the Sovereign is obedience to a Higher Power, Divinely instituted for the good of the people, not of the Sovereign who has
equally duties and obligations.’72 In contrast, Palmerston thought that despotic sovereigns deserved to be toppled. In his opinion, gradual change was desirable not only for its own sake but as a safeguard against the more extreme policies favoured by some revolutionaries. Palmerston’s blend of principle and pragmatism kept the Queen ‘in a constant state of anxiety, as I had no confidence in him and felt uneasy from one day to another as to what might happen, affecting the welfare of this country and the peace of Europe in general’.73 On more than one occasion, the Queen put pressure on Prime Minister Lord Russell to dismiss Palmerston but he refused to capitulate.
The revolutions began in January 1848 with an uprising in Sicily, forcing its ruler, King Ferdinand II, to grant a constitution. The Queen thought ‘the state of Sicily very alarming, the Sicilians being in open revolt and the King obstinate’.74 In May, Ferdinand regained his confidence, ignored the constitution, bombarded Sicilian cities and treated his rebellious citizens harshly. To the Queen’s fury, Palmerston supported the Sicilians against Ferdinand and even allowed arms to be sent to the rebels. She was very angry indeed when she heard
Queen Victoria Page 14