At this time, Victoria had to deal with the religious conflicts which re-emerged between the largely Protestant Britain and its Roman Catholic minority. The Queen was deeply ideologically committed to the low-church version of Protestantism and abhorred any pageantry and ceremony in religious services. She was annoyed when in October 1850 the Pope issued a Bull restoring the Roman Catholic diocesan hierarchy, which had been demolished in the Reformation, to Britain. The Pope without consulting the Queen or her government, divided Britain into archbishoprics and bishoprics, declared that England was again restored to Catholic power and that the religious disgrace of the Reformation had been wiped out. Queen Victoria thought this
inconceivable and it is in the highest degree wrong of the Pope, to act in such a manner, which is a direct infringement of my prerogative, without one word as to his intentions being communicated to this Govt. It is I fear the result of such a number of our Clergy having at the present time such a leaning towards the Romish Church. . . It will I fear, raise intolerant cries against innocent Roman Catholics.7
The Queen’s alarm was realised when anti-Catholic processions were held over England, windows of Catholic churches were broken and effigies of an archbishop were burned. In 1851 an Ecclesiastical Titles Act was passed, making it a criminal offence to use any city, town or place in the United Kingdom as an episcopal title. But tensions remained. In 1852 Victoria
read the accounts of some sad riots, which took place at Stockport. . . between low Irish Roman Catholics and foolish, equally low rabid Protestants. The dispute began with 1 or 3, ending in a distressing riot, in which I am grieved to say many were wounded, and one was killed. Many Roman Catholics had their houses destroyed and their Chapel was gutted. . . – very lamentable. I cannot bear these sort of things!8
In June 1850 the Queen was subjected to a fifth assassination attempt, this one by an unemployed man, a mentally disturbed ex-army officer. Victoria recounts how
a young gentleman whom I have often seen in the Park, pale, fair, with a fair moustache, with a small stick in his hand. Before I knew where I was, or what had happened, he stepped forward, and I felt myself violently thrown by a blow to the left of the carriage. . . My bonnet was crushed, and on putting my hand up . . . I felt an immense bruise in the right side. . . . Certainly it is very hard and very horrid that I, a woman, – a defenceless young woman and surrounded by my Children, should be exposed to insults of this kind, and be unable to go out quietly for a drive. . . . This is by far the most disgraceful and cowardly thing that has ever been done; for a man to strike any woman is most brutal and I, as well as everyone else, think this far worse than an attempt to shoot, which, wicked as it is, is at least more comprehensible and courageous.9
The would-be assassin was transported to Australia for seven years.
Foreign affairs
Foreign affairs dominated the 1850s. During this decade, Queen Victoria had to deal with governmental instability and two major wars. These were the Crimean War and the Indian Mutiny, both of which could have been avoided. In some ways the Queen was to blame for the Crimean War. Victoria continued to regard the Foreign Office as her private personal province and kept interfering in matters, much to the annoyance of her ministers and sometimes to the detriment of international relations. In addition, Prince Albert took an increasing interest in British foreign policy, thereby adding to the tensions between the monarch, her government and the country.
In many ways, the decade was marked by the continuing disagreements between the Queen and Palmerston over foreign policy, her repeated attempts to get rid of him and the ensuing governmental and national chaos which followed. The Queen’s relationship with Palmerston reached what one historian has called ‘a point of almost hysterical exacerbation’.10 Part of the problem lay with the Queen’s reluctance to accept that she would have to negotiate with her government rather than impose her will on her foreign secretary, especially one so implacable. The Morning Chronicle maintained that Palmerston would never be ‘a placid and complying tool, a mere automaton, whose hands are directed by the wily and unseen influences of foreign prompters’. 11 The newspaper was referring to Prince Albert. By this time, it was evident that the Prince was taking more and more of an active role in British politics especially when the Queen was pregnant or recovering from giving birth.
The Don Pacifico incident 1850
In January 1850, the Queen and Palmerston were in conflict over the latter’s belligerence, his ‘gunboat diplomacy’ as it became known. Three years earlier, the home and the stores of a Jewish British merchant, Don Pacifico, were destroyed during riots in Athens, riots which had an anti-Semitic edge. When the Greek government declined to compensate Pacifico, he wrote to the British government for help. Palmerston did indeed help, demanded compensation from the Greeks, threatened to blockade the port of Athens and stated that ‘a British subject, in whatever land he may be, shall feel confident that the watchful eye of the strong arm of England will protect him against injustice and wrong’.12 Queen Victoria was furious. She complained:
Ld Palmerston has thought fit to desire the Greek Govt to make instant reparation, for losses some English have sustained, and should this demand not be complied with within 24 hours, the Port would be blockaded by the Fleet! Greece has no doubt behaved ill, and the Govt is a bad one, but are these English claims worth the serious measure of blockading a port and of them oppressing a small, weak Power, whose independence we have guaranteed. . . . Really what a name we get abroad!13
The Queen, probably directed by Prince Albert, asked her prime minister, Lord Russell to write to Palmerston ‘a good and strong letter. . . to try an alter his tone, and that if he could not, he must take some other office’.14 Russell replied that he could not get rid of his foreign secretary. ‘This’ thought the Queen, ‘is too weak and miserable. . . . And thus this mischievous man kept them in constant hot water, and is to remain for the discomfort of the whole world, merely because people are afraid of him.’15 In the end, the French mediated between Britain and Greece, which Victoria thought ‘humiliating enough after all the blustering of Ld Palmerston! But his policy is entirely personal, dictated by pique and spite. . . It is a very hard thing for me to have to lend my name to all these things.’16 For a second time in this parliamentary session, the Queen attempted to oust Palmerston; he was also censured in the House of Lords. However, in a singularly able and masterly four and a half hour speech, Palmerston defended his actions in the House of Commons and received thunderous cheers. He was now more secure in the Foreign Office than ever, seen as a defender of human rights and a potent symbol of British fortitude. More importantly, Palmerston’s defence of Don Pacifico was thought a good omen for the safeguarding of British commercial interests since foreign governments would be inclined to suppress those who threatened British property.
Meanwhile, Palmerston continued to write despatches to foreign ministers which Victoria believed to be ‘in so little accordance with the calm dignity she likes to see in all the proceedings of the British Government’.17 The Queen certainly had a constitutional right to see all despatches before they were sent and often tried to alter Palmerston’s drafts. Every time she did so, Palmerston ignored her advice. Queen Victoria made no attempt to hide her annoyance, complaining of Palmerston publicly and not concealing ‘my opinion of his being utterly untrustworthy and that England was lowered and degraded by all he has done and has become detested by other nations’.18
The deteriorating relationship between Queen Victoria and Lord Palmerston reached crisis point in August 1850 when the Queen, according to Brian Connell, wrote ‘one of the strongest letters ever written by a British sovereign to a Prime Minister’ asking him to remove Palmerston. 19 Her memo to Lord Russell stated in precise terms her expected relationship between the Queen and her foreign minister. First, Victoria demanded to be informed in advance of any diplomatic action. Second, she insisted that any memo which she had approved should not be arbitrarily c
hanged after she had signed it. Third, she wanted Palmerston to be dismissed. Lord Russell dutifully tackled Palmerston about these issues ‘the outcome of which’ the Queen
grieved to say, is that he remains where he is, a constant thorn in my side, and to the detriment of the whole Country, as well as of Europe. . . . Besides that, Ld Palmerston’s conduct towards me, in frequently not answering my letters, and taking no notice of my observations etc was quite unbecoming. . . . It is too unfortunate that every good opportunity for getting rid of Ld Palmerston has invariably failed.20
The relationship between the Queen and Palmerston deteriorated to the point at which Prince Albert felt obliged to intervene. The Prince told Palmerston that the Queen wanted him to show ‘more respect and attention towards me, – that I expected to be informed of what was going to be done; . . . otherwise I should consider it necessary to use my Constitutional Right of dismissing the Minister’.21 This was blatant intimidation of a minister but it was an idle threat: the two royals had already tried to pressurise the prime minister to dismiss Palmerston but had not succeeded. Nevertheless, in that highly deferential age, Palmerston was obviously disturbed by the conversation with Albert. Victoria was told that Albert had never seen anyone so cast down as Palmerston ‘quite in tears, shaking and saying, that if it was known that he had behaved with disrespect towards me he could never show his face again in society’.22 However, when it came to policy, Palmerston continued to do what he thought best.
The incident of General Haynau
In September 1850 the Queen and Palmerston quarrelled once more, this time over the treatment of an Austrian general who was visiting England. ‘I must not omit’ the Queen wrote in her journal in September 1850 ‘to record a most disgraceful outrage on Gen Haynau which has for the 1st time tarnished our name for hospitality, and that of this land, for safety.’ Victoria was referring to the Austrian military commander General Haynau, who was deeply unpopular in Britain for his brutal suppression of the 1848 Hungarian revolutionaries. The General had just visited a brewery in London where he ‘was insulted by cries of “Down with the Austrian Butcher”, was assailed with dirt and blows, all the brewers starting to belabour and attack him, pulling his clothes nearly off his back, so that he had to run for his life and seek refuge in an Inn. . . which fortunately the infuriated mob, now numbering nearly 500, did not find’.23 The Queen blamed Hungarian and Polish refugees, insisting that such behaviour ‘is so unlike our people here, who never trouble themselves about foreign concerns, and have never touched even many of those wicked French and German Socialists and Revolutionists who are here. I hope the authors of this abominable outrage will be found out and that the ringleaders will be well punished.’24 It was a blot, the Queen thought, on the fair name of Britain and she complained to the former Whig prime minister, Lord Grey, about the atrocious attack. However, the police refused to press charges or identify any of the ‘horrid people. This is a very bad thing’, the Queen believed, ‘for such behaviour ought not to go unpunished. There has been a shocking meeting of the very worst character of Socialists, eulogising this brutal attack.’25
Queen Victoria instructed Palmerston to write a letter to the Austrian government expressing ‘the deep regret of this government at the brutal outrage on one of the Emperor’s distinguished generals and subjects’. Palmerston not only refused to offer an official apology but also in a draft dispatch added that they should have tossed Haynau in a blanket, rolled him up and sent him away in a cab. The Queen was furious, ordered Palmerston to retract his words and commanded him to write a more emollient letter.26 This he did. Reluctantly. Nevertheless, the Queen could not completely silence Palmerston’s voice, however much she tried to force him into submission. In that sense alone, Palmerston – perhaps inadvertently – became the champion of ministerial independence, constantly challenging the weakening prerogatives of the Queen.
At the beginning of 1851, Palmerston seemed invincible, riding the wave of popular support for both his liberal principles and his strong defence of British interests. Queen Victoria remained immune to the charisma and appeal of her foreign secretary. In March 1851 the Queen reminded Russell of her objections to Palmerston and once more asked that he be dismissed. Russell refused, citing the dangers of the Queen interfering in government appointments. The Queen
was excessively annoyed, really most upset, by this announcement. . . . Ld John said he was very anxious that it should be he. . . who would bear the responsibility of removing Ld Palmerston from the foreign Office and not me. My refusal (to have Palmerston in Government) could only appear to the general public as a personal objection on my part. . . . I was mortified, vexed and discouraged, to the highest degree at this result of so much trouble and anxiety.27
Russell’s unwillingness to dismiss his foreign minister had less to do with his disapproval of the Crown trying to exercise control over foreign policy and more about the parliamentary ascendancy of Palmerston. For Russell to have dismissed such a popular foreign minister would have amounted to the governing Whig Party committing parliamentary suicide. Russell was never going to do that.
The affair of Lajos Kossuth
In December 1851 the Queen and Palmerston squabbled yet again. The leader of the Hungarian revolution, Lajos Kossuth, came to Britain seeking asylum and Palmerston wanted to give him an official welcome. Victoria ‘tried in vain, to make Ld Palmerston feel, that he ought not to see Kossuth’.28 When Kossuth arrived she thought it ‘quite disgusting to see the absurd fuss that is being made about him’.29 Lord Russell, instructed by the Queen, asked Palmerston not to meet Kossuth but Palmerston refused, sending a reply, according to Victoria ‘of such an impertinence hardly to be credited or equalled’. Palmerston had told the Queen that he did not choose to be dictated ‘as to whom I may or may not receive in my own house’.30 The Queen wrote a terse reply to her foreign secretary threatening that she ‘could not expose myself to having my orders disobeyed by one of my public Servants. Therefore should Ld Palmerston persist in his intention, he could not continue as my minister.’31 In Victoria’s opinion, Kossuth was a destructive force who had committed every cruelty to undermine the legitimate government of his country. He was, she maintained, ‘a great liar’.32 Eventually, after Cabinet pressure, Palmerston agreed not to invite Kossuth to his home but it was a clear case of constitutional impropriety by the Queen. No sovereign had the right to stop a minister receiving guests in a private capacity. Lajos Kossuth remained in Britain for 17 years, with the Queen longing that he ‘could be found doing something illegal’ and could be ‘shut up for a time’.33
Louis Napoleon and Palmerston's dismissal
In late 1851 the Queen had her revenge on Palmerston. On 2 December the French president, Louis Napoleon, who was due to step down from government, organised a coup d’état so that he could remain in office. The British government – largely because of Queen Victoria’s insistence – agreed to adopt a position of neutrality towards the French position. Naturally, the Queen’s loyalty to the French royal family who were still living in Britain made her think that Louis Napoleon was a usurper. In contrast, Palmerston, without informing either his colleagues or the Queen, told the French Ambassador that he, and by inference the government, approved of Louis Napoleon’s new role. Inevitably, his action angered the Queen who commented on ‘what an extraordinary and unprincipled man Ld P is and how devoid of every feeling of honour and consistency’34 and – yet again – pressurised Russell to dismiss his foreign secretary. This time, Russell obeyed and accused Palmerston of ‘violations of prudence and decorum’ and asked for his resignation because ‘the conduct of foreign affairs can no longer be left in your hands’.35 It was a sobering and humiliating moment for Palmerston but the Queen’s relief was ‘great and we felt quite excited by the news, for our anxiety and worry during the last 5 years and ½ which was indescribable was mainly, if not entirely, caused by him. It is a great and unexpected mercy.’36
However, it was
to be a pyrrhic victory for the Queen. When Victoria pressed her government to review its foreign policy, her appeals went unheeded in the Cabinet. Moreover, when the news reached the press about Palmerston’s resignation, it was met with universal disapproval: some even believed that Russell had forced his most popular, patriotic and able minister to resign because of pressure from the Queen, who was herself under the undue influence of Prince Albert. Indeed, a section of the press insinuated that Lord Palmerston’s resignation was due to ‘an influence behind the throne’. ‘It is quite sufficient’, one radical newspaper reported ‘for the English people to be ridden rough-shed over by their own native oligarchy, without being subjected to the sinister influence of the “Royal Highness” of one of the paltriest hole-and-corner nooks in Europe. . . the Puddledock Duchy of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.’37 In the eyes of the press and the British population, Palmerston was a domestic hero, a defender of the national interest and a campaigner against autocracy; some called for him to replace Russell as prime minister. More worryingly, Palmerston remained a potent political force, no longer constrained by ministerial office.
Queen Victoria Page 19