In February 1852, Palmerston wreaked his revenge by – perhaps inadvertently – bringing down the Russell government. When he put forward an amendment to a minor Militia Bill, it quickly turned into vote of confidence in the government. Palmerston’s amendment was carried and Lord Russell and his government were forced to resign. The Conservative Lord Derby became prime minister in what was dubbed the ‘Who? Who? Ministry’ because the ministers were all considered nonentities. The Queen commented that ‘no-one expected it to be able to carry any important measure. . . they were very inexperienced, and many devoid of all talent’.38 Derby’s government only lasted between February and December 1852. It was followed by a coalition of Whigs, Peelites and Irish MPs, led by Lord Aberdeen. Disraeli once remarked that ‘Coalitions. . . have always found this, that their triumph has been brief. . . . England does not love coalitions.’
Queen Victoria called the coalition a ‘great experiment’ and feared that it would be no easy task to bring together MPs who had for so long been opposed to one another. Nevertheless, the Queen approved of Aberdeen as she once again had a prime minister who was a ‘personal, truly attached and much esteemed friend’.39 His ‘Ministry of All the Talents’, as it was quickly dubbed, consisted of many of the ablest men in government: Russell as foreign secretary, Gladstone as chancellor of the exchequer. . . and Palmerston as home secretary. The Queen, as ever, remained opposed to Palmerston and wrote a long letter detailing her concerns. But the messenger charged with its delivery got drunk and it never reached the Cabinet until after Palmerston’s appointment.
The Crimean War: March 1854–February 1856
On New Year’s Day 1854, Victoria opened her diary with the comment that ‘The year opens gloomily, as regards the affairs of Europe. War seems almost inevitable.’40 Three months later, on 28 March, Britain declared war on Russia: it was the start of the Crimean War.41 In a letter to the King of Prussia, Victoria quoted the words of Polonius in Shakespeare’s Hamlet: ‘Beware of entrance to a quarrel; but, being in, bear it that the opposed may beware of thee.’42
Britain declared war because she feared that Russia would expand its empire by taking over land controlled by the Ottomans. It was a war which could have been averted if Britain had taken a strong stand at an early stage. In 1853, when Russia had threatened to invade the Ottoman Empire in order to ‘protect’ the large numbers of Christians who lived there from Islamic harassment, Victoria proposed negotiation and her compliant prime minister, Lord Aberdeen, agreed. The Queen, thought to be swayed by Prince Albert, believed that ‘it would never have done for this country to be in the position, of being dragged into a war, by these fanatical half uncivilised Turks’.43 The fact that members of Victoria and Albert’s family had recently married into the Russian nobility might also have influenced them. However, Palmerston – who was now home secretary – had argued that more vigorous measures were needed in order to shock Russia into revoking its plans. In his view, a strong independent Turkey was necessary for the economic and commercial prosperity of Britain and the balance of power in Europe. The Queen and Albert were annoyed with Palmerston’s pro-Turkey stance, considering him ‘obstinate and very warlike’. Both objected to Palmerston’s hawkish policy and favoured conciliation and appeasement. Military action, they believed, should only be taken after due deliberation by the Queen and the House of Commons, a period of consultation with potential allies and negotiations with Russia. In the midst of all this, Palmerston resigned as home secretary – over a Reform Bill rather than Foreign Policy – but his resignation, the Queen realised, would be attributed to the Turkish/Russian question largely because Palmerston had earlier declared that he did not wish ‘to remain with such cowards, who had not the courage to make war’.44
Russia, possibly sensing British ambivalence over a prospective conflict, invaded the Ottoman-ruled Danubian Principalities of Eastern Europe and destroyed a Turkish fleet in the Black Sea. The invasion by Russia presented Victoria, the government and the rest of the European community with a dilemma: do nothing and Russia would certainly expand its territories and threaten the peace of the region. Declare war and risk the death of thousands. After much indecisiveness, military intervention seemed the only course and so the Crimean War began. Britain and the Ottoman Empire were joined by France and Piedmont in the fight against Russia. Palmerston was vindicated as the ‘outbreak of war seemed to validate Palmerston’s insistence on the need for a clear brake on Russia’.45
In a way, Queen Victoria can be held partly responsible for the Crimean War by her constant undermining of Palmerston and her refusals to have him as foreign secretary. Russia might have been deterred, and a peaceful solution arrived at, if Palmerston had still been at the Foreign Office because he would have immediately – and forcefully – made it clear that Britain was prepared to go to war on the issues involved. As a letter to The Times indicated, ‘With Lord Palmerston in the Cabinet. . . Englishmen had no fear. . . the very name of “Palmerston” had grown into a salutary terror.’46 The Times asked ‘Would he have averted it?’47 with an underlying suggestion that he would have. Certainly, the lack of decisiveness on the part of the British government, and particularly Aberdeen’s lack of leadership, was seen as one important factor in bringing the war about.48
The Crimean War increased Prince Albert’s unpopularity. Queen Victoria’s anger and incomprehension grew as the press waged a campaign against her husband. Albert was accused of directing British policy on the Eastern Question because he was ‘under the triple influence of his brother the reigning Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, the King of the Belgians and the Orleans family. . . . Is it not degrading and humiliating to a degree, for the British people to reflect that the Foreign Policy of their country is thus entirely ruled by foreigners?’49 Albert was accused of illegitimate interference in State affairs, of being the prince prime minister, and the chief agent of the ‘Austrian-Belgian-Coburg-Orleans clique, the avowed enemies of England, and the subservient tools of Russian ambition.’50 Reynolds’s Weekly Newspaper believed that Albert’s ‘chief end is the preservation of the Coburg principality, and to this, the traditions, interests, honour, and faith of England, as well as the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, are all to be subordinated and sacrificed’.51 Letters to the press accused the Prince of trespassing on political affairs by attending ministerial briefings and writing directly to British ministers serving in foreign courts. Prince Albert, it was maintained, had no right to send letters of instruction to British embassies abroad: ‘When he takes upon himself to perform ministerial acts in opposition to the men appointed by the voice of the nation to advise the sovereign, he directly violates the great principles of the English constitution.’52 It was alleged that the court, and not the ministers, were giving the impetus and the tone to English foreign policy.53 Reynolds’s Weekly Newspaper unhesitatingly and openly ascribed the government’s reluctance to help Turkey to ‘the predominating influence exercised by foreigners in the councils of the Sovereign. . . . The German influence apparently acts as a narcotic upon the coroneted set of cringing sycophants, by whom the destinies of a great country are so unworthily betrayed.’54 The paper threatened that ‘if the Prince Consort thinks he will carry matters with a high hand, we beg to inform him that England is neither a dirty little German principality, nor will its inhabitants tamely submit to the impertinent meddlings of a person, who, we verily believe, loves us only for what he can get’.55 Such was the unpopularity of Albert that in January 1854 crowds gathered outside the Tower of London hoping to see Prince Albert and Lord Aberdeen imprisoned for treason. The crowd was disappointed that only effigies of the two figures were burned.
The Queen, unsurprisingly, was indignant about
the abominable attacks against my beloved Albert, which are going on again and he thinks they come from the over excited state of people’s minds upon the Eastern Question and their desire for war. He says that the low, wicked and jealous opponents of the Govt, try out of spite and a
nger to work upon the minds of the people, by writing these horrors.56
She wrote to Stockmar telling him that ‘the stupidest trash is babbled to the public, so stupid that (as they say in Coburg) you would not give it to the pigs to litter in’.57 Palmerston, she believed ‘was behind it all!’ As a result of her complaints and entreaties, one of her ministers wrote to the press ‘to desist from these unwarrantable attacks’.58 The Queen was furious when at least one editor refused the request because ‘it made the Paper sell!’59
War was eventually declared on 28 March 1854. At first it seemed to go well. Once hostilities had begun, the Queen and Prince Albert did a U-turn, became fervently martial and backed the war effort – to do otherwise would have been not just imprudent but potentially traitorous. As soon as the Queen cast aside her initial reservations she became ‘very enthusiastic about my dear army and navy’. Indeed she regretted ‘exceedingly not to be a man and to be able to fight in the war’. As head of the army, the Queen saw the soldiers and sailors as her own men. On 5 May 1854 the Queen, who took an ‘anxious interest in everything that goes on’, was delighted with reports of Odessa being shelled and its fortifications, batteries and military stores destroyed, 12 war vessels sunk and 13 Russian vessels, laden with munition, taken. She believed that ‘her’ sailors behaved beautifully and ‘ever show themselves so brave and so judicious. There is nothing in the world like our Navy!’60 When news of the Battle of Alma, usually considered the first battle of the Crimean War, reached Britain, Victoria wrote exultantly that ‘never in so short a time has so strong a battery, so well defended, been so bravely and gallantly taken’. 61 Successful battles at Balaklava and Inkerman confirmed her initial optimism, especially since her generals sent her favourable reports.
But soon news reached Britain of the chaotic way the war was being waged. The gross mismanagement of the Crimean campaign, the divisions within the army command, the breakdown of the transport system and the deplorable state of the hospitals soon became public knowledge. Victoria became all too aware of the poor management of the war. Her journals speak of officers with dirty clothes full of vermin, the misery of the men from the wet, the lack of clothes and other covering, the bad roads, and the ‘miserable condition of the poor wretched half-starved horses’. She was conscious that the ‘poor young recruits die very fast after arriving. All this is heartbreaking.’ She studied reports in The Times from the Crimea which spoke of trenches full of water ‘so that one had to lie up to one’s waist in them’, of men who slept in their wet clothes, froze and when they pulled off their boots, portions of their feet would come off with them. ‘Our troops’, she wrote, ‘suffered much in their health, from fever and diarrhoea and still worse, from the wearing constant fatigue and night work. . . . the food was much the same, constantly salt pork, with only occasionally fresh meat, no bread, no vegetables, at least rarely, and never any milk’.62 Certainly the organisation of the war was chaotic: there was a shortage of tents, huts, boots, knapsacks food and medical supplies. More casualties were inflicted by scurvy caused by lack of vitamin C than by the Russians.63
Queen Victoria noticed that the French army was well provided and bemoaned ‘the sad state of our noble Army in the Crimea, and the total lack of all management and foresight in those who are responsible. For, such great sufferings and privations are quite unnecessary and they really are heartrending.’64 Victoria, by this time reflecting public sentiment, condemned her generals for the lack of equipment,
which is quite inconceivable considering all that was sent out. . . the poor men had been without their kits or any of the necessaries quite essential to a solder. They had therefore never been able to help themselves or make themselves comfortable, and were in need of everything. . . The things never came, never were sent for, and when inquired about, no one knew where they were. Hence all the misery and suffering. This is really unpardonable.65
Cholera raged through the army and the navy and more soldiers and sailors died of this and related diseases than were killed in battle: out of a total of 21,097 deaths, 2,755 were killed in action, 2,019 died of wounds and over 16,000 died of disease. Finally, after much prevarication by the medical establishment and pressure from the government, the Duke of Newcastle informed the Queen that ‘he had settled to send out 30 Nurses for the Hospitals at Scutari and Varna, under a Miss Nightingale, who is a remarkable person, having studied both Medicine and Surgery and having practised in Hospitals in Paris and in Germany’.66 In September 1856 the Queen gave an audience to Florence Nightingale. Victoria noted in her journal:
It is impossible to say how much pleased we were with her. I had expected a rather cold, stiff, reserved person, instead of which, she is gentle, pleasing and engaging, most ladylike, and so clever, clear and comprehensive in her views. . . . But she is entirely free of absurd enthusiasm, without a grain of ‘exaltation’ . . . without the slightest display of religion or particle of humbug.67
She met Florence Nightingale several times, often commenting on her excellence and ‘truly Christ-like spirit of true charity’, and envying her ‘being able to do so much good’.
In November 1854, Queen Victoria’s government was badly shaken by news of an avoidable catastrophe at Balaclava where the Light Brigade was virtually annihilated as a result of a misunderstanding between two quarrelsome British officers. Victoria was horrified:
Alas! The 2nd Charge of the Light Cavalry was . . . a fatal mistake. . . . All behaved like heroes, and not one better than poor Ld Cardigan who led them to the murderous fight. 13 Officers killed, 17 wounded and 160 men killed, besides over 300 horses. I trembled with emotions, as well as pride in reading the recital of the heroism of these devoted men. . . . To hear of their sufferings, their being killed, and on this occasion so unnecessarily, is very harrowing.68
The ineptitude of the command and the bravery of the soldiers was encapsulated in Tennyson’s poem ‘The Charge of the Light Brigade’, written in response to a report of the battle in The Times. It added fuel to the popular belief of brave soldiers led by incompetent Generals.
Forward the Light Brigade
Was there a man dismayed?
Not tho’ the soldier knew
Someone had blunder’d.
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die.
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred
Soon after Balaklava, suggestions appeared in the press that Palmerston be appointed minister of war. The Times insisted that ‘among living British names there is one especially European. Feared at Courts, ever in the mouths of diplomatists, subscribed to many a document. . . the name of Palmerston belongs to the world.’69 The Times asked ‘What is Lord Palmerston doing? What does he think of the war? Would he have averted it? Would he have brought it earlier to a crisis?’70 ‘This is incredible’, said the Queen about the potential replacement, ‘Ld Palmerston would be totally incapable of doing it. . . I could never consent to such a thing.’71 Lord Palmerston, the Queen believed, was ‘totally unfit for the post’72 and so Palmerston remained as home secretary. But the prime minister, Lord Aberdeen, was an inept leader and showed no willingness to press for victory in the Crimea. In January 1855 a radical MP, John Roebuck, demanded a parliamentary investigation into the Crimean War. Prime Minister Aberdeen viewed it as a ‘vote of no confidence’ of the coalition government and resigned; Victoria was sad at losing her ‘dear kind excellent friend, Lord Aberdeen’.
The return of Palmerston
Lord Palmerston, it was generally felt, ‘was the man to whom the country looked at the present moment’.73 Victoria disagreed. She thought that ‘Ld Palmerston was totally unfit for the task, having become very deaf, as well as very blind, being 71’.74 The Queen was determined to exhaust everything before she sent for Palmerston. First of all she sent for Derby to form a government; then she sent for Russell. When neither man was able to form a government, she rel
uctantly sent for Palmerston, confirming in a memorandum that it ‘would be very objectionable in many respects, and personally not agreeable to me, but I think of nothing but the country. . . my own personal feelings would be sunk if only the efficiency of the government could be obtained’.75 Victoria wrote to her uncle King Leopold that she had had no alternative: Aberdeen had been discredited as a war leader; Derby’s party was unfit to govern and Russell’s credibility was too damaged.76
Queen Victoria viewed her new prime minister with alarm. However, Palmerston’s vigorous prosecution of the Crimean War helped change the Queen’s attitude. Within days of taking office, Palmerston outlined his plans for army and naval reforms, including changes of personnel, which would increase the efficiency of the war effort. He remodelled the army’s medical department, increased the number of hospital ships, issued instructions for twice-daily health inspections, set down basic clothing provision and re-organised the supply chain. He advised on campaign tactics too, asking that the armed forces focus more narrowly on the blockade of the Russian fleet, on the capture of Sebastopol, on the destruction of the Russian fleet and on the expulsion of Russians from Georgia. After a ten-month bitter siege of a city which had become the symbol of an incompetent war, Sebastopol was captured in September 1855. The Queen’s ‘delight was great’ and she praised God for the splendid news;77 Palmerston thanked Britain for striking a mortal blow against an enemy who had threatened the world.
Queen Victoria Page 20