As a result, the Queen remained comfortably settled at Osborne and wrote to Salisbury that she would not accept his resignation until she had seen him. At the same time, acting with her familiar style of constitutional impropriety, she once more tried to avoid appointing Gladstone as prime minister, writing furious and indiscreet letters to Goshen, a leading Liberal, appealing to him
and to all moderate, loyal and really patriotic men . . . to rise above party. . . . You must convince Lord Hartington of what is at last his duty and of what he owes to his Queen and his country, which really goes before allegiance to Mr Gladstone. . . . You must act, or the country will be ruined. No-one knows of this letter.84
She complained that the resignation of her government had come like a ‘thunderbolt. . . . to change the Government will be very disastrous. I hope and think Mr Gladstone could not form a Government. . . . He will ruin the country if he can, and how much mischief has he not done already!’85 Even when it was obvious that Gladstone was the only candidate to become prime minister, the Queen tried to stop it. The Queen ‘does not the least care but rather wishes it should be known that she has the greatest possible disinclination to take this half crazy and really in many ways ridiculous old man. . . . She will not throw herself blindfold into incompetent hands.’86 Victoria, peeved by the prospect of another term of Gladstone, made the ‘unprecedented announcement in the Court Circular that she had accepted Salisbury’s resignation “with much regret”’.87 The Queen still did not accept that democracy had moved on since 1837, 1867 and 1884; she still wanted to influence decisions about the appointment of ministers and prime ministers as she had tried to do in the past.
Gladstone's third ministry: 1 February 1886–20 July 1886
The Queen once again ‘abominated the idea of sending for Gladstone’ and made it difficult for him to form a government.88 She insisted that she would refuse objectionable people such as Sir Charles Dilke, ‘on account of his dreadful private character. . . . What a dreadful thing to lose such a man as Lord Salisbury for the country, the world, and me!’89 She pressed for the Earl of Rosebery to be foreign secretary and for Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman to be secretary of state for war. Gladstone was preoccupied with the Irish question and therefore reluctantly complied with his sovereign’s choice. At moments like this, when the prime minister was absorbed in other pressing issues or when the governing party was divided, Queen Victoria was able to coerce leaders to agree to her proposals, sometimes with distressingly unanticipated consequences.
Behind the scenes, Victoria tried to split the Liberal Party and put pressure on George Goschen, a leading Liberal and party organiser, to create a new coalition party. She was aware that several leading Liberals such as Lord Hartington and Joseph Chamberlain disagreed with Gladstone’s policy on Ireland and she set out to use these differences to engineer a split in the party. Goschen was asked to ‘work strongly and earnestly to gather and unite all who wish to maintain the constitution and the Empire, so that a split between these theoretical radicals headed by a wild fanatical old man of 76 – and the moderate constitutional Liberals. . . may take place when Parliament meets’.90 The Queen bombarded Goschen with letters asking him to ‘keep Lord Hartington up to the mark and not let him slide back into following Mr Gladstone and trying to keep the party together’.91 This was risky constitutional territory. By this time, the sovereign was definitely expected to be above politics and Queen Victoria’s duplicitous action in attempting to undermine a party in government bears the mark of a monarch scheming to retain her power rather than accept her role as a constitutional monarch.
First Home Rule Bill: 1886
Gladstone returned to government committed to Irish Home Rule; and the old arguments surrounding the Irish question were reignited and reinvigorated. In the Queen’s opinion, Gladstone was ‘in the hands of Mr Parnell without his knowing it’.92 Victoria was ‘dead against’ Home Rule and shared her feelings on the matter with the opposition leader, Lord Salisbury. On 1 February 1886 the Queen had an audience with Gladstone where they discussed policy – a private and confidential discussion – but the Queen wrote an abbreviated account of this conversation to Salisbury and included copies of the relevant correspondence between Gladstone and herself. Once more, the Queen was open to charges of partisanship when she should have been exhibiting royal impartiality.
The situation in Ireland was becoming increasingly dangerous. On 8 April 1886, Gladstone introduced his First Home Rule Bill designed to establish a separate parliament in Dublin and end the representation of Ireland at Westminster. The Queen warned Gladstone that she disapproved of Home Rule for Ireland and could only see danger in the course Gladstone was pursuing.93 Queen Victoria had no need to worry. Home Rule was not only unpopular in England but the proposed constitutional changes in Ireland required a large majority in parliament, something which Gladstone did not have. On 18 June 1886, after several weeks of debate, the Home Rule Bill was defeated. ‘When I got up, a telegram was brought in to me, which gave the news that the Govt had been defeated by a majority of 30! Cannot help feeling relieved.’94 The government was defeated because 93 Liberals – that is nearly a third of Liberal MPs – voted against their party. Lord Hartington, Joseph Chamberlain and other Liberals had formed a political alliance with the Conservatives in opposition to Home Rule. As a result, the Liberal Party divided into Gladstonian Liberals and Liberal Unionists (i.e. anti-Home Rule Liberals). The Queen took pleasure in the fact that the old Liberal Party was no more. A telegram from Mr Gladstone tendering his government’s resignation brought her even greater satisfaction.95
With the government defeated, new elections were held, and in the second general election held that year, the Unionists enjoyed a resounding victory with a joint 394 seats: Salisbury and his Conservatives won 316 seats, the Liberal Unionists won 74, all at the expense of the Liberals who won a humiliating 191. The Liberal Party, assisted as much by the Queen’s unconstitutional behind-the-scenes behaviour as much as Gladstone’s personal commitment to Home Rule, was destroyed, leaving the Conservative Party to enjoy nearly two decades of political supremacy. When Gladstone trekked to Osborne from London to give up his seals of office, the Queen ungraciously declined to offer him lunch.
Lord Salisbury: 25 July 1886–11 August 1892
In August 1886, Queen Victoria welcomed Salisbury back. At the same time she wrote to Gladstone demanding that he cease campaigning for Home Rule,96 and instructed the leading Liberal Unionists ‘to support Lord Salisbury’s Government’.97 Here, Victoria was clearly undermining the political process: opposition is one of the most fundamental components of democracy, a constant reminder to the population that there is a viable alternative to the status quo. Victoria, however, only approved of opposition if and when she disagreed with the policies put forward by a government she disliked.
The Irish problem continued under Salisbury. In 1887 a new Criminal Law Bill – which suspended the right of trial to those boycotting landlords – was put forward in order to pacify Ireland. It was strongly opposed by Gladstone, the Gladstonian Liberals and the Irish Nationalists, all of whom wanted Home Rule rather than repression. In another example of monarchical irregularity, the Queen instructed her private secretary to write to Lord Selborne, a leading Liberal, to put pressure on Gladstone to cease campaigning for Home Rule. Selborne was told that ‘her Majesty commands me to ask whether it would be possible for you to call his attention to the harm he [Gladstone] is doing to his own name and to the country by his apparent support of those who defy all law and order’.98 Queen Victoria’s observance of constitutional conventions seemed limited to those conventions with which she agreed.
Meanwhile clashes took place between the British government and the Irish Nationalists. The Irish National League intensified its opposition to tenant evictions; in response, the government outlawed the League as a dangerous organisation and issued a warrant for the arrest of its leader, William O’Brien. The behaviour of the Irish, the
Queen believed, was simply dreadful as ‘the Irish hope to force Home Rule, by making themselves as disagreeable as possible’.99
The Irish Home Rulers reacted. In September 1887, at Mitchelstown in County Cork, several thousand took part in a demonstration. The police fired a volley which resulted in two people being killed and several injured. The Queen was unsympathetic. She spoke of
a riot at a meeting of Home Rulers, at which that horrid Labouchere, Mr O’Brien and others were to speak and agitate. They would not let a Govt Reporter in, fought, and the Police were driven back and went to the Barracks, where they were attacked. A man was killed, and another very badly wounded. And now they want to call it murder!100
She cannot have been pleased when Labouchere suggested that Buckingham Palace be converted into a home for fallen women.101
But the repression in Ireland evoked sympathy, if not from the Queen, then from among a small section of the left wing. In November 1887 a demonstration was organised jointly by the Social Democratic Federation and the Irish National League against unemployment in England and coercion in Ireland. The leaders included William Morris and Annie Besant; George Bernard Shaw was also present. Despite the celebrity presence the demonstration led to violence as police tried to stop the 30,000 or so demonstrators from entering Trafalgar Square. Clashes took place between the police and demonstrators. Once again, the Queen was unsympathetic, noting in her journal that ‘the mob wanted to force their way into Trafalgar Square. . . Two squadrons of Cavalry and 400 Foot Guards were called out, and kept Trafalgar Square, where it had been announced the people would no longer be allowed to meet’.102 Over 200 people were hospitalised; three were killed; 400 were arrested.
Fortunately for Queen Victoria, the Irish Nationalist cause was all but destroyed by the publication of Charles Parnell’s adultery with Kitty O’Shea. In 1890 Kitty O’Shea’s husband sued for divorce, citing Parnell as co-respondent. The Queen thought it ‘a scandalous trial and divorce case in which Parnell did not attempt to defend himself, but is shown up as not only a man of very bad character, but as a liar, and devoid of all sense of honour or of any sort of principle’.103 The resulting scandal and the squalid revelations in court destroyed Parnell and split the Nationalist Party, whose members began to attack each other rather than the British government. In October 1891 Parnell died a broken and embittered man; and the Irish Nationalist Party fell into even greater disarray.
The Golden Jubilee: June 1887
On Monday 20 June 1887, the Queen celebrated her fiftieth year on the throne. It was the high spot of Salisbury’s premiership and a turning point in the Queen’s popularity: the British population had not witnessed such a celebration for decades. The Queen hosted a royal banquet at Buckingham Palace for 50 foreign kings and princes and the governing heads of the British colonies. She dined in the Supper Room ‘which looked splendid with the Buffet covered with the gold plate. . . . The King of Denmark took me in, and Willy of Greece sat on my other side. The Princes were all in uniform and the Princesses were all beautifully dressed. . . . At length, feeling very tired, I slipped away.’104
On 21 June a thanksgiving service was held in Westminster Abbey. Undoubtedly, the splendour and majestic finery of the procession, along with the visibility of a long-absent Queen, heightened the appeal of monarchy. The Queen processed with her entire surviving family: her four sons and five daughters, nine grandsons and granddaughters, and their wives and husbands. Other royals from European dynasties – such as the King of Denmark and the Queen of the Belgians – and rulers such as the Queen of Hawaii, the Japanese, Siamese, Persian and Indian princes joined the Queen in her celebrations. As ever, Queen Victoria disliked pageantry and would neither wear her crown nor any of the other ceremonial trappings of monarchy. Instead, the queen, by now very overweight and as round as a pumpkin, wore black with her traditional widow’s bonnet and sat in an ordinary coach rather than the elaborately gilded state one. The Times compared the procession to a ‘river of gold flowing between banks of extraordinary richness and colour’.105 The Indian princes ‘were attired in the many-coloured, gem-decked turbans. . . the Maharaja Holkar, whose shoulder were covered with bullion woven into his tunic. . . the greatest amount of wonder was the turban of his Highness the Rao of Kutch, which, when the sun flashed upon it, really blazed with the scintillating lights of diamonds, rubies and emeralds.’106
Royal ceremonies can appear inclusive and representative, thus binding subjects closer to the sovereign. The effect of the Jubilee on the population supported this. From the earliest moment of dawn until long after night had fallen, the British people celebrated the Jubilee. It was after all a festival holiday with the added enchantment of oodles of glamour attached. A national pageant ‘proceeded amidst circumstances of unrivalled splendour, the voice of a mighty people has been heard rejoicing with no uncertain sound’.107 At night London was turned into a ‘fairy city. . . . In all the principal thoroughfares. . . beautiful devices in crystal glittered with light, fairy lamps shed their soft glow.’108 It was a day, The Times declared, which testified ‘to the loyalty, gratitude, and affection inspired by fifty years of unswerving devotion and undeviating regard for her people’s well-being’.109 All over Britain, in towns and villages, innumerable Jubilee parties took place where the dull and boring routine of everyday life could be forgotten. In Coventry, Warwickshire a colourful Lady Godiva pageant took place; in Aberdeen 200 paupers were given a meal of beef steak pie, potatoes and plum pudding;110 Jubilee mugs and packets of tea were given out in Christleton, Cheshire,111 and in Truro, Cornwall, the vicar gave thanks for the purity of the Queen.112 In the empire too, the Jubilee was celebrated and the legitimacy of British rule re-affirmed. In India a national holiday was declared, certain classes of military offenders were pardoned and the Order of the British India awarded to a number of dignitaries. Fifty guns were fired at daybreak at Simla and a statue of the Queen was unveiled in Madras.113
Constitutional historians have long recognised that the British monarchy depends on public approval, not merely for its success but also for its very survival. The fiftieth celebration of Queen Victoria’s accession to the throne was seen as a pivotal moment in the history of her monarchy. And the Queen paid for most of it: the government’s outlay was £16,089; the Queen’s over £50,000. It resulted in an ‘orgy of national self-congratulation’ that increased the country’s regard of the Queen.114 Victoria was touched by the loyalty of her people. She cherished the fact that
the crowds from the Palace gates up to the Abbey were enormous, and there was such an extraordinary outburst of enthusiasm as I have hardly ever seen in London before, all the people seemed to be in such good humour. . . . The decorations along Piccadilly were quite beautiful. . . . Seats and platforms were arranged up to the tops of the houses – such waving of hands.115
There were great volleys of cheers, hats were thrown up into the air, handkerchiefs were waved in welcome and ‘everybody vied with his neighbour in active demonstrations of loyalty and delight’.116 Victoria wrote to Salisbury saying how ‘deeply, immensely touched and gratified’ she was ‘by the wonderful and so universal enthusiasm displayed by my people. . . . It is very gratifying and very encouraging for the future, and it shows that fifty years’ hard work, anxiety and care have been appreciated.’117 In a rare letter to her subjects, the Queen thanked them for their loyalty and kindness. It had shown her ‘that the labour and anxiety of fifty long years, twenty-two of which were in unclouded happiness. . . while an equal number were full of sorrow and trials . . . have been appreciated by my people’.118
There were dissident voices: Reynolds’s Weekly Newspaper, that old scurrilous radical paper, questioned the value of Queen Victoria and ‘her inexhaustible brood of pauper relations’ to Britain. Search the records of the reign with a microscope, the paper maintained, and ‘you will not be able to discover a single royal act of real benefit to the nation’.119 It accused Queen Victoria of ‘jobbing’ all her relat
ives into the highest public positions, of wringing between 80 and 90 million pounds sterling from the British public, of ranking all of her German cousins more highly than statesmen and scholars and of delighting to ‘show her power in the meanest and cruellest manner’ by hastening away to Osborne or Balmoral whenever there was a parliamentary crisis. How is it, the paper asked, that an ‘ugly, parsimonious German frau is today the Well Beloved of a great nation?’ and questioned how so many could worship a ‘fat old lady of sullen visage’. Monarchy, in their view, was an expensive luxury. Reynolds’s Weekly Newspaper was a minority voice. The Times probably captured the feelings of the majority when it reported that ‘no monarch in history has ever more deeply touched the heart of a nation’.120 Monarchy, rather than Republicanism, seemed to have triumphed.
The Munshi and his influence
On 18 June 1887 two servants arrived at Windsor Castle to wait on the Queen during her Golden Jubilee celebrations.121 They had been given as a ‘gift from India’. One of them, a handsome 24-year-old Indian Muslim called Abdul Karim, soon became a favourite of the 68-year-old Queen. Karim taught the Queen Urdu, a language associated with the Muslims of Hindustan, and cooked the Queen her first curry. Before long Abdul Karim was as treasured as the deceased John Brown: Queen Victoria liked strong men. However, Abdul Karim felt that his job as a servant was too menial for his status and persuaded the Queen to give him the title of Munshi, an Urdu word meaning teacher. Victoria thought it ‘was a mistake to bring him over as a servant. . . . I particularly wish to retain his services, as he helps me in studying Hindustani, which interests me very much, and he is very intelligent and useful.’122
Queen Victoria Page 31